JL\ 
 
 W/
 
 THE LIBRARY 
 
 OF 
 
 THE UNIVERSITY 
 
 OF CALIFORNIA 
 LOS ANGELES
 
 f^itii-ij^-i. i:^ii^jBk^^\ .
 
 V
 
 w*>
 
 GOD & THE BIBLE
 
 ' Im Priiicip, das Bestehende zh eriialten, Revohitionaycn •jorziile7igen, 
 stimmc ich ganz mit den Mottarchhtcn iibercin : mir nicht in den Mitteln 
 dazu. Sie 7idjnlich ni/cu die Dnmmhcit nnd die Finstcrniss zu Ilnlfe, ich 
 den Verstand iind das Licht.' Goethe. 
 
 (' In the principle, to preserve what exists, to hinder revolutionists from 
 having their way, I am quite at one with the monarchists ; only not in the 
 means thereto. That is to say, they call in stupidity and darkness to aid, 
 I reason and light.')
 
 GOD & THE BIBLE 
 
 .-/ REVIFAV OF 
 , OBJECTIONS TO '■LITERATURE d- DOGMA' 
 
 BY 
 
 MATTHEW ARNOLD 
 
 FORMERLY PROFESSOR OF POETRY IN THE UNIVERSITY OF OXFORD 
 AND FELLOW OF ORIEL COLLEGE 
 
 LONDON 
 
 SMITH, ELDER, & CO., 15 WATERLOO PLACE 
 
 1875 
 
 The ri(;kt of translation is reserved^
 
 5// 
 
 /.Pi 6^ 
 
 PREFACE. 
 
 In reading through the following chapters, I see that the 
 faults, as I think them, of German critics of the Bible are 
 marked with an emphasis which renders necessary some 
 acknowledgment of the other, the meritorious, side in 
 those critics, and of the much gratitude due to them. Their 
 criticism, both negative and constructive, appears to me 
 to be often extremely fanciful and untrustAvorthy. But in 
 collecting, editing, and illustrating the original documents 
 for the history of Christianity', those critics now perform for 
 the benefit of learning an honourable and extremely useful 
 labour, once discharged by Paris, Oxford and Cambridge, 
 but discharged by them no longer ; — perform it with 
 modem resources, and for the most part admirably. Some 
 of them are men of great ability. Ferdinand Christian 
 Baur, whose theories respecting the Fourth Gospel are 
 controverted in the following pages, was a man of pre- 
 
 .131GM0
 
 viii PREFACE. 
 
 eminent ability. His exegesis is often full of instruction 
 and of light. ^Vlloever wishes to be convinced of it has 
 only to turn to his remarks on the phrase ;poor in sj>irii,^ 
 or to liis exposition of the parable of the unjust steward.^ 
 Nevertheless Baur is, on the whole, an unsafe guide, for 
 a reason which makes the generality of critics of the 
 Bible, in the Protestant faculties of theology in Germany, 
 unsafe guides. These professors are under strong temp- 
 tations to produce new theories in Biblical criticism, 
 theories marked by vigour and rigour ; and for this 
 purpose to assume that things can be known which 
 cannot, to treat possibilities as if they were certainties, 
 to make symmetry where one does not find it, and so to 
 land both the teacher, and tlie learner who trusts to him, 
 in the most fanciful and unsound conclusions. There 
 are few who do not succumb to their temptations, and 
 Baur, I think, has succumbed to them. 
 
 Even while acknowledging the learning, talents, and 
 services of these critics, I insist upon their radical faults ; 
 because, as our traditional theology breaks up, German 
 criticism of the Bible is likely to be studied here more 
 and more, and to the untrained reader its vigorous and 
 
 ' Geschichte der christlichen Kirche, vol. i, p. 26. 
 - Krituche U ntersiichungcn iiber die kanotiischen Evangelien, 
 p. 450.
 
 PREFACE. ix 
 
 rigorous theories are, in my opinion, a real danger. 
 They impose upon him by their boldness and novelty. 
 To his practical hold on the Bible they conduce nothing, 
 but rather divert from it ; and yet they are often really 
 farther from the truth, all the while, than even the tra- 
 ditional view which they profess to annihilate. 
 
 The alleged bitter hatred of St. Peter and the other 
 ////c^r-apostles against St. Paul, and St. Paul's recipro- 
 cation of it, is a case in point. This hatred is sup- 
 posed to have filled the first years of the Christian 
 Church, and to give the clue to its histor}^ The in- 
 vectives in the Apocalypse against Balaam and his fol- 
 lowers are said to be aimed at Paul and Pauline 
 Christianity. The Simon Magus of the pseudo-Clementine 
 Homilies is taken to be Paul, and Peter's unwearying 
 war against Simon Magus and his false doctrine represents 
 Peter's war against Paul. ' The Acts, finally, are a late 
 work designed to wipe out the memory of this hatred, and 
 to invent a harmony between Paul and the pillar-apostles 
 which never existed. Now, it is easy to dress up this 
 
 ' Paul is, in fact, ' der Apostate, der Irrlehrer, dessen als 
 samaritanisische Ketzerei bezeichnetes falsches Evangelium hochst 
 wahrscheinlich die Entstehung der ganzcn Sago von dem Magier 
 Simon veranlasst liat.' — Baur, Lchrbttch der christUchen Do^dwu- 
 ^eschichte, p. 65.
 
 PREFACE. 
 
 theor)' so as to make it look plausil^le, but I entirely 
 disbelieve its truth. To its vigorous and rigorous in- 
 ventors the consideration that the nearness of the pillar- 
 apostles to Jesus, and that the religious greatness of St. 
 Paul, were good for very little if they could not so much 
 as prevent a hatred of this kind, will probably appear 
 quite insignificant ; with me it has, I confess, serious 
 weight. It would need plain and strong facts to make 
 me accept, in despite of this consideration, the Tubingen 
 theory. But no such facts are forthcoming. 
 
 The identification of the Balaam of the Apocalypse 
 with Paul requires us first to assume that the Tiibingen 
 theory is true. Now, the evidence of Paul's own letters is 
 against the theory. True, there was difference between 
 him and the older Apostles respecting the obligation of 
 the Jewish law. They were narrower and more timid 
 than he was, and he tells us of his having once at Antioch 
 ' withstood Peter to the face because he was to be blamed.' 
 But he tells us, also, of his having come to a satisfactory 
 arrangement with the pillar-apostles, and of their having 
 ' extended to him the right hand of fellowship.' The 
 hardest word he has for them is to call them ' apostles 
 exceedingly.' ' On the other hand, quite distinct from 
 
 ' TU)v vTrepXiau airocrrdKccv. II Cor., xi, 5> a^nd xii, II,
 
 PRE FACE. xi 
 
 the pillar-apostles whose action it sought to force, is the 
 real Judaising party whom Paul stigmatised as ' false 
 brethren,' and to whom he ' will not give place by sub- 
 jection, no, not for an hour.' 
 
 Again, of real antinomianism in morals among his 
 Gentile converts Paul clearly saw the danger and vehe- 
 mcntl)- rebuked the symptoms. He discountenanced, 
 even, all unnecessary displays of liberalism and of 
 superiority to prejudice, which might offend and do harm. 
 Now, the Peter of the pseudo-Clementine Homilies con- 
 troverts nothing that can be said to be Pauline. But he 
 attacks either Gnostic heresies, or else that antinomianism 
 in morals which is well known to have been rife in some of 
 the Gnostic sects. True, he represents his profone oppo- 
 nents as questioning his authority, and as ^inthstaiiding 
 him; and the language Avhich he attributes to them is un- 
 doubtedly an adaptation of Paul's language in the Epistle 
 to the Galatians. This is the whole and sole foundation of 
 positive proof for the alleged hatred betsveen Peter and Paul. 
 But what could be more natural, than that the antinomian 
 enemies of strictness of ever)' kind should have possessed 
 themselves of phrases of Paul, the great liberal, and above 
 all should have possessed themselves of his famous rebuke 
 of the narrower and more timid Peter, and turned it against
 
 xii PREFACE. 
 
 whoever blamed and restrained them ; and that such an 
 employment and such employers of Paul's language are 
 Avhat the Peter of the Homilies has in view? For my part, 
 I feel convinced that this is the true explanation, and that 
 the plausible theory of the bitter and persistent hatred 
 between St. Peter and St. Paul is quite erroneous. But 
 if erroneous it is, how grave is the error ! and in how 
 serious a misconception of the beginnings of Christianity 
 does it involve us ! This must be my defence, if I appear 
 to have dwelt too much on the untrustworthiness of the 
 authors of this and similar theories, not enough on their 
 learning and acuteness. 
 
 In revising the present volume, the suspicion and 
 alarm which its contents, like tliose of its predecessor, 
 will in some quarters excite, could not but be present to 
 my mind. I hope, however, that I have at last made 
 my aim clear, even to the most suspicious. Some of the 
 comments on Literature and Dogma did, I own, sur- 
 prise me, in spite of a tolerably long experience of men's 
 propensity to mistake things. Again and again I was 
 reproached with having done, in that book, just what I 
 had formerly blamed the Bishop of Natal for doing, 
 y^'BMi Literatuj'e a?id Dogma hdid altogether for its object,
 
 PREFACE. xiii 
 
 and so too has the present work, to show the truth and 
 necessity of Christianity, and its power and chami for 
 the heart, mind, and imagination of man, even though 
 the preternatural, which is now its popular sanction, 
 should have to be given up. To show this, was the end 
 for which both books were ^\Titten. 
 
 For the power of Christianity has been in the immense 
 emotion which it has excited ; in its engaging, for the 
 government of man's conduct, the mighty forces of love, 
 reverence, gratitude, hope, pity, and awe, — all that host 
 of allies which Wordsworth includes under the one name 
 of imaginaiion, when he says that in the uprooting of old 
 thoughts and old niles we must still always ask : — 
 
 Survives iiiiagiiiatioti, to the change 
 
 Superior? Help to virtue does she give ? j 
 
 If not, O mortals, better cease to live ! ^/^ 
 
 Popular Christianity, drenched in the preternatural, has 
 enjoyed abundandy this help of the imagination to virtue 
 and conduct. I have always thought, therefore, that merely 
 to destroy the illusions of popular Christianity was inde- 
 fensible. Time, besides, was sure to do it ; but when it 
 is done, the whole work of again cementing the alliance 
 between the imagination and conduct remains to be 
 effected. To those who effect nothing for the new 
 alliance but only dissolve the old, we take once more 
 our text from Wordsworth, and we sav : —
 
 xiv PREFACE. 
 
 i 
 
 Why with such earnest pains dost thou provoke 
 The years to bring on the inevitable yoke, 
 Thus blindly with man's blessedness at strife ? 
 Full soon his soul will have its earthly freight ;— 
 
 soon enough will the illusions which charmed and aided 
 man's inexperience be gone ; what have you to give him 
 in the place of them ? 
 
 Dr. Colenso had nothing, and hence our dissatisfaction 
 with his work. But undoubtedly it is not easy to re-unite 
 man's imagination with his virtue and conduct, when the 
 tie between them has been once broken. And therefore 
 there will always be many well-meaning people who say : 
 Why meddle with religion at all ? why run the risk of 
 breaking a tie w^hich it is so hard to join again ? And 
 the risk is not to be run lightly, and one is not always to 
 attack people's illusions about religion merely because 
 illusions they are. But at the present moment two 
 things about the Christian religion must surely be clear 
 to anybody with eyes in his head. One is, that men 
 cannot do without it ; the other, that they cannot do with 
 it as it is. 
 
 And first, that they cannot do without it is s]^o^\^^ by 
 the certainty, — as Baur, with whom I am glad to agree 
 at last, well says, — by the certainty with which ' the pre- 
 dominance of an all-denying unbelief does but call forth
 
 PREFACE. XV 
 
 a keener craving for belief.' ' Nowhere did the old 
 Christian belief seem to be so reasoned down, laughed 
 out of court, exploded and extinct as in France; and 
 in no country do we witness such a recrudescence, as 
 liberals would say, of superstition, so formidable a clerical 
 reaction. In England the old Christian belief has never 
 ceased to be a mighty power. Yet even here the voice 
 of modern liberalism has of late more and more been 
 raised to decry it and to foretell its speedy extinction ; 
 and the astonishing popularity of the American revivalists 
 is the answer. Why is this so ? 
 
 It is so, because throughout the world there is a 
 growing feeling, that, whatever may have been amiss with 
 the old religion, modern liberalism, though it confidently 
 professed to have perfect and sufficient substitutes for it, 
 has not ; and though it promised to make the world get 
 on without it, cannot. Even Frenchmen are losing their 
 long cherished belief in the gospel of the rights of man 
 and the ideas of 1789 as a substitute for it. Indeed, 
 one has only to keep one's head clear and one's judg- 
 ment impartial, to see that however poorly men may have 
 got on when their go\-crning idea was : The fear of the 
 
 ' Die Herrschaft eines alles verneinenden Unglaubens nift nur 
 ein urn so heisseres Glaubensverlangen hervor.
 
 xvi PREFACE. 
 
 Lord is the beginning of 7oisdom, they can get on even less 
 by the governing idea that all men arc born naturally free 
 and equal. The barrenness and insufficiency of the 
 revohitionary formulas are visible to common sense as 
 they lose the gloss of novelty. Either they are vague ; — 
 as when Michelet, for instance, talks of ' my idea, and 
 Proudhon's, of Justice, of Revolution, an idea the opposite 
 of Christianity ; ' where the term Christianity has no doubt 
 a plain enough meaning for us, but the terms jj^usticc and 
 Revolution, its supposed opposites, have not. Or if the 
 formula is explained, it turns out to be something jejune, 
 after all, which is meant; — as when Michelet tells us 
 what Justice, the pensee du siede, the thought of the Age of 
 Revolution, the opposite of Christianity is, and it is this : 
 'Unity of administration, gradual suppression of privilege, 
 equal taxation.' But this is politics, it is merely what we 
 call machinery ; and the ' thought of the age,' the idea of 
 Justice and Revolution, the idea which is the opposite of 
 Christianity, must give us something more than this, or to 
 replace Christianity it is quite ludicrously insufficient. 
 
 All this most people are now beginning to see clearly 
 
 enough ; hence the reaction on which secularists so little 
 
 counted. But indeed it is much more surprising that they 
 
 should ever have reckoned that their ideas of revolution 
 
 vj and liberty, and of the spread of physical science dispelling
 
 PREFACE. xvii 
 
 a host of illusions, could at all do for the world what 
 Christianity had done for it and serve as a substitute for 
 Christianity, than that they should now find themselves to 
 be out in their reckoning. For Christianity enabled, or 
 professed to enable, mankind to deal with personal con- 
 duct, — with an immense matter, at least three-fourths of 
 human life. And it seems strange that people should 
 even imagine, either that men will not demand something 
 enabling them to do this, or that revolution, and equality, 
 and knowing that not the sky moves but the earth, can 
 in any way do it. And so the revolutionists find them- 
 selves at fault in their calculations ; and the best scien- 
 tific specialists are forward to confess, Avhat is evident 
 enough, both that religion must and will have its claims 
 attended to, and that physics and religion have, as 
 Joubert says, absolutely nothing to do with one another. 
 Charlatans may bluster ; but, speaking in defence of the 
 genuine men of science, M. Re'ville declares of them that 
 * they willingly recognise the legitimateness of the religious 
 element in the human spirit, but they say that to provide 
 the satisfaction due to it is not a business with which 
 they are competent to deal.' ' 
 
 ' lis reconnaissent volontiers la legitlmite de IV-lement religicux 
 de I'esprit humain ; mais ils disent (ju'il ne rentre pas dans leur 
 conipotence do lui fournir Ics salis(;ictions qu'il reclame. 
 
 a 
 
 \
 
 xviii PREFA CE. 
 
 It is true, all specialists are not equally sober-minded. 
 Thus we find a brilliant mathematician, Professor Clifford, 
 launching invectives which, if they are just, would prove 
 either that no religion at all has any right to mankind's- 
 regard, or that the Christian religion, at all events, has 
 none. He calls Christianity 'that aAvful plague which 
 has destroyed two civilisations and but barely failed tO' 
 slay such promise of good as is now struggling to live 
 amongst men.' He warns his fellow men against shewing- 
 any tenderness to ' the slender remnant of a system 
 which has made its red mark on history and still lives to 
 threaten mankind.' ' The grotesque forms of its intel- 
 lectual belief,' he sternly adds, by way of finish, ' have 
 survived the discredit of its moral teaching.' 
 
 But these are merely the crackling fireworks of youthful ' 
 paradox. One reads it all, half sighing, half smiling, 
 as the declamation of a clever and confident youth, with 
 the hopeless inexperience, irredeemable by any clever- 
 ness, of his age. Only Avhen one is young and headstrong 
 can one thus prefer bravado to experience, can one 
 stand by the Sea of Time, and instead of listening to 
 the solemn and rhythmical beat of its waves, choose to 
 fill the air with one's own whoopings to start the echo. 
 But the mass of plain peojDle hear such talk v/ith im-
 
 PREFACE. xix 
 
 patient indignation, and flock all the more eagerly to 
 Messrs. Moody and Sankey. * They feel that the brilliant 
 freethinker and revolutionist talks about their religion 
 and yet is all abroad in it, does not know either that or 
 the great facts of human life ; and they go to those who 
 know them better. And the plain people are not wrong. 
 Compared with Professor Clifford, Messrs. Moody and 
 Sankey are masters of the philosophy of history. Men 
 are not mistaken in thinking that Christianity has done 
 them good, in loving it, in wishing to listen to those who 
 will talk to them about what they love, and will talk of 
 it with admiration and gratitude, not contempt and hatred. 
 Christianity is truly, as in Litcratiij-c and Dogma I have ; 
 called it, ' the greatest and happiest stroke e\-er yet made 
 for human perfection.' Men do not err. they are on firm 
 ground of experience, when they say that they have 
 practically found Christianity to be something incom- 
 parably beneficent. Where they err, is in their way of 
 accounting for this, and of assigning its causes. / 
 
 And here we reach our second point : that men cannot / 
 do with Christianity as it is. Something true and benefi- 
 cent they have got hold of in it, they know ; and they 
 want to rely upon this, and to use it. But what men rely 
 upon and use, they seek to give themselves account of,
 
 XX PREFACE. 
 
 they seek to make clear its right to be reUed upon and 
 used. Now, the old ways of accounting for Christianity, 
 of establishing the ground of its claims upon us, no longer 
 serve as they once did. Men's experience widens, they get 
 to know the world better, to know the mental history of 
 mankind better ; they distinguish more clearly between 
 history and legend, they grow more shy of recourse to the 
 preternatural. I have quoted in the present volume the 
 saying of Pascal : ' In good truth, the world is getting 
 mistrustful, and does not believe things unless they are 
 evident to it.'' But no one can more set this considera- 
 tion at defiance than does Pascal himself in his account 
 of Christianity. Gleams of astonishing insight he has, 
 as well as bursts of unsurpassable eloquence ; there 
 is no writer on the Christian religion who more than 
 Pascal deserves a close study. But the basis of his whole 
 system is the acceptance, as positive history and literal 
 matter of fact, of the story of Adam's fall. The historical 
 difficulty of taking this legend seriously, for us so decisive, 
 Pascal hardly saw at all ; but he saw plenty of other diffi- 
 culty. Nothing, he observes, can be ' more contrary to the 
 rules of our miserable justice than to damn eternally a 
 
 ' En verite, le monde devient mefiant, et ne croit les clioses que 
 quand il les voit.
 
 PREFACE. xxi 
 
 child bom now for a crime committed six thousand years 
 before he came into being.' Nevertheless Pascal accepts 
 the story, because ' without this mystery, the most incom- 
 prehensible of all mysteries, we are incomprehensible to 
 ourselves.' That is, he sees no other way of explaining 
 the mixture of grandeur and infirmity which he finds in 
 man, — of desire for happiness and of inability to reach it. 
 So that, if we jnit ourselves under Pascal's guidance, the 
 necessary approach to our use of the salvation offered by 
 the Christian religion is to believe the story of Adam"s fall 
 to be historical, and literally true. And his famous figure of 
 the wager is used by Pascal to reconcile us the better to 
 this belief The chances are such, he says, that we shall 
 do well at all events to lay our stake in favour of the 
 story's truth. If we say we rrt:;/;/^'/ believe it, let us set to 
 work to attain belief as others have attained it ; and how 
 was this? ' By acting just as if they ^/^ believe it ; by 
 taking holy water, having masses said, &c. ; quite natu- 
 rally that will make you believe, and render you stupid !^ — 
 
 ' JVcrtitn'llonetit mcmc cda vous /era croirc et voiis alhtira. The 
 Port Royal editors suppressed this wonderful sentence, and indeed 
 the whole passage which follows tlie words and hcrw toas this? 
 What Port Royal substituted was the following : ' Iniitez leurs 
 actions exterieures, si vous ne pouvez encore entrer dans leurs dis- 
 positions interieures ; quittez ces vains amusements qui vous oc- 
 cupant tout entier.' Pascal's words were not restored until M. Cousin 
 reverted to the original manuscript. See M. Ilavet's careful and 
 valuable edition of Pascal's Paisccs, vol. i, pp. 152, 158.
 
 xxii PREFACE. 
 
 But that is just what I am afraid of. — And why ; what 
 have you to lose ? What harm will come to you from 
 taking this course ? You will be faithful, honest, humble, 
 grateful, charitable, sincere, a friend whom men can trust? ' 
 Did ever a great reasoner reason so madly ? And this 
 is the man who saw that the world no longer believes 
 things unless it has evidence of them ! In the first 
 place, there is no evidence that man is only comprehensi- 
 ble on the assumption that the story of Adam's fall is true. 
 But even if it were so, man must still ask himself : Is the 
 story true? And if it is not true, then the conclusion 
 must be simply that man is not comprehensible. Now, 
 sooner or later, as our experience widens, we must see 
 that the story is not true ; we must inevitably come to 
 say to ourselves : ' It is all a legend ! it never really hap- 
 pened, any of it ! ' It is no more real history than the 
 Penivian account of Manco Capac and Mama Ocollo, 
 the children of the Sun, ' who appeared on the banks of 
 the Lake Titiaca, sent by their beneficent parent, who 
 beheld with pity the miseries of the human race, to in- 
 struct and to reclaim them.' ' For a little while, even for 
 a generation or two perhaps, man may, after he has begun 
 to doubt the story's truth, still keep himself in the belief of it 
 ' Robertson's History of Avn-rica, book vi.
 
 PREFACE. xxiii 
 
 by ' taking holy water, rendering himself stupid ; ' but the 
 time comes when he cannot. That a story will account for 
 certain facts, that we wish to think it true, nay, that many 
 have formerly thought it true and have grown faithful, 
 humble, charitable, and so on, by thus doing, does not 
 make the story true if it is not, and cannot prevent 
 men after a certain time from seeing that it is not. 
 
 And on such a time we are now entering. The more 
 ■\ve may have been helped to be faithful, humble and 
 charitable by taking the truth of this story, and others 
 equally legendary, for granted, the greater is our em- 
 barrassment, no doubt, at having to do without them. 
 But we have to do without them none the less on 
 that account. We may feel our hearts still vibrate 
 in answer to the Old Testament telling us that ' the 
 fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom,' and 
 to the New telling us that Jesus Christ saves his people 
 from their sins. But this fear of the Lord, and this safety 
 through Jesus Christ, can have Adam's fall for their 
 fundamental basis and explanation no longer. 
 
 Cardinal Manning narrates the miraculous resuscitation 
 of the Virgin Mary, and his argument for believing it is 
 that the story is a beautiful one, and that it is a comfort 
 and help to pious souls to think it true. Both may be freely
 
 xxiv PREFACE. 
 
 conceded to him ; but really as much may be said for 
 the miraculous apparition of Cinderella's fairy godmother. 
 The story is pathetic and beautiful, and it is a pleasure 
 to kind souls to see the tables turned by enchantment in 
 favour of the poor little good Cinderella. But this does 
 not make the story true. And if a story is unsubstantial 
 in its foundation and character, no connecting of it with, 
 our affections, or with what does us good, can in the end 
 prevent people from saying : ' But it is not true ! it never 
 really happened, any of it ! ' 
 
 I heard Mr. Moody preach to one of his vast audiences 
 .on a topic eternally attractive, — salvation by Jesus Christ. 
 Mr. Moody's account of that salvation was exactly the old 
 story, to which I have often adverted, of the contract in the 
 Council of the Trinity. Justice puts in her claim, said Mr, 
 Moody, for the punishment of guilty mankind; God admits 
 it. Jesus intercedes, undertakes to bear their punishment, 
 and signs an undertaking to that effect. Thousands of 
 years pass; Jesus is on the cross on Calvary. Justice appears, 
 and presents to him his signed undertaking. Jesus accepts 
 it, bows his head, and expires. Christian salvation consists 
 in the undoubting belief in the transaction here described, 
 and in the hearty acceptance of the release offered by it. 
 Never let us deny to this story power and pathos, or
 
 PREFACE. XXV 
 
 treat with hostility ideas which have entered so deep into 
 the Hfe of Christendom. But the story is not true ; it 
 never really happened. These personages never did meet 
 together, and speak, and act, in the manner related. The 
 personages of the Christian Heaven and their conversa- 
 tions are no more matter of fact than the personages of 
 the Greek Olympus and their conversations. Sir Robert 
 Phillimore seeks to tie up the Church of England to a 
 belief in the personality of Satan, and he might as well 
 seek to tie it up to a belief in the personality of Tisiphone. 
 Satan and Tisiphone are alike not real persons, but A 
 shadows thrown by man's guilt and terrors. Mr. Moody's 
 audiences are the last people who will come to perceive 
 all this ; they are chiefly made up from the main body of 
 lovers of our popular religion, — the serious and steady 
 middle class, with its bounded horizons. To the more 
 educated class above this, and to the more free class 
 below it, the grave beliefs of the religious middle class 
 in such stories as Mr. Moody's stor)' of the Covenant 
 of Redemption are impossible now; to the religious 
 middle class itself they will be impossible soon. Sal- 
 vation by Jesus Christ, therefore, if it has any reality, 
 must be placed somewhere else than in a hearty con- 
 sent to Mr. Moody's story. Something I^Ir. Moody
 
 xxvi PREFACE. 
 
 and his hearers have experienced from Jesus, let us own, 
 which does them good ; but of this something they have 
 not yet succeeded in getting the right history. 
 
 Now, if one feels impatience with people who, like 
 Professor Clifford, lightly nm a-muck at an august thing, 
 so a man who is in earnest must feel impatience with 
 those who lightly allege this or that as the true foundation 
 of it. People who gravely offer us about Christianity their 
 stories of the contract in the Council of the Trinity, or of 
 the miraculous resuscitation of the "Virgin, are just like 
 JNIr. Ruskin telling us in his assured way : ' There is not a 
 moment of any day of our lives, when nature is not pro- 
 ducing picture after picture and working still upon such 
 exquisite and constant principles of such perfect beauty, 
 that it is quite certain it is all done for ns, and intended for 
 mir perpetual pleasure.' It is not quite certain, we have 
 not a particle of certainty about it and to say that it 
 is certain is utterly fantastic. However, Mr. Ruskin is 
 talking only about the beauties of nature ; and here, 
 perhaps, it is an excuse for inventing certainties that what 
 one invents is so beautiful. But religion is to govern our 
 life. Whoever produces certainties to us on the subject of 
 religion is bound to take care that they are serious 
 ones ; and yet on no subject is this so little regarded.
 
 PREFACE. xxvii 
 
 And there is no doubt that we touch liere on a real 
 fliult both in Christians and in Christian theology ; and 
 that at Christianity's very first start in the world the 
 heathen philosopher Celsus hit this fault, when he re- 
 marked on the Kovfo-T]^ Twv Xpirrriatuiy. We must not 
 translate kouc^orjje simply /evi(y, for the seriousness of 
 Christianity in morals has been its charm and its power. 
 "OiTo (7£/iv« ! as St. Paul says,' — whataTr things are nobly 
 serious! — may here well stand for its motto. But the 
 Kovf^orriq Cclsus meant was a want of intdledual seriousness ; 
 and the reproach of this was not altogether undeserved by 
 the first Christians, while it has been abundantly deserved 
 by Christian theology since. The first Christians mis- 
 understood Jesus and had the multitude's appetite for 
 miracles, the multitude's inexact observation and bound- 
 less credulity. They it was who supplied the data which 
 Christian theology took from them without (question, and 
 has ever since confidently built upon. But trained, critical, 
 indifferent minds, which knew what evidence was and what 
 popular beliefs were, could not but be struck with the 
 looseness in the joints of the Christian belief, with the 
 slightness of evidence for its miraculous data. They 
 2vere struck with them ; and if the old civilisation had not 
 
 ' PhilifJ^iatis, iv, 8.
 
 xxviii PREFACE. 
 
 J 
 
 been on the wane, if a supply ofinstmcted, critical, cool,, 
 indifferent minds had continued, Christianity could not 
 have established itself in the precise form it did. For 
 its establishment in that form the extinction of the old 
 civilisation was necessary; — to flood and drown all which 
 this civilisation was, and thought, and knew, with the 
 barbarian nations of the north, men of infantine and 
 untrained mental habit. The infancy of the world was 
 renewed, with all its sweet illusions ; and on this new 
 world the popular Christian belief could lay hold freely. 
 Professor Clifford execrates Christianity as an ' awful 
 plague,' because its success thus involved the ruin of 
 Roman civilisation. It was worth while to have that 
 civilisation ruined fifty times over, for the sake of 
 l)lanting Christianity through Europe in the only form in 
 which it could then be planted there. Civilisation could 
 build itself up again ; but what Christianity had to give, 
 and from the first did give in no small measure, was 
 indispensable, and the Roman civilisation could not give 
 it. And Christianity's admixture of popular legend and 
 illusion was sure to be cleared away with time, according 
 to that profound saying of Jesus himself: 'There is 
 nothing covered which shall not be uncovered, and 
 hidden which shall not be known.'' 
 
 ' Matthew, x, 26.
 
 PREFACE. xxix 
 
 But the miraculous data supplied by the first Christians 
 became in this manner speedily consecrated, the loose- 
 ness of the evidence for them soon escaped scrutiny. 
 Theology, the exhibition of Christianity in a scientific 
 .and systematic way, took these data as an assured basis. 
 INIany theologians have been very able men, and their 
 reasonings and deductions have been very close and 
 ■subtle. Still they have always had the defect of going 
 seriously upon data produced and admitted with a want 
 .of iutellectual seriousness. But science makes her progress, 
 not merely by close reasoning and deduction, but also, 
 and much more, by the close scrutiny and correction of 
 the present commonly received data. And this scrutiny 
 is just what theological science has never seriously given ; 
 and to listen to it, therefore, is, as we said in Literature 
 wid Dogvia, like listening to Cosmas Indicopleustes the 
 Christian cosmographer, or any other early Christian 
 writer in a department of science, who goes upon data 
 furnished by a time of imperfect observation and boundless 
 credulity. Whate\-er acuteness the writer may manifest, 
 yet upon these data he goes. And Christian writers in 
 other departments of science have now corrected their old 
 data in them from top to bottom; half of these data they 
 have clean abandoned, and the other half they have trans-
 
 XXX PREFACE. 
 
 formed. But Christian theologians have not yet done 
 so in their science of theology, and hence their unprofit- 
 ableness. 
 
 Mr. Gladstone complains that objectors to the Atha- 
 nasian Creed seem to forget, most of them, ' that theology^ 
 is a science, and that it therefore has a technical lan- 
 guage which is liable to be grossly misunderstood by 
 those who have never made it the subject of study.'' 
 And this is a ver}- usual complaint from our theologians. 
 But the fact is, that their science is a science going 
 gravely and confidingly upon the uncorrected data of a 
 time of imperfect observation and boundless credulity, 
 and that, therefore, the more formal and technical it 
 gets, the more hollow it is. And the hoUowness of 
 the results exhibited by theologians is more apparent than 
 the reason thereof, and a clear-headed man can often 
 jierceive that what the theologians say is futile, although 
 he may never have been led to see that the untrust- 
 worthiness of their miraculous data is the real cause. Dr. 
 Littledale adjures people to ' study theology, instead of 
 practically maintaining, as Dr. Arnold in all sincerity did, 
 that the best preparation for laying down authoritative 
 decisions in theology is to know nothing whatever about 
 it.' But Dr. Arnold, who had a sound historical instinct^
 
 PREFACE. xxxi 
 
 could tell at once, from the warnings of this instinct, that 
 theology, which is a series of conclusions upon the history 
 in the Bible, had apprehended that history all wrong ; 
 that it was faulty, therefore, in its very base, and so could 
 not be a true theology, a science of the Christian religion, 
 at all. And most certainly it is not the best preparation 
 for forming right judgments in a true theology, to have 
 one's head stuffed full of a false. 
 
 Moreover, this original vice of Christian theology seems 
 to have affected, where things religious are concerned, the 
 whole mental habit of those who receive it, and to have 
 afflicted them with a malady which cannot be better 
 described than as the k-ovfunjg rwr Xptirr/aiwi-, want of | ^ 
 intellectual seriousness on the part of lovers and defenders 
 of Christianity. Men's experience widens, they get a 
 clearer sense of what fact is and what proof is, they are 
 more aware when they talk nonsense and more shy of 
 talking it ; only where religion is concerned does this 
 check of sober reason seem quite to desert them, and 
 levity to reign. We have noticed Cardinal jManning's 
 ground for believing the miraculous resuscitation of the 
 Virgin ISIary : that the story is so beautiful. But the 
 same levity is shown by more cautious Catholics dis- 
 cussing the Pope's infallibility, seeking to limit its extent.
 
 xxxii PREFACE. 
 
 to lay down in what sense he is really infallible and in 
 what sense he is not ; for in no sense whatever is or can 
 he be infallible, and to debate the thing at all shows a 
 want of intellectual seriousness. The same when Lord 
 Herries thinks to mend matters by saying, that ' the Pope 
 is the organ of the Church, and an Almighty Power of 
 infinite wisdom and of infinite truth established his 
 Church to teach all tmth unto the end of the world, and 
 as such that Church must be infallible ; ' for there is 
 plainly no such thing existing as the said infallible Church, 
 and it is a want of intellectual seriousness to make believe 
 that there is when there is not. The same when Dr. 
 Ward thinks to clear the doctrine of the Real Presence, 
 by talking of ' the divine substance in the Host separable 
 from all that group of visible and tangible phenomena 
 which suggest the presence of bread.' All tliat tliis acute 
 mind effects, by thus gravely cheating itself with words, 
 is to illustrate the KovfunjQ twv Xpicmatioi', the want of 
 intellectual seriousness found in Christians. The same, 
 finally, when ?.Ir. Moody, the question being what 
 Christian salvation positively is, tells us his story about 
 Justice and her contract. However honest and earnest 
 Mr. Moody may be, all we can say of a man who at the 
 present juncture bases Christian salvation on a story like
 
 PREFACE. xxxiii 
 
 that, is that he shows a fatal want of intellectual 
 seriousness. 
 
 For Protestantism has the same want of intellectual 
 seriousness as Catholicism, its advantage being, however, ^ 
 that it more possesses in itself the means of deliverance. 
 On this, the advantage of Protestantism, we do not at the 
 present moment insist ; we rather point out the weakness, 
 common to it and to Catholicism, of building confidently 
 upon miraculous data lightly admitted. True, Catho- 
 licism has more levity in admitting new miraculous data \ 
 but Protestantism admits unreservedly one set of miracu- 
 lous data and builds everything on them, because they are 
 written in a book whicli, it says, cannot err; and this 
 is levity. At the stage of experience where men are 
 now arrived, it is evident to whoever looks at things 
 fairly that tlie miraculous data of the Bible have not this 
 unique character of tmstworthiness ; that they, like other 
 such data, proceed from a medium of imperfect observa- 
 tion and boundless credulity. The story of the magical 
 birth and resuscitation of Jesus was bred in such a 
 medium ; and not to see this, to build confidently on the 
 story, is hardly more serious than to admit the story of 
 the magical birth and resuscitation of tlie Virgin because 
 it is so beautiful. 
 
 b
 
 xxxiv PREFACE. 
 
 It is of tlie utmost importance to be perfectly honest 
 here. M. de Laveleye ^ is struck, as any judicious 
 Catholic may well be struck, with the superior freedom, 
 order, stability, and even religious earnestness, of the 
 Protestant nations as compared with the Catholic. But 
 at the present moment the Protestant nations are living- 
 partly upon their past, partly upon their powers of self- 
 transformation ; great care is required to consult and use 
 aright the experience which they offer. True, their reli- 
 gion has made them what they are, and their religion 
 involved severance from Rome and involved the received 
 Protestant theology. But it would be a grave mistake 
 to suppose that the secret of the Protestant nations lies 
 in severance from Rome and in the received Protestant 
 theology ; or that, in now merely adopting those from 
 them, a modern nation could find freedom, order, stability, 
 and religious earnestness. The true force of Protes- 
 tantism was its signal return to the individual conscience, 
 — to the method of Jesus. This strengthened the man, 
 this founded him on rock, this invigorated his action on 
 all lines. It induced separation from Rome (so far as 
 this was not due to causes political), and it induced 
 
 ' .See his excellent pamphlet : Lc Protestantisiue ct le CatholicismCy 
 Brussels, Muquardt.
 
 PRE FA CE. XXXV 
 
 the received Protestant theology. But a man's con- 
 science does not necessarily tell him right on all points all 
 at once; and now the conscience of the Protestant nations 
 is beginning to tell them that in their theology of the 
 sixteenth century it did not tell them right. Conscience 
 told them right in asserting its own general supremacy as 
 ultimate court of appeal ; it did not tell them right in its 
 particular decision that the sixteenth century theology was 
 the true one. Protestantism's secret is undoubtedly its 
 religion ; but it has not at this moment a science of reli- 
 gion, or theolog}', to give to the Catholic nations, for it is 
 working out its own anew. What it has to give them 
 is the sincere, uncompromising return to the method of 
 Jesus, with the deep and firm sense of reality which this 
 return inspires. But if it gives them this, it will have 
 given to the Catholic nations what enables them to do all 
 the rest for themselves. 
 
 It is the habit of increased intellectual seriousness, 
 bred of a wider experience and of a larger acquaintance 
 with men's mental history, which is now transforming 
 religion in our countr}^ Intelligent people among the 
 educated classes grow more and more sceptical of the 
 miraculous data whicli supply the basis for our received 
 theology. The habit is a conquest of the advancing 
 
 b 2
 
 xxxvi PREFACE. 
 
 human race ; it spreads and spreads ; it cannot but be, and 
 will be, on the whole and in the end a boon to us. But 
 many and many an individual it may find unprepared for 
 it, and may act upon him injuriously. Goethe's saying is 
 well known : ' All which merely frees our spirit, without 
 giving us the command over ourselves, is deleterious.'' It 
 is of small use by itself alone, however it may be indis- 
 pensable this one single current of intellectual serious- 
 ness ; of small use to those who are untouched by the great 
 current of seriousness about conduct. To a frivolous and 
 sensual upper class, to a raw and sensual lower class, to 
 feel the greater current may be more than a compensa- 
 tion for not feeling the lesser. They do now feel the lesser 
 current, however ; and it removes them farther than ever 
 from the influence of the greater. 
 
 For fear of losing their religious convictions, the pious 
 part of our people would fain shut off from themselves 
 the intellectual current, which they fear might carry them 
 away to shores of desolation. They may succeed for a 
 longer or a shorter time. Their love of the old, and their 
 fear of the new, alike give them energy ; and we have 
 repeatedly said that the nature of the debate as to the 
 miraculous ground in Christianity is such, that the 
 
 ' Alles was unsem Geist befreit, ohne uns die Herrschaft iiber 
 uns selbst zu geben, ist verdcrblich.
 
 PREFACE. xxxvii 
 
 conviction of its unsoundness must form itself in a 
 man's own mind, it cannot be forced upon him from 
 without. It is true, what apologists are always urging, 
 that there is no other example of such a success as that 
 of the Christian religion, where the successful religion 
 had an erroneous belief in miracles for its foundation. / 
 It is true, what was well pointed out in the Guardian, 
 that the rich crop of non-Christian miracles contemporary 
 with the rise of Christianity, and which is often brought 
 as proof of the hoUowness of the Christian miracles, may 
 naturally have been called up by the miracles of Chris- 
 tianity. The answer, no doubt, is, that no other religion"^ 
 with an unsound foundation of miracles has succeeded 
 like Christianity, because no other religion had. in close 
 conjunction with its unsound belief in miracles, such an 
 element of soundness as the personality and word of 
 Jesus. And the suggestion of non-Christian miracles by / 
 the Christian ones only proves a superior force some- 
 where in the Christian religion ; and this it undoubtedly 
 had, but not from its miracles. However, a religious man 
 may still shut his eyes to all this, and may keep fast his 
 old faith in the Christian miracles. But before very long 
 the liabit of intellectual seriousness will reach him also, 
 and change him. Not a few religious people are even
 
 xxxviii PREFA CE. 
 
 now gained by it against their will, and to their deep distress 
 and bewilderment. So that, whether we look about us 
 at the religious world or at the irreligious, the conclusion 
 ) is the same : people cannot any longer do with Chris- 
 tianity just as it is. 
 
 The reader whom the present work has in view is not 
 the man still striving to be content with the received theo- 
 log}'. ^Vith him we do not seek to meddle. Neither is it 
 intended for a frivolous upper class in their religious insen- 
 sibility, nor for a raw lower class in their religious insensi- 
 bility, nor for Liberal secularists at home or abroad, nor for 
 Catholics who are strangers, or very nearly so, to the Bible. 
 Some or all of these may perhaps come to find the work 
 useful to them one day, and after they have undergone a 
 change ; but it is not directly aimed at them. It is meant 
 for those who, won by the modern spirit to habits of intel- 
 lectual seriousness, cannot receive what sets these habits 
 at nought, and will not try to force themselves to do so; 
 but who have stood near enough to the Christian religion 
 to feel the attraction which a thing so very great, when one 
 stands really near to it, cannot but exercise, and who have 
 some acquaintance with the Bible and some practice in 
 using it. 
 
 Of such persons there are in this country, and pro-
 
 PREFACE. xxxix 
 
 bably in America also, not a few. The familiarity with 
 the Bible extends in Protestant countries throughout 
 those large classes which have been religiously brought up, 
 ^nd is invaluable to them. It is the excellent fruit which 
 Protestantism gained by its return at the Reformation to V 
 the individual conscience, — to the method of Jesus. The 
 Bible itself was made the standard, and what the Bible 
 really said. It matters not that the Protestant's actual 
 interpretation of the Bible has hitherto been little better 
 than the Catholic's ; he has still been conversant with the 
 Bible, has felt its grandeur, has conceived the just idea 
 that in its right use is salvation, M. Sainte-Beuve, the 
 finest critical spirit of our times, conceived of the Bible so 
 falsely, simply from not knowing it, that he could cheer- 
 fully and confidently repeat the Liberal formula : ' Un- 
 less we mean to prefer Byzantinism to progress we must 
 say goodbye aiix vieillcs Bibles, — to the old Bibles.'" 
 Liberals, who think that religion in general is an obstacle 
 to progress, may naturally, however, be ignorant of the 4 
 virtue there is in knowing one's Bible. But Catholics, 
 although they may love religion, are for the most part in 
 like case with its Liberal foes in not being aware what 
 virtue there lies in knowing the Bible. And therefore a 
 Catholic, who has once come to perceive the want of in-
 
 xl PREFACE. 
 
 tellectual seriousness in what his Church lays down, and 
 in what he has been told of her infallibility, thinks that 
 there the thing ends, and that the Christian religion itself 
 has as little intellectual seriousness as the dogmas of his 
 Church. So we see how many Catholics break violently 
 with religion altogether, and become its sworn enemies. 
 And even with Catholics who have been so near to it 
 that they cannot help feeling its attraction, what they 
 feel is merely, when the dogmas of their Church have lost 
 credibility for them, a vague sentiment at variance with 
 their reason ; capable, perhaps, of making them view 
 with dislike all who raise questions about religion, but 
 not capable of affording them any sure stay. Therefore 
 Niebuhr might well say that 15 17 ought to precede 1789 ; 
 and even the fanaticism of Exeter Hall can hardly assert 
 too roundly that the Catholic nations will never really 
 improve until they know the Bible better. For easily and 
 always does a religious Protestant remain aware that religion 
 is not at an end because the dogmas of a cliurch cannot 
 stand. He knows that the Bible is behind ; and although 
 he may be startled on first hearing that what creeds and 
 confessions have for centuries been giving as the sum and 
 substance of the Bible is not its sum and substance, yet 
 he knows the vastness and depth of the Bible well enough
 
 PREFACE. xli 
 
 to understand that, after all, this may very likely be quite 
 true. 
 
 For such a reader is the present work meant ; — for a> 
 reader who is conversant with the Bible, who can feel the 
 attraction of the Christian religion, but who has acquired 
 habits of intellectual seriousness, has been revolted by 
 having things presented solemnly to him for his use which 
 will not hold water, and who will start with none of sucli^ 
 things even to reach what he values. If there are but 
 ten people in the world who deal with religion fairly, he 
 is resolved to be one of those ten. 
 
 It is the aim of the present volume, as it was the aim 
 of Literature and Dogma, to show to such a man that 
 his honesty will be rewarded. Plenty of people there are 
 who labour solely for the diffusion of habits of intellectual 
 seriousness, at whatever cost. Perhaps they do well, per- 
 haps ill; at all events I do not, in the present volume and in 
 its predecessor, write as one of them. I write to convince 
 the lover of religion that by following habits of intellectual 
 seriousness he need not, so far as religion is concerned, 
 lose anything. Taking the Old Testament as Israel's 
 magnificent establishment of the theme : I^ig/iteoiisfiess is 
 salvation ! taking the New as the perfect elucidation 
 by Jesus of what righteousness is and how salvation 
 is won, I do not fear comparing even the power over
 
 xlii PREFACE. 
 
 the soul and imagination of the Bible, taken in this sense, 
 — a sense which is at the same time solid, — with the 
 like power in the old materialistic and miraculous sense 
 for the Bible, which is not. 
 
 The solidity itself is indeed an immense element of 
 gi'andeur. To Jiiin that orderdh his conversation right 
 shall be shown the salvation of God! Or conversely, and 
 in modern phrase : Nations and men, whoever is ship- 
 wrecked, is sJiipwrecked on conduct! In vain do philoso- 
 phical Radicals devise fine new programmes which leave 
 it out ; in vain does France trumpet the ideas of '89 
 which are to do instead. Whoever leaves it out of his 
 programme, whoever fancies that anything else will do 
 instead, is bafifled and confounded by the sure event ; ex- 
 perience keeps again and again sending him back to learn 
 better, like a school-boy with an ill-got lesson. France, 
 which was in such terror of Byzantinism and so resolved 
 to have done with ' the old Bibles,' France, with all her 
 eminent social instincts and gifts, is she not, in her forty and 
 fifty editions of M. Adolphe Belot's novels, faring towards 
 the real Byzantinism, a Byzantinism from which ' tlie old 
 Bibles,' perhaps, can alone save her ? For, as it is true that 
 men are shipwi'ecked on conduct, so it is true that the Bible 
 is the great means for making men feel this, and for saving
 
 PREFACE. xliii 
 
 them. It makes them feel it by the irresistible power with 
 which Israel, the Seer of the Vision of Peace, testifies it ; 
 it saves them by the method and secret of Jesus. 
 
 The indispensableness of the Bible and of Christianity, 
 therefore, cannot be exaggerated. In morals, which are 
 at least three-fourths of life, to do without them is, as 
 was said in Literature ami Dogma, exactly like doing in 
 aesthetics without tlie art of Greece. To do with ' the 
 common places of morality couched in modem and con- 
 genial language,' which is what some of our Liberal friends 
 propose, answers precisely to doing with English, French, 
 and Gemian art in aesthetics. To do with the very best 
 and finest, in the Avay of morals, that has outside the 
 Bible been produced, answers to doing, in esthetics, with 
 Flemish and Italian art. Every lover of art knows that per- 
 fection in art. salvation in art, will never be thus reached, 
 will never be reached Avithout knowing Greece. So it is 
 with perfection and salvation in conduct, men's universal 
 concern, t/ie -(Cay of peace ; they are not to be reached 
 without the Bible and Christianity. By the Bible and 
 Christianity, though not by what our missionaries now offer 
 as such, the non-Christian nations will finally be won, and 
 will come to regard their old religions much as a Christian, 
 wide-minded, reverent, and profound, would regard them 
 
 y
 
 xliv PREFACE. 
 
 now. So will be fulfilled the word of Israel's Eternal r 
 My house shall be called the house of prayer for all 7iations ; 
 there shall be one Eternal, and his name one} And 
 although we may willingly allow to Professor RauwenhofT 
 that the mind and life of our Aryan race has deeply 
 modified the religion of Semitic Israel already, and will 
 yet modify it much more, still that cannot prevent the 
 root of the matter for us, in this immense concern of reli- 
 gion, being in the Israel of the Bible, and he is our 
 spiritual progenitor: — A Syrian ready to perish was thy 
 father."^ 
 
 Thus neither in respect of the grandeur of the Bible 
 and Christianity, nor in respect of their world-wide im- 
 portance, will the lover of religion, who brings habits of 
 intellectual seriousness to bear upon them, find that he has 
 to change his notions. Nor will he even have to revolu- 
 tionise his phraseology. He will be aware, indeed, that 
 of the constitution of God we know nothing, and that 
 those who, like Christian philosophers in general, begin 
 by admitting this, and who add, even, that * we are utterly 
 powerless to conceive or comprehend the idea of an infinite 
 Being, Almighty, All-knowing, Omnipotent, and Eternal, 
 
 ' Isaiah, Ivi, 7 ; Zechariah, xiv, 9. 
 - Daitcronoiiiy, xxvi, 5.
 
 PREFACE. xlv 
 
 of whose inscrutable puq^ose the material universe is the 
 unexplained manifestation,' ' but then proceed calmly 
 to affirm such a Being as positively as if he were a man 
 they were acquainted with in the next street, talk idly. 
 Nevertheless, admitting that all this cannot be affirmed 
 about the God of our religion, but only that our God is the I 
 Eternal not ourselves that makes for righteousness, we yet ' 
 know also that men inevitably use anthropomorphic lan- 
 guage about whatever makes them feel deeply, and the 
 Biblical language about God we may therefore freely use, / 
 but as approximative and poetical merely. To seek to 
 <3iscard, like some philosophers, the name of God and to 
 substitute for it such a name as the Unknowable, will seem 
 to a plain man, surely, ridiculous. For God^ — the name 
 which has so engaged all men's feelings, — is at the same 
 time by its very derivation a positive name, expressing that 
 which is the most blessed of boons to man. Light ; whereas 
 Utiknoivable js a name merely negative. And no man could 
 ever have cared anything about God in so far as he is 
 simply unknowable. 'The unknowable is our refuge and 
 strength, a very present help in trouble,' is what would 
 occur to no man to think or say. Men cared about God 
 for the sake of what they knew about him, not of what 
 ' Mr. R. A. Proctor, in the Contemporary Rniciv.
 
 xlvi PREFACE. 
 
 they did not. And they knew about him that he was the 
 Eternal not oursel\-e.s that makes for righteousness, and 
 as such they gave him that name for what gives hght and 
 warmth, God. It adds, indeed, to our awe of God that 
 although we are able to know of him what so greatly con- 
 cerns us, we know of him nothing more ; but simply to be 
 able to know nothing of him could beget in us no awe 
 whatever. 
 
 Finally, he who most seizes the real s'gnificance of the 
 Bible and of Jesus, will be least disposed to cut himself 
 off in religion from his fellow-men, to renounce all par- 
 ticipation in their religious language and worship. True, 
 this language is approximative merely while men imagine 
 it to be adequate ; it is thrown out at certain realities 
 which they very imperfectly comprehend. It is ma- 
 terialised poetry, which they give as science ; and there 
 can be no worse science than materialised poetry. But 
 poetry is essentially concrete ; and the moment one 
 perceives that the religious language of the human race 
 is in truth poetry, which it mistakes for science, one 
 cannot make it an objection to this language that it is 
 concrete. That it has long moved and deeply engaged 
 the affections of men, that tlie Christian generations 
 before us have all passed that way, adds immensely to
 
 PREFACE. xlvii 
 
 its worth as poetry. As the CathoUc architecture, so the 
 CathoUc worship is hkely to survive and prevail, long after 
 the intellectual childishness of Catholic dogma, and the 
 political and social mischiefs of the Roman system, have 
 tired out men's patience with them. Catholic worship is 
 likely, however modified, to survive as the general wor- 
 ship of Christians, because it is the worship which, in a 
 sphere where poetry is pemiissible and natural, unites 
 the most of the elements of poetry. 
 
 Everything turns on its being at realities that this worship 
 
 and its language are aimed. Its anthropomorphic language 
 
 about God is aimed at a vast, though ill-apprehended, 
 
 reality. So is its materialistic language about the death, 
 
 the rising again, and the reign of Christ. Eaur says that 
 
 the important thing is not whether Jesus really rose from 
 
 the dead or no ; the important thing is, Baur says, that his 
 
 disciples believed him to have risen. Mr. Appleton, in a 
 
 just and instructive review of the labours of Strauss, invites 
 
 our approval for Strauss' early position that what is best 
 
 in Christianity was not due to the individual Jesus, but 
 
 was developed by the religious consciousness of liumanity. 
 
 But the religious consciousness of humanity has produced 
 
 in Christianity not ideas, but imaginations ; and it is 
 
 ideas, not imaginations, which endure. The religious
 
 xlviii PREFACE. 
 
 4 
 
 consciousness of humanity produced the doctrines of the 
 Incarnation and of the Real Presence, — beautiful imagi- 
 nations, but if Christianity depended upon them it would 
 dissolve. It will live, because it depends upon a true 
 and inexhaustibly fruitful idea, the idea of death and 
 resurrection as conceived and worked out by Jesus. 
 Baptized into Clwisfs death, if by any means ice might 
 attain to the res nnrction from the dead,^ is the true, the just, 
 the only adequate account of a Christian and his religion. 
 The importance of the disciples' belief in their Master's 
 resurrection lay in their believing what was true, although 
 they materialised it. Jesus had died and risen again, 
 but in his own sense not theirs. The strength of the 
 Christian religion lies in its being founded on a truth ; on a 
 truth which hitherto Christendom has been able to appre- 
 hend only by materialising it, but which it will one day 
 apprehend better, and which men could come to appre- 
 hend better only by passing through a materialistic stage. 
 We can use their language because it is thrown out at an 
 admirable truth ; only it is not, as they suppose, their 
 sense for their own language which is real while our 
 sense is figurative, but it is our sense which is real, and 
 theirs is merely figurative. 
 
 ' Romans, vi., 3; Philippians, iii. 11.
 
 PREFACE. xlix 
 
 The freethinking of one age is the common-sense of 
 the next, and the Christian world will certainly learn to 
 transform beliefs which it now tliinks to be untrans- 
 formable. The way will be found. And the new Chris- 
 tianity will call forth more effort in the individual who 
 uses it than the old, will require more open and instructed 
 minds for its reception ; and this is progress. But we 
 live at the beginning of a great transition which cannot 
 well be accomplished without confusion and distress. I 
 do not pretend to operate a general change of religious 
 opinion, such as can only come to pass through the opera- 
 tion of many labourers working, all of them, towards a like 
 end, and by the instrumentality, in a very considerable 
 degree, of the clergy. One man's life, what is it? says 
 Goethe ; but even one man in his short temi may do some- 
 thing to ease a severe transition, to diminish violent shocks 
 in it and bitter pain. With this end in view, I have ad- 
 dressed myself to men such as are happily not rare in this 
 country, men of free and acti\'e minds, who, though they 
 may be profoundly dissatisfied with the received theolog}', 
 are yet interested in religion and more or less acquainted 
 with the Bible. These I have endeavoured to help ; and 
 they, if they are helped, will in their turn help others. To 
 one country and nation, and to one sort of persons in it, 
 
 c
 
 PREFACE. 
 
 and to one moment in its religious history, have I ad- 
 dressed myself; and if the attempt thus confessedly 
 partial has even a partial success, I am enough rewarded. 
 May even that partial success be looked for ? A calmer 
 and a more gradual judgment than that of the immediate 
 present will decide. But however that judgment may go, 
 whether it pronounce the attempt here made to be of solid 
 worth or not, I have little fear but that it will recognise 
 it to have been an attempt conservative, and an attempt 
 religious.
 
 CONTENTS. 
 
 Introduction 
 
 I'AGB 
 I 
 
 CHAPTER 
 
 I. The God of Miracles 26 
 
 II. The God of Metaphysics 
 
 III. The God of Experience 
 
 IV. The Bible-Canon 
 
 V. The Fourth Gospel from Without 
 
 VI. The Fourth Gospel from Within 
 
 Conclusion 
 
 58 
 
 III 
 
 167 
 
 226 
 
 281 
 
 383
 
 GOD AND THE BIBLE. 
 
 INTRO D UCTION. 
 
 Modern scepticism will not allow us to rely either 
 on the Epistle of Polycarp, or on the narrative of his 
 martyrdom, as certainly authentic. Nevertheless, a 
 saying from the latter we will venture to use. As 
 Polycarp stood in the amphitheatre at Smyrna just be- 
 fore his martyrdom, with the heathen multitude around 
 crying out against him as an atheistical innovator, the 
 Roman proconsul, pitying his great age, begged him to 
 pronounce the formulas which expressed adherence to 
 the popular religion and abhorrence of Christianity. 
 ' Swear,' said he, ' by the fortune of Caesar ; cry : Away 
 luith the atheists r Whereupon Polycarp, says the letter 
 of the Church of Smyrna which relates his martyrdom, 
 looking round with a severe countenance upon the 
 heathen clamourers who filled the amphitheatre, pointed 
 to these with his hand, and with a groan, and casting 
 
 ;;
 
 COD AND THE BIBLE. 
 
 up his eyes to heaven, cried : ' Away with the atheists!' 
 This did not give satisfaction, and Polycarp was burnt. 
 
 Yet so completely has the so-called atheism of Poly- 
 carp prevailed, that we are almost puzzled at finding it 
 called atheism by the popular religion of its own day, 
 by the worshippers of Jupiter and Cybele, of Rome 
 and the fortune of Caesar. On the other hand, Poly- 
 carp's retort upon these worshippers, his flinging back 
 upon their religion the name of atheism, seems to us 
 the nsiost natural thing in the world. And so most cer- 
 tainly will it be with the popular religion of our own day. 
 Confident in its traditions and imaginations, this religion 
 now cries out against those who pronounce them vain : 
 Away with the atheists! just as the heathen populace of 
 Asia cried out against Polycarp. With a groan, and 
 casting up his eyes to heaven, the critic thus execrated 
 might well, like Polycarp, point to his execrators and 
 etort : Away with the atheists ! So deeply unsound 
 is the mass of traditions and imaginations of which 
 popular religion consists, so gross a distortion and 
 caricature of the true religion does it present, that 
 future times will hardly comprehend its audacity in 
 calling those who abjure it atheists; while its being 
 stigmatised itself with this hard name will astonish 
 no one. 
 
 A
 
 INTRODUCTION. 
 
 Let us who criticise the popular theology, however, 
 show a moderation of which our adversaries do not always 
 set us the example. We may not indeed, like the Times 
 newspaper, call this established theology • an English, a 
 Protestant, and a reasonable religion.' But let" us never 
 forget that it professes, as we ourselves have again and 
 again repeated, along with all its pseudo-science and 
 all its popular legend, the main doctrine of the Bible : 
 the pre-eminence of righteousness and the method and A 
 secret of Jesus; — professes it and in some degree uses y 
 it. Let us never forget that our quarrel with its pseudo- 
 science and its popular legend is because they endanger * 
 this main doctrine, this saving truth, on Avhich our 
 popular religion has in some degree hold. Let us 
 gladly admit that the advance of time and of know- 
 ledge has even begun to shake the overweening confidence 
 of our established theology in its own pseudo-science 
 and popular legend, and that its replies to the impugner 
 of them, if still too apt to be intemperate, are yet fast 
 freeing themselves from the insolence and invective of 
 thirty years ago. The strictures on Literature and 
 Dogtna have certainly not been mild ; yet, on the 
 whole, their moderation has surprised me. An excep- 
 tion ought to be made, perhaps, for the Dub/in Rrvicw. 
 But an Englishman should always ask himself with 
 
 B 2
 
 GOD AND THE BIBLE. 
 
 shame : If Irish Cathohcism is provincial in its vio- 
 lence and virulence, whose fault is it ? 
 
 To retort, therefore, upon those who have attacked 
 Literature and Dogma as anti-christian and anti- 
 religious, to recapitulate their hard words and to 
 give them hard words in return, is not our intention. 
 It is necessary, indeed, to mark firmly and clearly 
 that from our criticism of their theology, — that gro- 
 tesque mixture, as we have called it, of learned pseudo- 
 science with popular legend, — their outcry does not 
 make us go back one inch ; that it is they who in our 
 judgment owe an apology to Christianity and to religion, 
 not we. But when this has once been clearly marked, 
 our business with our assailants is over. Our business 
 is henceforth not with them, but with those for whose 
 sake Literature and Dogma w-as written. 
 
 These alone we have in view in noticing criticisms of 
 that book, whatever may be their nature. And there 
 have appeared criticisms of it very different from those 
 blind and angry denunciations of which we have 
 spoken, those denunciations from the point of view of 
 popular and official theology. There have been criti- 
 cisms deserving, some of them, our high respect ; others, 
 not our high respect only, but our warm gratitude 
 also ; all of them, our careful attention. Em inetUly -^.
 
 INTRODUCTION. 
 
 of this sort were the criticisms by Mr. Llewellyn Davies 
 in the Contemporary Ranew, by Professor Rauwenhoff in 
 the Theological Review of Leyden, by M. Albert Rcville 
 Uijhe Academy, by M, Charles Secrs^tan in the Swiss 
 Review. But nothing is more tiresome to the public 
 than an author's set vindication of his work and reply 
 to his critics, however worthy they may be of attention; 
 and certainly nothing of this kind should we think of 
 proposing to ourselves. To weigh what his critics say, 
 to profit by it to the best of his judgment, and either 
 to amend or to maintain his work according to his final 
 conviction, is the right course for a criticised author to 
 follow. It is all that the public want him to do, and all 
 that we should in general wish to do ourselves. 
 
 .But let us recall the object for which Liicraiure ana^ 
 Dogma was written. It j oraa^ written in order to win 
 acces s for the Bible and its religion to many of those N 
 jSiJlO now neglect them. It was written to restore the 
 use of the Bible to those (and they are an increasing 
 number) whom the popular theology with its proof from 
 miracles, and the learned theology with its proof from 
 metaphysics, so dissatisfy and repel that they are 
 tempted to throw aside the Bible altogether. It was 
 written to convince such persons that they cannot 
 do without the Bible, that the popular theology and
 
 GOD AND THE BIBLE. 
 
 \ 
 
 the learned theology are alike formed upon a profound 
 misapprehension of the Bible ; but that, when the 
 Bible is read aright, it will be found to deal, in a way 
 incomparable for effectiveness, with facts of experience 
 most pressing, momentous, and real. 
 
 This conviction of the indispensableness of the Bible, 
 which in Lite?-aiure and Dogma we sought to impart to 
 others, we ourselves had and have. In England the 
 conviction has long prevailed and been nearly universal, 
 but there are now signs of its being shaken. To main- 
 tain it, to make it continue to prevail, to hinder its 
 giving way and dying out, is our object. It seemed to 
 us that the great danger to the Bible at present arises 
 from the assumption that whoever receives the Bible 
 must set out with admitting certain propositions, such as 
 the existence of a personal God, the consubstantiality 
 of Jesus Christ with this personal God who is his 
 Father, the miraculous birth, resurrection, and ascension 
 of Jesus. Now, the nature of these propositions is such 
 that we cannot possibly verify them. It seemed to us 
 that with the uninstructed or ill-instructed masses ot 
 our people this obstacle to the Bible's reception, which 
 for a long time was an obstacle not existent for them at 
 all, is, as things now stand, an obstacle almost insuper- 
 able. Therefore we sought and seek to show that the
 
 INTRODUCTION. 
 
 .Bible J_s really based upon propositions which all can 
 ilfijiiy- 
 
 It is true, some deny that there exists the danger 
 which we apprehend for the Bible. The masses, say 
 they, the working men, are not hard-headed, reasoning 
 people at all ; they are eminently people led by their 
 feelings and passions. Yes, led by their feelings and 
 passions towards what flatters their feelings and passions ; 
 but religion and the Bible do not flatter their feelings 
 and passions. Towards religion and the Bible, which 
 fill them with superstitious awe no longer, but which 
 claim to check and control their feelings and passions, 
 they have plenty of suspiciousness, incredulity, hard- 
 headed common-sense to oppose. At most, they will 
 make religion into something which flatters their feelings 
 and passions. Thus one hears from those who know 
 them, and one can see from their newspapers, that many 
 of them have embraced a kind of revolutionary Deism, 
 hostile to all which is old, traditional, established and 
 secure ; favourable to a clean sweep and a new stage, 
 with the classes now in the background for chief actors. 
 There is much to make the political Dissenters, on their 
 part, fall in with this sort of religion, inasmuch as many 
 of its ends are theirs too. And we see that they do 
 incline to fall in with it, and to try to use it.
 
 GOD AND THE BIBLE. 
 
 A revolutionary Deism of this kind may grow, not 
 improbably, into a considerable power amongst us ; so 
 habituated are the people of this country to religion, and 
 so strongly does their being vibrate to its language and 
 excitements. The God of this religion of the future will 
 be still a magnified and non-natural man indeed, but by no 
 means the magnified and non-natural man of our religion 
 as now current. He may be best conceived, perhaps, as 
 a kind of tribal God of the Birmingham League. Not by 
 any means a Dicu des Bonnes Gens, like the God of 
 Beranger, a God who favours garrets, grisettes, gaiety, 
 and champagne ; but a Dieu des Quatre Liberth, the God 
 of Free Trade, Free Church, Free Labour, and Free 
 Land ; — with a new programme, therefore, and with Bir- 
 mingham for his earthly head-quarters instead of Shiloh 
 or Jerusalem, but with the old turn still preserved for 
 commanding to hew Agag in pieces, and with much even 
 of the Biblical worship and language still retained ; Mr. 
 Jesse Collings and Mr. Chamberlain dancing before his 
 ark, and Mr. Dale and Mr. George Dawson, in the 
 Birmingham Town-Hall, offering up prayer and sacrifice. 
 All this is possible, and perhaps not improbable. 
 
 But a revolutionary Deism, based on the supposed 
 rights of man and ardently destructive, is not the real 
 religion of the Bible. It will fail ; and its failure, the
 
 INTRODUCTION. 
 
 failure of that attempted application of the Bible which 
 made the Bible flatter their feelings and passions, will 
 discredit the Bible with the masses more than ever, will 
 make them more than ever confront it with a suspicious- 
 ness, a hard incredulity, which take nothing upon trust. 
 And fail the application must, for it is just one of 
 those attempts at religion, at setting up something as 
 righteousness which is not, that inevitably as often as we 
 try them break down, and that by breaking down prove 
 the grandeur and necessity of true religion, and testify 
 to what it is. Nothing but righteousness will succeed, 
 and nothing is righteousness but the method and secret 
 and sweet reasonableness of Jesus Christ. But thesei 
 have nothing to do with the gospel of the rights of man,! v 
 of the natural claim of every man to a certain share of | 
 enjoyment. Political science may create rights for a 
 man and maintain them, may seek to apportion the 
 means of enjoyment. Such is not the function of 
 the Christian religion. Man sincere, man before con- 
 science, man as Jesus put him, finds laid down for 
 himself no rights ; nothing but an infinite dying, and 
 in that dying is life. / 
 
 We persevere therefore in thinking, both that danger, 
 whether from active hostility or from passive indifference, 
 to the continued authority and almost universal use of
 
 lo GOD AND THE BIBLE. 
 
 \ 
 
 the Bible in this country there is ; and also that the 
 only safe way of meeting this danger is to find, as 
 grounds for men's continued veneration and use of the 
 Bi])le, propositions which can be verified and which are 
 unassailable. This, then, has been our object : to find 
 sure and safe grounds for the continued use and 
 authority of the Bible. 
 
 It will at once be evident how different a design is 
 this, and how much humbler and more limited, from 
 that of those Liberal philosophers whose design is in 
 general to discover and to lay down truth, as (after 
 Pilate) ' they call it. For we start with admitting that 
 truth,, so far at least as religion is concerned, is to be 
 found in the Bible, and what we seek is, that the Bible 
 may be used and enjoyed. All disquisitions about the 
 Bible seem to us to be faulty and even ridiculous which 
 have for their result that the Bible is less felt, followed, 
 and enjoyed after them than it was before them. The 
 
 •See John, xviii, 37. Pilate asks Jesus : 'Art thou a king?' 
 Jesus answers : ' Yes, I am a king ; a king of whom all who love 
 the truth are the subjects.* Jesus says, ^the truth.' He means the 
 doctrine of righteousness as set forth in the Old Testament first, and 
 then interpreted and developed by himself. Pilate catches at the 
 word truth ; takes it (as if he had been a member of the British 
 Association) in the sense oi universal kncndedge ; drops the article, 
 and asks his disconsolate question : ' What is truth ? '
 
 INTRODUCTION. n 
 
 Bible is in men's hands to be felt, followed, and enjoyed ; 
 this conviction we set out with. Men's instinct for self- 
 preservation and happiness guided them to the Bible ; 
 now, it is of the essence of what gives safety and 
 happiness to produce enjoyment and to exercise influence. 
 And the Bible has long been enjoyed and enjoyed 
 deeply ; its summons to lay hold of eternal life, to seek the 
 kingdom of God, has been a trumpet-call bringing life and 
 joy to thousands. They have regarded the Bible as a 
 source of life and joy, and they were right in so regarding 
 it ; we \vish them to be able so to regard it still. All that 
 we may say about the Bible we confess to be a failure, . 
 if it does not lead people to find the Bible a source of ^ 
 life and joy still. 
 
 Liberal philosophers reproach us with treating the 
 Bible like an advocate ; with assuming that Israel had a 
 revelation of extraordinary grandeur, that Jesus Christ 
 said wonderfully profound things, and that the records 
 of all this are something incomparably delightful and 
 precious. Now, we say that no inquiries about the 
 Bible can be fruitful that are not filled with a sense 
 of all this, which Christendom has always felt and 
 rightly felt, only it has justified its feelings on wrong 
 grounds. But Liberal investigators of truth think, some^ 
 of thorn, that the Bible often offends against morality,
 
 f2 COD AND THE BIBLE. 
 
 and at its best only utters in an old-fashioned and 
 inefitective way the commonplaces of morality which 
 belong to all ethical systems ; therefore, say they, the 
 
 .Bible had better be dropped, and we should try 
 to enounce in modern congenial language the new 
 doctrines which will satisfy at once our reason and 
 ^OVLX imagination. Other investigators of truth destroy to 
 the best of their ability all the grounds on which people 
 have accustomed themselves to receive the Bible as 
 something divine and precious : and then they think to 
 save everything by a few words of general respect and 
 esteem for the Bible, or for religion in the abstract. 
 Their negative criticism has great fulness, ardour, and 
 effect; their positive commendation of the Bible or 
 
 \ religion is such as to have no effect at all. It was this 
 which we blamed in the Bishop of Natal's treatment 
 of the Bible, now several years ago. We have no wish 
 to revive a past controversy ; but we thought then, and 
 we think still, that it was a signal fault in Dr. Colenso's 
 book that it cut away men's usual ground for their 
 religion and supplied really no other in its place ; — for 
 his prayer of Ram, and his passage from Cicero's Offices, 
 and his own sermon, we must be permitted to regard 
 as being, under the circumstances, quite comically 
 insufficient. Mr. Greg, who took up arms for Dr.
 
 INTRODUCTION. 13 
 
 Colenso, did not understand this ; he does not under- 
 stand it now. And no wonder ; for his own original 
 book on the Creed of Christendom, acute and eloquent 
 as his writing often is, had on the whole the same fault 
 as Dr. Colenso's work. The upshot of the matter, after 
 reading him, seemed to be that the Bible was a docu- 
 ment hopelessly damaged, and that the new doctrines 
 which are to satisfy our reason and our imagination must 
 be sought elsewhere. 
 
 The same is to be said of a very learned and exact 
 book which has appeared lately, having for its title 
 Supernatural Religion. Hereafter we shall have occa- 
 sion to criticise several things in this work, but we now 
 will remark of it only that it has the fault of leaving the 
 reader, when he closes it, with the feeling that the Bible 
 stands before him like a fair tree all stripped, torn, and 
 defaced, not at all like a tree whose leaves are for the 
 healing of the nations. No doubt this is not the author's 
 design, and no doubt the current notions assailed by 
 him, the popular view of the Bible-books and of their 
 composition, are full of error. But attacking these 
 throughout two thick volumes with untiring vigour and 
 industry, and doing nothing more, he simply leaves the 
 ordinary reader, to whom tlie Bible has been the great, 
 often the only, inspirer of his conduct, his imagination,
 
 14 GOD AND THE BIBLE 
 
 his feelings, — he leaves him with the sense that he sees 
 his Bible with a thousand holes picked in it and fatally 
 discredited as an authority. 
 
 These investigators go upon the supposition that a 
 man's first concern is to know truths and that to 
 know truth about the Bible is to know that much 
 of it is legendary and much of it of uncertain author- 
 ship. We say, on the other hand, that no one knows 
 the truth about the Bible who does not know how to 
 enjoy the Bible; and he who takes legend for history 
 and who imagines Moses or Isaiah or David or Paul or 
 Peter or John to have written Bible-books which they 
 did not write, but who knows how to enjoy the Bible 
 deeply, is nearer the truth about the Bible than the man 
 who can pick it all to pieces but who cannot enjoy it. 
 
 Perhaps, however, we ought to say that the author of 
 Supernatural Religion, like Dr. Colenso, tries to provide 
 a substitute for what he destroys. After declaring that 
 ' there is little indeed in the history and actual achieve- 
 ments of Christianity to support the claim made on its 
 behalf to the character of a scheme divinely revealed for 
 the salvation of the human race,' he tells us that after 
 getting rid of Jewish mythology * we rise to higher con- 
 ceptions of an infinitely wise and beneficent Being,' 
 that 'all that we do know of the regulation of the
 
 INTRODUCTION. 15 
 
 universe being so perfect and wise, all th^t we do not 
 know must be equally so,' and that *Jier£_aiters-lheJrue' t rujL/A^ '^ 
 anijioblc faith which is the child of Reason.' Alas, 
 for pur part we should say rather : ' Here enter the poor />?>./ lJ 
 old^dead horses of so-called natural theology, with their 
 galvanic movements ! ' But this is our author's prayer 
 of Ram, his passage from Cicero's Offices, his sermon ; 
 and he promises us, so far as we understand him, more 
 at a future time in the same style. We say that it is 
 ludicrously msuflficient, all of it, to fill the place of that 
 old belief in Christianity's claim to the character of a 
 scheme divinely revealed for the salvation of the human 
 race, which he seeks to expel. We say it is a string 
 of platitudes, without the power of awakening religious 
 emotion and joy, and not a whit more proveable, more- 
 over, as scientific fact, than the miracle of the resurrec- 
 tion, or the Johannine authorship of the Fourth Gospel. 
 We, on the other hand, think that there is everything 
 in the history and actual achievements of Christianity to / 
 support its claim to the character of a religion divinely ^ 
 revealed for the salvation of the human race. We look 
 with apprehension on all that diminishes men's attach- 
 ment to the Bible. But that the Bible is not what men 
 have fancied it, and that to be divinely revealed is not 
 what men have supposed, time and experience are begin-
 
 i6 GOD AND THE BIBLE. 
 
 ning to bear in upon the human mind. Many resist 
 vehemently these intimations from time and experience 
 This resistance we beUeve to be utterly vain. ^^ e counsel 
 men to accept them, but we seek to show that the Bible 
 and the Christian religion subsist, all the while, as salu- 
 tary, as necessary, as they ever were supposed to be; 
 and that they now come out far more real, and therefore 
 far more truly grand, than before. 
 
 Our adversaries will say, perhaps, that this attempted 
 demonstration is our prayer of Ram. And the test of our 
 work does really lie here. If the positive side in Litera- 
 ture and Dogma, if its attempt to recommend the Bible, 
 to awaken enthusiasm for the Bible, on new grounds, 
 proves ludicrously insufficient, weak and vain ; if its nega- 
 tive side, its attempt to apply to popular religion the con- 
 futations and denials which time and experience suggest, 
 proves the more prominent, the only operative one, — if 
 this is so, then our work is, by our own confession and 
 with our own consent, judged ; it is valueless, perhaps 
 mischievous. We can scarcely, however, be expected 
 ourselves to admit that this is already proved. The time 
 for the book's wide working, as we said on first publishing 
 it, has hardly yet fully come. At its first appearance it 
 was sure to be laid hold of by those for whom it was not 
 written, by the religious world as it is called, the unhesi-
 
 INTRODUCTION. 17 
 
 tating recipients of the Christianity popularly current, and 
 to occasion scandal. But it was not written for those who 
 at present receive the Bible on the grounds supplied 
 either by popular or by metaphysical theology. 1 1 was 
 written for those who from dissatisfaction with such grounds 
 for the Bible are inclined to throw the Bible aside. 
 
 Into the hands of not a few readers of this sort the 
 book has fallen, both here and abroad, and they have 
 found it of service to them. They have been enabled 
 by it to use and enjoy the Bible, when the common 
 theology, popular or learned, had almost estranged them 
 from it. But many and grave objections have been 
 alleged against the book which has done them this ser- 
 vice. Its cori clusjons about the meaning of the term 
 God^ and about man's knowledge of God, have been 
 severely condemned; strong objections have been taken 
 to our view of the Bible-documents in general, to our 
 account of the Canon of the Gospels, to our estimate of 
 the Fourth Gospel. What are the readers who believed 
 they had derived benefit from our book to think of these 
 objections to it, or at least of the more important among 
 them ? what weight are they to attach to them ? Are 
 they to go back from the way of reading and interpreting 
 the Bible which we had counselled them to follow, and 
 which they had begun to find profit in, or are they to
 
 1 8 GOD AND THE BIBLE. 
 
 pursue it steadfastly ? Puzzled and shaken by some of 
 the objections we may suppose them to be ; and yet, if 
 they give ear to the objections, if they do not get the 
 better of them and put them aside, they will lose, we 
 believe, all sure hold on the Bible, they will be more and 
 more baffled, distressed, and bewildered in their dealings 
 with religion. To the extent, therefore, necessary for 
 enabling such readers to surmount their difficulties, we 
 propose to deal with the reproaches and objections 
 brought against Literature and Dogma. 
 
 / But first there is one reproach to be noticed, not so 
 much for the reader's sake as for our own : the reproach 
 I of irreverent language, of improper and offensive per- 
 i sonalities. The parable of the three Lord Shaftesburys, 
 the frequent use of the names of the Bishops of Win- 
 chester and Gloucester to point a moral, — every one 
 will remember to have heard of these as serious 
 blemishes in Literature and Dogma. To have wounded 
 the feelings of the religious community by turning into 
 ridicule an august doctrine, the object of their solemn 
 faith ; to have wounded the feelings of individuals either 
 by the wanton introduction of their names in a con- 
 nexion sure to be unpleasing to them, or else by offen-
 
 AJLaJx'v^C.^' I'y, 
 
 u- 
 
 INTRODUCTION. 19 
 
 sive ridicule and persistent personal attack, is a crime 
 of which the majority of English reviewers have found 
 us plainly guilty, and for which they have indignantly 
 censured us. The Guardian has even been led by our 
 mention of the Archbishop of York, and by our remarks 
 on the Bishops of Winchester and Gloucester, to con- 
 clude that the order of bishops has upon us the effect 
 of a red rag upon a bull, and that we cannot contemplate 
 it without becoming infuriated. A word of notice these 
 censures seem to demand. 
 
 As regards the three Lord Shaftesburys, we say boldly 
 that our use of that parable shows our indulgence to 
 popular Christianity. Polycarp sternly called the dis- 
 figured religion he saw prevalent around him, atheism. 
 ii^have-said, and it is important to maintain it, that 
 jopulat. Christianity at present is so wide of the truth, 
 is such a disfigurement of the truth, that it fairly 
 deserves, if it presumes to charge others with- atheism, 
 to have that charge retorted upon itself; and future 
 ages will perhaps not scruple to condemn it almost 
 as mercilessly as Polycarp condemned the religion 
 of heathen antiquity. P'or us, the God of popular 
 religion is a legend, a fairy-tale ; learned theology has 
 simply taken this fairy-tale and dressed it meta- 
 physically. Clearly it is impossible for us to treat this /
 
 23 GOD AND THE BIBLE. 
 
 fairy-tale with solemnity, as a real and august object, 
 in the manner which might be most acceptable to its 
 believers. But for the sake of the happiness it has 
 given, of its beauty and pathos, and of the portions of 
 truth mixed up with it, it deserves, we have said, and 
 from us it has received and always will receive, a nearly 
 inexhaustible indulgence. Not only have we not called 
 it atheism ; we have entirely refused to join our Liberal 
 friends in calling it a degrading superstition. Describing 
 it under the parable of the three Lord Shaftesburys, we 
 have pointed out that it has in it, as thus represented, 
 nothing which can be called a degrading superstition; 
 that it contains, on tlie contrar}', like other geiiuine 
 products of the popular imagination, elements of admi- 
 rable pathos and power. More we could not say of it 
 without admitting that it was not a legend or fairy-tale 
 at all, and that its personages were not magnified and 
 non-natural men. But tliis we cannot admit, although 
 of course its adherents will be satisfied with nothing less. 
 It was our object to carry well home to the reader's 
 mind what a fairy-tale popular Christianity really is, 
 what a trio of magnified and non-natural men is its 
 Trinity. The indulgence, however, due from us to 
 popular Christianity has been shown, if we have ad- 
 mitted that its fairy-tale, far from being a degraded
 
 INTRODUCTION. 
 
 superstition, is full of beauty and power, and that its 
 divinities are magnifications of nothing unworthy, but of 
 a sort of character of which we have an eminent example 
 amongst ourselves, in a man widely beloved and re- 
 spected, and whom no one respects more than we do. 
 
 As to the bishops, v/hose sacred order is supposed to 
 fill us with rage and hatred, it must be modern bishops 
 that have this effect, for several bishops of past times 
 are mentioned in Literature ami Dogma with vene- 
 ration. Of three modern bishops, however, the deliver- 
 ances are criticised : of the Archbishop of York, the late 
 Bishop of Winchester, and the Bishop of Gloucester 
 and Bristol. But the deliverances of all the three are 
 by no means criticised in the same manner. Logical 
 and metaphysical reasonings about essence, existence, 
 identity, cause, design, have from all time been freely 
 used to establish truths in theology. The Archbishop 
 of York early acquired distinction in the study of logic ; 
 that he should follow in theological discussion a line of 
 which St. Ansclm, Descartes, Leibnitz, and Locke have 
 set him the example, is a matter neither for surprise nor 
 for ridicule. Certainly we hold that this line can lead in 
 theology to nothing but perplexity and disappointment. 
 We believe that religion could never have been origin- 
 ated by it, can never be contirmcd by it. We say this
 
 22 COD AND THE BIBLE. 
 
 freely when we see the Archbishop of York adopting it. 
 But we say it without a thought of ridicule or disrespect 
 towards the Archbishop of York, either for his adoption 
 of such a h'ne of argument, or for his management of the 
 line of argument which he has thus chosen to employ 
 
 The case is different with regard to that brilliant and 
 well-known personage, who since the publication of 
 Literature and Dogtfia has passed away from amongst 
 us. We feel more restraint in speaking of the late 
 Bishop of Winchester now that he is dead than we 
 should have felt in speaking of him in his lifetime. He 
 was a man with the temperament of genius ; and to 
 his energy, his presence, his speech, this tempera- 
 ment could often lend charm and power. But those 
 words of his which we quoted, and his public de- 
 liverances far too frequently, had a fault which in 
 men of station and authority who address a society 
 like ours, deserve at all times as severe a check as 
 either blame or ridicule can inflict upon them. To 
 a society like ours, a society self-regvilating, which 
 reads little that is serious and reflects hardly at all, 
 but which desires to pursue its way comfortably and 
 to think that it has in its customary notions and 
 beliefs about religion, whenever it may be driven to 
 fall back upon them, an impregnable stronghold to
 
 INTRODUCTION. 23 
 
 which it can always resort ; to such a society men of 
 eminence cannot do a worse service than to confirm 
 and encourage it, with airs of superior knowledge, 
 profound certainty, and oracular assurance, in its 
 illusion. A man of Bishop Wilberforce's power of 
 mind must know, if he is sincere with himself, that 
 when he talks of ' doing something for the honour of 
 Our Lord's Godhead,' or of 'that infinite separation for 
 time and for eternity which is involved in rejecting the 
 Godhead of the Eternal Son,' — he must know that by 
 this singular sort of mixture of unction and metaphysics 
 he is solemnly giving a semblance of conceivability, 
 fixity, and certainty to notions which do not possibly 
 admit of them. He must know this, and yet he gives it, 
 because it suits his purpose, or because the public, or a 
 large body of the public, desire it ; and this is claptrap. 
 The Times, it is true, speaks of the current Christianity 
 of this country as 'an English, a Protestant, and a 
 reasonable religion.' The Times, however, is a popular 
 newspaper ; and the public, when it reads there things 
 which suit its wishes, is always half-conscious at 
 least that to suit its wishes they are written. But 
 the late Bishop of Winchester was a man in high 
 office and dignity, a man at the same time of great 
 gifts; he spoke to the English public with authority.
 
 24- GOD AND THE BIBLE. 
 
 and with responsibility proportionate to that authority ; 
 yet he freely permitted himself the use of claptrap. 
 The use of claptrap to such a public by such a 
 man ought at least to be always severely treated before 
 the tribunal of letters and science, for it will be treated 
 severely nowhere else. Bishop Wilberforce was a man 
 of a sympathetic temper, a dash of genius, a gift of 
 speech, and ardent energy, who professed to be a 
 guide in a time, a society, a sphere of thought, 
 where the first requisite for a guide is perfect sin- 
 cerity; — and he was signally addicted to claptrap. 
 If by ridicule or by blame we have done anything 
 to discredit a line such as that which he adopted, 
 we cannot regret it. Those who use claptrap as the 
 late Bishop of Winchester used it, those who can en- 
 thusiastically extol him as an ideal bishop, only prove 
 their valuelessness for the religious crisis upon which 
 we are now entering. No talents and acquirements 
 can serve in this crisis without an absolute renun- 
 ciation of claptrap. Those who cannot attain to this 
 have no part in the future which is before us. Real 
 insight and real progress are impossible for them ; 
 Jesus would have said of them : T7iey cannot enter 
 into the hingdo7n of God. 
 
 With regard to the Bishop of Gloucester and
 
 INTRODUCTION. 52 
 
 Bristol, we feel an esteem for him as one of the 
 very few public men who in any degree carry on 
 serious studies after having left the University. But 
 he certainly joined himself with the Bishop of Win- 
 chester in holding the language on which we have 
 animadverted above, and he laid himself open, there- 
 fore, to the same criticism. 
 
 Perhaps we ought, finally, to say one word of a 
 remark concerning the late Mr. Maurice, which has 
 given great umbrage to some of his friends. We 
 cannot say that anything IMr. Maurice touched seems 
 to us to have been grasped and presented by him with 
 enough distinctness to give it a permanent value. But 
 his was a pure and fine spirit, perpetually in a state of 
 ferment and agitation. On many young men of ability, 
 agitated by the unsettled mental atmosphere in which 
 we live, he e.xercised a great attraction. Some of them 
 have cleared themselves; and as they cleared themselves 
 they have come to regard Mr. Maurice as the author of 
 all the convictions in which after their ferment and 
 struggle they have found rest. This is generous in them, 
 and we say with pleasure that to Mr. Maurice it does 
 honour to have made such disciples. 
 
 And now we have done with these personal matters, 
 and can address ourselves to our main purpose.
 
 26 
 
 / 
 
 CHAPTER I. 
 
 THE GOD OF MIRACLES. 
 
 To people disposed to throw the Bible aside Litera- 
 ture and Dogma sought to restore the use of it Jay 
 two considerations : one, that the Bible requires for 
 its basis nothing but what they can verify ; the other, 
 that the language of the Bible is not scientific, but lite- 
 rary. That is, it is the language of poetry and emotion, 
 approximate language thrown out, as it were, at certain 
 great objects which the human mind augurs and feels 
 after, and thrown out by men very liable, many of 
 \^them, to delusion and error. This has been violently 
 impugned. What we have now to do, therefore, is 
 to ask whoever thought he found profit from what we 
 said, to examine with us whether it has been im- 
 pugned successfully; whether he and we ought to give 
 it up, or whether we ought to hold by it firmly and 
 hopefully still. 
 
 First and foremost has been impugned the definition 
 which, proceeding on the rule to take nothing as a
 
 THE GOD OF MIRACLES. 27 
 
 basis for ihe Bible but what can be verified, we gave 
 of God. And of this we certainly cannot complain. 
 For we have ourselves said, that without a clear under- 
 standing in what sense this important but ambiguous 
 term 6^1?^/ is used, all fniitful discussion in theology is 
 impossible. And yet, in theological discussion, this 
 clear understanding is hardly ever cared for, but people 
 assume that the sense of the term is something perfectly 
 well known. ' .A p ersonal First Cause, that thinks and / Y'^^ 
 loves, the moral and mtelhgent governor of the 
 universe,' is the sense which theologians in general 
 assume to be the meaning, properly drawn out and 
 strictly worded, of the term God. We say that by 
 this assumption a great deal which cannot possibly be 
 verified is put into the word God ; and_ vv^e propose, 
 for the God of the Bible and of Christianity, a much 
 jess pretentious definition, but which has the advantage 
 o£_.CC>ntaining nothing that cannot be verified. The I 
 God of the Bible and of Christianity is, we say:..2/i^ I / 
 J^ternal, not ourselves, that makes for rigiiiiUiH^mss. ' 
 
 Almost with one voice our critics have expostulated 
 with us for refusing to admit what they call a personal 
 God. Nothing would be easier for us than, by availing 
 ourselves of the ambiguity natural to the use of the 
 term God, to give such a turn to our expressions as 
 
 J^\:
 
 :8 COD AND THE BIBLE. 
 
 might satisfy some of our critics, or might enable our 
 language to pass muster with the common religious 
 world as permissible. But this would be clean contrary 
 to our design. For we want to recommend the Bible 
 and its religion by showing that they rest on something 
 which can be verified. ^_ovVj_m the Bible God is 
 everything. Unless therefore we ascertain what it is 
 which we mean by God, and that what we mean 
 we can verify, we cannot recommend the Bible ^s 
 we desire. So against all ambiguity in the use of 
 this term we wage war. Mr. Llewellyn Davies says 
 that we ourselves admit that the most proper language 
 to use about God is the approximative language of 
 poetry and eloquence, language thrown out at an object 
 which it does not profess to define scientifically, lan- 
 guage which cannot, therefore, be adequate and accu- 
 rate. If Israel, then, might with propriety call God 
 ' the high and holy one that inhabiteth eternity,' why, 
 he asks, may not the Bishop of Gloucester with pro- 
 priety talk of ' the blessed truth that the God of 
 the universe is a person ' ? Neither the one expression 
 nor the other is adequate ; both are approximate. 
 We answer : Let it be understood, then, that when 
 the Bishop of Gloucester, or others, talk of the blessed 
 truth that the God of the universe is a person, they
 
 THE GOD OF MIRACLES. 29 
 
 mean to talk, not science, but rhetoric and poetry. 
 In tha t case our only criticism on their language will 
 be that it is bad rhetoric and poetry, whereas the 
 rhetoric and poetry of Israel is good. But the truth 
 is they mean it for science; they mean it for a more 
 close and precise account of what Israel called poeti- 
 cally ' the high and holy one that inhabiteth eternity ; ' 
 and it is false science because it assumes what it cannot 
 verify. However, if it is not meant for science, but 
 for poetry, let us treat it as poetry; and then it is 
 language not professing to be exact at all, and we 
 are free to use it or not to use it as our sense of 
 poetic propriety may dictate. But at all events let 
 us be clear about one thing : Is it meant for poetry, 
 or is it meant for science? 
 
 If we were asked what in our own opmion we had ^ 
 bv Literature and Dosma effected for the benefit 
 of readers of the Bible, we should answer that we i d - ■. 
 had effected two things above all. First, that we 
 had led the reader to face that primary question, so 
 habitually slurred over, what ' God ' means in the 
 Bible, and to see that it means the Eternal not our- 
 selves that makes for righteousness. S econdly , that we 
 had made him ask himself what is meant by 'winning 
 Christ.' ' knowing Christ,' * the excellencv of the know-
 
 30 GOD AND THE BIBLE. 
 
 ledge of Christ/ and find tliat it means laying hold of the 
 ^ n^ethod and secret of Jesus. And of these two things 
 / achieved by us, as we think, for the Bible-reader's 
 \l benefit, the first seems to us the more important. 
 Sooner or later he will find the Bible fail him, unless 
 he is provided with a sure meaning for the word ' God.' 
 Until this is done, and to keep steadily before his 
 mind how loosely he and others at present employ 
 the word, we even recommend him to allov/ to the word 
 no more contents than by its etymology it has, and 
 to render it ' The Shining.' Archbishop Whately blames 
 those who define words by their etymology, and ridi- 
 cules them as people who should insist upon it that 
 sycophant shall mean ' fig-shewer ' and nothing else. 
 But etymological definition, trifling and absurd when 
 a word's imported meaning is sure, becomes valuable 
 when the imported meaning is unfixed. There was 
 at Athens a practice, says Festus, of robbing the fig- 
 orchards ; a law was passed to check it ; under this law 
 vexatious informations were laid, and those who laid 
 them were called sycophants, fig-informers, or, if Arch- 
 bishop Whately pleases, fig-shewers. Then the name 
 was transferred to vexatious informers or to calumniators 
 generally, and at last to a cheating impostor of any sort. 
 The wider new meaning thus imported into the woid
 
 THE GOD OF MIRACLES. 31 
 
 was something quite clear, something on which all were 
 agreed ; and thenceforward to insist on limiting syco- 
 phant to its old etymological sense of fig-informer would 
 have been ridiculous. 
 
 But the case is different when the fuller meaning 
 imported into a word is something vague and loose, 
 something on which people are by no means agreed. 
 It is then often an excellent discipline to revert to the 
 etymology; and to insist on confining ourselves to the 
 sense given by this, until we get for our word a larger 
 sense clear and certain. ' The Shining is our hope 
 and strength.' 'O Shining, thou art my Shining, 
 early will I seek thee ! ' * My soul, wait thou only 
 upon The Shining, for my expectation is from him!' 
 'The fool hath said in his heart: There is no Shininir?" 
 This will not give us satisfiiction. But it will thereby 
 stimulate us all the more to find a meaning to the word 
 ' God ' that does give us satisfaction ; and it will keep 
 vivid in our minds the thought how little we ourselves 
 or others have such a meaning for the word at present. 
 
 Lord Lyttelton lately published in the Contemporary 
 Rci'iew a disquisition on ' Undogmatic and Un sectarian 
 Teaching,' which signally illustrates the utility of this 
 etymological discipline. Lord Lyttelton is very severe 
 
 » Ps. xlvi, I ; Ixiii, I ; Ixii, 5 ; xiv, I.
 
 32 GOD AND THE BIBLE. 
 
 upon those whom he calls ' the shallow sciolist.s and 
 apostles of modern Unsectarianism ; ' and very favour- 
 able to dogma, or the determined, decreed and received 
 doctrine of so-called orthodox theology. He draws out 
 a formal list of propositions beginning with : ' God is, God 
 made the world, God cares for men, God is the Father 
 of men,' and ending with : * The Deity of God is in one 
 sense One in another Threefold, God is One in Three 
 Persons.' He defies any one to show where in this list 
 that which is universal ends and that which is dogmatic 
 begins. And his inference apparently is, that therefore 
 the last propositions in the series may be freely taught. 
 But if he examines his thoughts with attention he will 
 find that he cannot tell where the character of his propo- 
 sitions changes because he has been using the word 
 ' God ' in the same sense all through the series. Now, 
 the sense given to this word governs the sense of each 
 and all of his propositions, but this sense he omits to 
 furnish us with. Until we have it, we may agree that his 
 latter propositions are dogmatic, but we cannot possibly 
 concede to him that his earlier propositions have uni- 
 versal validity. Yet the whole force of his series of 
 propositions, and of the argument which he founds upon 
 it, depends on this : whether his definition of God, which 
 he does not produce, is unchallengeable or no. Till he
 
 THE GOD OF MIRACLES. 33 
 
 produces it, his readers will really best enable themselves 
 to feel the true force of Lord Lyttelton's propositions by 
 substituting for the word God its strict etymological 
 equivalent Shining, — the only definition to which, until 
 the fuller definition is produced and made good, the 
 word has any right. The propositions will then run : 
 'The Shining is, The Shining made the world, The 
 Shining cares for men. The Shining is the Father of 
 men ;' and so on to the final proposition : ' The Shining is 
 One in Three Persons.' That entire inconclusiveness, of 
 which we are by these means made fully aware, exists 
 just as much in Lord Lyttelton's original propositions, 
 but without being noticed by himself or by most of his 
 readers. 
 
 Resolutely clear with himself, then, in using this word 
 ' God,' we urge our reader to be, whatever offence he 
 may give by it. AVhen he is asked in a tone of horrified 
 remonstrance whether he refuses to believe in a personal 
 God, let him steadily examine what it is that people say 
 about a personal God, and what grounds he has for 
 receiving it. People say that there is a personal God, 
 and that a personal God is a God who thinks and loves. 
 Tlial. there is an Eternal not ourselves which makes for 
 righteousness and is called God, is admitted \ and indtxd. 
 so mu ch as tliis human experience proves. For the 
 
 D
 
 34 GOD AND THE BIBLE. 
 
 ia 
 
 ! 
 
 constitution and history of things show us that happi- 
 ness, at which we all aim, is dependent on righteous- 
 ness. Yet certainly we did not make this to be so, 
 nd it did not begin when we began, nor does it end 
 jwhen we end, but is, so far as we can see, an eternal ten- 
 dency outside us, prevailing whether we will or no, whether 
 *ve are here or not.' There is no difficulty, therefore, about 
 an Eternal not ourselves that makes for righteousness, 
 and to which men have transferred that ancient high 
 name, God, the Brilliant or Shining, by which they once 
 adored a mighty object outside themselves, the sun, 
 which from the first took their notice as powerful for 
 their weal or woe. So that God is, is admitted ; but 
 people maintain, besides, that he is personal and thinks 
 and loves. ' The Divine Being cannot,' they say, ' be 
 without the perfection which manifests itself in the 
 human personality as the highest of which we have any 
 knowledge.' N£)w, ' the deeper_elements of personality 
 are,' they add, ' existence, consciousness of this existence 
 and control over it.' These therefore, they say, God 
 must have. And that the Eternal that makes for 
 righteousness has these, they account (though their lan- 
 guage is not always quite consistent on this point) a fact 
 of the same order and of as much certainty as that there 
 is an Eternal that makes for righteousness at all. ' It is
 
 THE GOD OF MIRACLES. 35 
 
 this power itself/ says M. Albert Re'ville, ' this not our- 
 selves which makes for righteousness, that constantly 
 leveals to us the fact that it is a Spirit, that is to say, not 
 merely an influence, but life, consciousness, and love/ >A/k- 'y/ 
 
 r'^ Religion, it is aflirined, religion, which is morality touched | / 
 J with emotion, is impossible unless we know of God that [ ^ 
 (__he is a person who thinks and loves. ' If the not our- 
 selves which makes for righteousness,' says M. Reville, 
 ' is an unconscious force, I cannot feel for it that sacred 
 emotion which raises morality to the rank of religion. 
 Man no longer worships powers of which he has dis- 
 covered the action to be impersonal.' All this sort of 
 argumentation, which M. Re'ville manages with great 
 delicacy and literary skill, is summed up in popular 
 language plainly and well by a writer in the Edinburgh 
 Review. ' Is the Power around us not a person ; is 
 what you would have us worship a thing ? All existing 
 beings must be either persons or things ; and no sophis- 
 tries can deter us from the invincible persuasion which 
 all human creatures possess, that persons are superior to 
 things' 
 
 Now, before going farther, we have one important 
 remark to make upon all this. M. Rdville talks of 
 those who have discovered the action of God to be 
 
 impersonal. In another place he talks of denying 
 
 D 2 
 
 ^
 
 36 GOD AND THE BIBLE. 
 
 conscious intelligence to God. The Edinburgh Re- 
 viewer talks of those who would have us worship a 
 thing. We assure M. Re'ville that we do not profess to 
 have discovered the nature of God to be impersonal, 
 nor do we deny to God conscious intelligence. We 
 assure the Edinburgh Reviewer that we do not assert 
 God to be a tJiijig. All we say is that men do not 
 know enough about the Eternal not ourselves that 
 makes for righteousness, to warrant their pronouncing 
 this either a person or a thing. We say that no one 
 has discovered the nature of God to be personal, or is 
 entitled to assert that God has conscious intelligence. 
 Theologians assert this and make it the basis of religion. 
 It is they who assert and profess to know, not we. We 
 object to their professing to know more than can be 
 known, to their insisting we shall receive it, to their 
 resting religion upon it. We want to rest religion on 
 what can be verified, not on what cannot. And M. 
 Reville himself seems, when he lets us see the bottom 
 of his thoughts, to allow that a personal God who thinks 
 and loves cannot really be verified, for he says : ' It is 
 in vain to ask how we can verify the fact that God 
 possesses consciousness and intelligence.' But we are 
 for resting religion upon some fact of which it shall not 
 be in vain to ask whether we can verify it. However,
 
 THE GOD OF MIRACLES. 37 
 
 the theologians' conception of God is represented as a 
 far more satisfying one in itself than ours, and as 
 having, besides, much to make its truth highly probable, 
 at any rate, if not demonstrable. And the reader of 
 Literature and Dogma may think, perhaps, that we have 
 been over-cautious, over-negative \ that we are really, 
 as M. Re'ville says, ' decidedly too much afraid of the 
 idea of the personality of God.' He may think, that 
 though we have given him as his foundation some- 
 thing verifiable and sure, yet that what we have given 
 him is a great deal less than what the theologians offer, 
 and offer with such strong and good reasons for its truth, 
 that it becomes almost certain if not quite, and a man is 
 -captious who will not accept it. 
 
 Descartes, as is well known, had a famous philo- 
 sophical method for discovering truths of all kinds ; 
 and people heard of his method and used to press him 
 to give them the results which this wonderful organ had 
 enabled him to ascertain. Quite in a contrary fashion, 
 we sometimes flatter ourselves with the hope that we 
 may be of use by the very absence of all scientific 
 pretension, by our very want of ' a philosophy based on 
 principles interdependent, subordinate and coherent;' 
 because we are thus obliged to treat great questions in 
 such a simple way that any one can follow us, while
 
 38 GOD AND THE BIBLE. 
 
 the way, at the same time, may possibly be quite right 
 after all, only overlooked by more ingenious people 
 because it is so very simple. 
 
 Now, proceeding in this manner, we venture to ask the 
 plain reader whether it docs not strike him as an objec- 
 tion to our making God a person who thinks and loves, 
 that we have really no experience whatever, not the very 
 slightest, of persons who think and love, except in man 
 and the inferior animals. We for our part are by no 
 means disposed to deny that the inferior animals, as they 
 are called, may have consciousness, that they may be 
 said to think and love, in however low a degree. At 
 any rate we can see them before us doing certain things 
 which are like what we do ourselves when we think and 
 love, so that thinking and loving may be attributed to 
 them also without one's failing to understand what is 
 meant, and they may conceivably be called persons who 
 think and love. But really this is all the experience of 
 any sort that we have of persons who think and 
 love, — the experience afforded by ourselves and the 
 lower animals. True, we easily and naturally attri- 
 bute all operations that engage our notice to authors 
 who live and think like ourselves. We make persons 
 out of sun, wind, love, envy, war, fortune ; in 
 some languages every noun is male or female. But
 
 THE GOD OF MIRACLES. 39 
 
 this, we know, is figure and personification. Being our- 
 selves alive and thinking, we naturally invest things 
 with these our attributes, and imagine all action and 
 operation to proceed as our own proceeds. This is a 
 tendency which in common speech and in poetry, 
 where we do not profess to speak exactly, we cannot 
 well help following, and which we follow lawfully. In 
 the language of common speech and of poetry, we 
 speak of the Eternal not ourselves that makes for 
 righteousness, as if he were a person who thinks and 
 loves. Naturally we speak of him so, and there is no 
 objection at all to our so doing. 
 
 But it is ..different when we profess to speak exactly, 
 and yet make God a person who thinks and loves. We 
 then find what difficulty our being actually acquainted 
 with no persons superior to ourselves who think and 
 love brings us into. Some, we know, have made their 
 God in the image of the inferior animals. We have had 
 the God Apis and the God Anubis ; but these are 
 extravagances. In general, as God is said to have made 
 man in his own image, the image of God, man has 
 returned the compliment and has made God as being, 
 outwardly or inwardly, in the image of man. What we 
 in general do is to take the best thinking and loving of 
 the best man, to better this best, to call \\. perfect, and to
 
 40 GOD AND THE BIBLE. 
 
 say that this is God. So we construct a magnified and 
 non-natural man, by dropping out all that in man seems 
 a source of weakness and inserting its contrary, and by 
 heightening to the very utmost all that in man seems a 
 source of strength, such as his thought and his love. 
 Take the account of God which begins the Thirty-nine 
 Articles, or the account of God in any Confession of Faith 
 we may choose. The same endeavour shows itself in all 
 of them : to construct a man who thinks and loves, but 
 so immensely bettered that he is a man no longer. Then 
 between this magnified man and ourselves we put, if we 
 please, angels, who are men etherealised. The objec- 
 tion to the magnified man and to the men etherealised is 
 one and the same : that we have absolutely no experi- 
 ence whatever of either the one or the other. 
 
 Support, however, is obtained for them from_JLwo 
 grounds ; — from metaphysical grounds, and frorn___the 
 ground of miracles. Let us take first the ground said to 
 be given by miracles. Interferences and communications 
 of such a kind as to be explainable on no other sup- 
 position than that of a magnified and non-natural man, 
 with etherealised men ministering to him, are alleged to 
 have actually happened and to be warranted by sure 
 tpj sl j mnny. _ And there is something in this. If the 
 alleged interferences and communications have happened,
 
 THE GOD OF MIRACLES. 41 
 
 _then^_by.jhis supposition they may fairly be explained. 
 If the progress of the natural day was really stopped to 
 enable the chosen people to win a great victory over its 
 enemies, if a voice out of the sky really said when Jesus 
 was baptized : This is ?ny beloved Son, — then the magni- 
 fied and non-natural man of popular religion, either by 
 himself or with angels, etherealised men, for his ministers, 
 is a supposition made credible, probable, and even 
 almost necessary, by those incidents. 
 
 2. 
 
 Thus we are thrown back on miracles ; and the 
 question is, are we to affirm that God is a person who 
 thinks and loves because miracles compel us? Now, 
 the reader of Literature and Dogma will recollect that 
 half-a-dozen pages of that book, and not more, were 
 taken up with discussing miracles. The Guardian 
 thinks this insufficient. It says that solid replies are 
 demanded to solid treatises, and that we ought to have 
 taken Dr. Mozley's Bampton Lectures on Miracles, and 
 given, if we could, a refutation to them. It tartly adds, 
 however, that to expect this of us ' would be to expect 
 something entirely at variance with Mr. Arnold's ante- 
 cedents and with his whole nature.' Well, the author of 
 Supernatural ReUgion\vz.% occupied half a thick volume in
 
 42 GOD AND THE BIBLE. 
 
 refuting Dr. Mozley's Bampton Lectures. He has written 
 a solid reply to that solid treatise. Sure we are that 
 he lias not convinced the Guardian, but it ought at least 
 to be pleased with him for having so far done his duty. 
 For our part, although we do justice to Dr. Mozley's 
 ability, yet to write a refutation of his Bampton Lectures 
 is precisely, in our opinion, to do what Strauss has well 
 called ' going out of one's way to assail the paper fortifi- 
 cations which theologians choose to set up.' To engage 
 in an it priori argument to prove that miracles are 
 impossible, against an adversary who argues a priori 
 that they are possible, is the vainest labour in the world. 
 So long as the discussion was of this character, miracles 
 were in no danger. The time for it is now past, because 
 
 /^the human mind, whatever may be said for or against 
 miracles a priori, is now in fact losing its reliance upon 
 them. And it is losing it for this reason : as its 
 experience widens, it gets acquainted with the natural 
 history of miracles, it sees how they arise, and it slowly 
 
 \. but inevitably puts them aside. 
 
 Far from excusing ourselves for the brevity and 
 moderation with which the subject of miracles is 
 in Literature and Dogma treated, we are disposed to 
 claim praise for it. It is possible to spend a great deal 
 tco much time and mental energy over the thesis that
 
 THE GOD OF MIRACLES. 43 
 
 miracles cannot be relied on. The thesis, though 
 true, is merely negative, and therefore of secon- 
 dary importance. The important question is, what 
 becomes of religion, — so precious, as we believe, to 
 the human race, — if miracles cannot be relied on ? We 
 ought never so to immerse ourselves in the argument 
 against miracles as to forget that the main question lies 
 beyond, and that we must press forward to it. As soon 
 as we satisfy ourselves that on miracles we cannot 
 build, let us have done with questions about them and 
 begin to build on something surer. Now, it is in a 
 much more simple and unpretending way than con- 
 troversialists commonly follow that we satisfy ourselves 
 that we cannot build upon miracles. 
 
 For it is posoible, again, to exaggerate untruly the 
 demonstrative force of the case against miracles. The 
 logical completeness of the case for miracles has been 
 vaunted, and vaunted falsely ; some people are now 
 disposed to vaunt falsely the logical completeness of the 
 case against miracles. Poor human nature loves the 
 pretentious forms of exact knowledge, though with the 
 real condition of cur thoughts they often ill correspond. 
 The author of Supernatural Religion asserts again and 
 again that miracles are contradictory to a complete 
 induction. He quotes Mr. Mill's rule : ' Whatever is 
 
 y
 
 
 44 GOD AND THE BIBLE. 
 
 J contradictory to a complete induction is incredible,' 
 and quotes Mr. Mill's account of a complete induc- 
 tion : ' When observations or experiments have been 
 repeated so often and by so many persons as to exclude 
 >y C[ all supposition of error in the observer, a law of nature 
 e^_/^is established;' and he asserts that a law of nature of 
 \ vj ' X *y ;^ this kind has been established against miracles. He 
 '^ if^^' brings forward that famous test by which Paley seeks 
 
 '^^ J' to establish the Christian miracles, his ' twelve men of 
 
 known probity and good sense relating a miracle 
 wrought before their eyes, and consenting to be 
 racked and burned sooner than acknowledge that there 
 existed any falsehood or imposture in the case,' and 
 he asserts that no affirmation of any twelve men would 
 be sufficient to overthrow a law of nature, or to save, 
 ^*v therefore, the Christian miracles. 
 
 Now, these assertions are exaggerated and will not 
 serve. No such law of nature as Mr. Mill describes 
 has been or can be established against the Christian 
 miracles ; a complete induction against them, therefore, 
 there is not. Nor does the evidence of their reporters 
 fail because the evidence of no men can make miracles 
 credible. The case against the Christian miracles is 
 that we have an induction, not complete, indeed, but 
 enough more and more to satisfy the mind, and to
 
 THE GOD OF MIRACLES. 45 
 
 satisfy it in an ever increasing number of men, that 
 miracles are untrustworthy. The case against their 
 reporters is, that more and more of us see, and see 
 ever more clearly, that these reporters were not and could 
 not be the sort of picked jury that Paley's argument 
 requires, but that, with all the good faith in the world, 
 they were men likely to fall into error about miracles, to 
 make a miracle where there was none, and that they 
 did fall into error and legend accordingly. 
 
 This being so, we have no inclination, even now, either 
 to dwell at excessive length on the subject of miracles, or 
 to make a grand show of victoriously demonstrating their 
 impossibility. But we have to ask ourselves, if necessary, 
 again and again, whenever anything is made to depend 
 upon them, how their case really and truly stands, 
 whether there can be any prospect, either for ourselves 
 or for those in whose interest Literature and Dogma was 
 written, of returning to a reliance upon them. And the 
 more we consider it the more we are convinced there 
 is none ; and that the cause assigned in Literature and "^ j 
 Dogma as fatal to miracles; — -that the more our ex- ^VM^ 
 
 perience widens, the more we see and understand the ' \ (>.c 
 process by which they arose, and their want,__of x ttj^O^ 
 solidity, — is fatal to them indeed. The tinie.has qoine 
 when the minds of men no longer put as a n\^ii Xsx^
 
 46 GOD AND THE BIBLE. 
 
 course the Bible-miraclesin a.class by themselves. Now, 
 from the moment this time commences, from the moment 
 that the comparative history of all miracles is a con- 
 ception entertained and a study admitted, the conclusion 
 V is certain, the reign of the Bible-miracles is doomed. 
 
 3- 
 
 Let us see how this is so. Herodotus relates, that, 
 when the Persian invaders came to Delphi, two local 
 heroes buried near the place, Phylacus and Autonous, 
 arose, and were seen, of more than mortal stature, 
 fighting against the Pejsians/ He relates, that before 
 the onset at Salamis the vision of a woman appeared 
 over an ^Eginetan ship, and cried in a voice which 
 all the Grecian fleet heard : ' Good souls, how long 
 will ye keep backing?'^ He relates, that at Pedasus, 
 in the neighbourhood of his own city Halicarnassus, 
 the priestess of Athene had a miraculous sprouting of 
 beard whenever any grievous calamity was about to 
 befall the people around; he says in one place that 
 twice this miraculous growth had happened, in another, 
 that it had happened thrice.^ Herodotus Avrites here 
 of times when he was himself alive, not of a fabulous 
 antiquity. He and his countrymen were not less acute, 
 arguing, critical people than the Jews of Palestine, bui: 
 
 » Herod., viii, 38, 39. ^ Herod., viii, 84. 3 Herod,, viii, 104.
 
 THE GOD OF MIRACLES. 47 
 
 much more. Herodotus himself, fmaily, is a man of a 
 beautiful character and of pure good-faith. 
 
 But we do not believe that Phylacus and Autonous 
 arose out of their graves and were seen fighting with 
 the Persians ; we know by experience, we all say, how 
 this sort of story grows up. And that after the Cruci- 
 fixion, then, many dead saints arose and came out 
 of the graves and went into the holy city and appeared 
 unto many, is not this too a story of which we must 
 say, the moment we fairly put it side by side with the 
 other, that it is of the same kind with it, and that we 
 know how the sort of story grows up? That the 
 phantom-woman called to the yEginetan crew at Sala- 
 mis. How long will ye keep backing ? we do not believe 
 any the more because we are told that all the Grecian 
 fleet heard it. We know, we all say, by experience, that 
 this is just the sort of corroboration naturally added to 
 such a story. But we are asked to believe that Jesus 
 after his death actually cried to Paul on his way to 
 Damascus : It is hard for thee to kick against the pricks, 
 because the bystanders are said to have heard it, 
 although to be sure in another place, with the loose- 
 ness natural to such a story, the bystanders are said not 
 to have heard this voice. That the Salamis story and 
 the Damascus story are of one kind, and of what kind,
 
 48 GOD AND THE BIBLE. 
 
 strikes us the moment that we put the two stories 
 together. 
 
 The miraculous beard of the priestess of Pedasus 
 is really just like the miraculous dumbness of Zacharias, 
 the father of John the Baptist. The priestess of 
 Pedasus, however, is said by Herodotus in one 
 place to have twice had her marvellous beard, in 
 another to have had it thrice; and the discrepancy 
 proves, we all say, how loose and unhistorical this kind 
 of story is. But yet when Jesus is in the Second 
 Gospel said to have healed as he departed from Jericho 
 one blind man who sate by the wayside, and in the 
 First Gospel to have healed as he departed from 
 Jericho two blind men who sate by the wayside, there 
 is here, we are asked to believe, no discrepancy really 
 at all. Two different healings are meant, which were 
 performed at two different visits to Jericho. Or perhaps 
 they were performed at one and the same visit, but 
 one was performed as Jesus entered the city, and the 
 other as he left it. And the words of St. Mark : ' And 
 he came to Jericho ; and as he went out of Jericho 
 blind Bartimseus sate by the wayside,' really mean that 
 Bartimseus sate there as Jesus went in to Jericho, 
 and two other blind men sate by the wayside as he 
 went out. How arbitrary, unnatural and vain such an
 
 THE GOD OF MIRACLES. 49 
 
 explanation is, what a mere device of our own to 
 make a solid history out of a legend, we never feel 
 so irresistibly as when we put the Jericho story by 
 the side of others like it. 
 
 Yet still, in new and popular books, this precious 
 device for reconciling inconsistent accounts of the 
 same thing, — tlie hypothesis that the incident did really 
 happen more than once, — is furbished up and brought 
 out afresh. .So ■slrfl.ng,..so persistent,, sajicspciute is tiie 
 our to make that wonderful mixture of trutli and 
 fi£'ti9J}j..which the Four Gospels give us, into one uniform 
 strain of solid history. The attempt must fail. It will 
 impair the understanding of all who make it, it will mar 
 the reputation of every critic who makes it, and yet will 
 disappoint them after all. The kindest thing one can 
 do to an intelligent reader of the Bible is to convince 
 him of the utter hopelessness of any such attempt, to 
 bring him speedily and once for all tp a state of , settled 
 clearness on the subject. And this will be done, not so 
 well directly, by arguing how improbable such an hyj)o- 
 thesis as that incidents should exactly repeat themselves 
 in itself is, as indirectly, by showing from examples how 
 very prone is the human imagination to reproduce 
 striking incidents a second time, although the incidents 
 have in truth occurred only once. 
 
 £
 
 50 GOD AND THE BIBLE. 
 
 To save the exactness of the Gospel narratives, the 
 stories of the healing of the blind men at Jericho are 
 made to pass, we have seen, for the stories of two 
 separate miracles. But a more remarkable instance still 
 of the actual production of an incident twice, is alleged 
 in regard to the clearing the Temple of buyers and 
 sellers. The Fourth Gospel, as is well known, puts the 
 clearance at the beginning of Christ's career. The Synop- 
 tics put it at the end, shortly before his arrest. Probably 
 the Synoptics are right; for the act was one which, 
 coming from an unknown man, would have merely 
 seemed extravagant and exasperating, whereas, coming 
 from Jesus after his line of teaching and reforming had 
 become familiar, it would have had significance and use. 
 But be this as it may ; at any rate, if the act was done 
 at the outset of the career of Jesus, then the Synoptics, 
 one would say, must have made a mistake j if at the 
 close, then the author of the Fourth Gospel. Not at 
 all ! The same striking incident with all its circum- 
 stances really happened, we are told, twice : first at the 
 outset of Christ's career, and then again at its close. 
 Neither the Synoptics, therefore, nor the author of the 
 Fourth Gospel are in error. 
 
 Now, this seems surprising. But some who are lovers 
 of the Bible may be inclined to try and believe it, may
 
 THE GOD OF MIRACLES. 
 
 seek to cling to such an explanation, mdy argue for its 
 possibility h priori. Crumble to bits, sooner or later, 
 such explanations will. That which may convince a man, 
 once and for ever, of their hollowness, and save him much 
 loss of time and distress of mind, is the application of 
 such a piece of experience as the following. 
 
 Some years ago a newly-married couple were dur'ng 
 their honeymoon travelling in the Alps. They made an 
 excursion on Mont Blanc ; the bride met with an acci- 
 dent there, and perished before her husband's eyes. 
 The other day we had, strange to relate, just this touch- 
 ing story over again. Again a newly-married couple 
 were in the Alps during their honeymoon, again Mont 
 Blanc was the scene of an excursion, again the bride 
 met with an accident, again she perished in her hus- 
 band's sight. Surprising, but there was the fact ! People 
 talked of it, the telegraph spread it abroad. But ours is 
 a time of broad daylight and searching inquiry. The 
 matter drew attention, and in a few days the telegraph 
 announced that the second accident had never really 
 happened at all, that it was a mere doubling and re- 
 flexion of the first. Men's imagination reiterates in this 
 way things which strike it, and loose relation narrates 
 the doubled fact seriously. As our experience widens, it 
 brings us more and more proof that this is so ; and one 
 
 E 2
 
 52 GOD AND THE BIBLE 
 
 day a signal example is decisive with us. The Mont 
 Blanc story, or some story of the kind, comes with a sort 
 of magic to make the scales fall from our eyes. It is still 
 possible d priori that the Temple may have been cleared 
 twice, and that there is no mistake in the Gospel reports. 
 The induction against it is not a complete induction. But 
 it is hencforth complete enough to serve ; it convinces us. 
 In spite of the a priori possibility, we cannot any longer 
 believe in the double clearance of the Temple, and in 
 the exactitude of both the accounts in the Gospels, 
 even though we would. 
 
 4. 
 / It is this impossibility of resting religion any more on 
 grounds once supposed to be safe, such as that the 
 Gospel narratives are free from mistake and that the 
 Gospel miracles are trustworthy, which compels us to 
 V look for new grounds upon which we may build firmly. 
 Those men do us an ill turn, and we owe them no thanks 
 for it, who compel us to keep going back to examine the 
 old grounds, and declaring their want of solidity. "What 
 we need is to have done with all this negative, unfruitful 
 business, and to get to religion again ; — to the use of the 
 Bible upon new grounds which shall be secure. The 
 old grounds cannot be used safely any more, and if one 
 opens one's eyes one must see it. Those who inveigh
 
 THE GOD OF MIRACLES. 53 
 
 against us could see it, if they chose, as plainly as we 
 do ; and they ought to open their eyes and see it, but 
 they will not. And they want us to go on trusting fool- 
 ishly to the old grounds as they do, until all tumbles in, 
 and there is a great ruin and confusion. Let us not do 
 so. Let those who have read Literattire and Dogma 
 with satisfaction be sure that what is in that book said 
 against miracles, kept though it be within the narrowest 
 limits possible, is indispensable, and requires so little 
 space just because it is so very certain. Let him accus- 
 tom himself to treat with steadiness, with rigorous sim- 
 plicity, all the devices to save those unsaveable things, 
 the Bible miracles. 
 
 To reduce the miraculous in them to what are thought 
 reasonable dimensions is now a favourite attempt. But 
 if anything miraculous is left, the whole miracle might 
 as well have been left ; if nothing, how has the incident 
 any longer the proving force of a miracle ? Let us treat 
 so absurd an attempt as it deserves. Neander supposes 
 that the water at the marriage-feast at Cana was not 
 changed by Jesus into wine, but was only endued by 
 him with wine's brisk taste and exhilarating effects. 
 This has all the difficulties of the miracle, and only gets 
 rid of the poetry. It is as if we were startled by the 
 extravagance of supposing Cinderella's fairy godmother
 
 x: 
 
 ^b 
 ^ 
 
 
 54 GOD AND THE BIBLE. 
 
 to have actually changed the pumpkin into a coach and 
 six, but suggested that she did really change it into a 
 one-horse brougham. Many persons, again, feel now an 
 insurmountable suspicion (and no wonder) of Peter's 
 fish with the tribute-money in its mouth, and they 
 suggest that what really happened was that Peter caught 
 a fish, sold it, and paid the tribute with the money he 
 thus got. This is like saying that all Cinderella's 
 godmother really did was to pay a cab for her godchild 
 by selling her vegetables. But then what becomes of 
 the wonder, the miracle ? Were there ever such apolo- 
 gists as these ? They impair the credit of the Evangelists 
 as much as we do, for they make them transform facts 
 to an extent wholly incompatible with trustworthy 
 reporting. They impair it more ; for they make them 
 transform facts with a method incompatible with honest 
 simplicity. 
 
 Simple, flexible common-sense is what we most want, 
 in order to be able to follow truly the dealings of that 
 sjjontaneous, irregular, wonderful power which gives 
 birth to tales of miracle, — the imagination. It is easy 
 to be too systematic. Strauss had the idea, acute and 
 ingenious, of explaining the miracles of the New 
 Testament as a reiteration of the miracles of the Old. 
 Of some miracles this supplies a good explanation. It
 
 THE COD OF MIRACLES. 55 
 
 plausibly explains the story of the Transfiguration, for 
 instance. The story of the illumined face of Jesus, — 
 Jesus, the prophet like unto Moses, whom Moses foretold, 
 — might naturally owe its origin to the illumined face of 
 Moses himself. But of other miracles, such as the 
 walking on the Lake of Gennesaret or the cursing of the 
 barren fig-tree, Strauss's idea affords no admissible ex- 
 planation whatever. To employ it for these cases can 
 only show the imperturbable resolution of a German 
 professor in making all the facts suit a theory which 
 he has once adopted. But every miracle has its own 
 mode of growth and its own history, and the key to one 
 is not the key to others. Such a rationalising explan- 
 ation as that above quoted of the money in the mouth 
 of Peter's fish is ridiculous. Yet a clue, a suggestion, 
 however slight, of fact, there probably was to every 
 miracle ; and sometimes, not by any means always, 
 this clue may be traced with likelihood. 
 
 The story of the feeding of the thousands may well 
 have had its rise in the suspension, the comparative 
 extinction, of hunger and thirst during hours of rapt 
 interest and intense mental excitement. In such hours 
 a trifling sustenance, which would commonly serve 
 for but a few, will suffice for many. Kumour and 
 imagination make and add details, and swell the thing
 
 56 GOD AND THE BIBLE. 
 
 J 
 
 into a miracle. This sort of incident, again, it is as 
 natural to conceive repeating itself, as it is unnatural to 
 conceive an incident like the clearance of the Temple 
 repeating itself. Or to take the walking on the Sea of 
 Galilee. Here, too, the sort of hint of fact which may 
 have started the miracle will readily occur to every one. 
 Sometimes the hint of fact, lost in our Bibles, is pre- 
 served elsewhere. The Gospel of the Hebrews, — an 
 old Gospel outside the Canon of Scripture, but which 
 Jerome quotes and of which we have fragments, — this 
 Gospel, and other records of like character, mention 
 what ouj Four Gospels do not : a wonderful light at the 
 moment when Jesus was baptized. No one, so far as 
 we know, has yet remarked that in this small and 
 dropped circumstance, — a weird light on Jordan seen 
 while Jesus was baptized, — we not improbably have 
 the little original nucleus of solid fact round which the 
 whole miraculous story of his baptism gathered. 
 
 He does well, who, steadily using his own eyes in this 
 manner, and escaping from the barren routine whether 
 of the assailants of the Bible or of its apologists, 
 acquires the serene and imperturbable conviction, indis- 
 pensable for all fruitful use of the Bible in future, that 
 in travelling through its reports of miracles he moves in 
 a world, not of solid history, but of illusion, rumour, and
 
 THE GOD OF MIRACLES. 57 
 
 fairy-tale. Only, when he has acquired this, let him say 
 to himself that he has by so doing achieved nothing, 
 except to get rid of an insecure reliance which inevitably 
 some day or other would have cost him dear, of a staff 
 in religion which must sooner or later have pierced 
 his hand. 
 
 One other thing, however, he has done besides this. 
 He has discovered the hollowness of the main ground 
 for making God a person who thinks and loves, a 
 magnified and non-natural man. Only a kind of man 
 magnified could so make man the centre of all things, 
 and in ternipt the settled order of nature in his behalf, 
 as miracles imply. But in miracles we are dealing, 
 we find, with the unreal world of fairy-tale. Having 
 no reaUty of their own, they cannot lend it as foundation 
 for the reality of anything else.
 
 58 GOD AND THE BIBLE. 
 
 CHAPTER II. 
 
 THE GOD OF METAPHYSICS. 
 
 There remain the grounds for asserting God to be a 
 person who thinks and loves which are suppUed by 
 metaphysics. 
 
 'Continue audits voces, vagitus et iiigens.' 
 
 At the mention of that name metaphysics^ lo, essence, 
 existence, substance, finite and infinite, cause and 
 succession, something and nothing, begin to weave 
 their eternal dance before us ! with the confused 
 murmur of their combinations filling all the region 
 governed by her^ who, far more indisputably than her 
 late-born rival, political economy, has earned the title of 
 the Dismal Science. Yet even here we will ask the 
 reader of Literature and Dogma, if he does not disdain 
 so unsophisticated a companion, to enter with us. And 
 here, possibl}', we may after all find reason to retract, 
 and to own that the theologians are right. For 
 metaphysics we know from the very name to be the 
 science of things which come after natural things. Now,
 
 THE COD OF METAPHYSICS. 59 
 
 the things which come after natural things are things not 
 natural. Clearly, therefore, if any science is likely to 
 •be able to demonstrate to us the magnified and non- 
 natural man, it must be the science of non-naturals. 
 
 2. 
 
 Professor Huxley's interesting discourse the other day 
 at Belfast drew attention to a personage who once 
 was in the thoughts of ever)'body who tried to think, — 
 Rene Descartes. But in this great man there were, in 
 truth, two men. One was the anatomist, the physicist, 
 the mechanical philosopher who exclaimed : ' Give me 
 matter and motion, and I will make the world ! ' and of 
 whom Pascal said that the only God he admitted was a 
 God who was useless. This is the Descartes on whom 
 Professor Huxley has asked us to turn once more our 
 eyes ; and no man could ask it better or more per- 
 suasively. 
 
 But there is another Descartes who had of late years 
 been much more known, both in his own country and 
 out of it, than Descartes the mechanical philosopher, 
 and that is the Descartes who is said to have founded 
 the independence of modern philosophy and to have 
 founded its spiritualism. He. J^figaajyithuniversal doubt, 
 witli_tlie- rejection of all authority.. jvith the reso lve to
 
 6c3 GOD AND THE BIBLE. 
 
 admit nothing to be true which he could not cleaj:Iy;.see 
 to be true. He ended with declaring that the demon- 
 stration of God and the soul was more completely made 
 out than that of any other truth whatever, nay, that the 
 certitude and truth of every science depended solely on 
 our knowledge of the true God. ' 
 
 Here we have the Descartes who is commonly said 
 to have founded modern philosophy. And who, in this 
 cur day of unsettlement and of impatience with authority, 
 convention, and routine, who, in this our day of new 
 departures, can fail to be attracted by the author of the 
 ' Methode,' and by his promises ? '■ Je liadmets ricn qui 
 ne soit necessairement vrai ; I admit nothing which is not 
 necessarily true.' '^ Je 7n' eloigne de tout ce en quoi je poun-ais 
 imag'mer le vwindre doute ; I put aside everything about 
 which I can imagine there being the smallest doubt.' 
 What could we, who demand that the propositions we 
 accept shall be propositions we can verify, ask more ? 
 ' // fiy a que les choses qjie je consols dairemeni et distinde- 
 ment qui aient la force de 77ie persuader entierement ; Je ne 
 puis 7iie trompcr dans les jugcments do/it je coiinais claire- 
 fiieut les raisons ; Only those things which I conceive 
 clearly and distinctly have the power thoroughly to per- 
 
 ' Je reconnais tres clairement que la certitude et la verite de toute 
 science depend de la seule connaissance du vrai Dieu.
 
 THE GOD OF METAPHYSICS. 6i 
 
 suade me ; I cannot be mistaken in those judgments of 
 which I clearly know the reasons.' What can be better? 
 We have really no other ground for the certainty of our 
 convictions than this clearness. 
 
 Will it be said, however, that there is here an 
 opening, at any rate, for unsoundness, and that in the 
 following sentence, for example, we can plainly see 
 how ? ' Toiitcs Ics cJioses que nous coficevons dairement 
 et distindement sent vraies de la facon dont nous 
 les coiicevons ; All things that we conceive clearly and 
 distinctly are true as we conceive them.' There is an 
 ambiguity, is there not, about ' clearly and distinctly ; ' 
 a man may say or fancy he sees a thing clearly and dis- 
 tinctly, when he does nothing of the kind ? True, this 
 is so ; a man may deceive himself as to what constitutes 
 clearness and distinctness. Still, the test is good. We 
 can only be sure of our judgments from their clearness 
 and distinctness, though we may sometimes fancy that 
 this clearness and distinctness is present when it is not. 
 
 At any rate, that first and greatest rule of Descartes, 
 .never to receive anything a.-, true without having clearly 
 known it for such,^ is for us uiichalleugeable. How vain 
 and dangerous did we find Butler's proposal that we 
 should take as the foundation of our religion something 
 for which we had a low degree of probability ! In this
 
 62 GOD AND THE BIBLE. 
 
 direction, assuredly, Descartes does not err. ' Inasmuch 
 as my reason convinces me,' says he, ' that I ought to be 
 as careful to withhold my belief from things not quite 
 certain and indubitable as from those which I plainly see 
 to be false, it will be a sufficient ground to me for reject- 
 ing all my old opinions if I find in them all some opening 
 for doubt.' Certainly this is caution enough ; to many 
 it will even seem excess of caution. 
 
 It is true, the doubts which troubled Descartes and 
 which have troubled so many philosophers, — doubts, 
 whether this world in which we live, the objects which 
 strike our senses, the things which we see and handle, 
 have any real existence, — are not exactly the doubts by 
 which we ourselves have been most plagued. Indeed, to 
 speak quite frankly, they are doubts by which we have 
 never been tormented at all. Our trouble has rather 
 been with doubts whether things which people assured us 
 really existed or had really happened, but of which we 
 had no experience ourselves and could* not satisfy our- 
 selves that anyone else had had experience either, were 
 really as people told us. But probably this limited 
 character of our doubting arose from our want of phi- 
 losophy and philosophical principles, which is so noto- 
 rious, and which is so often and so uncharitably cast in 
 our teeth. Descartes could look out of his window at
 
 THE GOD OF METAPHYSICS. 63 
 
 Amsterdam, and see a public place filled with men and 
 women, and say to himself that he had yet no right to be 
 certain they were men and women, because they might, 
 after all, be mere lay figures dressed up in hats and 
 cloaks. This would never have occurred, perhaps, to 
 the generality of mankind ; to us, at any rate, it never 
 would have occurred. But if this sort of scrupulosity 
 led Descartes to establish his admirable rules : .'X.admit 
 nothing which is not necessarily true ; ' ' Only those 
 things. -which I conceive clearly and distinctly have the 
 power to convince me ; ' we cannot regret that he was 
 thus scrupulous. Men, all of them, as many as have 
 doubts of any kind and want certainty, find their need 
 served when a great man sets out with these stringent rules 
 to discover what is really certain and verifiable. And we 
 ourselves accordingly, plain unphilosophical people as 
 we are, did betake ourselves once to Descartes with great 
 zeal, and we were thus led to an experience which we 
 have never forgotten. And perhaps it may be of use to 
 other plain people, for the purpose of the enquiry which 
 at present occupies us, — the enquiry whether the solid 
 and necessary ground of religion is the assurance that God 
 is a person who thinks and loves, — to follow over again 
 in our company the experience which then befell us. 
 Everj'one knows that Descartes, looking about him,
 
 64 GOD AND THE BIBLE. 
 
 like Archimedes, for a firm ground whereon he might 
 take his stand and begin to operate, for one single thing 
 which was clearly certain and indubitable, found it in the 
 famous ' £i2giia^ergo^su7n^ I think, therefore I am.' If I 
 think, said he, I am, I exist ; my very doubting proves 
 that I, who doubt, am. ' After thinking it well over and 
 examining it on all sides, to this conclusion I cannot but 
 come ; I cannot but consider it settled that this propo- 
 sition, I am, I exist, is necessarily true every time that I 
 pronounce it or that I conceive it in my mind.' The 
 discovery of this axiom appears to have filled Descartes 
 with a profound sense of certitude and of satisfaction. 
 And the axiom has been hailed with general approval 
 and adopted with general consent. Locke repeats it as 
 self-evident, without taking the trouble to assign to 
 Descartes the authorship of it : ' If I doubt of all other 
 things, that very doubt makes me perceive my own 
 existence and will not suffer me to doubt of that.' 
 Thinker after thinker has paid his tribute of admiration to 
 the axiom Jitis called the foundation of modern philosQfih^. 
 Now we shall confess without shame, — for to the prick 
 of shame in these matters, after all the tauntings and 
 mockings we have had to undergo, we are by this time 
 quite dead, — we shall confess that from this fundamental 
 axiom of Descartes we were never able to derive that
 
 THE GOD OF METAPHYSICS. ^ 65 
 
 light and satisfaction which others derived from it. And for 
 the following reason. The philosopher omits to tell us what 
 he exactly means by to be, to exist. These terms stand 
 for the most plain, positive, fundamental of certainties, 
 which is established for us by the fact that we think. 
 Now what to thi7ik means we all know ; but even if we 
 did not, Descartes tells us. ' A thing which thinks,' says 
 he, 'is a thing which doubts, which understands, which 
 conceives, which affirms, which denies, which wishes, 
 which declines, which imagines also, and which feels.' 
 So far so good. But Descartes does not tell us what 
 those other terms be and exist mean, which express that 
 fundamental certainty established for us by the fact of 
 our thinking ; and this we do not so clearly know of 
 ourselves without being told. Philosophers know, of 
 course, for they are always using the terms. And perhaps 
 this is why Descartes does not trouble himself to explain 
 his terms, I atn, I exist., because to him they carry an 
 even more clear and well-defined sense than the term, 
 I think. But to us they do not ; and we suspect tliat the 
 majority of plain people, if they consented to examine their 
 minds, would find themselves to be in like case with us. 
 
 To get a clear and well-defined sense for the terms, 
 I <7w, I exist., in the connexion where Descartes uses 
 them, we are obliged to translate them at a venture into 
 
 F
 
 66 GOD AND THE BIBLE. 
 
 something of this kind : ' I feel that I am ahve.' And 
 then we get the proposition : ' I think, therefore I feel 
 that I am alive.' This asserts our consciousness to 
 depend upon our thinking rather than upon anything 
 else which we do. The assertion is clear, it is intelligible, 
 it seems true ; and perhaps it is what Descartes meant 
 to convey. Still, it is disappointing to a plain man, who 
 has been attracted to Descartes by his promises of perfect 
 clearness and distinctness, to find that his fundamental 
 proposition, his first great certainty, is something which 
 we cannot grasp as it stands, but that we have to translate 
 it into other words in order to be able to grasp it. 
 
 Perhaps, too, this translation of ours does not, after 
 all, represent what Descartes himself meant by ' I am, I 
 exist.' Perhaps he really did mean something more by 
 the words, something that we fail to grasp. We say so, 
 because we find him, like philosophers in general, often 
 speaking of essence, existence, and substance, and in 
 speaking of them he lays down as certain and evident 
 many propositions which we cannot follow. For instance, 
 he says : ' We have the idea of an infinite substance, 
 eternal, all-knowing, all-powerful, the creator of all things, 
 and with every possible perfection.' Again, he says : 
 ' The ideas which represent substances to us are un- 
 doubtedly something more, and contain in themselves,
 
 THE GOD OF METAPHYSICS. 67 
 
 so to speak, more objective reality, that is to say, they 
 partake by representation in more degrees of being or 
 perfection, than those which represent to us modes or 
 accidents only.' * Undoubtedly,' says he, this is so ; he 
 introduces it, too, with saying : ' It is evident.' So our 
 guide, who admits nothing which is not necessarily true, 
 and puts aside everything about which he can imagine 
 there being the smallest doubt, lays down that we have 
 the idea of an infinite substance ; and that of substances we 
 have ideas distinguished from ideas of moiles or accidents 
 by their possessing more beino, and this is equivalent to 
 possessing more perfection. For when we assert that one 
 thing is more perfect than another, this means, Descartes 
 informs us, that it has more reality, more being. 
 
 All this, I say, our guide finds certain and not ad- 
 mitting of the least doubt. It is part of the tilings which 
 we conceive with clearness and distinctness, and of which, 
 therefore, we can be persuaded thoroughly. Man is a 
 finite substance, that is, he has but a limited degree of 
 being, or perfection. God is an infinite substance, that 
 is, he has an unlimited degree of being, or perfection. 
 Existence is a perfection, therefore God exists ; thinking 
 and loving are perfections, therefore God thinks and 
 loves. In short, we have God, a perfect and infinite 
 Being, eternal, all-knowing, all-powerful, the creator of 
 
 F 2
 
 68 GOD AND THE BIBLE. 
 
 all things, and having every perfection we can think of 
 for him. And all this turns upon the words is, being. 
 Infinite being, necessary being, being in itself, as opposed 
 to our own finite, contingent, dependent being, is some- 
 thing, says Descartes, that we clearly conceive. Now 
 something cannot come from nothing, and from us this 
 infinite being could never have come ; therefore it exists 
 in itself, and is what is meant by God. 
 
 Not Descartes only, but every philosopher who at- 
 tempts a metaphysical demonstration of God, will be 
 found to proceed in this fashion, and to appeal at last 
 to our conception of beitig, existing. Clarke starts with 
 the proposition that something must have existed from 
 eternity, and so arrives at a self-existent cause, which 
 must be an intelligent Being ; in other words, at God as 
 a person who thinks and loves. Locke lays it down 
 that ' we know there is some real being, and that non- 
 entity cannot produce any real being,' and so brings us 
 to an eternal, powerful, knowing Being ; in other words, 
 God as a person who thinks and loves. Of the God thus 
 arrived at, Locke, like Descartes, says that, ' the evidence 
 is, if I mistake not, equal to mathematical certainty.' 
 St. Anselm begins with an essential substantial good and 
 great, whereby, he says, it is absolutely certain, and who- 
 ever likes can perceive it, that all the multifarious great
 
 THE GOD OF METAPHYSICS. 69 
 
 and good things in tlic world get their goodness and 
 greatness ; and thus again we come to a one Being 
 essentially great and good, or Divine Person who thinks 
 and loves. 
 
 Now here it is, we suppose, that one's want of talent 
 for abstract reasoning makes itself so lamentably felt. 
 For to us these propositions, which we are told are so 
 perfectly certain, and he who will may perceive their 
 truth, — the propositions that we have the idea of an 
 infinite substance, that there is an essential substantial 
 good and great, that there is some real being, that a self- 
 existent cause must have been from eternity, that sub- 
 stances are distinguished in themselves and in our ideas 
 of them from modes or accidents by their possessing 
 more being, — have absolutely no force at all, we simply 
 cannot follow their meaning. And so far as Descartes is 
 concerned, this, when we first became aware of it, was 
 a bitter disappointment to us. For he had seemed to 
 promise us something which even 7i>e could understand, 
 when he said that he put aside everj^-thing about which 
 he could imagine there being the smallest doubt, 
 and that the proof of things to us was in the perfect 
 clearness and distinctness with which we conceived 
 
 them. 
 
 However, men of philosophical talents will remind us
 
 70 GOD AND THE BIBLE. 
 
 of the truths of mathematics, and tell us that the three 
 angles of a triangle are undoubtedly equal to two right 
 angles, yet very likely from want of skill or practice in 
 abstract reasoning we cannot see the force of tJiat pro- 
 position, and it may simply have no meaning for us. 
 And perhaps this may be so. But then the proposition 
 in question is a deduction from certain elementary truths, 
 and the deduction is too long or too hard for us to follow, 
 or, at any rate, we may have not followed it or we may 
 have forgotten it, and therefore we do not feel the force 
 of the proposition. But the elementary assertions in 
 geometry even we can apprehend ; such as the assertion 
 that two straight lines cannot enclose a space, or that 
 things which are equal to the same are equal to each 
 other. And we had hoped that Descartes, after his 
 grand promises of clearness and certainty, would at least 
 have set out with assertions of this kind, or else with 
 facts of the plainest experience; that he would have 
 started with something we might apprehend as we appre- 
 hend that three and two make five, or that fire burns. 
 Instead of this, he starts with propositions about being., 
 and does not tell us what being is. At one time he gives 
 us hopes we may get to know it, for he says that to 
 possess more being is to possess more perfection ; and 
 what men commonly mean when they talk of perfection,
 
 THE GOD OF METAPHYSICS. 71 
 
 we think we can discover. But then we find that with 
 Descartes to possess more perfection means to possess, 
 not what men commonly call by that name, but to 
 possess more being. And this seems to be merely going 
 round in a circle, and we have to confess ourselves fairly 
 puzzled and beaten. 
 
 So tliat when even Fenelon says, that most attractive 
 of theologians : ' It is certain that I conceive a Being, 
 infinite, and infinitely perfect,' — that is to say, infinitely 
 beingy we have to own with sorrow and shame that we 
 cannot conceive this at all, for want of knowing what 
 being is. Yet it is, we re[>eat, on the clearness and 
 certainty of our conceptions of hemg^ that the demon- 
 stration of God, — the most sure, as philosophers say, of 
 all demonstrations, and on which all others depend, — is 
 founded. The truth of all tliat people tell us about God, J 
 turns upon this question what being is. Philosophy is 
 full of the word, and some philosophies are concerned 
 with hardly anything else. The scholastic philosophy, 
 for instance, was one long debate about being and its 
 conditions. Great philosophers, again, have established 
 certain heads, or ' categories ' as they call them, which 
 are the final constitutive conditions of things, into which 
 all things may at last be nm up ; and at the very top of 
 these categories stands essence or being.
 
 72 GOD AND THE BIBLE. 
 
 Other metaphysical terms do not give us the same 
 difhcuhy. Substance, for example, which is the Latin 
 translation of essence or being, merely means being in so 
 far as being is taken to be the subject of all modes and 
 accidents, that which stands under them and supplies 
 the basis for them. Perhaps being does really do this, 
 but we want first to know what being is. Spirit, which 
 they oppose to matter, means literally, we know, only 
 breath, but we use it for a being which is impalpable to 
 touch as breath is. Perhaps this may be right, but we 
 want first to know what being is. Existence, again, means 
 a stepping forth, and we are told that God's essence 
 involves existence, that is, that God's beitig necessarily 
 steps forth, comes forth. Perhaps it does, but we require 
 first to know what being is. 
 
 Till we know this, we know neither what to affirm 
 nor what to refuse to affirm. We refused to affirm that 
 God is a person who thinks and loves, because we had 
 no experience at all of thinking and loving except as 
 attached to a certain bodily organisation. But perhaps 
 they are not attached to this, but to being, and we our- 
 selves have them, not because we have a bodily organi- 
 sation, but because we partake of being. Supreme being, 
 therefore, beitig in itself, which is God, must think and 
 love more than any of us. Angels, too, there may be,
 
 THE GOD OF METAPHYSICS. 73 
 
 whole hierarchies of them, thinking and loving, and 
 having their basis in being. In the same way, again, our 
 difficulties about the Real Presence may vanish. In 
 bread there is, perhaps, an essence or substance separable 
 from what the theologians call ' that groui) of visible and 
 tangible phenomena which suggest the presence of bread,' 
 in other words, from that assemblage of certain atoms in 
 a certain combination which we think is the bread ; and 
 in the Sacred Host this essence or substance is not 
 substance of bread but divine substance. All this may 
 be so ; only we cannot possibly verify any of it until we 
 know what being is ; and we want to rest religion upon 
 something which we can verify. And we thought that 
 Descartes, with his splendid promises, was going to help 
 us here ; but just at the very pinch of the matter he 
 fails us. 
 
 After all, plain, simple people are the great majority 
 of the human race. And we are sure, as Ave have said, 
 that hundreds and thousands of people, if their attention 
 were drawn to the matter, would acknowledge that they 
 shared our slowness to see at once what being is, and, 
 when they found how much depended on seeing it, 
 would gladly accompany us in the search for some one 
 who could give us help. For on this we ourselves, at 
 any rate, were bent : — to discover some one who could
 
 74 GOD AND THE BIBLE. 
 
 tell us what bd>?g is. Such a kind soul we did at last 
 find ; and in these days we need hardly add, that he was 
 a German professor. 
 
 3- 
 
 But not a professor of logic and metaphysics. No, 
 not Hegel, not one of those great men, those masters of 
 abstruse reasoning, who discourse of being and non-being, 
 essence and existence, subject and object, in a style to 
 which that of Descartes is merely child's play. These 
 sages only bewildered us more than we were bewildered 
 already. For they were so far advanced in their specu- 
 lations about being, that they were altogether above 
 entertaining such a tyro's question as what being really 
 was. 
 
 No, our professor was a mere professor of words, not 
 of ontolog)'. We bethought ourselves of our old re- 
 source, following the history of the human spirit, tracking 
 its course, trying to make out how men have used words 
 and what they meant by them. Perhaps in the word 
 being itself, said we to ourselves, there may be something 
 to tell us what it at first meant and how men came to 
 use it as they do. Abstrada ex concretis, say the ety- 
 mologists ; the abstract has been formed out of the con- 
 crete. Perhaps this abstract being, also, has been formed
 
 THE GOD OF METAPHYSICS. 75 
 
 out of some concrete, and if we knew out of what, we 
 might possibly trace how it has come to be used as it 
 has. Or has indeed the mystic vocable no natural 
 history of this sort, but has dropped out of heaven, and 
 all one can say of it is that it means being, something 
 which the philosophers understand but we never shall, 
 and which explains and demonstrates all sorts of hard 
 problems, but to philosophers only, and not to the 
 common herd of mankind ? Let us enquire, at any rate. 
 
 So, then, the natural history of the word was what we 
 wanted. With a proper respect for our Aryan fore- 
 fathers, first we looked in Sanscrit dictionaries for infor- 
 mation. But here, probably from our own ignorance 
 and inexperience in tlie Sanscrit language, we failed to 
 find what we sought. By a happy chance, however, it 
 one day occurred to us to turn for aid to a book about 
 the Greek language, — a language where we were not quite 
 so helpless as in Sanscrit, — to the ' Principles of Greek 
 Etymology,' by Dr. George Curtius, of Leipsic' He it 
 was who succoured a poor soul whom the philosophers 
 had driven well-nigh to despair, and he deserves, and 
 shall have, our everlasting gratitude. 
 
 In the book of Dr. Curtius we looked out the Greek 
 
 ' GrttndzUge der Griechislun Etymologie, von Georg Curtius ; 
 3rd edit., Leipzig, 1869.
 
 76 GOD AND THE BIBLE. 
 
 verb eimi, eis, esti, the verb which has the same 
 source as the Enghsh verb is. Shall we ever forget the 
 emotion with which we read what follows :—[' That the 
 meaning, addressed to the senses, of this very old verb 
 substantive was breathe, is made all but certain by 
 the Sanscrit as-ie-s, life-breath, asu-ra-s, living, and the 
 Sanscrit as, mouth, parallel with the Latin os. The 
 ^Hebrew verb substantive haja or haiva has, according 
 to Renan {De POrigine du Langage, 4th ed., p. 129), the 
 same original signification. The three main meanings 
 succeed one another in the following order : breathe, live, 
 be'} Here was some light at last ! We get, then, for the 
 English /j-,— the French and Latin est, the Greek 
 estin or esti, — we get an Lido-European root as, breathe. 
 To get even thus much was pleasant, but what was 
 our joy to find ourselves put by Dr. Curtius, in some 
 words following those we have quoted, on the trace of a 
 meaning for the mysterious term being itself? Dr. Curtius 
 spoke of a root synonymous with as, the root bhii, in 
 Greek ^v, and referred his readers to No. 417. To No. 
 417 we impatiently turned. We found there the account 
 of the Greek verb (1>vm, (jjuofiai, I beget, I grow. This 
 word is familiar to us all in our own words future and 
 physics, in the French fus, in the Latin fui. All these 
 are from an Lido- European root bhu, ' be,' which had
 
 THE GOD OF METAPHYSICS. 77 
 
 \ 
 
 primarily that sense of ' grow ' which its Greek derivative 
 has kept. * The notion be attaches to this root,' says Dr. 
 Curtius, * evidently on the foundation only of the more 
 primitive groiv.' If the root as, breathe, gives us, then, 
 our is, essence, the root l>/iu, grow, gives us our l>e, being. 
 Is, essence and entity, am, be and being, here we have 
 the source of them all ! as in another Indo-European 
 root, sta, stand, we have, as everybody knows, the source i 
 of our words exisicfue, substance. Our composite verb 
 substantive in English, like the verb substantive in Latin, 
 employs both the root as and the root bku ; we have is \ 
 and be, as the Latin has est and fui. The French verb ' 
 substantive manages to employ, — so M. Littre in his 
 admirable new dictionary points out, — the roots as, bhu, 
 
 2.vAjta, all three. . , J 
 
 Now, then, it remained for us to ask, how these harm- 
 less concretes, breathe, grow, and stand, could ever have 
 risen into those terrible abstracts, is, be, and exist, which 
 had given us so much torment. And really, by attending 
 to the natural course followed by the human mind, to 
 men's ways of using words and arriving at thoughts, this 
 was not so very hard to make out. Only, when once it 
 was made out, it proved fatal to the wonderful perform- 
 ances of the metaphysicians upon their theme of being. 
 However, we must not anticipate.
 
 78 GOD AND THE BIBLE. 
 
 Men took these three simple names of the foremost 
 and most elementary activities in that which they knew 
 best and were chiefly concerned with, — in themselves, — 
 they took breathings growing, standing forth, to describe 
 all activities which were remarked by their senses or by 
 their minds. So arose the verb substantive. Children, 
 we can observe, do not connect their notions at all by 
 the verb, the word expressing activity. They say, ' horse, 
 black,' and there they leave it. When man's mind ad- 
 vanced beyond this simple stage, and he wanted to 
 connect his notions by representing one notion as affect- 
 ing him through its appearing or operating in conjunction 
 with another notion, then he took a figure from the 
 activity that lay nearest to him and said : ' The horse 
 breathes (is) black.' When he got to the use of abstract 
 nouns his verb still remained the same. He said : 
 ' Virtue breathes (is) fair ; Valour growing (being) praise- 
 worthy.' Soon the sense of the old concrete meaning 
 faded away in the new employment of the word. That 
 slight parcel of significance which was required had 
 been taken, and now this minimum alone remained, 
 and the rest was left unregarded and died out of 
 men's thoughts. 
 
 We may make this clearer to ourselves by observing 
 what has happened in the PYench and Dutch words for
 
 THE GOD OF METAPHYSICS. 79 
 
 our common word but. But is in French inais, the Latin 
 niagis, our word more ; in Dutch it is maar, our word 
 more itself. Mais and niaar were originally used, no 
 doubt, with the sense of their being a check, or stop, 
 given to something that had been said before, by the 
 addition to it of something fresli. The primitive sense of 
 addition faded away, the sense of check remained alone. 
 And so it was with as and bhu, the primitive breathe and 
 grow. Whatever affected us by appearing to us, or by 
 acting on us, was at first said by a figure to breathe and 
 grow. The. figure was forgotten j and now as and l>/iu 
 no longer raised the idea of breathing and growing, but 
 jnerely of that appearance or operation,— a kind of shadow 
 af breathing and growing, — whicli these words as and 
 b/iu had at first been employed to convey. And for 
 breathing and growing other words than as and bhu were 
 now found, just as, in French, mats now no longer 
 means more, but for more another word has been found : 
 plus. Sometimes, however, as in the case of the Greek 
 verb yiyyoi-uu, tyiru^iir, we see the same word continuing 
 to be used both in its old full sense and in its new 
 shrunk sense ; yttiTOuL may mean both to be born and 
 to be. But the user employed it, probably, in the two 
 different acceptations, as if he had been employing two 
 different words ; nor did its use as hardly more than a
 
 So GOD AND THE BIBLE. 
 
 copula necessarily raise in his mind the thought of its 
 originally fuller significance. 
 
 Nor were these primitive verbs, as and bhu^ used only 
 as a copula, to connect, in the manner we have described, 
 the attribute with its subject. They were also used as 
 themselves expressing an attribute of the subject. For 
 when men wanted strongly to affirm that action or 
 operation of tilings, that image of their own life and 
 activity, which impressed itself upon their mind and 
 affected them, they took these same primitive verbs and 
 used them emphatically. Virtue is, they said ; Truth 
 does not cease to he. Literally : Virtue breathes ; Truth 
 does not cease to grow. A yet more emphatic affimiation 
 of this kind was supplied by the word exist. For to 
 exist is literally to step forth, and he who steps forth 
 gives a notable proof of his life and activity. Men said, 
 therefore : Duty exists. That is, according to the original 
 figure : Duty steps forth, stands forth. 
 
 And the not ourselves, mighty for our weal or woe, 
 which so soon by some one or other of its sides attracted 
 the notice of man, this also man connected with what- 
 ever attributes he might be led to assign to it, by his 
 universal connective, his now established verbs as and 
 bhu, his breathe and groni with their blunted and shadowy 
 sense of breathing and growing. He said : God breathes
 
 THE GOD OF METAPHYSICS. 8i 
 
 angry ; Our God breathes a jealous God. When he 
 wanted to affirm emphatically that this power acts, makes 
 itself felt, lasts, he said : God is, God exists. In other 
 words : God breathes, God steps forth. 
 
 Israel conceived God with a solemnity and a serious- 
 ness unknown to other nations, as ' The not ourselves 
 that makes for righteousness.' 'When I speak of this 
 unicjue God of Israel,' asked Moses, ' how shall I name 
 him ? ' And the answer came (we will give it in the words 
 of the literal Latin version, printed under the Hebrew 
 in Walton's noble Polyglott Bible) : ' Dixit Deus ad 
 Mosen : Ero qui ero. Et dixit : Sic dices filiis Israel : 
 Ero misit me ad vos.' ' I wi/l breathe hath sent me unto 
 you ; ' or, as the Arabic version well renders this mystic 
 name : The Eternal, that passeth not. For that this is 
 the true meaning of the name there can be no doubt : — 
 The / will go on living, operating, mduring. ' God here 
 signifies of himself,' says Gesenius, ' not simply that he is 
 he who is, for of this everyone must perceive the frigidity, 
 but he signifies emphatically that he is he who is always 
 the same, that is, the Immutable, the Eternal.' To the 
 like eftect Dr. Kalisch, in his valuable Commentary, after 
 reciting the series of more fanciful and metaphysical 
 interpretations, rests finally in this, the simple and the 
 
 G
 
 82 GOD AND THE BIBLE. 
 
 undoubtedly true one : ' He that changeth not, and that 
 faileth not.' 
 
 '_/ lijill breatlie hath sent me unto you ! ' Still 
 the old sensuous image from the chief and most strik- 
 ing function of human life, transferred to God, taken 
 to describe, in the height and permanency of its beneficent 
 operation, this mighty not ourselves, which in its opera- 
 tion we are aware of, but in its nature, no. 
 
 And here is, indeed, the grand conclusion to be drawn 
 from this long philological disquisition, from our persis- 
 tent scrutiny of the primitives as and bhu, breathe and 
 grow: that by a simple figure they declare a perceiyeii 
 energy and operation, nothing more. Of a subject, as we 
 call him, that performs this operation, of the nature of 
 something outside the range of plants and of animals, 
 which do indeed grow and breathe, and from which the 
 figure in as and bhu is borrowed, they tell us nothing. 
 But they have been falsely supposed to bring us news 
 about the primal nature of things, to declare a subject in 
 which inhered the energy and the operation we had noticed, 
 to indicate a fontal category or supreme constitutive 
 condition, into which the nature of all things whatsoever 
 might be finally run up. 
 
 For the original figure, as we have said, was soon 
 forgotten ; and is and be, mysterious petrifactions,
 
 THE GOD OF METAPHYSICS. 83 
 
 remained in language as if they were autochthons there, 
 and as if no one could go beyond or behind them. 
 Without father, without mother, without descent, as it 
 seemed, they yet were omnipresent in our speech, and 
 indispensable. Allied words in which the figure was 
 manifest, such as existence and substance, were thought 
 to be figures from the world of sense pressed into the 
 service of a metaphysical reality enshrined in is and be. 
 That imposing phrase of the metaphysicians for summing 
 up the whole system of things, substance and accident, — 
 phenomena, and that which stands under phenomena 
 and in which they inhere, — must surely, one would 
 think, have provoked question, have aroused mis- 
 givings, — people must surely have asked themselves 
 what the that which stands under phenomena was, — if 
 the answer had not been ready: being. And being was 
 supposed to be something absolute, which stood under 
 all things. Yet being was itself all the while but a 
 sensuous figure, grmving, and did not of necessity 
 express anything of a thing's nature, expressed only 
 man's sense of a thing's operation. 
 
 But philosophers, ignorant of this, and imagining that 
 they had in being a term which expressed the highest and 
 simplest nature of things, stripped off, to use a phrase of 
 Descartes, when they wanted to reach the naked tnith of 
 
 G 2
 
 84 GOD AND THE BIBLE. 
 
 a thing, one of the thing's garments after another, they 
 stripped away this and that figure and size for bodies, 
 this and that thought and desire for mind, and so, they 
 arrived at the final substances of bodies and of mind, 
 their being or essence, which for bodies was a substantial 
 essence capable of infinite diversities of figure and size, 
 for mind a substantial essence capable of infinite 
 diversities of thought and desire. And that for bodies 
 and for mind they thus got a highest reaUty merely 
 negative, a reality in which there was less of reality than 
 in any single body or mind they knew, this they did not 
 heed, because in bei?ig or essence they supposed they had 
 the supreme reality. 
 
 Finally, in considering God they were obliged, if they 
 wanted to escape from difficulties, to drop even the one 
 characteristic they had assigned to their substance, that 
 of admitting modes and accidents, and thus to reduce, in 
 fact, their idea of God to nothing at all. And this they 
 themselves were much too acute, many of them, not to 
 perceive ; as Erigena, for instance, says : ' Deus non iin- 
 merito 7iihiluiti vacatur ; God may be not improperly 
 called nothing.' But this did not make them hesitate, 
 because they thought they had in pure being, or essence, 
 the supreme reality, and that this being in itself, this 
 essence not even serving as substance, was God. And
 
 THE GOD OF METAPHYSICS. 85 
 
 therefore Erigena adds that it is per excdleniiam, by 
 reason of excellency, that God is not improperly called 
 nothing : ' Deus per excellcniiam non immerito nihiluni 
 vacatur.^ 
 
 To such a degree do words make man, who invents 
 them, their sport ! The moment we have an abstract 
 word, a word where we do not apprehend both the 
 concrete sense and the manner of this sense's application, 
 there is danger. The whole value of an abstract term 
 depends on our true and clear conception of that which 
 we have abstracted and now convey by means of this 
 term. Animal is a valuable term because we know what 
 breathing, anima^ is, and we use animal to denote all 
 who have this in common. But the etre of Descartes 
 is an unprofitable term, because we do not clearly con- 
 ceive what the term means. And it is, moreover, a 
 dangerous term, because without clearly conceiving what 
 it means, we nevertheless use it freely. When we at last 
 come to examine the term, we find that et>-e and animal 
 really mean just the same thing : breather, that which 
 has vital breath. 
 
 How astounding are the consequences if we give to 
 eire and its cognates this their original sense which we 
 have discovered ! Cogiio, ergo sum, will then be : ' 1 
 think, therefore I breathe.' A true deduction certainly ;
 
 86 GOD AND THE BIBLE. 
 
 but Cof?iedo, e?-go sum, ' I eat, therefore I breathe,' would 
 be nearly as much to the purpose ! Metaphysics, the 
 science treating of ehr and its conditions, will be the 
 science treating of breathing and its conditions. But 
 surely the right science to treat of breathing and its con- 
 ditions is not metaphysics, but physiology ! ' God is,' 
 I will be, God breathes ; exactly that old anthropomorphic 
 account of him which our dogmatic theology, by de- 
 claring him to be without body, parts, or passions, has 
 sought to banish ! And even to adore, — like those men 
 of new lights, the French revolutionists, haters of our 
 dogmatic theology, — even to adore, like Robespierre, the 
 Etf'e Sup7-hne, will be only, after all, to adore the 
 Supreme Animal ! So perfidiously do these w^or ds is 
 and be, — on which we embarked our hopes because w^e 
 fancied they would bring us to a thinking and a loving, 
 independent of all material organisation, — so perMii2uslj__ 
 do they land us in mere creature-worship of the grossest 
 kind. Nay, and perhaps the one man who uses that 
 wonderful abstract word, essence, with propriety, will turn 
 out to be, not the metaphysician or the theologian, but 
 the perfumer. For while nothing but perplexity can 
 come from speaking of the brcathiug of the Divine Nature, 
 there is really much felicity in speaking of the breathing 
 of roses.
 
 THE GOD OF METAPHYSICS. 87 
 
 4. 
 
 Dismayed, then, at the consequence of a rash use of 
 being and essence, we determined henceforth always to 
 subject these vocables, when we found them used in a 
 way which oiused us any doubt, to a strict examination. 
 Far from remaining, as formerly, in helpless admiration 
 of the philosophers, when upon the foundation of these 
 words they built their wonderful cloud-houses and then 
 laughed at us for not being able to find our way through 
 them, we set ourselves to discover what meaning the 
 words, in men's use of them, really did and could contain. 
 And we found that the great thing to keep steadily in 
 mind is that the words are, as we have shown, figure. 
 Man applied this image of breathing and growing, taken 
 from his own life, to all which he perceived, all from 
 which he felt an effect ; and pronounced it all to be Uving 
 too. The words, therefore, which appear to tell us 
 something about the life and nature of all things, do in 
 fact tell us nothing about any life and nature except that 
 which breathing and growing go in some degree to con- 
 stitute ; — the life and nature, let us say, of men, of the 
 lower animals, and of plants. Of life or nature in other 
 things the words tell us nothing, but figuratively invest 
 these things with the characters of animal and vegetable
 
 88 GOD AND THE BIBLE. 
 
 life. But what do they really tell us of these things f 
 Simply that the things have an effect upon us, that they 
 
 ^ pperate. - ~'" 
 
 The names themselves, then, being and essence, tell us 
 (jj- f^ something of the real constitution of animals and plants, 
 but of nothing else. However, the real constitution of 
 a thing it may happen that we know, although these 
 names convey nothing of it and help us to it not at all. 
 For instance, a chemist knows the constitution, say, of 
 common ether. He knows that common ether is an 
 assemblage of molecules each containing four atoms of 
 carbon, ten of hydrogen, and one of oxygen, arranged 
 in a certain order. This we may call the being or 
 essence, the growing or breath, of common ether. That 
 is to say, to the real constitution of a thing, when we 
 know it, we often apply a figurative name originally sug- 
 gested by the principal and prominent phenomena of our 
 own constitution. 
 
 This in the case of bodies. When we speak of the 
 being or essence of bodies, it may be that we know their 
 real constitution and give these names to it. But far 
 oftener men say that bodies have being, assert that bodies 
 are, without any knowledge, either actual or implied, of 
 the real constitution of the bodies, but merely meaning 
 that the bodies are seen, heard, touched, tasted, or smelt
 
 THE GOD OF METAPHYSICS. 89 
 
 by us, affect our senses in some way or other. And to 
 bodies, thus acting upon us and affecting us, we attribute 
 being or gro7ciing, we say that they are or breathe, although 
 we may know nothing of their constitution. But we 
 apply to their action a figurative name originally sug- 
 gested by the principal and prominent activities of our 
 own constitution. 
 
 And we proceed just in the same way with what are 
 not bodies. Men abstract, say, from a number of brave 
 and self-denying actions, which have come mthin their 
 experience, the quality which in these actions strikes 
 them. Some men abstract inexactly and ill what they 
 thus perceive, others exactly and well. But whether they 
 abstract it exactly or inexactly, alike they talk of the 
 being of what they have thus abstracted ; alike they say 
 that courage and duty have growing or being, alike they 
 assert that courage and duty breathe or are. They apply 
 to the working of their abstraction figurative names, 
 drawn originally from the principal and prominent 
 workings of their own life. 
 
 Or, again, they become aware of a law of nature, as it 
 is called,— of a certain regular order in which it is proved, 
 or thought to be proved, that certain things happen. 
 To this law, to the law, let us suppose, of gravitation, 
 they attribute being; they say that the law of gravitation
 
 90 GOD AND THE BIBLE. 
 
 is, exists, breathes, steps forth. That is, they give to the 
 regularly ordered operation which they perceive, figura- 
 tive names borrowed from the principal and prominent 
 functions of their own life. 
 y^ Or, finally, they become aware of a law of nature 
 which concerns their own life and conduct in the highest 
 degree, — of an eternal not ourselves that makes for right- 
 eousness. For this is really a law of nature, collected 
 from experience, just as much as the law of gravitation 
 is ; only it is a law of nature which is conceived, how- 
 ever confusedly, by very many more of mankind as 
 affecting them, and much more nearly. But it has its 
 origin in experience, it appeals to experience, and by 
 V experience it is, as we believe, verified. A writer whom 
 we name with esteem because he has so firmly grasped 
 the truth, that what Jesus Christ cared for was to change 
 the inner man of each individual, not to establish organ- 
 isations of any sort, Mr. Dunn says, that the God of 
 popular religion, the personal God who thinks and loves, 
 is as much verifiable by experience as our eternal power 
 that makes for righteousness. Possibly he imagines us 
 to mean by power some material agent, some body, some 
 gas ; and such a divine agent making for righteousness 
 is no more verifiable by experience, we confess, than a 
 divine person, who thinks and loves, making for it. We 
 
 7
 
 THE GOD OF METAPHYSICS. 91 
 
 no more pretend to know the origin and composition of 
 the power that makes for righteousness than of the power 
 that makes for gravitation. All we profess to have ascer- 
 tained about it is, that it has effect on us, that it operates. 
 Some deny that it operates. The fool hath said in 
 his heart : There is tio God. But we maintain that ex- 
 perience is against the fool, that righteousness is salva- 
 tion. As far as man's experience reaches, it conies out, 
 and comes out ever more clearly, both by the operation 
 of the law itself and by man's inward sense of affinity 
 and response to it, that our welfare, which we cannot but 
 pmsue, is inextricably and unalterably, and by no pro- 
 curing of ours but whether we will or no, dependent on 
 conduct. Mr. Dunn does not surely think that we have 
 the same experience of God as a person who thinks and 
 loves, which we have of this? He says that a great 
 many people have believed that God is a person who 
 thinks and loves. Undoubtedly they have ; just as a 
 great many people have believed this or that hypothesis 
 about the system of nature. But the question is, whether 
 they had any such good grounds from experience for 
 accepting these things as true, as there are for accepting 
 as true the law ot gravitation and the law of righteousness, 
 the Eternal that makes for righteousness. 
 
 It is said, again, that eternal^ — that which never had
 
 92 GOD AND THE BIBLE. 
 
 a beginning, and can never have an end, — is a meta- 
 physical conception not given by experience. Yes 
 indeed, eter?ial, as that which never had a beginning and 
 can never have an end, is, Hke the final substance or 
 subject wherein all qualities inhere, a metaphysical con- 
 ception to which experience has nothing to say. But 
 eternal, cevi-ternus, the age or life-long, as men applied 
 it to the Eternal that makes for righteousness, was no 
 metaphysical conception. From all they could them- 
 selves make out, and from all that their fathers had. told 
 them, they believed that righteousness was salvation, and 
 that it would go on being salvation from one generation 
 of men to another. And this is the only sound sense in 
 which we can call the law of righteousness, or the law of 
 gravitation, or any other law which we may perceive, 
 eternal. From all that we hear or can make out it holds 
 good ; and we believe, therefore, that it will go on holding 
 good. 
 
 Well then, men become aware from experience, — that 
 source of all our knowledge, — they become aware of a 
 law of righteousness. And to this law they attribute being. 
 They say that the law of conduct, the eternal not our- 
 selves which makes for righteousness, is, exists, — breathes., 
 steps forth. That is to say, they give to the stedfast, 
 unchanging, widely and deeply working operation which
 
 THE GOD OF METAPHYSICS. 93 
 
 they perceive, figurative names borrowed from the prin- 
 cipal and prominent operations of their own hfe. 
 
 Being and esse?ice men in this way attribute to wliat 
 they perceive, or think they perceive, to be a law of 
 nature. But, long before they perceive it as a law of 
 nature, they dimly and obscurely are conscious of its 
 working ; they feel its power by many a sharp lesson. 
 And imagination coming in to help, they make it, as they 
 make everything of which they powerfully feel the effect, 
 into a human agent, at bottom like themselves, however 
 much mightier, — a human agent that feels, thinks, bves, 
 hates. So they made the sun into a human being; and 
 even the operation of chance, fortune. And what should 
 sooner or more certainly be thus made into a human 
 being, but far mightier and more lasting than common 
 man, than the operation which affects men so widely 
 and deeply,— for it is engaged with conduct, with at 
 least three-fourths of human life, — the Jioi ourselves that 
 makes for righteousness ? 
 
 Made into a human being this was sure to be, from 
 its immense importance, its perpetual intervention. But 
 this does not make the personifying, anthropomorphic 
 process, the less the explanation of the attributed human 
 qualities in this case, than it is the explanation of them 
 in others. Yet we will have it, very many of us, that
 
 94 GOD AND THE BIBLE. 
 
 the human quaUties are in the one case really there and 
 inherent, but in all the other cases they are the mere 
 work of man's plastic and personifying power. What was 
 the Apollo of the religion of the Greeks? The law of 
 intellectual beauty, the eternal not ourselves that makes 
 for intellectual beauty. By a natural and quite explic- 
 able working of the human spirit, a heightened, glorified 
 human being, thinking and loving, came to stand for the 
 operation of this power. Who doubts this? But the 
 thinking and loving Apollo of the Greeks, and every 
 other example of the like kind except one, this natural 
 working of the human spirit is supposed to explain; only 
 the thinking and loving Jehovah of the Hebrews shall 
 not be explained by this working, but a person who 
 thinks and loves he really is ! 
 
 To return, then, to our much abused primitives. What 
 is the conclusion of the whole matter about them ? It 
 is this. They were supposed to give us for conscious 
 intelligence, for thinking and loving, a basis or subject 
 independent of bodily constitution. They do in fact 
 give us nothing beyond bodily phenomena ; but they 
 transfer by a figure the phenomena of our own bodily 
 life to all law and operation. On a fine and subtle 
 scale they still carry on that personifying anthropomor- 
 phic process, native in man and ineradicable, which in all
 
 THE GOD OF METAPHYSICS. 95 
 
 the early religions of the world we can see going for%vard 
 on a scale gross and palpable. 
 
 So it appears, that when we talk of the being of things, 
 we use a fluid and literary expression, not a rigid and 
 scientific one. And in every case where anything is 
 made to depend upon the use of the words is and be^ we 
 ought to examine what is said, and see what sense they 
 can really, in that particular case, bear. For instance, 
 Descartes says, that what makes him certain of the truth 
 of his fundamental proposition, ' I think, therefore I am, 
 'ye pense, done je siiis,' is that he sees quite clear!)' that 
 in order to think one must be : — ' Pour penser it faut ctre' 
 And ctre really means to breathe ; and we do, indeed, 
 see quite clearly that, in order to think, we must breathe. 
 And this is the clearest sense the words can have. Never- 
 theless, it is not the sense Descartes meant to give them. 
 Well then, they can also bear the sense that because 
 we think, we feel ourselves to be alive. And probably 
 this is what Descartes alleges that he and all of us can 
 see quite clearly. So when philosophers tell us, in their 
 grand language, that ' from our actual thought we affirm 
 our actual existence,' let us simple people interpret, and 
 say, that this means that because we think, we feel our- 
 selves to be alive ; and let us concede, with due admi- 
 ration for those who clothe the thing in such imposing
 
 96 GOD AND THE BIBLE. 
 
 language, that we can clearly see this also to be true. 
 Only let us remember exactly what it is that we have 
 seen to be true. And when the philosophers go on to 
 tell us, further, that ' as we affirm our actual existence 
 from our actual thought, similarly, the idea we have of 
 the infinite and infinitely perfect Being, that is, of God, 
 clearly involves his actual existence ; ' let us again put 
 the thing into easier language, and propound it to our- 
 selves that as, because we think, we feel ourselves to be 
 alive, similarly, because we think of God, God feels 
 himself to be alive. Probably we shall not be disposed 
 to concede that we can clearly see this to be true ; nor, 
 perhaps, would the philosophers allege it as certain, if 
 they had accustomed themselves to inquire in all cases 
 what being, existing, really mean. 
 
 5- 
 Armed with this key of the real signification of our two 
 poor little words, is and be, let us next boldly carry the 
 war into the enemy's country, and see how many strong 
 fortresses of the metaphysicians, which frown upon us 
 from their heights so defiantly, we can now enter and 
 rifle. For is and be, we have learnt, either mean breathe 
 and grow, or else they mean operate. But when the 
 metaphysicians start with their at least certainly knowing
 
 THE GOD OF METAPHYSICS. 97 
 
 that sofneihing is, they always have in their minds: — 
 ' Something thinks which neither breathes nor grows, and 
 we know of a subject for thinking which neither breathes 
 nor grows, and that subject is being, i/re.' But they 
 are unaware that being, tire, are two words which simj)ly 
 mean breathing and growing. And then, witli two sup- 
 posed data of a cogitative substance and an incogitative 
 substance, the metaphysicians argue away about the 
 necessary mutual relations of these two in the production 
 of things, and form all manner of fine conclusions. But 
 all the knowledge they do really set out with in their 
 something is amounts to this : ' We are aware of operation.' 
 And this neither tells tiiem anything about the origin and 
 production of things, nor enables them to conclude any- 
 thing. 
 
 Now, if we keep this in mind, we shall see the fallacy 
 of many reasonings we meet with. The Edinburgh 
 Revicui says : ' All existing things must be persons or 
 things ; persons aie superior to things ; do you mean 
 to call God a thing ? ' The ambiguity is in things. He 
 who asserts this or that to be a person or a thing, — 
 endued, that is, with what we call life or not endued with 
 it, — pronounces something concerning its constitution. 
 And when we pronounce that God has being, that God is, 
 \\e may mean by this that God has growth, tliat God 
 
 H
 
 98 GOD AND THE BIBLE. 
 
 breathes ; and then we do assert something concerning 
 God's constitution, and affirm God to be a person not a 
 thing. . But we may also mean, when we pronounce tliat 
 God has bcin^, that God is, simply that God operat^Sj^ 
 that the Eternal which makes for righteousness has 
 operation. And then we assert nothing about God's 
 constitution whatever, we neither affirm God to be a 
 person nor to be a thing. And, indeed, we are not at all 
 in a position to affirm God to be either the one or the 
 other. He who pronounces that God must be a person 
 or a thing, and that God must be a person because 
 persons are superior to things, talks as idly as one who 
 should insist upon it that the law of gravitation must be 
 either a person or a thing, and should lay down which of 
 the two it must be. Because it is a law, is it to be pro- 
 nounced a thing and not a person, and therefore inferior 
 to persons? and are we quite sure that a bad critic, 
 suppose, is superior to the law of gravitation ? The 
 truth is, we are attempting an exhaustive division into 
 things and persons, and attempting to affimi that the 
 object of our thought is one or the other, when we have 
 no means for doing anything of the kind, when all we can 
 really say of our object of thought is, that it operates. 
 
 Or to take that favourite and famous demonstration of 
 Anselm and Descartes, that if we have the idea of a
 
 THE GOD OF METAPHYSICS. 99 
 
 perfect being, or God,- -that is to say, of an infinite sub- 
 stance, eternal, all-knowing, all-powerful, the creator of 
 all things, and with every possible perfection, — then this 
 perfect being must exist. Existence, they argue, is a 
 perfection, and besides, our imperfect finite being could 
 never have given to itself the idea of a perfect infinite 
 being. But we have this idea quite clearly and dis- 
 tinctly, and therefore there must exist some other being 
 besides ourselves from whom we must have received it. 
 All this, again, tumbles to pieces like a house of cards 
 the moment we press it. The ambiguity lies in the words 
 perfect being, infinite substance. > Qf a not ourselves we ar e 
 clearly aw are ; — but a clear idea of an infinite substance, 
 a perfect being, knowing and thinking and yet not 
 breathing and growing? And this idea we could not 
 have given to ourselves, because it is a clear idea of an 
 infinite substance, full of perfection ; and we are a finite 
 substance, full of imperfection ? But after examining is 
 and be, we are sure that no man has a clear idea of an 
 infinite substance, knowing and thinking. And the idea 
 which he thus describes is an idea which, in the only 
 state wherein he really has it, he may perfectly well have 
 given to himself For it is an idea of a man hugely 
 magnified and improved. 
 
 The less and more in ourselves of whatever we 
 
 H 2
 
 loo GOD AND THE BIBLE. 
 
 account good, gives us a notion of what we call per- 
 fection in it. We have degrees of pleasure and we 
 talk of perfect, infinite pleasure; we have some rest, 
 and we talk of perfect, infinite rest ; we have some 
 knowledge, and we talk of perfect, infinite knowledge ; 
 we have some power, and we talk of perfect, infinite 
 power. What we mean is, a great deal of pleasure, rest, 
 knowledge, power ; as much of them as we can imagine, 
 and without the many lets and hindrances to them which 
 we now experience. Our idea of a perfect being, all- 
 knowing, all-powerful, is just like that idea of a myriagon, 
 of which Descartes himself speaks somewhere. Of a 
 pentagon, or five- sided figure, we have a distinct idea. 
 And we talk of our idea of a myriagon, or ten-thousand- 
 sided figure, too ; but it is not a clear idea, it is an idea 
 of something very big, but confused. Such is our idea 
 of an infinite substance, all-knowing, all-powerful. Of 
 a bounded man, with some knowledge and power, we 
 have a distinct idea ; of an unbounded man, with all 
 knowledge and all power, our idea is not clear ; we have 
 an idea of something very wise and great, but confused. 
 And granting that clear ideas prove themselves, this 
 alleged clear and distinct idea of an infinite substance, 
 all-knowing and all-powerful, is one of those cases 
 where an idea is fancied to be clear and distinct when 
 it is not.
 
 THE GOD OF METAPHYSICS. loi 
 
 But people insist that perfect ideas must have being 
 quite independently of us and our experience, and must 
 inhere, therefore, in a source, a subject, an infinite sub- 
 stance, which is God. For we have, say they, the idea of 
 a perfect circle ; yet this idea cannot be given us by 
 experience, because in nature there is no such thing as 
 a perfect circle. We have the idea of a perfect good ; yet 
 this idea cannot be given us by experience, because in 
 nature there is no such thing as a perfect good. But let 
 us ask ourselves whether even the circle and the triangle 
 were first, probably, pure conceptions in the human mind, 
 and then applied to nature ? or whether these forms were 
 not first observed in nature, and then refined into pure 
 conceptions? And was perfect good, in like manner, 
 or perfect beauty, first a jnire conception in the human 
 mind, and then applied to things in nature ? or were 
 things more or less good and beautiful first observed in 
 experience, and goodness and beauty then refined into 
 pure conceptions ? Because, in that case, our ideas of a 
 perfect circle and a perfect good are simply the imagi- 
 nation of a still rounder circle and a still better good 
 than any which we have yet found in experience. But 
 experience gave us the ideas, and we have no need to 
 invent something out of experience as the source of 
 them.
 
 I02 GOD AND THE BIBLE. 
 
 Finally, let us take the grand argument from design. 
 Design, people say, implies a designer. The ambiguity 
 lies in the little termination er, by which we mean a 
 being who designed. ] We talk of a being, an etre, and we 
 imagine that the word gives us conscious intelligence, 
 thinking and loving, without bodily organisation ; but it 
 does not. It gives us one of two things only ;— either it 
 gives us breathing and growing, or it gives us effect andi 
 operation. Design implies a designer ? Human design 
 does ; it implies the presence of a being who breathes 
 and thinks. So does that of the lower animals, who, like 
 man himself, breathe, and may be said to think. A very 
 numerous class of works we know, which man and the 
 lower animals make for their own purposes. When we 
 see a watch or a honeycomb we say : It works har- 
 moniously and well, and a man or a bee made it. But 
 a }'et more numerous class of works we know, which 
 neither man nor the lower animals have made for their 
 own purposes. ^Vhen we see the ear, or see a bud, do we 
 say : It works harmoniously and well, and a man or one 
 of the lower animals made it ? No ; but we say : It 
 works harmoniously and well, and an infinite eternal 
 substance, an all-thinking and all-powerful being, the 
 creator of all things, made it. ^^'hy ? Because it works 
 harmoniously and well. But its working harmoniously
 
 THE GOD OF METAPHYSICS. 103 
 
 and well does not prove all this ; it only proves that it 
 
 works harmoniously and well. The well and harmonious 
 
 working of the watch or the honeycomb is not what 
 
 proves to us that a man or a bee made them ; what proves 
 
 this to us is, that we know from experience that men 
 
 make watches and bees make honeycombs. \ But we do 
 
 not know from experience that an infinite eternal sub- 
 
 ' stance, all-thinking and all-powerful, the creator of all 
 
 i things, makes ears and buds. We know nothing about the 
 
 I matter, it is altogether beyond us. When, therefore, we 
 
 'are speaking exactly, and not poetically and figuratively, 
 
 of the ear or of a bud, all we have a right to say is : It 
 
 works harmoniously and well. 
 
 We^_besought those who could receive neither the 
 miracl es of popular theology nor the metaphy&ics of 
 learned tlieology, not to fiing away the Bible on that 
 account, but to try how the Bible went if they took it 
 without either the one or the other, and studied it without 
 taking anything for granted but what they could verify. 
 But such indignant and strenuous objection was made 
 in the religious world to this proposal, and in particular 
 It was so emphatically asserted that the only possible 
 basis for religion is to believe that God is a person who
 
 I04 GOD AND THE BIBLE. 
 
 thinks and loves, that the readers of Literature and Dogma 
 who had taken our advice and had begun to find profit 
 from it, might well be supposed to feel alarm and to 
 hesitate, and to ask whether, after all, they were doing 
 well in following our recommendation. So we had to 
 look again at the reasons for laying down as the foun- 
 dation of religion the belief that God is a person who 
 thinks and loves. And we found reasons of two kinds 
 alleged : reasons drawn from miracles, and reasons drawn 
 from metaphysics. But the reasons from miracles we 
 found, after looking at miracles again, that we could 
 not rely on, that fail us sooner or later they surely must. 
 And now we find the same thing with the reasons drawn 
 >. from metaphysics. 
 
 The reasons drawn from miracles one cannot but 
 dismiss with lendernes.s, for they belong to a great and 
 splendid whole, — a beautiful and powerful fairy-tale, which 
 was long believed without question, and which has given 
 comfort and joy to thousands. And one abandons them 
 with a kind of unwilling disenchantment, and only because 
 one must. 
 
 The reasons drawn from metaphysics one dismisses, 
 on the other hand, with sheer satisfaction. They have 
 convinced no one, they have given rest to no one, they 
 have given joy to no one. People have swallowed them, 
 
 J
 
 THE GOD OF METAPHYSICS. lo; 
 
 people have fought over them, people have shown their 
 ingenuity over them ; but no one has ever enjoyed them. 
 Nay, no one has ever really understood them. No one 
 has ever fairly grasped the meaning of what he was 
 saying, when he laid down propositions about finite and 
 infinite substance, and about God's essence involving 
 existence. Yet men of splendid ability have dealt in 
 them. But the truth is, the reasons from metaphysics 
 for the Divine Personality got their real nourishment 
 and support out of the reasons from miracles. Through 
 long ages the inexperience, the helplessness, and the 
 agitation of man made the belief in a magnified and non- 
 natural man or men, in etherialised men, — in short, in 
 preternatural beings of some sort or other, — inevitable. 
 And, the preternatural having been supposed to be cer- 
 tainly there, the metaphysics, or science of things coming 
 after natural things and no longer natural, had to come 
 in to account for it. But the miracles proving to be an 
 unsubstantial ground of reliance, the metaphysics will 
 certainly not stand long. Now, an unsubstantial ground 
 of reliance men more and more perceive miracles to be ; 
 and the sooner they quite make up their mind about it, 
 the better for them. But if it is vain to tamper with 
 one's understanding, to resist one's widening experience, 
 and to trvto think that from miracles one can get ground
 
 io6 GOD AND THE BIBLE. 
 
 for asserting God to be a person who thinks and loves, 
 still more vain is it to try to think one can get ground 
 for this from metaphysics. 
 
 And perhaps we may have been enabled to make this 
 clear to ourselves and others, because we, having no 
 talent for abstruse reasoning and being known to have 
 none, were not ashamed, when we were confronted by 
 propositions about essence and existence, and about in- 
 finite substance having undoubtedly more objective reality 
 than finite substance, we were not ashamed, I say, instead 
 of assenting with a solemn face to what we did not under- 
 stand, to own that we did not understand it, and to seek 
 humbly for the meaning of the little words at the bottom 
 of it all ; and so the futility of all the grand superstructure 
 was revealed to us. If the German philosopher, who 
 writes to us from Texas reproaching us with wasting our 
 time over the Bible and Christianity, ' which are cer- 
 tainly,' says he, ' disappearing from heart and mind of 
 the cultured world,' and calling us to the study of the 
 great Hartmann, will allow us to quote the Bible yet once 
 more, we should be disposed to say that here is a good 
 exemplification of that text : ' Alansueti delect ab untur ; 
 The meek-spirited shall be refreshed.' 
 
 But to our reader and to ourselves we say once again, as 
 to the metaphysics of current theology, what we said as to
 
 THE GOD OF METAPHYSICS. 107 
 
 its miracles. When we have made out their untrustworthi- 
 ness, we have as yet achieved nothing, except to get rid of 
 an unsafe stay which would inevitably have sooner or later 
 broken down with us. But to use the Bible, to enjoy the 
 Bible, remains. We cannot use it, we cannot enjoy it, more 
 and more amongst us, if its use and enjoyment require 
 one first to take for granted something which cannot pos- 
 sibly be veritied. Whether we will or not, this is so ; and 
 more and more will mankind, the religious among them 
 as well as the profane, find themselves in this case. ' In 
 good truth,' said Pascal to the Jesuits, ' the world is 
 getting mistrustful, and no longer believes things unless 
 they are evident to it.' In the seventeenth centur)-, 
 when Pascal said this, it had already begun to be true ; 
 it is getting more widely true every day. Therefore we 
 urge all whom the current theology, both popular and 
 learned, repels (for with those whom it does not repel we 
 do not meddle), we urge them to take as their founda- 
 tion in reading the Bible this account of God, which can 
 be verified : ' God is tlie eternal power, not ourselves, 
 which makes for righteousness,' instead of this other : ' God 
 is a person who thinks and loves,' which cannot. We 
 advise them to eschew as much as possible, in speaking 
 about God, the use of the word Bci/ig, which even strict 
 thinkers are so apt to use continually without asking
 
 •J 
 
 1 08 GOD AND THE BIBLE. 
 
 themselves what it really means. The word is bad, be- 
 cause it has a false air of conveying seme real but abstruse 
 knowledge about God's nature, while it does not, but is 
 merely a figure. Power is a better word, because it 
 pretends to assert of God nothing more than effect on us, 
 operation. With much of the current theology our un- 
 pretending account of God will indeed make havoc ; but it 
 will enable a man, we believe, to use and enjoy the Bible 
 in security. Only he must always remember that the 
 language of the Bible is to be treated as the language ot 
 letters, not science, language approximative and full of 
 figure, not language exact. 
 
 Many excellent people are crying out everyday that all 
 is lost in religion unless we can afiirm that God is a person 
 who thinks and loves. V/e say, that unless we can verify 
 til is, it is impossible to build religion successfully upon 
 it ; and it cannot be verified. Even if it could be shown 
 that there is a low degree of probability for it, we say 
 that it is a grave and fatal error to imagine that religion 
 can be built on what has a low degree of probability. 
 However, we do not think it can be said that there is 
 even a low degree of probability for the assertion that 
 God is a person who thinks and loves, properly and 
 naturally though we may make him such in the language 
 of feeling ; the assertion deals with what is so utterly be-
 
 THE GOD OF METAPHYSICS. 109 
 
 yond us. But we maintain, that, starting from what may 
 be verified about God, — that he is the Eternal which 
 makes for righteousness, — and reading the Bible with this 
 idea to govern us, we have here the elements for a reli- 
 gion more serious, potent, awe-inspiring, and profound 
 than any which the worUl has yet seen. True, it will not 
 be just the same religion which prevails now ; but who sup- 
 poses that the religion now current can go on always, or 
 ought to go on ? Nay and even of that much-decried 
 idea of God as the stream of tendency by which all things 
 fulfil the law of their being, it may be said with confidence 
 that it has in it the elements of a religion new, indeed, 
 but in the highest degree hopeful, solemn, and profound. 
 But our present business is not with this. Our present 
 business is with the religion of the Bible ; to show a 
 new aspect of this, wherein it shall appear true, winning, 
 and commanding. 
 
 And if our reader has for a time to lose sight of 
 this aspect amid negations and conflicts, — necessary 
 negations, conflicts without which the ground for a 
 better religion cannot be won, — siill by these waters of 
 Babylon, let him remember Sion ! After a course of 
 Liberal philosophers proposing to replace the obsolete 
 Bible b\' the enouncement in modern and congenial 
 language of new doctrines which will satisfy at once
 
 no GOD AND THE BIBLE. 
 
 our reason and imagination, and after reading these philo- 
 sophers' grand conclusion that there is little indeed in 
 the history and achievements of Christianity to support 
 the claim made on its behalf to the character of a scheme 
 divinely revealed for the salvation of the human race, 
 a man may of a truth well say : ' My soul hath dwelt among 
 them, that are ene?nies wito peace ! and may with longing 
 remember Sion. But we will not quarrel with him if he 
 says and does the same thing after reading us, too, when 
 we have kept him so long at the joyless task of learning 
 what not to believe. But happily this part of our busi- 
 ness is now over. In what follows, we have to defend 
 ourselves, and secure him, against the Liberal philo- 
 sophers who accuse us of teaching him to believe too 
 much.
 
 II I 
 
 CHAPTER III. 
 
 THE GOD OF EXPERIENCE. 
 
 Amon g German critics of the Bible, a sort of criticism 
 which we may best, perhaps, describe as a mechanical 
 criticism, is very rife. For negative purposes this criti- 
 cism is particularly useful. It takes for granted that 
 things are naturally all of a piece and follow one uniform 
 rule ; and that to know that this is so, and to judge 
 things by the light of this knowledge, is the secret for 
 sure criticism. People do not vary ; people do not con- 
 tradict themselves ; people do not have under- currents of 
 meaning; people do not divine. If they are represented 
 as having said one thing to-day and its seeming opposite 
 to-morrow, one of the two they are credited with falsely. 
 If they are represented as having said what in its plain 
 literal acceptation could not hold good, they cannot have 
 said it. If they are represented as speaking of an event 
 before it happened, they did not so speak of it,— the 
 words are not theirs. Things, too, like persons, must be 
 rigidly consistent, must show no conflicting aspects, must
 
 112 GOD AND THE BIBLE. 
 
 have no flux and reflux, must not follow a slow, hesitating 
 often obscure line of growth \ no, the character which we 
 assign to them they must have always, altogether, and 
 unalterably, or it is not theirs. 
 
 This mechanical character strongly marked a criticism 
 in the Westminster Radew upon Literature and Dogma. 
 The reviewer's line ran as follows : — ' Israel's first con- 
 ception of God was that of an unseen but powerful foe, 
 whose enmity might be averted by the death of victims ; ' 
 therefore the God of Israel cannot have been, as we 
 represent him, the Eternal which makes for righteousness. 
 ' The original and current idea of righteousness in Israel 
 was largely made up of ceremonial observances ; ' we 
 must not say, therefore, that to Israel was revealed the 
 Eternal that loveth righteousness. We, again, say that 
 the world cannot do without the Bible, and we desire 
 to bring the masses to use the Bible. But no ! Israel 
 went to ruin, and Christendom is far from perfect ; there- 
 fore the Bible cannot be of much use. ' Take,' says the 
 Westjninstcr Reviewer, ' the commentary aff"orded by 
 Israel's history on the value of the Bible I The Bible 
 failed to turn the hearts of those to whom it was ad- 
 dressed ; how can it have an efficacy for the regeneration 
 of our masses ? ' In a like strain the author of Super- 
 natural Religion : ' There is httle, indeed, in the history 
 and actual achievements of Christianity to support the
 
 THE GOD OF EXPERIENCE. 113 
 
 claim made on its behalf to the character of a scheme 
 divinely revealed for the salvation of the human race.' 
 
 On persons and their sayings this sort of criticism does 
 execution in ver}' short and sharp fashion. Jesus said of 
 the daughter of Jairus : ' She is not dead, but sleepeth.' 
 Well, then, ' we have here, by the express declaration of 
 Jesus, a case of mere suspension of consciousness.* 
 Jesus said, sleepeth; and how, then, can the girl have been 
 more than asleep ? If Jesus is reported to have said : 
 ' Before Abraham was, I am,' or to have said : ' There- 
 fore doth my Father love me because I lay down my life 
 that I may take it again,' these speeches rmist have been 
 invented for him after liis death, when the Resurrection 
 had become a matter of Christian belief, or when the 
 dogma of the Godhead of the Eternal Son wanted prov- 
 ing. That they should have arisen in any other way is 
 'wholly inexplicable.' It is 'wholly inexplicable' to 
 this kind of criticism that Jesus should have both said of 
 the Gentile centurion : ' I have not found so great faith in 
 Israel,' and also said to the Canaanitish woman : ' It is 
 not meet to fake the children's bread and cast it to the 
 dogs,' because the two sayings show a different tendency,, 
 and the same man does not utter two sayings showing a 
 different tendency. Either the first saying must have been 
 put into the mouth of Jesus by a Pauline universalist, or 
 
 I
 
 114 GOD AND THE BIBLE. 
 
 the second by a Judaic particularist. If Jesus speaks of 
 the destruction of Jerusalem, then the speech must 
 have been invented for him after Jerusalem was des- 
 troyed ; for it is 'wholly inexplicable ' that a man should 
 •speak of a thing before it happens. To suppose other- 
 wise, to suppose, as we do, that Jesus foretold to his dis- 
 ciples that they should see Jerusalem destroyed, that he 
 varied his line according to the occasion and the hearer, 
 that he foresaw his own death, and that he dealt with the 
 terms living and dying in a profound manner easily mis- 
 apprehended, — to suppose all this is to ' invest Jesus 
 with attributes of prescience and quasi-omniscience 
 which we can only characterise as divine,' and is therefore 
 inadmissible. 
 
 One of the many reproaches brought against Literahii-e 
 ■and Dog?na is, that its conception of the development of our 
 / religion is wanting in vigour and rigour. J Certainly the 
 •sort of criticism we are now noticing does not err by 
 want of vigour and rigour. It has abundance of both, 
 and it does its work with great thoroughness. The only 
 thing to be said against it is, that the growth of human 
 things, and above all of immense concerns like religion, 
 does not exactly proceed with vigour and rigour ; rather 
 it follows an order of development loose and wavering. 
 And to impose, therefore, on the growth of religion and 
 Christianity a method of development of great vigour and
 
 THE GOD OF EXPERIENCE. 
 
 115 
 
 rigour, to criticise its i)roductions and utterances with the 
 notion that we shall reach the truth about them by ap- 
 plying to them such a method, is most probably to criti- 
 cise them all wrong. 
 
 And it would not be difficult to show that this method 
 is, in fact, fallacious in each of the points where we have 
 been just now seeing it draw its conclusions. But we are 
 here solely concerned with whatever may be supposed to 
 check and disconcert the reader of Literature and Dogtna 
 after that book had seemed to put him in a way of read- 
 ing the Bible with profit. Now certainly nothing could 
 check and disconcert him so much as to find that the 
 God of Israel, the God of the Bible, cannot be taken to 
 be the Eternal that loveth righteousness. For in place 
 of the magnified and non-natural man given by miracles 
 and metaphysics, but who cannot be verified, we had ad- 
 vised our reader to take as the God of the Bible, and the 
 foundation of the whole matter of his Christianity, the 
 Eternal that loves righteousness, makes for righteousness. 
 This Eternal can be verified indeed, but now we are told 
 that he is not the God of the Bible. Or, at any rate, he is 
 not the God of Israel and of the Old Testament; the 
 God of Israel and of the Old Testament is somethintr 
 quite different. This objection then, we must deal with, 
 and must establish in spite of it, if we can, our assertion 
 
 1 2
 
 n6 GOD AND THE BIBLE. 
 
 that the God of Israel and of the Bible is the EternaH 
 that makes for righteousness. 
 
 The Westminster Reviewer objects to us that ' Israel 
 must have had a faculty for abstract thought quite un- 
 paralleled if his conception of a God came to pass as 
 Mr. Arnold describes it. A people in a very early stage 
 of civilisation is so deeply absorbed in the study and 
 practice of morality that they discover that there is a law, 
 which is not themselves, which makes for it, which law 
 they proceed to worship ! Can improbability go further ! ' 
 This, says the Reviewer, is the a priori argument against 
 * the opinion that Israel's God was not a person, but the 
 deification of a natural law.' But certainly we do not 
 opine, — and the reader of Literature and Dogma will 
 hardly have supposed us to opine, — that Israel's God was 
 the conscious deification of a natural law. To attack, 
 therefore, the im^jrobability of this, is merely to tilt 
 against a phantom of one's own creating. Unquestion- 
 ably, that Israel, as we see him in the earliest documents 
 of the Old Testament, should have been likely to sit 
 down and say to himself : ' I perceive a great natural 
 law, the law of righteousness, ruling the world ; I ^\•ill 
 personify this law as a God, — the one and only God ; I
 
 THE GOD OF EXPERIENCE. 117 
 
 will call it Jehovah, build a sanctuary for it, and invent a 
 worship for it ' ; — that this should have happened is utterly- 
 improbable. One can almost as well conceive Israel 
 saying that he was aware of the law of gravitation, and 
 felt disposed to deify it and to erect a temple to it. 
 
 But if one has certain facts before one, one naturally 
 
 asks oneself how they can have come about. Israel is 
 
 always saying that in the Eternal he i)uts his trust, and 
 
 that this Eternal is righteous, and loves righteousness. 
 
 He is always saying that among the gods of other people 
 
 there is no God like the Eternal, none that can do what 
 
 the Eternal docs, and that whoever runs after another 
 
 God shall have great trouble. rThese are his rulin^V 
 
 'thoughts. "\\' here did he get them ? They were given 
 
 , him, says popular theology, by a magnified and non- jo^iv 
 
 \ natural man, who was in constant communication with ,Jt ^.- 
 
 , liim, walked in the garden where he was, talked to him, ^ff ^ ^^^ 
 
 ! showed him even, on one occasion, his bodily parts, and •^ >!r ^^ 
 
 ' worked miracle after miracle for him. And this is Israel's ^^ . -J ^ 
 
 own account of the matter. But liow many other reli- ^ ^'^ V^ 
 
 ,gions also, besides Israel's, present us with personages of ^^^ J^- 
 
 this kind! And we hold that the personages are not ^ s \ 
 
 real, but have their origin in tlie play of the human ima- ^ j^ , 
 
 the special characters that we find in him, actually arise ? 
 
 / 
 
 ^
 
 ii8 GOD AND THE BIBLE. 
 
 Now, it may be contended either that these special cha- 
 racters, which we assign to him, are not really there ; or 
 that they have come there by chance, and nothing can be 
 inferred from them ; or, finally, both that the characters 
 are there, and that it was the pressure upon the mind of 
 Israel which made him give to his religion, and to his 
 Eternal, that unique type which we profess to find in 
 them. Let us examine these alternatives, so important 
 to the reader of Literature and Dogma. 
 
 We must go to Sir John Lubbock or to Mr. Tylor for 
 researches concerning what is called ' pre-historic man,' 
 human nature in its inchoate, embryo, and as yet un- 
 formed condition. Their researches concerning this are 
 profoundly interesting. But for our present business we 
 have not to go back higher than historic man, — man who 
 has taken his ply, and who is already much like our- 
 selves. With inchoate, pre-historic man, the great 
 objects of nature and the i)leasure or pain which he 
 experienced from them may probably enough have been 
 the source of religion. In those times arose his name 
 for God : T/ic Shinwg. So may have originally com- 
 menced the religion of even the most famous races, — the 
 religion of Greece, the religion of Israel. But into the 
 thoughts and feelings of man in this inchoate stage we 
 cannot, as we now are, any longer fully enter. We
 
 THE GOD OF EXPERIENCE. ug. 
 
 cannot really participate in them ; the religion of man 
 in this stage does not practically concern us. Man's 
 religion practically concerns us from that time only when 
 man's real history has commenced ; when moral and 
 intellectual conceptions have invaded the primordial 
 nature-worship, have, in great measure, superseded it, 
 and given a new sense to its nomenclature. The very 
 earliest Bible-religion does not go higher than a time of 
 this kind, when already moral and intellectual concep- 
 tions have entered into religion. And no one will deny, 
 that, from the very first, those conceptions which are 
 moral rather than intellectual, — tlie idea of conduct and 
 of the regulation of conduct, — appear in Bible-religion 
 prominently. 
 
 Let us for a moment leave Bible-religion, and let us 
 turn to the people who, after the Hebrews, have had 
 most influence upon us, — to the Greeks. Greek history 
 and religion begin for us, as do the religion and history 
 of the Hebrews, at a time when moral and intellectual 
 ideas have taken possession of the framework given 
 originally, it may be, by nature-worship. The great 
 names of Hellenic religion, Zeus and Phoebus, come, 
 as every one knows, from the sun and air, and point to 
 a primordial time of nature-worship. But Greek history 
 and religion begin with the sanctuaries of Tempe and of
 
 J20 GOD AND THE BIBLE. 
 
 Delphi, and with the ApolUne worship and priesthood 
 "vvhich in those sanctuaries under Olympus and Par- 
 nassus established themselves. The northern sanctuary 
 of Tempe soon yielded to Delphi as the centre of 
 national Hellenic life and of ApoUine religion. Now, 
 we all are accustomed to think of Apollo as the awakener 
 and sustainer of genius, as the power illuminating and 
 elevating the soul through intellectual beauty. And so 
 from the very first he was. But in those earliest days of 
 Hellas, and at Delphi, where the hardy and serious tribes 
 of the Dorian Highlands made their influence felt, Apollo 
 was not only the nourisher of genius, — he was also the 
 author of every higher moral effort. He was the prophet 
 of his father Zeus, in the highest view of Zeus, as the 
 source of the ideas of moral order and of right. For to 
 this higher significance had Zeus and Phcebus, — those 
 names derived merely from sun and air, — by this time 
 risen. They had come to designate a Father, the source 
 of the ideas of moral order and of right ; and a Son, his 
 prophet, ])urifying and inspiring the soul with these ideas, 
 and also with the idea of intellectual beauty. 
 
 But it is with the ideas of moral order and of right 
 that we are at this moment concerned. These ideas are 
 in human nature ; but they had, says the excellent his- 
 torian of Greece, Dr. Curtius, ' especially been a treasure 
 in the possession of the less gay and more solitary tribes in
 
 THE GOD OF EXPERIENCE. 121 
 
 the mountains of Northern Greece.' These were Delphi's 
 first pupils. And the graver view of life, the thoughts 
 which give depth and solemnity to man's consciousness, — 
 the moral ideas, in short, of conduct and righteousness, — 
 were the main elements of early Greek religion. Sober- 
 ness and righteousness, to which the words written up on 
 the temple at Delphi called all comers,' were thus the 
 primal rule of Hellenic religion. For a long while, in 
 the great poets of Hellas, the power of this influence 
 shows itself From Pindar, ^2schylus, and Sophocles, 
 may be quoted sentences as religious as those which we 
 find in Job or Isaiah. And here, in this bracing air 
 of the old religion of Delphi, — this atmosphere of ideas 
 of moral order and of right, — the Athenians, Ionian as 
 they were, imbibed influences of character and steadiness, 
 which for a long while balanced their native vivacity and 
 mobility, distinguished them profoundly from the lonians 
 of Asia, and gave them men like Aristides and Pericles. 
 
 Every one knows, however, that this archaic severeness 
 of Hellenic religion, this early pre-occupation with con- 
 duct and righteousness, did not last. There were ele- 
 ments of mobility and variety in men's dispositions which 
 proved fatal to it. The manner in which this came 
 about Ave have not here to trace ; all we are now con- 
 
 ' See riato, Erastiv, cap. vii. toOt' fipa, d>j tojKf, xti iv A(K<po7s 
 ypifiixa irapoKfKfviTat, ffuxppoavvi^v affKuy Kol SiKaioffvvny.
 
 122 COD AND THE BIBLE. 
 
 cerned with is the fact that it Avas so. It had come to be 
 so even by the time when, with the Persian ^^'ar, the 
 briUiant historic period of Greece begins. Even hy this- 
 tinie the hving influence of Delphi had ceased. Bribes 
 had discredited its sanctity ; seriousness and vital power 
 had left it. Delphi had come to be little more than a 
 name, and what continued to exist there was merely 
 a number of forms. jThe predommance, for Hellas, oT^ 
 national religion of righteousness, of grave ideas of con- 
 duct, moral order, and right, outweighing all other ideas^ 
 disappeared with the decline of Delphi, never to return. 
 Still, indeed, these ideas inspired poetry ; and Greek 
 poetry was now more religious than Greek religion, and 
 partly supplied its place. Finally, they ceased even to 
 inspire poetry, and took refuge with philosophic thinkers. 
 We by no means say that they disappeared from life. 
 They are, we repeat, in human nature ; they cannot 
 disappear wholly. But a religion founded on them, a 
 religion of soberness and righteousness, ceased to be set 
 lip before the eyes of all men, ceased to stand in the 
 minds of all men for the great primary concern of human 
 life, as it had stood before the minds of the grave fore- 
 fathers of Hellas in the shadow of their Parnassian 
 sanctuary. And to this extent, of course, the ideas were 
 weakened and effaced in life ; — that they were no longer
 
 THE GOD OF EXPERIEXCE. 123 
 
 impressively i)resented as life's first concern by a national 
 religion, itself the great and solemn centre of men's 
 thoughts. We by no means, again, say that for this there 
 were no compensations. Other aspects of life presented 
 themselves than the aspect in which life appears exclu- 
 sively concerned with soberness and righteousness. 
 Many a line of activity did these new aspects suggest to 
 the Hellenic genius, and with what brilliant success it 
 followed them wc all knov,-. Still, the fact remains. In 
 Greece, as the national history went on, the all-importance 
 of conduct and righteousness pressed no longer upon 
 the Hellenic spirit, and upon Hellenic religion, as their 
 omnipresent and central idea. In the later days of the 
 national life of Hellas it was a religious solemnity, 
 Avitnessed with transport and celebrated by the first artist 
 of the time, to see the courtesan Phr)-ne enter the sea 
 at Eleusis, and represent there, to an innumerable 
 multitude of spectators, Venus Anadyovienc, — Venus 
 issuing from the waves. ' To this had come the religion 
 of Delphi and the art of Olympia. And it was at Eleusis 
 that this happened, the old seat of the mysteries ; — those 
 highest means possessed by Greek religion for deepening 
 and ennobling men's thoughts about life and death. The 
 time had been when the religious solemnities at Eleusis 
 
 • See Athenseus, lib. xi'i, p. 590.
 
 J 24 GOD AND THE BIBLE. 
 
 were of a character to draw from Pindar a strain such as 
 we now call Biblical, — a strain like that of Job, or Isaiah, 
 or the Psalms. ' Blessed is the man who hath beheld 
 these things before he goeth under the earth ! he knoweth 
 the end of man's life, and he knoweth its God-given 
 beginning.' 
 
 Not long after Phryne's religious performance at Eleusis 
 came the last days, too, of the national life of the Jews, 
 under the successors of Alexander. The religious con- 
 ceptions of the Jews of those days are well given by the 
 Book of Daniel. How popular and prevalent these 
 conceptions were, is proved by their vitality and power 
 some two centuries later at the Christian era, and by the 
 large place Avhich they fill in the New Testament. We 
 are all familiar with them ; with their turbid and 
 austere visions of the Ancient of Days on his throne, 
 and of the Son of Man coming with the clouds of heaven 
 to give the kingdom to the saints of the Most High, and 
 to bring in everlasting righteousness. Here, then, is the 
 last word of the religion of the Hebrews, when their 
 natural life is coming to an end, when their career has 
 been, for the most part, run ; when their religion has 
 had nearly all the development which, mthin the limits
 
 THE GOD OF EXPERIENCE. 125; 
 
 of their national life, belonged to it. This, we say, is its 
 last word : To bring in everlasting righteous Jiess} 
 
 Let us now go back to the commencement of Hebrew 
 history. The beginnings of Hebrew national life may 
 not inaptly be paralleled with the beginnings of Greek 
 national life, — with that epoch when the infant Hellenic 
 tribes met in federation under the religious shadow of 
 Tempe or Delphi, and set before their eyes the law of 
 ' soberness and righteousness.' Such an epoch in the 
 career of the Hebrew race is well given by tlic liistory of 
 Abraham. The religion of Abraham, tliis founder and 
 father of the Hebrew people, is a religion, as King 
 Abimelech says, of ' integrity of heart and innocency of 
 hands.' 2 The God of Abraham has chosen Abraham 
 and his race, because, God says : ' I know Abraham, tha t 
 he will command liis children and Iiis household after 
 him, and they shall keep the ^\a}' of the Eternal to dQ 
 righteousness and judgment.'^ So that the Hebrew 
 l^eople and Hebrew history, when they begin, begin, like 
 the Hellenic people and like Hellenic history, with a 
 jdi gion o£ soberness and righteousness. And the after- 
 decline of this religion in Greece we have seen. I'ut in 
 Judaea, at the close of the national history, what do 
 we find to be the condition of this religion ? Has it 
 
 ' Daniel, ix, 24. - Genesis, xx, 5. ^ Gen., .wiii, 19.
 
 126 GOD AND THE BIBLE. 
 
 weakened, has it grown obsolete, has it fallen out of sight 
 and out of mind ? So far from it, that it has grown into 
 an enthusiasm, turbid, passionate, absorbing, and all- 
 pervasive, to bri7ig in everlasting ?-ig/iteoiiSficss. 
 
 How was the long intervening period filled between 
 the call of Abraham at the beginning of Israel's national 
 history, and the Book of Daniel at its close ? Let us 
 take, as a mid-point, that wonderful collection, ranging 
 over so many years, reflecting so many experiences, 
 contributed by so many voices, and answering so pro- 
 foundly to the religious consciousness of Israel : the 
 Book of Psalms. Two things are equally manifest, on 
 the very face of the Book of Psalms, — Israel's attachment 
 to his religion, and that religion's character. One may 
 dip into the Psalms where one will, and be sure to find 
 them not far off. 
 
 First, as to the attachment and strong reliance with 
 which Israel's religion inspired him. ' In the Eternal 
 put I my trust,' ' is the constant burden of his song. 
 ^ My hope hath been in thee, O Eternal ; I have said, 
 Thou art my God ! ' ' Blessed are the people whose 
 God is the Eternal I ' ' They ^^•ho run after another God 
 shall have great trouble.' ^ 
 
 And then as to the character, expressed briefly and 
 • Psalm xi, i. 2 Ps. xxxi, 14; xxxiii, 12; xvi, 4.
 
 THE GOD OF EXPERIENCE. 127 
 
 generally, of this God of Israel, this Eternal. There is really 
 no doubt about it. 'The Eternal loveth the thing that 
 is right ! ' ' Ten thousand variations are played on the 
 one theme, but the theme is that. ' The Eternal alloweth 
 the righteous^ but the wicked his soul hateth,' 2 says David. 
 * Unto the ungodly saith God : Why dost thou take my 
 covenant in thy mouth, whereas thou hatest to be rc- 
 forviedl''^ 'My help cometh of God, who preserveth 
 them that are true of heart.' ^ 'I will wash my hands in 
 imiocency, O Eternal, and so will I go to thine altar.' ^ 
 As in the days of Abimelech, so it was still ; the religion 
 of the Hebrew people was a religion of integrity of heart 
 and innocency of hands. ' Put thou thy trust in the 
 Eternal, and be doifig good.' ^ 'If I incline unto unckcd- 
 ness with my heart, the Eternal will not hear me.' "^ No ; 
 for this is the essential character of Israel's Eternal, to 
 love the thing that is right, to abhor that which is nnl. 
 
 Do we want a somewhat fuller account of what right is, 
 that we may be sure it does not mean a mere performance 
 of ceremonies ? Here it is : — ' Come ye children, and 
 hearken unto me ; I will teach you the fear of the Eternal. 
 Keep thy tongue from e\il, and thy lips that they speak 
 
 ' rs. xxxvii, 2S. - Ps. xi, 5. s y.j_ ]^ 1(5^ iy_ 
 
 * Ps. vii, 10. * Ps. xxvi, 6. " Ps. xxxvii, 3, 
 
 ' Ps. Ixvi, 18.
 
 128 GOD AND THE BIBLE, 
 
 no guile ; eschew evil and do good, seek peace and pursue 
 it.' * Or of what anl is, — what is the course of those who 
 do not ' understand and seek after God ; ' that we may be 
 sure evil does not mean a mere omission of ceremonies, 
 or a sparing to smite God's enemies who happen to be 
 also one's own ? ' Their mouth is full of cursing and 
 bitterness, their feet are swift to shed blood, destruction 
 and unhappiness is in their ways, and the way of peace 
 have they not known.' ^ In a plain way, all this points- 
 well enough, and with perfect clearness, to just what we 
 universally mean by right and wrong, good and evil. It 
 points to morals, conduct ; to a man's behaviour, way 
 and walk in life. And this was what Israel meant by 
 religion : to attend to one's Avay and walk in life, and to 
 regulate them according to the commandments of the 
 Eternal that loveth righteousness. ' I called mine own 
 ways to remembrance,' he says, ' and turned my feet unto 
 Thy testimonies.' •' And they who do so, maintains he, 
 ' shall want no manner of thing that is good.' "* ' Thai 
 shall bring a man peace at the last.' -^ ' To him that 
 ordereth his conversation right shall be shown the sal^ 
 vation of God.' ^ 
 
 ' Ps. xxxiv, II, 13, 14. 
 
 ' Ps. xiv (Prayer Book Version), 6, 7 ; and Rom., iii, 14-17. 
 
 ' Ps. cxix, 59. * Ps. xxxiv, 10. 
 
 * Ps. xxxvii, 38. « Ps. 1, 23.
 
 THE GOD OF EXPERIENCE. 129 
 
 But the Westminster Reviewer says that we are not to 
 rely much on what comes from prophets and psalmists, 
 ' on the most spiritual utterances of the most spiritual 
 part of the nation, of men wlio were at once reformers 
 and poets.' ' They were,' says he, ' innovators, unortho- 
 dox free-thinkers.' What they alleged about righteous- 
 ness by no means proves that righteousness was the 
 religion of Israel. 
 
 And perhaps this sort of argument can, in some cases, 
 be used fairl}- enough. Pindar may have lofty passages 
 about the end and the God-given beginning of man's life. 
 Socrates and Plato may have their minds still bent on 
 those ideas of moral order and of right which were the 
 treasure of the primitive and serious tribes of early Hellas. 
 They may harp still upon the old-fashioned doctrines 
 recommended from the temple at Delphi. Yet, if the 
 Greek nation and its religion have taken quite another 
 line, these utterances of philosophers and poets will not 
 justify us in saying that the religion of Greece was a 
 religion of righteousness. ^ But we have a right to give 
 Israel the benefit of the utterances of its prophets and 
 psalmists. And why ? Because the nation adopted 
 them. So powerfully did the inmost chords of its being 
 vibrate to them, so entirely were they the very truth it 
 was born to and sought to find utterance for, that it 
 
 K
 
 I30 GOD AND THE BIBLE. 
 
 adopted them, made them its standards, the documents 
 of the most profound and authentic expression of the 
 
 Rational consciousness, its religion. Instead of remain- 
 ing literature and philosophy, isolated voices of sublime 
 poets and reforming free-thinkers, these glorifications of 
 righteousness became Jewish religion, matters to be read 
 in the synagogue every Sabbath-day. So that while in 
 Greece it was a religious solemnity to behold a courtesan 
 enter the sea, in Judsea it was a religious solemnity to 
 hear that ' the righteous Eternal loveth righteousness.' 
 
 What we claim, then, for Israel, when we say that he 
 had the intuition of the Eternal Power, not ourselves, 
 that makes for righteousness, when we say that to him 
 were entrusted the oracles of God, that to him our religion 
 was first revealed, is this : — that the ideas of moral order 
 and of right, which are in human nature, which appear 
 in a recognisable shape, whatever may be their origin, 
 as soon as man is sufficiently formed for him to have a 
 history at all, to be intelligible to us at all, to stand related 
 to us as sho\ving a like nature with ourselves, — that these 
 ideas so laid hold upon Israel as to be the master-element 
 in his thoughts, the sheet-anchor of his life. And these 
 ideas have such a range that they take in at least three- 
 fourths of human life. It matters nothing that Israel 
 could give no satisfying and scientific account of the 
 
 \way in which he came by these ideas ; that he could only
 
 THE GOD OF EXPERIENCE. 131 
 
 give legendary and fanciful accounts of it. It matters 
 nothing that the practical application he gave to these 
 ideas was extremely crude and limited, that they were 
 accompanied in him by gross imperfection. It matters 
 nothing that there may be shown to have hung about 
 them any number of waifs and strays from an earlier 
 and unripe stage, survivals from a time of nature-worship, 
 or of any other passage which preceded, with Israel, 
 the entrance upon his real history. If from the time he 
 was formed, and distinguishable, and himself, if from one 
 end of the Bible to the other, we find him impressed, 
 awe-struck, absorbed by the idea of righteousness, what- 
 ever alloys he may mix with it, and however blindly he 
 may deal with it ; if we find him, — and it is indisput- 
 able that we do find him, — thus fascinated, it is enough, 
 and Jie has the intuition . 
 
 His very shortcomings prove the force of the intuition 
 within him, since all the wear and tear of them could not 
 rase it out. ' Cogitavi vias mens, et converti pedes meos in 
 testimonia Tua; I called mine own ways to remembrance, 
 and turned my feet unto Thy testimonies.' ' Israel is the 
 great, standing, unsilenceable, unshaken witness to the 
 necessity of minding one's ways, of conduct. And what- 
 ever else he may have done, or not done, he can assur- 
 
 ' Ps. cxix, 59. 
 K 2
 
 T32 GOD AND THE BIBLE. 
 
 edly plead : Cogitavi vias meas. ' Sacrifices work a 
 conception in which moraHty has no part,' says the 
 Westminster Reviewer; 'sacrifices existed in Israel ab 
 origine.' Even in his historic time there hung about Israel 
 traces of an inchoate and dark stage, remains of an early 
 ' conception of God as an unseen but powerful foe, whos&,- 
 enmity might be averted by the death of victims.' It 
 may have been so ; but, 'Still,' Israel can answer, 'still, all 
 hampered with these survivals of a lower world : Cogitavi 
 vias meas /' 'Though righteousness,' pursues the West- 
 minster Reviewer, ' entered largely into Israel's concep- 
 tion of the Eternal, yet that conception contained much 
 that conflicts with righteousness. The God of Israel often 
 appears as more patriotic than righteous ; blesses Jael, for 
 instance, for the treacherous murder of Sisera.' True; but 
 true, also, that with all this mixture : Cogitavi vias meas ! 
 * Israel's God,' the objector goes on, ' is a magnified and 
 non-natural man, not impassive and uniform like a law 
 of nature, but angry and then repenting him, jealous and 
 then soothed.' Nevertheless, with this crude anthropo- 
 morphic conception of God : Cogitavi vias meas ! 'Israel's 
 religion deals in ecstasy, enthusiasm, evocations of the 
 dead.' Cogitavi vias meas ! ' The current idea of righteous- 
 ness in Israel was largely made up of ceremonial obser- 
 vances.' Cogitavi vias meas/ Finally, in spite of all this
 
 THE GOD OF EXPERIENCE. 133 
 
 thinking upon his ways, Israel misdirected them. ' The 
 Bible,' cries the Westminster Reviewer, ' failed to turn the 
 hearts of those to whom it was addressed ; the commen- 
 tary afforded by Israel's history on the value of the Bible ! ' 
 True, as Israel managed his profession of faith, it did not 
 save him ; but did he on that account drop it ? Cogitavi, 
 cogitavi vias tneas ! 
 
 4- 
 
 The Westminster Reviewer will now, perhaps, under- 
 stand what we mean by saying that the Hebrew people 
 had the revelation and intuition of the Eternal that makes 
 for righteousness. We do not mean that this people had a 
 clear and adequate idea of rightness in conduct as a law 
 of nature, that they then proceeded to personify this law 
 and deify it, and that they deified it in their Jehovah. 
 If this were what we meant, all the criticisms of the 
 Westminster Reviewer upon the shortcomings of Jehovah 
 and Jahvism in the Old Testament would take effect. 
 But perhaps our saying that Israel had the revelation of 
 the Eternal that makes for righteousness is the stumbling- 
 block. Let us try, then, so to draw out what we mean 
 by this, that to the Reviewer and to others it may appear 
 as simple and certain as it does to ourselves. 
 
 For let us now conceive man, so far as this is possible
 
 134 GOD AND THE BIBLE. 
 
 for us, just as the investigation of his beginnings and the 
 actual observation of the state of certain savages shows 
 him to us, in his inchoate, pre-historic, ahnost pre-human 
 condition. In this time of ignorance his gods have 
 their origin. We are accused of introducing in the not 
 ourselves which presses, we say, upon man's spirit, a re- 
 fined metaphysical conception. It is so far from this, that 
 it is one of the first pieces of man's experience, and dates 
 from the most primitive time. It is whatever appears^ 
 to man as outside himself, not in his own power, and 
 affecting him whether he will or no. Now, the more 
 helpless and inexperienced man is, the greater is the 
 number to him of things not in his own power. Who 
 can trace or divine all the possibilities of hope and fear 
 in this wide field ? But we know and can easily under- 
 stand how on certain great and prominent objects of 
 nature, exercising a powerful influence on human life, — 
 such as the sun, for instance, — hope and fear fastened, 
 and produced worshij). And we know, too, and can 
 well understand, how by a natural impulse men were 
 moved to represent in a human form like their own, the 
 powers which attracted their hope, fear, and worship ; as 
 Xenophanes says that if horses, oxen, and lions could 
 paint or model, they would certainly make gods in their 
 own image, — horses in that of horses, oxen in that of
 
 THE GOD OF EXPERIENCE. 135 
 
 oxen. And even wlien men did not represent their 
 gods in human form, they still supposed in them human 
 thoughts and passions. 
 
 In those times arose names like Eloah, Elohim, The 
 Mighty ; or Deus, God, The Shining. And then, too, in 
 those days of bounded view and of apprehensive terror, 
 grew up and prevailed 'the conception of God,' to use 
 the Westminster Reviewer's words, ' as a foe whose 
 enmity might be averted by the death of victims.' Such, 
 he asserts, was Israel's first conception of God ; and 
 although here he speaks positively of things beyond the 
 ken of any certain knowledge, yet we are not concerned 
 to dispute the probability of his conjecture, that with the 
 inchoate and primordial Israel it may have been so. 
 For * the gods,' as Xenophanes again says, ' did not 
 from the first show to men all things ; but in time, by 
 searching, men came to a discovery of the better.' 
 
 Such a 'better' was reached at a point where human 
 history and human religion, in the only sense which our 
 race can now attach to the word religion, first began. 
 It was reached when the ideas of conduct, of moral 
 order and of right, had gathered strength enough to 
 declare and establish themselves. Long before, indeed, 
 during man's chaotic and rudimentary time, these ideas 
 must have been at work ; and as they were no conscious
 
 136 GOD AND THE BIBLE. 
 
 creation of man's will, but solicited him and ripened in 
 him whether he would or no, we may truly and fitly call 
 them the Spirit of God brooding over chaos, moving 
 silently upon the human deep. Then these ideas found 
 and took possession of the framework of the older, and, 
 — for so we may call them, — the as yet irreligious religions. 
 In many an imagining and legend men gave voice to 
 their half-recollection of stages and moments in man's 
 dim ante-natal time, mixing it and colouring it with their 
 later experience. 
 
 From the older religions were handed on ceremonial 
 and rite, which have, in truth, their proper origin, 
 not in the moral stirrings of man's nature at all, but in 
 the stirrings which we call sesthetic. Many practices, 
 even, were not at once dropped, which had their proper 
 origin in darkness and disease of the moral feelings, 
 in blind and pusillanimous terror. Of this kind were 
 human sacrifices, such as Abraham's sacrifice of Isaac. 
 Nevertheless God by the very cradle of Hebrew history, 
 the God of Abraham, the God of ' integrity of heart and 
 innocency of hands,' is no longer ' a foe whose enmity 
 might be averted by the death of victims.' The God of 
 Abraham is a friend ; and the intended sacrifice is no 
 longer an act of selfish terror to avert a powerful foe's 
 enmity, it is an act of faithful devotion to the supposed
 
 THE GOD OF EXPERIENCE. 137 
 
 will of an all-wise and all-good friend. To this extent in its 
 very cradle did the one true religion, Israel's religion, the 
 religion of righteousness, succeed in transforming the 
 baneful and false usage which clung to it from the times 
 of darkness out of which it emerged, until the day came 
 for the disappearance of the usage altogether. 
 
 In a like * better ' did the history and religion of 
 Hellas also, as we have seen, take their rise ; a ' better ' 
 brought about by the ideas of moral order gathering 
 strength and making themselves felt. Then the nature- 
 deities of ruder times, Zeus and Phoebus, became the 
 Father of judgment and of right, and his Prophet-Son. 
 Aohai^ niQnient,Jiiereforej_the Eternal who makes for 
 righteousness, the God of Israel, who is, as St. Paul said 
 to the Athenians, not far from ci'cry one of us, seemed 
 offering to reveal himself to Greece also. But it was for 
 a moment only. Other aspects of life than the moral aspect 
 came into view and into favour with the Greeks ; other 
 tendencies than the tendency which disposes men to pre- 
 occupy themselves with conduct, and with its divine 
 sanctions^, prevailed. 'They did not like,' says the 
 Hebrew Paul austerely, ' to retain God in their know- 
 ledge, and so God gave them over to a reprobate mind.' ' 
 This is, no doubt, a stern sentence. What the Greeks 
 
 ' Koni., i, 28.
 
 138 GOD AND THE BIBLE. 
 
 were and what they accomphshed, and how briUiant a 
 course they ran after their reUgion had passed out of its 
 brief moment of accord -with that of Israel, we know ; 
 and with that knowledge we shall not be forward to utter 
 against them hard censures. But thus much, at least, we 
 may say, notwithstanding all the glory and genius of 
 Greece, notwithstanding all the failure and fanaticism of 
 Israel ; — thus much we may well say, whenever we con- 
 trast the heart and mind of the Graeco-Roman world in 
 its maturity with the interior joys of Israel : They that 
 run after another God shall have great trouble. 
 
 Israel, on the contrary, advanced from the God of 
 Abraham, the Mighty who requires integrity of heart and 
 innocency of hands, to the God of Moses, the Eternal 
 who makes for righteousness unalterably. Then the law 
 in its primitive shape, an organism having for its heart 
 the Ten Commandments, arose. It formulated, with 
 authentic voice and for ever, the religion of Israel as a 
 religion in which ideas of moral order and of right were 
 paramount. And so things went on from Moses to 
 Samuel, and from Samuel to David, and from David to 
 the great prophets of the eighth century and to the 
 Captivity, and from that to the Restoration, and from 
 the Restoration to Antiochus and the invasion of Greek 
 culture, to the Maccabees and the Book of Daniel, and
 
 THE GOD OF EXPERIENCE. 139 
 
 from thence to the Roman conquest, and from that to 
 John the Baptist ; until all the wonderful history received 
 its solution and consummation in Jesus Christ. Through 
 progress and backsliding, amid infectious contact with 
 idolatry, amid survival of old growths of superstition, of 
 the crude practices of the past ; amid multiplication of 
 new precepts and observances, of formalism and cere- 
 monial ; amid the solicitation of new aspects of life ; in 
 material prosperity, and in material ruin;~more and; 
 more the great governing characteristics of the religion of 
 Israel accentuated and asserted themselves, and forced 
 themselves on the world's attention : the God of this 
 religion, with his eternal summons to keep judgmenti 
 and do justice ; the mission of this religion, to bring in 
 
 L everlasting righteousness. 
 
 I And this native, continuous, and increasing pressure 
 upon Israel's spirit of the ideas of conduct and of its 
 sanctions, we call his intuition of the Eternal that makes 
 
 ' for righteousness, the revelation to him of the religion of 
 
 I this Eternal. ' Really, we do not know how else to ac- 
 count for the evident fact of the pressure, than by sup- 
 posing that Israel had an intuitive faculty, a natural bent 
 for these ideas ; that their truth was borne in upon him, re- 
 vealed to him. How else are we to explain their pressure 
 on him ? We put aside all the preternatural ;— a magnified
 
 140 GOD AND THE BIBLE. 
 
 and non-natural man, walking in gardens, speaking from 
 clouds, sending dreams, commissioning angels. We give an 
 explanation which is natural. But we say that this natural 
 explanation is yet grander than the preternatural one. 
 
 Some people, however, when they have got rid of the 
 preternatural in religion, seem to think that they are 
 bound to get rid, as much as they can, of the notion of their 
 being anything grand and wonderful in religion at all ; 
 at any rate, to reduce this element of what is grand and 
 wonderful to the very smallest dimensions. They err. 
 They impede the acceptance of even the real truths which 
 they have to tell the world, because the world feels that on 
 the main matter they are \Nx6x\g. They act imprudently, 
 -therefore ; but they really fail, besides, to appreciate and 
 explain their facts. We have already, in Literature and 
 Dogma, mentioned Professor Kuenen's explanation of the 
 morality in Bible-religion from the simple and severe life 
 I of the primitive Beni-Israel as nomads of the desert... But 
 whoever will read in M. Caussin de Perceval's Arabian 
 History the Mokllacas of the poets among the Arabs be- 
 fore Mahornet, will find this poetry extremely licentious, 
 in spite of the nomad life led in the desert by the Arab 
 tribes. And the reformation of Mahomet is undoubtedly 
 a reformation largely inspired by the Bible of the Beni- 
 Israel. On the other hand, we find Semitic people with-
 
 THE GOD OF EXPERIENCE. 141 
 
 out the nomad life, — the Semitic people of great cities,— 
 developing a worship such as Herodotus has described to 
 us in that of Mylitta. ' 
 
 Professor Kuenen's excellent History is now published 
 in English. We may all read there of a religious 
 revival in Hebrew religion under Samson and Samuel, 
 and how by degrees Jahvism grew in spirituality, and 
 the age of ecstasy and of the Witch of Endor gave 
 place to the prophets of the eighth century, conscious 
 of a real inner call. Well, but what is the reason of 
 all this advance, this ' development of monotheism,' 
 as people call it ? Professor Kuenen thinks that it is 
 largely due to ' the influence of the war between Baal and 
 Jahveh upon the minds of those who had remained 
 loyal to Jahveh.' So, we are told, arose the deep gulf 
 of separation between Jahveh and the heathen ' non- 
 entities,' as the Hebrew prophets call them. 
 
 So ? — but how ? Not out of mere blind obstinacy, not 
 from having fought for a God called Jahveh, against a 
 God called Baal, so long and so hard that his chami)ions 
 grew bent on sticking to Jahveh and found out all manner 
 
 »-j — 
 
 of perfections for him. ' Israel adhered to Jahveh for 
 the same reason which had at first made him take to the 
 ^worship of Jahveh: — that Jahveh was the Eternal Power 
 ' Herodotus, i, 199.
 
 142 GOD AND THE BIBLE. 
 
 that makes for righteousness, was the centre and source 
 of those ideas of moral order and of conduct .iiiiich are, 
 we_repeat^ in human nature, but which pressed on Israel's 
 spirit with extraordinary power. This alone gives us a 
 natural, intelligible clue to the development of the reli- 
 gion of the Bible. 
 
 But even suppose that we reject all notion of a special 
 bent or intuition in Israel determining the course of his 
 religion. Suppose that we allow him to have had not 
 one whit more bent than other people for the ideas of 
 moral order and of right, but that his religion came to be 
 what it was by the mere force of external circumstances 
 and from accident. Still we shall have a religion insist- 
 ing on the idea of righteousness with an energy and im- 
 pressiveness absolutely unparalleled. We shall have a 
 fact which cannot be accounted for through any intelli- 
 gible process of cause and effect, and which is due to 
 mere chance ; — but we shall have the fact all the same. 
 In Israel's religion, far and away more than in the reli- 
 gion of any other ancient people, the Eternal Power that 
 makes for righteousness is impressive and paramount. 
 And of Israel, therefore, the distinction assigned by the 
 word of this Eternal will hold true : — You 07ily have I 
 known of all the families of the earth} 
 
 ' Amos, iii, 2. 
 
 yA-J
 
 THE GOD OF EXPERIENCE. 143 
 
 But now, as if it were not enough to have a Westminster 
 Reviewer on one's hands, there comes a Quarterly Re- 
 viewer besides, and strikes his blow at Literature and 
 Dogma. After some animadversions on our reasoning 
 faculty, which are probably just, and some compliments to 
 the clearness of our diction, which we hesitate to accept, 
 because it ia,the very simplicity of our understanding that 
 incapacitates us for the difficult style of the philosophers, 
 and drives us to the use of the most ordinary phraseology, 
 — after these preliminaries, the Quarterly Reviewer says 
 that we have no right to call our ' enduring power, not 
 ourselves, which makes for righteousness,' a verifiable fact 
 at all, or to talk of Israel's intuition of it. And why ? 
 ' Because,' says the Quarterly Reviewer, ' the origin of 
 the moral perceptions in man is assigned by some to intui- 
 tion, by others to education, and by Mr. Darwin to a 
 social instinct, arising out of evolution and inheritance.' 
 
 Let us assure the Quarterly Reviewer that, for our 
 purpose, whether a man assigns the origin of the moral 
 perceptions to intuition, or to education, or to evoluLion 
 and inheritance, does not matter two straws. And really 
 we are almost astonished at having to explain this, so 
 clear does it seem to us. For surely, because we may 
 
 Jl'A'J
 
 144 GOD AND THE BIBLE, 
 
 choose to say that the Enghsh people have an intuitive 
 sense for poUtics, we are not therefore to be understood 
 as settling the question about the origin of pohtical per- 
 ceptions, whether they proceed from intuition, or from 
 education, or from evolution and inheritance. Nay, and 
 we thought that on this very point we had said in Liter- 
 ature and Dogma all that was necessary ; but we find it is 
 not so. We find a great many people imagining that if 
 Mr. Darwin is right in assigning the origin of the moral 
 perceptions to evolution and inheritance, in that case 
 everything we have said about an enduring power which 
 makes for righteousness, and about Israel's recognition 
 of this power, must necessarily fall to the ground. 
 Come, then, let us make it clear to the reader of Liter- 
 ature and Dogma, that these imaginations are quite vain, 
 and that he would do very ill to be moved by them. 
 
 So let us take Mr. Darwin's doctrine and see how in- 
 nocent it is, and how entirely unaffected religion is by it. 
 But we will not take it from the mouth of that illustrious 
 philosopher himself, because to so many religious people 
 he is a bugbear. Neither will we take it from M. Littre, 
 as we did in Literature and Dogma, for the sake of soften- 
 ing a little the stem hearts of the Comtists; for M. 
 Littrd's name is not more acceptable to the religious world 
 than Mr. Darwin's. No, we will take it from one of the
 
 THE GOD OF EXPERIENCE. 145 
 
 clearest of thinkers, and one of the most reh'gious of men, 
 — Pascal. ' \Vhat is nature ? ' says Pascal. ' Perhaps 
 a first habit, as habit is a second nature.' Qu'est-ce que 
 la nature ? Peut-eire une premiere coutuine, com me la cou- 
 iume est une seco/ide nature. Here, briefly and admirably 
 expressed, is the famous doctrine of Mr. Darwin. 
 
 And now suppose that our moral perceptions and rules 
 are all to be traced up, as evolutionists say, to habits due 
 to one or other of two main instincts, — the reproductive 
 instinct and the instinct of self-preservation. Let us take 
 an example of a moral rule due to each instinct. For a 
 moral rule traceable, on our present supposition, to the 
 instinct of self-preservation, we cannot do better than to 
 take * the first commandment with j^romise : ' Honour 
 thy father and thy mother. We say that it makes not the 
 smallest difference to religion whether we suppose this 
 commandment to be thus traceable or not. 
 
 For let it be thus traceable, and suppose the original 
 natural affection of the young to their parents to l)e due 
 to a sense of dependence upon them, and of benefit from 
 them. And then, when the dependence and benefit end, 
 when the young can sliift for tliemselves, the natural 
 affection seems in the lower animals, as they are called, 
 to pass away. But in man it is not thus evanescent. For 
 at first, perhaps, there were some who from weakness or 
 
 L
 
 146 GOD AND THE BIBLE. 
 
 from accident felt the dependence and received the bene- 
 fit longer than others, and in such was formed a more 
 deep and strong tie of attachment. And while their 
 neighbours, so soon as they were of adult vigour, heed- 
 lessly left the side of their parents and troubled themselves 
 about them no more, and let them perish if so it might 
 happen, these few remained with their parents, and grew 
 used to them more and more, and finally even fed and 
 tended them when they grew helpless. Presently they 
 began to be shocked at their neighbours' callous neglect 
 of those who had begotten them and borne them ; and 
 they expostulated with their neighbours, and entreated 
 and pleaded that their own way was best. Some suffered, 
 perhaps, for their interference ; some had to fight for 
 their parents to hinder their neighbours maltreating them ; 
 and all tlie more fixed in their new feelings did these 
 primitive gropers after the Fifth Commandment become. 
 Meanwhile this extending of the family-bond, this 
 conquering of a little district from the mere animal life, 
 this limiting of the reign of blind, selfish impulse, brought, 
 Ave may well believe, more order into the homes of those 
 who practised it, and with more order more well-doing, 
 and with both more happiness. And when they solicited 
 their more inhuman neighbours to change their ways, 
 they must always have had to back them the remem-
 
 THE GOD OF EXPERIENCE. 147 
 
 brance, more or less alive in every man, of an early link 
 of affection with his parents ; but now they had their 
 improved manner of life and heightened well-being to 
 back them too. So the usage of the minority gradually 
 became the usage of the majority. And we may end 
 this long chapter of suppositions by supposing that thus 
 there grew at last to be communities which honoured 
 their fathers and mothers, instead of, — as, perhaps, if one 
 went back fxr enough, one would find to have been the 
 original practice, — eating them. 
 
 But all this took place during that which was, in truth, 
 a twilight ante-natal life of humanity, almost as much as 
 the life which each man passes in the womb before he is 
 born. The history of man as man proper, and as dis- 
 tinguished from the other animals, — the real history of 
 our race, and of its institutions, — does not begin until 
 stages such as that which we have been describing are 
 passed, and feelings such as that of which we have been 
 tracing the growth are formed.: INIanand his history begin, 
 we say, when he becomes distinctly conscious^ of feelings 
 Avhich, in a long preparatory period of obscure growtli, he 
 may have beg n form ing. Then he calls liis habit, acquired 
 by a process whi(-h he does not recollect, nature ; and he 
 gives effect to it in fixed customs, rules, laws, and insti- 
 tutions. His religion consists in acknowledging and 
 
 L 2
 
 I4S GOD AND THE BIBLE. 
 
 reverencing the a\vful sanctions with -which this right wo}- 
 for man has, he IjeHevcs, been invested by the mighty not 
 ourselves whicli surrounds us. And the more emphati- 
 cally he places a feeling under the guardianship of these 
 sanctions, the more impressive is his testimony to the 
 hold it lias upon him. When Israel fixed the feeling of a 
 child's natural attachment to its parents by the command- 
 ment : HoJiour thy father and thy mother, that thy days 
 may be long in the land which the Eternal thy God givcth 
 thee, he showed that he had risen to regard this feeling,— 
 slowly and precariously acquired though by our supposi- 
 tion it may have been, — as a sure, solid, and sacred part 
 of the constitution of human nature. 
 
 But as well as the supposition of a moral habit and 
 rule evolved out of the instinct of self-preservation, we 
 are to take the supposition of a moral habit and rule 
 evolved out of the reproductive instinct. And here, 
 indeed, in the relations between the sexes, we are on 
 ground where to walk right is of vital concern to men, 
 and where disasters are plentiful, ^\^ho first, in the early 
 and tentative up-struggling of our race, who first discerned 
 them, this peril of disaster, this necessity for taking heed 
 to one's steps ? "Who was he, that, amid the promiscuous 
 concubinage of man's commencements, — if we are to 
 suppose that out of the sheer animal life human life had
 
 THE GOD OF EXPERIENCE. 149 
 
 to evolve itself and rise, — who was lie that first, through 
 ^attachment to his chance companion or through attach- 
 ment to his supposed offspring, gathered himself together, 
 jjut a bridle on his vague appetites, marked off himself 
 ^^nd his, drew the imperfect outline of the circle of home, 
 and fixed for the time to come the rudiments of the 
 family ? Who first, amid the loose solicitations of sense, 
 -obeyed (for create it he did not) the mighty not ourselves 
 which makes for moral order, the stream of tendency 
 which was here carrying him, and our embryo race along 
 \\-ith liim, towards the fulfilment of the true law of their 
 being ? — became aware of it, and obeyed it ? ^^'hoever he 
 was, he would soon have had imitators ; for never was a 
 more decisive step taken towards bringing into human 
 life greater order, and, with greater order, greater well- 
 doing and happiness. So the example was followed, 
 jind a habit grew up, and marriage was instituted. 
 
 And thus, again, we are brought to the point where 
 history and religion begin. And at this point we first 
 find the Hebrew ]jeople, with polygamy still clinging to 
 it as a survival from the times of ignorance, but with the 
 marriage-tie solidly established, strict and sacred, as we 
 see it between Abraham and Sara. Presently this same 
 Hebrew people, with that aptitude which, we say, cha- 
 racterised it for being j^ofoundly impressed by ideas of
 
 I50 GOD AND THE BIBLE. 
 
 moral order, placed in the Decalogue the marriage-tie under 
 the express and solemn sanction of the Eternal, by the 
 Seventh Commandment : TJwu shalt not commit adultery. 
 
 Now, we might jump at once from here to the end of 
 Jewish history, and show Jesus Christ renewing by his 
 method the Seventh Commandment as he did also the 
 Fifth, renewing them and extending them, clearing 
 casuistry and formalism away from them, and making 
 them look as fresh and impressive in this new light as in 
 their old light they had in Israel's best days looked tO' 
 him. But let us first, after hearing Israel in the Deca- 
 logue on the relation of the sexes, take Israel in the 
 middle of his career, as the Book of Proverbs discovers 
 him to us. There he touches on that great and often- 
 arising theme in what our philosophers call ' sociology : ' 
 the strange woman. And this is his sentence on the man 
 who is bewitched by her : He knows not that the dead are 
 there, and that her guests are in the depths of hell. '^ 
 
 Now, we ask the Quarterly Reviewer to consider this 
 
 saying of Israel, led up to by the Seventh Commandment 
 
 in the earlier days of his history, and consummated by 
 
 such things as the review of the Seventh Commandment 
 
 by the well-known sentence of Jesus in the later.^ R^ 
 
 ' Proverbs, ix, i8. 
 
 - Matth., V, 27, 28. Compare: 'Not in the lust of concupiscence,. 
 as the Gentiles luho kncnv not Cod ;' 'The time past may suffice us-
 
 THE GOD OF EXPERIENCE. 151 
 
 ligion, w eknow, arises when moral ideas are touched \t 
 with emotion. Now, this may be the case with moral 
 ideas from whatever source they were at first derived. 
 And that people, amongst whom it is the case eminently, 
 are the chosen people of religion. "\\'c have granted the ' 
 supposition that moral perceptions and habits in what 
 ' concerns the relation of the sexes were originally formed 
 for Israel, as for everybody else, by evolution and in- 
 heritance. J We will grant, besides, that religious wor- 
 ship and many of its names and ceremonies arose out 
 of ignorant hope and fear in man's rudimentary time. 
 But, for us now, xeligion-4S, -we say, morality touched 
 with- emotion, lit up and enkindled and made much 
 more powerful by emotion. And when morality is thus 
 touched with emotion, it is equally religion, whether it 
 have proceeded from a magnified and non-natural man 
 in the clouds, or arisen in the way we have supposed. 
 And those in whom it appears thus touched with emotion 
 most, are those whom we call endued with most bent for 
 religion, most feeling, most apprehension ;_as one man 
 and one race seem to turn out to have more gift, without 
 any conscious intending and willing of it, for one thing, 
 and another mail and another race for another. .Jsow 
 
 to have ivroiight the ivill of the Ge/iti/es when we walked in lascivious- 
 ness,' (S:c. — l Thess., iv, 5 ; i Pet., iv, 3.
 
 GOD AND THE BIBLE. 
 
 sj 
 
 such a bent, such a feeHng, when it declares itself^ we, 
 call an intuition. And Ave say that Israel had such an 
 intuition of religion, that he shows it in the special 
 matter Avith which we are now dealing, and in others of 
 like kind, and that this people is, therefore, the chosen 
 people of religion. 
 
 For how does a bent or feeling of this kind for moral 
 perceptions declare itself, when it has grown strong 
 
 enough to declare itself? tt declares itself by the accent 
 
 jiand power with which its utterances are made ; — the 
 accent of conviction in the speaker himself, the power of 
 impressiveness on those who hear him. Moral percep-, 
 tions, and rules securing and establishing them, take, onl 
 the supposition we are here following, a long while to 
 build up. There is a backwards and forwards with 
 them ; often it looks as if they would never have strength 
 to get established at all. However, at last there comes 
 some one like Israel, and lays down a sentence like the 
 Seventh Commandment, and reinforces it by such de- 
 liverances as that of the Book of Proverbs, and that of 
 the Sermon on the Mount. He thus, we say, takes a 
 lead in what \itally concerns conduct and religion, 
 which for ever remains to him and for ever is proving its 
 reality. 
 
 For, again, a moral perception does not always, and
 
 THE GOD OF EXPERIENCE. 
 
 ':>j 
 
 for all persons, retain the vividness it had at the moment 
 when it established itself in a rule like the Seventh Com- 
 mandment. Human nature has many sides, many 
 impulses ; our rule may seem to lose ground again, and 
 the perception out of wliicli it grew may seem to waver. 
 Practice may offer to it a thousand contradictions, in 
 •what M. Taine calls the tristc defile, the dismal procession 
 of the Haymarket, and in what a sage or a saint might, 
 perhaps, in like manner call the dismal procession of the 
 Bois de Boulogne. . Not-practice alone is against the old_ 
 strictness of rule, but theory; we have argumentative 
 systems of free love and of re-habilitation of the flesh. 
 Even philosophers like Mr. ]Mill, having to tell us that 
 for special reasons they had in fact observed the Seventh 
 Commandment, think it right to add that this they did, 
 "■ although we did not consider the ordinances of society 
 binding, on a subject so entirely personal' So arises 
 Avhat these same philosophers would call a disintegration 
 of that moral perception on which the Seventh Com- 
 mandment is founded. What we have to ask, then, is : 
 Was this perception, and the rule founded on it, really 
 n conquest for ever, placing human nature on a higher 
 stage ; so that, however much tlie perception and rule 
 may ha\e been dubious and unfounded once, tliey 
 must be taken to be certain and formed now ? And
 
 154 GOD AND THE BIBLE. 
 
 Avhatever now makes the perception or the rule fluctu- 
 ating, does it tend, so for, not to emancipate man, but to 
 replace him in the bondage of that old, chaotic, dark, 
 almost ante-human time, from which slowly and painfully 
 he had emerged when the real history and religion of our 
 race began? And whatever, on the other hand, re- 
 invigorates the perception, does it tend to man's freedom, 
 safety, and progress ? Because, if this is so, the accent 
 of clear and decisive conviction in Israel's comment on the 
 theory of Free Love is invaluable. He knows not that the 
 dead arc there, and that her guests are in the depths of hell. 
 Here, then, let us summon the most naturalistic, the 
 freest, the calmest of observers on these matters,— Goethe. 
 He is speaking to the Chancellor von Miiller against 
 over-facility in granting divorce. He says : 'What culture 
 has won of nature we ought on no account to let go 
 again, at no price to give up. In the notion of the 
 sacredness of marriage, Christianity has got a culture- 
 conquest of this kind, and of priceless value, although 
 marriage is, properly speaking, unnatural.' Unnatural, 
 he means, to man in his rudimentary state, before the 
 fixing of moral habits has formed the right human nature. 
 Emancipation from the right human nature is merely, 
 therefore, return to chaos. .Man's progress depends on 
 keeping such ' culture-conquests ' as the Cliristian notion
 
 THE GOD OF EXPERIENCE. 155 
 
 pf fh(^ snrredness of marriage. AuiL undoubtedly this 
 jintinn rnmt; to Cluristiouity from Ibiacl. Such was 
 Israel's genius for the ideas of moral order and of right, 
 such his intuition of the Eternal that makes for righteous- 
 ness, that he felt without a shadow of doubt, and said 
 with the most impressive solemnit)-, that Free Love was, — 
 to speak, again, like our modern i)hilosophers, — fatal to 
 progress. He knows not tJtat the dead arc there, and that 
 her guests are in the depths of hell. 
 
 And now, perhaps, the Quarterly Reviewer will suffer 
 us to speak of Israel's intuition of the Eternal that makes 
 for righteousness, even though moral perceptions and 
 habits may have originally been evolved as ]Mr. Darwin 
 supposes. And the Westminster Reviewer will let us 
 repeat that the word of this Eternal concerning Israel, 
 as distinguished from every other nation of antiquity, is 
 true, in spite of Israel's sacrifices and polygamy : You 
 only have I knmvn of all thefaviilies of the earth. 
 
 Finall}-, a very different writer from the Westminster 
 Reviewer, — M, Charles Secretan, in the Reviic Suisse, — 
 is at one with tlie JFestmiuster Reviewer in denying the 
 possibility of basing on experimental grounds the claim 
 of the Bible and of its religion to our acceptance. ' The
 
 156 GOD AND THE BIBLE. 
 
 Power making for righteousness,' say M. Charles Secretan, 
 ' the Secret of Jesus, are not really experimental notions 
 which an}- man can verify. The contrary is true. The 
 Secret and the Power are objects of faitJi only. Ex- 
 perience offers every day abundant contradictions to the 
 reality of this Power.' 
 
 Now on this point it is certainly indispensable that the 
 reader of Literature and Dogma should be in no doubt. 
 FoLtlie fundamental thesis of that book is, that righteous- 
 aiess is salvation verifiably, and that the secret of Jesus„ 
 is righteousness verifiably ; and that the true faith which 
 the Bible inculcates is the faith that this is so. But 
 unquestionably the common notion among religious 
 people is M. Charles Secretan's : that experience is 
 altogether against the saving power of righteousness or 
 of the secret of Jesus, but that their saving power Avill be 
 proved to a man after he is dead by a great judgment, 
 and by a system of rewards and punishments in accor- 
 dance with them ; and that faith is the belief that this 
 will really happen. And unquestionably all this is taken 
 from Israel himself, who in his latter days consoled him- 
 self, as we can see in the Book of Daniel, by the idea of 
 a resurrection, judgment, and recompence of this sort, 
 and for whom faith came to be the belief that it all would 
 certainly happen.
 
 THE GOD OF EXPERIENCE. 157 
 
 r Jesus Christ, we say, made it the great object of his i 
 teaching to clear and transform this extra-belief of his . 
 j-o"ntiynien._ y Upon tliat, however, we will not insist 
 now ; neither will we now ourselves set about proving 
 that experimentally righteousness is salvation, and ex- 
 perimentally the secret of Jesus is righteousness, inde- 
 pendently of the soundness or unsoundness of the cxtra- 
 bcUef oi Jews or Christians. On the experimental cha- 
 racter of these truths, which are the undoubted object of 
 religion, we have elsewhere said what is necessary. But 
 they arc the matter of an immense experience which is 
 still going forward. It is easy to dispute them, to find 
 things which seem to go against them; yet, on the whole, 
 they prove themselves, and prevail more and more. And 
 the idea of their truth is in human nature, and everyone 
 has some affinity for them, although one man has more 
 and another less. But if any man is so entirely without 
 affinity for them, so subjugated by the conviction that 
 fixcts are clean against them, as to be unable to entertain 
 the idea of their being in human natiu-e and in ex])eri- 
 ence, for him Literature and Dogma was not written. 
 
 We suppose, therefore, the reader of Literature and 
 Dogma to admit the idea of these truths being in human 
 nature and in experience. Now, we say that the great 
 use of the Bible is to animate and fortify faith in
 
 158 GOD AND THE BIBLE. 
 
 them, against whoever says that ' experience offers every- 
 day abundant contradictions to their reaUty.' The truth 
 that righteousness is salvation has double power upon 
 mankind by the inspiration of the sublime witness borne 
 to it by Israel in his best days. This is why these Scrip- 
 tures are truly said to be ' \vritten for our learning, 
 that we through patience and comfort of the Scriptures 
 might have hope.' ^ True, in his later days Israel had 
 taken refuge in an ideal world to ensure the triumph 
 of righteousness, had imagined his apocalyptic Ancient 
 of Days to be necessary and his Son of Man coming 
 in the clouds, his crisis^ his anastasis, and his IVIessianic 
 reign of the saints. All this was, in a certain way, a 
 testimony to the ideas of moral order and of right. But 
 Israel's best, his immortal testimony to them, is the testi- 
 mony borne in liis earlier days and in his prime, when his 
 faith is in the triumph of the ideas themselves, not in a 
 phantasmagoric restitution of all things to serve them. J As 
 , the wJiirhuiiid J>assct/t, so is the 7uickcd no moi'C, but the 
 ' righteous is an nrrlasting fo^indation. As 7'ighteonsness 
 tendeth to life, so lie that pursucth anl pursueth it to his 
 { own dcathP' 
 
 This imperishable faith of the true Israel, clouded in 
 his later days, resumed and perfected by Jesus Christ, 
 ' Rom., XV, 4. * Prov., x, 25 ; xi, 19.
 
 THE GOD OF EXPERIENCE. 159 
 
 but from the first only lialf understood and mixed with 
 natural errors by his disciples, makes the glory and the 
 grandeur of the Old Testament. It has an answer, — a far 
 better answer than any we could give, — to every objection 
 of M. Charles Secretan. ' The power making for righteous- 
 ness is not really,' says M. Secre'tan, * an experimental 
 notion, which any man can verify • the contrary is true.' 
 Let Israel answer. The Eternal upholdeth the righteous ; 
 ' though he fall he shall not be cast aivay, for the Eta-nal 
 upholdeth him 7vith his hand. I have been young and now 
 am old, and yet saw I nroer the righteous forsaken. I 
 \ myself have seef I the ungodly in great power, and flourishing 
 \like a_g>jccn_ bay-tr£C : J wait by, and lo, he 7vas gone!^ 
 *• Experience,' pursues M. Secre'tan, 'offers every day abun- 
 dant contradictions to the reality of this power.' What 
 says Israel ? I should utterly have fainted, but that I believe 
 verily to see the goodness of the Eternal in the land of the^ 
 living.'^ Israel would not allow time enough for the de- 
 monstration of his truth that righteousness is salvation ; 
 hence his later disappointments and illusions. But for 
 anyone who believes that this truth is a {)rofound law of 
 human nature, Israel's faith in it during his best days 
 opens a boundless source of joy, courage, and enthu- 
 
 • rs. xxxvii, 24, 25, 35, 36. 
 - Ps. xxvii, 13.
 
 l6o GOD AND THE BIBLE. 
 
 siasm ; and it is a source such as no other people of 
 antiquity offers. So that here, again, is confirmation of 
 that unique rank emphatically assigned to Israel by the 
 Eternal that makes for righteousness : You only have I 
 known of all the families of the earth. 
 
 7- 
 
 The Spectato)' asks : How are we to know that Israel 
 meant what he said when he pronounced righteousness tO' 
 be salvation, if we contend that he did not speak literally 
 when he brings in God talking, thinking, and loving? 
 Surely because in the one case he is on ground of experi- 
 ence where we can follow him, but on the other he is not. 
 Therefore, when he says : There ariseth light for the 
 righteous,^ his words present no difficulty, and we can 
 take them as they stand ; but when he speaks of God 
 walking in a garden, we are driven to find for the words 
 some other origin than his actual experience. And who- 
 ever attends to the history of the human spirit, will soon 
 see that such an origin is not hard to find. 
 
 The Spectator asks, again, where in "W^ordsworth, whose 
 personifying language about nature wc produced to illus- 
 trate Israel's personifying language about God, we can 
 point to language which speaks of nature in the ' mood 
 
 ' Fs. xcvii. II.
 
 THE GOD OF EXPERIENCE. r6r 
 
 of real expectation and confidence common in the Psalms,' 
 Why, where Wordsworth says : Nature never did forsake 
 the heart that loved her. Or A\here, asks the Spectator, 
 can we find language which 'treats distrust in the 
 promises of nature as a sin ? ' Why, in plain prose, with- 
 out going to the poets for it at all ; in one of the profound- 
 est and most impressive passages to be found in Butler, 
 in his sermon on The Ig/iorance of Man. ' If things 
 afford to man,' says Butler, '■ the least hint or intimation 
 tliat virtue is the law he is born under, scepticism itself 
 should lead him to the most strict and inviolable perfor- 
 mance of it ; that he may not tnake the dreadful experiment 
 of leaving the course of life marked out for him by nature, 
 whatever that nature be, and entering paths of his oton, of 
 which he can know neither the danger nor the end.' What 
 can be more solemn and grand? it is grand with the 
 grandeur of Greek tragedy. Jliit Ts iael had more than a 
 _hiflt.Q r^ intimation that virt ue is the law man is bom 
 .under.. He had a n irresistib le intuition of it. Therefore 
 he breaks into joy, which Butler and Greek tragedy do 
 not. Nevertheless, the greatness of Butler, as we hope 
 one day to show, is in his clear perception and powerful 
 use of a ' course of life marked out for man by nature, 
 whatever that nature be.' His embarrassment and failure 
 is in his attempt to establish a perception as clear, and a 
 
 M
 
 i62 GOD AND THE BIBLE. 
 
 use as powerful, of the popular theology. Ttnt fr oj[Q_Bllt- - 
 ler, and from his treatment of nature in connexion with 
 religion, the idea of following out that treatment frankly 
 and fully, which is the design of Literature and Dogma, 
 first, as we are proud to acknowledge, came to us ; and, 
 indeed, our obligations of all kinds to this deep and 
 strenuous spirit are very great. 
 
 From our use of the proof from happiness, accusations 
 have been brought against us of eudjemonism, utilitarian- 
 ism. We are reproached, by a foreign critic, with utili- 
 tarianism, with making, ' conformably to the tradition of 
 the English school ' (the Westminster Reviewers will hear 
 with astonishment what company they have been keeping !) 
 * self-interest the spring of human action.' Utilitarianism ! 
 Surely a pedant invented the word ; and oh, what pedants 
 have been at work in employing it ! But that joy and 
 happiness are the magnets to which human life inevitably 
 moves, let not tlie reader of Literature and Dogma for a 
 moment confuse his mind by doubting. The real objec- 
 tion is to low and false views of what constitutes happiness, 
 Pleasure dind utility are bad words to employ, because 
 they have been so used as to suggest such views, 'Qxxtj'oy 
 and happiness, on the whole, have not. We may safely 
 say, then, that joy and happiness are the magnets to 
 which human life irresistibly moves. The men of posi-
 
 THE GOD OF EXPERIENCE. 163 
 
 tive experience are for us here, but so are the chief men 
 of religion too. St. Augustine : — 'Act we must in 
 pursuance of that which gives most dcHght.' Pascal : — ^ - 
 
 ' However different the means they employ, all men with- 
 out exception tend towards one object, — happiness.' Bar- iy^ ^ 
 row : — ' The sovereign good, the last scope of our actions, 
 the top and sum of our desires, — happiness.' Butler: — 'It 
 is manifest that nothing can be of consequence to man- 
 kind, or any creature, but happiness.' This truth cannot^ 
 be gainsaid ; and to reject the truth itself, because of 
 frequent perversions of it, is a fatal error. From theolo- 
 gians of the Unitarian school the cry against eudsemonism 
 comes loudest. To champion anti-eudsemonism, and to 
 champion the metaphysical personality of God, are tasks 
 to which this school at the present moment appears to 
 have especially addressed itself Hardly could it give a 
 stronger sign of that sterility in religion, to which, in 
 spite of all its benevolence and intelligence, it seems 
 perpetually doomed. 
 
 8. 
 
 The objections most likely to make an untoward im- 
 pression on the reader of Literature aiul Dogma we ha\e 
 now, we believe, noticed, and done our best to remove. 
 On otiiers we will not linger, because they can hardly occa- 
 
 M 2
 
 i64 GOD AND THE BIBLE. 
 
 sion any real difficulty. The Westminster Reviewer com- 
 ])lains of our talking of the secret of Jesus, because, says 
 the Reviewer, Jesus made no secret of it himself. Neither 
 did the Eternal make a secret to Israel of righteousness, 
 and yet Israel talks of the secret of the Eternal. The 
 truth which its holder is supposed alone or in especial to 
 have the clue to and to deal in, men call his secret. 
 Again, we are told that we must not suppose an element 
 of genuine curativeness in the exorcising of unclean spirits 
 by Jesus, because the Jewish thaumaturgists are repre- 
 sented exorcising them also. But what ? because there 
 are charlatans who play upon the nervous system for 
 their own purposes, can there be no doctor who plays 
 upon it beneficently ? Again, we have said that it can be 
 verified that Jesus is the son of the Eternal that makes 
 for righteousness, and the IVestminster Reviewer objects 
 that ' to say that any man is the son of a natural law is 
 absurd.' Eut the Bible never speaks of the Eternal as a 
 natural law, but always as if this power lived, and breathed, 
 and felt. Speaking as the Bible speaks, we say that 
 Jesus is verifiably the Son of God. Speaking as the West- 
 minster Reviewer speaks, and calling God a natural law, 
 we say that of this natural law Jesus is verifiably the off- 
 spring or outcome. Finally, the Quarterly Reviewer Avill 
 not allow us to pronounce it verifiable that righteousness
 
 THE GOD OF EXPERIENCE. 165 
 
 is only possible by the method of Jesus, because, says he, 
 there was righteousness in the world before the Christian 
 era. Really, the Fourth Gospel answers him, where 
 Jesus says : Before Abraham was, 1 am} But, perhaps, 
 though a Quarterly Reviewer, he has been dallying witli 
 the Tubingen school, and pronounces the Fourth Gospel a 
 fancy-piece. Let us try him, then, with St. Augustine : — 
 Res ij>sa, qiue nunc religio Christiana nuncupatur, erat 
 4Xpud antiques, nee defuit ab initio generis humani. 
 
 We have just now appealed to the Fourth Gospel. 
 Professor Rauwenhoff lays down that the weakest part of 
 Literature and Dogma is its reliance on sayings of Jesus 
 from that Gospel. On his death-bed Baur pleasantly re- 
 marked that to his Tiibingen school, so often reported van- 
 quished, might with truth be applied the words of St. Paul: 
 As dying, and behold we live. "Well might Baur say so. 
 He and his school live, above all, in the strong and grow- 
 ing acceptance of their criticism of the Fourth Gospel. 
 Already Liberal reviewers in this country begin to treat 
 it as certain. Discussions of it have hitherto not been 
 frequent in this country, but the vogue for such discus- 
 sions will certainly increase. What we think of this class 
 of questions, and of its fundamental character, we have 
 said in Literature and Dognui. But to return for a little 
 
 * John, viii, 58.
 
 1 66 GOD AND THE BIBLE. 
 
 to the subject, to treat it a little more closely, may be well. 
 Probably, too, the reader of Literature and Dogma will 
 expect us to make good our free use, in that work, of 
 the Fourth Gospel. The method, the secret, and the 
 sweet reasonableness of Jesus are independent of the 
 Fourth Gospel, but from that Gospel they receive impor- 
 tant illustration. 
 
 The question concerning the Fourth Gospel raises the 
 whole question concerning the Canon of the New Testa- 
 ment, and, indeed, concerning the Canon of Scrip- 
 ture generally. On this larger question also, then, we 
 cannot but touch ; we shall, however, particularly address 
 ourselves to considering the Fourth Gospel, and the 
 criticisms which have been directed against it. To in- 
 validate it two tests are employed : the test of external 
 evidence, and the test of internal evidence. We will, after 
 saying what seems needful on the general question of the 
 Canon of Scripture, proceed to take first the external 
 evidence in the case of the Fourth Gospel, the questions 
 of dates and of texts. But the internal evidence, the 
 test of literary criticism, is above all relied on as decisive 
 by Baur and his school. So we will, finally, try the 
 Fourth Gospel by that test too. Ccesareiii appellasti, ad 
 Casarem ibis.
 
 16/ 
 
 CHAPTER IV. 
 
 THE BIBLE-CANON. 
 
 yVv gaid in TAtefatn re (7"^ nnonin^ that- all nnr.-crkixdsm 
 a S the Four F.vnn^plis f^ who report Jesus had this for 
 its govpmifig -idea- : to make out what, in their report of 
 ^^jsuit_is^_^^£sus^mid what is the reporters. We then 
 went on to remark as follows : — ' Now, this excludes as 
 unessential much of the criticism w-hich is bestow^ed on 
 the New Testament. What it excludes is those questions 
 as to the exact date, the real authorship, the first publi- 
 cation, the rank of priority of the Gospels, on which so 
 much thought is by many bestowed ; — questions which 
 have a great attraction for critics, which are in themselves 
 good to be entertained, which lead to much close and 
 fruitful observations of the texts, and in which very high 
 ingenuity may be shown and very great plausibility 
 reached, but not more ; they cannot really be settled, the 
 data, are insufficient. And for our purpose they are not 
 essential' And we concluded by saying : — ' In short,
 
 i68 GOD AND THE BIBLE. 
 
 to know accurately the histoty of our documents is im- 
 possible ; and even if it were possible, we should yet 
 not know accurately what Jesus said and did ; for /its 
 I reporters were iricapahle of rendering it, he was so vuieh 
 above them^ 
 
 As to the character of the documents, however, we 
 added this : — ' It must be remembered that of none of 
 these recorders have we, probably, the very original 
 record. The record, when we first get it, has passed 
 through at least half a century, or more, of oral tradition, 
 and through more than one written account.' 
 
 Nevertheless, wx thought that in the Fourth Gospel we 
 found, after all these deductions had been made as to 
 the capacity of the Gospel-reporters and the quality of 
 the Gospel-documents, a special clue in one most 
 important respect to the line really taken by Jesus in 
 his teaching. A Gospel-v.-riter, having by nature his 
 head full of the external evidence from miracles, would 
 never, we said, have invented the insistence on internal 
 evidence as what, above all, proves a doctrine. 'Wherever 
 we find what enforces this evidence, or builds upon it, 
 there we may be especially sure that w'e are on the 
 trace of Jesus ; because turn or bias in this direction 
 the disciples were more likely to omit from his discourse 
 than to import into it, they were themselves so wholly
 
 THE BIBLE-CANON. 169 
 
 preoccupied with the evidence from miracles.' _BiiL_ffiS_ 
 fi nd in the Fourtli Gospel a remarkable insistence uijon 
 ihe internal evidence for the doctrine promulgated by 
 Jesus, Here then we certainly come, we said, upon a 
 trace, too little marked by the reporters in general, of the 
 genuine teaching of Jesus; and this gives a peculiar 
 eminency and value to the Fourth Gospel. 
 
 All this is contested ; some of it by one set of critics, 
 some of it by another. Critics like the Westminster 
 Reviewer \\\\\ not allow that Jesus was over the heads of 
 his reporters. The author of Supernatural Religion, far 
 from thinking that the Fourth Gospel puts us in a special 
 way on the trace of Jesus, declares that it 'gives a portrait 
 of Jesus totally unlike that of the Synoptics,' contrasts 
 ' the dogmatic mysticism and artificial discourses of the 
 one ' with ' the sublime morality and simple eloquence of 
 the other,' assigns, in short, the entire superiority to the 
 Synoptics. On the other hand, the critics in the opposite 
 ■camp, — critics of so-called orthodox views, — will by no 
 means allow that in our Four Gospels we have not the 
 very original record; or that they went through the 
 period of incubation and of gradual rise into acceptance 
 which we suppose. From the end of the first century of 
 our era there was, according to these critics, a Canon of 
 the New Testament, and our Four Gospels formed the 
 Gospel-part of it.
 
 I70 GOD AND THE BIBLE. 
 
 But, above all, it is contested, and in the most practical 
 way possible, that inquiries as to the exact date, the real 
 autliorship, the first publication, the rank of priority, and 
 so forth, of our Four Gospels, can with any truth be 
 called, as we have called them, unessential, or that the 
 data are insufficient, as we have said they are, for ever 
 really settling such questions. Whoever reads German 
 will know that there exists a whole library of German 
 theological works addressed to these questions ; and that, 
 far from being treated as questions which cannot really 
 be settled, they are in general settled in these works with 
 the greatest vigour and rigour. Gradually these works 
 are getting kno^vn here, partly by translation, partly by 
 their influence upon English writers. The author of 
 Supernatural Religion has nourished himself upon them, 
 and has thrown himself with signal energy, and with very 
 considerable success, into that course of inquiry which 
 these works pursue. He occupies a volume and a half 
 with this line of inquiry, and he has at any rate succeeded, 
 one can see, in giving unbounded satisfaction to the 
 Liberal world, both learned and unlearned. He hud- 
 dles up into a page a declaration of adherence to * an 
 infinitely wise and beneficent Being,' and to 'the true 
 and noble faith which is the child of Reason ; ' and the 
 claims of religion being thus satisfied, with all the
 
 THE BIBLE-CANON. 171 
 
 difficult and troublesome questions which they open, 
 he is free to devote his volume and a half to a negative 
 examination of the current notions about the date and 
 authorship of the Bible-documents. And so doing, and 
 doing it witli much effectiveness, he is, we say, in the 
 eyes of the Liberal world, almost the ideal of what ' an 
 able critic ' on Biblical matters, ' a profound critic,' ought 
 to be. Liberals say to one another, with an air of 
 thankful canviction : ' Surely, Superstition is at last 
 doomed ; it can never survive this blow ! ' Liberal 
 newspapers, Liberal reviews. Liberal philosophers, and 
 the scientific gentlemen in strong force besides (some of 
 the latter being inclined, however, to substitute the word 
 ' Christianity ' for the word ' Superstition '), have with 
 wonderful unanimity been moved to blend their voices, 
 ever since the book called Supernatural Religion became 
 known to the public, in this new and strange kind of 
 Hallelujah Chorus. 
 
 AVhat, then, is the reader of Literature and Dogma to 
 think ? That on these points, which we treated as not 
 admitting of complete settlement, one can, on the con- 
 trar)', attain full and absolute certainty? That the 
 Fourth Gospel, which we treated as affording a special 
 clue to the line of evidence insisted on by Jesus, is, on 
 the contrary, a guide utterly misleading ? And, finally.
 
 •/yV 
 
 172 GOD AND THE BIBLE. 
 
 that the investigations which we treated as unessential, 
 are, on the contrary, all-important, and that it behoves 
 him to go eagerly into them ? 
 
 In determining his answer to these questions, he will 
 \ ,f- ■ do well to keep in mind what is the one object we set 
 
 before him in the present inquiry : to enjoy the Bible and 
 to turn it to his benefit. Whatever else he may propose 
 to himself in dealing with the Bible, this remains his 
 one proper object. In another order of interest, the 
 poetry of Homer supplies here a useful illustration 
 for us. Elaborate inquiries have been raised as to 
 the date, authorship, and mode of composition of the 
 Homeric poems. Some writers have held, too, and 
 have laboriously sought to prove, that there is a hidden, 
 mystical sense running all through them. All this sort 
 of disquisition, or at any rate some department of it, is 
 nearly sure to catch at one time or other the attention 
 of the reader of Homer, and to tempt and excite him. 
 But, after all, the proper object for the reader of the 
 Homeric poems remains this : to enjoy Homer, and 
 to turn him to his benefit. In dealing even with Homer, 
 we say, this is found true, and very needful to be borne 
 in mind ; — with an object where yet the main interest is 
 properly intellectual. How much more does it hold
 
 THE BIBLE-CANON. 175: 
 
 ;tnie of the Bible ! where the main interest is properly not 
 intellectual, but practical. 
 
 Therefore our reader has still his chief work with the 
 Eible to do, after he has settled all cjuestions about its 
 mode of composition, if they can be settled. This makes 
 it undesirable for him to spend too much time and 
 labour on these questions, or indeed on any collateral 
 questions whatever. And he will observe, moreover, 
 that as to the rules with which he starts in setting him- 
 self to feel and apply the Bible, he is practically just in 
 the same position when he has read and accepted our 
 half dozen lines about the composition of the Gospels, as 
 when he has read the volume and a half devoted to it in 
 Supernatural Religion. For the result is the same : that 
 the record of the sayings and doings of Jesus, when we 
 first get it, has passed through at least half a century, or 
 more, of oral tradition, and through more than one 
 written account. So, too, a man is practically in the 
 same position when he has read and accepted our half 
 dozen pages about miracles, as when he has read the 
 half volume in which the author of Supernatural Religion 
 professes to establish a complete induction against them. 
 For the result reached is in both cases the same : that 
 miracles do not really happen. And we suppose our
 
 174 GOD AND THE BIBLE. 
 
 reader to be ready enough to admit what we say both of 
 miracles and of the condition in which the Gospel-record 
 reaches us. For our book is addressed to those inclined 
 to reject the Bible-testimony, and to attribute to its docu- 
 ments and assertions not too much authority, but too little. 
 
 When, however, our reader has accepted what we say 
 about the untrustvvorthiness of miracles and the looseness 
 of the Gospel-record, his real work has still to begin. 
 Whereas when the author of Supernatural Rdigiou has 
 demonstrated the same thing to him in two volumes, 
 his work is over. Or, at most, he has still to edify him- 
 self with the page saying how ' from Jewish mythology 
 we rise to higher conceptions of an infinitely wise and 
 beneficent Being;' or perhaps, to retire into the 'one 
 unassailable fortress ' of the Duke of Somerset. With us 
 at this stage, on the contrary, his work only begins. His 
 work, with us, is to learn to enjoy and turn to his benefit 
 the Bible, as the Word of the Eternal. It would be inex- 
 cusable in us, therefore, to give him more preliminary 
 trouble than we can help, by the elaborate establishment 
 of conclusions where he is with us already, or which 
 he is quite disposed to take from us on trust. 
 
 No ; for the reader whom Literature and Dogma has 
 hi view, learned discussions of the date, authorship, and 
 mode of composition of this or that Bible-document, —
 
 THE BIBLE-CANON. 175 
 
 •whether complete certainty can be attained in them or 
 ■whether it cannot, — are, as we called them, unessential. 
 Even the question of the trustworthiness of the Fourth 
 Gospel is not an essential question for him. For the 
 value of the Fourth Gospel, as we think, is that whereas 
 Jesus was far over the heads of all his rei)orters, he was 
 in some respects better comprehended by the author of 
 this Gospel than by the Synoptics ; jlje line of internal 
 evidence which Jesus followed in pressing his doctrines 
 is better marked. ^But st ill the all-important thing to 
 seize in_ Jesus is his method, and his secret, and the 
 element of mildness and sweet reasonableness in which 
 jhey both worked ; and these are perfectly well given in 
 the Synoptics. In the Synoptics are the great marking 
 , texts for all three. For the method : ' Cleanse the inside 
 of the cup ; what comes from within, that defiles a man.' 
 For the secret : ' He that will save his life shall lose it ; 
 he that will lose his life shall save it,' For the sweet 
 reasonableness and mildness : ' Learn of me that I am 
 mild and lowly in heart, and ye shall find rest unto your 
 souls.' So that if we lose the Fourth Gospel, we do not 
 lose these. All wo lose is a little lifting up of tlic veil 
 ■with which the imperfection of the reporters, and their 
 proneness to demand miracles, to rely on miracles, lia\e 
 overspread the real discourse and doings of Jesus,
 
 176 GOD AND THE BIBLE. 
 
 Nevertheless, according to that buoyant and immortal 
 sentence with which Aristotle begins his Metaphysics, 
 All mankind naturally desire knowledge. When discussions 
 about the Canon of the New Testament are so rife, the 
 reader of Literature and Dogma may well wish to know 
 Avhat he may most reasonably think touching the origin 
 and history of those documents to which he is so often 
 referred by us. More particularly may he wish to know 
 this about that wonderful document which has exercised 
 such a potent fascination upon Christendom, the Fourth 
 Gospel. Luther called it ' the true head-gospel : ' it is 
 hardly too much to say that for Christendom it has been 
 so. The author of Supernatural Religion speaks con- 
 temptuously of its dogmatic, mysterious, and artificial 
 discourses ; but its chief opponents have spoken of it with 
 more respect. Strauss is full of admiration of the Fourth 
 Gospel for the artistic skill of its composition ; Baur, for 
 its spiritual beauty. The reader of Literature and Dogma 
 cannot but be interested in getting as near as he can to 
 the truth about such a document, the object of criticisms 
 so diverse. 
 
 We will take him, then, by the same road which we 
 travelled ourselves, when we sought to ascertain how
 
 THE BIBLE-CANON. 177 
 
 stood the truth about the New Testament records, so far 
 as it could be known. We shall suppose him to come to 
 this inquiry as we did ourselves ; — absolutely disinterested, 
 with no foregone conclusion at the bottom of one's mind 
 to start with, no secondary purpose of any kind to serve ; 
 but with the simple desire to see the thing, so far as this 1 
 may be possible, as it really is. We ourselves had not, \ 
 indeed, so much at stake in the inquiry as some people. 
 For whenever the Gospels may have been A\Titten, and 
 whether we have in them the very words of Matthew, 
 Mark, Luke, and John, or not, we did not believe the 
 reporters of Jesus capable, in cither case, of rendering 
 Jesus perfectly ; he was too far above them. 
 
 In England the evidence as to the Canon of the 
 Gospels ought to be well judged, if it be true, as Sir 
 Henry Maine thinks, that the English law of evidence 
 by its extreme strictness has formed English people to 
 be good judges of evidence. Two things, however, must 
 everyAvhere, if they are found present, impede men in 
 jndging questions of evidence well. _Qii£,is, a strong 
 bias existing, before we try the questions, to answer them 
 iiLJL-Certaiji manner. Of Biblical criticism with this bias 
 we have abundance in England. In examining the evi- 
 dence as to the literary history of the New Testament, 
 this criticism does not, in fact, seek to see the thing as 
 
 N
 
 178 COD AND THE BIBLE. 
 
 it really is, but it holds a brief for that view which is 
 most convenient to the traditional theology current 
 amongst us. We shall not blame this criticism. The 
 position of the critic, the circumstances under which he 
 writes, are perhaps such as to make his course inevitable. 
 But his work, produced under such conditions, cannot 
 truly serve men's need, cannot endure long ; it is marked 
 •with death before it is born. Great learning it may have, 
 or great ingenuity, or great eloquence ; but the critic is 
 all the time holding a brief, and these advantages are 
 then, in fact, of use only to serve the side for which his 
 brief is held. To be seriously useful, they should be 
 employed solely to exhibit and recommend the truth 
 of the things investigated, as this truth really is. 
 
 The other obstacle to a sound judgment of the evi- 
 dence respecting the Cano n^nses- j\yjben_geoplejmake 
 too much of a business of such inquiries, give their whole 
 life and thoughts too exclusively to them, and treat them 
 as if they were of paramount importance. One can then 
 hardly resist the temptation of establishing certainties 
 where one has no right to certainty ; of introducing into 
 the arrangement of facts a system and symmetry of one's 
 own, for which there are no sufficient data. How many 
 a theory of great vigour and rigour has in Germany, in 
 the Protestant faculties of theology, been due to this
 
 THE BIBLE-CANON. 179 
 
 cause ! A body of specialists is at work there, who take 
 ivs the business of their lives a class of inquiries like 
 the question about the Canon of the Gospels. They are 
 eternally reading its literature, reading the theories of 
 their colleagues about it ; their personal reputation is 
 made by emitting, on the much-canvassed subject, a new 
 theory of their o\\x\. The want of variety and of balance 
 in their life and occupations impairs the balance of their 
 judgment in general. Their special subject intoxicates 
 them. They are carried away by theorising ; they affirm 
 confidently where one cannot be sure ; and, in short, 
 prove by no means good and safe judges of the evidence 
 before them. 
 
 In France and England people do not, certainly, in 
 general err on the side of making too great a business of 
 this particular specialty. In general we too much neglect 
 it, and are in consequence either at the mercy of routine, 
 or at the mercy of the first bold innovator. Of Biblical 
 learning we have not enough. | Yet it remains true, and 
 a truth never to be lost sight of, that in the domain of 
 religion, as in the domain of poetry, the whole apparatus 
 of learning is but secondary, and tliat we always go wTong 
 ; with our learning when we suffer ourselves to forget this. 
 The reader of Literature and Dogma will allow, however, 
 that we did not there intrude any futile exhibition of 
 
 N 2 
 
 /
 
 
 •k^ 
 
 1 80 GOB AND THE BIBLE. 
 
 learning to draw off his attention from the one fixed 
 object of that work, — reHgion. We did not \\Tite for a 
 pubhc of professors ; wc did not Avrite to interest the 
 learned and curious! We wrote to restore the use and 
 
 enjoyment of the Bible to plain people, who might b e in 
 K^ danger of losing it. We hardly subjoined a reference or 
 
 put a note ; for we wished to give nothing of this kind 
 except what a plain reader, busy with our main argument, 
 would be likely to look for and to use. Our reader will 
 trust us, therefore, if we now take him into this subject of 
 the criticism of the Canon, not to bury him in it, not to 
 cozen him with theories of vigour and rigour, not to hold 
 a brief for either the Conservative side or the Liberal^ 
 not to make certainties where there are none ; but to try 
 and put him in the way of forming a plain judgment upon 
 the plain facts of the case, so far as they can be known. 
 
 Thus he will see the grounds for what we said in 
 Literature and Dogma about the Canon of the Gospels, 
 and about the Fourth Gospel's peculiar character, without 
 having himself to plunge into the voluminous literature 
 of the subject. In our search for a sure standing-ground 
 in the use of the Bible, we have had to go through a 
 great deal of this literature in our time ; of how much of 
 it may we not exclaim with Themistocles : Give me, not 
 to remember, but to forget ! If Goethe could say that all
 
 THE BIBLE-CANON. i8i 
 
 which was really worlli knowing in all the sciences he 
 had ever studied would go into one small envelope, 
 how much more may one say this of the harvest to be 
 gathered from the literature now in question ! That may 
 be no reason for neglecting it, indeed ; light and adjust- 
 ment often come insensibly to us from labours of which 
 the direct positive result seems small. Nevertheless, in 
 these days of multifarious studies soliciting us let us keep 
 ii wholesome dread, and let our reader share it with us, 
 of spending too much of our life and time over the 
 wrong ones. "\\^c have quoted in Literature and Dogma 
 the day's prayer given in a short sentence of the Imitation: 
 * Utinam per iinum diem bene simus conversati in hoc 
 minuio ! Would that for one single day we may have 
 lived in this world as we ought ! ' He who adds to that 
 .sentence this other from the same book : ' Da mihi, 
 Dojnine, scire quod sciendum est ! Grant that the know- 
 ledge I get may be the knowledge that is worth having 1 ' 
 — and sets the two sentences together before him for his 
 daily guidance, will jiot have prayed amiss. 
 
 But let us come to the Canon. And as the New Tes- 
 tament follows the Old and depends upon it, and since 
 ^bout the Old Testament, too, wc had in Literature and 
 Dogma a great deal to say, our reader will wish, perhaps, 
 before going into the question of the New Testament, to 
 
 1/
 
 1 82 GOD AND THE BIBLE. 
 
 see brought together first, in the shortest possible sum- 
 mary, what he may reasonably think of the Canon of the 
 Old. 
 
 3- 
 
 The Law and the Prophets are often mentioned in the 
 New Testament. But we also find there a threefold 
 division of the Old Testament Scriptures : La7u, Prophets, 
 Psalms.^ And the Greek translator of the lost Hebrew 
 book of the Wisdom of the Son of Sirach, or, as we call it, 
 Ecclesiasticus, who writes in the latter half of the second 
 century before Christ, speaks of the law, and the pro- 
 phecies, and the rest of the hooks."^ Here we have the 
 Bible of the Old Testament Scriptures. And, indeed, 
 the writer calling himself Daniel, — whose date is between 
 the translator of the Book of Ecclesiasticus, and this 
 translator's grandfather, who composed it, — in a passage 
 wrongly translated in our version, designates the body of 
 Old Testament Scriptures by a word answering to our 
 very word Bible. ^ Can we trace, without coming down 
 below the Christian era to listen to late and untrust- 
 worthy Jewish traditions, how this Bible came together ? 
 
 ' Luke, xxiv, 44. to. yifpafj-jxiva eV t^ vo'/iij) MwiKTecfs koL toIs 
 irpo(priTaii /col ypaXfiols. 
 
 ^ 6 vS/xos, Kol al ■Kpo<priTuaij koI to. \onra tSiv fiiPXidiu, Prologue 
 to Ecclcsiasticiis, in the Septuagint. 
 
 ' Daniel, ix, 2.
 
 THE BIBLE-CANON. 183 
 
 We can. In the second Book of the Maccabees, dat- /^ ^^-^-^T^ 
 
 /< 7 A J 
 
 ing probably from much the same time as our Greek ''' '^f-^- 
 
 Ecclesiasticus, the writer, teUing the Egyptian Jews of ^ ^-«c^ 
 the purification of the Temple at Jerusalem after the j/7T^jyy/J^ 
 Maccabean victories, and of the revival of Jewish religion, 
 says that Nehemiah, — who with Ezra had accomplished 
 the famous restoration of Jewish religion three centuries 
 before, — that Nehemiah, as was related in his wTitings 
 and commentaries, /c;////^///^« library, brought together m 
 addition the things concerning the kings and the prophets, 
 and David's things, and letters of kings about offerings.^ 
 Offerings to the Temple are here meant, such as those 
 of King Seleucus which the Maccabean historian men- 
 tions in his next chapter.^ At the rebuilding of the 
 Temple, gifts of this kind from friendly foreign kings had 
 a peculiar importance. The letters concerning them 
 could not, however, merit a permanent place in the Bible, 
 and they dropped out of it. But the other writings 
 which Nehemiah is said to have 'brought together in 
 addition ' to the stock of already recognised Scriptures, 
 that is, to the Law, answer to that second instalment of 
 
 ' Karafia.\K6fi.ivos fiifiXtoO-fiKTiu, iiriffvyijyayf to. irepl twv fia<n\f(iiv 
 Ka\ Tpocp-qjuv, Koi to rod AoiiS, Kol iiri(Tr6\as ^aaiXiuiv TrepI 
 h.vaQj)na.T<Dv. II Maccabees, ii, 13. 
 
 - II Maccabees, iii, 3.
 
 1 84 GOD AND THE BIBLE. 
 
 Scriptures, which did really, from Nehemiah's time on- 
 Avards, obtain authority at Jerusalem. They comprise 
 the Books of Judges, Samuel, and Kings, for the ' things 
 concerning the kings ; ' the Books of Isaiah, Jeremiah, 
 Ezekiel, and the twelve Minor Prophets, for the 'pro- 
 phets ; ' and the collection of the Psalms, — called in 
 general after the famous name of the royal Psalmist, 
 David, — for ' David's things.' 
 
 But the Maccabean historian then proceeds : — ' In 
 like manner also Judas (Maccabeus) brought together in 
 addition all the things that were lost by reason of the war 
 we had, and they remain with us.' ^ Now, this further 
 addition to the stock of recognised Scriptures corre- 
 sponds to the third instalment of Scriptures, — some of 
 them of then recent date, like the Book of Daniel, others 
 much older, like the Book of Job, — which was received 
 and authorised at Jerusalem. It comprehended exactly 
 the same books, and no more, that our Bibles add to 
 the books .said to have been ' brought together ' by 
 Nehemiah, and to. the Pentateuch and the Book of 
 Joshua. But the order of the later books in the Hebrew 
 Bible was by no means the same as it is in ours, and to 
 this we shall return presently. 
 
 ' II Maccabees, ii, 14. wffavTcas 56 koI 'lou^as to, SiaTreTrTaj/cdra 5io 
 Tuv irdXep-ov rov jeyovSra Tjfuv iTri(Tvi/T]yaye Trdyraj Kot eariy nap r}fuy.
 
 THE BIBLE-CANON. 185 
 
 The Law itself, the Thora, the first of the three great 
 divisions of the Hebrew Bible, whom shall we call as 
 evidence for it? The founder of the second division, 
 Nehemiah himself. He has told us how at Jerusalem, 
 after the restoration, * the people gathered themselves 
 together as one man into the street that was before the 
 water-gate, and they spake unto Ezra the scribe to 
 bring the book of the law of Moses ; and Ezra the 
 priest brought the law, and he read therein from the 
 morning until mid-day, before the men and the women 
 and those that could understand ; also day by day, from 
 the first day unto the last day, he read in the book of the 
 law of God.' ^ This book was Israel's history from its 
 first beginning down to the conquest of the Promised 
 Land, as this history stands ^\^:itten in the Pentateuch 
 and the Book of Joshua. To that collection many an 
 old book had given up its treasures and then itself 
 vanished for ever. Many voices were blended there ; 
 unkno\\'n voices, speaking out of the early dawn. In the 
 strain there were many passages familiar as household 
 words, yet the whole strain, in its continuity and con- 
 nexion, was to the mass of the people at that time new 
 and affecting. 'All the people wept when they heard the 
 words of the law.' ^ And the Levites, in stilling them, 
 ' Nehemiah, viii, l, 2, 3, iS. - Nehom., viii, 9.
 
 l86 GOD AND THE BIBLE. 
 
 gave in one short sentence the secret of Israel's rehgion 
 and of the reUgion of the Bible :; ' Mourn not, nor weep/ 
 they said ; ' the joy of the Eternal is your strength J' ^ 
 
 Now, this revival of religion in Jerusalem, under Ezra 
 and Nehemiah, had had its counterpart in a former revival, 
 two centuries earlier, under King Josiah. In Josiah's dis- 
 covery of the book of the law, and his solemn publication of 
 it to the people, we have the original consecration of a 
 written historic record embodying the law ; we have the 
 nucleus of our existing Bible. In repairing the Temple, 
 'Hilkiah the priest found a book of the law of the 
 Lord by the hand of Moses. Then Hilkiah delivered 
 the book to Shaphan ; Shaphan the scribe told the king, 
 saying : Hilkiah the priest hath given me a book. And 
 Shaphan read it before the king. And it came to pass, 
 when the king had heard the words of the law, that he rent 
 his clothes. And the king Avent up into the house of the 
 Lord, and all the men of Judah, and the inhabitants of 
 Jerusalem, and the priests and the Levites, and all the 
 people great and small, and he read in their ears all the 
 words of the book of the covenant that was found in the 
 house of the Lord. And he caused all that were present 
 in Jerusalem and Benjamin to stand to it.' ^ Here we 
 
 ' Nehem., viii, 9, 10. 
 
 2 II Chronicles, xxxiv, 14, 15, 18, 19, 30, 32. See also II 
 fCings, xxii, xxiii.
 
 THE BIBLE-CANON. 187 
 
 have, in all probability, Deuteronomy ; as an edifying 
 summary, from the point of view of the time then present,* 
 of the chosen people's early history and of its covenant 
 with God. Around Deuteronomy the rest of the Penta- 
 teuch and the story of Joshua's conquest gathered. 
 Many old books of the Hebrew nation contributed, as we 
 have said, their contents to them. Of some of the books 
 we have still the names ; but when once their substance 
 had been secured for ever in the Thora, their function 
 was at an end, and they perished. Among the devout 
 Jews of the Captivity, severed from the Holy Land and 
 the Temple services, this first instalment of the Bible, 
 this ' volume of the book ' of which a Psalmist of the 
 exile speaks,' became finiily established. It came back 
 with them at the Return, a consecrated authority ; and 
 from this book it was that Ezra read to the people. 
 
 Do we inquire for the original nucleus of the Thora 
 itself, for the Law as in its earliest uiitten form it existed, 
 in the primitive times when writing was scarce and diffi- 
 cult, and documents were short, and readers were few ? 
 
 • Chapters xxxi and xxxii of Dmta-onomy, if we read them 
 with attention, tell us the book's date. They belong to the revival 
 under Josiah in the seventh century, nearly a hundred years after 
 the ruin and captivity of the house of Israel, and with ' the line of 
 Samaria and the plummet of the house of Ahab ' threatening also 
 Jerusalem and the house of Judah. 
 
 ■^ rs. xi, 7.
 
 tss god and the bible. 
 
 This also we can find. It was the ' Book of the Law,' 
 consisting probably of the Decalogue, and of some other 
 portions besides the Decalogue of what we now find in 
 Exodus, ' put in the side of the ark of the covenant of the 
 Lord.' ' The ' testimony ' thus laid up before the Lord 
 and guarded by the priests and Levites, was given to the 
 kings at their accession and solemnly accepted by them.' ^ 
 The arrangement of the Hebrew Bible corresponds 
 with this its history and confirms it. Only we must add, 
 that from each of the two earlier collections the last 
 book was taken, and was employed to serve as an intro- 
 ducer to the collection which followed. Thus the 
 Pentateuch, or five books of Moses, stood alone as the 
 ' Thora.' This first great instalment of the Bible 
 Samaria, as is well kno^\^l, received from Jerusalem, but 
 would receive nothing more. The Book of Joshua stood 
 at the head of the second instalment of the Bible, — the 
 eight books of Prophets, ' Nebiim,' as they were called. 
 For, indeed, prophecy and the prophet were the force 
 and glory of Israel's religion ; and the Books of Joshua, 
 Judges, Samuel, and Kings, which we call historical, 
 were at Jerusalem prized chiefly as the records of many 
 a word and deed of prophets anterior to the age of 
 
 ' Deuteronomy, xxxi, 26. 
 • ' II Kings, xi, 12 ; Dent., xvii, 18.
 
 THE BIBLE-CANON. 189^ 
 
 literary prophetic compositions, and went by the name of 
 Earlier Prophets. Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, and the 
 book of the Minor Prophets, were called the four Later 
 Prophets. 
 
 The third division of the Bible had the name of 
 ' Ketubim,' translated by Jerome IIagiographa,hvit simply 
 meaning Writings, Scriptures. These are the ' remaining 
 writings ' mentioned by the translator of Ecclesiasticus. 
 They were nine in number, and the twenty-two books of 
 the now completed Canon thus answered to the twenty- 
 two letters of the Hebrew alphabet. At their head was 
 placed the last book of the second formation of authorised 
 Scriptures, — ' the things of David,' the Psalms. This 
 admirable book with its double merits, — merit prophetic 
 and religious, and merit poetic and literary, — might well 
 serve to usher in and commend a series of mixed 
 character. Early works of the highest poetical value, not 
 hitherto included in the Canon, such as the Book of 
 Job, this series adopted and saved ; early works, also, of 
 the highest ethical value, such as the Book of Proverbs. 
 It adopted contemporary works, like the Book of Daniel; 
 — works which reflected and powerfully engaged, as we 
 can see by the prominence of the Book of Daniel at the 
 Christian era, the feelings of the time. It adoiited works, 
 like the Book of Ezra, which glorified Jerusalem, and
 
 igo GOD AND THE BIBLE. 
 
 deeply interested the Temple-hierarchy whose sanction 
 made the books canonical. But in gravity and indis- 
 pensableness for the proper religion of the Old Testament, 
 this late instalment of ' the remaining writings,' cannot 
 certainly, after we leave the Psalms, in general quite 
 rank with the two earlier instalments of Law and 
 Prophets. Simply to recite the last names in the 
 Hebrew Canon is to mark sufficiently this somewhat 
 inferior character of the final gleanings. The last books 
 in the Hebrew Bible are not, as in ours, the Minor 
 Prophets ; they are Esther, Daniel, Ezra, Nehemiah, and 
 Chronicles. 
 
 1 During the two centuries between Judas Maccabeus 
 and the fall of Jerusalem, materials for a fourth instal- 
 ment of Scriptures accumulated. In the deep spiritual 
 agitation of those times, religious books which met 
 the needs of the moment, and which spoke a modern 
 language easy to be read and to be understood, were 
 greatly in request. Particularly was this the case among 
 the Greek Jews, and at a distance from Jerusalem. The 
 hierarchy at Jerusalem had its authorised list ; but at 
 Alexandria or in the provinces additional Scriptures were 
 freely read and became popular. The additions to 
 Daniel and Esther, the Book of Baruch, the Book of 
 Tobit, Wisdom, Ecclesiasticus, — almost all the books
 
 THE BIBLE-CANON. 191 
 
 which we find in our Apocrypha, — were Scriptures of 
 this class. Into the Greek Bible, the Bible for the great 
 world and in the then universal language, they made 
 good their entrance. Other new Scriptures, which did 
 not make their way into the Greek Bible, we find else- 
 where. The Ethiopian Bible preserved the Book of ■7,^ 
 Enoch. Some of these books were earlier than books 
 admitted to the Hebrew Canon. Some, like the Book of 
 Wisdom, were very late, and existed in Greek only. 
 But they answered to the wants of their time, and spoke 
 its language. Resurrection^ the great word of the New 
 Testament, never appears in the canonical books of the 
 Old ; it appears in the Apocrypha. Many of these works 
 were edifying and excellent. "We can trace in the New 
 Testament their popularity and their strong influence ; 
 indeed, the Book of Enoch is quoted in the New Testa- 
 ment as a genuine Scripture.' At the Christian era, then, 
 these books were knocking, we may say, for admission 
 into the Hebrew Canon. And, undoubtedly, if Christi- 
 anity had not come when it did, and if the Jewish state 
 had endured, the best of them would have been (and 
 with good reason) admitted. But there came the end of 
 the Jewish state, the destruction of Jcmsalem ; and the 
 door was shut. 
 
 ' Epistle of Judc, verse 14.
 
 192 GOD AND THE BIBLE. 
 
 For the stronghold on Mount Moriah was now gone ; 
 the Bible of the ancient people remained the one strong- 
 hold of its religion. It is well known with what 
 rigidity Rabbinism established itself in this stronghold. 
 At first it even bethought itself of sacrificing what might 
 seem weak points, like the Book of Ecclesiastes and the 
 Song of Solomon. They were retained, however, and 
 the worship of the letter of Scripture, which then set in 
 with full force, was extended to them also. But it ex- 
 tended not to Scriptures outside the Hebrew Canon, as 
 this Canon had been for the last time formally approved 
 in the days of Judas Maccabeus. The enlarged Greek 
 Bible was the Bible of Christians, and Greek was the 
 language of Christianity. Rabbinism now deplored the 
 day when the Bible had been translated into Greek. 
 It retranslated it into Greek in an anti-Christian sense ; 
 it sternly rejected the Greek additions ; it mocked at 
 the ignorant Christians who received them. But the 
 Greek Bible, with all its books, had become dear to 
 Christians, and were by the Christian Church preserved. 
 Learned men, like Origen and St. Jerome, knew well 
 the difference between the books "of the Apocrypha and 
 the books of the Hebrew Canon. But this difference 
 was by the mass of Christians unregarded or unknown, 
 and the Latin Bible inevitably reproduced the books of
 
 THE BIBLE-CANON. 193 
 
 the Greek. The African Synods, at the end of the fourth 
 century, mark the time when the distinction between the 
 Apocrypha and the Hebrew Canon had become so 
 generally obliterated in the West, that the books of both 
 were stamped by the Church as having one and the same 
 canonical authority. 
 
 At the Reformation, Protestantism reverted to the 
 Hebrew Canon. But the influence of the Latin Vulgate, 
 and of the Greek Bible, still shows itself in the order of 
 the books. The Greek, and the Vulgate following it, 
 had adopted, in place of the old and significant tripartite 
 division into Law, Prophets, and Writings, a division 
 into prose books and poetical books, the prophets being 
 counted with the latter ; and in arranging the books of 
 each class, the order of date was followed.' This 
 innovation our Bibles retain; and therefore our Old 
 Testament ends with the last of the poetical books, 
 Malachi, instead of ending with the last of the Kduhim, 
 Chronicles. 
 
 Thus we have summarised, for the benefit of the leader 
 of Literature and Dogma, the history of the Canon of 
 
 ' The Maccabees only, though a prose book of history, is in tlie 
 Vulgate printed by itself at the end of the poetical books.
 
 194 GOD AND THE BIBLE. 
 
 that Old Testament to which we are so often sending 
 him. The points in the history of the Canon of the New 
 Testament require to be treated with more of detail, for 
 our positions have here to be made good against objectors. 
 
 We know how the Scriptures of the Old Testament 
 are appealed to in the New. They are appealed to as 
 an authority established and recognised, just as the 
 Bible is now appealed to by us. But when did the 
 New Testament, in that form in which we possess it, 
 come to be recognised as Sa-iptiire like the Old Testa- 
 ment? Clearly the documents composing it appeared 
 at different times, and were not first pubUshed to the 
 world as one authorised whole called the New Testament. 
 Clearly there was a time when they had not acquired the 
 authority they possessed afterwards ; when people pre- 
 ferred, for instance, to any written narrative, the oral 
 relations of eye-witnesses. One of the earliest and 
 most important witnesses to the Avritten narratives, 
 Papias, is a distinct witness, at the same time, to this 
 preference for oral relations. ' I did not consider,' he 
 says, speaking in the first half of the second century 
 after Christ, about the year 140, — 'I did not consider 
 things from books to be of so much good to me, as things 
 from the living and abiding voice.'' And he goes on 
 
 ' See Papias in Eusebii Historia Ecclesiastica^ iii, 39. oh yap
 
 THE BIBLE-CANON. 195 
 
 to mention his communications with those who had 
 actually heard ' the disciples of the Lord.' For Papias, 
 then, there was not yet a body of Scriptures fully 
 answering to our New Testament, and having like au- 
 thority with the Old ; if there had been, he would hardly 
 have spoken in this fashion. And no man can point to 
 any exact moment and manner in which our body of New 
 Testament Scriptures received its authority. But we can 
 point to a moment after which we find our present New 
 Testament Canon in possession of undisputed authority 
 in the Church of the West, and before which we do not. 
 
 We have mentioned the African Synods. The two 
 Synods of Carthage,— the first of them held in the year 
 397 of our era, the second in the year 419,— dehver the 
 Canon of the New Testament as we have it now.^ All 
 its books, and no others, are canonical; that is, they 
 furnish the rule of faith, they form a class by themselves, 
 they are authorised for public use. And so, as every 
 
 Ttt iK Tuv fiifiXiwv roaovriv fjn w<()f\uj/ vKeKafx^avov, Zffov ra rrapa. 
 ^■ftSo-Tjj (puvTis Kol fifvova-qi. The latter words are commonly taken 
 to mean merely the voice of living speakers, but they almost cer- 
 tainly contain a reminiscence of I Peter, i, 23, and of Isaiah, xl, 8, 
 and mean speakers who had heard the voice of Jesus. 
 
 ' The earlier S}Tiod mentions the Epistle to the Hebrews apart, 
 though as Paul's ; the second Synod drops this distinction, and 
 speaks of Paul's ' Fourteen Epistles.' The New Testament Canon 
 of the two Synods is in other respects the same. 
 
 o 2
 
 196 GOD AND THE BIBLE. 
 
 one knows, they have continued. For tlie Eastern 
 Church, a similar authoritative enunciation of our Canon 
 of the New Testament is first found in the Festal Letter 
 of St. Athanasius, of which the date is probably a.d. 365. 
 But an absence of fixed consent as to certain books goes 
 on showing itself amongst Greek Christians for long 
 afterwards. Our present business, however, is with our 
 o\\Ti Western Christianity. 
 
 St. Jerome died in 420, the year after the second 
 Synod of Carthage. His Biblical labours and learning 
 are celebrated ; he knew more about the Bible than any 
 of his contemporaries. Cavillers he had, as have all men 
 who bring new criticism to disturb old habits ; but his 
 orthodoxy was undoubted. His Biblical publications 
 were undertaken at a Pope's request ; and the first instal- 
 ment of them, a corrected Latin version of the Four 
 Gospels, appeared in the year 383 Avith a prefatory letter 
 addressed to the Pope himself This great churchman 
 has left us his remarks on several of the works which the 
 African Synods were presently to include in the Canon 
 of the New Testament, and which have stood there ever 
 since, possessing in the eyes of Christendom a like 
 sacredness and authority with the rest of the Canon. In 
 reading him, we are to bear in mind the character of the 
 speaker. It is as if Dr. Pusey, with the reputation for
 
 THE BIBLE-CANON. 197 
 
 learning and orthodoxy Mhich we know liini to have, and 
 commissioned, besides, by the heads of the AngHcan 
 Church to revise the Bible, was speaking of the Canon. 
 St. Jerome, then, says of the Epistle to the Hebrews : — 
 
 * The custom of the Latin Christians does not receive it 
 among the Canonical Scriptures.' • Of the Apocalypse 
 he says : — ' The Greek Churches use the same freedom 
 in regard to John's Apocalypse.' ^ Of the so-called 
 Second Epistle of Peter he says : — ' It is denied by most 
 to be his.' ^ Of the Epistle of James he says : — ' It is 
 asserted to have been brought out by somebody else 
 under his name.' •* Of the Epistle of Jude he says : — 
 
 * Inasmuch as the author appeals to the Book of Enoch, 
 which is apocr^'phal, the Epistle is rejected by most'-'' 
 Of the three Epistles attributed to St. John. Jerome says : 
 — ' He wrote one Epistle which is acknowledged by all 
 churches and scholars, but the remaining two are asserted 
 to be by John the Elder.' 
 
 Now, all Jerome's sympathies were with what was 
 
 ' Latinonim consuetudo non rccipit inter sciipturns canonicas. 
 " Nee Grcecorum quidem ecclesia; Apocalypsin Joannis eadem 
 ]ibertate suscipiunt. 
 
 ^ Secunda a pleiisque ejus esse negatur. 
 
 * Ab alio quodam sub nomine ejus edita asseritur. 
 
 * Quia de libro Enoch, qui apocryphus est, in ca assumit testi- 
 monium, a plerisque rejicitur. 
 
 " Rcliqua' autem duix; Joannis presbyteri asseruntur.
 
 198 GOD AND THE BIBLE. 
 
 orthodox, ecclesiastical, regular. The works on which 
 he has here been remarking seemed to him good and 
 edifying ; they had been much used, and had inspired 
 attachment. The tendency in the Church was to admit 
 them to canonicity, as the African Synods presently did. 
 Jerome wished them to be admitted. He helped for- 
 ward their admission by arguments in its favour, some of 
 them not a little strained. But what we want the reader 
 to observe is the entire upset which Jerome gives to our 
 popular notion of the Canon of the New Testament ; to- 
 the notion of a number of sacred books, just so many 
 and no more, all alike of the most indisputable authen- 
 ticity, and having equal authority from the very first. It 
 is true, they were about to get invested with this cha- 
 racter, but through the authority of the Church, and 
 because, — while this authority was on the increase, — 
 learning and criticism, amidst the invasions and miseries- 
 of the general break-up which was then befalling Europe, 
 languished and died nearly out. Already the African 
 Synods, which may be said to have first laid down 
 authoritatively for our Western Europe the Canon of the 
 New Testament, imagined that Wisdom and Ecclesias- 
 ticus were by Solomon, although Wisdom was composed 
 in Greek hardly half a century before the Christian era. 
 St. Augustine, who died ten years after St. Jerome, was
 
 THE BIBLE-CANON 199 
 
 far too accomplished a man not to know, although his 
 studies had not lain in this special direction, how, in 
 general, the Canon of the New Testament had arisen, 
 and how great was the difference between the evidence 
 for some books and for others. But the authority of the 
 Church was enough for him. I n a sent ence, which for 
 Paul would have been inconceivable, he^ shows us how 
 th e idea of this aut hority had by his time grown :— '/ 
 rpreivf^ the Gospel itse lf' he says, ' only- upon the authority 
 ofJheJZatliQlk Ch urch ' ' The Reformation arrived, and 
 to Protestants the authority of the Church ceased to 
 appear all-sufficient for establishing the canonicity of 
 books of Scripture. Then grew up the notion that our 
 actual New Testament intrinsically possessed this cha- 
 racter of a Canon, the notion of its having from the first 
 been one sure and sacred whole as it stands, a whole 
 with all its parts equipollent ; a kind of talisman, as we 
 have elsewhere said, that had been handed to us straight 
 out of heaven. 
 
 Therefore the other day, when there was published for 
 the use of the young a Bible in which some parts of the 
 Scriptures were taken and others left out, the Dean of 
 Carlisle wrote an indignant letter in blame of this auda- 
 
 ' Ego evangelio non crederem, nisi me catholicse ecclesiit: aucto- 
 ritas commoveret.
 
 -oo GOD AND THE BIBLE. 
 
 cious attempt, as he thought it, to make distinctions in 
 what was all alike the Word of God. To very many his 
 blame will have seemed perfectly just. Nay, all that 
 mechanical employment of Scripture texts which is so 
 common in the religious world, and so unhesitating, is 
 due to just such a notion of Scripture as the venerable 
 Dean's. Yet how evidently is the notion false ! Four 
 hundred years after Christ we have the last representative 
 of Biblical learning before the setting-in of mediaeval 
 ignorance, — we have the Dr. Pusey of his time, a 
 great churchman, orthodox, learned, tmsted, — declar- 
 ing, without the least concealment, the essential differ- 
 ence in authority between some documents in our New 
 Testament and others ! For manifestly the difference in 
 authority is great between a document like the so-called 
 Second Epistle of Peter, rejected by most, and a document 
 like the Epistle to the Romans, which every churchman 
 accepted. 
 
 And the more we ascend to the times before 
 St. Jerome, — to the primitive times, as they are called, — 
 the more does this difference between the documents 
 now composing the Canon become visible. Churchmen 
 like Eusebius and Origen testify as clearly as Jerome to 
 the non-acceptance, in their time, of books now in the 
 Canon, and do not, as Jerome, plead for their acceptance.
 
 THE BIBLE-CANON. 20l 
 
 So that really, when one comes to look into the thing, 
 the common notion about the Canon is so plainly false, 
 that to take it for granted, as the Dean of Carlisle does, 
 «ind to found indignant denunciations upon it, will one 
 -day be resented as an outrage upon common sense and 
 notorious facts. It is like the Bishop of Lincoln's al- 
 legation that ' episcopacy was an institution of God Him- 
 self;' aiL_allegation which might make one suppose that 
 in. Genesis, directly after God had said Let there be light 
 ^or, perhaps, even before it), he had pronounced, Let tlurehc-. 
 tishops. There are plenty of true reasons for the existence 
 of bishops without invoking false ones ; and the time will 
 come when thus to invoke the false ones solemnly and 
 authoritatively will shock ][)ublic opinion. 
 / As to the Canon of the New Testament, then, we see 
 that consent determined it ; that after the beginning of 
 I the fifth century this consent may be regarded as 
 '^established in favour of the books of our actual Canon ; J 
 that before the fifth century it was not yet fully estab- 
 lished, and the most eminent doctors in the Church did 
 not hesitate to say so. Consent depended on the 
 known or presumed authenticity of books as proceeding 
 from apostles or apostolic men, from the Apostles of 
 Christ themselves or from their personal followers. 
 Some books of our Canon had not this consent, even in
 
 202 GOD AND THE BIBLE. 
 
 Jerome's time ; and of its not being certain in primitive 
 times that these books are what they are now commonly- 
 said to be, we have thus the clearest evidence. If the 
 Christian Church of the fourth century had believed it to 
 be absolutely certain that the Johannine Apocalypse was 
 by the Apostle John, or the second Petrine Epistle by 
 the Apostle Peter, no churchman would have rejected 
 them. Some books, then, in our New Testament Canon 
 there plainly are of which the authenticity is doubtful. 
 
 We have given cases in which the want of consent is 
 grave. It is grave when we find it in churchmen ; it has 
 its weight even when it is found in heretics. Marcion 
 rejected St. Paul's Epistles to Timothy and Titus, while 
 he admitted the others. It is something against the 
 genuineness of the Pastoral Epistles that a fervent 
 admirer of St. Paul, in the first half of the second 
 century, should not have received them. It is possible 
 that Marcion may have rejected these epistles because 
 they did not suit him. It is possible ; but we know that 
 he and his party complained of the adulteration of the 
 rule of Christianity, and professed to revert to what was 
 genuine; it may be, therefore, that Marcion rejected the 
 Pastoral Epistles because they really were not genuine. 
 Or he may have not used the Pastoral Episdes because 
 they were in his time not yet written. It is a case in
 
 THE BIBLE-CANON. 203 
 
 which the internal evidence for or against the authenticity 
 of the documents in question becomes of pecuHar im- 
 l)ortance. The Alogi, again, heretics of the second 
 century, rejected the Fourth Gospel. The authenticity 
 of this Gospel, therefore, cannot be said to have such a 
 security in general consent as the authenticity of the 
 First Gospel, which not even heretics challenged. 
 
 Now to be indignant with those who, under such 
 circumstances, will not take for granted the authenticity 
 of books in the New Testament Canon, is really un- 
 reasonable. "\\'e have for the books in the Canon, it is 
 sometimes said, as good evidence as we have for the 
 history of Thucydides ; why not require the history of 
 Thucydides to prove its authenticity? This will not 
 bear a moment's examination. The history of Thucy- 
 dides tells us itself, in the most explicit way possible, the 
 name of its author, and what he was, and what he 
 designed in writing his work. Its authenticity no one 
 has challenged. To forge it under the name of Thucy- 
 dides no one had any interest. But not one of our Four 
 Gospels says anywhere who its author was. Heretics 
 challenged the authenticity of the Fourth Gospel, and we 
 have seen how documents now in the Canon, which pur- 
 port to be by this or that Apostle, were gravely suspected 
 in the Church itself. St. Paul himself, in the Second
 
 V 
 
 :204 GOD AND THE BIBLE. 
 
 Epistle to the Thessalonians, warns his converts not to 
 let themselves be 'troubled by letter as from us,' thus 
 indicating that forgery of this kind was practised as to 
 epistles. As to gospels and acts it was practised too. 
 TertulHan mentions a detected case of it, — forged Acts 
 •of Paul, authorising a woman to baptize. The practice 
 of forgery and interpolation was notorious, and the 
 temptation to it was great. One explicit witness is as 
 good as twenty, and we will again take for our witness a 
 great churchman, the ecclesiastical historian Eusebius, 
 bishop of Coesarea, who died in the year 340. He says 
 that scriptures were current ' put forth by the heretics in 
 the name of the Apostles, whether as containing the 
 Gospels of Peter and Thomas and Matthias, or those 
 also of any others besides these, or as containing the 
 Acts of Andrew and John and the other Apostles.' * 
 
 The Gospels give us the sayings and doings of Jesus 
 himself, and are therefore of the highest importance. 
 How far back can we certainly carry the chain of 
 established consent in favour of our four canonical 
 Gospels? Let us begin with St. Jerome, whom we have 
 already quoted, and from him let us go backwards. For 
 
 ' Eusebius, I list. Eccles., iii, 25. 7po<f)as . . . wSfiari tuv 
 ■o.iroa'rdKwv irphs ruv alptriKS)!' irpocpipofj-ivas, fjToi ws Utrpov Kai ©oi/xa 
 Kol Mardla ^ Kai rivwv -rrapa tovtovs &\\ccy evayyeXia irepLexovffas, % 
 ios 'Aydpeuv koI 'Iwdvvuv ko). tUv aWoiu anoar6\uv Trpa^eis.
 
 THE BIBLE-CANON. 
 
 St. Jerome our canonical four are already established : — 
 * Four Gospels whereof the order is this : Matthew, 
 Mark, Luke, John.' ' That was at the end of the fourth 
 centur}\ In the earlier part of the same century, for 
 Eusebius likewise, whom we have just now cited to show 
 the existence of spurious gospels, the canonicity of our 
 four was established. Let us follow back the chain of 
 great churchmen to the third century and to Origen. 
 He died a.d. 254. For him, too, our four canonical 
 Gospels are ' alone undisputed in the Churcli of God 
 upon, eartli.'- Let us ascend to the second century. 
 Irenaeus wrote in the last quarter of it, and no testimony 
 to the Four Gospels of our Canon can be more explicit 
 than his. * Matthew it was who, among the Hebrews,, 
 brought out in their own language a written Gospel, 
 when Peter and Paul were preaching in Rome, and 
 founding the Church. Then, after their departure, ]\Lark, 
 the disciple and interpreter of Peter, he too delivered to 
 us in A\Titing what Peter preached ; and Luke, moreover, 
 the follower of Paul, set down in a book the Gospel 
 preached by Paul. Then John, the disciple of the Lord, 
 who also lay on his breast, John too published his 
 
 ' Prafat. ad Daf/iasiim. Quatuor Evangelia quorum ordo est 
 iste : Rlatthauis, Marcu-;, Lucas, Johannes. 
 
 « Quoted by Eusebius, I/ist. F.ccLs., vi, 25. tuv recTcrdpwv 
 evayyeXlwv, & Koi ij.6ya ayavTi^^riTo. eVrij/ ^y rp virb tuv ovpavhv 
 iKK\ri(Ti<f rod 6fov.
 
 2o6 GOD AND THE BIBLE. 
 
 Gospel, living at that time at Ephesus, in Asia.' ^ And 
 for Irenseus this number of four, which the Gospels 
 exhibit, has something fixed, necessary, and sacred, ' like 
 the four zones of our world, and the four winds.' 
 
 Here then, about the year i8o of our era, we have 
 from a great churchman the most express testimony to 
 the Four Gospels of our Canon. Higher than this we 
 cannot find a great churchman who gives it us. Ignatius 
 does not give it, nor Polycarp, nor Justin Martyr. But a 
 famous fragment, discovered by Muratori, the Italian 
 antiquary, in the monastery of Bobbio in North Italy, 
 and published by him in the year 1740, carries us, 
 perhaps, to an age a little higher than that of Irenaeus. 
 The manuscript containing this fragment is said to be of 
 the eighth century, and is in barbarous Latin. The 
 monastery at Bobbio was founded by St. Columban, and 
 it has been alleged that the barbarisms in our fragment 
 are due to the Irish monks who copied it from the 
 
 ' Quoted by Eusebius, Hist. Eccles., v, 8. yifv 5'; yiarQaios iv 
 TOLS 'Efipaiois TTJ iSi'a avrwv SiaKfKTCfi Koi ypacp^p e^rivtyKev evayyeKiov, 
 TovTl^rpov Kol Tov riauAou eV 'Pcofir] €vayyf\t^ofjifuwv Koi OfixiXiovvToov 
 T7)v eKK\r](TLai/. fiiTO, 5e rriv tovtoiv f^odov, MapKos & fiadrirris Kal 
 epfj.T)yfuTr]S Tierpov, Kal alirhs ra imh Tlirpov KripvcTffo^eva iyypd<pas 
 Tj/MV Trapao45ci!Ke, Kol Aovkus Se, 6 clkSKovBos TlavXov, rh vx' (Keivou 
 KrjpvtTa/ijJievov (iiayyfXiov iv BlfiXoi KixTfOeTO, emiTa 'Iwdfi/rjs d jxaOTjTTjS 
 Tov Kvpiov, 6 Kol fTtl rh (TTrjOos aiiTov avaTreiruv, /col aiirhs e|e'5(w»ce rh 
 evayyeXtof, eV 'HcpiCa) ttjs 'Atrias SiaTpifiwu.
 
 THE BIBLE-CANON. 207 
 
 original. Others have assigned to these barbarisms an 
 African source ; others, again, have supposed that the 
 fragment is a translation of a Greek original, Greek 
 having been the language of the Roman Church at the 
 time when the author of the fragment lived. However 
 this may be, the important matter is that the fragment, — 
 called, from its finder and first publisher, the Fragjuaii 
 cf Miiratoriy the CiDion of Muraion\ — gives us with 
 tolerable nearness its own date. It says that the Pastor 
 of Hermas, a work received as Scripture by many in the 
 early Church, was written ' (juite lately, in our own times, 
 while Pius, the brother of Hennas, was filling the 
 episcopal chair in Rome.' Pius died in the year 157 of 
 our era. If we believe what the author of the fragment 
 here tells us, we have only to ask ourselves, therefore, 
 what ' quite lately, in our own times ' means. And the 
 words can hardly, one must allow, mean a time more 
 than thirty years back from the time of the person 
 uttering them. This would give us the year 187 as the 
 latest date possible for the original of the fragment in 
 question ; and as there is no reason why we should put 
 it at the latest date possible, it seems fair to assign it to 
 a time some ten or twelve years, perhaps, before a.d. 
 187 ; that is, to a date rather earlier than the date of the 
 testimony of Irenceus.
 
 2oS GOD AND THE BIBLE. 
 
 But the author of Supernatural Religion will not allow 
 the Canon of Muratori to be authentic, any more than he 
 will allow to be authentic two fragments of Claudius 
 Apollinaris, Bishop of Hierapolis, quoted in the Paschal 
 Chronicle, which show that Apollinaris, about the year 
 170 of our era, knew and received the Fourth Gospel. 
 The author of Supernatural Religion has a theory that the 
 Fourth Gospel, and, indeed, all the canonical Gospels, 
 were not recognised till a particular time. This theory 
 the Canon of Muratori and the fragments of Apollinaris 
 do not suit; so he rejects them. There is really no 
 more serious reason to be given for his rejection of 
 them. True, Eusebius gives a list of some works of 
 Apollinaris ; and the work on the Paschal controversy, 
 from which the two fragments are taken, is not among 
 them. But Eusebius expressly says that there were 
 other works of Apollinaris of which he did not know the 
 titles. True, Greek was the language of the Roman 
 Church in the second century ; but must we think a 
 document forged sooner than admit that a single Roman 
 Christian may have chanced to write in Latin, or that a 
 document written in Greek may have got translated ? 
 No ; the one real reason which the author of Supernatural 
 Religion has for rejecting these three pieces of evidence 
 is, that they do not suit his theory. And this leads us to
 
 THE BIBLE-CANON. 
 
 209 
 
 say a word as to the difference between the practice 
 which we impose on ourselves in dealing with evidence, 
 and the practice followed by critics with a theory. 
 
 For we suppose the reader of Literature and Dogma, 
 for a while suspicious of the Bible, but now convinced that 
 {to use Butler's famous phrase with a slight alteration) 
 there is something in it, nay, that there is a great deal in 
 it, — we suppose him to find that there is a hot controversy 
 about the age and authenticity of many of the chief 
 documents of the New Testament, and to wish to know 
 what to think about them. _S.Qan iic will perceive that ;-\^ 
 tliox Qutrover^ y is in general conducted by people ^\■Ilo, ^-i^X-ifO^CM.^^ 
 .inJheJrsLplace, think .that for every question which can nUZLtut^ 
 be started th e answer can be discovered, and who, in the 'AjZUxAy^ 
 second place, have a theory which all tilings must be 
 made to suit. Evidence is dealt with in a fashion that 
 no one would ever dream of who had not a theory to 
 warp him. In the so-called Epistle of Barnabas, a work 
 of the end of the first century, the words many called, hut 
 few chosen, are quoted with the formula as it is written,^ 
 implying that they are taken from Scripture. The Greek I 
 
 words are the very same that we find in -St. jNIatthew, antl 
 no one without a theory to warp him would doubt thai 
 the writer of the epistle quotes, not, indeed, necessarily 
 
 ' iis ydypairrai.
 
 2ro GOD AND THE BIBLE. 
 
 from our Gospel of St. Matthew, but from a collection of 
 sayings of Jesus. Dr. Volkmar, however, maintains that 
 what is here quoted as Scripture must be a passage of 
 the Apocrypha : There he many created, hut feio shall be 
 saved} Strauss applauds him, and says that ' beyond all 
 doubt ' this is so. And why ? Because, to cite a third 
 ■well-known critic, Dr. Zeller, ' if in a work of earlier date 
 than the middle of the second century we find a passage 
 quoted as Scripture, we may be sure that either the 
 quotation is not from the New Testament, or else the 
 ■work is not genuine ; because Scripture is not used for 
 the New Testament till long after the middle of the 
 second century.' That is to say, because the New 1 
 /- ^'Testament is not generally called Scripture till after the / 
 
 ^AKJ^''^^ u.% - j jj;,j(j(jjg Qf the second century, that it should occasionally^ 
 have been called so. h£fbreis4mpossible. But the New 
 ( ; Testament did not begin in one day to be called Scrip- 
 ture by an Order in Council. There must have been a 
 time when to have it called so was comparatively rare ; 
 a time, earlier still, when it was exceedingly rare. But 
 at no time, after the \mtten sayings of Jesus were first 
 published, can it have been impossible for a Christian to 
 call them Scripture. 
 
 The innovating critics are certainly the most con- 
 
 ' II Esdrss, viii, 3.
 
 THE BIBLE-CANON. 211 
 
 spicuous offenders in this way, but the conservative 
 critics are not to be trusted eitlier. Neander rejects, Hke 
 the author of Supernatural Religion, a fragment of 
 Apolhnaris, and rejects it for the verj^ same reason : that 
 it fails (though from a different cause) to suit him. Bunsen 
 (unaware that by the Epistle to the Alexandrians, named 
 in the Canon of Muratori and stigmatised as apocryphal, 
 the Epistle to the Hebrews is probably meant) lays 
 it down that * it is quite impossible this Epistle could 
 have been omitted,' and supposes that ' there is, in 
 the middle of this barbarous translation or extract of 
 the Greek original, a chasm, or omission, respecting 
 the Epistle to the Hebrews.' What may we not put 
 in or leave out when we take licence to proceed in 
 this fashion ? 
 
 Sick of special pleading both on one side and on the 
 other, the reader of Literature and Dogma, after a brief 
 experience of the impugners of the Canon and of its 
 defenders, will i)robably feel that what he earnestly 
 desires, and what no one will indulge him in, is simply 
 to be permitted to have the fliir facts of the case, and to 
 let them speak for themselves. Here it is that we 
 sympathise with him :md wish to aid him, because we 
 had just the same earnest desire ourselves after a like 
 experience. And we treat the evidence about the 
 
 p 2
 
 212 GOD AND THE BIBLE. 
 
 Canon wth a mind resolutely free and straightforward^ 
 determined to reject nothing because it does not suit us, 
 and to proceed as we should proceed in a literary inquiry 
 Avhere we were wholly disinterested. In the first place, 
 we co nf ess to ourselves that a great many questions ma^ 
 be asked about the New Testament Canon to whidi-iL_ 
 is imp ossible to give an answer. In the second place, 
 we ouTi that it is something in favour of a fact that it has 
 been asserted, and that tradition delivers it. Men do- 
 not, we acknowledge, in general use language for the 
 purpose of falsehood, but to communicate a matter 
 faithfully. Of course, many things may be said which 
 we yet must decline to receive, but we require substantia! 
 reasons for declining, and not fantastic ones. The 
 second Petrine Epistle calls itself St. Peter's. But we 
 find the strongest internal evidence against its being his ; 
 we know that epistles were forged, and we find that its 
 being his was in the early Church strongly disputed. On 
 the other hand, a writer at the end of the first century 
 quotes words of Jesus as Scripture, and a writer towards 
 the year 175 gives a list of works then received in the 
 Catholic Church as apostolical. We see no strong 
 natural improbability in their liaving done so ; there is 
 no external evidence against it, no suspicious circum- 
 stance. And the criticism whicli because it finds what
 
 THE BIBLE-CANON. 213 
 
 they say inconvenient, pronounces their words spurious, 
 interpolated, or with a drift quite other than their plain 
 apparent drift, we call fantastic. 
 
 So we receive the witness of the Fragment of Muratori 
 to the canonicity, about the year 175, of our four 
 <:anonical Gospels, and of those Gospels only.' We 
 receive the witness of Claudius Apollinaris, a year or 
 two earlier, to the same effect. He denies that St. 
 Matthew assigns the Last Supper and the Crucifixion to 
 the days which the Judaising Christians supposed, and 
 to which St. Matthew, it seems certain, does assign 
 them ; but to make him do so, says Apollinaris, is to 
 make ' the Gospels be at variance.' Whatever we mny 
 think of his criticism, let us own that most probably the 
 Bishop of Hierapolis has here in his eye the three 
 Synoptics and St. John. 
 
 But he is really our last witness. Ascending to the 
 limes before him, we find mention oi the gospel^ oi gospels, 
 of memorabilia ^ and written accounts ^ of Jesus by his 
 
 ' The Fragment begins with a broken sentence relating to the 
 Second Clospel, and continues : Tcrtio, rt'angdii librtim struitdiitn 
 Lucam. It gives St. John's Gospel as the fourth, and there can be 
 no room for doubt that it named Mark and Matthew before coming 
 to Luke. 
 
 - oiro/nj'7jftoj'«u/iOTa S <J)')7;ui tiTrJ) tuiv a.no(rT6\(iiv oiiToD Ktd twv 
 iKelvois irapaKoXovBricravTwv crwreTaxOai.
 
 214 GOD AND THE BIBLE. 
 
 Apostles and their followers. We find incidents given 
 irom the life of Jesus, sayings of Jesus quoted. But we 
 look in vain in Justin INIartyr, or Polycarp, or Ignatius, 
 or Clement of Rome, either for an express recognition of 
 the four canonical Gospels, such as we have given from 
 churchmen who lived later, or for a distinct mention of 
 any one of them. No doubt, the mention of an Evangelist's 
 name is unimportant, if his narrative is evidently quoted, 
 and if we recognise, without hesitation, his fonn of ex- 
 pression. Eusebius quotes words about John baptizing 
 in ^non, near to Salim, and continues his quotation ; 
 ' For John was not yet cast into prison.' Whether 
 Eusebius expressly mentioned the Fourth Gospel or not, 
 we might be sure that here he was quoting from it. 
 But the case is different with ' sayings of the Lord.' 
 These may be quoted either from oral tradition or from 
 some written source other than our canonical Gospels. 
 We have seen from Papias how strong was at first the 
 preference for oral tradition ; and we know that of written 
 sources of information there were others besides our 
 canonical Gospels. Learned churchmen like Origen and 
 Jerome still knew them well ; they mention them, quote 
 from them. The Gospel of the Hebrews or according to 
 the Hebrews, the Gospel according to the Egyptians, 
 the Gospel according to the Twelve Apostles, are thus.
 
 THE BIBLE-CANON. 215 
 
 mentioned. Again, there were the writings of which we 
 quoted some way back a Hst from Eusebius. 
 
 The Gospel of the Hebrews was of great antiquity and 
 currency ; it was held to be the original of our St. Matthew, 
 and often confounded with it. The Ebionites are said 
 indifferently to receive no Gospel but that of the Hebrews, 
 and to receive no Gospel but that of Matthcn'. Jerome 
 found in Syria, and translated, an Aramaic version of 
 this old Gospel of the Hebrews, which he was at first dis- 
 posed to think identical with our St. Matthew ; afterwards, 
 however, he seems to have observed differences. From 
 this Gospel are quoted incidents and sayings which we do 
 not find in the canonical Gospels, such as the light on 
 Jordan at Christ's baptism, already mentioned by us in 
 our first chapter ; the appearance of the Lord after his 
 resurrection to James, expressly recorded by Paul, but 
 not in our Gospels ; the words of Jesus to his startled 
 disciples after the Handle me and see of our Gospels : 
 ' For I am not a bodiless ghost.' * We know that this 
 Gospel of the Hebrews was used by the first generation 
 of Christian writers after the apostolic age, by Ignatius, 
 Justin Martyr, and Hegesippus. From it, or from other 
 old gospels attributed -to Peter or James, come other 
 
 • ovK ei;ul Zai^t.6viov aTd/xaTOV.
 
 2i6 GOD AND THE BIBLE. 
 
 sayings and stories strange to our Gospels, but in the 
 earliest times current as authentic. Such a story is that 
 of the birth of Jesus in a cave, mentioned by Justin, and 
 familiar to Christian art ; and such a saying is the saying 
 of Christ, Be yc approved bankers,"^ quoted in the pseudo- 
 Clementine Homilies and the Apostolical Constitutions, 
 quoted by the Church historians Eusebius and Socrates, 
 and by Clement of Alexandria, Origen, Ambrose, and 
 Jerome. 
 
 Well, then, how impossible, when the Epistle of 
 Barnabas simply applies the verse of the iioth Psalm, 
 The Lord said unto my Lord^ as Jesus applied it, or when 
 it quotes simply as ' Scripture ' the words Many called, 
 hittfeiv chosen, — how impossible to affirm certainly that it 
 refers to our canonical Gospels, and proves that by the 
 end of the first century our Gospel-Canon was established ! 
 Yet this is what Tischendorf does all through his book 
 on the Canon. Wherever he finds words in an early 
 writer of which the substance is in our Canonical Gospels, 
 he assumes that from our canonical Gospels the writer 
 took them, and that our Canon must already have 
 existed. We will not si)eak of Tischendorf without 
 remembering the gratitude and respect which, by many 
 
 ' yiyfffOe rpairt^lrai S6Ktixot, or yiveaOe Soki/iol Tpair€^7Tai. In 
 Jerome's Latin : 'Estote probati nummularii.'
 
 THE BIBLE-CANON. 217 
 
 of his labours, he has merited. But his treatment of the 
 question proposed by him, When ivere our Gospels coin- 
 posed! is really, to anyone who reads attentively and with 
 a fair mind^absurd. It is as absurd on the apologetfc"^ 
 side, as Dr. Volkmar's treatment of the quotation m the 
 Epistle of Barnabas, Matiy called, but few chosen, is on the 
 attacking side. Tischendorf assumes that the Epistle of 
 Barnabas, in applying the iioth Psalm and in quoting 
 Majiy called, but few chosen, nuist needs be referring to our 
 canonical Gospels. But the waiter of the Epistle of Bar- 
 nabas gives no reference at all for his application of the 
 words of the iioth Psalm. For the words, Maiiy called, 
 butfe^u chosen, he refers simply to Scripture ; and he else- 
 where calls, let us add, the apocryphal Book of Enoch 
 also Scripture. In applying the iioth Psalm he may 
 have been going upon oral tradition merely. In quoting 
 Many called, butfeta chosen, as Scripture, he was certainly 
 quoting some ^v^itten and accepted authority, but what 
 we cannot possibly say. 
 
 In the times with which we are now dealing there is no 
 quotation from any one of our Evangelists with his name, 
 such as in Irenceus and from his time forward is usual. 
 There is no quotation from the narrative of any one of the 
 Synoptics in which the manner of relating or turn of phrase 
 enables us to recognise with certainty the author. Sayings
 
 2i8 GOD AND THE BIBLE. 
 
 and doings of Jesus are quoted, but there is nothing to 
 prove that they are quoted from our Gospels. Moreover, 
 almost always, however briefly they may be quoted, they 
 are not quoted quite as they stand in our Gospels. 
 But it is supposed that they are quoted from memory, 
 freely and loosely. The question then arises, is a Canon 
 habitually and uniformly quoted in this way? If our 
 Four Gospels had existed in the time of Clement of 
 Rome or of Justin Martyr as the canonical four, ot para- 
 mount authority and in the state in which we now have 
 them, would these writers have uniformly quoted them in 
 the loose fashion in which now, as is alleged, they do 
 quote them ? 
 
 Here we will give, for the benefit of the reader of 
 Literature and Dogma, — who by this time is convinced, 
 we hope, that we endeavour to let the facts about the 
 Gospel-Canon fairly and simply speak for themselves, — 
 we will give for his benefit a piece of experience which 
 on ourselves had a decisive effect. The First Epistle 
 attributed to Clement of Rome is, as everyone knows, of 
 high antiquity and authority. It probably dates from the 
 end of the first century. Jerome tells us that it was 
 publicly read in church as authorised Scripture. It is 
 included in the Alexandrian manuscript of the New 
 Testament, and one may say that it was within an inch
 
 THE BIBLE-CANON. 219 
 
 of gaining, and not undeservedly, admission to our 
 Canon. A good while ago, in reading this Epistle with 
 the disputes about the Canon of the Gospels perplexing 
 our mind, we came upon a quotation of the beginning of 
 the fifty-first Psalm. We read on, and found that as much 
 as the first sixteen verses, or nearly the whole Psalm, was 
 quoted. The Bible of Clement of Rome was the Greek 
 Bible, the version of the Seventy. ' Well then, here,' 
 said we to ourselves, ' is a good opportunity for verifying 
 the mode of quoting the canonical Scriptures which is 
 followed by an early Christian writer.' So we took the 
 Septuagint, and went through the first sixteen verses of 
 the fifty-first Psalm. We found that Clement followed 
 his canonical original with an exactness which, after all we 
 had heard of the looseness with which these early Chris- 
 tian writers quote Scripture, quite astonished us. Five 
 slight and unimportant variations were all that we could 
 find, — variations so slight as the omission of an and 
 in a place where it was not wanted. One knows, from 
 Origan and his labours of reformation, into how unsure a 
 state the text of the Greek Vulgate had in the second 
 century fallen ; so that this exactitude cl Clement was 
 the more surprising. 
 
 Now, shortly before we came upon the fifty-first Psalm, 
 we had remarked, in the thirteenth chapter of Clement's
 
 220 GOD AND THE BIBLE. 
 
 Epistle, a cluster of sayings from the Sermon on the 
 Mount. We turned back with eagerness to them, and 
 ■compared them with the like sayings in St. Matthew and 
 in St. Luke.' Neither in wording nor in order did the 
 Epistle here correspond vdih. either of these Gospels ; the 
 ■difference was marked, although in such short, notable 
 sayings, there seems so little room for it. We turned to 
 a longer cluster of quotations from the Sermon on the 
 INIount in Justin Martyr's first Apology. It was with 
 Justin Martyr precisely as with Clement ; the wording 
 and order in what he quoted differed remarkably from 
 the wording and order of the corresponding sayings in 
 our Gospels. The famous sentence beginning, Render to 
 Casar, was quoted by Justin. Words so famous might 
 well have been expected to be current in one form only, 
 and their tallying in Justin with our Gospels would not 
 at all prove that Justin quoted them from our Gospels. 
 But even these words, as he quotes them, run differently 
 from the version in our Gospels. So that these eadjL 
 write rs could quote canonical Scriptures correctly enough. 
 
 ' We give the passage from Clement, which the reader can com- 
 pare with the counterparts in Matthew and Luke for himself. eAeetre 
 i'va. iKeri0r}Tf ' a(pifTf "va b.<pe6'p v/xiy. ws irotetre, oi/'tco 7ronj6^(r6Tot 
 vfuv • ws SiSoTf, ovTws So67)(TeTai vfup * us Kpivfre, ovtws Kpi6i}(TeTai 
 iifuv. ws xP'?''''''«ueo'6e, ovtws ^prjffTevdriaerai vfi7v & fifTpcf ^fxtrpuref 
 iv avrw ."<Tpr)0i7(T€Toi iifuv.
 
 THE BIBLE-CANON. 
 
 whe-n-tbey-were-Sciiptures of the Old Testament, but 
 \iiiea.ihey were Scriptures of the New the^_cjuote_ them 
 in-^uite^another fashion. 
 
 We examined a number of other passages, and found 
 ahvays the same result, except in one curious particular. 
 Certain prophetic passages of the Old Testament were 
 quoted, not as they stand in the Septuagint, but exactly 
 or almost exactly, as they stand in our Gospels \ at least, 
 the variations were here as slight as those of Clement 
 quoting from the Greek the fifty-first Psalm. Thus Justin 
 quotes the passage from Vi^xzdh, And thon, Bet/ile/icin^^c, 
 almost exactly as it is given in St. ^latthew, although in 
 the Septuagint it stands otherwise ; and the passage from 
 Zechariah, They shall look on him whom they pierced, as it 
 is given in St. John, althougli in the Septuagint it stands 
 otherAvise. But this one point of coincidence, amid 
 general variation, indicates only that passages of prophecy 
 where the Greek Bible did not well bring out the refer- 
 ence to Christ, were early corrected among Christians, so 
 as to let the reference appear ; and that the Messianic 
 passages are given in tliis corrected form both iii our 
 Gospels and in Justin. For it is in these passages that a 
 literal, or almost literal, correspondence between them 
 occurs, and in no others. 
 
 This satisfied us, and we were hencefortli convinced
 
 222 GOD AND THE BIBLE. 
 
 that at the end of the first century, and nearly up to the 
 last quarter of the second century, there existed beyond 
 doubt a body of Canonical Scripture for Christian 
 ^ATiters and that they quoted from it as men would 
 naturally quote from canonical Scriptures. Often they 
 quote it literally and unmistakeably ; and therefore their 
 variations from it, though they are sometimes greater, 
 sometimes less, are yet no more than what may be natur- 
 ally explained as loose quoting, quoting from memory. 
 But this body of Canonical Scripture was the Old Testa- 
 ment. The variations from our Gospels we found to be 
 quite of another character, and quite inexplicable in men 
 quoting from a Canon, only with some looseness occa- 
 sionally. And we felt sure, and so may the reader of 
 Literature and Dogma feel sure, that either no Canon of 
 the Gospels, in our present sense, then existed, or else our 
 actual Gospels did not compose that Canon. 
 
 However, the author of Supernatural Religion., who 
 has evidently a turn for inquiries of this kind, has pur- 
 sued the thing much further. He seems to have looked 
 out and brought together, to the best of his powers, every 
 extant passage in which, between the year 70 and the year 
 170 of our era, a writer might be supposed to be quoting 
 one of our Four Gospels. And it turns out that there is 
 constantly the same sort of variation from our Gospels, a
 
 THE BIBLE-CANON. 223 
 
 variation inexplicable in men quoting from a real Canon, 
 and quite unlike what is found in men quoting from our 
 Four Gospels later. It may be said that the Old Testa- 
 ment, too, is often quoted loosely. True ; but it is also 
 quoted exactly ; and long passages of it are thus quoted. 
 It would be nothing that our canonical Gospels were often 
 quoted loosely, if long passages from them, or if passages, 
 say, of even two or three verses, were sometimes quoted 
 exactly. But from ^\^^te^s before Irenceus not one such pas- 
 sage of our canonical Gospels can be produced so quoted. 
 _And the author oi Supernatural Religion, by bringing. 
 §ll_the_alleged quotations forward, has proved it. 
 
 This, we say, the author of Supernatural Religion has 
 proved ; and here, at any rate, if not against miracles, he 
 may claim to have been successful in estabhshing his 
 complete induction. We call him a learned and exact 
 ■vmter from the diligence and accuracy ^vith which he has 
 conducted this investigation. He deserves the title, and 
 we take the liberty to maintain it. His construing of 
 Greek and Latin may leave something to be desired. 
 His conception of the Bible and its religion seems to us 
 quite inadequate. His rejection of evidence which does 
 not suit his purpose makes him, — as it makes so many 
 another critic, besides him, both among those who attack 
 popular Christianity, and among those who defend it, —
 
 224 GOD AND THE BIBLE. 
 
 an untrustworthy guide. But this, which it is the main 
 object of his book to show : that there is no evidence of 
 the estabhshment of our Four Gospels as a Gospel-Canon, 
 or even of their existence as they now finally stand at all, 
 before the last quarter of the second century, — nay, that 
 the great weight of evidence is against it, — he has 
 shown, and in the most minute and exhaustive detail. 
 We should say, with unnecessary detail ; because a reader 
 whose eyes and mind were open would satisfy himself 
 with much less. But the mass of Englishmen enjoy 
 pounding away at details long after it ceases to be neces- 
 sary. What they hate is having to face the new ideas 
 which await them when the detail-hunt is done with, and 
 to re-make and re-settle their minds. Probably, for 
 producing an impression on the public, the style in which 
 the author of Siipej-natural Religion has done his work 
 is well chosen. We attach too, — for reasons which we 
 shall give when we come to sum up the case as to the 
 New Testament Canon, after we have dealt with the 
 Fourth Gospel, — much less importance to the point he 
 seeks to prove, than he and perhaps most people do. 
 But his point, Ave say, he has proved. No fineness of 
 accomplishment, no pursuit of the zxyihoxoi Supernaturai 
 Religion into side-issues, no discrediting of him in these, 
 will avail to shake his establishment of his main position.
 
 THE BIBLE-CANON. 225 
 
 where the facts are for him and lie has collected them 
 with pertinacious industry and completeness. 
 
 The upshot of all this for the reader of Literature and 
 Dogma is, that our original short sentence about the 
 record of the life and words of Jesus holds good. The 
 record, we_said, when we first get it, has passed through at 
 least hat/a century, or more, of oral tradition, and through 
 more than one written account.
 
 GOD AND THE BIBLE. 
 
 CHAPTER V. 
 
 THE FOURTH GOSPEL FROM WITHOUT. 
 
 Sometimes a youthful philosopher, provoked at our dis- 
 respect towards metaphysics, tells us that he has been 
 reading Hegel, and would greatly like to have a word 
 with us about being. Our impulse is to reply that he had 
 much better have been reading Homer, and that about 
 Homer we, at any rate, had much rather he should talk 
 to us. That divine poet is always in season, always 
 brings us something suited to our wants. And now, 
 when we have finally, after making good our general de- 
 scription of the Gospel-records, to make good our special 
 estimate of the Fourth Gospel, and when, approaching 
 the closer consideration of this Gospel, we are confronted 
 by the theorisings of ingenious professors about it and 
 might well be overawed by their exceeding vigour and 
 rigour, a saying of Homer comes to our mind and raises 
 our courage, and emboldens us to scrutinise the vigorous 
 and rigorous theorisings with coolness. Yet the saying
 
 THE FOURTH GOSPEL FROM WITHOUT. 227 
 
 is not at all a grand one. We are almost ashamed to 
 quote it to readers who may have come fresh from the 
 last number of the North American Review, and from the 
 great sentence there quoted as summing up Mr. Herbert 
 Spencer's theory of evolution : — ' Evolution is an integ- 
 ration of matter and concomitant dissipation of motion 
 during which the matter passes from an indefinite 
 incoherent homogeneity to a definite coherent hetero- 
 geneity, and during which the retained motion undergoes 
 a jiarallel transformation.' Homer's poor little saying 
 comes not in such formidable shape. It is only this : — 
 Wide is ihe ratige of words ! uwrds may make this 7uay or 
 that way} 
 
 But really, of nine-tenths of the theorising about the 
 Gospels which comes to us from Germany, these few 
 words of Homer give us just the right criticism. There 
 stand the Gospel words. It is possible to put a certain 
 construction upon them. Off starts the German 
 professor whose theor)' this construction suits, and puts 
 it. . Prpspnt l y Jie. fnrge ts-that this was only a possible 
 construction for the words to be;u:, and often, though a 
 possible, not even a probable one. He assumes it to be 
 the certain, necessary construction for the words. He 
 treats it as such in all his arguments thenceforward j and 
 
 ' i-niu>v 5€ iro\us i/oubs ivQa. koI tvQa. Iliad, xx, 249. 
 
 Q2
 
 228 GOD AND THE BIBLE. 
 
 his theory is certain, because, forsooth, the constnictioiT 
 certainly to be placed on the Gospel words proves itt_. 
 
 How many a vigorous and rigorous theory owes its 
 force to this process ! The Third Gospel is the Gospel 
 of Paulinism, composed with a view to exalt Paul's 
 teaching and to disparage the older apostles. Where are 
 the proofs ? The famous words to Peter, Thou art Peter, 
 and upon this jvck will I build my church, are not given 
 in the Third Gospel. Well, it is a possible inference 
 from that omission, that the Avriter meant to disparage 
 Peter. But it is not the necessary inference, there is not_ 
 even ground for saying that it is the probable inference. . 
 And yet, when Baur says that the words ' are completely 
 ignored in the Third Gospel because the A\Titer could not 
 possibly recognise such a primacy of Peter,' all he really 
 has to go upon is the supposed necessity of his inference. 
 
 In the same Gospel, Peter has been fishing all night, 
 and has caught nothing. Jesus appears, and at his com- 
 mand the net is once more let do^vn, and ' they inclosed 
 a great multitude of fishes, and the net brake.' Here, 
 says Dr. A^olkmar, the writer meant to contrast the 
 barren result of preaching the Gospel to the Jews with 
 the fruitful result of preaching it to the Gentiles. If 
 we concede to Dr. Volkmar, not that the writer certainly 
 meant this, but that it is a not absolutely impossible
 
 THE FOURTH GOSPEL FROM WITHOUT. 229 
 
 constniction to put on his words, we make him a very 
 handsome admission. Ye j the abg ojut e cata iiity of this 
 
 ■sort of construction is the proof for the universalist and 
 ■anti-Petrine character of the Third Gospel ! 
 
 Finally, it is 'an ingenious conjecture' of Dr. 
 Schwegler, that by the two crucified thieves, the one 
 converted, the other impenitent, the writer of the Third 
 Gospel intended to contrast Jew and Gentile, the obstinate 
 rejection of Christ by the former, the glad acceptance of 
 him by the latter. No doubt this may be called ' an 
 ingenious conjecture,' but what are we to think of the 
 critic who confidently builds upon it ? 
 
 The Fourth Gospel, again, is an advance beyond the 
 Third ; it is composed with ' a profoundly calculated 
 art,' as the Gospel of Universalism in the highest degree. 
 How is this proved ? It is proved because in relating 
 the miraculous draught of fishes, — a miracle borrowed, 
 we are told, from Luke, but placed by the borrower after 
 ihe Resurrection, — the author of the Fourth Gospel 
 declares that llie net was not broken, whereas Luke says 
 that it was. ^Vhat can be clearer ? The advanced Uni- 
 versalist means to indicate that the multitudes of the 
 heathen world may be brought in to Christianity without 
 any such disruption of the Christian Church as to his 
 iaint-hearted predecessor had seemed inevitable. The
 
 GOD AND THE BIBLE. 
 
 Third Gospel, again, S2:)eaks of two boats engaged in 
 fishing, the Fourth of but one. What a progress, cries 
 Strauss, is here ! The peaceable co-existence of a 
 Jewish and a Gentile Christianity no longer satisfies the 
 religious consciousness ; it will be satisfied with nothing 
 less than a Catholic Church, one and indivisible. 
 
 The Dutch are determined not to be beaten at this 
 sort of criticism by the Germans. For the Germans, the 
 artistic Universalist who composed the Fourth Gospel is 
 still a writer wishing to pass himself off as the Pillar- 
 Apostle John. For Dr. Scholten, in Holland, this is 
 insufficient. For him, the disciple whom Jesus loved is 
 an ideal figure representing the free Christian conscious- 
 ness of a later time ; corresponding to none of the 
 original narrow-minded Jewish disciples, but in a 
 designed contrast with them. This ideal figure it is who 
 starts with Peter for the sepulchre and outruns him, — 
 arrives first at his Lord. To be sure, Peter is the first to- 
 enter the sepulchre. What does that matter, when the 
 ideal disciple, who enters after him; has the advantage 
 over him that he 'saw and believed?' And what is 
 meant, again, by Jesus saying to Peter of this same dis- 
 ciple : ' If I will that he tarry till I come, what is that to 
 thee? ' Any reference to John and to the advanced age 
 to which he went on living? N ot at all. Jesus means
 
 THE FOURTH GOSPEL FROM WITHOUT. 231 
 
 that the free spiritual Gospel of the idealising artist, his 
 latest expounder, is the true one and shall stand ; tliat it 
 shall endure indestructible until his own coming again. 
 
 Now, if it were positively established on other grounds 
 that the case is with the author of the Third Gospel, or 
 with the author of tlie Fourth, just as these critics say, 
 then we might have no such great difficulty, perhaps, in 
 putting on the texts above quoted the construction 
 proposed for them. But really it is only by placing this 
 construction on tlie texts that the case as to their 
 authors can be made out to be what these critics say. 
 And when we are summoned to admit the construction 
 as if it were the necessary, or even most probable one, 
 we demur, and answer with the good Homer : Wide is 
 the range of words ! words may make this way or that 
 way. 
 
 Sometimes the construction which is to prove tlic 
 critic's theory has against it not only that it is but one 
 possible construction out of many; — it has even more 
 against it than this. The Paulinian author of the Third 
 Gospel has for his great object, we are told, to disparage 
 the older apostles. See, says Baur, how lie relates the 
 story of the raising of Jairus's daughter ! ' If it were not 
 
 ' Baur, Kriiischc UntersticJniiigcn ilbcr die kanonischcn Evan- 
 gdien (Tubingen, 1S47), pp. 45S and 469.
 
 GOD AND THE BIBLE. 
 
 his main object to disparage the Twelve, how could he 
 have made their three eminent representatives, Peter, 
 James, and John, figure in a situation which seems 
 expressly designed to show them in an unfavourable 
 light ? ' When Jesus came to the house of Jairus,' says 
 Luke, 'he suffered no man to go in save Peter and 
 James and John, and the father and the mother of the 
 maiden.' Now, Matthew does not mention this; and 
 why? Because he does not write with Luke's object. 
 For what follows ? ' And all wept and bewailed her ; 
 but he said. Weep not ; she is not dead but sleepeth. 
 And they laughed him to scorn, knowing that she was 
 dead. And he pit them all ont.^ '^ Who are here, asks 
 Baur, the laughers at Jesus, that are put out by him? 
 ' Evidently the three apostles are of the number ; who 
 consequently here, in spite of their having been a con- 
 siderable time in close intimacy with Jesus, only give a 
 new proof of their spiritual incapacity?' And again : 
 * That the three most trusted of the disciples of Jesus 
 behaved to him in such a way as to occasion his ordering 
 them to leave him, is the main point, 7C'hich the whole 
 represe7itation of our Evangelist is directed to bring ont I ' 
 Was ever anything so fantastical? And to think that 
 Eaur should have found a brother critic of the Gospels, 
 ' Luke, viii, 51-54. Compare Matth. , ix, 23-25.
 
 THE FOURTH GOSPEL FROM UTTHOUT. 233 
 
 * The Saxon Amviyinns' more fantastical tlian himself, 
 Avliom he has to take seriously to task for his flights ! In 
 the first place, there is nothing whatever to show that 
 the laughers in Luke's narrative, whom Jesus puts out, 
 are his own three apostles and the father and mother of 
 the maiden. It is far more likely that they are, as in 
 St. Matthew, 'the people.' But there is not only this 
 against the sense imposed by Baur on the passage. The 
 all-important N\ords, He put than all ottt, are \\-anting in 
 the two oldest and best manuscripts of the New Testa- 
 ment ! ' They have probably crept into the text 
 through a remembrance of corresponding words in St. 
 Matthew : ' But when the people were put out.' And 
 this is positively the evidence for ' the main point which 
 the whole representation of our Evangelist is directed to 
 bring out,' — the point that t/ie three most trusted of the 
 disciples of J^esjis behaved to him in such a way as to occa- 
 sion his ordering them to leave him. A precious main point 
 indeed ! 
 
 The sort of reasoning Avhich proves this to be the 
 Evangelist's main point is not reasoning at all, it is mere 
 playing at reasoning. But how much of Eaur's Biblical 
 criticism is of this nature ! We will try him once more. 
 ' Pauline Universalism is recognisable as the view which 
 ' The Vatican and the Sinaitic.
 
 234 GOD AND THE BIBLE. 
 
 prevails throughout the Third Gospel.' • Well, Baur has 
 told us this again and again ; we want some real proof of 
 it. He proceeds to give his proof:—' Those declarations 
 of Jesus in the First Gospel which have a particularistic 
 
 .turn are absent from the Third.' Certainly this is 
 important, if true ; is it true ? See how Baur proves it : 
 — ' That saying which is so characteristic of Matthew's 
 Gospel, — the saying about the fulfilment of the law and 
 its enduring validity, — Luke's Gospel has not. What 
 Matthew's Gospel says of the indestractiblity of the very 
 smallest part of the law, Luke's Gospel says,'^ according 
 to the original reading, of the words of Jesus.' According 
 to the original reading ? Do, then, our earliest manu- 
 scripts of the New Testament, or does one of them, 
 
 / or does any manuscript, read ' one tittle of viy ivordsy 
 
 instead of ' one tittle of the law ? ' Not a manuscript, 
 
 old or new, important or unimportant. Only Marcion 
 
 quotes Jesus as having said one tittle of viy words ; 
 
 Marcion, who is handed down to us as having ' mutilated ' 
 
 Luke, and whose profound antipathy to Judaism and its 
 
 law would just have led him to alter such a sentence as 
 
 this. Let us allow all possible weight to TertuUian's 
 
 admission that Marcion complained of the adulteration 
 
 ' ' Gibt sich der Paulinischc Universalismus als die Grundan- 
 schaung des Evangelium zu erkennen.' — Baur, Geschichte der christ- 
 licJieii Kirche, vol. i, p. 74. * Luke, xvi, 17.
 
 THE FOURTH GOSPEL FROM WITHOUT. 235 
 
 of the rule of Christianity, and professed to revert to 
 Avhat was genuine. Still there is nowhere a syllable to 
 sliow that this rrccrtiiig consisted in a return to the 
 original, genuine text of Luke, whereas tlie common 
 text and all the other Gospels were adulterated. Not 
 one syllable is there to this effect ; yet the most explicit 
 assurance to this effect would be requisite to make Baur's 
 assertion even plausible. As the evidence stands, his 
 accoj'ding to the original readitig is monstrous. 
 
 To put one's finger on the fallaciousness of the 
 criticism in these cases will make us suspect it in others. 
 There are questions of Uterary criticism where positive 
 proof is impossible ; where the assertor appeals to criti- 
 cal tact, and not to formal evidence. Still, when we have 
 found a man arbitrary and fantastic in those judgments 
 where he professes to go by formal evidence, there is 
 likelihood that he will be arbitrary and fantastic in tliose 
 also where he professes to go by critical tact. ' Mark was 
 no epitomator,' says Baur ; ' he was a man with a special 
 turn for adding details of his own, in order to give the 
 j;atio7iale of things, and to supply the logical explanation 
 of them.' What sort of example does Baur bring of this ? 
 'JVTark/ says Baur,' ' prefixes to the words with which, in 
 the other Synoptics, tlie story of the disciples taking the 
 
 • Kritischc Untcrsuchungcn iibcr die kanonischcn Evcii^elicity 
 P- 554.
 
 236 GOD AND THE BIBLE. 
 
 ears of corn concludes, The Son of Alan is Lord also of 
 the Sabbath, Mark prefixes to these words a proposition 
 to give the reason for them : The Sabbath was made for 
 man, not man for the Sabbath} One would think that 
 Mark's motive for inserting these words might be, that 
 there Avas a tradition of their having been really spoken 
 by Jesus, in whose manner they exactly are. But 
 no, this is the very last explanation which ever occurs 
 to a critic of the TiAbingen School. All our Gospels 
 are more or less Tendenz-Schriften, tendence-writings, 
 — writings to ser\-e an aim and bent of their several 
 authors ; and a Tiibingen critic is for ever on the 
 look-out for tendence in them. The words in Mark 
 £annot be authentic, says Baur, because they i?itist be 
 an addition inserted to give the rational explanation 
 of the words following them. Jgutjhe ground for this 7 mist 
 is really not in any necessary law of criticism, but only 
 tha t it pleases Baur to say so. Mark's turn for little cir- 
 cumstantial details is indeed curious ; but it is a thing 
 to be noticed in passing, not to be pressed to this extra- 
 vagant extent. 
 
 It is just the same with Baur's proof of another asser- 
 ! tion : the assertion that the Sermon on the Mount, in the 
 First Gospel is a work of ' artistic reflexion,' a body of say- 
 ings on difierent occasions, grouped by the Evangelist ' in 
 
 ' Mail<, ii, 27, 2S.
 
 THE FOURTH GOSPEL FROM WITHOUT. 237 
 
 one logically ordered whole, to produce a certain calcu- 
 lated total-effect.' / The proof of this is that the Sermon 
 on the Mount follows throughout 'a methodical march 
 from point to point according to a determined idea.' 
 That is to say, Baur determines an idea for the Sermon 
 on the Mount, and makes it follow that idea methodically. 
 But the idea, and the Sermon's conformity to it, are 
 neither of them given by the necessary laws of criticism, 
 they are not facts commending themselves to every 
 sound judgment. They are merely a construction which 
 it is possible to put upon the words. But wide is the 
 range of words ! ^"ery likely there may be in the Sermon 
 on the jNIount sayings belonging to more than one 
 occasion ; but very likely, nevertheless, the Sermon may 
 not at all be a work of ' artistic reflexion,' and not at all 
 follow ' a methodical march from point to point.' 
 
 .Evidence has tliree degrees of force : demonstration, 
 l)robability, plausibility. Now, the truth is, that on ver\- 
 many questions like the above, which German critics of 
 the Bible raise and treat as if they were matter for 
 demonstration, demonstration cannot really be reached 
 at all. The data are insufficient for it. ^Vhether there- 
 was one original written Gospel, a single schriftlichc 
 Urei'angeliiim, or whether there was a plurality of written 
 sources, a MeJirheit \von Quellcn-Schriften, — a favourite 
 question with these critics, — is a question where demon-
 
 238 GOD AND THE BIBLE. 
 
 stration is wholly out of our power. Whether the co- 
 existence in the First Gospel of passages which 'bear 
 the stamp of Jewish Particularism,' and of passages which 
 breathe ' another, freer spirit/ is due, as Dr. Schwegler 
 maintains, to an incorporation of new and later 
 elements with the original Gospel, is a question not really 
 admitting of demonstration one way or the other. 
 Whether the Second Gospel, as Dr. Hilgenfeld asserts 
 a,nd Baur denies, is ' an independent Petrine Gospel 
 representing the transition from the strict Judaic Christi- 
 anit}' of Matthew to the law-emancipated Paulinism of 
 Luke ;' whether, as Dr. Volkmar contends, all our 
 canonical Gospels are 'pure tendence- writings of the at 
 first kept under, at last victorious Pauline spirit,' can 
 never be settled to demonstration, either in the affirm- 
 ative or in the negative. Whether, as Baur and Strauss 
 confidently declare, the substitution by Luke, in reporting 
 a speech of Jesus, of adikia for Matthew's anomia^ of 
 unrighteousness for iniquity, 'metamorphoses a Judaic 
 outburst against Paul into a Paulinian outburst against 
 Judaic Christianity;' whether Luke's Sermon in the 
 Plain is meant to be opposed to the Sermon on the 
 Mount of Matthew, no one can ever prove, and no one can 
 ever disprove. The most that can be reached in these 
 questions is probability or plausibility ; and plausibility,
 
 THE FOURTH GOSPEL FROM WITHOUT. 239 
 
 — such a display of ingenuity as makes people clap their 
 
 hands and cry Well done / but does nor seriously per- 
 
 _auade them,— is not much worth a wise man's ambitioning. 
 
 There remains probability. But it is not the necessity 
 of a certain construction for certain texts which creates 
 probability. It is absurd, as we have seen, to take such 
 a necessity for granted. The probability of the thesis 
 that our Four Gospels are ' pure tendence-writings of the 
 at first kept under, at last victorious Pauline spirit,' does 
 not depend on the demonstrable certainty of inferences 
 from any text or texts in them. It depends on con- 
 siderations drawn from e.xperience of human nature, and 
 irom acquaintance with the history of tlie human spirit, 
 which themselves guide our infer ence from these texts__, 
 And what is the great help for interpreting aright the experi- 
 ence of human nature and the history of the human spirit, 
 for getting at the fact, for discovering what is fact and what , 
 is not? Sound judgment and common-sense, bred of 
 Vnuir.h conversance with real hfe and with practical afiairs. _/ 
 
 Now, ' nowhere else in the worid,' declares, as we have 
 already seen, Sir Henry Maine, ' is there the same respect 
 for a fact as in England, unless the respect be of English 
 origin.' He attributes this to the habits of strictness formed 
 by the English law of evidence ; but the English law of evi- 
 dence is itself due, probably, to the practical character of 
 
 TVt^*^
 
 240 GOD AND THE BIBLE. 
 
 the people. Faults this character has, and plenty of them. 
 Much may be said against its indifterence to learning and 
 study, its neglect of organising research ; much may be said 
 in praise of Germany's superiority in these respects. Yet, 
 after all, shut a number of men up to make learning and 
 study the business of their lives, and how many of them,, 
 for want of some discipline or other, seem to lose all 
 balance of judgment ! Hear the amenities of organised re- 
 search in Germany, hear Dr. Volkmar on Tischendorf : — 
 ' Of every sovereign in the world he has begged decora- 
 tions ; in vain ! people would not treat him seriously. 
 Renan, in his life of the Messiah Jesus, never once names 
 the Messiah Tischendorf ! ' Hear Tischendorf on Dr. 
 Volkmar : — 'The liedom which tramples underfoot Church 
 and science indifferently ! stuck full of lying and cheat- 
 ing ! ' But indeed, for fear we should lose these flowers 
 of learned compliment. Professor Max Miiller, — who has 
 a foot in both worlds, the English and the German, — 
 transplants into an English review this criticism by Pro- 
 fessor Steinthal on a rival : — ' That horrible humbug ! 
 that scolding flirt ! that tricky attorney ! whenever I read 
 him, hollow vanity yawns in my fiice, arrogant vanity 
 grins at me.' And only the other day the newspapers 
 brought us an address of Dr. Mommsen, in which the 
 new Rector of the University of Berlin, with a charming
 
 THE FOURTH GOSPEL FROM WITHOUT. 241 
 
 crudity, gravely congratulated his countrymen on not 
 being modest, and adjured them never to fall into that 
 sad fault ! These are the intemperances and extravag- 
 ances which men versed in practical life feel to be 
 absurd. One is not disposed to form great expectations 
 of the balance of judgment in those who commit them. 
 Yet what is literary and historical criticism but a series of 
 most delicate judgments on the data given us by research, 
 — judgments requiring great tact, moderation, and temper? 
 These, however, are what the German professor \\\\o has 
 his data from research, and makes his judgments on 
 them, is so often without, not having enough of the 
 discipline of practical life to give it to him. We speak of 
 judgments, be it observed, not in the exact sciences, but 
 in matters where we deal with the experience of human 
 nature and with the history of the human spirit. 
 
 poethe seems to ha\c strongly felt how much the dis- 
 _cipline of a great public life and of practical affairs had to 
 do_with intelligence. 'What else is cultur' he asks, in a 
 remarkable passage, 'but a higher conception of political 
 and military relations? Everj'thing depends, for a nation, 
 upon the art of bearing itself in the world, and of striking 
 in when necessary.' ' And he adds in a more re- 
 
 ' Was ist Cullur anderes als ein holicrcr BegrifT von politischcn 
 und militarischen Vcrhaltnissen ? Auf die Kunst sich in der Welt
 
 242 GOD AND THE BIBLE. 
 
 markable sentence still: ' Wlienever and wlierever th^ 
 French lay aside their Philistinism, they stand far 
 above us in critical judgment, and in the comprehension 
 of original works of the human spirit.' ' He means that 
 in France the practical life of a great nation quickened 
 the judgment, and prevented fumbling and trifling. 
 And we shall see what Germany does, now that she, too^ 
 has ' struck in ' with signal effect, and has the practical 
 life of a great nation to correct and balance her learning. 
 But hitherto her learning has lacked this counter-weight. 
 
 We have led the reader thus gradually to the con- 
 sideration of German theories about the Fourth Gospel, 
 because these theories, coming to us without our having 
 any previous acquaintance v/ith their character and their 
 authors, are likely at first, though not in the long run, to 
 make a powerful impression here. In the first place, 
 they have great vigour and rigour, and are confidently 
 presented to us as certain, demonstrated fact. Now an 
 Englishman has such a respect for fact himself, that he 
 
 zu betragen, unci nach Erfordern dreinzuschlagen, kommtesbei den 
 Nationen an. 
 
 ' So oft die Franzosen ihre Philisterei aufgeben und wo sie es 
 thun, stehen sie weit iiber uns im kritischen Uilheil und in der 
 Auffassung originellcr Geisteswcrke.
 
 THE FOURTH GOSPEL FROM WITHOUT. 243 
 
 can hardly in.iagine grave people presenting him with 
 anything as fixct when they have absolutely no right to do 
 so whatever. Then, in the next place, the theories are 
 presented and vouched for by English importers; and 
 they seem to feel no misgivings about them. But 
 then the very last English people to have misgivings 
 about them would naturally be their importers, who have 
 taken the trouble to get them up, translate them, and 
 publish them. Finally, the re^j^ a fashion in these things ; 
 and no ona can deny that the fashion just now is in 
 favour of th eories denying all historical validity to the 
 Fourt h Gospel. One can see it by the reviews and news- 
 papers. To reject the Fourth Gospel bids fair even to 
 become, like disestablishment, or like marriage with a 
 deceased wife's sister, a regular article of our Liberal 
 creed, asserting its place in the programme of the future, 
 compelling Mr. Gladstone to think once, twice, and 
 thrice about it, and setting Sir William Harcourt to 
 consider whether it may not be possible for him to 
 build a new Liberal party of his own upon some safer 
 basis. 
 
 Sooner or later, however, these theories will have to 
 confront the practical English sense of evidence, the 
 plain judgment as to what is proved matter of fact and 
 what is not. So long as the traditional notion about the 
 
 K 2
 
 24:^ GOD AND THE BIBLE. 
 
 Bible-documents was accepted in this countrj', people 
 allowed the conventional defences of that notion to pass 
 muster easily enough. The notion was thought certain 
 in itself, was part of our life. That the conventional 
 defences should be produced was very proper. Whether 
 or no they were exactly right did not much matter ; they 
 were produced in favour of what was a certainty already. 
 The old notion about the Bible-documents has given 
 way. But the result is that no theories about them will 
 any longer be allowed by English people to pass muster 
 as easily as the old conventional defences did. All 
 theories, the old and the new, will have to stand the 
 ordeal of the Englishman's strong and strict sense for 
 fact. We are much mistaken if it does not turn out that 
 this ordeal makes great havoc among the vigorous and 
 rigorous theories of German criticism concerning the 
 Bi^lej^cuments. The sense which English people 
 have for fact and for evidence will tell them, that as to 
 demonstration, in most of those cases wherein our critics 
 profess to supply it to us, ^uide is the range of words, and 
 demonstration is impossible. As to probability, which in 
 these cases is as much as can be reached, we shall dis- 
 cover that the German Biblical critics are in general not 
 the likeliest people to reach it, and that their theories do, 
 in fact, attain it very seldom.
 
 THE FOURTH GOSPEL FROM WITHOUT. 245 
 
 Let us take the performance of the greatest and most 
 famous of these critics, — Ferdinand Christian Baur, — 
 upon the Fourth Gospel. ' It is Baur's imperishable 
 glory,' says Strauss, himself in some respects a rival of 
 Baur, ' to have succeeded in stripping the Fourth Gospel 
 of all historical authority.' Baur has proved., it is said, 
 that the Fourth Gospel was composed about the year 170 
 after Christ, in the heat of a conflict between Jewish and 
 anti-Jewish Christianity, and to help the anti-Jewish side. 
 It has a direct dogmatic design from beginning to end. 
 With a profoundly calculated art, it freely treats the 
 Gospel-story and Gospel-personages in the interests of 
 this design. It d evelops the Logos-idea, and its Christ__ 
 Js a dogma p ersonified. Its form is given by the Gnostic 
 conception of an antithesis of the principles of light and 
 darkness,— an antithesis found both in the physical and 
 in the moral world, and in the moral world exemplified 
 by the contrast of Jewish unbelief with true faith. The 
 author does not intend to deliver histor}-, but to deliver 
 his idea in the dress of history. No sayings of Jesus are 
 authentic which are recorded in the Fourth Gospel only. 
 The miracles of the Fourth Gospel are not, like those 
 of the Synoptics, matter given by popular report and 
 legend. They are all, with deliberate art, ' made out of 
 the carver's brain,' to serve the carver's special purposes.
 
 246 GOD AND THE BIBLE. 
 
 For example.^ The first miracle in the Fourth Gospel, 
 the change of water into wine, is in\-ented by the artist 
 to figure Jesus Christ's superiority over his precursor, 
 and the transition and progress from the Baptist's 
 preparatory stage to the epoch of Messianic activity and 
 glory. The change of water into wine indicates this 
 transition. Water is the Baptist's element ; Jesus 
 Christ's element is the Holy Ghost. But in the First 
 Gospel the antithesis to the Baptist's element is not 
 called Holy Ghost only, it is also called fire. In the 
 Fourth Gospel this antithesis is, by means of the Cana 
 miracle, figured to us as wine. 'Why,' asks Baur, 
 ' should not the difference and superiority of Jesus 
 Christ's element be indicated by wine as well as fire ? 
 Geist, fire, wine, are all allied notions.' 
 
 Then come Nicodemus in the third chapter, the woman 
 of Samaria in the fourth. They are created by the 
 artist to typify two opposite classes of believers. Nico- 
 demus who holds merely to miracles, is the representative 
 of Judaism, — Judaism which even in its belief is un- 
 believing. The woman of Samaria represents the 
 heathen world, susceptible of a genuine faith in Christ. 
 The same capacity for a true faith is observable in the 
 nobleman of Capernaum ; he must therefore be intended 
 
 ' For what follows, sec K7-itische Untersuchungeit iiber die kanoji- 
 ischcn Evangelicn, pp. 114- 184.
 
 7 HE FOURTH GOSPEL FROM WITHOUT. 247 
 
 by the author for a heathen, and not, as is commonly 
 thought, for a Jew. 
 
 We proceed, and come to the heaUng of the impotent 
 man at the pool of Bethesda. Now the Jesus of the 
 Fourth Gospel is the principle of life «;/^/ light in contrast 
 to the principle of death and darkness. The healing of 
 the impotent man is a miracle designed to exhibit Jesus 
 as the principle of life. Presently, therefore, it is 
 balanced by the miracle wrought on the man born 
 blind, in order that Jesus may be exhibited as the 
 principle of light. The reader sees what an artistic 
 composition he has before him in the Fourth Gospel. 
 As Eaur says, this is indeed a work where all is intention 
 and conf ormity to plan ; nothing mere history, but idea 
 jnoulding history ! Everything in the work is strictly, to 
 speak like the artists, motived. To say that anything in 
 the Fourth Gospel is not strictly motived, * is as good,' says 
 Baur, ' as calling the Evangelist a very thoughtless writer.' 
 
 Here, then, we have a theory of genuine vigour and 
 rigour. Already we feel its power, when we read in one 
 of our daily newspapers that ' the author of the Fourth 
 Gospel stands clearly revealed as the partisan and pro- 
 pagandist of a dogma of transcendental theology-.' 
 
 Now, Baur himself would have told us that the truth 
 of his theory was certain, demonstrable. But we have
 
 248 GOD AND THE BIBLE. 
 
 seen what these critics call demonstration. That wine 
 may figure the Holy Spirit is with them a proof that in 
 the Cana miracle it does, and that the true account of 
 that miracle is what we have seen. Demonstrably true 
 Baur's theory of the Fourth Gospel is not, and cannot 
 be ; but is it probably true ? To try this, let us, instead 
 of imposing the theory upon the facts of the case and 
 rejecting whatever facts do not suit it, — let us, in our plain 
 English way, take the evidence fairly as it stands, and see 
 to what conclusions it leads us about the Fourth Gospel. 
 
 "WHiat is the earliest piece of evidence we can find 
 concerning the composition of this Gospel ? It is given 
 us in the already mentioned Canon of Muratori, dating, 
 probably, from about the year 175 after Christ. This 
 fragment says : — ' The fourth of the Gospels is by the 
 disciple John. He was being pressed by his fellow 
 disciples and (fellow) bishops, and he said : " Fast with 
 me this day, and for three days ; and whatsoever shall 
 have been revealed to each one of us, let us relate it to 
 the rest." In the same night it was revealed to the 
 Apostle Andrew that John should write the whole in his 
 own name, and that all the rest should revise it.' 
 
 This is the earliest tradition ; and in Clement of
 
 THE FOURTH GOSPEL FROM WITHOUT 249 
 
 Alexandria, -vvho died ad. 220, \vc find' the same 
 tradition indicated. 'John last,' says Clement, 'aware 
 that in the other Gospels were declared the things of 
 flesh and blood, being moved iJicrcio by his acquaintances, 
 and being inspired by the Spirit, composed a spiritual 
 Gospel.' To the like effect Epiphanius, in the latter 
 half of the fourth century, says that John wrote last, 
 wrote reluctantly, wrote because he was constrained to 
 write, A\Tote in Asia at the age of ninety.'^ 
 
 Such is the tradition : that the Fourth Gospel pro- 
 ceeded from the Apostle John ; that it was the last 
 written, and that it was revised by the apostle's friends. 
 The theory, on the other hand, says that the Gospel 
 proceeds from a consummate artist unknown, who wrote 
 it during or after the Paschal controversy in Asia Minor 
 in the year 170, in order to develop the Logos-idea, and 
 to serve other special purposes. Which are we to incline 
 to, the theory or the tradition ? 
 
 Tradition may be false ; yet it is at least something, as / 
 we have before remarked, in a thing's fa\-our, th at men 
 have delLvered-it] But there may be reasons why we 
 
 ' In his Hypotyposes, quoted by Eusebius, Hist. Ecdcs., vi, 14 :— 
 Tbi/ fxivToi ^\(ji6.vvr)v taxo^Tov, (yvvib6vra on rh. awixariKa iv roiy 
 fvayyiXioiS SfS-fiXttnai, TTporparrivTa virh rwv yvwpifi-wv, Trvei'^art 
 0iO<f)opT\6ivra, -nv^u^aTiKhv Troi^crai 6i'a77«A.ioi'. 
 
 * See Epiphanii Fanantim, Her. LI, 12.
 
 250 GOD AND THE BIBLE. 
 
 cannot believe it. Let us see, then, what there is to 
 make us disbelieve the tradition of Epiphanius, of 
 •Clement of Alexandria, and of the Fragment of Muratori. 
 There is the miraculous form of the story, the machinery 
 of dream and revelation ; that, we know at once, cannot 
 iDe historical. But it is the form in which a matter of 
 fact was nearly sure, under the circumstances of the 
 case, to have got delivered ; and the gist of the tradition, 
 — the Fourth Gospel's having its source in the Apostle 
 John, — may be matter of fact still. VvTiat is there, then, 
 against St. John's authorship of the Fourth Gospel ? 
 
 We shall not touch questions of language, where the 
 reader, in order to be able to decide for himself, must 
 know the Oriental languages, and where, if he does not 
 know them, he must take upon trust what is said. . .Our 
 points shall be all such that an ordinary reader of jjlain^ 
 IAJ^AJ understanding can form an opinion on them for himself. 
 And we shall not concern ourselves with every point 
 which may be raised, but shall be content with what 
 seems sufficient for the purpose in view. 
 
 Now, a plain reader will certainly, when his attention 
 is called to the matter, be struck with the extraordinary 
 way in which the writer of the Fourth Gospel, whom we 
 .suppose a Jew, speaks of his brother Jews. We do not 
 niean that he speaks of them with blame and detestation;
 
 THE FOURTH GOSPEL FROM WITHOUT. 251 
 
 this we could quite understand. But he speaks as if they 
 and their usages belonged to another race from himself, 
 — to another world. The watcrpots at Cana are set 
 'after the manner of the purifying of the Jcivs ;' 'there 
 arose a question between some of John's disciples and a 
 ynu about purifying ; ' • ' now the ycios' Passoi'cr was 
 nigh at hand ; ' ' they wound the body of Jesus in linen 
 clothes with spices, as the manner of the yews is to bury; ' 
 ■* there they laid Jesus, because of the Preparation of the 
 yews' No other Evangelist speaks in this manner. It 
 seems almost impossible to think that a Jew born and 
 bred, — a man like the Apostle John, — could ever have 
 •come to speak so. Granted that he was settled at 
 Ephesus when he produced his Gospel, granted that he 
 "wrote in Greek, ^\Tote for Greeks ; still he could never, 
 surely, have brought himself to speak of the Jews and of 
 Jewish things in this fashion ! His lips and his pen 
 would have refused to form such strange expressions, in 
 whatever disposition he may lia\e written ; nature and 
 habit would have been too much for him. A Jew 
 talking of the ya.i's' Passover, and of a dispute of some 
 of John's disciples with a ye7ci about purifying} It is 
 like an Englishman writing of the Derby as the English 
 people's Derby, or talking of a dispute bet%veen some of 
 ' The text followed is that of the Vatican manuscript.
 
 2f,2 GOD AND THE BIBLE. 
 
 Mr. Cobden's disciples and an Englishman about free- 
 trade. An Englishman would never speak so. 
 
 When once the reader's attention has been called to- 
 this peculiarity in the Fourth Gospel, other things will 
 strike him which heighten it. The solemn and mystical 
 way in which John the Baptist is introduced : ' There was a 
 man sent from God whose name was John/ — how unlike 
 the matter-of-fact, historical way in which John the 
 Baptist is introduced by Jewish writers who had probably 
 seen him, like the writer of the First Gospel, who at any 
 rate were perfectly familiar with him, knew all about him ! 
 ' In those days came John the Baptist, preaching in 
 the wilderness of Judaea.' How much more is the Fourth 
 Gospel's way of speaking about John the Baptist the 
 way that would be used about a wonderful stranger, an 
 unknown ! Again : twice the Fourth Gospel speaks of 
 Caiaphas as ' high-priest of that year,' as if the Jewish 
 high-priesthood had been at that time a yearly office, 
 which it was not. It is a mistake a foreigner might per- 
 fectly well have made, but hardly a Jew. It is like talk- 
 ing of an American President as ' President of that year,' 
 as if the American Presidency were a yearly office. An 
 American could never adopt, one thinks, such a way of 
 speaking. Again : the disciple who, at the high priest's 
 palace, brings Peter in, is called by the writer of the
 
 THE FOURTH GOSPEL FROM WFTHOUT. 253 
 
 Fourth Gospel ' an aciiuaintance of the high priest.' 
 One of the poor men who followed Jesus an acquaintance 
 of a grandee like Caiaphas ! A foreigner, not intimate 
 by his own experience with the persons and things of 
 Palestine, but seeing through a halo the disciples who 
 were with Jesus in the great tragedy, might naturally 
 have written so. But a Jew, a fisherman of Galilee, who 
 knew (juite well the distance and difference between the 
 humble people in tlie train of Jesus and the rich, haughty, 
 aristocratical priesthood at Jerusalem, — could it ever have 
 occurred to Jiim to commit an exaggeration, which is like 
 the exaggeration of calling a London working-man, who is 
 in the throng round a police-court during an exciting 
 inquiry and has interest enough to get a friend in, ' an 
 acquaintance of the Secretary of State ? ' 
 
 As the social distinctions of Palestine are confounded, 
 so are its geographical distinctions. ' Bethany beyond 
 Jordan 'Ms like 'Willesden beyond Trent.' A native 
 could never have said it. This is so manifest, indeed, 
 that in the later manuscripts £ci/iany was changed into 
 Bet/iabara, and so it stands in our version. But the 
 three earlier and authoritative manuscripts all agree in 
 Bethany, which we may pronounce certainly, therefore, 
 the original reading. Nevertheless, the writer knew of 
 
 • John, i, 28.
 
 254 GOD AND THE BIBLE. 
 
 the Bethany near Jerusalem ; he makes it the scene of 
 the raising of Lazarus. But his Palestinian geography is so 
 vague, it has for him so little of the reality and necessity 
 which it would have for a native, that v/hen he wants a 
 name for a locality he takes the first village that comes 
 into his remembrance, without troubling himself to think 
 whether it suits or no. 
 
 Finally, — and here, too, the plainest reader v/ill be 
 able with a little reflexion to follow us, although to the 
 reader of considerable literary experience the truth of 
 what we say will be most evident, — the lofty strain of the 
 prologue to the Gospel is nearly inconceivable as the 
 Apostle John's. Neither form nor matter can well have 
 come from him. At least, to suppose them his we must 
 place ourselves in the world of miracle, — in the world 
 where one is transported from Bagdad to Cairo by 
 clapping one's hands, or in v/hich one falls asleep, and 
 wakes understanding the language of birds and hearing 
 the grass grow. To this world we do not permit our- 
 selves to have recourse. But in the world of fact and 
 experience it is a phenomenon scarcely conceivable that 
 a Galilean fisherman, changing his country and his 
 language after fifty, should have compassed the ideas 
 of the introduction to the Fourth Gospel, and the style 
 which serves as organ to those ideas, and, indeed, to the
 
 THE FOURTH GOSPEL FROM WITHOUT. 255 
 
 Gospel throughout. Paul was a highly educated man^ 
 and yet Paul never compassed ideas and a style of which 
 the cast was Greek. The form in which the Fourth 
 Gospel presents its ideas is Greek, — a style flowing, ratio- 
 cinative, articulated. The ideas of the introduction are 
 the ideas in which Gnosticism worked, and undoubtedly 
 there were Jewish Gnostics as well as Greek. But the 
 strange and disfigured shape which the genuine Jewish 
 mind, the mind of a Jev/ with the sort of training of the 
 Apostle John, gave to Gnostic ideas when it worked 
 among them, is well shown in the fragments of the Book 
 of Elxai. ' Not so are Gnostic ideas handled in the 
 introduction to the Fourth Gospel. They are there 
 handled with all the ease and breadth which we find in 
 the masters of Greek Gnosticism, in Valentinus or Basi- 
 leides. 
 
 Well, then, ihe reader will say, the Tubingen critics 
 are right, and the tradition is wrong. The Foiurth 
 Gospel has not its source in the Apostle John ; it is a 
 fancy-piece by a Greek literary artist. But stop ; let us 
 look at the tradition a little more closely. It speaks 
 of a revision of what the Apostle John produced. It 
 speaks of a pressure put upon him. of his being moved 
 
 • See the fragments collected in Hilgenfeld's Novum Tcsta- 
 mentuin extra Canonem rcccptum, vol. iii, pp. 153-167.
 
 256 GOD AND THE BIBLE. 
 
 by his friends to give his recollections, and of his friends 
 having a hand in the work which stood in John's name. 
 And if we turn to the Gospel itself, we find things 
 which remarkably suit with this account of the matter. 
 We find things which seem to show that the person 
 who v>'as the source of the Fourth Gospel did not pro- 
 duce his work himself, bat that others produced it for 
 him, and guarantee what is said, and appeal to his 
 authority. They say : ' This is the disciple who testified 
 these things and who wrote these things : and lue knoiu 
 that his testimony is true.' ' They say again : ' He who 
 hath seen, hath borne witness, and his witness is true : 
 and that man knoweth that he saith true, that ye may 
 believe.' ^ That inan knoiveth that he saith true ! — 
 surely the actual composer of a work would never refer 
 to himself so strangely. But if we suppose that the editors 
 of a work are speaking of the man who supplied them 
 with it, and who stands as their authority for it, the ex- 
 pression is quite natural. 
 
 And then we shall find that all things adjust 
 themselves. In his old age, St. John, at Ephesus, 
 
 ' John, xxi, 24. oSriiy ianv d jxadrjT^ji <5 koI fxaprvpwv irepl 
 TOiiTWV KoX d ypd^as TaDra, Koi olSafJ-fv utl aXrjdrjS aiiTou tj fiapTvpia 
 
 fCTTLV. 
 
 ^ John, xix, 35. 5 ewpaKois [j.f/j,apTvpvKiv, koI a\Tj9iv7] avTov icrrly 
 T) p-apTvpia • Kol iiceluos oTBeu, Zti aKridrj Kiyei, Iva koX v/^eis TrtcrreuTjTf.
 
 THE FOURTH GOSPEL FROM WrfHOUT. 257 
 
 has lo^ia, ' sayings of the Lord,' and has incidents in the 
 Lord's story, whicli have not been published in any of 
 the written accounts that were beginning at that time 
 to be handed about. The elders of Ephesus, — whom 
 tradition afterwards makes into apostles, fellows wtli St. 
 John, — move him to bestow his treasure on the world. 
 He gives his materials, and the presbytery of Ephesus 
 provides a redaction for them and publish them. The 
 redaction, with its unity of tone, its flowingness and con- 
 nectedness, is by one single hand ; — the hand of a man 
 of literary talent, a Greek Christian, whom the Church of 
 Ephesus found proper for such a task. A man of literary 
 talent, a man of soul also, a theologian. A theological 
 lecturer, perhaps, as in the Fourth Gospel he so often 
 shows himself, — a theological lecturer, an earlier and a 
 nameless Origen ; who in this one short composition 
 produced a work outweighing all the folios of all tlie 
 Fathers, but was content that his name should be written 
 only in the Book of Life. And, indeed, what matters liter- 
 ary talent in these cases ? Who would give a care to it ? 
 The Gospel is John's, because its whole value is in the 
 /o^ia, the sayings of the Lord, which it saves ; and by 
 John these /ogia were furnished. But the redaction was 
 not John's, and could not be ; and at the beginning of 
 the second century, when the woik appeared, many there 
 
 s
 
 258 GOD AND THE BIBLE. 
 
 would be who knew well that John's the redaction was 
 not. Therefore the Church of Ephesus, which published 
 the work, gave to it that solemn and singular imprhna- 
 tiir : ' He who hath seen hath borne witness, and his 
 witness is true ; and that man knoweth that he saith true, 
 that ye may believe.' The Asiatic public, to whom the 
 document originally came, understood what this imprima- 
 tur meant, and were satisfied. The Fourth Gospel was 
 received in that measure in which alone at that early 
 time, — in the first quarter of the second century, — any 
 Gospel could be received. It was read with love and 
 respect ; but its letter did not and could not at once 
 acquire the sacredness and fixity of the letter of Canon- 
 ical Scripture. For at least fifty years the Johannine 
 Gospel remained, like our other three Gospels, liable 
 to changes, interpolations, additions ; until at last, like 
 them, towards the end of the second century, by ever 
 increasing use and veneration, it passed into the settled 
 state of Holy Scripture. 
 
 Now, this account of the matter explains a great deal 
 of what puzzles us when we try to conceive the Fourth 
 Gospel as having its source in the Apostle John. It ex- 
 plains the Greek philosophy and the Greek style. It 
 explains the often inaccurate treatment of Palestinian 
 geography, Palestinian usages, Jewish feelings and ideas.
 
 THE FOURTH GOSPEL FROM WITHOUT. 259 
 
 It explains the way in which the Jews are spoken of as 
 strangers, and their festivals and ceremonies as things cf 
 theynvs. It explains, too, the unsure and arbitrary way 
 in which incidents of the Gospel-story are arranged and 
 handled. Apologists say that the first chapter bears the 
 very stamp of a Palestinian Jew's authorship. Apologists 
 will say anything ; they say that the Fourth Gospel must 
 be St. John's, because it breathes the very spirit of the 
 Apostle of Love, forgetting that our whole conception of 
 St. John as the Apostle of Love comes from connecting 
 him with this Gospel, and has no independent support 
 from the testimony of writers earlier than Clement of 
 Alexandria and Jerome, for whom the belief in the Johan- 
 nine authorship ■was firmly established. In like manner, 
 it is to set all serious ideas of criticism at defiance, to talk 
 of the version of the calling of Peter in the first chapter, 
 any more than the version of the clearing of the Temple 
 in the second, as having the very stamp of a Palestinian 
 Jew's authorship upon them. They have not. They 
 have, on the contrary, the stamp of a foreigner's manage- 
 ment of the incidents, scenes, and order of a Palestinian 
 history. 
 
 The writer has new/t'^/a, or sayings of the Lord, at his 
 disposal ; and he has some new incidents. But his trea- 
 sure is his logia ; the important matter for him is to plant 
 
 s 2
 
 26o GOD AND THE BIBLE. 
 
 his login. His new incidents are not, as Baur supposes, 
 inventions of his own, any more than the incidents of the 
 other three Evangehsts ; but all his incidents stand 
 looser in his mind, are more malleable, less impose them- 
 selves on him in a definite fashion than theirs. He is not 
 so much at home amongst the incidents of his story ; but 
 then they lend themselves all the better on that account 
 to his main purpose, which is to plant his logia. He 
 assigns to incidents an order or a locality which no 
 Jew would have assigned to them. He makes Jews say 
 things and feel things which they could never have said 
 or felt ; but, meanwhile, his logia are placed. As we 
 observed in Literature and Dogma : — ' The narrative, — 
 so meagre, and skipping so unaccountably backwards and 
 forwards between Galilee and Jerusalem, — might well be 
 thought, not indeed invented, but a matter of infinitely 
 little care and attention to the writer of the Gospel ; a 
 mere slight framework, in which to set the doctrine and 
 discourses of Jesus.' 
 
 Now there is nothing which the vigorous and rigorous 
 critics of Germany, and their English disciples like the 
 author of Supernatural Religiofi, more detest than the 
 endeavour to make two parts in the Fourth Gospel, — a 
 part belonging to John, and a part belonging to some- 
 body else. Either reject it all, cries Strauss, or admit it
 
 THE FOURTH GOSPEL FROM WFFHOUT. 261 
 
 all to be John's ! By what mark, he adds, by what 
 guide, except mere caprice, is one to distinguish the 
 hand of the Apostle from the hand of tlie interpolator ? 
 No, aver these critics ; the whole Gospel, without 
 distinction, must be abandoned to the demolishing sweep 
 of inexorable critical laws ! 
 
 But that there went other hands as well as John's to 
 the making of the Fourth Gospel the tradition itself 
 indicates, and what we find in the Gospel seems to 
 confirm. True, to determine what is John's and what is 
 not is a delicate question ; nay, it is a question which 
 we must sometimes be content to leave undetermined. 
 Results of more vigour and rigour are obtained by a 
 theory which rejects the tradition, and which lays down 
 either that John wrote the whole, or that the whole is a 
 fancy-piece. But that a theory has superior vigour and 
 rigour does not prove it to be the right account how a 
 thing happened. Tili ngs do not generall y happen with 
 vigouLand^^igour. That it is a very difficult and delicate 
 operation to separate the difiterent elements in the 
 Fourth Gospel does not disprove that only by this oper- 
 ation can we get at the truth. The truth has very often 
 to be got at under great difficulty. 
 
 No ; but what makes the strength of those critics who 
 deride the hypothesis of there being tvvo parts, a Johan-
 
 262 GOD AND THE BIBLE. 
 
 nine part and another, in the Fourth Gospel, is the 
 strange use of this hypothesis by those \vho have 
 adopted it. The discourses they have almost all assigned 
 to John ; — the discourses, and, from its theological 
 importance, the prologue also. The second hand was 
 introduced in order to account for difficulties in the 
 incidents and narrative. With the exception of some 
 bits in the narrative, the whole Gospel is, for Schleier- 
 macher, ' the genuine biographical Gospel of the eye- 
 witness John.' Far from admitting the tradition which 
 represents it as supplementing the other three, Schleier- 
 macher believed that it preceded them all. Weisse 
 regarded the prologue as the special work of the Apostle. 
 Ewald supposed that in the discourses we have the 
 words of Jesus transfigured by ' a glorified remembrance,' 
 after lying for a long time in the Apostle John's mind. 
 All this is, indeed, open to attack. No difficulties 
 raised by the narrative can be greater than the difficulty 
 of supposing the discourses of the Fourth Gospel to be 
 St. John's 'glorified remembrance' of his Master's words, 
 or the prologue to be the special work of the Apostle, or 
 the Gospel to be, in general, the record at first hand 
 of pure personal experience {lauter Selbstaiebtes). The 
 separation of elements is not to be made in this fashion. 
 But, made as it should be, it will be found to resolve the
 
 THE FOURTH GOSPEL FROM WITHOUT. 263 
 
 difiiculties of the case, not in a way demonstrably right 
 indeed (for demonstration is here out of our reach), but 
 in a way much more probably right than the theory of 
 Baur. 
 
 Baur's theory, however, relies not only on its own 
 internal certainty, but on external evidence. It alleges 
 that there is proof against the existence of the Fourth 
 Gospel during the first three-quarters of the second 
 century. It is undeniably quoted, and as John's, by 
 Theophilus, Bishop of Antioch,' who wrote in the year 
 I So. This, it is said, is the earliest proof of its existence; 
 and it cannot have existed earlier. 
 
 But why ? Let us put aside the Fragment of IVfuratori, 
 of which the date and authority are disputed, and let us 
 take facts which are undisputed. There is no doubt that 
 Justin Martyr, in his first Apology, written probably in 
 the year 147, says, speaking of Christian baptism and its 
 necessity : ' For Christ said, Except ye be born again, ye 
 shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven. Now to all 
 men it is manifest that it is impossible that they who are 
 once born should enter into the wombs of them tliat bare 
 
 ' Ad Autolviiiiii, ii, 22. The first and third verses of the first 
 chapter are quoted, and as John's, and exactly.
 
 264 GOD AND THE BIBLE. 
 
 them.' ' Every one will be reminded of the words to 
 Nicodemus in the Fourth Gospel : ' Except a man be 
 bom from above ^ he cannot see the kingdom of God ; ' 
 and of the answer of Nicodemus : ' How can a man be 
 born when he is old ? can he enter a second time into 
 his mother's womb and be born?' Justin does not 
 quote the Fourth Gospel ; he never expressly quotes any 
 one of our Gospels. He does not quote word for word 
 in such a manner that we can at once say positively : 
 ' He is quoting the passage in our Gospel ! ' But then he 
 never does quote in such a manner as to enable us to say 
 this. All a candid yet cautious reader will affirm is, that 
 Justin here has in his mind the same sayings as those 
 given in the conversation between Jesus and Nico- 
 demus in our Fourth Gospel. He may have quoted from 
 some other source, HAlmost certainly, if he is quoting \ 
 j from our present Fourth Gospel, this Gospel was not a \ 
 I canonical Scripture to him, or he would have quoted 
 
 ' KoX yap & Xpiffrhs enref, *Av /jl^ avay€vvri6rjTe, ov (jlt] etVeASj/re e<V 
 Trjv PaciXeiav rwy ovpavihv. otl ye koI aZvvarov (Is tus fxrirpas rwv 
 TfKovffuvTOvs arra^ yevvooiifvuvs ijjL^rjvai, (pavtphv iraatv effTiv. Com- 
 pare John, iii, 3, 4. 
 
 * The word &vu6iv may quite well mean again. Origen, referring 
 in Greek to the famous .story, Doinine, quo vadis ? Vado Romam 
 iteruin crucifigi, uses avuidev for iteruin : livaidev fxeWcc ffravpaiOrivat. 
 But &vu)dfv cannot well mean again in one place in a composition, 
 und/rom above (' I am from above ') in all other places. Born from 
 xbove, however, is merely the fuller description of being born again.
 
 THE FOURTH GOSPEL FROM WITHOUT. 265 
 
 it more correctly. / But to no candid reader will it occur to 
 think that what Justin has here in his eye is not at all the 
 conversation with Nicodemus about being born again and 
 its difficulties, but quite another matter, this passage from 
 the First Gospel : ' Except ye be converted, and become 
 as little children, ye shall not enter into the kingdom of 
 heaven.' • This is what critics of the Tubingen school 
 advance, and we need hardly say that the author of 
 Supernatural Religioii follows suit. >3 ut to no plain 
 reader would it ever occur to advance it; to no one 
 except a professed theological critic with a theory. If 
 our Fourth Gospel is to be a fancy-piece, and a fancy- 
 piece not composed before the year 170, sayings and 
 incidents peculiar to it must pass for inventions of its 
 own, cannot be real traditional sayings known and cited 
 by Justin long before. No; but on the other hand, if 
 they are so known and cited, the Fourth Gospel cannot 
 well be a mere fancy-piece, •aiidjvy£.loiie a ^•igorous and 
 ^^ _rigQxaus— *h«ory, - If they are, and to any unbiassed 
 judgment they clearly are, — then it is j^robable, surely^ 
 that Justin, who used written records, had in his eye,. 
 when he cited the sayings in question, the only written 
 record where we find them, — the Fourth Gospel, only 
 this Gospel not yet admitted to the honours of canonicity. 
 
 ' Mallh., xviii, 3.
 
 266 GOD AND THE BIBLE. 
 
 But at any rate, it is now certain that all sayings and 
 incidents not common to this Gospel with the Synoptics 
 are not to be set down as pure inventions. 
 
 But we can go back much farther than Justin. Some 
 twenty-five years ago there was published at Oxford, 
 under the title of Origen's P/iilosophumena, a newly- 
 discovered Greek work. Origen's it is not ; but because, 
 besides giving the Philosophiwiena or doctrines of 
 heathen philosophy, from which all heresies are sup- 
 posed to spring, the work purports also to be a Refutation 
 of all Heresies, and because Hippolytus, Bishop of the 
 Port of Rome in the early part of the third century, 
 "wrote a work with this title, of which the description in 
 Photius well agrees with the so-called Philosophwnena, 
 Bunsen and others pronounced that here was certainly 
 the missing work of Hippolytus. Against this we have 
 the difficulty that the Paschal Chronicle, professing to 
 cite textually in reference to the Quartodeciman con- 
 troversy this work of Hippolytus, cites a passage which 
 is not in our Fhilosophiiwena, although the Quartodeciman 
 heresy is there refuted.' Bunsen is ready with the 
 assertion that * this passage 7!iust have existed in our 
 v.'ork,' exactly as he was sure that in the Canon of 
 Muratori the Epistle to the Hebrews must have been 
 ' Chronicon Paschale (edition of Bonn), vol. i, p. 13.
 
 THE FOURTH GOSPEL FROM WITHOUT. 267 
 
 mentioned. But this is just the sort of assertion we will 
 
 not allow ourselves to make ; and we refrain, therefore, 
 
 from pronuncing the Philosophuvicna to be certainly the 
 
 Jiefutation of all Hef-esics hy }ii\\)\)o\yi\X'=,. Still the work 
 
 is of the highest importance, and it gives its own date. 
 
 The author was contemporary with Zephyrinus, and tells 
 
 us of having had controversy with him. Zephyrinus was 
 
 Bishop of Rome from the year 201 of our era to the 
 
 year 219. To the heretics and heresies of the second 
 
 •century our author comes, therefore, very near in time, 
 
 and his history of them is of extraordinary value. 
 
 In his account of the Gnostic philosopher Basileides, 
 
 who flourished at Alexandria about the year 125 after 
 
 Christ, he records the comments of Basileides on the 
 
 sentence in Genesis, Ld iha-c be light, and quotes as 
 
 follows from Basileides, whose name he has mentioned 
 
 just before : — ' This, says he (Basileides), is that which 
 
 is spoken in the Gospels : That was the true light which 
 
 lighieth ei'cry man that comcth into the world.' ' The 
 
 words are cjuoted exactly as they are given in the Fourth 
 
 ■Gospel ; ^ and if we cannot pronounce certainly that 
 
 Jogia of Jesus are quoted from one of our Gospels because 
 
 •they are to be found there, yet no one will dispute that 
 
 ' Pliilosophumoia, vii., 22. We follow, for the passage in St. John, 
 the renderingof our version, although ipxiyavov probably belongs to 
 •4><<'S -nd nut to ^vQpu-Kov. * John, i, 9.
 
 268 GOD AND THE BIBLE. 
 
 if we find the reflexions of one of our Evangelists quotedj, 
 they must surely have been taken from that Evangelist, 
 Therefore our Fourth Gospel, not necessarily just as we 
 have it now, not necessarily yet regarded as canonical 
 Scripture, but in recognisable shape, and furnished with 
 its remarkable prologue, already existed in the year 125. 
 
 The Tubingen critics have an answer for this. The 
 writer of the Philosophuincna, say they, mixes up the 
 deliverances of the founder of a school with those of his 
 followers, — what comes from Basileides or Valentinus. 
 with what comes from disciples of their school who lived 
 long afterwards. The he says of the quotation from the 
 Fourth Gospel is really, therefore, subjectless ; it does 
 not mean Basileides in particular. And of this subjectless 
 he says the author of Supe^-jiatiiral Religion, following the 
 German critics, makes a grand point. If Basileides is- 
 not meant, but only one of his school, then the quotation 
 from the Fourth Gospel will not date from a.d. 125, but 
 from some fifty years later, when no doubt the Gospel 
 had appeared. 
 
 Now it is true that the author of the Philosophiimena 
 sometimes mixes up the opinions of the master of a 
 school with those of his followers, so that it is difficult to 
 distinguish between them. But if we take all doubtful 
 cases of the kind and compare them with our present
 
 THE FOURTH GOSPEL FROM WITHOUT. 269 
 
 case, we shall find that it is not one of them. It is not 
 tnie that here, where the name of Basileides has come 
 just before, and where no mention of his son or of his 
 disciples has intervened since, there is any such ambiguity 
 as is found in other cases. It is not true that the author 
 of the Philosophumcna habitually wields the suhjedless he 
 says in the random manner alleged, with no other formula 
 for quotation both from the master and from the followers. 
 In general, he uses the formula accordi?ig to than ' when 
 he quotes from the school, and the formula he says ^ when 
 lie gives the dicta of the master. And in this particular 
 -case he manifestly quotes the dicta of Basileides, and no 
 one who had not a theory to serve would ever dream of 
 doubting it. Basileides, therefore, about the year 125 of 
 our era, had before him the Fourth Gospel. Schleier- 
 macher talks wildl}', no doubt, when in defiance of the 
 tradition he claims for the Fourth Gospel a date earlier 
 than that of the other three. But it is true that we 
 happeirtu liavean earlier testimony to words which can 
 be verified as belonging certainly to the Fourth Gospel, 
 than to any words which can be verified as belonging 
 certainly to any one of the other three. 
 
 But this is not all the evidence afforded by the Fhi/c- 
 sophumcna. The first heresies described are those of
 
 270 GOD AND THE BIBLE. 
 
 Oriental Gnostics, who preceded the Greek. The line 
 of heretics commences with the Naasseni and the Peratce,. 
 both of them ' servants of the snake ; ' — not the Old 
 Serpent, man's enemy, but ' the Catholic snake,' the 
 principle of true knowledge, who enables his votaries to 
 pass safely through the mutability and corruption which 
 comes of birth. The Naasseni are the Ophites of Irenseus. 
 and Epiphanius. Their name is taken from the Hebrew 
 word for the Greek aphis, a snake, and together with 
 other Hebrew names in the account of them indicates^ 
 what we might expect, that as Jewish Christianity natu- 
 rally preceded Greek Christianity, so Jewish Gnosticism 
 preceded Greek Gnosticism. Moreover, the author of 
 the Philosophiunena, passing from this first batch of 
 Gnostics to a second, in which are Basileides and Valen- 
 tinus, expressly calls this second batch of Gnostics the 
 subsequent ones} So we must take the Naasseni and the 
 Peratae, whom the author of Siipernatwal Religion dis- 
 misses in a line as * obscure sects towards the end of the 
 second century,' we must take them as even earlier than 
 Basileides and the year 125. 
 
 These sects we find repeatedly using, in illustration of 
 their doctrines, the Fourth Gospel. We do not say that 
 they use it as John's, or as Canonical Scripture. But they 
 
 ' Philos., vi, 6. vw\ Z\ koI tuiv aKoXovBoov rb-s yvd^as ov fftaiirriau.
 
 [iaM. 
 
 THE FOURTH GOSPEL FROM WITHOUT. 271 
 
 give sayings of Jesus which we have in tlie Fourth Gospel 
 and in no other, and they give passages from the author's 
 own prologue to the Fourth Gospel. Both the Naasseni 
 and the Peratse are quoted as using the opening verses of 
 the prologue, thougli with a punctuation for certain 
 clauses which is different from ours.' Both sects know of 
 Jesus as the dooi: ' I am the door,' one of them quotes 
 him as saying ; the other, ' I am the true gate.' ' The 
 Peratce have the sentence, *As Moses lifted up the serpent 
 in the wilderness, even so must the Son of I\Ian be lifted 
 up,' with only one slight verbal change.^ With some- 
 what more of change they give the saying to the woman 
 of Samaria : ' If thou hadst known,' is their version, ' who 
 it is that asketh, thou wouldst have asked of him and he 
 would have given thee living water springing up.' '' The 
 Naasseni have, without any alteration, the famous sen- 
 tence to Nicodcmus in the Fourth Gospel: 'The 
 Saviour hath said, T/nif which is horn of the flesh is flesh, 
 and that which is born of the spirit is spirit.^ ^ Again, they 
 
 * % yiyovtv is joined to iv avr^ ^wt} ianv, not to oii5« (v. The 
 Naasseni insert a 5* before yiyoviv. Philos., v, 8, 16. 
 
 ^ Philos., V, 8, 17. 
 
 ' %v tpi-Kov {ox KoBias. Philos., v, i6 ; compare John, ill, 14. 
 
 * Philos., V, 9. ilpi\K(v 6 ffwT-j^p, Et ijSeis ris iariv 6 aWSiv, av h.y 
 ^Tt\aai trap' aiirov koX tSuKiv ar aoi Trtuy ^cSv vSwp aWSfifvov. Com- 
 pare John, iv, lo. 
 
 * Philos., V, 7. Compare John, iii, 6.
 
 272 GOD AND THE BIBLE. 
 
 attribute to Jesus these words : ' Except ye drink my 
 blood, and eat my flesh, ye shall not enter into the king- 
 dom of heaven. Howbeit, even if ye do drink of the cup 
 which I drink of, whither I go, thither ye cannot enter.' ' 
 A mixture, one must surely confess, — a mixture, with 
 alterations, of the same sayings that we find in the sixth 
 and thirteenth chapters of St. John, and in the twentieth 
 ■chapter of St. Matthew. 
 
 Any fair person accustomed to weigh evidence, and 
 
 not having a theory to warp him, will allow that from all 
 
 this we have good grounds for believing two things. 
 
 First, that in the opening quarter of the second century 
 
 the Fourth Gospel, in some form or other, already 
 
 existed and was used. We find nothing about its being 
 
 John's, it is not called Scripture, its letter is not yet 
 
 •sacred. It is used in a way which shows that oral tra- 
 
 . dition, and written narratives by other hands, might still 
 
 I 'exercise pressure upon its account of Jesus, might enlarge 
 
 \its contents, or otherwise modify them. J3ut the Gospel 
 
 ^ some form or other existed. Secondly, we make out 
 
 that Baur and Strauss go counter to at least the external 
 
 ' P/lilos., V, 8. iav jU.77 Triur]Te jjlov rh oujxa KaX <payr}Ti fxav 7i]v 
 ■crdpica, ov fir) eicreAO/jTc els rryi' PaaiKeiav tCov ovpavwv. aWa Kav 
 iriiiTf, (priffi, Tb TTOTripiov h iyw irivu, Snov iydi virdyo), tKU ii/iels 
 ■ilaeKOilv oh Zvvaadf. Compare John, vi, 53 ; xiii, 33 ; and Matth.,
 
 THE FOURTH GOSPEL FROM WITHOUT. 273 
 
 evidence, when they declare that all sayings of Jesus ap- 
 pearing in the Fourth Gospel, and not appearing in one 
 of the Synoptics also, are late inventions and spurious. 
 The external evidence, at any rate, is against this being 
 so. And this is the point which mainly interests the 
 reader of Literature and Dogma, for jn tha t book we 
 assured^ hiim that the special value of the s; ;v Yin p:s of Jesus 
 injjie Fourth Gospel is^- that- tl icy 1 vp lnin Jfi SUS.-?i:^..t]bf 
 J^inc really taken by him. This they cannot do if they 
 are spurious ; and here, therefore, is the centre of interest 
 for us in all these questions about the Fourth Gospel. 
 Not whether or no John wrote it, is for us the grand ■ 
 jooiilMiiii-Jiiifitlier or no Jesus said it. 
 
 And that the sayings in the Fourth Gospel, at least the 
 chief and most impressive of them, are genuine logia of 
 Jesus, the external evidence goes to prove with a force, 
 really, of which what we have hitherto said quite fails to 
 give an adequate notion. The Epistle to the Hebrews, — 
 which undoubtedly existed at the end of the first centur)', 
 for it is so much used by Clement of Rome that he - has 
 been conjectured to be its author, — has the Johannine 
 phrase, ' the shepherd of tlie sheep.' ^ Probably the 
 Fourth Gospel did not yet exist when the Epistle to the 
 Hebrews was ^\Titten ; but what the use of the phrase in 
 
 ' Ilfb.f xiii, 20. 
 T
 
 274 GOD AND THE BIBLE. 
 
 the Epistle to the Hebrews proves is, that the phrase was 
 early current, and does not, therefore, come from an in- 
 ventor late in the second century. Other phrases, con- 
 nected with this one, have also the strongest confirmation 
 of their authenticity. We have already seen how the 
 earliest Jewish Gnostics were familiar with the saying : 
 / am the door. Hegesippus, in the middle of the second 
 century, relates that the Jews asked James the Just : 
 
 * What is the door of Jesus?" and it requires a very vigor- 
 ous and rigorous theory to make a man suppose that 
 the Jews were here thinking of something in the Old 
 Testament, and not of the saying of the Lord : / a7n the 
 door. We have the testimony of the Canon of Muratori, 
 that Hermas, the author of the Pastor, was brother to 
 Pius, bishop of Rome 3 and that he wTote his Pastor at 
 Rome, while his brother Pius was sitting in the episcopal 
 chair of the church of that city,^ — that is, between the 
 year 141 and the year 157. In the Pastor we find it 
 written, that the new gate was manifested in the last days, 
 
 * in order that they which shall be saved might enter into 
 the kingdom of God by it ; ' and it is added : ' Now the 
 gate is the Son of God.'^ The pseudo-Clementine 
 
 ' Euseb. Hist. Ecclcs., ii, 23. 
 
 ^ In urbe Roma Hermas ccnscripsit, scdente cathedra urbls 
 Romce ecclesioc Pio episcopo fratre ejus. 
 ' Ilermie Pastor, Similitudo ix, 12.
 
 THE FOURTH GOSPEL FROM WrPHOUT. 275 
 
 Homilies cannot be accurately dated ; but from their 
 mode of quoting New Testament sayings and incidents, 
 — which is that of Justin, and never alleges the name 
 of a Gospel-writer, — we know that the work must have 
 been written before 170 and the age of Irena^us. In the 
 third Homily, Jesus is quoted as saying : * I am the gate 
 of life ; he that entereth by me entereth into life.' ' 
 Presently, after the saying. Come unto me all that travail, 
 another {a Johannine) saying of Jesus is quoted : ' My 
 sheep hear my voice.* ^ Irenteus relies upon the 
 authority of certain * elders, disciples of the Apostles ; ' 
 and he says that his elders taught that in the Messianic 
 kingdom the saints should have different habitations in 
 proportion to the fruit borne by them, and confirmed 
 this by quoting the Lord's saying : ' In my Father's 
 house are many mansions.' ' 
 
 Finally, everyone has heard of the dispute about the 
 Epistles of Ignatius, mart}Ted in the year 115. Of his 
 seven Epistles, mentioned by Eusebius, there exist a 
 longer and a shorter recension ; — the longer recension 
 amplifying things much in the same way in which the 
 later manuscripts used for our version of the Gospels 
 
 ' Clementis Romani quts fcnmtur Homilia:, Horn, iii, 52. 
 ^ Clemaitis Romani qua: fcruntur Ilomilia:, Horn, iii, 52. 
 ' Irenaeus, Adv. Hareses, v, 36. 
 
 T 2
 
 276 GOD AND THE BIBLE. 
 
 have amplified, in the sixth chapter of the Fourth Gospel, 
 Peter's confession of faith into T/iou art that Christ the 
 Son of the living God, from the original Thou art the holy 
 OTie of God preserved by the Vatican and Sinaitic manu- 
 scripts. But a still shorter Syriac recension of the Epi- 
 stles of Ignatius was found by Mr. Cureton, and this re- 
 cension, besides, gives only three of the seven Epistles 
 mentioned by Eusebius. We will not enter into the 
 question whether the Syriac three do really annul the 
 Greek seven ; for our purpose it is sufficient to take the 
 Syriac three only. For even in these three we have 
 more than once the Johannine expression, the prince of 
 this world} We have: 'The bread of God I want, 
 which is Christ's flesh, and his blood I want for drink, 
 Avhich is love incorruptible.' ^ We agree that we are not 
 compelled to suppose that Ignatius took these expressions 
 and ideas from the Fourth Gospel ; but that the prince of 
 this world, and the bread which I will give is tny flesh, of 
 the Fourth Gospel, are expressions and ideas of Jesus, 
 and not inventions of a Greek literary artist after the 
 year 170, the employment of these ideas and expressions 
 Ly Ignatius does compel us to suppose. 
 
 ■' Ignatius, Ad Ephesios, xvi ; Ad Romanos, at the end. 
 - Ad Romanos, vii. dprov Oeov OtXoo, 8y iariv cap^ Xptcrrov, Koi 
 •rh ol^a auToO OeAco iT6fxa, o icniv d'/ciTn} i,<pQapros. The Greek re-
 
 THE FOURTH GOSPEL FROM WITHOUT. i-jj 
 
 Again, Baur maintained that it was impossible to pro- 
 duce testimony outside the Fourth Gospel to a legend 
 of any single Fourth Gospel miracle not common to it 
 with the Synoptics. Soon afterwards the conclusion of 
 the pseudo-Clementine Homilies was discovered ; and 
 in the nineteenth Homily, speaking of sins of ignorance, 
 the author says : ' Our Master being asked concerning 
 the man afflicted from his birtli and who was restored to 
 sight by him, whether this man sinned or his parents, 
 that he was born blind, made answer : " Neither this 
 man sinned nor his parents, but that the power of God 
 should be made manifest through him." ' ' The miracle 
 is clearly the one recorded in the Fourth Gospel, and in 
 the answer of Jesus there is hardly the slightest verbal 
 diff'erence. 
 
 We may say, indeed, if we like, that the pseudo-Clem- 
 entine Homilies were composed in the third or fourth 
 century. We may say that not one word of Ignatius is 
 genuine, that Irenceus did not mean to quote his elders, 
 or that he misquoted them ; we may say that the author 
 of the Epistle to the Hebrews stumbled by chance on the 
 
 censions, both the longer and the shorter, after Ot'Aco aild Sprof 
 ovpdyioy, &pTov ^(tiris. 
 
 ' I/om. xix, 22 (Dressel's edition). oCts olris n fifuiprtv, olht ol 
 yoviis aiiTov, a\\' Xva 5i' avrov <pcwepiii6TJ i] Zvyafiis rov 6fov. Com- 
 pare John, ix, 2, 3.
 
 278 GOD AND THE BIBLE. 
 
 expression the great shepherd of the sheep ; that Hernias, 
 author of the Pastor, was not brother to Pius, Bishop of 
 Rome, and did not write the Pastor during his brother's 
 episcopate. All this we may say if we like, and may 
 bring many ingenious reasons to support it. But no 
 plain man, taking facts fairly, would ever say so ; — only 
 some professor with a theory to establish, a theory of 
 vigour and rigour. 
 
 But if the Johannine sayings are in great part genuine, 
 then a plain man will surely be disposed to accept the 
 tradition that the Fourth Gospel is supplementary to the 
 others, and that in John it had its source. The sayings 
 form a class distinct from the sayings of the Synoptics. 
 They must have come from some one who had been 
 with Jesus, and who spoke with authority. Tradition 
 says that they came from John at Ephesus ; and the 
 form of the Johannine Gospel suits well enough, as we 
 have seen, with this tradition. To be sure, we have the 
 famous argument that the Fourth Gospel cannot have 
 existed in the time of Papias, between the years 130 and 
 140 of our era, or Papias would have made mention of 
 it ; and if Papias had made mention of it, Eusebius, from 
 whom we get our knowledge of Papias, would have quoted 
 the mention. Eusebius declares, says the author of Super- 
 natural PeligioJi, that he ' will carefully intimate ' every
 
 THE FOURTH GOSPEL FROM WITHOUT. 279 
 
 early testimony to the Christian Scriptures, both to the 
 Scriptures received and to the Scriptures disputed. But in 
 the first place, the words used by Eusebius do not mean : 
 I shall carefully intimate} They mean : I shall be glad 
 to indicate ; I shall think it an advantage to indicate. And 
 to suppose that to even as much as is here promised 
 Eusebius would closely stick, because he had promised it, 
 is to know Eusebius very ill. Never, perhaps, was there 
 any writer who told us so much that was interesting, and 
 told it in so loose a fashion and with so little stringency 
 of method, as the good Bishop of Caisarea. In the 
 second place, it is quite certain that another Gospel, the 
 Third, existed in some shape in the time of Papias, for 
 Marcion about the year 140 used it. And yet on the 
 subject of the Third Gospel, as well as the Fourth, 
 Papias as quoted by Eusebius is wholly silent. 
 
 But then, again, there is the vigorous and rigorous theory 
 of Professor Scholten that John never was at Ephesus at 
 all. If he had been, Papias and Hegesippus must have 
 mentioned it ; if they had mentioned it, Irenoeus and 
 Eusebius must have quoted them to that effect.^ As if the 
 very notoriety of John's residence at Ephesus would not 
 
 ' See Eusebius, Hist. Eccks., iii, 3. irpoHpyov irui'ficroij.ai xnro- 
 ■arifj.T]va<rdai. 
 
 - See Dr. Scholten's treatise in the German translation, Der 
 Apostel Johannes in Khbtasioi (Berlin, 1S72) ; pp. 24, 36.
 
 28o GOD AND THE BIBLE. 
 
 have dispensed Irenaeus and Eusebius from adducing 
 formal testimony to it, and made them refer to it just in 
 the way they do ! Here, again, we may be sure that no 
 one, judging evidence in a plain fashion, would ever have 
 arrived at Dr. Scholten's conclusion ; above all, no one 
 of Dr. Scholten's great learning and ability. It is just an 
 hypothesis for a man professorially bound to accomplish 
 a feat of ingenuity, what the French call a tour deforce; — 
 to produce a new theory of vigour and rigour. We gladly 
 make Professor Lightfoot a present of such foreign 
 theories to put along with our home-grown theory of the 
 One Primeval Language. The only distinction to be 
 drawn, perhaps, is, that whereas the foreign theories, 
 Gennan or Dutch, come from having too much criticism, 
 from an hypertrophy, as the doctors might say, of the 
 critical organ; our British-born theory comes rather from 
 not having criticism enough, from an absence of the 
 critical organ altogether. 
 
 And now, in conclusion, for the internal evidence as 
 to the Fourth Gospel.
 
 28 r 
 
 CHAPTER VI. 
 
 THE FOURTH GOSPEL FROM WITHIN. 
 
 To any fair judge of evidence, the external evidence is in 
 favour of the belief that the Fourth Gospel had its source 
 in the Apostle John. But what is relied on, as above all 
 fatal to this belief, is the internal evidence. The internal 
 evidence is supposed to lead us with overpowering force I 
 to the conclusion that the Fourth Gospel is a fancy-piece 
 by a Gnostically disposed Greek Christian, a consummate 
 literary artist, seeking to develop the Logos-idea, to cry 
 up Greek Christianity and to decry Jewish, and taking 
 for the governing idea of his composition the antithesis 
 between light and darkness. Everything in the Fourth 
 Gospel, we are told, is profoundly calculated in this 
 sense^._[ So many miracles, and in such a graduation, as 
 were proper to bring out fully the contrast between light 
 and darkness, life and death, Greek willingness to believe 
 and Jewish hardness of heart, so many miracles, and no 
 more, does the Fourth Gospel assign to Jesus. The 
 whole history of the Last Supper and of the Crucifixion is
 
 282 GOD AND THE BIBLE. 
 
 subtly manipulated to serve the author's design. Admir- 
 able as is his art, however, he betrays himself by his 
 Christ, whose unlikeness to the Christ of the Synoptics 
 is too glaring. His Christ ' is a mere doctor ; morality 
 has disappeared, and dogma has taken its place ; for the 
 sublime and pregnant discourses of the Sea of Galilee 
 and the Mount of Olives, we have the arid mysticism of 
 the Alexandrian schools.' So that the art of our Greek 
 Gnostic is, after all, not art of the highest character, 
 because it does not manage to conceal itself. It allows 
 the Tubingen critics to find it out, and by finding it out 
 to pull the whole of the Fourth Gospel to pieces, and to 
 ruin utterly its historical character. 
 
 Now here, again, in what these critics say of the in- 
 ternal evidence offered by the Fourth Gospel, the ex- 
 ternal evidence in some respects makes it hard for a plain 
 man to follow them. The Gnostic author, they say, 
 governed by his idea of the antithesis between light and 
 darkness, assigns to Jesus no more miracles than just 
 what are required to bring out this antithesis. Therefore 
 the last two verses of the twentieth chapter, which speak 
 of the ' many other signs which are not written in this 
 book,' are spurious. Like the whole twenty-first chapter 
 which follows, they are a later addition by some one 
 ignorant of the artist's true design. Well, but in the
 
 THE FOURTH GOSPEL FROM WITHIN. 283 
 
 seventh chapter wc find the Jewish people asking:' 
 ' When the Christ comes, will he do more miracles than 
 this man does ? ' and in the sixth chapter it is implied ^ 
 that the miracles of Jesus were, as the Synoptics repre- 
 sent them, numerous. Did the artist forget himself in 
 these places ; or is it the Tiibingen critics who have 
 forgotten to tell us that in these places, too, the text is 
 spurious? In the eleventh chapter we have a like over- 
 sight on the part of somebody, either the artist or (which 
 one would hardly have thought likely) his German inter- 
 preters. The chief priests and Pharisees are, by some 
 mistake, allowed to say: 'This man doeth many mir- 
 acles.' 3 In the twelfth chapter matters are even worse ; 
 it is there said that the Jews would not believe in 
 Jesus ' though he had done so many miracles before 
 them.'"* No doubt this is spurious, and in omiting to tell 
 us so the critics fail a little in vigour and rigour. But, on 
 tlic whole, what admiration must we feel for the vigour 
 and rigour which in spite of these external difficulties 
 can see so far into a millstone, and find such treasures 
 of internal evidence there, as to be able to produce a 
 theory of the Fourth Gospel like Baur's ? 
 
 The internal evidence, then, is what the rejectors of 
 the Fourth Gospel confidently rely on. But to us the 
 ' Verse 31. " Verse 2. » Verse 47. * Verse 37.
 
 284 <^0D AND THE BIBLE. 
 
 internal evidence seems to point by no means to a spe- 
 culative genius, a consummate artist, giving to Christian- 
 ity a new form of his own, adopting a certain number of 
 sayings and doings of the real Jesus from the Synoptics, 
 but inventing for Jesus whatever he did not thus adopt. 
 Aluch more it seems to us to point to a sincere Christian, 
 a man of literary talent certainly and a Greek, but not a 
 consummate artist ; having traditions from John, having, 
 above all, logia from John, sayings of the Lord, and 
 combining and presenting his materials in the way 
 natural to him. The Evangelist's literary procedure is , 
 that of a Greek of ability, well versed in the philosophical 
 speculation of his time, and having the resources of Greek 
 style and composition at his command. But when one 
 hears of a consummate artist, an idealising inventor, when 
 one hears of a gifted writer arranging his hero's life for 
 effect, and freely making discourses for him, one thinks 
 of Plato. Now, the writer of the Fourth Gospel is no 
 Plato. The redaction and composition of this Gospel 
 show literaiy skill, and indicate a trained Greek as their 
 author not a fisherman of Galilee. But it may be said 
 with certainty, that a literary artist, capable of inventing 
 the most striking of the sayings of Jesus to Nicodemus or 
 to the woman of Samaria, would have also made his 
 composition as a whole more flawless, more artistically
 
 THE FOURTH GOSPEL FROM WITHIN. 285 
 
 perfect, than the Fourth Gospel actually is. Judged 
 from an artist's point of view, it has blots and awkward- 
 nesses which a master of imaginative invention would 
 never have suffered his work to exhibit. Let us illustrate 
 this by examples, taking, as our rule is, no case which is 
 not clear, and where the plain reader may not be ex- 
 pected, if he will only take the trouble to look carefully 
 for himself at the passages we quote, to follow us without 
 <loubt or difficulty. 
 
 Our Evangelist has, we say, to place and plant records 
 of Jesus supplied to him by John. But he has to place 
 them without a personal recollection of the speakers and 
 scenes, and without a Jew's instinct for what, with such 
 speakers and scenes, was possible and probable. He 
 combines and connects, but his connexion is often only 
 exterior and apparent, not real. 
 
 For example. No artist of Plato's quality wouKI 
 have been satisfied with the connexion in the discourse 
 of Jesus reported at the end of the fourth chajjter, 
 from the thirty-fifth verse to the thirty-eighth : 'Say 
 not ye, There are yet four months, and then cometh 
 harvest? behold, I say unto you. Lift up your eyes, and 
 look on the fields, that they are white already to harvest :
 
 286 GOD AND THE BIBLE. 
 
 and he that reapeth receiveth wages, and gathereth fruit 
 unto hfe eternal, that he that soweth and he that reapeth 
 may rejoice together. For herein is that saying true: 
 One soweth and another reapeth. I sent yon to reap 
 that whereon ye have bestowed no labour; other men have 
 laboured, and ye are entered into their labotirs.^ Surely 
 there are here two parts, of which that one which we 
 have given in italics has a motive quite different from 
 the motive of the other which precedes it. The motive 
 of the first is the ripeness of the harvest and the guerdon 
 of the reapers. The motive of the second is the admis- 
 sion of the disciples to reap what they had not soavti. 
 Both have all the character of genuine sayings of Jesus, 
 but there is no real connexion between them, only they 
 coincide in pairing a sower with a reaper. Jesus did 
 not make continuous speeches, jointed and articulated 
 after the Greek fashion. He uttered pregnant sentences, 
 gnomic sayings ; and two sets of such sayings, quite 
 distinct from each other, which were among the Greek 
 editor's store of logia, we have here. But to this editor 
 the continuous and jointed form of Greek discourse 
 seemed the natural one ; and therefore, caught by the 
 verbal coincidence, he blends the two sets of sayings into 
 one, and claps a for in between them to establish a con- 
 nexion. It is a matter of no great importance. The
 
 THE FOURTH GOSPEL FROM WITHIN. 287 
 
 two logia of Jesus are safely there, and the real relation 
 between them was sure to be brought out by time and 
 scrutiny. It is only of importance as a gauge of the 
 Evangelist's artistic foculty. A consummate artist, in- 
 venting for Jesus, could not have been satisfied with such 
 a merely seeming and verbal connexion. 
 
 More striking is the artistic failure at the beginning 
 of the tenth chapter. We will remark, that on any 
 supposition of a consummate artist and of perfect 
 motiving, the mode of introducing all the lovely group of 
 sayings about ' the good shepherd ' and ' the door ' is 
 quite unaccountable. But let that pass, and let us look 
 at the sayings themselves. Who can doubt that here, 
 again, we have two separate sets of logia of Jesus ; — one 
 set which have / am the good shcpha-d for their centre, 
 and another set which have for their centre /^w ihe door; 
 and that our Evangelist has thrown the two together and 
 confused them ? Beautiful as are the sayings even when 
 thus mixed up together, they are far more beautiful when 
 disentangled. But the Evangelist had a doorkeeper and 
 a door and sheep in his first parable ; and he had 
 another parable, in which was a ' door of the sheep.' 
 Catching again at an apparent connexion, he could not 
 resist joining the two parables together, and making one 
 serve as the explanation of the other.
 
 288 GOD AND THE BIBLE. 
 
 To explain the first parable, and to go on all fours 
 
 with it, the second ought to run as follows : ' I am the 
 
 door of the sheep. All that climb up some ot/ier 7uay are 
 
 thieves and robbers ; but the sheep do not hear them. I 
 
 am the door ; by me if any men enter, he is the shiephiei-d 
 
 of the sheep.' The words in italics must be substituted 
 
 for the words now in the text of our Gospel ; ' and 
 
 Jesus must stand, not as the door of salvation in general, 
 
 but as the door by which to enter is the sign of the true 
 
 teacher. There can be no doubt, however, that the 
 
 words now in the text are right, and that what is wrong 
 
 is the connexion imposed on them. The seventh and 
 
 ninth verses are a logion quite distinct from what precedes 
 
 and follows, and ought to be entirely separated from it. 
 
 Their logion is : ' I am the door of the sheep. I am the 
 
 door ; by me if a man enter he shall be saved, and shall 
 
 go in and out and find pasture.' The eighth verse 
 
 belongs to the first parable, the parable of the shepherd ; 
 
 not to the parable of the door. It should follow the fifth 
 
 verse, and be followed by the tenth. Jesus says of the 
 
 sheep : ' A stranger will they not follow, but will flee 
 
 from him, for they know not the voice of strangers. All 
 
 ' See John, x, 8, 9. Instead of ^hSov Ttph tfxov we must read 
 a.fafiaivovffii' aWax^def, instead of ijKovaav we must read aKovovcnv, 
 and Troifj.i}v icrrtu twv ■npofiarvv instead oi acjiQiicerai /col eiVeXewerat
 
 THE FOURTH GOSPEL FROM WFTHIX, 289 
 
 that ever came before me are thieves and robbers, but 
 the sheep did not hear them. The thief cometh not but 
 to steal and to kill and to destroy ; I am come that they 
 might have life, and that they might have it more 
 abundantly. I am the good shepherd.' 
 
 Piecing his logia together, seeking always a connexion 
 between them, the Evangelist did not see that he was 
 here injuring his treasures by mi.xing them. But what 
 are Ave to think of a consummate artist, inventing freely, 
 and capable of producing, by free invention, such things 
 as the most admirable of the sayings attributed to Jesus 
 in the Fourth Gospel ; — what are we to think of such an 
 artist, combining in cold blood his invented sayings of 
 Jesus so ill, that any one with eyes in his head can detect 
 a better combination for them ? 
 
 The reader, probably, will follow us without much 
 difficulty here. But certainly he will have no difficulty 
 in following us if we take the last words of the fourteenth 
 chapter. Arise, let us go hence, and assert that no 
 consummate artist, no Plato, would ever have given us 
 that. Beyond all manner of doubt, Jesus never said in 
 one connexion : ' As the Father gave me commandment, 
 even so I do ; arise, let us go hence ; I am the true 
 vine, and my Father is the husbandman,' and so on, 
 without the least sign of rising or going away, but with. 
 
 U
 
 290 GOD AND THE BIBLE. 
 
 the discourse continuing throughout three more chapters. 
 How the Evangehst could have come to make him say- 
 it, is the question. Probably, with the commencement of 
 the fifteenth chapter the writer passed to a fresh set of 
 notes, containing another set of sayings of Jesus ; and he 
 marked the transition by inserting between the end of 
 one set and the beginning of the next the words : ' Arise, 
 let us go hence.' They were traditional words of Jesus, 
 as we see from the ' Rise, let us be going,' of St. Matthew; 
 and the composer of the Fourth Gospel may have 
 thought they would come in serviceably at this point. 
 What he thought, we can only conjecture ; but that no 
 man freely inventing, not arranging and combining, and 
 above all that no consummate artist, would ever have 
 dreamed of placing those words at that point, we may 
 affirm with the utmost confidence. Certainly there 
 needed an imaginative intellect not less fine than Plato's 
 to invent for Jesus such a saying as : ' The hour cometh 
 and now is, when the true worshippers shall worship the 
 Father in spirit and in truth.' But conceive a Plato 
 ordering the march of his composition thus : ' Arise^lgt 
 us go hence ; I am the true vine, and my Father -iiJli£____ 
 husbandman !' 
 
 To the same category of defects of compositio n, inex- _ 
 • Matth., XXV i, 46.
 
 THE FOURTH GOSPEL FROM WITHIN. 291 
 
 plicable on the theory of a consummate artist freely 
 inventing, but quite intelligible if we suppose a literary 
 arransjer sometimes embarrassed in dealing with his 
 materials, for which he has tlie profoundest reverence, 
 belong those curious jolts in the narrative which are 
 occasioned, as we believe, by the author having John's 
 very_5^0ids in his memor}', and being determined to 
 preserve th em. Such a jolt occurs in introducing the 
 dialogue with the woman of Samaria. 'Jesus, tired with 
 his journey, sat thus ' by the well.' Thus ? how ? 
 There has not been a word to tell us, and the expression 
 as it stands is incongruous. But the ^\Titer, probably, had 
 in his mind John's own words : 'Jesus, tired with his 
 journey, sat, as I have been telling you, by the well ; ' and 
 he could not forbear using them. The same formula 
 appears in two other places, and in both it probably is a 
 relic of John's own narrative. ' He, lying as I am telling 
 you on Jesus' breast, saith unto him : Lord, who is it ? ' ^ 
 And again: 'After these things, Jesus manifested him- 
 self again to his disciples at the Sea of Tiberias ; and 
 he manifested himself as I am going to tell you.' ^ In 
 these two cases to preserve John's words does not create 
 any awkwardness ; but the writer still preserves them 
 even when it does. 
 
 ' oirra'y. John, iv, 6. - John, xiii, 25. ' John, xxi, 1. 
 
 U 2
 
 292 GOD AND THE BIBLE. 
 
 He preserves tliem, again, without duly adjusting the 
 context to them, in the forty-fourth verse of the fourth 
 chapter. ' After the two days he departed thence into 
 GaUlee. For ycsus Jiimself testified that a prophet hath 
 no honour in his own country? That was a reason for 
 staying away from GaHlee, not for going there. But the 
 Avriter has John's words about the testimony of Jesus in 
 his mind, and hastens to give them without preparing 
 their way by saying : ' And this he did, notwithstanding 
 his own testimony.' The embarrassed sentences about 
 the return to Capernaum, in the sixth chapter, owe their 
 embarrassment, not improbably, to the same cause : to 
 John's words sticking in the writer's memoiy, and not 
 being properly fused by him ^vith his own narrative, 
 
 In like manner, who can read without a shock of 
 surprise, in the relation of the feeding of the five thousand 
 among the hills beyond the Sea of Galilee, that abrupt 
 and motiveless sentence : ' Now the passover, the feast 
 of the Jews, was nigh ? ' • The most fanciful and farfetched 
 explanations are offered. But who would not prefer the 
 simple and natural explanation, that the words are a relic 
 of John's original narrative which had been brought in 
 by him to date his story ; that they were fast lodged in 
 our Evangelist's memory, and that he was loath to lose 
 
 ' John, vi, 4.
 
 THE FOURTH GOSPEL FROM WITHIN. 293 
 
 them? They arc a Uttlc touch of detail, just hke : 
 * These thuigs he said in the treasury as he taught in the 
 temple \ ' or like : ' It was then the feast of dedication at 
 Jerusalem ; it was winter, and Jesus walked in the temple 
 in Solomon's porch.' ' I'hey are exactly the expressions 
 which a man telling a story would be likely to use ; but 
 our author preserves them in his regular composition, 
 whether they suit the context or no. And an author 
 such as we suppose our Evangelist to be was likely 
 enough to do this ; but a consummate artist, freely 
 following his invention, does not do things thus 
 negligently. 
 
 3- 
 
 These are grounds for the improbability of Baur's 
 theory which suggest themselves from a defectiveness of 
 artistic construction in the Fourth Gospel. Other 
 grounds of imi)robability are suggested by defects of 
 philosophical grasp. It is alleged that our Evangelist 
 improves on the Jesus of the Synoptics, invents his pro- 
 foundest things for him. But it can be made as clear as 
 light, to any unbiassed and attentive reader, that this 
 wonderful inventor does not always himself fully under- 
 stand the very things he is supposed to be inventing, 
 
 ' John, viii, 20 ; x, 22.
 
 294 GOD AND THE BIBLE. 
 
 obscures them by unintelligent comment on them. One 
 instance of this we have given in Lito-aturc and Dogma. 
 Jesus says : ' If any man thirst, let him come unto me 
 and drink.' ^ Then, with a reminiscence of a passage in 
 the Second Isaiah he adds : 'He that believeth in me, as 
 the Scripture saith, there shall flow out of his belly rivers 
 of living water.' Who can doubt that Jesus here meant 
 to say that the believer's faith, — the faith of the follower 
 of Christ, — should be an eternal source of refreshment ? 
 But the Evangelist proceeds to comment on the saying 
 of Jesus, and to give what is, in his view, the proper 
 explanation of it. And the explanation he gives is as 
 follows : ' But this spake he of the Spirit {Fneuma) which 
 they that believe on him should receive ; for the Holy 
 Spirit was not yet given, because Jesus was not yet 
 glorified.' Nothing can be more natural than that a 
 Christian of the first or second century should \\ish to 
 date all comforts of the Spirit from after the famous 
 effusion of Pneinna subsequent to Christ's death. But 
 surely the true sense of this saying of Jesus is clear ; and 
 it is clear, too, that it is a narrowing and marring of his 
 words to put our Evangelist's mechanical construction 
 upon them. The reporter who puts it fails to grasp the 
 words fully, deals with them unintelligently. And how 
 
 * John, vii, 37-39. Compare Isaiah, Iviii, il.
 
 THE FOURTH GOSPEL FROM WITHIN. 295 
 
 incredible that a writer should fail to seize rightly the 
 clear sense of a saying invented by himself ! 
 
 Again, take a like case from the eighteenth chapter. 
 Jesus had said of his disciples : ' None of them is lost 
 but the son of perdition.' ' Then comes the arrest, and 
 the speech of Jesus to the band which arrested him : ' I 
 have told you that I am he ; if therefore ye seek me, let 
 these go their way.' ^ He gives up himself, but puts his 
 disciples out of danger. His speech is just what we 
 might have expected ; but instantly our Evangelist adds 
 that he made it ' in order that the saying might be fulfilled 
 which he spake: Of them whom Thou hast given vie have I 
 lost none.' Can anything be more clear than that the two 
 sayings have nothing at all to do wuth one another, and 
 that it is a mechanical and narrowing application of the 
 first-mentioned saying which makes it lead up to the 
 second? In the first, eternal salvation is the theme; in 
 the second, safety from a passing danger. And could the 
 free and profound inventor of the first saying have been 
 so caught by the surfaces of things, as to make it the 
 mere prophecy of the second? 
 
 Jesus over the heads of all his reporters ! — this idea is 
 
 for us our constant guide in reading the Gospels. It is, 
 
 we are convinced, the only safe one. But the Tiibingen 
 
 professors reverse the idea, and say that in the Fourth 
 
 ' John, wii, 12. - John, xviii, 5-9.
 
 296 GOD AND THE BIBLE. 
 
 Gospel it is the reporter who is over the head of Jesus. 
 In the conchiding chapters of this Gospel the philosophi- 
 cal author, they say, so frames the discourse of Jesus that 
 his resurrection is presented ' as an internal phenomenon . 
 continually being accomplished in the believer's con- 
 sciousness.' No doubt this view of the resurrection is 
 indicated in the Fourth Gospel, as it is indicated also by 
 St. Paul. But the question is, does it come from Jesus 
 himself, or was it invented by the more spiritual among 
 his followers to give a profounder sense to the physical 
 miracle of his resurrection? We confine ourselves at 
 present to the Fourth Gospel, and we say : ' True, the 
 resurrection of Christ is there suggested as a pheno- 
 menon accomplishing itself in the believer's consciousness. 
 The idea is a profound one ; it needed a great spirit to 
 conceive it. If the author of the Fourth Gospel con- 
 ceived it, we may allow that he carries the significance of 
 the resurrection higher than the Synoptics carry it ; higher 
 than the Jesus of the Synoptics visibly carries it. But if 
 he is the author of this idea, he will present it firmly and 
 clearly. If he presents it confusedly, then he probably 
 got the idea from Jesus, and did not quite understand it.' 
 How in fact, does he present it ? 
 
 All through the discourses of Jesus in the Fourth 
 Gospel, the attentive reader may perceive that there are
 
 THE FOURTH GOSPEL FROM IVITHLX. 297 
 
 certain fundamental themes which serve as riuc/ei or 
 centres, appearing repeatedly and in several connexions, 
 with a form sometimes shorter, sometimes more ex- 
 panded. It is of great importance to a right under- 
 standing of the Fourth Gospel that we should discover in 
 such cases the primitive theme, the original logion of 
 Jesus. Now this, or at least the nearest approach to it, 
 will in general be given by the theme in its shorter and 
 less expanded fonii, \'ery likely Jesus may himself have 
 used a theme on several occasions, and himself have 
 sometimes given to it a more expanded form ; still, from 
 the theme in its simplest and shortest form, we probably 
 get our best clue to what was said by Jesus. 
 
 Two such primitive themes in the long discourse of 
 Jesus before his arrest are these : — I go to the Father^ and : 
 I go away, and come again to you. "^ Let us add to these 
 two a third : A Utile while and yc see me not, and again 
 a little while, and ye shall see ?ne.^ These three sayings 
 appear and reappear, they come in different connexions, 
 they take forms somewhat var}ing. But they are primi- 
 
 ' {miyai irphs rhv Trarepo, John, xvi, 1 7. This is probably the 
 primitive tlieme ; we have also : inrdyoj irphs rhy ir«'/m//avTo fit (vii, ^^, 
 and xvi, 5) J irphs rhv narfpa fiov virdyw (xvi, lo) ; a(plT]fi.i rhv K6fffioy 
 Kai iropevofiai irphs rhu irarfpa (xvi, 28). 
 
 - virdyto Kal ipxofJt-at irphs vixas. John, xiv, 28. 
 
 ^ fjLiKpov, KoX ov Otwpiiri fif, Kal iraMv jxiKpov, KoX Sj^taQi fit. John, 
 xvi, 17.
 
 298 GOD AND THE BIBLE. 
 
 tive themes ; they give us probably the nearest approach 
 possible to the words actually uttered by Jesus. 
 
 This, then, is what we have : — I go to the Father. I go, 
 and come again to yon. A little luhile and ye sec vie 
 not, and again a little while and ye shall see vie. Now it 
 is alleged, and truly, that the Fourth Gospel suggests a 
 view of the resuiTection of Jesus as an internal pheno- 
 menon accomplishing itself in the believer's conscious- 
 ness. The basis on which this allegation must rest is 
 supplied by the three logia which we have quoted. 
 
 But the three logia lend themselves either to the 
 announcement of a physical resurrection or to the an- 
 nouncement of a spiritual resurrection. Everything 
 depends on their context and connexion. And by piecing 
 things together, by putting these logia in the front, by 
 connecting them immediately with other logia given by 
 our Evangelist, by dropping out things he inserts between, 
 we can get at a resurrection announced by Jesus which 
 is clearly spiritual. ' I go to the Father ; I go, and 
 come again to you. A little while and ye see me not, 
 and again a little while and ye shall see me. I will not 
 leave you desolate, I will come to you. Yet a little 
 while and the world seeth me no more ; but ye see me, 
 because I live and ye shall live.' A disciple here asks how 
 it is that they shall see him, and that the world shall not.
 
 THE FOURTH GOSPEL FROM \V FIJI IN. 299 
 
 Jesus answers : ' If a man love me, he \\\\\ keep my 
 word ; and ni}- Father will love him, and we will come 
 to him, and make our abode with liim. Let not your 
 heart be troubled, neither let it be afraid. I go away and 
 come again to you.' ' And this resuiTection of Jesus is 
 connected by him with the coming of the Paraclete, the 
 Spirit of truth, the new light, who should bring out in the 
 hearts of the disciples the real significance of Jesus and of 
 what he had said.^ 
 
 ^"TTiuTplaced and connected, the primitive 'ipxoftai, the^ 
 ':/ come again of Jesus, gives us, no doubt, the resurrection , 
 of Christ as 'an internal phenomenon accomplishing 
 itself i n the believer's consciousness.' ^ It gives it us as 
 being this in Jesus Christ's own view and prediction of it. 
 The same idea is preserved for us by the First Epistle of 
 St. John, an Epistle which cannot well have been written 
 by our Evangelist, its style is so unlike his. But the 
 Epistle deals with many of the ideas dealt with b}- our 
 Gospel ; and it presents the abiding in Jesus, and in his 
 Father, as the accomplishment of the promise of eternal 
 life made by Jesus to his followers."* 
 
 The idea is so fruitful and profound an one, that if our 
 Evangelist had ever fairly grasped it, still more if he had 
 
 ' John, xvi, 10; xiv, 2S ; xvi, 16; xiv, iS, 19, 23, 27, 2S. 
 " John, xiv, 23-26. ' I John, ii, 24, 25.
 
 GOD AND THE BIBLE. 
 
 conceived and invented it, he could hardly have so 
 dealt with it as to leave us in doubt whether he himself 
 entertained it or not. He could no more do this than 
 Paul could have left us in doubt whether he himself 
 ■entertained his great idea of the nco'osis, — of the dying 
 and resurrectionof Jesus accomplishing themselves in this 
 life in the believer's personal experience. The mind which, 
 while fully accepting the physical miracle of the resurrec- 
 tion, could yet discern that the phenomenon, to be made 
 fruitful, must have a moral and a spiritual significance 
 given to it, — such a mind would certainly have been im- 
 pressed deeply by such an idea, and have had it distinct 
 and firm. But our Evangelist so arranges his materials 
 as to make the reference of tpyo/xat and u^ecrOe to a 
 spii'itual resurrection very dubious, to overlay it ^vith 
 other things, and to obscure it ; while their reference to 
 a physical resurrection is brought out distinctly. ' In 
 my Father's house are many mansions ; if it were not so, 
 I Avould have told you. For I go to prepare a place for 
 you, and if I go, I will prepare a place for you. I come 
 again, and will take you unto myself, that where I am ye 
 may be also.' ' There can be little doubt that the primi- 
 tive theme of 'dpxoi^ai Trpog vf'ac, I covie again utito you, 
 
 ' John, xiv, 2, 3. The text followed is that of the Vatican 
 manuscript.
 
 THE FOURTH GOSPEL FROM WITHIN. 301 
 
 is here so used and connected as to make it point deci- 
 sively to a physical resurrection. And this key for the 
 whole strain being once given, the impression left by that 
 other primitive theme, ^UK-poy ml u\pE(Td£ fji, a little while 
 and ye shall see iru\ is in the main an impression to the same 
 effect. ' A little while and ye see me not, and again a 
 little while and ye shall see me. Ye shall weep and 
 lament ; ye shall be sorrowful, but your sorrow shall be 
 turned into joy. Ye have sorrow now ; but I will see you 
 again, and your heart shall rejoice, and your joy no man 
 shall take from }ou.' • Here the whole wording and con- 
 nexion are such that it seems clear the commentators have 
 lightly interpreted the mind of the Evangelist, when they 
 make this passage, and the theme /ua-por Ka\ o-i^taQi ^f, a 
 prophecy of the approaching physical resurrection of Jesus. 
 Must we then suppose that to a spiritual resurrection 
 such sayings as the three primitive themes we have 
 quoted do not really refer, but may be made to signify it 
 only as a secondary and after meaning, brought in for 
 purposes of edification, and originally hidden in them, 
 perhaps, for those purposes ? This, no doubt, will be 
 the character assigned to the words both by official theo- 
 logy and by popular religion. To us, however, it seems 
 certain tliat to a spiritual resurrection the words primarily 
 ' John, .wi, 19, 20, 22.
 
 302 GOD AND THE BIBLE. 
 
 and really point, and that our Evangelist has obscured their 
 true scope. For him, as for Christendom long after him, 
 Jesus Christ's physical resurrection stood, and could not 
 but stand, a phenomenon fixed, immense, overpowering ; 
 a central sun attracting everything to it. But experience 
 slowly and inevitably reveals that phenomena of this 
 kind do not actually happen. Romulus does not mount 
 into heaven, Epimenides does not awake, Arthur does not 
 return. Their adoring followers think they do, think they 
 have promised it ; — but they do not, have not. We have, 
 then, to account for the firm belief of the first Christians 
 in the physical resurrection of Jesus, when this resurrec- 
 tion did not actually happen. We can only account for 
 it from things really said by Jesus, which led them to 
 expect it. That Jesus was a fanatic, expecting and 
 foretelling his own physical resurrection, — deceived like 
 his followers, but so filling them with his own belief that it 
 prevailed and triumphed with them when he died, — is an 
 explanation which the whole account we have of Jesus, 
 read seriously, shows to be idle. His disciples were 
 misled, therefore, by something Jesus did actually say, 
 which had not really the sense that he should physically 
 rise from the dead, but which was capable of lending 
 itself to this sense, and which his disciples misunderstood 
 and imagined to convey it.
 
 THE FOURTH GOSPEL FROM WITHIN. 303 
 
 And, indeed, they themselves tell us that this is what 
 actually happened. Only, what was in truth misundcr- 
 standijig, they call jnidc?-standi/ig. They themselves tell 
 us tliat they unconsciously exercised a creative pressure, 
 long after the time when they were going about with 
 Jesus and hearing him, on sayings and doings of their 
 Master. ' When he was risen from the dead,' they tell 
 us, after recording one of his prophetic speeches, ^ Ms 
 disciples temcmbercd that he had said this.'' ^ Even if one 
 had not known beforehand that from the nature of the 
 case it was impossible for the records of Jesus in our 
 Gospels to have been notes taken down day by day, as 
 by a Saint-Simon or a Boswell, here is an Evangelist 
 himself telling us in so many words that they were not. 
 * These things understood not his disciples at the first,' 
 he tells us again, after relating an incident which afforded 
 a revarkable fulfilment of prophecy, ' but when Jesus 
 was glorified t/wn rciiianbered they that these things were 
 written of him, and that they had done these things vnto 
 Iii/n.' 2 They recorded, then, the sayings of Jesus about 
 his resurrection long after they had been uttered, and 
 when the belief in his physical resurrection was firmly 
 fixed in their minds. 
 
 But even after his death, 'as yet,' they tell us of 
 * John, ii, 22. - John, xii, 16.
 
 304 GOD AND THE BIBLE. 
 
 themselves, ' they knew not the Scripture that he must 
 rise again from the dead.' ' This affords the most ir- 
 refragable proof that the sayings of Jesus about his 
 resurrection cannot originally have been just what our 
 Gospels report ; that these sayings, as they now come 
 to us, must have been somewhat moulded and accen- 
 tuated by the belief in the resurrection. If Jesus had 
 simply said to the Twelve the very words our Gospels re- 
 port hini to have said, the Twelve could have been in no- 
 ignorance at all of ' the Scripture that he must rise again 
 from the dead,' and in no doubt at all that they were to 
 count on his rising. ' He took unto him the Twelve, 
 and said unto them : Behold we go up to Jerusalem, and 
 all things that are written by the prophets concerning the 
 Son of Man shall be accomplished. For he shall be 
 delivered unto the Gentiles, and shall be mocked and spite- 
 fully entreated, and spitted on ; and they shall scourge 
 him, and put him to death ; and the third day he shall rise 
 again.' ^ It is in vain that the Evangelist adds : ' And 
 they understood none of these things, and this saying 
 was hid from them, neither knew they the things which 
 were spoken.' ^ If Jesus had spoken merely as he is here 
 reported, if what he said had had no peculiar connexion 
 and significance given to it by something else which he 
 ' John, XX, 9. ^ Luke, xviii, 3 1 -33. ^ Luke, xviii, 34.
 
 THE FOURTH GOSPEL FROM WITHIN. 305 
 
 also said, if he had simply thus laid down in black and 
 white, as the phrase is, his death and resuiTection as go- 
 ing to hajipen, the disciples could not have helped under- 
 standing him. It would have been quite impossible for 
 them to make that astounding declaration, which yet is 
 evidently tlie plain truth, that even up to the days 
 which followed his death, 'as yet they knew not the 
 Scripture that he must rise again from the dead.' Some- 
 thing was no doubt said by Jesus not unlike what the 
 Evangelist reports, something which easily adapted it- 
 self to the character of a simple and literal prophecy of 
 the resurrection, when that event had, as was believed, 
 taken place. But the precise speech put into the mouth 
 of Jesus, that speech and nothmg more at all upon the 
 subject, he cannot have uttered. 
 
 The Third Gospel, which reports the speech just 
 quoted, is the Gospel which guides us to the discovery of 
 what Jesus can have originally and actually said about 
 his rising again on the third day. He was told that if he 
 did not leave Jerusalem Herod would put him to death. 
 He made answer : ' Go ye and tell that fox, Behold, I 
 cast out devils and I do cures to-day and to-morrow, oid 
 the third day J shall be perfected.' ^ Having for ever 
 
 ' t;7 rpirr; i/jufp? ''■e^e'Ol'M«'• Luke, xiii, 32. The text of the 
 Vatican manuscript is followed. 
 
 X
 
 3o6 GOD AND THE BIBLE. 
 I 
 
 before his mind the humble and suffering Servant of our 
 
 fifty-third chapter of Isaiah, and labouring for ever to . 
 
 substitute this in his disciples' minds as the Messias-ideal,j 
 
 t 
 instead of the brilliant and triumphing Conqueror of 
 
 popular Jewish religion, Jesus here, beyond all doubt, 
 following the prophet,^ spoke of his violent and igno- 
 minious end as his perfection_and_yij:JtOQ^j That violent 
 end he, as was natural, could plainly foresee and often 
 predicted. Here he predicts it in this wise : ' On the 
 third day I shall be perfected.' What made him say : 
 On the third day ? ^ We know how he loved to possess 
 himself of locutions of the prophets and to use them. 
 For instance, in that well-known saying, ' Take my yoke 
 upon you, and learn of me that I am mild and lowly in 
 heart, and ye shall find rest unto your souls,' the con- 
 cluding phrase, Ye shall find rest ujito your souls, is a 
 reminiscence of Jeremiah.^ And in like manner his 
 phrase, On the third day I shall be perfected, is a reminis- 
 
 ' See Isaiah, liii, lo, li. ' It pleased the Eternal to biiiise him, 
 he hath put him to grief. When he hath made his soul an offering 
 for sin, he shall see his seed, he shall prolong his days, and the 
 pleasure of the Eternal shall prosper in hii hand ; he shall see of 
 the travail of his soul and be satisfied.' 
 
 - He talked, also, of his rising from the dead, without the addi- 
 tion of the words on the third day, or m three days. See Mark, ix, 
 9, lo, where the disciples are represented as puzzled, and as avv^-rj- 
 Tovvrfs r{ icrrii' ro fK veicpuf c-vaurrifai. 
 
 * Jeremiah, vi, 1 6.
 
 THE FOURTH GOSPEL FROM WITHIN. 307. 
 
 cence of the prophet Hosea. Amid the ruhi of Israel, 
 in the eighth century before Christ, Hosea had said : 
 ' Come and let us return unto the Eternal ; for he hath 
 torn and he will heal us ; after tivo days will he rei'ive lis, 
 on the third day we shall rise again.' ' ' We shall be 
 restored presently,^ Hosea means ; and, ' I shall be per- 
 fected presently,' is what Jesus means. 
 
 Here we lay our finger, almost certainly, upon the 
 veritable foundation for the belief that Jesus had 
 himself announced he would rise from the dead on tlie 
 third da y. | Let us seek to combine the scattered logia, 
 transposed, some of them, to the time after his death, 
 which in a certain degree enable us, through the cloud 
 of his disciples' inadequate apprehension and of legend 
 and marvel, to follow the line of light of the Divine 
 Master. 
 
 The root of everything with Jesus is, as we just now 
 
 said, the effort, the eternal effort, to substitute as the 
 
 Messias-ideal in the mind of his followers the Servant, 
 
 mild and stricken, for the regal and vengeance-working^ 
 
 _ Root of D avid. [And he knew, that the victory of this 
 
 ' Hosea, vi, i, 2. In the Greek Bible of the Seventy the words 
 are : ^i* ttj f]iJ.''pa rp TpiTJ; avaaTTjcrSfjuQa, on the third day wc shall 
 rise again. Compare this with the words in Luke: irj rplr-p v/J-tpa 
 T(\eiovfj,ai ; and again, tj7 Vfi-epa rp rpirij avacnTifffTai. Luke, 
 xiii, 32, and xviii, 33, 
 
 fM 
 
 X 2
 
 3o8 GOD AND THE BIBLE. 
 
 right Messias-ideal his own death, and that only, could 
 
 found. ' O fools and slow of heart at taking in all that 
 
 the prophets have spoken ! must not the jNIessiah suffer 
 
 these things, and enter into his glory ? Behold, we go 
 
 up to Jerusalem, and the Son of Man shall be betrayed 
 
 unto the chief priests and scribes, and they shall deliver 
 
 him to the Gentiles to cnicify. Nevertheless, I do cures 
 
 to-day and to-morrow ; we must work the works of him 
 
 that sent me while it is day, the night cometh when no 
 
 man can work. I must walk to-day and to-morrow and 
 
 the day following, and the third day I shall be perfected. 
 
 All things written by the prophets for the Son of Man 
 
 shall be accomplished. He shall be delivered to the 
 
 Gentiles, and mocked and outraged and spit upon ; and 
 
 they shall scourge him and put him to death ; and the 
 
 third day he shall rise again. Except a grain of corn fall 
 
 and die, it abideth alone ; but if it die, it bringeth forth 
 
 much fruit. As Moses lifted up the serpent in the 
 
 wilderness, so must the Son of Man be lifted up ; and I, if 
 
 I be lifted up from the earth, will draw all men unto me.' ^ 
 
 Yes, thus it was written that the Christ should suffer^ 
 
 ' Luke, xxiv, 25, 26; Matth., xx, 18, 19; Luke, xiii, 32 ; John, 
 ix, 4 (in the Vatican manuscript) ; Luke, xiii, 33 and xviii, 31-33 ; 
 John, iii, 14, xii, 24, and xii, 32. For mocking, see Psaltn xxii, 7 ; 
 for scourging and spitting, see Isaiah, 1, 6. The traits used by 
 prophet and psalmist in delineating the stricken Servant are to be 
 conceived as always vividly present to the mind of Jesus.
 
 THE FOURTH GOSPEL FROM WITHIN. 309 
 
 and should rise from the dead the third day. ' Inevitably 
 the disciples materialised it all, wrested it all into a 
 prophesying of bodily reappearance and miracle. And 
 they did also with the words : ' I go to the Father ; I go 
 away and come again to you ; a little while and ye see 
 me not, and again a little while and ye shall see me.' 
 To these words the disciples gave a turn, they placed 
 them in a connexion, to suit the belief which alone, after 
 the death of Jesus, could reassure and console them ; 
 — the belief in his speedy resuscitation and bodily re- 
 appearance on earth, his temporary re-withdrawal and 
 ascension into heaven, to be followed soon by his 
 triumphal bodily advent to avenge and judge. 
 
 It could not but be so. // was toritteti that in his name 
 should be preached to all nations repentance unto remission 
 of sins ; "^ and only in this way could the work proceed. 
 Only in this way, through profound misapprehension, 
 through many crude hopes, under the stimulus of many 
 illusions, could the method and secret, and something of 
 the temper and sweet reason and balance of Jesus, be 
 carried to the w-orld. Only thus, through natural and 
 national extra-belief reinforcing their real love to their 
 Master and zeal to propagate his doctrine, could the weak 
 
 ' Luke, xxiv, 46. The Vatican manuscript is followed. 
 - Lui<e, yxiv, 47.
 
 3IO COD AND THE BIBLE. 
 
 ■■ ■ ■ I ■ ■ ■ ^ ■ - - ■ ■ ■ _ 
 
 arm of the disciples acquire energy enough to hold aloft 
 the word of hfe, set up the kingdom of Christ, found 
 the true Israel, and bring in everlasting righteousness. 
 
 But the promises and predictions of their Master were, 
 nevertheless, not what they fancied. He had said : * Ye 
 shall see me again, because I live and ye shall live ; if 
 a man keep my saying he shall never see death. If ye 
 love me and keep my words, I will come unto you and 
 make my abode with you.' ^ They construed this into : 
 ' Ye shall see me, because I will come again and take 
 you unto myself to reign in the kingdom of the saints in 
 the New Jerusalem.' ^ The genuine promise of Jesus 
 was the promise of a spiritual resurrection ; and this, 
 promise his disciples misapprehended, misconnected, and 
 obscured. Only on this suppo sition is e ven their own 
 version of the history intelligible.-" 
 
 Far, therefore, from inventing the idea of the resur- 
 rection as an internal phenomenon accompHshing itself 
 in the believer's consciousness, the author of the Fourth 
 Gospel transmits the idea, indeed, but obscures it. He 
 saved it for us, as in that second harvest of the logia of 
 Jesus he saves for us so much which is precious. He 
 saved it from being lost, and added it to the indications 
 
 » John, xiv, 19 ; viii, 51 ; xiv, 23. • 
 ^ John, xiv, 3; Matth., xix, 28.
 
 THE FOURTH GOSPEL FROM IVITHIN. 311 
 
 which survive for us of the Hne truly taken by Jesus. Hut 
 from b is vcry-Qio dc of delivering it, we caa -sce- -that.]i£Lis_ 
 jni- nn nrfist invpnting it, but-axq^ortet transmitting it 
 imperfectly. 
 
 4- 
 
 Furthermore, Baur's theory of the artistic Greek 
 
 Christian inventing all things with a deep-laid design to 
 
 damage Jewish Christianity, and to exalt Christ's divinity, 
 
 is upset by the admission of things contrary to the alleged 
 
 design. A free inventor, inventing with the express aim 
 
 ■of doing damage to Jewish Christianity, would never have 
 
 made Jesus say : Salvation is of the y^cias.' ' A free 
 
 inventor, inventing to impair the credit of Peter and the 
 
 original Apostles, would never have made Peter enter the 
 
 sepulchre first, or throw himself into the sea, or receive 
 
 the charge : Feed j?iy sheep? A free inventor, inventing 
 
 from a zeal to estabhsh the dogma of Christ's personal 
 
 divinity, would never have made Jesus give the turn to 
 
 liis calling himself the Son of God which is given in the 
 
 tenth chapter, when Jesus appeals to the authority of the 
 
 Old Testament for those being called Gods to whom 
 
 the word of God came, and asks why he, then, may not 
 
 ■call himself the Son of God ? ' ' Why haggle about 
 
 ' John^ iv, 22. - John, xx, 6; xxi, 7, i6. 
 
 » John, X, 34-36.
 
 312 GOD AND THE BIBLE. 
 
 words and definitions in these matters ? ' he in fact asks ;. 
 'all you can say about them is approximate merely/ 
 But the whole question of the dogma of Christ's personal 
 divinity is a question of words and definitions in the 
 very sphere where Jesus pronounced such questions to be 
 vain. All these things may be ingeniously explained by 
 Baur now that they stand there in the Gospel, and chal- 
 lenge explanation from him. But, had Baur's theory of 
 the Fourth Gospel been true, they would never have 
 stood there for him to explain. 
 
 Finally, the theory of the consummate artist implies ' 
 that the Fourth Gospel is a work proceeding., fro m the 1 
 imaginative intellect* But we deny (and here, too, the 
 attentive reader will not, we think, find it hard to follow 
 us), we deny that the Fourth Gospel has the character of 
 a work proceeding from the imaginative intellect. It 
 has the character of a work proceeding from the soul. 
 It is profoundly and solemnly religious. It is the work 
 of a man who, we grant, like all the reporters of Jesus, 
 understood him but imperfectly ; who gives us much 
 which is not Jesus, much which comes from himself and 
 his time,. much which is addition and legend. But it is 
 the work of a man wh6 gives us this seriously and in good 
 faith, and whose attitude of mind is not that of a freely 
 inventing artist. He is too much subjugated by Jesus tO'
 
 THE FOURTH GOSPEL FROM WITHIN. 313 
 
 feel free to deal with him in this fashion, as a mouth- 
 piece for his own purposes and his own ideas. He does 
 sometimes attribute his own ideas to Jesus, but uncon 
 sciously ; and when he docs, we can perceive that he is 
 doing so. If he had attempted it consciously all through 
 his Gospel, he would have produced something quite dif- 
 ferent from what we have, and we should easily have 
 found him out. He would have given us a work where 
 Jesus would have spoken, all through, as he now speaks 
 from the sixteenth verse of the third chapter to the 
 twenty-first, — a passage in which our theological lecturer 
 evidently lectures us through the mouth of Jesus. For 
 his mind did not hold itself so easily and independently 
 towards Jesus, — no serious Christian's did or could, — as 
 to suffer him to play freely with Jesus, to throw himself 
 into his character, to use him as a vehicle for saying, — but 
 in character and with verisimilitude, — whatever the user 
 wanted to convey. Plato might do this with Socrates, 
 but the author of the Fourth Gospel could not do it 
 with Jesus. And the safe analogy^ to take, in consideiing 
 what for our Evangelist in dealing with his subject 
 could and did happen, is the analogy not of Plato but 
 of Paul. 
 
 The old school of apologists was fond of urging that 
 the Fourth Gospel could only have been the work of one
 
 314 GOD AND THE BIBLE. 
 
 of the original chief Apostles, it is so excellent. Baur 
 had no difficulty in replying to this, that in Paul we have 
 a Christian who had probably never even seen Jesus, who 
 was certainly not one of the original chief Apostles ; and 
 who yet is at least equal to any of them, and whose pro- 
 ductions surpass theirs. Why, therefore, may we not 
 have, he argued, in the author of the Fourth Gospel a 
 second gifted outsider lilce Paul, but whose name has 
 remained unknown, because it was essential for his 
 purpose that it should do so, and that his work should 
 point mysteriously to the Apostle John as its author ? 
 
 Certainly we, for our part, have no backwardness in 
 admitting that outside of the primitive circle of the 
 Apostles there might arise Christians, like Paul, capable 
 of making invaluable contributions to the New Testa- 
 jiient. But we think that none of them could have done 
 what Baur's theory supposes the author of the Fourth 
 Gospel to have done, St. Paul himself could not have 
 done it. The attitude of their minds towards Christianity 
 and its Founder was too earnest and reverential to allow 
 it. When Paul quotes a logion like that exquisite logion 
 quoted by him at Miletus, but not found in any one of 
 our Evangelists, // is moi'e blessed to give than to receive^ 
 he is clearly quoting Jesus, as he says he is, not artisti- 
 
 • Acts, XX, 35.
 
 THE FOURTH GOSPEL FROM WITHIN. 
 
 j»3 
 
 cally inventing for Jesus, not original. His manner when 
 he is original we know, and it is quite dififerent : — / t>y 
 not mine own self {for I am conscious of 7iothing to my- 
 self , yet am I not herchy justified), but /le that trieth me is 
 Me Lord. '^ Imagine St. Paul sitting down to recommend 
 the dogma of justification by faith, through means of a 
 fancy Gospel composed of logia invented for Jesus, and 
 suiting his character as // is more blessed to give than to 
 receive suits his character ! Paul could not have done it; 
 ai2X-lQJiDd-££itic. will fecl-4haL.lie^xould,JlQt_^So, too, 
 with the author of the Fourth Gospel. Where the los.ia, 
 are suited to the character of Tesus, they come from 
 Je siis. ^^'here the y are not, there we have the theo- 
 logical le cturer merely expanding a theme gi\cn by 
 J esus, developing^ or th inking that he develops it. But 
 he remains himself in doing so. To possess himself as a 
 dramatist of the personage of Jesus, to fix his sentiments 
 and his whole part for him, as would be implied by 
 inventing the fundamental themes instead of merely 
 develoi)ing them, he would not have felt himself free. 
 
 The question for us will be, then : Are there funda- 
 mental themes discoverable in the Fourth Gospel, and 
 peculiar to it, which are quite according to the character 
 
 ' I Cor., iv, 3, 4.
 
 3i6 GOD AND THE BIBLE. 
 
 of Jesus, and to his recognised habit of speech? 
 Because, if there are, our Evangehst has not invented 
 them, but they must come from Jesus. 
 
 Now that there are logia jjccuHar to the Fourth 
 Gospel, which entirely suit the character and the habit of 
 Jesus as these are known to us from the Synoptics, we 
 can hardly conceive any one denying ; except, indeed, 
 he have a thesis to make good which constrains him. 
 Let us bring forward a few of them : ' Aly k'uigdojfi is not 
 of this world. — In my Father's house are many mansions. 
 — The good shepherd giveth his life for the sheep. — OtJicr 
 me?i laboured, and ye are entered into their labours. — The 
 night eo??2eth, when no man can zvork. — The servant abideth 
 not in the house for ever, the son abideth for ever. — A 
 woman wheti she is in travail hath sorrow because her 
 hour is come ; but as soo?i as she zV delivered of the child 
 she reinembereth no more her anguish, for joy that a ina7i 
 is boi-n into the world.' ^ Except a man be, we say, 
 in the clutches of some tyrannous theory, we can hardly 
 conceive his denying that these logia are as perfectly 
 and naturally in the character of Jesus as are the most 
 characteristic logia found in the Synoptics, such as : 
 Render Ccesar's things to Cczsar, and God's things to 
 God ; or. No man having put his hand to the plough, and 
 
 ' John, xiv, 2 ; x, II ; iv, 38 ; ix, 4; viii, 35 ; xvi, 21.
 
 THE FOURTH GOSPEL FROM WITHIN. 317 
 
 looking back, is fit fo7- the /dngdom of God; or, Foxes Jiavc 
 holes and the birds of the air have 7iests, but the Son of 
 Man hath not where to lay his head. * 
 
 5. 
 
 Yet the Tubingen professors and our Liberal news- 
 papers must surely have something to go upon, when 
 they declare that the Jesus of the Fourth Gospel speaks 
 quite differently from the Jesus of the Synoptics, and 
 propound their theory of the Gnostic philosopher 
 inventing, with profoundly calculated art, his fancy 
 Gospel. No doubt they have. Jesus never can have 
 delivered the long connected harangues, or entered into 
 the formal development of his own nature and dignity, or 
 made the endless repetitions, which are in the Fourth 
 Gospel attributed to him. All this is so absolutely con- 
 trary to his manner, which we know both from his 
 sayings in the Synoptics and from express testimony, 
 that every rule of criticism bids us suspect it. The 
 sayings in the Synoptics will be present to every one's 
 mind; two or three of them, indeed, characteristic 
 specimens, we have just brought fonvard. Justin's 
 famous sentence has been again and again quoted : 
 ■* Short and concise are the sayings that came from him, 
 ' Matth., xxii, 21 ; LukCj ix, 62 ; Matth., viii, 20.
 
 31 8 GOD AND THE BIBLE. 
 
 for he was no sophist, but liis word was power divine.' ' 
 And e qually express is the followin g testimony, perhaps , 
 not so familiar, given by the pgpnrir.-f ipyy^^ptm^ 
 Homilies : ' His wont was to make concise utterances- 
 touching the things of concernment to the truth.'^ A 
 better description of the style of his sayings could hardly 
 be given. They were concise utterances toiichbig the things 
 of concernment to the truth. The character of his 
 parabolic and figured teaching tells its own story, and 
 needs no describing ; what distinguished his direct 
 teaching was this its gnomic or maxim-like character. 
 
 These gnomic sayings of Jesus the Evangelists had to 
 place in their narrative, and to provide for them a setting 
 and a connexion. The Greek editor of the Fourth 
 Gospel provides this setting in a very different style 
 from the Synoptics, just because he is a Greek, a man of 
 literary skill and philosophical acquirements, and with 
 an intellect trained in the Greek fashion. The gnomic 
 form of teaching was not unknown in Greek philosophy, 
 but at the Christian era this form was to Greek writers an 
 archaic one. They had come to dovetail their thoughts 
 into each other, join their sentences by articulations, and 
 
 ' )3pax*'S 5e KoX a\)VTO}ioi irap aiiTov \6yoi "yiySvaaiv, ov yap 
 (ToAltTTTjs vnripx^v, o.Wa Svya/jiis 6eov 6 \6yos avTOv 9iv. 
 
 2 Horn, xvii, 6. irepi twv rp dATjQci'a SLacpfpSyrwu <tvvt6^us tcis 
 ano<pdafi.s 'noie^TO.
 
 THE FOURTH GOSPEL FROM WITHIN. 319 
 
 so frame their matter into one continuous discourse, just 
 as we do now with ours ; indeed, it is from tlie Greeks 
 that the world has learnt to do it. And in this Greek 
 fashion the Fourth Gospel was composed. 
 
 The author of the First Gospel, on the other hand, 
 was a Hebrew ; and to a Semitic people the gnomic form, 
 the delivering one's thought in detached sentences, was 
 always natural. To the author of the First Gospel, there- 
 fore, this form was natural, as it was to Jesus himself. 
 And there can be no doubt, that the form of the utter- 
 ances of Jesus the First Gospel reproduces more faithfully 
 than the Fourth. Still, it is incredible that the Sermon on 
 the Mount, or tlie prediction in the twenty-fourth chapter 
 of the final troubles and of the coming of the Son of 
 Man, should have been spoken straight off by Jesus just 
 as they are given in the First Gospel. No sane critic will 
 maintain that they were. In both passages the Evan- 
 gelist has had a number of logia to place, and has given 
 to them, as well as he could, a setting and connexion in 
 accordance Mith their subject-matter, and with the 
 occasion to which he knew them generally to belong. 
 But he, for the most part, gives them their setting and 
 connexion simply by juxtaposing them ; whereas the 
 editor of the Fourth Gospel, having to give this setting 
 and connexion to his logia^ gives it by articulating them.
 
 520 GOD AND THE BIBLE. 
 
 Therefore he changes the look of the logia which he 
 reports more than either of the three Synoptics changes 
 it. He less faithfully reproduces the fashion in which 
 each separate logion was originally said by Jesus. 
 
 Furthermore, the editor of the Fourth Gospel had to 
 deal with a second harvest of logia^ gathered from John 
 after the first harvest of sayings had been reaped, and 
 had made men eager for what might yet remain. The 
 mass of the first harvest was sure to consist of the more 
 simple and practical sayings of the Lord. In the nature 
 of things it was probable that this should be so ; from 
 the character of the first reporters it was certain that it 
 would be so. There remained a number of logia some- 
 what profounder and more obscure, more over the heads 
 of the disciples than the simple logia, and therefore less 
 interesting to them. Of this kind were sayings in which 
 Jesus spoke of his relation to the Father, and of life and 
 death in the sense that he loved to give to those words. 
 '/ came forth from the Father. — The Father sent me. — 
 My doctrine is not mine, but his that sent me. — The 
 Father is greater than 1. — / ca7i of mine otcn self do 
 nothing. — The Son. can of himself do nothing, but ofily 
 luhat he secth the Father doing. — He that hateth me hateth 
 my Father also. — / and the Father arc one. — He that 
 ielieveth on me hath everlasting life. — If a man keep my
 
 THE FOURTH GOSPEL FROM WITHIN. 321 
 
 word Jic shall never see death. — / am the resurrection and 
 t/ie life: » 
 
 That sayings of this kind were from the first kno\vn 
 and reported is proved by our finding in the First Gospel 
 such a logion as the following : — ' All things are delivered 
 unto me by my Father, and no one knoweth the Son but 
 the Father, neither knoweth any one the Father save the 
 Son, and he to whomsoever the Son will reveal him.'* 
 We need hardly say that here the Tubingen professors 
 smell TendenZy and affirm that a piece of Greek Gnosti- 
 cism must have got thrust into the Gospel of the old 
 Jewsh Evangelist. But these solutions we do not per- 
 mit to ourselves ; and the logion, famous in the history of 
 the criticism of the New Testament text, is given by two 
 out of the three Synoptics, — by St. Luke ' as well as by 
 St. Matthew. We receive it, therefore, as giving clear proof 
 of the existence of sayings of the Lord on that class of 
 subjects which the /c»^/i3; of the Fourth Gospel touch so 
 frequently, subjects such as the relation of Jesus to the 
 Father, and the like. Indeed, we do not see how Jesus 
 could have pursued his design of transforming the popu- 
 lar ideal of the Messiah, who was described by prophecy 
 as the Son of God, without touching on such subjects. 
 
 ' John, xvi, 27 ; xvii, 8, 18, 21, 23, 25 ; vii, 16 ; xiv, 28 ; v, 30; 
 V, 19 ; XV, 23 ; X, 30 ; vi, 47 ; viii, 51 ; xi, 25. 
 
 - Matth., xi, 27. ' Luke, .\, 22. 
 
 Y
 
 GOD AND THE BIBLE. 
 
 And it is in part to trie~pfommence in the Fourth Gospel 
 of sayings on them that the tradition points, when it so 
 earW_d_istinguishes this as the spiritual Gospeh' 
 
 To the Greek editor of John's materials these logia 
 naturally assumed a transcendent interest and import- 
 ance. He was plainly a man, as we have said, of philo- 
 sophical acquirements. True, religion was uppermost 
 with him, not speculation. The tone of his prologue, 
 though from Jesus such a performance is inconceivable,, 
 is profoundly religious, penetrated by the grace and truth 
 of the religion of Jesus. Whoever compares it with 
 what remains to us of the great Greek Gnostics, of 
 Basileides or Valentinus, will feel that the difference 
 between them and the writer of the Fourth Gospel lies 
 here : that while they are above all men of speculative 
 thought, he is above all a man of religion. Still, in this 
 world of speculative thought he had lived, in this world 
 of ceaseless questions, asTertullian says: ' Undc malum d 
 quare, et nnde Jiomo d quomodo, et nude Dens ? — whence 
 and why is evil, and whence and how is man, and whence 
 is God?' Such questions had in his eyes an infinite 
 interest and importance ; sayings of Jesus which bore 
 upon them could not but rivet and fascinate his mind. 
 In his redaction of John's materials we see that he 
 
 ' Trvevixo/riKuv fvayytXiof. See Eusebius, Hisf. Ecdcs., vi, 14.
 
 THE FOURTH GOSPEL FROM IVmiLX. 323 
 
 cannot make too much of such logia. He returns to 
 them again and agahi, and avails himself of every occa- 
 sion for re-introducing them. 
 
 Well, then, to charge the gnomic form of his funda- 
 mental themes, the sayings of Jesus, and to connect these 
 into an articulated and flowing discourse, was a rule, as 
 we have seen, of our Evangelist's redaction, and of itself 
 necessitated a considerable change in his primitive data. 
 A yet further change was caused by affection for certain 
 themes, leading, him to present these themes again and 
 again, slightly varied. Moreover, in his whole redaction, 
 in his presentment of sayings of Jesus as well as of inci- 
 dents in his life, he laboured, in spite of his superiority 
 to the Synoptics in literary skill and in philosophical 
 thought, under one disadvantage. .He had the disathan- 
 tage_ of a foreigner who presents manners, locutions, 
 Jocalitjes, not his own, but alien to him. He could not 
 be warned by that instinct which perpetually, on points 
 of detail, keeps a native straight, and makes him feel 
 certain things to be improbable and impossible. 
 
 We ha\e seen that the internal evidence, to be drawn 
 from the Gospel itself, contradicts Baur's theor}- of the 
 consummate artist, at the end of the second century, 
 freely inventing it all. But the internal evidence suits 
 v ery well w ith the supposition of a Greek Christian 
 
 ■faiiM — ....■■I- ^ ^ ii^iMiii " — ■— — ■ 
 
 Y2
 
 324 GOD AND THE BIBLE. 
 
 editing a second harv^est, for which the materials were 
 furnished by John, of sayings and doings of the Lord, 
 arranging them in Ins own fashion, and giving to the, 
 logia an interdependence and connexion which originally 
 they load not ; moreover, amplifying and repeating 
 certain logia, and making developments from them. 
 Now, the tradition gives us John, in Asia, supplying the 
 materials of this second harvest, but not himself editing 
 them. If another edited them in Asia, for the benefit of 
 the Asiatic Churches, this other was surely a Greek 
 Christian ; and if a Greek Christian edited them, he was 
 likely to proceed in the way alleged, and of which the 
 Gospel bears, surely, strong marks. 
 
 For according to all the rules, we will not say of criti- 
 cism, but of common sense, — according to all rules of 
 probability, and of speakers speaking in character, and 
 not violently and unaccountably deserting it, — can any- 
 thing be more incredible than that Jesus should have 
 actually spoken to Nicodemus, or John the Baptist to a 
 disciple, the latter part of the speeches attributed to them 
 in the third chapter of our Gospel ? Let us take first 
 the speech to Nicodemus, It is probable that the real 
 end of the dialogue is to be found in the tenth verse : 
 * Art thou Israel's teacher, and knowest not these things? ' 
 But our Evangelist had two other logia of Jesus : 'We
 
 THE FOURTH GOSPEL FROM WITHIN. 325 
 
 speak that we do know, and testify that we have seen, 
 and ye receive not our testimony;'' and, 'If I tell you 
 earthly things and ye believe not, how shall ye believe if 
 I tell you heavenly things ? ' ^ which admitted of being 
 placed in this connexion. So here he places them. 
 This, we say, is probable ; but what is certain is, that 
 Jesus did not speak the verse which follows these two 
 logia, the thirteenth : ' And no man hath ascended up 
 into heaven save he that came down from heaven, the 
 Son of Man.' That is a variation on a primitive theme 
 of Jesus, / avi the bread that came down frojn heaven,^ 
 inserted here by our theological lecturer, because he 
 knew that it was a theme dwelt upon by Jesus, and 
 thought that he saw here a natural place for it. A 
 genuine logion of Jesus follows, bearing every mark of 
 being still quite or almost in its original form, but woven 
 into this context by our lecturer, and owing its con- 
 nexion with what precedes simply to his conjunction and : 
 ' As Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, so 
 must the Son of Man be lifted up, that whosoever 
 believeth on him may have everlasting life.' Then 
 enters the theological lecturer, and continues (one may 
 almost say) lecturing in his own proper person till the 
 end of the speech, from the sixteenth verse to the twenty- 
 
 ' John, iii, II. ' John, iii, 12. ' John, vi, 41.
 
 326 GOD AND THE BIBLE. 
 
 first. For who, that has studied the sayings of Jesus 
 well, can ever believe that Jesus said : ' For God so loved 
 the world that he gave his only-begotten Son, to the end 
 that whosoever believeth in him should have everlasting 
 life,' ^ and the rest ? Our Evangelist does not, however, 
 in these verses, think he is inventing; for he is going all 
 the time upon three primitive themes of Jesus : He thai 
 believeth on me hath everlasting life ; I eaine not to judge 
 the zvorld, hut to save the world ; I am come a light ttito 
 the worlds that whosoever believeth on vie should not abide 
 in darkness.^. On these genuine logia he is going, and he 
 merely amplifies and repeats them ; developing them, in 
 his own judgment, naturally, and as it was to be sup- 
 posed Jesus himself did. 
 
 Let us now pass to the speech of John the Baptist, at 
 the end of the same chapter. The real sayings assigned 
 to John the Baptist by our Evangelist's tradition ended, 
 one can hardly doubt, with the words : ' He must in- 
 crease, but I must decrease.' ^ The rest, down to the 
 end of the thirty-sixth verse, is our theological lecturer. 
 That criticism only which sees no impossibility in Jesus 
 having spoken the sixteenth verse of this chapter will see 
 110 impossibility in John the Baptist's having spoken the 
 
 * Tlie text of the Vatican manuscript is follo\\«ed. 
 
 2 John, xii, 47 ; vi, 47 ; xii, 6. ^ John, iii, 30.
 
 THE FOURTH GOSPEL FROM WITHIN. 327 
 
 thirty-sixth. But again our Evangelist is not inventing, 
 but developing. He has certain genuine iogia of Jesus as 
 his basis, the chief of them being that which we have 
 already quoted : ' He that believeth on me hath everlast- 
 ing life.' ' He has these iogia with several variations of 
 phrase, indicating that they v.-ere used more than once, in 
 more connexions than one, perhaps by more than one 
 speaker. The speech of John the Baptist seems to him a 
 connexion eminently proper for them. The Baptist's real 
 words appear to him to imply their adoption and addi- 
 tion ; it appears to him natural and certain that the 
 Baptist adopted and added them. So we come to have 
 John the Baptist saying : * He that believeth on the Son 
 hath everlasting life ; but he that believeth not the Son 
 hath not life, but the wrath of God abideth on him.' ■ 
 
 All that is said of ' the dogmatic mysticism, and arti- 
 ficial, prolix discourses' of the Fourth Gospel, all the 
 |bomplaints of its substituting 'for the sublime and preg- 
 Jiiant discourses of the Sea of Galilee and the Mount of 
 Olives the arid mysticism ciLthe -schools of Alexandria^, 
 will be found, we think, so far as they are just, to be best 
 
 ' John, \i, 47. Tlie true sense is given by Jesus in a logioti 
 quoted v, 24 : but the theme itself, in its most concise and authentic 
 form, is probably the verse at vi, 47, in the reading of the Vatican 
 manuscript, which omits on mc, and has simply, 6 Tnartvuv ex*' 
 faiiV aidiviov. - John, iii, 36.
 
 328 GOD AND THE BIBLE. 
 
 met by the supposition of a Greek editor connecting, 
 repeating, and amplifying themes of Jesus ; not by the 
 supposition of a consummate artist inventing the whole 
 Gospel. The kernel of the work, the fundamental themes 
 of Jesus, we maintain to be no ' arid mysticism ' at all, 
 but to be in profound unison with ' the sublime and 
 pregnant discourses of the Sea of Galilee and the Mount 
 of Olives.' And we do not see who was capable of utter- 
 ing them but Jesus. Unless our Evangelist invented 
 them, we do not see from whom he can have get them, 
 except from Jesus ; and, indeed, it is not even contended 
 that he got them from any one else. But it is contended, 
 in defiance of all the tradition, that he himself invented 
 them. But to us it seems incredible, even on grounds of 
 literary criticism solely, that the man who was such a 
 consummate artist as to invent for Jesus the first part of 
 his conversation with Nicodemus should have followed it 
 up by the second. It seems incredible, again, that a dra- 
 matic genius capable of inventing for John the Baptist : 
 'He that hath the bride is the bridegroom, but the friend of 
 the bridegroom, who standeth and heareth him, rejoiceth 
 greatly because of the bridegroom's voice ; this my joy 
 therefore is fulfilled,' ' — it seems incredible that such a 
 genius should have finished the Baptist's speech by 
 
 ' John, iii, 29.
 
 THE FOURTH GOSPEL FROM WITHIN. 329 
 
 making him say : ' He that believeth not the Son shall 
 not see hfe, but the wrath of God abideth on him.' ' And 
 the question, whether this is incredible or no, we would 
 cheerfully consent to submit to the judgment of any 
 competent tribunal ; only the judges constituting the 
 tribunal ought not to be the professors of the theological 
 faculties of Germany, but Germans like Lessing, Herder, 
 and Goethe. 
 
 It is certain that what is theological lecture in the 
 speeches of Jesus comes not from him but from his 
 editor. But a treasure of logia rem ains, which have all 
 the characters of genuine sayings of Jesus, and which are 
 iiivaiuablc as indicating the line really taken by him. 
 The bread of life, the true vine, the good s/ief/ierd, the 
 light of the loorld, are all of them images from the Old 
 Testament, such as the hearers of Jesus were familiar 
 with and gladly heard, such as philosophers like Philo were 
 at that time copiously employing for their allegorical 
 theology, such as Jesus himself loved naturally and used 
 instinctively, and such as he could and did make admir- 
 ably helpful to his main design. That design was, it can- 
 not be too often repeated, to change the popular Messias- 
 ideal ; and what stroke towards such an end could be at 
 once more happy and more characteristic of Jesus than 
 
 ' John, iii, 36.
 
 OJ^ 
 
 GOD AND THE BIBLE. 
 
 Avhen, for example, calling himself the UgJit of the world,'^ 
 he in a moment identified for his followers his ideal of 
 mildness and self-renouncement with the famous world- 
 light of Messianic prophecy : ' It is a small thing that thou 
 shouldest be my servant to raise up the tribes of Jacob, 
 and to restore the preserved of Israel : I will also give 
 thee for a light of the Gentiles^ that my salvation may be 
 imto the ends of the earth ? ' ^ Strokes like these belong 
 essentially to Jesus, and it is an unsound criticism which 
 can think of assigning them to our theological lecturer. 
 
 Many, too, of the objections brought against logia of 
 the Fourth Gospel are frivolous, and merely show the 
 bringer's want of imagination. It is objected that Jesus 
 cannot have said : ' As Moses lifted up the serpent in the 
 wilderness, so shall the Son of Man be lifted up,' ^ because 
 he could not have foreseen the manner of his own death. 
 But he fixed on the most miserable kind of death as his 
 fitting and sure climax ; and Plato, following up a sup- 
 posed sufferer to his climax of misery, fixes, we shall 
 find, upon the very same : — ' Finally,' says he, ' we will 
 suppose him cnicificd' ^ It is objected that Jesus cannot 
 have said to his disciples things like : He that eatcth vie 
 shall live by jne,^ because the disciples were certain to 
 
 ' John, viii, 12. ^ Isaiah, xlix, 6. ^ John, iii, 14. 
 
 ■* riato, Goj-gias, cap. xxviii. * John, vi, 57.
 
 THE FOURTH GOSPEL FROM WITHIN. 331 
 
 misunderstand them, and he would not have said things 
 they must misunderstand. This is a most extraordinary 
 objection. One can account for it only by the strong 
 reluctance of mankind to recognise the gulf between 
 every great spirit and themselves. To this day, whoever 
 reads a controversy about the Real Presence, will find 
 Christians, — and learned Christians, — misapprehending 
 the words of Jesus about eating him, even after he himself 
 has supplied the plain explanation of them,' as totally as 
 did the Jews ; will find the Christian theologians stumbling 
 and fumbling, just like the Jewish theologians, in their 
 gross, dark, narrow materialism. Half of what any great 
 spirit says is sure to be misapprehended by his hearers ; 
 much more than half of what Jesus said was sure to be 
 misapprehended by his disciples. If he talked to them 
 at all, he could not but talk to them as he did. And if 
 he talked to them as he did, taking their language about 
 God, the Messiah, bread from heaven, life and death, and 
 translating it into that of his higher ideal, they could not 
 but misunderstand him. Yet he could not but talk to 
 them, and they could not but reap some benefit from it. 
 "What Christianity has done up to this time is the measure 
 of the benefit which Jesus, even imperfectly apprehended, 
 could produce; and that benefit has been something 
 
 ' John, vi, 63.
 
 332 GOD AND THE BIBLE. 
 
 immense. But such are the necessary conditions on which 
 a great spirit speaks to those -who hear his word. They 
 understand him imperfectly; nevertheless, they appropriate 
 what they can of him, and get helped along by it somehow. 
 Let us look closer at the very logion, the famous logioti, 
 last quoted, and observe how in itself it is an entirely 
 probable saying of Jesus, and how its improbability all 
 comes from its editor's treatment of it. The logion is 
 exactly what we call a primitive theme, a nucleus. Our 
 Evangelist composed, of course, his sixth chapter with 
 the institution of the Last Supper full in his view, and 
 with the words, T/iis is my body, TJiis is viy Mood, ever 
 present to his thoughts. But he had anterior incidents and 
 words to go upon. He had a story from John, how the 
 Jews, with the multitude's faith in miracles and desire to 
 get them worked for its benefit, had required Jesus, as 
 the alleged ' prophet like unto Moses,' to feed them mira- 
 culously as Moses did. Was it not \\Titten in the Scrip- 
 tures : ' He gave them bread from heaven to eat ? ' ^ 
 Our Evangelist, we say, had a tradition from John of say- 
 ings and answers which this demand of the Jews had called 
 forth. Jesus had said : ' Labour not for the meat that 
 perisheth, but for the meat that endureth unto everlasting 
 life.'^ He had said : 'Not Moses gave you the bread 
 ' Ps. Lxxviii, 24. - John, vi, 27.
 
 THE FOURTH GOSPEL FROM WITHIN. 333 
 
 from heaven, but my Father giveth you the true bread 
 from heaven.' ' ' Give us then this bread,' ^ was the 
 Jews' rejoinder. Jesus liad answered : ' He that be- 
 heveth hath everlasting hfe ; he that heareth my word, 
 and beheveth him that sent me, hath everlasting life. I 
 am the bread of life ! I am the bread that came down 
 from heaven ! He that cometh to me shall never hunger, 
 and he that believeth on me shall never thirst ! Not a^ 
 your fathers did eat manna in the wilderness and are 
 dead ; he that eateth this bread shall live for ever.' ^ 
 The Jews, with their keen sensuousness, were familiar 
 Avith the image of God's word as something to feed on, 
 something good to eat and pleasant to taste. It is 
 written in the Psalms : ' How sweet are thy words unto 
 my taste, yea, sweeter than honey unto my mouth ! ' ■* 
 But they exclaimed, when Jesus called himself the bread 
 from heaven : ' Is not this Jesus the son of Joseph, 
 whose father and mother we know ? how saith he that / 
 am come dmvnfrom heaven ? how can he give us his flesh 
 to eat?'^ Then Jesus had answered: 'As the living 
 Father sent me, and I live by the Father, so he that 
 eateth me, he also shall live by me.' ^ 
 
 > John, vi, 32. 2 jo5in, vi, 34. 
 
 ^ John, vi, 41, 47^ (compare V, 24), 48, 58, and 49. 
 
 *■ Psalm, cxix, 103. * John, vi, 42, 52. • John, vi, 57.
 
 334 GOD AND THE BIBLE. 
 
 These we may take as the primitive themes out of 
 which our Evangehst's sixth chapter is built up. Other 
 genuine login are worked into it. But they are worked 
 into it ; they are not its essential elements. Most prob- 
 ably, too, the primitive themes were several times reite- 
 rated by Jesus, not without some variation. But we 
 shall hardly err if we take the primitive themes above 
 given, as our nearest possible approach to what Jesu^ and 
 his interlocutors did actually say. And this substratum 
 being committed to our combining and amplifying Greek 
 editor, how natural and explicable becomes the appari- 
 tion, in the chapter, of those sayings which now stagger 
 every serious critic ! It is almost inconceivable, if one 
 thinks of it, that Jesus should have actually said in the 
 conversation in question : ' Except ye eat the flesh of the 
 Son of Man and drink his blood, ye have no life in 
 yourselves ; he that eateth my flesh and drinketh my 
 blood hath everlasting life, and I will raise him up in the 
 last day ; for my flesh is meat indeed, and my blood is 
 drink indeed.' ' But it is perfectly conceivable that he 
 should have said, the image of the bread from heaven 
 being once started : '■ I am the bread of life ! lie tJiat eateth 
 me shall live by me! ' ^ and that our editor being such a 
 
 ' John, vi, 53-55. 
 
 2 John, vi, 48, 57. For the current conception of the word of 
 God as a bread of life, see Jesus himself quoting Deuteronomy
 
 THE FOURTH GOSPEL FROM WITHIN. 335 
 
 man as we suppose, and having the words of institution of 
 the Last Supper swaying his mind, should by his mode 
 of combining, reiterating and developing these primitive 
 themes, when he had them to place, have turned them into 
 such speeches of Jesus as now puzzle us. 
 
 For, again, it is almost inconceivable that Jesus should 
 have really said : ' For the bread of God is he tJiaf 
 co7neth down from heaven, and that giveth life unto the 
 world : ' or that he should have said : ' I am conic down 
 fro}7i heaven, not to do mine own will, but the will of him 
 that sent me.' ' But it is entirely natural that our editor, 
 having such primitive themes of Jesus as: 'I am the 
 bread that came down from heaven ! I am the bread of 
 life ! I came not to do mine own will, but the will of him 
 that sent me ! ' '^ should have combined them and deve- 
 loped them in the way he does. It is almost inconceiv- 
 able that after saying, ' It is vvritten in the prophets : And 
 they shall be all taught of God I Every one that heareth 
 and learneth from the Father cometh unto me,' — Jesus 
 
 (viii, 3) in Matth., iv, 4 : 'Man shall not live by bread alone, but by 
 every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God ; ' and sec, too, 
 Philo, in his Sacraniiti Leginii Allt'gon\c (Mangey's edit., vol. i, 
 p. 120) : iipis TTjs 'I'l'X')* Tpo<p)]v o'la etrTiV ; Ao'-yoy Oeov ffvyex^^t 
 (oiKws tp6ffu\ K. T. A. Only it is to be observed, in general, that 
 while an allegorising theologian, such as Philo, uses images of this 
 kind like a pedant, Jesus uses them like a poet. 
 
 » John, vi, 33, 38. - John, vi, 41, 48, 38.
 
 336 GOD AND THE BIBLE. 
 
 should have subjoined the remark : ' Not that any man 
 hath seen the Father, save he who is from God ; he hath 
 seen the Father.' ^ An addition of this kind is inconceiv- 
 able from Jesus, because both the matter and the manner 
 of it are the clean opposite of his. But it was in entire 
 conformity with our theological lecturer's notion and 
 style, after giving the genuine logia of Jesus, to complete 
 and guard the sense of them, as he fancied, by the ampli- 
 fying clauses. 
 
 6. 
 
 \ We might go through the Fourth Gospel chapter by 
 chapter, and endeavour to assign to each and all of the 
 logia in it their right character, — to determine what in 
 them is probably Jesus, and what is the combming, re- 
 peating, and expanding Greek editor. But this would be 
 foreign to our object. We seek, not to produce a com- 
 • plete work of ingenious criticism on the Bible, or on any 
 one document in it, but to help readers, sick of popular 
 and conventional theology, and resolved to take the Bible 
 for nothing but what it really is, — to help such readers to 
 
 1 see what the Bible really is, and how very much ^seen as. 
 
 \ _it rea lly is, it concerns thenii^' So we sou ght to_jho>v 
 jhatlhe Old Testament is really a mnjpc;tiV Virnpnap \n 
 
 ' John, vi, 45, 46. 
 
 'I
 
 THE FOURTH GOSPEL FROM WITHIN. 337 
 
 the grandeur of rig hteousness, or conduct, and a sublime^ 
 witness to its necessity \ while the New Testament, again, 
 .is_ceal]Y an incomparable elucidation by Jesus Christ of 
 what righteousness in fact and in truth is. And there 
 can be no question that books of which tliis is the real 
 character do concern men vitally. So, again, we seek to 
 show that of Jesus Christ's incomparable elucidation of 
 what righteousness is, several main elements are really to 
 be found in the Fourth Gospel. In that case it urgently 
 concerns people to study the Fourth Gospel, instead of 
 tossing it aside as a Gnostic forgery, crammed with ' the 
 arid mysticism of the schools of Alexandria.' But to 
 lead men to study it, and to clear out of their way ob- 
 jections which might for ever prevent their studying it, 
 is our aim ; when we have accomplished this, we have 
 accomplished as much as we intend. 
 
 But to restore perfectly the Jesus of the Fourth Gospel, 
 or, indeed of any Gospel, is impossible. The data are 
 insufficient, and the alteration, often important though 
 perhaps verbally slight, which his sayings have undergone 
 from the pressure of other minds upon them, is too con- 
 siderable. Our restoration must frequently be conjec- 
 tural, and we may be \vrong in our conjectures. \Ye do 
 not pretend that we could establish as clear and certain 
 our criticism of every passage, or nearly every passage, in
 
 338 GOD AND THE BIBLE. 
 
 the Fourth Gospel, supposing we were to go through it 
 with our reader. And even if we could save him from one 
 or two mistakes by not merely giving him the guiding 
 ideas with whicli to read the Gospel for himself, but by 
 going through it with him, our object is not to make as 
 faultless a critic of him as possible, but to keep him in 
 contact with a book which will do him good, and to make 
 him study it for himself. If he thinks it spurious, he is not 
 likely to study it; but we try to show him that it is full of 
 genuine things, and to give him the guiding ideas by 
 which to account for the things that made the charge 
 of spuriousness seem plausible, and by which to extricate 
 the things that are genuine. 
 
 Nor let this be esteemed a slight assistance, or the 
 abandoning him to uncertainty. What is uncertain, what 
 a reader may frequently not determine right, and what 
 we might not determine right if we came to help him, is 
 the occasion on which each particular saying was uttered 
 and the connexion to which it belongs. But the main 
 doubt as to the Gospel's genuineness arose from the 
 occasion assigned and the connexion given by our Evan- 
 gelist to his stock of 'Sayings of the Lord.' jNow, we 
 show that his circumstances and literary procedure were 
 such that the occasion and connexion imposed by him 
 on his logia arc not to be trustedj We may be tempted
 
 THE FOURTH GOSPEL FROM WITHIN. 359 
 
 to try and restore the right occasion and connexion, and 
 in this work, there must necessarily be some uncertainty. 
 But if we stop quite short of this, if we simply set aside 
 our Evangelist's combinations as untnistworthy, then we 
 leave to the logia of Jesus in the Fourth Gospel, — those 
 of them which are not manifestly theological develop- 
 ments and exercitations by our lecturer, — the character 
 of maxim-like, isolated sayings, complete in themselves. 
 Now, the teaching of Jesus, as of the nation and race to 
 which he belonged, really had in general this character. 
 His deliverances were ' concise utterances touching the 
 things of concernment to the truth.' And for practical 
 use among Christians it is in this way, — as maxims, de- 
 tached sayings, — that they are in fact generally employed ; 
 and it is when they are employed in this way that their 
 practical usefulness is greatest. As single sayings the 
 mind ruminates them, turns them over and over, feeds 
 upon them. For a critical curiosity, then, we may not 
 yet have done enough, when we have established that 
 instead of taking the sayings of Jesus in that connexion 
 wherein the Fourth Gospel places them, it is far safer to 
 take them as detached sayings. But for the practical use 
 of the contents of the Fourth Gospel we have by this 
 means done very much. 
 
 Jesus, no doubt, did not in his discourse deliver 
 
 z 2
 
 340 GOD AND THE BIBLE. 
 
 sentences articulated in the Greek fashion one to 
 another. He dehvered sentences juxtaposed in the 
 Semitic fashion one to another. Because in the Fourth 
 Gospel his sentences are articulated in the Greek fashion, 
 those sentences have been confidently pronounced not to 
 be sayings of Jesus^jBut the logion of Jesus is there ; 
 often, in order to get at it, we have only to drop the 
 ek editor's conjunctions. For instance ; suppose we 
 take the sayings which form the speech of Jesus at the 
 end of the twelfth chapter, from the forty-fourth verse to 
 the fiftieth. As a connected speech Jesus did not deliver 
 those sayings ; our Evangelist has made them into one 
 speech for him. But drop the conjunctions and the 
 connecting clauses, and there is not a logmi there to 
 offend, singly, even a jealous criticism ; there is not one 
 which does not show the characteristic and satisfying 
 mark of Jesus. 
 
 Our great point, then, as to the Fourth Gospel is this : 
 the Evangelist is a combiner, not an inventor. It is his 
 forms of connecting and articulating which obscure the 
 gnomic character of the sayings of the Lord in this Gos- 
 i)el ; get rid of those forms, and the gnomic and genuine 
 character reappears. Our Evangelist had a number of 
 logia to plant. He did not, lie could not, know their 
 true connexion ; and the connexion he imposes on them
 
 THE FOURTH GOSPEL FROM WITHIN. 341 
 
 is not to be depended upon. Often we, studying ([uietly 
 his work as it lies before us complete, can perceive a 
 better connexion for certain logia than that which he has 
 devised for them. Almost certainly, the last half of the 
 fourteenth verse and the first half of the fifteenth, in 
 the tenth chapter, have their right place not where we 
 now read them but in the twenty-seventh verse of the 
 same chapter. The twenty-seventh verse should run : 
 * My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they 
 know me, as the Father knoweth me, and I know the 
 Father ; and they follow me.' The thirtieth verse of the 
 same chapter (' I and the Father are one ') has almost 
 certainly its right place, not where it stands, but side by 
 side with the logion in the fourteenth chapter, * He that 
 hath seen me hath seen the Father,' ' and in a similar 
 connexion. Almost certainly the fourteenth verse of the 
 twentieth chapter, ' He that receiveth whomsoever I send 
 receiveth me, and he that receiveth me receiveth him 
 that sent me,' is misplaced where it stands, and should 
 go with the sixteenth verse of the fifteenth chapter, the 
 eighteenth verse of the seventeenth, and the twenty-first 
 of the twentieth,^ and in a similar connexion. Almost 
 
 ' John, xiv, 9. 
 
 ^ ' I liave appointed you that ye should go and bring forth fruit, 
 and that your fruit should remain.' 'As Thou sentest me into the
 
 342 GOD AND THE BIBLE. 
 
 certainly tlie four verses from the twenty-second to the 
 twenty-fifth, in the fifteenth chapter, belong to a con- 
 nexion such as that in the eighth chapter, were said to 
 the Jews not to the Apostles, and are a mere unseason- 
 able repetition, put by our Evangelist into the mouth of 
 Jesus speaking to his disciples, of things which he had 
 previously said to the Jews. But we can never be abso- 
 lutely sure of finding the real original connexion for any 
 logion of this kind ; the safe thing is to distrust our 
 Evangelist's connexion, and to take the logia singly. Even 
 where the)'' have a dramatic propriety and beauty as joined 
 together by our Evangelist, it is often very questionable 
 whether Jesus thus joined them, whether we are not more 
 on the trace of Jesus when we take them singly. Nothing 
 can well be finer or more impressive than the speech 
 formed by the series of logia ' attributed to Jesus after 
 Andrew tells him of the Greeks desiring to see him. But 
 it is highly improbable that Jesus did actually thus deliver 
 these logia as a series, and in one speech, and on one 
 occasion ; although we may grant ewery logion in the series 
 to be in itself authentic, and of the very highest value. 
 
 Now, it is wonderful how the likelihood of our having 
 as the substance of the Fourth Gospel genuine sayings of 
 
 ■world, so send I them into tlie world.' 'As my Father hath sent 
 me, even so send I you.' 
 ' John, xii, 23-26.
 
 THE FOURTH GOSPEL FROM WITHIN. 343 
 
 Jesus will be found to gain, and the unlikelihood of it to 
 dwindle, the moment we come to disregard our Evan- 
 gelist's combinations, and to suppress his repetitions and 
 lecturings. Let us take the series of chapters against 
 which so much of objection has been brought, the series 
 from tlie twelfth cliapter to the end of the seventeenth. 
 They form almost one continuous speech, and most 
 certainly they were not spoken as such. They contain, 
 also, repetitions which Jesus, to judge from everything 
 that we know of his manner, cannot have made, and 
 some things which he cannot have said at all. It is easy 
 to see this, and to reject the whole series of chapters as 
 unauthentic. But a little attention will show us a number 
 of primitive themes, or luicici, on which our Evangelist 
 is operating ; and that these themes, — to judge, again, 
 from everything that we know of the manner of Jesus, — 
 have all the marks of being authentic. And we may 
 with profit try to get back to what Jesus can have actually 
 said; only we must be careful, in attempting this, to dis- 
 tinguish between what is certain, and what can only be 
 called probable. 
 
 For example. The governing word of our scries of 
 chapters is certainly the word uTrnyw, — I go away. And 
 the chapters have their reason for existence, certainly, in 
 a development by Jesus of this governing word. And
 
 344 GOD AND THE BIBLE. 
 
 that development is : av/j-fipn 'iva cnriXQiv,^ — // /s expe- 
 dient that I depart. And the form of this development 
 is certainly twofold at least : avfififjei lfj.01, (xvpcpip^i 
 v^~ii', — // is expedient for vie, It is expedient for you. It 
 is expedient for me, because I go to the Father.^ It is 
 expedient for you, because the Paraclete's coming to you 
 depends on my going from you.^ This, we say, seems 
 certain. And to us it seems probable that there is also 
 a third development given by Jesus to his / go away ; 
 and that this development is : avii(j)ipEi -w /.-oa/iw, — // is 
 cxpedietii for the world. We find this third development in 
 the words of Jesus : ' Ye shall weep and lament, but the 
 world shall rejoice ; ye shall be sorrowful, but your sor- 
 row shall be turned into joy, A woman when she is in 
 travail hath sorrow, because her hour is come ; but as 
 soon as she is delivered of the child she remembereth no 
 more her anguish, for joy that a man is born into the 
 world.' ^ Combined as our Evangelist combines them, 
 these words appear to mean, no doubt, that the world, 
 the wicked world, shall exult in the sufferings and death 
 of Jesus ; and so the commentators take them. But we 
 cannot help thinking, that, as Jesus spoke them, they were 
 words to be classed with the texts : ' I am come a light 
 
 'to' 
 
 • John, xvi, 7. " John, xiv, 28. 
 
 ' John, xvi, 7. ■* John, xvi, 20, 21.
 
 THE FOURTH GOSPEL FROM WITHIN. 345 
 
 into the world, that whoso believeth on me should not 
 abide in darkness:' 'A light to lighten the Gentiles ; ' 
 * One flock, one shepherd.' ' We believe that they really- 
 mean, not, TJie world shall exult at my death, but, My death 
 is good for the world as well as for you a fid me ; and that 
 they are a tliird and admirable development given to the 
 ground-motive of our chapters, vituyw. This we believe ; 
 and perhaps if we were in a professor's chair at Tiibingen, 
 we should say that we could and did demonstrate it. 
 Rut being what we are, we say that it is not demon- 
 strable, indeed, nor yet with such overwhelming probabi- 
 lity in its favour as to seem certain ; — the evidence is not 
 such as to admit of its being either the one or the other. 
 But we say that it is probable ; and that it has so much 
 to recommend it that we ourselves believe it. 
 
 That Jesus, however, uttered a great deal of what is 
 attributed to him in the series of chapters from tlie 
 twelfth to the seventeenth, that he gave the primitive 
 themes which are the basis of them, that the combination 
 of the themes is the Evangelist's, and that by tlie Evan- 
 gelist Jesus is made to repeat himself over and over again, 
 to connect things as he never connected them, and to say 
 things which he never said, we regard as so probable that 
 
 becomes certain. For the primitive themes are in the 
 ' John, xii, 46; Luke, ii, 32 ; Jclin, x, 16.
 
 346 GOD AND THE BIBLE. 
 
 characteristic manner of Jesus, and we do not see from 
 whom else they can have proceeded. The combination, 
 repetition and development of the themes are in the 
 characteristic manner of the Evangelist. 
 
 The governing word of the chapters under review has 
 been just now mentioned. In a former part of our argu- 
 ment, we had occasion to single out one or two of their 
 primitive themes. Besides these, which we showed to be 
 the nucleus of sayings delivering Jesus Christ's own real 
 doctrine about his own resurrection, there is the parable 
 of the heavenly house with its many mansions, a parable 
 which is the Evangelist's authentic nucleus for unauthentic 
 combinations and developments favourable to the popular 
 doctrine of the resurrection. ' There is the parable of the 
 vine and the branches, illustrating that primitive theme 
 of Jesus : Abide in mc and I in youP' There are the new 
 commandment ; the promise of the Paraclete ; the pro- 
 mise that the disciples' requests should be heard ; the 
 exhortation not to fear the world's hatred ; the prayer for 
 the disciples ; the sayings of Jesus about his glory ; the 
 sayings about his relation to the Father. All of these 
 have their primitive theme or themes ; all of them are 
 connected, introduced and re-introduced, and more or 
 
 ' John, xiv, 2, 3 ; compared with xvi, 22, and xvii, 24. 
 "^ John, XV, 4.
 
 THE FOURTH Li OS PEL FROM WITH IX. 347 
 
 less developed by our Evangelist. Now, if the render 
 simply takes all the sayings belonging to each theme, and 
 puts them together, he will do what is very conducive 
 both to a right enjoyment of this series of chapters, and 
 to a right criticism of them. On the one -hand, he will 
 bring out the beauty and significance of the genuine 
 sayings of Jesus ; on the other, he will bring out how 
 much is evidently repetition, serving to introduce our 
 Evangelist's developments. We should like our reader 
 to distribute under the heads or themes indicated all the 
 sayings for each theme, and then to judge them for 
 himself, ^^'e will, however, taking one or two themes 
 not hitherto touched by us, show him at least how true 
 it is that by the process we recommend both objects are 
 serv'ed : the right enjoyment of our Evangelist's mate- 
 rials, and the right criticism of them. 
 
 First, as to the enjoyment of what our Evangelist has, 
 in these chapters, saved for us. We will simply put to- 
 gether the scattered logia about tlie new commandment, 
 making the subject begin where it naturally does beings 
 with the sayings of Jesus after he has washed the disci- 
 ples' feet at the Last Supper. ' Know ye what I have done 
 unto you ? Ye call me Master and Lord, and ye say 
 well, for so I am. If I then, your Master and Lord, 
 have washed your feet, ye also ought to wash one an-
 
 348 GOD AND THE BIBLE. 
 
 other's feet. For I have given you an example that ye also 
 should do as I have done to you. Verily I say unto you, 
 the servant is not greater than his lord, neither is he that 
 is sent greater than he that sent him. A new command- 
 ment give I unto you, that ye love one another ; as I 
 have loved you, that ye also love one anotlier. Hereby 
 shall all men know that ye are my disciples, if ye have 
 love one to another. This is my commandment, that ye 
 love one another as I have loved you. Greater love hath 
 no man than this, that a man lay down his life for his 
 friends. Ye are my friends, if ye do that which I com- 
 mand you. Ye have not chosen me, but I have chosen 
 you. Henceforth I call you not servants, for the ser- 
 vant knoweth not wliat his lord doeth ; but I have 
 called you friends, for all things that I hear of my Father 
 I make known unto you. These things I command you, 
 that ye love one another.' ^ All these sentences we may 
 take as genuine logia. Relieved from the separation 
 which the Evangelist, for the purposes of his long dis- 
 course and its developments, inflicts on them, simply put 
 together again as by their subject they belong together, 
 how their effectiveness and impressiveness increases, how 
 heightened is our enjoyment of them ! 
 
 And next, as to the right criticism of our Evangelist's 
 
 » John, xiii, I2_i6, 34, 35; xv, 12-17.
 
 THE FOURTH GOSPEL FROM WITHIN. 349 
 
 mode of procedure. Let us take another theme, the 
 primitive theme for all which is said about the disciples' 
 requests being granted, the words : * "WHiatsoever ye shall 
 ask in my name, I will do it.' ^ Let us put with these 
 words all the scattered repetitions of this same theme, 
 some of them A\ith a little variation, others in words almost 
 identical with the logion we have quoted. "When we see 
 them all together, we see that by all the repetitions nothing 
 is really added, either in the substance or in the form of 
 expression, to the primitive theme; — nothing is gained. 
 The primitive theme, then, alone is from Jesus. The re- 
 petitions are our Evangelist's, to enable Jesus to make a 
 long, connected speech, such as Jesus never dealt in, such 
 as is quite alien to his manner. Now, it is argued that the 
 logia proper to the Fourth Gospel are all of them inventions, 
 because they are unmeaningly and vainly repeated. But 
 is the ineffective repetition, several times, of a logion, any 
 reason why Jesus should not have given it witli effect once? 
 The same with the sayings of Jesus about his glory. 
 It is argued that the frequent and earnest insistence on 
 his glory, particularly in the long prayer of the seven- 
 \ teenth chapter, is not at all in tlie style of Jesus and 
 \ cannot be his. As the Evangelist presents and deve- 
 lops it, we will own it cannot. But let us put together 
 
 ^ ' John, .\iv, 13.
 
 350 GOD AND THE BIBLE. 
 
 all the sayings of Jesus about his glory, going back for 
 this purpose as far even as the eleventh chapter, where is 
 the first apparition of them, and we shall be able to see, 
 both what Jesus may probably have said on the subject, 
 and how the Evangelist has probably dealt with it. 
 First of all, we find a primitive theme entirely in the 
 style of Jesus, in his exclamation when he heard from 
 Andrew and Philip of the Gentiles, or as our Evangelist 
 calls them, the Greeks, present at the last Passover that 
 he kept and desirous to see him: 'The hour is come that 
 the Son of Man should be glorified ! ' ' In all the Four 
 Gospels there is not a saying of Jesus more safe to accept 
 than this, more perfectly in character. To Jesus, these 
 foreigners desiring to see him were the Gentiles, the 
 nations. The Messiah, of whom the Jews had their 
 minds full, he stedfastly identified, we know, with the 
 mild and stricken Servant of prophecy, ' his visage so 
 marred more than any man, and his form more than the 
 sons of men,' ^ and himself with this Messiah. He knew 
 that the victory of this Messiah and of his cause could 
 only come when he had 'poured out his soul unto death. ' ^ 
 "What was that victory? It was the foundation, and 
 henceforth unconquerable institution for the world at 
 large, of the kingdom of God, the reign of righteousness. 
 ' John, xii, 23. - Isaiah, lii, 14. ^ Isaiah, liii, 12.
 
 THE FOURTH GOSPEL FROM WITHIN. 351 
 
 ' The Eternal will cause righteousness and praise to 
 spring forth before all nations ; I will set my glory among 
 the heathen ; from the rising of the sun even unto the 
 going down of the same my name shall be great among 
 the Gentiles.' ' But to bring in the reign of righteousness, 
 was to bring in the Eternal's glory ; and the Servant who 
 brought in this, founded his own by doing so. ^\'e ma\- 
 conceive of many and various texts as contributing here. 
 Texts originally proper to the despised Servant, the 
 Messias-ideal of Jesus : ' So shall many nations exult in 
 him; kings shall shut their mouth before him.'^ Texts 
 originally proper to the renewed Israel : ' The Gentiles 
 shall see thy righteousness, and all kings thy glory.' ^ 
 Texts originally proper to the righteous man in general : 
 ' Thou shall guide me with thy counsel, and afterwards 
 receive me to glory.' ** Texts originally proper to the 
 conquering Root of David, the i\Iessias-ideal of the Jews : 
 '■ His rest shall be glory.' -^ All these we may conceive as 
 present and contributory in the mind of Jesus, when, 
 seeing his death imminent, and hearing at the same time 
 of the strangers desirous to see him, he said : ' The hour 
 is come that the Son of Man should be glorified ! ' 
 
 But once this primitive theme given, how natural that 
 
 ■ Isaiah, Ixi, ii ; Ezekiel, xxxix, 21 ; Malaclii, i, il. 
 Isaiah, Hi, 15. ^ Isaiah, Ixii, 2. 
 
 Psalm Ixxiii, 24. * Isaiah, xi, 10. 
 
 1
 
 350 GOD AND THE BIBLE. 
 
 all the sayings of Jesus about his glory, going back for 
 this purpose as far even as the eleventh chapter, where is 
 the first apparition of them, and we shall be able to see, 
 both what Jesus may probably have said on the subject, 
 and how the Evangelist has probably dealt with it. 
 First of all, we find a primitive theme entirely in the 
 style of Jesus, in his exclamation when he heard from 
 Andrew and Philip of the Gentiles, or as our Evangelist 
 calls them, the Greeks, present at the last Passover that 
 he kept and desirous to see him: 'The hour is come that 
 the Son of Man should be glorified ! ' ^ In all the Four 
 Gospels there is not a saying of Jesus more safe to accept 
 than this, more perfectly in character. To Jesus, these 
 foreigners desiring to see him were the Gentiles, the 
 nations. The Messiah, of whom the Jews had their 
 minds full, he stedfastly identified, we know, with the 
 mild and stricken Servant of prophecy, ' his visage so 
 marred more than any man, and his form more than the 
 sons of men,' ^ and himself with this Messiah. He knew 
 that the victory of this Messiah and of his cause could 
 only come when he had 'poured out his soul unto death. ' ^ 
 What was that victory? It was the foundation, and 
 henceforth unconquerable institution for the world at 
 large, of the kingdom of God, the reign of righteousness. 
 ' John, xii, 23. - Isaiah, lii, 14. ^ Isaiah, liii, 12.
 
 THE FOURTH GOSPEL FRO}r U'/TH/N. 
 
 351 
 
 ' The Eternal will cause righteousness and praise to 
 spring forth before all nations ; I will set my glory among 
 the heathen ; from the rising of the sun even unto the 
 going down of the same my name shall be great among 
 the Gentiles.' ' But to bring in the reign of righteousness, 
 was to bring in the Eternal's glory ; and the Servant who 
 brought in this, founded his own by doing so. We may 
 conceive of many and various te.\ts as contributing here. 
 Te.xts originally proper to the despised Servant, the 
 Messias-ideal of Jesus : 'So shall many nations exult in 
 him; kings shall shut their mouth before him.'^ Texts 
 originally proper to the renewed Israel : ' The Gentiles 
 shall see thy righteousness, and all kings thy glory.' ^ 
 Texts originally proper to the righteous man in general : 
 ' Thou shall guide me with thy counsel, and afterwards 
 receive me to glory.' * Texts originally proper to the 
 concpiering Root of Da\-id, the Messias-ideal of the Jews : 
 '■ His rest shall be glory.''' All these we may conceive as 
 present and contributory in the mind of Jesus, when, 
 seeing his death imminent, and hearing at the same time 
 of the strangers desirous to see him, he said : ' The hour 
 is come that the Son of Man should be glorified ! ' 
 
 But once this primitive theme given, how natural that 
 
 • Isaiah, Ixi, II ; Ezekicl, xxxix, 2I ; Malaclii, i, ii. 
 Isaiah, lii, 15. ^ Isaiah, Ixii, 2. 
 
 Psalm Ixxiii, 24. * Isaiah, .\i, 10.
 
 352 COD AND THE BIBLE. 
 
 our Evangelist should harp upon it, recur to it, develop 
 it ! The whole seventeenth chapter may be called a 
 development of this theme, and of one other : That 
 they may be one as we are one ! ^ It is as much in cha- 
 racter for a disciple to love to prolong the theme of 
 Christ's glory and dilate upon it, as it is little in character 
 for Jesus himself to do so. And the mode of develop- 
 ment followed is just the mode tempting to a disciple, — 
 Jew or Greek, — of Jesus, but never adopted or encour- 
 aged by Jesus himself. 
 
 Jesus checked questions of theosophy. He contented 
 himself ^^■ith taking the conception of God as the Jews 
 had it, and as the Old Testament delivered it, as the 
 eternal and righteous Father; and with saying of himself : 
 ' I came forth from God,' ' God sent me.' But questions 
 of theosophy had and have, as we see by the history of 
 Gnosticism, and, indeed, by the whole history of religion, 
 an irresistible attraction for the human mind. Men 
 asked themselves, as Tertullian says, Unde Dens ? — and 
 they loved to inquire, in like manner, precisely how 
 was Jesus related to his Father Avho sent him. In a 
 famous passage in the Book of Proverbs, "Wisdom 
 says of herself: ' The Lord possessed me m the begin- 
 ning of his way before his works of old ; I was set up 
 from everlasting. I was by him as one brought up with 
 
 ' 'Iva. Siaiv %v KaQiis rj/jius. See John, xvii, II, 2I-23.
 
 THE FOURTH GOSPEL FROM WITHIN. 353 
 
 him, and I was daily his delight.' ' The Book of Wisdom, 
 a late work, but for that very reason more likely to be 
 ])opular, and of which in the Epistle to the Hebrews we 
 can see the influence, added these striking traits : ' Wis- 
 dom is the breath of the power of God, and a pure influ- 
 ence flowing from the glory of the Almighty. Slie is the 
 brightness of the everlasting light, the unspotted mirror of 
 the power of Clod, and the image of his goodness.' ^ 
 Eagerly did theosophy possess itself of these images, 
 and spin its fancies by the help of two supposed person- 
 ages, Sophia and Logos, the Wisdom and ^Vord of God. 
 Jesus spoke of himself as uttering the word of God ; but 
 that he called himself the Logos, there is neither indica- 
 tion nor probability. There is, however, some trace of 
 his calling himself the ivisdom of God. At least, a saying 
 of the First Gospel, 'Wherefore, behold, /send unto you 
 prophets and wise men and scribes,' ^ is given in the 
 Third Gospel in the following different and remarkable 
 fonn : 'Wherefore also the wisdom of God said, I will 
 send unto them prophets and apostles.' ■• It is possible 
 that we have here a trace of Jesus having really and 
 
 ' Prov., viii, 22, 23, 30. 
 
 - Wisdom, vii, 25, 26. Compare airavyaffixa (pwrbs aiSiov . . . Kal 
 fiKciiv TTjj ayad6TrjTos aurov, in this passage, with //cl>., i, 3 : diroi- 
 yafffjuz TTJs SS^Tjs Kal xf^'ouc'^P ttjj viroJTafffufS ai/Tou. 
 
 3 Matth., xxiii, 34. * Luke, xi, 49. 
 
 A A
 
 354 GOD AND THE BIBLE. 
 
 naturally, on at least one occasion, called himself ' the 
 wisdom of God,' and having to that extent seemed to 
 give countenance to the personifying lucubrations upon 
 these terms Sophia and Logos, — the Wisdom, Reason, or 
 Word, of God, — of both Jewish and Greek theosophy. It is 
 possible ; possible that our Evangelist, in developing what 
 Jesus said of his glory, had thus much to go upon,i as well 
 as logi'a like ' Before Abraham was, I am,' and ' I and the 
 Father are one.' ^ At any rate, the glory of Jesus was 
 made to accord with that of the Sophia or Logos of theo- 
 sophical speculation, and with the attributes assigned to 
 them by Scripture. And so we have Jesus made to say : 
 * And now, Father, glorify thou me beside thine own self 
 with the glory which I had beside thee before the world 
 was.' 3 We have him saying : ' Father, that which thou 
 hast given me, I will that they also be with me where I 
 am, that they may see my glory which thou gavest me 
 because thou lovedst me before the foundation of the 
 world.' ^ These things are not at all in the manner of Jesus. 
 
 ' Perhaps, however, Jesus was simply referring to a well-known 
 phrase of prophecy : ' I have sent unto you all my servants the 
 prophets, rising up early and sending them ; but ye have not inclined 
 your ear nor hearkened unto me ' (see Jeremiah, xxxv, 15), and did 
 not mean either the Wisdom of God or the / to stand for himself. 
 
 ' John, viii, 58, and x, 30. 
 
 ' John, xvii, 5. 
 
 * John, xvii, 24. The Vatican manuscript is followed.
 
 THE FOURTH GOSPEL FROM WITHIN. 355 
 
 Jesus, as we have said, never theosophised. Not thus did 
 he employ Scripture, not thus did he estabh'sh his divinity, 
 not thus did he conceive his glory. But it is entirely in the 
 manner of our Evangelist. And this is the good of putting 
 together everything which relates to a primitive theme; 
 because we then are enabled to perceive clearly, both how 
 simple and characteristic was the original nucleus given by 
 Jesus, and also how naturally the additions to it which 
 perplex us may have arisen from the manipulation by the 
 Evangelist of this given nucleus, from his expansions and 
 developments of it. 
 
 7- 
 The seventeenth chapter is one where these expansions 
 and developments appear to exceed considerably in 
 amount the original nucleus. This is by no means always 
 the case in our Evangelist's report of the sayings of 
 Jesus. But in his report of miracles, and indeed in all 
 reports of miracles, we may safely take it that the addi- 
 tions exceed the original nucleus of fact very largely. 
 We said in our first chapter, that the suspension or dimi- 
 nution of hunger, when the attention is absorbed and the 
 interest excited, was quite basis enough for the story of 
 the miraculous feeding of the thousands. The answer 
 has positively been hazarded, that no absorption or 
 
 A A 2
 
 356 GOD AND THE BIBLE. 
 
 excitement could enable five thousand people to satisfy 
 themselves upon five loaves and two fishes, and to leave 
 twelve baskets fiiU of fragments. As if the details of a 
 miraculous story had the sort of solidity Avhich would 
 warrant one in thus gravely arguing upon them ! as if any 
 one who has come to distrust miracles trusts all the 
 circumstances related for them and only distrusts the 
 final result ! It is in the circumstances that the legend 
 consists, that the creative power of the imagination shows 
 itself active. Granted that a starting-point and a hint of 
 fact for the miracles related in our Gospels there has 
 nearly always been, yet in nine cases out of ten we shall 
 probably err if we imagine we can now seize even this hint 
 of fact; it was so slight in the first instance, and has been 
 so buried under the additions. 
 
 We have already remarked how perhaps the sole nucleus 
 of solid fact for the miraculous incidents at Christ's baptism 
 was that weird light on Jordan mentioned in the Apocry- 
 phal Gospels. Sometimes the nucleus for a miracle was 
 afforded, not improbably, by some saying of Jesus. 
 Perhaps this is the true way of accounting for the miracle 
 of the raising of Lazarus. The miracle of the raising of 
 Lazarus has been the theme of endless disquisition ; every 
 detail of it has been canvassed with elaborate minuteness. 
 What part of the details is solid we shall never know.
 
 THE I'OURTH GOSPEL FROM WITHIN. 357 
 
 But it may safely be said, that, the human mind being 
 ■what it is and stories of miracle arising as they do, the 
 juxtaposition of one or two sayings of Jesus is sufficient, 
 to an investigator willing to look at things simply, to 
 account for the whole miracle. Let us try to effect this 
 juxtaposition. 
 
 The crowning moment in the career of Jesus, as Jesus 
 himself construed and connected his own career, had 
 arrived, — the moment for 'the Messiah to suffer and to 
 -enter into his glor)-.' ' The hour is come that the Son of Man 
 should be glorified!'^ At this moment Jesus is told of the 
 death of a taithful disciple and friend. He says to his 
 followers : Our friend Lazarus slcepeth ; I go to aivake hiinJ^ 
 To the eye of Jesus, the kingdom of God, the reign of the 
 saints, the introduction and triumph of everlasting right- 
 eousness, — that triumph in which re-li\e all the saints 
 who are dead, and the saints who are yet alive live for ever- 
 more, — was at that moment beginning. The sisters of the 
 departed are plunged in weeping and lamentation ; Jesus 
 says to Martha : Thy brother shall rise again.* Not with 
 the bodily resurrection which Martha and the popular 
 religion of Palestine then expected, and which the popular 
 religion of Christendem e.xpects nmv— fh;«; mntpriaHsm 
 
 ' Luke, xxiv, 26. * John, xii, 23 ; comp. xi, 4. 
 
 =• John, xi, II. ■• John, xi, 23.
 
 35S GOD AND THE BIBLE. 
 
 Jesus had to transform, as he had to transform t he mate- 
 _riahsm of the Messias-ideal. Martha, however, imagines 
 tliat Jesus is speaking of the resurrection in the sense of 
 popular rehgion ; but Jesus corrects her. He corrected 
 her; but his correction was a gleam of light destined 
 slowly to deepen, not of force at tlrat time to pierce the 
 darkness. His words were : / atn the resurrection and 
 the life ; he who believeth on vie., though he die, shall live, 
 and he who liveth and beliei'eth on me shall Jiei'er die} 
 Out of that very logio7i which thus points to a wholly new 
 ideal of resurrection, — out of that logion, passed from 
 hearer to hearer, repeated, brooded over, misapprehended^ 
 — grew up, not improbably, the story of the great miracle of 
 resurrection according to the old ideal, the miracle of the 
 raising of Lazarus. That logion, with the saying to Martha, 
 Thy brother shall rise again ; with the saying to the disci- 
 ples, Onr friend Lazarus sleepeth, I go to awake him; with 
 some saying of Jesus about his glory, such as, The hour is 
 come that the Son of Man should be glorified I were the 
 materials out of which was built up a miraculous tale 
 exactly effacing the truth which Jesus wished to convey. 
 Sed nojidum est fjiis, should always be our reflexion in 
 these cases. ' The end is not yet ; ' ^ the space and 
 
 • John, xi, 2'5, 26. * Matth., xxiv, 6.
 
 THE FOURTH GOSPEL FROM WITH IX. 359 
 
 scale required for working out the truths of the Bible are 
 very large. 
 
 The developing of miracle out of slight materials is, 
 however, common to our Evangelist with the Synoptics, 
 Baur opposes these to our Evangelist in such a fashion, 
 that one is sometimes tempted to ask whether he sup- 
 poses, then, that the Synoptics are historical. They 
 have, indeed, over our Evangelist certain advantages 
 already noticed ; but historical they are no more than he 
 is. A creative pressure on incidents they all alike exer- 
 cise. A creative pressure, too, on the sayings of Jesus, 
 the Synoptics as well as our Evangelist exercise, though 
 in a different manner from his. Nay, sometimes he is more 
 historical than the Synoptics. If we think of it seriously, 
 for the words spoken by Jesus during his agony in the 
 garden * the Synoptics could not possibly have had 
 evidence, since the only companions of Jesus were asleep 
 when the reported words were spoken. Their real source, 
 probably, the Fourth Gospel discovers to us. This 
 Gospel gives us two utterances of Jesus, made, one of 
 them shortly before his arrest, the other at the moment 
 of it. ' Now is my soul troubled, and what shall I say : 
 Father, save me from this hour? But for this cause 
 came I unto this hour.' ^ And again : ' The cup which 
 » MaUh., xxvi, 39, 42. * John, xii, 27.
 
 36o GOD AND THE BIBLE. 
 
 my Father hath given me, shall I not drink it ? ' * AVe 
 have here, probably, the true original of the words 
 assigned by the Synoptics to the prayer of agony in the 
 garden. 
 
 Where the Synoptics are more historical than our 
 Evangelist is in cases where knowledge of Jewish locali- 
 (ties and usages is required. When he varies from them 
 in such matters, however, it is because this sort of know- 
 ledge is lacking to him, not because he is warping facts to 
 suit a design. Baur and his Tubingen school are confi- 
 dent that the truth of their theory about the Fourth Gospel 
 is quite established by our Evangelist's account of the 
 Last Supper and of the Crucifixion. Baur found design in 
 the whole of it : design to discountenance any observance 
 of the Passover supper by Christians, design to identify 
 the Passover sacrifice with the death of Christ, design to 
 prove the ending of all things Jewish, the coming-in of 
 the reign of Pneiima, or spirit. But how slight are his 
 grounds when we examine them ! 
 
 True, the Synoptics represent the Last Supper as eaten 
 on the day when the Passover was eaten. This day was 
 'the fourteenth day of the first month at even,'^ — the 14th 
 of the Jewish month of Nisan ; and the Crucifixion they 
 represent as taking place on the day following, the 15th. 
 
 ' John, xviii, II. * Exodus, xii, 18.
 
 THE FOURTH GOSPEL FROM WrfHIN. 361 
 
 True, the Fourth Gospel represents the Crucifixion as 
 happening on the very same day on which the Passover 
 was eaten, — on the 14th of Nisan, therefore, not on the 
 15th. On the morning of the Crucifixion, the Jews, says 
 our EvangeUst, would not enter the Praetorium, 'in order 
 that they might not be defiled, but might eat the Pass- 
 over';' — that Passover, which, according to the Synoptics, 
 had been eaten the evening before ! The Last Supper, 
 then, must according to our Evangelist have been eaten 
 on the 13th of Nisan, not on the 14th ; not on the day 
 appointed for eating the Jewish Passover. 
 
 There can be little doubt that the Synoptics, and not 
 our Evangelist, are right, although the growing estrange- 
 ment from things Jewish caused the Christian Church 
 to explain their testimony away, and to assign the cruci- 
 fixion to the 14th of Nisan. Christ did not eat the 
 Paschal Lamb, he suffered as the Paschal Lainb^ was the 
 view which prevailed. In the latter half of the second 
 century, we find a keen controversy turning, in fact, 
 upon this, — whether the 14th of Nisan was the day on 
 which Jesus ate the Last Supper, as the Passover Supper, 
 with his disciples. The Asiatic Churches contended 
 
 ' John, xviii, 28. 
 
 - See Paschal Ow«iir/t' (edition of Bonn), vol. i, p. 12. ovk f(payev 
 tJiv vofitKhv dfxvhv iu tKeivri rrj rj^iipa. 6 Kvpios, dw' axnos fnaOfv us
 
 362 GOD AND THE BIBLE. 
 
 that he did ; and Polycrates, the aged bishop of Ephesiis, 
 appealed ^ to the practice of the Apostle John, who, he 
 said, had always observed the 14th as the day on which 
 Jesus, keeping the Passover Supper, had eaten his last 
 meal with the Twelve. But the Fourth Gospel puts this 
 last meal on the 13th. It cannot, then, argues Baur, 
 have proceeded from St. John. It was written by one 
 of the anti- Jewish party, during the Paschal controversy, 
 to put a stop to the identification of the Last Supper with 
 the Jewish Passover. 
 
 It is certain that Rome, and the Christian Church at 
 large adopted the view that the 14th was the day of the 
 Crucifixion, not of the Last Supper. There was, however, 
 for the Church one cause of doubt and difficulty in the 
 matter. How could it be that St. John, the author of the 
 Fourth Gospel, kept the 14th as the day on which Jesus 
 ate the Last Supper ? This difficulty was got over by 
 supposing that John, having to do with a number of Jewish 
 Christians, had accepted, for the sake of peace, their iden- 
 tification of the Last Supper with the Passover, although he 
 knew better all the time. In Bede's History, we find our 
 English St. Wilfrid offering to doubters this explanation.^ 
 
 ^ In his letter to Victor and the Church of Rome, quoted by 
 Eusebius, Hist. Ecdes., v, 24. 
 - Bede, Hist. Ecclcs., iii, 25.
 
 THE FOURTH GOSPEL FROM WITH IX. 363 
 
 Nothing can be more improbable than that St. John, 
 knowing the obsen'ance of the 14th of Nisan as the day 
 of the Last Supper to be an error, should nevertheless 
 have countenanced the error by complying with it in his 
 practice. The tradition that he kept the 14th may well 
 be believed ; but then he must have kept it with the 
 sincere conviction that it was the day of the Last Supper, 
 And so, no doubt, it was. John, then, cannot have 
 written the eighteenth chapter of the Fourth Gospel, can- 
 not have put the crucifixion on the day when the Pass- 
 over Supper was to be eaten. This we freely concede to 
 Baur. But does the chapter aim, as Baur imagines, at 
 marking, and marking with a controversial and anti-Jewish 
 intention, an error of the Synoptics about the respective 
 days of the Last Supper and of the Crucifixion ? Is this 
 the reason why John, who shared the error of the Synop- 
 tics if it was an error, cannot have written the chapter ? 
 By no means. St. John cannot have written it for the 
 same reason that he cannot have talked of Bethany 
 beyond J^ordan, or made the high- priesthood of Caiaphas 
 a yearly office. He cannot have written it because 
 he was a Jew, and exactitude about Jewish days and 
 ceremonies came natural to him. Now, it is simply. 
 fjorjvant, as it seems to us, of this exactitude, that the- 
 Fourth Gospel varies from the Synoptics in dating the Last
 
 364 GOD AND THE BIBLE. 
 
 Supi>€r and ^the^-Crucifixion, not from any controversi^ 
 design. 
 
 John's Greek editor knew Jewish usages, and Hked to 
 import them into his narrative. But he knew them loosely, 
 as a foreigner, and he sometimes placed them inco- 
 herently. He is like Michelet enlivening his account of 
 things English with traits of detail, and meaning to say 
 tliat at a financial crisis in London there was ' conster- 
 nation in Change Alley.' That would have been all 
 very well. But Michelet says, instead of Change Alley, 
 Alley Change. Perhaps neither a Greek nor a French- 
 man could ever bring himself to learn with minute ac- 
 curacy the details of any civilisation not his own. John's 
 Greek editor knew the Jewish scrupulosity, and that a 
 Jew in a state of defilement could not eat the Passover. 
 He takes the occasion of Jesus being carried before 
 Pilate to exhibit this piece of knowledge, and says that 
 the Jews could not enter the Prsetorium with Jesus, for 
 fear they should be defiled and hindered from eating the 
 Passover. He does not observe that he is thus con- 
 tradicting the common tradition and the Synoptics, who 
 represent the Passover as being eaten, not on the evening 
 of the day of Christ's Crucifixion, but on the evening of 
 the day before. Yet it may surely be seen, except by 
 people bent on finding mountains in mole-hills, that he
 
 THE FOURTH GOSPEL FROM WITHIN. 365 
 
 does not mean to contradict the Synoptics ; for he calls 
 the day of the Crucifixion the Preparation Day,' as they 
 do. The Preparation Day was the day intervening be- 
 tween the 14th of Nisan and the Sabbath. If Jesus was 
 crucified on the 14th of Nisan, the day for eating the 
 Passover, that day could not at the same time be the 
 Preparation Day, the day subsequent to the day for 
 eating the Passover, and coming between that day and 
 the Sabbath. 
 
 The truth is, on these topics of Jewish doings and 
 ceremonies, our Greek editor is rather in a haze. Thus 
 he talks of putting a spotige on hyssop ^ where the Synop- 
 tics talk of putting a sponge on a cane.^ Hyssop is the 
 Hebrew name for a plant probably something like our 
 marjoram, with a close, bunching head of flowers, which 
 can serve for a mop or a sponge. To talk of putting a 
 sponge on hyssop is, therefore, like talking of putting a 
 sponge on sponge. But our Greek editor knew the con- 
 nexion of hyssop with ' the blood of sprinkling,' and did 
 not clearly know what hyssop was ; so he makes it do 
 duty for the cane of the Synoptics. He has no profound 
 dogmatic design to represent the death of Christ other- 
 wise than as the Synoptics represented it ; but his hold 
 
 ' John, xix, 31. - John, xix, 29. 
 
 * Matth., xxvii, 48 ; Mark, xv, 36.
 
 366 GOD AND THE BIBLE. 
 
 on Jewish details is less firm than theirs, and his use of 
 Jewish details more capricious. 
 
 Again, the whole story of the soldier piercing the side 
 of Jesus with his spear is said by Baur to be an invention 
 of our Evangelist with the design of identifying Jesus 
 with the Paschal Lamb (a hone of him shall ?iot be 
 broken /), and of mystically representing, by the effusion 
 of water and blood, the apparition of the new powers of 
 Logos and Pnewna. No other Evangelist mentions the 
 incident, argues Baur. The quotation from Exodus ^ 
 shows what was in the writer's mind ; and Apollinaris of 
 Hierapolis, taking part in the Paschal controversy soon 
 after the year 1 70 of our era, marks the figurative cha- 
 racter of the incident, identifies Christ with the Paschal 
 Lamb slain on the 14th of Nisan, and the water and 
 blood with Logos and Pneicma."^ 
 
 Now, the argument, that if an important thing in the 
 Fourth Gospel is not found in the Synoptics also, it must 
 be a mere invention of our Evangelist's, is always pressed 
 by Baur against our Evangelist only. But why is it 
 more incredible that the piercing of Christ's side, though 
 given in the Fourth Gospel alone, should yet really have 
 
 • Exod., xii, 46. 
 
 ' ij j5' rh a\r]div'bv rod Kvpiov -Kacrxci, says Apollinaris ; and pre- 
 sently afterwards : S eKx^cLS tK rfjs Tr\evpas abrov to, 5Jo TraA.ij' 
 Kaddpffta, vSwp Kal al/J-a., \6yov Ka\ irveuixa.
 
 THE FOLRTH GOSPEL FROM WITHIN. 367 
 
 been matter of tradition, than that the last words of Jesus : 
 Father into thy hands I commend my spirit, which are in 
 Luke only,' should proceed, not from Luke's own inven- 
 tion, but from a real tradition ? Nor has the quotation : A 
 bone of him shall not be broken, ^ in all probability the 
 reference alleged. Not Exodus or the Paschal Lamb is 
 probably here in our Evangelist's mind, but one of the 
 Psalms on the preservation of the righteous : Thou kecpcst 
 all his bones, so that not one of them ts bivken.^ The form 
 of the Greek verb corresponds with the form in this 
 passage from the Psalms,"* not in the passage from 
 Exodus ; which latter passage runs : ' Ye shall not break 
 a bone thereof.' Besides, the Evangelist is heaping toge- 
 ther instances of the fulfilment of predictions made by 
 Prophet and Psalmist, and to suppose him suddenly 
 turning to the Law and its precepts is not natural. 
 
 It is most probable that the side-piercing, followed by 
 the appearance of something thought to resemble blood 
 and water, was really, like our Evangelist's incidents in 
 general, given by tradition. As early as Justin's time, nay, 
 
 ' Luke, xxiii, 46. - John, xix, 36. ' Psalm xxxiv. 20. 
 
 * (Tvvrptfi-liafTai, and not a-wTpixl/ere. Some later manuscripts of 
 the New Testament show the pressure to connect John, xix, 36, with 
 Exod., xii, 46, rather than with Ps. xxxiv, 20. See in Sabatier, 
 Biblionim Sacronirn Laliiuc Vc/sioiies Antiqtur, his note on tlie 
 verse in John.
 
 36S GOD AND THE BIBLE. 
 
 as early as the date of the Apocalypse, the passage from 
 Zechariah/ which in the Greek Bible was mis-translated 
 to mean : TJicy shall turn their eyes towards ?ne in ex- 
 change for their insulting^ had been altered to its true 
 meaning : TJiey shall look on whom they pierced, as it 
 stands in the Fourth Gospel.^ This proves, it is true, 
 nothing as to the antiquity of the Fourth Gospel. Pas- 
 sages of the Old Testament which had a Messianic sense 
 were early, as we have said already, corrected to bring 
 this sense out, if before they obscured it. But it proves 
 the antiquity of some tradition of a piercing which the 
 passage in Zechariah suited. If the piercing had been 
 merely that of the hands and feet by the nails, as given 
 by one of the Messianic Psalms, the Greek verb of that 
 Psalm would probably have been used for the prophecy 
 of Zechariah also ; now, a different verb is taken.^ 
 
 We do not at all deny that the identification of Christ's 
 sacrifice with the Paschal sacrifice was a conception en- 
 tertained by our Evangelist, who speaks of the Lamb of 
 God that taketh away the sin of the world.^ It was a 
 
 ' Zechariah, xii, lO. 
 
 ^ iiri^Xe^ovrai Ti-pSs fj-e auff wv Karccpxvo'a.vro. 
 
 ' John, xix, 37. v^ovTaL us tv c^f/ceVrTjcrai'. 
 
 * i^eKfVTr](jay, instead of Upv^av. See, in the Greek Bible, Psalm 
 xxi, 16. 
 
 * John, i, 29.
 
 THE FOURTH GOSPEL FROM WITHIN. 369 
 
 conception familiar also to Paul,' and a conception just 
 and natural. What we deny is that it has become wth 
 our Evangelist, any more than ^vith Paul, the nucleus of 
 a theory for which he combines, arranges, invents. In 
 the Paschal controversy in the latter part of the second 
 centur}', the idea had become a nucleus of this kind. 
 There is no doubt as to what Apollinaris makes our 
 Evangelist's words mean, any more than there is doubt 
 as to what Baur makes our Evangelist's words mean. 
 But, if our Evangelist had really meant what Apollinaris 
 and Baur find in his words, he would have expressed 
 himself somewhat as they do, he would have sho\vn 
 his intention as they do. Now, he expresses himself 
 so very differently ! Therefore we cannot credit him 
 with the mystic meaning and design they suppose 
 for him. ' The 14th is the true Passover of the Lord,' 
 says Apollinaris : ' the great sacrifice, the Son of God in 
 the lamb's stead.' Again : ' His holy side was pierced, 
 and he shed back out of his side the two cleansers, water 
 and blood, word and spirit.''^ There is no uncertainty 
 about the wTiter's intention, here; and if our Evange- 
 
 • See I Cor., v, 7. 
 
 * See the fragment of Apollinaris in Otto, Corpus Apologetamm 
 Christianorum Stradi SccKtidi, vol. ix, p. 487 ; with the notes in 
 that work both to the fragnients of Apollinaris and to those of 
 Melito of Sardis. 
 
 B B
 
 o/> 
 
 GOD AND THE BIBLE. 
 
 list had invented his Gospel to serve the same intention, 
 that intention would have been as manifest. Probably, 
 however, what the water and blood figured to our Evan- 
 gelist's mind was not logos and pneutna at all, but, — as 
 the First Johannine Epistle indicates, and as Theophy- 
 lact interpreted,' — the union of the human and divine 
 natures in Christ. The water was a kind of celestial 
 ichor, the blood was the blood of mortal man. 
 
 8. 
 
 Tried fairly, then, and without a preconceived theory 
 to warp our criticism, the Fourth Gospel comes out no 
 fancy-piece, but a serious and invaluable document, full 
 of incidents given by tradition and of genuine ' sayings 
 of the Lord.' 
 
 Sayings are not to be rejected as inventions too easily. 
 They are not to be rejected because they seem strong 
 and harsh, and we do not like them. For example, there 
 is the saying of Jesus to the Jews about thei)- father the 
 devil: ' He was a manslayer from the beginning.' ^ Its 
 violence is objected to. But the Peratse quote it 
 in substance, and that is an external testimony to its 
 
 ' In his Commentary on the Fourth Gospel. His words are : 
 rb iiXv ai/j-a crvfj-ISoXov tov elvai avOptiiirov rhv ffTavpwdevTa, rh 5e liSup 
 inrep &vQp'jnniv, tov ilvM de6v. 
 - John, viii, 44.
 
 THE FOURTH GOSPEL FROM WFTHIN. 371 
 
 genuineness ; the invectives against the Scribes and 
 Pharisees in the Synoptics make it a not improbable 
 saying in itself. 
 
 Neither are sayings to be rejected because they are 
 profound, and over their hearers' heads ; as, for example, 
 the saying : ' Before Abraham was, I am.' ' Ever since 
 man appeared upon earth, the clearing and saving in- 
 fluences, which constitute the very being of Jesus have 
 been present and at work amongst mankind ; often they 
 have been latent, but they have been always there. 
 And always has this gentle and healing virtue saved, and 
 always has it been sacrificed ; therefore Jesus was well 
 called by Apostle and Seer, and well too might he have 
 called himself: The lamb slain frotn the foundatiofi of the 
 world.'^ When he said to the Jews, ' Before Abraham 
 was, I am,' Jesus then did but pursue, as he pursued on 
 so many other occasions also, his lofty treatment of the 
 themes of life and immortality, while his hearers stuck 
 fast in their materialistic notions of them, and failed to 
 follow his real meaning. In this there is nothing strange 
 or incredible. 
 
 Nor, finally, are sayings to be rejected because they 
 accommodate themselves to the materialism of the dis- 
 ciples. Only under these familiar figures of a bodily 
 
 ' Joliii, viii, 58. - Rcfclatioits, xiii, 8 ; I Tet., i, 19, 20. 
 
 li B 2
 
 372 GOD AND THE BIBLE. 
 
 resurrection and a visible judgment-assize, of sitting on 
 thrones to try the twelve tribes of Israel, of a heavenly- 
 Father's house with many mansions, could Jesus convey 
 the ideas of happiness and recompence to these material- 
 istically trained children of the new birth, whom yet to 
 raise out of their materialism he for ever strove. If he 
 was to say to them nothing but either what they could 
 perfectly follow, or what they could not possibly misun- 
 derstand, he could not, as we have more than once said, 
 have spoken to them at all. The only sayings we are 
 called upon to reject are those which contradict the 
 known manner and scope of Jesus, as his manner and 
 scope are established for us by the mass of the evidence 
 existing. 
 
 But we do not require our reader, even, to be so 
 chary as we ourselves have been, about admitting sayings 
 of the Fourth Gospel as genuine. If he finds himself 
 disposed to receive as genuine some sayings of Jesus 
 at which we hesitate, so be it. For we have sought 
 merely to establish a minimum of what must be re- 
 ceived, not a maximum ; to show, that after the most 
 free criticism has been fairly and strictly applied, and 
 all deductions, to the very outside of what such a 
 criticism can require, have been fully made, there is 
 yet left an authentic residue comprising all the pro-
 
 THE FOURTH GOSPEL FROM WITHIN. 373 
 
 roundest, most important, and most beautiful things in 
 the Fourth Gospel. 
 
 We have found, however, in our study of the Fourth 
 Gospel, nothing to shake our opinion about the Canonical 
 Gospels in general and their history, but everything to 
 confirm it. For at least fifty years after its production 
 the Fourth Gospel appears not to have been in the 
 settled state of Holy Scripture. There was a long period 
 during which this Gospel yielded more easily to pressure, 
 whether for altering its first contents or for inteqjolating 
 additions to them, than it did afterwards. And so with 
 our other three Gospels also. 
 
 The rudiments of all four Gospels were probably in 
 existence and current by the year 120 of our era, at the 
 very latest. As we accept the evidence of Basileides, 
 to show that the Fourth Gospel in some shape or other 
 already existed in the early part of the second century, 
 so we accept the evidence of Marcion to show the same 
 thing for the Third Gospel, and that of Papias for 
 the Second and First.' True, the description given by 
 Papias does not accurately characterise our present 
 Gospels either of Mark or Matthew. ^ But the hypo- 
 
 ' See Eusebius, Hist. Eccles., iii, 39. 
 
 - Papias says of Matthew: ra \6yia. ffvytypi^aro. Of Mark he 
 says that he 'WTOtc, aKpt^ws. oh fxivroi To|ei, ra uirb tov Xpicrrov fi 
 XfX^ivra. ^ irpaxQ^vTa. See the chapter of Eusebius just cited.
 
 374 GOD AND THE BIBLE. 
 
 thesis of other works of theirs being meant is extremely 
 improbable, while it is not at all improbable that between 
 the first appearance of a Gospel and its admission^JiO 
 canonicity it should have undergone alterations. ! The 
 final admission of a Gospel to canonicity proves that il} 
 has long been in men's hands, and long been attributed 
 to a venerable authority ; that it has had time to gain' 
 their affections and to establish its superiority -ovet-CDjib- J 
 peting_accounts.^ To suppose as the originals of our 
 First and Second Gospels such collections by Matthew 
 and Mark as are described by Papias ; to suppose as the 
 original of our Third Gospel (which in its prologue tells 
 us itself that in its present form it is not the work of an 
 eye-witness but of a writer with two stages, even, between 
 him and the eye-witnesses ') a work by the same hand 
 from whence proceed those records in the first person- 
 which crop out in the Acts ; to suppose as the original 
 of our Fourth Gospel data furnished by John at 
 Ephesus, — is at once agreeable to what traditions we 
 have, and also the most natural way of accounting for the 
 facts which present themselves. 
 
 But to suppose that in our present Four Gospels we 
 
 ' The first stage is from the writer of our Third Gospel to the 
 TToWoi, whose SirjyniTeis lie criticises ; tlie second from these noWoL 
 to the ainovrai, the original eye-witnesses.
 
 THE FOURTH GOSPEL FROM WITHIN. 375 
 
 have the original works as they at first stood, that they 
 were at their first birth formed into a Canon and thereby 
 protected from alteration, is contrary both to the direct 
 evidence wc have and to probability. The descrip- 
 tions of Papias do not, as we have said, at all well 
 describe our present Gospels of St. Matthew and St. 
 Mark. And we see that our Gospels had gradually to 
 establish themselves, because before the time of Irenaeus 
 they are hardly ever quoted as Scripture, but after his 
 time constantly. We know, too, that there were several 
 other Gospels besides these, and that works not in our 
 present Canon enjoyed such favour among Christians of 
 the second century that even Irenaeus quotes the Pastor 
 of Hennas as ' Scripture,' • and a so-called Gospel of 
 Peter was publicly read in Church with episcopal sanc- 
 tion. ^ We know, above all, that there is no instance, — not 
 one, — before the age of Irenaeus and the last quarter of 
 the second century, of even two or three consecutive 
 verses being anywhere quoted just as we now read them 
 
 in our Gospels. 
 
 ' And in remarkably emphatic language : koXws olv eJirev rj ypacpTj 
 ?; \(yov(Ta, k. t. \. The words of Irenceus are quoted by Eusebius, 
 ///>/. Eccles., V, 8. 
 
 - The bishop was Serapio, bishop of Antioch from \. D. 191 to 
 213 ; the church was that of Rhossus in Cilicia. Serapio discovered 
 afterwards that there was Docetism in the gospel of which he had 
 inadvertently permitted the public reading. See Eusebius, Hist. 
 Eccles., vi, 12.
 
 376 GOD AND THE BIBLE. 
 
 Nay, so little were our Gospels documents sacred from 
 the very first against all change and interpolation, that 
 the habit of interpolation went on along after the Canon 
 was formed, and the difference between the received text 
 and that of the earliest manuscripts shows it. If the 
 Vatican and Sinaitic manuscripts of the Fourth Gospel 
 contain neither the story of the woman taken in adultery 
 nor the account of the angel troubling the water in the 
 pool of Bethesda ; if, where the later manuscripts which 
 our received text follows make Peter say : ' Thou art the 
 Christ, the Son of the living God,' the Vatican and 
 Sinaitic make him say merely : ' Thou art the holy one 
 of God ; ' ^ and if this sort of change could befall a 
 Gospel-text between the fourth century and the tenth, 
 while it was Holy Scripture beyond question ; how 
 strong must have been the original bent to additions and 
 interpolations, and how much more must the text have 
 been exposed to them in its earlier and less closely 
 watched period, when the settled stamp of Holy Scrip- 
 ture it as yet had not ! 
 
 To suppose, therefore, that we have in our Gospels 
 documents which can stand as the very original, strictly 
 drawn up, strictly authenticated and strictly preserved 
 depositions of eye-witnesses, is absurd. They arose not 
 
 ' John, vi, 69.
 
 THE FOURTH GOSPEL FROM WFniIN. 377 
 
 in the sort of world where depositions are taken, nor in 
 the sort of world where manuscripts are guarded. They 
 arose, and they passed many years, in the immense, 
 underground, obscure, fluctuating world of the common 
 people. Probably even neighbours and contemporaries 
 never knew, or cared to know, quite accurately, the literary 
 history of a document like one of our Gospels ; and be- 
 yond question the knowledge, if it ever existed, was soon 
 lost irrecoverably. The important inference to be drawn 
 from this is, that the internal evidence must, in sayings 
 and doings of Jesus which are given us in our Gospels, 
 be considered with great care. Jesus was for over the 
 heads of his reporters; he is not to be held responsible 
 for their notions, or for all that they may make him 
 do or say. And the way in which our Gospels arose and 
 grew up was such, that pressure upon the stock of data 
 furnished by the original eye-witnesses, and additions to 
 this stock, and insertions, were extremely natural and 
 
 extremely easy. • 
 
 ' Nothing can be more vain, therefore, than attempts to reconcile 
 our Four Gospels with one another, to make one exact, concordant 
 and trustworthy history out of them. Griesbach, to whom the im- 
 provement of the New Testament text owes so much, has, in some 
 remarks directed simply at the chronology of the Gospels, passed an 
 excellent general criticism on all such attempts. He says : ' Valde 
 dul)ito, an ex Evangelistarum libellis hamionica componi possit 
 narratio; quid enim, si nullus Evangelistarum ordinem temporis 
 accurate ubique secutus est ; et si sufficientia non adsunt indicia e
 
 378 GOD AND THE BIBLE. 
 
 In each of the chief Epistles of St. Paul, we have^ 
 much more indubitably than in any other New Testament 
 documents, the real original production of the assumed 
 author. Letters like his, with the strong stamp of the 
 author's individuality, and following in general a con- 
 tinuous argument, lend themselves to additions and in- 
 terpolations far less readily than works like the Gospels. 
 We know, however, that forged epistles, covering them- 
 selves with the authority of apostolic names, were early 
 current ; and here too, therefore, the internal evidence 
 must have great weight. The exact literary history of 
 our documents is irrecoverable ; and in the absence of it 
 we cannot but have recourse to the test of internal 
 evidence. But we ought, also, to resign ourselves 
 to be ignorant of much, we ought to be sparing of 
 vigorous and rigorous theories, to allow something to 
 tradition, to dismiss the notion of sheer, designed forgery 
 and imposture, to admit that for each and every Epistle, 
 perhaps, in our Canon of the New Testament, there is 
 something of a genuine basis. 
 
 Striking phrases from apostolic letters or addresses 
 were likely to survive and float in men's memories though 
 their context had been lost. Here was the hint and at 
 
 quibus constare possit quisnam et quibusnam in locis a chronologico 
 ordine recesserit? Atque in hac me esse haeresi fateor.'
 
 THE FOURTH GOSPEL FROM WmilN. 379 
 
 the same time the defence for an imitator, speaking in an 
 Apostle's name, and, as he imagined, in that Apostle's, 
 sense. Everything is against the genuineness of the 
 Second Petrine Epistle as a whole. But things like the 
 phrase: 'dive diligence to make your calling and elec- 
 tion sure,' in the first chapter,' and the passage beginning 
 at the eighth verse of the third chapter and ending Avith 
 the words : ' Nevertheless we, according to his promise, 
 look for new heavens and a new earth, wherein dwelleth 
 righteousness,' may well have been Peter's, and their incor- 
 poration would have, probably, quite served to justify the 
 Epistler both in his own eyes and in those of his public. 
 
 It is easy to be too sweepingly negative in these 
 matters ; easy, also, to think we can know more about 
 them, and more certainly, than we can. To us it appears 
 very rash to pronounce confidently against the First 
 Johannine Epistle being St. John's. Certainly there is 
 the difficulty of a Galilean fisherman learning to write 
 Greek after tlie age of fifty ; but, with this exception, 
 almost all the difficulties are absent which make it so 
 hard to think that St. John can have written the Fourth 
 Gospel. The style is not flowing and articulated ; the 
 sentences come like minute-guns as they would drop 
 from a natural Hebrew. The writer moves, indeed, 
 
 ' II Pet., i, 10.
 
 3So GOD AND THE BIBLE. 
 
 amidst that order of religious ideas which meets us in 
 the Fourth Gospel, and which was that of the Greek 
 world wherein he found himself. He moves amongst 
 these new ideas, however, not with the practised facility 
 of the Evangelist, but with something of helplessness, 
 although the depth and serene beauty of his spirit give 
 to all he says an infinite impressiveness and charm. 
 Save one ambiguous expression of Eusebius,' there is 
 nothing to indicate that John's authorship of the First 
 Epistle was in the early Church ever questioned. Papias 
 used the Epistle,^ and it may fairly be inferred from what 
 Epiphanius says ^ that even the Alogi received it, although 
 they rejected both the Fourth Gospel and the Apo- 
 calypse. 
 
 Of the authorship of the Apocalypse, all we can safely 
 assert is what we learn from the book itself, — that the 
 author was named John, and wrote in Asia. It was 
 
 ' Hist. Eccles., vi, 14. ^rjSe tos d.PTiXeyoiJ.evas irapeXOoov, rijv 
 'Iou5a A67ia Koi ras Konras KadoAiKas tiriaToXas. The word Koiiras is 
 not certain, and even if it were, we could not be sure from the sen- 
 tence, Eusebius being the sort of writer he is, that the First Johan- 
 nine Epistle was disputed, or that Eusebius meant to say that it 
 ■was. 
 
 - Hist. Eccles., iii, 39. 
 
 * Har. LI, xxxiv. Epiphanius conjectures that the Alogi must 
 have rejected the Epistles because they rejected the Gospel and the 
 Apocalypse. If they had rejected the First Epistle, he would 
 almost certainly have heard of it.
 
 THE FOURTH GOSPEL FROM WITHIN. 3S1 
 
 natural that this John in Asia, the recipient of so weighty 
 a revelation, should be identified with the Apostle John, 
 and as early as the middle of the second century we find 
 Justin Martyr thus identifying him.' But there was so 
 little sureness about the matter, that for Eusebius, in the 
 fourth century, the Apocalypse was no more than a dis- 
 puted and doubtful book of Scripture, which a Christian 
 might receive or not as he thought good. And to us it 
 seems impossible to make out more than that the Apo- 
 calypse was written by a John, but by what John there is 
 nothing to show.^ 
 
 ' Dialogus cum TrypJione, cap. Si. 
 
 ' M. Kenan's confident conclusion that the author was the Apostle 
 John is one of the fe\v points in his admirable criticism of the 
 Apocalypse where he fails to carry us with him. His only serious 
 argument is, that no one but an Apostle would have ventured to 
 speak so authoritatively. But surely the recipient of this grand 
 revelation would, as such, have felt himself entitled to be authori- 
 tative to any extent in delivering it.
 
 382 GOD AND THE BIBLE. 
 
 CONCLUSION. 
 
 The Canon of the New Testament, then, is not what 
 popular religion supposes ; although, on the other hand, 
 its documents are in some quarters the object of far too 
 aggressive and sweeping negations. The most fruitful 
 result to be gained from a sane criticism of the Canon is, 
 that by satisfying oneself how the Gospel records grew up, 
 one is enabled the better to account for much that 
 puzzles us in their representation of Jesus, — of his words 
 more especially. There were facilities for addition and 
 interpolation, for adding touches to what the original 
 accounts made Jesus do^ for amplifying, above all, what 
 they made Jesus say. Evidence such as apologists 
 always imagine themselves to be using when they appeal 
 to the Gospels, — the pure, first-hand, well-authenticated 
 evidence of eye-witnesses, — our Gospels are not. 
 
 Such evidence is, indeed, remarkably wanting for the 
 whole miraculous side in the doings recorded of Jesus.
 
 CONCLUSION. 383 
 
 Sometimes we seem to be near getting such evidence, l^ut 
 it vanishes. Jerome tells us that Quadratus, in the second 
 century, declared that there were yet living in his time 
 persons who had beheld with their eyes Jesus raise the 
 dead to life, and that he himself had seen them and spoken 
 with tliem. It happens that the declaration of Quadratus is 
 preserved by Eusebius, in whose History Jerome probably 
 read it. Quadratus undoubtedly says that in his time 
 there were yet alive those who had witnessed the raising 
 of the dead by Jesus ; but the important addition which 
 alone takes this statement out of the category of hearsay, 
 and makes it personal evidence, — the addition that these 
 alleged witnesses he himself had seen and known, — 
 Quadratus does not make. The addition is merely a 
 rhetorical flourish of Jerome's. ^ 
 
 No doubt this is so ; yet the importance of it all is 
 greatly diminished by one consideration, /fioe had the 
 original reports of the eye-witnesses, we should still have 
 reports not essentially differing, probably , from those 7ohich 
 we now use. Certain additions which improved a mira- 
 culous stor}^ as it grew, certain interpolations which 
 belong to the ideas and circumstances of a later age, 
 
 > See Eusebius, I/ist. Ecch-s., iv, 3 ; and Routli, A\-li<jiiuc Sacnr, 
 vol. i, pp. 71, 74. Routh quotes Jerome, and points out his ex- 
 aggeration.
 
 3S4 COD AND THE BIBLE. 
 
 would be absent. But we should most likely not have 
 a miracle the less, and we should certainly find a similar 
 misapprehension of Jesus and of what he intended. The 
 people who saw Jesus were as certain to seek for 
 miracles, and to find them, as the people who lived a 
 generation or two later, or as the people who resort to 
 Lourdes or to La Salette now. And this preoccupation 
 with miracles was sure to warp their understanding of 
 Jesus, and their report of his sayings and doings. The 
 recurrence, so much talked of and recommended, to the 
 Apostles, or to the first three centuries, for the pure rule 
 of faith and the genuine doctrine of Jesus, is in truth 
 therefore, however natural an expedient, an utterly futile 
 one. There were indeed, as we have shown in Literatu7'e 
 and Dogma, certain prominent points in the teaching of 
 Jesus which his immediate followers had not yet lost sight 
 of, and which fell more out of view aftenvards. But the 
 pure and genuine doctrine of Jesus neither his immediate 
 followers, nor those whom they instructed, could possess ; 
 so immured were they in the ideas of their time and in 
 the belief of the miraculous, so immeasurably was Jesus 
 above them. 
 
 But our opponents say : ' Everything turns upon the
 
 CONCLUSION. 385 
 
 question whether miracles do or did really happen ; and 
 you abstain from all attempt to prove their impossibility, 
 you simply assume that they never happen.' And this, 
 which our opponents say, is true, and we have repeatedly 
 admitted it. At the end of this investigation we admit 
 it once more, and lay stress upon it. That miracles 
 cannot happen we do not attempt to prove ; the demon- 
 stration is too ambitious. That they do not happen, that 
 what are called miracles are not what the believers in 
 them fancy, but have a natural history of which we can 
 follow the course, the slow action of experience, we 
 sa}', more and more shows ; and shows, too, that there 
 is no exception to be made in favour of the Bible- 
 miracles. 
 
 Epiphanius tells us, that at each anniversary of the 
 miracle of Cana, the water of the springs of Cibyra in Caria 
 and Gerasa in Arabia was changed into wine ; that he 
 himself had drunk of the transformed water- of Cibyra, 
 and his brothers of that of Gerasa.^ Fifty years ago, a 
 plain Englishman would have had no difficulty in think- 
 ing that the Cana miracle was true, and the other two 
 miracles were fables. He is now irresistibly led to class 
 all these occurrences in one category as unsubstantial 
 tales of marvel. Scales seem to drop from his eyes in 
 
 ' Epiphanius, Hirr. LI, xxx. 
 C C
 
 386 GOD AND THE BIBLE. 
 
 regard to miracles; and if he is still to hold fast,lii&— 
 Christianity, it must no longer depend upon them. 
 
 It was not to discredit miracles that Literature and 
 Dogma was \vTitten, but because miracles are so widely 
 and deeply discredited already. And it is lost labour, 
 we repeat, to be arguing for or against them. Mankind 
 did not originally accept miracles because it had formal 
 proof of them, but because its imperfect experience 
 inclined it to them. Nor will mankind now drop 
 miracles because it has formal proof against them, but 
 because its more complete experience detaches it from 
 them. The final result was inevitable, as soon as ever 
 miracles began to embarrass people, began to be rele- 
 gated, — especially the greater miracles, — to a certain 
 limited period long ago over, Irenseus says, that people 
 in his time had arisen from the dead, * and abode with us 
 a good number of years.' ^ One of his commentators, 
 embarrassed by such stupendous miracles occurring out- 
 side of the Bible, makes an attempt to explain away this 
 remarkable allegation ; but the most recent editor of 
 Irensus points out, with truth, that the attempt is vain. 
 Trenseus was as sure to want and to find miracles as the 
 Bible-writers were. And sooner or later mankind was sure 
 
 ' See Irenxus, Adv. ILrr., lib. II, cap. xxxii, 4; with the note 
 on the passage in Stieren's edition.
 
 CONCLUSION. 387 
 
 to see how universally and easily stories like this of Irenoeus 
 arose, and that they arose with the Bible-writers just as 
 they arose with Irenseus, and are not a whit more solid 
 coming from them than from him. 
 
 A Catholic imagines that he gets over the difficulty by 
 believing, or professing to believe, the miracles of Irenseus 
 and Epiphanius, as well as those of the Bible-writers. But 
 for him, too, even for him, the Time-Spirit is gradually 
 becoming too strong. As we may say in general, that, 
 although an educated Protestant may manage to retain 
 for his own lifetime the belief in miracles in which he has 
 been brought up, yet his children will lose it ; so to an 
 educated Catholic we may say, putting the change only a 
 little farther off, that (unless some unforeseen deluge 
 should overwhelm European civilisation, leaving every- 
 thing to be begun anew) his grandchildren will lose it. 
 They will lose it insensibly, as the eighteenth century 
 saw the gradual extinction, among the educated classes, 
 of that belief in witchcraft which in the century previous 
 a man like Sir Matthew Hale could affirm to have the 
 authority of Scripture and of the wisdom of all nations, 
 — spoke of, in short, just as many religious people speak 
 of miracles now. ^Vitchcraft is but one department of 
 the miraculous ; and it was comparatively easy, no doubt, 
 to abandon one department, when men had all the rest of 
 
 c c 2
 
 388 GOD AND THE BIBLE. 
 
 the region to fall back upon. Nevertheless the forces 
 of experience, which have prevailed against witchcraft, 
 ■will inevitably prevail also against miracles at large, and 
 that by the mere progress of time. 
 
 The charge of presumption, and of setting oneself up 
 above all the great men of past days, above ' the wisdom 
 of all nations,' which is often brought against those who 
 pronounce the old view of our rehgion to be untenable, 
 springs out of a failure to perceive how little the abandon- 
 ment of certain long-current beliefs depends upon a 
 man's own will, or even upon his sum of powers, natural 
 or acquired. Sir Matthew Hale was not inferior in force 
 of mind to a modern Chief Justice because he believed 
 in witchcraft. Nay, the more enlightened modem, who 
 drops errors of his forefathers by help of that mass of 
 experience which his forefathers aided in accumulating, 
 may often be, according to the well-known saying, ' a 
 dwarf on the giant's shoulders.' His merits may be small 
 compared with those of the giant. Perhaps his only 
 merit is, that he has had the good sense to get up on 
 the giant's shoulders, instead of trotting contentedly 
 along in his shadow. Yet even this, surely, is something. 
 
 3- 
 
 We have to renounce impossible attemjjts to receive the 
 legendary and miraculous matter of Scripture as grave
 
 CONCLUSION. 389 
 
 historical and scientific fact. W(; have to accustom our- V>- 
 
 seh'es to regard henceforth all this part as poetry and \/ ,^ ■ i 
 legend. In the Old Testament, as an mimensejpoejry ^^^ ^^ l 
 grow ing round .and investing an immortal truth, the '" , " ^ 
 Isecret of the Eternalj_2„^.-^'4'''^''^'^'^''''-*''''''-*'-*" '•*" salvation. In 
 tlic New, as an immense poetry growing round and in- 
 vesting an immortal truth, the secret of Jesus : He that 
 avilliavc Ms life shall lose it, he that luill lose his life shall ^ 
 save it. 
 
 The best friends of mankind are those who can 
 lead it to feel animation and hope in presence of the re- 
 ligious prospect thus profoundly transformed. The way 
 to effect this is by bringing men to see that our religion, 
 in this altered view of it, does but at last become again 
 that religion which Jesus Christ really endeavoured to 
 found, and of which the truth and grandeur are inde- 
 structible. We should do Christians generally a great 
 injustice, if we thought that the entire force of their 
 Christianity lay in the fascination and subjugation of their 
 spirits by the miracles which they suppose Jesus to have 
 worked, or by the materialistic promises of heaven which 
 they suppose him to have offered. Far more does the 
 vital force of their Christianity lie in the boundless con- 
 fidence, consolation, and attachment, which the whole 
 being and discourse of Jesus inspire. What Jesus, then, 
 
 ' Psalm XXV, 14.
 
 r 
 
 390 GOD AND THE BIBLE. 
 
 himself thought sufficient, Christians too may bring 
 themselves to accept with good courage as enough for 
 them. What Jesus himself dismissed as chimerical^ 
 Christians too may bring themselves to put aside Avithout 
 dismay. 
 
 The central aim of Jesus was to transform for every 
 religious soul the popular Messias-ideal of his time, the 
 ideal of happiness and salvation of the Jewish people; to 
 dissengage religion, one may say, from the materialism of 
 the Book of Daniel. Fifty years had not gone by after 
 his death, when the Apocalypse replunged religion in this 
 materialism ; where, indeed, it was from the first mani- 
 fest that replunged, by the followers of Jesus, religion 
 must be. It was replunged there, but with an addition 
 of inestimable value and of incalculable working, — the 
 figure and influence of Jesus. Slowly this influence 
 emerges, transforms the turbid elements amid which it 
 was thrown, brings back the imperishable ideal of its 
 /^author. To the mind of Jesus, his own resurrection after a 
 -^ short sojourn in the grave was the victory of his cause 
 after his death, and at the price of his death. His dis- 
 ciples materialised his resurrection ; and their version of 
 j^^^ the matter falls day by day to ruin. But no ruin or con- 
 tradiction befalls the version of Jesus himself He has . 
 risen, his cause has conquered ; the course of events con-
 
 CONCLUSION. 391 
 
 tinually attests his resurrection and victor}-. The manifest 
 unsoundness of popular Christianity incHnes at j^rcsent 
 many persons to tlirow doubts on the truth and permanence 
 of Christianity in general. Creeds are discredited, religion 
 is proclaimed to be in danger, the pious quake, the world 
 laughs. Nevertheless, tJie prince of iJiis tcorldiijud^^ais ' 
 the victor y of Jesus is won and siure. / Conscience and 
 selfj^iiQuncemcnt. the method and the secret of Jesus, are 
 set up as a leaven in the world, nevermore to cease working 
 until the world is leavened. That this is so, that the 
 resurrection and re-emergent life of Jesus are in this 
 sense undeniable, and that in this sense Jesus himself pre- 
 dicted them, may in time, surely, encourage Christians to 
 lay hold on this sense as Jesus did. 
 
 So, too, with the hope of immortality. Our common 
 materialistic notions about the resurrection of the body 
 and the world to come are, no doubt, natural and attractive 
 to ordinary human nature. But they are in direct con- 
 flict with the new and loftier conceptions of life and death 
 which Jesus himself stro\ e to establish. His secret, He 
 that will save his life shall lose it, he that ivill lose his hfe 
 shall save it, is of universal application. It judges, not 
 only the life to which men cling here, but just as much 
 the life we love to promise ourselves in the New Jerusa- 
 
 • John, xvi, II.
 
 \ 
 
 392 GOD AND THE BIBLE. 
 
 • xi^lem. The immortality propounded by Jesus must be 
 <5^ looked for elsewhere than in the materialistic aspirations 
 .jT of our popular religion. He lived in the eternal order, 
 
 ■^ ajid the eternal order never dies ; — this, if we may try to 
 
 formulate in one sentence the result of the sayings of 
 Jesus about life and death, is the sense in which, accord- 
 ing to him, we can rightly conceive of the righteous man 
 as immortal, and aspire to be immortal ourselves. And 
 this conception we shall find to stand us in good stead 
 when the popular materialistic verson of our future life 
 fails us. So that here again, too, the version which, 
 unfamiliar and novel as it may nov/ be to us, has the merit 
 of standing fast and holding good while other versions 
 break down, is at the same time the version of Jesus. 
 
 People talk scornfully of ' a sublimated Christianity,' 
 
 as if the Christianity of Jesus Christ himself had been 
 
 a materialistic fairy-tale like that of Messrs. Moody and 
 
 Sankey. On the contrary, insensibly to lift us out of all this 
 
 sort of materiahsm was Jesus Christ's perpetual endeavour. 
 
 The parable of the king, who made a marriage for his 
 
 son, ends with the episode of the guest who had not on a 
 
 wedding garment, and was cast out. ' And here, as usual, 
 
 the Tubingen critics detect tcndence. They see in the 
 
 episode a deliberate invention of the Evangelist ; a 
 
 • Matth., xxii, I-14.
 
 CONCLUSION. 393 
 
 stroke of Jewish particularism, indemnifying itself for 
 having had to relate that salvation was preached in the 
 highways, ^^'e have disagreed often with the Ti.ibingen 
 critics, and we shall venture finally to disagree with them 
 here. We receive the episode as genuine ; but what did 
 Jesus mean by it ? Shall we not do well in thinking, that 
 he, whose lucidity was so incomparable, and who indicated 
 so much which was to be seized not by the present but 
 by the future, here marked and meant to mark, although 
 but incidentally and in passing, the profound, the utter 
 insufficiency of popular religion? Through the turbid 
 phase of popular religion liis religion had to pass. 
 Good and bad it was to bear along with it ; the gross and 
 ignorant were to be swept in, by wholesale, from the 
 highways ; the wedding was to be furnis/ied with guests. 
 On this wise must Christianity needs develop itself, and 
 the necessary law of its development was to be accepted. 
 Vain to be too nice about the unpreparedness of tlie 
 guests in general, about their inevitable misuse of the 
 favours which they were admitted to enjoy ! What could 
 have been the end of such a fastidious scrutiny? To turn 
 them all out into the highways again ! But the king's 
 design was, that the wedding sJwuId be furnished with guests. 
 So the guests shall all stay and fall to ; — popular Chris- 
 tianity is founded. But presently, almost as if by acci-
 
 394 GOD AND THE BIBLE. 
 
 dent, a guest even more unprepared and gross than the 
 common, a guest ' not having on a wedding garment,' 
 comes under the king's eye, and is ejected. Only one is 
 noted for decisive ejection ; but ah ! how many of those 
 guests are as really unapt to seize and follow God's 
 designs for them as he ! Many are called, feiu chosen. 
 
 The conspicuous delinquent is sentenced to be bound 
 hand and foot, and taken away, and cast into outer dark- 
 ness. In the severity of this sentence, Jesus marks how 
 utterly those who are gathered to his feast may fail to know 
 him. The misapprehending and materialising of his reli- 
 gion, the long and turbid stage of popular Christianity, 
 was, however, inevitable. But to give light and impulsion 
 to future times, Jesus stamps this Christianity, even from 
 the very moment of its birth, as, though inevitable, not 
 worthy of its name ; as ignorant and transient, and re- 
 quiring all who would be truly children of the kingdom 
 to rise beyond it. 
 
 LONDON : IRINTED P.Y 
 
 SPOTTISWOODR AND CO., NEW-STREET SQUARE 
 
 AND PARLIAMENT STREET
 
 BY THE SAME AUTHOR. 
 
 T. 
 
 Fifth Edition. Crown 8vo. 9 J. 
 
 LITERATURE AND DOGMA : cm Essay towards a 
 l:>ctter Apprehension of the Bible, 
 
 II. 
 
 Third Edition. Crown 8vo. 4?. ()d. 
 
 ST. PAUL AND PROTESTANTISM ; with an 
 Essay on Puritanism and the Church of England. 
 
 in. 
 
 Crown 8vo. 4J. dd. 
 
 FRIENDSHIP'S GARLAND : being the Conver- 
 sations, Letters, and Opinions of the late Arminius Baron 
 Von Thunder-Tex-Tronckh. With a Dedicatory Letter 
 to Adolescens Leo, Esq., of the 'Daily Telegraph.' 
 
 IV. 
 
 Second Edition. Crown 8vo. 
 
 CULTURE AND ANARCHY. An Essay in Political 
 and Social Criticism. 
 
 Demy Svo. %s. dd. 
 ON THE STUDY OF CELTIC LITERATURE. 
 
 SMITH, ELDER, .\: CO., 15 WATERLOO PLACE.
 
 ALSO BY THE SAME AUTHOR. 
 
 COMPLETE POETICAL WORKS. 
 
 Vol. I.— NARRATIVE AND ELEGIAC POEMS. 
 Vol. II.— DRAMATIC AND LYRIC POEMS. 
 Extra fcp. 8vo. Price bs. each. 
 
 THE GREAT PROPHECY OF ISRAEL'S 
 RESTORATION {Isaia/i, Chapters xl.— Ixvi.) Arranged 
 and Edited for Yoimg Learners. Foui-th Edition. i8mo. 
 Price is 
 
 ESSAYS IN CRITICISM. New Edition. Revised, 
 with additions. Crown 8vo. Price <js. 
 
 A FRENCH ETON ; or, Middle-Class Education and the 
 State. Fcp. Svo. Price 2s. dd. 
 
 HIGHER SCHOOLS AND UNIVERSITIES 
 
 IN GERMANY. Crown Svo. ds. 
 
 MACMILLAN & CO. 
 
 MEROPE : a Tragedy. Fcp. Svo. Price 5j-. 
 
 THE POPULAR EDUCATION OF FRANCE ; 
 with Notices of that of Holland and Switzerland. Svo. 
 Price IOj. bd. 
 
 ON TRANSLATING HOMER; Last Words: a 
 Lecture given at Oxford. Post Svo. Price 35. 6r/. 
 
 LONGMANS & CO., PATERNOSTER ROW.
 
 UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA LIBRARY 
 
 
 Los Angeles 
 
 
 This book is DUE on the last date stamped below. 
 
 
 RECE/VED 
 
 
 
 1 D-URL 
 
 
 
 ^M 'W^^ 28 1965 
 
 
 
 7-4 
 
 =M 
 
 
 
 1 
 
 
 . ^^O'to'-u^ 
 
 
 
 m ^^"^ 2 6 1970 
 
 
 
 «r.Mrn,^.l^^''^^^07n ^ 
 
 
 
 RENEWAL J UN 9 1970 
 
 
 
 w -\1\ 
 
 
 
 URW 
 
 
 
 'K*ir^]97i 
 
 
 
 NOV 1 6 )97K 
 
 
 
 Form L9— Series 444 
 

 
 t 
 
 
 Si 
 
 «ai. uu NUT REMOVE 
 
 THIS BOOK CARD',;,;; 
 
 UIII 
 
 mil 
 
 mil 
 
 ^,^^t4*eRARY6^, 
 
 ^/ 
 
 ^<i/0JIIV3JO>^ 
 
 University Research Library 
 
 01 'l-LJTr 
 
 tm 
 
 Jl 
 
 ■ > 
 
 -J 
 
 O 
 
 CD 
 01 
 
 BS 
 511 
 A75g 
 1875
 
 J'HV.WXWfM 
 
 ■ «i i miTwiii i i rtii» i» i< r Bg>i!iia«i« '