1
10
3
-
https://d1y502jg6fpugt.cloudfront.net/25778/archive/files/c90077b0b7599a1b440a76edbf9b88a7.pdf?Expires=1712793600&Signature=BEr2WCK%7EHTEVb7iDhThd6LvTkeqZNCtGWTiUf7GTZ9s-ClpEUODaFdK3KSi4Zu13Jx%7Elzc7bTpJKBVrko1WajmWA0luxnzLWHfmyvPB0yQiI-vGnOREbd3ulGL0ok8iwXt53zVxSueXgQQCk138QqsnWwivJXur9-wDrx07WsyDf7kOtUkhYAC-%7Egbeh2CGUDMQiey9xV0yVhCoJe0ztQ0XatWDFtayAIXMBeIcU8bOoL3P5tZK%7E2gJmn5Nb2b-S1D4awIsfRIJ1cBasK8xiPB1HimRteRHoHWnfWRFGHafw1%7EXt00MVDBU2dKwKoPkQW-nRhPbCGFHsOTMamoue5g__&Key-Pair-Id=K6UGZS9ZTDSZM
958d544855c81a92690ee18d51448c04
PDF Text
Text
THEOLOGY
OF THE
PAST AND THE FUTURE.
BY
M. M. KALIS CH, Ph.D., M.A.
REPRINTED EROM PART I. OF HIS COMMENTARY ON LEVITICUS.
PUBLISHED BY THOMAS SCOTT,
MOUNT PLEASANT, RAMSGATE.
Price, One Shilling.
��PREFACE.
My dear Mr Scott,
I have carefully considered your proposal of
reprinting from the First Part of my “ Commentary
on Leviticus,” the Chapter on “ The Theology of the
Past and the Future ; ” and though I believe that the
views set forth in this Treatise receive their full light
only if read in connection with the preceding en
quiries in the same volume, of which they are the
logical inferences, I readily assent to your suggestion,
hoping that, even in this isolated form, the Essay may
help to promote the great object which you pursue
with so much zeal and judgment. The Second Part
of the “ Commentary on Leviticus,” which is about
to be published, contains several Treatises corroborat
ing the conclusions here summarised, both with refer
ence to the composition and the theology of the
Biblical Canon.
Believe me,
Yours very faithfully,
M. KALISCH.
London,
April 25, 1871.
To Thomas Scott, Esq.,
Mount Pleasant, Ramsgate.
�KI
�THE THEOLOGY OF THE PAST AND
THE FUTURE.
T has too long been customary, even for liberal
and acute critics, merely to comment on the
facts contained in the Bible, and to weigh the degree
of reliability they merit, while the ideas and the
teaching have either been declared final for all ages,
or have been tacitly assumed as unimpeachable.
The time, however, has arrived for abandoning this
questionable course, for determining by a search
ing and calm enquiry the positive value of the
notions that pervade the Scriptures, and for ascer
taining by a candid estimate, how far they satisfy the
modern mind, or correspond with the philosophical
and scientific results of the last centuries. This
task will either show the entire sufficiency of the
Bible for all our spiritual needs ; or, if it lead to a
different conclusion, it will prove an essential pre
liminary to the attempt of constructing a system of
theology that shall be in harmony with our general
modes and habits of thought, accord with the achieve
ments of science and with the ordinary tenor of our
lives, and which shall therefore beneficently influence
our conduct and progress.
In our age, we are accustomed to look upon every
occurrence as the natural and inevitable consequence
of human action, or of some other circumstance with
which it is connected. We attempt to trace effects
to adequate causes. Unchangeable laws regulate
I
�6
Theology of the
the life of individuals and nations, and prescribe
the course to universal history. The gradual de
velopment of mankind is the necessary result of
the abilities, energies, and passions inherent in men.
The happiness of the individual depends, in a great
measure, on his mental and physical organisation;
lor it is the ordinary concomitant of healthful vigour
of body and mind; while wretchedness is the usual
fate of infirmity and morbidness. Prosperity is the
combined product of personal exertion and favour
able opportunity.
Man is, therefore, in some
respects, a free agent; but in a much higher degree,
he is a creature of necessity. The works which he
produces result from the talents he may possess, and
from the activity he is able or willing to display.
They are prompted by that internal impulse which
is inseparable from his idiosyncrasy. He is capable
of improvement and advancement, as he is liable to
retrogression and decline. He labours as his powers
bid him; he succeeds according to the measure of
his gifts or of his usefulness ; and he finds his chief
reward in the consciousness of having zealously cul
tivated and honestly employed his faculties.
If, imbued with these notions which underlie our
whole life, we turn to the Scriptures, we are at once
struck by a different sphere of thought, by a strange
and unfamiliar spirit. Forced away from the circle of
ideas which guide us in our daily pursuits and
reflections, we are abruptly transferred to concep
tions and views, which indeed occasionally touch
a sympathetic chord, whether from their poetical and
imaginative beauty or from the ineffaceable im
pressions of childhood, but which our maturer
manhood finds it impossible to acknowledge and
to adopt. And finally, the affection for a venerable
tradition that may linger in our hearts, must yield to
the severer truths dictated by our intellects.
�Past and the Future.
7
1. The Creation.
The Scriptures teach that the universe and all it
contains, were called into existence in six days, by
God’s direct command. This Biblical cosmogony
(Gen. i. 1—ii. 4) is grand and sublime, but it is
faulty and unscientific; it disregards those at
tributes of matter which, by their own inherent
power, of necessity produce the changes and com
binations that constitute the cosmos; therefore, it
arbitrarily compresses within the limits of a few
days what was effected by the gradual operation
of myriads of millenniums, and it transforms into
acts of personal agency what we are wont to regard
as the result of clearly defined and unchangeable
laws.
2. Miracles.
The same personal interference continues in Biblical
history. For special ends, the eternal course of nature
is altered, and miracles are performed. Yet the idea
of miracles is absolutely opposed to our notions of the
universe, as derived from a patient cultivation of the
natural and historical sciences. It gains ground
whenever men, unable to understand their position
as a subordinate though organic part of mankind,
consider themselves or their community as the chief
end of creation and general government. For it rests
virtually on the assumption that nature pays special
regard to. the deeds and destinies of individuals or
single nations, and bestows aid and sympathy, or dis
plays resistance and enmity, in accordance with the
behests of a ruling power; whereas her whole economy
is one and indivisible, embracing the universe, and
working in majestic impartiality for all worlds alike.
Therefore Spinoza justly used miracles and ignorance
as convertible terms, and he added the weighty words
fraught with significant meaning, “ I believe the
�8
Theology of the
principal difference between religion and superstition
to be this that the former is founded upon wisdom,
the latter upon ignorance; and I am convinced that
herein lies the reason why the Christians are distin
guished from other men not by an honourable life,
nor by love, nor the other fruits of the Holy Ghost,
but merely by an opinion ; because, like all the rest,
they fortify themselves only by miracles, that is by
ignorance, which is the fountain of all wickedness, '
and thus convert faith, however true, into supersti
tion/’
-—
Ancient nations felt strongly the influence of the
divine power in nature; but as they had explored
nature most imperfectly, all her remarkable or unusual
phenomena appeared to them as direct manifestations
of the deity, or as miracles, which inspired them
both with terrifying awe and sublime veneration;
and these feelings worked the more powerfully, the
more vividly their youthful minds were affected by all
impressions, and the more consistently they were ac
customed to develop and to apply every new and
great idea. The assumption to which we have alluded
gave rise, among the Romans, to the fictions oiprodigia
or portenta, by which the gods were believed to
announce impending calamities or important events
—the sky appearing in a blaze of fire, or flaming
torches illumining the air; spears or hands burning
but not consumed; men of fire assailing and fighting
with each other; flesh or worms, earth, stones, or
blood raining from heaven; the water of rivers
changed into blood; women giving birth to monstro
sities ; animals speaking, mules bringing forth young,
and wonderful animals, as snakes with the manes of
horses, starting up ; trees springing from the soil full
grown, and cut stems suddenly rising to an extra
ordinary height; rocks moving spontaneously; birds,
in anguish without apparent cause, seeking refuge;
marvellous or alarming sights and sounds produced by
�Past and the Future.
9
delusion of the senses; images of gods speaking, or
shedding tears.
The Biblical miracles are founded on similar con
ceptions. By the command of God, heavenly bodies
are said to have been arrested in their course
(Josh. x. 12-14; Is. xxxviii. 8); yet we know
that such a contingency would be inevitably fol
lowed by a complete derangement of the sidereal
systems, and by the incalculable ruin of thousands of
worlds. Occasionally even the Bible shows a gleam
of the conviction of nature’s immutable stability:
“ He has established the heavens for ever and ever;
He gave a law, and they trespass it not” (Ps. cxlviii.
6); “ He said to the sea, Hitherto shalt thou come,
but no further; and here shall thy proud waves be
stayed” (Job xxxviii. 11); “I have placed the sand
for the boundary of the sea by an eternal law, that it
cannot pass it; and though its waves rage, they can
not prevail” (Jer. v. 22). But such incidental admis
sions do not materially influence the spirit and tenor
of the narratives. According to Biblical accounts, the
Divine will constantly changed those intrinsic proper
ties of things which constitute their very character and
essence. But if we read that the water of the Nile
was converted into blood (Ex. iv. 9 ; vii. 17-20), and
that ordinary water was at the marriage of Cana,
changed into wine (John ii. 1-11); that the waves of
the Red Sea were divided and stood upright like a wall
(Ex. xiv. 21, 22), and the floods of the Jordan, touched
by Elijah’s mantle, opened a dry path (2 Kings ii.
13, 14); that an axe, which had sunk to the bottom
of the river, rose by Elijah’s will and swam on
the surface (2 Kings vi. 6), and that Christ walked
on the water of the Lake Genesareth (Mark vi. 48,
49); that the men of Sodom and Bar-Jesus (Elymas)
were suddenly struck blind (Gen. xix. 11; Acts xiii.
6-11), and blind men recovered their sight as suddenly
(Matt. ix. 28-30; xx. 32-34); that a staff became a
serpent and a serpent a staff, a healthy hand was by
�IO
Theology of the
a word made leprous, and a leprous hand healthy (Ex,
iv. 2-7); that the earth opened its womb to engulf
alive rebellious offenders (Num. xvi. 30-33), and the
dead were revived or raised alive from the grave
(Johnxi. 1-44; Matt. ix. 18, 24, 25); that Moses was
forty days on Mount Sinai without requiring any food
whatever (Ex. xxxiv. 28), and that a limited supply of
flour and wine was practically unlimited, and sufficed
for the household of the widow of Zarephath a con
siderable time (1 Kings xvii. 14-16); that every vessel
which could possibly be procured, filled itself spon
taneously with oil by Elisha’s command (2 Kings iv.
3-6); that 4,000 men, besides women and children,
were satisfied by seven loaves and a few little fishes,
and left over seven baskets full of broken pieces
(Matt. xv. 32-38); that a fig-tree, covered with leaves
and capable of bearing fruit, instantaneously withered
away (Matt. xxi. 19); that the ass of Balaam spoke
(Num. xxii. 28, 30), a raven provided Elijah regularly
with bread and meat (1 Kings xvii. 4-6), and a whale
preserved Jonah in its womb three days and three
nights, and then threw him on the dry land unhurt
(Jonah ii. 1-11): if we read all this, we might be led
to the perplexing conclusion that there is nothing
stable and fixed in nature, were we not taught by
science to regard undeviating uniformity as nature’s
first principle. All reality is destroyed, and the things,
devoid of a well-defined character, lose their intrinsic
value and absolute existence. “ The miracle changes
the serious code of nature into a merry book of fairy
tales ; but for this reason, miracle itself deserves to be
ranked no higher than a fairy-tale.” Disdaining, like
fancy, to which it is largely indebted, the fetters of
necessity, it capriciously confounds the qualities of
matter, combines what is naturally incompatible, and
disjoins what is inseparable. Every miracle “paralyses
reason;” for it checks the specific work of reason,
which consists in searching for laws and causes, and,
by depriving it of the safe support of experience,
�Past and the Future.
11
renders it valueless even for pointing out the path of
practical duty. The miracle attempts to sway nature,
but not, like reason, by penetrating into its organism,
but by misusing it for arbitrary ends. Unrestrained
by any limit, and unshackled by any condition, it
appears in power boundless and inexhaustible. Exer
cising a complete rule over matter, and reminding man
of his own inborn yearning for the infinite, it is by
unreflecting generations easily mistaken as divine.
Hence the East is the home of miracles ; because the
East is most apt to confound fancy and reflection:
these two faculties have indeed abstraction as a
common element; but fancy defies or disregards
reality, while reflection judiciously preserves and
spiritualises it.
It is not only useless but objectionable to reduce the
miracles by ingenious and strained interpretations, to
the least possible number, or to explain their force
away, by representing them as ordinary occurrences
told in a marvellous (Jr imaginative form. Thus it
has been asserted that the Bible contains nothing that
is opposed to the rules of nature, and that, for in
stance, the prolonged day in Joshua’s time may be
accounted for by the supposition that a large quantity
of ice happened to be in the upper region of the air,
and caused an unusually strong refraction of the
solar rays ; and this led to the vague and untenable
opinion that all Biblical statements found to be in
opposition to the laws of nature are “ either poeti
cal metaphors, or are related according to the
opinions and prejudices of the writers, or have
been inserted in the Scriptures by sacrilegious
hands —which principles manifestly deprive the
narratives of Scripture of all definite meaning and
value.
Equally questionable is the device of
separating the “ end and essence ” of the revelations
from the accessory notions associated with them, and
of insisting upon the truth of the former, while relin
quishing that of the latter, a device which would
�12
Theology of the
open the floodgates to every variety of arbitrary dis
tinction. Yet these views have been adopted by earlier
and later writers, and among them by Reimarus, the
famous “fragmentist” ofWolfenbiittel, who by attempt
ing natural explanations ’ of events which the authors
of the Bible obviously meant to describe as super
natural, was misled to the most curious fancies,
as for instance, that the thunder which accompanied
the revelation on Mount Sinai was possibly produced
by the sudden explosion of 11 a sort of gunpowder,”
while Moses communicated with Joshua, who was
in the camp, by means of a speaking-trumpet.
This observation has a still wider scope. The ut
most perplexity must be created if the results of philo
sophical thought are by strained expositions grafted
upon the Scriptures, in the vain hope thereby to save
the authority of the latter j thus Spinoza rightly main
tains that the ceremonies of the Old Testament con
tribute nothing to virtue and happiness, and that they
can therefore form no part of a Divine Law; but it
is idle to assert that this is the view of the Old
Testament itself, which enjoins moral and civil laws,
religious doctrines, and ceremonies as equally binding
and equally irrevocable; the endeavour to prove the
contrary is necessarily futile and ineffectual. Yet
Spinoza severely denounces, in theory, the method
which he himself repeatedly follows j he inveighs
especially against Maimonides, and justly so, for
advocating that method, which he describes as
“ noxious, useless, and absurd; ” he is equally decided
in censuring forced reconciliations of texts manifestly
at variance with each other; he declares and proves
that Scripture ought neither to be subordinated to
theological convictions, nor theological convictions to
Scripture, but that both ought to be kept apart in
so far as theology is the result of independent
reasoning; but such is the bane of vagueness,
that elsewhere he expresses almost the opposite
opinion : “ Yet we do not desire to accuse those men
�Past and the Future.
13
of impiety because they accommodate the words of
Scripture to their . individual conclusions; for as
Scripture was once itself adapted (by its authors) to
the capacity of the people, thus every one is per
mitted to adapt it to his own views, if he sees that
he is thus able to obey God, with the fuller consent
of his conscience, in all matters that concern justice
and love.” Who does not see that such principle,
or rather such absence of principle, renders all
religious knowledge uncertain and fluctuating, and
renounces beforehand all absolute truth 1
It is equally unavailing to confine miracles to
certain periods ; Catholicism, in this respect more
in accordance with the spirit of the Bible than Pro
testantism, which attempts an unsuccessful compro
mise between belief and reason, extends their opera
tion beyond the limits of tradition, and supposes
their constant and living manifestation. For the
Biblical narratives do not simply contain miracles, but
are throughout framed in a miraculous spirit. They
are entirely compiled on the assumption of a perpetual
and immediate intervention of God in the natural
course of events. That extraordinary “ offering of
jealousy,” (Num. v. 11-31), which is evidently an
ordeal involving the regular and miraculous interfer
ence of God, is alone sufficient to disclose the wide
chasm which separates the Biblical from the scientific
notions beyond all possibility of agreement. Wonders
are freely employed to remove difficulties, even where
these might have been overcome by natural agencies.
Whether Noah and his family are alone rescued
amidst the universal destruction of living creatures,
or Lot is by special messengers of God saved from
the calamities which overthrew his entire district;
whether Pharaoh is, by unparalleled afflictions, forced
to release the Hebrews, or the persons and the pro
perty of the latter remain untouched when the land
is visited by appalling misfortunes; whether God per
sonally guides and protects the patriarchs, or afflicts
�14
Theology of the
the women of Abimelech’s household with barrenness
because that king took Sarah into his house (Gen.
xx. 17, 18) ; whether He gives to the myriads of
wandering Israelites food and water in abundance
for forty years, or makes the hostile Syrian army
hear a noise of vast numbers of horses and chariots,
to delude them into the belief of large hosts ap
proaching, in consequence of which they flee panicstricken, leaving their whole camp behind them (2
Kings vii. 6, 7)—these and the numerous traits of
a similar kind defy all laws both of reason and ex
perience, and substitute phantasmagoric playfulness
for sober historiography to such a degree that even
the attempt at harmonizing them with scientific
results bespeaks the slothfulness of a mind equally
unable to form an independent estimate of the anti
quated past, and to keep pace with the growth of
modern inquiry. “ By the direction of God,” observes
Spinoza, “I understand the fixed and immutable
order of nature or the concatenation of natural things.
The general laws of nature, by which everything
happens and is determined, are nothing but the eter
nal decrees of God, which ever involve eternal truth
and necessity. Therefore, whether we say that every
thing happens according to the laws of nature, or that
everything is ordained by the will and direction of
God, we say the same thing.” These views, whether
they be avowed or not, rule our lives and our thoughts.
They must form the starting point of all future
theories of philosophy and theology. Sometimes in
deed the Bible records natural facts in connection
with miracles; for instance, Moses threw a certain
wood, which God had shown him, into the bitter
waters of Marah, which then became drinkable (Ex.
xv. 25), and similarly Elisha rendered salubrious for
ever a deleterious spring of water by casting into
it a quantity of salt (2 Kings ii. 20-22); Elisha leaned
repeatedly over the dead boy, till the latter grew
warm and returned to life (2 Kings iv. 34, 35); the
�Past and the Future.
*5
Syrian general Naaman was healed from leprosy after
bathing seven times in the Jordan (2 Kings v. 1-14);
and the ten plagues of Egypt are all based on natural
phenomena of almost regular occurrence in that
country : but these facts, though affording to us valu
able hints and explanations, were by the Biblical
narrators not meant to remove the miraculous char
acter of the events; they prove, on the contrary, that
even where a natural explanation offered itself, and
was suggested by tradition, it was rejected by miracle
loving generations, and set aside in favour of the
assumption of extraordinary agencies. Yet, what
natural basis can be discovered for the legends that
Miriam became suddenly “leprouslike snow” because
she had spoken slightingly of Moses (Num. xiL 10);
that a corpse which touched the bones of Elisha,
became alive and rose from the grave (2 Kings xiii. 21),
or that diseases were cured, physical defects removed,
and evil spirits expelled by touching the hand or the
garment of Christ (Mat. viii. 13-15), or “an handker
chief or apron” of the apostle Paul? (Acts xix. 12);
that a large number of fiery horses and chariots ap
peared to deliver Elisha from his pursuers 1 (2 Kings
vi. 17); that fire came out of a rock by striking it with
a staff, and consumed the meat and the cakes placed
thereon by Gideon as an offering ? (Jud. vi. 20, 21);
that the sea raged because it bore the guilty Jonah,
and became tranquil as soon as the latter was removed
from the ship ? (Jonah i. 12-15).
And yet the Bible itself lowers considerably the
force and effect of miracles by attributing the power
of performing them not only to Hebrews worshipping
foreign gods, and to heathens controlled by the might
of Jehovah, as in the instance of Balaam, but to
idolaters who work in opposition to Jehovah Himself,
as the magicians of Egypt (Ex. vii. 11, 12). The
New Testament goes even farther; it supposes that
miracles are performed by “false Christs and false
prophets” (Mat. xxiv. 24) to such an extent “that if
�16
Theology of the
it were possible they might deceive the very elect; ”
the enemy of the Church represented under the form
of a beast rising out of the earth “ did great wonders,
made fire come down from heaven, and thereby de
ceived many men” (Rev. xix. 20); and “the spirits of
the devils,” which betray the kings of the earth and
of the whole world, work miracles (Rev. vi. 14).
Wonders, therefore, neither testify to the greatness
of God, nor to the purity or truth of doctrines. It
[is, moreover, extremely difficult to distinguish be
tween a true and a false miracle ; all criteria that have
been fixed, are either misty or fallacious.
The inference to be drawn from these facts is as
decisive as it is significant. Can a gift that an idol
is able to bestow, have any value or reality ? Can
those powers be supernatural which a Hebrew prophet
shares with a priest of Baal ?
Miracles are both impossible and incredible—
impossible because against the established laws of
the universe, and incredible because those set forth
by tradition, are palpable inventions of unhistoric
ages.
The belief in miracles may, in certain periods, not
be without advantage and importance; it emanates
from a spiritual elevation, perhaps from a moral
impulse; it may serve to strengthen the religion of
the heart, and to sanction those doctrines which the
mind recognises as true and eternal; it may thus
prove a material aid to a genuine faith; but it can,
at best, only be a means to that end; it loses its
usefulness when it loses the connection with the
mind ; it becomes injurious and dangerous and leads
to mechanical ritualism or fanatic vehemence when
it is isolated from the moral faculties ; and engenders
hypocrisy and falsehood when it ceases to be con
ceived in simplicity and childlike ingenuousness.
According to the current and traditional views,
miracles were wrought exclusively in the early times
of deficient education and imperfect knowledge;
�Past and the Future.
if
they are no longer reported in the more enlightened
epochs of progress and research. Why should they
have so suddenly and so completely ceased? It
is futile to reply that they were performed only as
long as they were necessary for the training of the
human race ; for miracles, by confounding and often
insulting reason, and hence fostering superstition,
especially magic, witchcraft, and sorcery, to which
they are akin, far from promoting, tend to retard
the education of mankind. They are valueless for
our advancement, whether in religion or philosophy ;
for neither the one nor the other can be improved
by phenomena which the human mind is unable to
understand; those facts and ideas only can influence
us which lie within the sphere of our common
nature; “ from an effect which surpasses the capacity
of man, he cannot deduce intelligible truths, and
those are silly who, if unable to understand a thing,
have recourse to God; forsooth, a ridiculous mode of
displaying ignorance.”
The notion of “ rational wonders” which has been
propounded is preposterous; for all wonders are irra
tional; they realise their character the more com
pletely, the more irrational they are; for reason
penetrates into the depth and essence of things,
while the miracles play lightly on their surface. The
love of the miraculous, innate in human nature, and
strongest in imaginative or enthusiastic minds, and
in the early stages of development, is the parent of
miracles; they germinate not in the quality of
things but in the propensity of men. “ Believe you
that I am able to do this ? ” Jesus asked the blind
men who came to him to be cured, and “ they said
to him, Yea, Lord,” (Matt. ix. 28); a leper appealed
to him saying, “ Lord, if thou wilt, thou canst make
me clean,” and Jesus said, “ I will,” and the leprosy
was immediately removed (Matt. viii. 2, 3). Miracles
are desired and demanded when they are believed in ;
their origin lies neither in the sphere of metaphysics
�18
’Theology of the
nor of theology; they can be explained only as
psychological phenomena. Mohammed was pressed
on all sides to perform miracles in vindication of his
alleged mission; the incessant requests of both
friends and foes, justified by the precedents of the
Old and New Testament, almost brought him to
despair ; and in vain he insisted, that the greatest
miracles are the creation, the animal and vegetable
kingdom, heaven and the seas.
The untutored and youthful mind delights in un
common and astounding mysteries, the manly intellect
endeavours to reduce all uncommon and astounding
mysteries to ordinary and intelligible laws. The one
is, therefore, prepared to witness miracles as soon as
an occasion arises, the other refuses to acknowledge
them even after they are supposed to have happened.
The childlike believer feels his yearnings unsatisfied
by the severe, impartial, and uniform rule of ever
balancing and all-embracing reason ; the thoughtful
philosopher disdains the insinuating flatteries of aspir
ing enthusiasm, and of exceptional or providential
protection, because he divines eternal harmony and
order in the stern sameness of nature’s working.
The former, therefore, in order to be awed, requires
extraordinary marvels, since “ the miracle is the
darling child of faith;” whereas the latter is im
pressed with a sense of sublimity by examining the
common and daily operations of nature. Confiding
apathy beholds in the affairs of life the inscrutable
and desultory play of preternatural influences ; ener
getic reason is restless to discover the connecting
thread of cause and effect. Hence the former either
disregards or reads in vain the book of the past,
while the latter derives from it the most fruitful
lessons for his guidance and training. The feeble
minded, conscious of his helplessness, constantly tries
to support himself by some unexpected and unac
countable aid; the resolute man of action glories in
his ability of maintaining his due place in the system
�Past and the Future.
x9
of creation by his own energy and the legitimate
exercise of his strength. And while the one is eager
to be lifted, on the wings of fancy and of faith, im
measurably beyond his natural sphere, the other pre
fers laboriously to conquer, by the sword of thought
and science, his proper domain as a rational being,
and to desire no more, convinced that he is great only
in the same degree as he is independent, and that
his conquests are sure and inalienable when he ob
tains them by his own exertions and the unrestrained
powers of his nature. The contrast, therefore,
between the miracle-loving Scriptures and the pro
ductions of pragmatic history, is the contrast be
tween poetry and truth, between the hazy beauty
of .the morning-dawn and the clearness of the midday-sun, between the first creditable efforts of reflect
ing infancy and the safe conclusions of experienced
manhood.
History rests on proofs and the internal evidence
of facts; the Biblical narrative introduces elements
lying beyond the test of ordinary examination, and
often directly opposed to experience, reason, and
possibility. While, therefore, the one possesses
objective truth, the other may be accepted or dis
carded according to the individual principles of the
reader.
The Scriptures habitually represent drought and
famine, pestilence and earthquake, floods and every
other disaster caused by the elements, as the results
of idolatry and wickedness; they make the cessation
of these inflictions dependent on the people’s re
pentance and reformation, and hence they speak, for
instance, of “the ignominy of famine” (Ez. xxxvi.
30): but the scourges of nature result from physical
laws which, though they should never be thoroughly
understood, certainly repudiate the notion of a direct
influence of the moral upon the physical world. And
with respect to the living creation, the conception of
the Bible is so childlike, that it assumes the pos-
�Theology of the
20
sibility of moral degeneracy in animals, usually sup
poses a simultaneous corruption of men and beasts,
and includes the one and the other in the same
exercises of penitence, fasting, and humiliation (Jonah
iii. 7-8); nay, it imagines that even the earth, the
abode of man, and the material from which his body
was framed, may share the general depravity ; and
hence it couples the destruction of man, as in the
deluge, with the destruction of the beasts, and at
least the temporary devastation of the earth, if not,
as in the punishment of Sodom and Gomorrah, its
utter annihilation—all which notions are to us like
strange and fanciful echoes of a remote past.
The veil which once covered and hid nature, has
in a great measure been withdrawn. The awe which
men felt at her grandeur, has thereby not been
diminished; on the contrary, it has gained in force
and. reality. But enquirers have arrived at the con
viction that they must renounce the hope of fathom
ing a power that rules her working ; that she does
not enable us to understand the distinction between
“a primary cause” and “secondary causes,” since,
throughout her dominion, she reveals causes that
we must consider as primary, and beyond which we
cannot pass if we desire to penetrate into the genesis
of things ; and that, therefore, man's dignity and his
happiness depend on the earnestness with which he
explores nature’s laws and obeys her suggestions and
behests.
3.
Prayer and
other
Devotions.
From the principles laid down with regard to
miracles, it will not be difficult to estimate the value
of several other fundamental notions which pervade
the Bible. If every effect produced in the material
world is the consequence of a commensurate physical
cause to which it is intrinsically related, human sup
plication, sacrifices, fasting, or any other form of
�Past and the Future.
21
devotion or asceticism, cannot possibly exercise an
influence on the course of events or on the destiny of
men. There exists no conceivable connection between
the one and the other. The spiritual aspiration of
prayer lies in a sphere totally different from that
which causes the changes or the progress of the ex
ternal world. If we read that Elijah’s prayer
suddenly called down from heaven a fire to consume
his sacrifice (1 Kings xviii. 36-38), we are startled by a
complete overthrow of all the truths to which we are
accustomed with regard to the permanent order of
things, and we find it impossible to abandon the un
disputed results of science in favour of a doubtful
tradition, even if this tradition did not form part of a
narrative coloured throughout by fanciful legends.
If the entreaty of Abraham at once removed the
barrenness which had afflicted the women in
Abimelech’s household (Gen. xx. 17, 18), if prayers
are supposed to effect or to accelerate the recovery of
the sick (Num. xii. 13, 14) and even to restore the
dead to life (Acts ix. 40), or to cause sudden blind
ness (2 Kings vi. 18), we fail to see, how words, how
ever fervent, can effect a physiological process result
ing from the complicated operation of the human
organism. And yet the New Testament plainly
teaches, “ Is any one sick among you ? let him call
for the elders of the Church, and let them pray over
him . . . and the prayer of faith shall save the sick”
(Jas. v. 14-16); nay it contends, “If you shall say
unto this mountain, Be thou removed, and be thou
cast into the sea; it shall be done; and all things
whatever you shall ask in prayer, believing, you shall
receive” (Mat. xxi. 21, 22); and thus it consistently
asserts, “ all things are possible to him that believes”
(Mark ix. 23). By what inherent force is prayer able
to stay a pestilence or a locust-plague, or to procure
the victory in war 1 If people pray for rain to
secure a plentiful harvest, they cannot be aware of
their irrational proceeding ; or else they would not
�Theology of the
cherish the impossible hope, that for the sake of the
limited, district in which they happen to live, the
meteorological laws which fix the distribution of rain
over the whole globe, should be capriciously upset, a
contingency which, were it feasible, would utterly
derange the atmospheric relations of our planetary
system.. In short, the efficacy attributed to prayer
lies entirely in the unreal region of the miraculous.
When, in 1865, public prayers were appointed to be
offered up throughout Great Britain for the cessation
of the cholera, the objections entertained by many of
the most educated men were well expressed by Prof.
Tyndall. “The great majority of sane persons,” he
observed, “ at the present day believe in the necessary
character of natural laws, and it is only where the
antecedents of a calamity are vague and disguised
that they think of resorting to prayer to avert it; ”
he calls this a “pagan method of meeting the
scourge j ” and he adds, “the ideas of prayer and of a
change in the course of natural phaenomena refuse
to be connected in thought.”
If the heart of a man is filled with humiliation and
shame on account of moral transgression or deficient
zeal in the exercise of virtue or of duty, let him, in
contrition, confess to himself his weakness and apathy,
and atone for his guilt by increased energy and dili
gence in all noble pursuits. If his soul rejoices in
the possession of boons and benefits, let him prove
that he deserves these blessings by using them unsel
fishly, by banishing pride, by lending his indefatigable
assistance to the less fortunate, and by unostenta
tiously aiding every good cause. And if his mind
contemplates with admiration the grandeur of nature
and the wonderful fitness of all her parts, let him
evince his appreciation by an eager . study of
her marvellous mechanism and by an ungrudging
obedience to the lessons she teaches. But it is vain
and irrational to utter supplications for such objects
as health, long life, or posterity, riches, success, or dis
�Past and the Future,
23
tinction j for they either lie entirely beyond the
control of man, or depend on the measure of his
abilities and his vigour, or they follow, as an inevita
ble sequence, from the organisation of society and the
order of the physical world. Ancient writers already
pointed out the difficulty, that different men of equal
earnestness and piety often pray for opposite things,
which the deity cannot possibly grant simultaneously.
“ Some sailors,” observes Lucian, “ pray for the north
wind, others for the south-wind; a farmer desires rain,
a cloth-worker sunshine, and often Jupiter is uncertain
and hesitates in his decision.” Nay Plato classes the
belief in the possibility of moving the gods by sacri
fices or prayers among the worst forms of impiety
and among the unfailing causes of wickedness.
Hence we may estimate the value of the prayers
sanctioned by the different creeds and sects • and we
take as a specimen the chief Christian prayer
attributed to Christ himself and partially borrowed
from the Hebrew Scriptures and Jewish sources
(Matt. vi. 9-13), a prayer which is allowed by common
consent to be one of the finest forms of supplication.
“ Our father which art in heaven.” Is that Being
which is adored as divine enthroned in one special
abode ? or does it pervade the universe and fill all
things that surround us, nature with her wonders and
her wealth? And what is “ heaven” in the scientific
language of our time ? Nothing distinct from sky or
air, atmosphere or ether.—“ Hallowed be Thy name.”
What does this traditional phrase and the following
one, “ Thy kingdom come,” express which cannot be
conveyed with much greater clearness by terms,
derived from the sphere of practical ethics—by an
exhortation to self-sacrificing devotion and unswerv
ing rectitude, universal diffusion of peace and virtue,
of knowledge and truth?—“Thy will be done in earth,
as it is in heaven.” This absolute power of decision
in all things contradicts our views of the general course
of events as regulated by our own exertions and
�24
Theology of the
by unchangeable conditions.—11 Give us this day our
daily bread.” Even the most pious can see in these
words hardly anything beyond the wish that the efforts
of his intelligence or activity may be successful, or
that the operation of the elements which constitute
our social organism, may be favourable for securing
his sustenance or establishing his worldly prosperity.
“ And forgive us our debts as we forgive our
debtors.” Only the latter part of this invocation
depends upon ourselves, and if carried out in a free
and generous spirit, forms our highest moral glory;
but the former part is in many cases unfeasible; for
a guilt can only be condoned by those against whom
it has been committed; and very often the com
munity does not and cannot pardon guilt, but exacts
the most rigid retribution, which, however, involves
the expiation of the offence.—“And lead us not into
temptation, but deliver us from evil.” It is against
the well-known order of things that circumstances and
events should be guided with the special view of
keeping individuals away from temptation; they take
their necessary course, and trials can only be avoided
and misfortunes overcome by prudence and moral
strength.—“For Thine is the kingdom, and the
power, and the glory for ever.” These words can
receive a distinct meaning only by depriving the world
of matter of all independence, and human society of
all responsibility.
Devotion, in the spirit above indicated, is not only
beneficial, but indispensable to every moral mind;
while prayer in the vulgar sense is at variance with
reason and intelligence. “Praying,” observes Kant,
“taken as a formal act of worship and a means of
grace, is a superstitious illusion; a sincere wish to
please God in all our ways, that is, the frame of mind
accompanying all our actions and making them ap
pear as being performed in the service of God, is
the spirit of prayer, which can and ought to work
within us incessantly.”
�Past and the Future.
25
Before beginning difficult or uncertain and danger
ous enterprises, men feel disposed to pray and to
invoke a higher assistance. What is the motive or
impulse of such prayers 1 They express the wish, that
all external circumstances also may be propitious,
which, no less than man’s own strength and ability,
prudence and perseverance, are required for the suc
cessful issue; they are, in a word, appeals to fortune,
or if it be preferred, to chance, which consists in an
auspicious concatenation of extraneous conditions.
It may be that in many cases prayer, by producing
a calm confidence, enhances the energy of man, and
contributes to his success; but it does not exercise
that influence because it is in reality efficacious, but
because he who prays believes it to be so. Therefore,
rational men will prefer earnest reflection, or any
other means of rousing their activity, to a ficti
tious help founded upon delusion |and prompted by
weakness. Men have indeed at all times wavered
on this point. Intelligence and a sense of independ
ence urged them to expect their happiness from their
own exertions, but inertness and indolence led them
to rely, at least partially, on prayer. This fluctua
tion gave rise to utterances like this, “ Trust in the
Lord and do good,” (Ps. xxxvii. 3), or the timehonoured injunction ora et labora, and many similar
adages. In the Bible we read, on the one hand,
“ Whatsoever thy hand finds to do, do it with all
thy might” (Eccl. ix. 10); and on the other hand,
“ Cast thy destiny upon the Lord and He will
sustain thee,” (Ps. lv. 24), or “ unless the Lord build
the house they labour in vain that build it; unless
the Lord guard the city the watchman wakes in
vain ” (Ps. cxxvii. 3); and progressing almost to the
verge of paradox, the same text continues, “It is
vain for you to rise up early, to sit up late . . . for
He (God) gives it to His beloved in his sleep.” The
Bible indeed attaches prominent weight to reliance
and faith, as might be expected from its eastern
�0.6
Theology of the
origin and from the childlike stage of intellectual
development which it represents ; and it is, on this
account, especially foreign to our present modes of
viewing life and the government of the world.
Kindred with prayers are the blessings and curses
pronounced upon others : the blessing of Isaac, even
supposed it were not written post eventum, was power
less to secure the prosperity of Jacob’s descendants,
who had to depend on their own conduct and the
favour of circumstances ; nor could the curses of
-Balaam have exercised any influence upon the career
of the Israelites. The belief in the efficacy of bless
ings and curses, though often emanating from the
laudable desire of securing the good wishes of the
pious, or from the well-founded fears of a guilty
conscience, is, in fact, based on that fatal confusion
of the moral and the material world, which is the
prolific parent of deplorable and most dangerous
superstitions.
That which is true of prayer, the purest and most
spiritual form of devotion, applies with increased
force to all other pious exercises, as sacrifice and fast
ing. There is no connection between these practices
and the ordinary affairs of human life. No degree of
self-castigation can avert a calamity inevitably result
ing from a chain of events or from physical conditions.
It cannot be too often repeated—to expect an effect
without a corresponding cause, is superstition. Yet
the Biblical narrative constantly introduces or recom
mends prayer, sacrifice, and fasting, and attaches to
them a profound and mysterious reality. . Who will
deny, that any ceremony, however unmeaning in
itself, if performed in a spirit of earnestness and
humility, may serve the best and holiest ends of
religion, by rousing the soul and directing it to
right and duty ? But here again, it is not the cere
monies which work so beneficially, but the frame
of mind which they tend to call forth; however,
this frame of mind, very different in different wor
�Past and the Future.
27
shippers, can be produced in many other ways,
and is, in fact, more surely engendered by means
better consistent with the true nature of man and
his place in creation. Even the so-called good works,
as charity and alms-giving, truly ennobling and
elevating if exercised from a consciousness of the
obligations which man owes to man, and from a
feeling of single-minded self-denial, are noxious and
perverse, if performed in the selfish hope of obtain
ing the favour of the deity and thereby securing
temporal or eternal happiness; not only do the
good works thus lose their chief merit and grace, not
only do they cease to be the brightest glory and most
precious ornament of man’s life, but they contribute
to foster both egotism and superstition (Luke xiv.
12-14). We must advance even a step farther and
weigh the value and force of penitence,. If the
destruction of a town as Nineveh is all but impend
ing, and is yet averted by the repentance of its
inhabitants (Jonah iii.); we are justified in asking,
how such an effect can be wrought by such a cause ?
(Jer. xxvi. 13, 19). We are far from undervaluing
the supreme merit and wonderful power of repent
ance, which is to be prized as the chief means of
purification and peace of mind, because it is alone
able to counterbalance our inherent weakness, or at
least to mitigate its baneful operation : but we can
not attribute to it any practical or outward in
fluence ; for the confession of sinful or wicked
acts cannot make them undone; a deed cannot be
effaced by a thought, but only by another deed, or
by uncontrollable circumstances; on the contrary,
experience and reflection teach us alike that no
penitence, however sincere and unremitting, can
wipe out a transgression; sin must be expiated
by suffering; but the sufferer is upheld by the
conviction that, as his vice, his indolence, or his
imprudence has plunged him into distress and
sorrow, so his virtue, his energy, or his thought-
�28
Theology of the
fulness can restore him to happiness and harmony
of mind.
4. Revelation.
The principles above laid down enable us to assign
its due place to another group of notions affecting the
very groundwork of the Scriptures—revelation, in
spiration, and prophecy.
The main precepts of the Pentateuch claim to be
directly communicated by God to Moses ; and both
the earlier patriarchs and distinguished men of later
times are represented as having enjoyed God’s per
sonal intercourse at decisive epochs of their lives. Let
us examine the dogmatic foundations upon which such
conceptions were built up. It is true that the incorpo
reality of God is theoretically taught in the Pentateuch;
yet He appears in human form (Gen. xviii. 2, 17),
and is seen in the visions of the prophets (Is. vi. 1);
He speaks distinctly and intelligibly, and thus com
municates His thoughts and designs to His elected
mediators (Ex. xxxiii. 18-23). There is but one
step from these views to the doctrine of incarnation;
and thus theology almost returns, as if by a circular
movement, to the point from which it at first started—
to the notion of personal gods with human attributes.
But how can a Spirit that pervades the universe, and
which is only accessible to our intellects by the
works that fill the world, and by the laws that
govern it, commune bodily or personally with men,
and reveal to them commands or doctrines 1 The
most Divine power of which we have knowledge
and consciousness, is human reason, and this suffices
to secure man’s dignity and his happiness. Wise
and good men, intending to convey to their fellow
beings what they regarded as irrefutable truth,
clothed their teaching in the form of a revelation,
because this is the most impressive, and was there
fore, for such purposes, the most usual and familiar
mode of communication.
�Past and the Future.
29
Let us analyse a clear instance of revelation or theo
phany ; we choose one distinguished by simplicity and
grandeur, and composed by Isaiah who is unquestionably
to be counted among the noblest and most gifted of
the ancient Hebrews. “ In the year that king Uzziah
died,” he writes (Is. vi. 1-13), “I saw the Lord sitting
upon a throne, high and lofty, and His train filled
the Temple. Above Him stood seraphs ; each one
had six wings ; with two he covered his face, and with
two he covered his feet, and with two he did fly.
And one cried to another and said, Holy, holy, holy,
is the Lord of hosts; the whole earth is full of His
glory. . . . Then said I, Woe to me ! for I am
undone; because I am a man of unclean lips, and I
dwell in the midst of a people of unclean lips ; for my
eyes have seen the King, the Lord of hosts ”—after
which a seraph touches the prophet’s lips with a live
coal, and God charges him with the mission of preach
ing to the Israelites. Has this narrative literal
truth ? Can it have reality ? Isaiah sees God. Can
God be seen ? Would the prophet in sober earnest
ness admit the possibility ? Can he then fear in
stantaneous death on that account 1 He sees God
sitting on a throne. Can a spirit be so conceived,
and is it tied to the conditions of space ? The
train of God is noticed. How is this to be under
stood ? And has He any form that admits of the
contrast between above and below ? The prophet
observes that the train filled the Temple. Is God
enclosed within the walls of an edifice ? And in
what manner can the garment of a spiritual being
fill a circumscribed space ? He sees, moreover,
seraphs with six wings. What are seraphs ? Are
they not, like all angels, demons, and spirits, both
good and evil, pure and impure, which are so promi
nent in all parts of the Bible and most so in the
latest, are they not beings of eastern mythology,
creatures of fancy, without possible reality 1 Yet he
sees them “ standing above God.” What does it
�30
Theology of the
mean “ above God ? ” What can there be above Him
who fills the heaven and the heaven pf heavens, and
the whole universe ? Then the seraphs speak, and
God speaks, and Isaiah answers, and the angels per
form a symbolical act. How is communion between
God and man possible by means of language? Does
an incorporeal being utter articulate speech intelligible
to man ? Can an enlightened person in addressing
God expect a verbal reply ?—Now in what light are
we to look upon this vision of Isaiah? The idea of
deception or imposition must be utterly discarded,
and is at once banished by the loftiness and purity
of Isaiah's character. Is the vision, then, the result
of wild self-illusion and religious ecstasy ? The usual
calmness and clear-sighted penetration of the writer
would fainly make us abandon this alternative. Is
it, therefore, merely and simply a poetical invention,
a form of composition designed to describe interest
ingly his vocation as a teacher and his initiation as a
prophet? The earnestness and depth of the author
forbid us to suppose frivolous playfulness in relating
the holiest and most important event of his life. What
view, then, remains ? Though the narrative evinces
prominently neither the fervour of .religious enthu
siasm, nor the beauty and effectiveness of poetry,
it appears to imply a combination of both. Isaiah,
in common with his time and people, believed
the possibility of a direct revelation ; and he had
ardour enough to persuade himself that the powerful
impulse which stimulated him to his great work,
might be hallowed or confirmed by a solemn theo
phany. On the other hand, he could scarcely deceive
himself so far as to imagine that he had actually re
ceived such revelation by the personal appearance
and address of God; yet he might well describe, his
initiation in a form which was familiar to his con
temporaries, and which he was able to employ with
clearness and impressiveness.
Visions, usual in works of eastern theology, and
�Past and the Future.
31
naturally varying according to the disposition and
talent of the authors and the taste of their times,
grew more and more in favour among the Hebrews;
they are found with increased frequency in the later
writings, especially in the Book of Daniel and the
Revelation of St John, till they were overloaded with
an exuberant, if not extravagant, admixture of
symbolism and allegorical adornment. Narratives like
that under examination, have, therefore, a very high
psychological interest, but they can be fully under
stood and appreciated only if viewed as an illustration
of the age in which they were written, or to which
they refer. This applies pre-eminently to the most
important of all revelations, those of the Pentateuch.
The authors of these compositions, living many cen
turies after the events they narrate, and imbued
with the idea that God appears personally to His
messengers to charge them with His commands, of
course, believed that Moses had above all other
men been deemed worthy of receiving Divine reve
lations; and that as his legation was more moment
ous than that of all his successors, so the personal
manifestations of God had, in his case, been more
direct, more striking, and more grandly communicated than on any previous or later occasion. Eager
to exalt his mission, they enlarged and, it may be,
exaggerated the notions of their own time with regard
to theophanies; and their narratives are, therefore,
the combined result of conviction and of logical in
ference. Hence it is futile in the extreme to reduce
all visions of the Bible to suggestions by dreams, as
has been attempted by Maimonides and others. - Much
nearer the truth are those who refer them to the
working of the imagination, a faculty which they
require even more than superiority of mind. But
this is sufficient to determine the degree o-f their
reliability. “ By what laws of nature those visions
happened,” observes Spinoza, “ I confess my inability
to decide. I might indeed say, like others, that they
happened by the power of God; but this I should con-
�3 2.
Theology of the
sider as idle nonsense; for it would be like attempt
ing to explain the nature of some extraordinary thing
by a transcendental term.” But we must not stop
here; we can, in our age, not rest satisfied with re
signedly declaring, “ It is not necessary that we
should know the source of prophetic knowledge,
and we have no concern in fathoming the principles
of the Biblical documents.” By knowing that visions
are, in a great measure, the result of an active irnagination, we know their source or principle, and are
perfectly enabled to estimate their value. We must
therefore question the philosophical truth of the re
mark, “As the prophets received the revelations
of God by the help of imagination, it cannot be
doubted that they were able to conceive many truths
that lie beyond the limits of the intellect:” imagination, which is by Spinoza himself called vague
and inconstant, and declared unfit to understand the
things accurately, cannot really and of itself suggest
higher truths than calmly weighing reason; and
indeed the same thinker, perhaps advancing too
far on the other side, maintains, “ Those who desire
to learn from the books of the prophets wisdom and
knowledge of natural and spiritual things, are entirely
in error,” because imagination, without the judgment
of reason, involves no certainty; and he proves elabo
rately that “ prophecy never made the prophets more
learned, but left them in their preconceived opinions,
and that we are, therefore, in no way bound to believe
them in merely speculative matters;” that the pro
phets were ignorant of the causes of the phenomena
of nature; “ that they have taught nothing new
about the Divine attributes, and held the vulgar
notions of God, to which they adapted their revela
tions.” But if imagination is understood as a medium
of “ Divine revelations,” the argument is not advanced
a single step, as it would still move within the sphere
of the supernatural, especially if it is clearly con
tended that “ the revelations pass beyond the reach
�Past and the Future.
33
of human capacity;” though it is, on the other hand,
averred with strange inconsistency, that “ the doctrine
of the Scriptures does not teach sublime speculations
and philosophical tenets, but the simplest things
which are accessible to the dullest understanding.”
The books that are called revealed have, in fact,
disclosed nothing that reason and experience are un
able to suggest; they contain many truths which
reflecting minds of all nations have concurrently dis
covered ; they abound in errors which, in many
instances, almost destroy the beneficial effects of those
truths, and which the persevering exercise of reason
and of observation has alone been able to notice
and to correct. But even if their human origin were
not sufficiently disclosed by internal evidence, if they
did not, by innumerable tests, betray themselves
as the compositions of fallible, imperfectly informed,
though mostly noble-minded and gifted men, we should
not be able to accept them as anything else. The
writers indeed considered as reality and fact what
they supposed to be possible or what appeared to
them desirable, because it was a necessity in their
age, and was therefore not likely to be questioned by
their contemporaries. But they could not have been
aware of the incredible mischief which their pretended
“revelations” have produced. For they professed to
proclaim final truths, “ to which nothing was to be
added, and from which nothing was to be taken off
and thus they fettered thought and research, and re
tarded human progress in its most important spheres.
Moreover, as their words were considered as the
utterances of Divine wisdom, itself, every opposition or
even deviation was looked upon as blasphemy and
crime punishable by human authorities; heresy
was no more an error, but rebellion against the
supreme Lawgiver; and thus were caused those
fearful struggles and appalling persecutions, which
will for ever remain a dark stain in the history of
the human race, and which, for fierce and merciless
C
�34
Theology of the
cruelity, are unparalleled even in the annals of pagan
superstition.
Instead of directing man to exert his own facul
ties, the Bible dictates to him what he is to
consider as the end of all research and knowledge;
it makes him a passive recipient of truth, whereas
he feels the unconquerable impulse of searching
for truth himself; and instead of leaving to him the
triumphs of well-employed reason, it claims them en
tirely for a Being immeasurably above him. Revela
tion, therefore, in so far as it coincides with reason,
might work beneficently, and has fortunately worked
so in a considerable degree; but it derogates materially
from the moral value of the actions which it prompts;
for actions, not performed from spontaneity and choice,
but in obedience to an authoritative command from a
higher power, not only lose the noblest attribute of
virtue, but are open to thousandfold evasions and per
versions : this double danger is effectually avoided
by leaving the sovereignty to reason itself, instead of
delegating it to revelation, its temporary and imper
fect embodiment. Morality does not deserve its
name, unless it flows from pure and free motives.
Works of charity, benevolence, and good-will, per
formed because they are commanded with the promise
of reward and the threat of punishment, cease to be
meritorious. In short, revelation, based upon a de
fective notion of the Deity, enslaving human reason
and slighting its strength and dignity, enforcing the
dangerous surrender of human enquiry in favour of a
supernatural code, unjustifiably converting cosmic or
anthropological truths into theological dogmas, and
boldly pronouncing, in the name of an invisible spirit,
as eternal law what is no more than the emanation of
human thought, and what, therefore, is liable to
error and capable of improvement, depending on the
intellect of man for all it utters, and then presumptu
ously demanding the mastery over him, and hence
fostering sophistry and casuistic distortion, which
are required to harmonise the later advancements of
�Past and the Future.
35
truth with its own immovable dicta—the idea of
revelation combines all that is objectionable and
preposterous in positive religion, and manifests at a
glance its weakness and its fallacy. The term revela
tion which, in its essence, precisely coincides with
human knowledge and wisdom, can therefore be
dispensed with altogether, and ought only to be em
ployed conventionally for describing the traditional
view of orthodoxy.
The greatest confusion is, however, created by an
indiscriminate use of that word as well in its dog
matic or technical meaning and also in a figurative
sense as merely synonymous with enlightenment or
the productions of genius. This may often arise from
indistinctness of thought, but it is, we are afraid, not
unfrequently the result of insincerity and equivoca
tion. Yet it is highly objectionable unfairly to attri
bute a new notion to an old term which unsuspecting
readers naturally understand in the vulgar sense. An
honest mind will shun a duplicity designed to con
ciliate opposite views, but really satisfying neither
the believer nor the critic, and enveloping the most
important questions in deluding haziness. How little
either religion, philosophy, or history gains by such
unmanly and allegorising playfulness, may be best
proved from Lessing’s treatise on the Education of
the Human Race, which, composed in the deceptive
form of a fictitious logic, in no manner advances the
subject which it endeavours to elucidate. We shall
briefly review its leading ideas. “ That which edu
cation does for individuals, revelation works for the
whole human race” (Sec. 1). Here the term revela
tion is manifestly employed in its usual or orthodox
acceptation. But we pass to the following clause “ Education is revelation which is imparted to indi
vidual men; and revelation is education, which has
been imparted, and is still being imparted, to the
human race” (Sec. 2). In what manner is it “still
being imparted?” Theologians are agreed that re-
�2,6
Theology of the
velation, in its dogmatic meaning, has completely
ceased many centuries ago; nor is education a super
natural disclosure conveyed from beings of a superior
species or order to those whom they educate. Reve
lation must then, in that clause, not be taken in its
traditional, but in a metaphorical sense, as increase
of knowledge or wisdom. In what mazes of perplexity
are we thus intricatedl In reading the essay, we
must be on our guard wherever the word revelation
occurs, and try whether the one meaning or the other
suits the context; the term is therefore an indistinct
hieroglyphic to be modified and interpreted at plea
sure.—“ Education conveys to man nothing which he
might not learn from his own mind; it conveys it to
him only more rapidly and more easily. Just so
revelation conveys to the human race nothing that
human reason, left to its own resources, would not
also discover, only it conveyed and conveys to him
the most important of these truths earlier” (Sec. 4).
Can the confusion go farther ? That revelation”
which teaches nothing except the suggestions of
human reason, is not the revelation of orthodoxy
which is beyond human reason and often opposed to
it; for orthodox faith acknowledges the principle, “1
believe it, because it is absurd,” and it insists upon
the reality of all Biblical miracles, which are absolutely
contradicted by human reason. Yet that revelation
is asserted to teach certain truths “ earlier.” Then it
is, after all, some supernatural communication which
anticipates the operation of human reason. This
idea of revelation is entirely novel, and has little in
common with the dogmatic definition of the term;
for according to the former, it merely accelerates the
discoveries of man’s intellect, while, according to the
latter, it unfolds new truths not attainable by un
aided reason. So then, to complete the chaos, we have
a third definition of revelation more vague than either
the traditional or the figurative acceptation; for we may
ask, which are “the more important truths” which
�Past and the Future.
37
‘•'revelation” communicates to men “ earlier?” and
would nations and tribes, not favoured with these
revelations, arrive of themselves at the same results in
the course of time ? Orthodoxy attributes to revela
tion the disclosure of all truths necessary to “ make
wise unto salvation,” and “ profitable for doctrine, for
reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteous
ness” (2 Tim. iii. 15, 16) ; and it contends that these
truths can on no account be derived from any source
except the revealed or inspired Books. Inaccuracy
so wavering and so shifting necessarily engenders the
grossest fallacies ; and indeed Lessing thenceforth
mainly develops the vulgar and absolutely unhistorical
view of the progress of human civilization. “ God has
seen fit to keep a certain order in His revelation, and
to remain within certain limits” (Sec. 5). He furnished
the first man with the notion of one universal
Creator; but man, then left to his own reason, soon
misunderstood that notion, and divided the one
Infinite God into many finite beings, each with
peculiar attributes ; and this was the origin of poly
theism or idolatry ; “ and who knows, how many
millions of years human reason would have strayed
on these false paths, although some individuals in
every land and at all times knew that they were
false paths, if it had not pleased God to give human
reason a better direction by a new impulse?”—namely
by singling out the Israelites for His immediate care
and guidance, in order to effect, through them, the
education of mankind (Secs. 5-9, 18). The sentences
quoted contain all the current elements of error and
absurdity. They are as unphilosophical as any
other system of orthodox theology. God is suddenly
introduced as a real deus ex machina, whenever the
author sees no other means of helping him out of
historical difficulties. How has this working of God
or the whole process of education attributed to Him
been arrived at? Exclusively through the Books
which arc supposed to contain “revelation.” But no
�38
Theology oj the
proof of the reality or possibility of a revelation has
ever succeeded. We move, therefore, in a narrow
circle which entirely shuts out the exercise of logical
deduction. The first man, it is maintained, was fur
nished with a correct notion of the indivisible unity
of God. This assertion is against all psychological and
historical probability. We know that, for many ages,
religion consisted in the deification of nature, because
untutored generations, awed by her powers, were
unable to comprehend her laws; and it is certain
that many ages passed by before the abstract idea of
one all-comprising God was conceived and maintained.
The course of development was, therefore, exactly
the reverse of that stated ; for how is it possible that
the errors of polytheism and idolatry should have
taken such deep roots all over the globe, if the know
ledge of one God had once been known, especially
as it is admitted that “ some individuals in every land
and at all times knew that they were false paths?”
Surely, if revelation, as was before contended, im
parts nothing but what human reason is of itself
able to discover; and if, moreover, the notion of one
Deity had once been revealed to man, and was thus
stamped as a truth consonant with his reason and
attainable by its efforts, he could not so utterly have
lost it, as to require “millions of years” to return
to it anew. And as the great Lessing was, by the un
warranted use of the term revelation, misled to con
clusions unworthy of his acumen and philosophical
genius, and elaborately carried out through a lengthy
chain of biassed reasoning, in which biblical history,
allegory, and reflection are fancifully commingled ; so
the same mistakes were repeated and aggravated by
men determined not to pass beyond certain self
imposed boundaries, and often blindly disinclined to
attach weight to the lessons of history and to the
methods of philosophic thought. A similar obscurity
is caused by Spinoza’s terminology, which renders an
exact appreciation of his views extremely difficult;
�Past and the Future.
39
he speaks of the “ commands of God ” (jussa Dei)
and the “ Divine Law ” (lex divina), but he is far
from attributing to these terms their traditional sense ;
“ the means required by the end of all human actions,
that is, by the knowledge and love of God, may, in
asmuch as the idea of Him is in us, be called com
mands of God, because they have been prescribed to
us as it were by God Himself, in so far as He exists
in our minds ; and the mode of living which has that
aim in view, might very well be called the Divine Law.”
We believe, certainly not “very well,” but to the
serious detriment of clearness in the most important
questions. The Divine laws and commands, as the
Bible understands them, are not those which flow from
our divine reason, but those which a power above, and
distinct from our reason, is said to have proclaimed.
Even with respect to the notion of God, Spinoza con
tinues the same ambiguity; he observes, on the one
hand, that God “ can be called King, Lawgiver, just,
merciful, and the like only in adaptation to the imper
fect capacity of the people, and from defective reason
ing, since all those attributes appertain to human nature
only, and must altogether be kept removed from
the Divine nature ; ” yet he maintains, on the other
hand, that “ God acts according to the necessity of
His nature and perfection, and directs all things ;
that, in fact, His decrees and volitions are eternal
truths, and ever involve necessity.” The impersonal
character of the Deity, conveyed with sufficient clear
ness in the first remark, is almost hidden in the
second, and will only be detected by those who are
thoroughly familiar with the philosopher’s system.
5.
Inspiration.
It would be needless, after the preceding remarks,
to characterize minutely the term inspiration. Those
who, in our age, persist in regarding it as a suggestion
from some superhuman source, have forfeited the
�4°
Theology of the
right of speaking in matters of historical research.
Inspiration is in reality nothing bnt intellectual or
moral elevation of man himself striving to rise to
the utmost greatness and purity of his nature ; there
fore the word, if employed at all, may with equal
propriety be applied to the earnest and noble effusions
of any gifted mind. The point has indeed been
virtually surrendered even by orthodox divines. “ A
doctrine of inspiration,” observes Tholuck, at the
conclusion of his exposition of the Epistle to the
Hebrews, “ which assumes uniform correctness of the
words of Scripture cannot be accepted in accordance
with the results here obtained.” “ The treatment of
the Bible in conformity with the theory of literal in
spiration,” says Dr Doellinger, “would render all
theology impossible;” and Dean Stanley writes, “This
doctrine of literal inspiration can henceforth no more
be imposed on the English Church.” If there is a dif
ference between the so-called “ inspired Books” of the
Bible and “ profane” works, it arises from the circum
stance that the Scriptural Canon includes, on the whole,
such writings only as are either directly designed to
elucidate religious doctrines, or are at least composed
from a spiritual or theocratic point of view, and
may therefore be considered in the light of religious
text-books. But the Hebrew Canon represents very
imperfectly the wealth of the literature of the ancient
Hebrews ; for its compilers, pursuing a special object,
narrowed the scope of the collection to one particular
class of writings, though they were not quite con
sistent in their plan, for they admitted several
portions entirely “profane” in tendency, as the
erotic “ Song of Solomon ” and the worldly forty
fifth Psalm. Hence it follows, on the one hand, that
Hebrew literature was both more varied and less
severe than would appear from the Hebrew Canon;
and on the other hand, that the works allowed to form
a part of the Volume possess, even in doctrinal
matters, no higher authority than they deserve on a
critical examination of their contents.
�Past and the Future.
41
But in this respect we notice two different stages.
Some divines admit historical errors and internal dis
crepancies in the Bible, and hence refuse to accept
the facts and narratives which it includes ; but they
maintain the immutable and eternal truth of the
Biblical doctrines and dogmas, and look upon them as
indispensable and all-sufficient for happiness, wisdom,
and salvation; therefore they yet attribute to the Bible
a Divine or supernatural origin, and declare that the
doctrines, and not the facts, were the end of revelation.
Others again believe that the manifest historical
errors of the Bible indeed compel us to ascribe to it
an ordinary human authorship ; but they nevertheless
hold or would seem to hold that the spiritual and
religious views laid down in the Scriptures, are the
highest and purest at which human reason is able to
arrive in its search after truth, and that they must,
therefore, be for ever adhered to as the standard of
faith. We do not know which of the two views
is the more inconsistent. If one part of a book,
however subordinate that part is declared to be,
abounds with errors, the book is not infallible, and
cannot, therefore, be considered Divine ; moreover,
it is an unfounded assumption that the portions of
the Bible which contain narratives are unessential; it
is a misconception of the spirit of the Scriptures, to
regard, for instance, the account of the Creation, of
the Flood, or the wanderings of the Israelites in the
desert, as collateral or indifferent; the Bible itself
makes no distinction between important and unim
portant parts; it insists, on the contrary, that no
single word ought to be added or taken away
(Deut. iv. 2); either the whole of the Bible is Divine
or the whole is not Divine; any intermediate opinion
is a feeble and unavailing compromise, whether
arising from insincerity or, from a conviction too
timid to follow out its own consequences. On the
other hand, if the Scriptures are the work of human
reason, it is difficult to understand, why human
�42
Theology oj the
reason should never be able to pass beyond them, and
produce something more perfect; it is against all
historical evidence to assume that man reached some
thousands of years ago the pinnacle of enlight
enment of which he is capable, and that ever after
wards his only task consists in preserving and
guarding the intellectual treasures then discovered.
This theory is devoid of all foundation ; for we know
that man has, since those times, largely advanced in
every valuable acquirement; that he has in particular
made marvellous progress in those branches of know
ledge which disclose the depths of the human mind
and the mechanism of the universe, in philosophy and
the natural sciences; and even now he feels that he has
scarcely mastered more than the rudiments of either.
As men wrote the books of the Bible, so men may, at
subsequent periods, write books that surpass the Bible;
and later again, works superior to the books that
surpass the Bible ; and till the genius of mankind is
degenerated or exhausted, every following generation
will attempt to outstep the efforts of anterior ages.
6. Prophecy.
The gift of prophecy which all ancient nations
attributed to elected favourites of the deity, is again
nothing else but the gift of human reason and judg
ment, striving to penetrate through the veil of the
future, and hence naturally liable to error. We are
far from denying the peculiar importance and the
most beneficent influence of'the Hebrew “ prophets.”
They were the ever movable element of Israel’s
religious training; and they counteracted, and for a
long time successfully, the dangerous stagnation en
gendered by the growth of the Levitical spirit. They
fought with undaunted courage against the narrow
ness of the priesthood, and often against the pre
sumption of kings; and they vindicated the right of the
spirit against the lifeless rigour of formulas, and
�Past and the Future.
43
the claims of morality against the encroachments
of ritualism and the dogma. They appealed with
fervid eloquence to the hearts and consciences,
not to the fears and prejudices of their hearers. They
loved their country with almost enthusiastic patri
otism. Uplifted by the feeling of a higher impulse
and assistance, they were enlightened teachers in re
ligion, and clear-sighted counsellors in politics. These
objects—the purification of faith, the improvement of
morals, and the advancement of national prosperity—constituted their chief mission ; prediction of the
future was only their subordinate function. The erro
neous translation of the Hebrew word navi by prophet,
while it means “ overflowing speaker,” has frequently
caused its innermost import to be misunderstood and
distorted; for it raises the accessory feature to almost
exclusive importance. The prophets of the Hebrews,
high-minded and unselfish, unequalled as a class in
singleness of motive and purity of aim, in perse
verance and intrepidity, practical experience and
literary ability, were indeed superior to the seers
of any other nation; they showed, moreover, greater
sagacity in the delineation of impending events,
since, as a rule, they were politicians, moving in
the very current of public life : but they were not the
less fallible ; their activity was tied to the common
and ordinary limits of the human mind; and therefore,
they occasionally predicted occurrences which either
were not fulfilled at all, or happened in a different
manner. Thus the prophet Amos (vii. 11) foretold
that “Jeroboam would die by the sword, and Israel
would surely be led away captive out of their own land;”
whereas, according to the historical account, “ Jero
boam slept with his fathers, and Nadab his son reigned
in his stead” (1 Kings xiv. 20). Jeremiah (xxii. 18,
19) prophesied of king Jehoiakim, that “ he would be
buried in the burial of an ass, and drawn and cast
forth beyond the gates of Jerusalem” (Jer. xxxvi. 30);
but history records that “ he slept with his fathers”
�44
Theology of the
(2 Kings xxiv. 6). Again, Jeremiah (xlix. 7-22) an
nounced concerning the Edomites, that all their towns
would be given up to eternal desolation, that in fact
the whole of their territory would be converted into
a dreary and uninhabited desert, the horror and
mockery of all strangers, like Sodom and Gomorrah,
and that the people themselves would be helplessly
carried away by Nebuchadnezzar; and gloomy pre
dictions of a similar nature, likewise suggested by deep
and implacable hatred, were uttered by Ezekiel,
Obadiah, and other writers. Now the Edomites were
indeed subjugated by the Babylonians, and suffered
considerable afflictions ; but they remained in their
own land; they succeeded even in appropriating to
themselves a part of southern Judea including
Hebron, which was, therefore, frequently called
Idumea; they took an active part in the Maccabean
wars, in the course of which they were compelled by
John Hyrcanus (about b.g. 130) to adopt the rite of
circumcision, and were incorporated in the Jewish
commonwealth. Ezekiel promised the political re
union of the empires of Israel and Judah (Ezek.
xxxvii. 22), which was never realised. The total
destruction of Gaza is repeatedly predicted in dis
tinct terms (Amos i. 6, 7) ; yet the town exists
to the present day. The coincidences are certainly
much more numerous than the failures; but the
prophecies were commonly framed in general, and
often in vague terms; the poetical elevation and the
rhetorical emphasis with which they were set forth,
were even unfavourable to nice accuracy; precise de
tails were avoided, names of persons were never men
tioned, and dates usually stated in round numbers,
or altogether omitted. Moreover, many professed pro
phecies are in reality nothing but history in the form
of prophecies, and were composed after the events to
which they relate; for ancient writers of all nations,
anxious to furnish a comprehensive survey of the past,
or to endow national institutions with a higher autho
�Past and the future.
45
rity, were accustomed to make pious and renowned
men of earlier ages pronounce the facts as prophecies,
which, however, the authors desired to be regarded as
real predictions of the men to whom they ascribed
them—a style of writing which recommends itself by
impressive solemnity, and to which Hebrew literature
owes some of its finest and noblest compositions.
Besides, the Bible teaches that false prophets may ven
ture predictions which God allows to be realised in
order to try the Hebrews whether they love Him with
all their hearts (Deut. xiii. 4); and to crown the con
fusion, the truthful or fraudulent nature of prophecies
uttered in the name of Jehovah, was according to the
Law to be tested by their realisation; predictions
proclaimed in the name of Jehovah, but not justified
by the event, were regarded as criminal deceptions to
be punished by the death of the impostor (Deut. xviii.
20-22): thus the practical value of prophecies as such
was extremely precarious and almost nugatory. In
short, the belief in prophecy has the same origin as
the doctrines of revelation and inspiration—namely,
the impossible supposition that the deity enters into
a direct and personal intercourse with some men
specially chosen.
These notions are, moreover, the source of other
errors, widely diffused in ancient times, and also shared
and recognised by the authors of the Scriptures—the
faith in oracles and dreams. Minds unaccustomed to
strenuous efforts and self-reliance, and untrained in
tracing cause and effect, were led to suppose that, in
perplexing situations, they might be enlightened and
guided by an immediate communication from the
deity, whether conveyed through the medium of some
remarkable person, or through the instrumentality of
some consecrated object. Who can contemplate, with
out grief and pity, the fraud and the mischief neces
sarily caused by so irrational a belief? The most
important private and public enterprises were made
dependent on the heart or liver of a sacrificial animal,
�46
Theology of the
on the smoke or flame that rose from the altar, on the
flight or cry of birds, the movement of serpents, or
the neighing of horses, on the figures formed in the
water of a goblet, on lightning or an eclipse of the
sun or moon, on comets and meteors, on the position
of rods or arrows thrown on the ground, the decision
■ of lots, the persons first seen or met in the morning
or just after deliberating on some enterprise, and on
thousand similar chances which possess no conceiv
able connection with the matter at issue, and the
interpretation of which was left to the shrewdness or
cunning of the official expositors. Soothsaying be
came a trade, and the soothsayers were used as tools
of the powerful, if they did not serve their own avarice
and ambition. Auguries often checked the most pro
mising, and encouraged the most pernicious schemes.
Oracles were consulted for private and for public
purposes, and they helped not seldom to produce the
effects which they predicted. Now, the Bible forbids
indeed the Israelites to consult the heathen gods and
their ministers (2 Kings i. 3, 6, 16), and to indulge in
divination, magic, or necromancy, but it unreservedly
sanctions oracles obtained of the God of the Hebrews
(Ex. xxviii. 30) through prophets (1 Sam. ix. 9)
I and by the Urim and Thummim (Num. xxvii. 21), or
granted by dreams (Num. xii. 6) or by the lot (Josh,
vii. 14-18).
7. Conclusion.
Let us now try to sum up the result of the preced
ing remarks.
It is not sufficient to appeal from the letter of the
Bible to its spirit; indeed the one “kills,” but even the
other is no longer life and truth to us. The spirit of
the Bible is not the spirit of our time; it is not the
light that illumines our path and points to our goal.
Many suppose they have removed all difficulties by
urging that religion must be separated from philosophy;
that “there exists between both neither community nor
relationship,” because, as they contend, the one aims
�Past and the Future.
at obedience and piety, the other at truth, and the
foundations of the former are Scripture and revela
tion, of the latter nature and general principles; that
the Bible is not intended to teach science, and con
demns disobedience but not ignorance ; that therefore
all speculations which do not directly make men obey
God, whether they relate to the knowledge of God or
the knowledge of natural things, do not concern
Scripture, and are to be kept apart from revealed reli
gion. But we adjure those who adopt this view of
Bacon, Spinoza, and others, earnestly to weigh its scope
and tendency. What, in the name of truth, is left
for religion to achieve, if it refrains from teaching the
knowledge of God and the knowledge of natural
things 1 How can it satisfy man’s nature, and be to
him all in all, if it disregards and leaves untouched
his most essential interests ? how can it claim to
direct manly and intelligent minds, if it excludes
truth from its sphere, overlooks nature, and banishes
from its doctrines general principles ? If some declare
that religion needs not to enquire what is God,
“ whether Fire, Mind, Light, Thought, or anything
else, nor to examine in what sense God is the proto
type of true life, whether because He has a just
and merciful heart, or because all things exist and act
through Him, and man therefore also thinks through
Him and discerns through Him what is right and
good, for it is indifferent what view people hold on
these mattersif, more questionably still, they as
sert, that faith is in no way concerned whether
people believe “ that God is omnipotent by virtue of
His essence or of His power, whether He governs all
things by liberty or the necessity of nature, whether
He prescribes laws as ruler or teaches them as eternal
truths, whether man obeys God from liberty of will
or from the compulsion of a divine decree, and whether
the reward of the good and the punishment of the
wicked is natural or supernatural in its mode: ” if,
we repeat, religion admits such notions, it works
its own destruction; it can have no importance for
�48
Theology of the
man, as it eschews his deepest and most sacred pro
blems. Viewed in this manner, religion and philo
sophy are not sisters, but are forced to become deadly
rivals. The separation of both does not involve their
conciliation but their hostile opposition. That fatal
contrast bears the guilt of the unhappy confusion
which convulsed many centuries. Safety and peace
do not lie in the division but in the union, or rather
in the identity of both. Truth is one and indivisible.
It is a paradox to assume a religious truth in contra
distinction to a philosophical truth. Faith has no
power and no reality, unless it flows from our rational
conviction and is at one with it and our philosophy
is imperfect, sterile, and unprofitable, unless it leads
to a “religious” life, that is, a life of love and justice,
of serenity and active benevolence. Philosophy and
religion must henceforth not mark out two different
provinces, but two chief divisions of the same pro
vince ; the joint aim of both is truth and moral train
ing ; and while philosophy has strenuously to search for
principles and first causes, religion must conscientiously
apply them in practical life. And inasmuch as virtu
ous action is the ultimate aim of all human efforts, it
matters little if we call philosophy the “ handmaid”
of religion, provided we remember that it is also its
“ torchbearer.”
Those who assign distinct spheres to philosophy
and religion, however sincerely disposed to acknow
ledge the rights of reason, drift unavoidably towards
views very nearly approaching those traditional
opinions which they mean to combat. Thus De
Wette arrives at the conclusion, that as “we require
a certain external unity and fundamental standard ”
of faith, it is indispensable “ to recognise the authority
of the confessions, in which Biblical interpretation
finds a safe support ”—which result is distinguished
from the orthodox creed only by its vagueness ; for
the author does not desire to have the Bible ex
plained “ according to the letter,” but “symbolically,”
�Past and the Future.
49
that is, so that the literal truth and accuracy of the
Scriptural narratives may be denied and abandoned,
provided the ideas they were intended to convey are
upheld and acknowledged. The separation between
form and thought in the Bible is indeed not only
justified, but imperative ; but if our confidence in
the correctness of the former is shaken, it is impos
sible for us to consider the latter as infallible, and
as eternally unalterable.
Head and heart, reflection and life, are identical•
true philosophy is, by its nature and tendency, prac
tical ; it does not only include religious elements, but
is itself religion.
Again, it is not enough to admit that there is in
Scripture “ a Divine and a human element,” a phrase
which occurs a thousand times in recent works of
speculative theology ; the “ human element ” is a
concession reluctantly wrung from reflecting minds
by the implacable force of facts ; but the concession
is rendered illusory and worthless by the supposition
of a Divine element, which is conceived to be above
the capacity and nature of man, and which is com
patible with assertions like these: “ The Holy Scrip
tures differ from every other book, because they
alone contain a guaranteed revelation, which lifts the
veil, so far as needed, from both the earliest past and
the remotest future, to disclose the motive, the sanc
tion, and the law of man’s labours, and because the
Holy Spirit, which watched over the delivery of that
revelation, filled the spirits of the writers with a
more complete and pervading presence than ever
presided over the execution of a merely human
work.” This passage is a tissue of fallacies and
groundless assumptions; the revelation embodied in
Scripture is no more “ guaranteed ” than any other
alleged supernatural communication ; it is philo
sophically impossible and historically undemonstrable; it has taught men nothing reliable whether
with regard to the history of his race, the origin
�5°
Theology of the
of the universe, or the development of our planet ■
it can teach him nothing certain with regard to
his future ; for prophecy is subject to error like every
other human speculation; it “ discloses the motive,
the sanction, and the law of man’s labours” from
points of view which have been essentially modified
by later convictions ; and there is no “ Holy Spirit ”
distinct from the intellect of man. The books which
compose the Bible must, therefore, be measured by
the ordinary standard of human faculties ; and the
result of an impartial enquiry will be that they pos
sess indeed those peculiar merits which fitted them
to serve as religious guides during many generations,
but that they have been eclipsed by other works in
accuracy of historical facts, in depth of philosophy,
and exactness of science.
It is true, in a certain sense, that “ opinions taken
absolutely without regard to actions involve neither
piety nor wickedness, and that a man has a pious or
an impious belief only in so far as his opinions move
him to obedience, or afford him a pretext for sin and
rebellion;” but, in the first place, the great questions
of our time do not simply relate to the practical
results of faith, but at least as much to its truth
and intrinsic credibility; for else we should arrive at
the paradox that in itself the darkest superstition
is unobjectionable ; and in the second place, dearly
bought experience teaches, that the only safe guarantee
of practical virtue lies in the enlightenment of reason
and the clearness of general notions ; nay, that a
mistaken obedience to a law ostensibly divine has
led to the most execrable enormities which it is dif
ficult to recall without a feeling of shame, such as the
criminal burning of witches, the fiendish tortures of
the inquisition, the sanguinary persecution of the
Jews,.and the implacable cruelty of religious wars; of
such excesses of horror and frenzy, even Christianity
was capable, because Christianity also ventured to des
pise the rule of reason, and to cast it into the fetters
�Past and the Future.
51
of unfathomable dogmas. Hence there is an internal
impossibility in the proposition, that “whosoever,
while believing the truth, becomes disobedient (that
is, depraved), has in reality an impious faith, but
whosoever, while believing falsehood, becomes obe
dient (that is, virtuous), has a pious faith;” or in the
maxim, “ Not he shows the best faith who shows the
best arguments of reason, but he who shows the best
works of justice and charity.” Within certain limits,
and under favourable circumstances, simplicity of heart
may indeed exercise virtue and self-denial, but it is
only the “true faith,” that is, enlightened conviction
or obedience to reason, which ensures the practice of
rectitude and kindness in all relations of life; and as
a rule, those will show the best works of justice and
charity, who can show the best arguments of reason.
It is, therefore, not only an erroneous, but also a most
dangerous opinion, that “faith requires pious doctrines
rather than true ones, and though there be among
them many which have not even a shadow of truth,
they are harmless, provided that he who adopts them
is not aware that they are false.” For without truth
genuine piety is impossible. The root of error and
falsehood cannot bring forth fruits of justice and
benevolence. Error, though believed to be truth,
necessarily manifests its fatal traces in deed and
thought. Our faith will be more perfect, and our
life more righteous, more honourable, and more useful,
the farther we advance in true knowledge.
Religion must become a reality in life ; but this it
can become only if it is understood; if it buds forth
from our own reflection and feeling; if it is neither
above nor below our nature ; if it is as far removed
from mystic speculation, as from the low impulses
of selfishness and pride. It must, therefore, on
the one hand, discard all unintelligible and sterile
notions, such as revelation, inspiration, and pro
phecy, and renounce uncertain traditions, fictitious
narratives, and lifeless ceremonies; but it must, on
�52
Theology of the
the other hand, foster the purest and highest virtues
of the human heart, and it must lead to an active life
of devotion, love, self-control, and cheerful sacrifice.
This feeling of ready abnegation and useful work must
be regarded as the only precious reward to be coveted.
The writers of the Bible not unfrequently describe such
a religion with force and beauty; it may suffice to
insert a few of their utterances, as it is impossible to
adduce all. “ God has shown thee, 0 man, what is
good; and what does the Lord require of thee, but
to act justly, and to love mercy, and to walk humbly
with thy God V’ (Mic. vi. 8). “ Let not the wise man
glory m his wisdom, neither let the mighty man
glory in his might, let not the rich man glory in his
riches ; but let him that glories glory in this, that he
understands and knows Me, that I am the Lord who
exercises loving kindness, judgment, and righteous
ness on the earth; for in these things I delight” (Jer.
ix. 22, 23). “The fruit of the Spirit is love, joy,
peace, long-suffering, gentleness, goodness, faith, meek
ness, temperance, against such there is no law” (Gal.
v. 22, 23). “All things whatsoever you would that
men should do to you, do you even so to them; for
this is the Law and the prophets” (Matt. vii. 12).
“All the Law is fulfilled in one-word, even in this :
Thou shaft love thy neighbour as thyself” (Gal. v.
1^)Lo\e is the fulfilling of the Law” (Rom. xiii.
8-10). “ Let us love one another; for love is of God,
and every one that loves is born of God, and knows’
God; he that loves not knows not God, for God is
love . . . If we love one another God dwells in us,
and His love is perfected in us . . . He that dwells
in love dwells in God, and God in him.” (1 John iv.
7, 8, 12, 16). These and similar principles form the
eternal and indestructible kernel of the Bible; they
are the secret of its intellectual conquests and of its
civilising power; they contain, indeed, the germs of
a universal faith, and every progress in religion
must be marked by their zealous realization in life.
�Past and the Future.
53
If they are taken as guides, the complaint will cease,
that “ men who boast of professing the Christian re
ligion, that is, love, joy, peacefulness, moderation, and
fidelity towards all, wrangle with reckless harshness,
and constantly act against each other with the bitterest
hatred, so that from these contentions rather than from
those virtues the creed of each is discernible.” For
“what does it profit, though a man say he has faith,
and have not works, can faith save him 1 . . . Faith,
if it has not works, is dead, being alone . . . You see
then, that by works a man is justified and not by faith
only” (Jas. ii. 14, 17, 20, 24). Yet all these beautiful
fruits of religion are never safe and reliable, unless
that faith is derived from the light of man’s own
mind ; to be practically efficient, it must be the result
of his own reflection, experience, and individuality;
it will help to extend the empire of charity and morals
on earth, not if it is merely handed down to him from
the distant past and from bygone ages, but if it is
the creation of his own nature, of his own wants, and
his own ideals.
The views here propounded may create, in some
minds, a twofold apprehension—first, of a confound
ing diversity of religious creeds, and secondly, of in
tellectual intolerance and persecution. But on every
essential point, the religious convictions of all will be
identical or kindred ; for they follow from the essence
of human nature, which is virtually the same under all
zones and all conditions of existence, which shows
everywhere the like aspirations, hopes, and endeavours,
the like spiritual needs and efforts; and however varied
the speculations, practical morality tends invariably to
the same end. And as regards intellectual toleration,
nothing is so certain to lead to gentleness, humility,
and forbearance, as honest research; for every step
onward discloses to us our limits ; and if the wisest
has finished his labours, he knows only that he
“ knows nothing,” and—to use a well known simile
of one of England’s greatest philosophers—he feels
�54
Theology of the
that he resembles the child that gathers pebbles on
the beach, while the ocean of truth lies all unex
plored before him.
Henceforth, therefore, we do not desire a religion
of fear which is the fruit of delusion, but of love
which flows from intelligence; not a religion of severity
which breeds servitude, but of joy which is the wit
ness and seal of freedom of mind and heart; not a re
ligion of strife which persecutes others through the
haughty assumption of infallibility, but of peace
which respects all honest convictions that can show
works of charity and unselfish devotion. Above
all reason, instead of being slighted and denounced
as feeble, fallacious, perverse, and corrupted, must be
restored to its right and functions as the supreme
tribunal; its light alone can dispel the darkness of
folly, pernicious illusion, and superstition; without
it, religion is hardly more than “ credulity and wretch
edness.” Occasionally the Bible also expresses
similar views (Prov. ii. 3-5); yet it insists that the
revealed Law alone is true wisdom and understand
ing (Deut. iv. 5, 6 ; Prov. ix. 10). It avails little to
proclaim reason as the highest judge in matters of re
ligion, unless it be consistently treated and respected
as such. There is, however, a class of honest thinkers
who timidly take back with one hand what they have
liberally conceded with the other. Thus it is declared
that history is not itself religion, because it employs
the purely intellectual and critical, and none of the
moral and spiritual faculties, and because thus the in
tellect, and not the soul, would be the first authority
in religion. Nobody, we presume, has ever identified
history and religion; but if a religious influence is
attributed to the study of history, it is not on account
of the faculties employed in ascertaining the facts,
but of those engaged in examining and estimating the
facts so ascertained ; not the learned labour of histo
rical criticism, but the philosophical use made of the
results of that criticism enlarges our sympathies and
�Past and the Future.
55
elevates our views; and in this respect history, or
the intellect working for its pragmatic survey, is in
deed not without a strong religious influence. Be
sides, the strict contradistinction between intellect
and soul must be rejected, as it tends to produce
the utmost confusion in the chief branches of
moral philosophy. The two notions do not exclude
each other ; for the true intellect includes soul; the
intellect that does not include soul is defective and
unsound; a well-balanced intellect cannot possibly act
coldly, selfishly, or cruelly ; it is noble, magnanimous,
and gentle ; it is conscious of its own boundaries, and,
therefore, unassuming and humble ; it knows too well
what it owes to others to be otherwise than indulgent
and charitable ; an intellect which does not possess
these. attributes, hardly deserves the name, for it
lacks its most essential characteristics. The apparent
exceptions which are occasionally found, will, on close
scrutiny, reveal some radical defect in the organiza
tion of the mind, or in the philosophical system it has
worked out or adopted.
Not obedience to doctrines imposed by extraneous
commands must be the rule of our actions, but free
dom of will and choice, or obedience to our reason
and our conscience. Not a number of books tradi
tionally handed down, and singled out by fallible
judgment from a vast multitude of works, is the true
source of religion, but the spirit which thirsts
after truth, and the heart which yearns for love;
the “ word of God ” was not merely heard dur
ing a limited period of human history; it has not
been mute for thousands, of years ; it was proclaimed
at all times when intelligence and moral excellence
uttered their thoughts and aspirations; and it will be
heard as long as the instinct to great and noble deeds
lives in mankind. There is therefore considerable
force.and propriety in the following remark : “ His
tory is neither likely to be the source of our religious
knowledge, nor actually capable of being satisfactorily
�56
Theology of the
established as such. Let us face this truth candidly.
Let us renounce the false ground at once and for ever,
and build as well as we may on what remains. True
that with the claims of history we renounce the hope
of obtaining an infallible creed. True that the con
sciousness which remains for basis is often obscure
and variable. . . . Still, still we say, let it be done !
It is worse and more dangerous to stand still than to
go forward. If an historical religion be built on the
sand, the sooner we learn it, ere the storms beat it
down and overwhelm us in its fall, the safer shall we
be.” When the law is engraven on the tablets of the
mind, it cannot be lost, it cannot be destroyed, it is
living and working, and blossoms forth incessantly in
deeds of charity and good-will. If the voice of rea
son is hushed, man is certain to sink into idolatry;
does it matter whether the idol is a figure of stone
or a Book that demands unreasoning reverence? That
Book was sacred and Divine as long as it represented
men s innermost emotions, and was honestly acknow
ledged by them as the chief guide of their lives ; it
ceased to be sacred and Divine when it began to fall
upon our minds with a strange accent, and reflected a
world which we felt had passed away. We may still
study it for understanding a most remarkable phase
of human civilization ; we may cull from its pages
many a practical and spiritual truth conveyed in
language wonderfully apt and impressive; but, as a
whole, it cannot edify us ; it cannot uplift us to
the height of our nature. It will always be che
rished with deep gratitude as the educator of many
generations; but it must yield the precedence to
the new light which the exploration of the forces
of nature and the powers of the human mind have
thrown upon the general economy of the world. Its
blessing is changed into a bane if it presumptuously
claims to be the sole legislator for all times ; it has,
in a great measure, fulfilled its mission; it can hence
forth only be an individual element among numerous
means of human culture.
�Past and the Future.
57
Yet many have argued, that the Bible, with all
its deficiencies, ought for ever to be maintained in
authority, because it offers great consolation to the
less strong-minded, is useful to the State, and can in
no way be injurious to the believer. Its truth can
indeed not be proved ; but this matters little, as
most human actions are uncertain and full of fluc
tuations—an opinion which necessarily involves the
most serious errors, and leads to the obnoxious distinction between a creed for philosophers and a creed
for the vulgar mass ; as if that which is illusion and
falsehood for the former could be truth and light for
the latter. A belief which does not satisfy the most
acute enquirer, can by honest men never be deemed
sufficient for the simple-minded. Many pretend that
the distinction is demanded by policy and expediency;
but it is generally prompted by pride and arrogance,
and always engenders hollowness and hypocrisy.
These characteristics are almost glaringly manifest
in the singular observation, that “the Law was given
for those only who are devoid of reason and the sup
ports of natural intelligence : ” the pride lies in the
assumed superiority over the bulk of mankind, and
the hypocrisy in the ostensible profession of “ re
velation ; ” for if revealed truths were sincerely
believed in, they would not, with evident contempt,
be described as important for the silly only, but
would be prized as no less valuable to the most gifted.
Every man is, by his nature, subject to supersti
tion, because he is, by his nature, subject to fear;
but by knowledge he must subdue fear and super
stition ; he must, on the one hand, rise to the con
sciousness of his dignity and power; and he must, on
the other hand, modestly subordinate himself as a
serving link of universal creation. But how does he
rise to his full dignity 1 If his mind strives to pene
trate into the first causes and the essence of things ;
if his heart conquers selfishness and all base emotions;
and if his actions, guided by love, aim at promoting
�58
Theology of the Past and the Future.
the welfare of his fellowmen. Therefore, truth,
virtue, and active love—these three form the
creed of the Future ; but the greatest of these is
truth (1 Cor. xiii. 13); for enlightenment leads to
gelf-control and to self-denying deeds; and knowledge
alone is able to keep man on the path of moderation
and thoughtfulness, and thus to secure, through
virtue, his inward peace and happiness.
TURNBULL AND SPEARS, PRINTERS, EDINBURGH.
�
Dublin Core
The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/.
Title
A name given to the resource
Victorian Blogging
Description
An account of the resource
A collection of digitised nineteenth-century pamphlets from Conway Hall Library & Archives. This includes the Conway Tracts, Moncure Conway's personal pamphlet library; the Morris Tracts, donated to the library by Miss Morris in 1904; the National Secular Society's pamphlet library and others. The Conway Tracts were bound with additional ephemera, such as lecture programmes and handwritten notes.<br /><br />Please note that these digitised pamphlets have been edited to maximise the accuracy of the OCR, ensuring they are text searchable. If you would like to view un-edited, full-colour versions of any of our pamphlets, please email librarian@conwayhall.org.uk.<br /><br /><span><img src="http://www.heritagefund.org.uk/sites/default/files/media/attachments/TNLHLF_Colour_Logo_English_RGB_0_0.jpg" width="238" height="91" alt="TNLHLF_Colour_Logo_English_RGB_0_0.jpg" /></span>
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Conway Hall Library & Archives
Date
A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource
2018
Publisher
An entity responsible for making the resource available
Conway Hall Ethical Society
Text
A resource consisting primarily of words for reading. Examples include books, letters, dissertations, poems, newspapers, articles, archives of mailing lists. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre Text.
Original Format
The type of object, such as painting, sculpture, paper, photo, and additional data
Pamphlet
Dublin Core
The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/.
Title
A name given to the resource
Theology of the past and the future
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Kalisch, M. M. (Marcus Moritz) [1825-1885]
Description
An account of the resource
Place of publication: Ramsgate
Collation: 58 p. ; 18 cm.
Notes: Date of publication from Preface. Annotations in ink. Part of the NSS pamphlet collection and from the library of Dr Moncure Conway. Reprinted from 1 of his 'Commentary on Leviticus' [1867]. Printed by Turnbull and Spears, Edinburgh.
Publisher
An entity responsible for making the resource available
Thomas Scott
Date
A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource
1871
Identifier
An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context
RA1832
N423
G5751
Subject
The topic of the resource
Theology
Bible
Rights
Information about rights held in and over the resource
<a href="http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/mark/1.0/"><img src="http://i.creativecommons.org/p/mark/1.0/88x31.png" alt="Public Domain Mark" /></a><span> </span><br /><span>This work (Theology of the past and the future), identified by </span><a href="https://conwayhallcollections.omeka.net/items/show/www.conwayhall.org.uk"><span>Humanist Library and Archives</span></a><span>, is free of known copyright restrictions.</span>
Format
The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource
application/pdf
Type
The nature or genre of the resource
Text
Language
A language of the resource
English
Bible-Controversial literature
Bible-O.T.-Leviticus
Bible. O.T.-Criticism
Conway Tracts
NSS
-
https://d1y502jg6fpugt.cloudfront.net/25778/archive/files/a1d870aed2cadc8f1456cec1b93840a4.pdf?Expires=1712793600&Signature=iW4cp-40ZlUu2tDn-Vkc6V1%7EH2q%7EzwdNj1LD6KJvQEF7RyVuGylVDzvrCdyFrqays2F4jXiSXQbajoN2SNedTUMbShiikSGPSqPLvoP8LNt%7E8VOO-UO1%7EqMz%7E0I6Banolf36AULLyU22f-VA9C3YMGTBQWGg%7EvOJhdd2%7E0Dqi0Sk2QpIT4z0B2ez-MW2cpcAqzwV1nJ8MI8WfgtuIaOZLSKTmdO4GaXAYTjveUIqbwlgQN89fIRIR79n4C1%7EeEx8T5QBbyPXTypv8Cy1A6CD-1VqlKjMxouEuUKkPjsnZoc2H-n5g3c7xUZnk%7ES%7EeZ%7ELm3L9Eg%7EDpast%7Efbb1KUJVA__&Key-Pair-Id=K6UGZS9ZTDSZM
31c9fc833aeb5ef6fdffaf6c14aa38d6
PDF Text
Text
NATIONAL SECULAR SOCIETY
THE
CREED OF CHRISTENDOM:
ITS FOUNDATIONS CONTRASTED WITH ITS
SUPERSTRUCTURE
BY
WILLIAM RATHBONE GREG
“The Prayer of Ajax was for Light.”
With a Preface by W. R. Washington Sullivan, Author of
“Morality as a Religionf “Ethical Interpretationsf etc>
[issued for
the rationalist press association, limited]
WATTS & CO.,
17, JOHNSON’S COURT, FLEET STREET, LONDON, E.C.
1905
�“ I should, perhaps, be a happier, at all events a more useful, man, if my mind
were otherwise constituted. But so it is : and even with regard to Christianity itself,
like certain plants, I creep towards the light, even though it draw me away from the
more nourishing warmth. Yea, I should do so, even if the light made its way
through a rent in the wall of the Temple.”—Coleridge.
“ Perplex’d in faith, but pure in deeds,
At last he beat his music out;
There lives more faith in honest doubt,
Believe me, than in half the creeds.
“ He fought his doubts and gather’d strength ;
He would not make his judgment blind ;
He faced the spectres of the mind,
And laid them : thus he came at length
“ To find a stronger faith his own ;
And Power was with him in the night,
Which makes the darkness and the light,
And dwells not in the light alone,
“ But in the darkness and the cloud.”
—Tennyson.
“ No inquirer can fix a direct and clear-sighted gaze towards Truth who is
casting side glances all the while on the prospects of his soul.”—Martineau.
“ What hope of answer or redress?
Behind the veil, behind the veil.”
—Tennyson.
�PREFACE
A few explanatory words may be deemed necessary to a new and
revised edition of a work which aroused so much interest, and earned
the generous approval of all competent to offer an unbiassed opinion,
when it appeared over half a century ago. The Creed of Christendom,
in spite of the damaging character of its analysis of the historic
documents and of the ethos of popular Christianity; in spite, too, of the
comparatively expensive price at which it was issued, has passed through
nine editions—no mean tribute to its excellence. Its success was not
due to the novelty of the method or the arguments of its author: as he
himself candidly admits, it is the work of a man with the ordinary
education of an English gentleman, deeply interested in the religious
problem, and perplexed by the difficulties besetting the traditional
Belief. Nothing he advances was new to the serious student of Religion,
even in the fifties ; his masters are, in the main, such well-known Con
tinental authorities as De Wette and Baur; but he presents the results
of their labours with a freshness and a force; in a spirit at once so
manly and modest, so sincere, high-minded and devout, as to compel
the attention of unprejudiced, truth-loving men. In the half-century that
has elapsed the critical positions, both as regards the Old and the New
Testament, have been very notably advanced, but the author has nothing
to disavow. No conclusion of his has been invalidated by subsequent
inquiry; the progress of research has but confirmed his judgment where
it has not enlarged its scope and extended his criticisms beyond his
original purview. It has, therefore, been thought advisable to allow the
text to stand as he left it in his ninth edition, and merely to add an
occasional note, within parentheses, indicating the main advances
in Critical Knowledge tending to modify his conclusions on such
matters as the date of the Gospels and some of the Epistles. Space,
however, has made it necessary to compress the ample material of his
two volumes, and even to omit some entire chapters, such as that on
the modern refinements of the doctrine of inspiration; on miracles;
on the limits of reliance to be placed on Apostolic authority, and the
�PREFACE
4
problem of the Future Life, which, it may be mentioned, he confesses his
inability to solve. Mr. Greg is interesting and suggestive as usual in
handling these subjects, but their omission does not, it is believed,,
impair the general effectiveness of his argument. Nothing wttlly
necessary to it is sacrificed, and more than enough is retained to
substantiate his main conclusion, that the Scriptures of the Old and the
New Testament are inadequate to the controversial burden, placed on
them by the Reformers, of guaranteeing the credibility of the
incomprehensible tenets of orthodoxy.
The increased interest now generally felt in Biblical studies in England,
coupled with the growing consciousness of the unsettled and thoroughly
unsatisfactory condition of the religious problem, seems to promise a
still wider popularity for so admirably lucid, temperate, and reverent a
statement of the case against the popular Creed. Such a book should
prove for many a valuable introduction to the rational study of Religion,
and notably contribute to the cause of genuine reformation by the
exposure of the untenable nature of the traditional teaching. The path
of enlightenment is most effectually barred by the common assumption
of the inerrancy of the Scripture record in all matters of belief and
conduct. This work is designedly re published as a compendious
refutation of the claims of Religion built on authority, Biblical or
ecclesiastical; as an incentive to the study of the religious question, and
an encouragement to the cultivation of habits of thought and selfreliance in matters of belief. The moral of the book is that a man
should learn to think for himself. “ He,” says Zschokke, “ who does
not like living in the furnished lodgings of tradition must build his own
house, his own system of thought and faith, for himself.”
W. R. Washington Sullivan.
January, iQOg.
�CONTENTS
Preface to the Present Edition
PAce
3
.....
....
7
.....
13
Author’s Preface to the First Edition
Introduction to Third Edition
CHAPTER I.
Inspiration of the Scriptures
35
.....
CHAPTER II.
Authorship and Authority
of the
Pentateuch and the Old
Testament Canon Generally.
•
•
'
46
•
CHAPTER III.
53
The Prophecies ........
CHAPTER IV.
Theism
of the
Jews Impure and Progressive
.
.
60
.
CHAPTER V.
Origin of the Gospels
......
64
CHAPTER VI.
Fidelity of the Gospel History—Nature
and
Limits
71
CHAPTER VII.
.
Fidelity of the Gospel History Continued—Matthew .
80
CHAPTER VIII.
Same Subject Continued—Mark
and
Luke
.
.
.
87
.
.
.
91
CHAPTER IX.
Same Subject Continued—Gospel of John.
�CONTENTS
6
CHAPTER X.
Results of
the
Foregoing Criticism
CHAPTER XI.
Resurrection of Jesus.
.....
103
CHAPTER XII.
Is Christianity
a
Revealed Religion?
112
CHAPTER XIII.
Christian Eclecticism .
.
119
�PREFACE
THIS work was commenced in the year 1845,
and was finished in 1848. Thus much it is
necessary to state, that I may not be sup
posed to have borrowed without acknow
ledgment from works which have preceded
mine in order of publication.
It is now given to the world after long
hesitation, with much diffidence, and with
some misgiving. For some time I was in
doubt as to the propriety of publishing a
work which, if it might correct and elevate
the views of some, might also unsettle and
destroy the faith of many. But three con
siderations have finally decided me.
First. I reflected that, if I were right in
believing that I had discerned some frag
ments or gleams of truth which had been
missed by others, I should be acting a
criminal and selfish part if I allowed
personal considerations to withhold me
from promulgating them ; that I was not
entitled to take upon myself the privilege
Of judging what amount of new light the
world could bear, nor what would be the
effect of that light upon individual minds ;
that sound views are formed and estab
lished by the contribution, generation after
generation, of widows’ mites ; that, if my
small quota were of any value, it would
spread and fructify, and, if worthless, would
come to naught.
Secondly. Much observation of the con
versation and controversy of the religious
world had wrought the conviction that the
evil resulting from the received notions as
to Scriptural authority has been immensely
under-estimated. I was compelled to see
that there is scarcely a low and dishonour
ing conception of God current among men,
scarcely a narrow and malignant passion of
the human heart, scarcely a moral obliquity,
scarcely a political error or misdeed, which
Biblical texts are not, and may not be,
without any violence to their obvious signi
fication, adduced to countenance and
justify. On the other hand, I was com
pelled to see how many clear, honest, and
aspiring minds have been hampered and
baffled in their struggles after truth and
light, how many tender, pure, and loving
hearts have been hardened, perverted, and
forced to a denial of their nobler nature
and their better instincts, by the ruthless
influence of some passages of Scripture
which seemed in the clearest language to
condemn the good and to denounce the
true. No work contributed more than Mr.
Newman’s Phases of Faith to force upon
me the conviction that little progress can
be hoped for, either for religious science or
charitable feeling, till the question of Bibli
cal authority shall have been placed upon a
sounder footing, and viewed in a very dif
ferent light.
Thirdly. I called to mind the probability
that there were many other minds like my
own pursuing the same inquiries, and grop
ing towards the same light; and that to all
such the knowledge that they have fellow
labourers where they least expected it
must be a cheering and sustaining in
fluence.
It was also clear to me that this work
must be performed by laymen. Clergymen
of all denominations are, from the very
nature of their position, incapacitated from
pursuing this subject with a perfect freedom
from all ulterior considerations. They are
restrained and shackled at once by their
previous confession of Faith, and by the
�8
PREFACE
consequences to them of possible conclu
sions. It remained, therefore, too see what
could be done by an unfettered layman,
endowed with no learning, but bringing to
the investigation the ordinary education of
an English gentleman, and a logical
faculty exercised in other walks.
The three conclusions which I have
chiefly endeavoured to make clear are
these : that the tenet of the Inspiration
of the Scriptures is baseless and un
tenable under any form or modification
which leaves to it a dogmatic value ;
that the Gospels are not textually faithful
records of the sayings and actions of Jesus,
but, occasionally at least, ascribe to Him
words which He never uttered and deeds
which He never did ; and that the Apostles
only partially comprehended, and imper
fectly transmitted, the teaching of their
Great Master. The establishment of these
points is the contribution to the progress of
religious science which I have attempted
to render.
I trust it will not be supposed that I
regard this work in any other light than as
a pioneering one. A treatise on religion
that is chiefly negative and critical can
never be other than incomplete, partial,
and preparatory. But the clearing of the
ground is a necessary preliminary to the
growing of the seed ; the removal of super
incumbent rubbish is indispensable to the
discovery and extraction of the buried and
mtermingled ore ; and the liberation of the
mind from forestalling misconceptions,
misguiding prejudices, and hampering and
distracting fears must precede its setting
forth, with any chance of success, in the
pursuit of Truth.
Nor, I earnestly hope, will the book be
regarded as antagonistic to the Faith of
Christ. It is with a strong conviction that
popular Christianity is not the religion of
Jesus that I have resolved to publish my
views. What Jesus really did and taught,
and whether his doctrines were perfect or
superhuman, are questions which afford
ample matter for an independent work.
There is probably no position more safe
and certain than that our religious views
must, of necessity, be essentially imperfect
and incorrect ; that at best they can only
form a remote approximation to the truth,
while the amount of error they contain
must be large and varying, and niay be
almost unlimited. And this must be alike,
though not equally, the case, whether these
views are taught us by reason or by revela
tion—that is, whether we arrive at them by
the diligent and honest use of those facul
ties with which God has endowed us, or by
listening to those prophets whom he may
have ordained to teach us. The difference
cannot be more than this: that in the latter
case our views will contain that fragment,
or that human disguise, of positive truth
which God knows our minds are alone cap
able of receiving, or which he sees to be
fitted for their guidance ; while in the
former case they will contain that form or
fragment of the same positive truth which
he framed our minds with the capability of
achieving. In the one case they will con
tain as much truth as we can take in, in the
other as much as we can discover ; but in
both cases this truth must necessarily not
only be greatly limited, but greatly alloyed,
to bring it within the competence of finite
human intelligences. Being finite, we can
form no correct or adequate idea of the
Infinite ; being material, we can form no
clear conception of the Spiritual. The
question of a Revelation can in no way
affect this conclusion, since even the omni
potence of God cannot infuse infinite con
ceptions into finite minds—cannot, with
out an entire change of the conditions of
our being, pour a just and full knowledge
of his nature into the bounded capacity of
a mortal’s soul. Human intelligence could
not grasp it; human language could not
express it.
“The consciousness of the individual
[says Fichte] reveals itself alone; his know
ledge cannot pass beyond the limits of his
own being. His conceptions of other
things and other beings are only his con
ceptions; they are not those things or beings
themselves. The living principle of a living
Universe must be infinite, while all our
ideas and conceptions are finite, and
�PREFACE
^applicable only to finite beings. The Deity
is thus not an object of knowledge, but of
faith, not to be approached by the under
standing, but by the moral sense ; not to
be conceived, but to be felt. All attempts
to embrace the infinite in the conception of
the finite are, and must be, only accom
modations to the frailty of man........
“Atheism is a charge which the common
understanding has repeatedly brought
against the finer speculations of philosophy,
when, in endeavouring to solve the riddle of
existence, they have approached, albeit with
reverence and humility, the source from
which all existence proceeds. Shrouded
from human comprehension in an obscurity
from which chastened imagination is awed
back, and thought retreats in conscious
weakness, the Divine nature is surely a
theme on which man is little entitled to
dogmatise. Accordingly, it is here that the
philosophic intellect becomes most painfully
aware of its own insufficiency........But the
common understanding has no such
humility; its God is an Incarnate Divinity;
imperfection imposes its own limitations on
the Illimitable, and clothes the inconceiv
able Spirit of the Universe in sensuous and
intelligible forms derived from finite
nature 1”
This conviction once gained, the whole
rational basis for intolerance is cut away.
We are all of us, though not equally, mis
taken, and the cherished dogmas of each of
us are not, as we had fondly supposed, the
pure truth of God, but simply our own
special form of error—the fragmentary and
refracted ray of light which has fallen on
our own minds.1
But are we, therefore, to relax in our
pursuit of truth, or to acquiesce contentedly
in error ? By no means. The obligation
still lies upon us as much as ever to press
forward in the search; for, though absolute
truth is unattainable, yet the amount of
error in our views is capable of progressive
* “ Our little systems have their day ;
They have their day, and cease to be ;
They are but broken lights of Thee,
And Thou, O Lord, art more than they.”
—In Memoriam.
9
and perpetual diminution, and it is not to
be supposed that all errors are equally in
nocuous. To rest satisfied with a lower
degree of truth than our faculties are cap
able of attaining, to acquiesce in errors
which we might eliminate, to lie down con
sciously and contentedly in unworthy con
ceptions of the Nature and Providence of
God, is treason alike to him and to our
own soul. It is true that all our ideas con
cerning the Eternal Spirit must, considered
objectively, be erroneous, and that no
revelation can make them otherwise ; all,
therefore, that we require, or can obtain, is
such an image or idea of him as shall
satisfy our souls and meet our needs, as
shall (we may say) be to us subjectively
true. But this conception, in order to
become to us such satisfying and subjective
truth, must, of course, be the highest and
noblest that our minds are capable of form
ing;1 every man’s conception of God must
consequently vary with his mental cultiva
tion and mental powers. If he content
himself with any lower image than his intel
lect can grasp, he contents himself with
that which is false to him, as well as false
in fact—one which, being lower than he
could reach, he must ipso facto feel to be
false. The peasant’s idea of God—true to
him—would be false to me, because I should
feel it to be unworthy and inadequate. If
the nineteenth century after Christ adopts
the conceptions of the nineteenth century
before him, if cultivated and chastened
Christians adopt the conceptions of the
ignorant, narrow, and vindictive Israelite,
they are guilty of thinking worse of God, of
taking a lower, meaner, more limited view
of his nature, than the faculties he has
bestowed are capable of inspiring ; and, as
the highest view we are capable of forming
must necessarily be the nearest to the truth,
they are wilfully acquiescing in a lie—they
are guilty of what Bacon calls “ the apothe
osis of error,” stereotyping and canonising
one particular stage of the blunders through
which thought passes on its way to truth.
1 Religious truth is therefore necessarily pro
gressive, because our powers are progressive—a
position fatal to positive dogma.
�IO
PREFACE
Now, to think (or speak) ill of God is to
incur the guilt of blasphemy. It is surpris
ing that this view of the matter should so
rarely have struck the orthodox ; but they
are so intently occupied with the peril on
one side that they have become blind or
careless to the, at least, equal peril that lies
on the other. If, as they deem, erroneous
belief be dangerous and criminal, it must
be so whether it err on the side of deficiency
or of excess. They are sensitively and
morbidly alive to the peril and the sin of
not believing everything which Revelation
has announced, yet they are utterly blind
to what should be regarded as the deeper
peril and the darker guilt of believing that
Revelation has announced doctrines dis
honouring to the pure majesty of God. If
it be wrong and dangerous to doubt what
God has told us of Himself, it must surely
be equally so, or more so, to believe, on
inadequate evidence, or on no evidence at
all, that He ever taught doctrines so
derogatory to His attributes as many which
orthodox theology ascribes to Him. To
believe that he is cruel, short-sighted,
capricious, and unjust is an affront, an in
dignity, which (on the orthodox supposition
that God takes judicial cognisance of such
errors) must be immeasurably more guilty
and more perilous than to believe that the
Jews were mistaken in imagining that He
spoke through Moses, or the Christians in
imagining he spoke through Paul. He is
affirmed to be a jealous God, an angry God,
a capricious God, punishing the innocent for
the sins of the guilty, punishing with infinite
and endless torture men whom He had
created weak, finite, and ephemeral—nay,
whom He had fore-ordained to sin—a God
who came down from heaven, walked among
men, feasted at their tables, endured their
insults, died by their hands. Is there no
peril in all this, no sin in believing all these
unworthy puerilities of a Creator who has
given us Reason and Nature to teach us
better things ? Yet countless Christians
accept them all with hasty and trembling
dismay as if afraid that God will punish
them for being slow to believe evil of
Him.
I
We have seen that the highest views of
religion which we can attain here must,
from the imperfection of our faculties, be
necessarily inaccurate and impure; but we
may go further than this. It is more than
probable that religion, in order to obtain
currency and influence with the great mass
of mankind, must be alloyed with an
amount of error which places it far below
the standard attainable by human capa
cities. A pure religion—by which we mean
one as pure as the loftiest and most culti
vated earthly reason can discern—would
probably not be comprehended by, or
effective over, the less-educated portion of
mankind. What is truth to the philosopher
would not be truth, nor have the effect of
truth, to the peasant. The religion of the
many must necessarily be more incorrect
than that of the refined and reflective few,
not so much in its essence as in its forms,
not so much in the spiritual idea which lies
latent at the bottom of it as in the symbols
and dogmas in which that idea is embodied.
In many points true religion would not be
comprehensible by the ignorant, nor con
solatory to them, nor guiding and support
ing for them. Nay, true religion would
not be true to them—that is, the effect it
would produce on their mind would not be
the right one, would not be the same it
would produce on the mind of one fitted to
receive it and competent to grasp it. To
undisciplined minds, as to children, it is
probable that coarser images and broader
views are necessary to excite and sustain
the efforts of virtue. The belief in an zz®*
mediate heaven of sensible delight and
glory will enable an uneducated man to
dare the stake in the cause of faith or free
dom ; the idea of Heaven as a distant
scene of slow, patient, and perpetual pro
gress in intellectual and spiritual being
would be inadequate to fire his imagination
or to steel his nerves. Again, to be grasped
by, and suitable to, such minds, the views
presented them of God must be anthropo
morphic, not spiritual, and in proportion as
they are so they are false; the views of His
government must be special, not universal,
and in proportion as they are so they will
�PREFACE
il
livered it, where would it now have been ?
Would it have reached our times as a sub
amid clouds and thunder, and attested by stantive religion ? Would truth have
physical prodigies, are of a nature to attract floated down to us without borrowing the
and impress the rudest and most ignorant wings of error ? These are interesting,
minds, perhaps in proportion to their rude though purely speculative, questions.
ness and their ignorance. The sanctions
One word in conclusion. Let it not be
derived from accordance with the breath
ings of Nature and the dictates of the soul supposed that the conclusions sought to be
are appreciable in their full strength by the established in this book have been arrived
at eagerly, or without pain and reluctance.
trained and nurtured intelligence alone.1
The rapid spread and general reception The pursuit of truth is easy to a man who
of any religion may unquestionably be has no human sympathies, whose vision is
accepted as proof that it contains some vital impaired by no fond partialities, whose
truth; it may be regarded also as an equally heart is torn by no divided allegiance. To
certain proof that it contains a large ad him the renunciation of error presents few
mixture of error—of error, that is, cognis difficulties; for the moment it is recognised
able and detectable by the higher human as error its charm ceases. But the case is
minds of the age. A perfectly pure faith very different with the searcher whose
would find too little preparation for it in affections are strong, whose associations
the common mind and heart to admit of are quick, whose hold upon the past is
prompt reception. The Christian religion clinging and tenacious. He may love truth
would hardly have spread as rapidly as it with an earnest and paramount devotion,
did had it remained as pure as it came but he loves much else also. He loves
from the lips of Jesus. It owes its success errors which were once the cherished con
probably at least as much to the corrup victions of his soul. He loves dogmas
tions which speedily encrusted it, and to which were once full of strength and beauty
the errors which were early incorporated to his thoughts, though now perceived to
with it, as to the ingredient of pure and be baseless or fallacious. He loves the
sublime truth which it contained. Its pro church where he worshipped in his happy
gress among the Jews was owing to the childhood, where his friends and his family
doctrine of the Messiahship, which they worship still, where his grey-haired parents
erroneously believed to be fulfilled in Jesus. await the resurrection of the just, but where
Its rapid progress among the Pagans was he can worship and await no more. He
greatly attributable to its metaphysical loves the simple old creed which was the
accretions and its heathen corruptions. creed of his earlier and brighter days,
Had it retained its original purity and which is the creed of his wife and children
simplicity, had it been kept free from all still, but which inquiry has compelled him
extraneous admixtures, a system of noble to abandon. The past and the familiar
Theism and lofty morality, as Christ de- have chains and talismans which hold him
back in his career, till every fresh step for
* All who have come much into contact with ward becomes an effort and an agony,
the minds of children or of the uneducated every fresh error discovered is a fresh bond
doses are fully aware how unfitted to their snapped asunder, every new glimpse of
mental condition are the more wide, catholic, light is like a fresh flood of pain poured in
and comprehensive views of religion, which yet
We hold to be the true ones, and how essential upon the soul. To such a man the pursuit
tt is to them to have a well-defined, positive, of truth is a daily martyrdom—how hard
Somewhat dogmatic, and, above all, a divinely- and bitter let the martyr tell. Shame
altested and authoritative creed, deriving its
Sanctions from without. Such are best dealt to those who make it doubly so; honour to
with by rather narrow, decided, and undoubting those who encounter it saddened, weeping,
minds.
trembling, but unflinching still.
be false. The sanctions which a faith
derives from being announced from Heaven
�12
PREFACE
To this martyrdom, however, we believe
there is an end ; for this unswerving in
tegrity there is a rich and sure reward.
Those who flinch from inquiry because
they dread the possible conclusion ; who
turn aside from the path as soon as they
catch a glimpse of art unwelcome goal ;
who hold their dearest hopes only on the
tenure of a closed eye and a repudiating
mind—will, sooner or later, have to en
counter that inevitable hour when doubt
will not be silenced, and inquiry can no
longer be put by ; when the spectres of
old misgivings which have been rudely
repulsed, and of questionings which have
been sent empty away, will return “ to
haunt, to startle, to waylay”; and will then
find their faith crumbling away at the
moment of greatest need, not because it is
false, but because they, half-wilfully, half
fearfully, grounded it on false foundations.
But the man whose faith in God and
futurity has survived an inquiry pursued
with that “ single eye ” to which alone light
is promised has attained a serenity of soul
possible only to the fearless and the just.
For him the progress of science is fraught
with no dark possibilities of ruin ; no
dreaded discoveries lie in wait for him
round the corner ; since he is indebted for
his short and simple creed, not to shelter
ing darkness, but to conquered light.
�INTRODUCTION TO THE THIRD EDITION
This book was originally published nearly
a quarter of a century ago. Its sale, since
then, though by no means large, has been
singularly continuous and regular—the
number of copies taken by the public
having scarcely varied from year to year ;
and the second edition was disposed of
somewhat more rapidly than the first. It
is, therefore, fair to conclude that the work
met a permanent want felt by many of my
countrymen which no other writings at the
time accessible to them could furnish, and
at least temporarily filled a gap in our
literature which, so far as I am aware, has
not since been otherwise supplied. During
the period that has elapsed since its publi
cation, moreover, I have received many
gratifying and even touching testimonies
both from friends and strangers as to the
assistance which it rendered them and the
comfort which it suggested to them, when
their minds were perplexed and agitated by
the doubts and the questions which had
disturbed my own. Under these circum
stances I have acceded without demur to
the wish of my publisher to issue a new and
revised edition.
I have re-perused every chapter with
great care, but I have added little and
altered less. Here and there I have modified
a phrase where I thought I had expressed
myself too confidently or too harshly, or
where I appeared to have fallen into incor
rectness or exaggeration; but the changes
introduced have been few and slight. On
the whole, I thought it wisest and fairest to
leave the text as it originally stood, bearing
distinct marks of the date at which it was
written, when the topics discussed were
comparatively new to English readers, and
when the several authors who have since
handled them, and thrown so much light
upon them, had not yet put their views
before the world. But I have re-considered
every point with caution, and I am sure
with candour ; I have read with attention
and respect, and with a real desire to profit,
the various criticisms and replies which the
book on its first publication called forth ;
and I am bound to say that I see no reason
to believe that I was in error as to any
essential point. The progress made in
Biblical criticism and historical science
during the last five-and-twenty years has
furnished abundant confirmation, but I
think refutation in no single instance. It
is in no spirit of elation or self-applause
that I say this—even if with some unfeigned
surprise ; for I know better than most with
how little learning the book was written,
and how much learning—to say nothing of
genius and insight—has since been brought
to bear on the subject. Strauss’s great work
had, indeed, been published and translated
into English before my work appeared ;
but Bishop Colenso’s Inquiry into the
Pentateuch, Ecce Homo, Renan’s Vie de
Jésus and his Apostolic volumes, The Jesus
oj History, by Sir H. D. Hanson, Chief
Justice of South Australia—à work well
worth perusal, as having in some degree a
special standpoint of its own, and showing
the impression made by the evidence
adducible on a trained legal mind—and
Arnold’s Literature and Dogma, are all of
much later date.
*****
It was remarked by a friendly critic of
my first edition that, in approaching the
question of the resurrection of Christ from
�14
INTRODUCTION TO THE THIRD EDITION
the side of the Gospels instead of from
that of the Epistles, I had thrown away the
main strength of the case. The criticism
is just, and in deference to it I have since
reconsidered the subject from the point of
view suggested. The Epistles were of
prior date to the Gospels;1 the earliest
statement, therefore, that we possess of the
fact of the resurrection, as well as the only
one whose author we know for certain, is
that contained in Paul’s first Epistle to the
Corinthians xv. 3-8. Leaving out of view
the Gospels, then, the evidence of the great
foundation doctrine of the Christian creed
consists in these two indisputable points—
that all the Apostles and disciples believed
it, had no doubt about it, held it with a con
viction so absolute that it inspired them
with zeal and courage to live as missionaries,
and to die as martyrs ; and that Paul, fiveand-twenty years after the event, wrote of
it thus : “For I delivered unto you first
of all that which I also received, how that
Christ died for our sins, according to the
Scriptures, and that he was buried, and that
he rose again the third day according to
the Scriptures,1 and that he was seen of
2
Cephas, then of the Twelve ; after that he
was seen of above five hundred brethren at
1 The date of the Gospels is at best conjec
tural. No authority, however, we believe, would
place even the earliest of them before a.d. 60
or 65, many much later. Now, the Epistle to
the Corinthians was written almost certainly
about a.d. 57, and the other Pauline writings
between 52 and 68. (See Conybeare and Howson. )
[This note reflects the judgment of the author’s
time. For a compendious statement of the
latest views on the date of the Gospels, and of
the Epistles bearing the name of Paul, see the
Encyclopaedia Bíblica under “Gospels” and
“ Paul,” and the several epistles. See also Mr.
Whittaker’s Origins of Christianity (Watts)].
2 Our readers will not fail to notice the shadow
of doubt which the expression “according to
the Scriptures” throws over even this direct
testimony. “According to the Scriptures”
simply means, whenever it occurs, “in supposed
fulfilment of the erroneous interpretation of the
Old Testament Psalms and Prophecies then cur
rent.” Paul, moreover, it should be observed,
here merely speaks at second-hand, and declares
what he had been told by others, “ that which I
also received.”
I
once, of whom the greater part remain unto
this present, but some are fallen asleep.
After that he was seen of James, then of all
the Apostles. And, last of all, he was seen
of me also, as of one born out of due
season.”
Now, if this were all, if we had no further
testimony to the resurrection of Jesus from
the dead than that it was believed by the
whole original Christian Church, that the
Apostles and personal followers of Christ,
who must be supposed to have had the best
means of knowing it, clung to the convic
tion enthusiastically, and witnessed to it by
their preaching and their death ; and that
Paul, not a personal follower, but in con
stant communication with those who were,
made the above assertions in a letter
addressed to one of the principal Churches,
and published while most of the eye
witnesses to whom he appeals were still
alive to confirm or to contradict his state
ments ; if the case rested on this only, and
terminated here, every one, I think, would
feel that our grounds for accepting the re
surrection as an historical fact in its naked
simplicity would be far stronger than they
actually are. In truth, they would appear
to be nearly unassailable and irresistible,
except by those who can imagine some
probable mode in which such a positive and
vivifying conviction could have grown up
without the actual occurrence having taken
place to create it. Such explanation has
been offered by many writers—by Strauss,
by Renan, by Arnold, by Hanson, and
others. I have considered them all, I think,
dispassionately ; and, ingenious as they are
(especially the detailed one of M. Renan), I
am bound to say they do not satisfy my
mind— they do not convince me, I mean,
that the belief arose as they suggest. They
are very skilful, they are even probable
enough; but they do not make me feel that
the true solution of the mystery has been
reached. Nor can I, with any confidence,
offer one of my own, though I can conceive
one more simple and inherently likely than
those propounded.
But the real difficulty lies in the Gospel
narratives. The evangelists contradict the
�INTRODUCTION TO THE THIRD EDITION
apostle.
Nay, more ; they show that the
i5
received him out of their sight, fl his view
belief of the Christian Church was not may be said, moreover, to be countenanced
simple, uniform, and self-consistent, as
Paul’s statement would lead us to suppose,
but that it was singularly v^gue, various,
and self-contradictory. Nay, worse still;
they not only show in how many fluctuating
shapes it existed, but they suggest how the
belief may have formed itself by specifying
a number of the circumstantial details
around which it grew and solidified so
rapidly. In the Epistles and the Acts we
find simply the assertion of the fact, and
evidence to the universal conviction. In
the Gospels we read the several traditions
accepted in the Christian community, thirty
Of more years after the event, as to the
nature and surrounding context of that
©vent. Now, here commences our serious
embarrassment ; and the embarrassment
consists in this, that the new witnesses called
—possibly very incompetent ones—make it
impossible to arrive at any clear or definite
Conclusion as to the what or the how.
That is to say, we cannot frame any theory
whatever as to the resurrection, which is not
distinctly negatived by one or the other of
the evangelical accounts. If the occurrence
were to rest only on the Gospel narratives,
rational belief would be almost out of the
question. If the belief in the early Church
had been based upon these' narratives
(which it was not), that belief could carry
with it only the faintest authority. Let us
follow out this view a little in detail.
Some have imagined that the reappear
ance of the risen Jesus to his disciples was
©f the nature of those apparitions of departed
friends as to the occurrence of which there
exists such a mass of overwhelming testi
mony ; and the related mode of his appear
ances and disappearances give some primcl
facie colouring to the idea. He vanished
out of the sight of the companions at
Emmaus ; he ceased to be seen of them.
When the disciples were assembled at
Jerusalem, Jesus himself stood in the midst
of them (John adds in two passages, that
the doors were shut?) “While he blessed
them he was parted from them, and carried
Up into heaven.” In the Acts, a cloud
by the language of Paul himself, who classes
the appearance of Jesus to himself, along
with his appearances to others; yet his, we
know, was an apparition (rather an audition,
for he speaks of hearing him, not of seeing
him). But, then, this theory is distinctly
negatived by the assertions that Jesus
assured the affrighted disciples (who had
imagined him to be an apparition) that he
was actually thus present inflesh and bones,
his real old self, with hands and feet, and
bodily organs, and able and desirous to eat.
In fact, Jesus seems positively to have
refused to be considered in the light of the
supernatural being his startled followers
would at once have made of him, and did
make of him shortly after.
Others, again, adopt the supposition that
Jesus did not actually die on the cross, but
merely swooned and revived naturally, or
by the aid of Joseph of Arimathea, when
taken down and laid in a temporary
sepulchre. And this theory has many con
siderations in its favour, all of which are dis
cussed by Strauss and Renan. It appears,
though the several accounts do not tally
very closely, that he was not more than six
hours, or perhaps not more than_/hzzr, upon
the cross (how long in the grave we do not
know—perhaps not an hour); and that,
though so highly-wrought and delicate an
organisation as that of Jesus must have
been might well have succumbed to even
that brief period of agony, yet that such
speedy death from crucifixion was most
unusual, and excited the surprise of Pilate.
On this supposition, the subsequent appear
ances narrated in Luke and Matthew are
simple and natural enough, nor need we
trouble ourselves to speculate on his after
history and final disappearance from the
scene ; but, then, this theory neutralises
entirely the religious value of the occurrence,
besides being irreconcilable with the “non
recognition ” feature of the narratives, to
which I now proceed.
This feature is, in truth, the terrible em
barrassment which the Gospel narratives
present to those who hold the common
�r6
INTRODUCTION TO THE THIRD EDITION
creed on the subject of the resurrection.
Those narratives relate that many of the■ it is m the fourth Gospel that the non-recogi nition feature becomes most marked. Mary
disciples who saw him after he rose from
Magdalene, after Jesus had spoken to her
the dead did not recognise him. They
and she had turned to look at him, still
1 elate this of three or four of his most
supposed him to be the gardener.” His
remarkable appearances. Those who had
most intimate disciples, when they saw him
lived with him for years, and who had
m Galilee, “knew not that it was Jesus”
parted from him on the Friday, did not
even though he spoke to them ; and eve’n
know him again on the Sunday. If, then,
he was so changed, so entirely not his John himself only inferred the presence of
his master in consequence of the miraculous
foimer self, that they could not recognise
diaught of fishes, and Peter only accepted
him, how could they know, or how can we
the inference on John’s authority. “There
know, that the person assumed to be Jesus
fore, that disciple whom Jesus loved saith
was actually their risen Lord? Does not
this non-recognition almost irresistibly sug unto Peter, ‘It is the Lord.’ Now, when
Simon Peter heard that it was the Lord, he
gest the inferences, that the excited imagi
girt on his fisher’s coat and did cast himself
nations of his more susceptible disciples mto the sea.”
assumed some stranger to be Jesus, when
One more difficulty—a very grave one_
they learned that his body had disappeared
raised by the traditional accounts trans
from the sepulchre, and that angels had
affirmed that he was risen, and that those mitted to us in the Gospels, must be indi
“ whose eyes were holden,” who “doubted,” cated, but needs nothing beyond indication.
or “did not believe for joy and wonder,” These accounts all insist, in the strongest
were the more prosaic and less impressible 1manner, upon the detailed demonstration
that it was Jesus in bodily shape, in the same
of the beholders ? The difficulty is obvi
ously tremendous : let us look at the par actual form, with the same hands and feet
and the same digestive organs and human
ticulars.
needs, whom they had known three days
Matthew relates two appearances, in
before, and had seen nailed to the cross,
very general terms. Of the second he
who now again came among them and
says, “ but some doubted.” Mark — the
conversed with them. Jesus himself is
genuine Gospel of Mark, which, as we
know, terminates with the Sth verse of the made to assure them that he was not a
16th chapter-says nothing of any appear spirit, but flesh and bones that could be
handled. In this well-known presence,
ances ; but, in the spurious addition,
with these bodily organs and this earthly
repeats twice that those who asserted that
they had seen him were disbelieved, and frame, he is said to have been seen to ascend
that Christ, when he appeared himself to into heaven. Can flesh and blood inherit
the eleven, “upbraided them with their un the spiritual kingdom, or where was the
belief.” Luke narrates two appearances, body dropped, and when was the transmuta
tion carried out ?
and incidentally mentions that “the eleven”
But, now, instead of taking the Gospel
reported a third “to Simon.” With refer
ence to the first, he says of the two dis narratives as they stand promiscuously and
ciples, Cleophas and a friend, who walked as a whole, let us discard those portions
talked, and ate with Jesus at Emmaus for which are certainly or most probably unseveral hours, “their eyes were holden that genuine or spurious,and take into considera
they should not know him.” With refer tion only that residue which may be fairly
ence to the second appearance (“ to the assumed to embody the earliest traditions
eleven
it is said, first, “ that they were of the Christian community, and we shall
affrighted, thinking they had seen a spirit” find most of the difficulties we have just men
and, shortly afterwards, that “they yet tioned either vastly mitigated or quite dis
believed not for joy, and wondered.” But persed. In fact—and I would draw par
ticular attention to this conclusion—we who
�|
Wi
bi
tW
'-?a
tiq
W|
JftI
qfe
qs¡
foil
nd
sM;
713
to*'
IS’ÍKJ
l.-JEM
ac-isa.
i’ di
INTRODUCTION TO THE THIRD EDITION
show that tibe Gospels are rather traditional
than strictly historical narratives, absolutely
authoritative and correct, are the persons
who do special service to the doctrine of the
resurrection by removing obstacles to its
credibility. The whole of the accounts in
the fourth Gospel then fall away and cease
to embarrass us at all. At most, they only
serve to indicate how tradition had been at
work, and grown between the first and the
second century—at least one generation,
possibly two. Mark, probably the earliest
writer of all, never presented any embarrass
ment at all—unless, indeed, a negative one
—for he says not a word of post-sepulchral
appearances, and merely mentions the
appearance of “ a young man ” at the
tomb, who tells the disciples simply, and as
a message, that Jesus is no longer there,
but has gone before them into Galilee.1
Matthew, again, deals in general terms, and
gives an account almost identical with that
of Paul, though even less full and particular.3
Luke, alone, remains to trouble us ; Luke,
who probably wrote when apparitional
accounts had begun to multiply and
magnify ; whose perplexing narrative about
Emmaus is not even alluded to by any of
the other evangelists, and must almost
certainly have been unknown to them; and
who directly contradicts Matthew as to the
alleged command of Jesus that they should
go into Galilee to meet him. Matthew says,
“go into Galilee.” Luke says, “tarry in
Jerusalem.” Looking, then, at the matter
in this light, we may not unfairly accept
Paul’s statement as embodying the whole
of the recognised and authorised tradition
of the early Church on the subject of the
'appearances of the crucified and risen
Jesus. This assertion, and the general and
absolute conviction of the apostolic com
munity, remain as our warrant for believing
17
in the miraculous resurrection of our
Lord. Are they adequate? This is prac
tically the residual question calling for
decision.
It is perhaps far less important than is
commonly fancied. I have already (Chapter
XIII.) given my reasons for holding that,
except it be regarded as establishing, and
as needed to establish, the authority of the
teaching of Christ, his resurrection has no
bearing—certainly no favourable or con
firmatory bearing—on the question of our
future life.
Just as the confident conviction of the
earliest Christians, and the mighty influ
ence that conviction exercised over their
character and actions, constitute the chief
evidence of the resurrection of Christ, so
the existence of the Christian faith, its vast
mark in history, and its establishment over
the most powerful, progressive, and intel
lectual races of mankind, constitute the
strongest testimony we possess to its value
and its truth. This may, or may not, be
sufficient to prove its divine origin and its
absolute correctness, but it is the best we
have, and is more cogent by far than any
documentary evidence could be. Chris
tianity, as it prevails over all Europe and
America, constituting the cherished creed,
and at least the professed and reverenced
moral guide of probably two hundred
millions of the foremost nations upon earth,
is a marvellous fact which requires account
ing for, a mighty effect indicating a cause
or causes of corresponding efficacy. What
ever we may conclude as to its origin, that
origin must, in one way or other, have been
adequate to the subsequent growth. In
some sense, in some form, the victory of the
Christian religion must be due to some
inherent energy, excellence, vitality, suit
ability to the wants and character of man.
F * The word he uses, moreover, is significant : Mere circumstances could not explain this
he says,
“he is risen,” not draoratrei, victory. We may safely go a step further,
he is risen from the dead.
and say that this vital force, this inherent
3 Moreover, it is the opinion of some very com excellence, this appropriateness, must have
petent critics that the concluding portion of the
last chapter of Matthew is not entitled to the been somethingstrange,subtle,unexampled.
same character of indisputable genuineness as Those who conclude it, in consequence, to
the rest of the Gospel.
have been a special divine revelation offer
0
�18
INTRODUCTION TO THE THIRD EDITION
what we must admit to be -prime), facie the
simplest and easiest solution.
But the argument, as just stated, must
not be pushed too far. Three considerations
serve to indicate with how much caution,
with what a large survey of history, with
what a wide grasp and deep analysis of the
phenomena of mind in various times and
among various races, the problem must be
approached. Christianity is not the most
widely spread of the religions of mankind.
Buddhism is of earlier date, and counts
more millions among its votaries. Islam
ism took its rise later, was diffused more
rapidly, and rules over a larger area of the
earth’s surface. At one time it seemed as
if Christianity would go down before its
triumphant career. Some readers of his
tory may even be disposed to argue that
but for two men and two battles—possibly
but for a special charge of cavalry, or it
may be a sudden inspiration of the leading
generals—it might have done so. The
spread of Buddhism, the spread of Islam
ism, must have had an adequate cause, as
well as the spread of Christianity.
Again, the enthroned position and com
manding influence of our religion testify,
with power which we make no pretence of
resisting, to its truth and its surpassing
excellences. So much no sceptic, we fancy,
would wish, or would venture, to deny.
But this testimony is borne to Chris
tianity, not any dogma of the creed care
lessly called by that name ; to something
inherent and essential in the religion—not
to any particular thing which this or that
sect chooses to specify as its essence. It
does not testify at all—at least, the orthodox
are not entitled to assume that it does—to
the divinity of our Lord, to his miraculous
resurrection, to his atoning blood, to the
Trinitarian mystery, or to any one of the
scholastic problems into which the Athanasian Creed has endeavoured to condense
the faith of Christendom ; it may testify
only, we believe it does, to that apocalypse
and exemplification of the possibilities of
holiness and lovableness latent in humanity,
which was embodied in the unique life and
character of Jesus,
And, thirdly, it must be admitted without
recalcitration, though the admission carries
with it some vague and startling alarm of
danger, that Christianity, with all its un
approached truth and beauty, owes its rapid
progress, and, in some vast degree, its wide
and firm dominion, at least as distinctly, if
not as much, to the errors which were early
mingled with it as to the central and fault
less ideas those errors overlaid. On one
point, at least, all—even the thinking minds
among thé most orthodox—will agree :
that the mightiest and most inspiring con
viction among the earliest Christians, that
which vivified their zeal, warmed their elo
quence, made death easy, and fear impos
sible—that which, in fact, more than any
other influence, caused their victories—was
their unhesitating belief in the approaching
end of the world and the speedy coming of
their Lord in glory. That this was an
entire delusion we now all acknowledge.
Many of us go much further. Few will
doubt that the doctrine of the Messiahship
of Jesus aided most powerfully the triumph
of his religion among the Jews, and that of
his proper deity among the Gentiles (not
to mention other scholastic and pagan
accretions) ; and many now hold that these
are as indisputable delusions as the other.
In a word, truth has floated down to us
upon the wings of error, treasured up and
borne along in an ark built of perishable
materials, and by human hands ; some
devotees, therefore, still cling to the ark
and the error as sacred agencies worthy of
all reverence and worship, confounding
what they have done with what they are.
But we do not read that Noah thought it
incumbent upon him to continue out of
gratitude living in the ark when the water®
had subsided. On the contrary, as soon as
there was dry firm ground for the sole of
his feet, he came forth from his preserving
prison-house, and gave thanks and offered
sacrifices to the Lord.
“Are we yet Christians?” is the momen
tous question of the day, which is being
asked everywhere in a variety of forms.
It is the question asked, and answered in
�INTRODUCTION TO THE THIRD EDITION
19
the negative, in the last remarkable and less conventional, but assuredly a more
unsatisfactory volume of Strauss. “ Der correct and etymological, signification. 1
alte und der neue Glaube.” It is the ques
tion asked, but not answered, in a striking
monograph so entitled, which appeared in
a recent number of the Fortnightly Review.1
It is the question which is forcing itself
Upon the minds of all students of the tone
and temper of the times, who cannot fail to
recognise, with anxious speculation as to
the results, that a vast proportion of the
higher and stronger intellect of the age in
nearly all branches of science and thought,
as well as large bodies, if not the mass, of
the most energetic section of the working
Classes, is, day by day, more and more
decidedly and avowedly shaking itself free
from every form and variety of established
Creeds. It is the question, finally, which is
implied, rather than openly asked, in the
various uneasy and spasmodic, perhaps
somewhat blind, attempts on the part of
the clergy, in the shape of “Speaker’s Com
mentaries,” new churches, open-air preach
ings, Pan-Anglican Synods, and the like, to
meet a danger which they perceive through
the mist, but of which they have scarcely
yet measured the full significance and bear-
ingAre we, then, ceasing to be Christians ?
Is Christianity as a religion in very truth
dying out from among us amid the con
flicting or converging influences of this
fermenting age ? Most observers, seeing
Christianity only in the popular shape, and
the recognised formularies, feel that there
Ctth be little doubt about the matter.
Strauss, accepting the “ Apostles’ Creed ”
as the received and correct representation
of the Christian faith, is just as distinct in
his reply :
“ If, then, we are to seek no subterfuges,
if we are not to halt between two opinions,
if our yea is to be yea, and our nay, nay, if
we are to speak as honourable and straight
forward men, then we must recognise the
fact that we are no longer Christians ?”
I should give a different reply, but only
because I attach to the principal word a
1 March, 1873.
entirely refuse to recognise the Apostles’
Creed, or the Nicene Creed, or the West
minster Confession, or the Longer or Shorter
Catechism, or the formularies of any Church,
whether Catholic, Lutheran, Calvinistic,
or United, as faithful embodiments or
authoritative representations of Chris
tianity. Rightly regarded, the very shape,
character, purport, and title of these several
documents negative their claims to be
accepted as such. Christianity was not, in
its origin, a series of sententious propo
sitions, nor a code of laws, nor a system of
doctrine, nor a “ scheme” of salvation,1 but
1 The very phrase, “scheme of salvation,” as
applied to Christianity (like a somewhat analo
gous one often employed, “ making our peace
with God”), strikes us as offensive, and, when
considered in relation to the details of the
imagined scheme, almost monstrous. To those
who have been brought up to this scheme from
infancy of course it is not so (to such nothing
would be); but as describing the impression
made upon those who come to it later in life, and
who look at it from the outside, the word is not
too strong. A scheme is a “contrivance”—a
contrivance for attaining an object, or getting
out of a difficulty; and in the popular orthodox
view the Christian dispensation is in plain
words—and putting it in plain words will per
haps be found its best and sufficient refutation
and dissolvent—a “contrivance” concocted
between God and his Son, between the first and
second persons of the Trinity (or, as we should
say, between the Creator of all worlds and Jesus
of Nazareth, “ a man of sorrows and acquainted
with grief”), for enabling the human race to
escape from a doom and a curse which certain
scholastic theologians fancy (as an inference from
particular texts of Scripture) to have been in
some way incurred, either from the offences of
each individual or from the offence of a remote
ancestor. The “scheme” first assumes that the
original sin of our first parents (to say nothing
of our own) cannot be forgiven, nor the taint
inherited by their innocent descendants wiped
out, without the rigid exaction of a penalty
(“damnation,” eternal fire, and the like),
altogether disproportioned to the offence—that
the attributes of the Deity imply and involve this
‘ ‘ cannot. ” Then, since this doom is too horrible
and the doctrine laid down in the above assump
tion too repellent, alike in its basis and its con
sequences, to be endured or accepted, the
“scheme” then imagines the only Son of God
(one hour’s pain of whom, as a partaker of the
divine nature, is an equivalent to the eternal
�20
INTRODUCTION TO THE THIRD EDITION
the outcome and combination of a holy
life, a noble death, a wonderfully pure and
perfect character and nature, a teaching at
once self-proving and sublime—the whole
absolutely unique in their impressive love
ableness. I cannot but remember—what
is so strangely though so habitually for
gotten by all Christian sects—that this life
was lived, this death consummated, this
character displayed, this devotion exem
plified and inspired, this righteousness
preached and embodied, and this impression
made, years before any convert or disciple
conceived the fatal idea of formalising it all
into a “creed.” Nay, more, I cannot but
remember that it was not till long after the
elevating,spiritualising, restraininginfluence
of the actual presence and the daily example
of Jesus was withdrawn, that anything fairly
to be called “dogma” began to grow up
among that apostolic society, whose best
leaders even, as is obvious from the Gospel
narrative, stood on a moral and intellectual
level so far below their Master’s.1 I recognise
more and more—what I believe will be
generally admitted now—that the articles
of faith, the sententious dogmas, the
“scheme ” of salvation, which have usurped
the name of “Christianity” and “the
Christian religion,” originated almost wholly
with Paul and that not only did they not
form the substance of the teaching of Jesus,
but that they are not to be found in, nor
can obtain anythingbeyond the most casual,
apparent, and questionable countenance
from, his genuine and authentic words.
And, finally, I remember and wish to recall
to the reflection of my readers that this
Paul, who thus transformed the pure, grand
religion of his crucified Master, was dis
tinguished by a character of intellect,
subtle, metaphysical, and cultured, and
therefore singularly discrepant, from that of
Jesus ; that, moreover, he never knew Jesus
upon earth, had never come under his
influence, or been sobered by his saintly
spirit and his clear, practical conceptions ;
had never seen him in the flesh, nor heard
sufferings of all human beings) agreeing to bear
this doom instead of the myriads of the offending
race. An impossible debt is first invented,
necessitating the invention of an inconceivable
coin in which to pay it. A God is imagined bent
on a design and entertaining sentiments which
it seems simple blasphemy and contradiction to
ascribe to the father in heaven, whom Jesus of
Nazareth came to reveal to us—and then he is
represented as abandoning that design in con
sideration of a sacrifice, in which it is impossible
to recognise one gleam of appropriateness or of
human equity. What looks very like a legal
fiction, purely gratuitous, is got rid of by what
looks very like a legal chicanery, purely fanciful.
To use a terse simile of Macaulay, the scheme
“resembles nothing so much as a forged bond,
with a forged release endorsed on the back of it.”
But the essential point to bear in mind is that
not only do none of the genuine, authentic,
indisputable words of Christ contain or counte
nance this “scheme,” but the entire tone and
context of his teaching distinctly ignore it, and
are at variance with its fundamental concep
tions.
everything that was formal and therefore unessen
tial in religion and morality, and preached the
fulfilment of the moral element of the law and
the prophets, and who, instead of laying down
rules for the moral life of man, insisted upon
principles and change of heart—was he, who, of
all that Israel considered holy in the Scriptures,
retained as essential no more than love to God
and to one’s neighbour, and preached as the rule
of life, ‘ Whatsoever ye would that men should
do unto you, do ye even so unto them, for this is
the law and the prophets ’—was he a dogmatist,
a propounder of articles ? Was he, who made
the true moral life of love as independent of
Jewish doctrines as of the forms of the Jewish
theocracy, who gave its tone to genuine humanity
everywhere, even in the Samaritan and the
heathen—nay, even placed the humane Samaritan
above the orthodox priest and Levite—was he,
who, without appealing to any ecclesiastical
authority of tradition or of Scripture, found his
witnesses in the common sense and in the con
science of mankind, and recognised the true
prophet by the moral power he displayed—was
he a dogmatist ? Surely Christianity in its original
form was not a confession nor a symbol; and to
pass judgment on it as such is logically inadmis
sible.”—Dr. Scholten, Theol. Review, April,
1 “ Is the Apostles’ Creed the original Chris
tianity? we ask. Was it the mission of Jesus to
draw up a confession and to give currency to a
formulated doctrine, rather than to wake up fresh
religious life and to lay down principles which
must always hold good in matters of religion for
every doctrinal system ? Was he, who dropped
1873.
1 [Or rather with Paulinism, it not being
possible to ascribe the elaborated dogmatism of
the longer epistles to the Apostle himself. See
note above.]
�INTRODUCTION TO THE THIRD EDITION
¡his voice save m trance, in noonday visions,
and ecstatic desert communings.
It was the sincere and earnest, if some
what ambitious, purpose of this book to dis
entangle and disencumber the religion
taught and lived by Jesus from the miscon
ceptionsand accretions which have gathered
round it, obscured it, overlaid it, often actu
ally transmuted it, and which began to
gather round it almost as soon as its founder
had disappeared from the scene of his
ministry. I shall have failed if I have not
vindicated our right, and shown it to be our
duty, to seek that pure original of devotional
spirit and righteous life in the authentic
words and deeds of Christ, and in these
alone; and, in the prosecution of this
search, to put aside respectfully but courage
ously, whenever we see warrant for it, what
ever, whether in the Gospels or the Epistles,
confuses, obscures, blots, or conflicts with
this spirit and this life. I conceive that I
have vindicated this right, and established
this obligation by showing that even the
immediate personal disciples of our Lord
misconceived him ; that the chief of the
Apostles never was a companion or follower
of Jesus in any sense, but claimed and
gloried in what he declared to be a special,
separate, and post-mortem revelation ; and
that even the Gospels contain some things
certainly, and several things probably,
which did not emanate from Christ.
I am disposed, therefore, to give an
entirely opposite answer to Strauss’s ques
tion to that which Strauss himself has given,
and to believe that when we have really
penetrated to the actual teaching of Christ,
and fairly disinterred that religion of Jesus
which preceded all creeds and schemes and
formulas, and which we trust will survive
them all, we shall find that, so far from this,
the true essence of Christianity, being re
nounced or outgrown by the progressive
intelligence of the age, its rescue, re
discovery, purification, and re-enthronement
as a guide of life, a fountain of truth, an
Object of faith, a law written on the heart,
will be recognised as the grandest and most
beneficent achievement of that intelligence.
It may well prove its slowest as its hardest
2Î
achievement, for it is proverbially more
difficult to restore than to build up afresh.
To renovate without destroying is of all
functions that which requires the most
delicate perceptions, the finest intuition,
the most reverent and subtle penetration
into the spirit of the original structure, as
well as manipulation at once the most skilful
and the most courageous. And the task
imposed upon the thought and piety of the
coming time is to perform this function on
the faith and creed of centuries and nations
—and to perform it amid the bewildering
cries of interests and orders whom you will
have rooted out of their comfortable and
venerable nests ; of age, which you will
have disturbed in its most cherished pre
judices ; of affections, which you will have
wounded in their tenderest points ; of
massive multitudes whom you will have
disturbed in what they fancied were con
victions and ideas ; of worshippers whose
idol only you will have overthrown, but
who will cry out that you have desecrated
and unshrined their God ; of craftsmen of
the Ephesian type, who “know that by this
craft they have their wealth and of cynical
and faithless statesmen whose unpaid
policemen and detectives (the more efficient
and more feared because unseen), and whose
self-supporting penal settlement elsewhere
(the more dreaded by malefactors because
remotely placed, invisible, and undefined),
you will be supposed to have abolished.
Another cognate question has been much
discussed of late, and maybe answered, we
think, nearly in the same way. It is asked,
not only, “ Are we Christians ?” but “ Can
a Christian life be lived out in modern
days ?” “ Can we, and ought we to, regulate
our personal and social life according to
the precepts of Christ ?” “ Is Christianity,
in very deed and as nakedly preached and
ordinarily taught, applicable to modern
society and extant civilisation ?” “ Is it
possible, would it be permitted, can it be
wise or right, to obey and act out the
Christian rule of life in the British Isles
and in 1873?” — No question can be
more vital, none more urgent, none more
�22
INTRODUCTION TO THE TH1RD EDITION
essential to our peace of conscience.
None, we may add, is more sedulously and
scandalously shirked. There is no courage
and no sincerity or downrightness among
us in this natter. We half say one thing
and half believe another. We preach and
profess what we do not think of practising;
what we should be scouted and probably
punished if we did practise; what in our
hearts and our dim, fled-from thoughts
we suspect it would be wrong to practise.
Wherein lies the explanation of this de
moralising and disreputable untruthfulness
of spirit? Are the principles we profess
mistaken ? Is the rule of life we hold up
as a guide erroneous, impracticable, or in
applicable to the altered conditions of the
age; or is it our conduct that is cowardly,
feeble, self-indulgent, and disloyal? Is it
our standard that is wrong, or merely our
actions that are culpable and rebellious ?
Is Christianity a code to b^,lived up to, or
is it a delusion, a mockery, and a snare?
The specialities for the conduct of life
prescribed by Christ’s precepts and ex
ample, as gathered from the Gospels and
the proceedings of his first disciples, which
current civilisation does trammel and
oppose, and which current thought does
question and controvert, are five in number:
non-resistance to violence, the duty of
almsgiving, the impropriety of providence
and forethought, the condemnation of
riches, and the communism which was sup
posed to be inculcated, and which certainly
was practised, by the earliest Christians.
How far and under what modifications were
these special precepts wise and sound at
that time, and are they obligatory, permis
sible, or noxious now ?
I. The precepts commanding non-resist
ance and submission to violence are too
distinct and specific to allow us to pare
them away to anything at all reconcilable
with modern sentiments and practice, even
by the most extreme use of the plea of
oriental and hyperbolic language.1 They
1 “ I say unto you, that ye resist not evil; but
whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek,
go far beyond a prohibition of mere retalia
tion or blame of hasty resentment or vindic
tive memory. They distinctly command
unresisting endurance of violence and
wrong, whether directed against person or
property. Now, can this precept be carried
out, and would it be well that it should be?
The first consideration that occurs to us
is that obedience to it has never been
seriously attempted. The common sense
or the common instinct of Christians, in all
ages and in all lands, has quietly but per
emptorily put it aside as not meant for use.
Indeed, Christians have habitually fought
from the earliest times just as savagely as
Pagans. They have seldom dreamed even
of confining themselves to self-defence—
self-defence, indeed, being condemned just
as decidedly as aggression. Nay, they
have habitually fought in the name, and, as
they firmly believed, in the cause of Christ,
have gloried in the title of “good soldiers
of Christ,” have died with priestly blessing
and absolution amid the rage of conflict,
confident that their reward was sure, and
that angels would bear them straightway to
the bosom of the beloved Master whose
orders they had so strangely set at naught.
One sect, indeed, among Christians have
professed to take this precept of Jesus
literally—and what precept is to be so
taken if this is not ?—and have professed to
obey it to the letter. But, in the first place,
the Society of Friends never pretended to
carry out more than one-half of it. They
never went the length commanded in the
turn to him the other also. And if any man.......
take away thy coat, let him have thy cloak also.
And whomsoever shall compel thee to go a mile,
go with him twain.” “Put up thy sword, for all
they that take the sword shall perish by the
sword.” “ Blessed are the Meek, for they shall
inherit the Earth.”
It is true that in one of the Evangelists, just
before his arrest, Jesus is reported to have said
to the twelve : “ He that hath no sword, let him
sell his garment and buy one.” But the passage
is so unintelligible, and so entirely out of keeping
with the context, that it is almost certainly a
case of misreporting, or misconception, or wholly
unwarranted tradition. A few hours later Jesus
said: “ My kingdom is not of this world ; else
would my servants fight.”
�introduction to the third edition
23
act, must restrain and retribute. Who
They »ever, we believe, denied themselves among us would for a moment advocate
the luxury of passive resistance in its most their abolition? Who that deems it right
tesolute and ingenious devices. They did to maintain them can pretend that the
not return a blow ; but they did not make Christian precept of non-resistance is obey
the first so easy or so pleasant as to invite able in these days, or that he is endeavour
a second. And they have nearly died out. ing to obey it? His mind may be penetrated
In the next place, they tried the experiment with the spirit of patience, humanity, and
under circumstances which practically made consideration for his fellow-men which led
non-resistance comparatively safe and easy Jesus to utter that command ; but the com
•—namely, under the aegis of police and mand itself he simplyrepudiates and evades.
There is still another view of the subject
law. It is but seldom that any of us now
have actually to ward off a blow, or by force to be taken. The worst ill-service you can
to resist an attempt at robbery, because, do to the violent is to show them that they
theoretically and potentially at least, the may work their wicked will unpunished and
assailant knows and we know that the unchecked by the natural instincts of
accredited guardians of order are there to humanity. It is to make them “ masters
do it for us. In fact, the daily routine of of the situation,” to encourage them by
Civilised life is organised on the assumption success and impunity, to enthrone them as
that the necessity for self-defence and re mon archs of the world. It is to put good
sistance to evil is taken off our hands. ness under the foot of evil, and so to drive
Obedience to Christ’s precept becomes back the progress of Humanity, to retard
wonderfully simplified — or rather it is the coming of “ the Kingdom of Heaven.”
dexterously evaded—when we have only to It is, too, to harden the sinner in his wrong,
hand over our enemy to the nearest con the criminal in his crime, the brute in his
stable. We, in fact, do resist, and resist brutality ; to teach him to proceed in out
like the merest Pagan—only we resist by rages and iniquities that pay so well; to
deputy — disobeying vicariously, that we make him heap up wrath against the day
of wrath. Hundreds, who would have been
may be in a condition to obey in person.
The truth is, that the whole of our crimi stopped at the outset of their criminal
nal law and our police arrangements are career by prompt and timely'resistance,
based upon a systematic repudiation of the are led on by the impunity which sub
precepts in question; and the order of mission secures, till habits of crime are
modern society and the security of modern formed and recovery becomes hopeless.
life could not otherwise exist. In savage Non-resistance, then, becomes connivance
Communities and in disordered times every and complicity in wrong.
The orthodox reply to these common
man must succumb to violence or must
sense representations is well known, but
defend himself. In such times obedience
to the Christian precept would simply has never been convincing. The wrong-,
mean the extermination or enslavement of doer, it is said, will be so amazed and
all Christians, the supremacy of the violent melted by the calm acquiescence of his
by the self-suppression of the gentle. In victim that his heart will be touched and
our days division of labour is in the his conscience awakened by the unexpected
- ascendant; and we delegate the duties of issue. He will be taken unawares, as it
resisting violence and evil to a professional were—approached on an unguarded side ;
Class. If bad men abound — and where and thus be disarmed in place of being
would be the meaning of Christian precepts baffled, and converted instead of being
and exhortations to a Christian life if they defeated. But, we apprehend, this antici
did not?—then, if the criminal class are pation assumes one or two postulates fatal
not to prosper and to reign, police and the to its realisation, and somewhat contradic
repressive and punitive law must exist and tory. It assumes that resistance and
text, of facilitating assault and coercion.
�24
INTRODUCTION TO THE THIRD EDITION
retaliation are the rule—else there would
be nothing in the attitude of meek endur
ance to surprise the violent man into reflec
tion and repentance. It implies, moreover,
a susceptibility on the part of the violent
which the habit of violence soon destroys.
It seems, too, to pre-suppose a moral
atmosphere that could only be created by
a community of non-resisting Christians,
or a world at least in which the wrong-doers
were so comparatively few that they did
not suffice to form a public opinion and
class-sympathies of their own. It imagines
the criminal, the oppressor, and the selfseeker, recoiling from the very facility and
completeness of their success, and at the
very moment when the prospect of its joys
most radiantly dawns upon them. It
expects them to be “ touched by grace ”
just when the career of wrong looks most
inviting and most full of promise. Such
things may be—such things have been in
isolated instances; but can they ever
become normal? Can they be counted
upon so as to form a safe or rational guide
for conduct ?
There is, however, one case in which the
non-resistance doctrine is so obviously in
applicable that no one, we believe, has ever
dreamed of practising it—namely, in the
case of quarrels between nations. For one
country to submit to outrage and wrong at
the hands of another, wffien the means of
resistance lay in its power, has never
been held right or obligatory. The ques
tion has never seriously been brought under
discussion ; it being perfectly clear that
the relative position of different nations
from the earliest times even to our own
having always been that of jealous rivalry,
ceaseless controversy either smouldering
or flagrant, and hostility latent or avowed,
any people that habitually and notoriously
submitted to violence would simply be
over-run, enslaved, or trampled out. The
doctrine of non-resistance would mean
nothing but the destruction of the gentler
and finer races, and the rampant tyranny
of the stronger ; the reign of violence, not
of peace ; the triumph of Satan, not of
Christ ; in a word, the suicide of all meek
and truly Christian peoples.
It is plain, then, that we have here one
of three or four instances in which true
Christianity must be held to require a dis
regard of its own precepts in favour of its
own principles, in which Christ’s exhorta
tions are a guide to the spirit we must
cherish, not to the conduct we must pursue.
We must cultivate the temper which will
effectually prevent us from being quick to
resent or prone to retaliate, or severe to
punish ; but without abnegating those
natural instincts which are sometimes our
safest guides, or ceasing to maintain that
firm attitude of self-protection which, under
the governance of good feeling and good
sense, is the best antagonist to the preva
lence of violence upon earth.
II. Alms-giving.1—Scarcely any precept
in the Gospel is more distinct or reiterated
than this. No duty has been more peremp
torily insisted upon by the Church in all
times and in all countries. It was one of
the chief functions of the monastic institu
tions in the Middle Ages. It was made a
legal obligation in the days which suc
ceeded them. It is periodically inculcated
from Protestant pulpits, and the Catholics
are still more positive in enforcing it on
all the faithful. Our own country swarms
with proofs how literally and widely, genera
tion after generation, the obligation has
been acknowledged and fulfilled. The
Reports of the Charity Commission, in
countless volumes, bear testimony to the
innumerable charities that exist, and explain
a little what they have done. The recog
nition of the obligation of alms-giving is, to
this day, nearly as prevalent and as influ
ential as ever. It is of all Christian pre
cepts that which is most strictly obeyed—
1 “ Give to him that asketh of thee, and from
him that would borrow of thee turn not thou
away.” “Sell that thou hast and give alms.”
“ Let thine alms be in secret, and thy Father,
who seeth thee in secret, himself shall reward
thee openly.” “He that hath two coats, let
him impart to him that hath none.” “Give
alms of such things as ye have ; and behold all
things are clean unto you.
�INTRODUCTION TO THE THIRD EDITION
obedience to it being easier than to any
other. A pious man and a tender-hearted
woman do not feel comfortable or good
unless they habitually give to beggars, or
Spend a given portion of their income in
succouring the poor, or those who seem
such.
Yet nothing can be more certain than
that all this is very wrong and does infinite
mischief. The more literally the precept
[“give to him that asketh of thee”] is
obeyed, the more harm does it do. No
conclusion has been more distinctly or
definitely proved than that nearly all
charity, popularly so called—-more espe
cially all indiscriminate alms-giving—is
simply and singularly noxious. It is
noxious, most of all, to the objects of it—
whom it fosters in all mean and unchristian
vices, in idleness, self-indulgence, and
falsehood. It is noxious, in the next place,
to the deserving and industrious poor,
from whom it diverts sympathy. It is
noxious, also, to the entire community,
among whom it creates and cherishes a
class of most pernicious citizens. The form
which charity has a tendency to assume in
societies so complicated as all civilised
societies are growing now, is such as to
drain the practice of nearly all its inciden
tal good, and aggravate its peculiar mis
chiefs. The alms-giver has not his kindly
feelings called forth by personal intercourse
with the poor.; he subscribes, he does not
give; and charitable endowments and
bequests are ingenious contrivances for
diffusing the most widespread pauperism.
Paupers become sneaks and vagrants; and
vagrants soon grow into criminals. It is
needless to dwell on this; the consentaneous
voice of modern benevolence and states
manship alike is crying out against alms
giving as a mischief and a sin—as anything
but philanthropy or charity—as a senti
mental self-indulgence, and the very reverse
of a Christian virtue, a distinct, and now
nearly always a conscious, complicity in
imposture, fraud, laziness, and sensuality.
Everyone conversant with the question, all
true lovers of their fellow-men, all earnest
and practical labourers in the field of social
25
improvement, in the precise measure of
their experience agree that, in all schemes
and efforts for rectifying the terrible evils
of our crowded civilisation, the most
ubiquitous and insurmountable impedi
ments arise out of the practice of indis
criminate alms-giving and systematic
charity. One of the most pernicious and
objectionable of our daily habits is in strict
obedience to one of the clearest and most
positive of Christian precepts.
Nor is it in England only that alms-giving
is bad. It is bad everywhere; it is bad even
in the East; it is very bad in Italy; it is
worst of all perhaps in Spain. Everywhere
it creates a special class of the worthless
and the vicious, who soon become the
criminal. It is of its essence to do this. The
antagonism between the Christian precept
and what ought to be the conduct of really
Christian men is direct, complete, undeni
able, and all but universal.
The mischief has arisen out of the timehonoured practice—a practice which surely
now-a-days would be more honoured in the
breach than the observance—of looking
into the Gospel as a code of conduct instead
of a well-spring of spiritual influence, and
picking out texts to act by and to judge by,
as a French judge opens chapter and verse
of the Code Napoleon, instead of imbuing
ourselves with “the same mind that was in
Christ,” and letting our behaviour after
wards flow freely therefrom. Christ directed
us “to do good” to our fellow-men, especially
to the poor and helpless among them. In
our stupid literalism we have taken this as
a command to do them all the harm we can.
“ He that hath two coats, let him impart to
him that hath none ”—read as an exhorta
tion to use our abundance and our advan
tages to succour the needy and assist the
less fortunate, is conceived in a beautiful
and righteous spirit. But how, when the
second coat has been provided to meet next
year’s exigencies at the cost of much diffi
cult self-denial, and when the coat of the
coatless man has been pawned for drink,
and when the one which I give him is sure
to follow its predecessor up the spout ? Is
thrift to be discouraged and sodden
�26
INTRODUCTION TO THE THIRD EDITION
sensuality to be fostered, in the name of a discharge of which more vitally concerns
Christian duty ? The solution of the diffi their future welfare and their present peace.
culty is very plain. Jesus put the abstract It is their improvidence that condemns
principle in a parable or a concrete shape— them to squalor, to indigence, to depen
as he always did: He commanded a dence, to wretched habitations, to unwhole
benevolent frame of mind in the form of a some surroundings, and to all those moral
precept to the simplest action to which that evils and dangers which follow in the wake
frame of mind would instinctively lead in x)f these things. Few things can be more' b
circumstances when reflection would sug i certain than that, if our working classes are [
gest nothing to control the impulse. Pro lever to emerge from their present most 1
bably he never reflected on the danger of Unsatisfactory condition, if they are to
creating a whole tribe of begging impostors.. ^become respectable citizens and true Chris
Perhaps the danger did not exist in that tians, they must learn to save for to-morrow’s ,
day. In any case, what he really designed (’needs, and to regard it as something very
and desired was to produce a spirit of like a sin to leave to-morrow to take care
boundless compassion and love which of itself. To spend all their gains when >
should inspire his disciples with anxiety to those gains are ample, as they so habitually
do all the good possible, to render all do, is obviously not only a folly, but some
the aid possible to those who were in thing very like a fraud, inasmuch as it is
distress or want; his aim was to elevate, wasting their own substance, in reliance
not to degrade, to foster the Christian that when it fails they will be fed out of the
virtues, not the selfish vices ; and the very substance of others. It is the conduct so
texts that we read as enjoining alms-giving distinctly condemned in the case of the
are really those which, interpreted aright, foolish virgins—with an aggravation. They
most distinctly prohibit it. Here it is not do not forget to bring their oil; they de
that a Christian life is not feasible in our liberately waste it, knowing that they may
days ; it is only that it has become more say to their wiser neighbours, “ Give
difficult because less simple ; and that in us of your oil, for our lamps are gone
order to disentangle its dictates from its out.” The workman who, in receipt of
dicta, and to pierce to its inner significance, good wages, saves nothing out of those
demands more intellectual effort and more wages is wilfully improvident, relying on
intellectual freedom than we are prone to the providence of others; for what is the
exercise. Here, if anywhere, it is “ the property from which charitable funds are
letter that killeth, and the spirit that giveth derived and on which poor rates are levied
life.” What we have to ask ourselves is, but the accumulated savings of the provi
“What would Christ, with all the circum dent and thoughtful ? What is all invested
stances before him, have directed in these wealth, indeed, but the steadily augmented
times ?”
economies of those who, generation after
generation, have taken thought for the
III. Improvidence.—There is scarcely morrow? It is not too much to say that, i/
any exhortation in the line of social morality our artisan classes would for two genera
more incessantly or more unanimously tions—perhaps even for one—be as frugal
addressed to the people of this country than and as hoarding as the French peasant is,
that which urges them to provide for the and as the better portion of the Scotch and
future, “ to lay by for a rainy day”; to store Swiss once were, the whole face of the
up something of their daily earnings against country would be changed ; they would be
the time when those earnings may fail or menof property instead of being Proletaires;
be interrupted. Assuredly there is no ex they could live in comfortable dwellings in
hortation of which they stand more in need, place of wretched hovels and crowded
nor one which they more habitually neglect. alleys ; they might be men of comparative
Manifestly there is no duty the sedulous leisure instead of mere toilers all day and
�INTRODUCTION TO THE THIRD EDITION
every day, from childhood to old age;
education would be as much within their
teach as it is within the reach of their
betters now ; and the soil would be pre
pared in which all the Christian virtues
a»d most civilised enjoyments could easily
take root and flourish. With providence
‘would come sobriety, with property would
come independence, and all the facilities
for a worthy and a happy life would grow
up around them. In a word, providence,
if not the very first duty of the social man,
ranks very high among his duties, and is
the sine qua non of any decided and perma
nent improvement in either his social or
his moral state. About this there can be
no doubt. As to this there is no difference
Of opinion.
Yet it is not to be denied that this prime
duty, this imperative obligation, this indis
pensable condition of human advancement,
JS not only deprecated, but actually de
nounced and prohibited, in that Sermon on
the Mount which we are accustomed to
look to as the embodiment of the Christian
r rule of life.1
I
The words of Christ, and the exhorta’ tions of Christians, statesmen, economists,
\ and moralists, are, then, directly at variance
I —-and the latter are undeniably in the right.
rlow is the difficulty to be met ? How
must the discrepancy be reconciled ? Why
HOt meet the question honestly and boldly,
1 Take no thought for your life, what ye shall
eat, or what ye shall drink, nor yet for your
body, what ye shall put on........ Behold the
fowls of the air, for they sow not, neither do
they reap, nor gather into barns; yet your
heavenly Father feedeth them. Are ye not
better than they ?...... And why take ye thought
for raiment? Consider the lilies of the field,
how they grow; they toil not, neither do they
Spin ; and yet I say unto you, that Solomon in
all his glory was not arrayed like one of these.
Wherefore if God so clothe the grass of the
field...... shall he not much more clothe you,
O ye of little faith ?...... Take, therefore, no
thought, saying what shall we eat ? or what
shall we drink ? or wherewithal shall we be
clothed? But seek first the kingdom of God
and his righteousness, and all these things shall
be added unto you........ Take, therefore, no
thought for the morrow : for the morrow shall
take thought for the things of itself.
27
and avow that Jesus was addressing hearers
in a very different position and state of
mind from the labourers and artisans of
England—hearers who were wont to be not
too careless, but too anxious, about the
morrow; whose climate rendered com
paratively little necessary, and yielded that
little to very moderate toil; the conditions
of whose civilisation were incomparably
simpler than ours, and the obligations of_
whose labour less onerous.1 It may well
' be, then, that the exhortations which were
* sound and appropriate to them are inapplic
able to us. But we may probably, with
perfect safety and with no irreverence, go a
step further, and observe that Jesus, as was
natural and customary, not only spoke with
that Oriental picturesqueness of style which
is almost inevitably exaggeration, but fixed
his own thought and directed that of his
hearers upon the one side and phase of
truth with which he was at the moment
dealing, to the exclusion of all qualifying
considerations which must be taken into
account as soon as we begin to frame a
code of conduct or a system of action out
of one isolated discourse addressed to one
fraction of a great problem.2 Here, as
elsewhere, the idea which lies at the root
of the teaching is undeniably correct, for
that idea deprecates and assails the inor
dinate worldliness which constituted one of
the most insurmountable obstacles to the
reception of Christ’s doctrine. The error
is ours, not Christ’s—and consists in per
versely applying an exhortation addressed
to a congregation among whom a particular
quality of mind and temper was in excess
to a congregation with whom it is most
lamentably deficient. Had Jesus preached
to English artizans, we may feel certain that
1 See Renan, Vie de Jesus, ch. x., for a vivid
delineation of the entirely different surroundings
and features of the life of the Galilean fishermen
and peasants to whom these exhortations were
originally addressed.
2 It must be remembered, too, that all these
exhortations to lay up treasures in heaven, and
not on earth, were delivered under the prevail
ing impression that the Kingdom of Heaven,
where all things would be differently ordered,
was close at hand.
�28
INTRODUCTION TO THE THIRD EDITION
he would have chosen a different theme, and
used far other language. But that is by no
means all that needs to be said. Not a word
of Christ’s rebuke to those who were eaten up
by excessive care for the good things of the
world, and were led thereby to neglect
treasures immeasurably more precious,
can be pleaded in justification of those who
are so far from undervaluing these good
things that they insist upon their instan
taneous enjoyment and their immediate ex
haustion ; who lay by nothing for to-morrow
only because, like the brutes that perish,
they choose to eat up everything to-day;
who, if they follow the letter of the law in
laying up no treasure upon earth, utterly
flout its spirit, inasmuch as they certainly
lay up no treasure in heaven either. To
eschew over-anxiety for future comfort and
well-being, in order that we may be the
freer for the work of righteousness, is the
part of all true followers of Jesus; to “take
no thought for the morrow ” that we may
indulge the more unrestrainedly in the indo
lence and sensualities of to-day, and toplead
Gospel warrant for the sin, is to “wrest
Scripture to our own destruction.” It would
be well that divines should make this more
clear. The form which Christ’s teaching
would take were he to come on earth now,
without the least real change in its essential
spirit, would probably be : Take thought
for to-morrow, and provide for its neces
sities, in order that, when to-morrow comes,
you may be free enough from sordid wants
and gnawing cares to have some moments
to spare for the things that belong unto your
peace.
do further to secure eternal life, is told to
despoil himself of all his great possessions
and give them to the poor. He is reluctant
to do so, and Jesus thereupon observes
that “ a rich man shall hardly enter into
the Kingdom of Heaven.” According to
Luke, he said : “ Blessed are the poor, for
yours is the Kingdom of God. Woe unto
you that are rich, for you have received
your consolation.” “ Lay not up for your
selves treasures upon earth.” In the parable
of Dives and Lazarus, the rich man, with
out the faintest intimation that he had any
other fault than wealth, is relegated to the
place of torment ; while the beggar, without
the faintest intimation that he had any
other merit but his indigence and his sores,
is carried by angels into Abraham’s bosom ;
and the startling and sole reason assigned
for the award is that now it is the turn of
Lazarus to be made comfortable. It is true
that in one passage the harshness of Christ’s
denunciation is modified into the phrase,
“ How hard it is for them that trust in
uncertain riches to enter into the Kingdom
of Heaven”; and when his disciples are
horrified at hearing that hard sentence about
the needle’s eye, and exclaim, “ Who, then,
can be saved?” he holds out a mysterious
hope that in the infinite resources of the
Most High some way of escape from the
sweeping condemnation may be found.
Still the prevailing tone and teaching of the
Gospel cannot be gainsaid or veiled. It is
to the effect that the poor are the more
especial favourites of God; that wealth is a
thing to be shunned, not to be sought ;
that it distinctly stands in the way of salva
tion, and will probably have to be atoned
IV. Denunciation of Wealth.—There is for hereafter by terrific compensation.
>
no line of conduct so emphatically con
Yet in spite of this emphatic warning,
demned by Christ, and so eagerly pursued riches have been the most general pursuit
by Christians, as the pursuit of riches. of Christians in all ages and among all,
There is no mistake about either fact. classes, with rare exceptions in the monkish
Throughout the Gospels riches are spoken ages; among real and earnest, as well as
of not only as a peril and temptation to the among merely professing Christians ; among
soul, but as something evil in themselves, the accredited teachers of the Gospel (to a
something to be atoned for, something to be considerable extent), as well as among the
singled out for condemnation. The young mere following flock of lay disciples. Nay
man who has kept all the Commandments more, the most really Christian nations
from his youth up, and asks what he must I have been, and still are, the most devoted
�INTRODUCTION TO THE THIRD EDITION
to the pursuit of gain ; the most rigidly and
ostentatiously Christian sections of those
nations—shall we say the Quakers and
the Scotch?—have been among the steadiest
and most quietly successful in the search.
•Nor do they even affect to fancy that they
are wrong or disobedient in thus eagerly
striving for that wealth which their Master
so distinctly ordered them to eschew and
dread ; they put aside or pass by his teach
ing with a sort of staring unconsciousness,
as if it in no way concerned them ; with a
curious unanimity they vote his exhorta
tions obsolete,. abstract, or inapplicable ;
the most respectable of the religious world
give one day to their Saviour and six days
to their ledger ; the most pious banker, the
purest liver, the most benevolent nobleman,
never dreams of “despising riches,” or of
casting from him his superfluous possessions
as a snare to his feet and a peril to his soul.
On the contrary, he is grateful to God for
them ; he returns thanks for the favour
which has so blessed his poor efforts to
grow affluent; he resolves that he will use
his wealth for the glory of God.
Now, which is wrong—Christ in denoun
cing riches, or Christians in cherishing
them? Our Master in exhorting us to shun
them, or his disciples .in seeking them so
eagerly? Will modern society permit us
to despise them ? And would it be well
for modern society that we should ? The
answer, if we dare to state it plainly, does
not seem to be doubtful, or very recondite.
We must imbue ourselves with the spirit
of Christ’s teaching as enduring and sur
viving, ever extant through all forms and
all times ; and then we may safely ignore
the letter as simply the accidental and
temporary garment in which he clothed
his meaning. This is probably the unper
verted impulse of every true man, if he be
a reflective man as well. Perhaps, indeed,
the discrepancy between what Jesus
preached, and that which every good and
wise man would echo now, lies rather in
the phraseology than in the essence of the
doctrine. Jesus—living among the poor,
cognisant of their “ sacred patience ” and
their humble virtues, bent upon startling
29
his world out of the self-indulgent ease
into which it had sunk, and profoundly
impressed with the terrible influence which
the abundance and the love of earthly
possessions exercise in enervating the soul,
incapacitating it for all high enterprise, all
self-denying effort, all difficult achievement,
seeing with a clearness which excluded for
the moment all modifying considerations,
the benumbing power of that fatal torpor
and apathy which creeps over even nobler
natures when this life is too luxurious and
too joyful—-saw that absolute renunciation
would be easier and safer than the righteous
use of wealth. We, on the other hand,
who know—what was invisible in those
simpler days—how necessary is the
accumulation of capital to those great
undertakings which carry on the progress
and the civilisation of our complex modern
communities—naturally and rightly regard
the employment of affluence, and not its
pursuit or its possession, as the fit subject of
our moral judgments. It was in the grave
of a rich disciple that Jesus was laid after
the crucifixion ; and in the parable of the
talents he praised and recompensed the
men who had doubled their capital by
honest trading, while condemning and
despoiling the feckless and unprofitable
idler. And the wise and right-minded of
our day would denounce as unmercifully as
Christ himself the rich man whose riches
blind him to the far higher value of spiritual
aims and intellectual enjoyments ; whose
luxury and lavish expenditure make life
difficult for all around him ; whose ostenta
tion is an evil and a temptation to those
who take him as their model ; to whom
opulence is not a grand means, a solemn
trust, and a grave responsibility, but merely
a source of sensual indulgence and of
vacant worthlessness ; or who passes his
youth and manhood in adding house to
house and field to field, wasting life without
what alone renders life worth having. We
see, too, perhaps more clearly than could
be seen in earlier times, that poverty has
its own special and terrible temptations
and obstacles to virtue, as well as wealth ;
and that with us, at least, not affluence
�30
INTRODUCTION TO THE THIRD EDITION
indeed, but assuredly competence, smooths
the way, for the weaker brethren, to a
crowd of Christian excellences. And
finally, we recognise now, what was not
known—perhaps was not the case—then,
that though a rich man may use his wealth
righteously and well, it is scarcely possible
for him to get rid of it without doing
mischief, and therefore doing wrong.
V. Communism.—It cannot be said that
the Gospel anywhere distinctly preaches a
community of goods, though it may be felt
that the general tone of Christ’s exhortations
tends in that direction, But there can be
no doubt that the earliest body of disciples,
those who constituted what is termed the
Church of Jerusalem,” did so interpret
-the teaching of their Master, and “had all
things in common,andsold their possessions
and goods, and parted them to all, as every
man had need.” The same statement is
repeated still more fully and distinctly in
the fourth chapter of the Acts : “ There
was no one among them that lacked”;
“ lands and houses were sold, and the
produce laid at the Apostles’ feet for distri
bution”; “neither said any man that aught
of the things which he possessed was his
own, but they had all things common.” It
is difficult to describe the sinking of all
private property in a common fund in
plainer language ; and the strange story of
Ananias and Sapphira, though the words
are peculiar, can scarcely be held to invali
date the conclusion.
We can scarcely deny, then, that Com
munism is in some sort a corollary of
Christ’s teaching, though not a positively
commanded part of Christianity. It has
been held to be such by reforming sects
and theorists in many ages, and various
are the attempts recorded in history to
reduce it to practice. The notion has been
constantly reappearing during the last
century, now in France, now in America.
Many minds of no ordinary power have
spoken in favour of the conception. Even
Mr. J. S. Mill—who would have been a
great Christian if he had not been a great
thinker—has said that the idea at the root
of it was irrefragably sound, “that every
man should 'work according to his capaci
ties, and should receive according to his
wants.” Yet nothing is more certain than
that every endeavour to carry out the
scheme in practice has always failed, and,
as the eminent man just named has admit
ted, must always fail, being constantly ship
wrecked on the same rock. The character
istics of human nature forbid success. As
men are constituted, if they receive accord
ing to their wants, they never will work
according to their capacities. If they are
fed and provided with all they need, they
will, as a rule, work as little as they
can. As regards masses of men, it is
only their regard for self that will compel
them to do their duty by the community.
The institution of private property, the
conviction that “ if any man will not work,
neither shall he eat,” alone calls forth
adequate exertions, alone controls indefinite
multiplications, alone counteracts inveterate
laziness, alone raises nations out of squalor
and barbarism, alone lifts man above the
condition of the beasts that perish. Where
communism prevails, nine men out of every
ten try to get as much and to do as little
as they can ; and the system, therefore, is
found to be simply suicidal. It encounters,
too, whenever attempted, another fatal
difficulty. It is impossible for any external
authority to determine what are each man’s
capacities,or each man’s needs. Practically,
therefore, communism is fatal to civilisation,
fatal to order, fatal to freedom, fatal to
progress ; and if Christianity commands,
favours, or indicates communism, Chris
tianity is fatal to all these good things. But
the dim idea, the sound nucleus, which lies
latent in the communistic creed—-the con
ception, namely, that all our possessions,
as well as all our gifts, are to be held in
trust for the general good of all—is
eminently aud distinctively Christian.
It will be answered that Christianity
aims, and professes, so to remould men’s
natures, and to eliminate their vices, and
to neutralise their selfishness, as to make a
community of goods feasible, and not only
compatible with, but conducive to, the
�INTRODUCTION TO THE THIRD EDITION
highest and surest advance of the species.
But we are dealing with the practical
question: “ Is a Christian life liveable in
our day?” And if communism be only
possible and safe when all men are moulded
in Christ’s image and permeated by his
spirit, and is noxious and fatal to the best
interests of humanity under all other con[ditions, then, if a community of goods be
[Implied in a Christian life, that life indis
putably is not practicable now. It is found
in actual fact, and has been found in all
lands and in all times, that the institution
of private property, with all the selfishness
it involves and all the selfishness it fosters,
is alor.e capable of drawing forth from our
imperfect natures that strenuous and en
during exertion from which all progress
springs. And this experience is the one
sufficing, and perhaps the only unanswer
able, justification of that often-assailed and
.questioned institution.
To sum up the results of our inquiry. It
may be safely pronounced that non-resist
ance, almsgiving, improvidence, and comImunism are not practicable in these days,
and would be decidedly noxious, and there
fore obviously wrong ; while contempt of
Inches, if stopping short of that naked
condemnation of them conveyed in the
bald letter of the Gospel teaching, would
be feasible enough. But the spirit and
temper which Oriental imagination, hasty
generalisation, unreflecting intelligence,
unacquainted with the requirements of
Complex civilisation, and habitually hyper
bolic phraseology, would naturally embody
in those four exhortations, are as obligatory
and as feasible as ever. The thought—the
nucleus of the inner meaning—is sacred
Still and of enduring truth. It is only the
casual and separable shell of words in
which that thought was once conveyed that
Wft must regard as having passed away, or
possibly as never having been more than
figuratively or exceptionally appropriate.
And we may use our freedom of pene
trating to the true spirit and meaning of
¡Christ’s teaching through its casual or dis
guising letter, with the more boldness that
3i
it is only this spirit as to which we can feel
absolutely certain. Jesus spoke in Aramaic,
while his sayings are recorded for us in
Greek; and they must, therefore, have
passed through the process of translation
from one language into another; and,
moreover, from one language into another
whose genius is as singularly distinct as
that of the German from that of the French.
The record, too, it is pretty certain, did not
take shape till at least half a century, or
about a generation and a half, after the date
of the events recorded—ample time for
those events (whether facts or words) to
have been moulded and modified, by the
invariable practice of tradition, into the
conceptions of the human intermediaries
by whose agency they were handed down
—a time so ample that this process of
modification could not fail to have operated
largely. And, finally, the Gospels them
selves abound in indications that both the
disciples who heard and repeated Christ’s
sayings, and the evangelists who recorded
them in a foreign language, did not always
conceive them rightly or comprehend them
fully. Thus, what our English Testament
practically contains is simply the form
which the precepts of a great prophet and
Master, orally delivered, have definitely
assumed after having passed for a space of
fifty years or more, by the process of oral
tradition, through a succession of uncritical
and imaginative minds, none of which
grasped or understood them in their fulness
or their pure simplicity; and after being
subsequently exposed to the double risk of
transfusion, first from a Semitic into an
Aryan, and then from a classic into a
Teutonic, tongue. It would seem, there
fore, self-evident that this is a case in which
reliance on special phrases and expressions,
as well as on particular narrative details,
must be singularly unsafe and unwise;
and, as a fact, we find that even theologians
who most loudly deprecate and repudiate
this conclusion, when formalised in words,
do practically recognise its truth, by putting
their own gloss and interpretation on the
bare language of Scripture wherever they
find it necessary to do so; and that the
�32
INTRODUCTION TO THE THIRD EDITION
extent to which they use this liberty is
merely a question of degree. Only then,
we may fairly conclude—indeed, are forced
to conclude—only that “ mind which was
in Christ,” that spirit, temper, enduring and
inspiring character ; that life, in fine, which
shone through all his actions and permeated
all his sayings, and which was so vital, so
essential, so omnipresent, and so unmistakeable, as to have survived through all
the channels and processes of transmission
we have described, and defied their perils,
can safely be taken or followed as his real
teaching. Doubts and disputes among
Christians have been infinite as ’to the
“doctrine” of Christ—as to the “par
ticulars ” of what he said and did. None,
we believe, ever truly differed as to the
tone and temper of his mind or of his
teaching, as to the essential features of his
character, as to what he meant by “ Me”
when he said “ Follow me,” “ Learn of me,
for I am meek and lowly of heart, and ye
shall find rest to your souls.”
We may see now, too, how shallow and
how groundless are the fallacies of those
who jump to the conclusion that, in order to
realise and carry out a truly Christian life,
it is necessary to upset society, to abolish
the hierarchy of ranks, and introduce a
forced equality of position and possessions.
The Gospel, rightly read, gives no counte
nance to those wild theories of ignorance,
thoughtlessness, and envy. The New
Testament contains many precepts as to
our behaviour in those relations which
spring out of that very inequality of con
ditions which Christianity, in the view of
Communists, is supposed to discountenance.
Some of the more distinctively Christian
virtues, such as obedience and humility,
would seem to be especially appropriate to
a social organisation where rank, if not
“ caste,” holds sway. Certainly, as we
have learned by experience, some of the
most un-Christian vices, such as envy, lie
deep at the root of the passion for equality,
and have been seen to flourish with
malignant strength where that passion has
been most clamorous. Assuredly, too, we
should say that a system of civilisation in |
which masters and servants, rulers and
subjects, rich and poor, the humble and
the great, are recognised and established,
appears to offer field and scope for a wider
range and a greater variety of Christian
excellencies than a community in which a
dead level of uniformity should prevail.
Nor can we conceive any single form or
manifestation of “the mind which was in
Christ ” that may not thrive in fullest
vitality in society as now constituted, and
find ample work in purging its evils and
developing its capabilities, without seeking
to disturb its foundations. If Christianity
cannot flourish under any phase of social
and political organisation, if the seed of its
more peculiar qualities can only germinate
and fructify in soil enriched with the ruins
of ancient orders and ancestral institutions,
and flattened down by the hard grinding
steam-roller of democracy, it can scarcely
be the mighty or divine moral agency we
have hitherto conceived it.
Our conclusion, then, is, that we are and
may remain Christians, and that we can
and ought to obey the Christian rule of life;
but that in order to do either we must deal
with the kernel, not the husk; we must
penetrate to the true mind and temper of
Jesus through the accretions which have
overlaid it, the literalism which has dis
figured it, and (be it said with all reverence)
the Orientalism and the incompleteness, if
not the imperfection, which mingled with
and coloured it. Holding this, the utmost
possible conquests of intelligence and
learning are divested of their terrors. It is
not with Christianity that science can ever
be at issue; only with theology calling itself
Christian.
And now, having reached a time of life
when most subjects are grave, and when
some have grown very solemn—when the
angry passions of the controversialist can
find no breath or aliment in the thin, calm
atmosphere of fading years ; when egotism
has little left to gather round it; and when
few sentiments survive in pristine vividness
but the love of nature and the reverence for
�INTRODUCTION TO THE THIRD EDITION
truth—I may be allowed one parting word,
which, though personal, will scarcely be
deemed obtrusive. I not only disclaim any
position or feeling of antagonism to Chris
tianity ; I claim to have written this book
on behalf, and in the cause, of the religion
of Jesus, rightly understood. I entirely
repudiate the pretensions of those whom
I hold to have especially misconceived and
obscured that religion, to be its exclusive or
rightful representatives. I hold that thou
sands of the truest servants of our Lord are
to be found among those who decline to
wear what it is the fashion to pronounce
his livery, with the grotesque and hideous
facings of each successive age. I resent as
an arrogant assumption the habitual
practice of refusing the name of Christian
to all who shrink away from or assail the
errors and corruptions with which its
official defenders have overlaid the faith of
Christ. And I can find no words of
adequate condemnation for the shallow
insolence of men who are not ashamed to
fling the name of “ atheist ” on all whose
conceptions of the Deity are purer, loftier,
more Christian, than their own. Those
who dare to dogmatise about his nature or
his purposes, prove by that very daring
their hopeless incapacity even to grasp the
skirts or comprehend the conditions of that
mighty problem.1 Even if the human
intellect could reach the truth about him,
human language would hardly be adequate
to give expression to the transcendent
1 “ It must be that the light divine,
That on your soul is pleased to shine,
Is other than what falls on mine :
“ For you can fix and formalise
The Power on which you raise your eyes,
And trace him in his palace-skies.
“You can perceive and almost touch
His attributes, as such and such—
Almost familiar over much.
“ You can his thoughts and ends display,
In fair historical array,
From Adam to the judgment-day.
“ I cannot think him here or there—
I think him ever everywhere—•
Unfading light, unstifled air.”
— The Tivo Theologies: Palm Leaves,
by Lord Houghton.
33
thought.
Meanwhile, recognising and
realising this with an unfeigned humbleness
which yet has nothing disheartening in its
spirit, my own conception—perhaps from
early mental habit, perhaps from incurable
and very conscious metaphysical inaptitude
—approaches far nearer to the old current
image of a personal God than to any of the
sublimated substitutes of modern thought.
Strauss’s Universum, Comte’s Humanity,
even Mr. Arnold’s Stream of Tendency that
Makes for Righteousness, excite in me no
enthusiasm, command from me no worship.
I cannot pray to the Immensities and the
Eternities of Carlyle. They proffer me no
help ; they vouchsafe no sympathy ; they
suggest no comfort. It may be that such
a Personal God is a mere anthropomorphic
creation. It maybe—as philosophers with
far finer instruments of thought than mine
affirm—that the conception of such a being,
duly analysed, is demonstrably a self-con
tradictory one. But at least in resting in
it, I rest in something I almost seem to
realise ; at least I share the view which
Jesus indisputably held of the Father whom
he obeyed, communed with, and wor
shipped; at least I escape the indecent
familiarity and the perilous rashness, stum
bling now into the grotesque, now into the
blasphemous, of the infallible creed-concocters who stand confidently ready with
their two-foot rule to measure the Im
measurable, to define the Infinite, to describe
in precise scholastic phraseology the nature
of the Incomprehensible and the substance
of the great Spirit of the universe.
I have but one word more to say—and
that is an expression of unfeigned amaze
ment—so strong as almost to throw into
the shade every other sentiment, and in
creasing with every year of reflection, and
every renewed perusal of the genuine words
and life of Jesus—that, out of anything so
simple, so beautiful, so just, so loving, and
so grand, could have grown up or been
extracted anything so marvellously unlike
its original as the current creeds of
Christendom ; that so turbid a torrent could
have flowed from so pure a fountain, and
�34
INTRODUCTION TO THE THIRD EDITION
yet persist in claiming that fountain as its
source; that any combination of human
passion, perversity, and misconception
could have reared such a superstructure
upon such foundations. Out of the teach
ing of perhaps the most sternly anti-sacerdotal prophet who ever inaugurated a new
religion, has been built up (among the
Catholics and their feeble imitators here)
about the most pretentious and oppressive
priesthood that ever weighed down the
enterprise and the energy of the human
mind. Out of the life and words of a
Master, whose every act and accent
breathed love and mercy and confiding
hope to the whole race of man, has been
distilled (among Calvinists and their cog
nates) a creed of general damnation and
of black despair. Christ set at naught
“observances,” and trampled upon those
prescribed with a rudeness that bordered
on contempt:—Christian worship, in its
most prevailing form, has been made al
most to consist in rites and ceremonies, in
sacraments and feasts and fasts and
periodic prayers. Christ preached per
sonal righteousness, with its roots going
deep down into the inner nature, as the
one thing needful:—his accredited messen
gers and professed followers say No!
purity and virtue are filthy rags ; salvation
is to be purchased only through vicarious
merits and “imputed” holiness. Jesus
taught his disciples to trust in and to
worship a tender Father, long-suffering and
plenteous in mercy:—those who speak in
his name in these later days tell us rather
of a relentless Judge, in whose picture, as
they draw it, it is hard to recognise either
justice or compassion. In Christ’s grand
and simple creed, expressed in his plainest
words, “eternal life” was the assured in
heritance of those who loved God with all
their hearts, who loved their neighbours
as themselves, and who walked purely,
humbly, and beneficently while on earth:—
in their Christian sects and churches of
to-day, in their recognised formularies and
their elaborate creeds, all this is repudiated
as infantine and obsolete; the official
means and purchase-money of salvation
are altogether changed; eternal life is re
served for those, and for those only, who
accept or profess a string of metaphysical
propositions conceived in a scholastic brain
and put into scholastic phraseology; and,
to crown the whole, a Hell is conceived so
horrible as to make Heaven an impossi
bility,—for what must be the temper of the
Elect Few who could taste an hour’s
felicity, while the immeasurable myriads of
their dearest fellow-beings—their husbands
and wives, their mothers, their children —
were writhing in eternal torments within
sight and hearing of their paradise? Theo
logians transmogrify the pure precepts and
devotion of Jesus into a religion as nearly
as possible their opposite, and then decree
that, whoever will not adopt their travesty,
“ without doubt shall perish everlastingly.”
It is the old spectacle which so disturbed
Jeremiah, reproduced in our own days:—
“ A wonderful and a horrible thing is com
mitted in the land ; the prophets prophesy
falsely, and the priests bear rule through
their means; and the people love to have
it so : and what will be the end thereof
�THE
CREED OF CHRISTENDOM
Chapter I.
INSPIRATION OF THE SCRIPTURES
two modes of stating the same doctrine
—a doctine incapable of being defined
or expressed with philosophical precision,
from our ignorance of the modus
operandi of divine influences on the
mind of man. Both propositions mean,
if they have any distinct meaning at all,
this affirmation :—that every statement
of fact contained in the Scriptures is
true, as being information communicated
by the Holy Spirit—that every dogma
of Religion, every idea of Duty, every
conception of Deity, therein asserted,
came from God, in the natural and un
equivocal sense of that expression. That
this is the acknowledged and accepted
doctrine of Protestant Christendom at
least is proved by the circumstance that all
controversies among Christian sects turn
upon the interpretation, not the authority,
of the Scriptures; insomuch, that we
constantly hear disputants make use of
this language : “ Only show me such or
such a doctrine in the Bible, and I am
silenced.”—It is proved, too, by the
pains taken, the humiliating subterfuges
so often resorted to, by men of science to
show that their discoveries are not at
variance with any text of Scripture;—
pains and subterfuges now happily dis
carded by nearly all, as unworthy alike of
the dignity of Science and the rights of
controversy, and as no longer required
amid the increasing enlightenment of the
When an Inquirer, brought up in the
popular Theology of England, questions
his teachers as to the foundations and
evidence of the doctrines he has im
bibed, he is referred at once to the Bible
as the source and proof of all: “ The
Bible, and the Bible only, is the religion
of Protestants.” The Bible, he is told,
is a sacred book of supreme and un
questionable authority, being the pro
duction of writers directly inspired by
God to teach us truth—being, in the
ordinary phrase, The Word of God.
This view of the Bible he finds to be
universal among all religious sects, and
nearly all religious teachers; all at least
of whom, in this country, he is likely to
hear. This belief in the Inspiration of
the Scriptures is, indeed, stated with
some slight variations, by modern
Divines; some affirming that every
statement and word was immediately
dictated from on high; these are the
advocates of Plenary or Verbal Inspira
tion ;—others holding merely that the
Scriptural writers were divinely informed
and authorised Teachers of truth and
narrators of fact, thoroughly imbued
with, and guided by, the Spirit of God,
but that the words, the earthly form in
which they clothed the ideas, were their
own. These are the believers in the
essential Inspiration of the Bible.
It is obvious that the above are only
35
�36
INSPIRATION OF THE SCRIPTURES
age.—It is proved by the observation,
so constantly forced upon us, of theolo
gians who have been compelled to
abandon the theory of Scriptural Inspira
tion or to modify it into a negation, still
retaining, as tenaciously as ever, the
consequences and corollaries of the doc
trine; phrases which sprung out of it,
and have no meaning apart from it; and
deductions which could flow from it
alone.-—It is proved, moreover, by the
indiscriminate and peremptory manner
in which texts are habitually quoted
from every part of the Bible, to enforce
a precept, to settle a doctrine, or to
silence an antagonist.—It is proved,
finally, by the infinite efforts made by
commentators and divines to explain
discrepancies and reconcile contradic
tions which, independently of this doc
trine, could have no importance or
significance whatever.
This, accordingly, is the first doctrine
for which our Inquirer demands evidence
and proof. It does not occur to him to
doubt the correctness of so prevalent a
belief: he is only anxious to discover its
genesis and its foundation. He imme
diately perceives that the Sacred Scrip
tures consists of two separate series of
writings, wholly distinct in their character,
chronology, and language—the one con
taining the sacred books of the Jews, the
other those of the Christians.
We will
commence with the former.
Most of our readers who share the
popular belief in the divine origin and
authority of the Jewish Scriptures would
probably be much perplexed when
called upon to assign grounds to justify
the conviction which they entertain from
habit. All that they could discover may
be classed under the following heads :—I. That these books were received as
sacred, authoritative, and inspired Writ
ings by the Jews themselves.
II. That they repeatedly and habitually
represent themselves as dictated by God,
and containing His ipsissima verba.
III. That their contents proclaim
their origin and parentage, as displaying
a purer morality, a loftier religion, and
altogether a holier tone, than the unas
sisted, uninspired human faculties could,
at that period, have attained.
IV. That the authority of the Writers,
as directly commissioned from on High,
was in many cases attested by mira
culous powers, either of act or prophecy.
V. That Christ and His Apostles
decided their sacred character, by refer
ring to them, quoting them, and assum
ing or affirming them to be inspired.
Let us examine each of these grounds
separately.
I. It is unquestionably true that the
Jews received the Hebrew Canon, or
what wre call the Old Testament, as a
collection of divinely-inspired writings,
and that Christians, on their authority,
have generally adopted the same belief.
—Now, even if the Jews had held the
same views of inspiration that now pre
vail, and attached the modern meaning
to the word; even if they had known
accurately who were the Authors of the
sacred books, and on what authority such
and such writings were admitted into the
Canon, and such others rejected;—we
do not see why their opinion should be
regarded as a sufficient guide and basis
for ours; especially when we remember
that they rejected as an Impostor the
very Prophet whom we conceive to have
been inspired beyond all others. What
rational or consistent ground can we
assign for disregarding the decision of
the Jews in the case of Jesus, and ac
cepting it submissively in the case of
Moses, David, and Isaiah ?
But, on a closer examination, it is dis
covered that the Jews cannot tell us
when, nor by whom, nor on what
principle of selection, this collection of
books was formed. All these questions
are matters of pure conjecture, or of
difficult and doubtful historic inference;
—and the ablest critics agree only in the
opinion that no safe opinion can be pro
nounced. One ancient Jewish legend
attributes the formation of the Canon to
the Great Synagogue, an imagined “ com
pany of Scribes,” o-waywyi; ypap-fjcarewv,
�INSPIRATION OF THE SCRIPTURES
presided over by Ezra.—Another legend,
equally destitute of authority, relates
that the collection already existed, but
had become much corrupted, and that
Ezra was inspired for the purpose of
correcting and purifying it:—that is, was
inspired for the purpose of ascertaining,
Correcting, and affirming the inspiration
of his Predecessors. A third legend
mentions Nehemiah as the Author of
the Canon. The opinion of De Wette
—probably the first authority on these
subjects—an opinion founded on minute
historical and critical investigations, is,
that the different portions of the Old
Testament were collected or brought
into their present form, at various periods,
and that the whole body of it “ came
gradually into existence, and, as it were,
of itself and by force of custom and
public use, acquired a sort of sanction.”
He conceives the Pentateuch to have
been completed about the time of Josiah,
the collection of Prophets soon after
Nehemiah, and the devotional writings
not till the age of the Maccabees.1 His
view of the grounds which led to the
reception of the various books into the
sacred Canon, is as follows“ The
writings attributed to Moses, David, and
the Prophets were considered inspired
on account of the personal character of
their authors. But the other writings,
which are in part anonymous, derive
their title to inspiration sometimes from
their contents and sometimes from
the cloud of antiquity which rests on
them. Some of the writings which were
composed after the exile—such, for
example, as the song of Solomon,
Ecclesiastes, and Daniel—were put on
this list on account of the ancient
authors to whom they were ascribed;
others—for example, Chronicles and
Esther—on account of their contents;
and others again, as Ezra and Nehemiah,
on account of the distinguished merit of
their authors in restoring the Law and
worship of God.”1
2
1 Introduction to the Critical Study of the Old
Testament (by Parker), i. 26-35.
2 De Wette, i. 40.
37
Again: the books of the Hebrew
Canon were customarily classed among
the Jews into three several divisions—
the Books of the Law, the Prophets,
and the other sacred writings, or Hagiographa, as they are termed—and it is
especially worthy of remark that Philo,
Josephus, and all the Jewish authorities
ascribed different degrees of inspiration to
each class, and moreover did not con
ceive such inspiration to be exclusively
confined to the Canonical writers, but to
be shared, though in a scantier degree,
by others;—Philo extending it even to
the Greek translators of the Old Testa
ment ; Josephus hinting that he was not
wholly destitute of it himself; and both
maintaining that even in their day the
gifts of prophecy and inspiration were
not extinct, though limited to few.1
The Talmudists held the same opinion ;
and went so far as to say that a man
might derive a certain kind or degree of
inspiration from the study of the Law
and the Prophets. In the Gospel of
John xi. 51 we have an intimation that
the High Priest had a kind ’of ex officio
inspiration or prophetic power.—It seems
clear, therefore, that the Jews, on whose
authority we accept the Old Testament
as inspired, attached a very different
meaning to the word from that in which
our Theologians employ it; in their
conception it approaches (except in the
case of Moses) much more nearly to the
divine afflatus which the Greeks attri
buted to their Poets.—“ Between the
Mosaic and the Prophetic Inspiration,
the Jewish Church asserted such a dif
ference as amounts to a diversity. . . .
To Moses and to Moses alone—to
Moses, in the recording, no less than
in the receiving of the law—and to every
part of the five books called the books
of Moses, the Jewish Doctors of the
generation before and coeval with the
1 De Wette, i. '39-43. A marked confirma
tion of the idea of graduated inspiration is to be
found in Numbers xii. 6-8. Maimonides (De
Wette, ii. 361) distinguishes eleven degrees of
inspiration, besides that which was granted to
Moses. Abarbanel (De Wette, i. 14) makes a
similar distinction.
�38
INSPIRA T10N OF THE SCRIPTURES
Apostles, assigned that unmodified and
absolute 0eo7nzeuo-Tta, which our divines,
in words at least, attribute to the Canon
collectively.”1 The Samaritans, we know,
carried this distinction so far that they
received the Pentateuch alone as of
divine authority, and did not believe the
other books to be inspired at all.
It will, then, be readily conceded that
the divine authority, or proper inspira
tion (using the word in our modern,
plain, ordinary, theological sense), of a
series of writings of which we know
neither the date, nor the authors, nor
the collectors, nor the principle of selec
tion, cannot derive much support or
probability from the mere opinion of the
Jews ;—especially when the same Jews
did not confine the quality of inspiration
to these writings exclusively;—when a
large section of them ascribed this at
tribute to five books only out of thirtynine ;—and when they assigned to dif
ferent portions of the collection different
degrees of inspiration—an idea quite in
consistent with the modern one of infal
libility.—“ In infallibility there can be
no degrees.”2
II. The second ground alleged for the
popular belief in the Inspiration of the
Jewish Scriptures appears to involve both
a confusion of reasoning and a miscon
ception of fact. These writings, I believe
I am correct in stating, nowhere affirm
their own inspiration, divine origin, or
infallible authority. They frequently,
indeed, use the expressions, “ Thus saith
Jehovah,” and “the Word of the Lord
came to Moses,” &c., which seem to
imply that in these instances they con
sider themselves as recording the very
words of the Most High; but they do
not declare that they are as a whole
dictated by God, nor even that in these
instances they are enabled to record His
words with infallible accuracy. But even
if these writings did contain the most
solemn and explicit assertion of their
own inspiration, that assertion ought not
to have, and in the eye of reason could
not have, any weight whatever, till that
inspiration is proved from independent
sources—after which it becomes super
fluous. It is simply the testimony1 of
a witness to himself—a testimony which
the falsest witness can bear as well as
the truest. To take for granted the
attributes of a writer from his own
declaration of those attributes is, one
would imaginé, too coarse and too
obvious a logical blunder not to be
abandoned as soon as it is stated in
plain language. Yet, in the singular
work which I have already quoted—
singular and sadly remarkable, as dis
playing the strange inconsistencies into
which a craven terror of heresy (or the
imputation of it) can betray even the
acutest thinkers—Coleridge says, first
“that he cannot find any such claim
(to supernatural inspiration) made by
the writers in question, explicitly or by
implication” (p. 16);—secondly, that
where the passages asserting such a
claim are supposed to be found, “ the
conclusion drawn from them involves
obviously &petitio principii—namely, the
supernatural dictation, word by word, of
the book in which the assertion is found;
for until this is established the utmost
such a text can prove is the current
belief of the Writer’s age and country ”
(p. 17);—and, thirdly, that, “whatever
is referred by the sacred penman to a
direct communication from God ; and
whenever it is recorded that the subject
of the history had asserted himself to
have received this or that command,
information, or assurance, from a super
human intelligence; or where the Writer,
in his own person, and in the character
of an historian, relates that the word of
God came to Priest, Prophet, Chieftain,
or other Individual ; I receive the same
with full belief, and admit its inappellable
authority” (p. 27).—What is this, but to
say, at p. 27, that he receives as “in
appellable” that which, at p. 17, he
1 Coleridge, “Confessions of an Enquiring
Spirit,” p. 19.
2 Coleridge, p. 18.
1 “ If I bear witness of myself, my witness is
not true” (i.e., is not to be regarded), John vi.
3i-
�INSPIRATION OF THE SCRIPTURES
declares to involve an obvious petitio
principal—that any self-asserted infalli
bility—any distinct affirmation of divine
communication or command, however
improbable, contradictory, or revolting
— made in any one of a collection of
books, “ the dates, selectors, and com
pilers of which ” he avers to be “ un
known, or recorded by known fabulists ”
(p. 18)—must be received as of supreme
authority, without question, and without
appeal ?—What would such a reasoner as
Coleridge think of such reasoning as this,
on any other than a Biblical question ?
III. The argument for the inspiration
of the Old Testament Scriptures derived
from the character of their contents,
will bear no examination. It is true
that many parts of them contain views
of Duty, of God, and of Man’s relation
to Him, which are among the purest and
loftiest that the human intellect can
grasp;—but it is no less true that other
passages, at least as numerous and
characteristic, depict feelings and
opinions on these topics as low, meagre,
and unworthy as ever took their rise in
savage and uncultured minds. These
passages, as is well known, have long
been the opprobrium of orthodoxy and
the despair of Theologians; and so far
are they from being confirmatory of the
doctrine of scriptural inspiration, that
nothing but the inconsiderate and
absolute reception of this doctrine has
withheld men from regarding and
representing them in their true light.
The contents of the Hebrew Canon as a
whole form the most fatal and convinc
ing argument against inspiration as a
whole. By the popular creed as it now
stands, the nobler portions are compelled
to bear the mighty burden of the lower
and less worthy ;—and often sink under
their weight.
IV. The argument for the Inspiration
of the Old Testament Writers, drawn
from the supposed miraculous or pro
phetic powers conferred upon the
writers, admits of a very brief refutation.
In the first place, as we do not know
who the Writers were, nor at what date
39
the books were written, we cannot
possibly decide whether they were en
dowed with any such powers or not.—
Secondly, as the only evidence we have
for the reality of the miracles rests upon
the divine authority, and consequent
unfailing accuracy, of the books in which
they are recorded, they cannot, without
a violation of all principles of reasoning,
be adduced to prove that authority and
accuracy.—-Thirdly, in those days, as is
well known, superhuman powers were
not supposed to be confined to the
direct and infallible organs of the divine
commands, nor necessarily to imply the
possession of the delegated authority of
God ;—as we learn from the Magicians
of Pharaoh, who could perform many,
though not all, of the miracles of
Moses
from the case of Aaron, who,
though miraculously gifted, and God’s
chosen High Priest, yet helped the
Israelites to desert Jehovah and bow
down before the Golden Calf •—and
from the history of Balaam, who, though
in daily communication with God and
specially inspired by Him, yet accepted a
bribe from His enemies to curse His
people, and pertinaciously endeavoured
to perform his part of the contract.—•
And, finally, as the dogmatic or cre
dential value of prophecy depends on
our being able to ascertain the date at
which it was uttered, and the precise
events which it was intended to predict,
and the impossibility of foreseeing such
events by mere human sagacity, and,
moreover, upon the original language in
which the prophecy was uttered not
having been altered by any subsequent
recorder or transcriber to match the
fulfilment more exactly;—and as in the
case of the prophetical books of the
Hebrew Canon (as will be seen in a
subsequent chapter), great doubt rests
upon almost all these points ; and as,
moreover, for one prediction which was
justified, it is easy to point to two which
were falsified, by the event;—the pro
phecies, even if occasionally fulfilled, can
assuredly, in the present stage of our
inquiry, afford us no adequate foundation
�40
INSPIRATION OF THE SCRIPTURES
on which to build the inspiration of the
library (for such it is) of which they
form a part.
V. But the great majority of Christians
would, if questioned, rest their belief in
the Inspiration of the Old Testament
Scriptures upon the supposed sanction
or affirmation of this view by Christ and
his Apostles.—Now, as Coleridge has
well argued in a passage already cited,
until we know that the words of Christ
conveying this doctrine have been faith
fully recorded, so that we are actually in
possession of his view—and that the
apostolic writings conveying this doctrine
were the production of inspired men—
“ the utmost such texts can prove is the
current belief of the Writer’s age and
country concerning the character of the
books then called the Scriptures.”—The
inspiration of the Old Testament, in this
point of view, therefore, rests upon the
inspiration of the New—a matter to be
presently considered. But let us here
ascertain what is the actual amount of
divine authority attributed to the Old,
by the writers of the New Testament.
It is unquestionable that these Scrip
tures are constantly referred to and
quoted, by the Apostles and Evangelists,
as authentic and veracious histories. It
is unquestionable, also, that the pro
phetic writings were considered by them
to be prophecies—to contain predictions
of future events, and especially of events
relating to Christ. They received them
submissively; but misquoted, misunder
stood, and misapplied them, as will
hereafter be shown.—Further, however
incorrectly we may believe the words of
Christ to have been reported, his
references to the Scriptures are too
numerous, too consistent, and too
probable, not to bring us to the con
clusion that he quoted them as having,
and deserving to have, unquestioned
authority over the Jewish mind. On
this point, however, the opinions of
Christ, as recorded in the Gospel, pre
sent remarkable discrepancies, and even
contradictions. On the one hand, we
read of His saying, “ Think not that I
am come to destroy the Law or the
Prophets : I am not come to destroy,
but to fulfil. For verily I say unto you,
Till Heaven and Earth pass, one jot or
one tittle shall in no wise pass from the
Law till all be fulfilled.”1 He quotes
the Decalogue as “from God”; and he
says that “ God spake to Moses.” 2 It is
true that he nowhere affirms the inspira
tion of the Scriptures, but he quotes the
prophecies, and even is said to represent
them as of prophesying of him.3 He
quotes the Psalms controversially, to put
down antagonists, and adds the remark,
“ the Scriptures cannot be broken.”4
He is represented as declaring once
positively, and once incidentally,5 that
“ Moses wrote of him.”6
On the other hand, he contradicted
Moses, and abrogated his ordinances in
an authoritative and peremptory manner,
which precludes the idea that he sup
posed himself dealing with the direct
commands of God.7 This is done in
many points specified in Matt. v.
34-44 ;—in the case of divorce, in the
most positive and naked manner (Matt,
v. 31, 32; xix. 8. Luke xvi. 18; Mark
x. 4-12);—in the case of the woman
taken in adultery, who would have been
punished with a cruel death by the
Mosaic law but whom Jesus dismissed
with—-“ Neither do I condemn thee : go
and sin no more’’(John viii. 5-11);—
1 Matt. v. 17, 18. Luke xvi. 17.
2 Matt. xv. 4-6; xxii. 31. Mark vii. 9-13 ;
xii. 26.
3 Matt. xv. 7; xxiv. 15. Luke iv. 17-21;
xxiv. 27.
4 John x. 35.
5 John v. 46. Luke xxiv. 44.
6 It seems more than doubtful whether any
passages in the Pentateuch can fairly be con
sidered as having reference to Christ. But
passing over this, if it shall appear that what we
now call “the Books of Moses” were not
written by Moses, it will follow, either that
Christ referred to Mosaic writings which we do
not possess; or that, like the contemporary
Jews and modern Christians, he erroneously
ascribed to Moses books which Moses did not
write.
7 “Ye have heard that it has been said of old
time;”-—“Moses, for the hardness of your
hearts, suffered you to put away your wives,”
&c., &c.
�INSPIRATION OF THE SCRIPTURES
in the case of clean and unclean meats,
as to which the Mosaic law is rigorous
in the extreme, but which Christ puts
aside as trivial, affirming that unclean
meats cannot defile a man, though Moses
declared that it “made them abomin
able.” ’(Matt. xv. ii ; Mark vii. 15.)
Christ even supersedes in the same
manner one of the commands of the
Decalogue—that as to the observance
of the Sabbath, his views and teaching
as to which no ingenuity can reconcile
with the Mosaic law.1
Finally, we have the assertion in
Paul’s Second Epistle to Timothy (iii.
16), which, though certainly translatable
two ways,1 either affirms the inspiration
2
of the Hebrew Canon as a whole, or
assumes the inspiration of certain por
tions of it.—On the whole, there can, I
think, be little doubt that Christ and his
Apostles received the Jewish Scriptures,
as they then were, as sacred and authori
tative. But till their divine authority is
established, it is evident that this, the
fifffi ground for believing the inspiration
of the Old Testament, merges in the
first, i.e.) the belief of the Jews.
So far, then, it appears that the only
evidence for the Inspiration of the
Hebrew Canon is the fact that the Jews
believed in it.—But we know that they
also believed in the Inspiration of other
writings ■)—that their meaning of the
word “ Inspiration ” differed essentially
from that which now prevails;—that
their theocratic polity had so interwoven
1 See this whole question most ably treated
in the notes to Norton, Genuineness of the
Gospels, ii. § 7.
2 The English, Dutch, and other versions
render it, “All Scripture is given by inspiration
of God, and is profitable for teaching,” &c.,
&c. (an obviously incorrect rendering, unless it
can be shown that ypa<p7] is always used by Paul
in reference to the Jewish Canon exclusively).
The Vulgate, Luther, Calmet, the Spanish and
Arabic versions, and most of the Fathers, trans
late it thus : “ All divinely inspired writings are
also profitable for teachings,” &c. This is little
more than a truism. But Paul probably meant,
“Do not despise the Old Testament, because
you have the Spirit; since you know it was
inspired, you ought to be able to make it
profitable,” &c.
41
itself with all their ideas, and modified
their whole mode of thinking, that
almost every mental suggestion, and
every act of power, was referred by
them directly to a superhuman origin.1—
“If” (says Mr. Coleridge) “we take
into account the habit, universal with
the Hebrew Doctors, of referring all
excellent or extraordinary things to the
Great First Cause, without mention of
the proximate and instrumental causes
—a striking illustration of which may be
obtained by comparing the narratives of
the same event in the Psalms and the
Historical Books;—and if we further
reflect that the distinction of the Provi
dential and the Miraculous did not
enter into their forms of thinking—at all
events not into their mode of conveying
their thoughts ;—the language of the
Jews respecting the Hagiographa will be
found to differ little, if at all, from that
of religious persons among ourselves,
when speaking of an author abounding
in gifts, stirred up by the Holy Spirit,
writing under the influence of special
grace and the like.”2—We know, more
over, that the Mahometans believe in
the direct inspiration of the Koran as
firmly as ever did the Hebrews in that
of their sacred books; and that in
matters of such mighty import the belief
of a special nation can be no safe or
adequate foundation for our own.—The
result of this investigation, therefore, is,
that the popular doctrine of the inspira
tion, divine origin, and consequent
unimpeachable accuracy and infallible
authority of the Old Testament Scrip
tures, rests on no foundation whatever—
unless it shall subsequently appear that
Christ and his Apostles affirmed it, and
had means of knowing it and judging of
it, superior to and independent of those
possessed by the Jews of their time.
I have purposely abstained in this
place from noticing those considerations
which directly negative the doctrine in
question; both because many of these
will be more suitably introduced in
1 De Wette, i. 39.
2 Letters of Inspiration, p. 21.
�42
INSPIRATION OF THE SCRIPTURES
subsequent chapters, and because, if
a doctrine is shown to be without
foundation or zzzzproved, disproof is
superfluous.—In conclusion, let us care
fully note that this inquiry has related
solely to the divine origin and infallible
authority of the Sacred Writings, and is
entirely distinct from the question as to
the substantial truth of the narratives
and the correctness of the doctrine they
contain—a question to be decided by a
different method of inquiry. Though
wholly uninspired, they may transmit
narratives, faithful in the main, of God’s
dealings with man, and may be records
of a real and authentic revelation.—All
we have yet made out is this : that the
mere fact of finding any statement or
dogma in the Hebrew Scriptures is no
sufficient proof or adequate warranty
that it came from God.
attested by the miracles they wrought,
or had the power of working.
I. The writings which compose the
volume called by us the New Testa
ment had assumed their present collec
tive form, and were generally received
throughout the Christian Churches,
about the end of the second century.
They were selected out of a number of
others ; but by whom they were selected,
or what principle guided the selection,
history leaves in doubt. We have
reason to believe that in several
instances writings were selected or
rejected, not from a consideration of
the external or traditional evidence of
their genuineness or antiquity, but from
the supposed heresy or orthodoxy of the
doctrines they contained. We find,
moreover, that the early Fathers dis
agreed among themselves in theii
estimate of the genuineness and
authority of many of the books;1 that
some of them received books which we
exclude, and excluded others which we
admit;—while we have good reason to
believe that some of the rejected
writings, as the Gospel of the Hebrews,
and that for the Egyptians, and the
Epistles of Clement and Barnabas,
have at least as much title to be placed
in the sacred Canon as some already
there—the Epistle to the Hebrews, the
second of Peter, and that of Jude, for
example.
It is true that several of the Christian
Fathers who lived about the end of the
second century, as Irenaeus, Tertullian,
and Clement of Alexandria, distinctly
affirm the inspiration of the Sacred
Writings, as those writings were received,
and as that word was understood, by
them.2 But we find that they were in
It is not easy to discover the grounds
on which the popular belief in the
inspiration, or divine origin, of the New
Testament Canon, as a whole, is based.
Probably, when analysed, they will be
found to be the following.
I. That the Canonical Books were
selected from the uncanonical or apocry
phal by the early Christian Fathers,
who must be supposed to have had
ample means of judging; and that the
inspiration of these writings is affirmed
by them.
II. That it is natural to imagine that
God, in sending into the World a
Revelation intended for all times and
all lands, should provide for its faithful
record and transmission by inspiring the
transmitters and recorders.
III. That the Apostles, whose un
questioned writings form a large portion
of the Canon, distinctly affirm their own
inspiration ; and that this inspiration
1 See the celebrated account of the Canon
was distinctly promised them by Christ.
given by Eusebius, where five of our epistles
IV. That the Contents of the New are “disputed”;—the Apocalypse, which, we
Testament are their own credentials, receive, is by many considered “spurious” ; and
and by their sublime tone and character, the Gospel of the Hebrews, which we reject, is
stated to have been by many, especially of the
proclaim their superhuman origin.
Palestinian Christians, placed among the “ ac
V. That the inspiration of most of knowledged writings.” De Wette, i. 76.
the writers may be considered as
2 De Wette, i. 63-66.
�INSPIRATION OF THE SCRIPTURES
43
the habit of referring to and quoting in
discriminately the Apocryphal as well as
the Canonical Scriptures. Instances of
this kind occur in Clement of Rome
(a.d. ioo), Clement of Alexandria (a.d.
200), and, according to Jerome, in
Ignatius also, who lived about a.d. 107.1
Their testimony, therefore, if valid to
prove the inspiration of the Canonical
Scriptures, proves the inspiration of the
rejected Scriptures likewise; and by
necessary sequence, proves the error and
incompetency of the compilers of the
Canon, who rejected them. No one,
however, well acquainted with the
writings of the Fathers will be of
opinion that their judgment in these
matters, or in any matters, ought to
guide our own.2
II. The second argument certainly
carries with it, at first sight, an ap
pearance of much weight; and is, we
believe, with most minds, however un
consciously, the argument which (as
Paley expresses it) “does the business.”
The idea of Gospel inspiration is re
ceived, not from any proof that it is so,
but from an opinion, or feeling, that it
ought to be so. The doctrine arose, not
because it was provable, but because it
was wanted. Divines can produce no
stronger reason for believing in the in
spiration of the Gospel narratives than
their own opinion that it is not likely
God should have left so important a
series of facts to the ordinary chances of
History. But on a little reflection it
will be obvious that we have no ground
whatever for presuming that God will
act in this or in that manner under any
given circumstances, beyond what pre
vious analogies may furnish ; and in this
case no analogy exists. We cannot even
form a probable guess a priori of His
mode of operation;—but we find that
generally, and indeed in all cases of
which we have any certain knowledge,
He leaves things to the ordinary action
of natural laws;—and if, therefore, it is
“natural” to presume anything at all in
this instance, that presumption should
be that God did not inspire the New
Testament writers, but left them to
convey what they saw, heard, or believed,
as their intellectual powers and moral
qualities enabled them.
The Gospels, as professed records of
Christ’s deeds and words, will be allowed
to form the most important portion of
the New Testament Collection.—Now,
the idea of God having inspired four
different men to write a history of the
same transactions—or rather of many
different men having undertaken to
write such a history, of whom God in
spired four only to write correctly,
leaving the others to their own unaided
resources, and giving us no test by which
to distinguish the inspired from the
uninspired—certainly appears self-con
futing and anything but “natural.” If
the accounts of the same transactions
agree, where was the necessity for more
than one? If they differ (as they
notoriously do), it is certain that only
one can be inspiredand which is that
one? In all other religions claiming a
divine origin, this incongruity is avoided.
Further, the Gospels nowhere affirm,
or even intimate, their own inspiration 1
—a claim to credence, which, had they
possessed it, they assuredly would not
have failed to put forth. Luke, it is
clear from his exordium, had no notion
of his own inspiration, but founds his
title to take his place among the an
nalists, and to be listened to as at least
equally competent with any of his com
petitors, on his having been from the
first cognisant of the transactions he was
about to relate. Nor do the Apostolic
writings bear any such testimony to
them; nor could they well do so, having
(with the exception of the Epistles of
1 De Wette, p. 54, &c.
2 See “ Ancient Christianity,” by Isaac Taylor,
passim, for an exposition of what these Fathers
could write and believe. See also “Literature
and Dogma,” by Matthew Arnold, p. 283, for a
few curious specimens.
1 Dr. Arnold, “ Christian Life,” &c., p. 487,—
“ I must acknowledge that the Scriptural narra
tives do not claim this inspiration for them
selves.” Coleridge, “ Confessions,” p. 16,—“I
cannot find any such claim made by these
writers, either explicitly or by implication.”
�44
INSPIRA PION OF THE SCRIPTURES
John) been composed previous to
them.
III. When we come to the considera
tion of the Apostolic writings, the case
is different. There are, scattered through
these, apparent claims to superhuman
guidance and teaching, though not direct
assertion of inspiration. It is, however,
worthy, of remark that none of these
occur in the writings of any of the
Apostles who were contemporary with
Jesus, and who attended his ministry;—
in whom, if in any, might inspiration be
expected; to whom, if to any, was in
spiration promised. It is true that we
find in John1 much dogmatic assertion
of being the sole teacher of truth, and
much denunciation of all who did not
listen submissively to him ; but neither
in his epistles nor in those of Peter,
James, nor Jude, do we find any claim
to special knowledge of truth, or
guarantee from error by direct spiritual
aid. All assertions of inspiration are,
we believe, confined to the epistles of
Paul, and may be found in i Cor. ii.
10—16. Gal. i. 11, 12. i Thess. iv. 8.
1 Tim. ii. 7.
Now, on these passages we have to
remark, first, that “having the Holy
Spirit,” in the parlance of that day, by
no means implied our modern idea of
inspiration, or anything approaching to
it; for Paul often affirms that it was
given to many, nay, to most, of the
believers, and in different degrees?
Moreover, it is probable that a man who
believed he was inspired by God would
have been more dogmatic and less argu
mentative. He would scarcely have run
the risk of weakening his revelation by a
presumptuous endeavour to prove it;
still less by adducing in its behalf argu
ments which are often far from being
irrefragable.3
Secondly. In two or three passages
1 1st Epistle iv. 6. “ We are of God ; he
that knoweth God heareth us ; he that is not of
God heareth not us. Hereby know we the
spirit of truth and the spirit of error.”
2 1 Cor. xii. 8 ; and xiv., passim.
3 Gal. iii. 16, for example. See Arnold’s
“ Literature and Dogma,” p. 140.
he makes a marked distinction between
what he delivers as his own opinion,
and what he speaks by authority
“ The Lord says, not I; ”—“ I, not the
Lord;”—“This I give by permission,
not by commandment,” &c., &c. Hence
Dr. Arnold infers,1 that we are to con
sider Paul as speaking from inspiration
wherever he does not warn us that he
“ speaks as a man.” But unfortunately
for this argument the Apostle expressly
declares himself to be “speaking by the
word of the Lord,” in at least one case
where he is manifestly and admittedly
in error, viz., in 1 Thess. iv. 15;2 of
which we shall speak further in the
following chapter.
Thirdly. The Apostles, all of whom
are supposed to be alike inspired, dif
fered among themselves, contradicted,
depreciated, and
“withstood” one
another.3
Fourthly. As we showed before in
the case of the Old Testament writers,
the Apostles’ assertion of their own in
spiration, even were it ten times more
clear and explicit than it is, being their
testimony to themselves, could have no
weight or validity as evidence.
But, it will be urged, the Gospels re
cord that Christ promised inspiration to
his apostles.—In the first place, Paul
was not included in this promise. In
the next place, we have already seen
that the divine origin of these books
is a doctrine for which no ground can
be shown; and their correctness, as
records of Christ’s words, is still to be
established. When, however, we shall
have clearly made out that the words
promising inspiration were really uttered
by Christ, and meant what we interpret
them to mean, we shall have brought
ourselves into the singular and em
barrassing position of maintaining that
Christ promised them that which in result
they did not possess ; since there can be
no degrees of inspiration, in the ordinary
1 ‘ ‘ Christian Course and Character,”pp. 488-9.
2 See also 1 Cor. vii. 29. Philip, iv. 5.
3 Gal. ii. 11-14. 2 Peter iii. 16. Acts xv.
6-39. Compare Rom. iii., and Gal. ii. and iii.,
with James ii.
�INSPIRATION OF THE SCRIPTURES
45
and dogmatic sense of the word; and
since the Apostles clearly were not alto
gether inspired, inasmuch as they fell
into mistakes,1 disputed, and disagreed
among themselves.
The only one of the New Testament
writings which contains a clear affirma
tion of its own inspiration is the one
which in all ages has been regarded as
of the most doubtful authenticity—viz.,
the Apocalypse.
It was rejected by
many of the earliest Christian authorities.
It is rejected by most of the ablest
Biblical critics of to-day. Luther, in the
preface to his translation inserted a
protest against the inspiration of the
Apocalypse, which protest he solemnly
charged every one to prefix who chose
to publish the translation. In this pro
test one of his chief grounds for the
rejection is the suspicious fact that this
writer alone blazons forth his own in
spiration.
IV. The common impression seems
to be that the contents of the New Testa
ment are their own credentials—that
their superhuman excellence attests their
divine origin. This may be perfectly
true in substance without affecting the
present question ; since it is evident that
the excellence of particular passages, or
even of the great mass of passages, in a
book can prove nothing for the divine
origin of the whole—-unless it can be
shown that all the portions of it are
indissolubly connected. This or that
portion of its contents may attest by its
nature that this or that special portion
came from God, but not that the book
itself, including everything in it, had a
divine source. A truth, or a doctrine,
may be divinely revealed, but humanly
recorded, or transmitted by tradition ;
and may be mixed up with other things
that are erroneous ; else the passages of
scriptural truth contained in a modern
sermon would prove the whole sermon
inspired and infallible.
V. The argument for Inspiration,
drawn from the miraculous gifts of the
alleged recipients of inspiration—a
matter to which we shall refer when
treating of miracles—is thus conclu
sively met by a recent author : “ Shall
we say that miracles are an evidence
of inspiration in the person who per
forms them ? And must we accept as
infallible every combination of ideas
which may exist in his mind ? If we
look at this question abstractedly, it is
not easy to perceive the necessary con
nection between superhuman power and
superhuman wisdom................ And when
we look more closely to the fact, did not
the minds of the Apostles retain some
errors, long after they had been gifted
with supernatural power ? Did they not
believe in demons occupying the bodies
of men and swine ? Did they not ex
pect Christ to assume a worldly sway ?
Did not their Master strongly rebuke
the moral notions and feelings of two
of them, who were for calling down fire
from Heaven on an offending village ?
It is often said that where a man’s asse
veration of his infallibility is combined
with the support of miracles, his inspira
tion is satisfactorily proved; and this
statement is made on the assumption
that God would never confer super
natural power on one who could be
guilty of a falsehood. What, then, are
we to say respecting Judas and Peter,
both of whom had been furnished with
the gifts of miracle, and employed them
during a mission planned by Christ, and
of whom, nevertheless, one became the
traitor of the garden, and the otheruttered against his Lord three falsehoods
in one hour? ” 1
So far, then, our inquiry has brought
us to this negative conclusion: that we
1 The error of Paul about the approaching
end of the world was shared by all the Apostles.
James v. 8. i Peter iv. 7. 2 Peter iii. 12.
1 John ii. 18. Jude, verse 18.
[It may be added that there is no reason to
believe that any of these epistles were the com
position of Apostles.]
1 “ Rationale of Religious Inquiry,” p. 30.
Moreover the law of Moses directs that a false
prophet, even though he work miracles in
attestation, shall be put to death,—and St. Paul
says that if “an angel from Heaven” preaches
any doctrine that conflicts with his, “ let him
be accursed.” Deut. xiii. Galatians i. 8.
�46
A UTHORSHIP OF THE OLD TESTAMENT CANON
can discover no ground for believing
that the Scriptures—z>., either the
Hebrew or the Christian Canonical
Writings—are inspired, taking that word
in its ordinary acceptation—viz., that
they “came from God;” were dictated
or suggested by Him ; were supernaturally preserved from error, both
as to fact and doctrine ; and must there
fore be received in all their parts as
authoritative and infallible. This con
clusion is perfectly compatible with the
belief that they contain a human record,
and in substance a faithful record, of a
divine revelation—-a human history, and,
in the main, a true history, of the deal
ings of God with man. But they have
become to us, by this conclusion, records,
not revelations ;—histories to be investi
gated like other histories ;—documents
of which the date, the authorship, the
genuineness, the accuracy of the text,
are to be ascertained by the same prin
ciples of investigation as we apply to
other documents. In a word, we are to
examine them and regard them, not as
the Mahometans regard the Koran, but
as Niebuhr regarded Livy, and as Arnold
regarded Thucydides—documents out of
which the good, the true, the sound, is
to be educed.
discusses the somewhat nebulous and obso
lete speculations of Coleridge and Arnold ;
men who were incapable of subscribing the
popular view, and yet loth to compendi
ously reject it. Mr. Greg points out that
their evasiveness amounts to repudiation ;
but a repetition of his reasoning does not
seem to be called for, and we may content
ourselves with a simple reproduction of the
concluding words' of his second chapter,
which are as true to-day as in 1850.
The present position of this question
in the public mind of Christendom is
singularly anomalous, fluctuating, and
unsound. The doctrine of Biblical In
spiration still obtains general credence,
as part and parcel of the popular theo
logy ; and is retained as a sort of tacit
assumption, by the great mass of the
religious world, though abandoned as
untenable by their leading thinkers and
learned men ;—many of whom, however,
retain it in name, while surrendering it
in substance ; and do not scruple, while
admitting it to be an error, to continue
the use of language justifiable only on
the supposition of its. truth.
Nay,
further ; — with a deplorable and mis
chievous inconsistency, they abandon
the doctrine, but retain the deductions
and corollaries which flowed from it,
and from it alone. They insist upon
making the superstructure survive the
Addendum.
foundation.
They refuse to give up
possession of the property, though the
The Author devotes a further chapter title by which they hold it has been
io the question of Inspiration, in which he I proved and is admitted to be invalid.
Chapter II.
AUTHORSHIP AND AUTHORITY OF THE PENTATEUCH AND THE OLD TESTAMENT CANON
GENERALLY
The next comprehensive position which
our Inquirer finds at the root of
the popular theology, commanding a
tacit and almost unquestioned assent, is
this
That the Old Testament narra
tives contain an authentic and faithful
�AUTHORSHIP OF THE OLD TESTAMENT CANON
History of the actual dealings of God
with man —that the events which they
relate took place as therein related, and
were recorded by well-informed and
veracious writers ;—that wherever God
is represented as visiting and speaking
to Adam, Noah, Abraham, Moses,
Samuel, and others, He did. really so
appear and communicate His will to
them
that the ark, as built by Noah,
was constructed under the detailed direc
tions of the Architect of all Worlds;
that the Law, as contained in the Penta
teuch, was delivered to Moses and
written down by him under the imme
diate dictation of Jehovah, and the pro
ceedings of the Israelites minutely and
specifically directed by him ; that, in a
word, the Old Testament is a literal and
veracious history, not merely a national
legend or tradition. This fundamental
branch of the popular theology also in
cludes the belief that the Books of
Moses were written by Moses, the book
of Joshua by Joshua, and so on; and
further that the Prophetical Books, and
the predictions contained in Historical
Books, are bond fide Prophecies—genuine
oracles from the mouth of God, uttered
through the medium of His servants,
whom at various times He instructed to
make known His will and institutions to
His chosen People.
That this is the popular belief in
which we are all brought up, and on the
assumption of which the ordinary lan
guage of Divines and the whole tone of
current religious literature proceeds, no
one will entertain a doubt ; and that it
has not been often broadly laid down or
much defended is attributable to the
circumstance, that, among Christians, it
has rarely till of late been directly ques
tioned or openly attacked. The pro
position seems to have been assumed
on the one side and conceded on the
other, with equally inconsiderate ease.
Now, be it observed that if the Hebrew
Narratives bore, on the face of them, an
historical rather than a legendary cha
racter, and were in themselves probable,
natural, and consistent, we might accept
47
them as substantially true without much
extraneous testimony, on the ground of
their antiquity alone. And if the con
ceptions of the Deity therein developed
were pure, worthy, and consistent with
what we learn of Him from reason and
experience, we might not feel disposed
to doubt the reality of the words and
acts attributed to Him. But so far is
this from being the case, that the narra
tives, eminently legendary in their tone,
are full of the most astounding, impro
bable, and perplexing statements; and
the representations of God which the
Books contain are often monstrous, and
utterly at variance with the teachings of
Nature and Christianity. Under these
circumstances, wre, of course, require
some sufficient reason for acceding to
such difficult propositions and receiving
the Hebrew Narratives as authentic and
veracious Histories; and the only reason
offered to us is that the Jews believed
themJ
But we remember that the Greeks
believed the Legends in Herodotus, and
the Romans the figments in Livy—and
the Jews were at least as credulous and
as nationally vain as either. We need,
therefore, some better sponsors for our
creed.
If, indeed, we were only required to
accept the authority of the Jews for the
belief that they sprung from Abraham,
were captives in Egypt, received a com1 Even this, however, must be taken cum
grano. The Jews do not seem to have invari
ably accepted the historical narratives in the
same precise and literal sense as we do.
Josephus, or the traditions which were current
among his countrymen, took strange liberties
with the Mosaic accounts. There is a remark
able difference between his account of Abraham’s
dissimulation with regard to his wife, and the
same translation in Genesis xx.—Moreover, he
explains the passage of the Red Sea as a natural,
not a miraculous event; and many similar dis
crepancies might be mentioned. See De Wette,
ii. 42.
Observe, also, the liberty which Ezekiel
considered himself warranted in taking with the
Mosaic doctrine that God will visit the sins oí
the fathers upon the children (c. xviii. passim),
a liberty scarcely compatible with a belief on
his part that such doctrine was, as alleged,
divinely announced.
�48
AUTHORSHIP OF THE OLD TESTAMENT CANON
píete code of Laws and system of
theocratic polity from Moses, conquered
Canaan, and committed manifold follies,
frauds, and cruelties in their national
career—we might accede to the demand
without much recalcitration.
But we
are called on to admit something very
different from this. We are required to
believe that Jehovah, the Ruler of all
Worlds, the Pure, Spiritual, Supreme,
Ineffable Creator of the Universe—Our
Father who is in Heaven—so blundered
in the creation of man, as to repent and
grieve, and find it necessary to destroy
His own work—selected one favoured
people from the rest of His children—
sanctioned fraud—commanded cruelty
—contended, and for a while in vain,
with the magic of other Gods—wrestled
bodily with one patriarch—ate cakes and
veal with another—sympathised with and
shared in human passions—and mani
fested “scarcely one untainted moral
excellence ”
and we are required to
do this painful violence to our feelings
and our understandings, simply because
these coarse conceptions prevailed some
thousand years ago among a People
whose history, as written by themselves,
is certainly not of a nature to inspire us
with any extraordinary confidence in
their virtues or their intellect. They
were the conceptions prevalent among
the Scribes and Pharisees, whom Jesus
denounced as dishonourers of religion
and corrupters of the Law, and who
crucified Him for endeavouring to
elevate them to a purer faith.
It is obvious, then, that we must seek
for some other ground for accepting the
earlier Scriptural narratives as genuine
histories ;—and we are met in our search
by the assertion that the Books contain
ing the statements which have staggered
us, and the theism which has shocked
us, were written by the great Law-giver
of the Jews—by the very man whom
God commissioned to liberate and
organise His peculiar People. If in
deed the Pentateuch was written by
that same Moses whose doings it
records, the case is materially altered ;
—it is no longer a traditional or
legendary narrative, but a history by
an actor and a contemporary, that we
have before us. Even this statement,
however, were it made out, would not
cast its aegis over the Book of Genesis,
which records events from four to
twenty-five centuries before the time
of Moses.
But when we proceed to the investi
gation of this point, we discover, cer
tainly much to our surprise, not only
that there is no independent evidence
for the assertion that Moses wrote the
books which bear his name, but that
we have nearly all the proof which the
case admits of, that he did not write
them,1 and that they were not composed
—at all events did not attain their
present form—till some hundreds of
years after his death. It is extremely
difficult to lay the grounds of this pro
position before general readers—espe
cially English readers—in a form at
once concise and clear; as they depend
upon the results of a species of scientific
criticism with which, though it proceeds
on established and certain principles,
very few in this country, even of our
educated classes, are at all acquainted.
In the conclusions arrived at by this
scientific process, unlearned students
must acquiesce as they do in those of
Astronomy, or Philology, or Geology;—
and all that can be done is to give them
a very brief glimpse of the mode of
inquiry adopted, and the kind of proof
1 “After coming to these results,” says De
Wette, ii. 160, “ we find no ground and no
evidence to show that the books of the Penta
teuch were composed by Moses. Some con
sider him their author merely from traditional
custom, because the Jews were of their opinion ;
though it is not certain that the more ancient
Jews shared it; for the expressions ‘ the Book
of the Law of Moses,’ ‘ the Book of the Law of
Jehovah by the hand of Moses,’ only designate
him as the author or mediator of the Law, not
as the author of the Book.—The Law is ascribed
to the ‘ Prophets’ in 2 Kings xvii. 13, and in
Ezra ix. 11. The opinion that Moses composed
these books is not only opposed by all the signs
of a later date which occur in the Book itself,
but also by the entire analogy of the history of
the Hebrew literature and language.”
�A UTHORSHIP OF THE OLD TESTAMENT CANON
adduced: this we shall do as concisely
and as intelligibly as we can; and we
will endeavour to state nothing which is
not considered as established by men
of the highest eminence in this very
difficult branch of intellectual re
search.
The discovery in the Temple of the
Book of the Law, in the reign of King
Josiah, about B.c. 624, as related in
2 Kings xxii., is the first certain trace of
the existence of the Pentateuch in its
present form.1 That if this, the Book
of the Law of Moses, existed before this
time, it was generally unknown, or had
been quite forgotten, appears from the
extraordinary sensation the discovery
excited, and from the sudden and
tremendous reformation immediately
commenced by the pious and alarmed
Monarch, with a view of carrying into
effect the ordinances of this law.—Now
we find that when the Temple was built
and consecrated by Solomon, and the
Ark placed therein (about B.c. 1000),
this “ Book of the Law ” was not there—
for it is said (1 Kings viii. 9), “There
was nothing in the Ark save the two
Tables of Stone which Moses put there
at Horeb.”1 Yet on turning to Deuter
2
onomy xxxi. 24-26, we are told that
when Moses had made an end of writing
the words of the Law in a book, he said
to the Levites, “Take this Book of the
Law and put it in the side of the Ark of
the Covenant of the Lord your God, that
it may be there to witness against you,”
&c., &c.
This “ Book of the Law ” which was
found in the Temple in the reign of
Josiah (b.c. 624), which was not there
in the time of Solomon (b.c. 1000), and
which is stated to have been written and
placed in the Ark by Moses (b.c. 1450),
is almost certainly the one ever after
wards referred to and received as the
“Law of God,” the “Law of Moses,”
and quoted as such by Ezra and Nehe1 De Wette, ii. 153.
2 The same positive statement is repeated
2 Chrop. v. JQ.
49
miah.1 And the only evidence we have
that Moses was the author of the books
found by Josiah appears to be the
passage in Deuteronomy xxxi., above
cited.
But how did it happen that a book of
such immeasurable value to the Israelites,
on their obedience to which depended
all their temporal blessings, which was
placed in the sanctuary by Moses, and
found there by Josiah, was not there in
the time of Solomon ?—Must it not have
been found there by Solomon, if really
placed there by Moses? for Solomon
was as anxious as Josiah to honour
Jehovah and enforce His Law.2 In a
word, have we any reason for believing
that Moses really wrote the Book of
Deuteronomy, and placed it in the
Ark, as stated therein ?—Critical science
answers in the negative.
In the first place, Hebrew scholars
assure us that the style and language of
the Book forbids us to entertain the
idea that it was written either by Moses,
or near his time; as they resemble too
closely those of the later writers of the
Old Testament to admit the supposition
that the former belonged to the 15th,
and the latter to the 5th century before
Christ. To imagine that the Hebrew
language underwent no change, or a
very slight one, during a period of two
thousand years—in which the nation
underwent vast political, social, and
moral changes, with a very great admix
ture of foreign blood—is an idea ante
cedently improbable, and is con
tradicted by all analogy. The same
remark applies, though with somewhat
1 Subsequent references seem especially to
refer to Deuteronomy.
2 Conclusive evidence on this point may, we
think, be gathered from Deut. xxxi. 10, where
it is commanded that the law shall be publicly
read every seventh year to the people assembled
at the Feast of Tabernacles ; and from xvii. 18,
where it is ordained that eadh king on his acces
sion shall write out a copy of the Law. It is
impossible to believe that this command, had it
existed, would have been neglected by all the
pious and good kings who sat on the throne of
Palestine. It is clear that they had never heard
of such a command.
li
�5o
AUTHORSHIP OF THE OLD TESTAMENT CANON
less force, to the other four books of the
Pentateuch.1
Secondly. It is certain that Moses
cannot have been the author of the
whole of the Book of Deuteronomy,
because it records his own death, c.
xxxiv. It is obvious also that the last
chapter must have been written, not only
after the death of Moses, but a long
period after, as appears from verse io.
“And there arose not another prophet
since in Israel like unto Moses, whom
the Lord knew face to face.” Now,
there are no critical signs of style or
language which would justify the
assumption that the last chapter was the
production of a different pen, or a later
age, than the rest of the Book.
Thirdly. There are several passages
scattered through the book which speak
in the past tense of events which occurred
after the Israelites obtained possession
of the land of Canaan, and which must
therefore have been written subsequently
-—probably long subsequently—to that
period. For example: “The Horims
also dwelt in Seir beforetime, but the
children of Esau succeeded them, when
they had destroyed them from before
them, and dwelt in their stead; as Israel
did unto the land of his possession, which
the Lord gave unto them.” Deut. ii. 12.
Many other anachronisms occur, as
throughout c. iii., especially verse 14;
xix. 14 ; xxiv. 1-3 ; ii. 20-23.
Finally, as we have seen, at xxxi. 26,
is a command to place the book of the
Law in the Ark, and a statement that it
was so placed. Now as it was notin the
Ark at the time when the Temple was
consecrated, this passage must have been
written subsequent to that event. See
also verses 9-13.
Now either all these passages must
have been subsequent interpolations, or
they decide the date of the whole book.
But they are too closely interwoven,
and too harmoniously coalesce, with the
rest to justify the former supposition.
We are therefore driven to adopt the
conclusion of De Wette and other
1 De Wette, ii. 161.
critics, that the Book of Deuteronomy
was written about the time of Josiah,
shortly before, and with a view to, the
discovery of the Pentateuch in the
Temple.1
With regard to the other four books
attributed to Moses, scientific investiga
tion has succeeded in making it quite
clear, not only that they were written
long after ,his time, but that they are a
compilation from, or rather an imperfect
fusion of, two principal original docu
ments, easily distinguishable throughout
by those accustomed to this species of
research, and appearing to have been a
sort of legendary or traditionary his
tories, current among the earlier
Hebrews. These two documents (or
classes of documents) are called the
Elohistic, and Jehovistic, from the
different Hebrew names they employ in
speaking of the Supreme Being;—the
one using habitually the word Elohim,
which our translation renders God, but
which, being plural in the original, would
be more correctly rendered The Gods;—
the other using the word Jehovah, or
Jehovah Elohim, The God of Gods—
rendered in our translation The Lord
God.2
The existence of two such docu
ments, or of two distinct and often con
flicting narratives, running side by side,
will be obvious on a very cursory perusal
of the Pentateuch, more especially of the
Book of Genesis; and the constant
recurrence of these duplicate and dis
crepant statements renders it astonishing
that the books in question could ever
have been regarded as one original his
tory, proceeding from one pen. At the
very commencement we have separate
and varying accounts of the Creation : —
the Elohistic one, extending from Gen.
i.-ii. 3, magnificent, simple, and sublime,
describing the form of the animate and
1 It is worthy of remark that the Book of
Joshua (x. 13) quotes the Book of Jashar, which
must have been written as late as the time of
David (2 Samuel i. 18). See De Wette, ii. 187.
2 There are, however, other distinctive marks.
De Wette, ii. 77. Bauer, Theol. des Alt. Test,
c. ii. § I.
�AUTHORSHIP OF THE OLD TESTAMENT CANON
inanimate world by the fiat of the
Almighty, and the making of man, male
and female, in the image of God—but
preserving a total silence respecting the
serpent, the apple, and the expulsion
from the Garden of Eden;—the other,
or Jehovistic, extending from Gen. ii. 4
to iii. 24, giving a different account of
the formation of man and woman—
describing the Garden of Eden with its
four rivers, one flowing into the Persian
Gulf and another surrounding Ethiopia1
—narrating the temptation, the sin, and
the curse, and adding a number of
minute and puerile details, bespeaking
the conceptions of a rude and early age,
such as God teaching Adam and Eve to
make coats of skin in lieu of the gar
ments of fig leaves they had contrived
for themselves.
The next comparison of the two docu
ments presents discrepancies almost
equally great. The document' Elohim,
Gen. v. 1-32, gives simply the Genealogy
from Adam to Noah, giving Seth as the
name of Adam’s first-born son ;—whereas
the document Jehovah, Gen. iv. 1-26,
gives Cain as the name of Adam’s first
born and Seth as that of his last.2
Shortly after we have two slightly-varying
accounts 3 of the flood; one being con
tained in vi. 9-22 ; vii. 11-16, 18-22;
1 Cush, or “the land of swarthy men.”
2 “There is,” says Theodore Parker, “a
striking similarity between the names of the
alleged descendants of Adam and Enos (accord
ing to the Elohim document, the grandson of
Adam). It is to be remembered that both names
signify Man.
I.
II.
I. Adam.
I. Enos.
2. Cain.
2. Cainan.
3- Enoch.
3- Mahalaleel.
4- Irad.
4- Jared.
5- Mehujael.
5- Enoch.
6. Methusael.
6. Methusaleh.
7- Lamech (Gen.
7- Lamech (Gen.
iv. 17-19).
v. 9-25).”
The reader may draw his own inferences from
this, or see those of Buttmann, in his “ Mythologus,” 1. c. vii. p. 171. See also on this
matter, Kenrick on “Primeval Plistory,” p.
59-
3 One account affirms that seven specimens of
clean beasts went into the ark ; the other that
only two so entered.
51
viii. 1-19 ; the other comprising vi. 1-8 ;
vii. 7-10, 17, 23.
We will specify only one more instance
of the same event twice related with
obvious and irreconcilable discrepancies,
viz., the seizure of Sarah in consequence
of Abraham’s timid falsehood.
The
document Elohim (Gen. xx.) places the
occurrence in Gerar and makes Abimelech the offender—the document Jehovah
(xii. 10-19) places it in Egypt, and
makes Pharaoh the offender ; whilst the
same document again (xxvi. 1-11)
narrates the same occurrence, represent
ing Abimelech as the offender and
Gerar as the locality, but changing the
persons of the deceivers from Abraham
and Sarah to Isaac and Rebekah.
Examples of this kind might be
multiplied without end; which clearly
prove the existence of at least two
historical documents blended, or rather
bound together, in the Pentateuch. We
will now proceed to point out a few of
the passages and considerations which
negative the idea of either of them having
been composed in the age or by the
hand of Moses.1
The Elohim document must have
been written after the expulsion of the
Canaanites and the settlement of the
Israelites in the Promised Land, as
appears from the following passages
{inter aliaP) —
“Defile not ye yourselves in any of these
things . . . that the land vomit not you
out also, as it vomited forth the nations
which -were beforeyou ” (Lev. xviii. 24, 27,
28).
“For I was stolen away out of the
land of the Hebrews” (Gen. xl. 15).
Palestine would not be called the land
1 The formula, “ unto this day,” is frequently
found under circumstances indicating that the
writer lived long subsequent to the events he
relates (Gen. xix. 38; xxvi. 33; xxxiii. 32).
We find frequent archaeological explanations, as
Ex. xvi. 36: “ Now an omer (an ancient
measure) is the tenth part of an ephah” (a
modern measure).—Explanations of old names,
and additions of the modern ones which had
superseded them, repeatedly occur, as at Gen. xiv.
2, 7, 8, 17 ; xxiii. 2 ; xxxv. 19.
�52
A UTHORSHIP OF THE OLD TESTAMENT CANON
of the Hebrews till after the settlement
of the Hebrews therein.
“And Sarah died in Kirjatharba; the
same is Hebron in the land of Canaan ”
(Gen. xxiii. 2). “And Rachel died and
was buried in the way to Ephrath, which
is Bethlehem” (yaxx. 19). “And Jacob
came unto the city of Arba, which is
Hebron” (xxxv. 27). These passages
indicate a time subsequent to the erec
tion of the Israelitish cities.
The document must have been written
in the time of the Kings; for it says,
Gen. xxxvi. 31, “These are the Kings
that reigned in the land of Edom, before
there reigned any King over the children of
Israel.” Yet it must have been written
before the end of the reign of David, since
Edom, which David subdued, is repre
sented in ch. xxxvi. as still independent.
The conclusion, therefore, which critical
Science has drawn from these and other
points of evidence is, that the Elohim
documents were composed in the time
of Saul, or about b.c. 1055, four hundred
years after Moses.
The Jehovistic documents are con
sidered to have had a still later origin,
and to date from about the reign of
Solomon, b.c. 1000.
For they were
written after the expulsion of the Canaan
ites, as is shown from Gen. xii. 6 and
xiii. 7 : “ The Canaanite was then in
the land.” “ The Canaanite and Perizzite
dwelt then in the land.” They appear to
have been written after the time of the
Judges, since the exploits of Jair the
Gileadite, one of the Judges (x. 4), are
mentioned in Numb, xxxii. 41; after
Saul’s victory over Agag, King of the
Amalekites, who is mentioned there—
“ and his King shall be higher than
Agag ” (Numb. xxiv. 7);—and if, as
De Wette thinks, the Temple of Jeru
salem is signified by the two ex
pressions (Exod. xxiii. 19; xv. 13),
“ The House of Jehovah,” and the
“ habitation of thy holiness,”—they
must have been composed after the
erection of that edifice. This, however,
we consider as inconclusive. On the
other hand, it is thought that they must
have been written before the time of
Hezekiah, because (in Numb. xxi. 6-9)
they record the wonders wrought by the
Brazen Serpent, which that King de
stroyed as a provocative to Idolatry
(2 Kings xviii. 4). We are aware that
many persons endeavour to avoid these
conclusions by assuming that the pas
sages in question are later interpolations.But—not to comment upon the wide
door which would thus be opened to
other and less scrupulous interpreters—
this assumption is entirely unwarranted
by evidence, and proceeds on the pre
vious assumption—equally destitute of
proof—that the Books in question were
written in the time of Moses—the very
point under discussion. To prove the
Books to be written by Moses by re
jecting as interpolations all passages
which show that they could not have
been written by him—is a very clerical,
but a very inadmissible, mode of rea
soning.
It results from this inquiry that the
Pentateuch assumed its present form
about the reign of King Josiah, b.c. 624,
eight hundred years after Moses;—that
the Book of Deuteronomy was probably
composed about the same date;—that
the other four books, or rather the sepa
rate documents of which they consist,
were written between the time of Samuel
and Solomon, or from four to five hun
dred years after Moses;—that they record
the traditions respecting the early history
of the Israelites and the Law delivered
by Moses then current among the Priest
hood and the people, with such material
additions as it seemed good to the
Priests of that period to introduce;—
and that there is not the slightest reason
to conclude that the historical narratives
they contain were anything more than a
collection of the national traditions then
in vogue.1
[The concluding portion of the chapter
deals with the “reconcilers of science
and theology,” such as Whewell and
Buckland, but their speculations are now
1 De Wette and other critics are of opinion
that both the Elohistic and Jehovistic authors
�THE PROPHECIES
quite obsolete, and we may content our
selves with listening to the author’s
parting words :—]
It will not do for Geologists and
Astronomers, who wish to retain some
rags of orthodoxy, however soiled and
torn, to argue, as most do, ‘ that the
Bible was not intended as a revelation of
physical science, but only of moral and
religious truth.’ This does not meet
the difficulty; for the Bible does not
merely use the common language, and
so assume the common errors, on these
points—it gives a distinct account of the
Creation, in the same style, in the same
narrative, in the same book, in which it
narrates the Fall of Man, the Deluge,
the Revelation to Abraham, the history
of Jacob and Joseph.
The writer
evidently had no conception that when
he related the Creation of the Earth, the
Sea, and the Sun he was inventing or
perpetuating a monstrous error; and
that when he related the Fall he was
revealing a mighty and mysterious truth;
53
and when he narrated the promise to
Abraham he was recording a wondrous
prophecy. The Bible professes to give
information on all these points alike :
and we have precisely the same'Scriptural
ground for believing that God first made
the Earth and then the Sun for the
especial benefit of the Earth; that the
globe was submerged by rain which
lasted forty days; and that everything
was destroyed except the animals which
Noah packed into his Ark—as we have
for believing that Adam and Eve were
driven out of Paradise for a transgression;
that God promised Abraham to redeem
the world through his progeny; and that
Jacob and Moses were the subjects of
the divine communications recorded as
being made to them. All the statements
are made in the same affirmative style
and on the same authority. The Bible
equally professes to teach us fact on all
these matters. There is no escape by
any quibble from the grasp of this
conclusion.
Chapter III
THE PROPHECIES
A prophecy, in the ordinary accepta
tion of the term, signifies a prediction of
future events which could not have been
foreseen by human sagacity, and the
knowledge of which was supernaturally
communicated to the prophet. It is
of the Pentateuch had access to more ancient
documents extant in their times, and think it
probable that some of these materials may have
been Mosaic (De Wette, ii. 139).
[Kuenen places the Jehovistic document about
800 B. C. and the Elohistic about 750 B.C. The
four earlier books of the Hexateuch assumed
their present form about 450 B.C., and Deutero
nomy, as Mr. Greg states, about 600 B.c.]
clear, therefore, that in order to establish
the claim of any anticipatory statement,
promise, or denunciation to the rank
and title of a prophecy, four points must
be ascertained with precision—viz., what
the event was to which the alleged pre
diction was intended to refer; that the
prediction was uttered in specific, not
vague, language before the event; that
the event took place specifically, not
loosely, as predicted; and that it could
not have been foreseen by human
sagacity.
Now, there is no portion of the sacred
�54
THE PROPHECIES
writings over which hangs a veil of such
dim obscurity, or regarding the meaning
of which such hopeless discrepancies
have prevailed among Christian divines,
as the Prophetical Books of the Hebrew
Canon. The difficulties to which the
English reader is exposed by the extreme
defects of the received translation, its
confused order, and erroneous divisions
are at present nearly insuperable. No
chronology is observed; the earlier and
the later, the genuine and the spurious
are mixed together; and sometimes the
prophecies of two individuals of different
epochs are given us under the same
name. In the case of some of the more
important of them we are in doubt as to
the date, the author, and the interpreta
tion ; and on the question whether the
predictions related exclusively to Jewish
or to general history, to Cyrus or to
Jesus, to Zerubbabel or to Christ, to
Antiochus Epiphanes, to Titus or to
Napoleon; to events long past, or to
events still in the remote future—the
most conflicting opinions have been held
with equal confidence by men of equal
learning. It would carry us too far, and
prove too unprofitable an occupation, to
enumerate these contradictory interpre
tations ; we shall in preference content
ourselves with a brief statement of some
considerations which will show how far
removed we are on this subject from the
possession of that clear certainty, or
even that moderate verisimilitude of
knowledge, on which alone any reason
ings, such as have been based on Hebrew
prophecy, can securely rest. There is
no department of theology in which
divines have so universally assumed their
conclusions and modified their premises
to suit them as in this.
I. In the first place, it is not uninstructive to remind ourselves of a few of
the indications scattered throughout the
Scriptures of what the conduct and
state of mind of the Prophets often were.
They seem, like the utterers of Pagan
oracles, to have been worked up before
giving forth their prophecies into a
species of religious frenzy, produced
or aided by various means, especially by
music and dancing.1 Philo says, “ The
mark of true prophecy is the rapture of
its utterance; in order to attain divine
wisdom the soul must go out of itself,
and become drunk with divine frenzy.” 2
The same word in Hebrew (and Plato
thought in Greek also) signifies “ to pro
phecy ” and “ to be mad ”;3 and even among
themselves the prophets were often
regarded as madmen 4—an idea to which
their frequent habit of going about
naked5 and the performance occasion
ally of still more disgusting ceremonies
greatly contributed. That many of them
were splendid poets and noble-minded
men there can be no doubt; but we see
in conduct like this little earnest of
sobriety or divine inspiration, and far too
much that reminds us of the fanatics of
eastern countries and of ancient times.
II. Many, probably most, of the socalled prophecies were not intended as
predictions in the proper meaning of
the word, but were simply promises
of prosperity or denunciations of ven
geance contingent upon certain lines of
conduct. The principle of the Hebrew
theocracy was that of temporal rewards
or punishments consequent upon obedi
ence to, or deviation from, the divine
ordinances ; and in the great proportion
of cases the prophetic language seems to
have been nothing more than a reminder
or fresh renunciation of the principle.
This is clearly shown by the circum
stances that several of the prophecies,
though originally given, not in the con
tingent, but in the positive form,, were
rescinded, or contradicted by later pro
phetical denunciations, as in the case of
Eli, David, Hezekiah, and Jonah. The
rescinding of prophecy in i Sam. ii. 30
is very remarkable, and shows how little
1 I Sam. xviii. 10; x. 5 ; 2 Kings iii. 15, 16.
2 Quoted in Mackay’s Progress of the Intel
lect,” ii. 192.
3 Newman, “Heb. Mon.”p. 34. Platoderived
p.a.vrvs from p.aive<r0ai.
4 2 Kings ix. Ii ; Jeremiah xxix. 26.
5 2 Sam. vi. 16, 20; 1 Sam. xix. 24 ; Is. xx.
3 ; Ezek. iv. 4, 6, 8, 12, 15 ; 1 Kings xx. 3533.
�THE PROPHECIES
these enunciations were regarded by the
Israelites from our modern point of
view. Compare 2 Sam. vii. 10, where
the Israelites are promised that they shall
not be moved out of Canaan nor afflicted
any more, with the subsequent denun
ciations of defeat and captivity in a
strange land. Compare, also, 2 Sam.
vii. 12-16, where the permanent pos
session of the throne is promised to
David, and that the lineal descendant
shall not fail him to sit upon the throne
of Judah, with the curse pronounced on
his last royal descendant, Coniah—-“Thus
saith the Lord, Write ye this man child
less, a man that shall not prosper in his
days ; for no man of his seed shall
prosper, sitting upon the throne of
David, and ruling any more in Judah”
(Jer. xxii. 30 ; xxxvii. 30). See, also,
the curious argument as to the liability
of prophecy to be rescinded, in the same
book (Jer. xxxiii. 17-26). The re
scinding of the prediction or denuncia
tion in the case of Hezekiah is recorded
in Isaiah xxxviii. 1-5, and that of Jonah in
the Book which bears his name, iii. 4-10.
III. It is now clearly ascertained, and
generally admitted among critics, that
several of the most remarkable and
specific prophecies were never fulfilled
at all, or only very partially and loosely
fulfilled. Among these may be specified
the denunciation of Jeremiah (xxii. 18,
19; xxxvi. 30), against Jehoiakim, as
may be seen by comparing 2 Kings xxiv.
6 ;—and the denunciation of Amos
against Jeroboam II. (vii. n), as may
be seen by comparing 2 Kings xiv.
23-29. The remarkable, distinct, and
positive prophecies in Ezekiel (xxvi.,
xxvii.), relating to the conquest,
plunder, and destruction of Tyre by
Nebuchadnezzar, we can now state on
the highest authorities,1 were not ful
filled. Indeed (in ch. xxix. 18) is a
confession that he failed, at least so far
as spoil went. The same may be said
of the equally clear and positive pro
phecies of the conquest and desolation
1 Heeren’s “ Researches, ” ii. 11.
439-
Grote, iii.
55
of Egypt by Nebuchadnezzar (Jer. xliii.
10-13 ; Ezek. xxix. ; xxx. 1-19), as Dr.
Arnold, in his Sermons on Prophecy
(p. 48) fully admits.1 Jeremiah’s pro
phecy of the Captivity of Seventy years,
and the destruction of Babylon (xxv.)
have generally been appealed to as
instances of clear prophecy exactly and
indisputably fulfilled. But in the first
place, at the time this prediction was
delivered, the success of Nebuchad
nezzar against Jerusalem was scarcely
doubtful; in the second place, the Cap
tivity cannot, by any fair calculation, be
lengthened out to seventy years ;2 and
in the third place, the desolation of
Babylon (“ perpetual desolation ” is
the emphatic phrase) which was to
take place at the end of the seventy
years, as a punishment for the pride
of Nebuchadnezzar, did not take place
till long after.
Babylon was still a
flourishing city under Alexander the
Great; and, as Mr. Newman observed,
“it is absurd to present the emptiness
of modern Babylon as a punishment for
the pride of Nebuchadnezzar,” or as a
fulfilment of Jeremiah’s prophecy.—
Gen. xlix. 10, must also be considered
to present a specimen of prophecy
signally falsified by the event, and being
composed in the palmiest days of Judah,
was probably little more than a hyper
bolical expression of the writer’s con
fidence in the permanence of her
grandeur. Finally, in Hosea we have
a remarkable instance of self-contradic
tion, or virtual acknowledgment of the
non-fulfilment of prophecy. In viii. 13
and ix. 3, it is affirmed, “ Ephraim shall
return to Egypt ”; while in xi. 5, it is
said, “ Ephraim shall not return to
I
1 Grote, ubi supra.—“Hebrew Monarchy,”
p.363.
2 The chronologies of Kings and Chronicles
do not quite tally; but taking that of Jeremiah
himself, the desolation begun in the seventh
year of Nebuchadnezzar, B.C. 599, was continued
in B.C. 588, and concluded in B.c. 583.—The
exile ended some say 538, some 536. The
longest date that can be made out is 66 years,
and the shortest only 43. To make out 70 years
fairly, we must date from B. C. 606; the first
year of Nebuchadnezzar.
�56
THE PROPHECIES
Egypt.” Isaiah (xvii. i) pronounces on
Damascus a threat of ruin as emphatic
as any that was pronounced against
Tyre, Egypt, or Babylon. “It is taken
away from being a city, and it shall be
a ruinous heap.” Yet Damascus is to
this day the most flourishing city in
those countries.
IV. We find from numberless pas
sages both in the prophetical and the
historical books, that for a considerable
period the Hebrew nation was inundated
with false prophets,1 whom it was diffi
cult and often impossible to distinguish
from the true, although we have both
prophetical and sacerdotal tests given
for this express purpose. It even ap
pears that some of those whom we con
sider as true prophets were by their
contemporaries charged with being, and
even punished for being, the contrary.
In Deut. xviii. 20-22, the decision of
the prophet’s character is made to de
pend upon the fulfilment or non-fulfil
ment of his prophecy. In Deut. xiii.
1-5, this test is rejected, and the de
cision is made to rest upon the doctrine
which he teaches: if this be false he is
to be stoned, whatever miraculous proofs
of his mission he may give.2 From
Jer. xxix. 26, 27, it appears that the
High Priest assumed the right of judg
ing whether a man was a false or a true
prophet; though Jeremiah himself does
not seem to have been willing to abide
by this authority, but to have denounced
priests and the prophets who supported
them (Jer. v. 31). Pashur the priest,
we learn (xx. 1-7), put Jeremiah in the
stocks . for his false prophecies; and
Shemaiah reproves the Priest Jehoiada
for not having repeated the punishment,
and is violently denounced by the pro
phet in consequence (xxix. 24-32.).
V. In the case of nearly all the
prophets we have little external or in
dependent evidence as to the date at
which their prophecies were uttered, and
1 Jeremiah v. 31; xxiii, 16-34. Ezekiel xiv.
9-11.
2 ,§ee a^so
whole remarkable chapter, Jer.
xxviii.
none as to the period at which they were
written down /1 while the internal evi
dence on these points is dubious, con
flicting, and, in the opinions of the best
critics, generally unfavourable to the
popular conceptions.—The Books of
Kings and Chronicles, in which many
of these prophecies are mentioned, and
the events to which they are supposed
to refer, are related, were written, or
compiled in their present form, the
former near the termination of the
Babylonian Exile, or somewhere about
the year b.c. 530, i.e., from 50 to 200
years2 after the period at which the
prophecies were supposed to have been
deliveredwhile the latter appear to
have been a much later compilation,
some critics dating them about 260, and
others about 400 before Christ.3
It is probably not too much to affirm
that we have no instance in the pro
phetical Books of the Old Testament of
a prediction, in the case of which we
possess, at once and combined, clear
and unsuspicious proof of the date, the
precise event predicted, the exact cir
cumstances of that event, and the in
ability of human sagacity to foresee it.
There is no case in which we can say
with certainty—even where it is reason
able to suppose that the prediction was
uttered before the event—that the nar
rative has not been tampered with to
suit the prediction, or the prediction
modified to correspond with the event.4
1 “Hebrew Monarchy,” p. 352 (note.)
2 Amos and Hosea flourished probably about
790 B.c.
Jeremiah about 600.
Zechariah
about 520. De Wette, ii. 436. [Kuenen and
Wellhausen think, however, that Kings was
substantially completed before the Exile, i.e.,
about B.C. 600, a few short passages imply
ing an exilic standpoint being introduced
afterward.]
3 Such at least is the most probable result
at which critical science has yet arrived. De
Wette, ii. 248, 265. [Driver, Intro., p. 486,
thinks. B.c. 332, the earliest date to which
Chronicles can be assigned. Most critics agree,
though Noldeke puts it as late as B.c. 200.]
4 De Wette and other theologians consider
that in many cases where the prophecy is
unusually definite, this has certainly been done.
E 357, 363-
�THE PROPHECIES
The following remarks will show how
little certain is our knowledge, even in
the case of the principal prophets.
Isaiah, as we learn in the first and the
sixth chapters of his Book, appeared as
a Prophet in the last year of the reign of
King Uzziah (b.c. 759), and prophesied
till the fourteenth year of Hezekiah
(b.c. 710). We hear of him in the 2nd
Book of Kings and Chronicles, but not
till the reign of Hezekiah; except that
he is referred to in 2 Chron. xxvi. 22, as
having written a history of Uzziah. The
prophecies which have come down to us
bearing his name extend to sixty-six
chapters, of the date of which (either of
their composition or compilation) we
hare no certain knowledge ; but of which
the last twenty-seven are confidently de
cided by competent judges to be the
production of a different Writer, and a
later-age; and were doubtless composed
during the Babylonish Captivity, later
therefore than the year b.c. 600, or
about 150 years after Isaiah.
The
grounds of this decision are given at
length in De Wette.1 They are found
partly in the marked difference of style
between the two portions of the Book,
but still more in the obvious and per
vading fact that the Writer of the latter
portion takes his stand in the period of
the Captivity, speaks of the Captivity as
an existing circumstance or condition,
and comforts his captive Countrymen
with hopes of deliverance at the hand of
Cyrus. It appears as the general sum
mary result of critical research, that our
present collection consists of a number
of promises, denunciations, and exhort
ations, actually uttered by Isaiah, and
brought together by command, probably
of Hezekiah, greatly enlarged and inter
polated by writings upwards of a century
later than his time, which the ignorance
or unfair intentions of subsequent col
lectors and commentators have not
1 De Wette, ii. 364-390. [Several other
sections of the Book are not the work of Isaiah,
such as chaps, xiii., xv., xvi. 1-12, and probably
others. The entire compilation cannot be earlier
than b.c. 536.]
57
scrupled to consecrate by affixing to
them his venerable name.
Jeremiah appears to have prophesied
from about b.c. 630-580, or before and
at the commencement of the Captivity
at Babylon, and the chief portion of his
writings refer to that event, which in his
time was rapidly and manifestly ap
proaching. The prophecies appear to
have been written down by Baruch, a
scribe, from the dictation of Jeremiah
(xxxvi.) and to have been collected soon
after the return from exile,1 but by whom
and at what precise time is unknown ;—and commentators discover several pas
sages in which the original text appears
to have been interpolated, or worked
over again. Still, the text seems to be
far more pure, and the real, much nearer
to the professed, date, than in the case
of Isaiah.
The genuineness of the Book of
Ezekiel is less doubtful than that of any
other of the Prophets. His prophecies
relate chiefly to the destruction of Jeru
salem, which happened during his time.
He appears to have been carried into
exile by the victorious Chaldteans about
eleven years before they finally con
summated the ruin of the Jewish Nation
by the destruction of their Capital. His
prophecies appear to have continued
many years after the Captivity—sixteen
according to De Wette.2
Of all the prophetical writings, the
Book of Daniel has been the subject of
the fiercest contest. Divines have con
sidered it . of paramount importance,
both on account of the definiteness
and precision of its predictions, and the
supposed reference of many of them to
Christ. Critics, on the other hand, have
considered the genuineness of the Book
to be peculiarly questionable; and few
now, of any note or name, venture to
defend it. In all probability we have
no remains of the real prophecies of the
actual Daniel—for that such a person,
famed for his wisdom and virtue, did
exist, appears from Ezek. xiv. and xxxviii,
1 De Wette, ii. 416 and 396.
2 De Wette, ii. 426.
�58
THE PROPHECIES
He must have lived about 570 years
before Christ, whereas the Book which
bears his name was almost certainly
written in the time of Antiochus' Epiphanes, no years b.c. -Some English
Commentators1 and Divines have endea
voured to escape from the obvious and
manifold difficulties of the Book, by
conceiving part of it to be genuine and
part spurious.—But De Wette has shown2
that we have no reason for believing it
not to be the work of one hand. It is
full of historical inaccuracies and fanciful
legends; and the opening statement is
an obvious error, showing that the Writer
was imperfectly acquainted with the
chronology or details of the period in
which he takes his stand. The first
chapter begins by informing us.that in
the third year of King Jehoiakim, Nebu
chadnezzar, King of Babylon, besieged
and took Jerusalem, and carried the
King (and Daniel) away captive. Where
as, we learn from Jeremiah that Nebu
chadnezzar was not King of Babylon till
the fourth year of Jehoiakim, and did
not take Jerusalem till seveiz years later.3
It would be out of place to adduce all
the marks which betray the late origin of
this Book;—they may be seen at length
in De Wette. It is here sufficient that
we have no froof whatever of its early
date, and that the most eminent critics
have abandoned the opinion of its
genuineness as indefensible.
III. Thirdly, We have already had
ample proof that the Jewish Writers
1 “I have long thought that the greater part of
the book of Daniel is most certainly a very late
work, of the time of the Maccabees; and the
pretended prophecy about the Kings of Greece
and Persia, and of the North and Scuth, is mere
history, like the poetical prophecies in Virgil and
elsewhere. In fact you can trace distinctly the
date when it was written, because the events up
to that date are given with historical minute
ness, totally unlike the character of real pro
phecy; and beyond that date all is imaginary.”
—Again, he thinks that criticism “proves the
non-authenticity of great part of Daniel: that
there may be genuine fragments in it is very
likely.”—“Arnold’s Life and Cor.” ii. 188.
2 De Wette, ii. 499.
3 See the whole argument in De Wette, ii.
484 (note).
not only did not scruple to narrate past
events as if predicting future ones—to
present History in the form of Prophecy
—but that they habitually did so. The
instances are far too numerous to quote;
—we will specify only a few of the most
remarkable :—Gen. xxv. 23 ; xxvii. 28,
29, 39, 4° J xlix. passim ; Numb, xxiv.;
Deut. iv. 27 ; xxviii. 25, 36, 37, 64.
We anticipate that these remarks will
be met by the reply—“ Whatever may
be established as to the uncertainty
which hangs over the date of those pro
phecies which refer to the ■ temporal
fortunes of the Hebrew Nation, no
doubt can exist that all the prophecies
relating to the Messiah were extant in
their present form long previous to the
advent of Him in whose person the
Christian world agrees to acknowledge
their fulfilment.” This is true, and the
argument would have all the force which
is attributed to it, were the objectors
able to lay their finger on a single Old
Testament Prediction clearly referring
to Jesus Christ, intended by the utterers
of it to relate to him, prefiguring his
character and career, and manifestly ful
filled in his appearance on earth. This
they cannot do. Most of the passages
usually adduced as complying with these
conditions, referred, and were clearly
intended to refer,1 to eminent indi
viduals in Israelitish History ;—many
are not prophecies at all ;2—the Messiah,
1 “ We find throughout the New Testament,”
says Dr. Arnold, “references made to various
passages in the Old Testament, which are alleged
as prophetic of Christ, or of some particulars of
the Christian dispensation. Now if we turn to
the context of these passages, and so endeavour
to discover their meaning, according to the only
sound principles of interpretation, it will often
appear that they do not relate to the Messiah, or
to Christian times, but are either expressions of
religious affections generally, such as submission,
love, hope, &c., or else refer to some particular
circumstances in the life and condition of the
writer, or of the Jewish nation, and do not at all
show that anything more remote, or any events
of a more universal and spiritual character, were
designed to be prophesied.”—“Sermons on the
Interpretation of Prophecy.” Preface, p. I.
2 “The great prophecies of Isaiah and
Jeremiah are, critics can now see, not strictly
�i
THE PROPHECIES
the Anointed Deliverer, expected by the
Jews, hoped for and called for by their
Poets and Prophets, was of a character
so different, and a career so opposite, to
those of the meek, lowly, long-suffering
Jesus, that the passages describing the
one never could have been applied to
the other, without a perversion of in
genuity, and a disloyal treatment of
their obvious signification, which, if
employed in any other field than that of
Theology, would have met with the
prompt discredit and derision they
deserve.1 There are, no doubt, scattered
predictions at all; and predictions which are
strictly meant as such, like those in the Book of
Daniel, are an embarrassment to the Bible rather
than a main element of it.”—Literature and
Dogma, p. 114, by Matthew Arnold.
1 This disingenuousness is obvious in one
point especially : the Messianic Prophecies are
interpreted literally or figuratively, as may best
suit their adaptation to the received history of
Jesus. Thus that “ the wolf shall lie down with
the lamb, and the lion eat grass like an ox,” is
taken figuratively : that the Messiah should ride
into Jerusalem on an ass, is taken literally. The
following passage, written five and twenty years
subsequent to the text of this volume, may be
quoted in confirmation. “And what were called
the ‘ signal predictions ’ concerning the Christ of
popular theology, as they stand in our Bibles,
had and have undoubtedly a look of supernatural
prescience. The employment of capital letters,
and other aids, such as the constant use of the
future tense, naturally and innocently adopted
by interpreters who were profoundly convinced
that Christianity needed these express predictions
and that they must be in the Bible, enhanced,
certainly, this look ; but the look, even without
these aids, was sufficiently striking. That Jacob
on his death-bed should two thousand years
before Christ have 1 been enabled,’ as the phrase
is, to foretell to his son Judah that ‘the sceptre
shall not depart from Judah until Shiloh (or the
Messiah) come, and to him shall the gathering
of the people be,’ does seem, when the ex
planation is put with it that the Jewish kingdom
lasted till the Christian era and then perished,
a miracle of prediction in favour of our current
Christian theology. That Jeremiah should have
‘ been enabled ’ to foretell, in the name of
Jehovah ; ‘The days come when I will raise to
David a righteous Branch ; in his days Judah
shall be saved, and Israel shall dwell safely; and
this is the name whereby he shall be called, THE
lord our righteousness!’—does seem a
wonder of prediction in favour of that tenet of
the Godhead of the Eternal Son, for which the
Bishops of Winchester and Gloucester are so
59
verses in the Prophetic and Poetical
Books of the Hebrew Canon, which, as
quotations, are apt and applicable enough
to particular points in Christ’s character
and story;—but of what equally volu
minous collection of poems or rheto
rical compositions may the same not be
anxious to do something. For unquestionably
Jehovah is often spoken of as the saviour of
Judah and Israel: ‘All flesh shall know that I
the Eternal am thy saviour and thy redeemer,
the mighty one of Jacob’; and in- the prophecy
given above as Jeremiah’s, the Branch of David
is clearly identified with Jehovah. Again, that
David should say : ‘ The Lord said unto my
Lord, Sit thou on my right hand until I make
thy foes thy footstool,’—does seem a prodigy of
prediction to the same effect. That he should
say : ‘ Kiss the Son, lest he be angry and so ye
perish,’ does seem a supernaturally prescient
assertion of the Eternal Sonship. And so long
as these prophecies stand as they are here given,
they no doubt bring to Christianity all the
support (and with the mass of mankind this is
by no means inconsiderable) which it can derive
from the display of supernatural prescience.
But who will dispute that it more and more
becomes known that these prophecies cannot
stand as we have here given them ? Manifestly,
it more and more becomes known, that the
passage from Genesis, with its mysterious Shiloh
and the gathering of these people to him, is
rightly to be rendered as follows : ‘ The pre
eminence shall not depart from Judah so long as
the people resort to Shiloh (the national sanctuary
before Jerusalem was won); and the nations (the
heathen Canaanites) shall obey himd We here
purposely leave out of sight any such con
sideration as that our actual books of the Old
Testament came first together through the piety
of the house of Judah, and when the destiny of
Judah was already traced; and that to say
roundly : ‘Jacob was enabled to foretell, The
sceptre shall not depart from Judah,’ as if he
were speaking of a prophecy preached and
published by Dr. Cumming, is wholly inad
missible. For this consideration is of force,
indeed, but it is a consideration drawn from the
rules of literary history and criticism, and not
likely to have weight with the mass of mankind.
Palpable error and mistranslation are what
And what,
will have weight with them.
then, will they say as they come to know
(and do not and must not more and more of
them come to know it every day ?) that Jeremiah’s
supposed signal identification of Christ with the
God of Israel : ‘ I will raise to David a righteous
Branch, and this is the name whereby he shall
be called, the lord our righteousness,’
runs really : I will raise to David a righteous
branch; in his days Judah shall be saved and
�6o
THEISM OF THÈ JEWS IMPURE AND PROGRESSIVE
said ?1 Of the references made by the
Evangelists to such passages, we shall
speak hereafter.
The state of the case appears to be
this: —That all the Old Testament
Prophecies have been assumed -to be
genuine, inspired predictions; and when
falsified in their obvious meaning and
received interpretation by the event,
have received immediately a new inter
pretation, and been supposed to refer to
Israel shall dwell safely; and this is the name
whereby they shall call themselves : The Eternal
is our righteousness
The prophecy thus be
comes simply one of the many promises of a
successor to David under whom the Hebrew
people should trust in the Eternal and follow
righteousness ; just as the prophecy from Genesis
is one of the many prophecies of the enduring
continuance of the greatness of Judah. ‘The
Lord said unto my Lord,’ in like manner—will
not people be startled when they find that it
ought to run instead : ‘ the Eternal said unto my
lord the king,’—a simple promise of victory to a
prince of God’s chosen people?—and that:
‘ Kiss the Son,’ is in reality, ‘ Be warned,’ or ‘ be
instructed ;’ ‘layhold,’ according to the Septuagint, ‘ on instruction’?”—Lite? attire and Dogma,
pp. 110-113. See also pp. 91-106.
1 Perhaps none of the Old Testament prophe
cies are more clearly Messianic than the following
passage from Plato :—Ovtw fiiaKet/j.evos & Alxaios
/j.a<TTiyái(reTai,
SeStjaerai, ¿xicavfMltrerai Tuuf>0aXp.(¿, re\evrS>v irávra xana iradcóv
ava<rxitd)v\evd-r¡ffeTai. Plato, de República, 1.
ii. p. 361, E.
Speaking of this teacher of Mankind whom
he expected, he says, “This just man will
scarcely be endured by them—but probably will
be scourged, racked, tormented, have his eyes
burnt out and at last, having suffered all manner
of evils, shall be impaled”— or as the original
term will signify, “Crucified.”
some other event. When the result has
disappointed expectation, the conclusion
has been, not that the prophecy was
false, but that the interpretation was
erroneous. It is obvious that a mode of
reasoning like this is peculiar to Theo
logical Inquirers.
From this habit of assuming that
Prophecy was Prediction, and must have
its fulfilment—which was perhaps preva
lent among the Jews as among modern
Divines—appears to have arisen the
national expectation of a Messiah.—
A Deliverer was hoped for, expected,
prophesied, in the time of Jewish misery
(and Cyrus was perhaps the first referred
to); but as no one appeared who did
what the Messiah, according to Pro
phecy, should do, they went on
degrading each successive Conqueror
and Hero from the Messianic dignity,
and are still expecting the true Deliverer.
—Hebrew and Christian Divines both
start from the same assumed and un
proven premises, viz.:—that a Messiah
having been foretold, must appear;—
but there they diverge, and the Jews
show themselves to be the sounder
logicians of the two :—the Christians,
assuming that Jesus was the Messiah
intended (though not the one expected},
wrest the obvious meaning of the Pro
phecies to show that they were fulfilled
in him •—while the Jews, assuming the
obvious meaning of the Prophecies to be
their real meaning, argue that they were
not fulfilled in Christ, and therefore that
the Messiah is yet to come.
Chapter IV
THEISM OF THE JEWS IMPURE AND
PROGRESSIVE
It is an assumption of the popular
theology, and an almost universal belief
in the popular mind, that the Jewish
nation was selected by the Almighty to
preserve and carry down to later ages a
knowledge of the One true Godthat
the Patriarchs possessed this know
ledge ;—that Moses delivered and en
�THEISM OF THE JEWS IMPURE AND PROGRESSIVE
forced this doctrine as the fundamental
tenet of the national creed;—and that
it was, in fact, the received and distinctive
dogma of the Hebrew people. This
alleged possession of the true faith by
one only people, while all surrounding
tribes were lost in Polytheism, or some
thing worse, has been adduced by
divines in general as a proof of the
truth of the. sacred history, and of the
divine origin of the Mosaic dispensation,
and forms, indeed, one of the standard
arguments of Theologians in the present
day. Paley, the actual text-book of one
of our Universities, writes of it thus :—
“ Undoubtedly our Saviour assumes
the divine origin of the Mosaic Institu
tion ; and independently of his authority,
I conceive it to be very difficult to assign
any other cause for the commencement
or existence of that Institution;
especially for the singular circumstance
of the Jews adhering to the Unity, when
every other people slid into polytheism ;
for their being men in religion, children
in everything else ; behind other nations
in the arts of peace and war, superior to
the most improved in their sentiments
and doctrines relating to the Deity. ”x
Milman2 speaks of the pure mono
theism of the Jews in a similar strain :
“ The religious history of this people
is no less singular. In the narrow slip
of land inhabited by their tribes the
worship of one Almighty Creator of the
Universe subsists, as in its only sanctuary.
In every stage of society, under the
pastoral tent of Abraham, and in the
sumptuous Temple of Solomon, the same
creed maintains its inviolable simplicity.
. . . Nor is this merely a sublime specu
lative tenet; it is the basis of their civil
constitution, and of their national cha
racter. As there is but one Almighty God
so there is but one People under his
special protection, the descendants of
Abraham.”
Now, the passage we have italicised is
surely an extraordinary over-statement of
the case. Without going so far as Bauer
1 Paley’s Evidences of Christianity.
2 History of the Jews, i, 4.
61
(Theol. des Alt. Test. i. 4) who thinks
that the Jews as a nation scarcely became
true monotheists till after the Captivity,
it seems difficult not to recognise that
they did not believe in the exclusive
existence of one sole God in the earlier
times—perhaps not till a comparatively
late period of their history;—that their
early and popular notions of the Deity
were eminently coarse, low, and un
worthy ;—that among them, as among
all other nations, the conceptions of God
formed by individuals varied according
to their intellectual and spiritual capa
cities, being poor and anthropomorphic
among the ignorant and coarse-minded,
pure and lofty among the virtuous and
richly-gifted;—and, finally, that these
conceptions gradually improved and be
came purified and ennobled, as the
Hebrews advanced in civilisation—be
ing, generally speaking, lowest in the
Historical Books, amended in the Pro
phetical Writings, and reaching their
highest elevation among the Poets of the
Nation.
In its progress from Fetichism to pure
Theism, the human mind generally
passes through three stages—or to speak
more correctly, man’s idea of God passes
through three forms of development. We
have him represented first as the God
of the individual or family; then as the
God of the nation ; lastly as the God of
the human race.—Now we find all these
three views of Deity in the Old Testa
ment—sometimes, it is true, strangely
jumbled together, as might be expected
in books written by different persons
at different times—but on the whole
bearing pretty distinct marks of the
periods at which they respectively pre
vailed.
The representations of God in the
history of Abraham appear to imply that
the God whom he worshipped was a
family God, selected, probably, by him
for some reason unknown to us, out of a
number of others who were worshipped
by his fathers and his tribe. We are
expressly told that the father and grand
father of Abraham “ worshipped other
�Ó2
THEISM OF THE JEWS IMPURE AND PROGRESSIVE
Gods ” ;—and the representations given
of the God of Abraham, and of his
proceedings during the lives of the three
Patriarchs, are so mean and material
that it is difficult to conceive how a
knowledge of the One true God, Maker
of Heaven and Earth, could have been
ascribed to them. God appears to
Abraham with two angels in the form of
men—(they are spoken of as “three
men ”)—sits at the door of his tent—
partakes of his repast—is angry at the
laughter of Sarah, and an altercation
takes place between them ; after which
He discusses with him the case of
Sodom and Gomorrah, and informs him
that He is going down thither to see
whether the reports which have reached
him are correct. “ Your fathers dwelt
on the other side of the flood in old
time, even Terah, the father of Abraham
and the father of Nachor: and they
served other GodsT (Joshua xxiv. 2).
“ The God of Abraham and the God of
Nachor, the God of their father, judge
betwixt us ” (Gen. xxxi. 53). There
are not wanting traces of Polytheism in
the earlier portions of Hebrew History.
The expression Jehovah Elohim, 11 The
God of Gods, ” may, perhaps, be taken
as an indication. Bauer thinks that
“the Elohim, who were probably at
one time worshipped as equal Gods, are
in Genesis recognised as subordinate
deities, with whom Jehovah, the highest
Eloah, enters into council” (Theol.
des Alt. Test. i. 3). It will be remem
bered that Laban, a near relative of
Abraham, whose sister he had expressly
selected as his son Isaac’s wife, pursued
Jacob for having “ stolen his Gods” (Gen.
xxxi. 30). He therefore worshipped
fetiches. In Gen. xxxv. 2-4, we find
Jacob collecting the strange Gods wor
shipped by his household, and hiding
them under an oak. It is certainly
remarkable that both Abraham and
Isaac should insist upon their, sons
marrying into an idolatrous family, if
they had really believed their own God
to be the only one.
Jacob’s ideas of God are, as might be
expected from his mean and tricky
character, even lower than those of
Abraham. He makes a condition, on
which he will select Jehovah to be his
God, and will give Him a tithe of all his
possessions (Gen. xxviii. 20) ;—he re
presents Him as his confidant in cheat
ing Laban, and wrestles with Him bodily
to extort a blessing. Who, after reading
such passages can for a moment accept
the belief that Jacob and Job entertained
the same conceptions of God.
In process of time the descendants
of Abraham multiplied and became a
numerous people, and naturally con
tinued the worship of that God who
had done so much for their forefathers.
Thus the Jamily God of Abraham, Isaac,
and Jacob gradually enlarged into the
national God of the Israelites, to whose
worship they adhered with greater or
less tenacity, with greater or less ex
clusiveness, during their residence in
Egypt. As the history proceeds the
conceptions of this God seem to be
come purer and loftier, till, in the mind
of Moses, an intellectual and highlyeducated man, versed in all the learning
of the Egyptians, they often (as far as
we can guess what came from him)
reached to a sublime simplicity of ex
pression rarely surpassed. Still, there
is no distinct proof that Moses dis
believed in the existence of other Gods :
—the God whom he serves is still “ the
God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob”;—
He is not asserted to be the only God;
the existence and power of rival Deities
is not denied, but is even admitted by
implication. All that Moses claims for
Jehovah is, not that he is the Sole God.
but that he is superior to all Others,
“Who is like unto Thee, Jehovah,
among the Gods ? ” (Ex. xv. 111). And
he represents him to Pharaoh, by
Jehovah’s own command, as the “God
of the Hebrews,” not as the Supreme
Lord of Eleaven and Earth. Even in
1 Jethro says ; “Now I know that Jehovah is
greater than all gods : for in the thing wherein
they dealt proudly, he was above them all.”—
(Exod. xviii. 11.)
�THEISM OF THE JEWS IMPURE AND PROGRESSIVE
the delivery of the Commandments, the
great foundation of the Law, it is not
said, “There is no God but Jehovah,”
but only “I am the Lord thy God,
which brought thee out of the House
of Bondage; thou shalt haw no other
Gods beside Me (or before Me).” The
whole of the xxivth chapter of Joshua
confirms this view : he there urges the
Israelites to choose Jehovah, not as the
only God, whom to desert would be to
become Atheists, but as a God whose
bounties to them had been so great that
it would be black ingratitude not to
prefer Him to all others. The whole
history of the lapses of the Jewish
Nation into idolatry also discourages
the idea of their having been really
monotheists. The worship of the golden
calf and the Canaanitish gods was quite
natural on the supposition of Jehovah
being merely a paramount and preferred
God:—monstrous, if they had believed
Him to be the only one. Moreover,
their idolatry is always spoken of as
infidelity, not as atheism.
As civilisation advanced, prophets,
sages, and poets arose among the
Hebrews, to whom the limited and
anthropomorphic conceptions of the
Deity, prevalent among the people,
were painfully inadequate and revolt
ing;—and they endeavoured by nobler
representations of the object of their
worship to convert the national religion
into a pure theism ; in which, however,
it is thought by many that they did not
succeed till after the Captivity. After
this idea had once taken root, the nation
never showed any disposition to relapse
into idolatry. And even to the latest
period of the Canonical writings we find
representations both of the nature and
attributes of Jehovah so utterly discre
pant as to leave no doubt that among
the Jews, as among all other nations,
the God of the wise and the God of the
ignorant—the God of the Priests and
the God of the Prophets—were the
embodiment of two very different classes
of ideas. Let anyone compare the
partial, unstable, revengeful, and deceit
63
ful God of Exodus and Numbers with
the sublime and unique Deity of Job
and the nobler Psalms, or even the God
of Isaiah with the God of Ezekiel and
Daniel—and he can scarcely fail' to
admit that the conception of the One
living and true God was a plant of slow
and gradual growth in the Hebrew mind,
and was due far less to Moses, the
Patriarchs, or the Priests, than to the
superiority of individual minds at various
periods of their history.
Compare the
following representations which we have
arranged in parallel columns.
And Jehovah spake
to Moses, saying—Let
them make me a sanc
tuary, that I may dwell
among them—And thou
shalt put the mercy-seat
above upon the ark, . . .
and there I will meet
with thee, and I will
commune with thee.—
Exod. xxv. 8, 21-22.
But will God in
very deed dwell on
the earth ? Behold the
Heaven, and the Flea
ven of Heavens, cannot
contain Thee; how
much less this House
that I have builded !
— 1 Kings viii. 27.
Whither shall I go
from thy Spirit ? or
whither shall I flee
from thy presence ?—
Ps. cxxxix. 7-10.
And it came to pass,
as Moses entered into
the tabernacle, that the
cloudy pillar descended,
and stood at the door
of the tabernacle : and
Jehovah talked with
Moses.—And Jehovah
spake unto Moses face to
face, as a man speaketh
unto a friend.—Exod.
xxxiii. 9, II.
For they have heard
that thou Jehovah art
among this people, that
thou Jehovah art seen
face to face.—Numbers
xiv. 14.
Lo, he goeth by me,
and I see him not; he
passeth on also, but I
perceive him not.—Job
ix. 11.
Behold, I go forward,
but he is not there ; and
backward, but I cannot
perceive him: on the
left hand, where he
doth work, but I can
not behold him: he
hideth himself on the
right hand, that I can
not see him. —Tob xxiii.
8, 9.
And Jehovah said,
Behold there is a place
by me, and thou shalt
stand upon a rock.
And it shall come to
pass, while my glory
passeth by, that I will
put thee in a clift of
the rock, and will cover
thee with my hand
while I pass by ! And
I will take away mine
O Jehovah my God,
thou art very great;
thou art clothed with
honour and majesty:
Who coverest thyself
with light as with a gar
ment ; who stretchest
out the Heavens like
a curtain; who layeth
the beams of his cham
bers in the waters;
who maketh the clouds
�ORIGIN OF THE GOSPELS
64
hand, and thou shalt
see my back parts ; but
my face shall not be
seen —Exod.
xxxiii.
21-24.
And Moses returned
to the Lord, and said,
Lord, wherefore hast
thou so evil entreated
this 'people ? Why is
it that thou hast sent
me? For since I came
to Pharaoh to speak in
thy name, he hath done
evil to this people;
neither hast thou de
livered thy people at
all.—Exod. v. 22, 23.
his chariot; who walketh on the wings of
the wind.—Psalm civ.
i-3Then Job answered
and said, I know it is
so of a truth ; but how
should man be just
with God ? If he will
contend with him, he
cannot answer him one
of a thousand.
For he is not a man,
as I am, that I should
answer him, and we
should come together
in judgment.—Job ix.
2, 3, 32-
And Jehovah said,
Who shall persuade
Ahab, that he may go
up and fall at RamothGilead ? And one said
on this manner, and
another said on that
manner.
And there
came forth a spirit, and
stood before the Lord,
and said, I will per
suade him. And Jeho
vah said unto him,
Wherewith ? And he
said, I will go forth,
and I will be a lying
spirit in the mouth of
all his prophets. And
he said, Thou shalt
persuade him, and pre
vail also : go forth, and
do so.—I Kings xxii.
20-23.
For the word of the
Lord is right, and all
his works are done in
truth. He loveth right
eousness and judg
ment.—Ps. xxxiii. 4, 5.
Lying lips are an
abomination to the
Lord: but they that
deal truly are his • de
light.—Prov. xii. 22.
and the tower which all the sons of men.—
the children of men Psalm xxxiii. 13.
builded.—Gen. xi. 5.
And Noah built an
altar unto the Lord,
and offered burnt offer
ings on the altar. And
the Lord smelled a
sweet savour; and the
Lord said in his heart,
I will not again curse
the ground any more
for man’s sake.—Gen.
viii. 20, 21.
I will take no bul
lock out of thy house,
nor he-goats out of thy
folds. For every beast
of the forest is mine and
the cattle upon a thou
sand hills. If I were
hungry, I would not
tell thee ; for the world
is mine, and the ful
ness thereof. Will I
eat the flesh of bulls,
or drink the blood of
goats ? Offer unto God
thanksgiving.—Ps. 1.
9-14.
But ye shall offer the
burnt-offering for a
sweet savour unto the
Lord.—Num. xxviii.
27And ye shall offer a
burnt-offering, a sacri
fice made by fire, of a
sweet savour, unto the
Lord, thirteen bullocks,
two rams, and fourteen
lambs of the first year ;
they shall be without
blemish.—Num. xxix.
I3> 36.
For thou desirest not
sacrifice, else would I
give it: thou delightest
not in burnt-offering.—
Ps. li. 16.
Wherewith shall I
come before Jehovah,
and bow myself before
the high God ? Shall
I come before him
with burnt - offering,
with calves of a year
old ? Will -the Lord
be pleased with thou
sands of rams, or with
ten thousand rivers of
oil ? Shall I give my
first-born for my trans
gressions, the fruit of
my body for the sin of
my soul ? He hath
showed thee, O man,
what is good ; and what
doth Jehovah require
of thee, but to do
justly, to love mercy,
and to walk humbly
with thy God ?—Micah
vi. 6-8.
The eyes of the Lord
And they went in
unto Noah in the ark, are in every place, be
and the Lord shut him holding the evil and the
good.—Prov. xv. 3.
in.—G&x. vii. 16.
And Jehovah came Jehovah looketh from
down to see the city Heaven: he beholdeth
Chapter V
ORIGIN OF THE GOSPELS
The current idea respecting the nature
of the Gospel History is, that the four
Evangelists were eye-witnesses (or the
amanuenses of eye-witnesses) of the
events which they relate; and that we
have, in fact, embodied in their narra
tives, four independent and corroborative
testimonies tp the words and deeds of
�ORIGIN OF THE GOSPELS
Christ. Their substantial agreement is
appealed to in proof of their fidelity, and
their numerous and circumstantial dis
crepancies are accepted as proof of their
independence.1 Let us examine what
foundation can be discovered for this
current opinion. Have we any reason
to believe that all the Evangelists, or
that any of them, were companions of
Christ—eye- and ear-witnesses of his
career? And if not, what does critical
Science teach us of the probable origin
of the four gospels ?
The first Gospel has come down to us
under the title of the Gospel of, or accord
ing to, St. Matthew : and the tradition
of the Church is that it was written
(probably about a.d. 68) by Matthew
the publican, one of the twelve apostles,
the same who was called by Jesus while
“ sitting at the receipt of custom.” This
is distinctly stated by several of the Early
Fathers, as the received opinion or tradi
tion—as by Papias (a.d. 116), Irenæus
(a.d. 178), Origen (a.d. 230), Epiphanius
(A.D.368), and Jerome (a.d. 392).1 All
2
these fathers, however, without exception,
expressly affirm that Matthew wrote his
Gospel in the Hebrew language, whereas
the Gospel which we receive as Matthew’s
1 Thus, Lardner says, “ I hîve all my days
read and admired the first three Evangelists, as
independent witnesses, and I know not how to
forbear ranking the other opinion among those
bold as well as groundless assertions in which
critics too often indulge without considering the
consequences!—Dr. Lardner, like many other
divines, required to be reminded that critics
have nothing to do with consequences, but only
with truths, and that (to use the language of
Algernon Sydney), “a consequence cannot
destroy a truth.”
2 Papias, whose information on this as on
other matters seems to have been derived from
John, whois called “the Presbyter,” an elder
of the Church at Ephesus, simply says, “Mat
thew wrote the divine oracles (ra Aoyia) in
the Hebrew tongue, and every man interpreted
them as he was able.”—Irenæus says, “ Matthew,
then, among the Jews, wrote a Gospel in their
own language, while Peter and Paul were
preaching the Gospel at Rome.”—Origen and
Jerome both state that (according to the tradi
tion come down to them) the first Gospel was
written by Matthew the publican in Hebrew.
65
is written in Greek; and not only have
we no account of its having been trans
lated, and no guarantee of such transla
tion being a faithful one, but learned
men are satisfied from internal evidence
that it is not a translation at all, but
must have been originally written in
Greek.1 Our present Gospel, therefore,
cannot be the Gospel to which the fathers
above cited refer. It would appear simply
that Matthew did write a history, or
rather memorabilia, of Christ (for the ex
pression ra. \oyta says no more), but that
this was something quite different from
our Gospel.2 This notion is confirmed
by the fact that the Ebionites and
Nazarenes, two Christian sects, pos
sessed a Hebrew Gospel, which they
considered to be the only genuine one,
and which they called the Gospel accord
ing to Matthew.3 It appears, however,
to have been so materially different from
our first Gospel as entirely to negative
the supposition of the latter being a
translation from it.
The only external testimony, then,
which exists to show that Matthew the
apostle wrote a gospel, shows at the
same time that our first Gospel is not
the one which Matthew wrote. External
evidence, therefore, gives us no reason
1 Hug, in a most luminous and learned essay,
has succeeded in rendering this, if not certain,
at least in the highest degree probable ; and his
views are supported by Erasmus, Webster,
Paulus, and De Wette.—The only critic or
equal eminence who adopts the opposite opinion
is Eichhorn.
2 It seems to us very probable, however, as
Hennell suggests, “that someone after Matthew
wrote the Greek Gospel which has come down
to us, incorporating these Hebrew Koyia (and
perhaps mainly framed out of them), whence it was
called the Gospel according to Matthew, and in
the second century came to be considered as the
work of the Apostle.”—Hennell’s Origin or
Christianity, p. 124. [Schmiedel, art. Gospels,
Ency. Bib., bluntly says that “for the author
ship of the first Gospel the Apostle Matthew musíbe given up.”]
3 Hug, Introd, part ii. § 7, pp. 317, 320, 392.
—Jerome allows that many considered it to
have been the genuine original Gospel of
Matthew.—Thirlwall’s Introd, to Schleierrnacher, 48-50, and notes.
�66
ORIGIN OF THE GOSPELS
to believe that it was the production of
an eye-witness; and it is worthy of re
mark that the author nowhere names
himself, nor claims the authority of an
eye-witness. Internal evidence goes
further, and we think effectually nega
tives the notion.
1. In the first place, many events are
recorded at which we know from the
record that Matthew was not present—
some, indeed, at which none of the
disciples were present; and yet alb these
are narrated in the same tone and with
the same particularity as the other por
tions of the narrative—sometimes even
with more minute circumstantiality.
Such are the Incarnation (c. i.), the
story of the Magi (ii.), the Temptation
(iv.), the Transfiguration (xvii.), the
Agony and the prayer in Gethsemane
(xxvi.), the denial of Peter (xxvi.), the
dream of Pilate’s wife (xxvii.), the con
versation between Judas and the Priests,
and that between Pilate and the Priests
(xxvii.), and, finally, that between the
Priests and the Soldiers about the miss
ing body of Jesus (xxviii.).
It is difficult to avoid the conclusion
that if the writer was not present at the
colloquy of Pilate with the Chief Priests
about the security of the grave of Jesus,
neither was he present at the feeding of
the five thousand, or the calming of the
waves.
2. Secondly, the abruptness of the
transitions, the fragmentary style of the
narrative, and the entire absence of all
those details as to the mode and object
of the frequent journeys indicated,1
which we should expect from a com
panion, and which we find in Luke’s
account of Paul’s travels—all point to
the conclusion that the writer was a
compiler, not an eye-witness.
3. The same conclusion is drawn from
the circumstance that his frequent double,
narratives of the same events indicate
the confusion of a man who was com
piling from fragmentary materials, rather
than the fulness and clearness of personal
1 Hennell, p. 121.
recollection.1 De Wette and Credner
dwell much upon this argument.
4- If, as the great majority of critics
imagine, Mark and Luke had Matthew’s
Gospel before them .when they wrote
their own, it is certain that they could
not have regarded him as either an eye
witness or a very accurate authority, as
they do not hesitate both to retrench,
to deviate from, and to contradict him.
Moreover, the proem to Luke’s Gospel
must, we think, by all unbiassed minds
be regarded as fatal to the hypothesis of
the authors of any of the gospels then
in existence having been either disciples
or eye-witnesses. It is clear from that,
that although many histories of Christ
were then extant, none of them had any
peculiar or paramount authority.
5. The author of the first Gospel
scarcely appears to have been acquainted
with any portion of Christ’s Ministry,
except that of which Galilee was the
scene.
The second Gospel, like the first, bears
no author’s name; but by Papias, and
Irenaeus,2 and (following them) by the
1 Ex. gr., the cure of the blind men—the
feedings—the demand of a sign—the accusation
regarding Beelzebub.
2 Papias, our parliest source of information on
the matter, was Bishop of Hieropolis, and must
have been intimate with many contemporaries
of the Apostles, and perhaps had conversed with
the Apostle John. His works are now lost,
with the exception of a few fragments preserved
by Eusebius. “Nothing (says Dr. Middleton)
more effectually demonstrates the uncertainty
of all tradition, than what is delivered to us by
antiquity concerning this very Papias. Irenaeus
declares him to have been the companion of
Polycarp, and the disciple of St. John the
Apostle. But Eusebius tells us that he was not
a disciple of St. John the Apostle but of John
the Presbyter, who was a companion only of the
Apostle, but whom Irenaeus mistook for the
Apostle. Now from Papias, through Irenaeus,
came most of the early traditions, some of them
relating to the millennium, of the most mon
strous character, which Irenaeus does not scruple
to ascribe to our Saviour, and which fully dis
pose us to credit the account of Eusebius, who
says, ‘ Papias was a weak man, of very shallow
understanding, as appears from his writings;
and by mistaking the meaning of the Apostles,
imposed these silly traditions upon Irenaeus and
�ORIGIN OF THE GOSPELS
universal tradition of the Church, is
attributed to Mark, a friend and fellowtraveller of Peter, Barnabas, and Paul,
who is several time's mentioned in the
New Testament.1 Papias says expressly
that he was neither a hearer nor a
follower of Christ, but compiled his
Gospel from information obtained from
Peter, whose “interpreter”2 he is said
to have been. Papias gives “ the Pres
byter John,” supposed to have been an
elder of the Ephesian Church, as his
authority. Mark, then, it is certain, was
not an eye-witness. Nor have we any
reason, beyond the similarity of name,
to believe that the writer of the second
Gospel was the same Mark who is menthe greatest part of the ecclesiastical writers
who, reflecting on the age of man, and his near
approach to the Apostles, were drawn by him
into the same opinions.” In another passage,
indeed, Eusebius speaks of Papias in a much
more respectful manner, as remarkable for
eloquence and Scriptural knowledge; but this
passage is not found in the older copies, and is
supposed to be spurious. It is obvious, there
fore, that little reliance can be placed on any
traditions which are traced to Papias. Irenaeus,
our next earliest authority, derives weight from
his antiquity alone. His extreme childishness
goes far to discredit many of his statements, and
no reliance can be placed upon such of them as
are at variance with the conclusions of critical
science. His traditions of what John had
related to the elders regarding the millennium
are worse than anything in the Koran, yet he gives
them as “testified by Papias.” The following
passage will induce us to receive with great
caution any evidence he gives regarding the
origin and authenticity of the Gospels:—-“As
there are four quarters of the world in which we
live, and four chief winds, and the Church is
spread over all the earth, but the pillar and
support of the Church is the Gospel and its
breath of life, plainly the Church, must have
four columns, and from them must come forth
four blasts,” &c., &c.—Adv. Hceres. c. iii. It
would be melancholy to reflect that through
such sources our only surviving testimony on
these matters is derived, had these matters the
supreme importance usually ascribed to them.
1 Acts xii. 12, 25 ; xiii. 5-13 ; xv. 37. Col.
iv. 10. Phil. 24. 1 Peter v. 13.
3 What this could mean, as applied to a man
who “spoke with tongues,” it is for the Church
to explain. [“All that can be said to be certain
is this, that it is vain to look to the Church
fathers for trustworthy information on the origin
of the Gospels ”—Schmiedel, loc. cit.\
&7
tioned in the Acts as the companion of
Paul and Barnabas {not of Peter, by the
way), nor the same who is mentioned
in 1 Peter v. 13 as his son. Mark was
one of the commonest of Roman names;
and it is probable that the idea of the
identity of the three Marks was an
imagination of Papias merely.
Neither was the author of the third
Gospel an eye-witness.
His proem
merely claims to set forth faithfully that
which he had heard from eye-witnesses.
Irenaeus is the first person who distinctly
mentions Luke as the author of this
Gospel; but little doubt appears to exist
that he wrote both the Gospel and the
Acts of the Apostles, and was the com
panion of Paul in many of his voyages.1
The authorship of the fourth Gospel
has been the subject of much learned
and anxious controversy among theolo
gians. The earliest, and only very im
portant, external testimony we have is
that of Irenaeus (a.d. 178), who says,
that after Luke wrote, “ John, the disciple
of the Lord, who also leaned upon his
breast, likewise published a Gospel while
he dwelt at Ephesus in Asia.” The last
chapter of the Gospel contains an attesta
tion of its having been written by John
(verse 24); but as this attestation
obviously does not proceed from John
himself,2 and as we do not know from
whom it does proceed, its authority can
have little weight. It is generally be
lieved that the Gospel and the first
epistle proceed from the same pen, but
if the second and third epistles are
genuine,3 it is very questionable whether
this pen was that of John the Apostle ;
for though, in the first chapter of the
first epistle, the writer declares himself
1 [The author’s opinion must be set aside in
the light of recent research: “If Luke cannot
have been the author of Acts, neither can he
have been the author of the third Gospel.”
Schmiedel, loc. cit.\
2 De Wette doubts the genuineness of the
whole chapter, and internal evidence is certainly
against it.
3 Their genuineness, however, is doubted
both by Eusebius and Origen.—See De Wette,
i. §§ 23, 24.
�68
ORIGIN OF THE GOSPELS
to have been personally acquainted with
Jesus, yet in the second and third
epistles he calls himself “ the Elder.”
Now there was a John at Ephesus (from
whom Papias derived all his information,
and who, he says, -was also a disciple of
Jesus), to whom the title of “Elder”
(irpeo-^ilTcpos) was given, to distinguish
him from the Apostle John.
The balancing of the internal evidence
for and against the supposition that the
Apostle John was the author of the
Gospel, is a matter of extreme difficulty.
The reasons adduced in behalf of each
opinion are very strong. Hug enter
tains no doubt that the decision should
be in the affirmative ;—Bretschneider
almost proves the negative ;—De Wette
finds it impossible to decide;—while
Strauss, who in his earlier editions had
expressed himself satisfied that the
Gospel was not genuine, writes thus in
the preface to the third edition : “With
De Wette and Neander in my hand, I
have recommenced the examination of
the fourth Gospel, and this renewed
investigation has shaken the doubts. I
had conceived against its authenticity
and credibility ;—not that I am con
vinced that it is authentic, but neither
am I convinced that it is not.” In his
New Life of Jesus, however, written
thirty years after his first great book, he
finally and confidently decides against
its authenticity.
Renan, in the first
edition of his Vie de Jésus, accepted the
fourth Gospel as genuine, and largely
maimed the completeness and beauty
of his estimate of Christ by doing so.
In the thirteenth edition (1867) he
entirely discards his previous assump
tion, and decides after long investiga
tion that it was not the work of the
Apostle John. In the same year was
published Mr. J. J. Tayler’s Character
of the Fourth Gospel, . in which the
writer, after an exhaustive examination
of the whole question, indisputably, as
it seenis to us, establishes the same
negative conclusion.1
1 [Unquestionably the trend of present-day
criticism is on the negative side.]
One argument against the supposition
of John having been the author of the
fourth Gospel has impressed my mind
very forcibly. It is this : that several of
the most remarkable events recorded by
the other Evangelists, at which we are
told by them that only Peter, James, and
John were present, and of which, there
fore, John alone of all the evangelists
could have spoken with the distinctness
and authority of an eye-witness, are
entirely omitted—we may say, ignored—
by him. Such are the raising of Jairus’s
daughter, the Transfiguration, the agony
in Gethsemane. Now, on the assump
tion that John was the author of the
fourth Gospel,—either he had not seen
the works of the other Evangelists, in
which case he would certainly not have
omitted to record narratives of such
interest and beauty, especially that of
the Transfiguration; or he had seen
them, and omitted all notice of them
because he could not confirm the state
ments : for we cannot imagine that he
did not record them in consequence of
finding them already recorded, and see
ing nothing to alter in the relation ;—as
an eye-witness, he would certainly, had
they been true, have given them at least
a passing word of confirmation, and we
find that he does, on more than one
occasion, relate events of less moment
already recorded in the other Gospels, as
the feeding of the five thousand, the
anointing of Jesus’s feet, &c.. But all
the events said to have been witnessed by
John alone, are omitted by John alone !
This fact seems fatal either to the reality
of the events in question, or to the
genuineness of the fourth Gospel.—
Thus much, however, seems certain, and
admittedthat, if the Gospel in ques
tion were the genuine composition of
the Apostle John, it must have been
written when he was at least ninety
years of age—when his recollections of
events and conversations which had
passed sixty years before had become
faint and fluctuating—when . ill-digested
Grecian learning had overlaid the sim
plicity of his fisherman’s character, and
�ORIGIN OE THE GOSPELS
his Judaic education—and the scenes
and associations of Ionia had over
powered and obscured the recollections
of Palestine. It therefore becomes, as
we shall see hereafter, an inquiry of only
secondary moment. An almost identical
conclusion has been expressed many
years later by a critic incomparably
more competent than I can pretend to
be. Renan says:—“L’esprit de Jésus
n’est pas là ; et si le fils de Zébédée a
vraiment tracé ces pages, il avait certes
bien oublié en les écrivant le lac de
Génésareth et les charmants entretiens
qu’il avait entendus sur ses bords.”—Vie
de Jésus, Introd. xxxi.
Of the first three (or, as they are
commonly termed, the Synoptical)
Gospels, we knozv that two, and we
believe that all three, were not the pro
ductions of eye-witnesses.1 The question
then arises, in what manner, and from
what materials, were they composed ?
This subject has for a long period exer
cised the minds of the most acute and
learned divines of Germany, as Eichhorn,
Credner, Bretschneider, De Wette, Hug,
Schleiermacher, and Strauss ; and the
results of their investigations may be
thus briefly summed up.
The numerous and irreconcilable dis
crepancies observable in the three
Evangelists preclude the supposition of
their having all drawn their information
from one and the same source—while
the still more remarkable points of
similarity and agreement, often extend
ing to the most minute verbal peculiari
ties, entirely forbid the idea of their
having derived their materials from
independent, and therefore mutually
confirmatory, sources.
Three different hypotheses have been
formed by competent judges to account
for those marked characteristics of the
first three Evangelists. Eichhorn (and,
following him, Dr. Marsh) adopted the
idea of an original document, now lost,
written in the Hebrew or Syro-Chaldaic
1 [As we have seen, none of the Gospels are
the work of eye-witnesses.]
69
language (the Aramaic Gospel, as it is
called by some), from which all three
Evangelists copied their accounts, with
additions and omissions peculiar to
themselves. With many divines this
hypothesis is still the favourite one;—
but, in addition to the difficulty arising
from the fact that we can nowhere find
any allusion to the existence of such a
document, more minute criticism dis
covered so many peculiarities inexplic
able on this theory that its credit was
much shaken, and its principal sup
porter, Eichhorn, was driven, in order to
maintain it, to admit modifications which
have made it almost unintelligible. The
hypothesis appears to us to have been
since completely demolished by the
reasonings of Hug, Thirlwall, and
Schleiermacher.1 An ingenious modi
fication of this theory by Giesler, who
substitutes an oral for a written original,
is explained and controverted by Dr.
Thirlwall, in the admirable treatise we
have already quoted (p. cxvi).
The
proem to Luke’s Gospel, moreover,
tacitly, but effectually, negatives the
supposition that he was acquainted with
any such original and paramountly
authoritative document.
The second hypothesis is the prevalent
one—that one of the Evangelists wrote
first, and that the others copied him,
with alterations, additions, and omissions,
dictated by their own judgment or
by extraneous sources of information.
Matthew is generally considered to have
been the earliest writer ; but critics differ
in the relative order they assign to Mark
and Luke—some, as Mill, Hug, and
Wetstein, conceiving that Luke copied
both from Mark and Matthew; and
others, as De Wette and Griesbach,
1 “For my part (says this latter) I find it quite
enough to prevent me from conceiving the origin
of the Gospel according to Eichhorn’s theory, that
I am to figure to myself our good Evangelists
surrounded by five or six open rolls or books,
and that too in different languages, looking by
turns from one into another, and writing a com
pilation from them. I fancy myself in a German
study of the 19th century, rather than in the
primitive age of Christianity.”—Schleiermacher,
“ Crit. Essay on Luke,” Intr. p. 6.
�7°
ORIGIN OF THE GOSPELS
arguing that Mark was the latest in order
of time, and made use of both his pre
decessors. Mr. Kenrick, in a masterly
analysis fProsp. Rev. xxi.), has, however,
we think, succeeded in making it more
than probable that Mark’s Gospel was
both first in order of time and in fidelity
of narration.1
This theory has been much and
minutely examined, and to our minds
it appears unsatisfactory. It accounts
for the agreements, but not for the
discrepancies, of the Gospels; and
Dr. Thirlwall, in his translation of
Schleiermacher, has succeeded in show
ing that it is highly improbable, if not
wholly inadmissible.
The third hypothesis, which was first
propounded by Lessing, and has since
been revived and elaborated by Schleier
macher (one of the highest theological
authorities of Germany), seems to us to
have both critical evidence and a priori
likelihood in its favour. These writers
presume the existence of a number of
fragmentary narratives, some oral, some
written, of the actions and sayings of
Christ, such as would naturally be pre
served and transmitted by persons who
had witnessed those wonderful words and
deeds. Sometimes there would be two
or more narratives of the same event,
proceeding from different witnesses;
sometimes the same original narrative
in its transmission would receive inten
tional or accidental variations, and thus
come slightly modified into the hands of
different Evangelists. Sometimes detached
sayings would be preserved without the
context, and the Evangelists would locate
them where they thought them most
appropriate, or provide a context for
them, instances of which are numberless
in the Gospels.2 But all these materials
would be fragmentary.
Each witness
1 [The priority of Mark is now ‘generally
recognised. On this question and the inter
dependence of the gospel writers the best
authority is Abbott in his article Gospels, in the
Ency. Brit.]
2 “The verbal agreement is generally greater
in reports of the discourses of Christ than in
relations of events; and the speeches of other
would retain and transmit that portion of a
discourse which had impressed him most
forcibly, and two witnesses would retain
the same expressions with varying degrees
of accuracy.1 One witness heard one
discourse, or was present at one trans
action only, and recorded that one by
writing or verbally, as he best might.
Of these fragments some fell into the
hands of all the Evangelists—some only
into the hands of one, or of two:2 and in
some cases different narratives of the
same event, expression, or discourse
would fall into the hands of different
Evangelists, which would account for their
discrepancies—sometimes into the hands
of one Evangelist, in which case he would
select that one which his judgment (or
information from other sources) prompted,
or would compile an account from them
jointly. In any case, the evangelical
narratives would be compilations from a
series of fragments of varying accuracy
and completeness. The correctness of
this theory of the origin of the Gospels
seems to be not so much confirmed as
distinctly asserted by Luke : “ Forasmuch
as many have taken in hand to set forth
in order a declaration of those things
which are most surely believed among us,
even as they delivered them unto us which
from the beginning were eye-witnesses and
ministers of the wordP
“The first step (says Schleiermacher) 3
towards a Christian History was a natural
and reasonable desire on the part of those
who had believed on Jesus, without
having a knowledge of his person. These
persons are often given in the same terms,
though the circumstances which led to them are
differently described.”—Thirlwall, cxvi.
1 The habit of retaining and transmitting dis
courses orally was much more common then than
now, and the practice carried to great perfection.
The learning of the Jews was transmitted exclu
sively by oral tradition from one generation to
another, and we entertain little doubt that the
fragments both of narratives and discourses
which formed the materials of our Evangelists
were almost entirely oral.—(See Thirlwall, cxviii.
Norton, i. 287.)
2 Thus the materials of the first three Evange
lists were evidently collected chiefly in Galilee ;
those of the fourth came principally from Judsea.
3 “ Grit. Essay on Luke,” Introd. 12-14.
�FIDELITY OF THE GOSPEL HISTORY
individuals would undoubtedly be glad were more anxiously sought for, when the
to learn some particulars of his life, in great body of the original companions
order to place themselves as nearly as and friends of Christ was dispersed by
possible on an equality with their elder persecutions, and still more when that
and more fortunate brethren. In the first generation began to die away. It
public assemblies of the Christians this would, however, have been singular if,
desire was of course only incidentally and even before this, the inquirers who took
sparingly gratified, when a teacher hap those notes had possessed only detached
pened to refer to memorable sayings of passages; on the contrary, they, and
Christ which could only be _ related still more their immediate copiers, had
together with the occasion which had undoubtedly become collectors also, each
called them forth : more copious and according to his peculiar turn of mind :
detailed accounts they could only pro and thus one, perhaps, collected only
cure in familiar intercourse upon express accounts of miracles; another, only
inquiry. And in this way many par discourses; a third, perhaps, attached
ticulars were told and heard, most of exclusive importance to the last days of
them, probably, without being committed Christ, or even to the scenes of his
to writing; but, assuredly, much was very resurrection. Others, without any such
soon written down, partly by the narrators particular predilection, collected all that
themselves, as each of them happened to fell in their way from good authority.”
The work from which the above is a
be pressed by a multiplicity of questions
on a particular occurrence, respecting quotation is a masterly analysis of Luke’s
which he was peculiarly qualified to give gospel, with a view to test the correctness
information. Still more, however, must of the author’s hypothesis as to the origin
have been committed to writing by of the evangelical histories; and the
His
the inquirers, especially by such as did success is, we think, complete.
not remain constantly in the neighbour conclusion is as follows (p. 313) :—
“The main position is firmly estab
hood of the narrators, and were glad to
communicate the narrative again to many lished, that Luke is neither an indepen
others, who, perhaps, were never able to dent writer, nor has made a compilation
consult an eye-witness. In this way from works which extended over the
detached incidents and discourses were whole course of the life of Jesus. He
noted down. Notes of this kind were at is from beginning to end no moré than
first, no doubt, less frequently met with the compiler and arranger of documents,
among the Christians settled in Palestine, which he found in existence, and which
and passed immediately into more distant he allows to pass unaltered through his
parts, to which the pure oral tradition hands. His merit in this capacity is
flowed more scantily. They, however, twofold—that of arrangement and of
appeared everywhere more frequently, and judicious selection.”1
Chapter VI
FIDELITY OF THE GOSPEL HISTORY.—NATURE
AND LIMITS
Having in our last chapter arrived at
the conclusion that the Gospels are com
pilations from a variety of fragmentary
narratives, and reports of discourses and
conversations, oral or written, which
1 [The synoptical problem is a very compli
cated one, and none of the hypotheses, taken
apart, affords a satisfactory solution. They must
�72
FIDELITY OF THE GOSPEL HISTORY
were current in Palestine from thirty to
forty years after the death of Jesus—we
now come to the very interesting and
momentous inquiry, how far these narra
tives and discourses can be accepted as
accurate and faithful records of what was
actually said and done ?—whether they
can be regarded as thoroughly and
minutely correct ?—and, if not, in what
respects and to what extent do they
deviate from that thorough and minute
correctness ?
It is clear at first view that the same
absolute reliance cannot be placed upon
a narrative compounded from traditionary
fragments, as upon a consecutive history
related by an eye-witness. Conceding
to both faithful intention and good,
though imperfect, powers of memory,
there are obvious elements of inaccuracy
in the one case which do not appertain to
the other. To the corruptions, lapses,
and alterations inseparable from trans
mission, especially when oral, is added
the uncertainty arising from the number
of the original sources of the tradition,
whose character, capacity, and oppor
tunities of knowledge are unknown to
us. If Luke had recorded only what he
had seen, or Mark only what he had
heard from Peter, we should have com
paratively ample means of forming a
decision as to the amount of reliance to
be placed upon their narrations; but
when they record what they learned from
perhaps a dozen different narrators —
some original, others only second-hand,
and all wholly unknown—it becomes
obvious that causes of inaccuracy are
introduced, the extent of the actual
operation of which on the histories that
have come down to us, it is both ex
tremely important and singularly difficult
to estimate.
This inquiry we consider as of
paramount interest to every other
question of criticism; for on the con
clusion to which it leads us depends
the whole—not of Christianity, which,
be combined, the sources-hypothesis and the
borrowing-hypothesis, supported by an oral
tradition prior to them both.]
-
as we view it, is unassailable, but—of
textual or dogmatic Christianity, i.e., the
Christianity of nine-tenths of nominal
Christendom. We proceed, therefore,
to ask what evidence we possess for
assuming or impugning the minute
fidelity of the Gospel history.
There are certain portions of the
Synoptical Gospels the genuineness of
which has been much disputed, viz., the
first two chapters of Matthew—the first
two of Luke—and the last twelve verses
of the xvith chapter of Mark.1 Into this
discussion we cannot enter, but must
refer such of our readers as wish to
know the grounds of decision to Norton,
Hug, De Wette, Eichhorn, and Griesbach.
The result of critical inquiry seems to be,
that the only solid ground for supposing
the questioned portions of Luke and
Matthew not to be by the same hand as
the rest of their respective gospels, is the
obviously insufficient one of the extra
ordinary character of their contents ;2—
while the spuriousness of the last twelve
verses of Mark is established beyond
question •—the real Gospel of Mark (all
of it, at least, that has come down to us)
ends with the 8 th verse of the xvith
chapter. In our subsequent remarks we
shall therefore treat the whole of the
acknowledged text of these gospels as
genuine, with the exception of the con
clusion of Mark ;—and we now proceed
to inquire into the nature and limits of
the fidelity of Matthew’s record.
In the first place, while admitting to
the fullest extent the general clearness
and fulness with which the character of
Jesus is depicted in the first Gospel, it
is important to bear in mind that—as Hug
has clearly3 proved—it was written with a
1 See Norton, i. 16, 17.'
2 Strauss, i. 117, 142. Hug, 469-479. See
also Schleiermacher. Norton, however, gives
some reasons to the contrary, which deserve con
sideration, i. 209.
3 “All Matthew’s reflections are of one kind.
He shows us, as to everything that Jesus did
and taught, that it was characteristic of the
Messiah. On occasion of remarkable events,
or a recital of parts of the discourses of Jesus,
he refers us to the ancient scriptures of the Jews
�FIDELITY OF THE GOSPEL HISTORY
73
special, we might almost say a polemical,
object. It was composed, less to give a
continuance and complete history of
Jesus, than to prove that he was the
expected Messiah; and those passages
were therefore selected out of the author’s
materials which appeared most strongly
to bear upon and enforce this conclusion.
The remembrance of this object of
Matthew’s will aid us in forming our
judgment as to his fidelity.
According to the universal expectation,
the Messiah was to be born of the seed
of Abraham, and the lineage and tribe of
David. Accordingly, the Gospel opens
with an elaborate genealogy of Jesus,
tracing him through David to Abraham.
Now, in the first place, this genealogy is
not correct:—secondly, if the remainder
of the chapter is to be received as true,
it is in no sense the genealogy of Jesus ;
and, thirdly, it is wholly and irreconcil
ably at variance with that given by
Luke.
i. In verse 17, Matthew sums up the
genealogy thus :—“ So all thegenerations
from Abraham to David are fourteen
generations; and from David until the
carrying away into Babylon are fourteen
generations ; and from the carrying away
into Babylon until Christ are fourteen
generations.”—Now (passing over as un
necessarily minute and harsh the criticism
of Strauss, that by no way of counting
can we make out fourteen generations in
the last series, without disturbing the
count of the others), we must call atten
tion to the fact that the number fourteen
in the second series is only obtained by
the deliberate omission offour generations,
viz., three between Joram and Ozias, and
one between Josiah and Jeconiah—as
may be seen by referring to 1 Chron. iii.
There is also (at verse 4-6) another
apparent, and we think, certain, error.
Only four generations are reckoned
between Naasson, who lived in the time
of Moses, and David, a period of four
hundred years. (Compare Num. i. 7,
Ruth v. 20).
2. The genealogy here given, correct
or incorrect, is the genealogy of Joseph,
who was in no sense whatever the father
(or any relation at all) of Jesus, since
this last, we are assured (verses 18 to
25), was in his mother’s womb before she
and her husband came together. The
story of the Incarnation and the gene
alogy are obviously at variance ; and no
ingenuity, unscrupulously as it has been
applied, can produce even the shadow of
an agreement; and when the flat contra
diction given to each other by the 1st
and 18th verses are considered, it is
difficult for an unprejudiced mind not to
feel convinced that the author of the
genealogy (both in the first and third
Gospels) was ignorant of the story of the
Incarnation, though the carelessness and
uncritical temper of the evangelist—a
carelessness partially avoided in the
cases of Luke, by an interpolation1—
has united the two into one compilation.
3. The genealogy of Jesus given by
Luke is wholly different from that of
Matthew; and the most desperate efforts
of divines have been unable to effect
even the semblance of a reconciliation.
Not only does Matthew give 26 genera
tions between David and Joseph where
Luke has 41, but they trace the descent
through an entirely different line of
ancestry. According to Matthew, the
father of Joseph was named Jacob—
according to Luke, Heli. In Matthew,
the son of David through whom Joseph
descended is Solomon ;—in Luke it is
Nathan. Thence the genealogy of Mat
thew descends through the known royal
line—the genealogy of Luke through
an obscure collateral branch. The two
lines only join in Salathiel and Zoro-
in which this coming Saviour is delineated, and
shows in detail that the great ideal which flitted
before the minds of the Prophets was realised in
Jesus.” Hug, Introd. 312. These references
are twelve in Matthew, two in Mark, and three
in Luke. Again, he says (p. 384), “Matthew
is an historical deduction ; Mark is history. ”
1 Luke iii. 23, “Jesus . . . being, as was
supposed (¿s ero/xi^ero), the son of Joseph,”—a
parenthesis which renders nugatory the whole
of the following genealogy, and cannot have
originally formed a part of it.-—-The 16th verse
of Matthew also bears indications of a similar
emendation.
�74
FIDELITY OF THE GOSPEL HISTORY
babel; and even here they differ as to
the father of Salathiel and the son of
Zorobabel. Many ingenious hypotheses
have been broached to explain and har
monise these singular discrepancies, but
wholly in vain. One critic supposes that
one evangelist gives the pedigree of the
adoptive, the other of the real father of
Joseph. Another assumes that one is
the genealogy of Joseph, and the other
that of Mary-—a most convenient idea,
but entirely gratuitous, and positively
contradicted by the language of the text.
The circumstance that any man could
suppose that Matthew, when he' said
“Jacob begat Joseph,” or Luke, when
he said “Joseph was the son of Heli,”
could refer to the wife of the one, or the
daughter-in-law of the other, shows to
what desperate stratagems polemical
orthodoxy will resort in order to defend
an untenable position.
The discrepancy between Matthew
and Luke in their narratives of the
miraculous conception affords no ground
for suspecting the fidelity of the former.
Putting aside the extraordinary nature of
the whole transaction—a consideration
which does not at present concern us—
the relation in Matthew is simple, natu
ral, and probable ; the surprise of Joseph
at the pregnancy of his wife (or his
betrothed, as the words may mean) ;
his anxiety to avoid scandal and exposure;
his satisfaction through the means of a
dream (for among the Jews dreams were
habitually regarded as means of commu
nication from heaven); and his absti
nence from all conjugal connection with
Mary till after the birth of the miracu
lous infant,—present precisely the line
of conduct we should expect from a
simple, pious, and confiding Jew.
But when we remember the dogmatic
object which, as already mentioned, Mat
thew had in view, and in connection with
that remembrance read the 22ndand23rd
verses, the whole story at once becomes
apocryphal, and its origin at once clear.
“All these things were done,” says Mat
thew, “ that it might be fulfilled which was
spoken of the Lord by the Prophet, say
ing, Behold a virgin shall be with child,
and shall bring forth a son,” &c., &c.
Now this is one of the many instances
which we shall have to notice in which
this evangelist quotes prophecies as in
tended for Jesus, and as fulfilled in him,
which have not the slightest relation to
him or his career. The adduced pro
phecy 1 is simply an assurance sent to
the unbelieving Ahaz, that before the
child, which the wife of Isaiah would
shortly conceive (see Isa. viii. 2-4), was
old enough to speak, or to know good
from evil, the conspiracy of Syria and
Ephraim against the King of Judsea
should be dissolved ; and had manifestly
no more reference to Jesus than to Na
poleon. The conclusion, therefore, is
unavoidable, that the events said to
have occurred in fulfilment of a prophecy,
which Matthew wrongly supposed to have
reference to them, were by him imagined,
or modified into accordance with the
supposed prophecy; since it is certain
that they did not, as he affirms, take
place, “ in order that the prophecy might
be fulfilled.”
Pursuing this line of inquiry, we shall
find many instances in which this ten
dency of Matthew to find in Jesus the
fulfilment of prophecies, which he erro
neously conceived to refer to him, has
led him to narrate circumstances respect
ing which the other evangelists are silent,
as well as to give, with material (but AztentionaT) variations, relations which are
1 “Therefore the Lord spake unto Ahaz,
saying, . . . Behold a virgin shall conceive,
and bear a son, and shall call his name Im
manuel. ... Before the child shall know to
refuse the evil and choose the good, the land
that thou abhorrest shall be forsaken of both
her kings.”—Isa. vii. 10-16.
“And I went unto the prophetess, and she
conceived and bare a son. Then said the Lord
unto me . . . before the child shall have know
ledge to cry, My father and my mother, the
riches of Damascus and the spoil of Samaria
shall be taken away before the King of Assyria.”
—viii. 3, 4.
No divine of character will now, we believe,
maintain that this prophecy had any reference
to Jesus ; nor ever would have imagined it to
have, without Matthew’s intimation.—See
“ Hebrew Monarchy,” p. 262.
�FIDELITY OF THE GOSPEL HISTORY
common t o them all—a peculiarity which
throws great suspicion over several pas
sages. Thus in ii. 13-15, we are told
that immediately after the visit of the
Magi, Joseph took Mary and the child,
and fled into Egypt, remaining there till
the death of Herod, “that it might be
fulfilled which was spoken of- the Lord
by the prophet, saying, Out of Egypt
have I called my son.” The passage in
question occurs in Hosea, xi. 1, and has
not the slightest reference to Christ. It
is as follows :—“ When Israel was a child,
then I loved him, and called my son out
of Egypt.” Here is an event related,
very improbable in itself, flatly contra
dicted by Luke’s history1 and which
occurred, we are told, that a prophecy
might be fulfilled to which it had no re
ference, of which it was no fulfilment,
and which, in fact, was no prophecy at
all.
A similar instance occurs immediately
afterwards in the same chapter. We are
told that Herod, when he found “ that
he was mocked of the wise men, was ex
ceeding wroth, and sent forth and slew
all the children that were in Bethlehem,
and in all the coasts thereof, from two
years old and under
an act which,
whether suitable or not to the known
character of Herod (who was cruel and
tyrannical, but at the same time crafty
and politic, not silly nor insane 2)—must,
if it had occurred, have created a prodi
gious sensation, and made one of the
most prominent points in Herod’s his
tory3—yet of which none of the other
1 Luke’s account entirely precludes the sojourn
in Egypt. He says that eight days after the
birth of Jesus he was circumcised, forty days
after was presented in the temple, and that when
these legal ceremonies were accomplished, he
went with his parents to Nazareth.
2 Neander argues very ably that such a deed
is precisely what we should expect from Herod’s
character. But Sir ,W. Jones gives reason for
believing that the whole story may be of Hindoo
origin.-—“ Christian Theism,” p. 84, where the
passage is quoted.
3 Mr. Milman (“Hist. Jews,” b. xii.), how
ever, thinks differently, and argues that, among
Herod’s manifold barbarities, “ the murder of
a few children in an obscure village ” would
easily escape notice. The story is at least
75
evangelists, nor any historian of the day,
nor Josephus (though he devoted a con
siderable portion of his history to the
reign of Herod, and does not spare his
reputation), makes any mention.
But
this also, according to Matthew’s notion,
was the fulfilment of a prophecy. “ Then
was fulfilled that which was spoken by
Jeremy the prophet, saying, In Rama
there was a voice heard, lamentation, and
weeping, and great mourning, Rachel
weeping for her children, and would not
be comforted, because they are not.”—
Here, again, the adduced prophecy was
quite irrelevant, being simply a descrip
tion of the grief of Judea for the capti
vity of her children, accompanied by a
promise of their return.1
A still more unfortunate instance is
found at the 23rd verse, where we are
told that Joseph abandoned his intention
of returning into Judea, and turned aside
into Galilee, and came and dwelt at
Nazareth, “that it might be fulfilled
which was spoken by the prophets, He
shall be called a Nazarene.” Now, in
the first place, the name Nazarene was
not in use till long afterwards ;—secondly,
there is no such prophecy in the Old
Testament.
The evangelist, perhaps,
had in his mind the words that were
spoken to the mother of Samson (Judg.
xiii. 5) respecting her son : “ The child
shall be a Nazarite (z'.e. one bound by a
vow, whose hair was forbidden to be cut,
which never was the case with Jesus 2) to
God from the womb.”
In this place we must notice the
marked discrepancy between Matthew
and Luke, as to the original residence of
highly improbable, • for had Herod wished to
secure the death of Jesus, so cunning a prince
would have sent his messengers along with the
Magi, not awaited their doubtful return.
1 The passage is as follows :—“A voice was
heard in Ramah, lamentation, and bitter weep
ing ; Rachel weeping for her children, refused
to be comforted for her children, because they
were not. Thus saith the Lord, Refrain thy
voice from weeping, and thine eyes from tears ;
for thy work shall be rewarded, saith the Lord ;
and they shall come again from the land of the
enemy.”—Jer. xxxi. 15, 16.
2 See Num. vi. 2-76.
�76
FIDELITY OF THE GOSPEL HISTORY
the parents of Jesus. Luke speaks of
them as living at Nazareth before the
birth of Jesus : Matthew as having left
Bethlehem, the birth-place of their child,
to go to Nazareth, only after that event,
and from peculiar considerations. Critics,
however, are disposed to think Matthew
right on this occasion.
There are, however, several passages in
different parts of the Evangelists which
suggest serious doubts as to whether
Jesus were really born at Bethlehem, and
were really a lineal descendant of David,
and whether both these statements were
not unfounded inventions of his followers
to prove his title to the Messiahship. In
the first place, the Jews are frequently
represented as urging that Jesus could
not be the Messiah, because he was not
born at Bethlehem; and neither Jesus
nor his followers ever set them right
upon this point. If he were really born
at Bethlehem, the circumstance was
generally unknown, and though its being
unknown presented an obvious and valid
objection to the admission of his claim
to the Messianic character, no effort was
made either by Christ or his disciples to
remove this objection, which might have
been done by a single word. (John vii.
4I_43> 52 1 i- 46.) “ Others said, This is
the Christ. But some said, Shall Christ
come out of Galilee? Hath not the
Scripture said that Christ cometh of the
seed of David, and out of the town of
Bethlehem, where David was ? So there
was a division among the people because
of him.”—Again, the Pharisees object to
Nicodemus, when arguing on Jesus’
behalf—“ Search and look, for out of
Galilee ariseth no prophet.”
The three Synoptical evangelists (Matt,
xxii. 41; Mark xii. 35 ; Luke xx. 41) all
record an argument of Christ addressed
to the Pharisees, the purport of which is
to show that the Messiah need not be,
and could not be, the Son of David.
“ While the Pharisees were gathered
together, Jesus asked them, saying,
What think ye of Christ? whose son
is he ? They say unto him, The son
of David. He saith unto them, How
then doth David in spirit call him Lord,
saying, the Lord saith unto my Lord,
Sit thou on my right hand, till I make
thine enemies thy footstool ! If David
then call him Lord, how is he his son ? ”
Now,—passing by the consideration that,
as Mr. Arnold informs us, “ the transla
tion ought to run, ‘The Eternal said
unto my lord the king,’ and was a
simple promise of victory to a prince
of God’s chosen people,”—is it conceiv
able that Jesus should have brought for
ward the passage as an argument if he
were really a descendant of David?
Must not his intention have been to
argue that, though not a son of David,
he might still be the Christ ?
In xxi. 2-4, 6, 7, the entry into Jeru
salem is thus described : “ Then sent
Jesus two disciples, saying unto them,
Go into the village over against you, and
straightway ye shall find an ass tied, and
a colt with her: loose them and bring
them to me. . . . And the disciples went
and did as Jesus commanded them, and
brought the ass and the colt, and put on
them their clothes, and set him thereon ”
(literally “ upon themf ¿7ravw avrwv). Now,
though two animals may well have been
■brought, the foal naturally accompanying
its mother, yet the description (in ver. 16),
representing Jesus as sitting upon both
animals, is absurd; and, again, Mark,
Luke, and John, who all mention the
same occurrence, agree in speaking of
one animal only. But the liberty which
Matthew has taken with both fact and
probability is at once explained, when
we read in the 4th verse : “ All this was
done, that it might be fulfilled which
was spoken by the prophet, saying, Tell
ye the daughter of Zion, Behold thy
King cometh unto thee, meek, and sitting
upon an ass, and a colt the foal of an
ass.”1
As a final example, we may instance
1 The quotation is from Zechariah ix. 9 ; the
passage has reference to the writer’s own time,
and the second animal is obviously a mere
common poetical reduplication, such as is met
with in every page of Hebrew poetry. But
Matthew thought a literal similitude essential.
“ And ” ought to have been translated “ even.”
�FIDELITY OF THE GOSPEL HISTORY
the treachery of Judas. The other evan
gelists simply narrate that Judas cove
nanted with the chief priests to betray
Jesus. Matthew, however, relates the
conversation between the traitor and his
fellow-conspirators as minutely as if he
had been present, specifies the exact
sum of money that was given, and the
use to which it was put by the priests
(the purchase of the Potter’s field), when
returned to them by the repentant Judas.1
Here, as usual, the discrepancy between
Matthew and his fellow-evangelists is
explained by a prophecy which Matthew
conceived to apply to the case before
him, and thought necessary therefore
should be literally fulfilled; but which,
on examination, appears to have had no
allusion to any times but those in which
it was uttered, and which, moreover, is
not found in the prophet whom Matthew
quotes from, but in another.2 The pas
sage as quoted by Matthew is as fol
lows :—“ And they took the thirty pieces
of silver; the price of him that was
valued, whom they of the children of
Israel did value, and gave them for the
Potter’s field, as the Lord appointed
me. ” The original passage in Zechariah
is given in a note.
To pass from this ground of want of
confidence in Matthew’s fidelity, we may
specify two others -.—first, we find several
discrepancies between him and the other
evangelists, in which there is reason to
1 Luke, however, in the Acts (i. 18), states
that Judas himself purchased the field with the
money he had received, and died accidentally
therein. Matthew says he returned the money,
and went and hanged himself.
2 Matthew quotes Jeremiah, but the passage
is contained in Zechariah xi. 12, 13. Some
people, however, imagine that the latter chapters
of Zechariah do really belong to Jeremiah.
Others conceive the passage to be contained in
some lost book of Jeremiah. “ And I said unto
them, If ye think good, give me my price ; and
if not, forbear. So they weighed for my price
thirty pieces of silver. And the Lord said unto
me, Cast it unto the potter : a goodly price
that I was prized at of them. And I took the
thirty pieces of silver, and cast them to the
potter in the house of the Lord.” The word
“potter” is a translation made to accommodate
Matthew.
The LXX. has “treasury” or
“ foundry,” as it were our “mint.”
77
believe that he was wrong ; and, secondly,
we find words and parts of discourses
put by him into Jesus’ mouth, which
there is ample reason to believe that
Jesus never uttered.
I. The second chapter opens with an
account (peculiar to Matthew) of the
visit of the wise men of the East to
Bethlehem, whither they were guided by
a star which went before them, and stood
over the house in which the infant Jesus
lay. The general legendary character
of the narrative—its similarity in style
with those contained in the apocryphal
gospels—and more especially its con
formity with those astrological notions
which, though prevalent in the time of
Matthew, have been exploded by the
sounder scientific knowledge of our days
—all unite to stamp upon the story the
impress of poetic or mythic fiction ; and
its admission into his history is not cre
ditable to Matthew’s judgment, though
it may not impugn his fidelity; as it
may have been among his materials, and
he had no critical acumen which should
lead him to reject it.
In Matt. viii. 28-34, we have an
account of the healing of two de
moniacs, whose diseases (or whose
devils, according to the evangelist) were
communicated to an adjacent herd of
swine. Now, putting aside the great
improbability of two madmen, as fierce
as these are described to be, living
together, Mark and Luke.1 who both
relate the same occurrence, state that
there was one demoniac, obviously a
much preferable version of the narrative.
In the same manner, in chap. xx. 3034, Matthew relates the cure of two
blind men near Jericho.
Mark and
Luke 2 narrate the same occurrence, but
speak of only one blind man. This story
affords also an example of the evangelist’s
carelessness as a compiler, for (in chap,
ix. 27) he has already given the same
1 Mark v. 1 ; Luke viii. 26. There are other
discrepancies between the three narratives, both
in this and the following case, but they are
beside our present purpose.
2 Mark x. 46 ; Luke xviii. 35.
�78
FIDELITY OF THE GOSPEL HISTORY
narrative, but has assigned to it a dif
ferent locality.
A still more remarkable instance of
Matthew’s tendency to amplification, or
rather to multiplication and repetition, is
found in xiv. 16, et seq., and xv. 32, et
seq.,1 where the two miraculous feedings
of the multitude are described. The
feeding of the five thousand is related by
all four evangelists; but the repetition
of the miracle, with a slight variation in
the number of the multitude and of the
loaves and fragments, is peculiar to
Matthew and to Mark.2 Now, that both
these narratives are merely varying ac
counts of the same event (the variation
arising from the mode in which the ma
terials of the gospel history were col
lected, as explained in our preceding
chapter), and that only one feeding was
originally recorded, is now admitted by
all competent critics,3 and appears clearly
from several considerations.—First, Luke
and John relate only one feeding; in the
next place, the two narratives in Matthew
are given with the same accompaniments,
in a similar, probably in the very same,
locality; thirdly, the particulars of the
occurrence and the remarks of the
parties are almost identically the same
on each occasion; and, finally (what
is perfectly conclusive), in the second
narration, the language and conduct both
of Jesus and his disciples show a per
fect unconsciousness of any previous
occurrence of the same nature. Is it
credible, that if the disciples had, a few
days before, witnessed the miraculous
feeding of the “five thousand” with
“ five loaves and two fishes,” they should
on the second occasion, when they had
“seven loaves and a few small fishes,”
have replied to the suggestion of Jesus
1 The parallel passages are Mark vi. 35;
Luke ix. 12 ; John vi. 5.
2 See Mark viii. 1, et seq. The language of
the two evangelists is here so precisely similar,
as to leave no doubt that one copied the other,
or both a common document. The word baskets
is it6<l>ivoi in the first case, and airvlSpes in the
second, in both evangelists.
3 See also Schleiermacher, p. 144, who does
not hesitate to express his full disbelief in the
second feeding.
that the fasting multitude should again
be fed, “ whence should we have so
much bread in the wilderness as to fill
so great a multitude ? ” It is certain
that the idea of two feedings having
really taken place, could only have found
acceptance in minds preoccupied with
the doctrine of the plenary inspiration
and infallibility of Scripture.
It is
now entirely abandoned by all divines
except the English, and by the few
thinkers even among them.
A con
firmatory argument, were any needed,
might be drawn from observing that the
narrative of the fourth evangelist agrees
in some points with Matthew’s first, and
in some with his second account.
The story contained in xvii. 17, et seq.,
of Jesus commanding Peter to catch a
fish in whose mouth he should find the
tribute money, has a most pagan and
unworthy character about it, harmonises
admirably with the puerile narratives
which abound in the apocryphal gospels,
and is ignored by all the other evan
gelists.
In xxvii. 24, we find this narrative:
“ When Pilate saw that he could prevail
nothing, but rather that a tumult was
made, he took water and washed his
hands before the multitude, saying, I
am innocent of the blood of this just
person; see ye to it.” Now, in the first
place, this symbolic action was a Jewish,
not a Roman, ceremony,3 and as such
most unsuitable and improbable in a
Roman governor, one of a nation noted
for their contempt of the habits and
opinions of their subject nations. In
the second place, it is inconceivable
that Pilate should so emphatically have
pronounced his own condemnation, by
declaring Jesus to be a “just man” at
the very moment when he was about to
scourge him, and deliver him over to
the most cruel tortures.
1 It appears from Deut. xxi. 1-9, that the
washing of the hands was a specially-appointed
Mosaic rite, by which the authorities of any city
in which murder had been committed were to
avow their innocence of the crime and ignorance
of the criminal.
�FIDELITY OF THE GOSPEL HISTORY
In Matthew’s account of the last
moments of Jesus, we have the following
remarkable statements (xxvii. 50-53):—
“Jesus, when he had cried again with a
loud voice, yielded up the ghost. And,
behold, the veil of the temple was rent
in twain from the top to the bottom;
and the earth did quake, and the rocks
rent; and the graves were opened, and
many bodies of the saints which slept
arose, and came out of the graves after
his resurrection, and went into the holy
city, and appeared unto many.” _ Now,
first, this extraordinary fact, if it be a
fact (and it is said to have been a public
one—“they appeared unto many”), is
ignored by the other evangelists; nor
do we find any reference to it in the
Acts or the Epistles, nor any reason to
believe that any of the apostles were
aware of the occurrence—one, certainly,
to excite the deepest interest and wonder.
Secondly, the statement is a confused, if
not a self-contradictory, one. The asser
tion in ver. 52, clearly is, that the open
ing of the graves, and the rising of the
bodies of saints, formed a portion of
that series of convulsions of nature
which is said to have occurred at the
moment when Jesus expired; whereas
the following verse speaks of it as occur
ring “after his resurrection.” To sup
pose, as believers in verbal accuracy do,
and must do, that the bodies were re
animated on the Friday, and not allowed
to come out of their graves till the
Sunday, is clearly too monstrous to be
seriously entertained. If, to avoid this
difficulty, we adopt Griesbach’s reading,
and translate the passage thus : “ And
coming out of their graves, went into
the holy city after the resurrection ”—
the question still recurs, “ Where did
they remain between Friday and Sunday?
And did they, after three days’ emanci
pation, resume their sepulchral habili
ments, and return to their narrow
prison-house, and their former state of
dust?” Again, when we refer to the
original, we find that it was the bodies
(o-^ara) which “arose”; but, if we
suppose that the evangelist wrote gram
79
matically, it could not have been the
bodies which “came out of the graves,”
or he would have written eifXOovra, not
e&Xflovres. Whence Bush 1 assumes that
the bodies arose (or were raised, ■yfipfbfi
at the time of the crucifixion, but lay
down again,2 and that it was the souls
which came out of the graves after the
resurrection of Christ and appeared unto
many ! We cannot, however, admit that
souls inhabit graves.
There can, we think, remain little
doubt in unprepossessed minds that the
whole legend (it is greatly augmented in
the apocryphal gospels3) was one of
those intended to magnify and honour
Christ,4 which were current in great
numbers at the time when Matthew
wrote, and which he, with the usual want
of discrimination and somewhat omni
vorous tendency which distinguished
him as a compiler, admitted into his
gospel;—and that the confusing phrase,
“ after his resurrection,” was added either
by him or by some previous transmitter,
or later copier, to prevent the apparent
want of deference and decorum involved
in a resurrection which should have
preceded that of Jesus.
In chap, xxvii. 62-66, and xxviii.
1 See a very elaborate work of Professor Bush,
entitled “Anastasis, or the Resurrection of the
Body” (p. 210), the object of which is to prove
that the resurrection of the body is neither a
rational nor a scriptural doctrine.
2 The Professor’s notion appears to be that
the rising of the bodies on the Friday was a mere
mechanical effect of the earthquake, and that
re-animation did not take place till the Sunday,
and that even then it was not the bodies which
arose.
3 The Gospel of the Hebrews says that a
portion of the temple was thrown down. See
also the Gospel of Nicodemus.
4 Similar prodigies were said, or supposed to
accompany, the deaths of many great men in
former days, as in the case of Caesar (Virgil,
Gorg. i. 463, etseq.). Shakespeare has embalmed
some traditions of the kind, exactly analogous
to the present case. See Julius Caesar, Act ii.
Sc. 2. Again he says : Hamlet, Act i. Sc. 1.
“ In the most high and palmy state of Rome,
A little ere the mightiest Julius fell,
The graves stood tenantless, and the sheeted
dead
Did squeak and gibber in the Roman streets.”
�8o
FIDELITY OF THE GOSPEL HISTORY—MATTHEW
11-15, we find a record of two conver
sations most minutely given—one be
tween the chief priests and Pilate, and
the other between the priests and the
guards of the sepulchre—at which it is
impossible the evangelist, and most im
probable that any informant of his,
could have been present;—and which,
to our minds, bear evident marks of
being subsequent fictions supposed in
order to complete and render more in
vulnerable the history of Jesus’ resurrec
tion. It is extremely unlikely that the
chief priests and Pharisees should have
thought of taking precautions before
hand against a fraudulent resurrection.
We have no reason to believe that they
had ever heard of the prophecy to which
they allude,1 for it had been uttered
only to his own disciples, the twelve,
and to them generally with more or less
secrecy ;2 and we know that by them it
was so entirely disregarded,3 or had
been so completely forgotten, that the
resurrection of their Lord was not only
not expected, but took them completely
by surprise. Were the enemies of Christ
more attentive to, and believing on, his
predictions than his own followers ?
1 It is true that John (ii. 19) relates that Jesus
said publicly in answer to the Jews’ demand
for a sign, “ Destroy this temple, and in three
days I will build it up again.” This John con
siders to have reference to his resurrection, but
we know that the Jews attach no such meaning to
it, from ver. 20, and also from Matt. xxvi. 61.
2 Matt. xvi. 21, xx. 19 ; Mark viii. 31, x. 32 ;
Luke ix. 22, xviii. 33.
3 This is distinctly stated, John xx. 9 : “For
as yet they knew not the Scripture, that he must
rise again from the dead,” and indeed it is clear
from all the evangelical narratives.
The improbability of the sequel of the
story is equally striking. That the guard
placed by the Sanhedrim at the tomb
should, all trembling with affright from
the apparition (xxviii. 4), have been at
once, and so easily, persuaded to deny
the vision, and propagate a lie;—that
the Sanhedrim, instead of angrily and
contemptuously scouting the story of the
soldiers, charging them with having slept,
and threatening them with punishment,
should have believed their statement,
and, at the same time, in full conclave,
resolved to bribe them to silence and
falsehood;—that Roman soldiers, as it
is generally assumed they were, who
could scarcely commit a more heinous
offence against discipline than to sleep
upon their post, should so willingly have
accepted money to accuse themselves of
such a breach of duty;—are all too
improbable suppositions to be readily
allowed; especially when the 13th verse
indicates a subsequent Jewish rumour as
the foundation of the story, and when
the utter silence of all the other evan
gelists and apostles respecting a narrative
which, if true, would be so essential a
feature in their preaching of the resur
rection, is duly borne in mind.
Many minor instances in which Mat
thew has retrenched or added to the
accounts of Mark, according as retrench
ment or omission would, in his view,
most exalt the character of Jesus, are
specified in the article already re
ferred to (Prosp. Rev. xxi.), which we
recommend to the perusal of all our
readers as a perfect pattern of critical
reasoning.
Chapter VII
FIDELITY OF THE GOSPEL HISTORY CON
TINUED—MATTHEW
In pursuing our inquiry as to the degree
of reliance to be placed on Matthew’s
narrative, we now come to the considera
tion of those passages in which there is
reason to believe that the conversations
and discourses of Christ have been in
�FIDELITY OF THE GOSPEL HISTORY—MATTHEW
81
correctly reported : and that words have
been attributed to him which he did not
utter, or at least did not utter in the form
and context in which they have been
transmitted to us. That this should be
so, is no more than we ought to expect
a priori ; for, of all things, discourses
and remarks are the most likely to be
imperfectly heard, inaccurately reported,
and materially altered and corrupted in
the course of transmission from mouth
to mouth. Indeed, as we do not know,
and have no reason to believe, that the
discourses of Christ were written down
by those who heard them immediately
after their delivery, or indeed much be
fore they reached the hands of the evan
gelists, nothing less than a miracle per
petually renewed for many years could
have preserved these traditions perfectly
pore and genuine. In admitting the be
lief, therefore, that they are in several
points imperfect and inaccurate, we are
throwing no discredit upon the sincerity
or capacity, either of the evangelists or
their informants, or the original reporters
of the sayings of Christ;—we are simply
acquiescing in the alleged operation of
natural causes.1 In some cases, it is
true, we shall find reason to believe
that the published discourses of Christ
have been intentionally altered and arti
ficially elaborated by some of the parties
through whose hands they passed;
but in those days when the very idea of
historical criticism was yet unborn, this
might have been done without any un
fairness of purpose. We know that at
that period, historians of far loftier pre
tensions and more scientific character,
writing in countries of far greater literary
advancement, seldom scrupled to fill up
and round off the harangues of their
orators and statesmen with whatever they
thought appropriate for them to have
said—nay, even to elaborate for them
long orations out of the most meagre
hearsay fragments.1
A general view of Matthew, and still
more a comparison of his narrative with
that of the other three gospels, brings
into clear light his entire indifference to
chronological or contextual arrangement
in his record of the discourses of Christ.
Thus in ch. v., vi., vii., we have crowded
into one sermon the teachings and aphor
isms which in the other evangelists are
spread over the whole of Christ’s minis
try. In ch. xiii. we find collected to
gether no less than six parables of simili
tudes for the kingdom of heaven. In ch.
x. Matthew compresses into one occa
sion (the sending of the twelve, where
many of them are strikingly out of place)
a variety of instructions and reflections
which must have belonged to a subse
quent part of the career of Jesus, where
indeed they are placed by the other
evangelists. In c. xxiv., in the same
manner, all the prophecies relating to the
destruction of Jerusalem and the end of
the world are grouped together; while,
in many instances, remarks of Jesus are
introduced in the midst of others with
which they have no connection, and
where they are obviously out of place ;
as xi. 28-30, and xiii. 12, which evidently
belongs to xxv. 29.
1 This seems to be admitted even by orthodox
writers. Thus Abp. Trench says :—“The most
earnest oral tradition will in a little while lose
its distinctness, undergo essential though in
sensible modifications. Apart from all desire to
vitiate the committed word, yet, little by little,
the subjective condition of those to whom it is
entrusted, through whom it passes, will infallibly
make itself felt; and in such treacherous keeping
is all which remains merely in the memories of
men, after a very little while, rival schools of
disciples will begin to contend not merely how
their Master’s words were to be accepted, but
what those very words were.” — Trench’s
“ JIulsean Lectures,” p. 15.
1 This in fact was the custom of antiquity—
the rule, not the exception :—See Thucydides,
Livy, Sallust, &c. passim. We find also (see
Acts v. 34-39), that Luke himself did not scruple
to adopt this common practice, for he gives us
a verbatim speech of Gamaliel delivered in the
Sanhedrim, after the apostles had been expressly
excluded, and which therefore he could have
known only by hearsay report. Moreover, it is
certain that this speech must have been Luke’s,
and not Gamaliel’s, since it represents Gamaliel
in the year A.D. 34 or 35, as speaking in the
past tense of an agitator, Theudas, who did not
appear, as we learn from Josephus, till after the
year a.d. 44.
�82
FIDELITY OF THE GOSPEL HISTORY—MATTHEW
In c. xi. 12 is the following expression :
“ And from the days of John the Baptist
until now, the kingdom of Heaven suffereth violence, and the violent take it
by storm.” Now, though the meaning
of the passage is difficult to ascertain
with precision, yet the expression, “ from
the days of John the Baptist until now,”
clearly implies that the speaker lived at
a considerable distance of time from
John ; and though appropriate enough in
a man who wrote in the year a.d. 65, or
30 years after John, could not have been
used by one who spoke in the year a.d.
30 or 33, while John was yet alive. This
passage, therefore, must be regarded as
coming from Matthew, not from Jesus.
The passage at c. xvi. 15-19 bears
obvious marks of being either an addi
tion to the words of Christ, or a corrup
tion of them. “ He saith unto them,
But whom say ye that I am? And
Simon Peter answered and said, Thou
art the Christ, the Son of the living God.
And Jesus answered and said unto him,
Blessed art thou, Simon Bar-jona: for
flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto
thee, but my Father which is in Heaven.
And I say also unto thee, That thou art
Peter, and upon this rock I will build
my church; and the gates of hell shall
not prevail against it. And I will give
unto thee the keys of the kingdom of
heaven; and whatsoever thou shalt
bind on earth shall be bound in heaven;
and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth
shall be loosed in heaven.”
The confession by Simon Peter of his
belief in the Messiahship of Jesus is
given by all the four evangelists, and
there is no reason to question the
accuracy of this part of the narrative.
Mark and John, as well as Matthew,
relate that Jesus bestowed on Simon the
surname of Peter, and this part, there
fore, may also be admitted. The re
mainder of the narrative corresponds
almost exactly with the equivalent pas
sages in the other evangelists; but the
18th verse has no parallel in any of
them. Moreover, the word “church”
betrays its later origin. The word ¿KKhycria
was used by the disciples to signify those
assemblies and organisations into which
they formed themselves after the death
of Jesus, and is met with frequently in
the epistles, but nowhere in the gospels,,
except in the passage under considera
tion, and one other, which is equally,
or even more, contestable.1 It was in
use when the gospel was written, but
not when the discourse of Jesus was
delivered. It must be taken as belong
ing, therefore, to Matthew, not to Jesus.
The following verse, conferring spiritual
authority, or, as it is commonly called,
“ the power of the keys,” upon Peter, is
repeated by Matthew in connection with
another discourse (in c. xviii. 18); and
a similar passage is found in John (c. xx.
23), who, however, places the promise
after the resurrection, and represents
it as made to the apostles generally,
subsequent to the descent of the Holy
Spirit.
But there are considerations
which effectually forbid our receiving
this promise, at least as given by Mat
thew, as having really emanated from
Christ. In the frst place, in both pas
sages it occurs in connection with the
suspicious word “church,”and indicates
an ecclesiastical as opposed to a Chris
tian origin. Secondly, Mark, who nar
rates the previous conversation, omits
this promise so honourable and distin
guishing to Peter, which it is impossible
for those who consider him as Peter’s
mouthpiece, or amanuensis, to believe
he would have done, had any such
promise been actually made.2 Luke,
the companion and intimate of Paul and
other apostles, equally omits all mention
of this singular conversation. Thirdly,
not only do we know Peter’s utter unfit
ness to be the depositary of such a
fearful power, from his impetuosity and
instability of character, and Christ’s
1 C. xviii. 17. “If he shall neglect to hear
them, tell it unto the church ; but if he neglect
to hear the church, let him be unto thee as a
heathen man and a publican.” The whole pas
sage with its context, betokens an ecclesiastical,
not a Christian spirit.
2 See Thirl wall, cvii., “ Introd, to Schleiermacher.”
�FIDELITY OF THE GOSPEL HISTORY—MATTHEW
83
There are two other classes of dis
thorough perception of this unfitness,
but we find that immediately after it is courses attributed to Jesus both in this
said to have been conferred upon him, and in the other gospels, over the char
his Lord addresses him indignantly by acter of which much obscurity hangs—
the epithet of Satan, and rebukes him those in which he is said to have fore
for his presumption and unspirituality ; told his own death and resurrection;
and shortly afterwards this very man and those in which he is represented as
thrice denied his Master. Can anyone speaking of his second advent. The
maintain it to be conceivable that Jesus instances of the first are in Matthew
should have conferred the awful power five in number, in Mark four, in Luke
of deciding the salvation or damnation four, and in John three!
Now we will at once concede that it is
of his fellow-men upon one so frail, so
faulty, and so fallible ? Does anyone extremely probable that Christ might
believe that he did I We cannot, there easily have foreseen that a career and
fore, regard the 19th verse otherwise conduct like his could, in such a time
than as an unwarranted addition to the and country,-terminate only in a violent
words of Jesus, and painfully indica and cruel death ; and that indications of
tive of the growing pretensions of the such an impending fate thickened fast
Church at the time the gospel was com around him as his ministry drew nearer
to a close. It is even possible, though
piled.
In c. xxviii. 19 is another passage in the highest degree unlikely,2 that his
which we may say with almost certainty study of the prophets might have led
never came from the mouth of Christ: him to the conclusion that the expected
“ Go ye therefore and teach all nations, Messiah, whose functions he believed
baptising them in the name of the Father, himself sent to fulfil, was to be a suffer
and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost.” ing and dying Prince. We will not even
That this definite form of baptism pro dispute that he might have been so
ceeded from Jesus, is opposed by the amply endowed with the spirit of pro
fact that such an allocation of the Father, phecy as distinctly to foresee his ap
Son, and Spirit does not elsewhere ap proaching crucifixion and resurrection.
pear, except as a form of salutation in But we find in the Evangelists them
the epistles ; while as a definite form of selves insuperable difficulties in the way
baptism it is nowhere met with through of admitting the belief that he actually
out the New Testament. Moreover, it did predict these events, in the language,
was not the form used, and could scarcely or with anything of the precision, which
therefore have been the form commanded ; is there ascribed to him.
for in the apostolic epistles, and even in
In the fourth gospel, these predictions
the Acts, the form always is “ baptising are three in number,3 and in all the
into Christ Jesus,” or, “into the name
1 Matt. xii. 40; xvi. 21 ; xvii. 9, 22, 23 ; xx.
of the Lord Jesus ” j1 while the threefold 17-19 ; xxvi. 3. Mark viii. 31 ; ix. 10, 31 ; x.
reference to God, Jesus, and the Holy 33 ; xiv. 28. Luke ix. 22, 44; xviii. 32, 33 ;
xxii. 15. John ii. 20-22; iii. 14; xii. 32, 33:
Ghost is only found in ecclesiastical all very questionable.
writers, as Justin. Indeed, the formula
2 It was in the highest degree unlikely,
in Matthew sounds so exactly as if it-had because this was neither the interpretation put
been borrowed from the ecclesiastical upon the prophecies among the Jews of that
ritual, that it is difficult to avoid the sup time, nor their natural signification, but it was
an interpretation of the disciples ex eventu.
position that it was transferred thence
3 We pass over those touching intimations of
into the mouth of Jesus. Many critics, approaching separation contained in the parting
in consequence, regard it as a subsequent discourses of Jesus during and immediately pre
ceding the last supper, us there can be little doubt
interpolation.
1 Rom. vi. 3. Gal. iii. 27.
16 ; x. 48 ; xix, 5.
Acts ii. 38; viii.
that at that time his fate was so imminent as to
have become evident to any acute observer, with
out the supposition of supernatural information.
�84
FIDELITY OF THE GOSPEL HISTORY—MATTHEW
language is doubtful, mysterious, and
obscure, and the interpretation com
monly put upon them is not that sug
gested by the words themselves, nor that
which suggested itself to those who
heard them ; but is one affixed to them
by the Evangelist after the event sup
posed to be referred to; it is an interpretatio ex eventuP In the three synop
tical gospels, however, the predictions
are numerous, precise, and conveyed in
language which it was impossible to
mistake.
Thus (in Matt. xx. 18, 19,
and parallel passages), “ Behold, wre go
up to Jerusalem, and the Son of man
shall be betrayed unto the chief priests,
and unto the scribes, and they shall
condemn him to death, and shall deliver
him to the Gentiles to mock, and to
scourge, and to crucify him : and the
third day he shall rise again.” Language
such as this, definite, positive, explicit,
and circumstantial, if really uttered,
could not have been misunderstood, but
must have made a deep and ineradicable
impression on all who heard it, especially
when repeated, as it is stated to have
been, on several distinct occasions. Yet
we find ample proof that no such im
pression was made ;—that the disciples
had no conception of their Lord’s ap
proaching death—still less of his resur
rection ;—and that so far from their
expecting either of these events, both,
when they occurred, took them entirely
by surprise;—they were utterly con1 In the case of the first of these predictions
—“ Destroy this temple, and in three days I
will raise it up,”—we can scarcely admit that
the words were used by Jesus (if uttered by him
at all) in the sense ascribed to them by John;
since the words were spoken in the temple, and
in answer to the demand for a sign, and could
therefore only have conveyed, and have been
intended to convey, the meaning which we know
they actually did convey to the inquiring Jews.
In the two other cases (or three, if we reckon
viii. 28 as one), the language of Jesus is too
indefinite for us to know what meaning he
intended it to convey. The expression “ to be
lifted up ” is thrice used, and may mean exalta
tion, glorification (its natural signification), or,
artificially and figuratively, might be intended
tp refer to his crucifixion.
founded by the one, and could not be
lieve the other.
We find them shortly after (nay, in
one instance instantly after) these pre
dictions were uttered, disputing which
among them should be greatest in their
coming dominion (Matt. xx. 24; Mark
ix. 35 ; Luke xxii. 25) ■—glorying in the
idea of thrones, and asking for seats
on his right hand and on his left, in his
Messianic kingdom (Matt. xix. 28, xx.
21 ; Mark x.»37 ; Luke xxii. 30); which,
when he approached Jerusalem, they
thought “ would immediately appear ”
(Luke xix. 11, xxiv. 21). When Jesus
was arrested in the garden of Geth
semane, they first attempted resistance,
and then “ forsook him and fled ” ; and
so completely were they scattered, that
it was left for one of the Sanhedrim,
Joseph of Arimathaea, to provide even
for his decent burial;—while the women
who “watched afar off,” and were still
faithful to his memory, brought spices
to embalm the body—a sure sign, were
any needed, that the idea of his resur
rection had never entered into their
minds. Further, when the women re
ported his resurrection to the disciples,
“ their words seemed to them as idle
tales, and they believed them not”
(Luke xxiv. 11).
The conversation,
moreover, of the two disciples on the
road to Emmaus is sufficient proof that
the resurrection of their Lord was a con
ception which had never crossed their
thoughts;—and, finally, according to
John, when Mary found the body gone,
her only notion was that it must have
been removed by the gardener (xx. 15).
All this shows, beyond, we think, the
possibility of question, that the cruci
fixion and resurrection of Jesus were
wholly unexpected by his disciples. If
further proof were wanted, we find it in
the words of the evangelists, who re
peatedly intimate (as if struck by the
incongruity we have pointed out) that
they “knew not,” or “understood not,”
these sayings. (Mark ix. 31; Luke ix.
45, xviii. 34; John xx. 9).
Here, then, we have two distinct
�FIDELITY OF THE GOSPEL HISTORY—MAtTHÉW
«5
Another argument may be adduced,
statements, which mutually exclude and
contradict each other. If Jesus really strongly confirmatory of this view. Jesus
foretold his death and resurrection in is repeatedly represented as affirming
the terms recorded in the gospels, it is that his expected sufferings and their
inconceivable that the disciples should glorious termination must take place,
have misunderstood him; for no words in order that the prophecies might be
could be more positive, precise, or in fulfilled. (Matt. xxvi. 24, 54; Mark ix.
telligible than those which he is said 12, xiv. 49; Luke xiii. 33, xviii. 31,
to have repeatedly addressed to them. xxii. 37, xxiv; 27.) Now, the passion
Neither could they have forgotten what of the disciples for representing every
had been so strongly urged upon their thing connected with Jesus as the fulfil
memory by their Master, as completely ment of prophecy, explains why they
as it is evident from their subsequent should have sought, after his death, for
conduct they actually did.1 They might, passages which might be supposed to
indeed, have disbelieved his prediction prefigure it,1—and why these accommo
(as Peter appears in the first instance to dations of prophecy should, in process
have done), but in that case his cruci of time, and of transmission, have been
fixion would have led them to expect attributed to Jesus himself. But if we
his resurrection, or, at all events, to think assume, as is commonly done, that
of it:—which it did not. The fulfilment these references to prophecy really pro
of one prophecy would necessarily have ceeded from Christ in the first instance,
we are landed in the inadmissible, or at
recalled the other to their minds.
The conclusion, therefore, is inevitable least the embarrassing and unorthodox,
—that the predictions were ascribed to conclusion that he interpreted the pro
Jesus after the event, not really uttered phets erroneously. To confine ourselves
by him. It is, indeed, very probable to the principal passages only, a profound
that, as gloomy anticipations of his own grammatical and historical exposition has
death pressed upon his mind, and be convincingly shown, to all who are in a
came stronger and more confirmed as condition to liberate themselves from
the danger came nearer, he endeavoured dogmatic presuppositions, that in none
to communicate these apprehensions to of these is there any allusion to the
his followers, in order to prepare them sufferings of Christ.2
One of these references to prophecy
for an event so fatal to their worldly
hopes. That he did so, we think the in Matthew has evident marks of being
conversations during, and previous to, an addition to the traditional words of
the last supper afford ample proof. Christ by the Evangelist himself. In
These vague intimations of coming evil
1 “ There were sufficient motives for the
—intermingled and relieved, doubtless, by Christian legend thus to put into the mouth of
strongly expressed convictions of a future Jesus, after the event, a prediction of the parti
existence of reunion and reward, dis cular features of his passion, especially of the
a Christ
believed or disregarded by the disciples ignominious crucifixion.the The morestumblingcrucified became ‘to
Jews a
at the time—recurred to their minds block, and to the Greeks foolishness ’ (1 Cor. i.
after all was over; and gathering strength, 23), the more need was there to remove the
and expanding in definiteness and fulness offence by every possible means ; and as, among
during constant repetition for nearly the subsequent events, the resurrection espe
cially served as a retrospective cancelling of that
forty years, had, at the period when the shameful death, so it must have been earnestly
Evangelists wrote, become consolidated desired to take the sting from that offensive
into the fixed prophetic form in which catastrophe beforehand also ; and this could not
be done more effectually than by such a minute
they have been transmitted to us.
1 Moreover, if they had so completely for
gotten these predictions, whence did the evan
gelists derive them ?
prediction.”—Strauss, iii. 54, where this idea is
fully developed.
2 Even Dr. Arnold admitted this fully. (“ Ser
mons on Interpretations of Prophecy,” Preface.)
�86
FIDELITY OF THE GOSPEL HISTORY—MATTHEW
Matt. xvi. 4, we have the following:
“A wicked and adulterous generation
seeketh after a sign; and there shall
no sign be given to it but the sign of
the prophet Jonas.” The same expres
sion precisely is recorded by Luke (xi.
29), with this addition, showing what
the reference to Jonas really meant:
“For as Jonas was a sign to the Ninevites, so also shall the Son of man be
to this generation. The men of Nineveh
shall rise up in judgment against this
generation, and shall condemn it; for
they repented at the preaching of Jonas;
and, behold, a greater than Jonas is
here.” But when Matthew repeats the
same answer of Jesus in response to the
same demand for a sign (xii. 40), he
adds the explanation of the reference,
“for as Jonas was three days and three
nights in the whale’s belly, so shall the
Son of man be three days and three
nights [which Jesus was not, but only
one day and two nightsin the heart
of the earth ” ;—and he then proceeds
with the same context as Luke.
The prophecies of the second coming
of Christ (Matt, xxiv.; Mark xiii.; Luke
xvii. 22-37 ; xxi. 5-36) are mixed up
with those of the destruction of Jeru
salem by Titus in a manner which has
long been the perplexity and despair of
orthodox commentators. The obvious
meaning of the passages which contain
these predictions—the sense in which
they were evidently understood by the
Evangelists who wrote them down—
the sense which we know from many
sources1 they conveyed to the minds
2
of the early Christians—clearly is, that
the coming of Christ to judge the
world should follow immediately 3 (“ im
1 Nay : possibly only a few hours.
2 See 1 Cor. x. 11; xv. 51. Phil. iv. 5.
1 Thess. iv. 15. James v. 8. 1 Peter iv. 7.
I John ii. 18. Rev. i. 1, 3 ; xxii. 7, 10, 12, 20.
3 An apparent contradiction to this is pre
sented by Matt. xxiv. 14; Matt. xiii. 10, where
we are told that “ the gospel must be first
preached to all nations.” It appears, however,
from Col. i. 5, 6, 23 (see also Romans x. 18),
that St. Paul considered this to have been
already accomplished in his time.
mediately,” “ in those days ”) the des
truction of the Holy City, and should
take place during the lifetime of the
then existing generation. “ Verily I say
unto you, This generation shall not pass
away till all these things be fulfilled ”
(Matt. xxiv. 34; Mark xiii. 30; Luke
xxi. 32).
“There be some standing
here that shall not taste of death till
they see the Son of man coming in
his kingdom” (Matt. xvi. 28). “Verily
I say unto you, Ye shall not have gone
over the cities of Israel, till the Son of
man be come” (Matt. x. 23). “If I
will that he tarry till I come, what is
that to thee?” (John xxi. 23).
Now if these predictions really pro
ceeded from Jesus, he was entirely in
error on the subject, and the prophetic
spirit was not in him ; for not only did
his advent not follow close on the
destruction of Jerusalem, but 1800 years
have since elapsed, and neither he nor
the preliminary signs which were to
announce *him have yet appeared. If
these predictions did not proceed from
him, then the Evangelist has taken the
liberty of putting into the mouth of Christ
words and announcements which Christ
never uttered.
Much desperate ingenuity has been
exerted to separate the predictions
relating to Jerusalem from those relating
to the Advent: but these exertions have
been neither creditable nor successful;
and they have already been examined
and refuted at great length. Moreover,
they are rendered necessary only by two
previous assumptions: first, that Jesus
cannot have been mistaken as to the
future; and, secondly, that he really
uttered these predictions. Now, neither
of these assumptions is capable of proof.
The first we shall not dispute, because
we have no adequate means of coming
to a conclusion on the subject. But as
to the second assumption, we think there
are several indications that, though the
predictions in question were current
among the Christians when the gospels
were composed, yet that they did not, at
least as handed down to us, proceed
�FIDELITY OF THE GOSPEL HISTORY—MARK AND LUKE
from the lips of Christ ; but were, as
far as related to the second advent,
the unauthorised anticipations of the dis
ciples; and, as far as related to the destruc
tion of the city, partly gathered from the
denunciations of Old Testament pro
phecy, and partly from actual knowledge
of the events which passed under their
eyes.
In the first place, it is not admissible
that Jesus could have been so true a
prophet as to one part of the prediction,
and so entirely in error as to the other,
both parts referring equally to future
events. Secondly, the three gospels in
which these predictions occur are allowed
to have been written between the years
65 and 72 a.d., or during the war which
ended in the destruction of Jerusalem1;
that is, they were written during and
87
after the events which they predict.
They may, therefore, either have been
entirely drawn from the events, or have
been vaguely in existence before, but
have derived their definiteness and pre
cision from the events. And we have
already seen in the case of the first
evangelist, that he, at least, did not
scruple to eke out and modify the pre
dictions he recorded, from his own
experience of their fulfilment. Thirdly,
the parallel passages, both in Matthew
and Mark, contain an expression twice
repeated—“ the elect”—which we can
say almost with certainty was unknown
in the time of Christ, though frequently
found in the epistles, and used, at the
time the gospels were composed, to
designate the members of the Christian
Church.
Chapter VIII
SAME SUBJECT CONTINUED—MARK AND LUKE
Many of the criticisms contained in
the last chapter—tending to prove that
Matthew’s Gospel contains several state
ments not strictly accurate, and attributes
to Jesus several expressions and dis
courses which were not really uttered by
him—are equally applicable both to Mark
and Luke. The similarity—not to say
identity—of the greater portion of Mark’s
narrative with that of Matthew leaves no
room for doubt either that one evangelist
copied from the other, or that both
employed the same documents, or oral
narratives, in the compilation of their
histories. Our own clear conviction is
that Mark was the earliest in time, and
far the most correct in fact.
1 The war began by Vespasian’s entering
Galilee in the beginning of the year a.d. 67,
and the city was taken in the autumn of a.d.
70.
As we have already stated, we attach
little weight to the tradition of the second
century, that the second gospel was
written by Mark, the companion of Peter.
It originated with Papias, whose works
are now lost, but who was stated to be
a “ weak man ” by Eusebius, who records
a few fragments of his writings. But if
the tradition be correct, the omissions in
this gospel, as compared with the first,
are significant enough. It omits entirely
the genealogies, the miraculous concep
tion, several matters relating to Peter
(especially his walking on the water, and
the commission of the keys), and every
thing miraculous or improbable relating
to the resurrection1—everything, in fact,
but the simple statement that the body
1 We must not forget that the real genuine
Gospel of Mark terminates with the 8th verse
of the 16th chapter.
�88
FIDELITY OF THE GOSPEL HISTORY-MARK AND LUKE
was missing, and that a “young man”
assured the visitors that Christ was
risen.
In addition to these, there are two or
three peculiarities in the discourses of
Jesus, as recorded by Mark, which in
dicate that the evangelist thought it
necessary and allowable slightly to
modify the language of them, in order
to suit them to the ideas or the feelings
of the Gentile converts; if, as is com
monly supposed, it was principally
designed for them. We copy a few
instances of these, though resting little
upon them.
Matthew, who wrote for the Jews, has
the following passage, in the injunctions
pronounced by Jesus on the sending
forth of the twelve apostles : “ Go not
into the way of the Gentiles, and into
any city of the Samaritans enter ye
not. But go rather to the lost sheep of
the house of Israel” (x. 5). Mark, who
wrote for the Gentiles, omits entirely
this unpalatable charge (v. 7—13).
Matthew (xv. 24), in the story of the
Canaanitish woman, makes Jesus say,
“I am not sent but to the lost sheep
of the house of Israel.” Mark (vii. 26)
omits this expression entirely, and modi
fies the subsequent remark. In Matthew
it is thus :—“ It is not meet to take the
children’s bread and cast it unto the
dogs.” In Mark it is softened by the
preliminary, “ Let the children first be
filled? &c.
Matthew (xxiv. 20), “But pray ye
that your flight be not in the winter,
neither on the Sabbath day.” Mark
omits the last clause, which would have
had no meaning for any but the Jews,
whose Sabbath day’s journey was by law
restricted to a small distance.
In the promise given to the disciples,
in answer to Peter’s question, “Behold
we have forsaken all, and followed thee;
what shall we have therefore ? ” The
following verse, given by Matthew
(xix. 28), is omitted by Mark (x. 28):—
“ Verily I say unto you, That ye which
have followed me, in the regeneration,
when the Son of Man shall sit in the
throne of his glory, ye also shall sit
upon twelve thrones, judging the twelve
tribes of Israel.”
The Gospel of Luke, which is a work
in some respects of more pretension,
and unquestionably of more literary
merit, than the two first, will require a
few additional observations. The re
marks we have made on the prophecies
of his own sufferings and resurrection,
alleged by Matthew and Mark to have
been uttered by Jesus, apply equally to
Luke’s narrative, in which similar- pas
sages occur; and in these, therefore, we
must admit that the third evangelist, like
the other two, ascribed to Jesus dis
courses which never really proceeded
from him. But besides these, there are
several passages in Luke which bear an
equally apocryphal character, some of
which it will be interesting to notice.
The first chapter, from verse 5-80,
contains the account of the annunciation
and birth of John the Baptist, with all
the marvellous circumstances attending
it, and also the annunciation to Mary,
and the miraculous conception of Jesus
—an account exhibiting many remark
able discrepancies with rhe correspond
ing narrative in Matthew. We are
spared the necessity of a detailed inves
tigation of this chapter by the agreement
of the most learned critics, both of the
orthodox and sceptical schools, in con
sidering the narrative as poetical and
legendary.1 It is examined at great
length by Strauss, who is at the head of
the most daring class of the Biblical
Commentators of Germany, and by
Schleiermacher, who ranks first among
the learned divines of that country. The
latter (in the work translated by one of
our most erudite and liberal Prelates,
and already often referred to), writes thus,
PP- 25-7
“ Thus, then, we begin by detaching
the first chapter as an originally inde
pendent composition. If we consider it
in this light somewhat more closely, we
1 [The recent repudiation of the “Virgin
birth ” by modern divines will be in the memory
of all.]
�FIDELITY OF THE GOSPEL HISTORY—MARK AND LUKE
cannot resist the impression that it was
originally rather a little poetical work
than a properly-historical narrative. The
latter supposition, in its strictest sense
at all events, no one will adopt, or con
tend that the angel Gabriel announced
the advent of the Messiah in figures so
purely Jewish, and in expressions taken
mostly from the Old Testament ; or that
the alternate song between Elizabeth
and Mary actually took place in the
manner described ; or that Zacharias, at
the instant of recovering his speech,
made use of it to utter the hymn, with
out being disturbed by the joy and sur
prise of the company, by which the
narrator himself allows his description
to be interrupted. At all events we
should then be obliged to suppose that
the author made additions of his own,
and enriched the historical narrative by
the lyrical effusions of his own genius.”
... “ If we consider the whole group
ing of the narrative, there naturally
presents itself to us a pleasing little
composition, completely in the style and
manner of several Jewish poems, still
extant among our apocryphal writings,
written in all probability originally in
Aramaic by a Christian of the more
liberal Judaising school.” . . . “There
are many other statements which I should
not venture to pronounce historical, but
would rather explain by the occasion
the poet had for them. To these belongs,
in the first place, John’s being a lateborn child, which is evidently only
imagined for the sake of analogy with
several heroes of Hebrew antiquity ;
and, in the next place, the relation
between the ages of John and Christ,
and likewise the consanguinity of Mary
and Elizabeth, which besides, it is diffi
cult to reconcile with the assertion of
John (John, i, 33), that he did not know
Christ before his baptism.”
In the second chapter we have the
account of the birth of Jesus, and the
accompanying apparition of a multitude
of angels to shepherds in the fields near
Bethlehem—as to the historical founda
tion of which Strauss and Schleierma-
89
cher are at variance; the former regard
ing it as wholly mythical, and the latter
as based upon an actual occurrence, im
perfectly remembered in after times, when
the celebrity of Jesus caused every con
tribution to the history of his birth and
infancy to be eagerly sought for. All that
we can say on the subject with any cer
tainty is, that the tone of the narrative
is legendary. The poetical rhapsody of
Simeon when Jesus was presented in the
temple may be passed over with the same
remark ;—but the 33rd verse, where we
are told that “ Joseph and his mother
marvelled at those things which were
spoken of him,” proves clearly one of
two things : — either the unhistorical
character of the Song of Simeon, and of
the consequent astonishment of the
parents of Jesus—or the unreality of the
miraculous annunciation and conception.
It is impossible, if an angel had actually
announced to Mary the birth of the di
vine child in the language, or in anything
resembling the language, recorded in
Luke i. 31-35 ; and if, in accordance with
that announcement, Mary had found
herself with child before she had any
natural possibility of being so—that she
should have felt any astonishment what
ever at the prophetic announcement of
Simeon, so consonant with the angelic
promise, especially when occurring after
the miraculous vision of the Shepherds,
which, we are told, “ she pondered in her
heart.” Schleiermacher has felt this diffi
culty, and endeavours to evade it by
considering the first and second chapters
to be two monographs originally by dif
ferent hands, which Luke incorporated
into his gospel. This was very probably
the case ; but it does not avoid the diffi
culty, as it involves giving up ii. 33 as an
unauthorised and incorrect statement.
The genealogy of Jesus, as given in the
third chapter, may be in the main cor
rect, though there are some perplexities
in one portion of it; but if the previous
narrative be correct, it is not the genear
logy of Jesus at all, but only of Joseph,
who was no relation to him whatever,
but simply his guardian. On the other
�90
FIDELITY OF THF GOSPEL HISTORY—MARK AND LUKE
hand, if the preparer of the genealogy,
or the evangelist who records it, knew or
believed the story of the miraculous
conception, we can conceive no reason
for his admitting a pedigree which is
either wholly meaningless, or destructive
of his previous statements. The inser
tion in verse 23, “as was supposed,”
whether by the evangelist or a subsequent
copyist, merely shows that whoever made
it perceived the incongruity, but preferred
neutralising the genealogy to omitting it.1
In all the synoptical gospels we find in
stances of the cure of demoniacs by
Jesus early in his career, in which the
demons, promptly, spontaneously, and
loudly, bear testimony to his Messiahship. These statements occur once in
Matthew (viii. 29)—four times in Mark
(i. 24, 34 ; iii. 11 ; v. 7); and three times
in Luke (iv. 33,41; viii. 28).2 Now, two
points are evident to common sense, and
are fully admitted by honest criticism:
—first, that these demoniacs were lunatic
and epileptic patients ; and secondly, that
Jesus (or the narrators who framed the
language of Jesus throughout the synop
tical gospels) shared the common belief
that these maladies were caused by evil
spirits inhabiting the bodies of the suf
ferers. We are then landed in this con
clusion—certainly not a probable one,
nor the one intended to be conveyed by
the narrators—that the idea of Jesus
being the Messiah was adopted by mad
men before it had found entrance into
the public mind, apparently even before
it was received by his immediate disci
ples—was in fact first suggested by mad
men ;—in other words,-that it was an
idea which originated with insane brains
1 The whole story of the Incarnation, how
ever, is effectually discredited by the fact that
none of the Apostles or sacred Historians make
any subsequent reference to it, or indicate any
knowledge of it.
2 It is worthy of remark that no narrative of
the healing of demoniacs, stated as such, occurs
in the fourth gospel. This would intimate it to
be the work of a man who had outgrown, or had
never entertained, the idea of maladies arising
from possession. It is one of many indications
in this evangelist of a Greek rather than a
Jewish mind.
—which presented itself to, and found
acceptance with, insane brains more
readily than sane ones. The conception
of the evangelists clearly was that Jesus
derived honour (and his mission confir
mation) from this early recognition of
his Messianic character by hostile spirits
of a superior order of Intelligences; but
to us, who know that these supposed
superior Intelligences were really un
happy men whose natural intellect had
been perverted or impaired, the effect of
the narrative becomes absolutely re
versed ;—and if they are to be accepted
as historical, they lead inevitably to the
conclusion that the idea of the Messiahship of Jesus was originally formed in
disordered brains, and spread thence
among the mass of the disciples. The
only rescue from this conclusion lies in
the admission, that these narratives are
not historical, but mythic, and belong to
that class of additions which early grew
up in the Christian Church, out of the
desire to honour and aggrandise the
memory of its Founder, and which our
uncritical evangelists embodied as they
found them.
Passing over a few minor passages of
doubtful authenticity or accuracy, we
come to one near the close of the gospel,
which we have no scruple in pronouncing
to be an unwarranted interpolation. In
xxii. 36-38, Jesus is reported, after the
last Supper, to have said to his disciples,
“ He that hath no sword, let him sell his
garment and buy one. And they said,
Lord, behold, here are two swords. And
he said, It is enough.” Christ never
could have uttered such a command, nor,
we should imagine, anything which could
have been mistaken for it. The very idea
is contradicted by his whole character,
and utterly precluded by the narratives
of the other evangelists ; — for when
Peter did use the sword, he met with a
severe rebuke from his Master:—“Put
up thy sword into the sheath : the cup
which my Father hath given me shall I
not drink it ? ”—according to John “ Put
up again thy sword into its place; for all
they that take the sword shall perish by
�FIDELITY OF THE GOSPEL HISTORY—GOSPEL OF JOHN
the sword,”—according to Matthew. The
passage we conceive to be a clumsy in
vention of some early .narrator, to account
for the remarkable fact of Peter having
a sword at the time of Christ’s appre
hension ; and it is inconceivable to us
how a sensible compiler like Luke could
have admitted into his history such an
apocryphal and unharmonising fragment.
In conclusion, then, it appears certain
that in all the synoptical gospels we have
events related which did not really occur, 1
91
and words ascribed to Jesus which Jesus
did not utter; and that many of these
words and events are of great significance.
In the great majority of these instances,
however, this incorrectness does not
imply any want of honesty on the part
of the Evangelists, but merely indicates
that they adopted and embodied, with
out much scrutiny or critical acumen,
whatever probable and honourable nar
ratives they found current in the Christian community.
Chapter IX
SAME SUBJECT CONTINUED—GOSPEL OF JOHN
In the examination of the fourth Gospel
a different mode of criticism from that
hitherto pursued is required. Here we
do not find, so frequently as in the other
Evangelists, particular passages which
pronounce their own condemnation, by
anachronisms, peculiarity of language,
or incompatibility with others more ob
viously historical \ but the whole tone
of the delineations, the tenor of the
discourses, and the general course of
the narrative, are utterly different from
those contained in the synoptical gospels,
and also from what we should expect
from a Jew speaking to Jews, writing of
Jews, imbued with the spirit and living
in the land of Judaism.
By the common admission of all recent
critics, this gospel is rather to be regarded
as a polemic, than an historic composi
tion.1 It was written less with the in
tention of giving a complete and con
tinuous view of Christ’s character and
career, than to meet and confute certain
heresies which had sprung up in the
Christian church near the close of the
first century, by selecting, from the
1 See Hug, Strauss, Hennell, De Wette.
Also Dr. Tait’s “ Suggestions.”
memory of the author, or the tradi
tions then current among believers,
such narratives and discourses as were
conceived to be most opposed to the
heresies in question. Now these heresies
related almost exclusively to the person
and nature of Jesus; on which points
we have many indications that great
difference of opinion existed, even during
the apostolic period. The obnoxious
doctrines especially pointed at in the
gospel appear, both from internal evi
dence and external testimony,1 to be
those held by Cerinthus and the Nico
lai tans, which, according to Hug, were
as follows :—The one Eternal God is too
pure, perfect, and pervading an essence
to be able to operate on matter; but
from him emanated a number of in
ferior and gradually degenerating spiritual
natures, one of whom was the Creator
of the world,—hence its imperfections.
Jesus was simply and truly a man,
though an eminently great and virtuous
one; but one of the above spiritual
1 Irenaeus, Jerome, Epiphanius. See Hug,
§ 51. See also a very detailed account of the
Gnostics in Norton’s “Genuineness of the
Gospels,” ii. c. 1, 2.
�92
FIDELITY OF THE GOSPEL HISTORY-GOSPEL OF JOHN
natures—the Christ, the Son of Godunited itself to Jesus at his baptism,
and thus conferred upon him super
human power.
“This Christ, as an
immaterial Being of exalted origin, one
of the purer kinds of spirits, was from
his nature unsusceptible of material affec
tions, of suffering and pain. He, there
fore, at the commencement of the Pas
sion, resumed his separate existence,
abandoned Jesus to pain and death, and
soared upwards to his native heaven.
Cerinthus distinguished Jesus and Christ,
Jesus and the Son of God, as beings of
different nature and dignity.1 The Nicolaitans held similar doctrines in regard
to the Supreme Deity and his relation
to mankind, and an inferior spirit who
was the Creator of the world. Among
the subaltern orders of spirits they con
sidered the most distinguished to be
the only-begotten, the /xovoyei/^s (whose
existence, however, had a beginning),
and the Xoyos, the Word, who was an
immediate descendant of the onlybegotten.” 1
2
These, then, were the opinions which
the author of the fourth gospel wrote to
controvert; in confirmation of which
being his object we have his own state
ment (xx. 31): “These are written”
(not that ye may know the life and under
stand the character of our great Teacher,
but that ye may believe his nature to be
what I affirm) “ that ye might believe
that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God ;
and that believing, ye might have life
through his name.” Now, a narrative
written with a controversial aim—a nar
rative, more especially, consisting of re
collected or selected circumstances and
discourses—carries within it, as everyone
will admit, from the very nature of fallible
humanity, an obvious element of inac
curacy. A man who writes a history to
prove a doctrine must be something more
than a man, if he writes that history with
1 Several critics contend that the original
reading of 1 John iv. 3 was, “ Every spirit that
separateth Jesus (from the Christ) is not of
God.”—See Hug, p. 423.
2 Hug, § 51.
a scrupulous fidelity of fact and colour
ing. Accordingly, we find that the public
discourses of Jesus in this gospel turn
almost exclusively upon the dignity of
his own person, which topic is brought
forward in a manner and with a fre
quency which it is impossible to regard
as historical. The prominent feature
in the character of Jesus, as here de
picted, is an overweening tendency to
self-glorification. We see no longer, as
in the other gospels, a prophet eager to
bring men to God, and to instruct them
in righteousness, but one whose whole
mind seems occupied with the grandeur
of his own nature and mission. In the
first three gospels we have the message ;
in the fourth we have comparatively little
but the messenger. If any of our readers
will peruse the gospel with this observa
tion in their minds, we are persuaded
the result will be a very strong and prob
ably painful impression that they cannot
here be dealing with the genuine lan
guage of Jesus, but simply with a com
position arising out of deep conviction
of his superior nature, left in the mind
of the writer by the contemplation of
his splendid genius and his noble and
lovely character.
The difference of style and subject
between the discourses of Jesus in the
fourth gospel and in the synoptical ones
has been much dwelt upon, and we think
by no means too much, as proving the
greater or less unauthenticity of the
former. This objection has been met
by the supposition that the finer intellect
and more spiritual character of John in
duced him to select, and enabled him
to record, the more subtle and specu
lative discourses of his Master, which
were unacceptable or unintelligible to
the more practical and homely minds of
the other disciples; and reference is
made to the parallel case of Xenophon
and Plato, whose reports of the conver
sations of Socrates are so different in
tone and matter as to render it very
difficult to believe that both sat at the
feet of the same master, and listened
to the same teaching. But the citation
�FIDELITY OF THE GOSPEL HISTORY—GOSPEL OF JOHN
is an unfortunate one; for in this case,
also, it is more than suspected that the
more simple recorder was the more cor
rect one, and that the sublimer and
subtler peculiarities in the discourses
reported by Plato belong rather to the
disciple than to the teacher. Had John
merely superadded some more refined
and mystical discourses omitted by his
predecessors, the supposition in question
might have been admitted; but it is im
possible not to perceive that here the
whole tone of the mind delineated is new
and discrepant, though often eminently
beautiful.
Another argument, which may be con
sidered as conclusive against the histori
cal fidelity of the discourses of Jesus in
the fourth gospel is, that not only they,
but the discourses of John the Baptist
likewise, are entirely in the style of the
evangelist himself, where he introduces
his own remarks, both in the gospel and
in the first epistle.
He makes both
Jesus and the Baptist speak exactly as
he himself speaks. Compare the follow
ing passages:—
John
iii. 31-36.
(Baptist loquitur.) He
that cometh from above
is above all: he that is
of the earth is earthly,
and speaketh of the
earth: he that cometh
from heaven is above
all. And what he hath
seen and heard, that
he testifieth; and no
man receiveth his testimony.
He that receiveth his
testimony hath set to
his seal that God is
true.
For he whom God
hath sent speaketh the
words of God; for God
giveth not the spirit by
measure.
The Father loveth
the Son, and hath given
all things into his
hand.
He that believeth on
the Son hath ever
lasting life, and he that
believeth not the Son
shall not see life; but
the wrath of God
abideth on him.
93
that the Father had
given all things into his
hands.
vi. 47. (Jesus loq.)
He that believeth on
me hath everlasting
life.—(See
also
I
Epistle v. 10-13, and
Gospel iii. 18, where
the Evangelist or Jesus
speaks.)
vi. 40. (Jesus loq.)
And this is the will of
him that sent me, that
every one which seetli
the Son, and believeth
on him, may have ever
lasting life.
Another indication that in a great part
of the fourth gospel we have not the
genuine discourses of Jesus, is found in
the mystical and enigmatical nature of
the language. This peculiarity, of which
we have scarcely a trace in the other
Evangelists, beyond the few parables
which they did not at first understand,
but which Jesus immediately explained
to them, pervades the fourth gospel.
The great Teacher is here represented as
absolutely labouring to be unintelligible,
John viii. 23. (Jesus
to soar out of the reach of his hearers,
loquitur.) Ye are from
and at once perplex and disgust them.
beneath, I am from
“ It is the constant method of this Evan
above ; ye are of this
gelist, in detailing the conversation of
world ; I am not of this
world.
Jesus, to form the knot and progress of
iii. II. (Jesus loq.)
the discussions, by making the inter
We speak that we do
locutors understand literally what Jesus
know, and testify that
intended figuratively. The type of the
we have seen; and ye
receive not our testidialogue is that in which language in
mony.
tended spiritually is understood car
nally.” The instances of this are incon
ceivably frequent and unnatural. We
have the conversation with the Jews
about “ the temple of his body ” (ii. 21);
viii. 26. (Jesus loq.)
the mystification of Nicodemus on the
I speak to the world
subject of regeneration (iii. 3-10); the
those things which I
have heard of him.—
conversation with the Samaritan woman
(See also vii. 16-18;
(iv. 10-15) ;
his disciples about “ the
xiv. 24.)
food which ye know not of” (iv. 32);
v. 20. (Jesus loq.)
with the people about the “ bread from
The Father loveth the
Son, and showeth him
heaven” (vi. 31-35); with the Jews
all things that himself about giving them his flesh to eat (vi.
doeth.
48-66); with the Pharisees about his
xiii. 3. (Evangelist
disappearance (vii. 33-39, and viii. 21,
loq.) Jesus knowing
�94
FIDELITY OF THE GOSPEL HISTORY-GOSPEL OF JOHN
22); again about his heavenly origin
and pre-existence (viii. 37, 34, and 5658); and with his disciples about the
sleep of Lazarus (xi. 11-14). Now, in
the first place, it is very improbable that
Jesus, who came to preach the gospel
to the poor, should so constantly have
spoken in a style which his hearers could
not understand; and in the next place,
it is equally improbable that an Oriental
people, so accustomed to figurative lan
guage,1 and whose literature was so
eminently metaphorical, should have
misapprehended the words of Jesus so
stupidly and so incessantly as the Evan
gelist represents them to have done.
But perhaps the most conclusive
argument against the historical character
of the discourses in the fourth gospel is
to be found in the fact that, whether
dialogues or monologues, they are com
plete and continuous, resembling com
positions rather than recollections, and
of a length which it is next to impossible
could have been accurately retained—
even if we adopt Bertholdt’s improbable
hypothesis, that the apostle took notes of
Jesus’ discourses at the time of their
delivery. Notwithstanding all that has
been said as to the possible extent to
which the powers of memory may go, it
is difficult for an unprepossessed mind
to believe that discourses such as that
contained in the 14th, 15 th, and 16th
chapters could have been accurately
retained and reported unless by a short
hand writer, or by one favoured with
supernatural assistance. “ We hold it
therefore to be established ” (says Strauss,2
and in the main we agree with him)
“that the discourses of Jesus in the
fourth gospel are mainly free compositions
of the Evangelist; but we have admitted
that he has culled several sayings of Jesus
. 1 See the remarks of Strauss on the conversa
tion with Nicodemus, from which it appears that
the image of a new birth was a current one
among the Jews, and cozild not have been so
misunderstood by a master in Israel, and in fact
that the whole conversation is almost certainly
fictitious.—ii. 153.
3 “ Leben Jesu,” ii. 187.
from an authentic tradition, and hence
we do not extend this proposition to
those passages which are countenanced
by parallels in the syn opti cal gospels. In
these latter compilations we have an
example of the vicissitudes which befall
discourses that are preserved only in the
memory, of a second party. Severed
from their original connection, and broken
up into smaller and smaller fragments,
they present, when reassembled, the
appearance of a mosaic, in which the
connection of the parts is a purely
external one, and every transition an
artificial juncture. The discourses in
John present just the opposite appear
ance. Their gradual transitions, only
occasionally rendered obscure by the
mystical depths of meaning in which
they lie—transitions in which one thought
develops itself out of another, and a
succeeding proposition is frequently but
an explanatory amplification of the pre
ceding one—are indicative of a pliable,
unresisting mass, such as is never pre
sented to a writer by the traditional
sayings of another, but by such only as
proceeds from the stores of his own
thought, which he moulds according to
his will. For this reason the contribu
tions of tradition to these stores of
thought were not so likely to have been
particular independent sayings of Jesus,
as rather certain ideas which formed the
basis of many of his discourses, and which
were modified and developed according
to the bent of a mind of Greek or
Alexandrian culture.”1
.Another peculiarity of this gospel
arising, probably, out of its controversial
origin—is its exaltation of dogma over
morality—of belief over spiritual affection.
1 See also Hennell, p. 200. “The picture of
Jesus bequeathing his parting benedictions to
the disciples, seems fully to warrant the idea
that the author was one whose imagination and
affections had received an impress from real
scenes and real attachments. The few relics of
the words, looks, and acts of Jesus, which friend
ship itself could at that time preserve unmixed,
he expands into a complete record of his own
and the disciples’ sentiments ; what they felt, he
makes Jesus speak.”
�FIDELITY OF THE GOSPEL HISTORY—GOSPEL OF JOHN
In the other gospels, piety, charity, for
giveness of injuries, purity of life, are
preached by Christ as the titles to
his kingdom and his Father’s favour.
Whereas, in John’s gospel, as in his
epistles, belief in Jesus as the Son of
God, the Messiah, the Logos—belief, in
fact, in the evangelist’s view of his
nature—is constantly represented as the
one thing needful. The whole tone of
the history bears token of a time when
the message was beginning to be for
gotten in the Messenger ; when meta
physical and fruitless discussions as to
the nature of Christ had superseded
devotion to his spirit, and attention to the
sublime piety and simple self-sacrificing
holiness which formed the essence of his
own teaching. The discourses are often
touchingly eloquent and tender, the nar
rative is full of beauty, pathos, and nature;
but we miss the simple and intelligible
truth, the noble, yet practicable, morality
of the other histories ; we find in it more
of Christ than of Christianity, and more
of John than of Jesus. If the work of an
apostle at all, it was of an apostle who
had caught but a fragment of his Master’s
mantle, or in whom the good original
seed had been choked by the long bad
habit of subtle and scholastic contro
versies.
We cannot but regard this
gospel as decidedly inferior in moral
sublimity and purity to the other repre
sentations of Christ’s teaching which
have come down to us; its religion is
more of a dogmatic creed, and its very
philanthropy has a narrower and more
restricted character.
There are several minor peculiarities
which distinguish this gospel from the
preceding ones, which we can do no
more than indicate. We find here little
about the Kingdom of Heaven—nothing
about Christ’s mission being confined to
the Israelites—nothing about the casting
out of devils—nothing about the destruc
tion of Jerusalem -nothing a,bout the
struggle between the law and gospel—
topics which occupy so large a space in
the pictureof Christ’s ministry given in the
synoptical gospels; and the omission of
95
which seems to refer the composition of
this narrative to a later period, when the
Gentiles were admitted into the Church
—when the idea of demoniacal posses
sion had given way before a higher cul
ture—when Jerusalem had been long
destroyed—and when Judaism had quite
retired before Christianity, at least
within the pale of the Church.1
1 Modern criticism has detected several slight
errors and inaccuracies in the fourth gospel,
such as Sychar for Sichem, Siloam erroneously
interpreted sent, &c., &c., from which it has
been argued that the writer could not haye been
a native of Palestine, and by consequence not
the Apostle John.
These, however, are insignificant in comparison
with the discrepancy as to the date of the Last
Supper in the different Evangelists, the Synoptists fixing it on the Feast of the Passover and
the Fourth Gospel on the previous day. This
discrepancy gave rise to the famous ‘ ‘ Quartodeciman Controversy,” as it is called, which so
long agitated the early Church, and was at last
only quelled by an authoritative decree of the
Emperor Constantine. Those who wish to
understand the question, and the light which its
details throw upon the probable authorship of
the fourth Gospel, will find an exhaustive a.ccount
in Section ix. of Mr. Tayler’s learned inquiry
already referred to.—The remarkable points are
that the early controversialists, who took the
view and held to the practice of the Synoptists,
appealed to the Apostle John as their strongest
authority on their side;—while it was not till
very late in the discussion that their adversaries
seem to have thought of quoting the fourth
Gospel in their favour;—that this Gospel en
tirely ignores the institution of the Eucharist in
its account of the last days of Jesus, though
apparently alluding to it in some earlier chapters ;
—and that the object of the author appears to
have been to represent, by implication at least,
Christ as being himself the Paschal Lamb, not
as partaking of it.
If the fourth gospel were really the work of
the Apostle John, it would seem impossible to
avoid the inference that the institution of “the
Sacrament ” of bread and wine as recorded by
the other Evangelists is entirely unhistorical,
and then all the stupendous ecclesiastical
corollaries flowing from it fall to the ground.
It is impossible that John could have forgotten
such commands or assertions as are supposed to
be involved in the words, “Take eat; this is
my body,” &c.—It is equally impossible that, if
they were ever spoken, and signified what
Christians in general believe to be their signifi
cance, the disciple who leaned on the bosom of
Jesus while they were uttered could have so
under-valued their meaning as to have omitted
to record them. The dilemma, then, seems to
�96
FIDELITY OF THE GOSPEL HISTORY—GOSPEL OF JOHN
Though we have seen ample reason their own countrymen. They would
to conclude that nearly all the discourses have said, the People, or, the Pharisees.
of Jesus in the fourth gospel are mainly The same observation applies to xiii. 33,
the composition of the evangelist from and also probably to xviii. 36.
memory or tradition, rather than the
Ch. xvii. 3. “ And this is life eternal,
genuine utterances of ' our great Teacher, that they might know Thee the only true
it may be satisfactory, as further con God, and Jesus Christ whom Thou hast
firmation, to select a few single passages sent.” This would be a natural expres
and expressions, as to the unauthentic sion for the evangelist, but scarcely for
character of which there can be no ques his Master.
tion. Thus at ch. iii. n, Jesus is repre
As before observed, great doubt hangs
sented as saying to Nicodemus, in the over the whole story of the testimony
midst of his discourse about regenera borne by the Baptist to Jesus at his
tion, “We speak that we do know, and baptism. In the fourth evangelist, this
testify that which we have seen; and ye testimony is represented as most em
receive not our witness,”—expressions phatic, public, and repeated—so that it
wholly unmeaning and out of place in could have left no doubt in the minds
the mouth of Jesus on an occasion of any of his followers, either as to the
where he is testifying nothing at all, but grandeur of the mission of Jesus, or as
merely propounding a mystical dogma to to his own subordinate character and
an auditor dull of comprehension—but position (i. 29-36; iii. 26-36). Yet
expressions which are the evangelist’s we find, from Acts xviii. 25, and again
habitual form of asseveration and com xix. 3, circles of John the Baptist’s dis
plaint.
ciples, who appear never even to have
It is not clear whether the writer heard of Jesus—a statement which we
intended verses 16-21 to form part of think is justly held irreconcilable with
the discourse of Jesus, or merely a com the statements above referred to in the
mentary of his own. If the former, fourth gospel.
they are clearly unwarrantable; their
The question of miracles will be con
point of view is that of a period when sidered in a future chapter, and several
the teaching of Christ had been known of those related in this Gospel—
and rejected, and they could not have significantly seven in number, and in cul
been uttered with any justice or appro minating order—have special character
priateness at the very commencement of istics of their own; but there is one
his ministry.
miracle, peculiar to John, of so singular
Ch. xi. 8. “ His disciples say unto and apocryphal a character as to call
him, Master, the Jews of late sought to for notice here. The turning of water
stone thee: and goest thou thither into wine at the marriage feast in Cana
again ? ” The Jews is an expression of Galilee has long formed the oppro
which would be natural to Ephesians or brium and perplexity of theologians, and
other foreigners when speaking of the must continue to do so as long as they
inhabitants of Palestine, but could not persist in regarding it as an accurate
have been used by Jews speaking of historical relation. None of the number
less attempts to give anything like a
be inescapable :—Either John did not write the
fourth Gospel—in which case we have the direct probable explanation of the narrative
testimony of no eye-witness to the facts and
has been attended with the least success.
sayings of Christ’s ministry ;—-Or the Sacrament
They are for the most part melancholy
of the Lord’s supper, as deduced from the
Synoptical accounts, with the special doctrines specimens of ingenuity misapplied, and
of Sacramental grace to partakers of it, and of plain honesty perverted by an originally
the Atonement (as far as it is warranted or
false assumption. No portion of the
originally was suggested by those words of
Christ), becomes “the baseless fabric of a gospel history, scarcely any portion of
Old Testament, or even of apocryphal,
vision.”
�RESULTS OF THE FOREGOING CRITICISM
narratives, bears such unmistakable
marks of fiction. It is a story which,
if found in any other volume, would at
once have been dismissed as a clumsy
and manifest invention. In the first
place, it is a miracle wrought to supply
more wine to men who had already
drunk much—a deed which has no suit
ability to the character of Jesus, and no
analogy to any other of his miracles.
Secondly, though it was, as we are told,
the first of his miracles, his mother is
represented as expecting him to work a
miracle, and to commence his public
career with so unfit and improbable a
one. Thirdly, Jesus is said to have
spoken harshly1 to his mother, asking
her what they had in common, and tell
ing her that “ his hour (for working
miracles) was not yet come,” when he
97
knew that it was come. Fourthly, in
spite of this rebuff, Mary is represented
as still expecting a miracle, and this
particular one, and as making preparation
for it: “ She saith to the servants, What
soever he saith unto you, do it ”; and
accordingly Jesus immediately began to
give orders to them. Fifthly, the superior
quality of the wine, and the enormous
quantity produced (135 gallons, or in
our language, above 43 dozen *) are
obviously fabulous. And those who are
familiar with the apocryphal gospels will
have no difficulty in recognising the close
consanguinity between the whole narra
tive and the stories of miracles with
which they abound. It is perfectly
hopeless, as well as mischievous, to
endeavour to retain it as a portion of
authentic history.
Chapter X
RESULTS OF THE FOREGOING CRITICISM
The conclusion at which we have arrived
in the foregoing chapters is of vital mo
ment, and deserves to be fully developed.
When duly wrought out, it will be found
the means of extricating Religion from
Orthodoxy—of rescuing Christianity from
Calvinism. We have seen that the Gos
pels, while they give a fair and faithful
outline of Christ’s character and teaching
(the Synoptical gospels at least) fill up that
outline with much that is not authentic ;
that many of the statements therein re
lated are not historical, but mystical or
legendary ; and that portions at least of
the language ascribed to Jesus were
never uttered by him, but originated
either with the Evangelists themselves, or
more frequently in the traditional stores
from which they drew their materials.
1 All attempts at explanation have failed to
remove this character from the expression—
•yvvai ri
Kai trol.
We cannot, indeed, say in all cases, nor
even in most cases, with certainty—
in many we cannot even pronounce
with any very strong probability—that
such and such particular expressions
or discourses are, or are not, the genuine
utterances of Christ. With respect to
some, we can say with confidence that
they are not from him; with respect to
others, we can say with almost equal
confidence that they are his actual words;
but with regard to the majority of pas
sages this certainty is not attainable.
But as we know that much did not pro
ceed from Jesus —that much is unhistorical and ungenuine—we are entitled
1 See the calculation in Hennell, and in
Strauss, ii. 432. The
is supposed to
correspond to the Hebrew bath, which was equal
to i| Roman amphora, or 87 gallons; the
whole quantity would therefore be from 104 to
156 gallons.
H
�98
RESULTS OF THE FOREGOING CRITICISM
to conclude—we are even forced, by the
very instinct of our reasoning faculty, to
conclude that the unhistorical and ungenuine passages are those in which
Jesus is represented as speaking and
acting in a manner uncomformable to
his character as otherwise delineated,
irreconcilable with the tenour of his
teaching as elsewhere described, and
at variance with those grand moral
and spiritual truths which have com
manded the assent of all disciplined and
comprehensive minds, and which could
scarcely have escaped an intellect so just,
wide,- penetrating, and profound as that
of our great Teacher.
Most reflecting minds rise from a
perusal of the gospel history with a clear,
broad, vivid conception of the character
and mission of Christ, notwithstanding
the many passages at which they have
stumbled, and which they have felt—
perhaps with needless alarm and selfreproach—to be incongruous and unhar
monising with the great whole. The
question naturally arises, Did these in
congruities and inconsistencies really
exist in Christ himself? or, are they the
result of the imperfect and unhistorical
condition in which his biography has
been transmitted to us ? The answer, it
seems to us, ought to be this -We can
not prove, it is true, that some of these
unsuitabilities did not exist in Christ
himself, but we have shown that many
of them belong to the history, not to the
subject of the history, and it is only fair,
therefore, in the absence of contrary evi
dence, to conclude that the others also
are due to the same origin.
Now the peculiar, startling, perplexing,
revolting, and contradictory doctrines of
modern orthodoxy—so far as they have
originated from or are justified by the
gospels at all—have originated from, or
are justified by, not the general tenour
of Christ’s character and preaching, but
those single unharmonising, discrepant,
texts of which we have been speaking.
Doctrines, which unsophisticated men
feel to be inadmissible and repellent
and which those who hold them most
devotedly secretly admit to be fearful
and perplexing, are founded on particular
passages which contradict the generality
of Christ’s teaching, but which, being
attributed to him by the evangelists,
have been regarded as endowed with
an authority which it would be profane
and dangerous to resist. In showing,
therefore, that several of these passages
did not emanate from Christ, and that
in all probability none of them did, we
conceive that we shall have rendered a
vast service to the cause of true religion,
and to those numerous individuals in
whose tortured minds sense and con
science have long struggled for the
mastery. We will elucidate this matter
by a few specifications.1
One of the most untenable, unphilosophical, uncharitable doctrines of the
orthodox creed—one most peculiarly
stamped with the impress of the bad
passions of humanity—is, that belief
(by which is generally signified belief
in Jesus as the Son of God, the promised
Messiah, a Teacher sent down from
Heaven on a special mission to redeem
mankind) is essential, and the one thing
essential, to Salvation. The source of
this doctrine must doubtless be sought
for in that intolerance of opposition un
happily so common among men, and in
that tendency to ascribe bad motives to
those who arrive at different conclusions
from themselves, which prevails so gene
rally among unchastened minds. But
it cannot be denied that the gospels
contain many texts which clearly affirm
or fully imply a doctrine so untenable and
harsh. Let us turn to a few of these
and inquire into the degree of authenti
city to which they are probably entitled.
The most specific assertion of the
1 It is true that many of the doctrines in
question had not a scriptural origin at all, but
an ecclesiastical one; and, when originated,
were defended by texts from the epistles, rather
than the gospels. The authority of the epistles
we shall consider in a subsequent chapter, but
if in the meantime we can show that those
doctrines have no foundation in the language of
Christ, the chief obstacle to the renunciation of
them is removed.
�RESULTS OF THE FOREGOING CRITICISM
tenet in question, couched in that posi
tive, terse, sententious damnatory lan
guage so dear to orthodox divines, is
found in the spurious portion of the
gospel of Mark (c. xvi. 16),1 and is
there by the writer, whoever he was,
unscrupulously put into the mouth of
Jesus after his resurrection.
In the
synoptical gospels may be found a few
texts which may be wrested to support
the doctrine, but there are none which
teach it. But when we come to the
fourth gospel we find several passages
similar to that in Mark,2 proclaiming
Salvation to believers, but all in the
peculiar style and spirit of the author
of the first Epistle ofJohn, which abounds
in denunciations precisely similar 3 (but
directed, it is remarkable, apparently
against heretics, not against infidels,
against those who believe amiss, not
against those who do not believe at all)—
all, too, redolent of the temper of that
Apostle who wished to call down fire
from heaven on an unbelieving vil
lage, and who was rebuked by Jesus for
the savage and presumptuous suggestion.
In the last chapter we have shown
that the style of these passages is of a
nature to point to John, and not to
Jesus, as their author, and that the spirit
of them is entirely hostile and incom
patible with the language of Jesus in
other parts more obviously faithful. It
appears, therefore, that the passages
confirmatory of the doctrine in question
are found exclusively in a portion of the
synoptists which is certainly spurious,
and in portions of the fourth gospel
which are almost certainly unhistorical;
and that they are contradicted by other
passages in all the gospels. It only
remains to show that as the doctrine is
at variance with the spirit of the mild
1 “ He that believeth and is baptized shall be
saved ; but he that believeth not shall be
damned,” a passage which, were it not happily
spurious, would suffice to “damn” the book
which contains it.
2 John iii. 16, 18, 36; v. 24 ; vi. 29, 40, 47 ;
xi. 25, 26; xx. 31.
3 1 John ii. 19, 22, 23 ; iv. 2, 3, 6, 15 ; v, I,
5, IO, 12, 13.
99
and benevolent Jesus, so it is too
obviously unsound not to have been
recognised as such by one whose clear
and grand intelligence was informed and
enlightened by so pure a heart.
In the first place, Christ must have
known that the same doctrine will be
presented in a very different manner,
and with very different degrees of
evidence for its truth, by different
preachers; so much so that to resist
the arguments of one preacher would
imply either dulness of comprehension
or obstinate and wilful blindness, while
to yield to the arguments of his colleague
would imply weakness of understanding
or instability of purpose. The same
doctrine may be presented and defended
by one preacher so clearly, rationally,
and forcibly that all sensible men
(idiosyncrasies apart) must accept it,
and by another preacher so feebly, cor
ruptly, and confusedly, that all sensible
men must reject it. The rejection of
the Christianity preached by Luther,
and of the Christianity preached by
Tetzel, of the Christianity preached by
Loyola and Dunstan, and of the Christ
ianity preached by Oberlin and Pascal,
cannot be worthy of the same con
demnation.
Few Protestants, and no
Catholics, will deny that Christianity
has been so presented to men as to make
it a simple affair both of sense and virtue
to reject it. To represent, therefore, the
reception of a doctrine as a . matter of
merit, or its rejection as a matter of
blame, without reference to the considera
tion how and by whom it is preached, is
to leave out the main element of judg
ment—an error which could not have
been committed by the just and wise
Jesus.
Further. The doctrine and the pas
sages in question ascribe to “belief”
the highest degree of merit, and the
sublimest conceivable reward—“eternal
life”; and to “disbelief,” the deepest
wickedness, and the most fearful penalty,
“damnation,” and “the wrath of God.”
Now, here we have a logical error,
betraying a confusion of intellect which
�IOO
RESULTS OF THE FOREGOING CRITICISM
we may well scruple to ascribe to Jesus.
Belief is an effect produced by a cause.
It is a condition of the mind induced
by the operation of evidence presented.
Being, therefore, an. effect, and not an
act, it cannot be, or have, a merit. The
moment it becomes a distinctly voluntary
act (and therefore a thing of which merit
can be predicated} it ceases to be genuine
—it is then brought about (if it be not
an abuse of language to name this state
“belief”) by the will of the individual,
not by the bond fide operation of evidence
upon his mind—which brings us to the
reductio ad absurdum, that belief can
only become meritorious by ceasing to
be honest.
In sane and competent minds, if the
evidence presented is sufficient, belief
will follow as a necessary consequence—
if it does not follow, this can only arise
from the evidence adduced being in
sufficient—and in such case to pretend
belief, or to attempt belief, would be a
forfeiture of mental integrity; and can
not therefore be meritorious, but the
reverse.
To disbelieve, in spite of
adequate proof is impossible—to believe
without adequate proof is weak or
dishonest. Belief, therefore, can only
become meritorious by becoming sinful
—can only become a fit subject for
reward by becoming a fit subject for
punishment. Such is the sophism in
volved in the dogma which theologians
have dared to put into Christ’s mouth,
and to announce on his authority.
But, it will be urged, the disbelief
which Christ blamed and menaced with
punishment was (as appears from John
iii. 19) the disbelief implied in a wilful
rejection of his claims, or a refusal to
examine them—a love of darkness in
preference to light. If so, the language
employed is incorrect and deceptive,
and the blame is predicated of an effect
instead of a cause—it is meant of a
voluntary action, but it is predicated of
a specified and denounced consequence
wffiich is no natural or logical indication
of that voluntary action, but may arise
from independent causes. The moralist
who should denounce gout as a sin,
meaning the sinfulness to apply to the
excesses of which gout is often, but by
no means always, a consequence and an
indication, would be held to be a very
confused teacher and inaccurate logician.
Moreover, this is not the sense attached
to the doctrine by orthodox divines in
common parlance. And the fact still
remains that Christ is represented as
rewarding by eternal felicity a state of
mind which, if honestly attained, is in
evitable, involuntary, and therefore in
no way a fitting subject for reward, and
which, if not honestly attained, is hollow,
fallacious, and deserving of punishment
rather than of recompense.
We are aware that the orthodox seek
to escape from the dilemma, by asserting
that belief results from the state of the
heart, and that if this be right belief will
inevitably follow. This is simply false
in fact, How many excellent, virtuous,
and humble minds, in all ages, have been
anxious but unable to believe—have
prayed earnestly for belief, and suffered
bitterly for disbelief—in vain !
The dogma of the Divinity, or, as it
is called in the technical language of
polemics, the proper Deity, of Christ,
though historically provable to have
had an ecclesiastical, not an evangelical,
origin 1—though clearly negatived by the
whole tenour of the synoptical gospels,
and even by some passages in the fourth
gospel [and though it is difficult to read
the narrative of his career with an un
forestalled mind without being clear that
Jesus had no notion of such a belief
himself, and would have repudiated it
with horror]—can yet appeal to several
isolated portions and texts, as suggesting
and confirming, if not asserting it. On
close examination, however, it will be
seen that all these passages are to be
found either in the fourth gospel—which
we have already shown reason to con
clude is throughout an unscrupulous and
1 “ The Unscriptural Origin and Ecclesiastical
History of the Doctrine of the Trinity,” by the
Rev. J. Hamilton Thom.
�RESULTS OF THE FOREGOING CRITICISM
IOI
of which we have already shown to be
of very questionable genuineness,-—and
the voice from heaven said to have been
and from independent trains of argu heard at the baptism and the transfigura
ment, have been selected as at least of tion, saying, “ This is my beloved Son/*
But, besides that, as shown in
questionable authenticity.
It is true &c.
that the doctrine in question is now chapter vi., considerable doubt rests on
chiefly defended by reference to the the accuracy of the first of these relations :
Epistles; but at the same time it would the testimony borne by the heavenly
scarcely be held so tenaciously by voice to Jesus can in no sense mean that
the orthodox if it were found to be he was physically the Son of God, or a
wholly destitute of evangelical support. partaker of the divine nature, inasmuch
Now, the passages which appear most as the very same expression was fre
confirmatory of Christ’s Deity, or Divine quently applied to others, and as indeed
Nature, are, in the first place, the narra a “Son of God” was, in the common
tives of the Incarnation, or the miracu parlance of the Jews, simply a prophet,
lous Conception, as given by Matthew a man whom God had sent, or to whom
and Luke.
We have already entered he had spoken.1
But when we come to the fourth gospel,
pretty fully into the consideration of the
authenticity of these portions of Scrip especially to those portions of it whose
ture, and have seen that we may almost peculiar style betrays that they came
with certainty pronounce them to be from John, and not from Jesus, the case
fabulous, or mythical. The two narra is very different. We find here many
tives do not harmonise with each other ; passages evidently intended to convey
they neutralise and negative the gene the impression that Jesus was endowed
alogies on which depended so large a with a superhuman nature, but nearly all
portion of the proof of Jesus being the expressed in language savouring less of
Messiah ;1—the marvellous statement Christian simplicity than of Alexandrian
they contain is not referred to in any philosophy. The Evangelist commences
subsequent portion of the two gospels, his gospel with a confused statement of
».nd is tacitly but positively negatived by the Platonic doctrine as modified in
several passages—it is never mentioned Alexandria, and that the Logos was a
in the Acts or in the Epistles, and was evi partaker of the Divine Nature, and was
dently unknown to all the Apostles—and, the Creator of the world ; on which he
finally, the tone of the narrative, espe proceeds to engraft his own notion, that
cially in Luke, is poetical and legendary, Jesus was this Logos—that the Logos or
and bears a marked similarity to the stories the divine wisdom, the second person in
Plato’s Trinity, became flesh in the per
contained in the apocryphal gospels.
The only other expressions in the son of the Prophet of Nazareth. Now, can
first three gospels which lend the slightest anyone read the epistles, or the first three
countenance to the doctrine in ques gospels—or even the whole of the fourth
tion are the acknowledgments of the dis —and not at once repudiate the notion
ciples, the centurion, and the demoniacs that Jesus was, and knew himself to be,
that Jesus was the Son of God,2—some the Creator of the World ?—which J ohn
most inexact paraphrase of Christ’s teach
ing—or in those portions of the first
three gospels which, on other accounts
1 The Messiah must, according to Jewish
prophecy, be a lineal descendant of David : this
Christ was, according to the genealogies ; this
he was not, if the miraculous conception be a
fact. If, therefore, Jesus came into being as
Matthew and Luke affirm, we do not see how
he could have been the Messiah.
2 An expression here merely signifying a
prophet or the Messiah.
1 “The Lord hath said unto me [David],
Thou art my son; this day have I begotten
thee.”—(Ps. ii. 7.) Jehovah says of Solomon,
“ I will be his father, and he shall be my son.”
—(2 Sam. vii. 14.) The same expression is
applied to Israel (Exod. iv. 22, Hos. xi. 1), and
to David (Ps. lxxxix. 27). “I have said, Ye
are gods, and all of you are children of the
Most High.”—(Ps. lxxxii. 6.)
�102
RESULTS OF THE FOREGOING CRITICISM
affirms him to have been. Throughout
this gospel we find constant repetitions
of the same endeavour to make out a
superhuman nature for Christ; but the
ungenuineness of these passages has
already been fully considered.
. Take, again, the doctrine of the Eter
nity of future punishments—the most
impossible of the tenets included in the
popular creed. It rests upon and is
affirmed by one single Gospel text, Matt,
xxv. 46 ;—for, though “hell fire,” “ ever
lasting fire ”—i.e., the fire that was kept
perpetually burning in the adjacent valley
of Gehenna for the consumption of the
city refuse—is often spoken of as typify
ing the fate of the wicked, yet the ex
pression distinctly implies, not everlast
ing life in fire, but the precise opposite,—
namely, death, annihilation, total destruc
tion, in a fire ever at hand and never
extinguished. The doctrine is not only
in diametric antagonism to all that we
can conceive or accept of the attributes
of the God of Jesus, but to the whole
spirit and teaching of our great Master.
It is at variance with other texts and
with the general view 1 gathered from
authentic Scripture, which teaches the
“perishing,” the “death ” of the wicked,
not their everlasting life in torment. And
finally, the isolated text in question
occurs in one only of the gospels,—and
occurs there (as will be seen by compar
ing Matt. xxv. 31 with xxiv. 30) in im
mediate connection with the prophecy as
to the coming of the end of the world
within the lifetime of the then existing
generation,—a prophecy the erroneous
ness of which is now demonstrated, and
which there is (to say the least) no need
for believing ever to have come out of
the mouth of Christ. What are called
the “eschatological” discourses are
notoriously among the passages in the
gospels of most questionable genuineness.
1 See countless arguments from the pens, not
of unbelievers, but of qualified divines—among
later ones, “ Harmony of Scripture on Future
Punishments,” by the Rev. S. Minton, and a
paper by ‘ ‘ Anglicanus ” in the Contemporary
Review for May, 1872.
Yet it is on the authority of a single
verse, so suspiciously located, so re
peatedly contradicted elsewhere either
distinctly or by implication, and so
flagrantly out of harmony with the spirit
both of Theism and of Christianity,
that we are summoned to accept a dogma
revolting alike to our purer instincts and
our saner reason !
Once more : the doctrine of the Atone
ment, of Christ’s death having been a
sacrifice in expiation of the sins of man
kind, is the keystone of the common
form of modern orthodoxy. It takes its
origin from the epistles, and we believe
can only appeal to three texts in the
Evangelists for even partial confirmation.
In Matt. xx. 28 it is said : “The Son of
man came, not to be ministered unto,
but to minister, and to give his life a
ransom for many,”—an expression which
may countenance the doctrine, but as
suredly does not contain it. Again, in
Matt. xxvi. 28 we find: “ This is my
blood of the New Testament, which is
shed for many for the remission of sins.”
Mark (xiv. 24) and Luke (xxi. io), how
ever, who gave the same sentence, both
omit the significant expression; while
John omits, not only the expression, but
the entire narrative of the institution of
the Eucharist, which is said elsewhere to
have been the occasion of it. In the
fourth gospel, John the Baptist is repre
sented as saying of Jesus (i. 29), “Be
hold the Lamb of God, which taketh
away the sin of the world,” an expression
which may possibly be intended to convey
the doctrine, but which occurs in what we
have already shown to be about the most
apocryphal portion of the whole gospel.
In fine, then, we arrive at this irresist
ible conclusion ; that—knowing several
passages in the Evangelists to be unauthentic, and having reason to suspect
the authenticity of many others, and
scarcely being able with absolute cer
tainty to point to any which are perfectly
and indubitably authentic—the proba
bility in favour of the fidelity of any of
�RESURRECTION OF JESUS
the texts relied on to prove the peculiar
and perplexing doctrines of modern
orthodoxy, is far inferior to the proba
bility against the truth of those doctrines.
A doctrine perplexing to our reason and
painful to our feelings may be from God ;
but in this case the proof of its being
from God must be proportionally clear
and irrefragable ; the assertion of it in a
narrative which does not scruple to
attribute to God’s messenger words which
he never uttered, is not only no proof,
but scarcely even amounts to a presump
tion. There is no text in the Evangelists,
the divine (or Christian) origin of which
is sufficiently unquestionable to enable it
to serve as the foundation of doctrines
repugnant to natural feeling or to common
Sense.
But, it will be objected, if these con
clusions are sound, absolute uncertainty
is thrown over the whole gospel history,
and all over Christ’s teaching. To this
we reply, in limine, in the language of
Algernon Sydney, “ No consequence can
destroy any truth ”; the sole matter for
consideration is, Are our arguments
correct? not, Do they lead to a result
which is embarrassing and unwelcome ?
But the inference is excessive; the
premises do not reach so far. The
uncertainty thrown is not over the main
103
points of Christ’s history, which, after all
its retrenchments, still stands out an
intelligible though a skeleton account—not over the grand features, the pervading
tone, of his doctrines or his character,
which still present to us a clear, con
sistent, and splendid delineation; but
over those individual statements, pas
sages, and discourses which mar this
delineation, which break its unity, which
destroy its consistency, which cloud its
clearness, which tarnish its beauty. The
gain to us seems immense. It is true,
we have no longer absolute certainty with
regard to any one especial text or scene :
such is neither necessary nor attainable;
it is true that, instead of passively accept
ing the whole heterogeneous and indigest
ible mass, we must, by the careful and con
scientious exercise of those faculties with
which we are endowed, by ratiocination
and moral tact, separate what Christ did
from what he did not teach, as best we
may. But the task will be difficult to
those only who look in the gospels for a
minute, dogmatic, and sententious creed
—not to those who seek only to learn
Christ’s spirit, that they may imbibe it,
and to comprehend his views of virtue
and of God, that they may draw strength
and consolation from those fountains of
living water.1
Chapter XI
RESURRECTION OF JESUS
We are now arrived at the most vitally
important, and the most intensely interest
ing, portion of the Christian records—
the Resurrection of Jesus. This is the
great fact to which the affections of
Christians turn with the most cherished
eagerness, the grand foundation on
which their hopes depend, on which
their faith is fixed. If, in consequence
of our inquiries, the ordinary doctrine of
Scriptural Inspiration be relinquished,
we have reason to rejoice that Religion is
relieved from a burden often too great
for it to bear. If the complete verbal
accuracy of the Gospel narratives is dis1 “The character of the record is such that I
see not how any great stress can be laid on particu
lar actions attributed to Jesus. That he lived a
divine life, suffered a violent death, taught and
lived a most beautiful religion—this seems the
great fact about which a mass of truth and error
has been collected.”—Theodore Parker, “ Dis
course,” p. 188.
�104
resurrection OF JESUS
proved, orthodoxy and not Christianity
is a sufferer by the change, since it is only
the more minute and embarrassing tenets
of our creed that find their foundation
swept away. If investigation shows the
miracles of the Bible to be untenable, or
at least unobligatory upon our belief,
theologians are comforted by feeling that
they have one weak and vulnerable out
post the less to defend. But if the
resurrection of our Lord should prove,
on closer scrutiny, to rest on no adequate
evidence, and mental integrity should
compel us to expunge it from our creed,
the generality of Christians will feel that
the whole basis of their faith and hope is
gone, and their Christianity will vanish
with the foundation on which, perhaps
half-unconsciously, theyrested it. Whether
this ought to be so is a point for
future consideration. All that we have
now to do is to remember that truth
must be investigated without any side
glance to the consequences which that
investigation may have upon our hopes.
Our faith is sure to fail us in the hour of
trial if we have based it on consciously
or suspectedly fallacious grounds, and
maintained it by wilfully closing our eyes
to the flaws in its foundations.
The belief in the resurrection of our
Lord, when based upon reflection at all,
and not a mere mental habit, will be
found to rest on two grounds : Jirst, the
direct testimony of the Scripture narra
tives ; and secondly, the evidence deriv
able from the subsequent conduct of the
Apostles.
I. The narratives of the resurrection
contained in the four Gospels present
many remarkable discrepancies.
But
discrepancies in the accounts of an event
given by different narrators, whether
themselves witnesses, or merely his
torians, by no means necessarily impugn
the reality of the event narrated, but
simply those accessories of the event to
which the discrepancies relate. Thus,
when one Evangelist tells us that the two
malefactors, who were crucified along with
Jesus, reviled him, and another Evange- |
list relates that only one of them reviled
him, and was rebuked by the other for
so doing, though the contradiction is
direct and positive, no one feels that the
least doubt is thereby thrown upon the
fact of two malefactors having been
crucified with Jesus, nor of some reviling
having passed on the occasion. There
fore the variations in the narratives of
the resurrection given by the four Evan
gelists do not, of themselves, impugn
the fact of the resurrection. Even were
they (which they are not) the first-hand
accounts of eye-witnesses, instead of be
ing merely derived from such, still it is
characteristic of the honest testimony
of eye-witnesses to be discrepant in
collateral minutise. But, on a closer
examination of these accounts, several
peculiarities present themselves for more
detailed consideration.
1. We have already seen reason for
concluding that, of the four Gospels,
three at least were certainly not the
production of eye-witnesses, but were
compilations from oral or documentary
narratives current among the Christian
community at the time of their com
position, and derived doubtless for the
most part from very high authority.
With regard to the fourth Gospel the
opinions of the best critics are so much
divided, that all we can pronounce upon
the subject with any certainty is, that if
it were the production of the Apostle
John, it was written at a time when,
either from defect of memory, redun
dancy of imagination, or laxity in his
notions of an historian’s duty, he allowed
himself to take strange liberties with
fact.1 All, therefore, that the Gospels
now present to us is the narrative of the
Resurrection, not as it actually occurred,
but in the form it had assumed among
the disciples thirty years or more after
the death of Jesus.
Now, the discrepancies which we
notice in the various accounts are not
greater than might have been expected
in historians recording an event, or
rather traditions of an event, which oc1 See chap. ix.
�RESURRECTION OF JESUS
curred from thirty to sixty years before
they wrote. These records, therefore,
discrepant as they are, are, we think,
quite sufficient to prove that something of
the kind occurred, i.e., that some occur
rence took place which gave rise to the
belief and traditions;—-but no more.
The agreement of the several accounts
shows that something of the kind oc
curred :—their discrepancies show that
this occurrence was not exactly such as
it is related to have been.
Something of the kind occurred which
formed the groundwork for the belief
and the narrative. What, then, was this
something—this basis—this nucleus of
fact? The Gospel of Mark appears to
contain this nucleus, and this alone.1
It contains nothing but what all the
other accounts contain, and nothing that
is not simple, credible, and natural, but
it contains enough to have formed a
foundation for the whole subsequent
superstructure. Mark informs us that
when the women went early to the
Sepulchre, they found it open, the body
of Jesus gone, and someone in white
garments who assured them that he was
risen. This all the four narratives agree
in :—and they agree in nothing else. The
disappearance of the body, then, was cer
tain;—the information that Jesus was
risen came from the women alone, who
believed it because they were told it, and
who were also the first to affirm that they
had seen their Lord. In the excited
state of mind in which all the disciples
must have been at this time, were not
these three unquestioned circumstances
—that the body was gone ;—that a figure
dressed in white told the women that
their Lord was risen;—and that the
same women saw someone whom they be
lieved to be him;—amply sufficient to
make a belief in his resurrection spread
with the force and rapidity of a con
tagion ?
1 We must bear in mind that the genuine
Gospel of Mark ends with the 8th verse of
chapter xvi. ; and that there is good reason to
believe that Mark’s Gospel was, if not the
original one, at least the earliest.
105
2. It is clear that to prove such- a
miracle as the reappearance in life of a
man who had been publicly slain, the
direct and concurrent testimony of eye
witnesses would be necessary ;—that two
or more should state that they saw him
at such a time and place, and knew him ;
—and that this clear testimony should
be recorded and handed down to us in
an authentic document. This degree
of evidence we might have had :—this
we have not. We have epistles from
Peter, James, John, and Jude—all of
whom are said by the Evangelists to have
seen Jesus after he rose from the dead,
in none of which epistles is the fact of
the resurrection even stated, much less
that Jesus was seen by the writer after
his resurrection. This point deserves
weighty consideration. We have ample
evidence that the belief in Christ’s re
surrection 1 was very early and very
general among the disciples, but we
have not the direct testimony of any
one of the twelve, nor any eye-witness
at all, that they saw him on earth after
his death. Many writers say,
was
seen ” ;—no one says, “Z saw him alive
in the flesh.”
There are three apparent exceptions
to this, which, however, when examined,
will prove rather confirmatory of our
statement than otherwise. If the last
chapter of the fourth Gospel were written
by the Apostle John, it would contain
the direct testimony of an eye-witness to
the appearance of Jesus upon earth after
his crucifixion. But its genuineness has
long been a matter of question among
learned men,2 and few can read it
critically and retain the belief that it is
a real relic of the beloved Apostle, or
even that it originally formed part of
the Gospel to which it is appended. In
1 The belief in a general resurrection was, we
know, prevalent among the Jews in general, and
the disciples of Christ especially ; and it appears
from several passages that the opinion was that
the resurrection would be immediate upon death
(Luke xx. 38 ; xxiii. 43). In this case the
belief that Christ was risen would follow im
mediately on the knowledge of his death.
2 See Hug, 484.
�io6
RESURRECTION OE JESUS
the first place, the closing verse of the
preceding chapter unmistakably indicates
the termination of a history. Then,
the general tone of the twenty-first
chapter—its particularity as to the dis
tance of the bark from shore, and the
exact number of fishes taken—the fire
ready made when the disciples came to
land—the contradiction between the
fourth verse and the seventh and twelfth,
as to the recognition of Jesus—all par
take strongly of the legendary character,
as does likewise the conversation between
Jesus and Peter. Again, the miraculous
draught of fishes which is here placed
after the resurrection of Christ, is by
Luke related as happening at the very
commencement of his ministry. And
finally, the last two verses, it is clear,
cannot be from the pen of John, and
we have no grounds for supposing them
to be less genuine than the rest of the
chapter. On a review of the whole
question we entertain no doubt that the
whole chapter was an addition of later
date, perhaps by some elder of the
Ephesian Church.
In the first Epistle of Peter (iii. 21,
22), the resurrection and existence in
heaven of Jesus are distinctly affirmed ;
but when we remember that the Jews
at that time believed in a future life,
and apparently in an immediate trans
ference of the spirit from this world to
the next, and that this belief had been
especially enforced on the • disciples of
Jesus (Matt. xvii. 1-4; xxii. 32. Luke
xvi. 23-31 ; xxiii. 43), this will appear
very different from an assertion that
Jesus had actually risen to an earthly
life, and that Peter had seen him.
Indeed, the peculiar expression that is
made use of at ver. 18, in affirming the
doctrine (“being slain in flesh, but made
alive again in spirit ”) indicates, in the
true meaning of the original, not a fleshly,
but a spiritual revivification.
There remains the statement of Paul
(1 Cor. xv; 8), “And last of all, he was
seen of me also.” This assertion, taken
with the context, negatives rather than
affirms the reappearance of Christ upon
the earth to the bodily eye of his dis
ciples. The whole statement is a some
what rambling one, and not altogether
consistent with the Gospel narratives ;
but the chief point to be attended to
here is that Paul places the appearance
of Jesus to the other disciples on the
same footing as his appearance to him
self. Now, we know that his appearance
to Paul was in a vision—a vision visible
to Paul alone of all the bystanders, and,
therefore, subjective or mental merely.
Moreover, strictly speaking, there was
no vision at all;—no one was seen;
there was a bright light, and a voice was
heard. In this all the accounts agree.
In a subsequent verse, indeed (xxii. 18)
Paul says that, when “ in a trance in the
Temple at Jerusalem,” he “saw, him (the
Lord) saying to him,” &c. But .this
expression, again, seems to imply hear
ing, not sight. The conclusion to be
drawn from the language of Paul would,
therefore, be that the appearance of
Jesus to the other disciples was visionary
likewise. Our original statement, there
fore, remains unqualified :—We might
have had, and should have expected to
have, the direct assertion of four Apos
tles, that they had seen Jesus on earth
and in the flesh after his death :—we
have not this assertion from any one of
them.
3. The statements which have come
down to us as to when, where, by whom,
and'how often Jesus was seen after his
death, present such serious and irre
concilable variations as to prove beyond
question that they are not the original
statements of eye-witnesses, but merely
the form which the original statements
had assumed, after much transmission,
thirty or forty years after the event to
which they relate. Let us examine them
more particularly. It will be seen that
they agree in everything that is natural
and probable, and disagree in everything
that is supernatural and difficult of
credence. All the accounts agree that
the women, on their matutinal visit to
the sepulchre, found the body gone, and
saw some one in white raiment who
�RESURRECTION OF JESUS
spoke to them.
else.
They agree in nothing
(1.) They differ as to the number of
the women. John mentions only one,
Mary Magdalene; Matthew two, Mary
Magdalene and the other Mary;—Mark
three, the two Marys and Salome;—
Luke several, the two Marys, Joanna,
and “ certain others with them.”
(2.) They differ as to the number of
persons in white raiment who appeared
to the women. Mark speaks of one
“ young man ; ”—Matthew of one
“ angel; ”—Luke of two “ men ; ”—
John of two “angels.”—According to
John, also, the appearance of the two
angels was not till Mary’s second visit
to the tomb, after Peter and John had
been there.
(3.) They differ as to the words
spoken by the apparitions. According
to Matthew and Mark they asserted the
resurrection of Jesus, and his departure
into Galilee, and sent a message to his
disciples enjoining them to follow him
thither. According to Luke they simply
stated that he was risen, and referred to
a, former prediction of his to this effect.
According to John they only asked Mary,
“Woman ! why weepest thou?”
(4.) They differ in another point.
According to Matthew, Luke, and John,
the women carried the information as to
what they had seen at once to the
disciples. According to Mark “they
said nothing to any man.”
(5.) They differ as to the parties to
whom Jesus appeared.—According to
Mark it was to no one. According to
Matthew it was first to the two women,
then to the eleven. According to John
it was first to one woman then twice to
the assembled Apostles. According to
Luke it was first to no woman, but to
Oeopas and his companion, then to
Peter,1 and then to the assembled eleven.
(6.) They differ as to the locality.
1 This appearance to Peter is also mentioned
by Paul (1 Cor. xv. 7), from whom probably
Luke received it. We have nowhere else any
trace of it.
107
According to Mark it was nowhere.
According to Matthew it was first at
Jerusalem and then at Galilee, whither
the disciples went in obedience to the
angelic command. According to Luke
it was in Jerusalem and its vicinity, and
there alone, where the disciples remained
in obedience to the reiterated command
of Jesus himself.1 According to the
genuine part of John, also, the appear
ances were confined to Jerusalem.
The account of Paul differs slightly
from all the others; it must have been
second-hand; and is valuable'only as
showing the accounts which were current
in the Christian Church at the time at
which he wrote, and how much these
varied from the evangelic documents,
which were, in fact, a selection out of
these current accounts. The epistle of
Paul was written, probably, about the
year a.d. 57; the first three Gospels
between the years a.d. 60 and 70. The
appearance to James, which Paul
mentions, was taken from the Gospel to
the Hebrews, now lost.2
Now, we put it to any candid man
whether the discrepancies in these
accounts are not of a nature, and to an
extent, entirely to disqualify them from
being received as evidence of anything,
except the currency and credit of such
stories among Christians thirty years
after the death of Christ ?
4. A marked and most significant
peculiarity in these accounts, which has
not received the attention it deserves, is,
1 Luke xxiv. 49, 53 ; Acts i. 4. Luke and
Matthew thus contradict each other past all
possibility of reconciliation. Matthew tells us
that Jesus commanded them to go into Galilee,
and that they went thither
Luke tells us that
he positively commanded them “not to depart
from Jerusalem,” and that they remained there
(xxiv. 53). But Luke contradicts himself quite
as flatly on another point. In the Gospel he
represents the ascension as taking place on the
evening of the third day after the crucifixion :
such is the clear meaning of the text (as may be
seen from verses 21, 33, 36, 50):—in the Acts
he places the ascension forty days after the
resurrection, and says that Jesus was seen by his
disciples during the whole interval.
2 The passage, however, is preserved by
Jerome (See Hennell, p< 227).
�108
RESURRECTION OF JESUS
that scarcely any of those who are said
to have seen Jesus after his resurrection
recognised him, though long and in
timately acquainted with his person.
According to Matthew (xxviii. 17), when
Jesus appeared to the eleven in Galilee
by his own appointment, some, even of
them, “ doubted ”; which could not
have been the case had his identity been
clearly recognisable.
According to
Luke, the two disciples, with whom he
held a long conversation, and who passed
many hours in his company, did not
recognise him. “ Their eyes were holden,
that they should not know him ”x And
even after the disciples had been in
formed, both of this reappearance and
of that to Peter (xxiv. 34-37), yet when
Jesus appeared to them, they were
affrighted, and supposed that they saw a
spirit. According to John, even Mary
Magdalene, after Jesus had spoken to
her, and she had turned to look at
him, still did not recognise him, but
supposed him to be the gardener. In
the spurious part of John (xxi. 4-6)
the same want of recognition is observ
able. In the spurious part of Mark we
see traces of a belief that Jesus assumed
various forms after his resurrection, to
account, doubtless, for the non-recog
nition of some and the disbelief of
others (xvi. 11, 12, 13) : “After that he
appeared in another form unto two of
them.” Now, if it really were Jesus
who appeared to these various parties,
would this want of recognition have been
possible? If it were Jesus, he was so
changed that his most intimate friends
1 Here another interesting point comes in for
consideration. The conversation between Jesus
and his two companions turned upon the
Messianic prophecies, which the disciples held to
have been disappointed by the death of Jesus,
but which Jesus assured them related to and
were fulfilled in him. Now, if the conclusion
at which we arrived in a previous chapter (iii.)
be correct, viz., that the Old Testament pro
phecies contain no real reference to a suffering
Messiah, or to Jesus at all, it follows that at
least half the story of Cleopas must be fabulous,
unless, indeed, we adopt the supposition that
Jesus held the same erroneous views respecting
these prophecies as his disciples.
did not know him. How then can we
know that it was himself?
We will not attempt to construct, as
several have endeavoured to do, out of
these conflicting traditions, a narrative
of the real original occurrence which
gave rise to them, and of the process by
which they attained the form and con
sistency at which they have arrived in
the evangelical documents. Three dif
ferent suppositions may be adopted, each
of which has found favour in the eyes of
some writers. We may either imagine
that Jesus was not really and entirely
dead when taken down from the cross,
a supposition which Paulus and others
show to be far from destitute of pro
bability :1 or we may imagine that the
apparition of Jesus to his disciples be
longs to that class of appearances of
departed spirits for which so much
staggering and bewildering evidence is
on record;2 or, lastly, we may believe
that the minds of the disciples, excited
by the disappearance of the body, and
the announcement by the women of his
resurrection, mistook some passing in
dividual for their crucified Lord, and
that from such an origin multiplied
rumours of his reappearance arose and
spread. We do not, ourselves, defini
tively adopt any of these hypotheses:
we wish simply to call attention to the
circumstance that we have no clear, con
sistent, credible account of the resurrec
tion ; that the only elements of the
narrative which are retained and remain
uniform in all its forms—viz., the dis
appearance of the body, and the appear
ance of someone in white at the tomb,
are simple and probable, and in no way
necessitate, or clearly point to, the sur
mise of a bodily resurrection at all.
Christ may have risen from the dead and
appeared to his disciples; but it is cer
tain that if he did, the Gospels do not
contain a correct account of such resurrec
tion and reappearance.
II. The conduct of the Apostles sub
sequent to the death of Jesus—the
1 Strauss, iii. 288.
2 See Bush’s Anastasis, 156.
�RESURRECTION OF JESUS
marked change in their character from
timidity to boldness, and in their feel
ings from deep depression and dismay
to satisfaction and triumph—as depicted
in the Acts, affords far stronger evidence
in favour of the bodily resurrection of
their Lord, than any of the narratives
which have recorded the event.
It
seems to us certain that the Apostles
believed in the resurrection of Jesus with
absolute conviction. Nothing short of
such a belief could have sustained them
through what they had to endure, or
given them enthusiasm for what they
had to do; the question, therefore,
which remains for our decision is,
whether the Apostles could have be
lieved it, had it not been fact; whether
their reception of the doctrine of a
general resurrection, or rather of a future
life,1 coupled with the disappearance of
the body of Jesus from the sepulchre in
which he had been laid, and the report
of the women regarding the statement
of the angelic vision, be sufficient . to
account for so vivid and actuating a faith,
without the supposition of his actual
appearance to themselves; whether, in
fact, the Apostles, excited by the report
that he was risen, could have believed
that they had seen him if they had not
really done so. This question will be
differently answered by different minds ;
nor do we know that any argument will
weigh more on either side than the simple
statement of the problem to be resolved.1
2
1 The current belief in those days appears to
have been not in an immediate liberation of the
soul to a spiritual existence but in an ultimate
resurrection of all at the great day of account.
John xi. 24; Luke xx. 33 ; Mark xii. 23.
2 It is certain that we, in these days,, could
not believe in the resurrection of an individual
to an earthly life unless we had ascertained his
death, and ourselves seen him afterwards alive.
But we cannot justly apply this reasoning to the
early followers of Christ; they were not men
of critical, inquiring, or doubting minds, nor
accustomed to sift or scrutinise testimony, but,
on the contrary, inured to marvels, and trained
to regard the supernatural as almost an ordinary
part of the natural, given moreover to see
visions, and unhesitatingly to accept them as
divine communications.
109
Certainly, the bold faith of the Apostles,
if sufficient, is the only sufficient evid
ence for the occurrence; the narra
tive testimony would be inadequate to
prove a far more credible event. All
we can say is this, that a belief in the
resurrection and bodily reappearance of
Jesus early prevailed.and rapidly obtained
currency in the Christian community;
that the Apostles shared the belief in the
resurrection, and did not discourage that
in the bodily reappearance; that, how
ever, none of them (the fourth Gospel
not having been written by John) has
left us his own testimony to having him
self seen Jesus alive after his death ; and
that some of the disciples doubted, and
others long after disbelieved the fact.1
In order to mitigate our pain at finding
that the fact of Christ’s resurrection has
been handed down to us on such in
adequate testimony as to render it at
best a doubtful inference, it is desirable
to inquire whether, in reality, it has the
doctrinal value which it has been the
habit of theologians to attribute to it.
We have been taught to regard it not
only as the chief and crowning proof of
the divinity of our Saviour’s mission,
but as the type, earnest, and assurance
of our own translation to a life beyond
the grave. It is very questionable, how
ever, whether either of these views of it
is fully justified by reason.
There can be no doubt that the fact
of an individual having been miracu
lously restored to life is a signal proof
of divine interposition in his behalf.
Such restoration may be viewed in three
lights—either as a reward for a life of
extraordinary virtue, or as an intimation
that his mission upon earth had been
prematurely cut short, and that his re1 See I Cor. xv. 12. The whole argument of
Paul respecting the resurrection is remarkable—
it is simply this, there must be a resurrection from
the dead because Christ “ is preached” to have
risen; and that if there were no resurrection,
then Christ could not be risen. It would seem as
if he considered the truth of the -resurrection
of Christ to depend upon the correctness of the
doctrine of the general resurrection (verse 13).
�no
RESURRECTION OF JESUS
animation was necessary for its fulfil
ment, or as an announcement to the
world that he was in a peculiar manner
the object of. divine regard and the
subject of divine influence. The first
point of view is evidently irrational, and
the offspring of unregenerate and uncul
tivated thought. It is prompted either
by the inconsiderate instincts of the
natural man, or by disbelief in a future
life. It implies either that there is no
future world, or that this world is
preferable to it, since no man, believing
in another and a better state of exist
ence, would regard it as an appropriate
reward for distinguished excellence to
be reduced to this. The second point
of view is, if possible, still more un
reasonable, since it assumes that G'od
had permitted such an interference with
and defeat of his plans, that he was
obliged, to interpose for their renewal.
The third aspect in which such a fact
is to be regarded alone remains, and is
in effect the one in which it is commonly
viewed throughout Christendom, viz., as
a public announcement from the Most
High, “This is my beloved Son, hear
ye him.” But this point of view is
attended with many difficulties.
In the first place, if the Gospel narra
tives are to be taken as our standing
ground (and they are as valid for the
one case as for the other), the restora
tion of the dead to life did not neces
sarily imply any such peculiar favour, or
contain any such high announcement.
The evangelists record three instances
of such miraculous resuscitation, in none
of which have we any reason for believ
ing the subject of the miracle to be
peculiarly an object of divine love or
approbation, in all of which the miracle
was simply one of mercy to mourning
friends. The resuscitated parties were
all obscure individuals, and only one
of them appears to have been a follower
of Christ. Secondly, this point of view
was not the one taken by the Apostles.
To them the value of Christ’s resurrec
tion consisted in its enabling them still
to retain, or rather to resume, that belief
in the Messiahship of Jesus which his
death had shaken. If restored to life,
he might yet be, and probably was, that
Great Deliverer whom, as Jews, they
watched and waited and prayed for; if
he were dead, then that cherished notion
was struck dead with him. How, if we
are right in the conclusion at which we
arrived in an earlier chapter, viz., that
Jesus had nothing in common with that
liberating and triumphant conqueror
predicted by the Jewish prophets and
expected by the Jewish nation: it
follows that the especial effect which
the resurrection of Christ produced
upon the minds of his disciples was
to confirm them in an error. This, to
them, was its dogmatic value, the ground
on which they hailed the announcement
and cherished the belief.
Thirdly, it
will admit of question whether, in the
eye of pure reason, the resurrection of
Christ, considered as an attestation to
the celestial origin of his religion, be
not superfluous —whether it be not
human weakness, rather than human
reason, which needs external miracle
as sanction and buttress of a system
which may well rely upon its own innate
strength, whether the internal does not
surpass and supersede the external testi
mony to its character, whether the divine
truths which Christ taught should not be
to us the all-sufficient attestation of his
divine mission. We have seen in the
preceding chapter that miraculous power
in any individual is no guarantee for the
correctness of his teaching. We have
seen that if the doctrines which Jesus
taught approve themselves to the en
lightened understanding and the uncor
rupted heart, they are equally binding
on our allegiance whether he wrought
miracles in the course of his career or
not. And if the truth that God is a
loving father, and the precept, “Thou
shalt love thy neighbour as thyself,”
derive no corroboration from the resur
rection of Lazarus or the Youth of Nain,
neither can they from that of Christ
himself. Doubtless we should sit with
more prostrate submission and a deeper
�RESURRECTION OF JESUS
reverence at the feet of a teacher who
came to us from the grave, but it is
probably only the infirmity of our faith
and reason which would cause us to
do so.1 Rationally considered, Christ’s
resurrection cannot prove doctrines true
that would else be false, nor certain
that would else be doubtful. There
fore, considered as a reward, it is con
tradictory and absurd; considered as the
renewal of an interrupted mission, it
involves an unworthy and monstrous
Conception of God’s providence; con
sidered as an attestation to the Messiahghip of Jesus, it is an attestation to an
error ; considered as a sanction and
corroboration of his doctrines, it is, or
Ought to be, superfluous.
Is the other view which we have been
accustomed to take of Christ’s resur
rection—viz., as the type, pledge, and
foretelling of our own,—more consonant
to sound reason ? We believe the reverse
will prove nearer to the truth. That it
was regarded in this view by the Apostles
is here no argument for us. For they
looked for the coming of their Lord and
the end of the world, if not in their own
lifetime, at least in that of the existing
generation,—when they who were alive
would be caught up into the clouds, and
those who were dead would come forth
out of their graves, and join together the
glorious company of the redeemed. They
looked for a bodily resurrection for them
selves—which on their supposition of the
date might appear possible—a resurrec
tion, therefore, of which that of Jesus
was a prototype—a pattern—a cognate
occurrence. But in our position the case
is not only altered, but reversed. Christ’s
resurrection was believed, and is affirmed
to have been, a réanimation of the body
which he wore in life; it could, there
fore, be an earnest of the resurrection of
those only whose bodies still remained
to be reanimated ; it was an exceptional
case ; it refers not to us ; it conveys no
1 Jesus seems to intimate as much when he
says, “If they hear not Moses and the Prophets,
neither will they be persuaded though one rose
from the dead.”
in
hope to us ;—we are not of those whose
resurrection it could typify or asstire ; for
our bodies, like those of the countless
generations who have lived and passed
away since Christ trod our earth, will
have crumbled info dust, and passed
into other combinations, and become in
turn the bodies of myriads of other
animated beings before the great ex
pected day of the resurrection of the
just. To us a bodily resurrection is
impossible. If, therefore, Christ’s resur
rection were spiritual—independent of
his buried body—it might be a type and
foreshadowing of our own ;—if, on the
other hand, as the evangelists relate, it
was corporeal—if his body left the grave
undecayed, and appeared on earth, and
ascended into glory,—then its value as a
pledge belonged to the men of that time
alone,—we have neither part nor lot in its
signification;—it is rather an extinguisher
than a confirmation of our hopes.
It will be seen that we make no scruple
in negativing a doctrine held verbally by
the Church, viz., “ the resurrection of the
body ” ; since, whatever was intended by
the authors of this phrase1—the mean
ing of which is by no means clear to us,
and was probably no clearer to them
selves,—thus much is certain, that our
“resurrection of the body” can bear no
similarity to Christ’s resurrection of the
body ;—for his body remained only a
few hours in the grave, and, we are
expressly told, “ did not see corruption,”
and ours, we know, remains there for
untold years, and moulders away into
the original elements of its marvellous
chemistry.
We conclude, then, as before :—that
as we cannot hope to rise, as Christ is
said to have done, with our own present
uncorrupted body, his resurrection, if
it were a réanimation of his earthly
frame, can be no argument, proof, pledge,
1 “We can,” says Pearson, “no otherwise
expound this article teaching the resurrection of
the body, than by asserting that the same bodies
which have lived and died shall live again ; that
the same flesh which is corrupted shall be
restored. ”—Pearson on the Creed, art. xi.
�112
/S CHRISTIANITY A REVEALED RELIGION?
pattern, or foreshadowing of our own. If,
on the contrary, his resurrection were
spiritual, and his appearances to his
disciples mental and apparitionary only,
they would, pro tanto, countenance the
idea of a future state. Our interest,
therefore, as waiters and hopers for an
immortality, would appear to lie in
^believing the letter of the Scripture
narratives,
Chapter XII
IS CHRISTIANITY A REVEALED RELIGION?
Having now arrived at this point of our
inquiry, let us pause and cast a summary
glance on the ground over which we
have travelled, and the conclusions at
which we have arrived. We have found
that the popular doctrine of Scriptural
Inspiration rests on no foundation what
ever, but is a gratuitous as well as an
untenable assumption. We have seen
that neither the books of Moses nor the
laws of Moses, as we have them, were (at
least as a whole) the production of the
great Leader and Lawgiver whose name
they bear. We have seen ample reason
for concluding that a belief in One only
supreme God was not the primary
religion either of the Hebrew nation or
the Hebrew priests ; but that their
Theism—originally limited and impure—
was gradually elevated and purified into
perfect and exclusive monotheism by
the influence of their Poets and Sages
and the progressive advance of the people
in intelligence and civilisation. We have
discovered that their Prophets were
Poets and Statesmen, not Predictors—
and that none of their writings contain a
single prediction which was originally
designed by them, or can be honestly
interpreted by us, to foretell the appear
ance and career of Jesus of Nazareth.
What have been commonly regarded as
such are happy and applicable quotations :
but no more. We have seen further that
none of the four histories of Christ which
have come down to us are completely
genuine and faithful ; -that while they are
ample and adequate for showing us what
Christ was. and what was the essence and
spirit of his teaching, we yet do not possess
sufficient certainty that they record, in
any special instance, the precise words
or actions of Christ, to warrant us in
building upon those words or actions
doctrines revolting to our uncorrupted
instincts and our cultivated sense. We
have found, moreover, that the Apostles
—zealous and devout men as they were
—were yet most imperfect and fallible
expounders of the mind of their departed
Lord. We have seen that miracles—
even where the record of them is ade
quate and above suspicion, if any such
case there be—are no sufficient guarantee
of the truth of the doctrines preached by
the worker of those wonders. And finally
we have been compelled to conclude that
not only is the resurrection of our Lord,
as narrated in the Gospels, encumbered
with too many difficulties and contra
dictions to be received as unquestion
able, but that it is far from having the
dogmatic value usually attached to it, as
a pledge and foreshowing of our own.
But however imperfect may be the re
cords we possess of Christ’s ministry, this
imperfection does not affect the nature or
authority of his mission. Another great
question, therefore, here opens before
us:—“Was Christ a divinely-commis
sioned Teacher of Truth ? ” In other
words, “ Is Christianity to be regarded as
a Religion revealed by God to man
through Christ ? ”
What is the meaning which, in ordi
nary theological parlance, we attach to
�ZS CHRISTIANITY A REVEALED RELIGION?
the words, “ Divine Revelation ? ” What
do we intend to signify when we say
that “ God spoke ” to this Prophet or
to that saint ?
We are all of us conscious of thoughts
which come to us—which are not, pro
perly speaking, our own—which we do
not create, do not elaborate ;—flashes of
light, glimpses of truth, or of what seems
to us such, brighter and sublimer than
commonly dwell in our minds, which we
are not conscious of having wrought out
by any process of inquiry or meditation.
These are frequent and brilliant in pro
portion to the intellectual gifts and
spiritual elevation of the individual :
they may well be termed inspirations—
revelations; but it is not such as these
that we mean when we speak of the
Revelation by Christ.
Those who look upon God as a Moral
Governor, as well as an original Creator,
—a God at hand, not a God. afar off in
the distance of infinite space, and in the
remoteness of past or future eternity,—
who conceive of him as taking a watch
ful and .presiding interest in the affairs of
the world, and as influencing the hearts
and actions of men,—believe that through
the workings of the Spirit He has spoken
to many, has whispered His will to
them, has breathed great and true thoughts
into their minds, has “wrought mightily”
within them, has in their secret communings and the deep visions of the
night caused His Spirit to move over
the troubled waters of their souls, and
educed light and order from the mental
chaos. These are the views of many
religious minds ; but these are not what
We mean when we speak of the Revela
tion made by God to Christ.
Those, again, who look upon God as
the great artificer of the world of life and
matter, and upon man, with his wonder
ful corporeal and mental frame, as His
direct work, conceive the same idea in a
somewhat modified and more material
form. They believe that He has made
men with different intellectual capa
cities ; and has endowed some with
brains so much larger and fiper
113
than those of ordinary men as to
enable them to see and originate truths
which are hidden from the mass; and
that when it is His will that Mankind
should make some great step forward,
should achieve some pregnant discovery,
He calls into being some cerebral organi
sation of more than ordinary magnitude
and power, as that of David, Isaiah,
Plato, Shakespeare, Bacon, Newton,
Luther, Pascal, which gives birth to new
ideas and grander conceptions of the
truths vital to humanity. But we mean
something essentially distinct from this
when we speak of Christ as the Teacher of
a Religion revealed to him by his Father.
When a Christian affirms Christianity
to be a “ revealed religion,” he intends
simply and without artifice to declare his
belief that the doctrines and precepts
which Christ taught were not the produc
tion of his own (human) mind, either in
its ordinary operations or in its flights
of sublimest contemplation; but were
directly and supernaturally communicated
to him from on high.1 He means this,
or he means nothing that is definable
and distinctive. What grounds have
we, then, for adopting such an opinion ?
It is evident that, if the conclusions
to which our previous investigations have
led us be correct, our only arguments
for believing Christianity to be a divine
revelation in contradistinction to a human
conception must be drawn from the
steperhumanity of its nature and contents.
What human intellect could ascertain it
would be superfluous for God to reveal.
The belief of Christ himself, that his
teaching “was not his, but his Father’s,”
—even if we were certain that he used
these precise words, and intended them
to convey precisely the meaning we
attach to them,—could not suffice us, for
the reasons assigned in the first chapter
of this work. The belief in communi
cations with the Deity has in all ages
1 Those who believe that Christ was God—
if any such really exist—-must, of course, hold
everything he taught was, ipso facto, a divine
revelation. With such all argument and inquiry
is necessarily superseded.
�114
ZS CHRISTIANITY A REVEALED RELIGION?
been common to the most exalted and dowments, in the common acceptation
poetical order of religious minds. The fact of the word. The Old Testament con
that Christ held a conviction which he tained his teaching ; it was reserved for
shared with the great and good of other him to elicit, publish, and enforce it. A
times can be no argument for ascribing thoughtful perusal of Job, the Psalms,
to him divine communications distinct Ecclesiastes, and Isaiah will show beyond
from those granted to the great and good question the germs of those views which
of other times. It remains, therefore, in the purer and sublimer genius of
a simple question for our consideration, Christ rose to so high an elevation.1
whether the doctrines and precepts The doctrine of a future world, though
taught by Jesus are so new, so profound, not enforced, perhaps probably not
so perfect, so distinctive, so above and found, in the Old Testament, was, we
beyond parallel, that they could not have know, currently believed among the Jews
emanated naturally from a clear, simple, before the time of Jesus, and must have
unsoiled, unwarped, powerful, meditative been familiar to him from his infancy.
mind,—living four hundred years after We have no hesitation in concluding
Socrates and Plato—brought up among that a pure and powerful mind, filled
the pure Essenes, nourished on the with warm affections and devotional
wisdom of Solomon, the piety of David,
feelings, and studying the Hebrew
the poetry of Isaiah—elevated by the Scriptures discriminatively, appropriating
knowledge and illuminated by the love and assimilating what was good and
of the one true God.
noble, and rejecting what was mean
Now on this subject we hope our con and low, could and might naturally
fession of faith will be acceptable to all arrive at the conclusion which Jesus
save the narrowly orthodox. It is diffi reached, as to the duties of men, the
cult, without exhausting superlatives, attributes of God, and the relation of
even to unexpressive and wearisome man to God. Christianity is distin
satiety, to do justice to our intense love, guished from Judaism rather by what
reverence, and admiration for the char it excluded than by what it added. It
acter and teaching of Jesus. We regard is an eclecticism and an expansion of
him not as the perfection of the intel the best elements of its predecessor. It
lectual or philosophic mind, but as the selects the grand and beautiful, the
perfection of the spiritual character,— tender, the true, and ignores or sup
as surpassing all men of all times in the presses the exclusive, the narrow, the
closeness and depth of his communion corrupt, the coarse, and the vindictive.
with the Father. In reading his sayings, It is Moses, David, Solomon, Isaiah
we feel that we are holding converse purified, sublimated and developed. If
with the wisest, purest, noblest Being this be so, then the supposition that
that ever clothed thought in the poor Christianity was supernaturally commu
language of humanity. In studying his nicated falls to the ground as needless
life we feel that we are following the and therefore inadmissible. What man
footsteps of the highest ideal yet pre could discover naturally God would not
sented to us upon earth. “ Blessed be communicate supernaturally.
God that so much manliness has been
But we may go further. Not only is
lived out, and stands there yet, a lasting there no. necessity for supposing that
monument to mark how high the tides of Christ’s views as to God and duty were
divine life haverisenin the world of man!”
1 A quotation of‘texts is scarcely the right
But these convictions—strong, deep- mode of proving this. See Hennell for an ex
seated, and well-grounded as they are— position of how much of Christianity was already
do not bring us to the conclusion that extant in Jewish teaching; also Mackay’s
“Progress of
Intellect,”
[Em.
either the rare moral or mental supe Deutch’s paper the the Talmud, ii. 376. Review,
on
Quart.
riorities of Jesus were supernatural en No- 246, and Renan, “Vie de Jesus,” ch. v.J.
�IS CHRISTIANITY A REVEALED RELIGION?
supernaturally revealed to him, but there
is almost a necessity for adopting an
opposite conclusion. If they were the
elaboration of his own mind we may
well imagine that they may contain some
admixture of error and imperfection. If
they were revealed to him by God this
Could not be the case. If, therefore, we
find that Jesus was in error in any point
either of his practical or his speculative
teaching, our conclusion, hitherto a pro
bability, becomes a certainty. It is evi
dent that we could treat of this point
with far more satisfaction if we were in a
position to pronounce with perfect pre
cision what Christ did, and what he did
not, teach. But as we have seen that
many words are put into his mouth
which he never uttered, we cannot ascer
tain this as undoubtedly as is desirable.
There must still remain some degree of
doubt as to whether the errors and im
perfections which we detect originated
with or were shared by Christ, or whether
they were wholly attributable to his
followers and historians.
There are, however, some matters on
which thegeneralconcurrence of theevangelical histories and their undesigned
and incidental intimations lead us to
conclude that Jesus did share the mis
takes which prevailed among his dis
ciples, though, in going even so far as
this, we speak with great diffidence. He
appears to have held erroneous views
respecting demoniacal possession, the
interpretation of Scripture,1 his own
Messiahship, his second coming, and
the approaching end of the world. At
least, if he held the views ascribed to
him (and the preponderance of evidence
is in favour of the assumption that he
1 Perhaps the most singular instance of this
#iisinterpretation of Scripture is in the sophisti
cal argument ascribed to Christ, concerning the
supposed address of David to the Messiah.
The Lord said unto my Lord,” &c. (Matth.
xxii. 41, and parallel passage). It appears clear
that this Psalm was not composed by David,
but was addressed to David by Nathan, or some
Court Prophet, on the occasion of some of his
signal victories.—-See “ Hebrew Monarchy,”
p. 92. David did not call the Messiah “ Lord ” ;
It was the Poet that called David “ Lord.”
IIS
did), we know that on these topics he
was mistaken. Now if he was so in
error his teaching could not have been
an infallible revelation from the God of
truth, in the sense in which Christendom
employs that phrase.
But we now come upon another ques
tion, which, if answered in the negative,
at once closes the inquiry to which this
chapter is devoted. “ Is the revelation
of an undiscoverable truth possible ? ”
That is, “ Can any doctrine be taught
by God to man—be supernaturally in
fused, that is, into his mind, which he
might not by the employment of his own
faculties have discerned or elicited ? ” In
other words, “ Can the human mind
receive an idea which it could not origi
nate ? ” We think it plain that it cannot ;
though the subject is one which may be
better illuminated by reflection than by
discussion. At least it is difficult to con
ceive the nature and formation of that
intellect which can comprehend and
grasp a truth when presented to it, and
perceive that it is a truth, and which yet
could not, in the course of time and
under favourable conditions, work out
that truth by the ordinary operation of
its own powers. It appears to us that,
by the very nature of the statement, the
faculties necessary for the one mental
process must be competent to the other.1
If an idea (and a truth is only an idea,
or a combination of ideas, which ap
proves itself to us) can find entrance
into the mind and take up its abode
there, does not this very fact show a
fitness for the residence of that idea 1—a
fitness, therefore, which would have
ensured admittance to the idea if sug
gested in any of those mental processes
which we call thought, or by any of those
1 It may be objected that external facts may
be revealed which could not be discovered. We
may be assured by revelation that the inhabitants
of Saturn have wings or have no heads, but then,
we do not recognise the truth of the assurance,
We may be assured by revelation of the exist
ence of a future world; but could we receive
the assurance unless our minds were already so
prepared for it, or so constituted, that it would
naturally have occurred to them ?
�ii6
/S CHRISTIANITY A REVEALED RELIGION?
combinations of occurrences which we call
accident—a fitness, therefore, which, as
the course of time and the occurrence of
a thousand such possible suggesting ac
cidents must almost necessarily have
ensured the presentation of the idea,
would also have ensured its reception ?
If, on the other hand, the idea, from its
strangeness, its immensity, its want of
harmony with the nature and existing
furniture of the mind, could never have
presented itself naturally, would not the
same strangeness, the same vastness, the
same incompatibility of essence inca
pacitate the mind from receiving it if
presented supernaturally ?
Further, we are at a loss to imagine
how a man can distinguish between an
idea revealed to him and an idea con
ceived by him. In what manner and by
what sure token can it be made clear to
him that a thought came to him from
without, not arose within; he may per
ceive that it is resplendently bright, un
questionably new; he may be quite
unconscious of any process of ratio
cination or meditation J>y which it can
have been originated; but this is no
more than may be said of half the ideas
of profound and contemplative genius.
Shall we say that it was breathed into
him “in a dream, in a vision of the
night, when deep sleep falleth upon
man ” ; and that, therefore, he assumes
that it is not his, but God’s? Yet what
is this but to declare that God chooses
for his communications with the mind of
man the period of its most unquestion
able imperfection, when the phantasy
is ascendant and the judgment is torpid
and in abeyance ? Shall we say that
the thought was spoken to him aloud,
in the ordinary language of humanity,
and that, therefore, he knows it to have
been a divine communication, not a
human conception ! But what singular
logic is this ! Is the voice of God, then,
only, or then most, recognisable when it
borrows the language of man ? Is that
unprecise and feeble instrument of
thought and utterance, invented by man’s
faulty faculties, God’s best and surest
mode of communication with the spirit he
has created? Nay, is not imperfect lan
guage an impossible m edium for the convey
ance of absolute and infinite truth ? And
do we really mean that we feel certain it
is God’s voice which we hear from the
clouds, and doubtful that it is his which
speaks to us silently, and in the deep and
sacred musings of the Soul ? We cannot
intend to maintain this monstrous thesis.
Our reflections, then, bring us to this
conclusion :—that the only certain proof
we can have of a revelation must lie in
the truths it teaches being such as are
inaccessible to, and therefore incom
prehensible by, the mind of man; that
if they are such as he can conceive and
grasp and accept, they are such as he
might have discovered, and he has no
means of knowing that he has not dis
covered them ; if they are such as he
could not have discovered, they are such
as he cannot receive, such as he could
not recognise or ascertain to be truth.
Since, then, we can find no adequate
reason for believing Jesus to be the Son
of God, nor his doctrines to be a direct
and special revelation to him from the
Most High—using these phrases in their
ordinary signification—in what light do
we regard Christ and Christianity ?
We do not believe that Christianity
contains anything which a genius like
Christ’s, brought up and nourished as
his had been, might not have disen
tangled for itself. We hold that God
has so arranged matters in this beautiful
and well-ordered, but mysteriouslygoverned universe, that one great mind
after another will arise from time to time,
as such are needed, to discover and
flash forth before the eyes of men the
truths that are wanted, and the amount
of truth that can be borne. We con
ceive that this is effected by endowing
them, or (for we pretend to no scholastic
nicety of expression) by having arranged
that Nature and the course of events
shall send them into the world endowed
with that superior mental and moral
organisation, in which grand truths, sub
�AS CHRISTIANITY A REVEALED RELIGION?
lime gleams of spiritual light, will spon
taneously and inevitably arise. Such a
one we believe was Jesus of Nazareth,
the most exalted religious genius whom
God ever sent upon the earth ; in him
self an embodied revelation; humanity
in its divinest phase, “ God manifest in
the flesh,” according to Eastern hyper
bole ; an exemplar vouchsafed, in an
early age of the World, of what man
may and should become, in the course
of ages, in his progress towards the
realisation of his destiny ; an individual
gifted with a grand clear intellect, a
noble soul, a fine organisation, marvel
lous moral intuitions, and a perfectly
balanced moral being; and who, by virtue
of these endowments, saw further than
all other men—
“ Beyond the verge of that blue sky
Where God’s sublimest secrets lie ” ;
an earnest, not only of what humanity
may be, but of what it will be, when the
most perfected races shall bear the same
relation to the finest minds of existing
times, as these now bear to the Bushmen
or the Esquimaux. He was, as Parker
beautifully expresses it, “ the possibility
of the race made real.” He was a
sublime poet, prophet, moralist, and
hero ; and had the usual fate of such—
misrepresented by his enemies,—mis
construed by his friends ; unhappy in this,
that his nearest intimates and followers
were not of a calibre to understand him ;
happy in this, that his words contained
such undying seeds of truth as could
survive even the media through which
they passed. Like the wheat found in
the Egyptian Catacombs, they retain the
power of germinating undiminished,
whenever their appropriate soil is found.
They have been preserved essentially
almost pure, notwithstanding the Judaic
narrowness of Peter, the orthodox
passions of John, the metaphysical
subtleties of Paul. Everything seems to
us to confirm the conclusion that we have
in the Christianity of Scripture, not a code
of law, still less a system of dogma, but a
mass of beautiful, simple, sublime, pro
found, not perfect truths, obscured by
ii7
having come down to us through the inter
vention of minds far inferior to that of its
Author—narrowed by their uncultivation
—marred by their misapprehensions—
and tarnished by their foreign admixtures.
It is a collection of grand truths, trans
mitted to us by men who only half
comprehended their grandeur, and
imperfectly grasped their truth.
In grasping after a certainty, which can
be but a shadow, ordinary Christianity
has lost the substance—it has sacrificed
in practical more than it has gained in
dogmatic value. In making Christ the
miraculous Son of God, it has destroyed
Jesus as a human exemplar. If he were
in a peculiar manner “the only begotten
of the Father,” a partaker in his essential
nature, then he is immeasurably removed
from us; we may revere, we cannot
imitate him. We listen to his precepts
with submission, perhaps even greater
than before. We dwell upon the excel
lence of his character, no longer for
imitation, but for worship. We read
with the deepest love and admiration of
his genius, his gentleness, his mercy, his
unwearying activity in doing good, his
patience with the stupid, his compassion
for the afflicted, his courage in facing
torture, his meekness in enduring wrong;
and then we turn away and say, “ Ah !
he was a God; such virtue was not for
humanity, nor for us.” It is useless by
honeyed words to disguise the truth. If
Christ were a man, he is our pattern;
“the possibility of our race made real.”
If he were God-—a partaker of God’s
nature, as the orthodox maintain—then
they are guilty of a cruel mockery in
speaking of him as a type and model of
human excellence. How can one en
dowed with the perfections of a God be
an example to beings encumbered with
the weaknesses of humanity? Adieu, then,
to Jesus as anything but a Propounder
of doctrines, an Utterer of precepts !
The vital portion of Christianity is swept
away. His Character—that from which
so many in all ages have drawn their
moral life and strength—that which so
irresistibly enlists our deepest sympathies,
�n8
ZS CHRISTIANITY A REVEALED RELIGION ?
and rouses our highest aspirations—it
becomes an irreverence to speak of. The
character, the conduct, the virtues of a
God!—these are felt to be indecent
expressions. Verily, orthodoxy has slain
the life of Christianity. In the pre
sumptuous endeavour to exalt Jesus, it
has shut him up in the Holy of Holies,
and hid him from the gaze of humanity.
It has displaced him from an object of
imitation into an object of worship. It
has made his life barren, that his essence
might be called divine.
“But,” it will be objected, “what, on
this system, becomes of the religion of
the poor and ignorant, the uneducated
and the busy ? If Christianity is not a
divine revelation, and therefore entirely
and infallibly true—if the Gospels are
not perfectly faithful and accurate ex
positors of Christ’s teaching and of God’s
will,—what a fearful loss to those who
have neither the leisure, the learning, nor
the logical habits of thought requisite to
construct out of the relics that remain to
them and the nature that lies before
them a faith for themselves ! ”
To this objection we reply that the
more religion can be shown to consist
in the realisation of great moral and
spiritual truths, rather than in the recep
tion of distinct dogmas, the more the
position of these classes is altered for the
better. In no respect is it altered for
the worse. Their creeds, i.e., their collec
tion of dogmas, those who do not or
cannot think for themselves must always
take on the authority of others. They
do so now : they have always done so.
They have hitherto believed certain doc
trines because wise and good men assure
them that these doctrines were revealed
by Christ, and that Christ was a Teacher
sent from God. They will in future
believe them because wise and good
men assure them of their truth, and their
own hearts confirm the assurance. The
only difference lies in this,—that, in the
one case, the authority on which they
lean vouches for the truth; in the other,
for the Teacher who proclaimed it.
Moreover, the Bible still remains;
though no longer as an inspired and
infallible record. Though not the word
of God, it contains the words of the
wisest, the most excellent, the most
devout men, who have ever held com
munion with him.
The poor, the
ignorant, the busy, need not, do not,
will not, read it critically. To each of
them it will still, through all time, pre
sent the Gospels and the Psalms,—the
glorious purity of Jesus, the sublime
piety of David and of Job. Those who
read it for its spirit, not for its dogmas—
as the poor, the ignorant the busy, if
unperverted, will do—will still find in it
all that is necessary for their guidance in
life, their support in death, their consola
tion in sorrow, their rule of duty, and
their trust in God.
A more genuine and important
objection to the consequences of our
views is felt by indolent minds on their
own account. They shrink from the toil
of working out truth for themselves, out
of the materials which Providence has
placed before them. They long for the
precious metal, but loathe the rude ore
out of which it has to be extricated by
the laborious alchemy of thought. A
ready-made creed is the Paradise of their
lazy dreams. A string of authoritative dog
matic propositions comprises the whole
mental wealth which they desire. The
volume of nature, the volume of history,
the volume of life, appal and terrify them.
Such men are the materials out of whom
good Catholics—of all sects—are made.
They form the uninquiring and sub
missive flocks which rejoice the hearts of
all Priests. Let such cling to the faith
of their forefathers—if they can. But
men whose minds are cast in a nobler
mould and are instinct with a diviner
ife, who love truth more than rest, and
the peace of Heaven rather than the
peace of Eden, to whom “a loftier being
brings severer cares,”—
“ Who know Man does not live by joy alone
But by the presence of the power of God,”—
such must cast behind them the hope of
any repose or tranquillity save that which
�CHRISTIAN ECLECTICISM
is the last reward of long agonies of
they must relinquish all
prospect of any Heaven save that of
which tribulation is the avenue and
portal; they must gird up their loins
and trim their lamp for a work which
thought;
. 119
cannot be put by, and which must not be
negligently done. “ He,’’ says Zschokke,
“ who does not like living in
furnished
lodgings of tradition, must build his own
house, his own system of thought and
faith, for himself.”1
Chapter XIII
CHRISTIAN ECLECTICISM
Christianity, then, not being a revela
tion, but a conception—the Gospels not •
being either inspired or accurate, but
fallible and imperfect human records—
the practical conclusion from such
premises must be obvious to all. Every
doctrine and every proposition which
the Scriptures contain, whether or not
we believe it to have come to us un
mutilated and unmarred from the mouth
of Christ, is open, and must be subjected,
to the scrutiny of reason. Some tenets
we shall at once accept as the most
perfect truth that can be received by
the human intellect and heart;—others
we shall reject as contradicting our
instincts and offending our understand
ings ;—others, again, of a more mixed
nature, we must analyse, that so we may
extricate the seed of truth from the husk
of error, and elicit “the divine idea that
lies at the bottom of appearance.”1
• I. I value the Religion of Jesus, not
O being absolute and perfect truth, but
aS containing more truth, purer truth,
higher truth, stronger truth, than has
ever yet been given to man. Much of
his teaching I unhesitatingly receive as,
to the best of my judgment, unimprovable
and unsurpassable—fitted, if obeyed, to
make earth all that a finite and material
scene can be, and man only a little
lower than the angels. The worthlessness
ofceremonial observances, and the necessity
of essential righteousness—“ Not every
one that saith unto me, Lord 1 Lord 1
1 Fichte.
but he that doeth the will of my Father
which is in Heaven ; ” “ By their fruits
ye shall know them; ” “I will have
mercy, and not. sacrifice ; ”—The enforce
ment ofpurity of heart as the security for
purity of life, and of the government of the
thoughts as the originators and fore
runners of action—“ He that looketh on
a woman, to lust after her, hath com
mitted adultery with her already in his
heart; ” “ Out of the heart proceed
murders, adulteries, thefts, false witness,
blasphemies : these are the things which
defile a man ; ” — Universal good-will
towards men—“ Thou shalt love thy
neighbour as thyself;” “whatsoever ye
would that men should do unto you, that
do ye also unto them, for this is the Law
and the Prophets : ”—Forgiveness of
injuries “ Love your enemies; do good
to them that hate you ; pray for them
which despitefully use you and persecute
you —“ If ye love them only that love
you, what reward have ye ? do not even
publicans the same ? ”—The necessity of
selfsacrifice in the cause of duty—“Blessed
are they which are persecuted for
.righteousness’ sake; ” “ If any man will
be my disciple, let him deny himself,
and take up his cross daily, and follow
me ; ” “ If thy right hand offend thee
cut it off and cast it from thee ; ” “ No
man having put his hand to the plough
and looking back, is fit for the kingdom
of God ; ”—Humility—“ Blessed are the
meek, for they shall inherit the earth ; ”
1 Zschokke’s “Autobiography,” p. 29.
whole section is most deeply interesting.
The
�ffio ■
CHRISTIAN ECLECTICISM
“He that humbleth himself shall be
exalted ; ” “ He that is greatest among
you, let him be your servant; ”—Genuine
sincerity: being, not seeming—“ Take
heed that ye do not your alms before
men to be seen of them ; ” “ When
thou prayest enter into thy closet and
shut thy door; ” “ When thou fastest,
anoint thine head, and wash thy face,
that thou appear not unto men to fast; ”
—all these sublime precepts need no
miracle, no voice from the clouds, to
recommend them to our allegiance, or
to assure us of their divinity; they
command obedience by virtue of their
inherent rectitude and beauty, and
vindicate their author as himself the
one towering perpetual miracle of
history.
II. Next in perfection come the views
which Christianity unfolds to us of God
in his relation to man, which were
probably as near the truth as the minds
of men could in that age receive. God
is represented as Our Father in Heaven
—to be whose especial children is the
best reward of the peace-makers—to see
whose face is the highest hope of the
pure in heart—who is ever at hand to
strengthen his true worshippers—to
whom is due our heartiest love, our
humblest
submission—whose
most
acceptable worship is righteous conduct
and a holy heart—in whose constant
presence our life is passed—to whose
merciful disposal we are resigned by
death. It is remarkable that, throughout
the Gospels, with the exception, I
believe, of a single passage,1 nothing is
said as to the nature of the Deity:—his
relation to us is alone insisted on :—all
that is needed for our consolation, our
strength, our guidance, is assured to us :
—the purely speculative is passed over
and ignored.
Thus, in the two great points essential
to our practical life—viz., our feelings
towards God and our conduct towards
man—the Gospels, relieved of their unauthentic portions, and read in an under
standing spirit, not with a slavish and
1 God is a spirit.
unintelligent adherence to the naked
letter, contain little about which men may
differ—little from which they can dissent.
He is our Father, we are all brethren^
This much lies open to the most ignorant
and busy, as fully as to the most leisurely
and learned. This needs no Priest to
teach it—no authority to endorse it. The
rest is Speculation—intensely interesting,
indeed, but of no practical necessity.
III. There are, however, other tenets
taught in Scripture and professed by
Christians, in which reflective minds of
all ages have found it difficult to
acquiesce. Thus :—however far we may
stretch the plea for a liberal interpreta
tion of Oriental speech, it is impossible
to disguise from ourselves that the New
Testament teaches, in the most unre
served manner and in the strongest
language, the doctrine of the efficacy of
Prayer in modifying the divine purposes
and in obtaining the boons asked for at
the throne of grace. It is true that one
passage (John xi. 42) would seem to in
dicate that prayer was a form which
Jesus adopted for the sake of others; it
is also remarkable that the model of
prayer which he taught to his disciples
contains only one simple and modest
request for personal and temporal good 1;
yet not only are we told that he prayed
earnestly and for specific mercies (though
with a most submissive will) on occasions
of peculiar suffering and trial, but few of
his exhortations to his disciples occur
more frequently than that to constant
prayer, and no promises are more distinct
or reiterated than that their prayers shall
be heard and answered. “ Watch and
pray ; ” “ What things soever ye desire,
when ye pray, believe that ye shall re
ceive them, and ye shall have them; ”
“Verily, verily, I say unto you, whatso
ever ye shall ask of the Father in my
name, he will give it you ; ” “ Ask, and
it shall be given you.”
1 “ It is a curious fact that the Lord’s prayer
may be reconstructed,” says Wetstein, “ almost
verbatim out of the Talmud, which also contains
a prophetic intimation that all prayer will one
day cease, except the prayer of Thanksgiving.”
(Mackay’s “ Progress of the Intellect,” ii. 379.)
�CHRISTIAN ECLECTICISM
No one can read such passages, and
the numberless others of a'similar char
acter with which both Testaments abound,
and doubt that the opinion held both by
Christ and his disciples was that “ Jeho
vah is a God that heareth and answereth
prayer ; ”—that favours are to be obtained
from Him by earnest and reiterated
entreaty; that whatever good thing His
sincere worshippers petition for, with
instance and with faith, shall be granted
to them, if consonant to his purposes,
and shall be granted in consequence of
their petition; that, in fact and truth,
apart from all metaphysical subtleties
and subterfuges the designs of God can
be modified and swayed, like those of an
earthly father, by the entreaties of His
children.
This doctrine is set forth
throughout the Jewish Scriptures in its
coarsest and nakedest form and it reap
pears in the Christian Scriptures in a
form only slightly modified and refined.
Now, this doctrine has in all ages been
a stumbling-block to the thoughtful. It
is obviously irreconcilable with all that
reason and revelation teach us of the
divine nature; and the inconsistency
has been felt by the ablest of the Scrip
ture writers themselves.1 Various and
desperate have been the expedients and
suppositions resorted to, in order to re
concile the conception of an immutable,
all-wise, all foreseeing God, with that of a
father who is turned from his course by
the prayers of his creatures. But all
such efforts are, and are felt to be, hope
less failures. They involve the assertion
and negation of the same proposition in
one breath. The problem remains still
insoluble ; and we must either be con
tent to have it so, or we must abandon
one or other of the hostile premises.
The religious man, who believes that
all events, mental as well as physical, are
pre-ordered and arranged according to
the decrees of infinite wisdom, and the
philosopher, who knows that, by the wise
and eternal laws of the universe, cause
and effect are indissolubly chained to1 “ God is not a man that he should lie, nor
the son of man, that he should repent.”
lit
gether, and that one follows the other in
inevitable succession,—equally feel that
this ordination—this chain—cannot be
changeable at the cry of man. To sup
pose that it can is to place the whole
harmonious system of nature at the
mercy of the weak reason and the selfish
wishes of humanity. If the purpose of
God were not wise, they would not be
formed:—if wise, they cannot be changed,
for then they would become unwise. To
suppose that an all-wise Being would
alter his designs and modes of proceed
ing at the entreaty of an unknowing
creature, is to believe that compassion
would change his wisdom into foolish
ness. It has been urged that prayer may
render a favour wise, which would else be
unwise ; but this is to imagine that events
are not foreseen and pre-ordered, but are
arranged and decided pro re nata : it is
also to ignore utterly the unquestionable
fact, that no event in life or in nature is
isolated, and that none can be changed
without entailing endless and universal
alterations. If the universe is governed
by fixed laws, or (which is the same pro
position in different language) if all
events are pre-ordained by the foreseeing
wisdom of an infinite God, then the
prayers of thousands of years and genera
tions of martyrs and saints cannot
change or modify one iota of our destiny.
The proposition is unassailable by the
subtlest logic. The weak, fond affections
of humanity struggle in vain against the
unwelcome conclusion.
It is a conclusion from which the feel
ings of almost all of us shrink and revolt.
The strongest sentiment of our nature,
perhaps, is that of our helplessness in
the hands of fate, and against this help
lessness we seek for a resource in the
belief of our dependence on a Higher
Power, which can control and will inter
fere with fate. And though our reason
tells us that it is inconceivable that the
entreaties of creatures as erring and as
blind as we are can influence the all
wise purposes of God, yet we feel an
internal voice, more potent and per
suasive than reason, which assures us
�122
CHRISTIAN ECLECTICISM
that to pray to him in trouble is an irre
pressible instinct of our nature—an in
stinct which precedes teaching—which
survives experience—which defies philo
sophy.
“ For sorrow oft the cry of faith
In bitter need will borrow.”
It would be an unspeakable consola
tion to our human infirmity could we,
in this case, believe our reason to be
erroneous and our instinct true ; but we
greatly fear that the latter is the result,
partly of that anthropomorphism which
pervades all our religious conceptions,
which our limited faculties suggest, and
which education and habit have rooted
so fixedly in our mental constitution,
and partly of that fond weakness which
recoils from the idea of irreversible and
inescapable decree. The conception of
subjection to a law without exception,
without remission, without appeal, crush
ing, absolute, and universal, is truly an
appalling one; and, most mercifully, can
rarely be perceived in all its overwhelm
ing force, except by minds which, through
stern and lofty intellectual training, have
in some degree become qualified to
bear it.
Communion with God, we must ever
bear in mind, is something very different
from prayer for specific blessings, and
often confers the submissive strength of
soul for which we pray; and we believe
it will be found that the higher our souls
rise in their spiritual progress, the more
does entreaty merge into thanksgiving,
the more does petition become absorbed
in communion with the “ Father of the
spirits of all flesh.” That the piety of
Christ was fast tending to this end is,
we think, indicated by his instructions
to his disciples (Matt. vi. 8, 9): “ When
ye pray, use not vain repetitions, for your
father knoweth what things ye have need
of before ye ask him. After this manner,
therefore, _ pray ye,” &c.; and by that
last sublime sentence in Gethsemane,
uttered when the agonising struggle of
the spirit with the flesh had terminated
in the complete and final victory of the
first, “ Father, if this cup may not pass
from me except I drink it, thy will be
done.”
Prayer may be regarded as the form
which devotion naturally takes in ordinary
minds, and even in the most enlightened
minds in their less spiritual moods. The
highest intellectual efforts, the loftiest
religious contemplations, dispose to de
votion, but check the impulses of
prayer. The devout philosopher, trained
to the investigation of universal system
—the serene astronomer, fresh from the
study of the changeless laws which
govern innumerable worlds—shrinks
from the monstrous irrationality of ask
ing the great Architect and Governor of
all to work a miracle in his behalf—to
interfere, for the sake of his convenience,
wc his plans, with the sublime order con
ceived by the Ancient of Days in the
far Eternity of the Past; for what is a
special providence but an interference
with established laws ? And what is
such interference but a miracle ?
_ IV. Remotely connected with the doc
trine of an interposing and influencible
Providence is the fallacy, or rather the
imperfection, which lies' at the root of
the ordinary Christian view of Resigna
tion as a duty and a virtue. Submission,
cheerful acquiescence in the dispensa
tions of Providence, is enjoined upon us,
not because these dispensations are just
and wise—not because they are the
ordinances of His will who cannot err,—
but because they are ordained for our
benefit, and because He promised that
“ all things shall work together for good
to them that love Him.” We are assured
that every trial and affliction is designed
solely for. our good, for our discipline,
and will issue in a blessing, though we
see not how; and that therefore we must
bow to it with unmurmuring resignation.
These grounds, it is obvious, are purely
self-regarding; and resignation, thus re
presented and thus motived, is no virtue,
but a simple calculation of self-interest.
This narrow view results from that in
corrigible egotism of the human heart
which makes man prone to regard him
�.CHRISTIAN ECLECTICISM
self as the special object of divine con
sideration, and the centre round which
the universe revolves. Yet it is unques
tionably the view most prominently and
frequently presented in the new Testa
ment and by all modern divines.1' It
may be that the prospect of “ an ex
ceeding, even an eternal weight of glory,”
may be needed to support our frail pur
poses under the crushing afflictions of
our lot; it may be that, by the perfect
arrangements of omnipotence, the suf
ferings of all may be made to work out
the ultimate and supreme good of each ;
but this is not, cannot be, the reason
why we should submit with resignation
to whatever God ordains. His will must
be wise, righteous, and wre believe bene
ficent, whether it allot to us happiness
or misery : it zk His will; we need inquire
no further. Job, who had no vision of
a future compensatory world, had in this
attained a sublimer point of religion
than St. Paul:—“ Though He slay me,
yet will I trust in Him.” “What 1 shall
we receive good at the hands of God,
and shall we not receive evil?” (Job
xiii. 15 ; ii. 10.)
To the orthodox Christian, who fully
believes all he professes, cheerful re
signation to the divine will is compara
tively a natural, an easy, a simple thing.
To the religious philosopher, it is the
highest exercise of intellect and virtue.
The man who has realised the faith that
his own lot, in all its minutest particu
lars, is not only directly regulated by
God,—but is so regulated by God as
unerringly to work for his highest good,—
with an express view to his highest good—
with such a man, resignation, patience,
1 The sublimest and purest genius among
modern divines goes so far as to maintain that,
apart from the hope of future recompense, ‘ ‘ a
deviation from rectitude would become the part
of wisdom, and should the path of virtue be
obstructed by disgrace, torment, or death, to
persevere would be madness and folly.”
(“Modern Infidelity,” p. 20, by Robert Hall.) It
is sad to reflect how mercenary a thing duty has
become in the hands of theologians. Were their
belief in a future retribution once shaken, they
would become, on their own showing, the
lowest of sensualists, the worst of sinners.
123
nay, cheerful acquiescence in all suffer
ing and sorrow appears to be in fact
only the simple and practical expression
of his belief. If, believing all this, he
still murmurs and rebels at the trials
and contrarieties of his lot, he is guilty of
the childishness of the infant which
quarrels with the medicine that is to
lead it back to health and ease. But
the religious Philosopher,—who, sin
cerely holding that a Supreme God
created and governed this world, holds
also that He governs it by laws which,
though wise, just, and beneficent, are
yet steady, unwavering, inexorable;—
who believe that his agonies and sorrows
are not specially ordained for his chas
tening, his strengthening, his elaboration
and development,—but are incidental
and necessary results of the operation
of laws the best that could be devised
for the happiness and purification of
the species,—or perhaps not even that,
but the best adapted to work out the
vast, awful, glorious, eternal designs of
the Great Spirit of the universe; who
believes that he ordained operations of
Nature, which have brought misery to
him, have, from the very unswerving
tranquillity of their career, showered
blessing and sunshine upon every other
path,—that the unrelenting chariot of
Time, which has crushed or maimed
him in its allotted course, is pressing
onward to the accomplishment of those
serene and mighty purposes, to have
contributed to which—even as a victim
—is an honour and a recompense :—
he who takes this view of Time, and
Nature, and God, and yet bears his lot
without murmur or distrust, because
it is portion of a system, the best possible,
because ordained by God,—has achieved
a point of virtue, the highest, amid pas
sive excellence, which humanity can
reach;—and his reward and support
must be found in the reflection that he
is an unreluctant and self-sacrificing
co-operator with the Creator of the
universe, and in the noble consciousness
of being worthy and capable of so sublime
a conception, yet so sad a destiny.
�1^4
CHRISTIAN ECLECTICISM
In a comparison of the two resignations, the patience of secrecy and silence, to
there is no measure of their respective bring about some political or social
grandeurs. The orthodox sufferer fights change which they felt convinced would
the battle only on condition of surviving ultimately prove o'f vast service to
to reap the fruits of victory :—the other humanity, may live to see the change
fights on, knowing that he must fall effected, or the anticipated good flow
early in the battle, but content that his from it. Fewer still of them will be able
body should form a stepping-stone for to pronounce what appreciable weight
the future conquests of humanity.
their several efforts contributed to the
Somewhat similar remarks may be achievement of the change desired. And
made with reference to the virtues of discouraging doubts will therefore often
action as to those of endurance. It is creep in upon minds in which egotism
a matter suggestive of much reflection, is not wholly swallowed up by earnest
that, throughout the New Testament, ness, as to whether, in truth, their
the loftiest and purest motive to action— exertions had any influence whatever—
love of duty, as duty, obedience to the whether in sad and sober fact they have
will of God because it is His will—is not been the mere fly upon the wheel.
rarely appealed to; one or two expres With many men these doubts are fatal
sions of Christ and the 14th chapter of to active effort. To counteract them
John forming the only exceptions. The we must labour to elevate and purify
almost invariable language—pitched to our motives, as well as sedulously cherish
the level of ordinary humanity—is, “ Do the conviction—assuredly a true one—
your duty at all hazards, for your Father that in this world there is no such thing
which seeth in secret shall reward you as effort thrown away—that “ in all labour
openly.” “ Verily, I say unto you, ye there is profit ”—that all sincere exertion
shall in no wise lose your reward.”
in a righteous and unselfish cause is
Yet this is scarcely the right view of necessarily followed, in spite of all ap
things. The hope of success, not the pearance to the contrary, by an appro
hope of reward, should be our stimulat priate and proportionate success—that
ing and sustaining might. Our object, no bread cast upon the waters can be
not ourselves, should be our inspiring wholly lost—that no good seed planted
thought. The labours of philanthropy in the ground can fail to fructify in due
are comparatively easy, when the effect time and measure; and that, however
of them, and their recoil upon ourselves, we may in moments of despondency be
is immediate and apparent. But this it apt to doubt, not only whether our cause
can rarely be, unless where the field of will triumph, but whether we shall have
our exertions is narrow, and ourselves contributed to its triumph,—there is
the only or the chief labourers. In the One who has not only seen every exer
more frequent cases where we have to tion we have made, but who can assign
join our efforts to those of thousands of the exact degree in which each soldier
others to contribute to the carrying for has assisted to gain the great victory
ward of a great cause, merely to till over social evil. The Augean stables
the ground or sow the seed for a of the world—the accumulated unclean
very distant harvest, or to prepare the ness and misery of centuries—require a
way for the future advent of some mighty river to cleanse them thoroughly
great amendment; the amount which away : every drop we contribute aids to
each man has contributed to the achieve swell that river and augment its force, in
ment of ultimate success, the portion of a degree appreciable by God, though not
the prize which justice should assign to by man;—and he whose zeal is deep
each as his especial production, can and earnest will not be over anxious
never be accurately ascertained. Per that his individual drop should be dis
haps few of those who have laboured, in tinguishable amid the mighty mass of
�CHRISTIAN ECLECTICISM
cleansing and fertilising waters, far less
that, for the sake of distinction it should
flow in effective singleness away. He
will not be careful that his name should
be inscribed upon the mite which he
casts into the treasury of God. It should
suffice each of us to know that, if we
have laboured, with purity of purpose,
in any good cause, we must have con
tributed to its success; that the degree
in which we have contributed is a matter
of infinitely small concern; and still
more, that the consciousness of having
so contributed, however obscurely and
unnoticed, should be our sufficient, if
our sole, reward. Let us cherish this
faith ; it is a duty. He who sows and
reaps is a good labourer, and worthy of
his hire. But he who sows what shall be
reaped by others who know not and reck
not of the sower, is a labourer of a nobler
order, and worthy of a loftier guerdon.
V. The common Christian conception
Of the pardon of sin upon repentance
and conversion seems to us to embody
a very transparent and pernicious fallacy.
“Who can forgive sins but God only? ”
asked the Pharisees. There is great con
fusion and contradiction in our ideas on
this subject. God is the only being who
Can not forgive sins. “ Forgiveness of
sins” means one of two things :—it
either means saving a man from the con
sequences of his sins, that is, interposing
between cause and effect, in which case
it is working a miracle (which God no
f doubt can do, but which we have no
right to expect that He will do, or ask
that He shall do); or it means an engage
ment to forbear retaliation, a suppression
pf the natural anger felt against the
offender by the offended party, a fore
going of vengeance on the part of the in
jured—in which meaning it is obviously
quite inapplicable to a Being exempt and
aloof from human passions. When we
entreat a fellow-creature to forgive the
offences we have committed against him,
we mean to entreat that he will not, by
any act of his, punish us for them, that
he will not revenge nor repay them, that
he will retain no rancour in his breast
125
against us on account of them; and
such a prayer addressed to a being of
like passions to ourselves is rational and
intelligible, because we know that it is
natural for him to feel anger at our in
juries, and that, unless moved to the
contrary, he will probably retaliate. But
when we pray to our Heavenly Father to
“ forgive us our trespasses, as we forgive
them that trespass against us,” we over
look the want of parallelism of the two
cases, and show that our notions on the
subject are altogether misty and con
fused ; for God cannot be injured by
our sins, and He is inaccessible to the
passions of anger and revenge. Yet the
plain expression of the Book of Common
Prayer—“ Neither take Thou vengeance
of our sins ”—embodies the real signifi
cation attached to the prayer for forgive
ness, by all who attach any definite signi
fication to their prayers. Now, this ex
pression is an Old Testament or a Pagan
expression, and can only be consistently
and intelligibly used by those who enter
tain the same low ideas of God as the
ancient Greeks and Hebrews entertained
—that is, who think of Him as an irrit
able, jealous, and avenging Potentate.
If, from this inconsistency, we take
refuge in the other meaning of the Prayer
for forgiveness, and assume that it is a
prayer to God that he will exempt us
from the natural and appointed conse
quences of our misdeeds, it is important
that we should clearly define to our minds
what it is that we are asking for. In our
view of the matter, punishment for sins
by the divine law is a wholly different
thing and process from punishment for
violations of human laws. It is not an
infliction for crime, imposed by an ex
ternal authority and artificially executed
by external force, but a natural and in
evitable result of the offence—a child
generated by a parent—a sequence fol
lowing an antecedent—a consequence
arising out of a cause.
The punishment of sin consists in the
consequences of sin. These form a
penalty most adequately heavy. A sin
without its punishment is as impossible,
�126
CHRISTIAN ECLECTICISM
as complete a contradiction in terms, as and entreaty; a belief consistent and intel
a cause without an effect.
ligible among the Greeks, inconsistent
To pray that God will forgive our sins, and irrational among Christians, appro
therefore, appears in all logical accuracy priate as applied to Jupiter, unmean
to involve either a most unworthy con ing or blasphemous as applied to Jehovah.
ception of His character, or an entreaty
We have, in fact, come to regard sin,
of incredible audacity—viz., that He not as an injury done to our own nature,
wih work daily miracles in our behalf. an offence against our own souls, a dis
It is either beseeching Him to renounce figuring of the image of the Beautiful
feelings and intentions which it is and Good, but as a personal affront
impossible that a Nature like His should offered to a powerful and avenging Bein<q
entertain : or it is asking Him to violate which, unless apologised for, will be chas
the eternal and harmonious order of the tised as such. We have come to regard
universe, for the comfort of one out of it as an injury to another party, for which
the infinite myriads of its inhabitants.
atonement and reparation can be made
It may, perhaps, be objected, that and satisfaction can be given; not as a
Punishment of sins may be viewed, not deed which cannot be undone, eternal
as a vengeance taken for injury or insult in its consequences; an act which, once
committed, nor yet as the simple and committed,- is numbered with the irre
necessary sequence of a cause—but as vocable past. In a word, Sin contains
chastisement, inflicted to work repentance its own retributive penalty as surely, and
and amendment. But, even when con as naturally, as the acorn contains the
sidered in this light, prayer for forgive oak. Its consequence is its punishment,
ness remains still a marvellous incon it needs no other, and can have no
sistency. It then becomes the entreaty heavier : and its consequence is involved
of the. sick man to his Physician not to in its commission, and cannot be
heal him. “ Forgive us our sins,” then separated from it. Punishment (let us
means, “ Let us continue in our iniquity.” fix this in our minds) is not the execution
It is clear, however, that the first mean of a sentence, but the occurrence ofan effect.
ing we have mentioned, as attached to It is ordained to follow guilt by God,
the prayer for forgiveness of sins, is both not as a Judge, but as the Creator and
the original and the prevailing one; and Legislator of the Universe. This con
that it arises from an entire misconcep viction once settled in our understand
tion of the character of the Deity, and of ings, will wonderfully clear up our views
the feelings with which He may be on the subject of pardon and redemption.
supposed to regard sin—a misconception Redemption becomes then, of necessity,
inherited from our Pagan and Jewish not a saving but a regenerating process.
predecessors ; it is a prayer to deprecate We can be saved from the punishment of
the just resentment of a Potentate whom sin only by being saved from its com
we have offended—a petition which mission. Neither can there be any such
would be more suitably addressed to an thing as a vicarious atonement or punish
earthly foe or master than to a Heavenly ment (which, again, is a relic of heathen
Father. The misconception is natural conceptions of an angered Deity, to be
to a rude state of civilisation and of propitiated by offerings and sacrifices).
theology. It is the same notion from Punishment, being not the penalty, but
which arose sacrifices (z’.e., offerings to the result of sin, being not an arbitrary
appease wrath), and which caused their and artificial annexation, but an ordinary
universality in early ages and among and logical consequence, cannot be borne
barbarous nations.
It is a relic of by other than the sinner.
anthropomorphism ; a belief that God,
It is curious that the votaries of the
like man, is enraged by neglect or disobe doctrines of the Atonement admit the
dience, andean be pacified by submission correctness of much of the above reason-
�CHRISTIAN ECLECTICISM
ing, saying (see “ Guesses at Truth,” by
J. and A. Hare), that Christ had to suffer
for the sins of men, because God could
could not forgive sin ; He must punish in
some way. Thus holding the strangely
inconsistent doctrine that God is so just
that He could not let sin go unpunished,
yet so unjust that He could punish it in
the person of the innocent. It is for
orthodox dialects to explain how Divine
Justice can be impugned by pardoning
the guilty, and yet vindicated^ punishing
the innocent 1
If the foregoing reflections are sound,
the awful, yet wholesome, conviction
presses upon our minds, that there can be
no forgiveness of sins; that is, no inter
ference with, or remittance of, or pro
tection from their natural effects; that
God will not interpose between the cause
and its consequence1 :—that 11 whatso
ever a man soweth, that shall he also
reap.” An awful consideration this;
yet all reflection, all experience, confirm
its truth. The sin which has debased
Our soul may be repented of, may be
turned from, but the injury is done : the
debasement may be redeemed by after
efforts, the stain may be obliterated by
bitterer struggles and severer sufferings,
by faith in God’s love and communion
with His Spirit; but the efforts and the
endurance which might have raised the
soul to the loftiest heights are now
exhausted in merely regaining what it has
lost. “There must always be a wide
difference (as one of our divines has said)
between him who only ceases to do evil,
and him who has always done well ;
between the man who began to serve his
God as soon as he knew that he had a
God to serve, and the man who only
turns to Heaven after he has exhausted
all the indulgences of Earth.”
1 Refer to Matt. ix. 2-6. “Whether it is
easier to say, Thy sins be forgiven thee ! or to
say, Arise, take up thy bed and walk? ” Jesus
seems here clearly to intimate that the view
taken above (of forgiveness of sins, namely,
involving an interference with the natural order
of sequence, and being therefore a miracle} is
correct. He places the two side by side, as
equally difficult.
127
Again, in the case of sin of which you
have induced another to partake. You
may repent—-you may, after agonising
struggles, regain the path of virtue—
your spirit may re-achieve its purity
through much anguish, and after many
stripes; but the weaker fellow-creature
whom you led astray, whom you made a
sharer in your guilt, but whom you can
not make a sharer in your repentance and
amendment, whose downward course
(the first step of which you taught) you
cannot check, but are compelled to
witness, what “ forgiveness ” of sins can
avail you there ? There is your per
petual, your inevitable punishment, which
no repentance can alleviate and no
mercy can remit.
This doctrine, that sins may be for
given, and the consequences of them
averted, has in all ages been a fertile
source of mischief. Perhaps few of our
intellectual errors have fructified in a
vaster harvest of evil, or operated more
powerfully to impede the moral progress
of our race. While it has been a source
of unspeakable comfort to the penitent,
a healing balm to the wounded spirit,
while it has saved many from hopeless
ness, and enabled those to recover them
selves who would otherwise have flung
away the remnant of their virtue in
despair; yet, on the other hand, it has
encoura ged millions, feeling tvhat a safety
was in store for them in ultimate resort,
to persevere ' in their career of folly or
crime, to ignore or despise those natural
laws which God has laid down to be the
guides and beacons of our conduct, to
continue to do “ that which was pleasant
in their own eyes,”convinced that nothing
was irrevocable, that however dearly they
might have to pay for re-integration,
repentance could at any time redeem
their punishment, and undo the past.
The doctrine has been noxious in exact
ratio to the baldness and nakedness with
which it has been propounded. In the
Catholic Church of the middle ages we
see it perhaps in its greatest form, when
pardon was sold, bargained for, rated at
a fixed price; when one hoary sinner,
�128
CHRISTIAN ECLECTICISM
on the bed of sickness, refused to repent,
because he was not certain that death
was close at hand, and he did not wish
for the trouble of going through the
process twice, and was loth, by a prema
ture amendment, to lose a chance of any
of the indulgences of sin. Men would
have been far more scrupulous watchers
over conduct, far more careful of their
deeds, had they believed that those
deeds would inevitably bear their natural
consequences, exempt from after inter
vention, than when they held that peni
tence and pardon could at any time
unlink the chain of sequences; just as
now they are little scrupulous of indulg
ing in hurtful excess, when medical aid
is at hand to remedy the mischief they
have voluntarily encountered. But were
they on a desert island, apart from the
remotest hope of a doctor or a drug, how
far more closely would they consider the
consequences of each indulgence, how
earnestly would they study the laws of
Nature, how comparatively unswerving
would be their endeavours to steer their
course by those laws, obedience to which
brings health, peace, and safety in its
train!
Let any one look back upon his past
career—look inward on his daily life—
and then say what effect would be pro
duced upon him, were the conviction
once fixedly embedded in his soul, that
everything done is done irrevocably—
that even the Omnipotence of God can
not uncommit a deed—cannot make that
undone which has been done ; that every
act must bear its allotted fruit according
to the everlasting laws—must remain for
ever ineffaceably inscribed on the tablets
of universal Nature. And then let him
consider what would have been the
result upon the moral condition of our
race, had all men ever held this convic
tion.
Perhaps you have led a youth of dis
sipation and excess which has under
mined and enfeebled your constitution,
and you have transmitted this injured
and enfeebled constitution to your
children. They suffer, in consequence,
through life; suffering, perhaps even sin,
is entailed upon them ; your repentance,
were it in sackcloth and ashes, cannot
help you or them. Your punishment is
tremendous, but it is legitimate and
inevitable. You have broken Nature’s
laws, or you have ignored them; and
no one violates or neglects them with
impunity.
What a lesson for timely
reflection and obedience is here !
Again,—You have broken the seventh
commandment. You grieve, you repent,
you resolutely determine against any
such weakness in future. It is well.
But “you know that God is merciful,
you feel that he will forgive you.” You
are comforted. But no—there is no for
giveness of sins : the injured party may
forgive you, your accomplice or victim
may forgive you, according to the mean
ing of human language; but the deed is
done, and all the powers of Nature, were
they to conspire in your behalf, could
not make it undone: the consequences
to the body, the consequences to the
soul, though no man may perceive them,
are there, are written in the annals of the
Past, and must reverberate through all
time.
But all this, let it be understood, in
no degree militates against the value or
the necessity of repentance. Repentance,
contrition of soul, bears, like every other
act, its own fruit, the fruit of purifying
the heart, of amending the future, not,
as man has hitherto conceived, of effacing
the Past. The commission of sin is an
irrevocable act, but it does not incapaci
tate the soul for virtue. Its consequences
cannot be expunged, but its course need
not be pursued. Sin, though it is in
effaceable, calls for no despair, but for
efforts more energetic than before. Re
pentance is still as valid as ever ; but it
is valid to secure the future, not to
obliterate the past.
PRINTED BY WATTS AND CO., 17, JOHNSON’S COURT, FLEET STREET, LONDON, E.C.
�Now Ready, X.-117 large pages (with cover • illustrated by Walter Crane),
price 6d., by post 8d. (five or more copies post free at published price).
THE CHILDREN’S BOOK OF
MORAL LESSONS.
First Series: “SELF-CONTROL”
and
“TRUTHFULNESS.”
’
By F. J. GOULD.
(A Suitable Reading-Book for the Third or Fourth Standard.)
'AUTHOR’S PREFACE.
The highest end of home and school education is to mould the child’s
character as a moral being; and to attain this end we must discipline the child’s
natural good feeling by systematic lessons in the interpretation of personal and
civic conduct. The lessons in this book are rather “ lessons ” in the teacher’s or
parent’s sense, but to the children themselves (so the author hopes) the idea of
“ lesson ” will yield to the dramatic interest of the 'stories and illustrations which
form the vehicles of the moral instruction.
It would be a truly noble issue out of the present educational crisis if persons
of all schools of thought could unite in- the establishment of a sound and practical
moral teaching detached from controversial doctrines.
The lessons are intended for children aged 10 to 14.
F. J. G.
Uniform
with the
R. P. A. Reprints. 160 pp., price 6d., by post 8d.;
cloth is., by post is. 3d.
INGERSOLL’S
What
LECTURES AND
ESSAYS.
Contents of First Series:—
The Truth.
The Gods.
About the Holy Bible.
Must We Do to be Saved?
Liberty of Man, Woman, and Child.
A Thanksgiving Sermon.
The Ghosts.
How to Reform Mankind.
Art and Morality.
Withfine Portrait of Author, and Introduction by Charles T. Gorham.
;
The Second Series (ready shortly) will contain “The Mistakes of Moses”
(complete edition), Lecture on “ Shakespeare,” etc., etc.
WATTS & CO., 17, JOHNSON’S COURT, FLEET STREET, LONDON, E.C.
�NOW READY, Cloth, 4s. net, by post 4s. 4d.
The Cosmos and the Creeds.
ELEMENTARY NOTES ON THE ALLEGED FINALITY OF
THE CHRISTIAN FAITH.
By Captain W. USBORNE MOORE.
Some Press Opinions:—
“ The author does not offer any new facts, but
he succeeds in his effort to clear the way for
profitable discussion.”—Birmingham Gazette.
suitable text-book for the commencement of their
studies upon the 4 Riddle of the Universe 5 ”_
Reynolds's Newspaper.
“The reader will find many orthodox beliefs
“ The author has made a painstaking effort to
vigorously assailed in these pages, but the
collate and present in a tangible and concrete
argument is well sustained in a lofty spirit.”_
form the varied facts brought to light by recent
Leicester Daily Mercury*
research. In this respect it is a much more
readable and convincing book than some that
44 It is an able rationalistic argument for freethought as against sacerdotal dogmas, and gives
have been written on the subject, and, whether
the. reader agrees or not with the conclusions
a suggestive review of many points in which the
arrived at, a careful perusal of the facts and
teachings of physical science and modern philo
arguments cannot fail to broaden the mind and
sophy run counter to the authority of the Bible
enlarge the understanding.”—Oxford Review.
as history. While not a book to be read with
out shock by people who do not know how far
“ Captain Moore popularises current know
rationalist criticism has advanced, it is both an
ledge on this all-important subject—knowledge,
earnest and a thoughtful work, which will be
scattered through many publicai ons inaccessible
read with interest and profit by anyone in search
to the general reader. Those interested in the j of arguments against the more reactionary
great problem of existence would find this a : powers of priestcraft.”—Scotsman.
J
Monthly, 2d., by post 2%d., or with Supplement (January, April, July, and October) 3d.
Annual Subscription, 2s. 8d. post free.
The Literary Guide
AND RATIONALIST REVIEW.
In addition to reviews of the best books on Religion, Ethics, Science,
and Philosophy, each number of the Literary Guide contains articles
expository of Rationalism, frequently from the pens of prominent writers.
SPECIMEN COPY POST FREE.
WATTS & CO., 17, JOHNSON’S COURT, FLEET STREET, LONDON, E.C.
�
Dublin Core
The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/.
Title
A name given to the resource
Victorian Blogging
Description
An account of the resource
A collection of digitised nineteenth-century pamphlets from Conway Hall Library & Archives. This includes the Conway Tracts, Moncure Conway's personal pamphlet library; the Morris Tracts, donated to the library by Miss Morris in 1904; the National Secular Society's pamphlet library and others. The Conway Tracts were bound with additional ephemera, such as lecture programmes and handwritten notes.<br /><br />Please note that these digitised pamphlets have been edited to maximise the accuracy of the OCR, ensuring they are text searchable. If you would like to view un-edited, full-colour versions of any of our pamphlets, please email librarian@conwayhall.org.uk.<br /><br /><span><img src="http://www.heritagefund.org.uk/sites/default/files/media/attachments/TNLHLF_Colour_Logo_English_RGB_0_0.jpg" width="238" height="91" alt="TNLHLF_Colour_Logo_English_RGB_0_0.jpg" /></span>
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Conway Hall Library & Archives
Date
A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource
2018
Publisher
An entity responsible for making the resource available
Conway Hall Ethical Society
Text
A resource consisting primarily of words for reading. Examples include books, letters, dissertations, poems, newspapers, articles, archives of mailing lists. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre Text.
Original Format
The type of object, such as painting, sculpture, paper, photo, and additional data
Pamphlet
Dublin Core
The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/.
Title
A name given to the resource
The creed of Christendom : its foundations contrasted with its superstructure
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Greg, William R. (William Rathbone) [1809-1881]
Sullivan, W. R. Washington
Description
An account of the resource
Place of publication: London
Collation: 128 p. ; 22 cm.
Series title: R.P.A. Cheap Reprints
Series number: 20
Notes: Issued for the Rationalist Press Association. Includes bibliographical references. Printed in double columns. Part of the NSS pamphlet collection.
Publisher
An entity responsible for making the resource available
Watts & Co.
Date
A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource
1905
Identifier
An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context
RA509
RA1670
N292
Subject
The topic of the resource
Christianity
Bible
Rights
Information about rights held in and over the resource
<a href="http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/mark/1.0/"><img src="http://i.creativecommons.org/p/mark/1.0/88x31.png" alt="Public Domain Mark" /></a><span> </span><br /><span>This work (The creed of Christendom : its foundations contrasted with its superstructure), identified by </span><a href="https://conwayhallcollections.omeka.net/items/show/www.conwayhall.org.uk"><span>Humanist Library and Archives</span></a><span>, is free of known copyright restrictions.</span>
Format
The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource
application/pdf
Type
The nature or genre of the resource
Text
Language
A language of the resource
English
Apologetics
Bible-Controversial literature
Bible-Criticism
Christianity
Free Thought
NSS
-
https://d1y502jg6fpugt.cloudfront.net/25778/archive/files/1efa5bccb30367732979aae0262ff448.pdf?Expires=1712793600&Signature=QJha1DGUtHFbG6-I2p-X7d7uyYrKG5G4GzbKma8yP22OLJcvXX6IZ5%7ENOuYTJsScsZLPWFPW68RCsnEcXtKAR4cIwqs9xfdmpsGIk7Ot-WEfDxZo88QWx1dkVuVqExNYKOgaso9iy6ZLYe%7Eac19hwnaIP8HBW7lvSDdCFIzB6yGJxMjY%7EoF8r-wkXDbdQtCRRVydE09y4b%7EeLm6R4bOyiJFMIkvdhFQcqflTEYkSOYLZFgoNCpumRQd1Kq84v8tKnMJ6gZanjc4xsVwbRsSvA93ZysgPIPExSojIxOdAX903PdtNkuCWRgbX8nNj0l4ymq9tAX9AcdmhXkiYAEjoyw__&Key-Pair-Id=K6UGZS9ZTDSZM
394a53a2ea7bfbb42f6dbc0cc47601b5
PDF Text
Text
������������������������������������������������������������������������
Dublin Core
The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/.
Title
A name given to the resource
Victorian Blogging
Description
An account of the resource
A collection of digitised nineteenth-century pamphlets from Conway Hall Library & Archives. This includes the Conway Tracts, Moncure Conway's personal pamphlet library; the Morris Tracts, donated to the library by Miss Morris in 1904; the National Secular Society's pamphlet library and others. The Conway Tracts were bound with additional ephemera, such as lecture programmes and handwritten notes.<br /><br />Please note that these digitised pamphlets have been edited to maximise the accuracy of the OCR, ensuring they are text searchable. If you would like to view un-edited, full-colour versions of any of our pamphlets, please email librarian@conwayhall.org.uk.<br /><br /><span><img src="http://www.heritagefund.org.uk/sites/default/files/media/attachments/TNLHLF_Colour_Logo_English_RGB_0_0.jpg" width="238" height="91" alt="TNLHLF_Colour_Logo_English_RGB_0_0.jpg" /></span>
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Conway Hall Library & Archives
Date
A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource
2018
Publisher
An entity responsible for making the resource available
Conway Hall Ethical Society
Text
A resource consisting primarily of words for reading. Examples include books, letters, dissertations, poems, newspapers, articles, archives of mailing lists. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre Text.
Original Format
The type of object, such as painting, sculpture, paper, photo, and additional data
Pamphlet
Dublin Core
The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/.
Title
A name given to the resource
Self-contradictions of the Bible. 144 propositions, theological, moral, historical and speculative; each proved affirmatively and negatively by quotations from scripture, without comment; embodying the mot palpable and striking self-contradictions of the so-called inspired word of God
Description
An account of the resource
Edition: Rev. & Enl.
Place of publication: [New York]
Collation: 71, [1] p. ; 18 cm.
Notes: Publisher's advertisements on unnumbered page at the end. From the library of Dr Moncure Conway. Author attribution from WorldCat.
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Burr, William Henry
Publisher
An entity responsible for making the resource available
[American News Company]
Date
A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource
1872
Identifier
An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context
CT24
Subject
The topic of the resource
Bible
Rights
Information about rights held in and over the resource
<a href="http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/mark/1.0/"><img src="http://i.creativecommons.org/p/mark/1.0/88x31.png" alt="Public Domain Mark" /></a><span> </span><br /><span>This work (Self-contradictions of the Bible. 144 propositions, theological, moral, historical and speculative; each proved affirmatively and negatively by quotations from scripture, without comment; embodying the mot palpable and striking self-contradictions of the so-called inspired word of God), identified by </span><a href="https://conwayhallcollections.omeka.net/items/show/www.conwayhall.org.uk"><span>Humanist Library and Archives</span></a><span>, is free of known copyright restrictions.</span>
Format
The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource
application/pdf
Type
The nature or genre of the resource
Text
Language
A language of the resource
English
Bible-Controversial literature
Bible-Criticism and Interpretation
Conway Tracts