1
10
29
-
https://d1y502jg6fpugt.cloudfront.net/25778/archive/files/37332d4af46d573bbdaeb3a054045b90.pdf?Expires=1712793600&Signature=phmd-IpkHNKYm8sRNrYkDuWeCPqPIjSfGG7Y1QGT7cW%7EYJlL5HVzgGcDitZ7dvrsfSrwE3hjVSrl7IrwJMh0cDp4CliATTCorUc0tS0XC0v5ptEaAa2IN7wcqHFAyTSYbRwxKFcrplqLVYt-lWLUycaNQ2MbURPxXQJfsAIxTyul19n-XNY4nnu273GUevkPYbXXQXIgnx4IbLy0RcvFV1tidkNT-b3GmBdzfR2SM0XMnhKNk5ZMNEkk3cmJdhW19y-3aMe1U-lHnvWQGEkkq4%7EpU15uGwi4gPVrfUTZoSWYs2HzOlXoCbEyBruvsE0Vy8qeKpX6Bx9WZCopRw6N2A__&Key-Pair-Id=K6UGZS9ZTDSZM
373389a135cd68176ea445ef9473a9a0
PDF Text
Text
VERS US
CHRISTIANITY.
BY
A CANTAB.
PUBLISHED
BY
THOMAS
SCOTT,
NO. 11 THE TERRACE, FARQUHAR ROAD, UPPER NORWOOD,
LONDON, S.E.
1873.
Pi ice Sixpence.
�LONDON!
rr.INTED BY C. W. REYNELL, 16 LITTLE 1TLTENEY STREET
HAYMARKET, IV.
�JESUS versus CHRISTIANITY.
---------♦---------
HE most notable feature in the present condition
of theology is, indubitably, the rapid multipli
cation of writings designed to point the contrast
between the character, real or supposed, of Jesus,
and the religion which bears his name and of which
he is commonly regarded as the founder. The revolt,
which every day but serves to intensify, is not against
Jesus as par excellence il the genius of righteousness,”
but against the dogmatic system which theologians
have substituted for him. The church, it is alleged,
has outdone Iscariot, in that it has committed a
twofold treachery : it has accepted the murder of its
founder as a sacrifice well-pleasing to the Deity, and
it has repudiated his simple heart-religion for meta
physical subtleties of its own invention. Thus, not
content with making itself a participator in the
murder of his body, the church has dealt a fatal
outrage upon his spirit.
Among the writings to which we have referred as
advocating the displacement of the regime of dogma
and belief by the substitution of one involving
character and conduct, we propose to note especially
‘ The True History of Joshua Davidson,’ reputed to
be the work of a lady well known for the vigour of
her thought and style ; ‘ Literature and Dogma,’ by
Matthew Arnold; ‘ The Eair Haven,’ by W. B.
Owen ; ‘ By and By,’ by Edward Maitland ; ‘ A Note
of Interrogation,’ by Miss Nightingale ; and ‘ Modern
Christianity a Civilised Heathenism.’ All these writ
ings, with the exception of the last, agree in rejecting
A 2
T
�4
'Jesus versus Christianity.
as unproved, unprovable, mistaken, or pernicious, at
least much of what has always been insisted upon by
the church, and in accepting the general character
and teaching of Jesus as the most valuable moral
possession of humanity.
We except the last one for this reason, though
using it to point our argument : It gives up the
state of society which has grown up under the sway
of dogma as utterly un-Christian in character and
conduct, but it does not give up the dogma. The
work of the clergyman who gained an undesirable
notoriety during the Franco-German war by his mis
chievous brochure entitled ‘ Dame Europa’s School,’
it manifests all the confusion of thought which dis
tinguished that production. It was scarcely to be
expected that the writer who could represent England
as placed at the head of the school of Europe to keep
the other nations from quarrelling, and declare that
“ neutral is another name for coward,” would
escape committing absurd inconsistencies when he
took to writing about modern Christianity. In a
dialogue with a Hindoo resident in London, he makes
the heathen discourse in this fashion :
“ How can you soberly believe and eloquently
preach that an overwhelming majority of your fellow
creatures will be burnt alive throughout all eternity
in the flames of hell, and yet can find time or inclina
tion at any moment of your life for any other work
than the work of rescuing the souls around you from
their appalling doom ? How contemplate even so
much as the distant possibility of being yourself
tortured with agonies insupportable, for ages and.
ages and millions of ages more, and all the while
laugh and joke, and talk of politics and business and
pleasure, as if you were the happiest fellow on
earth ? You parsons do actually stand in imminent
peril of being burnt alive for ever, or else you do
not. The souls committed to your teaching, or a
�Jesus versus Christianity.
5
certain proportion of them, are destined to spend a
whole eternity in torment, or else they are destined to
nothing of the kind. If they are so destined, and if
you, unless by precept and example you have done
all in your power to save them, shall have your part
in their unutterable woe, what can you do from morn
ing to night but pray for them, and weep for them,
and implore them earnestly to escape at any cost
from the horrors of an unquenchable flame ? Yet, in
the face of your alleged persuasions that you yourself
and all your flock are standing, for all you know,
upon the very brink of an everlasting hell, you have
deliberately chosen and cheerfully maintain a course
of occupations and a position in society which no
man could possibly endure for half a day who really
believed himself and those dear to him to be placed
in any such peril. What I say is that, if you are not
leading a downright ascetic life—the life of Christ
and nothing less—you waste words upon the air when
you preach the punishment of eternal flames. Would
you believe that my dearest friend upon earth was on
trial for his life, and would very probably be hanged,
if you met me somewhere at five o’clock tea, talking
nonsense to some young lady ? Whereas the average
minister delivers his most awful message, tells his
people plainly that they will be damned, knows for a
certainty that they will go on sinning all the same, and,
under a strong impression that several of his cherished
acquaintances and kindly neighbours will be devoured
by flames unquenchable, walks home to his vicarage,
jokes with his wife, romps with his children, chaffs
his friend, sits down comfortably to his luncheon, and
thoroughly enjoys his slice of cold roast beef and his
glass of bitter beer. Will any man, in his senses,
believe that he means what he has just been saying in
his sermon ? Of course he will believe nothing of the
sort; and therefore it has come to pass that England
is full of intelligent laymen who doubt and disbelieve.
�6
Jesus versus Christianity.
No; lei me see Christians imitating, not a Christ
whom I could fashion for myself out of heathen
materials, not the pattern philosopher, not the ideal
man—but a Christ who at every point is making him
self an intolerable offence to the un-Christ-like, a
thorn and scourge to every man who does not lie
stretched at the foot of his cross ! I know for certain
how Christ would be treated if he were here; I can
see the press deriding him, the fine lady picking her
way past him in the street, the poor flocking round
him as a friend, the magistrate committing him to
prison. Let me see his witnesses treated thus, and
I shall believe that he has sent them. But while I
see them claiming the right to live as other men,
glorying in the fact that they have no peculiarities,
smiling politely on sin, and caressed by those who
would have spat upon their Lord—so long as I see
them thus, they shall teach me if they please the
principles of Christ’s philosophy, but they shall not
dare to tell me that they are priests of a crucified
Christ.”
The conclusion shows that the heathen, having
found such a witness as he requires, accepts the life
—though whether for the sake of the life or through
fear of the hell, does not appear—while the parson
retains the dogma described as above, impervious
to any sense of its hideous immorality, “ and walks
slowly and sadly home, feeling more and more dis
satisfied with his own position.”
In ‘ Joshua Davidson ’ we have an attempt to
transfer the Jesus of the gospels, poor and untaught,
but enthusiast of noble ideas, to our own day, for the
purpose of showing from the inevitable failure of his
life and work, either that modern society is not
Christian, or that Christianity as a system will not
work. The hero of the tale, a carpenter by trade,
early gives up Christianity as a dogma or collection
of dogmas, and falls back upon the character and
�Jesus versus Christianity.
7
social teaching of Jesus as the essence of the gospel,
and alone possessing any real value for us. What
would Jesus be and do were he to live now ? This is
the question essayed to be answered in ‘ Joshua David
son,’ by representing him as a plain working-man,
attacking alike banker and bishop, advocating indis
criminate almsgiving, fraternising with the poor and
discontented, unorthodox in faith, an ultra-radical in
politics, exciting the bitter hostility of the whole
respectable press, denouncing shams, clutching
eagerly at any Utopian extravagance that had a
heart of good in it, a red republican in Trance, an
itinerant lecturer on the rights of man in England,
and finally trampled to death by conservative roughs,
hounded on by dignitaries of the Established Church.
Confident that such would be the career of
Jesus among us, the author is justified in asking of
us, why, if we should thus regard him, do we persist
in calling ourselves by his name and pretending to
be his followers. Surely a question not to be left
unanswered. “We ought,” says the preface to the
third edition, “to be brave enough in this day to dare
ask ourselves how much is practicable and how much
is impracticable in the creed we profess; and to
renounce that which is even the most imperatively
enjoined if we find that it is not wise or possible.
If our religion leads us to political chimeras, let us
abjure it: if it teaches us truth, let us obey it, no
matter what social growths we tear up by the roots.
There is no mean way for men. To slaves only
should the symbols of a myth be sacred, and our very
children are forbidden the weakness of knowing the
right and doing the wrong. If such a man as Joshua
Davidson was a mistake, then acted Christianity is to
blame. In which case, what becomes of the dogma ?
and how can we worship a life as divine, the practical
imitation of which is a moral blunder and an economic
crime ? ”
�8
"Jesus versus Christianity.
It is thus that the author makes the very humanity
of Jesus the proof of his divinity. He is extrahuman, not in any metaphysico-theological sense,
but in the intensity of the sympathy which impels
him to attempt to benefit his fellows. His very
failures are more divine than the successes of other
men. It is thus, too, that having at the start repu
diated the dogmatic system attached to his name, we
are called on to re-examine his ethical and social
teaching, and to avow honestly our rejection of such
parts of it as do not coincide with our notions of the
practicable and right. In short, the appeal is to be
neither to authority nor tradition, but to our own
intelligence and moral sense.
This, too, is the import of Miss Nightingale's
recent utterance (in Fraser's Magazine for May).
Rebuking the tendency of modern reformers to ignore
the character of God, as necessarily underlying the
phenomena which form the subject of their investi
gations, this ‘ Note of Interrogation ’ calls upon us to
regard the moral laws which govern men’s motives as
the real exponents of the divine nature. While thus
adopting the inductive method of Positivism, she
blames the Positivists “ for leaving out of considera
tion all the inspiring part of life,” and stopping short
at phenomena, instead of seeking to learn that of
which phenomena are but the manifestation, and.
to which, therefore, they must be the index. In
this view, she rejects the main points of the creeds
of Roman, Protestant, and Greek alike, and utterly
ignores what is called “ revelation ” as a guide
to the nature of God, and points to the character and
teaching of Christ as among the best indications to
that which ought to be the prime object of search.
In all this it appears clearly that by the term GW
Miss Nightingale really means a human ideal of
perfection, and that she would have us perfect our
ideal for the sake of the reflex influence it would
�Jesus -versus Christianity.
9
exercise upon ourselves. It is by the adoption of the
Christ-ideal of character, and rejection of Christian
dogma, and those on the question of their intrinsic
merits as estimated by her own mind and con
science, apart from tradition or authority, that Miss
Nightingale justifies us in ranking her among the
supporters of Jesus in the great cause of Jesus versus
Christianity.
‘ The Fair Haven ’ is an ironical defence of ortho
doxy at the expense of the whole mass of church
tenet and dogma, the character of Christ only
excepted. Such, at least, is our reading of it, though
critics of the Rock, and Record order have accepted
the book as a serious defence of Christianity, and
proclaimed it as a most valuable contribution in aid
of the faith. Affecting an orthodox standpoint, it
bitterly reproaches all previous apologists for the
lack of candour with which they have ignored or
explained away insuperable difficulties, and attached
undue value to coincidences real or imagined. One
and all they have, the author declares, been at best
but zealous “liars for God,” or what to them
was more than God, their own religious system.
This must go on no longer. We, as Christians,
having a sound cause, need not feai’ to let the truth be
known. He proceeds accordingly to set forth that
truth as he finds it in the New Testament; and, in
a masterly analysis of the accounts of the resurrection,
which he selects as the principal and crucial miracle,
involving all Other miracles, he shows how slender
is the foundation on which the whole fabric of super
natural theology has been reared. Rejecting the
hypothesis of hallucination by which Strauss attempts
to account for the belief of the disciples in the
resurrection, he shows that they had no real evidence
that Jesus had died upon the cross at all. It is true
that the disciples believed him dead ; so that we
need not charge them with fraud. That charge he
�io
Jesus versus Christianity.
reserves for the Paleys and Alfords, whose disingenuousness he scathingly exposes, using the
arguments of the latter to show the absence of anv
proof that Jesus died either of the cross or of the
spear-wound. All that the evangelists knew was
that the body was deposited in the tomb apparently
dead, and that at the end of some thirty hours it had
disappeared. Rejecting the statement in Matthew
as palpably untenable, he makes that in John the
basis of the true story, this being the simplest and
manifest source of the rest.
As told by our author, the whole affords an exquisite
example of the natural growth of a legend. First,
we have Mary Magdalene, who, finding the stone
removed, investigates no further, but runs back and
declares that the body has been taken away (not that
it has come to life). Then we have John and Peter
ascertaining for themselves, by looking in, that Jesus
was no longer there, but only the linen clothes lying
in two separate parts of the tomb. Then, these
having taken their departure, we have the warm,
impulsive Magdalene remaining behind to weep. At
length, mustering courage to look into the sepul
chre for herself, she sees, as she thinks, sitting at
opposite ends, two angels in white, who merely
ask her why she weeps. She makes no answer,
but turns to the outside, where she sees Jesus
himself, but so changed that she does not at first
recognise him.
How from this simple and natural story of the
white grave clothes, in the dark sepulchre, looking
like angels to the tear-blinded eyes of a woman who
was so liable to hysteria or insanity as to have had
“ seven devils ” cast out of her, grew, step by step, the
myth so freely amplified in the gospels, the reader
must find in the book itself.
If he can once fully grasp the intention of the
style and its affectation of the tone of indignant
�Jesus versus Christianity.
11
orthodoxy, and perceive also how utterly destructive
are its “ candid admissions ” to the whole fabric of
supernaturalism, he will enjoy a rare treat. It is not,
however, for the purpose of recommending what we,
at least, regard as a piece of exquisite humour that
we call attention to ‘ The Fair Haven,’ but in order
to show how, while rejecting popular Christianity, we
may still accept the “ Christ-ideal,” to use our author’s
phrase, and this with an enhanced sense of its beauty
and use to the world.
One of the most characteristic parts of the book is
that in which he argues in favour of the providential
character of the gospel narratives, notwithstanding
their inaccuracies. After stating that no ill effects
need follow from a rejection of the immaculate con
ception, the miracles, the resurrection, or the
ascension, because “ the Christ-ideal, which, after all,
is the soul and spirit of Christianity, would remain
precisely where it is, while its recognition would be
far more general, owing to the departure on the part
of the Apologists from certain lines of defence which
are irreconcilable with the ideal itself,” he says :
“ The old theory that God desired to test our faith,
and that there would be no merit in believing if the
evidence were such as to commend itself at once to
our understanding, is one which need only be stated
to be set aside. It is blasphemy against the goodness
of God to suppose that he has thus laid, as it were, an
ambuscade for man, and will only let him escape on
condition of his consenting to violate one of the very
most precious of God’s own gifts. There is an inge
nious cruelty about such conduct which it is revolting
even to imagine. Indeed, the whole theory reduces
our heavenly Father to a level of wisdom and goodness
far below our own, and this is sufficient answer to it.”
There is, however, a reason why we should be
■required to believe in the divinity of the Christ-ideal,
and regard it as exalted beyond all human comparison;
�I2
"Jesus versus Christianity.
namely, in order to exalt our sense of the paramount
importance of following and obeying the life and
commands of Christ. And this being so, “ it is
natural, also, to suppose that whatever may have
happened to the records of that life should have been
ordained with a view to the enhancing the precious
ness of the ideal.” Thus the very obscurity and
fragmentariness of the gospel narratives have added
to the value of the ideas they present, just as the
mutilations of ancient sculptures serve to enhance
their beauty to the imagination. Or, as “the gloom
and gleam of Rembrandt, or the golden twilight of
the Venetians, the losing and finding, and the infinite
liberty of shadow,” produce an effect infinitely beyond
that which would be gained by any hardness of
definition and tightness of outline. The suggestion
of the beautiful lineaments to the imagination is far
more effective than would be any minutely detailed
portrait. “ Those who relish definition, and definition
only, are indeed kept away from Christianity by the
present condition of the records ; but even if the life
of our Lord had been so definitely rendered as to
find a place in their system, would it have greatly
served their souls ? And would it not repel hun
dreds and thousands of others, who find in the
suggestiveness of the sketch a completeness of satis
faction which no photographic reproduction could
have given ?”
The fact is “ people misunderstand the aim and
scope of religion. Religion is only intended to guide
men in those matters upon which science is silent:
God illumines us by science as by a mechanical
draughtsman’s plan; he illumines us in the gospels
as by the drawing of a great artist. We cannot build
a ‘ Great Eastern ’ from the drawings of the artist,
but what poetical feeling, what true spiritual emotion
was ever kindled by a mechanical drawing ? How
cold and dead were science, unless supplemented by
�"Jesus versus Christianity.
13
art and religion! Not joined with them, for the
merest touch of these things impairs scientific value,
which depends essentially upon accuracy, and not upon
any feeling for the beautiful and loveable. In like
manner the merest touch of science chills the warmth
of sentiment—the spiritual life. The mechanical
drawing is spoilt by being made artistic, and the work
of the artist by becoming mechanical. The aim of
the one is to teach men how to construct; of the other,
how to feel. We ought not, therefore, to have ex
pected scientific accuracy from the gospel records.
Much less should we be required to believe that such
accuracy exists.” The finest picture, approached close
enough, becomes but blotches and daubs of paint, each
one of which, taken by itself, is absolutely untrue,
yet, at proper distance, forms an impression which is
quite truthful. “No combination of minute truths
in a picture will give so faithful a representation
of nature as a wisely-arranged tissue of untruths.”
Again, “ all ideals gain by vagueness and lose by defi
nition, inasmuch as more scope is left for the imagi
nation of the beholder, who can thus fill in the missing
detail according to his own spiritual needs. This is
how it comes that nothing which is recent, whether
animate or inanimate, can serve as an ideal unless it
is adorned by more than common mystery and uncer
tainty. A new cathedral is necessarily very ugly.
There is too much found and too little lost. Much
less would an absolutely perfect Being be of the
highest value as an ideal as long as he could be clearly
seen, for it is impossible that he could be known as
perfect by imperfect men, and his very perfections
must perforce appear as blemishes to any but perfect
critics. To give, therefore, an impression of perfec
tion, to create an absolutely unsurpassable ideal, it
became essential that the actual image of the original
should become blurred and lost, whereon the beholder
now supplies from his own imagination that which is,
�14
"Jesus versus Christianity.
to him, more perfect than the original, though objec
tively it must be infinitely less so.
“ It is probably to this cause that the incredulity of
the Apostles during our Lord’s lifetime must be
assigned. The ideal was too near them, and too far
above their comprehension; for it must always be
remembered that the convincing power of miracles in
the days of the Apostles must have been greatly
weakened by the current belief in their being events
of no very unusual occurrence, and in the existence
both of good and evil spirits who could take
possession of men and compel them to do their
bidding.
“ A beneficent and truly marvellous provision for
the greater complexity of man’s spiritual needs was
thus provided by a gradual loss of detail and gain of
breadth. Enough evidence was given in the first
instance to secure authoritative sanction for the ideal.
During the first thirty or forty years after the death
of our Lord, no one could be in want of evidence,
and the guilt of unbelief is, therefore, brought promi
nently forward. Then came the loss of detail which
was necessary in order to secure the universal accept
ability of the ideal. . . But there would, of course,
be limits to the gain caused by decay. Time came
when there would be danger of too much vagueness
in the ideal, and too little distinctness in the evidences.
It became necessary, therefore, to provide against this
danger.
“ Precisely at that epoch the gospels made their appear
ance.” Not simultaneously, and not in perfect harmony
with each other, but with such divergence of aim and
difference of authorship as would secure the necessary
breadth of effect when the accounts were viewed
together. “ As the roundness of the stereoscopic
image can only be attained by the combination of two
distinct pictures, neither of them in perfect harmony
with the other, so the highest possible conception of
�Jesus versus Christianity.
15
Christ cannot otherwise be produced than through the
discrepancies of the gospels.”
Now, however, “when there is a numerous and
increasing class of persons whose habits of mind unfit
them for appreciating the value of vagueness, but
who have each of them a soul which may be lost or
saved, the evidences should be restored to something
like their former sharpness.” To do this it demands
only “the recognition of the fact that time has made
incrustations upon some parts of the evidences, and
has destroyed others.” Nevertheless, as “ it is not belief
in the facts which constitutes the essence of Clvristianity,
but rather the being so impregnated with love at the
contemplation of Christ that imitation becomes almost
instinctive,” we may probably suppose “that certain
kinds of unbelief have become less hateful in the
sight of God, inasmuch as they are less dangerous to
the universal acceptance of our Lord as the one model
for the imitation of all men.”
To advocate conduct instead of belief, experience
instead of tradition, and intuition instead of conven
tionality, and to exhibit a model for the imitation of
all men, married as well as single, is at least one pur
pose manifest in the series of novels of which ‘ By
and By ’ is announced to be the completion :—novels
differing from the ordinary kind in that, while others
treat of man only in relation to man, and are, there
fore, merely moral, these bear reference to man in
relation to the Infinite, and are, therefore, essentially
religious.
It does not come within our design to treat of the
surface aspect of Mr Edward Maitland’s ‘ Historical
Romance of the Future,’ which represents the world
as it may be when a few more centuries have passed
over it, and the problems, social, political, and
religious, which now trouble it, shall have found
their solution, and people may, without detriment or
reproach, regulate their lives in accordance with their
�16
"Jesus versus Christianity.
own preferences. It is with the deeper design of the
book that we have now to do, the design which
reveals itself in the entire series to which, with ‘ The
Pilgrim and the Shrine ’ and 1 Higher Law,’ it belongs.
This design is the rehabilitation of nature, by showing
its capacity for producing of itself, if only its best be
allowed fail* play, the highest results in religion and
morals. Seeing that to rehabilitate nature is in
effect to rehabilitate the author of nature, and replace
both worker and work in the high place from which
they have been deposed by theologians, such a design
can be no other than an eminently religious one.
In the first of the series, ‘ The Pilgrim and the
Shrine,’ the wanderer in search of a faith that will
stand the test and fulfil the requirements of a
developed mind and conscience emerges from the
wilderness of doubt, through which he has been pain
fully toiling, to find that the best that we can com
prehend must ever be the Divine for us, and this by
the very constitution of our nature, inasmuch as we
can only interpret that which is without by that
which is within. And he bears testimony to the
value of the Bible as an agent in the development of
the religious faculty by noting the subjective character
of all that really appertains to religion in both the
Old and New Testaments. “ Constantly,” he says,
“ is the inner ideal dwelt upon without any reference
to corresponding external objects. Think you it was
the law as written in the books of Moses that was a
delight to the mind and a guide to the feet of the
Psalmist ? No, it was something that appealed much
more nearly to his inmost soul, even ‘ the law of God
in his heart.’ And what else was meant by ‘ Christ
in you the hope of glory?’ The idea of a perfect
standard is all that can be in us. The question
wbethei’ it has any external personal existence in
history does not affect the efficacy of the idea in
raising us up towards itself. God, the Absolute, is
�Jesus versus Christianity.
17
altogether past finding out. Wherefore we elevate
the best we can imagine into the Divine, and worship
that:—the perfect man or perfect woman. Surely
it is no matter which, since it is the character and not
the person that is adored. . . Christianity is a
worship of the divinest character, as exemplified in a
human form. . . The very ascription to Jesus of
supernatural attributes shows the incapacity of his
disciples to appreciate the grandeur and simplicity of
his character. . . . Here, then, is my answer to
the question, 1 What was the exact work of Christ ? ’
It was to give men a law for their government, tran
scending any previously generally recognised. Ignor
ing the military ruler, the priest, and the civil
magistrate, he virtually denounced physical force,
spiritual terror, and legal penalties as the compelling
motive for virtue. The system whereby he would
make men perfect, even as their Father in heaven is
perfect, was by developing the higher moral lawimplanted in every man’s breast, and so cultivating
the idea of God in the soul. The ‘ law of God in
the heart ’ was no original conception of his. It had
been recognised by many long before, and had raised
them to the dignity of prophets, saints, and martyrs.
Its sway, though incapable of gaining in intensity, is
wider now than ever, till the poet of our day must be
one who is deeply imbued with it; no mere surface
painter like his predecessors, however renowned, but
having a spiritual insight which makes him at once
poet and prophet. The founding of an organised
society, having various grades of ecclesiastical rank,
and definite rules of faith, does not seem to me to
have formed any part of Christ’s idea. His plan was
rather to scatter broadcast the beauty of his thought,
and let it take root and spring up where it could.
Recognising intensely, as he did, the all-winning
loveliness of his idea, he felt that it would never lack
ardent disciples to propagate it, and he left it to each
B
�Jesus versus Christianity.
age to devise such means as the varying character of
the times might suggest. The ‘ Christian Church,*
therefore, for me, consists of all who follow a Christian
ideal of character, no matter whether, or in whom,
they believe that ideal to have been personified.”
Such is the teaching of a book that is, to the Pall
Mall Gazette, foolishness, and to Mudie’s a stumblingblock and an abomination; yet which, in spite of
clerical denunciation and the expurgatorial indexes
of Protestant Nonconformist circulating-librarians,
has in a short space travelled to all lands where the
English tongue is spoken, and perceptibly influenced
the course that religious thought must henceforth
take. We shall have a proof of this when we come
to the last book on our list. In the meantime it
seemed to us well to digress for a moment in order
to denounce the obstacles which still are thrown in
the way of genuine religious thought by ecclesiastic
and layman, Churchman and Dissenter, alike in this
“ Christian ” land of ours.
As the ‘ Pilgrim and the Shrine ’ exhibited the
process of thinking and feeling out a religion, so its
successor, ‘ Higher Law,’ represented the natural
growth of a morality. Repudiating all conventional
methods, as the other repudiated theological and
traditional ones, the design here is to represent the
action of persons under the sole guidance of their
own perceptions and feelings under circumstances of
supreme temptation and difficulty.
It is by the steadfast adherence to the simple rule
of unselfishness, which forbids the commission of
aught that can injure or pain those whom we are
bound to respect, that the sufficiency of the intuitions
to constitute the higher, or rather highest, law of
morality is demonstrated.
It is not necessary to the perfection of nature that
all germs should reach the highest stages of growth,
whether in the vegetable or in the spiritual kingdom.
�"Jesus versus Christianity.
T9
The capacity to produce a single perfect result is
sufficient to redeem nature from the old reproach
cast upon it by theologians, “just as one magnificent
blossom suffices to redeem the plant, that lives a
hundred years and flowers but once, from the charge
of having wasted its existence.” Nay, more. “Even
if the experience of all past ages of apparent aim
lessness and sterility affords no plea in justification of
existence, the one fact that there is room for hope in
the future may well suffice to avert the sentence men
are too apt to pronounce,—that all is vanity and
vexation, and that the tree of humanity is fit only to
be cut down, that it cumber the ground no longer.”
Erom this point of view it is evident that at least
one object of the creation of the leading character in
1 By and By ’ is to show how an ideally perfect dis
position may be produced from purely natural cir
cumstances, and if in the present or future, why not
in the past ? The “ Christmas Carol ” of ‘ By and
By’ thus becomes for us a parallel to the “Joshua
Davidson” of the book already noticed; for it is an
attempt to transfer the Jesus of the gospels from
Judaea to our own country, only a Jesus wealthy in
stead of poor, educated instead of untaught, married
instead of single, having all the advantages of a
civilisation more advanced than any yet attained,
and with his intense religious enthusiasm kept from
surpassing the limits of the practical, by science,
wedlock, and work. In his liability to personify the
products of his own vivid and spiritual imagination,
and out of his idealisations of things terrestrial to
people the skies with “angels,” we see but a repro
duction of one of the characteristics by which all
the enthusiasts of old, to which the world owes its
religions, have been distinguished. By placing such
a character in his picture of the future, we under. stand the author to indicate his conviction that man
will always, no matter how rigidly scientific his
b 2
�20
Jesus ’versus Christianity.
training, have a religious side to his nature, a side
whereby he can rise on the wings of emotion far
beyond the regions of mere Sense. Of course such
an one must at some moment of his life feel himself
impelled to use his wealth and freedom for his own
selfish gratification (he would not otherwise be
human), but resisting such promptings of his own
lower nature, will fix himself upon some great
and useful work. It is almost as much of course that
he will in his earliest love be attracted by the
character that most nearly resembles pure unso
phisticated nature. But the love that is of the sexes
will not contain half his nature. He will be the
friend and servant of all men, and so provoke to
jealousy the small, intense disposition of her to whom
he has allied himself. Striving to inoculate her with
a sense of the ideal, their relations will aptly typify
the world-old conflict of Soul and Sense. He may
suffer greatly, but if she be true and genuine, and
loves him her best, so far as is in her, he will _ be
tender and kind and endure to the end. Losing
her, and after long interval wedding again, more for
his child’s sake than his own, he will naturally be
tempted to make trial of one less unsophisticated and
untrained. But mere conventionality will disgust
him. Its hollow artifices and insincerity will be
odious, and the ideal man will find a moral jar y
fitting plea for repudiation. Should his child—his
daughter—err, he will be tender and forgiving, pro
vided her fault be prompted by love. It will ever
be in his conduct that we shall find his faith.
Recognising himself as an individualised portion of
the divine whole, his intuitions are to him as the
voice of God in his soul, and to fail to live up to his
best would be to fall short of the duty due to his
divine ancestry.
So confident is he of the divinity of his own
intuitions, and so inexorable in his requirements of
�Jesus versus Christianity.
21
perfection in conduct up to the highest point of
individual ability, that he fails to be at ease until he
has established the character of God himself for perfect
righteousness in his dealings, even with the meanest
thing in his creation. We do not know whether or
not the argument is new. It certainly has not been
Suggested by any of the theologians who have busied
themselves in seeking solutions for the problem of
tile origin of evil. It is that all things are the pro
duct of their conditions, and that all conditions have
a right to exist, so that the products have a right
to exist also; and the maker of the conditions can
not in justice refuse to be satisfied with the products
©f conditions which he has permitted. “ The poor
Soil and the arid sky are as much a part of the
universal order as the rich garden, soft rain, and
Warm sunshine. It is just that one should yield a
©rop which the other would despise. It would be
unjust were both to yield alike.” Man’s highest
ftmction is to amend the conditions of his own
■Existence. Finding himself launched into the uni
verse, he must till it and keep it and fit it to produce
better and better men and women. It is by labouring
an this direction that he works out his own salva
tion. They are poor teachers who inculcate but
the patience of resignation, or look to another life to
compensate the evils of this. The ideal man of the
future appeals to the intuitive perceptions as the
divine guides of conduct while here, and to the physical
laws of nature for the means of subduing the world
to man’s highest needs. To his intensely sympathetic
nature “ good ” is necessarily that which assimilates
and harmonises to the greatest extent its surrounding
Conditions—not the immediately surrounding merely
s-«4hat which works in truest sympathy with the
fest, While that is evil which by its very selfishness
arraigns the rest against it, good needs no power
working from without to make it triumphant. It
�22
Jesus versus Christianity.
triumphs by winning the sympathies of all to work
with it.
What Mr Maitland has done in the form of fiction
Mr Matthew Arnold has done in the form of a
treatise. We look upon his ‘Literature and Dogma ’
as clinching the blow struck at the whole fabric of
dogmatic theology, and crowning the effort to restore
the intuitions as the sole court of appeal, not only
between man and man, but between man and God.
In his view the glory of the Bible consists in its
exhibition of Israel as a people with a special
faculty for righteousness, at least in conception. As
other races have their special faculties, the Greek for
sculpture, the Italian for painting, the German for
abstract thought, the French for sensuous art, &c.,
so the genius of Israel was for the righteousness
which consists in morality touched by emotion towards
something that is not ourselves, but . which makes for
righteousness. And it was in Christ that the national
genius of his race culminated, as genius for painting
in Raphael, for science in Newton, for the drama in
Shakespeare.
It was to God, not as “ an intelligent First Cause
and Moral Governor of the Universe,” but as the
influence from whence proceed the intuitions which
constitute the basis of conscience, that the higher
writers of the Old Testament appealed. And it was
in Jesus, not as the “ Eternal Son” of a personal
father, but as the restorer of the intuitions that the
disciples believed. No doubt they had extra beliefs,
and what we should term not so much superstition as
the poetry of religion, and it is very difficult to
separate the husks of this from the grain of the
other; but it is always the appeal to the intuitive
perceptions of right that excites their enthusiasm,
and thus they preach as the sole efficient cause of
man’s regeneration.
Entitling his work ‘ An Essay towards a Better
�Jesus versus Christianity.
23
Apprehension of the Bible,’ Mr Arnold maintains
that it is through the lack of literary culture that the
Bible has been utterly misunderstood, and that it is
through such misunderstanding that difficulties and
dogmas have arisen, and that conduct has come to
be ranked below belief as the effective agent of all
good. Of the Bible itself he says that, while it can
not possibly die, and its religion is all-important,
nevertheless to restore religion as the clergy under
stand it, and re-in throne the Bible as explained by
our current theology, whether learned or popular, is
absolutely and for ever impossible. Whatever is to
stand must rest upon something which is verifiable,
not unverifiable ; and the assumption with which all
churches and sects set out, that there is “ a great
Personal First Cause, the moral and intelligent Gover
nor of the Universe, and that from him the Bible
derives its authority, can never be verified.”
There is, however, something that can be verified ;
something that, after the deposition of the magnified
and non-natural man ordinarily set up by people as
their God, will for ever remain as the basis and object
of religious thought. This something is to be found
in the Bible, not there alone, but there in a greater
degree than in any other literature. It is the influence
wholly divine which is not ourselves, and makes for
righteousness. The instant we get beyond this in our
definitions of Deity we fall into anthropomorphism
and its attendant train of dogmas, Apostolic, Nicene,
or Athanasian, all of which are but - human meta
physics, and the product of minds untrained to dis
tinguish between things and ideas. “ Learned reli
gion ” is the pseudo-science of dogmatic theology; a
separable accretion which never had any business to
be attached to Christianity, never did it any good, and
now does it great harm. In the Apostles’ Creed we
have the popular science of that day. In the Nicene
Creed, the learned science. In the Athanasian Creed,
�24
"Jesus versus Christianity.
the learned science, with a strong dash of violent and
vindictive temper. And these three creeds, and with
them the whole of our so-called orthodox theology,
are founded upon words which Jesus, in all proba
bility, never uttered, inasmuch as they are inconsis
tent with the essential spirit of his teaching, and are
ascribed to him as spoken after his death.
Of the capacity of people at that time to compose
a form of belief for us, we may judge by their ideas
on cosmogony, geography, history, and physiology.
We know what those ideas were, and their faculty for
Bible criticism was on a par with their pther faculties.
To be worth anything, literary and scientific criticism
require the finest heads and the most sure tact. They
require, besides, that the world and the world’s experi
ence shall have come some considerable way. There
must be great and wide acquaintance with the history
of the human mind, knowledge of the manner in
which men have thought, their way of using words
and what they mean by them, delicacy of perception
and quick tact, and besides all these, an appreciation
of the spirit of the time. What is called orthodox
theology is, then, no other than an immense misunder
standing of the Bible, due to the junction of a talent
for abstruse reasoning with much literary inexperi
ence. The Athanasian Creed is a notion-work based
on a chimaera. It is the application of forms of Greek
logic to a chimaera, its own notion of the Trinity, a
notion un-established, not resting on observation and
experience, but assumed to be given in Scripture, yet
not really given there. Indeed, the very expression,
the Trinity, jars with the whole idea and character of
Bible-religion, just as does the Socinian expression, a>
great personal first cause.
What, then, is Christian faith and religion, and how
are we to get at them ? Jesus was above the heads
of his reporters, and to distinguish what Jesus said
and meant, it is necessary to investigate the spirit
�Jesus versus Christianity.
25
which prompted and is involved in the words attri
buted to him. This spirit is identical with that which
made Israel (as expressing himself through his most
highly spiritual writers) the most religious of peoples.
The utterance of Malachi, Righteousness tendeth to life,
life being salvation from moral death, was identical
with the assertion of Jesus that he was the way, the
truth, and the life, inasmuch as the Messiah’s function
was to Srwiy in everlasting righteousness, by exhibiting
it in perfection in his own conduct. Thus, the religion
he taught was personal religion, which consists in
the inward feeling and disposition of the individual
himself, rather than in the performance of outward
acts towards religion or society. The great means
whereby he renewed righteousness and religion were
self-examination, self-renouncement, and mildness.
He succeeded in his mission by virtue of the sweet
reasonableness which every one could recognise, par
ticularly those unsophisticated by the metaphysics of
dogmatic theology. He was thus in advance of the
Old Testament, for while that and its Law said, attend
to conduct, he said, attend to the feelings and dispositions
whence conduct proceeds. It was thus that man came
under a new dispensation, and made a new covenant
with God, or the something not ourselves which makes
for righteousness.
Thus the idea of God, as it is given in the Bible,
rests, not on a metaphysical conception of the
necessity of certain deductions from our ideas of
cause, existence, identity, and the like ; but on a moral
perception of a rule of conduct, not of our own
making, into which we are born, and which exists,
whether we will or no ; of awe at its grandeur and
necessity, and of gratitude at its beneficence. This
is the great original revelation made to Israel, this is
his “ Eternal.” The whole mistake comes from
■ regarding the language of the Bible as scientific
instead of literary, that is, the language of poetry and
�26
Jesus versus Christianity.
emotion, approximative language thrown out at
certain great objects of consciousness which it does
not pretend to define fully.
As the Old Testament speaks about the Eternal
and bears an invaluable witness to him, without ever
yet adequately in w’ords defining and expressing him,
so, and even yet more, do the New Testament writers
speak about Jesus and give a priceless record of him,
without adequately and accurately comprehending
him. They are altogether on another plane, and
their mistakes are not his. It is not Jesus himself
who relates his own miracles to us; who tells us of
his own apparitions after death; who alleges his
crucifixion and sufferings as a fulfilment of prophecy.
It is that his reporters were intellectually men of
their nation and time, and of its current beliefs ; and
the more they were so, the more certain they were to
impute miracles to a wonderful and half-understood
person. As is remarked in ‘The Pilgrim and the
Shrine,’ the real miracle would have been if there
were no miracles in the New Testament. The book
contains all we know of a wonderful spirit, far above
the heads of his reporters, still farther above the
head of our popular theology, which has added its
own misunderstandings of the reporters to their
misunderstanding of Jesus.
The word spirit, made so mechanical by popular
religion that it has come to mean a person without a
hody, is used by Jesus to signify influence. “ Except
a man be born of a new influence he cannot see the
kingdom of God.” Instead of proclaiming what
ecclesiastics of a metaphysical turn call “ the blessed
truth that the God of the universe is a Person,”
Jesus uttered a warning for all time against this un
profitable jargon, by saying: “ God is an influence,
and those who would serve him must serve him not
by any form of words or rites, but by inward motive
and in reality.”
�J
‘ esus versus Christianity.
27
The whole centre of gravity of the Christian
religion, in the popular as well as in the so-callecl
orthodox notion of it, is placed in Christ’s having,
by his death in satisfaction for man’s sins, performed
the contract originally passed in the council of the
Trinity, and having thus enabled the magnified and
non-natural man in heaven, who is the God of
theology and of the multitude alike, to consider his
justice satisfied, and to allow his mercy to go forth on
all who heartily believe that Christ has paid their
debt for them. But the whole structure of material
ising theology, in which this conception of the Atone
ment holds the central place, drops away and dis
appears as the Bible comes to be better known. The
true centre of gravity of the Christian religion is in
the method, and secret of Jesus, approximating, in
their application, even closer to the “ sweet reason
ableness” and unerring sureness of Jesus himself.
And as the method of Jesus led up to his secret, and
his secret was dying to “ the life in this world,” and
living to “ the eternal life,” both his method and his
secret, therefore, culminated in his “ perfecting on
the cross.”
A century has passed since it was said by Lessing,
“ Christianity has failed. Let us try Christ; ” and
the interval has not proved the utterance a fallacy.
Though there never was so much so-called Christian
teaching and preaching in school and church as now,
the progress of civilisation has been little else than
another name for progress in immorality, whether in
the form of trade dishonesty, social selfishness, or
any other. The reason is plain. It is not God as
righteousness and Jesus as the way thereto that is
inculcated, but systems of impossible metaphysics and
rituals that profit nothing. The spread of intelligence
is leading the masses daily more and more to reject
what is good in religion, because their intelligence
does not go far enough, and because their teachers
�e8
Jesus versus Christianity.
insist on substituting human inventions for eternal
truth. Alike within the Established Church and
without, it is the teaching vain and foolish. Even
politics are degraded by its influence. For, as Mr
Arnold asks, “ What is to be said for men, aspiring to
deal with the cause of religion, who either cannot see
that what the people now require is a religion of the
Bible quite different from that which any of the
churches or sects supply; or who, seeing this, spend
their energies in fiercely battling as to whether the
church shall be connected with the nation in its collec
tive and corporate character, or no ? The thing is to
recast religion. If this is done, the new religion will
be the national one. If it is not done, separating the
nation in its collective and corporate character from
religion will not do it. It is as if men’s minds were
much unsettled about mineralogy, and the teachers
of it were at variance, and no teacher was convincing,
and many people, therefore, were disposed to throw
the study of mineralogy overboard altogether. What
would naturally be the first business for every friend
of the study ? Surely to establish on sure grounds
the value of the study, and to put its claims in a new
light, where they could no longer be denied. But if
he acted as our Dissenters act in religion, what would
he do ? Give himself heart and soul to a furious
crusade against keeping the Government School of
Mines ! ”
This brings us to another aspect of the allegorical
romance already referred to. Mr Maitland repre
sents the church of the ‘ By and By ’ as a church at
once national and undogmatic. That is, it is not
only the crowning division of the educational depart
ment of the State; but it is untrammelled by any
dog ma that can exclude any citizen from a share in
its conduct and advantages. For none can own him
self a dissenter in regard to a church whose teaching
is restricted to the inculcation of righteousness, and
�Jesus versus Christianity.
29
follows Christ in the work of restoring the intuitions
to their proper supremacy over convention and tra
dition, and maintaining them there.
Archdeacon Denison has already uttered a lament
over even the remote prospect of such a “creedless
and sacramentless church ” finding a footing in this
country. But what may not the man who can
reconcile the pursuit of righteousness with reason,
say of the prospect afforded now? We take the
answer from ‘ The Fair Haven.’
“ Let a man travel over England, north, south,
east, and west, and in his whole journey he will
hardly find a single spot from which he cannot see
one or several churches. There is hardly a hamlet
which is not also the centre for the celebration of our
Redemption by the death and resurrection of Christ.
Not one of these churches, not one of the clergy who
minister therein, not one single village school in all
England, but must be regarded as a fountain of error,
if not of deliberate falsehood. Look where they may,
they cannot escape from the signs of a vital belief in
the resurrection. All these signs are signs of super
stition only; it is superstition which they celebrate
and would confirm; they are founded upon sheer
fanaticism, or at the best upon sheer delusion ; they
poison the fountain-heads of moral and intellectual
well-being, by teaching men to set human experience
on the one side, and to refer their conduct to the sup
posed will of a personal anthropomorphic God who
was actually once a baby—who was born of one of his
own creatures—and who is now locally and corporeally
in heaven, “of reasonable soul and human flesh sub
sisting.” Such an one as we are supposing cannot
even see a clergyman without saying to himself,
“ There goes one whose whole trade is the promotion
of error ; whose whole life is devoted to the upholding
of the untrue.”
How different it will be when the teaching in church
�"Jesus versus Christianity.
and school alike are built upon the axiom ascribed to
them in ‘ By and By,’ that “ As in the region of
Morals, the Divine Will can never conflict with
the Moral law; so, in the region of Physics, the
Divine Will can never conflict with the Natural
law.”
It must be so some day. “ It is not for man to live
for ever in the nursery. As in the history of an indi
vidual, so in that of a people, there is a period when
larger views must prevail and greater freedom of
action be accorded; when life will have many sides,
and hold relations with a vast range of facts and
interests, of which none can be left out of the account
without detriment to all concerned. Formerly, it
may be, men were able, or content, to recognise their
relations with the infinite on but a single side of their
nature. When a strongly marked line divided the
object of their religious emotions from all other ob
jects, when that alone was deemed divine, and all
else constituted the profane or secular, there may
have been excuse for their accordance of supremacy
to the one class of emotions, and of inferior respect,
or even contempt, to the other. But we have passed
out of that stage; we know no such distinction in
kind between the various classes of our emotions.
They all are human, and therefore all divine. They
all serve to connect us with the universe of which
we are a portion, the whole of which universe must
be equally divine for us, though we may rank some
of its uses above others in reference to our own
nature. Thus, if there is nothing that is specially
sacred for us, it is because there is nothing that is
really profane; but all is sacred, from the least to
the greatest. And this is the lesson that the churches
have yet to learn. Let us complete the Reformation
by freeing our own church from its ancient limita
tions, which are of the nursery. Let us release our
teachers from the corner in which they have so long
�Jesus versus Christianity.
31
been cramped, and they will soon learn to take greater
delight in exploring the many mansions which com
pose the whole glorious house of the universe, and
unfolding in turn to their hearers whatever they can
best tell, whether of science, philosophy, religion, art,
or morality, not necessarily neglecting those spiritual
metaphysics to which they have in great measure
hitherto been restricted, and the consequence of
which restriction has been but to distort them and
all else from their due proportion. In the church
thus reformed, all subjects that tend to edification
will be fitting ones for the preacher. But whatever
the subject, the method will have to be but one,
always the scientific, never the dogmatic method.
The appeal will be to the intellects, the hearts, and
the consciences of the living, never to mere authority,
living or dead. There will be no heresy, because no
orthodoxy; or rather, the question of heresy as against
orthodoxy will be a question of method, not of con
clusions. From the pulpits of such a church no genu
ine student or thinker will be excluded, but will find
welcome everywhere from congregations composed,
not of the women only and the weaker brethren, but
of men, men with brains and culture ! Who knows
what edifices of knowledge may be reared, what
reaches of spiritual perception may be attained, upon
a basis from which all the rubbish of ages has been
cleared away, and where all that is useful and true
in the past is built into the foundations of the future !
Who can tell how nearly we may attain to the per
fections of the blessed when, no longer strait
ened in heart and mind and spirit by a narrow
sectarianism, but with the scientific and the verifiable
everywhere substituted for the dogmatic and the
incomprehensible, the veil which has so long shrouded
the universe as with a thick mist shall be altogether
withdrawn, when the All is revealed without stint to
our gaze in such degree as each is able to bear, and
�32
Jesus versus Christianity.
Theology no longer serves but to paint and darken
the windows through which man gazes out into the
infinite!
Thus reformed, amended, and enlarged, the esta
blished churches of Great Britain will be no exclu
sive corporations, watched with jealous eyes of less
favoured sects. Nonconformity will disappear, for
there will be nothing to nonconform to : Fanaticism,
for there will be no Dogma; Intolerance and Bigotry,
for there will be no Infallibility. Comprehensive, as
all that claims to be national and human ought to be,
no conditions of membership, will be imposed to
entitle any to a share of its benefits: but every
variety of opinion will find expression and a home
precisely in the degree to which it may commend
itself to the general intelligence.
The bitterness of sectarian animosity thus extin
guished, and no place found for dogmatic assertion
or theological hatred, it will seem as if the first heaven
and the first earth had passed away, and a new heaven
and new earth had come, in which there was no more
sea of troubles or aught to set men against each other
and keep them from uniting in aid of their common
welfare. Lit by the clear light of the cultivated
intellect, and watered by the pure river of the deve
loped moral sense, the State will be free to grow
into a veritable city of God, where there shall be no
more curse of poverty or crime, no night of intole
rant stupidity, but all shall know that which is good
for all, from the least to the greatest.”*
“ What, then, becomes of the Revelation ? ” asks
one of the hero in ‘ By and By.’ “ My friend,” is
the reply, “ so long as there exist God and a Soul,
there will be a revelation ; but the sold must be a free
one.”
* ‘How to Complete the Reformation.’ By Edward Mait
land. Thomas Scott.
�
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
Jesus versus Christianity
Description
An account of the resource
Place of publication: London
Collation: 32 p. ; 18 cm.
Notes: "By A Cantab," Includes bibliographical references. From the library of Dr Moncure Conway. Printed by C.W. Reynell, London.
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
1873
Identifier
An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context
CT119
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
[Unknown]
Subject
The topic of the resource
Jesus Christ
Christianity
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 (Jesus versus Christianity), 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
Christianity-Controversial Literature
Conway Tracts
Jesus Christ
-
https://d1y502jg6fpugt.cloudfront.net/25778/archive/files/d7fabba33d420f3b21b52a83c00b9e9f.pdf?Expires=1712793600&Signature=dlB7OnSoFqeL71nb%7Eq7DZ2uaokcviJ6Zrn9vSBlCjGyVx08zyOEFdwEWmmBF%7ENHng3m4%7E%7E7lOyj%7EFUWfPNn%7ExTVY3gvOhBazhpnArTseK0prntDrj9bi4vB1HJcUXtBDElU4JJ2NoR3JpctDFvmV77Cz87i8EQdg1zeTP0%7E5oc5gCK26gBReuk7Dx%7EszNsJab9QIfY5N%7EtWr%7ErRNY2KDPNV2gT%7E9xQXZE2Hhy78DxkXvV6gD694SjIimuJnjxAdkDmZ4P%7EvEvFtmRsUFP8tMfkqhG9fep219YR-fUFYTLBlcx18n558d-32y-mUL4oL5-HspquY5gmtL6kHrRjsvUw__&Key-Pair-Id=K6UGZS9ZTDSZM
9877653859fc94ca5edecb2cd871bac2
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
False divinities or, Moses, Christ & Mahomet
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
A Foreign Theolologist
Description
An account of the resource
Place of publication: London
Collation: 83, [1] ; p. 22 cm.
Series number: no.7
Notes: Annotations in ink. Donated by Mr Garley. Published anonymously by 'A Foreign Theologist'.
Publisher
An entity responsible for making the resource available
F. Truelove
Date
A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource
1870
Identifier
An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context
G5082
Subject
The topic of the resource
Atheism
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 (False divinities or, Moses, Christ & Mahomet), 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
Atheism
Deism
Jesus Christ
Moses
Muhammad
-
https://d1y502jg6fpugt.cloudfront.net/25778/archive/files/618e5b15bb6579c8237f59ee5ec96937.pdf?Expires=1712793600&Signature=FpPQLOV2%7EFI0751cFVheyt5vQttphNvYRel%7E4XQin9Tza1LSEXTrctkMKaJqquJDfXPtIA31UaejeJM5YRCGvtD4if2KpYXCCE%7Esi0Zue%7EukY62vEd4Qi2FQy8bSQP0wk0HOnqJTg-BNsnFKHi5%7Eserttdaioi5ZogzagI0UAESZutL7ZrSGfpHl9xQ3d68Z0VbnCPDHbxsx8OHmm-6dMh7f2s11uv4ZynjPewsbPfZMKJpt6nfTmkplaaqar3RZVUDdz1x5ZS17lXpQ4ZqCxY-mSu2SfXRu7ov3DGrYh0yfvadQ2O50ZWQ%7EBGTQf%7EeN-pNRVvcHh3E9aTBE1qgDlg__&Key-Pair-Id=K6UGZS9ZTDSZM
306858fdac059bdedaf45520463628cf
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
Jesus, Shelley, and Malthus : or, Pious poverty and heterodox happiness
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Bradlaugh, Charles [1833-1891.]
Description
An account of the resource
Place of publication: London
Collation: 16 p. ; 24 cm.
Notes: Printed by Charles Bradlaugh and Annie Besant. Marginal mark on p. 10.
Publisher
An entity responsible for making the resource available
Freethought Publishing Company
Date
A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource
[1877]
Identifier
An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context
G4347
Subject
The topic of the resource
Free thought
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 (Jesus, Shelley, and Malthus : or, Pious poverty and heterodox happiness), 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
Free Thought
Jesus Christ
Malthusianism
Percy Bysshe Shelley
Thomas R Malthus
-
https://d1y502jg6fpugt.cloudfront.net/25778/archive/files/464c09afd8158c52ea4ef7b7626b4636.pdf?Expires=1712793600&Signature=urbIVgrSXnEEUpDwzWv6dGMV2EGSx7XPIqrem08%7EctTm4U4PcMX30ojpFBUNG3fPYcLhs36%7Ev0Mk6MYZ3qLO4Q2qkXSXOU1bKNOkjixF2LobE4Gq7qAyscdKx4W8A8oVukaFfIFLU0m7D-Dj8U6XAQ2zQcJOwt6y0d%7EK-J-uOtKKj1PVkSJZG3-rnl9CJpY%7Ey1YZXFFc-zxiCmXnk9m3c4saQQVPgqNBhmkhpM7rhZioikDl2ZopUf0fsUHnEXL-fforhfOO08Ox1thgqwWDFHT87A5tHTwrTR3t%7EEUJ5l9LES7Ie0vPx5Myj4t437a0s1qjtErdiaZN3yAzso2UNA__&Key-Pair-Id=K6UGZS9ZTDSZM
77238b2ecb8f530384e96db4842e08b2
PDF Text
Text
THE VIRGIN BIRTH
AND THE GOSPEL OF THE INFANCY
By C. C. Martindale, S.J.
That Jesus Christ was born of a Virgin is part of
the Catholic faith.1 All admit that the Gospels, in
their present form, assert it (M i16,18'25 and L I34-35 3 23).
The Church has again and again formally declared it,
explaining her assertion as implying not only t1
negative doctrine that Jesus Christ had no h’
father, but that His Mother remained virginHis birth as before it, throughout the
life. No further commentary upon, nor
deductions from, her doctrine does sh£ ' ‘
That the doctrine is untrue was, however
' aa&d
both in ancient and modern times ; and of t/U-i attack
we shall first give an outline.
I
i. Cerinthus (c. ioo), herald of the Judaizing
Gnostics, declared that Jesus was not virgin-born
because (Irenaeus says with simplicity2) “ it seemed to
1 The formula Born of the Virgin Mary recurs in the creeds. Pope
Siricius in 392 approves the condemnation of Bonosus’ assertion that
Mary, virgin at Christ’s birth, bore other children ; Leo I. in 449
dwells, against Eutyches, upon the miracle of a virginity inviolate by
child-bearing; in 539 John II. repeats this, using as normal the title
ever-virgin ; the Lateran Council of 649 proclaims Mary ever-virgin
and immaculate, her virginity persisting indissoluble even after her Son’s
birth, and Toledo XI. (675) expands its stately paradoxes. Paul IV. in
1544 reaffirms against the Socinians that Mary “ever persevered in
integrity of virginity, that is, before the Birth, in it, and after it.” This
tradition is undisputed. Bannwart-Denzinger, Enchiridion, ed. IO,
1908, 2 etc., 86, 91, 144, 202, 256, 282, 993.
2 Adu. Heer., I. xxvi. 2, P.G., 7689 [we shall thus refer to the volume
and column of the Patrologia Grceca (P.L. = Pair. Latina} of Migne].
�2
History and Dogma
him impossible.” Deity could not be sullied by human
contact: the Christ, therefore, or the Spirit, descended
at the Baptism on the son of Joseph and Mary.
So too Carpocrates (y. 125).1 Justin (y. 150) shows
that the modern arguments were, in all essentials,
anticipated.
In Justin’s Dialogue the Jew Trypho attacks the Virgin Birth :
Isaiah’s famous prophecy,2 he argues, is mistranslated: the
Hebrew ’•almah means “young woman” (so Theod., Aq.), not
“virgin” (LXX.). The promise was fulfilled in Hezekiah(7VW.,67).
A pre-existent Christ, born in time, is “ disconcerting prap^o^ :
contrary to (general) expectation ?] and indeed nonsense ” (48).
In short, “do not dare,” he says, “to tell fairy tales, lest
you be proved as frivolous as the Greeks’’—referring to the
hero-births to which Justin, as an argumentum adhominem, had
compared (in 1 Apol., 54: 6409) Christ’s.3
Origen puts into the mouth of Celsus (r. 180)
language which many a modern rationalist would not
disavow.
The Isaian prophecy is denied (r. Cels., i. 34); hero
births (e.g. Plato’s) alleged (c. 37); and especially the
blasphemy, already current, that Jesus was born of
Mary and Panthera—a legend which in some shape
or other survived for centuries.4 To refer to this, says
Origen, is mere ribaldry (c. 32, 37 : 1 1719,733).
But Jerome’s controversy with Helvidius (who
denied Mary’s perpetual virginity, c. 383) is even
more striking. Helvidius argues as follows :—
Mary is Joseph’s “espoused wife”; destined, therefore, to
full wedlock. Mi18 implies that in time the marriage was con1 For the Ebionites, infr., p. 5, n. 2.
2 714: Ecce uirgo concipiet Vulgate ; lSoi> yirapOevos LXX. ;. . . veavis
Theodotion, Aquila.
3 P.G., 6629- 58°. Cf. Irenaeus’ opponents, 7943, etc. A few Gentile
converts believed Christ of human parentage. Ir., 6381; cf. Orig. in
Mt. xvi. 12 : I3141S. They were formally disapproved.
4 Panthera (or Pandera): the name is genuine and not an anagram
(Deissmann, Noldeke): usually represented as a centurion. The story is
highly involved, and may be connected with pre-Christian legend. It
is taken up in the Talmud, reappears in the thirteenth-century pamphlet
Toledoth fesu, and in modern literature of a scurrilous description.
See Herford, Christianity in Talmud and Midrash, pp. 35, 348;
Lagrange, Messianisme chez les fuifs, p. 288, 1909,
�The Virgin Birth
3
summated (c. 3). Joseph knew her not until she brought forth
her first-born ; he did so, therefore, afterwards (c. 5), and she
had later sons (c. 9). Indeed, the Gospels speak of Jesus’
brethren (c. 11). Finally, virginity is no holier than wedlock
(c. 18): P.L., 23185- 189, 1921 202. The arguments adduced in the
controversy with Jovinianus, c. 385, and by Ambrose against
Bonosus, c. 390 (De institutions uirginum, c. 5 : 16314) add
nothing new.
2. The modern attack 1 begins with Voltaire, and
takes definite form first in the system which deals
with the Gospels as with historical or poetical “ myths,”
according as it conceives the objective, historical facts
to have been distorted by the author’s tendency to
account supernaturally for natural events, or at least
to idealize them.2 Genuine “ myth ”—the dressingup of a doctrine in historical guise, though no, or
barely any, objective fact corresponding to the
tale exist at all—is the system of D. F. Strauss’ Life
(1838).3 Popular feeling, individual writers, moulded
the myth round the memory of a man who may not
even have existed. Gradually the legend grew—and
here the system profited by Chr. Baur’s new theory,
that the Gospels were but second-century productions.
Not only had an O.T. “ Messiah-myth ” long been in
existence, and needed but to be applied to a popular
name; but a century and more was to elapse, during
which it might grow into the full, familiar Gospel.
Thus, it was foretold Messiah should be born at
Bethlehem, and work miracles. Jesus, therefore, must
have been born there, and shall be credited with miracles.
The Shepherds, the Magi, are complementary stories
picturing the universality of His influence.
He
dies, but this influence survives, indestructible ; His
1 Cf Durand, D Enfance de Jesus-Christ, Paris, 1908 (Engl, tr.,
Philadelphia, 1910), c. 3, p. 35. We warmly recommend this little
book, to which we are throughout deeply indebted.
2 Cf, e.g., Gottlob Paulus, Leben Jesu, 1828. The application of his
method is often clumsy—angelic apparitions he explains as dreams;
Gabriel, as a flesh-and-blood adventurer.
3 Thus, “Jesus denounces the spiritually barren synagogue. This may
be fact. He describes it as a barren, withered fig-tree. This is parable.
Soon the myth grows up that He cursed and shrivelled a real fig-tree.”
�4
History and Dogma
name is exalted—that is, He is risen and ascended.
Historically, a virgin birth, a resurrection, are false;
“ religiously,” they are eternally true.—Now that Baur’s
theory is universally abandoned, literary criticism
dissects the Gospel texts, assigning to “ editors,”
or interpolation, the passages teaching the Virgin
Birth. Thus, the “ original ” genealogy in Matthew
made Joseph the father of Jesus;1 in the “ earliest ”
form of Luke I, verses 34-35 were missing;2 and the
theories are many and complicated—too much so for
M. Loisy, who allows the Gospels to be no patchwork :
the Evangelists wrote what we read and meant what
we believe, but only because the “ faith ” of even that
early date dictated this.3
To this “faith” Prof. O. Pfleiderer assigned 4 three stages : first,
men felt that Jesus was the Saviour-Messiah—was made God’s
“ Son ” by adoption, at the Resurrection or else at the Baptism.
So Mark ; so the earlier parts of Acts and of Paul. But afterwards
Paul remembered the Rabbinic notion of the ideal Man, the pre
existent Image and “ Son ” of God—he it was who revealed
himself in flesh ; while John, under the spell of Alexandrian
theosophy, acknowledges a genuine “incarnation” of the Word.
But though Jesus was thus morally and metaphysically “ Son of
God,” neither Synoptists, nor Paul, nor John felt this to conflict
with His purely human descent. A virgin birth is not yet above
the horizon. Quite late, in the second century, it was asked,
If He be Son of God, why give Him a human father? Heroes,
born of gods and women, abounded in mythology. A synthesis
was made : physically, too, Jesus should be God’s Son, and His
mother, a virgin. The Gospels were then “emended” at the
bidding of this now completed “ faith.”5
We propose succinctly to consider the authenticity
of the Gospel “ Infancy ” record, especially in view of
1 Schmiedel, Biblical Encycl., iii, 2962 ; infr., p. 13.
2 Cf. Harnack, Hist, of Dogma, vol. i. p. 100, n. 1, Engl, tr., 1897 ;
infr., p. 6.
3 A. Loisy, L' fa-vangile et Ffaglise, ed. 2, 1903, p. 31.
4 Das Christusbild des urchristlichen Glaubens, 1903.
5 See Cheyne’s Biblical Encyl., art. Mary, Nativity, etc.; and
F. C. Conybeare, the Standard, nth May 1905, for examples of popular
sentiment. The Declaration on Biblical Criticism by 1725 Anglican
Clergymen, ed. H. Handley, 1906, asks that the historicity of the
narrative of Christ’s conception be kept an open question.
�The Virgin Birth
5
early Christian belief, and in relation to the rest of
the New Testament, with, which it is considered to
conflict: we shall examine a few particular points on
which Matthew and Luke are said to contradict them
selves, or one another, or to be intrinsically at fault;
finally, we shall discuss the sources given as those of
the Infancy narrative by those who do not believe it
reposes upon fact.
II
It is said, first, that the Gospels, as they stand, give
us no true presentment of the facts. The text has
been tampered with.1 We hear :—
(i.) (a) The Ebionites’2 copy of Matthew began
only at c. 3, the Mission of the Baptist.—But we
know this only from Epiphanius ;3 if then we accept
it, we must also accept his statement (ibi) that they
had struck off cc. 1 and 2 in the interests of their
heresy. He also says (zb.) that the Nazarene Ebionites
used the full text, as did the early heretics Cerinthus
and Carpocrates.4 So there is no extrinsic evidence
that Matthew began, originally, with the Mission of
John.
(b) The unity of M’s “ Childhood Gospel ” is only
1 We must here disregard the argument that the Gospels must be
untruthful because they relate miracles, and miracles cannot happen.
Eliminate the miracles, it is suggested, and you will find the historical
substratum of fact. Be that as it may, all we assert, here, is that there
is no evidence of an “original ” Gospel of which ours is a later edition
modified in the interests of the Virgin Birth.
2 A vague name attached to very early heretics of Judaizing tendencies
or (Duchesne, Hist, anc.de VEglise, i. 124) a survival of Judseo-Christians,
in a state of “arrested” development, or retrogression, as to dogma.
Some admitted, some rejected, the Virgin Birth. Origen, c. Cels., v. 6l :
n1277 ; Eus., H.E., iii. 27: 20273. Those rejected it who believed
Jesus to have become Messiah at His baptism. Epiph., Adu. Heer.
I. xxx. 16: 41432.
3 TA, 14.
4 Tatian’s Harmony of the Gospels omits M’s genealogy (as it does
L’s), not because it did not exist, but because Tatian aimed at giving,
not a complete but a continuous account of the contents of the Gospels
(though infr,, p. 13); anyhow, he keeps i18-25, which contain the
Virgin Birth. Though in some MSS. M I18 begins in capital letters,
that may be merely because the genealogy was omitted in public readings.
�6
History and Dogma
artificial. The genealogy originally made Jesus the
son of Joseph, and was clumsily altered by an editor
to fit the Infancy stories, which in their turn were
affixed to the pristine record. This centres wholly
round i16, on which cf. infr., p. 15, n. 3.
(ii.) The internal unity of Luke’s “ Infancy ” seemed,
till recently, obvious to all, and its homogeneity with
the rest of his Gospel to most; though the heretic
Marcion, unable to believe, not, like the Ebionites,
that Jesus had God for His Father, but that He had
a woman for mother, struck out of his text the
whole Infancy record ;1 while Schmiedel2 would, on
the a priori assumption that the earliest Gospel must
have been Ebionite, assign 221'52, where Christ seems
but an ordinary Jewish child, to an ancient document,
while the “supernatural” 1-220 is a later addition.—
But 221 clearly supposes i31—the flow of the chapters
is quite continuous. To put this down to “ editorial
touching up” which conceals original divergences,
and then to tell us what those divergences were, is
perverse.
Prof. Harnack is, however, contented if L i34*35 be suppressed
as interpolated. («) L is consistent in his use of particles. But
here appear 8tJ> (wherefore}, else only in f (which H. considers
doubtful), and «rel (seeing that}, found perhaps nowhere else in
the Third Gospel. But all critical editions keep 8d> in 77; and H.
(who argued thus in 1901) has since (1906) proved Acts to be by
the same author as that Gospel, namely, Luke. But in Acts, Sto
occurs frequently 1—(b} Verses 34-35 are said to break the flow of
the chapter, adding a new and discrepant explanation of the
Child’s origin to that in 31-32. They add to it, granted : they do
not contradict it. Mary’s question, “ How shall this be ?” etc., is
natural enough, when all the circumstances, so far, had been so
strange ; doubly natural if she had resolved to remain a virgin,
as Catholics piously believe.3
1 Iren., Adti. Heer., I. xxvi. 2 : 7s88, III. xii. 12 : zA906 ; Tert., Adv.
Marc., i. 1: 2247, ix. 2 : zA363 ; cf. Plummer, who (Gosp. acc. to St. Luke,
1900, p. lxix.) shows Marcion’s text was mutilated, not ours added to.
2 Encycl. Bibl., iii. 2960.
3 We are told, too, that if Jesus is to be virginally conceived,
Gabriel accredits that greater miracle by quoting a lesser one (the con
ception of John by the aged Elizabeth). —There is here no difficulty.
�The Virgin Bzrth
1
But the Childhood narratives have positive claims
to belief. Luke’s preface (iw) is a revelation of the
writer’s industry, common sense, and real feeling of
a historian’s duty and responsibility.
He seeks
“ eye-witnesses from the beginning ”; he claims to
surpass, in order and accuracy, contemporary ac
counts ; his object is the historical grounding of the
doctrine preached. What were his authorities? Many
have thought, Mary herself.* The whole of this part
1
of Luke is written from her point of view (Matthew,
from Joseph’s). Delicacy of touch, intimacy of detail,
are felt everywhere. Women (to whom Luke, the
physician, will have had easier access) figure much in
his pages, especially those holy persons who were much
in Mary’s company.2 Then the events he records,
though lost sight of in the “ hidden ” thirty years, must
have had some publicity, at any rate. From these and
other sources he may have gained his oral tradition.
Moreover, it is acknowledged that, so markedly Hebraic in
their structure (as contrasted with the rest of his Gospel and the
Acts) are the first three chapters of Luke, both linguistically and in
local colour, so minutely accurate and prolific in details of place,
person, cult,3 that it is practically clear he is here using an
older Hebrew (or Aramaic) document.4 This brings us very close
to the beginnings! Anyhow, that “faith working on history”
In the O.T., Yahweh constantly gives a marvellous sign to guarantee
His future performance of a yet greater thing. And to this the Angel’s
concluding words look forward.—But, Zachary is punished for his
“ How shall I know?” Mary praised for her “How shall this be?”
Surely contradictory ?—No : Mary believes, accepts, asks the “how ” of
what is to be. Zachary hesitates : is he to believe ? How feel sure ?—One thing is clear : Mary never supposes that the promised child will be
Joseph’s {cf. Plummer, adloc.').—Harnack’s contention that this “con
versation” (I34, 35) takes Mary out of her role of “silence” may be
neglected. Of course, it forces him to assign the Magnificat to Elizabeth.
On this, see C.T. S. The Magnificat: Its Author and Meaning, by M. N.
1 So W. Ramsay (ITas Christ born at Bethlehem? 1898, p. 74: we
cordially recommend this excellent book) and others.
2 Sanday, Hastings’ Diet. Bibl., ii. 644.
3 Especially those connected with Zachary (L alone in the N.T. uses
the technical word “course,” I8 : he knows the angel stood “at the
right ” of the incense-altar), Anna, etc.
4 Plummer, op. c., p. 45 ; Dalman, Die Worte Jesu, 1898, p. 31.
�8
History and Dogma
should have created this sober, profoundly “ Palestinian ” narra
tive 1 and the canticles in particular,2 is a gratuitous hypothesis.
What pious imagination did create, was a library of “ apocryphal
gospels.” A single page of their insipid anecdotes, gross realisms,
and vulgar wonder-lust convinces us that between them and our
Gospels is the gulf between human and Divine.
As for the story in Matthew, its homogeneity is
generally admitted — each part presupposes what
precedes—and above all, its Palestinian colouring,
its insistence on the fulfilment and applicability of
prophecy, proclaim a Palestinian origin and audience.
Certain details we shall examine below.3*
We have therefore the right to conclude that
Matthew and Luke are homogeneous, authentic docu
ments, intrinsically intact. There is no evidence from
tradition or even legend that they were added to or
interpolated. On the contrary, we know that those
who tampered with them did so to excise, not to
expand, in favour of their own theories. And we
urge that those who, by internal, literary criticism,
1 Lepin, Jdsus Messie, etc., 1906, p. 62; Rose, 5. Luc, 1904, P2 On their “ essentially Hebraic and pre-Christian character,” to
gether with their exclusive appropriateness to the occasion to which L
assigns their utterance, see Durand, pp. 158-165, and the references
in note 1 there. L may have cast the traditional sentiments into shape :
scarcely, have adapted older Jewish, or even Christian, liturgical
hymns. For the special question of the Enrolment, and of the reputed
pagan origins of this story, cf. infr., p. 17.
3 P. 19. It is said, we saw, that the phrase, “he knew her not until
shehad brought forth her [first-born: omitted by excellent MSS.; probably
a gloss from L 27] son,” implies that Mary lived afterwards with Joseph.
—It need not do so (in Hebrew idiom, what is denied until an event is
not thereby asserted as happening after it; cf. M 2820, 1 Co 1528, Ps 1223,
already quoted by Jerome, 23189); and must not be so interpreted, if it
clash thus with other evidence. — “ Her first-born son,” L 27, is taken
as implying that Mary had other children.—Again, it need not, and in
these circumstances must not, be so taken. “ First-born,” to a Jew,
connoted, not later births, but the privileges legally due to one who
“ opened the womb.” L looks only to the typical value of the word as
applied to the Eldest-born, the heir of Yahweh’s promises. So Israel
is constantly called, in O.T., Yahweh’s first-born, without implying in
the least that the other nations were His later born. That M and
L freely speak of the “brethren” of Jesus, and L of Joseph as His
father, e.g. 2®, is psychologically true and no contradiction. So do the
apocryphal Gospels, which insist violently on Mary’s virginity.
�The Virgin Birth
9
affirm that they detect joints and rivets in the text,
have no right to do so: only a conviction that the
doctrine of the Virgin Birth must be a late develop
ment, while it is agreed that the Gospels are fairly
early, can account for the discovery of reasons for
the excision of those passages in which that doctrine
is mentioned.
Ill
But Mark (whose Gospel is now considered by
nearly all to be the earliest of the Synoptists, and
indeed was probably treated by Matthew as the
nucleus of his own work), Mark, we are told, knows
nothing of the Virgin Birth, though he must have
known it had it been believed in his day, and must
have mentioned it had he known it. Paul ignores
this dogma, and indeed virtually denies it, holding
Jesus to be God’s “ Son ” because adopted by the
Father. John ignores it no less, explaining Christ’s
relation to the Father in terms of Alexandrian Logosdoctrine. Do not Matthew, then, and Luke clash
with Mark, Paul, and John ? Do we not see the
legend, with our own eyes, springing up, late, and on
Palestinian soil ?
(i.) The Gospels reflect what was currently preached,
not necessarily everything that was actually believed;
for all will grant that the articles of the faith were
not at first preached with equal emphasis or publicity.
Mark reflects this earlier preaching with accuracy.
The claim of Jesus to be Messiah, Teacher and Saviour
of men ; His ransoming death and victorious resurrec
tion ; His foundation of a Church, and the minimum
of discipline conditioning membership—this is preached
in the Acts, and Mark’s Gospel supplies a more than
sufficient historical background thereto. But none of
this presupposes, or flows from, the Virgin Birth.1
1 It cannot too emphatically be recalled that Jesus is not Son of God
because He is virgin-born ; nor does pre-existence necessitate virgin
birth. This misconception pervades and stultifies most of the theological
argument of Lobstein’s Virgin Birth of Christ (Eng. tr.), 1903, e.g.
I
2
�IO
History and Dogma
Jesus Himself but gradually unfolded His doctrine,
starting from Jewish beliefs which He was to tran
scend and transform. There was much His hearers
“ could not bear ” at first. And sheer consideration for
Mary’s feelings will have precluded too public a preach
ing of this exquisitely delicate event in her lifetime.1
(ii.) As for the “silence of John,” and indeed his
“substitution” of the Incarnation of the Logos for
the Virgin Birth as explanation of the Divine Sonship
of Jesus, we briefly say: (a) His doctrine does not
exclude that of the Virgin Birth ; indeed, (£) it in a
sense involves it, for apparently the Churches of Asia,
at anyrate, linked the Divinity and Virgin Birth more
closely together than modern theology would.2 And
{c) John, who certainly knew Matthew and Luke,
and wrote his Gospel almost entirely to assert the true
doctrine of the Divinity of Christ, would surely have
contradicted them had he thought them wrong.3
p. 88. A necessary connection between the Divinity and the Virgin
Birth, he says (p. 89), “is the official theology in all Christian confes
sions.” That is not so.
1 Mk’s phrase “son of Mary,” 63, when M, L, and J freely speak
of Joseph as “father” of Jesus, and his insistence on the title “Son
of God,” may hint that he (not having related the Birth) took special
care to use unambiguous language (V. M'Nabb, O.P., “ Mk’s Witness
to the V. Birth, ” Journal Theol. Studies, April 1907, p. 448). Anyhow,
the incident in 321-31 does not prove that his Mary is ignorant of the
nature and destiny of her Son. It is argued that 321’31 go closely
together: Mary joins with the relatives (? friends? neighbours?) who
kept saying (or was it the crowd!} that Jesus was mad (? “ beside him
self,” i.e. an enthusiast?). This interpretation is violent and against
tradition. Mary’s anxiety, and wonder, and gradual realization of the
future {cf. L 250, “and they understood not”) are no stumbling-block to
us. “ Christ’s Mother, supernaturally informed in detail of all that was
to happen in her Son’s life, and assisting unmoved at its accomplishment,
would be a character worthy only of the apocryphal gospels ” (Durand,
op. c., 105). Cf. Vasssall Phillips, Mr Conybeare on Mk. 321, Lk. 11 ,
Oxford, 1910.
2 Gore, Dissertations on the Incarnation, 1896, p. 8.
3 A. Carr, Expositor, April 1907, p. 311 ; Expos. Times, 1907, xviii.
521. If. B, the very probable reading, I13, “who not of blood, nor of
the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God was born”
(eyewf)9-n : natus est), which excludes a human parentage for Christ.
Authorities in Durand, op. c., p. 107, n. I ; Tertull., De Came Chr.,
19, 24 : 2784-791, is explicit.
�The Virgin Birth
II
(iii.) But does not Paul ignore, if not exclude, our
dogma ? He has been held to leave the human life of
Christ so much in the shade, that it has been argued
he knew nothing of it—even that no human life existed,
and Christ was a “mythical person”! Yet his allu
sions to it are frequent, and he always presupposes it.
And he too is absorbed in his message—faith, forgive
ness, glorification in and through Christ, for Gentile
as for Jew. This is “his” gospel, and it neither rests
upon, nor leads to, the Virgin Birth.1 Doubtless he
maintains strongly2 that Christ is Son of David
“according to the flesh.” But he is son of David
whom Jewish law recognises as such; and Jesus, born
of the legal wife of Joseph, and not by adultery, is
Joseph's legal son, and heir of Joseph’s ancestor. Legal
sonship satisfies the prophecies without excluding
superior, Divine filiation. To this Jesus looks when
He deprecates insistence on the Davidic descent
(M 2241, Mk 1235, L 2041; cf Ro i4): that is not His
only, nor chief, prerogative.3 Nor can the two texts,
Ac 1333, Ro i2-4, prove for a moment that Paul thought
Jesus became God only at the Resurrection. The
Son pre-exists the human life from eternity. The
Divine filiation is of nature, not the result of baptism,
miracles, transfiguration, resurrection, virginal con1 We do not rely upon the expression “made of a woman,” Ga 44,
vividly though it recall I Co it13 and Gen 2s3. It does perhaps imply
birth from a mother (not merely human birth), while paternal generation
would have suited P’s argument perhaps better could he have adduced
it.—Nor will we argue that he conceives transmitted guilt as a taint in
the flesh, to be got rid of only by a break in the paternal line. The
wrong idea that Catholic doctrine (at any rate) so regards original
sin, vitiates the rest of Lobstein’s argument (<?/>. c., p. 79) that miracul
ous birth was “anecessary condition of the Saviour’s sinlessness.”
The substantial union of the Word with the humanity at once made the
Person, Jesus, true God and Son of God, and made sin (and its con
sequent subtraction of supernatural grace, which is original sin)
impossible in Him, quite independently of virgin birth.
2 Ro i3, 413, Ga 316, 2 Ti 28, etc. ; cf. Ac 230 (these are especially
strongLobstein, op. c., pp. 52, 53, thinks they necessitate human
generation. But they are conventional formulas).
3 On His so-called “rejection” of Davidic filiation, cf. Durand, pp.
118-122 ; Dalman, op. c., p. 234.
�12
History and Dogma
ception.1 Because of the filiation, these glories are
His. Because at certain crises (baptism, etc.) the
Sonship asserts itself and is recognized by God, “ this
day have I begotten thee ” is quoted ; and “ it was
impossible',' St Peter had long ago preached (Ac 224),
“ that hell should hold Him who was Captain of Life "
(315 ; cf. He 210).
All these writers were men who had known each
other intimately—Luke, at any rate, the “ beloved
physician,” the most “scientific” of the Evangelist
historians, was the close companion, and in part
biographer, of Paul. Each and all of them regarded
it as his life’s work to preach the true doctrine about
Jesus Christ. The bonds of personal devotion which
bound them to Him, bound them also to one another.
Deep divergences of doctrine in such men are un
believable. But so profoundly “individual” were their
characters and outlooks—above all, so inexhaustibly
rich, so many-sided, so infinitely communicative was
their subject—that it must not be wondered at if their
accounts are highly personal, and enlarge, illuminate,
complete, though never contradict, each other.
That any of these documents should have ignored or denied
the Virgin Birth is unthinkable, given the tradition of the
Christian Church. They did not create this : they arose within
it, according to and because of it. It is a vicious circle to say :
Christian faith created the Childhood Gospels ; and then : The
first- and second-century tradition rests merely on “ a few texts ”
in Matthew and Luke. The very earliest sub-Apostolic docu
ments2 are amazingly explicit. Ignatius, when he cried that
Our Lord is “made truly of a virgin,” is “born of Mary and
God,” knew surely that his doctrine was not at variance with his
beloved master, John’s ! Once more, the Gospels assume the
Christian faith in their readers.3
1 Phil 25-12, Col i15-21, 1 Co io4, 1545, Ga 4?, 2 Co 521, etc. And
C.T.S. Relig. of Gk. Test., C. C. Martindale, pp. 19, 20.
2 Ignatius (c. Iio), Ephes. 19, and 5; Smyrn. 1: ^ 652. 660,708. Aristides
(c. 125); Justin, 1 Ap., 31: 6377, Dial., c. 84, 100, ib. 673-709 (a magnifi
cent parallel between the virgin Eve and the incorrupt, obedient virgin
Mary, Eve’s advocate); Irenaeus, Adu. Har., i. 10. 1 ; iii. 19. 1:
7s49. 937, especially c. 21, /A 945.
3 Ramsay, op. c., p. 98, etc.
�The Virgin Birth
13
IV
We shall now consider a few points connected with
the Gospels of Matthew and Luke, which, it is urged,
make against the virginity of Mary (the Genealogies,
the Brethren of the Lord), or at least throw doubt
upon the value of Matthew (the Magi, the Flight) or
of Luke (the “ Census ”) as historians at all.
(<2) The Genealogies showing Christ’s descent from
David (M i2-17, L 323"28) agree in three names only :
Joseph, Zorobabel, Salathiel.1 Else, the discrepancy
is complete. This perhaps is why Tatian omitted both
lists in his Diatessaron (supr., p. 5, n. 4). Origen
(c. Cels., ii. 32: 11852) recognises it as a frequent
stumbling-block. How explain it?
Julianus Africanus (ap. Eus., H.E., i. 7 : 2097) suggested (he
owned he had no evidence) that Joseph was born of levirate
marriage,2 Jacob and Heli being brothers, one his legal, one his
real father. But even so, we must assume that they had different
fathers ; and would not this uterine-levirate marriage (in itself of
doubtful possibility) have to be conjectured anew to explain
Salathiel, son of Jechonias (M) and of Neri (L), and yet again, if
indeed Matthan (s. of Eleazer, M) is Matthat (s. of Levi, L) ?
Though Matthew’s deliberate omission of steps in the descent
might account for these differences.—Annius of Viterbo (c. 1490)
suggested that L’s genealogy was that of Mary.3 But this is
against universal ancient belief: Jewish law disregarded maternal
ancestry: when it was felt Mary should be of David’s house,
her pedigree was linked artificially with that of Joseph (Eus., ib. ;
cf. 4881); while the Proteuangelium Iacobi makes her daughter
of Joachim. Moreover, we should have to construe L323, “ being
the son (as was supposed, of Joseph, [but really]) of Heli” [using
1 M’s Matthan »z«y = L’s Matthat.—If Rhesa, L 3s7 ( = “prince,”
and absent from the lists in M and 1 Paralip. 3), were really a title of
Zorobabel, but treated by some earlier copyist whom L reproduces as a
separate proper name, L would here fit with M and also with 1 Par. ;
for L’s Ionas is the Hananiah of 1 Par 319 (omitted by M), and his
Iuda is M’s Ab-iud — 1 Par 3s34 Hodaviah {cf. Ezra 39, 240 ; Neh. 119;
I Par 97. u, where the names interchange).
’
2 One in which a childless widow marries her deceased husband’s
brother, his and her children being legally accounted to the first
husband (Dt 25s).
3 Victorinus {c. 300) says M gives Mary’s genealogy : 5s24.
�14
History and Dogma
whs =son in regard of Joseph,=grandson in regard of Heli] ; or
else, “ son of Joseph the son-in-law of Heli.”
not tolerate this violence.
But the text will
What matters to the Evangelists, is the claim of
Jesus to Davidic rights. That He was “descended
from David ” was tacitly assumed by contemporaries
(M 2241"46) and explicitly recognized by early
preaching;1 while the “Desposyni” (kindred of
Christ—Symeon, son of Clopas His uncle, and two
grandsons of Judas His brother) were in danger
under Domitian as claiming royal, because Davidic,
descent.2 Our genealogies commend, but do not
prove, this claim. It was currently discussed (Eus.,
Ad Steph., iii. 2: P.G., 22896) whether Messiah was to
descend from David through Solomon (dead in
idolatry; his house, in the person of Jechonias,
rejected by God, Jer 2230) or Nathan. Matthew and
Luke satisfy, respectively, the two opinions ; for while
it is through Solomon that the Davidic rights descend
to Joseph and his (legal) Son Jesus; through Nathan
Christ’s true Davidic ancestry may be traced.
Matthew shows Jesus as legal heir of David; Luke,
that He is his Son by physical descent.3 Matthew’s
genealogy is indeed highly conventional. It claims to
consist of three groups of fourteen names.4 To obtain
this, many names had to be omitted ; thus Matthew’s
“ begat ” need never mean “ was father of.” Contrary
to Jewish custom, he inserts women—Rahab, Tamar,
Ruth, Bathsheba—perhaps to suggest that God
1 Ro I3, 2 Ti 28, Ac 2s8, 1323, etc. —M 1522, 2030, <p; 219 show that
in popular opinion (1) Messiah descends from David, (2) Jesus is
Messiah.
2 See this charming story in Africanus, ap. Eus., z'A, and Hegesippus,
ib., iii, 19-32.
3 Durand, p. 201: Comely, Introd. N.T., p. 201, n. 6; F. C.
Burkitt, Evangelion da Mepharrashe, Cambridge, I9°4> & PP- 258-266.
This theory is increasingly accepted. Clearly we have no space to
discuss minor difficulties.
4 In the third, thirteen only occur, making it additionally likely
that M used an existing, already slightly disfigured document. His
symbolism may well allude to the numerical value {fourteen) of the {three')
letters (th) of the name David.
�The Virgin Birth
i5
excludes neither sinner nor stranger from His plan
of mercy. Doctrine, then, dictates his scheme: Luke
keeps closer to “history” in our sense. For while
we may never become sure on what precise system
these lists were drawn up, it is certain that, if the
Evangelists composed them, they did so according
to contemporary ideals as to the construction of
genealogies;1 and if they are quoting official docu
ments, we may assume they do so “ without attribut
ing to them other authority than that of tradition
or of the public registers which provided them.”2
Eusebius actually applies the “ as was supposed ” of
L 323 to the whole list; Luke offers it simply as the
popular opinion as to Jesus’ ancestry !3
1 On various O.T. systems for editing genealogies, cf. Prat, Etudes,
1901, lxxxvi. pp. 488-494; 1902, xciii. pp. 617-620.
2 Cf. Durand, p. 207 ; Brucker, Eludes, 1903, xciv. p. 229 ; 1906, cix.
p. 801.
3 m x 16 reads. “Jacob begat Joseph the husband of Mary, of whom
was born Jesus,” etc. [tV.B. in Latin and Greek the same word stands for
to bear and to beget (gignere, yevvav}]. One group of MSS. accentuates
the virgin-motherhood. “. . . Joseph, to whom being betrothed, the
Virgin Mary bare,” etc. “. . . Joseph, to whom was betrothed the
Virgin Mary ; but the Virgin Mary bare,” etc. The Sinai-Syriac MS.
(admirably edited 1894 by Lewis) astonishingly reads: “Jacob begat
Joseph ; Joseph, to whom was betrothed the Virgin Mary, begat Jesus, ”
etc.—a heterodox text, yet containing, interpolated, the “virgin”
additions. Finally, the Dialogue of Timothy and Aquila (F. C.
Conybeare, Oxford, 1898), a work of c. 430 discovered in 1898, is said
to quote the heterodox phrase; thus: “. . . Joseph, the husband of
Mary, of whom was born Jesus who is called Christ. And Joseph
begat fesus who is called Christ.”—But it is clear that the Jew Aquila’s
quotation stops at the first Christ. He resumes, sophistically : “ And
so (koI often bears this meaning; and indeed in this very dialogue)
Joseph,” etc. The Christian Timothy immediately rebukes him:
“ Quote,” he says, “ correctly and in the right order”; he then him
self quotes M i16, substituting “to whom was betrothed the Virgin
Mary” for “the husband of Mary,” and finally, the ordinary text,
save that ‘ ‘ who was betrothed to Mary, ” and ‘‘ the Christ the Son of
God,” replace “the husband of M.,” and “who is called Christ.” The
dialogue, then, does not support the Sinai-Syriac, whose erratic reading
may be due to (i.) an Ebionite ‘ ‘ correction ” ; (ii.) a copyist’s error, due
to a mechanical continuation of the formula, And X begat Y ; (iii.) the
form in which the original document genuinely stood. No doubt an
official record would put Joseph as father of Jesus. Notice that Sin. Syr. leaves, e.g., verse 18 (which clearly asserts the Virgin Birth) intact,
�16
History and Dogma
(If) The relationship of the “ brethren ” of the Lord1
cannot be defined with certainty. We summarize
possible interpretations as briefly as possible, premising
that the answer to this question can, of course, only
affect the dogma of the perpetual virginity of Mary.
(i.) The “ brethren ” are children of Mary.2
(ii.) They were children of Joseph by a former
marriage. So the Gospel ofJames, and that of Peter
(end of second century); cf. Jerome, Comm, in Mt.,
xii. 4984, and perhaps Clement of Alexandria (9731);
Epiphanius, Cyril of Alexandria, Gregory of Nyssa,
and, hesitatingly, Origen and Hilary, and others per
haps, follow these. Jerome (zA) says that they who
so conjecture are following the dreams of the Apo
cry phas : he proclaims, too, the “virginity” of Joseph
(Adu. Helu., 19: 23203). It is unnecessary to follow
the history of his opinion, which is dear to Catholic
conviction.
(iii.) The “ brethren” were cousins of Jesus.
There is no doubt that
rater, and (what is
of most importance), HS' (ah) in Hebrew and Aramaic
can quite easily mean “ relative,” not strictly brother
and that no one would dream of using this MS. to correct the rest of
the Gospel text; why then insist that its unique reading must alone be
right here ? Read Durand, 74-82; Burkitt, op. c., ii. 265 ; Academy,
17th Nov. 1894-24^ June 1895.
1 James, Jude, Joseph, Simeon. M 1246, 1365, Mk 331, 6s, L 820,
J 212, 75, Ac I14, 2C095: M and Mk speak too of His “sisters.” Cf.
Lightfoot, Ep. to Gal., Dissert. II. ; C. Harris, Diet, of Christ and the
Gospels, 1906, i. 232 ; Corluy, Etudes religieuses, 1878, i. 22; Durand,
221-276 (excellent account). Fl. Josephus, Ant. Iud., xx. 9. 1,
Hegesippus and Julianus in Euseb., H.E., ii. 23, i 7, also refer to the
kinsfolk of the .Lord {supr., p. 14). Their testimony relates to the
years c. 62, 160, 210.
2 Tertullian, already half-heretic, may have taught this {De Carn.
Christi, 7, 23 : 7766.79°.
Jerome believed he did {cf. Contr. Helu.,
17: 23201; d’Ales, TI1A0I. de Tert., 1905, p. 196). Lightfoot (p. 278)
is against it. Origen (ap. Jer., Hom. 7 in Luc., P.L., 7233) seems to refer
to Tertullian, and possibly Hilary {Comm, in Mt., i. 3-4: 9921). But
about 350, in Syria and Arabia, the denial of Mary’s perpetual virginity
became explicit : in 380 Helvidius, and a little later Jovinianus. both at
Rome, provoked Jerome’s vigorous attacks. Condemned at Milan, they
were excommunicated by Siricius in 390. Bonosus of Myria was
condemned a little later {supr., pp. 2, 3).
�The Virgin Birth
17
(Gen 3716, 1 Par 2321, Lev io4: Cicero, Tacitus:
Euripides: it is quite common). Hegesippus, who
calls James “the Lord’s brother,” calls Simeon
“ another cousin ” of the Lord. The words are then
convertible. Of Jude he says that “ he was called the
brother of the Lord according to the flesh.” Probably
(Durand, p. 229), at this very early period, that phrase
was not so much honorific, as meant to distinguish
between the several prominent disciples of the same
name. Jerome (c. Helu., 12-17) insists on this solution,
alleging that (#) Mary had vowfed virginity;1 (fi) that
Mary was confided from the Cross to none of the
“ brethren,” but to John. The brethren were not,
then, her sons.2 (c) Jesus is often called “ Son of
Mary ”: the brethren never; nor she their mother.
Moreover, had Mary been mother, afterwards, of six or
seven children (of whom several will have held high
rank in the Church), and lived long as widow, the
most perverse tradition could scarcely have succeeded
in fixing on her, as uniquely distinctive title, that of
Virgin. (So even Renan.) Finally, the “brethren”
seem definitely older than Jesus.
(c) The “ Census.”—Luke says, 21-3, that an enrolment,
imposed by the Emperor on the whole Empire,3 was
carried out in Palestine by tribal and household enumer
ation. Thus Joseph and Mary came to Bethlehem, and
Jesus was born there. “This happened [I translate
literally] as a first enrolment when Quirinius was in
office in Syria.” But we are told :—
The Roman census was based on property, not persons ; and
when Christ was born (B.C. 6-4: for His birth preceded
1 So too Aug., Gregory of Nyssa, Ambrose ; cf. Harris, l.c. i. 235.,
2 So Jerome, Epiphanius, Chrysostom, Hilary, Ambrose, Siricius.
To Lightfoot this argument seems conclusive : l.c., p. 272.
3 “ In the whole world ” means this. The plan was quite in keeping
with Augustus’ ideals. He wished to assess the poll-tax fairly and
accurately. That contemporary records do not mention it is unim
portant : they are silent, too, about local enrolments known to us
from inscriptions and papyri. Roman historians scorned the recurrent
details of provincial administration.
�18
History and Dogma
Herod's death, 4 B.C.), there was no census.in Palestine, nor was
Publius Sulpicius Quirinius then in office. Sentius Saturninus
governed Syria 9-6 B.C. ; Quinctilius Varus, 6-4 ; 1 B.C.-4 A.D.,
Gaius, the Emperor’s grandson, was legate, the intervening
years being unaccounted for. But Quirinius was legate 6 A.D.,
and did indeed effect what Ac 537 calls “ the enrolment.” If
Christ, then, was born 6-4 B.C., and Quirinius held office, and
had the enrolment in 6 A.D., Luke is clearly wrong.
Even were he wrong in this detail of chronology,
that scarcely should impair his general value as a
historian. Still, mistake on this point were odd in
one who so accurately had sought out the “ origins ”
(i2; sup?.., p. 7). But (i.) it is acknowledged (from
inscriptions) that Quirinius twice held office in Syria.
But when ?
May not Augustus, who associated
Volumnius with Saturninus, have similarly added the
notoriously energetic (so Tacitus) Quirinius to the
indolent Varus in some semi-official (probably military)
office?1 Thus he may well have been “in office”
in Syria 6-4 B.C., and (possibly) even have succeeded
Varus in 4. (ii.) Recent discoveries2 make it certain
that family enrolments besides the land-assessments
were held in Egypt every fourteen years. Enrolment
papyri for A.D. 90, 104, etc. till 230 were unearthed ;
then for 76 ; then, 62 ; then, 20! Now Luke says the
enrolment was general; and we know that Syria was
enrolled in 34 A.D., also in 6 : Clement of Alexandria,
too (Strom., i. 21, 147: 8885), implies that it had
its periodical enrolments like those he knew in
Egypt. Tertullian actually says (Adv. Marc., iv. 19,
P.L., 2405) one happened under Saturninus (9-6),3 and
that Christ was born during it. This is quite possible
1 L says ^ye^ovevovros, “holding office,” an untechnical word
applied to various positions, and by Josephus, Ant., XVI. ix. I, to
Volumnius. Justin, 1 Apol., 34, calls Q. neither legate nor proconsul,
but eirirpoiros, procurator.
2 Read the romantic account of this triple simultaneous independent
discovery by Kenyon {Class. Rev., 1893, P- IIO)> Wilcken {Hermes,
1893, p. 203), Viereck {Philologus, 1893, p. 563), in Ramsay, op. c.,
preface.
3 In fact, 8 B.C. is fourteen years before 6 a.d., as 34 a.d. is twenty
eight years after it.
�The Virgin Birth
19
if a clumsy household numbering in 8 B.C. was dragged
out till 7-6 B.C.—as was practically inevitable owing to
the chaotic political situation.1 11 is thus, independently
of Luke, almost certain that there was such an en
rolment in 6 B.C. in Palestine, the first of its sort,2
Quirinius being in office.
The displacement of so many families is no difficulty. Only
Palestinian Jews would be bound : the whole land could be
crossed in three or four days : all devout Jews went thrice a
year to Jerusalem.—Why does Mary accompany Joseph ? We
are not sure. Perhaps Joseph feared to leave her at such a
crisis. Anyhow, in Syria, women, too, paid the poll-tax.
How idle, then, is the theory that this story is forged to get the
Holy Family from Nazareth (where L knew they lived) to
Bethlehem (where the prophets said Messiah must be born):
and alas for Mr Robertson, who says 3 of household enumeration,
“ There was no such practice in the Roman world” 1
(d) Of the story of the Magi we are told that its
details are vague; its incidents improbable; that
it clashes with Luke.
It was invented to satisfy
Messianic prophecies, or is the echo of pagan myth.
Indeed, the date of its insertion into the Gospel is
given. We deal with this first.
A Syriac document entitled “ Concerning the Star : showing
how and through what the Magi recognised the star,” etc., says
that Balaam’s prophecy (Nu 2417) was written by Balak to
Assyria, and there kept till the star appeared, and King Pir
Shabur sent the Magi to do homage to the Messiah. “ And in
the year 430 (118-119 A.D.) . . . this concern arose in [the minds
of] men acquainted with the Holy Books, and through the pains
of great men in various places this history was sought for and
found, and written in the tongue of those who took this care ”
(W. Wright, Journ. of Sacr. Lit., ix., x., 1866). Hence M 21-12,
1 Ramsay, p. 174.
2 The fourteen-years cycle being reckoned, Romanwise, from 23 B. c.,
the year of Augustus’ reception of the Tribunician Power. In that year
no enrolment will have occurred. 8 B.c. will therefore be the first.
A. d. 6 is called “ the enrolment,” because Judea having just become
a province, an enrolment consequently on purely Roman lines (local—
not familial and tribal) made the Jews realize their subjection, and
accordingly revolt. In 20 a.d. (end of the next cycle) Tiberius forbids
interference with local customs.
3 Christianity and Mythology, 19CO, p. 194.
�20
History and Dogma
based on this legend, was added to the Gospel in 119 a.d.—But:
certainly before that time Ignatius of Antioch assumes the story
to be universally popular (he rhetorically expands it ad Eph.
xix., P.G., 5652). So it is clear that the “ Holy Books ” are not the
O.T. with its story of Balaam, but the Gospels with that of the
Magi; while what was first written in 118 a.d. is not the latter
story, but the legend of Balaam’s message to Assyria.1
Of the Magi (probably priests ; perhaps astrologers;
certainly heathen), as to number, nationality, rank,
and later history, nothing is known. The star which
they saw “ at its rising ”2 has been identified (first by
Kepler, 1605) with astronomical phenomena, eg. the
conjunction of Jupiter and Saturn, B.C. 7. To pursue
such investigations leads nowhere.3
No merely
natural phenomenon could have seemed “ to travel,”
to “ stand over ” a house, etc., though the Magi may
(conceivably) have heard from Jews of the Dispersion
of the expected birth of a Deliverer, and have (inde
pendently) interpreted what they saw as a sign that
this had happened. But their information will not
have been based on Nu 2417: still less was the
whole story invented to satisfy that prediction ! The
star in Numbers, as in Isaiah 60,4 uniformly
means the Messiah himself: it was not his herald.
The pseudo-Messiah Simeon actually called himself
Bar-Kokeba, Son of the Star. And that Matthew,
eager to quote O.T. prophecy whenever he can, should
not here have cited Nu, Is, and Ps 7210, 6829, had he
seen their fulfilment in his story, is unthinkable.
V
We must now notice those writers who try to
find the origin of the Gospel history in mythology,
and shall, owing to the great popularity of this
system, give it far more space than its intrinsic value
merits. I am anxious to emphasize this. It is popular
1 Cf. Allen, Commentary on St. Matthew, p. 22, 1907 ; Plummer,
idem., 1909, ad loc.
2 “In the east" would probably need the plural ava-roKdis.
3 Though see Ramsay, op. c., pp. 215-218.
4 Cf., later, Test. XII. Pair., Judah 24 (Gk.), etc.
�The Virgin Birth
21
polemic, not serious scholarship, that attaches real
weight to these pagan “parallels.” With the Magi,
however, mythologists have no easy task. Cheyne 1
and others quote the stars which constantly herald
the birth of great men.
Thus the Magi, on seeing Alexander’s, declared that the
destroyer of Asia was born; the star of the Julian family was
famous (Verg., Aen.). The Pushya, on the horizon when the
Buddha was born, was, however, a regular annual phenomenon
(an asterism consisting of 7, 8, 0 of the constellation Cancer) and
served to mark a date, not to glorify the infant.2 The Magi
may indeed have deduced a new birth from what they considered
adequate evidence {N.B. “ his star”) ; but Matthew draws no con
clusion as to Christ’s preternatural character from it; it merely
guided the Magi to Bethlehem.3
But we hear: In 66 a.d. Tiridates, king of Parthia (Pliny,
H.N., xxx. 6, calls him a magus') came with magi (Dio. Cass., lxiii.
1-7) to do homage to Nero, and went home “another way”
(Suet., Nero, 13). Nero is anti-Christ: even as incidents of
Christ’s life attached themselves to Nero’s {e.g. His expected
return), so incidents of Nero’s life accrued to Christ’s.4
We prefer to admit a score of miracles rather than
so grotesque an explanation. How, and why, were
the stories so utterly transformed in detail ? so
Judaized in tone? so raised in religious value? why
inserted in this peculiarly un-Hellenic part of the
Gospel?5 And how dissociate the Magi from the
1 Bible Problems, 1904.
2 C. F. Aiken, Dhamma of Gotama the Buddha, Boston, 1900, p. 240.
3 Prof. R. Seydel {Evangel v. Jesu, 1882, p. 139) quotes a (postChrfstian) tale that the god Brahman gave the unborn Buddha a
dewdrop containing all power; the babe Buddha received perfumes
from nymphs and palaces from princes; Mr Lillie adds {Buddhism in
Christendom, 1887, p. 30; cf. Aiken, p. 243) that the young hero was
escorted to a garden, eclipsing with his bodily brilliance the jewels
that smothered him. Hence the tale of Magi with gifts !
J. M. Robertson, in Christianity and Mythology, p. 199, however,
has to misinterpret the famous representation of the Magi (Northcote
and Brownlow, Roma Sotteranea, 1879, ii. 258), universally recognized
as Christian, as “surely Mithraic,” “since there is really no other way
of explaining the entrance of the Magi into the Christian legend.”
4 Cf. Soltau, Geburtsgesch. J.C., 1902, p. 73 ; Usener, Encyl. Bibl.,
iii. 3351.
5 These considerations are in place whenever pagan myth is offered
as origin for the Gospels.
�I
22
History and Dogma
organically connected Massacre and Flight, for which
these pagan “sources” cannot be used? But other
sources ain? suggested! Persecution of infant-heroes by
jealous kings is a mere ‘ myth-TzztfZz/’; Josephus should
have mentioned the Massacre, had it occurred ; hence
no doubt the murdered Innocents but picture ‘the
disappearance of the stars at morning before the sun.’1
Finally, Jesus is said to fly to Egypt because thither
the giant Typhon drove the Olympian gods (Usener,
Encycl. Brit., l.ci).
But in the same place Usener agrees that Egypt, with its
large Jewish colonies, its numerous synagogues, its vicinity, etc.,
was exactly the natural place for a Palestinian Jew to fly to :
Josephus, who has to relate Herod’s murder of wife, mother-inlaw, three sons, brother-in-law, uncle, and numbers of Pharisees,
may be forgiven for omitting the obscure murder of a score
(at most) of babies in a tiny town : the quaint solar parallel would
be more perfect did the stars flee before an eclipse (for such,
rather than sunrise, is the Child’s flight)! Finally, because
Herod’s action is so natural, and naturally has its parallels in
legend and popular tales, it need not therefore be mythical, or
else we should have to accept for true only the unnatural events
narrated in history.2 As for the Loss and Finding in the Temple,
one set of critics 3*
8
assigns the tale of the Buddha and the ploughing
match as “pattern” (the baby hero, left under a tree by his
nurses absorbed by the spectacle of a ploughing match, lapsed
into meditation, and was found there, hours after, still sheltered
by the stationary shadow of the Jamba ; other versions put the
incident quite late in the Buddha’s life) ; while another (J. M.
Robertson, Chr. and Myth., p. 334, quoting Strabo, xvi. 2. 38,
and Plutarch, Isis and Osiris, 14), says that the story of parents
{who had exposed their children} going to Delphi to inquire of
the oracle if the child yet lived, and there being met by
the child himself (who had gone to inquire about the parent)
1 J. M. Robertson (momentarily all for solar myth), op. c., p. 333.
2 Observe the Buddhist “prototype” (dating, moreover, from the
sixth century A.D.), adduced by Seydel, op. c., p. 142 ; Lillie, Infhience
of Buddhism on Christianity, 1893, p. 28 ; cf. Aiken, p. 244. King
Bimbiskara is advised to send an army to crush the increasing power
of his neighbour the Buddha, now a young man. He refuses, and is
converted to Buddhism !
8 E. v. Bunsen, The Angel Messiah of Buddhists, Essenes, and
Christians, 1880, p. 30; Seydel, p. 48; Lillie, B. in Chr., p. 25 ; cf.
Aiken, p. 245.
�The Virgin Birth
23
“ supplies the source of the first part ” of our story ; while
Plutarch mentions that in Egypt the cries of children at play in
temple-courts were held for prophetic ; and this accounts for
the second part 1—We prefer Luke’s history to modern myth.
Yet Matthew contradicts Luke ?—Not at all. Grant
that the Magi’s visit followed the Purification (not
necessarily soon), and we need only assume that
Luke did not mix his sources. For if the Magi-tale
was current as in Matthew, Luke did not insert it
into what he had learnt (probably) from Mary
(supr., p. 7), nor repeat it in a new form when the
old was satisfactory. The Magi are no “ doublet ” of
the Shepherds. The spirit of Matthew’s tale which
shows the universality of Christ’s saving power is
quite different from that which relates the homely
incident so suited to the “ Gospel of the Poor.”
We are constantly told, quite generally, that Jesus
is but one among many virgin-born gods, and that
His myth is discredited by theirs. Especially to the
BUDDHA Sakyamuni are we pointed as origin of the
Christian dogma.1 Doubtless the tangled question
of the dates of the Buddhist “ scriptures ” makes it
difficult to criticize this briefly, but our references will
supply details of evidence. We may say : The tradi
tions of the Buddha’s birth are contradictory, and, es
pecially the earlier, assign no “virginity” to his mother
1 Bunsen, op. c. : “Zoroastrian magi invented an angel-messiah ; the
Buddha imported this into India, the Essenes into Palestine ; Christ
was an Essene ; thus Buddhist legends reached and fastened on Him.”
Sharply criticized by Kuenen, Natural Religion, etc., 1882.—R. Seydel,
op. c., maintains : A pre-Synoptic Jewish apocalyptic gospel existed
(highly “Buddhized” by traditions journeying westwards by traderoutes opened up by Alexander), utilized by the Synoptists. —All
imagination work, supposing an impossibly late date for the Gospels.
Criticized by Oldenberg, Hardy, and even J. E. Carpenter (who
patronizes the theory that Christianity borrowed from Buddhism),
XIXth Century, viii. 971. A. Lillie, opp. citt. These three books
well discussed by C. F. Aiken, op. c. A. J. Edmunds, Buddhist and
Christian Gospels, etc., London, 1904, is admirably considered by
L. de la V. Poussin, Revue Biblique, 1906, iii. pp. 355-381. See, too,
the latter’s Bouddhisme, Paris, 1909, p. 239 sqq., and C.T.S. Buddhism,
by the same.
�24
History ana, Dogma
Maya. Later speculation held her to be virgin.1 But
note: for Buddhists, all birth is rebirth.
A pre
existing being, a ghandarva, escaped from a previous
life, is reincarnated.
Ordinary mortals are born
where necessity dictates : superior beings—e.g. future
Buddhas—can choose their moment, and their parents.
This is why Maya dreams that the future Buddha
enters her side, of his own accord, as a six-tusked white
elephant. She had lived some thirty-three years with
her husband, and only after the conception of the
Buddha resolves to abandon earthly love. The Buddha
chose Maya, because she was doomed to die ten months
seven days afterwards: now’, all mothers of Buddhas
must die seven days after their child’s birth, lest another
child should occupy what had been a Buddha’s shrine.
There is in all this no hint of virgin birth. Indeed,
feminine virginity was of little interest to Hindus or
earlier Buddhists.2* When the Mahavastu does at
last insist on Maya’s virginity, it is at the cost of
the birth, for the Buddha is now represented as
remaining in heaven, sending only a phantom self
to be seemingly born of Maya. Thus the birth is, at
the first, marvellous, but not virgin.
Once Maya is
virgin, the birth has ceased to be real.
The sage Asita, on the Buddha’s birthday, sees “ the gods of
shining vesture forming the band of the thirty-two (gods),” [not
“angels white-stoled” : Edmunds] rejoicing. Ascending into the
sky, he asks the reason. They answer : “ The Buddha-to-be, the
excellent jewel, the incomparable, is born in the world of men
[leaving, that is, that of gods] to save [creatures] and to make them
happy, in the village of the Sakyas,” etc. Asita magically flies
thither, and “ because he knew the [32] signs ” [set. the webbed
fingers, etc., which marked the child a superior being] exclaimed
“ with faith,” “ This is the unsurpassed, the excellent among men.”
He weeps, indignant that he will be dead before the child begins
1 Jerome, Adu. Iou., i. 42 : 23s73, on doubtful evidence calls the
Buddha virgin-born. The extremely late writings of the Mongol
Buddhists, and one other very late document, are our only sources here. 4
2 Even the Lalitavistara {-possibly as early as the Christian era) only
asks how the Buddha could live without being defiled by (physical) «
contact with Maya’s womb. The answer is, that tents of jewels and
perfumes enveloped him therein.
�The Virgin Birth
25
its work of salvation.—Graceful as are many incidents of this tale,
not even in the words of the devas is a source found for Luke’s
narrative, though “ peace on earth to men [objects] of [God’s]
goodwill ” is not unlike the “ utility and pleasantness ” for which
the Buddha is born.—The pre-existence of the Son is not like
that of the Buddha in the Tusita heaven, which many odd in
carnations (as king, pigeon, god, jackal, etc.) had preceded.
Nor is Maya’s visit to a royal garden, surrounded with un
imagined luxuries, like Mary’s to Bethlehem, that we should
say “both children were born when their mothers were on a
journey.” Such suggestions destroy the real charm of the
Buddhist legends.1
The god Krishna2 is declared3 to have been born of
a virgin Devakl. Now, not only is there a well-defined
modern Indian movement to assimilate the legend
of Krishna “ the Black ” to the life of Christ, while of
the books which contain it “the earliest are at the
very least several hundreds of years later than the
composition of the Gospels,” 4 but even in the Hindi
version of that part of the documents which relates
it we read that Devaki had already, before Krishna's
conception, borne seven children to her husband
Vasudeva. Considering too that Krishna had “ eight
specially beautiful wives of his own, besides over
16,000 others, and by them he had a family of
180,000 sons, all of whom finally killed one another,
or were murdered by their father,”5 virginity would
seem low enough in the esteem of the Black God’s
evangelists; and that Mr Vivian should include him
among those “ suffering Saviours ” whose stories had
been “ for ages past similar in all essentials to the
Gospel narratives” (p. 161) is amazing.
Of Adonis, Attis, Dionysus, Osiris, Mithra,
CHRIST, Mr Robertson says 6 “ all six deities were born
of a virgin.” “ In Persia, Zoroaster was miraculously
1 Seydel, pp. 295, 136 ; Bunsen, p. 34; Lillie, Influence, etc., p. 26 ;
W. St. C. Tisdall, Mythic Christs and the True, 1909, p. 36.
2 C.T.S. Hinduism, E. Hull, pp. 12, 14, 27.
3 P. Vivian, The Churches and Modern Thought, Watts, 1910,
p. 121, etc.
4 Tisdall, Mythic Christs, p. 27.
6 Tisdall, p. 28.
6 Short History of Christianity, 1902, p. 63.
�26
History and Dogma
conceived.”1 “ In Parsi mythology, Saoshyant is
virgin-born.”2 We need but glance at these assertions.
Dionysus3 was the son of Zeus and a woman, Semele. While
pregnant, she was shrivelled to death by the sight of her lover’s
glory. The unborn infant was snatched from her womb, stitched
into Zeus’s thigh, and ultimately “born” in circumstances which
the poets easily made absurd.—Zoroaster4 is said in the Avesta
(much of which is extremely late) to be the son of Pourushaspa,
a man whose genealogy was traced back for ten generations.
His mother’s name is not even mentioned. Even in the latest
mythologizing documents {cf. Zaratusht-Namah, c. A.D. 1278),
the most we hear is that Pourushaspa had drunk some haoma
uice in which Zoroaster’s fravashi (genius) had been placed. The
conception was normal; the child was the third of five brothers.—
Saoshyant and his two brothers, prophets to appear before the
end of the world, are (literally) to be conceived of Zoroaster’s
seed—Saoshyant by a woman bathing in a lake.5 Here I cannot
transcribe the details ; still less, in the case of Attis and Adonis.
Adonis was the son of Cinyras in one myth, of Phoenix in
another, but (in the commonest version) of King Theias by his
own daughter, Myrrha. The whole of this story, like Adonis’
career and worship, is one of sexual abnormalities. Even more
so is that of Attis, son of Nana and the androgynous monster
Agdestis, itself offspring of Zeus and Earth.6 The cults of
Adonis and Attis became bywords even among pagans for
unbridled licence and hysterical perversities. In them, as in
Krishna’s, vice became of the essence of worship.
That Mithra7 was virgin-born is argued by Mr
J. M. Robertson as follows:8 Mithra is often coupled
with the goddess Anahita. But an inscription men
tions “the tree of Zeus-Sabazios and Artemis-Anahita.”
Therefore Mithra = Sabazios.
But Strabo says
Sabazios “is in a sense the son of the Mother” (set.
the Eastern goddess, Cybele, etc.). Therefore Mithra
was son of a mother. But this mother must be
1 P. Vivian, op. c., p. 128.
2 Robertson, Pagan Christs, p. 339.
3 C.T.S. Relig. of Anc. Greece, J. Huby, pp. 4, 21, etc.
4 C.T.S. Relig. of Avesta, A. Carnoy,passim.
5 Tisdall, p. 86.
6 Pausan., vii. 17. 5 > Arnob., Adu. Gent., v. 9. 4, P.L., 51100; Minuc.
Felix, 21 ; on Adonis and Attis, C.T S. Relig. of Syria, G. S. Hitch
cock, pp. 10, 23 ; of Imper. Rome, C. C. Martindale, pp. 12, 14.
7 C.T.S. Mithra, C. C. Martindale.
8 Pagan Christs, 1903, p. 337 sqq. Every step of the argument
might be disputed.
�The Virgin Birth
27
Anahita, for not only is she goddess of fertilizing
waters, and hence " must necessarily figure in her cultus
as a mother,” but Mithra, “ who never appears ... as
a father,” “ would [therefore] perforce rank as her son?
Astounding logic! But all this apparatus to get
Mithra born of a mother at all, has not yet shown
she was virgin.—Simplicity itself! "It was further
practically a matter of course that his divine mother
should be styled Virgin, the precedents being uni
form” (p. 337). Precedents? He quotes Agdestis,
Attis, and Saoshyant (supr., p. 26), and unexpectedly
concludes: "Asa result ... we find Mithra figuring in
the Christian Empire of the fourth and fifth centuries
as supernaturally born of a Virgin Mother and of the
Most High God ” (p. 340). We find nothing of the
sort. Mithra was invariably regarded as “ rock-born,”
that is, sprung from the Petra Genetrix, “mother
rock,” imaged by a conical stone (representing the
sky-vault in which, or the mountains over which, the
light-god first appears). Mithra had no human mother
at all, virgin or otherwise.1
It is idle to urge : Mithra was worshipped in crypts; but
Mithra=Adonis, who was “born and worshipped in a cave”
[surely not, and anyhow these identifications are ludicrously
inexact]; Adonis = Tammuz, who was adored (Jerome says) in
the unreclaimed Cave of Bethlehem; therefore Mithra was
born in a cave.—He was not virgin-bctrn, nor yet cave-born. If
anywhere, the rock-birth occurred (as bas-reliefs suggest) under
a tree by a river.2
1 Mr Robertson oddly appeals to two savage myths, known to us
third or fourth hand, in which Mithra is found born of a god and a woman,
or (incestuously) of that god’s own mother. Of these, M. Cumont (the
leading authority on Mithraism) says: “Their character is radically
different from the dogmas accepted by the Western believers in the
Persian god.” Reff. in The Month, Dec. 1908, p. 582 sq.
2 Much has been made of a group of “adoring shepherds” some
times sculptured near the rock-birth. . They appear but rarely, and in no
obvious connection with the birth. They are not clearly shepherds,
and certainly do not adore. C.T. S. Mithra, p. 12. It is (with probabil
ity) conjectured that Mithra’s birthday was kept on Dec. 25. Pie was
indeed closely identified with the Sun, whose birthday was then kept.
For Dec. 25, cf. C.T.S. Ret. Imper. Rome, p. 29; Cath. Encycl.,
Christmas, Martindale, iii. 726.
�28
History and Dogma
OSIRIS1 comes to us, like his pictures, enswathed in
mummy-clothes of myth—in this case of contra
dictory, irreconcilable myths. A turn, first of gods, but
also Primeval Man, engenders from the substance of his
own heart the Heliopolis Ennead of gods, one of whom
was Osiris. Elsewhere, Osiris is son of Seb (Earth)
and Nuit (Sky), and rules as frankly human Pharaoh,
married to his sister Isis. He certainly is not virginborn. Isis herself, though in some very late syncre
tistic myths of great beauty she is virgin, is not so
in relation with Osiris; indeed, one legend shows
her losing that quality in her mother’s womb by
union with her twin-brother.
As for her son
Horus, he was conceived by the murdered Osiris
(triumphantly “surviving himself”), but normally.2
Nor were the Pharaohs “virgin-born.” True, they
first have gods for ancestors; then, God for father;
then, are gods. But notice: the god is explicitly
said to be incarnate in the Pharaoh’s human father.
Each reigning Pharaoh is the god’s physical instru
ment in the conception of the next.3 In conscious
imitation of this, Alexander the Great and others—
often deliberately, to gain influence in an Egypt
accustomed to have gods’ sons for governors—claimed
as ancestor or sire Zeus or Apollo. Popular romance
and court flattery elaborated the legend, which few if
any took seriously. Nor did anyone believe the
3 C.T.S. Relig. Anc. Egypt, A. Mallon, pp. 15, 30.
2 La relig. de Fane. Egypte, Virey, Beauchesne, 1910, p. 96;
Budge, Book of the Dead, Introd., pp. cxxxiv. and lxxx. All the
Osiris myths focus in the idea of life victorious over death : new wheat
springs from the rotting grain ; dawn from the dead day. But Isis, as
Earth fertilized by the flooding Nile, affords no hint of virginity.
Except (perhaps) in art, her worship has not affected ours, though
Prof. Petrie—talia talis?—asserts “that it became the popular
devotion of Italy ; and after a change of name due to the growth of
Christianity, she has continued to receive the adoration of a large part
of Europe down to the present day as the Madonna” {Relig. Anc.
Egypt, 1906, p. 44, cf. 91).
3 Inscriptions at Deir-el-Bahari and Luqsor make this certain.
Virey, pp. 95-98 ; Moret, Caractere relig. de la royauti pharaoniqtie,
pp. 50-52, there quoted.
�The Virgin Birth
29
stories about Apollo, father of Plato, or Proteus, of
Apollonius. They were literary imitations of the
old myths which made Zeus visit Alcmene in the
shape of her husband, or Europa, Leda, Danae as
bull, swan, or golden shower, thereby glorifying
(and explaining) their heroic offspring, Herakles,
Perseus, etc. There is no question here of virginity.1
From this point of view it is a pity that some
Fathers (Origen, Jerome, Justin) use these tales
as an argumentum ad hominem against pagan critics
of the miraculous conception of Christ. “You,”
they argue, “ account for heroes by saying: A God
was their sire. Why then cavil if we teach that a
greater far than heroes was Son of God ? ” But that
Justin, e.g., had no faith in the pagan virgin births is
clear from the words he puts in the mouth of Trypho
{supr., p. 2). Even he saw that the difference between
the stories was profound. We may add that the
title Diui Filius, Yto? 0eov, “ Son of God,” taken by
emperors, in no sense denies human parentage, still
less claims virgin birth (C.T.S. Imper. Rome, p. 4;
King-Worship, C. C. Lattey, p. 31).
Indeed, the stories which approach nearest to a suggestion of
the Virgin Birth—where maid becomes mother by treading in a
giant’s footsteps, eating a fruit, by the action of sunbeams, or (as
did Chimalma, mother of Quetzalcoatl) by the god’s breath—
nearly all belong to levels of civilization where no one will look
for the origin (at any rate) of the Gospel story. They are folk
lore so inferior even to myth, that interaction, causal influence,
is unthinkable. They have been used2 as basis of a theory that
primitive savages were ignorant of the “ true cause of offspring,”
an ignorance which resulted in tales of virgin birth, some still
surviving in a purified form. But (i.) it is quite unlikely that the
Australian savages (who alone can be quoted) are really so
ignorant of the cause of birth as the authors suppose—the exist1 Farnell, Cults of Gk. States, ii. 447, and others make it clear that
the name Parthenos itself need not imply virginity. It often means
just “ unmarried,” and is compatible with great licence.
2 Cases accumulated in E. S. Hartland, Legend of Perseus, 1894
(a chaos simplified by “ P. Saintyves,” Vierges mires et naissances
miraculeuses, 1908), and argued from by Dr. Frazer, Adonis, Attis, and
Osiris, 1907, ii. 169.
�History and Dogma
ence among savages of complicated marriage tabus and legisla
tion, and of widespread sex-worships, is quite against such
(antecedently unlikely) ignorance—but (ii.) there is no sort of
reason for supposing such ignorance to have been universal,
especially as “ primitive ” savages are often probably “ degener
ates,” not just embarking on a career of improvement.1
To sum up. In nearly all these cases (and there are
scores of others) the birth may be preternatural, but
is not virgin. In important examples, it remains
obscure when the traditions embodying the analogies
are to be dated (Buddha) ; or borrowing from Chris
tianity is actually certain (Krishna). As a rule the
legend is attached to a mythical, not historic, person
(Herakles, Perseus), or was never taken seriously
(Plato, Alexander, Augustus). The whole setting is
usually frivolous, often obscene. The Gospels are
profoundly Judaic, and uncoloured by pagan, especi
ally Hellenic, tradition.
Conscious adaptation of
myth by their writers is a grotesque supposition,
neglected by reputable scholarship; there was no
time for an unconscious deformation of historical
events in view of the early date now generally
admitted for the composition of the Gospels.2
Dr. Abbott (Encycl. Bibl., ii. 1778) seeks the origin of our
tradition in Philo’s allegorical treatment of certain O.T. stories
—thus : Yahweh is the true father, e.g. of Isaac, because Isaac
= “laughter,” and “God sows and begets happiness in souls.”
(The reff. to Philo are i. 131, 147, 215, 273, 598, ed. Mangey.)
But even if Philo sometimes “allegorized” the Patriarchs, he
never implies their historical virgin birth, still less could he
foster an opinion that the Messiah (whose role he almost
1 A. H. Sayce, Relig. oj Anc. Egypt and Babylon, 1902, p. 17.
Instances of “degeneration,” C.T.S. Lectures on Hist. Relig., vols. i.
and ii., Relig. of Hindus, Early Rome, Buddha, etc., etc.
2 Harnack vigorously says: “ The conjecture of Usener, that the idea
of the birth from a virgin is a heathen myth which was received by the
Christians, contradicts the entire earliest development of Christian
tradition, which is free from heathen myths so far [he adds] as these
had not already been received by wide circles of Jews, . . . which in the
case of that idea is not demonstrable.'” [Usener himself says (Encycl.
Bibl., ii. 3350): “The idea is quite foreign to Judaism.”] Hist, of
Dogma, Engl, tr., i., 1897, p. 100, I; cf. Chase, Cambridge Theol.
Essays, ed. H. B. Swete, 1905, p. 412: “ The solution of Prof. Usener
is directly at variance with the primary conditions of the problem.”
�The Virgin Birth
3i
obliterates) was to be virgin-bom;1 and anyhow Alexandrian
(Philonic) Judaism was very different from the purely Palestinian
religion of the Gospels.2
Finally, Harnack himself (cf. note 2,p. 30) argues that
the source of our belief was but a misinterpretation of
Is. 714 (Ecce uirgo concipiet, etc., Vulgate). It is impos
sible here to discuss the true interpretation of the
text. The Fathers with practical unanimity saw in
it from the first a prophecy of the actual event, but it
could only support, not generate, a belief or story.
For, once more, virgin birth was not an idea to which
the Jewish mind was accustomed. Whatever floating
myths or confused- traditions or indistinct expecta
tions may have at times occupied it, we cannot
suppose that a sudden, mysterious misinterpretation
of a single and not well-known text should have been
so general and potent as to impose, as true, a belief
such as the virgin birth of Jesus upon His almost
immediate disciples.
The Gospels, then, as we have them teach that Jesus
was born of a Virgin. So too the early Church believed.
Either, then, the belief was founded upon the Gospels,
or the Gospels were the literary expression of the
belief. The dogma must be assailed, if the former be
the case, by an attack upon the value of the Gospel
narrative; if the latter, by discrediting the value of
the belief. We saw (i.) that there is no external or
1 Whether a virgin-mother ever, or still, appeared on a purely
Jewish, horizon remains doubtful. Trypho, we saw (p. 2), practically
denies it. That Enoch, 62®, 6929,fcalls the Messiah son of the woman
does not help. Could we be sure that the LXX. meant their itapQl-vos
(virgin) (later modified by Theodotion and Aquila to veavis, “young
woman ”) in Is. 714 to be taken in its complete sense, and that the
virgin as virgin was to bear, the argument for a Jewish virgin-mother
tradition would be stronger ; but cf. Condamin, Isaie, p. 67 ; Lagrange,
Messianisme, p. 222 sqq.
f Lobstein, op. c., p. 68, maintains the gradual adornment of Christ’s
child-life, like that of Moses, Samuel, etc. This is far more plausible ;
but is yet (i.) unprovable, (ii.) improbable: even had the Childhood
been “embroidered,” virgin birth would not have been chosen as a
motif. Except among the Esaenes, the unmarried state was not esteemed
by the Jews,
�32
History and Dogma
internal evidence that the Gospels are late, or patch
work, or interpolated as regards the Childhood-story.
Their mutilation can only be attempted in obedience
to a priori conviction that miracle is impossible.
Incriminated episodes, like that of the Magi, have no
evidence against them ; or even, like that of the enrol
ment, are amazingly accredited by modern research,
and reflect honourably upon the Evangelist as
historian. Finally, neither is Matthew in conflict with
Luke, nor yet with the “ silence ” of Mark, nor the
doctrine of Paul or John: (ii.) while one group of
critics, rejecting as absurd the hypothesis that the
Gospels are indebted to pagan sources for their
narratives, seeks their origins in Jewish prophecy
or myth or allegory, another group, insisting that a
virgin birth was wholly alien to Jewish expecta
tion or ambition, assigns Indian, Persian, Greek, nay
“ savage ” cult and fancy as the fountain-head of the
Christian dogma.
We, while acknowledging that the serene and
universal faith of the early Church makes the back
ground of the Gospels, and that they must be inter
preted according to it, and could not have denied it
without being detected and flung aside, yet realise
that those Gospels were written, or at least reproduce
a doctrine existing long before alien influences of what
ever sort could enter to violate the primitive traditions,
and even memories, of the early disciples. Not the
conflicting, apocryphal forecasts of the Messiah, not
perverse misreadings of the sacred books, not the
unclean or grotesque or (at best) romantic and graceful
legends of pagandom could create the simple, pure,
and fragrant Gospel of the Childhood, so purely
Jewish and of its own time, yet so potent to reach the
love of the children of our distant day ; nor need the
older and more learned readers of that record hesitate
still to refresh their eyes with the gentle mysteries of
Bethlehem, or fear for the honour of the Virgin whom
all generations shall name blessed.
�
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 virgin birth and the gospel of the infancy
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Martindale, C. C. (Cyril Charlie)
Description
An account of the resource
Place of publication: London
Collation: 32 p. ; 19 cm.
Notes: Includes bibliographical references. Publication details from KVK (OCLC WorldCat). Some of the text on the first page has been torn away and rewritten by hand.
Publisher
An entity responsible for making the resource available
Catholic Truth Society
Date
A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource
[1911]
Identifier
An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context
RA1549
Subject
The topic of the resource
Jesus Christ
Bible
Rights
Information about rights held in and over the resource
<img src="http://i.creativecommons.org/p/mark/1.0/88x31.png" alt="Public Domain Mark" /><br /><span>This work (The virgin birth and the gospel of the infancy), identified by </span><span><a href="https://conwayhallcollections.omeka.net/items/show/www.conwayhall.org.uk">Humanist Library and Archives</a></span><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. N.T. Gospels
Jesus Christ
Virgin Birth
-
https://d1y502jg6fpugt.cloudfront.net/25778/archive/files/d161a8434ce52b7bfc3077828b6e4b46.pdf?Expires=1712793600&Signature=adQ2wjGWpFOvsHPnYjRy%7Eirte7UnNLR2M3LPTyOye2-A52f6oCz7uupWE03xxE8LeI3leMYvHaJtvdw1LXR%7Eum4D7ToLvN8Nh2mZdti7LhlDw4HLElxZNBHFTUpa-Wltr%7EaueI6nN%7EsBcOwIDzdO6Kl8NpeNnUl4MalDcntdIhGKFbewWtXUpePuy5T42QOon5%7E1m794PBl5Mumyl6K6Jv5HJrenL9xcMfB-eL8RO9FPCOVKkK7LdczB34bMxsqio6fZNMDuiA6nbzu9h6pjoMGmGP3m%7EFm%7EsRc2Va7wvYQsQM27raaXCmu42sCbkvXHUyNwDXgCoUmlToosDWXcUg__&Key-Pair-Id=K6UGZS9ZTDSZM
04901e957aca8fec1424c79e0ecb8c2b
PDF Text
Text
THE LAST WORD ABOUT JESUS.
BY JOHN
FISKE.
THE JESUS OF HISTORY*
StW Jill the great founders of religions, Jesus is at once the best
.1 1 known and the least known to the modern scholar. From
/ the dogmatic point of view he is the best known, from the
historic point of view he is the least known. The Jesus of
dogma is in every lineament familiar to us from early childhood ; but
concerning the Jesus of history we possess but few facts resting upon
trustworthy evidence ; and in order to form a picture of him at once
consistent, probable, and distinct in its outlines, it is necessary to enter
upon a long and difficult investigation, in the course of which some of
the most delicate apparatus of modern criticism will not fail to be re
quired. This circumstance is sufficiently singular to require especial
*
explanation. The case of Sakyamuni, the founder of Buddhism, which
may perhaps be cited as parallel, is in reality wholly different. Not
only did Sakyamuni live five centuries earlier than Jesus, among a
people that have at no time possessed the art of insuring authenticity
in their records of events, and at an era which is at best but dimly dis
cerned through the mists of fable and legend, but the work which be
achieved lies wholly out of the course of European history, and it is
only in recent times that his career has presented itself to us as a
problem needing to be solved. Jesus, on the other hand, appeared in
an age which is familiarly and in many respects minutely known to us,
and among a people whose fortunes we can trace with historic certainty
for at least seven1 centuries previous to his birth ; while his life and
achievements have probably had a larger share in directing the entire
subsequent intellectual and moral development of Europe than those
of any other man who has ever lived. Nevertheless, the details of his
personal career are shrouded in an obscurity almost as dense as that
which envelops the life of the remote founder of Buddhism.
* The Jesus of History (Anonymous). 8vo, pp. 426. London : Williams &
Norgate, 1869. New York : Scribner, Welford & Co.
Vie De Jesus, par Ernest Renan. Paris, 1867. (Thirteenth edition, revised and
partly rewritten.)
�10
THE
J ES US
OF
HISTORY.
This phenomenon, however, appears less strange and paradoxical
when we come to examine it more closely. A little reflection will dis
close to us several good reasons why the historical records of the life of
Jesus should be so scanty as they are. In the first place, the activity
of Jesus was private rather than public. Confined within exceedingly
narrow limits, both of space and of duration, it made no impression
whatever upon the politics or the literature of the time. His name
does not occur in the pages of any contemporary writer, Roman. Greek,
or Jewish. Doubtless the case would have been wholly different, had
he, like Mohammed, lived to a ripe age, and had the exigencies of his
peculiar position as the Messiah of the Jewish people brought him into
relations with the empire; though whether, in such case, the success
of his grand undertaking would have been as complete as it has
actually been, may well be doubted.
Secondly, Jesus did not, like Mohammed and Paul, leave behind
him authentic writings which might serve to throw light upon his
mental development as well as upon the external facts of his career.
Without the Koran and the four genuine Epistles of Paul, we should
be nearly as much in the dark concerning these great men as we now
are concerning the historical Jesus. We should be compelled to rely,
in the one case, upon the untrustworthy gossip of Mussulman chron
iclers, and in the other case upon the garbled statements.of the “ Acts
of the Apostles,” a book written with a distinct dogmatic pui
p
*ose,
sixty or seventy years after the occurrence of the events which it pro
fesses to record.
It is true, many of the words of Jesus, preserved by hearsay tradi
tion through the generation immediately succeeding his death, have
come down to us, probably with little alteration, in the pages of the
three earlier evangelists. These are priceless data, since, as we shall
see, they are almost the only materials at our command for forming
even a partial conception of the character of Jesus’ work. .Neverthe
less, even here the cautious inquirer has only too often to pause in face
of the difficulty of distinguishing the authentic utterances ’of the great
teacher from the later interpolations suggested by the dogmatic neces
sities of the narrators. Bitterly must the historian regret that Jesus
had no philosophic disciple, like Xenophon, to record his Memorabilia.
Of the various writings included in the New Testament, the Apocalypse
alone (and possibly the Epistle of Jude), is from the pen of a personal
acquaintance of Jesus; and besides this, the four epistles of Paul, to
the Galatians, Corinthians, and Romans, make up the sum of the
writings from which we may demand contemporary testimony. Yet
from these we obtain absolutely nothing of that for which we are
seeking. The brief writings of Paul are occupied exclusively with the
internal significance of Jesus’ work. The epistle of Jude—if it be
really written by Jesus’ brother of that name, which is doubtful—is
solely a polemic directed against the innovations of Paul. And the
�THE
JESUS
OF
HISTORY.
11
Apocalypse, the work of the fiery and imaginative disciple John, is con
fined to a prophetic description of the Messiah’s anticipated return, and
tells us nothing concerning the deeds of that Messiah while on the earth.
Here we touch upon our third consideration,—the consideration
which best enables us to see why the historic notices of Jesus are so
meagre. Rightly considered, the statement with which we opened this
article is its own explanation. The Jesus of history is so little known,
just because the Jesus of dogma is so well known. Other teachers—
Paul, Mohammed, Sakyamuni—have come merely as preachers of
righteousness, speaking in the name of general principles with which
their own personalities were not directly implicated. But Jesus, as we
shall see, before, the close of his life, proclaimed himself to be some
thing more than a preacher of righteousness. He announced himself—
and justly, from his own point of view—as the long-expected Messiah
sent by Jehovah to liberate the Jewish race. Thus the success of his
religious teachings became at once implicated with the question of his
personal nature and character. After the sudden and violent termina
tion of his career, it immediately became all-important with his fol
lowers to prove that he was really the Messiah, and to insist upon the
certainty of his speedy return to the earth. Thus the first generation
of disciples dogmatized about him, instead of narrating his life—a task
which to them would have seemed of little profit. For them the allabsorbing object of contemplation was the immediate future rather than
the immediate past. As all the earlier Christian literature informs us,
for nearly a century after the death of Jesus, his followers lived in daily
anticipation of his triumphant return to the earth. The end of all
things being so near-at hand, no attempt was made to ensure accurate
and complete memoirs for the use of a posterity which was destined, in
Christian imagination, never to arrive. The first Christians wrote but
little ; even Papias, at the end of a century, preferring second-hand or
third-hand oral tradition to the written gospels which were then be
ginning to come into circulation. Memoirs of the life and teachings
of Jesus were called forth by the necessity of having a written stan
dard of doctrine to which to appeal amid the growing differences of
opinion which disturbed the Church. Thus the earlier gospels exhibit,
though in different degrees, the indications of a modifying, sometimes
of an overruling dogmatic purpose. There is, indeed, no conscious
violation of historic truth, but from the varied mass of material sup
plied by tradition, such incidents are selected as are fit to support the
views of the writers concerning the personality of Jesus. Accordingly,
while the early gospels throw a strong light upon the state of Christian
opinion at the dates when they were successively composed, the infor
mation which they give concerning Jesus himself is, for that very
reason, often vague, uncritical, and contradictory. Still more is this
true of the fourth gospel, written late in the second century, in which
historic tradition is moulded in the interests of dogma until it becomes
�12
THE
JESUS
OF HISTORY.
no longer recognizable, and in the place of the human Messiah of the
earlier accounts, we have a semi-divine Logos or zEon, detached from
God and incarnate for a brief season in the likeness of man.
Not only was history subordinated to dogma by the writers of the
gospel-narratives, but in the minds of the Fathers of the Church who
assisted in determining what writings should be considered canonical,
dogmatic prepossession went very much further than critical acumen.
Nor is this strange when we reflect that critical discrimination in
questions of literary authenticity is one of the latest acquisitions of the
cultivated human mind. In the early ages of the Church, the evidence
of the genuineness of any literary production was never weighed critic
ally ; writings containing doctrines acceptable to the majority of Chris
tians, were quoted as authoritative, while writings which supplied no
dogmatic want were overlooked, or perhaps condemned as apocryphal.
A striking instance of this is furnished by the fortunes of the Apoca
lypse. Although perhaps the best authenticated work in the New
Testament collection, its millenarian doctrines caused it to become
unpopular as the Church gradually ceased to look for the speedy return
of the Messiah, and, accordingly, as the canon assumed a definite
shape, it was placed among the “ Antilegomena,” or doubtful books,
and continued to hold a precarious position until after the time of the
Protestant Reformation. On the other hand, the fourth gospel, which
was quite unknown and probably did not exist at the time of the
Quartodeciman controversy (A. D. 168), was accepted with little hesi
tation, and at the beginning of the third century is mentioned by
Irenapus, Clement, and Tertullian, as the work of the Apostle John.
To this uncritical spirit, leading to the neglect of such books as failed
to answer the dogmatic requirements of the Church, may probably be
attributed the loss of so many of the earlier gospels. It is doubtless
for this reason that we do not possess the Aramaean original of the
“Logia” of Matthew, or the “Memorabilia” of Mark, the companion
of Peter,—two works to which Papias (A. D. 120) alludes as containing
authentic reports of the utterances of Jesus.
These considerations will, we believe, sufficiently explain the curious
circumstance that, while we know the Jesus of dogma so intimately,
we know the Jesus of history so slightly. The literature of early
Christianity enables us to trace with tolerable completeness the
progress of opinion concerning the nature of Jesus, from the time of
Paul’s early missions to the time of the Nicene Council; but upon the
actual words and deeds of Jesus it throws a very unsteady light. The
dogmatic purpose everywhere obscures the historic basis.
This same dogmatic prepossession which has rendered the data for
a biography of Jesus so scanty and untrustworthy, has also until com
paratively recent times prevented any unbiased critical examination of
such data as we actually possess. Previous to the eighteenth century
any attempt to deal with the life of Jesus upon purely historical
�TSE JESUS
OE BISTORT.
13
methods would have been not only contemned as irrational, but stig
matized as impious. And even in the eighteenth century, those
writers who had become wholly emancipated from ecclesiastic tradition
were so destitute of all historic sympathy and so unskilled in scientific
methods of criticism, that they utterly failed to comprehend the re
quirements of the problem. Their aims were in the main polemic, not
historical. They thought more of overthrowing current dogmas than
of impartially examining the earliest Christian literature with a view of
eliciting its historic contents; and, accordingly, they accomplished but
little. Two brilliant exceptions must, however, be noticed. Spinoza,
in the seventeenth century, and Lessing, in the eighteenth, were men
far in advance of their age. They are the fathers of modern historical
criticism; and to Lessing in particular, with his enormous erudition
and incomparable sagacity, belongs the honor of initiating that method
of inquiry which, in the hands of the so-called Tübingen School, has
led to such striking and valuable conclusions concerning the age and
character of all the New Testament Literature. But it was long
before any one could be found fit to bend the bow which Lessing and
Spinoza had wielded. A succession of able scholars—Semler, Eich
horn, Paulus, Schleiermacher, Bretschneider, and De Wette,—were re
quired to examine, with German patience and accuracy, the details of
the subject, and to propound various untenable hypotheses, before such
a work could be performed as that of Strauss. The “ Life of Jesus,”
published by Strauss when only twenty-six years of age, is one of the
monumental works of the nineteenth century, worthy to rank, as a
historical effort, along with Niebuhr’s “ History of Rome,” Wolf’s
“ Prolegomena,” or Bentley’s “ Dissertations on Phalaris.” It instantly
superseded and rendered antiquated everything which had preceded it;
nor has any work on early Christianity been written in Germany for
the past thirty years which has not been dominated by the recollection
of that marvelous book. Nevertheless, the labors of another genera
tion of scholars have carried our knowledge of the New Testament
literature far beyond the point which it had reached when Strauss first
wrote. At that time the dates of but few of the New Testament
writings had been fixed with any approach to certainty; the age and
character of the fourth gospel, the genuineness of the Pauline epistles,
even the mutual relations of the three Synoptics, were still undeter
mined ; and, as a natural result of this uncertainty, the progress of
dogma during the first century was ill understood. At the present day
it is impossible to read the early work of Strauss without being im
pressed with the necessity of obtaining positive data as to the origin
and dogmatic character of the New Testament writings, before at
tempting to reach any conclusions as to the probable career of Jesus.
These positive data we owe to the genius and diligence of the Tübingen
School, and, above all, to its founder, Ferdinand Christian Baur. Be
ginning with the epistles of Paul, of which he distinguished four as
�14
THE JESUS
OE HISTORY.
genuine, Baur gradually worked his way through the entire New
Testament collection, detecting—with that inspired insight which only
unflinching diligence can impart to original genius—the age at which
each book was written, and the circumstances which called it forth.
To give any account of Baur’s detailed conclusions, or of the method
by which he reached them, would require a volume. They are very
scantily presented in Mr. Mackay’s work on the “ Tübingen School and
its Antecedents,” to which we may refer the reader desirous of further
information. We can here merely say that twenty years of energetic
controversy have only served to establish nearly all Baur’s leading
conclusions more firmly than ever. The priority of the so-called
gospel of Matthew, the Pauline purpose of “ Luke,” the second in date
of our gospels, the derivative and second-hand character of “ Mark,”
and the unapostolic origin of the fourth gospel, are points which may
for the future be regarded as completely established by circumstantial
evidence. So with respect to the pseudo-Pauline epistles, Baur’s work
was done so thoroughly that the only question still left open for much
discussion is that concerning the date and authorship of the first
and second “ Thessalonians,”—a point of quite inferior importance, so
far as our present subject is concerned. Seldom have such vast results
been achieved by the labor of a single scholar. Seldom has any
historical critic possessed such a combination of analytic and of co
ordinating powers as Baur. His keen criticism and his wonderful
flashes of insight, exercise upon the reader a truly poetic effect like
that which is felt in contemplating the marvels of physical discovery.
The comprehensive labors of Baur were followed up by Zeller’s able
work on the “ Acts of the Apostles,” in which that book was shown
to have been partly founded upon documents written by Luke, or
some other companion of Paul, and expanded and modified by a
much later writer with the purpose of covering up the traces of the
early schism between the Pauline and the Petrine sections of the
Church. Along with this, Schwegler’s work on the “ Post-Apostolic
Times ” deserves mention as clearing up many obscure points relating
to the early development of dogma. Finally,- the “New Life of Jesus,”
by Strauss, adopting and utilizing the principal discoveries of Baur
and his followers, and combining all into one grand historical pic
ture, worthily completes the task which the earlier work of the same
author had inaugurated.
The reader will have noticed that, with the exception of Spinoza,
every one of the names- above cited in connection with the literary
analysis and criticism of the New Testament is the name of a German.
Until xvithin the last decade, Germany has indeed possessed almost an
absolute monopoly of the science of Biblical criticism ; other countries
having remained not only unfamiliar with its methods, but even grossly
ignorant of its conspicuous results, save when some German treatise of
more than ordinary popularity has now and then been translated.
�THE
JESTS
<iE HISTORY.
15
But during the past ten years France has entered the lists ; and the
writings of Reville, Reuss, Nicolas, D’Eichthal, Scherer, and Colarie
testify to the rapidity with which the German seed has fructified upon
her soil.
None of these books, however, have achieved such wide-spread
celebrity, or done so much toward interesting the general public in this
class of historical inquiries, as the “ Life of Jesus,” by Renan. This
pre-eminence of fame is partly, but not wholly, deserved. From a
•purely literary point of view, Renan’s work doubtless merits all the
celebrity it has gained. Its author writes a style such as is perhaps
equaled by that of no other living Frenchman. It is by far the most
readable book which has ever been written concerning the life of Jesus.
And no doubt some of its popularity is due to its very faults, which,
from a critical point of view, are neither few nor small. • For Renan is
certainly very faulty, as a historical critic, when he practically ignores
the extreme meagreness of our positive knowledge of the career of
Jesus, and describes scene after scene in his life as minutely and with
as much confidence as if he had himself been present to witness it all.
Again and again the critical reader feels prompted to ask, How do you
know all this ? or why, out of two or three conflicting accounts, do you
quietly adopt some particular one, as if its superior authority were
self-evident ? But in the eye of the uncritical reader, these defects are
excellences ; for it is unpleasant to be kept in ignorance when we are
seeking after definite knowledge, and it is disheartening to read page
after page of an elaborate discussion which ends in convincing us that
.definite knowledge cannot be gained.
In the thirteenth edition of the “Vie de Jesus,” Renan has cor
rected some of the most striking errors of the original work, and in
particular has, with praiseworthy candor, abandoned, his untenable
position with regard to the age and character of the fourth gospel. As
is well known, Renan, in his earlier editions, ascribed to this gospel a
historical value superior to that of the synoptics, believing it to have
been written by an eye-witness of the events which it relates; and
from this source, accordingly, he drew the larger share of his mate
rials. Now, if there is any one conclusion concerning the New Testa
ment literature which must be regarded as incontrovertibly established
by the labors of a whole generation of scholars, it is this, that the
fourth gospel was utterly unknown until about A. D. 170, that it was
written by some one who possessed very little direct knowledge of
Palestine, that its purpose was rather to expound a dogma than to give
an accurate record of events, and that as a guide to the comprehension
of the career of Jesus it is of far less value than the three synoptic
gospels. It is impossible, in a brief review like the present, to epito
mize the evidence upon which this conclusion rests, which may more
profitably be sought in the Rev. J. J. Tayleris work on “ The Fourth
Gospel,” or in Davidson s “ Introduction to the New Testament.” It
�16
THE
JESUS
OF HISTORY.
must suffice to mention that this gospel is not cited by Papias; that
Justin, Marcion, and Valentinus make no allusion to it, though, since
it furnishes so much that is germane to their views, they would gladly
have appealed to it, had it been in existence, when those view's were as
yet questionable ; and that, finally, in the great quartodeciman contro
versy, A. D. 168, the gospel is not only not mentioned, but the authority
of John is cited by Polycarp in flat contradiction of the view after
wards taken by this evangelist. Still more, the assumption of Renan
led at once into complicated difficulties with reference to the Apoca
lypse. The fourth gospel, if it does not unmistakably announce itself
as the work of John, at least professes to be Johannine; and it cannot
for a moment be supposed that such a book, making such claims, could
have gained currency during John’s lifetime without calling forth his
indignant protest. For, in reality, no book in the New Testament col
lection would so completely have shocked the prejudices of the Johan
nine party. John’s own views are well known to us from the Apoca
lypse. John was the most enthusiastic of millenarians and the most
narrow and rigid of Judaizers. In his antagonism to the Pauline
innovations he went farther than Peter himself. Intense hatred of
Paul and his followers appears in several passages of the Apocalypse,
where they are stigmatized as “ Nicolai tans,” “ deceivers of the people,”
“ those who say they are apostles and and are not,” “ eaters of meat
offered to idols,” “ fornicators,” “pretended Jews,” “ liars,” “ synagogue
of Satan,” etc. (Chap. II.) On the other hand, the fourth gospel con
tains nothing millenarian or Judaical; it carries Pauline universalism
to a far greater extent than Paul himself ventured to carry it, even
condemning the Jews as children of darkness, and by implication con
trasting them unfavorably with the Gentiles ; and it contains a theory
of the nature of Jesus which the Ebionitish Christians, to whom John
belonged, rejected to the last.
In his present edition Renan admits the insuperable force of these
objections, and abandons his theory of the apostolic origin of the fourth
gospel. And as this has necessitated the omission or alteration of all
such passages as rested upon the authority of that gospel, the book is
to a considerable extent rewritten, and the changes are such as greatly
to increase its value as a history of Jesus. Nevertheless, the author
has so long been in the habit of shaping his conceptions of the career
of Jesus by the aid of the fourth gospel, that it has become very diffi
cult for him to pass freely to another point of view. He still clings to
the hypothesis that there is an element of historic tradition contained
in the book, drawn from memorial writings which had perhaps been
handed down from John, and which were inaccessible to the synoptists.
In a very interesting appendix, he collects the evidence in favor of this
hypothesis, which indeed is not without plausibility, since there is
*
every reason for supposing that the gospel was written at Ephesus,
which a century before had been John’s place of residence. But even
�THE JESUS
OF HISTORY.
17
granting most of Renan’s assumptions, it must still follow that the
authority of this gospel is far inferior to that of the synoptics, and can
in no case be very confidently appealed to.“ The question is one of the
first importance to the historian of early Christianity. In inquiring
into the life of Jesus, the very first thing to do is to establish firmly in
the mind the true relations of the fourth gospel to the first three.
Until this has been done, no one is competent to write on the subject ;
and it is because he has done this so imperfectly that Renan’s work is,
from a critical point of view, so imperfectly successful.
The anonymous work entitled “ The Jesus of History,” which we
have placed at the head of this article, is in every respect noteworthy
as the first systematic attempt made in England to follow in the foot
steps of German criticism in writing a life of Jesus. We know of no
good reason why the book should be published anonymously ; for as a
historical essay it possesses extraordinary merit, and does great credit
not only to its author, but to English scholarship and acumen. It is
not, indeed, a book calculated to captivate the imagination of the read
ing public. Though written in a clear, forcible, and often elegant style,
it possesses no such wonderful rhetorical charm as the work of Renan ;
and it will probably never find half-a-dozen readers where the “ Vie de
Jésus ” has found a hundred. But the success of a book of this sort
is not to be measured by its rhetorical excellence, or by its adaptation
to the literary tastes of an uncritical and uninstructed public, but
rather by the amount of critical sagacity which it brings to bear upon
the elucidation of the many difficult and disputed points in the subject
of which it treats. Measured by this standard, the “ Jesus of History”
must rank very high indeed. To say that it throws more light upon
the career of Jesus than any work which has ever before been written
in English would be very inadequate praise, since the English language
has been singularly deficient in this branch of historical literature.We shall convey a more just idea of its merits if we say that it will
bear comparison with anything which even Germany has produced,
save only the works of Strauss, Baur, and Zeller.
The fitness of our author for the task which he has undertaken is
shown at the outset by his choice of materials. In basing his con
clusions almost exclusively upon the statements contained in the first
gospel, he is upheld by every sound principle of criticism. The times
and places at which our three synoptic gospels were written have been,
through the labors of the Tiibingen critics, determined almost to a
certainty. Of the three, “ Mark ” is unquestionably the latest ; with
the exception of about twenty verses, it is entirely made up from
“ Matthew ” and “ Luke,” the diverse Petrine and Pauline tendencies
of which it strives to neutralize in conformity to the conciliatory dis
position of the Church at Rome, at the epoch at which this gospel
was written, about A. D. 130. Thé third gospel was âlsp written at
Rome, some fifteen years earlier. In the preface, its author describes
�18
THE
JEEUE
OE HIE To RY.
it as a compilation from previously existing written materials. Among
these materials was certainly the first gospel, several passages of which
are adopted word for word by the author of “ Luke.” Yet the narra
tive varies materially from that of the first gospel in many essential
points. The arrangement of events is less natural, and, as in the
“ Acts of the Apostles ” by the same author, there is apparent through
out the design of suppressing the old discord between Paul and the
Judaizing disciples, and of representing Christianity as essentially
Pauline from the outset. How far Paul was correct in his interpreta
tion of the teachings of Jesus, it is difficult to decide. It is, no doubt,
possible that the first gospel may have lent to the words of Jesus an
Ebionite coloring in some instances,' and that now and then the third
gospel may present us with a truer account. To this supremely im
portant point we shall by and by return. For the present it must
suffice to observe that the evidences of an overruling dogmatic pur
pose are generally much more conspicuous in the third synoptist than
in the first; and that the very loose manner in which this writer has
handled his materials in the “Acts” is not calculated to inspire us
with confidence in the historical accuracy of his gospel. The writer
who, in spite of the direct testimony of Paul himself, could represent
the apostle to the Gentiles as acting under the direction of the dis
ciples at Jerusalem, and who puts Pauline sentiments into the mouth
of Peter, would certainly have been capable of unwarrantably giving
a Pauline turn to the teachings of Jesus himself. We are therefore,
as a last resort, brought back to the first gospel, which we find to
possess, as a historical narrative, far stronger claims upon our attention
than the second and third. In all probability it had assumed nearly
its present shape before A. I). 100; its origin is unmistakably Pales
tinian ; it betrays comparatively few indications of dogmatic purpose;
and there are strong reasons for believing that the speeches of Jesus
recorded in it are in substance taken from the genuine “ Logia ” of
Matthew mentioned by Papias, which must have been written as early
as A. D. 60-70, before the destruction of Jerusalem. Indeed, we are
inclined to agree with our author that the gospel, even in its present
shape (save only a few interpolated passages), may have existed as
early as A. D. 80, since it places the time of Jesus’ second coming
immediately after the destruction of Jerusalem; whereas the third
evangelist, who wrote forty-five years after that event, is careful to tell
us, “ The end is not immediately.” Moreover, it must have been
written while the Paulo-Petrine controversy was still raging, as is
shown by the parable of the “ enemy who sowed the tares,” which
manifestly refers to Paul, and also by the allusions to “ false prophets,”
(vii. 15,) to those who say, “ Lord, Lord,” and who “ cast out demons
in the name of the Lord,” (vii. 21-23,) teaching men to break the
commandinents, (v. 17-20.) There is, therefore, good reason for be
lieving that we have here a narrative written not much more than fifty
�THE JESUS
OF HISTORY.
19
years after the death of Jesus, based partly upon the written memorials
of an apostle, and in the main trustworthy, save where it relates oc
currences of a marvelous and legendary character. Such is our
author’s conclusion, and in describing the career of the Jesus of his
tory, he relies almost exclusively upon the statements contained in the
first gospel. Let us now, after this long but inadequate introduction,
give a brief sketch of the life of Jesus, as it is to be found in our
author.
II.
Concerning the time and place of the birth of Jesus, we know next
to nothing. According to uniform tradition, based upon a statement
of the third gospel, he was about thirty years of age at the time when
he began teaching. The same gospel states, with elaborate precision,
that the public career of John the Baptist began in the fifteenth year
of Tiberius, or A. D. 28. In the winter of A. D. 35-36, Pontius Pilate
was recalled from Judaea, so that the crucifixion could not have taken
place later than in the spring of 35. Thus we have a period of about
six years during which the ministry of Jesus must have begun and
ended; and if the tradition with respect to his age be trustworthy, we
shall not be far out of the way in supposing him to have been born
somewhere between B. C. 5 and A. D. 5. He is everywhere alluded to
in the gospels as Jesus of Nazareth in Galilee, where lived also his
father, mother, brothers and sisters, and where very likely he was born.
His parents’ names are said to have been Joseph and Mary. His own
name is a Hellenized form of Joshua, a name very common among the
Jews. According to the first gospel (xiii. 55), he had four brothers,—
Joseph and Simon; James, who was afterward^
one
**
of the heads of
the church at Jerusalem, and the most formidable enemy of Paul; and
Judas or Jude, who is perhaps the author of the anti-Pauline epistle
commonly ascribed to him.
Of the early youth of Jesus, and of the circumstances which guided
his intellectual development, we know absolutely nothing, nor have we
the data requisite for forming any plausible hypothesis. He first
appears in history about A. D. 29 or 30, in connection with a very
remarkable person whom the third evangelist describes as his cousin,
and who seems, from his mode of life, to have been in some way con
nected with or influenced by the Hellenizing sect of Essenes. Here
we obtain our first clue to guide us in forming a consecutive theory of
the development of Jesus’ opinions. The sect of Essenes took its rise
in the times of the Maccabees, about B. C. 170. Upon the funda
mental doctrines of Judaism it had engrafted many Pythagorean
notions, and was doubtless in the time of Jesus instrumental in
spreading Greek ideas among the people of Galilee, whei^ Judaism
was far from being so narrow and rigid as at Jerusalem. The Essenes
�20
THE
JESUS
OF HISTORY.
•attached but little importance to the Messianic expectations of the
Pharisees, and mingled scarcely at all in national politics. They lived
for the most part a strictly ascetic life, being indeed the legitimate pre
decessors of the early Christian hermits and monks. But while pre
eminent for sanctity of life, they heaped ridicule upon the entire
sacrificial service of the Temple, despised the Pharisees as hypocrites,
and insisted upon charity toward all men instead of the old. Jewish
exclusiveness.
It was once a favorite theory that both John the Baptist and Jesus
were members of the Essenian brotherhood; but that theory is now
generally abandoned. Whatever may have been the case with John,
who is said to have lived like an anchorite in the desert, there seems to
have been but little practical Essenism in Jesus, who is almost uni
formly represented as cheerful and social in demeanor, and against
whom it was expressly urged that he came eating and drinking, making
no pretence of puritanical holiness. He was neither a puritan, like the
Essence, nor a ritualist, like the Pharisees. Besides-which, both John
and Jesus seem to have begun their careers by preaching the un-Essene
doctrine of the speedy advent of the “ kingdom of heaven,” by which is
meant the reign of the Messiah upon the earth. Nevertheless, though
we cannot regard Jesus as actually a member of the Essenian commu
nity or sect, we can hardly avoid the conclusion that he, as well as
John the Baptist, had been at some time strongly influenced by Es
senian doctrines. The spiritualized conception of the “kingdom of
heaven” proclaimed by him was just what would naturally and logi
cally arise from a remodeling of the Messianic theories of the Phar
isees in conformity to advanced Essenian notions. It seems highly
probable that some such refined conception of the functions of the
Messiah was reached by John, who, stigmatizing the Pharisees and
Sadducees as a “generation of vipers,” called aloud to the people to re
pent of their sins, in view of the speedy advent of the Messiah, and to
testify to their repentance by submitting to the Essenian rite of bap
tism. There is no positive evidence that Jesus was ever a disciple of
John; yet the account of the baptism, in spite of the legendary char
acter of its details, seems to rest upon a historical basis; and perhaps
the most plausible hypothesis which can be framed is, that Jesus re
ceived baptism at John’s hands, became for awhile his disciple, and
acquired from him a knowledge of Essenian doctrines.
The career of John seems to have been very brief. His stern puritanism brought him soon into disgrace with the government of Galilee.
He was seized by Herod, thrown into prison, and beheaded. After the
brief hints given as to the intercourse between Jesus and John, we next
hear of Jesus alone in the desert, where, like Sakyamuni and Moham
med, he may have brooded in solitude over his great project. Yet we
do not find that he had as yet formed any distinct conception of his
own Messiahship. The total neglect of chronology by our authorities
�THE JESUS
OF HISTORY.
21
renders it impossible to trace the development of his thoughts step by
step; but for some time after John’s catastrophe we find him calling
upon the people to repent, in view of the speedy approach of the Mes
siah, speaking with great and commanding personal authority, but
using no language which would indicate that he was striving to do
more than worthily fill the place and add to the good work of his late
master. The Sermon on the Mount, which the first gospel inserts in
this place, was probably never spoken as a continuous discourse; but it
no doubt for the most part contains the very words of Jesus, and repre
sents the general spirit of his teaching during this earlier portion of
his career. In this is contained nearly all that has made Christianity
so powerful in the domain of ethics. If all the rest of the gospel were
taken away, or destroyed in the night of some future barbarian inva
sion, we should still here possess the secret of the wonderful impression
which Jesus made upon those who heard him speak. Added to the
Essenian scorn of Pharisaic formalism, and the spiritualized conception
of the Messianic kingdom, which Jesus may probably have shared with
John the Baptist, we have here for the first time the distinctively
Christian conception of the fatherhood of God and the brotherhood of
men, which ultimately insured the success of the new religion. The
special point of originality in Jesus was his conception of Deity. As
Strauss well says, “ he conceived of God, in a moral point of view, as
being identical in character with himself in the most exalted moments
of his religious life, and strengthened in turn his own religious life by
this ideal. But the most exalted religious tendency in his own con
sciousness was exactly that comprehensive love, overpowering the evil
only by the good, and which he therefore transferred to God as the
fundamental tendency of His nature.” From this conception of God,
observes Zeller, flowed naturally all the moral teaching of Jesus; the
insistance upon spiritual righteousness instead of the mere mechanical
observance of Mosaic precepts; the call to be perfect even as the Father
is perfect; the principle of the spiritual equality of men before God and
the equal duties of all men toward each other.
How far, in addition to these vitally important lessons, Jesus may
have taught doctrines of an ephemeral or visionary character, it is very
difficult to decide. We are inclined to regard the third gospel as of
some importance in settling this point. The author of that gospel rep
resents Jesus as decidedly hostile to the rich. Where Matthew has
“ Blessed are the. poor in spirit,” Luke has “ Blessed are ye poor.” In
the first gospel we read, “ Blessed are they who hunger and thirst after
righteousness, for they will be filled; ” but in the third gospel we find,
“ Blessed are ye that hunger now, for ye will be filled; ” and this assur
ance is immediately followed by the denunciation, “ Woe to you that
are rich, for ye have received your consolation! Woe to you that are
full now, for ye will hunger.” The parable of Dives and Lazarus illus
trates concretely this view of the case, which is still further corroborated
�22
THE JESUS
OF HISTORY.
by the account, given in both the first and the third gospels, of the
young man who came to seek everlasting life. Jesus here maintains
that righteousness is insufficient unless voluntary poverty be super
added. Though the young man has strictly fulfilled the greatest of the
commandments—»to love his neighbor as himself—he is required, as a
needful proof of his sincerity, to distribute all his vast possessions
among the poor. And when he naturally manifests a reluctance to
perform so superfluous a sacrifice, Jesus observes that it will be easier
for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to
share in the glories of the anticipated Messianic kingdom. It is difficult to escape the conclusion that we have here a very primitive and
probably authentic, tradition; and when we remember the importance
which, according to the “ Acts,” the earliest disciples attached to the
principle of communism, as illustrated in the legend of Ananias and
Sapphira,.we must admit strong reasons for believing that Jesus him
self held views which tended toward the abolition of private property.
On this point, the testimony of the third evangelist singly is of consid
erable weight; since at the time when he wrote, the communistic the
ories of the first generation of Christians had been generally abandoned,
and in the absence of any dogmatic motives, he could only have inserted
these particular traditions because he believed them to possess histori
cal value. But we- are not dependent on the third gospel alone. The
story just cited is attested by both our authorities, and is in perfect
keeping with the general views of Jesus as reported by the first evan
gelist. Thus his disciples are enjoined to leave all, and follow him; to
take no thought for the morrow; to think no more of laying up treas
ures on the earth, for in the Messianic kingdom they shall have treas
ures in abundance, which can neither be wasted nor stolen. On
making their journeys, they are to provide neither money, nor clothes,
nor food, but are to live at the expense of those whom they visit; and
if any town refuse to harbor them, the Messiah, on his arrival, will deal
with that town more severely than Jehovah dealt with the cities of the
plain. Indeed, since the end of the world was to come before the end
of the generation then living (Matt. xxiv. 34; 1 Cor. xv. 51-56; vii, 29),
there could be no need for acquiring property or making arrangements
for the future; even marriage became unnecessary. These teachings
of Jesus have a marked Essenian character, as well as his declaration
that in the Messianic kingdom there was to be no more marriage, per
haps no distinction of sex (Matt. xxii. 30). The sect of Ebionites, who
represented the earliest doctrine and practice of Christianity before it
had been modified by Paul, differed from the Essenes in no essential
respect save in the acknowledgment of Jesus as the Messiah, and the
expectation of his speedy return to the earth.
How long, or with what success, Jesus continued to preach the
coming of the Messiah in Galilee, it is impossible to conjecture. His
fellow-townsmen of Nazareth appear to have ridiculed him in his pro
�THE JESUS
OF HISTORY.
23
phetical capacity; or, if we may trust the third evangelist, to have
arisen against him with indignation, and made an attempt upon his
life. To them he was but a carpenter, the son of a carpenter (Matt,
xiii. 55 ; Mark vi. 3), who told them disagreeable truths. Our author
represents his teaching in Galilee to have produced but little result,
but the gospel narratives afford no definite data for deciding this point.
We believe the most probable conclusion to be that Jesus did attract
many followers, and became famous throughout Galilee ; for Herod is
said to have regarded him as John the Baptist risen from the grave.
To escape the malice of Herod, Jesus then retired to Syro-Phoenicia,
and during this eventful journey, the consciousness of his own Messiahship seems for the first time to have distinctly dawned upon him
(Matt. xiv. 1, 13 ; xv. 21; xvi. 13-20). Already, it appears, specula
tions were rife as to the character of this wonderful preacher. Some
thought he was John the Baptist, or perhaps one of the prophets of the
Assyrian period returned to the earth. Some, in accordance with a
generally-received tradition, supposed him to be Elijah, who had never
seen death, and had now at last returned from the regions above the
firmament to announce the coming of the Messiah in the clouds. It
was generally admitted, among enthusiastic hearers, that he who spake
as never man spake before must have some divine commission to exe
cute. These speculations, coming to the ears of Jesus during his
preaching in Galilee, could not fail to excite in him a train of self-con
scious reflections. To him also must have been presented the query as
to his own proper character and functions ; and, as our author acutely
demonstrates, his only choice lay between a profitless life of exile in
Syro-Phoenicia, and a bold return to Jewish territory in some pro
nounced character. The problem being thus propounded, there could
hardly be a doubt as to what that character should be. Jesus knew
well that he was not John the Baptist; nor, however completely he
may have been dominated by his sublime enthusiasm, was it likely that
he could mistake himself for an ancient prophet arisen from the lower
world of shades, or for Elijah descended from the sky. But the Mes
siah himself he might well be. Such indeed was the almost inevitable
corollary from his own conception of Messiahship. We have seen that
he had, probably from the very outset, discarded the traditional notion
Qf a political Messiah, and recognized the truth that the happiness of a
people lies not so much in political autonomy as in the love of God and
the sincere practice of righteousness. The people were to be freed
from the bondage of sin, of meaningless formalism, of consecrated
hypocrisy,—a bondage more degrading than the payment of tribute to
the emperor. The true business of the Messiah, then, was to deliver
his people from the former bondage; it might be left to Jehovah, in
his own good time, to deliver them from the latter. Holding these
views, it was hardly possible that it should not sooner or later occur to
Jesus that he himself was the person destined to discharge this glorious
�34
THE JESUS
OF HISTORY.
function, to liberate his countrymen from the thraldom of Pharisaic
ritualism, and to inaugurate the real Messianic kingdom of spiritual
righteousness. Had he not already preached the advent of this spiritual
kingdom, and been instrumental in raising many to loftier conceptions
of duty, and to a higher and purer life ? And might he not now, by a
grand attack upon Pharisaism in its central stronghold, destroy its
prestige in the eyes of the people, and cause Israel to adopt a nobler
religious and ethical doctrine ? The temerity of such a purpose
detracts nothing from its sublimity. And if that purpose should be
accomplished, Jesus would really have performed the legitimate work
of the Messiah. Thus, from his own point of view, Jesus was thor
oughly consistent and rational in announcing himself as the expected
Deliverer; and in the eyes of the impartial historian his course is fully
justified.
From that time,” says the first evangelist, “ Jesus began to show
to his disciples, that he must go to Jerusalem, and suffer many things
from the elders and chief priests and scribes, and be put to death, and
rise again on the third day.” Here we have, obviously, the knowledge
of the writer, after the event, reflected back and attributed to Jesus.
It is of course impossible that Jesus should have predicted with such
definiteness his approaching death ; nor is it very likely that he enter
tained any hope of being raised from the grave “ on the third day.”
To a man in that age and country, the conception of a return from the
lower world of shades was not a difficult one to frame; and it may well
be that Jesus’ sense of his own exalted position was sufficiently great
to inspire him with the confidence that, even in case of temporary fail
ure, Jehovah would rescue him from the grave and send him back with
larger powers to carry out the purpose of his mission. But the diffi
culty of distinguishing between his own words and the interpretation
put upon them by his disciples becomes here insuperable; and there
will always be room for the hypothesis that Jesus had in view no
posthumous career of his own, but only expressed his unshaken confi
dence in the success of his enterprise, even after and in spite of his
death.
At all events, the possibility of his death must now have been often
in his mind. He was undertaking a well-nigh desperate task,—to
overthrow the Pharisees in Jerusalem itself. No other alternative was
left him.' And here we believe Mr. F. W. Newman to be singularly at
fault in pronouncing this attempt of Jesus upon Jerusalem a “fool
hardy ” attempt. According to Mr. Newman, no man has any busi
ness to rush upon certain death, and it is only a crazy fanatic who will
do so. But such “ glittering generalizations ” will here help us but
little. The historic data show that to go to Jerusalem, even at the
risk of death, was absolutely necessary to the realization of Jesus’ Mes
sianic project. Mr. Newman certainly would not have had him drag
out an inglorious and baffled existence in Syro-Phoenicia. If the
�THE JESUS
OF HISTORY.
25
Messianic kingdom was to be fairly inaugurated, there was work to be
done in Jerusalem, and Jesus must go there as one in authority,, cost
what it might- We believe him to have gone there in a spirit of grand
and careless braverv. vet seriously and soberly and under the influence
of no fanatical delusion. He knew the risks, but deliberately chose to
incur them, that the will of Jehovah might be accomplished.
We next hear of Jesus traveling down to Jerusalem by way of
Jericho,, and entering the sacred city in his character of Messiah, at
tended by a great multitude. It was near the time of the Passover,
when people from all parts of Galilee and Judaea were sure to be at
x
Jerusalem, and the nature of his reception seems to indicate that he
had already secured a considerable number of followers upon whose
assistance hc^might hope to rely, though it nowhere appears that he
intended to use other than purely moral weapons to insure a favorable
reception. We must remember that for half a century many of the
Jewish people had been constantly looking for the arrival of the Mes
siah, and there can be little doubt that the entry of Jesus riding upon
an ass in literal fulfilment of prophecy must have wrought powerfully
upon the imagination of the multitude. That the believers in him
were verv numerous must be inferred from the cautious, not to say
timid, behavior of the rulers at Jerusalem, who are represented as
Hearing to arrest him, but as deterred from taking active steps
through fear of the people. We are led to the same conclusion by his
driving the monev-changers out of the temple; an act upon which he
could hardly have ventured, had not the popular enthusiasm in his
favor been for the moment overwhelming. But the enthusiasm of a
mob is short-lived, and needs to be fed upon the excitement of brilliant
and dramatically arranged events. The calm preacher of righteousness,
or even the fierv denouncer of the scribes and Pharisees, could not
_ hope to retain nndiminished authority save by the display of extraor
dinary powers to which, so far as we know, Jesus (like Mohammed)
made no pretence. (Matt. xvi. 1—L) The ignorant and materialistic
populace could not understand the exalted conception of Messiahship
which had been formed by Jesus, and as day after day elapsed without
the appearance of any marvelous sign from Jehovah, their enthusiasm
must naturally have cooled down. Then the Pharisees appear cau
tiously endeavoring to entrap him into admissions which might render
him obnoxious to the Boman governor. He saw through their design,
however, and foiled them by the magnificent repartee, “ Render unto
Caesar the things that are Caesars, and unto God the things that are
God’s.” Nothing could more forcibly illustrate the completely non
political character of his Messianic doctrines. Nevertheless, we are
told that, failing in this attempt, the chief priests suborned false wit
nesses to testify against him: this sabbath-breaker, this derider of
Mosaic formalism, who with his Messianic pretensions excited the
people against their hereditary teachers, must at all events be put out
�26
THE JESUS
OF HIS T O R U.
of the way. Jesus must suffer the fate which society has too often had
in store for the reformer; the fate which Socrates and Savonarola,
Vanini and Bruno have suffered for being wiser than their own genera
tion. Messianic adventurers had already given much trouble to the
Roman authorities, who were not likely to scrutinize critically the
peculiar claims of Jesus. And when the chief priests accused him.
before Pilate of professing to be “ King of the Jews,” this claim could
in Roman apprehension bear but one interpretation. The offence was
treason, punishable, save in the case of Roman citizens, by crucifixion.
Such in its main outlines is the historic career of Jesus, as con
structed by our author from data furnished chiefly by the first gospel.
Connected .with the narrative there are many interesting topics of dis
cussion, of which our rapidly diminishing space will allow us to select
only one for comment. That one is perhaps the most important of all,
namely, the question as to how far Jesus anticipated the views of Paul
in admitting Gentiles to share in the privileges of the Messianic king
dom. Our author argues, writh much force, that the designs of Jesus
were entirely confined to the Jewish people, and that it was Paul
who first, by admitting Gentiles to the Christian fold without requiring
them to live like Jews, gave to Christianity the character of a universal
religion. Our author reminds us that the third gospel is not to be
depended upon in determining this point, since it manifestly puts
Pauline sentiments into the mouth of Jesus, and in particular attrib
utes to Jesus an acquaintance with heretical Samaria which the first
gospel disclaims. He argues that the apostles were in every respect
Jews, save in their belief that Jesus was the Messiah ; and he perti
nently asks, if James, who was the brother of Jesus, and Peter and
John, who were his nearest friends, unanimously opposed Paul and
stigmatized him as a liar and heretic, is it at all likely that Jesus had
ever distinctly sanctioned such views as Paul maintained ?
In the course of many years’ reflection upon this point, we have
several times been inclined to accept the narrow interpretation of
Jesus’ teaching here indicated; yet, on the whole, we do not believe it
can ever be conclusively established. In the first place it must be re
membered that if the third gospel throws a Pauline coloring .over the
events which it describes, the first gospel also shows a decidedly anti
Pauline bias, and the one party was as likely as the other to attribute
its own views to Jesus himself. One striking instance of this tendency
has been pointed out by Strauss, who has shown that the verses Matt,
v. 17-20, are an interpolation. The person who teaches men to break
the commandments is undoubtedly Paul, and in order to furnish a text
against Paul’s followers, the “ Nicolaitans,” Jesus is made to declare
that he came not to destroy one tittle of the law, but to fulfil the
whole in every particular. Such an utterance is in manifest contradic
tion to the spirit of Jesus’ teaching, as shown in the very same chapter,
and throughout a great part of the same gospel. He who taught in
�THE JESUS
OF HISTORY.
2Ÿ
his own name and not as the scribes, who proclaimed himself Lord
over the Sabbath, and who manifested from first to last a more than
Essenian contempt for rites and ceremonies, did not come to fulfil the
law of Mosaism, but to supersede it. Nor can any inference ad
verse to this conclusion be drawn from the injunction to the disciples,
(Matt. x. 5-7,) not to preach to Gentiles and Samaritans, but only “to
the lost sheep of the house of Israelfor this remark is placed before
the beginning of Jesus’ Messianic career, and the reason assigned for
the restriction is merely that the disciples will not have time even to
preach to all the Jews before the coming of the Messiah, whose ap
proach Jesus was announcing. (Matt. x. 23.)
These examples show that we must use caution in weighing the
testimony even of the first gospel, and must not too hastily cite it as
proof that Jesus supposed his mission to be restricted to the Jews.
When we come to consider what happened a few years after the death
of Jesus, we shall be still less ready to insist upon the view defended
by our anonymous author. Paul, according to his own confession, per
secuted the Christians unto death. Now what, in the theories or in
the practice of the Jewish disciples of Jesus, could have moved Paul
to such fanatic behavior ? Certainly not their spiritual interpretation
of Mosaism, for Paul himself belonged to the liberal school of Gama
liel, to the views of which the teachings and practices of Peter, James
and John might easily be accommodated. Probably not their belief in
Jesus as the Messiah, for at the riot in which Stephen was murdered
and all the Hellenist disciples driven from Jerusalem, the Jewish disci
ples were allowed to remain in the city unmolested. (See Acts viii.
1, 14.) This marked difference of treatment indicates that Paul re
garded Stephen and his friends as decidedly more heretical and obnox
ious than Peter, James and John, whom, indeed, Paul’s own master
Gamaliel had recently (Acts v. 34) defended before the council. And
this influence is fully confirmed by the account of Stephen’s death,
where his murderers charge him with maintaining that Jesus had
founded a new religion which was destined entirely to supersede and
replace Judaism. (Acts vi. 14.) The Petrine disciples never held
this view of the mission of Jesus; and to this difference it is undoubt
edly owing that Paul and his companions forbore to disturb them. It
would thus appear that even previous to Paul's conversion, within five
or six years after the death of Jesus, there was a prominent party
among the disciples which held that the new religion was not a modi
fication but an abrogation of Judaism ; and their name “ Hellenists ”
sufficiently shows either that there were Gentiles among them or that
they held fellowship with Gentiles. It was this which aroused Paul to
persecution, and upon his sudden conversion it was with these Hellen
istic doctrines that he fraternized, taking little heed of the Petrine
disciples (Galatians i. 15), who were hardly more than a Jewish
sect.
�Now the existence of these Hellenists at Jerusalem so soon after
the death of Jesus is clear proof that he had never distinctly and irrev
ocably pronounced against the admission of Gentiles to the Messianic
kingdom, and it makes it very probable that the downfall of Mosaism
as a result of his preaching was by no means unpremeditated. While,
on the other hand, the obstinacy of the Petrine party in adhering to
Jewish customs shows equally that Jesus could not have unequivocally
committed himself in favor of a new gospel for the Gentiles. Probably
Jesus was seldom brought into direct contact with others than Jews,
so that the questions concerning the admission of Gentile converts did
not come up during his lifetime; and thus the way was left open for
the controversy which soon broke out between the Petrine party and
Paul. Nevertheless, though Jesus may never have definitely pro
nounced. upon this point, it will hardly be denied that his teaching,
even as reported in the first gospel, is in its utter condemnation of for
malism far more closely allied to the Pauline than to the Petrine doc
trines. In his hands Mosaism became spiritualized until it really lost
its identity, and was transformed into a code fit for the whole Roman
world. And we do not doubt that if any one had asked Jesus whether
circumcision were an essential prerequisite for admission to the Mes
sianic kingdom, he would have given the same answer which Paul after
wards gave. We agree with Zeller and Strauss that, “as Luther was a
more liberal spirit than the Lutheran divines of the succeeding genera
tion, and Socrates a more profound thinker than Xenophon or Antisthenes, so also Jesus must be credited with having raised himself far
higher above the narrow prejudices of his nation than those of his dis
ciples who could scarcely understand the spread of Christianity among
the heathen when it had become an accomplished fact.”
THE JESUS OF DOGMA
*
HE meagerness of our information concerning the historic
career of Jesus stands in striking contrast to the mass of
information which lies within our reach concerning the
primitive character of Christologie speculation. First we
have the epistles of Paul, written from twenty to thirty years after
the crucifixion, which, although they tell us next to nothing about
T
* Saint-Paul. par Ernest Renan. Paris, 1869. (English translation. New
York : Carleton, 1869.)
Histoire du Dogme de la Divinité de Jesus-Christ, par Albert Réville.
Paris, 1869.
The End of the.World and the Day of Judgment. Two Discourses by
the Rev. W. R. Alger. Boston: Roberts Brothers, 1870.
�THE JESUS
OF DOGMA.
29
what Jesus did. nevertheless give us very plain information as to
the impression which he made. Then we have the Apocalypse,
written by John, AD. 68, which exhibits the Messianic theory en
tertained by the earliest disciples. Next we have the epistles to the
Hebrews, Philippians. Colossians, and Ephesians, besides the four gos
pels, constituting altogether a connected chain of testimony to the
progress of Christian doctrine from the destruction of Jerusalem to the
time of the quartodeciman controversy (A. D. 70-170). Finallv, there
is the vast collection of apocryphal, heretical, and patristic literature,
from the writings of Justin Martin, the pseudo-Clement, and the
pseudo-Ignatius, down to the time of the Council of Nikaia. when the
official theories of Christ's person assumed very nearly the shape which
they have retained, within the orthodox churches of Christendom,
down to the present day. As we pointed out in “ The Jesus of His
tory,” while all this voluminous literature throws but an uncertain
light upon the life and teachings of the founder of Christianity, it
nevertheless furnishes nearly all the data which we could desire for
knowing what the early Christians thought of the master of their
faith. Having given a brief account of the historic career of Jesus, so
far as it can now be determined, we propose here to sketch the rise and
progress of Christologic doctrine, in its most striking features, during
the first three centuries. Beginning with the apostolic view of the
human Messiah sent to deliver Judaism from its spiritual torpor, and
prepare it for the millennial kingdom, we shall briefly trace the pro
gressive metamorphosis of this conception until it completely loses its
identity in the Athanasian theory, according to which Jesus was God
himself, the creator of the universe, incarnate in human flesh.
The earliest dogma held by the apostles concerning Jesus was that
of his resurrection from the grave after death. It was not only the
earliest, but the most essential to the success of the new religion.
Christianity might have overspread the Roman Empire, and main
tained its hold upon men’s faith until to-day, without the dogmas of
the incarnation and the Trinity; but without the dogma of the resur
rection it would probably have failed at the very outset. Its lofty
morality would not alone have sufficed to insure its success. For what
men needed then, as indeed they still need, and will always need, was
not merely a rule of life and a mirror to the heart, but also a compre
hensive and satisfactory theory of things, a philosophy or theosophy.
The times demanded intellectual as well as moral consolation; and the
disintegration of ancient theologies needed to be repaired, that the new
ethical impulse imparted by Christianity might rest upon a plausible
speculative basis. The doctrine of the resurrection was but the begin
ning of a series of speculative innovations which prepared the way for
the new religion to emancipate itself from Judaism, and achieve the
conquest of the Empire. Even the faith of the apostles in the speedy
return of their master the Messiah must have somewhat lost ground,
�30
THE JESUS
OE DOGMA.
had it not been supported by their belief in his resurrection from the
grave and his consequent transfer from Sheol, the gloomy land of
shadows, to the regions above the sky.
The origin of the dogma of the resurrection cannot be determined
with certainty. The question has, during the past century, been the
subject of much discussion, upon which it is not necessary for us
here to comment. Such apparent evidence as there is in favor of the
old theory of Jesus’ natural recovery from the effects of the cruci
fixion, may be found in Salvador’s “ Jesus-Christ et sa Doctrine
but, as Zeller has shown, the theory is utterly unsatisfactory. The
natural return of Jesus to his disciples never could have given rise to
the notion of his resurrection, since the natural explanation would
have been the more obvious one; besides which, if we were to adopt
this hypothesis, we should be obliged to account for the fact that the
historic career of Jesus ends with the crucifixion. The most probable
explanation, on the whole, is the one suggested by the accounts in the
gospels, that the dogma of the resurrection is due originally to the
excited imagination of Mary of Magdala. The testimony of Paul may
also be cited in favor of this view, since he always alludes to earlier
Christophanies in just the same language which he uses in describing
his own vision on the road to Damascus.
But the question as to how the belief in the resurrection of Jesus
originated is of less importance than the question as to how it should
have produced the effect that it did. The dogma of the resurrection
has, until recent times, been so rarely treated from the historical point
of view, that the student of history at firsts finds some difficulty in
thoroughly realizing its import to the minds of those who first pro
claimed it. We cannot hope to understand it without bearing in mind
the theories of the Jews and early Christians concerning the structure
of the world and the cosmic location of departed souls. Since the time
of Copernicus modern Christians no longer attempt to locate heaven
and hell; they are conceived merely as mysterious places remote from
the earth. The theological universe no longer corresponds to that
which physical science presents for our contemplation. It was quite
different with the Jew. His conception of the abode of Jehovah
and the angels, and of departed souls, was exceedingly simple and
definite. In the Jewish theory the universe is like a sort of threestory house. The flat earth rests upon the waters, and under the
earth’s surface is the land of graves, called Sheol, where after death the
souls of all men go, the righteous as well as the wicked, for the Jew
had not arrived at the doctrine of heaven and hell. The Hebrew Sheol
corresponds strictly to the Greek Hades, before the notions of Elysium
and Tartarus were added to it,—a land peopled with flitting shadows,
suffering no torment, but experiencing no pleasure, like those whom
Dante met in one of the upper circles of his Inferno. Sheol is the first
story of the cosmic house ; the earth is the second. Above the earth is
�TH R
JESUS
Of
DOGMA.
31
the firmament or sky, which, according to the book of Genesis (chap. i.
v. 6, Hebrew text), is a vast plate hammered out by the gods, and sup
ports a great ocean like that upon which the earth rests. Rain is
caused by the opening of little windows or trap-doors in the firmament,
through which pours the water of this upper ocean. Upon this water
rests the land of heaven, where Jehovah reigns, surrounded by hosts
of angels. To this blessed land two only of the human race had ever
been admitted,—Enoch and Elijah, the latter of whom had ascended in
a chariot of fire, and was destined to return .to earth as the herald and
forerunner of the Messiah. Heaven forms the third story of the cosmic
house. Between the firmament and the earth is the air, which is the
habitation of evil demons ruled by Satan, the “prince of the powers of
the air.”
Such was the cosmology of the ancient Jew ; and his theology was
equally simple. Sheol was the destined abode of all men after death,
and no theory of moral retribution was attached to the conception.
The rewards and punishments known to the authors of the Pentateuch
and the early Psalms are all earthly rewards and punishments. But in
course of time the prosperity of the wicked and the misfortunes of the
good man furnished a troublesome problem for the Jewish thinker;
and after the Babylonish Captivity, we find the doctrine of a resurrec
tion from Sheol devised in order to meet this case. According to this
doctrine—which was borrowed from the Zarathustrian theology of
Persia—the Messiah on his arrival was to free from Sheol all the souls
of the righteous, causing them to ascend reinvested in their bodies to a
renewed and beautiful earth, while on the other hand the wicked were
to be punished with, tortures like those of the valley of Hinnom, or
were to be immersed in liquid brimstone, like that which had rained
upon Sodom and Gomorrah. Here we get the first announcement of
a future state of retribution. The doctrine was peculiarly Pharisaic,
and the Sadducees, who were strict adherents to the letter of Mosaism,
rejected it to the last. By degrees this doctrine became coupled with
the Messianic theories of the Pharisees. The loss of Jewish independ
ence under the dominion of Persians, Macedonians and Romans, caused
the people to look over more earnestly toward the expected time when
the Messiah should appear in Jerusalem to deliver them from their
oppressors. The moral doctrines of the Psalms and earlier prophets
assumed an increasingly political aspect. The Jews were the righteous
“ under a cloud,” whose sufferings were symbolically depicted by the
younger Isaiah as the afflictions of the “ servant of Jehovah;” while on
the other hand, the “ wicked ” were the Gentile oppressors of the holy
people. Accordingly the Messiah, on his arrival, was to sit in judg
ment in the valley of Jehoshaphat, rectifying the. wrongs of his chosen
ones, condemning the Gentile tyrants to the torments of Gehenna, and
raising from Sheol all those Jews who had lived and died during the
evil times before his coming. These were to find in the Messianic
�32
THE JESUS
OF DOGMA.
kingdom the compensation for the ills which they had suffered in their
first earthly existence. Such are the main outlines of the theory found
in the Book of Enoch, written about B. C. 100, and it is adopted in the
Johannine Apocalypse, with little variation, save in the recognition of
Jesus as the Messiah, and in the transference to his second coming of
all these wonderful proceedings. The manner of the Messiah's coming
had been variously imagined. According to an earlier view, he was to
enter Jerusalem as a King of the house of David, and therefore of
human lineage. According to a later view, presented in the Book of
Daniel, he was to descend from the sky, and appear among the clouds.
Both these views were adopted by the disciples of Jesus, who harmo
nized them by referring the one to his first and the other to his second
appearance.
Now to the imaginations of these earliest disciples the belief in the
resurrection of Jesus presented itself as a needful guarantee of his
Messiahship. Their faith, which must have been shaken by his execu
tion and descent into Sheol, received welcome confirmation by the
springing up of the belief that he had been again seen upon the face
of the earth. Applying the imagery of Daniel, it became a logical
conclusion that he must have ascended into the sky, whence he might
shortly be expected to make his appearance, to enact the scenes foretold
in prophecy. That such was the actual process of inference is shown
by the legend of the Ascension in the first chapter of the “Acts,” and
especially by the words, “This Jesus who hath been taken up from you
into heaven, will come in the same manner in which ye beheld him
going into heaven.” In the Apocalvpse, written A. T). G8, just after
the death of Nero, this second coming is described as something im
mediately to happen, and the colors in which it is depicted show how
closely allied were the Johannine notions to those of the Pharisees.
The glories of the New Jerusalem are to be reserved for Jews, while
for the Roman tyrants of Judaea is reserved a fearful retribution.
They are to be trodden under-foot by the Messiah, like grapes in a
wine-press, until the gushing blood shall rise to the height of the
horse’s bridle.
In the writings of Paul, the dogma of the resurrection assumes a
very different aspect. Though Paul, like the older apostles, held that
Jesus, as the Messiah, was to return to the earth within a few years, yet
to his catholic mind this anticipated event had become divested of its
narrow Jewish significance. In the eyes of Paul, the religion preached
by Jesus was an abrogation of Mosaism, and the truths contained in it
were a free gift to the Gentile as well as to the Jewish world. Accord
ing to Paul, death came into the world as a punishment for the sin of
Adam. By this he meant that, had it not been for the original trans
gression, all men escaping death would either have remained upon
earth or have been conveyed to heaven, like Enoch and Elijah, in in
corruptible bodies. But in reality as a penance for disobedience, all
�THE
JESUS
OF
DOGMA.
33
men, with these two exceptions, had suffered death, and been exiled
to the gloomy caverns of Sheol. The Mosaic ritual was powerless to
free men from this repulsive doom, but it had nevertheless served a
good purpose in keeping men’s minds directed toward holiness, pre
paring them, as a schoolmaster would prepare his pupils, to receive the
vitalizing truths of Christ. Now, at last, the Messiah or Christ had
come as a second Adam, and being without sin had been raised by Je
hovah out of Sheol and taken up into heaven, as testimony to men
that the power of sin and death was at last defeated. The wav hence
forth to avoid death and escape the exile to Sheol was to live spiritually
like Jesus, and with him to be dead to sensual requirements. Faith,
in Paul’s apprehension, was not an intellectual assent to definitely pre
scribed dogmas, but, as Matthew Arnold has well pointed out, it was
an emotional striving after righteousness, a developing consciousness
of God in the soul, such as Jesus had possessed, or in Paul’s phrase
ology, a subjugation of the flesh by the spirit. All those who should
thus seek spiritual perfection should escape the original curse. The
Messiah was destined to return to the earth to establish the reign of
spiritual holiness, probably during Paul’s own lifetime. (1 Cor. xv.
51.) Then the true followers of Jesus should be clothed in ethereal
bodies, free from the imperfections of “ the flesh,” and should ascend
to heaven without suffering death, while the righteous dead should at
the same time be released from Sheol, even as Jesus himself had been
released.
To the doctrine of the resurrection, in which ethical and speculative
elements are thus happily blended by Paul, the new religion doubtless
owed in great part its rapid success. Into an account of the causes
which favored the spreading of Christianity, it is not our purpose to
enter at present. * ut we may note that the local religions of the ancient
B
pagan world had partly destroyed each other by mutual intermingling,
and had lost their hold upon people from the circumstance that their
ethical teaching no longer corresponded to the advanced ethical feeling,
of the age. Polytheism, in short, was outgrown. It was outgrown
both intellectually and morally. People were ceasing to believe in its
doctrines, and were ceasing to respect its precepts. The learned were
taking refuge in philosophy, the ignorant in mystical superstitions im
ported Trom Asia. The commanding ethical motive of ancient repub
lican times had been patriotism—devotion to the interests of the com
munity. But Roman dominion had destroyed patriotism as a guiding
principle of life, and thus in every way the minds of men were left in
a sceptical, unsatisfied state,—craving after a new theory of life, and
craving after a new stimulus to right action. Obviously the only
theology which could now be satisfactory to philosophy or to common
sense was some form of monotheism;—some system of doctrines which
should represent all men as spiritually subjected to the will of a single
God, just as they were subjected to the temporal authority of the Em
�34
THE JESUS
Of DOGMA.
peror. And similarly the only system of ethics which could have a
chance of prevailing must be some system which should clearly pre
scribe the mutual duties of all men without distinction of race or
locality. Thus the spiritual morality of Jesus, and his conception of
God as a father and of all men as brothers, appeared at once to meet
the ethical and speculative demands of the time.
Yet whatever effect these teachings might have produced, if un
aided by further doctrinal elaboration, was enhanced myriadfold by the
elaboration which they received at the hands of Paul. Philosophic
Stoics and Epicureans had arrived at the conception of the brotherhood
of men, and the Greek hymn of Kleanthes had exhibited a deep spirit
ual sense of the fatherhood of God. The originality of Christianity lay
not so much in its enunciation of new ethical precepts as in the fact
that it furnished a new ethical sanction—a commanding incentive to
holiness of living. That it might accomplish this result, it was abso
lutely necessary that it should begin by discarding both the ritualism
and the narrow theories of Judaism. The mere desire for a mono
theistic creed had led many pagans, in Paul’s time, to embrace Juda
ism, in spite of its requirements, which to Romans and Greeks were
meaningless, and often, disgusting; but such conversions could never
have been numerous. Judaism could never have conquered the Roman
world; nor is it likely that the Judaical Christianity of Peter, James,
and John would have been any more successful. The doctrine of the
resurrection, in particular, was not likely to prove attractive wheu ac
companied by the picture of the Messiah treading the Gentiles in the
wine-press of his righteous indignation. But here Paul showed his
profound originality. The condemnation of Jewish formalism which
*
Jesus had pronounced, Paul turned against the older apostles, who in
sisted upon circumcision. With marvelous flexibility of mind, Paul
placed circumcision and the Mosaic injunctions about meats upon a
level with the ritual observances of pagan nations, allowing each feeble
brother to perform such works as might tickle his fancy, but bidding
all take heed that salvation was not to be obtained after any such me
chanical method, but only by devoting the whole soul to righteousness,
after the example of Jesus.
This was the negative part of Paul’s work. This was the knocking
down of the barriers which had kept men, and would always have kept
them, from entering into the kingdom of heaven. But the positive
part of Paul’s work is contained in his theory of the salvation of men
from death through the second Adam, whom Jehovah rescued from
Sheol for his sinlessness. The resurrection of Jesus was the visible
token of the escape from death which might be achieved by all men
who, with God’s aid, should succeed in freeing themselves from thè
burden of sin which had encumbered all the children of Adam. The
end of the world was at hand, and they who would live with Christ
must figuratively die with Christ—must become dead to sin. Thus to
�THE
JESUS
OF DOGMA.
35
the pure and spiritual ethics contained in the teachings of Jesus, Paul
added an incalculably’powerful incentive to right action, and a theory
of life calculated to satisfy the speculative necessities of the pagan or
v Gentile world. To the educated and sceptical Athenian, as to the criti
cal scholar of modern times, the physical resurrection of Jesus from the
grave, and his ascent through the vaulted floor of heaven, might seem
foolishness or naïveté. But to the average. Greek or Roman the con
ception presented no serious difficulty. The cosmical theories upon
. which the conception was founded were essentially the same among
Jews and Gentiles, and indeed were but little modified until the estab
lishment of the Copernican astronomy. The doctrine of the Messiah’s
second coming was also received without opposition, and for about a
century men lived in continual anticipation of that event, until hope
long deferred produced its usual results ; the writings in which that
event was predicted were gradually explained away, ignored, or stigma
tized as uncanonical ; and the Church ended by condemning as a
heresy the very doctrine which Paul and the Judaizing apostles, who
agreed in little else, had alike made the basis of their spéculative
teachings. Nevertheless, by the dint of allegorical interpretation, the
belief has maintained an obscure existence even down to the present
time ; the Antiochus of the Book of Daniel and the Nero of the Apoc
alypse having given place to the Roman Pontiff or to the Emperor of
the French.
But as the millenarism of the primitive Church gradually died out
during the second century, the essential principles involved in it lost
none of their hold on men’s minds. As the generation contemporary
with Paul died away and was gathered into Sheol, it became apparent
that the original theory must be somewhat modified, and to this ques
tion the author of the second epistle to the Thessalonians addresses
himself. Instead of literal preservation from death, the doctrine of a
resurrection from the grave was gradually extended to the case of the
new believers, who were to share in the same glorious revival with the
righteous of ancient times. And thus by slow degrees the victory over
death, of which the resurrection of Jesus was a symbol and a witness,
became metamorphosed into the comparatively modern doctrine of the
rest of the saints in heaven, while the banishment of the unrighteous
to Sheol was -made still more dreadful by coupling with the vague con
ception of a gloomy subterranean cavern the horrible imagery of the
lake of tire and brimstone borrowed from the apocalyptic descriptions
of Gehenna. But in this modification of the original theory, the fun
damental idea of a future state of retribution was only the more dis
tinctly emphasized; although, in course of time, the original incentive
to righteousness supplied by Paul was more and more subordinated to
the comparatively degrading incentive involved in the fear of damna
tion. There can hardly be a doubt that the definiteness and vividness
• of the Pauline theory of a future life contributed very largely to the
�36
THE JESUS
OF DOGMA.
rapid spread of the Christian religion; nor can it be doubted that to
the desire to be holy like Jesus, in order to escape death and live with
Jesus, is due the elevating ethical influence which, even in the worst
times of ecclesiastic degeneracy, Christianity has never failed to exert.
Doubtless, as Lessing long ago observed, the notion of future reward
and punishment needs to be eliminated in order that the incentive to
holiness may be a perfectly pure one. The highest virtue is that which
takes no thought of reward or punishment; but for a conception of
this sort the mind of antiquity was not ready, nor is the average mind
of to-day yet ready; and the sudden or premature dissolution of the
Christian theory—which is fortunately impossible—would no doubt
entail a moral retrogradation.
The above is by no means intended as a complete account of the
religious philosophy of Paul. We have aimed only at a clear definition
of the character and scope of the doctrine of the resurrection of Jesus,
at the time when it was first elaborated. We have now to notice the
influence of that doctrine upon the development of Christo logic specu
lation.
In neither of the four genuine epistles of Paul is Jesus described
as superhuman, or as differing in nature from other men, save in his
freedom from sin. As Baur has shown, “the proper nature of the
Pauline Christ is human. He is a man, but a spiritual man, one in
whom spirit or pneumo, was the essential principle, so that he was
spirit as well as man. The principle of an ideal humanity existed
before Christ in the bright form of a typical man, but was manifested
to mankind in the person of Christ.” Such, according to Baur, is
Paul’s interpretation of the Messianic idea. Paul knows nothing of
the miracles, of the supernatural conception, of the incarnation, or of
the Logos. The Christ whom he preaches is the man Jesus, the
founder of a new and spiritual order of humanity, as Adam was the
father of humanity after the flesh. The resurrection is uniformly
described by him as a manifestation of the power of Jehovah, not of
Jesus himself. The later conception of Christ bursting the barred
gates of Sheol, and arising by his own might to heaven, finds no
warrant in the expressions of Paul. Indeed it was essential to Paul’s
theory of the Messiah as a new Adam, that he should be human and
not divine ; for the escape of a divine being from Sheol could afford no
precedent and furnish no assurance of the future escape of human
beings. It was expressly because the man Jesus had been rescued from
the grave because of his spirituality, that other men might hope, by
becoming spiritual like him, to be rescued also. Accordingly Paul is
careful to state that “ since through man came death, through man
came also the resurrection of the dead” (1 Cor. xv. 21); a passage
which would look like an express denial of Christ’s superhuman
character, were it probable that any of Paul’s contemporaries had ever
conceived of Jesus as other than essentially human.
�THE JESES
OE DOGMA.
But though Paul’s Christology remained in this primitive stage, it
contained the germs of a more advanced theory. For even Paul con
ceived of Jesus as a man wholly exceptional in spiritual character ; or,
in the phraseology of the time, as consisting to a larger extent of
pneuma than any man who had lived before him. The question was
sure to arise, whence came thisyuie^ma or spiritual quality? Whether
the question ever distinctly presented itself to Paul’s mind cannot be
determined. Probably it did not. In those writings of his which
have come down to us, he shows himself careless of metaphysical con
siderations. He is mainly concerned with exhibiting the unsatisfactory
character of Jewish Christianity, and with inculcating a spiritual
morality, to which the doctrine of Christ’s resurrection is made to
supply a surpassingly powerful sanction. But attempts to solve the
problem were not long in coming. According to a very early tradition,
of which the obscured traces remain in the ^noptic gospels, Jesus
received theyme/wn« at the time of his baptism, when the Holy Spirit,
or visible manifestation of the essence of Jehovah, descended upon him
and became incarnate in him. This theory, however, was exposed to
the objection that it implied a sudden and entire transformation of an
ordinary man into a person inspired or possessed by the Deity.
Though long maintained by the Ebionites or primitive Christians, it
was very soon rejected by the great body of the Church, which asserted
instead that Jesus had been inspired by the Holy Spirit from the
moment of his conception. From this it was but a step to the theory
that Jesus was actually begotten by or of the Holy Spirit; a notion
which the Hellenic mind, accustomed to the myths of Leda, Anchises,
and others, found no difficulty in entertaining. According to the
Gospel of the Hebrews, as cited by Origen, the Holy Spirit was the
mother of Jesus, and Joseph was his father. But according to the
prevailing opinion, as represented in the first and third synoptists, the
relationship was just the other way. With greater apparent plausibil
ity, the divine vEon was substituted for the human father, and a myth
sprang up, of which the materialistic details furnished to the oppo
nents of the new religion an opportunity for making the most gross
and exasperating insinuations. • The dominance of this theory marks
the era at which our first and third synoptic gospels were composed,—
from sixty to ninety years after the death of Jesus. In the luxuriant
mythologic growth there exhibited, we may yet trace the various suc
cessive phases of Christologic speculation but imperfectly blended. In
“Matthew” and “Luke” we find the original Messianic theory ex
emplified in the genealogies of Jesus, in which, contrary to historic
probability, (cf. Matt. xxii. 41-46,) but in accordance with a tihiehonored tradition, his pedigree is traced back to David ; “ Matthew ”
referring him to the royal line of Judah, while “ Luke ” more cautiously
has recourse to an assumed younger branch. Superposed upon this
primitive mythologic stratum, we find, in the same narratives, the ac-
�38
>
b
I
i
THE JESUS
OF DOGMA.
count of the descent of the pneumo, at the time of the baptism ; and
crowning the whole, there are the two accounts of the nativity which,
though conflicting in nearly all their details, agree in representing the
divine pneuma as the father of Jesus. Of these three stages of
Christology, the last becomes entirely irreconcilable with the first; and
nothing can better illustrate the uncritical character of the synoptists
than the fact that the assumed descent of Jesus from David through
his father Joseph is allowed to stand side by side with the account of
the miraculous conception which completely negatives it. Of this
difficulty “Matthew” is quite unconscious, and “Luke,” while vaguely
noticing it, (iii. 23,) proposes no solution, and appears .undisturbed by
the contradiction.
Thus far the Christology with which we have been dealing is pre
dominantly Jewish, though to some extent influenced by Hellenic
conceptions. None of the successive doctrines presented in Paul,
“ Matthew,” and “ Luke,” assert or imply the pre-existence of Jesus.
At this early period he was regarded as a human being raised to parti
cipation in certain attributes of divinity; and this was as far as the
dogma could be carried by the Jewish metaphysics. But soon after
the date of our third gospel, a Hellenic system of Christology arose
into prominence, in which the problem was reversed, and Jesus was
regarded as a semi-divine being temporarily lowered to participation in
certain attributes of humanity. For such a doctrine Jewish mythol
ogy supplied no precedents; but the Indo-European mind was familiar
with the conception of deity incarnate in human form, as in the
avatars of Vishnu, or even suffering in the interests of humanity, as in
the noble myth of Prometheus. The elements of Christology pre-ex
isting in the religious conceptions of Greece, India, and Persia, are too
rich and numerous to be discussed here. A very full account of them
is given in Mr. R. W. Mackay’s treatise on the “ Religious Development
of the Greeks and Hebrews,”—one of the most acute and erudite theo
logical works which this century has produced.
It was in Alexandria, where Jewish theology first came into contact
with Hellenic and Oriental ideas, that the way was prepared for the
dogma of Christ’s pre-existence. The attempt to rationalize the con
ception of deity as embodied in the Jehovah of the Old Testament,
gave rise to the class of opinions described as Gnosis, or Gnosticism.
The signification of Gnosis is simply “rationalism,”—the endeavor to
harmonize the materialistic statements of an old mythology with the
more advanced spiritualistic philosophy of the time. The Gnostics
rejected the conception of an anthropomorphic deity who had appeared
visibly and audibly to th^ patriarchs ; and they were the authors of the
doctrine, very widely spread during the second and third centuries,
that God could not in person have been the creator of the world. Ac
cording to them, God, as pure spirit, could not act directly upon vile
and gross matter. The difficulty which troubled them was curiously
�THE ,J E 8 US
OF
D () C M J
39
analogous to that which disturbed the Cartesians and followers of Leib
nitz in the seventeenth century : how was spirit to act upon matter,
without ceasing, pro tanto, to be spirit ? To meet this difficulty, the
Gnostics postulated a series of emanations from God, becoming success
ively less and less spiritual and more and more material, until at the
lowest end of the scale was reached the Demiurgus or Jehovah of the
Old Testament, who created the world and appeared, clothed in mate
rial form, to the patriarchs. According to some of the Gnostics, this
lowest mon or emanation was identical with the Jewish Satan, or Ahri
man of the Persians, who is called “ the prince of this world,” and the
creation of the world was an essentially evil act. But all did not share
in these extreme opinions. In the prevailing theory, this last of the
divine emanations was identified with the “ Sophia,” or personified
“Wisdom,” of the Book of Proverbs, (viii. 22-30,) who is described as
present with God before the foundation of the world. The totality of
these icons constituted the ptleroma, or “ fullness of God,” (Coloss. i. 20;
Ephes, i. 23,) and in a corollary which bears unmistakable marks of
Buddhist influence, it was argued that, in the final consummation of
things, matter should be eliminated and all spirit reunited with God,
from whom it had primarily flowed.
It was impossible that such .views as these should not soon be taken
up and applied to the fluctuating Christology of the time. According
to the “ Shepherd of Hermas,” an apocalyptic writing nearly contem
porary with the gospel of “ Mark,” the ¿eon or son of God who existed
previous to the creation was not the Christ, or the Sophia, but the
Pneuma or Holy Spirit, represented in the Old Testament as the
“angel of Jehovah.” Jesus, in reward for his perfect goodness, was
admitted to a share in the privileges of this Pneuma. (Reville, p. 39.)
Here, as M. Reville observes, though a Gnostic idea is adopted, Jesus is
nevertheless viewed as ascending humanity, and not as descending
divinity. The author of the “Clementine Homilies” advances a step
farther, and clearly assumes the pre-existence of Jesus, who, in his
opinion, was the pure, primitive man, successively incarnate in Adam,
Enoch, Noah, Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Moses, and finally in the Messiah
or Christ. The author protests, in vehement language, against those
Hellenists who, misled by their polytheistic associations, would elevate
Jesus into a god. Nevertheless his own hypothesis of pre-existence
supplied at once the requisite fulcrum for those Gnostics who wished
to reconcile a strict monotheism with the ascription of divine attri
butes to Jesus. Combining With this notion of pre-existence the pneu
matic or spiritual quality attributed to Jesus in the writings of Paul,
the gnosticising Christians maintained that Christ was an mon or em
anation from God, redeeming men from the consequences entailed by
their imprisonment in matter. At this stage of Christologic specu
lation appeared the anonymous epistle to the “Hebrews,” and the
pseudo-Pauline euistles to the “Colossians,” “Ephesians,”and “Philip-
�40
THE
JESUS
OF DOGMA.
pians.” (A. D. 130.) In these epistles, which originated among the
Pauline Christians, the Gnostic theosophy is skillfully applied to the
Pauline conception of the scope and purposes of Christianity. Jesus
is described as the creator of the world, (Coloss. i. 16,) the visible image
J •
of the invisible God, the chief and ruler of the “thrones, dominions,
¡principalities and powers,” into which, in Gnostic phraseology, the em
anations of God were classified. Or, according to “ Colossians ” and
t1|
“ Ph ilippians,” all the ieons are summed up in him, in whom dwells
the pleroma, or “fullness of God.” Thus Jesus is elevated quite above
ordinary humanity, and a close approach is made to ditheism, although
he is still emphatically subordinated to God by being made the creator
of the world,—an office then regarded as incompatible with absolute
divine perfection. In the celebrated passage, “ Philippians” ii. 6-11,
the aeon Jesus is described as being the form or visible manifestation
of God, yet as humbling himself by taking on the form or semblance
of humanity, and suffering death, in return for which he is to be exalt•
ed even above the archangels. A similar view is taken in “ Hebrews ; ”
and it is probable that to the growing favor with which these doctrines
were received, we owe the omission of the miraculous conception from
the gospel of “Mark,”—a circumstance which has misled some critics
into assigning to that gospel an earlier date than to “ Matthew” and
“ Luke.” Yet the fact that in this gospel Jesus is implicitly ranked
above the angels, (Mark xiii, 32, 33,) reveals a later stage of Christologic doctrine than that reached-by the first and third synoptists; and
if is altogether probable that, in accordance with the noticeable con
ciliatory disposition of this evangelist, the supernatural conception is
omitted out of deference to the gnosticising theories of “ Colossians ”
and “Philippians,” in which this materialistic doctrine seems to have
had no assignable place. In “ Philippians ” especially, many expres
sions seem to verge upon Docefism, the extreme form of Gnosticism,
according to which the human body of Jesus was only a phan tom.
Valentinus, who was contemporary with the Pauline writers of the
second century, maintained that Jesus was not born of Mary by any
process of conception, but merely passed through her, as light traverses
a translucent substance. And finally Marcion (A. D. 140) carried the
theory to its extreme limits by declaring that Jesus was the pure Pneuma or Spirit, who contained nothing in common with carnal humanity.
The pseudo-Pauline writers steered clear of this extravagant doc
trine, which erred by breaking entirely with historic tradition, and was
consequently soon condemned as heretical. Their language, though
unmistakably Gnostic, was sufficiently neutral and indefinite to allow
of their combination with earlier and later expositions of dogma,
and they were therefore eventually received into the canon, where they
exhibit a stage of opinion midway between that of Paul and that of
the fourth gospel.
For the construction of a durable system of Christology, still
i
t
�THE JESUS
OF DOGMA.
41
further elaboration was necessary. The pre-existence of Jesus, as an
emanation from God, in whom were summed up the attributes of the
pleroma or full scale of Gnostic a?ons, was now generally conceded.
Blit the relation of this pleroma to the Godhead of which it was the
visible manifestation, needed to be more-accurately defined. And here
recourse was had to the conception of the “Logos,”—a notion which
Philo had borrowed from Plato, lending to it a theosophic significance.
In the Platonic metaphysics, objective existence was attributed to
general terms, the signs of general notions. Besides each particular
man, horse, or tree, and besides all men, horses, and trees, in the
aggregate, there was supposed to exist an ideal Man, Horse, and Tree.
Each particular man, hors#, or tree consisted of abstract existence plus
a portion of the ideal man, horse, or tree. Socrates, for instance, con
sisted of Existence, plus Animality, plus Humanity, plus Socraticity.
The visible world of particulars thus existed only by virtue of its par
ticipation in the attributes of the ideal world of universals. God
created the world by encumbering each idea with an envelopment or
clothing of visible matter; and since matter is vile or imperfect, all
things are more or less perfect as they partake more or less fully of the
idea. The pure unencumbered idea, the “ Idea of ideas,” is the Logos,
or divine Reason, which represents the sum-total of the activities
which sustain the world, and serves as a mediator between the abso
lutely ideal God and the absolutely non-ideal matter. Here we arrive
at a Gnostic conception, which the Philonists of Alexandria were not
slow to appropriate. The Logos, or divine Reason, was identified with
the Sophia, or divine Wisdom of the Jewish Gnostics, which had dwelt
with God before the creation of the world. By a subtle play upon the
double meaning of the Greek term {logos = “ reason ” or “ word,”) a
distinction was drawn between the divine Reason and the divine Word.
The former was the archetypal idea or thought of God, existing from
all eternity; the latter was the external manifestation or realization of
that idea which occurred at the moment of creation, when, according
to Genesis, God spoke, and the world was.
In the middle of the second century, this Philonian theory was the
one thing needful to add metaphysical precision to the Gnostic and
Pauline speculations concerning the nature of Jesus. In the writings
of Justin Martyr, (A. D. 150-1G6,) Jesus is for the first time identified
with the Philonian logos or “Word of God.” According to Justin, an
impassable abyss exists between the Infinite Deity and the Finite
World; the one cannot act upon the other; pure spirit cannot con
taminate itself by contact with impure matter. To meet this difficulty,
God evolves from himself a secondary God, the Logos,—yet without
diminishing himself any more than a flame is diminished when it
gives birth to a second flame. Thus generated, like light begotten of
light, {lumen de lumine,) the Logos creates the world, inspires the
ancient prophets with their divine revelations, and finally reveals him
�42
THE
JESUS
OE DOGMA.
self to mankind in the person of Christ. Yet Justin sedulously guards
himself against ditheism, insisting frequently and emphatically upon
the immeasurable inferiority of the Logos as compared with the actual
God (7zo ontos theos.)
We have here reached very nearly the ultimate phase of New Tes
tament speculation concerning Jesus. The doctrines enunciated by
Justin became eventually, with slight modification, the official doc
trines of the Church : yet before they could thus be received, some
further elaboration was needed. The pre-existing Logos-Christ of
Justin was no longer the human Messiah of the firstand third gos
pels, born of a woman, inspired by the divine Pneuma, and tempted
by the Devil. There was danger that Christologie speculation might
break quite loose from historic tradition, and pass into the metaphysical
extreme of Docetism. Had this come to pass, there might perhaps
have been a fatal schism in the Church. Tradition still remained
Ebionitish ; dogma had become decidedly Gnostic ; how were the two
to be moulded into harmony with each other ? Such was the prob
lem which presented itself to the author of the fourth gospel (A. D.
170-180). As M. Réville observes, “if the doctrine of the Logos
were really to be applied to the person of Jesus, it was necessary to re
model the evangelical history.” Tradition must be moulded so as to
fit the dogma, but the dogma must be restrained by tradition from
running into Docetic extravagance. It must 'be shown historically
how “ the Word became flesh ” and dwelt on earth, (John i. 14,) how
the deeds of Jesus of Nazareth were the deeds of the incarnate Logos,
in whom was exhibited the pleroma or fullness of the divine attri
butes. The author of the fourth gospel is, like Justin, a Philonian
Gnostic; but he differs from Justin in his bold and skilful treatment
of the traditional materials supplied by the earlier gospels. The prooess of development in the theories and purposes of Jesus, which can
be traced throughout the Messianic descriptions of the first gospel,
is entirely obliterated in the fourth. Here Jesus appears at the out
set as the creator of the world, descended from his glory, but des
tined soon to be reinstated. The title “ Son of Man ” has lost its
original significance, and become synonymous with “ Son of God.”
The temptation, the transfiguration, the scene in Gethsemane, are
omitted, and for the latter is substituted a Philonian prayer. Never
theless, the author carefully avoids the extremes of Docetism or di
theism. Not only does he represent the human life of Jesus as real,
and his death as a truly physical death, but he distinctly asserts the
inferiority of the Son to the Father (John xiv. 28.) Indeed, as M. Ré
ville well observes, it is part of the very notion of the Logos that it
should be imperfect relatively to the absolute God ; since it is only its
relative imperfection which allows it to sustain relations to the world
and to men which are incompatible with absolute perfection, from the
Philonian point of view. The Athanasian doctrine of the Trinity
�THE JESUS
OF DOGMA.
43
finds no support in the fourth gospel, any more than in the earlier
books collected in the New Testament.
The fourth gospel completes the speculative revolution by which
the conception of a divine being lowered to humanity was substituted
for that of a human being raised to divinity. We have here traveled a
long distance from the risen Messiah of the genuine Pauline epistles,
or the preacher of righteousness in the first gospel. Yet it does not
seem probable tliat the Church of the third century was thoroughly
aware of the discrepancy. The authors of the later Christology did not
regard themselves as adding new truths to Christianity, but merely as
giving a fuller and more consistent interpretation to what must have
been known from the outset. They were so completely destitute of the
historic sense, and so strictly confined to the dogmatic point of view,
that they projected their own theories back into the past, and vituper
ated as heretics those who adhered to tradition in its earlier and sim
pler form. Examples from more recent times are not wanting, which
show that we are dealing here with an inveterate tendency of the
human mind. New facts and new theories are at first condemned as
heretical or ridiculous; but when once firmly established, it is imme
diately maintained that every one knew them before. After the Coper
nican astronomy had won the day, it was tacitly assumed that the
ancient Hebrew astronomy was Copernican, and the Biblical concep
tion of the universe as a kind of three-story house was ignored, and has
been, except by scholars, quite forgotten. When the geologic evidence
of the earth’s immense antiquity could no longer be gainsaid, it was
suddenly ascertained that the Bible had from the outset asserted that
antiquity; and in our own day we have seen an elegant popular writer
perverting the testimony of the rocks and distorting the Elohistic cos
mogony of the Pentateuch, until the twain have been made to furnish
what Bacon long ago described as “ a heretical religion and a false
philosophy.” Now just as in the popular thought of the present day
the ancient Elohist is accredited with a knowledge of modern geology
and astronomy, so in the opinion of the fourth evangelist and his con
temporaries the doctrine of the Logos-Christ was implicitly contained
in the Old Testament and in the early traditions concerning Jesus, and
needed only to be brought into prominence by a fresh interpretation.
Hence arose the fourth gospel, which was no more a conscious violation
of historic data than Hugh Miller’s imaginative description of the
“ Mosaic Vision of Creation.” Its metaphysical discourses were readily
accepted as equally authentic with the Sermon on the Mount. Its
Philonian doctrines were imputed to Paul and the apostles, the pseudo
Pauline epistles furnishing the needful texts. The Ebionites—who
were simply Judaizing Christians, holding in nearly its original form
the doctrine of Peter, Janies, and John—were ejected from the Church
as the most pernicious of heretics ; and so completely was their historic
position misunderstood and forgotten, that, in order to account for
�44
THE JESUS
OF DOGMA.
their existence, it became necessary to invent an epoifymous heresiarch,
Ebion, who was supposed to have led them astray from the true faith I
The Christology of the fourth gospel is substantially the same as
that which was held in the next two centuries by Tertullian, Clement
of Alexandria, Origen, and Arius. When the doctrine of the Trinity
was first announced by Sabellius (A. D. 250-260), it was formally con
demned as heretical, the Church being not yet quite prepared to receive
it. In 269 the Council of Antioch solemnly declared that the Son was
not consubstantial with the Father—a declaration which, within sixty
years, the Council of Nikaia was destined as solemnly to contradict
The trinitarian Christology struggled long for acceptance, and did not
finally win the victory until the end of the fourth century. Yet from
the outset its ultimate victory was hardly doubtful. The peculiar doc
trines of the fourth gospel could retain their
integrity
*
only so long as
Gnostic ideas were prevalent. When Gnosticism declined in importtance, and its theories faded out of recollection, its peculiar phraseology
received of necessity a new interpretation. The doctrine that God
could not act directly upon the world sank gradually into oblivion as
the Church grew more and more hostile to the Neo-Platonic philoso
phy. And when this theory was once forgotten, it was inevitable that
the Logos, as the creator of the world, should be raised to an equality
or identity with God himself. In the view of the fourth evangelist, the
Creator was necessarily inferior to God; in the view of later ages, the
Creator could be none other than God. And so the very phrases which
had most emphatically asserted the subordination' of the Son were
afterward interpreted as asserting his absolute divinity. To the Gnos
tic formula, “ lumen de lumine,” was added the Athanasian scholium,
“Deum verum de Deo vero ; ” and the trinitarian dogma of the union of
persons in a single Godhead became thus the only available logical
device for preserving the purity of monotheism.
The modern theory, however, at which we seem to be slowly arriv
ing is, that light, heat, electricity, life itself, are only forms of motion,
and that death is merely the cessation of this motion; that the deity
is, throughout the universe, the embodiment (sinee that is the only
word I can think of to express myself) of motion itself; and that all
which dies, or, in other words, ceases to move, falls back into the uni
verse, and is absorbed into the deity. This was the belief of the Bud
dhist—the framer or acceptor of a pure and beautiful religion ; and to
this belief modern science and the enlargement of knowledge slowly
tend.—Macmillan’s Magazine.
�
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 last word about Jesus
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Fiske, John
Description
An account of the resource
Place of publication: [New York]
Collation: [9]-48 p. ; 26 cm.
Notes: From the library of Dr Moncure Conway. Extracted from Modern Thinker, no. 1, 1870. Includes bibliographical references. Printed on grey paper. Marks from adhesive tape on first page.
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
[1870]
Identifier
An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context
G5413
Subject
The topic of the resource
Jesus Christ
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 last word about Jesus), 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
Conway Tracts
Jesus Christ
Jesus Christ-Historicity
-
https://d1y502jg6fpugt.cloudfront.net/25778/archive/files/57f49941a65ed15642e34ca7b1b25bc3.pdf?Expires=1712793600&Signature=ud6xBKDM3GNlpMJTbjbIwCacKCGxZPd2IBLDv0kriAy5mU5H5ZVMxrFiEjqLPAsNikHHXA9J2AXUycS-VzP3IlXkvfOmwyv6NjBxWteHjoBbMwhpH3XMMZktNd7Cdj5qmLARk3Md6VKRXnSw-2hDJ5XHtr-StMybJTLs9lyJB6j5T8kW1cb7IKfD9R5Oyh4oFFLHKCDD8cqb7MTtwBqGqiGD120CANunLDyV3BqW1YaGuWHwf4DRVKZW%7Ekzjd98FFHupQYAqoH8QQ1wE%7EykMDmT4mQyR2VvCJ-iPhDZtP1m%7Eso7ReOK%7E52yi40-0r%7EpHgp63mCxa6RVA9N1cvrG4Mw__&Key-Pair-Id=K6UGZS9ZTDSZM
1409a1d8d2736db34afd11b16ed78bcf
PDF Text
Text
THE COLLAPSE OF THE FAITH:
OB,
THE DEITY OF CHRIST AS NOW TAUGHT
BY THE ORTHODOX.
EDITED BY
REV. W. G. CARROL, A.M.,
PUBLISHED BY THOMAS SCOTT, RAMSGATE,
AND
R. D. WEBB & SON, DUBLIN.
Price Sixpence.
�“Et ex Evangelistis solus Joannes appellai eum aperte'
Deum............ Jam si Petrus initio promiscua multitudini
prsedicavit Jesum absque mentione divina; naturae ; si Paulus
similiter apud Athenienses nihil aliud quam Virum appellai ;
si p^iusquam leguntur Apostoli apud populum verba facientes
expressisse divinam in Christo naturam.............. quid ego
pecco si idem admoneo ?”—Erasmus, Apoi. Ad. Mon. Hisk.
“ The assertion of Christ’s ignorance is utterly at variance
with any pretension honestly to believe in His Divinity.”
Liddon, B/ampton Lectures, 1866, p. 683.
“ What was once rejected as a heresy has since crept in
among us and beenail bnt recognised as a dogma.”—Plumptrer
Boyle Lectures, 1866, p. 87.
“ The Scriptures are not to be considered true because it
would be dangerous to reject them. Let everything be
sacrificed to truth.”—Moorhouse, Hulsean Lectures, 1865 ,
p. 3.
�PREFACE.
------ +-----PRINT these extracts as a supplement to the ser
mons which I lately published concerning some
*
modern interpretations of our Lord’s Deity. I cannot
doubt that these phases of Christian thought now
■struggling for existence will startle many, as they, or
■some of them, have for some years been startling
myself; for the simplest understanding will readily
and intuitively perceive that the aspects here presented
of Christ’s divine nature, certainly do not coincide
with our current belief in that mystery, and moreover
that they are wholly irreconcilable with the positive
dogmatic statements of our articles and creeds.
Looking at the widely distant centres of protestant
life whence these writings are gathered, and comparing
their one-minded virtual surrender of Christ’s equal
Godhood; it is not too much to say that they indicate
a giving way along the whole line of the evangelical
ranks, and that they send up from all the signal posts
of thought and intelligence in Europe, one common
wail of despair and distress.
If any of the Theophanies here presented be true—
if Christ’s Godhood were either suspended, or depo
tentiated, or reserved, or conditioned, or postponed—
it is simply childish to maintain that He was equal
to God the Father. And if none of these Theophanies
be true, then what becomes of the Scriptures, and of
the honest and learned searchings of Scriptures on
which they rest ?
I
* Sermons in St. Bride’s Church, Dublin, 1871. Webb &
■Son, Abbey Street, Dublin.
�V
*
Preface.
In sad and solemn truth, this dilemma seems to say
that either our Formularies or the New Testament
must be wrong; and indeed that most remarkable
Examination of Canon Liddon’s Bampton Lectures has
*
made it well-nigh proven that the doctrine of an
“irreducible duality” (p. ) assuredly rests on some
basis other than that of Jesus and His apostles.
The same sort of remark applies to the two extracts
in the Appendix on the Atonement—if they be just,
what are we to say about our prayer book, and the
substitution which in effect it teaches ?
Our Irish Church Synod which sat so long this
year and troubled itself about so many things, seemed
to care for neither of these two essential verities;
but it is vain for them to think that they can hush
up the matter by a conspiracy of silence, for there
is abroad among us a calm and earnest questioning
which must be answered, and at our door there is one
knocking, who will knock on until it be opened unto
him.
I desire to guard myself against being understood
to mean or to insinuate that any of the writers I have
quoted designs to write against the Deity of Christ;
I intend nothing of the sort. If the writers had any
such design, that would have prevented my quoting
them—I select them because they are prominent and
earnest in the other direction, and because, however
they may differ from each other on other points of
doctrine, on this one they are “Wahabees of the
Wahabees. ”
W.G.C.
St. Bride’s, Dublin,
August, 1871.
* Triibner & Co., London, 1871.
�CONTENTS.
PREFACE, BY THE EDITOR, ......
Hi
BISHOP O‘BRIEN, (OF OSSORY,)—CHARGE 1864, .
.
9
PROFESSOR PLUMPTRE—BOYLE LECTURES, 1866, .
.
24
REV. MR. MOORHOUSE—HULSEAN LECTURES, 1865,
.
26
RIGHT HON. W. E. GLADSTONE—ECCE HOMO,
.
27
.
REV. STOPFORD BROOKE, LONDON, CHAPLAIN TO THE
QUEEN,—SERMONS,.......................................................................29
DORNER, PROFESSOR, THEOLOGY, GOTTINGEN—“ PERSON
OF CHRIST,”.................................................................................. 31
E. DR. PRESSENSE, “JESUS CHRIST ”—ANSWER TO DORNER,
31
F. GODET, PROFESSOR THEOL., BALE—EVANG. DE. S. LUC,
35
APPENDIX.
•ON THE ATONEMENT.
REV.
DR.
JELLETT,
FELLOW
TRINITY
COLLEGE
DUBLIN,—UNIVERSITY SERMONS, 1864,
.
40
REV. STOPPFORD BROOKE, LONDON, CHAPLAIN TO
THE QUEEN,
......
41
��THE COLLAPSE OF THE FAITH.
RIGHT REV. DR. O'BRIEN,•
LORD BISHOP OP OSSORY, PERNS, AND LOUCHLIN, IRELAND.
P. 38-42.—He (Bishop <Colenso) asks, when did He
(Jesus) obtain this larger measure of knowledge ? ‘at
what period, then, of His life upon earth, is it to be
supposed that He had granted to Him, supernatural!/;/,
full and accurate information on these points, so that
He should be expected to speak about the Pentateuch
in other terms than any other devout Jew of that day
would have employed ? Why should it be thought
that He would speak with certain Divine, knowledge
on this matter more than upon other matters of
ordinary science and history 1 ’
In answer to this question, I have no difficulty in
acknowledging, that I cannot pretend to fix accurately
the time of the Lord’s life at which He acquired such
information as would enable Him to speak with fuller
and more perfect knowledge upon all the subjects
on which He taught, than any of His countrymen
however pious or learned; and with a perfect freedom
from the errors into which all other Jews might have
fallen, had they spoken of them. But though I
cannot fix the point at which He became possessed of
this knowledge, I can with great confidence fix the
point beyond which He could not have been without
it. Whenever and however He obtained it, I can be
* Charge 1863-64.
�IO
The Collapse of the Faith.
very sure that when He entered upon the office of a .
teacher, He actually possessed it. To suppose that
He entered upon His office as a teacher sent from God,
deficient in any knowledge which was necessary to
secure Him from error upon any of the subjects upon
which He was to teach, would he opposed to all that
Scripture sets forth with respect to His absolute
authority as a Divine Teacher, and irreconcilable
with the assumption of absolute and independent
authority as a teacher, which was the characteristic
of His public teaching from the first, and which we
are told attracted the special attention of His country
men, and filled them with wonder, as altogether
different from the manner of teaching to which they
had been accustomed in the public teachers of their
nation.
And this applies also to all that is urged, in
addition, in another part of the (Colenso’s) work,
concerning the limits of His knowledge, with a view
to confirm or defend the positions which I haye been
examining. This consists chiefly, of the remarks of
ancient and modern commentators upon Mark xiii. 32.
(See note A at the end). The text is a very remark
able and a very important one, and I hope that I
have no disposition to detract from its full force. It
contains a very explicit statement made by the Blessed
Lord concerning Himself, of its natural and proper
meaning there can be no doubt. And I should feel,
that there was just as much presumption and presump
tion of the same kind too, in doing violence to the
Lord’s words for the purpose of softening or narrowing
their proper meaning, as if the violence were com
mitted for the purpose of extending it. I therefore
say without doubt or hesitation—what I certainly
should not venture to say or think, if I did not find
it in Holy Scripture—that there was one thing of
which, in the full maturity of His powers, and the full
exercise of them, as a Divine Teacher, the Blessed
�The Collapse of the Faith.
II
Lord in the flesh was ignorant. ... I am sure that
what He says is true. And while it makes it certain
that there was one thing which He did not know, it
makes it possible that there were other things also
which He did not know. But it gives no direct
warrant to assert that this was actually the case; and
without such a warrant I will not venture to assert
that it was. I feel that it is a case—if there be
any—which calls for the modest resolution of the
wise and good Bishop Ridley with reference to
another great mystery—not to dare, to speak further,
yea, almost none other, than the text itself doth as it were
lead us by the hand—This is my decision as regards
myself. But there are many to whom this may seem
unreasonable timidity.”
P. 103.—Note A. page 41—on Mark xiii. 32.—
**From an early period great reluctance has been
shown to receive the obvious and natural sense of the
Blessed Lord’s words; and various devices have been
resorted to from time to time to soften it or to explain
it away. But however natural this timidity is, I
cannot think it justifiable. What it would be unpar
donable presumption to assert upon any lower author
ity, it seems to be no less presumptuous to shrink from
asserting, when it comes to us upon. Divine authority.
And the fact that the Blessed Lord, in the flesh knew
got the day and hour in which He is to come to judge
the world, seems to come to us as clearly upon His
own authority, as anything else that we believe
because He has declared it. It cannot be doubted
not only that this is the plain meaning of His words,
but that it is very hard to draw any other meaning
from them.
“■ The interpretation which has obtained most favour
among those who are unwilling to receive the decla
ration in this sense is, that while the day and the
hour of the coming of the Son of Man were, of course,
known to Him in His Divine nature, they were
�12
The Collapse of the Faith.
unknown to Him in His human nature. This does
not mean, that though He knew this as He knew all
things when He was in the form of God, He was
ignorant of it when He came in the likeness of man.
This is the very sense which it is intended to get rid of.
What is meant, is, that when He was in the likeness
of man—at the very moment that He 'was speaking—
He knew the time in question in His divine nature,
hut was ignorant of it in His human nature. But
this seems to be open to insurmountable objections.
Were we at liberty to suppose that there were two
Persons—a Divine and a Human Person—united in
the Lord, it would be easy to conceive—or indeed
rather, one could not but hold—that they differed
infinitely in knowledge—that while the latter was
ignorant of many things, the former knew all things.
No one, however, ventures to solve the difficulty in
this way, at least in words, because every one knows
that the unity of person in the Lord is as much an
article of faith as the duality of natures. But when
it is said that at one and the same time, He knew the
day of judgment as the Word, but was ignorant of it
as Man; or that while He knew it, as regarded His
Divine Nature, He was ignorant of it, as regarded
His Human Nature; or that His Divine Nature knew
it, but His Human Nature was ignorant; we are in
reality though not in words, supposing Him to be
made up of two Persons.”
N.B.—The Bishop here accuses the prevalent orthodox
interpretation of the heresy of Nestorianism—just as we
shall presently see Professor Plumptre and Mr. Moorhouse
accuse the same orthodox interpretation of the heresy of
Apollinarianism. There seems to be a confusion in the
Bishop's mind as to Natures and Persons 2 for surely two
Natures do not require two Persons. His Lordship may
have been misled by the pleadings and finding in the
Colenso trial 2
“ But some think that, whatever the objection may
�The Collapse of the Faith,
• 13
be against, these interpretations, it cannot be so insur
mountable as that to which the more natural inter
pretation is exposed—that we cannot adopt any
interpretation of the Lord’s words which would
represent Him as having undergone anything beyond
an outward or relative change in taking our nature.
From the impossibility of conceiving any change in
the Infinite, they seem to have inferred, if they did
not confound the two things, that any such change is
impossible. But however safely we may hold that it
is impossible that any such change can take place
through any other agency, it would seem very rash
and presumptuous to deny the possibility of its being
effected by the will of the Infinite Being Himself. I
should say this, supposing that we had no way of ar
riving at any conclusion on the question by the high
priori road. But we have a much safer though
humbler way. To believers in Revelation the Incar
nation of the Second Person of the Trinity, or rather
the history of His life in the flesh, furnishes ample
means of coming to a certain conclusion upon this
point—a conclusion that is not affected by the uncer
tainties which confessedly attach to all our reasonings
when Infinity is an element in the subject-matter of
them. In this wonderful history we are allowed to
see the infinite and the finite, the divine and the
human, in personal union in ‘the man Christ Jesus.’
To our apprehensions this union would appear abso
lutely impossible, if the infinite remained unchanged.
But, as I have already said, when the infinite is
concerned, we can rely but little upon any collection
of our own reason unless it be confirmed by revela
tion. Here, however, there is no want of such con
firmation, nor can we, I think, read the Holy Scrip
tures fairly without finding it.
“ The Divine Word seems to be clearly exhibited
to us there, as greatly changed in His union with
frail humanity. Not only was all His heavenly glory
�laid by when He tabernacled in the flesh, but all
His infinite attributes and powers seem, for the same
time, to have been in abeyance, so to apeak. And
by this, something, more is meant than that the
manifestation and exercise of them were suspendedThat is undoubtedly true, but it seems to fall far
short of the whole truth. It appears that there was
not merely a voluntary suspension of the exercise of
them, but a voluntary renunciation of the capacity of
exercising them, for the time. This involves no
change of His essence or nature ; and no destruction
of His Divine powers, as if they had ceased to exist,
or loss of them, so that they could not be resumed.
Finite beings often undergo such a suspension in
voluntarily, without its leading to any such conse
quences. (Here the Bishop gives in a note a quota
tion from Butler’s Analogy, part i. chap, i., about the
suspension of ‘ our living powers.’) And it can make
no difference in this respect, that in the Infinite
Being it is undergone by an act of His own will.
Nor are the wonderful works which were then
wrought by Him at all at variance with this view of
the state of the Incarnate Word. Infinitely as they
transcended the natural powers of man, they did not
go beyond the powers which may be supernaturally
bestowed upon man. For He Himself declares that
the apostles should not only do such works as He
had done, but greater works. There is nothing, there
fore, in their nature or their degree, to determine
whether they were wrought by the proper power of
the Divine Word, or by power bestowed upon the
Incarnate Word. But we are not without ample
means of deciding this question.
“ It is not surprising that it should be generally
¿bought that the miraculous power which was dis
played by the Redeemer was possessed and exercised
by Him as an essential property of the Divine ele
ment in His constitution. This, indeed, would be
�^The Collapse of the Faith,
15
the conclusion to which probably every one would
come who ventured to speculate on this great mystery
apart from Scripture. But Scripture gives a very
different view of the nature and effects of the Incar
nation. It seems distinctly to teach us that when the
Everlasting Son condescended to take our nature
upon Him, He came, not outwardly only, but in
truth, into a new relation to the Father, in which He
was really His Messenger and His Servant—dependent
upon the Father for everything, and deriving from
Him directly everything that He needed for His
work. All this indeed seems to be most distinctly
declared by Himself. He says, ‘ The Son can do
nothing of Himself, but what He seeth the Father
do,’ (John v. 19). And again, ‘I can of mine own
self do nothing/ (Ibid. 30). Again, ‘ My doctrine is
not mine but His that sent me/ (vii. 16). Again,
‘ He that sent me is true ; and I speak to the world
those things which I have heard of Him, (viii. 26).
‘ When ye have lifted up the Son of Man, then shall
ye know that I am He, and that I do nothing of My
self ; but as my Father hath taught me, I speak these
things,’ (lb. 28.) And again, ‘The words that I
speak unto you I speak not of Myself, but the Father
that dwelleth in Me, He doeth the works,” (xiv. 10);
‘And the Word which ye hear is not Mine, but the
Father’s which sent Me,’ (lb. 24).
“ These texts must be familiar to every reader of
the Bible, though their true meaning seems to be
very strange to many. But they are very plain and
very express, and they entirely agree together. They
testify directly to the fact that the state of the Son
in the flesh was one of absolute and entire depend
ence upon the Father, both for Divine knowledge
and Divine power. And upon this fact, they are so
full and so express, that it is unnecessary to look for
any other evidence of it of the same kind. But I
am tempted to add one or two striking passages
C
�‘16
The Collapse of the Faith.
which seem to bear the same testimony, less directly
indeed, but not less impressively or less conclusively.
Nothing, for example, can bespeak more absolute
authority over death and the grave than His call to
the dead Lazarus to arise : “ He cried,” we are told,
11 with a loud voice, Lazarus come forth,”—(John xi.
23). And the confidence of absolute authority in
which the command is uttered is most fully justified
by the promptitude with which it is obeyed ; “ and
he that was dead came forth, bound hand and foot
with grave clothes; and his face was bound about with
a napkin. Jesus saith unto them, Loose him and let
him.go.”—II). 44.
Neither in the tone nor in the substance of His
command to the dead, is there any reference dis
coverable to any power but His own.
There is no cure performed by Him, nor indeed
any miracle of any other kind recorded of Him in
His whole history, which wears less the appearance
of being wrought by derived or dependent power.
And yet there is something which goes before, that
seems to suggest irresistibly that the power exercised
by Him on this memorable occasion was bestowed
upon Him by the Father, in answer to prayer offered
at the time. For just before He called to Lazarus,
we read, “ and Jesus lifted up His eyes, and said,
Father, I thank thee that Thou hast heard me. And
I knew that Thou hearest me always : but because of
the people which stand by I said it, that they may
' believe that Thou hast sent me.”—Tb. 41-42.
No one ever doubts, I suppose, that this thanks
giving to the Father for having heard Him, has
reference to a prayer offered to the Father and
accepted by Him. The prayer was offered in silence,
and the intimation that it was heard was silently
given, (Compare Presensé p. .) But I should
think that there is no more doubt that both really
' took place than there is when both were audible, and
�The Collapse of the Faith.
17
we are actually told the words in which they were
expressed, as in the next chapter, where, at' the end
<of the mental conflict, which we are allowed to see,
we read His prayer and the answer to it; Father,
glorify Thy name. Then came there a voice from
heaven, saying, I both have glorified it and will
glorify it again.” And though a prayer were really
■secretly offered and answered at the grave of Lazarus,
it seems hardly possible to doubt that it had refer
ence to the wonderful work which He was about to
perform; and that it was in fact a prayer for power
to preform it, and that it was in the power bestowed
in answer to His prayer that this great miracle was
wrought. The whole story supplies abundant matter
for reflection, but I cannot dwell upon it further
here.’
I must'however give one more passage which I
think discloses to us at least as much as any that
have gone before of the extent of the change which
the Blessed Lord had undergone, when He was in
the likeness of sinful flesh. When St Feter rashly
attempts to deliver Him by force from the hands of
His enemies, He rebukes him and tells him that if He
desired to be delivered, He had no need of human
aid. ‘ Thinkest thou that I cannot now pray to My
* Every one is likely to be reminded here of the remark
able passage in the life of Elijah, which is related in the
1st Book of Kings xvii. 1. ‘ And Elijah the Tishbite who
was of the inhabitants of Gilead, said unto Ahab, as the Lord
God of Israel liveth before whom I stand, there shall not be
dew nor rain these years but according to my word. ’ There
is so little here to suggest any dependence of this act of the
prophet upon prayer, that most readers I should suppose are
surprised when they find the miraculous visitation upon the
land of Israel which followed, referred to by St James as an
example of the power of the effectual fervent, prayer of a
righteous man. ‘ Elias was a man subject to like passions .as
we are, and he prayed that it might not rain ; and it rained
not upon the earth by the space of three years, and six
months,’ James v, 17,”
�18
The Collapse of the Faith.
Father, and He shall presently give me more than
twelve legions of angels.” This passage suggests a
great deal which is eminently interesting, but with
which we are not immediately concerned. But it
has also a most important bearing on the point which
we are at present upon. We know that by Him
were all things created; that all worlds, visible and
invisible, and all the forms of existence material and
immaterial, by which they are inhabited, were made
by Him ; that when He was in the form of God all
angels worshipped Him ; and that in the presence of
His glory the Seraphim veiled their faces while they
adored Him. And when we see Him in the hands
of men, mocked and reviled, buffeted and scourged
and spit upon, we see a marvellous manifestation
indeed of His great humility. But we feel, all the
while, that all this was done only because it was His
good pleasure, for the accomplishment of His work, to
submit Himself to shame and to pain; and that, at
any moment that He pleased, it would come to an
end. And so it was. The text that I have just
quoted proves that so it was; but it at the same
time seems to disclose to us more of the depth to
which He had humbled Himself than any extremity
of indignity and suffering to which He was subjected
could reveal. Because it shows that, if He would be
delivered from this pain and shame by the angels
whom He had created, He was to procure their aid,
not by commanding them to come to His deliverance,
but by praying to His heavenly Father to send them
to set Him free. The object would be effected with
certainty. But the mode in which it was to be
effected discloses, to my mind more strikingly than
any other passage in Scripture, the great and wonder
ful change which for the time had taken place in His
relation to the unseen world.
All these passages bear witness, directly and
indirectly, to the reality and depth of the humilia-
�The Collapse of the Faith.
i9
tiott of the Blessed Lord when actually in the fonn
of man. But there is another, (Phil, ii. 6, 7), which
.¡seems to unveil to us what was done in the unseen
world to prepare Him for the state to which He
•was about to descend. In it He seems to be shown
t© us when in the form of God, divesting Himself
of all that was incompatible with the state of
humiliation to which He was about to descend,
not holding tenaciously the equality with God which
He enjoyed, but letting it go, and Emptying Himself.
It is the results of this wonderful process which
the text that I have been reviewing present to us.
And wonderful as the process is, and not forgetting
even the intense energy of the expression sauro?
¿xsvaffi, do not the results accord with it ? Do not
the passages to which I have before referred exhibit
Him as actually emptied—emptied of His Divine
glory, of His Divine power, and of His Divine
omniscience, and receiving back from His heavenly
Father what he had laid down, in sueh measure
as was needful for His work while it was going
on—only doing what Ire was commanded and enabled
to do, and only teaching what He was taught and
commanded to teach. And when it came to an end,
when He had finished the work which had been
given Him to do, and His humiliation was over,
He could pray to the Father, “ And now, 0 Father,
glorify Thou Me with Thine own Self, with the
glory which I had with Thee before the world was.”
And His prayer was answered. All power He Him
self declares, was given to Him in heaven and in earth.
The Apostle testifies that God hath highly exalted
Him and given Him a name which is above every name;
that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of
things in heaven and things in earth, and things under
the earth; and that every tongue should confess that
Jesus Christ is Lord to the glory of God the Father.
[Query.—Is there not a very monotheistic look
�The Collapse of the- Faith.
in the closing words of this text, Christ is Lard
The Father is God.]
11 Some say that they can in some measure under
stand and believe every part of the preparatory
process referred to, except that in which the Lord’s
omniscience is concerned; but that that, is so essential,
to His nature, that they cannot conceive or admit
that it could have been laid aside, even, temporarily.
I must myself, on the contrary, confess that though
I believe every part of the process that. I find in
the Bible, I do not, properly speaking, understand any
part of it. I am disposed, however, to believe that if
the whole were perfectly understood by us, we should
see that there is just the same difficulty in every
part of the change which the Lord is represented as
having undergone—neither more nor less in any one
than in any other.
“ But however that may be, it is to me not a.
question of reason.but of fact; and of the actual facts
of the case the true and only evidence is to be found
in God’s word. One who looks at the subject in this
way, and who examines the Holy Scriptures as the
only source of His knowledge upon it, ready to
believe all that he finds there, will not, I think, be
startled by the statement in St Mark, wonderful as
it is—if he comes to it after having read and con
sidered the passages which we have been reviewing ;
at least I am sure that he will not be startled by it,
as he would be if he came upon that text without
such preparation.
“ I do not mean that what we learn from these
passages, concerning the state of the Incarnate Word
and His relation to the Father, would warrant us in
inferring that He was actually ignorant of anything
knowable. But when they teach us that all His
superhuman knowledge was supplied by the Father,
we are led to look upon that as possible which,
without such information, we should regard as im-
�.Follapse of the Faith.
2
possible. All things that the omniscient Father
knows—that is, all things—doubtless were known to
the Son when he. was in the form of God. But it
appears that when He became man and dwelt among
us, of this infinite knowledge He only possessed as
much as was imparted to Him. And this being the
case we must see that if anything which could not be
known naturally was not made known to Him by
the Father, it would not be known by Him. Though
We see this however, we have no right, as I said,
to conclude that there really was anything unknown
to Him, because we have right to conclude that
there is any knowledge which the Father would
withhold from Him. And accordingly, even when
we see it elsewhere declared expressly and emphati
cally by Him concerning the time of the coming of the
Son of Man, 1 of that day and hour knoweth no man,
no not the angels in heaven, but my Father only,
“ we do not regard the well-beloved Son as intended
to be included, when angels and men are said to be
ignorant of that time; or excluded, when it is
declared that it is known to the Father only. It
is not until He Himself declares expressly, as we
learn from St Mark that He did, that this is so ; that
is, it is not until we learn that He Himself said, ‘ of
that day and hour knoweth no man, no, not the
angels which are in heaven, neither the Son, but the
Father,’ that we believe that He too was ignorant
of the time when He is to come again to judge the
world.
“ The declaration is so plain and express, that
even if it stood alone, I do not think it would be
reasonable to entertain any doubt about its real
meaning. But I can hardly think such a doubt
possible, when the natural interpretation of the text
is sustained by the concurrent testimony of such a
number and such a variety of texts as we have been
looking at. And when once we are satisfied that
�22
The Collapse of the Faith,
the Lord has really declared this fact concerning
Himself, we seem to be no more warranted in dis
believing or doubting it, than we should be in
disbelieving or doubting anything else that we are
sure He has said.”
OBSERVATIONS.
1. When the Bishop says, that there “ can be no
doubt ” about the meaning of certain passages, what
does he intend towards Athenasius, Bull, Waterland,
Elliott and all the orthodox, who differ from him
in these passages ?
2. When he says that the “Scriptures are the
only source of knowledge” on this dogma, what
place does he assign to his own articles and creeds ?
3. What conceivable right has he to say that
the capacity for Divine Attributes was “incompatible
with the state of humiliation ?”
4. When he “ cannot fix the time ” at which Jesus
attained this knowledge, such as it was, does not
this plainly imply the man acquiring the supplies of
Godhead, whereas we are taught, that it was “ the
word that became flesh ” and took our nature ?
5. One would be curious to know in what the
Bishop considers our Lord’s personality to have
consisted.
6. When Divinity lecturer in Trinity College,
the Bishop published two sermons in connection
with Mr Irving, and in the appendix, p. 73, he says,
“ Mr Irving holds himself to be very grievously
caluminated when charged with socinianism; and if
the charge were meant to imply that he holds
socinian views, &c. &c., no doubt he would be
greatly misrepresented; but if, by the charge, were
meant that like them he stumbles, &c. &c., it
is undoubtedly well grounded,”—no doubt the Bishop
would “ hold himself to be grievously caluminated,”
if the same charge were brought against him, but
�The Collapse of the Faith.
23
surely it would be as “ well grounded ” as it was in
the case of Irving. The Bishop seems (for the passage
is not as distinct as his Lordship’s later compositions
are), at the time when these two sermons were
published, (1833,) to have held the view concerning
our Lord’s two natures and two kinds of knowledge
which he now calls Nestorianism; he says, (page 70,)
that in the Temptation Christ’s “ zeal and love,
acted in combination with this limitation of views
which belonged to the Lord’s human nature, and
not with that fulness of knowledge of Divine Counsels
which belonged to His Divine nature,”—(what mean
ing would there be in this antithesis, if Jesus did
not then possess the “ Divine Nature and the fulness of
knowledge of Divine Counsels which belonged %o it?)
7. Spinoza defines “Attribute” to be “what we
apprehend as constituting the essence ” of anything
—therefore to say, e.g., that an Infinite being is
without infinite attributes, is to speak of a thing’s
being without its own essence, or in other words it is
speaking in a way that has no meaning. Waterland
devotes one of his greatest sermons (vol. 2. sermon
vii. p. 141), to prove Christ’s Deity from his attri
butes, viz., eternity, immutability, omniscience, and
omnipotence.
N.JB.—Bishop O’Brien denies to our Lord all
divine attributes; does he mean to include the denial of
eternity ?
8. Waterland takes most of the texts selected by
Bishop O’Brien, and strives to defend them from
the Arian interpretation adopted by the Bishop,
and he also (p. 163) explains the passage of St
Mark in the way the Bishop calls the heresy of
Nestorianism.
9. Bishop Bull, (works vi. 351), terms the inter
pretation of Phil. ii. 6. adopted by the Bishop,
Socinian, and that ££ Socinistas frustra omnino, aleogue
in causes suce ruinam hunc locum Apostoli appelasse.”
�24
The Collapse of the Faith.
10. Can any conceivable ingenuity, in any honest
way, reconcile this “ Depotentiation ” (or) “ xsvu<r/$”
teaching of Bishop. O’Brien, with the 1st Article,
{Three Persons of one power substance and eternity), or
with the so-called' Athanasian creed {equal to the
Father as touching His Godhead) ?
REV. E, H. PLUMPTRE,
Professor of Divinity, King’s College, London.
CHAPLAIN TO THE BISHOP OP BRISTOL.
P. 87—“What was once rejected as a heresy has
since crept in among us and been all but recognised
as a dogma. We think of the Divine eternal word
as simply tenanting a human body; or if of human
“reasonable soul,” then of that as possessing .all
Divine attributes, conscious from the very first of that
mysterious union, possessing and manifesting from
the very first all treasures of wisdom and knowledge
We are slow to apprehend the truth that that soul
passed in its growth of intellect and feeling through the
same stages as. our own; that knowledge came to it
as it comes to us, through sacred books or human
teaching or the influences of surrounding circum
stances—widening more and more with advancing
years—led on in the fulness of time into all truth by
the Spirit which was given to him, ‘not with measure,’
and ‘ abode upon him.” . . . Assuming the energy
in Him of all Divine attributes we pass over the con
flict'of human emotions, without which there could
be no experience, no discipline, no temptation,
no sympathy. We cannot bring ourselves, in spite
of the plainest statements of the Gospel record, to
think of him as gaining knowledge of any kipd from
those around him, (Mark ix. 21); wondering with
the surprise of those whose hopes are bitterly
* Boyle Lectures, I860,
�The
¡lapse of the Faith.
i5
disappointed (Mark vi. 6.); looking into the future
with a partial insight as knowing not the day or hour
of the full completion of his work (Mark xiii. 32) ;
praying, ‘ if it be possible, &c. &c.’
And yet the whole beauty' and significance of his
life as sinless, perfect, archetypal, melts away, in
proportion as we substitute this- the error of
Apollinarius for the Church’s faith.
Instead of a true son of man perfected by suffering,
(Heb. ii. 10.) passing i.e. through experience, to his
full maturity, learning by that suffering the full
meaning of obedience—we fashion for ourselves the
thought of a simulated Humanity, a childhood
almighty and all knowing, with the appearance but
not the reality of growth in power and wisdom. ’
P. 89—“ It may seem to some that these thoughts
lead us on to a mere humantarianism, and destroy
the truth of the Incarnation on its Divine side more
fatally even than the conception of which I have
spoken destroys the reality of the human. ... In
that word ‘ emptied Himself,’ we may find what at
least serves to interpret with the language and the
facts of the gospel history. . . That form of God,
*
that glory of the Father can be conceived of only as
the possession, energy, activity, of the Divine
attributes. To empty Himself ‘ of these was to sub
mit to the conditions not of an infinite but a finite
life ; to become ‘ lower than the angels,’ even as the
sons of men are lower that He might rise through
successive stages to a height far above all princi
palities and powers, to the name which is above-,
every name, the glory which He had with the Father
before the world was.’—Such at least is the teaching
N.B.—When Mr Plumptre quotes Bishop Ellicott and
Waterland on Philip, ii. 6. it is right to remark that they
Tolerate only the other interpretation of ‘ ‘ thought it not
robbery,”-—they both are against Mr Plumptre’s idea, that
Christ was ‘ emptied of His divine attribute. ’
�i6
The Collapse of the Faith.
of the epistle to the Hebrews. The eternal Son
learnt obedience. . Because He has been tempted He
is able to sympathise. We trust in the Incarnate Son
more than in the Divine omniscience as an attribute,
because the Incarnation has made us surer than we
could have been without it, that 1 He knows and
pities our infirmities.’
MOORHOUSE.
P. 56.— “Apollinaris (a man equally distinguished
for wisdom and piety, devoted to the church, and a
personal friend of Athanasius), in his zeal against the
Arians, and his desire to give distinctness and com
prehensibility to the orthodox faith, was led to assert
that the Eternal Word at His incarnation took nothing
but the flesh of humanity—its body and animal soul
—while His Divine Nature supplied the place of a
rational spirit. . . . . Bodily weakness, indeed, was
left and bodily suffering, but every one of our Lord’s
spiritual and intellectual acts was attributed not to
His human spirit, (for human spirit He had none,)
but directly to the Immanent Deity.” . . . And is
it useless to call attention to this mistake of a good
man, when so many are shrinking back from the
thought of our Saviour’s real limitation in knowledge,
and His real growth in wisdom, because they find it
difficult to entertain these thoughts by the side of
His omniscience?
P. 60.— “We must believe in our Lord’s real
humanity, that as concerning the flesh He came of the
tribe of Judah, for if the omniscience and omnipotence
of His Divine Nature exclude the ignorance and
weakness of His human nature, then this latter was
never really limited, was never a reality at all, but
only, as the Docete held, a mere shadow or apparition;
then too the Scriptural representations of His growth
* Hulsean Lectures, 1865.
�The Collapse of the Faith.
27
in wisdom, and of His being made perfect through
suffering are merely delusive suggestions, fraudulently
invented to bring the Redeemer nearer to our heart,
and to persuade us, contrary to the fact, that we have
an High Priest who can be really touched with the
feeling of our infirmities.”
GLADSTONE’S “ECCE HOMO.”
P. 51.—“It is enough for us to perceive that
the communication of our Lord’s life, discourses,
and actions to believers, by means of the four
Gospels, was so arranged in the order of God’s
providence, that they should be first supplied with
biographies of Him which have for their staple, His
miracles and His ethical teaching, while the mere
doctrinal and abstract portion of His instructions was
a later addition to the patrimony of the Christian
Church. So far as it goes, such a fact may serve to
raise presumptions in favour of the author of “ Ecce
Homo,” inasmuch as he is principally charged with
this, that he has not put into his foreground the full
splendour and majesty of the Redeemer about whom
he writes. If this be true of him, it is true also thus
far of the Gospels.”
P. 58.—“ Those portions of the narrative in the
Synoptical Gospels which principally bear upon the
Divinity of our Lord, refer to matter which formed,
it will be found, no part of His public ministry.”
P. 62.—“ If we pass on from the great events of
our Lord’s personal history, to His teachings as
recorded in His discourses and sayings by the Synop
tic writers, we shall find that they too are remark
able for the general absence of direct reference to
His Divinity, and indeed to the dignity of his person
altogether.”
P. 63.—“He asserted His title to be heard, but
He asserted nothing more”—“In a word, for the
�28
The Collapse of the Faith.
time, He Himself, as apart from His sayings, is no
where.”
P. 66.—“This (Luke iv. 18-21.) is a clear and
undeniable claim to be a teacher sent from God, and
of certain strongly marked moral results, &c., &c.
Yet here we find not alone that He keeps silence on
the subject of His Deity, but that even for His claim
to Divine sanction and inspiration He appeals to
results.”
P. 86, 87.—“During the brief course of His own
ministry, our Saviour gave a commission to His twelve
apostles and likewise one to His seventy' disciples.
Each went forth with a separate set of full and clear
instructions. ... In conformity with what we have
already seen, both are silent in respect to the Person
of our Lord.”
P. 103.—It appears then on the whole as respects
the person of our Lord, that its ordinary exhibition
to ordinary hearers and spectators was that of a
man engaged in the best and holiest, and tenderest
ministries; . . . Claiming a paramount authority
for what He said and did; but beyond /this, asserting
respecting Himself nothing and leaving Himself to be
judged by the character of His words and deeds'.”
P. 112.-—“But if He did not despise the Virgin’s
womb, if He lay in the cradle a wailing or a'feeble
infant, if He exhausted the years of childhood and of
youth in submission to His Mother and to Joseph, if
all that time He grew in wisdom as well as in stature,
and was even travelling the long stages of the road' to
a perfection by us inconceivable; if even when the
burden of His great ministry was upon Him, He has
Himself told us, that as His divine power was placed
in abeyance, so likewise a bound was mysteriously set
upon His knowledge—what follows from this? That
there was accession to His mind and soul from time
to time of what had not been there before : and that
He was content to hold in measure and to hold
�The Collapse of the Faith.
29
/as a thing received, what, but for His humiliation in
the flesh, was His without limit and His as springing
from within.”
REV. S. A. BROOKE,
*
HON. CHAPLAIN TO THE QUEEN.
P. 32-4, “It was then a man who spoke these
words (on the Cross) ? but we are told that He was
also Divine, that the Word is incarnate in Jesus.
This is the doctrine of the Church of England, and I
have often stated my belief in it. But the question
at present is, how far, at the time these words were
spoken, had the Divine nature become at one with
the human nature of Christ. I would suggest that if
God had in all His fulness, at this time, united Him
self to Christ, so that the Divine and human natures
"were entirely blended then into one human-divine
Person, Christ could neither have suffered nor
struggled with evil, nor died, and the whole story
becomes fictitious; and it is in avoiding this dreadful
conclusion which seems to rob us of all comfort, that
men have been driven into believing in Christ as
being nothing more than a sinless man. I suggest
another view—I can conceive that though His union
with God was from the moment of His birth poten
tially His, as the whole growth of the oak is in the
acorn, yet that the communication of the Divine
Word to the Man Christ Jesus was a gradual com' munication, that it went on step by step with the
'gradual perfecting of His humanity, that, for example,
in the temptation in the wilderness the human1 will
of Christ met all the temptations to sin which could
be offered to Him on the side of the spirit of the
world, struggled with them in a real struggle, and
* Sermon on the Voysey judgment.
�20
The Collapse of the Faith.
conquered them, and that then His human nature,
having made itself so far forth victorious and perfect,
received such a communication of the Divine nature
as raised Him above all possibility from that time of
being tempted by the evil spirit of the world.............
This (next) crisis came in the garden of Gethsemane.
According to the view suggested, He would conquer
that temptation with the weapons of humanity, not
of divinity, and when that was over, then His human
nature having made another step towards its perfec
tion, would be adequate to receive a farther com
munication of the Divine Word, which would raise
Him beyond the power of ever being tempted by any
spiritual evil—the spiritual union between God and
man ever, as I have said, potentially His, would have
now reached, through a growth unbroken by any
reception of evil, its perfect development. . . . The
view we suggest would allow us to say—and the
history tends to confirm it—that Christ was not at
this time a partaker of the absolute attributes of God.
He was not omniscient, omnipotent, unlimited by
time or space, or impassible—with regard to know
ledge, to suffering, to the desires of the body, He
would then be as we are, except so far as absolutely
holy humanity modifies these things. According
then, to this idea, we need not be troubled with the
thought that theology imposes on us a fiction in ask
ing us to believe in the reality of the sufferings upon
the Cross. They were borne by a man, but by a man
who was, through the spiritual union of His human
nature with the spiritual nature of the Divine Word,
essential and perfect humanity, a man and yet the
Man.”
�The Collapse &f the Faith.
31
*
DÖRNER
PROFESSOR OF THEOLOGY IN THE UNIVERSITY OF GOTTINGEN.
Division 2, vol. 3, p. -249-50. “In relation also tothe earthly God-manhood of Christ, as we have ob
served, not merely is the principle that He must have
undergone a true growth universally recognised ; but
theologians also are pretty generally agreed in the
opinion, that if the unity of the Divine-huihan life
during the period of Christ’s earthly existence is to be
maintained, the Ksy&xng must be much more com
pletely carried out............ We have no alternative
but to assume, that in some way or other the Logos
limited Himself for His being and activity in this
Mm, so dong as the same was still undergoing growth.
. . , .' Important differences, however, are still ob
servable here. The one maintain that this limitation
of the Logos in Jesus is to be conceived as a rooted
self-depotentiation in love, as consisting in a reduction
of His Being to the point of adequacy to the embry
onic life of a child of man, &c. . . . On the only other
possible view we can merely speak of a limitation of
the self-communication of the Logos to humanity, not
of a lessening or reduction of the Logos Himself.”
E. DE PRESSENSE, Parish
P. 254.—“ According to John’s prologue, the un
created light of the Word emitted some rays in the
night of a world separated from God—‘The light
shineth in darkness.’ But when the issue is to
redeem the world and save it, and to raise man up to
God, then ‘the Word becomes flesh;’ an expression
* “ Doctrine of the Person of Christ.”—(Clark's Edinburgh
Edition.')
f Jesus, Christ, son temps, sa vie, son seuvre.
�22
The Collapse of the Faith.
which does not mean merely that He clothed Himself
with a human body, but that He became really man,
and subjected Himself to all the conditions of our
existence. Jesus Christ is not at all the Son of God
hidden in the son of man and retaining in a latent
condition all the attributes of Divinity ; that would
require an irreducible duality which would destroy
the Unity of His Person, and remove it from the
normal conditions of a human life; His obedience
would become a mockery, and His example would be
inapplicable to our race. No, when the "Word be
came flesh, He annihilated Himself—He stripped
Himself of His glory—‘ being rich He became poor ’
—He became as one of us, sin excepted, in order
to encounter the moral conflict, with all the perils
arising out of His being free. We have a Son of
God voluntarily lowered, and that very lowering is
the beginning as well as the condition of His Sacri
fice. He retained of Deity that which constitutes in
some sort its moral essence; He is not the less man
because the man only fulfils Himself in God. If we
wish to avoid falling into a Docetism which would
make Christ a phantom and the Gospel an illusion,
we must acknowledge this lowering of the Word in the
full sense of its meaning and with all its mysterious
ness—all the more, because it has been too much lost
sight of by the Church theology of the fourth century.
Up to that time, even whilst the Formula was halting
and unsettled, the belief in a Christ who was very
man never failed; they never fell back on a dogma
of the two natures, and they continued steadfast in
the Apostles’ beliefs, which were too vital and too
deep to be lost in these metaphysial subtleties.—
Homo factus est, says Irenaeus, ut nos assuefaceret fieri
det. Accordingly, Christ is not that outlandish
Messiah who, as God, possessed omniscience and
and omnipotence, at the same time when, as man,
His knowledge and powers were limited. We be-
�The Collapse of the Faith
33
lieve in a Christ who became really like ourselves,
who was subjected to the conditions of progress and
gradual life-development, and who was obedient even
unto the death on the cross. On no other terms
shall we have a living and human Gospel, and prevent
its being, like a Byzantine painting, stiff and motionless
in a gilded frame, with all its individuality of ex
pression merged in a hue of conventionalism.”
Having noticed (p. 262) “ the inextricable contra
diction” of the two genealogies, he says, p. 314, &c.,
of The Temptation, “If impeccability be demanded
for Christ, then He is removed from the real condi
tions of earthly life; His humanity is only an
illusion, a thin veil, behind which appears His
impassible Divinity. Being no longer like us, He
no longer belongs to us.
A nondescript meta
physical phantasmagoria replaces the thrilling drama
of a moral struggle. We must no longer speak of
temptation, nor of the trial of Him who was the sub
ject of it. Let us fetch Christ down from that chilly
empyræum of Theology where He is nothing but a
dogma, and let us say with Irenæus, / Erat homo
certans pro patribus.’ .... It is as Messiah that He
is tempted ; and it is as concerning the miraculous
power which He possessed, or at least, which He is
invested with by God from day to day.”
The Infallibility
of Jesus.
P. 352 (see extract from page 254.)—“ According
to our idea of the Incarnation and the voluntary
self-lowering implied in it, we do not at all claim
omniscience for Jesus. He made Himself subject to
the law of development, and consequently He could
not have possessed spiritual omniscience all at once.
He attained it by degrees. But whilst we admit His
improvement and advance, we must be'on our guard
�34
The Collapse of the Faith.
against/ confounding His relatively imperfect spiritual
knowledge with error. In this domain, infallibility is
a result of perfect holiness, for religious error belongs
to some moral imperfection. Truth, says Schleiermacher, is man’s natural condition.................. If, then,
this is the case with man in his normal state, with
much more reason must we attribute this infallibility
to Jesus, who presents to-us -the most lofty ideal of
humanity............ This infallibility, however, reaches
no; farther than to spiritual truth. It is taking away
from Jesus the reality of His humanity to suppose
that He possessed an innate knowledge of all terres
trial phenomena, and that He entirely escaped the
common notions of this age on physical matters. It
would be childish to believe that when; He spoke of
the setting sun, He reserved in His own mind the
theory of Galileo or of Newton. No, as regards every
thing which was not a part of His mission, He was
truly the man of His age and of His country. Yea,
more than that, even in the spiritual sphere, He did
not possess omniscience. He declared Himself, that
the knowledge of the times and seasons belonged
exclusively to His Father.”
.
■ ■
The Raising of Lazarus.
532.—“ Lazarus was lying on a bed of suffering—
his sickness was getting worse, and Jesus was in
Pereea—it was a journey of several hours to reach
Him—a messenger was sent off in all haste by the
two sisters. Instead of coming He only replied in
these prophetic words, ‘this sickness is not unto
death, but for the glory of God, that the Son of God
may be glorified thereby/ Evidently, Jesus spoke
under the influence of a special revelation, and the
issue which was about to be effected could not but.
have an influence on His own personal destiny, which
was so important that He was aware of it beforehand.
�The Collapse of the Faith.
35
536.—“With eyes raised up to heaven. He gives
thanks to the Father even before the miracle was
wrought, so assured is He that what He asks is
agreeable to His will. Had He not then received an
express revelation as to what was going to take place,
even before the death of Lazarus ? ”
Such is this drama, as affecting and as simple
as human life is in its noblest passages, for which
some have dared to substitute, a low stage farce.
F. GODET,
*
DOCTEUR PROF. THEOL. BALE.
[Dr Godet’s commentary takes very high rank
amongst the most orthodox and conservative pro
ductions of continental evangelicalism, and is. de
signed to be an answer to and preservative against
the rationalising and destructive exegesis of Ger
many. Dr Godet (g.y.) asserts the mnaculous birth
of our Lord, the objective reality of the supernatural
phenomena at His baptism, the reality of the facts of
the Temptation, the personality of Satan, demoniacal
possession, the certainty of the miracles, the vicarious
punishment of Christ, &c., &c. He claims and
vindicates the Messianic Psalms and Prophecies,
reconciles the genealogies, calls the. free thought
school “ the Saturnalia of Criticism,” and is
thoroughly evangelical on the Eucharist.]
He says, vol. i. p. 54. (St Luke ch. i. 35.) “ The
power of the highest shall overshadow thee.
I
think rather that these expressions recall the cloud
which in the desert covered the camp of the Israelites
and sheltered it with its shade. Here, as in ch.
ix. 34, the Evangelist indicates the approach of
* Com. Evang. de. S. Luc. 1871.
�36
The Collapse of the *ith.
a
that mysterious cloud by the word emgxid^eiv. Here
the Holy Spirit indicates the divine power, the
vitalising breath which called the germ of a human
individuality slumbering in Mary’s womb, to the
development of its existence. This germ is the band
which connects Jesus with human nature and makes
Him a member of the race which He came to save.
In this second creation the miracle of the first crea
tion is thus re-enacted with a higher power. There
the two elements were present, a body taken from
the earth, and the breath of God. Here the germ
borrowed from Mary’s womb and the Holy Spirit
fertilising it, correspond to those two elements.”
Therefore also that Holy thing which shall be born
of thee shall be called the Son of God. “ Here then
we have, from the mouth of the angel himself, the
authentic explanation of the expression Son of God in
the earlier part of his message. According to this ex
planation Mary could not understand the title in any
sense but this, a human being who had God Himself
as the immediate author of his existence. This is
not at all the idea of pre-existence, but it is more
than the notion of Messiah which relates only to
the office, of His mission; (vol ii. p. 301. On the trial
scene Dr Godet says, ‘ They were condemning Him
as a blasphemer, and that for calling Himself the
Son of God.’)”
“. . . . What is the connection between this
miraculous birth of Jesus and His perfect holiness 1
The latter is not a necessary result of the former, for
holiness is a matter of choice, not of nature. How
can we give any serious meaning to the moral
struggles in the history of Jesus, e.g. to the temp
tation, if absolute holiness were the natural conse
quence of His miraculous birth 1 But it is not so.
The miraculous birth was only the negative condition
of His immaculate holiness. By the method of
His entrance into human life, He was re-established
�The^ollafse of the ^aith.
^7
in what was man’s formal condition before the fall,
and put in a position of fulfilling the course originally
set before mankind which would have led it on
from innocence to holiness. He was simply released
from the impediment which, by virtue of our mode
of birth, fatally prevents us from performing this
task. But in order to turn this potentiality into
an actuality Jesus was bound every instant to make
an active use of His liberty, and to occupy Himself
unreservedly with carrying out the law. of ‘ the
good ’ and of the task which he had received, ‘ to
keep the commandment of His Father.’
The reality of the struggle then was. not in any
sense excluded by this miraculous birth, which
involved nothing else in Him except the freedom of
not sinning, but did not exclude at all the freedom of
sinning.
P. 127. ch. ii. 49. “My Father’s business, this
expression formulates the ideal of an entirely filial
life, of an existence absolutely consecrated, to God
and to Divine things., which perhaps had just that
moment burst forth in Jesus’ mind, and which we
could no more comprehend than did Mary and
Joseph, ‘ if the life of Jesus had not passed before
our viewv. 52. ‘ Increased in wisdom, &c.’ The
word ‘ stature ’ embraces the complete physical and
psychical development, all the external graces j
‘ wisdom ’ belongs to the internal development;
the third term, ‘favour wi#h God and man’ com
pletes the other two. There was shed around the
person of this young man a charm at once moral and
external, which won to him the favour of God and
men............ There is no other conception for the
omission or denial of which theology has to pay a
heavier penalty, than this one of a development in the
very pure. This is the conception which the Chris
tianity of the Bible owes for ever to this verse. By
means of it the humanity of Jesus can be accepted,
as it is here by St Luke, in all its reality.”
�38
The ^ollapse of the _j2itb.
P. 172. The Baptism, ch. iii. 21. “ Jesus also
being baptised and praying,—Luke adds here a
detail which is peculiar to him, and which serves
to put in their true light the miraculous phenomena
which are to follow. At the instant when Jesus
afthr His baptism was about to go up out of the
water, He was in prayer. This detail shows that
the divine manifestations were the reply from above
to the prayer of Jesus.”
11 The divine manifestation consisted of three
sensible phenomena, to which three internal facts
corresponded. The first phenomenon is the opening
of heaven, and the (corresponding) spiritual fact, of
which the phenomenon is as it were the percept
ible covering, is the complete understanding granted
to Jesus of the divine plan and of the work of salva
tion. This first phenomenon then represents the,
perfect revelation....... (Second phenomenon),
Jesus sees descending a luminous apparition; to
this manifestation the interval fact of the effusion of
the Holy Spirit into His soul corresponds. The
Holy Spirit is about to make burst forth all the
germs of a new world which up to this were shut up
in the soul of Jesus. . . . This luminous apparition
then is thè emblem of an inspiration which is neither
intermittent like that of the prophets, nor partial
like that of believers—of perfect Inspiration. The
third phenomenon, that of the divine voice accom
panies a communication yet more intimate and
personal. There is no more direct emanation of
personal life than speech and voice. The voice of
God Himself sounds at once in the ear and in the
heart of Jesus and initiates Him as to His relation
to God—the most tenderly beloved being, beloved as
an only Son is of a father ; and as to his relation, as
such to the world—the medium of the divine love
towards men, his brothers, to raise whom also to the
dignity of sons is his mission.’—. . . ‘My Son.’
�The ^ollapse of the ™aith.
39
What is the force of the possessive pronoun here ? . .
The unutterable blessedness of being the perfect
object of the love of the infinite God, diffused itself,
at this word, in the heart of Jesus.
“ By the perfect revelation, Jesus is now initiated
as to the plan and work of salvation ; by the perfect
inspiration He possesses the power of accomplishing
it; by the consciousness of His dignity of sonship,
He feels himself to be the supreme messenger of God
here below, the Messiah, the chosen one of God,
summoned alone to finish that work.” (Note, p. 179.)
—“ Jesus actually received, not indeed (as Cerinthus,
going beyond the truth, used to teach) the visit of a
Christ from heaven who was to be joined to Him for
a time (note this) but the Holy Spirit, in the full
meaning of the word, whereby Jesus became the
anointed of the Lord, the Christ, the perfect man, the
second Adam, capable of begetting a new spiritual
humanity.”
P. 221.—“ But could Jesus have been really tempted,
if He were holy; Sin if He were the Son of God ;
fail in His work, if He were the Redeemer chosen of
God ? The Holy one might be tempted. . . . the Son
could sin, because He had renounced the mode of
divine existence—the form of God (Philip, ii. 6.)—to
enter into a human estate precisely like our own.
The Redeemer might fail, if we regard the question
from the stand point of His personal liberty, &c., &c.
“ These supreme laws of his Messianic activ ty
He • had learned in the bitter school of the
instructor to whom God had committed Him in the ■
wilderness.”
P. 421.—(ch. viii. 45.) ‘who touched me 1 ’
“ The receptivity of the woman rises to such a
degree of energy that she as it were draws the cure
out of Jesus. The action of Jesus here is limited to
that constant willingness which impels Him, in all
�40
The ^ollapse of the ^aith.
His relation with men, to bless and save them. He
.however is not unconscious of that virtue which He
has just discharged ; but He knows that there is an
¡alloy of superstition in the faith of the person who is
^showing it .towards Him ; and, as Riggenbrch clearly
¿expounds, His object in what follows as to purify
.that incipient faith. But to do so, He must discover
the doer of the deed—we have no reason not to
impute to Jesus the ignorance expressed by his
'question, ‘ who touched me 1 ’ the candour of his
/character does not admit of any pretence.”
APPENDIX.
ON THE ATONEMENT.
Rev. Dr. Jellett, Fellow Trin. Coll., Dublin.
*
(Sufferings of the righteous,, p. 8, 9.)—“That the guilt
of one man should be transferred to another is not
only false, but absolutely inconceivable.” “When
under the name of imputed sin, or any other misty
term which we choose to employ, we speak of God as
punishing one man for the sin of another, we really
attribute to Him an action which I should find it
difficult to describe with reverence.”
Pp. 21, 22.—“Vicarious punishment implies vic
arious suffering certainly; but it implies something
more; and it is that ‘ something more ’ which is
involved in the theory now under consideration, and
.which seems to me at variance with the fundamental
laws of morality.” ...
“The theory under consideration, (viz., that our
* Sermons preached in the College Chapel, 1864
�The ^ollapse of tbe^aitfr.
4K
blessed Lord was the object of the Divine wrath), is
incredible, simply because it makes the Judge of all
the earth do wrong.”
Brookes’ Sermons, p. 492.
Nevertheless it is astonishing how strongly this
superstitious view of God s anger clings to the minds
of men. It has vitiated the whole view taken of the
Atonement by large numbers of the Church of Christ.
They are unconsciously influenced by the thought that
where there is suffering, there must be sin. The cross
is suffering; therefore, somewhere about the sufferer
there must be sin, and God must be angry. But
Christ had no sin j then what does the suffering
mean ? . . .
.
At last light comes to them . . . and the thing is
clear. Man sins, and sin against an Infinite Being
is infinite and deserving of infinite punishment. A
debate takes place in the nature of God. Justice says,
‘I must punish,’ Mercy replies, ‘have pity,’ Love
steps in, . . . the Son of God is infinite, let Him bear
as man the infinite punishment—and this was done,
&c., &c. The intuitions are all against it. It outrages
the moral sense 5 if I murdered a man to-morrow,
would justice be satisfied if my brother came forward
and offered to be put to death in my stead ? It
outrages the heart ... it outrages our idea of God,
it makes Him satisfied with a fiction.
If none of these opinions of reputed pillars of the
truth here quoted, be true, surely the Christian
evidence company ought to disprove them all, without
respect of persons ; and they ought to do it in a very
different fashion from that of our Father-in-God the
Bishop of Peterborough, who in his recent Issean
orations in Norwich repeated in LARGE CAPITALS, that
�42
The ^ollapse of the ^aith.
■Christianity has no demonstration to give ; and that
if it had, it would do us no more good than the
demonstration that two and two are four !!
[Qu. Why then does the Bishop complain of people
who won’t believe him; or of those who would believe
if they could
But if any one of these opinions be true, then the
natural meaning of our creeds and articles is not true,
and orthodoxy with us must set about providing
itself with what the Americans call, “ a New Depar
ture doctrine.”
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
The collapse of the faith: or, the deity of Christ as now taught by the orthodox
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Carrol, William George [1821-1885] (ed)
Description
An account of the resource
Place of publication: Ramsgate; Dublin
Collation: v, [1], 10-42 p. ; 18 cm.
Notes: From the library of Dr Moncure Conway. Extracts from sermons by Right Rev. Dr. O'Brien, Rev. E.H. Plumptree, Rev. Moorhouse, Right Hon. W.E. Gladstone, Rev. Stopford Brooke. Professor Dorner, E. Dr. Pressense, Professor F. Godet. Name of author incorrectly spelt on title page as W.G. Carrol. Appendix: Rev. Dr. Jellett and Rev. Stopford Bridge on the atonement. Printed by Turnbull and Spears, Edinburgh. Pencilled inscription on title page: 'Rough proof. Very good indeed but the change noted (?) will not tell on popular opinion for a long time.'
Publisher
An entity responsible for making the resource available
Thomas Scott; R.D. Webb
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
G5462
Subject
The topic of the resource
Jesus Christ
Faith
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 collapse of the faith: or, the deity of Christ as now taught by the orthodox), 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
Atonement
Belief and Doubt
Conway Tracts
Jesus Christ
Sermons
-
https://d1y502jg6fpugt.cloudfront.net/25778/archive/files/f40ff54528118dc055b0813db4d766cd.pdf?Expires=1712793600&Signature=gzvYlxsq1wZVhInMJ5FbalTTZaCoPc%7ExfxlQ-MvhJIs6FmANOQK-DzSsmqa8NmTFmjYtI9jP-U0rD1EmwhpmqQN8%7Ek3YBEWlvmFImK9w2SCwr3FfFFAcnWWPQtFLt8rLVZxxb3bLxlznF5JYMNqMWUh80gf97iJVuqQyNzmmCmRkxAHzGHqvXSU38wCYac06QaB1lsI3hNXRfzlYQZ-oHrEtRdewkOK-u9sgCUmEk4e0RRi4F8h-ZP9ydC7XKZwUxKH9tkdDK6SsnXqWRYUO0AhfhDQtfIiAHJJWslcrEpieyW2rseNtkNlcMUIsmmmZLHCWVaLCzBxYhkW4nXMYwQ__&Key-Pair-Id=K6UGZS9ZTDSZM
c875eb290312277b18e17724136b37dd
PDF Text
Text
Oi a.00
-PLATO, PHILO, AND PAUL;
OR,
THE PAGAN CONCEPTION OF A “DIVINE LOGOS” SHEWN
TO HAVE BEEN THE BASIS OF THE CHRISTIAN
- DOGMA OF THE DEITY OF CHRIST.
BY
BEV. J. W. LAKE.
“ Christianity conquered Paganism, hut Paganism infected Christianity. The rites of the
Pantheon passed into her worship, and the subtleties of the Academy into her creed.”—
Macaulay.
“ Godly men are called God-like, for God lives, forms, ordains and works in them all His
works;, and doth, so to speak, use Himself in them.”—Tauter.
i
.
>4
'J.
PUBLISHED BY THOMAS SCOTT,
NO. 11, THE TERRACE, FARQUHAR ROAD,
UPPER NORWOOD, LONDON, S.E.
i
p,
v
•
Price One Shilling.
�“ To shew you openly my opinion, I say, that it is not absolutely
necessary for salvation to know Christ after the flesh ; but it is
altogether otherwise if we speak of the ‘ Son of God,’ that is, of
the 'Eternal Wisdom of God,’ which is manifested in all things,
and chiefly in the human soul, and most of all in Jesus Christ.
Without this wisdom, no one can come to the state of happiness,
for it is this alone which teaches what is true and what is false,
what is good and what is evil. As to what certain churches add,
that God took human nature, I expressly declare that I do not
know what they say, and to speak frankly, I confess that they
seem to me to speak a language as absurd as if one were to say
that a circle had taken the nature of a triangle.”-—Spinoza, Letter
to a Friend.
“ Behold ! behold the God whom every spirit adores,
Whom Abraham served, of whom Pythagoras dreamed,
Whom Socrates announced, with whom Plato conversed,
That God whom the universe reveals to reason,
Whom justice waits for, whom the unfortunate hopes for,
And whom at length Christ came to shew to the world ;
This is not that Deity fabricated by man,
That God ill explained by imposture,
That God disfigured by the hands of false priests,
Whom our credulous ancestors trembling worshipped,
He alone is, He is One, He is just, He is good,
The earth sees His work, and the heaven knows His name.”
[From a French poem addressed by Lamartine to the Abbe
De Le Mennais, quoted in Hunt’s Essay on Pantheism.]
�DEDICATION.
To the Bishops and Clergy of the Church of England,
to those Dissenting Ministers who hold and teach the
so-called orthodox faith, but especially to the intelligent
and thoughtful among the English Laity, this pamphlet
is dedicated.
It is a condensed, comprehensive, and connected
survey of religious history, and in discerning the simple
facts which that history records, it sees and shows that
the present fundamental dogmas of the national
religion, viz., the “ Deity of Jesus ” and the “ Atone
ment for Sin, said to be effected through the merits of
his death,” are plain and palpable delusions.
History must itself be rewritten, and all its pro
minent facts reversed, ere this position can be refuted.
The overwhelming and conclusive evidence on which it
rests, is now brought, for the first time, in simple,
clear, and connected form, before the masses of the
English people, and possibly the facts adduced, will be
new to many of the clergy also.
Refutation is fearlessly challenged, for we have but
given a mere outline of the evidence we possess, and
could easily supply volume after volume of added
proofs.
This pamphlet will he widely circulated, and the
people possessed of the knowledge it imparts, will
�4
Dedication.
increasingly come to despise and contemn, as ignorant
or untruthful men, a clergy who, in the face of the
information which is here given, shall continue to pro
pagate known and proven fallacies as the eternal Truths
of God.
The hour for a new Religious Reformation has struck,
and it rests with the clergy of the National Church to
determine whether they will rank among its honoured
leaders, or he swept away as an effete priesthood by its
waves.
�PLATO, PHILO, AND PAUL.
HE belief that Christ was God, may be said to be
the foundation doctrine of the Christian Church.
Christianity, both sacerdotal and evangelical,—both
Romish and Calvinistic, makes this belief to be a
fundamental doctrine. There are few Christians, how
ever, who would not feel it something akin to gross
irreverence, were they asked to express this belief in
other language, and to assert that Jesus of Nazareth,
the peasant teacher of Judea, whom the Jewish priests
accused of blasphemy, and got crucified by the Romans
for sedition, was the Almighty maker and framer of the
myriads of worlds that stud the vast infinity of space !!
To express the doctrine in this form, is instinctively
felt to be akin to ridicule, and we are immediately told
that we do wrong thus to confuse the two natures of
Jesus, who was both God and Man,—who, in the
former capacity, was the creator of the world, but who,
as man, was like other men, subservient to the laws of
nature, and subject to the adverse fortunes and ordinary
discipline of human life.
Again, the Church of England defines God as being
“ a Spirit,” and consequently, destitute of “body, parts,
and passions; ” how then, we ask, can Jesus, who was
a man like ourselves, and who had “ body, parts, and
passions,” be God ? The question is unanswerable, in
any way consistent with an intelligent belief in the
dogma of the Godhead of Christ; and this dogma, as
held and taught by the churches of Christendom, is a
T
�6
Plato, Philo, and Paul.
gross and idolatrous superstition. Jesus was man, and
only man, was doubtless a good, earnest, devout, and
pure-minded man, was possibly pre-eminent, in an
intense degree, in all the virtues and excellences that
ennoble our humanity ; but still he was only man. We
know but little of his actual life, many years of which
are veiled in an impenetrable darkness, which no light
of history illumines, and the account we have of the
(two or three) brief years of his public ministry, is so
loosely and dubiously recorded, that we have no means
of estimating his true and actual character ; all we really
know concerning him is, that he was a philanthropist
and religious reformer, and that living in an age, the
thought-currents of which were busy in lifting religion
from a sensual to a spiritual character, Jesus endorsed
the highest, and purest, and noblest thought of the
time, and wove it into a new religion, which constituted
the gospel he proclaimed.
The true duty of men with regard to him, is to
profit by his teachings, and to catch the pure and earnest
spirit of his life, not to believe in any special dogmas
as to the office he held, or the mystical nature he bore.
This dogma of the Deity of Christ has been the
main instrument in corrupting and debasing
Christianity. For Christianity, through the corrup
tions that have distorted it, has been often more of a
curse than a blessing to the world. It has caused
rivers of blood to flow, has again and again crushed
liberty under its foot, and, for centuries together, has
kept Europe in the mists and darkness of ignorance.
To-day, those countries are lowest in the scale of
European civilisation, where a Christian priesthood
rule in greatest power. Even in our own so-called free
and enlightened country, the Christian Church has
been the stumbling-block in the way of a true and
sound national education. We regard this dogma, then,
of the “ Deity of Christ,” as a pernicious and debasing
idolatry, and we proceed to lay bare its origin and
�Plato, Philo, and Paul.
7
history, to show it as being the corruption and travesty of
one of the grandest and noblest ideas that have lit and
elevated the human mind,—and so to make it abso
lutely impossible for men of honest and intelligent mind
to cherish this idea in its corrupt and idolatrous form.
In the early portions of the Bible, God is often
spoken of as having the form and passions of a man.
In Christ’s day, the more thoughtful and intelligent
minds had outgrown this gross and crude idea, and
Christ taught that God was a Spirit, and that he was
to be worshipped “ in spirit and in truth.” Christians,
however, have reproduced the gross ideas of an early
and ignorant age, by worshipping the teacher as God,
and by inventing a series of mystical dogmas through
which they have identified him with the Great Creator
of the universe.
Now, it is evident that the first lesson in religion
should be that which gives us a correct and worthy, if
not a complete and full conception of God. As Minucius Felix told a heathen of his day, so we also “should
know our Gods before we worshipped them.” For on
this knowledge and assurance the stability of our re
ligion depends. Unfortunately, the Bible gives us but
little help here. It asserts, but it does not explain,
much less reveal, the existence and nature of God.
Its assumed earliest words, “ In the beginning, God
made the heavens and the earth,” imply that the idea
of God is familiar to the reader’s mind. The early
chapters of the Book of Genesis belong, however, to
the later rather than to the earlier era of Jewish
history, are an adaptation of Chaldean legends, know
ledge of which was gained by the Jews, during their
captivity in Babylon, one thousand years after the death
of Moses. Almost down to the era of the captivity,
the Jews were idolaters, worshipped God under the
similitude of graven images, and practised many of the
rites of the Pagan peoples around them. As this
�8
Plato, Philo, and Paul.
assertion, however, runs so counter to the current
religious teaching, it is perhaps desirable to fortify it
by the following testimony of some of the most
learned biblical scholars of our age :—
“ For a long time after the building of Solomon’s Temple
(which event was itself five hundred years after the time of
Moses), sacrifices were offered on high places as well as at
the temple, and even by kings who were noted for their
piety and adherence to Jehovah’s laws, and for being
desirous, with all zeal, to promote the worship of Jehovah,
as Asa (1 Kings xv. 14), Jehosaphat (xxii. 44), Joash, the
pupil of the priests (2 Kings xii. 4), Amaziah (chap. xiv. 4),
Uzziah (chap. xv. 4), and Jotham (chap. xv. 35.) In the
Books of Kings and Chronicles, it is always pointed out as
blameable, that even these pious kings should have allowed
the worship in the high places to remain. But this is
merely the verdict of the author of these books which, in no
case, could have been composed before the Babylonian exile.
As the kings above named are depicted in everything else
as such zealous servants of Jehovah, we can scarcely think
that they would not have aimed at putting a stop to the
worship at high places, where sacrifices were offered to
Jehovah (?to Baal) at other altars besides that in the
Temple, if the Deuteronomic law, so expressly showing the
service to be contrary to the will of Jehovah, had been
acknowledged by them as Mosaic.”—Bleeps Introduction to
the Old Testament, Vol. I., p. 328.
Dr Samuel Davidson, the most eminent of English
biblical scholars, speaks with even greater plainness on
this matter, and shows clearly the crude ideas which
the Jews entertained concerning God, even down to
the period of the Babylonish captivity, one thousand
years after the time of Moses, from whom it is manifest
they could not have received the laws and teaching,
which the Pentateuch declares him to have given with
the authority of a special and supernatural revelation.
Dr Davidson says—
“It is remarkable that the fundamental doctrine of
Mosaism, viz., that there is but one God—the creator and
preserver of all, invisible, eternal, omnipotent, holy, and
�Plato, Philo, and Paul.
9
just,—was all along inadequately apprehended till the
captivity. A few choice spirits grasped it with sufficient
distinctness, and adhered to it, while to the mass of the
people, Jehovah was no more than a superior God beside
other deities. Polytheism had deeply penetrated the vulgar
mind, and though the nation frequently sought Jehovah
with convictions of sin and repentance, such conversions,
called forth by external circumstances, were transient in their
effects. A manifold idolatry, partly of Zabian and partly
of Egyptian orgin, had its altars in all the cities of the land,
in the streets of Jerusalem, and in the very Temple of
Jehovah, immediately before the exile, as we learn from
Jeremiah (chaps, vii., xliv.). There is no evidence to show
that the ceremonial law was observed by the Jews with any
thing like regularity or strictness. The great feasts them
selves, such as the Passover, the Feast of Tabernacles, &c.,
were allowed to fall into desuetude, as the historical books
attest. If the externals of religion were negligently attended
to, religion itself must have been sickly.”-—Introduction to
the Old Testament, Vol. I, p. 340.
Dr Kalisch, in his learned commentary on Leviticus,
shows, very convincingly, the late date of this book as
a whole.
“ It contains,” he says, “ ordinances respecting several
institutions, the existence or full development of which
cannot be proved until long after the captivity—such as the
Sin-offerings and the High priesthood, the Day of Atone
ment, and the Year of Jubilee. Now, it has been shown that
the Day of Atonement was unknown in the time of
Nehemiah, and as the Year of Jubilee was associated with the
Day of Atonement, the compilation of the Book of Leviticus
must fall later than that date, and we shall probably be
near the truth if we place the final revision of Leviticus and
the Pentateuch at about b.c. 400.” (That is 1100 years after
the time of Moses, its reputed author !)
Again, Dr Kalisch states that
“The notion of a holy God, governing a holy people, in
a holy land, was the latest product of religious thought, that
it pre-supposes an age very far in advance of that in which
the people danced round the golden image of the calf Apis,
exclaiming, ‘ These are thy gods, O Israel, who brought
thee up out of the Land of Egypt/ or of that in which
�io
Plato., Philo, and Paul.
Jepthah believed that he was presenting an acceptable
offering to God, by slaughtering his daughter as a
holocaust.”—Historical and Critical Commentary on the Old
Testament. Leviticus. Part II., pp. 637, 639.
These views, which are the established results of all
free and learned inquiry into the Hebrew scriptures,
revolutionize the popular conception with regard to
them, and show us very clearly that the grander,
though still imperfect conceptions of God, which these
scriptures contain, were only held during the later
period of Jewish history, the centuries immediately
preceding the Christian era. They prove that the idea
of God was not a matter of divine revelation, specially
given through Moses, but was a much later develop
ment of Jewish thought, and they leave it an open
question as to whether it was not an importation from
other and even higher faiths. We shall see that
while the people, whom we are mistakenly taught to
regard as being specially chosen and called of God, were
falling continually into the practice of the Syrian
idolatries, and were even participating in the gross
rites of Baal and Astarte, there were countries where a
far purer and truer worship prevailed, and there were,
in heathen lands, systems of philosophy extant, in
which infinitely higher and more worthy ideas of God
were held.
Five hundred years before Christ, the Jews were
mixing idolatrous rites with the worship of Jehovah,
were conceiving of Jehovah as a local god, superior in
power and majesty to the gods surrounding nations
worshipped. He was, to their thought, not a pervad
ing spirit, but a localised person,—a magnified man,
dwelling just above the clouds, ruling as a king, and
watching over the fortunes of the Jewish nation, giving
them the victory over their enemies. After the cap
tivity in Babylon, into which the Jews went as a nation
of idolaters, but from which they emerged as a band of
puritans, their thought of God took a much higher
�Plato, Philo, and Paul.
11
tone, and from this time, a system of Jewish philosophy
took its rise.
Of this philosophy, few traces are
discernible, till within a century or two of the
Christian era.
During this captivity they came in contact first with
the Chaldean religion, and subsequently with the
purer doctrines of the Persian faith. In the former,
they would have seen a gross idolatry from which they
probably shrank, but they would have also been
familiarised with a higher form of speculative thought
than they themselves had hitherto known. From the
Persian conquerors, however, they would have learned
a much higher faith, and have found a religion
strikingly like the best aspects of their own worship, but
with a speculative philosophy from which they had
much to learn. We find them consequently speaking
of the Persian monarch, Cyrus, as the anointed servant
of Jehovah ; and there is but little doubt that his
leniency to the Jews, in remitting their captivity, was
due largely to the similarity of their religion to his
own, to his respect for the monotheistic idea that
marked it.
From the Babylonians the Jews learned the stories,
or myths, of the creation of the world, the fall of man
and the flood. The recent finding among the ruins of
Babylon, by Mr Smith of the British Museum, of the
tablets on which the latter legend was recorded, ranks as
one of the great biblical discoveries of our day, and shews
us the source whence those legends were derived, which
Englishmen are still taught to regard as being special
revelations from God!
From the Persians, whose
religion was that taught by Zoroaster, the Jews
learned to hold far more sublime conceptions of God
than any they had hitherto known. Eusebius, quoting
in the fourth century from an old Persian record, gives
the following as the teaching of Zoroaster concerning
God:—
“ God is the first Being, incorruptible and eternal, un
�12
Plato, Philo, and Paul.
made and indivisible, altogether unlike to all his works,
the principle and author of all good, gifts cannot move bim;
He is the best of the good, and the wisest of the wise.
From Him proceed law and justice.”
This, however, was the philosophic idea of God, an
idea in close alliance, if not identical, with the Panthe
ism of the Hindoos, which makes God to he the
pervading force of nature. It is obvious that such a
God could not be worshipped by the Jews as a magni
fied man,—could not be an object of popular worship
at all,—could not be grasped by the popular mind. His
name was “ Zeruane Akerne,” signifying “ time with
out bounds,” or “ beginningless time,” or “the Eternal.”
But the Persians themselves could not worship such an
abstract being, so for practical purposes they had a
second and personal God, Ormuzd, God of light and
goodness, who has a powerful enemy, Ahriman, the
lord of evil and darkness; betwixt these there is con
tinual strife, in which the latter, like the Christian
“ devil,” of which he is the prototype, is destined to be
eventually overcome. Then there is the mediating and
reconciling God Mithras, who is sometimes worshipped
as the creating God also,—a being who is sometimes
distinct from, and sometimes identified with, Ormuzd,
who is worshipped as the reconciler between light and
darkness, and beyond Mithras, there is Honover,
the “Word” or Him who is eternal wisdom, and
whose speech is an eternal creation. “ Ormuzd is the
creation of the impersonal God, the living personal
deity, the first begotten of all things, the resplendent
image of infinitude, the being in whose existence is
imaged the fulness of eternal time and infinite space.
The sun is His symbol, yet the sun is but a spark of
the unspeakable splendour in which he dwells. What
ever the original One is, that is Ormuzd,—infinite in
light, in purity, in wisdom. But, as the first begotten
of the Eternal, his duration is limited to 12,000 years ;
as a personal deity He is finite ; He is a king, and
�Plato, Philo, and Paul.
13
has a kingdom which is not universal, for it is opposed
by the kingdom of Ahriman.” *
In the common thought the Persian religion, while
nominally monotheistic, seemed practically to recognise
the existence of two gods, a good god and an evil god ;
a god who ruled the light, and a god who ruled the
darkness ;—a beneficent god who^sent prosperity, and a
malignant god who strove to fill the world with
adversity. Such views would be likely to have special
attraction for the Jewish captives, as they would solve
for them the perplexing problem of their own present
adversity. The God on whom they had relied for the
permanence of their national prosperity, had allowed
his and their enemies to triumph, to destroy his sacred
temple, to profane the holy vessels, and to make his
chosen people captive.
This theology, therefore,
which taught that there was a bad and evil God, who
sometimes foiled the plans and marred the purposes of
the good God, offered a fair explanation of their diffi
culty. We find accordingly that the'belief in a dual
god, or rather in two opposing and distinct gods, won
considerable acceptance with them, and threatened to
undermine the monotheism that to the higher minds of
the Jewish people marked the national faith. This
is evident from the 45th chapter of Isaiah, which
seems to have been expressly written to combat this
perversion of their faith, and which, from the mention
it makes of Cyrus the Persian King, was evidently
written at the period of the return, by his permission
and direction, of a portion of the Jews from Babylon.
“ I am the Lord, and there is none else, there is no
God beside me. 1 form the light, I create darkness :
I make peace and create evil: I the Lord do all these
things."—Isaiah xlv. 5-7,
This dualism, however,
was never wholly eradicated, and from this date the
idea of an evil god entered the current of Jewish
* From an Essay on Pantheism, by Eev. J. Hunt.
�14
Plato.) Philo, and Paul.
thought, and the Persian Ahriman in due time developed
into the Devil of Christian theology.
But the higher aspects also of the religious thought
of the followers of Zoroaster, the great Persian lawgiver
or prophet, tinged from this time the subsequent
thought of Judaism.
It is singular that the Bible, as Protestants use it,
furnishes no record of the Jewish people during the
best and brightest portion of their religious history,
viz., the four or five centuries immediately preceding
the Christian era, and constituting the period of their
national life, that intervened between their return from
captivity and the ministry of Jesus. The apocryphal
books of Ecclesiasticus-—the Wisdom of Solomon—the
books of Esdras and of Maccabees, together with the
book of Enoch, not only supply the history of the
Jewish people during this period, but, what is of far
greater importance to our present enquiry, they show
us the progress and development of their religious
thought.
This progress was largely due to the
admixture of the higher and more recondite ideas
concerning deity, which marked the Persian theology,
with the cruder views of their own faith. Here they
first learned that God was not a magnified man, but
a pure and pervading spirit,—and as a step towards
His better apprehension, they imbibed the idea that the
creative and upholding providence of the world were
emanations from His essence, personifications, as it were,
of His power and wisdom. The pure, passionless spirit
could not, it was thought, come into contact with a
gross material world which was inherently depraved
and vicious, so the actual God that formed and ruled
the world, by whom men were upheld, and whom they
were bound to worship, was regarded as a Divine
personage, who acted as God’s vicegerent;—his wis
dom, his angel, or messenger, or word (Memra). The
Jews, however, learned also a more practical lesson, they
learned the ultimate triumph of righteousness as the
�Plato, Philo.) and Paul.
i5
purposed discipline of God, and they gathered from the
functions of the mediating God, Mithras, the ideas
which fashioned the expectation of their own Messiah.
Good and evil blended promiscuously in the world, so
the Persians held, because Ormuzd and Ahriman, the
good and evil Gods, were in perpetual strife, and some
times the good, and at other times the evil God was in
the ascendancy. A period, however, was looked for
at which Ahriman and his followers were to be finally
exterminated (the devil and his angels will be cast into
the bottomless pit as the Book of Revelation repro
duces the thought), when the earth, divested of all the
mountains that roughen its surface, would become the
habitation of happy men, the members of one great
community, speaking the same language, and animated
by the same vital and universal principle. Between
those powers who are perpetually at variance, Zoroaster
placed a mediatory being, Mithras, whose business it was
to overcome the powers of darkness, and to bring all
things under the control of Ormuzd, the beneficent
deity. Mithras had his symbol in the sun, which
luminary was to the Persians the symbol of the good
and beneficent God.
So Mithras is spiritual light
contending with spiritual darkness, and through his
labours the kingdom of darkness shall be lit with
heaven’s own light,—the Eternal will receive all things
back into his favour, the world will be redeemed to
God.
The impure are to be purified and the evil
made good, through the mediation of Mithras, the
reconciler of Ormuzd and Ahriman. Mithras is the
Good, his name is Love. In relation to the Eternal he
is the source of grace, in relation to man he is the life
giver and mediator.
He brings the “Word,” as
Brahma brings the Vedas, from the mouth of the
Eternal. (See Plutarch “ De Isid et Osirid,” also Dr
Hyde’s “DeReligione Vet. Pers.,” ch. 22, see also 11 Essay
on Pantheism,” by Rev. J. Hunt). It was just prior
to the return of the Jews from living among the people
�16
Plato, Philo, and Paul.
who were dominated by these ideas, that the splendid
chapter of Isaiah (xl.), or indeed the series of chapters
which form the closing portion of the book, were
written, “ Comfort ye, comfort ye my people, saith
your God. Prepare ye the way of the Lord, make
straight in the desert a highway for our God. Every
valley shall he exalted, and. every mountain and hill
shall he made low, and the crooked shall he made
straight, and the rough places plain.” And then
follows a magnificent description of the greatness and
supremacy of God, and this is followed by chapters
which tell of a Messiah, or conquering prince, who will
redeem the nation from its enemies, and restore them
to the light of the divine favour, and which predict a
millennium, a golden age of purified and glorified human
ity. It is thus manifest that the inspiration of these
writings came to the Jewish people from their contact
with the religious thought of the Persians, and not from
any supernatural source. From this time the Jews began
to hold worthier ideas concerning God, and to cherish
expectations of a golden age, a kingdom of heaven,
which the Messiah, who was to be the sent messenger of
God, should inaugurate. And this kingdom was to be
a kingdom of righteousness,—a day of marvellous light, a
rule under which all evil and darkness were to perish.
We trace the influence of these thoughts on the
Jewish literature of that day, and those portions of the
Old Testament which are classed as Messianic prophecies,
were doubtless written under its inspiration. While,
however, the Jews were captive in Babylon,—living
in an exile into which they went, a nation of turbulent
and lawless idolaters, Pythagoras was teaching in
Greece a philosophy based on the indivisible unity of
God, whom he named, or rather spoke of as, “ The
One.” On this conception he based a society, which
was the prototype of the subsequent schools of Grecian
philosophy. One deity he taught was the soul of all,
whence the spirits of men issued ; hence he framed his
theory of metempsychosis or transmigration of souls, in
�Plato, Philo, and Paul.
l7
order to provide a discipline by which souls, con
taminated by their contact with' the evil and im
pure bodies of men, might receive a purification fitting
them to return eventually to the pure source from
whence they sprung. Before him Thales and Anaxi
mander had lived, and while the Jews were offering
idolatrous worship within the Temple at Jerusalem,
these men were seeking, by the aid of deep and earnest
speculative thought, to find some worthy and fitting
conception of the only true God. And at the time
when the Jews, liberated from captivity, were about
settling down once more in their Fatherland, Socrates
and Plato were teaching not only moral, but religious
philosophy, to their countrymen at Athens. They were
discussing such questions as the origin of the world, the
immortality of the soul, the nature and existence of God,
the discipline of human life, the character of virtue and
the rewards that should attach to it, as well as the
penalties that the wicked would incur.
Plato, B.c. 400, was familiar with the Pantheistic
philosophy, as well as with the polytheistic worship of
India, Egypt, and his own country, Greece. His mind,
however, shared in the general revolt which all
thoughtful minds feel, alike from the vagueness of the
former as from the superstition of the latter.
“ It is difficult,” says this philosopher, “ to find out
God, and when we have found him, it is impossible to
make him to be comprehended by the multitude.” *
Plato discerned that there was one supreme God,
eternal, immaterial, immutable, omnipotent, omniscient,
the first and the last, the beginning, middle, and end
of all things. But with this admission of The One,
TO EH, Plato conjoined many subordinate natures and
intelligencies, %ow ra IIoTAa. In the supreme mind,
Osos, Nous or Hartip, Plato discerned the Thinker; in
the manifold he discerned His thoughts. The universe
was thus the expression of the thought or idea of God,
* Timaeus.
B
�18
Plato, Philo, and Paul.
was fashioned not by the su preme and impassible thinker,
bnt by his AOroS (Logos'), or active thought.
*
“ All objects of sense have relation to the ideal as
well as to the material world. Thus a house or
machine, or table, &c., are but the material expressions
of ideas that existed in the mind of those who fashioned
them. The manifold (material nature), has thus a
double existence, one in its ideals, the other in its
phenomena. The latter is the world of sense, what
men call the material, and what the vulgar suppose to
he reality. But its existence is only borrowed. It is
a shadow,—a copy, of that which is real, the realities
are the ideas,—the architypes.”—“Essay on Panthe
ism” by Rev. J. Hunt.
With Plato, however, ideas are sometimes identical
with God, the TO EN, the one self-existent Being, and
at other times he speaks as though they were distinct
from God. Thus in his system, God, the designer, is
the supreme mind, and God the Creator, Aryaioupyog,
is spoken of as a secondary or inferior being,—a con
fusion of thought that prevails also in the Christian
systems of to-day, which in fact have been largely
based on the Platonic thought, and in which Jesus is
sometimes spoken of as the “ Son of God,” “ the
maker of the worlds,” “ begotten" of the Father, but
subordinate to the Path er,” and sometimes is reverenced
and worshipped as being the actual and supreme God.
Plato spoke of the active mind or operating thought of
God, the eternal and supreme one, under the title of the
Demiurge (creator), or Logos (the word). “ This Logos,”
he says, “ divine above all other beings, fashioned the
heavenly bodies. This Being a happy man will princi
pally reverence, while he may be stimulated by the
desire of learning whatever is within the compass of
human understanding, being convinced that he will
* The Logos, which here implies the mind of God (divine inspira
tion), was personified as a distinct being by the later schools of the
Platonic philosophy.
�Platte Philo, and Paul.
i9
thus enjoy the greatest felicity in this life; and that
after death he will be translated into regions that are
•congenial to virtue.” (Plat. Epinomis). Another of
Plato’s divinities of second or inferior rank is the
tou Ko<ry,ou, or “ soul of the world,” a personification of
the living forces of nature, a conception akin to the per
vading spirit of God—the Holy Ghost of modern creeds.
The Gospel of John commences with a plain and palp
able reproduction of the Platonic thought.
“ In the beginning was the Logos or Word, and the Logos
or Word was with God, and the Logos or Word was («) God.
All things were made by him, and without him was not
any thing made that was made. In him was life, and the
life was the light or guidance of men.”
The speculative thought, and the religious teaching
of Plato, are diffused throughout his voluminous
writings, but the following is a popular summary of
them, by Madame Dacier, contained in her introduction
to what have been classed as the “ Divine Dialogues.”
“ That there is but one God, and that we ought to love
*
and serve Him, and to endeavour to resemble Him in holiness
and righteousness; that this God rewards humility and
punishes pride.
“ That the true happiness of man consists in being united
to God, and his only misery in being separated from him.
“ That the soul is mere darkness, unless it be illuminated
by God: that men are incapable even of praying well,
unless God teaches them that prayer which alone can be
useful to them.
“ That there is nothing solid and substantial but piety ;
that this is the source of all virtues, and that it is the gift
of God.
“ That it is better to die than to sin.
“ That it is better to suffer wrong than to do it.
“That the ‘Word’ (A6yos) formed the world, and
rendered it visible ; that the knowledge of the Word makes
* Plato, while acknowledging one supreme divinity, often ac
commodates his language to the prevailing polytheistic thought.
In a letter to Dionysius of Syracuse, he says, that in his serious
moods he uses the term 0EOS (God), and in his lighter moods he
uses the phrase 0EOI (Gods).
�20
Plato, Philo, and Paul.
us live very happily here below, and that thereby we obtain
felicity after death.
“ That the soul is immortal, that the dead shall rise again,
that there shall be a final judgment—both of the righteousand of the wicked, when men shall appear only with their
virtues or vices, which -shall be the occasion of their
eternal happiness or misery.”
Such were the ideas of God and of religion, that
were held and taught by Plato in Greece, about the
time that the Jews were returning from captivity,
bringing with them ideas of God and of religion, higher
than any they had before known. These they had
gathered through contact with the followers of the
Zoroastrian faith. But clearer and truer conceptions of
God and of duty were already dawning on the Grecian
mind, and these were destined eventually to mingle
with Hebrew thought, and to fashion the central dogma
of the Christian faith, the Deity or Godhead of
Jesus.
The Jews were, from this time, an enterprising
people, and colonies of their countrymen established
themselves in the leading cities of neighbouring
nations. About three centuries b.c., a large and
important colony resided in Alexandria, the chief city
of Egypt, during the rule of the Ptolemies, and the
metropolitan city of the western world. Here Grecian
learning established its chosen seat, and here thevarious schools of philosophy were represented. Here,
too, was a splendid library, the virtual commencement
of that grand collection which became the finest library
of the ancient world, and whose reputed destruction in
the seventh century, by order of the Caliph Omar, was
an irreparable loss to all subsequent time.
*
* The fact of this destruction was regarded by Gibbon with
some doubt. Alexandria had several public libraries. The first
great library was founded by the Ptolemies, and placed in the
museum ; this library was burned by the soldiers of Julius Caesar.
The second was formed around the library from Pergamus, pre
sented to Cleopatra by Mark Anthony, and was placed in the
Temple of Serapis (the Serapeum). In the reign of Julian, this
�Plato, Philo, and Paul.
'
2f
The following succinct account of Israel in Alex
andria, is given in the valuable pamphlet, “ Our First
Century,” published in Mr Scott’s Series.
“ So far back, in the history of the Jews, as B.C. 588,
they had formed a settlement in Egypt. This we know
from Jeremiah (xliii. 7), who was hostile to its formation.
The impossibility of these Jews having access to the temple
at Jerusalem, and owing to its destruction, their losing the
benefit of the daily sacrifice which used to be offered there,
were facts through which the literal observance of the
Mosaic ritual came to a violent end. The Jews in Egypt,
therefore, were compelled either to relinquish the Mosaic
law altogether, or to understand it in a new sense. They
adopted the latter course. But that law had not any second
meaning. So when a second meaning was sought for, it
could not be found. In the meantime, these Jews, at a
later period, learned the Greek language, read the books of
the Grecian philosophers, entertained certain Grecian ideas,
and so became Hellenists.
“ This Hellenising tendency found its most active develop
ment at Alexandria, founded by Alexander the Great, B.C.
832. When Ptolemy, son of Lagus, captured Jerusalem,
B.c. 320, he carried away a large number of Jewish and
Samaritan captives to Alexandria, where he gave them the
full privileges of citizenship. Many others migrated thither
of their own accord. According to Josephus, Alexander
himself assigned to the Jews a place in his new city. But,
be that as it may, it is certain that, at an extremely early
period in the history of Alexandria, the Jews became so
numerous in that city, that the north-east angle was known
as 1 the Jews’ quarter.’ The religion and philosophy in
that city produced an effect upon the Jews there, more
library amounted to seven hundred thousand volumes. _ This
library was dispersed or destroyed when the Pagan worship was
put down by Theodosius the First, and the Temple of Serapis was
sacked by the Christians. Orosius, who visited Egypt in the reign
of Theodosius Second, saw the empty book shelves. {Sharpe’s
History of Egypt.) The museum, however, was rebuilt, and with
the restoration of the city, there would, doubtless, have been a
restoration of the public library. The author of “ Time and
Faith ” supposes that when the Saracens conquered the City, a.d.
642, the public library, composed in large part of the remnants of
the earlier libraries, had become, for the most part, so decayed
and worm-eaten, that Omar caused them to be destroyed as worth
less rubbish.
�22
Plato, Philo, and Paul.
powerful than the influence of politics or commerce..
Alexander had founded a Temple of Isis side by side with a
temple of the Grecian gods. Creeds from the east and from
the west, co-existed there; and in aftertimes, the mixed
worship of Serapis was characteristic of the Greek kingdom
in Egypt. For that god, originally a native of Pontus, and
adored by the inhabitants of Sinope, was introduced into
Egypt by the first Ptolemy. At first, the priests opposed
the introduction of Serapis. But the liberality of the
Ptolemies overcame the resistance of the priests ; they sub
mitted to worship Serapis, to whom they gave the throne
and the wife of Osiris. This catholicity of worship was
further combined with the spread of learning. The same
monarch who favoured the worship of Serapis, founded and
embellished the museum and the library; and part of the
library was deposited in the Serapeum. The new faith and
the new literature led to a coalition of opinions; and the
Egyptian Jews imbibed a portion of the spirit that prevailed
around them. Its first development appeared in the Greek
version of the Old Testament, known as the Septuagint.
The day on which the Greek text of the law was introduced
into the synagogue at Alexandria, was thus marked in the
Palestine calendar: ‘ The law in Greek! Darkness! Three
days’ fast I ’ So different already had the Alexandrine Jews
become from the Jews in Palestine.”
This Alexandrian colony of Jews soon became, by
their close contact with Grecian philosophy, to a large
extent, Hellenised. By degrees, they lost the memory
of their national language, and much of their rever
ence for their national faith. Their distance from
Jerusalem prevented even their attendance at the
annual festivals, and lessened their interest in, as well
as their knowledge of, their own religion.
At length, they lost the power of reading their own
Scriptures. The generations who were born and bred
among a Greek-speaking people, would naturally cease
to have any large or general acquaintance with what
would have virtually become a foreign language. Thus,
under the rule of Ptolemy Philadelphus, b.o. 260, and
some say, by his direction, the Hebrew scriptures were
translated into the Greek tongue, and were read for the
�Plato, Philo, and Paul.
23
future in this language only, by the Alexandrian Jews.
Moreover, the greater part of the subsequent writings
of the Jews, those written after the closing of the
Hebrew or Old Testament canon, were written in the
Greek tongue, and emanated from the Alexandrian
Jews, and of those which had a Hebrew original, only
Greek translations now remain; showing the supremacy
which this language attained in connection with the
later Jewish literature, and showing also the Hellenised
character of the literature itself. In the Book of
Proverbs, compiled by the Hebrew-speaking Jews of
Palestine, at a period subsequent to the captivity, and
portions of which were, in all probability, written at a
much later date, we have the wisdom of God personi
fied, and represented as a being distinct from the
Eternal. Especially is this seen in the following
passages from the 8th chapter.
“I, wisdom, dwell with prudence, and find out know
ledge of witty inventions.
“ Counsel is mine, and sound wisdom. I am understand
ing, I have strength.
“ By me, kings reign and princes decree justice.
“ I love them that love me, and those that seek me early
shall find me.
“Jehovah possessed me in the beginning of his way,
before his works of old.
“ I was set up from everlasting, from the beginning, or
ever the earth was.
“ When he prepared the heavens, I was there; when he
set a compass upon the face of the depths, there was I by
him, as one brought up with him; and I was daily his
delight, rejoicing always before him.
“ Whoso findeth me findeth life, and shall obtain the
favour of Jehovah.”
Of the actual writer of these words we have no
knowledge at all, neither do we know at what period
they were written. The presumption is that they are
among the latest additions to the Book of Proverbs,
and that they were penned, at a time when the Hebrew
�24
Plato, Philo, and Paul.
thought was tinged with the Alexandrian theosophy,
by a Palestinian Jew familiar with the subtleties of
Grecian philosophic thought, and desirous of harmonis
ing it with Hebrew ideas.
The ideas of the divine unity expressed in the Book
of Deuteronomy, though doubtless not written till the
time of King Josiah, b.c. 632, “ Hear, 0 Israel! the
Lord our God is one God,” betray a tone of thought
wholly at variance with the personification of divine
wisdom as a separate divine personage.
*
This concep
tion of the divine unity, however, was felt, in the
presence of the speculative thought with which the
Jews of Alexandria were in such close contact, to be
confessedly imperfect. God was made by it to be
simply a magnified man, and this view in the growing
enlightenment of the world was felt to be no longer
tenable. The Eternal could not come into material
relation with his creatures, as the early Jewish scrip
tures had narrated. It was a conception too gross to
entertain, to think of the Creator as wearing a human
form, while to imagine him as a spirit or pervading
power, was to lose him altogether as a God. So the
Jews, to accommodate their views to the growing
thought of a more enlightened age, began to personify
his attributes
spoke of the divine wisdom as a
personage, as a divinely commissioned being, as the
power by which the world was created, and mankind
were purified and made godlike. This was a marked
departure from the monotheism of an earlier day, but
it was also a way of escape from the anthropomorphism
in which this had resulted.
The Jewish mind had now taken a large step towards
the recognition of a second and inferior god, and this
* It is scarcely probable that the Jewish people could have been
familiar with the declaration of the divine unity which the book of
Deuteronomy contains, or with the prohibition of idolatry and of
the worship of images found in the book of Exodus, during the
reigns of the kings when they were continually falling back into
idolatrous worship.
�Plato^ Philo, and Paul.
25
thought was largely helped by the current expecta
tion of a divinely commissioned Messiah—a Son of
man, who should make his advent in the clouds of
heaven attended by legions of angels,—who should be
•God himself coming to judge the nations.
God communed, the Jews held, with man by his
“ Memra, ” or “ Word,” by his angel or messenger, by
his Sophia, or wisdom. By wisdom he made the
worlds. By wisdom he calls to men.
The Alexandrian Jews, however, carried their views
still nearer to the form of the Platonic thought. Living
in close contact with the Stoic philosophers, who were
the later representatives of the Platonic school, the writ
ings of the Alexandrian Jews of a period dating about
two centuries before Christ show unmistakably the
influence of Grecian forms of thought. We have two
remarkable books emanating from Hebrew writers
somewhere about this date—viz., the book of “ Wis
dom,” written in Greek by an Alexandrian Jew, and
•embodying the Neo-Platonic thought, and the book of
“ Ecclesiasticus,” written in Hebrew by a Palestinian
Jew who was intimately acquainted with the Alex
andrian literature.
In this latter book we have wisdom set forth as an
inseparable attribute of God, identified so closely with
God as to preserve intact the Hebrew conception of the
divine unity, and to controvert the Neo-Platonic concep
tion which made the divine wisdom or word to be a dis
tinct divinity. It commences, “All wisdom cometh from
the Lord, and is with Him for ever. . . . The word of
God most high is the fountain of wisdom, and her ways
are everlasting commandments.” And then the writer
asks, “ To whom hath the root of wisdom been
revealed ? or who hath understood her wise counsels ?
There is one wise and greatly to be feared, the Lord
sitting upon his throne. He created her, and saw her,
and numbered her, and poured her out upon all his
works. She is with all flesh according to his gift, and
�26
Plato, Philo, and Paul.
he hath given her to them that love him. To fear the
Lord is the beginning of wisdom.”—Ecclesiasticus,
chap. i.
Here is at once a recognition and a repudiation of
the Platonic idea of a secondary god, or rather we may
speak of it as an adaptation by which it is made to
harmonise with the stern monotheism of Hebrew
thought. Wisdom is declared to be a power of God,
but not a personality distinct from God.
Very different is the tone of the Alexandrian writer
of the book of Wisdom. He was a Hellenised Jew,
one who mingled Grecian speculation with Hebrew
traditions, and thought as much of the one as of the
other. Here is his description of wisdom.
“ Eor wisdom, which is the worker of all things,
taught me ; for in her is an understanding spirit, holy,
one only, manifold, subtile, lively, clear, undefiled,
plain, not subject to hurt.
“ Loving the thing which is good, quick.
“ Kind to man, stedfast, sure, free from care, having
all power, overseeing all things, and going through all
understanding, pure and most subtile spirit.
“ For she is the breath of the power of God, and a
pure influence flowing from the glory of the Almighty.
“ She is the brightness of the everlasting light, the
unspotted mirror of the power of God, and the image
of his goodness.
££ And being but one, she can do all things ; and
remaining in herself she maketh all things new j and
in all ages entering into holy souls, she maketh them
friends of God, and prophets, for God loveth none but
him that dwelleth in wisdom.”—ch. vii., v. 22 to 28.
Here we have a definition of wisdom as a divine
power or personage, closely allied to God, yet capable
of being conceived of as distinct from God, much as we
find Christians of our own day believing God the Holy
Ghost to be a distinct deity from God the Lather, yet
in some mystical sense to be one and the same with
�Plato, Philo, and Paul.
*
27
him. The writer continues his praise of wisdom, and
asks—
“ If riches be a possession to be desired in this life,
what is richer than wisdom that worketh all things ?
And if prudence work, who of all that are, is a more
cunning workman than she ? And if a man love
righteousness, her labours are virtues : for she teacheth
temperance and prudence, justice and fortitude ; which
are such things as men can have nothing more profit
able in their life. . . .
“ Moreover, by the means of her I shall obtain
immortality, and leave behind me an everlasting
memorial to them that come after me.”
Of the Platonic character and origin of these
thoughts we shall find abundant evidence by compar
ing them with some extracts from Plato’s writings.
Take the following passage from the Pbtedon:
“ Wisdom is the only true and unalloyed coin, for which
all others must be given in exchange. With that piece of
money we purchase fortitude, temperance, justice. In a
word, that virtue is always true that accompanies wisdom,
whereas all other virtues, stripped of wisdom, are only
shadows of virtue. Temperance, justice, fortitude, and
prudence, or wisdom itself, are not exchanged for passions,
but cleanse us of them. And it is pretty evident that those
who instituted the purifications, called by us Teletes, i.e.,
perfect expiations, meant by such riddles (rites) to give us
to know, that whoever enters the other world without being
initiated and purified shall be hurl’d headlong into the vast
abyss; and that whoever arrives there after due purgation
and expiation, shall be lodged in the apartment of the gods.
For as the dispensers of those expiations say, ‘ There are
many who bear the Thyrsus, but few that are possessed by
*
the spirit of the God.’ Now, those who are thus possessed, asI take it, are the true philosophers.” ...
“ Those who have distinguished themselves by a holy life,.
* The Thyrsus was a spear wrapped, in vines or ivy, carried by
the worshippers of Bacchus on their initiation into the mysteries.
Of these, Socrates here virtually says that “ many are called but
few are chosen.”
�28
Plato, Philo, and Paul.
and those who are sufficiently purged by philosophy, are
received after death into admirable and delicious mansions.
Therefore we should labour all our lives to acquire virtue
and wisdom, since we have so great a reward proposed to
us, and so bright a prospect before us.”
The writer of the Book of Wisdom distinctly per
sonifies divine wisdom. This is what Plato does not
do. Plato speaks of wisdom as an attribute common
to God and man. It is the Logos or word that he speaks
of as a secondary or inferior deity, as a divine personage,
.able to be conceived of as separate from God though still
in mystical union with him. It is in the interest of
Hebrew tradition that the writer of this book per
sonifies wisdom as opposed to Plato’s Logos or world
making God, yet in close imitation of Plato’s idea,
escaping only the heresy of imagining a second God—
of making the Godhead composite, he says :
“ And wisdom was with thee ; which knoweth thy
works, and was present when thou madest the world,
and knew what was acceptable in thy sight, and right
in thy commandments. O send her out of thy holy
heavens, and from the throne of thy glory, that being
present she may labour with me that I may know what
is pleasing to thee. Por she knoweth and understandeth all things.”—Wisdom, ch. ix. 9-11.
So it was that the leaders of Jewish thought sought
to reconcile their conceptions of God with the views of
the prevailing Gentile philosophy. The Jews were as
a nation destitute of philosophy, but were pre
eminently devout. All the laws of nature, and all the
actions of men were, as they thought, under the imme
diate direction of God. “ The eyes of the Lord,” they
said, “ were in every place beholding the evil and the
good.” God was seated on a throne in heaven, king of
kings and lord of lords. This was the faith of an
ignorant people who possessed healthy religious in
stincts. It would not, however, bear the questionings
�Plato, Philo, and Paul.
29
of an enlightened intellect. God was, in this view,
only a great king, a magnified man.
After the residence of the Jews in Babylon and their
contact with the Persian faith, a monotheistic religion
like their own—a religion in which God was conceived
of as a pure spirit, and in which the fancies of a
speculative theology, hy setting up inferior intelli
gences, brought the power and wisdom of this pure
spirit into close contact with the human and material
world, we find a marked change and elevation of
the Jewish thought. Thus one of the Psalmists asks :
—“ Whither shall I go from thy spirit, or whither
sb all I flee from thy presence ? ” and pours out a grand
hymn expressive of the omnipresence of the Deity.
There was, however, danger here. Truth itself was too
dazzling, and God was all but lost in the glory that
surrounded the conceptions which the minds of men
were framing of his being. The nearer men ascended
towards the truth that God was a pervading power, the
more they found themselves nearing the boundaries of
a cold and desolate Pantheism; and a God who was
thus universal, ceased to be the god of the individual,
ceased to be a national god, ceased to be a being whom
they could regard as the upholding providence of their
lives, and of whom they could say in the words of one
of their favourite and familiar hymns, that “God, even
our own God, shall bless us.”
The speculative philosophy by which the surround
ing nations of Persia, Egypt, and Greece, escaped alike
the vagueness of a Pantheism in which God was
virtually lost, and the anthropomorphism which made
him but a huge man, became in course of time a matter
of absolute necessity for the Jews to adopt. So we
find that they exalted this attribute of wisdom as being,
not a distinct personage, but as being a manifested
power, by "which the thought of man could enter into
communion and harmony with the divine mind, and so
the Eternal could sustain a real and palpable relation to
�30
Plato, Philo, and Paul.
his creatures. The problem that needed solution was
to tone down the exalted conception of God which an
enlightened intellect prompted, so as to bring him
within the reach of the pious and prayerful thought,
and this without degrading or falsifying a true and
proper estimation of himself.
In our common thought to-day we regard nature as
an intermediate link between man and God. Man
lives in immediate contact with nature, and we say
that through nature he can rise to nature’s God.
Again, the laws of nature we discern as operative
powers that came from God, but that are now the
intermediate rather than the immediate agents of his
will. Thus we regard the laws of nature as being in
one sense separate and distinct from the divine mind,
acting, as it were, independently of it, through powers
that were originally derived from it, and in another
sense we regard them as being one and the same with
it. So in a spiritual sense we say that God is light,
Love, Truth, Goodness, &c., and yet we can conceive
of these things as being separate and distinct from God,
as virtues adorning a human soul. Thus we say that
these are agencies that draw men close to God, and
that make them even to be one with God.
The popular idea of Christ is that he was the expres
sion of the divine mind, the teacher of divine wisdom ;
that through this spirit of divine wisdom, which in the
current belief rested upon him without measure, he was
one with God, and by his relation to humanity he
conferred the same privilege upon it. And a natural
consequence of this belief upon the vulgar mind and
common thought has been to suggest the idea that Christ
was God incarnate—the Almighty in human form.
The late learned Dean Milman, in his History of
Christianity has very ably summarised this develop
ment of ancient speculative thought; he says—
“Even the notion of the one Supreme Deity had undergone
some modification consonant to certain prevailing opinions
�Plato, Philo, and Paul.
31
of the time (Christian era.) Wherever any approxima
tion had been made to the sublime truth of the one great
First Cause, either awful religious reverence or philosophic
abstraction had removed the primal Deity entirely beyond
the sphere of human sense, and supposed that the inter
course of the Divinity with man, the moral government, and
even the original creation had been carried on by the inter
mediate agency, either in Oriental language of an Emana
tion, or in Platonic of the wisdom, reason, or intelligence of
the one Supreme. This Being was more or less distinctly
impersonated, according to the more popular or more
philosophic, the more material or the more abstract notions
of the age or people. This was the doctrine from the
*
Ganges, or even the shores of the Yellow Sea to the Ilissus ;
it was the fundamental principle of the Indian religion and
the Indian philosophy; it was the basis of Zoroastrianism ;
it was pure Platonism; it was the Platonic Judaism of the
Alexandrian school. Many fine passages might be quoted
from Philo, on the impossibility that the first self-existing
Being should become cognisable to the sense of man ; and
even in Palestine, no doubt, John the Baptist and our Lord
himself, spoke no new doctrine, but rather the common
sentiment of the more enlightened, when they declared that
‘ no man had seen God at any time? In conformity with
this principle, the Jews, in the interpretation of the older
scriptures, instead of direct and sensible communication
from the one great Deity, had interposed either one or more
intermediate beings as the channels of communication.
According to one accredited tradition alluded to by St
Stephen, the law was delivered by the ‘ disposition of
angels; ’ according to another, this office was delegated to a
single angel, sometimes called the angel of the Law (see Gal.
iii. 19) ; at others, the Metatron. But the more ordinary
representative, as it were, of God, to the sense and mind of
man, was the Memra, or the Divine Word ; and it is remark
able that the same appellation is found in the Indian, the
* It is curious to trace the development of this idea in the older
and in the apocryphal books of the Old Testament. In the Book
of Proverbs, the wisdom is little more than the great attribute of
the deity ; in Ecclesiasticus, it is a separate being, and “ stands up
beautiful ” before the throne of God. (xxv. 1.)
[The learned Dean is in error here. “ Wisdom ” is still an attri
bute of God, a quality of character, as a perusal of the entire verse
will shew. It is the Book of Wisdom that makes it a distinct
personage.—Author’s Note.}
�^2
Plato, Philo, and Paul.
Persian, the Platonic, and the Alexandrian systems. By
the TargumistSjthe earliest Jewish commentators on the scrip
tures, this term had been already applied to the Messiah;
nor is it necessary to observe the manner in which it has
been sanctified by its introduction into the Christian scheme.
This uniformity of conception and coincidence of language,
indicates the general acquiescence of the human mind in the
necessity of some mediation between the pure spiritual
nature of the deity, and the moral and intellectual nature
of man, of which the sublimest and the simplest was the revela
tion of God in Christ.”
In this last assertion, however, Dean Mil man
ceases to be the learned and accomplished historian,
and becomes a special pleader for the dogmas of the
popular religion. The admissions of the former portion
of this passage, establish, beyond the possibility of
reasonable cavil, the fact that the idea of God in
Christ,—God as personified in Jesus, is but a version
of a speculative belief held in all the great religious
systems that were anterior to the Christian era, and is
nc)t a divine revelation that was then, for the first time,
specially and supernaturally given. The asserted deity
of Jesus is, indeed, a corruption, and perversion, and
degradation of a conception that, as held in these
ancient faiths, was but the feeble expression of a
sublime truth. In the modern dogma, however, the
sublimity is lost, and a crude superstition takes its place.
The Jews, however, as a nation, were not greatly
given to philosophic speculation, and it was not till the
year b.c. 160, that we have any indications of its
appearance in the Alexandrian colony. About this
time, Aristobulus, a philosophic Jew, endeavoured to
harmonise Jewish with Grecian literature. He wrote
an allegorical exposition of the Pentateuch, in which
he endeavoured to show that it was the source of the
Aristotelian philosophy. He did this by allegorising
its matter of fact narratives, and putting a secondary
meaning into them ; only fragments of this work, pre
served by Eusebius, now remain. The great master,
�Plato., Philo, and Pam.
however, of this art of allegorising the Old Testament,
was Philo, the contemporary, though, at the same time,
the senior of Jesus.
Philo, commonly known as Philo Judaeus, was an
eminent, and learned, and distinguished Alexandrian
Jew, while, at the same time, he was a devoted student
and follower of the Neo-Platonic philosophy. He was
brother to Alexander the Alabarch, or president, of the
Jewish colony. He was also, through his brother, an
intimate acquaintance of King Agrippa, who then
ruled in Judea, and notwithstanding that a temple had
been erected in Alexandria, the gold and silver plating
of nine of the doors of the temple at Jerusalem, were
due to the munificence of Philo’s brother. Besides
being a man of high learning and cultured thought,
Philo bore a stainless reputation, and stood so high in
the esteem of his fellow religionists, that he was
chosen, with two others, in the year a.d. 40, seven
years after the crucifixion of Christ, to go on an
embassy to the Emperor Caligula at Pome, to counter
act the calumnies of Apion against the Jews, and to
complain to Caligula of a persecution that had been
incited against them by Flaccus, the Roman President,
on account of their refusing to burn incense before
the statues of the emperor, to admit them into their
temples, or to worship them as the representative of a
God. In the voluminous works which remain to us
from Philo’s pen, we have a lengthened account of this
embassy, and of the rude and contemptuous treatment
it received from Caligula, whose extraordinary conduct,
Tunning through the various rooms of his palace, giving
directions to his workmen, and expecting the embassy
to follow him as best they could, clearly betokened his
incipient or perhaps developed insanity.
Of the date of Philo’s birth, we have no record ; he,
however, describes himself as being “ a grey-headed old
man ” at the time of this embassy, a.d. 40. This would
make him to be sixty-five or seventy years of age at
c
�34
Piato, Philo, and Paul.
that period, and consequently would place his birth
twenty-five or thirty years before the birth of Jesus.
Philo would consequently have been forty-five or fifty
years old when Jesus commenced his ministry.. This
is an important consideration, because in Philo’s writ
ings, we have an anticipation, not only of the larger part
of the moral and religious teaching of Jesus, but of those
forms of speculative thought which mark the Fourth
Gospel, the Epistles of Paul, and that to the Hebrews.
So striking is the resemblance between Philo’s writ
ings and the writings of the New Testament, that
efforts have not been wanting to claim Philo as a
disciple of Jesus, and as an apologist of Christianity.
The learned Jacob Bryant wrote a treatise in which, by
collating passages concerning “ the Logos,” from Philo’s
writings, with passages of the New Testament concern
ing the nature and offices of Christ, he thought to
establish the fact that Philo must have been a
Christian ; and in the early part of the present century,
a volume was published under the title of “ Ecclesiasti
cal Besearches,” by Dr J. Jones, the object of which
was to prove that both Philo and Josephus were
Christians.
Philo, the translation of whose literary remains fill
four volumes of Bohn’s Ecclesiastical Library, never
makes the smallest allusion to Jesus, but writes as
though he were in perfect ignorance as to his existence.
The great bulk of his writings are rambling and
allegorical commentaries on the laws of Moses, and on
the Hebrew scriptures. These he interprets in the
light of the Platonic philosophy. The intense rever
ence which Philo displays in these writings for the
lightest word of Moses, and for the priesthood, and laws,
and ritual that had his sanction, is a convincing proof
that he had never heard or heeded the reformed
Judaism which Jesus taught, much less the Christian
repudiation of the Mosaic faith which marks the
Epistles of Paul, the earliest of which was, in all pro
�Plato, Philo, and Paul.
35
bability, not penned till years after Philo’s death. One
of Philo’s treatises is a life of Moses, whom he regards
as “ king, lawgiver, high priest, and prophet.”
“ The Theology of Philo is in great measure founded on
his peculiar combination of the Jewish, the Platonic, and
the Neo-Platonic conception of God. The God of the Old
Testament, the exalted God, as he is called by the modern
Hegelian philosophy, stood in close relations to the Greek
Philosophers’ conception of God, which believed that the
Supreme Being could be accurately defined by the negative
of all that was finite. In accordance with this, Philo also
described God as the simple Entity ; he disclaimed for Him
every name, every quality, even that of the Good, the
Beautiful, the Blessed, the One. Since He is still better than
the good, higher than the U nity, He can never be known
as, but only that He is : his perfect name is only the four
mysterious letters (Jhvh), that is, pure Being.”
‘ ‘ By such means, indeed, neither a fuller theology, nor
God’s influence on the world was to be obtained. And yet
it was the problem of philosophy, as well as of religion, to
shed the light of God upon the world, and to lead it again to
God. But how could this Being which was veiled from the
world be brought to bear upon it ? By Philo, as well as by
all the philosophy of the time, the problem could only be
solved illogically. Yet, by modifying His exalted nature it
might be done. If not by His being yet by His work, He
influences the world. His powers, his angels, all in it that
is best and mightiest, the instrument, the interpreter, the
mediator and messenger of God. His pattern and His first
born, the Son of God, the Second God, even himself God,
the divine Word or Logos communicate with the world.”—Keim’s “ Jesus of Nazara," Introduction, article Philo.
This modification of the conception of deity was the
keynote of Philo’s copious commentaries. By so doing
he toned down the exalted conception of God, which
the Gentile philosophies taught, and explained away
the crude narratives of his own country’s scriptures,
in which the idea of God was degraded by representing
him in form, and thought, and action, as a man. In
the Platonic Logos Philo found the mediator between
God and man, which enabled him to reconcile the
�36
Plato, Philo, and Paul.
Jewish Scriptures with the teachings of the Gentile
Philosophy.
Allegory, however, is not science, and the scientific
or speculative views of Philo form no separate and
condensed treatise, but are disseminated throughout
his voluminous writings. Subjoined are two passages
from his treatise, “De Confusione Linguarum,” an
exposition or commentary on the confusion of languages
at the Tower of Babel.
°
“ The statement,” lie says, “ The Lord went down to see
that city and that tower,’ must be listened to altogether as
if spoken in a figurative sense, for to think that the divinity
can. go towards, or go from, or go down, or go to meet, is
an impiety. . . . Since who is there who does not know
that it is indispensable for a person who goes down, to
leave one place and to occupy another. But all places are
filled at once by God, to whom alone it is possible to be
every where and also nowhere. Nowhere, because he him
self created place and space. . . . The divine being, both
invisible and incomprehensible, is indeed everywhere, but
still, in truth, he is nowhere visible or comprehensible.”—
(Bohn's Edition, Vol. 2, p. 29).
In reference to the phrase, “ sons of men ” who are
described as having built cities, Philo says, that they
who have real knowledge of God, are properly called
“ sons of God,” and that elsewhere (Deut. xiv. 1),
Moses so entitles them, and then adds :—
“ Accordingly it is natural for those who have this dis
position of soul to look upon nothing as beautiful, except
what is good. . . . And even if there be not as yet any one
who is worthy to be called a son of God, nevertheless let
him labour earnestly to be adorned according to his first
born Word (Logos), the eldest of his angels, as the great
archangel of many names; for he is called ‘ the authority ’
and ‘ the name ’ of God, and the Word (Logos) and ‘ man
according to God’s image,’ and ‘ He who sees Israel.’ For
even if we are not yet suitable to be called the Sons of
God, still we may deserve to be called the children of
his eternal image, of his most sacred Word (Logos); for the
image of God is his most sacred Word.”—(Philo “ De
Confusione.” Bohn’s Edition, Vol. 2, p. 31).
»
�Plato, Philo, and Paul.
37
It would be easy, did space permit, to multiply
such extracts as these to a very large extent, and so to
shew that before Jesus commenced his ministry,
possibly even before Jesus was born, Philo was
familiarising the minds of his countrymen with ideas
concerning 11 a second or delegated God,” “ the first
born son of the Eternal Father,” “ the express image
of his person,” “ the word of God by whom the w’orld
was made,” &c. We have this thought largely repro
duced in the Fourth Gospel, that ascribed to John,
though not written till the early part or middle of the
second century, nearly one hundred years later than
the writings of Philo. There is, however, an important
difference between the conception of the “Word,” or
Logos, as Philo held it, and as the unknown writer of
the Fourth Gospel regarded it. Philo held the Logos
or Word to be a celestial being, “an angel or messenger
of the Supreme God, to be even as God, but never to
be man. He regarded it, however, as having sometimes
the likeness of man, and as being one with the Jewish
High Priest, as consecrating his office, when on the day
of atonement he entered into the Holy of Holies. But
Philo, while he regarded the Logos as the perfect or
ideal man, never identifies this Logos with any par
ticular man. The writer of the Fourth Gospel does,
however, do this, he identifies the Divine word with
Jesus of Nazareth, says that in him “the word was
made flesh ” (%«/ 6 Xo'yo? tiapZ, t'ytvtro, became flesh), and
dwelt among us ? This denotes a considerably later
stage or development of the Logos doctrine. A change
due in great measure to the florid language which Paul
applies to Jesus, and which is word for word, the same
with that which Philo had previously used with
regard to the Logos. Paul, we must bear in mind,
had never seen Jesus, knew him at best by the results
of his teaching.
He learned nothing from Jesus
directly, and distinctly asserts that his followers, the
apostles, were unable to give him any instruction.
�38
Plato, Philo, and Paul.
So Paul’s estimate of Jesus was largely ideal, was
drawn in great part from the thought currents of
Jewish and Gentile philosophy, and without doubt in
no small degree from the writings of Philo.
It will be worth while before shewing the similarity,
or rather the identity, of speculative thought which
existed between the writings of Philo and the Epistles
of Paul, to trace the connecting lines which mark the
channel through which the ideas passed from one to
the other.
When Philo was writing, the elder Hillel, one of
*
the most celebrated of the Jewish Kabbis, whom Renan
declares to have been the virtual teacher of Jesus, and
who certainly, as a religious reformer, anticipated no
small portion of Christian teaching, was chief of the
Jerusalem school, and must have become immediately
conversant with the writings of his eminent country
man, the Alexandrian Philo. Hillel was celebrated as
the successor of Ezra, who brought the law anew out
of Babylon. His wisdom was esteemed manifold as
Solomon’s, while his piety and gentleness became
proverbial. He founded what may be called a Broad
Church School of Judaism, and put a permanent
impress upon Jewish thought. He put moral duty
far before ceremonial piety, and taught as the very
kernel of the law “The duty we owe to our neighbour.”
Such a wise and large-hearted teacher must have
given a warm welcome to the writings of so able and
distinguished a man as Philo. And it is fair to infer
that these became, to a large extent, the authorised and
familiar text-book of the Jerusalem School.
* Hillel was originally a day labourer, and he devoted one-half
of the small pittance that he earned to the support of his family,
and with the other he paid his fees to study the law, under the
celebrated teacher Schemajah. Once, on the eve of the Sabbath,
when for want of work he was unable to pay the school fee, he
climbed to the window of the house on a dark winter’s evening in
order to be able to see and hear, and in the morning he was found
by the teacher stiffened with cold and snow, who in releasing him
said, “It is truly worth while to break the Sabbath on his
account.”
�Plato, Philo, and Paul.
39
When St Paul was, as a young man, studying at
Jerusalem, the post of chief teacher, which had been
filled so ably by Hillel, was now held by his equally
celebrated grandson, Gamaliel, “ the glory of the law,”
of whom it is recorded that out of his thousand
disciples he instructed five hundred in the Jewish
law, and five hundred in the wisdom of the Greeks;
and Paul himself tells us that it was at the feet of this
Gamaliel he sat to receive his education. Here, then,
he would have made acquaintance with the Philonic
literature.
For these writings moulded the whole
future of Jewish thought; and Dr Keim, in his
“Jesus of Hazara,” tells us
“ that the teachings of both Hillel and Gamaliel were tinged
with Philonism ; and that, from this time forward, every
material image of God in the Old Testament—such as the
mention of His countenance, His mouth, His eye, His hand,
&c.—were carefully converted into conceptions of the divine
glory, of the indwelling presence of the Logos or Word of
God.”
And, he adds,
‘‘ The Apostle Paul, a disciple of Gamaliel in Jerusalem, was
essentially imbued with Alexandrine ideas, which he has
evidently transferred to the heart of Christianity in his
teaching concerning Christ.” (Vol. I. pp. 292, 293, English
translation.)
While, however, Philo and the Alexandrian school
were incorporating the Grecian conception of “ the
Logos,” or Divine Word, with the Hebrew thought,
the Hebrew teaching proper contented itself with a
personification of Divine Wisdom. There was, how
ever, another current of thought, viz., the expectation
of a Messiah. This was held in various forms. At
first it simply expressed the national hope of restored
fortunes through the conquering arm of some great
leader, destined by God to restore the throne and the
supremacy of the Davidic era. This was still the
popular expectation in the time of Jesus. But the
�40
Plato, Philo, and Paul.
more spiritually minded Jews, the Essenes and other
devout communities, had hopes, not of a restoration of
David’s throne, hut of the time spoken of by Malachi
when “the Lord himself should come to declare judg
ment, to inhabit his temple, to establish his covenant
and his kingdom;” while the scholastic and speculative
thought of the Philonic school identified the Messianic
expectation with the Logos idea. The two former
conceptions mark the three earlier Gospels ; the latter
conception finds plain and emphatic expression in the
introduction to the fourth Gospel, and is the pervading
idea throughout.
The fourth Gospel and the Epistles of Paul represent
the speculative thought of their age ; and the following
quotations will show how closely they at the same time
reproduce the Philonic thought. The passages here
selected from Philo’s writings are taken from the
treatise by Jacob Bryant before alluded to, the Greek
original being omitted, and simply the English transla
tion given.
Identity of the Christ of the New Testament with the
Logos of Philo.
The New Testament, speak
Philo, describing the
ing of Jesus, says
Logos, says:—
“ This is the Son of
“ The Logos is the Son
of God the Bather.”—De God.”—John i. 34.
Profugis.
“And when he again
“The first begotten of
bringeth his first-born into
God.”—De Somniis.
the world.”—Heb. i. 6.
“That he is the first
“And the most ancient
of all beings.”—De Conf. born of every creature.”—
Col. i. 15.
Ling.
“ Christ, the image of
“The Logos is the image
and likeness of God.”—De the invisible God.”-—Col.
i. 15.
Monarch.
�Plato, Philo, and Paul.
“ The Logos is superior
to the angels.”—De Profugis.
“ The Logos is superior
to all beings in the world.”
—De Leg. Allegor.
“ The Logos is the in
strument by whom the
world was made.”—-De
Leg. Allegor.
“The divine word by
whom all things were
ordered and disposed.”—
De Mundi Opificio.
“The Logos is the light
of the world, and the in
tellectual sun.”—De Somniis.
“ The Logos only can
see God.”—De Confus.
Ling.
“ He is the most ancient
4i
“ The brightness of his
(God’s) glory, and-the ex
press image of his person.”
—Heb. i. 3.
“ Being made so much
better than the angels.
Let all the angels of God
worship him.”—Heb. i. 4,
6.
“ Thou hast put all
things in subjection under
his feet.”—Heb. ii. 8.
“ All things were made
by him (the Word or
Logos), and without him
w’as not anything made
that was made.”—Johni. 3.
“Jesus Christ, by whom
are all things.”—1 Cor.
viii. 6.
“By whom also he made
the worlds.”—Heb. i. 2.
“The Word (Logos) was
the true light.”—John i. 9.
“ The life and the light
of men.”-—John i. 4.
“ I am the light of the
world.”—John viii. 12.
“ He that is of God, he
hath seen the Pather.”—
John vi. 46.
“No man hath seen God
at any time. The only be
gotten Son which is in the
bosom of the Pather, he
hath declared him.”—John
i. 18.
“Now, O Pather, glorify
�42
Plato, Philo, and Paul.
of God’s works.”—De Confus. Ling.
“ And was before all
.things.”—De Leg. Allegor.
“ The Logos is esteemed
the same as God.”—De
Somniis.
“The Logos was eternal.”
—De Plant Noe.
“ The Logos supports
the world, is the connect
ing power by which all
things are united.”—De
Profugis.
“ The Logos is nearest
to God, without any separ
ation ; being, as it were,
fixed upon the only true
existing Deity, nothing
coming between to dis
turb that unity.” — De
Profugis.
“ The Logos is free from
all taint of sin, either
voluntary or involuntary.”
—De Profugis.
thou me with thine own
self with the glory which I
had with thee before the
world was.”—John xvii. 5.
“ He was in the begin
ning with God.”—Johni. 2.
“Before all worlds.”—
2 Tim. i. 9.
“ Christ, who is over all,
God blessed for evermore.”
—Rom. ix. 5.
“ Who, being in the
form of God, thought it
no robbery to be equal
with God.”—Phil. ii. 6.
“ Christ abideth for ever. ”
—John xii. 34.
“ But to the Son he
saith, Thy throne, 0 God,
is for ever and ever.”—
Heb. i. 8.
“ Upholding all things
by the word of his power.”
—Heb. i. 3.
“ By him all things con
sist.”—Col. i. 17.
“ I and my Father are
one.”—John x. 30.
“ That they may be one
as we are.”—John xvii. 11.
“The only begotten Son,
who is in the bosom of
the Father.”—John i. 18.
“ The blood of Christ,
who offered himseif with
out spot to God.”—Heb.
ix. 14.
�Plato, Philo, and Paul.
43
“ Who did no sin, neither
was guile found in his
mouth.”—1 Pet. ii. 22.
“ Whosoever shall drink
“ The Logos the fountain
of the water that I shall
of life.
“It is of the greatest give him, shall never thirst,
consequence to every per but the water that I shall
son to strive without re give him shall be in him a
mission to approach to the well of water springing up
divine Logos, the Word of into everlasting life.”—
God above, who is the John iv. 14.
fountain of all wisdom;
that by drinking largely
of that sacred spring, in
stead of death, he may be
rewarded with everlasting
life.”—De Profugis.
“ The great shepherd of
“ The Logos is the shep
the flock . . . our Lord
herd of God’s flock.
“ The Deity, like a shep Jesus.”—‘Heb. xiii. 20.
“ I am the good shep
herd, and at the same time
like a monarch, acts with herd, and know my sheep,
the most consummate order and am known of mine.”
and rectitude, and has ap —John x. 14.
“ Christ . . . the shep
pointed his First-born, the
upright Logos, like the herd and guardian of your
substitute of a mighty souls.”—1 Pet. ii. 25.
prince, to take care of his
sacred flock.”—De Agri
cult.
“For Christ must reign
The Logos, Philo says,
is “The great governor of till he hath put all his
the world; he is the crea enemies under his feet.”
tive and princely power, —1 Cor. xv. 25.
“ Christ, above all prin
and through these the
heavens and the whole cipality and might and
world were produced.”— dominion, and every name
that is named, not only in
De Profugis.
�44
Plato, Philo, and Paul.
this world, but in the
world to come . . . and
God hath put all things
under his feet.”—Eph. i.
21, 22.
“ The Logos is the phys
“ The spirit of the Lord
ician that heals all evil.”— is upon me, because he
De Leg. Allegor.
hath anointed me to heal
the broken - hearted.” —■
Luke iv. 18.
The Logos the Seal of God.
“The Logos, hy whom
the world was framed, is
the seal, after the impres
sion of which everything
is made, and is. rendered
the similitude and image
of the perfect Word of
God.”—De Profugis.
“The soul of man is an
impression of a seal, of
which the prototype and
original characteristic is the
everlasting Logos.”—De
Plantatione Noe.
Christ the Seal of God.
“ In whom also, after
that ye believed, ye were
sealed with that holy seal
of promise.”-—Eph. i. 13.
“Jesus, the son of man
. . . him hath God the
Father sealed.”—John vi.
27.
“ Christ, the brightness
of his (God’s) glory, and
the express image of his
person.”—Heb. i. 3.
The Logos the source of
immortal life.
Christ the source of
eternal life.
Philo says, “ that when
“The dead (in Christ)
the soul strives after its shall be raised incorrup
best and noblest life, then tible.”—! Cor. xv. 52.
the Logos frees it from all
“ Because the creature
corruption, and confers up itself also shall be de
on it the gift of immortal livered from the bondage
ity.”—De C. Q. Erud. of corruption into the glori
Gratia.
ous liberty of the children
of God.”—Rom. viii. 21.
�Plato, Philo, and Paul.
Philo speaks of the
Logos, not only as the
Son of God and his first
begotten, but also styles
him “ his beloved Son.”—
De Leg. Allegor.
Philo says “that good
men are admitted to the
assembly of the saints
above.”
“Those who relinquish
human doctrines, and be
come the well-disposed dis
ciples of God, will be one
day translated to an incor
ruptible and perfect order
of beings.”—De Sacrificiis.
Philo says “that the just
man, when he dies, is
translated to another state
by the Logos, by whom
the world was created.
For God by his said Word
(Logos), by which he made
all things, will raise the
perfect man from the dregs
of this world, and exalt
him near himself. He will
place him near his own
person.”—De Sacrificiis.
Philo says that the Logos
45
The New Testament calls
Christ the Beloved Son :—
“ This is my beloved Son,
in whom I am well pleased.”
—Matt. iii. 17; Luke ix.
35 ; 2 Pet. i. 17.
“ The Son of his love.”
—Col. i. 13.
“ But ye are come unto
mount Zion, and to the
city of the living God, and
to an innumerable company
of angels, and to the spirits
of just men made perfect.”
—Heb. xii. 22, 23.
“ Giving thanks unto
the Father which hath
made us meet to be the
partakers of the inheritance
of the saints in light.”—
Col. i. 12.
The New Testament
makes Jesus to say—
“No man can come to
me, except the Father
which hath sent me draw
him ; and I will raise him
up at the last day.”—John
vi. 44.
“No man cometh to the
Father but by me.”—John
xiv. 6.
“ Where I am, there
also shall my servant be
. . . him will my Father
honour.”—John xii. 26.
The New Testament
�46
Plato, Philo, and Paul.
is the true High Priest,
who is without sin and
anointed by God—“It is the world, in
which the Logos, God’s
Pirst-born, that great High
Priest, resides.
And I
assert that this High Priest
is no man, but the Holy
Word of God; who is not
capable of either voluntary
or involuntary sin, and
hence his head is anointed
with oil.”—De Profugis.
Philo mentions the Logos
as the great High Priest
and Mediator for the sins
of the world. Speaking
of the rebellion of Norah,
he introduces the Logos as
saying—
“ It was I who stood in
the middle between the
Lord and you.”
“ The
sacred Logos
pressed with zeal and
without remission that he
might stand between the
dead and the living.”—
Quis Eerum Div Hseres.
The Logos, the Saviour
God, who brings salvation
as the reward of repentance
and righteousness—“ If then men have from
their very souls a just con
trition, and are changed,
and have humbled them-
speaks of Jesus as the
High Priest—
“Seeing then that we
have a great High Priest
that is passed into the
heavens, Jesus, the Son of
God, let us hold fast our
profession.”—Heb. iv. 14.
“For such an High
Priest became us, who is
holy, harmless, undefiled,
separate from sinners.”—
Heb. vii. 26.
The New Testament says
of Christ—
“We have such an High
Priest, who is set on the
right hand of the throne
of the majesty in the
heavens, a mediator of a
better covenant.” — Heb.
viii. 1-6.
“ But Christ being come
an High Priest . . . en
tered at once into the holy
place, having obtained
eternal redemption for us.”
—Heb. ix. 11, 12.
The New Testament
says of John, the forerun
ner of Jesus, that he
preached “ the baptism of
repentance for the remis
sion of sins.”—Mark i. 4.
Jesus says—
“Ye will not come to
�Plato, Philo, and Paul.
47
selves for their past er me, that ye might have
rors, acknowledging and life.”—John v. 40.
confessing their sins, such
“Beloved, we be now
persons shall find pardon the sons of God; and it
from the Saviour and mer doth not yet appear what
ciful God, and receive a we shall be ; but we know
most choice and great ad that when he doth appear
vantage of being made like we shall be like him.”—the Logos of God, who was 1 John iii. 2.
originally the great arche
“As we have borne the
type after which the soul image of the earthy, we
of man was formed.”—De shall also bear the image
Execrationibus.
of the heavenly.”-—1 Cor.
xv. 49.
“For if we have been
planted together in the
likeness, of his death, we
shall be also in the likeness
of his resurrection.”—Rom.
vi. 5.
These extracts, which might be very largely multiplied,
show how much of the estimate and office of Jesus as
“ the Christ,” which the New Testament contains, does
but reproduce- the thought and teaching of Philo with
regard to the “Logos.” This “Logos” Philo brings
into very close association with the Jewish High Priest.
As a good man may be said to be filled with the Spirit
of God—as our clergy profess to have the Holy Ghost
imparted to them at their ordination—so this Logos,
or Word of God, Philo says, is associated with the high
priest while he is performing his official duties.
In his treatise “ On Monarchy,” speaking of the law
which requires that the priest’s body should be without
blemish, he says,—
“ For if it was necessary to examine the mortal body of
the priest, that it might not be imperfect through any mis
fortune, much more was it necessary to look into his immor-
�48
Plato, PhilO) and Paul.
tai soul, which they say is fashioned in the form of the
living God. Now the form or image of God is ‘the Word’
(Logos), by which all the world was made.”
Again, in another part of the same treatise, speaking
of the Levitical law which forbids the High Priest
either to rend his clothes, or take from his head the
ensign of the priesthood, or to show any sign of
mourning, even on the death of his very nearest rela
tion, Philo says,—
“ The law designs that he should be the partaker of a
nature superior to that of man ; inasmuch as he approaches
more nearly to that of the deity ; being, if one must say
the plain truth, on the borders between the two, in order
that men may propitiate God by some mediator, and that
God may have some subordinate by whom he may offer and
give his mercies and kindnesses to man.”
It has been a common argument with the Christian
clergy, that at the period of the Christian era the
world was sunk in the thick darkness of spiritual igno
rance. Adam’s sin had, they say, so alienated the
human race from God, that a great gulf of separation
intervened between God and man, and no possible way
of approach was open whereby sinful man might reach
the throne of offended justice to plead for mercy and
forgiveness ; that then God conceived a way of escape,
which human thought could never have devised. He
became incarnate, laid by His proper glory, and clothed
Himself with a human form ; consented to he horn as
a man—was thus a God-man ; a being for the time
inferior to deity, yet far superior to humanity. In a
word, just such a being as Philo above describes, as
being on the borders between the two natures. Yet
Philo wrote long before Christ commenced his ministry,
and not the slightest evidence exists to warrant the sup
position that Philo ever knew of the existence of Jesus.
Moreover, Philo only reproduces the thought that Gre
cian philosophy had known and cherished for centuries !
In addition to this, we have the most positive and con
�Plato, Philo, and Paul.
49
vincing evidence that, for at least two centuries before
the birth of Jesus, the world in general, and the Jew
ish nation in particular, had possessed the essentials of
a high spiritual faith. It is difficult now to show that
Christianity contains either a moral or spiritual teach
ing that may not be found in the Dialogues of Plato,
or in the Apocryphal scriptures of the Jews. There
had been a bright blaze of spiritual light glowing in
the world for centuries before Christ was born in Beth
lehem.
Philo, writing in all probability about the time that
Jesus was a youth, describes the existence of religious
communities, who were living a monastic or secluded
life in Egypt, under the name of “ Therapeutee,” or
healers, and in Palestine under the title of Essenes, or
holy ones ; a society probably allied to the society of
Assideans, mentioned in the 1st book of Maccabees ii.
42, or those who had voluntarily devoted themselves
to the study and observance of the law. The Essenes,
who in Palestine numbered above 4000, are thus de
scribed by Philo:—
“ Their name ‘ Essene,’ corresponds to the Greek (otrtoi),
‘ righteous, pious.’ For they have attained the highest
righteousness in the worship of God, and that not by sacri
ficing animals, but by cultivating purity of heart. They
live principally in villages, and avoid the towns. Some
cultivate the ground, and others pursue the arts of peace,
and such employments as are beneficial to themselves with
out injury to their neighbours. They seek neither to hoard
silver or gold, nor to inherit ample estates, in order to
gratify prodigality and avarice, but are content with the
mere necessaries of life. . . . They deem riches to consist
not in amplitude of possessions, but in frugality and con
tentment. Among them can be found no one who manu
factures any weapon of war, nor even such instruments as
are easily perverted to evil purposes in times of peace ; they
decline trade, have no slaves, but all in turn minister to
others. They discard all learning, save that which relates
to the existence of God and the creation of the universe,
but they devoutly study the moral law. In their public
D
�5°
Plato, Philo, and Paul.
assemblies on the Sabbath they interpret the Scriptures,
and mutually instruct each other in piety, holiness, right
eousness, domestic and political economy, the knowledge
of things good, bad, and indifferent, and what objects
should be pursued and what avoided. ... Of their love to
God they give innumerable proofs, by leading a life of con
tinued purity, unstained by oaths and falsehoods ; by re
garding Him as the author of every good and as the cause
of no evil. Their love to man is evinced by their benignity,
their equity, and their liberality, of which I proceed to
give a short account, though no language can adequately de
scribe it.
“ In the first place, there exists among them no house,
however private, which is not open to the reception of all
the rest, and not only the members of the same society
assemble under the same domestic roof, but even strangers
of the same persuasion have free permission to join them.
There is but one treasure, whence all derive substance. . . .
The daily labourer keeps not for his own use the produce of
his toil, but imparts it to the common stock, and thus fur
nishes each member with a right to use for himself the pro
fits earned by others. The sick are not despised or neglected
because they are no longer capable of useful labour, but
they live in ease and affluence, receiving from the treasury
whatever their disorder or their exigencies require. The
aged, too, among them are loved, reverenced, and attended
as parents by affectionate children, and a thousand hands
and hearts prop their tottering years with comforts of
every kind.”—{From the Treatise showing that the Virtuous
are also Free.} See Bohn’s translation of Philo, vol. iii.
p. 525.
Josephus gives a very similar account of this com
munity, and among other things he says,—
“The Essenes refer all things to God; they teach the
immortality of the soul, and hold forth the reward of virtue
to be most glorious. They send gifts to the temple, but
they differ from the other Jews in their ideas of purificacation. From this reason they are excluded from the holy
place, and do not offer sacrifice ; themselves being the only
acceptable sacrifice which they offer to God.”—Antiquities,
xviii. 1, 5.
We have here distinct evidence of the'gradual spiri
�Plato, Philo, and Paul.
51
tual growth, of the Jewish people ; of the development
of a devotional piety, and of a practical conception of
religious duty.
After reading Philo’s account of the Essenes, the
conviction flashes upon us that John the Baptist must
have belonged to one of these communities, and that
Jesus himself must have been largely imbued with
their spirit. The Sermon on the Mount is, in fact, a
simple reiteration of their teaching. There is, however,
one distinctive difference, the Essenes separated them
selves from the world, and maintained a degree of
secrecy with regard to their views, admitting members
only after a lengthened probation. Jesus endorsing
nearly all their specific teaching, preached it as “ the
kingdom of God ” to the mixed multitude of the people,
disclaimed all seclusion and secrecy with regard to it,
and made membership open to all who were disposed
to enter. But for this public ministry Jesus would
have been simply one of the Jewish Essenes, i.e., a
spiritually minded religious recluse ; living in associa
tion with a sort of monastic fraternity. His desire,
however, to outstep the limitations of this society, and
to make the fraternity one of world-wide comprehen
siveness, to establish, as it were, a system of univer
sal brotherhood, gave to his life the special character
that marked it, and enabled him to put an impress on
all succeeding time.
It is time now for us to review the religious
thought currents that were flowing through the Jewish
mind at the time when Jesus was preaching through
the towns and villages of Judea.
First., There was the Mosaic law with its ordinances
and ritual, forming the traditional substratum of the
national religion. This was also the established or
orthodox worship.
Secondly, There was the Messianic expectation
assuming two very diverse forms. In the one which
prevailed among the multitude the expectation was
�52
Plato, Philo, and Paul.
that a mighty man, a great conqueror, should be raised
up from their midst, who, coming of the lineage of
David, should restore the brilliancy and prosperity of
David’s reign ; should overthrow the Roman rule, and
make Judea chief among the nations. In the other,
Messiah was looked for not as a great warrior who
should lead the people through revolt to victory and
freedom and supremacy, but as a great prophet who
should lead the people through righteousness back to
the loving favour of God ; God, it was thought, would
then descend in person upon the earth, and call the
nations to judgment. Those who held this latter view
cultivated personal piety, and, regarding religion as a
spiritual influence, outgrew their reverence for the
ceremonial law and the Temple service. The Essenes
were among those who held this spiritual estimate of
religion, and they looked for the coming of a new age,
a millenium—a kingdom of God on earth—and in
harmony with this expectation they so lived as to be
in readiness to enter when this kingdom should appear.
Thirdly, There were the lines of speculative thought
which the more educated and cultured of the Jews
had imbibed from the religious systems and philosophies
of the Gentile world. Every class of the Jewish people
was outgrowing its adhesion to the crude letter of the
law, and to the literal interpretation of the scripture.
To adapt these scriptures to the advancing thought of
the age, it became necessary to make them speak in
harmony with the philosophic systems that were domi
nating the world at large. This was accomplished by
commentaries which declared the cruder narratives of
Scripture to be allegories typical of higher truths.
Philo was the great master of this art, and the copious
commentaries and philosophical essays which he wrote
must have revolutionised the Jewish thought of his
age. Philo was born about the year B.c. 25, he must
therefore have been above fifty when Jesus commenced
his ministry. The speculative thought of Philo, how
�Plato, Philo, and Paul.
53
ever, does not seem to have reached or influenced the
mind of Jesus. It makes its first appearance in the
New Testament in the epistles of Paul. Paul had
learned in the Jewish schools the subtleties of the
Philonic thought; how by the Logos, or divine wisdom,
or Spirit, or Word, God came near to the world of
man; how this divine Logos rested upon the High
Priest and made him to be more than human, to be a
divine being while he was engaged in performing the
sacred rites of his office. Paul, however, was born at
Tarsus, a city of Asia Minor, the rival of Athens as a
seat of Grecian philosophy and learning. In early life
Paul must have therefore been largely influenced by
the forms of Gentile thought -which were prevalent in
his native city, and till his residence in Jerusalem for
instruction in the Jewish law, was doubtless a very
indifferent Jew. Here, while studying at the feet of
the learned and liberal chief Eabbi Gamaliel, he would
have made a close and intimate acquaintance with the
theories and commentaries of Philo, who sought to
reconcile Judaism with the philosophy of the Grecian
schools, and to assert for it the place of honour as
being the primal light. Plato was thus represented as
a plagiarist of Moses. This Jewish education seems to
have suddenly fired the youthful zeal of Paul, or Saul,
as he was then named, and to have made him a Jewish
zealot. But this was only the effervescence of a fiery
and impulsive nature, and Paul soon outgrew his
sudden attachment to the Jewish law and became a
convert to the Christian reform
*
Paul did not, however, part with his philosophy on
his conversion, and that system of an intermediate
divinity, which was common now to the Grecian and
* This reform as a Christian movement was then in its infancy.
It was, however, in large harmony with the teachings of the
Essenian communities, and these were well established as Jewish
sects, as a sort of Jewish Puritanism. The Essenian communities
in all probability merged into the early Christian church.
�54
Plato, Philo, and Paul.
the Jewish thought, Paul applied to his new faith, the
great founder and teacher of which he never knew or
saw in the flesh.
Jesus was, consequently an ideal conception to the
mind of Paul. Paul knew him simply as the teacher
of a sublime spiritual faith, as one who had taken up a
prophet’s work in a prophet’s spirit, who had done
works of W’onder, and who had perished by a martyr’s
death. Nay, more, the general rumour amongst his
followers was, that God had raised him from the dead,
and that he had been seen ascending into heaven.
*
This was enough for Paul. Not the Jewish High
Priest, as Philo had taught, who was after all but a very
ordinary man, but this great and pure-minded and highsouled prophet was in his estimation the true Logos, the
accredited messenger of God, was “ the brightness of
the Father’s glory and the express image of his person.”
Paul never saw Jesus, and never learned his doc
trine, either from his disciples or his apostles ; these, he
says, could teach him nothing that he did not before
hand know.f The great principles of spiritual religion
he felt as inspirations of his own quickened heart, but
he recognised Jesus as the great prophet who had
spoken these with a prophet’s power, who had given
his life as their witness, and who had suffered a
martyr’s death in their behalf. So he preached Christ;
for he recognised Jesus as the Messiah, not in the
popular but in the spiritual sense, i.e., as the power
and the wisdom of God. But the power and the
wisdom of God were the attributes of the Gentile
Logos; the “Divine Word,” by whom the worlds were
made, the second God, the mediator between God and
man. So Jesus, considered as the Christ, Paul felt
must be each and all of these, and thus in his epistle
to the Colossians, Paul calls upon them to thank God,
* For the value of the Gospel testimony to this event, see
“ English Life of Jesus,” by Thomas Scott.
+ Gal. ch. i. 2.
�Plato, Philo, and Paul.
55
“ Who hath delivered us from the powers of darkness,
and hath translated us into the kingdom of the Son of his
love .... who is the image of the invisible God, the first
born of every creature. For by him were all things created,
that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and
invisible, whether they be thrones or dominions, or princi
palities or powers, all things were created by him and for
him, and he is before all things, and by him all things con
sist.”*—CW. i. 13-17.
This is but a specimen of the numerous passages to
be found in the writings of Paul, exalting the nature
of Jesus, and attributing to him those attributes of
divinity which Philo had attempted to affix to the
Jewish High Priest, and which both Philo and Plato
had ascribed to the Logos or Divine Word, which, in
short, had for centuries been the basis of the philo
sophic thought of the then known world.
The unknown writer of the Epistle to the Hebrews,
writing from a Jewish stand-point, claims, in like
* It has lately been a question in dispute among biblical scholars,
as to whether Paul really wrote this Epistle to the Colossians, and
some others, which bear his name. The only epistles of which his
authorship is undisputed, being those to the Romans, Galatians,
and Corinthians. Certainly, in the Epistles to the Colossians and
Ephesians, Paul, if he wrote them, speaks of Jesus in far more
exalted terms than those he uses in the above-named letters.
This, however, may be due to the fact that both at Ephesus and
Colosse, Gnosticism was the prevalent philosophy. This seems to
have been a mixture of Grecian philosophy and Oriental ideas.
According to this system, the Pleroma, or fulness of the Godhead,
was made up of the Divine Essence, and an endless series of
“ JEons ” which emanated from it. Some of these were very nearly
allied to the Supreme, and others were removed by generations or
descent from him, till at last they became bad or evil influences,—
the enemies of the good God. By these JEons, the Supreme wa3
thought to have made the world, and to rule mankind. This
Gnosticism tainted Judaism, and early in the second century, it
largely corrupted Christianity. Simon Magus claimed to be one
of these /Eons—“ gave himself out to be some great one to whom
the people all gave heed, saying, this man is the great Power of
God.”—Acts viii. 10. Paul, addressing a people, imbued with these
ideas, claims, for Jesus, that he was first and chief of these JEons,
or emanations or powers of God,—the Son or JEon of his love, who
made the world, and rules over all things.
�56
Plato, Philo, and Paul.
manner, that Jesus was the Logos in his character of
High Priest, and in this sense, invests him with a divine
*
nature.
But to both Paul and this writer, the Logos
is a spiritual being, and the human Jesus is, to a large
extent, lost sight of by them; their Christ is largely
ideal, and of Jesus, they have but the vague knowledge
of general repute. Paul distinctly refused to know
Jesus after the flesh. It marked, therefore, a further
stage of development when early in, or possibly towards
the middle of, the second century, the Fourth Gospel,
that attributed to the Apostle John, appeared. This
Gospel was written with an express purpose, that of
proving that Jesus was the Christ or Logos. The
people among whom Paul chiefly laboured, accepted
his teaching that Christ was the wisdom and the power
of God, the best beloved of the JEons or emanations from
the divine essence; but many of those versed in the
current philosophy, denied that Christ or the Logos
* Ernest De Bunsen, in his interesting work, “The Hidden
Wisdom of Christ,” ascribes the authorship of the Epistle to the
Hebrews to Apollos, the companion of Paul, and says “ that
Apollos has here applied to Christ the pre-Christian Alexandrian
doctrine about the first-born Wisdom, Spirit, or Word of God is
evident. For, as we have pointed out, in the book of Wisdom, the
same is called ‘ the brightness of the everlasting light, the un
spotted mirror of the power of God, and the image of His good
ness.’ Now we have seen that in the Apocrypha, God is not
revealed as a person, but merely as a spirit or glory......... But
Apollos conceived, and with him, as we may assume, all those who
believed in Christ, that since the mark of humanity’s high-calling had
been reached by and in Jesus,—since the perfect incarnation of
God’s holy spirit had been accomplished, the real pattern of man
kind has ceased to be a divine idea, has been manifested in the
flesh, has become a person.” ....
“ It is possible that by thus connecting an historical individual
with a pre-historical idea, Apollos did either consciously or un
consciously lay the foundation to that ‘ docetism ’ which denied
the humanity of Christ.” ....
“The Divine Spirit or Word thus personified, has taken the
place by the throne of God, which was, up to this time of reforma
tion, occupied by a merely ideal image of humanity’s high-calling.
Divine Wisdom, which, from the beginning, is by the throne of
God, henceforth is represented by the first-born of deified humanity.
The spiritual messiah has become personal.”—-Vol. I., p. 311, 323.
�Plato, Philo, and Paul.
57
was a man. Jesus, they said, was simply a human
being on whom this Logos descended, with whom
Jesus as the Christ was mystically united, as a soul is
united with a body. The Fourth Gospel is written to
refute this teaching, and to assert that Jesus was him
self the Logos—Christ, “that the Word or Logos was
made flesh, and dwelt among us, so that men beheld
his glory as the only begotten of the Father.” (John i.
14.) Throughout this gospel, Jesus is spoken of as a
superhuman being, as wearing the human form, but
claiming a mysterious and intimate relationship with
God, as asserting, for himself, an equality with God,
and as claiming to have existed before the world was
made. This gospel, however, records but the fanciful,
though deep and philosophical, speculations of a
devout and spiritually-minded Christian, who lived
quite one hundred years after the crucifixion of Jesus.
It is an endeavour to identify the Platonic Logos with
the personality of Jesus, whom his Jewish followers
had accepted as a spiritual Messiah or Christ, and
whom his Gentile followers were anxious to exalt, by
asserting his identity with the “ Logos” or Divine Word.
The three earlier Gospels contain the real history of
Jesus, or rather, they record the traditions that were
current among his followers concerning him, some
thirty years after his death. These followers were, for
the most part, Jews, some of whom had been his
actual companions. They are a mixture of history and
legend,—nevertheless, all our knowledge of the actual
Jesus must be gathered from these sources. The so-called
Gospel of John is the record of the speculative fancy of
some Gentile Christian, who never had seen either
Jesus or his diciples, or conversed even with those of
the second generation from these ; who, moreover, knew
but little either of Judea or the Jewish religion ; who,
however, is thoroughly conversant with the Logos as a
personified power of God, and who is desirous of
identifying Jesus with this being.
�Plato, Philo, and Paul.
In the three earlier Gospels, Jesus never claims to he
the Christ whom the Jews were expecting, till just at
the close of his ministry, when he bids his disciples to
keep his assumption of the office a profound secret till
after his resurrection. (Mark ix. 9.) In the fourth
Gospel, however, Jesus is represented as openly claim
ing this title from the very commencement of his
ministry, and as continually upbraiding the Jews for
refusing to recognise it. In this Gospel, it is the sum
and substance of his teaching. The same writer who
wrote the Gospel ascribed to John, is generally believed
to have written also the Epistles which claim the same
authorship. In these, we very clearly discern the
speculative controversy that occasioned their appear
ance, viz., the denial on the part of many Asiatic
Christians that the Logos, whom they now called
Christ, had ever possessed a personal and material
existence, had ever “come in the flesh.” So this
epistle commences—
“ That which was from the beginning (the pre-existent
Logos or Christ), which we have heard, which we have
seen with our eyes, and our hands have handled of the Word
(Logos) of Life.
*
“ (For the Life was manifested, and we have seen it, and
bear witness and show unto you that eternal life which was
with the Father, and was manifested unto us) ;
“ That which we have seen and heard, declare we unto
you, that ye also may have fellowship with us; and truly,
our fellowship is with the Father, and with his Son Jesus
Christ.”
Again the writer says—
“ Beloved, believe not every spirit, but try the spirits
* The period of the appearance of the Gnostic heresy renders it
possible for those who took part in the controversies it occasioned to
have seen the living Jesus ; the writer of this epistle, however, to
add weight and authority to his arguments, writes in the name of
an apostle, who was the companion of Jesus, and thus antedates
his -work by upwards of half a century. Dr Davidson places the
epistle before the gospel, and dates the former about a.d. 130.
�Plato, Philo, and Paul.
59
whether they are of God: because many false prophets are
gone out into the world.
“ Hereby know ye the Spirit of God, every spirit that
confesseth that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is of God.
“And every spirit that confesseth not that Jesus Christ
is come in the flesh, is not of God : and this is that spirit
of Anti-Christ whereof ye have heard that it should come ;
and even now, already is it in the world.”
During the larger portion of the second century, the
representatives of Hebrew Christianity, i.e., of the first
church of the apostles, which had its centre at
Jerusalem, were almost wholly extinct, and Christianity
was altogether in the hands of its Gentile converts.
Its severance from Judaism was complete, and the
churches that now existed, took their tone very largely
from the teachings of Paul.
The chief and almost the only Christian literature of
the second century, consists in the copious Apologies
made to the Roman Emperors on behalf of Christianity,
viz., that made by Justin Martyr to the Emperor
Marcus Aurelius, a.d. 160, and that made by Tertullian
about a.d. 200,—and in the celebrated dialogue or
controversy of the former, with the Jew Trypho.
Justin was a native of Palestine, but a Grecian by
birth and education, a student and teacher of the Gentile
philosophies. Plato was his great master till his con
version to Christianity. After this event, however,
he still continued to wear the philosopher’s mantle, and
endeavoured to reconcile much that he had learned from
Plato’s writings with the spirit he had imbibed from
his new faith. His conception of Jesus was necessarily
largely ideal, and Justin claimed, on his behalf, that he
was the pre-existing Logos of whom Plato had taught.
Commenting in his “ Apology ” on the passage from
Matthew’s gospel, “No man knoweth the Son but
the Father, neither knoweth any man the Father but
the Son, and he to whomsoever the Son will reveal
him.” Justin says—
�6o
Plato, Philo, and Paul.
“ The Jews therefore for maintaining that it was the
Father of the Universe who had the conference with Moses,
when it was tbe very Son of God who had it, and who is
styled both Angel and Apostle, are justly accused by the
prophetic spirit, and Christ himself, for knowing neither the
Father nor the Son. For they who assert the Son to be the
Father, are guilty of not knowing the Father, and likewise
of being ignorant that the Father of the Universe has a
Son, who being the Logos, and first-begotten of God, is
God. And he it is who heretofore appeared to Moses and
the rest of the Prophets, sometimes in fire, and sometimes
in the form of angels. But now, under your empire, as I
mentioned, was born of a virgin, according to the will of
his Father, to save such as should believe in him, and was
content to be made of no reputation, and to suffer, that by
his death and resurrection, he might conquer death.”
Justin here asserts Jesus to be God, but God in such
a subordinate sense as not to interfere with the unity
and supremacy of the Father. A confused thought
that literally implies the recognition of two deities. In
the old philosophy, the Logos was the spirit, or active
power, or wisdom of God. But this idea, when
identified with Jesus, suggests two distinct persons in
the Godhead, and takes a large step towards the Trini
tarian dogma.
In his “ Dialogue with Trypho,”
Justin speaks yet more clearly—
“I will produce another proof from the scriptures to
*
show that God did, before all creation, beget of Himself a
beginning, a certain rational power, which, by the Holy
Ghost, is called also the glory of the Lord, and sometimes
the Son, sometimes wisdom, sometimes an angel, sometimes
the Lord, and the Logos or Word. Just like what we see
done in ourselves, for when we speak any word, we beget
that word: but not by separating it from us, so as to
diminish the word that is in us by our speaking it. Just as
we see, also, that one fire is lighted from another, without
diminishing that from which it is lighted from, that still
continuing to be the same.”
* The proof consists in quotations from the Book of Proverbs,
describing the personification of wisdom.
�Plato, Philo, and Paul.
6'i
Here, again, we have, in this attempted definition of
the Logos, a confusion of thought, seeing that it may
imply a soul lit by the spirit of God, as well as a
separate and subordinate divinity. This confusion of
ideas and perplexity of thought is well seen in the
following passage from the ££ Apology ” of Tertullian, who
was born at Carthage, of heathen parents, about the
year 160, who as a youth, was instructed in the whole
round of philosophic study ; but becoming a convert to
Christianity, wrote, about the year 200, a powerful
Apology, for the purpose of showing its superiority to
the heathen religions, yet who eventually lapsed into
the Montanist heresy, which looked for another Christ
or Paraclete yet to come. In the chapter concerning
the God of the Christians, Tertullian says—
“ The God we worship is one God, that Almighty Being
who fetched this whole mass of matter, with all the ele
ments, bodies, and spirits which compose the universe,
purely out of nothing by the word of his power, which
spoke them into being, and by that wisdom which ranged
them into this admirable order for a becoming image and
glorious expression of his Divine Majesty, which world the
Greeks call by a word implying beauty (/coa/zos). This same
God is invisible, though we discern his infinite majesty in
all his works, and whom we cannot touch though represented
to us by divine revelation, and united to us by his spirit;
and incomprehensible, though we come to some imperfect
ideas of him by the help of our senses.”
Later on, in a chapter concerning the birth and
crucifixion of Christ, who, he says, was born of a pure
virgin, he adds :—
“ I have already said, that God reared this fabric of the
world out of nothing, by his word, wisdom, or power ; and
it is evident that your sages of old were of the. same
opinion, that the “ Logos,” that is, the word or the wisdom,
was the maker of the universe, for Zeno determines the
Logos to be the creator and adjuster of every thing in
nature. The same Logos he affirms to be called by the
name of Fate, God, mind of Jove, and necessity of all
�6i
Plato, Philo, and Paul.
things. Cleanthes will have the author of the world to be
a spirit that pervades every part of it. And we Christians
also do affirm a spirit to be the proper substance of the
“ Logos,” by whom all things were made, in which he
subsisted before he was spoken out, and was the wisdom
that assisted at the creation, and the power that presided
over the whole work. The Logos or Word issuing forth
from that spiritual substance at the creation of the world,
and generated by that issuing or progression, is for this
reason called the Son of God, and the God, from his unity
of substance with God the father, for God is a Spirit. An
imperfect image of this you have in the derivation of a ray
from the body of the sun ; for his ray is a part without any
diminution of the whole, but the sun is always in the ray,
because the ray is always from the sun; nor is the substance
separated, but only extended.
“ Thus is it in some measure in the eternal generation of
“ The Logos,” he is a spirit of a spirit, a God of God, as
one light is generated by another, the original parent light
remaining entire and undiminished, notwithstanding the
communication of itself to many other lights. Thus it is
that the Logos which came forth from God, is both God
and the Son of God, and those two are one. Hence it is
that a spirit of a spirit, or a God of God, makes another in
mode of subsistence, but not in number; in order of nature,
but not in numericalness or identity of essence ; and so the
Son is subordinate to the Father as he comes from him as the
principle, but is never separated.”—(Tertullian’s Apology—
Reeves’ Translation).
Such were the confused ideas as to the nature
and person of Jesus considered as the Christ,
that prevailed at the close of the second century.
We have got, it will be seen, half way towards
a Trinity.
We have a” Father who is God, and a
Son who is of the same substance with him, being
begotten by him, who is, however, at this era, not
the equal, but the subordinate, of the Father. We are,
it is evident, approaching the era of the Nicene creed,
are already far in advance of the Apostle’s symbol, but
are yet some centuries removed from the Athanasian
dogma.
�Plato, Philo, and Paul.
63
From this date to the early part of the third century,
fierce controversies raged in the Christian church, as
to the proper relation which the Son bore to the
Father. Moreover, another personage was introduced
serving to increase the perplexity, viz., the Holy
Spirit or Ghost.
Early in the third century Noetus, a native of
Smyrna, maintained
‘‘ that God himself, whom he denominated the Father, and
held to be absolutely one and indivisible, united himself
with the man Christ, whom he called the Son, and in him
was born and suffered. From this dogma of Noetus his
adherents were called Patripassians, be., persons who held
that the great parent of the universe himself, and not
merely some one person of the Godhead, had made expia
tion for the sins of men.”—Mosheim’s Ecclesiastical History.
Later on in this century lived Sabellius, an African
Presbyter or Bishop.
He was the founder of the
famous Sabellian heresy, which asserted in opposition
to the followers of Noetus, that only a power from
God, and not the Father himself, was united with the
Son, or the man Christ; the Holy Spirit he considered
as another power or portion of the Eternal Father.
The controversies that prevailed about this period, as
to the true nature of Christ and his relation to the
Supreme God, were innumerable.
The religion of
Jesus as a moral force was consequently all hut lost
sight of in the clouds of metaphysical subtleties that
veiled the pure, bright light of God. These specula
tive fancies were cobwebs spun by the heated imagina
tions of fierce and fiery disputants, and had no
foundation whatever on the rock of Eternal truth.
Yet these grotesque and fantastic speculations were
laying the foundation of the creeds and dogmas that
■were to dominate the Christian church for succeeding
centuries ; that were to fill it with bitter strifes, to
fetter its freedom, and effectually to stop its growth.
By the close of the third century, it came to be
�64
Plato, Philo, and Paul.
generally recognised that the Godhead was to be con
ceived of in three aspects, or understood as comprising
three persons. The former was a heretic opinion, the
latter the orthodox faith.
But this orthodox faith
was by no means clearly defined, and endless disputes
prevailed as to the relation which the persons of the
Trinity bore to each other. Early in the fourth
century, Alexander, who was bishop of Alexandria in
Egypt, the metropolitan city alike of philosophy and
religion, and now the chief seat of Christianity, the
workshop where its chief doctrines were moulded,
maintained, among other things, that the Son possesses
not only the same dignity, but the same essence as the
Father. Arius, one of the presbyters, and who was
ultimately the great opponent of Athanasius, the
successor of Alexander in the Alexandrian Bishopric,
condemned these views as allied to Sabellianism, and
maintained
“ that the Son is totally and essentially distinct from the
Father; that he was only the first and noblest of those
created beings whom God the Father formed out of nothing,
and the instrument which the father used in creating this
material universe, and therefore that he was inferior to the
father both in nature and dignity. He defended his heresy
by showing that if the Father begat a Son, he who was
begotten had a beginning of existence, and therefore once
had no existence.”
Alexander accused Arius of blasphemy, and excom
municated him. But Arius had numerous followers ;
and the church at large was rent by a wide-spread
schism on this account. The Emperor Constantine,
who had recently been converted to Christianity, and
who had little taste for this theological hair-splitting,
deeming it remote from the true use of religion, tried
in vain to quiet the controversy, and at last as a means
of effectually settling it, and putting an end to the
disgraceful strifes that were raging with regard to it,
he summoned, in the year a.d. 325, the famous council
�Plato, Philo, and Paul.
65
of the entire church, which met at Nice in Bythinia, at
which three hundred and eighteen bishops assembled to
decide the question as to whether the Son was of the
same essence with the Father, or a distinct being from
him, and an inferior being to him.
The good Bishops, who sat in great state with the
Emperor as their president, had a somewhat warm dis
cussion, during which blows as well as words were
interchanged. The conncil lasted for two months, and
the result was, that a majority declared that “ Christ
was of the same essence as the Father.” Arius, who
had asserted the contrary, was sent into exile in
Illyricum, and his followers were compelled to sub
scribe their belief in the following confession of faith,
composed by the council.
The reader will detect in
the strange theological jargon which it contains, the
natural sequence of the forms of thought we have been
considering.
“We believe in one God the Father Almighty, the maker
of all things visible and invisible; and in one Lord Jesus
Christ, the Son of God, begotten of the Father, only
begotten, of the substance of the Father. God of
from
or out of) God, light of light, very God of very God;
begotten, not made; of the same substance with the
Father, by whom all things are made that are in heaven
and that are in earth ; who for us men and for our salvation
descended and was incarnate, and became man, suffered
and rose again the third day, ascended into the heavens,
and will come to judge the living and the dead ; and in the
Holy Spirit. But those who say that there was a time
when he was not, and that he was not before he was
begotten, or affirm that he is of any other substance or
essence, or that the Son of God is created and mutable or
changeable, the Catholic Church doth pronounce accursed.”
The Nicene creed, as it appears in the Church of
England prayer-book, and as it has been generally
used by the Christian Church, is a modification of the
above, which was made by the council of Constanti
nople in the year 381. Its chief difference consists in
E
�66
Plato, Philo, and Paul.
the removal of the appended excommunication, and
in the addition of the following clauses in reference to
the Holy Ghost.
“ I believe in the Holy Ghost, the Lord and Giver of life,
who proceeded from the Father (and the Son) who with
*
the Father and the Son together is worshipped and glorified,
who spake by the Prophets.”
The Eastern Church severed itself from the Western
Church on the clause which makes the Holy Ghost to
proceed from the Son in conjunction with the Father,
instead of (as it held) from the Father alone. In this
later creed we have a near approach to the Triune
Godhead, which forms the fundamental dogma of
modern Christianity; and from this time—the latter
half of the fourth century—speculations about the
Christian Trinity were more thought of than considera
tions concerning Christian duty, while a correct belief
in this matter was regarded by many of the clergy as
being of infinitely higher importance than a virtuous
life. Historians of this date inform us that while the
morals of the people -were degenerating, so that a great
preacher (Gregory Nazianzen) described the people as
being composed of “ the bad who wore a mask, and the
bad who appeared without one ; ” yet the interest even
of the poorer classes of the people in the theological
speculations of the period was as intense as that shown
in the present day by the English public in the result
of some popular horse or boat race. At Constantinople,
which was now the capital city of the empire, it is
recorded that
‘‘knots of people stood at the street corners, discussing
incomprehensibilities; in the markets, clothes-sellers, money
changers, provision dealers, were similarly employed. When
a man was asked, How many oboli a thing cost? he started
a discussion upon generated and ungenerated existence.
* The word “Filioque” was appended by the Latin Church
early in the fifth century.
�Plato, Plilo, and Paul.
&7
Inquiries as to the price of bread were answered by the
assertion that the Father is greater than the Son. When
one wanted a bath, the reply was that the Son of God was
created from nothing.”
Such is the picture of the condition of the public
mind as drawn by Gregory of Nyssa, a preacher of this
period. This deep popular interest, which existed
towards the close of the fourth century, concerning the
subordination of the Son to the Father, and the status
of the different personages of the Godhead, affords con
vincing evidence that the Council of Nicsea had by no
means furnished a satisfactory settlement of the ques
tion, and that a fierce and virulent controversy was
raging with regard to it. This was conducted with
arguments of a very questionable nature. Athanasius,
who was then Archdeacon of Alexandria, as secretary
of the Nicsean Council, drew up the formularies of the
Nicene creed, which is much more truly his creed than,
the one which has been made to bear his name, and
which was not in existence till centuries after his death.
This creed was opposed at first by seventeen bishops;
'these, however, were ultimately reduced to two, who,
with Arius, were sent into exile as soon as the decision
was made. Considering the penalties that were conse
quent on voting in the minority, it is surprising that
even two were found prepared to suffer banishment and
loss of high office on account of the faith they held.
On the death of Alexander, Bishop of Alexandria,
Athanasius was promoted to the office, and Athanasian
dogma ruled in the ascendant, yet not without consider
able opposition; and Athanasius had to use very rough
and violent measures to silence this. History tells,
possibly with some exaggerations, for the charges are
brought by his opponents, of his flogging several
bishops, interrupting divine service, burning the sacred
books, breaking the chalices, overthrowing the com
munion table, and causing the building to be razed to
the ground. Still the views of Arius progressed in
�68
Plato Philo, and Paul.
spite of this high-handed persecution; they even in
fected the court, and the emperor’s sister espoused them.
Possibly through her influence, Arius is recalled, and
the bishops who were exiled with him, Eusebius of
Nicomedia and Theognis of Nice, are restored to their
sees. Athanasius, however, is now Bishop of Alex
andria, and Arius, on his return, is neither allowed
to teach, nor to be received into communion in any
of the churches. The Church, as represented by
Athanasius, sets the State, as represented by the
emperor, at defiance; yet a synod of the clergy assem
bled at Jerusalem recognised the status of Arius in the
Church. The tide, however, is about to turn. Com
plaints against the overbearing tyranny of Athanasius
are heard on every side, and he is summoned to answer
them before a council of bishops at Caesarea; but he
declines to appear, and, as a consequence, is eventually
deposed and exiled. Arius now drew7 up a Confession
of Faith, without the controversial points relating to
the consuljstantiality of the Father and Son, and pre
sented it to Constantine, with a memorial praying that
this confession might be deemed a sufficient test of
Catholic orthodoxy. To this Constantine assented,
and was so well satisfied with the faith of Arms, that
he sent for Alexander, the Bishop of Constantinople,
and enjoined him to admit Arius to communion on the
following Sunday. The terrified bishop, over-awed by
the authority of the emperor, retired to the church of
Irene, and there prayed “ that God would call himself
from the world, or let that Arius die.” On the follow
ing Sunday, as Arius, accompanied by Eusebius of
Nicomedia and others of his adherents, was proceeding
to make a sort of triumphal entry into the church 01
Constantinople, he was seized with a sudden colic, and
expired in dreadful torments. Thus the bishop’s prayer
was answered, but suspicion was rife that poison had
lent a helping-hand towards the accomplishment of its
uncharitable request.
�Plato, Philo, and Paul.
Cg
During the remainder of the reign of Constantine,
and till the death of his son and successor, Constantius,
- that is, for about forty years—Arian views were in
the ascendant; and a compromise was effected between
these views and the Nicene dogma, which declared
the Son to be of the same substance with the Father,
by substituting the word o^oiougioi; (like essence) for
o^oovcioq
(the same essence). Under Julian and
Theodosius, however, the tide again turned, the latter
emperor, towards the close of the century, depriving
the Arians of all their churches, and enacting severe
laws against them, persecuted Arianism to its virtual
extinction ; and the doctrine of the complete Godhead
of Christ was henceforth the ruling dogma of Chris
tendom.
This result was largely helped by the powerful
advocacy of the great preacher of this period, Gregory
Nazianzen, whose public discourses were chiefly directed
to prove the existence in one Godhead of three self
depending hypostases or persons—Father, Son, and
Holy Ghost—each of whom was distinguished by
peculiar qualities or attributes. During this period a
fierce and protracted theological strife prevailed through
out the empire, and discussions concerning the Trinity
engrossed the public thought. Eventually the Nicene
dogma of a Godhead composed of three equal and dis
tinct persons, of which Athanasius had been the dis
tinguished advocate, became the settled faith of Chris
tendom. It was doubtless to make assurance doubly
sure, and to prevent all further controversy on the
matter, that the Athanasian creed was in course of
time constructed, or was for this purpose accepted, if, as
rumour states, it owed its origin to the polished satire
of an opponent of the dogma it professes to uphold.
This creed, which was wholly unknown till at least two
centuries after the death of its professed author, Athan
asius, sets forth the Catholic faith on this knotty
question; and, after making the subject, by way of
�jo
Plato, Philo, and Paul.
explanation, infinitely more dark and perplexing and
contradictory than it was before, it declares that
“ except every one do keep this faith whole and unde
filed, without doubt he shall perish everlastingly ! ”
Shall be consigned by a merciful Father and a loving
God to the eternal torments of a cruel and pitiless
Hell!
Apart from the frightful blasphemy of such a
declaration, this creed is a mass of absurdity and
*
nonsense.
It reminds us of theological speculation
gone mad. It professes to reason concerning subjects
far beyond the grasp of the highest and largest thought.
It declares “the Father to be God, the Son to be God,
and the Holy Ghost to be God
asserts that each of
these Gods has a separate and distinct personality ;
that each is uncreated, incomprehensible, eternal, and
almighty, and yet while compelling us by the “ Chris
tian verity,” to acknowledge every person by himself
to be God and Lord, it forbids us by the Catholic
religion to say “there be three Gods or three Lords !”
and it declares that if we “ confound the persons or
divide the substance,” the flames of an eternal hell will
be our portion ! This theological monstrosity, which
some assert was penned in satire by a drunken monk
* Yet last year densely crowded meetings, composed largely of
the higher church clergy, and the nobility, and influential laity,
were held in St James and Exeter Halls, for the purpose of main
taining this creed as the foundation dogma of the national religion.
If we are asked to account for such a sad spectacle, we say the
following facts explain it. It is the party cry rather than the real
belief of the church and people. “The kingdoms of the world
and the glory of them,” the high honours of society, and the
wealth and prestige of the National Church, are to be had by
professing a belief here, or rather this profession is one of the
essential conditions to their possession, while till a century or two
ago, it was death to openly express a disbelief in the Athanasian
dogmas, and till the early part of the present century it involved
outlawry. Even now penury and neglect, and the starving
inquisition of modern times, wait to punish by various forms of
social persecution, those who are earnest enough to think for
themselves, and to avow their disbelief in orthodox creeds.
�Plato, Philo, and Paul.
71
of the middle ages; which makes philosophy ridiculous
aud religion an absurdity and a lie, every clergy
man of the Church of England is bound to subscribe
as a believer, and, thirteen times a year, to read in the
services of his church. It asserts the co-equality of
the Son with the Father, the identity of Jesus, as
Christ, with God.
Here, then, with this precious document we termi
nate our enquiry. The sun itself is not more plainly
visible in the bright blue sky of a summer’s day, than
is the fact evidenced to us by the religious history of
the past two thousand years, that the dogma of “ the
Deity of Christ ” is the product of the speculations of
ancient heathen philosophy carried to insane and sense
less lengths, and is not, as our clergy represent it to be,
and as the English people are taught to regard it as
being, a special revelation from God.
We put it as an alternative to our readers, either
this dogma, which makes Jesus to be an incarnate God,
is a revealed truth, or it is a blasphemous idolatry. If
it be a revealed truth, we assert that God W'ould have
given sufficient and satisfactory evidences with a
revelation so startling and so strange.
We ask in
vain for these evidences and the churches of whom we
ask them, and in whose keeping they should be, if
they were in existence at all, only threaten us with
eternal damnation for our non-belief, and bid us
believe in order to escape this terrible fate. This
absence of real evidence should convince all reasonable
minds, that this strange dogma was a figment of
human fancy, if not the product of human fraud,
should assure them that it was no truth of the eternal
God. Moreover, we have evidence, clear, conclusive,
irrefutable evidence, as to what this doctrine really
is. We can trace its birth-place in the philosophic
speculations of the ancient world, we can note its
gradual development and growth,—we can see it in its
early youth passing, through Philo and others, from
�72
Plato, Philo, and Paul
Grecian philosophy into the current of Jewish thought;
then after resting awhile in the Judaism of the period
of the Christian era, we see it slightly changing its
character, as it passes through Gamaliel, Paul,—the
writers of the Fourth Gospel, and of the Epistle to
the Hebrews,—through Justin Martyr and Tertullian,
into the stream of early Christian thought, and now from
a sublime philosophical speculation it becomes dwarfed
and corrupted into a church dogma, and finally gets
hardened as a frozen mass of absurdity, stupidity, and
blasphemy, in the Nicene and Athanasian creeds. The
dogma of the Godhead of Jesus, or the Deity of Christ,
we now know to be a falsity and a fraud.
*
The clergy
who teach it might and ought to know this as well as
ourselves. And being false this dogma is a tremendous
blasphemy. It is the shame and degradation of our
enlightened age, that this the worship of a man in
the place of God, is sanctioned and supported by law,
and that the wealth of the English Church is devoted
to its maintenance and dissemination. But for the
wealth and prestige which attach to those who hold it,
and the social persecution and hatred that attend its
repudiation, this dogma would long since hav6 died
out.
At heart, however, the nation, who bow in
reverence before it, give only a lip service to it. But
this is worse than all, for an earnest and heartfelt
idolatrous worship is infinitely better than a hollow
and formal hypocrisy.
AVe have shewn the doctrine to be false. The
church that rests upon it, rests therefore on the
sandy foundation of a known and proven lie, and the
people who cherish it, in blind and senseless indif
ference, they nourish a canker at the heart of their
religious life.
A new reformation is evidently near
at hand.
“ The times are ripe and rotten ripe for
change.” Religion is the life’s-blood of all true and
' * With the proven fallacy of the dogma of the Deity of Christ,
the doctrine of the Atonement collapses also.
�Plato, Philo, and Paul.
7
noble peoples, but a religion that is not true is no
religion at all, and an idolatrous dogma seated on the
throne which truth, and truth alone, should fill, is as
poison in the waters of the well of life.
God is not a strange compound of co-equal person
ages, one of whom is a stern tyrant, and the other a
loving friend j God is not a Jewish peasant who,
centuries ago, under the name of Jesus, led a beautiful
life filled with love and service, and the spirit of just
and generous reform. God is the beneficent framer
and upholder of the universe; the Father and the
friend of man ; is, as the recorded words of Jesus
declare, an invisible and pervading Spirit, and they
who would worship him aright, must worship him
“ in spirit and in truth.” As a consequence of the
false and fictitious character of the dogma of the
Deity of Jesus, of the asserted identity of the
Creator of ten-thousand worlds with a Jewish peasant,
who lived in the time of Tiberius Csesar, religion
is in this nineteenth century divorced from the
intelligence and reason of educated and thoughtful
men, and is consequently ceasing to be a real power in
the world.
Still, underlying all these speculations,
whose crystallisation into church dogmas, that are at
once incredible and absurd, has done religion such
grievous injury, there exists a grand and glorious truth.
The “ Christ idea,” is the noblest thought that has
stirred the human mind. It is the idea of a godlike
humanity ; of man sharing a divine nature and thinking
the pure thought of God. It this ennobled humanity
that is the “ first begotten of the Father,” the true
“ Son of God.” Humanity in its perfectness is the
real Christ, and this is the great truth that the soul of
Jesus discerned, and that the life of Jesus emphasized.
To call Jesus God, is to do infinite injury to his
memory. As God, his faith was a fiction, his example
worthless, and his martyrdom a sham. It is only in
his absolute humanity, that the worth and excellence
of his life are seen. That life realised to the earnest
�74
‘Plato, Philo, and Paul.
and devout thought of its age, the Christ ideal with
which the ininds of men were at that time filled, and
the fault and folly of succeeding generations has been,
that men have determined to discern in Jesus alone,,
those godlike attributes in which humanity at large are
able and privileged to share.
The Sabellian heresy of the third century, which
recognised a trinity of
rather than of persons
in the Godhead, made a very near approach towards a
truthful expression of the close rela^on with each other,
which the human and the divine natures are able to
sustain. This view imagined that one and the same
Deity was manifested as Father, Son, and Spirit; as
Father in the overruling Providence, as Son in the
excellences of human character and conduct, as Spirit
ip. the pervading influence of the divine thought. A
system which finds clear and beautiful expression in
the following lines of the American Poet, Whittier,
and which we have no hesitation in offering to our
readers, as a charming and admirable substitute for the
perplexing dogmas and tremendous fallacies of the
_ Athanasian creed.
TRINITAS.
At morn I prayed, I fain would see
How three are One, and One is Three—
Read the dark riddle unto me.
I wandered forth ; the sun and air
I saw bestowed with equal care
On good and evil, foul and fair.
*
No partial favour dropped the rain ;—
Alike the righteous and profane
Rejoiced above their heading grain.
And my heart murmured, “ Is it meet
That blindfold nature thus should treat
With equal hand the tares and wheat?”
�Plato, Philo, and Paul. *
A presence melted through my mood,
A warmth, a light, a sense of good,
Like sunshine through a winter wood.
I saw that presence, mailed complete
In her white innocence, stoop to greet
A fallen sister of the street.
Upon her bosom, snowy pure,
The lost one clung as if secure
From inward guilt or outward lure.
“ Beware! ” 1‘said ; “ in this I see
No gain to her, but loss to thee ;
Who touches pitch defiled must be.
I passed the haunts of shame and sin,
And a voice whispered, “ Who therein
Shall these lost souls to Heaven’s peace win ?
“ Who there shall hope and health dispense,
And lift the ladder up from thence
Whose rounds are prayers of penitence ? ”
I said, “ No higher life they know ;
These earth worms love to have it so.;
Who stoops to raise them sinks as low.”
That night with painful care I read
What Hippo’s saint and Calvin said—•
The living seeking to the dead!
In vain I turned, in weary quest,
Old pages, where (God give them rest!)
The poor creed-mongers dreamed and guessed.
And still I prayed, “ Lord, let me see
How three are one, and one is three ;
Read the ctark riddle unto me.”
Then something whispered “ Dost thou pray
For what thou hast ? This very day
The Holy Three have crossed thv way.
“ Did not the gifts of sun and air
To good and ill alike declare
The all-compassionate Father’s care?
75
�Plato, Philo, and Paul.
“ In the white soul that stooped to raise
The lost one from her evil ways,
Thou saw’st the Christ whom angels praise!
“ A bodiless Divinity !
The still small voice that spake to thee
Was the Holy Spirit’s mystery !
“ Oh, blind of sight, of faith how small,
Father, and Son, and Holy Call;—
This day thou hast denied them all.
“ Revealed in love and sacrifice
The Holiest passed before thine eyes,
One and the same, in threefold guise !
“ The equal Father in rain and sun,
His Christ in the good to evil done,
His voice in thy soul;—and the Three are One.”
I shut my grave Aquinas fast;
The monkish gloss of ages past;
The schoolman’s creed aside I cast,
And my heart answered, “ Lord, I see
How Three are One, and One is Three,
Thy riddle hath been read to me.”
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
Plato, Philo, and Paul; the pagan conception of a "divine logos" shewn to have been the basis of the Christian dogma of the deity of Christ
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Lake, John William
Description
An account of the resource
Place of publication: London
Collation: 76 p. ; 18 cm.
Notes: Includes bibliographical references. Ink stains on the title page. Pages 40-47 printed in double columns. From the library of Dr Moncure Conway and part of the NSS pamphlet collection. 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
[187?]
Identifier
An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context
CT200
RA1831
N433
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 (Plato, Philo, and Paul; the pagan conception of a "divine logos" shewn to have been the basis of the Christian dogma of the deity of Christ), 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
Subject
The topic of the resource
Christianity
Saints
Paganism
Conway Tracts
Jesus Christ
Logos (Christian Theology)
NSS
Philo of Alexandria
Plato
Saint Paul
-
https://d1y502jg6fpugt.cloudfront.net/25778/archive/files/11e01181078899406b1767cef824b451.pdf?Expires=1712793600&Signature=fjsMDKA8IJsNGuVSdkVKy3tdg7hkXNFT5d9vnF8N8qh6xmSsWlTgAYwssbBPvpAXocTKkt9brozPA0G0FfhCoEZrclJI4ofU71weygCCslhFMxkKCpfZu3%7EI5SQyzepIGwwMu1bXyiP7lW3-K1Wes6FmQJdIus12qCq8Phk%7EUUe9nFhPtxQsFImrpIIkPsvg9q%7EAloVdABd24iwxI1dnLKfGO4NM95vV7bSESziFwhoizrowr7sEfYxfjZpOp3zdihLDX0tF5LkGP-uvcmm7EgpGHcQ6zhgUyK0aB15syb3sEvTjAGrByO9NXwrqxJj8klBCJJfsWe-gTbkSo4fVyw__&Key-Pair-Id=K6UGZS9ZTDSZM
6cab05a77843f9fe791c69930a5887f5
PDF Text
Text
NATIONAL SECULAR SOCIETY
SOCRATES,
BUDDHA,
AND
JESUS.
• . . JSt
•>
-
BY
ARTHUR
B.
MOSS.
LONDON:
WATTS & Co., S4, FLEET STREET, E.C.
ONE PENNY.
��s, 2.507
msoa
SOCRATES, BUDDHA, AND JESUS.
Three more imposing and memorable figures of antiquity
than Socrates, Buddha, and Jesus it would be impossible
to name. Each of them religious reformers in his day;
each working with an unselfish patriotism to improve the
condition of his fellows ; each proclaiming high moral
principles, and leaving to posterity an example worthy
of ardent imitation; while, in addition, two of them—
Socrates and Jesus—were persecuted by bigots, and
unjustly condemned to death for having the manliness
and courage to advocate unpopular opinions.
These
great reformers are types of the men to whom the world
is indebted for its social, moral, and religious advance
ment ; and, though by some they are elevated to a posi
tion beyond their merits, and worshipped as veritable
gods, their lives afford interesting study to Freethinkers,
who, in estimating the value of their work for humanity,
are free to accept all that is good in their teaching, while
wisely casting aside all that is false and harmful.
Our first character,
SOCRATES,
probably one of the greatest philosophers the world
has ever known, was born at Athens in the year 469 b.c.,
and, after a life of great activity, both intellectually
and physically, died the death of a martyr, at the ripe
age of seventy, in the year 399 b.c. His father, Sophroniscus, was a sculptor, who had performed some good
work in his noble profession ; and, being desirous that
his son should follow the same calling, had him specially
trained for that purpose.
Although Socrates early
achieved considerable success as a sculptor, he was not
destined to work at the noble art for long. A wealthy
�4
SOCRATES, BUDDHA, AND JESUS.
Athenian, named Crito, was so struck by his charming
manner, so impressed by his intellectual strength, that
he determined to have him thoroughly educated, with a
view of giving him a better opportunity of shining in the
world.
His academical studies completed, Socrates
abandoned the art of sculpture for philosophy, and,
among his most ardent disciples, succeeded in winning
Crito, his worthy benefactor.
The personal appearance of Socrates was certainly
far from favourable to the philosopher, who is described
as a “ brawny, squab, ugly man
but sensible persons
do not judge by outward form alone. “ Handsome is
who handsome does ” is an old maxim, the truth of
which most of us acknowledge ; and assuredly, in the
case of Socrates, no nobler soul could have been set in
more uncomely frame. His extreme ugliness was matter
for daily comment. Like all wise men, however, Socrates
despised those who merely judged him by his appear
ance, and not by speech and conduct In his habits
he was consistently temperate, esteeming this as one of
the highest virtues that belong to man. By temperance
Socrates did not understand merely moderation in the
use of drink; he meant by it much more than this : to
him the term included temperateness in eating, drinking,
attire, and, above and before all, in speaking—in fact,
moderation in all things.. Some malignant opponents
calumniate him by declaring that, on one occasion, at a
public banquet, Socrates indulged so excessively that,
while regular “old topers ” had succumbed to the large
quantity of drink they had consumed, and dropped help
lessly drunk under the table, he sat complacently in
his seat and drank on. These petty traducers of the
reputations of great men do not boldly declare that this
philosopher, like many other estimable men, from bishops
downwards, on one occasion got drunk, though they in
sinuate as much.
Socrates married ; but, unfortunately for him, his
choice was anything but a happy one, for in Xanthippe,
his “ partner for life,” he found nothing but a perverse,
scolding woman, who did her best to render his life as
miserable as possible. No doubt Xanthippe could find
many defenders among modern representatives of female
superiority. But, in plain truth, Xanthippe was a shrew.
�SOCRATES, BUDDHA, AND JESUS.
5
Though naturally of an irascible temperament, Socrates
bore his wife’s scoldings with remarkable coolness and
forbearance. It is recorded that on one occasion the
coolness of his bearing, during one of her severest
torrents of abuse, so exasperated Xanthippe that she
emptied a vessel of water over him, upon which he re
marked : “ Did I not say that Xanthippe was thunder
ing, and would soon rain ?” On another occasion, on
being asked by a friend what induced him to marry such
a shrewish woman as his wife, he wittily replied : “ Those
who wish to become skilled in horsemanship generally
select the most spirited horses : after being able to bridle
those, they believe they can bridle all others. Now,, as
it is my wish to live and converse with men, I married
this woman, being firmly convinced that, in case I should
be enabled to endure her, I should be enabled to endure
all others.” But, though Socrates himself thus playfully
condemned his wife’s temper, he was exceedingly careful
that her children should show her proper respect, and
promptly rebuked her son, Lamprocles, for deviating
from his duty in this respect.
The ordinary conversation of Socrates was rather
peculiar. He mixed with the workers in tan-pit and
brass-foundry, and seemed to take a strange interest in
their employment. So that Plato remarks : “ If any one
will listen to the talk of Socrates, it will appear to him
extremely ridiculous ; the phrases and expressions which
he employs fold around his exterior the skin, as it were,
of a rude and wanton satyr. He is always talking about
brass-founders and leather-cutters and skin-dressers ; and
this is his perpetual custom, so that any dull and un
observant person might easily laugh at his discourse. But
if any one should see it opened, as it were, and get within
the sense of his words, he would then find that they, alone
of all that enters into the mind of man to utter, had a
profound and persuasive meaning, and that they were
most divine ; and that they presented to the mind in
numerable images of every excellence, and that they
tended towards objects of the highest moment, or rather
towards all that he who seeks the possession of what is
supremely beautiful and good need regard as essential
to the accomplishment of his ambition.”
Nothing seemed to give this philosopher greater plea
�6
SOCRATES, BUDDHA, AND JESUS.
sure than to mingle with the people, and glean as much
information from them as possible. He never pretended
'to be a teacher; and when, in the Market Place, he
encountered the learned sophists in debate, he modestly
disclaimed all pretensions to knowledge, saying that he
came to learn and not to teach. Upon subjects that
most people thought themselves competent to speak
upon Socrates showed how little even the most learned
knew respecting them. He would ask his opponents
what they meant by “justice,” “piety,” “law,” ’‘demo
cracy;” and he invariably found that those who pretended
to know most respecting these things knew positively
nothing Socrates was called wise; but, said the philo
sopher : “ I am not wise; yet in one thing I am wiser
than my fellows : I know how ignorant I am, whereas
they are ignorant how ignorant they are.”
Though the Athenian philosopher devoted a great
deal of time to the discussion of important problems,
he did not neglect his manifold duties as a citizen. Not
only did he perform every duty devolving upon him in
relation to his family and the State, but, as Plato has
declared, he comported himself with great bravery in
three battles, and won for himself the admiration of
all who beheld his incomparable heroism under trying
circumstances. Yet this was the man who, when ripe
. with years, old in the service of mankind as teacher,
philosopher, and guide, was brought before the tribunal to
answer the charge of “impiety and corruption”! Socrates
treated the charge with contempt. It is true he had
denied the Athenian gods, and that, perhaps, might be
construed into impiety ; but he believed in the great
unseen God of the universe, who directed him in all his
actions. As to the charge of “corrupting the minds of
youth,” there was really nothing in it; and Socrates
steadfastly refused from the first either to make any
defence himself, or to allow any of his friends to engage
an orator to make one for him. And so he was con
demned to suffer death ! After his sentence had been
pronounced the philosopher opened his mouth, and
delivered, perhaps, the most eloquent and touching
address on record, which speech the reader will find in
Plato’s immortal “Apology.” One thing all can admire
in this address. Socrates told his judges that he would
�SOCRATES, BUDDHA, AND JESUS.
7
“ sooner die having spoken after his manner than speak
in their manner and live.” Thirty days after the con
demnation Socrates drank of the hemlock, and died as
quietly as one who—
“ Wraps the drapery of his couch about him,
And lies down to pleasant dreams.”
Socrates was undoubtedly a Theist, though the deity
in whom he believed Svas of a very ethereal kind. The
philosopher frequently admonished men to talk less
about the gods, and to concern themselves more about
things of which they had positive knowledge, rather than
proclaim their wisdom in matters celestial, while in
terrestrial matters they were superlatively ignorant.
Socrates regarded ignorance as the true source of all
misery and crime, and knowledge as the only means of
attaining virtue. To him virtue meant the highest happi
ness of which man was capable. To use Grote’s words:
“ Socrates resolved all virtue into knowledge, all vice
into ignorance and folly. To do right was the only way
to impart happiness, or the least degree of unhappiness
compatible with a given situation. Now, this was pre
cisely what every one wished for, only that many persons
from ignorance took the wrong road, and no man was
wise enough always to take the right. But as no man
was willingly his own enemy, so no man ever did wrong
wilfully: it’was not because he was not fully or correctly
informed of the consequences of his actions, so that the
proper remedy to apply was enlarged teaching of conse
quences and improved judgment.”
In this, then, we see the groundwork of Socrates’s
theory of ethics. But the philosopher saw that it was
not enough to teach men that they must do right; they
must be taught further that every action carries with it
consequences which, whether good or evil, fall inevitably
upon the actor as well as those by whom he is sur
rounded.
The life of Socrates supplies us with an illustration of
the power of knowledge to direct man aright in all his
actions towards his fellow men: in him Freethinker
and religionist alike will find much to admire, much that
is worthy of emulation. Faults he possessed, no doubt;
but no man is free from them. When we reflect, however,
�SOCRATES, BUDDHA, AND JESUS.
upon his unselfish career, his high moral principles,
his great wisdom and invincible heroism; when we re
member that it was he who said : “ A man who is good
for anything ought not to calculate the chance of living
or dying; he ought only to consider whether in doing
anything he is doing right or wrong, acting the part of a
good man or a bad. For wherever a man’s place is,
whether the place which he has chosen or that in which
he has been placed by a commander, there ought he to
remain in the hour of danger ; he should not think of
death, or of anything but disgrace ”—when we remember
all this, we cannot refrain from paying him the “homage
of our admiration and love.”
Come we now to our second character, Gautama,
called
BUDDHA.
More than five hundred years before the birth of
Christ, at Kapitavatthu was born the great Indian philo
sopher and reformer. Of Gautama’s early career little
or nothing is known, except that in connection with it
there are various legends, bearing a remarkable resem
blance to those which surround the lives of other religious
teachers and reformers—examples of which will be given
hereafter.
It is pretty clear, however, that Gautama
came of good parentage, and that he received an excel
lent intellectual and moral training, though the common
Buddhist view of his descent from a long succession of
Buddhas may be doubted. India, six centuries before
the Christian era, had already attained a high degree of
civilisation.
Learned Hindoos concerned themselves with the study
of philosophy aud religion. Schools of philosophy were
established, in which considerable freedom obtained in
regard to the discussion of theological and religious
questions.
Brahmanism, the prevailing religion, had
millions of adherents; but it was ultimately superseded
by Buddhism, of which Gautama was the founder.
As a young man, Gautama was so profoundly im
pressed by the great suffering and misery with which
human beings were afflicted that he left his home,
and for some time lived in seclusion, firmly resolved, if
possible, to find out the cause of this great evil, with a
�SOCRATES, BUDDHA, AND JESUS.
9
view of alleviating the sufferings of his fellows. He had
not studied for many years before he was convinced that
nature, at bottom, was radically wrong ; that for sentient
beings life was an inevitable struggle, with which pain
and misery were indissolubly connected.
Like many other religious reformers, Gautama was a
pessimist.
To him, nature did not appear to be the
work of a deity, fb^.he was not mentally blind to the
manifold evils in the universe, which it seemed incon
sistent to ascribe to a being combining the attributes of
infinite wisdom and goodness with that of infinite power.
Buddhism, as a philosophy, is based upon the indis
putable principle that concerning the existence of God
and the reality of a future existence nothing whatever is
known.
The first sermon of Gautama is, perhaps, one of the
most remarkable discourses ever delivered by man. It
embraces, in truth, the true principles of a Secular philo
sophy, and is the one great theme upon which Buddha
constantly spoke. Dr. Rhys Davids, who has done
more than any other man in England to disseminate a
knowledge of the teachings of Buddha among the people,
thus translates Gautama’s Sermon on the Mount:—
“There are two extremes,” said the Buddha, “which
the man who devotes himself to the higher life ought
not to follow—the habitual practice, on the one hand,
of those things whose attraction depends upon the
passions, and especially of sensuality (a low and Pagan
way of seeking gratification unworthy, unprofitable,
and fit only for the worldly-minded); and the habitual
practice, on the other hand, of asceticism (or self
mortification), which is not only painful, but as un
worthy and unprofitable as the other. But the Buddha
(or Tathagata) has discovered a middle path, which
avoids these two extremes—a path which opens the
eyes and bestows understanding, which leads to peace
of mind, to the higher wisdom, to full enlightenment—
in a word, to Nirvana.
And this path is the noble
eight-fold path—that is to say, right views, high aims,
kindly speech, upright conduct, a harmless livelihood,
perseverance in well-doing, intellectual activity, and
earnest thought.”
“Birth,” continued Buddha, “is attended with pain;
�IO
SOCRATES, BUDDHA, AND JESUS.
and so are decay and disease and death. Union with the
unpleasant is painful and separation from the pleasant;
and any craving that is unsatisfied is a condition of
sorrow. Now, all this amounts, in short, to this : that
wherever there are the conditions of individuality there
are the conditions of sorrow. This is the first truth—
the truth about sorrow. The cause of sorrow' is the
thirst or craving which causes the rental of individual
existence—is accompanied by evil, and K ever seeking
satisfaction—now here, now there—that is to say, the
craving evil for sensual gratifications, or for continued
existence, or for the cessation of existence. This is the
noble truth concerning the origin of sorrow. Deliver
ance from sorrow is the complete destruction, the laying
aside, the getting rid of, the being free from, the har
bouring no longer of this passionate craving. This is
the noble truth concerning the destruction of sorrow.
The path which leads to the destruction of sorrow is
this noble eight-fold path alone—that is to say, right
views, high aims, kindly speech, upright conduct, a
harmless livelihood, perseverance in well-doing, intellec
tual activity, and earnest thought. This is the noble
truth concerning the path which,deads to the destruction
of sorrow.”
This sermon, short as it is, contains for man the whole
philosophy of life. Socrates might talk of the “great
spirit ” which guided him in all his actions ; Jesus might
preach of man’s duty to his “heavenly father;” but
Gautama assuredly was the first great teacher to proclaim
the true mission of man to be to understand and reform
himself. For some years Gautama journeyed from place
to place, preaching his noble doctrine, that man was to be
judged only according to the quality of his deeds ; and
the great teacher was gladly welcomed by the common
people, among whom he made many converts. Not
only did Gautama teach his disciples what they must do
to attain to true happiness ; he also told them how to
avoid present misery.
They were to refrain from
drinking intoxicants, from lying, stealing, all impurity,
and from self-destruction. Among their chief virtues
were to be purity of conduct, forbearance and fortitude
in the time of trouble. Thus Gautama proclaimed a
great Secular faith—a salvation for man on earth without
�SOCRATES, BUDDHA, AND JESUS.
II
belief in God or desire for a future life. What consti
tuted Buddha’s view of true divinity has been well ex
pressed in the following stanza :—
“ Pure men and modest, kind and upright men,
These are the so-called divine beings in the world.”
When Gautama came to die he called together his
disciples and inquired of them if they had any doubts or
misgivings concerning his teachings, for he was anxious
that it should not be afterwards said that “ our teacher
was face to face with us, and we could not bring ourselves
to inquire of the Blessed One when we were face to
face with him.” But his disciples were silent. Then,
turning to them, Gautama said: “Behold, now, brethren,
I exhort you, saying, ‘ Decay is inherent 'in all compo
nent things—work out your salvation with diligence !’ ”
And so he died. His life’s work, however, lives : his
teachings to-day are being brought more and more under
the notice of earnest and intelligent men and women,
who recognise in them the foundation upon which a
grand Secular “ Religion of the Future ” may be erected
—a religion broad enough to embrace all men, of what
ever nationality or colour, within its all-expansive grasp:
a religion that has its deepest roots in humanity’s great
heart, and for its sole end the peace, prosperity, and
happiness of the human race.
In respect to our third character,
JESUS,
three theories are advanced :—
First. That he was the “ very God.” This is the
theory of the Church. Some Churchmen, however, say
that he was partly God and partly man ; but these are
unable to distinguish the Divine from the human ele
ment in him.
Secondly. A second school contend that the Jesus of
the Gospels never existed; that he was only a myth.
Thirdly. All the Jews, and most Rationalists, hold
that Jesus was a man, and only a man.
Was Jesus God ? Can an infinite Deity transform
himself into a finite man ? Can infinite attributes be
compressed into a finite compass ? Can an eternal God
�12
SOCRATES, BUDDHA, AND JESUS.
be born, or die, or raise himself from the dead ? Can
the immutable change, or the all-knowing increase his
knowledge? If Jesus were God, it is strange he did not
say so in language of unmistakable clearness. Strange
that he spoke of a God who was in heaven, and who was
other than himself. Strange that he was afraid to die,
and prayed that his “heavenly father” should let the
bitter cup pass from him, when he must have known
either that he could not die, or, if he could, he could
easily raise himself to life again.
The theory of the Divinity of Jesus rests entirely
upon faith, for no amount of evidence would be suffi
cient to demonstrate a finite being to be an infinite god
in any sense of the word. Those who maintain that
the Jesus of the Gospels is not an historical character at
all stand on much more reasonable and solid ground
than the Christians. They contend that the miracle
stories that form the groundwork of the life of the
Nazarene carpenter, and without which Jesus would
stand on the same common level with all great religious
reformers, have been taken from certain traditions
relating to other great men, who lived hundreds of years
before. For instance, it is stated in the Gospels that
Jesus was born of a virgin, whose name was Mary.
Gautama is said to have been born of a virgin, too, and
her name was Maya. Jesus wras announced by angels
—so was Gautama; endowed with prophetic vision—so
was Gautama; baptised with water and afterwards with
fire—so was Gautama.
At the time of the birth of
Jesus a number of children were slaughtered in order
that he might be among them; the same is said of
Gautama. Jesus had long arguments with learned
doctors, and amazed them with his wisdom—so did
Gautama; was tempted by a devil—so was Gautama;
fasted for many days—so did Gautama; began to
preach at the age of thirty—so did Gautama; delivered
a sermon on the mount—so did Gautama; was hung
on a cross—so was not Gautama, but so it is alleged
was Chrishna. In further support of the theory that
Jesus was not an historical character, they contend that
there is no evidence of the existence of the “four
Gospels ” until the middle of the second century; that
it cannot be shown that the authors whose names they
�SOCRATES, BUDDHA, AND JESUS.
13
bear really wrote them, and that nobody knows when or
where they were written.
The third school say that there is naturally great
difficulty in proving that Jesus was an historical per
sonage ; that he lived so many years ago that we are
bound to rely, in a large measure, upon tradition : that
the accuracy of history much more modern might be
just as successfully impugned, because, before the printing
press came into use, the people had to depend upon
manuscripts, which were passed from one to another,
and altered in a variety of ways, and were only valuable
to the learned few, who used them for their own purposes.
Moreover, they contend that it is much more reasonable
to suppose that the man Jesus really lived ; that he went
about doing good ; that he preached unpopular opinions,
and that he was finally condemned as a blasphemer and
put to death—than to believe that some Christian
divine had genius enough to imagine the character, or
goodness enough to formulate the doctrines which it is
alleged Jesus proclaimed. It is, they further maintain,
a singular thing that great thinkers and philosophers,
like Voltaire, Paine, Strauss, Renan, John Stuart Mill,
and others, should acknowledge the historical character
of Jesus, if there be really so little evidence to support
it as some imagine.
For the sake of argument, then, let it be acknowledged
that Jesus really lived ; that he was a good man, and did
the best he could to enhance the well-being of his fellows.
In what respect was he better than Socrates ? Was he
wiser or more virtuous?
Did he fulfil his manifold
duties better, or even as well ? Was he a better citizen?
Was he as diligent a student, or as wise a teacher ? Or
was he a better, a more truly divine man, than Gautama?
Was he wiser, more virtuous, or more benevolent ? In
what respect was the goodness of Jesus superior to that
of Gautama ? Wherein were his doctrines better ? In
all sincerity, let the Christians answer these questions ;
and let not superstitious Freethinkers, who still cling to
the notion that Jesus was the “ divinest ” man that ever
lived, evade the difficulty.
Let the philosophy of Socrates be compared with
that of Jesus ; let the doctrines of Gautama be read
side by side with those of the Nazarene; let the lives of
�14
SOCRATES, BUDDHA, AND JESUS.
the three great reformers be fairly compared and con
trasted, and it will be found that, in some respects,
Socrates and Buddha are superior to Jesus. Space will
not admit of a lengthy comparison of the doctrines of
these men; but it may be said that, while there is much
that is good and true in the teachings of Jesus, there is
also much that is exceedingly harmful and misleading.
Socrates taught that all error and all misery sprang from
ignorance, and sought to remove the evil. Jesus, appa
rently, did not mind how ignorant his followers were,
providing their ignorance was allied with faith.
He
would rather that they should not be wise if their wisdom
brought with it grave doubts and misgivings. Jesus said :
“ Love your enemies,” which no man can do; Gautama
said: “ Be just even to your foes ”—
“ Have good will
To all that lives, letting unkindness die,
And greed and wrath.”
Jesus said : “If any man come unto me, and hate not
his father and mother and wife and children and brethren
and sisters—yea, and his whole life, he cannot be my
disciple.” It should be remembered, too, that it was
Jesus who taught the frightful doctrine of belief and salva
tion, and disbelief and damnation—a blot sufficiently
large to obliterate the good influence of his general
teaching. Nothing that Socrates or Gautama ever said was
half as bad as this. To the Secularist, however, it seems
the highest wisdom to select the good teachings of each
of these great men. We admire and love them for their
wisdom, purity, and heroism; but we are not blind to
their shortcomings, and we should not be honest if we
failed to recognise and acknowledge them. No man is
perfect—perfection belongeth not to humanity. Socrates
had his faults, and no man would more readily own
them; so, too, had Gautama and Jesus; but, whatever
their failings—and, when everything is considered, they
were not numerous—they at least endeavoured, to the best
of their ability, to raise their fellows above the common
level, and to point to that higher life to which every
noble soul aspires, and for the realisation of which every
good man and every pure woman are arduously working.
I agree with Pascal that “ a man’s virtue is not to be
�SOCRATES, BUDDHA, AND JESUS.
15
measured by his great attempts, but by his common
actions.” Every action in our lives is important, and
we shall be strengthened by our study of the great
characters of the past only in proportion as we grasp this
undeniable truth. Let us never flinch from performing
our duty—the small task with the same enthusiastic
fidelity as the large one. Allured on by the grand
achievements of the world’s heroes; sustained and en
couraged by the knowledge that truth and justice must
ultimately prevail; guided and directed in all things by
the imperishable light of reason ; sharing with mankind
the joys and sorrows of life ; diffusing knowledge here,
helping a fallen one there ; being gentle to the suffering,
kind to the poor, and just to all—this indeed constitutes
real greatness, of which Longfellow sings :—
“ Lives of great men all remind us
We can make our lives sublime,
And, departing, leave behind us
Footprints on the sands of time—
Footprints that perhaps another,
Sailing on life’s solemn main
A forlorn and shipwreck’d brother,
Seeing, shall take heart again.”
WATTS & CO., PRINTERS, 17, JOHNSON’S C3URT, FLEET STREET, LONDON.
�THE
SECULAR
REVIEW.
A JOURNAL OF DAILY LIFE.
Edited by
...
Charles Watts & Saladin.
The Secular Review is strictly a Freethought Journal,
representing all phases of Advanced Thought. It also con
tains authentic information as to the progress of liberal
views in America and on the Continent;
To order, of Newsagents, or direct from 84, Fleet Street, London.
Published every Thursday, price Twopence.
ALSO BY THE , SAME AUTHOR.
THE MIRROR OF FREETHOUGHT..............................
..
THE BIBLE GOD AND HIS FAVOURITES..............................
FICTITIOUS GODS
........................................................................
CHRISTIANITY UNWORTHY
OF GOD
THE SECULAR FAITH........................................................................
IS RELIGION NECESSARY OR USEFUL?..............................
HEALTH, WEALTH, AND HAPPINESS
.............................
THE OLD FAITH AND THE NEW............................................
r
to
or
01
01
01
e 2
01
01
London : Watts & Co., 84, Fleet Street; or (to order) of all
Booksellers.
J9®" For Mr. Moss’s List of Objects of Freethought, Political, and
Social Lectures apply—89, Catlin^Street, Rotherhitlie Neat). Road, S,£,
a ■’’•k
�
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
Socrates, Buddha, and Jesus
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Moss, Arthur B.
Description
An account of the resource
Place of publication: London
Collation: 15 p. ; 18 cm.
Notes: List of works by the same author available from Watts & Co. on back page. 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
[1885]
Identifier
An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context
N504
G5127
Subject
The topic of the resource
Jesus Christ
Buddha
Socrates
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 (Socrates, Buddha, and Jesus), 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
Gautama Buddha
Jesus Christ
NSS
Socrates
-
https://d1y502jg6fpugt.cloudfront.net/25778/archive/files/7d5ad1da3deeb453371f87a808d689bc.pdf?Expires=1712793600&Signature=VZEYj8RsilFmXzxakvYyoVvMSdBSy1tyO51ezFOEl2zMTsAFRmuWHVdUCbmlMcUtHji93hOXSHxz9XX9Csiq0XsPuwkRLqkWcPMKJ-paHihcUbrql1hXjfh8JNsqCD%7EkN4p1FTudkFsCbxaDhx%7E7JTnXqlduKc%7EQmwC2Jn1bG-YfHfVq7WSzez67CvmWDT-CYRkoLDxh3qXXgCOGFK3-U0OJzZTWwCCuw%7EiwgSXnP6m3LxGsDx-lijhlb7TnF3KGJ4mOakppxcTSUas7ka%7E46ytTAr45HzsLwaYw-B6MXT0B%7ExWS9fiIEWQcfxA%7EiWpSDTNgczU%7EbHqaKUq4McrgEA__&Key-Pair-Id=K6UGZS9ZTDSZM
d0cd0ef6f3a68d561f563863443114ff
PDF Text
Text
CHRIST AND OSIRIS
BY
J. S.
STUART-GLENNIE,
M. A.
Reprinted by permission from,
‘IN THE MORNINGLAND.’
PUBLISHED BY THOMAS SCOTT,
II THE TERRACE, FARQUHAR ROAD, UPPER NORWOOD,
LONDON, S.E.
1876.
Price Threepence.
�LONDON:
PRINTED BY C. W. REYNELL, LITTLE PULTENEY STREET,
HAYMARKET.
�CHRIST
AND
OSIRIS.
“ Thou hast conquered, 0 pale Galilean; the world has grown
grey from thy breath ;
We have drunken of things Lethean, and fed on the fulness
of death.
0 lips that the live blood faints in, the leavings of racks and
rods!
O ghastly glories of saints, dead limbs of gibbeted gods !
Though all men abase them before you in spirit, and all knees
bend,
I kneel not, neither adore you, but standing, look to the end.
*****
Though before thee the throned Cytherean be fallen, and
hidden her head,
Yet thy kingdom shall pass, Galilean, thy dead shall go down
to the dead.” *
eflecting- here, on the Temple-roof at
Karnak, on the general results of our
Egyptian studies, we are first of all struck
with what I may call the Christian character of
Osirianism. But before proceeding to point this
out, and to state the hypothesis which this Christian
character of Osirianism suggests, it may be desir
able to offer a few remarks on the outward, and
hence more vulgarly appreciated characteristics of
the Egyptian religion. For, in amazement at any
likening of Osirianism to Christianism, or of Christianism to Osirianism, many readers may, as if in
R
* Swinburne, Poems and Ballads, Hymn to Proserpine, pp. 79-80.
�6
Christ and Osiris.
settlement of any suggestion even of a causal relation
between Osirianism and Christianism, ask, ‘ Were not
the Egyptians, as a matter of fact, idolaters, and
worshippers, indeed, of the most grotesque and
monstrous idols ? ’ But let us understand what
idolatry means. Possibly, you who put this question
may be more of an idolater than were the ancient
Egyptians when they first created their Gods.
Idolatry is ceremonial worship when the meaning of
the ceremonies and symbols is lost. We are helped
to the understanding of this by the study of language,
in its first formations. Names, as a class of signs,
*
are themselves but a kind of symbols. In the
formation of a language, they are at first uttered
certainly not without a meaning ; they certainly are
the attempt to denote some thing, or express some
want, hitherto nameless, unutterable. Yet these
names, at first so meaningful, may in time so com
pletely lose their original meaning, as to become the
terminations of a declension, f So symbols, animal
headed deities, and others. What if the symbol, in
later times, so lost its meaning as to be itself wor
shipped ? Originally it had carried the mind from
itself to that which it signified. And as, in Lan
guage, ‘ the formation of substantive nouns is the
first stage of personifying God
so, in Religion,
the creation of symbols is the first stage of idolatry.
We shall hereafter have occasion to consider idol
creation more fully, and from other points of view.
Here I will only remark, that a reference to the
idolatry of the Egyptians is unfortunate, if it is
intended thereby to disprove the likeness of Osirian* ‘ A name is a word taken at pleasure to serve for a mark which may
raise in our mind a thought like to some thought we had before,
and which, being pronounced to others, may be to them a sign of what
thought the speaker had, or had not, before in his mind.’—Hobbes,
Computation or Logic, ch. it., cited by Mill, System of Logic, vol. II. p. 23.
t See Miiller, Lectures on the Science of Language.
t Bunsen, Egypt's Place, vol. iv. p. 566.
�Christ and Osiris.
7
ism to Christianism. For we shall find that it is
just in comparing these two Creeds in this matter of
idolatry, that — when we set Yahvehism between
them—their likeness comes out most strongly—the
religion of Abraham, whether as Judaism, or as
Mohammedanism, acting as a foil, and bringing out
with startling clearness, at once, the Osirian cha
racter of Christianism, and the Christian character of
Osirianism.
2. But is the Animal-worship of the Egyptians next
objected against any comparison of Osirianism with
Christianism, or any hypothesis with respect to the
origination of the latter in a transformation of the
former ? Well, it is admitted that that exaggerated
care for animals which becomes a superstitious wor
ship of them is not a feature of Christian religious
emotion. But in the Animal-worship which—pro
bably derived from an aboriginal African element in
the population — was, soon after the time of
*
Menes, incorporated with Osirianism throughout the
Empire, there should seem to have been an idea
which modern Science tends more and more clearly
to establish—the identity, namely, of the principle of
life in all its manifestations.f ‘ And what is this,’
asks Bunsen, £ but a specific adaptation of that con
sciousness of the divinity of Nature, which is implied
in all the religious consciousness of the Old World ?’J
The doctrine of transmigration thus became a sacred
link between animal and human life. And ‘ the
community between the human and anima,! soul
being once admitted, we can understand how the
Egyptians a^ last arrived at the idea of worshipping
in animals a living manifestation of Divinity.’§ But
if a similar doctrine is not found in Christianism,*
§
* Bunsen, Egypt's Place, vol. iv. p. 637
t See Spencer, Principles of Biology, and Principles of Psychology
t Bunsen, Egypt's Place, vol. iv. p. 640.
§ Ibid. vol. iv. p. 641.
�Christ and Osiris.
one is tempted to say that the want of it is much to
be regretted. For there have been, and even still
are, few worse features in Christian Civilization
than its apathy to animal suffering. And it is very
*
noteworthy that it was the great Apostle of the
Utilitarian School of Moralists who, in that very
year from which dates a new period of the Modern
Revolution, 1789, introduced into European Ethics
the consideration of1 the interests of other animals.’!"
So. likewise, a new care for, and new appreciation of
animals is one of the characteristic features of
Comte s conception of the New Religion of Hu
manity.J And if, at length, men are beginning
again to become sympathetically aware that other
animals also besides themselves feel pain, and that it
is shameful and dastardly to inflict pain unnecessarily
upon them ; if there is now some hope that
Christian f sports ’ may, at length, be done away
with, and animal-barbarities generally ; and if,
in realising that fact of physical kinship with our
Elder Brethren, which Science affirms, and Chris
tianity scouts, there is being devoloped some nobler
sympathy also with them—this, at least, it must be
admitted, is certainly not owing to any doctrine in
Christianism that can be paralleled in Osirianism.
3. The considerations thus suggested on the c Idola
try and on the ‘ Animal-worship ’ of the Egyptians
may, I trust, prepare us candidly now to consider the
more essential doctrines of Osirianism—those doc
fnri^^E1\ristiU1.Crkelty ffenera!ly’we must not recall the gladia
torial comhats of the Roman amphitheatre, without recalling also the
heretic burnings of every chief town in Christendom. Noris Classic
ChrkH^o-1®^6 t]udg(?d
th,e days of lts decline: but rather, as also
aIps;1tYdlza!10n» by the days of its prime. And that the Middle
♦Ur ,!16
f-,lristian civilization is proved by the fact, that
” Ament Fhlch ha?l SCce then> modified Christianity has tended
more and more to sweep it, both as a doctrinal and as a social system,
I
Morals and Legislation, ch.
+ bee Mill, Comte and Positivism,
xvii.
�Christ and Osiris.
9
trines which are so remarkably similar to the great
dogmas of Christianism. And with respect to what
the great religious doctrines of the Egyptians really
were, we are not now in any doubt. Eor one of the
grandest achievements of Modern Science has been
*
the translation of their Funeral Ritual, the ‘ Todtenbuch,’ or ‘ Book of the Dead,’ as Lepsius called it, or
as it calls itself, the ‘ Departure into Light.’f It
belongs to Bunsen’s fourth class of those Sacred
Books which would form collectively the Bible of the
ancient Egyptians, and is scarcely posterior to 3,000
years before our era.J For, as Bunsen points out,
we have a very remarkable proof that the origin of
the prayers and hymns of this Ritual belongs pro
bably to the Pre-Menite Dynasty of Abydos, between
3100 and 4500 B.C., in the fact that we find one of
these hymns, § not in its original simplicity, but
already mixed up with glosses and commentaries,
inscribed on the coffin of Queen Mentuhept of the
eleventh dynasty. This monumental text agrees
with the printed text of the Turin papyrus. And
though the first year of the eleventh dynasty, which
lasted forty-three years, cannot be placed earlier
than 2782 B.c. yet, if we consider the many stages*
§
* ‘ The interpretation of the extinct languages of Egypt and Central
Asia will ever rank as one of the distinguishing features of the nine
teenth century.’—Birch, in Bunsen’s Egypt's Place, vol. v. p. ix.
t Or ‘ Manifestation to Light,’ according to Champollion and Dr.
Birch. The complete translation by the latter was only published with
the fifth volume of Bunsen's Egypt in 1867. But I had with me at
Thebes the previous volumes, besides Wilkinson’s Ancient Egyptians
and other works ; and I had the advantage of perusing and making
copious extracts from the translation of an American Egyptologer who
was residing at Luxor. Even Dr. Birch’s translation, however, must
be considered as representing the state of hieroglyphical knowledge
rather twenty years ago than now—so long was its publication, owing
to various causes, delayed. The translation of the ‘ Tod.tenbuch,’ to
which students must now refer, is that by Brugsch, now in course of
publication. My references, however, here, will be to Dr. Birch’s Trans
lation, as probably more accessible to the majority of readers.
t Bunsen, Egypt's Place, vol. iv. p. 646.
§ It forms chapter xvii. of the Ritual. See Birch’s translation in
Egypt's Place, vol. v. pp. 172-80.
IT Compare Egypt's Place, vol. V. pp. 29, 88, and 94.
�io
Christ and Osiris.
that must have been passed through, before the
original hymn, learned by heart, and recited from
memory, became mixed-up with scholia in an nndivided sacred text, we cannot but date its composi
tion and primitive use many centuries anterior to
that dynasty in which we find it thus embedded in
explanations. This hymn implies not only the wor
ship of Osiris, but the whole system of doctrines
connected with his redeeming life on Earth, and
judicial office in Heaven. Yet an antiquity, even
greater than is thus witnessed-to, we are obliged to
assign to Osirianism, by the fact that the Osirismyth itself mentions ‘ Byblus (Gebal in Phoenicia) as
the place where Isis brought up the young Osiris.’*
And this derivation from Asia is further confirmed
by the universally admitted identity of ‘ the funda
mental ideas of the worship, and sacred ceremonials
of Adonis and Osiris.’f To the very earliest period,
then, of the history of Humanity, as the history of
Thought, we must carry back the ideas of the Osirian
Faith. And yet, we may possibly find in the sequel,
that it is but a transformed Osirianism that, to this
day, dominates Christendom.
4. Considered as a whole, the 1 Departure into Light ’
is a revelation in something of an epic, and even
occasionally dramatic form of the departure of the
Soul into the Other-world, of its judgment, and of
what is required of it, in order to its final beatific
reception by its Father Osiris. Its formularies may,
perhaps, best be arranged under such heads as the
following:—I. General Address. II. Address to each
of the Forty-two Assessors. III. Announcement of
Justification. IV. Telling the names of different
parts of the Temple. V. Blessings, &c.J According
to Egyptian notions, it was ‘ essentially an inspired
* Egypt's Place, vol. iv. p. 347.
f Ibid.
J Compare Birch’s introduction to his translation, Egypt's Place,
vol. v.
�Christ and Osiris.
ii
work; and the term Hermetic, so often applied by
profane writers to these books, in reality means
inspired. It is Thoth himself who speaks, and
reveals the will of the Gods, and the mysterious
nature of divine things to man.’* Portions of them
are expressly stated to have been written by the very
finger of Thoth himself, and to have been the com
position of a great God.f And in this, it may be
noted by the way, that we see an illustration of what,
in the Introduction, was pointed out as one of the
general characteristics of the First Age of Humanity,
namely, the authorlessness, for the most part, of
its Literature, and its attribution, to supernatural
sources. But sacred this Ritual was also esteemed
as ‘ assuring to the soul a passage from the Earth; a
transit through the purgatory and other regions of
the Dead; the entrance into the Empyreal Gate, by
which the souls arrived at the presence of God,
typified by the Sun ; the admission into the Bark, or
Orb of the Sun, ever traversing in brilliant light the
' liquid ether; and protection from the various Liersin-wait, or Adversaries, who sought to accuse,
destroy, or detain it in its passage, or destiny.’J
In this most ancient book of the Osirian Scriptures
there is, no doubt, not only a vast mass of unin
telligible ritualistic allusions, but evidence of gross
superstition. Not, however, without evidence of
this, are also the Christian Scriptures. And it must
be borne in mind that the Osirian Bible had not the
good fortune to be, in the formation of its canon,
purged, as was the Christian, of impurer, apocryphal
elements. Yet, notwithstanding this misfortune, the
religious tone of the Osirian Ritual is such as the
following brief extracts may serve, though inade
quately, to illustrate.
* Ibid. p. 133.
+ See chapter lxiv., Rubric.
j Birch in Egypt's Place, vol. V. p. 134.
�12
Christ and Osiris.
5. Very touching are some of the expressions in
which the Departed calls on Osiris to save him from
his Accusers, from the Lake of Fire, and from the
Tormentors. Addressing these with the noble bold
ness of great faith, ‘ says Osiris Anfanch . . . while
you strive against me, your acts against me are
against Osiris............... To strive against me, is
as against Osiris.’ Again: 1 Let me come, having
seen and passed, having passed the Gate to see my
Father Osiris. I have made way through the dark
ness to my Father Osiris. I am his beloved. I stab
the heart of Sut. I do the things of my Father
Osiris. I have opened every door in heaven and
earth. I am his beloved son. I have come from the
mummy, an instructed spirit.’ And again : ‘ says
Osiris Anfanch, save me, as thou savest what
belongs to thy word ; catch me up ; the Lord is God,
there is but one God for me (or, before the Lord of
Mankind, there is but one Lord for me).’ A passage,
this, which is but one of many proving the mono
*
theism of the better instructed, or more deeply
thinking, of those whom the narrow ignorance
of that Creed propagated by the Galilean Fishermen
sets down as 1 idolatrous heathens.’ He who is thus
represented as speaking in a certain stage of his
progress to the region of ‘ Sacred Repose, ’ is more
particularly described in the beginning of some
papyri as ‘ Osiris Anfanch of the true faith, born of
the lady Souhenchem of fair fame.’ The prefix to
the man’s name of that of God himself is the ‘ new
name ’ which every true believer receives after death.
In other passages the good man is even spoken of as an
Osiris. ‘ The Osiris lives, after he dies, like the sun
daily; for as the sun dies, and is born in the
morning, so the Osiris dies.’ And finally, as to that
immortality which is so ignorantly imagined to have
* See chap. tv. sect. iii.
�Christ and Osiris.
13
been 1 brought to light by the Gospel, ’ the Osiris
exclaims in another passage : 1 I do not die again in
the Region of Sacred Repose.’ And again. ‘ Who
soever does what belongs to him, visibly (individu
ally ?) his soul participates in Life Eternal.’ And
again. ‘ Plait for thyself a garland . . . thy life is
everlasting.’
6. But it is the central doctrine of Osirianism that
more particularly claims our attention.
‘ The
peculiar character of Osiris,’ says Sir Gardner
Wilkinson, ‘ his coming upon Earth for the benefit of
mankind, with the title of “Manifester of Good”
and “ Revealer of Truth his being put to death by
the Malice of the Evil One; his burial and Resurrec
tion, and his becoming the Judge of the Dead, are
the most interesting features of the Egyptian Reli
gion. This was the great mystery; and this myth
and his worship were of the earliest times and
universal in Egypt.’* And, with this central doc
trine of Osirianism, so perfectly similar to that of
Christianism, doctrines are associated precisely analo
gous to those associated in Christianism with its
central doctrine. In ancient Osirianism, as in
modern Christianism, the Godhead is conceived as a
Trinity, yet are the three Gods declared to be only one
God. In ancient Osirianism, as in modern Chris
tianism, we find the worship of a Divine Mother and
Child. In ancient Osirianism, as in modern Chris
tianism, there is a doctrine of Atonement. In ancient
Osirianism, as in modern Christianism, we find the
vision of a Last Judgment, and Resurrection of the
Body. And finally, in ancient Osirianism, as in
modern Christianism, the sanctions of morality are a
Lake of Eire and tormenting Demons, on the one
hand, and on the other, Eternal Life in the presence
* Ancient Egyptians (Popular Edition), vol. i. p. 331.
second Series of the larger work, vol. 1. p. 320.
Compare
�14
Christ and Osiris.
of God. Is it possible, then, that such similarities of
doctrines should not raise the most serious questions
as to the relation of the beliefs about Christ to those
about Osiris ; as to the cause of this wonderful simi
larity of the doctrines of Christianism to those of
Osirianism; nay, as to the possibility of the whole
doctrinal system of Modern Orthodoxy being but a
transformation of the Osiris-myth ? But if so—you
logically argue with amazed incredulity—all the most
sacred dogmas of the Christian faith would be
proved to have originated but in the influence of a
4 heathen ’ religion—a religion over the scenes of
which we Christians ordinarily pass with the most
complacent contempt ? Nay, if so ; if the doctrines
cf Christianism had but such an origin; must not.
the Christian ‘ Revelation ’ be acknowledged utterly
worthless to prove the reality of any one of the
supernatural facts which its doctrines affirm—even a
Personal Immortality, for instance, or a Personal
God ?
7. Well, be the consequences what they may, we
must find out what is the fact. And there is certainly
no escape in the desperate hypothesis to which the
manifestly Christian character of Osirianism has
driven some to have recourse—the hypothesis that
these doctrines of Osirianism were, somehow or
other, themselves a ‘ supernatural revelation.’ For
the discovery of Osirianism is the discovery of the
missing link between Christianism and Heathenism
generally, the religions of the First Age of Hu
manity, or what I have termed Naturianism. It has
hitherto appeared not only a crime but a blunder,
not merely a blasphemy but a frivolity, to compare
the Christian doctrines of the Trinity, of the Incar
nation, and of the Death and Resurrection of Christ
with the similar doctrines of Naturian Religions.
But the doctrines of a Trinity, of an Incarnation,
and of the Death and Resurrection of a God-man are
�Christ and Osiris.
15
developed in Osirianism with such gravity, such
moral purity, and such splendour, that we cannot
hesitate to honour them by a comparison with these
doctrines as developed in Christianism. Yet, from
Osirianism the gradation is so gentle through the
whole series of Nature-worships down to the lowest,
that, having compared the story and worship of
Christ with the worship and myth of Osiris, we find
ourselves necessarily comparing the Christian story
and worship with the worship and myth of Dionysus,
nay, of Adonis, and of Thammuz,—of Thammuz,
Whose annual wound in Lebanon allured
The Syrian damsels to lament his fate,
In amorous ditties all a summer’s day.
*
And hence if, to support the common belief in the
supernatural origin of Christianism, it is concluded
that the manifestly similar and unquestionably earlier
doctrines of Osiria'nism had a supernatural origin;
then, as we thus find it impossible to draw a line
separating the highest of the Heathen religions from
the lowest, a supernatural origin must also be
supposed for all those Heathen religions in
which we find—and where do we not find ?—the
story of a divine man dying, and—though but to rise
again—‘ in amorous ditties ’ annually lamented.t
But so great are the interests at stake, that even an
hypothesis so wild as this, it may be attempted to
defend. For, as has just been suggested, if these
Heathen beliefs in the incarnation of a God-man, and
in Heaven and Hell, have no sort of supernatural
authority; and if Osirianism is, indeed, the missing
link that connects Christianism with every one of
* Milton, Paradise Lost.
f Arjve 7oa>r, Krflepeia,
cfipepov ’tcrxeo nopp-Giv.
Aet ere 7raAi^ /cAavom, 7raAtr eh %ros &Wo Saxpvtrai.
Bion, Epitaph, Adon,
�i6
Christ and Osiris.
these religions ; what authority is there for the
objective reality of any one of those supernatural
existences, belief in which is thus found to be common
to Christianism, and Heathenism generally ? An
attempt, therefore, will doubtless be made to prove
the supernatural and divine origin of Heathenism.
And truly, when we recall Christian denunciations of,
and missions to the ‘ Heathenwhen we find that
the essential doctrines of ‘ Heathenism ’ are, just as
in Christianism, a Trinity, an Incarnation, and a
Future State of Reward and Punishment; hence
that—as such doctrines can have no guarantee of
objective reality, except they have had a super
natural origin—all must have had such an origin, or
none; and hence that, to guarantee the validity of
their own beliefs, Christians must maintain the
divine origin of those of Heathenism; there is seen
such a profound and tragic irony in the situation that
we become more than ever attached to the study of
that sublime drama—the history of Man.
8. Any hope, however, of establishing a theory of
the supernatural origin of the doctrines of Osirianism,
how ‘ Christian ’ soever they may be, has had, I trust
the ground cut from under it, by the facts, in the
foregoing chapter brought together, in explanation of
these doctrines as myths. For, before any theory of
the supernatural origin of these doctrines can be
maintained, the facts must be met which were in the
foregoing chapter summarised as explanatory of the
origin of the myths of Naturianism. These facts
were, as will be remembered, first, those which define
the character of the spontaneity of Mind; secondly,
the facts of the conditions under which that spon
taneity worked in primaeval societies; and thirdly,
those explanations of modern spiritist conceptions
which confirm the theory by which we explain the
origin of primitive spiritist conceptions. Before any
rational attempt, therefore, any attempt worthy of
�Christ and Osiris.
17
scientific notice, can be made to account for the
Christian character of the doctrines of Osirianism,
and of the other ‘ Heathen ’ religions, by attributing
to them some sort of supernatural origin in a ‘ primi
tive revelationthose three great classes of facts,
psychological, economical, and physio-psychological,
in the foregoing chapter summarised, must be shown
to be, not only severally, but jointly inadequate to
explain, as not only of a natural, but as of a very low
natural origin, the formation of such doctrines as
those which give to Osirianism its Christian cha
racter. Nor are these the only facts which must be
met before a scientific hearing even can be
gained for any hypothesis that would give to the
doctrines, whether Christian or Osirian, of a Trinity,
a life, death, and resurrection of a God-man, and an
Other-world of Reward and Punishment, any sort of
supernatural origin, and hence any degree of authori
tative sanction. For besides the great classes of
facts just specified, those also must be met which, in
proving the conception of Mutual Determination to
be the true and ultimate conception of Causation,
show such hypotheses, as this of a supernatural
origin of these doctrines, to belong properly only to,
or to be derived from, the earlier, and more ignorant
stages of men’s knowledge of the relations of things.
But these facts have not as yet been met by any of
the arguers for the supernatural origin, and there
fore authoritative truth of theological doctrines. We
must conclude, therefore, that if, similar though the
doctrines of Christianism are to the myths of Osi
rianism, and of Naturianism generally, a special and
independent origin cannot be proved for them; they
were but derived from, or but transformations of
these myths. And if so, then, belief in them has, at
bottom, no diviner sanction than the labour-driven
ignorance, and priest-ridden servility which—result
ing from the economical conditions under which
�18
Christ and Osiris.
mental spontaneities originally worked—led to what
were but the mere subjective fictions of the myth
creating imagination being taken for objective realities.
Our hypothesis, as it first presented itself, was simply,
that the similarity of the doctrines of Osirianism to
those of Christianism was such as to be naturally
explained only by showing that the earlier import
antly influenced the development of the later Creed.
We now, however, see that, if it is to such an origin
that the doctrines of Christianism are to be traced, we
cannot stop here. If the Christian doctrines of the
Trinity, Incarnation, and Other-world, are in any
way to be derived from the myths of Osirianism, or
generally, of Naturianism; they had in these myths
but their proximate origin. Their ultimate origin
must, therefore, have been identical with the origin
of these myths ; and, like that, to be found but in
those base conditions, in the foregoing chapter set
forth, of primitive spiritist conceptions.
9. Unquestionably, the verification of an hypo
thesis which, to such an origin as this, would trace the
myths of Christianity, is of the very gravest import.
For it is almost incredibly tragical, that the sorrow
of a Milton, for instance, in meditating on the death
of Christ, had—so far as that sorrow was occasioned
by the thought of a divine person, an incarnate Grod,
who had come voluntarily on earth for the good of
mankind—no more ground of actual objective fact
than had the lamentations of the Syrian damsels, whom
the great Christian poet, all unconscious of being
himself the victim of a similar bitter-sweet delusion,
scornfully represents as, ‘ in amorous ditties, ’ bewail
ing such a fiction of their own imaginations as a
Thammuz or Adonis. And yet, if we consider the
hypothesis here suggested, on the Temple-roof at
Karnak, in relation to our Ultimate Law of History,
we shall see that such an origin as we have here been
led to suppose for the doctrines of Christianism—we
�Christ and Osiris.
shall see that a transformation of the myths of Naturianism in such doctrines as those of Christianism—is
but a deduction from our Ultimate Law, and a deduc
tion, the verification of which will be one of the most
important verifications of that Law. For, of that
Law the great central affirmation is, that the passage
from the earlier to the later mode of conceiving
Causation is through a transitional age marked by
the differentiation of Subjective and Objective; a
differentiation implying a great development of in
dividuality, of subjectivity, of morality; but not a
differentiation implying anything more than greater
abstractness merely in the primitive spiritist concep
tion of Causation. But if so, then it will evidently
follow that the spiritist beliefs which have dominated
the First Age of Humanity, will not be destroyed, but
only undergo a moral transformation. And what is
it that we find in the doctrines of Christianism but
jiist this—all the old myths of Osirianism revived in
such an identical fashion intellectually, that,—put but
Christ for Osiris,—and the general description of the
one creed is an accurate description of the other ?
Only in the moral spirit of Christianism is there a
change. But this is just what, from our Ultimate Law
of History, we should expect to find ; and the fact,
therefore, which can be for it but a most important
verification. This changed moral spirit, however, in
no way affects the objective validity of the myths in
which it is expressed. These continue to be but a
language ; a language in which other sentiments were
expressed before Christianity ; and a language which,
after Christianity, will still survive for the ex
pression of ideal emotion. And shocking though to
some may be the thought of the utter unreality of the
supernatural beings affirmed by Christianism, as by
Osirianism; such is the spectacle here, at Karnak,
presented, of the sublime tragedy of Human Exist
ence; that, if it is in any degree duly felt, it will be
�20
Christ and Osiris.
impossible for one to shrink from clearly stating to
oneself the truth, however destructive it may be.
As other Ideals have perished, so,—it would be pre
sumptuous to deny,—may ours. Very far are we from
being the first who have experienced the agony of
discovered delusion.
PRINTED BY C. W. REYNELL, LITTLE PULTENEY STREET, HAYMARKET.
�
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
Christ and Osiris
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Stuart-Glennie, John S.
Description
An account of the resource
Place of publication: London
Collation: 20 p. ; 18 cm.
Notes: Reprinted by permission from "In the Morningland". Includes bibliographical references. From the library of Dr Moncure Conway. Printed by C.W. Reynell, Little Pulteney Street, London. Osiris is the ancient Egyptian god whose annual death and resurrection personified the self-renewing vitality and fertility of nature.
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
1876
Identifier
An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context
CT185
Rights
Information about rights held in and over the resource
<img src="http://i.creativecommons.org/p/mark/1.0/88x31.png" alt="Public Domain Mark" /><br /><span>This work (Christ and Osiris), 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
Subject
The topic of the resource
Egypt
Jesus Christ
Conway Tracts
Egypt-Religion
Jesus Christ
-
https://d1y502jg6fpugt.cloudfront.net/25778/archive/files/778bda20e4d7bef5735f3568f13e33f3.pdf?Expires=1712793600&Signature=okFwlCRiQP%7EbhL%7E-A3E08NuCod7lil0ERyjHGr-mUCNMFaaeYAmyBcXRGvZWArWW1Zjk9npxt1vVNFeGbrkgOinQ-rMlbNRL6I6W9GnUZG%7EigWZRXh3xp7qJSQcfx45wsGV0MUba1G%7ETZC2ntyFA41qt1IWAuxt%7EpxHBs0HFrcpHHTMr4lu%7EfLYeFk3KY8knR9LbCgXG6s5HNBCalOCcUgaBUNevUlHAUOO0U3FTBBurUnCvrNUpnD5RN06cnTrVWWiD3ABY9QvuwqSGWZAceZYKFvtHTkXSAJrTcjttkhY0OsEJTOtDrPEVA9TPVrrJWUCJSzBLFAOfhhXY%7EIgLrg__&Key-Pair-Id=K6UGZS9ZTDSZM
8e6431acd6f15c48799518af5b662f46
PDF Text
Text
national secular society
WHO WAS
THE
FATHER OF JESUS?
G. W. FOOTE
LONDON :
R. FORDER, 28 STONECUTTER STREET, E.C.
1895
Price Twopence
�LONDON :
PRINTED BY G. W. FOOTE,
AT 28 STONECUTTER STREET, E.C.
�WHO WAS THE FATHER OF JESUS?
tS? T
JeSUS ■” asked a teacher in a
London Board school, and a boy replied “Joseph” The
lad s answer was heard by a friend of the Rev. J. Coxhead
C.ne of the clerical members of the Board, and was conveyed
Jo the reverend gentleman, who lost no time in bringing it
it° Jwf V^011 °i H1S colleagues- Mr- Coxhead considered
it awful that such an answer should be given to such a
question. Joseph the father of Jesus! Angels and
ministers of grace defend us! It was flat bllphemy
The doctrine of the Incarnation was in deadly peril If
children were to be taught in this fashion.
7 P
Mr. Coxhead imparted his alarm to the majority of his
colleagues who carried a resolution that “Christian”
should qualify the “religion” taught in the Board school
and issued a circular , to the teachers enjoining them to
nstruct the children in the doctrine of the Trinity with
Special emphasis on the deity of Jesus Christ.
7’
. 1 • i teacker,s revolted against this circular, Noncon
formists sent deputations to the Board to protest agX'
the priestly machinations of the Church party, and a fierce
controversy was waged in the newspapers. The agitation
lasted for eighteen months, and culminated in an flection
which was contested with as much zeal as though the fate
of the empire were trembling in the balance. Every staa^
of the struggle was marked by acrimonious charges and
passionate recrimination. London wa«
n g6S
“J tHhXpXnaXeA ”senuousIy
month J great.events from little causes spring. Eighteen
months agitation, an unparalleled School Board Xk
and, in fact, the convulsion of London, all flowed from^’
Jesfsi’°y 7eH 7 tOhthe TSti°n’ “ Who was the father^ of
J esus ? And perhaps there will be other long andXr™
battles over the same transcendent problem. &
fier e
�4
WHO WAS THE FATHER OF JESUS ?
Despite all the wrangling and hubbub, that schoolboy’s
answer seems to us a very sensible one. It showed, at any
rate, that the obscenities of the orthodox faith had fallen
harmlessly upon his young intelligence. Probably he was
not old enough to understand them. All the boys he knew
had fathers, though perhaps some were missing. It seemed
to him perfectly natural that Jesus also had a father, and
he had read in the New Testament that this father was
Joseph. How could he understand the “virgin mother,
the “ Holy Ghost,” the “overshadowing,” the “immaculate
conception,” and the “Incarnation”? All this had been
written by some ancient gentlemen m Greek, and certainly
it was Greek to him.
Since this question, however, is of such importance that
a wrong, or even a questionable, answer is enough to
convulse the greatest city in the world, let us give it a
full consideration.
Presumption is always in favor of the natural. It is
rational to believe that any baby has two parents This is
taken for granted when a woman seeks an order for main
tenance against the father of her illegitimate child The
magistrate never supposes a possible alternative. It never
occurs to him that the child may be the offspring of a
supernatural being. There is a father somewhere, and the
father is a man.
.
.
T,
Every natural presumption is universal. it applies
without exception. The onus of proof lies upon those who
assert the contrary. If a man has been buried, the pre
sumption is that he will lie quietly. Those who say that
he still walks about must prove the allegation^ . The certi
ficates of the doctor and the cemetery are sufficient on the
other side. Similarly, when a baby is produced inlong
clothes, the presumption is that it came into the world in
the ordinary manner. A mother on earth and a father m
heaven is unnatural. Every child of woman born has a
father on this planet, and if . he cannot be found it is not
the fault of biology. It is simply a case for the police.
It is presumable, therefore, that Jesus Christ (if he ever
lived) came into existence like every other little Jew of his
generation. Those who say that his mother was a woman,
but his father was not a man, must prove the statement.
�WHO WAS THE FATHER OF JESUS ?
5
They should also explain why a mother was necessary if a
father was dispensable. A half miracle is doubly suspicious.
It is as easy to be born without one parent as without two.
Why then did Jesus Christ avail himself of the assistance
of Mary ? Why did he not drop down ready-born from
heaven ? He is said to have returned there as a man, after
burial. Could he not also have come from there as a baby,
without birth ? Why was the plain natural mixed with
the uncertain supernatural, to the subsequent confusion of
every honest and candid intelligence ?
Until we have evidence to the contrary, we are justified
in saying that the father of Jesus was a man, and probably
a Jew. Celsus, in the second century, twitted the Chris
tians with worshipping the bastard child of a Jewish
maiden and a Roman soldier ; and the same idea is found
in the Sepher Toldoth Jeshu—the Jewish Life of Christ.
But we shall not believe this aspersion on Mary without
cogent evidence. Still, there is nothing in it of a super
natural character. It may be libellous, but it is not
miraculous. Whether a soldier or a carpenter, the father
of Jesus was a man.
There is plenty of proof of this in the New Testament,
and proof that the man was Joseph. And this proof is all
the more striking and convincing because it has clearly
been left in the “ sacred books ” to the detriment of the
Church doctrines.
Several passages show that the countrymen of Jesus, his
neighbors, and even his brothers, believed him to be the .
son. of Joseph. In “his own country”—that is, in
Galilee—the people were offended at his pretensions, and 11
exclaimed: “Is not this the carpenter’s son ? is not his '
mother called Mary ? and his brethren, James, and Joses,
and Simon, and Judas ? And his sisters, are they not all
with us ?” (Matthew xiii. 55, 56). Luke (iv. 22) represents i
them as saying: “Is not this Joseph’s son ?” John (vi. 42) . j
gives their words : “Is not this Jesus, the son of Joseph ?” 11
Other passages might be cited, but these will suffice. They
show that the people of his own countryside, the people
in and about Nazareth, regarded him as the son of Joseph.
Philip, the fourth apostle, after being called to follow
Jesus, meets Nathaniel, and says he has found the one
written of by Moses and the prophets—“ Jesus of Naza-
�6
WHO WAS THE FATHER OF JESUS
1
s reth, the son of Joseph” (John i. 45). Not one of the
f apostles, in person, ever utters a doubt upon this point.
. The brothers of Jesus (John vii. 5) did not believe in him,,
and on one occasion (Mark iii. 21, 31) they tried to put
him under restraint as a lunatic; which is~ quite irreconcileable with any knowledge on their part of his super
natural character. Mary herself (Luke ii. 48) speaks to
i Jesus of Joseph as “thy father.”
r~AH these passages, witE~ othbrs which we omit, are very
awkward for the orthodox. They prove conclusively—
that is, if the Gospels are to be regarded as at all historical
—that the neighbors of Jesus, his brothers, and even his
mother, treated him as the son of Joseph. Nobody at that
time appears to have known anything about the Holy
Ghost.
It is a curious fact that in the newly-discovered Syriac
Gospels, which the Rev. J. Rendel Harris regards as
certainly “ superior in antiquity to anything yet known,”
it is distinctly stated that “ Joseph begat Jesus, who is
called Christ.” The farther we go back the more is the
natural birth of Jesus a matter of common acceptation.
Our third Gospel, which is generally supposed to be the
oldest, opens with the public ministry of Jesus. There
is not a word in it about his childhood, nothing about his
having been born of a virgin mother. Paul’s “ authentic ”
1 epistles, which are older still, are just as silent about the
supernatural birth of Christ. Neither is there a word
- about it in the fourth Gospel, which the orthodox say
was written by John, the most beloved and intimate
of all the twelve apostles. Positive and negative evi
dence abounds that Jesus was the son of Joseph, as
well as of Mary, and born precisely like other children.
The story of his supernatural birth, with all its far-reaching
doctrinal issues, depends upon the authority of Matthew
and Luke; and what that is worth we will proceed to
investigate.
Let us first take Luke. There are many traditions about
him which we are at liberty to disbelieve. He is said to
have been a physician and also a painter; indeed, the
Catholic Church, with its usual effrontery, exhibited
pictures of the Virgin Mary pretendedly drawn by him, or
�WHO WAS THE FATHER OF JESUS ?
7
at least as copies of his original paintings. According to
OHB tradition, he suffered martyrdom ; according to another
tradition, he died a natural death at the age of eighty-four.
His death occurred at several different places. His tomb
was shown at Thebes in Boeotia, but travellers have found
it a comparatively modern structure. The number of
countries in which he is said to have preached the Gospel
i® a tribute to his prodigious and even preternatural
activity. He is alleged to have been converted by Paul, of
whom he became the constant companion j a view which is
reflected in the Acts of the Apostles. It has even been
maintained that he wrote the third Gospel at Paul’s
dictation. According to Irenaeus, he digested into writing
what Paul preached to the Gentiles. Gregory Nazianzen
says that he wrote with the help of the great Apostle. All
this, of course, is very precarious; but it is sufficient to
show that Luke was not a personal follower of Jesus. He
wrote down as much as he remembered of what Paul
remembered of what other people had told him. His
exordium puts him outside the category of eye-witnesses.
He relates, not what he knew, but what was “ most surely
believed,” on the testimony of those who handed down the
information, and who “ from the beginning were eye
witnesses, and ministers of the word.” It is perfectly
certain, therefore, that Luke could have had no first-hand
knowledge of the supernatural birth of Christ. He merely
recorded what was then the tradition of the Church, which
is not adequate evidence to support a miracle, especially
one so astounding that a famous old English divine, Dr.
John Donne, declared that if God had not said it he would
never have believed it.
The historical authority of the third Gospel is in a still
worse plight if we accept the conclusion of the majority of
modern critics, that it was not written by Luke, nor by
any person living in the apostolic age, but is a production
of the second century, and of unknown authorship. Who
can credit a. staggering miracle on the authority of a
document written God alone knows exactly when, where,
and by whom ?
Let us now turn to Matthew. What the Gospels tell us
about him is trifling. He was a Jew and a publican—that
iSj a tax-collector. On one occasion he entertained Jesus
�8
WHO WAS THE FATHER OF JESUS ?
at dinner (Matthew ix. 10). And here endeth the story.
All the rest that is told of Matthew is tradition. He was
a vegetarian, he preached the Gospel extensively, he died
a natural death, and he also suffered martyrdom. Even
his martyrdom was ambiguous, for he was burnt alive and
also beheaded. The earliest writers, such as Papias and
Irenaeus, say that he wrote the logia, or sayings, of Christ
in Hebrew. But our first Gospel is a complete history,
from the birth of Jesus to his ascension; it is also written
in Greek, and by some one who was not conversant with
the Hebrew language. Whatever may have been written
by Matthew is universally allowed to have perished. But
the orthodox have pretended that, before it was lost, it
was translated into Greek, and thence again into Latin.
I They are unable to say, however, who made the translation,
or even when it was made; nor can they tell us why the
translation was preserved, and the inspired original allowed
A to perish.
Matthew may have written something, but it is for ever
lost to the world; nor is there the slightest evidence that
our Greek Gospel is a translation from it, but much
evidence to the contrary. In the judgment of all competent
critics, our first Gospel, like all the others, is not of apostolic
origin. It cannot be traced back beyond the second half
of the second century.
So much for the authorship and authority of Matthew
and Luke. Now let us take them as they stand, and
examine what they say.
Each of them gives a genealogy of Jesus, right up to
Adam—a gentleman who never existed. There is a con
siderable difference, however, in the two genealogies ;
which proves that they were not derived from a well-kept
family pedigree. They are doubtless as imaginary as the
pedigrees made out at the Herald’s Office for modern
gentlemen who are knighted or ennobled.
As the Messiah was to be of the blood of David, and
k Joseph belonged to that “ house/’ both Matthew and Luke
i trace the family descent through him. But if Jesus was
not the son of Joseph, he was not really of the house of
David, any more than Moses was of the house of Pharaoh.
* It is extremely probable, as Strauss argues, that the
�WHO WAS THE FATHER OF JESUS ?
9
genealogies of Jesus were compiled before our Gospels were
written, at a time when the supernatural birth of Jesus
Was not entertained. He was then believed to be the
lawful son of Joseph and Mary, and the genealogies were
compiled to show his descent from David, which was
requisite to his Messiahship.
Luke speaks of Jesus, in his genealogy, as “being (as
was supposed) the son of Joseph.” This is a very eloquent
parenthesis. As_was supposed ! By whom ? Why, by
the very persons who ought to know; by the countrymen,
neighbors, and brothers of Jesus. They supposed him to
be the son of Joseph, but they forsooth were mistaken,
and their blunder was corrected long afterwards by a
gentleman who was not even a Jew, and never lived in
Palestine.
Having to represent Jesus as not the son of Joseph, but
a child of supernatural birth, both Matthew and Luke
give us circumstantial narratives of his entrance into the
world. On some points they agree, on others they differ,
and each relates many things which the other omits.
Evidently they were working upon various sets of traditions.
And just as evidently the whole of these birth-traditions
were unknown to Mark and John, or considered by them
as false or doubtful, and not worth recording.
Matthew starts with his genealogy, which Luke reserves
till the end, and then plunges into the middle of his
subject.
“Now the birth of Jesus was in this wise : When as
his mother Mary was espoused to Joseph, before they
came, together, she was found with child of the Holy
Ghost.”
Wait a minute, Matthew ! Not so fast! You, or any
other man, can tell that a young woman is with child, but
by whom is quite another matter. Let us see what you
know on this subject. And for the sake of argument we
will suppose you one of the twelve Apostles. As for Luke,
he is out of court altogether; it being impossible for him
to give more than hearsay, which no court of law would
®dmit as evidence.
From the very nature of the case, Matthew could not
have had any personal knowledge of who was the father of
Jesus. Whether it was a man, or a ghost, or any other
�10
WHO WAS THE FATHER OF JESUS
1
being, Matthew was not in a position to know more than
he was told. Well then, who told him ? Unluckily he
does not inform us. We have therefore nothing to rely
upon but his own authority, which (we repeat) from the
very nature of the case is absolutely worthless.
No one has a right to say that Joseph told Matthew.
Even if he did, he could only say that he was not the father
of Jesus. He could not say who was. At least he could
not say so with any certainty. Nor was it a matter on
which he was likely to be loquacious.
It may be argued that Matthew derived his information
from Jesus. But there is no evidence of this in the Gospels.
Jesus never called attention to any miraculous circum
stances in connection with his birth. Even if a private
conversation be alleged, as at least possible, what is its
value ? Jesus himself was no authority on the. subject. It
is a wise child that knows its own father. How could
Jesus be aware, except by report, of what occurred nine
months before he was born ? It may be objected that he
was God, and, therefore, omniscient; but this is begging
the very question in dispute. We must begin the
argument with his manhood, and go on to his godhead
afterwards, if the evidence justifies the proceeding. It
will never do to bring in the conclusion to prove the
premises.
The only person who knew for certain was Mary. Did
she tell Matthew ? It is not alleged that she did. Accord
ing to Luke, Mary “ kept all these things.” She does not
appear to have told even Joseph. Is it probable then
that she told a third person ?
Matthew states that Joseph, finding Mary as ladies wish
to be who love their lords, before he had married her, and
certainly without his assistance, was “ minded to put her
away privily.” He did not like the look of affairs, and he
“thought on these things.” No doubt! We are not dis
posed to quarrel with this part of the narrative.
f Joseph’s brain could not stand much thinking. He was
better at dreaming. It was in a dream that he was
ordered to take his flight into Egypt, in a dream that he
\was told to return to Palestine, and in a dream that he was
warned to avoid Judsea and go into Galilee.
v How natural, then, that “ the angel of the Lord appeared
�WHO WAS THE FATHER OF JESUS ?
11
unto Jim in a dream,'’ telling him to marry Mary, and
Worming him that the approaching little stranger was the
progeny “ of the Holy Ghost.”
We had better reproduce the exact words of this angelic
intimation :—
“Behold, the angel of the Lord appeared unto him in Li
a dream, saying, Joseph, thou son of David, fear not to 11 \
take unto thee Mary thy wife : for that which is con- II f .
ceived of her is of the Holy Ghost” (i. 20).
3ia®t reflect on the absurdity of this message. Had I
anyone, whether man or angel, told it to Joseph, he would «
naturally have exclaimed : “ Who the devil is the Holy ll
Ghost?” Joseph had never heard of such a personage. ij
The Holy Ghost was not then invented. Even in the '
Acts of the Apostles (xix. 2) we read that Paul found 1/1
“ certain disciples” at Ephesus who had “not so much as >
heard whether there be a Holy Ghost ’’—and, on the t
orthodox chronology, this was fifty or sixty years after
th® dream of Joseph.
Is it not perfectly clear that this story of the super
natural birth of Christ was made up long afterwards, and
entirely amongst the Christians, who had accepted the
Holy Ghost as one of the persons of their Trinity ? The
very language put into the mouth of the angel betrays
the concoction. Joseph was simply a Jew; the time in
question was before the birth of Christ; and to talk to a
Jew of that period about the Holy Ghost would have been
mere nonsense—utterly unintelligible.
However, we are told that Joseph was perfectly satis
fied, though he could hardly have been enlightened. He
married Mary, and fathered her prospective baby ; but for
some time he was only her nominal husband. “ He knew
h® not, says Matthew, “until she had brought forth her
firstborn son.”
We dare not, in this pamphlet at least, dwell upon the
extraordinary indecencies in which Christian fathers and
divines have indulged with regard to the occult part of this
affair. There is no reason why their pious obscenities
should not be exposed, but we shrink from doing it in a
pamphlet which is intended for readers of both sexes, of all
ages, and of every degree of education.
�12
WHO WAS THE FATHER OF JESUS ?
What must be said here is, that the birth of a savior
from a woman and a god is far from being a speciality of
the Christian religion. It was common in the religions
of antiquity. Even historical characters were sometimes
assigned a semi-divine origin. Alexander boasted his
descent from the god Ammon; Gautama, the founder of
Buddhism, was born exactly like Jesus Christ; and even in
the most cultivated age of the most cultivated city in the
world, the disciples of Plato declared that Ariston was
only his putative father, his recd father being the god
Apollo. This legend prevailed in Athens while Plato’s
nephew was still living. And the most curious coincidence
is that, in words very similar to those of Matthew, Diogenes
Laertius, in his Lives of the Philosophers, relates that Ariston,
being warned in a dream by Apollo, deferred his marriage,
and did not approach his intended wife until after her
iconfinement. Indeed, the Greek word translated “till” in
4 Matthew i. 25 is the very same word used by Diogenes
Laertius in relating the legendary birth of Plato.
Orthodoxy has pretended that Mary remained a virgin
all her life, in spite of the birth of Jesus; that Joseph was
always her nominal husband; and that Jesus had neither
brother nor sister. They have made “ first born ” mean
“ only born,” and “ till” to cover, not only the period of
her miraculous pregnancy, but all the time afterwards.
Language, like common sense, has been mercilessly twisted
in the interest of dogma.
It is perfectly clear from the New Testament that Jesus
had natural brothers and sisters. We have already quoted
the passage in Matthew (xiii. 55, 56) in which four of his
brothers are mentioned, with a reference to “ his sisters.”
Paul himself (Galatians i. 19) states that when he went up
to Jerusalem he saw Peter and “James the Lord’s brother.”
Paul never learnt on the spot, and at the time, what the
Church discovered at a distance, and long afterwards;
namely, that brother James, like all the others, was a
cousin of Jesus. It is astonishing what a lot has been
I, found out about “ the Savior ” by Christian divines, which
Iwas utterly unknown to the “ inspired ” writers of the New
^Testament.
Accepting the dogma of the miraculous birth of Jesus,
without a tittle of evidence from any valid witness, the
�WHO WAS THE FATHER OF JESUS ?
13
“ fathers ” of the Christian Church carried it to its highest
degree of intensity. Mary was represented as a virgin
from birth to death ; Joseph was represented as an old
man, who was merely her guardian ; finally, he also was
represented as a life-long virgin. Epiphanius allowed that
Joseph had sons by a former marriage ; but this was too
much for the fastidious faith of Jerome, who stigmatised
the supposition as impious and audacious; and from that
time it became a point of orthodoxy to regard the
“brothers” of Jesus as his “cousins.”
It is not claimed, however, that these “fathers” were
inspired, nor is the claim advanced on behalf of their
successors in the subtle art of divinity. We are therefore h ,
free to take our notions from the New Testament, and the |
following conclusions may be deduced from it beyond a .
reasonable doubt: (1) That Jesus was the son of Mary,
(2) that Joseph was her husband, (3) that Mary and ■
everyone else spoke of Joseph as the father of Jesus, :
(4) that Jesus had four brothers and an unknown number I
of sisters, who were all reckoned as the natural offspring of | p
his own father and mother.
We are thus forced back upon the argument we have
already elaborated. All the natural, historical, and
undesigned evidence is in favor of Joseph having been
the father of Jesus. In support of the contrary position
we have certain statements in the first and third Gospels,
which are discredited by the complete silence of the second
and fourth Gospels, as well as by the complete silence of
Paul; and still further discredited by the fact that these
statements—in themselves so marvellous and so loosely
woven—are made by two really anonymous writers,
neither of whom was in a position to know anything
whatever about the subject, who could only relate what
they had heard at second-hand, and who do not even hint
that they derived any information from the only person—
namely, Mary—who was in possession of the facts.
This difficulty, which has never to our knowledge been
adequately emphasised, is at least perceived by Canon
Gore. This writer admits that the miraculous birth of
Jesus “does not rest primarily on apostolic testimony,”
and that it was “ not part of the primary apostolic
preaching.” The apostles “ had no knowledge given them
�14
WHO WAS THE FATHER OF JESUS ?
to start with of his miraculous origin,” but when they
came to believe it [whenever that was !] they “ must have
been interested to know the circumstances of the Incarna
tion.”*
Canon Gore thus supports our contention that the
twelve apostles who were constantly with Jesus for the
space of three years, and who must surely have seen the
members of his family, never heard a word, during the
whole of that time, which led them to doubt that he was
the natural son of Joseph.
Our further contention is also supported by this eminent
preacher. “ There were two sources,” he says, “ of original
evidence, Joseph and Mary.” Just as we do, therefore, he
narrows the inquiry down to the question whether’we
have their testimony in the opening chapters of St.
Matthew and St. Luke. ’ And let the reader observe that
no notice whatever is taken of the absolute silence of Mark
whom we cannot imagine to have been less
“interested to know the circumstances of the Incarnation ”
than the other evangelists.
“ Read St. Matthew’s account of the birth,” says Canon
Gore, “ and you will see how unmistakably everything is
told from the side of Joseph, his perplexities, the intima
tions which he received, his resolutions and his actions.”
“Unmistakably”, is a big bold word, but it only
expresses the certitude of the writer’s own judgment.
The author of the first Gospel does not allege, or even
hint, that he received any information from Joseph ; and
if what he relates “ has all the marks of being Joseph’s
story at the bottom,” we are still in the dark as to its
authenticity, for Canon Gore admits that “ we cannot tell
by what steps it comes to us ”—which is the most
important point in the whole investigation.
Luke s narrative is said to have “ all the appearance of
containing directly or indirectly Mary’s story.” But
“ appearance ” is a very vague word in an argument, and
in this case it means no more than the personal impression
of an individual reader. There are no links between Mary
and the writer of the third Gospel. He relates what was
* Canon Gore, The Incarnation of the Son of God (Bamnton
Lectures for the year 1891), pp. 77, 78.
I
<
�WHO WAS THE FATHER OF JESUS ?
15
“believed ” at the time he wrote, and is dependent on what
was “ delivered ” down by the original “ eye-witnesses and
ministers of the word.” Such a confession deprives him
of all independent authority. What he relates may be
true, but its truth depends on the accuracy and veracity
of his informants. Who these persons were is left in
obscurity; and certainly it is an unwarrantable strain upon
the language of his exordium to include Mary amongst
them.
Canon Gore does not seem satisfied with his own argu
ment, for he goes on to say that it is “a perversion of
evidential order to begin with the miracle of the virginbirth.” We must first learn to accept the “apostolic
testimony ” and gain confidence in the “evangelical narra
tive,” and then we shall have little difficulty in believing
the mystery of the Incarnation. We must begin, that is,
with minor wonders, and advance to major wonders in our
successful practice of credulity; which is another way of
stating the aphorism of Cardinal Newman, that evidence is
not the proof but the reward of faith.
We have now concluded our inquiry as to “ Who was
the father of Jesus ?” And the result is that the schoolboy’s
answer of “Joseph,” with which we started, is justified by
the most rigorous criticism. Once more the truth, which
is hidden from the “ wise,” is revealed unto “ babes and
sucklings,” and what is imperceptible to the spoilt eyes of
a theological pedant is as clear as daylight to the
unperverted vision of a little child.
�WORKS BY G. W. FOOTE
Flowers of Freethought. First Series, 221 pp., bound in cloth,
2s. 6d.
Second, Series, 302 pp., bound in cloth, 2s. 6d.
Bible Heroes. Cloth, 2s. 6d.
Letters to the Clergy. First Series, 128 pp., Is.
The Grand Old Book. A Reply to the Grand Old Man. An
exhaustive answer to the Right Hon. W. E. Gladstone’s “Im
pregnable Rock of Holy Scripture.” Is.; bound in cloth, Is. 6d.
Christianity and Secularism. Four Nights’ Public Debate
with the Rev. Dr. James McGann. Is.; superior edition, in
cloth, Is. 6d.
(. { -.
Infidel Death-Beds. Second edition, much enlarged, 8d. On-:' *■
superfine paper, in cloth, Is. 3d.
Darwin on God. 6d.; superior edition, in cloth, Is.
Comic Sermons and Other Fantasias. 8d.
Will Christ Save Us ? A Thorough Examination of the Claims
of Jesus Christ to be considered the Savior of the World. 6d.
Reminiscences of Charles Bradlaugh. 6d.
A, Defence of Free Speech. Three Hours’ Address to the Jury
before Lord Coleridge. With a Special Preface and many Foot
notes. 4d.
Rome or Atheism—the Great Alternative. 3d.
Letters to Jesus Christ. 4d.
Interview with the Devil. 2d.
Philosophy of Secularism. 3d.
Atheism and Morality. 2d.
Bible and Beer. 4d.
Bible Handbook for Freethinkers and Inquiring Christians.
[Edited in conjunction with W. P. Ball.] Complete, paper
covers, Is. 4d. ; superior edition, on superfine paper, bound in
cloth, 2s.
Crimes of Christianity. Vol. I. [Written in conjunction with
J. M. Wheeler.] Hundreds of exact references to Standard,]!»
Authorities. No pains spared to make it a complete, trust
worthy, final, unanswerable Indictment of Christianity. Cloth,
gilt, 216 pp., 2s. 6d.
READ
THE
FREETHINKER
Edited
by
G. W. FOOTE.
Published every Thursday. Price Twopence.
London: R. Forder, 28 Stonecutter-street, 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
Who was the father of Jesus?
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Foote, G. W. (George William) [1850-1915]
Description
An account of the resource
Place of publication: London
Collation: 15 p. ; 18 cm.
Notes: Signature on front cover: B.G. Ralph-Brown M.P. (or J.P.?) Inscription in ink on front cover: 'Enquire within'. Annotations in pencil. Part of the NSS pamphlet collection. Works by G.W. Foote listed on back cover. Annotations in pencil.
Publisher
An entity responsible for making the resource available
R. Forder
Date
A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource
1895
Identifier
An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context
N270
Rights
Information about rights held in and over the resource
<p class="western"><img src="http://i.creativecommons.org/p/mark/1.0/88x31.png" name="graphics1" align="bottom" width="88" height="31" border="0" alt="88x31.png" /></p>
<p class="western">This work (Who was the father of Jesus?), identified by <span style="color:#0000ff;"><span lang="zxx"><u>Humanist Library and Archives</u></span></span>, is free of known copyright restrictions.</p>
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
Jesus Christ
NSS
Saint Joseph