eet oeee 7 SS oe Oe Oe a fe a

simeae Aid

apitsacnepstinis

poreceecivoczesievaceenacronittgsztsies

rag

| sini aaigity

¥ it setibe

HHH ATE

; aH:

BRL ' t

aT er i *
3 aut v3
t)

aa
wii

yi
y

sSSoe See
= SS

rae
RE

Fase
Semeeaesaar ——." SI

i ;
fe

Y\'
Digitized by the Internet Archive
ey in 2022 with funding from
a> 4 Princeton Theological Seminary Library

Qttos://archive.org/details/presentdaytractsO9rell

OWN be DANe RAGES,

EACH VOLUME 9/6, CLOTH: BOARDS.

The first six Vols. contain Tracts by Principals Cairns and WACE, Canon
RAWwLtnson, Prebendary Row, Drs. BLAIKIE, PoRTER, CONDER, MITCHELL,

and LEGGE, The Deans of CHESTER (late),

and CANTERBURY, Professors

ELMsLig, GopEeT, Prarr, SAYCE, and THomson, S. R. Pattison, Esq., Sir
W. Murr, and the Revs. (the late) W. F. WiLKINSON, WILLIAM ARTHUR, and

J. Iveracnu, M.A.
VOL. VII.—Nos. 37 to 42.

The Christ of the Gospels A Re-
ligious Study. By Dr. MEYER.
No. XXXVII.

Ferdinand Christian Baur, and his
Theory of the Origin of Christianity
and the New Testament Writings.
By Rev. A. B. BRUCE, D.D.

No. XX XVIII.

Man, Physiologically Considered. By
A. MACALISTER, M.A., M.D. F.R.S.,
Professor of Anatomy, Cambridge.

No. XXXIX.

Utilitarianisn.: An Illogical and
Irreligious Theory of Morals. By
Rev. J. RApForpD THOMSON, M.A.

No. XL.

Historical Illustrations of the New

Testament Scriptures. By the Rev.
G. F. Mactear, d.p. No. XLI.
Points of Contact between Revelation

and Natural Science. By Sir J.

WILiIAM DAwSON, LI..D., F.R.S.
No. XLII.

VOL. VIII.—Nos. 48 to 48.

The Claine of Christ on the Conscience.
By Rev. WILLIAM STEVENSON, M.A.
No. XLIII.

The Doctrine of. the Atonement
Historically and Scripturally Ex-
amined. By Rev. J. STOUGHTON,
D.D. No. XLIV.

The Resurrection of Yesus Christ in
tts Historical, Doctrinal, Mora,
and Spiritual Aspects. By the Rev.
R. McCHEYNE EDGAR, M.A.

No. XLV.

Buddhism: A Comparison and a
Contrast between Buddhism and
Christianity. By the Rev. Henry
RoBERT REYNOLDS, D.D.

No. XLVI.

Auguste Comte and the “ Religion of
Humanity.” By the Rev. J. Rav-
FORD THOMSON, M.A. No. XLVII.

The Ethics of Evolution Examined.

By Rev. J. IVERACH, M.A.
No. XLVIII.

OTHERS IN PREPARATION.

PRESEANE DAY ERAaaes

ON THE

flon-Christian Religions of the eorld.

The Rise and Decline of Islam. By
Sir WiLitiAM MUIR, K.C.S.1.
No. XIV.

Christianity and Confuctanisne Comnt-
pared in their Teaching of the
Whole Duty of Man. By James
LEGGE, LL.D: No. XVIII.

The Zend-Avesta and the Religion of

the Parsis. By Rev. J. Murray
MITCHELL, M.A.,LL.D. No. XXV.

The Hindu Religion: A Sketch and
a Contrast. By Rev. J. Murray
MITCHELL, M.A., LL.D.

No. XXXIITI.

Buddhism: a Comparison and a Con-
trast between Buddhism and Chris-
tiantty. By Rev. HeENry ROBERT
REYNOLDS, D.pD. No. XLVI.

Christianity and Ancient Paganisnt.

By J. Murray MITCHELL, M.A.,
ELD: No. LI.

All the Tracts that have been issued in the branch of the Series

devoted to the subject of Comparative Religion are brought together
in this Volume for the convenience of readers specially interested in
this study, and of teachers of Christian Evidence Classes, and others.

Any of the Tracts of the Series may be had separately, price 4d. each.

fof

“ORESENT DAY TRACTS

ON SUBJECTS OF
| Christian Chidence, Moctrine, amd Morals.
|

BY VARIOUS WRITERS.

panel De
+

VOLUME IX.

Comprising Nos. 49 to 54, which may also be had separately.

>
to ——
>

THE ORELIGIOUS #ERACTY SOCIETY:
56, PATERNOSTER Row; 65, ST. PauL’s CHURCHYARD; AND

164, PICCADILLY.

, i

cae Ae (ye eee i
rie i lest op a cgPn Al

hae q Loa
+

.
-
>
:
9

PRINTED BY
Epwarp Kyicut,
Mivpzez Srreer, E.C.

s
i
}
4
. <
;
é
\
*
i
af ga
'
‘
wa
t
'
“ .
i .
‘
7
bu
2 :
4 oe al
aay 4! Is

Tok babe A GE:

N this Volume fresh contributions are made to the
branches of the Present Day Series, devoted to evolu-
tionary speculation, comparative religion, and the place
and claims of Christ. Two Tracts on questions relating to
the Lord’s Day, and one Tract on the Conflict with Unbelief
generally appear. Dr. Cairns shows, in a very convincing
manner, the incredibility of the various attempts that have
been made to trace Christianity to a merely natural origin.
Mr. Lewis shows how Revelation and Science concur in
establishing the claim of Christ to be the Crown of the Past
and the Key of the Future, and draws the inference that
He is moreover the Creator of all. |

Dr. Murray Mitchell treats the subject of ancient, but
now extinct religions, and shows the unique position held
by the Jewish religion among ancient forms of belief, and
the relation of Judaism to Christianity.

The Tracts on the Lord’s Day are by Sir William
Dawson and Dr. Maclear. The former discusses the days
of Creation, the true nature of the Sabbath law, the change
and significance of the day, and draws some practical
conclusions. The latter founds an argument for the reality

vl Preface.

of Christ’s resurrection on the continuous observance of
this day by Christians from the very beginning.

The Editor of the Series gives a bird's-eye view of the
whole conflict, the spirit of the combatants, the attitude of
the different classes of opponents to Christianity, the chief
pomts of attack and defence, and glances at the nearer
und more remote issues of the conflict. The references
given in this Tract to the various numbers of the Series
will make it serviceable as a guide in the use of the
Present Day Tracts.

Two of the writers, Mr. Lewis and Mr. Kelly, contribute
to the Series for the first time.

The evidence of the great usefulness of these Tracts
which comes to light from time to time, and the wide
acceptance they have met with everywhere furnish abun-
dant reason for gratitude to God, and encourage the
Society to go forward in this work, with the hope and
expectation of still fuller and wider blessing upon it.

October, 1887

CAGHNGIE ley Ni aa tay

S72 Arete

XLIX.
ipebrn EVOLUTION *OF CHRISTIANITY FROM MERE

NATURAL SOURCES CREDIBLE?
By THE Rev. PRINCIPAL CAIRNS, D.D. LL.D.

late DAY OF REST, IN; RELATION TO THE WORLD
THAT NOW IS AND THAT WHICH IS°TO- COME.
By Sir J. WILLIAM DAWSON, C.M.G., LL.D., F.R.S.

CHRISTIANITY AND ANCIENT PAGANISM.
By J. MURRAY MITCHELL, M.A., LL.D.

Leite

CURIS EOAND CRHATION:.,A~ TW O*SIDEDT OUEST.
By THE Rev. W. SUNDERLAND LEWIS, M.A.

)

Lill.

fate PREoOEN] CONEFLICReWITH’ UNBELIEF : A SURVEY
AND A FORECAST.
DY erie REV) OFUNe KH LY

EIN:

THE EVIDENTIAL VALUE OF THE OBSERVANCE OF
THE LORD’S DAY.
By THE Rey. G. F. MACLEAR, D.D.

Spe gtaally

BVOLUTION OF CHRISTIANITY

FROM

MERE NATURAL SOURCES CREDIBLE ?

Ye ;
BY THE

v
REV. JOHN CAIRNS, D.D.,

AUTHOR OF
“© Unbelief in the Eighteenth Century,”
“ Christianity and Miracles at the Present Day,’ etc., ete.

Pub eRELILGIOUSs TRACTS SOCIETY:

56, PATERNOSTER Row; 65, St. PauL’s CHURCHYARD; AND
164, PICCADILLY.

Argument of the Cract,

ROE

THE main sources to which evolutionary speculation traces
Christianity are examined, and it is shown that it cannot be
derived from Greek philosophy, because the resemblances
between Christianity and Platonism are found chiefly in that
which is not peculiar to Christianity; that they, taken as a
whole, amount only to the theistic and ethical pre-suppositions
of Christianity ; because the distinctive doctrines of Christianity
are not to be found in Platonism,—the Incarnation has no
place in it,—the Atonement is not foreshadowed in it,—the
doctrine of grace, especially in regeneration, has no forecast in
it,—there is no Holy Spirit, and so no provision for the new
birth as the beginning of the kingdom of God in it; nor does
Platonism contain any foresight of the life and work of such a
Saviour as enters into the substance of Christianity.

It is further shown that Christianity cannot be derived in a
merely human and natural way from the whole of Jewish
literature, including the Old Testament, the Apocrypha, and
the Talmud, taken together as a mere human formation. ‘The
system of Strauss is examined, as the most celebrated discus-
sion of this question in recent controversy.

Its inadequacy is shown, because the scheme credited by
Strauss is not Christianity in the proper sense. The Christ
of Strauss is incongruous—a defective moral teacher, with a
sense of failure and shortcoming toward God, yet capable of
aspiring to do the work of a Messiah. Strauss’s theory of
Christianity subsequent to the point at which Christ left it is
proved to be artificial, inadequate, and inconsistent.

It is shown also that Christianity cannot be derived from
the Hellenic Judaism of Alexandria, of which Philo is taken
as the representative ; because the doctrine of the Messiah in
the teaching of Philo bears no proportion to its place in the
Old Testament ; because the doctrine of Atonement is almost
wholly lacking ; ’ because Philo’s doctrine of the Logos in rela-
tion to God is wavering and uncertain, and the relation of the
Logos to redemption is very scantily set forth by Philo.

The hopelessness of the failure of the most plausible natural-
istic theories of the origin of Christianity, and the unique and
impregnable position of Christianity is pointed out.

[S THE EVOLUTION OF CHRISTIANITY FROM
MERE NATURAL SOURCES CREDIBLE ?

—S2egtPertr—

fe roe EL1eF in Evolution asa principleof natural
( e ~ S| science has recently made rapid progress,
14 be *Y #| and has been supposed to be capable of
solving the greatest physical difficulties.
Its range has hardly yet been made so extensive in
the spiritual world; and it is rather in the adven-
turous way in which old problems are dealt with,
than in any absolute novelty of method, that any
change is visible. It has always been felt to be
necessary to give some plausible account of the origin
of Christianity short of its divinity. The genesis of
systems 1s a part of history; and if history by the
application of its ordinary methods cannot explain
this religion, as it does all others, on mere natural
principles, it must recognise a miracle.
task then, on the anti-supernatural side, been ac-
complished? If so, out of what pre-existing
materials did Christianity by a natural process of
development arise? This is the subject of the
present Tract, which takes up an inquiry at this
day exciting more attention than ever before, and

Has this #

Progress of
the prin-
ciple of
Evolution.

The genesis
of systems
part of
history.

as
Christianity
been

accounted
for by
evolution ?

Is the Evolution of Christianity from

The various
schemes of
derivation.

Greek
philosophy.

Pre-existing
Jewish

morality.

Philonism,

Alleged
derivation
from Greek
philosophy,

gives reasons for holding that Christianity cannot
be explained by any natural development.

In discussing the subject we shall refer to the
various schemes of derivation ; and then, on the
ordinary principles of historical criticism, seck to
test their sufficiency.

The main fountain-heads then to which specula-
tions of this kind have endeavoured to trace up
Christianity have been Greek philosophy, especially
that of Plato; pre-existing Jewish theology and
morality, especially the so-called Messianic pro-
phecies of the Jewish faith ; and the combination
of Greek and Jewish elements found in Alexandrine
thought, especially as reflected in Philo. It will
be to a brief examination of these sources and
tendencies of belief and opinion, in the light of a
possible derivation of Christianity from them, that
this inquiry will be directed. We shall endeavour,
without unfaithfulness to the conditions of strict
inquiry, and also of intelligible exposition, to
convey the results in a brief sketch.

CHRISTIANITY NOT DERIVED FROM GREEK
PHILOSOPHY.

I. Can we find then as the result of our first
alleged origin, that Christianity can be historically
derived from Greek philosophy, and as the question
can hardly be proposed in regard to any other

Mere Natural Sources Credible ?

system, specially from that of Plato (Bc. 429-347)?
This is anything but a new suggestion. In poimt
of fact, in the first recorded encounter of Greek
unbelief with Christianity, the Adyoc AdySie (“True
Word”) of Celsus, preserved and replied to by
Origen, and written near the end of the second
century, the assertion is made and supported by
instances, that Christianity is drawn from Platonism.
It is not wonderful that Celsus, who understood
Christianity very ill, supports this argument but
feebly, and that Origen has no difficulty in replying
to him, in his sixth book, where this discussion
occurs. Thus, for example, among other things
Celsus argues that Christ took his celebrated saying,
“Tt is easier for a camel to go through the eye of
a needle, than for a rich man to enter into the
kingdom of God,” from the utterance of Plato in
the fifth book of his Laws, “That for one who 1s
very good also to be very rich is impossible.” To
which Origen answers, that the point of the remark
is greatly weakened in Plato by the absence of the
camel, and also that it does not belong to so strict
a system as that which laid stress generally on the
strait gate and the narrow way. We learn also
from this work of Origen that reprisals had already
been made on the Platonic philosophy by Christian
writers, who traced it back to Hebrew sources,
which Plato is supposed to have studied in Egypt ;
and while Origen, who does not dissent from this

The
assertion
of Celsus.

The reply
of Origen.

Reprisals of
Christian
writers who
traced
Platonic
philosophy
to Hebrew
sources.

Plato’s
distinction
between
Being that

is and never

becomes,
said to be
borrowed

from Moses,

Eusebius
derives
Platonism
from the
Hebrew
Scriptures,

Re-
semblance
not neces-
sarily
derivation.

Is the Evolution of Christianity fronv

view, does not practically apply it, we find that it
had been attempted at some length before him in
a hortatory treatise addressed to the Gentiles
(Cohortatio ad Gentiles), which has often passed
under the name of Justin Martyr, and in which
Plato is charged with borrowing his distinction
between Being that ds only and never becomes
from the name of Jehovah, “I AM THAT I AM,”
and also with deriving his “ideas” from the
pattern showed to Moses in the mount.

As the summing up of this discussion, in the
early period of Christianity, we may mention the
elaborate effort of the Church Historian Eusebius,
in his great work entitled The Gospel Preparation,
—the fullest dissertation on the relations of Chris-
tianity to Paganism and philosophy which has
come down from antiquity, and written in the first
quarter of the fourth century,—in which three
books, x. x1. and x11, are devoted to the proof of
the derivation of the Greek philosophy, and specially
that of Plato from the Hebrew Scriptures. Here,
however, as in the case of the so-called Justin, the
plea for Plato’s dependence is carried too far,
Resemblance is not derivation, unless it be so
striking as to necessitate the idea, and unless there
be some reasonable hypothesis of contact. Now
modern scholars are slow to admit any contact
between Plato and Hebrew thought in Egypt. The
whole scheme therefore stands or falls with re-

Mere Natural Sources Credible ?

semblance; and the question between those who
with Celsus deduce the Christian faith from Plato,
and those who with the early Fathers reverse the
process, is just this, Is the resemblance so close
as to make the idea of derivation probable, or even
irresistible? Something is to be said for and
against either view; but it does not follow that
either system must be derived from the other.
Modern opinion, on the side alike of Christian and
non-Christian thought, is against the derivation of
Plato. Must it now be held, that we have to go
back to Celsus, and accept the evolution from Plato
of Christianity ? A brief statement of the balance,
not merely as it appeared in those early days, but
as it suggests itself now, after the conflicts and
reactions of centuries, will assist in this decision.
(1.) First, then, it must be said, that the resem-
blance between Christianity and Platonism 1s mostly
found in that which is not peculiar to Christianity, viz.,
natural religion and morality. Interpreters of all
schools are in the main agreed, that in Plato, taking
his undoubted works as a whole, the supremacy
and unity of God are taught, though with accom-
modations to polytheism ; that His natural attri-
butes stand high ; and that His moral attributes of
righteousness, and even of benignity, have greater
prominence than in any other philosophical system.
Further, that while creation in the proper sense is
hardly asserted, and there is a dark background

Modern
opinion is
against the
derivation
of Plato.

Re-
semblances
between
Christianity
and Plato-
nism not

in the
distinctive
features of
Christianity.

Creation
hardly
asserted by
Plato.

A real
beginning
and effectual
Providence
recognised
by Plato.

The

Platonic
doctrine
of man,

Platonism
could never
have
produced
Christianity.

At most it
is only the
theistic and
ethical pre-
supposition

of
Christianity.

Is the Evolution of Christianity from

out of which evil may arise, there is a real be-
ginning of existing things due to the highest will
and power, and followed by an effectual Providence
which is moral in its character, and secures an
administration of rewards and punishments, true
in this life and perfect in the life to come. The
Platonic doctrine of man is, that he is in his
rational part an image of God and eternal, but
through the mystery of union with the body,
brought under the conditions of time and sense, so
that the contemplation and imitation of the Divine
goodness and beauty by love and assimilation are
interrupted ; but that this still remains the highest
good and duty, and may by the struggle of philo-
sophy, embracing all virtues, and aided by death,
which is the return to native immortality, be
attained. This is a rude outline, as all students
of Plato will acknowledge. But it brings out the
fact that this, so far as it goes, could never have
created Christianity. Even some of the articles
enumerated, such as sin and immortality, have
another than Christian setting. But the whole
taken together, even granting that it was accurately
reproduced in Christianity, is only the theistic and
ethical pre-supposition of the Christian religion.
It is no more a theory of the development of Chris-
tianity out of Platonism, than it is of the develop-
ment of any other form of monotheism. Nay,
Mahommed could with far more ease haye got all

Mere Natural Sources Credible ?

he wanted in Plato, than the alleged human
authors of Christianity.

(2.) Every attempt to find the distinctive doctrines
of Christianity in Platonism is a failure. The doc-
trine of the Trinity has been most urged; but the
resemblance is faint and vanishing. The Platonic
Logos has no approach to the personality of the
Fourth Gospel. It is only in the Epistles of Plato
now generally rejected, that a distinction between
a second and a third in relation to Deity is found,
or that the word “Father,” in possible contrast to
“Son” (which last word is not found), occurs.*
The Neo-Platonic writers, long after Christianity
appeared, give a different version of Plato; but
their interpretations are not supported by the
text, and even their own Trinity is different from
the Christian.
of the Incarnation, so stupendously inwrought in the

The fundamental Christian doctrine

New Testament with the Trinity, has no place in
Plato; nor could it, consistently with his depreci-
ation of matter. It has never been seriously main-
tained that the doctrine of Atonement is fore-
shadowed in Plato; and Archer Butler has pointed
to this blank, which he finds also in those Christian
theologians who have been most influenced by him.

“They abound with noble thoughts nobly expressed, but
they are all marked with the characteristic defect of Platonized

1 Archer Butler’s History of Ancient Philosophy, u. p. 38.
Note by the late Professor Thompson, of Cambridge.

The
distinctive
doctrines of
Christianity
not in
Plato.

The
Platonic
Logos not
personal.

The Incar-
nation has
no place
in Plato.

The
Atonement
not fore-
shadowed
in Plato.

Grace

and re-
generation
not antici-
pated by
Plato,

The Resur-
rection not
only
unknown to,
but excluded
from,
Platonic
idealism.

Is the Evolution of Christianity from

Christianity,—a forgetfulness, or inadequate commemoration
of the most tremendous proof this part of the universe has ever
been permitted to witness of the reality of the divine hatred for
sin—the fact of the Christian Atonement.” 1

It is to be added, that the great Christian doe-
trine of Grace, especially in Regeneration, has no
true forecast in Plato. On the human side, there is
a change, an awakening, a recovery, and even as in
the case of Socrates, something like a divine reve-
lation and help. But as there is no objective
redemption in the depth of the Christian sense, and
as there is no Holy Spirit, so there is no provision,
and could be none, for the new birth as the be-
ginning of the kingdom of heaven; and while it
cannot be said that there is quite so great a blank
as in regard to the Atonement, for there is every-
where a pathetic sense of necessity and an occa-
sional flash of anticipation, this great regenerator
of society relies mainly on personal effort and
re-organizations connected with moral education.
The only other doctrinal difference that needs to
be noticed is that bearing on the Resurrection ;
for as even the immortality of the soul does not
rest to Christian faith on an eternal pre-existence
of any part of the spirit, so its doctrine of the
resurrection of the body, which in connection with
that of Christ animates it throughout, is, in the
Platonic idealism, not only unknown but excluded.

These irreducible differences are all indefinitely

' History of Ancient Philosophy, 11, p. 308.

Merve Natural Sources Credible ?

increased in their bearing on the problem of a
possible derivation of Christianity from Platonism,
by the absence of anything in Platonism, corre-
sponding to the life of a Divine Man, or Saviour,
or any foresight of the work of such a person,
such as enter into the very substance of Chris-
tianity. No doubt there are one or two “un-
conscious prophecies,” which, if we grant the
common interpretation of Plato, especially in
regard to the fate of the perfectly righteous man
to be rejected and even crucified (De Republica,
Book II.) are very remarkable. But even ranking
these at the highest, they could never have proved
the germ of the Gospel history; nor, without some
large anticipation of this, could Platonism have
given birth to Christianity. We shall see im-
mediately what can be made of Jewish prophecy
in conjunction with it or in addition to it. But
those who go on to bring in this, as all must do,
really give up the case in regard to Plato; nor
is it necessary to raise other difficulties as to how
Christ, or other authors of Christianity, treated
here from a merely human point of view, could
have become acquainted with Plato, or received
from his writings the impulse which is required.
When they had learned all they were little more
than at the beginning of their work, which was to
create Christianity, distinctively considered, so far
as Greck philosophy was concerned, out of nothing.

Platonism
knows
nothing of
a Divine
man or
Saviour.

Plato’s
remarkable
references
to the fate
of the
perfectly
righteous
man could
never have
given
birth to
Christianity.

Not
necessary to
consider
whether
Christ or
other
authors of
Christianity
could have
become
acquainted
with Plato.

12 Is the Evolution of Christianity from

CHRISTIANITY NOT DERIVED FROM PRE-EXISTING
JEWISH INTERPRETATIONS OF THE MxEssIANIC
PROPHECIES.

II. The second alleged source of derivation is
the pre-existing Jewish thought, especially as found
in Jewish interpretations of the Messianic pa
phecies of the Old Testament.

the alleged ‘This might be put in a still wider form, that the

derivation of
ng geen whole of Jewish hterature, including the Old Tes- |
from Jewi, tament, the Apocrypha, and other materials, after-
as 0 Whey wards called Talmudic, taken together, as a mere
mere human fuman formation, in the days of Christ and His

formation,

apostles, in a merely human and natural way,
originated Christianity. This, no doubt, would be
the fullest ground for the discussion of the question.
The dis- But it is evidently too large to be treated here,

cussion

confined to and therefore I limit myself to alleged Jewish
Jewish an-
ticipations
of a

Messiah. SO likely to have originated Christianity on natural

anticipations of a Messiah ; for nothing is so vital,

principles as this; and there will be few, if any,
who, if satisfied that this is insufficient, will fall
back on any residual virtue in the Old Testament,
or anything that had already gathered round it in
ee ee eavight religious history. There is also the great
Strauss advantage in this limitation, that this ground has
Jesu. been taken definitely in the most celebrated dis-
cussion of the question in recent controversy—the

Leben Jesu (the Life of Jesus) of Strauss in its

Mere Natural Sources Credible ?

eee —

different forms, who concentrates his effort to
deduce Christianity without the supernatural, on
the influence of so-called Jewish interpretations
of Old Testament prophecy on the mind of Jesus
and His followers. If this scheme can be shown
to be inadequate, and anything farther which, in
moral and (equally natural) mental working, they
may be supposed to have added to it, the question
as to the human origin of Christianity must be
answered in the negative.

Strauss, as is well known, grants a tolerably as-
eertained body of fact and opinion, making up the
historical life and teaching of Jesus. He was,
according to Strauss, a wonderfully gifted Teacher
and Organizer, not yet surpassed in the history of
the world, but essentially a Moralist, who appre-
hended as never before the Fatherhood of God
and the brotherhood of man, His teaching lies
in the Sermon on the Mount and similar utterances,
which fall entirely short of a claim to divinity,
though He claimed to be the Jewish Messiah, and
expected to survive death and come in the clouds
of heaven. While Strauss grants that He fore-
told His crucifixion, he does not allow that He
foretold His resurrection, and regards all His
anticipations as to a reign after death as due to
enthusiasm. He holds also that Jesus spiritualized
the Jewish idea of the Messiah as it stood in His
days, and on the basis of it hoped to found a

Strauss’s
views of
the life

and teaching
of Jesus.

Strauss
denies that
Jesus fore-
told His
resurrection,

14,

Strauss’s
admissions
as to the
source of
Christ’s
view of His
own death,

A natural
origin of
Christianity
cannot be
found either
at the point
where
Christ left
it or from
the point at
which His
disciples
developed it.

The scheme
of Strauss
is not
Christianity,

What
may be
admitted,

Is the Evolution of Christianity from

universal religion for Jews and Gentiles ; and he
even admits that He may have derived from the
Old Testament prophecies, a view of His own
death as an atonement for sin, and in this sense
(though the fact is not certain) instituted the
Lord’s supper.

Such is the view of Strauss regarding the Chris-
tianity which Jesus Himself held, and which was
atterwards added to by His followers. Can it be
said then, either first, that we find here a natural
origin of Christianity at the point where Christ
Himself left it, or secondly, that we find such an
origin when Christianity comes to be developed from
this point by His disciples? Each of these questions
must be answered unhesitatingly in the negative.

first, it must be said, without granting that the
Old Testament was human to begin with, that the
religious scheme with which Christ is credited by
Strauss is not in the proper sense Christianity. Tf
it be not Christianity that is originated, the whole
labour of Strauss falls to the ground. It may be
readily enough granted, that it was not in the nature
of things impossible for Jesus, as Strauss conceives
Him, to have risen up a great moral Teacher, and
to have found much nourishment for His moral
and religious sensibilities in the Old Testament. It
may also be granted that such a Teacher would be
likely to enter with peculiar depth into the Old
Testament doctrine of a Messiah, and would spiri-

Mere Natural Sources Credible ?

tualize that conception and hope, in such a way
as to take it entirely out of the region of mere
temporal conquest and influence. 1t may be even
by a stretch credible, that a great and profoundly
reverent spirit might regard this Messiah as needing
to suffer and atone for sin: for this was undoubt-
edly in the text of the prophecies—no matter how
it came there—and a faithful student, even in a
dark, carnal, and self-righteous age, might recover
his hold over the original. But where we are
compelled to part company with Strauss, is where
he supposes it possible that a mere man so great
and pure, approaching faultless excellence, yet not
reaching it, such as he conceives Jesus to have
been, could have believed Himself to be that
wonderful Messiah, or held language as to His
approaching sacrifice, or instituted any memorial of
it. This is to do the work of Christianity without
a Christian instrument: for Christianity does not
need any kind of so-called Messiah—it cannot
proceed even with a sinless one,—who is not Divine,
and as Strauss has planted no consciousness of the
Divine in Jesus, drawn from the Old Testament,
but even denied his sinlessness, and seen im his
disclaimer of the good in Himself! the confession
of an “unremoved discord”? between Himself and
God, it cannot be said that there is here any real
passage from the Old Testament to Christianity.

1 Mark) x, 18; 2Bruch,

The Christ
of Strauss
incredible.

Christianity
cannot
dispense
with a
Divine
Saviour.

The
incongruity
of the
Christ of
Strauss.

The
arbitrary
way in
which
Strauss
makes the
Old Testa-
ment act on
the mind of
Jesus,

Is the Evolution of Christianity from

The Christ of Strauss is thus quite incongruous—
not only a defective teacher (however great) as he
admits, but a personality with a sense of failure
and shortcoming toward God, yet capable of
aspiring to the work of a Messiah and of becoming
the Christ of all ages! Such a position at once
falls. No suggestion from the Old Testament, or
possible prophecies that may have inspired, instead
of rebuking, such a career, can be regarded.

It may be added here, that it is remarkable in
how arbitrary a way Strauss makes the Old Testa-
ment act on the mind of Jesus, so as to determine
on the one hand His actual, on the other His
mythical history. According to Strauss Jesus knows
all the prophecies respecting a forerunner to the
Messiah, and yet has no relations with John the
Baptist, to whom He owes no more than to the
Kssenes. He knows all that seems to be spoken
of the Messiah as the Son of David, yet never
lays claim to that title and discourages the use
of it. He is acquainted with the long-standing
prophetic tradition as to the Messiah riding into
Jerusalem ; but Strauss supposes it more likely that
Jesus took in this part of His expected work as the
Messiah no special interest, and that the narrative
may be due to the colouring of the evangelists.
And once more, prophecy moves Jesus to expect
and to announce His own death to His disciples,

' Leben Jesu, 1864, p. 202.

Mere Natural Sowrces Credible ?

ee ee eee

in terms of the 53rd of Isaiah; but though that
oracle or the 16th Psalm might have suggested a
resurrection, not one word of this was breathed to
them. It may be said that in these and other
cases, it was the dread of the supernatural that kept
Strauss back: for had he freely granted that Jesus
in all these cases fulfilled the Old Testament idea,
or Himself prophesied, it would have compelled
him to acknowledge miracle. Yet on the other
hand, Strauss undoubtedly grants what looks very
hke fulfilment of prophecy in the death of Jesus;
so that his result is made all the more incoherent
by his own concessions, and is not so much a
deduction of Christianity in the actual life of Jesus,
as a fanciful application and rejection of the Old
Testament in the genesis of that life by turns.
Secondly, it must be added, that the theory by
which Strauss supplements Christianity as dericcd,
beyond the point where Christ left it, is not more
tenable. His work is to bridge over the gap where
he confessedly leaves Christ, with a simpler and
purer Christianity, till the Gospels were written,
and Christianity with them was corrupted, about
the middle of the second century. He still holds
by his main source, and in reply to the objection,
that even this is too short a time for the trans-
formation of histories into anything, he says that
“They did not rise first in this age, but their first foundation
was already before and after the Babylonian exile; the trans-

The
deterrent
effect of the
dread of the
super-
natural on
Strauss.

Strauss’s
concessions
make his
result
incoherent,

The theory
whereby
Strauss sup-
plements
Christianity
as left by
Christ
untenable,

The artifici-
ality of
Strauss’s
process.

The
teaching of
the disciples
according to
Strauss.

Ts the Evolution of Christianity from

ference of all this, with its dogmatic modification, went on all
through the centuries till Jesus ; and the time from the gather-
ing of the first Church till the rise of the Gospels, was the
period of the application cf the mostly already formed Messianic
legends to him.” ?

The briefest criticism is all that can be allowed to
this scheme of the transformation of Christ’s life
and doctrine by His followers into what is now
Christianity.

(1.) It may be remarked, first, that the process
is very artificial. So long as Strauss is criticising
the supernatural features and apparent contra-
dictions of the Gospels, his arguments have some
plausibility ; but the moment he becomes a system-
builder of myths, everything becomes strained, and
often dull. Among the myths of the Infancy are,
according to him, that the Messiah was to be the
Son of David; hence, Strauss holds, that the
disciples acted on by their mistaken readings of
prophecy, and all through, in the face of history,
taught the literal descent of Jesus from David,
His birth in Bethlehem, and His baptism by
John, like David’s anointing by Samuel. So the
Messiah was to be the Son of God, and thus
the way is opened for the miraculous conception,
for the “ Wisdom ” of God in Jesus, like that in
Proverbs, for the blending of Greek philosophy as to
“sons of God” with Hebrew, and for the Divine
predicates in Paul’s Epistles in Hebrews, and in the

1 First Leben Jesu, 1835, p. 113.

Mere Natwral Sowrces Credible 2

Gospel of John—in all of which, however, it is to
be said there is very little derivation by Strauss
from the Old Testament.
of the process is the parallel between Jesus and
Moses, like whom He has to escape danger in His
youth,—as like him and Samuel, to be early awake
to His destiny; and then the parallel is closed,
not between Jesus and Moses, but between Him
and the people, who did not overcome, but fell in
the wilderness. The public life follows the infancy,
bringing up other mythical parallels with the
prophets, in having disciples, in healing, feeding,
restoring to life, though many of the works of
Jesus have no parallel, and are accompanied by
discourses quite peculiar. Strauss labours hard to
find something like the cursing of the fig-tree, and
the transfiguration as modelled after the shining face
of Moses. The scenes in the last sufferings and death
have little parallelism with older history, and are
founded, he says, on oracles misapplied, and scat-
tered utterances made to converge, such as “Smite
the Shepherd ;” “A bone of Him shall not be
broken.” The Resurrection and Ascension, equally
helped, pass, at the hands of the disciples, into the
Gospel narrative, and colour Christian doctrine.
(2.) A second and still more fatal objection to
the mythical scheme is that it is wholly inadequate.
If our Lord’s disciples were not more advanced in
their views of the personal greatness of Jesus than

A very contorted part

The parallel
etween

Jesus and

Moses.

The cursing

barren fig-
tree,

The
narrative
of the
sufferings
and death.

The
inadequacy
of the
mythical
scheme.

The insuf-
ficiency of
the vision
hypothesis

What the
disciples
had to do.

Their first
preaching.

St. Paul’s
conversion,
How could
the Christ
of Strauss
have so
transformed
th

e
disciples ?

ls the Evolution of Christianity from

Strauss supposes them to have been, how could
they emerge from the terrible catastrophe of His
The vision hypothesis of the Resur-
rection held by Strauss is not sufficient. They
not only had to recover their faith in Him as
the Messiah. They had to rise to the view of
His Deity. They had to develop the germ of a
doctrine of Atonement found in His teaching,
from which the narrative represents them as
before estranged. They had to connect this
doctrine of Atonement with His Deity, and to make
this the centre of Christianity, turning the cross
which was the shame into the glory of the new
system. ‘There is no room left for such a trans-
formation in their hands, bowed down as they were
with grief and disappointment. There is every
evidence that these doctrines constituted their first
preaching. The Apostle Paul is almost immediately
in the field with written testimonies, whose genuine-
ness 1s unquestioned, and every effort to disconnect
him from their Christianity is a failure, since
Strauss himself describes the Apostle as converted
by and in sympathy with the first Church. How
then could Jesus, so much smaller than the Apostles
made Him, nothing more, according to Strauss,
than a great moralist, with no miracle, prophecy,
or ray of true divinity, so dazzle these fishermen
of Galilee? How could He turn them by the
magic of His influence into the great theologians

crucifixion ?

Mere Natural Sources Credible ?

and reformers of the world—the creators even of
Himself, as He has been commonly believed in—
and enable them in a few brief days and weeks
when left without Him, to bring out of the whole
Old Testament what they had never found in it
before, the transcendent and glorified image of His
eternal greatness, condescension, love, and victory ?
This is the radical difficulty in the heart of the
mythical theory; and the common view which
brings the same Christ out of it from the beginning
alike to Jesus and His disciples, but with Him
both fulfilling and interpreting it as a Divine
book, and leading the way, has here by every
argument the stamp of nature and of reality.

(3.) Thirdly, this scheme of Strauss as to the
mythical derivation and exaggeration of Chris-
tianity is ¢nconsistent. Why does Jesus, who so
fascinates His disciples, and leads them to see in
every Old Testament nook and cranny some re-
flection of His greatness, leave His impress so
shadowy that it can be moulded, if not into the
opposite, into the immense disfigurement of Him-
self? Why is Christ, the grandest of teachers, the
least able to regulate His own followers, so that
they disport themselves on His grave, and celebrate

The diffi-
culty in the
heart of the
mythical
theory
insoluble.

Strauss’s
scheme
inconsistent.

Christ,
according to
Strauss,

at once
fascinates
His disciples
and fails

to regulate
them,

ere long for the Man of Nazareth the alter ego of .

the divinity? Strauss affirms that had Jesus
returned to the earth, He would not by the time
of the fall of Jerusalem have recognized His own

Strauss’s
conscious=
ness of the
weakness of
his own
scheme.

His final
abandon-
ment of
both
Christianity
and Theism,

Philonism
as a
possible
source of *
Christianity.

Is the Evolution of Christianity from

image. How could such a vacillating faith have
ever conquered the world, when it could not hold
its own first disciplesP It has been said that
diseases of the lungs could be healed if the organ
could only find rest. But here is a Christianity
smitten from the first with this disease of change,
yet working on and serving all the functions of
respiration even better when transmuted by His
disciples than in the days of Christ Himself.
Strauss feels here the weakness of his own scheme,
and hence his bitterness against the Christian
world, which has preferred to accept a risen and
And
hence, too, his ultimate despair of religion alto-
gether, in his Old and New Faith, in which
every reading, not only of Christianity, but of

Divine, rather than a naturalistic, Christ.

Theism, the mythical theory included, is abandoned,
and the course of the world wrapped up in a suc-
cession of catastrophes without any continuous
history.

CHRISTIANITY NOT DERIVED FROM ADLEXANDRIAN
HELLENIC JUDAISM.

Ill. We come to the third and last alleged
source of Christianity in the way of natural
development, the mixture of Hellenic and Jewish
thought found in Alexandria, and especially in the
writings of Philo, In this Tract Philo may be con-

Mere Natural Sources Oredible ?

sidered alone ; for if the connexion is disproved in
regard to him it can be maintained in regard to no
other. Now in regard to Philo, it may be said
that he is a high and noble figure in the history
of human thought; that there is in him a true
Hebrew side, which far beyond Plato secures
approximation to and coincidences with Chris-
tianity, and that there is even one doctrine of
his creed, which to a degree without any parallel
elsewhere seems to ally him with distinctive
Christianity—his doctrine of the Logos. But
it must not less be contended that Philo is,
when all has been considered, a quite inadmissible
origin of Christianity; and the present writer, after
a careful reading of his works and some study of
what has been written by others, is more than ever

convinced of the hopelessness of the scheme of

those, who, like Bolingbroke and Voltaire in last
century, and lke Strauss and Zeller, with far
superior learning in our own, have held that there
is a real and vital connexion between not only
Platonic thought generally, but also Philonism
and Christianity. In farther discussing this inter-
esting question, it may be a suitable method to
examine first, the approximations of Philo to
Christianity, other than those alleged in regard to
the Logos. Then, secondly, to set forth the con-
fessed or little doubted divergencies; and then,
thirdly, in the light of these extremes, so to speak,

Philo’s
Hebrew
side.

His doctrine
(0)

Logos
connects
him with
Christianity.

The
connexion
between
Philonism
and
Christianity
not vital.

Ts the Evolution of Christianity from

Approxima-
tions
of Philo to

Christianity.

His nation-
ality

His
patriotic
sympathy
with the
Jews,

and of its own meaning, to estimate the so-called
Logos doctrine in its possible fitness to have sug-
gested or originated Christianity.

1. There fall then first to be considered the
approximations of Philo to Christianity. ‘These are
often under-estimated by writers of the very school
who suppose the influence of Philo to have been
ereatest. They love to think of him as little
better than a Greek and as a reflection more or
less pale of Greek civilization and philosophy.
But in point of fact his national feeling 1s deep and
ineradicable. As the philosophical Jew in Germany
is not a German, neither was Philo in Alexandria
a Greck. No doubt Greek culture had done
much from the days of Alexander the Great to
those of Philo—whose period was 20 B.c—d4 A.D.—
to transform externally and superficially the mind

of the Jew of the dispersion; but in his deepest
heart he was still a child of Abraham, and the
Old Testament was more to him than all philo-
sophy. We see with what keenness Philo enters
into the quarrels of the Alexandrine mob and the
Jews, with what satisfaction he depicts the re-
morse of the tyrannic proconsul Flaccus, with
what patriotic sympathy he enters upon his
embassy to Caligula (ap. 39) to obtain the
removal of the idol from the temple at Jerusalem.
Rationalistic critics fail to see this leading feature.
Neander—himself a Jew—has seized it, and

Mere Natural Sources Credible ?

shown that with all his singular interpretations,
Philo was yet a true child of the Old Testament,
and therefore had a place in preparing for the New.

This approach to Christianity les, first, in the
genuine supernaturalism of Philo’s teaching. He
accepts quite literally the fact of the Deluge, the
appearance of angels to Abraham, the fasting of
Moses forty days and nights; and he admits
prophecy as well as miracle, such as the pre-
announcement of the destruction of Pharaoh in
the Red Sea, of the descent of the manna, and of
the death of Korah and his company.’ He quite
understands the peculiarity of Judaism as based
upon a revelation; and his doctrine of inspiration
would now be regarded ag even rigorous.

It has been justly said that his excessive alle-
gorizing is in one sense due to this idea of the
origin of Judaism; for as the literal sense seems to
him often inadmissible, he has recourse to the most
violent and mystical interpretations in order to
preserve his reverence for what he regarded as an
incomparably deep and divine book. The most of
his writings are indeed commentaries on the Penta-
teuch, written with as profound belief in the text,
as that of Origen, whom in his allegorizings he so
much resembles; and when, as in his Life of Moses,
it is otherwise, the same devotion to that great
prophet is apparent, whom he exalts above every

1 De Vita Mosis, 111. § 34-88.

Philo a
child of
the Old
Testament

He accepts
the super-
natural.

He
understands
Judaism to
be based
on a
revelation.

His alle-
eorizing
due to his
doctrine of
inspiration.

His
devotion to
Moses.

—

His recog-
nition of
Moses not
formal only.

Philo’s
doctrine
of Theism,

Creation.

Is the Evolution of Christianity from

law-giver or philosopher of mere human authority,
and supposes to have been so fully inspired, that
in the end of this work he declares him to have
predicted and recorded in Deuteronomy his own
death and burial by supernatural means. Nor
can I admit with Professor Schiirer, in his article —
on Philo, in the current edition of the Encyclopedia
Britannica, that this recognition of Mosaic author-
ity is merely formal, and that Philo accepts the
laws of Moses because they seem to him inwardly
reasonable and cosmopolitan, and thus to agree with
the universal religion and morality which had
been so far reached by Greek philosophers. This
is not consistent with his condemnations and de-
nunciations of the Pagan world, including the
philosophers. Nor is it consistent with Professor
Schiirer’s own acknowledgment :

‘‘ Above all, his whole works prove on every page that he felt
himself to be thoroughly a man, and desired to be nothing else.
Jewish ‘philosophy’ is to him the true and highest wisdom ;
the knowledge of God and of things divine and human, which
is contained in the Mosaic Scriptures is to him the deepest and
the purest.”

The approach of Philo to Christianity may be
said to hie, secondly, in a purer doctrine of Theism.
This cannot be said save in contrast with philo-
sophy, for thefe are points where Philo is dis-
tinctly below the Old Testament. Thus the
doctrine of creation is less pronounced in his com-
mentaries than in the original ; and be has allowed

Mere Natural Sources Credible ? DAG

himself to borrow from Plato or some other source, Origin of
a certain dark background of negation, from which

evil may be derived, and not from God. This is

also true in regard to his high metaphysical view of #'4v""
God as the ro gy (the Being that truly is), whose

nature is ideal unity, incompatible with any human
apprehension of his separate attributes. But this

is only a transient speculation, which has too

much re-appeared even in schools of Christian
theology, and does not darken the general clear-

ness of his reflexion of the Old Testament view

of the Divine character. It is indeed a grand

and lofty representation which Philo on the whole

gives; and nothing like it is to be found in Plato,

or any of the philosophers. The strictness of [Tino

his mono-
theism.

monotheism is preserved inviolate, and the folly,
blasphemy, and degradation of idolatry are
everywhere brought home. The high attributes
of eternity, immensity, and immutability are
maintained. If the power of God is theoreti-
cally limited in regard to creation, it is practically
asserted, and also in harmony with wisdom in
regard to both creation and providence. The patente.
reign of moral government, on the side both of

justice and benignity is upheld, and with con-

spicuous ability defended. The God of Philo is Tees er
also a Father who pities His children, who helps ees
their infirmities and forgives their imiquities, who

hears their prayers, and who makes their return to

The
personality
of God.

Philo’s
doctrine of
practical
piety and
virtue,

Defect in
his system.

His better
side, which
is in har-
mony with
the Old
Testament,
- predomi-
nates,

Is the Evolution of Christianity from

and enjoyment of Himself their chief good. The
personality of God is thus as truly vindicated in
Philo, as in the Old ‘Testament. Any one can
judge how much this means, who is acquainted at
this point with the downfall of the Greek and
especially of the Stoical philosophy. Even Plato
has been charged, probably unjustly, with a shade
of Pantheism ; but in Philo no such trace appears.

The third and last point to be noticed in Philo’s
approaches to Christianity lies in his earnest doctrine
There is no doubt
one grievous defect in his system, which he so far
shares with Plato, his false doctrine of the relation
of evil to the body, darkening and confusing his

of practical piety and virtue.

whole scheme of the blessed life, and of recovery
toit. He cannot justly be charged with holding
an eternal pre-existence of the soul, or an in-
definite series of transmigrations. And practically
the pre-existence of the soul does not mean much
more with him than that it comes direct from God
and is united to a different element. But in his
view of this different element of sense, as related
to temptation, as affecting duty, and as making
him cold and silent in regard to the resurrection of
the body, there is only too large an infusion of
non-Christian thought. Still, practically his better
side, which is in harmony with the Old Testament,
here predominates, and makes him a true and
earnest teacher, not only of natural virtue, but of

Mere Natural Sources Credible ?

recovery to God by repentance and faith on the
basis of God’s own revelation and covenant. His
beautiful work on the Decalogue sets up a high
standard of duty, whereby through the law there
may come the knowledge of sin. As his doctrine of
sense is connected with free-will, and does not make
the subjection of the soul to the body necessary,
there is room for a large and wide and often
graphic exposure of all the cheats and delusions by
which the soul is separated from God. The reality
of the fall is thus brought home, with the need
of what, though it may not be called by that
name, is really a spiritual birth. “ Repentance”
(76 peravociy) is enforced in a tract under that
name; and in connexion with this and with return
to God, the two adjectives are applied to the
penitent, which correspond, though vaguely to the
Christian ideas of justification (Ocopidje) and
sanctification (piAdSeoc). Faith also is urged; and
the same Pauline text! is quoted as the highest
encomium of Abraham; nay in the close of the
same treatise on Abraham, there is a eulogy of faith
(though far inferior) in the strain of the Epistle to
the Hebrews. Nor is the doctrine of Divine grace
and influence wanting, although im definite con-
nexion with a personal Spirit, it is still almost below
the horizon. These facts are to be noticed in Philo,
because rationalistic writers, seeing no difference

1 Gen. xv. 6; Rom. iv. 3.

His
standard
of duty.

His doctrine
of sense.

The reality
of the fall
and the
need of
repentance.

Faith
required

The doctrine
of Divine
grace.

30 Is the Evolution of Christianity from

Rationalists between regeneration and natural virtue, haye
have :
general'y, generally overlooked them, and have ranked this
overlooked ' : .

approxima. Writer more as a heathen moralist than as an Old
tions to

Christianity. Testament believer, often mistaken, but earnest
and sincere—and thus already on the road to

Christianity.
eae 2. But now, secondly, in justice to our argument
divergencies
ou ° as to derivation or non-derivation, we have to take
Testament.

Philo on the opposite side, and see how far he
has gone back even from the Old Testament, as a
foreshadowing of Christianity. It will hardly be
denied that here in some unaccountable, but yet
only too visible a movement, we have a recession
of the tide, and find ourselves in the shallows.
This affects two points of Philo’s doctrine; but
these of the gravest import—his view of the
Messiah and his view of Sacrifice. If he is here
out of harmony even with the Old Testament,
how can he be the creator, direct or indirect, of
Christianity P

ofthe =~ (1.) Let us begin with his Doctrine of the

muchin Messiah. This is comparatively easy to ascertain, —

i rai. hand need not occupy uslong. All must admit that
this doctrine is in Philo from first to last singularly
in the shade, and bears no proportion to its place
in the Old Testament. There is no mention of
the Messiah in the way of reference to any parts
of the Old Testament beyond the books of Moses,

There is no allusion to the references to Him in

Mere Natural Sources Credible ?

Genesis, as e.g., to the seed of the woman,! or to
the seed of Abraham,” save only in the handling
of the latter text, in the vaguest way, or to the
Shiloh.®
referred to are two, one in Numbers‘ where a
King is spoken of “higher than Agag,” and
aiterwards as “a star out of Jacob.” The passage
comes in near the end of the tract of Philo, on
“Rewards and Punishments,” where the promise

The only Messianic passages distinctly

of help to Israel in war, and of help so effectual
as in the latter day to secure its abolition, is
considered.

‘For a man shall come, says the oracle (Numbers xxiv. 7),
leading and making war, and shall subdue great and populous
nations, God sending to His saints the fitting help. This is the
invincible courage of souls, and most vigorous strength of bodies,
each of which is formidable to enemies, and where they are
combined, perfectly irresistible.’’>

The only other reference is to Deut. xviii. 15—
22 (there is, however, no quotation), where Philo,
at the end of his first Book on the Theocracy, thus
speaks of the promise of Moses :—

** He says that, if they are truly pious, they shall not want
knowledge of the future: but a certain prophet suddenly ap-
pearing, and divinely inspired, shall foretell and prophecy to
them, saying nothing of His own, for then He shall not be able
to receive it as one truly possessed and ina state of enthusiasm ;
but what He utters he shall repeat as from the suggestion of

1 Gen. iii. 15. 2 Gen.-xxil, 16, 3 Gen. xlix. 10.
4 Numbers xxiv. 7, or perhaps 17.
5 De Praemiis, 1. 424. Mangey’s Edition. For all transla-
tions from the Greek or Latin, the writer is responsible.

Two
Messianic
passages
only
distinctly
referred to

by Philo.

“ Higher
than
Agag ek

“Star out
of Jacob,”’

The prophet
like unto
Moses,

32 Ts the Evolution of Christianity from

Sg 2 Sms Be UE ee es ae re
another ; for the prophets are the interpreters of God, who uses
them as instruments for the disclosure of His will.” ?

How small a part the doctrine of the Messiah as
such had in the theology of Philo is evident when
these are all the specific references to such a King

Hopes and Prophet in his voluminous works. It is true,
connected

wath 12 indeed, that there are hopes connected in the

Messianic

pemtea Prophets, with a general Messianic period, which
Philo accepts and embodies. These are almost

by Philo.
Transforma- entirely limited to two passages. The one is
tion of

venomous = = "
agentes founded upon Isaiah xi, where he accepts as

and |, literal the transformation of the venomous and

of war. . : :
destructive creatures, and as connected with it the

The change cessation of war among men.” The other passage
in Israel’s

fortunes. jig a reminiscence of Deut. xxx., where Philo
describes the sudden change in Israel’s fortunes,
and their return from their last captivity, eman-
cipated by their conquerors, who are astonished
at the conversion which they have experienced :—

‘* When they have obtained this unlooked for deliverance, who
shortly before were scattered in Greece and among the Bar-
barians over islands and continents, rising with one impulse, they
march from all different sides to the one region that has been
revealed to them, guided by a higher than mortal vision, un-
shared by others, and disclosed only to the rescued themselves.” *

No call of 5 - ; F
Ben ee Grand, however, as these passages are, there 1s

in Philo. not in Philo any proper call of the Gentiles, even

1 De Monarchia, uu. 222. Mangey.

2 De Praemiis, u., 422. 3 De Exsecrationibus, i1., 486.

Mere Natural Sources Credible ?

in a Messianic age. It is the Jews who return,
and who continue and perpetuate for ever, as he
elsewhere tells us, those Jewish sacrifices in Jeru-
salem, which are already, according to him, offered
for all the world. No doubt, proselytism must be
included in his conceptions; but he dwells little
on it, and thus the result of the Messiah’s work
is feeble and unimpressive in his scanty references,
in comparison with the majestic pictures of the
Psalms and Prophets with which he must have
been familiar.

(2.) More adverse, however, to the hypothesis of
derivation, than this slender and even stunted form
of the doctrine in Philo of the Messiah, is the
almost entire want in him of the distinctively
It is
not even easy to reconcile this with full Judaism ;
but it seems impossible to reconcile it with the
giving of a large impulse to Christianity.

It cannot be said that Philo lacks the sense of
He looks on human nature as

Christian doctrine of atonement or sacrifice.

the evil of sin.
truly fallen; and some of his pictures recall the
first chapter of the Epistle to the Romans. There
must be a discovery of disease and an earnest flight
from it, not without Divine help. By the use of
a very powerful figure, he describes the supreme
importance of this by supposing a physician to
enter a great house or palace, and regardless of the
splendour of the building, the attendants, the fur-

Proselytism
included in
his concep-
tions; but
he dwells
little on it.

The dis-
tinctively
Christian
doctrine of
atonement
almost
entirely
wanting
in Philo’s
writings.

Human
nature
viewed by
him as
fallen,

Ts the Evolution of Christianity from

Sin regarded
as disease
rather than
as violation
of law by
Philo.

The
transfer and
imputation
of guilt has
hardly any
place in his
theology,

The burnt
and ‘peace
offerings
viewed by
him as
purely
eucharistic,

niture, and of the carved bed on which the patient
lies, to care only for the beating of his pulse, and
the special remedies which he requires But un-
happily Philo looks too much on sin as disease,
and too little as a violation of law demanding ex~
piation. Hence the great remedy for sin which he
everywhere urges and exalts is repentance, as wher
he says, “ Repentance is the younger brother of in-
nocence.”” It is then hard for Philo to give any
explanation of the Old Testament sacrifices. The
idea of guilt being transferred and imputed has
hardly a place in his theology ; and in dealing with
the burnt-offering, and the laying of the hands of
the offerer upon it, he treats this rite, not as a con-
fession of sin, but as a protestation of innocence :—

‘‘ These hands have not received any gift of unrighteousness,

or fruit of violence and covetousness, nor have they touched
innocent blood.” °

No doubt Philo says this of the burnt-offering,
which, with the peace-offering, he treats as purely
eucharistic; but this explanation of the rite is
contrary to Leviticus,* where the laying on of the
hands is interpreted in the annual sin-offering, as
the putting of the transgressions of Israel “on the
head of the goat;” nor can Philo apply an
emblem so significant, with a totally different

1 Fragment on Providence, 1., 638.
2 Td petavoeiv adeApoy vedrepoy bv Tov und GrAws GuapTeiv. I. 634,

3 De Animal. Sacrific. idon. 11, 242. 4 Levit. xvi, 21.

Oe eee ee

EE a

Mere Natural Sources Credible ?

meaning, to alleged different sacrifices. When he
comes to the sin-offering, he cannot get rid of the
idea, that the pardon is in some way by the will
of God dependent on the sacrifice; but he still
falls back on the efficacy of repentance :

“For somehow the penitent is saved, when he regards the

disease of the soul as worse than the sufferings of the body”
(11, 248),

There is no trace at allin Philo, that the blood of
the victim atones, because, according to so many
Jewish interpretations of Leviticus, as the vehicle
of life, it denotes the giving of one life for another.
Nor is there any reaching forward to any typical
idea of a higher sacrifice to corae; for Philo ex-
pressly says:

“Victims slaughtered for the offence of the high priest or
people, as already said, are not eaten, but wholly consumed by
fire, for there is no one better than the high priest or the people,
who shall be a deprecator of sins.’?2
As Philo can see nothing expiatory in the victims,
the symbolism of sacrifice becomes a mere set of
moral lessons to the offerers, for, speaking of the
unblemished nature of the animals, he says,

‘“‘ He wishes to teach them by these emblems to bring no
weakness or disease or passion in their own soul, but to keep it

in everything perfectly pure, so as not to repel God, who gees
the heart.” 3

He wanders still further away, even from the

1 Levit. xvii. 11. 2 De Animal. Sacrific. idon. tr, 249,
3 De Animal. Sacrific idon. 11, 239,

While
regarding
pardon as
in some way
dependent
on the
Sacrifice, in
treating the
sin-offering
he falls
back on the
efficacy of
repentance,

No trace of
atonement
by blood in
Philo.

The
symbolism
of sacrifice
a set of
moral
lessons to
the offerers,
according
to him.

Philo
connects the
ritual of
sacrifice
with general
cosmical
relations,

Philo’s
scheme
could never
originate
or even
suggest

the New
Testament
view of
atonement.

Ts the Evolution of Christianity froin

moral view of the atonement, by connecting the
ritual of sacrifice with general cosmical relations,
so that every part of the High Priest’s dress is
allegorized, the robe in particular representing the
three lower elements, the ephod, heaven, and the
twelve names on the breast-plate, not the twelve
tribes of Israel, but the twelve signs of the Zodiac.?
It is not possible to see in such a symbolism any-
thing but a great recession from the true meaning of
the Old Testament; though Philo, with his won-
derful power of holding beth to the literal and the
spiritual, no doubt strove in his own mind to
combine both. But it was not possible for such a
scheme ever to originate, even by suggestion, the
New Testament view of atonement, where every-
thing bears so strictly on Christ as the true High
Priest and as the Lamb of God who taketh away
the sin of the world. All schools of thought,
worth any consideration, accept the Epistle to the
Hebrews as from the first representing an integral
and vital part of Christianity ; and we have seen
that even Jesus, according to Strauss, interpreted
the 53rd of Isaiah in this sense, and thus sanc-
tioned a view which, while including all that is
true in the eucharistic and ethical views of Philo,
goes unspeakably deeper to hold forth the giving
of his life as a “ransom for many” (Adtpoy dyri
wo\wv). Let it be added that, according to Philo
1 De Vita Mosis, u. 154,

eel

Mere Natural Sources Credible ?

the whole sacrificial system, including the Temple
and its revenues, shall last for ever (éf’ dcov 76
avipwrwyv yévoc Scapevet') and we see another great
discord between this scheme and the Christian
view of the appearing of Christ, “once in the end
of the world to put away sin by the sacrifice of
Himself.’

3. We come then, as our ¢hird, and not least
important inquiry, to take up Philo in regard to
his doctrine of the Logos, or Word of God, in
which he has been represented as the most dis-
tinctively Christian, and as having said enough to
originate that part of the doctrine of the New
Testament which was ultimately moulded by
Christian theology into the special article of the
Second Person of the Godhead in the scheme of
the Trinity and Incarnation. I do not think that
this view can be supported by facts; but it is also
possible, as has sometimes been done, to under-
rate the coincidences of Philo with the New
Testament, and the degree to which, beyond any
Jewish writer, he had developed the hints and
forecastings of Old Testament teaching on this
head. Still, it cannot be held with any fairness
that Philo has anticipated the New Testament
ideas; and this will appear when the two leading
facts are considered, first, that he has a wavering
doctrine of the personality of the Logos in relation

* De Monarchia, u, 224,

Philo
regards the
sacrificial
system,
including
the Temple
and its
revenues, as
perpetual,

His doctrine
of the
Logos could
not have
originated
the Christian
doctrine of
the Second
Person of
the God-
head,

Philo’s
doctrine

of the
personality
of the Logos
in relation
to God
wavering.

Philo’s
doctrine of
the
personality
of the
Logos
radically
different
from the
Christian.

‘The in-
distinctness
of Philo’s
language

in most
passages
concerning
the relation
of the Logos
to God.

Ts the Evolution of Christianity from

to God; and secondly, that the Logos in his
writings has a very scanty relation to redemption.
(1.) First, then, the doctrine of Philo as to the
personality of the Logos in relation to God 1s waver-
ing and uncertain, and thus it radically differs from
the Christian. The number of passages in all
Philo where the Logos of God is spoken of in any
sense (as I have counted them) is sixty-two; but
Now the
question arises, how far Philo meant by the Logos
of God, a distinct personality, and how far a mere
general name for God, under the aspect of the
fountain of reason, or it may be sometimes of
speech, without implying any personal distinction
in the Godhead. The same difficulty, it 1s well
known, arises in interpreting the earlier extra-
Biblical Jewish literature, which in treating of the
angel of God, or the wisdom of God (as in Gen.
xlviii. 16, or Prov. viii. 22-81), came to use various
traditional names, of which “ Word of Jehovah”
(Chaldee, Memra) stands nearest to the nomen-
clature of Philo. The language of Philo himself
is so indistinct that it is not easy to classify his

there may be one or two more or less.

passages, but I have put down thirty-six as capable
of being reconciled with the idea of abstraction or
personification, or some other hypothesis, while
only twenty-six seem, with any clearness, to speak
of the Logos as distinct from God. I shall give
one or two samples of the former, and dwell at

Mere Natural Sources Credible ?

greater length upon the latter, as only upon them
can an identification of Philonism with Chris-
tianity be attempted.

Thus, in the very first passage that occurs in
Philo’s works, it means nothing when it is said
that God used, as the pattern of all things that He
arranged, His own Logos, and that the beauty of
the universe is due to this reflexion.!. So in other
passages, as where it is said that the soul of man
is “marked with the seal of God, of which the
Nor does it
separate the Logos from God when it is said that
“He waters the virtues” as the river of paradise,
that is parted into four heads;? nor when it is
declared that “the Divine Logos equally divides
the manna to all who use it.4
of statements where the Logos, seeming to be
distinguished from the Father, is immediately
identified with Him, as where it is said, “He is
the Logos of the Eternal,” but it is added that men

print is the everlasting Logos.” ?

There is also a class

‘‘rejoicing in one race, and honouring one Father, the right
Logos, lead a bright and cheerful life.’’5

So also in a style of evident allegorization, since
God as Father, with knowledge as mother, produces
the sensible universe, so the Logos as Father, with

_ education as mother, begets four kinds of leaders

1 De Mundi Opi. 1. 33. 2 De Plantatione Noe, 1. 333,
5 De Post. Caini, 1. 250. * Quis Rerum Div. Heres, 1. 500.
> De Confus. Ling. 1. 411.

Passages

in Philo
which do
not separate
the Logos
from God

Passages
which seem
to dis-
tinguish but
immediately
identify the
Logos with
the Father,

The allegor-
izing style

of Philo

40)

Samples of
Philo’s
looseness in
holding
personal
distinctions,

More dis-
tinctively
Christian
aspects of
Philo’s doc-
trine of the
Logos.

Is the Evolution of Christianity from

of ment And to crown all, in this same strain,
the Logos is mentioned as second in a series of
powers, of which Being in general is the first;
while creative power, with benignity, come in as
the third and fourth; regal power, with legislative,
as the fifth and sixth; and the seventh and last is
the intelligible universe. Such examples show us
with how loose a hand Philo holds personal dis-
tinetions; and he even tells us that we may
mistake a ray for the sun, as Hagar an angel for
God, and that the apparent Trinity, as in Genesis
xvili., in the visitants of Abraham, may be due to
the weakness of vision, especially as the patriarch
addressed them as One.

But now it would be doing injustice to Philo
to suppose that there was nothing that had a
more Christian look in his Logos doctrine; and the
other side, in which, in a less numerous set of
passages, he endeavours to set forth a real dis-
tinctness between God and the Logos, and also the
relation between them is now to be considered.
Thus he speaks of the Logos as a second God, or
“second to God;” “the most generic is God, and
second the Logos of God.”? And again he says
on Gen. ix. 6, regarding man as made in the image
of God;

‘*for nothing mortal could be formed after the likeness of the

' De Ebrictaie, 1. 362, ® Armenian Jn Exodum (11.515. Aucher).
3 Legis Allegor, 1. 82.

Mere Natural Sources Credible ?

Supreme Father of the universe, but after the norm of the
second God, who is His Word.” 1?

There are also four remarkable texts in which
the Logos is called his Son. Thus on Zech. vi. 12,
where the subject is the “ Branch,”

‘< for this eidest Son the Father of the universe made to spring
forth, whom He elsewhere called First-born; and He, when
begotten, imitating the ways of the Father, looking to his
archetypal patterns fashioned the species of things.” ?

Again, in the same book of Philo:

‘Let Him strive to be adorned after His first-begotten Logos,
the eldest angel, subsisting as a many-named archangel : for He
is called beginning, and name of God, and Logos, and the model
Man, and seeing Israel.” ?

Once more, in a striking paraphrase of the 23rd
Psalm, which, however, is not applied to the
Church, but to the universe, Philo thus speaks:

‘¢ Having set up His right Logos, His only begotten Son, who

shall assume the charge of this sacred flock, as a certain deputy

of a great King.”’ 4

The last of these passages, where the word “ Son”
is expressly used, is in speaking in The Life of Moses
of the work of the High Priest:

‘‘For it was necessary that He who was consecrated to the
Father of the universe, should make use, as a Paraclete, of a
Son, most perfect in virtue, both for the amnesty of sins, and
supply of most liberal blessings.” ®

Similar to this Christian-like idea of Sonship is

1 In Genesin (tr. 148. Aucher).
2 De Confus. Ling, 1. 415.
4 De Agricultura. 1, 308.

3 Ibid. 1. 427.
* De Vita Mosis (11.' 156.)

Passages in
Philo in
which the
Logos is
called God’s
Son.—On
Zech, vi. 12,
etc,

Paraphrase
of the 28rd
Psalm.

The word
6é Son 9
used in his
Life of
Moses,

42,

The Father
said to be
the

‘* Fountain”
of the Son.

The Logos
spoken of as
an angel.

The Word
regarded as
Mediator.

The title
Logos con-
nected with
moral
operations,
but more
commonly
in relation
to creation
and provi-
dence.

Is the Evolution of Christianity from

another expression, destined often to recur after-
wards in Christian theology, where the Father was
said to be the “Fountain” of the Son. “God
rules, who is the fountain of the eldest Logos.” !
Not on the same plane of elevation, but still re-
markable are the passages which, in dealing with
Oid Testament texts, speak of the Logos as an
angel, Thus in reference to angelic warning, as in
the case of Balaam :?

‘*The Logos is the Divine Angel that leads us, and that takes
obstacles out of our path.” 3

And in connexion with the same idea, that of
Mediator comes in:

‘* Of necessity the Word, which is called Angel, is constituted
as It were Arbiter, and Mediator.” 4

This title of the Logos is connected with moral
operations ; but a more common representation of
His function as something intermediate, is in re-
lation to creation and providence, as an instrument
divinely used :

‘The shadow of God is His Logos, using which as an in-
strument, He made the world.” 5

And again :

“* The Logos is older than created things, on whom taking hold
as on a helm the pilot of the universe steers all things, and when
He fashioned the world He used this instrument, for the fault-
less subsistence of things then completed,” ®

' Quod. Det. Potiori Insid, 1. 207. 2 Num. xxii. 3}.
® Quod. Deus Immut., 1.299. 4 In Exodum (11. 476. Aucher),
° Legis Allegor. 1. 106. 6 De Migratione Abrahami, 1. 487.

Mere Natural Sources Credible ?

When, however, we turn to other expressions
mixed up with these utterances that seem almost
to coincide with the Christian statement of the
Trinity, we are painfully conscious of a great in-
coherence and indecision. In addition to the vague
and shadowy distinctions already cited, that stop
short of real personal difference, one or two testi-
monies may be produced that appear clearly to
contradict the idea of equality. Thus:

‘‘ Since it is necessary for the rational soul of men to bear the
type of the Divine Word, since God the most rational nature
ig superior to the first Word, He who is superior to the Word,
holds a place in a better and singular kind (species).” +

And again, still more expressly, speaking of
Abraham seeing the place afar off,? and allegorizing
“the place” as the Logos, he says:

‘‘ But there is an ambiguity of two different things, of which
the one is the Divine Logos, the other the God who is before
the Logos. He who is guided by wisdom comes to the former
place, finding as the head and end of good pleasure the Divine
Logos, in whom being, he has not yet come to the God who
really is, but sees Him afar off; or rather is not able to see Him
afar off; but that God is far from every creature, this only he
sees: and that the conception of Him has been lodged very far
from every human mind, Not even then allegorizing the place,
has he laid hold of the Cause; but the meaning is this, he came
to the place, and looking up with his eyes, he saw the ‘very
place’ to which he had come, afar off from the unnameable,
unspeakable, and, by every idea, incomprehensible God.” ®

It is impossible, I think, to conceive anything

1 In Genesin (11. 148, Aucher) 2 Gen. xxii. 14.

3 De Somniis, 1. 631,

Mixture of
incoherent
and
indecisive
utterances
with more
distinctly
Trinitarian
ones in
Philo.

The idea of
equality in
the Trinity
contra=
dicted.

Abraham
Seeing the
place afar off
allegorized.

The Father
greater than
the Son.

The doctrine
of the
Incarnation,
which has
no place

in Philo,
reconciles
the
apparently
conflicting
statements
of Scripture.

The
wavering
character
of Philo’s
doctrine.

Is the Kvolution of Christianity from

less in harmony with the great Christian truth em-
bodied in John 1. 18:

‘*No man hath seen God at any time; the only begotten

Son, who is in the bosom of the Father, He hath declared
Him.”
Christian theology, no doubt, in constructing its
doctrine of the Trinity, has had to reckon with
those texts of Scripture which speak of the Father
as greater than the Son. But it has here had a
doctrine of Incarnation as a medium of reconcile-
ment, for which Philo had no room; and the very
strongest of the utterances of any adherent of any
of the creeds which allow for a priority of order in
the Father in relation to the Son, preserve at the
same time an equality of the Son to the Father, a
necessary existence, and a capacity of fully re-
vealing and communicating the Godhead, of which
in Philo there is here the unhappy denial. His
doctrine is at best a kind of wavering between a
vague Sabellianism on the one hand, and a type of
Arianism on the other, with a glimpse here and
there of the Christian position, because inherited
from the Old Testament. It may be a dim groping
and longing which Christianity came to fulfil. But
it could not be out of such materials that the grand,
coherent, imperishable doctrine of the Trinity,
built up not by human subtlety, but by sober in-
duction out of the consenting texts of Scripture,
could be formed.

Mere Natural Sources Credible ?

Pa ee

(2.) It now remains, secondly, to show, 72 how
scanty a relation to redemption the Logos doctrine
of Philo is set forth.
sages in which that doctrine is touched upon, there

Of the sixty and more pas-

are not more than ten that can be said to bear upon
the doctrine of men’s recovery to God as sinners.
In the New Testament we know it is entirely
different ; and how, whateveris said of the Logos as
the Creator and Upholder of the universe, as the
angel or interpreter of Divine counsels, and even as
the image of God, is made to bear predominantly on
Incarnation and Redemption. But here also, as
everywhere, there is a better element in Philo, an
element of truth that in its struggle to advance
further is even pathetic.
able passage in which the Logos is spoken of as a

Thus there is a remark-

conyvincer of sin, and thus as a healer of it :

‘¢ Tet us, therefore, who are convinced of our own offences,
entreat God rather to correct us than to leave us alone. For
leaving us alone, He will make us the servants, not of His
merciful self, but of the unmerciful creation ; whereas correcting
us, mildly and gently, as a gracious Being, He will redress our
sins, having sent forth His wise-making Reprover, His own
Logos into the soul, by whom overawing and rebuking it for its
excesses, He will heal it.’’?

As the work here ascribed to the Logos touches in
a remarkable way that of the Holy Spirit in
John xvi. 8, so it may be stated that the Divine
Spirit (though without mention there of the

1 Quod Det. Potiort Insid, 1. 219.

Few of the
passages on
the Logos in
Philo have
any relation
to redemp-
tion.

In the New
Testament
everything
said of the
Logos bears
on Incarna-
tion and
Redemption.

Element of
truth in
Philo.

The Logos
spoken of
as a
convincer
of sin and
a healer of
it.

The Divine
Spirit said
to have
been made
to lodge in
Abraham,

Official
mediation
inculcated
repeatedly
in Philo

The
Inearnation
approached,
but shrunk
back from,
by Philo

His view of
the High
Priest to
whom the
Logos is
compared by
him,

Ls the Evolution of Christianity from

oe See

Logos) is said to have been made to lodge in

Abraham—

“‘the Divine Spirit, which breathed from above dwelt in his
soul, surrounding the body with singular beauty, and giving
persuasion to the words,” 1

Similar to these passages there is a general idea
of what may be called, “ official mediation ” re-
peatedly inculeated. The following comes perhaps
nearest to Christianity :

“The Father who begat the universe gave to the archangel
and eldest Logos the choice gift, that standing as on a
boundary he should separate the thing made from the Maker,
He is the intercessor for the mortal that is always decaying with
the incorruptible, and the ambassador for the ruler with the
subject, and He rejoices in the gift, and exalts it, speaking thus,
‘And I stand between the Lord and you’ (Num. xvi. 48, where
Philo’s reading is peculiar), being neither unbegotten as God,
nor begotten as we, but the middle of extremes, acting as a
hostage with both, on the side of the Father of men, a pledge
hot at any time to wipe out and remove the whole race, thus
leaving no world at all; and on the part of the offspring, a
ground for the good hope of the merciful God never neglecting
His own creature.” 2

This doctrine of mediation brings Philo near to
Incarnation, but he shrinks back; for in a parallel
passage, where the Logos is not mentioned, but he
is speaking of the High Priest, to whom ‘elsewhere
the Logos is compared, he says,

**He comprises the whole race of men, or rather, to speak
the truth, He is a certain nature, bordering on God, less than
He, and better than men, for when the High Priest enters into
the holiest, man shall not be there (Lev. xvi. 17). If he is not
man, what is he then ? Is he God ? I should not say so (for the

De Nobilitate, m1. 443 * Quis Rerum Div. Heres, r. 502,

Mere Natural Sowrces Credible ?

inheritance of this name the chief Prophet Moses received when
being in Egypt, he was called a God unto Pharaoh (Ex. vii. 1).
Neither is he man; but one who touches both extremes, the
foot and the head.’’!

Thus it would seem to be neither a real divinity,
nor a real humanity that belongs to the archetypal
High Priest, nor through him to the Logos; and
the resemblance of this mediatorship to the Chris-
tian is destroyed.

It is affecting to see how Philo, without any
contact with the distinctively Christian view of
Incarnation and Sacrifice as the means of pro-
curing spiritual benefits, or what are called in
Christian language, “benefits of redemption,” still
connects these or some of them with the Logos.
Thus the Logos resembles Abraham interceding
for Sodom.” Thus also He is the anti-type of the
cities of refuge:

** Surely the oldest, and strongest, and best metropolis (I
cannot say city merely) is the Divine Logos, to whom first it
is of most advantage to flee... He exhorts him, therefore,
who is able to run quickly, to make with breathless haste for the
Supreme Divine Logos, who is the fountain of wisdom, that
having drawn from its tide he may instead of death find as
a prize, everlasting life.”

It is only necessary to recall how in a formerly
quoted passage, the High Priest (without any ex-
planation of the nature of sacrifice) in sacrificing

to the Father, made use “as a Paraclete of His Son

1 De Somniis, 1. 683-4.
2 De Cong. Erud. Grat. 1. 535. 3 De Profugis, 1. 560.

The
archetypal
High Priest
neither a
real divinity
nor a real
humanity ;
hence the
resemblance
to the
Christian
mediator-
ship
destroyed

Some of
the ** bene-
fits of
redemption”
connected
with the
Logos by
Philo.

Conformity
to the Logos
held forth
as the
highest gift
of God.

The
influence

of the
doctrine of
the Logos
in the Book
of Proverbs
on Philo’s
mind and
heart.

Is the Evolution of Christianity from

most perfect in virtue, for the amnesty of sins,
and the supply of most liberal blessings.” And in
one striking passage more, conformity to the Logos
himself is held forth, as the highest gift of God.

*¢They shall obtain acceptance from the Saviour and merciful
God, who has held out to the human race the best and greatest
gift, affinity to His own Logos, from whom as from an archetype
the human mind is derived.” }

To sum up all in perhaps his most fervent and
passionate utterance, like what might have been
the language of St. Bernard, or any Christian
mystic, he speaks of the Logos as,

**the cup-bearer aud symposiarch of God, not differing from
drink, but himself unmixed, the brightness, the sweetness, the
effusion, the desire, the ambrosial medicine (for we must use
poetic words) of joy and gladness.” ?

Language like this may be sufficiently accounted
for by the strong hold which the doctrine of the
Loges in the Book of Proverbs, as the Fountain
of all life and benediction, had taken upon the
mind and heart of Philo; and while we cannot
forgive, we blame less, his mistake as to the sacri-
ficial system, and his silence as to great oracles
like the 58rd of Isaiah.2 But how any writer or

1 De Exsecrationibus, 11. 436. 2 De Somniis, 1. 691.

3 The writer has made no use of the passage, given in Aucher’s
translations from the Armenian (Jn Exodum Vol. U. 545),
because this may be regarded, though Aucher has not said so,
as in part at least, a Christian gloss. The gloss is here printed
in Italics. ‘‘ Verbum est sempiternum sempiterni Dei, caput
universorum, sub quo pedum instar aut reliquorum quoque
membrorum, subjectum jacet universus mundus, supra quem

Mere Natural Sources Oredible ?

writers could develop these hints into distinctive
Christianity ; how they could seize on the incarna-
tion, here so entirely neglected, and make it the
key-stone of an arch, which otherwise has none ;
how they could pass from Philo’s Logos, to Jesus
Christ, and Him crucified; how they could for his
bright but colourless fountain bring in a fountain
filled with blood, and make this alike the hope of
earth, and the joy and song of heaven; and how,
once more, out of a scheme where the Son and
Holy Ghost are confounded, they should build up
a solid and effectual Trinity, where the Spirit is
the final Paraclete and the living pulse of a new
and world-wide society; this the theorists of
Philonian development have failed to make even
plausible, far less probable. And it will be found

much harder to explain Philo himself as a struggle

transiens constanter stat. Non quidem eo quod Christus dominus
est, supra mundum transiens sedet—sedes enim ejus guxta suum
patrem est deum—sed quia necessarium est mundo ad perfectam
plenitudinem pro cura habenda exactissime dispensationis,
atque pro propria pietate omnis generis ipsius divini verbi ;
sicut et animantia opus habent capite, sine quo vivere non
possunt.” (‘‘The eternal word of the eternal God is the
head of the universe, under which, like feet or other members,
the whole world lies subjected, and above which, in his passing
to and fro, he constantly stands. Not indeed because Christ és
Lord, does he passing over the world sit, for his seat is beside God
his Father, but because this is necessary to the world in order to
its perfect fulness in securing its most exact administration, and
from due piety of every kind towards the Divine Word himself :

as even the animals have need of a head, without which they
cannot live.’’)

eee

The hints
of Philo
could never
have been
developed
into
distinctive
Christianity.

The
Philonian
theorists
have never
made the
development
probable or
even
plausible,

The writings
of Puilo
throw no
light on the
prominence
of suffering,
weakness,
and death,
in the
Gospels,

Philo's
theory could
never have
created or
controlled

a movement
like
Christianity.

Is the Evolution of Christianity from

of opposites, than out of any residual force of the
right kind in him to give an origin to Christianity.

Let it be added, that as by the testimony of
Strauss and others, the great difficulty now is to
account for the prominence of suffering, weakness,
and death in the biographies of Jesus in the New
Testament, the writings of Philo are the last
quarter to which the authors of these incomparable
narratives could have fled for any light or help in
the construction of them or their adaptation to
Jewish pre-possessions, since his writings never
raise the question of how the Divine can empty itself
or pass through obscuration to more visible glory.

In the light of these internal difficulties the
outward hindrances to any probable contact at any
early enough date of Philo and his ideas, with
founders and moulders of Christianity, may be
passed over. Nor is it necessary to urge the ob-
jection that if the Logos doctrine of Philo had had
a determining effect on Christianity, it is not easy
to see how on ordinary laws of diffusion, it should
not have influenced more, and coloured more, the
entire New Testament. This tract does not exclude
a tolerably early knowledge to studious men of
Philo’s special theory. It only denies that it could
possibly—beyond what was in it of elsewhere ac-
cessible Old Testament truth—have created or
controlled a wide-spread popular movement like
Christianity.

Mere Natural Sources Credible ?

We thus seem to leave each of the most plausible
theories of the human origin of Christianity behind
us—a visible failure; and the sense of insuffi-
ciency is increased by the fact that no one failure
at any point relieves the rest, or holds out the
hope that under some happier auspices the evolu-
tion theory will achieve more, and fill up the gap
that now lies between its premises and its con-
clusions. No one can say with any truth that
progress has been made in this direction, that
regions once assigned to special creation have been
recovered to the realm of law, and that the
towering grandeur and singularity of this one
religion want only a few missing links to bind it on
—humbled and ecaptive—to the other religions and
moralities of the world. None of these systems
can in turn set up a claim to supernatural birth.
The old classic Paganism does not thus resist the
attempt to carry it up by nature-worship and
apotheosis from some lower type, though even here
the Christian must feel how much better it is
explained as the degeneracy of an older revelation.
Hinduism can be resolved into a great pantheistic
development, half religion, half philosophy, with
a multitude of polytheistic outgrowths, varying
from epoch to epoch, and as a Christian believes,
wrecks and survivals of the primeval monotheism.
Buddhism too, admits of solution, as a reaction, on
the same idealistic ground, from the pantheism of

The
evolutionary
theory of
the origin of
Christianity
a visible
failure.

The
grandeur
and
singularity
of

Christianity
unimpaired.

No other
system can
claim a
supernatural
birth.

Hinduism
can be re-
solved into
a great
pantheistic
develop=
ment.

Buddhism
admits of
solution as
a reaction
from India’s
pantheism,

Zoroastrian—
ism does not
transcend
the efforts
of human
reason.

Mohammed~
anism an
agglomerate
of Arabian
tradition,
Judaism and
Christianity.

Ts the Evolution of Christianity from

India into a virtual Atheism, with many of the
inconsistencies of a religion, as shown in its alliance
with polytheism, and, as in Confucianism and
ancient Stoicism, with a large development on the
human side of ethical independence and elevation.
The Zoroastrian belief will hardly be supposed to
transcend the efforts of human reason, founded as
it is upon an apparent dualism, which, however,
reason cannot long endure, and which has more
and more limited the scope of this now decayed
system. When we turn to Mohammedanism, the
natural evolutionist and the Christian will alike
deny it anything of a proper Divine birth, since
though fused in the soul of a great personality,
who was able to convey his own enthusiasm to
others, and to stamp it by means all too human
upon the face of the world, it is a manifest con-
glomerate of Arabian tradition, Judaism and
Christianity, the first lifted up to meet the two
last in a reduced and abated shape, and without
even the shadow of new ideas beyond them, such
as its founder claimed in his character of the
Paraclete whom Christ had promised; so that
those who expect evolution to run in the line of
chronology are here corrected, and may as soon
make Mormonism, as it also professes to be, the
last development both of the Old and New
‘Testament.

When from the obviously inferior level of these

Mere Natural Sources Credible ?

religions, and also from their historical failure, we
return to the claims of Christianity, meluding
Judaism, to be in the proper sense Divine, as
originating and carrying through a grand scheme
of redemption, culminating in the Incarnation and
Atonement of the eternal Word of God, we find
that we have recovered the clue to a true develop-
ment of which that of mere rationalized philosophy
or empty speculative theologyis butadistorted image.
We have gone back to the cradle of a once happy
race, before redemption was needed, and can
Out of

these memories and the traces of early revelation,

account for the traditions of a golden age.

we can account for the remnants of truth both as
bearing upon religion in general, and upon sacri-
ficial and other monuments of a system of grace,
that linger amidst the darkness of a fall. We
trace the beginnings of prophecy, helped by the
The call of Abraham,

like the record of the Deluge, discriminates a new

light of primitive sacrifice.

start of covenant faith from the legends of idolatry.
The Mosaie legislation follows, with its Decalogue,
its growing Messianic hope, its grand ritual of
propitiation, suited to the childhood of the world,
but impossible to have grown up out of a mere
Theo-

eracy consolidates the religion of a separate people;

nature-worship with its feasts and seasons.

and prophecy, its necessary organ, with priesthood,
at once guards the present by its moral office, and

Christianity
gives the
clue to the
true develop
ment of
which
rationalised
philosophy
or empty
speculative
theology is
a distorted
image.

The
memories of
early
revelation
account for
the rem-
nants of
truth that
linger amid
the darkness
of a fall.
The
beginnings
of prophecy.

The call of
Abraham.

The Mosaic
legislation
and Mes-
sianic hope.

The Old

Testament
carried on
to its close,

God plans,

yet the laws

of history
are
observed.

The
vindication
of the
Jewish dis-
pensation.

The Gentile

world not
beyond the
pale of
preparation
for Christ.

The fulfil-
ment of
prophecy
dependent
on the
fulness of
time,

Is the Evolution of Christianity from

unveils the future, with a glow of hope from direct
inspiration which disowns the parallel with heathen
oracles. This system of preparation with its
successive advances carries the Old Testament
onward to its close; and all the while the defeats
and captivities of the people are the victories of
their religion and the means of its purification and
diffusion. Everything is in harmony with the
laws of a Divine revelation, where God necessarily
must plan and order, and where, though the laws
of history are still observed, the human element
cannot be supreme. Hence there is enough of
development to make man free and history possible,
and enough of revelation and providence to save
grace from failure, and history from barrenness.
Thus the Jewish dispensation has its great vindi-
cation; and even the Gentile world, with the
gropings of its superstition and the struggles of its
philosophy, does not lie beyond the pale of this
preparation for Christ. Plato comes in, but not as
an. originator of Christianity, or day-star compelling
its dawn, but rather as an infant crying for it in
the dark; and Philo, still more visibly, because in
its own twilight, though with face half-averted
from its rising beam. We have scen the failure
of Strauss to construct out of its mistaken pro-
phecies, the reality ; but even its true prophecies
could not have fulfilled themselves, partly from
their own obscurity, and still more from their

Mere Natural Sources Credible ?

dependence on “the fulness of the time.” When
Christ came, as was proper to One who was the
First and Last, He ‘finished the work and cut it

> and thus was condensed

short in righteousness ; ’
into so brief a life and ministry (a sign among
others of its higher descent), a fulness of work,
suffering, teaching and influence, which accom-
plished all the past and heralded all the future.
The same law of development still has its place;
yet not beyond Christ, but only to the manifesta-
tion of what is in Him; and this we see in the
completion of the New Testament Canon, in the
foundation and growth of the early Church, and
in the perpetual expansion of Christianity. The
presence of Christ by His Spirit in the Church
necessitates progress, though amidst apparent
decay, as the earth is being replenished and sub-
dued, even amidst the sterner seasons; and there
is in Christianity what no other religion has ever
approached, a power of renovation, of reform in
doctrine, of renewal in life, and of grand out-
bursts in social, political and world-wide influence,
which connect it not with ordinary development,
but with Divine history. Some faint shadow of
this is found in human discovery, in the march of
civilisation and in the revival of liberty, where the
dropped thread of ages is taken up and the ex-
tinguished torch glows with its ancient fires. But
this too, after all, is part of a plan, of which the

Christ
finished
the work.

The law of
development
in the
completion
of the New
Testament
Canon.

The
presence of
Christ in
the Church
necessitates
progress.

The power
of renova-
tion in
Christianity.

The
kingdom of
Christ the
abiding
centre of

a world-
renewing
plan.

Christianity
not only
Divine in
its origin
but in its
fruits and
possibilities
as the hope
of the
world.

The claims
and respon-
sibilities
that it
brings with
it.

The Evolution of Christianity.

kingdom of Christ is the one abiding and unshaken
centre, which slowly and to us mysteriously is
renewing all things with its own youth, and holding
out to all institutions, as to all souls that are not
incurably hostile to it, the promise of its own
universal victory. It would be an imperfect re-
commendation of Christianity if we could only
prove it Divine in its origin, and not also in its
mighty fruits and possibilities as the very hope of
the world. And let it be added, that it would
also be an inadequate pleading for it which over-
looked the urgency of claims and serious responsi-
bilities which its underivable and sole greatness
brings with it, and from the height of which its
Divine Author could with such authority say:

** All things are delivered unto Me of My Father: and no man
knoweth the Son, but the Father; neither knoweth any man

the Father, save the Son, and he to whomsoever the Son will
reveal Him.”

Zits

++{ PRESENT Day Tracts, No. 49. fete

THE DAY OF REST

IN RELATION TO THE WORLD
THAT NOW IS

AND THAT WHICH IS TO COME.

SIR J. WILLIAM DAWSON,
C.M.G, LI.D, F.R.S. |
|

Principal and Vice-Chancellor of McGill University, Montreal,
AUTHOR OF
“ Pornts oF CONTACT BETWEEN REVELATION AND NaturRAL ScIENCE;”? ‘‘ THE

CHAIN OF LIFE IN GEOLOGICAL TIME; ” ETC. ETC.

THE RELIGIOUS TRACT SOCIETY :

56, PATERNOSTER Row; 65, St. PauL’s CHURCHYARD;
AND 164, PICCADILLY,

Argument of the Tract,

—_+oe-———_—

ArTER showing that the creative days of Genesis are days
of God, Divine periods or ages, the Tract goes on to show
the true nature of the Sabbath Law of the Old Testament,
as a commemoration of God’s finished work of Creation and
entrance into His Sabbatism, of the loss of this Sabbatism
by man at the Fall, and of the promise of its restora-
tion by a Redeemer. In this way it is proposed to explain
the position of the Sabbath law in the Decalogue, the
importance attached to it in the Old Testament, and its
necessary change into the Lord’s Day as the memorial
of the finished work of Redeniption which fulfils the
promise of the Old Testament Sabbath. Certain practical
deductions from these considerations, bearing on the
obligation and use of the Lord’s Day, are stated in the

concluding portion.

THE DAY OF REST

RELATION TO THE WORLD THAT NOW IS,

AND THAT WHICH IS TO COME.
L2G Lete—
a = HERE are wonderful links of connection

maki between the ways of God in creation,

‘< in providence, and in grace, which are

7 always deserving of study, more espe-
cially when they are pointed out by the Word of
God itself. This is eminently the case with the
Sabbath law. Placed in the middle of the Ten
Commandments, between the precepts that relate
to God and those that relate to man, it must have
a moral and spiritual significance. Providing for
a weekly day of rest from labour for all men, good
and evil, and even for the animals under their
control, it should have a direct relation to our
external well-being. Enforced by a reason carrying
our minds back to the original creation of the
world, it should be connected in some way with
the great work of constructing the earth for man,
and with his own earliest relations with his Creator.

I desire in this Tract to direct attention more par-

Links of
connection
between
creation,
providence,
and grace.

The place

The
provision
it makes.

The reason
Oleit.

4 The Day of Rest.

ticularly to this last aspect of the Sabbath law,
and to its bearing on the others.
At first sight it seems a very simple explanation
of the reason annexed to the commandment, that
The days ef God made the world and things therein in six
natural days, and rested on the seventh, and that
He enjoins.on us the following of His example.
But the more we think of this the more unsatis-
factory it becomes, ‘The parallel does not hold
good. Ifit pleased God to make the world in six
of our ordinary days and to rest on the seventh,
this was a work done once for all, and bears no
analogy to our recurring weeks of toil and days
of rest. Nor is there any apparent need for our
thus seeming to imitate God’s procedure, if that
No inherent were the only reason. Still less does one see any

moral obli-

gation to _ inherent moral obligation resting on us to give up

give up onc-
Mt of our ODe-seventh of our time on account of such imi-

oat tation. This incongruity is only increased by the
evident intention of the Lawgiver to represent the
Sabbath not as a new institution but as a primitive
practice, to be remembered and continued. He
says ““remember” the Sabbath day, as if speaking

Mhorenee Of an old institution. There is also in the six days

fourth com- Of labour an implied reference to the curse incurred

Bek! by man at the fall, and in so far as the seventh
day is concerned, a partial relaxation of this eating
of bread with the sweat of the brow.

It has long appeared to the writer that the

The Day of Rest.

proper significance of this command is reached
only when we bear in mind that the creative days
of the first chapter of Genesis are really days of
God, Divine periods—olamim, or ages, as they are
elsewhere called 1—or, which amounts to the same
thing, that they are intended to represent or to in-
dicate such ages of God’s working. This conclusion
I desire to rest not so much on the discoveries of
modern science, though these fully vindicate it, as
on the usage and statements of the Bible writers
and their contemporaries, and of the early Christian
Church. The writer of the introduction to Genesis
sees no incongruity in those early days which
passed before natural days were instituted; ‘in-
effable days”? as Augustine well calls them. He
does not represent the seventh day as having an
evening and morning like the others, nor does he
hint that God resumed His work on the eighth
day. In chapter second he represents the world
as produced in one day, evidently using the word
in an indefinite sense. Further, in the succeeding
literature of the Old Testament, while we have no
actual statement that the creative days were
natural days, or that the world was made in a
short period, we find the term olam or age applied
to God’s periods of working, and in the 104th
Psalm, which is a poetical narrative of creation,
the idea conveyed is that of lapse of time, without

1 Psalm xe.

The days
of creation
Divine
periods or
ages.

The seventh
day in
Genesis has
no evening
and
morning.

The word
day indefi-
nitely used
in the
second
chapter of
Genesis.

The term
ce Olamice

in the
later books
of the Old
Testament.

The Day of Rest.

The teach-
ing of our
Lord and
the Apostles,

The doctrine
of ** tume-
worlds’
common to
revelation
and science.

Worlds
exist in
time as
well as in
space.

division into days. We shall find in the sequel that
the same idea is contained in the teaching of our
Lord, and of the Apostolic Epistles, and was familiar
to the primitive Church. That we may fully un-
derstand the bearing of these facts on the Sabbath
question, it will be necessary for us to consider in
some detail a doctrine common to the teaching of
the Word of God, and of natural and physical
science, and which we may designate as the doctrine
of “ time-worlds,” or of worlds existing in ages of
time as distinguished from “ space-worlds,” or
worlds considered merely as of certain dimen-
sions, and existing in space.

When we speak of the world or the universe,
the ordinary hearer has perhaps before his mind
merely the idea of bodies occurring in space ; and
the vast discoveries of modern times as to the
distances and magnitudes of the heavenly bodies
have contributed to fill the minds of men with
conceptions of the immensity of space, perhaps
to the exclusion of another direction of thought
equally important. Worlds must, however, exist
in time as well as in space. This idea is very
familiar to the mind of the geologist, who traces
the long history of the earth through successive
periods, and also knows that each succeeding age
bas seen it different from its condition on those
which preceded it. This consideration is also
before the mind of the physical astronomer, who

The Day of Rest.

thinks of suns and planets as passing through
different successive conditions, and as actually
presenting different stages in the present.

This point is curiously illustrated by a contro-
versy which raged some time ago as to whether the
planets and other heavenly bodies may be inhabited
worlds, and especially whether they may be in-
habited by rational beings.

If we look at this question with reference to our
own world, we shall find that each successive
stage of its existence whether as a vaporous mass,
as a heated molten globe, as the abode of merely
inferior animals, has been of vast duration as com-
pared with the time in which it has been in-
habited by man. Farther, it is gradually approach-
ing the condition in which it will no longer be
habitable; and unless some renovating process
shall be applied to it, this desolate condition may
be of indefinite duration. Thus, if we imagine
ourselves to be beings not resident on the earth,
and that we could visit it only at one period
of its history, the chances would be vastly
against our seeing it at that precise stage of its
existence in which it is fitted for the residence of
rational beings. On the other hand, if we were
capable of taking in its whole duration, we would
comprehend that it has its particular stage for
being the abode of intelligence, and that it has a
definite and intelligible history as a world in time,

The
question as
to whether
other worlds
may be
inhabited.

The world
before man
appeared.

The
approaching
condition of
the world.

Its history
parallel to
that of
other
worlds.

The moon.

Mars.

Jupiter and
Saturn,

All worlds

not capable
of support-
ing life.

The Day of Rest

which may be more or less parallel to that of all
other worlds.

This truth also appears if we consider other
planetary bodies. The moon may have been in-
habited at a time when our earth was luminous
and incandescent, but it has passed into a state of
senility and desolation. The planet Mars, which
seems physically not unlike the earth, may be in a
condition similar to that of our world in the older
geological periods. Jupiter and Saturn are pro-
bably still intensely heated and encumpassed with
vaporous “deeps,’ and may perhaps aid in sup-
porting life on their satellites, while untold ages
must elapse before those magnificent orbs can
arrive at a stage suitable for maintaining life like
that on the earth. Long after all these ages have
passed, and when all the planets have grown old
and lifeless, the sun itself, now a fiery mass, may
arrive at a condition suited for living and rational
beings. |

Thus the physical conditions of our planetary
system teach that if we suppose all worlds capable
of supporting life, all are not so at one time, and
that as ages pass, each may successively take up
this 7-6/e, of which in greater or less degree all may
at some time or other be capable. So when we
ascend to the starry orbs, those suns may have
attendant worlds, some in one stage, some in
another. There may also be stars and nebulae

|
|

—

The Day of Rest.

still searcely formed, and others which have passed
far beyond the present state of our sun and its
planets. Thus the universe is a vastly varied and
progressive scene. At no one time can all worlds
be seats of such life as we know; but of the count-
less suns and worlds that exist, thousands or
millions may at any one time be in this state, while
thousands of times as many may be gradually
arriving at it or passing from it. Such are the
thoughts which necessarily pass through our minds
when we consider the existence of worlds in time.
Now these ideas, though rendered more definite
by modern discoveries, are very old, and they 1m-
pressed themselves on the mind of antiquity before
men could measure the vastness of the universe
in space. They are also present in Divine re-
velation, and it is necessary to have them before
our minds if we would enter into the thoughts of
the writers of the Old and New Testaments when
they treat of time and eternity. The several
stages of the earth in its progress from chaos, the
prophetic pictures of its changes in the future, as
stated in the Bible, alike embody the idea of
time-worlds, or ages of God’s working. It is in
this aspect that the universe is compared to a
vesture of God, which He can change as a garment,
It is
in contrast to the eternity of truth that the heavens

while He Himself remains ever the same.!

1 Psalm cii. 26.

The
universe a
varied and
progressive
scene,

These ideas
ancient.

They are
present in
Divine
revelation,

The past
and future
stages of
the earth
according to
the Bible
embody

the idea

of time-
worlds,

10 The Day of Rest.

and earth are said to be passing away, but the
words of the Redeemer shall never pass away.’
It is with the same reference that we are told that
“the things which are seen are temporal, the
things which are unseen are eternal.” ?

The The use made of the Hebrew word o/am and the

Hebrew and 4 :
Greek words Greek aion in the sense of age, or even of eternity,

olam and
aon bring

beforeus” brings before us still more clearly this Biblical idea
timesworlds, of time-worlds. In that sublime “ prayer of Moses
the man of God” which we have in the 90th

Psalm, God, who is the “dwelling-place of man in
generation to generation,’ who existed before the
mountains were brought forth, with whom a
thousand years are “as a watch in the night,” is

said to be from “olam to olam,” from “ everlasting

to everlasting,” as the English version has it,® but

more properly from age to age of those long cosmic

ages in which He creates and furnishes successive

worlds. So when God is said to be the “ High and

lofty One, that inhabiteth eternity,’* it is not

abstract eternity, but these successive olams, or
time-worlds, which are His habitation. In the

God dwells Old Testament, God as revealed to us in His works,
succession of dwells in the grand succession of worlds in time,
Bae thus continuously and variously manifesting His
power, a much more living and attractive view of di-

_vinity than the mere abstract affirmation of eternity.

1 Matt. xxiv. 25. 22 Cor. iv. 18.

3 This is retained in the Revised Version, which I think
unfortunate. * Isaiah lvii. 15.

a — —— °° | Oe ——— ———

The Day of Rest.

The same thought is taken up and amplified in
the New Testament. The writer of the Epistle to
the Hebrews, who treats very specially of the
relations of the Old Testament to the New, speaks
of Christ as God’s Son, “ whom He hath appointed
Heir of all things, by whom also He made the
worlds,” more literally ‘ constituted the aidns or
ages.” He does not refer, as one might conceive
from the English translation, to different worlds in
space, but to the successive ages of this world, in
which it was being gradually prepared and fitted
up for man. So Paul, in his doxology at the end
of the third chapter of the Epistle to the Ephesians,
ascribes to the Redeemer glory in “all generations
of the ages or aidns;”? and in the ninth verse of
the same chapter he speaks of the gospel as “ the
mystery which from all ages hath been hid in
God who created all things.’ So, also, m the
eleventh chapter of Hebrews, we are told that
by faith we understand that “the ages were con-
stituted by the Word of God.” Another fine
illustration of this idea is in Paul’s familiar and
business-like letter to Titus, where he says that
he lives “in hope of eternal life, which God, who
cannot lie, promised before the world began, but
hath in due time manifested His word.”? The
expression “the world began ”’ here represents the
1 Heb. i. 2, R.V. margin:

* R.V. margin. eeTituss io

The same
thought in
the New
Testament,

Christ con-
stitutine
the ages.

St. Paul
ascribes
glory to
Christ

in all gener-
ations of
the ages.

The ages
constituted
by the Word
of God.

The life of
the ages,

The relation
of the whole
duration of
God’s
working

bone

The light
thrown on
the day of
rest by the
creative
days of
geology.

The Day of Rest.

“ages of time,” and the “eternal life” is the
“life of the ages.” Thus what the Apostle
hopes for is life through the unlimited ages of
God’s working, and this life has been promised,
before the beginning of the time-worlds of creation.
So the whole past, present, and future of God’s
working has.its relation to us, and is included
under this remarkable idea of ages or time-worlds,
and is appropriated by faith and hope as the pos-
session of God’s people. God, who cannot lie, has
pledged Himself to us from the beginning of those
long ages in which He founded the earth; He
has promised us His favour in all the course of
His subsequent work; He has sealed this promise
in the mission of His Son, that same glorious Being
through whom He arranged all those vast ages of
creation and providence; and in the strength of
this promise we can look forward by faith to an
endless life with Him in all the future ages of His
boundless working.

The long creative days of geology may thus be
shown to throw a most important light on the in-
stitution of the weekly Sabbath and its continuance
as the Lord’s day. If it is true that the seventh
or Sabbath Day of creation still continues, and
was intended to be a day of rest for the Creator
and for man made in His likeness, we find in this
a substantial reason for the place of the Sabbath
in the Decalogue. Further, by means of our Lord’s

The Day of Rest.

declaration in reply to the Pharisees, “ My Father
worketh even until now, and I work,” though God
has finished His work of creation and now only
works in providence and redemption, as well as by
the argument in the fourth chapter of the Epistle to
the Hebrews, we can carry this idea forward into
the Christian dispensation. But these facts are so
important to the right understanding of our subject,
that it seems necessary to examine them in some
detail, and in a humble and earnest spirit, ready
to receive new light and to relinquish old pre-
possessions, if found to be contrary to the testimony
of Scripture.

At first sight, as already hinted, the place of the
fourth commandment in the Decalogue, and the
vast importance attached to this law by the Hebrew
writers, strike us as strange and anomalous. The
Sabbath stands as the sole example of a ritual
observance, in those “ten words,” which otherwise
mark the most general moral relations of man to
' God and to his fellow-men. Farther, the reason
given seems trivial. If it is meant that God
worked on six natural days, and rested on the
seventh, the question arises, what is He doing on
the subsequent days? Does He keep up this al-
ternation of six days’ work and one day’s rest ; and
if not, how is this an example to us? If it is
argued that the whole reason of God’s six days’

work and the seventh day’s rest was to give an

The idea of

the Sabbath
as a day of

rest for the

Creator and
man carried
further.

The place
of the
Sabbath law
at first
sight
strange and
anomalous.

The sup-
position that
justifies it.

How the
Sabbath
becomes the
central
point of all
religion,

The
Sabbath
the Gospel
in the
Decalogue.

The Day of Rest.

—

example, this conveys the absurdity of doing what
is infinitely great for an end comparatively in-
significant, and which might have been attained
by a command without any reason assigned. But
let us now suppose that when God rested on the
seventh day He entered into an eon of vast dura-
tion, intended to be distinguished by the happy
Sabbatism of man in an Edenic world, and in
which every day would have been a Sabbath; or
if there was a weekly Sabbath, it would have been
but a.memorial of a work leading to a perpetual
Sabbath then enjoyed. Let us farther suppose
that at the fall of man the Sabbath Day was
instituted, or obtained a new significance as a
memorial of an Edenic Sabbatism lost, and also
as a memorial of God’s promise, that through a
Redeemer it would be restored. Then the Sabbath
becomes the central point of all religion, the
standing and perpetual memorial of an Eden lost,
and of a paradise to be restored by the coming Seed
of the woman, as well as a time to prepare our-
selves for this future life. The commandment,
“Remember the Sabbath Day,” called upon the
Israelite to remember the fall of man, to remember
the promise of a Saviour, to look forward to a
future Sabbatism im the reign of the Redeemer.
It is thus the Gospel in the Decalogue, giving
vitality to the whole, and is most appropriately
placed, and with a more full explanation than any

The Day of Rest.

other command, between the laws that relate to
God and the laws that relate to man.

The argument in the Epistle to the Hebrews
(ch, iv.) may help us to understand this; and it is the
more valuable that it is not an argument about the
Sabbath, but introduces it incidentally, and that
it seems to take for granted the belief in a long or
olamie Sabbath on the part of those to whom it is
addressed. It may be freely rendered as follows:

“For God hath spoken in a certain place (Gen. ii. 2) of the
seventh day in this wise: ‘ And God did rest on the seventh
day from all His works ;’ and in this place again: ‘ They shall
not enter into My rest’ (Psa. xcv. 11). Seeing, therefore, it
still remaineth that some enter therein, and they to whom it
(God’s Sabbatism) was first proclaimed, entered not in because
of disobedience (in the Fall, and afterward in the sin of the
Israelites in the desert), again He fixes a certain day, saying in
David’s writings, (long after the time of Joshua,) ‘ To-day, if ye
hear His voice, harden not your hearts.’ (Psa. xcv. 8.) For if
Joshua had given them rest in Canaan, He would not afterward
have spoken of another day. There is therefore yet reserved a
keeping of a Sabbath for the people of God. For He that is
entered into His rest (that is, Jesus Christ, who has finished
His work and entered into His rest in heaven), He Himself
also rested from His own works, as God did from His own.
Let us therefore earnestly strive to enter into that rest.”

It is evident that in this passage God’s Sabbatism,
the rest intended for man in Eden, and for Israel
in Canaan, Christ’s rest in heaven after finishing
His work, the rest which may now be enjoyed by
Christians, and the final heavenly rest of Christ’s
people, are all indefinite periods mutually related,
and are all Sabbatisms of which the weekly Sabbath
is a continuous reminder and token,

The
argument
in the
Epistle to
the

Hebrews.

A free
rendering
of it.

The various
Sabbatisms
indefinite
periods
mutually
related,

Another
reason for
the fourth
command-
ment,

Perfect
harmony
between the
reasons.

The sup-
position
that they
are contra-
dictory
hypercriti-
cal.

The
primitive
obligation
of the
Sabbath.

The
sacredness
of the
Sabbath
among the
Chaldeans
and other
nations
outside of
Hebrew

' influence,

The Day of Rest.

In the repetition of the decalogue, in the fifth
chapter of Deuteronomy, another reason is an-
nexed to the fourth commandment:

“Remember that thou wast a slave in the land of Egypt, and
Jehovah thy God brought thee out thence.”

This is in perfect harmony with the reason in
Hixodus, and merely a further development of it.
The tirst reason refers to the rest of the Creator,
the second to the rest from Egyptian bondage
and the promised rest of Canaan. Both are refer-
red to by the writer of the Epistle to the Hebrews,
who clearly sees the connection between them.
The mistake of supposing them to be mutually
contradictory is peculiar to a certain stage of
modern hypercriticism.

If this is a correct view of the relation of the
Jewish Sabbath to the Creation and the Fall, it
enables us to appreciate the force of the injunction
to “remember” the Sabbath day to keep it holy,
for in this case the Sabbath must have been no new
institution, but one of primitive obligation, and
dating from the fall of man at the latest. It also
enables us to understand the prevalence of Sabba-
tical ideas among nations independent of Hebrew
influence, and more especially among the Chaldeans,
from whom Abraham came. With them, as
recent investigations have shown, the seventh day
had a certain sacredness attached to it from very

early times.!
1 Sayce, Fresh Light from the Ancient Monuments.

The Day of Rest.

——.

But what evidence does the Bible itself offer as
to this? We have no Sabbath law till the time

of the Exodus, and there is scarcely any reference

previously to other religious ordinances than those
of sacrifice and circumcision. Still there are in-
dications of a Sabbath. We need not perhaps
attach much importance to the expression “in
process of time,” or more literally, “at the end of
days,”! applied to the time when Cain and Abel
offered their sacrifices, as we do not certainly know
whether a weekly, monthly, or yearly interval is
intended. We find, however, Noah reckoning by
weeks in sending out birds from the ark? Laban
and Jacob also reckoned by weeks.? In Joseph’s
time also, the Hebrews reckoned by sevens in the
division of time* So in the early part of the
Iixodus before the giving of the law, the Sabbath
is incidentally mentioned, in connection with the
gift of the manna, and in terms which show that
it was already known as “a solemn rest, a holy
Sabbath unto the Lord.”® It is interesting, how-
ever, to observe that there seems to have been no
pre-intimation of the day, except the gathering of a
double quantity of manna on the sixth day, and
that the rulers reported the fact to Moses, as if
asking instruction, This would seem to imply either
that the day of rest had fallen into disuse in Egypt,

! Genesis iv. 3. 2 Ibid. viii, 12:
= Lown Le: 3) 12.

3 Ibid. xxix. 27.
Pe UXOC MeX Visto JIANG
G

Bible
evidence.

Early
indications

of a
Sabbath.

The
Sabbath
and manna,

Moses’ in-
terpretation
of the
injunction
with
reference
to the
gathering of
a double
portion of
manna on
the sixth
day.

‘18

The early
notices

of the
Sabbath
few and
casual; but
sufficient
when taken
in connec-
tion with
other
passages.

Israel in
Egypt.

The
Hebrews’
experience
of ceaseless
labour in
Egypt.

The Day of Rest.

or that its occurrence had not at first seemed to
the people likely to be recognised as interfering
with the gathering of necessary food; but Moses
at once interprets the fact as God’s recognition
of His own day.

These early notices of the Sabbath are, it is true,
few and casual, and remind us of the informal way
in which the Lord’s Day is introduced in the New
Testament. But when taken-in connection with
the statement as to God’s hallowing the day at the
close of His creative work, and with the word
“remember” in the commandment, they are suffi-
cient to show the Patriarchal origin of the rest of
the seventh day, and to carry it back to the gate
of Eden. We may further note here that the
Israelites when enslaved in Egypt must have been,
to a great extent at least, deprived of the Sabbath
rest. The Egyptians, even if they had themselves
some notion of a Sabbatism, whether on the tenth
or the seventh day, were not likely to have con-
sulted the scruples or the comfort of their foreign
slaves in such matters, any more than modern
pleasure-seekers are disposed to regard those of
The
Hebrews had thus known the bitterness of ceaseless
labour, and so are reminded in Deuteronomy of
those past sufferings as a reason for their holding
fast to the privilege restored to them in their
It would be well if those

railway employés or museum curators.

uewly-found freedom.

The Day of Rest.

modern nations which neglect the Lord’s day
could see it in this light, and receive it as a part
of that liberty with which Christ makes His
people free.

The post-Mosaic stages of Jewish history show
that the ideas of the connection of the Sabbath
with the primitive promise of redemption and with
the liberation of the chosen people, are carried
onward to the time of Christ. At some periods of
Jewish history the Sabbath no doubt fell greatly
into neglect, but these were times of general
decadence and of lapse into idolatry, and every
prophetic or priestly revival of religion exalted the
obligations of the Sabbath. Isaiah laments the
misuse and neglect of the day, and promises even
to the eunuchs and the strangers in Palestine that
if they will “keep the Sabbath, and hold fast by
God’s covenant ”’ implied in it, He will give them

**a memorial and a name better than of sons and of daughters
. an everlasting name.” ‘‘I will bring them to My holy
mountain, and make them joyful in My house of prayer.”’}

It is the same prophet who intensifies its blessings,

and with

while connecting it with the patriarchs
the covenant of God, in the grand words :

‘*Tf thou turn away thy foot from the Sabbath,

From doing thy pleasure on my holy day ;

And shalt call the Sabbath a delight

And the holy of Jehovah honourable,

And shalt honour it, not doing thine own ways,

Nor finding thine own pleasure, nor speaking thine own words ;

1 Isa. lvi, 4-8.

The
Sabbath in
the post-
Mosaic
stages of
Jewish
history till
the time of
Christ.

In the time
of Isaiah.

Jeremiah’s
view of it.

Ezekiel’s
view.

The
significance
of prophetic
doctrine.

The effect
of prophetic
statements.

The con-
sistency of
Bible
history on
the subject
throughout,

The Day of Rest.

Then shalt thou delignt thyself in Jehovah,
And I will make thee ride upon the high places of the earth,
And I will feed thee with the heritage of Jacob thy father,
For the mouth of Jehovah hath spoken it.” }

Jeremiah connects in the strongest manner its
observance, as an efficient cause, with God’s
blessing, and with prosperity, and regards the
keeping of the Sabbath as an essential condition
of national welfare” Ezekiel expressly calls the
Sabbath a sign or pledge that God would sanctify
His people? The profound significance of this
prophetic doctrine becomes evident only when we
connect the Sabbath with God’s olamic rest, with
man’s fall and with the promise of a final and
eternal Sabbatism, in the manner explained in the
passage already quoted from the Epistle to the
Hebrews. There can be no doubt that these
strong statements of the prophets were influential
with the Jews in the captivity, and were important
means of preserving them from idolatry and for-
getiulness of their God, and that when they were
again delivered from bondage they would return
with enhanced ideas of Sabbath obligation, akin
to those of their fathers at the time of the Exodus.
We see this in the legislation of Nehemiah, and in
a debased and ritualistic form in the Pharisaic
strictness of the time of Christ.

Let us further note here that there is a strict
consistency throughout in the Biblical history of
+ Tea.“lviii, 13, R.V. 7 Jers xvii, 24,°95. 3 Weep 12,

The Day of Rest.

the Sabbath, from the first announcement of the
rest of the Creator in the second chapter of Genesis
till the advent of the promised Redeemer, and no
room is left here for attributing a late origin to
the Sabbath law, without throwing the whole
history into confusion. The Sabbath of Exodus 1s
meaningless without the Creative days, the Fall,
and the promise of Redemption. The testimony of
the Psalms and Prophets pre-supposes the Sabbath
law, and its spiritual relations. The attitude of
the post-exilic Jews pre-supposes and results from
the law and the prophets. Among the sectaries of
the time of our Lord, the Sabbath had only ex-
perienced the fate of other spiritual elements of
the old dispensation which they had “ made void
by their traditions,” substituting form for sub-
stance.

spiritual significance to the Sabbath and the Lord’s
Day, and connect them with God’s great working
in the universe, and with the fall and redemption
of man, but they give us practical information
respecting the manner of keeping the Lord's
Day and its relation to Christian doctrine and
practice.

We can thus understand the attitude of Christ
Himself with regard to the Sabbath. While He
denounced that Pharisaical rigidity which made
the day a burden rather than a privilege, and which

These considerations not only give a high and 7

The pre-
suppositions
of the
Sabbath of
the Exodus
and of the
Psalms and
Prophets.

The
Sabbath in
our Lord’s
time.

e
Sabbath
in its
various
relations.

The
attitude
of Christ
to the
Sabbath.

22 The Day of Rest.

directed attention to minute details of its observance
rather than to its higher significance, neither His
example nor His teaching took away from its
sacredness or diminished its obligation, except
when opposed to works of necessity or mercy, or
of direct service to God. The Sabbath was made
for man as

‘“‘a means, and not an end; worth nothing unless it conduced
to the end—man’s welfare, man’s refreshment in body, mind,
and spirit.’ +

Flow the Thus if we ask how the Lord’s Day should be

Lord’s Day

kept ‘Kept, we are referred at once to the examples of
God the Father and of God the Son. The Creator’s
rest with reference to this world, is one of contem-
plation, and of beneficent and merciful attention
to its interests. He regards His work and pro-
nounces it good, and then enters into His rest. So
the Redeemer entered into His rest when He could
say, “It is finished.” God in His Sabbath sustains
and nourishes ajl His creatures, and relieves their
wants. ‘This is the force of our Lord’s reply to
the Pharisees: “My Father worketh even until
now, and I work,’ and they seem so to have
understood the reference to the creation and to
How Goa ViVine providence, that they had no rejoinder
Sabtatian, «to make. God occupies His Sabbatism, lost
jesus” to man by the fall, in that work of redemption
His. by which it is to be finally restored. The rest

' Sunday, by Plumptre, 1866,

The Day of Rest.

into which Jesus entered is occupied in preparing
a place for us, and in acting as our great High-
Priest in the most holy place on high. In hke
manner our Sabbath should bea time of communion
with God, and a time for acts of love and mercy
to our fellow-men. There is a Divine activity
which is not incompatible with, but a fulfilment of
the Sabbath law, and the examples given by Christ,
as that of the ox fallen into a pit, the healing of
diseases, end the Temple service, all pomt with
perfect consistency to the ultimate and higher
benefit of man.

This was the ground of the often-recurring con-
flict between the Christ,who knew what the Sabbath
really means, and the Pharisees, whose tradition
had turned it into a day of mere austerity and
unmeaning ritualism. Surely if this was true of
the Jewish Sabbath, itis true of the Lord’s Day.
It is to be observed in this connection that when
Christ claims the Lordship of the Sabbath, He
does this in the capacity of the Son of Man, “the
Son of Man is Lord also of the Sabbath,” for it
is essentially as Redeemer that He is the Fulfiller
of the Sabbath law, and so its Lord. May we not
also see in this a prescience on the part of Christ
of that change in the day which would be a neces-
sary consequence of His resurrection on the first
day of the week, and which would mark the com-
mencement of the new dispensation by a day com-

Our
Sabbath
should be
a time for
communion
with God,
and for
acts of
love and
mercy to
man.

The ground
of conflict
between
Christ and
the
Pharisees
as to the
Sabbath.

Christ as
Son of Man
claims the
Lordship

of the
Sabbath.

The
connection
between the
Old

Testament

Sabbath

and the

Lord’s Day
f

o
Christians,

How the
Lord’s Day
comes to
occupy

the place
formerly
occupied by
the Jewish
Sabbath.

What it
links
together,

The Day of Rest.

memorative of this rather than of the work of
creation.

The right understanding of the Old Testament
Sabbath aids us in comprehending the con-
nection of the Lord’s Day of Christians with the
Jewish Sabbath. If the latter had a reference to
a Sabbatism lost by the fall and restored by the
Redeemer, the Son of Man must be “Lord of the
Sabbath,” in the sense of fulfilling and realizing its
prophetic import. Therefore, the day on which
He finished His work and entered into His rest
must of necessity be that to be commemorated by
Christians, until the time when the return of Christ
shall inaugurate that final and eternal Sabbatism
which remains to His people. Thus the Lord’s
Day comes to occupy the same important place
formerly occupied by the Jewish Sabbath. In this
as in other things, the Old Testament saints with-
out us are not complete, for our Lord’s Day is the
completion of their Sabbath. It links together
God's creative work and Christ’s work of redemp-
tion; the Sabbatism lost in the fall and restored
in the Saviour; the imperfect state of the militant
Church, still having only a pledge of a rest to
come, and the Church triumphant, which will enjoy
this rest for ever. If the Sabbath that carried with
it the mournful memory of the first sin was holy,
much more that which points forward, through
Christ’s finished work and present rest, to a

The Day of Rest.

heavenly paradise. If the obligation to remember
it was to the Hebrew equal to that of the most
binding moral duties, still more must the Lord’s
Day be a day to be remembered by the Christian,
as the memorial of Christ’s finished work, and of
our heirship of all the divine ages, past, present,
and to come. Thus we see that the moral and
spiritual dignity and obligation of the Lord’s Day
rise far above those of the Jewish Sabbath, and
we can understand how naturally the apostles and
primitive Christians, almost without note of the
change, and without requiring any positive enact-
ment, transferred their allegiance from the seventh
to the first day of the week.

It may be useful to mention in this connection
the strong statement in relation to the Jewish
Sabbath contained in the Epistle to the Colossians
(i. 16).
rently been urged by some of their teachers to
keep the Jewish Sabbath as a matter of legal

The Christians of Colossee had appa-

obligation, either along with or instead of the
Lord’s Day. Paul repudiates this in the words,

‘Let no man therefore judge you in meat or in drink, or in
respect of a feast day, or a new moon, or a Sabbath day ;”

adding as a reason,

‘‘which are a shadow of the things to come, but the body (or
Substance) is Christ’s.”

There can scarcely be a question that the Old
Testament Sabbath is intended here, and the as-

The
enhanced
obligation
of the
Lord’s Day.

The
statement
in the
Epistle

to the
Colossians

The Old
Testament
Sabbath
intended,

The
assertion

in harmony
with other
parts of
Scripture.

The
description
of the day
as observed
b

eee
Christians.

The
meaning
of Christ’s
saying
that ‘the
Sabbath
was made
for man,’’

The
Sabbath a
spiritual
privilege to
fallen man,

The Day of Rest.

sertion that it was a “shadow” of the future
coming of Christ is in perfect harmony with the
testimony of other parts of Scripture, and with
the idea that when Christ, who is the Substance,
had come, the old Sabbath, as the anticipatory
shadow, must pass away. It is to be noticed, in
accordance with this, that where the day observed
by Christians is mentioned in the New Testament
it is called simply “the first day of the week,”
except in that passage of the Apocalypse where
for the first time we find the term, afterwards
general, “the Lord’s Day.”

We learn also from this view of the day of rest
the full meaning of that weighty saying of Jesus:
“The Sabbath was made for man, and not man
for the Sabbath.” Man, as originally created,
needed no Sabbath law, for he had entered into
the perpetual rest of the Sabbatism of his Creator,
But when he fell from this high estate the Sabbath
was made for him, not as a mere legal obligation,
but as a great spiritual privilege. For this reason
faithful men and women in Israel of old clung to
it as the earnest of the great salvation which
was to restore the lost paradise for which their
hearts yearned, and with reference to which their
ery was, ‘‘O that I had wings like a dove, then
10. In the Peschito

version the expression “ Lord’s Day” occurs in 1 Cor. xi.
I

PMA cla xx. fs 0) (Cor: xvis 2. Rer oa

20. (Etheridge’s Translation, p. 272.)

The Day of Rest.

would I fly away and be at rest.”+ So it 1s in
regard to the Lord’s Day. Just as we honour and
trust in the Saviour, so shall we regard the day
which commemorates His entering into His rest.
Just as we appreciate that rest which He gives us
in part here, and as our hearts long for that rest
which remains in the Father’s house, so shall we
hold in loving remembrance the day which points
to it, and which enables us to have some faint
realization of it in the midst of sorrow and trouble.
In alower sense the Sabbath was made for man
as a relief from the heavy curse of unremitting
labour, and though the world will never gain much
spiritually by a merely legal observance of the
Sabbath, even this is of priceless value to the
working man in a moral, social, and physical point
of view. It is thus not merely an arbitrary en-
actment, but a statement of an effect depending on
an adequate cause, that the man or the nation
honouring God’s day of rest will itself be honoured
and prospered.

The primitive Sabbath of Genesis and of the
Moral Law has thus a definite connection with
human labour and with the physical well-being of
man. “In the sweat of thy face shalt thou eat bread,”
is the doom of fallen humanity—a doom too fear-
fully felt in the whole history of the world, and
strange to say, apparently not less so in our times

Psalm, lv,> 6, RV.

AS we
honour the
Saviour
we shall
regard His
day.

The
Sabbath a
relief from
unremitting
labour,

The
connection
of the
primitive
Sabbath
with labour

The
Sabbath
the only
means of
alleviating
the life of
labour,

The law
extended
even to
domestic
animals,

The phy-
slological
necessity
for a
periodical
t .
Interruption
of toil
for man
or beast
affirmed,

A nation
without a
Sabbath
must pre-
maturely
decay.

The Day of Rest.

of mechanical invention and mastery over nature,
How terribly would this
doom have been aggravated had man been expelled
from Eden to a life of unremitting toil. But the
Sabbath stood between him and this fate, and so
far as human experience has shown, was the only
possible means of alleviating his life of labour.
Hence Moses impresses on his nation of emancipated
slaves the constant remembrance of this day, and
enjoins on them the extension of its benefits to
their own slaves and to strangers within their
gates, even though not believers in Jehovah.
Hence also the provisions of the law are extended
even to domestic animals, which, though destitute
of spiritual natures, have bodily organisms, which
under ceaseless labour will be worn out prematurely
and subjected to a living death while they survive.
These lower animals have no share in the moral
law directly, but it is immoral to deprive them of
the little happiness of which they are capable, and
to subject them to conditions inconsistent with
their physical well - being.

than in ruder ages.

The physiological
necessity for a periodical interruption of toil,
whether for man or beast, is thus affirmed in the
law, and it is verified by all that we have learned
of the constitution of living things. It is con-
firmed by the experience of all thoughtful men
A nation without a Sabbath
must fall to a low ebb of civilisation and efficiency,

and of all nations.

The Day of Rest.

or its people must become prematurely old and
worn out. It scarcely needs any special interven-
tion of Divine justice to inflict on those who
disregard the Sabbath the penalties denounced by
the Hebrew prophets.

away the day of rest from the working man on

Those who would take

any pretext, are not his true friends; and it is one
of the hopeful signs of the times, that in recent
discussions of this question the working men and
those who might most truly be considered their
representatives have shown themselves opposed to
innovations, which however plausible and harm-
less in appearance, might be the thin edge of the
wedge which would break down this great privi-
lege. It seems to be a result of physiological and
social laws, as well as of moral laws, that the
man who works six days and rests on the seventh,
will do more and better work than the man who
works without interruption, because the Sabbath is
a mental and physical restorative to wearied nature.
Thus nations which are so unwise as to sacrifice
the day of rest find that instead of promoting their
wealth and happiness they have involved them-
selves in hopeless slavery.

The right understanding of the Sabbath also
throws light on the true relation of the moral law
to the Christian system. That specially Jewish
law which related to the Temple service and the
Aaronic priesthood, was, we are informed in the

The inter-
vention of
Divine
justice
hardly
needed to
inflict the
penalty for
disregard of
the Sabbath,

The man
who works
six days
and rests
on the
seventh
will do
more and
better work
than the
man who
works un-
ceasingly.

The
relation of
the moral
law to the
Christian
system.

30)

The
Decalogue
the rule of
life.

The
Decalogue
does not
pass away
till men
will have
entered
into an
eternal
Sabbatism.

The Lord’s
Day points
forward to
the second
coming of
Christ,

The Day of Rest.

New Testament, of temporary obligation only, and
was annulled in Christ. But the Decalogue still
remains as the rule of life. It is, however, exalted
in the teaching of Christ by His directing special
attention to the summing up of the whole in the
two great commandments, and also by His adding
to the second that new sanction, which He calls a
new commandment, “ Love one another, as I have
So in like manner the old Sabbath
becomes the Lord’s Day, with the higher sanction
of being the memorial of the finished work of re-
demption, as well as of creation. So spiritualized by
the teaching of Christ, and the example of the
primitive Church, the Decalogue does not pass
away until the time shall come when it will be no
more needed, because men shall themselves be like
the Lord, when they shall see Him as He is, and
because they too, like Him, will have entered into
an eternal Sabbatism.

Thus the Lord’s Day also in its true significance
points forward to the second coming of Christ, and
to the New Jerusalem. Christ our Forerunner
has entered into His Sabbatism, and that rest
remains for us—to be fully enjoyed in that blessed
time of the restitution of all things which He is to
inaugurate, and when Eden will bloom again, or
rather will be replaced by the city of God, which
comes down from heaven. Then God’s Sabbatism
will be fully restored to man never again to be

loved you.”

The Day of Rest.

broken, and the weekly day of rest will be swal-
lowed up in that eternal Sabbatism, of which it
is but a feeble and transitory type. Then the day
of the Lord will be revealed in its full force and
meaning.

After what has been said above, it 1s scarcely
necessary to ask the question, What is the rela-
tive religious sacredness or obligation of the Lord’s
Day and the ancient Sabbath? We should, how-
ever, regard the former in the full ight of the new
dispensation. In this, love to God as the reconciled
Father in Jesus Christ, takes the place of legal
obligation, and the love of our brother is raised to
a higher plane by the new commandment of Christ
—‘“Tove one another, as I have loved you.” We
are therefore not surprised to find that in the New
Testament the Lord’s Day does not appear as a
stringent law to be enforced by pains and penalties,
but as a loving tribute to our best friend, as a com-
memoration of the completion of that work of self-
sacrifice which has secured for us the highest bless-
ings in this world and that which is to come, as a
means of attaining even here to that blessed rest
which He has prepared for us, and as a presage of
a still happier rest in the future. Such a day can-
not be enforced on the unwilling or inappreciative.
God may invite them to His feast; but they will
make excuse, and man cannot force them to partake

of it. But is it on this account less sacred than the

The day of
rest will
then be
swallowed
up in the
eternal
Sabbatism.

The relative
obligation
of the
Lord’s Day
and the
ancient
Sabbath.

Why the
New Testa-
ment does
not enforce
the Lord’s
Day by
pains and
penalties.

The Lord’s
Day not less
sacred than
the old
Sabbath.

What
Christians
should aim
at.

We are
called to
enter into
rest.

The Day of Rest.

old Sabbath ? Is it not rather incomparably more
holy? And should it not be one of the highest
aims of Christians to guard it for its highest uses,
and, while entering themselves into that happy
Sabbatism of which it is the emblem, to induce all
others to accept Christ’s gracious invitation to enter
into this rest, and to respect the day which is at
once its sign and its means of attainment. It is
to be feared that inattention to the sacredness of
the Lord’s Day, and inability to enter into the in-
ward peace and rest which it represents, are beset-
ting evils of our time, and hindrances to our attain-
ing to the highest type of Christianity. We are
called on by our Redeemer to enter into rest; but
like Israel of old we may fall short of it, and be
doomed, because of want of faith, to wander long
in the desert of disappointed hopes.

“Tet us therefore give diligence to enter into
that rest, that no man fall after the same example
of unbelief.” |

Jip ed iraT
+4 PRESENT DAy TRACTS, No, 50. je

Notr.—The writer had not observed, till the foregoing pages
were in type, the recent controversy as to the origin of the
week, arising from an article by the Bishop of Carlisle in the
Contemporary Review. No scientific importance can be attached
to the hypothesis that the week has a merely astronomical origin,
The naming of the days after planets or planetary gods was
probably an afterthought, not likely to have suggested itself to
primitive man, especially as some of the planets are too in-
conspicuous to have early attracted attention. The week does
not actually correspond with quarters of a lunation; and these
are not definite marks of time, like complete revolutions. The
week must thus depend, as stated in Genesis, on some different
basis from the other divisions of time. These, in so far as days,
months, and years are concerned, arise from definite astro-
nomical revolutions, and are, no doubt, of priceless value to
man, as the basis of ‘‘times and seasons,” without which
civilisation would have been impossible. But the week and the
Sabbath rest on the revealed stages of the creative work, and
hence occupy a special place in relation to God’s providential
procedure, and mark a different connection between man and
his Creator from that indicated by the suitableness of merely
astronomical arrangement. For this reason the week becomes
the basis of other sevenfold divisions of time having a religious
significance, as, for example, the Sabbatical year. In the words
of Mr. H. Grattan Guinness, ‘‘ the entire meaning of the
Sabbath depends on its connection with the rest of the Creator
in a perfected creation, before the entrance of moral evil.

eRe Sele leAeN: tT Y

AND

ANCIENT PAGANISM.

/ BY
VA
J. MURRAY MITCHELL, M.A., LL.D.,

AUTHOR OF

“Tie ZEND-AVESTA, AND THE RELIGION OF THE Parsis;” * Hinpuism: PAST AND
Present ;” “Tur Hinpu Reticion: A SKETCH AND A CONTRAST,” ETC.

THE RELIGIOUS TRACT SOCIETY:
56, PATERNOSTER Row; 65, St. Paut’s CHURCHYARD}
AND 164, PICCADILLY.

Argument of the Tract,

ee ee

THE comparative study of religions has, in our day, become
exceedingly popular; but erroneous ideas are often ex-
pressed as to the position which Christianity holds among
the various systems of belief.

The subject is of very wide extent. The first thing
necessary for its proper discussion is a large induction of
fully ascertained facts.

Happily, great progress has recently been made in the
investigation of various ancient religions.

The Tract deals with ancient religions that were once
widely influential, du? are now extinct. In the body of the
Tract the systems that prevailed among civilized nations
are discussed ; and, in the note at the end, a brief state-
ment is given of the beliefs and rites of the chief uncivi-
lized races of ancient Europe.

The unique position held among ancient forms of belief
by the Jewish religion is pointed out; as well as the re-
lation of that faith to Christianity.

It is shown that the latter came in “the fulness of the
time.”

Reference is also made to the connection between true
religion and civilization.

Ci RS tT bAN IY

AND

ANCIENT PAGANISM.

—Y2ne gets

fi ce acucn attention is paid in our days to the
| But
de: \ although now prosecuted with greater
~~ geal than heretofore, it is by no means

UN Gs M comparative study of Religions.

a new subject of inquiry.

The Hebrew prophets frequently drew a con-
trast between the God of Israel and the idols of
the nations; and their cry of exultation was,
“Their rock is not as our rock; even our enemies
themselves being judges.”

In like manner the apologists of the early
Christian centuries made comparisons between the
teaching of Christ and that of Greek and Roman
books; and they elaborately placed the pure rites
enjoined by the Gospel side by side with the
polluted observances of Heathenism.

Eyen so, soon after Mohammadanism arcse, the

The com-
parative
study of
religions
not a new
one,

The
Hebrew
prophets
contrasted
the God

of Israel
and the
idols of the
nations,

The early
Christian
apologists
contrasted
the teaching
and rites
of the
Gospel
and of
Heathen-
ism.

The Koran
examined
and refuted
by Asiatic
Christians.

The desire
of the
opponents of
Christianity
to become
acquainted
with the
sacred books
of the East.

The hope
cherished
that they
would
equal, if
not surpass,
the Jewish
and
Christian
Scriptures.

Christianity and Ancient Paganism.

Koran was examined and refuted by Christians
living in Asia.t Nor was Europe content to com-
bat Islam only with the sword; the book that
professed to be a new revelation from heaven was
by-and-by translated imto Latin and carefully
criticized.

In like manner, when Europe became aware of
the existence of writings which were regarded as
sacred by the nations of the farther East, an
earnest desire was felt to become acquainted with
their contents. ‘The feeling appears to have been
strongest on the part of the opponents of Chris-
tianity ; and the reason of this is not far to seek.
Unbelievers expected that the books of the Oriental
nations would prove great repositories of wisdom ;
for it was a tradition that the philosophers of
Greece had drawn much from Eastern sources.
It was the hope of Voltaire and the French
Encyclopedists that the sacred books of Persia,
India, and China, would be found equal, if not
superior, in religious teaching, to the Jewish and
Christian Scriptures. Hence, when Roberto de’
Nobili, the nephew of Cardinal Bellarmine, pro-
duced the work which he sought to palm off on
the Brahmans of Madura as a genuine Veda
that had been overlooked, Voltaire was com-
pletely taken in, and caused the wonderful book
to be twice republished in Europe.2 Here is an

1 By Al Kindi and others, 2 At Yverdun and Paris.

Christianity and Ancient Paganism.

Oriental work, said the sage of Ferney, very like
the Bible, and at least as good. It is a singular
story, though seldom remembered now.

But ere long a genuine Oriental work was con-
veyed to Europe. Anquetil du Perron returned
from his travels in India, bearing as spolia opima
the writings usually ascribed to the famous Zoro-
aster. All learned Europe waited in mute ex-
pectation for the translation which he at once set
about preparing. When, in 1771, the oracle, which
had been silent for ages, at length became vocal,
the disappointment was infinite; and the general
sentiment found expression in the sarcasm of
Jones—afterwards the learned Sir Wilham-—
“Hither Zoroaster never wrote these books, or he
The cen-
sure was far too sweeping; but, no doubt, the
Zoroastrian books were amazingly different from
what either Christians or unbelievers had expected

was not possessed of common sense.”’

they would prove to be.

In recent years, various causes have combined
to further the comparative study of Religions.
For more than forty years, in fact, ever since
Grotefend grappled with the cuneiform, and
Champollion with the hieroglyphic, inscriptions,
steady progress has been made in their interpret-
ation; and a flood of light has been poured on
the history of at least seven ancient nations.
Oriental scholars have, in the meantime, been

The
writings
ascribed to
Zoroaster
translated.

The dis-

‘appointment

felt with
them.

The recent
furtherance
of the com-
parative
study of
religions.

Christianity and Ancient Paganism.

—— eee

The
subject
becoming
popular,

The
Christian
need not
take alarm.

Too hasty

gencraliza-
tion a fault
of the age.

The im-
portance of
religion,

laboriously investigating the sacred writings of
China, India, and Persia; and the results of their
inquiries have been largely communicated to
the public in translations.1 The subject may be
said to be becoming popular; for it is presented
in every kind of publication, from the stately
review down to the halfpenny newspaper. All
this is well, when the study of comparative
theology is presented in a truth-loving and candid
spirit. The intelligent Christian will by no means
take alarm at the result of discovery in this field
of investigation, any more than in the field of
science. Every new fact he will heartily welcome,
though it behoves him—as it behoves all—to seru-
tinize well the conclusions which may be drawn
from facts, whether real or imaginary. One great
fault of the age is rash deduction, too hasty
generalization. Lord Eldon’s favourite maxim
would stand us in good stead in cther provinces
as well as that of Law—~Sat cito si sat bene.

But we must not forget to say that the study of
Religions is deeply interesting for another reason.
“A man’s religion,” said Thomas Carlyle, “is the
most important thing about him.” §o0 we may
also say of a community. Therefore, every lover
of his kind must watch the movements of the

1 In the Sacred Books of the East, Tritbner’s Oriental Series,
and many separate publications,

2 “Soon enough, if well enough.”

Christianity and Ancient Paganism.

religious principle in man with keen interest and

profound sympathy. How have our brethren in
various lands and ages dealt with the duties of life,
the trials of life, the perplexing problems of life?
What have been their thoughts of God, and of sin,
of a world to come? Questions like these are of
engrossing interest to every philanthropist. Nor
will he be repelled from the inquiry if he find that
it 1s In connexion with religion more than any
other subject that we have to deal with the
morbid anatomy of human nature, and that the
saddest aberrations of the mind have been when
engaged in the prosecution of the highest of all
questions. |

It is only fair that we should mention at the
outset what is the pomt of view from which we
examine the field of inquiry. We believe the
Christian Revelation to be unique; cui nihil viget
simile aut secundum.1 But that belief by no means
involves the consequence that the holder of it
should be unfair to other systems of religion.
Nay, the very strength of his conviction cf the
supreme glory of the Gospel, and the assurance
that all competition between it and other systems
is out of the question, ought to contribute to calm-
ness and impartiality in his judgment of other
ereeds. In truth, he must be a very narrow-

1 «To whom there exists nothing similar or second.” So
Horace, speaking of Jupiter as supreme,

Moral and
religious
problems
all
engrossing
to the
philanthro-
pist.

The
Christian
revelation
unique.

The
Christian
can be
calm and
impartial
in his
judgment
of other
creeds,

Christianity and Ancient Puganism.

Fragments
of primeval
revelation
may have
been borne
down the
stream of
time.

Reason and
conscience
gifts of
heaven.

The
relation of
the Hebrew
prophets

to the
idolatries
around
them.

minded Christian who looks on Pagan systems as
merely masses of unrelieved falsehood. Why
should they be so? The Christian believes, and
many who do not call themselves Christians believe
with him, that there was given to man a primeval
Revelation ; is it probable that no fragments of it
have been borne down the stream of tine? Again,
there is such a thing as the light of nature.
Reason and conscience are in man—most precious
gifts of heaven. They often speak, alas! only in
whispers; but to the listening ear those whispers
are audible. The Christian then should expect to
find, and he should rejoice to find, that heathen
systems are not, of necessity, all “dark as Erebus.”

It is structive to note how differently, at dif-
ferent times, the point now before us has been
regarded. We could not expect that the Hebrew
prophets, in vindicating the claims of Jehovah
against Baal or Chemosh, would carefully search
for redeeming points in the idolatries around them ;
fidelity to God and humankind demanded that they
should dwell on their baseness and corruption, and
denounce them with righteous, vehement indig-
nation. Parleying —temporizing—philosophizing
would have been as ridiculous as ruinous. Your
man of science can prove that there is heat in ice :
but we do not, on that account, enter an ice-house
to warm ourselves.

But it is remarkable how soon a calm and philo-

Christianity and Ancient Paganisin.

cate pp ee a a a a ee
sophic estimate of Heathenism was actually formed.

The statements on this subject by the first and
greatest of all missionaries to the heathen are

broad, wise, and comprehensive. Even those who

question the inspiration of St. Paul must admire

his calmness and impartiality in dealing with a

subject on which surely, if on any, his feelings
might have been expected to carry him away. The
teaching of the Apostle as to Heathenism may be

summed up under five heads.

He declares that

Ist. The invisible things of God, even His eternal

power and Godhead, are clearly seen, being
understood from the things that are made.

2nd. The Gentiles, when they knew God, glori-

3rd

4th.

fied Him not as God, either were thankful.
They did not like to retain God in their
knowledge.

They therefore became vain in their ima-
ginations (reasonings), and their foolish
heart (i.e. understanding) was darkened.
Professing themselves to be wise they be-
came fools,

They then changed the glory of the incor-
ruptible God into an image made like to
corruptible man, and to birds, and quadru-
peds, and reptiles,—worshipping and serving
the creature rather than the Creator.

The
formation
of a calm
and philo-
sophic
estimate of
Heathenism.

The teach-
ing of the
Apostle
Paul about
Heathenism.

The
Apostle’s
statement
a just
historical
account,

Exceptional
cases
recognised
by him.

St. Paul’s
spirit shared
by many
Christian
writers.

Christianity and Ancient Paganism.

5th. All moral corruption followed. They were
given over to a reprobate mind, to do those
things that are not fitting.’

We believe the Apostle’s statement to be a just
historical account of the origin and progress of
Pagan idolatry—a key which, better than any
other we know, unlocks the secret of Heathenism,
and best explains its strange and manifold contra-
dictions. At the same time, while true as a whole,
true of the mass, we do not suppose that St. Paul
intended it to apply to every individual Pagan.
He asserts, indeed, that there are ‘‘ Gentiles who
have no [written] law, but show the work of the
law written on their hearts.” Let us hope that
those who “seek after God, uf haply they might
feel after Him and find Him,” have throughout
the ages been no inconsiderable number. And let
us rest assured that the eye of the all-compassionate
God rested graciously on all such. Only let us
remember that these exceptional men, if they found
God, did so, not because of their sad environment,
but in spite of it.

When we come later down we find not a few
Christian writers dealing with Paganism in the
spirit of St. Paul. The earlier Fathers acknow-

1 Compare the striking language of Cicero with that of the
Apostle. Multi de diis prava sentiunt ; id enim vitioso more

efict sslet—Tusc. i. 13. (Many have wrong notions of the
gods; for that usually springs from vicious morals. )

Christianity and Ancient Paganism.

ledged that there were pure elements in Heathenism ;
and these they attributed to the truth diffused
among men by Christ, the Word. It was, how-
ever, the philosophy rather than the religion of
Greece in which the fathers found “a trace of
wisdom and an impulse from God.” ? Yet certain
of the Fathers, especially the vehement Tertullian,
gave no quarter, either to the one or the other.

In modern days, there long existed a disposition
to paint non-Christian systems in the darkest
colours. Thus, Mohammad was regarded as having
been, from the outset, a deep designing impostor,
animated by mere selfishness and ambition, and
dextereusly trimming his sails as the wind chanced
to blow from a Pagan, a Jewish, or a Christian
quarter. We have since learned that the problem
of his mixed character and lamentable fall 1s not
to be solved so easily.

This mode of dealing with Gentile religions
continued at least as far down as the days of
Milton. When we remember the lavish use which
the great poet makes of Greek and Roman mytho-
logy, we are hardly prepared for the summary con-
demnation of Pagan faith which he pronounces both
in his earlier and later writings. Thus, speaking
of the god Osiris as terrified at the birth of Christ,
he summarily dismisses him to his proper place:

1 The Adyos omepparixds,
2 So Clement of Alexandria (Clark’s Edition), vol. 1 p. 49.

The pure
elements in
Heathenism
attributed
to the
truth
diffused by
Christ—
the Word.

The modern
disposition
to paint
non-Chris-
tian systems
in the
darkest
colours.

This lasted
till Milton’s
days.

Pagan
systems
traced by
Milton

to the
influence of
fallen
angels,

A great
reaction has
taken place
of late years
to an
opposite
extreme,

Evil is
not good
in the
making.

Christianity and Ancient Paganism.

Nor is Osiris seen
In Memphian grove or green,
Trampling the unshowered grass with lowings loud ;
Nor can he be at rest
Within bis sacred chest,—
Nought but profoundest hell can be his shroud.
Even so, he traces the origin of Pagan systems
to the influence of the fallen angels, and briefly

stigmatizes them all as

Gay religions full of pomp and gold,
And devils to adore for deities.

Gradually, however, and especially of late years,
a great reaction has taken place. The pendulum,
which swung too far in one direction, now threatens
to reach the opposite extreme. It is high time to
call for a reaction from the reaction.

The principle that “there is some soul of good-
ness in things evil,” is applied to cases which
assuredly were not in Shakespeare’s eye when he
put the words into the mouth of King Henry.

We are now told that evil is “good in the
making.’ vil, indeed, is often compelled, in the
overruling providence of God, to bring about results
very different from what the evil-doer sought to
reach; but surely evil is, in itself, intrinsically, eter-
nally hateful. Now, this tendency to find some good
w all things leads many far astray in the study of
Heathen systems. What is black as midnight is ©
often declared to be only a somewhat deeper shade
of grey.

Christianity and Ancient Paganism.

We frequently hear of a gradual development of
spiritual truth parallel to the progress of civilization.
All, or at least most, of the great Religions of the
world are held to have contributed their share to
the advancement of true religion. Thus, Christ-
ianity is only the last in the series—the last as yet,
though possibly destined to give place, ere long, to a
system still more exalted and refined.

The hypothesis of Evolution has taken such
possession of the mind of multitudes, that they
push it—as if it were an established truth—into
regions in which the principle, whether true or false,
can bear no legitimate sway. It is frequently
maintained that all human things advance by calm,
orderly steps, with slight, if any, evidence of a pause,
none of retrogression. But history denies this. It
is of course true that, taken in its wide extent,
humanity moves on, as Wordsworth says,

With an ascent and progress in the main.

But if many races have risen, some have remained
stationary, and others have sunk. True, in art
and science there has been a great advance on the
whole. But we must not forget that many of the
highest attainments of the human mind were made
long ages ago. Thus Egypt and the East! handed
over their sculpture, architecture, and other arts to
Greece; and there they rapidly attained an ex-

1 Egypt, Phoenicia, Lydia, Assyria.

Christianity
is regarded
as a
product of a
gradual
develop-
ment.

History
denies that
all human
things
advance by
calm and
orderly steps
without
pause,

Humanity
advances in
the main.

Many of
the highest
attainments
made ages
ago.

The
intellect,
imagination,
and taste of
the Greeks.

The
continuous
progress of
art and
science
purely
imaginary.

The Greeks
not likely

higher
intellectual
endow-
ments.

Christianity and Ancient Paganism.

cellence which has not been equalled in the lapse
of two thousand years. Again, the poetry of
Homer, the oratory of Demosthenes, the specu-
lative power of Aristotle and Plato; are not these
still unequalled, or at all events unsurpassed? In
intellect, imagination, taste, the Greeks, we venture
to say, have excelled all other races. They were in-
ventive too; but their originality was controlled
by an exquisite sense of fitness, proportion, har-
mony.

The continuous progress of art and science, then,
is purely imaginary. Knowledge has increased;
intellect has not. It was of yore that genius plumed
her pinions for her highest flight ; and succeeding
generations have gazed enviously upward, as they
have seen her

Sailing with supreme dominion,
Through the azure deep of air.

In other words, Almighty God was pleased to im-
part to the ancient Greeks more of inventive and
reasoning power, and a more acute perception
of the beautiful, than to any other race. Nor does
it appear probable that any future generation will
surpass, or even equal them in the higher intel-
lectual endowments.

These considerations certainly do not predispose
us to expect that we shall ever be able to trace a
regular, continuous development of religion among
the nations. We need not be surprised if we find,

Christianity and Ancient Paganism.

in many cases, not improvement, but deterioration.
And there is not the slightest ground for the as-
sertion that Christianity is only the latest addition
to an edifice that has been slowly rising throughout
the ages, and to which most, or at least many,
nations have contributed. On the contrary, it can
be demonstrated that, when we distinguish between
religion and mere intellectual culture,!

Ist. There is no truth in any other religion which
does not shine forth with brighter ight in
Christianity ;

2nd. Christianity has borrowed no truth from
any Pagan creed; and

3rd. Every system except Christianity mingles
much error along with the truth that it
maintains.?

We ought, perhaps, to state here that we regard

* Ib will be seen as we proceed that we do not overlook the
importance, or question the value, of intellectual culture, T+
is an essential element in modern civilization.

Nor let it be forgotten that the Socratic ethics—especially as
elaborated in the later Stoic schools—powerfully affected the
Roman jurists, and through them the legislation of modern
Europe,

* Whether any portion of the Jewish ritual was drawn from
Kgypt is a different question, The symbolism that is seen in
the cherub has parallels among various nations—Egyptians,
Babylonians, Assyrians, Persians, etc. That it was borrowed is
not proved. The so-called Egyptian ark, which was a boat, had
a very different use from the Jewish ark.

Things de-
monstrably
true of
Christianity,

Intellectual
culture an
essential
element of
modern
civilization.
Socratic
Ethics,

Derivation
of Jewish
ritual.

Judaism

and Chris-

tianity
regarded
as one
religion.

The Tract
deals with
extinct
forms of
Ancient
Paganism.

Extinct
Pagan
religions,

Christianity and Ancient Paganism.

Judaism and Christianity—the former as contained
in the Old Testament, the latter in the New—as
one religion,—one in the sense in which the rosebud
and the expanded rose, the “bright consummate
flower,’ are only one. Or we may say, they are
related to each other, as dawn is to sunrise.

Our Tract deals with ‘Christianity and Ancient
Paganism.” By Ancient Paganism we here mean
those forms of Paganism which existed in ancient
days, but are now extinct. There are other systems
which existed in antiquity and have survived to
the present time. The most noted of these are
Zoroastrianism, Hinduism, Buddhism, and Con-
fucianism. We do not treat of these.’

It were well, if it were only possible, to discuss
the ancient religions in a strictly chronological
order. We could then better ascertain how much
or how little the later systems had been indebted
to the earlier. We shall keep this in mind; but it
is difficult, in some cases, to state the historic
sequence.

II.

Tur great religions of Pagan antiquity that are
now extinct were the following: the Egyptian; the
Babylonian and Assyrian; the Phcenician; the
Lydian and Phrygian ; the Hittite ; the Greek, and

1Hach of these systems forms the subject of a separate
Tract in the Present Day Series (Nos. 25, 33, 46, 18)

Christianity and Ancient Paganism.

the Roman. The religions of the Syrians, Moabites,
and other races in and around Palestine may be
considered along with that of the Phcenicians.
Those of the chief uncivilized races of ancient
Hurope—Celtic, Teutonic, and Sclavonian—must
be treated, if at all, very briefly, seeing that our
knowledge of them is still very scanty.

1. Tue Ecyrrran System.

We begin with the Egyptian system. Civilization
seems to have commenced in the region of Mesgo-
potamia; but the earliest monuments of it that
have come down to us are connected with the valley
of the Nile.

The religion of Egypt presents very perplexing
problems. One of these is its extraordinary incon-
sistency. In some writings we meet with ideas of
deity which are excessively refined—refined till
they have become impalpable and colourless; in
others, we find polytheism in as debased a form as
that in which it appears among the lowest savages.
More remarkable still, we find these two things not
only existing at the same time, but expressed in
the same writings. Hence, vehement debate among
Egyptologists. Most of them hold that the refined
conceptions came first, and that the latter form was
a corruption gradually introduced. It is at least
certain, as one of the strongest supporters! of the

1M. Maspero.
C

The
religion

of uncivil-
ized races.

The earliest
monuments
of
civilization
connected
with the
valley of
the Nile,

Inconsis-
tency of
the religion
of Egypt.

Vehement
debate
among
Egyptolo-
gists.

Monothe-
istic ideas
probably
the first in
Egypt.

Two
distinct
races “
probably
originally
inhabited
Egypt.

The
conceptions
in Egyptian
monuments
vague,
confused,
conflicting.

Early
appearance
of Sun-~
worship,

Abundance
of symbol-
ism,

A concealed
spiritual
system
ascribed to
the priests,

Christianity and Ancient Paganism.

opposite theory admits, that monotheistic ideas
made their way very early into Egypt. It appears |
to us that the balance of the evidence is in fayour
of their having been there first.

But it is not improbable that the population of
Egypt consisted of two races originally distinct,
one mentally lower, probably African, and another
much higher, probably Asiatic Shemites. In that
case the religion was composite and inconsistent
from the begmning.

The refined system has by most been called mono-
theism; by others, henotheism. Others still call
it pantheism. ‘The dispute need not surprise us ;
for the conceptions expressed in Egyptian monu-
ments are vague, confused, conflicting; nor does
it appear probable that any deeper study will ever
prove them to be mutually consistent.

Sun-worship unquestionably appears early. This,
and the reverence of metaphysical deities, are
mingled together even on the oldest monuments.

Above all systems that ever were, the Egyp-
tian abounded in symbolism. Every idea, every
shadow of an idea, had to be represented—made
visible. The faith had then to pay the penalty of
this mental weakness. The sign, ere long, concealed
the thing signified—it became its substitute.

Many writers contend that the higher classes— -
or at all events, the priests—were acquainted with
a truly spiritual system, which they carefully con-

Christianity and Ancient Paganésm.

cealed from the common people. This is possible.
Populus vult decipi et decipiatur is a hideous maxim
which, doubtless, has had sway in various lands.
But there is no evidence of the intentional conceal-
ment of higher truths on the part of the Egyptian
priests. It was no function of theirs to educate
the people ; and probably the masses could not rise
above the lowest form of brute-worship. Nor did
the priests and the higher classes themselves really
rise above it; they only succeeded, in a way difficult
for us to conceive, in mingling higher and lower
conceptions, and so identifying the divinity with
the brute.
than is at first apparent, for the Egyptians were very
conservative of ancient forms; but the degrading
brute-worship endured as long as any part of the
religion.
adored over the whole of the country ; some which

The religion changed ; it changed more

The same animals, however, were not

were worshipped at one place were pursued and
killed at another; and hence violent disputes often
ending in bloodshed. But we need not pursue the
subject farther. We merely add that even the
Greeks and the Romans were shocked by the
Egyptian worship. Plutarch gravely reprobates its
’ and the poet Juvenal levels
against it his sharpest shafts of ridicule.”

“degrading rites ;’

1 The people wish to be deceived, and let them be so,

2 Who has not heard, where Egypt’s realms are named,
What monster gods her frantic sons have framed ? ete.

Not the
function of
the
Egyptian
priests to
educate the
people.

The priests
mingled
higher and
lower
conceptions
and
identified
the divinity
with the
brute.

Greeks and
tomans
shocked by
Egyptian
worship.

The
Egyptian
religion
grew more
and more
mystical
and
magical

Good moral
precepts
here and
there in
books and
monuments.

The
morality
stationary
at the
elementary
stage, and
independent
of religion.

More use
of priestly
power.

Christianity and Ancient Paganism.

In the course of its long existence the religion
became more and more mystical, and more and
more magical. Thus, in the “ Book of the Dead,”
the most remarkable document which has come down
from the ancient days of Egypt, comparatively
little is said of duties, but much of spells and in-
cantations.

There are, no doubt, as was to be expected,
many good moral precepts scattered here and
there, in books and on monuments. But “the
morality remained stationary at the elementary
stage; and its moral maxims never rise to the
rank of principles.”! ‘The morality must have
been totally mdependent of the religion.”? No
divorce could have been more unhappy; and we
need not wonder that the naked ethical maxim
often remained impotent, while “a thousand
superstitions took the place of the attempt to lead
an honest life.” ?

The priests, i the original constitution of
Egypt, had comparatively little power. That
power, however, steadily increased, until every-
vulng In life was ruled by them. In Upper Egypt
they, by-and-by, usurped full regal authority ;
and they retained it long.

1 So Prof. Tiele.

2 Poole, in Encycl. Britan. The same writer says that we
have, in the ‘‘ Book of the Dead,” ‘‘a glimpse of truth seen
through thick mists peopled with phantoms of basest super-
stition.”

Ohristianity and Ancient Paganism.

Women in Egypt were allowed much liberty ;
but evidently it often ran into license. This was
especially the case during the pilgrimage to
Bubastis, which Herodotus tells us was by far the
most popular and magnificent of Egyptian festivals.
Evil ran riot during this great celebration.!. Truly,
religion and morality were separable and separate
Monogamy was the rule, but

Brother and_ sister

in ancient Egypt.
concubinage was frequent.
often intermarried.

And now, is there any element of truth which
Egypt contributed towards the establishment of
the final form of religion? We have seen that
this is frequently maintained ; but the belief seems
If, as Diodorus held, the
Greeks derived their religion from Egypt, they
entirely changed it; they humanized the gods,
instead of keeping them brutal. The idea that
Moses, who was skilled in all the wisdom of the
Egyptians, drew any of his lofty conceptions of

to have no foundation.

Jehovah from Egyptian sources, was often loudly
asserted in former days; butit seems now generally
abandoned even by critics of the negative school,
like Kuenen. Wellhausen, too, distinctly affirms
that “Moses gave no new idea of God to his
people. The question whence he derived it could
not possibly be worse answered than by a reference

1 Tiele, Egyptian Religion, p. 192,

Liberty of
women
often ran
into license,

Egypt
contributed
no element
of truth

to the es-
tablishment
of the final
form of
religion,

The idea
that Moses
drew any
of his lofty
conceptions
of Jehovah

~ from

Egyptian
sources
abandoned
even by
negative
critics.

Christianity and Ancient Paganism.

Wellhausen to his relations with the priestly caste and their

maintains
that

Jehovah has

nothing

in common
with the
deities of

Egypt.

The
worship of
Osiris and
Ra formed
the basis
of the
Egyptian
religion.

that
nothing in common with the deities of Egypt.

Jehovah has
Of
course, we do not forget that the multitude who
had long been familiar with the brute worship
around them, began to adore the golden calf; but
we know that the degrading rite was suppressed

wisdom.” He maintains

with a sternness of indignation which must have
profoundly impressed the whole of that generation
and many succeeding ones.

The religion, as has been said, sustained great
changes.! In the oldest monuments Osiris and Ra
are mentioned ; their worship formed the basis of
the religion. Each is a divine being revealing
himself in the sun.2 They are often confounded
with each other. Afterwards, eight deities were
classed in the first order; twelve in the second; and
four in the third. The highest of the first order
was Amn orAmun (usually said to mean concealed).
He has properly the form of man; he sits with
crown and sceptre on a throne, and holds in his

hand a kind of cross, which is the symbol of /ife.

1 De Rougé and not a few others trace the high spiritual
conceptions of God to primeval Revelation ; and they point to
evidences of a gradual corruption of these. Tiele admits that
the most ancient system was the simplest and purest. And yet
he calls the corruption of this ‘“‘a retrogression to the earlier
stand-point.” He thus holds that purity first grew out of
impurity, and then impurity out of purity. The explanation
is forced. De Rougé’s is far more simple and consistent.

2 Tiele, p. 44.

Christianity and Ancient Paganism.

He was often united with Ra, and became Amun-
Ra—the hidden one who is revealed in the sun.
Most of the deities had animals’ heads, which were
probably symbols of qualities.

By the time of Herodotus Osiris had become
the chief deity. Isis was his mother, sister, and
wife. Her worship steadily increased. The myth
of Osiris was the mother-myth in Egypt. He was
said to have been killed and buried, his body
having been cut in pieces, which were scattered.
He revived, and became the judge of the dead.
The future life greatly occupied the mind of the
As time went on, the myth of Osiris
became more terrible; and the views entertained

Egyptians.

of a future existence more and more gloomy. In
the “ Book of the Dead” the adventures of the
departed soul came to be described with appalling
minuteness of detail. It is important to note that
The

wicked soul was devoured by serpents, cast into

there was no idea of God as forgiving sin.

flames, or otherwise destroyed. The good man
himself had to encounter sore trials in the other
world. Snares lay in his path; monsters assailed
him. His safety lay in grasping the sacred spear,
and repeating magical words from the sacred
books. Thus, at last he reached the happy fields,
in which he could labour as on earth, but reap
harvests far more abundant than he had done
before.

Osiris the
chief deity
in the
time of
Herodotus.

The myth
of Osiris
the mother-
myth in
Egypt.

The future
life greatly
occupied
the
Egyptian
mind.

The
departed
soul in the
‘*Book of
the Dead.’’

24 Christianity and Ancient Paganism.

In estimating the character of the Egyptian

system, the doctrine of a future life must, by no

The ie means, be left out of account. The principle of
of moral moral retribution was accepted; and if Greece
ecepted. really borrowed it from Egypt, she did not re-
tain so firm a hold of it. But we would gladly

know how.the belief affected men during life,

and in the prospect of death. The Egyptian

deities were strictly, sternly just. What then, as

he faced the regions of Amenti—the other world

—were the thoughts of a man who had, on the

whole, sought to live virtuously, but who, like

all of us, had “bitter thoughts of conscience

born?”? We remember the triumphant language

of the prophet Micah—‘“‘ Who is a God like unto

Thee, that pardoneth iniquity ?”’ and even, in the

earliest days of Israel, the mercy of Jehovah was

No trace declared in equally emphatic terms with His

of merci-

fulness in yjehteousness.! Now, of mercifulness, in the
the sense 5

of forgiving
sin in the
Egy ptie ° : ” WW

conception in the Egyptian conception of the divine. Surely

of the

sense of forgiving sin, there is no trace whatever

Divine. a most marked deficiency.

The usual The strong impression which the future world
explanation ‘ ; :

ofthe made on the Egyptian mind is very noteworthy.
impression : i »
See Whence could it sprmg? The usual explanation
future ne

world on the ; 7 66 ; 7

Eeyptian 1S that it was “nothing but a mystic representa-

d. : oe é
bab tion, arising out of sun-worship.”2 The sun sank

1 See Exodus xxxiv. 6, 7.1 4 Tiele, peavie

Christianity and Ancient Paganism.

in the west and disappeared; he died. Yet he
was not destroyed; he moved across the dark
under-world, and soon, with undiminished bright-
ness, “flamed in the forehead of the morning
By a
death. Such is the explanation; but it seems to
halt.
succeeds day; and if the solar phenomenon had
been the foundation of the belief, we should have
expected a balanced dualism, victory and defeat

So every good man would triumph over

For though day succeeds night, night again

alternating in a perpetually renewed struggle be-
tween light and darkness, life and death, good and
evil. We believe that in Amun, the ‘hidden one,”’
we can still trace an early conception of the
brought, probably, by the
Shemites from the plains of Shinar.

supreme divinity,
The sun was
naturally turned to as a representative of Amun;
and they were often blended into one—Amun Ra,
the hidden and revealed in one. The other deities
seem to have been personified attributes. With
regard to belief in a future existence it seems
necessarily to accompany a belief in deity.

We cannot say that the character of the
Egyptians stood high, either intellectually or
morally. No writing of theirs survives which be-
They had

Art soon

tokens genius or even deep thought.
massive, not graceful, architecture.
became stationary. In later ages there was an

1 Milton, in Lycidas.

The
explanation
halting.

An early
conception
of the
Supreme
Divinity.
Amun—the
hidden one.

Belief in
a future
existence
seems
necessarily
to
accompany
a belief in
deity.

The
character
of the
Egyptians,

Elements in
Egyptian
character.

The
sovereign
and the
people.

The religion
of Babylon
and Assyria,

The
antiquity

of existing
monuments,

Christianity and Ancient Paganism.

————<s

incongruous blending of Egyptian and Grecian
architecture. Plodding, patient, industrious, they
doubtless were. But they were also tyrannical ;
given to wine; and careless in morals. Some
add, and not without reason, “lying, thieving,
treacherous, cringing, and intensely prejudiced
against strangers.’’}

In Egypt we may behold a despot ruling a
nation of slaves. The sovereign reigned as repre-
senting divinity. Limitation of his power was
simply inconceivable? In no nation, ancient or
modern—not in ancient Assyria or modern Turkey
—was “the right divine of kings” ® so deeply im-
planted in the mind of the subjects. |

2. BABYLONIAN AND ASSYRIAN SYSTEMS.

WE come now to speak of the religion of Babylon
and Assyria.

The Tigro-Huphrates valley, with its streams and
rich alluvial plains, was a very early seat of civiliza-
tion. Monuments exist which may carry us as far
back as three thousand years before the Christian
era, or probably farther. The first mhabitants

1 So R. S. Poole, in Smith’s Dictionary of the Bible.

2 Tiele points out how unlike Egypt was to Israel in this
respect. The existence of the prophetic order secured to Israel
almost a constitutional government, or its equivalent.

3 The right divine of kings to govern wrong.
°

Christianity and Ancient Paganism.

appear, from the evidence of language, to have been
Turanian, rather than Shemitic—their language
being of the Ural-Altaic class. The name Akka-
dian (mountaineer) is now usually given to them.
Another important tribe, evidently Shemitic, then
pressed into those fertile regions—probably from
the Syro-Arabian desert. The two races appear
to have mingled in Southern Chaldea, and a high
degree of civilization was early attained.

Their religion bore abundant traces of their
double origin. The Akkadian faith—lhke Turanian
systems generally—was Animistic or Shamanistic,
that is to say, fundamentally, spirit-worship. Every
object in nature, whether animate or inanimate,
was supposed to be ruled by a spirit. Malignant
spirits were especially numerous; many of them
ghosts, that is, the spirits of the dead. ‘The
spirits, however, were all subject to the control of
a priest, or wizard. By the power of spells and
incantations, the wizard could compel them to do

his bidding. The Akkadian liturgies that have T

been preserved are almost all exorcisms—mere
magical formule.

The Shemitic race, that came in later and largely
blended with the Akkadians, had a religion of a
M. Renan has asserted that all
Shemites had a monotheistic instinct; but the
assertion cannot be accepted unless the term mono-
theism be divested of its ordinary meaning. Most

higher type.

The first
inhabitants
Turanian.

A Shemitic
tribe

pressed inte
those
regions.

Traces of
double
origin of
the religion

e
Akkadian
liturgies
all
exorcisms.

The
Shemitic
race had

a religion
of a higher

type.

Most of the
Shemitic
races
idolatrous
and poly-
theistic.

The sun-
god among
the Shemites
who
occupied
Chaldea.

Life in
Babylon.

The early
development
of magic,

Christianity and Ancient Paganism.

of the Shemuitic races have been conspicuously
idolatrous, as well as polytheistic; and if it be
said that one deity was almost always regarded
as superior to the rest, the same assertion may be
made regarding other than Shemitic peoples.1

The sun-god held a high place among the
Shemites who occupied Chaldea; and the moon-
god, one almost equally high. In countries like
Arabia and Chaldeea, the magnificence of the starry
heavens, and the moon “ walking in her brightness,”
compel attention by their mystery, their beauty,
and their beneficence.? We cannot be surprised if,
with the mass, admiration passed into adoration.
Astronomy was studied, and it became astrology—
one might say, inevitably so.

The Babylonian faith continued to show clear
Life in Babylon must
have been “almost intolerable;”? superstition

traces of its twofold origin.

conjured up a thousand terrors; unseen malignant
beings were everywhere, and everywhere plotting
mischief. Hence, magic early became developed
into a regular science. Divination, augury, fortune-
telling, necromancy, and kindred base beliefs flour-
ished in foul luxuriance.

1 Thus, Herr Jellinghaus, a missionary who spent years
among the Kols in India, says they may almost be classed as
monotheists. They believe in innumerable spirits, but in the
sun-spirit as supreme.

* Very notable in this connexion are the words in Job xxxi.
26-28.
3 So Prof. Sayce.

Chiistianity and Ancient Paganism.

‘* Stand now,” exclaims the prophet Isaiah, addressing Baby-
lon, ‘‘ with thine enchantments and with the multitude of thy
sorceries, wherein thou hast laboured from thy youth.” !

The prophet also calls on the “ astrologers, the
star-gazers, and the monthly prognosticators,’”’ to
foretell, if they can, and avert, the destruction
which was fast overtaking the haughty city. It
would appear that in the court of Nebuchadnezzar,
the highest place was given to expounders of
dreams, soothsayers, and astrologers; and that
only after them came the civil administrators of
the empire.

The doctrine of one God shines out clear and
unmistakable in various important documents. In
Smith’s Chaldean Account of Genesis this is very
fully shown.

‘“At the head of the Babylonian theology stands Anu—a
deity who is sometimes identified with the heavens—sometimes
considered as the Ruler and God of heaven.”

In one important part of the tablet recording
creation, only one God is mentioned, and simply as
“the God.” The fragments of the tablet “might
belong to the purest system of religion.” These
are important statements. It would be very inter-
esting if we could determine the date of the re-
markable document on which Mr. Smith thus
Professor Sayce thinks that the poem
on creation (Chaldean Genesis) is not probably older
than the days of Assur-bani-pal, the grandson of

comments.

1 Tsaiah xlvii. 12.

The place
of inter-
preters of
dreams, etc.,
at the

court of
Nebuchad-
nezzar.

The
doctrine of
one God
in various
important
documents.

In the
tablet
recording
creation the
only one
God is
mentioned
as ** the
God.”

350

The date
of the

poem on
Creation.

God’s
witness to
Himself

and
monotheistic
tradition,

Mono-
theistic
belief
never ex-
tinguished.

The
difficulty
of supposing
that the
worship of
one God
arose out
of poly-
theism and
then sank
back into
it

Christianity and Ancient Paganism.

Sennacherib—which would bring it down to the
7th century B.c.; but he also holds that similar
views prevailed at a much earlier date among the
Akkadians. The professor speaks of the time
when monotheistic ideas “arose.” The question,
however, is whether they had not existed from the
beginning,-at least among the Shemitic portion of
the people. We believe that God had “never leit
Himself without witness,” and that there was, in
addition to this, a monotheistic tradition. There,
doubtless, was a vacillation, an oscillation, between
monotheism and polytheism; but the former belief,
though frequently overlaid, was never wholly ex-
tinguished. Such is the inference which we feel
ourselves compelled to draw from all the available
evidence.

The worship of Anu was gradually superseded.
His daughter was Istar (Ashtaroth or Astarte), con-
nected with whom there was a far more sensual
worship than that of Anu. Thisin time supplanted
the older and purer system.1 All this is easily
understood ; but if we hold that the worship of one
God arose out of gross polytheism, and then sank
back into it, we are landed in inextricable diffi-
culties.

1 «The worship of Istar became one of the darkest features of
Babylonian theology. As this worship increased in favour, it
gradually superseded that of Anu, until in time his temple—
the house of heaven—came to be regarded as the temple of
Venus. ’—G. Smith,

Christianity and Ancient Paganism. 31

When the great monotheistic idea is surrendered, The multi-
plication o

deities easily multiply. We need not give a list Pte
of Babylonian gods. Merodach seems to have been *™ the
a national divinity, the protector of Babylon ; and }, 40°
with him was probably identified Bel, whose name

is generally supposed to be a variant form of Baal,

1.€., master, owner.

Certain parts of Babylonian worship were exces- Papwity
sively impure. There was a law in Babylon that °"’.
every woman, once in her life, should prostitute
herself to any stranger that asked her in the temple
of the chief goddess. Even Herodotus denounces
the practice as “in the highest degree abominable.”

It seems to have been from Babylon that the hor-
rible pollution passed over into Greece and Sicily,
and various other places.

The Assyrian nation was greatly influenced by The os
the Babylonian, which evidently was the older of oe
the two.’ The people have been well called “ the 2tion.
Romans of Asia.”? They were a nation of fero-
cious Warriors, in whose nature cruelty seems to
have been ingrained. They blinded, impaled, tor-
tured, or flayed alive, their prisoners; while the
Egyptians, we may note, were by no means so
merciless. Their character was reflected in their
religion. Human sacrifices were frequent.

Magic, sorcery, and divination were hardly less Ms;

prevalent in Assyria than in Babylon. The pro- mera
' As stated in Genesis x, 11. 2 By G. Rawlinson.

Pheenicians.

Their
worship.

Human
sacrifices.

Chiistianity and Ancient Paganism.

phet Nahum, in his magnificent description of the

siege and capture of Nineveh, the capital, styles it
“the mistress of witchcrafts.”

8. PHaniciAN SYSTEM.

WE next speak of the Phcenicians, who were early
distinguished as an enterprizing commercial people.
We are still doubtful as to their origin and their
relation to the other Canaanite races. Their chief
divinity was Baal—also called Moloch, who seems to
have been the sun-god. The sun could be viewed as
a beneficent being, or as a relentless tyrant flaming
with wrath; and generally, or at all events fre-
quently, he was regarded in the latter aspect.
Only blood —human blood—-could appease the anger
of the deity when it was deeply roused. Hence
the priests scourged and gashed themselves; and
his votaries strove to propitiate him by sacrificing
their best and dearest. Multon’s celebrated de-
scription is not drawn in colours over-dark :

Moloch, horrid king, bedewed with blood

Of infant sacrifice and parents’ tears,
Though, for the noise of drums and cymbals loud,
The children’s cries unheard that passed through fire
To his grim idol.
The firstborn especially were thus sacrificed, and
on occasions of great public calamity multitudes of
youths of the noblest families were burnt alive.

Thus at Carthage, which was colonized from Tyre,

Christianity and Ancient Paganism.

when Agathocles had inflicted a severe defeat on
the citizens, at least two hundred children of the
noblest birth were sacrificed ;! and when, in turn,
the Carthaginians had gained a victory, their most
beautiful captives were in like manner offered up.
Our readers will remember the frequent mention
of this dreadful rite in the Old Testament. Among
Shemitic races, the Hebrews alone were taught to
hold it in abhorrence.

This terrible hardness of character was accom-
panied—might we not say caused ?2—by another
leading characteristic of Phoenician worship—its
shameful lasciviousness. It equalled in this respect,
if it did not surpass, the Babylonian system. We
cannot dwell on the disgusting subject. The old
Akkadian religion had been marked by cruelty ;
but impurity, as an essential part of worship, was
foreign to it. This deplorable distinction clung es-
pecially to Shemitic races—Israel alone excepted.

The characteristics of the three religions we have
mentioned—Babylonian, Assyrian, and Pheenician
—belonged in a greater or less degree to the cognate

1 The language of Diodorus iy not quite clear ; but, as Grote
observes, the number of children offered up was certainly 200,
and probably 500, History of Greece, vit, p. 604.

2 ‘Lust hard by hate.” So Milton.
has it—

Or, as Robert Burns

I waive the quantum of the sin,
The hazard of concealing ;

But oh! it hardens all within,
And petrifies the feeling.

Old
Testament
references.

The las-
civiousness
of
Pheenician
worship,

Israel alone
among
Shemitic
races free
from
impurity
in worship.

The moral
degradation

of the

seven

nations of
Canaan,

The purity
of Israel-
itish religion
inexplicable

naturalistic
principles.

The chief
systems

in the

interior
of Asia

Minor.

Assyrian
widely
ffused

ideas
di

Christianity and Ancient Paganism.

races—such as Ammonites, Moabites, ete. The
“seven nations of Canaan” are mentioned in the
Pentateuch as all alike sunk in the depths of moral
corruption ; so that the land was ready to “ spue
them out.” This renders the severely pure morality
of the religion of Israel truly remarkable, and, on
naturalistic principles, inexplicable. We have no
right to suppose that, in original temperament or
character, the Hebrews differed radically from
their brethren. By what conceivable process, then,
of natural evolution could their religion arise ?

4, LypIAN AND PuHryGIAN SysTEms.

We come now to speak of the chief systems
that prevailed in the interior of Asia Minor,}
particularly in Lydia and Phrygia. In describing
these, we require to state carefully the dates to
which we refer; for, in those regions, the dis-
placement of races and religions was very frequent.
Turanians, Shemites, Aryans, all clashed together
within the peninsula. The Turanians came first.
But from the 12th to the 7th century B.c., the
predominant power in Asia Minor was Assyria ;
and Assyrian (or Babylonian) ideas on religion
were, in consequence, widely diffused, extending
even to the Aigean Sea. The Persian dominion
followed; and Zoroastrian rites to a considerable

' Strabo, who knew the region well, speaks especially of
Cappadocia as having adopted Persian rites to a large extent.

many

Christianity and Ancient Paganism. 36

extent superseded, or rather, blended with the Zoroastrian

rites

Assyrian, and also with the still more ancient supersede
or blended

bey! with the
Turanian worship, which had never been wholly jean

extinguished. It probably was from their Tu- 20¢ a

ranian descent that the religions of Lydia and Tosmian,
Phrygia were especially marked as passionate and Toranian
orgiastic. Excitement was wrought up to frenzy Ree
by the beating of drums, the clashing of cymbals, "si
and the wildest dances. The worshippers, the priests
especially, ran howling, cutting themselves with

knives. All this was terribly apt to end in un-

bridled debauchery. Such was the worship of the

Great Mother and the god Sabazios. When these

rites, along with the closely allied worship of
Dionysus (Bacchus), had been introduced into

Rome about the year 176 z.c., the Senate was
compelled to suppress them by the strong arm of

law as being utterly intolerable.

). Hirrire System.

RecentLy most important discoveries have
been made regarding the Hittites—a race, or
union of races, that rose into power in the 16th
century 8.c., and for centuries contended valiantly
with the Egyptians on the one side and the
Assyrians on the other. It might have been Hittite taitn

not purer

hoped that their faith would prove, on investiga- bere

tion, to be of a higher type than the systems

The
philosophy
of the
religion

of Asia
Minor
summed up.

Our
intellectual
sympathy
with the
Greeks,

The
religion of
Greece
derived from
Egypt and
the East.

The human
character

of the
Greek
deities

Christianity and Ancient Paganism.

which have already passed ‘under review. It is
not so, however.

‘<The religion of the Hittites seems to have been appropriated
from the worst features of Babylonian, Phenician, and, latterly,
Egyptian idolatry.” ?

We must pause in this sorrowful review. As
a well-informed writer puts it,—

‘The whole philosophy of the religion of Asia Minor is
summed up in three words. We find them engraven on a tomb
found at Kotiaion, in Phrygia: ‘This is what I say to my
friends: Give yourselves up to pleasure and enjoyment ; live. For
you must die. Therefore drink, enjoy, dance.” ?

6. GreciAN SySTEM.

Bur let us pass on to the fair land of Hellas,
and to a people with whom we moderns have
far closer intellectual sympathy,—whose thoughts,
even when we may not sympathize with them,
we can at least understand. The religion of
Greece must have been in a large degree derived
from Egypt and still more, the Kast ; but the
shaping spirit of the highly endowed Greeks en-
tirely changed its original character. It made the
deities thoroughly human — sigantic men and
women. ‘They had human passions, virtues, vices.
They ate and drank, quarrelled and fought, very
much as the lively Greeks were accustomed to do
among themselves; and these divinities were some-

1 So Canon Tristram.
2 Revue des deux Mondes, Oct. 1873, p. 936.

Christianity and Ancient Paganism.

times so merry—at a friend’s expense, it might
be—that ‘‘inextinguishable laughter”’ shook the
skies. Such, at least, is the system that appears
in the Homeric poems. How far it may have
been the production of one, or perhaps two minds,
we cannot, with assurance, say; the Greek writers
generally ascribed its rise to the joint influence of
Homer and Hesiod; but one would think it could
only by degrees have assumed its peculiar type.
_ The great popularity of Homer imprinted it deeply
on the mind of the people. Changes, however,
came on; foreign rites pressed in. Before the
Persian war a great alteration was visible in many
respects. The earlier Greeks had been a stirring,
joyous, careless race, not much occupied with
religion; but gradually there came to be magni-
ficent temples, priests, solemn ceremonies, mysteries.
Wild orgiastic religions also appeared, or, if not
new, they were carried to much greater excess than
before,—the worship of Dionysus (Bacchus) for
example, of the Thracian goddess Cotytto, and the
Syrian god Adonis (Tammuz, as in Ezek. vin. 14).

In the theology of Homer, as a careful student?
of the Iliad and Odyssey has admitted, “ elements
of a profound corruption abound.” Later systems
were still worse. But philosophy arose. Grave,
thoughtful men were shocked at the popular con-
ceptions of deity, and began to denounce them.

1 Mr. Gladstone.

The system
ascribed to
the joint
influence

of Homer
and Hesiod.

The
character
of the
earlier
Greeks.
Gradual
rise of
temples,
etc.
Orgiastic
religions.

Corrupt
elements
in the
theology
of Homer,

_ The idea

of the
divine
purged in
the hands
of the
sages.

The de-
basement
of the
religion of

the common

people.

Its conse-
quences,

The
retrospect
profoundly
painful,

Chiistianity and Ancient Paganism.

In the hands of a succession of sages the abstract
idea of the divine was more and more purged of
base alloy; but, in proportion as it became refined,
the notion grew dimmer; until, in the case of
Aristotle, deity was a power, or a principle, rather
than a person. Even Plato never inquired about
the personality of God; he seems rather to think
of a diffused soul of the world.1 But philosophic
speculation was not for the common people. Their
religion became lower and lower. Offences against
God and human nature ere long flourished in rank
luxuriance. As both cause and effect of all this,
a light scoffing imfidelity extended among all the
educated. ‘Then patriotism and public spirit died.
All that was magnanimous m Greek character
faded away; the “ hungry Greekling” (Greculus
esurvens) was ready to say, or do, anything for a.
bit of bread. Art itself became debased. Even
the population began to die out ; in various places,
in order to prevent fertile regions from being
changed were
brought m; and “shocking immorality was the
cancer that ate into the life of Greece.” #

into deserts, Roman _ colonists

The retrospect we have been engaged in is pro-
foundly painful. ‘“ Immortal Greece—dear land of
glorious lays,” exclaims Keble, speaking of the
classic poetry with all a poet’s passion. Yet notwith-
standing her subtle intellect, and vivid imagination

1 So Zeller, “= So ‘Lhirlwail.

Christianity and, Ancient Paganism.

and perfect taste, she sank into an abyss thus
fathomless of shame and rum. Why? LEven
Byron saw the reason :
‘‘ Enough, no foreign foe could quell
Thy soul, till from itself it fell,
And self-abasement paved the way
To villain bonds and despot sway.”

It is through the beautiful we reach the good,
said Schiller. Say rather, through the good the
beautiful. At all events, when the love of the
good has passed away, the perception of the
beautiful perishes soon after. This is one of the
lessons which is inscribed on the history of Hellas,
as if “graven with an iron pen and lead,” and
so inscribed “in the rock for ever.”

7. Roman System.

We come now to Rome. The Romans were
originally in many things different from the
Greeks. Less speculative ; more practical ; simpler,
truer, graver; more law-abiding; with a better
‘family life; and possessed of a deeper religious
The early religion of Rome had con-
siderable resemblance to that of Greece, both
having sprung out of one Aryan faith; but, for
some time, the two systems tended to diverge,
It

is interesting to note that the Roman religion had

instinct.

each bemg influenced by its own environment.

The abyss
of shame
and ruin,

The lesson
of the
history of
Hellas.

The
character
of the
Romans.

The
resemblance
of the early
religion of
Rome to
that of
Greece.

Christianity and Ancient Paganism.

Points of
correspon-=
dence with
the old
Persian,

The religion
becomes
more

and more
political.

Greek and
Asiatic gods
press in,

The spread
of unbelief

an. *
immorality.

special points of correspondence with the old
Persian, as unfolded in the Zend-avesta.! Much
more importance was attached to rites than
to beliefs or emotions—the worship tending to a
punctilious externalism ; prayer became a kind of
magical formula; much stress was laid on cere-
monial purity; the mythology was meagre. A
new departure took place towards the end of the
regal period. Images were now introduced; and
temples, increasing in splendour, began to appear.
The religion became more and more political, and
was regulated by the State. But cold formalism
could not satisfy the popular mind and heart.
First, Greek and then Asiatic gods and goddesses
pressed in. Infidelity succeeded, at least among
the higher classes. The poet Ennius, a Calabrian
Greek, was among the first to propagate it. During
the two centuries that preceded the birth of Christ,
unbelief spread like a pestilence, and immorality
kept pace with it. Each was both cause and effect
of the other. In vain did the elder Cato strive to
keep out the infection; in vain did he inveigh
against the Greeks as the “ parents of every vice;”
corruption rushed on, as Augustine says, “like a
headlong torrent.” Family life greatly changed ;
divorce became fashionable ; and women—in many
cases, women of the highest rank—became shame-

+ So the Zend and Latin languages have special points in
common.

Christianity and Ancient Paganism.

less in their degradation. Even noted historical
personages, with whose names we do not readily
associate the idea of vice, were men of abandoned
life. Thus Dr. Arnold speaks with severe repro-
bation of “the utter moral degradation” of Julius
Cesar. A deep darkness, almost amounting to
despair, seemed settlng down on the minds of
men. Suicide prevailed, in consequence, to an un-
paralleled extent.

But the nemesis of infidelity is superstition. The
old Italic religion had been comparatively pure.
Thus in the very name of the chief god, Jupiter
Optimus Maximus, we find the ideas of supreme
goodness and supreme power.t But when these
had perished, something was felt to be needful in
their place; and dark, gloomy faiths—hideous
brutal mysteries—from Egypt, Asia Minor, and
Babylon—flowed in to fill the intolerable void. In
Greece itself, as religion declmed, magic and sor-
cery, its miserable substitutes, had greatly flourished.
Som Rome. Conjurors, soothsayers, astrologers,
and fortune-tellers filled every street, and insinuated
themselves into every household. “Professed
atheists trembled in secret at the mysterious power
of magical incantations;”? many invoked the
shades of the dead, or strove to penetrate into the

1 So Cicero: Te, Capitoline, quem propter beneficia populus

Romanus optimum, propter vim maximum, nominavit.—Pro
domo sua, c. 57.

Dr, Arnold
on Julius
Ceesar.

The
nemesis of
infidellty.

The
influx of
superstition,

Fears of
professed
atheists.

Matthew
Arnold’s
sketch of
the mental
condition of
the higher
classes in
Rome.

Renan’s
testimony.

Greek and
Roman
philosophy.

Stoicism.

The
conception
of man as
man not
foreign to
it.

Christianity and Ancient Paganism.

secrets of futurity by examining the entrails of a
murdered child.t

Mr. Matthew Arnold, with a few strokes, has
given us a vivid sketch of the mental condition of
the higher classes in Rome:

On that hard Pagan world disgust And secret loathing fell,

And weariness and sated lust Made human life a hell.

In his cool hall, with haggard eyes, The noble Roman lay, —

He drove abroad in furious guise Along the Appian Way ;

He made a feast, drank fierce and fast, And crowned his hair
with flowers—

No easier and no quicker passed The impracticable hours.

He states
that, under the empire, Rome became a very hell
(un vrai enfer).

M. Renan’s testimony is the same.

It may, perhaps, be thought that in the preceding
estimate we have overlooked the value of Greek
and Roman philosophy. On that head, then, we
still add a few words.

Morally, the best philosophical system was
Stoicism. We have spoken above of the value of
this philosophy in the development of jurisprudence.
The later Stoicism certainly enunciated various im-
portant principles in ethics. Thus the cosmopolitan
idea—the conception of man as man—was not
It admitted that slaves were not
Stoicism did |
not readily lose itself in speculation; it clung

foreign to it.
mere things, but possessed of rights.

firmly to the idea of duty, and was intensely prac-

' Merivale’s History of Rome, vol. 11. p. 514,

selfishness.

Christianity and Ancient Paganism.

tical. Seneca expresses sentiments which have so
much of a Christian ring that many have held that
he must have derived them from intercourse with
St. Paul; though that is scarcely probable.

We must cherish for such men as Epictetus and
Marcus Aurelius that kind of wondering regard
with which we think of Buddha. Seneca, however,
was a mere rhetorician ; his fine periods were flatly
contradicted by his life.

But Sto:cism cherished an immeasurable pride ;
and it wrapped itself in an icy, self-worshipping
Its theology was pantheistic,! really,
if not confessedly. It held that all things were
ruled by the iron necessity of fate. On the whole,
the most favourable estimate that can possibly be
formed of this haughty philosophy is that of Reuss :

“The fine ideas of Roman Stoicism were buds which only the

sun of the Gospel could develop into beauty and perfection ;
but which, if left alone, would never have produced rich fruits.”

We have thus failed to trace in the great Pagan |

systems of antiquity any grand conceptions which
Christianity did or could incorporate with itself.
At the same time, there were in most, or all, of
them what have been called “unconscious pro-
phecies”’? of better things. Prophecies, or even
anticipations, In any strict sense of the word, these
assuredly were not; but they were questionings,

1 So Zeller. 2 By Archbishop Trench especially.

The
Christian
ring of
Seneca’s
sentiments.

Epictetus
ana Marcus
Aurelius.

The pride
of Stvicism.

Reuss’s
estimate of
Stoicism.

“* Uncon-
scious
prophecies ”’
of better
things in
Paganism.

A conscious
emptiness
of the
heart,

The
coming of
Christ.

The age—-
long pre-
paration
for it.

Com-
mingling
of creeds
consequent
on the
conquests
of Alex-
ander and
extension
of Roman
dominion.

Christianity and Ancient Paganism.

yearnings, aspirations—a feeling that the heart was
empty, and the desire, sometimes the hope, that it
might yet be filled. And HE who sees the end
from the beginning, was all the while preparing to
answer those questions, satisfy those cravings, and
fulfil, yea exceed, the highest anticipations ever
formed by
The prophetic soul
Of the wide world, dreaming on things to come.

Christ came, says St. Paul, ‘in the fulness of the
time.” For His coming, it is easy to see that a
manifold preparation had been made, extending
throughout the ages. With a view to this grand
consummation, the kingdoms of the world had risen
and fallen. All things had been “shaken,’’?? in
order that the false and the fleeting might be
shaken off, and that the true and the eternal might
have room to grow and unfold their holy beauty.

It was indeed “the fulness of the time,” in the
largest sense of these significant words; but we
must here limit our view to religion, and one
aspect of the “fulness.”

We have seen the deplorable condition into
which each of the great religions of Paganism had
fallen. The conquests of Alexander the Great,
and the extension of Roman dominion, had led
largely to a commingling of creeds. Traces of
Oriental systems could be found even in Britain.

1 Haggai ii. 6, 7.

Ohristianity and Ancient Paganism.

But the union of eastern and western thought
had produced no happy results. Egypt, Babylon,
Assyria, Phenicia, Lydia, Phrygia, Greece, Rome
—these and other nations had toiled, as we may
express it, to scale the heavens and there find
God; but every attempt had ended in vanity and
vexation of spirit. We can hardly feel surprise
that the difficulty of ascertaining truth and the
endless conflict of opinion led many thoughtful
men to discard the consideration of religion alto-
Why should they pursue a shadow that
ever eluded their grasp? What Justin Martyr
says of the philosophers of his time—the com-

gether.

mencement of the second century—apphes with
equal force to the century preceding:

**Most of the philosophers never consider the question whether
there be one God or many; whether there be a Divine Pro-
vidence or not.”

Thus, growing scepticism among the educated, and
grosser and grosser superstition among the common
people, were the melancholy characteristics of the
age which ushered in the Christian era.

But God had not forsaken the world. He had,
as St. Paul expresses it, ‘suffered all nations to
walk in their own ways,” 1 though, at the same
time, He had “ never left Himself without witness.”
The history of the race bears, in several respects, a
resemblance to that of an individual. Man is very

1 Acts xiv. 16.

No happy
results
from the
union of
eastern

and western
thought.

The
difficulty of
ascertaining
truth led
many to
discard

the con-
sideration
altogether.

Justin
Martyr

on the
philosophers
of his time.

The world
not forsaken
by God.

The failures
in the
attempt to
find out
God.

The need of
a divine
revelation
demonstra-
ted.

The

advent

of the Light
of the

world.

Christianity and Ancient Paganism.

proud; he will not seek the help of God until he

‘feels himself helpless. To the question of the

patriarch, “Canst thou by searching find out
God??? he would boldly have answered, Yes, until
he had repeatedly failed in the proud attempt.
More than three thousand years had passed since,
in Chaldea and Egypt, he had first essayed the
great problem; and the demonstration cf the
necessity of a divine revelation had been over-
whelmingly ample. At least some of the higher
minds had seen it; and Plato sighed for a theios
logos. Or, if man did not fully see it, yet the
yearning heart of heaven could wait no longer.
And, therefore, as the apostle plainly puts it,

“* After that, in the wisdom of God, the world by wisdom knew
not God, it pleased God by the foolishness [t.e., what man called
foolishness] of the preaching to save them that believe.”

In the moral world, as in the physical, the
dawn precedes the sunrise. The Sun of Right-
eousness came not unheralded. The first streaks
of day had appeared long ago, and the reddening
of the eastern sky announced the speedy advent
of the “Light of the world.”

1 Archdeacon Farrar has repeatedly used the phrase, —‘‘ ethnic
inspiration.” We think the expression unhappy, and fear it
will be misunderstood and misapplied. But the Archdeacon
has lately said that Heathenism was ‘‘a vast failure,’ and ‘‘ the
light of any other religion compared with that of Christianity,
but as a star to the sun.”

Christianity and Ancient Paganism.

8. Tue Farru or Isratt.

For two thousand years, and possibly more,
one race had stood apart from all others, “ dwell-
ing alone, and not reckoned among the nations.”
It is in the divine training of this people—and
not where many vainly seck it—that we are to
look for the true evolution, or development, of
religion.

There are men who question the accuracy of our
conceptions regarding Abraham. But even the
destructive criticism, in the last resort, postulates
an Abraham, or some equivalent starting-point ;
otherwise, Moses becomes an inexplicable phe-
nomenon. ‘T’he grandeur of the position occupied
by the latter is, of course, undeniable.
has said :

Kuenen

‘* Even from the time of Moses, Yahveh (Jehovah) comes forward
with moral commandments. This is the starting point of
Israel’s rich religious development ; the germ of those glorious
truths which were to ripen in the course of centuries.”

Tt is not too great a stress which is thus laid on
the ethical eharacter of the Mosaic faith. The
Ten Commandments arose in serene imperishable
majesty at least fifteen centuries before Christ.
There is no parallel fact in the history of Pagan
systems. “ Be ye holy, for I am holy” was the
sublime oracle of Israel’s God, and of Israel’s God
alone.

The true
evolution
of religion
to be found
in the
training of
Israel.

Moses in-
explicable
without

Abraham.

The
grandeur of
Abraham’s
position.

Kuenen on
the com-
mandments,

No fact in
the history
of Pagan
systems
parallel to
the rise of
the ten com-
mandments,

Yahveh
not a mere
tribal God.

Recognized
as a power
above all
powers,
pure yet
com-
passionate.

His people
freed from
superstitious
terrors by
His power
and
presence.

Christianity and Ancient Paganism.

Many critics assert that Yahveh was at first
viewed as only a tribal god, who protected Israet,
while rival deities protected other nations. That
belief is based on the pure assumption that the
history of Abraham, as given in Genesis, is of
comparatively late origin; for the Lord is there
spoken of as “ Almighty,” as “Judge of all the
earth,” and so on. But waiving the case of
Abraham, and supposing we could admit that the
people in Egypt, enslaved and in every way de-
moralized, rose no higher than to conceive of
Yahveh as only their god; yet He was, at all
events, recognized as a power above all powers—
a personality—a Creator—ruling nature, never
identified with it—awfully pure, yet infinitely
compassionate — forgiving iniquity, and trans-
gression, and sin, yet punishing the impenitently
wicked—a Being that abhorred all the cruel and
abominable rites in which the Pagan gods were
believed to delight—whose power and presence
freed His people from all: the superstitious terrors
and the miserable magic which formed so large a
part of the worship of surrounding nations. Even
if the so-called higher criticism could prove that
some of the conceptions now referred to were
possibly inserted in the Pentateuch at a com-
paratively recent date, yet no one can deny that,
at all events, by the eighth century before Christ,
there are declarations regarding Jehovah and His

a a.

Christianity and Ancient Paganism.

worship which, in truth and sublimity, have never
since been surpassed. Take that passage, for ex-
ample, in the prophet Micah which has extorted
the admiration of Professor Huxley :

** Wherewith shall I come before the Lord, and bow myself before
the high God? Shall I come with burnt offerings, with calves
of a year old? Will the Lord be pleased with thousands of
rams, or with ten thousands of rivers of oil? Shall I give my
first-born for my transgression, the fruit of my body for the
sin of my soul? He hath showed thee, O man, what is good ;
and what doth the Lord require of thee, but to do justly, and
to love mercy, and to walk humbly with thy God?” ?

Not less remarkable than these lofty utterances
is the declaration that Jehovah hated evil in His
own people even’ more than in less favoured
nations :

“You only have I known of all the families of the earth ;
therefore will I punish you for your iniquities.”

The gods of the nations-were thorough partizans;
they sided with their worshippers through right and
wrong. Jehovah loved His people much, but right-
eousness still more. Admirable is the passionate
denunciation of the hypocrisy which would divorce
two things that ought ever to be linked in indis-
soluble wedlock—religion and morality :

** Shall I count them pure with the wicked balances and the bag
of deceitful weights, and the scant measure that is abominable ?”

The vehemence and measureless scorn with which
polytheism and idolatry are denounced are also
most striking. In all other nations the deities

Sublime
declaration
concerning
Jehovah
and His
worship in
the eighth
century
before
Christ.

His hatred
of evil in
His own
people.

His love
of righteous-
ness.

Denuncia-
tion of
polytheism
and
idolatry,

50 Christianity and Ancient Paganism.

multiplied ; and image-worship rooted itself more
and more deeply as time went on.
The hope- We must pause in our enumeration of the cha-

fulness of

Reinvere’ racteristics of the Hebrew Scriptures. Yet one
other must still be noted—their hopefulness.
When the great monarchies which walled Israel
in—especially Egypt and Assyria—-were trampling
down the liberties of nations and spreading around
them their abominable idolatries, and when, to all
appearance, the cause both of God and of man was
The flebrew Jost, the noble seers of Israel never despaired, never

seers never

desponde? once desponded, in regard to the. future of Israel

in regard
fume of or of the world. All things they knew were in

the world, the hands of One who was Almighty, All-wise,
and All-gracious. ‘Be still, and know that I am
God,” that is, be calmly confident, and trust in
Me: such was the command. One unchanging
purpose—a purpose of mercy—ran throughout the
ages. Let them im patience possess their souls:
for in “the day of the Lord”’—“‘the latter day”
—every crooked thing was to be made straight;
the Lord alone should be exalted; all iniquity was
to stop her mouth; the meek should inherit the
earth, and delight themselves in the abundance of
The hopes peace. More and more the hopes of the nation
orton made Were made to centre on an individual—“ the Coming
in an in One ”’—‘‘the Messiah ”—“ the Prince of peace ;”’ -
"and in Him all the families of the earth were to
he blessed; He would be a light to lighten the

Christianity and Ancient Paganism.

Gentiles, as well as the glory of the people of
Israel.

And while prophet after prophet was raised up,
all moved by one Spirit, but each unfolding the
message of instruction, admonition, or encourage-
ment, or applying it to the special circumstances
of his time,—and while the whole ceremonial wor-
ship was one vast prophecy of good things to come,
and recognized by thoughtful men as such 1—the
providence of God was marvellously training the
nation for its lofty function. Events that appeared
simply evil were overruled to work out good. The
captivity in Egypt—the sojourn in the wilderness
—the division of the nation into two halyes—the
captivity in Babylon—the persecutions under Syrian
kings—and the conquest of Judea by the Romans
—it is not difficult to see how each of these events
was fitted to raise the mind of the people to truer
‘conceptions of God, and teach them deeper lessons
of righteousness, of sin, and of salvation.

Meanwhile, the wide diffusion of the Greek lan-
guage, the translation into it of the Old Testament,
and the contact of Greek and Jewish thought—
especially in such centres as Alexandria—were
very important preparations for the proclamation
and reception of the Gospel over the civilized
world.

' See Kurtz on the sacrificial worship of the Old Testament
for proof of this,

The
providential
training of
Israel for
its lofty
function.

The
successive
events

in the
history of
the people
fitted to
elevate
their con-
ceptions of
God.

The
diffusion of
the Greek
language an
important
preparation,

EET GR ES

Virgil’s

expectation.

Augustine,

St. John.

The
teaching
of Christ.

Christianity and Ancient Paganism.

hihi Bs
Tuus, then, at the pre-appointed time —in “the
fulness of the time ’”’—dawned “ the Light of Life”
on men. And now—as Virgil sang, in expectation
of some glorious change that was hastening on—
‘¢ Magnus ab integro seeclorum nascitur ordo ; ”?
or in the words of Augustine :

‘* Christ appeared to the men of a worn-out dying world, that
when every thing around was sinking into decay, they might,
through Him, receive a new and youthful life ;”

or in the far sublimer language of St. John:

“*The Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us; and we
beheld His glory—the glory as of the only begotten of the
Father ; full of grace and truth : and as many as received Him,
to them gave He power to become the children of God.”

He taught. He taught those truths to which—
though often feebly and fitfully—the human reason
and conscience have borne witness throughout the
ages. He gave the metal without alloy: His -
words were pure, as “silver purified seven times.”
Then, the majestic verities enunciated by the
prophets of Israel He explained, applied, and also
developed and enlarged. He taught by words;
He taught by deeds. His entire life was one con-
tinuous revelation of God and truth.

He wrought
With human hands the creed of creeds,—
In loveliness of perfect deeds
More strong than all poetic thought.

1 Now commenceth anew the mighty roll of the ages.

Christianity and Ancient Paganism.

He died.
the sheep. That death, that Cross, that love
victorious over agony, is the divinest manifestation
of the Divinity. It is the full expression of the
mind and heart of God; so that, when once it has
taken place, HE who longs adequately to reveal
Himself to His creatures, and whom to know is
life eternal, can enter into ineffable repose and say,
“Tt is enough: My creatures can know Me now.”

And Christ rose again—rose to the immediate
presence of God. There He is exalted a Prince
and a Saviour, “ to give repentance and forgiveness
of sins to Israel,”’ and to all.

Such very briefly were the truths which His
disciples were commanded to proclaim to all nations,
“beginning at Jerusalem.” But it is one thing to
know the truth, and another thing to obey it. ‘We
are all familiar with the sorrowful confession of
the poet Ovid:

Video meliora proboque,
Deteriora sequor. !

_ Moral truths were not unfrequently inculcated by
heathen sages. But these sages felt and deplored
the exceeding difficulty of inducing others to follow
their precepts. They regarded the mass of men as
hopelessly sunk in ignorance and vice, and only a
small number as so happily constituted that they
would ever seek to rise to the serene heights of

1 T see the right, and I approve it too.
Condemn the wrong, and yet the wrong pursue.

The good Shepherd gave His life for

The death
of Christ.

The
resurrection
of Christ.

The
commission
of the
disciples.

The
difficulty of
the sages.

Their view
of the
mass of
mankind.

The effect
of the pro-
clamation
of the
Gospel.

A stupend-
ous and
unparalleled
spiritual
revolution.

The dis-
appearance
of the
forms of
Pagan
faith.

The gods
of Egypt.

Christianity and Ancient Paganism.
wisdom and virtue. But lo! a marvel. For when
once the silver trump of the “glad tidings”’
sounded abroad, the lowest depths of society were
stirred ; and the grandest conceptions which the
hunian mind can form regarding God, and the
soul, and holiness, and sin, and reconciliation, and
love, and heaven, and hell, now filled the minds,
and moved the hearts, and shaped the lives of mul-
titudes, who, until now, had been dead to every-
thing but grovelling ideas and debasing lusts. A stu-
pendous spiritualrevolution; in suddenness and com-
pleteness wholly without a parallel. An entire trans-
formation in the individual believer, and through
individuals a gradual transformation of society.?

It was a conflict of centuries before the great
systems which we have been considering gave
way before the victorious march of Christianity.
But successively and completely all of them did
give way. All those vast forms of Pagan faith
have melted away lke snow in the sunbeam. Or
rather say, the great thirst which the Gentile
nations sought to quench by diinking of muddy
and polluted streams, could now be slaked at the
river, “clear as crystal, proceeding out of the
throne of God and the Lamb.”

The brutish gods of Egypt have perished. We
have visited the Serapeum—that vast subterranean

1 Nos ergo soli innocentes, We alone are innocent,—was
Tertullian’s bold, but unanswered, challenge.— A pol. 45

Christianity and Ancient Paganism.

receptacle of dead gods—and found it filled with
immense granite sarcophagi, each containing the
Was the

No resurrection for them

embalmed form of an ox-god, Apis.’
resurrection expected ?
is possible. Baal no longer exalts himself as the
rival of Jehovah. Chemosh, “the abomination of
the Moabites,” and bloody Moloch, are alike for-
gotten. In Babylon, Bel has “bowed down” and
Nebo has “stooped,” never to rise again; and
Dagon of the Philistines has fallen once more,—
and now not even the stump of him is left.

Even so have passed away the deities of Greece
and Rome. The Parthenon still crowns the Acro-
polis of Athens; but Pallas Athene, the guardian
woddess, has fled; her very name is scarcely re-
membered there. On snowy Olympus “ black-
clouding Zeus’ no longer holds his throne; and
the god of the silver bow, Phoebus Apollo, is dis-
carded alike at Delos and at Delphi. A Christian
church stands en the spot where once arose the
majestic temple of Jupiter, the guardian of the
Capitol. Meantime the Roman empire has been
broken in pieces; but the religion of Christ, sur-
viving that convulsion, has converted and tamed
the wild barbarians who overwhelmed the ancient
world, and has given birth to a form of civilization
with the continuance of which are inseparably linked
the dearest hopes of humanity.

1 There seem to be sixty-four of these sarcophagi.

50.

No
resurrection
possible

for them,

The deities
of Greece.

The break
up of the
Roman
Empire.

What the
religion of
Christ has
done.

The secret
of this
power.

The omni-
potence of
Christ.

The truth
taught by
Christ
viewed by
Him as
salt,

Christianity and Ancient Paganism.

problem exercises and perplexes the minds of many
at this day. It was the fuller, deeper truth He
taught, say some. It was His character—match-
less in purity and love, say others. Yes; but there
was more, much more; and we have no reason to
believe, if as Mr. Matthew Arnold says, the Syrian
stars look down upon a grave from which He never
rose, that Christianity could have long survived His -
crucifixion! Not the so-called omnipotence of
truth, but the omnipctence of Him who is the
Truth, has won the victory. As said the Apostle:

‘‘ Being by the right hand of God exalted, and having received
of the Father the promise of the Holy Ghost, HE hath shed forth
this which ye now hear and see.”

Christ Himself spoke of the truth He taught as
at once light and salt. View it for a moment
under the latter aspect. Mere worldly gifts and

* It would be easy to adduce from many writers far removed
from orthodox Christianity, strong language regarding the un-
equalled elevation and purity of Christ’s character. Our limits
restrict us to one or two quotations. Spinoza says: ‘‘ The eternal
wisdom has manifested itself in all things, but chiefly in the
human mind, and most of all in Jesus Christ.” (Aiterna
saplentia sese in omnibus rebus, maximé in humana mente,
omnium maximé in Christo Jesu manifestavit. Zpist. xxi.)
Goethe said, ‘‘I bow before Jesus Christ as a revelation of
supreme morality.’ Still stronger is the testimony of John
Stuart Mill. Mr. John Morley indeed finds fault with Mr. Mill
for his admiration, and uses depreciatory language, but without
any attempt to support the charges made. Is this consistent
with Mr. Morley’s ideas of delicacy and justice ?

Christianity and Ancient Paganism.

graces tend lamentably to become corrupt, and to
perish in their corruption. Without religion, with-
out the religion of Christ, the human race could
never raise, and never maintain, the noble fabric
of a true manhood and an enduring civilization.
Certainly there was much in the culture of ancient
Greece that was intellectual and refined; much
that was stately and seemed strong in that of

The
religion

of Christ
essential

to the
elevation of.
the human
race.

ancient Rome; but the preserving element, the

salt, was wanting; and either form of civilization
ere long became morally corrupt, and sank in ruins.
But now—whatever elements of truth or beauty—
whatever pure forms of life appear in any land
or age, Christianity despises them not, nay, she
thankfully accepts them. She blends them with her
own diviner life, so warding off corruption, and
rendering these otherwise perishable treasures, “an
everlasting possession.” Forms of social life which
ancient sages sometimes dreamt of, but despaired
of realizing m a world like this, have been suc-
cessfully wrought out and maintained by the
Gospel; for its legitimate offsprmg ever is that
godliness which is “profitable unto all things,
having promise of the life that now is, as well as
of that which is to come.”

We read, a short time ago, in a paper written
by a well-known leader among the Comtists—Mr.
Frederic Harrison—that ‘“ Christianity does not

Christianity
accepts and
assimilates
all elements
of truth
and beauty.

The profit-
ableness of
godliness.

Mr. Fred.
Harrison’s
assertion
about
Christianity,

Christianity
touches
human life
at every
point.

The

question of
the stability
of our own
civilization.

Victor
Cousin on
civilization,

The con-
sequences
of the
prevalence
of different
forms of
unbelief,

Christianity and Ancient Paganism.

even claim to be co-extensive with human life.”
Either Mr. Harrison or we must have entirely mis-
read the New Testament. To our apprehension it
clams to touch human life at every pomt—to
mould and magisterially direct every thing in in-
dividual, domestic, and public life. For it lays
down principles which penetrate man all through,
building up the individual anew from the very
foundation of his being, and, through the individual,
as we have said, reforming and regulating society.
Accepted, it regenerates the man; and, so far as
accepted, it regenerates the world. It reconciles
man with man by reconciling man with God.

In the preceding pages we have sought to state
and illustrate facts—avoiding, as far as possible,
mere speculation. Yet one question unavoidably
suggests itself, after this long review of fallen
civilizations and extinct systems of belief. What
of our own civilization P is it secure? We answer,
Yes, if our Christianity is secure. ‘Civilization
in our day,” said Victor Cousin, “means Christ-
ianity.” If we draw inferences from the past,
we must hold that were materialism, agnosticism,

or even mere deism to prevail to any considerable -

extent, the consequences would be most serious.
Morality would gradually give way. Then the
nemesis of which we spoke above! would soon step

m. In vain would an infidelity, calling itself
1 See page 41.

Christianity and Ancient Paganism.

scientific or philosophic, rear its proud head and
try to suppress all faith ;—bastard forms of belief,
and low, superstitious practices would force them-
selves in, and infect, ere long, the savants them-
selves. Les incredules les plus credules, said Pascal.
Even already we witness, to our astonishment, the
spread, to some extent, in Europe and America, of
theosophy, “esoteric Buddhism,” and various kindred
follies—precisely as, of old, Plotinus and Porphyry
had a legitimate successor in Iamblichus, and
soaring philosophy was debased into magic and
theurgy.

These things are, no doubt, humbling. Yet we
do not bate a jot of heart or hope. Christianity
cannot perish. Even now, while we mourn over
the fallng away of some, one plainly sees that,
taking the human race as a whole, Christianity is
steadily extending and deepening. Trial may be
in store,—the forces of belief and unbelief may be
ranging themselves for a final struggle; but, ere
long, to Him, who now rules in the midst of His
enemies, “every knee shall bow, and every tongue
confess.”” Does there seem a tone of pride—while
rebuking pride—in these words of ours? If so,
we desire to put the feeling from us—remembering
the words of the blessed Master: “I, if I be lifted
up from the earth, will draw all men unto Myself.’’?

1 Unbelievers are the most credulous of all.

2 guavtdv.

Esoteric
Buddhism
in Europe
and
America.

Christianity
spreading
and
deepening.

Its ultimate
triumph.

The
attraction
of the
cross.

Christ and
His people.

The
function of
the Church
to shine.

Christianity and Ancient Paganism.

He was first lifted up on the cross, before He was
lifted up to His throne in heaven; and it is now
only by the manifestation of His cross and its deep
meanings that hard hearts are melted and drawn
to Him with irresistible attraction; and doubtless
the bright consummation of a regenerated and
rejoicing world would be sooner reached, if only we,
His followers, had more of the Master's spimit—
ever seeking in meekness and love like His

With winning words to conquer willing hearts
And make persuasion do the work of fear.

He who said of Himself, ‘I am the Light of the
world,” said also of His people, ‘“ Ye are the light
of the world.” He is the Sun. Huis Church is the
Moon; which, in His absence, is commanded to
shine, full-orbed and cloudless, on the world.

Oh, Church of the Living God! “arise, shine,
for thy light is come; and the glory of the Lord
is risen upon thee.”

APPENDIX.

On THE Reuicions oF UncrvitizED ANCIENT Nations.—
We have already intimated that little notice need be taken of
these. Nearly everything we know about them is fitted to
excite disgust and horror.

1. Drurpism was the faith of the Celtic (including the Cymric)
races. We have notices of it in seven or eight classical writers
—particularly Czesar, Tacitus, and Pliny. A few hints may be
gathered from old Gaelic and.Welsh poems—such as those of
Ossian and Taliessin ; but their historical value is questionable.

The Druids, the religious leaders of the people, were of three
classes. The lowest consisted of the bards ; the second of those
who watched natural phenomena; the highest were more
properly priests. An arch-druid presided over all; who ap-
parently wielded unbounded power.

There were also three classes of Druidesses. The highest
formed a kind of Vestal virgins ; who lived in sisterhoods and
never married. These predicted coming events, cured diseases,
raised storms or calmed them, and transformed themselves into
whatever shape they pleased. In fact, the lingering superstitions
about witches in Western Europe are traceable back to Druidic
times.

With regard to the deities the Roman poet Lucan speaks thus :

Here Hesus’ horrid altar stands,

Here dire Teutates human blood demands ;
Here Taranis by wretches is obeyed,

And vies in slaughter with the Scythian maid.!

The oak tree, the acorn, and especially the mistletoe—a small
plant that grows on the oak—were especially sacred. Worship
was performed in dark groves.” Human sacrifices were frequent.
Czesar informs us that they made enormous figures of wicker
work, and filled them with human beings, whom they burnt to
death.

1 Rowe’s Lucan, Book i.

2 Lucan, Pharsalia, Book iii., gives a striking description of
a gloomy grove near Marseilles,

Notices of
Druidism
in classical
writers, etc.

Three
classes of
Druids.

Three
classes of
Druidesses.

Sacred tree.

Human
sacrifices..

Excom-
munication
and its
penalty.

Ancient
German
religion
morally
no higher
than the
Celts.

Nature-
worship its

foundation.

No account
of the
Slavonian
faith in an
old form,

Ohristianity and Ancient Paganism.

Even the priestesses performed such dreadful services. Strabo
speaks thus of these among the Cimbri: ‘‘The women who
follow the Cimbri to war are accompanied by grey-haired
prophetesses. They go with drawn swords through the camp,
strike down the prisoners they meet, and drag them to a brazen }
caldron. ‘There is an erection above this, on which the priestess
cuts the throat of the victim, and watches how the blood flows
into the vessel. Others tear open the bodies of the captives and
judge from the quivering entrails as to future events.”

Excommunication by the Druids was a tremendous infliction.
It must have involved death or unconditional submission to the
priests.”

2. THE RELIGION OF THE ANCIENT GERMANS.—Ceasar and
Tacitus supply us with interesting information regarding this
system ; and the Edda of Scandinavia tells us much regarding
its character at a later date. It was morally no higher than that
of the Celts.

Nature-worship was its main foundation. Sun, Moon, Fire,
Earth, were greatly worshipped. Woden (in the Edda, Odin)
was the chief deity; he was the god of war. Thunor (Thor)
was the god of thunder. He wielded, and made much use of
a tremendous hammer. Lok, or Loki, was an evil being, at
war with the gods; but at present a tortured prisoner. Walhalla
was heaven. It was a place where the blessed warriors every
day hacked each other to pieces, then got cured, and wound up
the day by drinking mead—an intoxicating beverage—out of
the skulls of slaughtered enemies.

Human sacrifices—especially of captives—were frequent. A
King of Sweden is said to have sacrificed nine of his sons in
succession, in order to prolong his own life. A kind of wild-
beast ferocity marked the people: the celebrated death-song
of Ragnar Lodbrok ‘‘ breathes slaughter” throughout. All
hopefulness seems banished from this faith. Balder, the
brightest of the gods, is slain; and we are approaching the
dreadful time

When Lok shall burst his sevenfold chain,
And night resume her ancient reign:

3. THE RELIGION OF THE ANCIENT SLAVONIANS.—We have
no satisfactory account of this faith in a very old form. The
last stronghold of it was the island of Rugen, in the Baltic,

Christianity and Ancient Paganism.

This was destroyed in 1168 by Waldemar, King of Denmark.
Saxo Grammaticus, a contemporary of Waldemar’s, gives a long
account of the chief idol there worshipped. He describes it as
a gigantic figure, with four heads and four necks—two breasts
and two backs. Cattle were sacrificed to it. In sweeping the
temple, the priest did not dare to breathe; and for every
necessary inspiration he had to quit the temple. At the religious
festivals intemperance was deemed a merit. The idol had a
horse, of whose tail or mane to pull a single hair was sacrilege.
It bore the god whenever he fought against his enemies, and
was often found in the morning coveréd with sweat and mud
in consequence. <A standard consecrated to the god entitled
those who bore it to pillage even the temples, and to commit
any kind of outrage. Such is the testimony of Saxo
Grammaticus.

The religion of the Slavonians was evidently very childish ;
but it was not so ferocious as that of the Celts or the Germans.

ine iin aaa ee
“24 PRESENT DAY TRACTS, No. 51. }<

The account
of Saxo
Grammati-
cus.

Slavonian
religion
childish.

'
s
a>)
|:
ak
4 fi
’
a yl
By) :
i. a
<
?
XA
vo 2
I
=
,
4
a4
=
‘;
ia ip
.
»
fe
i
)
i
6
:
‘
=
,
‘
t
}
.
¢
1
’

ia t_ ay yt (ee he

: ait fe 4, eee

Fee Ate eae ee ee ee
erie Reet Tee

a" % 1 :

;

; |
vn, wy

SORA TEA, TONES

.
.
v4
on ° ii ,* 10
, ‘ | ett
Fi tea in j sy es ry
rele ul ; ba |
ss % Ws i, 4} i
‘ 4
* W ,
wey ie 7 a } t A ihe
er
- : 7% A co
ae ae me | |
“5
| j | ,
-
je ’ ' ;
. b,
rm
4 - ‘
a :
_ , , |
i ry :
<= ‘
:
v*% )
t
.
iu : | “
z 5 |
; y
= F
’
\ ¢
¢
or | ; !
‘
! " )
; i
ae : %
: '
ail
. ; }
4
i
?
{
‘ —
re 7
fe J
4 -
ee 4
»
i
i
t
. .
} 7
1
ye a i
= ‘. |
i
y
(#
j >
zs :
oe Mu
| &)
- ; ‘
3
y °
ie
j ‘
on
ai ; |
‘
| me \ yor
7 7 é |
h- iQ
Fl
ae Py my d
é p ae epee }
¢ ’ i
~ . :
i y 1s i reas a |
| Me ia LL A) eet
Teeth A
:
\ ‘
; »
7 His i

$$
CHRIST AND CREATION:

AVS UM HORTS ADHD IBY: CONIA S ME,

REV. W. SUNDERLAND LEWIS, M.A.

AUTHOR OF
“The Great Problem; or, Christianity as it is’ “The Life of Lives,” etc., ete.

THE RELIGIOUS TRACT SOCIETY:
56, PAX ERNOSTER Row; 65, St. Paut’s CHURCHYARD;
AND 164, PICCADILLY.

Argument of the Wract.

—

REVELATION and observation—methods of obtaining information which
are often distinct, but to be sometimes combined. This eminently the
case in regard to the relation between Christ and Creation, the subject of
the present inquiry.

Beginning with Creation, these two authorities are shown to concur, first,
as to the universality of the reign of law amongst visible things ; next, as
to the general nature of the gradations marking the great ladder of being.;
then, as to the place of man, and so of Christ as man, at the head of that
ladder; and, finally, as to the place of Christ as the head of mankind.
The same authorities further agree in regarding the superiority of man to
the animals as partly of a mental, but more of a moral, description ; and also
in regarding the primacy of the historical Christ as resting on a similar,
but far profounder, foundation. He is so much the greatest, because so
transcendently the best, of mankind.

Revelation speaks also of the glorified Christ. Its language on this
subject tells us—amongst other things—of certain changes in the risen
body of Christ as the precursors and patterns of similar future changes in
many other bodies beside ; though only, be it noted, where certain correla-
tive non-bodily changes have taken place first. This is a prediction, in
effect, of the future appearance on earth of a new pattern of life. Sucha
prediction not only already verified in part by the experience of many; but
also, at least, illustrated in measure by the researches of Science ; and that,
both in its general character, and its more important details, as specified
here at some length.

The result, so far, is the establishment of a numerous and weighty
succession of correspondences between Scripture and Science, and the con-
sequent demonstration of the main points on which these correspondences
turn. In other words, Christ is the Crown of the past, and the Key of
the future. So far, our two oracles are at one.

This conclusion leads to further inquiry. If Christ be so much, is He
not very much more? The suggestions of observation and the teaching of
Revelation combine to show that He is. He is the Creator of all.

Hence, therefore, at last, the peculiar complexity, intimacy, and pro-
foundity, of the relation of Christ to Creation. He is at once the Fellow-
creature and the Creator of all that is made ; the Keystone, as it were, of
the whole arch of existence. Hence, also, the miserable inadequacy of all
Non-Christian views of the cosmos. The best of them teaches men more
error than truth.

A brief corroborative reflection is added. What Science says respecting
‘degradation’? in general is compared with what Scripture says on the
degradation, condemnation, and redemption of man. ‘The harmony of
this with our previous conclusions leads to the conclusion of all) The
secret of Creation lies in the Person of Christ! The secret of Redemption
lies in His. Cross! ‘‘In Him are hid aL the treasures of Wisdom and
Knowledge.”

CHRIST AND CREATION:

A TWO-SIDED QUEST.
—S 3 Await e

iL.

INTRODUCTORY.

) yA cerned chiefly with different fields of

pe inquiry. The one tells us about the
unseen; the other searches among the seen. For
all this, however, if is not always practicable to
keep their operations apart. The explorations of
the latter amongst the things that are seen some-
times bring us so close to the shores of the unseen
as at least to suggest a good deal. In the same
way, the instructions of the former about the
unseen sometimes tell us not a little respecting
the things that are seen.

It seems to follow, therefore, that there are lines
of inquiry in which we are more than warranted
in seeking to avail ourselves of both these sources
of light. Where the topic under discussion is one

Revelation
an

observation
different
methods of
ascertaining
truth.

Lines of
inquiry in
which both
may be
used.

Christ and Creation.

What

is the
relation
between
Christ and
Creation ?

This inquiry
a case in
point.

Some inter-
pretations of
Scripture
and con-
clusions of
Science are
generally
accepted.

These now
to be
combined.

on which they both offer to enlighten us, why
should either be slighted? We are hardly likely,
in that case, even with the assistance of both of
them, to have more light than enough.

It is on this principle accordingly that we desire
to act in our present inquiry. Is there any rela-
tion between Christ and Creation? Between the
Jesus of Scripture and the Cosmos of Science?
And if so, of what kind is it? and how far does it
reach? Itis evident, we think, that these inquiries
are of the two-sided sort we have named; and are
manifestly such as take us within the domains both
of Scripture and Science—both of knowledge and
faith. With regard to most of these inquiries,
also, it seems equally evident that the utterances
of both these authorities respecting them are de-
serving of attention and thought.

Notwithstanding much that is still uncertain, e.7.,
in our interpretations of Scripture, there are some
explanations of it which are almost unanimously
regarded as not admitting of doubt. So, also,
notwithstanding the large proportion at present of
what is merely conjectural amongst the inferences
of science, there are some of its deductions which
are unanimously regarded as almost beyond the
reach of dispute. The most important and ap-
parently relevant of these generally-accepted con-
clusions on both sides, are what we now seek to
combine. Accepting them all—for the moment,

Christ and Creation.

—

at any rate—as being correct in the main, we
would endeavour to see to what extent they appear
to throw light on the subject of inquiry. The
special interest of such an endeavour is evident
from the first. Its full importance, if we mistake
not, wil come out at the end.

Il.
OCurist THE Crown OF THE PAST.

WE may fitly begin our inquiry with that por-
tion of our subject which lies the nearest to our-
selves. Unquestionably, as human beings, we are
part and parcel of that visible universe which 1s
the special field of the researches of science. We
would ask first of all, therefore, what those re-
searches tell us about its constitution and nature ;
and especially what they describe as the leading
feature of all that we see. That word “cosmos”
already referred to, shall help us to answer. By
that well-known term science gives emphatic utter-
ance to one of her most prominent views. The

’ according to her,

visible universe 1s a ‘‘ cosmos,’
because of the extraordinary perfection of “order”
and “beauty ”’ which the observation of man has
learned to discern init throughout. So Pythagoras
is believed to have taught, ages ago, by coining
that term. So every step in true knowledge since

his time is believed to illustrate and confirm. LBe-

The intcrest
and im-
portance of
so doing.

Human
beings part
of the
visible
universe,
What
Science
tells us

of the
universe.

The
universe a
** cosmos.”’

The
teaching of
Pythagoras
confirmed
by Science.

Science
teaches
that the
universe is
conspicuous
for its
exhibition
of law.

Revelation
expresses
the same
thought.

The

account of
the visible
universe

at the
beginning
of Genesis
recognizes
the presence
of law.

Christ and Creation.

fore all things science teaches us that the universe
is conspicuous for its exhibition of law. Every-
thing exists—everything changes—according to
rule. 7

Does the teaching of Revelation say anything,
and if so, to what effect on this subject? The
method proposed by us requires us to consider this
next. A very brief reference appears sufficient to
settle the point. The first page of the Bible shows
that the language of Revelation expresses the same
thought ; expresses it identically, only—as some
think--in a more logical way. It speaks of a
Ruler, that is to say, as well as a rule. It re-
cognizes a Lawgiver as well asa law. And it in-
vites our first and chief attention, therefore, rather
to Him than to it. ‘In the beginning God
created the heaven and the earth.” None the less,
however, but rather all the more, does the exceed-
ingly concise account of the visible universe which
follows that opening sentence of our Bibles, re-
cognize the perpetual presence of law. The idea
of “ order” is woven into it from beginning to end.
If you destroy its order you destroy itself, whether
in whole or in part. What special order, what
studied order, there is in its times! . What equal
order, what conspicuous order, in the array of
its facts !
life it mentions as being “after its kind.”

How careful ats description of all the
What

explicit mention also, in other parts—as in describing

Christ and Creation.

the functions of the sun and moon, for example—
Is not the absolutely
orderly constitution of ‘all things, in a word, the

of the imposition of rule!

special conclusion to which it points us itself?
More than once the chapter pauses to speak of
that described by it as “good.” At the end of all
it speaks of all described by it as being more still.
“God saw everything that He had made; and
behold, it was very good.” The meaning of this-—
at any rate, in part—is easy tosee. .Thatis “good”
in moral matters, according to Scripture, which 1s
in compliance with rule. Righteousness is the
observance, sin the transgression of law. In other
than moral matters, therefore, such as these which
are here, a-thing will be “good” in this same kind
of language when it answers its end; in other
By

parity of reasoning, consequently, it will be “very

words, when it is in accordance with rule.

good’? when it answers its purpose to the full ;
when its accordance with rule is without a flaw.
Except in depth, therefore, wherein does this state-
ment of Scripture differ from that fundamental
deduction of science to which we adverted just
now? What is the discovery of the one but the
announcement of the other—so far as it goes?
After the fact of this universal order comes the
thought of its manner. We will examine this first,
as in the previous instance, from the side of human

research. In that visible universe of which we

The
orderly
constitution
of all
things the
conclusion
specially
pointed to.

God’s
declaraticn.
concerning
everything
that He
had made.

It was

6é very
good”’
because it
answered its
purpose to
the full.

The
discovery of
science

is the
announce-
ment of
revelation,

Christ and Creation.

The

lowest
condition of
matter
known to
human
research,

The

world of
inorganic
existence.
The ele-
mentary
forces
supplemen-
ted by

higher ones.

The
vegetable
kingdom,

A third
and higher
group—
the animal
kingdom,

A higher
still—the
world of
rational
existence,

are speaking, human research knows of nothing
lower than that condition of matter in which it is
believed that its so-called ultimate atoms are acted
on by elementary forces alone. To this category
belongs the whole world of inorganic existence.
Immediately above it comes another condition,
in which these elementary forces have been sup-
plemented by others of a higher description. To
this category may be assigned all those vastly
varied lower forms of organization . and life
which constitute the vegetable kingdom, as it is
called. In the category next above this—a cate-
gory in which both the previously-named groups
of forces have been supplemented in turn by a
third group of a still higher description—that
higher world of distinctly sentient existence which
is comprised in the so-called: animal kingdom, is to
be found. Lastly, by the addition of other energies
yet to the whole previously-existing aggregation of
forces, we come to a higher world still, the world,
viz., of distinctly rational or intellectual existence.
Ordinary observation cannot be said to know any-
thing which is higher than this.

Notwithstanding the fact that a greater or less
degree of uncertainty may be thought to attach,
by some persons, to some of its gradations, the
above may be accepted as a general view of the
successive steps in the great ladder of existence so
far as known to our senses. It may be doubted, in-

Christ and Creation.

deed, whether it is possible at present to offer very
much more; and whether any inquireris yet com-
petent to give a description of the gradations in
question, which shall be otherwise than uncertain in
some of its limits, or more than approximate in any?
But this does not affect, in any vital manner, the
question before us. All that is asserted here is,
that there is a principle pervading them of the
kind we have named. The second step of this
ascent 1s not arrived at, that is to say, by thrusting
the lowest away, but by building upon it. The
third step is built, in like manner, on both the
second and first. And the highest of all, therefore,
is built in like manner again on all the others
below. Nothing is subtracted, in short, but much
is added all the way up.

It is important to notice what follows from
this as to the nature of man. He stands, ad-
mittedly, at the very summit of this ladder of
being. It follows, therefore, this being its cha-
racter, that his nature is as thoroughly elementary,
on the one hand, as it is thus pre-eminent on the
other. He is as certainly animal, that is to
_ say, as though he were not human as well. In
some respects, again, he is as much the creature
of instinct, as though he were not, at the same
time, under the guidance of reason as well. And
he is as certainly composed and built up of such
elementary substances as carbon and nitrogen and

One
principle
pervades all
the steps
of the
ladder of
existence.

The two-
fold aspect
of the
nature of
man as at
the summit
of this ~
ladder.

Faith’s
description
of man.

His pre-
eminence,

The first
order below
him—the
cattle, ete.

Then the
grass, etc.

Then the
**severed
lands’? and
‘* vathered
waters.”’

Man not
divided
from any,

Grasse:
and ‘‘flesh,’’

Christ and Creation.

phosphorus, and so on, as though he were not also
possessed of those highly distinguishing mental
powers which no man at present can produce by
their means. Of the same materials, in a word,
as all that he sees, he is yet above it throughout—
a highly-elaborated pillar of clay on a pedestal of
the same.

Faith’s description of the nature of man, and of
the world he belongs to, though not identical with
this description, is not at variance with it. In many
important respects, we may rather say that it 1s
On the one hand,
e.g., 1t describes man as standing at the summit of
a practically identical ladder of being. First
below him, as in the previous description, it shows
us “the cattle, and creeping things, and fish
of the sea, and fowl of the air.” Next below
them, as in the previous case too, it shows.us the
“orass” and the “herbs” and the “trees of the
field.’ And below these again, as in the previous
case still, those severed “lands” and gathered
“waters” upon, or in, or out of the elements com-
posing which all this manifold and multitudinous
life is described as being produced. On the other
hand, though placed thus at the summit of all, man
is not described here, any more than before, as being
divided from any. On the contrary, it is said
expressly that “he also is flesh.” And it is also
said, just as expressly—and that, apparently,

tantamount to it throughout.

Christ and Creation.

with something more than a reference to the mere
perishability of his nature—that “ all flesh is grass.”
And of man himself, therefore, as of everything
under him, that he is of “the dust of the
earth.”

This conclusion marks a definite step in the
progress of our inquiry. ‘The wildest unbelief
acknowledges fully the true manhood of Christ.
And faith, of course, while affirming still more,
_ affirms as much as this too. According, therefore,
to both these ways of regarding the question, the
relation of Christ to creation—at any rate in the
first instance—is the relation of man to the same.
In other words, the historical Christ was at once
superior, and yet akin to all the things that we
see.

It is with human beings, however, as we see it
to be with the clouds in the atmosphere of this earth.
“Though all are necessarily above that from which,
nevertheless, they have all been drawn up; they
are not all above it, by any means, at the very
same height. We see the direction, therefore, in
which we must inquire next concerning the true
position of Christ. What was that position in
reference to those of the rest of mankind P

The question does not really admit of more
answers than one. In this respect also Christ was
admittedly at the summit of all. As a matter of
fact, even unbelief virtually acknowledges this. At

Man of
“the dust
of the
ground.”’

The true
manhood of
Christ ac-
knowledged
by unbelief

The
historical
Christ at
once
superior
and akin
to all that
we see.

His position
in relation
to the

rest of
mankind.

Christ ad-
mittedly
at the
summit
of all.

The name
of Christ
and the
place of
Christian

civilisation,

In the eye
of faith
Christ the
highest of
men.

Christ and Creation.

the present moment it 1s certain that the name of
Christ is the most influential name upon earth.
Christian civilisation, at the present moment, is the
highest we know. What is it, in effect, but the suc-
cessor of others which held similar rank in their
day ? At one time the civilisation of Rome, such as it
was, had conquered the world by its arms. Every
one knows how the civilisation of Greece, by its
culture, subdued this in its turn. The civilisation °

of Christianity, which is the civilisation of Christ, —
has long overcome both. How significant the fact
that we have the Gospel message in the language of
Greece; and that the most illustrious of tongues
found its highest function in telling the world about
Christ !

To the same effect, on this point also, does
our other authority speak. It is simply no-
torious, in fact, that to the eye of faith, Christ
is the highest of men. In the language ot faith,
to be a “Christ” or an “ Anointed One” at all,
is to be one set apart for great use. To be “the
Christ,’”’ therefore,—to be the Anointed One—is to
It is to
stand amongst them as they stand amongst the rest

be the most distinguished among such.

of mankind. Consequently, itis to be adorned with

a crown which it were flat treason even to offer

elsewhere.
This brings us, of course, to a second definite
step in discussing the relation of the historical

Christ and Creation.

Christ to the things that are seen. He stands at
the head of those beings who stand at the head of
them all.

On this point, however, a further question re-
quires to be asked. When we speak of the manhood
of the historical Christ as being confessedly the
highest of all, in what precise sense is this true?
Wherein had that manhood its chief advantage
over all else that was human? In almost every
~ crown there is some individual jewel which shines
brightest of all. Was there such a jewel, and, if
so, what was its nature, in this particular crown ?

The inquiry necessitates a further view of the
complex nature of man. In all that we have
hitherto said of him here, we have tacitly assumed
that his intellectual faculties have most to do with
securing him the eminent place which he holds.
And it cannot be denied that they are of real mo-
ment in regard to this point. Without undertaking
to dispute the existence of anything similar to those
faculties in some apparently exceptional races or
members of the purely animal world, it cannot be
_ denied that he is very widely differentiated in
this respect even from these. The well-known
fact that any marked approach to those mental
processes which we reckon on in him, astonishes us
in them, seems to prove this of itself. It may be
doubted, however, for all this, whether we have
the key of the case in this fact; and whether the

W herein
the

manhood
of Christ
excels all
else that is
human.

The
intellectual
faculties

in relation
to the place
of man in
creation.

The
difference
between
man and
the highest
members
of the
purely
animal
world.

The
crowning
advantage
of man
lies in
his moral
rather
than his
intellectual
endow-
ments.

Signs of
shame and
fear in
animals.

The sense
of right
and wrong
in the
abstract
peculiar
to man.

Explains
the sense
of shame
men feel
in secret.

Prompts
the open
confession,

Christ and Creation.

crowning advantage of man over the brutes does
not lie rather in his moral, than in his intellectual

endowments. Here again it 1s no doubt true of

- some among these—more especially so, perhaps,

of those species amongst them which are brought
much into contact with men—that they do some-
times seem to evince something like a sense of
duty or right. At any rate, where they have
distinctly disobeyed the commands of those to
whom they look up as their masters or owners,

they do sometimes show undoubted signs, if not of —

shame, yet of fear. But this cannot be put ona
par for a moment with that sense of right and
wrong in the abstract, and that inward approba-

tion of the one and disapprobation of the other, of

which human nature seems to be always capable,

Why else is it

that men sometimes find themselves blushing in

even when found at its worst.

solitude at their secret misdeeds ?. Why else is it,
also, that they sometimes even find a relief in
making these known? If that inward disquiet
which prompts them to this were merely a kind of

reflection—as some affirm that it is—of the dis- |

approbation and ill-usage which such offenders fear
from others, supposing those others to know of their

secrets, surely, instead of urging them to make those —

things known, this would be just the feeling to
prevent them from doing anything of the kind.
Certainly it would never lead a man guilty of mur-

« Be

Christ and Creation.

der, for example, to give himself up spontaneously
to certain ignominy and death—as has happened
frequently before now. Clearly the principle that
does this must be something apart from other
men’s thoughts. Clearly, also, the principle that
does this must be something essential to the normal
nature of man. Individuals who appear to be
almost wholly deficient in this respect, may be
discoverable here and there, it is true. But this is
no more wonderful im its way than the occasional
occurrence amongst us of individuals who are
wholly unable to distinguish discords from con-
cords, or bright objects from dark. Deafness and
blindness are not to be regarded, on that account,
as the normal condition of men.

It is easy to see also, on the other hand, how
intrinsically superior to everything else within
man is this essential part of his nature. It is
superior, first, inits strength. We test the strength
of a force by its conquests. What can it overcome
at its best? In the cases just referred to, we see
what this principle of conscience can overcome at
its best, viz. the fear of ignominy and death. It
is hard to name anything, indeed, which this same
principle has not overcome in its time. It is im-
possible, therefore, to name anything within man
which is stronger than this in its way! This
principle is. superior also, in the next place, in
regard to its rank, Hven in that depth of remorse

The moral
sense
essential to
the nature
of man.

Cases of
men
destitute
of moral
sense
abnormal.

The
superiority
of the
moral sense
to every-
thing else
in man.

The
supreme
power

of this
principle.

Something
in remorse
not to be
treated with
scorn.

How much
its absence
means,

How much
its per-
fection
implies.

A further
necessary
distinction.

The
imperfection
of a man’s
knowledge
of right
often due
to his weak
sensitiveness
to evil,

Christ and Creation.

—$—$_$_—.

just now adverted to, we all feel that there is
something working which ought not to be treated
with scorn. The wretch who feels it, however
otherwise degraded, is higher than the wretch who
does not. Do we not all feel also, on the other
side of the case, that the less a man is capable
of this inward compunction for evil, the nearer
he is to the brute? As also that the more he is
restrained by the positive side of the same principle
from the commission of evil, the more eminent is
his worth? After all, what we most profoundly
admire in a man lies in this direction alone. It is
not his talents, not his endowments, not his powers, .
not his attainments, but his character that we
respect! ‘The more consclENTIOUS, the more of
a MAN!

One other thing also, in regard to this point,
must not be passed by. This “ conscientiousness ”
is not quite so simple a thing as it looks. It
is a “function” rather “of two variables,” as
the mathematicians express it. Not only, that
is to say, are there differences of sensitiveness
among men with regard to the attainment of
right; there are also among them equal differ-
ences of opinion as to the nature of right. Practi-
cally, also, these differences are found to tell very
much on each other. A man’s knowledge of right,
é.g-, 18 sometimes very imperfect because, with his
weak sensitiveness on the subject of evil, he has

Christ and Creation.

never wished it, in reality, to be very much more.
He has loved darkness rather than light. So, on
the other hand, the comparative imperfection of a
man’s knowledge of right, not infrequently has the
He
loses the power of sight, as it were, for the want of
Probably
of the far larger majority of mankind we should not
be very wrong in saying that they have suffered
somewhat—if not suffered greatly—in both these
respects. ‘heir sensitiveness as o right has been
impaired because their standard . f right has been
low. On the other hand, their standard of right
has been lowered because their sensitiveness about
it has been weak. And thus in both ways, there-
fore, there has been a sore diminution in. their
moral superiority to the brutes. Sometimes, in
fact, that superiority will be found to have shrivelled
into little more than a certain capacity for being
ashamed—a relic which serves principally to give
evidence of what ought to have been!

These considerations may enable us now to give
a sufficient answer to the question previously asked.
The great superiority of the historical Christ to the
rest of mankind lies in the lines we have traced,
Where all other men fail in some measure, where
most other men fail egregiously, He succeeded
entirely. In other words, with neither of the
disadvantages, He had both the advantages—

effect of causing his desire for it to be weak.

light, as with certain creatures in caves.

Imperfect
knowledge
often causes
his desire
for right to
be weak,

Lamentable
diminution
thus caused
sometimes in
man’s moral
sup-riority
to the
brutes.

The
superiority
of the
historical
Christ to
the rest of
mankind
moral.

The key to
Christ’s
superiority
lies in the
absolute
perfection
of His
teaching
and
example.

The
attempt to
blacken
His name
felt to be
hopeless,

Christ the
best of His
race,

How
Revelation
at once
transcends

aud confirms

this
conclusion.

Chiist and Creation.

and that to perfection—of which we have spoken.
Never was anything purer than His teaching,
unless it were His example. This was the jewel
which made His diadem the solitary thing that it
was. He was so specially the highest, because, in
every way, He was so far the best of mankind.

Even those who are not prepared to admit all that

is claimed for the Jesus of history by His Church,

admit this to be true. This is evident from the
tone taken by them in attempting to account
otherwise for His fame. It is felt now to be a
kind of forlorn hope to try and blacken His
name. No hypothesis can now expect to be
listened to, to any serious extent, which starts
Such is the
verdict of nearly twenty centuries of hostile ob-
What the experience of
the world has never claimed for any other it
admits about Him. He was the best of His race.
Revelation, of course, in proclaiming Christ to

be the Man “without sin” goes beyond this a

with the assumption of evil in Him.

servation and thought.

great deal; and in so doing, of course, confirms
it also in the strongest possible way. According
to both witnesses, therefore, we are brought to
the same conclusion respecting the ethical position
of Christ. Incontestably He held the moral pri- —
macy among the children of man.

Christ and Creation.

III.

Curist THE Key or toe Furure.

Hirnerro, in considering the relation of Christ
to Creation, we have purposely taken only a partial
view of the case, We have only contemplated
Him as He existed on earth before His death
on the cross. Of the nature of Christ as it
existed in those subsequent days of which the
Scriptures also inform us, we have refrained from
speaking as yet. But it is evident, of course,
that we must do so no longer if we would take
a complete view of our subject. Revelation also
speaks to us—and that not less copiously—of a
glorified Christ. And it is saying the least,
therefore, to say of this latter part of His story
that it must not be left out.

In discussing this, it will be best, on many
accounts, to begin with the Scriptural side. What
do those Scriptures which assure us of the rising
again of Christ from the dead, and of His subse-
quent manifestation “by many infallible proofs”
to those who had best known Him before, tell us
besides on this point? What do they tell us,
especially—for this has most to do at this juneture
with our present inquiry—about that bodily nature
in which He appeared at that time?

The answer is plain enough in some respects, if

Christ after
“the days
of His
flesh,”?

The
glorified
Christ,

The
testimony
of Scripture.

a()

The post-
resurrection
body of
Christ.

Its
appearance.

The effect
on His
followers.

Its
character.

No longer
subject to
death.

That new
body not
another.

Christ and Creation.

somewhat mysterious in others. After the rising
again of Jesus of Nazareth, the Scriptures ascribe
a body to Him which was in several ways “ higher ”
than that in which He had previously died. It
was a body “higher,” in the first place, in
fashion or look. That singular mixture of hesita-
tion and adoration which is described as marking
the behaviour of those intimate friends of Christ,
to whom He is said to have showed Himself after
His passion (see Matt. xxvii. 17; John xxi. 12),
suffices to prove this of itself. Evidently now,
they see something other—evidently now, they see
something higher—than aught which they had
previously seen. That risen body is also described
in Scripture as having become something “ higher”
in character than what it previously was. The
well-known fact that the Christ who had pre-
viously died is now described as having become
the Christ who never can die again (Rom. vi. 9),
suffices to prove this of itself. All the difference,
in fact, between immortal and mortal is implied
in such words. At the same time these changes
in the appearance and character of the body of
Christ are never represented to us as being of
such a nature as to sever its connection with
that which existed before. After all, that new
body is not so new as to have lost identity with
the old. ‘Handle Me, and see that it is I My-
self.”

Chiist and Creation.

This, however, 1s by no means all that is de-
clared to us on this point. Revelation, on the
contrary, always describes this mysterious change
in the body of Christ as at once the precursor
and the pattern of many others beside.
is, In this matter, to follow its custom of repeat-

History

ing itself. In other words, either along the same
path as that which was travelled by Christ, or
else along a shorter path still, changes similar
to those which passed on the body of Christ at
His resurrection, are to pass hereafter on many
other bodies as well. This is taught us plainly,
on the one hand, in general terms: ‘“ We shall
not all sleep, but we shall all be changed.” This
is taught us, on the other, with no less plainness,
As in the

previous case of Christ Himself, e.g., there is to

as to the main details of the change.
be a change in look, to begin. A change in look
which shall have the effect of making the bodies
affected by it similar in appearance to that of
Christ Himself (see Phil. in. 21; 1 John i. 2).
Also, as in the previous case again, there shall
be a change, after the pattern of Christ, in cha-
racter too—that which is now mortal or subject
to death in the subjects of this change, becoming
victor over it then (1 Cor. xv. 53, 54). And yet,
finally, as in the previous case still, the change
effected shall not be such as to involve loss of
identity with that which existed before. This

The same
change to
take place
in other
bodies,

This
taught

in general
terms.
Details

of the
change.

Appearauce,

Character,

No
destruction
of identity.

The change
eternal
deliverance
from
destruction.

Every man
not to be
changed.

An inward
change
must be
first
experienced.
The
teaching of
Scripture on
the subject.

The change
a quickening
or ** new
creation,”’

Christ and Creation.

“mortal” is to “put on” immortality; this “cor-
ruptible” is to put on “ incorruption ;” they are
not to be obliterated thereby. So far, in fact,
will the change in question be from effecting
destruction, that it will deliver from it for ever.
One other feature requires to be noted in what
Scripture says to us on this point. We are not
taught to look for these great external changes in
every man’s case. Only, in fact, where certain
similar internal changes have taken place first,

The

language of Revelation is notably consistent, as

are we to expect these outer ones to ensue.

well as peculiarly deep on this point. We have
already noticed that, even in man at his worst,
there exists a certain slumbering and unen-
lightened capacity for distinguishing moral evil
and good; a capacity which is supposed by some
to be sealed (see Prov. xx. 27, Eph. v. 14), in his
But, except for this, the Bible
describes man as he is as a wholly “psychical ”
being. He has a merely “ psychical” or “ natural”
mind, in a merely “natural” body. In both
respects, however, he is described to us as being
On the one hand, he
When that
“mind”? or “spirit” is touched effectually by the

pneuma or spirit.

susceptible of amendment.
is so, in regard to his “ mind.”

power of the Spirit of God, Scripture describes
it as becoming ‘“quickened” or “created anew,”
with such consequent powers of appreciation and

Christ and Creation.

will and performance in regard to spiritual
matters as it never previously knew. Not un-
reasonably, therefore, when the spring of a man’s
nature has been ‘“ spiritualised” thus Gf so we
may speak), is such a one spoken of in Scrip-
ture as haying become a “spiritual”? man. Not
unreasonably, also, in such a case, is that other
and outward branch of amendment spoken of as
sure to ensue. Nor is it unreasonable lastly,
when that is so, that the new outward nature
thus brought into being should be described to us
by a similar name. Such, at any rate, is the
case. “It is sown a [psychical or] natural body ;
it is raised a spiritual body.’ In that fact, so
the apostle teaches us, we have the essence of
all. In that fact we can see, also, that we are
in the presence of the consummation of all. Hven
if it be not in our power—whilst still this side of so
momentous a change—to discern all that is meant
by the singular and striking term here employed
to describe it, we can at least perceive the beauty
and admire the harmony of the idea. Such a
favoured tenant in so glorious a dwelling—such a
“ spiritual” mind in such a correspondingly “ spiri-
tual”? body—such a likeness to Christ in inward
. faculties and in outward expression as well—make
up together a completeness of symmetry which
lacks nothing even in thought.

Thus much, in a general way, of the Scriptural

The
quickened
becomes ‘a
spiritual
man.”

The
changed
body
becomes ‘fa
spiritual
body.”

The ideal
perfection of
this two-fold
likeness to
Christ.

‘The same
subject
from the
side of
human
research.

Many have
already
experienced
the inward
change.

To despise
their
testimony is
to despise a
great fact.

Christ and Creation.

view. We have to ask next, whether anything
can be learned about this branch of our subject
from the opposite side. Do any of the accredited
results of human research bear upon it at all?
And, if so, in what manner? And to how great
an extent ?

The first of these questions is not to be answered
at once in a negative way. So far, on the contrary
as concerns one particular field of human ex-
perience, the very reverse appears to be true.
There are multitudes of men, at any rate—them-
selves the successors of similar men in the past
—who deliberately declare themselves to be al-
ready the subjects of one part of this change.
They know themselves now to be other than they
were at one time—so they distinctly assure us—
in the things of the spirit. They find themselves
moved by desires, they find themselves in the en-
joyment of faculties, they find themselves conscious
of powers of which they knew nothing before.
Such testimony is a fact which no one who deals
with facts can afford to despise. In all other
subjects of inquiry a greater degree of evidential
weight is attached to the testimony of experts—_
be they many or few—than to all the random
guesses of all the inexperience of all the rest of
the world. We are at a loss to know why we
should not do the same in this subject as well.

Kiven apart from such testimony, however, there

Christ and Creation.

are many positive facts which at least seem de-
serving of attention in regard to this point.
What the various Scriptural statements just
quoted really amount to, when all taken to-
gether, is a deliberate prediction of the future
appearance amongst us of a new pattern of life.
When all that of which they assure us shall be
fully accomplished, there will be a new description
of man—a new variety of being—on the tace of
this earth. Is this at all at variance, is it not
rather in exact accordance (so far as it goes), with
some of the most honoured deductions of scientific
inquiry regarding the past of this earth? Ac-
cording to these deductions, there has been a Jong
succession of similar manifestations—manifesta-
tions similar in their novelty, if not in anything

We are told

that its crust, in fact, for furlongs downwards, is

else—on the face of our earth.

a vast repertory of the remains of such beings;
and that the whole number of living forms which
have first appeared, and then disappeared, in the
days of the past, is considerably greater than the
Viewed
in this general way, the Scriptural announcement

whole number in existence at present.

which we are considering only adds another term
to this almost immeasurable series of being; and
simply declares that that shall be in the future
which has been in the past. The inferences of

science almost prophesy—the same thing.

Other facts
deserving of
attention.

The
Scriptures
referred to,
a virtual
prediction
of a new
pattern

of life.

The
deductions
of science
on this
point

in accord-
ance with
Scripture.

The
Scriptural
announce-
ment only
adds another
term to an
almost im-
measurable
series of
being.

Christ and Creation.

Parallelisms
illustrating
Scriptural
statements,

In the
order of
existence
the lower
precedes the
higher.

In the
predicted
genesis of
the new
man the
natural
precedes
the
spiritual.

The
principle
of addition
as referred
to before.

The same
principle
found in
Scripture
teaching
concerning
the predicted
higher life
on earth.

Also, if we turn from this general view of these
Scriptural statements to the consideration of some
of their more important details, we shall find
parallelisms, we believe, which, if not strict an-
alogies, are illustrations in point, One such
occurs, for example, in connection with the ques-
tion of order. So far as men have hitherto
traced the succession of existence in the days that
are past, they believe themselves to have es-
tablished a remarkable general rule in regard to
this point. In the same line of existence, the
lower form, though not the less perfect, has always
preceded the higher. That being so, is it not at
least worthy of notice, that in the predicted genesis
of the “new man” also, this is to be emphatically
the rule? ‘ Howbeit, that is not first which is
spiritual, but that which is natural; and after-
wards that which is spiritual.”

We find another illustration, in the next place,
on the question of mode. When endeavouring
at first to take a general view of the great ladder of
being so far as ordinarily known to our senses, we
saw that the one principle pervading all its changes
was the simple principle of addition. Nothing
was subtracted, much was added, all the way up.
That being so, it is surely a fact to be marked that
an apparent illustration of the same principle is to
be found in the teaching of Scripture concerning

the nature of that higher life which she bids us

Chiist and Creation.

expect on this earth. In what way, according to
her, is that highest visible life of the future to differ
from the highest existing at present? As that does
in turn from the kind of life immediately below it,
and as every lower kind also does in turn from that
immediately below it, viz.,in the way of addition
alone.. This is true, on the one hand, of the inner
“These be
they,” it is written of some (see Jude 19, R.V.,
margin), “‘ who separate themselves, natural, not

faculties of this new species of man.

having the Spint.” In other words, it is this
addition of “having the Spirit,” which differentiates
the “spiritual” from the “natural ” so far as the
inner man is concerned. Much the same also
is true, on the other hand, of the outward
framework as well. When the apostle in 2 Cor.
v. 1-4, speaks of this body of the future under
the figure of a dwelling, and declares for himself
how greatly he longs to enter on the possession
thereof, he is careful to show us that he looks for
it only in the way we have named. “ Not for that
we would be unclothed, but clothed upon ;”—-so it
is that he writes (2 Cor. v. 4).

We may extend our comparison also to the
nature of the addition to which this differentiation
is due. We have seen that the principal inward
advantages of man as he is over the best of the
animals below him, lie in the direction of his

vastly superior power of reasoning, and of appreci-

The

highest life
of the future
differs from
the highest
life of the
present in
the way of
addition
alone.

The
principle of
addition in
relation to
the future
body.

The nature
of the
addition

to which
the differ-
entiation is
due.

The

inward
advantages
which

make the
‘““new man”’
superior to
the ‘‘old.”

The
spiritual
and the
natural
mind,

The
interval
between
them.

Christ and Creation.
ating the “right.” If these things exist at all in
the members of the merely animal world, it is in
It is the com-
parative perfection of these faculties in man

a rudimentary form at the best.

which lifts him up so far above them. Just so
is it, also, according to the teaching of Scrip-
ture, of those inward advantages which make the
These also
are said to depend on a difference of a precisely
As we have seen, it is by the
enlightening of the dark, by the awakening of the
dormant, by the quickening of that which was

“new man” superior to the “old.”

similar kind.

lifeless before, that the spiritual mind supplants
the natural, and becomes able to “understand the
things of the Spirit.” There is the difference
which gives the “new man” of Scripture his great
present advantage over the old. In both cases,
in short—the case of the natural man compared
with the animals, and the case of the spiritual
man compared with the natural—the interval
between the higher and lower is described as
of transcendent magnitude and significance, and
yet is not an abyss.

Whether we are taught as much as this with
regard to man’s outward framework as well, is not
so easy to see; but we are clearly taught that which
is not out of keeping with such an idea. The body
of man, as men are now, is said to possess one
conspicuous advantage over all merely animal

Christ and Creation.

bodies now in existence, in its greatly superior
power of adaptation to external influences of all
sorts. The human body can not only sustain life,
when exposed to changes which are simply de-
structive to others, but even enjoy it too in a
measure. If we suppose this adaptability in-
creased to such a degree—and there are reasons
for believing this not to be so very difficult a
thing to accomplish—as to make the body of
man superior to all the external influences to
which it will ever be exposed, it 1s clear that
in that case his body would be possessed of a
practical immortality such as that of which we
are told. Nor would such a transformation be
so wholly unexampled in magnitude as might
appear at first sight. The original transition,
e.g., from inanimate to animate existence, does
not appear, to our minds, to be very much
less. Of the two things, indeed, there seems a
distinctly greater change in causing life to begin
On this part of

the subject, therefore, if our two authorities do not
exactly appear to harmonize, they are not at

than in causing it to advance.

variance, at the worst. A point this, in the cir-
cumstances surrounding them, not unworthy of
note.

We come next to the more debateable question
No doubt on this

point the really established conclusions of science

of the origin of new types.

The
advantage
of the
human
body over
other
animal
bodies,

What the
human
body might
be made,

The trans-
formation
not wholly
unex-
ampled.

To cause
life to
begin
greater
than to
cause it to
advance.

The
origin of
new types,

New types
seem

sometimes
to appear.

Their
ultimate
permanence
uncertain.

New
“* varieties ”?
do appear.

They take
their origin
from one
centre.

The

““ copper
beech” a
familiar
example.

Christ and Creation.

In the field of

nature, as it lies before us at present, we do some-

have not much to say to us yet.

times discover, it is true, what look like examples
of the new appearance of types. But we cannot at
present speak positively as to the ultimate perman-
ence of those forms. Some such, on the contrary,
as a matter of fact, have already ceased to exist.
The “gourd”? which was found to appear in the
one night, disappeared in the next. Still, it is a
fact to be dealt with, that certain new “ varieties ”
of formation—so called in order to distinguish
them from those forms of more assured character
and stability, to which the name of “ species” is

given—do now occasionally make their appearance

(sometimes with, and sometimes without the inter-

ference of man) on the great arena of life. And
it 1s also a fact which has to be dealt with, that a
large majority of the “varieties” in question have
been found by observation to take their origin, not
from many centres, but one. The “ copper beech”
of our ornamental plantations is a familiar, and,
therefore, a suitable instance in point. This pecu-
liar description of beech afew years ago was wholly
unknown in the world. It now exists as a distinct
“variety”? in all parts of the land. It is also a
“variety,” the exact dispersion and origin of which
——to a certain extent—can be easily traced; the
individual specimen, it is said, being still in exist-
ence, which first of all, as it were, gave the start

Chiist and Creation.

to the fashion in question. And, be that as it
may, there is no manner of doubt that the records
of horticulture and of domesticated animal life,
abound with instances of a similar kind. Nothing
is more common, in fact, than for what are known
as “varieties” to originate in this manner, What-
ever their destiny may be, this is how they began.
The diversity which one specimen originated, other
connected specimens afterwards followed. Thus
the group started; thus it has grown.

_ Is there anything similar in regard to that new
race or “group” in the life-history of mankind,
of which we are told in the Scripture? ‘That
there are many points of strong dissimilarity im
regard to this case, is visible of course at a glance.
But this dees not in any way militate against
the possibility of likeness in it in other respects.
As a matter of fact, indeed, so far as that
unicentral mode of appearance is concerned to
which alone we are now referring, no degree of
resemblance could very well be more express and
complete. Consider, e.g., how distinctly this case of
new nature, in both departments, is described as
originating with One. Also, how distinctly we are
told of all those persons who now possess it in
part, and are hereafter to possess it in full, that all
this is only in consequence of their connection with,
and also after the pattern of One! There are few
things, in fact, of which revelation tells us with

Similar
instances
abound

in the
records of
horticulture
and animal
life.

The new
ee group ”?
in the
historv of
mankind.

The
unicentral
mode of
appearance.

Scriptural
descriptions
of the
inward
trans-
formation
and of the
future
outward
change.

The new
“ oroup”?
made up
of those
who have
undergone
the double
change.

The many
spring from
the one.

Christ and Oreation.

To be practical
“imitators of Christ,’ on the one hand, to have
the “mind which was in Christ Jesus,” to be

greater plainness of speech.

“conformed” to Him in spirit and feeling, these
are its descriptions of that inward transformation
which changes the “old man” to the “new.” On
the other hand, to “bear the image of the heavenly”
One in outward frame and appearance as well,
and to have these “bodies of humiliation conformed
unto the hkeness of His body of glory,” when we
“see Him” at last “as He is,” is the description
it gives of the other and future part of the change.
Add to which, as it is only of thosc thus doubly
changed, on the one hand, so is it expressly of all
of such, on the other hand, that this new race is
made up. So far, therefore, as concerns that one
point on which alone we are dwelling, what we
are taught to believe of this race is what we have
seen illustrated also amongst “the trees of the field,”
viz., the many springing from one! No sensible
person will despise this comparison because of the
vast interval it embraces. The whole experience
of science rather teaches us to do the reverse.
The simpler the nature of a principle, and the
wider its grasp, the stronger—so far—the pro-
bability of its truth,

‘“* The very law which moulds a tear,
And bids it trickle from its source,
That law preserves the earth a sphere,
And guides the planets in their course.

Christ and Creation.

Another thing, also, in this illustration, deserves
tu be weighed. ‘The whole existing Adamic race
is traced in the Bible to an origin of this kind.
“Adam begat a son in his own likeness, after his
image.’ Succeeding “ Adams ” (so to call them)
by doing the same have made the race what it is.
Such, in brief, in regard to this matter, is the
Scriptural story. Its special importance in our
present inquiry lies in the fact of its being em-
ployed by the Bible itself in illustration of the
genesis of the new race of mankind. This is done
indirectly—amongst other things—when Christ, as
the Head of this higher and later race, is called
the “last Adam” or “second Man.”
directly, when it is said of those who are destined
to belong to that race, that, as they have “borne

the image of the earthy,” i.e. of Adam, so they

This is done

are to bear “the image of the heavenly,” de. of
Christ.
seems to be predicated in the Bible respecting the

A certain amount of resemblance, in fact,

very processes employed in bringing these issues
about. The great general scientific principle of
“like begets like,’”—the same principle which is
recognized in the language of Scripture when it
describes all living existence as being “ after its
kind ”—1is described as lying at the foundation of
both. In other words, as it is by ‘ generation ”’
that all natural men inherit the image of the

“first,” so it is by “regeneration” both of spirit
D

The origin
of the
Adamic
race,

Christ the
“last
Adam” or
the ** second
Man.”’

The new

[73 group ”»
who bore
**the image
of the
earthy ”’
are to bear
the ‘‘ image
of the
heavenly.’’

The
scientific
principle

of ‘like
begetting
like”’ the
foundation
of both.
The ‘image
of the
earthy ”’
comes by
generation,
the ‘* image
of the
heavenly ”
by re-
generation

The
parallelism
not to be
pressed too
far.

Yet it is
not without
weight.

The time
of the
appearance
of types
difficult to
determine

The general
prevalence
of this or
that order
of life in
given ages
may be
learnt, but
not the
date of its
rise.

Christ and Creation.

and body that all spiritual men are to bear
finally that of the ‘ second.”
parallelism—it may be—to be pressed very far.
But it is still less to be slighted. For on the
one hand, to a certain extent, it compares the
with that of the old.
On the other hand, it compares the genesis of
the natural man with that of ‘the trees of the
field.” In a certain way, therefore, it at least
seems to bridge over that vast interval between
the first of these and the last, of which we have
spoken; and gives express Scriptural sanction,

This is not a

genesis of the “new man”

and therefore still greater signiticance to the
illustration just traced.

Connected with it we may trace another which
is also not without weight. Science has always
found it difficult to determine exactly the geo-.
logical time of the first appearance of types, even
On few points, mdeed, are
the characters employed by that great book of

stone which hes at our feet more difficult to de-

in a relative way.

cipher. Something they sometimes tell us, no
doubt, as to the general prevalence of this or that
order of life ix this or that age of the past. But |
it is very rarely that they tell us as much respecting

the exact date of its rise. The footprints, as it —
were, of the main body of processionists are often
But it is not so
often that we find reliable indications of those of

discernible enough to our gaze.

Chiist and Oreation.

the vanguard as well. Over and over again, on
the contrary, has the experience of more recent
researches disproved on this point what previous
inquirers had regarded as proved. In all such
cases, therefore, it would seem to be obvious that
the processions in question did not begin with very
much show. That can hardly have been very
marked or conspicuous at the time of its occurrence
which has only left such scant traces behind. We
believe, indeed, that this is what is generally held
with regard to this point. What is true of in-
dividual, is believed to be true also of collective
life, asa rule. It seldom, at starting, makes much
noise in the world.

Are we not taught the same also, in the same
general way, on the other side of our quest? In
a certain sense that new and glorious “order of
life,” that illustrious “kingdom of God,” the full
development of which, according to Scripture, is
reserved for the future, has already begun. It is
a long time now since the original Exemplar or
Leader of this “order of life” appeared on the earth.
Ever since then, however, according to Scripture, a
continual though far from universal process of con-
forming men inwardly to that same pattern has been
going on in this world. Yet how true it is further
—and that in both cases—that it has not been “with
observation ” that this “kingdom of God” has so

far appeared. ‘This is plain, on the one hand, of

The
entrance

of the
orders of
life without
show.

Life at
starting
makes
little noise.

The new
“ order
of life”
already
begun.

TS
appearance
without
observation,

The first
appearance
of the last
Adam
known to
few and in-
adequately
appreciated.

The
resurrection
of Christ

a mere
report to
all but a
few.

The great
change in
individual
men un-

obtrusive.

Little
known of
the men of
the future
now among
us,

Christ and Creation.

that beginning of all, the first appearance of the
last Adam Himself !
among the children of the first Adam that were
aware of that fact ?

Who were there at the time

And even among those very
few who did know of the fact, who possessed
anything like an adequate idea of its significance
and importance ?

Much the same was true also of that great
second stage in this world-affecting process which
took place when this glorious second Adam was
raised again from the dead; and so was born a
second time, as it were (Rev. 1. 5). Except toa
very few, at that time, that most momentous of
earthly occurrences was nothing more than a
thing of report. Nor are things very different, as a
matter of observation, with all those individual cases
of change of heart and of gradual conformity to
the spiritual likeness of Christ, which we believe to
be so many scattered yet united steps towards the
consummation in view. How very little, if any-
thing, is to be seen outwardly and at the time, of
such inward transitions as these. “The wind
bloweth where it listeth, and thou hearest the
sound thereof, but canst not tell whence it cometh,
and whither it goeth: so is every one that is born
of the Spirit.” And how little is known, therefore,
of the actual existence among us of that whole —
family or class of men of the future, to which
these changed persons belong. So hidden a factor

Christ and Creation.

are they, so comparatively unknown an ingredient,
so unsuspected a power, as things are, in the world !
Nor does it seem intended indeed, according to
Scripture, that things should be otherwise with them
in this respect, until that future time which 1s there-
fore spoken of as being their “ manifestation ”
(Rom. vii. 19); and in regard to which, also, it
is so emphatically said of them, that they are
“then to shine forth” (Matt. xi. 43). It would
almost seem, in short, as though their present
obscurity was intended to be in exact proportion to
the future brightness of their lot. What impos-

What equal diffi-
What a “trumpet”

sibility of concealment then !

culty of discernment now!

then !
On2 other point follows in connection with the

What silence now !
first appearance of types. Such generally un-
obtrusive arrivals could hardly have been productive
of any very great degree of visible disturbance in
the general features of the particular life-scape in
which they appeared. Not Alexander himself could
fight many battles till he had left his cradle behind.
We are not without positive evidence, indeed, of a
condition of things which gives strong support to
this view ; positive evidence, that is to say, of the
simultaneous existence on the arena of life of both
the new dynasty and the old, something the same
(shall we say?) as when the rising sun is seen

facing the departing full moon. In some cases, in

Their

‘“ manifes-
tation ”’
reserved
for the
future.

The
contrast
between
their
present and
future lot.

Only little
disturbance
caused by
these un-
obtrusive
arrivals.

The co-
existence
of the
new and
the old.

Pre-cereal
plants
living by
the side of
cereals,

New and
old forms
of marine
life.

Obliteration
of type
slow.

Scripture
teaching on
this point
respecting
the new
race,

The older
description
of life
little
disturbed
as yet.

Both to
exist till
the end of
the age.

Christ and Creation.

fact, we see that the older form has not even yet
been so far disturbed as to give way to the new.
It is certain, ¢.g., that many descriptions of plants
which were flourishing in the world before the
introduction of the cereals are living still by their
side. And it is equally certain, we believe, that
forms of marine life are now in existence which
cannot be distinguished from certain other forms
which are known to have inhabited some of the
earliest oceans of which any record is left. Ob-
literation of type, in a word, in the days of the
past has been usually slow.

Does not Scripture also teach us the same
respecting the new race of mankind? In a certain.
sense, as we have seen, this race has already
begun. Many, at any rate, of those “copies” of
the original “ pattern” which are to make up that
race at the last, are in a more or less forward
As yet,
however, there has been no serious disturbance,

state of preparation at this moment.

in consequence, in the general current of the older
Neither are we to expect it,
in fact, according to Scripture, during the present
On the contrary, of “both”
descriptions of life, as we see them now in the
“‘field’’ of this “world,” it is written expressly
that they are to “grow together” until the “end”

description of life.

order. of things.

of this “age.” Nor is it quite clear from the

Bible, even of that “end” of so much, that it is.

Christ and Creation.

also to involve the total cessation of the present
race of mankind.

This particular application of the principle before
us must be taken, of course, for what it is worth.
But the general fact that in the relative experience
of the church and the world Scripture teaches
us to see an old race existing by the side of a new
one which is ultimately much to surpass it, seems
to be beyond the reach of dispute. Here also we
find the obliteration of type not by any means
swilt.

We come, lastly, to the very momentous question
of cause. Doubtful indeed as may be the value of
certain modern hypotheses which aspire to account
for the amazing variety and multiplicity of life on
this earth by merely natural laws, one of the

- principles embodied in them seems to be certain

enough. The action of ‘‘environment” on that
which it environs is undoubted and great. Put
into other phraseology, this statement may not
be quite so much of a discovery as some of its
prophets seem to imagine; but it is none the less
sure. That “man,” at any rate, is to a large extent
the creature of “ circumstances,” 1s what we have
long known to be true. That the creatures which
are below him in all other respects are not above
him in this, seems to follow of course. Nor can it
be doubted in fact, touching all the things that we

see (at any rate) that changes in environment and,

Scripture

teaching as

to the co-
existence
of the two
races in-
disputable.

The
question of
cause.

The
action of
environ~
ment,

The
influence
of circum-
stances

on man.

The
proximate
causes

to which
the changes
are due.

The
necessity

of an un-
transmitted
cause to
begin with. °

Observation
suggests the
operation

of * will.”

The
testimony
of Scripture.

The
exertion

of will
caused the
waters to
bring forth,
etc.

Christ and Creation.

——__.,

outward surroundings—changes in “ circumstance,”
that is to say—have generally been the precursors
of changes in that which was surrounded thereby.
But this, it 1s evident, is only the beginning, and
not the end of the matter. This does not tell us
to what remoter causes these first-named external
changes were due; still less to what still remoter
causes those were due in their turn; nor would it
mend matters very much, it 1s clear, if it did. No
possible number of successive answers of this sort
No

matter how numerous these transmitted energies

can exhaust the possibilities of the case.

may be, the last of them will point us to the
absolute necessity of an wntransmitted one to begin.
This is the conclusion to which we are brought by
This is how

observation suggests to us—how it almost reveals

our own researches and reason.

to us—the operation of “ will.”

How actual Revelation speaks on the subject it
can hardly be necessary to point out. It was a
power wholly outside of man, according to it,
which formed man at first out of the dust of
the earth, and which afterwards breathed “into
his nostrils” that “breath of life” which made
him “a living soul.” It was a similar power
from outside, also, according to it—a like exertion

of will

a corresponding word of command—
which caused the earth and the waters to “ bring
forth” the lower life of the beasts, and the

ahr

Christ and Creation.

fishes, and the fowls of the air, on the one hand ;
together with the still lower hfe, on the other
hand, of the grass and the herbs and the trees
of the field. Nor is the case different in regard
to that higher life of which we have now been
speaking somuch. Where are we to look for the
force which changes the carnal into the spiritual ;
the rudimentary into the perfect; the mortal into
the immortal ; comparative death into superlative
life? Not to anything already acting, or even al-
ready existing within. Not to any aspiration that
comes from below, but to a command that comes
from above. This is the uniform teaching of Holy
Scripture respecting the whole of this change.
It is by the presentation and special application
of truth to the mind of the natural man, e.g.,
that the higher life of his inward nature 1s
described as brought into being (John xvn. 17;
James i. 18). In other words, those persons who
become the subjects of this unobtrusive but mighty
change are described to us sometimes as being
“born of the Spirit” or “born from above”
(John iii. 8-8); sometimes as “ born again by the
word” (L Pet. i. 23); and sometimes, with marked
reference to both the negative and positive sides
of the subject, as “born not of blood, nor of the
will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of
God” (John i. 12). Similar to this also is the
language employed in the corresponding case of

The higher
life due to
the same
cause,

The

higher life
engendered
by the
presentation
and
application
of truth

to the mind,

Christ and Creation.

a Ee Oe

The new
bith of
the body.

The final
change.

The
agreement
so far of
observation

an
revelation.

Scripture
and Science
not hope-
lessly at
variance.

the new birth of the body. That also is spoken
of, negatively, on the one hand, as a “house not
made with hands ;” and, positively, on the other, as
a ‘‘ building of God’’/2 Cor. v. 1, 2), a “house from
And to
this same effect, finally, the apostle virtually writes
when he says on the same subject (1 Cor. xv. 52),
that “we shall not all sleep, but we shall all be
changed :” that passive form pointing to an active

heaven,” something formed from without.

principle which is outside of ourselves.

So many are the lines in which this “new
pattern of life” is found walking in the steps of
the old!

IV.

Tue Postrion so Far.

On all the topics as yet discussed by us on the
twofold plan proposed at the beginning, we hope
it will be found, on review, that our two oracles
have been in agreement. So fur as they have gone,
they have helped in every case to illustrate one
another.

Such a fact is one which appears, in every way,
to be deserving of note.

It is so, first, in itself. If Scripture and Science
were so hopelessly at variance as some have as-
serted, it would have been quite impossible to
find any succession of correspondences between them.

It. is so, next, in regard to the. nwmber of the

“ud

Christ and Creation.

agreements in question. Roughly speaking, those
now adduced will hardly be less than some twenty
in all, In a case-such as this, which depends on
examples, this is of very great weight. How
many matters of moment have been fully settled
on the strength of very much fewer ?

The fact before us is also worthy of notice in
regard to the question of kind. How exceedingly
diversified is the character of the regions in which
these cases of agreement occurred! We have
found them behind and before; up and down;
here and there, as it were! In the pages of
history! In those of prophecy! Amongst the
organized! Amongst the unorganized! In the
“world” within us! In the world around us!
In questions of matter! In questions of mind!
In questions of morals! In higher realms still!
All this makes their argumentative weight a
hundredfold more than if we had discovered them
all as it were within a few yards of each other.

Once more, this succession of correspondences
is worthy of note in regard to the question of
source. Can any two sources of information less
apparently likely to produce such correspondences,
be easily named? It is not only, as we noticed
at first, that Revelation and Observation re-
spectively address themselves to wholly different
and even widely-separated regions of thought, in
the main. That is only half of the truth.

The
number of
the

agreements
adduced.

The variety
of the
agreements
adduced,

The
unlikelihood
of their
sources,

4-t

The weight
of the

agreements.

Their main
witness
therefore
true,

Christ the
Crown of
the Past
and the
Key of the
Future,

Ohiist and Creation.

Another and equally important half is to be
found in the fact, that, even when they do happen
to have the same subject in common, it hardly
appears, in their hands, in consequence of the
different standpoints from which they approach it,
the different fashions in which they handle it,
and the different objects they have in view to be
the same thing. The marvel is, therefore, in
the instance before us, that we should so often

have found the respective utterances of Scripture

and Science to be, as it were, in “ conjunction” ;
and, when thus in conjunction, instead of eclipsing,
to have so illuminated each other. It really is
not easy, as a question of evidence, to give too
much weight to this fact. That so many in-
stances of agreement, on so many different points,
should be found on the part of two witnesses so
singularly independent that they only rarely have
any experiences in common, speaks volumes for
both.

And therefore, of course, for that which we
may speak of as their common result. In such
circumstances we cannot reasonably doubt but that
their main witness 1s true. Christ is indeed, as
they teach us, on the one hand, the Crown of the
Past! Christ is indeed, as they teach us, on the
other hand, the Key otf the Future! Both our
authorities, and all our researches—on these points

—are at one.

Christ and Creation.

A
Curisr THE AUTHOR OF ALL.

T11s conclusion, however, must not be regarded
as the conclusion of all. Rather, from one point
of view, it is only the groundwork of a still further
inquiry. If Christ be all this, He may be very
much more. If He stands in these relations, He
may stand in still higher ones, to the things that
are seen. Our two authorities having brought us,
as it were, to the very verge of this question, we
are bound to see whether they can help us to settle
it too.

To see this, on the one side, let us revert again
to the vital question of “cause.” That the proxi-
mate cause of all change of type is in something
outside; and that the ultimate cause, therefore,
however remote, must be in that outward force we
eall “ will,’ we have already agreed. What we
would ask now is, whether it is not possible for
us to see some distance beyond. The notion of
“will” seems to carry with it the notion also of
person. Every act of volition assumes an actor—
if so we may speak. It is in this direction, ac-
cordingly, that we would now endeavour to look.
Where are we to seek for the “actor” of that
special “act of volition” to which our thoughts
have been turned? By whose “will” is it that
this “new man”? is caused to exist ?

A. further
inquiry.

“ Will” the
ultimate
cause of
change of

type.

sowill ?
involves
personality.

By whose
Cassa

is the

“new man”
caused to
exist?

The only
conceivable
earthly
candidate
for the
position is
Christ.

What

the skill of
man can do
in this line.

What

the power
of Christ
may be
expected to
do.

Christ and Creation.

Ii the “actor” in question is to be sought in
this world—and that “observation” of man to
which we are now referring is confined to this
world as a rule—there is but one reply, of course,
to be given. The only conceivable earthly candi-
date for such a position is to be found in the
person of Christ. On this negative side there does
not exist even a cranny for doubt. |

liven on the positive side also there are not
wanting phenomena which look like indications this
way. What the skill of man can accomplish in this
connection by the judicious use of certain energies
which he finds in action both around and within
him, we have already considered. To a certain
extent he is thereby enabled to modify “life.” To
a certain extent, indeed—though only it appears in
combination with great uncertainty both of result
and duration—it is not impossible for him some-
times to cause new successions of life to come into
being. This is one of the many ways in which he
excels in action, as he excels in endowment, the
rest of the animal world. That which they are
unable even to think of, he is able to do.

What is the natural inference, therefore, when
we compare him, in this respect, with one so much
above him as Christ? Evidently that this greater
One should have the power of accomplishing very
much more in this line. In a general way, indeed,
we cannot reasonably doubt this being truly the

Christ and Creation.

2 — ————

case. The matter concerned is hardly one in
which there might be a lack of superiority on the
part of Christ without hurt. Couid there be su-
premacy at all, in fact, if there were no supremacy
in so (literally) vital a matter ?

Ts it not clear also, if we think of it, that this 1s
just the kind of superiority which befits the position
of Christ? Let it be granted, as no doubt it must
be, that the interval involved in this comparison is
something enormous. ‘To direct the development
of a new variety of rose or pigeon, eg, 18 one
thing. To bring into being such a world of “new
men” as the Scripture speaks of, is prodigiously
more. It may even be true—it most probably is
—that so enormous a degree of difference in result
points to corresponding difference of at least equal
magnitude. in manner of working as well. Yet
even this, it must be evident, by no means destroys
the resemblance spoken of, so far as tt goes. How-
ever different the two operations may be in dimen-
sions, their directions are alike. However diverse
also their manner and purpose, their intrinsic
natureisone. What both end in, is the appearance
of that which was not in appearance before. It
would seem, therefore, on the whole that we are
directed with double force to our present inference
on this matter. The “resemblance” spoken of
exactly agrees with the fact that Christ Himself
was aman. The “difference” detected equally

The

kind of
superiority
implied
betits the
position of
Christ.

An
enormous
difference.

A real
resem-=
blance

What the
resemblance
agrees

with.

48 Christ and Creation.

Whatthe agrees with the fact that He was so much the

difference

agrees with. highest of men! On the one hand, a merely
subordinate change, brought about with very un-

certain workmanship, and lasting (apparently) only
a limited time; that sums up, in this direction, the
whole working of man. On the other hand, an
amazingly greater transformation, brought about
with the certainty of a Master hand, and never
destined to come to an end; that is the other work,

pat eon this line, into which we examine. Who more

implies. fitting than “the Son of Man” to be its author
and cause ?

This probability carries with it the possibility
of wider work yet. Whatever the power which
accomplished the greater, it cannot be unequal to
doing the less. Nothing, in fact, that has ever yet
been accomplished in this cosmos of ours, can be

of a nature to be beyond the reach of that power!

Christ as the
actual
Originat - : fe 8 . .
of the 1 Christ the actual Originator of the highest, it
highest,
the

This is abundantly plain. If we have really found

also follows, of course, that we have found in Him
Author of the possible Author of all /

And therefore—-of course, also—we have found
in Him all that this means! All it means, how-
ever vast! however transcendent! Even if it
involves ascribing to Him, as no doubt it does,
the very Highest of Names! All this is virtually
admitted when we admit His competency to be

the Author of all !

Christ and Creation.

What Revelation says to us on this subject is so
very explicit that we need not dwell on it much.

It is by the ‘“‘voice” of Christ Himself, ¢.9.,
as addressed to men “now” (John v. 25), that
their spirits are described in Scripture as being
caused to “live” in His sight. And it is to
be by means of that “voice” also, addressed
to them hereafter (John v. 28), that the “resur-
rection of life,’ the change of the body, is to be-
come theirs. ‘To the same effect, also, we read of
the one change, on the one hand, “ Awake thou
that sleepest, and arise from the dead, and Christ
shall give thee hght” (Eph. v. 14); and, on the
other, that “we are His (i.e., God’s) workmanship,
created anew in Christ Jesus unto good works ”
(Eph. 1.10). To the same effect do we read, also
(of the other change), in such a declaration as this:
“Tf the Spirit of Him that raised up Jesus from
the dead dwell in you, He that raised up Christ
from the dead shall also quicken your mortal
bodies, by His Spirit that dweileth in you” (Rom.
vill. 11.) Or, in such another as this: “He (that
is, Christ) shall change our vile body, that it may
be fashioned like unto His glorious body, according
to the working whereby He is able even to subdue
all things to Himself” (Phil. i. 21). Whatever
is done in this way, in short, Revelation teaches us
to regard as done in some way by Himself. . Other
names may be sometimes included. His is never

The
testimony
of Scripture,

Both
resurrection
and re-
generation |
ascribed to
Christ.

The one
the conse-
quence of
the other

No “new
man’?
either in
body or
spirit
except by
Christ’s
power.

All things
created by
Christ.

All things
consist by
Christ.

Observation

and
revelation
bring us
thus to
see Christ
as the
Creator
of all.

Christ and Creation.

left out. According to Scripture, in short, there
is no “new man”—either in body or in spirit—
except by His power.

Equally plain are the declarations of Scripture
respecting the origin of all the rest of creation.
Sometimes we are told, e.g., that God “created
all things by Jesus Christ;’ sometimes, that
“by Him God made the [ages, or] worlds”
(Heb. 1. 2); sometimes, “that all things were
made by Him,” and that “without Him was not
anything made that was made” (John i. 8); some-
times, that “all things were created by Him and
for Him” (Col. i. 16); and sometimes, finally,
that “by Him all things consist”’ (Col. i. 17), and
that He it is, who, seated now at the right hand
of the throne, “ upholdeth all things by the word
of His power” (Heb. i. 2).

The general issue, therefore, of this brief further
inquiry is like that arrived at before. Observation
and Revelation had already brought us so far that
little was required in order to take us a long dis-
tance beyond. The whole of that little, these two
authorities have now effectually done. The one by
its gestures, and the other by its speech, have con-
ducted us on till we see Christ presented to us as
the Creator of all!

Christ and Creation.

VI.
Tue Postrion 1n Fut.

We may at last fully see, therefore, in the con-
nection before us, the position of Christ.

We see, in the first place, that His relation to
creation is not a simple one, but highly complex.

To a certain extent, for example, it is one of
identification with it. Being man, Christ is what
man is, viz., akin to all that is made.

On the other hand, it is also one of vast supe-
riority to it, Even in the fact of having Himself
furnished the highest example of the present race
of mankind, Christ is above all that we see. Much
more is He so in having become, in His own
person, the beginning and model of that higher
race which is to appear by-and-by on the earth.
And most of all is He so, of course, in being the
actual Creator as well of that race as of all it
excels.

It follows, therefore, of the relation in question
that it is something altogether unique. No other
Name exists in regard to which ai/ these things
can be said !

It also follows, of the relation in question, that
itis of a peculiarly intimate kind. Christ is at
once the Fellow-creature and also the Creator of
all that is made. Only one thing closer than these
combined relationships can be even conceived,

The full
position
of Christ.

Christ akin
to all that
is made.

Christ above
all that is
made.

The
consequent
uniqueness
of His
relation

to creation.

The
peculiar
closeness of
its intimacy,

The absolute
universality
of its
‘influence,

The
consequent
inadequacy
of all
systems of
knowledge
that leave
it out.

Christ and Creation.

It follows, yet again, of the relation in question,
that it has the widest possible scope. It may be
said, in fact, to be the keystone of the whole arch

‘of existence. It is that which embraces, that

which completes, that which unifies all. The seen
and the unseen, the past and the future, the idea
of development and that of creation, the discoveries
of men and the revelation of God, are shown by it
to be so many parts of onesymmetrical whole. In
a word, the earliest and the latest, the highest and
the lowest, the furthest and the nearest, are all
what they are because of the impress on them of
their relation to Christ. As the Psalmist says, in
another connection, ‘there is nothing hid from its
heat.”

And it follows, finally, therefore, that all
systems of knowledge must be miserably inadequate
which leave this point out. A circulating system
without a heart, a respiratory system with nothing
to breathe, the solar system deprived of its sun,
are none of them so deficient as is the conception
of the cosmos without Christ. Nothing but frag-
ments of knowledge can be obtained by us when
when we try to study it so. Nothing, therefore,
but what hides from us far more than it shows.
Nothing, in short, but what conveys to us more
error than truth !

Christ and Cveation.

VIL.
Tue ConcLusion oF ALL.

A CORROBORATIVE and supplemental word may
be added, in conclusion, from a different region of
thought. Instead of symptoms of advance, we have
seen that sometimes symptoms of retrogression are
Those
animals in caves, referred to before, which possess
something of the form, but none of the power of

discoverable in the creation around us.

organs of vision, appear to be casesin point. Their
sightless eyes seem the survivals, and so the mdices
of a former condition of things; the marks, as it
were, which point out to us the former height of

the tide.
gard to the physical nature of man, in those de-

Similar instances are to be found, in re-

formed and stunted specimens of men which inhabit
and infest the more crowded parts of some of our
cities. And similar instances, in regard to their
moral and mental endowments, in those races of
men which are said to prefer falsehood to truth, even
as a matter of taste. Compared with races which
agree in treating deceit as both a folly and a dis-
honour, such races appear evidently to have gone
down in the scale. A strong argument for this view
of the case appears in the fact that under proper
influences they can be more or less elevated there-
from ; which is exactly parallel with what we find

to be true of certain domesticated races of animals

Symptoms
of retro-
eression in
creation.

Deformed
and stunted
specimens
of men.

Mentally
and morally
depraved
specimens.

The
possible
elevation
of such
people.

Christ and Creation.

Our race
a fallen
one.

Also a
condemned
one, and so
in double
need.

Deliverance
from con-
demnation.

which have been allowed to run wild. We can
do with such races what we can never do with
those that have always been wild.

These considerations may at least help to prepare
us for hearing what Revelation has to say to us
on the point under discussion. For hearing, for
example, that the whole of our race is a fallen one.
Fallen physically, and so subject to death. Fallen
mentally, having the “understanding darkened.”
Fallen morally, and therefore standing in need of
an outward law or command. Also, in regard to
a still higher aspect of the question, they will at
least prepare us for being told that spiritually
speaking our race has lost the very conception of
what was enjoyed by it once.

These lamentable evils involve necessarily other
evils as great. In other words, besides being -
degraded, we are also condemned. Dark indeed,
therefore, in both respects, are the natural pros-
pects of men. The “good tidings” themselves
begin their message by describing them so. As to
our condition, they begin by telling us that we are
“already condemned.” As to our nature, they
begin by telling us that it requires “ creating” anew.

What has been and is to be done for us in
the way of elevation and renewal we have al-
ready considered in part. What has been done
and is doing in the way of delivering us from
condemnation has not been spoken of yet; and

Christ and Creation.

is indeed far too vast a subject to be fully dis-
eussed in this place. But we may at least note
here that Scripture always speaks of it as a work
of such magnitude that, compared with it, even
that of creation is small; and at the same time,
also, as a work of such necessity that even that

extremer necessity, in short, is known to men,

of renewal requires its accomplishment first.

according to faith. Neither is there any greater
enterprize than that of supplying it, according to
faith. Here, in fact, is the “ mystery,” for the re-
vealing of which, according to it, Revelation is given.

The relation of Christ to this work of works
is at once the same as that which was shown us
elsewhere, yet widely different too. The same in
regard to the unquestioned supremacy both of His
position and power. As in creation, so in re-
demption, nothing is done without Him. Heis the
Saviour, the Mediator, the Redeemer of man. On
the other hand, the relation of Christ to redemption
is entirely different in regard to the manner in

What He doesin the one
case by the exercise of His will, He is described as

which He carries it out.

only achieving in the other by the deep humiliation
of His Person.
of all; in the other, for a season at least, at its
foot. There, in the place of the King; here, in
that of the criminal.

yielding it up. In the one case, in a word, the

In the one, He is at the summit

There, bestowing life ; here,

Its
magnitude
and
necessity.

The place of
Christ in
redemption.

In what
respects
similar to
His place in
regener-
ation.

In what
respects
different.

The twofold
harmony of
this with

our previous

conclusions.

Its
harmony
with the
unity of
His person,
and the
diversity
of His
work.

The
consequent
Sum of all

Christ and Creation.

Sceptre is His from the first; in the other, it
does not become His till it has smitten Him first.

We look upon all this as being strikingly in
harmony with all that we have previously seen.
In Nature and Time Christ is all in all by such a
majestic and stepless advance as that which the
heathen of old days ascribed to their gods. In
Redemption and Grace Christ is all in all, by such
a weary succession of blood-stained steps as only
He could have trod. How well this agrees, on
the one hand, with the unity of the Person!
How equally well, on the other hand, with the
diversity of the work! Can any redemption be
brought about without cost? And is not such a
cost amply sufficient even for such a redemption ?

In their several ways, therefore, we see the
final conclusions to which our combined authorities
have now brought us.

The Secret of Creation is to be found in the
Person of Christ. The Secret of Redemption is
to be found in His Cross. There is not much
wisdom—if there be any at all—outside of these
truths! “In Him are hid aut the treasures of
wisdom and knowledge.”

St eee
+34 PRESENT DAY TRACTS, No. 52. f+
RAGE ae 2s saldics PLY Hebe ae

Ll a oe Se

THE

|
PRESENT GONFLICT WITH UNBELIEF:

aX Survey and a Sorecast,

BY THE /

Vv
REV. JOHN KELLY,

EDITOR OF

‘THE PRESENT Day TRACTS,” ETC.

TLE RELIGIOUSSTRACTS SOCIETY ;
56, PATERNOSTER Row; 65, St. PauL’s CHURCHYARD; AND

164, PICCADILLY.

eee

Hutline of the Fract,

THE Tract is intended to furnish a bird’s-eye view of the conflict,
for the use of interested onlookers and workers among the people,
who are unable to read books on its various branches.

There are three divisions in the Tract: the first, some general
aspects of the conflict ; the second, some special features of it ;
the last, the issues of the conflict.

The extent of the present conflict, the popularization of it, the
spirit of the combatants, and their attitude towards the churches
are treated in the first section. The doctrine of Evolution; the new
science of comparative religions; the substitutes for Christianity
offered ; the discussions relating to the value of Life; the Higher
Criticism ; Literary Criticism ; the Place of Christ in the Conflict ;
and the unique claims of Christ and Christianity are rapidly sur-
veyed in the second section.

Some of the chief difficulties in the way of the acceptance of the
doctrine of Evolution ; the difference in kind between Christianity
and the great non-Christian systems, and the fatal defects of these
systems ; the miserable insufficiency of the offered substitutes for
Christianity are pointed out. The ever-increasing mass of evidence
in favour of the accepted dates and authorship ofthe Sacred Books,
and the failure in destructive as well as in constructive criticism of
the school of so-called Higher Criticism ; the unreasonable and mis-
chievous character of Mr. M. Arnold’s Literary Criticism; and finally,
the impossibility of accounting for Christ on any naturalistic theory,
the contrast between Christ and the founders of non-Christian re-
ligions, and between Christianity and these religions, the practical
test and special points of Christianity are briefly sketched.

References are given to the various numbers of the Present Day
Series in which the subjects, more or less slightly referred to in
this Tract, are treated. Guidance is thus furnished for the use of
the PRESENT DAY SERIES as far as it has gone.

In the last section of the Tract the possible issues of THE
PRESENT CONFLICT WITH UNBELIEF are glanced at; and it is
shown that while the final issue is certain, the nearer issues are
uncertain ; and the need of something more than argument to
bring men to heartfelt obedience to the faith, and to save them
from their sins—even the Gospel, received “in power, and in the
Holy Ghost, and in much assurance ”—is pointed out,

THE

PRESENT CONFLICT WITH UNBELIEF

& Survey and a Forevast,

INTRODUCTORY.

barre we SUBJECT so vast as THE Present Con-
‘del BS) rr rcr witH UNBELIEF can only be

4| treated in a very brief and compendious

way within the limits of a Tracr. A
bird’s eye view of it, however, indicating its salient
general aspects and chief special features, and
glancing at its possible issues, will be interesting
to the onlooker, who hears of the conflict on every
side, but has not time to read books on its various
branches. Such a view will also be helpful to
those who are working among the people, and meet
with persons who are unsettled or sceptical on one
or other of the subjects in dispute.

Every combatant in the Christian army is not
placed in a position whence he can see the whole
of the battle; his immediate concern is to quit
himself like a man at his own post of duty;
but he will not be less fitted for his own proper
work in the conflict by taking, as occasion serves,

The vastness
of the
subject,

A bird’s eye
view useful
to onlookers
and workers,

The
impressions
of an
observer of
ordinary
intelligence.

The range
of subjects
now brought
into the
conflict.

The Present Conflict with Unbelief.

a wider survey of it, and estimating the strength
and resources of the assailants of Christianity
with which he believes his own highest well-being
and the highest well-being of his fellow-men to be
inseparably connected.

ik :
SOME GENERAL ASPECTS OF THE
CONFLICT.
1. Tue Extent or THE PRESENT ConFLICT.

On looking round at the struggle now going on
between faith and unbelief, an observer of ordinary
intelligence, who does httle more than dip here and
there into the higher periodical literature of the
day and notice the lists of books that are in cireu-
lation, can hardly fail to be struck by the eatent of
the present conflict.

It is no longer limited to questions concerning
natural and revealed religion, the historical evidences
of Christianity, the genuineness and authenticity
of the sacred writings; it extends to the question of
the existence and character of God, the possibility
of miracles, the origin of the Universe, the age and
origin of man, the nature of mind, the source, basis,
and sanction of morals, the origin of religion in all
its forms, the nature of the differences between the
various religions of the world, whether there be
any radical and essential difference between them ;

The Present Conflict with Unbelief.

between Judaism and Christianity on the one hand,
and the great non-Christian religions of the past
and the present on the other. The conflict with
unbelief at the present time, in short, goes down
deeper and covers a far more widely-extended
area than it ever did in any previous period of
Christian History.

2 Tse PopuLARIZATION OF IT.

A second aspect of the conflict with unbelief that
must strike such an observer as has been supposed, ts
the popularization of tt.

In his valedictory article on resigning the direc-
tion of the Fortnightly Review in October, 1882,
the gifted Editor, referrmg to the influence of
Reviews, of which the Fortnightly was the first
English type, wrote:

“They have brought abstract discussion from the library to
the parlour, and from the serious student down to the first man
in the street. The popularity of such Reviews means that really
large audiences, le gros public, are eagerly interested in the radi-
cal discussion of propositions which twenty years ago were only
publicly maintained, and then in their crudest, least true and
most repulsive forms, in obscure debating societies and little
Secularist clubs. Everybody, male and female, who reads any-
thing at all, now reads a dozen essays a year to show with
infinite varieties of approach and of demonstration that we can
never know whether there be a God or not, or whether the soul
is more or other than a mere function of the body. No article
that has appeared in any periodical for a generation back, ex-
cited so profound a sensation as Mr. Huxley’s memorable paper
on ‘The Physical Basis of Life,’ published in this Review in
1869. It created just the same kind of stir, that, in a political

The
conflict
deeper and
wider than
ever before,

The
influence of
the new
monthly
reviews.

The Present Conflict with Unbelief.

The
conflict
among the
masses.

The
Secularist
weeklies and
‘nonthlies.

epoch, was made by such a pamphlet as the ‘Conduct of the
Allies,’ or the French Revolution. This excitement was a sign
that controversies which had hitherto been confined to books
and treatises were now to be admitted to popular periodicals ;
that the common man of the world would now listen and have
an opinion of his own on the bases of belief, just as he listens
and judges in politics or art or letters. The Clergy no longer
have the pulpit to themselves, for the new Reviews become
more powerful pulpits, in which heretics were at least as wel-
come as the orthodox. Speculation has become entirely
democratised,”

Mr. Morley in this article was addressing the
educated public. He did not take into account
the masses of the people, among whom also an
active conflict is going on. There are two weekly
papers exclusively devoted to an anti-theistic
propaganda, and a third pretty equally devoted
to political and social questions, and to atheism.
The Secular Review and The Freethinker are
the exclusively anti-theistic ones; Zhe National
Reformer, edited by Mr. Bradlaugh and Mrs.
Besant, the politico-atheistic one. The announce-
ment is made in every number of the National
Reformer that its editorial policy is Republican,
Atheistic' and Malthusian. There are also two
monthly magazines: Progress; or, The Freethought
Magazine, and Our Corner. Our Corner discusses
political and general subjects, as well as questions
in controversy between faith and unbelief.

1 It is only right to state that Mr. Bradlaugh says that he has
never declared that there ts no God. He only denies that there
is a personal Creator and moral Governor. He inclines, we
believe, to accept the system of Monism—a kind of idealised
Materialism.

The Present Conflict with Unbelief.

The Freethought Publishing Company issues
and actively promotes the circulation of works
regarded as fitted to further the cause on the lines
of Mr. Bradlaugh’s politico-social-atheistic pro-
gramme. The conflict among the masses of the
people is also carried on by means of tracts,
pamphlets, lectures, printed and delivered, and
public discussion, In their workshops and in
their homes there is much free discussion, on all
the vital questions in dispute, among working-men.

Unbelief thus may be said to have free access
to all classes of the people, and free course among
them. Time was, not so long ago, when the
avowal of unbelief in many circles brought social
discredit, if not complete social ostracism, on the
man who was bold enough to make it. It is not
so now. Many object to be called infidels and
atheists, but Agnostic! is a designation which they
do not disclaim.

3. Tue Sprrir or THE CoMBATANTS AND THEIR
ATTITUDE TOWARD CHURCHES,

A third aspect of the present conflict with un-
belief which must strike an onlooker is the spirit in
which it is carried on by the combatants on either
side, by the lecturers and writers who address them-
selves chiefly to the educated classes on the one hand,

1 See Present Day Tract, No. 29, The Philosophy of Mr.
Herbert Spencer Examined, by Rev. J. Iverach, M.A,

The
Freethought
propaganda.

Unbelief
has free
access to
all classes.

The terms
Atheist and
Agnostic,

The
fairness and
courtesy

of the
writers in
the higher
reviews.

The licence
of writers
in the
Secularist
press.

The
courteous
spirit

displayed in

the public
discussions.

The Present Conflict with Unbelief.

and by those who write in the Secularist press and
speak on the Secularist platform on the other.

The amenities of controversy are observed in the
literature for the educated. A spirit of fairness
The

new conditions under which the conflict is econ-

and courtesy, as a rule, distinguishes them.

ducted —the champions of faith and unbelief
agreeing to fight the battle in the pages of the
same Review and speaking in their own names
without any disguise—conduce to, if they do not
absolutely necessitate, this mutual courtesy.

The state of matters among the Secularists is
quite different.
ous and outspoken blasphemy, of the coarsest and

In their press, the most outrage-—

most revolting kind, pictorial caricature of the most
sacred subjects and themes, of God and of Christ,
and the expression of the most unmeasured per- |
sonal contempt for the champions of Christianity,
are not indeed the only weapons used, but are
In the public dis-
cussions with the advocates of Christianity, which

weapons constantly in use.

form so marked a feature of the conflict as carried
on among the masses, the rules of courtesy seem
to be generally observed, as far as can be judged
from the printed reports, but unbridled license
is resorted to by many writers in the Secularist
press.

Dr. Flint, in the Lecture on Secularism in his
‘« Anti-theistic Theories,’ speaks of the temperate

The Present Conflict with Unbelief.

and becoming language employed in the National
Reformer and Secular Review. He would with-
draw this description, so far at any rate as the
Secular Review under its present management 1s
concerned, were he to re-write his lecture now.
Its style of controversy is frequently, in its way, as
offensive to Christian feeling as the pictorial cari-
catures which appear in the Freethinker. A spirit
of mildness and toleration on the one hand, and of
bitter and uncompromising opposition on the other,
marks the attitude assumed towards the Church
by the representatives of cultivated Agnosticism
and working-class Secularism respectively. The
former, it would appear, in many cases at least,
go to church, and give a kind of support to the
clergyman, at least in the country; some actually
go to Communion. The latter have not a good
word for the Church or any Evangelical denomina-
tion or society, but oppose her root and branch.
They regard her as fountains of manifold evil,
and would sweep her away altogether.

Striking illustrations of the attitude towards the
Church of the two forms of unbelief have been
given within the last three or four years, in articles
by able writers. In the Wineteenth Century, during
the year 1882, three articles appeared, entitled
“The Agnostic at Church.” The first was by Louis
Greg. He puts the question, “Is an Agnostic

justified under any ordinary circumstances in

The
attitude of
Unbelief
towards the
Church.

The spirit of
cultivated
Agnos-—
ticism.

The spirit
of working—
class
Secularism.

The
Agnostic at
Church,

Mr. Louis
Greg’s
conclusion
that the
Agnostic
should go
to Church.

His reasons
for coming
to this
conclusion.

Mr.
Shorthouse’s
conclusion
that the
Agnostic
should go to
communion,

The Present Conflict with Unbelief.

attending regularly the worship of a God, whom
indeed he does not absolutely deny, but of whom
he knows nothing?” The conclusion he comes
to is, that for the sake of example to the lower
and lower middle classes, who cannot frame their
lives on an abstract idea, in order to co-operate
with the parson, and strengthen his influence, the
Agnostic should go to church, in the country at
least. He grounds his conclusion on the fact that
the parson is the natural leader in all work that
is to be done for the moral and physical well-
being of the people in the village, and that the
Church does more good than harm directly and
indirectly. He also thinks that his own know-
nothing attitude of mind on the subject of religion
justifies the conclusion. He repudiates the author-
ity of the Bible and Prayer-Book, but recognises |
the beauty of thought and language which cha-
racterise them, and the beneticence of the influence
they have exercised. He would not repeat the
Creeds nor offer himself as a communicant, and
would absent himself on the days when the
Athanasian Creed was read.

The second article was by Mr. Shorthouse. He
expresses his general agreement with Mr. Greg,
but goes further. He argues that the Agnostic
should offer himself as a communicant, on account
of his sympathy with the sacramental principle,
which, he says, underlies all Church worship.

The Present Conflict with Unbelief.

** This,” he adds, ‘‘is the great underlying principle of life,
by which the commonest and dullest incidents, the most un-
attractive sights, the crowded streets and unlovely masses of
people become instinct with a delicate purity, a radiant beauty,
become the outward and visible sign of inward and invisible
grace, This principle, which underlies all things, is concentrated
in the supreme act of Church worship.”

The third article was, we believe, ‘by a lady, and
She controverts Mr.
Greg’s reasoning, and maintains that truthfulness,
which must form part of the creed of the Agnostic,

is signed J. H. Clapperton.

requires conformity of outward personal conduct
to the inward state of thought and feeling. On
moral grounds, this writer’s conclusion is irre-
fragable.

Mr. Greg, for reasons which he assigns, confines
his discussion to attendance at the services of the
Church of England, and sets aside the considera-
tion of attendance at Roman Catholic and Non-
If the
_ truth were fully known, we believe it would be
found that Agnostics are in the habit of attending
the services both of Roman Catholic and Noncon-
formist churches.

Mr. Goldwin Smith, in his article, “ England
Revisited,” in Macmiilan’s Magazine, October,
1886, referring to the rapid spread of scepticism
and the passion for ritual, which he suspects to be
symptomatic of a loss of interest in prayer and
preaching, making show and music needful, says,

conformist, except Unitarian services.

Mr.
Shorthouse
on the
sacramental
principle.

Adal.
Clapperton’s
contention
that outward
conduct
should re-
flect inward
thought and
feeling.

Agnostics
go to other
than Church
of England
services.

12 The Present Conflict with Unbelief.

Mr.Golawin «When the Agnostic goes to church, it is to a
bat Ritualistic church he goes.” Itis not always so.
On Mr. Greg’s principle, he would go to the parish
church, whatever Church party or school of
thought might be represented in it.

Startling revelations would be made as to the
state of belief or unbelief among the people in
large and influential congregations, Evangelical as
well as Ritualist, Nonconformist as well as Church
of England, if the truth on the subject were fully

Th ;
vtmence Known. The Agnostic who goes to church is

Agnostic, generally reticent—he does not open his mind to
everybody. One of the ablest living Christian
apologists in this country, once told the present
writer his own experience of the unsettled and
sceptical state of many minds in the large Evan-
gelical congregation of which he was a member.
People spoke freely to him, because they believed

raat him to be open-minded and liberal. People will

dealing with speak to one who has the open-mindedness re-
minds. sulting from thorough familiarity with the subject
in dispute, appreciation of the points of difficulty,
candour in dealing with them, and sympathy with

the doubts and perplexities of unsettled minds.
The attitude of the Secularists towards Christian

churches may be more briefly but very strikingly —

Th 1:
if ite illustrated. A few years ago the editor of the
Editor of the : ; :
Secular Secular Review proposed a new departure in his

Review.

paper; viz., that Secularist candidates should

The Present Conflict with Unbelief.

come forward for seats in Parliament as the
avowed advocates of Atheism, and that a measure
should be promoted for placing all churches and
chapels under the operation of a Permissive Bill,
in the same way as the United Kingdom Alliance
desires to place public-houses. Opinion on the
subject among the party was found to be too much
divided to proceed further, and the proposal was
dropped. It illustrates, however, the spirit and
attitude of some at least of the most advanced
wing of Secularists towards Christian churches,
and shows what things would come to if they had
their way.

The tolerance which distinguishes the com-
batants in the higher forms of literature may
fairly suggest the question as to the depth of
conviction which it covers. On this point Mr.
Morley says, in the article already quoted:

‘¢ How far it goes, let us not be too sure. Intellectual fair-
ness is often only another name for indolence and inconclusive-
ness of mind, just as a love of truth is sometimes a fine phrase
for temper. To be piquant counts for much, and the interest
of seeing on the drawing-room tables of devout Catholics and
high-flying Anglicans” (he might have added others as well)
‘article after article, sending divinities, creeds, and churches all
headlong into limbo, was indeed piquant. Much of all this
elegant dabbling in infidelity has been a caprice of fashion. The
Agnostic has had his day with the fine ladies, like the black
footboy of other times, or the spirit-rappers and table-turners
of our own. When we perceived that such people actually
thought that the churches had been raised on their feet again
by the puerile apologetics of Mr, Mallock, then it was easy to

Division of
opinion
among the
Secularists
on the
proposal.

How far the
tolerance in
the writers
in the higher
forms of
literature
goes.

Is the
conflict a
tournament
or a battle ?

The reality
of the battle.

Mr, W. RB.
Greg’s
account of
the struggle
through
which he
passed.

The Present Conflict with Unbelief.

see that they had never really fallen. What we have been

watching, after all, was perhaps a tournament, not a battle.”
It is satisfactory to read, on Mr. Morley’s

testimony, that the churches have not fallen.

There is no doubt that there has been much of
the caprice of fashion in contemporary infidelity.
Mr. Morley, in forsaking the editorial chair, and
pursuing the course he has subsequently taken,
has indicated pretty plainly his own conviction
that the present conflict between faith and unbelief
is a tournament rather than a battle.

Making all allowance, however, for the element
of fashion and unreality, there can be no doubt
that there has been and is a real battle going on.
Some distinguished champions of unbelief bear the
scars of the fierce struggle through which they
passed before they renounced the more or less
orthodox forms of Christianity m which they were
trained, and took up the negative ground ultimately
occupied by them. To cite one instance alone—
Mr. W. R. Greg, in the preface to his book, The
Creed of Christendom, its Foundation and Super-
structure, after stating the conclusions at which
he has arrived, says,

‘*One word in conclusion. Let it not be supposed that the
conclusions’ sought to be established in this book have been
arrived at eagerly, or without pain or reluctance. The pursuit
of truth is easy to a man who has no human sympathies,

whose vision is impaired by no fond partiality, whose heart is
torn by no divided allegiance. To him the renunciation of error

The Present Conflict with Unbelief.

presents few difficulties, for the moment it is recognised as
error its charm ceases. But the case is very different with the
searcher whose affections are strong, whose associations are
quick, whose hold upon the past is clinging and tenacious. He
may love truth with an earnest and paramount devotion ; but he
loves much else also. He loves errors which were once the
cherished convictions of his soul. He loves dogmas which were
once full of strength and beauty to his thoughts, though now
perceived to be baseless or fallacious. He loves the Church
where he worshipped in his happy childhood ; where his friends
and his family worship still; where his grey-haired parents
await the resurrection of the just ; but where he can worship
and await no more. He loves the simple old creed of his
earlier and brighter days, which is the creed of his wife and
children still, but which inquiry has compelled him to abandon.
The Past and the Familiar have charms and talismans which
hold him back in his career, till every fresh step forward
becomes an effort and an agony ; every fresh error discovered is
a fresh bond snapped asunder ; every new glimpse of light is

_ like a fresh flood of pain poured upon the soul. To such a

man the pursuit of truth is a daily martyrdom—how hard and
bitter let the martyr tell. Shame to those who make it doubly
so! Honour to those who encounter it, saddened, weeping,
trembling, but unflinching still!”

We cannot doubt that many a champion of
unbelief bears scars of a similar kind of the
struggle through which he has passed, though
few have given such touching expression to their
feelings. Wecan sympathise with the struggle and
the pain of such a thinker, though we believe him
to have missed the truth which he thought he
had found, and to have embraced positive error.
How real the battle is among the flower of our
young men, every believing teacher of influence
at the great centres of intellectual life knows;
how severe is the struggle many of them have

The struggle
in Mr, W. R.
Greg’smind.

Others
doubtless
have passed
through
similar
experiences,

The battle
among
young men,

Infidelity
has made
progress.

The
Christian
antecedents
of many
leaders in
Unbelief.

Uneasiness
and un-
settlement
of mind
within the
Church.

The Present Conflict with Unbelief.

to retain the faith they brought with them from
their homes to the University; how many are
worsted in the conflict, make shipwreck of their
faith, and go to swell the ranks of those who are
labouring to overthrow Christianity. The fact
that any man thinks it worth while “to dabble in
infidelity,” is a proof that a real battle 1s going on,
that infidelity has made considerable progress —an
amount of progress which may well cause anxious
thought to all who have at heart the interests of
the kingdom of Christ and the truth to which He
came into the world to testify.

One of the saddest facts in the conflict is this,
that not a few of the leaders of the army of
unbelief were born and trained in the Christian
fold, and once professed the faith they now seek
to destroy.

Another proof of the reality of the present con-
flict 1s the uneasiness and unsettlement of mind
felt by many people within the Christian Church,
who, although they have neither tacitly nor openly
embraced any form of infidelity and see enough
in Christianity to keep them within its fold, see,
at the same time, more in the facts and argu-
ments brought forward against it than they are
able to meet.

The Present Conflict with Unbelief.

Tit
SPECIAL FEATURES OF THE CONFLICT.

1. Tuer Docrringe or Evoxvution.

It is now time to look at the more important
special features of the conflict. One of these ts the
part played in tt by the theory of Evolution.

The theory is at once so simple and so com-
prehensive, so easily apprehended and so far-
reaching in its application; the conception it gives
of the processes by which, according to it, the
Universe came to be what it is, and of the period
of time necessary to bring about the result, is so
magnificent, that it is little wonder that many
minds are fascinated and overpowered by it, that
the facts that make for it are made the most of,
and the difficulties in the way of its acceptance
minimised. These difficulties are indeed formidable.
The following are some of them. Every effort to
prove that life has ever originated from anything
but life has hitherto completely failed. All the
evidence we possess on the subject goes to prove
that man appeared suddenly; and the earliest
human remains known to us, show that primitive
man was in all essential respects the same as the
man of to-day. The “rock record of plant-life”’

' See The Age and Origin of Man Geologically Considered. By

8. R. Pattison, Esq., F.G.S., and Dr. Friedrich Pfaff, Professor
in the University of Erlangen.—Present Day Tract, No. 13.

The
fascinations
of the
theory of
Evolution.

The
difficulties
of the
theory.

The Present Conflict with Unbelief.

The
evidence for
the truth of
the theory
incomplete.

It is neces-
sary to be
on our
guard
against
being
carried away
by the
theory.

The number
and nature
of the
missing
links
formidable.

The theory

neither non-
theistic, nor
anti-theistic.

does not show that there has been a development
from the less perfect to the more perfect forms
of vegetable life.

Evolutionists meet difficulties like these by the
expression of a hope that the complete proof of
the doctrine at present lacking will one day be
forthcoming. We may be excused for declining
to receive the doctrine till the evidence is complete.

The imposing character of the theory should put
us on our guard against being carried away by
it, and lead us to keep in mind that although
Evolution is treated as a practically demonstrated
truth by many men of science, both believers and
unbelievers, it 1s as yet simply an hypothesis await-
ing conclusive proof—proof which perhaps may
never be forthcoming, because it may not exist.
The number and nature of the missing links in
the chain of evidence necessary to demonstrate the
theory are so formidable as to make the amount of
faith needed to receive it as an established truth
so great as to savour almost of credulity.

Atheism and Agnosticism use the theory for
their destructive and negative purposes; but it is
well to remember that it is not necessarily a non-
theistic, or an anti-theistic theory. Indeed, it may
be said to require Theism to make it workable. —
Most defenders of the Christian faith take pains
to show that it is consistent with Theism, though
they may think that it removes God to an im-

The Present Conflict with Unbelief.

mense distance from us. Some avail themselves of
the teachings of distinguished non-Christian evolu-
tionists to prove that it is not inconsistent with
faith in Providence and in the efficacy of prayer.

Thus Dr. Matheson uses such teaching. He
Says :

‘* When Mr. Spencer speaks of an inscrutable force lying at
the basis of all things, what does he mean? Not simply that
the first stage in the evolution of the world encloses an un-
fathomable mystery, but that every stage in the evolution of
the world encloses an unfathomable mystery. To Mr. Spencer
the primal force is not merely the first force, but the basal force,
the force that lies at the root of every phenomenon. In every
movement of matter, in every pulsation of life, in every
movement of consciousness, there is in the view of this
philosopher an unexplained something, a region which is per-
fectly inscrutable; the mystery which we commonly attribute
to creation is with him a universal presence. Now, let us under-
stand what this amounts to; nothing less than this, that the
material chain of effects and causes is not in itself adequate to
explain any phenomenon of nature or of life; that in point of
fact the principle of external continuity is every moment tran-
scended, but not superseded, by another mysterious principle
of whose character and modes of action we are profoundly
ignorant. Here, then, within the chain of nature there is a
margin not only for that which transcends experience, but,
what is of more importance, for our actual communion with
that which transcends experience.

** Let us remember that on the principle of Mr. Spencer this
inscrutable force in navure, however incomprehensible to us, is
one that already comprehends us. If we agree to call this force
inscrutable and unsearchable will, we shall already have estab-
lished a scientific basis not only for belief in a guiding providence,
but for the possibility of an efficacious prayer.’’4

Argument of this kind, which does not necessarily
imply that those who use it accept the theory of
1 From an Address delivered at Belfast, 1884.

Admissions
of non-
Christian
evolution-
ists.

How Dr.
Matheson
turns them
to account,

Wherein the
theory of

Evolution is
inconsistent
with the

teaching of
Christianity.

The study of
the great
non-
Christian
systems.

The

purpose of
unbelief in
the study.

The Present Conflict with Unbelief.

Evolution as established, has its value in the con-
troversy. It wrests the chosen weapons of un-
belief from its hands, and turns them against
itself. It is open to doubt, however, to say the
least, whether the theory of Evolution is consistent
with the whole teaching of Christianity—its whole
teaching concerning man,’ for instance—concerning
the origin of the human race, the Fall, the first
and second Adam, etc.”

2. Tor New ScrencE oF COMPARATIVE RELIGIONS.

Another special feature of the present conflict is
the part the new science of comparative religions plays
m tt.

The great non-Christian religious systems are
carefully studied, not only for their own sakes,
as an interesting and important branch of human
knowledge, but, on the unbelieving side, to prove
that the difference between them and Christianity
is only one of degree, and not of kind—that all
religious systems alike are the product of the
human mind merely; and, on the Christian side,

+See Present Day Tracts on Man, Nos. 12, The Witness of
Man’s Moral Nature to Christianity, by Prof. Thomson, M.A;
30, Man not a Machine, but a Responsible Free Agent, by
Prebendary Row; 39, Man, Physiologically Considered, by
Prof. Macalister.

* For contributions to the Theistic controversy see Present
Day Tracts, Nos. 5, The Existence and Character of God, by Pre-
bendary Row ; 17, Modern Materialism, by Rev. W. F. Wilkin-

son, M.A. ; 20, Zhe Religious Teachings of the Sublime and
Beautiful in Nature, by Canon Rawlinson.

The Present Conflict with Unbelief.

to show by a comparison and a contrast between
them and Christianity, that the difference between
them and it is vital and essential; that Christianity
contains every element of truth which they embody
and teach ; that it contains truth which they lack,
and supplies a remedy for moral evil and a motive
power for moral living of which they are wholly
destitute. The strength of the case on the side of
unbelief lies in the ethical teaching of some of
these hoary systems, particularly Confucianism.?
But while acknowledging to the fullest extent
everything that can be truly said concerning the
excellence of this moral teaching, as far as it goes,
the Christian apologist can show that what Chris-
tianity has to offer is better than the best in these
great religions.

In discussing these subjects we again meet with
the theory of Evolution as we do in the discussion
of many other subjects,” but we are able to point
out facts that seem inconsistent with it. We are
able to point to the fact, that the further back we

1 See Present Day Tracts, Nos. 14, Rise and Decline of Islam,
by Sir W. Muir ; 18, Christianity and Confucianism Compared in
their Teaching of the Whole Duty of Man, by James Legge,
LL.D. ; 25, The Zend-Avesta, and the Religion of the Parsis, by J.
Murray Mitchell, LL.D. ; 33, The Hindu Religion, by J. Murray
Mitchell, LL.D. ; 46, Buddhism, by Dr. H. Robert Reynolds ;
49, Is the Evolution of Christianity from mere Natural Sources
Credible? by John Cairns, D.D.; 51, Christianity and Ancient
Paganism, by J. Murray Mitchell, LL.D.

* See Present Day Tract, No. 48, The Ethics of Evolution
Examined, by Rey. J. Iverach, M.A,

The purpose
of Christian
believers in
the study.

The strength
of the case
on the
unbelieving
side.

What the
Christian.
apologist

can show.

The theory
of Evolution
in relation to
this study.

Facts
inconsistent
with the
theory of
Evolution
derived from
the study of
the great
non-
Christian
religions

The
testimony of
Sir Monier
Williams.

His
experience
as a student
of the Sacred
Books of
the East.

The Present Conflict with Unbelief.

goin the historical development of these ancient
religions, the nearer we get to the sources of
them, the purer they are found to be. A full
investigation of the oldest religions of the world
furnishes evidence of the all-but, if not the ab-
solutely universal prevalence of monotheistic
beliefs? All this 1s exactly as it ought not to be
on the assumption of the truth of the doctrine of
Evolution, and exactly as we should expect it to
be on the assumption of the truth of Christianity,
as it has hitherto been generally received and
understood.

It is worth while quoting here the testimony of
an eminent specialist in the science of Comparative
Religions with reference both to the theory of

Evolution as applied to the subject and to the

contrast rather than the comparison of the Bible
with the sacred books of other religions. At the
annual meeting of the Church Missionary Society
in Exeter Hall on the 8rd of May, Sir Monier
Willams said,” referring to the subtle danger that
lurks beneath the duty (of missionaries) of studying
the non-Christian religious systems:

‘* Perhaps I may best explain the nature of this danger by
describing the process my own mind has gone through whilst
engaged in studying the so-called Sacred Books of the East, as I
have now done for at least forty years. In my youth I had been

1 See Present Day Tract, No. 11, The Early Prevalence of
Monotheistic Beliefs, by Canon Rawlinson.
* Record, May 6, 1887.

a on

The Present Conflict with Unbelief.

accustomed to hear all non-Christian religions described as
‘inventions of the devil.’ And when I began investigating
Hinduism and Buddhism, some well-meaning Christian friends
expressed their surprise that I should waste my time by
grubbing in the dirty gutters of Heathendom. Well, after a
little examination, I found many beautiful gems glittering
there—nay, I met with bright coruscations of true light flashing
here and there amid the surrounding darkness. Now, fairness
in fighting one’s opponents is ingrained in every Englishman’s
nature, and as I prosecuted my researches into these non-
Christian systems I began to foster a fancy that they had been
unjustly treated. I began to observe and trace out curious
coincidences and comparisons with our own Sacred Book of the
East. I began, in short, to be a believer in what is called the
Evolution and Growth of Religious Thought. ‘These imper-
fect systems,’ I said to myself, ‘ are clearly steps in the develop-
ment of man’s religious instincts and aspirations. They are
interesting efforts of the human mind struggling upwards
towards Christianity. Nay, it is probable that they were all in-
tended to lead up to the One True Religion, and that Christianity
is, after all, merely the climax, the complement, the fulfilment
of them all.’

‘‘Now, there is unquestionably a delightful fascination
about such a theory, and, what is more, there are really
elements of truth in it. But I am glad of stating publicly
that I am persuaded I was misled by its attractiveness, and
that its main idea is quite erroneous. The charm and danger
of it, I think, lie in its’ apparent liberality, breadth of view,
and toleration. In the Zimes of last October 14 you will find
recorded a remarkable conversation between a Lama priest and
a Christian traveller, in the course of which the Lama says
that, ‘Christians describe their religion as the best of all
religions ; whereas among the nine rules of conduct for the
Buddhist there is one that directs him never either to think or
to say that his own religion is the best, considering that sincere
men of other religions are deeply attached to them.’ Now, to
express sympathy with this kind of liberality is sure to win
applause among a certain class of thinkers,

*“We must not forget, too, that our Bible tells us that God has
not left Himself without witness, and that in every nation he that
feareth God and worketh righteousness is accepted with Him.
Yet I contend, notwithstanding, that a limp, flabby, jelly-fish

He discovers
beautiful
gems.

Observes
coincidences
and
comparisons
with the
Bible.

Regards

Christianity
as the climax
of them all.

The main
idea of

Evolution
erroneous.

Spurious
liberality.

The
testimony of
the Bible.

The Present Conflict with Unbeliey.

The
manliness of
the Bible,

It points to
one only
Saviour.

How non-
Christian
sacred books
are to be
studied.

Reasons for
contrayven-
ing the
favourite
philosophy
of the day.

tolerance is utterly incompatible with the nerve, fibre, and
backbone that ought to characterise a manly Christian. I
maintain that a Christian’s character ought to be exactly what
the Christian’s Bible intends it to be.

“Take that Sacred Book of ours; handle reverently the
whole volume ; search it through and through, from the first
chapter to the last, and mark well the spirit that pervades the
whole. You will find no limpness, no flabbiness, about its
utterances. Even sceptics who dispute its Divinity are ready to
admit that it is a thoroughly manly book. Vigour and manhood
breathe in every page. It is downright and straightforward, bold
and fearless, rigid and uncompromising. It tells you and me to
be either hot or cold. If God be God, serve Him. If Baal be
God, serve him. We cannot serve both. We cannot love both.
Only one Name is given among men whereby we may be saved.
No other name, no other Saviour, more suited to India, to
Persia, to China, to Arabia, is ever mentioned, is ever hinted at.

“‘What! says the enthusiastic student of the science of religion,
do you seriously mean to sweep away asso much worthless waste
paper all these thirty stately volumes of Sacred Books of the East
just published by the University of Oxford? No—not at all—
nothing of the kind. On the contrary, we welcome these books.
We ask every missionary to study their contents, and thankfully
lay hold of whatsoever things are true and of good report in
them. But we warn him that there can be no greater mistake
than to force these non-Christian bibles into conformity with
some scientific theory of development, and then point to the
Christian’s Holy Bible as the crowning product of religious
evolution. So far from this, these non-Christian bibles are all
developments in the wrong direction. They all begin with
some flashes of true light, and end in darkness. Pile them, if
you will, on the left side of your study table; but place your
own Holy Bible on the right side—all by itself—all alone—and
with a wide gap between.

** And now, with all deference to the able men I see around
me, I crave permission to tell you why, or at least to give
two good reasons, for venturing to contravene, in so plain-
spoken a manner, the favourite philosophy of the day.
Listen to me, ye youthful students of the so-called Sacred
Books of the East ; search them through and through, and
tell me, do they affirm of Vyasa, of Zoroaster, of Confucius,
of Buddha, of Muhammad, what our Bible affirms of the

The Present Conflict with Unbelief.

Founder of Christianity—that He, a sinless Man, was made
sin? Not merely that He is the Eradicator of Sin, but that
He, the sinless Son of Man, was Himself made sin. Vyasa and
the other founders of Hinduism enjoined severe penances,
endless lustral washings, incessant purifications, infinite repe-
titions of prayers, painful pilgrimages, arduous ritual, and sacri-
ficial observances, all with the one idea of getting rid of sin.
All their books say so. But do they say that the very men who
exhausted every invention for the eradication of sin were them-
selves sinless men made sin? Zoroaster, too, and Confucius,
and Buddha, and Muhammad, one and all bade men strain
every nerve to get rid of sin, or at least of the misery of sin ;
but do their sacred books say that they themselves were sinless
men made sin? Understand me, I do not presume as a layman
to interpret the apparently contradictory proposition put forth
in our Bible that a sinless man was made sin. All I now con-
tend for is that it stands alone; that it is wholly unparalleled ;
that it is not to be matched by the shade of a shadow of a
similar declaration in any other book claiming to be the expo-
nent of the doctrine of any other religion in the world.
“Once again, ye youthful students of the so-called Sacred
Books of the East, search them through and through, and tell
me, do they affirm of Vyasa, of Zoroaster, of Confucius, of Bud-
dha, of Muhammad, what our Bible affirms of the Founder of
Christianity—that He, a dead and buried Man, was made Life,
not merely that He is the Giver of life, but that He, the dead and
buried Man, is Life? ‘Iam the Life,’ ‘ When Christ, who is
our Life, shall appear.’ ‘He that hath the Son hath Life.’ Let
me remind you, too, that the blood is the Life, and that
our Sacred Book adds this matchless, this unparalleled, this
astounding assertion: ‘ Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of
Man and drink His Blood, ye have no Life in you.’ Again, I
say, [ am not now presuming to interpret so marvellous, so
stupendous a statement. All I contend for is that it is abso-
lutely unique, and I defy you to produce the shade of the
shadow of a similar declaration in any other sacred book of the
world. And bear in mind that these two matchless, these two
unparalleled, declarations are closely, are intimately, are indis-
solubly connected with the great central facts and doctrines of
our religion—the Incarnation, the Crucifixion, the Resurrection,
the Ascension of Christ. Vyasa, Zoroaster, Confucius, Buddha,
Muhammad, all are dead and buried; and mark this, their

What the
Bible affirms
of Christ.

What the
books of
other re-
ligions say
their
founders
enjoined,

Further
testimony

of the Bible
concerning
Christ.

No such de-
clarations in
any other

sacred book
in the world.

26 The Present Conflict with Unbelief.

bones have crumbled into dust, their flesh is dissolved, their
Christianity bodies are extinct. Even their followers admit this. Chris-
alone com- vale : : ’
memorates tianity alone commemorates the passing into the heavens of its
the passing divine Founder, not merely in the spirit, but in the body, and
into the rik . i ;
heavens of with flesh, bones, and all things appertaining to the perfection
i ee of man’s nature,’ to be the eternal source of life to His people.
Bear with me a moment longer.
cer aati ‘““Tt requires some courage to appear intolerant—to appear
Bible avd unyielding—in these days of flabby compromise and milk
the books of and water concession ; but I contend that the two unparalleled
other : :
religions declarations quoted by me from our Holy Bible make a gulf
impassable. between it and the so-called Sacred Books of the East which
sever the one from the other utterly, hopelessly, and for
ever—not a mere rift which may be easily closed up, not
a mere rift across which the Christian and the non-Chris-
tian may shake hands and interchange similar ideas in regard
to essential truths, but a veritable gulf which cannot be
bridged over by any science of religious thought. Yes, a bridge
less chasm which no theory of Evolution can ever span.
‘‘Go forth, then, ye missionaries, in your Master’s name; go
forth into all the world, and after studying all its false religions
and philosophies, go forth and fearlessly proclaim to suffering
humanity the plain, the unchangeable, the eternal facts of the —
Gospel—nay, I might almost say the stubborn, the unyielding,
the inexorable facts of the Gospel. Dare to be downright with
all the uncompromising courage of your own Bible, while with
it your watchwords are love, joy, peace, reconciliation. Be fair, |
be charitable, be Christ-like; but let there be no mistake.
He who Let it be made absolutely clear that Christianity cannot, must
pope nee: not, be watered down to suit the palate of either Hindu,
false to the Buddhist, or Muhammadan, and that whosoever wishes to pass
Hs aay from the false religion to the true can never hope to do so by the
in faith. rickety planks of compromise, or by help of faltering hands held
out by half-and-half Christians. He must leap the gulf in
faith, and the living Christ will spread His everlasting arms

beneath and land him safely on the Eternal Rock.”

Sant

The Present Conflict with Unbelief.

3. SUBSTITUTES FOR CHRISTIANITY.

Another special feature of the present conflict, is
the recognition by unbelief of man’s need for religion
of some kind, and of the necessity of offering some
substitute for Christianity.

The so-called religion of Humanity! is the only
fully-fledged substitute in the field. It offers col-
lective humanity, or the abstract idea of humanity,
instead of God, as the object of worship.

It is provided with a ritual, a pontiff, a priest-
hood, with a calendar, festivals, and sacraments.
It is needless to describe it in detail; its absurd-
ities have been adequately exposed by many pens.

‘Almost the only noble characteristic about it,” says
Dr. Flint in his ‘‘Ant?-theistic Theories,” ‘‘is the spirit of dis-
interestedness which it breathes, the stress which it lays on
living for others. In this respect it has imitated, although
longo wmtervallo, the Gospel of Jesus Christ. But unlike the
Gospel, although it enjoins love to one another with the urgency
which is due, it unseals no fresh source, and brings to light no
new motives of love.”

Referring generally to modern substitutes for
Christianity, Dr. Flint thus sums up the matter:

‘“‘The character of the religions which have been invented in
the present age is no slight indirect confirmation of the Divine
origin of the religion which they displace. If all that men can
do in the way of religious invention, even in the nineteenth
century, with every help that science can give them, is like
what we have seen them doing, the religion which has come
down to us through so many centuries can have been no human

' See Present Day Tract, No. 47, Auguste Comte and the Relt-
gion of Humanity, by J. Radford Thomson, M.A.

The
religion of
Humanity.

Its only
noble
charac-
teristic.

Modern
substitutes
for
Christianity
generally.

Apart from
revelation
the value
of life
doubtful.

The sources
of much
pessimism,

The Present Conflict with Unbelief.

invention.t It could not have been originated by science; and
were it withdrawn, science would assuredly find no substitute
for it. Take it away, and we should be left even at this time
in absolute spiritual darkness and helplessness. That is the
truth which modern attempts to found and form new religions
concur in establishing.”

4, Tur VALUE oF LIFE.

The discussion of the value of life is not a new one
in the history of the conflict with unbehef, but wt ts
a very prominent one in the present conflict. Never
perhaps has this question been more discussed?

Apart from the light derived from revelation con-
cerning the dignity and destiny of man, we do not
see that a very strong case can be made out in favour
of the proposition that life is worth living. No
doubt, a man of a naturally healthy and vigorous
constitution, mentally, morally, and physically,
may, by the regular exercise of all his powers, and
the temperate use of all the good the world offers
him, obtain a large measure of enjoyment apart
from any question of religious belief. No doubt,
moreover, much pessimism is traceable to ill-health,
misfortune, and other natural evils. But the
doubt whether life be worth living, the conviction
at which so many, at least of the literary and
cultured classes, have arrived in our day, that life

1 See Present Day Tract, No. 19, Christianity as History,
Doctrine and Life, by Dr. Noah Porter.

2 See Present Day Tract, No. 34, Modern Pessimism, by J.
Radford Thomson, M.A,

The Present Conflict with Unbelief.

is not worth living, is clearly due to the theories
of the origin and course and issue of things which
they have adopted. Pessimism seems to be the
necessary outcome of a system which rejects the
idea of a personal God and a personal immortality,
and teaches that the Universe, which originated
in a vapour cloud, will issue in universal death,
that causes are now in operation which will render
the earth unfit for the habitation of man, and
looks for the exercise of no power from without to
renew and perpetuate the universe. This view of
things cuts up by the roots the comfort which some
profess to derive from the cold substitute of a
race-immortality for the Christian hope and pros-
pect of individual immortality, and leaves nothing
but the unrelieved blackness and darkness of
absolute despair.’

On this view, the possible progress of the race is
strictly limited, and its extinction is certain. Sir
William Thompson, one of our foremost physicists,
calculates that the sun will be exhausted in five
or six millions of years. This is a short time
compared with the periods that the theory of
Evolution demands for the age of the Universe.

The late Sir W. Siemens, then Dr. Siemens, did
indeed propound a theory of the renewal of solar
energy, in an interesting paper in the April number

1 See Present Day Tract, No. 8, Agnosticism—a Doctrine of
Despair, by Dr. Noah Porter.

Pessimism
the
necessary
outcome of
unbelieving
speculation
concerning
the origin
and issues
of the
universe,

The
limitation
of progress
an
extinction of
the race
certain on
this view.

Sir. W.
Siemens’s
theory.

The Present Conflict with Unbelief.

Sir. W.
Siemens’s
Christian
standpoint,

The negative
assumptions
of the most
advanced
wing of
those who
discredit the
traditional
views of the
authorship
of the books
of Scripture.

of the Nineteenth Century, 1882. This theory, if
established, would relieve the gloom of the outlook
from the scientific unbeliever’s point of view, but
it does not seem to have met with much acceptance.
Dr. Siemens wrote as a Christian theist, and re-
garded his theory, as undoubtedly it would do, if
established, as justifying the lines of Addison:
“The unwearied sun from day to day
Does the Creator’s power display,

And publishes to every land
The work of an Almighty Hand.”

>. Tue Hicuer Criticism.

Lhe discussion of the date, authorship, and authen-
ticity of the sacred writings, both of the Old and New
Testament, is not a new feature in the conflict with
unbelief, but it ts conducted on new lines and with
new weapons.

The most advanced wing of those who discredit
the traditional views starts from the assumption of
the incredibility or the impossibility of miracles.
The supernatural in the history must be cleared
away, the predictive element must be eliminated
from prophecy. The methods of the so-called
“Higher Criticism” are employed to shake the
authority of the Books, and to show that they were
not written by the men whose names they bear,
nor at the periods hitherto regarded as the date
of their origin.

The Present Conflict with Unbelief.

Ee Re en

The school of “Higher Criticism,’ however,
includes some scholars who do not reject the super-
natural, yet adopt to a large extent the critical
principles of the most advanced representatives of
the school. The assaults are directed chiefly
against the Old Testament, but are not confined to
it. The conflicting and ever-changing views and
theories of the representatives of this school are
not fitted to inspire confidence in their methods or
results. The large amount of evidence to show
that the Pentateuch was written by one who lived
amid the scenes and at the period of the Exodus;
the impossibility of the promulgation of the law
having taken place at any subsequent period of
Israelitish history; the undying Messianic hope
running through the whole of the Old Testament,
and the definite predictions of a Messiah which
defy any attempt to explain them altogether away ;2
the testimony of Christ to the Old Testament as a
whole and to many leading events recorded in
it;? the vital connection between the Old and
New Testaments; the agreement arrived at by

* See Present Day Tract, No. 15, The Mosaic Authorship and
Credibility of the Pentateuch, by the Dean of Canterbury ; and
No. 28, The Origin of the Hebrew Religion, by E. R. Conder, D.D.

2 See Present Day Tract, No. 27, The Present State of the
Christian Argument from Prophecy, by Principal Cairns.

3 See The Testimony of Christ to the Old Testament Scriptures,
by L. Borrett White, D.D. Crown 16mo. Book Series,
Bio.ol. (RET.S;)

The super-
natural not
denied by
all scholars
of the school
of ‘* Higher
Criticism.’

The evidence
for the books
of the Old
as well as of
the New
Testament
cannot
easily be
shaken,

Too much
to be
explained
away on the
principles of
the negative
criticism,

Ever ac-
cumulating
confirma-
tions of the
truth of the
Bible.

The Present Conflict with Unbelief.

scholars of every school respecting the four greater
Epistles of St. Paul, which carry conclusions of
the greatest magnitude and importance ; + and the
evidence from the character of Jesus Christ,? form
a body of evidence which the assaults of unbelief
can never really shake. On the principles of the
negative criticism there is too much to explain
away; and the rise and abandonment of one
theory after another is a virtual confession of the
impracticability of the task. Negative critics
are consistent only in their negations. Their
attempts at reconstruction are as mutually in-
consistent as their failure in destructive criticism
is complete.®

Meanwhile, confirmations of the truth of the
Bible in both its parts are constantly coming to
light from many sources—from ancient monuments,
from Palestine exploration, from history, from

1 See Present Day Tracts, Nos. 2, The Historical Evidence of
the Resurrection of Jesus Christ from the Dead, by Prebendary
Row ; 24, Evidential Conclusions from the Four Greater Epistles
of St. Paul, by the late Dean Howson, of Chester; 36, Zhe
Lord’s Supper, an Abiding Witness to the Death of Christ, by
Sir W. Muir; 50, Zhe Day of Rest, by Sir J. W. Dawson,

2 See Present Day Tract, No. 22, The Unity of the Character
of Christ ; a Proof of its Historical Reality, by Prebendary Row.

3 See Present Day Tracts, No. 16, The Authenticity of the
Four Gospels, by Henry Wace, D.D. No. 21, Ernest Renan and
his Criticism of Christ, by W. G. Elmslie, M.A. ; No. 26, The
Authorship of the Fourth Gospel, by F. Godet, D.D,; No. 38, F. C.
Baur and his Theory of the Origin of Christianity and the
New Testament Writings, by A. B. Bruce, D.D.

The Present Conflict with Unbelief.

science. The results of the ‘‘ Higher Criticism ”’ ae

can at most necessitate the reconsideration of some
of the positions hitherto traditionally accepted, and
some modifications in them, but by no means to
the extent that even those who may be called the
“night wing” of the school—those who still believe
in supernatural, and, substantially, evangelical
Christianity—suppose.

6. Lirerary CrirTicism.

Another less obtrusive, but remarkable feature of
the present conflict with unbelief, is the use that has
been made of purely literary criticism to get rid of
the supernatural in the Bible and its religion.

The professed object of this attempt is in the
interest of the Bibie itself andin the removal of
the hindrances which prevent its reception by the
people. Mr. Matthew Arnold, who is its author,
recognises in a sense, that the: Bible and its reli-
gion are all-important. He holds that the Bible is
misunderstood by all the churches, that they can-
not conceive it without the gloss they put upon

1 See Present Day Tract, No. 9, The Antiquity of Man
Historically Considered, by Canon Rawlinson. No. 10, Zhe Wit-
ness of Palestine to the Bible, by Dr. W. G. Blaikie. No. 32, The
Witness of Ancient Monuments to the Old Testament Scriptures,
by A. H. Sayce, D.D. No. 41, Historical Illustrations of the
New Testament Scriptures, by G. F. Maclear, D.D.; No. 42,

Points of Contact between Revelation and Natural Science, by Sir
J. William Dawson.

The results
e

“ Higher
Criticism.””

Mr. M.
Arnold’s
criticism.

The
prevailing
misunder-
standing of
the Bible by
all the
churches
according to
him.

The Present Conflict with Unbelief.

The gloss
put on the
Bible
according

to him by all
the

churches,

The cause of
this alleged
misunder-
standing.

What Mr.
Arnold
leaves us by
applying his
principles to
the inter-
pretation of
Scripture.

it, and that this gloss cannot possibly be true. He
regards this gloss as separable from the Bible, and
believes that it must be separated from it, if Mr.
Bradlaugh is not to have his way and the Bible
to go. Wonderful to say, this gloss is the assump-
tion with which all the churches and sects set out,
that there 1s

‘a great Personal First Cause, the moral and _ intelligent
Governor of the Universe, and that from Him the Bible derives
its authority.”

‘‘This assumption,” he says, ‘* can never be verified, and the
problem is to find, for the Bible, a basis in something that can
be verified, instead of something which has to be assumed.”

‘* The want of culture or acquainting ourselves with the best
that has been known and said in the world, and thus with the
history of the human spirit,”
is, he thinks, the cause of this extraordinary
misunderstanding of the Bible by all the churches
and sects, and the first step towards understanding
it 1s to see that
‘‘the language of the Bible is fluid, passing and literary, not
rigid, fixed and scientific, language thrown out at an object of
consciousness not fully grasped.”

By interpreting Scripture in accordance with
these views, Mr. Arnold gets rid of a “ Personal
First Cause,’ “a moral and intelligent Governor
of the Universe,” leaving us, instead, “a power,
not ourselves, which makes for righteousness ;”
finds religion to be “morality touched with emotion,”
and “conduct to be the object of religion and
three-fourths of life.’ When these things come

The Present Conflict with Unbelief.

to be thoroughly understood, then, according to
him, we may expect the re-inthronement of the
now dethroned Bible.

“To re-inthrone the Bible,” he says, ‘‘as explained by our
current theology, whether cultured or popular, is absolutely and
for ever impossible ; as impossible as to restore the predominance
of the feudal system, or the belief in witches.”

Mr. Arnold’s method of commending the Bible
seems to the common-sense of an ordinary mind
like nothing so much as betraying it with a kiss.
It is like seeking to promote a man’s vigour and
capacity for usefulness by cutting out his heart.
Advocated as it is with all the charm of an ex-
quisite style, and with what has the effect at least
of the keenest and most biting sarcasm, it has
doubtless done deadly work in undermining the
faith of many among the cultivated classes of the
community, and more especially among the young.
He has the faculty of inventing phrases which
pass into wide circulation, and are fitted to become
by their serious defectiveness the fruitful seeds of
much error and unbelief. In addition to his
substitute for God and his definitions of religion
and conduct, his phrase the “sweet reasonableness
of Jesus” is misleading by its utter inadequacy as
a description of Christ’s character.

This seems to be the best that Mr. Arnold can
see in the character of Christ. How meagre it
is seen to be when we contrast it with the descrip-

What Mr.
Arnold’s
method of
commending
the Bible is
like.

Mr, Arnold’s
faculty of
inventing
phrases. that
come into
wide circula-
tion, and
mislead by
their defec-
tiveness.

The Present Conflict with Unbelief.

The Apostle
John’s view
of Christ
contrasted
with Mr. M.
Arnold’s.

No
permanent
standing
ground
between
Christianity
and Atheism
or Agnos-
ticism.

tion given by the Apostle John of what he saw in
Christ, in the first chapter of his Gospel, ver. 14:
‘¢ And the word was made flesh, and dwelt among us (and we

beheld His glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the
Father), full of grace and truth.”

These phrases of Mr. Arnold’s are fitted to work
in unsettled minds disposed to be sceptical, and
help to produce the bitter fruit of confirmed un-
belief in a personal God, supernatural religion, and
a Divine Saviour.

7 Tue Prace or Carist IN THE CONFLICT.

The last and most important and striking feature
of the conflict is the place of Christ in it.

Tt centres more and more in Him, and more
and more is it becoming clear that between super-
natural Christianity and Atheism or Agnosticism
there is no standing-ground that can be permanently
maintained. The number of believers in God who
are not believers in the highest claims of Christ 1s
comparatively small. In this country at least, and

1 See Present Day Tracts relating to Christ: No. 3, Christ
the Central Evidence of Christianity, by Dr. Cairns. No. 21,
Ernest Renan and His Criticism of Christ, by Prof. Elmslie.
No. 22, The Unity of the Character of the Christ of the Gospels,
a pro of its Historical Reality, by Prebendary Row. No. 37,
The Christ of the Gospels, by Dr. H. Meyer. No. 43, The
Claim of Christ wpon the Conscience, by the Rev. W. Steven-

son, M.A. No. 52, Christ and Creation, by the Rev. W. S.
Lewis, M.A.

The Present Conflict with Unbelief.

on the Continent of Europe, we believe it to be a
decreasing one. The Deists of last century have
no followers in the present day. No one takes the
same ground as they did. Christ Himself not
only identified Himself with God, but in many
sayings seems to identify knowledge of Himself
with knowledge of the Father, and to teach that
knowledge of Himself and knowledge of the
Father are inseparable. The signs of the times
seem to indicate that the truth of this will be
verified in a wider and more literal sense than
the one in which we have hitherto generally
understood it. For ourselves, we do not see how
Mr. J. Stuart Mull’s terrible dilemma about the
love and power of God can be met except by
pointing to the gift and sacrifice of His only
begotten Son, who was one with and yet distinct
from Him.

‘** There is hardly a controversy,” says Dr. Patton of Princeton,

and he says so truly, ‘“‘which may not be fought and fought
victoriously on the battle-ground of Calvary.”

If He who bled and died there was, as we believe
Him in our hearts to be, ‘‘ God, of God, very God,
of very God,” and yet true man, made in all
points like as we are, “yet without sin,” there is an
end of the controversy in all its forms; an end of
the controversy about origins alike of the Universe,
ef Life, and of Religion; about the possibility, as
well as the actual occurrence, of miracles, the future

The oneness
of know-
ledge of
Christ and
knowledge
of the
Father.

Every con-
troversy
may be
fought out
at the Cross,

38 The Present Conflict with Unbelief.

life, and many other questions that occupy and
perplex the minds of men to-day.
The Deityot That Christ is God may be shown from the

Christ may

be proved : _
be proved Gospels alone. Leaving out of account all ques

poe tions as to date and authorship, and taking the
hooks just as we find them, we have evidence
enough to satisfy the inquirer that Jesus was and
TED ee ay is the Son of God incarnate. We see in them One

we have who was man, living within the limits and accord-
ing to the laws of human nature, and yet who
possessed a higher than mere human consciousness:
a consciousness of oneness with God, of a super-
human—nay, more, of a Divine origin, and who
had prevision of the termination of His own career
and of the results of His own work which has been
marvellously verified by the course of history.
We see in them one who had knowledge of the
human heart and the thoughts of men such as no
mere human being ever possessed; who had no
consciousness of sin, and could challenge men to
convict Him of it; who displayed a meekness and
humility unexampled in recorded human experi-
ence, and yet made claims of so astounding a kind
that they would be impious if they were not abso-
lutely true. We see in them one in whose mind
there is the most perfect balance of all the powers,
and in whose character there is every conceivable
perfection without one single flaw. To what
other conclusion can we come but that Jesus of

The Present Conflict with Unbelief.

Nazareth was all that He claimed to be, all that
His followers in every age have believed and con-
fessed Him to be. The portraiture of Jesus Christ
contained in the Gospels has won the admiration
of all the best minds in the ranks of unbelief.
Testimony has been given to it by them which 1s
really inconsistent with the principles they hold
and teach, and is strong enough, we believe, to lead
an inquirer to the conviction that Jesus Christ is
the Son of God and the Saviour of the world.

Only one writer! in the higher ranks of unbelief
has ventured to breathe a suspicion against the
perfection of Christ’s character. The Secularists
in this country have hitherto enjoyed the monopoly
of the use of gross and revolting pictorial carica-
ture. They too were the only assailants of Chris-
tianity who questioned, in carrying on the con-
troversy in this country, the sanity of our Lord
—until an article discussing the subject was
recently admitted into the Fortnightly Review.

Every theory propounded by unbelief to account
for Jesus Christ as He is pourtrayed in the Gospels
utterly breaks down. He cannot be accounted for
on any naturalistic theory whatever. He is not
the product of Evolution. He made a demon-
strable breach in the law of continuity, and rose
heaven-high above his earthly environment. He
was in advance of His own age and of all ages.

1 Francis Newman.

The
testimony of
the best
minds in the
ranks of
unbelief to
Christ.

One excep-
tion in the
higher ranks
of unbelief.

The
unaccount-
ableness

of Christ on
any natural-
istic theory.

The Present Conflict with Unbelief.

Christ
absolutely
unique in
human
history.

The claims
of Christ un-
paralleled.

Sustained by
clear and
intelligible
evidence,

His power
over the
moral and
material
world, and
over human

. hearts.

He stands out an absolutely unique character in
human history. He is the key of human history,
the origin and end of all things. In the testimony
of the risen Saviour Himself alone can we find the
most fitting words to bring Him fully before us:
‘“‘T am the First and the Last, and the Living One ;
and I was dead, and behold, I am alive for evermore,
and I have the keys of death and of Hades.”!

8. Tue Uniaut Criaims or CuHrist ANp

CHRISTIANITY.

Here then the Christian may take his stand.
None of the founders of the great non-Christian
religious systems has ever advanced such claims as
Christ to be perfect man and true God—a Divine
and all sufficient Saviour? The claims of none of the
founders of the great non-Christian religious systems
have ever been sustained by evidence so clear and in-
telligible? Christ’s character has been subjected to
the keenest criticism for eighteen centuries, and no
one has been able to prove that any flaw is to be
found in it.

No founder of any other great religious system
has ever displayed such power alike over the moral
and the material world—a power purely beneficent
in its character? His works have a moral stamp
worthy of the perfection of His character, they are

? Revelation i. 18 (R.V.).

eee

—

The Present Conflict with Unbelief.

an integral part of the revelation of the Father
made by Him.1 His power over human hearts is
as great to-day as it was in the days of His flesh,
and is experienced by a vastly greater number of
persons.

No system but Christianity provides an ade-
quate remedy for the universal malady of sin? true
and efficacious help and consolation in all the
sorrows and trials of life, a moral ideal for the
guidance of life, so lofty,? and a motive power of
such potency to produce obedience and self-sacrifice.
No other system holds out the hope of a blessed
and glorious future of endless existence, the
supreme attraction of which is the unclouded
vision of Him who is the brightness of the glory
of God the Father, and participation in His
perfect holiness.‘

Christ subjects His religion to the practical test :
“ By their fruits ye shall know them.” This is a
test which any one can apply. Practice, not mere
profession, is the ultimate test to which Christ

1 See Present Day Tract, No. 1, Christianity and Miracles at
the Present Day, by Dr. Cairns.

2 See Present Day Tracts, Nos. 35, The Divinity of our Lord
in Relation to His Work of Atonement, by Rev. W. Arthur. No.
44, The Doctrine of the Atonement Historically and Scripturally
Examined, by Dr. Stoughton.

3 See Present Day Tract, No. 40, Utilitarianism, by Prof.
Thomson.

4 See Present Day Tract, No. 45, The Resurrection of Jesus

Christ in its Historical, Doctrinal, Moral, and Spiritual Aspects,
by Rev. R. McCheyne Edgar, M.A.

The
provisions
of Chris—
tianity
unique,

The test
proposed
by Christ.

The
evidence of
Christian
philan-
thropy.

The

_ indirect

influence of
Christianity.

The Present Conflict with Unbelief.

submits his religion. Love is the all-comprehensive
fruit which Christianity is intended to produce—
holy, practical, self-sacrificing love—a love inspired
by unreserved trust in Christ, which shows itself by
obedience to all His commandments. What other
religion has produced so plentiful a crop of labours
of love of every kind as the religion of Christ?
Philanthropy as we know it, as it has been deve-
loped during the last eighteen centuries, is the
peculiar fruit of Christianity. Perhaps there
never has been a more abundant growth of it than
in our own day. There can be little doubt that
much of the philanthropic effort that has no
formal connection with Christianity is the result
of the indirect influence of the Gospel of Christ
on the thoughts and conduct of men.’

ID HY:
CONCLUSION.

THE IssuES OF THE CONFLICT.

BerForE closing this rapid survey of the Present
Conflict with Unbelief, it may be well to consider

1 See Present Day Tract, No. 4, Christianity and the Life
that now is, by Dr. Blaikie. No. 6, Zhe Success of Christianity
and Modern Explanations of it, by Dr. Cairns. No. 7, Chris-
tianity and Secularism, by Dr. Blaikie. No. 23, The Vitality
of the Bible, by Dr. Blaikie. No. 31, The Adaptation of the
Bible to the Needs and Nature of Man, by Dr, Blaikie.

The Present Conflict with Unbelief.

the possible issues of it. Of the ultimate triumph
of the truth, however long the conflict may endure,
no Christian can have any doubt.

Itis not the ultimate issues, however, so much
as the nearer and more uncertain issues that we
would consider. We would glance at a few of
those indications which may help us to form an
opinion as to the possible earlier issues of the
conflict, and confine our view to those indications
as affecting our own country.

When we think of the prevalence of unbelief
and of the present conflict with unbelief, we think
chiefly of the cultured classes on the one hand, and
of the masses of working people among whom the
Secularist propaganda is carried on on the other.

Touching the former classes, the state of mind
that prevails is delineated in a striking manner in
an article that appeared in the Spectator of the 20th
November, 1886, entitled, “Will Culture outgrow
Christianity ?”

The article was occasioned by a lecture on the
subject, addressed to the students of Manchester
New College, by Professor Upton. The writer
Says:

** While Professor Upton chooses strong ground when he uses
the very conception of Evolution to refute the view that this
process should have produced a religious being only to dis-
appoint cruelly all the religious instincts it had fostered, he
seems to us to ignore in some degree the strength of the evidence
that for some time back Culture has been so far outgrowing

The
ultimate
triumph of
Christianity
certain.

The state of
mind
among the
cultured
classes.

Professor
Upton’s
address.

The
speculation
on the
subject.

The Present Conflict with Unbelief.

The
considera~
tions pressed
on the man
of culture.

The effect
upon him.

Will culture
outgrow
Christianity?

Christianity as to deprive a much larger portion of the cul-
tivated world of its Christian faith than ever was deprived of
that faith by culture, at least since the revival of learning.”

Contrasting the days of Butler with our own, the
writer in the Spectator says, referring to the former,

“Tt was less culture than cynicism that paralyzed Christiar
feeling.”

And goes on to add:

‘¢ But now it may be said in a very real sense that it is culture
which endangers Christianity ; that the consciousness of the
wideness of the field of knowledge, of the number and minute-
ness of the difficulties in the way of conviction, the daunting
uncertainty that not even the most learned man can survey,
much less grapple with, the multitude of the considerations
which may be fairly and honestly said to bear directly on the
truth or falsehood of the Christian creed. Libraries may be
collected on but one aspect of the question ; philology, scholarship,
critical learning be heard on one great class of questions ;
philosophy, psychology, physiology, put in their claims to a
hearing on another. Then comes science with the @ priori
improbability—or if it be very rash, it will say impossibility—
of the Christian story ; and then finally, the student of the
mythologies and of the various superstitions of the different
savage tribes claims to have his account of the matter heard, in
order that the believer may learn from it a legitimate self-
distrust. Amidst this wilderness of evidence of all kinds, the
man of culture not unnaturally gets dazed and paralyzed by all
these cross-claims on his judgment, and so it happens that in
his mind Culture tends to outgrow Christianity. In relation to
all aspects of it, he finds in himself a number of half-matured
thoughts and half-finished trains of reasoning, and his mind
becomes a mass of suspended judgments and postponed investi-
gations. Is it or is it not likely that Culture will outgrow
Christianity? It can hardly be denied that in our own age
culture has frequently outgrown the political doctrines of the
last age, and the social conditions on which the cohesion of
society rested ; and that in many cultivated minds Nihilism-
Socialism, Anarchism have been the result, while in a very

Lhe Present Conflict with Unbelief.

much larger number of cultivated minds a deep despair of ever
attaining to certainty solid enough to convince the multitude
has superseded all the old and firmly-established convictions.
Will not the same process unsettle still more effectually religious
conviction? Will any clear guiding belief grow out of the
crowd of suspended beliefs in which the tournament of contro-
versialists has ended.”

In answer to these questions of the writer in the
Spectator, we may say for ourselves, viewing the
conflict as a merely intellectual one from its merely
human side,—without for one moment granting that
the weight of argument on any position in dispute
is on the side of unbelief, or that Christian faith
will ever become extinct, even for a time,—religious
convictions may become more unsettled, and it is
possible enough that no clear guiding belief may
srow out of the crowd of suspended beliefs; un-
belief may become more generally prevalent—may
win what may be regarded as a triumph for a
time. At the worst it will only be for a time, but
its temporary wider spread is, to say the least, a
possibility. We can point to great names in the
ranks of culture, literary and scientific, that are
Christian ; we can point to many hopeful signs at
our universities and elsewhere; but making all
allowance for the hopeful signs, facts do not
justify the most sanguine anticipations concerning
the earlier and nearer issue of the present conflict
with unbelief in the cultivated classes, especially
among those who may be so described in the
higher and stricter sense, and whom the writer in

Unbelief
may become
more
prevalent.

Scientific
and literary
Christians of
eminence.

The Present Conflict with Unbelief.

The state of
the masses.

The masses
open to the
influence of
the Secular-
ist leaders.

The
possibility
of their
being won
over to
Secularism.

the Spectator had probably in view, rather than
the educated classes generally.

Touching the masses among whom the Secu-
larists chiefly work, those who know their state
of mind best tell us that, viewing them as a
whole, and making all allowance for the measure
of success which certain Christian agencies have
had among them, their feeling in relation to
Christianity is one of indifference, more than of
positive unbelief—that they are prejudiced against
the churches. A contingent of them, as we know,
is actively opposed to all religion. The masses
are specially open to the influence of the Secu-
larist leaders, who identify themselves with their
most advanced political aspirations and principles.
The question is, Are they likely to be won over to
the camp of positive, anti-theistic unbelief ?

We cannot see how, looking at their actual
condition, and their practical relation to Christianity
and to Christian agencies, the possibility of this
can be denied. It would be going much too far
to say that there is a likelihood of their going
over in a body to the camp of Secularism. Much
special effort is being put forth by churches,
societies, and agencies of various sorts to win them
to Christ and the Gospel. Never, perhaps, was
more earnest thought and effort directed to this
end; but as yet there are few signs of a general
breaking-up of their indifference, of a general

Lhe Present Conflict with Unbelief.

abandonment of their prejudices, and a general
disposition to accept Christianity. There is much in
the spirit and efforts of the Christian community to
excite hopes, but surely there is much in the state
of the masses of the people to excite misgivings.

The true state of the case should be fairly and
fully looked at; if so looked at, the champion of
Christianity and the herald of the Gospel will not
be unmanned, but rather nerved for the conflict.
Any under-estimate of the strength and resources
of the foe, any exaggerated estimate or a too con-
fident reliance on the human and material resources
of the Christian Church, and any too sanguine
anticipation of the speedy and complete triumph
of the truth, are likely to lead to defeat and disap-
pointment. The final triumph of the truth is certain,
but the conflict may be long, and, judged by the
numbers of avowed followers on either side, the
fortunes of the fight may fluctuate.

In one view it is not altogether satisfactory that
at this time of day so many of the best and finest
minds in the Church of Christ, are engaged
in the defence of the truth against the assaults
of unbelief, instead of being given to its procla-
mation and exposition. It argues the existence
of already widespread unbelief and still wider
unsettlement in men’s minds. In another view
it is a very hopeful sign, showing as it does that
Christianity has champions who can meet on equal

The facts
should be
fairly
faced.

The conflict
may be long,
its fortunes

may
fluctuate.

An
unsatis-
factory sign.

What argu-
ment can do.

What is
needed for
salvation
from sin.

What is
most to be
desired.

The Present Conflict with Unbelief.

terms the foremost leaders of unbelief, and that
the taunt of the Secularists, that the Gospel can
be “preached, but not defended,” is unfounded, and
encouraging us to believe that men capable of
maintaining the faith in face of the fiercest opposi-
tion will always be raised up in the time of need.
The work of defending the faith can never be
wisely neglected by the Christian Church; but it
must ever be remembered that it can at best only
confirm the believer, silence the gainsayer, and pro-
duce intellectual conviction in the doubter. Some-
thing more than argument is needful to bring men
to heartfelt obedience to the faith, to save men
from their sins, to overcome the inherited bias to
evil native to the human heart, which leads to
resistance to the truth of God, even the Gospel
“received in the Holy Ghost, and in much assur-
ance.” It will be a very hopeful sign when the
need and the demand for apologetic work become
less and less, and the need and the demand for
positive and constructive work become more and
more, because men, conscious of a darkness which
no mere advance of knowledge can ever dissipate,
and of needs which no human or earthly resources
can ever supply, are disposed to learn of Him who
is “the Light of the world,’ and are hungering
for “the Bread of Life.”

Pay RET REP Ee ERATE GU
+x4 PRESENT Day TRACTS, No. 58. fee

pd cael Sed ee at Se Re

TH EVIDENTIAL VALUE

OF THE

JBSERVANGE OF THE LORD'S DAY

| BY THE

vA
Ven Cr Ha salA CLEAR D.D:

(Warden of St. Augustine’s College, Canterbury. Honorary Canon of Canterbury.)
Author of

“Ture MIssIons OF THE Mippte Aczs,” “ THe EvipENTIAL VALUE OF THE
Hoty Eucuaristr’”’ (the Boyle Lectures for 1879), ‘*‘ HisroricaL ILLUSTRATIONS
or THE New TESTAMENT SCRIPTURES,” ETC, ETC.

THis “RELIGIOUS TRACT SOCIETY ;

56, PATERNOSTER Row; 65, St. Paut’s CHURCHYARD; AND
164, PICCADILLY.

Argument of the Wract,

oe res

Tue force of the evidence in favour of a belief derived from
public services contemporaneous with its origin, and uninter-
ruptedly perpetuated throughout the body which holds it, is
pointed out. The earliest evidence for the observance of
the Lord’s Day is adduced. The testimony of St. John and
St. Paul on the subject, in the light of their nationality and
training, and the significance of the term ‘‘ The Lord’s Day,”
are examined. It is pointed out that the observance of the
Day, though not enacted by a law in the Apostolic
Church, yet grew up and made its way by the intrinsic weight
of some overwhelming reason for it. The question, What
was this reason? is answered, and the conclusion is arrived
at that the historical fact of the Resurrection of the Lord
alone affords an adequate explanation of its origin and
observance.

Poe eVIDEN EAL VALUE

OF THE

OBSERVANCE OF THE LORD'S DAY.

—WoOtKGW

SECTION I.

“ject has truly been observed that “no
AS Re | evidence of the power and eee of

+ " than that which
public services, which, as far as all evidence reaches,

18 Fae oe from

were contemporaneous with its origin, and uninter-
ruptedly perpetuated throughout the body which
holds it.” Amongst these public services none is
more striking than the observance amongst all
Christian nations of “ the Lord’s Day.”

11. However the observance of this particular
day may have originated, here itis. It has lasted
through more than eighteen hundred years. It
has survived many storms and revolutions, During
these centuries the most diverse political systems
have been established and overthrown. Empires,
dynasties, kingdoms have passed away. New
worlds have been discovered. The very languages

' Westcott’s Gospel of the Resurrection, pp. 131, 132, Ed, 3,

The value
of public
services as
evidence of
the power
and reality
of a belief,

The fact
of the
observance
of the
Lord’s Day.

Its long
continuance.

It survives
all changes.

Enactments
with
reference
to the
observance
of the day.

The
obligation
of the day
recognized
not ordained
by the
Council

of Nica.

The Evidential Value of

which were spoken during the early period of these
Habits,

manners, modes of thought, theories, opinions,

centuries have given place to others.

philosophies have changed. But the observance
of this day, “the first day of the week,” as a day
set apart for religious worship, still survives.
Except for a brief period of madness during the
reign of terror in France, the observance has
known no discontinuance, and has won for itself
the reverent acquiescence of some of the greatest
intellects the world has ever seen.

i. During these eighteen hundred years there
have been various enactments put forth respecting
the observance of this day. Passing over those of
modern and medieval times, let us take one which
is found amongst the decrees of the first Gicume-
nical Council of Niceea, a.p. 325. We find it laid
down by the Fathers there and then assembled,
that,

‘‘Forasmuch as some on the Lord’s Day bow the knee in
prayer, as also on the other Days of Pentecost, for the sake of
uniformity they now shall stand to offer their prayers to God.” *

tv. What is noticeable here is that the members
of the Council, assembled as they were from the
most diverse parts of the Roman world, yet make
no doubt as to the obligation of this day. They
They do not defend it. They
assume it as an existing fact, and refer to it quite
incidentally for the purpose of regulating an indif-

1 Council Nic. Can. xx.

do not ordain it.

The Observance of the Lord’s Day.

ferent matter—the posture of Christian worshippers
on this day.

v. Four years previous to this Council, we find
the Emperor Constantine, a.p. 321, laying it down
in an edict, which was to apply to Christians as
well as Pagans, that there should be on the first
day of the week a cessation from business on the
part of functionaries of the law and of private
citizens. The Emperor does not indeed call it the
first day of the week. He terms it the “ venerable
Day of the Sun.” But he does not anticipate that
his Christian subjects wil! misunderstand him, or
object to the observance here prescribed. Nor
do we anywhere read of their doing so. They
acquiesce in the prohibition of business on this

day, and therefore we may presume they deemed

they had reason for dog so. ‘The expression
“Day of the Sun,” our Sunday, was quite familiar
to the Christians in the times of the Emperor, and
in this edict he calls the day by a name which, as
it was in ordinary use, could not possibly offend
his heathen subjects! What is worthy of remark
here is that, like the authors of the Nicene Canon,
Constantine offers no word in defence of the obli-

1 “Qmnes judices urbaneque plebes et cunctarum artium
officia venerabili die Solis quiescant.” ‘‘Let all judges and
peoples of towns, and the duties of all professions cease on the
venerable day of the Sun.” See Richard Baxter’s remarks on

this decree in his treatise on The Divine Appointment of the
Lord’s Day, p. 4).

The Edict
f

0
Constantine.

Its
provisions
acquiesced
in.

The
obligation
to observe
the day not
defended.

The Evidential Value of

The
testimony
of various
bishops of
the early
Church to its
observance.

The
testimony

of Pliny the
Younger.

gation to observe the day. With them he equally
assumes that this will be at once recognised.

vi. Pursuing our course still further back we
find, in the year a.p. 3800, Peter, bishop otf Alex-
andria, saying, “We keep the Lord’s Day as a day

of joy,’’! and in a Synodical letter, issued in A.D.

253, we have Cyprian, bishop of Carthage, mention-
ing as a notorious fact the celebration of “ the Lord’s
Day,” which is at once “the eighth and the first.’”*
‘'ertullian, speaking about fifty years before (A.D.
200), of the solemnity of the Lord’s Day, calls it
sometimes “Sunday,” sometimes “the first day
of the week.” About the year a.p. 170, Melito,
bishop of Sardis, puts forth a treatise respecting the
day, and Dionysius, bishop of Sardis, writing to the

Church of Rome, mentions its observance quite

casually and without any word of explanation. If
we go back thirty years, we come to Justin Martyr,
who flourished in A.v. 140. He mentions the first
day of the week as the chief and first of days, and
states that on it is held an assembly of all who
live in the cities and in the rural districts, on |
which the writings of the Prophets and the ©
Memoirs of the Apostles are read.* Stall earlier, .
about a.p. 112, Pliny the Younger, writing as
governor of Pontus and Bithynia, to the Kmperor

1 Thy kKupiakhy Xapnoocvyns nuépay ayoer.

2 See Dr. Hessey’s Bampton Lectures, Lect. i, il.

3 Tertull. Apol. c. 6; De Cor. c. 3.
4 Justin Martyr, Apol.i.; Dial. c. Tryph.

The Observance of the Lord’s Day.

Trajan, describes the Christians as accustomed to
meet together on “a stated day” (stato die) betore
it was light, for the purpose of worship."

vu. The catena is thus fairly complete during
the second century. From the letter of this
heathen Proconsul it is but a step, whether we
take the earlier or the later date of its composi-
_ tion, to the Apocalypse of St. John, Writing from
his place of exile to the Seven Churches of Asia
Minor, he says without a syllable of comment or
explanation, as though his meaning would be at
once understood, “I was in the Spirit on the Lord’s
Day.’? But still earlier, in a letter writen by St.
Paul from Ephesus, a.p. 57, to the Church of
Corinth, the Apostle says, ‘‘ Upon the first day of
the week, let every one of you lay in store as God
hath prospered him, that there be no gatherings
when I come.” The authenticity of this letter is not
denied by the most remorseless modern criticism ;
and as he assumes that the Corinthians observe this
day, so we find the Apostle observing it himself.
Thus we read of his spending a week at Troas, and
when “on the first day of the week” the disciples
were “gathered together to break bread,” ‘he
discoursed with them.’*

vi. Now what is very singular is that we

1 Pliny’s Letters, xcvi.

‘Byevdunv év Wvedmari ev tH Kupiany juéepg. Apoc. i. 10.
SP ACUSTXE. 01 «

The
Apocalypse
of St. John,

The First
Epistle to
the Corin-
thians

St. Paul’s
own
practice,

The
observance
of the
Lord’s Day
never made
a matter of
question or
argument in
the Apos-
tolic or sub-
Apostolic
age, by
Constantine,
or the
Council of
Nicea.

The need
of its
justification
shown.

The
language of
St. Paul and
St. John.

The purity
ot St. Paul’s
Hebrew
descent.

The Evidential Value of

never find the dedication of this day to religious
worship made a matter of question or argument.
It is never elaborately defended against objectors.
It is accepted without dispute by St. Paul, St.
Luke, and St. John, by writers of the sub-Apostole
age, by Constantine in his imperial decrees, by the
Fathers of the Council of Niczea in their Canons.
I say the assumption of a valid reason for the
observance of this day, without any explanation or
laboured apology, is very remarkable. It is obvious
that for some cause or other, it was deemed that the
observance of the day could command an instinctive
assent. The inquiry, therefore, naturally suggests
itself, What were the grounds that justified it?

SECTION IL.

1. Tuar its observance needs justification will
be apparent on very little reflection. For St. Paul,
who thus speaks of the “first day of the week,”
and St. John, who represents himself as haying
been in the Spirit on “ the Lord’s Day,” had been
brought up in the strictest principles of Judaism.

u. Let us deal first with St. Paul. Finding it
necessary on one occasion to defend himself against
certain false teachers, who prided themselves on .
their purely Jewish extraction, he emphasizes with
particular minuteness the purity of his own descent.
“Are they Hebrews?” he asks, and replies, ‘‘So

The Observance of the Lord’s Day.

am J. Are they Israelites? so am I. Are they
the seed of Abraham? so am [.”?! On another
occasion, writing to the Galatians, he describes
himself as being “advanced in the Jews’ religion
beyond many of his own age among his countrymen,
bemg more exceedingly zealous for the traditions
of the fathers.” * Once more addressing the men
of his nation at Jerusalem, he says, “I am a Jew,
born in Tarsus of Cilicia, but brought up in this
city at the feet of Gamaliel, instructed according
to the strictest manner of the law of our fathers.’?
On yet another occasion he says, “ I am a Pharisee,
the son of Pharisees.” * Thus St. Paul was a
Hebrew of the Hebrews.

ur. Next let us take St. John. Though he
never was, like the great Apostle of the Gentiles,
at one of the Rabbinical schools, yet he was a Jew
of Northern Palestine, and while unacquainted with
the glosses of tradition, he kept the old simple faith
in the letter of the law. Once and again his zeal
broke out against those who did not think as he did,?
and against those who, like the Samaritan villagers,
refused to treat his Master with hospitahty.® In the
Acts we find him keeping the feast of Pentecost,’
frequenting the Temple, observing the Jewish hours
of prayer, and conforming to Jewish usages.°

PE? Cor, x1. 22; 23.
23Galei. 14. 8. VY. -* Acts xxit.'3. * Acts xxii. 6, R.YV.
2 Mark ix. 38; Luke ix. 49 8 Luke ix. 54. © Acts int,
8 Acts ii. 46; ii. 1.

His
proficiency
in the Jews’
religion,

The strict-
ness of his
Jewish

education.

St. John—
a Jew of
Northern
Palestine.

His zeal,

His
conformity
to Jewish
usages.

10 The Evidential Value of

tv. The writers, then, who first employ these

remarkable expressions were of Jewish nationality,

and had been brought up under all the influences

that moulded the life of the Elect Nation. Now,

undoubtedly it is true that the forefathers of the

Nation had been unable to resist the spell of the

various idolatries practised by the peoples lying

around the Holy Land, and had neglected the

The age of observance of the time-honoured Sabbath. But

ae the Jerusalem of the age of the Prophets was not

the Jerusalem of St. John and St. Paul. It was

necessary for the Prophet Isaiah to utter solemn

warnings against the profanation of the day,’ and

for Jeremiah and Ezekiel to denounce the violation

of it as one of the greatest of the national sins.”

But during the dreary years, when the people went

into captivity and “hanged their harps by the

waters of Babylon,” all this was changed. The

same impulse seized them under which the Christian

world of the sixteenth century sprang back, over the

whole of the Middle Ages, either to the Primitive

a Are lias Get the Apostolic times. The return from the

the Jewish Captivity marks the rise of the Puritan period of
the Jewish Church.°

vy. After the times of Nehemiah and Ezra,‘ there

is no evidence of the Sabbath being neglected by —

1 Tsa, lviii. 13, 14. 2 Jer. xvii. 21-27.; Ezek. xx. 12-24.

3 Stanley’s Jewish Church, iil. p. 31.

4 Neh. x. 31; ° xiii, 15-22.

he i ee eee

The Observance of the Lord’s Day.

—

the Jews, except by such as fell into open apostacy.’
From the Gospels we learn that the Jews in our
Lord’s time laid the most marked stress upon the
observance of the Sabbath, and the minute rules
imposed respecting it, and the slightness of the acts
whereby its sacredness could be impaired, receive
constantly recurring illustration. The nation
might be opposed and apparently crushed by the
stern power of Idumeean or Roman rulers, but the
slightest effort to enforce customs not authorized by
the Mosaic law was the signal for an outbreak otf
zeal and fanaticism which bore down everything be-
fore it, and from which even the boldest statesmen
recoiled. The Maccabeean generals at first declined
to fight against Antiochus or to defend themselves
on the Sabbath,

‘‘ Because,” says Josephus, “they were not willing to break
in upon the honour they owed the Sabbath even in such dis-
tresses, for our law requires that we rest on that day.” ?

Later leaders, Mattathias and Jonathan, allowed
their countrymen to repel, but not to attack an
enemy on that day. The Jewish historian, how-
ever, bears the most complete testimony to the
strictness with which the day was observed,’ and
the sneers of Horace, Juvenal, and Perstus* bear

11 Mace. i. 11-15, 39-45. 2 Joss Ant. xitg-6,;.2.
$ Jos. Ant. xiv. 6, 23; xvii. 9. 2.
4 ‘¢Hodie tricesima Sabbata. Vin tu

Curtis Judeeis oppedere ?”—Hor. Sat. i. ix. 69.
« To-day is our thirtieth Sabbath. Do you desire to offend the
circumcised Jews ?”

The stress
laid on
Sabbath
observance
in our
Lord’s time.

Opposition
to the
enforcement
of customs
not author-
ized by the
Mosaic law.

The
testimony
of Josephus
to the
strict
observance
of the day.

The Evidential Value of

The
observance
of the
Sabbath the
pledge of
the Jew’s
nationality.

Excitement
produced by
placing the
Roman
eagle on
one of the
portals of
the temple,
and by the
introduction
of the
military
standard
into Jeru-
salem.

out the statement that wherever the Jew went, the
observance of the Sabbath became the most visible
pledge of his nationality.

vi. So great, indeed, was the re-action after the
return from the Captivity, so intense the readiness
to resent the slightest departure from the enactments
of the law, that the Idumeean Herod could not set
up in the theatre the representations of the victories
of Cesar, or place the Roman eagle on one of the
portals of the Temple without producing a violent
outbreak of popular excitement. On another
occasion, the Roman governor Pilate, under cover
of night, ventured to introduce the military stand-
ards into Jerusalem. _In the morning the populace
awoke to the consciousness of this insult to their
strongest prejudices. Abstaining from all violence,
they sent a deputation to the governor at Cesarea,
intreating him to remove the standards. For
days the ambassadors crowded his pretorium; and
when Pilate brought out his troops to overawe and
disperse them, they flung themselves with one
accord upon the ground, and there remained im-

‘Quidam sortiti metuentem Sabbata patrem
Nil preter nubes et cceli numen adorant.”—Juvenal Sat. xiv. 96.
“Some, whose lot it is to have a father paying respect to Sabbaths,
Worship nething except the clouds and the divinity of the sky,”
and Ovid A. A.i. 76, ‘‘ Cultaque Judeo septima sacra Syro”—
“And the festival of the seventh day observed by the Syrian
Jew ;” Persius Sat. v. 184, ‘‘ Labra moves tacitus recutitaque
Sabbata palles,”—‘“ You move your lips in silence and turn pale
at the circumcised Sabbath.”
Jos. Ant; xy, 8:42,

The Observance of the Lord’s Day.

moveable for five days and as many nights, declaring
with vehemence that they were ready to die rather
than sanction any infringement of their law, so
that in the end Pilate was constrained to withdraw
the obnoxious emblems.! Later still, the insane
edict of Caligula, demanding that he should receive
divine honours, and that a golden statue of himself
should be placed in the Holy of Holies,? while
in other provinces of the Empire it met with little
or no resistance, excited amongst the Jewish nation
the most violent hostility. The polished Athenians
sighed to see the heads of some of their noblest
images struck off, and the trunks carried to Rome,
to be united to the features of a barbarian Emperor.
But it was a sigh for the insult offered to art, taste,
and feeling. It was nota sigh for the profanation
of their religious principles which they resented.*
The Jews, on the other hand, were ready to resist
even unto blood any insult offered to their national
faith and the Mosaic law.

vil. But what were the violations of the religious
sentiment of the nation either actually carried out
or attempted by a Herod, a Pilate, a Caligula, com-
pared with the conduct of those who for the first time
practically transferred the honour due to the ancient
Sabbath to “the first day of the week?” What

1 Jos. Ant. xvii. 3, 1, 2; Bell. Jud. ii. ix. 2-4.
2 Philo in Flacc. c. 7. Leg. ad Caium 26; Sueton. Calig, xxii.

3 Merivale’s Romans under the Empire, vi. 45.

The hostility
to the edict
of Caligula.

The
profanation
of their
religious
principles
resented by
the Jews.

The
violation of
religious
sentiment
involved in
the transfer
of the
honour due
to the
ancient
Sabbath to
the first day
of the week,

The Jewish
training and
practices

of the
innovators,

Their
disregard
in one
particular of
the fondly
cherished
tradition
of the
nation.
What the
Sabbath
was to the
Jew.

The Evidential Vatue of

was the ignorant disregard of time-honoured
scruples on the part of heathen rulers, compared
with the startling practices of these daring mnova-
tors? They, at any rate, could not plead ignorance
or unconsciousness of the popular feeling. Brought ~
up from earliest childhood in the strictest observ-
ance of the Mosaic law, they retained many of
their religious customs.1 They were found at the
fixed hours of prayers joining in the Temple
worship; they observed the great annual festivals,”
they conformed even in minor points to many legal
and ceremonial enactments.? And yet, i one most
momentous particular, they did not scruple to dis-
regard the fondly cherished tradition of the nation
To the Jew the Sabbath was the weekly commem-
oration of the rest of God after the Creation.
“Remember,” said the Great Lawgiver, “that
thou keep holy the Sabbath day. For in six days —
the Lord made heaven and earth, the sea, and all
that in them is, and rested the seventh day ;
wherefore the Lord blessed the seventh day and
hallowed it.”* ‘Israel was the people to whom
God had revealed the mystery of creation; that
master-truth by which human thought is saved
now as of old from the sin and folly of confound-
ing God with his works. It brought before the -
mind of the Jew the ineffable majesty of the

1 Actsi. 14; iii. 1. 2 Acts xx. 16. 5 Acts xxi. 2m
ANH xodexxe oy 11)

The Observance of the Lord’s Day.

Great Creater, between whom and the noblest work
of His Hands there yawns an impassable abyss. ” *
And yet, though no one could have felt the force
of this more completely than St. Paul, he does not
scruple to run counter to the prejudices and feel-
ings of his nation on the subject.

vu. He seeks out his countrymen, it 1s true, in
their synagogues? on the Sabbath, and there ex-
pounds to them the Hebrew Scriptures; but when
he celebrates a service of his own, what do we
find? Take the case when he reaches Troas, and
abides there seven days. What does he do? How
does St. Luke’s narrative run? Does he say,

Is this what we find? Instead, we read,

When again he bids the Galatians and Corinthians*
make a religious collection for the poor saints at
Jerusalem, he directs that it shall be carried out
on the self-same day.

tx. How comes it to pass that the first day of
the week has already become the stated day of
Christian assembling ® for breaking the Bread, for

1 Liddon’s Easter Sermons, ii. 92.
2 Acts xiii. 14, 42, 44; xvi. 13. ; xvii. 2. ; xviii. 4.
PMA CLRELR: tad ie COP XV. 2.
See Hessey’s Bampton Lectures, p. 40,

St. Paul’s

conduct in
relation to
it

His
observance
of the first
day of the
week.

His
instructions
as to the
collection
for the
poor to the
Galatians
and
Corinthians,

Some
explanation
of St. Paul's
conduct is
called for,

St. John in
Patmos.

What did
he mean

by the
expression
*“The Lord’s
Day’’?

The Evidential Value of

receiving instruction, for collecting alms? Why
do we never find the Apostle inculcating the
carrying out of these duties on the seventh day ?
What motive had he for making or even conniy-
ing at this change from the seventh to the first day ?
When we reflect on the traditions amidst which
the Apostle had been brought up from his earliest
years, on the force of the religious ideas which had
been to him as the atmosphere he breathed, the
fact that he acquiesces in the change and gives
no elaborate explanation of it is very remarkable.
That such a revolution of sentiment should have
emanated from such a soil as Judaism is very
startling. It calls for some adequate explanation
consistent with its occurrence at the time it did,
and at an historic epoch of which we can assign
the date.
SECTION ITI.

1. Bur there is something still more surprising.
St. John speaks of himself at the outset of the
Apocalypse, and says in the passage to which
reference has already been made, “I was in the
isle that is called Patmos, for the Word of God
and the testimony of Jesus. I was in the Spirit
on the Lord's Day.” +

uu. What did he mean by this expression?
There is no real reason for doubting that by “the

Lord’s Day” St. John meant what St. Paul terms
1 Apoe. i. 9, 10.

Lhe Observance of the Lord’s Da y.

“the first day of the week.”1 But what is es-
pecially noteworthy is the solemn and momentous
name which St. John applies to it, and which the
Christian Church in every age has agreed to bestow
upon it. He calls the first day of the week
9 Kuptaky typéoa,? “the Lord’s Day,” and thus con-
nects it by its very name with a Person,

m1. What did he mean by this term? It is a
very uncommon one. It occurs here, and here only.
The adjective Kypsaxdc denotes “ belonging to a lord
or ruler.” It occurs in two places only throughout
the entire New Testament. It is found here, and
St. Paul uses it in the eleventh chapter of his
First Epistle to the Corinthians, where he calls
the Eucharistic feast the “Supper of the Lord,”
TO Kuptaxoy dsizvove. Now the name Kupvoe, Lord,
is applied to Christ frequently in the New
Testament.

Thus (a) there are texts in which He is called
Lord in the various acceptations of Master over

* Some indeed, as Eichhorn, understand the Lord’s Day to
refer to Easter Day, but this ig quite improbable. Others
maintain that it means the Day of Judgment. But the great
** Day of the Lord” in this sense is expressed by 4 juépa rod
Kuplov, 2 Thess. ii. 2; or 9 fudpa Kupiov, 2 Pet. iii. 10; or, the
“* Day of Christ,” quépa Xptorov, Phil. ii, 16; never by 7 Kupiarh
NMEA.

? Apoc. i. 10. 4) kupiaxh judpa = in Latin, dies dominica, from
which in the Romance languages the first day of the week
derived its name. Ital. Domenica; Span. Domingo; Fr.
Dimanche.

‘*The Lord’s
Day”

equivalent
to the ‘‘ first
day of the
week,”?

He connects
it with a
person.

It signifies

‘*belonging
to a lord or
ruler,”

The name
Lord
applied to
Christ in
the New
Testament,

The senses
in which
Christ is
called Lord.

Christ is
Lord in the
highest
ense of all,

The
significance
of the name
Jehovah.

The Evidential Value of

servants;! of prophet, or teacher.2 Again (0)
He is so called as One who has acquired a
peculiar right to those over whom He exercises
authority in virtue of the price which He has paid
for men.®

tv. But there is a still higher sense in which
Christ is Lord. Of the names of God, Jehovah is
the most sacred and the most solemn. A Jew who
believes in Judaism will not pronounce it. Those
who read Hebrew with him are at once warned
that they are expected to substitute for it the word
Adonai. The name itself was long ago withdrawn
from the popular speech of the nation, and even
from their writings, till at length it lingered only
in the mouth of the High Priest, and was only
uttered by him on rare and necessary occasions,
such as the Day of Atonement,’ while as he
uttered it, those who stood near cast themselves
with their faces on the ground, and the multitude
responded, “ Blessed be the Name, the glory of His
kingdom is for ever and ever.”® This Name, as
applied to God, denotes that He is “ the Eternal,”
“the Self-existent,’ the great I am.’ By the

1 Matt. x. 25; xxiv. 45, 46.

2 Matt. viii. 25; xvi. 22; Luke ix. 54; x. 17,40; John xi. 12;

xiii. 6, 9, 13; xxi. 15-17.
8 Eph. vi. 9.; Col. iii. 24; iv. 1; Rom. xiv. 9.

4 See the little treatise of the Bishop of Derry on the Divinity of

our Lord, p. 27.

5 Stanley’s Jewish Church, iii. 162.
6 Edersheim’s Temple Service, p. 271. 7 Exod. iti. 13, 14,

Lhe Observance of the Lord’s Day.

Septuagint writers it was translated Kivproc,
Lord, and the translation was adopted by the
writers of the New Testament, and applied to
Christ so repeatedly that it became His usual
designation. Thus St. Thomas, addressing Him,
says, ““My Lord and my God;”! St. Peter speaks
of Him as “ Lord of all,” ? “whose is the glory and
the dominion unto the ages of the ages ;”? and St.
Paul affirms that whereas He was originally, before
His Incarnation, “in the absolute form of God,” 4
“God blessed for ever,’® as the reward of His
humiliation “God gave unto Him the Name
which is above every name, that in the Name of
Jesus every knee should bow, of things in heaven
and things on earth, and things under the earth,
and that every tongue should confess that Jesus
Christ is Lord to the glory of God the Father.’ 6

v. Now it is a word recalling this Name,
surrounded by all these august associations, that
St. John does not scruple to apply to the first day
of the week, when he says he was in the Spirit
on the Lord’s Day. He not only connects the day
with a Person, but that Person is One, with whom
Divine attributes could be associated, and would
be so associated by those who read or heard the
term he employs.

1 St. John xx. 28, * Acts x. 36, Sl Pet stveil 1:
* Phil. ii. 6, év uopof Ocod imdpywy, see Bishop Lightfoot’s note
on the force here of pop} and Umapxwy,
° Rom. ix. 6, ° Phil. ii. 11; comp. Acts ii. 836; Rom. x, 9,

The
rendering

of the name
in the
Septuagint
and the New
Testament.

This name
recalled by
St. John’s
use of the
term ‘* The
Lord’s

Davee

The Evidential Value of

No day

ever kept

by the Jews.
in honour

of a single
person.

The breach
with the
past in
advancing
the claims
made for
the Lord’s
Day.

vi. But there is still something to be added.
It is true that the Jewish nation had days for
commemorating great and rare passages of Divine
Providence in their past history. But what single
day had the Jews ever kept in honour of any
particular person, however holy or exalted ? Where
is to be found any trace of the celebration of a day
in honour of Abraham, the father of the faithful ;
or of Moses, the great law-giver; or David, the
founder of the royal line; or of Judas Maccabeeous,
the restorer of the national glories? ‘True it is
that they had days on which they commemorated
mighty deliverances and signal marks of the Divine
favour. But on which of these had their thoughts
ever been directed to a single Person, with whom
they could associate, as indicating His day, words
which, whether we take their lower or their higher
sense, had been ever associated with Deity ? What
powerful and constraining motive could have
induced men trained in Judaism to detach them-
selves from every association of the past, and pass-
ing by the honour due to the time-honoured
Sabbath, advance higher claims to observance for
a day hitherto unheard of in connection with sacred
memories P

vir. Had St. John defended the expression with
a long and laboured apology it would not have been
so surprising. The necessity of the case would seem
to have called for it. But we have not a word of

,
+

The Observance of the Lord’s Day.

explanation, not a syllable of defence. He does
not assume that his readers will be the least sur-
prised at it, or take offence at his use of it. Art-
lessly, fearlessly he mentions it in the most inci-
dental manner. ‘The expression falls from his pen
so casually and unconsciously that we almost
forget what it implies. The boldness of the claim
made for the day, that it could be connected with a
Person, and that He could be for some reason en-
titled to the “ Ineffable Name,” which his country-
men could not even pronounce, passes all conception.
They to whom the writer was chiefly addressing
himself, knew and felt that the Jewish covenant
was the most sacred thing in the universe, and the
Sabbath one of its most characteristic institutions,
and yet without a single word of explanation he
speaks to them of another day, which he does not
scruple to consecrate by a name of sacred and
mystical meaning, and to associate with a person.
Are we not justified in asking, Did something occur
on the first day of the week to the Person thus
commemorated, which could justify its being termed
His day? If there was something, the application
If

there was not, its use by St. John remains an in-

of the term is in some degree accounted for.

soluble enigma.

The
expression
used by St.
John with-
out apology
or defence
and in an
incidental
manner,

The views
and feelings
on the
subject of
the Sabbath
of those to
whom St.
John wrote
did not lead
him to
explain.

How is St.
John’s use
of the
phrase to be
accounted
for?

The
agreement
of the
Churches
that the
Lord’s Day
was the
Day of

the Lord
Jesus,

St. John’s
connection
with Jesus.

His call by
John the
Baptist.

His
obedience to
the Baptist’s
testimony
to Christ.

The Evidential Value of

SECTION LY.

1. Wuo, then, was this Person? The answer
to the question will not be disputed. All the
Churches, Western and Oriental, agree with un-
broken unanimity that the day called by St. John the
Lord’s Day, was the day of the Lord Jesus Christ.

1m. How had St. John been connected with
Him? Himself the son, apparently the younger
son, of Zebedee and Salome,! natives of Northern
Galilee, he had been brought up in the simple
Jewish faith of the simple-hearted people of the
neighbourhood of the Lake of Tiberias. Devoted
to his father’s pursuits as a fisherman on the
Lake,? he yet shared the passionate longings and

enthusiastic hopes of his countrymen as regards the — ;

coming of the Messiah. When the voice from the
wilderness proclaimed his Advent, St. John at once
responded to that voice, and moving southwards,
ranged himself amongst the Baptist’s disciples.
11. But he did more than this. Though simple
and unlettered,? and unskilled in the traditions
and speculations of the schools, he had grasped
with singular power the spiritual import of the
Baptist’s message. He no sooner heard the mys-
terious words, “Behold the Lamb of God,” than
he obeyed the sign and followed his new Master. 4

1 Mark xv, 40; xvi. 1, compared with Matt. xxvii. 56.
* Mark i. 19. $ Acts iv. 13, * John i. 37.

The Observance of the Lord’s Day.

iv. After remaining with Him for a time, he
seems to have gone back to his old employment.
From this he is again called to become a fisher
of men,’ and to form one of the Apostolic body.
In this body he forms with his brother James and
St. Peter “the chosen three,” who at the raising of
Jairus’ daughter,? at the Transfiguration,’ and in
the Garden of Gethsemane,‘ are admitted into
nearer relationship with the Lord than the rest.
But in this group, though St. Peter takes the lead,
it is St. John who is nearest and dearest to the
Lord, “the disciple whom Jesus loved.” On more
than one occasion, as has been already indicated,°
he displays loyal and true though undisciplined
zeal, and reveals the ardour of his Galilean temper,
and his burning love for his Master.

v. On the occasion of the last journey to Jeru-
salem, Salome, as the mouth-piece of her two
sons,° begs that they may sit, the one on the
Master’s right hand, and the other on His left
in His kingdom. This reveals, in spite of his close
relationship with Christ, the earthly ambition of
the son of Zebedee, and the fact that he had
failed to comprehend the nature of His kingdom.
But it is important. For it makes manifest the
sort of kingdom to which he is looking, and the
sense in which he would at this time have inter-

1 Matt. iv. 19; Luke vy.1-11. 7 Marky. 37. °% Mark ix. 2.

Called to be
a fisher of
men.

His nearness
to the Lord.

His burning
love to Him,

His views
of Christ’s
kingdom.

The sense
which St,
John would
have
attached to
the term
“the Lord’s
Day.”

The
Crucifixion
of Christ.

The
testimony
of Tacitus
Suetonius,
etc.

The Evidential Value of

preted such an expression as “the Lord’s Day.”
He would have regarded “the Lord’s Day” as
meaning the day on which the Master, to whom
he was so devotedly attached, did actually assume
the sceptre and ascend the throne, to which im
His Messianic dignity He laid claim.

vi. But did his Lord assume a sceptre or ascend
a throne? Did He, as an earthly sovereign, place
one of the sons of Salome on His right hand, and
the other on His left? We will not seek an answer
from any Christian writer. Tacitus, the Roman
historian, shall reply to the question. We turn to
the xv. Book of his Annals, and the 44th chapter.
He is describing the burning of Rome in the reign
of Nero, and the circulation of a rumour that it
was brought about by an Imperial order—

‘*To get rid of the report,” he writes, ‘‘ Nero fastened the guilt
and inflicted the most exquisite tortures on a class hated for
their abominations, called by the populace Christians.”

Then he adds—

“ Christus, from whom the name had its origin, suffered the extreme
penalty during the reign of Tiberius, at the hands of one of
our procurators, Pontius Pilatus.”

vu. Has the fact thus recorded ever been dis-
proved? Has its accuracy ever been invalidated ?
Never. The reign of the Emperor Tiberius has been
described not only by Tacitus, but by Suetonius,
and other authors of good repute, and the eruci-
fixion of Him, whom St. John called his Lord, is
m entioned by them as a matter of common notoriety,

The Observance of the Lord's Day.

and gives point to many a cruel and opprobrious
epithet directed against His followers.*

vit. The mention of the reign of the Emperor
Tiberius fixes the chronological limits of the date of
this Crucifixion, and of the infliction of the extreme
penalty which Tacitus records. It cannot be pushed
much further back than the year, a.v. 30, and
this is the year generally accepted as its date.
It is important to notice this. It places us in dis-
tinctly historic times. It is not a period hidden
in the mists of fabulous ages. It is a period of
which we know a great deal. It had its archives,
its registers, its monuments. We can examine
them and cross-examine them, and the statements
of Tacitus relate to the actions of one of the most
practical people the world has seen, at the most
practical period of their history, when their roads,
their bridges, their baths, their aqueducts were
scattering the memorials of those who erected them
in all parts of the world.

1x. Does St. John anywhere deny what Tacitus
records? ‘Nowhere. What the Roman historian
mentions in a single paragraph, he proclaims where-
~ ever he goes. In his own narrative of his Master's
life, it is described with the minute particularity
of a diary. Three other Evangelists also give
equally full descriptions. However condensed their

1 Comp. Lucian, de Morte Peregrint c. 11.; Origen ¢. Celsum
vii. 40; Arnob adv Gentes, i. 36.
2 See Canon Liddon’s Bampton Lectures, viii. 475,

The date
of the
Crucifixion,

The
evidence
can be
sifted.

St. John
gives a full
account.

The Evidential Value of

None of the
evangelists
practise any
concealment
with refer—
ence to the
death of
Christ.

St. John
was at the
Cross.

The
Epistle of
Pliny.

accounts may be in recording other portions of our
Lord’s life, here they agree to relate fully every
detail. Without attempting to conceal a single
particle of its shame, the writers record carefully
the fact of their Master’s death. One of His
disciples, they tell us, had betrayed Him to his foes.
One of them, and he one of the chosen three, had
basely denied that he ever knew Him. Where was
St. John? He was by His cross. Where were
the rest? They had forsaken Him and fled.
This 1s his own account of the matter in his own
Gospel. He neither hides nor disguises, he neither
palliates it, nor excuses it. With singular openness,
with unexampled particularity, he tells us the
story of the cowardice and faithlessness of his
companions. What interest he had, or others who

have told the story with him, in describing the —

actors as worse than they really were, it is difficult
to see, and it is impossible to understand.

x. But there is still another document to be put
in, Which has been already alluded to, and which,
like the testimony of Tacitus, comes to us not from
a Christian but from a heathen writer. About the
year A.D. 112, the younger Pliny,? then acting as
governor of the province of Pontus and Bithynia,
informs the Emperor Trajan of the appearance

* Observe the singular force of St. Matthew’s words, xxvi. 56.

? Pliny’s Hpist. ad Traj. xevi.

ee Eel

The Observance of the Lord’s Day.

within his province of a new and strange super-
stition, which

“had already affected many of all ranks, and even of both sexes, had
caused many of the temples to be almost deserted, the sacrifices to
cease, and the sacrificial victims to find few purchasers.”’

Respecting the members of this strange sect he
had, after inquiry, discovered

“that they were accustomed to meet together on a stated day
(stato die) before it was light, and to sing hymns to Christ
as to a God, and to bind themselves by a sacramentum, not for any
wicked purpose, but never to commit fraud, theft, adultery ; never
to break their word, or to refuse, when called upon, to deliver up
their trust.”’

x1. What is worthy of note here is that the
celebration of a particular day by the Christians,
for of these Pliny is speaking, had become so
marked as to impress the heathen with its dis-
tinctive character as a “status dies,” and that this
day was the first day of the week, the Lord’s Day,
is indisputable. The votaries of this strange super-
stition sang hymns to Christ “as to a God.” The
day therefore was regarded as a day of festal joy
and thanksgiving.

xu. But what reason could they have given for
singing on this day hymns in token of joy and
thanksgiving ? Had not the Christ in whose name
they met together been crucified ? How comes it to
pass that they can salute Him as a God? Suppose
any one of those early Christians had unfolded a
scroll containing the memoirs which were then in
circulation of Him who died, what would he have

Pliny’s
reference

to the
Lord’s Day.

The day
shown to be
one of

joy and
thanks-
giving.

How did
it come to
have this
character 2

The Evidential Value of

The state of
the disciples
at Christ’s
death.

Their state
a few days
after.

The
sacredness
of the
Mosaic
Sabbath
transferred
to the first
day of the
week

found to have been the condition of His disciples at
His death? According to their own confession, he
would have read that they were stupefied with
despair, and overwhelmed with disappointment ?
Why then did they not try to efface all recollection
of the terrible fact? Why did they not acknow-
ledge that they had been the victims of delusion in
accepting Him as their Lord, and own their un-
toward mistake? Would not this have been
natural? Is it not what we should have expected
under the circumstances? How comes it to pass,
then, that instead of this, the self-same men, who
confess their stupefaction at His death, are found)!
alter a brief interval, in the very city where there
would be the greatest disinclination to believe and
the greatest solicitude to confute their statements,
where the counterproofs were all in the hands of |
their enemies, proclaiming their belief in Him who
had died the death of the malefactor and the slave,
and electing a fresh member of their body in place
of one who had betrayed Him ? 2

x11. How comes it to pass that we find that after
the hopeless ignominy of the scene on Calvary, one
like St. Paul could have been induced to-transfer
to the first day of the week the sacredness of the
Sabbath of the Mosaic law, and on it to celebrate the
Kucharistic feast which, except on one supposition,
commemorated the complete disappointment of the

‘Acts i. 14, 2 Acts i. 21-26,

The Observance of the Lord’s Day.

hopes of the Christian body? What could have
induced St. John to call this first day of the week
the Lord’s Day, which could only, except on one
supposition, serve to remind him and the members
of the Asiatic Churches of a terrible and tragical
reversal of all his expectations as to the setting up
of his Master’s kingdom ?

xiv. I say, ewcept on one supposition. What 1s
this? Except on the supposition that after the
scene on Calvary, some event took place as certain
and as historically true as the Death there enacted,
glorious enough to transfigure the desolation of that
scene, and powerful enough to turn all its sorrow and
shame into joy and triumph. Tf such an event took
place, then we can understand how St. John came
to speak of the first day of the week as the Lord’s
Day without adding a word of comment or explan-
ation, as though he was alluding to a custom
already well understood and already accepted by
the Christian Church. If such an event took
place, then we can comprehend why those votaries
of a strange superstition in Pliny’s province, “sang
hymns to Christ as a God,” and met on a fixed
day to-celebrate His memory. The words otf
Tacitus it is plain, though undisputed for their
cannot contain the whole
account of the matter. They do not give us a
shadow of a shade of reason for the mysterious
observance of this particular day ever since

historical accuracy,

One
supposition
only can
explain the
facts.

On. this
supposition
we can
understand
St. John’s
references
to the
Lord’s Day,
and why
the Chris-
tians ‘‘ sang
hymns to
Christ as a
God.”

The Evidential Value of

eee

There was
an event
that
explains
everything,

The burial
of Christ.

Apostolic times. The motive for the observance
of the old Sabbath of the Law on the seventh day
was clear and intelligible. It rested on a Divine
ordinance. To alter it was unpardonable, unless
there was an overwhelming reason for making the
change. But what was this reason? Did any
event occur which made the change imperative ?

SECTION V.

1. Was there, I repeat, such an event ?

The Christian Church in every age has assured

her children that there was. The author of the
Epistle which contains the earliest allusion to the
observance of “the first day of the week,” informs
us that after the Crucifixion, He “who suffered
under Pontius Pilate” was buried.! Herein he
agrees with the narrative of the four Evangelists,
who, one and all, tell us that the holy Body of
their Master was taken down from the Cross, and
laid in a tomb hewn out of the rock in a garden
hard by Calvary, in the possession of Joseph of
Arimathea.

m1. They are careful to inform us—with what
object it is difficult to see, unless it is true—that
even this act of kindness and consideration was
due not to any of the original Apostolic body,
but to secret disciples and comparative strangers ”

' 1 Cor. xv. 4. * Matt. xxvii. 57-61; Mk. xv. 42-47 ;
Luke xxiii. 50-56; John xix. 38-42.

The Observance of the Lord’s Day.

—Joseph of Arimathea and Nicodemus. The
former, who had begged the Body of Pilate,! and
the latter, who had brought a “mixture of myrrh
and aloes”? to embalm it, made the necessary
preparations, and conveyed the holy Body to the
tomb, placed it in a niche of the rock, rolled a
great stone against the entrance, and went their
way.

mr. In that tomb the Body lay during the
Friday night that followed the Crucifixion, and
the succecding Saturday and Saturday night, pro-
tected by a guard of Roman soldiers, whose pre-
sence had been requested by the Jewish rulers,
from the intrusion alike of friends and enemies.®

iv. But early in the morning of the first day of
the week * the stone was found to have been rolled
away, and the sepulchre was discovered to be
empty. If, however, the sepulchre was empty,
He
He had risen, even as He

where was He who had been laid therein ?
was no longer there.
had said. This is the unanimous testimony of the
four Evangelists, and of St. Paul in his indispu-
tably authentic letter to the Corinthians. This 1s
the fact which, in spite of contempt and obloquy,
the loss of caste, and the sacrifice of all that
makes life tolerable, in spite of the bitterest hatred

1 John xix. 38. 2 John xix. 39. 3 Matt. xxvii. 62-66.
4 Matt. xxviii. 1; Mark xvi. 2; Luke xxiv.1; John xx. l.
Each of the four Evangelists lays special stress on the fact that it
was the jirst day of the week.

The body
in the
tomb two
successive
nights.

It was
missing on
the first
day of the
week.

That
Christ had
risen unani
mously
testified by
the four
Evangelists
and St.
Paul.

32 The Kvidential Value of

and the keenest persecution, the first disciples
made it their business to proclaim as no less his-
ee torical than their Master’s Passion. This is the

Resurrection
transfigured

the Cruci. vent which, as they affirmed, transfigured the

aaa shame of the Cross, and turned its desolation
into triumph.

vy. But not only did He rise again on the first

His five day of the week, but on the self-same day He

appearances
Witheees revealed Himself on five distinct oceasions to

spike Ort “chosen witnesses.”! On this day He was seen
eeS by Mary of Magdala,’ by the other ministering —
women,® by the two disciples journeying to Em-
maus.* On this day He appeared to St. Peter®
separately, and to the ten Apostles gathered to-
gether in the Upper Room at Jerusalem.6 He
was seen indeed afterwards. But on no day is He
recorded to have “ manifested Himself” so often.
Never was He busier than on the world’s first
aster Day. No day would be associated in the
memories of the first disciples with more frequent
proots of His triumph over death. No day by the
record of more multiplied incidents established its
claim to be ealled “the Lord’s Day.”
vi. On the third day He rose again from the dead /
M. Renan’s M. Renan, in his Life of Jesus, lays down this

aX10In,

axiom, “Great events have always great causes.” 7

' Acts x. 41. ? Mark xvi. 9,10; John xx. 11-18,
° Matt. xxvii. 8-10. * Mark xvi. 12; Luke xxiv. 13-35.
°2 Cor.xv.5; Luke xxiv. 34. ® Luke xxiv. 36-43; John xx. 19-23.
"See Godet’s Lectures in Defence of the Christian Faith, p. 128.

The Observance -of the Lord’s Day.

We have been seeking an adequate cause for one
of the most striking phenomena of religious life
amongst the most cultivated nations of the earth—
the observance of the first day of the week as the
Lord’s Day; and in the Resurrection of Christ
we find it. In each of the Epistles to the Corin-
thians, Galatians, and Romans—a group recog-
nised as genuine by the most sceptical writers and
eritics—the literal fact of the Resurrection is
regarded as the groundwork of the teaching of the
Apostle Paul. He does not treat the fact ideally, but
historically. He does not regard it as the embodi-
ment of a great hope, or as the consequence of
some preconceived notion of the person of Christ.
On the contrary, he rests his hope on the fact, and
deduces his view of Christ’s nature from the literal
event of His rising again.!

vu. Twice when our Lord was asked by the
Jewish authorities for a miraculous sign in attesta-
tion of His Divine claims, He referred those who
pressed Him for such a sign to His resurrection
from the dead. His other i1airacles were “ signs.”
This was to be “the sign.” If He gave it, and
rose triumphant from the tomb, we have the clue
to what has taken place. If He did not, to what
are we to look for the origin of the observance of
the first day of the week as His day? When we
remember the soil in which the observance of the

1 See Westcott’s Gospel of the Resurrection, p. 109.
D

The
Resurrection
of Christ
an adequate
cause of the
observance
of the
Lord’s Day.

The
Resurrection
the ground~
work of

St. Paul’s
teaching.

Our
Saviour’s
references
to the Re-
surrection as
a sign.

It is the
clue to
what had
taken place.

The
religious
observance
of the
Lord’s Day
by a man
like St.
John incon-
ceivable if
Christ did
not rise
from the
dead.

No other
reason could
account for
it.

The Hvidential Value of

day first took root, we have a measure of the
depth of conviction which must have been
needed to break with old and time-honoured
associations, and bring about its institution at
all.

vu. If, after undergoing all He did on the hill
of Calvary, He in whose honour the members
of the strange sect in Pliny’s province of
Bithynia, ‘‘sang hymns as to a God,” passed away
like other men, and still “lies in the lorn Syrian

town,” how is it conceivable that a man like ~—

St. John could have kept the Lord’s Day as one of
religious obligation? What would have justified
him in the countenancing the change of day
from one already consecrated by the Divine law P
What could have induced him to sanction an
institution which must have involved a shock
to the prejudices of every pious member of his
nation ?

1x. What possible reason could he have urged
as imperative for inaugurating or countenancing
sO unique an observance? Was it because the
death on Calvary was a martyrdom? But what
aspect of a martyrdom did it present to the
eyes even of the most attached disciple of Him
who died? It sealed no national cause. It
crowned no patriotic rising. It recalled no daring
enterprise vainly, though courageously, under-

The Observance of the Lord’s Day.

taken against the Roman power.’ The bandits
indeed, who died by the side of the Christ, were
not improbably regarded by the bystanders as
martyrs. We read of no mockery of them.
We hear of no bitter gibes cast in their teeth.
Blasphemy and scorn were reserved for Him who
occupied the central Cross.? His death was the
last drop in the cup of a complete and crushing
disappointment of all the hopes and aspirations of
His followers. Were they likely to enshrine in
such an institution as “the Lord’s Day” what
could only have been the tale of their defeat, and
the memory of their error ?

x. Was the honour due to the seventh trans-
ferred to the first day of the week because He
who died thereby inaugurated a new covenant
between God and man? The seventh day, indeed,
as kept by the Jews did commemorate a covenant
ratified by God through the hands of a Mediator.
But what proof of the acceptance of His death as
a sacrifice was vouchsafed if, in spite of all that
He had said, death proved in the case of Christ, as
in that of all others, “‘ the great conqueror?” Could
the death on Calvary, if it stood alone, and nothing
followed, be claimed as inaugurating a new and
better covenant? “A whole world of the most

1 See the Evidential Value of the Holy Eucharist, the Boyle
Lectures for 1879.
2 See Archbishop Trench’s Studies in the Gospels, pp. 293, 294.

Christ’s
death a
disappoint-
ment of His
disciples’
hopes.

No proof
of an
accepted
sacrifice if
Christ did
not rise
from the
dead.

The earliest
beginnings
of the
observance
of the
Lord’s Day.

Its early
observance
unintelli-
gible
without the
Resur-
rection.

The Evidential Value of

Divine ideas,” it has been said, ‘‘ lies in our seeing
aright the distinction between the Sabbath and the
Lord’s day!”+ And yet that distinction came in
a moment to the Twelve! Within nine days after
the Voice had been heard saying, “ I¢ is finished ;
Futher, into Thy hands I commend My spirit,”
we trace the earliest beginnings of the observance
of the first day of the week.2— But on what pos-
sible ground did the Apostolic body meet again on
that day, if, after disappointing every hope they
had ever cherished, their Master died, and was no
more seen? What valid answer to the question is
there, if nothing distinguished the first day of the
week from all others ?

x1. The early observance of the Lord’s Day,
whether we reflect on the period when it began,
or the previous training of those who first accepted
it, or the renunciation of old beliefs which it
unplied, or the total and overmastering change of
thought and feeling in reference to a time-honoured
institution like the Sabbath, which it involved,
remains, and for ever must remain, an absolutely
unintelligible phenomenon without the fact of the
Resurrection. It can be accounted for neither by
an imaginary death nor by a visionary resurrection.
A visionary resurrection runs up in the last analysis
into a fraudulent resurrection, connived at by the

1 Professor Milligan’s Lectures, p. 68.

2 Comp. John xx. 26, “‘ And after eight days again the disciple
were within.’’

ES ee ee ee ee ee ee ee ae

The Observance of the Lord’s Day.

most passionate teachers of the duty of veracity.
The observance of this day 1s too solid a fact to
A “splendid
guess,” a “vague but loving hope,’ the dream of
an enthusiast, the vision of credulous disciples—
these will not account for an objective fact as
indubitable as the institution and continued ob-

repose on a foundation of mist.

servance through so many centuries of a day so
peculiarly designated as the Lord’s Day. They
will not bear the weight of the superstructure
they have to support.

x1. The Resurrection, on the other hand, by
the fact of the absence of any human agent as
its author, takes its place on a level with the
most prodigious of miracles—that of Creation. To
summon into life and to recall to life are two acts
of the same nature. “Creation is the victory of
Omuipotence over nothingness ; the Resurrection
is the victory of the same power over death, which
is the thing most like to nothingness that is known
to us.”! Science has done wonders, and in the
world of science much has been accomplished to
justify the words of Sophocles,

‘*Many the things that mighty be,
And none is mightier than man.” ?

But no man of science cherishes even the distant

' Godet’s Lectures, p. 43.
* Sophocles’ Antig. 332:
TIOAAG Ta Sed, Kovdey avOparrov
dewdrepov weAct.

The
observance
too solid a
fact to
repose on a
foundation
of mist.

The

miracle of
Resurrection
on a level.
with
Creation.

The
Resurrection
a creative
act of the
first order.

Links
_the first
Creation
with the
new
creation.

The
Resurrection
alone
explains all
the facts
connected
with the
Lord’s Day.

The Hvidential Value of

hope that he can undo the work of death, or keep
death indefinitely at bay. The Resurrection is a
creative act of the first order. It cannot stand as an
isolated fact. He who said, “I have power to lay
down My life, and I have power to take tt again,”+
spake as never man did or could speak. By His
taking again His hfe He proved that He was more
than man, that He was—Gop. He linked together
the first Creation, which is the primordial fact in
the history of the Universe, with a new creation, of
which He too is the Author and the Source. The
old Sabbath, with its commemoration of rest after
the works of the first creation, was swallowed up in
the new creation wrought by the Lord of Life on
the first Lord’s Day. The light streams in on the
unique expression of the beloved disciple, and we /
see what he intended, we feel we “stand no longer
at the foot of Sinai, but by the empty tomb in the
garden outside Jerusalem.”

xu. Let us sumup. The Resurrection alone as
an actual fact explains how it came to pass that
the Lord’s Day

(1) grew up naturally from the Apostolic times ;

(2) gradually assumed the character of the one
distinctively Christian Festival ;

(3) drew to itself, as by an irresistible gravita-
tion, the periodical rest, which is enjoined in the
fourth commandment under the Mosaic Law ;

* John x. 18.

The Observance of the Lord’s Day.

(4) could as an observance be alluded to by
St. Paul and St. John without a word of comment
or explanation ;

(5) and, though not enacted by any law in the
Apostolic Church, could grow up and make its way
by the intrinsic weight of its own reasonableness.

xtv. With the fact of the Resurrection the early
observance of the Lord’s Day runs smoothly into the
context of the world’s history, and we can explain

(1) How the startling change of religious senti-
ment was brought about ;

(2) How in spite of the shame of the Cross the
Christian society could gather up and concentrate
itself in adoration round the Person of Him Who
died upon the Cross ;

(3) How St. Paul could speak of Him, Who so
died, as ‘‘the firstfruits of them that have fallen
asleep,” for “as in Adam all die, so in Christ
shall all be made alive.” !

(4) How He, whom the Apostle John saw in
vision on the Lord’s Day, could say of Himself, “1
am the First and the Last, and the Living One ;
and I was dead, and behold I am alive for ever-
more.” ”

(5) How since this event took place ten thou-
sand times ten thousand Christian congregations
have gathered themselves together on the Lord’s

#1 Cor. xv: 20, 22, 2 Apoc. 1. 18.

With the
fact of the
Resurrection
the Lord’s
Day runs
smoothly
into the
world’s
history.

Professor
Freeman’s
testimony.

No other
account
than the
Resur-
rection, but
what is
imaginary
and
invented,
can explain
the facts of
history.

The Observance of the Lord’s Day.

Day in all quarters of the world, and have joined,
if not in the words, yet in the spirit of the Hymn—

Gn this day, the first of days,

God the Father’s name we praise,
Who Creation’s Lord and spring,
Did the world from darkness bring.

On this day the Eternal Son
Over death His triumph won ;
On this day the Spirit came
With His gifts of living flame.
xv. Can anyone explain how otherwise these
facts are to be accounted for ?

‘¢The miracle of miracles,” says Professor Freeman,! ‘‘ greater
than dried-up seas and cloven rocks, was when the Augustus
on his throne, Pontiff of the gods of Rome, himself a god to
the subjects of Rome, bent himself to become the worshipper
of a crucified provincial of his empire.”

But why did he so “bend himself,” if that
Crucifixion was followed by no event which trans-
Why did he sanction the ob-
servance of the first day of the week as a day of
Why have the most civilized
nations of the world acquiesced in its observance ?
But without
the Resurrection what answer can be given that

figured its shame?
joy and triumph P
The question demands an answer.
is not imaginary merely, and invented ?

1 Chief Periods of European History, p. 67.

Pia) BF ISTO 30
+34 PRESENT Day Tracts, No. 54, fx
S is dees st Sol 1 EE 4

PRESENT DAY TRACTS.

EIGHT VOLUMES NOW READY, 2s. 6d. EACH, CLOTH.

THE Tracts discuss the existence and character of God; the age
and origin of man; the character, resurrection, and claims of Christ ;
miracles and prophecy ; the origin and chief doctrines of Christianity ;
Christianity in various aspects and relationships; the resemblances
and differences between Christianity and other great religious systems
of the world ; the chief non-theistic systems prevalent at the present |
time ; the authorship and credibility of the principal books of Scripture ;
the witness of the nature of man, ancient monuments, history, and the
Holy Land to Christianity and the Bible ; the early prevalence of mono-
theistic beliefs; the religious teaching of the sublime and beautiful in
nature; the witness of the Lord’s Supper to the death of Christ ; and

the points of contact between revelation and natural science.

It is believed that no series of apologetic works furnishes a defence
of the foundations of Christian faith and morals at once so brief and so
complete, so readable and so convincing as the PRESENT Day TRACTS.

Written by able specialists, they are fitted to command—and have
commanded—the respect even of those whom they fail to convince. |
No better service could be done to those who are disturbed by current |
speculations, particularly young men, than by bringing under their
notice and placing in their hands the PRESENT Day TRACTS ON

| QUESTIONS OF CHRISTIAN EVIDENCE, DOCTRINE, AND MORALS.

FIRST SERIES,
~”, Any of these Tracts can be had separately at 4d, each.

VOLUME 1 contains: { VOLUME 2 contains:
1 Christianity and Miracles at the Present | 7 Christianity and Secularism Compared
Day. By the Rev. Principal CAIRNS, | ax their Influence and Effects. By W.
DID: ,eLLeD: | G. BLAIKIE, D.D.
2 The Historical Evidence of the Resur- | 8 Agnosticism: a Doctrine of Despair.
rection of Fesus Christ from the Dead. By the Rev. Noau PorTeEnr, D.D.
By Rev C. A) Row, M.A. 9 The Antiquity of Man Historically Con-
3 Christ the Central Evidence of Chris- sidered. By Rev. Canon RAWLINSON,
tianity. By Rev. Principal Cairns. M.A,
4. Christianity and the Life that Now!s. | 10 The Witness of Palestine to the Bibje.
By W. G. BLarIKIg, D.D., LL.D. By W. G. BLAIKIE, D.D.
5 The Existence and Character of God. | 11 The Early Prevalence of Monotheistic
By Prebendary Row, M.A. Beliefs. By Canon RAWLINSON, M.A.
| 6 The Success of Christianity, and | 12 The Witness of Man’s Moral Nature
ModernExplanations of It. By the Rev. to Christianity. By the Rev. J. RADFORD
Principal CAIRNS, D.D., LL.D. THOMSON, M.A.

VOLUME 3 contains:
13 Age and Origin of Man Geologically ; 16 Authenticity of the Four Gospels. By

Considered. By S. R. PATTISON, Rev. HENRY WACE, B.D., D.D.
Esgq., F.G.S., and Dr. FRIEDRICH P FAFF. 17 Modern Materialism. By the late

14 Rise and Decline of Islam. By Sir Rev. W. F. WILKINSON, M.A.
aAM Murr, ECS Ls PCL ee 18 Christianity and Confucianism Com-
15 Mosaic Authorship and Credibility of pared in their Teaching of the Whole

the Pentateuch. ByDean of Canterbury. Duty of Man. By JAmMEs LEGGE, LL.D.

_————

PRESENT DAY \ TRACTS,

VOLUME 4 contains:

io)

Christianity: as History, Doctrine,
and Life. By Rev. Noau Porter, D.D.

The Religious Teachings of the Sub-
limeand Beautifulin Nature. By Rev.
Canon RAWLINSON, M.A.

Ernest Renan and His Criticism of
Christ. By Rev. W. G. ELMSLIE, M.A.

VOLUME 5 contains:
The Zend-Avesta and the Religion

of the Parsis. By J. Murray MIrTcuHELt,
M.A., LL.D.

3 The Authorship of the Fourth Gospel.
By F. Gopkt, D.p., Neufchatel.

Present State of the Christian Argu-

ment from Prophecy. By the Rey.
Principal CAIRNS, D.D., LL.D.

28 Origin of the Hebrew Religion. By
Eustace R. ConpDEr, M.A., D.D.
29 The Philosophy of Mr. Herbert

Spencer Examined. By the Rey. JAMES
IVERACH, M.A,

30 Man not a Machine, but a Respon-

sible Free Agent. By the Rev. Pre-
bendary Row, M.A,

22 Unity of the Character of the Christ
of the Gospels, a proof of tts Historical
Reality. By Rev. Prebendary Row, m.a

23 The Vitality of the Bible. By Rev.
W. G. BLAIKIE, D.D., LL.D.

z4 Evidential Conclusions from the

four Greater Epistles of St. Paul, By
the Dean of Chester.

VOLUME 6 contains:

31 The Adaptation of the Bible to the
é Needs and Nature of Man. By the
Rev. W. G. BLAIKIE, D.D., LL.D.

32 The Witness of Ancient Monuments

to the Old Testament Scriptures. By
A. H. SAycg, m.a.. Oxford.
33 The Hindu Religion.. By J. M.

MiTcHELL, M.A., LL.D.

34 Modern Pessimism. By the Rev. J.

RADFORD THOMSON, M.A.

35 The Divinity of our Lord in Relation
to fis Work of Atonement. By Rev.
WILLIAM ARTHUR.

36 The Lord’s Supper an Abiding Wit-

ness to the Death of Christ. By Sir
W. Muir, K.C.S.1., etc.

SECOND SERIES.

VOLUME 7 contains:

The Christ of the Gospels. A Re-
ligious Study. By Dr. Henri Meyer.

Ferdinand Christian Baur, and his
Theory of the Origin of Christianity
and the New Testament Writings. By
Rev. A. B. Brucsz, p.p.

Man, Physiologically Considered:
By A. MACALISTER, M.A., M.D., F.R.S:
Professor of Anatomy, Cambridge.

40 Utilitarianism: An Illogical and
Lrreligious Theory of Morals. By Rev.
J. RapForp THOMSON, M.A.

Historical I/lustrations of the New
Testament Scriptures. By the Rev. G.
F, MAcLeEar, D.D.

Points of Contact between Revelation
and Natural Science. By Sir J. Wi-
LIAM Dawson, LL.D., F.R.S.

VOLUME 8 contains:
43 The Claimof Christ onthe Conscience.

By Rev. WILLIAM STEVENSON, M.A.

44 The Doctrine of the Atonement
Historically and Scripturally Ex-
amined. By Rev. J. StrouGHTON, D.pD.

The Resurrection of Jesus Christ in
tts Historical, Doctrinal, Moral, and
Spiritual Aspects. By the Rev. R.
McCuHEYNE EpGAR, M.A.

Buddhism: A Comparison and a
Contrast between Buddhism and Chris-
tzanity. By the Rev. Henry Rospert
REYNOLDS, D.D.

Auguste Comte and the “Religion
of Humanity.” By the Rev. J. Rap-
FORD THOMSON, M.A.

The Ethics of Evolution Examined.
By Rey. J. IVERACH, M.A,

LonDON: THE RELicious Tract Society, 56, PATERNOSTER Row,

Meco Nl DAY FRACTS.

. ——o-.or@400—_
PRESS NOTICES OF VOLUMES VII. AND VIII. (2s. 6d. EACH, CLOTH.)

‘* This is the first volume (VII.) of a new series of these very able Tracts on
the great religious questions of the day. The editor has been successful in
securing contributions from competent writers.”—Contemporary Review.

‘*The seventh volume of Present Day Tracts is closed by an essay of Sir

J. W. Dawson, a scientific layman, designed to exhibit ‘an essential unity

in the teaching of Natural Science and Revelation.’ This last is the most
remarkable paper in the volume.” —Saturday Review.

‘Volume VII. of Present Day Tracts, compares favourably with any of its
predecessors in the series for ability, and is perhaps more varied than any of
them in its contents.’”—Scottish Review.

‘¢ The subjects discussed in Volume VIII. are the Claims of Christ on the
Conscience ; the Doctrine of the Atonement; various aspects of Christ’s
Resurrection ; a Comparison between Buddhism and Christianity; Positivism ;
the Ethics of Evolution. All the writers are sufficiently acquainted with the
very latest forms assumed by anti-Christian theories. The reader need have
no misgiving in placing entire reliance on their statement of the doctrines
which they seek to, refute. We are also confident that the arguments adduced
in defence of Christian truth will be considered to be quite convincing and
unassailable. The Present Day Series of Tracts are, in our opinion, among

the most valuable and useful publications of the Religious Tract Society. So |

far, we have discerned no sign of deterioration in them. It is much to be

wished that they could be put in the hands of all the young men of our |

churches.” —British Weekly.
‘Volume VIII. contains six tracts, and of these four are by writers who have

not before contributed to the series. . . There can be no doubt at all that these

tracts continue to fulfil the purposes which were announced when the series
was started, or that the present volume maintains the high literary standard of
its predecessors.” —Scotsman.

No. 43. THE CLAIM OF CHRIST ON THE CONSCIENCE.

By the Rev. William Stevenson, M.A. (4a. zz Cover.)

** A carefully-thought-out paper on ‘The Claim of Christ on the Con-
science.” —Buxton Advertiser.

“ The author treats his theme in a thoughtful and reverent manner,
meeting objections by calm argument, and enforcing the claims of Divine
truth with all the earnestness of sincere conviction.” —Reading Mercury.

No. 44. THE DOCTRINE OF THE ATONEMENT. By the
Rev. John Stoughton, D.D. (4d. zz Cover.)
‘‘Dr. Stoughton’s masterly statement of the doctrine, and vigorous
defence of the truth is by itself worth the price of the book.”
The Christian.
** Discusses with great ability the Doctrine of the Atonement, examining
it historically and Scripturally.”—Cork Constitutional.

eee SS

No.

PRESENT DAY TRACTS.

45. THE RESURRECTION OF JESUS CHRIST, in its
Historical, Doctrinal, Moral, and Spiritual Aspects. By Rev. R.
M’Cheyne Edgar, M.A. (4d. 22 Cover.)

‘‘This Tract is well written. It is thoughtful, spiritual, and unanswer-
able.” —Christian Advocate.

‘‘The tract closes with a masterly summary of results, one sentence
of which says that the Resurrection of Christ ‘has been the fountain
from which the revolution we call Christianity has issued—every revival in
the Church, every awakening in the world, has been from the radiant
personality of arisen Saviour.’”—Presbyterian Messenger.

“¢ On the historic, dogmatic, moral, and spiritual value of ‘ The Resurrec-
tion of Christ,’ Mr. Edgar is very pithy and effective.’—Northern Whig.

“<¢ He (Mr, Edgar) has touched in a brief and orderly fashion on every
topic, so far as we can see, connected with the resurrection of Christ from
the evidence of the fact to its bearing on the whole history and destiny of
the Christian man.”—Presbyterian Churchman.

46. BUDDHISM; a Comparison and a Contrast between Budd-
hism and Christianity. By H.R. Reynolds, D.D. (4d. 27 Cover.)

‘‘The tract is an extremely able one, the large amount of information
that has been condensed into it being indeed remarkable.” —Literary World.
‘‘Tt is packed full of information, most concisely and readably put.”

Nonconformist and Independent.

‘People who desire to know something of Buddhism, but who are
repelled by the size and difficulty of mastering more pretentious works,
will thank us for calling attention to this charmingly brief, but suggestive
and beautiful tract.”—Sheffield Independent.

‘In spite of the fact of having studied this form of faith during a
series of years, we never remember a more concise study of an intricate
subject or one more convincing as to the superior merits of the faith as
contained in the New Testament.”—Hull and Yorkshire Times.

47. AUGUSTE COMTE AND THE “RELIGION OF HU-
MANITY.” By the Rev. J. Radford Thomson, M.A. (4d. 22 Cover.)
‘Tt is a very satisfactory performance, and in a brief space gives an
account of the system of Positivism quite sufficient for the general reader.”
Irish Ecclesiastical Gazette.
‘©Mr. Radford Thomson’s Tract on Comite is one of the most satis-
factory discussions that we have seen of a subject on which much has been
written.” —Essex Telegraph.

48. THE ETHICS OF EVOLUTION EXAMINED. By the
Rev. James Iverach, M.A. (4d. 2% Cover.)

‘‘Mr. Iverach writes, as he always does, with great ability and grace
on an important branch of the general subject of Evolution, viz., its
ethics.” —Essex Telegraph.

‘Mr, Iverach’s argument, advanced with severe simplicity of phrase,
and in a thoroughly scientific form, conducts the reader to the irresistible
conclusion that there is no sufficient guidance for man in Evolutionary
Ethics—that the only sure guide to real moral conduct is that furnished by
the life and teaching of Christ.”—The Christian Leader.

LONDON: THE RELIGIOUS TRACT SOCIETY, 56, PATERNOSTER ROW.

PRESEN @DAY? WI RACLS

No. 49, IS THE EVOLUTION OF CHRISTIANITY FROM MERE
NATURAL SOURCES CREDIBLE? By Rev. DR. CAIRNS.

_ Principal Cairns answers this question with a decided negative. With con-
vincing logic and rare sweep of knowledge, he shows how Christianity cannot be
derived from Greek philosophy, from Jewish literature, or from the Hellenic
Judaism of Alexandria. The plausible naturalistic theories of the origin of our
faith are torn to tatters by his incisive arguments.” —The Christian.

‘Fach number of these Tracts, as we read, carries with it the conviction that
they cannot be too highly recommended or too widely circulated. The present
number deals with the impossibility of Christianity being evolved from either
Greek philosophy, Jewish literature, or the system credited by Strauss, nor from
the Hellenic Judaism of Alexandria, of which Philo is taken as the representative.
The hopelessness of the failure of the most plausible materialistic theories of the
origin of Christianity, and the unique and impregnable position of Christianity,
are pointed out. Closely reasoned and logically demonstrated.”

Baptist Messenger.

No. 50. THE DAY OF REST IN RELATION TO THE WORLD
THAT NOW IS AND THAT WHICH IS TO COME. By
Sir J. W. Dawson, F.R.S., etc.

‘To many minds this important subject will be presented in a somewhat new
light. We are glad to find that the author contends for the Edenic origin of the
Sabbath, also for its spiritual import as a type of the eternal rest. The reason for
the change of day under the Christian dispensation is well set forth, and the physio-
logical necessity for the cbservance of the day is insisted on.” —Footsteps of Truth,

‘<It is impossible to speak too favourably of these issues. They ought to be
in the hands of every thoughtful man and woman of this country. They are
healthful, vigorous, logical, convincing. We wish them God-speed.”

Baptist Messenger.

No. 51. CHRISTIANITY AND ANCIENT PAGANISM. By J.
MURRAY MiTCHELL, M.A., LL.D.

‘Tt is a contribution of much unparaded learning to the comparative study of
religions, and is an admirable apologetic in behalf of Christianity.”
Liverpool Mercury.
<¢ We regret that our available space does not permit us to do justice to this new
setting of an old subject by Dr. J. Murray Mitchell— Christianity and Ancient
Paganism. But we may say that it is highly desirable that all these Present Day
Tracts, as they appear, should have the widest possible circulation. They are as

admirable in substance and tone as they are readable in form.”
Methodist Recorder.

No. 52. CHRIST AND CREATION: a Two-sided Quest. By the Kev.
W. SUNDERLAND LEwIs, M.A.

‘In writing of Christ and Creation, the author’s object is to prove the harmony
| between science (observation) and revelation.” —The Schoolmaster.

‘¢The inquiry is pursued on two lines—revelation and observation.”
Torquay Times.

Sn a

ELTA WAY. TRACI SO:

No. 53. THE PRESENT CONFLICT WITH UNBELIEF, By the
Rev. JOHN KELLY, Editor of Present Day Tracts.

** The Tract is a masterly synopsis of the great theme with which it deals, and
we should be glad to hear that it had been put into the hands of the unsettled and
sceptical. It is the more likely to be helpful to this class from the sympathetic and
persuasive style in which it is written.” —Christian Leader.

‘* We have never seen, given within such small compass, so clear and so accurate
a conspectus of the course of the present sad conflict with infidelity which is raging
| all over the world. . . We do not know when we have read a more able or satis-
factory Tract, or one more likely to do good service in these unsettled times. It
should be circulated by the ten thousand.” —Witness (Belfast).
| ‘*It is a bird’s-eye view of the present conflict with Unbelief... This well-written

Tract is well fitted to brace its writer for more determined efforts against the
sceptical tendencies of the time, and to show where the strength of the Christian
position lies.”—Presbyterian Churchman.

**Tt is a useful work, very thoroughly and competently done.”

Aberdeen Daily Free Press.

SPECIAL VOLUME OF PRESENT DAY TRACTS.

The Noy-€ hristiay Religions of the World

Containing Six Numbers of the Series as under :—

No. 14. The Rise and Decline of Islam. By Sir WILLIAM Murr, K.C.S.I.

No. 18. Christianity and Confucianism Compared in their Teaching of the Whole
Duty of Man. By Prof. Lecce, LL.D.

No. 25. The Zend-Avesta and the Religion of the Parsis. By J. Murray MIT-
CHELLDOMEA. PLL D:

No. 33. The Hindu Religion—a Sketch and a Contrast. By J. Muxray MIr-
CHELL, M.AjELL.D,

No. 46. Suddhism: a Comparison and a Contrast between Buddhism and
Christianity. By Henry Robert REYNOLDS, D.D,

No. 51. Christianity and Ancient Paganism. By J. Murray MivcHELt, M.A.
LED

PRICE 2/6. THE SEPARATE TRACTS, 4d. EACH,

The branch of the series of Present Day Tracts devoted to the discussion of the
non-Christian Religions of the world has reached such a state of completeness that
it seems advisable to issue the Tracts belonging to it in a separate Volume. It is
believed that the convenience of readers specially interested in this study will be
met by this arrangement. The Tracts will thus be made more readily available
for use by students, by teachers of Christian Evidence classes, and others. The
six Tracts comprised in this branch of the Series are simply bound together and
furnished with a title page and table of contents. —Preface.

COLNTONS: O'R iH ES PRESS:

+
.

Churchman’s Shilling Magazine.—‘‘ We gladly call attention to these
able and convincing papers on subjects on which it is of paramount
importance to have careful statements ready to hand at the present day. .
As to the value of the Tracts before us, the names of the authors are a
sufficient guarantee, and after giving them a careful reading, we can add that
they are as lucid and attractive as they are sound and unanswerable.”

Dickenson’s Theological Quarterly.—‘* With much satisfaction we notice
these very seasonable Tracts. . . They are nicely got up—fit to le on anv
table. . . We trust that any who are ‘shaken in mind’ as to the complete
truth of the Christian faith will thoughtfully peruse the Tracts issued, and
that efforts will be made to place them in the hands of those who may be
thinking that Christianity 1s ‘ready to vanish away.’ They will hardly
believe fit, after studying the arguments.”

The Christian World.—‘‘ We are glad to see that the Tract Society has
undertaken the publication of a series of Tracts dealing with the problems
of evidence that present themselves to many minds in our time in connec-
tion with the Christian revelation. . . A series of discussions on the way
and manner in which present-day knowledge stands related to theology, —
on the evidence which men, who would scorn to base their religion upon
fable, can deliberately appeal to as proving the Divine origin of Chris-
tianity,—could not be more suitably inaugurated than in atract upon
Miracles.

Word and Work (Dr. H. Sinclair Paterson).—‘‘The Tracts in this new series
are well printed and carefully edited. They are in every way excellently
adapted to meet the necessities of a class that has not been too much cared
for in the past. . . We heartily record our satisfaction in knowing that
the committee of the Religious Tract Society have risen to their respon-
sibility, and are resolved to employ their well-won greatness in making
provision for the supply of present-day wants.”

The Rock.—‘* The Religious Tract Society have done great service by
the publication of these Tracts. . . It is hardly necessary to say that they
are written with great cogency and clearness of argument. Their careful
perusal will amply repay the reader. As an antidote against the infidel
subtleties of the present day nothing could be better. The subjects are
discussed with fairness and force. The Tracts cannot fail to be of service
where they are most required—among the educated classes.”

Toronto Globe.—‘‘ They are written in a fresh, attractive style, by
authors of acknowledged eminence, and on what may be called the burning
religious questions of the day.”

Belfast Witness.—‘‘ The Tract Society has rendered no more import-
ant service to our time than by the publication of the tracts of this series.
The more widely they are known the better.”

Nonconformist and Independent.—‘‘ The names of the authors are a
sufficient guarantee for the adequate discussion of the topics, and show
that no effort is spared by the Society to produce a series that shall be
thoroughly up to the requirements of the time. . . We are glad to learn, and
can readily believe, that a constantly increasing interest is being manifested
in this admirable series, and that numerous testimonies have been received
expressive of the high appreciation in which these tracts are held.”

PRESENT DAY (TRACTS.

OPINIONS OF EMINENT MEN.

—_—+j-—__—__

The Right Hon. W. E. Gladstone, M.P.—‘* With the design of the Tract
Society I cordially sympathise, as one sound in principle and likely
to be beneficial in practice.”

the Lord Bishop of Winchester.—‘‘I rejoice that the Society is bringing
out the series with so much promise, and trust that it may be much
blessed.”

The Lord Bishop of Gloucester and Bristol_—‘‘1 do thank you for your
particularly valuabie tracts. They are and look most inviting.”

The Lord Bishop of Llandaff.cHe thinks them likely to be extremely

useful.

The Provost of Queen’s College, Oxford.—‘‘I am glad to be able to give my
opinion, after reading Nos, 1 and 2, that they are well calculated to
fulfil the object of their promoters, and, if continued in the same way,
to be of considerable value to Christianity.”

The President of Rotherham College.-—‘‘ The series promises to be most

timely and useful.”

iss)

The Principal of University College, Aberystwyth.—‘‘ They are most ex-
cellent. ‘The questions discussed are undoubtedly the hattle-field of
Christianity in our day, and the writers are a match for their opponents
in scholarship and ability. If the young men at our universities and
colleges can be induced to read these papers thoughtfully, not to say
prayerfully, it will stagger the scepticism of even a prejudiced mind.”

The Principal of St. Aidan’s, Birkenhead.—‘‘I like much the plan, look,
and style of these Present Day Tracts which you have sent.”

The Professor of Astronomy, Cambridge.—‘‘Such tracts as these seem

likely to be very useful.”

bas)

The Principal of Regent’s Park College.—‘* The plan and execution of the
Present Day Tracts seem to me very good. They will supply a great
want, and meet the needs of a class who have strong claims upon us

The Head Master of Christ’s Hospital.—‘'I am sure such writing will be
abundantly useful.”

The Principal of New College, Glasgow.—‘‘ I have read these tracts with

great pleasure and hearty approval.”

bes)

bs)

Principal of St. Paul’s Mission House, Burgh le Marsn.—*‘ They are
logical throughout, and convincing. They are written also in an
eloquent and attractive style.”

Acheter =

Lb ( oe
* 9

eter use ee abate ; mm id). Coe
cS ee i. tk aalte 2 eC O Mabeeeaa’d uc i

M,.. re eas slay Mant “a Le" 4 Vy" talk . ‘ on

Sole ay ion she eo aC Ieee cs a
ea Pe Lcd ui PY BBE. pa aN fa We be Pate
ee) n PAA G Ey ayn ; * 14h a0 agi di GOs %

: i, be ws v' ih 2p. | my ebpsatn - eae 2
wa ee
ae ony at ebb ye re hy neha ic ae sak oe aa
I as

r 7 x \ POR :
a oft Ts sg eh cidibe Wes fer 1 Ste iiteht an YS

eave yr : fants, bape avion Gog | ‘huey eho ats ie
= tye mas Wail ie alyte oupieriiis baa biaagnte, ' Ve: kee
e aster 4 ‘ Me ar F es ’
- i

Tivins f
prea,
en”

naON. parent tals? be i taint xt sit tee at ae

be he * ¥,
aT oy ? ; D 4 ’ . .
pee ree Ads nk ar 4 seep gh vemmaner 9'T 9 ee oe nM eo aliaieed m4 f
ik 1. eee ar RENT ete
< j as ¢ ty Wh I A. su
° * , Cth ho
i = | = so)

eae kh
a ‘

* eee
“st Reena >
Siienied Mode ee Lil 5 st ltt la
niles oon ee ee

SSS

i i
i

CN,

Soe ree Seen
See

ae
SSS = =

—

ett fl

see fet Sete eee

iinet!

Fenn

sate a ee,

ih Ht}
Hit
ili

i
i
!

HH
t}
}

Hot
tele

i
}
|

t
Nee Mp ta

;
+
t
-

Se Ea = ia
FSS a EES
~ Ng SS ee ane Ot eg) Np Rh rte mn boy ee