eet oeee 7 SS oe Oe Oe a fe a simeae Aid oa apitsacnepstinis poreceecivoczesievaceenacronittgsztsies rag | sini aaigity ¥ it setibe HHH ATE ; aH: BRL ' t aT er i * 3 aut v3 t) 4 aa wii i = yi y cn sSSoe See = SS rae RE Fase Semeeaesaar ——." SI a ow 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. es 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. fd 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. % i 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. a [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 ee 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. 10 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 ? DE 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, 15 The Christ of Strauss incredible. Christianity cannot dispense with a Divine Saviour. 16 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 ? 17 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- C 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, 18 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. 20 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 a 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 21 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 22 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- LA Mere Natural Sources Oredible ? 28 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. 24 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. 25 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. 26 — 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 28 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 ? 29 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- D 30 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, o4 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, 39 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. 06 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 ? 37 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. 38 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 ? 59 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.) 41 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, 43 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. 44 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 ? 45 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. 46 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. 48 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.’’) E 49 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, 50 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 51 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, 52 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 D8 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. 54 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. 56 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. / BY 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 IN 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. 6 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 il 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. 12 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 18 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. 14 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. ee 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, 16 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 Lf 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. 19 The Sabbath in the post- Mosaic stages of Jewish history till the time of Christ. In the time of Isaiah. 20 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. 21 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. ye 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. 23 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. 24 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- 25 The enhanced obligation of the Lord’s Day. The statement in the Epistle to the Colossians The Old Testament Sabbath intended, 26 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. 27 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 28 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 29 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 3] 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. Bz 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 I. 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. 6 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, 8 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. 9 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. 10 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. II 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. 12 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. 13 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. 14 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. 15 Things de- monstrably true of Christianity, Intellectual culture an essential element of modern civilization. Socratic Ethics, Derivation of Jewish ritual. 16 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. 18 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. HO 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. 20 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. a1 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. 22 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. 23 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. 25 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, 26 Elements in Egyptian character. The sovereign and the people. The religion of Babylon and Assyria, The antiquity of existing monuments, Christianity and Ancient Paganism. ————) |: 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, BY 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. 6 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, 8 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. 10 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 1] 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. 12 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 13 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. 14 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 16 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. 16 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— ce effect of causing his desire for it to be weak. light, as with certain creatures in caves. 17 Fe 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. 18 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 19 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 21 The same change to take place in other bodies, This taught in general terms. Details of the change. Appearauce, Character, No destruction of identity. 22 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 23 The quickened becomes ‘a spiritual man.” The changed body becomes ‘fa spiritual body.” The ideal perfection of this two-fold likeness to Christ. 24 ‘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. 25 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. 26 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- Qt 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 d “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. 29 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, 30 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 dl 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. 32 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 33 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 o4 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. 35 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, 36 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 37 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. 38 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. 40 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 4] The higher life due to the same cause, The higher life engendered by the presentation and application of truth to the mind, 42 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. 43 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? 46 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. 49 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 E The testimony of Scripture, Both resurrection and re- generation | ascribed to Christ. The one the conse- quence of the other 50 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, ol 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, 5Q 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 53 Symptoms of retro- eression in creation. Deformed and stunted specimens of men. Mentally and morally depraved specimens. The possible elevation of such people. b4 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 No 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, 5d Its magnitude and necessity. The place of Christ in redemption. In what respects similar to His place in regener- ation. In what respects different. D6 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, 4 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 ; ee 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 Cr The conflict deeper and wider than ever before, The influence of the new monthly reviews. 6 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, 8 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, 10 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. Il 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. 13 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. 14 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 Ly The Present Conflict with Unbelief. 15 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, 16 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. C 17 The fascinations of the theory of Evolution. The difficulties of the theory. 18 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. 19 Admissions of non- Christian evolution- ists. How Dr. Matheson turns them to account, 20 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, 21 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. 22 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. 23 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. 24 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 a 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 29 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. 27 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. 28 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. 29 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. 30 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. ol 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, 32 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. D 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 i The Present Conflict with Unbelief. 35 on 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. 36 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. OF 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. 39 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. 40 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. 4] 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. 42 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. 43 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. 44 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 ee Lhe Present Conflict with Unbelief. 45 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. 46 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. 47 a 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. 48 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. 6 The Evidential Value of pe 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, 8 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 ?” ih 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. 12 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, 14 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. 15 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, ‘©On the last day of his stay, Paul called the disciples to- gether to break bread, and preached unto them ?” Is this what we find? Instead, we read, “© On the first day of the week Paul preached unto them.” ? 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, 16 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. Cc 17 ‘*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, 18 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. 19 a 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 20 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. 21 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? 22 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. 4 Matt. xxvi. 37. ° Seeabove p.9. © Matt. xx. 20; Mark x. 36. 23 Called to be a fisher of men. His nearness to the Lord. His burning love to Him, His views of Christ’s kingdom. 24 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, 25 The date of the Crucifixion, The evidence can be sifted. St. John gives a full account. 26 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 27 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 28 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, 29 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.” 30 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. 31 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 Oo 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. 34 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. 35 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. 06 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. oF The observance too solid a fact to repose on a foundation of mist. The miracle of Resurrection on a level. with Creation. 38 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. 39 With the fact of the Resurrection the Lord’s Day runs smoothly into the world’s history. 40 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. mn Pia) BF ISTO 30 +34 PRESENT Day Tracts, No. 54, fx S is dees st Sol 1 EE 4 ae 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: 1 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. 20 21 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. 37 39 41 42 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, 45 46 48 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. No. No. 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, ‘ 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 a sate a ee, ih Ht} Hit ili u 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