i 
 
 
 ms 
 
 i 
 
LIBRARY 
 
 PRINCETON. N J 
 
 J±^ 
 
 BL 2775 .G775 1863 
 
 Greg, William R. 1809-1881 
 
 The creed of Christendom 
 
 
THE 
 
 CREED OF CHRISTENDOM; 
 
 rOONDATIONS AND SUPEESTRUCTDRE. 
 
LONDON'! 
 PRINTED BY WOODFALL AND KINDEK, 
 
 ANGEL COURT, SKINNEK STBEKT. • 
 
THE 
 
 CREED OF CHEISTENDOM; 
 
 FOUNDATIONS AND SUPEESTEUCTURE. 
 
 WILLIAM RATHBONE GREG, 
 
 "THE PHAYEH OF AJAX WAS POK LIGHT.' 
 
 SECOND EDITION. 
 
 LONDON: 
 TRUBNER AND CO., 60, PATERNOSTER ROW. 
 
 MDCCCLXIII. 
 
" I should, perhaps, be a happier, at all events a more useful, man, if my mind 
 were otherwise constituted. But so it is : and even with regard to Christianity 
 itself, like certain I'lanls, I creep towards the light, even though it draw me away 
 from the more nourishing warmth. Yea, I should do so, even if the light made 
 its way through a rent in the wall of the Temple." — Coleridqb. 
 
 " Perplex'd in faith, hut pure in deeds, 
 At last he beat his music out ; 
 There lives more faith in honest doubt. 
 Believe me, than in half the creeds. 
 
 " He fought his doubts and gather'd strength; 
 He would not make his judgment bUud ; 
 He faced the spectres of the mind, 
 And laid them : thus he came at length 
 
 " To find a stronger faith his own ; 
 
 And Power was with him in the night, 
 Which makes the darkness and the light, 
 And dwells not in the light alone, 
 
 " But in the darkness and the cloud." 
 
 Tenntsox. 
 
 " Nofinquirer can fix a direct and cleai*- sighted gaze towards Truth, who is 
 ousting side glances all the while on the prospects of his soul." — Martinbau. 
 
 " What hope of answer or redress T 
 Behind the veil, behind the veil." 
 
 Tenntsos. 
 
PREFACE 
 
 This work was commenced in the year 1845, and wa» 
 finished two years ago. Thus much it is necessary to state, 
 that I may not be supposed to have borrowed without ac^ 
 knowledgment from works which have preceded mine in 
 order of publication. 
 
 It is now given to the world after long hesitation, with 
 much diffidence, and with some misgiving. For some time 
 I was in doubt as to the propriety of publishing a work, which, 
 if it might correct and elevate the views of some, might also 
 unsettle and destroy the faith of many. But three conside- 
 rations have finally decided me. 
 
 First. I reflected that, if I were right in believing that I 
 had discerned some fragments or gleams of truth which had 
 been missed by others, I should be acting a criminal and 
 selfish part if I allowed personal considerations to withhold 
 me from promulgating them ; — that I was not entitled to 
 take upon myself the privilege of judging what amount of 
 new light the world could bear, nor what would be the efiect 
 of that light upon individual minds ; — that sound views are 
 formed and estabhshed by the contribution, generation after 
 generation, of widows* mites ; — that if my small quota were 
 of any value it would spread and fructify, and if worthless, 
 would come to naught. 
 
 Secondly. Much observation of the conversation and con- 
 troversy of the religious world had wrought the conviction 
 that the evil resulting from the received notions as to Scrip- 
 tural authority has been immensely under- estimated. I was 
 compelled to see that there is scarcely a low and dishonour- 
 
 52 
 
yiii PREFACE. 
 
 ing conception of God current among men, scarcely a narrow 
 and malignant passion of the human heart, scarcely a moral 
 oLHquity, scarcely a political error or misdeed, which Biblical 
 texts are not, and may not he without any violence to their 
 obvious signification, adduced to countenance and justify. 
 On the other hand I was compelled to see how many clear, 
 honest, and aspiring minds have been hampered and baffled 
 in their struggles after truth and light, how many tender, 
 pure, and loving hearts have been hardened, perverted, and 
 forced to a denial of their nobler nature and their better in- 
 stincts, by the ruthless influence of some passages of Scrip- 
 ture which seemed in the clearest language to condemn the 
 good and to denounce the true. No work contributed more 
 than Mr. Newman's Phases of Faith, to force upon me the 
 conviction that little progress can be hoped either for reli- 
 gious science or charitable feeHng till the question of Biblical 
 authority shall have been placed upon a sounder footing, 
 and viewed in a very different Hght. 
 
 Thirdly. I called to mind the probability that there were 
 many other minds like my own pursuing the same inquiries, 
 and groping towards the same light ; and that to all such the 
 knowledge that they have fellow-labourers where they least 
 expected it, must be a cheering and sustaining influence. 
 
 It was also clear to me that this work must be performed 
 bv laymen. Clergymen of all denominations are, from the 
 very nature of their position, incapacitated from pursuing 
 this subject with a perfect freedom from all ulterior conside- 
 rations. They are restrained and shackled at once by their 
 previous confession of Faith, and by the consequences to 
 them of possible conclusions. It remained, therefore, to see 
 what could be done by an unfettered layman, endowed with 
 no learning, but bringing to the investigation the ordinni-y 
 education of an English gentleman, and a logical facuhy 
 exercised in other walks. 
 
 The three conclusions which I have chiefly endeavoured 
 to make clear, are these : — that the tenet of the Inspiration 
 
PREFACE. IX 
 
 of the Scriptures is baseless and untenable under any form 
 or modification which leaves to it a dogmatic value ; — that 
 the Gospels are not textually faithful records of the sayings 
 and actions of Jesus, but ascribe to him words which he 
 never uttered, and deeds which he never did; — and that the 
 Apostles only partially comprehended, and imperfectly trans- 
 mitted, the teaching of their Great Master. The estabUsh- 
 ment of these points is the contribution to the progress of 
 rehgious science which I have attempted to render. 
 
 I trust it will not be supposed that I regard this work in 
 any other light than as a pioneering one. A treatise on 
 Keligion that is chiefly negative and critical can never be 
 other than incomplete, partial, and preparatory. But the 
 clearing of the ground is a necessary prehminary to the 
 sowing of the seed ; the removal of superincumbent rubbish 
 is indispensable to the discovery and extraction of the buried 
 and intermingled ore ; and the liberation of the mind from 
 forestalhng misconceptions, misguiding prejudices, and ham- 
 pering and distracting fears, must precede its setting forth, 
 with any chance of success, in the pursuit of Truth. 
 
 Nor, I earnestly hope, will the book be regarded as antago- 
 nistic to the Faith of Christ. It is with a strong conviction 
 that popular Christianity is not the religion of Jesus that I 
 have resolved to publish my views. What Jesus really did 
 and taught, and whether his doctrines were perfect or super- 
 human, are questions which afford ample matter for an inde- 
 pendent work. 
 
 There is probably no position more safe and certain, than 
 that our religious views must of necessity be essentially im- 
 perfect and incorrect ; — that at best they can only form a 
 remote approximation to the truth, while the amount of error 
 they contain must be large and varying, and may be almost 
 unlimited. And this must be alike, though not equally the 
 case, whether these views are taught us by reason or by re- 
 veladon ; — that is, whether we arrive at them by the dili- 
 gent and honest use of those faculties with which God has 
 
X PREFACE. 
 
 endowed us, or by listening to those prophets whom He may 
 have ordained to teach us. The difference cannot be more 
 than this : that in the latter case our views will contain that 
 fragment, or that human disguise, of positive truth which 
 God knows our minds are alone capable of receiving, or 
 which He sees to be fitted for their guidance ; — while in the 
 former case they will contain that form or fragment of the 
 same positive trutli which He framed our minds with the 
 capabihty of achieving. In the one case they will contain 
 as much truth as we can take in — in the other, as much as 
 we can discover :— but in both cases this truth must neces- 
 sarily not only be greatly limited, but greatly alloyed to 
 bring it within the competence of finite human intelligences. 
 Being finite, we can form no correct or adequate idea of 
 the Infinite : — being material, we can form no clear concep- 
 tion of the Spiritual. The question of a Revelation can in 
 no way affect this conclusion; since even the Omnipotence 
 of God cannot infuse infinite conceptions into finite minds, 
 — cannot, without an entire change of the conditions of our 
 being, pour a just and full knowledge of His nature into the 
 bounded capacity of a mortal's soul. Human intelligence 
 <;ould not grasp it; human language could not express it. 
 
 " The consciousness of the individual (says Fichte) re- 
 veals itself alone ; — his knowledge cannot pass beyond the 
 limits of his own being. His conceptions of other things 
 and other beings are only his conceiHions ; — they are not 
 those things or beings themselves. The living principle 
 of a living Universe must be infinite, while all our ideas and 
 conceptions are finite, and applicable only to finite beings. 
 The Deity is thus not an object of knowledge, but of faith ; — 
 not to be approached by the understanding, but by the moral 
 sense ;— not to be conceived, but to be felt. All attempts to 
 embrace the infinite in the conception of the finite are, and 
 must be, only accommodations to the frailty of man 
 
 "Atheism is a charge which the common understanding 
 has repeatedly brought against the finer speculations of phi- 
 
PREFACE. XI 
 
 losophy, when, in endeavouring to solve the riddle of exist- 
 ence, they have approached, albeit with reverence and 
 humility, the source from which all existence proceeds. 
 Shrouded from human comprehension in an obscurity from 
 which chastened imagination is awed back, and thought re- 
 treats in conscious weakness, the Divine nature is surely a 
 theme on which man is little entitled to dogmatize. Accord- 
 ingly it is here that the philosophic intellect becomes most 
 
 painfully aware of its own insufficiency But the 
 
 common understanding has no such humility ; its God is 
 an Incarnate Divinity; — imperfection imposes its own limita- 
 tions on the Illimitable, and clothes the inconceivable Spirit 
 of the Universe in sensuous and intelligible forms derived 
 from finite nature ! " 
 
 This conviction once gained, the whole rational basis for 
 intolerance is cut away. We are all of us (though not all 
 equally) mistaken ; and the cherished dogmas of each of us 
 are not, as we had fondly supposed, the pure truth of God, 
 but simply our own special form of error — the fragmentary 
 and refracted ray of light which has fallen on our own 
 minds \ 
 
 But are we therefore to relax in our pursuit of truth, or 
 to acquiesce contentedly in error ? — By no means. The ob- 
 ligation still lies upon us as much as ever to press forward 
 in the search ; for though absolute truth be unattainable, 
 yet the amount of error in our views is capable of progres- 
 sive and perpetual diminution ; and it is not to be supposed 
 that all errors are equally innocuous. To rest satisfied with 
 a lower degree of truth than our faculties are capable of 
 attaining, — to acquiesce in errors which we might eliminate, 
 — to lie down consciously and contentedly in unworthy con- 
 
 1 •' Our little systems have their day ; 
 
 They have their day, and cease to be . 
 They are but broken lights of Thee, 
 And Thou, Lord, art more than they." 
 
 In Memoriam. 
 
Xii PREFACE. 
 
 ceptions of the Nature and Providence of God, — is treason 
 alike to Him and to our own Soul. It is true that all our ideas 
 concerning the Eternal Spirit must, considered objectively, 
 be eiToneous ; and that no revelation can make them other- 
 wise ; — all, therefore, that we require, or can obtain, is such 
 an image or idea of Him as shall satisfy our souls, and meet 
 our needs; — as shall (we may say) be to us subjectively 
 true. But this conception, in order to become to us such 
 satisfying and subjective truth, must of course be the highest 
 and noblest that our minds are capable of forming ' ; — every 
 man's conception of God must consequently vary with his 
 mental cultivation and mental powers. If he content him- 
 self with any lower image than his intellect can grasp, he 
 contents himself with that which h false to him, as well as 
 false in fact,— one which, being lower than he could reach, 
 he must ipso facto feel to be false. The Peasant's idea of 
 God — true to him — would be false to me, because I should 
 feel it to be unworthy and inadequate. If the nineteenth 
 century after Christ adopts the conceptions of the nineteenth 
 century before him, — if cultivated and chastened Christians 
 adopt the conceptions of the ignorant, narrow, and vindic- 
 tive Israelite, — they are guilty of thinking ivorse of God, of 
 taking a lower, meaner, more-limited view of His Nature, 
 than the faculties He has bestowed are capable of inspiring ; 
 ■ — and as the highest view we are capable of forming must 
 necessarily be the nearest to the truth, they are wilfully 
 acquiescing in a lie. They are guilty of what Bacon calls 
 "the Apotheosis of error" — stereotyping one particular 
 stage of the blunders through which philosophy passes on 
 its way to truth. 
 
 Now to think (or speak) ill of God is to incur the guilt of 
 blasphemy. It is surprising that this view of the matter 
 should so rarely have struck the orthodox. But they are so 
 intently occupied with the peril on one side, that they have 
 
 * Religious truth is therefore necessarily progressive, because our powers are 
 progressive,— a position fatal to all positive dogma. 
 
PREFACE. Xlll 
 
 become blind or careless to the at least equal peril that lies 
 on the otlier. If, as they deem, erroneous belief be danger- 
 ous and criminal, it must be so whether it err on the side of 
 deficiency or of excess. They are sensitively and morbidly 
 alive to the peril and the sin of not beheving everything 
 which Revelation has announced, yet they are utterly blind 
 to what should be regarded as the deeper peril and the darker 
 guilt of believing that Revelation has announced doctrines 
 dishonouring to the pure majesty of God. If it be wrong 
 and dangerous to doubt what God has told us of Himself, it 
 must surely be equally so, or more so, to believe, on inade- 
 quate evidence or on no evidence at all, that He ever taught 
 doctrines so derogatory to His attributes as many which 
 orthodox theology ascribes to Him. To believe that He is 
 cruel, short-sighted, capricious, and unjust, is an affront, an 
 indignity, which (on the orthodox supposition that God takes 
 judicial cognizance of such errors) must be immeasurably 
 more guilty and more perilous, than to believe that the Jews 
 were mistaken in imagining that He spoke through Moses» 
 or the Christians in imagining that He spoke through Paul. 
 He is affirmed to be a jealous God, an angry God, a capri- 
 cious God,— punishing the innocent for the sins of the guilty, 
 — punishing with infinite and endless torture men whom He 
 had created weak, finite, and ephemeral, — nay, whom he had 
 fore-ordained to sin, — a God who came down from Heaven, 
 walked among men, feasted at their tables, endured their in- 
 sults, died by their hands. Is there no peril in all this? — 
 no sin in believing all these unworthy puerilities of a Crea- 
 tor who has given us Reason and Nature to teach us better 
 things? — Yet Christians accept them all with hasty and 
 trembling dismay, as if afraid that God will punish them for 
 being slow to believe evil of Him. 
 
 We have seen that the highest views of religion which we 
 can attain here must, from the imperfection of our faculties, 
 be necessarily inaccurate and impure. But we may go fur- 
 ther than this. It is more than probable that Religion, in 
 
xiv PKEFACE. 
 
 order to obtain currency and influence with the great mass 
 of mankind, must he alloyed with an amount of error which 
 places it far below the standard attainable by human capaci- 
 ties. A pure rehgion — by which we mean one as pure as the 
 loftiest and most cultivated earthly reason can discern 
 would probably not be comprehended by, or effective over, 
 the less-educated portion of mankind. What is truth to the 
 Philosopher would not be truth, nor have the effect of truth, 
 to the Peasant. The Religion of the many must necessarily 
 be more incorrect than that of the refined and reflective few, 
 — not so much in its essence, as in its forms — not so much 
 in the spiritual idea which lies latent at the bottom of it, as 
 in the symbols and dogmas in which that idea is embodied. 
 In many points true religion would not be comprehensible by 
 the ignorant, nor consolatory to them, nor guiding and sup- 
 porting for them. Nay, tme religion ivould not he true to 
 them: — that is, the eflect it would produce on their mind 
 ivould not he the right one, — would not be the same it 
 would produce on the mind of one fitted to receive it, and 
 competent to grasp it. To undisciplined minds, as to chil- 
 dren, it is probable that coarser images and broader views 
 are necessary to excite and sustain the efforts of virtue. The 
 belief in an immediate Heaven of sensible delight and glory 
 will enable an uneducated man to dare the stake in the cause 
 of faith or freedom;— the idea of Heaven as a distant scene 
 of slow, patient, and perpetual progress in intellectual and 
 spiritual being, would be inadequate to fire his imagination, 
 or to steel his nerves. Again : to be grasped by, and suita- 
 ble to, such minds, the views presented them of God must 
 he anthropomorphic, not spiritual; — and in proportion as 
 they are so they are false : — the views of His Government 
 must be special, not universal ; — and in proportion as they 
 are so they will be false ^ The sanctions which a faith de- 
 
 ^ There are, we are disposed to think, several indications in Scripture that 
 the doctrines which Christ desired to teach were put foi-th by him, not in the 
 language of strict verity (even as he conceived it), but in that clothing which 
 
PREFACE. XV 
 
 rives from being announced from Heaven amid clouds and 
 thunder, and attested by physical prodigies, are of a nature 
 to attract and impress the rudest and most ignorant minds — 
 perhaps in proportion to their rudeness and their ignorance : 
 the sanctions derived from accordance with the breathings 
 of Nature and the dictates of the soul, are appreciable in 
 their full strength by the trained and nurtured inteUigence 
 alone \ 
 
 The rapid spread and general reception of any religion may 
 unquestionably be accepted as proof that it contains some 
 vital truth ;— it may be regarded also as an equally certain 
 proof that it contains a large admixture of error, — of error, 
 that is, cognizable and detectable by the higher human 
 minds of the age. A perfectly pure faith would find too 
 httle preparation for it in the common mind and heart to 
 admit of prompt reception. The Christian rehgion would 
 hardly have spread as rapidly as it did, had it remained as 
 pure as it came from the hps of Jesus. It owes its success 
 probably at least as much to the corruptions which speedily 
 encrusted it, and to the errors which were early incorporated 
 with it, as to the ingredient of pure and sublime truth which 
 it contained. Its progress among the Jews was owing to the 
 doctrine of the Messiahship, which they erroneously believed 
 to be fulfilled in Jesus. Its rapid progress among the 
 Pagans was greatly attributable to its metaphysical accretions 
 and its heathen corruptions. Had it retained its original 
 purity and simphcity— had it been kept free from all extra- 
 neous admixtures, a system of noble Theism and lofty 
 
 would most surely convey to his hearers the practical essentials of the doctrine 
 — the important part of the idea.— (See Bush's Anastasis, p. 143.) 
 
 1 All who have come much into contact with the minds of children or of the 
 uneducated classes, are fully aware how unfitted to their mental condition are 
 the more wide, catholic, and comprehensive Adews of religion, which yet we 
 hold to be the true ones, and how essential it is to them to have a well-defined, 
 positive, somewhat dogmatic, and above all a di\inely- attested and aidhorita- 
 iive creed, deriving its sanctions from without. Such are best dealt with by 
 rather narrow, decided, and undoubting minds. 
 
XVI PREFACE. 
 
 morality as Christ delivered it, — where would it now have 
 been ? Would it have reached our times as a substantive 
 rehgion ? — Would truth have floated down to us without 
 borrowing the wings of error ? These are interesting, though 
 purely speculative, questions. 
 
 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 and reluctance. The pur- 
 suit of truth is easy to a man who has no human sympa- 
 thies, whose vision is impaired by no fond partialities, whose 
 heart is torn by no divided allegiance. To him the renun- 
 ciation of error presents few difficulties ; for the moment it 
 is recognized 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 wor- 
 shipped in his happy childhood; where his friends and his 
 family worship still; where his gray-haired parents await 
 the resurrection of the Just : but where he can worship and 
 await no more. He loves the simple old creed, which 
 was the 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 Famihar 
 have chains 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 ghmpse of light is like a fresh flood of 
 pain poured in 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, trembhng, but 
 
PREFACE. Xvii 
 
 unflinching still. " Illi in vos saeviant qui nesciuut cum quo 
 labore verum invenietur ; qui nesciunt cum quanta difficul- 
 tate sanetur oculus interioris hominis." ^ 
 
 To this martyrdom, however, we believe there is an end : 
 for this unswerving integrity there is a rich and sure reward- 
 Those who flinch from inquiry because they dread the pos- 
 sible conclusion ; who turn aside from the path as soon as 
 they catch a glimpse of an unwelcome goal ; who hold their 
 dearest hopes only on the tenure of a closed eye and a repu- 
 diating mind, — vfiW, sooner or later, have to encounter that 
 inevitable hour when doubt will no longer be silenced, and 
 inquiry can no longer be put by ; when the spectres of old mis- 
 givings which have been rudely repulsed and of questionings 
 which have been sent empty away, will return *' to haunt, to 
 startle, to waylay;" — and will then find their faith crumbhng 
 away at the moment of greatest need, not because it is false, 
 but because they, half wilfully, half fearfully, grounded it on 
 false foundations. But the man whose faith in God and 
 futurity has survived an inquiry pursued with that " single 
 eye" to which alone light is promised, has attained a serenity 
 of soul possible only to the fearless and the just. For him 
 the progress of science is fraught with no dark possibilities 
 of ruin ; no dreaded discoveries lie in wait for him round the 
 corner, for he is indebted for his short and simple creed, not 
 to sheltering darkness, but to conquered light. 
 
 The Craig. 
 
 Dec. 4, 1850. 
 
 * St. Auprustine. 
 
CONTENTS, 
 
 CHAPTER I. 
 Inspiration of the Scriptures ........ 1 
 
 CHAPTER II. 
 Modern Modifications of tlie Doctrine of Inspiration . . , ,20 
 
 CHAPTER III. 
 
 Authorship and Authority of the Pentateuch, and the Old Testament 
 
 Canon generally 29^ 
 
 CHAPTER IV. 
 The Prophecies 48 
 
 CHAPTER Y, 
 
 Theism of the Jews Impure and Progressive . . • • , 64 
 
 CHAPTER VI. 
 Origin of the Gospels 72 
 
 CHAPTER VII. 
 
 Fidelity of the Gospel History. — Nature and Limits . , . , 86 
 
 CHAPTER VIII. 
 Fidelity of the Gospel History continued. — Matthew . • , , 102 
 
XX CONTENTS. 
 
 CHAPTER IX. 
 
 PAGB 
 
 Same subject continued.— Mark and Luke 116 
 
 CHAPTER X. 
 Same subject continued — Gospel of John 127 
 
 CHAPTER XL 
 Results of the foregoing Criticism 139 
 
 CHAPTER XII. 
 The Limits of Apostolic "Wisdom and Authority 149 
 
 CHAPTER XIII. 
 Miracles 175 
 
 CHAPTER XIV. 
 Resurrection of Jesus . . . 191 
 
 CHAPTER XV. 
 Is Christianity a Revealed Religion ? 206 
 
 CHAPTER XVI. 
 Christian Eclecticism 224 
 
 [CHAPTER XVII. 
 The Great Enigma : . . . 256 
 
THE 
 
 CREED OF CHRISTENDOM. 
 
 CHAPTER I. 
 
 INSPIRATION OF THE SCRIPTURES. 
 
 When an Inquirer, brought up in the popular Theology 
 of England, questions his teachers as to the foundations 
 and evidence of the doctrines he has imbibed, he is referred 
 at once to the Bible as the source and proof of all: " The 
 Bible, and the Bible only, is the religion of Protestants." 
 The Bible, he is told, is a sacred book of supreme and un- 
 questionable authority, being the production of writers 
 directly inspired by God to teach us truth — being, in the 
 ordinary phrase, The Word of God. This view of the 
 Bible he finds to be universal among all religious sects, aud 
 nearly all religious teachers ; all, at least, of whom, in this 
 country, he is hkely to hear. This belief in the Inspiration 
 of the Scriptures {(^EoirvevGria) is, indeed, stated with some 
 slight variations, by modern Divines ; some affirming, that 
 every statement and word was immediately dictated from on 
 high: these are the advocates of Plenary, or Verbal In- 
 spiration ; others holding merely that the Scriptural writers 
 were divinely informed and authorized Teachers of truth, 
 and narrators of fact, thoroughly imbued with, and guided 
 by, the Spirit of God, but that the words, the earthly form 
 in which they clothed the ideas, were their own. These are 
 the believers in the essential Insinration of the Bible. 
 
 It is obvious that the above are only two modes of stating 
 the same doctrine — a doctrine incapable of being defined or 
 expressed with philosophical precision, from our ignorance 
 
 B 
 
2 THE CREED OF CHRISTENDOM. 
 
 of the modus operandi of divine influences on the mind of 
 man. Both propositions mean, if they have any distinct 
 meaning at all, this affirmation : — that every statement of 
 fact contained in the Scriptures is true, as heing information 
 communicated by the Holy Spirit — that every dogma of 
 Eeligion, every idea of Duty, every conception of Deity, 
 therein asserted, caf?ie from God, in the natural and un- 
 equivocal sense of that expression. That this is the acknovr- 
 ledged and accepted doctrine of Christendom is proved bv 
 the circumstance that all controversies amonsf Christians 
 turn upon the interpretation, not the authority, of the Scrip- 
 tures; insomuch that we constantly hear disputants make 
 use of this language : '' Only show me such or such a 
 doctrine in the Bible, and I am silenced." — It is proved, 
 too, by the pains taken, the humiliating subterfuges resorted 
 to, by men of Science to show that their discoveries are not 
 at variance with any text of Scripture. — It is proved, by the 
 observation, so constantly forced upon us, of theologians who 
 have been compelled to abandon the theory of Scriptural 
 Inspiration, or to modify it into a negation, still retaining, 
 as tenaciously as ever, the consequences and corollaries of 
 the doctrine ; plu'ases which sprung out of it, and have no 
 meaning apart from it; and deductions which could flow 
 from it alone. — It is proved, moreover, by the indiscriminate 
 and peremptory manner in which texts are habitually quoted 
 from every part of the Bible, to enlbrce a precept, to settle 
 a doctrine, or to silence an antagonist. — It is proved, finally, 
 by the infinite efforts made by commentators and divines to 
 explain discrepancies and reconcile contradictions which, 
 independently of this doctrine, could have no importance or 
 significance whatever. 
 
 This, accordingly, is the first doctrine for which our 
 Inquirer demands evidence and proof. It does not occur 
 to him to doubt the correctness of so prevalent a behef : he 
 is only anxious to discover its genesis and its foundation. 
 He immediately perceives that the Sacred Scriptures consist 
 of two separate series of writings, wholly distinct in thftir 
 character, chronology, and language — the one containing 
 the sacred books of the Jews, the other those of the Chris- 
 tians. We will commence with the former. 
 
 Most of our readers who share the popular belief in the 
 divine origin and authority of the Jewish Scriptures, would 
 
INSPIRATION OF THE SCRIPTUKES. 3 
 
 probably be much perplexed when called upon to assign 
 grounds to justify the conviction which they entertain from 
 habit. All that they could discover may be classed under 
 the following heads : 
 
 I. That these books were received as sacred, authoritative, 
 and inspired Writings by the Jews themselves. 
 
 II. That they repeatedly and habitually represent them- 
 selves as dictated by God, and containing His ipsissima 
 verba. 
 
 III. That their contents proclaim their origin and parent- 
 age, as displaying a purer morality, a loftier religion, and 
 altogether a hoher tone, than the unassisted, uninspired 
 human faculties could, at that period, have attained. 
 
 IV. That the authority of the Writers, as directly com- 
 missioned from on High, was in many cases attested by 
 miraculous powers, either of act or prophecy. 
 
 V. That Christ and his Apostles decided their sacred 
 character, by referring to them, quoting them, and assuming, 
 or affirming them to be inspired. 
 
 Let us examine each of these grounds separately. 
 
 I. It is unquestionably true tliat the Jews received the 
 Hebrew Canon, or what we call the Old Testament, as a 
 collection of divinely-inspired writings, and that Christians, 
 on their authority, have generally adopted the same belief. 
 — Now, even if the Jews had held the same views of inspira- 
 tion that now prevail, and attached the modern meaning 
 to the word ; even if they had known accurately who were 
 the Authors of the sacred books, and on what authority such 
 and such writings were admitted into the Canon, and such 
 others rejected ; — we do not see why their opinion should 
 be regarded as a sufficient guide and basis for onrs; 
 especially when we remember that they rejected as an Im- 
 postor the very Prophet whom we conceive to have been 
 inspired beyond all others. What rational or consistent 
 ground can we assign for disregarding the decision of the 
 Jews in the case of Jesus, and accepting it submissively in 
 the case of Moses, David, and Isaiah ? 
 
 But, on a closer examination, it is discovered that the 
 Jews cannot tell us when, nor by whom, nor on what prin- 
 ciple of selection, this collection of books was formed. All 
 these questions are matters of pure conjecture ; and the 
 
 B 2 
 
4 THE CREED OF CHRISTEN DO:\r. 
 
 ablest critics agree only in the opinion that no safe opinion 
 can be pronounced. One ancient Jewish legend attributes 
 the formation of the Canon to the Great Synagogue, an 
 imagined '■' company of Scribes," o-uyaywyrj ypaj^ijiaTtayv, pre- 
 sided over by Ezra. — Another legend, equally destitute of 
 authority, relates that the collection already existed, but had 
 become much corrupted, and that Ezra was inspired for the 
 purpose of correcting and purifying it; — that is, was inspired 
 for the purpose of ascertaining, eliciting, and affirming the 
 inspiration of his Predecessors. A third legend mentions 
 Nehemiah as the Author of the Canon. The opinion of De 
 Wette — probably the first authority on these subjects — an 
 opinion founded on minute historical and critical investiga- 
 tions, is, that the different portions of the Old Testament 
 were collected or brought into their present form, at various 
 periods, and that the whole body of it " came gradually into 
 existence, and, as it were, of itself and by force of custom 
 and public use, acquired a sort of sanction." He conceives 
 the Pentateuch to have been completed about the time of 
 Josiah, the collection of Prophets soon after Nehemiah, and 
 the devotional writings not till the age of the Maccabees.^ 
 His view of tlie grounds w^hich led to the reception of the 
 various books into the sacred Canon, is as follows : — "The 
 writings attributed to Moses, David, and the Prophets, were 
 considered inspired on account of the personal character of 
 their authors. But the other writings, which are in part 
 anonymous, derive their title to inspiration sometimes from 
 their contents, and sometimes from the cloud of antiquity 
 which rests on them. Some of the writings which were 
 composed after the exile — such, for example, as the Song of 
 Solomon, Ecclesiastes, and Daniel — were put on this list on 
 account of the ancient authors to whom they were ascribed; 
 — others — for example. Chronicles and Esther — on account 
 of their contents; and others again, as Ezra and Nehemiah, 
 on account of the distinguished merit of their authors in 
 restoring the Law and worship of God."^ 
 
 Again : the books of the Hebrew Canon were customarily 
 classed among the Jews into three several divisions — the 
 Books of the Law, the Prophets, and the other sacred 
 
 ^ Introduction to the Criticcal Study of the Old Testament, (by Parker,) 
 i. 26-35. 
 
 2 De Wette, i. 40. 
 
INSPIRATION OF THE SCRIPTUKES. O 
 
 •writings, or Hagiographa, as they are termed — and it is 
 especially worthy of remark that Philo, Josephus, and all 
 the Jewish authorities ascribed different degrees of innpi- 
 ration to each class, and moreover did not conceive such 
 inspiration to be exclusively confined to the Canonical 
 Avriiers, hut to he shared, though in a scantier degree, by 
 otiiers ; — Philo extending it even to the Greek translators of 
 the Old Testament ; Joseplius hinting that he was not 
 wholly destitute of it himself; and both maintaining that 
 even in their day the gifts of prophecy and inspiration were 
 not extinct, though limited to few'. The Talmudists held 
 the same opinion ; and went so far as to say that a man 
 might derive a certain kind or degree of inspiration from 
 the study of the Law and the Prophets. In the Gospel of 
 John xi. 51, we have an intimation that the High Priest 
 had a kind of ex officio inspiration or prophetic power. — It 
 seems clear, therefore, that the Jews, on whose authority we 
 accept the Old Testament as insjnred, attached a very 
 difierent meaning to the word from that in which our 
 Theologians employ it ; — in their conception it approaches 
 (except in the case of Moses) much more nearly to the 
 divine ajftatus which the Greeks attributed to their Poets. — 
 "Between the Mosaic and the Prophetic Inspiration, the 
 Jewish Church asserted such a difference as amounts to a 
 
 diversity To Moses and to Moses alone — to 
 
 Moses, in the recording, no less than in the receiving of the 
 law — and to every part of the five books called the books of 
 Moses, the Jewish Doctors of the generation before and 
 coeval with the Apostles, assigned that unmodified and 
 absolute O^owvevaTia, which our divines, in words at least, 
 attribute to the Canon collectively." '' The Samaritans, we 
 know, carried this distinction so far that they received the 
 Pentateuch alone as of divine authority, and did not believe 
 the other books to be inspired at all. 
 
 It will then be readily conceded that the divine authority, 
 
 1 De Wette, i. 39-43. A marked confirmation of the idea of graduated 
 inspiration is to be found in Numbers xii. G-8. Maimonides (De Wette, ii. 
 361) distinguishes eleven degrees of inspiration, besides that which was 
 granted to ]\ioses. Abarbanel (De Wette, i. 14) makes a similar distinction. 
 
 - Coleridge. Confessions of an Enquiring Spirit, p. 19. As I shall have 
 to refer to this eminent writer more than once, I wish it to be borne in mind, 
 that though not always speculatively orthodox, he was a dogmatic Christian, 
 and an intolerant Trinitarian ; at least he always held the language of one. 
 
6 THE CREED OF CHRISTENDOM. 
 
 or proper inspiration (using the word in our modern, plain, 
 ordinary, theological sense), of a series of writings of which 
 we know neither the date, nor the authors, nor the collectors, 
 nor the principle of selection — cannot derive much support 
 or iDrobability from the mere opinion of the Jews; — especi- 
 ally when the same Jews did not confine tlie quality of 
 inspiration to these writings exclusively; — wlien a large 
 section of them ascribed this attribute to five books only out 
 of thirty-nine ; — and when they asssigned to different por- 
 tions of the collection different degrees of inspiration — an 
 idea quite inconsistent with the modern one of infallibility. 
 — '' In infalhbility there can be no degrees." ' 
 
 II. The second ground alleged for the popular belief in 
 the Inspiration of the Jewish Scriptures, appears to involve 
 both a confusion of reasoning, and a misconception of fact. 
 These writings, I beheve I am correct in stating, nowhere 
 affirm their own inspiration, divine origin, or infallible 
 authority. They frequently, indeed, use the expressions, 
 " Thus saith Jehovah," and "The Word of the Lord came 
 to Moses," &c., which seem to imply that in these instances 
 they consider themselves as recording the very words of the 
 Most High ; but they do not declare that they are as a 
 whole dictated by God, nor even that in these instances 
 they are enabled to record His words with infallible accuracy. 
 But even if these writings did contain the most solemn and 
 explicit assertion of their own inspiration, that assertion 
 ought not to have, and in the eye of reason could not 
 have, any weight whatever, till that inspiration is proved 
 from independent sources — after which it becomes super- 
 fluous. It is simply the testimony of a witness to himself", 
 — a testimony which the falsest witness can bear as well as 
 the truest. To take for granted the attributes of a writer 
 from his own declaration of those attributes, is, one would 
 imagine, too coarse and too obvious a logical blunder not 
 to be abandoned as soon as it is stated in plain language. 
 Yet, in the singular work which I have already quoted — 
 singular and sadly remarkable, as displaying the strange 
 inconsistencies into which a craven terror of heresy (or the 
 imputation of it) can betray even the acutest thinkers — 
 
 ^ Coleridge, p. 18. 
 
 - " If I bear witness of myself, my witness is not true" (/. e. is not to 1:e 
 regarded), John v. 31. 
 
INSPIRATION OF THE SCRIPTURES. V 
 
 Coleridge says first, '^ that he cannot find any such claim 
 (to supernatural inspiration) made by the writers in question, 
 explicitly or by implication " (p. 16) ; — secondly, that 
 where the passages asserting such a claim are supposed to be 
 found, ''the conclusion drawn from them involves obviously 
 a petitio principii, namely, the supernatural dictation, word 
 by word, of the book in which the assertion is found; for 
 until this is estabhshed, the utmost such a text can prove is 
 the current belief of the Writer's age and country" (p. 17) ; 
 — and, thirdhj, that "whatever is referred by the sacred 
 penman to a direct communication from God; and whenever 
 it is recorded that the subject of the history luid asserted 
 himself to have received this or that command, information, 
 or assurance, from a superhuman intelligence ; or where the 
 Writer, in his own person, and in the character of an 
 historian, relates that the word of God came to Priest, 
 Prophet, Chieftain, or other Individual; I receive the same 
 ivith full belief and admit its inappellable authority " 
 (p. 27).^What is this, but to say, at p. .27, that he receives 
 as "inappellable" that which, at p. 17, he declares to involve 
 an obvious petitio principii ? — that any self- asserted infalU- 
 bility— any distinct affirmation of divine communication or 
 comimand,' however improbable, contradictory, or revolting 
 — made in any one of a collection of books, " the dates, 
 selectors, and compilers of which" he avers to be "unknown, 
 or recorded by known fabulists" (p. 18), — must be received 
 as of supreme authority, without question, and without 
 appeal? — What would such a reasoner as Coleridge think 
 of such reasoning as this, on any other than a BibUcal 
 question ? 
 
 III. The argument for the inspiration of the Old Testa- 
 ment Scriptures derived from the character of their contents, 
 will bear no examination. It is true that many parts of 
 them contain views of Duty, of God, and of Man's relation 
 to Him, which are among the purest and loftiest that the 
 human intellect can grasp; — but it is no less true that other 
 passages, at least as numerous and characteristic, depict 
 feeHngs and opinions on these topics, as low, meagre, and 
 unworthy, as ever took their rise in savage and uncultured 
 minds. These passages, as is well known, have long been 
 the opprobrium of orthodoxy and the despair of Theologians; 
 and so far are they from being confirmatory of the doctrine 
 
8 THE CREED OF CHraSTENDOM. 
 
 of Scriptural inspiration, that nothing hut the inconsiderate 
 and absolute reception of this doctrine has withheld men 
 from regarding and representing them in their true light. 
 The contents of the Hebrew Canon as a icJiole, form the 
 most fatal and convincing argument against its inspiration 
 as a whole. By the popular creed as it now stands, the 
 nobler portions are compelled to bear the mighty burden 
 of the lower and less worthy; — and often sink under their 
 weight. 
 
 IV. The argument for the Inspiration of the Old Testa- 
 ment Writers, drawn from the supposed miraculous or pro- 
 phetic powers conferred upon the writers, admits of a very 
 brief refutation. In the Jirst place, as we do not know who 
 the Writers were, nor at what date the books were written, 
 we cannot possibly decide whether they were endowed with 
 any such powers, or not. — Secondhj, as tlie only evidence 
 we have for the reality of the miracles rests upon the divine 
 authority, and consequent unfailing accuracy, of the books 
 in which they are recorded, they cannot, without a violation 
 of all principles of reasoning, be adduced to prove that 
 authority and accuracy. — Thirdly, in those days, as is well 
 known, superhuman powders were not supposed to be 
 confined to the direct and infallible organs of the divine 
 commands, nor necessarily to imply the possession of the 
 delegated authority of God ; — as we learn from the Magi- 
 cians of Pharaoh, who could perform many, though not all, 
 of the miracles of Moses; — from the case of Aaron, who, 
 though miraculously gifted, and God's chosen High Priest, 
 yet helped the Israelites to desert Jehovah, and bow down 
 before the Golden Calf; — and from the history of Balaam, 
 who, though in daily communication with God, and spe- 
 cially inspired by Him, yet accepted a bribe from His 
 enemies to curse His people, and pertiuaciously endeavoured 
 to periorm his part of the contract. — And, finally, as the 
 dogmatic value of prophecy depends on our being able to 
 ascertain the date at which it was uttered, and the precise 
 events which it was intended to predict, and the impossi- 
 bility of foreseeing such events by mere human sagacity, 
 and, moreover, upon the original language in which the 
 prophecy was uttered not having been altered by any subse- 
 quent recorder or transcriber to match the fulfilment more 
 exactly ; — and as, in the case of the prophetical books of 
 
INSPIRATrON OF THE SCRIPTURES. 1) 
 
 the Hebrew Canon (as will be seen in a subsequent chapter), 
 great doubt rests upon almost all these points ; and as, 
 moreover, for one prediction which was justified, it is easy 
 to point to two which were falsified, by the event;— the 
 prophecies, even if occasionally fulfilled, can assuredly, in 
 the present stage of our inquiry, afford us no adequate 
 foundation on which to build the inspiration of the lihrarij 
 (for such it is) of which they form a part. 
 
 V. But the great majority of Christians would, if ques- 
 tioned, rest their belief in the Inspiration of the Old Test- 
 tament Scriptures, upon the supposed sanction or affirmation 
 of this view by Christ and his Apostles. — Now, as Coleridge 
 has well argued in a passage already cited, until we know 
 that the words of Christ conveying this doctrine have been 
 faithfully recorded, so that we are actually in possession of 
 his view— and that the apostoHc writings conveying this 
 doctrine were the production of inspired men — " the utmost 
 such texts can prove is the current behef of the Writer's 
 age and country concerning the character of the books then 
 called the Scriptures."— The inspiration of the Old Testa- 
 ment, in this point of view, therefore, rests upon the inspi- 
 ration of the New— a matter to be presently considered. 
 But let us here ascertain what is the actual amount of divine 
 authority attributed to the Old, by the Writers of the New 
 Testament. 
 
 It is unquestionable that these Scriptures are constantly 
 referred to and quoted, by the Apostles and Evangelists, as 
 authentic and veracious histories. It is unquestionable, also, 
 that the prophetic writings were considered by them to he 
 prophecies — to contain predictions of future events, and 
 especially of events relating to Christ. They received them 
 submissively ; but misquoted, misunderstood, and misapphed 
 them, as will hereafter be shown.— Further: however incor- 
 rectly we may believe the words of Christ to have been re- 
 ported, his references to the Scriptures are too numerous, 
 too consistent, and too probable, not to bring us to the con- 
 clusion that he quoted them as having, and deserving to have, 
 unquestioned authority over the Jewish mind. On this 
 point, however, the opinions of Christ, as recorded in the 
 Gospel, present remarkable discrepancies, and even contra- 
 dictions. On the one hand, we read of his saying, " Think 
 not that I am come to destroy the Law or the Prophets : I 
 
10 THE CREED OF CHRISTENDOM. 
 
 am not come to destroy, but to fulfil. For verily I say unto 
 you, Till Heaven and Earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall 
 in no wise pass from the Law, till all be fulfilled." ' He quotes 
 the Decalogue as "from God;" and he says that "God 
 spake to Moses." '^ It is true that he nowhere aiiirms the inspi- 
 ration of the Scriptures, but he quotes the prophecies, and 
 even is said to represent them as prophesying of him^. He 
 quotes the Psalms controversially, to put down antagonists, 
 and adds the remark, " the Scripture cannot be broken." ^ 
 He is represented as declaring once positively, and once 
 incidentally % that "Moses wrote of him."^ 
 
 On the other hand, he contradicted Moses, and abrogated 
 his ordinances in an authoritative and peremptory manner, 
 which precludes the idea that he supposed himself dealing 
 with the direct commands of God^. This is done in many 
 points specified in Matth. v. 34-44 ; — in the case of divorce, 
 in the most positive and naked manner (Matth. v. 31, 32; 
 xix. 8. Luke xvi. 18. Mark x. 4-12) ; — in the case of 
 the woman taken in adultery, who would have been punished 
 with a cruel death by the ^losaic law, but whom Jesus dis- 
 missed with — "Neither do I condemn thee : go, and sin no 
 more" (Johnviii. 5-11) ; — in the case of clean and unclean 
 meats, as to which the Mosaic law is rigorous in the ex- 
 treme, but which Christ puts aside as trivial, affirming that 
 nnclean meats cannot defile a man, though Moses declared 
 that it " made them abominable." (Matth. xv. 11; Mark 
 vii. 15.) Christ even supersedes in the same manner one 
 of the commands of the Decalogue — that as to the observ- 
 ance of the Sabbath, his views and teaching as to which 
 no ingenuity can reconcile with the Mosaic law^. 
 
 1 I^Iatth. V. 17, 18. Luke xvi. 17. 
 
 - Matth. XV. 4-6 ; xxii. 31. Mark vii. 9-13 ; xii. 26. 
 
 ^ Matth. XV. 7 ; xxiv. 15. Luke iv. 17-21; xxiv. 27. 
 
 * John x. 35. 
 
 ^ John V, 46. Lnke xxiv. 44. 
 
 ® It seems more than doubtful whether any passages in the Pentateuch can 
 fairly he considered as having reference to Christ. But passing over this, if 
 it shall appear that what we now call "the Books of Moses " were not written 
 by Moses, it will follow, either that Christ referred to Mosaic writings which 
 ■we do not possess ; or that, like the contemporary Jews and modem Christians, 
 he erroneously ascribed to Moses books which Moses did not write. 
 
 ^ "Ye have heard that it has been said of old time ;" — "Moses, for the 
 hardness of your hearts, suffered you to put away your wives," &c., &c. 
 
 * See this whole question most ably treated in the notes to Norton, Genuine- 
 ness of the Gospels, ii. § 7. 
 
INSPIRATION OF THE SCRIPTURES. 11 
 
 Finally, we have the assertion in Paul's Second Epistle to 
 Timothy' (iii. 16), which, though certainly translatable two 
 ways^ either affirms the inspiration of the Hebrew Canon 
 as a whole, or assumes the inspiration of certain portions 
 of it. — On the whole, there can, I think, be little doubt that 
 Christ and his Apostles received the Jewish Scriptures, as 
 they then were, as sacred and authoritative. But till their 
 divine authority is established, it is evident that this, the 
 fifth, ground for believing the inspiration of the Old Tes- 
 tament merges in the Jirst, i. e., the belief of the Jews. 
 
 So far, then, it appears that the only evidence for the In- 
 spiration of the Hebrew Canon is the fact that the Jew^s 
 believed in it.— But we know that they also beheved in the 
 inspiration of other writings ; — that their meaning of the 
 word " Inspiration " differed essentially from that which now 
 prevails; — that their theocratic polity had so interwoven 
 itself with all their ideas, and modified their whole mode of 
 thinking, that almost every mental suggestion, and every 
 act of power, was referred by them directly to a superhuman 
 origin'. — "If" (says Mr. Coleridge) "we take into account 
 the habit, universal with tlie Hebrew Doctors, of referring 
 all excellent or extraordinary things to the Great First 
 Cause, without mention of the proximate and instrumental 
 causes — a striking illustration *of which may be obtained by 
 comparing the narratives of the same event in the Psalms 
 and the Historical Books ;— and if we further reflect that 
 the distinction of the Providential and the Miraculous did 
 not enter into their forms of thinking — at all events not 
 into their mode of conveying their thoughts ; — the language 
 of the Jews respecting the Hagiographa will be found to 
 differ little, if at all, from that oi rehgious persons _ among 
 ourselves, when speaking of an author abounding in gifts, 
 stirred up by the Holy Spirit, writing under the influence 
 
 1 The English, Dutch, and other versions render it, "All Scripture is 
 given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for teaching," &;c., &c. (an ob- 
 viously incorrect rendering, unless it can be shown that y^a.(^n is always used 
 by Paul in reference to the Sacred Jewish Canon exclusively). The Vulgate, 
 Luther, Calmet, the Spanish and Arabic versions, and most of the Fathers, 
 translate it thus : "All divinely inspired writings are also profitable for teach- 
 ing," &c. This is little more than a truism. But Paul probably _ meant, 
 "Do not despise the Old Testament, because you have the Spirit ; unce you 
 hiow it was inspired, you ought to be able to make it profitable, "' &c. 
 
 2 De Wette, i. 39. 
 
12 TPIE CKEED OF CHEISTENDOM. 
 
 of special grace, and tlie like."' — We know, moreover, that 
 the Mahometans believe in the direct inspiration of the 
 Koran as iirmly as ever did the Hebrews in that of their 
 sacred books ; and that in matters of such mighty import 
 the belief of a special nation can be no safe nor adequate 
 foundation for our own. — The result of this investigation, 
 therefore, is, that the popular doctrine of the inspiration, 
 divine origin, and consequent unimpeachable accuracy and 
 infallible autho]-ity of the Old Testament Scriptures, rests 
 on no foundation ivliatever — unless it shall subsequently 
 appear that Christ and his Apostles affirmed it, and had 
 means of knowing it and judging of it, superior to and 
 independent of those possessed by the Jews of their time. 
 
 I have purposely abstained in this j^lace from noticing 
 those considerations which directly negative the doctrine in 
 question ; both because many of these will be more suitably 
 introduced in subsequent chapters, and because, if a doctrine 
 is shown to be without foundation or '^///proved, disproof \^ 
 superfluous. — In conclusion, let us carefully note that this 
 inquiry has related solely to the divine origin and infallible 
 authority of the Sacred Writings, and is entirely distinct 
 from the question as to the substantial truth of the narrative 
 and the correctness of the doctrine they contain — a question 
 to be decided by a different method of inquiry. Though 
 wholly uninspired, they may transmit narratives, faithful in 
 the main, of God's dealings with man, and may be records 
 of a real and authentic revelation.— All we have yet made 
 out is this : that the mere fact of finding any statement 
 or dogma in the Hebrew Scriptures is no sufficient proof or 
 adequate warranty that it came from God. 
 
 It is not easy to discover the grounds on which the 
 popular belief in the inspiration, or divine origin, of the 
 New Testament Canon, as a whole, is based. Probably, 
 when analysed, they will be found to be the following. 
 
 I. That the Canonical Books were selected from the un- 
 canonical or apocryphal, by the early Christian Fathers, 
 ^s\\o must be supposed to have had ample means of judg- 
 ing ; and that the inspiration of these writings is affirmed 
 by them. 
 
 II. That it is natural to imagine that God, in sending 
 
 ^ Letters on Inspiration, p. 21. 
 
INSPIRATrON OF THE SCRIPTURES. 13 
 
 into the World a Eevelation intended for all times and 
 all lands, should provide for its failhi'ul record and trans- 
 mission by inspiring the transmitters and recorders. 
 
 III. That the Apostles, ^vhose unquestioned writings form 
 a large portion of the Canon, distinctly affirm their own 
 inspiration ; and that this inspiration was distinctly pro- 
 mised them by Christ. 
 
 IV. That the Contents of the New Testament are their 
 own credentials, and by their sublime tone and character, 
 proclaim their superhuman origin. 
 
 V. That the inspiration of most of the writers may be 
 considered as attested by the miracles they wrought, or had 
 the power of working, 
 
 I. The writings which compose the volume called by us 
 the New Testament, had assumed their present collective 
 form, and were generally received throughout the Christian 
 Churches, about the end of the second century. They were 
 selected out of a number of others ; but by whom they w^ere 
 selected, or what principle guided the selection, history 
 leaves in doubt. We have reason to believe that in several 
 instances, writings were selected or rejected, not from a 
 consideration of the external or traditional evidence of their 
 genuineness or antiquity, but from the supposed heresy or 
 orthodoxy of the doctrines they contained. We find, more- 
 over, that the early Fathers disagreed among themselves in 
 their estimate of the genuineness and authority of many of 
 the books' ; that some of them received books which we ex- 
 clude, and excluded others which we admit; — while we have 
 good reason to believe that some of the rejected writings, as 
 the Gospel of the Hebrews, and that for the Egyptians, and 
 the Epistles of Clement and Barnabas, have at least as 
 much title to be placed in the sacred Canon as some already 
 there— the Epistle to the Hebrews, and those of Peter and 
 Jude, for example. 
 
 It is true that several of the Christian Fathers who lived 
 about the end of the second century, as Ireneeus, TertuUian, 
 
 ^ See the celebrated account of the Canon given by Eusebius, wliere five of 
 our epistles are "disputed ; " — the Apocalypse, which we receive, is by many 
 considered "spurious;" and the Gospel of the Hebrews, which we reject, is 
 stated to have been by many, especially of the Palestinian Christians, placed 
 among the " acknowledged v/ritings." De Wette, i. 76. 
 
14 THE CREED OF CHRISTENDOM. 
 
 and Clement of Alexandria, distinctly affirm the inspiration 
 of the Sacred Writings, as those writings were received, and 
 as that word was understood, by them ^ But we find that 
 they were in the habit of referring to and quoting indis- 
 criminately the Apocryphal, as well as the Canonical Scrip- 
 tures. Instances of this kiod occur in Clement of Rome 
 (a.d. 100), Clement of Alexandria (a.d. 200), and, accord- 
 ing to Jerome, in Ignatius also, who lived about a.d. 107^, 
 Their testimony, therefore, if valid to prove the inspiration 
 of tlie Canonical Scriptures, proves the inspiration of the 
 rejected Scriptures likewise ; and by necessary sequence, 
 proves the error and incompetency of the compilers of the 
 Canon, who rejected them. No one, however, well ac- 
 quainted with the writings of the Fathers, will be of opinion 
 that their judgment in these matters, or in any matters, 
 ought to guide our own '\ 
 
 II. The second argument certainly carries with it, at first 
 sight, an appearance of much weight ; and is we believe with 
 most minds, however unconsciously, the argument which 
 (as Paley expresses it) " does the business." The idea 
 of Gospel inspiration is received, not from any proof that 
 il is so, but from an opinion, or feeling, that it ought to he 
 so. The doctrine arose, not because it was proveable, but 
 because it was wanted. Divines can produce no stronger 
 reason for believing in the inspiration of the Gospel narra- 
 tives, than their own opinion that it is not likely God should 
 have left so important a series of facts to the ordinary 
 chances of History. But on a little reflection it will be 
 obvious that we have no ground whatever for presuming 
 that God will act in this or in that manner under any given 
 circumstances, beyond what previous analogies may furnish ; 
 and in this case no analoga exist. We cannot even form a 
 probable guess a jrriori of His mode of operation ; — but we 
 lind that generally, and indeed in all cases of which we have 
 any certain knowledge, He leaves things to the ordinary 
 action of natural laws ;— and if, therefore, it is " natural" to 
 presume anything at all in this instance, that presumption 
 should be that God did 7iot inspire the New Testament 
 
 » De \Yette, i. G3-66. 
 
 2 Ibid. p. 54, &c. 
 
 3 See Ancient Christianity, by Isaac Tayl )r, passim — for an exposition of 
 what these Fathers could write and believe. 
 
INSPIRATION OF THE SCRIPTURES. 15 
 
 writers, but left them to convey what they saw, heard, or 
 beheved, as their intellectual powers and moral qualities 
 enabled them. 
 
 The Gospels, as professed records of Christ's deeds and 
 words, will be allowed to form the most important portion of 
 the New Testament Collection. — Now, the idea of God 
 having- inspired four different men to write a history of the 
 same transactions — or rather of many different men having 
 undertaken to write such a history, of whom God inspired 
 four only to write correctly, leaving the others to their own 
 unaided resources, and giving us no test by which to dis- 
 tinguish the inspired from the uninspired — certainly appears 
 self-confuting, and anything but '' natural." If the accounts 
 of the same transactions agree, where was the necessity for 
 more than one ? If they differ (as they notoriously do), it is 
 certain that only one can be inspired; — and which is that 
 one ? In all other religions claiming a divine origin, this 
 incongruity is avoided. 
 
 Further, the Gospels nowhere afQrm, or even intimate, 
 their own inspiration^ — a claim to credence, which, had they 
 possessed it, they assuredly Vv^ould not have failed to put 
 forth. Luhe, it is clear from his exordium, had no notion 
 of his own inspiration, but founds his title to take his place 
 among the annalists, and to be listened to as at least equally 
 competent with any of his competitors, on his having been 
 from t]]e first cognizant of the transactions he was about to 
 relate. Nor do the Apostolic writings bear any such testimony 
 to them ; nor could they well do so, having (with the excep- 
 tion of the Epistles of John) been composed previous to them. 
 
 III. When we come to the consideration of the Apostolic 
 writings, the case is diflerent. There are, scattered through 
 these, apparent claims to superhuman guidance and teach- 
 ing, though not any direct assertion of inspiration. It is, 
 however, wortliy of remark that none of these occur in the 
 writings of any of the Apostles who were contemporary 
 with Jesus, and who attended his ministry; — in whom, if 
 in any, might inspiration be expected ; to whom, if to any, 
 
 ^ Dr. Arnold, Christian Life, &c., p. 487, — "I must acknowledge that the 
 Scriptural narratives do not claim this inspiration for themselves." Coleridge, 
 Confessions, &c., p. 16, — "I cannot find any such claim made by these 
 wi'iters, either explicitly or by implication." 
 
]6 THE CREED OF CHRISTENDOM. 
 
 was inspiration promised. It is true that we find in John 
 much dogmatic assertion of being the sole teacher of truth, 
 and much denunciation of all who did not listen submissively 
 to him ; but neither in his epistles nor in those of Peter, 
 James, nor Jude, do we find any claim to special knowledge 
 of truth, or guarantee from error by direct spiritual aid. 
 All assertions of inspiration are, we believe, confined to the 
 epistles of Paul, and may be found in 1 Cor. ii. 10-16. 
 Gal i. 11, 12. 1 Thess. iv. 8. 1 Tim. ii. 7. 
 
 Now, on these passages we have to remark, first, that 
 " having the Holy Spirit," in the parlance of that day, by 
 no means implied our modern idea of inspiration, or any- 
 thing approaching to it ; for Paul often affirms that it was 
 given to many, nay, to most, of the believers, and in differetit 
 degrees^ . Moreover, it is probable that a man who believed 
 he was inspired by God would have been more dogmatic and 
 less argumentative. He w^ould scarcely have run the risk of 
 weakening his revelation by a presumptuous endeavour to 
 prove it ; still less by adducing in its behalf arguments 
 which are often far from being irrefragable. 
 
 Secondly. In two or three passages he makes a marked 
 distinction between what he delivers as his own opinion, 
 and what he speaks by authority : — "' The Lord says, not 
 I ; " — " I, not the Lord ; " — " This I give by permission, not 
 commandment," &c., &c. Hence Dr. Arnold infers", that 
 we are to consider Paul as speaking from inspiration wher- 
 ever he does not warn us that he " speaks as a man." But 
 unfortunately for this argument the Apostle expressly de- 
 clares himself to be " speaking by the word of the Lord," 
 in at least one case wdiere he is manifestly and admittedly 
 in error, viz., in 1 Thess. iv. 15 ; of which we shall speak 
 further in the following chapter. 
 
 Thirdly. The Apostles, all of whom are supposed to be 
 alike inspired, differed among themselves, contradicted, de- 
 preciated, and "withstood" one another''. 
 
 Fourthly. As we showed before in the case of the Old 
 Testament writers, the Apostles' assertion of their own in- 
 
 ^ 1 Cor. xii. S ; and xiv. passim. 
 ^ Christian Course and Chiiracler, pp. 48S-r. 
 
 ^ Gal. ii. 11-14. 2 Pet. iii. 16. Acts xv. e-39. Compare Rom. iii., and 
 G'al. ii. and iii., with James ii. 
 
INSPIRATION OF THE SCRIPTURES. 17 
 
 spiration, even were it ten times more clear and explicit than 
 it is, being tlieir testimony to themselves, could have no 
 weight or validity as evidence. 
 
 But, it will be urged, the Gospels record that Christ pro- 
 mised inspiration to his apostles. — In the first place, Paul 
 was not included in this promise. In the next place, we 
 have already seen that the divine origin of these books is a 
 doctrine for which no ground can be shown ; and their cor- 
 rectness, as records of Christ's words, is still to be esta- 
 bhshed. When, however, we shall have clearly made out 
 that the words promising inspiration were really uttered by 
 Christ, and meant what we interpret them to mean, we shall 
 have brought ourselves into the singular and embarrassing 
 position of maintaining that Christ promised them that 
 tvhich in result they did not possess ; since there can be 
 no degrees of inspiration, in the ordinary and dogmatic 
 sense of the word ; and since the Apostles clearly were not 
 altogether inspired, inasmuch as they fell into mistakes^ 
 disputed, and disagreed among themselves. 
 
 The only one of the New Testament writings which con- 
 tains a clear affirmation of its own inspiration, is the one 
 which in all ages has been regarded as of the most doubtful 
 authenticity — viz., the Apocalypse. It was rejected by many 
 of the earliest Christian authorities. It is rejected by most 
 of the ablest Biblical critics of to-day. Luther, in the pre- 
 face to his translation, inserted a protest against the inspi- 
 ration of the Apocalypse, which protest he solemnly charged 
 every one to prefix, who chose to publish the translation. 
 In this protest one of his chief grounds for the rejection is, 
 the suspicious fact that this writer alone blazons forth his 
 own inspiration. 
 
 IV. The common impression seems to be that the con- 
 tents of the New Testament are their own credentials — 
 that their superhuman excellence attests their divine origin. 
 This may be perfectly true in substance without aftectiug 
 the present question ; since it is evident that the excellence 
 of particular passages, or even of the great mass of pas- 
 sages, in a book, can prove nothing for the divine origin of 
 the whole — unless it can be shown that all the portions 
 of it are indissolubly connected. This or that portion of 
 
 1 The error of Paul about the approaching end of the world was shared by- 
 all the Apostles. James v. 8. 2 Pet. iii. 12. 1 John ii. 18. Jude, verse 18. 
 
18 THE CREED OF CHRISTENDOM. 
 
 its contents may attest by its nature that this or that special 
 portion came from God, but not that the book itself, in- 
 cluding everything in it, had a divine source. A truth, or 
 a doctrine, may be divinely revealed, but humanly recorded, 
 or transmitted by tradition ; and may be mixed up with 
 other things that are erroneous : else the passages of scrip- 
 tural truth contained in a modern sermon would prove the 
 whole sermon inspired and infalHble. 
 
 V. The argument for Inspiration, drawn from the miracu- 
 lous gifts of the alleged recipients of inspiration — a matter 
 to which w^e shall refer when treating of miracles — is thus 
 conclusively met by a recent author : " Shall we say that 
 miracles are an evidence of inspiration in the person who 
 performs them ? And must we accept as infallible every 
 combination of ideas which may exist in his mind ? If we 
 look at this question abstractedly, it is not easy to per- 
 ceive the necessary connection between superhuman 'power 
 
 and superhuman wisdom And when we 
 
 look more closely to the fact, did not the minds of the 
 Apostles retain some errors, long after they had been gifted 
 with supernatural power? Did they not believe in demons 
 occupying the bodies of men and swine ? Did they not 
 expect Christ to assume a worldly sway ? Did not their 
 master strongly rebuke the moral notions and feelings of 
 two of them, who were for calling down fire from Heaven 
 on an offending village ? It is often said that where a man's 
 asseveration of his infallibity is combined with the support 
 of miracles, his inspiration is satisfactorily proved ; and this 
 statement is made on the assumption that God would never 
 confer supernatural power on one who could be guilty of a 
 falsehood. What, then, are we to say respecting Judas and 
 Peter, both of whom had been furnished with the gifts of 
 miracle, and employed them during a mission planned by 
 Christ, and of whom, nevertheless, one became the traitor 
 of the garden, and the other uttered against his Lord three 
 falsehoods in one hour ? " ^ 
 
 So far, then, our inquiry has brought us to this negative 
 conclusion : that we can discover no ground for believing 
 that the Scriptures — i. e. either the Hebrew or the Christian 
 Canonical Writings — are inspired, taking that word in its 
 ordinary acceptation — viz. that they "came from God;" 
 
 1 Rationale of Keligioxis Inquiiy, p. SO. 
 
INSPIRATION OF THE SCRIPTURES. 19 
 
 were dictated or suggested by Him; were supernaturally 
 preserved from error, both as to fact and doctrine ; and must 
 therefore be received in all their parts as authoritative and 
 infaUible. This conclusion is perfectly compatible with the 
 behef that they contain a human record, and in substance, a 
 faithful record, of a divine revelation — a human history, and, 
 in the main, a true history, of the dealings of God with 
 man. But they have become to us, by this conclusion, 
 records, not revelations ;— histories to be investigated like 
 other histories ; — documents of which the date, the author- 
 ship, the genuineness, the accuracy of the text, are to be 
 ascertained by the same j)rinciples of investigation as we 
 apply to other documents. In a word, we are to examine 
 them and regard them, not as the Mahometans regard 
 the Koran, but as Niebuhr regarded Livy, and as Arnold 
 regarded Thucydides— documents out of which the good, 
 the true, the sound, is to be educed. 
 
 c 2 
 
CHAPTER 11. 
 
 MODERN MODIFICATIONS OF THE DOCTRINE OF 
 INSPIRATION. 
 
 The question examined in the last chapter ^vas not "Do 
 the sacred writings contain the words of inspired truth ? " 
 but, '^ Are the writings themselves so inspired as to contain 
 nothing else?^ Are they supernaturally guaranteed from 
 error ? " It is clear that these questions are perfectly dis- 
 tinct. God may send an inspired message to man, but it 
 does not necessarily follow that the record or tradition of 
 that message is inspired also. 
 
 We must here make a remark, which, if carefully borne 
 in mind through the discussion, will save much misappre- 
 hension and much misrepresentation. The word Inspiration 
 is used, and may, so far as etymology is concerned, be fairly 
 used, in two very different senses. It may be used to sig- 
 nify that elevation of all the spiritual faculties by the action 
 of God upon the heart, which is shared by all devout minds, 
 though in different degrees, and which is consistent with 
 infinite error. This is the sense in which it appears to have 
 been used by both the Jews and Pagans of old. This is 
 the sense in which it is now used by those who, abandoning 
 the doctrine of Biblical Inspiration as ordinarily held, are 
 yet unwilling to renounce the use of a word defensible in 
 itself, and hallowed to them by old associations. Or it may 
 be used to signify that direct revelation, or infusion of ideas 
 and infomiation into the understanding of man by the 
 Spirit of God, which involves and impHes infalhble correct- 
 ness. This is the sense in which the word is now used in 
 the ordinary parlance of Christians, whenever the doctrine 
 of BibHcal Inspiration is spoken of; — and it is clear that in 
 this signification only can it possess any dogmatic value, i. e. 
 can form the basis of dogmas which are to be received as 
 
MODIPICATIONS OF THE DOCTRINE. 21 
 
 authoritative, hecause taught in or fairly deduced from the 
 Scriptures. It is only by establishing this sense of the 
 word as the correct one, that divines are entitled to speak of 
 the Bible, or to use it in controversy, as the " Word of 
 God." To estabhsh the doctrine of " Bibhcal Inspiration/' 
 by using the tvord in the Jirst se?ise, and then to employ 
 that doctrine, using the word in its second sense, is an 
 unworthy shift, common among theologians as disingenuous 
 as shallow. 
 
 Now we entirely subscribe to the idea involved in the first, 
 and what we will call the poetical, sense of the word Inspi- 
 ration ; but we object to the use of the word, because it is 
 sure to be understood by the world of Readers in the second 
 and vernacular sense; and confusion and fallacy must be the 
 inevitable result. 
 
 The ordinary theory of inspiration prevalent throughout 
 Christendom — viz., that every statement of fact contained in 
 the Scriptures is true; that every view of duty, every idea of 
 God, therein asserted, " came from God," in the ordinary 
 and unequivocal sense of that expression, i. e. was directly 
 and supernaturally taught by God to the man who is said to 
 have received the communication — we have discovered to be 
 groundless, and we believe to be untenable. Though still 
 the ostensible doctrine, and the basis on which some of the 
 most difficult portions of the popular theology are reared, it 
 has, however, been found so indefensible by acute reasoners 
 and honest divines, that — unwilling to abandon it, yet 
 unable to retain it — they have modified and subtihzed it into 
 every shade and variety of meaning — and no-meaning. We 
 propose, in this chapter, to examine one or two of the most 
 plausible modifications which have been suggested ; to show 
 that they are all as untenable as the original one ; and that, 
 in fact, any modification of the doctrine amounts to a denial 
 of it. "It is, indeed," says Coleridge, " the peculiar cha- 
 racter of this doctrine, that you cannot diminish or qualify, 
 but you reverse it." 
 
 Two of the most remarkable men of our times, Coleridge 
 and Arnold— one the most subtle thinker, the other the 
 most honest theologian of the age — have, while admitting 
 the untenableness of the common theory of Inspiration, left 
 us a statement of that which their own minds substituted for 
 
22 THE CREED OF CHRISTENDOM. 
 
 it, aud whicb, in our opinion, is equivalent to a negation of 
 it. The attempt, though made in the one ease with great 
 fairness, and in the other with great acuteness, thus at once 
 to affirm and deny a proposition, has naturally communi- 
 cated a vagueness and inconsistency to their language, which 
 makes it very difficult to grasp their meaning with precision. 
 We will, however, quote their own words. 
 
 Dr. Arnold writes thus^ : — "Most truly do I heheve the 
 Scriptures to he inspired ; the proofs of their inspiration 
 grow with the study of them. The Scriptural narratives are 
 not only about divine things, hi/t are themselves divinely 
 framed and superintended. I cannot conceive my convic- 
 tion of this truth being otherwise than sure." (Here, surely, 
 is as distinct an affirmation of the popular doctrine as could 
 be desired.) He continues : — " Consider the Epistles of the 
 blessed Apostle Paul, who had the Spirit of God so abun- 
 dantly that never, we may suppose, did any merely human 
 being enjoy a larger share of it. Endowed with the Spirit 
 as a Christian, and daily receiving grace more largely as he 
 became more and more ripe for glory, .... favoured also 
 with an abundance of revelations disclosing to him things 
 ineffable and inconceivable— are not his writings most truly 
 to be called inspired ? Can we doubt that in what he has 
 told us of things not seen, or not seen as yet, .... he 
 spoke what he had heard from God ; and that to refuse to 
 believe his testimony is really to disbeheve God ? " Can 
 any statement of the popular doctrine be more decided or 
 unshrinking than this ? Yet he immediately afterwards 
 says, in reference to one of St. Paul's most certain aiid 
 often-repeated statements (regarding the approaching end of 
 the world), '' we may safely and reverently say that St. 
 Paul, in this instance, entertained and expressed a belief 
 which the event did not justify." '^ Now put these state- 
 ments together, and we shall see that Dr. Arnold affirms, as 
 a matter not to be doubted by any reasonable mind, that 
 when St. Paul speaks of certain things (of God, of Christ, 
 
 1 Christian Course and Character, pp. 4S6-490. 
 
 - It is particularly worthy of remark (and seems to have heen most unac- 
 countably and entirely overlooked by Dr. Arnold throughout his argument), 
 that, in the assertion of this erroneous belief, St. Paul expressly declares him- 
 self to be speaking "by the Word of the Lord."— 1 Thess. ir. 15. 
 
MODIFICATIONS OF THE DOCTEINE. 23 
 
 and of the last day) ^, he is telling us what he heard from 
 God, and that to doubt him is to disbelieve God; yet, when 
 he is speaking of other things {one of these things leing 
 that very " last great day " of which he had " heard from 
 God ") he may safely be admitted to be mistaken. What 
 is this but to say, not only that portions of the Scripture are 
 from God, and other portions are from man — that some 
 j)arts are inspired, and others are not — but that, of the very 
 same letter by the very same Apostle, some portions are 
 inspired, and others are not — and that Dr. Arnold and every 
 man must judge for himself ivhich are tvhich — must sepa- 
 rate by his own skill the divine from the human assertions in 
 the Bible ? Now a book cannot, in any decent or intelli- 
 gible sense, be said to be inspired, or carry with it the 
 authority of being — scarcely even of containing — God's 
 word, if only j)ortions come from Him, and there exists no 
 plain and infallible sign to indicate which these portions are 
 — if the same writer, in the same tone, may give us in one 
 verse a revelation from the Most High, and in tl^e next a 
 blunder of his own. How can we be certain that the very 
 texts upon which we most rest our views, our doctrines, our 
 liopes'^, are not the human and uninspired portion ? What 
 can he the meaning or nature of an inspiration to teach 
 Truth y ivhich does not guarantee its recipient from teach- 
 ing error ^ Yet Dr. Arnold tell us that " the Scriptures ar^ 
 not only inspired, but divinely framed and superintended ! " 
 
 Dr. Arnold then proceeds to give his sanction to what we 
 must consider as the singular fallacy contained in the Jewish 
 notion, about different degrees of inspiration'^. " It is an 
 unwarrantable interpretation of the word," he thinks, " to 
 mean by an inspired work, a work to which God has com- 
 municated his own perfections, so that the slightest eriui 0£ 
 defect of any kind in it is inconceivable .... Surely m&ny 
 
 1 His precise words are these : — " Can any reasonable mind doul>t that in 
 what he has told us of ... . Him who pre-existed in the foi'm of Grod before 
 he was manifested in the form of man — of that great day when we shall arise 
 nncorruptible, and meet our Lord in the air — he spoke what he had heard 
 from God," &c., &c. Notes, p. 488. 
 
 ^ It is certain that many of the early Christians, readers of St. Paul's 
 epistles, did rest many of their hopes, and much of the courage which carried 
 them through martyrdom, on the erroneous notions as to the immediate 
 coming of Christ, conveyed in such texts as 1 Thess. iv. 15, and then 
 generally prevalent. 
 
 3 Notes, pp. 486, 487. 
 
24: THE CREED OF CHRISTENDOM. 
 
 of our words and many of our actions are spoken and done 
 by the inspiration of God's spirit, without whom we can do 
 nothing acceptable to God. Yet does the Holy Spirit so 
 inspire us as to communicate to us his own perfections ? 
 Are our best words or works utterly free from error or from 
 sin ? All inspiration does not then destroy the human and 
 falhble part in the nature which it inspires ; it does not 
 change man into God. — With one man, indeed, it was other- 
 wise ; but He was both God and man. To Him the Spirit 
 was given without measure ; and as his life was without sin, 
 so his words were without error. But to all others the Spirit 
 has been given by measure ; in almost infinitel)f different 
 measure it is true : — the difference between the inspiration 
 of the common and perhaps unworthy Christian who merely 
 said that * Jesus was the Lord,' and that of Moses, or St. 
 Paul, or St. John, is almost to our eyes beyond measuring. 
 Still the position remains that the highest degree of inspira- 
 tion given to man has still suffered to exist along with it 
 a portion of human fallibility and corruption." 
 
 Now if Dr. Arnold chooses to assume, as he appears to 
 do, that every man who acknowledges Jesus to be the Christ, 
 is inspired, after a fashion, and means, by the above passage, 
 simply to affirm that Paul and John were inspired, just as 
 all great and good minds are inspired, only in a superior 
 degree, proportioned to their superior greatness and good- 
 ness — then neither we, nor any one, will think it worth 
 while to differ with him. But then to glide, as he does, into 
 the ordinary and vernacular use of the word i/?sjn?'aiw?i, 
 is a misuse of language, and involves the deception and 
 logical fallacy, against which we have already warned our 
 readers, of obtaining assent to a doctrine by employing a 
 word in its philosophical or etymological sense, and then 
 applying that assent to a doctrine involving the use of the 
 word in its vernacular sense. A statement or dogma came 
 from God, or it did not. If it came from God, it must be 
 infallible ; — if it did not, it must be fallible, and may be false. 
 It cannot be both at the same time. We cannot conceive 
 of a statement coming from God in different degrees — 
 being a little inspired by Him — being more or less inspired 
 by Him. Unquestionably He has given to men different de- 
 grees of insight into truth, by giving them different degrees 
 of capacity, and placing them in circumstances favourable 
 
MODIFICATIONS OF THE DOCTRINE. 25 
 
 in different degrees to the development of those capacities ; 
 but by the inspiratio7i of a book or proposition we mean 
 something very distinct from this ; and to fritter away the 
 popular doctrine to this, is tantamount to a direct negation 
 of it, and should not be disguised by subtilties of language. 
 
 Coleridge's view of Biblical Inspiration is almost as diffi- 
 cult to comprehend as Dr. Arnold's, for though his reasoning 
 is more exact, his contradictions seem to us as irreconcilable. 
 His denial of the doctrine of plenary inspiration is as direct 
 as can be expressed in language. " The doctrine of the 
 Jewish Cabbalists," says he', " will be found to contain the 
 only intelhgible and consistent idea of that plenary inspira- 
 tion which later Divines extend to all the canonical books; 
 as thus: — 'The Pentateuch is but one word, even the Word 
 of God ; and the letters and articulate sounds by which this 
 Word is communicated to our human apprehensions, are 
 likewise divinely communicated.' Now for ' Pentateuch,' 
 substitute ' Old and New Testament,' and then I say that 
 this is the doctrine which I reject as superstitious and un- 
 scriptural. And yet as long as the conceptions of the 
 Eevealing W^ord and the Inspiring Spirit are identified and 
 confounded, I assert that wTiatever says less than this, says 
 little mxore than nothing. Eor how can absolute infaUibility 
 be blended with fallibihty ? Where is the infaUible criterion ? 
 And how can infallible truth be infallibly conveyed in de- 
 fective and fallible expressions?" 
 
 This is the very argument we have used above, and which 
 the wTiter we are quoting repeats elsewhere in that clear and 
 terse language which conveys irresistible conviction ~ : — "The 
 Doctrine in question requires me to beheve, that not only 
 w^hat finds me, but that all that exists in the sacred volume, 
 and which I am bound to find therein, was not only inspired 
 by, that is, composed by men under the actuating influence 
 ot" the Holy Spirit, but Hkewise dictated by an Infallible 
 Intelligence;— that the Writers, each and all, were divinely 
 informed as well as inspired. Now, here all evasion, all 
 
 excuse is cut off In Infallibility there can be no 
 
 degrees." 
 
 It is not easy to conceive under wdiat modification, or by 
 what subtile misuse of language, Mr. Coleridge can hold a 
 
 ^ Letters on Inspiration, p. 19. ^ Ibid. pp. 13, 18. 
 
26 THE CREED OF CHRISTENDOM. 
 
 doctrine which, in its broad and positive expression, he de- 
 clares to be " ensnaring, thorny, superstitious, and iinscrip- 
 tural," and which, in any less broad and positive expression, 
 he declares "says little more than nothing." We shall see, 
 however, that his notion of Biblical Inspiration resolves it- 
 self into this : — that whatever in the Bible he thinks suitable, 
 whatever he finds congenial, whatever coalesces and harmo- 
 nizes with the in?ie7' and the prio?' Light, that he conceives 
 to be inspired — and that alone. In other words, his idea is, 
 that portions of the Bible, and portions only, are inspired, 
 and those portions are such as approve themselves to his 
 reason. The test of inspiration to Mr. Coleridge is, accord- 
 ance with his own feelings and conceptions. We do not 
 object to this test — further than that it is arbitrary, varying, 
 individual, and idiosyncratic : — We merely affirm that it 
 involves a use of the w^ord " Inspiration," which to common 
 understandings is a deception and a mockery. His remarks 
 are these' : — 
 
 *' There is a Light higher than all, even the Word that 
 was in the beginning ; — the Light, of which light itself is 
 but the shechinah and cloudy tabernacle ; — the Word that 
 is light for every man, and life for as many as give heed to 
 
 it Need I say that, in perusing the Old and New 
 
 Testaments, I have met everywhere more or less copious 
 sources of truth, power, and purifying impulses; — that I 
 have found w^ords for my inmost thoughts, songs for my joy, 
 utterances for my hidden griefs, and pleadings for my shame 
 and feebleness ? In short, whatever finds me bears witness 
 for itself that it has proceeded from a Holy Spirit, even 
 from the same Spirit ' which, remaining in itself, yetregene- 
 rateth all other powers, and in all ages entering into 
 holy souls, maketh them friends of God and Prophets.' 
 {Wisdom vii.) .... In the Bible there is more \h^\. fields 
 me than I have experienced in all other books together; 
 the w^ords of the Bible find me at greater depths of my 
 being; and whatever finds me brings with *it irresistible 
 evidence of having proceeded from the Holy Spirit." '^ 
 
 Need we pause to point out what a discreditable tamper- 
 
 ^ Letters on Inspiration, pp. 9, 10, 13. 
 
 - See also, p. 61, where he says (addressing a sceptic), "Whatever you find 
 therein coincident with your pre-established couvictions, you will, of course, 
 recognize as the Revealed Word " (!) 
 
MODIFICATIONS OF THE DOCTRINE. 27 
 
 ing with the truthful use of language is here ? Of how- 
 many hundred books may the same not be said, though in 
 a less degree? In Milton, in Shakespeare, in Plato, in 
 ^jschylus, in Mad. de Stael, aye, even in Byron and 
 Eousseau, who is there that has not found '* words for his 
 inmost thoughts, songs for his joy, utterance for his griefs, 
 and pleadings for his shame ? " Yet, would Mr. Coleridge 
 excuse us for calling these authors inspired ? And if he 
 would, does he not know that the alleged inspiration of the 
 Scriptures means something not only very superior to, but 
 totally different from, this ? 
 
 It is necessary to recall to our readers, what Coleridge 
 seems entirely to have lost sight of — that the real, present, 
 practical question to be solved is, not '^ Are we to admit that 
 all which suits us, * finds us,' ^ agrees with our pre-established 
 convictions,' came from God, and is to be received as re- 
 vealed truth ? " hut^ " Are we to receive all we find in the 
 Bible as authoritative and inspired, though it should shock 
 our feehngs, confound our understandings, contradict our 
 previous convictions, and violate our moral sense ? " Tlds 
 is the proposition held by the popular and orthodox 
 Theology. This is the only Bibhcal question; the other is 
 commensurate with all literature, and all life. 
 
 Mr. Coleridge rests his justification for what seems to us 
 a slippery, if not a positively disingenuous, use of language, 
 on a distinction which he twice lays down in his " Confes- 
 sions," between " Eevelation by the Eternal Word, and 
 Actuation by the Holy Spirit." Now, if by the " Holy 
 Spirit," Mr. Coleridge means a Spirit teaching truth, or 
 supernaturally conferring the power of perceiving it, his 
 distinction is one which no logician can for a moment admit. 
 If by the " Holy Spirit," he means a moral, not an intellec- 
 tual, influence; if he uses the word to signify godhness, 
 piety, the elevation of the spiritual faculties by the action 
 of God upon the heart; — then he is amusing himself, and 
 deluding his readers by " paltering with them in a double 
 sense ; " — for this influence has not the remotest reference 
 to what the popular theology means by "inspiration." The 
 most devout, holy, pious men are, as we know, constantly 
 and grievously in error. The question asked by inquirers, 
 and answered affirmatively by the current theology of Chris- 
 tendom, is, "Did God so confer his Spirit upon the Biblical 
 
28 THE CREED OF CHRISTENDOM. 
 
 Writers as to teacli them truth, and save them from 
 error ? " If He did, theirs is the teaching of God ; — if not, 
 it is the teaching of man. There can be no medium, and 
 no evasion. It cannot be partly the one, and partly the 
 other. 
 
 The conclusion of our examination, so far as conducted, 
 is of infinite importance. It may be stated thus : — 
 
 The Inspiration of the Scriptures appears to be a doc- 
 trine not only untenable, but without foundation, if we 
 understand the term " Inspiration " in its ordinary accepta- 
 tion ; and in no other acceptation has it, when applied to 
 writings, any intelligible signification at all. The mere 
 circumstance, therefore, of fiuding a statement or doctrine 
 in the Bible, is no proof that it came from God, nor any 
 sufficient warrant for our implicit and obedient recep- 
 tion of it. Admitting, as a matter yet uu decided, because 
 uninvestigated, that the Bible contains much that came 
 from God, we have still to separate the divine from the 
 human portions of it. 
 
 The present position of this question in the public mind 
 of Christendom is singularly anomalous, fluctuating, and 
 unsound. The doctrine of Biblical Inspiration still obtains 
 general credence, as part and parcel of the popular theology; 
 and is retained, as a sort of tacit assumption, by the great 
 mass of the religious world, though abandoned as untenable 
 by their leading thinkers and learned men ; — many of whom, 
 however, retain it in name, while surrenderiug it in sub- 
 stance ; and do not scruple, while admitting it to be an 
 error, to continue the use of language justifiable only on the 
 supposition of its truth. Nay, further ;— with a deplorable 
 and mischievous inconsistency, they abandon the doctrine, 
 but retain the deductions and corollaries which flowed from 
 . it, and from it alone. They insist upon making the super- 
 structure survive the foundation. They refuse to give up 
 possession of the property, though tlie title by which they 
 hold it has been proved and is admitted to be invalid. 
 
CHAPTEE III. 
 
 AUTHORSHIP AND AUTHORITY OF THE PENTATEUCH, AND 
 
 THE OLD TESTAMENT CANON GENERALLY. 
 
 • 
 
 The next comprehensive proposition which our Inquirer 
 finds at the root of the popular theology, commanding a 
 tacit and almost unquestioned assent, is this : — That the 
 Old Testament narratives contain an authentic and faithful 
 History of the actual dealings of God with man ; — that the 
 events which they relate took place as therein related, and 
 were recorded by well-informed and veracious writers ; — that 
 wherever God is represented as visiting and speaking to 
 Adam, Noah, Abraham, Moses, Samuel, and others, he did 
 really so appear and communicate his will to them ; — that 
 the ark, as built by Noah, was constructed under the de- 
 tailed directions of the Architect of all Worlds ; that the 
 Law, as contained in the Pentateuch, was delivered to Moses 
 and written down by him under the immediate dictation of 
 Jehovah, and the proceedings of the Israelites minutely and 
 specifically directed by him ; — that in a word, the Old Tes- 
 tament is a literal and veracious history, not merely a 
 national legend or tradition. This fundamental branch of 
 the popular theology also includes the behef that the Books 
 of Moses were written by Moses, the book of Joshua by 
 Joshua, and so on ; and further that the Prophetical Books, 
 and the predictions contained in the Historical Books, are 
 bona fide Prophecies — genuine oracles from .the mouth of 
 God, uttered through the medium of his servants, whom at 
 various times He instructed to make known his will and 
 institutions to his chosen People. 
 
 That this is the popular belief in which we are all brought 
 up, and on the assumption of which the ordinary language 
 of Divines and the whole tone of current rehgious hterature 
 proceeds, no one will entertain a doubt ; and that it has not 
 
30 THE CREED OF CHRISTENDOM. 
 
 "been often broadly laid down or much defended, is attri- 
 "butable to the circumstance, that, among Christians, it has 
 rarely been directly questioned or openly attacked. The 
 proposition seems to have been assumed on the one side, 
 and conceded on the other, with equally inconsiderate 'ease. 
 
 Now, be it observed that if the Hebrew Narratives bore, 
 on the face of tliem, an historical rather than a legendary 
 character, and were in themselves probable, natural, and 
 consistent, we might accept them as substantially true with- 
 out much extraneous testimony, on the ground of their 
 antiquity alone. And if the conceptions of the Deity 
 therein developed were pure, •\^^orthy, and consistent with 
 ■what W'C learn of Him from reason and experience, we might 
 not feel disposed to doubt the reality of the words and acts 
 attributed to Him. But so far is this from being the 
 case, that the narratives, eminently legendary in their tone, 
 are full of the most astounding, improbable, and perplexing 
 statements ; and the representations of God which the Books 
 contain, are often monstrous, and utterly at variance with 
 all the teachings of Nature and of Christianity. Under 
 these circumstances, we, of course, require some sufficient 
 reason for acceding to such difficult propositions, and re- 
 ceiving the Hebrew Narratives as authentic and veracious 
 Histories ; and the only reason oH'ered to us is that the 
 Jews believed them^. 
 
 But we remember that the Greeks believed the Legends 
 in Herodotus, and the Komans the figments in Livy — and 
 that the Jews were at least as credulous and as nationally 
 vain as either. We need, therefore, some better sponsors 
 for our creed. 
 
 If, indeed, we were only required to accept the authority 
 of the Jews for the belief that they sprung from Abraham, 
 
 ^ Even tliis, however, must be taken cum, (jrano. The Jews do not seem, to 
 have invariably accepted the historical naiTatives in the same precise and 
 literal sense as we^lo. Josephus, or the traditions v/hich were current among 
 his countrymen, took strange liberties with the Mosaic accounts. There is a 
 remarkable difference between his account of Abraham's dissimulation with, 
 regard to his wife, and the same transaction in Grenesis xx. — IMoreover, he 
 explains the passage of the Red Sea as a natui-al, not a miraculous event ; 
 and many similar discrepancies might be mentioned. See De Wette, ii. 42. 
 
 Observe also the liberty which Ezekiel considered himself warranted in 
 taking with the ]\Iosaic doctrine that God v^dll visit the sins of tire fathers 
 upon the children (c. xviii. passim), a liberty scarcely compatible with a belief 
 on his part that such doctrine was, as alleged, divinely announced. 
 
AUTHORSHIP OF THE OLD TESTAMENT CANON. 31 
 
 -were captives in Egypt, received a complete code of Laws 
 and system of theocratic polity from Moses, conquered 
 Canaan, and committed manifold follies, frauds, and cruel- 
 ties in their national career— we might accede to the demand 
 without much recalcitration. But we are called on to admit 
 something very different from this. We are required to 
 believe that Jehovah, the Ruler of all Worlds, the Pure, 
 Spiritual, Supreme, Ineffable, Creator of the Universe — Our 
 Father who is in Heaven — so blundered in the creation of 
 man, as to repent and grieve, and find it necessary to 
 destroy His own work — selected one favoured people from 
 the rest of His children — sanctioned fraud — commanded 
 cruelty — contended, and long in vain, with the magic of 
 other Gods— w^restled bodily with one patriarch — ate cakes 
 and veal with another — sympathised with and shared in 
 human passions — and manifested " scarcely one untainted 
 moral, excellence " ; — and we are required to do this painful 
 violence to our feelings and our understandings, simply 
 because these coarse conceptions prevailed some thousand 
 years ago among a People whose history, as written by 
 themselves, is certainly not of a nature to inspire us with 
 any extraordinary confidence in their virtues or their intel- 
 lect. They were the conceptions prevalent among the 
 Scribes and Pharisees, whom Jesus denounced as dishonour- 
 ers of religion and corrupters of the Law, and who cru- 
 cified him for endeavouring to elevate them to a purer faith. 
 
 It is obvious, then, that we must seek for some other 
 ground for accepting the earlier Scriptural narratives as 
 genuine histories ; — and we are met in our search by the 
 assertion that the Books containing the statements which 
 have staggered us, and the theism which has shocked us, 
 •were written by the great Lawgiver of the Jews — by the 
 very man whom God commissioned to liberate and organize 
 His peculiar People. If indeed the Pentateuch was written 
 by that same Moses whose doings it records, the case is 
 materially altered ; — it is no longer a traditional or legendary 
 narrative, but a history by an actor and a contemporary, that 
 Ave have before us. Even this statement, however, were it 
 made out, would not cast its segis over the Book of Genesis, 
 which records events from four to twenty-five centuries 
 before the time of Moses. 
 
 But when we proceed to the investigation of this point, 
 
32 THE CREED OF CHRISTENDOM. 
 
 we discover, certainly much to our surprise, not only that 
 there is no independent evidence for the assertion that 
 Moses wrote the books which bear his name — but that we 
 have nearly all the proof which the case admits of, that he 
 did not write them\ and that they were not composed — at 
 all events did not attain their present form — till some hun- 
 dreds of years after his death. It is extremely difficult to 
 lay the grounds of this proposition before general readers — 
 especially English readers — in a form at once concise and 
 clear ; as they depend upon the results of a species of scien- 
 tific criticism, with which, though it joroceeds on esta- 
 blished and certain principles, very few in this country, even 
 of our educated classes, are at all acquainted. In the con- 
 clusions arrived at by this scientific process, unlearned stu- 
 dents must acquiesce as they do in those of Astronomy, or 
 Philology, or Geology; — and all that can be done is to give 
 them a very brief glimpse of the mode of inquiry adopted, 
 and the kind of proof adduced : this we shall do as con- 
 cisely and as intelligibly as we can; and we will endeavour 
 to state nothing which is not considered as established, by 
 men of the highest eminence in this very difficult branch of 
 intellectual research. 
 
 The discovery in the Temple of the Book of the Law, in 
 the reign of the King Josiah, about B.C. 624, as related in 
 2 Kings xxii., is the first certain trace of the existence of 
 the Pentateuch in its present form'. That if this, the Book 
 of the Law of Moses, existed before this time, it was 
 generally unknown, or had been quite forgotten, appears 
 from the extraordinary sensation the discovery excited, and 
 from the sudden and tremendous reformation immediately 
 commenced by the pious and alarmed Monarch, with a view 
 
 1 "After coming to these results," says De "\Yette, ii. 160, " we find no 
 ground and no evidence to show that the books of the Pentateuch were com- 
 posed by Moses. Some consider him their author, merely from traditionary 
 custom, because the Jews were of this opinion ; though it is not certain that 
 the more ancient Jews shared it ; for the expressions ' the Book of the Law 
 of Moses,' 'the Book of the Law of Jehovah by the hand of Moses,' only 
 designate him as the author or mediator of the Laic, not as the author of the 
 Book. — The Law is ascribed to 'the Prophets' in 2 Kings xvii. 13, and in 
 Ezra ix. 11. The opinion that Moses composed these books is not only 
 opposed by all the signs of a later date Avhich occur in the Book itself, but 
 also by the entire analogy of the hist 017 of the Hebrew literature and 
 language." 
 
 2 De Wette, ii. 153. _ , .,i 
 
AUTHORSHIP OF THE OLD TESTAMENT CANON. 33 
 
 of carrying into effect the ordinances of this law. — Now we 
 find that when the Temple was built and consecrated by 
 Solomon, and the Ark placed therein (about B.C. 1000), 
 this 'Book of the Law' was not there— iox it is said 
 (1 Kings viii. 9), "There was nothing in the Ark save the 
 two Tables of Stone which Moses put there at Horeb." ^ 
 Yet on turning to Deuteronomy xxxi. 24-2 G, we are told 
 that when Moses had made an end of writing the words of 
 the Law in a book, he said to theLevites, " Take this Book 
 of the Law and put it in the .side of the Ark of the Cove- 
 nant of the Lord your God, that it may be there to witness 
 against you," &c., &c. 
 
 This " Book of the Law" which was found in the Temple 
 in the reign of Josiah (b.c. 024), which was not therein the 
 time of Solomon (b.c. 1000), and which is stated to have 
 been written and placed in the Ark by Moses (b.c. 1450), 
 is almost certainly the one ever afterwards referred to and 
 received as the " Law of God," the "Law of Moses," and 
 quoted as such by Ezra and Nehemiah^. And the only evi- 
 dence we have that Moses was the author of the books 
 found by Josiah, appears to be the passage in Deuteronomy 
 xxxi., above cited. 
 
 But how did it happen that a book of such immeasurable 
 value to the Israelites, on their obedience to which depended 
 all their temporal blessings, which was placed in the sanc- 
 tuary by Moses, and found there by Josiah, was not there 
 in the time of Solomon ? — Must it not have been found 
 there by Solomon, if really placed there by Moses ? for 
 Solomon was as anxious as Josiah to honour Jehovah and 
 enforce his Law"\ In a word, have we any reason for be- 
 lieving that Moses really wrote the Book of Deuteronomy, 
 and placed it in the Ark, as stated therein ? — Critical 
 science answers in the negative. 
 
 1 The same positive statement is repeated 2 Chron. v. 10. 
 
 2 Subsequent references seem especially to refer to Deuteronomy. 
 
 2 Conclusive evidence on this point may, we think, be gathered from 
 Deut. xxxi. 10, where it is commanded that the Law shall be publicly read 
 every seventh year to the people assembled at the Feast of Tabernacles ; and 
 from xvii. 18, where it is ordained that each king on his accession shall write 
 out a copy of the Law. It is impossible to believe that this command, had it 
 existed, would have been neglected by all the pious and good kings Avho sat on 
 the throne of Palestine. It is clear that they had never heard of such a 
 command. 
 
34 THE CREED OF CHRISTENDOM. 
 
 ■ In the first place, Hebrew scholars assure us that the 
 style and language of the Book forbid us to entertain the 
 idea that it was written either by Moses, or near his time ; 
 as they resemble too closely those of the later writers of the 
 Old Testament to admit the supposition that the former be- 
 longed to the 15th, and the latter to the 5th century before 
 Christ. To imagine that the Hebrew language underwent 
 no change, or a vei^ sUght one, during a period of a thousand 
 years — in which the nation underwent vast political, social, 
 and moral changes, with a very great admixture of foreign 
 blood — is an idea antecedently improbable, and is contra- 
 dicted by all analogy. The same remark applies, though 
 with somewhat less force, to the other four books of the 
 Pentateuch\ 
 
 Secondly. It is certain that Moses cannot have been the 
 author of the whole of the Book of Deuteronomy, because 
 it records his own death, c. xxxiv. It is obvious also that 
 the last chapter must have been written not only after the 
 death of Moses, but a long period after, as appears from 
 verse 10. "And there arose not another proj^het since in 
 Israel like unto Moses, whom the Lord knew face to face." 
 Now, there are no critical signs of style or language which 
 would justify the assumption that the last chapter was 
 the production of a different pen, or a later age, than the 
 rest of the Book. 
 
 Thirdly. There are several passages scattered through 
 the Book which speak in the xiast tense of events whicli 
 occurred after the Israelites obtained possession of the land 
 of Canaan, and which must therefore have been written 
 subsequently — probably long subsequently — to that period. 
 For example: "The Horims also dwelt in Seir before time; 
 but the children of Esau succeeded them, when they had 
 destroyed them from before them, and dwelt in their stead ; 
 as Israel did unto the land of his jwsses.^^ion, which the 
 - Lord gave unto them." Deut. ii. 12. ]\: any other ana- 
 chronisms occur, as throughout c. iii., especially verse 14 ; 
 xix. 14 ; xxiv. 1-3 ; ii. 20-23. 
 
 Fi?ially, as we have seen, at xxxi. 26, is a command to 
 place the book of the Law in the Ark, and a statement that 
 it was so placed. Now as it was not in the ark at the time 
 
 ^ De Wette, ii. ICl. 
 
AUTHORSHIP OF THE OLD TESTAMENT CANON. 35 
 
 when the Temple was consecrated, this passage must have 
 been written subsequent to that event. See also verse 
 9-13. 
 
 Now either all these passages must have been subsequent 
 interpolations, or they decide the date of the whole book. 
 But they are too closely interwoven, and too harmoniously 
 coalesce, with the rest, to justify the former supj)osition. 
 We are therefore driven to adopt the conclusion of De 
 Wette and other critics, that the Book of Deuteronomy was 
 written about the time of Josiah, shortly before, and with a 
 view to, the discovery of the Pentateuch in the Temple'. 
 
 With regard to the other four books attributed to Moses, 
 scientific investigation has succeeded in making it quite 
 clear, not only, that they w^ere written long after his time, 
 but that they are a compilation from, or rather an imperfect 
 fusion of, two principal original documents, easily distin- 
 guishable throughout by those accustomed to this species of 
 research, and appearing to have been a sort of legendary or 
 traditionary histories, current among the earlier Hebrews. 
 These two documents (or classes of documents), are called 
 the Elohistic, and Jehovistic, from tlie different Hebrew 
 names they employ in speaking of the Supreme Being; — 
 the one using habitually the word Elohim, which our 
 translation renders God, but which, being plural in the ori- 
 ginal, would be more correctly rendered The Gods; — the 
 other using the word Jehovah, or Jehovah Elohim, The 
 God of Gods — rendered in our translation The LoIvD 
 God'^ 
 
 The existence of two such documents, or of two distinct 
 and often conflicting narratives, running side by side, will be 
 obvious on a very cursory perusal of the Pentateucb, more 
 especially of the Book of Genesis; and the constant recur- 
 rence of these duplicate and discrepant statements renders 
 it astonishing that the books in question could ever have 
 been regarded as one original history, proceeding from one 
 pen. At the very commencement we have separate and 
 varying accounts of the Creation : — the Elohistic one, 
 
 ^ It is worthy of remark that the Book of Joshua (x. 13), quotes the Book 
 of Jasher, which must have been written as late as the time of David 
 (2 Samuel i. IS). See De Wette, ii. 187. 
 
 2 There are, however, other distinctive marks. De Wette, ii. 77. Bauer, 
 Theol. d.es Alt. Test. c. ii. § 1. 
 
 D % 
 
36 THE CREED OF CHRISTENDOM. 
 
 extending from Gen. i.-ii. 8, magnificent, simple, and 
 sublime, describing the formation of the animate and inani- 
 mate world by the fiat of the Almighty, and the making of 
 man, male and female, in the image of God— but preserving 
 a total silence respecting the serpent, the apple, and the 
 expulsion from the Garden of Eden ; — the other, or Jeho- 
 vistic, extending from Gen. ii. 4-iii. 24, giving a different 
 account of the formation of man and woman— describing 
 the Garden of Eden with its four river^, one flowing into 
 the Persian Gulf, and another surrounding Ethiopia^ — 
 narrating the temptation, the sin, and the curse, and adding 
 a number of minute and puerile details, bespeaking the con- 
 ceptions of a rude and early age, such as God teaching Adam 
 and Eve to make coats of skins in lieu of the garments 
 of fig leaves they had contrived for themselves. 
 
 The next comparison of the two documents presents 
 discrepancies almost equally great. The document Elohim, 
 Gen. V. 1-32, gives simply the Genealogy from Adam to 
 Noah, giving Seth as the name of Adam's firstborn son; — 
 whereas the document Jehovah, Gen. iv. 1-26, gives Cain 
 as the name of Adam's firstborn, and Seth as that of his 
 last^. Shortly after we have two slightly- varying accounts 
 of the flood; one being contained in vi. 9-22 ; vii. 11-16, 
 18-22; viii. 1-19; the other comprising vi. 1-8; vii. 
 7-10, 17, 23. 
 
 We will specify only one more instance of the same event 
 twice related with obvious and irreconcilable discrepancies, 
 viz. the seizure of Sarah in consequence of Abraham's timid 
 falsehood. The document Elohim (Gen. xx.) places the 
 occurrence in Gerar, and makes Abimelech the offender — 
 the document Jehovah (xii. 10-19), places it in Egypt, and 
 
 * CusL, or "the land of swaithy men." 
 
 2 "There is," says Theodore Parker, " a striking similarity between the 
 names of the alleged descendants of Adam and Enos (according to the Elohim 
 document the grandson of Adam). It is to be remembered that both names 
 signify Mem. 
 
 I. II. 
 
 1. Adam. 1. Enos. The reader may draw 
 
 2. Cain. 2. Cainan. his own inferences from 
 
 3. Enoch. 3. Mahalaleel. this, or see those of Butt- 
 
 4. Irad. 4. Jared. mann, in his Mythologus 
 
 5. Mehujael. 5. Enoch. I. c. vii. p. 171. 
 
 6. IMethnsael. 6. Methusaleh. 
 
 7. Lamech. (Gen. iv. 17-19.) 7. Lamech. (Gen. v. 9-25.)" 
 
 Seo also on this matter, Kenrick on Primeval History, p. 59. 
 
AUTHORSHIP OF THE OLD TESTAMENT CANON. 37 
 
 makes Pharaoh the offender ; whilst the same document 
 again (xxvi. 1-11), narrates the same occurrence, represent- 
 ing Abimelech as the offender and Gerar as the locality, but 
 changing the persons of the deceivers from Abraham and 
 Sarah, to Isaac and Rebekah. 
 
 Examples of this kind might be multiplied without end; 
 which clearly prove the existence of at least two historical 
 documents blended, or rather bound together, in the Penta- 
 teuch. We will now proceed to point out a few of the 
 passages and considerations which negative the idea of 
 either of them having been composed in the age or by the 
 hand of Moses\ 
 
 The Elohim document must have been written after the 
 exjmlsio/i of the Canaanites, and the settlement of the 
 Israelites in the Promised Land, as appears from the follow^- 
 ing passages : — inter alia^ — 
 
 " Defile not ye yourselves in any of these things . 
 that the Land vomit not you out also, as it vomited 
 forth the nations ivhich icere before yoic" (Lev. xviii. 
 ^4, 27, 28.) 
 
 " For I was stolen away out of the Land of the Hebrews ." 
 (Gen. xl. 15.) Palestine would not be called the land of 
 the Hebrews till after the settlement of the Hebrews therein. 
 
 ^' And Sarah died in Kiijatharba; the same is Hebron in 
 the land of Canaan!' (Gen. xxiii. 2.) *' And Rachel 
 died and was buried in the way to Ephrath, which is 
 Bethlehem." (xxxv. 19.) "And Jacob came unto the city 
 of Arba, which is Hebron." (xxxv. 27.) These passages 
 indicate a time subsequent to the erection of the Israelitish 
 cities. 
 
 The document must have been written in the time of the 
 Kings ; for it says, Gen. xxxvi. 31, " These are the Kings 
 that reigned in the Land of Edom, before there reigned 
 any King over the children of Israel." Yet it must have 
 been written before the end of the reign of David ^ since 
 Edom, which David subdued, is represented in ch. xxxvi. as 
 
 ^ The formula "unto this day," is frequently found, under circumstances 
 indicating that the writer lived long subsequent to the events he relates. 
 ■{Gren. xix. 38 ; xxvi. 33 ; xxxii. 32.) We find frequent archjeological exjjla- 
 nations, as Ex, xvi. 36. "Now an oraer (an ancient measure) is the tenth 
 part of an ephah " (a modern measure). — Explanations of old names, and 
 additions of the modern ones which had superseded them, repeatedly occur, 
 -as at Gen. xiv. 2, 7, 8, 17 ; xxiii. 2 ; xxxv. 19. 
 
38 THE CREED OF CHRISTENDOM. 
 
 still independent. The conclusion, therefore, which critical 
 Science has drawn from these and other points of evidence 
 is, that the Elohim documents were composed in the time of 
 Saul, or about B.C. 1055, four hundred years after Moses. 
 
 The Jehovistic documents are considered to have had a 
 still later origin, and to date from about the reign of 
 Solomon, B.C. 1000. For they were written after the ex- 
 'pulsion of the Canaanites, as is shown from Gen. xii. 6, 
 and xiii. 7. " The Canaanite was then in the land" "The 
 Canaanite and Perizzite dwelt then in the land!' They 
 appear to have been written after the time of the Judges, 
 since the exploits of Jair the Gileadite, one of the Judges 
 (x. 4), are mentioned in Numb, xxxii. 41 ; after Saul's 
 victor?/ over Agag, King of the Amalekites, v^dio is men- 
 tioned there — " and his King shall be higher than Agag" 
 (Nnmb. xxiv, 7) ; — and if, as De Wette thinks, the Temple 
 of Jerusalem is signified by the two expressions (Exod. xxiii. 
 19; XV. 13), ''The House of Jehovah," and the ''habitation 
 of thy holiness," — they must have been composed after the 
 erection of that edifice. This, however, we consider as 
 inconclusive. On the other hand, it is thought that they must 
 have been written hefore the time of Hezekiah, because 
 (in Numb. xxi. G-9), they record the wonders wrought by 
 the Brazen Serpent, which that King destroyed as a provo- 
 cative to Idolatry. (2 Kings xviii. 4.) We are aware that 
 many persons endeavour to avoid these conclusions by 
 assuming that the passages in question are later interpola- 
 tions. But — not to comment upon the w^ide door which 
 would thus be opened to other and less scrupulous inter- 
 preters — this assumption is entirely unwarranted by evidence, 
 and proceeds on the previous assumption — equally destitute 
 of proof — that the Books in question 2cere written in the 
 time of Moses — the very point under discussion. To prove 
 the Books to be written by Moses, by rejecting as interpola- 
 tions all passages which show that they could not have been 
 written by him- — is a very clerical, but a very inadmissible, 
 mode of reasoning. 
 
 It results from this inquiry that the Pentateuch assumed 
 its present form about the reign of King Josiah, B.C. 624, 
 eight hundred years after Moses ; — that the Book of Deu- 
 teronomy was probably composed about the same date; — • 
 that the other four books, or rather the separate documents 
 
AUTHORSHIP OF THE OLD TESTAMENT CANON. 39 
 
 of w'liich they consist, were written between the time of 
 Samuel and Solomon, or from four to five hundred years 
 after Moses ;—t]i at they record the traditions respecting the 
 early history of the tsraehtes and the Law dehvered by 
 Moses then current among the Priesthood and the People, 
 with such material additions as it seemed good to the Priests 
 of that period to introduce; — and that there is not the 
 shghtest reason to conclude that they were anything more 
 than a collection of the national traditions then in vogue\ 
 
 It should he especially noted that nothing in the above 
 argument in the least degree invahdates the opinion either 
 that Moses was the great Organiser of tile Hebrevv Polity, 
 or that he framed it hy divine direction, and with divine 
 aid; — our reasoning merely goes to overthrow the notion 
 that the Pentateuch contains either the Mosaic or a con- 
 temporary account of the origin of that Polity, or the 
 early history of that People. 
 
 With regard, however, to the first eleven chapters of 
 Genesis, which contain an account of the ante-Abrahamic 
 period, a new theory has recently been broached by a scholar 
 whose competency to pronounce on such a question cannot 
 be doubted. Mr. Kenrick, in his Essay on Primeval His- 
 tory, gives very cogent reasons for believing that the con- 
 tents of these chapters are to be considered, not as traditions 
 handed down from the earhest times, concerning the primi- 
 tive condition of the human race, and the immediate 
 ancestors of the Jewish nation, but simply as speculations, 
 originally framed to account for existing facts and appear- 
 ances, and by the lapse of time gradually hardened into 
 narrative — in a word, as suppositions converted into state- 
 ments by the process of transmission, and the authority by 
 which they are propounded. The call of Abraham he con- 
 ceives to be " the true origin of the Jewish people, and there- 
 
 1 De Wette and other critics are of opinion tliat both the Elohistic and 
 Jehovistie authors of the Pentateuch had access to more ancient documents 
 extant in their times, and think it probable that some of these materials may- 
 have been Mosaic. De Wette, ii. p. 159. 
 
 It seems right to state that this chapter was written before_ the appearance 
 of Mr. Newman's Hebrew IMonarchj-, where the whole question is discussed 
 much more fully, and the decision stated in the text is placed upoii what 
 appears to us an irrefragable foundation. Mr. Newman's work, pp. 32S-33S, 
 should be studied by every one who wishes to satisfy his mind on this im- 
 portant point. ^ 
 
40 THE CREED OF CHRISTENDOM. 
 
 fore the point at which, if contemporaneous written records 
 did not begin to supply the materials of history, at least a 
 body of historical tradition may have formed itself." ^ We 
 will not do Mr. Kenrick the injustice of attempting to con- 
 dense his train of reasoning, which he has himself given in 
 as terse a form as is compatible with perfect clearness. He 
 argues, and in our opinion with great success, that the 
 Jewish accounts of the Creation, the Deluge, the confusion 
 of tongues, &c., were the results of attempts, such as we 
 find among all nations, to explain phenomena which could 
 not fail to arouse attention, wonder, and questioning in the 
 very dawn of mental civilization : but simple and beautiful 
 as many of them are, they betray unmistakable signs of the 
 partial observation and imperfect knowledge of the times in 
 which they originated. 
 
 Not only, then, can the so-called Mosaic histories claim 
 no higher authority than other works of equal antiquity and 
 reasonableness, but the whole of the earher portion of the 
 narrative preceding the call of Abraham, must be regarded 
 as a combination of popular tradition, poetical fiction, and 
 crude philosophical speculation — the first element being the 
 least developed of the three. 
 
 Now, what results from this conclusion? It will be seen, 
 on slight reflection, that our gain is immense : religion is 
 safer ; science is freer ; the temptntion to dishonest subter- 
 fuge, so strong that lew conld resist it, is at once removed; 
 and it becomes possible for divines to retain their faith, their 
 knowledge, and their integrity together. It is no longer 
 necessary to harmonise Scripture and Science by fettering 
 the one, or tampering with the other; nor for men of 
 Science and men of Theology either to stand in the position 
 of antagonists, or to avoid doing so by resorting to hollow 
 subtleties and transparent evasions, which cannot but de- 
 grade them in their own eyes and degrade their respective 
 professions in the eyes of the observing world. In order to 
 judge of the sad unworthiness from which our conclusion 
 exempts us, let us see to what subterfuges men of high 
 intellect and reputation have habitually found themselves 
 compelled to stoop. 
 
 The divine origin and authority of the Pentateuch having 
 
 ^ Essay on Primeval History, p. 11. 
 
AUTHORSHIP OF THE OLD TESTAMENT CAXOX. 41 
 
 been assumed, the cosmogony, chronology', and antedihivian 
 narrative of Genesis were, of course, received as unimpeach- 
 ably accurate, and long held unquestioned sway over the 
 mind of Europe. The first serious suspicion of their ac- 
 curacy — for the progress of astronomical science was 
 rendered formidable only by the absurd decision of the 
 Court of Eome— was caused by the discoveries of modern 
 Geology, which, at first doubtful and conflicting, gradually 
 assumed consistency and substance, and finally emancipated 
 themselves from the character of mere theories, and settled 
 down into the solid form of exact and ascertained science. 
 They showed that the earth reached its present condition 
 through a series of changes prolonged through ages which 
 might almost be termed infinite : each step of the series 
 being marked by tbe existence of creatures different from 
 each other and from those contemporary with Man ; and 
 that the appearance of the human race upon the scene was 
 an event, in comparison, only of yesterday. This was ob- 
 viously and utterly at variance with the Mosaic cosmogony : 
 and how to treat the discrepancy became the question. 
 Three modes of proceeding were open : — To declare Moses 
 to be right, and the geologists to be in error, in spite of fact 
 and demonstration, and thus forbid science to exercise itself 
 upon any subject on* which Holy Writ has delivered its 
 oracles — and this was the consistent course of the Church 
 of Rome : To bow before the discoveries of science, and 
 admit that the cosmogony of Moses was the conception of an 
 unlearned man and of a rude age — which is our view of the 
 case : or. To assume that the author of the Book of Genesis 
 must have known the truth, and have meant to declare the 
 truth, and that his narrative must therefore, if rightly in- 
 
 ^ The impossibility of accepting the Biblical chronology of ^the ante-Abra 
 hamic times as authentic, arises from three considerations : — -first, its irrecon 
 cilability with that of the most cultivated nations of primitive antiquity 
 and especially with that of the Egyptians, whose records and monuments 
 carry us back nearly 700 years beyond the Deluge — (Kenrick, 57) ; — secondhj 
 the fact that the length of life attributed to the antediluvian Patriarchs 
 sometimes reaching nearly to 1000 years, precludes the idea of their belonging 
 to the same race as ourselves, without a violation of all analogy, and the sup- 
 position of a constant miracle ; — thirdly, the circumstance that the Hebrew 
 numbers represent the East as divided into regal communities, populous and 
 flourishing, and Pharaoh reigning over the monarchy of Egypt, at the time of 
 Abraham's migration, only 427 years after the human race was reduced to a 
 single family, and the whole earth desolated by a flood. — Mr. Kenrick argues 
 all these points with great force and learning, — Essay on Prim, Hist, j 
 
42 THE CREED OF CHPaSTENDOM. 
 
 terpretecl, agree vritli the certain discoveries of modern 
 science. This, unhappih^ has heen the alternative resorted 
 to by our Divines and men of science; and in furtherance 
 of it they adopt, or at least counsel, a new interpretation of 
 Holy Writ, to meet each new discovery, and force upon 
 Moses a meaning which clearly was not in his mind, and 
 which his words — upon any fair and comprehensible system 
 of interpretation — will not bear \ Instead of endeavouring 
 to discover, by the principles invariably apphed in all 
 analogous cases, what Moses meant irom what Moses said, 
 they infer his meaning, in sjnte of his language, from the 
 acknowledged facts of science, with which they gratuitously 
 and violently assume that he must be in harmony. 
 
 Instances of this irreverent and disiugenuous treatment 
 of the Scriptures are numerous among Enghsh Divines — 
 to whom, indeed, they are now chiefly confined : and to 
 show how fairly we have stated their mode of proceeding, 
 we will adduce a few passages from two men of great emi- 
 nence in the scientific world, both holding high stations in 
 the Universities and in the Church. 
 
 Professor Whewell, in his chapter on the " Eelation of 
 Tradition to Palsetiology," (Phil. Ind. Sc. ii. c. iv.) (which 
 is really a discussion of the most advisable mode of recon- 
 cihng Geology and PalssontoJogy ^ith Scripture,) speaks 
 repeatedly of the necessity of bringing forward nevv^ intei'pre- 
 tations of Scripture, to meet the discoveries of science. 
 '* When," he asks, "should old interpretations be given up; 
 what is the iiroijer season for a religious and enlightened 
 commentator to make a change in tJie current interjrreta- 
 tion of sacred Scripture 1 (I) At what period ought the 
 
 1 "It happens," observes Mr. Kenrick, "that the portion of Scripture 
 which relates to cosmogony and primeval history is remarkably free from 
 philological difficulties. The meaning of the writer, the only thing which 
 the interpreter has to discover and set forth, is ever^n-here sufficiently 
 obvious ; there is hardly in these eleven chapters, a doubtful construction, 
 or a various reading of any importance, and the English reader has, in the 
 ordinary version, a full and fair representation of the sense of the original. 
 The difficulties which exist arise from endeavouring to harraonize the Writers 
 information %oilh that derived from other sources, or to refine upon his simple 
 language. Common speech was then, as it is now, the representative of the 
 common understanding. This common understanding may be confused and 
 perplexed by metaphysical cross-examination, respecting the action of spirit 
 upon matter, or of Being upon nonentity, till it seems at last to have no idea 
 what Creation means ; but these subtleties belong no more to the Hebrew 
 word than to the English." — Essay, kc, Preface, xv. 
 
AUTHOESHIP OF TPIE OLD TESTAMENT CANON. 48 
 
 established exposition of a passage to be given up, and a 
 new mode of iLnderstandiny the 2)assa{/e, such as is, or 
 seems to he, required hy new discoveries respecting the 
 laws of nature, accepted in its place ?" (!) He elsewhere 
 speaks of " the language of Scripture being invested with a 
 new meaning," quoting with approbation the sentiment of 
 Bellarmine, that ''when demonstration shall establish the 
 earth's motion, it will be proper to interpret the Scriptures 
 otherwise than they have hitherto been interpreted, in those 
 passages vdiere mention is made of the stability of the 
 earth, and movement of the Heavens." " It is difficult," 
 says Mr. Kenrick, " to understand this otherwise than as 
 sanctioning the principle that the commentator is to bend 
 the meaning of Scripture into conformity with the dis- 
 coveries of science. Such a proceeding, however, would be 
 utterly inconsistent with all real reverence for Scripture, and 
 calculated to bring both it and its interpreter into suspicion 
 and contempt." 
 
 Dr. Buckland's chapter (in his Bridgewater Treatise) on 
 the " Consistency of Geological Discoveries with the Mosaic 
 Cosmogony," is another melancholy specimen of the low- 
 arts to which the ablest intellects find it necessary to conde- 
 scend, when they insist upon reconciling admitted^ truths 
 with obvious and flagrant error. In this point of view the 
 passage is well worth reading as a lesson at once painful and 
 instructive.— After commencing with the safe but irrelevant 
 proposition, that if nature is God's work, and the Bible 
 God's word, there can be no real discrepancy between them, 
 he proceeds thus :— " I trust it may be shown, not only that 
 there is no inconsistency between our interpretation of the 
 phenomena of nature and of the Mosaic narrative, but that 
 the results of geological inquiry throw important lights on 
 parts of this history, which are otherwise involved in much 
 obscurity. If the suggestions I shall venture to propose 
 require some modijication of the most commonly-received 
 and popular interpretation of the Mosaic narrative, this 
 admission neither involves any impeachment of the authen- 
 ticity of the text, nor of the judgment of those who had 
 formerly interi)reted it otherwise in the absence of infor- 
 mation as to facts which have hut heen recently brought 
 to light; (!) and if, in this respect, geology shall seem_ to 
 require some little concession from the hteral interpretation 
 
44 THE CREED OF CHRISTENDOM. 
 
 ot Scripture, it may fairly be held to afibrd ample compensa- 
 tion (!) for this demand, by the large additions it has made 
 to the evidences of natural religion, in a department where 
 revelation was not designed to give information."' — (T. 14.) 
 Then, although he " shrinks from the impiety of bending 
 the language of God's book to any other than its obvious 
 meaning," (p. 25,) this theological man of Science — this 
 Pleader who has accepted a retainer from both the litigants 
 — proceeds to patch up a hollow harmony between Moses on 
 the one side, and Sedgwick, Murchison, and Lyell on the 
 other, by a series of suppositions, artificial and strained in- 
 terpretations, and ttnwarranted glosses, through which we 
 cannot follow him. Instead of doing so, w^e will put into a 
 few plain words the real statement in Genesis which he 
 undertakes to show to be in harmony v/ith our actual know- 
 ledge of astronomy and geology. 
 
 The statement in Genesis is this : — That in six days God 
 made the Heavens and the Earth — (and that da?/s, and not 
 any other period of time, were intended by the writer, is 
 made manifest by the reference to the evening and morning, 
 as also by the Jewish Sabbath) ; — that on the Jir si day of 
 Creation — {after the general calling into existence of the 
 Heaven and Earth, according to Dr. Buckland ' ) — God 
 created Light, and divided the day from the night : — that on 
 the second day He created ^ Jir m anient (or strong vault), 
 to divide tlie waters under the Earth from the waters above 
 the Earth — (a statement indicating a conception of the 
 nature of the Universe, w^hich it is difficult for us, with our 
 clearer knowledge, even to imagine) : — that on the third 
 day, He divided the land from the water, and called the 
 vegetable world into existence: — that on t\\Q fourth day, 
 He made the Sun, Moon and Stars — (in other words, that 
 He created on i]\Q first day the effect, but postponed till the 
 fourth day the creation of that which we now know to be 
 XhQ cause) : — that on \\\q ffftli day, fish and fowl, and on 
 the sixth, terrestrial animals and man, were called into 
 being. — And this is the singular system of Creation which 
 
 ^ Dr. B. imagines that the first verse relates to tlie original creation of all 
 things, and that, between that verse and the second, elapsed an interval of 
 countless ages, during which all geological changes preceding the human a^ra 
 must- be supposed to have taken place— in confirmation of w^hich he mentions 
 that some old cojyies of the Bible have a break or gap at the end of the ^rst 
 verse, and that Luther marked verse 3, as verse 1. 
 
AUTHORSHIP OF THE OLD TESTAMENT CANOX. 45 
 
 Dr. Buckland adopts as conformable to tbe discoveries of 
 that Science which he has so materially contributed to 
 advance; — in spite of the facts, which he knows and fully 
 admits, that the idea of " waters above the firmament " 
 could only have arisen from a total misconception, and is to 
 us a meaningless delusion ; — that day and night, depending 
 on the relation between earth and sun, could not have pre- 
 ceded the creation of tbe latter ; — that as tbe fossil animals 
 existing ages before Man — (and, as he imagines, ages before 
 the commencement of the "first day" of Creation) — had 
 eyes, light must have existed in their time — long, therefore, 
 before Moses tells us it was created, and still longer before 
 its source (our sun) was called into being; — and, finally, 
 that many tribes of these fossil animals which he refers to the 
 vast supposititious interval between the first and second 
 verse of Genesis, are identical with the species contempo- 
 raneous with Man, and not created therefore till tbe 21st 
 or 24 th verse. 
 
 It will not do for Geologists and Astronomers, who wish 
 to retain some rags of orthodoxy, however soiled and torn, 
 to argue, as most do, " tbat the Bible was not intended as a 
 revelation of Physical science, but only of moral and rehgi- 
 ous truth." Tbis does not meet the difficulty ; for the Bible 
 does not merely use the common language, and so assu/ne 
 the common errors, on these points— it gives a distinct 
 account of the Creation, in the same style, in the same 
 narrative, in the same book, in which it narrates the Fall of 
 Man, the Deluge, the Eevelation to Abraham, the history of 
 Jacob and Joseph. The writer evidently had no conception 
 that when he related the Creation of the Eartb, the Sea, 
 and the Sun, he was perpetuating a monstrous error ; and 
 that when he related the Fall, he was revealing a mighty 
 and mysterious truth ; and when he narrated the promise to 
 Abraham, he was recording a wondrous prophecy. The 
 Bible professes to give information on all these points alike : 
 and we have precisely the same Scriptural ground for believ- 
 ing that God first made the Earth, and then the Sun for the 
 especial benefit of the Earth ; tliat the globe was submerged 
 by a flood which lasted forty days ; and that everytliing was 
 destroyed, except the Animalswhich Noah packedinto his Ark 
 — as we have for believing that Adam and Eve were driven 
 out of Paradise for a transgression ; tbat God promised 
 
46 THE CREED OF CHRISTENDOM. 
 
 Abraham to redeem the world through his progeny; and 
 that Jacob and Moses were the subjects of the divine com- 
 munications recorded as being made to them. All the 
 statements are made in the same affirmative style, and on 
 the same authority. The Bible equally professes to teach us 
 fact on all these matters. There is no escape by any 
 quibble from the grasp of this conclusion. 
 
 In unwortliy attempts such as tliose which Dr. Bucldand 
 has perpetrated, and Dr. Whewell has advised, the grand 
 and sublime truth at the basis of the Biblical Cosmof?onv 
 has been obscured and forgotten, — viz. That, contrary 
 alike to the dreams of Pagan and of Oriental philosophy. 
 Heaven and Earth were not self-existent and eternal but 
 created — that the Sun and Moon were not Gods, but the 
 works of God — Creatures, not Creators. 
 
 But anotlier point of almost equal importance is gained 
 by accepting the Historical books of the Old Testament as 
 a collection of merely human naratives, traditions and spe- 
 culations. We can now read them with unimpaired pleasure 
 and profit, instead of shrinking from them with feelings of 
 pain and repulsion which we cannot conquer, and yet dare 
 not acknowledge. We need no longer do violence to our 
 moral sense, or our cultivated taste, or our purer concep- 
 tions of a Holy and Spiritual God, by struggling to bend 
 them into conformity with those of a rude people and a 
 barbarous age. We no longer feel ourselves compelled to 
 believe that which is incredible, or to admire that which is 
 revolting^ And when we again turn to these Scriptures 
 with the mental tranquillity due to our new-born freedom, 
 and read them by the light of our recovered reason, it will 
 be strange if we do not find in them marvellous beauties 
 which before escaped us — rich and fertihzing truths which 
 before lay smothered beneath a heap of contextual rubbish 
 — experiences which appeal to the inmost recesses of our 
 consciousness — holy and magnificent conceptions, at once 
 simple and subhme, which hitherto could not penetrate 
 through the mass of error which obscured and overlaid 
 them, but which now burst forth and germinate into light 
 and freedom. In the beautiful language of an often-quoted 
 
 * See in Dr. Arnold's Sermons on the Interpretation of Scripture, to what 
 straits the oith3dox doctrine reduxs the best and most honest men. 
 
AUTHORSHIP OF THE OLD TESTAMENT CANON. 47 
 
 author (Coleridge, p. 59), *^ The Scriptures will from this 
 time contimie to rise higher in our esteem and afFection — ■ 
 the better understood, the more dear — and at every fresh 
 meeting we shall have to tell of some new passage, formerly- 
 viewed as a dry stick on a rotten branch, which has budded, 
 and, like the rod of Aaron, hrought forth huds, and bloomed 
 blossoms, and yielded almoiids." 
 
CHAPTER IV. 
 
 THE PROPHECIES. 
 
 A PROPHECY, in the ordinary acceptation of the term, signi- 
 fies a prediction of future events which could not have been 
 foreseen by human sagacity, and the knowlege of which was 
 supernaturally communicated to the prophet. It is clear, 
 therefore, that in order to establish the claim of any antici- 
 patory statement, promise, or denunciation, to the rank and 
 title of a prophecy, four points must be ascertained with 
 precisio7i — viz., what the event was to which the alleged 
 prediction was intended to refer ; that the prediction was 
 uttered i?i specific, not vague, language before the event ; 
 that the event took place specifically, not loosely, as pre- 
 dicted; and that it could not have been foreseen by human 
 sagacity. 
 
 Now, there is no portion of the sacred w^ritings over which 
 hangs a veil of such dim obscurity, or regarding the mean- 
 ing of which such hopeless discrepancies have prevailed 
 among Christian divines, as the Prophetical Books of the 
 Hebrew Canon. The difficulties to which the Enghsh reader 
 is exposed by the extreme defects of the received transla- 
 tion, its confused order, and erroneous divisions, are at 
 present nearly insuperable. No chronology is observed; 
 the earlier and the later, the genuine and the spurious, are 
 mixed together; and sometimes the prophecies of two indi- 
 viduals of different epochs are given us under the same 
 name. In the case of some of the more important ot them 
 we are in doubt as to the date, the author, and the interpre- 
 tation ; and on the question whether the predictions related 
 exclusively to Jewish or to general history, to Cyrus or to 
 Jesus, to Zerubbabel or to Christ*, to Antiochus Epiphanes, 
 
 ^ The prophecy of Zechariah, which Archbishop Kewcome, in conformity 
 w"th its obvious meaning, interprets with reference to Zerubbabel, Davison 
 
THE PROPHECIES. 49 
 
 to Titus or to Napoleon ; to events long past, or to events 
 still in the remote future — the most conflicting opinions 
 have been held with equal confidence by men of equal learn- 
 ing. It would carry us too far, and prove too unprofitable 
 an occupation, to enumerate these contradictory interpreta- 
 tions : we shall in preference content ourselves with a brief 
 statement of some considerations which will show how far 
 removed we are on this subject from the possession of that 
 clear certainty, or even that moderate verisimilitude of 
 knowledge, on which alone any reasonings, such as have 
 been based on Hebrew prophecy, can securely rest. There 
 is no department of theology in which divines have so 
 universally assumed their conclusions and modified their 
 premises to suit them, as in this. 
 
 I. In the first place, it is not uninstructive to remind our- 
 selves of a few of the indications scattered throughout the 
 Scriptures, of what the conduct and state of mind of the 
 Prophets often were. They seem, like the utterers of Pagan 
 oracles, to have been worked up before giving forth their pro- 
 phecies into a species of religious phrenzy, produced or aided 
 by various means, especially by music and dancing'. Philo 
 says, *' The mark of true prophecy is the rapture of its 
 utterance : in order to attain divine wisdom, the soul must 
 go out of itself, and become drunk with divine phrenzy." ^ 
 The same word in Hebrew (and Plato thought in Greek 
 also) signifies " to prophesy" and " to be mad ; "'"' and even 
 among themselves the prophets were often regarded as mad- 
 men"^ — an idea to which their frequent habit of going about 
 naked,^ and the performance occasionally of still more dis- 
 gusting ceremonies, greatly contributed. That many of 
 
 unhesitatingly refers to Christ alone (Disc, on Proph. p. 340, 2nd ed.). — The 
 prediction of Daniel respecting the pollution of the Temple, which critics in 
 general feel no hesitation in referring to Antiochus, many modern divines 
 conceive, on the supposed authority of the Evangelists, to relate to the de- 
 struction of Jerusalem by Titus. A Fellow of Oxford, in a most ingenious 
 work (which had reached a third edition in 1826, and may have since gone 
 througli many more), maintains that the last chapters of Daniel were fulfilled 
 in the person of Napoleon, and in him alone. (The Crisis, by Ilev. E. 
 Cooper.) 
 
 1 1 Sam. xviii. 10 ; x. 5. 2 Kings iii. 15, 16. 
 
 2 Quoted in Mackay's Progress of the Intellect, ii. 192, 
 
 3 Newman, Heb. ]\lon. p. 3-1. Plato dei-ived fAxvTi; from f^uUKTSxt. 
 * 2 Kings ix. 11. Jeremiah xxix. 26, 
 
 « 2 Sam, vi. 16, 20, 1 Sam. xix. 24. Is. xx. 3. Ezek, iv. 4. 6. 8. 12. 15. 
 1 Kings XX. 35-3 S. 
 
 K 
 
50 THE CREED OF CHRISTENDOM. 
 
 them were splendid poets and noble-minded men there can 
 he no doubt ; but we see in conduct like this httle earnest 
 of sobriety or divine inspiration, and far too much that re- 
 minds us of the fanatics of eastern countries and of ancient 
 times. 
 
 II. Many, probably most, of the so-called prophecies 
 were not intended as predictions in the proper meaning of 
 the word, but were simply promises of prosperity or denun- 
 ciations of vengeance, contingent upon certain lines of 
 conduct. The principle of the Hebrew theocracy was that 
 of temporal rewards or punishments consequent upon 
 obedience to, or deviation from, the divine ordinances ; and 
 in the great proportion of cases the prophetic language 
 seems to have been nothing more than a reminder or fresh 
 enunciation of the principle. This is clearly shown by the 
 circumstance that several of the prophecies, though origi- 
 nally given, not in the contingent, but in the positive form, 
 were rescinded, or contradicted by later prophetical de- 
 nunciations, as in the case of Eli, David, Hezekiah, and 
 Jonah. The rescinding of prophecy in 1 Sam. ii. 30, is very 
 remarkable, and shows how little these enunciations were 
 regarded by the Israelites from our modem point of view. 
 Compare 2 Sam. vii. 10, where the Israelites are promised 
 that they shall not be moved out of Canaan nor afflicted 
 any more, with the subsequent denunciations of defeat and 
 captivity in a strange land. Compare, also, 2 Sam. vii. 
 12-16, where the permanent possession of the throne is 
 promised to David, and that a hneal descendant shall not 
 fail him to sit upon the throne of Judah, with the curse pro- 
 nounced on his last royal descendant Coniah — " Thus saith 
 the Lord, Write ye this man childless, a man that shall not 
 prosper in his days ; for no man of his seed shall prosper, 
 sitting upon the throne of David, and ruling any more in 
 Judah." (Jer. xxii. 30 ; xxxvi. 30.) See, also, the curious 
 argument as to the liability of i^rojjhecy to le rescinded, in 
 the same book. (Jer xxxiii. 17-20.) The rescinding of the 
 prediction or denunciation in the case of Hezekiah is recorded 
 in Isaiah xxxviii. 1-5, and that of Jonah in the Book which 
 bears his name, iii. 4-10. 
 
 III. It is now clearly ascertained, and generally admitted 
 among critics, that several of the most remarkable and 
 specific prophecies were never fulfilled at all, or only very 
 
THE PROPHECIES. 51 
 
 partially and loosely fulfilled. Among these may be specified 
 the denunciation of Jeremiah (xxii. 18, 19; xxxvi. 30) 
 against Jehoiakim, as may be seen by comparing 2 Kings 
 Sxiv. 6 ; — and the denunciation of Amos against Jeroboam 
 II. (vii. 11), as niay be seen by comparing 2 Kings 
 xiv. 23-29. The remarkable, distinct, and positive pro- 
 phecies in Ezekiel (xxvi., xxvii.), relating to the conquest, 
 plunder, and destruction of Tyre by Nebuchadnezzar, we 
 can now state on the highest authorities', were not fulfilled. 
 Indeed (in ch. xxix. 18) is a confession that he failed, at 
 least so far as spoil went. The same may be said of the 
 equally clear and positive prophecies of the conquest and 
 desolation of Egypt by Nebuchadnezzar (Jer. xliii. 10-13; 
 Ezek. xxix.; xxx. 1-19), as Dr. Arnold, in his Sermons on 
 Prophecy (p. 48), fully admits'. Jeremiah's prophecy of 
 the Captivity of Seventy years, and the subsequent destruc- 
 tion of Babylon (xxv.), have generally been appealed to as 
 instances of clear prophecy exactly and indisputably fulfilled. 
 But in the first place, at the time this prediction was de- 
 livered, the success of Nebuchadnezzar against Jerusalem 
 was scarcely doubtful; in the second place, the Captivity 
 cannot, by any fair calculation, be lengthened out to seventy 
 years■^• and in the third place, the desolation of Babylon 
 ("perpetual desolations" is the emphatic phrase) which was 
 to take place at the end of the seventy years, as a punish- 
 ment for the pride of Nebuchadnezzar, did not take place 
 till long after. Babylon was still a flourishing city under 
 Alexander the Great ; and, as Mr. Newman observed, " it is 
 absurd to present the emptiness of modeim Babylon as a 
 punishment for the pride of Nebuchadnezzar," (fr as a fulfil- 
 ment of Jeremiah's prophecy. — Gen. xhx. 10 must also Joe 
 considered to present a specimen of prophecy signally falsi- 
 fied by the event, and being composed in the palmiest days 
 of Judah, was probably little more than a hyperbolical 
 expression of the writer's confidence in the permanence of 
 
 ^ Heeren's Researches, ii. 11. Grote, iii. 439, 
 
 2 Grrote, vhi supra. — Hebrew Monarchy, p, 363. 
 
 ^ The chronologies of Kings and Chronicles do not quite tally ; but taking 
 that of Jeremiah himself, the desolation began in the seventh year of Nebu- 
 chadnezzar, B.C. 599, was continued in b.c. 588, and concluded ia B.C. 583. 
 — The exile ended some say 538, some 536. The longest date that can be 
 made out is G6 year.s, and the shortest only 43. To make out 70 years fairly, 
 "we must date from b.c. 606 ; the Jirst year of Nebuchadnezzar. 
 
 E 2 
 
52 THE CREED OF CHRISTENDOM. 
 
 her grandeur. Finally, in Hosea we have a remarkable 
 instance of self-contradiction, or virtual acknowledgment of 
 the non-fulfilment of prophecy. In viii. 13 and ix. 3, it is 
 affirmed, "Ephraim shall return to Egypt;" while in xi. 5, 
 it is said, " Ephraim shall not return to Egypt." Isaiah 
 (xvii. 1) pronounces on Damascus a threat of ruin as 
 emphatic as any that was pronounced against Tyre, Egypt, 
 or Babylon. " It is taken away from being a city, and it 
 shall be a ruinous heap." Yet Damascus is to this day the 
 most flourishing city in those countries. 
 
 IV. We find from numberless passages both in the pro- 
 phetical and the historical books, that for a considerable 
 period the Hebrew nation was inundated with false pro- 
 phets\ whom it was difficult and often impossible to dis- 
 tinguish from the true, although we have both prophetical 
 and sacerdotal tests given for this express purpose. It even 
 appears that some of those whom we consider as true pro- 
 phets were by their contemporaries charged with being, and 
 even punished for being, the contrary. In Deut. xviii. 
 20-22, the decision of the prophet's character is made to 
 depend upon the fulfilment or non-fulfilment of his pro- 
 phecy. In Deut. xiii. 1-5, this test is rejected, and the 
 decision is made to rest upon the doctrine which he teaches : 
 if this be false he is to be stoned, whatever miraculous 
 proofs of his mission he may give-". . From Jer. xxix., it 
 appears that the High Priest assumed the right of judging 
 whether a man was a false or a true prophet; though 
 Jeremiah himself does not seem to have been willing to 
 abide by this authority, but to have denounced Priests and 
 the prophet* who supported them (Jer. v. 31). Pashur the 
 priest, we learn (xx. 1-7), put Jeremiah in the stocks for his 
 false prophecies ; and Shemaiah reproves the Priest Jehoiada 
 for not having repeated the punishment, and is violently 
 denounced by the prophet in consequence (xxix. 24-32). 
 
 V. In the case of nearly all the prophets we have little 
 external or independent evidence as to the date at which 
 their prophecies were uttered, and none as to the period 
 at which they tcere icritten dow?f ; while the internal evi- 
 dence on these points is dubious, conflicting, and, in the 
 
 1 Jeremiah v. 31, xxiii. 16-34. Ezekiel xiv. 9-11. 
 
 2 See also the whole remarkable chapter, Jer. xxviii. 
 
 3 Hebrew Monarchy, p. 352 (note). 
 
THE PROPHECIES. 63 
 
 opinions of the best critics, generally unfavourable to the 
 popular conceptions. — The Books of Kings and Chronicles, 
 in whicli many of these prophecies are mentioned, and the 
 events to which they are supposed to refer, are related, 
 were written, or compiled in their present form, the former 
 near the termination of the Babylonian Exile, or somewhere 
 about the year B.C. 530, i. e. from 50 to 200 years ^ after 
 the period at which the prophecies w^ere supposed to have 
 been delivered; — while the latter appear to have been a 
 much later compilation, some critics dating them about 
 260, and others about 400 before Christ^ 
 
 It is probably not too much to affirm that we have no 
 instance in the prophetical Books of the Old Testament of 
 a prediction, in the case of which we possess, at once and 
 combined, clear and unsuspicious proof of the date, the 
 precise event predicted, the exact circumstances of that 
 event, and the inability of human sagacity to foresee it. 
 There is no case in whicli we can say with certainty — even 
 where it is reasonable to suppose that the prediction was 
 uttered before the event — tliat the narrative has not been 
 tampered with to suit the prediction, or the prediction modi- 
 fied to correspond with the event^. The following remarks 
 will show how little certain is our knowledge, even in 
 the case of the principal prophets. 
 
 Isaiah, as we learn in the first and the sixth chapters of 
 liis Book, appeared as a Prophet in the last year of the 
 reign of King (Jzziah (b.c. 759), and prophesied till the four- 
 teenth year of Hezekiah (b.c. 710). We hear of him in the 
 2nd Book of Kings and Chronicles, but not till the reign of 
 Hezekiah ; except that he is referred to in 2 Chron. xxvi. 
 22, as having written a history of Uzziah. The prophecies 
 which have come down to us bearing his name, extend 
 to sixty-six chapters, of the date of luhich (either of their 
 composition or compilation) we have no certain knowledge ; 
 but of which the last twenty- seven are confidently decided by 
 competent judges to be the production of a different Writer, 
 and a later age ; and were doubtless composed during the 
 
 ^ Amos and Hosea flourished j^robably about 790 b.c. Jereiniali about 
 600. Zechariah about 520. De Wette, li. 436. 
 
 2 Such at least is the most probable result at which critical science has yet 
 aiTived. De Wette ii. 248, 265. 
 
 ^ De Wette and other eminent Theologians consider that in many cases 
 where the prophecy is unusually definite, this has certainly been done, 
 ii. 357. 363. 
 
54 THE CEEED OF CHRISTENDOM. 
 
 BabyloDish Captivity, later therefore than the year B.C. 600, 
 or about 150 years after Isaiah. The gronncls of this de- 
 cision are given at length in De Wette\ They are found 
 partly in the marked difference of style between the two 
 portions of the Book, but still more in the obvious and per- 
 vading fact that the writer of the latter portion tahes ^ his 
 stand in the period of the Captivity, speaks of the captivity 
 as an existing circumstance or condition, and comforts his 
 captive Countrymen with hopes of dehverance at the hand of 
 Cyrus. Many of the earher chapters are also considered 
 spurious for similar reasons, particularly xiii. l,xiv. 23, xxiv., 
 xxvii., and several others. It appears as the general summary 
 result of critical research, that our present collection consists 
 of a number of promises, denunciations, and. exhortations, 
 actuallv uttered by Isaiah, and brought together by com- 
 mand, probably, of Hezekiah, greatly enlarged and interpo- 
 lated bv writings upwards of a century later than his time, 
 which the ignorance or unfair intentions of subsequent col- 
 lectors and commentators have not scrupled to consecrate by 
 affixing to them his venerable name. 
 
 Jeremiah appears to have prophesied from about B.C. 630- 
 580, or before and at the commencement of the Captivity at 
 Babylon, and the chief portion of his writings refer to that 
 event, which in his time was rapidly and manifestly approach- 
 ing. The prophecies appear to have been written down by 
 Baruch, a scribe, from the dictation of Jeremiah (xxxyi.), and 
 to Ikave been collected soon after the return from exile^ but 
 by whom and at w^hat precise time is unknown; — and com- 
 mentators discover several passages in which the original text 
 appears to have been interpolated, or worked over again. 
 Still, the text seems to be far more pure, and the real, much 
 nearer to the professed, date, than in the case of Isaiah. 
 
 The genuineness of the Book of Ezekiel is less doubtful 
 than that of any other of the Prophets. His prophecies re- 
 late chiefly to the destruction of Jerusalem, which happened 
 during his time. He appears to have been carried into exile 
 by the victorious Chaldeeahs about eleven years before they 
 finally consummated the ruin of the Jewish Nation by the 
 destruction of their Capital. His prophecies appear to have 
 continued many years after the Captivity — sixteen according 
 to De Wetted Few pretend to understand him. 
 
 1 De Wette, ii. 3(54-390. - De Wette, ii. 416 and 396. 
 
 3 pe Wette, ii. 426. 
 
THE PROPHECIES. 55 
 
 Of all the prophetical ^-ritings, the Book of Daniel has 
 "been the subject of the fiercest contest. Divines have con- 
 sidered it of paramount importance, both on account of the 
 •definiteness and precision of its predictions, and the supposed 
 reference of many of them to Christ. Critics, on the other 
 hand, have considered the genuineness of the book to be 
 peculiarly questionable ; and few now, of any note or name, 
 Tenture to defend it. In all probability we have no remains 
 of the real prophecies of the actual Daniel — for that such 
 a person, famed for his wisdom and virtue, did exist, appears 
 from Ezek. xiv. and xxxviii. He must have lived about 
 570 years before Christ, vfhereas the Book which bears his 
 name was almost certainly wTitten in the time of Antiochus 
 Epiphanes, 110 years B.C. Some English Commentators^ 
 and Divines have endeavoured to escape from the obvious 
 and manifold difficulties of tlie Book, by conceiving part of 
 it to be genuine and part spurious. — But De Wette has 
 shown"^ that we have no reason for believing it not to be the 
 •work of one hand. It is full of historical inaccuracies and 
 fanciful legends ; and the opening statement is an obvious 
 error, shewing that the Writer was imperfectly acquainted 
 "with the chronology or details of the period in which he 
 takes Ms stand. The first chapter begins by informing us 
 that in the third year of King Jehoiakim, Nebuchadnezzar, 
 King of Babylon, besieged and took Jerusalem, and carried 
 the King (and Daniel) aw^ay captive. Whereas, we learn 
 from Jeremiah that Nebuchadnezzar was not King of Baby- 
 lon till the fourth year of Jehoiakim, and did not take 
 Jerusalem till seveti years later"'. It would be out of place 
 to adduce all the marks which betray the late origin of this 
 Book;~they maybe seen at length in De Wette. It is 
 here sufficient that we have no irroof ivhatever of its early 
 
 ^ ''I Lave long thought that the greater part of the book of Daniel is most 
 certainly a very late Avork, of the time of the Maccabees ; and the pretended, 
 prophecy about the Kings of Greece and Persia, and of the North and South, 
 is mere history, like the poetical prophecies in Virgil and elsewhere. In fact 
 jou can trace distinctly the date when it was wTitten, because the events up 
 to that date are given with historical minuteness, totally unlike the character 
 of real prophecy ; and beyond that date all is imaginary." — Again, he thinks 
 that criticism "proves the non-authenticity of great part of Daniel: that 
 there may be genuine fragments in it is very likely." — Arnold's Life and 
 €or. ii. 188. 
 
 2 De Wette, ii. 499. 
 
 ^ See the whole argument in De Wette, ii. 484 (note). 
 
56 ■ THE CREED OF CHRISTENDOM. 
 
 date, and that the most eminent critics have abandoned the 
 opinion of its genuineness as indefensible. 
 
 III. Thirdly, We have ah'eady had ample proof that the 
 Jewish Writers not only did not scruple to narrate past* 
 events as if predicting future ones — to present History in 
 the form of Prophecy — but that tliey habitually did so. The 
 original documents from which the Books of Moses were 
 compiled, must have been written, as we have seen, in the 
 time of the earhest Kings, while the Book of Deuteronomy 
 was not composed, and the whole Pentateuch did not assume 
 its present form till, probably, the reign of Josiah ; — yet they 
 abound in such anticipatory narrative — in predictions of 
 events long past. The instances are far too numerous to 
 quote ; — we will specify only a few of the most remark- 
 able :— Gen. XXV. 23; xxvii. 28, 29, 39, 40; xlix. passim. 
 Numb. xxiv. Deut. iv. 27 ; xxviii. 25, 36, 37, 64. 
 
 We anticipate that these remarks will be met by the reply 
 — "Whatever may be estabhshed as to the uncertainty which 
 hangs over the date of those prophecies which refer to the 
 temporal fortunes of the Hebrew Nation, no doubt can 
 exist that all tlie prophecies relating to the Messiah were 
 extant in their present form long previous to the advent of 
 Him in whose person the Cliristian world agrees to acknow- 
 ledge their fulfilment." This is true, and the argument 
 would have all the force which is attributed to it, were the 
 objectors able to lay their finger on a single Old Testament 
 Prediction clearly referring to Jesus Christ, intended hy the 
 iitterers of it to relate to him, prefiguring his character 
 and career, and manifestly fulfilled in his appearance on 
 earth. This they cannot do. Most of the passages usually 
 adduced as complying with these conditions, referred, and 
 were clearly intended to refer ^ to eminent individuals in 
 
 1 "We find throughout the New Testament," says Dr. Arnold, "references 
 made to various passages in the Old Testament, -which are alleged as i^roijlietic 
 of Christ, or of some particulars of the Christian dispensation. Kow if we 
 turn to the context of these passages, and so endeavour to discover their 
 meaning, according to the only sound principles of interpretation, it will 
 often appear that they do not relate to the Messiah, or to Christian times, but 
 are either expressions of religious affections generally, such as submission, 
 love, hope, &c, , or else refer to some particular circi;mstances in the life and 
 condition of the writer, or of the Jewish nation, and do not at all show that 
 anything more remote, or any events of a more universal and spiritual 
 character, were designed to be prophesied." — Sermons on the Interpretation 
 of Prophecy. Preface, p. 1. 
 
THE PROPHECIES. 67 
 
 Israelitisli History ; — many are not prophecies at all ; — the 
 Messiah, the Anointed Deliverer, expected by the Jews, 
 hoped for and called for by their Poets and Prophets, was of 
 a character so different, and a career so opposite, to those 
 of the meek, lowly, long-suffering Jesus, that the passages 
 describing the one never could have been apphed to the other, 
 without a perversion of ingenuity, and a disloyal treatment 
 of their obvious signification, which, if employed in any 
 other field than that of Theology, would have met with the 
 prompt discredit and derision they deserved There are, no 
 doubt, scattered verses in the Prophetic and Poetical Books 
 of the Hebrew Canon, which, as quotations, are apt and ap- 
 plicable enough to particular points in Christ's character and 
 story; — but of what equally voluminous collection of poems 
 or rhetorical compositions may the same not be said' ? Of 
 the references made by the Evangehsts to such passages, 
 we shall speak hereafter. 
 
 The state of the case appears to be this : — That all the 
 Old Testament Prophecies have been assumed to be 
 genuine, inspired predictions ; and Avhen falsified in their 
 obvious meaning and received interjiretation by the event, 
 have received immediately a new interpretation, and been 
 supposed to refer to some other event. When the result 
 has disappointed expectation, the conclusion has been, not 
 that the prophecy was false, but that the interpretation was 
 erroneous. It is obvious that a mode of reasoning like this 
 is peculiar to Theological Inquirers. 
 
 From this habit of assuming that Prophecy was Predic- 
 tion, and must have its fulfilment — which was prevalent 
 among the Jews as among modern Divines — appears to have 
 
 1 This disingenuousriess is obvious in one point especially : the Messianic 
 Prophecies are interpreted literally or pjuratively, as may best suit their 
 adaptation to the received history of Jesus. Thus that " the wolf shall lie 
 down with the lamb, and the lion eat grass like an ox," is taken figuratively : 
 that the ]\Iessiah should ride into Jerusalem on an ass, is taken literally. 
 
 - Perhaps none of the Old Testament prophecies are more clearly Messianic 
 than the following passage from Plato : — O'vtu ItaKt'ifAivos o Aixono; f/.aa-ri'yeutnTui, 
 trrpilSXeoffiTai, 1ihr,(Tirce.i, iKKoa/^i^a-iTcn t' u(p6a,Xfiai, TiXiUTUv ravra, kccko, Ta.Suv 
 ec)ix(TKiv^vXi.u$n<nTa.i. Plato, de Kepublica, 1. ii. p. 3G1, E. 
 
 Speaking of this Teacher of Mankind whom he expected, he says, "This 
 just man will scarcely be endured by them— but probably Avill be scourged, 
 racked, tormented, have his eyes burnt out, and at last having suffered all 
 manner of evils, shall be impaled''— ov, as the original term will signify, 
 " Crucified.''' 
 
58 THE CREED OF CHRISTENDOM. 
 
 arisen the natioDal expectation of a Messiah. — A Deliverer 
 was hoped for, expected, prophesied, in the time of Jewish 
 misery (and Cyrus was perhaps the first referred to) ; but as 
 no one appeared who did what the Messiah, according to 
 Prophecy, should do. they went on degrading each succes- 
 sive Conqueror and Hero from the Messianic dignity, and 
 are still expecting the true Deliverer. — Hebrew and Chris- 
 tian Divines both start from the same assumed and unproven 
 premises, viz. : — that a Messiah, having been foretold, must 
 appear; — but there they diverge, and the Jews show them- 
 selves to be the sounder logicians of the two : — the Chris- 
 tians, assuming that Jesus was tRe Messiah intended (though 
 not the one expected), wrest the obvious meaning of the 
 Prophecies to show that they were fulfilled in him ; — while 
 the Jews, assuming the obvious meaning of the Prophecies 
 to be their real meaning, argue that they were not fulfilled 
 in Clirist, and therefore that the Messiah is yet to come. 
 
 One of the most remarkable attempts to retain the sacred- 
 ness and authority of Hebrew Prophecy, while admitting 
 the non-fulfilment or the inadequate fulfilment of many of 
 its predictions, has been made by Dr. Arnold. The native 
 truthfulness of his intellect led him to a fair appreciation of 
 the dilficulties attendant on the ordinary mode of inter- 
 preting Prophecy, while the tenacity of his faith (or, to 
 speak more correctly, his affection for what he had been 
 taught to believe and reverence) made him unwilling to 
 renounce views which hold so prominent a position in the 
 orthodox system of doctrine. His method of meeting the 
 perplexity was this : — He conceived that all prophecy had a 
 double meaning— an historical and obvious, and a spiritual 
 or recondite signification — and that the latter only coidd 
 receive a complete and adequate fulfilment. Nay, he went 
 still further, and maintained that Prophecy 7nust, from the 
 necessity of the case, embody these two senses — the sense 
 of the God who inspired it, and the sense of the man who 
 uttered it. We will o-ive this sino-ular theory in his own 
 words, extracted from his Sermons on Prophecy. 
 
 "Now, first of all, it is a very misleading notion of Pro- 
 phecy, if we regard it as an anticipation of History 
 
 It is anticipated History, not in our common sense of the 
 word, but in another and far higher sense .... History is 
 busied with particular nations, persons, and events ; and from 
 
THE PROPHECIES. 59 
 
 the study of these, extracts, as well as it can, some general 
 principles. Prophecy is husied with general principles ; and 
 inasmuch as particular nations, persons, and events, repre- 
 sent these principles up to a certain point, so far it is con- 
 cerned also with them .... Prophecy, then, is God's voice 
 speaking to us respecting the issue in all time of that great 
 struggle which is the real interest of human life, the struggle 
 between good and evil. Beset as we are with evil, within 
 and without, it is the natural and earnest question of the 
 human mind, what shall he the end at last ? And the 
 answer is given by Prophecy, that it shall he well at last; 
 and there shall he a time when good shall perfectly triumph. 
 
 And this being so, as it is most certain that 
 
 no people on earth has ever either perfectly served the 
 cause of good, or utterly opposed it, so it follows that no 
 people can, if I may so speak, fully satisfy the mind of 
 Prophecy, because no people purely represents those un- 
 mixed principles of good and evil, with which alone Pro- 
 phecy is properly concerned. And thus it has happened, 
 that those who have attempted to trace an historical fulfil- 
 ment of the language of Prophecy with regard to various 
 nations, have never done their work satisfactorily, nor on 
 their system was it possible to do it. For the language of 
 Prophecy on these subjects could not be literally accom- 
 plished for two reasons : first, because it was not properly 
 applicable to any earthly nation, from the imperfection of 
 all human things ; and, secondly, because even that cha- 
 racter of imperfect good or evil, which made certain na- 
 tions the representatives, so to speak, of the principles of 
 good and evil themselves, was not and could not be per- 
 petual Thus there may be cases in which no his- 
 torical fulfilment of national prophecies is to be found at 
 all ; but in all cases the fulfilment would fall short of the 
 full strength of the language, because, to say it once again, 
 the language in its proper scope and force was aimed at a 
 more unmixed good and evil than have ever been exhibited 
 in the character of any earthly people Gene- 
 rally the language of Prophecy will be found to be hyper- 
 bolical, as far as regards its historical subjects, and only 
 corresponding with the truth exactly, if ice suhstitiite for 
 the historical subject the idea of ivhich it is the represen- 
 
60 THE CREED OF CHRISTENDOM. 
 
 tative'^ But if it be asked, why then was the 
 
 language of Prophecy so strong, if it was not meant to be 
 literally fulfilled ? 1 answer, that the real subject of the 
 Prophecy in its highest sense is not the historical, but the 
 spiritual Babylon ; and that no expressions of ruin and 
 destruction can be too strong when applied to the world 
 W"hicli is to dissolve, and utterly to perish. And it will be 
 found, I think, a general rule in all the prophecies of Scrip- 
 ture, that they contain expressions which will only be ade- 
 quately fulfilled in their last and spiritual fulfilment ; and 
 that, as appHed to the lower fulfilments which precede this, 
 they are and must be hyperbohcal." ^ 
 
 It is difiicult to grapple with a mode of interpretation 
 such as this; — equally difiicult to comprehend how an 
 earnest and practical understanding like Dr. Arnold's could 
 for a moment rest satisfied with such a cloudy phantom. 
 Our homely conceptions can make nothing of an oracle 
 which says one thing, but means something very difi'erent 
 and more noble ; — which, in denouncing, ivith minute 
 details, destruction against Egypt, Babylon, and Tyre, 
 merely threatens final defeat to the powers of Evil ; — which 
 in depicting, in precisest terms, the material prosperity 
 reserved for the Israelites, only intended to promise bless- 
 ings to the virtuous and devout of every age and clime ; — 
 and which in describing ancient historical personages, did 
 so always with an arritre jjeiisce towards Christ. If Dr. 
 Arnold means to say that the Old Testament Prophecies 
 signified primarily, chiefly, and most specifically, the ulti- 
 mate triumph of good over evil — of God and Virtue 
 over the World, the Flesh, and the Devil — (and this cer- 
 tainly apiiears to be his meaning) ; — we can only reply 
 that, in that case, they are Poetry, and not Prediction ; — 
 that this was not the signification attached to them either 
 by the Prophets who uttered them, or by the People who 
 
 ^ Dr. Arnold conceives the different states and cities towards which are 
 directed the promises and denunciations of Holy Writ, to represent in the 
 prophetic mind certain ideal virtues and vices, &c. Thus Israel means not 
 the Jews, so much as "God's People" in the abstract, the virtuous of the 
 earth in all times : Babylon signifies the world in its wickedness; Egypt the 
 world merely in its worldlincss ; while the "Prophetic idea of Edom is the 
 sin of those who offend one of Christ's little ones." 
 
 - Sermons on the Interpretation of Prophecy. Yar. loc. 
 
THE PROPHECIES. 01 
 
 listened to them, and that it is precluded by the frequent 
 particularity and precision of tlieir language. To conceive, 
 therefore, this to be the meaning of the God who is alle^-ed to 
 have inspired them, is to imagine that He used incompetent 
 and deceptive instruments for his communications ;— and it 
 is certain that had the Prophecies been perfectly and un- 
 questionably fulfilled in their obvious sense, this secondary 
 and recondite signification would never have been heard oi*. 
 We are surprised that Dr. Arnold did not perceive that to 
 allow of a " double sense" is to give all false prophecy a 
 guarantee against being disproved by the event. 
 
 In justification of this idea of a double sense, he continues 
 — •'* The notion of a double sense in Prophecy has been 
 treated by some persons with contempt. Yet it may be 
 said, that it is almost necessarily involved in the very idea 
 of Prophecy. — Every prophecy has, according to the very 
 definition of the word, a double source ; it has, if I may 
 venture so to speak, tv/o authors, the one human, the other 
 
 divine If uttered by the tongue of man, it must 
 
 also, unless we suppose him to be a mere instrument (in the 
 same sense as a flute or a harp), be coloured by his own 
 mind. The prophet expresses in words certain truths con- 
 veyed to his mind ; but his mind does not fully embrace 
 them, nor can it ; for how can man fully comprehend the 
 mind of God ? Every man lives in time, and belongs to 
 time ; the present must be to him clearer tban the future. 
 
 But with God there is no past, nor future ; every 
 
 truth is present to Him in all its extent ; so that His expres- 
 sion of it, if I may so speak, differs essentially from that 
 which can be comprehended hy the mind, or uttered by the 
 tongue of man. Thus every prophecy as uttered by man 
 (that is, by an inteUigent and not a mere mechanical instru- 
 ment), and at the same time as inspired by God, must, as 
 far as appears, have a double sense : one, the sense enter- 
 tained hy the human mind of the Writer ; the other, the 
 dense infused i?ito it by God." ^ 
 
 We must confess our amazement at the obvious and ex- 
 treme unsoundness of this whole passage. Not only does it 
 
 1 Sermons on Pi'ophecy, p. 51. A little further on he says : — '' We may 
 even suppose the prophet to be totally ignorant of the divine meaning of his 
 words, and to intend to express a meaning of his own quite unlike God's 
 meaning !" 
 
62 THE CREED OF CHRISTENDOM. 
 
 paiDfully remiucl us of the double meaning so often and so 
 justly charged upon the Pagan oracles — but it assumes the 
 strange and contradictory improbabihties : Jlrst, that God 
 was unable to convey his meaning to the mind of the 
 Prophet ; secondly, that He infused this meaning into the 
 words which were uttered, although He could not infuse it 
 into the mind of the man who uttered them ; and, thirdly, 
 that ice can see further into the mind and meaning of God 
 than those to whom He spoke; — that they, in expressing 
 the ideas which He had put into their minds, mistook or 
 imperfectly conceived those ideas — but that to us is given to 
 discover a thought which those vrords contained, but did not 
 express, or which, if they did express it, they were not 
 understood by the Writer to express. Xow, either the ideas 
 which God wished to communicate were conveyed to the 
 mind of the Prophet, or they were not : — if they were so 
 conveyed, then the Prophet must have comprehended them, 
 and intended to express them correctly, and of course did 
 express them correctly — for it is monstrous to suppose that 
 God would infuse ideas into a man's mind for the purpose 
 of being communicated to the public, which ideas He yet 
 did not enable him so to communicate : — and then all the 
 above confused subtleties fall to the ground. If, on the 
 other hand, these ideas were not so conveyed to the Pro- 
 phet's mind, then it must have been the words and not the 
 ideas which were inspired, and God used the Prophet 
 simply as a flute (a supposition scouted by Dr. Arnold) ; 
 — and we are thus driven to the equally monstrous supposi- 
 tion that God used words which did not convey his meaning, 
 even to the very favoured individual to whom and through 
 whom He spoke. If God's sense icas "infused" into the 
 Prophetic language, how could that sense have been missed 
 by the Prophet, and caught only by others in these latter 
 times ? and what was the use of language which could not 
 be rightly comprehended except centuries after it was spoken, 
 and by a different People from those to whom it was spoken ? 
 If God's sense was not infused into the words, through the 
 incompetency of the utterer, how can Dr. Arnold discover it 
 therein ? It may be, however, that Dr. Arnold's conception 
 of the case was this, though it is not what we should gather 
 from his language : — that beneath the obvious meaning of 
 the words of Prophecy, as uttered by the Prophet, and 
 
THE PROPHECIES. 63 
 
 understood by him and liis hearers, hiy a latent signification, 
 as it were written with invisible ink, which could only be 
 discovered in later ages, and by the light which historical 
 experience and advancing enUghtenment throws upon it. 
 No doubt this is possible; bat it is unproved, and requires 
 much proof before it can be admitted ; — and it is especially 
 worthy of remark, that the supposition, unquestionably a 
 violent one, is rendered necessary only by the assumption 
 that the prophecies were predictions, coupled with the fact 
 that they have not been fulfilled in their literal meaning; — 
 and it involves the admission, that they were in a manner 
 deceptive, since they were misunderstood, and, by the suppo- 
 sition, must have been misunderstood, by the People to 
 whom they were addressed. 
 
 Yet all these unnatural explanations are resorted to, all 
 these fatal dilemmas encountered, all this appearance of 
 irreverence and disingenuousness incurred, simply to avoid 
 the conclusion that the Prophets were wise, gifted, earnest 
 men, deeply conversant with the Past — looking far into the 
 Future— shocked with the unrighteousness around them— 
 sagacious to foresee impending evil — bold to denounce 
 spiritual vdckedness in high places— imbued, above all, with 
 an unfailing faith, peculiarly strong among their people, 
 that national dehnquency and national virtue would alike 
 meet with a tem^poral and inevitable retribution— and gifted 
 " with the glorious foculty of poetic hope, exerted on human 
 prospects, and presenting its results with the vividness of 
 prophecy ;" — but Prophets in no stricter sense than this. 
 
CHAPTER V. 
 
 THEISM OF THE JEWS IMPURE AND PROGRESSIVE. 
 
 It is an assumption of the popular theology, and an almost 
 universal belief in the popular mind, that the Jewish nation 
 was selected by the Almighty to preserve and carry down 
 to later ages a knowledge of the One true God ;— that the 
 Patriarchs possessed this knowledge ; — that Moses delivered 
 and enforced this doctrine as the fundamental tenet of the 
 national creed ;— and that it was, in fact, the received and 
 distinctive dogma of the Hebrew People. This alleged pos- 
 session of the true faith by one only people, while all sur- 
 rounding tribes were lost in Polytheism, or something worse, 
 has been adduced by divines in general as a proof of the 
 truth of the sacred history, and of the divine origin of the 
 Mosaic dispensation, and forms, indeed, one of the standard 
 arguments of Theologians in the present day. Paley, the 
 actual text-book of one of our Universities, writes of it 
 thus : — 
 
 " Undoubtedly our Saviour assumes the divine origin of 
 the Mosaic Institution ; and, independently of his authority, 
 I conceive it to be very difficult to assign any other cause 
 for the commencement or existence of that Institution; 
 especially for the singular circumstance of the Jews adhering 
 to the Unity, when every other people slid into polytheism ; 
 for their being men in religion, children in everything else ; 
 behind other nations in the arts of peace and war, superior 
 to the most improved in their sentiments and doctrines 
 relating to the Deity." ^ 
 
 Milman * speaks of the pure monotheism of the Jews in a 
 similar strain : — 
 
 " The religious history of this people is no less singular. 
 
 1 Paley' s Evidences of Christianity. ^ History of tlie Jews, i. 4. 
 
THEISM OF THE JEWS. 05 
 
 In the narrow slip of land inhabited by their tribes, the 
 worship of one Almighty Creator of the Universe subsists, as 
 in its only sanctuary. In every stage of Society, under 
 the pastoral tent of Abraham, and in the sumptuous 
 Temple of Solomon, the same creed maintains its in- 
 violable simplicity Nor is this merely a 
 
 sublime speculative tenet ; it is the basis of their civil con- 
 stitution, and of their national character. As there is but 
 one Almighty God, so there is but one People under his 
 special protection, the descendants of Abraham." 
 
 Now the actual state of the case seems to be this — and it 
 may be read so clearly in every page of Holy Writ, that 
 how it could have been so long ignored is a striking proof 
 how completely we read our Bible through the spectacles of 
 our theology ; — that the Jews as a nation were not mono- 
 theists — i. e., believers in the exclusive existence of one sole 
 God — till a very late period of their history' ; — that their 
 early and popular notions of the Deity were eminently 
 coarse, low, and unworthy; — that among them, as among 
 all other nations, the conceptions of God formed by indivi- 
 duals varied according to their intellectual and spiritual 
 capacities, being poor and anthropomorphic among the igno- 
 rant and coarse-minded, pure and lofty among the virtuous 
 and richly-gifted ; — and, finally, that these conceptions gra- 
 dually improved, and became purified and ennobled, as the 
 Hebrews advanced in civihzation — being, generally speak- 
 ing, lowest in the Historical Books, amended in the pro- 
 phetical Writings, and reaching their highest elevation 
 among the Poets of the Nation. 
 
 In its progress from Fetichism to pure Theism, the human 
 mind generally passes through three stages— or, to speak 
 more correctly, man's idea of God passes through three 
 forms of development. We have Him represented first as 
 the God of the individual or family ; then as the God of 
 the nation; lastly, as the God of the human mt?^.— Now 
 we find all these three views of Deity in the Old Testament 
 — sometimes, it is true, strangely jumbled together, as might 
 be expected in books written by different persons at difFerenr. 
 times — but on the whole bearing pretty distinct marks of 
 the periods at which they respectively prevailed. 
 
 ^ Bauer thinks not till after the Babylonian Captivity. — Theol. des Alt. 
 Test., i. 4. 
 
66 THE CREED OF CHRISTENDOM. 
 
 The representations of God in tlie history of Abraham 
 leave little doubt that the God whom he worshipped was a 
 family God, selected, probably, by him for some reason un- 
 known to us, out of a number of others who were worshipped 
 by his fathers and his tribe. We are expressly told that the 
 father and grandfather of Abraham "worshipped other 
 Gods;" — and the representations given of the God of 
 Abraham, and of his proceedings during the lives of the 
 three Patriarchs, are so mean and material that it is difficult 
 to conceive how a knowledge of the One true God, Maker 
 of Heaven and Earth, could have been ascribed to any of 
 them. God appears to Abraham with two angels in the 
 form of men — (they are spoken of as "three men") — sits at 
 the door of his tent — partakes of his repast— is angry at the 
 laughter of Sarah, and an altercation takes place between 
 them ; after which He discusses with him the case of Sodom 
 and Gomorrah, and informs him that He is going down 
 thither to see whether the reports which have reached him 
 are correct ^ " Your fathers dwelt on the other side of the 
 flood in old time, even Terah, the father of Abraham and 
 the father of Nachor : and they served other Gods." 
 (Joshua xxiv. 2.) " The God of Abraham and the God of 
 Nachor, the God of their father, judge betwixt us." (Gen. 
 xxxi. 53.) There are not wanting many traces of Polytheism 
 in the earlier portions of Hebrew History. The expression 
 Jehovah Elohim, " The God of Gods," seems to indicate 
 this. Bauer thinks that " the Elohim, who were probably at 
 one time worshipped as equal Gods, are in Genesis recog- 
 nized as subordinate deities, with whom Jehovah, the highest 
 Eloah, enters into Council." (Theol. des Alt. Test. i. 3.) 
 It will be remembered that Laban, a near relative of Abraham, 
 whose sister he had expressly selected as his son Isaac's 
 wife, pursued Jacob for having " stolen his Gods." (Gen. 
 xxxi. 30.) He, therefore, worshipped fetiches. In Gen. xxxv. 
 2-4, we find Jacob collecting the strange Gods worshipped 
 
 1 Bauer observes that the Samaritan and Arabian translators, ' ' from an 
 anxious apprehension lest a corporeal existence should be attributed to the 
 Deity, frequently substituted the expression angel of God, for the names 
 Jehovah and Elohim," Thus they have "Ye shall be as the angels of God," 
 instead of "Ye shall be as Gods" (Gen. ii. 5) ; "In the likeness of the 
 an^el of God made he him" (Gen. v. 1) ; "The angel of God went up from 
 Abraham" (Gen. xvii. 22), and so on. 
 
THEISM OF THE JEWS. G7 
 
 by his household, and hiding them under an oak. It is 
 certainly remarkable that both Abraham and Isaac should 
 insist upon their sons marrying into an idolatrous family, if 
 they had really believed their own God to be the only one. 
 
 Jacob's ideas of God are, as might be expected from his 
 mean and tricky character, even lower than those of Abraham. 
 He makes a condition, on which he will select Jehovah to 
 be his God, and will give Him a tithe of all his possessions 
 (Gen. xxviii. 20) ;— he represents Him as his confidant in 
 cheating Laban, and wrestles with Him bodilv to extort a 
 blessing. Who, after reading such passages, can for a 
 moment accept the belief that Jacob and Job worshipped 
 the same God ? ^ ^ 
 
 In process of time the descendants of Abraham multiplied 
 and became a numerous people, and naturally continued the 
 worship of that God who had done so much for their fore- 
 fathers. Thus the family God of Abraham, Isaac, and 
 Jacob, gradually enlarged into the 7?atio7ial God of the 
 Israelites, to whose worship they adhered with o-reater or 
 less tenacity, with greater or less exclusiveness, durino- their 
 residence in Egypt. As the history proceeds the concep- 
 tions of this God seem to become purer and loftier, till in 
 the mind of Moses, an intellectual and highly- educated man 
 versed in all the learning of the Egyptians, they often (as 
 far as we can guess what came from him), reached to a 
 sublime simplicity of expression rarely surpassed. Stil 
 there is no reason to suppose that Moses disbelieved in the 
 existence of other Gods; — the God whom he serves is still 
 " the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob;" — He is never 
 asserted to be the 07rly God; the existence and power of 
 rival Deities is never denied, but is even admitted by impli- 
 cation. All that Moses claims for Jehovah is, not that he 
 is the Sole God, but that he is superior to all others. '' Who 
 is like unto Thee, Jehovah, among the Gods ?" (Ex. xv 
 IP.) And he represents him to Pharaoh, by Jehovah's 
 own command, as the " God of the Hebrews,"' not as the 
 Supreme Lord of Heaven and Earth. Even in the delivery 
 of the Commandments, the great foundation of the Law, it 
 is not said, " There is no God but Jehovah," but only '* I 
 
 » Jethro says : "Now I know that Jehovah is greater than all Gods • for 
 in the thing wherein they dealt proudly, he was above them all "— CExod 
 xviii. 11.) * ^ 
 
 F 2 
 
08 THE CREED OF CHRISTENDOM. 
 
 am the Lord thy God, which brought thee out of the House 
 of Bondage; Thou slialt have no other Gods beside me 
 (or before me)." The whole of the xxivth chapter of 
 Joshua confirms this view : he there urges the Israehtes to 
 choose Jehovah, not as the only God, whom to desert would 
 be to become Atheists, but as a God whose bounties to thera 
 had been so great that it would be black ingratitude not to 
 prefer him to all others. The whole history of the lapses of 
 the Jewish Nation into idolatry also negative the idea of 
 their having been really monotheists. The worship of the 
 golden calf and the Canaanitish Gods was quite natural on 
 the supposition of Jehovah being merely a paramount and 
 preferred God : — monstrous, if they had believed him to be 
 the only one. Moreover, their idolatry is always spoken of 
 as itijidelity, not as athehm. 
 
 As civihzation advanced, prophets, sages, and poets arose 
 among the Hebrews, to whom the limited and anthropo- 
 morphic conceptions of the Deity, prevalent among the 
 people, were painfully inadequate and revolting ; — and they 
 endeavoured by nobler representations of the object of their 
 worship to convert the national religion into a pure theism ; 
 in which, however, it is thought by many that they did not 
 succeed till after the Captivity. After this idea had once 
 taken root, the nation never showed any disposition to 
 relapse into idolatry. And even to the latest period of the 
 Canonical writings we find representations both of the nature 
 and attributes of Jehovah so utterly discrepant as to leave 
 no doubt that among the Jews, as among all other nations, 
 the God of the wise and the God of the ignorant— the God 
 of the Priests and the God of the Prophets — were the em- 
 bodiment of two very different classes of ideas. Let any 
 one compare the partial, unstable, revengeful, and deceitful 
 God of Exodus and Numbers, with the sublime and unique 
 Deity of Job, and the nobler Psalms, or even the God of 
 Isaiah with the God of Ezekiel and Daniel — and he can 
 scarcely fail to admit that the conception of the One living 
 and true God was a plant of slow and gradual growth in the 
 Hebrew mind, and was due not to Moses, the Patriarchs, or 
 the Priests, but to the superiority of individual minds at 
 various periods of their History. Compare the follow^- 
 ing representations which we have arranged in parallel 
 columns. 
 
THEISM OF THE JEWS 
 
 CD 
 
 And Jehovah spake to Moses, say- 
 ing — Let them make me a sanctuary, 
 that I may dwell among them, — And 
 thou shalt put the mercy-seat above 
 upon the ark, . . , and there I will 
 meet with thee, and I will commune 
 with thee.— Exod. xxv. 8, 21-22. 
 
 But will God in very deed dwell on 
 the earth ? Behold the Heaven, and 
 the Heaven of Heavens, cannot con- 
 tain Thee ; how much less this House 
 that I have builded ! — 1 Kings viii. 
 27. 
 
 Whither shall I go from thy Spirit? 
 or whither shall I flee from thy pre- 
 sence ? — Ps. cxxxix, 7-10. 
 
 And it came to pass, as Moses en- 
 tered into the tabernacle, that the 
 •cloudy pillar descended, and stood at 
 the door of the tabernacle ; and Je- 
 liovah talked with Moses.— And Je- 
 liovah spake unto Moses face to face, 
 as a man speaketh unto his friend. — 
 Exod. xxxiii. 9, 11. 
 
 For they have heard that thou, Je- 
 iaovah, art among this People, that 
 thou, Jehovah, art seen face to face. 
 — Numbers xiv. 14. 
 
 And Jehovah said. Behold there is 
 a place by me, and thou shalt stand 
 upon a rock. And it shall come to 
 pass, while ray glory passeth by, that 
 I will put thee in a clift of the rock, 
 ;ind will cover thee with my hand 
 Avliile I pass by : And I will take 
 away mine hand, and thou shalt see 
 my back parts ; but my face shall not 
 be seen Exod. xxxiii. 21-24. 
 
 And Moses returned to the Lord, 
 and said. Lord, wherefore hast thou 
 so evil entreated this people 1 Why 
 is it that thou hast sent me ? For 
 since I came to Pharaoh to speak in 
 thy name, he hath done evil to this 
 jjeople ; neither hast thou delivered 
 thy people at all. — Exod. v, 22, 23. 
 
 And Jehovah said unto Moses, I 
 Lave seen this people, and behold it 
 is a stiff-necked people : Now there- 
 fore let me alone, that my wrath may 
 wax hot against them, that I may 
 consume them ; and I will make of 
 thee a great nation. 
 
 And Moses besought Jehovah his 
 God, and said, Lord, why doth thy 
 wrath wax hot against thy people, 
 which thou hast brought forth out of 
 the land of Egypt, with great power, 
 .and with a mighty hand ? 
 
 Lo, he goeth by me, and I see him 
 not ; he passeth on also, but I per- 
 ceive him not. — Job ix. 11. 
 
 Behold, I go forward, but he is not 
 there ; and backward, but I cannot 
 perceive him : On the left-hand, where 
 he doth work, but I cannot behold 
 him : he hideth himself on the right 
 hand, that I cannot see him. — Job 
 
 Jehovah my God, thou art veiy 
 great ; thou art clothed with honour 
 and majesty : Who coverest thyself 
 with light as with a garment ; who 
 stretchest out the Heavens like a cui'- 
 tain ; Who layeth the beams of his 
 chambers in the waters ; who maketh 
 the clouds his chariot ; who walketh 
 upon the wings of the wind. — Psalm 
 civ. 1-3. 
 
 Then Job answered and said, I 
 know it is so of a truth ; but How 
 should man be just with God ? If he 
 will contend with Him, he cannot 
 answer him one of a thousand. 
 
 For he is not a man, as I am, that 
 I should answer Him, and we should 
 come together in judgment. — Job ix. 
 2, 3, 32. 
 
 Shall mortal man be more just than 
 God ? Shall a man be more pure than 
 his maker ? — Job iv. 17. 
 
 The counsel of Jehovah standeth for 
 ever, and the thoughts of His heart 
 unto all generations. — Ps. xxxiii. 11. 
 
 Wherefore should the Egyptians I know that whatsoever God doeth, 
 
70 
 
 THE CREED OF CHRISTENDOM. 
 
 speak and say, For mischief did he 
 bring them out, to slay them in the 
 mountains, and consume them from 
 the face of the earth ? Turn from 
 thy fierce wrath, and repent of this 
 evil against thy People : Remember 
 Abraham, Isaac, and Israel, thy 
 servants, to whom thou swarest by 
 thine own self, and saidst unto them, 
 I will multiply your seed as the stars 
 of heaven, and all this land that I 
 have spoken of I will give unto your 
 seed, and they shall inherit it for 
 ever. And the Lord repented of the 
 evil which he thought to do unto his 
 people. — Exod. xxxii. 9-14. 
 
 And the Lord said unto Moses, 
 Speak now in the ears of the People, 
 and let every man borrow of his 
 neighbour, and every woman of her 
 neighbour, Jewels of silver, and 
 Jewels of gold. And the Lord gave 
 the people favour in the sight of the 
 Egyptians. 
 
 And the children of Israel did ac- 
 cording to the word of Moses ; and 
 they borrowed of the Egyptians, 
 Jewels of silver, and Jewels of gold, 
 and raiment. And Jehovah gave the 
 people favour in the sight of the 
 Egyptians, so that they lent unto 
 them. And they spoiled the Egyp- 
 tians.— Exod. iii. 21, 22 ; xi. 2, 3 ; 
 xii. 35, 36. 
 
 And Jehovah said, "Who shall per- 
 suade Ahab, that he may go up and 
 fall at Ramoth-Gilead ? And one 
 said on this manner, and another 
 said on that manner. And there 
 came forth a spirit, and stood before 
 the Lord, and said, I will persuade 
 Mm. And Jehovah said unto him, 
 Wherewith ? And he said, I will go 
 forth, and I will be a lying spirit in 
 the mouth of all his prophets. And 
 He said. Thou shalt persuade him, 
 and prevail also : go forth, and do 
 so.— 1 Kings xxii. 20-23. 
 
 And they went in unto Noah in 
 the ark, and the Lord shut him in. 
 • — Gen. vii. 16. 
 
 it shall be for ever ; nothing can be 
 put to it, nor anything taken from it. 
 — Eccles. iii. 14. 
 
 The Strength of Israel will not lie, 
 nor repent : for He is not a man, that 
 He should repent. — 1 Sam. xv. 29. 
 
 Lord, who shall abide in thy taber- 
 nacle ? who shall dwell in thy holy 
 hill ? He that walketh uprightly, and 
 worketh righteousness, and speaketh 
 the truth in his heart. — Psalm xv. 
 1, 2. 
 
 For the word of the Lord is right, 
 and all his works are done in truth. 
 He loved righteousness and judgment. 
 — Ps. xxxiii. 4, 5. 
 
 Lying lips are an abomination to 
 the Lord : but they that deal truly 
 are his delight. — Prov. xii. 22. 
 
 >^' The eyes of the Lord are in every- 
 place, beholding the evil and the 
 good.— Prov. XV. 3. 
 
 And Jehovah came doivn to see the Jehovah looketh from Heaven : he 
 
THEISM OF THE JEWS. 
 
 71 
 
 city and the tower which, the children 
 of men builded. — Gen. xi. 5. 
 
 And Noah built an altar unto the 
 Lord, and offered burnt offerings on 
 the altar. And the Lord smelled a 
 sweet savour ; and the Lord said in 
 His heai't, I will not again curse the 
 ground any more for man's sake. — • 
 Gfen. viii. 20, 21. 
 
 beholdeth all the sons of men. — Psalm 
 xxxiii. 13. 
 
 I will take no bullock out of thy 
 house, nor he-goats out of thy folds ; 
 For every beast of the forest is mine, 
 and the cattle upon a thousand hills. 
 If I wei-e hungry, I would not tell 
 thee ; for the world is mine, and the 
 fulness thereof. Will I eat the flesh 
 of bulls, or drink the blood of goats ? 
 Offer unto God thanksgiving. — Psalm 
 1. 9-14. 
 
 But ye shall offer the burnt-offering 
 for a sweet savour unto the Lord. — 
 Num. xxviii. 27. 
 
 And ye shall offer a burnt-offering, 
 a sacrifice made by fire, of a sweet 
 savour, unto the Lord, thirteen bul- 
 locks, two rams, and fourteen lambs 
 of the first year ; they shall be with- 
 out blemish. — Num. xxix. 13, 36. 
 
 For thou desirest not sacrifice, else 
 would I give it : thou delightest not 
 in burnt- offering. — Ps. li. 16. 
 
 To what purpose is the multitude 
 of your sacrifices unto me ? saith the 
 Lord : I am full of the burnt-offer- 
 ings of rams, and the fat of fed 
 beasts ; and I delight not in the 
 blood of bullocks, or of lambs, or of 
 he-goats. — Isaiah i. 11. 
 
 Wherewith shall I come before 
 Jehovah, and bow myself before the 
 high God ? Shall I come before him 
 with burnt-offerings, with calves of a 
 year old ? Will the Lord be pleased 
 with thousands of rams, or with ten 
 thousand rivers of oil ? Shall I give 
 my first-born for my transgression, 
 the fruit of my body for the sin of 
 my soul ? He hath shewed thee, 
 man, what is good; and what doth 
 Jehovah require of thee, but to do 
 justly, to love mercy, and to walk 
 humbly with thy God.— Micah vi. 
 
CHAPTEE VI. 
 
 ORIGIN OF THE GOSPELS. 
 
 The current idea respecting the nature of tlie Gospel His- 
 tory is, that the four Evangehsts Avere eye-witnesses (or the 
 amanuenses of eye-witnesses) of the events which they re- 
 late ; and that we have, in fact, embodied in their narratives, 
 four independent and corroborative testimonies to the words 
 and deeds of Christ. Their substantial agreement is appealed 
 to in proof of their fidelity, and their numerous and cir- 
 cumstantial discrepancies are accepted as proof of their 
 independence'. Let us examine what foundation can be 
 discovered for this current opinion. Have we any reason 
 to believe that all the Evangelists, or that any of them, 
 were companions of Christ — eye and ear-witnesses of his 
 career ? And if not, what does critical Science teach us of 
 the probable origin of the four Gospels ? 
 
 ^ Thus Paley says, "The usual character of human testimony is substantial 
 truth under circumstantial variety. When accounts of a transaction come 
 from the mouths of different witnesses, it is seldom that it is not possible to 
 point out apparent or real inconsistencies between them. These inconsisten- 
 cies are studiously displayed by an adverse pleader, but oftentimes with little 
 impression upon the minds of the judges. On the contrary, a close and 
 minute agreement induces the suspicion of confederacy or fraud." — Paley's 
 Evidences, p. 414. 
 
 Again, Lardner says, *'I have all my days read and admired the first 
 three evangelists, as independent witnesses, and I know not how to forbear 
 ranking the other opinion among those bold as well as groundless assertions 
 in which critics too often indulge, without considering the consequences." — 
 Dr. Lardner, like many other divines, required to be reminded that critics 
 have nothing to do with consequences, but only with truths, and that (to 
 use the language of Algernon Sidney), *'a consequence cannot destroy a 
 truth." 
 
ORIGIN OF THE GOSPELS. 7u 
 
 Tlie first gospel 1ms come down to us under the title of 
 the Gospel of, or according to, St. Matthew ; and the tradi- 
 tion of the Church is that it was written (probably about 
 A.D. 68) by Matthew, the publican, one of the twelve apos- 
 tles, the same who was called by Jesus while ** sitting at 
 the receipt of custom." This is distinctly stated by several 
 of the early ftithers, as the received opinion or tradition — 
 as by Papias (a.d. 116), Irenseus (a.d. 178), Origen (a.d. 
 230), Epiphanius (a.d. 368), and Jerome (a.d. 392)'. All 
 these fathers, however, wiiliout exception, expressly affirm 
 that Matthew wrote his Gospel in the Hebrew language, 
 whereas the Gospel which we receive as Matthew's is written 
 in Greek ; and not only have we no account of its having 
 been translated, and no guarantee of such translation being a 
 faithful one, but learned men are satisfied from internal 
 evidence that it is not a translation at all, but must have 
 been originally written in Greek". Our present Gospel, 
 therefore, cannot be the Gospel to which the fathers above 
 cited refer. It would appear simpJy that Matthew did write 
 a history, or rather memorahilia, of Christ (for the expres- 
 sion Tct -hoy id. says no more), but that this was something 
 quite different from our Gospel"'. This notion is confirmed 
 by the fact that the Ebionites and Nazarenes, two Christian 
 sects, possessed a Hebrew Gospel, which they considered to 
 be the only genuine one, and which they called the Gospel 
 
 1 Papias, -whose information on lliis as on other matters seems to have 
 heen derived from John, who is called "the Presbyter," an elder of the 
 Church at Ephesus, simply says, " Matthew wrote the divine oracles (ra 
 Xay/a) in the Hebreto tonf/ae, and every man interpreted them as he was 
 able."— Irenajus says, "Matthew, then, among the Jews, wrote a Gospel in 
 their own lavjiw^ie, while Peter and Paul were preaching the Gospel at 
 Home." — Origen and Jerome both state that (according to the tradition come 
 down to them) the first Gospel was written by Matthew, the Publican, in 
 Jlebreiv. 
 
 - Hug, in a most luminous and learned essay, has succeeded in rendering 
 this, if not certain, at least in the highest degree probable : and his views 
 are supported by Erasmus, Webster, Paulus, and De Wette.— The only critic 
 of equal eminence who adopts the opposite opinion, is Eichhorn. 
 
 ^ It seems to us very probable, however, as Hennell suggests, "that some 
 one after Matthew wrote the Greek Gospel which has come down to us, in- 
 corporating these Hebrew Xoyta (and perhaps mainly framed out of them), 
 whence it was called the Gospel according to Matthew, and in the second 
 century came to be considered as the work of the Apostle." — Hennell's Origin 
 of Christianity, p. 124. 
 
74 THE CREED OF CHRISTENDOM. 
 
 according to Matthew\ It appears, however, to liave been 
 so materially different from oiir first gospel as entirely to 
 
 ^ Hug, Introd. part ii. § 7, pp. 317, 320, 392. — Jerome allows that many 
 considered it to have been the genuine original Grospel of Matthew. — Thirlwall's 
 Introd. to Schleiermacher, 43-50, and notes. 
 
 Since writing the above, I have read Norton's dissertation on this subject, 
 in the notes to his " Genuineness of the Gospels." He holds to the opinion 
 that our Gospel of Matthew was originally written in Hebrew, and was in 
 fact the same as the Gospel of the Hebrews current among the Ebionites and 
 Kazarenes, with the exception of certain omissions, corruptions, and inter- 
 polations, which he conceives to have crept into the Ebionite Gospel, not into 
 our Greek Gospel. I cannot think his arguments conclusive ; indeed many of 
 them ai*e mere assumptions. Jerome says (see Hug, p. 323, Norton, i. 199) 
 that he obtained a copy of the Ebionite Gospel, and translated it into Greek ; 
 that some called it the Gospel "according to the A2:>ostlcs,^' some "according 
 to Matthew ; " it could scarcely, therefore, have been the same as our Greek 
 Gospel, or Jerome would not have thought it necessary to translate it again ; 
 — the discrepancies between the two are a question of degree, about which we 
 have no adequate materials for judging ; — and to assume, as Norton does, 
 that in these discrepancies, the Greek Gospel is light, and the Hebrew wrong, 
 is gratuitous, to say the least. If our Gospel is clearly an original, and not a 
 translation, the question is of course set at rest : it is not the Gospel of 
 Matthew ; or if it is, the general tradition of the early Church that Matthew 
 wrote in Hebrew (which tradition is our only reason for supposing that 
 Mattheio ivrote at all) is erroneous. If it be a translation, we are still in 
 ignorance when it was translated, by whom, and with what degree of fidelity. 
 
 Let us sum up briefly what is known on this subject, for it is an important 
 one. 
 
 I. The general tradition of the Church as given by Ii-enaeus, Origen, 
 Epiphanius, Jerome, and Chrysostom (from 178-398 a.d.), relates that 
 Matthew wrote a Gospel in Hebrew, for the benefit of the Jewish Christians. 
 The origin of this tradition appears to be solely the assertion of Papias (a.d. 
 lid), whoie works are lost, but whose statement to this effect is preserved by 
 Eusebius (a.d. 315), and who is supposed to have had this piece of information, . 
 as he affirms that he had others, from John, an elder of the Church of Ephesus. 
 
 II. A Hebrew Gospel, called sometimes the "Gospel of the Hebrews," 
 sometimes the "Gospel according to the Apostles," sometimes the "Gospel 
 according to Matthew, " was preserved by the Jewish Christians, or Ebionites, 
 and was by them maintained to be the only true Gospel. 
 
 III. If therefore this Gospel agreed with our Greek Gospel, or was nov/ 
 extant so that we could ascertain that the discrepancies were neither numerous 
 nor material, there would be very strong external testimony for believing our 
 Greek Gospel to have been a translation (and a sufficiently fair and faithful 
 one) from Matthew's Hebrew work. 
 
 IV. But these Ebionites, or Jewish Christians, were held by the early 
 Church to be heretics, and their Gospel to be uncanonical (Norton, i. 199), 
 "Would this have been the case had it really been the same as our first 
 Gospel ? 
 
 V. Again, Jerome (about a,d, 392) obtained a copy of this Hebrew Gospel, 
 and translated it into both Greek and Latin. He was therefore competent to 
 judge, but he nowhere affirms it to have been the same as our first Gospel, 
 but describes it as "secundum apostolos, sive, ut plerique autumant, juxta 
 Matthieum." — Hug (322) says, " It would appear from the fragments which 
 
ORIGIN OF THE GOSPELS. 75 
 
 negative the supposition of the latter being a translation 
 from it. 
 
 The only external testimony, then, which exists to show 
 that Matthew the apostle wrote a gospel, shows at the same 
 time that our first gospel is not the one which Matthew 
 wrote. External evidence, therefore, gives ns no reason to 
 believe that it was the production of an eye-witness ; and it 
 is worthy of remark that the author nowhere names himself, 
 nor claims the authority of an eye-witness. Internal evi- 
 dence goes further, and we think effectually negatives the 
 notion. 
 
 1. In the first place, many events are recorded at which 
 we know from the record that Matthew was not present — 
 some, indeed, at which none of the disciples were present ; 
 and yet all these are narrated in the same tone, and with the 
 same particularity as the other portions' of the narrative — 
 sometimes even with more minute circumstantiality. Such 
 are the Incarnation (c. i.), the story of the Magi (ii.), the 
 Temptation (iv.), the Transfiguration (xvii.), the Agony and 
 the prayer in Gethsemane (xxvi.), the denial of Peter (xxvi.), 
 
 yet exist in Jerome, that it was neither very like, nor very unlike, our first 
 Gospel." .... " In the remotest period in whicii the existence of the 
 Jewish Gospel is capable of being proved, it appears to have been so different 
 from our Matthew, as to afford no ground for supposing the original identity 
 of the two writings. The evidences of its existence in Origen and Clement 
 are as many proofs of its dissimilarity to our first Gospel." — Norton, on the 
 other hand (i. 203), thinks these differences no more than are perfectly com- 
 patible with original identity. 
 
 VI. Moreover, we have no account of the Gospel having been translated at 
 all, nor when, nor by whom ; and many of the most learned critics have 
 decided that it is no translation^ but an original. 
 
 The differences of opinion are wide enough to show how small is our actual 
 knowledge in the matter. Some, as Hug, consider our Greek Gospel to be 
 by Matthew, to be quite different from the Hebrew Gospel, and to have, been 
 originally written in Greek. Others, as Norton, believe our Gospel to be by 
 Matthew, to be the same as the Hebrew Gospel, and to have been originally 
 written in Hebrew, and faithfully translated. Others again, as several Ger- 
 man critics, to whose opinion we incline, believe it not to be by Matthew, but 
 by some subsequent compiler, and to have been originally written in Greek : 
 the original Gospel of Matthew, if any such existed, being the one possessed 
 by the Ebionites, and excluded by the orthodox as uncanonical. 
 
 It appears pretty certain (see Ilug. Sil) that if the Ebionite or Nazarene 
 Gospel was not the original Hebrew Gospel of Matthew, no such original He- 
 brew Gospel existed. From this Hug argues that Matthew did not write in 
 Hebrew ; — Norton, that this Ebionite Gospel was the original Hebrew of 
 Matthew, 
 
 [Schleiermacher (Norton, i. 76) holds that our Gospels are not those spoken 
 of by Papias, as proceeding from Matthew and Mark.] 
 
76 THE CREED OF CHRISTENDOM. 
 
 the dream of Pilate's wife (xxvii.), tlie conversation between 
 Judas and the Priests, and that between Pilate and the 
 Priests (xxvii.), and, finally, that between the Priests and 
 the Soldiers about the missing body of Jesus (xxviii.). 
 
 It is difficult to avoid the conclusion that if the writer was 
 not present at the colloquy of Pilate with the Chief Priests 
 about the security of the grave of Jesus, neither was he 
 present at the feeding of the five thousand, or the calming 
 of the waves. 
 
 2. Secondly, the abruptness of the transitions, the frag- 
 mentary style of the narrative, and the entire absence of all 
 those details as to the mode and object of the frequent 
 journeys indicated^ which we should expect from a com- 
 panion, and which we find in Luke's account of Paul's 
 travels — all point to the conclusion that the writer was a 
 compiler, not an eye-witness. 
 
 3. The same conclusion is drawn from the circumstance 
 that his frequent double narratives of the same events indi- 
 cate the confusion of a man who was compiling from frag- 
 mentary materials, rather than the fulness and clearness of 
 personal recollection^ De Wette and Credner dwell much 
 upon this argument. 
 
 4. If, as the great majority of critics imagine, Mark and 
 Luke had Matthew's Gospel before them when they wrote 
 their own, it is certain that thej/ could not have regarded 
 him as either an eye-witness or a very accurate authority, 
 as'^;they do not hesitate both to retrench, to deviate from, 
 and to contradict him. Moreover, the proem to Luke's Gos- 
 pel must, we think, by all unbiassed minds be regarded as 
 fatal to the hypothesis of the authors of any of the gospels 
 then in existence having been either disciples or eye-wit- 
 nesses. It is clear from that, that although many histories 
 of Christ were then extant, none of them had any pecuhar 
 or paramount authority. 
 
 5. The author of the first gospel scarcely appears to 
 have been acquainted with any portion of Christ's Ministry, 
 except that of which Galilee was the scene. 
 
 The second gospel, like the first, bears no author's name ; 
 
 » Hennell, p. 121. 
 
 2 Ex. gr. , the cure of the blind men — the feedings — the demand of a sign- 
 the accusation regarding Beelzebub. 
 
ORIGIN OF THE GOSPELS. 77 
 
 "but by Papias, and Irenseus', and (followiDg them) by the 
 universal tradition of the Church, is attributed to Mark, a 
 friend and fellow-traveller of Peter, Barnabas, and Paul, 
 who is several times mentioned in the New Testament.'"' 
 Papias says expressly that he was neither a hearer nor a 
 follower of Christ, but compiled his gospel from information 
 obtained from Peter, whose "interpreter"'^ he is said to 
 have been. Papias gives " the Presbyter John," supposed 
 to have been an elder of the Ephesian Church, as his au- 
 thority. Mark, then, it is certain, was not an eye-witness. 
 
 ^ Papias, our earliest source of information on the matter, was Bishop of 
 Hieropolis, and must have been intimate with many contemporaries of the 
 Apostles, and perhaps had conversed with the Apostle John. His works are 
 now lost, with the exception of a few fragments preserved by Eusebius, " No- 
 thing (says Dr. Middleton) more effectually demonstrates the uncertainty of all 
 tradition, than what is delivered to us by antiquity concerning this very 
 Papias. Irenreus declares him to have been the companion of Polycarp, and 
 the disciple of St. John the Apostle. But Eusebius tells us that lie was not 
 a disciple of St. John the Apostle, but of John the Presbyter, who was a com- 
 panion only of the Apostle, but whom Irenseus mistook for the Apostle. Now 
 from Papias, through Iren;eus, came most of the early traditions, some of them 
 relating to the millennium of the most monstrous character, which Irenseus 
 does not scruple to ascribe to our Saviour, and which fully dispose us to credit 
 the account of Eusebius, who says, "Papias was a weak man, of very shallow 
 understanding, as appears from his writings ; and by mistaking the meaning 
 of the Apostles, imposed these silly traditions upon Ireneeus and the greatest 
 part of the ecclesiastical writers who, reflecting on the age of the man, and 
 his near approach to the Apostles, were drawn by him into the same opinions." 
 In another passage, indeed, Eusebius speaks of Papias in a much more respect- 
 ful manner, as remarkable for eloquence and scriptural knowledge ; but this 
 passage is not found in the older copies, and is supposed to be spurious. It 
 is obvious, therefore, that little reliance can be placed on any traditions which 
 are traced to Papias. Irenjeus, our next earliest authority, derives weight 
 from his antiquity alone. His extreme childishness goes far to discredit many 
 of his statements, and no reliance can be placed upon such of them as are at 
 variance with the conclusions of critical science. His traditions of what John 
 had related to the elders regarding the millennium are worse than anything 
 in the Koran, yet he gives them as ^^ testified by Pajnas." The following pas- 
 sage will induce us to receive with gi-eat caution any evidence he gives regard- 
 ing the origin and authenticity of the Gospels : — "As there are four quarters 
 of the world in which we live, and four chief winds, and the Church is spread 
 over all the earth, but the pillar and support of the Church is the Go.spel and 
 its breath of life, plainly the Church must have four columns, and from these 
 must come forth four blasts," &c., &c. — Ad. Hcercs. c. iii. It would be 
 melancholy to reflect that through such sources our only surviving testimony 
 on these matters is derived, had these matters the supreme importance usually 
 ascribed to them. 
 
 2 Acts xii. 12, 25 ; xiii. 5, 13 ; xv. 37. Col. iv. 10. Phil. 24. 1 Peter 
 V. 13. 
 
 3 What this could mean, as applied to a man who ''spoke with tongues," 
 it is for the Church to explain. 
 
7H THE CREED OF CHRISTENDOM. 
 
 Nor have we any reason, beyond the similarity of name, to 
 believe that the writer of the second Gospel was the same 
 Mark who is mentioned in the Acts as the companion of 
 Paul and Barnabas (not of Peter, by the way), nor the same 
 who is mentioned in 1 Peter v. 13, as his son. Mark was 
 one of the commonest of Eoman names ; and it is probable 
 that the idea of the identity of the th7'ee Marks was an 
 imagination of Papias merely^ 
 
 Neither was the author of the third Gospel an eye-witness. 
 His proem merely claims to set forth faithfully that which 
 he had heard from eye-witnesses. Irenoeus is the first 
 person who distinctly mentions Luke as the author of this 
 gospel ; but little doubt appears to exist that he wrote both 
 the gospel and the Acts of the Apostles, and was the com- 
 panion of Paul in many of his voyages. He is mentioned 
 Col. iv. 14 ; 2 Tim. iv. 11 ; Philemon, 21; and is supposed 
 to be the same as Silas. 
 
 The authorship of the fourth Gospel has been the subject 
 of much learned and anxious controversy among Theolo- 
 gians, and opinions are so equally divided as almost to pre- 
 clude our coming to any fixed conclusion. The earliest, 
 and only very important, external testimony we have is that 
 of Irenaeus 'a.d. 178), who says, that after Luke wrote, 
 *' John, the disciple of the Lord, who also leaned upon his 
 breast, likewise pubhshed a gospel while he dwelt at Ephesus 
 in Asia." The last chapter of the gospel contains an attes- 
 tation of its having been written by John (verse 24) ; but 
 as this attestation obviously does not proceed from John 
 himself ^ and ns w^e do not know from whom it does pro- 
 ceed, its authority can have little weight. It is generally 
 allowed, and indeed seems pretty evident, that the gospel 
 and the first epistle proceed from the same pen ; but if the 
 second and third epistles are genuine'^ it is very questionable 
 
 * Credner, indeed, decides, but we tliink on very insufficient grounds, that 
 our Gospel in its present form cannot be that of Mark. He notices the 
 opposite accounts given by Irenasus and Clemens Alexandrinus, the former of 
 whom says that it was written after the death of Peter, and the latter that it 
 was submitted to him for his approval. This statement, however, is evidently 
 one of those improvements upon fact which the fathei's never scrupled to 
 indulge in. — Credner, Einl. § 56. 
 
 2 De Wette doubts the genuineness of the whole chapter, and internal evi- 
 <lence is certainly against it. 
 
 3 Their genuineness, however, is doubted both by Eusebius and Origen. — 
 See De Wette, i. § 23, 24. 
 
ORIGIN OF THE GOSPELS. 79 
 
 whether this pen was that of John the Apostle ; for, though 
 in the first chapter of the first epistle, the writer declares 
 himself to have been personally acquainted with Jesus, yet 
 in the second and third epistles he calls himself " the Elder." 
 Now there was a John at Ephesus (from whom Papias derived 
 all his information, and who, he says, was also a disciple of 
 Jesus), to whom the title of "Elder" (7rpfcrf3ur£poc) was 
 gived, to distinguish him from the Apostle John. 
 
 The balancing of the internal evidence for and against 
 the supposition that the Apostle John was the author of the 
 Gospel, is a matter of extreme difficulty. The reasons ad- 
 duced in behalf of each opinion are very strong. ^ Hug 
 entertains no doubt that the decision should be in the 
 affirmative; — Bretschneider almost proves the negative; — ■ 
 De Wette finds it impossible to decide ; — while Strauss, who 
 in his earlier editions had expressed himself satisfied that 
 the gospel was not genuine, writes thus in the preface to the 
 third edition : *' Wkh De Wette and Neander'in my hand, 
 I have recommenced the examination of the fourth Gospel, 
 and this renewed investigation has shal-en the doubts I had 
 conceived against its authenticity and credibility ; — not that 
 I am convinced that it is authentic, but neither am I con- 
 vinced that it is not." Where such men doubt, assuredly it 
 is not for us to dogmatize. 
 
 One argument against the supposition of John having 
 been the author of the fourth Gospel has impressed my 
 mind very forcibly. It is this: that several of the most re- 
 markable events recorded by the other evangelists, at which 
 wo are told by them that only Peter, James and John ivere 
 present, and of which, therefore, John alone of all the evan- 
 gelists could have spoken with the distinctness and authority 
 of an eye-witness, are entirely omitted — we m^iysivj, ignored 
 — by him. Such are the raising of Jairus's daughter, the 
 Transfi,s;uration, the agony in Gethsemanc. Now, on the 
 assumption that John was the author of the fourth Gospel, 
 — either he had not seen the works of the other evangelists, 
 in which case he would certainly not have omitted to record 
 narratives of such interest and beauty, especially that of 
 the transfiguration ; — or he had seen them, and omitted all 
 notice of them because he could not confirm the statements ; 
 for we cannot imaojine that he did not record them in con- 
 
80 THE CREED OF CHRISTENDOM. 
 
 sequence of finding them already recorded, and seeing no- 
 thing to alter in the relation ; — as an eye-witness, he would 
 certainly, had they been true, have given them at lease a 
 passing word of confirmation, and we find that he does, on 
 more than one occasion, relate events of less moment already 
 recorded in the other gospels, as the feedings of the five 
 thousand, the anointing of Jesus's feet, &c. But all the 
 events said to Jtave been witnessed hij John alone, are 
 omitted hij John alone I This fact is fatal either to the 
 reality of the events in question, or to the genuineness of 
 the fourth Gospel. Thus much, liowever, seems certain, 
 and admitted ; — that, if the Gospel in question were the 
 genuine composition of the Apostle John, it must have been 
 ■written when be was at least ninety years of age — when his 
 recollections of events and conversations which had passed 
 sixty years before had become faint and fluctuating — w4ien 
 ill-digested Grecian learning had overlaid the simplicity of 
 Lis fisherman's character, and his Judaic education — and 
 the scenes and associations of Ionia had overpowered and 
 obscured the recollections of Palestine'. It therefore be- 
 comes, as we shall see hereafter, an inquiry of only secondary 
 moment. 
 
 Of the first three (or, as they are commonly termed, the 
 Synoptical; Gospels, we know that two, and we believe that 
 all three, were not the productions of eye-witnesses. The 
 question then arises, in what manner, and from what 
 materials, were they composed ? This subject has for a 
 long period exercised the minds of the most acute and 
 learned divines of Germany, as Eichorn, Credner, Bret- 
 schneider, De Wette, Hug, Schleiermacher, and Strauss; 
 and the results of their investigations may be thus briefly 
 summed up. 
 
 The numerous and irreconcilable discrepancies observable 
 in the three Evangelists preclude the supposition of their 
 having all drawn their information from one and the same 
 source — while the still more remarkable points of similarity 
 and agreement, often extendinsr to the most minute verbal 
 peculiarities, entirely forbid the idea of their having derived 
 
 ^ In this case, also, as in that of ]\[atthev>', we may remark that the evan- 
 gelist relates events long past, and at which he was not present, as minutely 
 and dramatically as if they had occurred yesteiday and in his presence. 
 
ORIGIN OF THE GOSPELS. 81 
 
 their materials from indepencIeDt, and therefore mutually 
 confirmatory sources'. 
 
 Tliree different hypotheses have been formed by competent 
 judges to account for these marked characteristics of the 
 three first Evangelists. Eichorn (and, following him, Dr. 
 Marsh), adopted the idea of an original document, now lost, 
 written inthe Hebrew or Syro-Chaldaic language (the Aramaic 
 Gospel, as it is called by some), from which all three Evan- 
 gelists copied their accounts, with additions and omissions 
 peculiar to themselves. With many divines this hypothesis 
 is still the favourite one; — but, in addition to the difficulty 
 arising from the fact that we can nowhere find any allusion 
 to the existence of such a document, more minute criticism 
 discovered so many peculiarities inexplicable on this theory 
 that its credit was much shaken, and its principal supporter, 
 Eichorn, was driven, in order to maintain it, to admit modi- 
 fications which have made it almost unintelligible^. The 
 hypothesis appears to us to have been since completely de- 
 molished by the reasonings of Hug, Thirlwall, and Schleier- 
 macher^. An ingenious modification of this theory by 
 Giesler, who suhstitittes an oral for a written original, is 
 explained and controverted by Dr. Thirlwall, in the admir- 
 able treatise we have already quoted (p. cxvi.). The proem 
 to Luke's Gospel, moreover, tacitly, but effectually, nega- 
 tives the supposition that he was acquainted with any such 
 original and paramountly authoritative document. 
 
 The second hypothesis is the prevalent one — that one of 
 
 ^ *' Those who, to explain the harmony which we observe in these works, 
 refer ns simply to the identity of the subject, and, for the cause of their dis- 
 crepancies, to the peculiarities of the writers, instead of offering a solution of 
 the problem, only betray either their inattention to the phenomena which 
 constitute it, or their incapacity to comprehend its nature. Three accounts 
 of the same series of transactions, delivered by independent eye-witnesses, • 
 could never, through whatever hands they might pass, naturally and without 
 intentional assimilation, assume the shape exhibited by the common sections 
 of the three first evangelists." — Thirlwall, Introd. to Schleiermacher, cxxii, 
 
 - He ended by imagining four diflferent editions or copies, in dififerent lan- 
 guages, and with many variations, of this original gospel. 
 
 3 " For my part (says this latter) I find it quite enough to prevent me from 
 conceiving the origin of the gospel according to Eichorn's theory, that I am to 
 figure to myself our good evangelists surrounded by five or six open rolls or 
 books, and that too in diflferent languages, looking by turns from one into 
 another, and writing a compilation from them. I fancy myself in a German 
 study of the 19th century, rather than in the primitive age of Christianity." 
 — Schleiermacher, Crit. Essay on Luke, Intr. p. 6. 
 
 G 
 
82' THE CREED OF CHRISTENDOM. 
 
 the Evangelists wrote first, and that the others copied him, 
 with alterations, additions, and omissions, dictated hy their 
 own judgment or by extraneous sources of information. 
 Matthew is generally considered to have been the earliest 
 writer ; but critics differ in the relative order they assign to 
 Mark and Luke— some, as Mill, Hug, and Wetsteiu, con- 
 ceiving that Luke copied both from Mark and Matthew ; and 
 others, as De Wette and Griesbach, arguing that Mark was 
 the latest in order of time, and made use of both his prede- 
 cessors. Mr. Kenrick, in a masterly analysis {Prosp. Rev, 
 xxi.), has, however, we think, succeeded in making it per- 
 fectly clear that Mark's Gospel was both first in order of 
 time, and in fidelity of narration. 
 
 This theory has been much and minutely examined, and to 
 our minds it appears unsatisfactory. It accounts for the 
 agreements, but not for the discrepancies, of the gospels ; 
 and Dr. Thirlwall, in his translation of Schleiermacher, has 
 succeeded in showing that it is highly improbable, if not 
 wholly inadmissible^ 
 
 The third hypothesis, which was first propounded by 
 Lessing, and has since been revived and elaborated by 
 Schleiermacher (one of the highest theological authorities 
 of Germany), seems to us to have both critical evidence and 
 a i^riori likelihood in its favour. These writers presume the 
 existence of a number of fragmentary narratives, some 
 oral, some written, of the actions and sayings of Christ, such 
 as would naturally be preserved and transmitted by persons 
 who had witnessed those wonderful words and deeds. Some- 
 times there would be two or more narratives of the same 
 event, proceeding from different witnessses ; sometimes the 
 same original narrative in its transmission would receive in- 
 tentional or accidental variations, and thus come slightly 
 modified into the hands of different evangelists. Sometimes 
 detached sayings would be preserved without the context, 
 and the evangelists would locate them where they thought 
 them most appropriate, or provide a context for them, in- 
 
 1 Those who wish to oLtain a general knowledge of this interesting con- 
 troversy, should peruse the admirable summary of it given by Bishop Thirl- 
 wall in his introduction to Schleiermaclier. We have purposely avoided 
 entering into the argument, for it would be unfair to copy, and impossible to 
 abridge or amend, his lucid statement. 
 
ORIGIN or THE GOSPELS. 83' 
 
 stances of which are numberless in the gospels^ But all 
 these materials would be fragmentary. Each witness w^ould 
 retain and transmit that portion of a discourse which had 
 impressed him most forcibly, and two witnesses would retain 
 the same expressions with varying degrees of accuracy^. 
 One witness heard one discourse, or was present at one trans- 
 action only, and recorded that one by writing or verbally, as 
 he best might. Of these fragments some fell into the hands 
 of all the Evangehsts — some only into the hands of one, or 
 of two ''' : and in some cases different narratives of the same 
 event, expression, or discourse, would fall into the hands of 
 different evangelists, which would account for their discre- 
 pancies — sometimes into the hands of one Evangelist, in wdiich 
 case he would select that one which his judgment (or inform- 
 ation from other sources) prompted, or would compile an 
 account from them jointly. In any case, the evangehcal 
 narratives would be cominlaiions from a series of fragments 
 of varying accuracy and completeness. The correctness 
 of this theory of the origin of the gospels seems to be not so 
 much confirmed as distinctly asserted by Luke. " Foras- 
 much as many have taken in hand to set forth in order a 
 declaration of those things which are most surely believed 
 among us, even as they delivered them unto us ivhichfrom 
 the h eg inning tvere eye-ivitn esses and ministers of the 
 loordy 
 
 " The. first step (says Schleiermacher) * towards a Christian 
 History was a natural and reasonable desire on the part of 
 those who had believed on Jesus, without having a know- 
 ledge of his person. These individuals would undoubtedly 
 be glad to learn some particulars of his life, in order to place 
 themselves as nearly as possible on an equality with their 
 
 1 " The verbal agreement is generally greater in reports of the discourses of 
 Christ than in relations of events ; and the speeches of other persons are 
 often given in the same terms, though the circumstances which led to them 
 are differently described." — Thirlwall, cx\d. 
 
 - The habit of retaining and transmitting discourses orally was much more 
 common then than now, and the practice carried to great perfection. The 
 learning of the Jews was transmitted exclusively by oral tradition from one 
 generation to another, and we entertain little doubt that the fragments both 
 of narratives and discourses which formed the materials of our evangelists were 
 almost entirely oral. — (See Thirlwall, cxviii. Norton, i. 287.) 
 
 ^ Thus the materials of the first three Evangelists were evidently collected 
 chiefly in Gralilee ; those of the fourth came principally from Judea. 
 
 ♦ Grit. Essay on Luke, Introd. 12-14. 
 
 G 2 
 
84 THE CREED OF CHRISTENDOM. 
 
 elder and more fortunate brethren. In the public assemblies 
 of the Christians this desire was of course only incidentally 
 and sparingly gratified, when a teacher happened to refer to 
 memorable sayings of Christ, which could only be related 
 together with the occasion which had called them forth: 
 more copious and detailed accounts they could only pro- 
 cure in familiar intercourse upon express inquiry. And in 
 this way many particulars were told and heard, most of 
 them, probably, without being committed to writing ; but, 
 assuredly, much was very soon written down, partly by the 
 narrators themselves, as each of them happened to be pressed 
 by a multiplicity of questions on a particular occurrence, re- 
 specting which he was peculiarly qualified to give infoima- 
 tion. Still more, however, must have been committed to 
 writing by the inquirers, especially by such as did not 
 remain constantly in the neighbourhood of the narrators, 
 and were glad to communicate the narrative again to many 
 others, who, perhaps, were never able to consult an eye-wit- 
 ness. In this way detached incidents and discourses were 
 noted down. Notes of this kind were at first no doubt less 
 frequently met with among the Christians settled in Pales- 
 tine, and passed immediately into more distant parts, to 
 which the pure oral tradition flowed more scantily. They, 
 however, appeared everywhere more frequently, and were 
 more anxiously sought ' for, when the great • body of the 
 orio-inal companions and friends of Christ was dispersed by 
 persecutions, and still more when that first generation began 
 to die away. It would, however, have been singular if, even 
 before this^ the inquirers who took those notes had possessed 
 only detached passages ; on the contrary, they, and still 
 more their immediate copiers, had undoubtedly become col- 
 lectors also, each according to his peculiar turn of mind ; 
 and thus one, perhaps, collected only accounts of miracles ; 
 another only discourses ; a third, perhaps, attached exclusive 
 importance to the last days of Christ, or even to the scenes of 
 his resurrection. Others, without any such particular predi- 
 lection, collected all that fell in their way from good au- 
 thority." 
 
 The work from which the above is a quotation, is a 
 masterly analysis of Luke's gospel, with a view to test the 
 correctness of the author's hypothesis as to the origin of the 
 
ORIGIN OF THE GOSPELS. 85 
 
 evangelical histories ; and the success is, we think, com- 
 plete. His conclusion is as follows (p. 313) : — 
 
 " The main position is firmly established, that Luke is 
 neither an independent writer, nor has made a compilation 
 from works which extended over the whole course of the life 
 of Jesus. He is from beginning to end no more than the 
 compiler and arranger of documents, which he found in 
 existence, and which he allows to pass unaltered through 
 his hands. His merit in this capacity is twofold — that of 
 arrangement and of judicious selection." 
 
 The theory of Norton', as to the origin of the Gospels, 
 does not materially differ from the one we have adopted 
 from Schleiermacher, with this exception — that he, as we 
 think gratuitously, assumes the oral narratives, which formed 
 the foundation or materials of the evangelical histories, to 
 have proceeded from the Apostles exclusively. However, 
 this may have been the case ; and then the unconscious 
 sources of error will be confined to such accretions and 
 lapses of memory as might be natural in the course of thirty 
 years' narration, and to such discrepancies as would be in- 
 evitable among twelve men. 
 
 ^ Genuineness of the Gospels, i. 284-390— a work full of learning reso- 
 lutely applied to the establishment of a foregone conclusion. 
 
CHAPTER VII. 
 
 FIDELITY OF THE GOSPEL HISTORY. — NATURE AND LIMITS. 
 
 Having in our last chapter arrived at the conchision that 
 the Gospels — (the three first, at least, for with regard to the 
 fourth we can pronounce no confident opinion) — are com- 
 pilations from a variety of fragmentary narratives, and re- 
 ports of discourses and conversations, oral or written, which 
 were current in Palestine from thirty to forty years after 
 the death of Jesus — we now come to the very interesting 
 and momentous inquiry, how far these narratives and dis- 
 courses can be accepted as accurate and faithful records of 
 what was actually said and done ? — whether they can be re- 
 garded as thoroughly and minutely correct ? — and, if not, 
 in what respects and to what extent do they deviate from 
 that thorough and minute correctness ? 
 
 It is clear at first view that the same absolute reliance 
 cannot be placed upon a narrative compounded from tradi- 
 tionary fragments, as upon a consecutive history related by 
 an eye-witness. Conceding to both faithful intention and 
 good, though imperfect, powers of memory, there are obvious 
 elements of inaccuracy in the one case which do not appertain 
 to the other. To the coiTuptions, lapses, and alterations 
 inseparable from transmission, especially when oral, is added 
 the uncertainty arising from the oiumler of the original 
 sources of the tradition, whose character, capacity, and op- 
 portunities of knowledge, are unknown to us. If Luke had 
 recorded only what he had seen, or Mark only what he had 
 heard from Peter, we should have comparatively ample 
 means of forming a decision as to the amount of reliance 
 to be placed upon their narrations ; but when they record 
 
FIDELITY OF THE GOSPEL HISTORY. 87 
 
 what they learned from perhaps a dozen different narrators — 
 some original, others only second-hand, and all wholly un- 
 known — it becomes ohvious that causes of inaccuracy are 
 introduced, the extent of the actual operation of which 
 on the histories that have come down to us, it is both ex- 
 tremely important and singularly difficult to estimate. 
 
 This inquiry we consider as of paramount interest to 
 every other question of criticism; for on the conclusion 
 to which it leads us depends the whole—not of Christianity, 
 which, as we view it, is unassailable, but — of textual or 
 dogmatic Christianity; i.e. the Christianity of nine-tenths 
 of nominal Christendom. We proceed, therefore, to ask 
 what evidence we possess for assuming or impugning the 
 minute fidelity of the Gospel history. 
 
 There are certain portions of the Synoptical Gospels, the 
 genuiness of which has been much disputed, viz. the two 
 first chapters of Matthew— the two first of Luke — and the 
 last twelve verses of the xvith chapter of Mark\ Into this 
 discussion we cannot enter, but must refer such of our 
 readers as wish to know the grounds of decision, to Norton, 
 Hug, De Wette, Eichorn, and Griesbach. The result of 
 critical inquiry seems to be, that the only solid ground for 
 supposing the questioned portions of Luke and Matthew 
 not to be by the same hand as the rest of their respective 
 gospels, is the obviously insufficient one of the extraordinary 
 character of their contents^ ; — while the spuriousness of the 
 last twelve verses of Mark is estabUshed beyond question ; — 
 the real Gospel of Mark (all of it, at least, that has come 
 down to us) ends with the 8th verse of the xvith chapter. 
 In our subsequent remarks we shall therefore treat the whole 
 of the acknowledged text of these gospels as genuine, with 
 the exception of the conclusion of Mark;— -and we now 
 proceed to inquire into the nature and limits of the fidelity 
 of Matthew's record. 
 
 In the first place, while admitting to the fullest extent 
 the general clearness and fulness with which the character 
 of Jesus is depicted in the first Gospel, it is important to 
 
 1 See Norton, i. 16, 17. 
 
 2 Strauss, i. 117, 142. Hug, 469-479. See also Sclileiermacher.^ Norton, 
 however, gives some reasons to the contrary, wbich deserve consideration, 
 i. 209. 
 
88 THE CREED OF CHRISTENDOM. 
 
 bear in mind, that — as Hug has clearly shown^ — it was 
 written with a special, we might almost say a polemical, 
 object. It was composed, less to give a continuous and 
 complete history of Jesus, than to prove that he was the 
 expected Messiah ; and those passages were therefore 
 selected out of the author's materials which appeared most 
 strongly to bear upon and enforce this conclusion. The 
 remembrance of this ohject of Matthew's will aid us in 
 forming our judgment as to his fidelity. 
 
 According to the universal expectation, the Messiah was 
 to be born of the seed of Abraham, and the lineage and 
 tribe of David. Accordingly, the Gospel opens with an 
 elaborate genealogy of Jesus, tracing him through David to 
 Abraham. Now, in the first place, this genealogy is not 
 correct -.—secondly, if the remainder of the chapter is to be 
 received as true, it is in no sense the genealogy of Jesus ; 
 and, thirdhj, it is wholly and irreconcilably at variance with 
 that given by Luke. 
 
 1. In verse 17, Matthew sums up the genealogy thus: — 
 *' So all the generations from Abraham to David are four- 
 teen generations ; and from David until the carrying away 
 into Babylon are fourteen generations ; and from the carry- 
 ing away into Babylon until Christ are fourteen generations." 
 — Now (passing over as unnecessarily minute and harsh the 
 criticism of Strauss, that by no way of counting can we 
 make out fourteen generations in the last series, without 
 disturbing the count of the others), we must call attention 
 to the fact that the number fourteen in the second series is 
 only ohtained ly the deUherate omission of four gene- 
 rations, viz. three between Joram and Ozias, and one be- 
 tween Josiah and Jeconiah — as may be seen by referring ta 
 1 Chron. iii. There is also (at verse 4-0) another apparent, 
 and we think, certain, error. Only four generations are 
 reckoned between Naason, who lived in the time of Moses,. 
 
 1 "All Matthew's reflections are of one kind. He shows us, as to every- 
 thing that Jesus did and taught, that it was characteristic of the Messiah. 
 On occasion of remarkable events, or a recital of parts of the discourses of 
 Jesus, he refers us to the ancient Scriptures of the Jews in which this coming 
 Saviour is delineated, and shows in detail that the great ideal which flitted 
 before the minds of the Prophets, was realized in Jesus."— Hug. Introd, 312. 
 These references are twelve in Matthew, two in Mark, and three in Luke. 
 Again, he says (p. 384), "Matthew is an historical deduction; Mark is- 
 history." 
 
FIDELITY OF THE GOSPEL HISTORY. 89 
 
 and David, a period of four hundred years. (Compare 
 Numbers i. 7, Ruth v. 20). 
 
 2. The genealogy here given, correct or incorrect, is the 
 genealogy of Josejih, who was in no sense whatever the 
 father (or any relation at all) of Jesus, since this last, we 
 are assured (verses 18 and 25), was in his Mother's womb 
 before she and her husband came together. The story of 
 the Incarnation and the genealogy are obviously at variance ; 
 and no ingenuity, unscrupulously as it has been applied, 
 can produce even the shadow of an agreement; — and when 
 the flat contradiction given to each other by the 1st and the 
 18th verses are considered, it is difficult for an unprejudiced 
 mind not to feel convinced that the author of the genealogy 
 (both in the first and third Gospels) was ignorant of the 
 story of the Incarnation, though the carelessness and un- 
 critical temper of the evangelist— a carelessness partially 
 avoided, in the cases of Luke, by an interpolation' — has 
 united the two into one compilation. 
 
 3. The genealogy of Jesus given by Luke is wholly 
 different from that of Matthew; and the most desperate 
 efforts of divines have been unable to effect even the 
 semblance of a reconciliation. Not only does Matthew 
 give 26 generations between David and Joseph where Luke 
 has 41, but they trace the descent through an entirely dif- 
 ferent line of ancestry. According to Matthew, the father 
 of Joseph was named Jacob — according to Luke, Heli. In 
 Matthew, the son of David through whom Joseph descended 
 is Solomon ;— in Luke it is Nathan. Thence the genealogy 
 of Matthew descends through the known royal line— the 
 genealogy of Luke through an obscure collateral branch. 
 The two lines only join in iSalathiel and Zorobabel ; and even 
 here they differ as to the father of Salathiel and the son of 
 Zorobabel. Many ingenious hypotheses have been broached 
 to explain and harmonize these singular discrepancies, but 
 wholly in vain. One critic supposes that one evangehst gives 
 the pedigree of the adoptive, the other of the real father of 
 Joseph. Another assumes that one is the genealogy of 
 Joseph, and the other that of Mary— a most convenient idea, 
 
 1 Lukeiii. 23, "Jesus .... being, as was su^pposcd {u; ivofAl^ire\ the 
 son of Joseph,"— a parenthesis, which renders nugatory the whole of the fol- 
 lowing genealogy, and cannot have originally formed a part of it. — The 16th 
 verse of Matthew also bears indications of a similar emendation. 
 
90 THE CREED OF CHRISTENDOM. 
 
 but entirely gratuitous, and positively contradicted by the 
 language of the text. The circumstance that any man could 
 suppose that Matthew, when he said "Jacob begat Joseph," 
 or Luke, when he said "Joseph was the son of Heh," could 
 refer to the wife of the one, or the daughter-in-law of the 
 other, shows to what desperate stratagems polemical ortho- 
 doxy will resort in order to defend an untenable position. 
 
 The discrepancy between Matthew and Luke in their 
 narratives of the miraculous conception, affords no ground 
 for suspecting the fidelity of the former. Putting aside the 
 extraordinary nature of the wliole transaction — a con- 
 sideration which does not at present concern us — the rela- 
 tion in Matthew is simple, natural, and probable ; the sur- 
 prise of Joseph at the pregnancy of his wife (or his betrothed, 
 as the word may mean) ; his anxiety to avoid scandal and 
 exposure ; his satisfaction through the means of a dream (for 
 among the Jews dreams were habitually regarded as means 
 of communication from heaven) ; and his absence from 
 all conjugal connection with Mary till after the birth of the 
 miraculous infant, — present precisely the line of conduct 
 we should expect from a simple, pious, and confiding Jew. 
 
 But when we remember the dogmatic object which, as 
 already mentioned, Matthew had in vievf, and in connection 
 with that remembrance read the 22nd and 23rd verses, the 
 whole story at once becomes apocryphal, and its origin at 
 once clear. "All these things were done," says Matthew, 
 *' that it might be fulfilled which was spoken of the Lord 
 by the Prophet, saying. Behold a Virgin shall be with child, 
 and shall bring forth a son," &c., &c. Now" this is one of 
 the many instances which we shall have to notice, in w'hich 
 this evangelist quotes prophecies as intended for Jesus, and 
 as fulfilled in him, which have not the slightest relation to 
 him or his career. The adduced prophecy^ is simply an 
 
 ^ ' ' Therefore the Lord spake unto Ahaz, saying, .... Behold a virgin 
 
 shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel 
 
 Before the child shall know to refuse the evil and choose the good, the land 
 that thou abhorrest shall be forsaken of both her Kings."— Isaiah vii. 10-16. 
 
 ''And I v/ent unto the Prophetess, and she conceived and bare a son. Then 
 said the Lord unto me .... before the child shall have knowledge to cry, 
 My father and my mother, the riches of Damascus and the spoil of Samaria 
 shall be taken away before the King of Assyria." — viii. 3, 4. 
 
 No divine of character will now, we believe, maintain that this prophecy 
 had any reference to Jesus ; nor ever would have imagined it to have, without 
 Matthew's intimation. — See Hebrew Monarchy, p. 2(>2. 
 
FIDELITY OF THE GOSPEL IIISTOKY. Ul 
 
 assurance sent to the unbelieving Ahaz, that before tbe 
 child, which the wife of Isaiah would shortly conceive (see 
 Is. viii. 2-4), was old enough to speak, or to know good 
 from evil, the conspiracy of Syria and Ephraim against the 
 King of Judsea should be dissolved ; and had manifestly no 
 more reference to Jesus than to Napoleon. The conclusion, 
 therefore, is unavoidable, that the events said to have 
 occurred in fulfilment of a prophecy, which Matthew wrongly 
 supposed to have reference to them, were by him imagined, 
 or modified into accordance with the supposed prophecy ; 
 since it is certain that they did not, as he affirms, take 
 place, " in order that the prophecy might be fulfilled." 
 
 Pursuing this line of inquiry, we shall find many instances 
 in which this tendency of Matthew to find in Jesus the ful- 
 filment of prophecies, v/hich he erroneously conceived to 
 refer to him, has led him to narrate circumstances re- 
 specting which the other evangelists are silent, as well as to 
 give, with material (but intentional) variations, relations 
 which are common to them all— a peculiarity which throws 
 great suspicion over several passages. Thus in ii. 13-15, 
 we are told that immediately after the visit of the Magi, 
 Joseph took Mary and the child, and fled into Egypt, re- 
 maining there till the death of Herod, " that it might be 
 fulfilled which was spoken of the Lord by the Prophet, 
 saying. Out of Egypt have I called my son." The passage 
 in question occurs in Hosea, xi. L, and has not the slightest 
 reference to Christ. It is as follows :--' When Israel was 
 a child, then I loved him, and called my Son out of Egypt." 
 Here is an event related, very improbable in itself, flatly 
 contradicted by Luke's history' and which occurred, we are 
 told, that a prophecy might be fulfilled to which it had no 
 reference, of which it was no fulfilment, and which, in fact, 
 was no prophecy at all. 
 
 A similar instance occurs immediately afterwards in the 
 same chapter. We are told that Herod, when he found 
 " that he was mocked of the wise men, was exceeding wroth, 
 and sent forth and slew all the children that were in 
 Bethlehem, and in all the coasts thereof, from two years old 
 
 ^ Luke's account entirely precludes the sojourn in Egypt. He says that 
 eight days after the birth of Jesus he was circumcised, forty days after was 
 presented in the Temple, and that when these legal ceremonies were accom- 
 plished, he went with his pai-ents to Nazareth. 
 
9^ THE CREED OF CHRISTENDOM 
 
 and under;" — an act which is not suitable to the known 
 character of Herod, who was cruel and tyrannical, but at the 
 same time crafty and politic, not silly nor insane^ — which, 
 if it had occurred, must have created a prodigious sensation, 
 and made one of the most prominent points in Herod's 
 history- — yet of which none of the other evangelists, nor 
 any historian of the day, nor Josephus (though he devoted 
 a considerable portion of his history to the reign of Herod, 
 and does not spare his reputation), makes any mention. But 
 this also, according to Matthew's notion, was the fulfilment 
 of a prophecy. " Then was fulfilled that which was spoken 
 by Jeremy the Prophet, saying. In Kama there was a voice 
 heard, lamentation, and weeping, and great mourning, Eachel 
 weeping for her children, and would not be comforted, 
 because they are not." — Here, again, the adduced prophecy 
 was quite irrelevant, being simply a description of the grief 
 of Judaea for the captivity of her children, accompanied by 
 a promise of their return."^ 
 
 A still more unfortunate instance is found at the 23rd 
 verse, where we are told that Joseph abandoned his inten- 
 tion of returning into Juda?a, and turned aside into Galilee, 
 and came and dwelt at Nazareth, " that it might be fulfilled 
 which was spoken by the Prophets, He shall be called a 
 Nazarene." — Now, in the first place, the name Nazarene 
 was not in use till long afterwards; — secondly, there is no 
 such prophecy in the Old Testament. The evangelist, per- 
 haps, had in his mind the words that were spoken to the 
 mother of Sampson (Judges xiii. 5) respecting her son: 
 " The child shall be a Nazarite (i. e. one bound by a vow, 
 
 ^ Neander argues very ably that such a deed is precisely what we should 
 expect from Herod's character. But bir W. Joues gives i-easou for believing 
 that the whole story may be of Hindoo oHgin. — Christian Theism, p, 84, 
 where the passage is quoted. 
 
 - Mr. Milman (Hist. Jews, b. xii.), however, thinks differently, and argues 
 that, among Herod's manifold barbarities, "the murder of a few children in 
 an obscure village " would easily escape notice. The story is at least highly 
 improbable, for had Herod wished to secure the death of Jesus, so cunning a 
 Prince would have sent his messengers along with the Magi, not awaited their 
 doubtful return. 
 
 2 The passage is as follows : — "A voice was heard in Ramah, lamentation, 
 and bitter weeping ; Rahel weeping for her children, refused to be comforted 
 for her children, because they were not. Thus saith the Lord, Refrain thy 
 voice from weeping, and thine eyes from tears; for thy work shall be rewarded, 
 saith the Lord ; and they shall come again from the land of the enemy." — 
 Jeremiah xxxi. 15, 16, 
 
FIDELITY OF THE GOSPEL HISTORY. 93 
 
 whose hair was forbidden to he cut, which never was the 
 case with Jesus^) to God from the womh." 
 
 In this place we must notice the marked discrepancy 
 between Matthew and Luke, as to the original residence of 
 the parents of Jesus. Luke speaks of them as Hving at 
 Nazareth lefore the birth of Jesus : Matthew as having 
 left their former residence, Bethlehem, to go to Nazareth, 
 only after that event, and from peculiar considerations. 
 Critics, however, are disposed to think Matthew right on 
 this occasion. 
 
 There are, however, several passages in different parts of 
 the Evangehsts which suggest serious doubts as to whether 
 Jesus were really born at Bethlehem, and were really a lineal 
 descendant of David, and whether both these statements 
 were not unfounded inventions of his followers to prove his 
 title to the Messiahship. In the first place the Jews are 
 frequently represented as urging that Jesus could not be 
 the Messiah, because he was not born at Bethlehem ; and 
 neither Jesus nor his followers ever set them right upon 
 this point. If he were really born at Bethlehem, the cir- 
 cumstance was generally unknown, and though its being 
 unknown presented an obvious and valid objection to the 
 admission of his claim to the Messianic character, no effort 
 was made either by Christ or his disciples to remove this 
 objection, which might have been done by a single word. 
 (John vii. 41-43, 52; i. 46.) "Others said, This is the 
 Christ. But some said. Shall Christ come out of Galilee ? 
 Hath not the Scripture said that Christ cometh of the seed 
 of David, and out of the town of Bethlehem, where David 
 was ? So there was a division among the People because 
 of him." — Again, the Pharisees object to Nicodemus, when 
 arguing on Jesus' behalf—'' Search and look, for out of 
 Galilee ariseth no Prophet." 
 
 The three Synoptical evangehsts (Matth. xxii. 41; Mark 
 xii. 35; Luke xx. 41) all record an argument of Christ 
 addressed to the Pharisees, the purport of which is to show 
 that the Messiah need not be, and could not be, the Son 
 of David. " While the Pharisees were gathered together, 
 Jesus asked them, saying, What think ye of Christ? whose 
 son is he ? They say unto him, The Son of David. He 
 
 ^ See Numbers vi. 2-6. 
 
94 THE CREED OF CHRISTENDOM. 
 
 saith unto tliem, How then doth David in spirit call him 
 Lord, saying, the Lord saith unto my Lord, Sit thou on my 
 right hand, till I make thine enemies thy footstool ? If 
 David then call him Lord, how is he his Son? " Now, be 
 the argument good or bad, is it conceivable that Jesus should 
 have brought it forward if he were really a descendant of 
 David ? Must not the intention of it have been to argue 
 that, though not a Son of David, he might still be the 
 Christ ? 
 
 Li xxi. 2-4, 6-7, the entry into Jerusalem is thus de- 
 scribed : " Then sent Jesus two disciples, saying unto them. 
 Go into the village over against you, and straightway ye 
 shall find an ass tied, and a colt ivith her : loose them, and 
 
 bring them to me And the disciples went and did 
 
 as Jesus commanded them, and brought the ass a7id the 
 colt, and put on tJiem their clothes, and set him thereon" 
 (literally '' tqjon thetn," iirdvit) avrCjv). Now, in the first 
 place, we can see no reason why two animals should have 
 been brought; secondly, the description (in ver. 16), repre- 
 senting Jesus as sitting upon hoth animals, is absurd ; and, 
 thirdly, Mark, Luke, and John, who all mention the same 
 occurrence, agree in speaking of one animal only. But 
 the liberty which Matthew has taken with both fact and pro- 
 bability is at once explained, when we read in the 4th verse; 
 " All this was done, that it might be fulfilled which was 
 spoken by the Prophet, saying. Tell ye the daughter of 
 Zion, Behold thy King cometh unto thee, meek, and sitting 
 upon an ass, ci/id a colt the foal of an ass." ' 
 
 As a final example, we may instance the treachery of 
 Judas. The other evangelists simply narrate that Judas 
 covenanted with the chief Priests to betray Jesus. Matthew, 
 however, relates the conversation between the traitor and 
 his fellow-conspirators as minutely as if he had been pre- 
 sent, specifies the exact sum of money that was given, and 
 the use to which it was put by the Priests (the purchase of 
 the Potter's field), when returned to them by the repentant 
 
 1 The quotation is from Zechariah ix. 9 ; the passage lias reference to the 
 writer's own time, and the second animal is obviously a mere common poetical 
 reduplication, such as is met with in every page of Hebrew poetry. But 
 Matthev/ thought a literal similitude essential. "And" ought to have been 
 translated "even." 
 
FIDELITY OF THE GOSPEL HISTORY. 95 
 
 Judas \ Here, as usual, the discrepancy between Matthew 
 and his fellow-evangelists is explained by a prophecy which 
 Matthew conceived to apply to the case before him, and 
 thought necessary therefore should be Hterally fulfilled ; but 
 which on examination appears to have had no allusion to 
 any times but those in which it was uttered, and which, 
 moreover, is not found in the prophet whom Matthew 
 quotes from, but in anotherl The passage as quoted by 
 Matthew is as follows :— " And they took the thirty pieces 
 of silver, the price of him that was"^ valued, whom they of 
 the cliildren of Israel did value, and gave them for the 
 potter's field, as the Lord appointed me." The original 
 passage in Zechariah is given in a note. 
 
 To pass from this ground of want of confidence in 
 Matthew's fidehty, we may specify two others :^first, we 
 find several discrepancies between him and the other evan- 
 gelists, in which there is reason to beheve that he was 
 wrong; and, secondly, we find words and parts of dis- 
 courses put by him into Jesus' mouth, which there is ample 
 reason to believe that Jesus never uttered. 
 
 I. The second chapter opens with an account (pecuhar 
 to Matthew) of the visit of the wise men of the East to 
 Eethlehem, whither they were guided by a star which went 
 before them, and stood over the house in which the infant 
 Jesus lay. The general legendary character of the narra- 
 tive — its similarity in style with those contained in the 
 apocryphal gospels — and more especially its conformity 
 with those astrological notions which, though prevalent in 
 the time of Matthew, have been exploded by the sounder 
 scientific knowledge of our days— ail unite to_ stamp upon 
 the story the impress of poetic or mythic fiction ; and its 
 
 1 Luke, however, in the Acts (i. 18), states that Judas himself purchased 
 the field with the money he had received, and died accidentally therein. 
 Matthew says he returned the money, and went and hanged himself. 
 
 2 Matthew quotes Jeremiah, but the passage is contained in Zechariah xi. 
 12, 13. Some people, however, imagine that the latter chapters of Zechariah 
 do 'really belong to Jeremiah. Others conceive the passage to be contained in 
 some lost book of Jeremiah. "And I said unto them, If ye think good, give 
 me my price ; and if not, forbear. So they weighed for my price thirty 
 pieces of silver. And the Lord said unto me, Cast it unto the potter : a 
 goodly price that I was prized at of them. And I took the thirty pieces of 
 silver, and cast them to the potter in the house of the Lord." The^word 
 "Potter" is a translation made, to accommodate ]\Iatthew. The LXX. has 
 " treasury" or "foundry," as it were our " mint." 
 
90 THE CKEED OF CHEISTEXDOM. 
 
 admission into his history is not creditable to Matthew's 
 judgment, though it may not impugn his fidelity ; as it may 
 have been among his materials, and he had no critical 
 acumen which should lead him to reject it. 
 
 In Matth. viii. 28-o4, we have an account of the healing 
 of two demoniacs, whose disease (or whose devils, according 
 to the evangelist) was communicated to an adjacent herd of 
 swine. Now, putting aside the great improbability of two 
 madmen, as fierce as these are described to be, living toge- 
 ther, Mark and Luke\ who both relate the same occurrence, 
 state that there was one demoniac, obviously a much prefer- 
 able version of the narrative. 
 
 In the same manner, in c. xx. 30-34, Matthew relates 
 the cure of two blind men near Jericho. Mark and Luke- 
 narrate the same occurrence, but speak of only oiie blind 
 man. This story affords also an example of the evangelist's 
 carelessness as a compiler, for (in c. ix. 27) he has already 
 given the same narrative, but has assigned to it a different 
 locality. 
 
 A still more remarkable instance of Matthew's tendency 
 to amplification, or rather to multiplication and repetition, 
 is found in xiv. 16, et seq., and xv. 32, et seq.^, where the 
 two miraculous feedings of the multitude are described. 
 The feeding of the five thousand is related by all four evan- 
 gelists; but the repetition of the miracle, with a slight 
 variation in the number of the multitude and of the loaves 
 and fragments, is peculiar to Matthew, and to Mark*. Now, 
 that both these narratives are merely varying accounts of 
 the same event (the variation arising from the mode in 
 which the materials of the gospel history were collected, as 
 explained in our preceding chapter), and that only one feed- 
 ing was originally recorded, is now admitted by all compe- 
 tent critics ^ and appears clearly from several considerations. 
 
 ^ Mark v. 1. Luke viii. 26. There are otlier discrepancies between the 
 three narratives, both in this and the following case, but they are beside our 
 present purpose. 
 
 2 Mark x. 46. Luke xviii. 35. 
 
 ^ The parallel passages are, Mark vi. 35. Luke ix. 12. John vi. 5. 
 
 ^ See Mark viii. 1, et seq. The language of the two evangelists is here so 
 j)recisely similar, as to leave no doubt that one copied the other, or both a 
 common document. The word baskets is xoftvoi in the first case, and tr'Trvl^pi; 
 in the second, in both evangelists. 
 
 ^ See also Schleiermacher, p. 144, who does not hesitate to expi'ess his full 
 disbelief in the second feeding. 
 
FIDELITY OF THE GOSPEL HISTORY. 97 
 
 ' — First, Luke and John relate only one feeding; in the 
 next place, the two narratives in Matthew are given with 
 the same accompaniments, in a similar, probably in the very 
 same, locality ; thlrdlij, the particulars of the occurrence 
 and the remarks of the parties, are almost identically the 
 same on each occasion ; and, finally (what is perfectly con- 
 clusive), in the second narration, the language and conduct 
 both of Jesus and his disciples, sliow a perfect unconscious- 
 ness of any previous occurrence of the same nature. Is it 
 credible, that if the disciples had, a few days before, wit- 
 nessed the miraculous feeding of the "five thousand" with 
 " five loaves and two fishes," they should on the second 
 occasion, when they had "seven loaves and a few small 
 fishes," have replied to the suggestion of Jesus tlmt the 
 fasting multitude should again be fed, "whence should we 
 have so much bread in the wilderness as to fill so great a 
 multitude ? " It is certain that the idea of two feedings 
 having really taken place, could only have found acceptance 
 in minds preoccupied with the doctrine of the plenary in- 
 spiration and infidlibility of Scripture. It is now entirely 
 abandoned by all divines except the English, and by the 
 few thinkers even among them. A confirmatory argument, 
 were any needed, might be drawn from observing that the 
 narrative of the fourth evangelist agrees in some points with 
 Matthew's first, and in some with his second account. 
 
 The story contained in xvii. 27, et seq., of Jesus com.- 
 manding Peter to catch a fish in whose mouth he should 
 find the tribute money, has a most pagan and unworthy 
 character about it, harmonizes admirably wdth the puerile 
 narratives which abound in the apocryplial gospels, and is 
 ignored by all the other evangelists. 
 
 In xxvii. 24, we find this narrative: "When Pilate saw 
 that he could prevail nothing, but rather that a tumult was 
 made, he took water, and washed his hands before the mul- 
 titude, saying, I am innocent of the blood of this just per- 
 son ; see ye to it." Now, in the first place, this symbolic 
 action w^as a Jewish, not a Pioman ceremony \ and as such 
 most unsuitable and improbable in a Pioman governor, one 
 
 ^ It appears from Deut. xxi. 1-9, that the washing of the hands was a 
 specially-appointed Mosaic rite, by which the authorities of any city in which 
 murder had been committed were to avow their innocence of the crime, and 
 ignorance of the criminal, 
 
 H 
 
98 THE CREED OF CHRISTENDOM, 
 
 of a nation noted for tlieir contempt of the habits and opi- 
 nions of their subject nations. In the second phace, it is 
 inconceivable that Pilate shoukl so emphatically have pro- 
 nounced his own condemnation, by declaring Jesus to be a 
 "just man," at the very moment when he was about to 
 scourge him, and deliver him over to the most cruel tor- 
 tures. 
 
 In Matthew's account of the last moments of Jesus, we 
 have the following remarkable statements (xxvii. 50-58 ') :— - 
 " Jesus, when he had cried again with a loud voice, yielded 
 up the ghost. And, behold, the veil of the temple was rent 
 in twain from the top to the bottom; and the earth did 
 quake, and the rocks rent; And the graves were opened, 
 and nrany bodies of the saints which slept arose, and came 
 out of the graves after his resurrection, and went into the 
 holy city, and appeared unto many." ^o\\,Jlrst, this extra- 
 ordinary fact, if it be a fact, (and it is said to have been a 
 pubhc one— ''they appeared unto tnauy,") is ignored by 
 the other evangelists ; nor do we find any reference to it in 
 the Acts or the Epistles, nor any reason to believe that any 
 of the apostles were aware of the occurrence— one, certainly, 
 to excite the deepest interest and wonder. Secondly, the 
 statement is a confused, if not a self-contradictory, one. 
 The assertion in ver. 52, clearly is, that tbe opening of the 
 graves, and the rising of the bodies of saints, formed a por- 
 tion of that series of convulsions of Nature which is said to 
 have occurred at the moment wdien Jesus expired ; whereas 
 the following verse speaks of it as occurring " after his re- 
 surrection." To suppose, as believers in verbal accuracy do, 
 and must do, that the bodies were re- animated on the Friday, 
 and not allowed to come out of their graves till the Sunday, 
 is clearly too monstrous to be seriously entertained. If, 
 to avoid this difficulty, w^e adopt Griesbach's reading, and 
 translate the passage thus : " And coming out of their 
 graves, went into the holy city after his resurrection," — the 
 question still recurs, " Where did they remain between Fri- 
 day and Sunday ? And did they, after three days' emanci- 
 
 1 Norton (i. 214) thinks tliis passage an interpolation, as he does many 
 others, on the obviously unfair ground that the statement it contains is im- 
 probable. It may be improbalile that it should have happened, yet not 
 improbable that Matthew should have recorded it, if he found it among his 
 traditional materials. 
 
FIDELITY OF THE GOSPEL HISTORY. 9^ 
 
 pation, resume their sepulchral hahiliments, and return to 
 their narrow prison-house, and their former state of dust ? " 
 Again, when we refer to the original, we find that it was the 
 'bodies (aM^ara) which "arose;" but, if we suppose that 
 the evangelist wrote grammatically, it could not have been 
 the bodies which " came out of the graves," or he would 
 have written l^fXOovTa, not l^iXOovreg. Whence Bush^ as- 
 sumes that the bodies arose (or were raised, i]yipOr]) at the 
 time of the crucifixion, but lay down again'^, and that it was 
 the souls which came out of the graves after the resurrection 
 of Christ and appeared unto many I We cannot, however, 
 admit that souls inhabit graves. 
 
 There can, we think, remain little doubt in unprepossessed 
 minds, that the whole legend (it is greatly augmented in the 
 apocryphal gospels ') was one of those intended to magnify 
 and honour Christ*, which were current in great numbers at 
 the time when Matthew wrote, and which he, with the usual 
 want of discrimination and somewhat omnivorous tendency 
 which distinguished him as a compiler, admitted into his 
 gospel; — and that the confusing phrase, "after his resur- 
 rection," was added either by him, or by some previous 
 transmitter, or later copier, to prevent the apparent want 
 of deference and decorum involved in a resurrection which 
 should have preceded that of Jesus. 
 
 In c. xxvii. 02-06, and xxviii. 11-15, we find a record 
 of two conversations most minutely given — one between 
 the Chief Priests and Pilate, and the other between the 
 
 1 See a very elaborate work of Professor Bush, entitled " Anastasis, or the 
 Resurrection of the Body" (p. 210), the object of which is to prove that the 
 resurrection of the body is neither a rational nor a scriptural doctrine. 
 
 - The Professor's notion appears to be that the rising of the bodies on the 
 Fi-iday was a mere mechanical effect of the earthquake, and that re-animation 
 did not take i^lace till the Sunday, and that even then it was not the bodies 
 which arose. 
 
 ^ The Gospel of the Hebrews says that a portion of the Temple was thrown 
 down. See also the Gospel of Nicodemus. 
 
 "* Similar prodigies were said, or supposed, to accompany the deaths of 
 many great men in former days, as in the case of Caesar (Virgil, Georg. i. 463, 
 et seq.). Shakespeare has embalmed some traditions of the kind, exactly 
 analogous to the present case. See Julius Ciesar, Act ii., So. 2. Again he 
 says : Hamlet, Act i. Sc. 1. 
 
 " In the most high and palmy state of Rome, 
 A little ere the mightiest Julius fell, 
 The graves stood tenantless, and the sheeted dead 
 Did squeak and gibber in the Roman streets. ' 
 
 H ^ 
 
100 THE CREED OF CHRISTENDOM. 
 
 Priests and the guards of the Sepulchre — at which it is 
 impossible the evaiigehst, and most improbable that any 
 informant of his, could have been present; — and which, to 
 our minds, bear evident marks of being subsequent fictions 
 supposed in order to complete and render more invulnerable 
 the history of Jesus' resurrection. It is extremely unhkely 
 that the Chief Priests and Pharisees should have thought of 
 taking precautions beforehand against a fraudulent resur- 
 rection. We have no reason to believe that they had ever 
 heard of the prophecy to which they alkrde^ for it had been 
 uttered only to his own disciples, the twelve, and to them 
 generally with more or less secrecy^; and w^e know that by 
 them it was so entirely disregarded"', or had been so com- 
 pletely forgotten, that tlie resurrection of their Lord was 
 not only not expected, but took them completely by sur- 
 prise. Were the enemies of Christ more attentive to, and 
 believing on, his predictions than his own followers ? 
 
 The improbability of the sequel of this story is equally 
 striking. That the guard placed by the Sanhedrim at the 
 tomb should, all trembling with affright from the apparition 
 (xxviii. 4), have been at once, and so easily, persuaded to 
 deny the vision, and propagate a lie; — that the Sanhedrim, 
 instead of angrily and contemptuously scouting the story 
 of the soldiers, charging them with having slept, and threat- 
 ening them with punishment, should have believed their 
 statement, and at the same time, in full conclave, resolved 
 to bribe them to silence and falsehood ; — that Eoman 
 soldiers, who could scarcely commit a more heinous offence 
 against discipline than to sleep upon their post, should so 
 wiUingly have accepted money to accuse themselves of such 
 a breach of duty ; — are all too improbable suppositions to 
 be readily allowed ; especially when the 13tli verse indicates 
 a subsequent Jewish rumour as the foundation of the story, 
 and when the utter silence of all the other evangelists and 
 
 1 It is true that John (ii. 19) relates that Jesus said publicly in answer to 
 the Jews' demand for a sign, " Destroy this temi^le, and in three days I will 
 build it up again." This John considers to have reference to his resurrection, 
 but we know that the Jews attached no such meaning to it, from v. 20, and 
 also from Matth. xxvi. 61. 
 
 2 Matth. xvi. 21 ; xx. 19. Mark viii. 31 ; x. 32. Luke ix. 22 ; xviii. 33. 
 " This is distinctly stated, John xx. 9 : "For as yet they knew not the 
 
 Scripture, that he must rise again from the dead," and indeed it is clear from 
 all the evanselical narratives. 
 
FIDELITY OF THE GOSPEL HISTORY. 101 
 
 apostles respecting a narrative which, if true, woald be so 
 essential a feature in their preaching of the resurrection, is 
 duly borne in mind. 
 
 Many minor instances in wliich Matthew has retrenched 
 or added to the accounts of Mark, according as retrench- 
 ment or omission woukl, in his view, most exalt the cha- 
 racter of Jesus, are specified in the article already referred 
 to (Prosp. Kev., xxi.), which we recommend to the perusal 
 of all our readers as a perfect pattern of critical reasoning. 
 
CHAPTER YIU. 
 
 FIDELITY OF THE GOSPEL HISTORY CONTINUED. — MATTHEW. 
 
 In pursuing our inquiry as to the degree of reliance to be 
 placed on Matthew's narrative, we now^ come to the consi- 
 deration of those passages in which there is reason to believe 
 that the conversations and discourses of Christ have been 
 incorrectly reported : a«d that words have been attributed 
 to him which he did not utter, or at least did not utter in the 
 form and context in which they have been transmitted to 
 us. That this should be so, is no more than we ought to 
 expect a priori ; for, of all things, discourses and remarks 
 are the most likely to be imperfectly heard, inaccurately 
 reported, and materially altered and corrupted in the course 
 of transmission from mouth to mouth. Indeed, as we do 
 not know, and have no reason to believe, that the discourses 
 of Christ were written down by those who heard them imme- 
 diately after their delivery, or indeed much before they 
 reached the hands of the evangelists, nothing less than a 
 miracle perpetually renewed for many years could have pre- 
 served these traditions perfectly pure and genuine. In 
 admitting the belief, therefore, that they are in several points 
 imperfect and inaccurate, we are throwing no discredit upon 
 the sincerity or capacity, either of the evangeUsts or their 
 informants, or the original reporters of the sayings of Christ; 
 — we are simply acquiesciug in the alleged operation of 
 natural causes^ In some cases, it is true, we shall find 
 
 ^ This seems to be admitted even by orthodox writers. Thus Mr, Trench 
 says : — "The most earne&t oral tradition will in a little while lose its dis- 
 tinctness, undergo essential though insensible modifications. Apart from all 
 desire to vitiate the committed word, yet, little by little, the subjective con- 
 dition of those to whom it is entrusted, through whom it jjasses, will in- 
 fallibly make itself felt ; and in such treacherous keeping is all which remains 
 merely in the memories of men, that, after a very little while, rival schools 
 of disciples will begin to contend not merely how their Master's words wei-e 
 to be accepted, but luhat those very vjords ivere.'" — Trench's Hulssean Lec- 
 tures, p. 15. 
 
FIDELITY OF THE GOSPEL HISTORY. 103 
 
 reason to believe that the published discourses of Christ 
 have been intentionally altered and artificially elaborated by 
 some of the parties through whose hands they passed ; — biAt 
 in those days, when the very idea of historical criticism was 
 yet unborn,' this might have been done without any unfair- 
 ness of purpose. We know that at that period, historians 
 of far loftier pretensions and more scientific character, writ- 
 ing in countries of far greater literary advancement, seldom 
 scrupled to fill up and round off the harangues of their 
 orators and statesmen with whatever they thought appro- 
 priate for them to have said— nay, even to elaborate for 
 them loDg orations out of the most meagre hearsay 
 fragments'. 
 
 A general view of Matthew, and still more a comparison 
 of his narrative with that of the other three gospels, brings 
 into clear light his entire indifference to chronological or 
 contextual arrangement in his record of the discourses of 
 Christ. Thus in ch. v., vi., vii., we have crowded into one 
 sermon the teachiags and aphorisms which in the other 
 evangehsts are spread over the whole of Christ's ministry. 
 In ch. xiii. we find collected together no less than six para- 
 bles of similitudes for the kingdom of heaven. In ch. x. 
 Matthew compresses into one occasion (the sending of the 
 twelve, where many of them are strikingly out of place) a 
 variety of instructions and reflections which must have 
 belonged to a subsequent part of the career of Jesus, where 
 indeed they are placed by the other evangelists. In c. xxiv., 
 in the same manner, all the prophecies relating to the 
 destruction of Jerusalem and the end of the world are 
 grouped together ; while, in many instances, remarks of 
 Jesus are introduced in the midst of others with which they 
 have no connection, and where they are obviously out of 
 place ; as xi. 28-80, and xiii. 12, which evidently belongs to 
 XXV. 29. 
 
 1 This in fact was the custom of antiquity — the rule, not the excejjtion : — 
 see Thucydides, Livy, Sallust, kc. passim. We find also (see Acts v. 34-39), 
 that Luke himself did not scruple to adopt this common practice, for he gives 
 us a verbatim speech of Gamaliel delivered in the Sanhedrim, after the Apos- 
 tles had been expressly excluded, and which therefore he could have known 
 only by hearsay report. Moreover it is certain that this speech must have 
 been Luke's, and not Gamaliel's, since it represents Gamaliel in the year 
 A.D, 34 or 35, as speaking in the past tense of an agitator, Theudas, who did 
 not appear, as we learn from Josephus, till after the year a.d. 44. 
 
104 THE CREED OF CHRISTENDOM. 
 
 In c. xi. 12 is the followiDg expression: '' Anil from the 
 days of John the Baptist until now, the kingdom of 
 Heaven sufiereth violence, and the violent take it by storm." 
 Now though the meaning of the passage is difficult to ascer- 
 tain with precision, yet the expression " from the days of 
 John the Baptist until now," clearly implies that the speaker 
 lived at a considerable distance of time from John ; and 
 though appropriate enough in a man who wrote in the 
 year a.d. 65, or 30 years after John, could not have been 
 used by one who spoke in the year a.d. 80 or 83, while 
 John w^as yet alive. This passage, therefore, is from 
 Matthew, not from Jesus. 
 
 In c. xvi. 9, 10, is another remark which we may say with 
 perfect certainty was put unwarrantably into the mouth of 
 Christ either by the evangelist, or the source from which he 
 copied. We have already seen that there could not have 
 been more than one miraculous feeding of the multitude ; 
 yet Jesus is here made to refer to two. The explanation at 
 once forces itself upon our minds, that the evangelist, 
 having, in his uncritical and confused conceptions, related 
 two feedings, and finding among his materials a discourse 
 of Jesus having reference to a miraculous occurrence of that 
 nature, perceived the inconsistency of narrating two such 
 events, and yet making Jesus refer to only one, and therefore 
 added verse 10, by way of correcting the incongruity. The 
 same remark will apply to Mark also. 
 
 The passage at c. xvi. 18, 19, bears obvious marks of 
 being either an addition to the words of Christ, or a cor- 
 ruption of them. " He saith unto them. But whom say ye 
 that I am ? And Simon Peter answered and said. Thou 
 art the Christ, the Son of the living God. And Jesus 
 answered and said unto him unto him. Blessed art thou, 
 Simon Bar-jona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it 
 unto thee, but my Father which is in Heaven. And I say 
 also unto thee. That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I 
 will build my Church ; and the gates of hell shall not prevail 
 against it. And I will give unto thee the keys of the king- 
 dom of Heaver • and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth 
 shall be bound m heaven : and whatsoever thou shalt loose 
 on earth shall be loosed in heaven." 
 
 The confession by Simon Peter of his behef in the 
 Messiahship of Jesus is given by all the four evangelists^ 
 
FIDELITY OF THE GOSPEL HISTORY. 105 
 
 and there is no reason to question the accuracy of this part 
 of the narrative. Mark and John, as well as Matthew, 
 relate that Jesus bestowed on Simon the surname of Peter, 
 and this part, therefore, may also he admitted. The re- 
 mainder of the narrative corresponds almost exactly with 
 the equivalent passages in the other evangelists ; hut the 
 18th verse has no parallel in any of them. Moreover, the 
 word " Church " betrays its later origin. The word 
 £KK\r](Tia was used by the disciples to signify those assem- 
 blies and organizations into which they formed themselves 
 after the death of Jesus, and is met with frequently in the 
 epistles, but nowhere in the gospels, except in the passage 
 under consideration, and one other, which is equally, or 
 even more, contestable'. It was in use when the gospel 
 was written, but not when the discourse of Jesus was deli- 
 vered. It belongs, therefore, to Matthew, not to Jesus. 
 
 The following verse, conferring spiritual authority, or, as 
 it is commonly called, "the power of the keys" upon 
 Peter, is repeated by Matthew in connection with another 
 discourse (in c. xviii. 18) ; and a similar passage is found 
 in John (c. xx. 23), who, however, places the promise 
 after the resurrrection, and represents it as made to the 
 apostles generally, subsequent to the descent of the Holy 
 Spirit. But there are considerations which effectually 
 forbid our receiving this promise, at least as given by 
 Matthew, as having really emanated from Christ. In the 
 Jirst place, in both passages it occurs in connection with 
 the suspicious word " Church," and indicates an ecclesias- 
 tical as opposed to a Christian origin. Seco/zdl//, Mark, 
 who narrates the previous conversation, omits this promise 
 so honourable and distinguishing to Peter, which it is im- 
 possible for those who consider him as Peter's mouthpiece, 
 or amanuensis, to believe he would have done, had any such 
 promise been actually made'". Luke, the companion and in- 
 timate of Paul and other apostles, equally omits all mention 
 of this singular conversation. 7'hirdli/, not only do we 
 
 1 C. xviii. 17. "If he shall neglect to hear them, tell it unto the Church ; 
 but if he neglect to hear the Church, let him be unto thee as a heath eu raan 
 and a publican." The whole passage, with its context, betoken.s an ecclesiaa- 
 tical, not a Christian spirit. 
 
 2 See Thirlwall, cvii., Introd. to Schleicrmacher. 
 
106 THE CREED OF CHIIISTENDOM. 
 
 .know Peter's utter unfitness to be the depositary of sncli a 
 fearful power, from bis impetuosity and instability of cha- 
 racter, and Christ's thorough perception of this unfitness, 
 but we find that immediately after it is said to have been 
 conferred upon him, his Lord addresses him indignantly by 
 the epithet of Satan, and rebukes him for his presumption 
 and unspirituality ; and shortly afterwards this very man 
 thrice denied his master. Can any one maintain it to be 
 conceivable that Jesus should have conferred the awful 
 power of deciding the salvation or damnation of his fellow- 
 men upon one so frail, so faulty, and so fallible ? Does 
 any one believe that he did ? We cannot, therefore, regard 
 the lOth verse otherwise than as an unwarranted addition 
 to the words of Jesus, and painfully indicative of the grow- 
 ing pretensions of the Church at the time the gospel was 
 compiled. 
 
 In xxiii. 85, we have the following passage purporting to 
 be uttered by Jesus in the course of his denunciations 
 against the Scribes and Pharisees : " That upon you may 
 come all the righteous blood shed upon the earth, from the 
 blood of righteous Abel, unto the blood of Zacharias, son 
 of Barachias, whom ye slew between the temple and the 
 altar." Now, two Zachariases are recorded in history as 
 having been thus slain — Zacharias, son of Jehoida, 850 
 years before Christ (2 Chron. xxiv. 20), and Zacharias, 
 son of Bariich, 35 years after Christ (Joseph., Bell. Jud. 
 iv. 4)\ But wdien we reflect that Jesus could scarcely have 
 intended to refer to a murder committed 850 years before 
 his time as terminating the long series of Jewish crimes; 
 and moreover, that at the period the evangehst wrote, the 
 assassination of the son of Baruch was a recent event, and 
 one likely to have made a deep impression, and that the 
 circumstances of the murder (between the Temple and the 
 Altar) apply much more closely to the second than to the 
 first Zacharias, we cannot hesitate to admit the conclusion 
 of Hug, Eichhorn, and other critics', that the Zacharias 
 
 1 It is true that there was a third Zacharias, the Prophet, also son of a 
 Baracliias, who lived about 500 years before Christ ; but tliis man could not 
 have been the one intended by Matthew, for no record exists, or appears to 
 have existed, of the manner of his death, and in his time the Temple was in 
 ruins.— See Hennell, p. 81, note. 
 
 2 Hug, p. 314. Thirlwall, p. xcix., note. 
 
FIDELITY OF THE GOSPEL HISTORY. 107 
 
 mentioned by Joseplms was the one intended by Matthew. 
 Hug says — 
 
 *' There cannot be a doubt, if we attend to the name, the 
 fact and its circumstances, and the object of Jesus in cithig 
 it, that it was the same Zaxapulg Bapovxov, who, according 
 to Josephus, a short time before the destruction of Jeru- 
 salem, was unjustly slain in the temple. The name is the 
 same, the murder, and the remarkable circumstances which 
 distinguished it, correspond, as well as the character of the 
 man. Moreover, when Jesus says that all the innocent 
 blood which had been shed, from Abel to Zacharias, should 
 be avenged upon ' this generation,' the diro and tw^ denote 
 the beginning and the end of a period. This period ends 
 with Zacharias ; he was to be the last before the vengeance 
 should be executed. The threatened vengeance, however, 
 was the ruin of Jerusalem, which immediately followed his 
 death. Must it not, then, have been the same Zacharias 
 whose death is distinguished in history, among so many 
 murdered, as the only righteous man between Ananias and 
 the destruction of the Holy City ? The Zacharias men- 
 tioned in the Chronicles is not the one here intended. He 
 was a son of Jehoida, and was put to death, not between 
 the temple and the altar, or tv f-doi^ tw vdtoy but in the 
 court ; nor was he the last of those unjustly slain, or one 
 with whom an epoch in the Jewish annals terminates." 
 
 Here then we have an anachronism strikingly illustrative 
 of that confusion of mind which characterises this evan- 
 gelist, and which betrays at the same time that an unwar- 
 rantable liberty has been taken by some one with the lan- 
 guage of Jesus. He is hei-e represented as speaking in the 
 past tense of an event which did not occur till 85 years 
 after his death, and which, consequently, though fresh and 
 present to the mind of the tvriter, could not have been in 
 the mind of the sjyeaker, unless prophetically ; in which 
 case it would have been expressed in the future, not in the 
 past tense^ ; and would, moreover, have been wholly un- 
 intelligible to his hearers. If, therefore, as there seems no 
 
 1 "Hug imagines," says Bishop Thirlwall, loc. cit.,''tliat " Christ j^re- 
 dicted the death of this Zacharias, son of Barachias, but that St. Matthew, 
 who saw the prediction accomplished, expressed his knowledge of the fact 
 by using the past tense." But should this then have been the aorist 
 sfovivffxri ? 
 
108 THE CREED OF CHRISTENDOM. 
 
 reason to doubt, the evangelist intended to specify the 
 Zacbarias mentioned by Josepbus, he was guilty of putting 
 into the mouth of Jesus words wliich Jesus never uttered. 
 
 In cb. xxviii. 19, is another passage which we may say 
 with almost certainty never came from the mouth of Christ : 
 " Go ye therefore and teach all nations, baptizing them in 
 the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy 
 Ghost." That this definite form of baptism proceeded from 
 Jesus, is opposed by the fact, that such an allocation of 
 the Father, Son, and Spirit, does not elsewhere appear, 
 except as a form of salutation in the epistles ; — while as a 
 definite form of baptism it is nowhere met with throughout 
 the New Testament. Moreover, it w^as not the form used, and 
 could scarcely therefore have been the form commanded ; 
 for in the apostolic epistles, and even in the Acts, the form 
 always is "baptizing into Christ Jesus," or, "into the 
 name of the Lord Jesus ; " ^ while the threefold reference to 
 God, Jesus, and the Holy Ghost, is only found in eccle- 
 siastical writers, as Justin. Indeed the formula in Matthew 
 sounds so exactly as if it had been borrowed from the eccle- 
 siastical ritual, tiiat it is difficult to avoid the supposition 
 that it was transferred thence into the mouth of Jesus. 
 Many critics, in consequence, regard it as a subsequent in- 
 terpolation. 
 
 There are two other classes of discourses attributed to 
 Jesus both in this and in the other gospels, over the cha- 
 racter of which much obscurity hangs : — those in which he 
 is said to have foretold his own death and resurrection ; 
 and those in which he is represented 'as speaking of his 
 second advent. The instances of the first are in Matthew 
 Jive in number, in Mark four, in Luke four, and in John 
 tJiree\ 
 
 Now we will at once concede that it is extremely probable 
 that Christ might easily have foreseen that a career and 
 conduct like his could, in such a time and country, termi- 
 nate only in a violent and cruel death ; and that indications 
 of such an impending late thickened fast around him as his 
 
 1 Rom. vi. 3. Gal. iii. 27. Acts ii. 38 ; viii. 16 ; x. 48 ; xix. 5. 
 
 2 Matth. xii. 40 ; xvi. 21 ; xvii. 9, 22, 23 ; xx. 17-19 ; xxvi. 3. 
 Mark viii. 31 ; ix. 10, 31 ; x. 33 ; xiv. 28. Luke ix. 22, 44 ; xviii. 32, 33 ; 
 xxii. 15. John ii. 20-22 ; iii. 14 ; xii. 32, 33 ; all very questionable. 
 
FIDELITY OF THE GOSPEL HISTORY. 109 
 
 ministry drew nearer to a close. It is even possible, tliou,2:li 
 in tlio liighest degree unlikely\ that his study of the pro- 
 phets might have led him to the conclusion that the 
 expected T^Iessiah, whose functions he believed himself sent 
 to fulfil, was to be a suffering and dying Prince. We do 
 not even dispute that he might have been so amply endowed 
 ■with the spirit of prophecy as distinctly to foresee his ap- 
 pi'oaching crucifixion and resurrection. Tkit we find in the 
 evangelists themselves insuperable difficulties in the way of 
 admitting the belief that he actually did predict these 
 events, in the language, or with anything of the precision, 
 which is there ascribed to him. 
 
 In the fourth gospel, these predictions are three in num- 
 ber"^ and in all the language is doubtful, mysterious, and 
 obscure, and the interpretation commonly put upon them 
 is not that suggested by the words themselves, nor that 
 which suggested itself to those who heard them ; but is one 
 affixed to them by the evangelist after the event supposed to 
 be referred to ; it is an interpretatio ex evanticK In the three 
 synoptical gospels, however, the predictions are numerous, 
 precise, and conveyed in language, which it was impossible 
 to mistake. Thus (in Matth. xx. 18, 19, and parallel pas- 
 sages), *' Behold we go up to Jerusalem, and the Son of 
 Man shall be betrayed unto the chief Priests, and unto the 
 Scribes, and they shall condemn him to death, and shall 
 deliver him to the Gentiles to mock, and to scourge, and to 
 crucify him : and the third day he shall rise again." Lan- 
 
 ^ It was in the liigbest degree unlikely, because this was neither the inter- 
 pretation put upon the prophecies among the Jews of that time, nor tlieir 
 liatural signification, but it was an interpretation of the disciples ex cvtniii. 
 
 2 We pass over those touching intimations of approacliing separation con- 
 tained in the parting discourses of Jesus during and immediately preceding 
 the last sujDper, as there can be little doubt that at that time his fate was so 
 imminent as to have become evident to any acute observer, without the suppo- 
 sition of supernatural information. 
 
 '^ In the case of the first of these pi'edictions — '' Destroy this temple, and 
 in three days I will raise it up," — we can scarcely admit that the words were 
 used by Jesus (if uttered by him at all) in the sense ascribed to them by 
 John ; since the words were spoken in the tem'pU, and in answer to the de- 
 mand for a sign, and could tl>erefore only have conveyed, and have been 
 intended to convey, the meaning which we know they actually did convey to 
 the inquiring Jews. In the two other cases (or three, if Ave reckon viii. 2S, 
 as one), the language of Jesus is too indefinite for us to know what meaning 
 he intended it to convey. The expression "to be lifted up" is thrice used, 
 and may mean exaltation, glorification (its natural signification), or, arti- 
 ficially and figuratively, iniglct be intended to refer to his crucifixion. 
 
M& THE CREED OF CHRISTENDOM. 
 
 guage such as this, definite, positive, exphcit, and circum- 
 stantial, if really uttered, could not have heen misunder- 
 stood, hut must have made a deep and ineradicahle impres- 
 sion on all who heard it, especially when repeated, as it is 
 stated to have heen, on several distinct occasions. Yet we find 
 ample proof that jfo such i/npressio/i was made ; — that the 
 disciples had no conception of their Lord's approaching 
 death— still less of his resurrection ;— and that so far from 
 their expecting either of these events, both, when they 
 occurred, took them entirely hy surprise ; — they were ut- 
 terly confounded hy the one, and could not heheve the 
 other. 
 
 We find them shortly after (nay, in one instance instantly 
 after) these predictions were uttered, disputing which 
 among them should be greatest in their coming dominion 
 (Matth. XX. 24. Mark ix. 35. Luke xxii. 25) ;— glorying 
 in the idea of thrones, and asking for seats on his right 
 hand and on his left, in his Messianic kingdom (Matth. xix. 
 28; XX. 2L Mark x. 37. Luke xxii. 30) ; which, when 
 he approached Jerusalem they thought " would immediately 
 appear" (Luke xix. 11; xxiv. 21). When Jesus was 
 arrested in the Garden of Gethsemanc, they first attempted 
 resistance, and then " forsook him and fled ; " and so com- 
 pletely were they scattered, that it was left for one of the 
 ►Sanhedrim, Josepii of Arimatheea, to provide even for his 
 decent burial ;— while the women who had "watched afar 
 off;" and were still faithful to his memory, brought spices 
 to embalm the body — a sure sign, were any needed, that the 
 idea of his resurrection had never entered into their minds. 
 Further, when the women reported his resurrection to the 
 disciples, *' their words seemed to them as idle tales, and 
 they beheved them not" (Luke xxiv. 11). The conversa- 
 tion, moreover, of the two disciples on the road to Emmaus 
 is sufficient proof that the resurrection of their Lord was a 
 conception which had never crossed their thoughts; — and, 
 finally, according to John, when Mary found the body 
 gone,'^her only notion was that it must have been removed 
 by the gardener (xx. 15). 
 
 All this shows, beyond, we think, the possibility of ques- 
 tion, that the crucifixion and resurrection of Jesus were 
 wholly unexpected by his disciples. If further proof were 
 wanted, we find it in' the words of the evangelists, who re- 
 
FIDELITY OF THE GOSPEL HISTORY. Ill 
 
 peatcdly intimate (as if struck by the incongruity we have 
 pointed out) that they " knew not," or " understood not," 
 these sayings. (Mark ix. 81. Luke ix. 45; xviii. 8-1. 
 John XX. 9.) 
 
 Here, then, we have two distinct statements, which mu- 
 tually exchide and contradict each other. If Jesus really fore- 
 told iiis death and resurrection in the terms recorded in the 
 gospels, it is inconceivable that the disciples should have 
 mUunderstood him; for no words could be more positive, 
 precise, or intelligible, than those which he is said to have 
 repeatedly addressed to them. Neither could they have 
 forgotten what had been so strongly urged upon their 
 memory by their Master, as completely as it is evident from 
 their subsequent conduct they actually did^ They might, 
 indeed, have disbelieved his prediction (as Peter appears in 
 the first instance to have done), but in that case, his cruci- 
 fixion would have led them to expect his resurrection, or, 
 at all events, to think of it : — which it did not. The fulfil- 
 ment of one prophecy would necessarily have recalled the 
 otlier to their minds. 
 
 The conclusion, therefore, is inevitable — that the pre- 
 dictions were ascribed to Jesus after the event, not really 
 uttered by him. It is, indeed, very probable that, as 
 gloomy anticipations of his own death pressed upon his 
 mind, and became stronger and more confirmed as the 
 danger came nearer, he endeavoured to communicate these 
 apprehensions to his followers, in order to prepare them for 
 an event so fatal to their worldly hopes. That he did so, 
 we think the conversations during, and previous lo, the last 
 supper, aff'ord ample proof. These vague intimations of 
 coming evil — intermiugled and relieved, dotthtless, hij 
 strongly expressed convictions of a future existence of 
 re-union and reward, disbelieved or disregarded by the 
 disciples at the time — recurred to their minds after all was 
 over ; and gathering strength, and expanding in definite- 
 ness and fulness during constant repetition for nearly forty 
 years, had, at the period when the evangelists wrote, become 
 consolidated into the fixed prophetic form in which they 
 have been transmitted to us. 
 
 1 Moreover, if tliey had so completely forgotten these predictions, whence 
 did the evangelists derive them % 
 
112 THE CREED OF CHRISTENDOM. 
 
 Anotlier argument may be adduced, strongly confirma- 
 tory of this view. Jesus is repeatedly represented as 
 affirming that his expected sufferings and tlieir glorious 
 termination must take place, in order that the prophecies 
 might he fuljilled. (Matth. xxvi. 24, 51. Mark ix. 12 ; 
 xiv. 49. Luke xiii. 33 ; xviii. 31 ; xxii. 37 ; xxiv. 27.) 
 Now, the passion of the disciples for representing every- 
 thing connected with Jesus as the fulfilment of prophecy, 
 explains why they should have sought, aft^r his death, for 
 passages which might be supposed to prefigure it', — and 
 why these accommodations of prophecy should, in process 
 of time, and of transmission, have been attributed to Jesus 
 himself. But if we assume, as is commonly done, that 
 these references to prophecy really proceeded from Christ 
 in the first instance, we are landed in the inadmissible, or at 
 least the embarrassing and unorthodox, conclusion, that he 
 interpreted tlie prophets erroneously. To confine ourselves 
 to the principal passages only, a profound grammatical and 
 historical exposition has couvincino-ly shown, to all who are 
 in a condition to liberate themselves from dogmatic pre- 
 suppositions, that in none of these is there any allusion to 
 the suff'erings of Christ'^ 
 
 One of these references to prophecy in Matthew has evi- 
 dent marks of being an addition to the traditional words of 
 Christ bv tlie evane^elist himself. In Matthew xvi. 4, we 
 liave the follov/ing : " A wicked and adulterous generation 
 seeketh after a sign ; and there shall no sign be given 
 to it but the sign of the Prophet Jonas." The same 
 expression precisely is recorded by Luke (xi. 29), with 
 this addition, showing what the reference to Jonas really 
 meant: "For as Jonas was a sign to the Ninevites so 
 also shall the Son of Man be to this generation. The 
 
 * ' ' There were sufficient motives for tlie Christian legend thus to put into 
 the mouth of Jesus, after the event, a prediction of the particular features of 
 his passion, especially of the ignominious crucifixion. The more a Christ 
 crucified became " to the Jews a stumbling-block, and to the Greeks foolish- 
 ness " (1 Cor. i. 23), the more need was there to remove the offence by every 
 possible means ; and as among the subsequent events, the resurrection espe- 
 cially served as a retro^.pecthe cancelling of that shameful death, so it must 
 have been earnestly desired to take the sting from that offensive catastrophe 
 heforehand also ; and this could not be done more effectually than by such a 
 minute prediction." — Strauss, iii. 54, where this idea is fully des'eloped. 
 
 - Even Dr. Arnold admitted this fully. (Sermons on Interpretations of 
 Prophecy, Preface.) 
 
FIDELITY OF THE GOSPEL HISTORY. 113 
 
 men of Nineveh shall rise up in judgment against this 
 generation, and shall condemn it; for they repented at 
 the preaching of Jonas ; and, behold, a greater than 
 Jonas is here." But when Matthew repeats the same 
 answer of Jesus in answer to the same demand for a sign 
 (xiv. 40), he adds the- explanation of the reference, " for 
 as Jonas was three days and three nights in the whale's 
 belly, so shall the Son of Man be three days and three 
 nights [which Jesus was not, but only one day and two 
 nights] in the heart of the earth;" — and he then proceeds 
 with the same context as Luke. 
 
 The prophecies of the second coming of Christ (Matt. 
 xxiv. Mark xiii. Luke xvii. 22-87; xxi. 5-86) are mixed 
 up with those of the destruction of Jerusalem by Titus in a 
 manner which has long been the perplexity and despair of 
 orthodox commentators. The obvious meaning of the 
 passages which contain these predictions — the sense in 
 which they were evidently understood by the evangelists 
 who wrote them down — the sense which we know from 
 many sources' they conveyed to the minds of the early 
 Christians — clearly is, that the coming of Christ to judge 
 the world should follow immediately'^ ('"immediately," *' in 
 those days,") the destruction of the Holy City, and should 
 take place during the lifetime of the then existing genera- 
 tion. " Verily. I say unto you. This generation shall not 
 pass away till all these things be fulfilled." (Matt. xxiv. 34 ; 
 Mark xiii. 30; Luke xxi. 82.) "There be some standing 
 here that shall not taste of death, till they see the Son of 
 Man coming in his kingdom" (Matth. xvi. 28). " Verily I 
 say unto you, Ye shall not have gone over the cities of 
 Israel, till the Son of Man be come" (Matth. x. 23). "If 
 I will that he tarry till I come, what is that to thee ? " 
 (John xxi. 28). 
 
 Now if these predictions really proceeded from Jesus, he 
 was entirely in error on the subject, and the prophetic spirif. 
 was not in him ; for not only did his advent not follow close 
 
 1 See 1 Cor. x. 11 ; xv. 51. PhiL iv. 5. 1 Thess. iv. 15. James v. 8. 
 1 Peter iv. 7. 1 John ii. 18. Rev, i. 1, 3 ; xxii. 7, 10, 12, 20. 
 
 "^ An apparent contradiction to this is presented by Matth. xxiv. 14 ; 
 Matth. xiii. 10, where we are told that "the gospel must be first preached 
 to all nations." It appears, however, from Col. i. 5, 6, 23 (see also 
 Romans x. IS), that St. Paul considered this to have been already accom- 
 plished in his time. 
 
 I 
 
114 THE CREED OF CHRISTENDOM. 
 
 on the destruction of Jerusalem, but 1800 years have since 
 elapsed, and neither he nor the preUminary signs which were 
 to announce him, have yet appeared. If these predictions 
 did not proceed from him, the evang-elist has taken the 
 liberty of putting into the mouth of Christ words and an- 
 nouncements which Christ never uttered. 
 
 Much desperate ingenuity has been exerted to separate 
 the predictions relating to Jerusalem from those relating to 
 the Advent ; but these exertions have been neither creditable 
 nor successful ; and they have already been examined and 
 refuted at great length. ]\Ioreover, they are rendered neces- 
 sary only by two previous assuuqytions : first, that Jesus 
 cannot have*^been mistaken as to the future ; and, secondly, 
 that he really uttered these predictions. Now, neither of 
 these assumptions are capable of proof. The lirst we shall 
 not dispute, because we have no adequate means of coming 
 to a conclusion on the subject. But as to the second as- 
 sumption, we think there are several indications that, 
 though the predictions in question were current among the 
 Christians when the gospels were composed, yet that they 
 did not, at least as handed down to us, proceed from the 
 lips of Christ ; but were, as far as related to the second 
 advent, the unauthorized anticipations of the disciples ; and, 
 as far as related to the destruction of the city, partly 
 gathered from the denunciations of Old Testament prophecy, 
 and partly from actual knowledge of the events which 
 passed under their eyes. 
 
 In the Jirst place, it is not conceivable that Jesus could 
 have been so true a prophet as to one part of the prediction, 
 and so entirely in error as to the other, both parts referring 
 equally to future events. Secondly, the three gospels in 
 which these predictions occur, are allowed t^^have been 
 written between the years G5 and 72 a.d., or during the war 
 which ended in the destruction of Jerusalem^; that is, they 
 were written during and after the events which they predict. 
 They may, therefore, either have been entirely drawn from 
 the events, or have been vaguely in existence before, but 
 have derived their definiteness and precision from the events. 
 And we have already seen in the case of the first evangelist, 
 
 1 The war began by Vespasian's entering Galilee in the beginning of the 
 year a.d. 67, and the city was taken in the autumn of a.d. 70. 
 
FIDELITY OF THE GOSPEL HISTORY. J 15 
 
 that lie, at least, did not scruple to eke out and modify the 
 predictions he recorded, from his own experience of their 
 fulfilment. Tliirdli), the parallel passages, hoth in Matthew 
 and Mark, contain an expression twice repeated — " the 
 elect" — which we can say almost with certainty was un- 
 known in the time of Christ, though frequently found in 
 the epistles, and used, at the time the gospels were com- 
 posed, to designate the members of the Christian Church. 
 
 I 3 
 
CHAPTER IX. 
 
 SAME SUBJECT CONTINUED — MARK AND LUXE. 
 
 Many of the criticisms contained in the two last chapters — 
 tending to prove that Matthew's Gospel contains several 
 statements not strictly accurate, and attributes to Jesus 
 several expressions and discourses which were not really 
 uttered by him— are equally applicable both to Mark and 
 Luke. The similarity— not to say identity— of the greater 
 portion of Mark's narrative with that of Matthew, leaves no 
 room for doubt either that one evangelist copied from the 
 other, or that both employed the same documents, or oral 
 narratives, in the compilation of their histories. Our own 
 clear conviction is that Mark was the earhest in time, and 
 far the most correct in fact. 
 
 As we have already stated, we attach little weight to the 
 tradition of the second century, that the second gospel was 
 written by Mark, the companion of Peter. It originated 
 with Papias, whose works are now lost, but who was stated 
 to be a " weak man " by Eusebius, who records a few frag- 
 ments of his writings. * But if the tradition be correct, the 
 omissions in this gospel, as compared with the first, are 
 significant enough. It omits entirely the genealogies, the 
 mn-aculous conception, several matters relating to Peter 
 (especially his walking on the water, and the commission of 
 the keys ^), and everything miraculous or improbable relating 
 to the resurrection -—everything, in fact, but the simple 
 statement that the body w'as missing, and that a " young 
 man " assured the visitors that Christ was risen. 
 
 * See Thirlwall's remarks on this subject. Introd. cvii. 
 2 We must not forget that the real genuine Gospel of Mark terminates 
 with the 8th verse of the 16th chapter. 
 
FIDELITY OF THE GOSPEL HISTORY. 117 
 
 In addition to these, there are two or three peculiarities in 
 the discourses of Jesus, as recorded by Mark, \Yhich indicate 
 that the evangehst thouglit it necessary and allowable 
 slightly to modify the language of them, in order to suit 
 them to the ideas or the feelings of the Gentile converts ; 
 if, as is commonly supposed, it was principally designed for 
 them. We copy a few instances of these, though resting 
 little upon them. 
 
 Matthew, who wrote for the Jews, has the following 
 passage, in the injunctions pronounced by Jesus on the 
 sending forth of the twelve apostles : *' Go not into the way 
 of the Gentiles, and into any city of the Samaritans enter 
 ye not. But go rather to the lost sheep of the house of 
 Israel." (x. 5.) Mark, who wrote ibr the Gentiles, omits 
 eutirehj this nupalatahlc charge, (vi. 7-13.) 
 
 Matthew (xv. 24), in the story of the Canaanitisli 
 woman, makes Jesus say, "I am not sent but to the lost 
 sheep of the house of Israel." Mark (vii. 26) omits this ex- 
 pression entirely, and modifies the subsequent remark. In 
 Matthew it is thus: — " It is not meet to take the children's 
 bread and cast it unto the dogs." In Mark it is softened by 
 the preliminary, " Let the cldldren first he filled^' &c. 
 
 Matthew (xxiv. 20), "But pray ye that your flight be 
 not in the winter, neither on tlie Sahhath day." Mark 
 omits the last clause, which would have had no meaning for 
 any but the Jews, whose Sabbath day's journey was by law 
 restricted to a small distance. 
 
 In the promise given to the disciples, in answer to Peter's 
 question, " Behold we have forsaken all, and followed thee ; 
 what shall we have therefore ?" The following verse, given 
 by Matthew (xix. 2.S), is omitted hy Mark (x. 28) : — 
 *' Verily I say unto you, That ye which have followed me, 
 in the regeneration, Avhen the Son of Man shall sit in the 
 throne of his glory, ye also shall sit upon twelve thrones, 
 judging the twelve tribes of Israel." 
 
 The Gospel of Luke, which is a work in some respects of 
 more pretension, and unquestionably of more literary merit, 
 than the two first, will require a few additional observations. 
 The remarks we have made on the prophecies of his own 
 sufferings and resurrection, alleged by Matthew and Mark 
 to have been uttered by Jesus, apply equally to Luke's nar- 
 rative, in which similar passages occur ; and in these, there- 
 
118 THE CREED OF CHRISTENDOM. 
 
 fore, we must admit that the third evangelist, like the other 
 two, ascribed to Jesus discourses which never really pro- 
 ceeded from him\ But besides these, there are several pas- 
 sages in Luke which bear an equally apocr^^phal character, 
 some of which it will be interesting to notice. 
 
 The first chapter, from verse 5-80, contains the account 
 of the annunciation and birth of John the Baptist, with all 
 the marvellous circumstances attending it, and also the an- 
 nunciation to Mary, and the miraculous conception of Jesus 
 —an account exhibiting many remarkable discrepancies with 
 the corresponding narrative in Matthew. We are spared 
 the necessity of a detailed investigation of this chapter by 
 the agreement of the most learned critics, both of the ortho- 
 dox and sceptical schools, in considering the narrative as 
 poetical and legendary. It is examined at great length by 
 Strauss, who is at the head of the most daring class of the 
 Biblical Commentators of Germany, and by Schleiermacher, 
 who ranks first among the learned divines of that country. 
 The latter (in the work translated by one of our most erudite 
 and hberal Prelates, and already often referred to), writes 
 thus, pp. 25-7 : — 
 
 " Thus, then, we begin by detaching the first chapter as 
 an originally independent composition. If we consider it in 
 this light somewhat more closely, we cannot resist the im- 
 pression that it was originally rather a little poetical work 
 than a properly-historical narrative. The latter supposition, 
 in its strictest sense at all events, no one will adopt, or con- 
 tend that the angel Gabriel announced the advent of the 
 Messiah in figures so purely Jewish, and in expressions 
 taken mostly from the Old Testament ; or that the alternate 
 song between Ehzabeth and Mary actually took place in the 
 manner described ; or that Zacharias, at the instant of re- 
 covering his speech, made use of it to utter the hymn, with- 
 out being disturbed by the joy and surprise of the company, 
 by which the narrator himself allows his description to be 
 interrupted. At all events we should then be obliged to 
 suppose that the author made additions of his own, and en- 
 
 » The remark will perhaps occur to some, that the circumstance of three 
 evangelists ascribing the same language to Jesus, is a strong proof that he 
 really uttered it. But the fallacy of this argument will be apparent when 
 we remember that there is ample evidence that they all drew from the same 
 sources, namely, the extant current tradition. 
 
FIDELITY OF THE GOSPEL HISTORY. 119 
 
 riched the historical narrative by the lyrical effusions of his 
 
 own genius." " If we consider the whole 
 
 grouping of the narrative, there naturally presents itself to 
 us a pleasing little composition, completely in the style and 
 manner of several Jewish poems, still extant among our 
 apocryphal writings, written in all probability originally in 
 Aramaic by a Christian of the more liberal Judaizing 
 
 school." " There are many other statements 
 
 which I should not venture to pronounce historical, but 
 would rather explain by the occasion the poet had for them. 
 To these belongs, in the first place, John's being a late -bom 
 child, which is evidently only imagined for the sake of 
 analogy with several heroes of Hebrew antiquity; and, in 
 the next place, the relation between the ages of John and 
 Christ, and likewise the consanguinity of Mary and Eliza- 
 beth, which, besides, it is difficult to reconcile with the 
 assertion of John (John i. 33), that he did not know Christ 
 before his baptism." 
 
 Strauss's analysis of the chapter is in the highest degree 
 masterly and convincing, and we think cannot fail to satisfy 
 all whose minds have been trained in habits of logical in- 
 vestigation. After showing at great length the unsatisfac- 
 toriness and inadmissibility of both the supernatural and 
 rationalistic interpretations, he shows, by a comparison of 
 similar legends in the Old Testament — the birth of Ishmael, 
 Isaac, Samuel, and Samson, in particular — how exactly the 
 narrative in Luke is framed in accordance with the esta- 
 bhshed ideas and rules of Hebrew poetry^ 
 
 "The scattered traits," says he~, '"respecting the late 
 birth of different distinguished men, as recorded in the Old 
 Testament, blended themselves into a compound image in 
 the mind of the author, whence he selected the features most 
 
 1 We cannot agree with one of Strauf^s's critics (see Prospective Review, 
 Nov. 1846), that the evident poetical character of the first chapters of 
 Matthew and Luke, their similarity with parts of the apocryphal gospels and 
 early Christian writings, and their dissimilarity in tone with the rest of the 
 gospels with which they are incorporated, are sufficient to decide the ques- 
 tion against their genuineness. If this argument were valid, we must pro- 
 nounce against the genuineness of other passages of our gospels on the same 
 ground — e. g. the miracle of Cana — the miraculous draught of fishes — and 
 the piece of money in the fish's mouth — and others. The genuineness of 
 these initial chapters has often been denied, but without sufficient warrant 
 from external evidence. 
 
 2 Leben Jesu, i. 118, et seq. . 
 
120 THE CREED OF CHRISTENDOM. 
 
 appropriate to his present subject, Of the children horn of 
 aged parents Isaac is the most ancient prototype. As it is 
 said of Zacharias and Elizabeth, ' they were both advanced 
 in days,' so Abraham and Sarah ^ were advanced in days,' ^ 
 when they were promised a son. It is likewise from this 
 history that the incredulity of the father on account of the 
 advanced age of both parents, and the demand of a sign, 
 are borrowed. As Abraham, when Jehovah promised him a 
 numerous posterity through Isaac, who should inherit the 
 land of Canaan, doubtingly inquires, 'Whereby shall I 
 know that I shall inherit it?' — so Zacharias, 'Whereby 
 shall I know this ? ' The incident of the angel announcing 
 the birth of the Baptist is taken from the history of another 
 late-born son, Samson. The command which before his 
 birth predestined the Baptist — whose later ascetic mode of 
 life was known — to be a Nazarite, is taken from the same 
 source. Both were to be consecrated to God from the 
 
 w'omb, and tlie same diet was prescribed for both ^ 
 
 The lyrical eiiusions in Luke are from the history of Samuel. 
 As Samuel's mother, when consigning him to the care of the 
 High Priest, breaks forth into a hymn, so does the father of 
 John at the circumcision ; though the particular expressions 
 in the canticle uttered by Mary, in the same chapter, have a 
 closer resemblance to Hannah's song of praise, than that of 
 Zacharias. The only supernatural incident of the narrative, 
 of wdnch the Old Testament offers no precise analogy, is the 
 dumbness. But if it be borne in mind that the asking and 
 receiving a sign from heaven in confirmation of a promise or 
 prophecy was common among the Hebrews (Isaiah vii. 11) ; 
 that the temporary loss of one of the senses was the peculiar 
 punishment inflicted after a heavenly vision (Acts ix. 8, 17) ; 
 that Daniel became dumb while the angel was speaking with 
 him, and did not recover his speech till the angel had touched 
 his lips and opened his mouth (Dan. x. 15) ; the origin of 
 this incident also will be found in legend, and not in histori- 
 cal fact. So that here we stand upon purely mythico-poetical 
 ground ; the only historical reality which we can hold fast as 
 positive matter of fact being this : — the impression made by 
 John the Baptist, in virtue of his ministry, and his relation 
 
 ^ The original words are the same in both instances. 
 
 2 Compare Luke i. 15, with Judges xiii. 4, 5, and Numbers vi. 8. 
 
FIDELITY OF THE GOSPEL HISTORY. 121 
 
 to Jesus, was so powerful as to lead to the subsequent glori- 
 fication of his birth in connection with the Christian legend 
 of the birth of the Messiah." 
 
 In the second chapter we have the account of the birth of 
 Jesus, and the accompanying apparition of a multitude of 
 angels to shepherds in the fields near Bethlehem — as to the 
 historical foundation of which Strauss and Schleiermacher 
 are at variance; the former regarding it as wholly mythical, 
 and the latter as based upon an actual occurrence, imper- 
 fectly remembered in after times, when the celebrity of Jesus 
 caused every contribution to the history of Lio birth and 
 infancy to be eagerly sought for. All that we can say on the 
 subject with any certainty is, that the tone of the narrative is 
 legendary. The poetical rhapsody of Simeon when Jesus 
 was presented in the temple may be passed over with the 
 same remark; — but the o^Jrd verse, where we are told that 
 "Joseph and his mother marvelled at those things which 
 were spoken of him," proves clearly one of two things: — 
 either the unhistorical character of the Song of Simeon, and 
 of the consequent astonishment of the parents of Jesus — or 
 the unreality of the miraculous annunciation and conception. 
 It is impossible, if an angel had actually announced to Mary 
 the birth of the divine child in the language, or in anything 
 resembling the language, recorded in Luke i. 31-35 ; and if, 
 in accordance with that announcement, Mary had found her- 
 self with child before she had any natural possibility of 
 being so — that she should have felt any astonishment what- 
 ever at the prophetic announcement of Simeon, so consonant 
 with the angelic promise, especially when occurring after the 
 miraculous vision of the Shepherds, which, we are told, "she 
 pondered in her heart." Schleiermacher has felt this diffi- 
 culty, and endeavours to evade it by considering tlie first 
 and second chapters to be two monograplis, originally by 
 diff'erent hands, which Luke incorporated into his gospel. 
 This was very probably the case; but it does not avoid the 
 difficulty, as it involves giving up ii. 33, as an unauthorized 
 and incorrect statement. 
 
 The genealogy of Jesus, as given in the third chapter, 
 may be in the main correct, though there are some perplexi- 
 ties in one portion of it; but if the previous narrative be 
 correct, it is not the genealogy of Jesus at all, but only of 
 Joseph, who was no relation to him whatever, but simply his 
 
122 THE CREED OF CHRISTENDOM. 
 
 guardian. On the other hand, if the preparer of the genea- 
 logy, or the evangelist who records it, knew or believed the 
 story of the miraculous conception, wo can conceive no 
 reason for his admitting a pedigree which is either wholly 
 meaningless, or destructive of his previous statements. The 
 insertion in verse 28, " as was supposed," whether by the 
 evangehst or a subsequent copyist, merely shows that who- 
 ever made it perceived the incongruity, but preferred neutral- 
 izing the genealogy to omitting it.^ 
 
 The account given by Luke (iii. 21) of the visible and 
 audible signs from heaven at the Baptism of Jesus, has been 
 very generally felt and allowed to be incompatible with the 
 inquiry subsequently made by Jobn the Baptist (vii. 1 9) as 
 to whether Jesus were the Messiah or not ; and the incon- 
 gruity is considered to indicate inaccuracy or interpolation 
 in one of the two narratives. It is justly held impossible 
 that if John had seen the Holy Spirit descending upon Jesus, 
 and had heard a heavenly voice declaring him to be the be- 
 loved Son of God, he could ever have entertained a doubt 
 that he was the Messiah, whose coming he himself had just 
 announced"^ (ver. 16). According to Luke, as he now stands, 
 John expected the Messiah — described himself as his fore- 
 runner — saw at the moment of the Baptism a supernatural 
 shape, and heard a supernatural voice announcing Jesus to 
 be that Messiah; — and yet, shortly after — on hearing, too, 
 of miracles which should have confirmed his belief, had it 
 ever wavered — he sends a message implying doubt (or rather 
 ignorance), and asking the question which Heaven itself 
 had already answered in his hearing. Some commentators 
 have endeavoured to escape from the difficulty by pleading 
 that the appearances at Baptism might have been perceptible 
 to Jesus alone ; and they have adduced the use of the second 
 
 1 The -whole story of the Incarnation, however, is effectually discredited 
 hy the fact that none of the Apostles or sacred Historians make any subse- 
 quent reference to it, or indicate any knowledge of it. 
 
 " Neander conceives that doubt may have assailed the mind of John in his 
 dismal prison, and led to a transient questioning of his earlier conviction, 
 and that it was in this state of feeling that he sent his disci i^les to Jesus. 
 But, in the first place, the language of the message is less that of douht than 
 of inquiry, and would appear to intimate that the idea of Jesus' character and 
 mission had been then first suggested to him by the miracles of which reports 
 had reached him in his prison. And in the next place, doubt assails men 
 who have formed an opinion from observation or induction, not men who 
 have received positive and divine communication of a fact. 
 
FIDELITY OF THE GOSPEL HISTORY. 123 
 
 person by the divine voice {''Thou art my beloved Son") 
 in Mark "and Luke, and the peculiar language of Matthew, 
 in confirmation of this view. But (not to argue that, if 
 the vision and the voice were imperceptible to the spectators, 
 they could not have given that public and conclusive attesta- 
 tion to the Messiahship of Jesus which was their obvious 
 object and intention) a comparison of the four accounts 
 clearly show^ that the evangehsts meant to state that the 
 dove was visible and the voice audible to John and to all 
 the spectators, who, according to Luke, must have been nu- 
 merous. In Matthew the grammatical construction of iii. 1 6, 
 would intimate that it was Jesus who saw the heavens open 
 and the dove descend, but that the expression " alighting 
 upon him," spx^V^ i^ov Itt avrov, should in this case have been 
 'c(fahr6v, " upon himself." However, it is very possible that 
 Matthew may have written inaccurate, as he certainly wrote 
 unclassical, Greek. But the voice in the next verse, speak- 
 ing in the third person, " This is my beloved Son," must 
 have been addressed to the spectators, not to Jesus. Mark 
 has the same uuharmonizing expression, iiravTov. Luke 
 describes the scene as passing before numbers, "when all 
 the people were baptized, it came to pass that Jesus also 
 being baptized";— and then adds to the account of the other 
 evangelists that the dove descended '*ina bodily shape," 
 h> GuyiiciTiKM el^si, as if to contradict the idea that it was a sub- 
 jective, not' an objective fact,— a vision, not a phenomenon ; 
 he can only mean that it was an appearance visible to all 
 present. The version given in the fourth evangelist shows 
 still more clearly that such was the meaning generally at- 
 tached to the tradition current among the Christians at the 
 time it was embodied in the gospels. The Baptist is there 
 represented as affirming that he himself saw the Spirit 
 descending like a dove upon Jesus, and that it was^ this 
 appearance which convinced him of the Messiahship of 
 Jesus. 
 
 Considering all this, then, we must admit that, while 
 the naturalness of John's message to Christ, and the exact 
 accordance of the two accounts given of it, render the 
 historical accuracy of that relation highly probable, the 
 discrepancies in the four narratives of the baptism strongly 
 indicate, either that the original tradition came from differ- 
 ent sources, or that it has undergone considerable modi- 
 
124 THE CREED OF CHRISTENDOM. 
 
 fication in the course of transmission ; and also that the 
 narratives themselves are discredited by the subsequent 
 message. We think with Schleiermacher, the great defender 
 and eulogist of Luke, that the words h o-couanyj d'hi are an 
 interpolation which our evangelist thought himself at liberty 
 to make bv way of rendering the picture more graphic, with- 
 out perceiving their inconsistency with a subsequent portion 
 of his narrative. 
 
 In all the synoptical gospels we find instances of the 
 cure of demoniacs by Jesus early in his career, in which 
 the demons, promptly, spontaneously, and loudly, bear testi- 
 monv to his iNIessiahship. These statements occur once in 
 Matthew (viii. 29) ; — four times in Mark (i. 24, 34 ; iii. 11 ; 
 V. 7) ; and three times in Luke (iv. 83,41 ; viii. 28'). Now, 
 two points are evident to common sense, and are fully ad- 
 mitted bv honest criticism i—first, that these demoniacs 
 were lunatic and epileptic patients; and, secoridli/, that 
 Jesus (or the narrators who framed the language of Jesus 
 throughout the synoptical gospels) shared the common belief 
 that these maladies were caused by evil spirits inhabiting 
 the bodies of the sufferers. We are'tlien landed in this con- 
 clusion — certainly not a probable one, nor the one intended 
 to be conveyed "by the narrators— tliat the idea of Jesus 
 being the Messiah wns adopted by madmen before it had 
 found entrance into the pubhc mind, apparently even before 
 it was received by his immediate disciples — w^as in fact first 
 suggested by madmen ;— in other words, that it was an idea 
 which originated with insane brains— which presented it- 
 self to, and found acceptance with, insane brains more 
 readily than sane ones. The conception of the evangelists 
 clearly was that Jesus derived honour (and his mission con- 
 firmation) from this early recognition of his Messianic 
 character by hostile spirits of a superior order of Intelli- 
 gences ; but to us, who know that these supposed superior 
 intelligences were really unhappy men whose natural intel- 
 lect had been perverted or impaii-ed, the effect of the nar- 
 ratives becomes absolutely reversed ;— and if they are to be 
 
 1 It is worthy of remarlc that no narrative of the healing of demoniacs, 
 stated as such, occurs in the fourth gospel. This would intimate it^ to be 
 the work of a man who had outgrown, or had never entertained, the idea of 
 maladies arising from possession. It is one of many indications in this evan- 
 gelist of a Greek rather than a Jewish mind. 
 
FIDELITY OF THE GOSPEL HISTORV. 125 
 
 accepted as historical, they lead inevitahly to the conclusion 
 that the idea of the Messiahship of Jesus was originally 
 formed in disordered hrains, and spread thence among the 
 mass of the disciples. The only rescue from this conclusion 
 lies in the admission, that these narratives are not historical, 
 hut mythic, and helong to that class of additions which early 
 grew up in the Christian Church, out of the desire to honour 
 and aggrandise the memory of its Founder, and which our 
 uncritical evangelists embodied as they found them. 
 
 Passing over a few minor passages of doubtful authenticity 
 or accuracvj' we come to one near the close of the gospel, 
 which we have no scruj)le in pronouncing to be an unwar- 
 ranted interpolation. In xxii. 80-38, Jesus is reported, 
 after the Last Supper, to have said to his disciples, " lie that 
 hath no sword, let him sell his garment and buy one. And 
 they said, Lord, behold, here are two swords. And he said, It 
 is enough." Christ never could have uttered such a command, 
 nor, we should imagine, anything which could have been 
 mistaken for it. The very idea is contradicted by his whole 
 character, and utterly precluded by the narratives of the 
 other evangelists; — for when Peter did use the sword, lie 
 met with a severe rebuke from his Master: — "Put up thy 
 sword into the sheath : the cup which my Father hath given 
 me shall I not drink it," — according to John. — "Put up 
 again thy sword into its place ; i'or all they that take the 
 sword shall perish by the sword," — according to Matthew. 
 The passage we conceive to be a clumsy invention of some 
 early narrator, to account for the remarkable fact of Peter 
 having a sword at the time of Christ's appreiiension ; and it 
 is inconceivable to us how a sensible compiler like Luke 
 could have admitted into his history such an apocryphal and 
 unharm oni sin g f ra gm en t. 
 
 In conclusion, then, it appears certain that in all the 
 synoptical gospels we have events related which did not 
 really occur, and words ascribed to Jesus which Jesus did 
 not utter; and that many uf these v/ords and events are ot^ 
 
 ^ Compare Luke ix. 50, with xi. 23, where we probably have the same 
 original expression ditferently reported. Schleiermacher, with all his rever- 
 ence for Luke, decides (p. 94) that Luke vi. 2-l-2(), is an addition to Cljrist's 
 words by the evangelist himself — an "innocent interpolation," he calls it. 
 For the anachronism in xi. 51, see our remarks on the corresponding passage 
 in Alatthew. 
 
1^6 THE CREED OF CHRISTENDOM. 
 
 great significance. In the great majority of these instances, 
 however, this incorrectness does not imply any want of 
 honesty on the part of the evangelists, but merely indicates 
 that they adopted and embodied, without much scrutinv or 
 critical acumen, wiiatever probable and honourable narratives 
 they found current in the Christian community. 
 
CHAPTER X. 
 
 SAME SUBJECT CONTINUED — GOSrEL OF JOHN. 
 
 In tlie examination of the fourth Gospel a different mode of 
 criticism from that hitherto pursued is required. Here we 
 do not find, so frequently as in the other evangehsts, particu- 
 lar passages which pronounce their own condemnation, hy 
 anachronisms, peculiarity of language, or incompatibility with 
 others more obviously historical ;— but the whole tone of the 
 delineations, the tenour of the discourses, and the general 
 course of the narrative, are utterly different from those con- 
 tained in the synoptical gospels, and also from what we 
 should expect from a Jew speaking to Jews, writing of Jews, 
 imbued with the spirit, and living in the land, of Judaism. 
 
 By the common admission of all recent critics, this gospel 
 is rather to be regarded as a polemic, than an historic com- 
 position.' It was written less with the intention of giving a 
 complete and continuous view of Christ's character and 
 career, than to meet and confute certain heresies which had 
 sprung up in the Christian Church near the close of the first 
 century, by selecting, from the memory of the author, or the 
 traditions then current among believers, such narratives and 
 discourses as were conceived to be most opposed to the here- 
 sies in question. Now these heresies related almost exclu- 
 sively to the person and nature of Jesus ; on which points we 
 have many indications that great difference of opinion ex- 
 isted, even during the apostohc period. The obnoxious doc- 
 trines especially pointed at in the gospel appear, both from 
 internal evidence and external testimony,'^ to be those held 
 
 » See Hug, Straus?, Hennell, De Wette. Also Dr. Tait's "Suggestions." 
 2 Irenseus, Jerome, Epiphanius. See Hug, § 51. See also a very detailed 
 account of tlie Gnostici, in Norton's Genuineness of the Gospels, ii. c. 1, 2. 
 
128 THE CREED OF CHRISTENDOM. 
 
 by CerJntluis and the Nicolaitaus, which, according to Hug, 
 were as follows :— The one Eternal God is too pure, perfect, 
 and pervading an essence to he ahle to operate on matter ; 
 but from him emanated a number of inferior and gradually 
 degenerating spiritual natures, one of whom was the Creator 
 of the World, hence its imperfections. Jesus was simply 
 and truly a man, though an eminently great and virtuous 
 one; but one of the above spiritual natures— the Christ, the 
 Son of God--united itself to Jesus at his baptism, and thus 
 conferred upon him superhuman power. " This Christ, as an 
 immaterial Being of exalted origin, one of the purer kinds of 
 spirits, was from his nature unsusceptible of material afiec- 
 tions of suffering and pain. He, therefore, at the commence- 
 ment of the passion, resumed his separate existence, aban- 
 doned Jesus to pain and death, and soared upwards to his 
 native heaven. Cerinthus distinguished Jesus and Christ, 
 Jesus and the ^on of God, as beings of different nature and 
 dio-nity.^ The Nicolaitaus held similar doctrines in regard 
 to the Supreme Deity and his relation to mankind, and an 
 inferior spirit who was the Creator of the World. Among 
 the subaltern orders of spirits they considered the most dis- 
 tinguished to be the only-begotten, the juovoyEvj^c (whose ex- 
 istence, however, had a beginning), and theXdyoc, the Word, 
 who was an immediate descendant of the only-begotten."^ 
 
 These, then, were the opinions which the author of the 
 fourth o-ospel wrote to controvert ; in confirmation of which 
 being his object we have his own statement (xx. 31): 
 " These are written" (not that ye may know the life and un- 
 derstand the character of our great Teacher, but that ye may 
 believe his nature to be what I affirm) " that ye might be- 
 lieve that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God ; and that 
 believing, ye might have life through his name." Now, a 
 narrative written with a controversial aim — a narrative, more 
 especially, consisting of recollected or selected circumstances 
 and discourses— carries within it, as everyone will admit, 
 from the very nature of fallible humanity, an obvious 
 element of inaccuracy. A man who writes a histori/ to 
 jjrove a doctrine must be something more than a man, if he 
 
 was 
 
 1 Several critics contend that the original reading of 1 John iv. 3, 
 "Every spirit that sejmraicth Jesus (from the Christ) is not of God." — 
 See Hug, P- 423. 
 
 2 Hug, § 51. 
 
PIDELITY OF THE GOSPEL HISTORY. 129 
 
 writes that history ^vitli a scrupulous fidelity of fact and 
 colouring. Accordingly, we find that the public discourses 
 of Jesus in this gospel turn almost exclusively upon the dig- 
 nity of his own person, which topic is brought forward in a 
 manner and with a frequency which it is impossible to regard 
 as historical. The prominent feature in the character of 
 Jesus, as here depicted, is an overweening tendencv to self- 
 glorification. We see no longer, as in the other gospels, a 
 Prophet eager to bring men to God, and to instruct them in 
 righteousness, but one whose whole mind seems occiqned — 
 not informed — with the grandeur of his own nature and 
 mission. In the three first gospels we have the message ; in 
 the fourth we have nothing but the messenger. If any of 
 our readers will peruse the gospel with this observation in 
 their minds, we are persuaded the result will be a very strong 
 and probably painful impression that they cannot here bo 
 dealing with the genuine language of Jesus, but simply with 
 a composition arising out of deep conviction of his superior 
 nature, left in the mind of the writer by the contemplation of 
 bis splendid genius and his noble and lovely character. 
 
 The difference of style and subject between the discourses 
 of Jesus in the fourth gospel and in the synoptical ones, has 
 been much dwelt upon, and we think by no means too much, 
 as proving the greater or less unauthenticity of the former. 
 This objection has been met by the supposition that the finer 
 intellect and more spiritual character of John induced him to 
 select, and enabled him to record, the more subtle and spe- 
 culative discourses of his Master, which were unacceptable or 
 unintelligible to the more practical and homely minds of the 
 other disciples ; and reference is made to the parallel case of 
 Xenophon and Plato, whose reports of the conversations of 
 Socrates are so different in tone and matter as to render it 
 very difficult to believe that both sat at the feet of the same 
 Master, and listened to the same teaching. But the citation 
 is an unfortunate one; for in this cose, also, it is more than 
 suspected that the more simple recorder was the more correct 
 one, and that the sublimer and subtler peculiarities in the 
 discourses reported by Plato, belong rather to the disciple 
 than to the Teacher. Had John merely siqieradded some 
 more refined and mystical discourses omitted by his prede- 
 cessors, the supposition in question might have been ad- 
 mitted ; — but it is impossible not to perceive that here the 
 
130 
 
 THE CREED OF CHRISTENDOM. 
 
 whole tone of the mind delineated is new and discrepant, 
 though often eminently beautiful. 
 
 Another argument, which may be considered as conclusive 
 against the historical fidelity of the discourses of Jesus in the 
 fourth gospel is, that not only they, but the discourses of 
 John the Baptist likewise, are entirely in the style of the 
 evangehst himself, where he introduces his own remarks, 
 both in the gospel and in the first epistle. He makes both 
 Jesus and the Baptist speak exactly as he himself speaks. 
 Compare the following passages :— 
 
 Jolm iii. 31-30. (Baptist loquitur). 
 He that cometh from above is above 
 all: he that is oi the earth is earthly, 
 and speaketh of the earth : he that 
 cometh from heaven is above all. 
 And what he hath seen and heard, 
 that he testifieth ; and no man re- 
 ceiveth his testimony. 
 
 He that reeeiveth his testimony 
 hath set to his seal that God is true. 
 
 For he whom God hath sent speaketh 
 the words of God: for God giveth not 
 the spirit by measure. 
 
 The Father loveth the Son, and 
 hath driven all things into his hand. 
 
 He that believeth on the Son hath 
 everlasting life, and he that believeth 
 not the Son shall not see life : but the 
 wrath of God abideth on him. 
 
 1 Epistle iii. 14. "We know that 
 we have passed from death unto life. 
 
 1 Epistle iv. 6. We are of God: 
 he that knoweth God heareth us : he 
 that is not of God heai'eth not us. 
 
 1 Epistle V. 9. If we receive the 
 witness of men, the witness of God is 
 greater : for this is the witness of 
 
 John viii. 23 (Jesus loq.). Ye are 
 from beneath ; I am fiom above : ye 
 are of this world ; I am not of this 
 world. 
 
 iii, 11 (Jesus loq.). We speak 
 that we do know, and testify that we 
 have seen ; and ye receive not our 
 testimony. 
 
 viii. 26 (Jesus loq.). I speak to 
 the world those things which I have 
 heard of him. — (See also vii. 16-18 ; 
 xiv. 24.) 
 
 V. 20 (Jesus loq.). The Father 
 loveth the Son, and showeth him all 
 things that himself doeth. 
 
 xiii. 3 (Evangelist loq.). Jesus 
 knowing that the Father had given 
 all things into his hands. 
 
 Yi. 47 (Jesus loq.). He that be- 
 lieveth on me hath everlasting life. 
 —(See also 1 Epistle v. 10-13, and 
 Gosi^el iii. 18, where the evangelist 
 or Jesus speaks). 
 
 vi. 40 (Jesus loq.). And this is 
 the will of Him that sent me, that 
 every one which seeth the Son and 
 believeth on him, may have everlast- 
 ing life. 
 
 V. 24 (Jesus loq.). He that heareth 
 my word .... hath passed from 
 death unto life. 
 
 viii. 47 (Jesus loq.). He that is of 
 God heareth God's words : ye there- 
 fore hear them not, because ye are 
 not of God. 
 
 V. 34, etc. (Jesus loq.). I receive 
 
 not testimony from man I 
 
 have greater witness than that of 
 
FIDELITY OF THE GOSPEL HISTORY. 131 
 
 God wliich lie Iiath witnessed of liis John . . . the Father himself which 
 
 Son. hath sent me, hath borne witness of 
 
 me. 
 
 xix. 35 (John loq.). And his re- v. 32. There is another that beareth 
 
 cord is true ; and he knoweth that he witness of me ; and I know that the 
 
 saith true. witness which he witnesseth of me is 
 
 xxi. 24. This is the disciple whick true, 
 testitieth of these things ; . . . and 
 we know that his witness is true. 
 
 Another Id dication that in a great part of the fourth gospel 
 we have not the genuine discourses of Jesus, is found in 
 the mystical and enigmatical nature of the language. This 
 peculiarity, of which we have scarcely a trace in the other 
 evangelists, beyond the few parables which they did not at 
 first understand, but which Jesus immediately explained to 
 them, pervades the fourth gospel. The great Teacher is here 
 represented as absolutely labouring to be unintelligible, to 
 soar out of the reach of his hearers, and at once perplex 
 and disgust them. " It is the constant method of this evan- 
 gelist, in detailing the conversations of Jesus, to form the 
 knot and progress of the discussions, by making the interlo- 
 cutors understand literally what Jesus intended figuratively. 
 The type of the dialogue is that in which language intended 
 spiritually is understood carnally." The instances of this 
 are inconceivably frequent and unnatural. We have the con- 
 versation with the Jews about " the temple of his body " 
 (ii. 21); — the mystification of Nicodemus on the suliject of 
 regeneration (iii. 3-10); — the conversation with the Samari- 
 tan woman (iv. 10-15) ; — with his disciples about " the food 
 which ye know not of" (iv. 33); — with the people about the 
 "bread from heaven" (vi. 31-35); — with the Jews about 
 giving them his flesh to eat (vi. 48-06); — with the Pharisees 
 about his disappearance (vii. 33-39, and viii. 21, 22); again 
 about his heavenly origin and pre-existence (viii. 37, 34, and 
 56-58); and with his disciples about the sleep of Lazarus 
 (xi. 11-14). Now, in the first place, it is very imj^robable 
 that Jesus, who came to preach the gospel to the poor, should 
 so constantly have spoken in a style which his hearers could 
 not understand ; and in the next place, it is equally impro- 
 bable that an Oriental people, so accustomed to figurative 
 language,^ and whose literature was so eminently metaphori- 
 
 ^ See the remarks of Strauss on the conversation with Kicodemus, froon 
 which it appears that the image of a new birth was a current one among the 
 Jews, and could not have been so misunderstood by a Master in Israel, and in 
 fact that the whole conversation is unquestionably fictitious. — ii. 154. 
 
 £ 2 
 
132 THE CREED OF CHRISTENDOM. 
 
 cal, should have misapprehended the words of Jesus so 
 stupidly and so incessantly as the evangelist represents them 
 to have done. 
 
 But perhaps the most conclusive argument against the 
 historical character of the discourses in the fourth gospel, is 
 to he found in the fact that, whether dialogues or monologues, 
 they are complete and continuous, resembling compositions 
 rather than recollections, and of a length which it is next to 
 impossible could have been accurately retained — even if wo 
 adopt Bertholdt's improbable hypothesis, that the Apostle 
 took notes of Jesus' discourses at the time of their delivery. 
 Notwithstanding all that has been said as to the possible 
 extent to which the powers of memory may go, it is diffi- 
 cult for an unprepossessed mind to believe that discourses 
 such as that contained in the 14th, 15th, and 16th chapters, 
 could have been accurately retained and reported unless by a 
 shorthand writer, or by one favoured with supernatural assist- 
 i\nce. ''We hold it therefore to be established" (says 
 Strauss,^ and in the main we agree with him), " that the dis- 
 courses of Jesus in the fourth gospel are mainly free com- 
 positions of the evangelist ; bui we have admitted that he 
 has culled several sayings of Jesus from an authentic tra- 
 dition, and hence \ve do not extend this proposition to those 
 passages which are countenanced by parallels in the synop- 
 tical gospels. In these latter compilations we have an 
 example of the vicissitudes which befall discourses that are 
 preserved only in the memory of a second party. Severed 
 from their original connection, and broken up into smaller 
 and smaller fragments, they present, when reassembled, the 
 appearance of a mosaic, in which the connection of the 
 parts is a purely external one, and every transition an ar- 
 tificial juncture. The discourses in John present just the 
 opposite appearance. Their gradual transitions, only occa- 
 sionally rendered obscure by the mystical depths of meaning 
 in which they lie — transitions in which one thought de- 
 velops itself out of another, and a succeeding proposition 
 is frequently but an explanatory amplification of the pre- 
 ceding one— are indicative of a pliable, unresisting mass, 
 such as is never presented to a writer by the traditional 
 sayings of another, but by such only as proceeds from the 
 
 ^ LeLen Jesu, ii. 187. 
 
FIDELITY OF THE GOSPEL HISTORY. 1(33 
 
 stores of his own Lliought, which he moulds according to 
 his will. For this reason the contributions of tradition to 
 these stores of thought were not so likely to have been 
 particular independent sayinas of Jesus, as rather certain 
 ideas which formed the basis of many of Jiis discourses, and 
 which were modified and developed according to the bent of 
 a mind of Greek or Alexandriau culture." ^ 
 
 Another peculiarity of this gospel — arising, probably, 
 out of its controversial origin — is its exaltation of dogma 
 over morality — of belief over spiritual affection. In the 
 other gospels, piety, charity, forgiveness of injuries, purity 
 of hfe, are preached by Christ as the titles to his kingdom 
 and his Father's favour. Whereas, in John's gospel, as in 
 his epistles, belief in Jesus as the Son of God, the Messiah, 
 the Logos, is constantly represented as the one thing need- 
 ful. The whole tone of the history bears token of a time 
 wiien the message was beginning to be forgotten in the 
 Messenger ; when metaphysical and fruitless discussions as 
 to the nature of Christ had superseded devotion to his 
 spirit, and attention to the sublime piety and simple self- 
 sacrificing holiness whicli formed the essence of his own 
 teaching. The discourses are often touchingly eloquent and 
 tender; the narrative is full of beauty, pathos, and nature ; 
 but we miss the simple and intelligible truth, the noble, yet 
 practical, morality of the other histories ; we find in it more 
 of Christ than of Christianity, and more of John than of 
 Jesus. If the work of an apostle at all, it was of an 
 apostle who had only caught a small fragment of his 
 Master's mantle, or in whom the good original seed had 
 been choked by the long bad habit of subtle and scholastic 
 controversies. We cannot but regard this gospel as de- 
 cidedly inferior in moral sublimity and purity to the other 
 representations of Christ's teaching which have come down 
 to us ; its religion is more of a dogmatic creed, and its very 
 philanthropy has a narrow^er and more restricted character. 
 We will give a few parallels to make our meaning clearer. 
 
 ^ See also Hennell, p. 200. ''The picture of Jesus bequeathing his part- 
 ing benedictions to the disciples, seems fully to warrant the idea that the 
 author was one whose imagination and affections had received an impress from 
 real scenes and real attachments. The few relics of the words, looks, and 
 acts of Jesus, which friendship itself could at that time preserve unmixed, he 
 expands into a complete record of his own and the discipjes' sentiments ; 
 what they felt, he makes Jesus speak." 
 
134 
 
 THE CREED OF CHRISTENDOM. 
 
 Matth. T. 43. Te Lave lieard tlmt 
 it hath been said, Thou shalt love ihj 
 neighbour, and hate thine enemy. 
 But I say unto you. Lore your enemies, 
 bless them that curse you, do good to 
 them thai hate you, pray for them 
 which despitefuily use you, and per- 
 secute you ; . . . . iov if ye love 
 them which love you, ivhat reward, 
 have you ? do not even the publicans 
 the same ? 
 
 Lnke x. 27. Thou shalt love thy 
 neighbour as thyself. — (Definition of 
 a neighbour, as any one whom we can 
 serve.)' 
 
 Luke vi. 28. Pray for them which, 
 despitefuily use you ; bless them 
 which persecute you. 
 
 Luke xxiii. 34. Father, forgive 
 them, for they know not what they 
 do. 
 
 Matth. Y. 3, 8. Blessed are the 
 poor in spirit, for theirs is the king- 
 dom of heaven. Blessed are the pure 
 in heart, for they shall see God. 
 
 ]\Latth. vii. 21. Not every one that 
 saith ^mto me, Lord, Lord, shall 
 enter into the Kingdom of heaven ; 
 Int he that doeth the v:ill of my 
 Father tchich is in. Heaven. JNIany 
 will say unto me in that day, Lord 
 Lord, have we not prophesied in thy 
 name ? and in thy name have cast 
 out devils ? and in thy name done 
 many v/onderful works ? And then 
 will I xtrofess unto them, I never 
 Icnexo you : depart from me ye that 
 KorJc iniquity. 
 
 Matth. xix. 16, et seq. And, be- 
 hold, one came and said unto him, 
 Good Master, what shall I do that I 
 may have eternal life ? And he said 
 unto him, "Why callest thou me good, 
 
 1 I venture here to insert a note written by a friend to whom the MS. of 
 this work was submitted for correction. "These passages are the growth of 
 an age in which Christians were already suffering persecvition. In such times 
 a special and peculiar love to ' the brethren ' is natural and desirable ; with- 
 out it they could not be animated to risk all that is needed for one another. 
 I could not call it, at that time, a ' narrow philanthropy,' but it cei-tainly 
 does not belong to the same moral state, nor come forth from the same heart, 
 at the same time, as that of the other Grospels. In the present day, however, 
 the results are intensely evil : for this Gospel defines those who are to love 
 another by an intellectual creed ; and however this be enlarged or contracted, 
 we have here the essence of Bigotry." 
 
 John xiii. 1. Now when Jesus 
 knew that his hour was come, that 
 lie should depart out of this world 
 unto the Father, having loved his 
 ou-n which were in the world, he 
 loved them unto the end, 
 
 John xiii. 35. By this shall all 
 men know that ye are my disciples, 
 if ye have love one to another. 
 
 John XV. 12. This is my command- 
 ment, that ye love one another, as I 
 have loved you. 
 
 John xvii. 9. I pray for them : / 
 2yray not for the world, hut for those 
 whom thou hast given me out of the 
 world (v. 20). Neither pray I for 
 these alone, hut for them also w-hich 
 shall helieve on me through their 
 word *. 
 
 John iii. 14. And as Moses lifted 
 up the serpent in the wilderness, 
 even so must the Son of ]\Ian be 
 lifted up ; That whosoever lelieveth 
 on him should not perish, but have 
 eternal life. 
 
 John vi. 40. And this is the will 
 of him that sent me, that every one 
 which seeth the Son, and helieveth on 
 him, may have everlasting life. 
 
 John xvii. 3. And this is life 
 eternal, that they might know thee, 
 the only true God, and Jesus Christ 
 whom thou hast sent. 
 
 John vi. 29. This is the work of 
 God, that ye believe on him whom 
 he hath sent. 
 
FIDELITY OF THE GOSPEL HISTORY 
 
 135 
 
 Jolm iii. 36. lie iJiat lelieveth on 
 the Son hath everlasting life : and he 
 that helicveth not on the Son shall 'not 
 see life; but tlie wratli of Grod abideth 
 on liim. 
 
 &c., &c., ; but i£ thou xoilt enter into 
 life, Tceep the commandments, &c. 
 
 Mattb. XXV. 31-46. — (Definition 
 of Christ's reception of the wicked 
 and the righteous.)— And these shall 
 go away into everlasting punishment, 
 but the righteous into life eternal. 
 
 Mark xii. 28-34. And the Scribe 
 answered, Well, Master, thou bast 
 said the trutb : for there is one God, 
 and there is none other but he ; &c. , 
 
 &c And when Jesus saw that 
 
 he answered discreetly, he said unto 
 him, Thou art not far from the 
 Kingdom of God. 
 
 Luke ix. 51-56. And when James 
 and John saw this (that the Samari- 
 tans would not receive Jesus), they 
 said, Lord, wilt thou that we com- 
 mand lire to comedown from heaven, 
 and consume them, even as Elias did 1 
 But he turned and rebuked them, 
 and said. Ye know not what manner 
 of spirit ye are of, &c. 
 
 Luke X. 25-28. And, behold, a 
 certain lawyer stood up, and tempted 
 him, saying, Master, what shall I do 
 to inherit eternal life ? He said unto 
 him. What is written in the law? 
 How readest thou ? And he answering 
 said. Thou slialt love the Lord thy 
 God with all thy heart, and with all 
 thy sou], and with all thy strength, 
 and with all thy mind; and thy 
 neighbour as thyself. And Jesus 
 said unto him, Thon hast answered 
 rightly : this do, and thov. shalt live. 
 
 There are several minor peculiarities wiiicli clistingmsh 
 this gospel from the preceding ones, which ^sq can do no 
 more than indicate. We find here little ahout the Kingdom 
 of Heaven— nothing about Christ's mission being confined 
 to the Israelites— nothing about the casting out of .devils 
 nothing about the destruction of Jerusalem— nothing about 
 the struggle between the law and gospel— topics which 
 occupy so large a space in the picture of Christ's ministry 
 given m the synoptical gospels; and the omission of which 
 seems to refer the composition of this narrative to a later 
 period, when the Gentiles were admitted into the Church 
 when the idea of demoniacal possession had given way before 
 a higher culture — when Jerusalem had been long destroyed 
 
13G THE CREED OF CHRISTENDOM. 
 
 — and when Judaism had quite retired before Christianity, 
 at least within the pale of the Church/ 
 
 Though we have seen ample reason to conclude that 
 nearly all the discourses of Jesus in the fourth gospel are 
 mainly the composition of the evangelist from memory or 
 tradition, rather than the genuine utterances of our great 
 Teacher, it may he satisfactory, as further confirmation, to 
 select a few single passages and expressions, as to the un- 
 authentic character of which there can he no question. Thus 
 at ch. iii. 11, Jesus is represented as saying to Nicodemus, 
 in the midst of his discourse about regeneration, '' We speak 
 that we do know, and testify that which we have seen ; and 
 ye receive not our witness," — expressions wholly unmeaning 
 and out of place in the mouth of Jesus on an occasion where 
 he is testifying nothing at all, but merely propounding a 
 mystical dogma to an auditor dull of comprehension — but 
 expressions which are the evangelist's habitual form of asse- 
 veration and complaint. 
 
 It is not clear whether the writer intended verses 16-21 to 
 form part of the discourse of Jesus, or merely a commentary 
 of his own. If the former, they are clearly unwarrantable ; 
 their point of view is that of a period when the teaching of 
 Christ had been known and rejected, and they could not 
 have been uttered with any justice or appropriateness at the 
 very commencement of his ministry. 
 
 Ch. xi. 8. " His disciples say unto him, Master, the Jews 
 of late sought to stone thee : and goest thou thither again ?" 
 The Jeivs is an expression which would be natural to Ephe- 
 sians or other foreigners when speaking of the inhabitants of 
 Palestine, but could not have been used by Jews speaking 
 of their own countrymen. They w^ould have said, the People, 
 or, the Pharisees. The same observation applies to xiii. 33, 
 and also probably to xviii. 36. 
 
 Ch. xvii. 3. "And this is life eternal, that they might 
 
 ^ Modern criticism has detected several sliglit errors and inaccuracies in 
 the fourth gospel,"; such as Sychar for Sichem, Siloam erroneously inter- 
 preted sewi, the killing of the passover represented as occurring on the wrong 
 day, &c. , &c. , from which it has been argued that the writer could not have 
 been a native of Palestine, and by consequence not the Apostle John. We 
 think Bretschneider has made far too much of these trifles, while Hug's 
 attempts to evade or neutralize them are, in our view, more ingenious and 
 subtle than fair or creditable. 
 
FIDELITY OF THE GOSPEL HISTORV. 137 
 
 know Thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom Thou 
 hast sent." This would he a natural expression for the 
 evangelist, hut not for his Master. We have no instance of 
 Jesus speaking thus of himself in the third person, especially 
 in an address to God. 
 
 As hefore observed, great douht hangs over the whole 
 story of the testimony borne by the Baptist to Jesus at his 
 baptism. In the fourth evangelist, this testimony is repre- 
 sented as most emphatic, public, and repeated — so that it 
 could have left no doubt in the minds of any of his followers, 
 eitlier as to the grandeur of the mission of Jesus, or as to 
 his own subordinate character and position (i. 29-36 ; iii. 
 26-36). Yet we find, from Acts xviii. 25, and again xix. 3, 
 circles of John the Baptist's disciples, who appear never even 
 to have heard of Jesus — a statement which we think is justly 
 held irreconcilable with the statements above referred to in 
 the fourth gospel. 
 
 The question of miracles will be considered in a future 
 chapter; but there is one miracle, peculiar to this gospel, of 
 so singular and apocryphal a character as to call lor notice 
 here. The turning of water into wine at the marriage feast 
 in Cana of Galilee has long formed the opprobrium and per- 
 plexity of theologians, and must continue to do so as long 
 as they persist in regarding it as an accurate historical 
 relation. None of the numberless attempts to give anything 
 like a probable explanation of the narrative has been attended 
 with the least success. They are for the most part melan- 
 choly specimens of ingenuity misapplied, and plain honesty 
 perverted by an originally false assumption. No portion of 
 the gospel history, scarcely any portion of Old Testament, 
 or even of apocryphal, narratives, bears such unmistakable 
 marks of fiction. It is a story which, if found in any other 
 volume, would at once have been dismissed as a clumsy and 
 manifest invention. In the first place, it is a miracle 
 wrought to supply more wine to men who had already drunk 
 much — a deed which has no suitability to the character of 
 Jesus, and no analogy to any other of his miracles. Secondly, 
 though it Avas, as we are told, the first of his miracles, his 
 mother is represented as expecting him to work a miracle, 
 and to commence his public career with so unfit and impro- 
 
138 THE CEEED OF CHRISTENDOM. 
 
 bable a one. T/iirdli/, Jesus is said to have spoken harshly* 
 to his mother, asking her what they had in commoD, and 
 telling her that "his hour (for working miracles) was not 
 yet come/' when he knew that it was come. 'Foiirtlihj, in 
 spite of this rebuff, Mary is represented as still expecting 
 a miracle, and this iKirticular one, and as making prepara- 
 tion for it : '' She saith to the sen\^nts. Whatsoever he saith 
 unto you, do it ;" and accordingly Jesus immediatelv began 
 to give orders to them. Fifthly, the superior quality of the 
 wine, and the enormous quantity produced (135 gallons, or, 
 in our language, above 43 dozen ") are obviously ftibulous. 
 And those who are familiar with the apocryphal gospels will 
 have no difiBculty in recognising the close consanguinity 
 between the whole narrative and the stories of miracles with 
 which they abound. It is perfectly hopeless, as well as 
 mischievous, to endeavour to retain it as a portion of 
 authentic history. 
 
 1 All attempts at explanation have failed to remove this character from the 
 expression : yCvat ti l/^o) xa) eroi. 
 
 - See the calculation in Kennell, and in Stranss, ii. 432. The ^.sT^j^rJi; is 
 supposed to correspond to the Hehrew lath, which was equal to l^ fioman 
 amphora, or 8 "7 gallons ; the whole quantity would therefore be from 104 to 
 156 gallons. 
 
CHAPTEK XI. 
 
 RESULTS OF THE FOREGOING CRITICISM. 
 
 The conclusion at which we have arrived in the foregoing 
 chapters is of vital moment, and deserves to he fully developed. 
 When duly wrought out it will be found the means of extri- 
 cating Eeligion from Orthodoxy — of rescuing Christianity 
 from Calvinism. We have seen that the Gospels, while they 
 give a fair and faithful outline of Christ's character and 
 teaching — the Synoptical gospels at least — fill up that out- 
 line with much that is not authentic ; — that many of the 
 statements therein related are not historical, hut mystical or 
 legendary ; — and that much of the language ascribed to 
 Jesus was never uttered by him, but originated either with 
 the Evangelists themselves, or more frequently in the tradi- 
 tional stores from which they drew their materials. We 
 cannot, indeed, say in all cases, nor even in most cases, with 
 certainty — in many we cannot even pronounce with any 
 very strong jirohahiliti/ — that such and such particular 
 expressions or discourses are, or are not the genuine utter- 
 ances of Christ. With respect to some, we can say with 
 confidence, that they are not from him; with respect to 
 others, we can say with almost equal confidence, that they 
 are his actual words; — but with regard to the majority of 
 passages, this certainty is not attainable. But as we know 
 that much did not proceed from Jesus — that much is un- 
 historical and ungenuine — we are entitled to conclude — we 
 are e\en/orced, by the very instinct of our reasoning faculty, 
 to conclude — that the unhistorical and ungenuine passages 
 are those in which Jesus is represented as speaking and 
 actinsr in a manner unconformable to his character as other- 
 
140 THE CREED OF CHRISTENDOM. 
 
 Avise delineated, irreconcilable with the tenonr of his teaching 
 as elsewhere described, and at variance with those grand 
 philosophic and spiritual truths which have commanded the 
 assent of all disciplined and comprehensive minds, and which 
 •could not have escaped an intellect so just, wude, penetrating, 
 and profound, as that of our great Teacher. 
 
 Most reflecting minds rise from a perusal of the gospel 
 history with a clear, broad, vivid conception of the character 
 and mission of Christ, notwithstanding tbe many passages 
 at which they have stumbled, and which they have felt — 
 perhaps wdth needless alarm and self-reproach — to i;e in- 
 congruous and unharmouizing with the great whole. The 
 question naturally arises, Did these incongruities and incon- 
 sistencies really exist in Christ himself? or, are they the 
 result of the imperfect and unhistorical condition in which 
 his biography has been transmitted to us ? The answer, it 
 seems to us, ought to be this : — We caBnotprore, it is true, 
 that some of these unsuitabilities did not exist in Cbrist 
 himself, but we have shown that many of them belong to the 
 history, not to the subject of the history, and it is only fair, 
 therefore, in the absence of contrary evidence, to conclude 
 that the others also are due to the same origin. 
 
 Now the peculiar, startling, perplexing, revolting, and 
 contradictory doctrines of modern orthodoxy — so far as 
 they have originated from or are justified by the Gospels 
 at all — have originated from, or are justified by, not the 
 general tenour of Christ's character and preaching, but those 
 single^ unliarmonizing, discrei)ant texts of ivhich we have 
 heen sj)eaJdng. Doctrines, which unsophisticated men feel 
 to be horrible and monstrous, and which those who hold 
 them most devotedly, secretly admit to be fearful and per- 
 plexing, are founded on particular passages which contradict 
 the generality of Christ's teaching, but which, being attri- 
 buted to him by the evangelists, have been regarded as 
 endowed with an authority which it would be profane and 
 dangerous to resist. In showing, therefore, that several of 
 these passages did not emanate from Christ, and that in all 
 probability none of them did, we conceive that we shall 
 have rendered a vast service to the cause of true rehgion, 
 and to those numerous individuals in whose tortured 
 jninds sense and conscience have long struggled for the 
 
RESULTS OF THE FOREGOING CRITICISM. 141 
 
 mastery. We will elucidate this matter by a few specifica- 
 tions.^ 
 
 One of the most untenable, unphilosophical, uncharitable 
 doctrines of the oi'thodox creed — one most peculiarly stamped 
 ■with the impress of the bad passions of humanity— is, that 
 helief (by which is generally signified belief in Jesus as the 
 Son of God, the promised Messiah, a Teacher sent down 
 from Heaven on a special mission to redeem mankind) is 
 essential, and the one thing essential, to Salvation. The 
 source of this doctrine must doubtless be sought for in that 
 intolerance of opposition unhappily so common among men, 
 and in that tendency to ascribe bad motives to those who 
 arrive at different conclusions from themselves, which pre- 
 vails so generally among the unchastened minds of Theo- 
 logians. But it cannot be denied that the gospels contain 
 many texts which clearly affirm and fully justify a doctrine 
 so untenable and harsh. Let us turn to a few of these, and 
 inquire into the degree of authenticity to which they are 
 probably entitled 
 
 The most specific assertion of the tenet in question, 
 couched in that positive, terse, sententious, damnatory lan- 
 guage so dear to orthodox divines, m found in the spurious 
 portion of the gospel of Mark (c. xvi. IG""^), and is there 
 by the writer, whoever he was, unscrupulously put into the 
 mouth of Jesus after his resurrection. In the synoptical 
 gospels may be found a few texts which may be wrested to 
 supjiort the doctrine, but there are none which teach it. 
 But when we come to the fourth gospel we find several pas- 
 sages similar to that in Mark,"' proclaiming Salvation to 
 believers, and damnation, or something approaching it, to 
 unbelievers, hut all in the peculiar style and spirit of the 
 Author of the first Epistle of John, which abounds in de- 
 nunciations precisely similar'' (but directed, it is remarkable, 
 
 ^ It is true that many of the doctrines in question had not a scriptural 
 origin at all, but an ecclesiastical one ; and, when originated, were defended 
 by texts from the ejnstles, rather than the gospels. The authority of the 
 epistles we shall consider in a subsequent chapter, but if in the meantime we 
 can show that those doctrines have no foundation in the language of Christ, 
 the chief obstacle to the renunciation of them is removed. 
 
 ^ "He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved ; but he that believeth 
 not shall be damned," a passage which, were it not happily spurious, would 
 suffice to " damn " the book which contains it. 
 
 ^ John iii. 16, 18, 36 ; v. 24 ; vi. 29, 40, 47 ; xi. 25, 26 ; xx. 31. 
 
 * 1 John ii. 19, 22, 23 ; iv. 2, 3, 6, 15 ; v. 1, 5, 10, 12, 13. 
 
142 THE CREED OF CHRISTENDOM. 
 
 apparently against heretics, not against infidels, against those 
 who believe amiss, not against those who do not believe at 
 all) — all, too, redolent of the temper of that Apostle who 
 wished to call down fire from heaven on an unbelieving vil- 
 lage, and lolio was rebuked hy Jesus for the savage and 
 liresumptuous suggestion . 
 
 In the last chapter we have shown that the style of these 
 passages is of a nature to point to John, and not to Jesus, 
 as their author, and that the spirit of them is entirely hos- 
 tile and incompatible with the language of Jesus in other 
 parts more obviously faithful. It appears, therefore, that 
 the passages confirmatory of the doctrine in question are 
 found exclusively in a portion of the synoptists which is cer- 
 tainly spurious, and in portions of the fourth gospel which 
 are almost certainly unhistorical ; and that they are contra- 
 dicted by other passages in all the gospels. It only remains 
 to show that as the doctrine is at variance with the spirit of 
 the mild and benevolent Jesus, so it is too obviously unsound 
 not to have been recognised as such by one whose profound 
 and splendid genius was informed and enhghtened by so 
 pure a heart. 
 
 In the first place, Christ must have known that the same 
 doctrine will be presented in a very different manner, and 
 with very different degrees of evidence for its truth, by dif- 
 ferent preachers ; so much so that to resist the arguments of 
 one preacher would imply either dulness of comprehension 
 or obstinate and wilful blindness, while to yield to the 
 arguments of his colleague would imply weakness of under- 
 standing or instabihty of purpose. The same doctrine may 
 be presented and defended by one preacher so clearly, ra"- 
 tionally, and forcibly that all sensible men (idiosyncracies 
 apart) must accept it, and by another preacher so feebly, 
 corruptly, and confusedly, that all sensible men must reject 
 it. The rejection of the Christianity preached by Luther, 
 and of the Christianity preached by Tetzel — of the Christi- 
 anity preached by Loyola and Dunstan, and of the Christi- 
 anity preached by Oberlin and Pascal — cannot have been 
 w^orthy of the same condemnation. Few Protestants, and 
 no Cathohcs, will deny that Christianity has leen so pre- 
 sented to men as to make it a simple affair both of sense and 
 virtue to reject it. To represent, therefore, the reception of 
 a doctrine as a matter of merit, or its rejection as a matter 
 
RESULTS OF THE FOREGOING CRITICISM. U3 
 
 of blame, ivithout reference to the consideration how and 
 hij u'hom it is irreached, is to leave out the main element of 
 judgment — an error which could not have been committed 
 by the just and wise Jesus. 
 
 Further. The doctrine and the passages in question 
 ascribe to "belief" the highest degree of merit, and the 
 sublimest conceivable reward — ''eternal life;" and to ''dis- 
 belief," the deepest wickedness, and the most fearful penalty, 
 " damnation," and "the wrath of God." Now, here we have 
 a logical error, betraying a confusion of intellect wdiich we 
 scruple to ascribe to Jesus. BeUef is an effect produced by 
 a cause. It is a condition of the mind induced by the ope- 
 ration of evidence presented. Being, therefore, an effect, 
 and not an act, it cannot be, or have, a merit. The moment 
 it becomes a voluntary act {and therefore a thing of which 
 merit can he predicated) it ceases to be genuine— it is then 
 brought about (if it be not an abuse of language to name 
 this state "belief") by the will of the individual, not by the 
 hotid jide operation of evidence upon his mind — which 
 brings us to the redactio ad ahsarduni, that belief can only 
 become meritorious by ceasing to be honest. 
 
 In sane and competent minds, if the evidence presented is 
 sufficient, belief will follow as a necessary consequence— if 
 it does not follow, this can only arise from the evidence ad- 
 duced being insufficient — and in such case to pretend belief, 
 or to attempt belief, would be a forfeiture of mental inte- 
 grity ; and cannot therefore be meritorious, but the reverse. 
 To disbelieve in spite of adequate proof, is impossible— to 
 believe without adequate proof, is weak or dishonest. Belief; 
 therefore, can only become meritorious by becoming sinful 
 — can only become a fit subject for reward by becoming a fit 
 subject for punishment. Such is the sophism involved in 
 the dogma we have dared to put into Christ's mouth, and to 
 announce on his authority. 
 
 But, it will be urged, the disbelief which Christ blamed 
 and menaced with punishment was (as appears from John 
 iii. 19) the disbelief imphed in a wilful rejection of his 
 claims, or a refusal to examine them— a love of darkness in 
 preference to light. If so, the language employed is in- 
 correct and deceptive, and the blame is predicated of an 
 effect instead of a cause— it is meant of a voluntary action, 
 but it is predicated of a specified and denounced conse- 
 quence which is no natural or logical indication of that 
 
144 THE CREED OF CHRISTENDOM. 
 
 voluntary action, but may arise from independent causes. 
 The moralist who should denounce gout as a sin, meaning 
 the sinfulness to apply to the excesses of which gout is 
 often, hilt hy no means always, a consequence and an indi- 
 cation, would he held to he a very confused teacher and in- 
 accurate logician. Moreover, this is not the sense attached 
 to the doctrine hy orthodox divines in common parlance. 
 And the fact still remains that Christ is represented as re- 
 warding hy eternal felicity a state of mind which, if honestly 
 attained, is inevitable, involuntary, and therefore in no way 
 a fitting subject for reward, and which, if not honestly at- 
 tained, is hollow, fallacious, and deser^'ing of punishment 
 rather than of recompense. 
 
 We are aware that the orthodox seek to escape from the 
 dilemma, by asserting that belief results from the state of the 
 heart, and that if this be right belief will inevitably follow. 
 This is simply false in fact. How many excellent, virtuous, 
 and humble minds, in all ages, have been anxious, but un- 
 able, to believe — have prayed earnestly for belief, and suffered 
 bitterly for disbehef — in vain ! 
 
 The dogma of the Divinity, or, as it is called in the tech- 
 nical language of polemics, the irrojier Deity, of Christ, 
 though historically proveable to have had an ecclesiastical, 
 not an evangelical, origin — and though clearly negatived by 
 the whole tenour of the synoptical gospels, and even by some 
 passages in the fourth gospel — can yet appeal to several 
 isolated portions and texts, as suggesting and confirming, if 
 not asserting it. On close examination, however, it will be 
 seen that all these passages are to be found either in the 
 fourth gospel — which we have already shown reason to con- 
 clude is throughout an unscrupulous and most inexact para- 
 phrase of Christ's teaching — or in those portions of the three 
 first gospels which, on other accounts and from independent 
 trains of argument, have been selected as at least of ques- 
 tionable authenticity. It is true that the doctrine in ques- 
 tion is now chiefly defended by reference to the Epistles ; 
 but at the same time it would scarcely be held so tenaciously 
 by the orthodox if it were found to be wholly destitute of 
 evangelical support. Now, the passages which appear most 
 confirmatory of Christ's Deity, or Divine Nature, are, in the 
 first place, the narratives of the Incarnation, or the miracu- 
 lous Conception, as given by Matthew and Luke. We have 
 already entered pretty fully into the consideration of the au- 
 
RESULTS OF THE FOREGOING CRITICISM. 145 
 
 'tlienticity of these portions of Scripture, and have seen that 
 we may almost with certainty pronounce them to be fabulous, 
 or mythical. The two narratives do not harmonize with each 
 other ; they neutralize and negative the genealogies on which 
 depended so large a portion of the proof of Jesus being the 
 Messiah ;^ — the marvellous statement they contain is not re- 
 ferred to in any subsequent portion of the two gospels, and 
 is tacitly but positively negatived by several passages — it is 
 never mentioned in the Acts or in the Epistles, and was evi- 
 dently unknown to all the Apostles — and, finally, the tone of 
 the narrative, especially in Luke, is poetical and legendary, 
 and bears a marked similarity to the stories contained in the 
 apocryphal gospels. 
 
 The onlyother expressions in the three first gospels which 
 lend the slightest countenance to the doctrine in question, are 
 ■the acknowledgments of the disciples, the centurion, and the 
 -demoniacs, that Jesus was the Son of God'^, — some of which 
 we 'have already shown to be of very questionable genuineness, 
 — and the voice from heaven said to have been heard at the 
 baptism and the transfiguration, saying, " This is my beloved 
 Son," &c. But, besides that, as shown in chapter vii., con- 
 siderable doubt rests on the accuracy of the first of these 
 .Telations : the testimony borne by the heavenly voice to Jesus 
 ■can in no sense mean that he was phijsicalli/ the Son of 
 God, or a partaker of the divine nature, inasmuch as the 
 very same expression was frequently applied to others, and as 
 indeed a " Son of God" was, in the common parlance of the 
 Jews, simply a prophet, a man whom God had sent, or to 
 whom he had spoken\ 
 
 1 The Messiah must, according to Jewish prophecy, be a lineal descendant 
 'of David : this Christ was, according to the genealogies : this he was not, if 
 the miraculous conception be a fact. If, therefore, Jesus came into being as 
 Matthew and Luke affirm, we do not see how he could have been the Messiah. 
 
 2 An expression here merely signifying a Prophet, or the Messiah. 
 
 3 " The Lord hath said unto me (David), Thou art my Son ; this day have 
 I begotten thee." — (Ps. ii. 7.) Jehovah says of Solomon, "I will be his 
 father, and he shall be my son." — (2 Sam. vii. 14.) The same expression is 
 applied to Israel (Exod. iv. 22. Hos. xi. I), and to David (Ps. Ixxxix. 27). 
 " I have said. Ye are gods, and all of you are children of the Most High." — 
 {Ps. Ixxxii. 6.) " If he called them gods, unto whom the word of God came," 
 &c. — (John X. 35.) " Behold what manner of love the Father hath bestowed 
 
 ■upon us, that we should be called the Sons of God Beloved, now are 
 
 we the Sons of God."— (1 John iii. 1, 2.) (See also Gal. iii. 26 ; iv. .5, 6.) 
 "As many as are led by the spirit of God, they are the Sons of God." — 
 (Rom. viii. 14.) "But to as many as received him, he gave power to become 
 the Sons of God."— (John i. 12.) 
 
 L 
 
]46 THE CREED OF CHRISTENDOM. 
 
 But when we come to the fourth gospel, especially to those 
 portions of it whose pecuhar style hetrays that they came 
 from John, and not from Jesus, the case is very different. 
 We find here many passages evidently intended to convey 
 the impression that Jesus was endowed with a super-human 
 nature, hut nearly all expressed in language savouring less 
 of Christian simplicity than of Alexandrian philosophy. The 
 Evangelist commences his gospel with a confused statement 
 of the Platonic doctrine as modified in Alexandria, and that 
 the Logos was a partaker of the Divine Nature, and was the 
 Creator of the world ;' on which he proceeds to engraft his 
 own notion, that Jesus was this Logos — that the Logos or 
 the divine wisdom, the second person in Plato's Trinity, 
 became flesh in the person of the prophet of Nazareth. 
 Now, can any one read the epistles, or the three first gospels 
 — or even the whole of the fourth — and not at once repudiate 
 the notion that Jesus was, and knew himself to he, the 
 Creator of the World ? — which John affirms him to liave 
 been. Throughout this gospel we find constant repetitions 
 of the same endeavour to make out a super- human nature 
 for Christ ; hut the ungenuineness of these passages has 
 already been fully considered. 
 
 Once more : the doctrine of the Atonement, of Christ's 
 death having been a sacrifice in expiation of the sins of 
 mankind, is the keystone of modern orthodoxy. It takes 
 its origin from the epistles, but we believe can only appeal 
 to three texts in the evangelists, for even partial confirma- 
 mation. In Matth. xx. S8, it is said, " The Son of Man 
 came, not to be ministered unto, but to minister, and to give 
 his life a ransom for many" an expression which may coun- 
 tenance the doctrine, but assuredly does not contain it. 
 Asfain in Matth. xxvi. 28, we find, " This is mv blood of 
 the New Testament, which is shed for many/<9r the remis- 
 sion of sins." Mark (xiv. 24) and Luke (xxi. 20), however, 
 who give the same sentence, hoth omit the signijicant 
 expression. In the fourth gospel, John the Baptist is repre- 
 sented as saying of Jesus (i. 29), " Behold the Lamb of 
 God, which taketh away the sin of the world," an expression 
 which may be intended to convey the doctrine, but which 
 occurs in what we have already shown to be about the most 
 apocryphal portion of the whole gospel. 
 
 In fine, then, we arrive at this irresistible conclusion ; — 
 
EESULTS OF THE FOREGOING CRITICISM. 147 
 
 that, knowing many passages in the evangelists to be un- 
 authentic, and having reason to suspect the authenticity of 
 many others, and not being able with absolute certainty to 
 point to any which are perfectly and indubitably authentic — 
 the probability in favour of the fidelity of any of the texts 
 rehed on to prove the peculiar and perplexing doctrines of 
 modern orthodoxy, is far inferior to the probability against 
 the truth of those doctrines. A doctrine perplexing to our 
 reason and painful to our feelings may be from God ; but in 
 this case the proof of its being from God must be propor- 
 tionally clear and irrefragable ; the assertion of it in a 
 narrative Avhich does not scruple to attribute to God's Mes- 
 senger words which he never uttered, is not only no proof, 
 but does not even amount to a presumption. There is no text 
 in the evangelists, the divine (or Christian) origin of which 
 is sufficiently unquestionable to enable it to serve as the 
 foundation of doctrines repugnant to natural feeling or to 
 common sense. 
 
 But, it will be objected, if these conclusions are sound, 
 absolute uncertainty is thrown over the whole gospel history, 
 and over all Christ's teaching. To this we reply, /;/ limine, 
 in the language of Algernon Sydney, " No consequence can 
 destroy any truth ;" — the sole matter for consideration is. 
 Are our arguments correct ? — not, Do they lead to a result 
 wdiich is embarrassing and unwelcome ? 
 
 But the inference is excessive ; — the premises do not reach 
 so far. The uncertainty thrown is not over the main points of 
 Cluist's history, which, after all its retrenchments, still stands 
 out an intelligible though a skeleton account — not over the 
 grand features, the pervading tone, of his doctrines or his 
 character, which still j)resent to us a clear, consistent, and 
 splendid delineation ; — but over those individual statements, 
 passages, and discourses, which mar this delineation — which 
 break its unity — which destroy its consistency — which cloud 
 its clearness — which tarnish its beauty. The gain to us 
 seems immense. It is true, we have no longer ahsolute 
 certainty with regard to any one especial text or scene : such 
 is neither necessary nor attainable ; — it is true that, instead 
 of passively- accepting the whole heterogeneous and indi- 
 gestible mass, we must, by the careful and conscientious 
 exercise of those faculties with which we are endowed, by 
 ratiocination and moral tact, separate what Christ did, from 
 
 L 2 
 
148 THE CREED OF CHRISTENDOM. 
 
 what he did not teach, as best we may. But the task will 
 he difficult to those only who look in the gospels for a minute, 
 dogmatic, and sententious creed — not to those who seek only 
 to learn Christ's spirit, that they may imbibe it, and to com- 
 prehend his views of virtue and of God, that they may draw 
 strength and consolation from those fountains of living 
 water \ 
 
 ^ '* The character of the record is such that I see not how any great stress 
 can be laid on particular actions attributed to Jesus. That he lived a divine 
 life, suffered a violent death, taught and lived a most beautiful religion — this 
 seems the great fact about which a mass of truth and error has been col- 
 lected." — Theodore Parker, Discourse, p. 188. 
 
CHAPTER XIL 
 
 THE LIMITS OF APOSTOLIC WISDOM AND AUTHORITY. 
 
 "VVe now come to the very important question — as to the 
 amount of authority which belongs to the teaching of the 
 Apostles. Are they to be implicitly relied on as having 
 fully imbibed Christ's spirit ? and as faithful, competent, 
 infallible expounders of his doctrine ? May we, in a word, 
 regard their teaching as the teaching of Jesus himself ? 
 
 What their teaching was we know with perfect certainty, 
 though not with all the fulness that might be desired. We 
 have the teaching itself in the epistles, and a record of it in 
 the Acts. 
 
 The latter work is not perfectly to be rehed on. It con- 
 veys a vivid, and on the whole, in all probabihty, a faithful, 
 picture of the formation of the early Christian Churches, 
 their sufferings, their struggles, their proceedings, and the 
 spirit which animated them ; — and, being written by a par- 
 ticipator in those events, and a companion of PauP through 
 a portion of his missionary wanderings, must be regarded as 
 mainly historical ; and we shall, therefore, make use of the 
 narrative with considerable confidence. But, as a source for 
 discovering the special doctrines preached by the Apostles, 
 it is of questionable safety, inasmuch as the writer evidently 
 allowed himself the freedom indulged in by all historians of 
 antiquity — of composing speeches in the names of his actors ; 
 
 * Luke is generally considered to be the same as Silas. It is remarked that 
 ■when Silas is represented in the narrative as being with Paul, the narrator 
 speaks in the first person plural. "We came to Samothrace," &c., &c., 
 xvi. 11. Romans xvi. 21. Col. iv. 14. 2 Thess. 1. 1. 2 Timothy iv. 11. 
 Philemon, verse 24, 
 
150 THE CREED OF CHRISTENDOM. 
 
 — and tiius the discourses, both of Paul and Peter, can only 
 be regarded as proceeding from Luke himself, containing, 
 probably, much that was said, but much, also, that was only 
 fitting to have been said, on such occasions. 
 
 We have already adduced one unmistakable instance of 
 this practice in a previous chapter, where Luke not only 
 gives the speech of Gamaliel in a secret Council of the 
 Sanhedrim, from which the Apostles were expressly ex- 
 cluded^ but makes him refer, in the past tense, to an event 
 which did not take place till some years after the speech was 
 dehvered. In the same way we have long discourses de- 
 livered by Stephen, Peter, and Paul, at some of which Luke 
 may have been present, but which it is impossible he should 
 have remembered verbatim ; — we have the same invaUd argu- 
 ment regarding the resurrection of Christ put into the 
 mouths of two such opposite characters as Peter and Paul 
 (ii. 27 ; xiii. 35) ; — we have another account of a conversa- 
 tion in a secret Council of the Jews (iv. 15-17) ; — we have 
 the beautiful oration of Paul at Athens, when we know that 
 he was quite alone (xvii. 14, 15) ;— we have the private 
 conversation of the Ephesian craftsmen, w'hen conspiring 
 against the Apostles (xix. 25, 27) ;— we have the irrivate 
 letter of the Chief Captain Lysias to Felix (xxiii. 26) ; — 
 w^e have two private conversations between Festus and 
 Agrippa about Paul (xxv. 14-22, and xxvi. 81, 32) ; — and 
 all these are given in precisely the style and manner of an 
 ear-witness. We cannot, therefore, feel certain that any 
 particular discourses or expressions attributed by Luke to 
 the Apostles were really, genuinely, and an alter edly , theirs. 
 In the Epistles, however, they speak for themselves, and so 
 far there can be no mistake as to the doctrines they believed 
 and taught. 
 
 Before proceeding further we wish to premise one remark. 
 The Epistles contained in our Canon are twenty-one in 
 number, viz. 14 of Paul (including the Hebrews), 3 of John, 
 2 of Peter, 1 of James, and 1 of Jude. But the authorship 
 of the Epistle to the Hebrews is more than doubtful ; the 
 second of Peter, the second and third of John, and even 
 those of James and Jude, were at a very early period reck- 
 
 1 Acts V. 34. 
 
LIMITS OF APOSTOLIC WISDOM AND AUTHORITY. 151 
 
 oned among the spurious or doubtful -writings*. The epistles 
 of certain or acknowledged genuineness are thus reduced to 
 fifteen, viz. 13 of Paul, 1 of John, and 1 of Peter. 
 
 Thus, of fifteen epistles, of -which -\ve can pronounce with 
 tolerable certainty that they are of apostohc origin, 2 only 
 proceeded from the companions of Jesus, and the remaining 
 13 from a man who had never seen him, save in a vision, 
 nor heard his teaching, nor learnt from his disciples ; — a 
 oonverted persecutor, -who boasted that he received his 
 instructions from direct supernatural communications '. 
 
 We -will now proceed to estabhsh the following propo- 
 sitions : — 
 
 I. That the Apostles differed from each other in opinion, 
 and disagreed among themselves. 
 
 II. That they held and taught some opinions which we 
 linov/ to have been erroneous. 
 
 III. That both in their general tone, and in some im- 
 portant particulars, their teaching differed materially from 
 that of Chrisi as depicted in the synoptical gospels. 
 
 I. Infallible expounders of a system of Eeligion or 
 Philosophy cannot disagree among themselves as to the 
 doctrines which compose that system, nor as to the spirit 
 which should pervade it. Now, the Apostles did disagree 
 among themselves in their exposition of the nature and 
 constituents of their Master's system — and this, too, in 
 matters of no small significance : they are not, therefore, 
 infallible or certain guides. 
 
 Putting aside personal and angry contentions, such as 
 those recorded in Acts xv. 39, which, however undignified, 
 are, we fear, natural even to holy men ; — the first recorded 
 dispute among the Apostles we find to have related to a 
 matter of the most essential importance to the character of 
 Christianity — viz. whether or not the Gospel should be 
 preached to any but Jews — whether the Gentiles were to be 
 admitted into the fold of Christ ? We find (c. xi.) that 
 v;hen the Apostles and brethren in Judea heard that Peter 
 had ventured to visit Gentiles, to eat with them, to preach 
 
 1 De Wette, i. 69-83. See also Hng, 583-650. The epistle of James "w^e 
 are still disposed to consider genuine ; that of Jude is unimportant ; the 
 second of P^ter, and the third of John, are almofct certainly spurious. 
 
 ■- Galutians i. 11-19. 
 
]52 THE CliEED OF CHRISTENDOM. 
 
 to them, and even to baptize them, tliey^^ere astonished and^, 
 scandalised by the innovation, and " contended with him." 
 The account of the discussion Avhich ensued throws hght 
 upon two very interesting questions ; — upon the views enter- 
 tained by Jesus himself (or at least as to those conveyed by. 
 him to his disciples), as to the range and limit of his mis- 
 sion ; — and upon the manner in which, and the grounds on^ 
 which, controversies w^ere decided in the early Church. 
 
 We have been taught to regard Jesus as a prophet who • 
 announced himself as sent from God on a mission to preach, 
 repentance, and to teach the way of life to all mankind, and 
 w^ho left behind him the Apostles to complete the work which- 
 he was compelled to leave unfinished. The mission of 
 Moses was to separate and educate a peculiar people, apart 
 from the rest of the world, for the knowledge and worship 
 of the one true God : — The mission of Christ was to bring 
 all nations to that knowledge and worship — to extend to all 
 mankind that Salvation which, in his time, was considered- 
 to belong to the Jews alone, as well as to point to a bettei^- 
 and a wider way of life. Such is the popular and established 
 notion. But when we look into the New Testament we find 
 little to confirm this view, and much to negative it. Putting 
 aside our ow^n prepossessions, and inferences drawn from the 
 character of Christ, and the comprehensive grandeur of his 
 doctrine, nothing can Avell be clearer from the evidence pre- 
 sented to us in the Scriptures, than that Jesus considered 
 himself sent, not so much to the world at large, as to the 
 Jews exclusively, — to bring back his countrymen to the true- 
 essence and spirit of that religion whose purity had in his 
 days been so grievously corrupted ; and to elevate and enlarge 
 their views from the stores of his own rich and comprehen- 
 sive mind. 
 
 It will be allowed by all that the Apostles, at the com- 
 mencement of their ministry after the crucifixion of their 
 Lord, had not the least idea that their mission extended to 
 any but the Jews, or that their Master was anything but a 
 Jewish Messiah and Deliverer. Their first impatient ques- 
 tion to him when assembled together after the resurrection,, 
 is said to have been, " Lord, wilt thou at this time restore 
 the kingdom to Israel ?" ^ The whole of the account we are- 
 
 1 Acts i. 6. 
 
LIMITS OF APOSTOLIC WISDOM AND AUTHORITY. 153^' 
 
 DOW considering, brings out in strong relief their notions as 
 to the narrow limits of their ministry. When Peter is sent 
 for by Comehus, and hears the relation of his \ision, h& 
 exclaims, as if a perfectly new idea had struck him, " Of a 
 truth I perceive that God is no respecter of persons ; hut in. 
 every nation he that feareth him and worketh righteousness 
 is accepted of him" (Acts x. 84) ; and he goes on to 
 expound " the word which God sent to the children of 
 Israel" (v. 36), and which the Apostles were commanded to 
 " preach to the people," (v. 42) — " the people," as the con- 
 text (v. 41) shows, meaning simply the Jews. The Jewish 
 hehevers, we are told (v. 45), " as many as came with Peter, 
 were astonished, because that on the Gentiles also was 
 poured out the gift of the Holy Ghost." When Peter was 
 called to account by the other Apostles for having preached 
 to and baptized Gentiles (xi. 1) — a proceeding which evi- 
 dently (xi. 2, 3,) shocked and surprised them all, — he 
 justified himself, not by reference to any commands of 
 Jesus, not by quoting precept or example of his Master, but 
 simply by relating a vision or dream which he supposed to 
 proceed from a divine suggestion. The defence appeared 
 vahd to the brethren, and they inferred from it, in a manner 
 which shows what a new and unexpected light had broken in 
 upon them,—" Then hath God also to the Gentiles granted 
 repentance unto life" (xi. 18). Now, could this have been 
 the case, had Christ given his disciples any commission to 
 preach the gospel to the Gentiles, or given them the slightest 
 reason to suppose that other nations besides the Jews were 
 included in' that commission ? (See also for confirmation. 
 xi. 1 y, and xiii. 4G.) It is to be observed also that through- 
 out the elaborate arguments contained in the Epistle to the 
 Eomans, to show that the gospel ought to be preached to the 
 Gentiles-- that there is no difference between Greek and Jew, 
 &c. — Paul, though he quotes largely from the Hebrew Pro- 
 phets, never appeals to any sayings of Jesus, in confirmation 
 of his view ;— and in the Acls, in two instances, his mission 
 to the Gentiles is represented as arising out of a direct sub- 
 sequent revelation (in a vision) to himself. (Acts xxii. 21 ; 
 xxvi. 17; ix. 15.) 
 
 As, therefore, none of the Apostles, either in their 
 writings or in their discussions, appeal to the sayings or 
 deeds of Christ during his lifetime as their warrant for 
 
154 THE CREED OF CHRISTENDOM. 
 
 preaching the gospel to the Gentiles, but on the contrary, 
 one and all manifest a total ignorance of any such deeds or 
 savings — we think it must he concluded that the various 
 texts extant, conveying his commands to " preach the gospel 
 to all nations," could never have proceeded from him, but are 
 to be ranked among the many ascrihed sayings, embodying 
 the ideas of a later period, which v/e find both in the Acts 
 and the evangelists ^ . None of these are quoted or referred 
 to by the Apostles in their justification, and therefore could 
 not have been known to them, and, since unknown, could 
 not be authentic. 
 
 On the other hand, there are several passages in the gos- 
 pels which, if genuine (as they appear to be), clearly indicate 
 that it was not from any neglect or misunderstanding of the 
 instructions of their Lord, that the Apostles regarded their 
 mission as confined to the Jews. " Go not into the way of 
 the Gentiles, and into any city of the Samaritans enter ye 
 not : but go rather to the lost sheep of the house of Israel " 
 (Matth. X. 5, 6). '* I am not sent but to the lost sheep of 
 the house of Israel " (Matth. xv. 24). " Verily I say unto 
 you, that ye which have followed me, in the regeneration 
 when the Son of Man shall sit in the throne of his glory, ye 
 also shall sit upon twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes 
 of Israel" (Matth. xix. 28). " It is easier for heaven and 
 earth to pass, than one tittle of the law to fail " (Luke xvi. 
 17). " Think not I am come to destroy the law and the 
 prophets : I am not come, to destroy, but to fulfil " (Matth. 
 V. 17). " This day is salvation come to tliis house, foras- 
 much as he also is a son of Abraham" (Luke xix. 9). 
 " Salvation is of the Jews" (John iv. 22). 
 
 1 These texts are the following (Matth. viii. 11, 12) : "Many shall come 
 from the east and west, and shall sit down with Abraham, and Isaac, and 
 Jacob, in the kingdom of Heaven. But the children of the kingdom shall be 
 cast into outer darkness." This, however, as well as the parable of the vineyard 
 (xxi. 43), and that of the supper (Lukexiv. 16), might be merely an indignant 
 denunciation called forth by the obstinacy of the Jews in refusing to listen to 
 his claims. Matth. xxiv. 14, xxviii. 19 ; JSIark xvi. 15, we have akeady 
 shown reason to believe spurious ; and Luke xxiv. 47, with Acts i. 8, bear 
 equal marks of unauthenticity. It is true that Jesus talked with a Samaritan 
 woman, and healed a Samaritan leper ; but the Samaritans were not Gentiles, 
 only heretical Jews. We find from Acts viii. 5, 14, that the Apostles early 
 and without scruple preached to and baptized Samaritans. Jesus also healed 
 a Gentile centurion's servant : but in the first place, the servant might have 
 been a Jew, though his ]\Iaster was not : and, secondly, a temporal blessing, 
 a simple act of charity, Jesus could not grudge even to strangers. 
 
LIMITS OF APOSTOLIC WISDOM AND AUTHOIIITY. 155 
 
 It would appear, then, that neither the historical nor the 
 epistolary Scriptures give us any reason for surmising that 
 Jesus directed, or contemplated, the spread of his gospel 
 beyond the pale of the Jewish nation ; — that the Apostles 
 at least had no cognizance of any such views on his part; — 
 that when the question of the admission of the Gentiles to 
 the knowledge of the gospel, came before them in the natural 
 progress of events, it created considerable difference of 
 opinion among them, and at first the majority were decidedly 
 hostile to any such liberality of view, or such extension 
 of their missionary labours. The mode in which the con- 
 troversy was conducted, and the grounds on which it was 
 decided, are strongly characteristic of the moral and intel- 
 lectual , condition of the struggling Church at that early 
 period. The objectors bring no argument to show why the 
 Gentiles should )iot be admitted to the gospel light, but they 
 put Peter at once on his defence, as having, in preaching 
 to others than to Jews, done a thing which, prima facie, 
 was out of rule, and required justification. And Peter re- 
 plies to them, not by appeals to the paramount authority of 
 Christ, — not by reference to the tenour of his life and teach- 
 ing, — not by citing the case of the Centurion's servant, or 
 the Canaanitish woman, or the parables of the vineyard and 
 the supper, — not by showing from the nature and fitness of 
 things that so splendid a plan of moral elevation, of instruc- 
 tion — such a comprehensive scheme of redemption, according 
 to the orthodox view— ought to be as widely preached as 
 possible, — not by arguing that Christ had come into the 
 world to spread the healing knowledge of Jehovah, of our 
 God and Father, to all nations, to save all sinners and 
 all believers ;— but simply by relating a vision, or rather a 
 dream— the most natural one possible to a man as hungry 
 as Peter is .represented to have been — the interpretation of 
 \i\\iQ\\—at' Jirst a xnizzle to Jiim — i^ suggested by the 
 simultaneous appearance of the messengers of Cornelius, 
 who also pleads a heavenly vision as a reason for the sum- 
 mons. This justification would scarcely by itself have been 
 sufficient, for the dream might have meant nothing at all, or 
 Peter's interpretation of it— evidently a doubtful and tenta- 
 tive one— might have been erroneous; — so he goes on to 
 argue that the event showed him to have been right, in- 
 asmuch as, after his preaching, the Holy Ghost fell upon all 
 
156 THE CREED OF CHEISTENDOM. 
 
 the household of Cornelius : " And as I began to speak, the? 
 Holy Ghost fell on them, as on us at the beginning ;..... 
 forasmuch then as God gave them the like gift as unto us- 
 ■who believed on the Lord Jesus Christ ; what ^Yas I, that I 
 could withstand God ?" (Acts xi. 15, 17). This argument 
 clenched the matter, satisfied the brethren, and settled, once 
 for all, the question as to the admission of the Gentiles into 
 the Church of Christ. 
 
 It becomes necessary, therefore, to inquire more closely 
 into the nature of this argument Avhich appeared to the 
 Apostles so conclusive and irrefragable. What was this 
 Holy Spirit ? and in what way did it manifest its presence ? 
 so that the Apostles recognized it at once as the special and 
 most pecuhar gift voucljsafed to believers. 
 
 The case, as far as the Acts and the Epistles enable us tO' 
 learn it, appears clearly to have been this : — The indication 
 — or at least the most common, specific, and indubitable 
 indication — of the Holy Spirit having fallen upon any one^ 
 was his beginning to " speak with tongues," to utter strange 
 exclamations, unknown words, or words in an unknown 
 tongue. Thus, in the case of the Apostles on the day of 
 Pentecost, we are told, " They were all filled with the Ploly 
 Ghost, and hegan to speak ivitli other tongues, as the Spirit 
 gave them utterance" (Acts ii. 4). Again, in the case of 
 
 the household of Cornelius, " And they were 
 
 astonished because that on the Gentiles also was 
 
 poured out the gift of the Holy Ghost. For they heard 
 them speak icith tongues, and magnify God" (x. 45, 4G). 
 The same indication appeared also in the case of the disci- 
 ples of the Baptist, whom Paul found at Ephesus : " And 
 when Paul had laid his hands on them, the Holy Ghost 
 came upon them; and they spake with tongues, and 
 prophesied" (xix. 0). The *' speaking with tongues " (to 
 which in the last instance is added " prophesying," or 
 preaching) is the only specified external manifestation, cog- 
 nizable by the senses, by which it was known that such and 
 such individuals had received the Holy Ghost. What, then, 
 was this " speaking with tongues ? " ^ 
 
 * See also the passage in the spurious addition to Mark's Gospel (xvi. 17). 
 *' And these signs shall follow them that believe : In my name shall they cast 
 out devils ; tlieif shall speah %oith new tonrjues,^'' &c. The date at which this. 
 interpolation was written is unknown, but it serves to show that, at that 
 period, speaking with new tongues was one of the established signs of belief. 
 
LIMITS OF ArOSTOLIC WISDOM AND AUTHORITY. 157 
 
 The popular idea is, that it was the power of speaking- 
 foreign languages without having learned them— super- 
 naturally, in fact. This interpretation derives countenance, 
 and probably its foundation, from the statement of Luke 
 (Acts ii. 2-8), which is considered to intimate that the 
 Apostles preached to each man of their vast and motley 
 audience in his own native language. But there are many 
 difficulties in the way of this interpretation, and much reason 
 to suspect in the whole narrative a large admixture of the 
 mythic element. 
 
 1. We have already seen that Luke is not to be implicitly- 
 trusted as an historian ; and some remarkable discrepancies 
 between the accounts of the Gospels and the Acts will be 
 noted in a subsequent chapter, when we treat of the Eesur- 
 rection and Ascension. 
 
 2. It appears from Matthew (x. 1, 8, 20), that the Holy 
 Spirit had been already imparted to the Apostles during the 
 lifetime of Jesus, and a second outpouring therefore could 
 not be required. John, however, tells us (xx. 20), that 
 Jesus expressly and personally conferred this gift after his 
 resurrection, but before his ascension : "And when he had 
 said this, he hreathed on them, and saith unto them, Receive 
 ye the Holy Ghost." But in the Acts, the " breathing" had 
 become '' a rushing mighty wind," and the outpouring of the 
 Spirit is placed some days after the ascension, d.xi^ the 
 personal interposition is dispensed with. These discrepant 
 accounts cannot all be faithful, and for obvious reasons we 
 think that of Luke least authentic. 
 
 3. We have no evidence anywhere that the Apostles knew, 
 or employed, any language except Hebrew and Greek — 
 Greek being (as Hug has clearly proved ^ ) the common 
 language in use throughout the eastern provinces of the 
 Eoman Empire. Nay, we have some reason to believe that 
 ihey were not acquainted with other languages ; for by the 
 giSiiasa'o'il tradition of the early Church ^ Mark is called the 
 •^' TOteTf reter " of Peter. Now, if Peter had been gifted as 
 ^we imagine on the day of Pentecost, he would have needed 
 mo interpreter. 
 
 1 Hug, ii. 1, § 10, p. 326. 
 
 2 Papias, Irenseus, and Jerome all call him so. See Eusebius. 
 
158 THE CREED OF CHRISTENDOM. 
 
 4. If the knowledge of foreign languages', possessed by 
 the Apostles, were the work of the Holy Spirit, the work 
 was most imperfectly done (a monstrous conception), for, by 
 universal consent, their Greek was a bald, barbarous, and 
 incorrect idiom. 
 
 5. The language in which the occurrence is related would 
 seem to imply that the miracle was wrought upon the 
 hearers, rather than on the speakers — that whatever the 
 language in which the Apostles spohe, the audience heard 
 them each man in his own. " When the multitude came 
 together they were confounded, because that everij man 
 heard them speah in his own language!' " Be- 
 hold, are not all these which speak Galilseans ? And how 
 hear we every man in our oivn tongue, wherein we were 
 born ? " The supposition that the different Apostles ad- 
 dressed different audiences in different languages, succes- 
 sively, is inconsistent with the text, which clearly indicates 
 that the whole was one transaction, and took place at one 
 
 time. " Peter standing up said These 
 
 are not drunken as ye suppose, seeing it is hut the third 
 hour of the day!' 
 
 6. The people, we are told, ''were in doubt" at the 
 strange and incomprehensible phenomenon, and said, " What 
 meaneth this ? " while others thought the Apostles must be 
 drunk — a natural perplexity and surmise, if the utterances 
 were incoherent and unintelligible ejaculations — but not so, 
 if they were discourses addressed to each set of foreigners 
 in their respective languages. Moreover, Peter's defence is 
 not what it would have been in the latter case. He does not 
 sav, *' We have been endowed from on high with the power 
 of*^ speaking foreign languages which we have never learned : 
 we are, as you say, ignorant Galilseans, but God has given 
 
 * Another consideration which renders the story still more doubtful is, that 
 it appears very probable that Greek, though not always the native, was the 
 current language, or a current language, among all those nations enumerated 
 (verse 9-11). Media, Mesopotamia, Asia Minor, Arabia, and Egyi^t were full 
 of Greek cities, and Greek was generally spoken there. (See the dissertation 
 of Hug, above referred to.) If therefore the Apostles had addressed the 
 audience in Greek, as it was probalily their habit to do, they would naturally 
 have been intelligible even to that miscellaneous audience. Acts xxii. 2, 
 shows that even in Jerusalem addressing the people in Hebrew Avas an unusual 
 thing. 
 
LIMITS OF APOSTOLIC WISDOM AND AUTHORITY. 159 
 
 US this faculty that we might tell you of his Son ; " — but he 
 assures them that those utterances which led them to sup- 
 pose him and his fellow-disciples to be drunk were tlie 
 consequences of that outpouring of spiritual emotion which 
 had been prophesied as one of the concomitants of the mil- 
 lennium. " This is that which was spoken by the Prophet 
 Joel; And it shall come to pass in the last days, saith 
 Jehovah, I will pour out of my Spirit upon all flesh; and your 
 sons and your daughters shall prophesy, and your young- 
 men shall see visions, and your old men shall dream 
 dreams." 
 
 7. Luke indicates in several passages, that in the other 
 cases mentioned the Holy Spirit fell upon the recipients i?i 
 the same manner, and with the same results, as on the 
 Apostles on the day of Pentecost (Acts x. 47 ; xi. 15-17 ; 
 XV. 8, 9^). Now, in these cases there is no reason what- 
 ever to believe that the *' gift of tongues" meant the power 
 of speaking foreign languages. In the lirst case (that of 
 Cornelius) it could not have been tliis ; for as all the 
 recipients began to '' speak with tongues," and yet were 
 members of one household, such an unnecessary display of 
 newly- acquired knowledge or powers would have been in the 
 highest degree impertinent and ostentatious. 
 
 There can, we think, be no doubt — indeed we are not 
 aware that any doubt has ever been expressed — that the 
 remarks of Paul in the 12th, 13th, and 14th chapters of the 
 first epistle to the Corinthians, respecting the " speaking 
 Avith tongues," — the " gift of tongues," — " the unknown 
 tongue," &c., — refer to the same faculty, or supposed spiritual 
 endowment, spoken of in the Acts ; which fell on the Apos- 
 tles at the day of Pentecost, and on the household of 
 Cornelius, and the disciples of Apollos, as already cited. 
 The identity of the gift referred to in all the cases is, we 
 beheve, unquestioned. Now the language of Paul clearly 
 shows, that this " speaking with tongues " was not preach- 
 ing in Q. foreign language, but in an unknown language ; — 
 that it consisted of unintelJigible, and probably incoherent, 
 
 ^ Peter says, ** Can any man forbid water, that these should not be bap- 
 tized, which have received the Holy Ghost as x^ell as we? "...*' The Holy 
 
 Ghost fell on them, as on us at the heginninrj:' " Forasmuch, then, 
 
 as God gave them the like gift as unto us." .... "And God gave them the 
 Holy Ghost, even as imto ws, and put no difference between us and them.'' 
 
160 THE CREED OF CHRISTENDOM. 
 
 Utterances \ He repeatedly distinguislies the gift of tongues 
 from that of preaching (or, as it is there called, prophesy), 
 and the gift of speaking the unknown tongues from the gift 
 t^f interpreting the same. *' To one is given hy the Spirit 
 
 the working of miracles; to another prophesy; 
 
 to another divers kinds of tongues ; to another the inter- 
 
 pretation of tongues." " Have all the gifts of 
 
 healing ? do all speak with tongues ? do all interpret ? " 
 (1 Cor. xii. 10-30. See also xiii. 1, 2, 8.) " Let him that 
 speaketh in an unknown tongue pray that he may inter- 
 pret " (xiv. 13). Again, he classes this power of tongues 
 (so invaluable to missionaries, had it been really a capacity 
 of speaking foreign languages) very low among spirituals? 
 ■endowments. " First Apostles, secondarily prophets, thirdly 
 teachers, after that miracles, then gifts of healing, helps, 
 governments, diversities q/* tongues " (xii. 28). *' Greater 
 is he that prophesieth than he that speaketh with tongues " 
 (xiv. 5). He further expressly explains this gift to consist 
 in unintelligible utterances, which were useless to, and lost 
 upon, the audience. " He that speaketh in an unknown 
 tongue speaketh not unto man, but unto GiO(\., for no man 
 Mnderstandeth him" (xiv. 2). (See also ver. 6-9, 16.) 
 Finally, he intimates pretty plainly that the practice of 
 speaking these unknown tongues was becoming vexatious, 
 and bringing discredit on the Church ; and he labours hard 
 to discourage it. " I thank my God that I speak with 
 tongues more than ye all : yet in the Church I had rather 
 fjpeak five words with my understanding, that I might teach 
 <!)thers also, than ten thousand words in an unknown tongue" 
 ((xiv. 18, 19). ''If the whole Church be come together into 
 ^one place, and all speak with tongues, and there come in 
 unlearned men or unbelievers, will they not say ye are 
 ;mad ? " (ver. 23). " If any man speak in an unknown ^ 
 vtongue, 3et it be by two, or at most by three, and that by 
 
 '€ourse ; and let one interpret For God is 
 
 ,not the author of confusion, but of peace" (ver. 27-33). 
 (See also ver. 39, 40.) 
 
 It is, we think, almost impossible to read the whole of the 
 three chapters from which the above citations were made, 
 
 ^ We are glad to corroborate our opinion by a reference to that of Neander, 
 •wLo, in liis "History of the Planting of the Early Church," comes to the same 
 conclusion, chap. i. 
 
LIMITS OF APOSTOLIC WISDOM AND AUTHORITY. IGl 
 
 without coming to the conclusion that in the early Christian 
 Church there were a number of weak, mobile, imaginative 
 minds, who, over- excited by the sublimity of the new doctrine 
 expounded to them, and by the stirring eloquence of its 
 preachers, passed the faint and undefinable line which sepa- 
 rates enthusiasm from delirium, and gave vent to their exal- 
 tation in incoherent or inarticulate utterances, which the 
 compassionate sympathy, or the consanguineous fancies, of 
 those around them, dignified with the description of speaking, 
 or prophesying, in an unknown tongue. No one familiar 
 with physiology, or medical or rehgious history ', can be 
 
 ^ Somewhat similar phenomena have manifested themselves on several 
 occasions in the course of the last eight hundred years, and even in our own 
 day, when religious excitement has proved too strong for weak minds or 
 sensitive frames to bear without giving way. We find them recorded in the 
 case of the ecstatics of Cevennes, who underwent sevei'e persecution in France 
 after the revocation of the Edict of Nantes, and among the convulsionnaires 
 of St. Medard near the close of last century. Both these cases are examined 
 in considerable detail in a very curious and valuable work by Bertrand, a 
 French physician, " Sur les Varietes de I'Extase " (pp. 323, 359.) But our 
 own country has presented us within a few years with a reproduction of pre- 
 cisely the same results arising from similar causes. There is extant a very- 
 remarkable and painfully-interesting pamphlet by a Mr. Baxter, who was at 
 one time a shining light in Mr. Irving' s congregation, and a great "speaker 
 with tongues," in which he gives a detailed account of all the accompanying 
 phenomena. It was written after he had recovered ; though he never relin- 
 quished his belief in the supernatural nature of these utterances, but finally 
 concluded them to be from Satan, on the ground of some of the speakers 
 "uttei'ing what he thought false doctrine. The description he gives of his own. 
 state and that of others during the visitations indicate in a manner that no 
 physiologist can mistake, a condition of cerebral excitement verging on hysteria 
 and madness, and by no means uncommon. Sometimes, when praying, his 
 shrieks were so loud that he was compelled to "thrust his handkerchief into 
 his mouth that he might not alarm the house." Others fell down "convulsed 
 and foaming like demoniacs." " My whole body was violently agitated ; for 
 the space of ten minutes I was paralyzed vmder a shaking of my limbs, and 
 no expression exce^Dt a convulsive sigh." His friends "remarked on his 
 excited state of mind." A servant was taken out of his house deranged, and 
 pronounced by the tongues to be possessed by a devil. Another "speaker 
 with tongues" did nothing but mutter inarticulate nonsense with a "most 
 revolting expression of countenance." Mr. Baxter says that the utterances 
 which were urged upon him by "the power," were sometimes intelligible, 
 sometimes not ; sometimes French, sometimes Latin, and sometimes in lan- 
 guages which he did not know, but which his wife thought to be Spanish. 
 He says at last, " My persuasion concerning the unknown tongue is that it is 
 no language xchate'ver, but a mere collection of words and sentences, often a 
 mere jargon of sounds." One man seldom began to speak without the con- 
 tagion seizing upon others, so that numbers spoke at once, as in Paul's time. 
 It is clear to any one who reads Mr. Baxter's candid and unjDretending nar- 
 rative, that a skilful physician would at once have terminated the whole 
 delusion by a liberal exhibition of phlebotomy and anodynes. 
 
 M 
 
162 THE CREED OF CHRISTENDOM. 
 
 ignorant how contagious delusions of this nature ahvays 
 prove, and when once these incoherences became the recog- 
 nized sign of the descent of the Spirit, every one would, of 
 course, be anxious to experience, and to propagate them. 
 We have seen the same thing precisely in our own day among 
 the Irvingites. How is it, then, that the same phenomena 
 of mental weakness and excitement which in the one case 
 aroused only pity and contempt, should in the other be re- 
 garded with a mysterious reverence and awe ? 
 
 The language of Paul in reference to the " unknown 
 tongues" appears to us clearly that of an honest and a 
 puzzled man, w^iose life in an age of miracles, and whose be- 
 lief in so many grand religious marvels, has prepared him to 
 have faith in more ; — whose religious humility will not allow 
 him to prescribe in what manner the Spirit of God may, or 
 may not, operate : — but at the same time, whose strong good 
 sense makes him feel that these incomprehensible utterances 
 must be useless, and were most probably nonsensical, un- 
 worthy, and grotesque. He seems to have been anxious to 
 repress the unknown tongue, yet unwilling harshly to con- 
 demn it as a vain delusion. 
 
 That there was a vast amount of delusion and unsound 
 enthusiasm in the Christian Church at the time of the 
 Apostles, not only seems certain, but it could not possibly 
 have been otherwise, without such an interference with the 
 ordinary operations of natural causes as would have amounted 
 to an incessant miracle. Wonders, real or supposed, were of 
 daily occurrence. The subjects habitually brought before 
 the contemplation of BeUevers were of such exciting and 
 sublime magnificence that even the strongest minds cannot 
 too long dwell upon them without some degree of perilous 
 emotion. The recent events which closed the life of the 
 Founder of their Faith, and above all the glorious truth, or 
 the splendid fiction, of his resurrection and ascension, were 
 depicted with all the exaggerating grandeur of oriental 
 imagination. The expectation of an almost immediate end 
 of the ^vorld, and the reception into glory and power of the 
 living believer, — the hope which each one entertained, of 
 being " caught up " to meet his Kedeemer in the clouds — 
 was of itself sufiicient to overthrow all but the coldest tem- 
 pers; while the constant state of mental tension in which 
 they were kept by the antagonism and persecution of the 
 
LIMITS OF APOSTOLIC WISDOM AND AUTHORITY. 163 
 
 world without, could not fail to maintain a degree of exalta- 
 tation very unfavourable to sobriety either of thought or 
 feehng. AH these influences, too, were brought to bear upon 
 minds the most ignorant and unprepared, upon the poor and 
 the oppressed, upon women and children ; and to crown the 
 whole, the most prominent doctrine of their faith was that 
 of the immediate, special, and hourly influence of the Holy 
 Spirit — a doctrine of all others the most liable to utter and 
 gross misconception, and the most apt to lead to perilous 
 mental excitement. Hence they were constantly on the look- 
 out for miracles. Their creed did not supply, and indeed 
 scarcely admitted, any criterion of what was of divine origin 
 — for who could venture to pronounce or define how the 
 Spirit might or should manifest itself? — and thus ignorance 
 and folly too often become the arbiters of wisdom — and the 
 ravings of delirium were listened to as the words of inspira- 
 tion, and of God. If Jesus could have returned to earth 
 thirty years after his death, and sat in the midst of an assem- 
 bly of his followers, who were listening in hushed and won- 
 dering prostration of mind to a speaker in the " unknown 
 tongue," how would he have wept over the humiliating and 
 disappointing spectacle ! how would he have grieved to think 
 that the incoherent jargon of dehrium or hysteria should be 
 mistaken for the promptings of his Father's spirit ! 
 
 We are driven, then, to the painful, but unavoidable, con- 
 clusion, that those mysterious and unintelHgible utterances 
 which the Apostles and the early Christians generally looked 
 upon as the efiects of the Holy Spirit — the manifestation of 
 its presence — the signs of its operation — the especial indica- 
 tion and criterion of its having fallen upon any one — were 
 in fact simply the physiologically natural results of morbid 
 and perilous cerebral exaltation, induced by strong rehgious 
 excitement acting on uncultivated and susceptible minds; — 
 results which in all ages and nations have followed in similar 
 circumstances and from similar stimuli ; — and that these 
 " signs," to which Peter appealed, and to which the other 
 brethren succumbed, as proving that God intended the 
 Gospel to be preached to Gentiles as well as to Jews, 
 showed only that Gentiles were susceptible to the same 
 excitements, and manifested that susceptibiHty in the same 
 manner, as the Jews. 
 
 Shortly after the question as to the admission of the 
 
 M a 
 
1G4 THE CREED OF CHRISTENDOM. 
 
 Gentiles into the Christian Church had been decided in the 
 singular and inconclusive manner above related, a second 
 subject of dispute arose among the brethren — a corollary 
 almost of the first — the nature of which strongly confirms 
 some of the views we have just put forth. The dispute was 
 this : — whether it was necessary for those Gentiles who had 
 been baptized and admitted into the Christian Community, 
 to observe the ritual portion of the Jewish law ? — whether, 
 in fact, by becoming Christians, they had, ipso facto, become 
 Jews, and liable to Judaic observances ? The mere broach- 
 ing of such a question, and the serious schism it threatened 
 in the infant sect, show how little the idea had yet taken 
 root among the disciples, of the distinctness of the essence, 
 the superiority of the spirit, the newness of the dispensation, 
 taught by Jesus, and how commonly Christianity was re- 
 garded as simply a purification and renewal of Judaism. 
 
 It appears from the 15th chapter of the Acts, that when 
 Paul and Barnabas w^ere at Antioch, teaching and baptizing 
 the Gentiles, certain Jewish Christians (Pharisees we are told 
 in verse 5) caused considerable trouble and dissension by 
 asserting that it was necessary for the new converts "to be 
 circumcised, and to keep the law of Moses" — a doctrine 
 which Paul and Barnabas vehemently opposed. The ques- 
 tion was so important, and the dissension became so serious, 
 that a council of the Apostles and Elders was summoned at 
 Jerusalem to discuss and decide the matter. Prom the brief 
 account given by Luke of the proceedings of this conclave 
 it does not appear that there was any material difference 
 among those assembled — the speakers among them, at least 
 Peter, Paul, and James, all arguing on the same side ; but 
 from the account of the same^ transaction, given by Paul in 
 the second chapter of his Epistle to the Galatians, it is clear 
 that Peter (covertly or subsequently) took the Jewish side of 
 the discussion, " When Peter was come to Antioch, I with- 
 stood him to the face, because he was to be blamed. For 
 before that certain came from James, he did eat with the 
 Gentiles ; but when they w^ere come he withdrew and sepa- 
 rated himself, fearing them which were of the circumcision. 
 And the other Jews dissembled likewise with him ; insomuch 
 that Barnabas also was carried away with their dissimulation. 
 
 ^ The same, or a simiLar one. 
 
LIMITS OF APOSTOLIC WISDOM AND AUTHORITY. 1G5 
 
 But when I saw that they walked not uprightly, according 
 to the truth of the Gospel, I said unto Peter before them 
 all, If thou, being a Jew, livest after the manner of the 
 Gentiles, and not as do the Jews, why compellest thou the 
 Gentiles to hve as do the Jews ? " This speech, directed 
 against Peter, is so like that which Luke (Acts xv. 10, II) 
 puts into the mouth of Peter, that we cannot but suppose 
 some mistake on the historian's part.' It is certain, how- 
 ever, both from the narrative in the Acts and from the whole 
 tenour of the Pauline Epistles, that the case was argued 
 without any reference to the intentions of Christ, or to in- 
 structions left by him — but, instead, by inconclusive quota- 
 tions from prophecy, and by considerations of practical good 
 sense. The decision at which they arrived, on the sugges- 
 tion of James, seems on the whole to have been both wise 
 and sound ; viz. that the Gentile converts should not be 
 burdened with the observances of the ritual law, but should 
 abstain from everything which could be considered as coun- 
 tenancing or tolerating idolatry, from fornication, and from 
 food which, probably from its unwholesomeness, was consi- 
 dered unlawful in most oriental countries. 
 
 The discussion and decision of this Council on a question 
 of sucli vital import, both to the success aud to the character 
 of Christianity — a question involving its spiritual nature 
 and essence — show strongly and clearly the two points es- 
 sential to our present argument: first, that difference of 
 opinion on matters of vital significance existed among the 
 Apostles ; and, secondly, that these matters were discussed 
 in their Councils on argumentative grounds, without the 
 least pretension on the part of any of them to infalHbility, 
 supernatural wisdom, or exclusive or pecuHar knowledge of 
 the mind of Christ. 
 
 That very different views as to the essentials and most 
 important elements of Christianity were taken by the several 
 Apostles, or rather, perhaps, that the same elements under- 
 went very material modifications in passing through such 
 different minds — that to some its essence seemed to consist 
 in the ethical and spiritual, and to others in the speculative 
 and scholastic, ideas which it contained or suggested— can 
 
 ^ Unless, as has been suggested, Peter afterwards, overpowered by the 
 xmanimity of the Judaizers, flinched froir' his principles, and so incurred 
 Paul's indignation. 
 
16G THE CREED OF CHRISTENDOM. 
 
 scarcely be doubted by any one who will read simultaneously, 
 and for the purpose of comparison, Paul's epistle to the 
 Corinthians, the epistle of James, and the first of John and 
 Peter. But the discrepancy is of a kind that will be per- 
 ceptible on an attentive perusai, rather than one which can 
 be poiuted out by a citation of particular passages. It is a 
 discrepancy of tone and spirit. No one, we think, can fail 
 to perceive that the views of Christ's object, character, and 
 mission, entertained by Paul and by James, were radically 
 different.-^ 
 
 There is some evidence also that the Apostles not only 
 diifered from each other, but that their own respective views 
 varied materially on important subjects in the course of their 
 ministry. This will appear, more especially, in contrasting 
 the exhortations of Paul on the subject of marriage, for 
 example, contained in 1 Cor. vii., with those given in 1 
 Timothy iv. 3, v. 14. 
 
 11. Our second position was, that the Apostles held some 
 opinions which we know to be erroneous. It is essential not 
 to overstate the case. They held several opinions which we 
 believe to be erroneous, but only one wliich, as it related to 
 a matter of fact, we k?wiv to have been erroneous. They 
 unanimously and unquestioniugiy believed and taught that 
 the end of the world was at hand, and would arrive in the 
 lifetime of the then existing generation. On this point 
 there appears to have been no hesitation in their individual 
 minds, nor any difference of opinion among them. 
 
 The following are the passages of the Apostolic writings 
 which most strongly express, or most clearly imply this con- 
 viction. 
 
 Paul. (1 Thess. iv. 15, 16, 17.) " This we say unto you 
 hy the word of the Lord, that we which are alive and re- 
 main unto the coming of the Lord, shall not prevent them 
 which are asleep. Por .... the dead in Christ shall rise 
 first ; then we which are alive and remain shall be caught 
 up together with them in the clouds to meet the Lord in the 
 air : and so shall we ever be with the Lord." (1 Cor. vii. 29.) 
 
 1 Hug (p. 613) says, " In this epistle (that of James) the Apostle Paul is 
 (if I may be allowed to use so harsh an expression for a while) contradicted 
 so flatly, that it would seem to have been written in opposition to some of his 
 doctrines and positions. All that Paul has taught respecting faith, its efficacy 
 in justification, and the inutility of works, is here directly contravened." 
 
LIMITS OF APOSTOLIC WISDOM AND AUTHORITY. 107 
 
 "But this I say, brethren, the time is short : it remainetb 
 that both they that have wives, be as though they had none; 
 and they that weep, as though, they wept not ; and they that 
 rejoice, as though they rejoiced not; and they that buy, as 
 though they possessed not; and they that use this world, as 
 not abusing it ; for the fashion of this ivorld passeth 
 away." (1 Cor. xv. 51.) " Behold, I show you a mystery; 
 we shall not all sleep, but we shall all be changed." (See 
 also 1 Tim. iv. 1 ; 2 Tim. iii. 1.) 
 
 Peter. (1 Ep. i. 5, 20.) "An inheritance incorruptible, 
 and undefiled, and that fadeth not away, reserved in heaven 
 for you, who are kept by the power of God through faith 
 unto salvation, ready to he revealed in the last time." 
 
 *' Christ who verily was foreordained before the 
 
 foundation of the world, but was ma,nifest in these last times 
 for you." (iv. 7.) " The end of all things is at hand." 
 
 John. (1 Ep. ii. 18.) *' Little children, it is the last 
 time : and as ye have heard that antichrist shall come, even 
 now are there many antichrists ; whereby we know that it is 
 the last time." 
 
 James, (v. 8.) " Be ye also patient ; for the 
 
 conmig of the Lord draweth nigh." ^ 
 
 We may well conceive that this strong conviction must, 
 in men like the Apostles, have been something far beyond a 
 mere abstract or speculative opinion. In fact it modified 
 their whole tone of thought and feeling; and could not fail 
 to do so. The firm and living faith that a few years would 
 bring the second coming of their Lord in his glory, and the 
 fearful termination of all earthly things — when "the heavens 
 should be gathered together as a scroll, and the elements 
 should melt w^ith fervent heat " — and that many among them 
 should be still alive, and should witness these awful occur- 
 rences with human eyes, and should join their glorified 
 Master without passing through the portals of the grave — 
 could not exist in their minds without producing, not only a 
 profound contempt for all the pomps and distinctions of the 
 world, but an utter carelessness for the future interests of 
 mankind, for posterity, even for kindred — without indeed 
 distorting all the just proportions of those scenes of nature 
 and society, in the midst of which their lot was cast.^ If the 
 
 ^ See also Acts i. 11 ; and 2 Peter iii. 
 
 ^ See Natural History of Enthusiasm, § v., pp. 100, 101. 
 
168 THE CREED OF CHRISTENDOM. 
 
 world, and all its mighty and far- stretching interests — if the 
 earth, and its infinite and ever-varying beauties — if the sky, 
 and its myriads of midnight glories — were indeed to be 
 finally swept away in the time and the presence of the exist- 
 ing actors in the busy scene of life, where was the use of 
 forming any new ties of kindred or affection, which must 
 terminate so suddenly and so soon ? Why give a moment's 
 thought to the arts which embellish life, the amenities which 
 adorn it, the sciences which smooth it or prolong it, or the 
 knowledge which enriches and dignifies its course ? Mar- 
 riage, children, wealth, power, astronomy, philosophy, poetry 
 — what were they to men who knew that ten or twenty years 
 would transplant, not only themselves but the whole race of 
 man, to a world where all would be forgotten, and would 
 leave the earth — the scene of these things — a destroyed and 
 blackened chaos ? To this conviction may be traced St. ' 
 Paul's confused and contradictory notions on the subject of 
 marriage. And this conviction, teeming with such immense 
 and dangerous consequences, and held by all the Apostles, 
 was, we now know, wholly incorrect and unfounded. Next 
 to the resurrection of Christ, there was probably no doc- 
 trine which they held so undoubtingly, or preached so 
 dogmatically as this, with regard to which they were totally 
 in error. 
 
 If, then, they were so misinformed, or mistaken, on a 
 point having so immediate and powerful a bearing upon 
 practical life, with what confidence can we trust them on 
 matters of deeper speculation ? 
 
 III. Our third position is, that the teaching of the Apos- 
 tles in some important particulars, but still more in its 
 general tone, difi'ered from that of their Master, as the latter 
 is recorded in the synoptical gospels. 
 
 We know that the Apostles, during the lifetime of their 
 Lord, were very far indeed from imbibing his spirit, or fully 
 apprehending his doctrine. Their misconceptions of his 
 mission and his teaching are represented as constant and 
 obstinate, almost to stupidity. They are narrow, where he 
 was liberal and comprehensive ; they were exclusively Jewish, 
 where he was comparatively cosmopolitan ; they were violent, 
 where he was gentle; impetuous, where he was patient; 
 vindictive, where he was forgiving ; worldly, where he was 
 spiritual. They had their thoughts too much fixed on *' the 
 
LIMITS OF APOSTOLIC WISDOM AND AUTHORITY. 1G9 
 
 restoration of the Kingdom to Israel," and the " twelve 
 thrones " on which they hoped to sit ; they could not em- 
 brace or endure the sublime conception of a suffering 
 Teacher and Redeemer; of a victory to be achieved by 
 death ; they were dismayed and confounded by their Master's 
 crucifixion ; they had no expectation of his resurrection ; 
 and when his hour of calamity arrived, " they all forsook 
 him and fled." 
 
 Disciples who so little resembled and so imperfectly un- 
 derstood their Lord during his life, could not be adequate 
 representatives or expounders of his religion after his death, 
 unless some new and strange influence had come upon them, 
 of energy sufficient to rectify their notions and to change 
 their characters. The Supernaturalists, who comprise the 
 great body of the Christian World, conceive this influence 
 to have consisted in that Holy Spirit which, according to 
 John, was promised, and, according to Luke, was given, 
 after the Ascension of Christ, and which was to "teach 
 them all things," and to " bring all things to their remem- 
 brance" which their Lord had taught them. According to the 
 Eationalists, this metamorphosing influence must be traced 
 to the death of Jesus, which spiritualized the views of the 
 disciples by extinguishing their worldly and ambitious 
 hopes.^ The first is a possible, the second is a reasonable 
 
 ^ **The death, resurrection, and ascension of Christ, introduced a necessary 
 change into the conceptions of the Apostles ; these drove out of their Messianic 
 idea the spirit of the world, and introduced into it the spirit of God. They 
 could not retain their Jewish ideas of the reign of the Messiah, in connection 
 
 with the crucified Jesus His death struck down a principal part 
 
 of their errors, and his exaltation forced upon them a new idea of his King- 
 dom Christ returns to earth to show that Grod was with him : 
 
 and he ascends into heaven, to repel the imagination which otherwise might 
 possibly arise, nay, which actually had arisen, that even yet he might raise 
 his standard upon earth, and realise the gigantic illusion of the Jew." — 
 (Sermon on the Comforter, by the Rev. J. H. Thom, Liverpool, p. 28.) There 
 is much reason in these remarks, but they must be taken with large 
 deductions. It is astonishing how much of the " Jewish conceptions of the 
 Messiah" the Apostles did contrive to retain "in connection with a crucified 
 and ascended Christ." They still looked for his victorious earthly reappear- 
 ance in Judaea, in their own times ; an expectation to which the words 
 attributed by Luke (Acts i. 11) to the angels, bear ample testimony, and, if 
 genuine, would have gone far to justify. "Ye men of Galilee, why stand ye 
 gazing up into heaven ? This same Jesus, which is taken up from you into 
 heaven, shall so come in like manner as ye have seen him go into heaven." — 
 See also the view of Paulus on this subject, quoted by Hare (Mission of the 
 Comforter, ii. 480). 
 
170 THE CREED OF CHRISTENDOM. 
 
 and probable explanation. The death and resuiTection of 
 Christ must have worked, and evidently did work, a very- 
 great modification in many of the notions of the twelve 
 Apostles, and materially changed their point of view of their 
 Lord's mission. But there are many indications that this 
 change was not a radical one; it affected rather the acces- 
 sories than the esse^ice of their Messianic notions; for, 
 though they relinquished their expectation of an immediate^ 
 restoration of the kingdom, they still, as we have seen, re- 
 tained the conviction that that restoration would take place, 
 in their own day, in a far more signal and glorious manner. 
 Their views were spiritualized up to a certain point, hut no 
 further, even as to this great subject; and on other points 
 the change seems to have been even less complete. The 
 Epistle of James, indeed, is a worthy relic of one who had 
 drunk in the spirit, and appreciated the lessons, of the meek, 
 practical, and spiritual Jesus. But in the case of the other 
 two Apostles, Peter is Peter still, and John is the John of 
 the Gospel. Peter is the same fine, simple, affectionate, im- 
 petuous, daring, energetic, imjnilsive character, who asked 
 to walk on the water, and was over-confident in his attach- 
 ment to his Master, but who has now derived new strength 
 and dignity from his new position, and, from the sad expe- 
 rience of the past, has learned to look with a steady eye on 
 suffering and death. And John, in the Epistles, is precisely 
 the same mixture of warm affection ateness to his friends,. 
 and uncharitableness to his enemies, which the few glimpses 
 we have of him in the Gospels would lead us to specify as 
 bis characteristics. We meet with several passages in his- 
 writiugs which indicate that the gentle, forbearing, and for- 
 giving spirit of the Master had not yet thoroughly penetrated 
 and chastened the mind of the disciple — several passages 
 which Jesus, had he read them, would have rebuked as 
 before, by reminding his zealous follower that he knew not 
 what manner of spirit he was of.^ 
 
 » "Who is a liar, tut he that denieth that Jesus is the Christ? He i& 
 antichrist that denieth the Father and the Son."— (1 Ep. ii. 22.) "We are 
 of God : he that knoweth God heareth us ; he that is not of God heareth not 
 us." — (iv. 6.) " There is a sin unto death : I do not say that he shall pray 
 for it." — (v. 16.) " We know that we are of God, and the whole world lieth 
 in wickedness." — (v. 19.) "If there come any unto you, and bring not this, 
 doctrine, receive him not into your house ; neither bid him God speed." — 
 
LIMITS OF APOSTOLIC WISDOM AND AUTHORITY. 171 
 
 The case of Paul is peculiar, and must be considerefl by 
 itself. His writings are more voluminous than those of 
 the other Apostles, in a tenfold proportion, and have a dis- 
 tinctive character of their own ; yet he never saw Christ in 
 the flesh, and was a bitter persecutor of his followers till 
 suddenly converted by a vision. What, then, were his 
 means of becoming acquainted with the spirit and doctrines 
 of his Lord ? 
 
 And, first, as to the vision which converted him. We 
 have four narratives of this remarkable occurrence— one 
 given by Luke, as an historian, in the 9th chapter of the 
 Acts; a second, reported by Luke (c. xxii.), as having been 
 given by Paul himself in his speech to the people at Jeru- 
 salem ; a third, reported also by Luke (c. xxvi.), as having 
 been given by Paul to King Agrippa ; and a fourth, more 
 cursory, from Paul himself, in the first chapter of his 
 Epistle to the Galatians, which omits entirely the external 
 and marvellous part of the conversion, and speaks only of 
 an internal^ revelation. 
 
 Now there are certain discrepancies in these accounts, 
 which, while they seem to show that the occurrence — either 
 from carelessness, confusion, or defect of memory — has not 
 been related with perfect accuracy, leave us also in doubt as 
 to the precise nature of this vision; — as to whether, in fact, 
 it was mental or external. Luke, in his narrative, omits to 
 state whether the supernatural light was visible to the com- 
 panions of Paul as well as to himself. Paul, in his speech 
 to the Jews, declares that it was. Paul is said to have heard 
 a voice speaking to him, saying, " Saul, Saul, why persecutest 
 thou me ? " Luke affirms that Paul's companions heard 
 this voice as well as himself; but this assertion Paul after- 
 wards, in his speech at Jerusalem (Acts xxii. 9), expressly 
 contradicts ; and we are, therefore, left with the impression 
 that the supernatural voice fell rather upon Paul's mental, 
 than on his outward ear — was, in fact, a spiritual suggestion, 
 not an objective fact. Again, in his speech at Jerusalem, 
 Paul represents the heavenly voice as referring him to future 
 conferences, at Damascus (xxii. 10), for particulars of his 
 
 (2 Ep. ver. 10.) "I wrote unto the Church : but Diotrephes, who loveth to 
 have the pre-eminence among them, receiveth us not. Wherefore, if I come, 
 I will remember his deeds which he doeth, prating against us with malicious 
 words."— (3 Ep. ver. 9, 10.) 
 
 * "But when it pleased God .... to reveal Ms Son in me, that I might 
 preach him among the Heathen," &c. — Gal. i. 16. 
 
172 THE CREED OF CHRISTENDOM. 
 
 commission; in his address to Agrippa (xxvi. 16-18), lie 
 represents the same voice as giving him his commission on 
 the spot. 
 
 Thus, in the three versions of the story which come, 
 entirely or proximately, from the pen of Luke, we have posi- 
 tive and not reconcilable contradictions ; while in that refer- 
 ence to it, which alone we are certain proceeded from Paul, 
 the supernatural and external is wholly ignored. 
 
 But the important practical question for our consideration 
 is this: — In what manner, and from what source, did Paul 
 receive instruction in the doctrines of Christianity ? Was 
 it from the other Apostles, like an ordinary convert ? or by 
 special and private revelation from heaven ?- -Here, again, 
 we find a discrepancy between the statements of Luke and 
 Paul. In Acts ix. 19, 20 ; xxii. 10 ; and xxvi. 20, it is ex- 
 pressly stated, that immediately after his conversion, and 
 during his abode with the disciples at Damascus, he was in- 
 structed in the peculiar doctrines of his new faith, and com- 
 menced his missionary career accordingly, there and then. 
 If this statement be correct, his teaching will have the 
 authority due to that of an intelligent and able man, well 
 instructed at second hand, but no more. Paul, however, 
 entirely contradicts this supposition, and on several occasions 
 distinctly and emphatically declares that he did not receive 
 his rehgious teaching from any of the disciples or apostles 
 (whom he rather avoided than otherwise), but by direct 
 supernatural communications from the Lord Jesus Christ '. 
 
 1 For example : — "Paul, an apostle, not of mail, neither hy men, hid hy 
 Jesus Christ.^'' "But I certify unto you brethren, that the Grospel which 
 was preached of me is not after man. For I neither received it of mem, 
 neither loas I taurjht it, hut hy the revelation of Jesus Christ.^^ But when it 
 pleased God to reveal his Son in me, that I might preach him among the 
 heathen, immediately I conferred not with flesh and blood : neither went I up 
 to Jerusalem to them which were apostles before me ; but I went into Arabia, 
 and returned again into Damascus. Then after three years, I went up to 
 Jerusalem to see Peter, and abode with him fifteen days. But other of the 
 ajoostles sato I none, save James the Lord's brother." — (Galatians i. 1, 11, 
 15-19. "By revelation he made known unto me the mystery, . . . whereby 
 ye may understand my knowledge in the mystery of Christ." — (Eph. iii. 3.) 
 '* I will come to visions and revelations of the Lord. I kiiew a man in Christ 
 about fourteen years ago (whether in the body, or out of the body, I cannot 
 tell : God knovveth) ; such an one caught up to the third heaven. And I 
 knew such a man, (whether in the body, or out of the body, I cannot tell : 
 God knoweth) ; How that he was caught up into Paradise, and heard un- 
 speakable words which it is not lawful for a man to utter And lest I 
 
 should be exalted above measure through the abundance of the revelations," 
 &c.— (2 Cor. xii. 2, 4, 7.) 
 
LIMITS OF APOSTOLIC WISDOM AND AUTHORITY. 173 
 
 Of course Paul's own account of the mode in which he re- 
 ceived his knowledge of Christianity must he taken, in pre- 
 ference to that of a narrator like Luke, whose information 
 could only have heen second-hand. Paul intimates, as we 
 have seen, that he rather slighted and avoided all ordinary 
 channels of instruction, and prides himself on the originality, 
 exclusiveness, and directness, of the sources of his know- 
 ledge. The decision, therefore, of his lidehty and compe- 
 tence as a representative and teacher of the doctrines of 
 Christ, depends entirely on the conclusion we may form as 
 to the genuineness and reality of the visions and revelations 
 with which he claims to have been favoured. If these were 
 actual and positive communications from his risen and glori- 
 fied Master, the question admits of no further discussion ; 
 Paul was the greatest of the Apostles, and his writings of 
 paramount authority to any other. If, on the other hand, 
 these visions were merely the workings of a powerful and 
 fiery mind in the solitude and seclusion of an Arabian her- 
 mitage, such as an ardent and excited temperament, like that 
 of Paul, might easily come to regard as the suggestions of 
 the Divine Spirit, and, perhaps, even could with difficulty 
 distinguish from them ; then all his numerous epistles are 
 the teachings, not of Jesus, hut of Paul. 
 
 Now, not only have we no evidence — (perhaps we could 
 have none) — beyond the bare assertion of Paul himself, that 
 these alleged communications had any other than a subjec- 
 tive existence — were in fiict anything beyond a mere mental 
 process ; — but among all the passages which refer to this 
 subject, there are none which do not more readily bear this 
 interpretation than any other — with one exception^ That 
 exception is the statement of Luke, that the heavenly voice 
 at mid- day was heard by Paul's companions as well as by 
 himself — a statement, which being afterwards contradicted 
 by Paul (or by Luke for him), may at once be put aside as 
 incorrect. Paul " immediately/' as he says, upon his mira- 
 culous conversion, went into seclusion to meditate and 
 commune with his own heart upon the marvellous change 
 which had taken place in all his feelings ; — and the state 
 
 1 Perhaps the assertion of Paul that he had seen Jesus, "and last of all he 
 was seen by me also "—1 Cor. xv. 8 — may be considered as another exception. 
 . This sight of Jesus, however, probably refers to the vision at the moment of 
 his conversion. 
 
174 THE CREED OF CHRISTENDOM. 
 
 into which he more than once describes himself as having 
 fallen, is that of trance, a condition of the cerebral system — 
 assuredly not a sound one— which solitude, fasting, and re- 
 ligious excitement combined, produce in all ages and coun- 
 tries, and nowhere so readily as in the East. (Acts, xxii. 1 7; 
 2 Cor. xii. 2, 3, 24.) We cannot of course, and do not 
 wish, to take upon us to affirm that, while in this state, Paul 
 was not favoured with divine communications ; we merely 
 wish to make it clear that we have no reason to believe that 
 he was so favoured, beyond his own assertion— an assertion 
 which has been made with equal sincerity and conviction by 
 hundreds of extatics whom similar causes have brought into 
 a similar physiological condition. 
 
 There is much in the tone of the doctrinal writings of Paul 
 which we beheve and feel to be at variance, or at least little 
 in harmony, with the views and spirit of Jesus, but nothing 
 perhaps which we can prove to be so. We must therefore 
 conclude with the ungracious task of pointing out a few pas- 
 sages of which the moral tone shows that the writer was not 
 adequately imbued with the temper of Him who said, " Do 
 good to those that hate you : Pray for them which despite- 
 fully use you, and persecute you." (2 Thess. i. 6-8; ii. 11, 
 12; 1 Tim. i. 20 ; 2 Tim. iv. 14; Gal. i. 8, 9.) 
 
CHAPTER XIII. 
 
 MIRACLES. 
 
 The position which the miracles of the New Testament are 
 made to hold in the Christian economy is of the first im- 
 portance. In the popular theory they lie at the very foun- 
 dation of the system. The current and, till recently, 
 scarcely questioned opinion of Protestant Christendom 
 respecting them was this:— ''The miracles which Jesus 
 wrought constitute the proof of his divine commission, and 
 the guarantee for the truth of the doctrines which he 
 preached. His declarations and his precepts are to be 
 received with unquestioning submission and behef, because 
 he wrought miracles in proof of his authority to teach and 
 to command."^ — According to this (the prevalent) view, the 
 truth of Christ's doctrines is made to rest upon the reahty 
 of his miracles ; — we should not know the doctrines to be 
 divine, had it not been for the attesting wonders wrought by 
 the Teacher ; and whatever doctrines are preached by a 
 worker of miracles, are, ipso facto, proved to be of divine 
 authority, and must therefore be received without question. 
 
 Now this popular notion appears to us to contain much 
 confusion, and at least two fatal fallacies; for the more 
 clear disentanglement and exposure of which we shall 
 proceed to show, 
 
 I. That miracles wrought by any individual are not, nor 
 €an be, a proof of the truth of the doctrines which he 
 preaches ; — and, 
 
 II. That miracles are not the real basis of Christianity, 
 and cannot be a safe foundation on which to rest its claims, 
 
 J SeePaley, Evid. 
 
170 THE CKEED OF CHRISTENDOM. 
 
 inasmuch as miracles can never be proved by documentary 
 evidence— least of all, by such documentary evidence as we 
 possess. 
 
 Before proceeding further, we will define the precise theo- 
 logical meaning affixed to the word miracle in the popular 
 mind (as far as the popular mind can be said to attach a 
 precise meaning to any word). This is the more necessary, 
 as a writer of great eminence and abihty, in his attempt to 
 show that miracles may be not a violation, but a fulfilment, 
 of the order of nature, appears to us to have confounded a 
 miracle with a prodigy. 
 
 In common parlance — which alone we profess to use— a 
 miracle is a suspension or violation of the ordinary course 
 of nature, at the ivill of an ifidividual—mdicaimg, there- 
 fore, the possession by that individual of superhuman power. 
 A similar suspension or violation, unconnected ivith the 
 command or prediction of any individual, is simply a 
 prodigy, not a miracle. A prodigy is merely a marvellous 
 and abnormal occurrence, of the cause and meaniug of 
 which we are wholly ignorant ; a miracle is a marvellous and 
 supernatural occurrence, the cause of which lies open to us 
 in the expressed volition of an agent. Lazarus rising out 
 of a four days' grave, without any discoverable cause or 
 antecedent, would merely present to us a prodigy;— Lazarus 
 coming forth at the command of Christ was a manifest 
 miracle. 
 
 Mr. Babbage, in that ingenious chapter, m his ''Ninth 
 Bridgewater Treatise," wherein he endeavours to show that 
 miracles may be merely natural, but exceptional occurrences 
 — the excepional exirressions of a natural law expressly 
 provided for beforehand— seems to have altogether lost sight 
 of this distinction. We might not have deemed it necessary 
 to controvert this theory, had it not been recently adopted 
 and promulgated in a popular work of fiction ("Alton 
 Locke"), by a clergyman of the Church of England. But 
 when so sanctioned it becomes incumbent upon us to un- 
 mask the fallacy. " The object of the present chapter (says 
 Mr. Babbage) Ts to show that miracles are not deviations 
 from the laws assigned by the Almighty for the government 
 of matter and of mind ; but that they are the exact fulfil- 
 ment of much more extensive laws than those we suppose 
 to exist." His conception is that, in the final arrangement 
 
MIRACLES. 177 
 
 t)f all tilings, the Deity provided for the occurrence of those 
 deviations from the estabhshed course of Nature which we 
 call miracles, at certain periods, and under certain circum- 
 stances; and he contends that such an arrangement sug- 
 gests grander views of creative power and foresight than 
 either casual interpositions or a uniform and undisturbed 
 order of proceeding would do. We may concede both 
 points ; — we merely contend that such pre-arranged occur- 
 rences would not be miracles in the ordinary sense of the 
 word, on which ordinary sense all theological arguments 
 are based. If Lazarus rose from the dead in obedience to, 
 and in consequence of, "an exceptional law" impressed 
 upon matter in primeval times, (which is Mr. Babbage's 
 conception of the case, and which mai/ be a correct one), 
 then he was not raised from the dead by an action upon 
 the laws of Nature, emanating from the will of Christ; — 
 and all arguments based upon this (the prevalent) view of 
 the event fall to the ground. On Mr. Babbage's suppo- 
 sition, the connection between the command of Christ, 
 " Lazarus, come forth ! " and the resurrection of the dead 
 man, was not that of cause and effect, but merely that of 
 coincidence or simultaneity ; or, at the utmost, the command 
 was uttered, because Jesus, of his superhuman knowledge, 
 knew that the moment was arrived when one of these " ex- 
 ceptional laws " was about to operate, in fact the command 
 was n. prediction, — a supposition contradicted by the wdiole 
 language of the narrative, and unavaihng for the popular 
 argument; which is, that Christ had the power of counter- 
 manding nature — not merely that of foreseeing events hidden 
 from ordinary knowledge. 
 
 Mr. Babbage'B conception, therefore, though it may make 
 miracles more admissible by scientific minds, does so by- 
 depriving them of their theological utihty. It makes the fact 
 credible by annulling the argument drawn from it. Or, to 
 speak more correctly, it renders prodigies credible, by making 
 them cease to he miracles \ 
 
 I. We now proceed to illustrate the first of our two posi- 
 tions. A miracle, we say, cannot authenticate a doctrine. 
 
 ^ If Mr. Babhage means, as an expression at page 97 seems to intimate, 
 that the Creator had provided for these excei^tional occurrences taking place 
 ichenever Christ performed a certain operation which He gave him power to 
 perform, and told him when to perform — then we are at a loss to discover in 
 what way the conception varies from, or is superior to, the vulgar view. 
 
 N 
 
178 THE GREED OF CHRISTENDOM. 
 
 A miracle, if genuine, proves the possession by him who 
 works it, of superhuman power — but it • is a strained and 
 illogical inference to assume that it proves anything beyond 
 this. This inference, so long and so universally made— and 
 allowed — arises from a confusion in the popular mind be- 
 tween power and wisdom — between the divine nature as a 
 whole, and one of the divine attributes. It involves the 
 immense and inadmissible assumption that the possession 
 of superhuman power necessarily implies the possession of 
 superhuman knowledge also, and the will truly to impart 
 that knowledge ; that the power to heal diseases, or to still 
 the waves, implies and includes a knowledge of the mind of 
 God. The thoughts of ordinary men, undistinguishing and 
 crude, jump rapidly to a conclusion in such matters ; and 
 on recognizing (or conceiving that they recognize) super- 
 natural power in any individual, at once and without ratioci- 
 nation endow him with all other divine attributes, and bow 
 before him in trembling and supine prostration. 
 
 Yet at other times, and in most countries, men have, by 
 happy inconsistency, admitted the falseness of this logic. 
 "Wherever there is found a belief in one evil angel, or in 
 many (and such is the current nominal belief of Christen- 
 dom), the distinction between the attributes of Deity is 
 made, and power is divorced from wisdom, truth, and good- 
 ness, and in a great degree from knowledge also. If there 
 be such existences as Satan, Arimanes, or inferior agencies 
 of evil — (and who can say that there are not ? What ortho- 
 dox Christian but believes there are?) — tben superhuman 
 power exists apart from divine wisdom, and in antagonism 
 to it; — then the power to work miracles involves no know- 
 ledge of divine truth, or at least no mission to teach it — nay, 
 may imply the very opposite, and can therefore authenticate 
 no doctrine enunciated by the worker. 
 
 The common feeling no doubt is, that as all supernatural 
 power is the special gift of God, He would not have bestowed 
 it upon any but the good, nor for any purpose but that of 
 conferring blessings and spreading truth. But this inference 
 is wholly at variance with the analogies of the divine economy. 
 All power is the direct gift of God — the power of intellect, 
 the power of rank, the power of wealth, as well as the power 
 of working physical marvels, — yet are these given to the 
 good alone, or chiefly ? — are these bestowed on those who 
 
MIRACLES. 179 
 
 employ them exclusively, or mainly, in the service of mercy 
 and truth? Would not the reverse of the statement he 
 nearer to the fact ? 
 
 So strongly has the force of our position heen felt by 
 reasoners — so plain does it appear that it is the doctrine- 
 which must authenticate the miracle, not the miracle which 
 can authenticate the doctrine, — that few could he found at 
 the present day who would not admit that no miracle worked 
 by a preacher would induce them to receive from him a doc- 
 trine manifestly dishonouring to God. Many of our modern 
 divines, — Dr. Arnold, Archdeacon Hare, Mr. Locke, Mr. 
 Trench, and others, — express this feeling in the strongest 
 language. Dr. Arnold says (" Christian Course and Cha- 
 racter," notes pp. 462-3) : 
 
 " Faith, without reason, is not properly faith, hut mere 
 power-worship ; and power- worship may be devil-worship ; 
 for it is reason which entertains the idea of God — an idea 
 essentially made up of truth and goodness, no less than of 
 power. A sign of power, exhibited to the senses, might, 
 through them, dispose the whole man to acknowledge it as 
 divine ; yet power in itself is not divine, it may be devilish. 
 
 How can we distinguish God's voice from the 
 
 voice of evil? We distinguish it (and can distin- 
 guish it no otherwise), by comparing it with that idea of 
 God Avhich reason intuitively enjoys, the gift of reason being 
 God's original revelation of himself to man. Now, if the 
 Toice which comes to us from the unseen world agree not 
 with this idea, ice have no choice hut to pronounce it not 
 to he God's voice ; for no signs of power, in confirmation 
 of it, can alone 'prove it to he from God." 
 
 Locke says : — ** I do not deny in the least that God can 
 do, or hath done, miracles for the confirmation of truth ; I 
 only say that we cannot think He should do them to enforce 
 doctrines or notions of himself, or any worship of Him, not 
 conformable to reason, or that we can receive such as truth 
 for the miracles sake; and even in those books which 
 have the greatest proof of revelation from God, and the 
 attestation of miracles to confirm their being so, the mi- 
 racles are to be judged by the doctrine, and not the doctrine 
 by the miracles." ^ 
 
 ^ See also Lord King's Life of Locke, i. 231 et seq. Trencli's Hulsean 
 Lectures for 1845, pp. 8, 9.— *' After all is done, men will feel in the deepest 
 
 N % 
 
180 THE CREED OF CHRISTENDOM. 
 
 Further. The idea that a miracle can authenticate a doc- 
 trine, or is needed to do so, involves an additional fallacy. 
 It implies that our understanding is competent to decide 
 whether ari act he divine, hut not whether a doctrine he 
 divine ; — that the power displayed in a prodigy may he suf- 
 ficient to justify us in confidently assuming it to he from 
 God, — hut that the heauty, the suhlimity, the innate light 
 of a doctrine or a precept cannot he sufficient to warrant us 
 in pronouncing it to he from Him ; — that God can impress 
 his stamp unmistakahly on his physical, hut not on his mo- 
 ral emanations; — that His handwriting is legible on the sea, 
 or the sky, on the flower, or on the insect, hut not on the 
 soul and intellect of man. It involves the coarse and 
 monstrous conception that God's presence in His chosen 
 temple can only he made manifest hy a noisy appeal to those 
 external senses which perish with the flesh ; — that He per- 
 vades the earthquake and the whirlwind, hut not ' the still 
 small voice;' — that, in fine, the eye or the ear is a truer and 
 quicker percipient of Deity than the Spirit which came forth 
 from Him; — tJiat God is more cognizable hy the senses 
 than hy the soul, — hy the material philosopher than hy the 
 pure-hearted hut unlearned worshipper. 
 
 The power to work miracles, then, does not, in the eye of 
 reason, imply any other supernatural endowment. Neither 
 does it in the eye of Scripture. We have many indications, 
 in both the Old and the New Testament, that neither mira- 
 cles, nor the cognate gift of prophecy, were considered to 
 qualify a Teacher, or to authenticate his teaching. The 
 possession of miraculous and prophetic powder is distinctly 
 recognized in individuals who not only were not divinely 
 authorized agents or teachers, hut were enemies of God and 
 of his people. Passing over the remarkable but inconclusive 
 narratives relative to the Egyptian magicians, and to Balaam, 
 — we find in Deut. xiii. 1-5, an express warning to thechil- 
 
 centre of tlaeir being, that it is tlie moral wliicli must jirove the historic, not 
 the liidovic which can ever prore the moral ; that evidences drawn from with- 
 out may be accepted as the welcome buttresses, but that we can know no other 
 foimdaiions, of our Faith, than those which itself sujjplies. Revelation, like 
 the sun, must be seen by its own light." Hare's ]\lission of the Comforter, 
 ii. p. 553. — " The notion that miracles have an augmentative and demonstra- 
 tive efficacy, and that the faith of Christians is to be grounded upon them, 
 belongs to a much later age, and is in fact the theological parallel to the 
 materialist hypothesis, that all our knowledge is derived from the senses."^ 
 
MIRACLES. 181 
 
 clren of Israel against "being led astray by those who shall 
 employ real miraculous or prophetic gifts to entice them 
 away from the worship of Jehovah, — a warning couched in 
 language which distinctly expresses that the miracle must he 
 judged of by the doctrine of the thaumaturgist, — not be con- 
 sidered to authenticate it. "If there arise among you a 
 prophet, or a dreamer of dreams, and giveth thee a sign or a 
 wonder, and the sign or the wonder come to j^ciss, whereof 
 he spake unto thee, saying. Let us go after other Gods, 
 which thou hast not known, and let us serve them ; thou 
 shalt not hearken to the w^ords of that prophet, or that 
 dreamer of dreams: and that prophet, or that dreamer of 
 dreams, shall he put to deaths 
 
 The same proposition is affirmed w^ith almost equal dis- 
 tinctness in Matth. vii. 22, 23. " Many will say to me in 
 that day. Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name ? 
 and in thy name have cast out devils ? and in thy name 
 done many wonderful works ? And then will I profess unto 
 them, I never knew you : depart from me, ye that work 
 iniquity." Again, Matth. xxiv. 24, " For there shall arise 
 false Christs, and false prophets, and shall shew great signs 
 and wonders ; insomuch that, if it were possible, they shall 
 deceive the very elect." In Matth. xii. 27, and Mark ix. 38, 
 Christ clearly admits the power to work miracles in both his 
 enemies and his ignorers. 
 
 If anything further were wanted to show the view^ taken 
 by Jesus of this matter, we should find it in his steady re- 
 fusal to authenticate his mission by a miracle, when, in strict 
 conformity to Jew^ish ideas (and to divine prescription, if the 
 Mosaic books may be at all trusted), the rulers of the 
 synagogue, in the plain performance of their official duty, 
 called upon him to work one. (See Matth. xii. 39 ; xvi. 4, 
 and the parallel passages, as Mark viii. 11.) He reproaches 
 the deputation for their demands — grieves over it, according 
 to Mark, — and says positively, "There shall no sign be 
 given to this generation." In another conversation with the 
 Pharisees, the same idea is still more clearly enunciated. 
 He there (John vi. 30-33) distinctly tells them that though 
 Moses may have been accredited by miracles, he will be 
 judged of by his doctrine only. " They said therefore unto 
 him. What sign shew^est thou then, that we may see, and 
 believe thee? what dost thou w^ork ? Our father s did ea 
 
182 THE CREED OF CHRISTENDOM. 
 
 manna in the desert ; as it is written, He gave them bread 
 from heaven to eat. Then Jesus said unto them, Verily, 
 verily, I say unto you, Moses gave you not that bread from 
 heaven ; but my Father giveth you the true bread from 
 
 heaven I am the bread of hfe," &c. The low 
 
 estimation in which miracles were held by the Apostle Paul 
 (2 Cor. xii. 28), clearly shows that he did not regard them 
 as the credentials of his mission ; and several passages in 
 the Acts seem to intimate that, by the early Christians, the 
 possession of the miraculous or prophetic gift was not con- 
 sidered inconsistent both with false doctrine and enmity to 
 Christ's Church. (Acts viii. 9-11; xiii. 6-10; xvi. 16; 
 2 Cor. xi. 13.) Finally, we have the conclusive fact that 
 the power to work miracles had been expressly conferred 
 upon all the Apostles, vrho " forsook Jesus and fled" in his 
 day of trial, — upon Judas, wdio betrayed him, — upon Peter, 
 who thrice denied him. 
 
 It is said, however, by some, that miraculous power is 
 bestowed upon Prophets, as iXi^M credentials ; not as proving 
 their doctrines, but as proving them to be sent from God. 
 But, is it not clear, that these credentials, if they mean any- 
 thing at all, must mean that men are to listen to the Pro- 
 phets who present them, as God's mouthpieces ? What is 
 the object of proving them to be sent from God, except for 
 the sake of the inference that therefore what they teach must 
 be God's truth ? 
 
 II. Having now proved our first position, — that miracles 
 cannot authenticate either the doctrines or the divine com- 
 mission of the thaumaturgist — we proceed to the establish- 
 ment of our second thesis, viz., — that miracles cannot be 
 the basis of Christianity, or of any historical or transmitted 
 Teligion. 
 
 We fully admit at the outset of our argument that a 
 miracle, as well as any other occurrence, is capable of proof 
 by testimony — provided only the testimony be adequate in 
 kind and in quantity. The testimony must be of the same 
 kind as that on which we should accept any of the more 
 rare aud marvellous among natural phenomena, and must 
 be clear, direct, and ample, in proportion to the marvellous- 
 ness, anomalousness, and rarity of the occurrence. This, it 
 appears to us, is all that philosophy authorizes us to demand 
 for the authentication of \\\q fact-part of a miracle. 
 
MIRACLES. 183 
 
 Miracles, we say, are not, and never can be, a sure founda- 
 tion for a revealed religion— an historic creed. A true 
 Revelation, addressed to all mankind, and destined for all 
 ages, must be attested by evidence adequate and accessible 
 to all men and to all ages. It must carry with it its own 
 permanent and unfading credentials. Now, miracles are evi- 
 dence only to those who see them, or can sift the testimony 
 which affirms them. Occurrences so anomalous and rare, 
 which violate the known and regular course of nature, can, 
 at the utmost, only be admitted on the evidence of our own 
 senses, or on the carefully- sifted testimony of eye-witnesses. 
 Therefore, a revelation, whose credentials are miracles^ can 
 he a revelation only to the age in which it appears. The 
 superhuman powers of its Preacher can authenticate it only 
 to those who ^'itness the exertion of them, and — more faintly 
 and feebly— to those who have received and scrutinized 
 their direct testimony : — the superhuman excellence of its 
 doctrines may authenticate it through all time, and must 
 constitute, therefore, its only adequate and abiding proof. 
 
 Now, the essence of the whole question lies in this : — that 
 we have not the Apostles and Evangelists to cross-examine ; 
 we do not know that they ever were cross-examined ; we do 
 not know what was the nature of the evidence or testimony 
 which satisfied their minds ; and we have ample indications 
 that they, like most imperfectly-educated men, were satisfied 
 with a nature and amount of proof, which would never 
 satisfy us. 
 
 We have stated that we are far from denying the adequacy 
 of positive and direct testimony to prove a miracle, if its 
 amount and quality be suitable. What would be the amount 
 and quality required? It will be allowed on all hands that 
 the testimony of one witness, however competent and honest, 
 would not suffice. We must have the concurring testimony 
 of several competent and independent witnesses. Mr. 
 Babbage has made a calculation (which many will think 
 puerile, but which assuredly does not overstate the case), 
 that, to prove some of the chief miracles, such as the raising 
 of the dead, the concurring testimony of six itidependent, 
 compete?it, veracious witnesses will suffice, hut not less. 
 
 Now, let us ask— have we, for any of the gospel miracles, 
 evidence— we do not say as strong as this, but— approaching 
 to it? in the slightest degree similar to it? Have we the 
 
1B4 THE CREED OF CHRISTENDOM. 
 
 concurring testimony of six independent and competent 
 ^vitnesses? or of five? or of three? or of two? Do we 
 hjiow that we have the testimony even of one witness? Do 
 we know anything at all about the competency, or the inde- 
 pendence of any of the witnesses ? Have we any reason to 
 believe that the Evangelists sifted the testimony they 
 received ? Have we, in fine, the distinct statement of any 
 one individual, that he saw or wrought such or such a 
 specific miracle ? No ; but what we have instead is this : — 
 We have four documents, written ive have to guess when — 
 proceeding from we know not whom — transmitted to us we 
 know not how purely ; — three of them evidently compositions 
 from oral testimony or tradition, and clearly not from incle- 
 jiendent testimony ; and all four, not concurring,, but often 
 singularly discrepant ;— which documents relate that such 
 miracles were wrought by a certain individual in a certain 
 place and time. It is oJjvious that we have not here even 
 all ajjproach to personal testimony \ We do not know 
 with the least certainty who any of these four narrators 
 were; — not one of them says, "I witnessed this miracle;" — 
 we do not, therefore, know that they were witnesses at all; — 
 and we do know that their testimony was neither inclei^encl- 
 ent nor concurring. At the best, therefore, we have only 
 documents of unknown date and uncertain authorship, stat- 
 ing, with many discrepancies and contradictions, that cer- 
 tain miraculous occurrences were witnessed hy others, at 
 least thirty years before the record was composed ; — evidence 
 which, in an honest court of justice, would not sufiice to 
 affect person or property to the slightest possible extent; — 
 evidence, nevertheless, on which we are peremptorily sum- 
 moned to accept the most astounding dogmas, and to bow 
 to the heaviest yoke. 
 
 Since, then, for the miracles recorded in the synoptical 
 gospels, we have not even that degree of evidence which 
 would be required to establish any remarkable or question- 
 able occurrence ; and since the only supeiior authority for 
 those of the fourth Gospel, rests on the supposition of its 
 being the production of the Apostle John,— a supposition 
 doubtful and unproven, to say no more ;— we might be dis.- 
 
 * We assume here, not that the fourth Gospel was not WTitten by the 
 Apostle John, but simply that ire do not Tciwiv that it war. 
 
MIRACLES. 185- 
 
 pensed from entering into any more close examination of 
 the narratives themselves— as in a court of justice the jury 
 frequently decide against the plaintiff on his own showing — 
 pronounce that the appellant has no case, without requiring 
 to hear the ohjections of the respondent. But it is import- 
 ant to call attention to a few considerations which should 
 long since have warned divines of the perilous position they 
 had taken up, when they resolved to hase Christianity upon 
 the miraculous narratives of the Gospel. 
 
 1. The whole tenour of the Old Testament, and many 
 passages in the New, plainly indicate either that the power 
 of working miracles was so common in those days as to 
 argue nothing very remarkable in its possessor ; or that a 
 belief in miracles was so general and so easily yielded, as to 
 render the testimony of such facile believers inadequate to 
 prove them. On the first supposition, they will not warrant 
 the inference drawn from them; — on the second, they are 
 themselves questionable. 
 
 Now, it is certain that the miracles recorded in the New- 
 Testament do not appear to have produced on the beholders, 
 or the hearers, the same effect as they would do at the pre- 
 sent day — nor to have been regarded in the same light even 
 by the workers of them. When Jesus is told by his disciples 
 (Mark ix. 38) that they had found some unauthorized per- 
 son casting out devils in his name, he expresses no amaze- 
 ment — intimates no clouht as to the genuineness of the 
 miracle— hut rebukes his disciples for interfering with the 
 thaumaturgist, saying, "Forbid him not; for there is no 
 man which shall do a miracle in my name that can lightly 
 speak evil of me." The casting out of devils — i. e., the heal- 
 ing of the more furious epileptic and maniacal disorders — 
 was the most frequent, and among the most striking and the 
 oftenest appealed to, of the miracles of Jesus, yet in the 
 conversation already referred to betw^een himself and the 
 Pharisees (Matth. xii, 24-27), he speaks of it as one that 
 was constantly and habitually performed by their own 
 exorcists ; and, so far from insinuating any difference be- 
 tween the two cases, expressly j)uts them on a level '. Paul, 
 though himself gifted with miraculous power, and claiming 
 (Kom. XV. 19; 2 Cor. xii. 11) to be equally so gifted with 
 
 ^ Matth. vii. 22 ; xxiv. 24 ; Gal. iii. 5, and many other passages, show 
 how common miracles then were, or were esteemed. 
 
186 THE CREED OF CHRISTENDOM. 
 
 any of the other Apostles (2 Cor. xi. 5) , yet places this 
 power very low in the rank of spiritual endowments 
 (1 Cor. xii. 8, 9, 10, 28 ^) — distinguishing in both passages 
 miracles or thaumaturgic signs from gifts of healing; aod 
 speaks of them in a somewhat slighting tone, which is wholly 
 irreconcilahle with the supposition that the miracles of which 
 he speaks were real and indisputable ones after the modern 
 signification of the word — /. e., unquestionable deviations 
 from the observed order of nature, at the command of 
 man. 
 
 2. Though the miracles of Christ are frequently referred 
 to in the Gospels as his credentials, as proofs of his divine 
 mission — yet there are not wanting many significant indica- 
 tions that they were wrought rather as a consequence and 
 reward of belief than as means to produce it. For example, 
 we have the repeated refusal of Jesus to satisfy the Jewish 
 chiefs by a display of his miraculous gifts, though we can 
 perceive nothing unreasonable or unsuitable to pure Judaism 
 in the demand (John vi. 30). We have the remarkable fact 
 that Jesus here not only declines to work a new miracle in 
 attestation of his mission, but does not even refer his ques- 
 tioners to his former miracles. We have the reproach of 
 Jesus to the people of Gahlee — "Except ye see signs and 
 wonders, ye will not beheve" (John iv. 48) ; clearly intimat- 
 ing that these were not the criterions by which he intended 
 his mission to be judged. Oq several occasions before 
 working a miracle, he ascertains the faith of the applicant, 
 and speaks of the miracle as if it were to be the reward, not 
 the provocative, of their faith. (Matthew ix. 27, 29 ; ix. 2 ; 
 viii. 10; ix. 22; xv. 28; Mark i. 40.) And, finally, the 
 Evangelists twice assign the want of faith of the people*— the 
 very reason, according to the orthodox view, why miracles 
 should be worked before them — as the reason why Jesus 
 would not work them. " And he did not many mighty works 
 there because of their tmbelief" (Matt. xiii. 58.) " And 
 he could there do no mighty work, save that he laid his 
 
 ^ *'For to one is given by the Spirit the word of wisdom ; to another the 
 word of knowledge ; to another faith ; to another the gifts of healing ; to 
 another the worJcing of miracles ; to another prophecy," &c. "And God 
 hath set some in the Church, first apostles, secondarily prophets, thirdly 
 teachers ; after that miracles, then gifts of healings, helps, governments, 
 diversities of tongues." 
 
MIRACLES. 187 
 
 hands upon a few sick folk, and healed them. And he mar- 
 veiled because of their imhelief." (Mark vi. 5, 6.) 
 
 3. Neither did his miracles produce general conviction-— 
 nor the conclusion which would have followed from convic- 
 tion — in those who witnessed them, whether friends, enemies, 
 or indifferent spectators. Had they appeared to the wit- 
 nesses in that age in the same form which they assume in the 
 documents in which they are handed down to us, conviction 
 must have heen inevitable. Yet this was far from being the 
 case. We read indeed, frequently that the people "mar- 
 yelled" and "glorified God"— and that "the fame of his 
 wonderful works went throughout all the land ;" — but we also 
 iind several passages which point to a very opposite conclu- 
 sion. " Then began he to upbraid the cities wherein most of 
 his mighty works were done, because they repented not: 
 Woe unto thee, Chorazin ! woe unto thee, Bethsaida ! for if 
 the mighty works, which were done in you, had been done in 
 Tyre and Sidon, they would have repented long ago in sack- 
 oloth and ashes." (Matt xi. 20, 21.) "But though he 
 had done so many miracles before them (the people), yet they 
 believed not on him." (John xii. 37.) Even his friends 
 and disciples were not always convinced. The miracle of the 
 loaves, even, seems to have produced little effect on their 
 minds, for we are told (as a reason for their surprise at a sub- 
 sequent marvel), " For they considered not the miracle of the 
 loaves; for their hearts were hardened" (Mark vi. 52), an 
 expression which a comparison with xvi. 14, shows to have 
 signified increduHty. A still more significant statement 
 is found in John vii. 5. "For neither did his brethren 
 believe in him." A reference to John xi. 45, 46, shows that 
 even so signal and unquestionable a miracle as is the raising 
 of Lazarus, iji the form in which it has come down to us, 
 did not produce universal conviction. " Then many of the 
 Jews which came to Mary, and had seen the things which 
 Jesus did, believed on him. But some of them went then- 
 way to the Pharisees, and told them what things Jesus had 
 done." 
 
 It is worthy of especial note, that to the last, in defiance of 
 the numerous, astonishing, and public miracles recorded in 
 the Gospels — of many of which, as the raising of Lazarus, 
 the cure of the blind man (John ix.), the Pharisees and chief 
 men among the Jews are said to have been witnesses — the 
 
188 THE CREED OF CHRISTENDOM. 
 
 incredulity of these Eulers and of the Sanhedrim remained 
 unshaken. It is evident, too, that it was genuine and sincere 
 disbehef — not merely a refusal to accept the inference of the 
 divine mission of Christ, on the ground of his miraculous 
 power, but a disbelief in the miraculous poAver itself — or at 
 least of its being miraculous in our full modern acceptation 
 of the term ; they were exaHjyerated, but no way intimi- 
 dated, by the wonders which he wrought before them. Had 
 they really supposed that he could cure the blind, heal the 
 lame, command spirits, still the waves, raise the dead (in a 
 diflerent manner, and with a different degree or kind of 
 power from their own thaumaturgists) — still more, had they 
 seen any one of these awful evidences of supernatural power 
 — then, however hostile selfishness and ambition might have 
 made them to his pretensions, they w^ould have dreaded to 
 provoke his enmity, or to practise against his safety, satisfied, 
 as they must have been, that he could not only foresee and 
 baffle their machinations, but could inflict a fearful retalia- 
 tion. But we see nothing of all this; we see just the 
 reverse; — they feared, not him, but the people who were 
 friendly to him ; — they more than once openly attacked him, 
 and tempted him, even by taunts, to a display of his super- 
 human gifts ;--in a word their whole conduct sliows that his 
 miracles, wliatever they were, had not gone any way towards 
 producing in theii^ minds a conviction {or even a fear) of 
 his supernatural power. 
 
 4. The minuter objections to the individual miraculous 
 narratives in the Gospel, we need not dwell on. The discre- 
 pancies in the accounts were given by more than one Evan- 
 gelist; — the entirely distinct set of miracles recorded in the 
 fourth^ from those in the first three Gospels; the remarkable 
 circumstance that, of the three cases of the dead being re- 
 stored to life, one is mentioned by John only, one by Luke 
 only, and the third case, mentioned by three of the Evangelists, 
 w'-as no resurrection from the dead at all (for all accounts 
 concur in representing Jesus to have said expressly, " The 
 damsel is not dead, but sleepeth ;") — all these topics have 
 been dwelt upon in detail by other critics, and need not be 
 considered here. 
 
 The conclusion suggested by all these combined considera- 
 tions seems to be this : — that the miracles spoken of in the 
 New Testament had not the effect of real miracles upon the 
 
MIRACLES. 189 
 
 "bystanders ; — that tliey were probably, either remarkable 
 occurrences elevated into supernatural ones by the general 
 supernaturalistic tendencies of the age, or examples of won- 
 derful healing powers, the original accounts of which have 
 become strangely intermingled and overlaid with fiction in 
 the process of transmission. The Gospels (we must bear 
 constantly in mind) are not contemporaneous annals ; they 
 merely narrate the occurrence of certain events, which, at 
 the time lohen the tradition was congealed into a record y 
 had assumed such and such a form and consistency in the 
 public mind. They show us not the facts that occurred in 
 the year a.d. 30, hut the form those facts had assumed in 
 popular helief in the year a.d. 70. 
 
 There is yet another objection to the plan of propounding 
 miracles as the basis for a Kevelation, which is all but insu- 
 perable. The assertion of a miracle having been performed, 
 is not a simple statement ; it involves three elements — a fact 
 and two inferences. It predicates, first, that such an oc- 
 currence took place; second, that it was brought about by 
 the act and will of the individual to whom it is attributed; 
 third, that it implied supernatural power in the agent — /. e. 
 that it could not have been produced by mere human means. 
 Now, the fact may have been accurately observed, and yet 
 one or both of the inferences may be unwarranted. Or, 
 either inference may be rendered unsound by the slightest 
 omission or deviation from accuracy in the observation or 
 statement of the fact^ Nay, any new discovery in science — • 
 any advance in physiological knowledge— may show that the 
 inference, which has always hitherto appeared quite irrefra- 
 gable, was, in fact, wholly unwarranted and incorrect. In 
 the process of time, and the triumphant career of scientific 
 inquiry, any miracle may be— as so many thousand prodigies 
 liave been —reduced to a natural occurrence. No miracle 
 ■can, therefore, be a safe foundation for so vast and weighty 
 ^ superstructure as a Eevelation. A miracle is an argument 
 in some measure ah ignorantid — based upon ignorance, and, 
 therefore, defeasible by advancing knowledge. A miraculous 
 revelation— a creed, whose foundation is miracle— must 
 always be at the mercy of Science, and must always dread it. 
 
 1 Bentham observes that the report of a man going up with a balloon woull 
 tecome a miracle, if a spectator told all \h.t rest of the story truly, but omitted 
 to tell of the balloon. 
 
190 THE CREED OF CHRISTENDOM. 
 
 It should, then, he clearly understood that, when we de- 
 cline to receive a miracle as evidence of a divine commission, 
 we are not refusing simple testimony — we are demurring to 
 a i^rofosition composed of 07ie ohservation and two infe- 
 r^;?(7^*— a proposition, each of the three constituents of which 
 contains the elements of possible inaccuracy ; — we are demur- 
 ring, in fact, to a process of reasoning, tvhich assumes as its 
 basis that the limits ofhumaii power and knowledge are 
 indisjmtably known to us^. 
 
 1 " The miracle is of a most fluctuating character. The miracle-worker of 
 to-day^ is a matter-of-fact juggler to-morrow. Science each year adds new- 
 wonders to our store. The master of a locomotive steam-engine would have 
 been thought greater than Jupiter Tonans, or the Elohim thirty centuries. 
 ago."— Parker, p. 202. 
 
CHAPTER XIV. 
 
 RESURRECTION OF JESUS. 
 
 We are now arrived at the most vitally important, and the 
 most intensely interesting, portion of the Christian records — 
 the resurrection of Jesus. This is the great fact to which 
 the affections of Christians turn with the most cherished 
 eagerness, the grand foundation on which their hopes depend^ 
 on which their faith is fixed. If, in cod sequence of our 
 inquiries, the ordinary doctrine of Scriptural Inspiration be 
 rehnquished, we have reason to rejoice that Religion is re- 
 lieved from a burden often too great for it to bear. If the 
 complete verbal accuracy of the Gospel narratives is disproved^ 
 orthodoxy and not Christianity is a sufferer by the change, 
 since it is only the more minute and embarrassing tenets of 
 our creed that'find their foundation swept away.. If investi- 
 gation shows the miracles of the Bible to be untenable, or at 
 least unpbligatory upon our belief, theologians are comforted 
 by feeliug that they have one weak and vulnerable outpost the 
 less to defend. But if the resurrection of our Lord should 
 prove, on closer scrutiny, to rest on no adequate evidence, 
 and a regard to mental integrity should compel us to ex- 
 punge it from our creed, the generality of Christians will feel 
 that the whole basis of their faith and hope is gone, and 
 their Cliristianity w^ill vanish with the foundation on which, 
 perhaps half unconsciously, they rested it. Whether this 
 ought to be so is a point for future consideration. All that 
 we have now to do is to remember that truth must be inves- 
 tigated without any side-glance to the consequences which 
 that investigation may have upon our hopes. Our faith is 
 
192 THE CREED OF CHRISTENDOM. 
 
 sure to fail us in the hour of trial if we have based it on fal- 
 lacious grounds, and maintained it by wilfully closing our 
 eyes to the flaws in its foundations. 
 
 The belief in the resurrection of our Lord, when based 
 upon reflection at all, and not a mere mental habit, will be 
 found to rest on two grounds -.—first, the direct testimony 
 of the Scripture narratives ; and secondly, the evidence de- 
 rivable from the subsequent conduct of the Apostles. 
 
 I. The narratives of the resurrection contained in the 
 four Gospels present many remarkable discrepancies. But 
 discrepancies in the accounts of an event given by different 
 narrators, whether themselves witnesses, or merely historians, 
 by no means necessarily impugn the reality of the event 
 narrated, but simply those accessaries of the event to which 
 the discrepancies relate. Thus, when one evangelist tells 
 us that the two malefactors, who were crucified along with 
 Jesus, reviled him, and another evangelist relates that only 
 one of them reviled him, and was rebuked by the other for 
 so doing, though the contradiction is direct and positive, no 
 one feels that the least doubt is thereby thrown upon the 
 fact of two malefactors liaviug been crucified with Jesus, 
 nor of some reviling having passed on the occasion. There- 
 fore the variations in the narratives of the resurrection given 
 by the four evangelists do not, of themselves, impugn the 
 fact of the resurrection, nor disqualify the evangelists from 
 being received as witnesses. It is characteristic of the 
 honest testimony of eye-witnesses to be discrepant in col- 
 lateral minutiae. But, on a closer examination of these 
 accounts, several peculiarities present themselves for more 
 detailed consideration. 
 
 1. We have already seen reason for concluding that, of 
 the four Gospels, three at least were certainly not the pro- 
 duction of eye-witnesses, but were compilations from oral 
 or documentary narratives current among the Christian 
 community at the time of their composition, and derived 
 doubtless for the most part from very high authority. With 
 regard to the fourth Gospel the opinions of the best critics 
 are so much divided, that all we can pronounce upon the 
 subject with any certainty is, that if it were the production 
 of the Apostle John, it was written at a time when, either 
 from defect of memory, redundancy of imagination, or 
 
RESURRECTION OF JESUS. 193 
 
 laxity in his notions of an historian's duty, he allowed him- 
 self to take strange liberties with fact*. All, therefore, 
 that the Gospels now present to us is the narrative of the 
 Eesurrection, not as it actually occurred, but in the form 
 it had assumed in the minds of the disciples thirty years or 
 more after the death of Jesus. 
 
 Now, the discrepancies which Ave notice in the various 
 accounts are not greater than might have been expected in 
 historians recording an event, or rather traditions of an 
 event, which occurred from thirty to sixty years before they 
 wrote. These records, therefore, discrepant as they are, are, 
 we think, quite sufficient to prove that something of the 
 hind occurred, i. e. that some occurrence took place which 
 gave rise to the belief and the traditions ; — but no more. 
 The agreement of the several accounts show that some- 
 thing of the kind occurred : — their discrepancies show that 
 this occurrence was not exactly such as it is related to have 
 been. 
 
 Something of the kind occurred which formed the 
 groundwork for the belief and the narrative. What, then, 
 was this something — this basis — this nucleus of fact ? The 
 Gospel of Mark contains this nucleus, and this alone ^. It 
 contains nothing but what all the other accounts contain, 
 and nothing that is not simple, credible, and natural, but 
 it contains enough to have formed a foundation for the 
 whole subsequent superstructure. Mark informs us that 
 when the women went early to the Sepulchre, they found it 
 open, the body of Jesus gone, and some one in white gar- 
 ments who assured them that he was risen. This all the 
 four narratives agree in; — and they agree in nothing 
 else. The disappearance of the body, then, was certain ; — 
 the information that Jesus was risen came from the women 
 alone, who believed it because tliey were told it, and who 
 were also the first to affirm that they had seen their Lord. 
 In the excited state of mind in which all the disciples must 
 have been at this time, were not these three unquestioned 
 circumstances — that the body was gone; — that a figure 
 dressed in white told the women that their Lord was risen ; 
 
 1 See chap. x. 
 
 - We must bear in mind that the genuine Gospel of Mark ends with the 8th 
 verse of chapter xvi. ; and that there is good reason to believe that Mark's 
 Gospel was the original one, or at least the earliest. 
 
 O 
 
IQg THE €fi.EED OF CHRISTENDOM. 
 
 — and that the same women saw so?}ie one tvhom they be- 
 lieved to he him; — amply sufficient to make a behef in his 
 resurrection spread with the force and rapidity of a con- 
 tagion ? 
 
 2. It is clear that to prove such a miracle as the re- 
 appearance in life of a man who had been publicly slain, 
 the direct and concurrent testimony of eye-witnesses would 
 be necessary ; — that two or more should state that they saw 
 him at such a time and place, and knew him ; — and that 
 this clear testimony should be recorded and handed down 
 to us in an authentic document. This degree of evidence 
 we inight have had : —this we have not. We have epistles 
 from Peter, James, John, and Jude— all of whom are said 
 by the evangelists to have seen Jesus after he rose from the 
 dead, in none of which epistles is the fact of the resurrection 
 even stated, much less that Jesus was seen by the writer 
 after his resurrection. This point deserves weighty conside- 
 ration. We have ample evidence that the belief in Christ's 
 resurrection^ was very early and very general among the 
 disciples, but we have not the direct testimony of any one 
 of the twelve, nor of any eye-witness at all, that they saw 
 him on earth after his death. Many w^riters say, " he was 
 seen ; " — no one says " / saw him alive in the flesh." 
 
 There are three apparent exceptions to this, which, how- 
 ever, when examined, will prove rather confirmatory of our 
 statement than otherwise. If the last chapter of the fourth 
 Oospel were written by the Apostle John, it would contain 
 the direct testimony of an eye-witness to the appearance of 
 Jesus upon earth after his crucifixion. But its genuineness 
 has long been a matter of question among learned men", 
 tmd few can read it critically and retain the belief that it is 
 a real rehc of the beloved Apostle, or even that it origi- 
 nally formed part of the Gospel to wliich it is appended. 
 In the first place, the closing verse of the preceding chapter 
 unmistakably indicates the termination of a history. Then, 
 the general tone of the twenty-first chapter — its pauticu- 
 
 ^ The belief in a general resurrection was, we know, prevalent among the 
 .Jews in general, and the disciples of Christ especially ; and it appears from 
 <fceveral passages that the opinion was that the resurrection would be imme- 
 ■diate upon death (Luke xx. 37 ; xxiii, 43). In this case the belief that 
 (Christ was risen would follow immediately on the knowledge of his death. 
 
 2 See Hug, 484. 
 
EESURRECTION OF JESUS. 195 
 
 larity as to the distance of the bark from shore, and the 
 exact number of fishes taken— the fire ready made when 
 the disciples came to land — the contradiction between the 
 fourth verse and the seventh and twelfth, as to the recog- 
 nition of Jesus— all partake strongly of the legendary cha- 
 racter, as does likewise the conversation between Jesus and 
 Peter. Again, the miraculous draught of fishes which is 
 here placed after the resurrection of Christ, is by Luke 
 related as happening at the very commencement of his 
 ministry. And finally, the last two verses, it is clear, cannot 
 be from the pen of John, and we have no grounds for sup- 
 posing them to be less genuine than the rest of the chapter. 
 On a review of the whole question we entertain no doubt 
 that the whole chapter was an addition of later date, per- 
 haps by some elder of the Ephesian Church. 
 
 In the first Epistle of Peter (iii. 18-21), the resurrection 
 and existence in heaven of Jesus are distinctly afi&rmed; 
 but when we remember that the Jews at that time believed 
 in a future life, and apparently in an immediate transference 
 of the spirit from this world to the next, and that this 
 belief had been especially enforced on the disciples of Jesus 
 (Matt. xvii. 1-4; xxii. 32. Luke xvi. 23-31; xxiii. 43), 
 this will appear very different from an assertion that Jesus 
 had actually risen to an earthly life, and that Peter had 
 seen him. Indeed the peculiar expression that is made use 
 of at ver. 18, in affirming the doctrine ("being slain in 
 flesh, but made alive again in spirit,"^) indicates, in the true 
 meaning of the original, not a fleshly, but a spiritual revifi- 
 cation. 
 
 There remains the statement of Paul (1 Cor. xv. 8), 
 ''And last of all, he was seen of me also." This asseition, 
 taken with the context, negatives rather than affirms the 
 reappearance of Christ upon the earth to the bodily eye of 
 his disciples. The whole statement is a loose and rambhng 
 one, and inconsistent with the Gospel narratives; but the 
 chief point to be attended to here is that Paul places the 
 appearance of Jesus to the other disciples on the same foot- 
 ing as his appearance to himself. Now, we know that his 
 
 • 1 QocvaruSiii fih troc^x) ^uo^oifi&us S« ^vivfiKTi. (Grriesbacli.) Our common 
 traaslation alters tlie preposition, gratuitou.sly and without warrant, and thus 
 entirely loses the writer's antitliesis. 
 
 o 2 
 
196 THE CREED OF CHRISTENDOM. 
 
 appearance to Paul was hi a vision — a vision visible to 
 Paul alone of all the bystanders, and, therefore, suljeclive 
 or mental merely. The conclusion to be drawn from the 
 language of Paul would, therefore, be that the appearance 
 of Jesus to the other disciples was visionary likewise \ Our 
 original statement, therefore, remains unqualified: — we 
 might have had, and should have expected to have, the 
 direct assertion oi four Apostles, that they had seen Jesus 
 on earth and in the flesh after his death : — we have not 
 this assertion from any one of them. 
 
 3. The statements which have come down to us as to 
 when, where, by whom, and how often, Jesus was seen 
 after his death, present such serious and irreconcilable 
 variations as to prove beyond question that they are not 
 the original statements of eye-witnesses, but merely the 
 form Nvhich the original statements had assumed, after 
 much transmission, thirty or forty years after the event to 
 which they relate. Let us examine them more particularly. 
 It will he seen that they agree iit everything that is 
 natural and prohahle, and disagree in everything that is 
 suj)ernatural and difficult of credence. All the accounts 
 agree that the women, on their matutinal visit to the 
 Sepulchre, found the body gone, and saw some one in white 
 raiment who spoke to them. They agree in nothing else. 
 
 (I.) They differ as to the number of the women. John 
 mentions only one^ Mary Magdalene; — Mattliew two, Mary 
 Magdalene and the other Mary ; — Mark three, the two 
 Marys and Salome ; — Luke several, the two Marys, Joanna, 
 and '•' certain others with them." 
 
 (2.) They differ as to the number of persons in white 
 raiment who appeared to the w^omen. Mark speaks of one 
 *' young man;" — Matthew of one '^ angel;" — Luke of two 
 *'men;" — John of two "angels." — According to John, 
 also, the appearance of the two angels was not till Mary's 
 second visit to the tomb, after Peter and John had been 
 there. 
 
 (3.) They differ as to the words spoken by the appa- 
 ritions. According to Matthew and Mark they asserted 
 the resurrection of Jesus, and his departure into Galilee, 
 
 * Bush's Anastasis, p. 164. 
 
RESURRECTION OF JESUS. 197 
 
 and sent a message to his disciples enjoining tliem to follow 
 him thither. According to Luke they simply stated that 
 he was risen, and referred to a former prediction of his to 
 this eifect'. According to John they only asked Mary, 
 ** Woman ! why weepest thou ? " 
 
 (4.) They differ in another point. According to Matthew, 
 Luke, and John, the women carried the information as to 
 what they had seen at once to the disciples. According to 
 Mark "they said nothing to any man." 
 
 (5.) They differ as to the parties to whom Jesus appeared. 
 — According to Mark it was to no one. According to 
 Matthew it Was first to the two women, then to the eleven. 
 According to John it was first to one woman, then twice to 
 the assembled Apostles '^ According to Luke it was first 
 to no woman, but to Cleopas and his companion, then to 
 Peter "^ and then to the assembled eleven. 
 
 (6.) They differ as to the locahty. According to Mark 
 it was nowhere. According to Matthew it was first at Jeru- 
 salem, and then in Galilee, whither the disciples went in 
 obedience to the angehc command. According to Luke it 
 Avas in Jerusalem and its vicinity, and there alone, where 
 the disciples remained in obedience to the reiterated * com- 
 mand of Jesus himself. According to the genuine part of 
 John, also, the appearances were confined to Jerusalem. 
 
 The account of Paul is of little weight. It differs from all 
 the others ; it must have been second-hand ; and is valuable 
 only as showing the accounts which were current in the 
 
 ^ If, as we have seen reason to believe (chap, viii.), no such prediction was 
 ever uttered, it follows that this reference to it must be purely fictitious. 
 
 ■^ The text says simply "the disciples," but as they met in a room and with 
 closed doors, and the absence of one of the Apostles on the first occasion 
 mentioned, it evidently means "the eleven." 
 
 ^ This appearance to Peter is also mentioned by Paul (1 Cor. xv. 7), from 
 whom probably Luke received it. We have nowhere else any trace of it. 
 
 ^ Luke xxiv. 49, 53 ; Acts i. 4. Luke and Matthew thus contradict each 
 other past all possibility of reconciliation. Matthew tells us that Jesus com- 
 manded them to go into Galilee, and that they went thither ; — Luke tells us 
 that he positively commanded them "not to depart from Jerusalem,'' and 
 that they remained there (xxiv. 53). But Luke contradicts himself quite^ as 
 flatly on another point. In the Gospels lie represents the ascension as taking 
 place on the evening of the third day after the crucifixion : such is the clear 
 meaning of the text (as may be seen from verses 21, 33, 36, 50), in spite of 
 all the efforts of ingenuity to pervert it— in the Gospels he places the ascension 
 forty days after the resurrection, and says that Jesus was seen by his disciples 
 during the whole interval. 
 
198 THE CREED OF CHRISTENDOM. 
 
 Christian Clmrcli at the time at which he wrote, and how 
 mncli these varied from the evangelic documents, which were 
 in fact, a selection out of these current accounts. The 
 epistle of Paul, w^as written, probably, about the year a.d. 59 ; 
 the first three Gospels between the years a.d. 60 and 70. 
 The appearance to James, which Paul mentions, was taken 
 from the Gospel to the Hebrews, now lost\ 
 
 Now, we put it to any candid man wdiether tlie discrep- 
 ancies ill these accounts are not of a nature, and to an ex- 
 tent entirely to disqualify them from being received as 
 evidence of anything, except the currency and credit of such 
 stories among Christians thirty years after the death of 
 Christ ? 
 
 4. A marked and most significant peculiarity in these ac- 
 counts, which has not received the attention it deserves, is, 
 that scarcely any of those who are said to have seen Jesus 
 after his resurrection recognized him, though long and in- 
 timately acquainted w^ith his person. According to Matthew 
 (xxviii. 17), when Jesus appeared to the eleven in Galilee 
 by his own appointment, some, even of them, " doubted ; " 
 which could not have been the case had his identity been 
 clearly recognizable. According to Luke, the two disciples, 
 with whom he held a long conversation, and who passed 
 many hours in his company, did not recognize him. " Their 
 eyes w^ere holden, that they should not know him." - And 
 even after the disciples had been informed, both of this re- 
 appearance and of that to Peter (xxiv. 84-37), yet when 
 Jesus appeared to them, they were affrighted, and supposed 
 that they saw a spirit. According to John, even Mary 
 Magdalene, after Jesus had spoken to her, and she had 
 turned to look at him, still did not recognize him, but sup- 
 posed him to be the gardener ^ In the spurious part of 
 
 ^ Tlie passage, however, is preserved by Jerome. (See Hennell, p. 227.) 
 ^ - Here another interesting point comes in for consideration. The conversa- 
 tion between Jesns and his two companions turned upon the IVIessianic pro- 
 phecies, which the disciples held to have been disappointed by tbe death of 
 Jesus but which Jesus assured them related to and were fulfilled in him. 
 Now, if the conclusion at which we arrived in a previous chapter (iv.) be 
 correct, viz., that the Old Testament prophecies contain no real reference to a 
 suffering Messiah, or to Jesus at all, it follows, that at least half the story of 
 Cleopas must be fabulous, unless, indeed, we adopt the supposition that Jesus, 
 held the same erroneous views respecting these prophecies as his disciples. 
 
 3 Furness (" On the Four Gospels ") dwells much on the fact that it was 
 "dark"' when Mary visited the Sepulchre (.John xx. 1), and that this was. 
 
RESURRECTION OF JESUS. 19& 
 
 John (xxi. 4-6) the same want of recognition is observable. 
 In the spurious part of Mdrk we see traces of a behef that 
 Jesus assumed various forms after his resurrection, to ac- 
 count, doubtless, for the non-recognition of some and the 
 disbelief of others (xvi. 11, 12, 13): "After that he appeared 
 i7i another for m unto two of them." Now, if it really were 
 Jesus who appeared to these various parties, would this want 
 of recognition have been possible ? If it were Jesus, he was 
 so changed that his most intimate friends did not know him. 
 How then can ive know that it was himself?- 
 
 We will not attempt to construct, as several have endea- 
 voured to do, out of these conflicting traditions, a narrative 
 of the real original occurrence which gave rise to them, and 
 of the process by which they attained the fonn and consist- 
 ency at which they have arrived in the evangelical documents. 
 Three different suppositions may be adopted, each of which 
 has found favour in the eyes of some writers. We may 
 either imagine that Jesus was not really and entirely dead 
 when taken down from the cross, a supposition which Paul us 
 and others show to be far from destitute of probability^: or 
 we may imagine that the apparition of Jesus to his disciples 
 belongs to that class of appearances of departed spirits for 
 which so much staggering and bewildering evidence is on 
 record"^: — or lastly, we may believe that the minds of the 
 disciples, excited by the disappearance of the body, and the 
 announcement by the women of his resurrection, mistook 
 some passing individual for their crucified Lord, and that 
 from such an origin multiplied rumours of his re-appearance 
 arose and spread. We do not, ourselves, definitively adopt 
 any of these hypotheses : — we wish simply to call attention 
 to the circumstance that we have no clear, consistent, credi- 
 ble account of the resurrection ; — that the only elements of 
 the narrative which are retained and remain uniform in all 
 
 the reason why slie did not recognize Jesus. But in the first place, it was not 
 so dark but that she could see that the Sepulchre was open and the body- 
 gone. In the second place, her sight of Jesus was on the occasion of her 
 second visit to the Sepulchre, and the "darkness " of early dawn was during 
 hev first visit, and in the interval she had gone to the city to find Peter and 
 John and had returned, by which time it must have been broad day. In the 
 third place, Mark tells us that the visit of Mary was at sunrise — '«vaT5<XavTflf 
 TOW YtXlou — the sun being risen, 
 
 1 Strauss, iii. 288. 
 
 - See Bush's Auastasis, 156. 
 
200 THE CREED OF CHRISTENDOM. 
 
 its forms, — viz., the disappearance of the body, and the ap- 
 pearance of some one in white at the tomb, — are simple and 
 probable, and in no way necessitate, or clearly point to, the 
 surmise of a bodily resurrection at all. Christ mai/ have 
 risen from the dead and appeared to his disciples:— Z^?/^ ii 
 is certain that if he did, the Gospels do not contain a 
 correct account of such resurrection and re-appearance. 
 
 II. The conduct of the Apostles subsequent to the death 
 of Jesus; — the marked change in their character from 
 timidity to boldness, and in their feeHngs from deep depres- 
 sion and dismay to satisfaction and triumph, — as depicted 
 in the Acts, affords far stronger evidence in favour of the 
 bodily resurrection of their Lord, than any of the narratives 
 which have recorded the event. It seems to us certain that 
 the Apostles lelieved in the resurrection of Jesus ; nothing 
 short of such a belief could have sustained them through 
 what they had to endure, or given them enthusiasm for what 
 they had to do : — the question, therefore, which remains for 
 our decision is, whether the Apostles could have beheved it, 
 had it not been fact,— whether their reception of the doctrine 
 of a general resurrection immediately upon death, coupled 
 with the disappearance of the body of Jesus from the 
 sepulchre in which he had been laid, and the report of the 
 women regarding the statement of the angelic vision, be 
 sufficient to account for so vivid and actuating a faith, with- 
 out the supposition of his actual appearance to themselves ; 
 whether the Apostles, excited by the report that he was 
 risen, could have believed that they had seen him if they 
 had not really done so. This question will be differently 
 answered by different minds; nor do we know that any 
 arguments will weigh more on either side than the simple 
 statement of the problem to be resolved \ Certainly, the 
 bold faith of the Apostles, if sufficient, is the oiily sufficient 
 evidence for the occurrence : — the narrative testimony would 
 be inadequate to prove a far more credible event. All we 
 
 ' It is certain that we, in these days, could not believe in the resurrection 
 of an individual to an earthly life unless we had ascertained his death, and 
 ourselves seen him afterwards alive. But we cannot justly apply, this reason- 
 ing to the early followers of Christ ; they were not men of critical, inquiring, 
 or doubting minds, nor accustomed to sift or scrutinize testimony, but on the 
 contrary inured to marvels, and trained to regard the supernatural as almost 
 an ordinary part of the natural, given moreover to see visions, and unhesita- 
 tingly to accept them as divine communications. 
 
EESURRECTION OF JESUS. 201 
 
 can say is this : — that a belief in the resurrection and bodily 
 re-appearance of Jesus early prevailed and rapidly obtained 
 currency in the Christian community; — that the Apostles 
 shared the belief in the resurrection, and did not discourage 
 that in the bodily re- appearance ; — that, however, none of 
 them (unless the fourth Gospel was written by John) has 
 left us his own testimony to having himself seen Jesus alive 
 after his death;— and that some of the disciples doubted, and 
 others long after disbeheved, the fact^ 
 
 In order to mitigate our pain at finding that the fact 
 of Christ's resurrection has been handed down to us on such 
 inadequate testimony as to render it at best a doubtful infer- 
 ence, it is desirable to inquire whether, in reahty, it has the 
 doctrinal value which it has been the habit of theologians to 
 attribute to it. We have been accustomed to regard it not 
 only as the chief and crowning proof of the divinity of our 
 Saviour's mission, but as the type, earnest, and assurance of 
 our own translation to a life beyond the grave. It is very 
 questionable, however, whether either of these views is fully 
 justified by reason. 
 
 There can be no doubt that the fact of an individual having 
 been miraculously restored to life, is a signal proof of divine 
 interposition in his behalf. Such restoration maybe viewed 
 in three lights : — either as a reward for a life of extra- 
 ordinary virtue ; — or as an intimation that his mission upon 
 earth had been prematurely cut short, and that his reanima- 
 tion was necessary for its fulfilment ;— or as an announcement 
 to the world that he was in a peculiar manner the object of 
 divine regard and the subject of divine influence. The first 
 point of view is evidently irrational, and the ofi'spring of 
 unregenerate and uncultivated thought. It is prompted 
 either by the inconsiderate instincts of the natural man, or 
 by disbelief in a future life. It imphes either that there is 
 no future world, or that this world is preferable to it; — since 
 no man, believing in another and a better state of existence. 
 
 1 See 1 Cor, xv. 12. The wliole argument of Paul respecting tlie resurrec- 
 tion is remarkable — it is simply this, there must be a resurrection from the 
 dead because Christ ^' is preached " to have risen ; and that if there were no 
 resurrection, then Christ could not be risen. It would seem as if he considered 
 the truth of the resurrection of Christ to depend upon the correctness of the 
 doctrine of the general resurrection (verse 13). 
 
S02 THE CREED OF CHRISTENDOM. 
 
 ■would regard it as an appropriate reward for distinguished^ 
 excellence to be reduced to tliis. The second point of view 
 is, if possible, still more unreasonable, since it assumes that 
 God had permitted such an interference with, and defeat of 
 bis plans, that he was obliged to interpose for their renewal.. 
 The third aspect in which such a fact is to be regarded alone- 
 remains, and is in effect the one in which it is commonly 
 viewed throughout Christendora, viz., as a public announce- 
 ment from the Most High, " This is my beloved Son, hear 
 ye him." But this point of view is attended with many 
 difficulties. 
 
 •In the first place, if the Gospel narratives are to be taken 
 as our standing-ground (and they are as valid for the ono 
 case as for the other), the restoration of the dead to life did 
 not necessarily imply any such peculiar favour, or contain 
 any such high announcement. The evangelists record three 
 instances of such miraculous resuscitation, in none of which 
 have we any reason for believing the subject of the miracle 
 to be peculiarly an object of divine love or approbation, — in 
 all of which the miracle was simply one of merey to mourn- 
 ing friends. The resuscitated parties were all obscure 
 individuals, and only one of them appears to have been a 
 follower of Christ. Secondly, this point of view was not 
 the one taken by the Apostles. To them the value of Christ's 
 resurrection consisted in its enabling them still to retain, or 
 rather to resume, that belief in the Messiahship of Jesus 
 which his death had shaken ' . If restored to life, he might 
 yet be, and probably was, that Great Deliverer whom, as 
 ■Jews, they watched, and waited, and prayed for ; if he were 
 dead, then that cherished notion was struck dead with him. 
 Now, if we are right in the conclusion at which we arrived 
 in an earlier chapter""^, viz., that Jesus had nothing in com- 
 mon with that liberating and triumphant conqueror predicted 
 by the Jewish prophets and expected by the Jewish nation ; 
 it follows that the especial effect which the resurrection of 
 Christ produced upon the minds of his disciples, was to 
 co7iJirm them in an error. This, to them, was its dogmatic 
 value, — the ground on which they hailed the announcement 
 and cherished the belief. Thirdly, it will admit of question 
 
 ' This ia especially manifest from tlie conversation on the journey ta 
 Emmaus. 
 
 - See chap. iv. 
 
RESURRECTION OF JESUS. 203- 
 
 whetlier, in the eye of pure reason, the resurrection of Christ, 
 considered as an attestation to the celestial origin of his re- 
 ligion, he not superfluous— whether it be not human weak- 
 ness, rather than human reason, which needs external miracle 
 as sanction and buttress of a system which may well rely 
 upon its own innate strength,— whether the internal does not 
 surpass and supersede the external testimony to its charac- 
 ters—whether the divine truths which Christ taught should 
 not be to us the all-sufficient attestation of his divine mis- 
 sion. We have seen in the preceding chapter that miraculous 
 power in any individual is no guarantee for the correctness 
 of his teaching. We have seen th'at if the doctrines which 
 Jesus taught approve themselves to the enhghtened under- 
 standing and the uncorrupted heart, they are equally binding 
 on our allegiance whether he wrought miracles in the course 
 of his career or not. And if the truth that God is a loving 
 rather, and the precept '*' Thou shalt love thy neighbour as 
 thyself," derive no corroboration from the resurrection of 
 Lazarus or the Youth of Nain, neither can they from that 
 of Christ himself. Doubtless we should sit with more pros- 
 trate submission and a deeper reverence at the feet of a 
 teacher who came to us from the grave, but it is probably 
 only the infirmity of our faith and reason which would cause 
 us to do so'. Kationally considered, Christ's resurrection 
 cannot prove doctrines true that would else be false, nor cer- 
 tain that would else be doubtful. Therefore, considered as 
 a reward, it is contradictory and absurd ; considered as the 
 renewal of an interrupted mission, it involves an unworthy 
 and monstrous conception of God's providence ; considered 
 as an attestation to the Messiahship of Jesus, it is an 
 attestation to an error ; — considered as a sanction and cor- 
 roboration of his doctrines, it is, or ought to be, superfluous. 
 Is the other view which we have been accustomed to take 
 of Christ's resurrection, viz., as the type, pledge, and fore- 
 telling of our own, — more consonant to sound reason ? We 
 believe the reverse will prove nearer to the truth. That it 
 was regarded in this view by the Apostles, is here no argu- 
 ment for us. For they looked for the coming of their Lord, 
 
 ^ Jesus seems to intimate as much when he says, '' If they hear not Moses 
 and the Prophets, neither will they be persuaded though one rose from the- 
 dead." 
 
204 THE CREED OF CHRISTENDOM. 
 
 and the end of the world, if not in their own lifetime, at 
 least in that of the existing generation, — when they who 
 were alive would he caught up into the clouds, and those 
 who were dead would come forth out of their graves, and 
 join together the glorious company of the redeemed. They 
 looked for a hodilij resurrection for themselves — which on 
 their supposition of the date would he possible, — a resurrec- 
 tion, therefore, of w^hich that of Jesus was a prototype — a 
 pattern — a cognate occurrence. But in our position the 
 case is not only altered, hut reversed. Christ's resurrection 
 was a reanimation of the body which he wore in life ; it 
 could, therefore, he an earnest of the resurrection of those 
 only whose bodies still remained to be reanimated : it was an 
 exceptional case ; it refers not to us ; it conveys no hope to 
 us ; — ive are not of those ivhose resurrection it could typify 
 or assure ; for our bodies, like those of the countless gene- 
 rations who have lived and passed away since Christ trod our 
 earth, will have crumbled into dust, and passed into other 
 combinations, and become in turn the bodies of myriads of 
 other animated beings, before the great expected day of the 
 resurrection of the just. To us a bodily resurrection is 
 impossible. If, therefore, Christ's resurrection were spiritual 
 — independent of his buried body — it might be a type and 
 foreshadow^ing of our own ; — if, on the other hand, as the 
 evangelists relate, it was corporeal — if his body left the 
 grave undecayed, and appeared on earth, and ascended into 
 glory, — then its value as a pledge belonged to the men 
 of that age alone, — we have neither part nor lot in its signi- 
 fication; — it is rather an extinguisher than a confirmation of 
 our hopes. 
 
 It will be seen that we make no scruple in negativing a 
 doctrine held verbally by the Church, viz., " the resurrection 
 of the body ;" since, whatever was intended by the authors of 
 this phrase ^ ■ — the meaning of which is by no means clear to 
 us, and was probably no clearer to themselves, — thus much 
 
 "We can," says Pearson, *'no otlier^^ise expound this article teaching 
 the resurrection of the body, than by asserting that the same bodies which, 
 have lived and died shall live again ; that the same flesh which is corrupted 
 shall be restored." Again, "That the same body, not any other, shall be 
 raised to life which died, that the same flesh which was separated from the 
 soul at the day of death shall be united to the soul at the last day," &c. — 
 Pearson on the Creed, Ai't. xi. 
 
EESURRECTION OF JESUS. 205 
 
 is certain, that our " resurrection of the body " can bear na 
 similarity to Christ's resurrection of the body ; — for his body 
 remained only a few hours in the grave, and, we are ex- 
 pressly told, " did not see corruption," and ours, we know, 
 remains there for untold years, and moulders away into the 
 original elements of its marvellous chemistry. 
 
 We conclude, then, as before : — that as we cannot hope 
 to rise, as Christ is said to have done, with our own present 
 uncorrupted body, his resurrection, if it were a reanimation 
 of his earthly frame, can be no argument, proofs pledge, 
 pattern, or foreshadowing of our OAvn. If, on the contrary, 
 his resurrection were spiritual, and his appearances to hi& 
 disciples mental and apparitionary only, they would, irro 
 tanto, countenance the idea of a future state. Our interest, 
 therefore, as waiters and hopers for an immortality, would 
 appear to lie in ^/sbelieving the letter of the Scripture 
 narratives. 
 
CHAPTER XV. 
 
 IS CHRISTIANITY A REVEALED RELIGION ? 
 
 Having now arrived at this point of our inquiry, let us 
 pause and cast a summary glance on the ground over which 
 we have travelled, and the conclusions at which we have 
 arrived. We have found that the popular doctrine of Scrip- 
 tural Inspiration rests on no foundation whatever, but is a 
 gratuitous as well as an untenable assumption. We have 
 seen that neither the books of Moses nor the laws of Moses 
 were the production of the great Leader and Lawgiver whose 
 name they bear. We have seen ample reason for concluding 
 that a belief in One only Supreme God was not the primary 
 rehgion either of the Hebrew nation or the Hebrew priests ; 
 but that their Theism — originally limited and impure— was 
 gradually elevated and purified into perfect and exclusive 
 monotheism, by the influence of their Poets and Sages, and 
 the progressive advance of the people in intelligence and 
 civihzation. We have discovered that their Prophets were 
 Poets and Statesmen, not Predictors — and that none of their 
 writings contain a single prediction which was originally de- 
 signed by them, or can be honestly interpreted by us, to 
 foretell the appearance and career of Jesus of Nazareth. 
 What have been commonly regarded as such, are happy and 
 ap2)licahle quotations : but no more. We have seen further 
 that none of the four histories of Christ which have come 
 down to us, are completely and effectively faithful ; — that 
 while they are ample and adequate for showing us what 
 
IS CHRISTIANITY A REVEALED RELIGION ? 207 
 
 Christ was, and what was the essence and spirit of his teach- 
 ing, we yet do not possess sufficient certainty that they 
 record, in any special instance, the precise words or actions 
 of Christ, to warrant us in huilding upon those words or 
 actions doctrines revolting to our uncorrupted instincts and. 
 ■our cultivated sense. We have found, moreover, that the 
 Apostles — wise and good men as they were — were yet most 
 imperfect and fallible expounders of the mind of their 
 departed Lord. We have seen that miracles — even where 
 the record of them is adequate and above suspicion, if any 
 such case there be — are no sufficient guarantee of the truth 
 of the doctrines preached by the worker of those wonders. 
 And finally, we have been compelled to conclude that not 
 only is the resurrection of our Lord, as narrated in the 
 Gospels, encumbered with too many difficulties and contra- 
 'dictions to be received as unquestionable, but that it is far 
 from having the dogmatic value usually attached to it, as a 
 pledge and foreshowing of our own. 
 
 But however imperfect may be the records we possess of 
 Christ's Ministry, this imperfection does not affect the nature 
 or authority of Iiis mission. Another great question, there- 
 fore, here opens before us : — " Was Christ a divinely-commis- 
 sioned Teacher of Truth? " In oth^r words, *' Is Christianity 
 to be regarded as a Keligion revealed by God to man through 
 Christ ? " 
 
 What is the meaning which, in ordinary theological par- 
 lance, we attach to the words "Divine Kevelation ? " What 
 •do we intend to signify when we say that " God spoke" to 
 this Prophet, or to that saint ? 
 
 We are all of us conscious of thoughts which co/?ie to us — 
 which are not, properly speaking, our own — which we do not 
 create, do not elaborate ; — flaslies of hght, ghmpses of truth, 
 or of what seems to us such, brighter and sublimer than com- 
 monly dwell in our minds, which we are not conscious of 
 having lorought out by any process of inquiry or meditation. 
 These are frequent and brilliant in proportion to the intellec- 
 tual gifts and spiritual elevation of the individual : they may 
 well be termed inspirations — revelations; but it is not such 
 as these that we mean when we speak of the Revelation by 
 Christ. 
 
 Those who look upon God as a Moral Governor, as well 
 as an original Creator, — a God at hand, not a God afar off in 
 
208 THE CREED OF CHRISTENDOM. 
 
 the distance of infinite space, and in the remoteness of past 
 or future eternity, — who conceive of Him as taking a watchful 
 and presiding interest in the affairs of the world, and as in- 
 fluencing the hearts and actions of men, — helieve that 
 through the workings of the Spirit He has spoken to many, 
 has whispered His will to them, has breathed great and true 
 thoughts into their minds, has '' wrought mightily" within 
 them, has, in the secret communings and the deep visions of 
 the night, caused His Spirit to move over the troubled waters 
 of their sods, and educed light and order from the mental 
 chaos. These are the views of many religious minds ; — but 
 these are not what we mean when we speak of the Revelation 
 made by God to Christ. 
 
 Those, again, who look upon God as the great artificer of 
 the world of life and matter, and upon man, with his wonder- 
 ful corporeal and mental frame, as his direct work, conceive 
 the same idea in a somewhat modified and more material 
 form. They believe that He has made men with different 
 intellectual capacities ; and has endowed some with brains 
 so much larger and finer than those of ordinary men, as to 
 enable them to see and originate truths which are hidden 
 from the mass ; and that when it is His will that Mankind 
 should make some great tstep forward, should achieve some 
 pregnant discovery. He calls into being some cerebral organ- 
 ization of more than ordinary magnitude and power, as that 
 of David, Isaiah, Plato, Shakspeare, Bacon, Newton, Luther, 
 Pascal, which gives birth to new ideas and grander con- 
 ceptions of the truths vital to humanity. But we mean 
 something essentially distinct from this when we speak of 
 Christ as the Teacher of a Religion revealed to him by his 
 Father. 
 
 When a Christian affirms Christianity to be a " revealed 
 religion," he intends simply and without artifice to declare 
 his belief that the doctrines and precepts which Christ taught 
 were not the production of his own (human) mind, either in 
 its ordinary operations, or in its flights of sublimest contem- 
 plation; but were directly and supernaturally communicated 
 to him from on high '. He means this, or he means nothing 
 
 ^ Those wLo belieA-e that Christ was God — if any such really exist — mui^t 
 of coui'se hold that everything he taught was, ij^so facto, a divine revelation. 
 With such all argument and inquiry is necessarily superseded. 
 
IS CHRISTIANITY A REVEALED RELIGION ? 209 
 
 definable and distinctive. What grounds have we, then, for 
 adopting such an opinion ? 
 
 It is evident that, if the conclusions to which our previous 
 investigations have led us be correct, our only arguments for 
 believing Christianity to be a divine revelation in contradis- 
 tinction to a human conception, must be drawn from the 
 supcrhumanity of its nature and contents. What human 
 intellect could ascertain, it would be superfluous for God to 
 reveal. The belief of Christ himself that his teaching " was 
 not his, but his Father's," — even if we were certain that he 
 used these precise words, and intended them to convey pre- 
 cisely the meaning we attach to them, — could not suffice us, 
 for the reasons assigned in the first chapter of this work. 
 The belief in communications with the Deity has in all ages 
 been common to the most exalted and poetical order of reli- 
 gious minds. The fact that Christ held a conviction which 
 he shared with the great and good of other times, can be no 
 argument for ascribing to him divine communications dis- 
 tinct from those granted to the great and good of other times. 
 It remains, therefore, a simple question for our consideration, 
 whether the doctrines and precepts taught by Jesus are so 
 new, so profound, so perfect, so distinctive, so above and be- 
 yond parallel, that they could not have emanated naturally 
 from a clear, pure, powerful, meditative mind,— living four 
 hundred years after Socrates and Plato— brought up among 
 the pure Essenes, nourished on the wisdom of Solomon, the 
 piety of David, the poetry of Isaiah — elevated by the know- 
 ledge, and illuminated by the love, of the one true God. 
 
 Now on this subject we hope our confession of faith will 
 be acceptable to all save the narrowly orthodox. It is diffi- 
 cult, without exhausting superlatives, even to unexpres- 
 sive and wearisome satiety, to do justice to our intense love, 
 reverence, and admiration, for the character and teaching of 
 Jesus. We regard him not as the perfection of the intellec- 
 tual or philosophic mind, but as the perfection of the spiritual 
 character,— as surpassing all men of all times in the close- 
 ness and depth of his communion with the Father. In 
 reading his sayings, we feel that we are holding converse 
 with the wisest, purest, noblest Being that ever clothed 
 thought in the poor language of humanity. In studying his 
 life we feel that we are following the footsteps of the highest 
 ideal yet presented to us upon earth. " Blessed be God that 
 
210 THE CREED OF CHRISTENDOM. 
 
 SO much manliness has been lived out, and stands there yet, 
 a lasting monument to mark how high the tides of divine life 
 have risen in the world of man !" 
 
 But these convictions — strong, deep-seated, and ever in- 
 creasing as they are — do not bring us to the conclusion that 
 either the rare moral or mental superiorities of Jesus were 
 supernatural endowments, in the common acceptation of the 
 word. The Old Testament contained his teaching ; it was 
 reserved for him to elicit, pubhsh, and enforce it. A thought- 
 ful perusal of Job, the Psalms, Ecclesiastes, and Isaiah will 
 show beyond question the germs of those views which in the 
 purer and sublimer genius of Christ rose to so high an eleva- 
 tion \ The doctrine of a future world, though not enforced, 
 perhaps probably not found, in the Old Testament, was we 
 know currently believed among the Jews before the time of 
 Jesus, and must have been familiar to him from his infancy. 
 We have no hesitation in concluding that a pure and powerful 
 mind, filled with warm affections and devotional feelings, and 
 studying the Hebrew Scriptures discrimmativehj, appropri- 
 ating and assimilating what was good and noble, and reject- 
 ing what was mean and low, could and might naturally arrive 
 at the conclusion which Jesus reached, as to the duties of 
 men, the attributes of God, and the relation of man to God. 
 Christianity is distinguished from Judaism rather by what it 
 excluded than by what it added. It is an eclecticism and an 
 expansion of the best elements of its predecessor. It selects 
 the grand, the beautiful, the tender, the true, and ignores or sup- 
 presses the exclusive, the narrow, the corrupt, the coarse, and 
 the vindictive. It is Moses, David, Solomon, Isaiah, purified 
 and developed. If this be so, then the supposition that 
 Christianity was supernaturally communicated, falls to the 
 ground as needless, and therefore inadmissible. What man 
 could discover naturally, God would not communicate super- 
 naturally. 
 • Eut we may go further. Not only is there no necessity 
 
 1 A quotation of texts is scarcely the right mode of proving this. See 
 Hennell for an exposition of how much of Christianity was already extant in 
 Jewish teaching ; also Mackay's Progress of the Intellect, ii. 376. But it 
 must not be forgotten that though many of the Christian precepts were extant 
 before the time of Jesus, yet it is to him that we owe them ; to the energy, the 
 beauty, the power of his teaching, and still more to the sublime life he ledj, 
 ▼hich v\'as a daily and hourly exposition and enforcement of his teaching. 
 
IS CHRISTIANITY A REVEALED RELIGION? 211 
 
 for supposing that Christ's views as to God and duty were 
 supernaturally revealed to him, but there is almost a neces- 
 sity for adopting an opposite conckision. If they were the 
 elaborfition of his own mind, we may well imagine that they 
 may contain some admixture of error and imperfection. If 
 they were revealed to him by God, this could not be the 
 case. If, therefore, we find that Jesus was in error in any 
 point either of his practical or his speculative teaching, our 
 conchision, hitherto a probability, becomes a certainty. It 
 is evident that we could treat of this point with far more 
 satisfaction if we were in a position to pronounce with per- 
 fect precision what Christ did, and what he did not, teach. 
 But as we have seen that many words are put into liis mouth 
 which he never uttered, we cannot ascertain this as un- 
 doubtedly as is desirable. There must still remain some 
 degree of doubt as to whether the errors and imperfections 
 which we detect, originated with or were shared by Christ, 
 or whether they were wholly attributable to his followers 
 and historians. 
 
 There are, however, some matters on which the general 
 concurrence of the evangelical histories, and their undesigned 
 and incidental intimations, lead us to conclude that Jesus 
 did sliare the mistakes which prevailed among his disciples, 
 though, in going even so far as this, we speak with great 
 diffidence. He appears to have held erroneous views respect- 
 ing demoniacal possession, the interpretation of Scripture/", 
 his own Messiahship, his second coming, and the approach- 
 ing end of the world. At least, if he held the views ascribed 
 to him (and the preponderance of evidence is in favour of 
 the assumption that he did), we know that on these topics 
 he was mistaken. Now if he was so in error, his teaching 
 could not have been a revelation from the God of truth, in 
 the sense in which Christendom employs that phrase. 
 
 But we now come upon another question, which if 
 answered in the negative, at once closes the inquiry to which 
 
 1 See on this subject cliap. vii. Perhaps the most singular instance of this 
 misinterpretation of Scripture is in the sophistical argument ascribed to 
 Christ, concerning the supposed address of David to the Messiah. "The 
 Lord said unto my Lord," &c. (Matth. xxii. 41, and parallel passage.) It 
 appears clear that this Psalm was not composed by David, but -was addressed 
 to David by Nathan, or some Court Prophet, on the occasion of some of his 
 signal victories. — See " Hebrev/ Monarchy," p. 92. David did not call the. 
 Messiah "Lord ;" it was the Poet that called David "Lord." 
 
 P s 
 
212 THE CREED OF CHRISTENDOM. 
 
 this chapter is devoted. "Is the revelation of an undis- 
 coverable truth possible ?" That is, " Can any doctrine be 
 taught by God to man — be supernaturally infused, that is, 
 into his mind, which he might not by the employment of his 
 own faculties have discerned or elicited ? " In other words, 
 *' Can the human mind receive an idea which it could not 
 originate ? " We think it plain that it cannot ; though the 
 subject is one which may be better illuminated by reflection 
 than by discussion. At least it is difficult to conceive the 
 nature and formation of that intellect which can comprehend 
 and grasp a truth when presented to it, and perceive that it 
 is a truth, and which yet could not, in the course of time and 
 under favourable conditions, work out that truth by the 
 ordinary operation of its own powers. It appears to us that, 
 by the very nature of the statement, the faculties necessary 
 for the one mental process must be competent to the other } 
 If, an idea (and a truth is only an idea, or a combination 
 of ideas, which approves itself to us,) can find entrance into 
 the mind and take up its abode there, does not this very 
 fact show a fitness for the residence of that idea"} — a fit- 
 ness, therefore, which would have insured admittance to the 
 idea if suggested in any of those mental processes which we 
 call thought, or by any of those combinations of occurrences 
 which we call accident — a fitness, therefore, which, as the 
 course of time and the occurrence of a thousand such pos- 
 sible suggesting accidents must almost necessarily have 
 ensured the irresentation of the idea, would also have en- 
 sured its recej)tion ? If, on the other hand, the idea, from 
 its strangeness, its immensity, its want of harmony with the 
 nature and existing furniture of the mind, could never have 
 presented itself naturally, would not the same strangeness, 
 the same vastness, the same incompatibility of essence, 
 incapacitate the mind from receiving it if presented super- 
 naturally? 
 
 " Eevealed religion," says one of our acutest writers, " is 
 
 1 It may be objected that external facts may be revealed whicb could not 
 be discovered. We may be assured by revelation that the inhabitants of 
 Saturn have wings or have no heads, but then we do not recognize the truth 
 of the assurance. AYe may be assured by revelation of the existence of a 
 future world ; but could we receive the assurance unless our minds were 
 already so prepared for it, or so constituted, that it would naturally have 
 occurred to them ? 
 
IS CHRISTIANITY A REVEALED RELIGION ? 213 
 
 an assumption of some truths, and an anticipation or con- 
 
 Jirmation of others It is obvious that a truth 
 
 which is announced from heaven in one age, may be disco- 
 vered by man in another. A truth is a real and actual rela- 
 tion of things subsisting somewhere, — either in the ideas 
 within us, or the objects without us, — and capable therefore 
 of making itself clear to us by evidence either demonstrative 
 or moral. We may not yet have advanced to the point of 
 view from which it opens upon us ; but a progressive know- 
 ledge must bring us to it ; and we shall then see that which 
 hitherto was sustained by authority, resting on its natural 
 support ; we shall behold it, indeed, in the same light in which 
 it has all along appeared to the superior Intelligence who 
 tendered it to our belief. Thus revelation is an anticipation 
 only of Science ; a forecast of future intellectual and moral 
 achievements ; a provisional authority for governing the 
 human mind, till the regularly-constituted powers can be 
 organized." In this case it is evident that the question 
 whether a truth were discovered or revealed, depends upon a 
 previous inquiry ; viz7, whether the truth were too far before 
 the age to have been discovered by that age ? and if so, 
 whether the Teacher of it were not far enough before his age to 
 make the truth which was hidden from his contemporaries 
 visible to him ? It thus becomes a mere question of time and 
 degree ; and what is justly called a revelation now, would be 
 justly called a discovery a century hence. It is obvious that 
 this is too narrow and shifting a ground to form a safe foun- 
 dation for a theory of revelation. 
 
 Further, — We are at a loss to imagine how a man can dis- 
 tinguish between an idea revealed to him and an idea con- 
 ceived by him. In what manneF and by what sure token, 
 can it be made clear to him that a thought came to him from 
 without, not arose within ? He may perceive that it is 
 resplendently bright — unquestionably new; he maybe quite 
 unconscious of any process of ratiocination or meditation by 
 which it can have been originated ; but this is no more than 
 may be said of half the ideas of profound and contemplative 
 genius. Shall we say that it was breathed into him " in a 
 dream, in a vision of the night, when deep sleep falieth upon 
 man ; " and that, therefore, he assumes that it is not his, but 
 God's ? Yet what is this but to declare that God chooses 
 for his communications with the mind of man the period of 
 
214 THE CREED OF CHRISTENDOM. 
 
 its most iiD questionable imperfection, when the phantasy is 
 rampant and the judgment is torpid and in abeyance ? — Shall 
 we say that the thought was spoken to him aloud, in the or- 
 dinary language of humanity, and that, therefore, he knows 
 it to have been a divine communicatiou, not a human con- 
 ception ? But what singular logic is this ! Is the voice of 
 God, then, only, or then most, recoo-nizable when it borrows 
 the language of man ? Is that feeble instrument of thought 
 and utterance, invented by man's faulty faculties, God's best 
 and surest mode of communication with tbe spirit he has 
 ci'eated ? Nay, is not imperfect language an impossible 
 medium for the conveyance of absolute and infinite truth ? 
 And do we really mean that we feel certain it is God's voice 
 which we hear from the clouds, and doubtful that it is his 
 which speaks to us silently, and in the deep and sacred 
 musings of the Soul ? We cannot intend to maintain this 
 monstrous thesis. 
 
 Our reflections, then, bring us to this conclusion : — that 
 the only certain proof we can have of a revelation must lie 
 in the truths it teaches being such as are inaccessible to, 
 and therefore incomprehensible by, the mind of man ; that 
 if they are such as he can conceive and grasp and accept, 
 they are such as he might have discovered, and he has no 
 means of knowing that he has not discovered them ; if they 
 are such as he could not have discovered^ they are such as 
 he cannot receive — such as he could not recognize or ascer- 
 tain to be truth. 
 
 Since, Xhen, we can find no adequate reason for believing 
 Jesus to be the Son of Gcd, nor his doctrines to be a direct 
 and special revelation to him from the Most High — using 
 these phrases in their or^nary signification — in what light 
 ■do we regard Christ and Christianity ? 
 
 We do not believe that Christianity contains anything 
 which a genius like Christ's, brought up and nourished as 
 his had been, might not have disentangled for itself. We 
 hold that God has so arranged matters in this beautiful and 
 well-ordered, but mysteriously-governed universe, that one 
 great mind after another will arise from time to time, as 
 such are needed, to discover and flash forth before the eyes 
 of men the truths that are wanted, and the amount of truth 
 that can be borne. We conceive that this is effected by en- 
 -dowing them — or (for we pretend to no scholastic nicety 
 
IS CHRISTIANITY A REVEALED RELIGION ? 215 
 
 of expression) by having arranged that Nature and the 
 course of events shall send them into the world endowed 
 — with that superior mental and moral organization, in 
 which grand truths, subhme gleams of spiritual light, will 
 spontaneously and inevitably arise. Such a one we believe 
 was Jesus of Nazareth — the most exalted religious genius 
 whom God ever sent upon the earth ; in himself an em- 
 bodied revelation; humanity in its divinest phase — '^ God 
 manifest in the flesh," according to Eastern hyperbole ; an 
 exemplar vouchsafed, in an early age of the World, of what 
 man may and should become, in the course of ages, in his 
 progress towards the realization of his destiny ; an indi- 
 vidual gifted with a glorious intellect, a noble soul, a fine 
 organization, and a perfectly-balanced moral being ; and 
 who, by virtue of tjiese endowments, saw further than all 
 other men — 
 
 *' Be5''ond tlie verge of that blue sky 
 Where Grod's sublimest secrets lie ;" 
 
 an earnest, not only of what humanity may be, but of what 
 it will be, when the most perfected races shall bear the same 
 relation to the finest miuds of existing times, as these now 
 bear to the Bushmen or the Esquimaux. He was, as Parker 
 beautifully expresses it, " the possibihty of the race made 
 real." He was a subhme poet, prophet, hero, and philoso- 
 pher; and had the usual fate of such — misrepresented by 
 his enemies — misconstrued by his friends; unhappy in this, 
 that his nearest intimates and followers were not of a calibre 
 to understand him ; happy in this, that his words coutaiued 
 such undying seeds of truth as could survive even the media 
 through which they passed. Like the wheat found in the 
 Egyptian Catacombs, they retain the power of geiminating 
 nndiminished, whenever their appropriate soil is found. 
 They have been preserved almost pure, notwithstanding the 
 Judaic narrowness of Peter, the orthodox passions of John, 
 and metaphysical subtleties of Paul. Everything seems to 
 us to confirm the conclusion that we have in the Christianity 
 of Scripture a code of beautiful, simple, sublime, profound, 
 hut not jjerfect, truth, obscured by having come down to us 
 by the intervention of minds far inferior to that of its 
 Author — narrowed by their uncultivation — marred by their 
 misapprehensions — and tarnished by their foreign admix- 
 
216 THE CREED OF CHETSTENDOM. 
 
 tures. It is a collection of grand truths, transmitted to us 
 by men who only half comprehended their grandeur, and 
 imperfectly grasped their truth\ 
 
 The question whether Christ had a special mission — were 
 specially inspired by the Spirit of God — will be decided by 
 each man according to the views he may entertain of Provi- 
 dence, and to the meaning which he attaches to words which, 
 in the lips of too many, have no definite meaning at nil. 
 We are not careful to answer in this matter. We believe 
 that God has arranged this glorious but perplexing world 
 with a purpose, and on a plan. We hold that every man of 
 superior capacity (if not eve?y man sent upon the earth) 
 has a duty to j)erform — a mission to fulfil — a baptism to be 
 baptized with — " and how is he straitened till it be accom- 
 plished ! " We feel a deep inward conviction that every 
 great and good man possesses some portion of God's truth, 
 to proclaim to the world, and to fructify in his own bosom. 
 In a true and simple, but not the orthodox, sense, we 
 believe all the pure, wise, and mighty in soul, to be in- 
 sj)ired, and to be inspired for the iustruction, advancement, 
 and elevation of mankind. " Inspiration, like God's omni- 
 presence, is not huiited to the few writers claimed by the 
 Jews, Christians, or Mahometans, but is coextensive with 
 
 the race The degree of inspiration must depend 
 
 upon two things : first, on the natural ability, the particular 
 intellectual, moral, and religious endowment or genius 
 wherewith each man is furnished by God ; and next, on the 
 use each man makes of this endowment. In one word, it 
 depends on the man's Quantity of Being and his Quantity 
 of Obedience . Now, as men diff"er widely in their natural 
 eudowments, and much more widely in their use and de- 
 velopment thereof, there must of course be various degrees 
 
 " The cliaracter of tlie record is such that I see not how any stress can 
 be laid on i}articular actions attributed to Jesus. That he lived a divine life, 
 suffered a violent death, taught and lived a most beautiful religion — this 
 seems the great fact about which a mass of truth and error has been collected. 
 That he should gather disciples, be opposed by the Priests and Pharisees, have 
 controversies with them— this lay in the nature of things. His loftiest say- 
 ings seem to me the most likely to be genuine. The great stress laid on the 
 person of Jesus by his followers, shows what the person must have been ; 
 they put the person before the thing, the fact above the idea. But it is not 
 about common men that such mythical stories are told." — Theodore Parker, 
 Discourse, p. 188. 
 
IS CHRISTIANITY A REVEALED RELIGION ? 217 
 
 of inspiration, from the lowest sinner up to the loftiest 
 saint. All men are not by birth capable of the same 
 degree of inspiration, and by culture and acquired character 
 they are still less capable of it. A man of noble intellect, 
 of deep, rich, benevolent affections, is by his endowments 
 capable of more than one less gifted. He that perfectly 
 keeps the Soul's law, thus fulfilling the conditions of in- 
 spiration, has more than he who keeps it imperfectly ; the 
 former must receive all his soul can contain at that stage of 
 
 its growth Inspiration, then, is the consequence 
 
 of a faithful use of our faculties. Each man is its subject 
 —God its source— truth its only test. ..... Men may call 
 
 it miraculous, but nothing is more natural. It is coexten- 
 sive with the faithful use of man's natural powers 
 
 Now, this inspiration is limited to no sect, age, or nation. 
 It is wide as the world, and common as God. it is not 
 given to a few men, in the infancy of mankind, to mono- 
 pohze inspiration, and bar God out of the Soul. You and 
 I are not born in the dotage and decay of the world. The 
 stars are beautiful as in their prin||; * the most ancient 
 Heavens are fresh and strong.' God is still everywhere in 
 nature. Wherever a heart beats with love— where Faith and 
 Eeason utter their oracles— there also is God, as formerly 
 in the hearts of seers and prophets. Neither Gerizim, nor 
 Jerusalem, noi the soil that Jesus blessed, is so holy as the 
 good man's heart : nothing so full of God. This inspiration 
 is not given to the learned alone, not only to the great and 
 wise, but to every faithful child of God. Certain as the 
 open eye drinks in the hght, do the pure in heart see God; 
 and he that lives truly feels Him as a presence not to be put 
 
 This, however, to minds nourished on the positive and 
 sententious creeds of orthodox Christendom, is not enough. 
 Truths that are written by the finger of God upon the heart 
 of man, are not definite enough for them. Views of rehgion >^, 
 and duty wrought out by the meditations of the studious, 
 confirmed by the allegiance of the good and wise, stamped 
 as sterling by the response they find in every uncorrupted 
 mind — are not stire enough for them. *' They cannot trust 
 God unless they have his bond z?i black and white, given 
 under oath, and attested hy witnesses." They cling to 
 
 1 Theodore Parker, p. 161, et seq. 
 
218 THE CREED OF CHRISTENDOM. 
 
 dogmatic certainties, and vainly imagine such certainty to 
 Le attainable. It is this feehng which lies at the root of the 
 distaste so generally evinced by orthodox Christians for 
 natural reUgion and for free and daring theological re- 
 search; and the mental defect in which it has its origin 
 is not difficult to discover. It belongs to understandings 
 at once dependent, indolent and timid, in which the prac- 
 tical predominates over the spiritual, to which external tes- 
 timony is more intelligible than internal evidence — which 
 prefer the ease derived from reposing on authority to the 
 labour inseparable from patient and original reflection. 
 Such men are unwilling to rest the hopes which animate 
 them, and the principles which guide them, either on the 
 deductions of fallible reason, or the convictions of cor- 
 ruptible instincts. This feeling is natural, and is shared by 
 even the profoundest thinkers at some period or other of 
 their progress towards that serenity of faith which is the 
 last and highest attainment of the devout searcher after 
 truth. But the mistake is, to conceive it possible to attain 
 certainty by some cHlnge in the process of elaborating 
 knowledge ; — to imagine that any surer foundation can be» 
 discovered for rehgious belief than the deductions of the 
 intellect and the convictions of the heart. If reason proves 
 the existence and attributes of God — if those spiritual in- 
 stincts, which we believe to be the voice of God in the soul, 
 infuse into the mind a sense of our relation to Him, and a 
 hope of future existence — if reason and conscience alike 
 irresistibly point to virtue as the highest good and the 
 destined end and aim of man, — we doubt, we hesitate, we 
 tremble at the possibility of a mistake ; we cry out that this 
 is not certainty, and that on anything short of certainty our 
 souls cannot rest in peace. But if we are told, on the 
 authority of ancient history, that some centuries ago a saint 
 and sage came into the world, and assured his hearers that 
 they had one God and Father who commanded virtue as a 
 law, and promised futurity as a reward ; and that this sage, 
 to prove that he was divinely authorized to preach such doc- 
 trines, wrought miracles (which must have been either con- 
 traventions of God's laws, or anticipations of future develop- 
 ments of science), which fallible disciples witnessed, and 
 which fallible narrators have transmitted — then we bow our 
 heads in satisfied acc[uiescence, and feel that we have 
 
IS CHRISTIANITY A REVEALED RELIGION ? 219 
 
 attained the unmistalvable, unquestionable, infallible cer- 
 itainty we sought. What is this but the very spirit of 
 Hindoo Mythology, which is not contented till it has found 
 a resting-place for the Universe, yet is content to rest it on 
 an elephant, or on a tortoise I 
 
 The same fallible human reason is the foundation of our 
 whole superstructure in the one case equally as in the other. 
 The only difference is, that in the one case we apply tliat 
 reason to the evidence for the doctrine itself; — in the other 
 case we apply it to the credentials of the individual who is 
 said to have taught that doctrine. But is it possible we can 
 so blind ourselves as to believe that reason can ever give us 
 half the assurance that Matthew is correct when he tells us 
 that Christ preached the Sermon on the Mount and fed 
 5000 men with five loaves and two fishes — as it gives us 
 that a mighty and benevolent Maker formed the Universe 
 and its inhabitants, and made man " the living to praise 
 him"? What should we think of the soundness of that 
 man's understanding, who should say, *' I have studied the 
 wonders of tlie Heavens, the framework of the Earth, the 
 mysterious beauties and adaptations of animal existence, 
 the moral and material constitution of the human creature, 
 who is so fearfully and wonderfully made ; and I have risen 
 from the contemplation unsatisfied and uncertain ivhetlier 
 God is, and what He is. But I have carefully examined 
 the four Gospels, weighed their discrepancies, collated their 
 reports, — and the result is a perfect certainty that Christ 
 was the miraculous Son of God, commissioned to make 
 known His existence, to reveal His will, to suspend His 
 laws. It is douhtfiil whether a wise and good Being be the 
 Author of the starry heavens above me, and the moral world 
 within me; — but it is unqKestioaahle that Jesus walked 
 upon the water, and raised the Widow's Son at Nain. I 
 may be mistaken in the one deduction : — I cannot be mis- 
 taken in the other." Strange conformation of mind ! which 
 can find no adequate foundation for its hopes, its worship, 
 its principles of action, in the far-stretching universe, in the 
 glorious firmament, in the deep, full sou], bursting with 
 unutterable thoughts — yet can rest all, with a trusting sim- 
 plicity approaching the sublime, on what a book relates of 
 the sayings and doings of a man who lived eighteen cen- 
 turies ago ! 
 
220 THE CREED OF CHRISTENDOM. 
 
 If the change which resulted from our inquiries were 
 indeed a descent from certainty to probahihty, it would 
 involve a loss beyond all power of compensation. But it is 
 not so. It is merely an exchange of conclusions founded 
 on one chain of reasoning for conclusions founded on ano- 
 ther. The plain truth— if we dared but look it in the face 
 — is this .-—that absolute certainty on these subjects is not 
 attainable, and was not intended. We have already seen 
 that no miraculous revelation could make doctrines credi- 
 ble which are revolting to our reason; nor can any revela- 
 tion give to doctrines greater certainty than that which 
 attaches to its own origin and history. Now, we cannot 
 conceive the proofs of any miraculous revelation to be so 
 perfect, flawless, and cogent, as are the proofs of the great 
 doctrines of our faith, independent of miracle or revelation. 
 Both set of proofs must, philosophically speaking, be imper- 
 fect ; — but the proof that any particular individual was 
 supernaturally inspired by God, must always be more im- 
 perfect than the proof that Man and the Universe are the 
 production of His fiat; that goodness is His profoundest 
 essence ; that doing good is the noblest worship we can pay 
 Him. To seek that more cogent and compelling certainty 
 of these truths which orthodoxy yearns after, is to strive for 
 a shadow : — to fancy that we have attained it, is to be satis- 
 fied with having affixed Man's indorsement to "the true 
 sayings of God."^ 
 
 In grasping after this shadow, ordinary Christianity has 
 lost the substance:— it has sacrificed in practical, more' than 
 it has gained in dogmatic, value. -In making Christ the 
 miraculous Son of God, it has destroyed Jesus as a human 
 exemplar. If he were in a peculiar manner " the only be- 
 gotten of the Father," a partaker in his essential nature, 
 then he is immeasurably removed from us; — we may revere, 
 
 ^ " Having removed the offence we took in fancying God speaking with a 
 liuman voice, and saying, 'This is my beloved *Son : hear ye him,' — ^we 
 certainly do not incline to call that a loss. But we do not lose anything else ; 
 for considering the godliness and purity of the life of Jesus, and then thinking 
 of God and his holiness on the one side, and of our destination on the other, 
 we know, without a positive declaration, that God must have been pleased 
 with a life like that of Jesus, and that we cannot do better than adhere to 
 him. We do not lose, therefore, with those voices from heaven, more than is 
 lost by a beautiful picture from which a ticket is taken away that was fastened 
 to it, containing the superfluous assurance of its being a beautiful picture." — 
 Strauss' s Letter to Professor Orelli, p. 20. 
 
IS CHRISTIANITY A REVEALED RELIGION ? 221 
 
 we cannot imitate him. We listen to his precepts with sub- 
 mission, perhaps even greater than before. eWe dwell upon 
 the excellence of his character, no longer for imitation, but 
 for worship. We read with the deepest love and admiration 
 of his genius, his gentleness, his mercy, his unwearying 
 activity in doing good, his patience with the stupid, his 
 compassion for the afflicted, his courage in facing torture, 
 his meekness in enduring wrong;— and then we turn away 
 and say, "Ah ! he was a God ; such virtue is not for hu- 
 manity, nor for us." It is useless by honeyed words to dis- 
 guise the truth. If Christ were a man, he is owx pattern ; 
 " the possibihty of our race made real." If he were God — 
 a partaker of God's nature, as the orthodox maintain — tl\pn 
 they are guilty of a cruel mockery in speaking of him as a 
 type, a model of human excellence. How can one endowed 
 with the perfections of a God be an example to beings en- 
 cumbered with the weaknesses of humanity ? Adieu, then, 
 to Jesus as anything but a Propounder of doctrines, an 
 Utterer of precepts ! The vital portion of Christianity is 
 swept away. His Character — that from which so many in 
 all ages have drawn their moral life and strength — that 
 which so irresistibly enlists our deepest sympathies, and 
 rouses our highest aspirations — it becomes an irreverence to 
 speak of. The character — the conduct — the virtues— of a 
 God ! — these are felt to be indecent expressions. Verily, 
 orthodoxy has slain the life of Christianity. In the pre- 
 sumptuous endeavour to exalt Jesus, it has shut liim up in 
 the Holy of Holies, and hid him from the gaze of humanity. 
 It has displaced him from an object of imitation, into an 
 object of worship. It has made his life barren, that his 
 essence might be called divine. 
 
 " But ive have no fear that we should lose Christ by 
 being obhged to give up a considerable part of what was 
 hitherto called Christian creed ! He will remain to all of us 
 the more surely, the less anxiously 'we chng to doctrines and 
 opinions that might tempt our reason to forsake him. But 
 if Christ remains to us, and if he remains to us as the high- 
 est we know and are capable of imagining within the sphere 
 of religion, as the person without whose presence in the 
 mind no perfect piety is possible, — we may fairly say that 
 in Him do w^e still possess the sum and substance of the 
 Christian faith." ^ 
 
 1 Strauss' s Soliloquies, p. 67 
 
222 THE CKEED OF CHRISTENDOM. 
 
 "ElU," it will be objectecl, ''what, on this S3^stem, be- 
 comes of the religion of the poor and ignorant, the unedu- 
 cated, and the busy ? If Christianity is not a divine reve- 
 lation, and therefore entirely and infallibly true, — if the 
 Gospels are not perfectly faithful and accurate expositors of 
 Christ's teaching and of God's will, — what a fearful loss to 
 those who have neither the leisure, the learning, nor the 
 logical habits of thought requisite to construct, out of the 
 relics that remain to them and the nature that lies before 
 them, a faith for themselves ! " 
 
 To this objection we reply that the more religion can be 
 shown to consist in the realization of great moral and sj)i- 
 ritual truths, rather than in the reception of distinct dog- 
 mas, the more the position of these classes is altered for the 
 . better. In no respect is it altered for the worse. Their 
 creeds, i.e. their collection of dogmas, those who do not or 
 cannot think for themselves must always take on the autho- 
 rity of others. They do so now: they have always done so. 
 They have hitherto believed certain doctrines because wise- 
 and good men assure them that these doctrines were revealed 
 by Christ, and that Christ was a Teacher sent from God. 
 They will in future beheve them because w^ise and good men 
 assure them of their truth, and their own hearts confirm the 
 assurance. The only difference lies in this : — that in the 
 one case, the authority on which they lean vouches for the 
 truth ; in the other, for the Teacher w4io proclaimed it. 
 
 Moreover, the Bible still remains ; though no longer as 
 an inspired and infallible record. Though not the word of 
 God, it contains the words of the wisest, the most excellent, 
 the most devout men, who have ever held communion with 
 Him. The poor, the ignorant, the busy, need not, and wiL 
 not, read it critically. To each of them, it will still, through 
 all time, present the Gospels and the Psalms, — the glorious 
 purity of Jesus, the sublime piety of David and of Job. 
 Those who read it for its spirit, not for its dogmas, — as the 
 poor, the ignorant, the busy, if unj)erverted, will do, — will 
 still find in it all that is necessary for their guidance in life, 
 and their consolation in sorrow, — for their rule of duty, and 
 their trust in God. 
 
 A more genuine and important objection to the conse- 
 quences of our views is felt by indolent minds on their own 
 account. They shrink from the toil of working out truth 
 for themselves^ out of the materials which Providence has 
 
IS CHRISTIANITY A REVEALED RELIGION ? 223 
 
 placed before them. They long for the precious metal, but 
 loathe the rude ore out of which it has to be extricated 
 by the laborious alchemy of thought. A ready-made creed 
 is the Paradise of their lazy dreams. A string of autho- 
 ritative dogmatic propositions comprises the whole mental 
 wealth w'hich they desire. The volume of nature — the 
 volume of history — the volume of life — appal and terrify 
 them. Such men are the materials out of whom good 
 Catholics — of all sects — are made. They form the unin- 
 quiring and submissive flocks which rejoice the hearts of all 
 Priesthoods. Let such cHng to the faith of their forefathers 
 — if they can. But men whose minds are cast in a nobler 
 mould and are instinct with a diviner life, — who love truth 
 more than rest, and the peace of Heaven rather than the 
 peace of Eden, — to whom " a loftier being brings severer 
 cares/' — 
 
 " Who know, Mon does not live by joy alone, 
 But by the i^resence of the power of God," — 
 
 such must cast behind them the hope of any repose or 
 tranquillity save that which is the last reward of long ago- 
 nies of thought^; they must relinquish all prospect of any 
 Heaven save that of which tribulation is the avenue and 
 portal ; they must gird up their loins, and trim their lamp, 
 for a work which cannot be put by, and which must not be 
 negligently done. " He," says Zschokke, " who does not 
 like living in the furnished loclyiiigs of tradition, must 
 build his own house, his own system of thought and faith, 
 for himself."^ 
 
 * "0 Thou ! to whom the wearisome disease 
 Of Past and Present is an alien thing, 
 Thou pure Existence ! whose severe decrees 
 Forbid a living nuin his soul to bring 
 Into a timeless Eden of swe.et ease. 
 Clear-eyed, clear-hearted — lay thy loving wing 
 In death upon me — if that way alone 
 Thy great Creation-thought thou wilt to me make known." 
 
 R. M. Milnes. 
 2 Zsehokke's Autobiography, p. 29. The whole section is most deeply 
 interesting. 
 
CHAPTER XVI. 
 
 CHRISTIAN ECLECTICISM. 
 
 Christianity not being a revelation, but a conception — 
 the Gospels not being either inspired or accurate, but falli- 
 ble and imperfect human records — the practical conclusion 
 from such premises must be obvious to all. Every doctrine 
 and every proposition which the Scriptures contain, whether 
 or not we believe it to have come to us unmutilated and un- 
 marred from the mouth of Christ, is open, and must be 
 subjected, to the scrutiny of reason. Some tenets we shall 
 at once accept as the most perfect truth that can be received 
 by the human intellect and heart; — others we shall reject as 
 contradicting our instincts and offending our understand- 
 ings ; — others, again, of a more mixed nature, we must ana- 
 lyze, that so we may extricate the seed of truth from the 
 husk of error, and elicit '' the divine idea that lies at the 
 bottom of appearance."^ 
 
 I. I value the Religion of Jesus, not as being absolute 
 and perfect truth, but as containing more truth, purer truth, 
 higher truth, stronger truth, than has ever yet been given to 
 man. Much of his teaching I unhesitatingly receive as, to 
 the best of my judgment, unimprovable and unsurpassable 
 — fitted, if obeyed, to make earth a Paradise indeed, and 
 man only a little lower than the angels. The ivorthless?iess 
 of ceremonial ohservaitces, and the 7iecessity of active vir- 
 tue — '' Not every one that saith unto me. Lord ! Lord ! but 
 he that doeth the will of my Father which is in Heaven ; " 
 *'By their fruits ye shall know them;" *'I will have mercy, 
 and not sacrifice ; " "Be not a slothful hearer only, but a 
 
 '^ Fichte. 
 
CHRISTIAN ECLECTICISM. 225 
 
 doer of the word;" "Woe unto ye, Scribes and Pharisees, 
 for ye pay tithes of mint and anise and cummin, and neg- 
 lect" the weightier matters of the Law, justice, mercy, and 
 temperance : " — The enforcement of purity of heart as the 
 security for inirity of life, atid of the government of the 
 thoughts, as the originators and forerunners of action — 
 " He that looketh on a woman, to lust after her, hath com- 
 mitted adultery with her already in his heart ;" "Out of the 
 heart proceed murders, adulteries, thefts, false witness, blas- 
 phemies : these are the things which defile a man : " — Uni- 
 versal philanthropy — " Thou shalt love thy neighbour as 
 thyself; " " Whatsoever ye would that men should do unto 
 you, that do ye also unto them, for this is the Law and the 
 Prophets : " — Forgiveness of injuries — ** Love your ene- 
 mies ; do good to them that hate you ; pray for them which 
 despitefully use you and persecute you ; " " Forgive us our 
 trespasses, asw^e forgive those that trespass against us;" "I 
 say not unto thee, until seven times, but until seventy times 
 seven;" *'If ye love them only that love you, what reward 
 have ye ? do not even publicans the same? " — The necessity 
 of self-sacrifice in the cause of ^^^///— "Blessed are they 
 which are persecuted for righteousness' sake;" "If any man 
 will be my disciple, let him deny himself, and take up his 
 cross daily, and follow me; " "If thy right hand offend thee, 
 cut it off and cast it from thee;" "No man, having put his 
 hand to the plough and looking back, is fit for the kingdom 
 of God:" — Humility — "Blessed are the meek, for they 
 shall inherit the earth;" "He that humbleth himself shall 
 be exalted;" "lie that is greatest among you, let him be 
 your servant:"— 6^^//^^ /;?e sincerity; heing, not seeming — 
 "Take heed that ye do not your alms before men, to be seen 
 of them;" "When thou prayest, enter, into thy closet and 
 shut thy door;" "When tliou fastest, anoint thine head, and 
 w^ash thy face, that thou appear not unto men to fast:" — 
 all these sublime precepts need no miracle, no voice from 
 the clouds, to recommend them to our allegiance, or to 
 assure us of their divinity; they command obedience by 
 virtue of their inherent rectitude and beauty, and vindicate 
 their author as himself the one towering perpetual miracle 
 of history. 
 
 II. Next in perfection come the views which Christianity 
 unfolds to us of God in his relation to man, which were 
 
 Q 
 
g26 THE CREED OF CHRISTENDOM. 
 
 probably as near the truth as the minds of men could in 
 that age receive. God is represented as Our Father in 
 Heaven — to be whose especial children is the best reward of 
 the peace-makers — to see whose face is the highest hope of 
 the pure in heart — who is ever at hand to strengthen His 
 true worshippers— to whom is due our heartiest love, our 
 humblest submission — whose most acceptable worship is a 
 holy heart — in whose constant presence our life is passed — 
 to whose merciful disposal we are resigned by death. It is 
 remarkable that, throughout the Gospels, with the exception 
 of a simple passage^ nothing is said as to the nature of the 
 Deity: — his relation to us is alone insisted on: — all that is^ 
 needed for our consolation, our strength, our guidance, is 
 assured to us: — the purely speculative is passed over and 
 ignored. 
 
 Thus, in the two great points essential to our practical life 
 — viz. our feelings towards God, and our conduct towards 
 man — the Gospels contain little about which men can differ 
 — little from which they can dissent^ He is our Father, we 
 are all brethren. This much lies open to the most ignorant 
 and busy, as fully as to the most leisurely and learned. This 
 needs no Priest to teach it — no authority to indorse it. The 
 rest is Speculation — intensely interesting, indeed, but of no 
 practical necessity. 
 
 III. There are, however, other tenets taught in Scripture 
 and professed by Christians, in which reflective minds of all 
 ages have found it difficult to acquiesce. Thus : — however 
 far we may stretch the plea for a liberal interpretation of 
 Oriental speech, it is impossible to disguise from ourselves 
 that the New Testament teaches, in the most unreserved 
 manner, and in the strongest language, the doctrine^ of the 
 efficacy of P7 ayer in modifying the divine purposes, and in 
 obtaining the boons asked for at the throne of grace. It is 
 
 ^ God is a Spirit. 
 
 - That, however, there must be some radical defect, or incompleteness, or 
 inapplicability, in our day and country, of the Gospel rule of life, appears 
 from the fact that any one who strkthj regulates his conduct by its teaching 
 (putting aside the mere letter) is immediately led into acts which the world 
 unanimously regards as indicative of an unsound or unbalanced mind ; that 
 in fact the very attempt indicates a mental constitution or condition so 
 peculiar, so intrinsically unfit for the business of life, as to constitute what is. 
 universally admitted to be unsoundness. Most men who profess to take the 
 Gospel as their giiide, escape this unsoundness, or keep it within permissible 
 bounds, by inconsistency, or artificial interpretations. 
 
CHRISTIAN ECLECTICISM. 227 
 
 true til at one passage (John xi. 42) would seem to indicate 
 that prayer was a form which Jesus adopted for the sake of 
 others ; it is also remarkable that the model of prayer, which 
 he taught to his disciples, contains only one simple and modest 
 request for personal and temporal good^ ; yet not only are 
 we told that he prayed earnestly and for specific mercies 
 (though with a most submissive will), on occasions of pecu- 
 liar suffering and trial, but few of his exhortations to his dis- 
 ciples occur more frequently than that to constant prayer, and 
 no promises are more distinct or reiterated than that their 
 prayers shall be heard and ans^Yered. " Watch and pray ;" 
 *' This kind goeth not out but by prayer and fasting ;" 
 "What things soever ye desire, when ye pray, believe that ye 
 shall receive them, and ye shall have them;" " Verily, verily, 
 I say unto you, whatsoever ye shall ask of the Father in my 
 name, he will give it you ;" " Ask, and it shall be given, 
 you;" " Thinkest thou that I cannot now pray to my Father, 
 and he shall presently give me more than twelve legions of 
 angels ?" The parable of the unjust Judge was delivered to 
 enforce the same conclusion, and the writings of the Apostles 
 are at least equally explicit on this point. " Be constant in 
 prayer ;" " Pray without ceasing ;" " Let him ask in faith,, 
 nothing wavering ;" " The fervent effectual prayer of a 
 righteous man availeth much." 
 
 No one can read such passages, and the numberless others- 
 of a similar character with which both Testaments abound, 
 and doubt that the opinion held both by Christ and his dis- 
 ciples was that "Jehovah is a God that heareth and answereth 
 prayer;" — that favours are to be obtained from Him by earnest 
 and reiterated entreaty ; that whatever good thing His sin- 
 cere worshippers petition for, with instance and with faith,, 
 shall be granted to them, if consonant to his purposes, and 
 shall be granted in consequence of their petition ; that, in fact 
 and truth, apart from all metaphysical subtleties and subter- 
 fuges, the designs of God can be modified and swayed, like 
 those of an earthly father, by the entreaties of His children. 
 This doctrine is set forth throughout the Jewish Scriptures 
 in its coarsest and nakedest form, and it reappears in the- 
 
 1 **It is a curious fact that the Lord's Prayer raay be reconstructed," says 
 "Wetstein, "almost verbatim out of the Talmud, which also contains a pro- 
 phetic intimation that all prayer will one day cease, except the prayer of 
 Thanksgiving." (Mackay's Progress of the Intellect, ii. 379.) 
 
 Q % 
 
228 THE CREED OF CHRISTENDOM. 
 
 Christian Scriptures in a form only slightly modified and re- 
 fined. 
 
 Now, this doctrine has in all ages been a stumbling-block 
 to the thoughtful. It is obviously irreconcilable with all 
 that reason and revelation teach us of the divine nature ; and 
 the inconsistency has been felt by the ablest of the Scripture 
 writers themselves \ Various and desperate have been the 
 expedients and suppositions resorted to, in order to reconcile 
 the conception of an immutable, all-wise, all- foreseeing God, 
 with that of a father who is turned from his course by the 
 prayers of his creatures. But all such efforts are, and are 
 felt' to be, hopeless failures. They involve the assertion and 
 negation of the same proposition in one breath. The problem 
 remains still insoluble ; and we must either be content to 
 leave it so, or we must abandon one or other of the hostile 
 premises. 
 
 The religious man, who believes that all events, mental as 
 well as physical, are pre-ordered and arranged according to 
 the degrees of infinite wisdom, and the philosopher, who 
 knows that, by the wise and eternal laws of the universe, 
 cause and effect are i.idissolubly chained together, and that 
 one follows the other in inevitable succession, — equally feel 
 that this ordination — this chain — cannot be changeable at 
 the cry of man. To suppose that it can is to place the whole 
 harmonious system of nature at the mercy of the weak reason 
 and the selfish wishes of humanity. If the purposes of God 
 were not wise, they would not be formed : — if wise, they can- 
 not be changed, for then they would become unwise. To 
 suppose that an all-wise Being would alter his designs and 
 modes of proceeding at the entreaty of an unknowing crea- 
 ture, is to believe that compassion would change his wisdom 
 into foolishness. It has been urged that prayer may render a 
 favour wise, which would else be unwise ; but this is to ima- 
 gine that events are not foreseen and pre-ordered, but are 
 arranged and decided7;rc» re natd : it is also to ignore utterly 
 the unquestionable fact, that no event in life or in nature is 
 isolated, and that non3 can be changed without entailing 
 endless and universal alterations*. If the universe is go- 
 
 1 *' God is not a man that lie should lie, nor the son of man, that he should 
 repent." 
 
 2 ' ' Immediate proof of that system of interminable connection which binds 
 together the whole human family, may be obtained by every one who will 
 
CHRISTIAN ECLECTICISM. 229 
 
 vemed by fixed laws, or (which is the same proposition in 
 different language) if all events are pre-ordained by the fore- 
 seeing wisdom of an infinite God, then the prayers of thou- 
 sands of years and generations of martyrs and saints cannot 
 change or modify one iota of our destiny. The proposition 
 is unassailable by the subtlest logic \ The weak, fond affec- 
 tions of humanity struggle in vain against the unwelcome 
 conclusion. 
 
 It is a conclusion from which the feelings of almost all of 
 us shrink and revolt. The strongest sentiment of our nature, 
 perhaps, is that of our helplessness in the hands of fate, and 
 against this helplessness we seek for a resource in the belief 
 of our dependence on a Higher Power, which can control and 
 will interfere with fate. And though our reason tells us that 
 it is inconceivable that the entreaties of creatures as erring 
 and as bhnd as we are, can influence the all-w^ise purposes of 
 God, yet we feel an internal voice, more eloquent than reason, 
 which assures us that to pray to Him in trouble is an irre- 
 pressible instinct of our nature — an instinct which precedes 
 teaching — which survives experience — which defies philo- 
 sophy. 
 
 " For sorrow oft the cry of faith 
 In bitter need will borrow." 
 
 examine the several ingredients of his physical, intellectual, and social con- 
 dition ; for he will not find one of these circumstances of his lot that is not 
 directly an effect or consequence of the conduct, or character, or constitution 
 of his progenitors, and of all with whom he has had to do ; if they had been 
 other than what they were, he also must have been other than he is. And 
 then our predecessors must in like manner trace the qualities of their being to 
 theirs ; thus the linking ascends to the common parents of all ; and thus 
 must it descend — still spreading as it goes — from the present to the last 
 generation of the children of Adam."— Nat. Hist, of Enthusiasm, p. 149. 
 
 * The author of the Natural History of Enthusiasm has a singular theory 
 on this point. He is not very clear, because clearness would make his incon- 
 sistency and the strangeness of his position too manifest ; but as far as we 
 can decipher his notion, it is this : He divides all events into two classes— 
 the certain and fortuitous. He conceives, as well as we do, that the great 
 mass of events occur according to established laws, and in the regular process 
 of causation : and these he regards as settled and immutable : but in addition 
 to these he considers that there are many others which are mere fortuities, at 
 the command of God's will and of man's prayers ; and that these fortuities 
 are the special province and means of the divine government " (chap. vi.). 
 Yet this writer allows that all events and all men's lots are inextricably woven 
 together (pp. 132, 149) ; how then can one thing be more fortuitous or alter- 
 able than another ? Moreover, fortuity, as he elsewhere intimates, is merely 
 an expression denoting our ignorance of causation : that ^7hich seems a chance 
 to ua is among the most settled and certain of God's ordainments. 
 
230 THE CREED OF CHRISTENDOM. 
 
 It would be an unspeakable consolation to our human in- 
 firmity, could we, in this case, believe our reason to be erro- 
 neous, and our instinct true; but we greatly fear that the 
 latter is the result, partly of that anthropomorphism which 
 pervades all our religious conceptions, which our limited 
 faculties suggest, and which education and habit have rooted 
 so fixedly in our mental constitution, — and partly of that 
 fond weakness which recoils from the idea of irreversible and, 
 inescapaMe decree. The conception of subjection to a law 
 without exception, without remission, without appeal, crush- 
 ing, absolute, and universal, is truly an appalling one ; and, 
 most mercifully, can rarely be perceived in all its overwhelm- 
 ing force, except by minds which, through stern and lofty 
 intellectual training, have in some degree become quahfied to 
 bear it. 
 
 Communion icifh Gody we must ever bear in mind, is 
 something very different from prayer for specific blessings, 
 and often confers the submissive strength of soul for which 
 we pray ; and we believe it will be found that the higher our 
 souls rise in their spiritual progress, the more does entreaty 
 merge into thanksgiving, the more ^q^% petition become ab- 
 sorbed in communion with the " Father of the spirits of all 
 flesh." That the piety of Christ was fast tending to this end 
 is, we think, indicated by his instructions to his disciples 
 (Matt. vi. 8, 9) ; '' When ye pray, use not vain repetitious, 
 for your Father knoweth what things ye have need of before 
 je ask him. After this manner, therefore, pray ye," &c. 
 ^nd by that last sublime sentence in Gethsemane, uttered 
 when the agonizing struggle of the spirit with the flesh had 
 1:erminated in the complete and final victory of the first, 
 ■" Father, if this cup may not pass from me except I drink it, 
 thy will be done." 
 
 Prayer may be regarded as the form which devotion natu- 
 rally takes in ordinary minds, and even in the most enlight- 
 ened minds in their less spiritual moods. The highest 
 intellectual efforts, the loftiest religious contemplations, dis- 
 pose to devotion, but check the impulses of prayer. The 
 devout philosopher, trained to the investigation of universal 
 system, — the serene astronomer, fresh from the study of the 
 ohangeless laws which govern innumerable worlds, — shrinks 
 from the monstrous irrationality of asking the great Architect 
 and Governor of all to work a miracle in his behalf— to in- 
 
CHRISTIAN ECLECTICISM. 231 
 
 terfere, for the sake of Ids convenience, or his plans with, the 
 sublime order conceived by the Ancient of Days in the far 
 Eternity of the Past ; for what is a special providence but an 
 interference with established laws ? and what is such inter- 
 ference but a miracle ? There is much truth and beauty 
 in the following remarks of Isaac Taylor, but much also of 
 the inconsistency, irreverence, and insolence of orthodoxy. 
 
 " The very idea of addressing petitions to Him who 
 worketh all things according to the counsel of his o^vn eternal 
 and unalterable will, and the enjoined practice of clothing 
 sentiments of piety in articulate forms of language, though 
 these sentiments, before they are invested in words, are per- 
 fectly known to the Searcher of hearts, imply that, in the 
 terms and mode of intercourse with God and man, no attempt 
 is made to lift the latter above his sphere of limited notions 
 and imperfect knowledge. TJte terms of devotional com- 
 munion rest even on a much loiver ground than that ivhich 
 man, hy efforts of reason and imagination, might attain to^. 
 Prayer, by its very conditions, supposes -not only a condescen- 
 sion of the divine nature to meet the human, hiit a humbling 
 of the human nature to a lower range than it might easily 
 reach. The region of ah sir act conceptions — of lofty rea- 
 sonings — of magnijicent images, has an atmosphere too 
 subtle to support the health of true piety ; and in order 
 that the w^armth and vigour of life may be maintained in tbe 
 heart, the common level of the natural affections is chosen as 
 the scene of intercourse between heaven and earth . . . 
 The utmost distances of the material universe are finite ; but 
 the disparity of nature which separates man from his Maker 
 is infinite ; nor can the interval be filled up or brought under 
 any process of measurement Were it indeed per- 
 mitted to man to gaze upward from step to step, and from 
 range to range, of the vast edifice of rational existences, and 
 could his eye attain its summit, and then perceive, at an 
 infinite height beyond that highest platform of created beings, 
 the lowest beams of the Eternal Throne — what hberty of 
 heart would afterwards be left to him in drawing near to the 
 Eather of Spirits ? How, after such a revelation of the upper 
 world, could the aJBfectionate cheerfulness of earthly worship 
 
 ^ Is it not a clear deduction fi-om this, that prayer is a form of devotion 
 ..conceded only to our imperfect spiritual cajmcities, and to be outgrown as 
 .those capacities are raised and strengthened ? 
 
S32 THE CREED OF CHRISTENDOM. 
 
 again take place ? Or how, while contemplating the mea- 
 sured vastness of the interval between heaven and earth, 
 could the dwellers thereon come familiarly as before to the 
 Hearer of Prayer ; bringing with them the small requests of 
 
 their petty interests of the present hfe These 
 
 spectacles of greatness, if laid open to perception, would 
 present such an interminable perspective of glory, and so set 
 out the immeasurable distance between ourselves and the 
 Supreme Being with a long gradation of splendours, that we 
 should henceforth feel as if thrust down to an extreme re- 
 moteness from the divine notice ; and it would be hard or 
 impossible to retain, with any comfortable conviction, the 
 belief in the nearness of Him who is revealed as ' a very 
 
 present help in eveiy time of trouble.' Every 
 
 ambitious attempt to break through the humbling condi- 
 tions on which man may hold communion with God, must 
 then fail of success; since the Supreme has fixed the scene 
 of worship and converse, not in the skies, but on the earth. 
 The Scripture models of devotion, far from encouraging 
 Tague and inarticulate contemplations, consist of such utter- 
 ances of desire, hope and love, as seem to suppose the ex- 
 istence of correlative feelings, and of every human sympathy. 
 in Him to whom they are addressed \ And though reason 
 and Scripture assure ns that He neither needs to he in- 
 formed of our icants, nor waits to he moved hy our sup- 
 2)lications, yet ivill He he approached luith the eloquence 
 of iniportuiiate desire, and He demands, ?iot ojily a sincere 
 feeling of indigence and dejyendence, hut an undissemhled 
 zeal and diligence in seeking the desired hoons hy perse- 
 vering request. He is to he supplicated icith arguments 
 as one who needs to he swayed and moved, to he wrought 
 upon and influenced; nor is any alternative offered to those 
 who would present themselves at the throne of heavenly 
 grace, or any exception made in favour of superior spirits, 
 whose more elevated 7Wtions of the divine perfectiojis may 
 render this accommodated style distasteful. As the Hearer 
 of Prayer stoops to listen, so also must the suppliant stoop 
 from the heights of philosophical or meditative abstrac- 
 
 1 That is, they are based on erroneous premises, supported by a natural 
 feeling, the very feeling which, pushed a little further, has originated prayers 
 to Christ in the English Church, and to Saints and to the Virgin Mary in the 
 Roman Communion. 
 
CHRISTIAN ECLECTICISM. 233 
 
 tions, and either come in genuine simplicity of petition, 
 as a son to a father, or he utterly excluded from the 
 friendship of his Maker." ^ 
 
 The expressions in this last paragraph— those particu- 
 larly which we have italicised— appear to us, we confess, 
 monstrous, and little, if at all, short of hlasphemy, i.e. 
 speakincr evil of God. What ! He, who " hoth by reason 
 and Scripture" has taught us that He is not moved by our 
 supplications, requires us — " on pain of being utterly ex- 
 cluded from his favour "—to act as if He were ! He, who 
 has given us the understanding to conceive His entire ex- 
 emption from all human weaknesses, requires us to proceed 
 as if we ''thought that He was altogether such a one as 
 ourselves " ! He, who has made us to know that all things 
 are ordered by Him from the beginning — " that with Hira 
 is no variableness, neither shadow of turning "—requires us 
 to supplicate, " argue," importune, as if ive believed that 
 supphcation, argument, and importunity could sway and 
 turn Him from His purposes,— commands us, in a word, to 
 enact in His august presence a comedy, which He knows, 
 and we know, to be a mockery and a farce ! He, who has 
 given us, as His divinest gift,* to elevate, to perfect, and to 
 purify, an intellect bearing some faint analogy to His own, 
 —punishes with ''exclusion from His friendship," those 
 nobler conceptions of His nature which are the finest 
 achievements of this intellect, unless we consent to abne- 
 gate and disavow them, or jjretend that tve do so /—for this 
 appears to be the signification of the last sentence we have 
 quoted. Such are the bewildering positions into which 
 Orthodoxy drives its more intellectual disciples ! 
 
 The following remarks are thrown out rather as sugges- 
 tions for thought than as digested reflections, but they may 
 contain a clue to some truth. 
 
 The inadmissibility of the idea of the bona fide efficacy 
 of prayer, would appear to be enforced rather by our con- 
 viction that all things in Hfe are arranged by law, than by 
 a belief in the foreknowledge (which in a supreme Being is 
 equivalent to foreordainment) of the Deity. This latter 
 doctrine, however metaphysically true and probable, we 
 ca/mot hold, so as to follow it out fairly to its consequences. 
 
 » Nat. Hist, of Enthuarsm, pp. 27-32. 
 
•234 THE CREED OF CHRISTENDOM. 
 
 It negatives tlie free-will of man at least as peremptorily as 
 the efficacy of prayer : — yet in the free-will of man we do 
 believe, and must believe, however strict logic may struggle 
 against it. Why, then, should we not also hold the efficacy 
 of prayer? — a doctrine, so far, certainly not more illogical? 
 Because if, as we cannot doubt, the immutable relation of 
 cause and effect governs everything, in all time, through all 
 space — then prayer — except in those cases where it ope- 
 rates as a 7iatural cause — cannot affect the sequence of 
 events. If bodily pain aud disease be the legitimate and 
 traceable consequence of imprudence and excess — if pleurisy 
 or consumption follow, by natural law, exposure to inclement 
 "weather in weak frames — if neuralgia be the legal progeny 
 of organic decay or shattered nerves — if storms follow laws 
 as certain as the law of gravitation — how can prayer bring 
 about the cessation of pain, or the lulling of the storm, for 
 the relief of the suflfering, or the rescue of the emperilled, 
 man ? Is not the prayer for such cessation clearly a prayer 
 for a miracle ? 
 
 Prayer may be itself a natural cause; — it may, by its 
 mental intensity, suspend bodily pain : — it may, by the 
 moral elevation it excites, confer strength to dare and to 
 endure. Prayer, to a fellow-creature of superior power and 
 wisdom, may induce such to apply a lenitive or a cure, 
 ■which, however, is simply a natural cause, placed by our 
 ignorance beyond our reach. If, therefore, there be around 
 lis, as many think, superior spiritual beings, our prayers, 
 if heard by them, may induce them to aid us by means 
 unknown to our inferior powers. Bat such aid would then 
 be the natural result of natural though obscure causes. 
 " If, however," it may be asked, " superior beings may be 
 moved by prayer to aid us by their knowledge of natural 
 agencies unknown to us, why not God ? " The answer is : 
 that for Prayer to be a bona fide effective agent in obtain- 
 ing any boon, it must operate on an impressible and mutable 
 will: — therefore, if there be superior intermediate beings, 
 sharing human sympathies and imperfections, but possess- 
 ing more than human powers and knowledge — prayer may 
 secure their aid ; but not that of a supreme God. Still, the 
 question remains much one oi fact : — are our prayers — 
 ^re the most earnest prayers of the wisest, the best, the 
 most suflfering — generally answered? Does toothache or 
 
CHRISTIAN ECLECTICISM. 235 
 
 sciatica last a sliorter time with those who inay^ than with 
 those who only hear '} 
 
 On the whole, however, we are content that man should 
 rest in the Christian practice, though not in the Christian 
 theory, of Prayer — -just as we are obliged to rest satisfied 
 with a conception of Deity, which, though utterly erroneous 
 in the sight of God, and consciously imperfect even in our 
 •own, is yet the nearest approach to truth our minds can 
 frame, and practically adequate to our necessities. The 
 -common doctrine we cannot but regard as one of those fic- 
 tions which imperfect and un chastened man is fain to 
 gather round him, to equalize his strength with the require- 
 ments of his lot, but which a stronger nature might dis- 
 pense with ; — one of those fictions which may be considered 
 as the imperfect expression — the approximative formula — 
 of mighty and eternal verities. 
 
 IV. Remotely connected with the doctrine of an inter- 
 posing and influencible Providence, is the fallacy, or rather 
 the imperfection, which Hes at the root of the ordinary 
 Christian view of Resignation, as a duty and a virtue. 
 Submission, cheerful acquiescence in the dispensations of 
 Providence, is enjoined upon us, not because these dispen- 
 sations are just and wise — not because they are the ordi- 
 nances of His will who cannot err,— but because they are 
 ■ordained for our benefit, and because He has promised that 
 " all things shall work together for good to them that love 
 Him." We are assured that every trial and affliction is de- 
 signed solely for our good, for our discipUne, and will issue 
 in a blessing, though we see not how; and that therefore 
 we must bow to it with unmurmuring resignation. These 
 grounds, it is obvious, are purely self-regarding ; and resig- 
 nation, thus represented and thus motived, is no virtue, but 
 a simple calculation of self-interest. This narrow view 
 Tesults from that incorrigible egotism of the human heart 
 which makes each man prone to regard himself as the 
 special object of divine consideration, and the centre, round 
 which the universe revolves. Yet it is unquestionably the 
 Yiew most prominently aud frequently presented in the New 
 Testament \ and by all modern divines '\ It may be, that 
 
 1 See especially Matt. v. 11, 12 ; xvi. 25-27. Romans viii. 18, 28. 
 2 Cor. iv. 17. Gal. vi. 9. There is one sublime exception, from the mouth 
 of Chcist. "The cup that my Father has giyen me, shall I not drink it ?" 
 
 * The sublimest and purest genius among modern divines goes so far as ta 
 
236 THE CREED OF CHRISTENDOM. 
 
 the prospect of " an exceeding, even an eternal weight of 
 glory," may he needed to support our frail purposes under 
 the crushing afflictions of our mortal lot; it may he, that, 
 hy the perfect arrangements of omnipotence, the sufferings 
 of all may he made to work out the ultimate and supreme 
 good of each ; hut this is not, cannot he, the reason why 
 we should suhmit with resignation to whatever God ordains. 
 His will must he equally wise, equally right, whether it 
 allot to us happiness or misery : it is His will ; we need 
 inquire no further. Joh, who had no vision of a future 
 compensatory world, had in this attained a suhlimer point 
 of religion than St. Paul : — " Though He slay me, yet will 
 I trust in Him." "What! shall we receive good at the 
 hands of God, and shall we not receive evil ? " (Joh. xiii. 
 J5; ii. 10.) 
 
 To the orthodox Christian, who fully heheves all he pro- 
 fesses, cheerful resignation to the divine will is comparatively 
 a natural, an easy, a simple thing. To the religious philoso- 
 pher, it is the highest exercise of intellect and virtue. The man 
 who has realized the faith that his own lot, in all its minutest 
 particulars, is not only directly regulated hy God, — hut is so 
 regulated hy God as unerringly to work for his highest good, 
 — with an express view^ to his highest good, — with such 
 a man, resignation, patience, nay, cheerful acquiescence in 
 all suifering and sorrow, appears to us to be in fact only the 
 simple and practical expression of his belief If, believing 
 all this, he still murmurs and rebels at the trials and con- 
 trarieties of his lot, he is guilty of the childishness of the 
 infant which quarrels w^ith the medicine that is to lead it back 
 to health and ease. But the religious Philosopher, — who, 
 sincerely holding that a Supreme God created and governs 
 this world, holds also that He governs it by laws which, 
 though wise, just, and beneficent, are yet steady, unwaver- 
 ing, inexorable; — who believes that his agonies and sorrows 
 are not specially ordained for his chastening, his strengthen- 
 ing, his elaboration and development, — but are incidental 
 and necessary results of the operation of laws the best that 
 
 maintain that, apart from tLe hope of future recompense, *' a deviation from 
 rectitude would become the part of wisdom, and should the path of virtue be 
 obstructed by disgrace, torment, or death, to persevere would be madness 
 and folly." (Modern Infidelity, p. 20, by Robert Hall.) It is sad to reflect 
 how mercenary a thing duty has become in the hands of theologians. Were 
 their belief in a future retribution once shaken, they would become, on their 
 principles, the lowest of sensualists, the worst of sinners. 
 
CHRISTIAN ECLECTICISM. 237 
 
 could be devised for the happiness and purification of the 
 species, — or perhaps not even that, but the best adapted to 
 work out the vast, awfal, glorious, eternal designs of the 
 Great Spirit of the universe ; — who beheves that the ordained 
 operations of Nature, which have brought misery to hira, 
 have, from the very unswerving tranquilHty of their career, 
 showered blessing and sunshine upon every other path, — 
 that the unrelenting chariot of Time, which has crushed or 
 maimed him in its allotted course, is pressing onward to the 
 accomphshment of those serene and mighty purposes, to 
 have contributed to which — even as a victim — is an honour 
 and a recompense ; — he who takes this view of Time, and 
 Nature, and God, and yet bears his lot without murmur or 
 distrust, because it is portion of a system, the best possible, 
 because ordained hi/ God, — has achieved a point of virtue, 
 the highest, amid passive excellence, which humanity can 
 reach ; — and his reward and support must be found in the 
 reflection that he is an unreluctant and self-sacrificing co- 
 operator with the Creator of the universe, and in the noble 
 consciousness of being worthy, and capable, of so sublime 
 a conception, yet so sad a destiny \ 
 
 In a comparison of the two resignations, there is no mea- 
 sure of their respective grandeurs. The orthodox sufferer 
 fights the battle only on condition of surviving to reap the 
 fruits of victory : — the other fights on, knowing that he must 
 fall early in the battle, but content that his body should form 
 a stepping-stone for the future conquests of humanity^. 
 
 ^ " ' Pain is in itself an evil. It cannot be that Grod, who, as we know, is 
 perfectly good, can choose us to suffer jmin, unless either we are ourselves to 
 receive from it an antidote to what is evil in ourselves, or else as such pain 
 is a necessary part in the scheme of the universe, which as a lohole is good. 
 
 In either case I can take it thankfully I should not be taken away 
 
 without it was ordered so "Whatever creed we hold, if we believe 
 
 that Grod is, and that he cares for his creatures, one cannot doubt that. And 
 it would not have been ordered so without it was better either for ourselves 
 or for some other persons, or some things. To feel sorrow is a kind of 
 murmuring against God's will, which is worse than unbelief.' 
 " ' But think of the grief of those you leave.' 
 
 " * They should not allow themselves to feel it. It is a sjTuptom o: an un- 
 formed mind.'" — Shadows of the Clouds, pp. 146, 148. 
 
 This is a somewhat harshly-expressed philosophy, but full of truth. 
 
 2 '* Is selfishness — 
 For time, a sin— spun out to eternity 
 Celestial prudence ? Shame ! oh, thrust me forth. 
 Forth, Lord, from self, until I toil and die 
 
238 THE CREED OF CHRISTENDOM. 
 
 Somewhat similar remarks may "be made with reference to 
 the virtues of action as to those of endurance. It is a mat- 
 ter suggestive of much reflection, that, throughout the New 
 Testament, the loftiest and purest motive to action — love of 
 duty as duty, ohedience to the will of God hecause it is His 
 will — is rarely appealed to ; one or two expressions of 
 Christ, and the 14th chapter of John, forming the only ex- 
 ceptions. The almost invariahle language — pitched to the 
 level of ordinary humanity — is, "Do your duty at all 
 hazards, for your Father which seeth in secret shall reward 
 you openly." *' Verily, I say unto you, ye shall in no wise 
 lose your reward."^ 
 
 Yet this is scarcely the right view of things. The hop© 
 of success, not the hope of reward, should be our stimu- 
 lating and sustaining might. Our object, not ourselves, 
 should be our inspiring thought. The labours of philan- 
 thropy are comparatively easy, when the effect of them, and 
 their recoil upon ourselves, is immediate and apparent. But 
 this it can rarely be, unless where the field of our exertions 
 is narrow, and ourselves the only or the chief labourers. In 
 the more frequent cases where we have to join our efforts to 
 those of thousands of others to contribute to the carryings 
 forward of a great cause, merely to till the ground or sow the 
 seed for a very distant harvest, or to prepare the way for the 
 future advent of some great amendment ; the amount which 
 each man has contributed to the achievement of ultimate 
 success, the portion of the prize which justice should 
 assign to each as his especial jDroduction, can never be 
 accurately ascertained. Perhaps few of those who have 
 laboured, in the patience of secrecy and silence, to bring^ 
 
 No more for Heaven or bliss, but duty, Lord — 
 
 Duty to Thee — although my meed should be 
 
 The Hell which I deserve." 
 
 Saint's Tragedy. 
 ' ''When thou art bidden, take the lowest room, that when he that bade 
 thee Cometh, he may say, ' Friend, go up higher ;' so shalt thou have Jionour 
 in the presence of them that sit at meat xoith thee." "Every one that humbleth 
 laxm^&M shall he exalted.'" "Seek ye first the Kingdom of Heaven, .... 
 and all these things shall he added unto you.'" "Lord, we have left all and 
 followed thee, what shall ive hare therefore? Verily I say unto you, that 
 ye which have followed me, in the regeneration, when the Son of Man shall 
 sit on the throne of his glory, ye also shall sit upon twelve thrones, judging 
 the twelve tribes of Israel." " No man that hath left father or mother for 
 my sake but shall receive a hundred fold more in this present life, and in the 
 world to come life everlasting.'" 
 
CHRISTIAN ECLECTICISM. SS^- 
 
 about some political or social change whicli they felt con- 
 Yincecl would ultimately prove of vast service to humanity, 
 may live to see the change effected, or the anticipated good 
 flow from it. Fewer still of them will be able to pronounce 
 what appreciable weight their several efforts contributed to 
 the achievement of the change desired. And discouraging 
 doubts will therefore often creep in upon minds in which 
 egotism is not wholly swallowed up by earnestness, as 
 to whether, in truth, their exertions had any influence what- 
 ever — whether in sad and sober fact they have not been the 
 mere fly upon the wheel. With naany men these doubts are 
 fatal to active effort. To counteract them we must labour 
 to elevate and purify our motives, as well as sedulously 
 cherish the conviction — assuredly a true one — that in this 
 world there is no such thing as effort thrown away — that " in 
 all labour there is profit" — that all sincere exertion in a 
 righteous and unselfish cause is necessarily followed, in spite 
 of all appearance to the contrary, by an appropriate and 
 proportionate success — that no bread cast upon the waters 
 can be wholly lost — that no seed planted in the ground can 
 fail to fructify in due time and measure ; and that, however 
 we may in moments of despondency be apt to doubt, not only 
 whether our cause will triumph, but whether we shall have 
 contributed to its triumph, — there is One who has not only- 
 seen every exertion we have made, but who can assign tho 
 exact degree in which each soldier has assisted to gain the 
 great victory over social evil^ The Augsean stables of the 
 world — the accumulated uncleanness and misery of centuries 
 — require a mighty river to cleanse them thoroughly away : 
 every drop we contribute aids to swell that river and augment 
 its force, in a degree appreciable by God, though not by 
 man ; — and he whose zeal is deep and earnest, will not bo 
 over anxious that his individual drop should be distinguish- 
 able amid the mighty mass of cleansing and fertihzing 
 waters, far less that, for the sake of distinction, it should 
 
 * " Yet are there some to wliom a strength is given, 
 A Will, a self-constraining Energy, 
 A Faith which feeds upon no earthly hope, 
 Which never thinks of victory, but content 
 In its own consummation, covihating 
 Because it ought to combat y .... 
 Kejoicing fights, and still rejoicing falls. "' 
 
 The Combat of Life.— E. M. Milaes. 
 
240 THE CREED OF CHRISTENDOM. 
 
 flow in ineffective singleness away. He will not be careful 
 that his name should be inscribed upon the mite which he 
 casts into the treasury of God. It should suffice each of us 
 to know that, if we have laboured, with purity of purpose, 
 in any good cause, we must have contributed to its success; 
 that the degree in which we have contributed is a matter of 
 infinitely small concern ; and still more, that the conscious- 
 ness of having so contributed, however obscurely and un- 
 noticed, should be our sufficient, if our sole, reward. Let 
 us cherish this faith ; it is a duty. He who sows and reaps 
 is a good labourer, and worthy of his hire. But he who 
 sows what shall be reaped by others who know not and reck 
 not of the sower, is a labourer of a nobler order, and worthy 
 of a loftier guerdon. 
 
 V. The common Christian conception of the pardon of 
 sin upon repentance and conversion seems to us to embody a 
 very transparent and pernicious fallacy. " Who can forgive 
 sins but God only ?" asked the Pharisees. There is great 
 confusion and contradiction in our ideas on this subject. 
 God is the only being who can not forgive sins. " Forgive- 
 ness of sins" means one of two things: — it either means 
 saving a man from the consequences of his sins, that is, in- 
 terposing between cause and effect, in which case it is 
 V working a miracle (which God no doubt can do, but which 
 we have no right to expect that He will do, or ask that He 
 shall do) ; or it means an engagement to forbear retalia- 
 tion, a suppression of the natural anger felt against the 
 offender by the offended party, aforegoing of vengeance on 
 the part of the injured — in which meaning it is obviously 
 quite inapplicable to a Being exempt and aloof from human 
 passions. When w^e entreat a fellow-creature to forgive the 
 offences we have committed against him, we mean to entreat 
 that he will not, by any act of his, punish us for them, that 
 he will not revenge nor repay them, that he will retain no 
 rancour in his breast against us on account of them. ; and 
 such a prayer addressed to a being of like passions to our- 
 selves is rational and inteUigible, because we know that it is 
 natural for him to feel anger at our injuries, and that, unless 
 moved to the contrary, he will probably retaliate. But 
 when we pray to our Heavenly Father to " forgive us our 
 trespasses, as we forgive those who trespass against us," we 
 overlook the want of parallelism of the two cases, and show 
 
CHRISTIAN ECLECTICISM. 241 
 
 that our notions on t"he subject are altogether misty and con- 
 fused ; for God cannot be injured by our sins, and He is 
 inaccessible to the passions of anger and revenge. Yet the 
 plain expression of the Book of Common Prayer — " Neither 
 take Thou vengeance of our sins " — embodies the real sig- 
 nification attached to the prayer for forgiveness, by all who 
 attach any definite signification to their prayers. Now, this 
 expression is an Old Testament or a Vagan expression, and 
 can only be consistently and intelligibly used by those who 
 entertain the same low ideas of God as the ancient Greeks 
 and Hebrews entertained — that is, who think of Him as an 
 irritable, jealous, and avenging Potentate. 
 
 If, from this inconsistency, we take refuge in the other 
 meaning of the Prayer for forgiveness, and assume that it is 
 a prayer to God that He wdll exempt us from the natural and 
 appointed consequences of our misdeeds, it is important that 
 we should clearly define to our minds what it is that w^e are 
 asking for. In our view of the matter, punishment for sins 
 by the divine law is a wholly different thing and process 
 from punishment for violations of human laws. It is not an 
 infliction for crime, imposed by an external authority and 
 artificially executed by external force, but a natural and in- 
 evitable result of the off'ence — a child generated by a parent 
 — a sequence following an antecedent — a consequence arising 
 out of a cause. 
 
 " The Lord is just : He made the chain 
 Which binds together guilt and pain." 
 
 The punishment of sin consists in the consequences of 
 sin. These form a penalty most adequately heavy. A sin 
 without its punishment is as impossible, as complete a con- 
 tradiction in terms, as a cause without an effect. 
 
 To pray that God will forgive our sins, therefore, appears, 
 in all logical accuracy, to involve either a most unworthy 
 conception of His character, or an entreaty of incredible 
 audacity— viz. that He will work daily miracles in our behalf. 
 It is either beseeching Him to renounce feelings and inten- 
 tions which it is impossible that a Nature like His should 
 entertain : or it is asking Him to violate the eternal and har- 
 monious order of the universe, for the comfort of one out of 
 the infinite myriads of its inhabitants. 
 
 It may, perhaps, be objected, that Punishment of sins may 
 
 R 
 
^4^ THE CREED OF CHEISTENDOM. 
 
 "be viewed, not as a vengeance taken for injury or insult com- 
 mitted, nor yet as the simple and necessary sequence of a 
 cause — but as chastisement y inflicted to work repentance 
 and amendment. But, even when considered in this light, 
 prayer for forgiveness remains still a marvellous inconsis- 
 tency. It then becomes the entreaty of the sick man to his 
 Physician not to heal him. "Forgive us our sins," then 
 means, "Let us continue in our iniquity." It is clear, how- 
 ever, that the first meaning w-e have mentioned, as attached 
 to the prayer for forgiveness of sins, is both the original and 
 the prevailing one; and that it arises from an entire miscon- 
 ception of the character of the Deity, and of the feelings with 
 which He may be supposed to regard sin — a misconception 
 inherited from our Pagan and Jewish predecessors : it is a 
 prayer to deprecate the just resentment of a Potentate whom 
 we have offended — a petition which would be more suitably 
 addressed to an earthly enemy than to a Heavenly Father. 
 The misconception is natural to a rude state of civihzation 
 and of theology. It is the same notion from which arose 
 sacrifices {i. e. offerings to appease wrath), and which caused 
 their universality in early ages and among barbarous nations. 
 It is a relic of anthropomorphism ; — a belief that God, like 
 man, is enraged by neglect or disobedience, and can be paci- 
 Jied by submission and entreaty ; — a belief consistent and 
 intelligible among the Greeks — inconsistent and irrational 
 among Christians — correct as applied to Jupiter — unmeaning 
 or blasphemous as applied to Jehovah. 
 
 We have, in fact, come to regard sin, not as an injury done 
 to our own nature — an offence against our own souls — a dis- 
 figuring of the image of the Beautiful and Good — but as a 
 personal affront offered to a powerful and avenging Being, 
 which, unless apologized for, will be chastised as such. We 
 have come to regard it as an injury to another party, for which 
 atonement and reparation can be made and satisfaction can 
 be given ; — not as a deed which cannot be undone — eternal 
 in its consequences ; an act which, once committed, is num- 
 bered with the irrevocable Past. In a word, Sin contains 
 its own retributive penalty as surely, and as naturally, as the 
 acorn contains the oak. Its consequence is its punishment 
 — it needs no other, and can have no heavier; and its con- 
 sequence is involved in its commission, and cannot be separ 
 Tated from it. Punishment (let us fix this in our minds) is 
 
CHRISTIAN ECLECTICISM. 243 
 
 not the execution of a sentence^ hut the occurrence of an 
 effect. It is ordained to follow guilt by God — not as a 
 Judge, but as the Creator and Legislator of the Universe. 
 This conviction, once settled in our understandings, will 
 wonderfully clear up our views on the subject of pardon 
 and redemption. Redemption becomes then, of necessity, 
 not a saving but a regenerating process. We can be re- 
 deemed from the punishmeut of sin only by being redeemed 
 from its commission. Neither can there be any such thing 
 as vicarious atonement or punishment (which, again, is a 
 relic of heathen conceptions of an angered Deity, to be pro- 
 pitiated by offerings and sacrifices). Punishment, being not 
 the penalty, but the result of sin, — being not an arbitrary 
 and artificial annexation, but an ordinary and logical conse- 
 quence — cannot be borne by other than the sinner. 
 
 It is curious that the votaries of the doctrine of the Atone- 
 ment admit the correctness of much of the above reasoning, 
 saying (see " Guesses at Truth," by J. and A. Hare), that 
 Christ had to sufi'er for the sins of men, because God could 
 not forgive sin ; He must punish it in some way. Thus 
 holding the strangely inconsistent doctrine that God is so 
 just that He could not let sin go unpunished, yet so unjust 
 that He could punish it in the person of the innocent. It 
 is for orthodox dialectics to explain how Divine Justice can 
 be impugned by pardoning the guilty, and yet vindicated by 
 punishing the innocent ! 
 
 If the foregoing reflections are sound, the awful, yet whole- 
 some, conviction presses upon our minds, that there caji he 
 no forgiveness of sins ; — that is, no interference with, or 
 remittance of, or protection from, their natural efi'ects ; — 
 that God will not interpose between the cause and its con- 
 sequence^ ; — that '' whatsoever a man soweth, that shall he 
 also reap." An awful consideration this ; — yet all reflection, 
 all experience, confirm its truth. The sin which has debased 
 our soul may be repented of, may be turned from, — but the 
 injury is done: — the debasement may be redeemed by after 
 efforts, the stain may be obliterated by bitterer struggles and 
 
 1 Kefer to TJatt. ix. 2-6. "^Vlietlier is it easier to say, Thy sins be for- 
 given tliee ! or to say, Arise, take up tliy bed and Avalk ?" Jesus seems here 
 clearly to intimate that the view taken above (of forgiveness of sins, namely, 
 involving an interference with the natural order of sequence, and being there- 
 fore a miracle) is correct. He places the two side by side, as equally difficult. 
 
 R 2 
 
244 THE CREED OF CHRISTENDOM. 
 
 severer sufferings, by faith in God's love and communion 
 with His Spirit ; hut the efforts and the endurance which 
 might have raised the soul to the loftiest heights, are now 
 exhausted in merely regaining what it has lost._ "There 
 must always be a wide difference (as one of our divines has 
 said) between him who only ceases to do evil, and him who 
 has always done well ; — between the man who began to serve 
 his God as soon as he knew that he had a God to ser^^e, and 
 the man who only turns to Heaven after he has exhausted 
 all the indulgences of Earth." 
 
 Again, in the case of sin of which you have induced 
 another 'to partake. You may XQ^Qni—you may, after 
 agonizing struggles, regain the path of virtue— yoz/r spirit 
 may re- achieve its purity through much anguish, and after 
 manv stripes;— but the weaker fellow- creature whom you led 
 astray— whom you made a sharer in your guilt, but whom 
 you cannot make a sharer in your repentance and amend- 
 j^cjit- whose downward course (the first step of which you 
 tauo-ht) you cannot check, but are compelled to witness— 
 what " forgiveness" of sins can avail you there ? There is 
 your perpetual, your inevitable, punishment, which no repen- 
 tance can alleviate, and no mercy can remit. 
 
 This doctrine— that sins can be forgiven, and the conse- 
 quences of them averted— has in all ages been a fertile 
 source of mischief. Perhaps few of our intellectual errors 
 have fructified in a vaster harvest of evil, or operated more 
 powerfully to impede the moral ptrogress of our race. While 
 it has been a source of unspeakable comfort to the penitent, 
 a healing balm to the w^ounded spirit — while it has saved 
 manv from hopelessness, and enabled those to recover them- 
 selves who would otherwise have flung away the remnant of 
 their virtue in despair; yet, on the other hand, it has encou- 
 lao-ed millions— /^6?//;/^ icJiata safety was in store for them 
 in ultimate resort— io persevere in their career of folly or 
 (.pijjie— to ignore or despise those natural laws which God 
 has laid down to be the guides and beacons of our conduct 
 
 to continue to do " that which was pleasant in their own 
 
 g^,gs" — convinced that nothing was irrevocable, that— how- 
 ever dearly they might have to pay for re-integration— repent- 
 ance could at any time redeem their punishment, and undo 
 the iHist. The doctrine has been noxious in exact ratio to 
 the baldness and nakedness with which it has been pro- 
 
CHRISTIAN ECLECTICISM. 245 
 
 pounded. In the Catholic Church of the middle ages we 
 see it perhaps in its grossest form, when pardon was sold, 
 bargained for, rated at a fixed price — when one hoary sinner, 
 on the bed of sickness, refused to repent, because he was not 
 certain that death was close at hand, and he did not wish for 
 the trouble of going through the process twice, and was loth 
 by a premature amendment, to lose a chance of any of the 
 indulgences of sin. Men would have been far more scru- 
 pulous watchers over conduct — far more careful of their 
 deeds — had they believed that those deeds would inevitably 
 bear their natural consequences, exempt from after interven- 
 tion — than when they held that penitence and pardon could 
 at any time unlink the clain of sequences; — ^just as now 
 they are little scrupulous of indulging in hurtful excess, 
 when medical aid is at hand to remedy the mischief they 
 have voluntarily encountered : — But were they on a desert 
 island, apart from the remotest hope of a doctor or a drug, 
 how far more closely would they consider the consequences 
 of each indulgence — how earnestly would they study the laws 
 of Nature — how comparatively unswerving would be their 
 endeavours to steer their course by those laws, obedience to 
 which brings health, peace, and safety in its train ! 
 
 Let any one look back upon his past career — look inward 
 on his daily life — and then say what effect would be produced 
 upon him, were the conviction once fixedly imbedded in his 
 soul, that everything done is done irrevocably — that even the 
 .Omnipotence of Gocl cannot uncommit a deed — cannot make 
 that undone which has been done ; — that every act of his 
 must bear its allotted fruit according to the everlasting laws — 
 must remain for ever ineffiiceably inscribed on the tablets of 
 universal Nature. And then let him consider what would 
 have been the result upon the moral condition of our race, 
 had all men ever held this conviction. 
 
 Perhaps you have led a youth of dissipation and excess 
 which has undermined and enfeebled your constitution, and 
 you have transmitted this injured and enfeebled constitution 
 to your children. They sufier, in consequence, through 
 life ; suffering^is entailed upon them ; your repentance, were 
 it in sackcloth and ashes, cannot help you or them. Your 
 punishment is tremendous, but it is legitimate and inevit- 
 able. You have broken Nature's laws, or you have ignored 
 them ; and no one violates or neglects them with im- 
 
246 THE CEEED OF CHRISTENDOM. 
 
 punity. What a lesson for timely reflection and obedience 
 is here ! 
 
 Again. — You have broken the seventh commandment. 
 You grieve — you repent — you resolutely determine against 
 any snch weakness in future. — It is well. — But " you know 
 that God is merciful — you feel that He will forgive you." 
 You are comforted. But no — there is no forgiveness of 
 sins : — the injured party may forgive you — your accomplice 
 or victim may forgive you, according to the meaning of 
 human language ; lut the deed is done, and all the powers 
 of Nature, were they to conspire in your behalf, could not 
 make it undone : the consequences to the body — the conse- 
 quences to the soul — though no man may perceive them, «;'^ 
 there — are written in the annals of the Past, and must rever- 
 berate through all time. 
 
 But all this, let it be understood, in no degree militates 
 against the value or the necessity of repentance. Eepentance, 
 contrition of soul, bears — like every other act — its own fruit 
 — the fruit of purifying the heart, of amending the future, 
 not — as man has hitherto conceived— of effacing the Past. 
 The commission of sin is an irrevocable act, but it does not 
 incapacitate the soul for virtue. Its consequences cannot 
 be expunged, but its course need not be pursued. Sin, 
 though it is ineffaceable, calls for no despair, but for efforts 
 more energetic than before. Eepentance is still as valid as 
 ever; but it is valid to secure the future, not to obliterate 
 the past. 
 
 The moral to be drawn from these reflections is this : — 
 God has placed the lot of man — not, perhaps, altogether of 
 the Individual, but certainly of the Kace — in his own hands, 
 by surrounding him ^s\\\ijixed laws, on knowledge of which, 
 and on conformity to which, his well-being depends. The 
 study of these, and the principle of obedience to them, 
 form, therefore, the great aim of education, both of men 
 and nations. They must be taught— 
 
 1. Thii j)/i^sical Imvs, on which God has made health to 
 depend ; 
 
 2. The moral laws, on which He has made haj)_piness to 
 depend ; ^ 
 
 * "There is nothing -which more clearly marks the Divine Government 
 than the difficulty of distinguishing between the natural and-the supernatural :. 
 between the penalty attached to the breach of the written law, and the con- 
 
CHRISTIAN ECLECTICISM. 247 
 
 3. The intellectual laws, on which He has made know- 
 ledge to depend ; 
 
 4. The social and jwlitical laics, on which He has made 
 national prosper it 1/ and advancement to depend; 
 
 5. The economic laws, on which He has made wealth to 
 depend. 
 
 A true comprehension of all these, a?id of their unexcep- 
 tional and nnalterahle nature, would ultimately rescue 
 mankind from all their vice and nearly all their suffering — 
 save casualties and sorrows. 
 
 VI. The ascetic and depreciating view of life, inculcated 
 hy ordinary Christianity, appear to us erroneous, hoth in its 
 form and in its foundation. How much of it helongs to 
 Christ, how much to the Apostles, and how much was the 
 accretion of a subsequent age, is not easy to determine. It 
 appears in the Epistles as well as in the Gospels ; and in 
 the hands of preachers of the present day it has reached a 
 point at which it is unquestionably unsound, noxious, and 
 insincere. In Christ this asceticism assumes a mild and 
 moderate form ; being simply the doctrine of the Essenes, 
 modified by his own exquisite judgment and general sympa- 
 thies, and dignified by the conviction that to men, who had 
 so arduous and perilous a work before them as that ta 
 which he and his disciples were pledged, the interests, the 
 aff"ections, the enjoyments of this life must needs be of 
 very secondary moment. With him it is confined almost 
 entirely to urging his hearers not to sacrifice their duties 
 (and by consequence their rewards) to earthly and pass- 
 ing pleasures, and to teaching them to seek consolation 
 under present privations in the prospect of future blessed- 
 ness. " Lay not up for yourselves treasures upon earth, 
 where moth and rust do corrupt, and where thieves break 
 through and steal." " What shall it profit a man if he 
 should gain the whole w^orld, and lose his own soul? or 
 what shall a man give in exchange for his soul?" Luke 
 xiv. 2G, 33, appears at first sight to go further than this ; 
 but even these verses are only a hyperbolical expression of 
 a universal truth — viz. that a man cannot cast himself with 
 
 sequence, whicli we call natural, tliougli it is in fact the penalty attached to 
 
 the breach of the unwritten law In the divine law, the penalty 
 
 always grows out of the offence." — State of Man before the Promulgation of 
 •Christianity, p, 108. 
 
248 THE CREED OF CHRISTENDOM. 
 
 effect into any great or dangerous achievement, unless he is 
 prepared to subdue and set at nought all interfering interests 
 and feelings. 
 
 That the Apostles, called to fight against principalities 
 and powers — obliged to hold life and all its affections cheap, 
 because the course of action in which they were engaged 
 perilled these at every step — finding the great obstacle to 
 their success in the tenacity with which their hearers clung 
 to those old associations, occupations, and enjoyments, 
 which embracing the new faith would oblige them to for- 
 swear — impressed, moreover, with the solemn and tremen- 
 dous conviction that the world was falling to pieces, and 
 that their own days and their own vision would witness the 
 final catastrophe of nature — that the Apostles should regard 
 with unloving eyes that world of which their hold was so 
 precarious and their tenure so short;, and should look with 
 amazement and indignation upon men who would cling 
 to a doomed and perishing habitation, instead of gladly 
 sacrificing everything to obtain a footing in the new King- 
 dom — was natural and, granting the premises, rational and 
 wise. 
 
 But for Divines in this day — when the profession of 
 Christianity is attended with no peril, when its practice, 
 even, demands no sacrifice, save that preference of duty to 
 enjoyment which is the first law of cultivated humanity — to 
 repeat the language, profess the feelings, inculcate the 
 notions, of men w4io lived in daily dread of such awful 
 martyrdom, and under the excitement of such a mighty 
 misconception ; to cry down this world, with its profound 
 beauty, its thrilling interests, its glorious works, its noble 
 and holy affections ; to exhort their hearers, Sunday after 
 Sunday, to detach their hearts from the earthly life as inane, 
 fleeting, and unworthy, and fix it upon Heaven, as the only 
 sphere deserving the love of the loving or the meditation of 
 the wise, — appears to us, we confess, frightful insincerity, the 
 enactment of a wicked and gigantic lie. The exhortation 
 is delivered and listened to as a thing of course ; and an 
 hour afterwards the preacher, who has thus usurped and 
 profaned the language of an Apostle who wrote with the 
 faggot and the cross full in view, is sitting comfortably with 
 his hearer over his claret ; they are fondling their children, 
 discussing public affairs or private plans in life with pas- 
 
CHRISTIAN ECLECTICISM. 249 
 
 sionate interest, and yet can look at each other without a 
 smile or a blush for the sad and meaningless farce they have 
 "been acting ! 
 
 Yet the closing of our connection with this earthly scene 
 is as certain and probably as near to us as it was to the 
 Apostles. Death is as close to us as the end of the world 
 was to them. It is not, therefore, their misconception on 
 this point which makes their view of life unsound and in- 
 sincere when adopted by us. We believe it to be erroneous 
 in itself, and to proceed upon false conceptions of our rela- 
 tion to time and to futurity. The doctrine, as ordinarily set 
 forth, that this world is merely one of probation and pre- 
 paration, we entirely disbelieve. The idea of regarding it 
 as merely a portal to another is simply an attempt to solve 
 the enigma of hfe ; a theory to explain the sufferings of 
 man, and to facilitate the endurance of them ; to supply 
 the support and consolation which man's weakness cannot 
 dispense with, but which he has not yet learned to draw 
 from deeper and serener fountains. On the contrary, we 
 think that everything tends to prove that this hfe is, not 
 perhaps, not probably, our only sphere, but still an Integral 
 one, and the one with which we are meant to be concerned. 
 The present is our scene of action — the future is for specu- 
 lation, and for trust. We firmly believe that man was sent 
 upon the earth to live in it, to enjoy it, to study it, to love 
 it, to embelUsh it— to make the most of it, in short. It is 
 his country, on which he should lavish his affections and 
 his efforts. B])artam nactus es — heme exortia. It should 
 be to him a house, not a tent— a home, not only a school. 
 If, when this house and this home are taken from him. 
 Providence in its wisdom and its bounty provides him with 
 another, let him be deeply grateful for the gift— let hini trans- 
 fer to that future, whe)i it has heeome his present, his exer- 
 tions, his researches, and his love. But let him rest assured 
 that he is sent into this world, not to be constantly hankering 
 after, dreaming of, preparing for, another which may, or may 
 not, be in store for him — but to do his duty and fulfil his 
 destiny on earth— to do all that hes in his power to improve 
 it, to render it a scene of elevated happiness to himself, to 
 those around him, to those who are to come after him. So 
 will he avoid those tormenting contests with Nature — those 
 
^50 THE CREED OF CHRISTENDOM. 
 
 Struggles to suppress affections -^-hich God has implanted^ 
 sanctioned, and endowed with irresistible supremacy — those 
 agonies of remorse when he finds that God is too strong for 
 him — which now embitter the lives of so many earnest and 
 sincere souls: so will he best prepare for that future which 
 we hope for — if it come ; — so will he best have occupied the 
 present, if the present be his all. To demand that we shall 
 love Heaven more than Earth — that the Unseen shall hold 
 a higher place in our affections than the Seen and the 
 Familiar — is to ask that which cannot be obtained without 
 subduing Nature, and inducing a morbid condition of the 
 Soul. The very law of our being is love of life and all its 
 interests and adornments. 
 
 This love of the world in which our lot is cast, this en- 
 grossment with the interests and affections of Earth, has in 
 it nothing necessarily low or sensual. It is wholly apart 
 from love of wealth, of fame, of ease, of splendour, of 
 power, of what is commonly called worldliness. It is tho 
 love of Earth as the garden on which the Creator has 
 lavished such miracles of beauty, as the habitation of hu- 
 manity, the arena of its conflicts, the scene of its illimitablo 
 progress, the dwelling-place of the wise, the good, the- 
 active, the loving, and the dear. 
 
 " It is not the purpose and end of this discourse, to raise 
 such seraphical notions of the vanity and pleasures of this 
 world, as if they w^ere not worthy to be considered, or could 
 have no relish with virtuous and pious men. They take 
 very unprofitable pains who endeavour to persuade men that 
 they are obliged wholly to despise this world and all that is 
 in itj even whilst they themselves live here : God hath not 
 taken all that pains in forming, and framing, and furnishing, 
 and adorning the w^orld, that they who were made by Him 
 to live in it should despise it ; it will be enough if they do 
 not love it so immoderately as to prefer it before Him who 
 made it : nor shall we endeavour to extend the notions of 
 the Stoic Philosophers, and stretch them further by the help 
 of Christian precepts, to the extinguishing all those affec- 
 tions and passions which are and will always be inseparable 
 from human nature. As long as the world lasts, and 
 honour, and virtue, and industry have reputation in the 
 -world, there will be ambition and emulation and appetite in 
 
CHRISTIAN ECELCTICISM. 251 
 
 the best and most accomplished men in it ; if there should 
 not he, more barbarity and vice and wickedness would cover 
 every nation of the world, than it yet suffers under." ^ 
 
 It is difficult to decide whether exhortations to ascetic 
 undervaluing of this life, as an insignificant and unworthy 
 portion of existence, have done most injury to our virtue, 
 by demanding feelings which are unnatural, and which, 
 therefore, if attained, must be morbid, if mQXQh professed,. 
 must be insincere — or to the cause of social progress, by 
 teaching us to look rather to a future life for the compen- 
 sation of social evils, than to this life for their cure. It is 
 only those who feel a deep interest in and affection for this 
 world, who will work resolutely for its amelioration ; — those 
 whose affections are transferred to Heaven acquiesce easily 
 in the miseries of earth ; give them up as hopeless, as be- 
 fitting, as ordained; and console themselves with the idea 
 of the amends which are one day to be theirs ^ If we had 
 looked upon this earth as our only scene, it is doubtful if 
 we should so long have tolerated its more monstrous ano- 
 malies and more curable evils. But it is easier to look to a 
 future paradise than to strive to make one upon earth ; and 
 the depreciating and hollow language of preachers has 
 played into the hands both of the insincerity and the indo- 
 lence of man. 
 
 I question whether the whole system of professing Chris- 
 tians is not based in a mistake, whether it be not an error 
 to strive after spirituality — after a frame of mind, that is, 
 which is attainable only by incessant conflict with the in- 
 stincts of our unsophisticated nature, by macerating the 
 body into weakness and disorder ; by disparaging what we 
 see to be beautiful, know to be wonderful, feel to be 
 unspeakably dear and fascinating ; by (in a word) putting 
 down the nature which God has given us, to struggle after 
 one which He has not bestowed. Man is sent into the- 
 world, not a spiritual, but a composite being, a being made 
 
 * Lord Clarendon's Essay on Happiness. 
 
 2 " I sorrowfully admit, that when I count up among my personal acquain- 
 tances all whom I think to be the most decidedly given to spiritual contem- 
 plation, and to make religion rule in their hearts, at least three out of four 
 appear to have been apathetic towards all improvement of this world's systems, 
 and a majority have been virtual consei-vatives of evil, and hostile to political 
 and social reform as diverting men's energies from Eternity." — Kote by a 
 Friend. 
 
252 THE CREED OF CHRISTENDOM. 
 
 up of body and mind — the body having, as is fit and need- 
 ful in a material world, its full, rightful,, and allotted share. 
 Life should be guided by a full recognition of this fact; not 
 denying it as we do in bold words, and admitting it in weak- 
 nesses and inevitable failings. Man's spirituality tvill come 
 in the 7iext stage of his being, when he is endowed with 
 the <ju)ixa TTvevimaTiKov. Each in its order: "first, that 
 which is natural ; afterwards, that which is spiritual." The 
 body will be dropped at death : — till then God meant it to 
 be commanded, but never to be neglected, despised, or ig- 
 nored, under pain of heavy consequences. 
 
 The two classes of believers in future progress — those 
 who believe in the future perfection of the individual, and 
 those who beheve in the future perfection of the race — are 
 moved to different modes of action. Perhaps they ought 
 not to be ; but from the defects of our reason, and from 
 personal feelings, they generally are. It is a question, how- 
 ever, whether the world, /. e. the human race, will not be 
 more benefited by the labours of those who look upon 
 Heaven as a state to be attained on earth by future gene- 
 rations, than by those who regard it as the state to be 
 attained by themselves after death, in another world. The 
 latter will look only, or mainly, to the improvement of their 
 own character and capacities ; — the former will devote their 
 exertions to the amelioration of their kind and their habi- 
 tation. The latter are too easily induced to give up earth 
 as hopeless and incorrigible ; — the former, looking upon it 
 as the scene of blessed existence to others hereafter, toil for 
 its amendment and embellishment. There is a vast fund of 
 hidden selfishness, or what, at least, has often the practical 
 effect of such, in the idea of Heaven as ordinarily con- 
 ceived ; and much of the tolerated misery of earth may bo 
 traced to it \ 
 
 Do we then mean that our future prospects have no claim 
 on our attention here ? Far from it. The fate of the Soul 
 after it leaves those conditions under which alone we have 
 any cognizance of its existence, the possibility of continued 
 and eternal being, and the character of the scenes in which 
 
 ^ See some very interesting reflections on this subject (with which, however, 
 I do not at all agree), by Sir James Mackintosh (Life, 120-122). See also 
 some curious speculations by a Communistic Frenchman, Pierre Leroux, in 
 his work De I'Humanite. 
 
CHRISTIAN ECLECTICISM. 258 
 
 that being will be developed, must always form topics of the 
 profoundest interest, and the most ennobling and refinincr 
 contemplation. These great matters will of necessity, from 
 their attractions, and ought, from their purifying tenden- 
 cies, to occupy much of the leisure of all thinking and 
 aspiring minds. Those whose affections are ambitious, 
 whose conceptions are lofty, whose imagination is vivid, 
 eloquent, and daring— those to whom this hfe has been a 
 scene of incessant failure — those " whom Life hath wearied 
 in its race of hours," who, harassed and toil-worn, sink 
 under the burden of their three-score years — those, who 
 having seen friend, parent, child, wife, successively removed 
 from the homes they beautified and hallowed, find the 
 balance of attraction gradually inclining in favour of an- 
 other life, — all such will cling to these lofty speculations 
 with a tenacity of interest which needs no injunction, and 
 will listen to no prohibition. All we wish to suggest is that 
 they should be regarded rather as the consoling privilege of 
 the aspiring, the way-worn, the weary, the bereaved, than as 
 the inculcated duty of youth in its vigour, or beauty in its 
 prime. 
 
 Yet, having said thus much by way of combating an er- 
 roneous view of life which appears to lead to a perilous and 
 demoralizing insincerity, I would not be thought incapable 
 of appreciating the light which the contemplation of the 
 future may let in upon the present, nor the effect which that 
 contemplation is fitted to produce on the development of the 
 higher portions of our nature. One of the most difficult, 
 and at the same time the gravest, of the practical problems 
 of life, is the right adjustment of the respective claims of 
 heaven and earth upon the time and thought of man : — how 
 much should be given to performing the duties and entering 
 into the interests of this world, and how much to prepara- 
 tion for a better ; — how much to action, and how much to 
 meditation; — how much to the cultivation and purification 
 of our own character, and how mucli to the public service of 
 our fellow-men. Nor is this nice problem adequately solved 
 by saying that Heaven is most worthily served, and most 
 surely won, by a sci*upulous discharge of the duties of our 
 earthly station ; and that constant labour for the good of 
 others will afford the best development for the purer portions 
 
1i64: THE CREED OF CnRISTENDOM. 
 
 of our own character. There is ranch truth in this ; hut 
 there is not complete truth. The man whose whole life is 
 spent in discharging with diligence and fidelity the toils of his 
 allotted position in society, or whose every hour is devoted 
 to the details of philanthropic exertions, is in a rare degree 
 " a good and faithful servant ; " yet it is impossible not to 
 perceive that he may pass through life with many depths of 
 his being altogether unsounded, with the richest secrets of 
 the soul undiscovered and unguessed, with many of the 
 loftiest portions of his character still latent and unim- 
 proved; and that when he passes through the portals of 
 the grave, and reaches the new Existence, he will enter it a 
 ■wholly unprepared and astonished stranger. Much quiet 
 meditation, much solitary introspection, which the man in- 
 volved in the vortex of active and public life has rarely 
 leisure to bestow, seem requisite to gain a clear conception 
 •of the true objects and meaning of existence — of the rela- 
 tion which our individual entities hold with the Universe 
 around us and the Great Spirit which pervades it. Without 
 this deep and solitary communing with our inner Nature, 
 the most energetic and untiring Philanthropist or Duty- 
 doer among us appears little more than an instrument in 
 the hands of the Creator — a useful and noble one, certainly, 
 yet still an instrument — for the production of certain results, 
 but not to have attained to the dignity of a distinct and in- 
 dividual Intelhgence — an agent who comprehends himself 
 and the nature of the work in which he is engaged, as well 
 as the mere routine of its performance. 
 
 Again, notwithstanding all that has been said as to the 
 admirable effect of actw?i on the character, it is certain that 
 there are many points of personal morality from which a life 
 of busy and even meritorious activity almost unavoidably 
 diverts our attention. The temper, the appetites, the pas- 
 sions, require a ceaseless and guarded watchfulness, to 
 which incessant exertion is, to say the least, certainly not 
 favourable. 
 
 On the other hand, too frequent a reflection — too deep an 
 insight — too vivid a reahzation of the great mysteries of 
 Being, would be apt so to shrivel up into microscopic insig- 
 nificance all the cares, toils, and interests of this life, as 
 entirely to paralyze our zeal and energy concerning them. 
 
CHRISTIAN ECLECTICISM. 255 
 
 If we were literally to *Mive as seeing Him who is in- 
 Tisible," the common works of earth could no longer be 
 performed, save as a duty, and in a dream. It is well for 
 us that we " walk by faith, and not by sight." If we could 
 reahze both the nearness and the fulness of Eternity, we 
 should be unfitted for the requirements of tliis earthly 
 state. 
 
CHAPTER XVII. 
 
 THE GREAT ENIGMA. 
 
 We are accustomed to say that Christ brought life aud im- 
 mortality to light by his Gospel ; by which we meau, — uot 
 that he first taught the doctrine of a future life, scarcely even 
 that he threw any new light on the nature of that life ; for 
 the doctrine was held, long before he lived, by many un- 
 civilized tribes ; it was the received opinion of most, if not 
 all, among the Oriental nations ; and it was an established 
 tenet of the most popular and powerful sect among the 
 Jews ; — but that he gave to the doctrine, for the first time, 
 an authoritative sanction ; he announced it as a direct reve- 
 lation from the Deity ; and, as it were, exemplified and 
 embodied it in his own resurrection. But, as we have 
 already come to the conclusion that Christianity was not a 
 Eevelation in the ordinary sense of the word, Christ's incul- 
 cation of the doctrine becomes simply the added attestation 
 of the wisest and best man who ever lived, to a faith which 
 has been cherished by the wise and good of all times and of 
 all lands. 
 
 In consequence of this view of Christianity, a future life 
 "becomes to us no longer a matter of positive knowledge — a 
 revealed fact — but simply a matter of faith, of hope, of 
 earnest desire ; a sublime possibility, round which medita- 
 tion and inquiry will collect all the probabilities they can. 
 Christianity adds nothing certain to our convictions or to our 
 know^ledge on the subject, however rich it maybe in sugges- 
 tions of the truth. Let us, therefore, by a short statement 
 of its views of futurity, see how far they are such as can be 
 accepted by a cultivated and inquiring age. 
 
 It may seem to many a strange observation, but we greatly 
 question whether the views of Christ regarding the future 
 
THE GREAT ENIGMA. 267 
 
 world (so far as we can gather them from the imperfect and 
 uncertain records of his sayings, which alone we have to go 
 by) were not less in advance of those current in his asre and 
 country, than his views upon any other topic. The popular 
 opinion — that he made a matter of certainty what before was 
 only a matter of speculation — has blinded our perceptions 
 on this point. When we put aside this common misconcep- 
 tion, and come to examine what the notions inculcated by 
 the Gospel concerning the nature of this futurity really 
 were, we shall be surprised and pained to find how little they 
 added, and how little they rose superior, to those current 
 among the Pharisees and the Essenes at the date of its 
 promulgation ; and perhaps even how far they fell short of 
 those attained by some pious pagans of an earlier date. 
 
 The scriptural idea of Heaven, so far as we can collect it 
 from the Gospels, seems to have been : — 
 
 1. That it was a scene hallowed and embelHshed by the 
 more immediate, or at least more perceptible, presence of 
 God, who is constantly spoken of as " Our Father ivho is 
 in Heaven!' It is the local dwelling-place of the Creator, 
 lying exterior to and above the Earth, and into which Christ 
 visibly ascended. Indeed, notwithstanding the distinct and 
 repeated assertions of the perpetual superintendence of God, 
 He is depicted much more as a local and limited, and much 
 less as a pervading and spiritual Being, in the New Testa- 
 ment than in many of the Psalms and in Job. The delinea- 
 tions of the former are far more simple, affectionate, and 
 human — far more tinged with anthropomorphism, in the 
 tone at least ; those of the latter more vague, more sublime, 
 more spiritual. In this point, the Gospel idea of one of the 
 attributes of Heaven, though eminently beautiful, natural, 
 and attractive, will scarcely bear scrutiny. That in a future 
 state we shall be more conscious of God's presence, is not 
 only probable, but is a necessary consequence of the exten- 
 sion a4Kl purification of our faculties; that He dwells there 
 more than here is an obviously untenable conception. The 
 notion may be said to be subjectively true, but objectively 
 false. 
 
 2. That Heaven would be a scene of retribution for 
 the deeds and characters of earth has been the view of its 
 essential nature taken by nearly all nations which have be- 
 lieved in its existence : to this idea the Gospel has added 
 
'Z58. THE CREED OF CHRISTENDOM. 
 
 iiothittgnew. That it would also be a ^tditQo^ compensation; 
 to rectif}^ the inequalities and atone for the sufferings of our 
 sublunary life, has long been the consolatory notion of the 
 disappointed and the sorrow-stricken. This idea Christianity 
 especially encourages ; nay, unless we are to allow an un- 
 usually free deduction for the hyperbolical language which 
 the New Testament habitually employs, it would appear to 
 carry it to an extent scarcely reconcilable with sober reason 
 or pure justice ; almost countenancing the notion — so se- 
 ducing to the less worthy feelings of the discontented and 
 the wretched — not only that their troubles will be compen- 
 sated by a proportionate excess of future joy, but that 
 earthly prosperity will, ^;<?r se, and apart from any notion of 
 moral retribution, constitute a title to proportionate suffering 
 hereafter — that, in truth, Heaven will be the especial and 
 exclusive patrimony of the poor and the afflicted. *' Blessed 
 are they that mourn, for they shall be comforted." *' Blessed 
 be ye poor, for yours is the Kingdom of God. Blessed are 
 ye that hunger now, for ye shall be filled. Blessed are ye 
 that weep now, for ye shall laugh. But woe unto ye that 
 are rich, for ye have received your consolation. Woe unto 
 ye that are full, for ye shall hunger. Woe unto ye that 
 laugh now, for ye shall weep." The parable of Dives and 
 Lazarus inculcates the same notion. " Son, remember that 
 thou in thy lifetime receivedst thy good things, and likewise 
 Lazarus evil things ; but now he is comforted, and thou art 
 tormented." It is very difficult to discover on what worthy 
 conception of Divine Providence the ideas inculcated in 
 these last quotations can be justified, or how they can be re- 
 conciled with the doctrine of a just moral retribution ; and 
 it is equally difficult to shut our eyes to the encouragement 
 they may give and have given to the envious and malignant 
 feelings of grovelling and uncultured minds \ 
 
 3. The eternal duration of the future existence has, we 
 believe, with all nations formed a constituent element of tho 
 doctrine ; though it is so far from being a necessary one, 
 that it is not easy to discover whence its universal adoption 
 
 ^ See Eugene Aram, chap, viii., for an illustration. A Calvinist peasant 
 f^jnsidered that the choicest bliss of Heaven would be "to look down into the 
 other place, and see the folk grill." TertuUian has a passage, part of which 
 Gibbon quotes (c. xv.), expressing the same idea in language quite as horrible. 
 We believe there i^ a similar passage in Baxter's Saints' Rest. 
 
THE GREAT ENIGMA. 259 
 
 is to be traced. To this idea Scripture has added another, 
 which presents a stumbling-block to our moral and our 
 metaphysical philosophy alike — viz. the tmchanging charac- 
 ter of both its pains and pleasures. We attempt in vain to 
 trace in the Gospel the least evidence that the future state is 
 to be regarded as one oi 'progress — that its sufferings are to 
 be probationary and purifying, and therefore terminable ; or 
 its joys elevating and improving, and therefore ever advanc- 
 ing. If any doctrine be distinctly taught by Scripture on 
 this point, it clearly is, that the lot of each individual is 
 fixed for ever at the judgment day. In this it stands below 
 both Pagan and Oriental conceptions. The Gospel view of the 
 eternity of the future life, which fully approves itself to our 
 reason, is one which it shares with all theories : its concep- 
 tion of the eternity of future punishments, in which it stands 
 almost alone, is one, the revolting character of which has 
 been so strongly felt, that the utmost ingenuity both of 
 criticism and of logic, has been strained for centuries — the 
 first, to prove that the doctrine is not taught, the second, to 
 prove that it ought to be received. Neither have succeeded. 
 It seems to us unquestionable that the doctrine is taught in 
 the clear language of Scripture, and was held unhesitatingly 
 by the Apostles and the first Christians ; and all the at- 
 tempts yet made to reconcile the doctrine with divine justice 
 and mercy are calculated to make us blush alike for the 
 human heart that can strive to justify such a creed, and for 
 the human intellect which can delude itself into a belief that 
 it has succeeded in such justification. 
 
 That would be a great book, and he would be a great man, 
 that should detect and eliminate the latent and disfigured 
 truth that lies at the root of every falsehood ever yet beheved 
 among men. In Scripture we meet with several doctrines 
 which may be considered as the approximate formula, the 
 imperfect, partial, and inaccurate expression, of certain 
 mighty and eternal verities. Thus, the spirituality of 
 Christ's character and the superhuman excellence of his 
 life, lie at the bottom of the dogma of the Incarnation ; 
 which was simply " a mistake of the morally for the physi- 
 cally divine," an idea carnalized into a fact. In the same 
 manner, the doctrine of the eternity of future punishments, 
 false as it must be in its ordinary signification, contains a 
 glimpse of one of the most awful and indisputable truths 
 
 s % 
 
260 THE CREED OF CHRISTENDOM. 
 
 ever presented to the Imman iinclerstanding-— viz. the eternal 
 and ineffaceable consequences of our every action, the fact that 
 every Mord and every deed produces effects which must, by 
 tlie very nature of things, reverberate through all time, so 
 (hat the wliole of futurity ^vould be different had that word 
 never been spoken, or that deed enacted. 
 
 " The pulsations of the air, once set in motion by the 
 human voice, cease not to exist with the sounds to which 
 they gave rise. Strong and audible as they may be in the 
 immediate neighbourhood of the speaker, and at the imme- 
 diate moment of utterance, their quickly- attenuated force 
 soon becomes inaudible to human ears. But the waves of 
 air thus raised perambulate the earth's and ocean's surface, 
 and iu less than twenty hours every atom of its atmosphere 
 takes up the altered movement due to that infinitesimal por- 
 tion of primitive motion which has been conveyed to it 
 tlirough countless channels, -and which must continue to 
 influence its path throughout its future existence. 
 
 '* But their^e aerial pulses, unseen by the keenest eye, un- 
 heard by the acutest ear, unperceived by human senses, are 
 yet demonstrated to exist by human reason ; and in some 
 few and hmited instances, by calling to our aid the most re- 
 fined and comprehensive instrument of human thouglit 
 {mathematical analysis), their courses are traced, and their 
 
 intensities measured Tiius considered, what a 
 
 strange chaos is this wide atmosphere we breathe ! Every 
 atom impressed with good and with ill, retains at once the 
 motions which philosophers and sages have imparted to it, 
 mixed and combined in ten thousand ways w-ith all that is 
 worthless and base. The air itself is one vast library, on 
 whose pages is for ever written all that man has ever said or 
 even whispered. There, in their mutable, hut unerring cha- 
 racters, mixed with the earliest as well as the latest sighs of 
 mortality, stand for ever recorded vows unredeemed, pro- 
 mises unfulfilled, perpetuating, in the united movements of 
 each particle, the testimony of man's changeful will. 
 
 *' But if the air we breathe is the never-failing historian 
 of the sentiments we have uttered, earth, air, and ocean, are 
 in like manner the eternal witnesses of the acts we have 
 
 done No motion impressed by natural causes or 
 
 by human agency is ever obhterated. The track of every 
 canoe which has vet disturbed the surface of the ocean, re- 
 
THE GREAT ENIGMA. 201 
 
 mains for ever registered in the future moments of all 
 succeeding particles which may occupy its place. 
 
 *' Whilst the atmosphere we breathe is the ever-living 
 witness of the sentiments we have uttered, the waters and the 
 more solid materials of the globe, bear equally enduring tes- 
 timony of the acts we have committed. If the Almighty 
 stamped on the brow of the earliest murderer the visible and 
 indelible mark of his guilt, he has also established laws by 
 which every succeeding criminal is not less irrevocably 
 chained to the testimony of his crime ; for every atom of his 
 mortal frame, through whatever changes its severest particles 
 may migrate, will still retain, adhering to it through every 
 combination, some movement derived from that very mus- 
 cular effort by which the crime itself was perpetrated."^ 
 
 *' If we imagine the soul in an after stage of existence, 
 connected with an organ of hearing so sensitive as to vibrate 
 with motions of the air, even of infinitesimal force, and if it 
 be still within the precincts of its ancient abode, all the 
 accumulated words pronounced from the creation of mankind 
 
 will fall at once on that ear ; and the punished 
 
 offender may hear still vibrating on his ear the very words 
 uttered perhaps thousands of centuries before, which at once 
 caused and registered his own condemnation." 
 
 There is therefore a sense in which the eternity of future 
 punishment may be irrefragably and terribly true— if that 
 very enhancement of our faculties in a future life which 
 enables us to perceive and trace the ineff\iceable consequences 
 of our idle words and our evil deeds, should render our 
 remorse and grief as eternal as those consequences theni- 
 selves. No more fearful punishment to a superior Intelli- 
 gence can be conceived than to see still in action— with the 
 consciousness that it must continue in action for ever — a 
 cause of wrong put in motion by itself ages before. Let us 
 trust either that our capacities will be too limited for this 
 awful retribution, or that the resources of omnipotence may 
 be adequate to cancel or to veil the Past. 
 
 4. It is remarkable that while in the New Testament the 
 delights of Heaven are always depicted as consisting in the 
 exercise and development of the spiritual affections, the 
 
 ^ Babbage. Ninth Bridgewater Treatise, c. ix. 
 2 Ibid. c. xii. 
 
262 THE CREED OF CHRISTENDOM. 
 
 pains of Hell are as constantly delineated as physical. The 
 joys of the one state are those of the intellect and the Soul; 
 the sufferings of the other those of the body only. In the 
 Gospel pictures, Heaven is " to sit at the right hand of the 
 rather," — Hell is " to burn in unquenchable fire." Unless 
 there be some deep meaning hidden under this apparent in- 
 consistency; unless it be intended to intimate to us that the 
 blessed will be made purely spiritual, and that the damned 
 will be wholly absorhed in their corporeality — an idea which 
 it is difficult to admit ; — it seems strange that the descrip- 
 tion of Heaven as consisting in communion with God and 
 with the Just made perfect, should not have suggested the 
 correlative idea, that Hell must consist in "living with the 
 Devil and his angels;" in fact, what more horrible concep- 
 tion of it could be formed ? 
 
 5. But perhaps the most imperfect and inadmissible point 
 in the Scriptural conception of the Future World, is that 
 which represents it as divided into two distinct states, sepa- 
 rated by an impassable barrier, decidedly on one or other 
 side of which the eternal destiny of every one is cast. Such 
 an arrangement, it is obvious, is incompatible with any but 
 the rudest idea of righteous retribution, and could only be 
 the resource of imperfect justice and imperfect power. For 
 as in this world there is every possible gradation of virtue 
 and of -vice, which run into each other by the most imper- 
 ceptible degrees, and are often only distinguishable by the 
 minutest shade — so in the next world there must be every 
 possible gradation of reward and punishment. A trenchant 
 line of demarcation, which from its nature must be arbitrary, 
 and which every one who overpasses by a hair's-breadth 
 must overpass by a great gulph, could only be the invention 
 of a judge of finite and imperfect capacity, for the more 
 convenient dispatch of " judgment. That, — of two indi- 
 viduals whose degree of virtue is so similar that the question 
 of precedence can neither be decided by the keenest human 
 insight, nor expressed by the finest minutiae of human lan- 
 guage, — one should be rewarded with eternal joy, and the 
 other condemned to everlasting torment — is assuredly among 
 the rudest of rehgious conceptions. Yet to all appearance, 
 such is the notion of future retribution held by the New 
 Testament writers. 
 
 The doctrine of a future life has been firmly held in all 
 
THE GREAT ENIGMA. '^'65 
 
 ages, and by every order of minds. The reasonings' ordina- 
 :rily adduced in proof of this doctrine have always appeared 
 to me deplorably weak and inconclusive; so much so as 
 •clearly to indicate that they do not form the grounds on 
 iwhich it has been believed, but are merely subsequent at- 
 tempts to justify that belief The creed being there, human 
 reason, in the endeavour to account for it, has surrounded it 
 with props and crutches of every conceivable degree of 
 weakness; and these post-dated supports have been mis- 
 taken for the foundation. But they are not so : and we 
 ;must at once distinguish between the conviction and the 
 arguments by which the mind {erroneously supiwsing it to 
 he based on argument, mid to need argument for its justi- 
 fication) has sought to build it up. Logic never originated 
 it: logic can never estabhsh it. All that can properly be 
 called reasoning, i. e. inference deduced from observation, 
 appears to point the other way. It is remarkable, too, that 
 while the doctrine is announced with the utmost clearness 
 and positiveness in the New Testament, all the attempts 
 there made to bring arguments in its favour, to prove it 
 logically, or even to establish a reasonable probabihty for it 
 ^are futile in the extreme\ Nature throws no hght upon 
 the subject ; the phenomena we observe could never have 
 suggested the idea of a renewed existence beyond the grave; 
 physiological science distinctly negatives it. Appearances 
 all testify to the reality and permanence of death; a fearful 
 
 1 The reasoning ascribed to Jesus (Luke xx. 37)—" Now, that the dead are 
 raised, even Moses showed at the bush, when he called the Lord the Grod of 
 Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob ; for he is not a God 
 of the dead, but of the living"'— it is scarcelj' possible to regard as anything 
 but a verbal ingenuity.— Paul's logic (Romans viii. 16, 17 ; and 1 Thess. iv. 
 14) is, to say the least of it, feeble and far-fetched. While the well-known 
 passage in 1 Cor. xv. 12-16, is one of the most marvellous specimens extant 
 of reasoning in a circle. On this see Newman on the Soul, p. 185 ; Bush's 
 Anastasis, p. 170. 
 
 In one point of the view of a future existence there would appear to be a 
 remarkable coincidence between the notions of the Pagan philosophers and 
 those of the more enlightened among the Jews and some of the early Christians. 
 The Ancients seem to have imagined that only the Great would live again ; 
 that the mass of souls, the ol voXKoi, were not worth resuscitating. Thus 
 Tacitus (Vit. Agr.), "Si quis pioram manibus locus, si, nt sapientibus placet, 
 non cum corpore extinguunfcur magnce animce," &c. Cicero de Senect. — "0 
 prceclaram diem, cum ad illud divinum a?? /?>ionH)i concilium ccetumque pro- 
 ticiscar," &c. See the above passages in the Epistles. Also Anastasis, 169, 
 S52 ; in Luke xx. 35 ; remarkable expression, "They which shall be accounted 
 tivorthy," &c. 
 
S64 THE CREED OF CHRISTENDOM. 
 
 onus of proof lies upon those who contend that these appear- 
 ances are deceptive. When we interrogate the vast universe 
 of organization, we see, not simply life and death, hut gra- 
 dually-growing life, and gradually-approaching death. After 
 death, all that we have ever k?iow?i of a man is g:one— all 
 we have ever seeji of him is dissolved into its component 
 elements; it does not disappear^ so as to leave us at liberty 
 to imaoine that it may have gone to exist elsewhere, but is 
 actually used up as materials for other purposes. So com- 
 pletely is this the case that, as Sir James Mackintosh ob- 
 serves, " the doctrine of a resuri'ection could scarcely have 
 arisen among a people who buried their dead." Moreover, 
 the growth, decay, and dissolution we observe, are, to all 
 appearance, those of the mind as well as the body. We see 
 the mind, the affections, the Soul (if you will), gradually 
 arising, forming (for no other expression adequately de- 
 scribes the phenomenon), as the body waxes, sympathizing 
 in all the permanent changes and temporary variations of 
 the body, diseased with its diseases, infeebled by its weak- 
 ness, disordered by dyspepsia, utterly nietamovphosed past 
 recognition by cerebral affection, hopelessly deranged by a 
 spicula of bone penetrating the brain, actually suppressed 
 by a vascular effusion or a cranial depression, wearied as the 
 body ages, and gradually sinking into imbecility as the body 
 dies away in helplessness. The sudden destruction of the 
 corporeal frame by an accident, at a moment when the mind 
 w^as in its fullest vigour, might possibly suggest the idea of 
 a transference to other scenes of so manifest an Entity, so 
 undeniable a Power — the slow and synchronous extinction 
 of the bodily and mental faculties never could. Look, 
 again, at an infant three years old— two years old— one year 
 old : we say it has a Soul. But take a newborn babe, an 
 hour or a minute old : has it a soul, an immortal part or 
 inmate ? If so, when does it come to it ? at the time of 
 its separation from the Mother's life ? or a moment before, 
 or a moment after? Does the awful decision whether it is 
 to be a mere perishable animal, or a spiritual being, depend 
 upon whether it dies an instant before, or an instant after, 
 it first sees the hght ? Can the question of its iramortahty 
 — of its being an embryo angel, or a senseless clod— hang 
 upon such an accident as a maternal movement, or a clumsy 
 accoucheur? Inquiiies these, our answers to which can 
 
THE GREAT ENIGMA. 265 
 
 only display either hopeless acquiescence in a s;loomy con- 
 clusion, or equally hopeless struggles to escape from it. 
 
 " Admitting all this," urges one reasoner, " the pheno- 
 mena of life and death, nay even the doctrine of materialism 
 in all its nakedness, need present no insuperable difficulty; 
 for the same power which bestowed hfe is surely competent. 
 to restore it under another form and in another scene." 
 Unquestionably ; hut if we are material merely— if our in- 
 ferences from observation are correct— a renewed existence 
 must bf^ a new creation ; where then is our identity ? We 
 are not continued, but succeeded^ 
 
 " But," says another speculator, ''how can you tell that 
 there is not some unascertained portion of the human fraine, 
 infinitesimal, indeed, and evanescent to our senses, which 
 does not perish with the rest of the corporeal fabric, but 
 forms the germ which is expanded into the new existence." 
 It may be that there is such ; but no shadow of a proba- 
 bility can be adduced for such an assumption. It is at best 
 only a mode of conceiving the possihility of that which, 
 on other grounds, or without grounds, we have decided to 
 believe. It offers no escape from the overwhelming weight 
 of inference drawn from natural appearances. 
 
 The philosophical value of the arguments ordinarily 
 adduced to demonstrate the reality, or at least the high 
 probabihty, of an existence after death, will be variously 
 estimated by different minds. That they possess, accurately 
 speaking, no logical cogency, will be admitted by all candid 
 and competent reasoners ; to us, we confess^ they appear 
 lamentably feeble and inadequate. 
 
 By some we are told that the soul is immaterial, and that 
 by reason of its immateriality it cannot die. How can 
 
 » Life of Sir James Mackintosh, ii. 120, 121. 
 
 2 The ancient Jews held the existence of such a nucleus. "They contended 
 that there was an immortal bone in the human body (called by them ossiculum 
 Luz) which is the germ of the resurrection-body. This bone, they held, one 
 might burn, boil, bake, pound, bruise, or attempt to bruise, by putting it on 
 the anvil and submitting it to the strokes of the sledge-hammer ; but all in 
 vain. No effect would be produced upon it. It was indestructible— incor- 
 ruptible— immortal."— Bush's Anastasis, p. 177. The author of the "Physical 
 Theory" seems to imagine that the body contains some imperishable nucleus, 
 or particle, or element,^in which soul or life resides ; something as imponder- 
 able as light, as imperceptible as electricity, which does not perish with the 
 coarser elements of our frame, but assumes a higher life, and collects about it, 
 or evolves, a nobler and subtler organization. 
 
@:68 THE CREED OF CHRISTENDOM. 
 
 human beiogs, professing to hove cultivated their understand- 
 ings, be content to repeat, and rest in, such wretched inan- 
 ities as these ? — at best but the convulsive flounderings of 
 an intellect out of its depth, deluding itself into the belief 
 that it has grasped an idea, when it has only got hold of a 
 word. That the immaterial must of necessity be immortal 
 seems to us an unmeaning assertion on a matter of which 
 we know absolutely nothing. Of the nature of the Soul, 
 science has taught us, indeed, little — far too little to allow 
 us to decide and dogmatize ; but honesty must admit that 
 the little it has taught us all points to an opposite con- 
 clusion. Alas ! for tlie Spirit's immortal trust, if it rested 
 on such scholastic trivialities as these ! 
 
 Again. Much stress is laid on the inference to be drawn 
 from the general belief of mankind. But this consideration 
 will lose nearly all its force when we reflect how easily, in 
 the fond, tender, self-deceptive weakness of humanity, a 
 behef can grow out of a wish. Kegarded from this point 
 of view, the universal belief in a future state is only the 
 natural result of universal love of life. Man, for his pre- 
 servation, is endowed with an instinctive love of life, an 
 instinctive horror of destruction — an instinct which is 
 strengthened every hour by the manifold joys and interests 
 of existence. The prolongation of this existence becomes 
 a natural desire, which soon ripens into a passion ; in earlier 
 times the possibility of a deathless existence upon earth 
 was, we know, the dream, the hope, the pursuit of many ; 
 but as accumulated experience speedily dissipated this form 
 of the longings of nature, and compelled men to transfer 
 their aspirations to the other side of the grave, the notion 
 of an invisible futurity arose. The first natural desire was 
 for an earthly immortality ; out of the reluctantly acknow- 
 ledged impossibihty of realizing this may have sprung the 
 glorious conception of a heavenly existence. If this view 
 of the genesis of the Universal Creed be correct, the argu- 
 ment drawn from it falls to the ground; siuce the fact of 
 our desire for any blessing, even when that desire has grown 
 into a conviction, can offer no proof that it will be be- 
 stowed. 
 
 It is true that now, thousands who have no wish for a 
 prolonged existence upon earth, yet long for and believe in 
 a future life elsewhere. But this is the result partly of a 
 
THE GREAT ENIGMA. 2G7 
 
 conviction that the weariness and decay of both physical 
 and moral powers would make continued life here a penalty 
 and not a blessing, and partly of a desire for those higher 
 capacities and nobler pursuits which they anticipate here- 
 after. The origin of the aspiration still remains the same : 
 it is the desire for a happy existence cf/ter their conceptions 
 of happiness ; and they transfer the scene of it to heaven, 
 because they do not see how these conceptions could be 
 reaHzed on earth, i. e., under the ordinary conditions of 
 humanity. 
 
 It will be urged that the belief is strongest in the most 
 spiritual and religious minds, that is, in those which dwell 
 most constantly on unseen and superhuman realities. This 
 is true : and we cannot venture to say that to such minds, 
 raised and purified by heavenly contemplations, may not 
 be given a deeper insight into divine truths than can be 
 attained by those occupied with the things of earth and 
 time. Still the fact will admit of another and more simple 
 explanation ; since it is a well-known law of our intellectual 
 constitution that topics and scenes on which the mind habi- 
 tually and intently dwells, acquire, ipso facto, an increas- 
 ing degree of reality and permanence in our mental vision, 
 out of all proportion to their certainty or actuality. There 
 is no fancy, however baseless — no picture, however shadowy 
 and unreal — to which constant and exclusive contemplation 
 will not impart a consistence, substance, and tenacity, suf- 
 ficient to render it unassailable by reason, by experience, 
 and almost by the information of the senses. And it 
 cannot be doubted that, however inadequate were the ori- 
 ginal grounds for the belief in a future state, yet when once 
 it was assumed as an article of faith, daily meditation would 
 soon inevitably confer upon it a firmness and solidity with 
 which the most demonstrable truths of exact science would 
 compete in vain. 
 
 Much, and as it appears to us undeserved, stress is laid 
 on the argument derived from the unequal, and apparently 
 unjust, apportionment of human lots. 
 
 A future life, it is said, is needed to redress the ine- 
 qualities of this. But it is evident that this argument pro- 
 ceeds upon two assumptions, one of which is clearly un- 
 tenable, and the other at least questionable. It assumes 
 that the Presiding Deity is hound to allot an equal portion 
 
268 THE CREED OF CHRISTENDOM. 
 
 of good to all his creatures ; that to permit the condition 
 of one human heing to be happier than that of another, 
 is to perpetrate an injustice, — a position for wliich it is dif- 
 ficult to imagine any rational defence, and which must pro- 
 bably be asb^igned to the unconscious operation of one of 
 the least worthy passions of our nature — envy. What pos- 
 sible law can that be wliich shall make it tlte duty of Him 
 who confers his unpurchased gifts "with a mysterious and 
 uncontrollable sovereignty " to mete out to every being an 
 equal proportion of his boons ? The very statement of the 
 proposition confutes it. All that the creature can demand 
 from the justice and the love of his Creator, is that he shall 
 not be created for wretchedness — that on the average of his 
 career, happiness shall predominate over misery— that exist- 
 ence shall, on the whole, have been a blessing — or, what 
 perhaps is the same thing, that it shall be fairly attributable 
 to the voluntary fault —the option — of the individual, if it 
 he not so. Now, without going so far as to assert that there 
 are not, and never have been, exceptions to the general iact 
 that life presents to all a preponderating average of enjoy- 
 ment, we may well question whether there are such ; w^e are 
 sure they must be incalculably few ; and it is to these ex- 
 ceptional cases only that the argument can have any appli- 
 cation. 
 
 But are human lots as unequal in the amount of happi- 
 ness they confer as at first sight would appear ? It is gene- 
 rally acknowledged that they are not. Without wishing to 
 maintain even an apparent paradox ; without arguing that 
 the aggregate balance of enjoyment may not at the end of 
 life be widely different with the cultivated and the brutish — 
 the intellectual and the sensual — the obtuse and the sensi- 
 tive — the man who has never known a day's sickness, and 
 the man who has never knowni a day's health — the savage 
 who hves beset with perils and privations, and the noble 
 who lives embosomed in peace and luxury — the wretched 
 pauper, and the wealthy miUionaire — the man on whom 
 fortune always smiles, and the man on whom she always 
 frowns — the man whose children are a glory and a blessing, 
 and him to whom they are a plague and a reproach— the 
 man who is hated, and the man who is loved — the man 
 whose life is a ceaseless struggle, and the man whose life is 
 an unbroken sleep ; — it is not to be denied that every fresh 
 
THE GREAT ENIGMA. 269 
 
 insight we obtain into the secrets of each man's lot, equal- 
 izes them more and more ; discovers undreamed-of compen- 
 sations for good and for evil; discloses a vigorous spirit of 
 enjoyment among the most obviously unfortunate, and a 
 dark cloud of care brooding over the prosperous, which go 
 far to rectify our first hasty judgment of the inequality of 
 their condition. The inner life of every man is hidden from 
 his fellows by a thick veil : whenever accident draws this 
 partially aside, are we not invariably amazed at the unex- 
 pected incongruities it lays bare? Are we not on such 
 occasions made aware that we are habitually forming the 
 most egregiously mistaken estimates of the essential condi- 
 tion of those around us? For myself I can truly say that 
 whenever circumstance has made me intimately acquainted 
 with the deeper secrets of my fellow-men, I have been utterly 
 confounded at the unlooked-for nature of the revelations. 
 Among the lowest I have found " seeds of almost impossible 
 good ;" among the most virtuous in appearance (and in some 
 respects in reality), guilt or frailty that scarcely any evidence 
 could make credible; among the most wretched in outward 
 condition, either strange insensibihty to suffering, or an inex- 
 tinguishable spirit of delight; among the most favoured of 
 the children of fortune, some inchoate, or acted, tragedy 
 hanging like a black thunder-cloud over their path. 
 
 Compensation is the great law everywhere inscribed on 
 the procedures of Nature. It prevails likeAvise over human 
 destinies even in this life, not perhaps — not probiibly— alto- 
 gether to the extent of equalization, but to an extent that 
 certainly approaches nearer and nearer to this point, the 
 Mider our knowledge and the deeper our meditation ^ Still, 
 I do not wish to push this argument too far : I merely wish 
 
 * Tlie class whose destiny is hj far tlie most perplexing to the thinker, is 
 that whose element, whose atmosphere, whose almost necessary condition, we 
 may say, is that of vice ; the c/«.sscs danr/treuscs of large towns, who are born 
 and bi-ed in squalor and iniquity, and never have a chance atibrded them to 
 rise out of it. Their intellect and moral sense are seldom sufficiently developed 
 to alibrd them the compensjation these bring to others. The apparently hope- 
 less, objectless, noxious existence of these beings, and their fearful power of 
 mischief and of multiplication, liave always been, and still remain to me, 
 *' Gcd's most disturbing mystery." Still we do not know that, on the whole, 
 even they are miserable. If, however, they are, it tvould rather drive us to 
 the staiitivir/ conclusion (hat those have most da 1711 on a future life who are 
 least Jit for it — that the least intellectual, the least moral, the least spiritual 
 of the species, are the surest denizens of Heaven ! 
 
270 THE CREED OF CHRISTENDOM:. 
 
 to show how invahd a foundation it must be for such a super- 
 structure as we build upon it. 
 
 " But the ideal of moral retribution (we are told) necessi- 
 tates a future state. God is a righteous Judge, who will 
 recompense virtue and punish sin. In this hfe virtue, we 
 know, often goes without its reward, and vice without its 
 punishment : — there must therefore be a future life in which 
 these respectively await them." Such is the syllogism on 
 which reason most rehes for the establishment of the Great 
 Tenet. The conclusion is irrefragable — if the premises are 
 sound. Most firmly do we believe that God is a righteous 
 Judge; — most truly do we hold that retribution is His 
 Law; — but we hold that it is a law of nature also ; that the 
 reward is involved in the virtue, and the punishment in the 
 sin ; — and that the arrangements of Providence would be 
 very imperfect were it not so. 
 
 It is evident that the whole cogency of the above syllogism 
 depends upon the correctness of the assumption that virtue 
 and vice are not equitably recompensed in this life. It 
 assumes, first, that we can read the heart and the circum- 
 stances, and see where virtue and vice — merit and demerit — 
 really lie ; — and, secondly, that we can look into the lot, and 
 discern where there is, or is not, retribution ; — that guilt and 
 innocence are what we deem such, and that Nemesis executes 
 no sentences but such as meet our eye. Alas ! for the 
 argument that rests on two postulates so notoriously false as 
 these. 
 
 What do we know — what can we predicate — of the sinful- 
 ness of any fellow-creature ? Can we say, " this man is 
 more guilty than that?" or even, " this man is very wicked ?" 
 We may, indeed, be able to say, " this man has lied, has pil- 
 fered, has forged ; and that man has gone through life with 
 clean hands." But can we say that the first has not strug- 
 gled long, though unsuccessfully, against temptations under 
 which the second would have succumbed without an effort ? 
 We can say which has the cleanest hands before man ; — can 
 we say which has the cleanest soul before God ? We may be 
 able to say *' this man has committed adultery, and that man 
 has never been guilty of uuchastity ;" — but can we tell that 
 the innocence of the one may not have been due to the cold- 
 ness of his heart — to the absence of a motive — to the pre- 
 sence of a fear ? And that the fall of the other may not 
 
THE GREAT ENIGMA. 271. 
 
 have been preceded by the most vehement self-contest — 
 caused by the most over-mastering phrenzy — and atoned for 
 by the most hallowing repentance ? We know that one man 
 is generous and open-handed, and another close, niggardly, 
 and stern ; but we do not know that the generosity of the 
 one as well as the niggardhness of the other, may not be a 
 mere yielding to native temperament. In the eye of Heaven, 
 a long life of beneficence in the one may have cost less effort, 
 and may indicate less virtue, than a few rare liidden acts of 
 kindness wrung by duty out of the reluctant and unsympa- 
 thizing nature of the other. There may be more real merit 
 — more self-sacrificing effort — more of the noblest efforts of 
 moral grandeur in a life of failure, sin, and shame, than in a 
 career, to our eyes of stainless integrity. *' God seeth not as 
 man seeth." Let this be a consoling thought to the sinner 
 who, black as he may be before the world, has yet con- 
 trived to keep some little light burning in his own soul ; — a 
 humbling and a warning thought to many who now walk 
 proudly in the sunshine of immaculate fame. 
 
 But do we know even the outside life of men ? Are we 
 competent to pronounce even on their deeds ? Do we know 
 half the acts of wickedness or of virtue even of our most im- 
 mediate fellows ? Can we say with any certainty, even of 
 our nearest friend, " this man has, or has not, committed 
 such a sin — broken such a commandment " ? Let each man 
 ask his own heart. Of how many of our best and of our 
 worst acts and qualities are our most intimate associates 
 utterly unconscious ? IIow many virtues does the world 
 give us credit for that we do not possess ? How small a 
 portion of our evil deeds and thoughts ever come to light ? 
 Even of our few redeeming goodnesses, how large a portion 
 is known to God only ! Truly, we walk in a vain show ^ ! 
 
 ' "Or what if Heaven foi- once its searching light 
 Sent to some partial eye, disclosing all 
 The rude, bad thoughts, that in our bosom's night 
 Wander at lax'ge, nor heed Love's gentle thrall ; 
 
 ** Who would not shun the dreary uncouth place ? 
 As if, fond leaning where her infant slept, 
 A mother's arm a serpent should embrace ; 
 So might we friendless live, and die unwept. 
 
 *' Then keep the softening veil in mercy drawn. 
 
 Thou vrho canst love us, though Thou read us true." 
 
 Kebie's Christian Year. 
 
272 THE CREED OF CHRISTENDOM. 
 
 Wlien we see one whom we know only as a good man 
 overtaken by a strange calamity, we call it a perplexing dis- 
 pensation. But in the secret recesses of that man's heart, 
 perhaps, how well does he feel to have deserved it, nay, 
 often, how precisely can he trace back the open suffering to 
 the secret sin ! Sorrow and darkness come upon us ; and the 
 World pities us and says, " Poor man ! he has httle deserved 
 such a fate." But we know that if the world knew us as we 
 know ourselves, it would deem such fate far too light a chas- 
 tisement for our iniquities. Tf it be so with ourselves, may 
 it not be so with others? Men accustomed to self-study, 
 and honest with themselves, often think their prosperity un- 
 merited ; rarely indeed do they think their calamities heavier 
 than their demerits ; — though they may be often at a loss — 
 though it may often be impossible — to trace the connection 
 between them. 
 
 We are wholly in the dark, then, as to what retribution is 
 deserved : —we are equally in the dark as to what retribution 
 is awarded. We could not tell, if it were left to us, where 
 to reward and where to punish : — neither can we tell where 
 reward and punishment nosv actually fall, nor in what propor- 
 tion. The retribution may be in a man's heart or in his lot. 
 In the one case we see it not at all — in the other we see it 
 very imperfectly. But we may be certain that could we see 
 even half the retribution that takes place in life, the argu- 
 ment we are considering would never have arisen. In the 
 weary satiety of the idle— in the healthy energy of honest 
 labour ; -in the irritable temper of the selfish — in the serene 
 peace of the benevolent ; -in tlie startling tortures of the 
 iSoul where the passions have the mastery — in the calm 
 Elysium which succeeds their subjugation; —may be traced 
 materials of retribution sufficient to satisfy the severest jus- 
 tice. Deeds and states of mind are their own avengers. The 
 consequence of an act is its reward or punislinient. Our 
 actions in the long run carry their own retribution along witu 
 ihem. If it were not so, the arrangements of nature would 
 be at fault \ 
 
 1 "Men call the circumstanco the retribution. The causal retribution is 
 in the thing, and is seen by the Soul. The retribution in the circumstance is 
 seen by the uncler.standing ; it is inseparable from the thing, but is ol't.n 
 spread over a long time, and so does not become distinct for many years. The 
 specitic stripes may follow late after the offence, but they follow because they 
 
THE GREAT ENIGMA. 278 
 
 *' What did the preacher mean by assuming that judgment 
 is not executed in this world ; by saying that the wicked are 
 successful, and the good are miserable, in the present life ? 
 Was it that houses and lands, offices, wine, horses, dress, 
 luxury, are had by unprincipled men, whilst the saints are 
 poor and despised ; and that a compensation is to be made 
 to these last hereafter, by giving them the hke gratifications 
 another day — bank stock and doubloons, venison and cham- 
 pagne ? This must be the compensation intended, for what 
 else ? Is it that they are to have leave to pray and praise ? 
 to love and serve men ? why, they can do these now. The 
 legitimate inference the disciple would draw, was, ' We are 
 to have stick a good time as the sinners have now; — or, to 
 push it to its extreme import, ' You sin now ; we shall 
 sin by-and-by ; we would sin now if we could ; — not being 
 successful, we expect our revenge to-morrow.' 
 
 " The fallacy lay in the immense concession that the bad 
 are successful, that justice is not dor^e now. The bhndness 
 of the preacher consisted in deferring to the base estimate of 
 the market of what constitutes a manly success, instead of 
 confronting and convicting the world from the truth ; an- 
 nouncing the presence of the Soul ; the omnipotence of the 
 will, and so estabhshing the standard of good and ill, of 
 success and falsehood, and summoning the dead to its present 
 tribunal." ^ 
 
 Our false view of the whole subject arises from the hold 
 still possessed over our minds by the old Jewish notion, that 
 the good things of this life are the fitting and the promised 
 recompense of virtue, — that virtue and prosperity, vice and 
 poverty, are linked together by the decrees of divine justice. 
 This unacknowledged fallacy lies at the root of much of our 
 disappointment, and much of our surprise and perplexity at 
 the dispensations of Providence. There is much sound 
 wisdom on this subject in Mrs. Barbauld's Essay on "Incon- 
 sistency in our Expectations;" — still more perhaps in Pope's 
 *' Essay on Man." ^ 
 
 accompany it. Crime and punishment grow out of one stem. Punishment is 
 a fruit that, unsuspected, ripens within the flower of the pleasui-e that con- 
 cealed it." — Emerson, Essay iii. 
 
 1 Emerson's Essay on Compensation. 
 
 2 "But is it not some reproach on the economy of Providence that such a 
 one, who is a mean, dirty fellow, should have amassed wealth enough to buy 
 half a nation ? Not in the least. He made himself a mean, dirty fellow for 
 
 T 
 
274 THE CREED OF CHRISTENDOM. 
 
 Much reliance is placed upon the assertion that Man pos- 
 sesses faculties which can find no fitting aliment, and can 
 attain no adequate development, on earth; and which, there- 
 fore, are supposed to indicate the necessity of a future 
 scene for their perfection. Many of our powers, we are told, 
 do not ripen till the close of Hfe ; and reach their acme 
 just as the approach of death renders them, if this life be all, 
 of no further use to us. It is contradictory to all the ana- 
 logies of nature, it is said, to imagine that Providence has 
 bestowed any capacities or desires for which an appropriate 
 scope and object have not been appointed. I confess I do 
 not appreciate the force of this argument ; it appears to me 
 as if its setters forth had satisfied themselves too easily, as 
 divines are apt to do, with mere words. It is not true that 
 our powers — our active powers at least — whether physical or 
 intellectual, reach their highest development as life draws to 
 a close. On the contrary, they commonly attain their height 
 in middle life, and gradually weaken and decay as age creeps 
 over the frame. Wisdon;, indeed, may be said in well-consti- 
 tuted minds to increase to the end of life ; but wisdom is but 
 the accumulated inference from our experience and our re- 
 flection, and will naturally augment with the perpetual increase 
 of its materials. But memory, imagination, the power of ac- 
 quisition, the power of intellectual creation, unquestionably do 
 not continue to ripen and strengthen after maturity is passed. 
 Nor is it easy to discover what those faculties are, for which 
 this earth may notaff'ord a fitting field and ample occupation. 
 Love, Hope, Fancy, are probably the noblest endowments of 
 man's moral Being. Cannot Love — even in its richest pro- 
 fusion and its tenderest refinements — find adequate exercise 
 amid the varied relations of our mortal existence, in soothing 
 sorrow, in conferring good, in brightening all the dark passages 
 
 that very end. He has paid his health, his conscience, his liberty for it ; 
 and will you envy him his bargain? "—Barbauld, i. 187. 
 
 " But sometimes Virtue starves, while Vice is fed: 
 What then ? Is the reioard of Virtue bread ? 
 That, Vice may merit ; 'tis the price of toil; 
 The knave deserves it when he tills the soil. 
 The good man may be weak, be indolent ; 
 Nor is his claim to plenty, but content. 
 What nothing earthly gives, or can destroy, 
 The Soul's calm sunshine, and the heartfelt joy. 
 Is Virtue's prize." 
 
 Pope, Essay iv. 
 
THE GREAT ENIGMA. 275 
 
 of life, and turning earth into an anticipated Paradise? Will 
 any one who has once loved a fellow-creature with all the pas- 
 sionate energy of an earnest soul, or who has once melted into 
 •rapture with genuine gratitude to the God who has bestowed 
 such happiness, dare to say that Love finds no ample develop- 
 ment, and reaps no teeming harvest here ? And Hope; — is 
 not hope the spring of all exertion — the origin of all pro- 
 gress — the conferrer of all strength — along the toilsome and 
 dusty pathways of the world ? And can it find no worthy 
 object in the dream of what Humanity, through the efforts 
 which it stimulates and rewards, may yet become ? And is 
 Imagination entitled to complain of the narrow field in which 
 it is permitted to expatiate, because Time and Space are the 
 allotted limits of its range, so long as it has the mighty pos- 
 sibihties of hnman destiny before it, and Suns, and Systems, 
 and Firmaments — countless, infinite, inscrutable — above it? 
 
 " But (it is said) the character, at least, continues growing 
 till the end of life, and many of our best virtues are the fruit 
 only of the discipline of Life, especially humility, forbearance, 
 resignation, and contentment. Shall then existence terminate 
 just when the human being is most fitted to appreciate it, 
 to understand it, to fulfil its aims ? Is its success to be the 
 signal for its extinction ? Is supreme excellence to be achieved 
 only to be eclipsed for ever ? Is our goal to be our grave ?" 
 I feel the weight of these considerations, and have nothing 
 to urge against them. 
 
 But in truth all these arguments we have been considering 
 are to be taken, not so much as proofs of the doctrine of a 
 future life, as proofs of man's resolution to hold that doctrine. 
 They are inadequate to demonstrate its soundness; but amply 
 suflQcient to show that the belief heing in mans mind, he 
 knows not how nor whence, he is determined to maintain it, 
 curious to account for it, anxious ,^to justify it. Erroneously 
 conceiving that it must be a product of reason, he dihgently 
 looks about to discover the logical processes which have ge- 
 nerated it ; and clings to the shallowest crudities rather than 
 surrender (as he conceives) the title-deeds of his faith. 
 
 The truth we believe to be, that a future existence is, and 
 must be, a matter of information, not of inference. The in- 
 tellect could never have discovered it, and can never prove it 
 • — the Soul must have revealed it ; must, and does, perpetually 
 reveal it. It is a matter which comes properly within the 
 
 T 2 
 
276 THE CREED OF CHRISTENDOM. 
 
 cognizance of the SouP — of that spiritual sense, to which on 
 such topics we must look for information, as we look to our 
 hodily senses for information touching the things of earth — 
 things that lie within their province. We never dream of 
 doubting what they tell us of the external world, though a 
 Berkeley should show us that their teacliing is at variance 
 with, or indefensible by logic. We therefore at once cut the 
 Gordian knot by conceding to the Soul the privilege of in- 
 structing us as to the things of itself; — we apply to the spi- 
 ritual sense for information on spiritual things. We beheve 
 that there is no other solution of the question. To the man 
 who disbelieves the Soul's existence, this will of course ap- 
 pear an unwarrantable and illogical admission. To him the 
 Soul has not spoken. My sources of information are una- 
 vailable to him. My soul can tell him nothing. Providence 
 has denied to him a seyise which has been granted to me ; 
 and all the knowledge which comes to me through the 
 avenues of that sense must seem foolishness to him. 
 
 The only occasions on which a shade of doubt has passed 
 over my conviction of a future existence, have been when I 
 have rashly endeavoured to make out a case, to give a reason 
 for the faith that is in me, to assign ostensible and logical 
 grounds for my belief. At such times, and still more when I 
 have heard others attempting to prove the existence of a future 
 world by arguments which could satisfy no one by whom argu- 
 ments were needed, I confess that a chill dismay has often 
 struck into my heart, and a fluctuating darkness has lowered 
 down upon my creed, to be dissipated only when I had again 
 left inference and induction far behind, and once more suf- 
 fered the Soul to take counsel with itself. 
 
 This appears to me the only foundation on which the belief 
 
 ' *' That a purely historical is as unsatisfactory as a metaphysical basis for 
 a spiritual doctrine is obvious ; indeed Paul gives us cleariy to understand 
 that the future hopes of the soul were to be discerned by the soul itself, for 
 itself ; and did not depend upon man's wisdom, as a question of history does 
 
 and must Paul may have had more of direct insight into this deepest 
 
 of subjects than the passages quoted denote : God forbid that I should pre- 
 sumptuously limit the insight enjoyed by his most favoured servants. Yet his 
 light does us little or no good, while it is a light outside of us ; so long we 
 are depending on the soundness of Paul's faculties. If he in any way confused 
 the conclusions of his logic (which is often extremely inconsequent and mis- 
 taken) with the perceptions of his divinely-illuminated soul, our belief might 
 prove baseless. Faith by proxy is really no faith at all, and certainly is not 
 what Paul would have ever recommended." — Newman on the Soul, pp. 187-9. 
 
THE GREAT ENIGMA. 277 
 
 in a future life can legitimately rest, to those who do not ac- 
 cept a miraculous external revelation. Et tibi magna satin. 
 It is a belief anterior to reasoning, independent of reasoning, 
 unproveahle by reasoning ; and yet as no logic can demon- 
 strate its unsoundness, or can bring more than negative 
 evidence to oppose to it — I can hold it with a simplicity, a 
 tenacity, an undoubting faith, which is never granted to the 
 conclusions of the understanding. La, oujinit le raiwnne^ 
 ment, cotnmence la veritable certitude." It is a kind provi- 
 sion in man's moral nature that he is not made dependent on 
 the tardy, imperfect, falHble, and halting processes of logic, 
 for any convictions necessary either to happiness or action. 
 These are all instinctive, primary, intuitive. Eeason exa- 
 mines them, combines them, confirms them, questions them ; 
 but there they remain, heedless alike of her patronage or her 
 hostility ; — " asking no leave to shine of our terrestrial star." 
 It is an immense advantage gained, when we have disco- 
 vered and decided that it is not from the logical faculty that 
 our knowledge on spiritual topics is to be gained. We can 
 then afford to be honest— to give reason and analysis fair play 
 — to shrink from no conclusion, however unwelcome to our 
 speculations, which they may force upon us ;— for after they 
 have done all they can to correct, to negative, to ascertain, 
 we fee] that their function is critical merely— Ma/ our light 
 comes to us from elsewhere. 
 
 ^ " There are instances of common convictions— firm ones too — which you 
 cannot put to proof in a logical form. There is our reliance on permanency 
 of the laws of Nature. One of the ablest reasoners, and with no bias towards 
 Christianity, or any particular form of religion in his mind, has found himself 
 unable to account for this reliance but by terming it a human instinct, some- 
 thing analogous to the instincts of animals. That the Sun rose to-day is no 
 logical proof that he will rise to-morrow. That the grain grew last year does 
 not argue, by a syllogistic deduction, that it will grow next year. Yet where 
 is there a confidence stronger than this ?— where a belief more firm ? Our 
 conviction of the reality of external nature is another instance of the same 
 description. That, too, baflies the logician. You cannot show that there is 
 matter, or existence at all, beyond yourself ; and yet you believe it, rely upon 
 it, act upon it. It may all be only impression on our consciousness. The 
 Berkeleian can dispose of the whole material universe in this way witb the 
 greatest ease. There may be no stars shining in Heaven, no trees growing in 
 the forest— all may be but sensation, thought, in us ; still, who does not rest 
 upon, who does not act upon, the reality of something which is out of us, 
 with an assurance as strong as that of our belief in our own existence ? Those 
 who require direct agencies of demonstration in such matters as these-— who 
 contend that belief and the logical form of proof have an inseparable union- 
 must find their way out of this dilemma as well as they can."— Fox, On the 
 Religious Ideas, p. 20. 
 
278 THE CREED OF CHRISTENDOM. 
 
 There are three points especially of religious helief, regard- 
 ing which intuition (or instinct) and logic are at variance ;—^ 
 the efficacy of prayer ; — man's free-will ; — and a future exist- 
 ence. If believed, they must he believed, the last without the 
 countenance, the two former in spite of the hostility, of logic. 
 Hence the belief in them is most resolute, and undoubting the 
 nearer men and nations approach to the instinctive condition} 
 Savages never doubt them ; sufferers never doubt them ; men 
 in the excitement of vehement action never doubt them. It is 
 the quiet, even tenour of comfortable and refined existence — 
 it is the fireside, the library, the arm-chair, that doubt, that 
 question, that speak of darkness, that ask for proofs. 
 
 We have already intimated that we think it questionable 
 whether the doctrine of a future life has been of that practical 
 service to mankind, either in kind or degree, which is com- 
 monly assumed. Of its inestimable value, as a consolation 
 to the sorrowing, as a hope to the aspiring, as a rest to the 
 weary and heavy-laden, it is not easy to speak in language 
 strong enough for the occasion. But we incline to doubt 
 whether it exercises much influence on the actual morals of 
 mankind at large — whether, except in isolated instances, the 
 expectation of future retribution operates strongly to deter 
 from crime or to stimulate to virtue ^. And, as we said in 
 
 ^ This is the idea that lies at the root of Wordsworth's sublimest poem — 
 
 The Ode on the Intimations of Immortality. 
 
 " Heaven lies about us in our Infancy ! 
 
 Shades of tlie prison-house begin to close 
 
 Upon the gi'owing boy, 
 
 But he beholds the light, and whence it flows, 
 
 He sees it in his joy ; 
 
 The youth who daily further from the East 
 
 Must travel, still is Nature's Priest, 
 
 And by the vision splendid 
 
 Is on his way attended ; 
 
 At length the Man perceives it die away, 
 
 And fade into the light of common day." 
 ***** 
 
 *' Mighty Prophet ! Seer blest ! 
 On whom those truths do rest, 
 Which -we are toiling all our lives to find, 
 In darkness lost, the darkness of the grave ; 
 Thou, over whom thine immortality 
 Broods like the day, a Master o'er a Slave, 
 A Presence "which is not to be put by ; 
 Thou little child ! " 
 " Such remarks, I fear, may be felt as exceedingly painful by those who 
 are accustomed to regard a fixed logical dogma on this subject to be of first- 
 rate importance, and even of necessity ; but a little reflection as to the high 
 
THE GREAT ENIGMA. 279 
 
 the last section, it is more than doubtful whether the happi- 
 ness and social progress of mankind has not rather been re- 
 tarded than promoted by the doctrine. 
 
 But as to the deep paramount interest of the doctrine to 
 every beUever, there can be no difference of opinion. Specu- 
 lation as to the nature of that strange and new existence, and 
 as to the influence which our proceedings here may exert upon 
 our position there^ cannot fail to engross much of the thoughts 
 of the serious mind. On this latter point the philosophical 
 Tlieist and the mere Biblical Christian differ less tlian either 
 is willing to assume. Both believe that actually, and by 
 some operation, the condition of the Soul on earth must de- 
 termine at least the outset of its future destiny. The Chris- 
 tian conceives that, by an arbitrary decree of the Most High, 
 the virtuous Soul will be assigned to happiness, and the vici- 
 ous Soul to misery. The Theist conceives that this precise 
 allotment will result from the very nature of the Soul itself. 
 The Christian believes that, as each soul appears before its 
 Maker, it will receive from His hps the dread sentence which 
 will fix it for ever on one side or other of that great gulph 
 which separates the space where He is from the space where 
 He is not. The Theist believes that the quickened percep- 
 tions, the intensified faculties, the unclouded vision, which 
 we imagine as proper to the disembodied spirit, will consti- 
 tute its sure Heaven or its inevitable Hell. The one creed 
 is, that the pure, the loving, the aspiring Soul, mvst be 
 happy; and that the grovelling, the tarnished, the malignant 
 Soul, cannot be so. The other creed is, that God will pro- 
 nounce to them this irreversible fiat at the last great day. 
 
 We cannot agree with those who say that Earth can give 
 us no conception, no foretaste, of the felicities of Heaven. 
 How then can we affect honestly to desire it ? If we could 
 not conceive of it, how could we long for it ? And how can 
 we conceive of it, but from the basis of experienced feelings ? 
 *' What can we reason but from what we know?" Why 
 should we regard this life as so wretched and unworthy that 
 
 tone of spiritual elevation maintained by the Hebrew bards ought to suffice to 
 show that that 'necessity' is extren\^ly exaggerated. But this is not all. 
 Need we ask what sort of influence the current views exert over the irreligious? 
 Are they less profane for the dreadful doctrine of an eternal Hell '?.... 
 That a firm belief of immortality, arising out of insight, must have very 
 energetic force, I regard as an axiom ; but as an external dogma, I cannot 
 but think that its efficacy is prodigiously over-rated." — Newman on the Soul. 
 
280 THE CREED OF CHRISTENDOM. 
 
 the happiness of Heaven must necessarily be composed of 
 distinct ingredients from the happiness of Earth ? God 
 made it too. 
 
 That something will yet remain to be superadded — some- 
 thing entirely new — in that future existence, I can well be- 
 lieve. Though God will be — can be — no nearer to us there 
 than here — yet as our perceptions of his presence will be 
 clearer, and our insight into his nature incalculably deeper, 
 it may be that at length, — when in the course of those end- 
 less gradations of progress through which our spiritual facul- 
 ties will attain their full development, we shall have begun 
 to know Him with something of the same cognizance with 
 which we know our fellow-creatures here— we shall learn so 
 to love Him, that that love will absorb into itself all the 
 other constituents of the Beatific Life. But I can conceive 
 of this only as the result of the most ultimate and Seraphic 
 knowledge : — to expect it soon — or to affect it here — seems 
 to me equally irrational and insincere. 
 
 It is unreasonable to expect so entire a change in the cha- 
 racter of the Soul, by the mere event of death, as would entitle 
 it, or enable it to enter at once on the enjoyment of supreme 
 felicity. With the shuffling off this mortal coil, we may in- 
 deed hope to lay down at once and for ever all those tempta- 
 tions with which in this life the senses beset the soul, all that 
 physical weakness which has clogged and bounded the exer- 
 tions of the intellect, all that obscurity with which our mate- 
 rial nature has too often clouded our moral vision. But that 
 the Spirit which has been angry, narrow, or infirm here^ 
 should suddenly become large, strong, and placid there, is a 
 miracle which the analogies of God's workings give us no 
 ground to anticipate. We believe that according to the goal 
 which each soul has reached on earth, will be its starting- 
 point in Heaven — that, through long ages of self-elaborating 
 effort, it must win its way up nearer and nearer to the Throne 
 of God — and that occupation can never fail, nor interest ever 
 flag, even through everlasting being ; — for, infinite as may 
 be its duration, will it not be surpassed by the infinitude of 
 the created universe ? When we reflect that during a life of 
 seventy years, the wisest of the sons of men, though aided 
 by all the knowledge that preceding generations have be- 
 queathed to them, can penetrate only an insignificant portion 
 of the wonders of this httle earth, we need not fear thatEter- 
 
THE GREAT ENIGMA. 281 
 
 nity will exhaust the contemplations of him to whom will lie 
 open, not only the systems and firmaments we read of and 
 can dimly see, hut that larger, remoter, more illimitahle uni- 
 verse which we cannot even dream of here. 
 
 *' But the punishments of the next World ?" we hear it 
 asked. Well ! is our imagination so poor and harreu that 
 "we can conceive of no adequate and ample ones, without 
 having recourse to the figures of the worm that dieth not, 
 and the fire that is not quenched ? Must not a future world 
 in itself — the condition of '* spiritual corporeity" alone — 
 bring with it dreadful retribution to the wicked, the selfish, 
 and the weak ? In the mere fact of their cleared percep- 
 tions — in the realization of their low position — in seeing 
 themselves at length as they really are — in feeling that all 
 their work is yet to do — in beholding all those they loved 
 and venerated far before them — away from them — fading in 
 the bright distance, — may he, must lie, a torture, a purifying 
 fire, in comparison with which the representations of Dante 
 and Milton shrivel into tameness and inadequacy. To the 
 base, the sensual, the hard, who have no notion of a mental 
 torment, translate these, if you will, by the image of a 
 quenchless flame and a sulphurous lake ; but seek not to 
 embody such coarse and earthly conceptions in the theology 
 of better natures. 
 
 THE END. 
 
 Woodfall an d Kinder, Printers, Angel Court, Skinner Street, London. 
 
NEW PUBLICATIONS. 
 
 THE COLLECTED WORKS OF THEODORE PARKER, 
 
 Minister of the Twenty-eighth Congregational Society at Boston, U.S. ; 
 Containing his Theological, Polemical, and Critical Writings ; Sermons, 
 Speeches, and Addresses ; and Literary Miscellanies. Edited by Frances 
 Power Cobbe. In 12 vols. or. 8vo, cloth. 6s. each. 
 
 " Theodore Parker was one of those men from whom we may learn more while differing 
 from them, than from many witli whom we agree ; — a man whose writings are calculated, 
 in more than one way, to be eminently useful amidst that uprooting of old religious 
 prepossessions, so characteristic of our time. We hail, therefore, the publication 
 of a collected edition of liis works, of which the two first volumes have appeared." — 
 The Readkr. 
 
 TRACTATUS THEOLOGICO - POLITICUS : a Critical 
 
 Enquiry into the History, Purpose, and Authenticity of the Hebrew 
 Scriptures ; with the Right to Free Thought and Free Discussion asserted, 
 and shown to be not only consistent but necessarily bound up with True 
 Piety and Good Government. By Benedict de Spinosa. From the Latin. 
 With an Introduction and Notes by the Editor. 8vo, pp. 368, cloth. 
 Price 10s. 6d. 
 
 LETTERS ON BIBLIOLATRY. By Gotthold Ephraim 
 Lessing. Translated from the German by the late H. H. Bernard, Ph. D. 
 8vo, pp. 184, cloth. Price 5s. 
 
 Three generations of British Revieicers on Lessing. 
 
 " The work before us is as genuine a sour-krout as ever perfumed a feast in Westphalia. 
 — Edinburgh Review, April, 1806. 
 
 "As a poet, as a critic, philosopher, or controversialist, his style will be found precisely 
 such as we of England are accustomed to admire most. Brief, nervous, vivid ; yet quiet, 
 without glitter or antithesis ; idiomatic, pure without purism ; transparent, yet full of 
 character and reflex hues of meaning — Edinburgh Review, October, 1827. 
 
 " The first foreigner who had the glory of proclaiming Shakspeare to be the greatest 
 dramatist the world had ever seen, was Gotthold Ephraim luessing."— Edinburgh Review, 
 July, 1849. 
 
 THANKSGIVING. A CHAPTER OF RELIGIOUS 
 
 DUTY. By Frances Power Cobbe. 12mo, pp. 42. Price Is. 
 
 THE NEW THEOLOGY. By John Smart. Edited by 
 his Wife. Second edition. Crown 8vo. 
 
TRUBNER AND CO S NEW PUBLICATIONS. 
 
 EIG-VEDA SANHITA: a Collection of Ancient Hindu 
 
 Hymns, constituting the Fifth to Eighth Ashtakis, or Books of the Rig- 
 Veda, the oldest Authority for the Religious and Social Institutions of the 
 Hindus. Translated from the original Sanskrit by the late Horace Hayman 
 Wilson, M.A., F.R.S., etc. Edited by James R. Ballanttne, LL.D., 
 late Principal of the Government Sanskrit College of Benares. Volumes 
 4, 5, and 6. In the Press. 
 
 WORKS BY THE LATE HORACE HAYMAN WILSON, 
 
 M.A., F.R.S., Member of the Royal Asiatic Societies of Calcutta and 
 Paris, and of the Oriental Society of Germany, &c. , and Boden Professor 
 of Sanskrit in the University of Oxford. Vol. 3. Also, under the title 
 ESSAYS ON LITERATURE. In 2 vols. Vol. 1. 8vo, cloth. In the 
 Press. 
 
 ESSAYS AND LECTURES CHIEFLY ON THE 
 
 Religion of the Hindus. By Horace H. Wilson, M.A., F.R.S., late 
 Boden Professor of Sanskrit in the University of Oxford. Collected and 
 Edited by Dr. Reinhold Rost. 2 vols. 8vo, pp. 398 and 416, cloth. 
 Price 21s. 
 
 AN ESSAY ON THE AGE AND ANTIQUITY OF 
 
 THE BOOK OF NABATHiEAN AGRICULTURE. To which is added 
 an Inaugural Lecture on the Position of the Shemitic Nations in the His- 
 tory of Civilization. By M. Ernest Renan, Membre de I'lnstitut. In 
 1 vol. crown 8vo, pp. xvi. 148, cloth. Price 3s. 6d. 
 
 TITAN. By Jean Paul Friedrich Richter. Translated 
 
 into English, for the first time, by Charles T. Brooks. 2 vols. 8vo., 
 
 cloth. 18s. 
 
 "... 'Hesperus' and 'Titan' themselves, though in form nothing more than 
 'novels of real life,' as the Minerva Press would say, have solid metal enough in them to 
 furnish whole circulating libraries, were it beaten into the usual filigree; and much which, 
 attenuate it as we might, no quarterly subscriber could well carry with him. ... A 
 poet, and among the highest of his time, we must reckon him, though he wrote no verses ; 
 
 a philosopher, though he promulgated no systems Such a man we can safely 
 
 recommend to universal study ; and for those who, in the actual state of matters, may the 
 most blame him, repeat the old maxim : ' What is extraordinary try to look at with your 
 own eyes.' " — Thomas Carlyle's Critical and Miscellaneous Essays, Vols. I. & II. 
 
 TRtFBNER & CO., 60, Paternoster Row. 
 
Princeton Theological Seminary-Speer Library 
 
 1 1012 01017 8830