ESSAYS ESSAYS ON SACEED SUBJECTS FOR GENERAL READERS BY THE REV. WILLIAM RUSSELL, M.A. WILLIAM BLACKWOOD AND SONS EDINBUEGH AND LONDON MDCCCLXXXIX All Rights reserved PREFACE. These Essays have been written for general readers, whose time may be limited for the study of the subjects comprised in the volume. The author has stated as clearly and concisely as he could his opinions on the Scripture subjects on which he has treated ; and should these be in any degree useful to the class of persons for whom they are intended, his object in submitting them to the press shall have been accomplished. c CONTENTS PAGE I. THE EXISTENCE, NATURE, AND GOVERNMENT OF GOD, . 1 II. THE UNITY AND DIVERGENCE OF HUMAN SPEECH, . . 93 III. THE DEVELOPMENT OF HEATHENISM, . . . .115 IV. MONOTPIEISM, ........ 161 V. THE EVOLUTION HYPOTHESIS, ..... 177 VI. MATERIALISM, ........ 195 VII. THE UNITY AND DIVERGENCE OF THE RACES, . . . 233 VIII. THE MOSAIC AND HEATHEN COSMOGONIES, . . . 255 IX. THE SCRIPTURAL AND SCIENTIFIC RECORDS OF THE CREA¬ TION NOT AT VARIANCE, ...... 277 X. THE FALL, ......... 367 XI. SACRIFICIAL WORSHIP IN CONNECTION WITH THE ATONE¬ MENT, ......... 413 XII. THE PERSON OF CHRIST, AND THE INFLUENCE OF HIS TEACHING ON THE WORLD, ..... 441 I. THE EXISTENCE, NATUEE, AND GOVERNMENT OF GOD. As the Scriptures profess to be a revelation from God, they do not attempt to prove His existence. They proceed on the assumption that all men have the conviction that there is a Being on whom they are dependent, and to whom they are responsible. But whence this conviction ? To this question we answer that it is innate. It is a conviction which does not come to us from without, but from within. It belongs essentially to the nature of man. It lies at the root of Natural and Bevealed Beligion. It is involved in our sense of moral obligation. It is inscribed indelibly in characters more or less distinct on the heart of every human being. The man who strives to rid himself of this conviction might as well attempt to escape from the laws of his own being. “ The fool,” saith the Scripture, “ hath said in his heart, There is no God.” And why hath he said so ? Because “ they are corrupt ; they have done abominable works ; there is none that doeth good.” 1 The fool thus saith what he cannot thoroughly be convinced or persuaded of ; for the existence of a God cannot be denied, except by those whose character and con¬ duct render it desirable for them that there should be none. 1 Psalm xiv. 1. A 9 THE EXISTENCE, NATURE, Yet the Scripture standetli true, they are “ without excuse ” ; for the saying of such a fool, or of any number of fools, cannot invalidate the words of Divine truth, or eradicate the innate convictions of mankind. What a sublime contrast to such folly is the saying of Epictetus the heathen moralist, and what severe censure is therein conveyed upon all such pro¬ fanity ! “ If I were a nightingale,” he says, “ I would by singing fulfil the obligations of a nightingale ; if I were a swan, by singing, the avocations of a swan. But since I am a reasonable being, my duty is to praise God. This is my calling, I will fulfil it.” The highest and noblest thought of which man is capable is God, and this thought is innate. By innate is meant what is inherent in our constitution, as sentient, intellectual, and moral beings. It is opposed to the doctrine of the sensational school, which makes all our know¬ ledge dependent on experience and reflection. It cannot be doubted that there is such knowledge — that the mind is so constituted that it sees certain things to be true and in their own light. They require not to be proved by any process of reasoning or research. These immediate cognitions have ob¬ tained various appellations. They have been called ultimate or elementary laws of thought, primary or fundamental laws of human belief, intuitions, principles of common-sense, innate convictions. Provided we understand what is meant, the desig¬ nation is of less importance. The doctrine of innate convic¬ tions implies that they are the root of all principles — the foundation of the whole fabric of human knowledge. They are not in conscious exercise in the newly formed mind ; they are rather dormant in the soul, than known to be there ; they are endowments which the mind possesses, without being aware of their existence, until the demands of experience call them into consciousness, when they are felt to have all the force of self-evident and necessary truths. The most of our knowledge is in this state. All the facts of history and science which have been stored up in memory are out of the domain of consciousness, until the mind is turned to them. It is thus easily conceivable how the soul, when it comes into the world, may be stored with these ultimate con¬ victions which lie dormant in the mind, until roused into con- AND GOVERNMENT OF GOD. 3 sciousness by its need of their guidance. To quote the words of Hamilton : “ Those notions or cognitions which are primi¬ tive facts are given us ; they are not, indeed, obtrusive, — they are not even cognisable of themselves. They lie hid in the profundities of the mind, until drawn from their obscurity by the mental activity itself employed upon the materials of ex¬ perience.” 1 To deny, therefore, the doctrine of intuitions by saying that the new-born child has no idea of nature, nor of a single object in nature, is to misapprehend what is here affirmed. It is also a mistake to suppose that because such intuitions are essential to the nature of man, they must be constantly present to the mind of each individual, and must operate with the same frequency upon the minds of all. What is asserted is, that they are natural laws of the mind ; that they rise up into consciousness with all the force of irresistible truths ; but that the materials of experience are necessary to call them into exercise. Had it not been for the operation of these laws, man would have been incapable of knowledge. Accordingly, when an object has been pre¬ sented, or an event observed to happen, they rise before the mind to impart the guidance it demands. These intuitions belong to the several departments of the mind — the senses, the intellect, and our moral nature. I. In the first place, all our perceptions through the medium of the senses are intuitive. We apprehend immediately the objects of sense, and have an innate conviction of their reality and truth. The conclusions we form may be indefinite, and thereby inadequate ; but our perceptions, as far as they reach, tell us the truth. When we see an object at a great distance, we may have an indistinct notion of it as an object existing ; but if we apply a telescope to the eye, we obtain a clearer knowledge of the details in the structure. It is not a new object which has come into view, but the same object has been rendered more palpable. When an object is thus pre¬ sented to the eye, we are conscious of what we see, and that what we see is the cause of the sensation we experience. Our sensitive organism is also capable of being increased in its 1 Lectures on Metaphysics, ii. 351. 4 THE EXISTENCE, NATURE, perceptive powers. The senses of some persons are far more acute than those of others. Our eyes do not all see with the same keenness alike ; a North American Indian would catch at a glance what would escape the observation of most other men. The trained eye thus discerns with far greater distinctness than the untrained. So with regard to hearing and touch, the blind are remarkable for their acuteness in these senses. But the consciousness which attends our sensations is not due to any training or instinct whatever, but to the constitution of our nature. In fact, the physical organism itself is not known in consciousness at all ; it is only the sensations and percep¬ tions obtained by means of it which are known. Conscious¬ ness cannot, correctly speaking, be defined — nevertheless, within its proper sphere it must be held to be that necessary function of the mind whereby it takes cognisance of all phe¬ nomena both from without and from within, — that is, both objective and subjective. But though it cannot be defined, it may be analysed. Every state of consciousness can be resolved into three elements. Take for illustration an act of perception. It may be expressed thus : I — am conscious of — perceiving the table before me. In this single state there are, the conscious knower , the consciousness , and the present perception. I am conscious of an act of perception (in distinction from all other acts), and I am also conscious that the object perceived is the table. But how can this be, unless consciousness embrace within its sphere the object thus designated ? It is not, then, according to Beid and Stewart, to be regarded as a distinct faculty, but, according to Hamilton, as involved in, and the basis of, all the faculties. In other words, it is not limited to the cognisance of what passes within us, but is co-extensive with intelligence or knowledge. But if consciousness is co-extensive with all our knowledge, then as intelligent beings we must be conscious of two different classes of phenomena, — the one belonging to the external world with which we are connected — the other to the internal world of mind, in which we are conscious of our personal existence, and of all thoughts, feelings, and desires residing therein. This is the antithesis of subject and object, which is unmis¬ takably the first or fundamental distinction involved in con- AND GOVERNMENT OF GOD. 5 sciousness. Within the sphere of this primitive dualism of con¬ sciousness scepticism is impossible, since its testimony cannot be denied without contradiction. He who doubts it, relies on consciousness even in the affirmation of his doubt. When Hume embraced the general principles which Locke had ad¬ vanced, he carried them to their extreme though logical con¬ clusions, and attempted to lay the foundations of a wide and dangerous scepticism. He begins his ‘ Treatise of Human Nature ’ with the assertion, that the perceptions of the mind resolve themselves into impressions and ideas. By impressions he means all our sensations, both from without and from within ; by ideas he means the faint images of these in think¬ ing and reasoning. There can therefore be no idea which has not been derived from some previous impression. He thus founds all our knowledge on experience. This is the basis of his whole system. When he comes to apply this principle to the nature and origin of our idea of causation, he proceeds thus : in physical events, all we can really infer is the mere fact of the invariable sequence of the one event called the effect, after the other called the cause. This is all we know on the subject, because this is all we perceive — all of which we have an impression. Such knowledge as we have comes from sensation, but sensation conveys to us no impres¬ sion of power, force, efficacy, or whatever equivalent term we may choose to employ. Therefore there is no such thing as power or efficacy either in mind or matter. When we use such words we have “ really no distinct meaning.” When we see events or changes in uniform sequence, we acquire the habit, or, to use his own expression, “ we feel the determina¬ tion,” to expect the consequent when we see its accustomed antecedent. “ The necessity of power, which unites causes and effects, lies in the determination of the mind to pass from the one to the other. The efficacy or energy of causes is placed neither in the causes themselves, nor in the Deity, nor in the concurrence of these two principles, but belongs en¬ tirely to the soul, which considers the union of two or more objects in all past instances.” 1 This theory of causality is contrary to the testimony of consciousness, and wholly mis- 1 B. I., Part iii. § 14. 6 THE EXISTENCE, NATURE, leading and fallacious. When we examine our consciousness, we shall find that we always instinctively connect the element of power with that event whereby some change has been effected upon another object ; and we never connect this ele¬ ment with a mere determination in the mind to carry our thoughts from one object to another. Without having in the mind the innate conviction that some power has been in operation when a result has been produced, we fail to obtain any notion of causality. Moreover, “ when we see events or changes in uniform sequence,” it is not because of this observa¬ tion that we “ feel the determination to expect the consequent when we see its accustomed antecedent” Our confidence in the uniformity of nature is not the result of past experience, but owing entirely to an original belief of the mind. It has been cogently remarked by Dr Thomas Brown, that there is no more logical dependence between the propositions that a stone has a thousand times fallen to the earth, and a stone will always fall to the earth, than there is between the proposi¬ tions that a stone has once fallen to the earth, and a stone will always fall to the earth. “ At whatever link in the chain we begin,” he says, “ we must always meet with the same difficulty, the conversion of the past into the future. If it be absurd to make this conversion at one stage of the inquiry, it is just as absurd to make it at any other stage ; and so far as our memory extends, there never was a time at which we did not make the instant conversion.” 1 The truth is, that experi¬ ence can give us no certainty with regard to the future ; it can tell us only what has happened up to the present moment. To infer what shall happen afterwards, requires the aid of an instinctive belief in an All- Wise and Beneficent Providence. The constancy of nature’s laws and of man’s faith in that con¬ stancy, do not stand in the same relation as cause and effect. There is a beautiful harmony subsisting between the laws of the external world and those of the human mind ; but the harmony is altogether contingent. It exists because it has been so ordained by the Creator ; and such is man’s belief that this order and harmony shall continue, that the acquisitions of the past serve as indices to guide him through the future, in 1 Inquiry into the Relation of Cause and Effect. AND GOVERNMENT OF GOD. 7 making still further discoveries in the advancement of know¬ ledge. He feels that it is thus he is fulfilling the will of his Creator ; and he is thereby strengthened in the assurance that the present constitution of things shall remain until that will shall have been fully accomplished. Hume was fully aware of the paradoxical character of his view of causation, and of its ultimate logical consequences, hut he insisted that his argument was incontrovertible. “ I am sensible,” he says, “ of all the paradoxes which I have had, or shall hereafter have occasion to advance in the course of this Treatise ; the present one is the most violent, and that ’tis merely by dint of solid proof and reasoning I can ever hope it will have admission, and overcome the inveterate prejudices of mankind.” 1 What he calls “ inveterate prejudices ” are the instinctive laws of belief, which God has impressed upon our nature, and which all the sophistries of sceptics can never subvert. Hume was neither a materialist nor an idealist, but rather a nihilist, since his great object was to show that no certainty could be reached in any department of knowledge. He affirmed nothing, and denied everything. He was a sceptic in the purest sense of the term. All the knowledge we possess comes through the senses, therefore he maintained that as we have no perception of force or efficacy, we can have no idea of it, and so can have no proof of its existence. A cause is not that which produces an effect, but only that which uniformly precedes it. But if we have no proof of the reality of a cause, for aught we know to the contrary, anything may be the cause of anything. Again, as we have no perception by the senses of substance, there can be, within the compass of our knowledge, no such thing. This applies to the internal world, to mind as well as matter. In short, according to his sweeping conclusions, all that exists to us is but a related succession of impressions and ideas, and the personality said to underlie them is a mere fiction. But the reality of self is attested by the universal con¬ sciousness of men. It is a belief held by thinkers as well as by the vulgar, and it is a belief from which no sophistry can enable us to escape. In the inference here arrived at, the very thing is assumed which it professes to repudiate. Bor an impression 1 Treatise of Human Nature. 8 THE EXISTENCE, NATURE, implies the existence of something upon ivhich the impression is made. Again, without the reality of personal existence, how can the sceptic explain the fact that he considers these related impressions and ideas as belonging to him at all ? The conclu¬ sions of Hume, which thus aimed at the destruction of all human certainty, were but the inferences he drew from the premises of the sensational school, which was founded on a perversion or violation of the facts of consciousness ; and it is in the refuta¬ tion of these premises that his scepticism is refuted. Kant, too, landed himself in the vortex of scepticism when he doubted the truth of the testimony of consciousness to his own mental unity. “ The mode of my existence,” he says, “whether as substance or as accident, cannot be determined by means of this simple self- consciousness.” 1 According to this statement, the testimony which consciousness gives to our existence may not be to a substantial but to a phenomenal unity; and hence this repre¬ sentation may only be a necessary illusion. In answer to this view we need not say more than that Kant, in disputing the testimony of consciousness to our personal existence, reduces the doubt he has advanced to sheer sophistry. For every attempt to philosophise which departs from that basis on which alone philosophy is possible, however subtle the reasoning may be, necessarily leads to an abnegation of thought. Doubt and mis¬ trust in regard to the facts of consciousness can only terminate in non-entity at last. But if a man will reject this evidence, and choose to be an idealist or nihilist — he should at least be consistent ; if he will maintain that there is nothing real, but only apparent — that the reality of everything may be doubted — he should include in the category of doubt his own assertion. II. In the second place, there are intuitions of the intellect. There are certain truths which the mind perceives to be true, immediately on their being placed before it. Such are the axioms of Geometry, which carry their own veracity. When we see a whole, we at once perceive it to be greater than its part. The moment we understand what straight lines are, we see at once that two straight lines cannot enclose a space. It is an intuitive truth that every effect must have a cause. This 1 Critique of Pure Reason, Dial. B. II. c. 1. AND GOVERNMENT OF GOD. 9 conviction is not founded on experience, because experience is of necessity limited. “ What causes,” says Dr Whewell, “ pro¬ duce what effects ; — what is the cause of every particular event ; — what will be the effect of every particular process ; — these are points on which experience may enlighten us. Ob¬ servation and experience may be requisite to enable us to judge respecting such matters. But that every event has some cause, Experience cannot prove any more than she can disprove. She can add nothing to the evidence of the truth, however often she may exemplify it. This doctrine, then, cannot have been ac¬ quired by her teaching.” 1 This intellectual intuition is a fundamental law of our con¬ stitution. It is innate, and lies in the mind undeveloped till the excitement of some occasion has caused its manifestation, or brought it forth into action. The newly formed mind has no ideas of any kind whatever, yet no sooner are these primary truths presented than their veracity is perceived. As far back as our memory can reach, this law of the mind is in full opera¬ tion. As we are born with the senses of sight and touch, and take cognisance of their appearance as soon as they are pre¬ sented ; so we are born with the intellectual capacity of per¬ ceiving these primary truths as early as ever the attention of the mind is turned towards them. And as the senses of some persons are more intense than those of others, it is the same with the intellect. What is self-evident to one man requires to be demonstrated to another. It is said of Sir Isaac Newton that when he had read the propositions of the Eirst Book of Euclid, he saw their truths as plain as the axioms. III. In the third place, there are moral truths which the mind intuitively recognises at once. Notwithstanding the total depravity of man, and the effect of passion in blinding for a time the mind that is under its influence, so as to obscure its perception of moral truth, yet when this darkening influence is for a season withdrawn or suspended, it is surprising, even in the worst cases, with what power the truth of moral sentiment is felt, and how implicitly that homage is rendered to virtue which it demands. There is thus a natural morality in men’s 1 Hist, of Scientific Ideas, B. III. cap. ii. 10 THE EXISTENCE, NATURE, hearts — an essential distinction between right and wrong — though there may be need of a Divine illumination before any aspiration can be felt towards God. But without such illumin¬ ation there may be a moral light, amidst much spiritual dark¬ ness — a standard of common reference in the ordinary inter¬ course and transactions of men. It is in accordance with this view that we understand St Paul, when he speaks of the works of the law being written in the hearts of the Gentiles, and of their being a law unto themselves ; and of their con¬ sciences bearing witness, and their thoughts the meanwhile accusing or else excusing one another. This work of the law written in their hearts, furnished as much light to the con¬ science as enabled them to accuse or else excuse each other. The apostle here concedes to nature an intuitive sense of right and wrong, of the obligation of virtue, of responsibility for char¬ acter and conduct, and of crime deserving punishment. But it would not be a logical inference from this statement, and we do not mean to assert that men by themselves can realise the practice, but that they have such a moral nature as can discern the principles of rectitude. That there is a natural morality among men — a capacity both of feeling and perceiving the distinction between good and evil — a mass of evidence might be collected, not from the light and licentious, but unquestion¬ ably from the grave and ethical authors both of Greece and Ptome. It shall suffice that we quote the following well-known passage from Cicero : “ True law is right reason, conformable to nature, universal, unchangeable, eternal ; whose commands urge us to duty, and whose prohibitions restrain us from evil ; whether it enjoins or forbids, the good respect its injunctions, and the wicked treat them with indifference. This law cannot be contradicted by any other law, and is not liable either to derogation or abrogation. Neither the senate nor the people can give us any dispensation for not obeying this law, nor does it need any other expositor or interpreter than our own conscience. It is not one thing at Eome and another at Athens — one thing to-day and another to-morrow ; but in all times and nations this universal law for ever reigns, eternal and imperishable. It is the sovereign master and emperor of all beings. God Himself is its author, its promulgator, its AND GOVERNMENT OF GOD. 11 enforcer. He who does not obey it flies from himself, and does violence to the very nature of man ; and by so doing he will endure the severest penalties, even if he avoid the other evils which are usually accounted punishments.” 1 Such is the opinion of a heathen in regard to the existence of a natural morality among men ; it is written in that exact and forcible style which characterises its philosophical author, and furnishes the most conclusive testimony that can he given to the un¬ changeable nature of that law within the breast, which dis¬ tinguishes between right and wrong. We have thus fully explained the nature of those intuitive truths which belong to the senses, the intellect, and our moral nature. The question which now arises is, Whether the exist¬ ence of God is an intuitive truth ? When this question is asked, it is equivalent to asking, “ Has the belief in His exist¬ ence all the criteria of a natural conviction ? ” We answer in the affirmative, and for the following reasons : (1) Because it is one of those truths which rise into consciousness when the real idea has been brought before the mind. (2) Because it is a truth which no man can possibly disbelieve without doing violence to the constitution of his nature. (3) Because it is a truth which is universally acquiesced in. It will thus he apparent that the belief in the existence of the One Infinite God possesses all the requisite marks of an intuitive truth. 1. It is one of those intuitive truths which rise into con¬ sciousness when the real idea has been presented to the mind. We have said that the doctrine of intuitive truths does- not imply that they constitute a stock of cognitions or beliefs of which the mind is conscious from the first dawn of intelligence; they are rather primitive notions which lie hid as treasures within the soul, until called up into consciousness by the de¬ mands of observation or reflection. To attempt, therefore, to test this doctrine by inquiring whether children are born with innate convictions in conscious exercise in the mind, is to mis¬ apprehend the nature of these convictions, and especially the mode of their operation. It would he equally a misapprehen- 1 ‘ c Est quidem vera lex recta ratio, nature congrnens, diffusa in ornnes, constans, sempiterna,” &c. De Republica, Lib. III. cap. xxii. 12 THE EXISTENCE, NATURE, sion to suppose that because such convictions are essential to the nature of man, that therefore they are constantly before each individual mind, or that they are recognised with the same vividness by all. What is maintained is, that the mind is so constituted that certain things are perceived to be true with¬ out proof and without instruction ; but that the materials of experience are necessary to call them before the mind for recognition. If this be one of the characteristics of a necessary convic¬ tion, it must be applicable to the belief in a Supreme Being ; and if such a belief is found among the original convictions of the mind, it can only be accounted for from the fact of its being innate. In asserting that the belief in the Divine exist¬ ence is innate, it will be obvious from what has been stated that we do not mean that such a conviction must be constantly and distinctly recognised, but that it will arise when the mind is engaged with considerations which demand its application. Men may be engrossed with occupations which do not require the exercise of innate conviction ; and thus in the ordinary business of life it may often be left unapplied. Some, too, may have special grounds for avoiding any appeal to this fun¬ damental conviction. But in accordance with the law of our nature it comes up into consciousness, sometimes to satisfy inquiries voluntarily prosecuted by the intellect ; at other times it appears involuntarily, and with irresistible authority, and as a necessary adjunct to confirm the testimony of conscience. And indeed of most men it may be said, that it is more fre¬ quently present to the mind in connection with the moral sphere of action, than with a question requiring only the exercise of the intellect. 2. It is a truth which no man can possibly disbelieve with¬ out doing violence to the constitution of his nature. There have been men in every age and in every part of the world who have professed to deny the existence of a God ; but in such cases the denial is constrained, and can only be temporary. The pendulum of a clock when at rest hangs perpendicularly to the horizon. By extraneous force it may be made to hang at any degree of inclination ; but no sooner is such restraint AND GOVERNMENT OF GOD. 13 removed than it swings back to its normal position. Just so the laws of our nature may be kept for a time in abeyance, but sooner or later they wTill be sure to rectify themselves, and compel an opposite result. A man may be so far misled by metaphysical speculations as to deny the existence of the outer world, or the obligations of the moral law ; but no sooner are the speculative reasons absent from his mind than it neces¬ sarily reverts to its normal and natural condition. In like manner, a man’s moral nature may be so disordered by vice, or a false philosophy, as to have its testimony for the existence of God silenced for a season. But this insensibility cannot last ; for whatever excites the moral nature, be it danger, or suffer¬ ing, or the approach of death, disbelief instantly vanishes. Men, both educated and uneducated, pass from scepticism to faith, in many cases, instantaneously ; because our natural convictions are not produced by a process of argument, but by the existence of a state of consciousness with which scep¬ ticism is irreconcilable, and in the presence of which it is impossible. We maintain, therefore, that the belief in the existence of God is one of those necessary beliefs which cannot be denied without doing violence to the constitution of our nature. As it is not produced by a process of reasoning, so neither by any speculative or sophistical argument can it effectually be dis¬ lodged. There are multitudes who believe in the existence of God who have never even attempted to inquire into the ground on which such a belief rests. They seek no argument, and they need none. This simple fact is sufficient to show that the idea of God is innate and intuitive. It is an idea which can neither be originated in the mind, nor yet banished from it by any process of speculative argument. We have a surer foun¬ dation for believing in the existence of the Infinite God than any argument can afford. Theoretical arguments have had attractions only for the few, and not for the many ; and so it will ever remain. Thousands believe in the Divine existence without knowing about the nature of the argument a priori, or of the argument from final causes. They assert this belief with the utmost confidence, because they are conscious that it meets the necessities of their natural and moral life, and that 14 THE EXISTENCE, NATURE, to deny it would be detrimental to both. It is a belief which exists in the minds of all men, even the least educated. Let any one, on the contrary, affirm that such a belief can only be attained by a deduction of reason, and he will find it im¬ possible to reconcile facts with his argument. The mass of mankind believe in God without any reference to the argu¬ ments which are employed to demonstrate His existence ; all such arguments are thereby shown to be unnecessary. But not only are they not needed, they are also insufficient to satisfy the problem which they propose to solve. The argu¬ ments for the being of God are generally of two kinds — arguments a priori and arguments a posteriori. But in a strictly logical sense neither of these modes of reasoning is applicable to the question. For to reason d priori is to argue from the cause to the effect. This evidently assumes the cause, and then infers it from the assumption. Take, for example, the first two propositions in Clarke’s demonstration — (1) “ That something has existed from eternity;” and (2) “ That there has existed from eternity some immutable and independent Being ; ” 1 and what are these propositions but an assumption of the cause, which is the very point to be proved ? To reason d posteriori is to argue from the character of the effect to the nature of the cause. But this argument, if applied to the question, would assume that there is a First Cause, which is the problem to be solved. Because the marks of design can only demonstrate the existence of an architect of sufficient intelligence to produce such a world as this, but not that of a Supreme Being independent of all, and the Creator of all; and further, because the world is finite, and so we cannot logically infer an infinite cause from a finite effect, and therefore must leave unexplained the fact that we believe in a God not only capable of producing still greater works than these which we behold, but whose power is un¬ limited and omnipotent ; and finally, because facts testify that the argument from final causes has had but little to do with the faith of mankind. We find that men possessing but meagre acquaintance with the marks of design in the world, have nevertheless the same belief in an Infinite God as those 1 Demonstration of the Being and Attributes of God. AND GOVERNMENT OF GOD. 15 who have prosecuted an extensive and elaborate course of scientific investigation. Whether their course of observation has been narrow or extended, their belief in either case is the same. How is this to he accounted for, unless by the fact that a belief in the Divine existence depends not upon argu¬ ment of any kind, hut is a belief essential to our intellectual and moral nature. It has thus a surer foundation to rest upon than any process of reasoning whatsoever. We cannot logically demonstrate the absolute from the relative, be¬ cause, as Sir W. Hamilton remarks, “ in such a syllogism we must collect in the conclusion what is not distributed in the premises.” 1 Since, then, any argument a priori must assume the very point which is to he proved, and any argument a posteriori must fail to establish the existence of an infinite cause from a finite effect, they must both he pronounced to he of them¬ selves insufficient. Yet the argument from design is valid so far as it can reach. It can conclusively demonstrate the Creator of the world to be a wise and beneficent Being. The intelligent adaptation of means to an end which the world everywhere exhibits, is the subject of the excellent series of the Bridgewater Treatises. Of the two forms of argument a priori and a posteriori, the latter has always been the most popular, not merely because it is best suited to the ordinary capacity, but also because it harmonises with the fundamental truth implanted in our nature. Hence Kant, while clearly showing the impossibility of proving the existence of the One Infinite Being by pure reason, admits that the argument from design, or, as he terms it, “ the physico-theological argument,” is one which should always he treated with respect. “ It is,” he says, “ the oldest, the clearest, and that most in conformity with the common reason of humanity.”2 With this admission we entirely agree ; for it is an argument not only well adapted to the general understanding, but one which we must regard as yielding a strong confirmatory proof of the existence of that Intelligent First Cause in whom we necessarily believe. As modern 1 Discussions, p. 16. 2 Critique of Pure Reason, Dial. B. II. c. iii. § vi. 16 THE EXISTENCE, NATURE, science progresses, its astonishing results are rendering this ar¬ gument as a concilient proof of vast and increasing importance. If the existence of a Supreme Being cannot be proved by any process of reasoning, still less can His non-existence. The denial of the existence of God involves, as we have said, a violation of the essential elements of our nature. The exist¬ ence of the material world can never be proved by mere reasoning, yet we have the same evidence for the Divine existence as for that of the external world. Nevertheless the existence of both has been denied even by those who cannot free themselves from either conviction. They persuade them¬ selves that the things which they cannot help believing are the only things which they cannot believe. Let a man refuse to turn his attention to the facts in which a necessary convic¬ tion is said to arise, and he may dogmatically contradict the evidence which his own nature contains ; for, in this case, the conclusion at which he arrives is not a necessity of the reason, but an arbitrary act of the will. When any one thus sets himself to bring his reason into antagonism with his natural convictions, he can end in naught but confusion of thought. If sophistry be his main object, let him propound false propo¬ sitions — let him assume with Spinoza that there is only one substance — that existence belongs to its nature — that it is necessarily infinite — that one substance cannot of itself pro¬ duce another, — and the conclusion he aims at may be attained, but only at the expense of philosophy. Starting from the two propositions or premises — only one substance exists — the soul of. man exists — and the conclusion is inevitable, that the soul of man is only part of this undivided and indivisible substance. From this syllogism the further conclusion may be drawn — man and all his actions being but the necessary products of the incessant activity of this one great substance, there can be no such thing as a distinction between good and evil, between virtue and vice. Such was the ultimate conclusion which Spinoza, with logical precision, arrived at, and any one who adopts his propositions may reach it in the same way ; yet that conclusion must philosophically be untenable, for it rests not only upon a mere hypothesis, but upon one that is false. Its fundamental assumption is, that there is a universal sub- AND GOVERNMENT OF GOD. 17 stance, besides which nothing at all exists ; and the conclusion is nothing more than a deduction from this assumption. The groundwork of every system of Atheism, whether Pantheistic or Materialistic, is a mere assumption. Materialism presup¬ poses that the matter of which the world is constituted is eternal, and has always existed. Pantheism depends on assumptions which are unproved and incapable of proof. Let any one maintain Atheism, either in its Pantheistic or Mate¬ rialistic form, and he will find that he cannot live in harmony with his sophistries ; for they are at variance with the essen¬ tial principles of his nature, and the dictates of his conscience. If he sets himself earnestly and without bias to investigate the truth, the inquiry will arise in his mind — What am I ? Whence am I ? and, Whither am I and the world going ? With such questions before his mind, the conviction will be forced upon him that there is a God, the Holy One who is eternal life, the origin and end of all created things, the source of order, the Author of our mental and moral convictions, and the only good which can satisfy our immortal being. III. Belief in God’s existence is a universal belief, and this very fact is of itself the most simple refutation of Atheism. It is a belief which belongs to the nature of man ; it rests upon intuitive conviction, and there is nothing of which a man lias so intuitive a conviction as he has of the existence of God. The denial of His existence is the denial of a conviction which we bear within our minds, and hence should either be deemed an impossibility, or else a mere temporary aberration of thought, induced by some vague philosophical or metaphysical specula¬ tion. That Atheism ever really existed as a full conviction in any human breast may reasonably be doubted ; for whenever any one professes to be a pure atheist, there is always some underlying deception — a disinclination to acknowledge either sin or its Avenger — a base dependence on the world of sense, leading him to deny everything that does not belong to it, and thus to persuade himself that no God exists. But that he should consciously and conscientiously cherish this futile notion as his permanent conviction is what we cannot believe ; because an intuitive conviction of the existence of God dwells in the mind B 13 THE EXISTENCE, NATURE, of every man. It is an idea from which we cannot in any way free ourselves. We cannot think of ourselves nor of the world around us without involuntarily connecting therewith the know¬ ledge of God. Our thoughts rush past the visible and the finite towards the Invisible, Infinite, Supreme Being. We cannot do otherwise, because consciousness of God is as essential an ele¬ ment of our mind as consciousness of the outer world or self- consciousness. We believe, then, that there is a God, because we have this fact revealed to us in the evidence of our own consciousness. It is true that this consciousness of God needs development ; but so also do all the intuitive truths and con¬ victions which we hear within us. Even self-consciousness needs development, for there is no such thing as full-grown in¬ tuitive convictions. We have said that these exist in the mind, and are brought up into consciousness by the exercise of obser¬ vation and reflection. It is thus that we become conscious of our own personality, and it is thus also that we become conscious of a personal God. It is simply by turning our attention to the facts connected with the observation of finite existence, and by reflection upon these facts, that we become conscious of our state as conditioned and limited beings, and at the same time rise into the consciousness of some Higher Being on whom our own existence depends — who is above ourselves and above nature — the Absolute, Infinite God. This is the reason why the belief in the Divine existence is universal. It proceeds from the fact that all men are suscep¬ tible of having this conviction produced within them. In cor¬ roboration of this statement, we have the historical evidence that all men are capable of having the belief in the Supreme Being awakened in their minds. In all ages and in all con¬ ditions this belief has been found swaying the minds of men. “ There is no nation so wild and savage,” says Cicero, “ as not to have believed in a God, even if they have been unacquainted with His nature.” 1 This classic saying still holds good ; for though travellers have reported the existence of some tribes so degraded that they could discern in them no traces of religious consciousness, yet even if this fact were proved, it could not subvert the doctrine that the belief in a Higher Being is not 1 De Legibus, I. 8. AND GOVERNMENT OF GOD. 19 universal, any more than the discovery of some tribe among which infanticide was universal could prove that parental affec¬ tion was not one of the instincts of humanity. But the proba¬ bility is that the fact is not as reported. Any assertion of this sort requires to be received with the utmost caution, especially when it is borne in mind that foreigners cannot by slight intercourse become acquainted with the interior life of those who differ so much from themselves in their mental and moral condition. We may here appropriately quote some fitting re¬ marks by Mr Tylor, as he is an author whose admissions may be accepted without apprehension of theological bias : “ The statement,” he says, “ that the Samoan islanders had no reli¬ gion, cannot stand in the face of the elaborate description by the Bev. Gf. Turner of the Samoan religion itself ; and the assertion that the Tupinambas of Brazil had no religion is one not to be received without some more positive proof, for the religious doctrines and practices of the Tupi race have been recorded by Lery, De Laet, and other writers. Even with much time and care and knowledge of language, it is not always easy to elicit from savages the details of their theology. They rather try to hide from the prying and con¬ temptuous foreigner their worship of gods who seem to shrink, like their worshippers, before the white man and his mightier Deity. And thus, even where no positive proof of religious development among any particular tribe has reached us, we should distrust its denial by observers whose acquaintance with the tribe in question has not been intimate as well as kindly.” 1 Whether we go back upon the history of the past, or look into the researches of the present day, concerning the condition of tribes sunk in the degradation of heathenism, the conclusion may be fairly come to that no evidence has yet been shown of the existence of any race altogether un¬ acquainted with a Higher Being. Even where it was at first supposed that the opposite was the case, this supposition has been discovered to be the result of superficial observation. But if no people has been found without a consciousness of God, then “ that wherein all by nature agree must be true,” is a conclusion rightly drawn by Cicero.2 Or, can any one 1 Primitive Culture, i. 381. 2 De Nat. Deor., i. 17. 20 THE EXISTENCE, NATURE, venture to tax the whole of mankind with an error in their consciousness ? No deception can last for ever ; only truth is eternal. If the consciousness of God were an error, it would, like every other error, have long since passed away. But instead of this, we see it propagating itself through all the ages of the world, and, as civilisation advances, with an ever increasing power. But besides the testimony of history in favour of the univer¬ sality of the consciousness of God, we have also that of Sacred Scripture. It both directly and by necessary implication as¬ serts that the consciousness of God is universal. It everywhere addresses men as sinners ; it calls upon them to repent ; it threatens with punishment the disobedient, or offers pardon to those who turn from their transgressions ; it assumes that men are conscious of the existence of God, and that they are sub¬ ject to His moral government. It is true that at times it speaks of the heathen as not knowing God, and as being with¬ out God. But such declarations may be explained by the context where they occur, and only mean that the heathen are not partakers of the blessedness of those who possess the knowledge of God as revealed in the Gospel of Christ. It teaches the universal sinfulness of men, and holds them inex¬ cusable for their idolatry and immorality. It asserts that even the most degraded are conscious of the difference between right and wrong, and that by deeds of atrocity they are justly exposed to the Divine retribution. It assumes that the know¬ ledge of God is universal, and that it exists within the breast of every man. In thus applying the tests of intuitive convictions to our belief in the Divine existence, we have endeavoured to show that this belief has a fully established claim to be ranked as an ultimate or fundamental conviction of the mind. Of all the ultimate convictions implanted within us, this is the most essential, for it is the one which imparts to us the highest thought of which man is capable. The highest thought of man is the thought of God. It is the truth of truths. It was not ourselves who produced this thought, but God who produced it within us. God Himself is the author of our thought of God. He stamped this instinct upon our minds AND GOVERNMENT OF GOD. 21 as the proof of His existence. We need, then, no argument to convince us of this truth, since it is one which belongs to our very nature. It is, moreover, a truth so far above the pro¬ vince of reason, that no argument can reach it. It is only when an attempt is made to demonstrate it, that any doubt is felt to arise, and in that case the doubt attaches not to the reality of the fact, but to the demonstration. We conclude, therefore, that the general principles of the Sensational System, in making all our knowledge dependent on experience and reflection, are entirely fallacious ; and not only so, hut that all arguments, whether a priori or a posteriori, are inadequate and unnecessary. THE KNOWLEDGE OE GOD. Having considered the origin of our belief in the Divine ex¬ istence, we come now to consider the questions, Can God he known ? and if so, How do we form the idea of God ? and How do we ascertain that the idea of God thus formed is trust¬ worthy ? I. CAN GOD BE KNOWN ? The Scriptures distinctly affirm that God can be known. The Psalmist says, “ In Judah is God known.” 1 Isaiah pre¬ dicts that “ the earth shall be full of the knowledge of the Lord.” 2 Our Lord declares that eternal life consists in the knowledge of the only true God, and of Him whom He hath sent.3 St Paul says even of the heathen, that when they knew God, they did not like to retain that knowledge.4 It is, however, important clearly to apprehend what is meant when it is said God can be known. 1. G-ocl is the Object of Thought. — The nature of God cannot he as definitely known and determined as any other object of knowledge. God, properly speaking, cannot even he conceived of ; for the conception of an object implies the capability of bringing an image or picture into the mind by an effort of the will. Eor example, to have an adequate conception of a horse 1 Ps. lxxvi. 1. 2 Isa. xi. 9. 3 John xvii. 3. 4 Pom. i. 21, 28. 22 THE EXISTENCE, NATURE, or other animal, we must be able to combine the qualities or attributes which form the defined object into a representative image. In this sense the Infinite cannot be an object of con¬ ception ; for we cannot form an image of infinite space, or of infinite duration, or of an infinite whole. To form an image is to circumscribe, to limit ; but the Infinite is that which is incapable of limitation. God, therefore, as the Infinite Being, is inconceivable. We can form no representative image of Him in our minds ; still there is a less restricted sense in which the word conceived is often, and perhaps most commonly, used. To conceive is to think ; therefore a conception is a thought, and not necessarily an image. To say, in this sense, that God is conceivable, is merely, in common language, to say that God is thinkable. But Sir W. Hamilton objects to all exercise of thought concerning the Infinite. To think, he says, is to condition ; the Infinite is the unconditioned ; therefore the Infinite cannot be the object of thought. In reply to this argument, we remark that we use the Infinite as applicable only to the Deity, and that in this sense the Infinite, though unlimited, is not equivalent to the Unconditioned. The two words Absolute and Infinite are nearly identical, though each has its own peculiarity of meaning. The Infinite desig¬ nates freedom from all possible limitation, and is applicable to the one Infinite Being in all His attributes. The Absolute designates entire independence both in His being and action, and is applicable to God as self-existent. The Unconditioned includes both, and indicates the complete absence of all restric¬ tion, whether in its own nature or in relation to other beings. But it would be well if this term were altogether banished from use ; for it is not only not needed, but seldom fails to mislead wherever it occurs. It constituted an essential prin¬ ciple in heathen speculation, but should never have been introduced into Christian philosophy. Dr Young, in his very able work entitled ‘ The Province of Beason/ is inclined to discard also the Absolute, and suggests that as in signification it exhibits but a slight shade of difference from the Infinite, we may be content with retaining only the latter term. The Infinite and the Absolute are indeed virtually synonymous, inasmuch as the Infinite must be the Absolute, and the Absolute AND GOVERNMENT OF GOD. 23 must be the Infinite ; yet the nice phraseology by which the one is distinguishable from the other is of very great import¬ ance, and so both terms ought to be retained. The Infinite is the term to be employed when we assert that the Deity is unlimited in all His attributes ; but the Absolute is the proper term to be used when we speak of God in relation to His creatures, and wish to convey the idea that, though related to all, He has no necessary relation to any other being, but is in¬ dependent of all. When Hamilton says that the Infinite is the unconditioned, he makes a statement which is contrary to fact. It is indeed possible to conceive of the Infinite Being before the creation of the' finite universe as existing alone in immensity. He must then have been the Unconditioned ; necessarily so, for there was nothing to condition Him. But with that period and that state, except in mere abstract con¬ templation, we have nothing to do. The era of creation alone belongs to us ; and in connection with it the Unconditioned has not only no meaning, but is wholly and utterly false. There is no being or thing, living or dead, mind or matter, in the universe, to whom, or to which, the term unconditioned can apply. There is, and there can be, no unconditioned God to us. The God of consciousness is not unconditioned. Consciousness never revealed, never could reveal, an unconditioned God ; for the mere fact of our existence excludes the possibility of un¬ conditionedness on the part of the Creator. The Infinite Being has voluntarily conditioned or placed Himself in relation with created beings and things. There can henceforth be no such name for the Deity as the Unconditioned. The reasoning, therefore, of Hamilton against the possibility of the Infinite being an object of thought, fails in its conclu¬ sion, as it rests upon premises which are not only assumed but erroneous. He asserts that “ to think is to condition.” The assertion is somewhat ambiguous : it may mean either that to think is to narrow or circumscribe the object of thought , or to think is to bring the object within the limits of our think¬ ing power. The latter is the only meaning which it can intel¬ ligibly bear. All thought is essentially comparison, distinction, the separation and differentiation of things. In the sense of comparing, distinguishing, defining, determining, we do limit. 24 THE EXISTENCE, NATURE, But in tlie sense of simply thinking about anything, we do not thereby necessarily circumscribe , narrow , or make it less or other than it really is. There is a peculiarity about Hamil¬ ton’s use of the word “ to think,” which deserves to be noticed. In his works there is a frequent recurrence of the phrase “ to think a thing ; ” and underneath this lies much of his trench¬ ing against the Hegelian philosophy. There is a palpable fallacy in the expression. We do not “think a thing,” but we think of or concerning a thing. To think a thing, in the sense in which Hamilton employs the phrase, is to grasp it within our thought. The Infinite cannot be grasped within our thought ; for that which has no limits, above, below, on all sides, cannot be placed within limits, — in other words, it is strictly unthinkable, because it is unlimited. To embrace God in His infinitude is impossible ; but to think of the God who is infinite and eternal, is a very different matter. We reject, therefore, the expression that we “ think a thing,” as involving the assumption that to think is to embrace the object of thought ; upon which assumption Hamilton contends that the Infinite cannot be the object of thought. 2. God is incomprehensible. — When it is positively affirmed that the Infinite cannot be the object of thought, the state¬ ment is at variance with fact — with individual experience. Every one will admit this at once. To think of God — form ideas, notions concerning Him — is quite possible ; but to com¬ prehend Him is strictly impossible. To comprehend literally means to take hold of a thing together, to close upon it with our grasp. Therefore, in order to comprehend an object, we must be able to bring it completely within our thought — to have an exhaustive knowledge of it. Nevertheless we may be able to form some idea — some notion — of what we cannot comprehend. Eor example, we cannot comprehend force, and especially vital force. We perceive its effects, but cannot understand its nature or its mode of acting. It would surely, then, be surprising if we could know more of the Infinite Creator than we can of ourselves, or of the objects of nature around us. The Infinite God is incomprehensible, since it is impossible for us to know His essence, His attributes — not some only but all of them — and the relation in which He AND GOVERNMENT OF GOD. 25 stands to the universe of being. It may excite our astonish¬ ment that men should ever be so presumptuous as to imagine that such a creature as man could thus comprehend the Unsearchable One, when in fact he cannot comprehend him¬ self, or the simplest objects with which he comes in daily contact. Yet such is the knowledge which the transcendental philosophers pretend to have of God. They found their philo¬ sophy on the knowledge of being, and not of phenomena. They refuse the evidence of the senses and of consciousness, and assert that we can as thoroughly know and comprehend God, or rather Being — the Infinite and Absolute Being — as the simplest object of sense or of consciousness ; and that we can determine what that Being is, and the necessary laws by which it is developed into the phenomenal world. This knowledge is obtained, not by induction from the facts of experience, but a priori by an immediate act of cognition, which transcends all consciousness, and which they call the power of Intellectual Intuition. Sclielling, and the school of metaphysicians represented by him, thus claimed for man a faculty which Kant had demonstrated to be impossible, and Hegel rejected as an unwarrantable assumption. The organ of this highest knowledge is possessed only by a gifted few of the human race. The mind that is endowed with it in its upward stretch towards the Absolute, passes away as it were out of itself, loses itself, in identity with pure Being — is absorbed for the time into pure Being. Thus identified and absorbed, and only thus, it comes to know the Absolute. This cannot be comprehended by the understanding, for it lies beyond the region of that power ; it comes not within the sphere of consciousness, for consciousness supposes the dis¬ tinction between subject and object — the mind knowing and the thing known ; while in the cognisance of the Infinite, this distinction vanishes, and the mind is confronted with truth — nay, is one with the Absolute. As exercising this Divine faculty, man becomes one with God. The charge of Pantheism preferred against Sclielling was certainly far from being groundless ; yet with what vehemence and distinctness he repudiated it, his own words will testify. “ God is eternal in His own nature ; things are eternal only 26 THE EXISTENCE, NATURE, dependency on Him, and as consequences of His existence. Just owing to this difference, all individual things taken to¬ gether cannot, as is often asserted, constitute God. By no kind of combination can that which in its own nature is derived, pass into that which in its own nature is underived.” The man who thus expressed himself could he no real Pantheist in his own mind, though he evidently was so in his philosophic speculations. We have here a striking instance of what seems altogether inexplicable in the German metaphysicians — the entire separation, as if into two different and widely apart regions, of the speculative intellect, from the religious and moral convictions. It is a sufficient reply to the Schellingian hypothesis — that man by an Intellectual Intuition can comprehend the Absolute by becoming the Absolute, can know God by becoming God — to inquire, How it is that we become aware of possessing so remarkable a faculty ? We are said not to be conscious of its existence, for it lies beyond the province of consciousness. How, then, do we know it ? Por if not known at the time when it is called into exercise, how can we remember it afterwards ? We remember only that of which we have been conscious. Cousin has sought to avoid this inconsistency by so modify¬ ing the theory of Schelling as to bring the knowledge of the Absolute within the sphere of consciousness, but has failed in his intention from not attending to the facts which properly come under its cognisance. His theory is, that the Infinite is knowable by consciousness and reflection, by relation, plurality, and difference. Sir W. Hamilton has shown that if Cousin has escaped the difficulty of Schelling, it is only to fall into the con¬ tradiction of affirming that we know by the laws of reason that which cannot possibly come under those laws. The Absolute is the complete, the universal ; and as such, is absolutely one. Cousin admits this, but in doing so excludes plurality and differ¬ ence. Por we know by consciousness and reason only as we discover subject and object — that is, only as we discover plurality and difference. To know the Absolute, therefore, by conscious¬ ness and reason, is to know that which is absolute unity, by discovering in it plurality and difference ; in other words, by discovering it to be what it is not. AND GOVERNMENT OF GOD. 27 Such, in substance, is the argument by which Sir W. Hamil¬ ton, in his volume of Discussions in Philosophy, &c., assails and refutes Cousin’s assertion, that man has the power of attaining the Infinite as a positive in knowledge. It is, however, hut fair to Cousin to state, that this is only one of the arguments which he advances in support of his assertion. As the Apostle of Eclecticism, it was his object to travel through the various systems of philosophy, to discriminate in each its part of truth and its part of error, and to combine the part of truth found in every partial, exclusive, and therefore erroneous system, into a higher comprehensive system. In pursuance of this scheme, he does not confine himself to only one method by which to obtain a knowledge of the Infinite. Accordingly we find him saying : “ Pteason comes from God. Hence it is individual and finite, whilst its root is in the Infinite.”1 And of this finite reason he says, that it rises “ from the visible to the invisible, from the finite to the Infinite.” The conflicting doctrines which we thus find pervading the system of Cousin are the inevitable consequence of attempting to combine philosophic theories which are essentially opposed to each other, and incapable of coalition. Philosophic specula¬ tions have their attractions, and the thinking world will con¬ tinue to speculate, but Eclecticism is not the true method of philosophising. The failure of Cousin’s great purpose serves to corroborate this statement. Instead of being hailed as the framer of a philosophy upon whose firm basis a general agree¬ ment among philosophers could be established, he was regarded as the exponent of a system of Pantheism. This deduction was drawn from his assertion that reason is impersonal, and in some sense divine. Such an assertion, it must he admitted, has a Pantheistic appearance, yet he himself did not regard it in that light. On the contrary, he says : “ In truth, I did not think that I should ever have to defend myself against such a reproach.”2 He avers that he has not confounded God and the world, and Pantheism he explicitly condemns. “ Let us speak,” he says, “ without circumlocution : What is Pan¬ theism ? It is not an Atheism disguised, as they say ; no : 1 The True, the Beautiful, the Good. Wight’s Translation, p. 107. 2 Hist, of Mod. Philos., Lect. V. 28 THE EXISTENCE, NATURE, it is an avowed Atheism.” 1 It is, moreover, proper to re¬ mark that Cousin, in maintaining that the Infinite is cognis¬ able by consciousness and reason, does not affirm that we are able to comprehend the Infinite. In contradiction of such a view, he says : “ In order absolutely to comprehend the Infinite, it is necessary to have an infinite power of comprehension, and that is not granted to us. God, in manifesting Himself, re¬ tains something in Himself which nothing finite can absolutely manifest, consequently, it is not permitted us to comprehend absolutely.” 2 With this clear and succinct declaration we entirely agree. It would require an infinite power of compre¬ hension, as Cousin observes, to comprehend the Infinite. We can know God only according to our limited capacity. We can know Him as He has been revealed to us, and not as He is in Himself. God can reveal Himself to us only through the faculties with which He has endowed us. We can no more comprehend the Infinite than a drop can contain or com¬ prehend the ocean. God has revealed Himself to us as infinite, but we need no special revelation to teach us this fact, since our reason assures us that a finite Deity would be no Deity at all. The fact that God is infinite has been made known to us ; but by no process of revelation can the Infinite be brought within our embrace. Reason and revelation both assure us that God is infinite ; but they do not enable us to grasp in thought or comprehend all which that infinitude contains. We know that God is; but what He is we do not and cannot comprehend. We know that He is not finite and dependent, but unlimited and absolute ; but how much is comprised under these negatives we cannot determine. It is God’s incompre¬ hensibility which renders worship possible. But for this there had been no God for us. What we fully know and compre¬ hend is below, not above us : we have not to worship it ; it must succumb to us. But the God whom we recognise and worship is a Being whose nature immeasurably transcends our highest thoughts. He is a God incomprehensible and past finding out ; a God that liideth Himself ; Whom no man hath seen or can see ; dwelling in the light which no man can 1 Introcluct. to Pascal’s Thoughts, p. xliii. 2 Hist, of Mod. Philos., Append, to Lect. V. AND GOVERNMENT OF GOD. 29 approach unto. Such is the spirit of all true adoration ; it is one of the deepest reverence and humility. Its language is : “ Canst thou by searching find out God ? canst thou find out the Almighty unto perfection ? ” “ Lo, these are parts of His ways ; . . . but the thunder of His power who can understand ? ” 3. Our knowledge of God is 'partial. — God, in His Infinity, must ever be incomprehensible even to His highest creatures. Sir W. Hamilton says : “ The Divinity, in a certain sense, is revealed; in a certain sense is concealed : He is at once known and unknown.”1 We entirely acquiesce in the statement, because we hold it to be correct. But when he adds that “the last and highest consecration of all true religion must be an altar ’Ayvworw 0£g) — to the unknown and unknowable God ” — we regard the assertion as the directest contradiction to his preceding sentence, and to the common convictions of men. If the Divinity, as he admits, “ in a certain sense, is re¬ vealed,” then in the sense in which He has been revealed He cannot be “ unknown and unknowable .” He can be known so far as He has revealed Himself, and to that extent the know¬ ledge is positive. But there is a sense in which He may be described as “ the unknoivn and unknowable God ; ” for the knowledge we have of Him is knowledge of Infinite Being, not of Infinitude. The Infinitude of the Divine nature can¬ not be comprehended, since no manifestation of the Divine power can reveal the fulness of the Godhead. The progress of human knowledge can only be a relative approximation towards a fuller apprehension of the Divinity. We can never know God as He is in Himself — still the knowledge of Him to which we can attain is a positive knowledge. Sir W. Hamilton appeals to the Scriptures in support of his assertion that the Infinite is for us incognisable. “ They de¬ clare,” he says, “ that the finite, and the finite alone, is within our reach. It is said (to cite one text out of many) that ‘ now I know in part ’ ( [i.e, ., the finite) ; c but then ’ ( i.e ., in the life to come) ‘ shall I know even as also I am known ’ (i.e., without limitation).” 2 In the verse of Scripture quoted,3 there are two clauses which refer to our present knowledge, and two which 1 Discussions, p. 15. 2 Lectures on Metaphysics, ii. 375. 3 1 Cor. xiii. 12. 30 THE EXISTENCE, NATURE, refer to our future knowledge, and thus they serve to interpret each other. Of these two clauses the first affirms that K we see through a glass darkly.” The glass through which we see is not a transparent glass, but a mirror. By the aid of this mirror we see, though it be but “ darkly.” The word rendered “ darkly,” is properly “ in an enigma.” The meaning therefore is, that the works of God are a mirror in which is reflected the glory of the great Creator. We see in an enigma, but the enigma may become clearer. u We see through a glass, darkly ; ” still it is vision — though imperfect ; and we have good reason to hope that “ when that which is perfect is come, then that which is in part shall be done away.” Then shall “ we see face to face.” According to Scripture metaphor, to see God’s face is to have nearness of access to Him. Hence it is specially said to be the privilege of the holy angels that they see God’s face. Here, from the cradle to the grave, from the dawn of intellect to the hour of leaving this world, “ we see through a glass, darkly ; ” hereafter, a clearer vision shall be vouchsafed, to satisfy our exalted and changed condition. The latter clause of the verse conveys precisely the same idea ; — “ now I know in part ; but then shall I know even as also I am known.” To make this obvious, it is only necessary to advert to the Scripture use of the word “ know!’ The Bible distinctly teaches that the darkness with which we are encompassed con¬ cerning the Deity is the consequence of a misdevelopment of our nature through sin. All men have a knowledge of God, but all men have not a regenerate knowledge of Him. Those only who are “ renewed in the spirit of their mind ” are, in the Scripture sense, said to “ know God.” In this sense to knoiu God is to love Him. “ Every one that loveth is born of God, and knoweth God ; . . . for God is love.” 1 In like manner, though all men are known of God, there is a peculiar sense in which this is said of those who are lovers of God. “ How, after that ye have known God, or rather are known of God, how turn ye again to the weak and beggarly elements, whereunto ye desire again to be in bondage ? ” 2 These passages sufficiently unfold the doctrine uniformly taught in Scripture, that there is a peculiar sense in which they who love God know Him and 1 1 John iv. 7, 8. 2 Gal> iv> 9< AND GOVERNMENT OF GOD. 31 are known of Him. It is in this sense that the Apostle says, £C Now I know (God) in part ; ” — love Him imperfectly — “ but then shall I know (Him) even as also I am known ” (of Him). My love shall no more be impeded through the imperfections of my sinful nature, but in the purity of a heart in harmony with His holiness I shall love Him, even as I am loved of Him. Sir W. Hamilton’s exposition of the passage is a complete perversion of its meaning. When the Apostle says, “ Now I know in part,” he interprets the statement as being equivalent to, “ Now I know the finite.” But the Apostle is referring to different degrees of knowledge of the same Being, and not to the knowledge of different objects. He says it is the same object which he now knows in part, which he shall then know as he is known ; and that object is the Infinite and Eternal God. The latter portion of the quotation, “ then shall I know even as also I am known,” is interpreted by Sir W. Hamilton as equivalent to, “ then shall I know without limitation.” But there is nothing whatever in the expression to warrant such an exposition. In the future life man’s knowledge of God will ever be a limited knowledge, and God’s knowledge of man will ever be knowledge of a finite being. Therefore neither man’s knowledge of God nor God’s knowledge of man will ever be knowledge “ without limitation.” It might appear strange that an author who has so strongly maintained that the Infinite Being is for us now incognisable, should also decidedly assert that we shall attain to an unlimited knowledge of the Deity hereafter, had he not explicitly stated his doctrine concerning the creation. But, betrayed by a fondness for his own theory of causation, he distinctly teaches that when we say God created the world out of nothing, we can only mean that “ He evolves creation out of Himself.” The unlimited knowledge, therefore, to which we shall attain in the life to come, would seem to be the philosophical climax of his idea concerning the commencement of finite existence. But if we are to attain to knowledge “ without limitation,” by what mode is this un¬ limited knowledge to be evolved ? How is the limited to pass into the unlimited ? Is the finite to become infinite ? Are we finally to coalesce with the Infinite Being, and so lose our personal identity ? If this is the culminating point of the THE EXISTENCE, NATURE, 29 Hamiltonian theory, it is impossible to extricate it from the charge of Pantheism. We do not, however, thence infer that Sir W. Hamilton was a Pantheist. Cousin held the same doctrine of creation, yet we do not think that a personal belief in Pantheism is to be attributed to either of them. Sir W. Hamilton believed in God and in Divine Eevelation. He was not only a Tlieist, but a Christian. He rendered important service to the cause of truth, by demonstrating that the tran¬ scendental philosophy, on the principles of its advocates, can¬ not possibly give us a knowledge of the infinite. The flagrant error he committed, lies in his mistaking the abstract for the real, and affirming that all he says of the Infinite as unknow¬ able is equally conclusive against a knowledge of the Infinite God. It is an error to maintain that God cannot be known by us now, and it is also an error to suppose that we shall attain to a perfect knowledge of Him hereafter. The Scriptures declare that in the future world we shall know God more fully than He can be known by us in the present ; but they do not intimate that we shall then possess a knowledge “ without limitation.” We are told that the children of God, being children of the resurrection, shall be equal to the angels ; 1 but this equality with the angels merely refers to spirituality of nature, and not to intelligence. The children of the resur¬ rection shall be equal to the angels in dwelling together with them in the same state of existence. Moreover, the angels are finite beings like ourselves, and possess not unlimited know¬ ledge. Thus our Lord, speaking of the coming judgment, says, “ Of that day and hour knoweth no man, no, not the angels of heaven , but My Father only.” 2 The Scriptures clearly teach that in the future world we shall be freed from all hindrances which at present impede our progress in knowledge, and thus placed in circumstances most favourable for the mental de¬ velopment of creatures bearing the image of their Creator ; that the Divinity shall then give a higher revelation of Him¬ self, and that this revelation will constitute our chief source of enjoyment. As we are conscious of no limits to the Divine nature, we are conscious of no barrier to arrest our advance- 1 Luke xx. 36. 2 Matt. xxiv. 36. AND GOVERNMENT OF GOD. 33 ment in the knowledge of the Divine excellence. But as finite beings we must necessarily be subject to all the con¬ ditions of finite intelligence. Our knowledge, therefore, must still be limited ; and though capable of continual enlargement, we shall never be able, with our highest efforts, fully to com¬ prehend the Deity, or exhaust the infinitude of His perfection. II. HOW DO WE FORM THE IDEA OF GOD ? * We have said that in consciousness we have the certainty of the existence of One Supreme Being ; but in passing from the region of simple belief, how do we obtain a knowledge of the Infinite God ? The belief itself in His existence implies some knowledge of His nature. Bor we cannot possibly believe in that of which we have no knowledge. Hence the saying of Clemens Alexandrinus may be accepted as an axiom r “ Neither is there knowledge without faith, nor faith without knowledge.” 1 “ To believe,” says Cousin, “ is to know and comprehend in some degree.” 2 Knowledge and faith invari¬ ably harmonise, and to a certain extent are inseparable ; but they never contradict each other. Nothing can be more absurd than to assert that knowledge is continually at vari¬ ance with our fundamental belief ; by such philosophy con¬ sciousness is falsified, and not interpreted. The mind is a harmonised whole, in which all the faculties act in unison ; they are not powers in perpetual antagonism with each other. All knowledge rests upon faith, though knowledge precedes in the order of time. “ Knowledge,” says Cousin, “ is chronologi¬ cally first, whereas faith is logically first ; ” 3 and Sir W. Hamilton, in maintaining the same distinction, says : “ In the order of nature, belief always precedes knowledge — it is the condition of instruction. The child (as observed by Aristotle) must believe, in order that he may learn ; and even the primary facts of intelligence — the facts which precede, as they afford the conditions of, all knowledge — would not be original were they revealed to us under any other form than that of natural or necessary beliefs .” 4 Faith is a necessary 1 Strom., v. 1. 2 Hist, of Mod. Philos. 3 Cours de Philosophie, Legon 17. 4 Lect. on Metaphysics, i. 44. C 34 THE EXISTENCE, NATURE, revelation of truth which it is beyond the province of experi¬ ence to reach ; it is, so to speak, the supplement of what reason fails to complete. The sphere of faith is thus much more extensive than that of knowledge. “ The sphere of our belief,” says Sir W. Hamilton, “ is much more extensive than the sphere of our knowledge.” This is why we are compelled to believe much that we cannot comprehend, because the sphere of faith transcends that of knowledge. Faith and knowledge as two elements in our consciousness are neces- O sarily united, hut being independent of each other, they are capable of separation by a process of analysis. They cannot, however, be so dissevered as to have no mental co-operation. Viewed, therefore, as mental operations, they are necessarily combined ; but viewed with regard to the spheres they occupy, the one is the complement of the other. Knowledge finds its resting-place on faith, which supplies the deficiency of know¬ ledge by giving it a secure foundation whereon to rest. Faith, properly so called, is not constitutive, but receptive and de¬ claratory. It is receptive, as it comes to us in the form of a conviction ; it is declaratory , as it brings before the mind that conviction in consciousness. It is indispensable that faith should not only declare that an object exists, but also what that object is ; for the mind cannot give its assent to the existence of any particular object unless it be put in possession of certain distinct characteristics whereby that object can be distinguished from all other known objects. It is not neces¬ sary that faith should disclose all that a thing is, but only such knowledge regarding it as may be sufficient to distinguish it from everything else. The faith of an intelligent being must be an intelligent faith, otherwise it would be a gift totally worthless to the mind. It will thus be apparent that it is not necessary that faith, in giving testimony to the existence of an Infinite Being, should declare all the characteristics of the Divine nature, but that it must disclose to the mind such knowledge as may enable it to distinguish His existence from all existence be- sides. The Infinite God, as infinite, is to us incomprehensible, but the mental inability to embrace the Divine nature belongs to the finite mind. Faith reveals to us an Infinite Being O AND GOVERNMENT OF GOD. 35 as existing in relation with His creatures, but not limited by that relation. It recognises in the Infinite One a person — a living, conscious, active being — not an abstraction. Sir W. Hamilton deals with the Infinite as a mere abstraction, but it is the Infinite he considers rather than the Infinite Being. He defines the Infinite as unlimited, unrelated, unconditioned. That the Being whom we adore as the Supreme God is in¬ finite or unlimited is a truth essentially belonging to our fundamental belief, because it cannot be reached by us in any other way ; but the terms unrelated and unconditioned cannot possibly be applied to the Deity, nor to any being or thing in the universe. The mere fact of the existence of a conscious creature precludes the possibility of unconditionedness in the Creator. He has voluntarily conditioned Himself — that is, has placed Himself in relation with all created beings and things. The Infinite, regarded as a metaphysical abstraction, cannot exist in relation to anything. And why ? Because it has no existence; in the declaration of Hegel, it is equiva¬ lent to “ pure nothing.” The introduction of such an ab¬ straction into metaphysical speculations has resulted in utter perplexity and bewilderment, of which philosophers can rid themselves only by banishing a term without meaning, and on which so much ingenious and subtle reasoning has been spent in vain. It is entirely with this abstraction that Sir W. Hamilton deals, and it is matter of regret that so distinguished a philo¬ sopher should have taken this view, and laboured so ardu¬ ously to establish the impossibility of any knowledge of the Infinite, and so of the Infinite God. But instead of examin¬ ing among the facts of consciousness whether we have any knowledge of the Divine Being, he has passed by these facts altogether. Instead of dealing with the Infinite he has dealt with a mere abstraction, which does not even exist. If it be denied that we have a knowledge of the Infinite Being, then an appeal must be made to consciousness, and ascertain whether in these facts there is to be found a knowledge of something more than the finite. We maintain that the belief in the existence of a Personal God is among these facts, and that this belief necessarily implies a certain knowledge of His 36 THE EXISTENCE, NATURE, nature. Where faith is, there must be knowledge ; our belief, therefore, in the Infinite God, involves a knowledge of God as infinite. It must be admitted as a fact in consciousness, that faith is always united with knowledge ; because to believe in an object without some knowledge of that object is a mental impossibility. Belief in an object is possible only when a certain knowledge of the nature of that object is possible. To believe in that of which we have no knowledge, is to believe in nothing — it is not to believe at all. Consciousness never revealed, never could reveal, the Infinite, in the abstract. Where is it ? What is it ? A nonentity, “ pure nothing.” If this be the Infinite about which Sir W. Hamilton reasoned, it is impossible to dispute his conclusion — that we can have no knowledge of it. But the God whom consciousness re- veals is not a mere abstraction, nor the sum of all existence, whose exclusive unity prevents all being besides ; but an In¬ finite Person, apart from all creation, and above it, the Creator and Euler of all. “ The God of consciousness,” says Cousin, “ is not an abstract God, a solitary king exiled far away from the creation, upon the desert throne of a silent eternity, and of an absolute existence which resembles the denial itself of existence.” 1 We ascribe to God as the great Pirst Cause every attribute manifested in His works. But in order to understand dis¬ tinctly what knowledge we derive from His works, it is neces¬ sary to consider what is the true doctrine concerning causation. A cause is that on account of which an effect is produced. There can be no effect without an efficient cause. The cause must thus be adequate to produce the effect. When we move the hand, we are conscious that we have the poiver to do so. In this way we are led to recognise a power in the cause, com¬ petent to carry out the result. But there are cases in which the cause of a particular occurrence may not be recognised ; nevertheless the mind, guided by its knowledge of the law of causation, conjectures or adopts the probable cause, until the real one is discovered. In such a case there is only such knowledge of a cause as experience may suggest. But the true idea of a cause is derived from the relation which sub- 1 Hist, of Mod. Philos., I. 98. AND GOVERNMENT OF GOD. 37 sists between the effect and the cause itself. Both effect and cause are objects presented to the mind, and the knowledge we have of them is the recognition of the relation in which they stand to each other. It is in virtue of this admitted relationship between cause and effect that we obtain our knowledge of finite causes, and the mind, viewing the entire universe as an effect, is thus led to the recognition of a self-existent, Absolute Cause. Every finite cause either points directly to the First Cause, or is a link in the chain of causes which conducts at length to the Infinite Creator and Sustainer of all things. It is impos¬ sible to account for finite existence except by reference to one great First Cause. We cannot believe that the appear¬ ances presented by the universe are the consequences of an eternal, unending series of developments. One cause may no doubt be modified by some previously existing cause, and that again by another ; still we must come at last to the acknowledgment of a Self-existent Being, whose power is not limited by any other power, and who is the source of all finite causation. In the works of creation we behold a vast display of power, wisdom, and goodness, and from the relation in which the effect stands to its cause, we attain to a knowledge of the Great Creator. With an intuitive belief in His existence — which of itself implies a knowledge of His infinity which His works could not give — the contemplation of these works must, by the constitution of our mind, unfold within us that primary knowledge we natively possess. Creation in all its complex forms of existence requires to be explained, and no explana¬ tion can be given except through intuitive belief — which be¬ lief, again, implies a primary knowledge capable of opening and expanding indefinitely in consciousness, according to our progress in mental development. There can, therefore, be no knowledge of the Deity, as First Cause, except through intui¬ tive belief ; and such knowledge as primarily opens in con¬ sciousness can only be developed through the contemplation of His works. Knowledge of God is advanced by means of the analogy between the human intelligence and the Divine nature. Man 38 THE EXISTENCE, NATURE, is not identical with the Deity ; but he is created in His image. Thus far the human nature must resemble the Divine. This is the fundamental principle of all religion. St Paul acknow¬ ledged this principle when he declared to the Athenians that we are “ the offspring of God.” 1 This is the reason why we are not to suppose the Deity to be simple existence, or an ideal abstraction, or an unknown and unknowable cause — a mere inscrutable force. If we are “ the offspring of God,” He is our Father; we bear His image, and, so far as the finite can resemble the Infinite, partake of His likeness. This is An¬ thropomorphism, and, when used in the proper sense of the term, it expresses the doctrine of Holy Scripture ; but it is a term which has been much abused, and often used to express the gross idea that God is altogether such a one as ourselves, — a being of similar limitations and passions. It is therefore of paramount importance, in sifting the analogy between the Divine nature and the human intelligence, that we be careful to detect where the analogy holds and where it fails. It is thus only that we can avoid those Anthropomorphic misre¬ presentations of Deity which vitiate the original native idea resting on intuitive belief. The knowledge obtained from analogy is by a comparison of two objects with each other. Of these objects we must have some previous knowledge before they can be compared. Hence it is obvious that analogy cannot originate knowledge of any¬ thing ; it may nevertheless aid us to clearer views of that which we already in some measure know. There is a mani¬ fest analogy between the human nature and the Divine ; but in order to decide to what extent it is borne out, and where it cannot be applied, it is necessary to discriminate between the aspects of agreement and those which essentially differ. The first condition, therefore, of the knowledge to be derived from analogy is, to fix the extent of similarity between the objects compared. The mind or spiritual nature within us bears a resemblance to the Spiritual Nature above us and over all. We are conscious of a spirit dwelling within us, the residence of spiritual attributes and the source of spiritual life and energies ; and in our oiun spirit we recognise a resemblance to 1 Acts xvii. 29. AND GOVERNMENT OF GOD. 39 the Uncreated, All-creating Spirit ; and can thus form a clearer conception of Him who is the Fountain of all spiritual being and excellence. Again, in our own personality we perceive a resemblance to the One Supreme Being. We are one, yet have many qualities. How our personality is preserved, not¬ withstanding this plurality, we cannot explain, but we are certain of the fact that it is preserved. How the I, that thinks, and feels, and acts, is not a bundle of separate thoughts, and emotions, and acts, but exists as an entire unity at every stage of our being, we cannot explain ; but we certainly know the fact, and as such accept it, and act upon it continually. Our belief in the existence, and our primary knowledge of the Great Supreme, are original data of consciousness ; but the analogy which exists between the human nature and the Divine in regard to personality and unity, serves to unfold and eluci¬ date our knowledge of God. Again, the intelligence and moral attributes within us bear a resemblance, in some degree, to the Intelligence and Moral Attributes above us. The intelli¬ gence and moral attributes of the Deity immeasurably tran¬ scend our highest thought ; still we certainly know what an intelligent and moral nature means. The intelligence and moral perfections of the Infinite Being we can never fully comprehend, but this only enlarges our idea of the nature in which they dwell, and makes it more real and more sublime. The second condition of the knowledge to be derived from analogy is, to determine in a comparison of the objects where the resemblance fails. Though we have a knowledge of God as the Infinite Intelligence, and obtain a more distinct idea of Him as such from the resemblance of our own intelligent nature to His, yet we do not attribute to Him such mental processes as those of reasoning and remembering. In these respects, therefore, the analogy fails. Such, then, is a brief outline of the method by which the mind forms an idea of the Supreme Being. We have shown that this idea is derived from two kinds of knowledge — intui¬ tive or immediate, and representative or mediate ; that the Deity is immediately known by an intuitive cognition, which is the essential concomitant of our necessary belief in His 40 THE EXISTENCE, NATURE, existence ; and that He is mediately known through the repre¬ sentation of His works. These two kinds of knowledge, immediate and mediate, invariably harmonise, and unfold, and expand together, according to their respective nature and degree. The knowledge we acquire, in both of its kinds, of the Divine Being and His attributes, though real and distinct, yet from the finite nature of the human mind must ever be limited and indefinite, in the future as well as in the present life ; since, notwithstanding the continual progress we shall make throughout our eternal existence, it will never be pos¬ sible for finite man to fathom the Infinite God. It requires Infinity to grasp Infinity. III. HOW DO WE ASCERTAIN THAT THE IDEA OF GOD THUS FORMED IS TRUSTWORTHY ? (1.) Bemuse it is a conviction given us in our mental consti¬ tution, and therefore an aberration from it is an impossibility. — It is a matter of fact that even in the lowest grade of savage tribes this conviction has not entirely faded away. In turning to the history of religions we find this conviction appearing in all grades of heathenism, and more or less distinctly, according as the minds of men were freed from acquired habits of thought. And even where such habits had taken deep root — in the midst of polytheism — we find homage paid to One who is All-powerful — the God of gods, the Great Spirit, the Creator of heaven and earth. Yet with this universal acknowledgment of a Supreme Being there is conjoined such a mass of superstitious forms of thought, as to restrain the conviction of an Absolute Euler over all from having its due influence upon the mind. This admits of explanation by the law regulating innate convictions, which requires that these rise up into consciousness only when the true idea has been brought before the mind for recognition. But besides this fact, there is another which in the history of heathenism forcibly strikes us; we allude to the common feel- ing amongst all polytheistic nations towards forming a personal idea of their gods. They cannot imagine their deities other¬ wise than as persons. This is what Cicero means when he says : “ All men are taught by nature that none but a human AND GOVERNMENT OF GOD. 41 form can be ascribed to the gods.” 1 This fact is universal in the most ancient as well as in the modern forms of heathen¬ ism. Even in the religions of nature the deified natural forces are invariably personified. The hymns and prayers in the Indian Vedas which are addressed to them presume their per¬ sonality. And in the very lowest form of Fetishism the attributes of the worshipper are assumed to belong to the object of his worship. So, too, the Heaven-dwelling Spirit of the Chinese, who was subsequently regarded by their philo¬ sophers as merely the impersonal soul of the universe, was, according to recent investigations, not only imagined as a person, but is even at the present day personified as the Supreme Emperor Shang-Te.2 Is it not, then, a fair inference from these facts, that man is impelled by a law of his nature to think of the Deity as a Personal Being ? It is only in the schools of philosophy that we find a different method of form¬ ing an idea of the Godhead. We there meet with an artifi¬ cial system of abstractions which keeps back, subtilises, and generalises, the original and ever-recurring conviction, that leads man to yearn after a personal God and personal inter¬ course with Him. Philosophers have substituted to ov {the reality , the truth) for 6 wv {the Self-existing Being), to Quov {the divine principle) for 6 Qtog {God), to ctyaOov {the highest good) for 6 ayaOog {the Good One, by way of supreme excel¬ lence). Our knowledge of God, like that which we have of the external world, is true knowledge. This is what those philosophers who have lost themselves in the mazes of idealism vehemently deny. They affirm that we perceive things not as they are in themselves, hut as they appear to us, and that this is undoubtedly the case with our knowledge of God. We are not authorised, they say, to believe that our knowledge of God corresponds to the reality, for certain it is that He is not what we take Him to be. But the mass of mankind believe that things really are what they perceive them to be, and that God has revealed Himself to us as He reallv is. Is their t/ belief, then, in both cases true or false ? It rests in the latter 1 De Nat. Deor., i. 18. 2 The Notion of the Chinese concerning God and Spirits, by the Rev. James Legge, D.D., pp. 124, 125. 42 THE EXISTENCE, NATURE, case on the same foundation as in the former. That founda¬ tion is the veracity of consciousness. The facts of conscious¬ ness are either trustworthy or they are not. If they are not, knowledge is absolutely impossible, and every system of philo¬ sophy necessarily false. If they are, no system of philosophy which impugns their veracity can pretend to truth. " The truth of a belief,” says Sir W. Hamilton, “ is controvertible with its invincibility,” although, unfortunately, he did not adhere to his own principle, — •“ That what is by nature neces¬ sarily Believed to be, truly Is.”1 Ho man has more zealously or more ably vindicated the doctrine of Eealism, which is the basis of all philosophy and of all belief. “ The Natural Eeal- ist,” he says, “ whose watchword is — The facts of consciousness, the whole facts , and nothing but the facts, has therefore nought to fear from his antagonist, so long as consciousness cannot be explained nor redargued from without. If his system be to fall, it falls only with philosophy ; for it can only be dis¬ proved by proving the mendacity of consciousness — of that faculty, ‘ Quae nisi sit veri, ratio quoque falsa fit omnis.’ (‘ Which unless true, all reason turns a lie.’) ” 2 Again he says : “ Consciousness once convicted of falsehood, an unconditional scepticism in regard to the character of our in¬ tellectual being is the melancholy, but only rational, result.” Any conclusion may now with impunity be drawn against the hopes and dignity of human nature. Our Personality, our Immateriality, our Moral Liberty, have no longer an argument for their defence. “ ‘ Man is the dream of a shadow ; ’ God is the dream of that dream.” 3 The question therefore is, Are we invincibly led to believe that God really is as He has revealed Himself to us, and that He possesses attributes similar to our own ? This cannot be denied ; for universality proves the invincibility of its truth. And it is a historical fact that the opposite doctrine is opposed to the natural con¬ viction of mankind. Anthropomorphism, when properly ex¬ plained, expresses the doctrine of the Christian Church, and of mankind universally. It is true when it ascribes to God the 1 Discussions, p. 90. 2 Ibid., p. 64. 3 Ibid., p. 96. AND GOVEBNMENT OF GOD. 43 attributes of our own nature, without limitation, and to an infinite degree. It is false and blasphemous when it seeks to bring down God to the level of His creatures, and represents their weaknesses and limitations as also His. (2.) Because our moral nature demands this idea. — We have already said that there are moral convictions which the mind recognises as true. No one requires to be indoctrinated into a belief of their veracity, nor seeks further evidence of their truthfulness than what is furnished by their own testimony. The essential distinction between right and wrong, and the responsibility for character and conduct, are examples of this class of moral intuitions. All men are aware that they are under obligation to the Supreme Being to perform what is right and to avoid what is wrong. They are also aware that the Infinite God to whom they are accountable knows what they are and what they do, and that He has the will and pur¬ pose to reward or punish men according to their deserts. The God, therefore, who has thus revealed Himself to us in our nature, as a God who knows, and wills, and acts, who rewards and punishes, is a Personal Being. Those philosophers who acknowledge no personal God, and yet maintain a moral government, have plunged into the sea of abstract speculation, and lost themselves in its enigmas. For unconscious govern¬ ment, according to moral law, is utterly impossible. When we think of moral attributes, we can only think of them as exist¬ ing in an individual mind. It is possible, indeed, to abstract the general quality, say, of wisdom, and to reason respecting it, and to set it before the mind as a separate idea. But in the same mental act we necessarily place it in a wise person. Thus the law of personality regulates our judgment in this sphere. To Supreme intelligence, moral attributes, and volitions, we are compelled to attach a Supreme Personality. But in doing so, do we not at the same time most firmly believe that this is the actual fact ? Why, and on what invincible ground, shall any one assert that it is not so ? Our own personality is the image and type of the Supreme Personality. We are compelled to accept this revelation which God has made of Himself as the very truth. It is such a revelation as must make known to us what God really is, unless our nature be 44 THE EXISTENCE, NATURE, an elaborate deception. Conscience — what Kant designates the practical reason — is that power of the mind which judges between right and wrong, commanding the one, forbidding the other. It is the ultimate authority from which there is no appeal. And why ? because we cannot go higher. It is the one, only interpreter of moral law. We must accept the decision unconditionally, or believe that our nature is a lie. But this is to fall back not so much upon our nature, as upon the Great Being who created it. The authority of our Creator is paramount. He is implicitly to be believed and trusted ; and for this very reason, because in constituting and construct¬ ing our nature He cannot have intended that we should be¬ lieve a falsehood — cannot have placed within us a lying judge. If we believe not in the law of this inward judge — testifying to the highest and grandest truth — then we can believe in nothing. All within us and all around us, everywhere, would in that case be only delusion and mockery. Take conscience away — let there be no innate perception of right and wrong, no ultimate authoritative judge — let eternal truth and recti¬ tude be for ever banished from the mind as pleasing but illu¬ sive thoughts, and the moral government of the universe is up¬ set, and the reign of a hopeless and endless anarchy is begun. The conclusion, therefore, we arrive at is, that if our moral nature compels us to believe that God is a Person, He must be a Person, and accordingly, that we form a true idea of our Creator by ascribing to Him in infinite perfection those moral attributes which He has bestowed upon us, His finite creatures. (3.) Because our Religious Nature demands the same idea of God. — We form the same idea of God from our religious as from our moral nature. Kant considered obedience to the moral law as equivalent to religion ; but morality is not all of religion. There cannot be morality without religion, nor re¬ ligion without morality ; the two are inseparable, yet they are not the same. Morality is man’s conformity to the Divine image ; religion is his communion with God. Kant did not admit that man has a real and personal relation to God ; and, therefore, it is not to be wondered at that he converted reli¬ gion into morality. This error of Kant is still widely diffused : the advocates of Rationalism have embraced it, and maintain AND GOVERNMENT OF GOD. 45 that morality is the chief part of religion, and that doctrine , the other part, is subordinate and less important. But doc¬ trine, mere doctrine, is no more religion itself than is morality. Morality may be called the fruit of that tree of which religion is the root. If the root of the tree is destroyed, its branches are deprived of their vitality, and the fruit perishes. Moral¬ ity, then, cannot he severed from religion ; both must exist in combination, for where the one is wanting we shall most certainly not find the other. The Apostle John, in his first general Epistle, thus expressly points out the connection be¬ tween religion and morality : “ He that loveth not his brother whom he hath seen, how can he love God whom he hath not seen ? And this commandment have we from Him, That he who loveth God love his brother also.” 1 The love of our brother or neighbour is unquestionably the essence of all morality, and love to God the essence of all religion. The two have a vital connection existing between them ; their separa¬ tion is impossible. Beligion is the great end of man’s exist¬ ence ; it is the tie which hinds him to his Creator. It implies a relationship between us and God. But this rela¬ tionship is possible only on the basis of intelligence. Physical force, therefore, cannot be a substitute for God. Physical force is a power which works blindly, and produces an effect, but not the wisdom which appoints the order of things and their end. The relationship between God and His creatures is that of a person to a person. Our religious nature needs a personal God — a God possessed of attributes similar to our own ; who hears our prayers, and heeds our aspirations ; who can love and he loved ; who can supply our wants and shelter us in the hour of distress. Thus, again, it becomes apparent that unless our nature be a deception and imposture, we arrive at a true knowledge of God when we ascribe to Him the attributes of our own nature. The main argument which Pantheists bring forward against the existence of a personal God is, that personality cannot be conceived without limitation. This is the argument of Eichte and Strauss, who acknowledge no personal God, yet maintain a “moral order of the universe.” But there cannot be a 1 1 John iv. 20, 21. 46 THE EXISTENCE, NATURE, government of the world according to moral laws without intelligence. This order, therefore, is only another mode of designating the Deity. Dean Mansel admits the force of the argument of limitation against the idea of a personal God ; nevertheless he contends that we are bound to think of God as a person, and to believe that He is infinite. We subjoin the following passages from the Bampton Lectures, as express¬ ing his views on the Limits of Religious Thought : “ The very conception of a moral nature is in itself the conception of a limit ; for morality, is the compliance with a law, and a law, whether imposed from within or from without, can only be conceived to operate by limiting the range of possible actions ” (p. 119). “ The only human conception of Personality is that of limitation” (p. 119). “The first [mode] aims at a specula¬ tive knowledge of God as He is ; . . . the second, abandoning the speculative knowledge of the Infinite, ... is content with those regulative ideas of the Deity which are sufficient to guide our practice, but not to satisfy our intellect; which tell us, not what God is in Himself, but how He wills that we should think of Him” (p. 126). “But are we justified, even on philosophical grounds, in denying the Personality of God ? . . . Par from it” (p. 85). “It is our duty to think of God as personal ; and it is our duty to believe that He is infinite” (p. 89). It would be difficult to find views on the point before us more contradictory than are contained in these quotations. The question to be determined is, whether within the sphere of consciousness, and according to the laws of thought, it is possible for the human mind to form a true idea of the living God, of whom infinity is one of the distinguish¬ ing attributes. The Bampton Lecturer requires only belief in a God of whose nature we have no real knowledge. He asserts that the very conception of a moral nature is in itself the conception of a limit, and that the only conception of personality is that of limitation. According to these assump¬ tions, if God be infinite, He can neither be unlimited nor possess a moral nature. The distinguished author of these Lectures not once, but ever and again, vehemently resists the idea that God is or can be represented as He is. But if such be the case, then He must be represented as He is not. Quite AND GOVERNMENT OF GOD. 47 in consistency with this alternative, he tells us that we must renounce all hope of knowing what God is, and be content with “ regulative knowledge,” which teaches not what God really is, but what He wills us to think Him to be. Dr Mansel, however, admits that our nature demands a personal and moral Deity. “ It is our duty,” he says, “ to think of God as personal, and it is our duty to believe that He is infinite.” What evidence is there to show that it is our duty to think one thing and to believe another ? “ Personality,” he asserts, “ is essentially a limitation.” How, then, can we pos¬ sibly think of God as personal, and yet believe that He is infinite ? Could anything be more inconsistent than to assert that it is our duty to think what is a contradiction of our belief ? The facts of consciousness are not fallacies ; the faculties of our mind are not meant to mislead us, but to guide us in their measure to truth and reality. If the things revealed to us in consciousness were not facts but deceptions, they would be implicit untruths. Our beliefs are formed in obedience to certain laws of our nature. But our nature becomes a falsehood if these laws be intended to conceal from us reality, and not to enable us more certainly to reach it. If our necessary beliefs are not reliable and genuine — if we are not to regard as true what God, by the constitution of our nature, compels us to believe — then the foundation of all philo¬ sophy and all religion is completely subverted. But why this contradiction between what is real and what is only apparently so — between truth and deception ? Because philosophers choose to define a moral nature and a personality so, that neither can be affirmed of an Infinite Being. It is not true that a moral nature or a personality imply any limitation inconsistent with infinite perfection. We do not limit the Deity when we say that He cannot be unconscious as well as conscious, that He cannot be evil as well as good. The only limitation we admit is the negation of imperfection. We do not limit the Deity when we exalt Him in our conceptions from the unconscious to the conscious, from the unintelligent to the intelligent, from the impersonal something to the per¬ sonal, Moral Governor. All these misconceptions have arisen from confounding the ideas connected with the Infinite God 48 THE EXISTENCE, NATUBE, with those which relate only to “ the All ” — a mere abstrac¬ tion. Hacl those philosophers who have so strenuously reasoned against the idea of a personal God more closely examined the relation between belief and knowledge, they could not have failed to perceive that the doctrine they have advocated is subversive of the laws of human thought. Because, as we have already shown, there is not only a necessary belief in our mind which bears testimony to the Divine existence, hut this very belief itself involves in it the recognition of the Infinite Being, as a Person. If we are not justified in ascribing to God the attributes of our own nature, then we can have no knowledge of God ; since a negative knowledge, or a knowledge of what He is not, is no knowledge whatever. An unknown God — a God of whose moral nature, and of whose relation to us, we know nothing — is to us nothing, in every sense nothing. Bevelation would thus become impossible, for we could never come in contact with it. We should want the indispensable prelimi¬ nary means for bringing it within the sphere of our apprehen¬ sion. We should find nothing but darkness on our path, nothing but contradiction and confusion as the result of our searching, like heathenism, after God ; nothing but hopeless wandering amid the dreary mazes of Pantheism and Atheism. It is a sad but historical fact that those who have rejected the idea of a Personal God, and denied that we can ascribe to Him the attributes of our own nature, have landed in Pantheism or Atheism in one form or other. They take the word “ spirit,” and divest it of consciousness, intelligence, will, and moral attributes, and the residue, which is pure nothing, they desig¬ nate God. Hamilton and Mansel have taken refuge from this dreadful conclusion in faith, but, in doing so, they have com¬ pletely overturned their own theories concerning our knowledge of the Infinite. For where faith is, there must be knowledge ; and our belief in the Deity necessarily involves our knowledge of Him as an Infinite and Personal Being. It is a fact in consciousness that faith is always united with knowledge, and necessarily so, because we could not possibly believe in an object without some knowledge of the object in which we believe. These fundamental laws of the mind are indiscrim- AND GOVERNMENT OF GOD. 49 inately called cognitions or beliefs ; because faith and cognition, though distinct in their nature and in their spheres of opera¬ tion, yet as data in consciousness they combine to constitute the single mental act. They do not demonstrate to the mind how the convictions arise ; in this respect they are intuitions or acts of faith. They are beliefs which involve an immediate recognition of the truth, but they neither vindicate nor account for the truth which they reveal. Had Sir W. Hamilton adhered to his own principle, — “ That what is by nature necessarily believed to be, truly is,” — he would never have maintained that we know that God is but not what He is, and that the Infinite cannot be a Person. Hamil¬ ton and Mansel, having adopted the definitions of the Transcendentalists, define the Absolute to be, “ that which exists in and of itself, and out of all relations and the Infinite, “ that than which nothing greater can be conceived or is possible.” Mansel quotes from Hegel to the following effect, — “ What kind of an Absolute Being is that,” says Hegel, “ which does not contain in itself all that is actual, even evil included ? ” In this metaphysical representation of the Deity as Absolute and Infinite, Mansel entirely acquiesces. “We may repudiate the conclusion,” he says, “ with indignation ; but the reasoning is unassailable. If the Absolute and Infinite is an object of human conception at all, this, and none other, is the conception required. That which is conceived as absolute and infinite must be conceived as containing within itself the sum, not only of all actual, but of all possible modes of being. Tor if any actual mode can be denied of it, it is related to that mode, and limited by it ; and if any possible mode can be denied of it, it is capable of becoming more than it now is, and such a capability is a limitation.” 1 He thus subscribes to the dictum of Hegel, that the Absolute must include all modes of being, evil as well as good. In like manner the Infinite must be ALL ; for if any other being exists, the Infinite must of necessity be limited, and, therefore, is no longer infinite. In such definitions lies the fallacy of the theories of Hamil¬ ton and Mansel. If the Absolute be that which is incapable of all relation, then it must be alone ; nothing but the Absolute 1 Bampton Lectures, p. 46. 50 THE EXISTENCE, NATURE, can be actual or possible. If this be what is called the Absolute, it can neither know nor be known. Again, if the Infinite be All, there can be no finite. Taken in this sense, it is just as evident that the Absolute and Infinite, or, in the diction of Hamilton, the Unconditioned, cannot be a Cause, or a Conscious Personal Being, as that a triangle cannot be a square, or a whole a part of itself. When definitions lead to self-evident contradic¬ tions and absurdities — when they lead to conclusions at variance with the laws of our nature — when they subvert the testimony of consciousness, common-sense, and the declarations of Scrip¬ ture, — the only rational inference is that they are false. This inference we may clearly draw in the case before us. They are definitions having a heathen origin, and of no authority what¬ ever. Heither the etymology nor the common acceptation of the words in question, justifies such definition being given to them. Absolute (ab and solvo ), free from restraint, independent. The word in ordinary usage means no more than true, real, very. Thus, when applied to truth it means truth without mixture, very truth , nothing lout truth. The Absolute God, in this sense, would mean very God, the real God, altogether and alone Divine. But this is not what is meant here, but something quite different. It is God absolved, loosed from all relation, external and internal. But there is no absolute God, or essence, or being, in the uni¬ verse, to whom, in the sense of absolved, loosed from relation, the word can be applied. What is called the Absolute — that is, absoluteness in the abstract — is a designation inapplicable to the Deity, because when so applied who can attach any intelligible meaning to the term ? God is absolute in the sense that He is not dependent for His existence, attributes, or acts, on any other being. This, however, does not imply that He is the only being, nor that in order to be Absolute He must be impersonal, unconscious, or without thought or will. Again, the term Infinite cannot be applied to the Deity in the sense that He must include all forms of being. When it is said that anything is infinite, what is meant is, that no limitation can possibly be assigned to it as such. An infinite line is that to which no limit can be assigned as a line ; infinite space is that to which no limit can be assigned as space ; an infinite spirit is a spirit unlimited in all the attributes of a spirit. It is an entire misapprehension AND GOVERNMENT OF GOD. 51 to assume that the infinite must he the sum of all existence. An infinite line does not include all lines, because there may he any number of lines ; an infinite spirit is not all being, because there may he any number of beings. Infinite power is not all power, hut simply power to which no limit can he assigned ; infinite knowledge is not all knowledge, but simply knowledge to the extent of which no limit is possible. So, too, an infinite substance is not all substance, hut a substance which is not excluded from any portion of space by other substances, or restricted in the manifestation of his attributes or functions by anything out of itself. God therefore may be a spirit infinite, eternal, and unchangeable, in His being and attributes, with¬ out including within His nature, matter, and evil as well as good. It is much to be regretted that the fundamental truths of religion and morality should be endangered or subverted by persistent adherence to the doctrine that the Absolute and Infinite, or the Unconditioned, must be unrelated. It would indeed be a sad result to arrive at, if The thing of all things, which is unknowable, and incapable of being revealed, is God. Both Hamilton and Mansel hold that the testimony of con¬ sciousness is indubitable, that it is the ultimate authority from which there is no appeal ; that its facts must be accepted, else philosophy is no longer possible. In maintaining, therefore, that God cannot be known as He is, and that the Infinite can¬ not be a person, they propound doctrines inconsistent with the veracity of consciousness, and in doing so, overturn their own theories. Had Sir W. Hamilton said that we can know that God is, but not all that He is, he would have repeated only what has been said oftentimes before. Plato vindicates the idea of God, but says that it is impossible to declare His nature. The Christain fathers frequently speak of God as being in His own nature altogether unknowable, but in saying this they mean nothing more than that God is incomprehensible. Others, again, when they assert the incapacity of man to know God, are refer¬ ring to his spiritual blindness occasioned by sin. Therefore, while they deny that God can be known by the unregenerate, they affirm that He is known by those to whom the Spirit of 52 THE EXISTENCE, NATURE, Christ has revealed Him. In like manner, although St Paul asserts that the heathen know God, he elsewhere speaks of a knowledge unto salvation communicated by the Holy Spirit. The doctrine of Sir W. Hamilton, when speaking of God as unknowable, is entirely different from this. He maintains that to think of God as infinite and to think of Him as a person is an impossibility. Had the Greek philosophers convinced the people that their gods were not real personal beings, there would have been an end to their polytheism. And if the world could be persuaded that the Infinite cannot be a person, the belief in Theism itself would be extinct. Accordingly Herbert Spencer and others, in following out Hamilton’s defini¬ tions of the Infinite, have come to the conclusion that it is impossible that such a being as a personal God should exist. The heathen personified the forces of nature and regarded them as demi-gods ; and those who deny a personal God have pronounced the same agencies divine, and call them laws. The heathen, however, were rational enough to place the lesser gods in subordination to the Supreme Being ; whereas those who advocate Atheistic theories invest the laws of nature with sovereign power. But as Hamilton and Mansel were not only Theists, but believers in Divine Bevelation, they endeav¬ oured to avoid the obvious consequences of their doctrine by adopting two principles : 1st, “ That the unthinkable is pos¬ sible, and therefore may be believed ; ” and 2dly, “ That we are bound to believe what the Scriptures and our moral nature declare God to be.” On the first of these principles, — “ That the unthinkable is possible, and therefore may be believed,” — it may be remarked that what is unthinkable cannot be thought of, and so cannot be the object of faith. Faith presupposes a knowledge in the mind of what is believed to be true and trustworthy ; because it is impossible for the mind to believe in that of which it knows nothing. It is one of the leading doctrines of Protestantism that knowledge is essential to faith, and it is most clearly the doctrine of Holy Scripture. “ How shall they believe in Him of whom they have not heard ? ” is the pertinent question of St Paul. Truth must be seen by the mind to be possible, before on any account whatever it can be accepted. If, therefore, we cannot know God, we cannot pos- AND GOVERNMENT OF GOD. 53 sibly believe in Him. The second principle propounded by Hamilton and Mansel is equally untenable — “ That we are bound to believe what the Scriptures and our moral nature declare G-od to be.” Notwithstanding this appeal to the Sacred Record, they maintain that even the Scriptures themselves do not represent to us what God really is, but only what He wills that we should believe concerning Him. Our senses, they say, tell us that things around us are, but not what they are in themselves. Yet we can safely act on the assumption that they really are what they seem to be. Our senses, therefore, furnish knowledge sufficient to regulate the conduct, but not to satisfy the reason. So, although we do not and cannot know what God really is, yet the representations contained in the Scriptures are sufficient to regulate the moral and religious life. We can safely act on the assumption that He really is what He is there declared to be, although such teaching of Holy Scripture cannot, in a positive sense, be accepted as true. “It is our duty,” sa}^s Dr Mansel, “ to think of God as per¬ sonal, and it is our duty to believe that He is infinite. It is true that we cannot reconcile these two representations with each other, as our conception of personality involves attributes apparently contradictory to the notion of infinity. But it does not follow that this contradiction exists anywhere but in our own minds.” 1 It is preposterous to allege that the contradic¬ tion is only in our own minds, for it is impossible for one and the same mind to see a thing to be a contradiction and yet believe it to be true. There is a great difference between the irreconcilable and the contradictory. In the one case the difficulty may proceed from our ignorance, in the other from the nature of the things themselves. Many things may seem irreconcilable to one mind and not to another. But the self¬ contradictory is seen to be so by all orders of mind. That two and two cannot make ten, or that a circle cannot be a square, is just as evident to one mind as to another. What, therefore, involves a clear contradiction cannot possibly be true. Hamilton and Mansel assert that infinity and person¬ ality are not only irreconcilable but contradictory ; that the one of necessity excludes the other ; that in affirming the one 1 Bampton Lectures, p. 89. 54 THE EXISTENCE, NATURE, the other is denied. There is, however, an important differ¬ ence between the irreconcilable and the contradictory ; for what seems irreconcilable may nevertheless be true, but what is clearly seen to be contradictory cannot possibly be so. Hamilton and Mansel constantly affirm that an infinite person is a contradiction in terms ; and so it is if the Infinite must include the ALL. Mansel, in the course of his Lectures, again and again understands by the Infinite the One Living God, but when it is necessary for his special purpose to enforce another meaning, he substitutes for the Infinite, the ALL — a mere ideal abstraction. He admits, as his own belief, that the Infinite One is a Personal Being, and had he kept to this admission he would have avoided much incongruous reasoning. But if men will adopt the principles of Pantheism, it is not surprising that they should land in these conclusions. Mansel says that we must be “ content with those regulative ideas of the Deity which are sufficient to guide our practice, but not to satisfy our intellect ; which tell us, not what God is in Himself, but how He wills that we should think of Him.” 1 Eegulative knowledge, therefore, is that which is designed to regulate our sentiment and action. It need not be true. Again he says : “ To have sufficient grounds for believing in God is a very different thing from having sufficient grounds for reasoning about Him. . . . The natural senses, it may be, are diverted and coloured by the medium through which they pass to reach the intellect, and present to us, not things in themselves, but things as they appear to us. And this is manifestly the case with the religious consciousness, &c.” 2 If this does not mean that our external senses are to some extent fallacious and deceptive, and that, like them, our religious con¬ sciousness is also to some extent fallacious and deceptive, what does it mean ? Hamilton teaches not merely that regulative knowledge need not be true, but that it may be, and is demonstrably false ; for “ to think that God is, as we can think Him to be,” he says, “ is blasphemy.” 3 This doctrine of regulative knowledge is wholly untenable, because it is self-contradictory. Mansel says that we cannot know what God is in Himself, “ but only as He wills that we 1 Bampton Lectures, p. 127. 2 Ibid., p. 122. 3 Discussions, p. 15. AND GOVERNMENT OF GOD. 55 should think of Him.” Here will is attributed to God ; hut willy purpose, or design can reside only in the mind of an in¬ telligent being — that is, that He is really a person. But this form of knowledge supposes that He may either be, or not be, a person, and thereby involves a manifest self-contradiction. It is a doctrine at variance with the nature of faith , for we cannot believe in the reality of any object without a know¬ ledge of that object. Faith, no doubt, has a regulative power over the mind in regard to conduct ; but we must know how to regulate our actions so as to bring them into accordance with our belief. It is a doctrine highly derogatory to the Creator. It sup¬ poses Him to influence His creatures by false representations ; revealing Himself as a Father, a Euler, and a Judge, when there is no objective reality corresponding to these representa¬ tions. It supposes Him to have given us a nature which necessitates us to believe in what is not true. We are com¬ pelled by the laws of our intellectual and moral being to think of Him as possessing attributes similar to our own, and yet we are told it is blasphemy so to regard Him. The doc¬ trine sets our intellectual and moral nature at variance ; the latter compelling us to believe that God is a person, and the former declaring personality and Deity to be a contradiction in terms. Hamilton teaches not merely that God may not be what we take Him to be, but that He cannot be so ; that He is inconceivable and unknowable. If God by the laws of our intellect necessitates us to deny His personality, and by the laws of our moral nature makes it not only a duty but a neces¬ sity to acknowledge it, then the laws of our constitution, so far from acting in harmony with each other, are in a state of con¬ flict and disorder. Man, viewed in this aspect, is not the noble creature that was formed in the image of His Creator. Finally, this doctrine, so far from being sanctioned by Divine Bevelation, altogether subverts its authority. If what Scrip¬ ture teaches concerning the nature of God and His relation to the world reveals no objective truth — gives us no knowledge of what God really is — then what it teaches concerning the person and mission of Christ may also be unreal, and thus its credibility is destroyed.; because the form in which its declar- 56 THE EXISTENCE, NATURE, ations are given is inconsistent with the possibility of faith. But the revelation made of God in Holy Scripture is positive and real. It declares Him to be just what we are led to believe He is, when we ascribe to Him the attributes of our own nature in an infinite degree. We are self-conscious, so is God ; we are intelligent beings, so is He ; we are spirits, so is God. We have a moral nature, though depraved by sin. God has moral excellence in infinite and immutable perfection. We are persons, so is God. All this the Sacred Volume affirms to he true. The first revelation it makes of the Deity is under the names of El or Elohim, the Mighty One, the Creator, Pre¬ server, ancl Governor of all things : and Jehovah, the I AM, the Personal, Self-existent Being, as developing Himself in a Covenant-relationship with His people. All the attributes and all the works ascribed to God in Holy Scripture are revela¬ tions of what He really is. He is the Holy, the Merciful, and the Faithful One. He is the Giver of all good. “He covereth the heaven with clouds, prepareth rain for the earth, and maketh grass to grow upon the mountains.” He givetli food to the hungry, and relieves the fatherless and widow. He is love. He “ so loved the world, that He gave His only be¬ gotten Son, that whosoever believeth in Him should not perish, but have everlasting life.v He is the Hearer of prayer — a pres¬ ent Help in every time of need. The relations in which we stand to God, as represented in Scripture, are such as we sus¬ tain only to a Being possessing attributes resembling our own. He is not only our Euler but the Father of our spirits, with whom we can hold a personal and immediate communion. “ His favour is life, and his loving-kindness better than life.” This revelation of God as to His own nature, and as to His relation to us, is not a deception. It is not mere regulative knowledge, or it would be naught but illusion and mockery. It makes God known to us as He truly is, so far as in our present state we can possibly understand Him. But God hath “ in these last days,” or under this concluding dispensation of grace, given us a still more sublime revelation of Himself in the person of His Son. The Son of God became man ; but His humanity represented more than the human, because it included more than the human. It was the temple AND GOVERNMENT OF GOD. 57 of the indwelling Deity. “ In Him dwelt all the fulness of the Godhead bodily.” He was “Emmanuel, God with us.” The revelation He made of Himself was the manifestation of God. He could and did proclaim, “ he that hath seen Me hath seen the Father ” — the invisible through the visible. He has been styled by the Church the God-Man ; because His words were the words of God, and His works the works of God. The compassion, gentleness, and grace, as well as the holy zeal, severity, and power, manifested by Christ, were all manifestations of God. In Him we see, as with our own eyes, what God truly is. We see that, although Infinite and Abso¬ lute, He can think, and will, and act ; that He can love and he displeased ; that He can hear prayer, and show mercy and forgiveness ; that we can hold fellowship with Him, as one person with another. Had man continued in his original estate, we know not that he would have required any other guide than the normal development of his intellectual, moral, and religious faculties, in order to understand all the relations in which he stands to the external world, to his fellow-creatures, and to God. But man is not in his original estate. He de¬ sired to he “ as God, knowing good and evil,” — to obtain know- ledge without pursuing the divinely prescribed path of obe¬ dience and self - discipline. The knowledge thus acquired, being, in fact, a false development, was augmented by every sin that followed. For all sin tends to develop in a wrong direction the natural faculties of man. We are taught this by experience as well as by Sacred Scripture. This abnormal development has, through the universality of sin, become a dominant power, and henceforth man is no longer able to regain the Divine likeness by the direct path, but only by a return from the false to the true course of development. This is the great aim and design of Christianity. Accordingly, what Scripture designates “ repentance,” or “ conversion,” is nothing else but a return from this mis-development, which renders us more and more unlike God, to a true, moral, and religious condition, through which we once more attain to the likeness of God. On the one hand, the original character of man, as bearing the Divine impress, has been darkened and obscured by the misguiding power of sin ; and on the other, our eternal 58 THE EXISTENCE, NATURE, prototype — God — is invisible : it therefore became necessary that God should again place before our eyes His holy image in a perfect form, as a pattern and example, whereby we might be able to recognise both Him and ourselves — our true nature and eternal destiny. It is only by returning to the Divine image that man can fulfil the end of his creation. But this was and is a task no longer possible without Christ. In Him, therefore, who is the image of “ the invisible God,” and also the pure and sinless Son of Man, humanity was manifested in its most perfect likeness to God. “ Ho man hath seen God (the Father) at any time : the only-begotten Son who is in the bosom of the Father, He hath declared Him.” This is the nearest approach to an open vision of the Almighty that has ever been or can be obtained by man in his present state. We cannot behold Him in His glory, for no man can see His face and live. But we see His glory shining with a mild radiance and reflected lustre in the person of His Son ; not so intense as to prevent us from approaching Him, or deter us from imitating Him, but drawing us to God by the most powerful attractions, and teaching us to aspire to the imitation and the enjoyment of the Father of our spirits. We are thus brought near to God by the incarnation of His Son, who assumed our nature that we might rise to the re¬ semblance of His. Philosophy can no longer maintain her false position in the presence of the Man Christ Jesus. In that presence she may not presume to say that God is not and cannot be what Christ Himself clearly was. The doctrine that God is not and cannot be what we think Him to be ; that we are ignorant of what He is ; that He is to us “ an unknown God,” — is utterly destructive of all rational religion, because it is inconsistent with the possibility of faith. If this is all the information philosophy can disclose on so important a subject, it would even be merciful were it withheld. It is a sad outcome ! The worship of all Christian Churches, and the prayers of all Christian people, are offered to the “ un¬ known God.” We cannot trust our religious consciousness ; it is a distorting and colouring medium, through which objects cannot be presented as they really are. We cannot trust Divine Bevelation, because it represents only how God wills AND GOVERNMENT OF GOD. 59 that we should think of Him, not what He really is ; but we know that its representations are not true, though how far from the truth we know not. Since the Patriarch, in the bitter anguish of his spirit, exclaimed — “ Oh that I knew where I might find Him ! that I might come even to His seat ” — many, many a troubled heart has lifted up the same cry. Philosophy has no answer to it save one. “ You cannot find Him, you cannot know Him ; something you may find, some¬ thing you may know, hut not the Divine Being as He truly is.” But there is a soul-cheering answer to the inquiry of a very different kind, and from a very different source. “We know that the Son of God is come, and hath given us an un¬ derstanding, that we may know Him that is true.” 1 The history of religion abundantly testifies that the human mind, independently of Bevelation, has never been able to form a just idea of what God is. God suffered the heathen world — which had wellnigh lost all traces of that knowledge of Himself that primeval humanity possessed — “to follow their own ways.” He gave them a period of several thousand years in which they should seek Him, “ if haply they might feel after Him, and find Him.” And what knowledge of God did they attain to ? To an obscure sentiment, breaking forth here and there, hut not to any clear knowledge of God, much less to the apprehension of the simplest truth of all, that He is and must be a personal Being. Neither in ancient nor in modern times has any heathen nation been found which, by its own efforts of thought, has been able to arrive at a right knowledge of the One Living, Personal God. If we turn to Brahminism we may indeed discern, at least in its most ancient elements, some clear traces of a Monotheism. But even if the thoughts of the old Hindus did sometimes ascend from the contemplation of the deified forms of nature — such as the sun, the lightnings, and the hurricanes — to that of the Great Pirst Cause of all things, this Cause was not regarded as the One Personal Creator, but as an impersonal existence, of which all that could be known of it was, that it is not actual reality, and therefore any personal communion with it in prayer was impossible. Such was the Monotheism of the 1 1 John v. 20. 60 THE EXISTENCE, NATURE, Brahmins, and it was attained only by the surrender of the Living Character and Personality of God, and so was com¬ pletely pantheistic ; whilst, on the other hand, the popular view, adhering to belief in personifications of natural phe¬ nomena, thereby lost the Divine Unity in Polytheism. As to Mahometanism we need not speak, because Mahomet himself arrived at Monotheism not through any philosophic specula¬ tions of his own, but by means of Judaism chiefly, though to some extent also of Christianity. If we seek God in the realm of heathen thought, how little knowledge is obtained to cheer the longing heart or recompense the ardent spirit of inquiry ! In the Dialogues of Plato we find the notion of God deduced from acute syllogisms, but He is regarded as One who remains far from us. The heathen world had a knowledge of the power of God, but scarcely any of His holiness. It occasionally assigned to the gods its own human beauty, but with it also its own vices. To the gods of even the most cultured heathen nations are attributed the same moral infirmities as men. It may be said that the Greek philosophers did not share in the popular notions con¬ cerning the gods. This is so far correct, for some of them em¬ phatically opposed those gross conceptions, and so approached nearer to the idea of Monotheism ; but not one completely attained to this idea. With them the Divine Being was always losing Himself in nature, or some universal idea. Even of Plato it cannot be affirmed that he ever reached the idea of a Divine, Self-conscious, Personal Being. Whatever may have been his own natural conviction, his system itself, in con¬ sistency, excludes any personality of God. Eor if only the universal (the idea) is what truly is, the absolute idea, or God, must also be absolutely universal. It would seem that he never definitely put to himself the entire question of the personality of God ; at all events, it is nowhere put in his Dialogues. It is true that Aristotle approximated nearer to the idea of a personal God than Plato. But even with him it was not an absolute, free, creative power, but One limited by primordial matter ; not the world’s Creator, but One who shaped and arranged the rude material, and so not truly absolute. What, then, have been the results of the heathen philosophy AND GOVERNMENT OF GOD. 61 in its searching after God ? We may hear it in the honest confession of many of its most distinguished votaries, — in the complaint of Plato, that it is hard to discover the nature of God ; in the utterances of Socrates, that the greatest happiness consisted in knowing the will of the gods — that this could not he discovered by the deductions of reason, and therefore that a Teacher sent from heaven was necessary to instruct mankind in regard to it. Utterances like these reveal to us the earnest longing which existed in the minds of the greatest sages of antiquity for some special Divine Revelation. We find the same sighing after a knowledge of the original source of life in the hymns of the Indian Rigveda, in the ever-recurring refrain, — “ Wlio is the God to whom our gifts belong 1 ” The history of heathenism yields ample testimony to the need in which it stood of Divine Revelation. The ignorant and uninformed could form no conception of God but as of a being resembling themselves, and hence represented Him by forms and images adapted to their prejudices and feelings. Their philosophers fell into an opposite error. As the light of reason failed to guide them to a conception of the nature of God, they were lost and overwhelmed in the immensity of the subject, and could only regard the Supreme Being as an abstract con¬ ception of the mind — as an object of speculative contemplation — and not as entitled to the love, and gratitude, and worship of His creatures. Heathenism is condemned by its own history ; it originated in a false development in consequence of apostasy from God. Forsaking the guiding light of Revelation, it fell into a state of darkness and confusion. In the heathen world scarcely any trace of God’s holiness remained, and the idea of His love was lost. It is Christianity which has restored to us the knowledge of God’s love. It shows us also His holiness, and through His holiness our sin. But the knowledge we thus obtain keeps us at a distance from God. It humbles us before Him, but still keeps us at a distance. But the knowledge which the Son of God, in condescension to our weakness, was manifested to reveal, was not only God’s holiness, and our sin and consequent misery — but that God is our Heavenly Father, and that we may draw near to Him as 62 THE EXISTENCE, NATURE, erring children to a forgiving parent ; that He cares for us, loves us, and desires that we should be reconciled to Him and restored to His favour. The testimony of history makes it evident that the reason and conscience of fallen man are no longer adequate guides to the knowledge of God. The heathen, notwithstanding all their listening to the voice of wisdom as it spoke to them in the very noblest spirits among them, did not attain to the know¬ ledge of God as the Personal, Absolutely Holy One ; but as the Apostle says, “ changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and four-footed beasts, and creeping things ; ” 1 or, what is not less absurd, into an absolute and infinite being, without consciousness, intelligence, or personality. It is true, therefore, as the same Apostle asserts, that “the world by wisdom knew not God.” 2 The metaphysical philosophy of the heathen world was essentially pantheistic. It assumed various forms, but had only one fundamental idea — and this was, that at the root of the diversified phenomena of nature there is a universal prin¬ ciple which constitutes its unity, and that this universal prin¬ ciple is Divine, but not a conscious, personal God. It is only the universal life, which, pervading all things, is the source of all existence. This God is not an independent being, but exists only in the world : the world is His reality, and He is only what imparts reality to it. This Pantheism was the basis on which were reared the religions of heathenism — the religions of a superstitious rever¬ ence for nature. It produced the fantastic and visionary con¬ ceptions of the Hindu philosophy, and it founded the philoso¬ phic schools of Greece. In the mediaeval age it took its form from Neo-Platonism. This was an Eclectic system which accepted such parts of Christianity as were supposed to be compatible with the doctrines of the heathen philosophers at large, though a decided pre-eminence was given to those of Plato. Other doctrines it explained away by a forced simili¬ tude of phraseology with which the heathen schools were familiar. It was a pernicious attempt to extol the character of Platonism through the secret aid of Christianity. The 1 Rom. i. 23. 2 1 Cor. i. 21. AND GOVERNMENT OF GOD. 63 philosophers recognised as the representatives of this system were Plotinus in the third century, Jamblichus in the fourth, and Proclus in the fifth. The Scriptures were now every¬ where dispersed, and, through the force of Divine truth, masses of mankind were drawn away from a vain philosophy to the true knowledge of God and their duty. It was therefore in accordance with the plan of this sect to adopt such doctrines of Christianity into their system as they fancied they could accommodate to their philosophy. The Christian writers had exposed with such unanswerable effect the gross absurdity of heathenism, that many were ashamed to follow it. To these this Eclectic system offered a convenient escape. The success of Neo-Platonism was therefore rapid and extensive ; nor can we wonder that those who had been induced to embrace Chris¬ tianity by those parts of it with which they had been made acquainted through the new philosophy, should understand its doctrines in an imperfect manner, or that they should add to their Christian profession certain notions utterly at variance with it. From the superiority assigned to Plato by this sect was derived the name by which it was known. These remarks may suffice to account for the extraordinary influence on the Christian world of the philosophy of Plato ; and will also serve to explain the false admiration which was entertained for Plato by many patristic writers of the Church, while they employed themselves in combating other doctrines of that school which were attributed to him. Thus Augustine em¬ phatically mentions Plotinus as the best interpreter of the mind of Plato.1 But Brucker has shown that the philosophy which Augustine so highly extolled was not that of Plato, but of Plotinus ; 2 and that he had the courage to retract his error when he became acquainted with it. Thus Plato has been obscured by the overgrowth of his own reputation, and the glosses of this sect have tended greatly to mystify his meaning. The basis of Neo-Platonism was pantheistic. Only One Universal Being exists. This Being is in itself inconceivable 1 “ Plotinus certe nostrse memorise vicinus temporibus, Platonem ceteris excel- lentius intellexisse laudatur.” — Civ. Dei, lib. ix. c. 10. 2 “ Ilia enim, quam mire effert, Platonica pliilosophia, non alia est, quam Plo- tiniana.” — Historia Critica Philosophise, Per. 2, part 2, lib. i. c. 3, § 11. 64 THE EXISTENCE, NATURE, ancl unknowable. It is self-manifested in the world-soul and the world-reason, the union of which constitutes a Trinity — One Substance under different modes of manifestation. The soul of man is a portion of the Divine Substance, and a mode of its existence. Its destiny is absorption into the Universal Being ; but this absorption is not attained by meditation and prayer, but by ecstasy or a mystical destruction of the indi¬ vidual self. Such were the leading tenets of Neo-Platonism; it was a system of philosophy distinctly pantheistic ; and indeed this has been the tendency of all systems which have aimed at accommodating the doctrines of Christianity to a philosophy not founded on Scripture truth. This Eclectic system was checked by the civil establishment of Christianity, but its hopes were soon revived by Julian, himself an Eclectic. After his death its influence again declined ; but it continued in existence till the time of Justinian, by whom it was pro¬ hibited from being publicly taught. During the Middle Ages the authority of the Church was paramount, and the freest philosophical thinkers did not ven¬ ture openly to impugn the doctrines which the Church had sanctioned ; but Johannes Scotus Erigena, a philosopher of the ninth century, and a native of Ireland, having resided and taught many years at Paris, under the protection and patron¬ age of Charles the Bald of France, at the request of his patron translated into Latin the pretended works of Dionysius the Areopagite, and thus paved the way for that form of mystic Pantheism which prevailed among the schoolmen down to the period of the Reformation. It was this system which, when it found its way among the people, as it did among the Brethren of the Free Spirit, yielded its legitimate fruits of evil, as substantially the same system has done in India. Since the Reformation the revival of Pantheism is specially due to Spinoza, the son of a Portuguese Jew, and born at Amsterdam in 1632. Descartes had defined substance to be “ a thing which so exists, as not to depend on anything else for its existence.” He acknowledged, however, not only the existence of mind, but also of God and matter. Spinoza accepted the definition of a substance as given by Descartes, but denied the possibility of there being more substances than AND GOVERNMENT OF GOD. 65 one. According to him, this one substance is the self- existent and all-perfect God ; all other creatures and things not only originated from Him, but in such a manner as to consist of Him, and be inseparable from Him. They exist in God and God in them. The whole universe is God, existing and acting in numberless modes and forms which His infinite wisdom has devised. Spinozism, however, is not the Berkeleyan theory, so extended as to include minds as well as material things. Berkeley supposed material objects to be nothing more than a constant divine operation supplying the place of permanent material causes. But Spinoza did not suppose either matter or mind to be anything more than a divine operation ; he admitted them to be a constant efflux of divine power, which, though sustained and actuated permanently by the Divine Being, have yet in themselves the power of action according to the laws impressed upon them. He agreed with Descartes in holding the essence of mind to consist in thinking, and the essence of matter to consist in extension. And believing that there can be but one proper substance or Self-existing Being, from whom and in whom all created beings and things have their existence, he supposed this self-existing substance or Being to be at once infinite mind or thinking poioer , and infinite extension ; and that when He creates finite minds, it is by sending forth a portion of His power, to think, will, and choose, according to certain laws and when He creates material objects, it is in like manner by sending forth a portion of His other essential nature, extension,. to fill appropriate places, to move and be moved, and to ex¬ hibit all the phenomena which we ascribe to material bodies. According to this theory, therefore, though but one substance is possible, we nevertheless come into contact with two classes of phenomena, those of thought and extension. Thought and extension are the two attributes of the one self-existing sub¬ stance. Individual things are the modes under which the self-existing substance is constantly manifested. In the phil¬ osophic system of Spinoza there are three radical ideas, sub¬ stance, attribute, and mode ; but of these that of substance appears to us under one aspect as thought, and under another as extension. The difference is only apparent, not real. The E 66 THE EXISTENCE, NATURE, finite, therefore, is excluded, and so can have no real existence. The universe is absorbed into the Infinite ; and the Infinite is a substance of which nothing can be either affirmed or denied. It is evident that Spinoza carried his speculations beyond the verge of human knowledge, where obscurity must ever reign. His system, as developed in the ‘ Ethica/ is avowedly pantheistic. It is a piece of metaphysical abstraction, a pure creation of the intellect ; but it is simple, pure, and unique, and has been considered as the best test of a pantheistic theory. It is true that Pantheism carried out to its logical consequences becomes Atheism, and that Materialism is the in¬ evitable result. But neither in theory nor in personal character can Spinoza be regarded as atheistic. He was of an amiable and inoffensive disposition, upright in his morals, and pious in his way. His system of philosophy has Theism in its very centre, though it be Pantheism, and the whole tenor of his mind was alien to atheistic belief. To him God is the only Being, the only Substance before whom all things have only a phenomenal existence. And his aim was to build up, on this idea of God, as a foundation, a system of morals by a rigorous mathematical method. The great defect of his system is the illogical attempt to reduce elements essentially different to unity of substance. It represents the Absolute as constrained to act — God as a necessary cause, and free only in the sense of acting by the necessity of His own existence, — an assump¬ tion which denies to Deity any choice in acting. To aggravate the difficulty, it virtually suppresses individuality and free will, since all finite things, not excepting human actions, are only parts of a necessary chain of sequences. These are fatal ob¬ jections to the metaphysical, and still more to the moral side of the speculation. It will be obvious that a system such as this, being incapable of any historical process, can admit of no dis¬ tinction between Nature and Ptevelation, and therefore excludes the fundamental idea of Christianity, the Incarnation. To the eye of Spinoza everything is divine, so far as it has being at all : but “ the ALL ” for which he contends is not a theory of the universe as known to us. The Continental mind recoiled from Spinoza’s doctrine of the Absolute Substance, with its reduction of all beings to a AND GOVERNMENT OF GOD. 67 state of impersonality. He had scarcely a disciple in the age in which he lived. The ‘ Ethica Ordine Geometrico Demon¬ strata/ in which was elaborated his philosophical system, was the greatest production of his pen, though a posthumous pub¬ lication. His treatise of next importance, ‘ Tractatus Theologico- Politicus,’ was published in his lifetime, but anonymously. This treatise, though in perfect harmony with his religious opinions as expounded in the ‘ Ethica,’ is yet independent of that work. It proposes to be a review of the relation between Church and State, but its real object is rather theological than political. It discusses the whole subject of Biblical criticism, and con¬ tains most vehement attacks on the inspiration of Scripture. Spinoza contends that religion is not doctrine, but the love of God ; and that doctrines belong exclusively to philosophy. In support of this assertion he asks — Is not a fact recorded by the historian one thing, but when coloured by his imagination another ? Is not the Pentateuch a medley of early fragments ? And were not the Hebrew prophets men of strong natural gifts, which enabled them to see far beyond their time ? The ‘ Tractatus Theologico-Politicus ’ is written in a vigorous style, and full of enthusiasm, but pervaded with the most dangerous opinions on Scripture exegesis, and has been the text-book of Rationalists for the last two centuries. Thus Spinoza was not only the author of a pantheistic theory of the universe, but also the real founder of the whole scheme of modern Ration¬ alism. Bayle, in his c Dictionnaire Historique et Critique,’ con¬ verted the dogmatism of Descartes and Spinoza into Scepticism or Ereethinking, which in due time began to spread its wither¬ ing influence over Holland. From Holland this Scepticism was transferred to England, where it assumed the modern form of Deistic Rationalism. The principles of English Deism extended into France, and succeeded for a time in upsetting all religious faith in the ruling classes of society. In Germany the Rationalistic defection did not begin with denying the Divine authority of the Scriptures, but in explaining away their essential doctrines. During the latter part of the last, and first part of the present century, the leading theologians of Germany were Rationalists. The first effective blow given to their system was by Kant. 68 THE EXISTENCE, NATURE, The Eationalists assumed that they were able to demon- strate the truths of religion on the principles of reason. Kant, in his ‘ Critique of Pure Eeason,’ undertook to prove that all thought is but subjective, and therefore that we know nothing of any religious truth with objective certainty. Ea- tionalism had claimed a perfect knowledge of God and of Divine things, but Kant showed that reason, so far from reach¬ ing the mysteries of God, could not even demonstrate His existence. He showed, in his ‘ Critique of Practical Eeason,’ that there is only a moral certainty in conscience and its de¬ mands. God, immortality, retribution, are demands of con¬ science, and on this basis he constructs his moral system. He thus attributes to man the power of reason under two different relations, — the speculative or theoretical, and the practical or moral. Speculative reason relates to man’s knowledge — practical to man’s conduct. Speculative reason does not, according to Kant, give to man a knowledge of the Infinite, but on the contrary expressly excludes the possibility of such knowledge. But a theory which both denies to man the pos¬ sibility of any knowledge of God, and at the same time affirms that such knowledge is necessary in order that he may exist as a moral being, is not only self- destructive, but subverts the very basis on which a sound philosophy can be reared. To make the statements of reason contradictory, is to render it untrustworthy, and thus to shake the confidence of that faith in God which is the only foundation of true religion. The latent error in the Kantian system is the exaggerated valuation of the subjective. The Ego with Kant is nearly the all, the Non-Ego is next to nothing. The existence of the ex¬ ternal universe is not denied ; he finds its reality in conscious¬ ness, but it is reduced to a minimum. There is an unknown substratum in which phenomena reside ; yet the Non-Ego is, notwithstanding, all but phenomenal, all but subjective. Even the Ego itself, the Ego of consciousness, is only the Ego plieno- menised, for the Ego, thinking, willing, acting, is a fact of consciousness. It is impossible not to see that in the theory thus propounded by Kant there is a tendency to a pure, subjective idealism ; and this was the course which German thought took in the theories which succeeded it. AND GOVERNMENT OF GOD. 69 Fichte was at first the disciple, and ever after the profound admirer, of the Konigsberg sage. But he was gifted with an intellect too powerful and too lofty to be restrained. The disciple accepted the conclusions of his master, but he argued, if no evidence derived from experience be valid, and if the very existence of effects and causes be merely forms of thought which the mind impresses upon external phenomena, — then no data remain for a universe at all. If what we call matter be nothing more than a system or correlation of effects and causes ; and if this correlation be proved to be no part of real matter, — then what else is left to an outward world but the name ? Such was the argument of Fichte ; and considering the pre¬ mises from which he reasoned, it cannot be said that his con¬ clusion was illogical. Kant had reduced the objective to the smallest possible minimum. Fichte reduced it to nil. Kant had deprived external phenomena of all the qualities which are commonly ascribed to them : he had not only abstracted from them what are called their secondary qualities, such as hardness, softness, heat, and cold, — to have gone thus far was strictly scientific, — but he had gone further ; he had main¬ tained that the very forms of things were wholly creations of the mind, wholly the results of subjective changes and laws. It seems strange that having gone thus far, he did not proceed to his destined goal, but suddenly brought his critical process to a halt. He still professed to believe in an external world, even after he had made it disappear like a dissolving scene. He had deprived it of every possible quality which could make it real, yet he professed to believe that he had left something undestroyed — something without us which never comes as phenomenon — an unknown and unknowable substance or sub¬ stratum, and to this we might give the name of matter. But Fichte replied, — Why cling to the name when you have taken away the thing ? Why maintain the existence of that which is unrevealed, which we have no possibility of knowing ? You say that all our experiences of the external world are only forms of thought with which the mind clothes the objects of sense. Why then speak of an outer world at all ? Why assert that there is anything apart from mind ? Why not include everything within the Ego and its manifestations ? 70 THE EXISTENCE, NATURE, Such was the argument of Fichte. If the Ego could he carried so far as Kant had enunciated, he argued that it must be carried further still. The disciple took up the critical ex¬ amination where the master had stopped, and made his starting- point the non-existence of an external world. Knowledge can only he derived from the facts of consciousness. Conscious¬ ness cannot transcend itself. It can hear testimony only to what is within ; further it cannot go. All our knowledge, therefore, is included within the subjective and its phenomena. This doctrine is expressed in the formula : “ The Ego is the One and All.” By this formula Fichte does not mean there is no such thing as matter — that would have been no new doctrine — hut that there is only One Mind in the uni¬ verse. This one mind or being is absolute, and yet not absolute, in so far as experience testifies of an objectivity, by which, as by a Non-Ego, the absoluteness of the Ego is limited, that is, excluded. From this objectivity the Ego is unable to free itself. It is only in consequence of this objectivity which it experiences within itself, which resists its progress and prevents it from realising its full subjectivity, that it thinks of this inward resistance as if it were something over against it, and outward to it. This is the reason why the Ego or Universal Principle conceives itself to be divided into a number of different individuals or persons, each seeking to subsist independently of the other, and even by the destruction of the other. Could subjectivity succeed in its attempt to vanquish all objectivity — that is, to swallow up all being in itself — the omnipotence at which it would thus apparently have arrived would be converted into Nihilism. For thought having lost its object and content, would thereby cease. This was the theory of Fichte. It was argued out and sus¬ tained on the premises of Kant, yet in its conception it would seem to have been influenced by the system of Spinoza. His doctrine that there is only One Mind in the universe, is perhaps the nearest approach to Idealistic Pantheism which the world has ever seen. It has been said there is a sense in which pantheistic doctrine is to be found in Scripture — the sense in which St Paul declares that “ in Him we live, and AND GOVERNMENT OF GOD. 71 move, and have our being ; ” but the argument of the Apostle in bis address to the Athenians contains nothing pantheistic whatever. His object is to prove to them the existence of a God and a Providence. “ He made the world,” he says, “ and all things therein ; ” “ He giveth to all life, and breath, and all things.” If, therefore, it be the duty of all men to seek after God, because they have natural life, breath, and motion from Him — how much more should the new creature, who has a spiritual life breathed into and bestowed upon him, seek after God, in the enjoyment of whose favour his present and eternal happiness depends ? The system of Pichte, so far from being reconcilable with the doctrine of St Paul, does not admit that there is a God in any sense in whom “ we live, and move, and have our being.” It necessarily excludes the idea of a personal God, for there is but One Mind in the universe. This Solitary Mind cannot be called the Creator, for there is nothing to create ; it cannot be designated a Providence, for there is nothing to provide for ; it does not admit that such beings as we live, and move, and have any being at all. It acknowledges only the existence of One Solitary Mind. Such was the result of Fichte’s metaphysical speculations. Having renounced at the outset the reality of the objective, he maintained all the more resolutely the reality of the sub¬ jective, and arrived, by pure reason, at the idea of a world whose essence is unknown, and around and above which there is nothing. When Sclielling and Hegel were accused of Pantheism, they both repelled the charge with indignation. But with equal indignation did Fichte resent the same charge when it was brought against him. The respective theories of these phil¬ osophers were wrought out by them according to the rules of what they deemed the strictest logic, and, within the province of abstract thought, exerted over them an absolute sway ; yet all the while it would appear that they separated the meta¬ physical speculations as completely from the moral convictions as if they belonged to different spheres. How this separation was effected we cannot explain, for we do not understand it. But it would seem as if the religious and moral convictions of these philosophers could not be correctly ascertained by the 72 THE EXISTENCE, NATURE, systems which they propounded. Thus though the meta¬ physical philosophy of Fichte had landed him in atheistical conclusions, yet the moral sentiments of his soul appear, in some inexplicable way, to have been preserved. For among the sons of the German fatherland there lived not, there breathed not, a spirit more noble, more pure, more unselfish than that of Fichte. He who, in the campaigns of 1813, in his old age, when the fervour of youth is supposed to have passed away, could publish “Addresses to the German people,” calling upon them to rise against Gallican oppression, and re¬ nerve themselves with their ancient historic valour, — he who, when the most of his life had been spent in other fields, could now go forth to the field of battle, not to fight, hut to minister — he who, by his brave and devoted services to the sick and wounded, met a death approaching the heroic, — has encircled his memory with a lustre that shall survive when his system of philosophy shall have crumbled in the dust. The metaphysical theory of Schelling is known as the Doc¬ trine of Identity ( Identitalehrc ). It is so named from its main¬ taining the perfect identity of spirit and matter, the ideal and real, the subjective and objective. It is also called the Doctrine of All-One ( AUeinlieitlehre or Allcinslehre), because it main¬ tains that the universe is God, and God the universe : in other words, that God, developing Himself in various forms and according to general laws, is the only existence. The influence of Spinoza on the philosophy of Schelling is most evident. The Absolute which he assumes is virtually the universal substance of Spinoza, and the subject and object of Schelling are virtually the two modes of substance, thought and extension , as evolved by Spinoza. But further, Schelling en¬ deavours to show that the Absolute is continually separating into the double world of mind and matter, and that subject and object are only relatively opposed to one another as differ¬ ent forms of the Absolute. Subject and Object, therefore, though apart, are also identical. There are two poles of the Absolute, like the negative and positive extremes of the mag¬ net, the centre being the indifference point in which the two meet and are one. The Absolute is thus an infinite — subject : — object evolving itself in two forms, as mind and matter. AND GOVERNMENT OF GOD. 73 There is a process of evolution from the Absolute, into mind on the one hand, and into matter on the other. There is also a process of resumption in which mind and matter are restored to identity in the Absolute — are absorbed in the essential unity of the whole. Still a difficulty remains. How is it that these two mys¬ terious streams — the course of human intelligence in the subjective world, and the course of nature in the objective world — should so perfectly agree or be identical in all their effluxes and influxes ? Our actual observation cannot trace them back to their original fountain, nor follow them along to their ultimate termination ; how, then, can the mystery of their entire coincidence be explained ? The answer of Schel- ling is : Spinoza has shown us that there is only one substans, or one real existence in the universe — God — who is continu¬ ally developing Himself, and by that development gives being to all that exists, whether spiritual or material. Here then, he says, we have a Key to the mystery. The two streams emanate from one and the same source — God — as He existed anterior to His development. They are equally in their essence God, or the divine first principle of all things, who develops himself alike in both. They are therefore not two, but one and the same, in their essential nature, and also in the laws of their evolution. We thus arrive at the source from which all things emanate, and in which all their contrarieties and diversities ultimately terminate and coalesce — in the Absolute or the All-One, in its primitive form or condi¬ tion. According to the theory of Schelling, therefore, all true philosophy must begin with a knowledge of this primal All-One, and it is only by tracing the development of this All-One, till it expands itself into the universe around us, that a complete and perfect system of philosophy can be obtained. It was also maintained by Schelling that the knowledge of the Absolute can be reached by us through a process of ab¬ sorption and identification. The capacity of this highest knowledge, which is possessed only by a gifted few of the human race, he calls the power of intellectual intuition. The soul, by sinking back into the depths of itself, into a state 74 THE EXISTENCE, NATURE, beyond consciousness, loses itself for a time by absorption into pure Being. Thus identified and absorbed, and only thus, the mind rises to a knowledge of the Absolute. This fanciful hypothesis is not philosophy but undisguised mysticism. Its absurdity and self-contradictions are obvious. If this extraordinary faculty lies wholly beyond the sphere of consciousness, how do we become aware of possessing and using it ? And if we are not aware of its existence at the time when it is called into exercise, how can we remember it afterwards, since we remember only that of which we have been conscious ? The pantheistic principle of Spinoza, or the doctrine that God unfolds and expands Himself into the existing universe, after it seemed for a long time buried in oblivion, was thus revived by Schelling and made the basis of his philosophy. It found numerous supporters in Germany ; yet many em¬ braced the principle on which Schelling’s philosophy was found¬ ed who did not follow his opinions, but carried it into new systems of philosophy, of which it formed an essential element. Even Eichte, when he found that the German mind so strongly recoiled at his assertion that God is only “ the moral order of the universe ,” did not hesitate to adopt Schelling’s idea of a real substance out of which everything finite is evolved. In¬ stead, therefore, of maintaining that the I, or the human mind, is the only real existence in the universe, he assumed as a new basis and source of all philosophy the idea of God, of which the /, from its participation in the Divine nature, is capable of an immediate and true knowledge. But his attempt to remodel his system, and thereby to render it more acceptable to public sentiment, only tended to convince people that it had no solid foundation, and to induce his followers to seek other guides in philosophical speculations. The system of Schelling, viewed as a philosophical theory, is untenable ; because it annihilates religion and moral obli¬ gation, by subjecting everything to blind fate or a natural necessity, for God must develop Himself, and whatever occurs is the result of the laws of nature ; because it is a pure crea¬ tion of the intellect, exhibiting no substantial proofs, but only positive assumptions and bare hypotheses ; and because it AND GOVERNMENT OF GOD. 75 presumptuously asserts that man may have a perfect know¬ ledge of the Absolute, by retiring from consciousness and becoming himself a part of the One Absolute Being. In 1809 Schelling changed the form of his system from that in which it appeared at first, and issued a treatise on human liberty. In that treatise he abandoned the theory he had formerly advanced — that mind and matter are identical — and endeavoured to free himself from the charge of Pantheism which it had, and apparently with the very strongest ground, raised against him. Hegel, the most celebrated of the German metaphysicians, always excepting Kant, whose originality and logical acumen are unsurpassed, was at first a disciple of Schelling and a de¬ fender of his philosophy ; but he gradually separated himself from his master, and rejected in particular his doctrine of in¬ tellectual intuition. Yet he continued to retain Schelling’s leading idea — the unity of the subjective or ideal, and of the objective or real ; and in this idea endeavoured to establish that it is absolute knowledge and absolute truth which alone, according to him, can satisfy the demands of philosophy. Hence he maintained that pure conception in itself is Being ; and that real Being is nothing hut pure conception. Thus the system of Hegel was one of absolute idealism ; while that of Schelling was rather one of realism. Por Schelling, like Spinoza, considered the ALL-One as a real substance, which develops and expands itself into the existing universe ; whereas Hegel considered mere ideas or conceptions as the only real existences, and that there is nothing in the universe more substantial than these. According to him, therefore, a logical analysis of ideas or conceptions is the only true metaphysics, or the proper science of things ; and Logic, instead of being, as it has generally been regarded, a science that treats only of abstract forms of thought, and the rules of correct reasoning, is really a science of things, and the only source of true philo¬ sophical knowledge. In accordance with these views, Hegel defines the word idea to be what is true in and for itself, or the entire identity between the conception of a thing and the thing in its objective existence — that is, between the ideal and the real. The definition of idea and definition of truth are 76 THE EXISTENCE, NATURE, with him one and the same thing;. The idea is what he calls the Absolute. He divides his system into three parts — Logic, or the science of idea in itself (an sick) ; Philosophy of Nature, or the science of idea in its secondary state (in ihrem Anderseyn ) ; and Philosophy of Mind, or the science of idea in its return from its secondary state into itself. The Absolute is the starting-point of the Hegelian system. The Absolute is the eternal, unbeginning Idea, and phenomena are the analysis and reconstitution, the egress and regress of the Idea. What, then, are the elements into which the Absolute may be re¬ solved ? (1.) The Absolute is pure Being, bare existence, with no determinate quality — no attributes, no consciousness. As the Absolute is thus a mere abstraction, it is equal to Nothing. (2.) Non-Being or the absolute-negative is, in like manner, equal to Nothing ; for as Being, which is a mere abstraction, has nothing to determine it, to make it a thing, is absolutely Nothing — so Non-Being, which has nothing to designate or define it, is, in like manner, absolutely Nothing. In this respect, therefore, Being is the same as Non-Being. Being and Non-Being are both absolutely unconditioned, and on the same account are both alike included in the Absolute. These, then, are the two elements which enter into the idea of the Absolute ; but in order to their being contradistinguished, they must be placed over against each other as a positive and a negative, and by their moments or the movement of the one into the other, and only thus, is the formation of a distinct idea possible. According to the Hegelian system, therefore, every idea is made up of three elements, two of which are contradictory to each other, and the third is a link which binds them together, and constitutes their unity. Being (Das Seyn), mere unconscious being, would for ever have remained unconscious being. Another being (ein Anders-seyn) was necessary. Only by being contrasted with this other some¬ thing could das Seyn determine itself — become conscious of itself. But the Anders-seyn must be nothing (das Nichts), because only thus could the idea be verified. This Non-Being, then, was the only medium through which the Being could attain to the distinction of existence, and come into self-con- AND GOVERNMENT OF GOD. 77 sciousness. So that, according to the theory, “ Non-Being is Being.” The other Being (Anders-seyn) became a reality ; it became as Being to the Seyn. Separate, they were to each other as nothing ; together, they constitute actual existence (das Daseyn). This is illustrated by the verb to become (werden), for whatever becomes anything, passes over from not being that thing to becoming that thing. Being in itself is the same as the Absolute of which we know nothing, except that in it ALL is One. Into this idea of the Absolute, Being and Non-Being alike enter; apart they are each as nothing, but combined and unified they result in the becoming (das Werden) ; there is an evolution from them into self-consciousness — there is the formation of a distinct idea, a transition from non-existence into reality. We have thus the Absolute idea resolved into its elements — “ das Seyn, das Nichts (das Anders-seyn), das Werden.” This is the un¬ beginning, unending process. The universe is the evolution of this idea — an eternal becoming, an incessant groiving up into reality, that is, ideal reality ; for, according to Hegel, there is no other. Ideas are real things, and there are no real things but only ideas. That this system is Pantheism in its most abstract form is not to be denied, although Hegel did not regard it in that light. It is impossible that Pantheism can ever be more than a philosophical speculation. The incompetency of the Hegel¬ ian scheme to produce a theory of existence will be evident from the circumstance that the first requisite of the system is moment or movement. Por the question at once meets us — How can movement come from indeterminate, unconscious being ? It is no answer to this question to be told that it comes from an inherent necessity to develop itself, for this is pure supposition. It still leaves the question unsolved, unless the movement here meant be a mere mental conception, in which case the claim of the system to account for actual existence must be given up. The whole Hegelian theory is founded on assumption, and cannot possibly account for the existence of the universe, or the operation of its laws. There never was, there never could be, an Absolute such as it sup¬ poses, save in the wildest reverie of the imagination. That 78 THE EXISTENCE, NATURE, there could be such an evolution of unconscious into conscious being is a supposition the reverse of common-sense ; and yet the Hegelian system was hailed over Germany as the one phil¬ osophy, the theory of the universe, the science of sciences. But now that fifty years have elapsed since the death of Hegel, he is said to have more admirers in Oxford than in Berlin. Indeed Fichte, Schelling, and Hegel belong very much to the past even in Germany. Yet these were men not only of great learning, and of subtle and grasping intellect, but, what is more important, sincere and anxious inquirers after truth — men who laboured to discover a process by which the problem of the universe could be solved. And hence, though they all landed in Idealism and Pantheism, yet not one of them either avowed Atheism or treated religion with levity and contempt. On the contrary, they all professed to be adherents of the Lutheran Church, although we should conceive it to be as im¬ possible to bring any one of their theories into unison with the creed of that Church as it would be to unite the north pole with the south. We cannot understand how their Chris¬ tian faith was kept quite separate from the philosophical systems they expounded, unless on the supposition that the abstract speculations of their after years were never able to obliterate the religious impressions of their youth. In the life of Schleiermacher, who held a place in his own country mid¬ way between the extremes of Christian doctrine and doubt, we have a case in support of this view. When quite young, he was placed under the care of the Moravian brotherhood ; and it was among those devout people that he became inspired with that enthusiastic love of religious feeling which char¬ acterised his entire life. The traces of Moravian piety are perceptible in all his writings ; they are interwoven even with his most speculative thoughts, and in the long-run the religious impressions of his early years survived the philosophy of his manhood. We quote his own very touching words concerning his early training. “ Piety,” he says, “ was the maternal bosom, in the sacred shade of which my youth was passed, and which prepared me for the yet unknown scenes of the world. In piety my spirit breathed before I found my pecu¬ liar station in science and the affairs of life ; it aided me when AND GOVERNMENT OF GOD. 79 I began to examine into the faith of my fathers, and to purify my thoughts and feelings from all alloy ; it remained with me when the God and immortality of my childhood disappeared from my doubting sight.” The speculative philosophy of Germany may be said to have been unknown in this country, with but few exceptions, even to our metaphysicians, till the appearance of Sir W. Hamilton’s review of Cousin’s ‘ Cours de Philosophie ’ in 1829. In that celebrated review he demonstrated by the most inexorable logic that no knowledge of the Infinite God could be attained through the medium of mere abstract speculation, and that a system of the universe on such a basis, however ably advocated, was impossible. He showed that these wild and absurd abstractions concerning the Unconditioned, the Absolute, the Infinite, were outside the sphere of logical science, and were totally incognisable and inconceivable. But unhappily he, Samson-like, was involved in the ruin he had inflicted upon others. For he held that the Infinite is an object of faith but not of knowledge, and that all he had maintained of the Infinite of the transcendentalists was equally true of the Infinite Being. Thus, in overthrowing Pantheism, he over¬ threw also Theism. It has nevertheless been asserted, that while he affirmed that the Unconditioned, the Absolute, the Infinite — these ideal abstractions — are wholly inconceivable and unknowable, he never affirmed that the Infinite God is wholly inconceivable and unknowable. In proof of this asser¬ tion, reference is made to his own statement, — “ The Divinity, in a certain sense, is revealed ; in a certain sense is concealed.” This statement would, no doubt, fully bear out the assertion, for it comprises the whole truth in the case. Unfortunately, however, he veils and contradicts it in the very next sentence, — “ But the last and highest consecration of all true religion must be an altar * Ayvwcrrw ’ — ‘ To the unknown and unknowable God.’ ” 1 Moreover, Mansel assumes the conclu¬ sions arrived at by Hamilton in reference to the Unconditioned, the Absolute, the Infinite, as the starting-point of his Bampton Lectures, and boldly vindicates their application to God, the living God. God, very God, according to him, is wholly un- 1 Discussions, p. 15. 80 THE EXISTENCE, NATURE, conceived and unknown, — “ is not an object of human thought at all.” The doctrine of Hamilton and Mansel as to the knowledge of God is inconsistent with the veracity of consciousness, which is the fundamental principle of their philosophy. They both admit that the facts of consciousness must be accepted, else philosophy is impossible. On this subject, however, they did not accept these facts, but adopted the definitions of the Abso¬ lute and Infinite, from the theories of transcendental phil¬ osophy, and thereby were led to all the erroneous conclusions they have drawn from them. These definitions are unques¬ tionably of heathen origin. They existed in the pantheistic schools of Greece, were maintained by the Neo-Platonists of the middle ages, and were borrowed from them by the transcendentalists of Germany. If Hamilton and Mansel, therefore, chose to adopt the definitions of pantheistic philo¬ sophy, they could not possibly avoid pantheistic conclusions. Definitions determine everything, but when they lead to contradictions and absurdities, when they are inconsistent with the laws of our intellectual and moral nature, when they subvert the testimony of consciousness, common-sense, and Scripture, the proof is ample enough that they must be wrong. The whole question concerning our knowledge of God de¬ pends upon the meaning we attach to the idea of knowledge. Hamilton and Mansel, having adopted the definitions of the ideal transcendentalists, affirm that God is inconceivable, un¬ thinkable, and unknowable. They use the words interchange¬ ably as having the same meaning. In their sense, accordingly, God cannot be an object of conception, nor of thought, nor of knowledge. By conception they understand that of which we can form a mental image. In this sense of the word the Infinite God is “ inconceivable,” for we cannot form an image of Him in our minds. But in common acceptation a concep¬ tion is not necessarily an image, but a thought, a notion, an idea, which involves no contradiction nor impossibility. Thus the soul is that part of man of which we cannot frame a mental image, yet we can think of it, we can have a distinct notion or idea of it. But we cannot think of a round square, AND GOVEENMENT OF GOD. 81 or of a triangle having four sides, because these things involve contradictions — are impossible. We cannot “ think the Infinite” in the sense in which Hamilton employs this peculiar phrase, for with him “ to think a thing ” is to bring it within the limits of our thinking power. In this sense, no doubt, the Infinite is “ unthinkable,” because it is without limits ; never¬ theless to think of the Infinite, to form ideas concerning it, is quite possible. The Infinite is also unknowable in the sense of comprehending it, for the finite cannot grasp the Infinite. By the Infinite we understand the Infinite One, for in no other sense has it any intelligible meaning. We cannot then know the Infinite One in His infinity ; this point is conceded at once. But it does not thence follow that the nature of God must remain for ever wholly unknown. This would be an in¬ ference at variance with every analogy in every field of science. In all subjects, from the lowest to the highest, a real, though only a partial knowledge, is the essential condition of a created and finite intelligence. Therefore that a real though an im¬ perfect knowledge of God is attainable, and ought to be at¬ tained, is just as natural a belief of the mind as that which we have of our own existence, as His rational and intelligent creatures. We are conscious of our own existence, and this consciousness involves some knowledge of ourselves. In like manner we are conscious of the existence of a Supreme Being, and this consciousness implies a primary knowledge concerning him. This primary knowledge of God is further developed by the exercise of our natural faculties in the contemplation of the outward world, and of our own inward being and con¬ science. And had man continued in his original sinless con¬ dition, and in full fellowship with his Maker, he would, so far as we know, have stood in little need of any other guides. But by the transgression of a moral commandment, his moral and thereby also his intellectual faculties experienced such a dulling and disturbing influence, that nature could no longer avail to lead his mind “ through nature up to nature’s God.” Moreover this same apostasy called into exercise other attri¬ butes of the Deity whereby man might apprehend higher truths than nature alone could teach him, before he could be recovered to the lost favour and image of his Maker again. F 82 THE EXISTENCE, NATURE, That such a revelation was vouchsafed to man immediately after the Fall, we have the testimony not only of the Mosaic Eecord but also that of the heathen world itself. In the most ancient traditions of all nations there are to be found scattered traces and features, distorted but still recognisable, of a revelation which God had originally made to man. In consequence of the growing darkness of heathenism, this primeval tradition became obscured by Polytheism on the one hand, and by Pantheism, its reverse, on the other. The length of time, therefore, which intervened between the Fall and the Recovery, has afforded us ample opportunity of estimating how far unaided human reason can reach in the attainment of re¬ ligious knowledge. And the ignorance, misery, and vice which overspread the world during the reign of heathen darkness, contrasted with the light, the purity, and the consolations of the Gospel, show us how vastly we are indebted to the benefi¬ cence of God in delivering us from the helplessness of our own natural resources, and giving us the knowledge of truth and salvation. Those heathen nations which have left the most indubitable monuments of genius, and specimens of taste and eloquence which must serve as models so long as culture and refinement have any appreciation in the world, have ex¬ hibited, on the subject of religion, the most lamentable ignor¬ ance, after the highest efforts of the human mind had been exerted to arrive at some satisfactory conclusion. The value of Divine Revelation is strikingly manifested by the fact, that a humble peasant in a Christian country who “ knows, and knows no more, her Bible true,” has more accurate and more philosophical knowledge respecting the nature and govern¬ ment of God than is to be found in all the writings of the sages of Greece and Rome put together. The heathen world groped in darkness for thousands of years, yet Rationalists must hold that it lived all that time in clear daylight, since they refuse to own that there can be any real need for a supernatural revelation. They have indeed sup¬ posed that thinking men in all ages have been agreed in the essential points of religion. But this supposition is thoroughly refuted by history. Even Cicero has said concerning the idea of God, “There is nothing in which not only the unlearned, but also AND GOVERNMENT OF GOD. 83 the learned, differ so strenuously as in this.”1 Aristotle expressed the hope, as Cicero says in his Tusculan Questions, “ that philo¬ sophy would, in a short time, arrive at perfection.”2 Kant also, in modern times, has said, “ my philosophy will bring eternal peace to the world.”3 Yet philosophy — that is, rationalistic speculation — has attained to no positive results, and never laid down any principle as to the nature of God which has not, in its turn, been assailed and upset. There is something so unsatis¬ factory in the study of speculative philosophy, that we find re¬ lief only in the fact that in the Bible we have such a ground of confidence as can never be shaken, and that it contains the true basis of all sound thinking on the great themes connected with the nature of God and the destiny of man. The plainest state¬ ments of God’s Word are more valuable than all the vapourings about “ the self ” and “ the non- self f “ the impersonal order of the world ” and “ the becoming .” An unconscious government of the world, according to moral laws, is simply impossible. The Supra- mundane and Eternal God, even while communicating Himself in revelation to man, though He thus appears under the condition of time and historical development, still remains the Immutable One. Revelation is, no doubt, a development, but not one to which the Divine Nature itself is subjected. God works upon a plan in the revelation He has made of Himself to man, and this plan is evolved in a series of gradual historical processes ; but His own eternal nature is never drawn into the ebb and flow of these developments. The Absolute and Unchangeable One cannot “ become ” anything other than Himself. Accord¬ ingly, when Scripture speaks of “ becoming,” or of any changes in time, it is only with reference to creatures ; but of God it says that “ He is the same yesterday, to-day, and for ever.” The theories of speculative philosophy, spun out at such length, and concluding with no satisfaction whatever to the mind, should make us thankful that we are not dependent on them for ob¬ taining a knowledge of God or of our own future wellbeing. They are constructed independently of the Inspired Record, and 1 “ Res nulla est de qua non solum indocti, sed etiam docti tantopere dissentiunt. ” — Nat. Deor., i. 2. 2 - “ brevi tempore absolutam fore philosophiam.” 3 Vermisclite Scliriften, B. iii. § 339. 84 THE EXISTENCE, NATURE, herein lies the ground of all failure to obtain positive results in metaphysical philosophy. The Scriptures furnish us with an immovable basis on which we can rest ; and when philosophy aims at substituting another for it, it always labours in vain. There is one respect in which speculative philosophy has indi¬ rectly been of service to religion. It has sharpened the mental energy of critics, and they have been led by its means to look with a keener eye upon the statements of Scripture. But after philosophy has reached its utmost goal, we see so little that it has accomplished that we are compelled to fall back upon Divine Revelation as our only chart by which to steer on the troubled sea of metaphysical abstractions. It is an objection, not seldom brought against Divine Rev¬ elation, that it lays an unbearable yoke upon the reason and conscience, and subjects them to a crushing and degrading tyranny. But there is really no foundation for any such alle¬ gation. The great fact upon which a special revelation rests is the Fall of mankind. If this fact be denied, the necessity for any special interference of God will cease to be recognised, and the sufficiency of the mere light of nature will be main¬ tained. But if it be admitted that mankind are a fallen race, and need special interpositions of Infinite love and mercy, the objection at once disappears. At the same time, it is import¬ ant to bear in mind that a revelation to mankind implies that in their actual state they have capacities for its reception. If we had not natural capacities distinguishing us from the brute creation, it would be wholly useless to address to us any mes¬ sage that requires the exercise of intelligence. There must be powers and capacities receptive of a Divine Revelation, other¬ wise it would be meaningless and absurd. It could no longer have any firm foundation whereon to rest. It is through rea¬ son and conscience, that higher nature within us, that we are first of all in a condition to look into what claims to be a Rev¬ elation from God ; and when that Revelation is in our hands, it is our intellectual and moral nature which it addresses. Reason and conscience, therefore, are not to be regarded as the foes, but as the allies, of Revelation. This truth, however plain and obvious, has often been ob¬ scured, and sometimes even denied, by over-zealous advocates AND GOVERNMENT OF GOD. 85 of Christian doctrine. They have thereby, it is to be regretted, given some colouring to the accusation, that Revelation de¬ prives man of the natural use of his faculties. But here a distinction must be drawn between the exaggeration of indi¬ viduals and the doctrine of Holy Scripture. The strong state¬ ments which the Bible makes respecting the depravity of man, may be so isolated as to turn into an idle mockery the earnest appeals which it makes throughout its course to his reason and conscience. “ The heart of sinners,” it tells us, “ is gross, their ears are heavy, their eyes are blind.” “ They are dead in tres¬ passes and sins.” Such statements, taken separately, might seem to teach that there is a natural incapacity for discerning any moral or religious truth ; but when viewed in connection with other statements, they will be seen to indicate rather a deep natural disinclination to receive the messages of God. It is in this light we understand our Lord’s sharp rebuke to the Jews, when He said, “ Ye will not come to Me, that ye might have life.” 1 The depraved heart of man, and its repugnance to the messages of God, is portrayed in Scripture by the most forcible metaphors ; but a natural capacity for discerning the authority of those messages, and for recognising their equity, is also stated in the most clear and emphatic manner. So far, then, is Revelation from demanding a blind faith, that, on the contrary, it requires that we “prove all things,” and “hold fast that which is good.” 2 It ascribes to the very heathen, and thereby to the human mind itself, independently of the revelation contained in Scripture, a capacity for obtaining from creation and from conscience a certain amount of real know¬ ledge as to the nature and will of the invisible God. And so unmistakably does this knowledge obtrude itself upon man, that St Paul declares those to be deprived of all means of exculpation who reject it.3 This assertion of the Apostle of the Gentiles has been uttered in nearly the same words by the Gentile philosophers of Greece and Rome. Thus Aristotle says : “ Although invisible to every mortal nature, God is yet manifested by His works.” 4 And Cicero says : “ Thou seest not God, and yet thou knowest Him from His works.” 5 And 1 John v. 40. 2 1 Thes? v. 21. 3 Rom. i. 19, 20, and ii. 14, 15. 4 De Mundo, c. 6. 5 Tuscul., i. 29. 86 THE EXISTENCE, NATURE, so again as to conscience : that power implanted in us, where¬ by man discerns what is right and what is wrong in the sight of God, was equally acknowledged by the sages of the Gentile world as the basis of moral obligation and responsibility in human life. Hence Cicero says : “ It was always the persua¬ sion of all truly wise men that the moral law was not devised by men, or introduced by nations, but an eternal law according to which the whole world must be ruled. Its ultimate basis is God, who commands and forbids. And this law is as old as the mind of God Himself. Hence the law upon which all obligation is founded is truly and pre-eminently the mind of the Supreme Divinity.” 1 And if we turn from the most civil¬ ised nations of antiquity to tribes in our own day sunk in sensuality and cruelty, we find that conscience is not utterly extinguished, for no sooner is God’s true will, as revealed in His Word, presented to the heathen, than that power percipi¬ ent of right and wrong is awakened even in the savage, who, reverting to his higher instincts, feels ashamed of his present conduct as inconsistent with these. In this fact alone we have sufficient proof that conscience, as a source of religious know¬ ledge, retains a potent existence in every human mind, how¬ ever much blunted and confused by error and sin. That man, therefore, even in his present condition, has the powers of reason and conscience as organs for the reception of religious truth, is a doctrine borne out by the testimony both of the heathen world and of Holy Scripture itself. It will thus be seen that the grossly exaggerated view of man’s utter inability to discern anything of the nature and the will of God receives no countenance either from Scripture or the history of heathenism ; nevertheless, it must be ac¬ knowledged that it has afforded some colouring to the objec¬ tion raised against Revelation, that it lays a yoke upon our intellectual and moral nature, and deprives it of the healthy use of its faculties. It is not reason and conscience which are divested of the prerogatives which rightly belong to them, but the pride of the human heart which is offended, because it sees in the Bible a usurpation of its own fancied privilege to speculate without restraint, and without a guide, on the 1 De Legg., ii. 4. AND GOVERNMENT OF GOD. 87 nature, the works, and the government of the Most High. If the Bible demanded a blind credence in what is in manifest contradiction to the immutable principles of morality, the conscience would inevitably, in that case, he subjected to the most intolerable and degrading tyranny. But the Great Creator could never promulgate such a Revelation to His creatures, for this would be to make Him contradict Himself. The truths of the Bible are immutable, and so are the truths of philosophy. Those truths, then, which God has revealed through the human mind, are just as fixed and unchangeable as those which He has revealed through the Bible, though, in many particulars, the former are less perspicuous and far less glorious than the latter. The true philosophical system, there¬ fore, will not contradict the doctrines which lie at the founda¬ tion of Divine Revelation. But if the truths of philosophy and of the Bible are found to he in accordance with each other, with what consistency can it be affirmed that Revelation imposes a heavy yoke upon the reason and conscience, and subjects them to a slavish and enthralling bondage ? Revelation contradicts none of the immutable principles of reason and conscience ; but it makes known what neither un¬ aided reason nor conscience could ever discover. This is only what might be expected ; for what would be the worth of a revelation which reveals nothing ? If reason and conscience already contain within themselves all that is revealed, no benefit could have been conferred by revelation. But reason does not contain all that is revealed ; for though reason may trace in creation the marks of God’s power, and conscience may testify to His holiness, yet neither reason nor conscience could disclose to us His love. Yet this is the knowledge we most stand in need of ; for so long as we are only acquainted with the power and holiness of God, the breach which separates us from Him remains unfilled up. His power shows us our weakness, His holiness our sin. But the self-knowledge we thus acquire, though it humbles us before Him, still keeps us at a distance. It is revelation alone which makes known to us the love of God. His love was manifested in the gift of His Son. The great truth, then, on which revelation rests is the Atonement. This truth reveals the greatest of all mysteries, 88 THE EXISTENCE, NATURE, — how the infinitely Holy God can pardon sin, and become reconciled to guilty man. But God has not only sent a message of mercy and reconciliation to an apostate world, but He also confers the power of embracing it. With the view of accounting for the success of Christianity from secondary causes, it has been alleged that the exercise of Divine influence destroys man’s responsibility, and that a reli¬ gion which teaches him to rely on the merits of another, could not but be acceptable to the indolence of human nature. These are either ignorant or wilful misrepresentations. The Divine influence which the Scripture inculcates is designed to stimu¬ late our exertions, not to take away our responsibility. “Work out your own salvation with fear and trembling. Bor it is God which worketh in you both to will and to do of His good pleasure.”1 Here the operation of the Spirit of God, who works in us “ to will and to do of His good pleasure,” is stated as an encouragement to work out our “ own salvation with fear and trembling ; ” and it ought to be a most powerful in¬ ducement to exertion when we reflect that every pure emotion proceeds from the Spirit of God, who promises His aid, and calls us to be labourers together with Him in the great work of salvation. And with regard to the other assertion, that Christianity met with a ready reception because it pointed out an easy method of salvation, by teaching men to rely on the merits of another — we may safely say that, judging from human nature, this doctrine would be no recommendation to it. Christianity represents salvation to be of grace, and not of works ; but there is nothing which men will not sooner believe than this. They will give their bodies to be burnt, or to in¬ conceivable torture, provided they can be persuaded that their future happiness may be attained by such means. And it is not difficult to produce such a conviction, because it corre¬ sponds with a deep-rooted prejudice of the human heart. The conclusion is wrong, but it is drawn from just and natural premises. It is founded on the conviction of guilt and respon¬ sibility, and on the idea that some expiation is necessary to atone for sin. But along with these convictions, which natu¬ rally lead to humility, there is a principle of pride, no less 1 Phil. ii. 12, 13. AND GOVERNMENT OF GOD. 89 deeply-rooted in the mind of man, which teaches him to believe that his personal sufferings and privations will have merit to atone for any transgression. This notion was at the bottom of all the superstitions of Polytheism ; and the bodily sufferings and voluntary afflictions so frequently exhibited, were the result of pride rather than of humility. The principle it recognised was to place man upon his own power, and to establish a claim to salvation as a debt and not as a favour. The Christian doctrine of the Atonement is the reverse of all this in every point of view, and therefore it must have been an obstacle to its reception, that it opposed such inveterate prejudices of the human mind. So much was the Church of Pome aware of this, that to remove all objec¬ tions to its sovereignty as an external commonwealth, which is the main object it has ever kept in view, it fastened upon those very prejudices which Christianity had exploded, and revived the claims of merit as available to salvation. Prom these facts we may determine how far Christianity owes its success to the conformity of its leading doctrines with the prevailing notions and rooted prejudices of the human heart. On the contrary, it forced its way in the world in opposition to the most formidable obstacles arising from the vices which custom had licensed, and from the prejudices which supersti¬ tion had fixed deep in the human mind. The aim of Christianity is to lead man back to God through the atonement of Christ ; but before he can return God must first draw near to him with His grace and truth. Man’s nature requires to be renewed, but he is incapable of perform¬ ing such an act upon himself. The power which renews him can come from God alone. The change wrought upon man’s nature is called in Scripture regeneration, and is compared to a new birth and to a spiritual resurrection. Its nature is not explained further than that God is its author, that the whole soul is its subject, and that all consequent holy acts are its effects. How the nature of man is operated upon is left a mystery. It is not the province of either philosophy or theo¬ logy to solve the mystery. If man has been the subject of moral perversion, it would be taking but a mechanical view of his condition to imagine that there is one faculty of his mind 90 THE EXISTENCE, NATURE, which is unaffected thereby. Besides, the soul is a unit, and is so recognised in Scripture. Hence when it speaks of a new heart being given, a new nature is thereby implied. In the description of this act it represents all the faculties of the soul as having undergone a change. The reason and conscience are enlightened, the heart is purified, the will is renewed, and the whole man is thus emancipated from the dominion of ignorance, prejudice, and sin, and brought into obedience to the law of God. The beauty and excellence of the Christian reve¬ lation consist in this, that it has not fettered but improved our mental and moral faculties, and fitted them for activity to the highest degree. And as the Almighty requires of us a reason¬ able service, so He suggests reasonable motives for the per¬ formance of it, and has made us capable of discerning that what He demands is not founded in capricious tyranny, but in tender regard to the present and eternal happiness of His creatures. The experience of all genuine Christians will give testimony to this truth. Ask of them whether in Christianity they have not found new life, new strength, a full satisfaction of all their spiritual needs. While the Scriptures declare that there can be no true insight into Divine things without regeneration — without a new, higher life being implanted in us from above — they do not deny that men have physical, intellectual, moral, and social life ; that the objects of sense, the truths of reason, our moral obligations and social relations, are more or less fitly appre¬ hended ; and that these awaken emotion and excite to action. But there are objects far higher than these — what the Scriptures call “ the things pertaining to salvation,” “ the things of God,” “ the things of the Spirit.” These things, although intellect¬ ually apprehended by our cognitive faculties, are not spiritually discerned by the unrenewed man. An exquisite object of nature or of art may be gazed upon by an untutored man, who has no fine perception of its aesthetic excellence, and no cor¬ responding feeling of delight in it. So it is with the man that is unrenewed. He may have intellectual knowledge of the facts and doctrines of Christianity, but no spiritual discernment of their excellence, and no felt delight in them. It is not till the life of God has been implanted in the soul that we can AND GOVERNMENT OF GOD. 91 truly love God. But when this new life has been imparted, we shall be reconciled to Him from whom we have been separated by sin, and shall regain an ever-increasing likeness to His image. We shall experience within us a happiness unknown to us before. We shall be desirous that others may be made partakers of the same happiness ; that all false teach¬ ing may be abandoned, and that Christianity may become an important power in the life of nations. We shall do what in us lies for the conversion of those parts of the world which are still shrouded in heathen darkness and error, and shall hail every sign of the approaching glory of the latter day, when the Lord of hosts shall “ destroy . . . the face of the covering cast over all people, and the vail that is spread over all nations ; ” 1 and “ the earth shall be filled with the knowledge of the glory of the Lord, as the waters cover the sea.” 2 1 Isa. xxy. 7. 2 Hab. ii. 14. II. THE UNITY AND DIVERGENCE OF HUMAN SPEECH. How did man come into the possession of speech ? Was it a special gift communicated by God ? or was it the result of an inherent faculty of the mind ? Max Muller attempts to explain the origin of language by the latter supposition. Man, he says, was created with the faculty of giving articulate expression to his rational concep¬ tions. That faculty was not of his own making. It was an instinct — an instinct of the mind as irresistible as any other instinct. This creative faculty gave to each conception, as it thrilled for the first time through the brain, a phonetic ex¬ pression, and this faculty would become fainter, as other faculties do, when men cease to want it.1 This theory is, in fact, a revival of the notion which Plato entertained. He regarded words not only as signs of things, but as types of objective realities. He held that conceptions are the reflec¬ tion of phenomena themselves, and that of course they cor¬ respond to the phenomena. According to this explanation, as soon as man was created, speech was the immediate and necessary result of his in¬ tellectual constitution. Still, the question as to the origin of speech remains unanswered. Let it be taken for granted that 1 Lectures on the Science of Language. 94 THE UNITY AND DIVERGENCE the conceptions of the mind are the exact reflection of the phenomena of nature, we are no nearer than ever to the solu¬ tion of the mystery. How did these conceptions come to be echoed in words ? There is no quality in nature corresponding to the specific sensation, cognition, or thought. The cry of an infant, when pricked by a pin, is not distinguishable from the cry it utters because of hunger. And as to men, how many sensations thrill through the brain which are never expressed in any speech at all. Moreover, if words are the types of objective realities, and the mind but echoes the expressions received from without, then all mankind should speak the same language. This difficulty is not met by saying that the creative faculty of speech became fainter as men ceased to require it, and is now lost altogether. The objection, however, most fatal to the theory is, that it assumes a condition of things to have ex¬ isted at one time which does not exist now. The miraculous is secretly introduced to bear out a theory which excludes the miraculous. It is proposed to show how man at first acquired speech, then he must be taken as he actually is, and no as¬ sumption must be made that in the primitive age he was peculiarly constituted, and possessed a creative faculty of speech which from disuse has become extinct. Had man been created with the faculty of expressing in language the rational conceptions of his mind, this original language would still have remained, and been the common language of the world. We should have it over and above any adventitious language we might acquire. Ho education could obliterate it, because we could no more dispense with it than with any other faculty of our constitution. But no such faculty now exists, nor is there any evidence that it ever did exist among men. We may speak in any language which has been taught to us, but if we have been taught no one, we shall have no articulate way of speaking at all. We are told by Herodotus that Psammeticus, king of Egypt, being unable to discover, by inquiry, who were the most ancient of men, devised the following expedient : he con¬ fined two new-born infants, and fed them with milk ; the shepherd to whose care they were entrusted was ordered OF HUMAN SPEECH. 95 never to speak to them, hut to watch diligently their articula¬ tions. When this plan had been pursued for two years, they were found to be no better than mute creatures. But one day as the shepherd entered the place of their confinement they both exclaimed Becos, and he gave information of this to the monarch. Psammeticus made inquiries, and was informed that Becos was a word in the Phoenician language. But the sound Bee, which was supposed to be like the Phoenician word for bread, was a mere sound of no meaning, and no more a word than the noise which dumb people often make by the pressure and opening of their lips, and sometimes accidentally made by children of but three months old. Was speech then originally imparted to man ? Without this supposition we see not how he could so easily converse with God, and even before the creation of woman, give names to the various creatures which surrounded him in Eden. God had endowed him with high and excellent faculties, but these would have remained inactive and useless had he not been directly gifted with speech. That he was so gifted is evident from the fact that, after almost instinctively perceiving the qualities and natures of the different animals he saw, he called them by appropriate names. His exercise of language must, doubtless, have been at first elementary, and confined to what his wants required, but capable of growing and expanding with the growth of society, and according to the occupations of life, and the interchange of thought between individuals. What the primitive language was has been the subject of much controversy. The Rabbins of the synagogue have ex¬ pressed the opinion that the Hebrew was the language of paradise and of the primitive time, and that it descended, in the purest form after the Flood, in the line of Eber. In this opinion they have been followed by most of the Fathers, as well as by many subsequent Christian writers. But in con¬ sequence of modern philological research, it is now gener¬ ally held that the original tongue is extinct, buried in the materials of the languages of the nations, and that all those which exist are only derived from it, and so of nearly the same age. While men lived long and applied themselves only to the 96 THE UNITY AND DIVERGENCE more simple methods of life, their ideas would be few, and their language would he easily preserved without alteration. For some time after the Flood mankind were still, as the sacred historian tells us, “ of one language, and of one speech,” or literally, “ of one lip, and of the same words.” The meaning is, that they had one word for each thing, and the same way of pronouncing it. But if the whole population of the earth spoke the same language and with the same accent, how do we account for the great diversity of tongues now spoken, and which have been spoken ? This is a subject which, of recent years, has engrossed the attention of the most learned philologists. The Academy of St Petersburg, Klaproth, Herder, Balbi, Schlegel, Humboldt, Niebuhr, Wiseman, and Sharon Turner, have all arrived at one conclusion, by a comparison of different lan¬ guages — that the further philological research is carried, the more numerous become the indications that all languages must have been originally one. This is one of the triumphs of modern philology, and it is all the more valuable, as some of the scholars to whose re¬ searches it is due were somewhat sceptical in regard to the Mosaic record. “ All dialects,” says the ‘ St Petersburg Aca¬ demy,’ “ are to be considered as dialects of one now lost.” In the first two of Wiseman’s able ‘ Lectures on Science and Rev¬ elation,’ we are presented with clear and decisive proof that all languages have a unity of origin. “ The universal affinity of languages,” says Klaproth, “is placed in so strong a light, that it must be considered by all as completely demonstrated. It appears inexplicable on any other hypothesis than that of admitting fragments of a primary language to exist through all the languages of the Old and New World.” “ Much as all these languages,” says Frederick von Schlegel, “ differ from each other, they appear, after all, to be merely branches of one common stem.” 1 “ There is a great probability,” says Herder, “ that the human race and language therewith go back to one common stock, to a first man, and not to several dis¬ persed in different parts of the world.” 2 “ The books of Moses,” says Balbi, “ no monument, either historical or astro- 1 The Pliilos. of Hist., p. 92. Loud., 1846. 2 Quoted in Wiseman. OF HUMAN SPEECH. 97 nomical, has yet been able to prove false ; but with them, on the contrary, agree, in the most remarkable manner, the results obtained by the most learned philologists and the profoundest geometricians.” 1 These distinguished philologists have satisfactorily shown, that as each class of language is marked by affinities with other classes, and that as these affinities bear no trace of direct descent from each other, they must be independent branches from a parent stock. The inference, therefore, is inevitable, that at one period there existed only that one form of language which has communicated those common elements to all. But in addition to this, they have discovered clear internal proofs that the separation into different tongues must have been by some violent and sudden cause. It would be difficult, on any other supposition, satisfactorily to account for the facts of the case. It is easy to imagine a variety of second causes, such as the influence of climate, the diversity of pursuits, the pro¬ gress of knowledge and civilisation among different nations, which might greatly add to the divergence when once intro¬ duced ; but it is a more difficult problem to solve when re¬ quired to assign a cause sufficient for the disruption of the original unity. And even were any such cause assigned which had an appearance of probability, it would certainly be found inadequate when it came to explain the unalterable phenomena which the linguistic families so distinctly present. “ The results of maturer and very extensive investigation,” says Dr Smyth, “prove that the 3064 languages of Adelung, and the 860 languages and 5000 dialects of Balbi, may be reduced to eleven families ; and that these again are found to be not primitive and independent, but modifications of some original language ; and that 4 the separation between them could not have been caused by any gradual departure, or individual de¬ velopment, but by violent, unusual, and active force, sufficient at once to account for the resemblances and the differences.’ ” 2 So remarkably do the investigations of these philologists con¬ firm the Scripture record concerning the way in which the descendants of Noah, who undertook, for certain arrogant and 1 Quoted also in Wiseman. 2 Unity of the Human Races, English edition, p. 213. G 98 THE UNITY AND DIVERGENCE impious reasons, to builcl a city and erect a heaven-high tower, and thus make for themselves a name, met the signal punish¬ ment of the Almighty. But besides the phenomena which the languages of the world exhibit, and cannot be accounted for otherwise than by the supposition of a Divine interference with human speech to effectuate the dispersion of mankind, the movement itself from Babel was so general and simultaneous, so contrary to comfort and convenience — to every motive which determines the choice of individuals — that it could not have proceeded altogether from a desire to emigrate, but must have been forced upon them by a more direct necessity than merely pro¬ viding outlets for a redundant population. Nor does it bear the aspect of the pioneering spirit, sending forth the more adventurous to make discoveries over the face of the unknown earth. It is, therefore, extremely improbable that these clis- * similar phenomena did grow out of one primeval tongue, according to the ordinary circumstances which mould the languages of various tribes. But the matter is rendered im¬ possible when the period for this wide divergence is so limited, as it is by all authentic records. So nothing remains but the alternative of admitting the cause of the confusion assigned by Moses, or referring to some other extraordinary event. But of any such event history is silent, while, on the contrary, the statement of Moses is corroborated by not a few ancient tradi¬ tions which cannot be set aside. It was the opinion of the patristic writers that the distribu¬ tion of mankind was not left to be settled at random, or according to immediate exigencies ; but that a distribution of the world, as known to the patriarch Noah, was made known by him among his three sons, before any actual emigration from the high lands of Armenia had taken place. Probability is in favour of this hypothesis, and the striking passages, Deut. xxxii. 7-9, and Acts xvii. 26, tend strongly to confirm it. The colonisation of the whole earth by man had been divinely intimated to him at his creation ; and for this pur¬ pose a physical constitution had been given him which could adapt itself to every clime. But though thus admirably fitted for the colonising process, many causes, it is natural to sup- OF HUMAN SPEECH. 99 pose, would contribute to induce the inhabitants of the renovated earth to confine themselves, as much and as long as possible, within the limits of the land upon which they had first settled. There must have been a violent disruption of all such ties and sympathies as bind together social communi¬ ties, when, within a comparatively short period after the Flood, as appears from profane as well as sacred history, and before the increase of population could have rendered such a result inevitable, streams of colonists issued forth in every direction from the fertile plains of Mesopotamia, to found kingdoms and empires on the rivers of Central Asia, in the valley of the Nile, in the islands, and along the shores of the Mediterranean sea. The account of the confusion of tongues at Babel, and the consequent dispersion of the survivors of the Flood, fully comports with these conclusions. They determined to erect a tower which, by the glory of its fame, should hold them together ; thus defeating or deferring the object for which they had been preserved. The tower was not designed to secure themselves against a second deluge, but to leave a lasting memorial of their history, which should, at the same time, serve as a visible rallying point to their descendants. They made bricks and burnt them thoroughly, so that they became stone ; whereas in the East ordinary buildings are constructed of clay, simply dried in the sun. For mortar they used asphalt, in which the neighbourhood of Babylon abounds. From this material they began to build a tower, and a city was to cluster around it. They had one speech in common, so that they could plan and work concordantly together. Their structure was assuming large dimensions, when God dis¬ appointed their ambitious project, confounded their language, and thus dispersed them, according to their families, through the various regions of the earth. The unity which had hitherto bound them together, was the oneness of their God and worship. It was this inward unity of faith which ought to have been the centre of gravity, the rule and measure of their outward unity, so that, though spread over the earth in obedience to the Divine command, they could not have sep¬ arated, but would still have maintained their inward unity notwithstanding their dispersion. But they sought to main- 100 THE UNITY AND DIVERGENCE tain an outward unity by self-invented means of their own, which could not be successful, but could only bring down the judgment which compelled that dispersion which they sought to avoid. Thus the pride of those builders was chastised, and the name fixed upon their unfinished work was Babel, that is, con¬ fusion, — “ because,” says the sacred historian, “ the Lord there confounded the language of all the earth.” It thus appears that the name was given according to the Divine direction, though without any such intention on the part of those who first gave it, as a lasting memorial of God upon the world-city, where men became dispersed into nations ; as Jerusalem de¬ notes the city of God, where they are again united together as one family. By some the name is supposed to have to do with Bel, and they derive it from bob, gate, and make it “ the gate of Bel ” But this interpretation is founded on the myth that Bel was the founder of the city ; it is therefore destitute of historic worth. By others, as Bawlinson and Oppert, it has been interpreted “ the gate of God” They say, on the author¬ ity of the inscriptions, that the name is not Bel but El. It is admitted that El was the Babylonian and Phoenician Kronos, but what then ? what light can thence be thrown upon the development of heathenism from an inscription found upon the second tower, and erected after idolatry had become ram¬ pant ? There are, no doubt, good grounds for believing that heathenism in a germinal form did exist when the first tower was built ; but if its development, in a religious sense, is regarded as a gradual process, it could not at that time have been far advanced. Thus it is when men reject the Scripture record and follow their own fancies, they generally attempt to prove too much, and so end in proving nothing. Moses surely knew his own mind when he gave the meaning “ con¬ fusion ; ” and that, we have no doubt, is the correct one. In corroboration of the Mosaic account of the confusion of tongues, there are traditions which linger about the very place where the event occurred. Berosus, a native of Babylon and priest of Belus, refers to it in a fragment of his Chaldean history which has come down to us. “ The ancient race of men,” he says, “ were so puffed up with their strength and OF HUMAN SPEECH. 101 tallness of stature, that they laboured to erect that very lofty tower which is now called Babylon, intending thereby to scale heaven. . . . The name of the ruin is still called Babel ; because until that time men had used the same speech, but then there was sent upon them a confusion of many diverse tongues.” This is the testimony of a heathen historian. But a still more interesting confirmation of this miraculous event has rewarded the labours of Bawlinson and Oppert. What became of the first tower cannot be determined, and much doubt has hitherto prevailed as to its precise location. But the authorities just mentioned have identified its ruins with the basement of the great mound now called Birs Nim- rud , situated in the ancient suburb Borsippct. According to Oppert’s supposition, Borsippci means “ Tower of languages.” If this opinion is correct, then the tower erected by Merodach- adan-aklii must have occupied the same site as the former. It was called “ The Temple of Jupiter Belus ” by the classical writers. The earliest record of this temple dates back to 1100 B.c. Its founder did not complete it, and the portions he had erected were, by the neglect of his successors, allowed to fall into decay. When more than 500 years had elapsed, Nebuchadnezzar, including it among the many works by which he hoped to immortalise his name, repaired and finished it. He left a part of its history upon the two cylinders which Bawlinson discovered on the spot. The writing is by Nebu¬ chadnezzar, who, in the words of Oppert’s translation, says, among other things — “ The Temple of the seven lights of the earth [the planets], the ancient monument of Borsippa, was built by an ancient king ; since then are reckoned forty-two o'enerations ; but he did not reach the summit of it. Since a remote time people had abandoned it, without order expressing their words. Earthquake and thunder had shattered the bricks, and thrown down the tiles of the roof ; the bricks of the walls were cast down, and formed heaps. The great god Merodach has put it into my heart to build it again ; I have not altered the place, nor disturbed the foundations. In a fortunate month, and upon an auspicious day, I pierced the unburnt bricks of the wall and the burnt bricks of the casings 102 THE UNITY AND DIVERGENCE with arches. I inscribed the glory of my name on the frieze of the arches.” 1 If we can he sure of the accuracy of Dr Oppert’s translation, two points here present themselves as deserving attention. The identification of the ruins of the Tower of Babel with the base¬ ment of the great mound, Birs Nimrud, or Nimrod’s tower. These ruins have been looked upon merely as the remnant of the temple of Belus, which Nebuchadnezzar rebuilt, and Herodotus saw and described. This inscription would prove that both opinions coincide, as Nebuchadnezzar intentionally built his temple on the site of the ancient tower. The local tradition thus recorded, — “ that men had abandoned the tower since a remote time, without any order expressing their words ” — is a distinct allusion to the confusion of tongues which led to the dispersion. The inscription, therefore, is peculiarly valuable, as it contains the essentials of the case just as it is given in Genesis. The chronological point, however, is not less appreciable. As Nebuchadnezzar reigned 604—514 b.c., and the building of Babel is to be placed, according to Biblical chronology, in the twenty-third century B.C., there are, in round numbers, some 1600 years of interval between the two, and this will be found to tally pretty nearly with the forty-two generations, if we reckon, say, thirty-eight years to each. We are aware of the difficulty of exact calculation in reference to ancient chronology, as early writers (the sacred not excepted) were little careful in noting the dates of the events they chronicled ; nevertheless the fact here adverted to is one of great importance, inasmuch as some recent critics have not scrupled to charge Moses with chronological inac¬ curacy to the extent of thousands of years. The ambitious schemes of the Tower-builders were frus¬ trated by miraculous interposition. Their speech was con¬ founded, so that they could not understand each other. But as we are not informed of the manner by which this was effected, it is impossible to explain the linguistic phenomena which were so early presented, and even now are so remarkable. We are not told into how many groups or dynasties the original speech was divided, but philologists, after mature and 1 Journal Asiatique, 1857. OF HUMAN SPEECH. 103 extensive investigation, have observed that the mass of lan¬ guages, those now spoken or which have been spoken, over those wide regions of the earth which form generally the field of history, may be arranged in three great families — the Shemitic or Aramaic, the Japhetic or Arian, and the Hamitic or Turanian. Although it is obvious that the three families of languages are here classed according to the three sons of Noah, yet it is necessary to bear in mind that this classifica¬ tion has frequently been mutilated or altogether effaced in consequence of earlier or later migrations in the same direc¬ tion. For example, in Eastern Asia the Japhethites appear to have supervened upon the Hamites, and in Asia-Minor and Persia upon the Shemites. In Canaan, on the other hand, the Hamites appear to have supervened upon the original Shemitic inhabitants ; and then, again, at a subsequent period, the Israelites supervened upon the Hamitic Canaanites. In the Shemitic and Arian families the roots coalesce so as not to retain their substantive independence. Hence the branches belonging to them have been distinguished by the name of amalgamating. The Shemitic is divided into three principal branches — Aramaic, Hebrew, and Arabic. The Aramaic was the branch spoken by the Aramans or descen¬ dants of Aram, the fifth son of Shem. It prevailed in the North, including Syria, Mesopotamia, and Babylonia. It was subdivided into two leading dialects, Chaldee and Syriac. But the differences between them are not very great. The former, as being the language of the Babylonians and the Eastern Aramaeans generally, has also been styled the Eastern Aramaic ; the latter, as being that of the Syrians and the Western Aramaeans, has, in like manner, been styled the Western Aramaic. The Hebrew was the language of Palestine : its golden age lasted from Moses to the Captivity ; its silver age from the Captivity downwards. All the sacred books of the Old Testament were written in Hebrew, except some portions of Ezra and Daniel. The Hebrew was encroached upon by the Aramaic dialects in the time of our Lord, and ultimately degenerated into the Ptabbinical language of the Talmud, and other Jewish writers. The Phoenicians and Carthaginians, being of Canaanitish descent, spoke a dialect closely allied to 104 THE UNITY AND DIVERGENCE the Hebrew. In the countries where Aramaic and Hebrew were anciently spoken, Arabic has come to prevail. This is the richest and most developed of the Shemitic tongues. Be¬ fore the time of Mahomet it was confined to the Arabian peninsula ; but along with Islam, it spread and maintained itself in many regions of Asia and Africa, and even of Europe. One of its dialects, the Koreishite , attained the rank of the universal literary language of the Arabians, and was, in con¬ sequence, specially called Arabic. By the fourteenth century the Arabic literature had passed its acmd, and the Koreishite degenerated into the vulgar Arabic, or that of ordinary life. The vernacular is distinguished from the Arabic of literature by possessing less fulness and gravity. It has fewer vowels, and so approaches nearer to the Hebrew. The ordinary Arabic is still spoken in the whole of the south-west of Asia, in the northern and western parts of Africa, and in Malta. A trace of Arabic, in its division from the Shemitic tongues, is found in the word Almodad (perhaps extension), a district of Arabia- Felix, so called from a son of Joktan(Gen. x. 26). The Al is considered to be the Arabic article. The Ethiopic tongue had its origin in an Arabian dialect, the Himyaritic. In this language there is a translation of the Bible, and several other religious and historical works. It was the language of Abys¬ sinia until it was supplanted by the Amharic in the fourteenth century. The Amharic is still the prevailing vernacular amongst the Ethiopians, but it is little employed in writing. Besides the great Shemitic branches just mentioned, there were other dialects, probably derived from the same source, but with greater or less difference. It will thus be seen that over many fair regions of the earth, languages and dialects of Shemitic or half-Shemitic character established themselves. The Japhetic or Arian,1 or, as it has been called, Indo- Germanic family, has also occupied a vast portion of the globe. It comprehends two great divisions, the Southern and Northern. In the Southern may be ranked the classic Sanscrit and other Indian tongues; while the Northern, embracing many great and subordinate branches, reckons in its lists both the ancient Greek and Latin, and the languages generally of modern 1 From Iran, the ancient name of Persia. OF HUMAN SPEECH. 105 Europe, including our own. Between the Hebrew and the Sanscrit and ancient forms of Greek and Latin, a close affinity is to be perceived. “ I have been astonished,” says Mr Halhed, “ to find the similitude of Sanscrit words with those of San¬ scrit and Arabic, and even of Latin and Greek.” 1 And the Edinburgh reviewer of Sir Charles Wilkins’ Sanscrit Grammar has given a comparative table of Sanscrit, Persian, Latin, and German, which conclusively establishes the common origin of these languages.2 In the Greek the Hew Testament was written. In this the wisdom and providence of God is mani¬ fest, in having prepared such an admirable vehicle for the full development of religious truth. It was a language of the highest culture and refinement, and from its flexibility allowed the nicest shades of thought to be accurately defined. It was a language too, which, from its literature and philosophy, was well fitted to engage the attention of the civilised world. Of the Hamitic or Turanian3 family of language, a few remarks will suffice. The branches of this family are less closely related to each other than those of the other two families. They have been denominated “ allophylian ,” using the term merely as conventional nomenclature. But they have commonly been called “ agglutinative ,” as the words affixed to the roots do not coalesce or incorporate as in the other families, but are so added by mechanical juncture that they can easily be dissevered. This family of tongues has been carried over vast and widely separated portions of the globe. It is represented in Asia by the Mongolian and Tartar races ; and in Europe by the Turks, Hungarians, and Finns. Viewing these three families in relation to each other, we find there is not only separation, but also a diversity of sep¬ aration. The original cleaving of dates from a period before which nothing is known, and the aspect it presents is un¬ changed by time. The Hamitic, or Turanian, which philolo¬ gists have found so remarkable, as compared with the Shemitic and Arian, has been thought to be that upon which fell the severest and most shattering blow in the confounding of 1 Preface to his Bengal Grammar, published in 1778. 2 Yol. xiii. 3 From Turan, or Tooran, the ancient name of Tartary, so called from one of its own kings. 106 THE UNITY AND DIVERGENCE speech ; inasmuch as, according to constant Jewish tradition, the Hamites were the instigators to the rebellion which led to the sudden and disorganising catastrophe. Of this we have no certain evidence, since the Scripture narrative repre¬ sents the Tower- building as a project gone into with a general concurrence on the part of the vast assemblage in the plain of Shinar. It is not improbable that these bold rebels who sought to “ make unto themselves a name,” consisted of a majority of Noah’s descendants, made up of the bad and adventurous from every family, with the Hamitic character decidedly predominant. The motive which would give addi¬ tional stimulus to the Hamites to take the lead in so daring an enterprise, undoubtedly was to weaken the prophecy re¬ specting the two Sons of Blessing, and the one Child of the Curse. But, as invariably happens, the impious attempt to thwart the design of Providence became the very means of its fulfilment. The historical account, as we have said, is general ; but this is not unusual in Scripture, where a mighty change is described, which is to carry with it a universal effect, without our being required to maintain an absolute universality in its incipient movement. This much at all events we know, that of the three families of language, the Hamitic presents the most striking contrast to the other two, indicating some force from without, sudden and eruptive, which has broken the elements of a former speech into frag¬ ments, and scattered them far and wTide. Such an external force would naturally suggest itself had Scripture been silent on the subject. Philology is unable to explain the phenom¬ enon, but in the eleventh chapter of Genesis we have revealed to us a cause adequate, and alone adequate, to account for the singular effect produced. The Shemitic has oftentimes come into close collocation with the Arian, but has never put on any of the essential features of the Arian, nor the Arian of Shemitic. There are no marks in Greek and Hebrew, in Sanscrit and Syriac, which show that they were ever a common language. Whether we trace them downwards or follow up the stream of time, we never meet a point either of divergence or convergence. When history opens, we find them standing abruptly facing OF HUMAN SPEECH. 107 each other, like some recent geological eruption, and before the rocks have undergone the wear and abrasion of after ages. As history advances we find them following a law of growth and decay similar to what takes place in the vegetable and animal world. We find that, while specific divisions in each family have varied more or less, the great generic differences have remained the same from age to age. We can perceive no signs of blending, or of mutual development into some more perfect comprehending genus, according to any process such as is supposed to have produced these changes in the prehistoric times. What, then, has stamped them with features and as¬ pects so diverse that they cannot be blended into each other ? Nothing of any known natural development can account for this. No theory which assumes as its basis the genesis of one family from the other, or of all from one parent stock, can explain it. If, according to the development theory, we take the simple language of the Chinese, and suppose it to have been developed into Hamism, and Hamism into Shemism, and Shemism into Japhetism, how is it that we find nothing like this as actual fact in historic times ? We have the Shemitic all along from the earliest dawn of history to our own day. The Arabic is still a living language, but as rigid in its Shemitic structure as the oldest Hebrew. The Sanscrit was perfectly developed when the Yedic hymns were composed. Professor Max Muller is of opinion that a later date to them cannot be assigned than 1200 B.c. The Greek was in its perfection in the days of Homer and Hesiod ; the Arundelian marbles fix the era of these poets but 300 years later. So far from there being any proofs of language developing from one class into another, this much can be said with confidence, that there is the tendency of language, when left to itself, to fall into loose¬ ness and decay — the tendency towards Sinism, and not away from it. As Sinism is the dregs of a former higher civilisa¬ tion, so Savagism is the remains of a language bearing marks of fracture and the lowest stage of degeneracy. “ The mono¬ syllabic languages,” says Hr Donaldson, “ which are the most imperfect of all, appear to be degenerated forms of older and more complete idioms.” And again he says — “ The languages of Africa must be considered as successive products of Semitic 108 THE UNITY AND DIVERGENCE disorganisation ; the Syro-Arabian tongue passes from the Abyssinian to the Galla and Berger, from this again to the Caffre, from the Caffre to the Hottentot, who is finally carica¬ tured by the savage Bushman.” 1 We may thence see what cause we have for thankfulness that those noblest languages, the Hebrew, Greek, Sanscrit, and Latin, died in their prime. They have thus been preserved from decay, because embalmed and imperishable, ever fair and ever young. Their apt words and forms of expression still remain to us a reserve store for use in the fields of philosophy, theology, and general science. They are called “ dead lan¬ guages,” and on this account some would exclude them alto- gether from the place they have long occupied in the education of youth, whereas this is the very ground of their excellence and worth. The result of a most careful and comprehensive examination by learned philologists into the existing phenomena of lan¬ guage would seem to corroborate the Scripture statement, that for some time after the Deluge “ the whole earth was of one language and of one speech.” “ Who,” asks Fichte, in one of his sober moments, “ edu¬ cated the first human pair ? A spirit took them under his care, as is laid down in a venerable primeval document, which contains the profoundest, the sublimest wisdom, and presents results to which all philosophy must at last return.” “ The Scriptural ethnography,” says the ‘ British and Foreign Evan¬ gelical Be view,’ “ which divides the human family into three great families, the Shemitic, Japhetic, and Hamitic, is con¬ firmed from so many sources, from tradition, from monuments, from names of tribes and places, from affinities of language, from profane history, that its correctness, apart from all refer¬ ence to the divine authority of the Bible, cannot, at least as to its leading features, be reasonably questioned.” 2 “ As each class of languages,” says Piedford, “ is marked by affinities with other classes, and these affinities bear no trace of being de¬ scended lineally from each other, but to be independent branches from a common root or stock, the conclusion is naturally and necessarily drawn, that at one period there 1 Cratylus, pp. 69, 75. 2 April 1859, p. 344. OF HUMAN SPEECH. 109 existed only that one form of language which has communi¬ cated these common elements to all, and which so identify and concentrate them as to make it next to impossible that they should have had indefinite and original formations of their own. The differences are not great enough to necessitate independent originations, and the resemblances are too striking to comport with any theory hut that of a common source.” 1 “ I trace/’ says Sir William Jones, “ to one common centre, the three great families from which the families of Asia appear to have proceeded.” “ Thus, then,” he adds, "have we proved that the inhabitants of Asia, and conse¬ quently, as it might be proved, of the whole earth, sprang from three branches of one stem ; and that those branches have shot into their present state of luxuriance in a period com¬ paratively short, is apparent from a fact universally acknow¬ ledged, that we find no certain monument, or even probable tradition, of nations planted, empires and states raised, laws enacted, cities built, navigation improved, commerce encour¬ aged, arts invented, or letters contrived, above twelve, or, at the most, fifteen or sixteen centuries before the birth of Christ ; and from another fact, which cannot be controverted, that seven hundred or a thousand years would have been fully adequate to the supposed propagation, diffusion, and establish¬ ment of the human race.” 2 This subject has been still further prosecuted by subsequent inquirers, and the result deduced from their more extended information has been to assign, without hesitation, the principal nations of the earth to their respective ancestral stems, repre¬ sented by the names of Shem, Ham, and Japheth. The only doubts entertained were with regard to what particular branch or branches the American tribes belong. But these doubts have been removed, and the unity of all human languages conclu¬ sively established. Numerous languages, which during the last century were thought to have almost nothing in common, are now found to he closely allied to each other in grammatical construction when belonging to the same family. Words, in the lapse of 1 Scripture Verified, p. 116. 2 Discourse on Origin and Families of Nations. Works, vol. iii. 110 THE UNITY AND DIVERGENCE time, pass from one phase of meaning to another, and in this way the clue by which their original signification might other¬ wise have been traceable is obliterated and destroyed. But the grammatical structure remains for ages unchanged. “ It is interesting,” says the ‘ Quarterly Beview,’ “ to note how much these discoveries, as well as the classification and nomenclature of languages previously adopted, connect them¬ selves also with the recorded tripartite division of mankind into three great families after the Scriptural deluge. Some of the most remarkable results recently obtained are those which disclose relations, hitherto unsuspected or unproved, between the language of ancient Egypt and the Semitic and Japhetic languages of Asia ; thus associating together in probable origin those three great roots which, in their separ¬ ate diffusion, have spread forms of speech over all the civilised parts of the world. Taking the Japhetian, or Indo-Teutonic branch, as it has lately been termed, we find these inquiries embracing and completing the connections between the several families of language which compose this eminent division of mankind, already dominant in Europe for a long series of ages, and destined, apparently, through some of its branches, to still more general dominion over the globe. We may mention, as one of the latest examples of the refined analysis of which we are speaking, the complete reduction of the Celtic to the class of Indo-Teutonic languages through the labours of Bopp, Prichard, and Pictet, whereby an eighth family is added to this great stock, and the circle completed which defines their relations to one another and to the other languages of mankind.” 1 “ The observed facts which first had a tendency to disturb the notion of the unity of the American tribes, were most probably,” says Dr Latham, “ those connected with the lan¬ guages. These really differ from each other to a very remark¬ able extent — an extent which, to any partial investigator, seems unparalleled ; but an extent which the general philolo¬ gist finds to be no greater than that which occurs in Caucasus, in the Indo-Chinese frontier, and in many parts of Africa.” “ The likeness in the grammar,” says Latham, “ has been 1 Jan. 1850. OF HUMAN SPEECH. Ill generally considered to override the difference in the vocab¬ ularies ; so that the American languages are considered to supply an argument in favour of the unity of the Ameri¬ can population stronger than the one which they suggest against it. The evidence of language, then, is in favour of the unity of all the American populations, the Eskimo not excepted.” 1 “ Ethnography,” says Delafield, “ has furnished conclusive evidence that the family of American languages has had a common origin with that of Asia. A lexical comparison has established an identity in one hundred and seventy words, although this study is in its infancy. ... In reviewing, then, the results to which philosophy inevitably brings us, and of which but a few instances are here adduced, we are obliged to refer the savage and larger portion of America to the north of Asia, and the civilised family of Mexico and Peru to ancient Egypt and Southern Asia.” 2 “ If you take our own language,” says Niebuhr, “ and com¬ pare it with the Latin and Greek, or even with the Eastern languages, we find that they are related to one another, show¬ ing that they must all have proceeded from one original stock.” 3 “ The relations of the ancient Indian languages to their European kindred are, in fact, so palpable, as to be obvious to every one who casts a glance at them, even from a distance ; in part, however, so concealed, so deeply implicated in the most secret passages of the organisation of the language, that we are compelled to consider every language subjected to a comparison with it, as also the language itself, from new stations of ob¬ servation, and to employ the highest powers of grammatical science and method in order to recognise and illustrate the original unity of the different grammars.” 4 “ As far as the organic languages of Asia and Europe are concerned,” says Baron Bunsen, “ the human race is of one kin¬ dred, of one descent. . . . Our historical researches respecting 1 Natural History of the Varieties of Man, pp. 352-354. 2 Antiquities of America, 4th ed., p. 71. 3 Lectures on Ancient History. Translated by Dr Schmitz, vol. i. p. 202. 4 Preface to Professor Bopp’s Comparative Grammar. 112 THE UNITY AND DIVERGENCE language have led us to facts which seemed to oblige us to assume the common historical origin of the great families into which we found the nations of Asia and Europe to coalesce. . . . The Asiatic origin of all these [American] tribes is as fully proved as the unity of family among themselves.” 1 These statements of Bunsen are all the more valuable to our argument, because he attempted to show, from the growth of languages, that a vastly greater interval than Scripture gives was necessary, from the Deluge downwards, for the development of the lan¬ guage of the world. But he left out of view the supernatural interference with the one original tongue which occurred after the Deluge, recorded in Scripture, and corroborated by the investigations of the most learned philologists. “ The uniform and universal testimony of history,” says Dr Smyth, “ traces up all the nations of the earth, like streams, to a common fountain, and it places that fountain in some oriental country in or near the tropics.” And he thus^ winds up his chapter on the unity of the races, sustained By the testimony of history and tradition : (£ We find a valid and irresistible argument in the preservation — among men of every colour, character, and condition ; of every age, country, and climate ; and of every degree of civilisation or barbarity — of traditions which verify and confirm the records of the Bible, and connect men of every nation, country, tribe, and people with the events there detailed. The primitive condition of mankind, the purity and happiness of the golden age, — the location of man in a garden — the tree of knowledge of good and evil — the influence of a serpent in the seduction and ruin of man — the consequent curse inflicted on man, on woman, and upon the earth — the promise of an incarnate Bedeemer ; traditions respecting Cain and Abel, Enoch and Noah, the longevity of the ancient patriarchs, and the existence of ten generations from Adam to Noah — the growing deteriora¬ tion of human nature — the reduction of man’s age and power — the Deluge and destruction of all mankind except a single family — the building of an ark and its resting on a mountain, and the flying of the dove — the building of the Tower of 1 Philosophy of Universal History, vol. ii. pp. 4, 99, 112. OF HUMAN SPEECH. 113 Babel and the miraculous confusion of languages — the institu¬ tion of sacrifices — the rainbow as a sign and symbol of de¬ struction and of hope — the fable of the man in the moon, which is equally known in opposite quarters of the globe — the great mother, who is a mythos of the ark — the hermaph¬ roditic unity of all the gods and goddesses from a mistaken notion of the creation of Adam and Eve — the nature and purport of the mysteries of the Old and New World — groves, and mountains, and caves as places of worship ; traditions also of Sodom and Gomorrah, of Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Joseph, ’ Moses, and the Bed Sea — the division of time by weeks — and the expectation of a future conflagration of the earth, — these and many other facts, which lie at the foundation of sacred history and the earliest events of humanity, are all found embedded, like the fossils of the earth, in the tradition¬ ary legends, both written and oral, of every tribe and people under the whole heavens. “ Now, if mankind have all proceeded from the same original family, and were thus in their primitive stock acquainted with the same primitive revelation and the same Scriptural facts, the preservation of these original traditions with an essential identity, and at the same time with many differences and mythological incrustations, is a fact both natural and to be expected ; just as in the exactly analogous case of a diversity together with an essential unity of languages. But, on the other hand, if mankind is made of an indefinite number of races, entirely distinct and independent in their origin and subsequent history, then such a unity in the preservation of facts and doctrines — which are, many of them, foreign to all natural suggestions of the human mind, and most peculiar and remarkable in their character, and yet entirely independent and separate from sacred history — is beyond all possible explanation. “ That mankind should agree in any two of these numerous facts was as improbable as three to one. That they should spontaneously agree in six would be as improbable as seventeen hundred to one ; and that they should concur in all, without an original unity of knowledge and of interest, is a supposition ab¬ solutely incredible, involving millions of millions of chances H 114 THE UNITY AND DIVERGENCE OF HUMAN SPEECH. against it. It is, in short, impossible. And while, therefore, there may be difficulties in the existing physical condition of men against the doctrine of the unity of the races, there are difficulties millions of times greater in number and in force in the traditional condition of man, against the doctrine of the diversity of the races.” 1 1 Unity of the Human Races, pp. 226, 237-239. III. THE DEVELOPMENT OE HEATHENISM. The history of the Tower-builders at Babel, of the confusion of tongues, and the consequent dispersion, forms the limit to the antediluvian record, and serves as an introduction to the history of Abraham, the chosen preparer of the unity that was to come. It may be regarded as the project of humanity striving after a false outward unity, or rather conformity. This evil develop¬ ment of human nature has ever been pregnant with the most fatal consequences. It is a unity which seeks to establish itself by force, and in opposition to the inward unity. This has ap¬ peared not only in the history of the world’s monarchies, hut also in that of the hierarchies. The individual with his con¬ victions, his freedom, and all that is sacred to him as a moral and accountable being, must be sacrificed to the idea of uni¬ formity, whether it be worldly or ecclesiastical. In the striving of the world’s monarchies, or the still more insane attempt at universal empire, individuality is lost in the grasp of an all-ab¬ sorbing power. And upon the downfall of any such selfish and ambitious project, there ever follows a dissolution and a disper¬ sion of elements. In the history even of the Church, we find a shadowy outline of the same process. It is doubtless the task and daily work of the Christian Church to disseminate unity and holiness among the nations. But this unity and holiness can only be spread and maintained through the pure light and teaching of the Gospel, as they go forth from the spiritual Zion. 116 THE DEVELOPMENT OF HEATHENISM. It is the inward unity of faith which the Gospel seeks to estab¬ lish ; and it is by this means alone that the human race can be reclaimed to God and knit together in the bonds of brother¬ hood and love. But when a Church, apostatising from the truth of God’s Word, has sought, in imitation of the world’s monarchies, to establish an outward unity, it has ever been at the expense of the inward. The impious attempt led to the first development of heathenism in the world’s monarchies, and it lias led to its still further development in the Church ; the false unity has there been transformed into an idol, and placed on the throne of the living God. It matters not where this spirit is manifested, whether on the banks of the Euphrates or of the Tiber — at Babylon or at Borne. It has culminated in the same manner, and the judgments denounced upon it by Heaven are the same. It had its beginning in the Babylonian world-monarchy, and it ends with the Apocalyptic Babylon which is to be overthrown. It is the spirit of selfishness and ambition, and as such must ever be opposed to love and humility, which alone constitute the true and enduring bond. But this bond is found only in the kingdom of God. Through¬ out Scripture Babylon is the characteristic name of pride, ostentation, vainglory, national subjugation, fraud, and tyranny upon the earth. It is there represented as the emblem of insolence towards God, of soaring to heaven, of making its throne among the stars ; and at the same time of confusion, of catastrophe, and of God’s derisive irony in view of the blasphemous effrontery of men. The first overthrow was the type of all others, as they successively become apparent in the breaking up and dissolution of these world-monarchies ; and the last judgment shall be found in the fall of mystical Babylon, when, as St Paul has foreshown, that man of sin is revealed, “ the son of perdition ; who opposeth and exalteth himself above all that is called God, or that is worshipped ; so that he, as God, sitteth in the temple of God, showing himself that he is God. . . . Whom the Lord shall consume with the spirit of His mouth, and shall destroy with the brightness of His coming.” 1 All history is full of Babels and world-wide overthrown 1 2 Tliess. ii. 3, 4 8. THE DEVELOPMENT OF HEATHENISM. 117 monarchies ; but it is still to be tested whether our modern vain boasting of what is to be achieved by science, progress, and democracy, will not culminate in the same daring and impious spirit. Science, we are told, has disarmed the light¬ ning, and annihilated time and space ; and it is vauntingly asked what limit can be assigned to it ? May it not yet deprive the ocean of its terrors, and introduce, at last, that millennium of human achievement which will render mankind independent of any power from above or from without ? On the other hand, a purely secular system of education is advo¬ cated by many, and the entire exclusion of religion from our national seminaries. The Bible, which has hitherto been the charter of our liberties, and made us as a nation what we are, is to be set aside, and the wisdom of men substituted in its stead. The constitution and government of the realm is no longer to be based on the Word of God, but everything is to be settled and adjusted by the standard of a godless expediency. We admit that the inevitable consequences of such a policy may not be perceived by those who maintain and pursue it, but the clanger is not the less imminent. If we abuse the distinguished privileges with which we have been favoured, the Divine forbearance may terminate in chastisement unlooked for and severe, though not more so than deserved. Let us, therefore, as our Saviour exhorts, “ walk in the light while we have the light, lest darkness come upon us.” With the Tower-building universal history begins. In the building of this Tower is laid the groundwork of that historical configuration which the world was about to assume. We have here the germs of two series of development — Heathenism in distinct contrast with Judaism. The spirit of Heathenism consists in acting independently of God, and in slighting the salvation which He hath foreordained. Judaism, on the con¬ trary, exhibits from the first the characteristics of deep humility, confident faith, and longing and waiting for the salvation which had been promised. The Chosen People expect nothing from their own power or wisdom, but everything from the interposition of Jehovah. They do not look for deliverance from anything present, but from something to come. To the future their longing gaze is directed ; thither do the predic- 118 THE DEVELOPMENT OF HEATHENISM. tions of tlieir Seers, and their national worship and institutions, point. Israel is emphatically the people of expectation and hope — the voice, as it were, of one crying in the wilderness, “ Prepare ye the way of the Lord.” Heathenism cherished the vain hope that man is able to deliver himself by his own devices, and to effect salvation by means which are at his own disposal. Hence the building of the Tower was the com¬ mencement of a spirit of rebellion and disobedience to the Divine will. Nimrod, according to Jewish tradition, was the leader in this rebellion. He was the son of Cush, and grand¬ son of Ham, and his career was that of a tyrant and godless personage. In his impiety he resembled the wicked Claver- house, who talked of taking God into his own hands. “ He persuaded them,” says Josephus, “ not to ascribe their plentiful condition to God, as if it were through His means they were happy, but to believe it was their own courage which procured that happiness. He also changed the [patriarchal] govern¬ ment into tyranny — seeing no other way of turning men from the fear of God, but to bring them into a constant dependence upon his power.”1 The very name Nimrod (“rebel” or “ let us rebel ”) favours this opinion. It shows it had a popular, and not a family origin. He was not, like the other sons of Cush, a patriarch, a father of the people, but “ a mighty hunter before the Lord.” This name was probably the watchword of the impious leader, and afterwards conferred upon him as a title by his applauding followers. It is conjectured that at first he had collected a great number of daring and adventurous youths around him, to destroy the wild beasts which began to abound, but that afterwards, when he had trained them by this laborious and dangerous exercise to the endurance of fatigue, the use of arms, and a kind of discipline and obedience, he directed tlieir energies against men, and thereby compelled them to submit to his dominion. The hunter accordingly became a subjugator of his fellowmen — in other words, a con¬ queror. He was the most daring and intrepid hero upon earth. He founded the ancient Babylonian monarchy, and was made a divinity after his death. Under this form he is the famous Belus or Baal of the Babylonians, the first king whom 1 Antiq., ii. c. iv. 2. THE DEVELOPMENT OF HEATHENISM. 119 the people deified for his achievements. The term Baal signi¬ fies lord or master , and so may be applied either to gods or men. The meaning of the word being thus very comprehen¬ sive, it was frequently used to denote a divinity in general, without any reference to a particular class. Among the Sabaists the sun was Baal, and the plural form of the expres¬ sion was applied to the host of heaven. The votaries of hero- worship gave this title to the most distinguished of their sovereigns ; though we also very frequently find it introduced into the names of those more obscure princes, who had no other claim to notice than that they were descended from a royal lineage. In the Chaldean and Assyrian dynasties there are several kings who bear the designation of Belus ; and the same title was conferred by the Phoenicians, the Phrygians, the Persians, and even by the remote people of India. “ In Sanscrit,” says Sir Wm. Drummond, “ Bali signifies the strong or mighty one ; neither have I any hesitation in translating the ancient Indian names, Malia-Beli and Bala-Deva , the great lord and the divine lord. The ancient Persians, according to the author of the ‘ Dabistan,’ named one of their monarchs Mah-bul , which is clearly a corruption of the Maha-bala , the great lord or great king. With respect to the signification of king , attached to the word Baal , there is no difficulty, since the distinction be¬ tween king and lord , where there is no doubt that there is a master, is of little consequence.”1 In the history of Nimrod a difficulty occurs which deserves attention. It may naturally be asked, how he could acquire such a marvellous authority while he himself was a mere youth, and while the four great patriarchs were yet living ? It will be sufficient here to reply, that while the Hebrew text allows but 292 years between the Flood and the birth of Abraham, the Samaritan extends the interval to 942 ; and the Septuagint, reckoning an additional patriarch, Cainan, to 1072. It has been said that the Septuagint numbers were enlarged by the Alexandrian J ews in order to bring the Hebrew chronology into harmony with the Egyptian ; but there is no conceivable motive which could have induced the Samaritans to alter their Pen¬ tateuch to such an extent. One ancient MS. of St Luke omits 1 Origines, vol. i. p. 110. 120 THE DEVELOPMENT OF HEATHENISM. the name of Cainan. It is likely some copyist threw him into Luke to make his genealogy tally with the Septuagint. Cainan is there said to have lived 130 years when he begat Sala. This is according to the mode of reckoning adopted by the LXX., who regularly add 100 years to the years of each patriarch, if the age in the Hebrew text be under 100, and as regularly subtract 100 years from the remainder of the life. Admitting, then, that the insertion of Cainan is an interpolation, if we subtract 130 from 1072 we leave 942, which renders the identity of the numbers in the Samaritan and Septuagint versions complete. This identity it has been usual to keep out of sight ; but it is a most important feature in the case, inasmuch as it allows space for the multiplication of men, and consolidation for the monarchies which we find existing in Abraham’s time. The reason assigned by Hales why the Hebrew chronology has been shortened, that it was done to invalidate a prediction or tradition among the Jews that the Messiah was to come in the sixth millennium, in typical response to the six days of Creation, and that appearing as He did in the fifth, He could not be the true Messiah, is improbable to an absurdity ; and the time he fixes upon for the interpolation, a.d. 130, is equally so. When so many copies were in existence, this would be utterly impossible. It would shake our confidence in the scrupulous care of the Jews, in preserving inviolate the lively oracles of God, and tend to undermine our belief in the integ¬ rity of the Hebrew text. Why did they not alter the seventy weeks of Daniel for the same reason ? The correct account of the apparent variations from the Hebrew chronology is that the LXX., and the author of the Samaritan version, have added 100 years to the age of each patriarch, because at Gen. xi. 10, it is stated in the oriental style of the Hebrew text that Sliem was “ son of a hundred years ” when he begat Arphaxad ; and at ver. 12, that Arphaxad lived five-and-thirty years, and begat Selah ; they, therefore, understood the words “ son of a hundred years ” after Arphaxad ; and so of all the other descendants of Shem, down to Terah, who begat Abraham in his seventieth year. It is evident that Josephus must have read and under¬ stood the Hebrew text in this sense, for he has uniformly sup- A THE DEVELOPMENT OF HEATHENISM. 121 plied the 100 years, in the same manner, from Shem to Terah. We cannot but be thankful that the good providence of God has preserved to us these invaluable checks, in order that the cavils of infidelity may effectually be put to silence. If, then, we accept the chronology of the Samaritan Pen¬ tateuch, of the translation of the LXX., or of Josephus, we shall he under no necessity of accounting for the total silence respecting Shem which pervades the history of Abraham. That patriarch is not mentioned, for the best of all reasons which can be given, because he died in the highlands of Armenia no less than 440 years before Abraham was born, instead of surviving him thirty-five years. The great service, therefore, rendered by the Samaritan Pentateuch is obvious. It makes sacred history harmonise with profane ; whereas the Hebrew reckoning, from its having been erroneously interpreted, throws everything into inextricable confusion. The Chaldean history of Berosus, and the ancient records consulted by Epiphanius, equally place the death of Hoah and his sons before the emi¬ gration from Armenia. With these facts before us, we shall now be in a position to trace with accuracy the causes which led to the introduction of Hero-worship after the death of Nimrod. At the time of Nimrod, as we have said, it does not appear that the development of Heathenism could have been far ad¬ vanced, yet there are conclusive grounds for the belief that its germs actually existed. We are aware that an opinion has been entertained that Sabaism prevailed among the descendants of Cain before the Deluge. The name of this worship is de¬ rived from Tsaba , which in Chaldee and Hebrew signifies the host. It has been thought that as this was the most ancient form of idolatry, it would most probably pass through the same process of development which it did in ages posterior to the Elood. But this supposition rests entirely on what we apprehend to be a misconception of Gen. iv. 26. Dr Benisch, in the modern Jewish Bible, translates the passage thus — “ then it was begun to call idols by the name of the Eternal.” How he should have felt warranted to give such a rendering we know not, for there is no word for idols in the original text. Dr Kalisch adheres closely to the common version — 122 THE DEVELOPMENT OF HEATHENISM. “ then began men to invoke the name of the Lord.” We pre¬ fer the rendering as given in the margin of our Bibles — “ then began men to call (themselves) by the name of the Lord.” This is the first time that we hear of those who called them¬ selves “ the sons of God,” and of those who were called “ the daughters of men.” Every Biblical scholar knows that by the term “ sons of God ” is to be understood the descendants of Seth, Enos, and the other patriarchs who formed the visible Church, and that all others are merely styled “ men,” and their daughters “ the daughters of men.” The intermarrying of “ the sons of God ” with “ the daughters of men ” generated a race called ncphilim , which our translators have rendered “ giants.” The word comes from a root signifying to fall upon, to attack. Its derivation, therefore, proves nothing as to these men being of lofty stature. The LXX. have given ol ytyavreg, but they employ the same word yiyag to translate gibor, Gen. x. 8, where strength rather than height is meant, though the two qualities are generally combined. It would have been better had the word nephilim been rendered assaulters, desig¬ nating thereby a fierce and depraved race, who filled the earth with violence, and by their ungodliness provoked the awful judgment which followed. From the Scripture record, there¬ fore, of the antediluvians, it is abundantly evident that it was not excess of religious superstition which prevailed among them, but on the contrary an irreligious spirit, which became so rampant that an almost universal corruption in morals was the result. How long it was after the Flood till idolatrous worship began to make its appearance we cannot determine, but it is probable that man, though by nature weak, yet proud, did not at first pay divine honours to his fellow-creatures. Grander objects were necessary to seduce him. Diodorus Siculus observes that the Egyptians, struck by the sublime aspect of the heavens, were the first to pay adoration to the sun and moon.1 But we have to go further back still than the history of Egypt for the origin of the Sabeean worship, for the Egyptian remains indicate that the first settlers in that country carried with them from Babylon, in a rudimentary form, the solar worship. Symbolic worship, therefore, at least 1 I. n. THE DEVELOPMENT OF HEATHENISM. 123 iii a germinal form, must have begun to be practised at Babylon previous to tlie dispersion. Light and darkness were the two most obvious symbols of good and evil. And as the sun which illumines the whole earth was the most powerful manifestation of light, it became the earliest external object of religious worship. Thus the worship of the visible as the symbol of the invisible was commenced. But the Egyptians being much addicted to subtlety and mysticism in their religious rites, another prin¬ ciple was introduced and intertwined with this symbolic wor¬ ship of the sun. The prolific powers of nature were deified — those powers according to which life was communicated and forms of existence were reproduced. Those powers accordingly were arranged into active and passive, male and female. Hence the sun and moon themselves came to be venerated, as embodying those active and passive principles respectively. This is the key to the whole Pagan superstition. The Osiris and Isis of Egyptian worship were merely representatives of the sun and moon ; and the Baal and Astarte of Phoenician were just the same deities under different names. The Greeks and Bomans, who borrowed their mythology from Egypt and the East, arranged their deities in the same manner. The male principle was always coupled with a female ; and whether it were Jupiter and Juno, or Phoebus and Phoebe, we are but presented with different expressions of the same great fact, which points more or less immediately to the prolific powers of nature. But as these generative powers may be conceived to exist in the same individual, they were sometimes personified in combination. Hence mythological writers describe the more ancient of their deities as hermaphrodites ; and to express in one word the prolific virtues, they had recourse to the use of the term cipprjvoOiiXvg, which denoted the union of both sexes in one person. In one of the metrical fragments, which were known among the ancients as the Hymns of Orpheus, it is said, Aiog £>’ Ik tt avrct tItvktcii : Z tvg cipay)v yEvero, Zevg apfiporog £7rXero vvfifpr]. Zevg p\iog i)<$l vg. “ Thou wast brought forth male and female.” And Dr Young, in the Supplement to the ‘ Encyc. Brit.,’ art. “ Egypt,” says that “ Joh, the Egyptian name for the moon, was a masculine deity. But Jo was Isis ; therefore Jo was both male and female, Lunus and Luna.” Thus we see how vain it is for the human mind to endea¬ vour to corrupt truth, and that even in unenlightened times, and amidst all the phases of symbolic superstition, it is con¬ tinually reverting to the innate conviction that there is hut one Divinity, the Creator and Upholder of all things. It appears, then, that the worship of the sun and moon, as the representatives of the great unknown power by which the vast creation is supported and preserved, was the first form of idolatry among mankind, after the light of revealed truth had gradually become obscured. But a second occasion of idolatry soon followed to extend the sphere of superstition, and at once to multiply its objects. Men distinguished by force of character and by their exploits came to be regarded as manifestations of the various attributes of the Unknown. Thus nature-worship and hero-worship are seen to be radically the same. Eor the worship of the sun and moon having been entered on from a supposed relationship to the productive powers of nature, it was an extension of the same superstition to include the stars also, from a supposed conjunction with human beings. Nimrod, whom the Hebrews constantly regard as leader of those who attempted to build the tower of Babel, is the first hero that was deified after his death under the name of Baal. But the Baal of the Phoenicians must be distinguished from the Baal of the Babylonians. The former was the repre¬ sentative of the sun and moon, whereas the latter, in its con¬ tracted form Bel, was identified with the planet Jupiter. It has been said that the great temple of Babylon is consecrated to Merodach ( slaughter ). But the names Bel or Bil and THE DEVELOPMENT OF HEATHENISM. 125 Merodach are sometimes coupled as denoting a single deity, who appears to have been worshipped sometimes under the one title, sometimes, with perhaps a difference of attributes, under the other. Bel has also another adjunct, Niphru; and under the designation of Bit- Niphru ( hunter-lord ) Bawlinson finds an allusion to the Biblical Nimrod. “ After mature deliberation,” he says, “ no better explanation can be obtained for Niphru than ‘ the hunter .’ ” 1 In the Assyrian monuments a figure has been discovered which is said to represent Nimrod ; he is grasping a lion in his left hand, while his right holds a missile weapon. Such was the character attached to this formidable warrior, the beginning of whose power was at Babel, and whose name was thus kept in remembrance by the nations of the East. After Nimrod, other heroes followed in succes¬ sion, and were deified in like manner. Different notions, and occasionally different modifications of the same notions, were held as to which of the stars it would be more fitting to iden¬ tify with a particular hero, and this led to great confusion in this description of worship. This confusion went on increas¬ ing, from the circumstance that in different countries the same O-7 deities, under the same or different names, were again and again repeated. And at subsequent periods new ones were continually being added to the number, until it became ap¬ parent that the starry host could not supply distinctive appella¬ tions to the warriors, the kings, and also the sages, whom the awe or the gratitude of nations, wrapt in the darkness of abject superstition, endeavoured to raise to the rank of immortals. But man, in his apostasy from God and in the forgetfulness of His revealed truth, had not yet reached that depth of humiliation into which he was destined to sink deeper still, and to worship the brute creation which had been placed under his feet. Thus, in the watery film that covers the clear-seeing eye of the crocodile, as it lay concealed in the Nile, the Egyptians recognised a symbol in the all-seeingness of the Invisible. Again, the Divine power encircling and guarding His own dominions was represented by a serpent enfolding a delineated palace in its immense coils. In short, it was the abuse of symbolism which became the 1 Rawlinson’s Herodotus, pp. 596, 597. 126 THE DEVELOPMENT OF HEATHENISM. most fruitful source of idolatry from its commencement to its lowest forms of degradation. It was this abuse, fraught with every germ of malignant error, which filled the temples of Egypt with countless absurdities, and surrounded the altars of every land with imagery of wood and stone. Yet symbolism is not to be proscribed because of its abuse. It has its legiti¬ mate purpose as well as its perversion. To a great extent it has its foundation in nature and custom, in observation and experience. Eor when a sign is addressed to the eye, it must be one by which the eye recognises the signified. How else should we know that red is the symbol of guilt, and white that of purity ? 1ST o matter how the idea should have been acquired — whether from the religious rites of Divine appoint¬ ment, or from the forbidden practices of Heathenism ; in either case, the connection between the outward symbol and the mental idea is the same ; and to proscribe symbolism alto¬ gether would be as absurd as to assert that its use under Old Testament times was improper, because its abuse led to heathen idolatry. To have a correct idea of the symbolic worship of primitive times, it is necessary to ascertain what were the views and impressions which, as parts of a divinely appointed religion, they were fitted to awaken in the ancient worshipper. Precision and definiteness cannot in every case be obtained on a point of this kind, because much must de¬ pend on the thought and attention of the mind to which the symbol presented itself. But we should especially guard against the mistake of making symbols indicative of more than what the faithful in those early ages might, with ordinary degrees of light and grace, have learned from them. At first believers were largely dependent on symbols for their knowledge of Divine truth, and we think it extremely probable that much greater insight into their spiritual meaning was attainable by them through this medium than we can easily comprehend. But we cannot admit that this form of worship was divinely instituted, because it was peculiarly adapted to the constitution of the Eastern mind. If such were the fact, then it would go to prove that the inhabitants of the East were incapable of being taught another and more spiritual religion, and so one in connection with symbols must ever have claimed an ascend- THE DEVELOPMENT OF HEATHENISM. 127 ancy over them. Whereas their mode of viewing things in nature in connection with things sacred was the result of a symbolic religion already instituted, and not the originating cause of that religion. The actual necessity for the employ¬ ment of outward representation in the elder economies arose from the very nature of the institutions themselves, as being merely temporary substitutes for the better things under the more spiritual dispensation of the Gospel ; rendering it indis¬ pensable that symbols should occupy the place of the coming reality. At the same time, we are fully aware that the mode of contemplation to which the inhabitants of the East were thus accustomed, peculiarly fitted them for the intelligent use of a symbolic worship. They could perceive an appropriate¬ ness and significance in the outward type and symbol, through which their chief intercourse with God was held, in a manner which we, who receive our instruction in Divine truth through written and oral discourse, can imperfectly understand. They were trained from their childhood to the use of symbolical institutions as the most sacred and expressive channels of Divine communication, so that they became, through symboli¬ cal custom, adepts, as compared with us, in perceiving the suitableness, and in employing the instrumentality, of religious symbols. But living so much as they did under impressions received from sensible objects, there arose a tendency in their minds to imagine that a necessary connection subsisted be¬ tween the sign and the thing signified, and thus all nature came to wear to them a symbolic aspect. Here, then, lies the germ of that superstition which culminated in Heathenism, or the deification of nature in its entire compass. That mode of contemplation which was wont to perceive the spiritual in sensible external symbols proceeded in Heathenism one step further. It saw in the universe and nature not only a vast manifestation of Godhead, but the very essence and existence of nature itself were regarded as identical with the essence and existence of Godhead, and as such blended together. The ultimate development of all Heathenism is Pantheism. Still the idea of the unity of the Supreme Being was not ab¬ solutely lost ; this unity indeed was not that of a personal existence, possessing self-consciousness and self-will, but an 128 THE DEVELOPMENT OF HEATHENISM. impersonal one, properly designated by the great IT, a neuter abstract ; for it is a mere speculative conception or mode of contemplating nature. The world is the existence form of God — God is everything, and everything is God. Whenever the Deity was thought of as a person, the thought again was lost, and resolved itself into a multiplicity of divine powers. But all these gods were mere personifications of the different elements of nature. From a religion which was so physical in its fundamental character, it is not surprising that the morality to be developed should bear a correspondence to the physical. But it is not in the power of any system of error to reverse the laws of nature. The heathen nations of an¬ tiquity recognised the obligations of the moral law, and the excellence of virtue. Nevertheless the highest aim of their Pantheistic religion was, that man should yield an absolute submission to fate, to which gods and men were alike subject ; that he should attain final absorption in Deity, and so repre¬ sent in himself its life. The history of Heathenism, in all its forms, whether as it existed among the Egyptians, the Greeks and Bomans, or as it is found among the Hindus, shows that when Monotheism failed amongst men, because “ they did not like to retain God in their knowledge,” it was replaced by the worship of nature. The different elements, as fire, air, and water, were personified, endowed with personal attributes and divine powers, giving rise to Polytheism ; or else nature, as a whole, became the object of worship, resulting in Pantheism. Pantheism is Materialism, and this is the radical error of all the religions of Heathendom. Every form of religion which deifies nature has materialism for its basis ; hence it is, that in no heathen religion do we meet with a true idea of God. Heathenism knows not the extra-mundane, independent God ; but puts in His place the powers of nature, which are but the instruments of His agency, the garment wherewith He covers Himself. It is thus that St Paul describes the nature of Heathenism in his Epistle to the Eomans : “ When they knew God, they glorified Him not as God, neither were thank¬ ful ; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened. Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools, and changed the glory of the uncorruptible God THE DEVELOPMENT OF HEATHENISM. 129 into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and four-footed beasts, and creeping things.” 1 This is a description which the history of Heathenism, in all ages, abundantly cor¬ roborates. Some forms of Heathenism, it is true, represent more the different powers of nature, while others represent more the powers of the mind. Between the Fetishism of Africa, which finds a god in the individual object of nature which it selects for veneration, and the Pantheism of India, which contemplates the end of man in the absorption of the individual in the universal life of nature, there are many intermediate forms of Heathenism which deify nature. It is in Hindustan that we find the Pantheism of the heathen world most fully developed in the two prominent forms of Indian religion, Brahminism and Buddhism. While Brahminism rep¬ resents the highest state to which man can aspire to be, that of final absorption in the soul of the universe, whose emanation he is, Buddhism carries out the idea of the loss of individu¬ ality and identity to the cause of all existence, and finally annihilates everything, — finding in submission to what is in¬ evitable the only consolation for all the miseries of life. Here, then, we see the religion of nature carried out to its furthest results, and at last enveloped in the gulf of Atheism. But in spite of such a dire conclusion, we find the adherents of these systems requiring personal deities, to whom, in the ordinary circumstances of life, they may resort ; and hence it is that the Pantheistic religions of nature become everywhere Poly¬ theistic — the several divinities representing the powers of nature. Sometimes these powers represent the generative process, and find their concentration in one creative power ; at other times the several divinities are governed by one superior to the rest, called Destiny or Fate, thus again acknowledging the necessity of a Supreme and Only God. In all the religions of Heathendom it is little more than the idea of man that is worshipped. We find, indeed, gleams of the Godhead in them ; still they are but gleams reflected by broken rays. Thus far, however, a Monotheistic feature may be said to pervade the whole world of gods and goddesses ; it is ever seeking to attain in Fate or Destiny an Absolute 1 Rom. i. 21-23. I 130 THE DEVELOPMENT OF HEATHENISM. Divinity, but it is unable to reach the heights to which it would soar, and is again drawn down within the cycle of limitation. Dor mankind having once lost the instructions given by the Almighty to the first patriarchs, it was no longer within their power to define and apprehend the Divine Being. Comte, according to a universal and necessary law, which he assumes as the foundation of the Positive Philosophy, en¬ deavours to establish on this point the very reverse of what is the fact. He says that not the race of men, but each in¬ dividual man, passes through three distinct stages of belief. These he calls the theological, the metaphysical, and the positive. In the first of these stages, all events are referred to supernatural causes, and therefore men were originally Petish worshippers. In the second, phenomena are referred to occult powers or forces, which are imperceptible to the senses. In the third, at which the race have now arrived, no spiritual agencies or efficient causes in the universe are re¬ cognised ; nothing but a succession of events, according to the invariable and necessary law of antecedence and consequence. As this is the law of development of all mankind, so it is the law of development of each individual man. We first believe in supernatural agencies, spirits, and enchantments ; then in occult causes ; and ultimately only in facts discernible by the senses. The Positive Philosophy thus professes to be based upon a law, which in its development embraces not only the history of the human race, but likewise tallies with the ex¬ perience of every individual man. But this law exists only in the imagination of the author himself. There has been no such religious development of the race, nor of every individual man. To say that if we believe in supernatural agencies we cannot believe in occult and metaphysical causes ; and that if we believe in the latter, we must have ceased to believe in the former, since these stages are antagonistic and mutually exclusive, is contrary to fact ; for the great mass of mankind, cultivated and uncultivated, believe in both. And with regard to the human intellect itself, much of our knowledge of all kinds has not invariably been subjected to this law of the three states, and therefore the necessity of such a law cannot be demonstrated. THE DEVELOPMENT OF HEATHENISM. 131 Besides, it is mere gratuitous assumption to assert that the race of men, in their primitive state, were Fetish worshippers, and that they gradually rose to Polytheism and Monotheism. This has not been the religious history of mankind. Not only Revelation, but also the Annals and Traditions of Heathen nations, conclusively prove that the primitive state of our race was not that of savagism, but one in which religion stood upon the highest footing. There is a deep meaning in the earlier Scripture narratives which tells us that God walked and com¬ muned with the earlier patriarchs as a ' father doth with his children. As speech, which lies dormant in the mind of a child, is awakened and called into exercise by the speech which he hears around him, so must also fellowship with God, for which man was created, be awakened and developed by personal and actual intercourse on his part. This original intercourse with God is the basis of all knowledge of Him, and of all religion among mankind, even of the most corrupt and perverted religion. For there are elements of truth at the root of all religions. Even their errors are but distortions of obscured and forgotten truths. Were it not so, the religions of Heathendom could not have lasted so long, and would not still endure. For falsehood, if unmitigated, is not attractive ; it only attracts by means of the partial truth which it con¬ tains. Pure falsehood can neither allure nor satisfy the human mind. Let man sink ever so low, he will never be able utterly to annihilate within him the consciousness of truth. Individuals may succeed in stifling their consciousness of truth, but nations can never wholly do this. The truths which lie hidden in heathen religions had their origin in primitive revelations, which were the common possession of the whole human race, while yet they lingered in the plain of Shinar. And these were the inheritance which the nations carried with them into foreign lands, after their dispersion from their common home. Monotheism, therefore, was the earliest form of religion among men. To that succeeded the worship of nature. This nature-worship rests on the assump¬ tion that nature is God, or the existence-form or manifestation of the Infinite Unknown. This nature-worship, as we have already said, assumed two 132 THE DEVELOPMENT OF HEATHENISM. forms. Nature on a whole, regarded as the manifestation or existence-form of the Infinite Unknown, gave rise to Pan¬ theism ; and nature manifesting itself in different degrees in different persons or things, as heroes, or in the elements, gave rise to Polytheism. It is a historical fact that Monotheism was not reached, as Comte asserts, by a process of development. If the law which he seeks to establish be universal and neces¬ sary, how is it that the Hindus, whose literature is allowed by competent judges to equal, and in some respects to surpass, that of the Greeks, and whose schools of philosophy are admitted to be not a whit behind the most subtle and refined productions of Plato and Aristotle, have not yet reached the Monotheistic development ? Are the Hindus exempt from this universal and necessary law of development which he assumes as the basis of his theory ? And are the nations of the West also exempt from the operation of this law, since they have not passed out of the Monotheistic into the Positive stage of development ? The fact is, that such an invariable development of our race as Comte maintains is a mere assump¬ tion. Mankind have not universally been subjected to the law of the three states which he propounds, and therefore the necessity of the law cannot be shown. On the contrary, the very reverse of Comte’s process of development is what all history affirms — that not Fetishism but Monotheism was the primitive form of religion among men. When mankind had gradually apostatised from this original belief, it was mirac¬ ulously preserved among the chosen people, and from them diffused among the nations in the form of Christianity. In accordance with this fact we find that while the heathen nations advanced in intellectual attainments, they retrograded in religion. It is admitted by those who have most fully investigated the subject, that the further back we go into antiquity, the higher and purer a knowledge of God do we find. “ It is also true,” says Dr William Hales, “ of the most ancient heathen records that have survived the wreck of time ; the oldest subsisting fragments are usually the simplest and best, and afford the most favourable specimens of primitive theol¬ ogy, and exhibit a remarkable conformity with Holy Writ.” 1 1 Analysis of Chronology, vol. iv. p. 459. THE DEVELOPMENT OF HEATHENISM. 133 Eusebius has preserved in his ‘ Evangelical Preparation ’ the celebrated Zoroaster’s definition of the Divinity. He tran¬ scribed it literally from a book of Zoroaster’s, still extant in his time, entitled, ‘ A Sacred Collection of Persian Monu¬ ments ’ : “ God is the first of incorruptibles, eternal, not be¬ gotten. He is not composed of parts ; there is nothing like Him, or equal to Him. He is the author of all good, the most excellent of all excellent beings, and the wisest of all intelli¬ gences ; the Father of justice and good laws, self-instructed, all-sufficient in Himself, and the original Author of all nature.” This sublime definition of the Divinity proves Zoroaster to have been greatly superior to the age in which he lived. He had with much assiduity collected the information preserved by ancient traditions. “ He employed all his efforts,” says the learned Dr Hyde, “ to destroy those absurd opinions which men entertained, and to bring back the most reasonable to the knowledge of one single principal Creator of heaven and earth ; but finding the worship of stars and planets the prevailing religion, and unwilling to offer too great violence to their notions in regard to the sun, the principle of fertility to the earth, he instituted some religious ceremonies, which are still practised among the Magi, who are descendants of the ancient Persians.” 1 “ Some of the writings attributed to Zoroaster,” says the ‘ American Ethnological J ournal,’ “ plainly evince a most remote antiquity ; and these writings point to a still older religion, of which the creed of Zoroaster was a reforma¬ tion or reconstruction.” 2 In India, while Pantheism in every form and degree is taught in the schools of Brahminism, yet the doctrine of One Supreme Being, eternal, before all, and the Creator of all, is strenuously maintained by the Yedantists. The Vedantic hymns are certainly among the most ancient writings extant at the present day ; and says Max Muller, the result we arrive at from their perusal is — “ That religions in their most ancient form, or in the minds of their authors, are generally free from many of the blemishes that attach to them in later times.” 3 1 Hist. Relig. Vet. Pers. 2 No. V., p. 152. 3 Chips from a German Workshop, vol. i. p. 48. 134 THE DEVELOPMENT OF HEATHENISM. When we pass from the Eastern to the Western world, we there see the Greeks and Eomans, those specially gifted nations, entrusted with culture and civilisation for the benefit of man¬ kind. For God has chosen individual nations for the execu¬ tion of special work which shall be conducive to the accomp¬ lishment of the great scheme of Revelation. In the fulfilment of His purposes He employs human agencies and natural means, and when nations are selected, each has its particular task assigned to it, according to the end in view. Thus Israel was His people who should preserve His name and truth in the earth till the Messiah should come. The Greeks were the people of culture, the Romans of civilisation. But the true spirit and source of all culture is religion. The vocation of Israel was to preserve Revelation, that it might become the spiritual concern of all nations. The task assigned to Greece and Rome was that of culture, that it might be seen to be the natural pursuit of the human race. Here, then, we see the history of Revelation and that of culture existing apart from each other. The relations between them are intimate and manifold. Yet they may exist without intermingling. But it is in their union that we perceive the perfect fulfilment of the Divine plan. Revelation and culture being thus pre¬ pared for mutual alliance, to effect this union was the task of Christianity, and to work each into the other is to advance our own knowledge, and to be workers together with God “ toward the goal of our high calling.” Henceforth to strengthen and consolidate the union now achieved, is an important task devolving on the Christian ages. And no greater evil could befall mankind than any godless attempt to sever the two great provinces of religion and science. If from this point of view we contemplate the religions of Heathendom, we cannot fail to perceive that they fulfilled an important end, and served to prepare the human race for the ultimate reception of Revelation ; for the longer they existed without it, the more they showed their need of it. If, then, Revelation passed through a history in a particular nation for mankind, mankind passed through a history in Heathendom for Revelation. In these religions we see the lamentable con¬ sequences of the great apostasy of the heathen world. But THE DEVELOPMENT OF HEATHENISM. 135 they had run their course. All implicit faith in the outworn heathen creeds was departing, because they were found incap¬ able any longer of sustaining, by ever so little, the anxious spirit of man. The wiser among their sages had expressed their conviction that a Teacher from heaven would be neces¬ sary to instruct mankind. Heathenism had tried, but in vain, to give a solution to the doubts and questionings which per¬ plexed humanity. By this felt and acknowledged inadequacy in the Pagan religions were mankind to be led past them, and thus prepared to embrace Revelation. But this would not have been possible had Heathenism been all error. It was not entirely destitute of every truth. If it had been merely a delusion and altogether a lie, it could not again and again have entangled in its meshes the people of God, who were daily witnesses of the Divine Omnipotence, and possessed in their worship the most sublime and profound mysteries. But in these religions there were elements of truth — doubtless the relics of a primeval Revelation ; and these partial truths which they contained served as positive preparations for the whole truth. St Paul indeed says, that the heathen were “ without God in the world.” 1 Certainly they had not a true knowledge of God, and this is the secret cause of the heart-yearning and lamentation with which the whole heathen world is filled. They had misconceived notions of God, but still they had a consciousness of His existence. This constituted the tie which bound them to God, and by which He was connected to them. They had, moreover, truths which lay at the roots of their re¬ ligions — truths which were partly dim memories of the past still glimmering in the present, like the long line of mellow gold that shoots along the distant horizon after the sun has departed ; and partly prophetic utterances which from the remotest ages had pervaded the nations, inspiring with pre¬ sentiments of better times longing and inquiring hearts, like the stars which shed their faint illumination on the night, and announce the first streaks of coming day. We have thus to acknowledge the existence of, and to distinguish between, a brighter and a darker aspect of the heathen world. Both 1 Eph. ii. 12. 136 THE DEVELOPMENT OF HEATHENISM. sides passed through, a history ; and that history on the one side was a gradual process of self-dissolution, leading down into the slough of scepticism and unbelief, yet on the other producing its cheering anticipation of a happier era. Such was the state of the heathen when the close of the old world opened the door to the spirit of the new. Like the prodigal son, they had not found that bliss they hoped for in the ways they had chosen. On the contrary, those ways led to misery, hunger, and nakedness. Yet those thousands of years were not to pass without leaving any beneficial result. In their wanderings they were to acquire knowledge and ex¬ perience ; they were to develop powers and capacities, where¬ with, on their return, they could become useful and serviceable to their Father’s household. Heathenism was like a tree made to grow on an ungenial soil — it bore blossoms, and some that were lovely, but they faded and fell off, without giving place to the fruit. It could no longer stand the charge of deceptive¬ ness, and of entire impotence to satisfy the cravings of the soil. At that stage it had reached its natural termination, and the goal of its development. It had produced that culture which is in part unsurpassed, and has thereby materially aided those Christian researches which are destined to pervade every de¬ partment of sacred truth. Heathenism is thus seen to have served an important purpose as well as Judaism. The latter was to prepare salvation for mankind, the former mankind for its acceptance. They were two series of development unfold¬ ing by the side of each other. They were different in their origin and aim, yet both tending towards a universal centre. Each occupied a separate and independent sphere, and they could only be joined into one when both had reached that maturity which rendered them capable of becoming universal. It was then that the culture which Heathenism had produced was to be translated into the regions of Eevelation. This trans¬ lation Christianity achieved. Eevelation and culture, which had hitherto been separate, were now united, and Christianity was made the concern of the whole civilised world. In the brief survey we have taken of Heathenism, we have seen enough to justify the description of St Paul, when he rep¬ resents its history in regard to the idea of God as one of pro- THE DEVELOPMENT OF HEATHENISM. 137 gressive perversion of the truth. It was only the idea of man which the Greeks worshipped in their gods. In the latter days of the Greek philosophy efforts were made, chiefly by Socrates and Plato, to raise the conceptions of the Divine na¬ ture to greater purity and spirituality. But the religion of the populace could stand no dialectic discussion ; the investigation of its claims to belief was its dissolution, while philosophic speculation was unable to replace it. The Platonic philosophy aimed nobly, but reached not the goal to which it aspired. It wanted that foundation of objective facts which was necessary to constitute a religion. Por every religion must appeal, or has appealed, to facts, either supposed or real. Thoughts alone, however elevated or true, cannot make a religion. We find this defect pervading every department of heathen philos¬ ophy. It is a picture of “ Spirits yearning in desire To follow knowledge, like a sinking star, Beyond the utmost bounds of human thought.” — Tennyson. The same defect prevented “ the mysteries ” from becoming a religion. The dark enigmas of Eleusis had been celebrated for a thousand years in the colossal temples of Thebes before they were transported to the shores of Attica. With them came also the Anaglyph, or sacred writing, known only to the priest¬ hood.1 In these mysteries the mind sought that illumination which was not afforded it by the popular religion. They pro¬ fessed to give solutions to those fundamental questions of reli¬ gion — the atonement and the future destiny of man — and until those questions were solved the wants of humanity could not be supplied. That the deliverance of mankind from the pen¬ alty of guilt must in some mysterious way be connected with vicarious suffering, was an idea which had not altogether left the heathen world, we have a striking proof in the noblest of all the Grecian dramas, the Prometheus of AEschylus. Pro¬ metheus, chained to the rock, in daily torment, utters the oracle, known to himself alone, that the son of Saturn shall be one 1 The Hieroglyphic or sacred writing was a system different from this, and could be read generally by the educated classes. 138 THE DEVELOPMENT OF HEATHENISM. clay hurled from his throne and realm by a mightier than him¬ self, while he beholds Hercules as his deliverer in the distant future. But this deliverance, as Hermes announces to him, is not to take place without the suffering of another in his stead. “ Of such misery expect not an end, before some one of the gods shall appear as thy substitute in torment, and be willing to descend to gloomy Hades, and the dark depths around Tar¬ tarus.” And this was done by Chiron, the most just and wise of the Centaurs, the son of Chronos, sacrificing himself for him, while Hercules kills the eagle at his breast, and so delivers him from his torments. That the poet was representing to his audience the deep ideas of the heathen world concerning guilt, atonement, and the redemption of mankind, and that these ideas, arrayed in the gigantic mythology of Greece, were but phantoms summoned from the wreck of a vanished creed, has been, and evidently with truth, the opinion of the learned. The mysteries, and especially the Eleusinian, contained in them traces of the doctrines of the atonement and a future life — doctrines which the heathen philosophy found it impossible to solve : it is not, therefore, surprising that the most noble of the nation gathered around them. But the answers they received consisted not in facts but symbols, in which, as usual, were lost those views of the truth they were intended to shadow forth. The dissatisfaction which prevailed was ultimately resolved into scepticism, and belief in the mysteries and in the gods fell together. Such was the case in Greece, and such also subsequently was the case in Borne. What else could be expected of a religion which could afford neither solace nor hope to thought¬ ful minds ? Yet philosophy could offer nothing in its stead but ingenious speculations, and soon nothing but doubts. It is true the Bomans had no philosophy of their own, and did but feebly imitate that which they had imported from Athens. “ Boman philosophy,” it has been well said, “ was but plagiar¬ ism worshipping the echo of Grecian wisdom.” After the sub¬ jugation of Greece, when the conquered had entwined their intellectual chains around the conquerors, the study of their language and literature became the fashion at Borne. The youth of the imperial city repaired to Athens, and returned THE DEVELOPMENT OF HEATHENISM. 139 with that erudition and refinement which were requisite to throw a grace around the sternness of the Eoman character. This influence is apparent in the Dialogues of Cicero, and still more in that light and careless philosophy which runs through the sparkling verses of Horace. Amid the schools of Athens, without attaching himself to any particular sect, yet culling from all what suited his taste, he seems to have been imbued with those Epicurean maxims which impart a tone of scep¬ ticism to his poems. And this was the only kind of effect philosophy produced at Borne, and especially in the latter days of the Bepublic. The consequence was that the old mytho¬ logy was treated with contempt. It was looked upon as in¬ tended for the mental childhood of the human race ; and to deny the existence of the gods was regarded as the mark of a philosophic mind. Hence Cicero could say : “ It is marvel¬ lous that one soothsayer can look another in the face without laughing.” It was philosophy which made the first attack upon the ancient shrine in which so many generations had worshipped ; but philosophy was only for the few, and com¬ mon minds could not be thus weaned from the popular reli¬ gion. When the reasonings of the enlightened have proved an ancient creed to be but a collection of fables, it is long before the conviction of its hollowness will sink down into the hearts of the masses. And so it was with Polytheism. The ceremonies of the faith still went on ; the temples were thronged, and whatever doctrines were held by the loftier thinkers, it would have taken ages for them to overthrow a superstition so entwined with the life, and so jealously guarded by the crowds of the devotees. Had its only antagonist been the coldness of scepticism, it would have retained its ground ; nor did it at last recede till expelled by the overpowering light of Revelation. Even amongst those who professed to treat the sacred legends merely as fabulous tales, we can at times discern a gleam of superstition, which shows that still they were in bondage to the fears they ridiculed. If Caesar and Pornpey and Crassus turned from the shrines of their household gods, they yet con¬ sulted the Chaldean astrologers, while their miserable ends sadly belied the predictions they received, — that death should 140 THE DEVELOPMENT OF HEATHENISM. overtake them ripe in years, and encircled with glory in their homes. Even the Epicurean Horace, when he hears the thunder at noonday, is shaken in his scepticism about the supernatural powers, and leaves in his stanzas the traces of his dread. “ Parcus deorum cultor et infrecpiens, Insanientis dum sapientiae Consultus erro ; nunc retrorsum Vela dare, atque iterare cursus Cogor relictos. Namque Diespiter, Igni corusco nubila dividens, Plermnque per purum tonantes Egit equos volucremque currum.”1 — Garni., I. xxxiv. The morality of the ancient world took the same course as its Polytheistic religion. For between religion and morality there is an inseparable relation and mutual dependence. If the religion be of a pure character, so will be its morality ; but if of an opposite description, its morality will be found to cor¬ respond. Morality of whatever kind must stand or fall with its distinctive religion. In reviewing the religions of Heathen¬ ism, we see everywhere the life of nature intoxicating the mind of man, and merging it in its mysteries. The generative prin¬ ciple, according to which life is communicated, and forms of existence are reproduced, were the ideas represented in a series of divinities, symbols, and solemnities. It was the life of nature which they worshipped. But the life of nature is a 1 “A fugitive from heaven and prayer, I mock’d at all religious fear, Deep scienc’d in the mazy lore Of mad philosophy : but now Hoist sail, and back my voyage plough To that blest harbour which I left before. For lo ! that awful heavenly Sire, Who often cleaves the clouds with fire, Parent of day, immortal Jove, Late through the floating fields of air, The face of heaven serene and fair, His thundering steeds and winged chariot drove.” — Francis’s Translation. THE DEVELOPMENT OF HEATHENISM. 141 sensuous life. Hence all these religions are pervaded by a power of sensuousness, and exhibit a combination of religion and dissoluteness as revolting as it is incomprehensible. To such a state of degradation had Heathenism reached, that the appalling picture drawn of it by St Paul, in the opening of his Epistle to the Romans, was abundantly realised among even the most refined nations of antiquity. Indeed, sensuality was the predominating vice of Heathenism. Religion itself af¬ forded nourishment to licentiousness. The temples became places of debauchery, and the festivals of the gods frantic revels. Poetry and art contributed to the same abuse. To us “ the sunny legends of Homer ” are but fictions of the im¬ agination, and we can derive no harm from persuing them, for whoever thinks that his narratives are real ? But how differ¬ ent was the case with the people who from their childhood believed in the old mythology. If, in these later times, our own poets have resorted to the supernatural to give a charm to their verse, bringing the fairy from the forest, or the fiend from his abode of darkness— though the employment of such agency has no warrant from our religion, — we can conceive how much more powerful must have been the impression pro¬ duced by those ancient legends upon the minds of those who had been accustomed to regard them as truths. It was not the mere excitement of Homer’s stirring descriptions that gave his hearers so much interest in his theme — it was the embodiment in his verse of those stories from their mythology, which to them were more than fables. His poems had in their eyes an importance similar to that of the Bible in ours. Indeed they have been styled “ the canonical system of classical Paganism,” inasmuch as quotations from them occur in the Greek classics, just as quotations from the Bible do in the literature of Modern Europe. It was this circumstance that invested them with a reverence as something half-divine. His narratives in them were not regarded as mere fictions, but as matters of absolute faith. Viewed in this aspect, we can understand why Homer was subjected to the severe criticism of the stricter philoso¬ phers. For if Xenophanes was the first of these who arrayed himself against the truth of his legends, Plato looked upon them not only as untruthful, but as corrupt and immoral in 142 THE DEVELOPMENT OF HEATHENISM. their tendency, and, as the legislator of his own ideal common¬ wealth, decreed that they should be banished from it. The invention of the arts gave a rapid progress to idolatry. Well sculptured statues inspired awe and reverence, and men began to imagine that the gods whom they represented took pleasure in brooding over and inhabiting them. The elements of Pagan worship, as we have said, were everywhere the same. The gods of the East were those of Greece under different names. But it is to Greece that we usually refer, when we speak of the ancient mythology in connection with art. It was there, amidst her groves and temples as its chosen home, that it reached its highest glory. There the genius of Homer and her tragic poets gave form and system to their legends. They gathered up the primitive traditions, and, moulding them in their verse, brought forth those lofty creations which other generations were to reverence as gods. Their deities were half-human, half-divine — uniting the lofty power of a god with the attributes of man. But while those fables endowed the gods with the attributes of our nature, they sank still lower, and degraded them with the vice and weaknesses of fallen humanity. Nevertheless it was this connection between the divine and human which in art gave the highest inspiration to genius. The cumbrous and uncouth idols of the East, with their numerous heads, or arms, or breasts, meant as symbolic representations of power, or wisdom, or fertility, required, when transported to Greece, to be remodelled according to the polished taste of the people. Hence we never find among them those grotesque and multiform images by which men in the East endeavoured to shadow forth the attributes of their gods. If the Greeks attempted to delineate the typical and symbolical, the conception was redeemed by the impress of the ideal and the beautiful. The artist who would create with his chisel a representation of Jupiter Olympus in his Homeric majesty, and seated on his lofty car — or of Minerva, armed with helmet, shield, and spear — took for his models the noblest forms, and then endeavoured to surpass them by throwing around his statue something more majestic and beautiful than could be found on earth. He struggled to lose sight of the visible in the invisible, of the earthly and human in the THE DEVELOPMENT OF HEATHENISM. 143 imaginative and the divine. Athens, in her “ high and palmy state,” was an embodiment of all that was beautiful and captivating to the senses. Her people demanded this attribute even in their religion, for their faith was the religion of the arts. The quarries of Paros and Pentelicus had given up their treasures ; and entablature and column of snow-white marble yet remain, clothed with an imperishable charm. Painting, too, had been invoked to lend its aid ; and frieze and pediment still are covered with a brilliancy of colours which no atmosphere but that of Greece could have long preserved. Their palaces and temples, altars and statues, met the eye at every turn, exquisite in their symmetry and dazzling in their hues — the very triumph of Grecian art. On the almost speak¬ ing marble were emblazoned the dreams of their poets, and on the frieze of every temple their boastful legends were inscribed by the sculptor’s hand. To us the capital of Greece is a city whose glory has faded ; yet if those fairest fabrics which all the efforts of art have never since been able to equal are sufficient even in their broken remains to call forth the world’s admiration, what must have been the effect produced in the days of their splendour, and especially upon the minds of a people who worshipped all that was noble and graceful, and who carried their notions of taste and refinement to such an extent, that they became impatient of the reality, when at variance with their own conceptions ? When we pass from Athens, “ the eye of Greece,” to Corinth, the great emporium of the eastern and western divisions of the Eoman Empire, we there behold the last retreat of Grecian splendour and magnificence. When refinement and art were fading in their early seats in Ionian Asia and Attica, they had a brief revival in the opulent city of the Isthmus. We there trace the retiring footsteps of Hellenic art, before it left for ever the soil of Greece. Corinth was unsurpassed in the stateliness of its public buildings — its temples, palaces, theatres, and baths. It was Eoman sumptuousness lavished under the guidance of Grecian taste. But its beauty and luxury proved its ruin. It stood pre-eminent for its profligacy among the cities of the East. Its inhabitants, yielding themselves to the enervating influence of sensual pleasure, sank to the lowest 144 THE DEVELOPMENT OF HEATHENISM. depths of turpitude and wickedness. Here was the most celebrated temple of Venus, where the goddess was worshipped with a service more degrading than even in her own Paphian home. If we turn from thence to the excavations of Pompeii, we are furnished with still further testimony in regard to the extent to which art was degraded, and how much it ministered to the basest sensuality. Paintings recently discovered there are said to be so revolting to the moral feelings, that for the honour of humanity we are almost constrained to admit that it was high time that they were covered by the terrible agency of the volcano. But if such was the degradation to which Heathenism had sunk in a country town of Italy, what must it have been in Rome itself ? While, therefore, thoroughly ap¬ preciating the nobleness of Grecian art in its earlier culture, we must emphatically denounce the immoral influence of its later productions. It was this state of things, and its demoralis¬ ing effect, which called forth the attacks of the Church in the three first centuries of Christianity. Another cause of the degrading influence of Heathenism was its connection with the State. So inseparable was this union, that the obligations of the man were lost in those of the citizen. It is true that the Heathenism of the early ages, in consequence of the power of patriarchal traditions, pre¬ sented man’s religious and moral duties in a purer and higher aspect than this. But such was its natural development as the light of Revelation became gradually more faint and dim. It is sufficiently well known to those who have the slightest acquaintance with the history of Heathenism in its more advanced stage of development, that the highest religious duties consisted in worshipping the gods according to the laws of the State. Tlius the limits prescribed to religion by the State became the limits of piety. Prayer and sacrifice were performed, not as the spontaneous offerings of the heart, but as the discharge of a legal duty. In the division of the world, power had fallen to the lot of the gods, dependence to that of man. To secure, therefore, the favour of the gods, it was necessary that man should acknowledge this dependence. But further than this there could be no possible relation THE DEVELOPMENT OF HEATHENISM. 145 between the gods and man ; and so no love, in the proper sense of the term, could exist between them. Aristotle held that since love could only exist between beings of the same kind, it was absurd to speak of love to the gods. Piety was nothing more than an acknowledgment of dependence. But the mere feeling of dependence can never exert a moral influence on man’s inner life. It cannot purify the heart, or inspire an in¬ vigorating thought, or transform the man into “ a new creature. ’r The great difficulty which pervades all Heathenism is its inability to deal with the solemn realities of another world. Hot even when we look at the highest development of Moral and Eeligious Philosophy which it ever reached, do we find it competent to place in a clear light the doctrine of man’s responsibility. It fails to perceive that in consequence of our moral nature we are rendered accountable for what we are and what we do, not to ourselves, not to society, not to the State, but to a Person — that is, to a Being — who knows what we are and what we do ; what we ought to be and to do ; who- approves of the right and disapproves of the wrong, and who has the power to reward or punish according to our character and conduct. In the history of the ancient world, we no doubt meet with many a noble form of humanity, command¬ ing our highest regard ; and it is in those illustrious Greeks and Bomans whose names have come down to us, that we see realised all that the spirit of antiquity was capable of effect¬ ing. Ancient Eome presents that stern and uncompromising moral earnestness winch distinguishes her above many other nations and states. Still it is the morality of the citizen, not that of the man, and far less the morality of the renewed heart, which is exhibited. It is within such limits that ancient morality was confined, and when those limits were dissolved, the moral power which was united to them also- disappeared. In vain did Philosophy attempt from its own resources to construct a system which might prove itself efficient. It never could get beyond theories, and even its very theories were burdened with perplexities and doubts. It is true that in tracing the progress of the human mind we must turn at once to the Philosophy of Greece, the influence of which is still felt on the intellect of the world. Especially K 146 THE DEVELOPMENT OF HEATHENISM. of Socrates and Plato may it be said, that through their instrumentality God has shown us to what sublimity human genius can soar in its own strength ; but they exhibit at the same time the limits by which the moral energy of mere human nature is bounded. Socrates has justly been regarded as the author of Dialectics and Logic. “ To Socrates,” says Aristotle, “ we may unquestionably assign two novelties — Inductive Keasoning and Abstract Definitions.” 1 He exploded the superficial and dangerous school of the Sophists. These were attractive and showy rhetoricians whose arts readily won for them applause from a people so subtle and disputatious as the Greeks. They contended for no system of truth, but merely for victory, and were regardless of the side on which the truth might be. Indeed they seemed to deny that there was any Eternal and Immutable truth, or any such things as Plight and Wrong, beyond conventional terms. It was a shallow scepticism, which passed away when it encountered the deeper reasoning of Socrates. Socrates committed none of his opinions to writing, but these have been recorded by two of the most distinguished of his pupils, Xenophon and Plato. To his teaching and example the Greeks were vastly indebted for their future eminence and splendour ; for the learning which was universally dis¬ seminated by his pupils, gave the whole nation a consciousness of their superiority over the rest of the world. He differed from all preceding philosophers in discarding and wholly ex¬ cluding the physical sciences, and limiting himself to a system of Ethics which might have influence on human conduct. It was specially his merit that he cultivated Philosophy in its relation to life, and thereby endeavoured to render it practical wisdom. And this is what Cicero means when he says that the founder of the Socratic school “ called down philosophy from heaven, and brought it into life.” 2 Yet his Ethical system surpassed not the limits of his age. With him, as with all the heathen sages in general, morality was political and public. He conceived of it only as the normal relation of man to man. He could not rise to the conception of its being the normal relation between the will of man and the 1 Met., xiii. c. 4. 2 Tusc. Qusest., v. 4. THE DEVELOPMENT OF HEATHENISM. 147 will of God. This is the only idea which restores to God His central place in the sphere of morality ; but it was one too sublime for the heathen mind to grasp, and Socrates failed to reach it. Hence, to obey the laws of the realm was, in his eyes, the sum of all obligations. Bude and ungainly in ap¬ pearance, he wandered through the streets of Athens absorbed in meditation, or disputed in the market-place. Yet they who lingered to hear “ the old man eloquent ” were caught by the fascination of his discourse ; and even the dissolute Alcibiades declared — “ I stop my ears, as from the Syrens, and flee away as fast as possible, that I may not sit down beside him and grow old in listening to his talk.” He placed himself in the position of a gossiping Sophist, and entered into conversations, in order, apparently without object, to unmask and overthrow the hollow sophistry. He sought intercourse with all brave and aspiring youths, in order to give their ambition the right direction, and to convince them that the enjoyment of self- government is greater and far nobler than enjoyment of dominion over others. He certainly devoted himself to the welfare of his country¬ men, but his antidote lay in superior knowledge. He asserted that knowledge is essential to virtue, or even still more broadly, that knowledge is virtue. He failed to perceive that knowledge is powerless when opposed to the inclinations of the heart, and that with the development of the intellectual faculties there is also the development of evil. Culture may alter the form of sin, but cannot lessen its tyranny or destroy its existence. But the true nature of sin was entirely un¬ known to the heathen. The fundamental idea of a/uapreiv among them is physical — that is, to leave the right direction, to miss a mark, to make a failure . In a metaphysical sense it signifies to wander, hence ajiagna, error (of the understand¬ ing). In conformity with this idea, Socrates resolved all virtue into knowledge, and all vice into ignorance. We can scarcely, indeed, discern any traces in classic authors that they accepted the doctrine of innate depravity ; on the contrary, the goodness of human nature was a prevalent presupposition of heathen antiquity. Heathenism could not penetrate the source of all true morality — love to God, and love 143 THE DEVELOPMENT OF HEATHENISM. to our neighbour. It knew not that “ love is the fulfilling of the law.” In the writers of classic antiquity we find ample delineations of sensually beautiful form and harmony, but for the most part also a marble coldness and want of geniality. The tearful tenderness or sorrowful sympathy which is so especially peculiar to our sentimentality, is sought in vain among the ancients. Even Plato allowed the continuance of O slavery in his Republic, recognised the production of children in every respect proper for the State, as the sole object of relation between the male and female sexes, and forbade grief and complaining at the death of beloved relatives. The spirit of Heathenism we see exemplified to the fullest extent in the last interview of Socrates with his wife and children. He un¬ feelingly dismissed them lest their tears and lamentations should interrupt his philosophic discourse with his friends. And yet what darkness shrouded even his mind when he approached the borders of the unseen world ! “ It is now,” he said, “ time that we depart — I to die, you to live ; but which has the better destiny is unknown to all except the God.” And his last words show that he had not yet entirely emancipated his mind from the superstitions of Polytheism. “ 0 Crito,” he said, “ I owe iEsculapius a cock ; pay it, therefore, — do not neglect it.” 1 Socrates unquestionably ranks among the greatest of the heathen sages, and the method of philosophising which he introduced has been regarded as a preparation of mankind through the Natural channel, even as Judaism was through the Revealed, for the reception of Christianity. In this respect his Philosophy has been considered as forming an interest¬ ing epoch in the history of the human mind. But when it is attempted to compare him with Christ, as has often been done, he cannot bear even the most distant resemblance. The dis¬ tance between them is as great as the heavens are high above the earth. “ What prepossession,” exclaims Rousseau, “ what blindness must it be to compare the son of Sophroniscus to the Son of Mary. What an infinite distance there is between them ! — Yes, if the life and death of Socrates were those of a sage, the life and death of Jesus were those of a God.”2 1 Plato in Phsed. 2 Emile, B. iv. THE DEVELOPMENT OF HEATHENISM. 149 From Socrates to Plato, the noblest of his pupils, the tran¬ sition is natural. His philosophy, it is true, was not limited, like that of his master, to its influence upon life, but embraced within its range the different doctrines of his predecessors in the wide field of speculation. His works have come down to us entire, and are chiefly in the form of Dialogues, — a form of dis¬ quisition in which he is unrivalled. The statement that Plato was the first to introduce the style of Dialogue into Philosophy is incorrect. Zeno the Eleatic had written in Dialogue before him, and after Plato the form came into general use. Plato was one of those whose whole soul seemed pervaded with the idea of the beautiful. It is this idea which forms the basis of his philosophy. He considered beauty as the radiant image of truth by which the Deity reveals Himself in the minds of all intelli¬ gent beings. His Dialogues take up all the conflicting tendencies of the age : the materialistic doctrine of the Ionic school, of everything being in a state of perpetual flux ; and the spiritual¬ istic one of the Eleatic, of the eternal immutability of the One and Only Being ; and the dogma of Anaxagoras, of a Supreme Mind controlling everything in the world ; and the Pythagorean idea of the universe, as an animated and intelligent whole. But though he discussed the different theories of his predecessors, he never produced any regular system of his own. Indeed he did not aim at a system, nor did he even aim so much at teach¬ ing truth as at showing the method by which each one should discover truth for himself. Accordingly, in his philosophising he often seems to be only groping his way. His thoughts go off now in this direction, now in that, in order to see whither they will tend, and how far they can reach. He sets up now this doctrine, now that, and assaults it from all sides, in order to see whether it will stand firm and be tenable or not. From over¬ looking his drift in this style of philosophising, he has frequently been charged with opinions he did not hold. For as one or other of the doctrines of his predecessors came up for discussion, we find him speaking sometimes as a Theist, sometimes as a Pantheist, whereas he is often rather assaying the truth of the doctrines than expressing any real conviction of his own in regard to it. Though he cannot be regarded as a Pantheist in the strict acceptation of the term, — since matter was with him 150 THE DEVELOPMENT OF HEATHENISM. distinct from the Deity, — yet it must be allowed that there is a Pantheistic tendency in his ideas, for, according to him, all that there is of intelligence in the universe, down to man, belongs to the Divine substance. He only escaped Pantheism by admitting the eternity of matter. He never apprehended that matter in its organisation, and with all its wonderful properties, was in subordination to the will and fiat of the Uncreated Spirit and Godhead. On the contrary, he ascribed all evil to the connec¬ tion of the Divine element in man with matter, and therefore he held that the great object of life was to familiarise the mind with the eternal ideas of the good, the true, and the beautiful. But that these ideas can ever be truly realised, he declared to be impossible, because matter, from its independent, impracti¬ cable, and implastic character, imposes an insuperable barrier. In the realm of mind the Divine principle prevails, but matter forms an adverse element. Hence the opposition between the reality and the idea must for ever remain irreconcilable. This was the defect with Plato, that he could see no nobler end in life than the contemplation of an ideal which could never be realised. But what kind of ideal is this ? It is not, therefore, surprising that in his Ethics he too can rise no higher than the state. His notion of the beautiful is not that of mankind being adorned with “ the beauties of holiness,” and thereby, in the language of Scripture, “ becoming partakers of the Divine nature.” With such a union with God he is utterly unac¬ quainted. He doubtless had at heart the politico-regeneration of his country, but this was to be effected by Philosophy. Hence his model state was one in which Reason is supreme — a state of philosophers. If, indeed, the government of states were entrusted to such philosophers as Plato means, the idea would not deserve the ridicule it has met with. But in this sublunary sphere the difficulty would be to find these philosophic states¬ men, and so to that extent the idea becomes impracticable. Some laws, however, of his' Republic are of too grave a character to escape animadversion. He unreservedly, and without quali¬ fication, counsels the magistracy to use improper means, even falsehood, for a salutary purpose. This is just the jesuitical principle of the end justifying the means,- — of doing evil that good may come. He recommends the magistrate to withdraw THE DEVELOPMENT OF HEATHENISM. 151 from public life when he can accomplish nothing, and, leaving the irremediable to destruction, to seek to save himself. This is an advice so selfish and unpatriotic, that it cannot be too severely condemned. Another ordinance of his model state is the community of wives. This law is not only offensive in itself, but it completely annihilates the true dignity and destiny of woman. Again, he requires, for the regulation of his com¬ monwealth, the exposure of weakly children. This is a law not only at variance with the tender feelings of the human heart, but one at which these feelings revolt. He permitted also, as we have said, the continuance of slavery in his republic. In these three last-mentioned laws there is a total absence of the true appreciation of human nature, and of the idea of human personality. How such unnatural laws could be conceived by Plato to be admissible within a form of government which aimed at perfection, may well excite our astonishment ; but unsuited as they were for an ideal republic, they are certainly not less so for a real one. Plato taught and wrote with a pure and earnest intention to benefit his countrymen, but he was nevertheless very much influenced by the views of his time. He believed in the soul’s immortality, but as the arguments upon which he supported this doctrine are deduced from errone¬ ous conceptions of the origin of the soul, they are valueless in a Christian point of view. He considered the human soul as an emanation from the Deity, and free from all liability to death. Though inherent for a while in matter, still he affirmed that, in consequence of its divine origin, it possessed power and con¬ sciousness after its separation from the body. What he believed, however, to be its ultimate destiny after death is far from certain, as his ideas upon this point are expressed in the most indefinite and obscure manner. The difficulty which here presented itself to his mind must doubtless, to a large extent, have arisen from his error in supposing the soul to be an emana¬ tion from the Divine essence. Such a supposition is altogether inconsistent with the nature of the Deity. It assumes that the Divine essence is capable of division, that it can be communi¬ cated without His attributes, and that it can be degraded as the souls of men are degraded through sin. But the chief point to which Plato directed his attention 152 THE DEVELOPMENT OF HEATHENISM. was Ethics, which, especially in his philosophy, were so inti¬ mately connected with politics, that he considered the state as the model of a well-regulated individual life. But limiting himself to the laws of the state as the springs of moral action, he failed to attain the true idea of humanity. From this standpoint we perceive at once the defect of the Platonic philosophy, and that there is “ a great gulf ” between the morality of Plato and that taught by St Paul. Socrates and Plato were morally as well as intellectually greatly superior to the mass of their contemporaries. Their philosophy ex¬ hibits the limits by which human wisdom is bounded ; it aimed nobly, but could not reach the goal which it sought. It attempted to gain the ascendancy over the versatile intellect of their nation, but it wanted that doctrine which alone can regenerate the human heart — the incarnation. We find this defect visible throughout the entire field of Pagan philosophy. Its conceptions of the holiness of God are dim and shadowy, because He had not revealed Himself to them with the living- distinctness of Christianity. The central doctrine of the Christian system is the atonement : this is the source of its healing influence, and its sublime morality. The heathen moralists sought a remedy within man himself, and desired to make him his own redeemer. We can thence understand why it is that in the whole compass of Paganism so little is said of the holiness of God — that Divine attribute which in Christianity forms the basis of the doctrine of atonement. But no Moral Theory which is herein defective can avail to recover man from the ruin of the Fall. In the heathen philosophy the human and finite ever remains predominant and highest ; in Christianity the eternal and infinite is pre¬ ponderant. In the former, the sublimest conception is the deification of man ; in the latter, the contemplation of incar¬ nate Deity. In the former, pride — in the latter, humility — is the foundation of moral excellence. In the former, human nature appears in the consciousness of its attainments ; in the latter, in the feeling of its necessities. In the former, happi¬ ness can be enjoyed only by those who philosophise ; in the latter, by the most unlettered and outcast of the human race, through the merits and influence of the Redeemer. “ He who THE DEVELOPMENT OF HEATHENISM. 153 knew most of our human hearts and our immortal destinies,” says Bulwer Lytton, “ did not insist on this intellectual culture as essential to the virtues that form our wellbeing here, and conduce to our salvation hereafter. Had it been essential, the All-wise One would not have selected humble fishermen for the teachers of His doctrine, instead of culling His disciples from Roman portico or Athenian academy. And this, which distinguishes so remarkably the Gospel from the ethics of heathen philosophy, wherein knowledge is declared to be necessary to virtue, is a proof how slight was the heathen sages’ insight into the nature of mankind.” 1 But if the philosophy of Socrates and Plato was ineffectual to prevent the decay of their nation, subsequent systems were not more successful. We are here led to take a glance at the last epoch of Grecian philosophy before the dawn of Christi¬ anity. The scepticism of the Sophists had been refuted by the reasoning of Socrates, but now the tide of doubt rolled back with a violence which threatened to sweep all before it. The age of disbelief had set in, and Pyrrho, who had accom¬ panied Alexander to India, and there obtained a knowledge of the doctrines of the Brahmins and other Eastern sages, after his return to Greece began to doubt of everything. When he had carefully examined a subject, and investigated all its parts, he concluded by still doubting of its evidence. He founded the sect called Sceptics, and his manner of doubting infected the Epicureans, the Stoics, and the members of the New Academy, so that, as has been truly remarked, “ philosophy began with a childlike question and ended with an aged doubt.” The two sects which towards the close of the ancient world contended for the mastery were the Stoics and Epi¬ cureans, and with a sketch of their respective tenets we shall conclude this brief survey of the history of Heathenism in the matter of religion. We are told that when Paul came to Athens, “ certain philosophers of the Epicureans and of the Stoics encountered him.” The system of the former was the prevailing one among the educated classes, and was that of Epicurus. In physics, he adopted the atomic theory of Democritus, but 1 My Novel, vol. i. 154 THE DEVELOPMENT OF HEATHENISM. carried it even further than he himself had done, applying it to the gods themselves, whom he regarded as consisting also of atoms. He believed, moreover, that they took no interest in the affairs of men, either in their crimes or virtues. This doctrine was warmly attacked by the philosophers of the different sects, and especially by the Stoics. They asserted that he degraded the gods by representing them as remaining in entire apathy, contemplating only their own felicity, and thereby depriving the dwellers of this lower world of all check upon their baser passions, and all encouragement in the path of duty. Epicurus had advanced dogmas which were un¬ known before. His fundamental doctrine in morals was, that pleasure is the sovereign good, and that moral excellence is only of value as conducing to pleasure. It is true that he made all virtue to consist in that moderate enjoyment of which prudence dictates the observance. Yet this is but a shallow method of arriving at virtuous conduct ; since prud¬ ence might suggest moderation in sensuality, lest the pleasure thence derived should be spoiled. Epicurus himself is said to have led a simple, pure, and manly life, but we know the tendency of human nature ; and the practical effect of the philosophy he propounded and his followers taught was con¬ genial to the growing degeneracy of Grecian character. When Cyneas spoke of the doctrines of Epicurus in the Roman Senate, Fabricius entreated the gods that all the enemies of the republic might become his followers. Lucretius, 200 years later, in his great poem, “ He Rerum Natura,” intro¬ duced the tenets of Epicurus at Rome, and the smoothness and elegance of his verse contributed, with the doctrines promulgated, to enervate the conquerors of the world. The system of the latter was that of Zeno. It was in one of those critical periods which sometimes happen to a nation, when a passion for innovation has set in, and all that is noble and venerable has lost its sanction, that Zeno appeared. Scepticism and Epicureanism had eaten into the heart of the people, and nothing remained to stem the torrent of enervating pleasure except the lofty but vague speculations of Plato, and the vast but abstruse dissertations of Aristotle. But these were not adapted to meet the crisis ; Zeno, therefore, came with the zeal THE DEVELOPMENT OF HEATHENISM. 155 of a reformer to correct the evils which he saw fast spreading over Greek civilisation. He possessed some of the best qualities of the early Romans, — simplicity of life, manly energy, and pro¬ found regard for moral obligation. His aim was to establish a system of philosophy which should have a practical rather than a speculative character. He taught that the highest aim of man is to live according to the dictates of reason, that virtue is only attainable through wisdom, and that virtue alone is the true source of happiness. He held that the passions must be eradicated before tranquillity can be secured. Many great thinkers went forth from this school, and its tenets were pecu¬ liarly attractive to the noblest Romans. But the system was a reaction, and went to the opposite extreme. It was a warfare of the mind against the body, intending, if possible, to produce in the latter the annihilation of all those instincts which Pro¬ vidence had implanted. It was an effort to constitute apathy as the highest condition of our nature. And yet what is true of the heathen morality in general — that it is founded on self- reliance, and supported by pride — is true in the highest sense of the morality of the Stoics. Ho where is the spirit of ego¬ tism, pride, and austerity so thoroughly indigenous as here. When Augustine of Hippo was asked what was the first thing in Christian morality, he said, “ Humility when asked what was the second, he answered “Humility and what was the third, he still returned the same answer, “ Humility alluding to the answer which Demosthenes is said to have made on the subject of eloquence. It was the opinion of that great man that lowliness of mind, in the full extent of its operation, in¬ cluded nearly the whole of practical Christianity. But lowli¬ ness of mind (humilitas) was a virtue unknown to the heathen world. Accordingly, instead of humility we find pride and cold resignation pervading the entire morality of Stoicism. It is true that the Stoic wise man was not to resent insults, but only because he was so great in his own eyes that he could not be insulted. It was not from a spirit of meekness and for¬ bearance that this maxim arose, but from an arrogant contempt of the offender. He was not to cherish wrath, or give way to resentment, but not because he committed himself to God, but because he was to regard himself as too exalted to allow any- 156 THE DEVELOPMENT OF HEATHENISM. thing to disturb his godlike repose. The conduct of the ignor¬ ant and depraved was too contemptible for a wise man to let himself be disquieted about it. Moreover, as the evil that existed in the world was an inherent part of its constitution, so the bad had their share of work to do as well as the good : it therefore became the wise man to contemplate the spectacle with calm indifference ; but if matters went to extremity, or even if life became a burden, he was at liberty to leave a world which was no longer worthy of him. Some of the most dis¬ tinguished adherents of the system availed themselves of this liberty which it gave them : amongst those was Cato the younger at the fall of the Republic, and others to escape from tyranny in the times of the Roman Emperors. Zeno himself is said to have done so, in consequence of an accident as he quitted the Stoa. But acts like these were suicidal of the whole system. For it thereby reduced itself to the mere creed of the fatalist. Thus, in attempting to rise above humanity, it sank man be¬ neath it. This system of morals has been thought to bear a striking resemblance to the Christian, but the resemblance is merely external. What is really true in it, only became so after it had come in contact with Christianity. Milton has graphically described the character of this sect : — “ Alas ! what can they teach, and not mislead, Ignorant of themselves, of God much more, And how the world began, and how man fell Degraded by himself, on grace depending'? Much of the soul they talk, but all awry, And in themselves seek virtue, and to themselves All glory arrogate, to God give none ; Rather accuse Him under usual names, Fortune and Fate, as one regardless quite Of mortal things. Who therefore seeks in these True wisdom, finds her not ; or, by delusion, Far worse, her. false resemblance only meets An empty cloud.” 1 We have thus briefly sketched the history of the ancient mind, that we might form some estimate of the moral condition of the heathen world when the Gospel began to shed its mild and genial rays upon it. The night of Heathenism had been 1 Paradise Regained, iv. 309. THE DEVELOPMENT OF HEATHENISM. 157 long and cloudy, without a star like that which led the Eastern Magi to their God at last. While, therefore, we admire the genius and virtue which shone in such men as Socrates, Plato, and Cicero, we cannot wonder that they should at times have lost their way in speculations which lay beyond the faculties of the human mind. Nowhere do we see the strength of mere human nature so clearly manifested as in the philosophy of the Greeks. We see in their sages the vain and impotent struggles of the human intellect : we admire the lofty reasonings ; yet the great problems concerning man’s present and eternal in¬ terests remain unsolved. Erom the days of Thales we see the Greeks questioning, cavilling, and doubting ; disputing every point in Ethics which could be propounded ; prone to leave former theories for others which were new. Yet whatever might be the system they adopted, whatever truth it might con¬ tain, it spake without authority; and the claims of the conflicting sects distracted the bewildered inquirer. The more profound thinkers, perceiving the defects of these rival systems, turned from them and settled down in a cold and callous scepticism. Poor afflicted humanity still pressed on till every effort became paralysed by despair. Yet all this yearning and searching after God was of service to the future. For out of this destitu¬ tion of humanity arose that feeling of individual want which, freed from the teaching of the heathen world, sought that aid which neither if s philosophy nor religion could afford, and which Kevelation alone could supply. When Paul commenced his ministry in the capital of Greece, he proclaimed to the Athenians “ the unknown God.” As he paced the streets of this renowned city, he observed an altar with this inscription. It had been erected during a time of pestilence, so that no means might be omitted and none of the gods ignored. The Athenians had by this very act acknow¬ ledged that they were under obligations to a Being whose name was to them unknown, and that while they worshipped Him they were yet ignorant of His nature. The Apostle took advantange of this circumstance, and, like an orator of the highest class, placed himself on a level with his hearers, with the hope of afterwards raising them to his own elevation. He told them that he had come as the messenger of this “ unknown 158 THE DEVELOPMENT OF HEATHENISM. Gocl,” to unfold His attributes. He showed them that their very designation of this Being was an acknowledgment on their part that they were not in possession of the full truth in regard to Him. He accepted what they admitted in their religion to be a truth — that there is “ an unknown God ; ” and into this truth he at once infused a higher life, and ex¬ panded it into a nobler philosophy than they had ever im¬ agined. He told them that this same Being whom they “ ignorantly worshipped ” is “ He that made the world and all things therein.” This was bringing the light of Bevelation to bear upon what glimmerings of tradition remained amongst them, and giving certainty to what had hitherto only been disputations and questionings. The heathen really sought and inquired after God, but they had no satisfactory knowledge either as to His nature or worship. They had a conviction that there must be a Supreme Being above the lesser or in¬ dividual gods. They called Him Zeus, Brahma, or Odin ; but they were ever losing sight of this idea, and degrading Him by limitations. When they gave vent to the heart’s deepest emotions, this hidden conviction of God betrayed itself. Tertullian emphatically dwells on this testimony. Here are some of his expressions : “ The consciousness of God is the original dowry of the soul ; the same, and differing in no respect in Syria and in Pontus ; for the God of the Jews is the One whom men’s souls call their God.” “ In the deepest emotions of their minds, they never direct their exclamations to their false gods, but employ the words — By God ! As truly as God lives ! God help me ! Moreover, they do not thereby have their view directed to the Capitol, but to heaven.” 1 Again, in his work ‘ On the Testimony of the Soul,’ he says : “ The truer the testimony of the soul the simpler it is, the simpler the more popular, the more popular the more uni¬ versal, the more universal the more natural, and the more natural the more divine.” 2 The subject is finely treated by Lactantius in the following passage : “ And yet allowance might be made for this impiety of men [the worship of many gods], if their error proceeded altogether from ignorance of the Divine name. But when we see the worshippers of the gods 1 Apolog., xvii. 2 De Testimonio Animse. THE DEVELOPMENT OF HEATHENISM. 159 often confessing and proclaiming tlie Supreme God, what pardon of their impiety can they expect, since they do not acknowledge the worship of Him, of whom it is impossible that man should be entirely ignorant ? For when they swear, or wish, or give thanks, they do not name Jupiter, nor many gods , but God. Thus the truth, by the force of nature, breaks forth from their unwilling breasts. They do not, indeed, do the same in the midst of prosperity. Then chiefly God glides out of the memory of men when, enjoying His benefits, they ought to give honour to the Divine goodness. But if any heavy necessity presses on them, then they remember God. If the terror of war hath raged, if pestilence hath brooded over them, if long drought hath denied them nourishment from the fruits of the earth, if a fierce tempest or storm of hail hath come upon them, they fly to God, assistance is sought from God, God is entreated to come to their relief. If any one be tossed by raging winds upon the sea, he calls on Him ; if any one be tormented by violence, he instantly implores Him ; if any one be reduced to the necessity of beggary, his appeal is to God alone ; and it is by His divine and only influence that he entreats men to have compassion upon him. Therefore, they never remember God but when they are in misfortune. After the fear has left them, and the dangers have receded, then with alacrity they run to the temples of the gods , they pour out libations to them, they sacrifice to them, they crown them.” 1 Thus the idea of a Supreme Being was never entirely lost after mankind had lapsed into Polytheism. The worship of other objects or deities arose from the neglect and deprivation of that knowledge of the true God which He Himself had communicated to the common father of our race. It may, indeed, excite our wonder how dead men ever came to be worshipped by ancient Pagans in Babylon, Egypt, Greece, and Pome, vet this wonder is lessened when we see the same practice renewed in the fifth and sixth centuries of the Chris¬ tian era, and continued more or less to the present day. “ Man,” says Edmund Burke, “ is a religious animal ; ” but he would have spoken more correctly had he said, “ Man is a 1 Inst. Div., lib. ii. cap. i. 160 THE DEVELOPMENT OF HEATHENISM. superstitious animal.” The rise of Mystical Babylon has proved that desideemonia will, unless placed under right teach¬ ing and guidance, lead into most dangerous errors. In short, wherever ignorance is allowed to prevail among the people at large, together with a selfish and corrupt policy on the part of the rulers, the same results will as certainly be produced now as they were 4000 years ago. To be satisfied of this fact, we have but to compare the religion of Heathenism with that of the Papal Church. The analogy between them is so striking, that we cannot fail to perceive that the great outline of the worship of heathen Pome has been embraced by the Komish Church under a Christian garb. In his ‘ Parallel Scheme of the Pagan, Papal, and Christian Ceremonies/ under the division of objects of worship, Thomas Delaune says : “ Besides the Supreme God, Jehovah, the Governor of heaven and earth, whom they pre¬ tend to worship, they have diverse inferior deities, gods, and goddesses, whom they divinely worship ; Diva or Sancta Maria, the queen of heaven and mother of God ; with Divus Petrus, St Paul, St John, St Thomas, St Stephen, St Andrew, &c. ; to whom they, as their numens or intercessors, build temples, erect altars, and dedicate feasts ; paying also so much rever¬ ence to the pagan gods as to keep up their names in the days of the week — Sunday, Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday, Thursday, Friday, and Saturday ; they have also tutelar and ethereal gods and goddesses, to be applied to by several vocations, cities, families, orders, sick persons, — as Divus or St Nicholas, for the mariner ; St Windoline, for the shepherd ; St John Baptist, for the husbandman ; St Mary Magdalen, for the courtesan ; St Hubert, for the huntsman ; St Crispin, for the shoemaker, &c. The city, country, family, and physic gods are innumerable : St George for England, St Denis for France, St Mark for Y enice, &c. ; gods almost for every disease ; be¬ sides the god-making power that is in the Pope and cardinals, to canonise what deceased worthies they please, and to appoint them temples, altars, orders, and festivals.” IV. MONOTHEISM. That Monotheism, or the knowledge of the one true God, pre¬ ceded the various forms of Polytheism, may be seen from the fact that, in examining the diversified languages of mankind, we find in them not only a name for the Supreme Being, but one having radically the same meaning. We are aware that root comparisons are frequently surrounded with uncertainties, and that there is no other field, perhaps, in which learned men have more indulged their fancies. Still etymology as a branch of linguistic science is a source whence much important information may be derived, provided we do not allow merely plausible conjectures to warp our judgment. It is easier to determine from grammatical structure to what family a par¬ ticular language belongs, than to trace the roots of words through different families, or even through the same — because in the former case the grammatical structure remains un¬ changed ; whereas in the latter words frequently pass, in the lapse of time, from one phase of meaning to another in such a manner, that the clue is destroyed whereby its original signi¬ ficance might otherwise have been traceable. The changes of linguistic usage are continually separating in appearance what is radically the same. Sometimes a word changes its form without changing its meaning, sometimes it takes an entirely new meaning without changing its form, and not unfrequently it may do both. L 162 MONOTHEISM. In the Inclo-European languages the affinity is so close, that the relation between words denoting the same idea may often be seen at a glance. But this is not always the case ; a variance may arise from the circumstance of synonyms having been in use in the parent tongue, or of the same root having passed into an altered form. Again, words may diverge from a common original so far, that all sign of their kinship shall have disappeared. In illustration of these remarks take the word “ father ” : a word denoting the same idea must have existed in some primitive tongue now extinct. In old German it is “ fadhar,” in Latin “ pater,” in Greek “ 7r arrip,” and in Sanskrit “ pitar ” ; all of them being obviously derived from the same source. But while the English word “ son ” is the same as the Sanscrit “ sonus,” yet we find that the Greek is tloc and the Latin “ filius.” The variance here presented proceeds from the circumstance of the two former being derived from the root “ su ” to bring forth, and the two latter from “ (pvu ),” an altered form of the same root. Again, let us take a familiar word, and having a well-known history — the word bishop. It comes, as almost every one is aware, from the Greek hriaKOTrog (episkopos) ; and that again is derived from the root shop, “ see,” with the prefix Ittl, at or over ; and thus it means originally “ overseer,” a person to whom was committed the “ oversight ” of the Christian com¬ munity. But we have shortened this long word, dropping its first and last syllables, and have converted most of its con¬ stituent sounds into others nearly allied, by changing the soft mute p into its middle sound b, and the sibilant sh into the simpler sibilant sh ; and the result has been our word, with two syllables instead of four, and six letters instead of nine, whereof the consonant p and the vowel i are all that remain of the root. The French word 4veque conies from the same original by another set of changes : from epish is produced evesc, the soft mute p being exchanged for the corresponding aspirate v (ph). While these changes have been going on, the meaning of the word has not been less altered. The official who was at first only the overseer of a small and despised band of converts to a new and proscribed faith, has risen in the Church of England to a position of high pre-eminence in the MONOTHEISM. 163 State, though still retaining his old simple title. We must, however, admit that when words diverge from a common origin so far that all sign of their connection has vanished, and have got into the condition of bishop and dveque , they are of no value to the philologist, inasmuch as researches of this kind will lead to no satisfactory results, being only at best — “ Conjectures, fancies, built on nothing firm.” We have made these preliminary observations on etymology to enable us to show with greater clearness that the name of the Supreme Being in all the three divisions of human speech is usually taken from His attribute of power, and is equivalent to lord, rider, judge, from some root signifying to exert force, arrange, or rule. Thus El (the Almighty), in one or other of its forms, is the name for the Supreme Being in the Shemitic family of languages. The Jews tell us that their name, Elohim, for the Supreme Being, means Governor or Judge. Ainsworth says El is properly one who exerts power, one who interposes. So also Gesenius — El, a mighty one, God. In the Indo-European family the name for the Supreme Being has the same significance. “We have in the Veda,” says Max Muller, “ the invocations Dydus pitar, the Greek Zev 7 rcn-tp, the Latin Jupiter ; and that means in all the three lan¬ guages what it meant before these three languages were torn asunder — it means Heaven-Father.” 1 Besides Dyaus in Sans¬ crit, there is also Deva, from dyu or div, to light ; hence it has been thought that the primary meaning of these words may have been “ the enlightener.” But as this meaning is •not in accordance with our natural conception of the Deity, it would seem that this root must have undergone some change from its original significance. We know that in Greek the letter Z (or £) in Z evg was originally equivalent to dy or di, and that the Sanscrit Deva is identical with the Greek Osog and the Latin dimes or deus. Now the old derivation of Owg is from tl-6t)- o>, and the meaning of the root Oct and Oe is “ place ” or “ make.” If this is the case, then Oeoq means the Creator, Ruler. So says Eustathius, “ 6 iravra tiOeLq kenus have descended from ancestors within a com- paratively recent period ; while the types of several genera gathered together to form an order began their divergence from another at a period infinitely more remote Man is thus made to descend by natural generation with all other organic creatures, vegetable and animal, from one primordial cell or germ into which life was breathed. In the struggle for ex¬ istence through countless ages, and according to the laws of Natural Selection, beings at last appeared in this one vast chain of succession, which are described by Sir John Lubbock (one of the advocates of the system) as “ the first men, or the first beings worthy to be so called.” 2 In accordance with this doctrine he says, “ The primitive condition of mankind was one of utter barbarism.” 3 And he adds, “ These views follow, I think, from strictly scientific considerations.” 4 In the second edition of his c Prehistoric Times/ he exhibits this view of the human race — “ The lowest races of existing savages must, always assuming the common origin of the human race, be at least as far advanced as were our ancestors when they spread over the earth’s surface.” 5 Notwithstanding the perseverance with which evolutionists have laboured to establish their doctrine, the great difficulty it has to contend with is still left unsolved. They only advance to a certain point, and then they stop. They never indicate nor even convey to us the slightest conception of the means by which this evolution is brought about. This is the very great difficulty which lies in the way of the hypothesis of evolution ; for it involves the giving up of our belief and con¬ fidence in the permanence of species. It was to fill up the 1 The First Man, and his Place in Creation, by G. Moore, M.D., chap, vii., p. 83. 2 The Primitive Condition of Man, by Sir John Lubbock, 1870, p. 325. 3 Ibid., p 323. 4 Ibid., p. 361. 5 Prehistoric Times, p. 573. THE EVOLUTION HYPOTHESIS. 189 gaps which exist in the evolution system that Darwin under¬ took his great work on the ‘ Origin of Species/ but in spite of his immense efforts, these remain as widely separate as ever. There is not the slightest evidence of one species having passed into another during the period of human record or tradition. JSTor is this all : in the fossil remains contained in the rocks, there is a record of the inhabitants of this world running back incalculably further than man’s existence on this planet ; and although we find from that record that thousands of species have passed away, and thousands have appeared, in no single case has it been found that one species has merged into an¬ other, or that two or more species have combined so as to produce a third. The species is produced whole and entire. It is the same in individuals belonging to it, for no individual of one species can transgress the limits between it and another species. The rose cannot be merged into the tulip ; nor can the rose and the tulip be made to produce a new species, which is neither the one nor the other. The only permanent transmissible forms of organic life are such as constitute dis¬ tinct species. Immutability, or the power of perpetuating itself, is one of the indispensable characteristics of species. “ Species,” says M. Elourens, “ do not alter, do not change, do not pass from one to another ; they are fixed.” 1 The immu¬ tability of species is most strikingly exhibited in the case of hybrids, for they either unite and soon become sterile, or else they unite with one of the parent stocks and soon return to that type ; they in no case produce an intermediate durable species. Even varieties of the same species, if let alone, always revert to the original type, and it requires no small attention and skill to keep them separate. That species are immutable and capable of indefinite propagation, has been until recently the universally admitted doctrine of naturalists ; and notwith¬ standing the efforts of the advocates of the development hy¬ pothesis, it still remains the general faith of the scientific world. If the species were not thus immutable, the vegetable and the animal world, instead of presenting that order and 1 “Les especes ne s’alterent point, lie cliangent point, ne passent point, de l’une a l’autre; les especes sont Fixes.” — De la Longevite Huinaine, par P. Flourens. Paris, 1855. 190 THE EVOLUTION HYPOTHESIS. beauty everywhere visible, would exhibit a perfect chaos of organic life. The earliest historical records and the oldest monuments prove that all extant animals were thousands of years ago what they are now. Men of the highest rank as naturalists affirm that all that is known of the antiquity of man falls within the compass of Biblical chronology. But the further the Darwinians push back the origin of man, the stronger against them becomes the argument for the immuta- bility of species. The earliest human remains serve to show that man at his first appearance was as perfect in his develop¬ ment as any of the extant races. The human remains which have been found in certain caves in Europe are, so far as skulls and skeletons are concerned, conclusive evidence of this fact. Two of these skulls are some¬ what peculiar in character, and much discussion has gathered around them. The one is called “ Engis,” because found in the cave of Engis, in Belgium. It is the oldest of all skulls, and was supposed by some to belong to an extremely ancient race, more allied to apes than men, but it is found to approach nearly to the Caucasian, the highest type of development. The follow¬ ing opinion of Professor Huxley should for ever preclude the Engis skull from being brought into court as a zoological witness to the simian descent of man. “ Taking,” he says, “ the evidence as it stands, and turning first to the Engis skull, I confess I can find no character in the remains of that cranium which, if it were a recent skull, would give any trustworthy clue as to the Pace to which it might appertain. Its contours and measurements agree very well with those of some Austral¬ ian skulls I have examined — and especially has it a tendency towards that occipital flattening, to the great extent of which, in some Australian skulls, I have alluded. But all Australian skulls do not present this flattening ; and the supraciliary ridge of the Engis skull is quite unlike that of the typical Australian. On the other hand, its measurements agree equally well with those of some European skulls. And assuredly, there is no mark of degradation about any part of its structure. It is, in fact, a fair average human skull, which might have belonged to a philosopher, or might have contained the thoughtless brain THE EVOLUTION HYPOTHESIS. 191 of a savage.” 1 The other is that found in 1857 in the cave of Neanderthal, near Dusseldorf. It has a very depressed form of the brain-case, a very prominent supraciliary ridge, and the occipito-parietal slope at a very low angle. Mr Carter Blake, honorary secretary of the Anthropological Society, admits that it is a skull of low type, but recognises it as specifically iden¬ tical with man. He suggests that it may be the skull of an idiot, who died in the cave where the hones are found. This suggestion Huxley rejects as unsatisfactory, and throws the onus jorobandi on those who adopt the hypothesis. “ Idiotcy,” he observes, “ is compatible with various forms and capacities of the cranium, hut I know of none which present the least resemblance to the Neanderthal skull.” Some naturalists imagine that they have found the transitional link between Man and the Gorilla. But had the anatomical features of the skull warranted such a conclusion, we can hardly suppose that Huxley would have discarded it, and propounded another in¬ ference widely different. “ Finally,” he says (winding up his observations), “ the comparatively large cranial capacity of the Neanderthal skull, overlaid though it may be by pithecoid bony walls, and the completely human proportions of the accompany¬ ing limb-bones, together with the very fair development of the Engis skull, clearly indicate that the first traces of the prim¬ ordial stock whence man has proceeded need no longer be sought by those who entertain any form of the doctrine of pro¬ gressive development, in the newest tertiaries, but that they may be looked for in an epoch more distant from the age of the Elephas primigenius than that it is from us.” Though the Neanderthal skull is somewhat unusual in its development, it is evident that Professor Huxley does not con¬ sider it to be that of an anthropoid ape. Indeed, a British skull has recently been found in which the so-called abnormal characters are as fully represented as in that from Neanderthal. With regard to “ cranial capacity,” the largest observed capacity of the European skull is 114 cubic inches, and the smallest 55, while that of the Neanderthal specimen is estimated at 75 cubic inches. Some Hindu skulls have as small a capacity as 1 Evidence as to Man’s Place in Nature, p. 156. 192 THE EVOLUTION HYPOTHESIS. 46 cubic inches, and the very largest capacity of the Gorilla is only 3 5 cubic inches. The difference then of 1 1 cubic inches between the Gorilla and Man, is the difference between an irrational brute and Homo sapiens. And if, as we have already observed, the size of the brain determines the whole corre¬ sponding change in type between the brutes . and Man, this surely ought to settle the question as to what type the Neanderthal skull belongs. It is believed that the caverns in which these human skele¬ tons have been found were places of sepulture ; that the ashes mark the funeral feasts which accompanied the burials ; that some of the animals whose remains occur were eaten at these feasts ; and that beasts of prey prowled about and fed on the relics. In the Aurignac cave at the northern base of the Pyrenees, there are not only at the portal of the vault the relics of funeral feasts, but within it indications of viands pro¬ bably destined for the use of the departed on their way to the land of spirits ; while amongst the funereal gifts are weapons wherewith in other fields, as has been supposed, to chase the gigantic deer, the cave-lion, the cave-bear, and woolly rhinoceros. If these memorials have been correctly interpreted, we have here obtained a clue in tracing back the sacred rites of burial, and, more interesting still, a belief in a future state, to the primeval customs and traditions of mankind. The fact that the bones of these men, and many marks of human act, having been found in caverns sometimes mixed with the bones of the mammoth and other extinct animals, has been considered adverse to the comparatively recent date of man. But Professor Steenstrup, the highest authority on this question, has declared that the period of the mammoth could neither have had the complexion attributed to it, nor could it have remounted to an antiquity so remote. Of the same opinion is Mr Prestwich. “ The occurrence of human relics,” he says, “ with the bones of extinct animals, does not seem to me to necessitate the carrying of man back in past time, so much as the bringing forward of the extinct animals to our own time.” These fossil human remains represent a grand physical de¬ velopment, and of cranial capacity equal to, and in some cases THE EVOLUTION HYPOTHESIS. 193 exceeding that of, the average modern European. Principal Dawson seems to think that they correspond to the Turanian and American type, one of the most widely spread and ancient of the races now existing. If such high antiquity be conceded to them, it supplies the most telling evidence against the doc¬ trine of the origin of man by derivation. “ The oldest men,” says Dawson, “ whose remains have been found are not of a different species from modern men, but, on the contrary, are nearly allied to the most widely distributed modern race, while their great stature and physical power remind us of the Nephilim or giants of Genesis. . . . Their funeral rites and the traces of their religious beliefs point to a similarity with those of the most ancient races of men, which are fairly traceable to corruptions of those primitive articles of faith revealed in the earlier part of the Hebrew Scriptures.” The cranial capacity of these ancient men show that they were as much lords of creation, and as little allied to brutes, as their successors are. Cuvier’s opinion was that the differ¬ ence between man’s development and that of the brutes was so great and of such a character, that he could not be classi¬ fied as belonging to the same Order with any other creature, but must be held to constitute an Order by himself. This is also the opinion of Professor Owen. The condition, habits, and structure of these early men correspond with the idea of their being the rude and barbarous offshoots of more cultivated tribes, and therefore realise, as much as such remains can do, the Bible history of the Fall and Dispersion of Mankind from a Common Centre. N * MATERIALISM. The advocates of tlie evolution hypothesis agree in maintain¬ ing that life in its first form appeared in some extremely simple organism, of which all living things which exist now, or ever have existed, in the vegetable and animal world, are the lineal descendants ; but they differ with regard to the source whence life came to possess this organism. While Mr Darwin — deriving his idea, it would seem, from Scripture — admits that the Almighty breathed life at first into this supposed progenitor of the whole vegetable and animal king¬ dom, Professor Huxley, on the contrary, traces life to the molecular forces, which are essential properties of the matter itself of which the cells are composed. The microscope has doubtless added greatly to man’s natural powers of observa¬ tion, and has enabled him still further to investigate God’s wonderful works in creation. By its aid we are taught that the simplest creature is a mere cell with life, and that all vegetable and animal beings are built up of these cells. But Huxley would go further, and assert that we can trace the origin even beyond the cell to protoplasm, which he regards as possessing the inherent property of life. But why are we to stop here ? Is it because the powers of our microscope are exhausted ? But in that case can we affirm that the secrets of nature are also exhausted ? May there not be in the minutest atom which our microscope can detect a world of 196 MATERIALISM. organism yet undiscovered ? This thought has been beauti¬ fully brought forward by Chalmers in his Third Astronomical Discourse. “About the time of its invention ” (the telescope), says that eloquent writer, “ another instrument was formed which laid open a scene no less wonderful. . . . This was the microscope. . . . The one led me to see a system in every star. The other leads me to see a world in every atom. . . . The one has suggested to me, that beyond and above all that is visible to man, there may be fields of creation which sweep immeasurably along, and carry the impress of the Almighty’s hand to the remotest scenes of the universe. The other suggests to me, that within and beneath all that minuteness which the aided eye of man has been able to explore, there may be a region of invisibles ; and that could we draw aside the mysterious curtain which shrouds it from our senses, we might there see a theatre of as many wonders as astronomy has unfolded, a universe within the compass of a point so small as to elude all the powers of the microscope, but where the wonder-working God finds room for the exercise of all His attributes, where He can raise another mechanism of worlds, and fill and animate them all with the evidences of His glory.” We have no ground, then, for supposing that in protoplasm we have arrived at the ultimate simplicity of matter, and have discovered in it that state in which life is its inherent pro¬ perty. We cannot affirm that organism in any one stage is really less complicated than in another. On the contrary, it would, we apprehend, be more in accordance with the evolu¬ tion hypothesis were we to imagine that the first link in the chain of being ought to be more complex than any link which follows, inasmuch as it contains within itself all creatures which proceed from it by natural descent. But the question concerning the origin of life is, Whether is it due to a process of evolution, or to a creative fiat, “ Let life be ” ? Mr Darwin traces its manifestation in its primor¬ dial form up to the Almighty, as the direct bestower of it. Dr H. C. Bastian, in his work on ‘ The Beginnings of Life,’ has announced, as the result of his investigations, “ Arche- biosis ” to be an actual and common occurrence. This name MATERIALISM. 197 which he has adopted corresponds to the “ Spontaneous Gen¬ eration ” of the older writers, and the “ Abiogenesis ” of Hux¬ ley. It is scarcely necessary to remark that the doctrine herein implied is, that living bodies are formed de novo out of dead matter, without the agency of any pre-existing being. Dr Bastian, indeed, admits that we cannot form living beings out of carbon, hydrogen, oxygen, nitrogen, and the other con¬ stituents of the “ matter of life.” He admits, also, that the actual transition of dead molecules into living matter has never been seen, and cannot be demonstrated. Upon what, then, does he rest his argument for the common occurrence of Archebiosis ? He states, at the outset, that the question turns wholly upon the de novo origin of Bacteria. But what are Bac¬ teria, and what are their phenomena ? If we take an organic solution and expose it to the air in a moderately warm place, we shall find that in a time, varying from a few hours to a few days, a white scum or pellicle will form upon its surface. If the scum be now examined with the microscope, it is seen to swarm with exceedingly minute moving particles or mole¬ cules, along with staff- like shaped bodies, which also move about more or less actively, and which constitute what are known as Bacteria. But what these Bacteria really are, no one knows ; though most probably they are referable to the lowest forms of vegetable life. Dr Bastian, however, regards them as neither animals nor vegetables, but as organisms of an intermediate grade. This opinion rests upon no available evidence. Such, then, are the phenomena which characterise Bacteria. Let us now see what explanation we can arrive at in regard to their origin. So far as direct observation is con¬ cerned, Dr Bastian admits that nothing can positively be proved, and that we are left with only two possible alterna¬ tives. Either the Bacteria “ have been developed from a mul¬ titude of pretty evenly disseminated invisible germs, or they have been produced de novo in the fluid by a process of Arche¬ biosis.” Here Dr Bastian candidly acknowledges that the question cannot be solved by actual demonstration, and that he has failed to prove that there were no invisible germs in the fluid he began with. This being the case, if Dr Bastian is satisfied that no such germs were present in the solution 198 MATERIALISM. at first, we are equally entitled to retain the opposite opinion. But failing direct observation, there is still another test, namely, the resistance of vitality to heat. This has usually been regarded as a powerful and reliable one. If the fluid experimented upon be first subjected to a sufficient tempera¬ ture, and then hermetically sealed up, it is alleged that all living beings existing before in the fluid must necessarily be destroyed, so that if any living organisms are found in the fluid at the end of the experiment, they must have been pro¬ duced de novo by a process of Abiogenesis. But we must not even here leap at conclusions ; for three things must be kept in view. First, all experiments undertaken to test the resistance of vitality to heat can only be conducted with adult organ¬ isms, or with those so far advanced in growth as to be visible under the higher powers of the microscope ; so that the facts ascertained as to the heat capable of being endured by visible organisms have no bearing on the question as to the vital resistance to heat possessed by those germs which are invisible. Adult Bacteria may possibly be destroyed by a temperature ranging from 127° to 140°, but this proves nothing as to the temperature which the invisible germs of Bacteria may be able to resist. It is not, therefore, sufficient to know, as Dr Bastian alleges, what are the limits of vital resistance to high temperatures possessed by spores of Fungi on the one hand, and Bacteria and Vibriones on the other. The question as to the possible temperature which invisible germs of Bacteria may be able to withstand passes beyond the reach of actual demonstration, — since these may be capable of surviving temperatures which would be fatal to the adult. Secondly, Dr Bastian is of opinion that 212° is unconditionally fatal; but the experiments of Dr Grace-Calvert would seem to indi¬ cate that Vibriones can survive a temperature of 300°. Thirdly, there is as little unanimity as to the actual results obtained in this way by experiments on organic fluids which have been subjected to high temperatures and then hermeti¬ cally sealed against the entrance of air. Dr Bastian alleges that he has almost uniformly obtained positive results from these experiments. We admit that one positive result, if MATERIALISM. 199 absolutely certain and free from fallacy, would be decisive of the question, but we do not concede that it has been definitively settled by the results obtained by Dr Bastian. The doctrine that omne vivum ex vivo has been a recognised law of nature, since Redi, an Italian naturalist, about the middle of the seventeenth century, proved that animalcules never made their appearance in decaying animal and vegetable substances when all pre-existing living germs had been carefully excluded. This doctrine has been confirmed by all the investigations and experiments which have been made from that day to this. In the extremely delicate and difficult experiments of Dr Bastian, prosecuted on the very verge of nonentity, presenting objects so minute as to render it doubtful whether they were anything or nothing, and still more uncertain whether they were living or dead, we think there was abundance of room for fallacy. His experiments have been repeated, and failed to give in the hands of competent men the like results. The following quotation is from a careful review of his book in the Micro¬ scopical Journal. It relates to the now famous cheese and turnip solution : — “ Nevertheless, in consequence of the interest which Dr Bastian’s work has excited, we have made the experiment (and that repeatedly) as directed by him. This is not the occasion on which to give the details of the experiments in question. It will, however, perhaps add some value to the remarks which it has been our duty to make when we state that, carefully fol¬ lowing Dr Bastian’s directions, using at the same time great care as to cleanliness and due boiling, we have obtained results which in every single instance , out of more than forty tubes closed on four separate occasions, simply contradict Dr Bastian. We believe, then, that Dr Bastian’s last dogma in Archebiosis, — his belief in turnip, solution with a fragment of cheese — must be placed in the same category as his colloidal urea, his spontaneously generated bog-moss, his fungi born in crystals, his unmistakable processes of heterogenesis, and his c watch¬ ing ’ and ‘ experimentation ’ in general.” 1 Dr Allen Thomson, though a strenuous supporter of the evolution hypothesis, yet in regard to abiogenesis or spon- 1 Quarterly Journal of Microscopical Science, January 1873, p. 74. 200 MATERIALISM. taneous generation, admits that the doctrine has not been proven. In his inaugural address to the British Association at Plymouth, in August 1877, under this section, he says: “ During the last seven or eight years, however, investigations by most competent inquirers have followed one another in quick succession, from a review of which we cannot but arrive at a conclusion adverse to the theory of heterogenesis — viz., that no development of organisms, even of the most simple kind, has been satisfactorily observed to occur in cir¬ cumstances which entirely excluded the possibility of their being descended from germs, or equivalent formative particles, belonging to pre-existing bodies of a similar kind.”1 “ Both Professor Frankland and Dr Burdon Sanderson,” says Professor Alleyne Nicholson, “ failed to obtain any evi¬ dence of life in solutions which had been previously heated, and subsequently hermetically sealed against the air.” Con¬ siderable stress may safely be laid upon the results obtained by Dr Burdon Sanderson, who has justly acquired the highest reputation as an original investigator in this field of research. This distinguished observer has arrived at the following con¬ clusions as to the origin of Bacteria in organic solutions : — “ 1. That Bacteria and Fungi are never developed in solutions which have been raised to the boiling-point, and subsequently sealed against the air, provided the vessel containing the solution has been previously carefully cleaned and boiled. “ 2. That if such solutions are exposed to the air, yeast, plants, and moulds are developed in them, but no Bacteria ; showing that the germs of the latter are not naturally present in the atmosphere. “ 3. That if such solutions are brought into contact with uncleaned glass surfaces, or if they are made with unboiled water, numerous Bacteria are always developed in them ; showing that the germs of Bacteria are disseminated by means of water and damp surfaces.” 2 Dr Bastian has, with indefatigable assiduity, laboured to effect the occurrence of spontaneous generation, yet even the most 1 Reported in ‘ Scotsman ’ of 16th August 1877. 2 Review of Dr Bastian’s work on ‘ The Beginnings of Life,’ by Prof. H. Alleyne Nicholson. MATERIALISM. 201 cursory survey of his statements and illustrations lead to the conviction that he has been, to say the least of it, precipitate in the assertion that the results of his experiments on organic solutions “ cannot be reasonably explained, except on the sup¬ position that the living things obtained from the closed flasks had been developed from newly evolved matter.” The most advanced advocates of materialism in its modern form admit that, so far as yet ascertained, living matter can only come from matter already alive. Professor Huxley, in his address as President of the British Association at Liverpool, in Sep¬ tember 1870, distinctly avows that observation and experiment have failed to detect any other source of life in things now brought into existence than previously existing living things. Nevertheless, in the same address, he declares that had he seen the earth when passing through its earliest physical and chemical conditions, previous to all geological time, he would have witnessed the evolution of living protoplasm from not living matter. Nor does he relinquish the hope of this evolu¬ tion being witnessed at some future time. “ I must carefully guard myself,” he says, “ against the supposition that I intend to suggest that no such thing as abiogenesis has ever taken place in the past, or ever will take place in the future. With organic chemistry, molecular physics, and physiology yet in their infancy, and every day making prodigious strides, I think it would be the height of presumption for any man to say that the conditions under which matter assumes the properties we call ‘ vital/ may not some day be artificially brought together.” All this supposes that life is the product of physical causation, and that all that is requisite for its pro¬ duction is to bring together the necessary conditions. He dispenses with vitality as a distinct force as much as Bastian. He lends the whole weight of his authority to the doctrine of spontaneous generation, because his own doctrine of protoplasm leads to that conclusion. He does not accept that conclusion as having been scientifically demonstrated ; but he thinks that had he seen the earth passing through its earliest physical conditions, he would have witnessed the evolution of organic from inorganic forms. According to his doctrine, the only difference between in- 202 MATERIALISM. organic, lifeless matter, and living plants or animals, is in the manner in which their atoms are aggregated. “ The four elements,’’ he says, “ carbon, hydrogen, oxygen, and nitrogen, are all lifeless bodies. Of these, carbon and oxygen unite, in certain proportions and under certain conditions, to give rise to carbonic acid ; hydrogen and oxygen produce water ; nitrogen and hydrogen give rise to ammonia. These new compounds, like the elementary bodies of which they are composed, are lifeless.” So far as action is concerned in the formation of these new compounds, it is purely chemical. He proceeds : “ But when they (the compounds) are brought together, under certain conditions they give rise to the still more complex body, protoplasm, and this protoplasm exhibits the phenomena of life. I see no break in this series of steps in molecular complication, and I am unable to understand why the language which is applicable to any one term of the series may not be used to any of the others.” Protoplasm or life-matter is the next result, when these compounds are brought together under certain conditions. Still the process is only chemical, except so far as the conditions are concerned. What these conditions are we are not told, although it is in them that the whole question is contained. He goes on to say — ■“ When hydrogen and oxygen are mixed in a certain proportion, and an electric spark is passed through them, they disappear, and a quantity of water, equal in weight to the sum of their weights, appears in their place. . . . What justification is there, then, for the assumption of the existence in the living matter of a some¬ thing which has no representative, or correlative, in the not living matter which gave rise to it ? What better philoso¬ phical status has ‘ vitality ’ than ‘ aquosity ’ ? . . . It may seem a small thing to admit that the dull vital actions of a fungus, or a foraminifer, are the properties of their protoplasm, and are the direct results of the nature of the matter of which they are composed. But if, as I have endeavoured to prove to you, their protoplasm is essentially identical with, and most readily con¬ verted into, that of any animal, I can discover no logical halting-place between the admission that such is the case, and the further concession that all vital action may, with equal propriety, be said to be the result of the molecular forces of the MATERIALISM. 203 * protoplasm which displays it. And if so, it must he true, in the same sense and to the same extent, that the thoughts to which I am now giving utterance, and your thoughts regarding them, are the expressions of the molecular changes in that matter of life which is the source of our other vital phenomena.” “ Further,” he says, “ I take it to he demonstrable that it is utterly impossible to prove that anything whatever may not he the effect of a material and necessary cause, and that human logic is equally incompetent to prove that any act is really spontaneous. A really spontaneous act is one which, by the assumption, has no cause [no material cause, for he admits no other] ; and the attempt to prove such a negative as this is, on the face of the matter, absurd. And while it is thus a philoso¬ phical impossibility to demonstrate that any given phenomenon is not the effect of a material cause, any one who is acquainted with the history of science will admit, that its progress has, in all ages, meant, and now, more than ever, means, the extension of the province of what we call matter and causation, and the concomitant gradual banishment from all regions of human thought of what we call spirit and spontaneity. . . . After all, what do we know of this terrible ‘ matter,’ except as a name for the unknown and hypothetical cause of states of our own consciousness ? And what do we know of that c spirit ’ over whose threatened extinction by matter a great lamentation is arising, . . . except that it is also a name for an unknown and hypothetical cause, or condition, of states of consciousness ? In other words, matter and spirit are but names for the imaginary substrata of groups of natural phenomena. ... As surely as every future grows out of past and present, so will the physiology of the future gradually extend the realm of matter and law until it is co-extensive with knowledge, with feeling, and with action.” 1 “ Living cell -body, elementary organism, primitive living matter — that, evidently,” says Dr Stirling, “ is the quest of Mr Huxley : there is aqueous matter, he would say, perhaps, composed of hydrogen and oxygen, and it is the same thing whether in the rain-drop or the ocean ; so, similarly, there is vital matter, which, composed of carbon, hydrogen, oxygen, 1 Lay Sermons, Addresses, and Reviews, by Thomas Henry Huxley. 204 MATERIALISM. and nitrogen, is the same thing whether in cryptogams or in elephants, in animalcules or in men. What, in fact, Mr Huxley seeks, probably, is living protein — protein, so to speak, struck into life. Just such appears to him to be the nature of protoplasm, and in it he believes himself to possess at last a living clay wherewith to build the whole organic world.” 1 “ Protoplasm is the clay of the potter,” says Huxley, “ which, bake it and paint it as he will, remains clay, separated by arti¬ fice, and not by nature, from the commonest brick or sun-dried clod.” “ Undoubtedly,” replies Dr Stirling, “ all bricks, being made of clay, are the same thing if they are made of the same clay. That is, bricks are identical if the clay is identical ; but on the other hand, by as much as the clay differs will the bricks differ. And similarly, all organisms can be identified only if their composing protoplasm can be identified. To this stake is the argument of Mr Huxley tied.” It has been admitted for some time back, that all organisms, whether animal or vegetable, are formed of cells, and that these cell-structures are the agents by which nutrition and reproduction are carried on. But Mr Huxley would seem to substitute for these cells a single life -matter, protoplasm ; hence the object he has in view in his Essay on “ The Physical Basis of Life ” is to establish two propositions. The first is, “ That all animal and vegetable organisms are essen¬ tially alike in power, in form, and in substance ; ” and the second, “ That all vital and intellectual functions are the properties of the molecular dispositions and changes of the material basis (protoplasm) of which the various animals and vegetables consist.” In both propositions this same protoplasm is alleged to be the physical basis of life. In the first proposition he asserts that all organisms are alike in power, in form, and in sub¬ stance. Let us take substance, first as being the simplest way of viewing the argument. By substance he means their chemical constitution. He asserts that the protoplasm of all living beings is composed of carbon, hydrogen, oxygen, and nitrogen. But although it were granted that in all proto- 1 As Regards Protoplasm, p. 26. MATERIALISM. 205 plasm there was an identity of chemical ingredients, still we know that the same component parts with different propor¬ tions produce very different results ; and so it is with proto¬ plasm. All protoplasm, moreover, is not identical in its chemical constitution. Mr Huxley holds the opposite opinion, though in a modified sense ; but the modification subverts the proposition to be proved, for where shall we begin so as not to find modified protoplasm ? The assertion that all organised tissues whatever are to be regarded as protoplasm is not in accordance with physiological analysis ; for there is much chemical difference in these, not only in the proportions of their fundamental ingredients, but also in the addition of others, such as lime, phosphorus, magnesia, soda, iron, &c. But the German physicists have gone further than this, and maintain that the cells themselves chemically differ, — some, besides their elementary matter, containing one sub¬ stance, and some another. How, then, is protoplasm to be identified in all the tissues of organism, since in the pro¬ cess of formation so much chemical difference obtains among them ? Again, if the protoplasm of all organisms from the fungus to man is identical, then the action of re-agents upon all samples of it must be the same. But Ktihne, says Dr Stirling, “ reports the movements of the amceba to be arrested in iced water ; while in the same medium the ova of the trout furrow furiously, but perish even in a warmed room. Others, again, we are told, may be actually dried and yet live. Of ova in general, in this connection, it is said that they live or die, according as the temperature to which they are exposed differs little or much from that which is natural to the organ¬ isms producing them. In some, according to Max Schultze, even distilled water is enough to arrest movement.” Now such difference of result from mere difference of temperature must be allowed to indicate a difference of original constitu¬ tion. The argument, therefore, of Mr Huxley in regard to unity of substance, whether tested by the chemical constitu¬ tion or the action of re-agents, cannot be said to be borne out by facts. Mr Huxley seeks also to prove his position by reference 206 MATERIALISM. to unity of form. By form he means appearance, structure, shape. But neither in this respect does all protoplasm agree. Bor “according to Strieker,” says Dr Stirling, “protoplasm varies almost infinitely in consistence, in shape, and in struc¬ ture. In consistence it is sometimes so fluid as to be capable of forming in drops, sometimes semi-fluid and gelatinous, sometimes of considerable resistance. In shape — for to Strieker the cells are now protoplasm — we have club-shaped protoplasm, globe-shaped protoplasm, cup-shaped protoplasm, bottled - shaped protoplasm — spindle - shaped protoplasm — branched, threaded, ciliated protoplasm — circle-headed proto¬ plasm — flat, conical, cylindrical, longitudinal, prismatic, poly¬ hedral, and palisade-like protoplasm. In structure, again, it is sometimes uniform and sometimes reticulated into inter¬ spaces that contain fluid.” Lastly, Mr Huxley refers to unity of faculty or power. By this we are to understand function. There are, he says, but three categories of human activity — contractility, nutrition, and reproduction ; and there are no fewer for the lower forms of life, whether animal or vegetable. In the nettle, for in¬ stance, we find the woody case of its sting lined by a granu¬ lated, semi-fluid layer which is protoplasm, and this layer is possessed of contractility. But in this respect other plants are similarly constituted as the nettle — that is, they are in the possession of contractile substance, and all animals are as plants. Protoplasm is common to the whole of them. The difference between the lowest and the highest plant or animal is one only of degree and not of kind. Mr Huxley’s representative protoplasm is that of the nettle¬ sting, and he describes it as a granulated, semi-fluid body, con¬ tractile in mass, and contractile also in detail to the develop¬ ment of a sort of circulation. But Strieker, on the contrary,, describes it as a homogeneous substance, in which any granules that may appear must be considered as of foreign importation, and in which there are no traces of circulation. Burther, according to this great histologist, protoplasm varies almost infinitely in function as in consistence and form. If we except the small class of those “ advanced thinkers ” who advocate the spontaneous evolution of molecules themselves MATERIALISM. 207 into organised life, we have the authority of the Germans generally for asserting that in every different tissue we must look for a different initial protoplasm in the germinating cell. Though Mr Huxley takes the nettle-sting as his representative protoplasm, yet he refers also to the egg as the recognised beginning, at least so far, of all vegetable and animal organ¬ isms. But even here, instead of identity we find infinite difference, both with regard to the various organisms and also to the various tissues. “ In the earliest condition of the human organism,” he says (referring to the white cor¬ puscles of the blood), “ in that state in which it had just become distinguished from the egg in which it arises, it is nothing but an aggregation of corpuscles, and every organ of the body was once no more than such an aggregation.” The first change that takes place in the impregnated egg appears to be wrinkles or furrows ; then these break into cells, and these are the cells of the embryo. Mr Huxley directly asserts that the whole body, and every organ of the body, is but an aggregation of colourless blood-corpuscles ; physiologists, however, generally admit that the function of these white corpuscles has not as yet been ascertained. But what we have here to state is that, according to the German physiologists, the cells of the organs to which he refers are even in their embryonic stage uninterchangeable, and produce but them¬ selves. The Germans speak of the Keimblatt (germ-leaf) in which all organisms originate. This leaf, they tell us, is threefold ; but even these folds are most important. The various cells have their places in them distinct and deter¬ mined from the first. While the upper and under tissues spring respectively from the upper and under leaf, the tissues connected with the osseous, muscular, and vascular systems spring from the middle one. With such discoveries before us by these German biologists, whose labours have so greatly contributed to give to animal embryology the character of a systematic branch of science, we feel warranted in refusing our assent to the identity of protoplasms, and in believing that from the very beginning — even from the egg — brain-cells generate only brain -cells, nerve -cells nerve -cells, bone -cells bone-cells, and so forth. 208 MATERIALISM. This is the case in the various tissues of the infinitely different species both of animals and plants. Each of the various tissues has its own protoplasm producing but its own kind, and is uninterchangeable with that of the rest. Mr Huxley looks upon contractility as the fundamental character¬ istic of power. But all protoplasm is not contractile, nor dependent on contractility for its functions. There is nerve- protoplasm as well as muscle-protoplasm. How contractility appears to be the peculiar property of muscular tissue, and in no case dependent on nerves ; for it may be manifested in a muscle after being isolated from the influence of the nervous system by division of the nerves supplying it. Nerves have no power of contractility in themselves, hut they possess the power of exciting muscular contraction, which, however, is never manifested till some stimulus is applied. All stimuli, internal or external, when applied to sensitive nerves, produce sensations, and when applied to motor nerves, excite contrac¬ tions. Again, there are certain kinds of nerves, the irritation of which produces effects peculiar to themselves : thus the irritation of the optic nerve causes the sensation of light ; of the auditory nerve, of sound ; of the olfactory nerve, of smell ; and of the gustatory nerve, of taste. We have only to add under this head another fact which proves an essential difference of function between plants and animals. Living plants can manufacture fresh protoplasm out of mineral compounds, whereas animals have not this power, but are obliged to procure it ready made ; and thereby, in the long-run, depend upon plants. Mr Huxley, after telling us that protoplasm, which he calls “ the matter of life,” consists of carbon, hydrogen, oxygen, and nitrogen, in very complex union, thus proceeds : “ To this complex combination, the nature of which has never been determined with exactness, the name of protein has been applied.” Chemists have dif¬ fered in the views they have taken of this substance, while Liebig and many others have denied its existence altogether. Mr Huxley identifies it with protoplasm. In this case, what is true of the one must be true of the other. And since upon his own admission the nature of protein has never been determined with exactness, the same thing must be affirmed MATERIALISM. 209 of protoplasm. Mr Huxley concludes — “ Therefore all living matter is more or less albuminoid.” Had this been the main drift of the argument, his conclusion could not have been disputed, but it is one which had been arrived at long before the term protoplasm was introduced into biological science. Mr Huxley’s attempt to find a matter of life in protoplasm is unsupported by those very Germans who have discovered and assigned the name. There are differences of opinion amongst them on some points connected with the processes of life-development, as might have been expected on so intricate a subject ; but none of them have advanced beyond a proto¬ plasm-cell. According to their view, it is only in cells that protoplasm exists. Mr Huxley speaks of protoplasm as the mere accumulation of heaps of living material of which plants and animals are built up. All the great German physiolo¬ gists, however, still hold by the cells. With them the cell, the nucleus, and the membrane, are indispensable elements. Such is the state of belief which obtains at present in re¬ gard to biological science. What information, then, has the microscope given upon the origin and source of life ? Hone whatever. It has indeed shown us what minute and seem¬ ingly simple organisms it has pleased the Author of Nature to bring under the influence of vital agency ; but as to what this mysterious agency is, it has taught us absolutely nothing, because such knowledge lies utterly beyond its sphere. Hence, as Dr Prout has accurately remarked, “ the true and legiti¬ mate object of inquiry for the physiologist ought to be, not what the vital principle is, but what it does ; just as the laws and effects of gravitation are legitimate objects of inquiry, though we know nothing, and probably never shall know any¬ thing, of the principle of gravitation itself.” 1 Vastly, there¬ fore, as we are indebted to the eminent physiologists whose discoveries have thrown so much light on the elements out of which all organic creatures, animal and vegetable, are built, there is nevertheless great danger in our over-estimating both the nature and the extent of these discoveries. For, remark¬ able as they have been, they sink into insignificance in com¬ parison of what yet remains undisclosed and incomprehensible 1 Prout on the Application of Chemistry to Physiology, &c. 0 210 MATERIALISM. — the infinitely varied modes in which vitality acts in pro¬ ducing all the beauty and variety of living objects by which we are surrounded. These observations on Mr Huxley’s first proposition, brief as they necessarily are, may yet be sufficient to show that from the very nature as well as from the present state of micro¬ scopic science, he is not entitled to assume protoplasm as a physical matter of life — identical in itself, in power, in form, and in substance — and involving the identity of all organs and organisms both of the animal and vegetable kingdoms. If, then, we refuse to accept his conclusions under the first proposition, there can be no pretence why we should hold them valid under the second — namely, “ That all vital and intellectual functions are properties of the molecular disposi¬ tions and changes of the material basis (protoplasm) of which the various animals and vegetables consist.” The argument which Mr Huxley adduces in support of his second proposition is founded on the correlation of physical forces. By correlation is meant the convertibility of the one force into the other. Light, heat, electricity, &c., are thus convertible, and thereby in their nature identical. The pro¬ position, therefore, to be here proved is, that vital and intel¬ lectual functions are but physical forces, and convertible into light, heat, electricity, &c. As these forces tend to produce motion, which is the only conception we can form of power, so life and thought are resolvable into motion of the molecules of matter. Mr Huxley says : “ I am no materialist, but, on the contrary, believe materialism to involve grave philosophi¬ cal error.” We quite agree with him in opinion that mater¬ ialism involves “ grave philosophical error ” ; and yet a more explicit avowal of materialism than is here presented cannot be conceived. Not only according to the common but to the latest doctrine of physiologists, physical phenomena are to be referred to physical forces, vital phenomena to vital forces, and mental phenomena to mind. Whereas, according to Mr Hux¬ ley, all phenomena are to be referred to physical forces, no other forces being either known or knowable. The fallacy which underlies the whole of his argument is the restriction of the laws of nature to the mere correlation of physical forces. MATERIALISM. 211 But nature cannot be thus restricted, for according to this limited sense gravitation itself would be excluded. Gravita¬ tion is a physical force, yet one which cannot be so correlated, nor resolved into motion. It acts simultaneously at all dis¬ tances, and so cannot be a force produced by molecules of matter put into motion. It is simply a force which, without motion in itself, tends to produce motion. Had the doctrine of the correlation of forces been limited to the department of physics, it might have been regarded as a purely scientific question in which the Theologian and the Metaphysician have no special interest. But unhappily it has not been thus limited to the region of Metaphysics, and mat¬ ter has been confounded with mind. According to this ad¬ vanced method of reasoning, all the phenomena of the universe, physical, vital, and mental, are to be referred to unintelligent physical forces. The leading argument in support of this doctrine is from analogy. We shall here state it in the form in which it has been presented by Mr Huxley, and shall then endeavour to show, as briefly as possible, wherein it fails in its application to the phenomena of life. He insists that as we do not attribute the properties which water manifests to a principle which, if we were to invent a name, might be called “ aquosity,” so neither are we at liberty to attribute the properties which protoplasm manifests to a principle which we call “ vitality ” ; and he arrives at the conclusion that all vital action may be said to be the result of molecular forces of the protoplasm which displays it. If by “ aquosity ” is merely meant the properties of water, then in that sense “ aquosity ” is necessarily associated with water. But here at the very outset the analogy breaks down, for “ vitality ” is not necessarily associated with protoplasm. There is living proto¬ plasm, and there is dead protoplasm, and the difference be¬ tween them is all the difference between life and death. Living protoplasm is identical with dead protoplasm only so far as the chemical constitution is concerned ; the difference, therefore, between the two states of that substance cannot depend on that in which they are identical. This simple fact is of itself sufficient proof that life is not necessarily associated with protoplasm. That which is separable from any substance 212 MATERIALISM. cannot be identical with it. Again, the properties of chemical substances, however complex in their constitution, are chemi¬ cal, and nothing more ; whereas in vital organisms the pro¬ perties are altogether different from mere chemical effects. They exhibit not an analogy but an antithesis to each other. Yet Mr Huxley says that he can “ see no break in the series of steps in molecular complication.” When chemical ele¬ ments are brought together “ under certain conditions, proto¬ plasm is formed, and this protoplasm exhibits the phenomena of life.” As to what these conditions are we are not informed, although it is in them that the whole question resides. When carbonic acid, water, and ammonia, lifeless bodies, become liv¬ ing matter, it is not in consequence of a different arrangement of their molecules, but in consequence of a new force or prin¬ ciple imparted to them. This is the break in the series of steps in molecular complication — a new step has been added which is not molecular at all ; and, instead of an analogy, an antithesis is presented between matter possessing only chemical combination, and matter exhibiting the phenomena of life. The analogy to which Mr Huxley trusts in illustration of his argument is the simple formation of water from two chemical elements. Hydrogen and oxygen, after an electric spark passes through them, when mixed in certain proportions, become water. This is a new substance, with properties very different from those of hydrogen and oxygen of which it is composed. But no one attributes those properties to anything else than the material composition of the water itself. So, also, the phenomena of living matter are very different from those of the elements which enter into its chemical structure, but afford no presumption that there is any “ vital force ” to account for this difference, any more than the peculiar properties of water justify the assumption of the existence of anything distinct from its material element. “ Vitality,” therefore, we are told, has no better philosophical status than “ aquosity.” But the parallel does not hold. The difference between the results of Mr Huxley’s ingenious principle “ aquosity,” and of the com¬ monly received principle “ vitality,” is very obvious ; this is what he has altogether overlooked. When hydrogen and oxygen are united by the electric spark, the product is water ; MATERIALISM. 213 that substance remains in its liquid state till a change takes place in the temperature, when it passes into the state of steam or of ice ; and when the temperature is again altered it returns to its liquid form. But how different is the power of “ vitality” in its specific, nutritive, and reproductive functions ! It forms protoplasm out of the lifeless elements of the mineral kingdom. It builds up from that substance plants and animals, which are not stationary like water, but are growing and expanding, and casting out varied forms. It is self-acting, and brings into exist¬ ence an endless line of beings of the same kind, and increasing in numbers as successive generations are produced. In none of the states which water assumes does its “ aquosity ” produce effects like these. Their manifestations, therefore, at once indicate the presence of a principle which is distinct from anything like mere “ aquosity,” and can bear no resemblance to it. It infinitely transcends it, and, indeed, is a principle of a totally different order. The discrepancy of the analogy between the production of water by the electric spark and the production of protoplasm by protoplasm is thus briefly but pointedly shown by the Bev. Mr Martin, in an article in the ‘British and Foreign Evangelical Review’ for January 1870. “ Were the cases,” he says, “ really analogous, the spark ought to produce not water but itself, and the water ought not to have been produced by a spark, but by water. But if inorganic elements are inadequate to account for vital organisation, they are equally inadequate to account for the objective idea of design and the subjective idea of thought. 1. Inorganic elements are inadequate to account for the objective idea of design. In vital organisation, the one idea of plan or design is manifested from its earliest stage to its mature development. The force which acts in organised bodies is not, like the electric spark, a force from without, but one from within. There is no life-matter in the aggre¬ gate, but in the cells. The Germans, in asserting that proto¬ plasm is capable of molecular movements, do not ascribe the movements exhibited in that substance to the molecules them¬ selves, but to a living agency within the cell unknown and uncorrelated. This “ architectonic principle,” as they desig¬ nated it, is altogether different in its operation from mere 214 MATERIALISM. physical force. Since, then, there are two kinds of causal agencies, we must he careful not to confound the one with the other. The only way in which we can distinguish be¬ tween them is from the difference in the effects produced. Every one believes, because it is self-evident, that there can be no effect without a cause. This does not mean merely that every effect must have an antecedent, or, as Hume says, that anything may be the cause of anything else ; but it means that everv effect must have a cause of that kind and */ degree of efficiency which will account for its production. How there are, as we have said, two kinds of effects totally different from each other — one kind produced by an intelli¬ gent, the other by an unintelligent cause. When we see water flowing from a higher to a lower level, vapour ascending from the sea, heat producing expansion and cold contraction, we know that these effects are produced by unintelligent physical forces. On the other hand, when we look upon statues, paint¬ ings, houses, or ships, we cannot help believing that these objects are the effects of human ingenuity and intellect. In other words, we recognise it as a self-evident truth that an unintelligent cause cannot produce an intelligent effect — can¬ not design, foresee, organise. If, then, we regard it as absurd to refer the works of human art to merely physical agency, how much greater the absurdity of referring to blind physical force the infinitely more exquisite and complicated works of the Creator ! “ Was it molecular powers,” asks Dr Stirling, “ that invented a respiration — that perforated the posterior ear to give a balance of air — that compensated the fenestra ovalis by a fenesta rotunda — that placed in the auricular sacs those otolithes , those express stones for hearing ? Such machinery ! The chordce tendinece are to the valves of the heart exactly adjusted check-strings ; and the contractile columnar carnece are set in, under contraction and expansion, to equalise the length of these strings to their office. . . . Are we to con¬ ceive such machinery, such apparatus, such contrivances, merely molecular ? Are molecules adequate to such things — molecules in their blind passivity, and dead, dull in¬ sensibility ? . . . Surely, in the presence of these manifest ideas, it is impossible to attribute the single peculiar feat- MATERIALISM. 215 ure of protoplasm — its vitality, namely — to mere molecular chemistry.” 1 But if inorganic materials are inadequate to account for the objective idea of design, they are not less incapable of account¬ ing for the subjective idea of thought. Yet Mr Huxley tells us that “ thought is but the expression of molecular changes in the matter of life (protoplasm), which is the source of any other vital phenomena,” He thus hopes to vindicate in some way his hypothesis of the evolution of life, and even thought, out of inorganic elements. He warns his readers that if they admit the functions of the lowest forms of life to be but “ direct results of the nature of the matter of which they are com¬ posed,” they must admit as much for the functions of the highest. But we have shown that his presupposition is un¬ supported by evidence, and, therefore, are not bound to admit his conclusion. On the contrary, we adhere not only to the common but to the latest opinion of the most distinguished physiologists, that there exists in every organism, animal and vegetable, a special formative energy, evolving the perfect animal or plant from the aboriginal ovum or ovule, developing its various tissues and organs, and conserving them from the beginning to the end of its individual existence. Nor are we to be shaken in this opinion by being told that this is taking for granted that something exists of which we know and can know nothing, and attributing all the actions of living bodies to a shadowy agency which does everything after its own fashion, but refuses to be made the subject of scientific in¬ vestigation. We are not much moved by an argument like this, because it is merely an attempt to banish vitality from the sphere of science, on the plea that everything except matter belongs to the region of the unknown and the un- knowable. It has never been proved that thought is the result of organisation, nor will such doctrine ever be advanced one step nearer to demonstration by the discovery of protoplasm. Besides the argument from analogy, Materialists have 1 “As Regards Protoplasm,” &c., pp. 43, 44. This Essay by James Hutchison Stirling, F.R.C.S., LL.D., is a most able and complete refutation of Materialism in its recent scientific form. 216 MATERIALISM. brought forward another from the correlation of physical with vital and mental force. But if the former argument failed in its application to vital phenomena, the latter will be found to leave the phenomena of mind precisely where they were before. It may be stated thus : The evolution of heat in the animal body is produced by the combustion of the carbon of the food which it receives, in the same way as the evolution of heat is produced by the combustion of carbon outside of the body. And it has been experimentally proved that the amount of heat produced in the body exactly corresponds to the amount of heat that would be evolved if the quantity of carbon were consumed outside of the body. It is therefore argued that vital heat is identical with physical heat. Again, muscular force is generated in the same way as physical force. It is the power derived from the fuel which moves the steam- engine. This power is measured and determined by the amount of fuel consumed in its production. The measure of the muscular power may be found in the food we consume. Muscular power, therefore, is as strictly physical as the power of the steam-engine. In like manner, nervous power is that kind of force which stimulates a muscle to contract, and the brain to the excitation of thought. The force in both cases is merely physical, and comes from the kind of food we eat and drink. Every exercise of thought is attended by an evolution of heat, and this proves that thought is changed into heat. “ Can we longer refuse to believe,” argues Mr Huxley, “ that even thought is, in some mysterious way, correlated to the other natural forces ? and this even in face of the fact that it had never yet been measured.” Here, then, is a direct avowal that vital and mental pheno¬ mena are to be referred to physical or material causes. Her¬ bert Spencer, author of ‘ The Hew Philosophy,’ and who is called by the advanced Materialists their “ great thinker,” argues in precisely the same way. “ Any hesitation,” he says, “ to admit that between the physical forces and the sensations there exists a correlation like that between the physical forces themselves, must disappear on remembering how the one cor¬ relation, like the other, is not qualitative only but quantitative.” He goes on to assert “ that the law of metamorphosis which MATERIALISM. 217 holds among the physical holds equally between them and the mental forces. . . . How this metamorphosis takes place — how a force existing as motion, heat, or light, can become a mode of consciousness, is mysterious ; but,” he adds, “ it is not a profounder mystery than the transformation of physical forces into each other.” 1 It is unsatisfactory to see men thus attempting to pass the boundaries by which physical science is enclosed, bewildering themselves in speculations utterly beyond their grasp, and achieving by their misspent labours no other result but that of unsettling in the minds of multi¬ tudes those religious and moral convictions which constitute the foundation of their chief happiness. To endeavour to reduce the phenomena of mind under the laws of matter is to bring ridicule upon positive science ; because the doctrine that vital force, and even thought, are correlated to physical forces, is incapable of demonstration. Yet we are told with the same confidence as if the thing had been proved beyond the possi¬ bility of doubt, that the physical forces can be changed into life and thought, and that this correlation is not only of quality, but also of quantity. Physical forces are all correlated, because the one can be changed into the other, measure for measure. But thought cannot be thus transformed. There is no physical force the quantity of which we cannot definitely express by reference to some standard of measurement. But no standard of measurement applicable to mental action has been applied, because no such standard exists. What, therefore, is incapable of measurement cannot be a quantity. The universal law which regulates physical force is, that every effect must have an adequate cause. It is therefore admitted that before the doctrine of the correlation of physical and mental forces can be established, it is necessary to show that the relation between them is not only qualitative but also quantitative — that so much of the one is required to produce so much of the other. But we know that the mere sight of certain objects may excite in the mind the deepest mental emotion, and this emotion may call into action the most violent muscular force. Again, mental emotions produced by impressions on the senses are, in many cases, caused not by the physical impression itself, 1 First Principles, pp. 212, 217. 218 MATERIALISM. but by the associations therewith connected. Hence the doc¬ trine that there is a quantitative relation between physical and mental forces signally fails, since it assigns a cause which is inadequate to account for the effect produced. Notwithstanding the brilliant discoveries of modern science, the Materialism of the present day is not one step in advance of what it was when propounded by Epicurus, and presented in its attractive and classic garb by Lucretius. All the arguments of antiquity for the independence of thought as against matter, can be brought with even more decisive effect as against physi¬ cal force. The physical forces are all alike, and can be corre¬ lated. They all tend to produce motion. Mental forces do not produce motion, but correct and control it. Physical forces all tend to produce an equilibrium — mental forces resist it. Physi¬ cal forces act by necessity, without choice, without reference to an end ; mental forces act with intelligence, forethought, free¬ dom, and design. Heat and electricity can no more construct an eye or an ear than brass can make a watch, or stone or lime can build a house. We are told that mental action is attended by the development of heat. Does concomitancy prove iden¬ tity ? We blush when we are ashamed, and turn pale when we are afraid. Do these facts prove that shame and fear are one and the same thing, — that shame is heat, and heat shame, and that the one may be converted into the other ? We know that sorrow produces tears, yet no one imagines from this coinci¬ dence that sorrow and salt-water are identical. The advanced Materialists of our day affirm that they have proved everything, whereas in reality they have proved nothing. The fact is, that they have left the connection between mind and matter just as inexplicable as it was before. Until these advocates of Materialism in its new form can actually change electricity and heat into life, men will be slow to believe that they are identical. No one has proved that life¬ less molecules of matter are themselves the active agents in developing vital phenomena. Yet Mr Huxley asserts that life is but “ a mode of ordinary force,” and that living protoplasm differs from dead protoplasm not in quality or essence, but only in degree. To convince people of this, he gives to protoplasm which is dead the very same name as to protoplasm which is MATERIALISM. 219 alive — for, according to him, the one may be transubstantiated into the other. But how ? “ By subtle influences,” he replies, “ and under sundry circumstances.” But it is not by calling things which differ by the same name that he can prove iden¬ tity, and establish a doctrine which is contrary to fact. Life is a power of its own kind, and bears no analogy whatever to any ordinary force. It is essentially different in its mode of action from any known property of matter. It acts voluntarily, and with reference to an end. It cannot, therefore, be physical, because physical force acts only by necessity. It would be still more absurd to attribute organism to physical force, be¬ cause this would imply that physical force possesses within itself a guiding and constructive agency, in virtue of which the atoms take up their respective positions, and arrange them¬ selves according to a plan. But vitality is not a property of physical force, nor does it even act along witli it. On the contrary, it counteracts and overcomes physical and chemical agency in some very mysterious and remarkable manner, and thereby shows that it belongs to a different category altogether. It is a directing agency, and so must itself be a force. But it is not only an agency which directs, but also one which pro¬ duces changes. The great distinction between vitality and every kind of physical agency is the fact that a germ en¬ dowed with life is developed into an organism of its parent type. This organism is the subject of incessant changes, which all tend at first, in virtue of the vital ascendancy, to the evolution of its typical form, and afterwards to its mainte¬ nance in that form by resisting physical and chemical action, which is ever tending to produce disintegration ; but no sooner is vitality gone than the organism is left to be resolved by their agency into the constituents from which its materials were originally extracted. The inference to be drawn from this fact is, not that chemical affinity performs no part in the growth and development of plants and animals, but that life is an agency altogether different from any kind of physical force. Life and physical force, therefore, are not correlated. No one ever changed death into life. If the simplest cell dies, all the science in the world cannot restore it to life. What is dead can be made alive only by being taken up and assimilated by 220 MATERIALISM. that which is still living. Since, then, mere physical force cannot he changed into life, how is it to be transmuted into volition and intelligence ? “ The body,” as Delitzsch says, “ is neither a precipitate of the mind, nor is the mind a sublimate of matter.” 1 “ Man is not an organism,” says Sir W. Hamilton, “ he is an intelligence served by organs.” 2 That thought and perception are due to the molecular composition and move¬ ments of the brain-atoms is a direct allegation that the pheno¬ mena of life and mind are to be referred to material causes. There may be, for aught we know, movements of the brain- atoms accompanying every act of thought or perception ; but that the movements themselves are the thought or the percep¬ tion, we are so far from admitting, that we find it utterly im¬ possible to comprehend what such a statement means. On the supposition that a definite thought and a definite molecular action in the brain occur simultaneously, and that we had eyes sufficiently strengthened and illuminated to detect everything that actually takes place in the brain, what would this infor¬ mation amount to ? We should, in that case, see the mole¬ cules of this substance change their place a little, move a little up or down, to the right or the left, round about or zigzag, or in some other course or direction. This is all we could see, were it even proved by actual observation that such movements there are. But would it be reasonable thence to infer that these motions, the whole of which we see, are thought or feel¬ ing ? Would we not be just as far from the solution of the problem of mental phenomena as ever ? Let the feeling of love, for example, be associated with a movement of the mole¬ cules of the brain to the right. and the feeling: of hate with a movement of the molecules to the left ; we should then know that when we love the motion is in one direction, and that when we hate the motion is in the other. But the why ? would still remain unsolved. The Materialist, therefore, is not en¬ titled to say that his molecular theory has explained every¬ thing, when in reality it has explained nothing. To say that the mind is a product or function of protoplasm or of its molecular changes, is to propound a doctrine which is not only absurd, but utterly unintelligible. If a molecule of 1 Biblische Psychologic, p. 64. 2 Lectures on Metaphysics, i. 29. MATERIALISM. 221 protoplasm is unconscious, it is impossible for us to believe that the mere addition of one, two, a thousand, or any aggregate number of molecules, could in any way tend to produce a self- conscious existence. What is not in any of the parts cannot exist in the whole. Either matter is conscious, or conscious¬ ness is something distinct from matter, and in order to avoid the latter conclusion, Huxley, Tyndall, and Herbert Spencer have adopted the former. This is, indeed, the only alternative to which they could possibly have had recourse ; for proceeding on the assumption that Nature contains nothing beyond the properties of matter, they had excluded from it the whole living world. They had restricted the Laws of Nature to mere physical nature, and so vital and mental phenomena were not comprehended under them. But these phenomena ought to have been included among the Laws of Nature, for they do belong to Nature. It is not surprising, therefore, that, using Nature in the narrow sense of physical nature, they should attempt to spiritualise matter until it becomes life. “ Spirit and matter,” they say, “ have ever been presented to us in the rudest contrast — the one as noble, the other as all vile.” But if, instead of these perverted ideas of matter and spirit, we come to view them, not as two opposite elements, but as different forms or aspects of the same thing, the difficulty in conceiving how living protoplasm could be evolved from not living matter would disappear. It would then be no longer an absurdity too monstrous to be entertained, that mind could become matter or matter mind, or that the phenomena of the one could be produced by the other. The supposed distinction between them would be done away. If you only spiritualise matter until it becomes mind, all the difficulties which have hitherto impeded the progress of philosophers in their search after unity would be removed. But if matter becomes mind, then mind is God, and God is all — ro ev kcu nav, the absolute unity of all existence. Thus it is that men, eminent as physicists, by carry¬ ing the subject of their investigations into the region of mental philosophy, wander beyond their depth, and that, by trying to reduce the phenomena of mind under the laws of matter, they fall into the gulf of Pantheism. That the mind is distinct from the body we have the 222 MATERIALISM. evidence of consciousness. dSTo one has yet been found to deny this evidence, except theoretically. The Idealist may endea¬ vour by subtle reasoning to convince us that no external world exists, yet he cannot persuade himself to live and act differ¬ ently from other men, because he cannot emancipate himself from the laws of his own nature. On the other hand, the Materialist may try to undermine our belief in the existence of mind, but he cannot think or speak without assuming its existence as distinct from matter. The soul is not the body, nor is the body the soul. The soul is the subject of our thoughts, feelings, and volitions ; the body, though intimately and even vitally united to the soul, in which our self or personality resides, is nevertheless objective to it. That these are facts of consciousness must be admitted, because they are universally and of necessity believed. They are recognised in all languages, and in all expressions of human thought, and even by those who theoretically deny them. Every man believes that he has a soul and that he has a body, and that they are as distinct from each other as the self and the non¬ self. Every man believes in matter, and every man believes in mind. And why ? because he has the same evidence for the existence of both. If the Materialist rejects the evidence of consciousness in regard to the operations of mind, he has no higher evidence in regard to the operations of matter. If it is unreliable in the one case, it is unreliable in the other ; and if unreliable in either, the indispensable condition of all know¬ ledge and of all belief is swept away. “ As all philosophy,” says Sir W. Hamilton, “ is evolved from consciousness, so on the truth of consciousness the possibility of all philosophy is dependent, — it is manifest, at once, and without further reason¬ ing, that no philosophical theory can pretend to truth except that single theory which comprehends and develops the fact of consciousness on which it founds, without retrenchment, distortion, or addition.” 1 It may be said, however, that the advocates of Materialism do not deny that there is something within us which thinks and wills ; but what they assert is, that this something is in the brain. But this is to retrench the evidence of conscious- 1 Lectures on Metaphysics, i. 285. MATERIALISM. 223 ness ; for it testifies not only that the objects of onr sense- perceptions have a real objective existence, but that the body itself is objective to the mind, and therefore is different from it. It is, moreover, a self-evident proposition, that the effect cannot contain in it more than what is in its cause. How, then, is the immortal soul of man, with all its powers, and capacities, and aspirations, intellectual, moral, and religious, to be accounted for ? To trace the thoughts and volitions of the soul of man to the mere action of molecules of the brain, is to assume that the effect immeasurably transcends its cause. We do not know how the body acts on the mind, or how the mind acts on the body. To speculate, therefore, upon the relation between these two constituents of our nature is unsatisfactory and useless, because it is a subject which is incomprehensible. It is surely much better and more philosophical to rest content with the simple facts of consciousness, and to admit that while they prove an intimate and vital union between the mind and body, they do not enable us to comprehend the nature of that union, than to have recourse to arbitrary and vain speculations which deny these facts, because we cannot explain them. This is done by those who maintain that all mental phenomena are to be referred to certain changes in the molecules of the brain. There is no argument, physical or metaphysical, which can substantiate as a fact that the mind is situated solely in the brain ; to make assertions which cannot be proved is contrary to the principles of Inductive Science. “ There is no good ground to suppose/5 says Sir W. Hamilton, “ that the mind is situate in the brain, or exclusively in any one part of the body. On the contrary, the supposition that it is really present wherever we are conscious that it acts, — in a word, the Peri¬ patetic aphorism, the soul is all in the whole and in every part, — is more philosophical, and, consequently, more probable than any other opinion. It has not been always noticed, even by those who deem themselves the chosen champions of the immateriality of mind, that we materialise when we attribute to it the relations of matter. Thus, we cannot attribute a local seat to the soul without clothing it with the properties of extension and place, and those who suppose this seat to be but a point, only aggravate the difficulty. Admitting the 224 MATERIALISM. spirituality of mind, all that we know of the relation of soul and body is, that the former is connected with the latter in a way of which we are wholly ignorant ; and that it holds rela¬ tions, different both in degree and kind, with different parts of the organism. We have no right, however, to say that it is limited to any one part of the organism, for even if we admit that the nervous system is the part to which it is proximately united, still the nervous system itself is universally ramified throughout the body ; and we have no more right to deny that the mind feels at the finger-points, as consciousness assures us, than to assert that it thinks exclusively in the brain.” 1 Materialism contradicts the evidence of consciousness in regard to free agency. “ A really spontaneous act,” says Pro¬ fessor Huxley, “ is one which, by the assumption, has no cause ; and the attempt to prove such a negative as this is, on the face of the matter, absurd.” He pronounces a spontaneous act an absurdity, since, according to him, it is a causeless effect — that is, it has not a physical cause, and he admits no other. Professor Tyndall, limiting in the same way all causa¬ tion to mere physical force, denies that there is any such thing as spontaneity in nature. The Duke of Argyll, in his able work entitled ‘ The Reign of Law,’ thus pungently criti¬ cises the remarks which the Professor made on this subject, at the commencement of a course of Lectures on the Pheno¬ mena of Heat: “ We must understand it [Nature] as including every agency which we see entering, or can conceive from analogy as capable of entering, into the causation of the world. First and foremost among these is the agency of our own Mind and Will. Yet, strange to say, all reference to this agency is often tacitly excluded when we speak of the laws of Nature. One of our most distinguished living teachers of physical science began, not long ago, a course of lectures on the pheno¬ mena of Heat by a rapid statement of the modern doctrine of the Correlation of Forces, — how the one was convertible into the other — how one arose out of the other — how none could be evolved except from some other as a pre-existing force. ‘ Thus,’ said the lecturer, ‘ we see there is no such thing as spontaneous¬ ness in Nature.’ What! — not in the lecturer himself ? Was 1 Lectures on Metaphysics, ii. 127, 128. MATERIALISM. 225 there no ‘ spontaneousness ’ in his choice of words — in his selection of materials — in his orderly arrangement of experi¬ ments with a view to the exhibition of particular results ? It is not probable that the lecturer was intending to deny this ; it simply was, that he did not think of it as within his field of view. His own Mind and Will were then dealing with the ‘ laws of Nature/ but they did not occur to him as forming part of those, or, in the same sense, as subject to them. . . . Why, then, are the faculties of the human mind and body not habitually included among the ‘ laws of Nature ’ ? Because a fallacy is getting hold upon us from a want of definition in the use of terms. ‘ Nature ’ is being used in the narrow sense of physical nature. It is conceived as containing noth¬ ing beyond the properties of Matter. Thus the whole mental world in which we ourselves live, and move, and have our being, is excluded from it. But these selves of ours do belong to Nature. . . . Let us never forget, then, that the agency of Man is of all others the most natural — the one with which we are most familiar — the only one, in fact, which we can be said, even in any measure, to understand.” 1 Professor Tyndall, by limiting causation to physical force, arrives at the conclusion that “ there is no such thing as spon¬ taneousness in Nature.” But the properties of matter do not comprehend all that we know of Nature. The Mind and Will of Man constitute part of its laws, and must be reckoned among them. But although the laws both of the mental ancl physical world belong to Nature, yet in their mode of opera¬ tion they are entirely different. The laws of Matter act by blind force, the laws of Mind by self-determination. Every man knows that the properties of matter have no “ spontane¬ ousness ” in themselves, but that he has free agency in all that he does. He knows that he has the power of self- determination to act or not to act, and he has this power in common with his fellow-men. Every man is conscious that he is a free agent, and that in consequence of this free agency he is responsible for his own acts. The evidence that he is accountable for his own acts is the same as what he has for his own existence. It is an evidence inseparable from himself, 1 The Reign of Law, people’s edition, pp. 5-7. P 226 MATERIALISM. and such as no sophistry can permanently dislodge from the human breast. He is conscious that he might have acted differently had other views or feelings been present to his mind, or been allowed their due weight. No man is conscious of a power to act against his will, for his will is the choice which determines the act. He may have opposite feelings conflicting in his mind, but he cannot have opposite choices co-existing. The evidence, then, derived from consciousness on the subject of free agency is simply this : that in every act we had some motive for acting as we did. Under motives for an act are included reasons, principles, inclinations, and feelings. We cannot conceive that a man can be conscious that his motives are in one direction, while his will is in another. If a man, when filled with all pious feelings, can will the most impious acts ; or when filled with enmity to God can have the volitions of a saint ; then his volitions and acts do not express the character of a rational being, but of a maniac, and he is not accountable for them. But it may be urged that the very fact of principles and dispositions controlling the will is inconsistent with free agency. Not so ; for it is only from this fact that the acts of a rational being can be known. The true idea of liberty is that of a man acting in accordance with the laws of his nature. So long as a man is determined in his acts by what is within himself, he has all the liberty of which he is capable. If the acts of a man are not determined by his reason and feelings, he must be classed among the insane. In no other way can any estimate be formed of a man’s character. It is thus that we are convinced that an honest man will act honestly, and that a generous man will act generously. “ Rational beings,” says Dr Reid, “ in proportion as they are wise and good, will act according to the best motives ; and every rational being who does otherwise, abuses his liberty. The most perfect being, in everything where there is a right and a wrong, a better and a worse, always infallibly acts according to the best mo¬ tives. This, indeed, is little else than an identical proposition ; for it is a contradiction to say that a perfect being does what is wrong or unreasonable. But to say that he does not act freely because he always does what is best, is to say that the MATERIALISM. 227 proper use of liberty destroys liberty, and tliat liberty consists only in its abuse.” 1 In further illustration of the idea here presented by Dr Keid, that the most perfect being will always infallibly act according to the best motives, we may refer to the condition of glorified saints, — their acts are, and ever will be determined by the best motives. But will any Christian say that in consequence of this fact they are not free ? — or that their happiness would be exalted, were it possible that they could be influenced by other motives than the best ? The doctrine of Materialism, as advocated by Huxley and Tyndall, denies that every man is conscious of liberty in his voluntary acts. Materialism cannot but exclude freedom of action, for material forces act by necessity. There is no spontaneity in light, heat, electricity, or chemical affinity ; yet to these forces all mental phenomena are referred. If thought be the effect of a certain kind of molecular motion in the brain, it is no more free than other kinds of molecular motion, such as light or heat. And since these forces are correlative, the one being convertible into the other, this is all the more obviously certain. Accordingly, Materialists are avowed necessitarians. But “ the assertion of absolute necessity,” says Sir W. Hamilton, “is virtually the negation of a moral universe, consequently of the Moral Governor of a moral universe, — in a word, Atheism. Fatalism and Atheism are, indeed, convertible terms.” 2 Fatalists may differ as to the cause of the necessity, but they agree as to its nature. Materialism avowedly precludes all liberty of action, and re¬ duces the acts of men to the same category with irrational animals. But every man knows that he is accountable for his own acts, because he knows himself to be free in his volitions. His acts reveal themselves to his inmost conscious¬ ness as acts of self-determination. He cannot disown them, or escape the responsibility they incur, even should he wish. Materialism, therefore, as it contradicts the testimony of con- ciousness in regard to man’s free agency, must be false. Materialism not only contradicts the testimony of conscious¬ ness in regard to man’s free agency, but also its testimony in regard to the principles of his moral constitution. By the 1 Active Powers, Essay iv., ch. 4. 2 Lectures on Metaphysics, ii. 410. 228 MATERIALISM. constitution of onr nature we are conscious that certain acts are morally good, and that others are morally had. Within the mind there is a moral standard by which we test our acts, and the principles which constitute this standard are implanted in our nature. They are a necessary part of our being : every man is conscious that his judgment is deter¬ mined by their exercise, and he perceives their recognition on the part of all who are around him. They are not influenced by the happiness or misery which results from their decision ; for if we reflect upon our own consciousness, we shall find that we frequently give our judgment upon actions altogether irrespective of consequences. The principles of right and wrong are the spontaneous utterance of our moral constitu¬ tion ; they derive their sole authority from the Creator who implanted them in the mind. To deny this were to banish the validity of intuition, and so to reduce all philosophy and knowledge to a state of universal confusion. For what is the first step of every argument but an intuition ? On the sup¬ position of there being no intuitive principles, each man must be allowed to follow his own inclination ; for if there be no uniform standard of rectitude, there can be no morality at all. An action will be approved by one man, condemned by another, and regarded as a matter of indifference by a third. There can be no code of jurisprudence for the maintenance of order in society, because men must fail to discover any fitness between conduct and punishment. But the principles which constitute the standard of morality among men are fixed in our nature, and we admit their validity because we cannot do otherwise. They are an essential part of our being, and we can no more refuse to be guided by them than we can disown our moral nature. One action calls forth our approbation, and another causes within us an entire revulsion. Along with these principles of right and wrong, there is also the power of conscience whereby we become conscious of obliga¬ tion to perform what is right and to shun what is wrong. Conscience is not so much a principle which takes its place among the other principles of the mind, as a ruling power which claims the superintendence of the whole man. Its proper office is to arbitrate and direct among all the other MATERIALISM. 229 feelings and affections of our nature, and thus to watch over the fulfilment of man’s duty to the Supreme Being, who has drawn the line between right and wrong. From this per¬ ception of duty there arises a knowledge of the relation in which man stands to his Creator. This knowledge is necessary to the human mind; it is necessary in order that man may exist as a moral being. For a moral being who has no belief in the existence of God is an impossibility. If there is no God, how can there be responsibility ? And if there be no responsibility, all distinction between right and wrong is an¬ nihilated. But consciousness, which includes the knowledge of every mental state within us, attests the contrary of all this. It compels us to admit that there are principles in¬ herent in our nature which constitute the standard of moral obligation, — that conscience approves or remonstrates just as this standard has been complied with or disregarded, that we are responsible to the Supreme Euler, and that He will call us to account. But Materialism, in sweeping away the spirit of man, leaves nothing to be accountable, and in sweeping away from the universe the Father of Spirits, leaves no being to whom an account can be rendered. To tell us that con¬ sciousness is the result of the concurrent action of molecules of matter, or is a function of such molecules, is scarcely less absurd than to substitute for an intelligent, extra-mundane personal God, mere “ inscrutable force.” Such a hypothesis shocks our moral and religious nature. It contradicts the facts of consciousness, and these facts are impregnable. For why ? Because, as Sir W. Hamilton says, “ higher ground than consciousness there is none . . . the facts of consciousness [must, therefore, be invalidated] from the ground of conscious¬ ness itself. . . . But this again can be done only by showing that consciousness tells different tales, — that its evidence is con¬ tradictory, — that its data are repugnant. But this no sceptic has ever yet been able to do. ... A fact of consciousness can only be rejected on the supposition of falsity, and that, the falsity of one fact of consciousness being admitted, the truth of no other act of consciousness can be maintained. The legal brocard, Falsus in uno, falsies in omnibus, is a rule not more applicable to other witnesses than to consciousness. ... If 230 MATERIALISM. the absolute and universal veracity of consciousness be once surrendered, every system is equally true, or rather all are equally false ; philosophy is impossible, for it has now no in¬ strument ... by which it can he tried : the root of our nature is a lie.” 1 But our nature cannot be a lie, unless, as says the same author, “ ‘ man is the dream of a shadow,’ ” and “ God is the dream of that dream.” 2 The question therefore is, Are we compelled by the consciousness of moral and religious obligation to believe in the existence of a personal Deity, and to regard the absolute standard of right and wrong as con¬ stituted by the nature of that Deity ? That cannot be denied ; for it is a historical fact that men have universally thus thought of God. The universality of this belief proves the invincibility of its truth. We should never think of address¬ ing the principle of gravitation as a living and conscious agent. We should hold it to be idolatry to offer to it the worship of any adoration, and a more grovelling act of super¬ stition still to lift the voice of supplication at its shrine. Our religious nature demands an object of supreme reverence and trust — a personal God — clothed with the attributes of a nature like our own ; who can love and be loved ; who can supply our wants, and relieve our distresses, and fill our hearts with emotions for good. That blind and unconscious matter cannot by any of her combinations evolve the phenomena of mind, is a proposition seen in its own immediate light, and felt to he true with the irresistible force of an axiom ; and that there is an Intelligent Cause or Maker of all things, is the universal belief of man¬ kind. But were we to concede all that the advocates of mod¬ ern Materialism contend for, — that there is no real distinction between mind and matter ; that all the phenomena of the uni¬ verse, vital and mental included, may be referred to physical causes ; that there is no interposing agency or will in the affairs of man, no personal existence of man after death, — were we thus to surrender our moral and religious convictions, all that elevates man in the scale of being, and gives to him his true greatness, — what do we gain ? Absolutely nothing. The Evolution Hypothesis has made no advance in the direc- 1 Lectures on Metaphysics, i. 277. 2 Discussions, p. 96. MATERIALISM. 231 tion of life. It lias left that mystery undisclosed. Professor Tyndall, in one of his Liverpool lectures, indulges the hope, that not only the sun, with his system, but that all life, all mind even, and genius, may at length he traced to “ a primi¬ tive fiery cloud,” from which all things, animate and inani¬ mate, material and spiritual, have been developed by evolution. But even were all this granted, it could do nothing more than remove life’s origin to a very remote era of the world’s history. The question, “ Whence came the nebula with its potent fire ?” would still remain to baffle and perplex us. If, then, we must admit that life owes its origin to an agency of will, billions of ages in the past, why should it be held as unphilosophical to admit the same agency now ? Until Materialism can secure a physical beginning of life without Divine intervention, it can only be regarded as a form of scepticism without a vestige of proof. The proper work of Science is not to ascertain how matter and mind originated, but the laws by which they are governed. When Newton, by generalising the series of facts which had been obtained by some distinguished philosophers who had preceded him, deduced from these facts the law of universal gravitation, and thereby explained the complicated phenom¬ ena of the solar system ; he did not attempt by any physical hypothesis to account for the origin of this force, — it was enough for him to have discovered a law so needful for the support, and so well adapted to the purposes, of the universe, and to perceive in its simple yet comprehensive operation a most conclusive evidence that it is a law established by an All-wise and Omnipotent Creator. Newton was not only an eminent philosopher but a humble Christian, and spent much of his time in elucidating the Sacred Scriptures. It is recorded of this truly great and good man, that when his friends ex¬ pressed their admiration of his discoveries, he said : “ To my¬ self I seem to have been as a child playing on the sea-shore, while the immense ocean of truth lay unexplored before me.” It would be well for the interests both of religion and of sci¬ ence, if all philosophers of the present day were imbued with a similar spirit. Science affords throughout her vast domain abundant scope for the exercise of her most gifted votaries, 232 MATERIALISM. without wasting their energies uselessly in attempting to ex¬ plain the inexplicable. All attempts to investigate the origin and nature of life and causation have hitherto failed, and can¬ not possibly succeed, because every such attempt is an aberra¬ tion from the inductive process, which is the only method of sound philosophy. The true solution of the great problem of the universe is that contained in the Sacred Eecord. It agrees with all the facts of consciousness and observation ; satisfies the heart and the conscience; accords with man’s whole nature, intellectual, moral, and religious ; and carries along with it such a weight of evidence, that when it has once been presented to the mind, the conviction of its truth cannot permanently be shaken off. It tells us that God called into existence the heavens and the earth ; that He created grass, herbs, and trees ; fish, fowl, and cattle ; creeping things, and Man, — all after their kind. In this account of creation we observe an ascending series in these living forms ; each species as it at first appears is not in a transition state between one form and another, but perfect in its kind. Science, so far from being at variance with Scrip¬ ture in the account of creation, marvellously bears its testi¬ mony to the same fact. And with reference to Man, it is specially declared that “ God created Man in His own image, after His likeness ; ” that “ He formed him of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life,” and that “ man became a living soul.” VII. THE UNITY AND DIVERGENCE OF THE RACES. Two facts are included in the Biblical account of man’s origin : first, that his body was formed by the immediate intervention of God ; and secondly, that bis soul was derived from God. Let us then briefly advert to each of these facts. And first, it is stated in the Sacred Narrative that man’s body was formed by the immediate intervention of the Almighty, — “ the Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground.” His body did not grow, nor was it produced by any process of evolution. Telluric life started from the broad basis of the lowest forms of vitality, rose like a pyramid to vegetable and animal developments, and finally culminated in man. But in the ascending series of living forms, each series, as we have already remarked, is complete in its kind. Thus, then, in respect of the body, man is related to every creature that lives, and includes in their highest forms all the types of creation. He has not a single organ or bone which he does not share with some one or other of the lower animals. He possesses no abortive members : every part is suited to the highest possible use, and is thus seen to have attained in him its fullest development. Accordingly we admit that there is an ascending order in creation, and a corresponding physical rela¬ tion between its successive forms ; but not in the sense that certain members in one animal are the same as those in another, nor that they have the same uses, nor that they ever 234 THE UNITY AND DIVERGENCE OF THE RACES. have been, or ever can be, transferable from one kind of animal to another ; but they occupy the same relative place, not as to origin and use, but to the plan of creation as a whole. Mr Darwin, when he sees a silent member in any animal, concludes at once that this animal is the lineal descendant of some other animal, in which the member was not silent but turned to use ; whereas the silent member only served to indicate the unity of the plan on which the whole animal kingdom is constructed, and which did not receive its full interpretation till man was created. This is certain ; the other is a mere supposition. The efforts of the Evolutionists to establish their hypothesis have merely been attempts to suggest the physical process by means of which the perpetuity of type and pattern has been preserved. All their suggestions, therefore, have been in the highest degree unsatisfactory, and some of them extremely absurd. What else could be expected ? since the fact they have striven to account for belongs not to the physical but to the mental world. Man’s whole frame in its structure has a special relation not to matter but to mind. All his members are co-ordinated with one power, the power of intelligence, so that action may follow upon knowledge, — so that embodi¬ ment may be possible for the exercise of thought. It is not, therefore, in any parts of his structure, but in their combina¬ tion and adjustment, that he stands alone. And it is in con¬ sequence of all the parts of his frame being thus put to their highest use — that is, with reference to the supremacy of mind — that he has dominion over all other created beings. The dominion given to man was intended to indicate a feeble resemblance of the authority of his Creator, “ whose kingdom ruleth over all.” But, secondly, he bears a still closer resemblance to his Creator from what is further stated in the Scriptural account of his origin, — that the soul was derived from God. “ God created man in His own image, after His likeness,” — and “ breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and man became a living soul.” The expression, “ breathed into his nostrils the breath of life,” must not be understood in a mechanical sense, as if God first of all constructed a human figure from the THE UNITY AND DIVERGENCE OF THE RACES. 235 material elements, and then breathed into the dust of the earth which He had shaped into the form of a man, and made it into a living being. By an act of Omnipotence man arose from the dust ; and in the same instant in which the dust, by virtue of creative Omnipotence, shaped itself into a human form, it was pervaded by the breath of life which was breathed into it. When it is said that “ the Lord God breathed into his nostrils the breath of life,” it is evident that this does not mean the air which man breathes ; for it is not what he breathes, but what was breathed into him. Breathing is common both to man and beast ; but the human soul is different from the principle of life in the beast. This differ¬ ence is indicated by the way in which man received the breath of life from God, and so “ became a living soul.” The beasts arose, as man did, by the creative power of God, but no men¬ tion is made of His breathing into them the breath of life, so that they became living souls. The living principle in the brute is irrational and mortal ; in man it is rational and im¬ mortal. “ Who knoweth the spirit of man that goetli upward, and the spirit of the beast that goeth downward.” 1 The soul of the brute is the immaterial principle which constitutes and which is endowed with sensibility, and with the degree of intelligence which experience shows that the lower animals possess. The soul of man is a created spirit of a higher order, which has not only the attributes of sensibility, memory, and instinct, but also the higher capacities which belong to our intellectual and moral nature. As the soul of man, therefore, is not a living principle in common with the brute creation, so neither is it an emanation from the Divine essence, for such an idea is inconsistent with the nature of God. It assumes that His essence is capable of division, that it can be communicated without His attributes, and that it can be degraded as the souls of fallen men are degraded. The “ breathing into man’s nostrils the breath of life ” only implies that God produced and combined with the bodily form that life which constituted him a man, — a living creature bearing the image and likeness of God. There is no distinction here between the words “ image ” 1 Eccles. iii. 21. 236 THE UNITY AND DIVERGENCE OF THE RACES. and “ likeness.” They are synonymous, and are merely com¬ bined according to a Hebrew form of intensity, to give more definite and express determination of the idea ; as “ an image which is like us ” in every possible respect — that is to say, every way in which it is possible for the finite and created to adumbrate the Infinite and Uncreated. The origin of man is minutely described in the Sacred Becord, because it serves to explain his relation to G-od and to the surrounding world. In the fashion of his body he belongs to nature, and is its highest product. He is “ the uniting tie of all creatures,” the type of all types of the animal kingdom, and is organised to live in almost every part of the globe. But it was not in the bodily form that the image of God consisted ; it was not in the upright position ; nor in the commanding aspect of the man, since God has no corporeality, and man’s body was formed from the dust of the ground ; nor in the dominion of man over nature, for it was in consequence of his likeness to God that he was invested with that dominion. The resemblance of man to God consisted in having an immortal soul, endowed with intellectual and moral faculties, and untainted by sin. The soul, in its immor¬ tality, exhibits a creaturely copy of Him “ who only hath im¬ mortality.” In its self-conscious personality, in its powers of understanding and will, and in its sabbath rest in the ever¬ lasting blessedness of the divine life, it resembles “ the Father of spirits.” Man, therefore, is different from all other animals not only in degree, but generically. He is not only a more perfect animal, but forms another and a higher order of beings. In his body he belongs to nature ; in his soul he is above nature, and “ the offspring of God.” 1 The indwelling soul bearing the Divine likeness shines through his physical organism, and is reflected in his countenance and in his looks. In virtue of his twofold relationship, he forms the connecting link between God and nature, and is thus the representative of God on earth. The first record of our race is written in such a pure, noble, and lofty style, that it would much better become modern Materialists to learn from it than to scoff at it. Man is said 1 Acts xvii. 29. THE UNITY AND DIVERGENCE OF THE RACES. 237 to have been created in the likeness of God, and in one pair ; while the beasts came forth, at the Creator’s fiat, in teeming multitudes. He appeared as the top-stone and lord of nature, but his true dignity consisted in his moral excellence, or in what has commonly been called “ original righteousness .” In this respect it is said that “ God made man upright.” This uprightness includes knowledge in his understanding, rectitude in his will, and holiness in his affections. As the new creation is a restoration of that image to the soul of man in the old, so the history of the one reflects light on that of the other. Accordingly we are informed not only that “ the new man is renewed in knowledge, after the image of Him that created him,” 1 but that he “ is created in righteousness and true holiness.” 2 The likeness of man to God is the great central fact of human history. Its first bestowal reveals the destiny which God marked out for the race ; that man was specially set apart for sustaining in the highest form a representative char¬ acter and some peculiar relation to God, in connection with which the Divine attributes should be marvellously and uni¬ versally manifested. Man, as hearing the Divine likeness, was so constituted as to be not only the object, but the chosen medium, of Divine revelation. The loss of this likeness was the first great catastrophe, its recovery will be the final con¬ summation of the world’s history. God, therefore, creating man in His own likeness, foreshadowed the coming of the Eedeemer in the likeness of man, to reunite him to God. This would seem to be the fundamental idea involved in the Divine likeness, and yet it corresponds entirely with the “ intent ” to which St Paul refers as the ultimate end of God’s purpose in the scheme of redemption. “ To make all see what is the fellowship of the mystery, which from the begin¬ ning of the world hath been hid in God, who created all things by Jesus Christ ; to the intent that now unto the principalities and powers in the heavenly places, might be known by the Church the manifold wisdom of God.” 3 Such is the testimony of Scripture in regard to the human race under all its conditions, and in all its varieties. It de- 1 Col. iii. 10. 2 Epli. iv. 24. 3 Eph. iii. 9, 10. 238 THE UNITY AND DIVERGENCE OF THE RACES. dares its descent from a common stock, and announces the blessings of the Gospel to all mankind. And certainly we nowhere on the face of the earth meet with men who need not the Gospel, or are incapable of its benefits. The brother¬ hood of mankind, their common apostasy, and their common privileges in the redemption of Christ, prove their common origin beyond all reasonable doubt. It is not, therefore, as a bare historical fact that we have referred to Scriptural testi¬ mony concerning the origin of mankind, but to show its im¬ portance as being a doctrine inseparably connected with the plan of human salvation as unfolded in the Gospel. The leading arguments which have been urged in our day against the Scriptural account of Man’s origin we shall now briefly consider. There is no need of entering upon any dis¬ cussion as to what constitutes species, for that is not the form which the question has now assumed. It is no longer held that specific unity proves unity of descent. It is contended that species means kind, and that if two animals are of the same kind they are of the same species, no matter what their origin may have been. The distinguished naturalist Agassiz, while he has admitted the specific unity of mankind, has avowed it as his belief that “ there was no common central origin for man, but an indefinite number of separate creations, from which the races of men have sprung.” But how does he prove this hypothesis ? Solely from analogy. He maintains that the races are so diversified in their appearance and struc¬ ture, and so related to their geographical locations, that, like the plants and animals around them, they must have origin¬ ated at various centres of creation. He says that Science requires this view. But Science requires demonstration, and analogy is not demonstration. Even if it were granted that this kind of reasoning was equivalent to proof, it would rather lead to the opposite conclusion. For there are varieties in the same race of men, and it is just as difficult to account for these as for the diversities of races one from another. Reason¬ ing therefore from analogy, we should infer that, as these varieties are known to belong to the same race, so the pro¬ bability is that the several races — though dissimilar from each other and apparently distinct — are all descended from THE UNITY AND DIVERGENCE OF THE RACES. 239 the same stock. But a subject so important as that of the descent of all mankind from a single pair cannot be deter¬ mined by any general hypothesis solely founded on analogy. We must be satisfied that the peculiarities which mark the tribes and nations of the earth are so fixed and unalterable — so independent of all known modifying circumstances — that it would be contrary to the ascertained facts of Science to maintain that these were reconcilable with a common origin. The physical diversities which characterise the races of man¬ kind consist chiefly in the colour of the skin, the texture of the hair, and the configuration of the skull. Looking solely at the phenomena which the various tribes of men present, it is not surprising that it should occasion doubt as to their all having descended from common parents ; but when we take into consideration the information which Ethnology can afford, and learn from the most competent authorities upon the sub¬ ject that all the diversities which exist are variable, and pass into each other by insensible gradations, we arrive at a solution of the difficulty, as far at least as it is solvable by Science. Let us then, with the aid we obtain from Ethnology, examine the chief physical peculiarities by which the various races of mankind are distinguished. 1. The difference in colour. — The seat of colour is in the skin, which is commonly described as consisting of three layers : the cutis or true skin, which lies innermost ; the cuticle or scarf-skin, which is external ; and the rete mucosum or mucous network, which lies between these and connects them. This last is composed of nucleated cells, and although it is but slightly developed in the white races, it is very distinct and thick in those that are darker. The cells are filled with a pigment which gives the dark colour to their skin. This pig¬ ment is of various shades ; it is withdrawn by the cells from the blood, and elaborated within their cavities. The different hues are owing to the number of these cells, and the colour of the pigment deposited within them. In the skin of the negro, when examined by the microscope, no anatomical structure is found peculiar to it, for the same dark cells are detected in the fairest races of mankind. We are fully aware that we cannot assert that changes in 240 THE UNITY AND DIVERGENCE OF THE RACES. colour are entirely owing to difference of climate ; yet while making every allowance for the co-operation of other physical causes, we have abundant evidence of the fact that climate has a powerful influence in their production. Let us take, for example, the Jews, as they are an isolated people who neither marry nor amalgamate with other races. We find that in the colder countries of Europe through which they are dispersed, they have assumed the lighter complexion of the people among whom they dwell ; whereas on the cost of Malabar they have become as black as the natives. But no ethnologist would, from this latter circumstance, overlook the peculiar features of the Hebrew race, and deny that these Jews in India are genuine descendants of Abraham. The same change in colour has occurred in the Portuguese who at an early period settled in India. “ Negro infants,” says Dr Kalisch, “ acquire their deep black colour only after their exposure for some time to the atmosphere ; the face and hands are always of a deeper hue than the parts of the body protected by clothing.” 1 But cases are not wanting of fair races becoming dark without any considerable change in their external condi¬ tion. In some races there is also a greater predisposition than in others to the secretion of the dark-coloured pigment. Thus a Jew is sooner darkened than a Teuton. Moreover, there are remarkable examples of the apparent want of all law. “ True whites,” says Dr Kalisch, “ are sometimes born among the negroes ; and an Arab couple, living in the valley of the Jordan, became parents of perfectly black children.” 2 So unaccountable are the changes in colour, that it is now generally admitted that it is not a radical characteristic. Therefore no argument can be drawn from it against all the races of mankind having a common origin. 2. The texture of the hair. — This is the common distinction between the white and black races, but especially between the latter themselves. Indians may be as black as Negroes, but they have no such frizzled, woolly hair. Among the races of mankind, however, there are varieties in the texture of the hair as well as in the colour of the skin. Some races have the hair long and straight ; in others it is more or less curled ; 1 Kalisch on Genesis, p. 26. 2 Ibid. I THE UNITY AND DIVERGENCE OF THE RACES. 241 and in the Negro it resembles wool. Yet when seen under the microscope it does not retain that appearance ; but even if it did it would prove nothing, unless it presented the same appearance in all the tribes of Negro descent, and were re¬ stricted to them alone. But this is far from being the case, for Europeans are sometimes met with whose hair is as black and woolly as that of the Negro. The texture of the hair, then, can be no fundamental criterion of specific distinctions. This, indeed, may be strikingly shown by the fact that the hair of the Negro does not differ more from that of the most favoured families of Great Britain than the wool of our sheep from that of the sheep of Guinea. “ Here,” says an author writing of the coast of Guinea, “ the world seems inverted, for the sheep are hairy and the men woolly.” It is thence obvious that no argument is possible from the texture of hair, any more than from the colour of the skin, which could prove a separate stock. 3. The form of the skull. — The conformation of the cranium may be supposed a safer guide in the classification of the dif¬ ferent races of men than the colour of the skin or the texture of the hair. It is upon this idea that the chief classifications have proceeded from the time of Blumenbach. That eminent naturalist arranged the leading types of the crania of the various inhabitants of the globe under five classes — the Caucasian ; the Ethiopian, including the Negro ; the Mon¬ golian, including the tribes of the Eskimo ; the American, including all the native tribes of America, excepting the Eskimo ; and the Malay. Dr Carpenter, in his article in the ‘ Cyclopaedia of Anatomy and Physiology,’ has followed the usual division into three classes. The prognathous type, indi¬ cating prominence of jaws ; the pyramidal type, of which the most striking feature is the lateral or outward projection of the zygomatic arches, and the facial lines converging to a point upwards, giving the cranium a sort of pyramidal shape and the oval or elliptic type, which, from the symmetry of its- outline, comes nearest to the ideal or most perfect form. But whatever classification is adopted, it will at best be but arbi¬ trary and imperfect ; for no part of the human structure is more variable in its shape than the skull, even amongst the Q 242 THE UNITY AND DIVERGENCE OF THE RACES. inhabitants of the same nation. We do not pretend to assert that there are not distinctive outlines of the crania of different nations, hut we are fully persuaded that these peculiarities are far from being constant in the several nations of one race, and that external conditions being changed, they are liable to alterations — showing thereby that these distinctive characters depend much on the influence of climate, the quality of food, the mode of life, ease or hardship, the sort of dwelling and clothing, cleanliness, civilisation, the exercise of the mind, and the effect of propagation in the case of acquired peculiarities. The truth of this statement has been abundantly illustrated and confirmed by the most distinguished ethnologists who have written upon the subject. According to Dr Carpenter, the 'prognathous type, though remarkably developed among the Negroes of the Delta of the Niger, is by no means confined to them, nor to the African races in general. It is met with in various parts of the globe ; and is nearly always associated with squalor or desti¬ tution, ignorance and brutality. The races among whom it prevails are chiefly hunters or inhabitants of low marshy forests. The pyramidal or Mongolian type, represented in a well-marked degree by the natives of Central Asia, including the Eskimo : these races may be described as pastoral nomads. And the oral or elliptic type, represented by the nations of Europe. This type at once approves itself to the artistic eye as distinguished by its symmetrical contour. Yet in the con¬ figuration of the human skull there is no perfect model. “ All the races of mankind,” says Professor Wagner, in a lecture on Anthropology delivered before the German Association at Gottingen, in September 1854, “can (like the races of many domestic animals) be reduced to no actually existing but only to an ideal type, to which the Indo-European approaches nearest.” What we understand by an ideal type is that in which Adam came forth from the hands of the Creator un¬ sullied and perfect. Dr Carpenter shows by examples that these races of man¬ kind are not always distinguishable from each other ; that the transitions between them are not abrupt, but proceed by a process of insensible gradations, which renders it extremely THE UNITY AND DIVERGENCE OF THE RACES. 243 difficult to draw a line of demarcation between them ; and that the physical peculiarities, even where there has been no intermixture, have not been so invariably transmitted from generation to generation as to entitle them to be regarded as fixed and unalterable, but that they are occasionally seen to change in a succession of generations, so that a race departs more or less from its original type and assumes another. To these facts, as stated by Dr Carpenter, it is no doubt owing that, in grouping mankind into races, naturalists have never been able to agree as to their number. But if all these modifications of types are to be considered as the result of original and distinct creations of separate races, the diffi¬ culty of classification would be infinitely increased, while their insensible gradations, if they prove anything, would prove too much ; they would prove the species to be indefinite and incalculable. On the other hand, if we view these typical forms of the human race, with all their shades of transition, merely as varieties from one original stock, every difficulty disappears, and the subject becomes clear and comprehensible. Bor all the peculiarities in the configuration of the skull, ex¬ isting among the several races of men, are less important and less conspicuous than those which present themselves among races of domesticated mammals — as those of the hog, knovm to have had a common origin, and our dogs of all sorts, which are generally believed to have had a common origin. But with regard to the lower animals, the question of unity or diversity is rarely, if ever, mooted. But if this be admissible in regard to the lower animals, created chiefly for man’s use, why should the same principles be inadmissible when applied to the case of man himself ? Dr Carpenter, in his elaborate paper, brings forward historical illustrations which put beyond disputation the changes which have taken place in the form of the human head. We select two of the examples he has given in proof of this fact — the Turks of Europe and the Magyars of Hungary. The Turks of Europe and Western Asia have, he says, so widely departed * from those of Central Asia, that they bear a closer resemblance to the elliptical than to the pyramidal type. Yet historical and philological evidence proves that the western Turks originally 244 THE UNITY AND DIVERGENCE OF THE RACES. belonged to tlie Central Asia group of Mongolian tribes, with which the Eastern portion of their race still remains associated in its language, cranial peculiarities, and habitudes of life ; and that it is in the western, and not in the eastern, where the alteration has taken place. Whatever may be owing to the intermixture of the Turks with the inhabitants of the countries they conquered, Dr Carpenter shows that this circumstance is utterly inadequate of itself to account for so decided a trans¬ formation. The same modification of type, he says, is to be found in the Magyar race, which forms a large portion of the population of Hungary, including its entire aristocracy. This race is proved by historical and philological evidence to have been a branch of the great northern Asiatic stock, which was expelled about ten centuries ago from the country it then inhabited, bordering on the Uralian mountains, and in its turn expelled the Sclavonian nations from the fertile plains of Hungary, which it has retained ever since. Having thus exchanged their abode from the most rigorous climate of the northern region — a desolate and barren wilderness in which the Ostiachs and Samoides live in miserable huts, and, having neither cattle nor corn, procure their subsistence by hunting in winter and fishing in summer — for one in southern Europe, abounding in fertile plains and rich harvests, the Magyars gradually laid aside the rude and barbarous habits they are recorded to have brought along with them, and adopted the modes of civilised life. In the course of a thousand years their type of cranial formation has been changed from the pyramidal to the elliptical, and they have become a people not inferior in mental or physical character to any European race. Here again, it may be said that the intermixture of the conquering with the conquered race has been the main cause of effecting the change; but the same answer must be returned as before, for the Magyars pride themselves on the purity of their blood ; and the small infusion of Sclavonian blood, which may have taken place from time to time, is wholly insufficient to explain the change of type they have now assumed. Erom such evidence before us, two facts are obvious — first, that intermixture is not to any considerable extent the cause of these changes ; and secondly, that in the races in which THE UNITY AND DIVERGENCE OF THE RACES. 245 they have been acquired, they descend to the offspring, But the capability of intermixture proves the identity of species : for if nature admits of varieties, it has set up the impassable barrier of hybrid sterility between different species, which prevents their permanent intermixture. So conclusive is this argument, that no other way has been found of evading it, but by the recent admission of specific unity to the exclusion of unity of origin. The Negro race is often cited as an example of the unaltered and unalterable character of races ; and it is thence inferred that though all the races of men belong to the same species, they can¬ not have descended from the same primeval stock. The existing characteristics of the Negro race, it is said, can be traced up to the remotest times, since their portraits are found on Egyptian monuments, and their skulls among Egyptian mummies ; and these, it is further maintained, continue to be transmitted from parent to child, while the transportation of African natives to a temperate climate and civilised domestication — as in the United States of America — has changed their external condition and mode of life. To this it may be replied, that it is quite con¬ ceivable that in the infancv of mankind, and when circumstances must have differed much from the settled order of civilised nations, there may have existed greater predispositions to change, and stronger influences to effect it. These physical characteristics of races, when once formed, would no doubt become fixed, so long as the external conditions to which they were owing remained unchanged. That the Negro tribes, therefore, which continue to inhabit their native localities, and pursue their barbarous mode of life, should retain the 'prog¬ nathous type, is just what we might expect. But the assertion that no modification has taken place in them, either from the influence of civilisation or from the physical conditions of their existence, is not correct ; for the change of form occurring in the skull of the Negro is found in those who have emerged in a greater or less degree from a state of barbarism. To what, then, can we attribute this modification of form, but to the ex¬ ternal influence of civilisation which has been brought to bear upon them ? And in the former case, where no change has taken place, how is this to be accounted for but by the un- 246 THE UNITY AND DIVERGENCE OF THE RACES. altered condition of existence ? But if the one form be the result of civilisation, must not the other have proceeded from degeneration ? In regard to America, political considera¬ tions and domestic arrangements have alike tended to give a favourable reception to any ethnological notion, which ascribed to the transplanted Negro a distinct origin and a natural in¬ feriority. But it ought to be borne in mind that a large pro¬ portion of the Negroes now living in the United States are removed merely by one or two descents from their African progenitors, and that this period is as yet far too short to admit of any considerable alteration in cranial conformation. Moreover, the climate of the southern states of North America, and also of the West Indian islands, is not much different from that of the coast of Guinea in regard to temperature ; and the low and marshy character of a large portion of the soil which the Negroes are employed in cultivating are causes which doubtless tend greatly to maintain the ancestral type. Still, according to the testimony of disinterested observers, an approximation in the Negro physiognomy to the European model has begun to take place, both in the United States and in the West Indies. And this alteration is not confined to the shape of the skull or projection of the jaw, but it is also seen in the general contour, and in the form of soft parts, as the lip and nose. Dr Carpenter was informed by Sir Charles Lyell that, during a tour in America, he was assured by many medical men residing in the slave states that an entire change is grad¬ ually taking place in the configuration of the head and body of the Negro to the European model, and that each succes¬ sive generation exhibits a tendency more and more in that direction. The change is most marked in such as are brought into closest and most habitual relation with the whites, in the capacity of domestic servants, without any actual inter¬ mixture of races, which would at once be detected by the change of complexion. Dr Carpenter, in his able paper on the “Varieties of Man¬ kind ” — to which we have repeatedly referred — after the most searching investigation, arrives at the following result : “ Erom the anatomical portion of our inquiry we are led to the gen¬ eral conclusion, first , that no such difference exists in the THE UNITY AND DIVERGENCE OF THE RACES. 247 external conformation or internal structure of the different races of men as would justify the assertion of their distinct origin ; and secondly , that although the comparison of the structural characters of races does not furnish any positive evidence of their descent from a common stock, it proves that, even if their common stocks were originally distinct, there could have been no essential difference between them, the descendants of any one such stock being able to assume the characters of another.” And he winds up his examination of the whole subject thus : “ The general conclusion which we seem entitled to draw from the anatomical, physiological, and psychological facts to which reference has been made, is, that all the human races may have had a common origin, since they all possess the same constant characters, and differ only in those which can be shown to vary from generation to genera¬ tion.” Dr Carpenter’s general conclusion is, that all the human races may have had a common origin. We at once admit that if it could be shown that mankind differ as to species, the inference that they are the offspring of a single pair, created at the beginning, would be absurd. It is most frequently for the purpose of disproving this Scriptural statement, and break¬ ing up the common brotherhood of man, that separate species is insisted on. But if the species be identical, wherein lies the difficulty in conceding the common descent ? There are, however, recent authors on this subject, who, while they receive the Holy Scripture as inspired, yet contend for different origins to the races of men. Two views have been brought forward to account for distinct origins of man¬ kind, and for both of which the support of Scripture is claimed. One of these views is, that the Adam of the first chapter of Genesis was the parent of a race from which we are not descended, but that the Adam of the second chapter is our progenitor. In regard to this assertion, we have only to remark that the origin of mankind given by Moses is re¬ ferred to by our Lord as the foundation of the marriage insti¬ tution. Arguing with the Pharisees against divorce, He says : “Have ye not read, that He which made them at the beginning, made them male and female, and said, For this cause shall a 248 THE UNITY AND DIVERGENCE OF THE RACES. man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife : and they twain shall be one flesh ? ” In these words our Lord quotes both the first and second chapters, and thereby stamps them as relating to the creation of one and the same Adam, and not to two distinct Adams. The other view is, that the race of Adam is the Caucasian race only. This view has been adopted and strenuously advo¬ cated by Dr M'Causland, in works entitled c Adam and the Adamite,’ and ‘ The Builders of Babel.’ He supposes that “ the existence of the various races of man arose from the creation of their several and respective ancestors in different parts of the earth — the Mongol in Central Asia, the Negro in Africa, the American Indian in America, the Australian in Australia, and the Adamite on the site of Eden in Mesopo¬ tamia. “ Moses and Joshua,” he says, “ must have been familiar with the Negroes in Egypt, and yet they are not noticed by either of them.” The reason he assigns for this omission is, that the economy of the Scriptures did not admit of information on any topic not closely connected with the descendants of Shem, through Abraham, to the second Adam. This explanation is satisfactory enough so far as Joshua is concerned, but is very far from being sufficient to account for their being passed over by Moses, the accredited author of Genesis. During his sojourn in Egypt and the desert of Arabia, he no doubt must have come in contact with various races distinguished by strong peculiarities, yet he does not hesitate to give a common origin to all the families of the earth, — a circumstance which shows that he regarded them as varieties of mankind sprung from a common stock. Had he reckoned them as separate creations, it is strange that though he has told us of “ cattle, and creeping thing, and beast of the earth after its kind,” before the creation of Adam, he should have made no mention of these human relatives. This elegant and learned author overlooks the plain and definite statements of St Paul in regard to the oneness of mankind in its fall, and in its future. In his Epistle to the Bomans he establishes a parallel between Adam and natural humanity on the one hand, and Jesus Christ and redeemed humanity on the other. “ If by one man’s offence death reigned by one : much more THE UNITY AND DIVERGENCE OF THE RACES. 249 they who receive abundance of grace and of the gift of right¬ eousness shall reign in life by one Jesus Christ.” 1 Again, the same idea occurs in his first Epistle to the Corinthians, where he marks the contrast between the two Adams in refer¬ ence to the body, terrestrial in one, celestial in the other. “ As in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive.” 2 Dr M'Causland is far from countenancing the notion that the Mongols and Negroes belong to races to whom the blessings of the Gospel are not promised ; though, according to his hypothesis, they are not descended from Adam. On the contrary, — “ assuming,” he says, “ that there were pre- Adam¬ ites, and that the inferior races which are surrounding us on all sides are the descendants of those pre- Adamites, the way of salvation revealed in the Scriptures is as open to them as to the sons of Adam. ... It is nowhere stated, or im¬ plied, that the blood of Adam is a necessary qualification to entitle any to become partakers of what has been purchased for humanity by the blood of Christ. All may enter, ‘ where there is neither Greek nor Jew, barbarian, Scythian, bond nor free, but Christ is all, and in all.’ . . . There is noth¬ ing unscriptural in the consideration, that as by the trans¬ gression of the first Adam his race forfeited immortality and fell in that respect to the level of inferior races of mortals which were surrounding him, so by the redemption of the Adamite the lower strata of humanity were raised up with him, and found the gates of everlasting life opened for every creature under the whole heaven.” This is altogether assump¬ tive reasoning, and not according to the inductive method. It has no Scriptural basis whatever to rest upon, and is at variance with the plan of salvation as unfolded and taught in the Apostolic writings. Dr M'Causland has not gone by the parallel drawn by St Paul between the first and second Adam, which plainly is, that as all the lineage of Adam have died in Him, even so all who are in Christ as their Covenant Head shall live through Him ; and having kept out of view the parallel here instituted, he fails to perceive that this all dying in Adam, and living in Christ, comprehends Greek and Jew, barbarian, Scythian, bond and free.3 1 Rom. v. 17. 2 1 Cor. xv. 22. 3 Col. iii. 11. 250 THE UNITY AND DIVERGENCE OF THE RACES. We have only further to remark on this subject at present, that we consider the universal affinity of Language an indubit¬ able evidence of man’s unity of origin. It is to be regretted that so important a question as that of the unity of the human race should have been left almost entirely to the discussion of Naturalists. On every question purely scientific their opinion is entitled to grave consideration, but on questions mixed up with other kinds of evidence they are apt to be one-sided. For being accustomed to look almost exclusively at what is material, or at most at the outward phenomena of life, they appreciate that evidence only which falls within their own observation, and discard all data of a different kind, which ought, never¬ theless, to enter into the solution of the problem. Thus, for example, Agassiz ignores all data furnished by the science of Philology, and considers the question at issue as one purely Zoological, and which can be determined only by the principles of that science. “ But,” says Max Muller — whose name is as distinguished in the science of Philology as that of Agassiz in the science of Zoology — “ the evidence of language is irrefrag¬ able, and is the only evidence worth listening to, with regard to ante-historic periods.” Such Naturalists as Agassiz treat the subject before us as one that is merely zoological, and arrive at conclusions which an impartial consideration of philological data would have rendered impossible. But the science of Philology has its laws as well as that of Zoology. Language is not a fortuitous production. It is essentially different from instinctive cries, or inarticulate sounds. It is a production of the mind, and is a power peculiar to man of communicating thought. Brutes can com¬ municate with each other, but they have not, strictly speaking, the faculty of speech. Language, therefore, separates man into an order by himself ; while it also shows that all the races of mankind, however much they may differ in complexion, in form or feature, or in moral and intellectual attainments, are yet, in every sense, partakers of the same human nature. In this common and peculiar attribute of man there exists the greatest diversity, and this was wont to be adduced in proof of the diversity of species or of origin. But as a test of specific difference it has succumbed under the weight of evidence THE UNITY AND DIVERGENCE OF THE RACES. 251 which Philology has brought to bear upon the subject. Por the numerous languages which have been examined, and which were thought to have nothing in common, are found to be closely allied to each other in grammatical structure when belonging to the same family. Moreover, the three great families into which Philologists have been enabled to arrange the principal languages, is a fact that coincides in a striking manner with the Biblical account of the three sons of Noah, by whom the earth was repeopled after the Deluge. This tri¬ partite division of languages was to some extent effected before the final result had been reached, which indicated that all of them must have been originally one tongue. Still, in this attempt to reduce all languages into something like a system, it was found that even when so arranged into families, the bonds of union between them were but loose and disjointed. Philologists, therefore, came to the conclusion, that if these families are the broken fragments of a once undivided whole — the distinct differences which now exist, and which no ordinary growth or expansion from a common root can account for, must have arisen from some violent and sudden cause from without, — a scientific conclusion of much consequence, as tending to support and illustrate the Scriptural record of the Tower of Babel. Yet in the midst of such bewildering diver¬ sity of languages and dialects, Comparative Philologists have at length succeeded in simplifying the matter. Formerly, when languages were found to have any resemblance to each other, one was regarded as the apparent root of the rest. But to establish a relationship of this sort was found to be im¬ possible, because resemblances were sought for in words rather than in internal structure. Words, in the lapse of time, pass from one meaning to another in such a way as to leave no clue by which their original significance can be traced ; whereas grammatical structure — being the bones and sinews of a language — remains unchanged. Further investigation, there¬ fore, by the method of comparing the internal structure of languages, has led to the most unexpected results. Affinities and bonds of connection, which previously were hidden or obscure, have thus been brought clearly into view. Indeed, so numerous are the analogies and resemblances now made 252 THE UNITY AND DIVERGENCE OF THE RACES. apparent between languages, which at first sight seemed re¬ markable only for their contrasts, and so comprehensive the principle of appliance, that the most eminent Philologists have decided that all the existing languages are branches of one primitive stem. The circumstance of the common stem hav¬ ing been lost in no way affects the validity of the verdict. It is enough for us to know that the separation into branches of one primeval tongue points to family relations, and proves a unity of origin in regard to all the scattered tribes and families of the earth. “ The universal affinity of language,” says Henry Julius Klaproth, “ appears inexplicable on any other hypothesis than that of admitting fragments of a primary language to exist through all the languages of the Old and New World.” “ Much as all these languages differ from each other,” says Frederick von Schlegel, “ they appear, after all, to be merely branches of one common stem.” “ Looking back,” says Dr Hincks, “ to all the most ancient languages, I find that although there were marked differences, which rendered them utterly unintelligible to one another, there were points in common which, when fairly examined, proved that those languages had all a common origin. The people separated — were divided ; some parts of the ancient language survived in one portion, some in another, and so on. None of the languages retained even any large part of the original, but each, probably, sufficient to identify it as part of one original language.” The rapidity with which a common type of language passes through a diversity of forms is thus graphically described by Max Muller : “ If we observe how Latin was changed into Italian, Spanish, Portuguese, Provencal, French, &c. — how Latin again, together with Greek and the Celtic, the Teutonic and the Sclavonic languages, to¬ gether likewise with the ancient dialects of India and Persia, must have sprung from an earlier language, the mother of the whole Indo-European or Aryan family of speech — if we see how Hebrew, Arabic, and Syriac, with several minor dialects, are but different impressions of one and the same common type, and must all have flowed from the same source, the original language of the Semitic race, and if we add to these two, at least one more well-established family of speech, the Turanian, THE UNITY AND DIVERGENCE OF THE RACES. 253 comprising the dialects of the nomad races scattered over Central and Northern Asia, — if we watch this stream of language rolling on through centuries in these three mighty arms which, before they disappear from our sight in the far distance, clearly show a convergence towards one common source, — it would seem, indeed, as if there were an historical life inherent in language, and as if both the will of man and the power of time could tell, if not on its substance, at least on its form.” “ As far as the organic languages of Asia and Europe are concerned,” says Baron Bunsen, “ the human race is of one kindred, of one descent. . . . Our historical re¬ searches in language have led us to facts which seemed to oblige us to assume the common historical origin of the great families into which we found the nations of Asia and Europe to coalesce.” By the same infallible test he shows that the Asiatic origin of the North American Indians “ is as fully proved as the unity of family among themselves.” 1 Languages compared together, according to the affinities existing in their internal structure, have thus become a fertile source of historic knowledge. This is one of the greatest triumphs which Philology has achieved within the present century. It shows us that races now separated by vast tracts of land are yet closely allied to each other. It traces the course and windings of all migrations by means of the more or less changed structure of the language, and indicates in the permanence of certain forms the race which has retained most nearly the language common to all who had removed from the primitive seat. It is satisfactory, then, to find that the whole tendency of linguistic investigation is so strongly in favour of the unity of mankind. It is true, as we have already remarked, that there may be a unity of species without unity of origin ; but it is impossible that races, entirely distinct, should have mutual affinities of language. As these cannot be the result of accident, nor of any natural necessity, they can only be regarded as links in the long chain of history, con¬ necting the whole family of mankind with a remote period, when they existed as a living whole, and spoke the same tongue. The conclusions, therefore, of the mere Naturalist, 1 Philosophy of Universal History, vol. ii. 254 THE UNITY AND DIVERGENCE OR THE RACES. whether as to the diversity of species or diversity of origin, are proved to be false by the established fact of the original unity of language; while the same fact harmonises with the state¬ ment of Scripture, that there was a time when “ the whole earth was of one language and of one speech.” Little or no information can be derived from History in regard to man’s first appearance upon earth. The oldest records and monuments throw scarcely any light upon the subject. The only history which treats of it is the Bible. In corro¬ boration, therefore, of its statements, we can only refer to those traditions, customs, rites, and superstitions, which are wide¬ spread over the heathen world. Only the more important of these need be adverted to, such as those in connection with the Creation, the Sabbath, the Ball, Piacular Sacrifice, and the Deluge. These subjects we shall consider as fully as our limits permit, while in the discussion of them our object shall be to show that if the heathen traditions, customs, and rites, which have come down to us from the earliest times, and which have survived the recollection of their religion, converge to one point from various parts of the earth’s circumference, then that point must be the centre of the circle whence all of them have radiated. A wide and interesting field of research is hereby opened up to the view, since the numerous lines of converg¬ ence are just so many independent and concurrent testimonies to the Bible narrative. VIII. THE MOSAIC AND HEATHEN COSMOGONIES. Every one at all conversant with ancient history is aware that Cosmogonies and G-eogonies, or attempts to account for the origin of the universe, and especially of the earth, with its diversified forms of life, are found among the nations of antiquity whose traditions and literature have been preserved. The Cosmogonies were incorporated in their sacred writings, and formed the chief parts of their religious systems. The opponents of Divine Eevelation, proceeding upon such facts, and without further investigation, have not scrupled to place the Mosaic account of Creation on the same level with the Cosmogonies of Heathendom. In our remarks, therefore, upon these Cosmogonies, our object shall be to deduce a conclusion entirely the opposite of this. While pointing out many striking resemblances between the Biblical and non- Biblical Cosmogonies, we shall also endeavour to show in what respects they widely and essentially differ. 1. The Chaldean Cosmogony, as given by Eusebius and Syncellus from Berosus, whose history of the Chaldeans is lost, is in substance as follows. There was a time when the chaos was all darkness and water, wherein moved misshapen monsters, the ruler of which was a woman, Markaya, or Homoroka, a name said to signify the ocean. The supreme God, Bel, divided the darkness, and cut the woman into two 256 THE MOSAIC AND HEATHEN COSMOGONIES. halves, out of which he formed heaven and earth. He then cut off his own head ; and from the drops of the blood mixed with earth were formed men, who thereby partake of divine intelligence. 2. The Egyptian Cosmogony is given by Diodorus Siculus, and is as follows. When the universe first coalesced, heaven and earth were of one form, their nature being blended to¬ gether. But afterwards the air began to have a constant motion, and the elements to separate. The fiery elements, owing to their levity, rose to the upper regions, and produced the rapid circular motion of the sun and stars. The muddy and turbid matter, after being incorporated with the humid, subsided in one place by its own weight. Thus the sea was formed of the watery parts, and the earth of the more solid. Warmed and fecundated by the sun, the earth, still soft, produced all kinds of creatures, which, according as the fiery, watery, or humid matter predominated in their con¬ stitution, became inhabitants of the sky, the water, or the land. Latterly the earth, more and more hardened by the sun, could no longer produce any of the larger animals ; but they began to propagate by generation. Here, although there is no mention of an intelligent cause, there is no in¬ considerable resemblance to the Mosaic account, both as to events and order. We find heaven and earth blended, the light, the motion of the heavenly bodies, the separation of heaven, sea, and earth, and then the formation of living creatures. 3. The Phoenician Cosmogony is very similar to the Egyp¬ tian, and is thus given by Eusebius from Sanchoniathon : “ The first principles of the universe were dark and windy air, and a turbid chaos involved in darkness. These things were bound¬ less through many ages. But when the spirit ( Trvevya ) was affected with love towards its own principles, a mixture took place, and that connection was called desire ( jroOog ). Such was the beginning of the formation of all things ; but the spirit itself acknowledged no formation. Erom this conjunction of the spirit was begotten mot (ftwr), which, according to some, signifies mud, according to others, a corruption of a watery mixture; but is probably a feminine form of mo (to), the THE MOSAIC AND HEATHEN COSMOGONIES. 257 same as may ('P), water. From this were developed certain creatures in the shape of an egg, called Zophasemin (a term generally considered as formed from tzophey shamayim '??¥), the cont emulators of heaven).” Some, however, are of opinion that by the Zophasemin are meant the heavenly bodies, which many of the heathen regarded as intelligent beings, and so worshipped as deities. “ From mot, the sun and the moon, the stars and the greater constellations, began to shine forth. The air being lighted up by the heat com¬ municated to the earth and the sea, there arose winds and clouds ; and the thunder of the contending elements roused from slumber the creatures before mentioned, which then, male and female, moved in the sea and on the earth.” 1 Cud- worth seems to think that Sanchoniathon taught the same doctrine as Thales, who was descended from Cadmus, and held that water was the first principle of all corporeal things, but that God was that Mind which formed all things out of water . It is probable that this was the opinion of the Phoenician his¬ torian, for he asserts that the spirit itself acknowledged no for¬ mation — that is, was uncreated. The idea of “ a turbid chaos, involved in darkness,” of which Sanchoniathon speaks, has a strong resemblance to Gen. i. 2 : “ The earth was without form, and void ; and darkness was upon the face of the deep.” The word erebodes (epeficoSeg) used by Philo Biblius, the translator of Sanchoniathon to ex¬ press the gloom of chaos, is derived from erebos (egej 3og), dark¬ ness, and that is the same word as the Hebrew erebh evening. When it is said that “ the spirit was affected with love towards its own principles,” and that this “ was the beginning of the formation of all things,” we cannot fail to perceive the close resemblance which this description bears to the language of inspiration, which says that the Spirit of God moved (lit. was brooding) upon the face of the waters.” For the Hebrew word racheph (^rn) implies the idea of love, as it expresses the incubation of a female bird. It is here applied figuratively to the Spirit of God, who brooded upon the face of the deep. From a corrupt tradition of this early revela¬ tion arose the widespread notion among the heathen nations 1 Prsepar. Evang., i. 10. R 258 THE MOSAIC AND HEATHEN COSMOGONIES. about the world’s being formed from an egg. This mundane egg forms an essential part of the Cosmogony of the Hindoos ; and it was also a doctrine of the Egyptians, from whom, probably, it was introduced to the knowledge of the Greeks by Orpheus. Grotius points out one thing in the system of Sanchoniathon which we think deserving of notice, — that the mot of Sanchoniathon is merely the abyss or deep of Moses.1 Again, the Phoenician historian calls the first human pair Protogonos and Aeon. These, indeed, are only the Greek words corresponding to the names given them in the original. But it is generally admitted that they are meant to designate Adam and Eve ; as Protdgonos signifies “first produced ,” and Aeon (or Altov), “ life.” The latter bears a near resemblance to Eve, both in sense and sound. For Chavvah (njn) in Hebrew signifies life, or one who communicates life. Another form of Phoenician tradition, as given by Sanchoniathon, is that “ from the Wind Kolpia (Ko\7rm) and his wife Baau (Baau) were produced the first mortals.” It has been supposed, with much probability, that the word Kolpia is formed from voice of the mouth of the Hebrew Jali. If this supposition is correct, the phrase becomes intel¬ ligible, for it thus evidently refers to the creation of man by the word and inspiration of the Almighty. If not, no rational interpretation can be given to it, for no life-giving power can belong to the wind. It cannot breathe life into dead clay. The creation of man can be ascribed only to God, and not to the agency of the wind. The former, therefore, must be accepted as the original idea, and the latter as only a corrup¬ tion of it. 4. The numerous Cosmogonies of India all agree in this, that they picture the origin of the universe as an emanation from the Absolute, the Supreme Primeval Spirit. This Spirit is designated by a word in the neuter gender, Brahm. It is not a person, and so is never addressed as an object of religious worship. It has no attributes but such as may be affirmed of space. It is said to be eternal, invisible, immutable. It is said to have existed through untold ages in a state of uncon¬ sciousness, and only to be restored to consciousness and life in 1 Grot, de Verit., not. ad lib. i. THE MOSAIC AND HEATHEN COSMOGONIES. 259 the world. Thus the world is the existence - form of the Supreme Spirit. It unfolds itself through millions of years in the forms of finite existence, and then again by a gradual process all things are resolved into a state of unconsciousness, and the great Spirit falls asleep and rests in profound slumber. As the natural development of the incongruous Theology of the Hindoos, it is not surprising to find, in their later literature, the most extravagant notions concerning the creation of the universe. It existed only in darkness ; then the self-existing Spirit, the Soul of all souls, “ desiring to diversify Himself,” dispelled the gloom, removed the husk in which the universe was enveloped, and, by the power of thought, made visible the world, with its five elements and other properties, so that it shone in resplendent brilliancy and purity. Having willed to create various beings from his own substance, he first called the waters into existence, and placed in them a germ which developed itself into an egg of surpassing lustre. In this egg he was himself born, in the form of Brahma, the creator, the progenitor of mankind. The waters are called ndrd, because the production of the Supreme Spirit ; and as in them his first motion (ay ana) in the character of Brahma took place, he is thence Ndrdyana, “ he whose jplace of moving wets the waters ” 5. To these may be added the Cosmogonies of the Parsees and Etrurians concerning the periods of creation. According to the Persian traditions in the Zendavesta, the Supreme Being, Ormuzd, by his word Honover , created the visible uni¬ verse in six periods of one thousand years each. In the first, the heaven, with the stars. In the second, the water on the earth, with the clouds. In the third, the earth, and as its centre the highest mountain Albov j, afterwards the other mountains. In the fourth, the trees. In the fifth, the animals which all sprang from the primeval bull. In the sixth, men, the first of whom was Karjomorts. At the close of each creative period, Ormuzd celebrated a festival with the celestial inhabitants. The world will last twelve thousand years. So also the Etrurian traditions, which Suidas quotes from an ancient historian. God created the universe in six periods of one thousand years each. In the first, the heavens and 260 THE MOSAIC AND HEATHEN COSMOGONIES. tlie earth. In the second, the firmament. In the third, the sea and the other waters of the earth. In the fourth, the sun, moon, and stars. In the fifth, the inhabitants of the air, the water, and the land. In the sixth, men.1 “ Suidas’s narration,” says Dr Cud worth, “ terminates here ; but it is very probable that the Etruscan prophets added, that at the close of the twelve thousand years the world would he de¬ stroyed, and would be again constructed anew by G-od. For it is apparent from Plutarch that they believed that after the lapse of a certain number of years fixed by the Deity, and which they called “ the great year,” a vast revolution of all things usually took place.” 2 The remarkable resemblance between the Cosmogonies of the Parsees and the Etrurians is easily accounted for by the fact that they were originally the same people. The Etrurians were a colony from Lydia, a district of Asia Minor, which was peopled by the posterity of Lud, whence it derived its name. It is allowed that the country thus denominated was much larger in extent than it ultimately became under the dominion of the Pelasgi or Japhethites. These seem to have overcome and absorbed the Semitic race in Lydia, just as they overcame and absorbed the Semitic race in Elam (or Persia). The Etrurians were thus a mixed people, composed of Japhetic and Semitic elements in their originally large district of Lydia, who, having left their eastern abode and migrated westward, settled in Italy. They had become not only a powerful confederacy of nations, but had also far advanced in arts and civilisation long before Rome existed. Of their early history little or nothing is known directly, as all their records and literature were destroyed by Sylla during the civil war, together with their towns. For what knowledge we have of them, from their origin till their absorption by Rome, we are indebted to the Greek and Roman historians. These assert that the Etrurians were a colony from Lydia ; and this asser¬ tion is confirmed by their architectural remains, their tombs (after the model of the monument raised on the grave of Allyattes), their rock-hewn sepulchres, and the bronze relics 1 Suidas’s Lexicon, sub voce Tvpfav'ia. 2 Cudworth’s Intellectual System of the Universe, iii. 207. THE MOSAIC AND HEATHEN COSMOGONIES. 261 found within them. Moreover, while certain of their religious rites pointed to a connection with Persian or Sun-worship, others of them pointed to a connection with Lydia, on whose coast lay Samothrace, the early seat of the Cabiri, or the mysteries , as they were called. The strong probability there¬ fore is, that the Etrurians brought with them from Lydia the mysteries} and through these handed down the purer Japhetic creed, or at least the remains of it, and thereby, to some extent, counteracted the influence of the later Hellenic my¬ thology. It will thence be perceived that the Eomans enjoyed, through the Etrurians, a more direct communication with primeval man than the Homerically and mythologically taught Greeks. The great spring-tides of migration which flowed into Greece from the east, the north, and the south had well- nigh obliterated the primeval traditions, and the myths of subsequent settlers took their place. But notwithstanding the jumble and confusion which these successive importations had occasioned in their religious ideas, we still find in their literature traces of primeval tradition in regard to the origin of the world. Thus Hesiod in his Theogony represents “ Chaos as having first sprung forth, and next broad-bosomed Earth. . . . That from Chaos were born Erebus and black Night, and that from Night again sprang forth Aether and Hay.” 2 In these and other Cosmogonies which might be mentioned there is much sameness, with a mixture of dissimilarity. When examined separately, as witnesses of ancient traditions regarding the origin of things, they give forth extravagant and incoherent utterances ; but when brought together and their testimonies compared, they furnish a combination of evidence which bears a very close relationship to the account of creation as given by Moses. We shall first, therefore, notice a few particulars of agreement between them ; and secondly, some of those essential features wherein they differ. I. First, then, let us notice a few particulars of agreement between the Mosaic and the other ancient Cosmogonies. In the Cosmogonies of the heathen nations there may be traced, more or less distinctly — (1.) Intimations of a primeval dark¬ ness, corresponding to the Biblical account in Genesis, prefac- 1 See Faber’s Dissertation on the Cabiri, i, 366. 2 Theog., 123. 262 THE MOSAIC AND HEATHEN COSMOGONIES. ing the work of Creation, “ there was darkness upon the face of the deep.” (2.) An unarranged chaos — the earth was a waste and barren mass, or, according to the description in Genesis, “ desolate and empty ” ( tholiu vabhohu, }nh). The resemblance here between holm (tola), empty, and the Bdau of the Phoenician cosmogony is apparent. (3.) This chaos develops itself into the mundane egg. This egg, which performs an important part in the heathen cosmogonies, is only a misconception, as we have already shown, of the inti¬ mation in Genesis, that “ the Spirit of God moved (properly brooded) on the face of the waters,” — whence, no doubt, originated the symbolic designation of the Spirit as a dove. (4.) There is exhibited, especially in the Persian and Etrurian cosmogonies, an order and progression in creation from the imperfect to the higher and more perfect forms. And (5.) The origin of the animals from the earth, and man’s similitude to the gods. This latter circumstance, it may be remarked, is fully recognised by the classical writers of Greece and Rome, being embodied in their myth of Prometheus, who, having formed the first man, animated him by fire stolen from heaven. The question here to be solved is, How are we to account for the resemblance between these heathen legends and the narrative of Genesis ? It cannot be the result of accident, nor of any general relation of the external world to the human mind. Whence, then, can such coincidence of conceptions have originated unless from a common source ? It has been at¬ tempted in the new Oxford school of Theology to exempt from the range of Divine revelation all those departments of truth “ for the discovery of which man has faculties provided by his Creator.” This maxim is the starting-point of the “ Essay on the Mosaic Cosmogony,” and it is obviously adopted to degrade the first chapter of Genesis from a Divine com¬ munication into a mere human speculation ; but surely if there be one part of Scripture which is beyond the reach of the human intellect, it must be a record of the steps of Creation beyond the existence of man. Yet this is the chapter selected from the whole historical Scriptures, in order by much labour and ingenuity to deprive it of a Divine origin, on the plea that THE MOSAIC AND HEATHEN COSMOGONIES. 263 what can be attained by man’s unaided faculties can never be the object of supernatural revelation. But if the Mosaic account of Creation was not a Divine communication, was it derived from the heathen ? The case of one nation borrowing from the legends of another is not merely conceivable in itself, but is what has actually occurred. The Greeks, for example (as we have already remarked), by adopting the myths of those colonies which at various times, and from different quarters, settled amongst them, gradually forgot their own traditions or mixed them up with those of other nations, till their popular Theology became a congeries of monstrosity and confusion. How strange then that Moses, if he derived his cosmogony from the heathen, instead of following in the track of all similar derivations, should have taken it in its impure and confused state, and refined it to that chaste and sublime consistency in which we find it in his imperishable narrative. Such a sup¬ position is altogether untenable, because it is utterly at variance with all that is known of the religions of Heathendom, which never developed into aught else but distortions of some hidden truth. But if Moses did not borrow his account of Creation from the heathen, did they derive their cosmogonic theories from him ? This is the opposite supposition, and it is one that is sometimes advanced. The Hebrew record, it is said, is the common source whence all the heathen views of Creation were derived. But this supposition is equally unwarranted as the other. For although the Mosaic writings may have had some influence amongst nations in immediate proximity to the covenant people, yet it is conceded, even by modern critics, that these cosmological myths are found amongst nations lying far beyond the reach of such influences, and that they universally pervade antiquity. It has, indeed, been thought that Ovid must have had the Septuagint version of the Sacred Volume before him when he wrote his account of “ the first origin of the world;” since he has not only described the facts, but also the order of creation as given by Moses. The coincidence, we admit, is too striking to be accidental ; still we are persuaded that the account of the heathen poet bears a far stronger resemblance to the Etrurian cosmogony, as set forth by Suidas, than to the narrative of the sacred historian. It would thus 264 THE MOSAIC AND HEATHEN COSMOGONIES. seem more probable that Ovid had consulted the work of the ancient author whose words the Greek lexicographer has pre¬ served, but whose name he has not given. This, however, is a matter of small moment as to the present discussion. Tor what we assert is, that the Mosaic record is not the common source of the heathen cosmogonies. These cosmogonic theories had all a historic as well as a mythic side. In one aspect, the myth is so interwoven with the fact that it appears itself as a fact ; in the other, the fact lies at the bottom of the myth, and is deducible from it. And it is by studying these cosmogonies from the latter point of view, that the materials lying at their root can be traced back to the remotest times. It is thus that the traditions which have survived (exclusive of the Scriptures) concerning the original state of the earth and of man, amidst the variety of modifications they have undergone in the course of ages, and according to the channels through which they have passed, bear so great similarity as well as dissimilarity to the Sacred record. The only way, therefore, of satisfactorily ac¬ counting for the resemblances presented in all the heathen cosmogonies is to regard them as the result of primeval Bevelation extending back to the cradle of mankind. But it may be asked, What confirmatory evidence is obtained of the Divine origin of the Mosaic record by comparing it with the ancient cosmogonies ? May not the account of the creation in Genesis be only one of the many to be met with elsewhere ; or only a form of the original myth handed down through the Israelites, and though preserved by them in greater purity than when passed through other hands, yet so interpolated and changed in the course of transmission as to render it unhistoric in its character and inconsistent with the results of modern criticism ? To this it may be replied, that even according to this representation of the case, more truth is contained in it than some modern critics may be disposed to admit. They labour to prove that the Mosaic cosmogony is only the Hebrew form of an original myth, but they do not tell us How and When this universal myth arose. On these essential questions they are silent, and for the best of all reasons, because they can supply no further information regarding them than what we already possess. What we maintain in opposition to this THE MOSAIC AND HEATHEN COSMOGONIES. 265 view of the matter is, that in the points of agreement above indicated between the Scriptural and non- Scriptural cosmo¬ gonies, we are furnished with such evidence as incontestably proves that they all rest upon a foundation of fact, however it may have originated. And it is only by comparing the Mosaic record with the heathen cosmogonies that the superiority of the former becomes manifest. It is thus that its true historic character will be seen, and its Divine authority vindicated — * not merely as being in accordance with the traditions of a Revelation made to primeval man, but as an immediate Rev¬ elation vouchsafed to the writer of Genesis concerning the origin of the universe, and the unity of the human race. But notwithstanding the similarity in several points of the Hebrew to the heathen cosmogonies, the divergence is still more striking. We proceed therefore — II. Secondly, to notice some of those essential features wherein the Biblical and non-Biblical cosmogonies differ. By comparison of the former with the latter, the Mosaic narrative is seen in the proper light. The heathen cosmogonies have neither symmetry nor consistence, part disagreeing with part, statement with statement ; while all of them are enveloped in allegorical drapery more or less extravagant, indicating the various phases of the distorted tradition. In contrasting the Hebrew with the ancient cosmogonies, we shall advert only to the leading distinctions, passing over such as are of lesser importance. 1. The Mosaic record is distinguished from all other views of creation, by crossing at a single step the great vortices of Pantheism and Materialism into which the entire heathen had fallen, and which no philosophic system in the dimness of unaided reason has known how to avoid. The heathen, as we have seen, had a tradition among them concerning the primeval chaos whence the world arose, but having lost all clear concep¬ tions of the Creator, they began to ascribe to Nature those powers which are only the demonstrations of His existence and omnipotence. As the inevitable consequence of this apostasy from God, the traditions about the origin of the world and of man became more and more confused, and were ultimately transformed into fables. Thus, traditions reaching back to the 266 THE MOSAIC AND HEATHEN COSMOGONIES. remotest beginnings of heaven and earth became mere theo- gonic and cosmogonic myths. And as the result of this con¬ fusion, the myths themselves were accepted as the only sources of their information. The origin of both gods and men was traced to a chaos or world -egg. In conformity with this heathen notion, Hesiod represents the gods as coming into existence at the same time as the world. The truth under¬ lying this myth we have fully explained. After the shaping of chaos into a world-egg, there arose out of it, according to these cosmogonies, the parent of all life, a macrocosmic being. And as man is a microcosm , so is that first being the macro¬ cosm. He is the originator of all life by developing from Himself the world-organism ; so that every element in nature was considered as Himself, or as a part of His existence. But He divided His own substance, and the mighty power thus became half male and half female, and from that female the life of all nature sprang ; and creatures in succession, of all kinds, were produced by sexual division and separation. This is the nucleus of all heathen theogonies and cosmogonies. We may thence perceive how it is that, in heathen concep¬ tions, the primitive generating being is imagined as a great world-animal, and is worshipped by the Persians under the form of a bull, and by the Egyptians under that of a goat. It is true that behind or above the chaos or disordered mat¬ ter there always presides the mysterious form of a Supreme Divinity. In the Hindoo cosmogony, for example, the Self- existing Supreme Spirit having contemplated the creation of the universe from His own substance, first called into exist¬ ence water, and into its floods deposited a germ. This germ developed itself into an egg, in which He was Himself pro¬ duced as Brahma, the parent of the universe and of all living creatures. Thus the recognition of the direct sovereignty of God in relation to the existence and life of the creature is bewildered, and the idea of emanation is introduced. Hence matter is always associated with the Divinity, or the Divinity with matter. According to the Pantheistic systems, matter emanates with the world from Divinity ; according to the Hylotheistic, Divinity emanates from the world, from chaos, or from the ocean. In consequence of this principle of emana- THE MOSAIC AND HEATHEN COSMOGONIES. 267 tion, in its various modifications, pervading all the heathen cosmogonies, none of them ever rose to the idea of a creation out of nothing. In describing the origin of the world, Heathenism made no distinction, and could make none, be¬ tween Divine and created existence. Its fundamental char¬ acteristic is, that it regards the element of life in nature as a concrete living thing, while it never conceives of the concrete living God as a personal being. How different from this is the Hebrew cosmogony ! “ In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.” This announcement points out at once the relation subsisting between God and nature. It marks with precision the line of separation between Monotheism and the blind rule of physical powers ; for it represents God as the Creator and primary Cause of the universe. It was not framed out of an original matter , but created out of nothing. This is the fundamental idea contained in the very opening sentence of Genesis, and it places that record in a category distinct from all other cosmogonies. The world is created ; it is neither identical with God, nor a part of His substance, nor the result of an internal or external necessity. It is the spontaneous production of the will of God. He alone was before all time, — “ before the mountains were brought forth, and before the earth and the world were formed.” He is from eternity — creating all, Himself uncreated — a free and absolute Being, because independent of any other existence — unchange¬ able, because subject to no necessity. Thus the opening of the sacred volume reveals the highest and most sublime attri¬ butes of God. It points out distinctly the relation subsisting between the Creator and His creatures, which constitutes the fundamental idea of all true religion. This is an idea which the heathen, groping in their darkness after truth, could not reach, which no philosophy has ever conceived, and which Divine revelation alone could teach us. There was a begin¬ ning when nothing existed, and when God created out of nothing all things that exist. If the heathen, even with the aid of ancient and authentic traditions, were unable to give an adequate and consistent account of creation, it is not to be expected that men in the nineteenth century, though highly distinguished both in science 268 THE MOSAIC AND HEATHEN COSMOGONIES. and literature, will, in their efforts to discard the Hebrew cos¬ mogony, he more successful. Those writers of our own day who dispute the history of creation as given in Genesis may be divided into two classes. First, such as desire to set aside the Mosaic narrative alto¬ gether, and to bring the account of creation into harmony with the recent researches of science ; and secondly, such as wish to reduce the Biblical doctrine of creation to the level of other cosmogonies. The first class of writers are those who support the development hypothesis. This modern form of Material¬ ism we have already considered, and found that its results have as yet thrown no new light on the origin of life. With regard to the second class of objectors to the Hebrew nar¬ rative, we shall limit the remarks we have to make to the point immediately under discussion — its representation of a creation out of nothing. The adherents of this school deny that this idea is contained in the Biblical account of creation, and maintain that this doctrine is not deducible from the term bard which, in their view, imports a renovating or remodelling of the universe from matter already in existence. They accordingly argue that the idea intended to be conveyed is not that God created matter from nothing, but that He re¬ fashioned the universe out of shapeless matter co-eternal in existence with Himself. It need not excite the least surprise that men who have thus grossly perverted the leading prin¬ ciple on which the whole system of Bevelation is based, should imagine that they have detected in the Biblical cosmogony the heathen notions of incarnation and emanation. As the doctrine of emanation was the radical error of Heathenism, so the first sentence of the Sacred Becord em¬ bodies a protest against this error. It represents the pure idea of the creation from nothing, without eternal matter, and without co-operation. It clearly steps across the impure gulf of Dualism, beyond which the entire cosmogonies and phil¬ osophic systems of Heathendom could not go. It reveals God as the Creator of all things directly. It gives the pure con¬ ception of God in opposition to Pantheism, by declaring that the Omnipotent called the universe into existence by His word. Only by the most strained exegetical methods, as THE MOSAIC AND HEATHEN COSMOGONIES. 269 Havernick remarks, can attempts be made to banish the pure ideas of God and of the creation from the Mosaic record. For the word beresheth evidently denotes the beginning of an epoch, when God created the heavens and the earth — the beginning of created existence, in opposition to the everlasting existence of God. In like manner bar a, in Kal, means to produce some¬ thing neio or not previously existing in the sphere of nature. In this respect it is expressly distinguished from asdli , which has a more general application, meaning to make, without specify¬ ing whether absolutely new or not. We are aware that bard, according to its etymology, does not necessarily imply a crea¬ tion out of nothing. It was formerly thought by scholars that this was its exclusive meaning, but this opinion has been given up. But although the opinion of scholars has so far changed upon this subject, we cannot admit the assertion of those pantheistic critics who deny that the doctrine of absolute crea¬ tion is taught here, and maintain that bard only imports the remodelling or reconstructing of the universe from pre-existent matter ; because we consider this view altogether untenable, and for the following reasons: 1. The connection in which bard stands shows that in this place it means created out of nothing ; for “ in the beginning ” evidently implies before any¬ thing existed except the Divine Being. 2. This verb never takes after it the material out of which anything is made. In this first verse of Genesis, therefore, the substratum of pre¬ existing material is excluded by the objects created, “ the heavens and the earth.” 3. The kind of existence said in verse first to have been “ created in the beginning ” is dis¬ tinctly indicated in the condition of the earth as represented in verse second, where it is said to have become “ desolate and empty.” For these reasons we are convinced that the declara¬ tion of the sacred historian can only be taken in the most absolute and unconditioned sense — that God is the creative author or originator of the heavens and the earth. But the truth of this doctrine is not made to rest on a single expression of Moses ; it is the explicit declaration of the Sacred Volume throughout. In proof of this important point, a few passages of Scripture will suffice. In this abso¬ lute sense the Psalmist says, “ He commanded, and they 270 THE MOSAIC AND HEATHEN COSMOGONIES. were created.” 1 “ By the word of the Lord were the heavens created ; and all the host of them by the breath of His mouth.” 2 In like manner the prophet Jeremiah thus sublimely contrasts the power of the God of Israel with the false pre¬ tensions of the idols of the heathen. “ The gods that have made not the heavens and the earth, even they shall perish from the earth, and from under these heavens. He hath made the earth by His power, He hath established the world by His wisdom, and hath stretched out the heavens by His discretion.” 3 The same is the language of other prophets. And it is apparent, from a passage in one of the Books of Maccabees, that after inspiration had ceased, the Jews still retained the original idea of creation, — “ I beseech thee, my son, look upon the heaven and the earth, and all that is therein, and consider that God made them of things that were not (7£ oiik ovtojv), and so was mankind made likewise.” 4 It may, however, be here noticed, that in the Book of Wisdom the world is represented as having been created by Wisdom “ out of shapeless matter,” 5 (t% a/uopible history, that amid much confusion, and in part contradiction, resulting from the impure channels of Heathenism, they almost universally represent woman, or the serpent, as contributing in some way or other to man’s present ruined condition. According to Sanchoniathon, Eve found out the food which is gathered from trees. Here, undoubtedly, there is a traditionary reference to that fatal discovery which was first made by the woman, “ when she saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was pleasant to the eyes.” Grotius observes that, in the most ancient mysteries of the Greeks, the exclamation “ Eua ” was used, and a serpent shown at the same time.1 But when examining more particularly into the cause of man’s alienation from his Creator and Moral Gov¬ ernor, it is the serpent always that is referred to as representing the principle of evil, and the tempter and seducer. “ Almost all the nations of Asia,” says Yon Bohlen, “ assume the ser¬ pent to be a wicked being, which has brought evil into the world.” And Havernick, in quoting this remark, adds : “ In¬ deed it is remarkable what a similarity is observable between the traditionary tales of Egypt, India, Persia, and even of the Northern nations (which are again met with in the Orphic mysteries of the West), and the old Hebrew narrative. It must have been some confused traditions concerning the Eall which gave rise among many ancient nations to serpent-wor¬ ship — a practice which at first sight may seem to be opposed to this view, yet, when more closely examined, goes far to confirm it. Eor those heathen nations which acknowledge a dualism — that is, the existence of an evil principle indepen- 1 De Verit., not. ad lib. i., sec. 16. THE FALL. 409 dent of, and inimical to, the good — must almost unavoidably regard the serpent — the universally recognised emblem of the Spirit of evil — now as an object of horror, and now of venera¬ tion ; of detestation as the author of man’s misery, — of worship in order to avert its wrath.” The disorder of man’s moral nature is a subject of perpetual complaint among the ancient philosophers. Thus Pythagoras terms it, “ The noxious strife that lurks within us, and which was born along with us.” Plato calls it “ Natural depravity ; ” Sopater, “ The sin that is born with mankind ; ” Hierocles, “ The domestic evil of the human race.” Aristotle savs, “We are more naturally disposed towards those things which are wrong, and more easily carried away to excess, than to pro¬ priety of conduct.” 1 And all the Greek and Roman phil¬ osophers, especially the Stoics and Platonists, complain of the disordered condition of mankind ; of their propensity to every¬ thing that is evil, and aversion from everything that is good. Thus Cicero says, “ Nature has furnished us with only a few rays of light, which we immediately extinguish so completely by evil habits and erroneous opinions, that the light of nature is nowhere visible.” 2 Seneca exclaims, “ Why should I con¬ ceal under gentle terms the universal malady ? We are all wicked.” 3 Pliny, in his perplexity, pronounces man to be “ an enigma not to be solved.” Plutarch says, “ The passions are innate in man, and have not entered him from without ; and if strict discipline did not come to his assistance, man would probably be no tamer than the wildest of the beasts.” 4 And Marcus Antoninus asks, “ What is vice ? ’Tis what you have often seen. Have this thought ready on all emergencies, that they are such things as you have often seen. You will find all things, earlier or later, just the same. Such matters fill all histories of the ancient or middle or present age. Of such things all cities and families are full.” 5 The ancient poets, too, furnish ample testimony to the fact of moral disorder. Hesiod describes the gradual degradation of mankind, during the period subsequent to the golden age. Propertius could say, “ Every one has a vice to which by nature he is in- 1 Ethics, iii. 1. 2 Tusc., iii. 2. 3 De Ira, iii. 26. 4 De Recta Ratione Audiendi. 5 Meditations, vii. 7. 410 THE FALL. clinecl.” 1 Horace says, “ What has not wasted time impaired ? The age of our fathers, worse than that of our grandsires, pro¬ duced us still more degenerate, and we are about to leave an offspring even more corrupt than ourselves.” 2 “We are mad enough to attack heaven itself ; nor do we suffer, by our wickedness, Jupiter to lay aside his angry thunderbolts.” 3 Juvenal says, “ The good indeed are rare ; their number is scarcely so many as the mouths of the Nile or the gates of Thebes. We are now passing through the ninth age of the world — an era far worse than the times of Iron ; for whose villany not even Nature herself can find a name, and has no metal base enough by which to designate it.” 4 And in the saying of Ovid, which has long been familiar, — “ I see better things, and approve of them, but I follow worse,” 5 — we have a striking corroboration of the statement of Paul of Tarsus, “ The good that I would I do not : but the evil which I would not, that I do.” Thus Providence seems to have drawn evidence of the moral disorder of mankind from the confes¬ sions of the ancient world itself, and to have preserved its testimony for the confirmation of the Inspired Record con¬ cerning the Pall. The testimony of modern times is equally explicit in regard to man’s abnormal condition ; for moral degradation is the characteristic of his history in every age, ancient or modern. He bears manifest marks which show that he is not in the state in which he was made ; that he is a monument of a once noble creature, exhibiting at once the grandeur of his original structure and the vast change which has come over him. The history of man’s origin, combined with the history of the Pall, is like that of a magnificent temple which has fallen into ruin, with its broken columns and crumbling walls, and the hollow sounds of desolation sighing heavily through its shattered arches and inmost recesses. So man still retains enough to indicate his former greatness. In his moral constitution, how wonder¬ ful is the power of conscience ! In his intellect, how lofty his genius, how diversified his gifts ! — and yet, with all this, the 1 “ Unicuique dedit vitium natura creato.” 2 Od., iii. iv. 45. 3 Od., i. iii. 38. 4 Sat., xiii. 26-30. 5 “ Video meliora, proboque, deteriora sequor. ” THE FALL. 411 mind recoils at the sacl spectacles of moral depravity which stain the most polished times of antiquity, and at the opposite principles which strive even within the Christian’s breast. Man is verily a mystery of inconsistencies, of greatness and littleness, of good and evil. No moral or metaphysical system of philosophy has ever been able to account for these strange contrarieties. Pascal in noticing them thus pointedly remarks : “ The greatness and misery of man being alike conspicuous, religion, in order to be true, must necessarily teach us that he has in himself some noble principles of greatness, and at the same time some profound source of misery.” Mackintosh, in adverting to the many passions which prevail over the moral sentiments, very appositely says : “ The prevalence itself . . . is perceived to be a disorder when seen in another man, and felt to be so by the mind disordered when the disorder sub¬ sides.” 1 The history of man’s Pall as found in the Sacred Narrative is essential to unlock this mystery in man’s nature, and in no other way can his condition and character, as we now find him, be explained. “ A fall of some sort or another,” says Hugh Miller — “ the creation, as it were, of the non-absolute — is the fundamental postulate of the moral history of man. Without this hypothesis man is unintelligible ; with it, every phenomenon is explicable. The mystery itself is too powerful for human insight. Such, in this matter, was the ultimate judgment of a man who in youth had entertained very opposite views — the poet Coleridge.” 2 “A paradise,” says Mr P. E. Dove, “ a con¬ dition of primeval innocence, a state of probation, and a fall , are absolutely requisite before we can explain anything con¬ nected with man. Without these, philosophy would lead us only to a hopeless mystery ; we should know absolutely nothing, and never should be able to attain to knowledge ; for all the science that has ever been evolved does not advance a man a single step in the explanation of his moral nature and moral condition. No man who has rejected these four parti¬ culars has ever been able to advance an explanation possessing even the most remote claims to acceptance. They, and they only, solve the perplexing question of human existence — of 1 Dissert. , vi. 2 Testimony of the Rocks. 412 THE FALL. man endowed with the conception of the virtues, yet con¬ stantly practising the opposite evils.” 1 Auberlen, in his observations from an ethical point of view upon the Biblical narrative of the Ball, arrives at the following conclusion : “ Hereditary sin — i.e., the universal sinful state of men — fur¬ nishes a proof of the derivation of the human race from one progenitor. If there were several, then there must have been several acts of apostasy, similar to one another ; and sin, in its diffusion, would then be something accidental, while, in reality, the entire life of man and of nature shows itself conditioned by the same evil power.” And St Paul says briefly and emphati¬ cally, “ By one man sin entered into the world” (Bom. v. 12). 1 Logic of the Christian Faith. XI. SACRIFICIAL WORSHIP IN CONNECTION WITH THE ATONEMENT. In the earliest ages of the world in its onward path to civilisation and refinement, amidst all its changing scenes, one extraordinary spectacle constantly presents itself, which would he utterly inexplicable but for the light of Eevelation. We allude to sacrificial worship. Nothing has been more varied than the religious rites which men have devised in order to appease their consciences, when the knowledge which God had made of Himself from time to time to the families of the earth was lost. The sun, moon, and stars, the earth itself, everything seen and unseen, has served in its turn as a god to them, except the One true God. But amidst an unnumbered variety of rites, we find one existing everywhere. In every vicissitude of the world’s history, amongst every people on its surface, whether ancient or modern, under every form of government, and in every age, we see men acting as if on one point, at least, a common idea subsisted between them. All alike seem to acknowledge that they are guilty, that they have incurred the Divine wrath, and that a blood-offering is neces¬ sary to expiate their guilt. Whether we follow the bold navigator of modern times in his voyage of discovery amid distant seas, or search into the annals of ancient history, the same fact and the same practice meet us still. And if we 414 SACRIFICIAL WORSHIP IN trace the history of religious worship to the remotest period, and consult the Bible — the most ancient of all records — we find there the patriarchs acknowledging this great and awful truth, that there was an estrangement between God and man, and that this estrangement could only be removed, and a reconciliation effected, by a blood expiation. If we thus see in every age and in every place the same rite practised universally and continually, even when its first insti¬ tution, its end, or its typical meaning had been lost sight of, and find it contrary to what the light of reason would have taught to men, we naturally inquire, Whence proceeds it ? Can any connection be discovered between the slaughter of an animal and the expiation of human guilt ? The idea is preposterous and absurd. There is, therefore, only one way of explaining this universal phenomenon, and that is, by believing it to have originated from Divine Revelation, the traces of which in many heathen nations were not, and are not, entirely obliterated. We find them disfigured and grossly debased, but we find them still. Wherever the rite of sacrifice exists, there also exists some trace of this institution of God in the first age of our race. Amongst those whose object has been to undermine the fabric of revealed truth, the origin of this rite has been called in question. Some have contended that it originated in priest¬ craft, but they have not informed us who were the priests in the days of Cain and Abel. Others have conjectured that it originated from human invention, but they have forgotten to tell us what notions of God could teach men that He could take delight in blood, or what iustinct could prompt to the killing of an innocent animal — or even what appetite could be gratified, since in those early times the sacrifice was wholly consumed by fire. Such suppositions are clearly inadmissible, being opposed alike to reason, instinct, and self-interest ; but if it be urged that superstitions prevail unaccountably through¬ out the world, it may be replied that every superstition has its origin in true religion. Every superstition is but an abuse, and every abuse supposes what is radically right ; and if this be the case with superstitions of smaller moment, what shall be said of a practice existing throughout all ages, and co- CONNECTION WITH THE ATONEMENT. 415 extensive with the history of man ? If it he said that, admitting the rite to be of the remotest antiquity, might it not have been devised by our first progenitor himself ? this supposition may easily be dismissed as untenable, for we cannot conceive any probable motive that could lead him to such a practice. On the contrary, it is more rational to sup¬ pose that he, immediately after the sentence of the Divine dis¬ pleasure, would not have dared to kill God’s creatures without His permission. Moreover, on the supposition that sacrifice was the invention of our first parent, how are we to account for the fact that such an expensive rite was so universally followed by his posterity, and one in itself so unnatural and cruel ? Again, to say that the practice was of gradual growth, beginning first with the fruits of the earth, and passing after¬ wards from these to the sacrifice of animals, is to mistake and confound two things in their nature and design essentially different. But it has been asked, If sacrifice was the appointed way in which Adam as a sinner was taught to draw near to God, whence the silence of the sacred historian on this head ? This is an important question, yet its answer may readily be given. Moses has not passed over the first institution of sacrifice, nor neglected to record the authority on which it rests. Bor there is a passage which, if correctly rendered, would at once settle this much-disputed point ; but as it stands in our Authorised Version, it not only contains no clear and intelligible meaning, but imparts an erroneous and absurd idea of a most gracious and merciful procedure of Divine wisdom and goodness. The passage to which we refer is Gen. iii. 24 : “So He drove out the man ; and He placed at the east of the garden of Eden 1 cherubim and a flaming 1 The site of Eden has been much disputed. Some have placed it in Armenia, others in Babylonia ; but it is described in a geographical manner, which leaves no doubt that a distinct locality was before the mind of the historian. Two of the rivers mentioned by him, the Hiddekel ( Tigris ) and Euphrates, still exist ; but the other two cannot be identified with any now remaining in the same rela¬ tion of union which they once must have had with the two former. Milton supposes this garden to have been swept away by the flood — “ To teach us that God attributes to place No sanctity, if none be thither brought By men who there frequent, or therein dwell. ” Par. Lost, B. xi. 416 SACRIFICIAL WORSHIP IN sword which turned every way, to keep the way of the tree of life.” Concerning the expulsion from Paradise, we must bear in mind that it was not forcible, though the wording of the sen¬ tence would lead us to infer the contrary. We cannot sup¬ pose that unwillingness on the part of Adam would show itself in rebellious opposition so far as to induce coercive measures. Besides, we may infer from the promise of mercy previously given, that “ the seed of the woman1 should bruise the serpent’s head,” as well as from the entire narrative, that he had been brought by this time into a state of penitence. Neither are we to suppose that this event occurred merely as the carrying out of the curse which had been pronounced. Adam’s violation of the Divine command was doubtless one ground for this exclusion ; but the chief reason was that he 1 “The seed of the woman.” No satisfactory reason can be assigned why Christ is here promised as “the seed of the woman,” except in the circumstance of His miraculous conception, in regard to which, being born of a virgin, He stood emphatically in closer relation to that sex than the other. This peculiar circumstance of the Saviour’s incarnation, as being the immediate production of a Divine power, secured Him from every taint of fallen depravity. He was, as St Paul tells us, “ holy, harmless, undefiled, and separate ( cut off) from (the line of) sinners.” That the promise here made refers to Christ, is clear from the words in which the same promise was renewed to Abraham — “ in thy seed shall all the families of the earth be blessed.” (Compare Gen. xxii. 18 with Gal. iii. 8-16.) The Jewish Targums interpret it of Messiah; and the LXX., after rendering seed by o-nrep^a, render (hu), which is masculine in Hebrew, by avros. The literal translation is, “And I will put enmity between thee and between the woman, and between thy seed and between her seed ; he shall bruise thee on thy head, and thou slialt bruise him on his heel.” The enmity thus described has reference both to the serpent tribe and to Satan. The former are hated and persecuted by the human race, many of whom suffer from their venomous bites ; and naturalists tell us of the literal serpent, that the head is the tenderest part, and wounds and bruises inflicted there are incurable. But this enmity is specially descriptive of the warfare between Satan and the Church of Christ ; and above all, of the great conflict and its result between Christ and Satan, who bruised in various ways Christ’s heel, or human nature, but was himself overcome, and shall finally be vanquished and crushed for ever. It may be interesting to remark that in some of the heathen mythologies are found traditions of the Messiah which seem to have direct reference to this prediction. “Two sculptured figures,” says Maurice, “ are yet extant in one of the oldest pagodas of the Hindoos, the former of which represents Chreeshna, an incarnation of their mediatorial god, Vishnu, trampling on the crushed head of the serpent ; while in the latter it is seen encircling the deity in its folds, and biting his heel.” — Hist, of Hindostan, ii. 290. CONNECTION WITH THE ATONEMENT. 417 might be prevented from having access to the tree of life. To understand the cause of this intervention, we must ascer¬ tain the design of the earthly Paradise in which he had been placed. It had been prepared by the Almighty Father as the nursery for His weak and untutored children. These were to form that link in His vast universe which was to connect the spiritual with the material- — the angel with man, and man with the lower creation. Adam in Paradise was innocent, artless, inexpert in moral conduct, and unpractised in self-control. He was placed in this garden, separated from the world around him, and ele¬ vated above it, that he might be instructed by angels and by God Himself, and be improved by the divinely appointed symbols and communications of grace and truth, until he was suitably qualified by those means and preparations of future bliss to enjoy it. The garden of Eden was thus designed by the All-wise Creator Himself to adumbrate the future garden of God — the Paradise to come — and to give a foretaste of it. The tree of life in the midst of the garden seems to have been both a means of preserving the body of man in life and also a pledge of immortality — not intended to be partaken of by him until after the successful accomplishment of his pro¬ bation. But after man’s transgression, it was to serve as a type and figure of that tree of life which is in the midst of the Paradise of God, of whose fruit if any man eat “ he shall die no more.” The method of tuition under which Adam was placed was suited to his infantine mind. It was an elementary process : his school of discipline a garden, how pleasant ! — his occu¬ pation, to dress it and to keep it, how agreeable ! — his duty, to eat of all the fruits but one, how plain and intelligible ! The injunction was “ touch not, taste not, handle not ” the fruit of this one tree. This is what St Paul styles the very “ rudiments of the world ” (Col. ii. 8). Could any plan of education be more fitted for a primary institution ? any method more easy ? any duty more light ? The discipline was simple and appropriate, for the end was moral, though this as yet was but remotely and indistinctly intimated. This rudi¬ mentary plan, however, having been spoiled and defeated by 2 D 418 SACRIFICIAL WORSHIP IN the great adversary of God and man, was no longer adapted to the circumstances which had arisen. It had failed in pre¬ serving original innocence, and was still less capable of restor¬ ing it. The new plan of redemption was, therefore, rendered necessary, and the former method of training was to be alto¬ gether abolished. The Saviour was promised, His restorative system introduced, and a vivid and striking representation of it substituted instead of that which was no longer applicable. God, therefore, expelled the man from the garden of Eden, lest he should eat of the tree of life, and thereby become immortal in a state of reprobation. But there was another reason why his expulsion became necessary. The present earth was accursed because of man’s transgression, — thorns and thistles were to spring up in the fields of his labour ; the sphere of his activity had therefore to be transferred from this abode of peace and delight. An earthly Paradise was now for ever beyond the scope and reach of man. But though removed from the garden of Eden, God did not wholly with¬ draw Himself from him, nor deprive him of the hope of salvation ; for He immediately afterwards constructed for him the patriarchal tent or tabernacle, containing the cherubim and the Shechlnah, whose sword-like flame was to preserve and keep in remembrance the new and living way to that tree which bears the fruits of immortality, and “ whose leaves are for the healing of the nations.” “ So He removed the man, and placed ( or set up) before the east of the garden of Eden the cherubim.” It is obvious that our translators have been misled by the Vulgate, which they have closely followed instead of the origi¬ nal Hebrew. Moreover, the Hebrew article (the) marks the object as well known. And the fact that the LXX. have pre¬ fixed the corresponding Greek article in the neuter plural, clearly shows that they regarded the cherubim in Eden not as living agents but symbols — the same as those afterwards set up in the Mosaic tabernacle on opposite ends of the mercy- seat in the holy of holies. They were not images, but hiero¬ glyphics ; it would have been impossible that God could violate His own law in His own worship. What, then, did they repre¬ sent ? The highest order of created intelligences — the presence CONNECTION WITH THE ATONEMENT. 419 ministers of Jehovah. That there are different orders or de¬ grees of rank amongst the celestials is evident, for we read of thrones, dominions, principalities, and powers in the heavenly places (Eph. iii. 10). Ordinary angels are the royal messen¬ gers of the Great King, and execute His commands in all places of His dominions. But the cherubim (or seraphim, “ burning ones,” as they are styled by Isaiah) stand continually in the presence of Jehovah as His ministers in waiting. So we find Wordsworth, in allusion to the cherubic symbols, saying :• — “ This local transitory type Of Thy parental splendours, and the pomp Of those who fill Thy courts in highest heaven, The radiant cherubim.” • — The Excursion , B. ix. Hence God is known “ by the name of Jehovah of hosts that dwelleth between the cherubim ” (2 Sam. vi. 8). When, however, the term cherubim is placed objectively in connec¬ tion with either of the Hebrew verbs or “ to dwell,” the preposition “ between ” is not inserted in the original, as we find it in our Authorised Version; for the literal meaning is not “ Jehovah that dwelleth between the cherubim,” but “ Jehovah that inhabits or occupies (as His throne or seat) the cherubim.” The preposition is therefore inserted in italics to show that it is not in the original. So also in Ps. lxxx. 1, the rendering should not have been “ Thou that dwellest be¬ tween the cherubim,” but “Thou that inhabitest ” or “art seated upon the cherubim.” Accordingly, in the Revised Version the rendering is, “ Thou that sittest upon the cherubim.” This rendering is confirmed from Ps. xviii. 10, “ He rode upon a cherub, and did fly ; yea, He did fly upon the wings of the spirit ” (not of the wind), “ upon the wings of the (cherubic) spirit,” whose wings thus formed the chariot on which He rode. So Milton — “ He on the wings of cherub rode sublime On the crystalline sky.” — Par. Lost , B. vi. 771, 772. But more distinctly still in 1 Chron. xxviii. 18, the cheru- 420 SACRIFICIAL WORSHIP IN bim are called “the chariot of the cherubim.” We have thus arrived at the most probable derivation of the word cherub, which has been variously given, and agree with G-esenius and others who think that 3V>3 by a transposition of letters stands for Ml. divine steed, one who is near to God, a minister of the Divine presence. So the name cherubim was given to those living creatures who were employed as the chariot or throne- bearers of Jehovah, for when the God of Israel moved they ever formed His chariot. And as in Eastern countries poten¬ tates are carried by royal attendants in chairs of state, so the cherubim are represented as bearing in august state the Supreme Majesty of heaven. Hence we find Milton, in allusion to this circumstance, saying — “ Forthwith rush’cT with whirlwind sound The chariot of Paternal Deity ; Flashing thick flames, wheel within wheel undrawn, Itself instinct with Spirit ; but convoy’d By Four Cherubic shapes ; four faces each Had wondrous : as with stars, their bodies all And wings were set with eyes.” — Par. Lost, B. vi. 749-755. “ And a flaming sword which turned every way ” — or, as it should have been rendered, “ and the sword-like flame infold¬ ing itself.” Literally, “ a flame of the sword,” but the definite article (the) must be joined to the preceding word — “ the flame of a sword,” that is, “ a sword-like flame.” The verb is in the present participle of the Hithpael or reflected form, which cor¬ responds to the middle voice in Greek, and is so rendered in the Septuagint. It denotes in this form the action of the Agent upon itself, and the article connects it with the pre¬ ceding noun. The literal rendering therefore is, “ the sword¬ like flame turning upon ” or “ infolding itself.” The same appearance is described in Ezekiel’s vision of the cherubim — there was “ a fire infolding ” or “turning back upon itself ” (Ezek. i. 4). The flame, therefore, in the Adamic tabernacle, assuming the form of a sword, represented the justice of God ; but “ the infolding of itself ” taught also the great truth that the fire of Divine wrath, kindled by transgression, instead of burning out to consume man, had been “ turned back ” in vir- CONNECTION WITH THE ATONEMENT. 421 tue of another covenant, whereby eternal life was to be re¬ stored to him. This sacred fire was the “ Shechlnah ” or “glory of Jehovah” so often mentioned in Scripture — fire being the usual symbol of the Divine Majesty. The word rnw Shechlnah is not found in Biblical Hebrew, but occurs in the Talmud and other Rabbinical writings. It is derived from to dwell or inhabit , and means “ the dwelling of Jehovah ” — He having made the cloud His “dwelling” when He vouchsafed to commune with His covenant people from off the mercy-seat and from between the cherubim. This Shechlnah or glory often varied its shape and appearance. It seemed to the Israelites in their journey through the wilder¬ ness a pillar of cloud by day and a pillar of fire by night. But the cloudy and fiery pillar were not different from each other, but only different forms in which the symbol of Jehovah’s presence was manifested. It obscured all the lights in the heavens. It was a thick cloud in the day, which the rays of the sun could not penetrate. It was a column of fire in the night, which was so clear that the moon and stars were lost in its splendour. But under whatever shape or form it appeared, it was the recognised and revered symbol of the Divine presence. Hence when God appeared to Moses in the bush, we are told that it was “ in a flame of fire.” When He descended on Mount Sinai, it is said the mountain was altogether in a smoke, “ because Jehovah had descended upon it in fire.” Thus, too, He appeared to Isaiah and to Ezekiel ; and Daniel declares that “ a fiery stream issued and came forth from before Him.” The fire of Jehovah frequently fell on the sacrifices in token of the Divine presence and accept¬ ance — as at the dedication of the tabernacle (Lev. ix. 23, 24), when “the glory of Jehovah appeared unto all the people;” and again at the dedication of the temple (2 Chron. vii. 1), when it “ filled the house.” In the same manner in private and individual cases, J ehovah expressed His acceptance of the offerings — as to Abraham, to Gideon, to Manoah, and more publicly to Elijah at Mount Carmel, and so most probably to Abel. In the Hew Testament, also, the Shechlnah or glory of Jehovah is repeatedly mentioned. It was seen by the shep- 422 SACRIFICIAL WORSHIP IN herds at the birth of Christ. It appeared also at His baptism, when the Holy Ghost descended upon Him in a bodily shape like a dove — that is, in a bright cloud or pillar of fire in the form of a dove — as the sign of His Divinity, and the symbol of love and peace. It was seen at His transfiguration, when “ a bright cloud overshadowed them : and behold a voice out of the cloud, which said, This is My beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased ; hear ye Him.” It was seen at His Ascen¬ sion, when the Shechlnah or cloud of glory received Him out of sight. It was manifested on the day of Pentecost as “ a rushing mighty wind, and it filled all the house where they were sitting. And there appeared unto them cloven tongues, like as of fire, and it sat upon each of them.” It was seen by Saul on his way to Damascus, and by them that journeyed with him, “ as a light from heaven above the brightness of the sun,” and they fell on their faces to the ground in pro¬ found awe and terror of this certain indication of the immedi¬ ate presence of Jehovah. And at the final judgment we are told that “ they shall see the Son of man coming in the clouds of heaven with power and great glory ” (Matt. xxiv. 30), or, as it is elsewhere expressed, “in flaming fire” (2 Thess. i. 8). And St John in apocalyptic vision saw “ a white cloud, and upon the cloud One sat like unto the Son of man ” (Prnv. xiv. 1 4) — “ To keep the way of the tree of life,” that is, to keep (in remembrance) the way to it. By the erection of this first tabernacle we learn that Adam having broken the covenant of works, by that covenant hence¬ forth can no flesh be justified or saved. If, therefore, we re¬ cover the happiness which Adam forfeited, we must look to Him who, by the one offering of Himself to the sword of Divine justice, has opened for us “ a new and living way ” to eternal life. The whole passage we have thus examined and endeavoured to illustrate would have been plain and easy, had not trans¬ lators thought they met with a flaming sword, brandished or turning every way, in the original text of Moses ; and, com¬ paring it with what was given as the reason of exiling man from Paradise, they imagined a sort of flaming sword to scare CONNECTION WITH THE ATONEMENT. 423 him from returning. Whereas Jehovah God set up the cher¬ ubim, and the sword - like flame turning upon or infolding itself, to preserve the way to the tree of life. For the services performed by the cherubim were not to hinder man from ap¬ proaching the tree of life, but to point out the way to it. The passage, then, wherein is recorded the Divine institution of sacrificial worship, should have been rendered in the follow¬ ing manner : “ So he removed the man, and set up before the east of the garden of Eden the cherubim and the sword¬ like flame infolding itself, to preserve the way to the tree of life.” The Jews, who should be well qualified to judge in the matter, from their intimate acquaintance with their own lan¬ guage and early history, support the rendering here given. The Targum of Jonathan, thought to have been written thirty years before Christ, paraphrases the passage thus : “ So He expelled the man ; from which time He caused the glory of His pre¬ sence to dwell from the first, above the two cherubim.” The Targum of Jerusalem, written in the second century, runs thus : “ So He expelled the man, and caused the glory of His pre¬ sence to dwell of old (or from the first), from the east of the garden of Eden, above the two cherubim.” And in the Book of Wisdom, the Temple is said to be “a resemblance of the holy tabernacle which God had prepared from the beginning ” (ix. 8). Maimonides in Morey Nevochim adheres to the explanation as given in the Targums. And Bishop Patrick, on the text, advocates this view of the subject. Parkhurst also, in his Lexicon, under the words 3*13 and p6? takes the same view, but his notion that the cherubim represented the Trinity is alto¬ gether absurd. The question, then, as to the Divine institution of sacrifice, we hold to be decided by the fact of God having erected at the entrance of Eden the tabernacle worship immediately after the Fall. This being admitted, it necessarily follows that He also enjoined the acceptable gifts and sacrifices, with the ap¬ propriate rites and ceremonies — as in the case of the Mosaic tabernacle, and the Temple of Solomon in still later times. 424 SACRIFICIAL WORSHIP IN To this tent or tabernacle, Adam himself first, and Cain and Abel, must have repaired, in obedience to the Divine com¬ mand. The brief particulars recorded concerning the sin- offering brought by Abel clearly show that he had been duly instructed by his father — he acting also as priest — regarding the Divine law relative to sacrifice for sin, and that he had readily believed and complied therewith. But the subsequent portion of the narrative makes it no less evident that although Cain, residing with his father, must have received the same instruction, he did not follow it. Being admonished that “ a sin-offering ” which, though required he had not presented, “ lieth (or couclieth) at the door ” of the tabernacle, wherewith he could make reconciliation and be restored to the station he had lost by misconduct ; that by this way his brother should love him still, and he should retain the superiority over him in virtue of his birthright, — he nevertheless persisted in dis¬ obedience, and slew his brother for having acted uprightly. He was therefore excluded from Jehovah’s tabernacle at Eden, from the scene of His visible presence, from the society of Adam and his household, and so from the communion and ordinances of the only Church of God upon earth. Hence, when it is said that “ Cain went out from the presence of Jehovah and dwelt in the land of Hod,” we understand that he departed from some fixed and local habitation of the Deity, and that he was not only and at once deprived of His favour, but excluded from His presence and blessing. Cain’s own bitter lamentation, “ from Thy presence shall I be hid,” can only be understood in this sense ; for from this tent or presence alone he was and could be “ hid,” and be a wanderer and a vaga¬ bond. The locality of Hod is as uncertain as the situation of Paradise itself. It received the name of Hod (or Exile) as being the place to which Cain had fled. The fear of Cain lest any one should slay him, seems to indicate that Adam must have had a numerous family before the death of Abel. The design of this inspired Book, however, is not to give a particular account of the whole race of mankind, but only to point out those who were most remarkable, and some account of whom was necessary for understanding the patriarchal line of descent from Seth to the line of Moses. CONNECTION WITH THE ATONEMENT. 425 Bishop Warburton’s notion, that the Mosaic economy affords no knowledge of a future state, is refuted by the single cir¬ cumstance of the construction of the tabernacle for worship and sacrifice. It was denominated “ the tent ” or “ meeting ” of the congregation, because Jehovah said that He would there meet with the children of Israel, and would sanctify them through His glory (Exod. xxix. 43). It was called also “ the dwelling - place,” because J ehovah promised that He would not merely meet with Israel there from time to time, but would dwell in the midst of them, and make Himself known to them as their God (Exod. xxix. 45, 46). And it was also called “the tent of witness,” where Jehovah bore testimony through His covenant and law that He is the Holy One of Israel, who would have Israel to be holy as He is holy, and who qualifies them for it by His blessing and atoning grace (Exod. xxiv. and Lev. xix. 2). The tabernacle was made according to the pattern shown to Moses in the mount (Exod. xxv. 9-40). It was not merely a representation of man’s relation to God after his removal from Eden, but also a type of his full recommunion with God in the Paradise to which he shall return at a future period. When St John saw in vision the new Jerusalem, it was Paradise restored — the earth transformed, enlarged, and perfected. There man shall again find the tree of life, and the river of the water of life. There he shall again dwell in the presence of God, and be¬ hold His glory, and serve Him for ever (Rev. xxi. and xxii.) The sanctuary, then, which had been completed by Moses according to the Divine model and directions, was, in a sym¬ bolic form, both a representation of man’s relation to God after his removal from Eden, and also a type of his close fel¬ lowship with God in that perfect state of Paradise which is to come. It consisted of three divisions. Eirst, there was an open court, the entrance into which was from the east. In the centre of the court, and between the gate and the taber¬ nacle, stood the altar of burnt-offering ; and between it and the door of the tabernacle was placed the laver, a considerable quantity of water being required daily for various purposes connected with the Levitical service. Hither every clean 426 SACRIFICIAL WORSHIP IN Hebrew and proselyte of the covenant might come with his offerings. At the west end of this court stood the tabernacle, properly so called. This tabernacle or sanctuary was divided into two apartments. The first was called “ the holy place.” In it were three articles of furniture — to the north the table of shewbread, to the south the golden candlestick, in the centre the altar of incense. In “ the holy place ” only the priests could enter — it was there where they ministered. Beyond this there was another apartment, “ the holy of holies.” In it was only one article of furniture — “ the ark of the covenant,” or “ the ark of testimony,” overshadowed by the wings of the cherubim, above and between which hovered the Shechlnah, or symbol of the Divine presence. Into this apartment only the High Priest entered once a-year, on the Great Day of Atonement, and on that day he also performed the whole work of expiation for Israel. This threefold division of the tabernacle contained a sym¬ bolic representation of three successive stages through which the kingdom of God must pass before it can arrive at its entire completion. In the court was the abode of the covenant people, thus representing the relation in which they stood to God. That “ holy nation,” though called to be “ a king¬ dom of priests,” were yet refused to enter on the duties of their vocation till a future period. These duties, there¬ fore, required to be transferred to a special priesthood of the tribe of Levi. Sin as yet remained under the Divine forbearance : they could not, therefore, come directly to God ; they could not enter His dwelling - place, but could only approach the door. They needed specially appointed priests or mediators to come before God in their stead, to offer their gifts and oblations, and bring back tokens of His acceptance. The triple stage of approach unto God, as set forth simul¬ taneously in the symbolism of the tabernacle, is realised in the progressive development of the kingdom of God. The first stage was the covenant people, when, as possessors of the kingdom of God, they stood in need of priestly mediators ; the second stage is the Christian Church, when the prefigured atonement having been accomplished, its members are able, CONNECTION WITH THE ATONEMENT. 427 in consequence, to exercise their priestly calling and draw near to God. The third stage is that which is still to come, and is now the object of our faith and hope, when the beatific vision typified by the most holy place shall at last have been attained, and the people of God shall be “ set be¬ fore the presence of His glory without blemish in exceeding j°y” That the cherubim were not of Egyptian origin, as main¬ tained by Spencer and Hengstenberg, is obvious from the third chapter of Genesis, where they are said, as has also been shown from the Targums, to have been placed in the original and patriarchal tabernacle, immediately after the Fall. Heng¬ stenberg allies them with the sphinx. “We are specially guided,” he says, “ to the Egyptian origin of the cherubim, since, of all the people with whom the Israelites in ancient times were closely connected, only amongst the Egyptians are compound animals found in history.” 1 But it is an incredible idea that Moses should have taken a heathen emblem of wor¬ ship, and set it in the sacred part of the tabernacle. Such a proceeding would have been a direct sanction of Egyptian idolatry. On the contrary, his great object was to withdraw the Hebrew people from every species and form of animal worship in the midst of which they had lived in Egypt. In some of the Assyrian sculptures recently rescued from the oblivion of thousands of years, there is a more close resem¬ blance to the Biblical description of the cherubim than to the sphinx. We know that compound forms everywhere pre¬ vailed in the ancient world ; but their similarities, great or small, may all be traced to some source. Paganism is but an apostate imitation of patriarchal worship, and during the development of this apostasy men departed more and more from the original simplicity of the truth. This gradual obscuration of the primitive idea is shown by the position these mystic figures occupied in the temples of heathenism. Their usual place was in front of the temple, as the guardians of all that was sacred within. Through a still further corrup¬ tion, they were placed at the portals of the palace where the monarch resided, and also in the vicinity of the royal throne. 1 Egypt and the Books of Moses — the Cherubim. 428 SACRIFICIAL WORSHIP IN For the sovereign was not merely the governor of the nation, but the representative of the Deity. These cherubic figures are therefore represented as watching and ministering to him. “ We have found amongst these Assyrian sculptures,” says Dr Layard, “ three of the animal forms of which the cherubic symbols were composed — to wit, the man, the eagle, and the lion ; and the fourth is not wanting, for the winged bull or ox is one of the ordinary guardians placed at the entrance of the halls and palaces of the old Assyrian empire.” Again he says : “ One of the most interesting and constantly recurring figures met with amongst the remains of ancient Nineveh is that of the Sacrecl Tree , or Tree of Life — so generally adored from a very early period in the East, and which was preserved in the religious system of the Persians till the final overthrow of their empire by their Arabian conquerors. Now we have in those Assyrian remains those winged figures with human bodies exhibited as standing on each side of, and guarding, this sacred tree.” 1 It can thus be easily shown how the supposition of the cherubim originated. After the heathen nations had com¬ pletely lost sight of the true idea of the tabernacle worship at Eden, they imagined that the cherubim had been placed at the entrance of the garden to exclude man, after his re¬ moval from Paradise, from having access to the tree of life. In this apprehension, the difference that exists between the Biblical idea of the cherubim and that which prevailed in heathendom is at once explained. The position of the cher¬ ubim as described in Genesis is within the precincts of the sacred enclosure at Eden, and not, as in heathenism, at the entrance of the temple. The place they occupied in the tabernacle of Moses is also the same. They do not guard the entrance to the holy place, but are in close connection with Jehovah’s throne. With regard to the structure of the cherubim, there is nothing definitively stated either in the earlier or the later Scriptures. It would seem that while certain elements were always understood to enter into their composition, the form given to these was not absolutely fixed, but admitted of cer- 1 Nineveh and its Remains. CONNECTION WITH THE ATONEMENT. 429 tain variations. They are first mentioned in Gen. iii. 24, and it is obvious, from their position on the mercy-seat, that they constituted important parts of the symbolic furniture of God’s first tabernacle in front of the garden of Eden, into which fallen man was inducted on his removal from the forfeited garden. Jehovah instructed Moses to make the same cher¬ ubim or symbolic figures, and to put them into the most holy place ; and He declared that He would there meet with him, and commune with him from above the mercy-seat, from be¬ tween the two cherubim which were upon the ark of the testimony (Exod. xxv. 18-22). The cherubim or seraphim as portrayed in Scripture were composite creatures, consisting of four different animal forms — that of a man, a lion, an ox, and an eagle, — the highest forms of life with which we are acquainted. There was thus concentrated in the composition of the cherubim all that was most strongly characteristic of creaturehood. Hence the Jewish proverb : “Four are the highest in the world — the lion among wild beasts, the ox among tame cattle, the eagle among birds, man among all creatures ; but God is supreme over all.” The explanation is, that in these four kinds are exhibited the highest forms of creature-life on earth, but that God, from whom all life springs, is infinitely exalted above these. Each cherub had four faces, and but one body ; each had the hands of a man, and wings ; and the four faces were — the face of a man, the face of a lion, the face of an ox, and the face of an eagle. It had also its body and back and hands and wings full of eyes, before and behind. It was an ideal combination ; no such creature now exists, nor ever did exist, in the actual universe. It was a symbolic representation of creaturehood in its highest forms of earthly development, and to be rightly understood must be subjected to the laws of symbolic interpretation. How, accord¬ ing to Jewish notions, the lion is the chief of beasts, the eagle of birds, the ox of cattle, while man is lord of all the three. The cherubim are therefore represented as uniting in them¬ selves the chief excellences of all other creatures put together. Thus they have such strength as may most fitly be symbolised by the lion ; such soaring dispositions and energy of action and velocity of motion as can most aptly be represented by 430 SACRIFICIAL WORSHIP IN the eagle ; and such untiring service and submission of obe¬ dience as find their most appropriate symbol in the ox. They have, moreover, the face of a man, denoting intelligence ; they are full of eyes, showing that their penetration far exceeds that of man ; and they have a man’s hand under each of the wings, thereby indicating that the dispensations of Providence have been placed under their agency, and that, as the highest ministers of Jehovah’s power, they are ready to receive His mandates and to carry them into effect. When Isaiah “ saw Jehovah sitting upon a throne high and lifted up,” he saw also the seraphim there. When Ezekiel beheld the cherubim by the river of Chebar, or in the temple of Jerusalem, the Divine glory was above them. When St John saw in vision the cherubim, they were “in the midst of the throne.” This is a position never assigned to any of the angelic host ; we may therefore conclude that there are different orders of celestial beings. The cherubim appear “ in the throne ” as well as “ around it,” implying that theirs is a place of closest proximity to the Divine Being who sat on it. Subordinate spirits are styled “ angels ” — that is, “ messengers ” — inasmuch as it is their office to be sent on the high errands of Divine beneficence and justice throughout God’s wide dominions ; but the cherubim are not mere angels, for all the angels stand round about, and farther from the throne than they. Amongst the unfallen tribes of heaven they are repre¬ sented in Scripture as intelligences of the highest rank — the personal attendants on Deity, the ministers of His presence, and throne-bearers of Jehovah. And since the celestial host have been for Jehovah’s glory, and so have ever been assidu¬ ously employed in showing forth His praise, it was natural to suppose that some would be specially appointed to conduct the devotions of those who worship more immediately before the heavenly throne. Accordingly, when the Upper Sanc¬ tuary is revealed to us in prophetic vision, we see the very cherubim incessantly engaged in taking a leading part in the devotions there. Eor when Isaiah “ saw Jehovah sitting on a throne high and lifted up,” he beheld also those living creatures zealously employed in conducting the devotions of that most holy place, and heard them in alternate responses CONNECTION WITH THE ATONEMENT. 431 exclaiming, “ Holy, holy, holy, is Jehovah of hosts.” And when we transfer our contemplations from the visions of the Old Testament to those of the Hew, and survey the heavenly worship exhibited to the beloved apostle John in the isle of Patmos, we still find it, in its first part, substantially the same as that with which Isaiah had been favoured long before. We have the same living creatures — the cherubim — minister¬ ing before the same Almighty One, who appeared seated on His high and glorious throne, and it is the same “ Holy, holy, holy ” which bursts from their seraphic lips. But in addition to what Isaiah saw, John now sees another band, named twenty- four elders — “ the redeemed from amongst men.” These are associated with the living creatures in the service of praise and adoration. In our Authorised Version, the cherubim are represented not only as giving honour and glory, but also thanks, to Him that sitteth on the throne, and as joining with the elders in the new song that was sung to the Lamb, saying, “ Thou hast redeemed us to God by Thy blood.” But this word us (v/uag) should not be in the verse at all, as it is not warranted by any Greek manuscript of the Apocalypse, and is omitted in the amended Greek Text of Tischendorf and Alford, and also in our Bevised Version of 1881. We need not wonder, therefore, that the common Greek Text of the Apocalypse, from which the Autho¬ rised Version was made, gave rise to the hypothesis that these cherubim, seraphim, or living creatures are to be regarded as symbols of the redeemed and glorified church, and the four- and-twenty elders as the representatives of its ministry. But the cherubim existed before man was formed, or had fallen ; they had led the celestial devotions from the remotest ages, and even when the ransomed of our race had been admitted to communion and fellowship with them before Jehovah’s throne, their elevation, new and wondrous as it was, could furnish no grounds for superseding those elder spirits in their service of praise. Among the Jews, the heads of the tribes, and the leaders of the twenty-four courses into which the priesthood had been divided by David, were styled elders. It is the latter class to which allusion is here made, because they are in such near- 432 SACRIFICIAL WORSHIP IN ness to the throne as to be seated on benches round about it, and only the priesthood might come so close to the symbols of Jehovah’s presence as to he almost in contact with them. The whole church of Israel, as we have already observed, had to he represented in her priesthood. The tabernacle, as completed by Moses according to the Divine model, consisted of three divisions. These represented three successive stages through which the kingdom of God had to pass before it reached its perfect development. The first stage was the covenant people, who, though called “ a kingdom of priests,” were not allowed to enter on the duties of their vocation till a later period. These had, therefore, to be transferred to a special priesthood of the tribe of Levi. Sin as yet remained under the Divine forbear¬ ance. They could not, therefore, approach the dwelling-place of Jehovah, and needed priestly mediators to come before Him, and offer gifts and sacrifices in their stead. The next stage is the Christian Church, when, the prefigured atonement having been made, its members can now exercise their priestly func¬ tions and draw near to God. The final stage is still future, and is now the hope of God’s people ; when, having obtained their complete salvation, they shall be admitted to the beatific vision (typified by the most holy place, and the highest bliss of which any creature is capable), and shall dwell in God’s presence, where “ is fulness of joy,” and which is for evermore. It will be apparent from what has been said, why the ransomed church which John saw in vision should be repre¬ sented by four-and-twenty elders. The whole church of Israel was represented in her priesthood, of which twenty-four elders were the presidents or leaders ; it is, therefore, quite appro¬ priate that the church in her glorified state should be repre¬ sented by this symbolic number rather than any other. The elders, then, are distinct from the cherubim. They are the redeemed and adopted children of God. They are clothed in white robes — the robes of the priesthood — emblematic of the pure robes of a Eedeemer’s righteousness. The cherubim are not similarly arrayed. The elders are permitted with un¬ clouded vision to behold Jehovah’s glory, but the cherubim vail their faces as they minister before Him. The elders occupy thrones, and wear crowns on their heads — they are CONNECTION WITH THE ATONEMENT. 433 spiritual princes — kings and priests unto God and the Lamb. Yet amongst the unfallen tribes of heaven, the cherubim are to be regarded as intelligences of highest rank. They are the personal attendants upon Deity, and serve continually before Him, — the ministers of His presence, ready to execute His commands ; the leaders of His worship, and partakers of very peculiar marks of His favour. The cherubim unite with the elders in ascription of praise to the Lamb. The translation of the amended text of the passage is as follows : “ And when He had taken the book, the four living creatures and the four-and- twenty elders fell down before the Lamb. . . . And they sing a new song, say¬ ing, Worthy art Thou to take the book, and to open the seals thereof : for Thou wast slain, and didst purchase unto God by Thy blood (men) of every tribe, and tongue, and people, and nation, and madest them to be a kingdom and priests, and they reign over the earth.” Then it is taken up and continued by angels in the outer circle, who sing with a loud voice, “ Worthy is the Lamb that has been slain to receive the power, and riches, and wisdom, and strength, and honour, and glory, and blessing.” After this, the song of redemption is extended, and spreads out to “ every created thing which is in heaven, and on the earth, and under the earth, and upon the sea, and all things that are in them ” — all of whom are heard saying, “ Unto Him that sitteth on the throne, and unto the Lamb, be the blessing, and the honour, and the glory, and the domin¬ ion for ever and ever.” The concluding part of the festival is prophetic — as yet we see not all things subjugated to the Son of man. The whole creation groaneth and travaileth in pain together, waiting for the manifestation of the sons of God. Then shall the grave burst its fetters, and the children of God shall become alto¬ gether free from the bondage of corruption. All their long¬ ings and aspirations shall be lost in a jubilee of joy. This is not strange and unknown to us. It foretells that which our faith has laid hold of, our desire has embraced, and to which our hope clings as to an anchor. “ For, according to His pro¬ mise, we expect a new earth in which righteousness shall dwell.” 434 SACRIFICIAL WORSHIP IN This universal anthem having completed its circle, is echoed back to the four living creatures, who respond and close with a profound “ Amen.” They give their full and cordial assent to all that has been sung in Messiah’s praise. And the four-and-twenty elders again fall prostrate before the throne, and in silent adoration worship Him that liveth for ever and ever. In this festival is unfolded the mystery of the Divine Will, that, “ before the foundation of the world,” God “ purposed in Himself ; that, in the dispensation of the fulness of times, He might gather together in one all things in Christ, both which are in heaven, and which are on earth, even in Him ” (Eph. i. 9, 10). When the ten tribes, and the Jews afterwards, forgot their covenant with God, and lapsed into, and obstinately persisted in, idolatry — the very sin for which their predecessors had been expelled from Canaan — Jehovah, as predicted by Moses (Lev. xxvi.), for despising His warnings, and slaying His pro¬ phets, abhorred, and utterly destroyed, their magnificent but then polluted temple, and sent His apostate people into a far distant and long captivity for seventy years. In the course of this lengthened exile the correct knowledge of the cherubic forms became lost to the Jews. The formation of the cheru¬ bim is not fully described in the history of the framing and building of the tabernacle and temple. They were composite figures, consisting of the parts of a man, a lion, an ox, and an eagle: how the parts were united into one creature, and what parts of each were most prominently in view, have not been detailed. The absence of these particulars furnished the Jews with an excuse for being without these emblems in their second temple. Still they were exhibited in vision to Ezekiel at several times during the captivity, and with them he, being a priest, was familiar. “ I knew,” he says, “ that they were the cherubim.” The Jews, however, though they unanimously hold Ezekiel to be a prophet, and those passages to be inspired, yet after their return from Babylon never clearly understood the meaning of the cherubim, and therefore these most sacred emblems in their symbolic worship were not placed in the second temple. CONNECTION WITH THE ATONEMENT. 435 But “in a little while” Jehovah Himself, “the Messenger of the Covenant,” “ the Desire of all nations,” would come to His temple, and His personal appearance would fill the latter house with a greater glory than the symbols of His presence had conferred upon the former. The true meaning indicated by the symbols composing the cherubim was, no doubt, communicated to Adam when he entered into the first tabernacle at Eden. This knowledge appears to have been carefully preserved by him and his be¬ lieving descendants, for the appointed worship of God was for a long time followed by the posterity of Seth ; but at length, mingling with the apostate descendants of Cain, they brought the Church of God to the verge of ruin. The cause of right¬ eousness had but one efficient representative left in the person of Noah. To save him and his family from the wickedness and violence around them, the flood was sent. It swept away from the earth that impious race, while Noah was sustained uninjured in the ark he had been ordered to build. Thus the danger which menaced the only family of God was removed by “ the destruction of those who destroyed the earth.” Through Seth the line of antediluvian patriarchs was con¬ tinued to Noah. Moses has not recorded in the Pentateuch any explanation of the symbolic worship. This singular omission can only be accounted for by the circumstance, that at the time he wrote its true meaning was well known to the faithful. The same cherubic figures of the Adamic tabernacle, or exact patterns of them, were preserved by Noah, and transmit¬ ted by him to his believing descendants. They appear to have remained in the family of Eber till the descent of the children of Israel into Egypt, and to have been brought up by them from thence, for they had a tabernacle or tent sacred to Jehovah before that erected by Moses (Exod. xxxiii. 7-11). Hence, when Moses was commanded to reconstruct the taber¬ nacle, he gave no other direction to the workmen how to fashion the cherubim but merely the name. And so well known were the cherubic figures in his time, that the work¬ men fashioned them without any other description. We learn, 436 SACRIFICIAL WORSHIP IN moreover, from Exod. xxvi. 1-31, that figures resembling the cherubim were also to be worked with cunning work , both on tlu curtains of the tabernacle and on the vail of the holy of holies, and thus shown to the Israelites. After the flood the worship of the heavens gradually spread and prevailed among mankind, yet the apostates to this wor¬ ship observed in effect the same services to their false gods as had by Divine appointment been performed to Jehovah. They mistook the symbolic meaning of the cherubim, and thus the animals composing them became, jointly or severally, the objects of religious worship. They regarded the bull , the lion , and the eagle as the emblems of the different powers in the heavens. Their images have commonly a human body, with the head of a lion, a hawk, or an eagle, and sometimes with that of a bull, a ram, or other horned creatures. These symbols of heathen worship are everywhere met with throughout the world. Divine truth, as we have seen, was taught by the Almighty Eather to His young and earthly family through the medium of signs. Symbolic representations, indeed, constituted no small part of the language and religion of the early age of our race. The frame of nature was combined with our own, as being the most suitable method of enlightening the mind and influencing the heart. It was the kind of intercourse between heaven and earth best adapted for man at that period of his ignorance and weakness. It was that mode of instruction the most easy to apprehend, as well as the most attractive and impressive. The body is the mind’s organ, through which it is informed and directed in regard to external nature. Matter is easier under¬ stood than spirit ; so the world which is visible must first instruct us concerning what is invisible. The material and fleeting objects around us become the first principles of our ideas and language, arriving at conceptions of what is spiritual and eternal. Thus the temporal with us precedes the eternal, not only in the order of time but in the order of our know¬ ledge, and is designed to convey some previous adumbration and glimpse of what is future and beyond the present scene. According to the accurate and philosophic observations of St Paul, we now see only in a mirror darkly — that is, CONNECTION WITH THE ATONEMENT. 437 through the medium of material objects and symbolic repre¬ sentations. Through outward appearances Infinite Beneficence adapts itself to our compound being, in order to reveal His plan of mercy and salvation, and educate us for a higher life to come. Earthly objects were made to convey previous intimations and faint forecastings of future and better things to come ; and this world became the teacher and guide, as it is the passage, to the next. Hence typical objects, beings, and actions, symbolical names, allusions, and descriptions, have had the indubitable seal of Divine sanction and institution, and have been retained and perpetuated in every successive development of the system of grace, and throughout every period of the church and of the world. But they were more especially termed “ the elements of the world ” when applied to that rudimental method of instruc¬ tion which God prepared for the early minority and untutored pupilage of mankind. Still, by “ the elements of the world ” the apostle refers not merely to the typical objects and insti¬ tutes of the Mosaic law, but also to the visible objects and elements of nature — the sun, moon, and stars, and all those works of the Creator which were the teachers of His attributes and the preachers of His righteousness to the heathen world, as the former were to the Jews. Hence, Philosophy was to the one what the Law was to the other. We have both beauti¬ fully combined in Psalm xix. Divine wisdom is marvellously shown in the symbolic method of training the human race for higher attainments, — for enabling the human mind to rise above the things of sense and time to what is spiritual and eternal. It was not only an initiatory process adapted to our capacities and compound nature, but fitted to sustain our faith and confirm our anti¬ cipations of those spiritual truths and unseen realities which constitute our moral wellbeing and our future bliss. Thus the teaching by types and symbols has a most important bear¬ ing upon religion and morals. It employs the objects of sense and the events of life in the service of truth, and in the confirmation of faith. It shows by signs and the irresistible evidence of events that we are under the development of a plan in which things are progressing onward to what is en- 438 SACRIFICIAL WORSHIP IN during and better, — from small and feeble beginnings to great and glorious results ; that if God 1ms begun, He will go on, and accomplish what He has undertaken. Plato, one of the most refined of the heathen sages, con¬ sidered the material world to be a type of the spiritual world, and that every object of sense is formed after the pattern of something spiritual or intellectual. His axiom was, Things perceptible by the senses are resemblances of things intellectual or spiritual.1 This maxim, together with many others, he was most probably taught in Egypt, as one of the early traditions of the East. The Jews held the same principle, handed down to them, no doubt, from the same source, that “ everything that is on earth is also in heaven ” — that is, everything visible is a type of something that has its original in the invisible. Even the abstract sciences fail to reach our understanding and produce conviction without sensible signs to illustrate them. As we require diagrams and letters to demonstrate the propositions of geometry, and letters and signs to solve alge¬ braic equations, so we require the types and symbols of the Law and the Prophets to understand the nature and feel the influence of “ the powers of the age to come.” The ark was a small chest, made of acacia wood, and over¬ laid both within and without with gold. It was 2J cubits long, and 1J high and broad. In the ark there was the tes¬ timony — that is, the two tables of stone — which Moses brought down from the holy mount, containing the ten words, or the moral law, written by the finger of God. And in some re¬ pository by its side were placed the golden pot of manna, Aaron’s rod that budded, and a copy of the Pentateuch or Five Books of Moses. Hence it was called the ark of the cov¬ enant and testimony , because it contained the tables of God’s law, and the book of the covenant made with Israel; and itself was a pledge of that covenant with them (Exod. xxxix. 35 ; Deut. xxxi. 25, 26). It was called the ark of God’s strength , because it was the residence of the symbol of His presence and the pledge of the manifestation of His power. Its lid was called the capporeth or covering — rendered in Eng¬ lish, the propitiatory or mercy -seat. This was eminently typical 1 “ Ta alcr9r)Ta tuv votjtmv /xi/j.-rj/xara.” CONNECTION WITH THE ATONEMENT. 439 of Christ, for He covers our guilt, as the mercy-seat did the tables of the law. Hence He is called our propitiation (Eom. iii. 25 ; 1 John ii. 2), for, standing between God and man, God looks on the law through Him, and accepts His righteousness on our behalf. Out of the two ends of the lid were hammered two golden cherubs, which, by their wings ex¬ tended forward, seemed to form a throne for the majesty of God (as we have already observed), and the ark itself was, as it were, His footstool (Ps. xcix. 5 and cxxxii. 8). ISTor is there anything disparaging in such an epithet being applied to it ; for though it is usual in the figurative language of Holy Scripture, and by way of accommodation to our capacities, to ascribe to the Supreme Being not only the passions and affec¬ tions of the human soul, but likewise the members and organs of the body, yet the spiritual nature of God is all glorious — there is no base thing in Him. If, then, the feet of those who preach the Gospel of peace are said to be beautiful (Eom. x. 15), how much more is all that is in Him beautiful and glorious ! Accordingly, when foretelling by His prophet Isaiah the light that should come upon His church (or sanc¬ tuary) in the latter days, when the Sun of Eighteousness should arise and shine upon it, He says, “ and I will make the place of My feet glorious.” The cherubim stood with the human faces opposite to each other, and seemed to pore upon the mercy-seat. St Peter alludes to this when, speaking of the glory that should follow the sufferings of Christ, he says, “ which things the angels desire to look into” (1 Pet. i. 12). The cherubim looked down upon the mercy-seat, but they looked not one towards another, for then they should have had their faces towards the Shechlnah, the glorious Majesty, which they could not endure to behold. And here the incarnation presents to us a most interesting view of God, for the vail of our nature has thereby been placed between us and Him to cover His Majesty. “Ho man can see His face and live,” but we may see His glory shining with a mild radiance and a shaded lustre in the person of His Son, — not so intense as to prevent us from ap¬ proaching Him, or deter us from imitating Him, but drawing us to Him by most powerful attractions, and teaching us to 440 SACRIFICIAL WORSHIP AND THE ATONEMENT. aspire to the imitation and the enjoyment of the Father of our spirits. We are brought near to God by the incarnation of His Son, who assumed our nature that we might rise to the resemblance of His ; and, by imitating His example and imbib¬ ing His spirit, might become qualified for being put in full possession of the glorious privileges of the sons of God. THE PERSON OF CHRIST, AND THE INFLUENCE OF HIS TEACHING ON THE WORLD. “ What think ye of Christ ? whose son is He ? ” This ques¬ tion was put by our Lord to the Jews as He was teaching in the temple. The Pharisees, Herodians, and Sadducees, sects in themselves the most discordant and hostile, united to¬ gether on this occasion to entangle Him in His talk, — just as Pormalists unite with Eationalists and Sceptics in the present day in opposing Scripture truth. If men will not study carefully and sincerely God’s Eevealed Word, and the claims of Christ therein set forth, the consequence is that they are left in judicial blindness. The questions which, on this occa¬ sion, were proposed to our Lord for His solution were captious, subtle, and ensnaring. But the efforts of the interrogators only recoiled upon themselves, and produced a result very different from what they had intended. The questions were merely in¬ dicative of the motives by which they were prompted ; while our Lord by His replies gave the most convincing proofs of His heavenly wisdom. At no time of His ministry could the people have more appropriately declared in reference to His teaching, “ Never man spake like this man.” At length, having silenced all their cavils, and left them nothing further to say, He Himself became the Examiner, and put some questions to them. Addressing the Pharisees, He 442 THE PERSON OF CHRIST, AND THE asked them, saying, “ What think ye of Christ ? whose son is He ? ” — -whose son, in other words, do ye expect the Messiah promised to the fathers to be ? This was a question which they could readily answer. They said unto Him, “ The son of David.” Their Scriptures had so plainly foretold this fact, and the belief of it was so general, that the epithet, “ the son of David,” was one commonly used by the Jews as descriptive of their promised and expected Deliverer. “ Have mercy upon us, thou son of David,” was the language frequently addressed to Jesus by those who sought relief at His hands, and wished to testify their faith in His power and character. And on that memorable occasion when He publicly entered Jerusalem in triumph as a king, the populace welcomed Him, amid other acclamations of joy, with these expressive words, “ Hosanna to the Son of David.” The Pharisees, therefore, had no difficulty in replying to our Lord’s question, when He asked them whose son Christ was to be. Without hesitation they said, “ The son of David.” Upon this reply He proceeded to state a difficulty they could not so easily solve. He said unto them, “ How then doth David in spirit call Him Lord ? ” The Pharisees understood from prophecy that Christ should be “ of the house and lineage of David,” and the Scribes admitted that the 110th Psalm spake of Christ and of no other person. On this Psalm, thus admitted and understood, our Lord grounded the question which He proposed to the Pharisees. If David applies to Christ a term which no father uses towards a son — if he speaks of Him as a superior — how then is He no more than “ David’s son,” a child of Adam ? Here a difficulty was involved. How could such opposite and seemingly contra¬ dictory statements be reconciled ? How could Christ be both David’s Lord and David’s son ? To this question the Phari¬ sees were unable to reply. They attempted not, or could not undertake, to solve the difficulty contained in it. They con¬ fessed their inability by their silence ; for “ no man was able to answer Him a word ; ” and, indeed, so complete was the success of this trial, that “ neither durst any man from that day forth ask Him any more ” such captious and ensnaring “ questions.” But the question which our Lord put to the Jews, and by INFLUENCE OF HIS TEACHING ON THE WORLD. 443 which they were so puzzled and put to silence, is one which every Christian who has any understanding of Gospel truth can clearly and satisfactorily answer. The solution of the difficulty lies in the union of two natures in the Person of Christ. As God, Christ is David’s Lord ; while as man, He was David’s son. Our Lord might have given this answer to the Jews, and thus explained to them the seeming difficulty as soon as He had raised it. But such an explanation He did not at that time deem it expedient to make. He had already given them ample proofs of His Divinity as well as of His manhood ; hut the prejudices of their minds, and the carnality of their hearts, and their obstinate unbelief and impenitence, prevented them from receiving this testimony ; and to have given any further explanations or statements would have conduced to no benefi¬ cial purpose. He therefore reserved it till the evidence should be fully completed by His resurrection from the dead. Then would He be declared by that stupendous act of Omnipotence “ to be the Son of God with power.” Then would the Spirit be poured out from on high, and become an additional and unanswerable witness to the truth of this great and funda¬ mental doctrine of Christianity. But though our Lord did not, on this occasion, expound the meaning of His question to the Jews, yet He afterwards gave an explanation to St John in the winding up of the Apocalypse. “ I am,” He said, the “ root and the offspring of David.” As man, He was born of the Virgin Mary, and of the lineage of David, and deriving from her, through the agency of the Holy Spirit, that human nature in which “ He died for our sins, and was raised for our justification,” and is now seated at the right hand of God, “ till His enemies shall have been made His footstool.” Here, then, is presented to our contemplation that great object of our faith — the incarnation of the Son of God — the Word made flesh — the manifestation of Jehovah in human nature — the wonderful and glorious Person of our Bedeemer as God and man in one Christ. This is the great object especially brought before the Jews in the question here put to them. But this is not the only portion of Scripture in which this doctrine is clearly taught. It is so interwoven with every 444 THE PERSON OF CHRIST, AND THE page of the New Testament, that no part can be properly understood without an immediate or implied relation to it. The light which we thus possess under the Gospel is superior to that possessed by the Jews. The great truths and doctrines of religion, which were only dimly revealed to them by prophecy, or obscurely taught by types and shadows, are clearly made known to us under the Dispensation of the Spirit, and are written and declared in language so plain that “ he may run that readeth.” So that what the Lord Jesus said to His disciples individually, may now be said to all who live under the light of the Gospel — “ to you it is given to know the mysteries of the kingdom of God.” At the same time, it is not meant that there are now no mysteries in our Holy Religion — that Christianity proposes to our faith no truths which are not level to our understanding, and lie not within the reach and compass of our reason. This is not, and cannot be, the case. Let reason begin where it may, it must begin with that which is above our reason. If we were to set aside truths merely because we cannot comprehend them, then by such a process we must be brought step by step to the inevi¬ table consequence of rejecting all Religion whatsoever, Natural as well as Revealed. Ror the same objections brought against the one may with equal force be brought against the other. Reason can thus acquire no advantage by repudiating Revela¬ tion, for the mysteries of Revelation are also the mysteries of Reason. The first principle we have to learn in investigating Natural and Revealed truth is, that a line of demarcation must be drawn between the knowable and the unknowable- — the comprehensible and the incomprehensible ; that certain truths lie within the limits of the human mind, and that certain other truths lie wholly beyond its grasp. Take, for example, the foundation of all religious belief — the existence of a God. We believe that He exists, because we have the evidence of our own consciousness. To deny this truth is to violate the fundamental principles of our intellectual and moral nature ; yet we cannot comprehend God’s absolute essence. Our primary belief testifies most decidedly to the reality of certain attributes, such as power, wisdom, and goodness, belonging to the Divine nature, but it INFLUENCE OF HIS TEACHING ON THE WORLD. 445 makes no declaration as to their number. We know that God is possessed of all perfections ; hut whether these are limited or unlimited in number, it is impossible to say. No human intellect can ever attain to a full knowledge of all the attri¬ butes of God, or even to a full knowledge of any of them. We cannot search out the Almighty unto perfection. We can only know Him so far as He has been pleased to reveal Him¬ self in His word and in His works, in adaptation to the con¬ stitution of our finite nature. Again, take the doctrine of the Trinity in Unity. Revela¬ tion plainly teaches that in the unity of the Godhead there are three Persons ; but the mode of their existence it does not explain, because this is a mystery above our comprehension. It is only to the fact, therefore, that we must look. The Trinity is a mystery which has been unfolded to no prophet in vision, which no inspired apostle has described, which no created intelligence can grasp. It is, and necessarily must be, a matter of faith. If we cannot comprehend God’s absolute being, how can we comprehend the mode in which three differ¬ ent Persons, coequal and coeternal, subsist in one Godhead or undivided essence. The real question comes to be, whether the teaching of Scripture or the teaching of human reason is to prevail with us. If reason is to be the judge of Scripture, we cannot follow its guidance up to a certain point and then stop when we find it inconvenient to proceed any further. There is no break in the chain of consequences. Rationalism inevi¬ tably leads to Pantheism, Pantheism to Atheism, and Atheism is but Rationalism unconvinced and confounded. What then becomes of man, if he finds that natural reason cannot satisfy the wants of his moral nature ? But let us pass on from the union between the three Infinite Persons in the Godhead to the next great doctrine of Scrip¬ ture, the union of the Infinite and the finite in the Person of Christ, so that He is both David’s Lord and David’s son. Here again, as before, this fact is altogether inconceivable by Reason — how the Divine and human natures can coalesce into perfect unity in the one Person of Christ. The coexistence of the Infinite and the finite is a problem which human reason is not competent to solve. But it is in vain to seek for a religion 446 THE PERSON OF CHRIST, AND THE within the compass of hare reason, for we shall not find it, and that simply because no such thing exists. If we dream for a moment that it does exist, this only emanates from a feeling of inability or unwillingness to pursue reason to its logical consequences. Why, so far are we from being able to comprehend the Divine nature as to the mode of its existence or of acting, that we cannot comprehend the mode of our own existence or of acting ! Take, for example, the connection between Mind and Matter. How can their reciprocal action be explained ? How is it that the will determines the motion of the limbs ? What is the medium of connection between the material brain and the mental perception ? The various hypotheses to which Philosophy has had recourse to account for causation, are but so many confessions of the existence of the mystery, and of the extraordinary yet wholly unavail¬ ing efforts made by human reason to penetrate it. The doctrine of causation is as much a mystery in the department of Science as in that of Theology. It is a fundamental axiom with the philosopher as well as with the theologian that every effect must have a cause, but beyond the knowledge of this fact we cannot go. The difficulties, then, which Rationalism professes to find in Scripture are not peculiar to Revelation, but exist also in our own constitution. It would be strange if we should be able to know more of the Divine Nature than we do of ourselves. Reason, when it keeps within its proper province, may be most usefully employed in the defence of Religion, both Natural and Re¬ vealed; but when it passes beyond its fixed limits, and devi¬ ates from the path of legitimate investigation — mistaking the unknowable for what may be reached by the human under¬ standing — it arrives only in the region of absurd and inco¬ herent speculation. We have thus, though but briefly, shown that the same mysteries which we meet with in the Bible are found also in Mental and in Physical Science. They are not peculiar to Revelation, but inherent in the constitution of our intellectual nature, and are such as no system can ever avoid or over¬ come. Revelation was never intended to teach us anything which we could learn by our natural faculties. But the Trin- INFLUENCE OF HIS TEACHING ON THE WORLD. 447 ity, Incarnation, Atonement of Christ, &c., are not doctrines discoverable by reason. If so, then reason can be no judge of what Eevelation teaches. Nevertheless, reason holds a very high office with respect to Eevelation. In a matter of such high importance as to whether God has spoken to us or not, we are bound to examine most scrupulously the genuine¬ ness and authenticity of the records in which the doctrines of Eevelation are contained, and the value of the testimony on which they rest. We are bound further to consider that though the doctrines peculiar to Eevelation could not be dis¬ covered by human reason, nor, even after they are known, can be comprehended by the human faculties, yet that in no case they violate the dictates of pure reason ; that they are above it, but not contrary to it. There is no chasm between the teachings of God in Nature and in Eevelation ; for a Eevela¬ tion must come from the same Being who formed the mind of man and the constitution of Nature, and we cannot suppose that His Word can ever contradict His Works, or that He should command us to believe any doctrine which our con¬ science and our moral powers compel us to reject. A Eevela¬ tion that professes to come to us from God must be of an ennobling and purifying character, and fitted to prepare us here, as far as our present condition permits, for that higher life to come to which moral responsibility points, before we can submit ourselves to its teachings. A Eevelation from God must be commensurate with the whole of Man. It must make us better intellectually and morally, and show us the true end of our present and future existence. We know of no way by which this examination of God’s Word can be accom¬ plished except by reason. But in admitting this fact, we must be careful to emancipate reason from the thraldom of those prejudices which tend to overrule its decisions, other¬ wise we shall measure Scripture doctrines by the strength of our biasses and preconceptions. Eevelation has nothing to fear from the strictest scrutiny, provided that it be fairly conducted. We would, therefore, ask those who have been so unfortunate as to have got entangled in the meshes of scepti¬ cism and unbelief, which are sometimes spread over the pages of journals and periodicals of the present day, to examine 448 THE PERSON OF CHRIST, AND THE with care and minuteness the whole of the evidences for the claims of the Christian faith — the genuineness of the docu¬ ments ; the credibility of the writers ; the fulfilment of pro¬ phecy ; the reality of the miracles both of the Old and New Testaments ; the order and unity of design which run through¬ out the entire Volume of Revelation. Examine those rites and ceremonies of the elder economy as typical of Christ, so strange and meaningless without Him. Consider those predictions of the promised Messiah, whose meaning is ren¬ dered still more clear by the futile Rationalism which has striven to pervert them. Contemplate the character of Jesus Christ Himself — that picture transcending all records of human goodness ever drawn, which has exercised its mysterious power over the minds of men for eighteen centuries, and which the Spirit proceeding from Him has made a bond uniting them in faith and love to Himself, and thus knitting them together man to man by the sympathies of a common brotherhood. Of the events of His youthful years we are ignorant, though imagination has filled up the space left vacant by the Evange¬ lists with all kinds of legendary stories. But they are all fic¬ titious. We complain not that we know so little concerning His youth and mental development. What we do know of this period is enough — that “ the child grew, and waxed strong in spirit, filled with wisdom ; and the grace of God was upon Him.” The only incident which marks this long interval of silence is His appearing at an early age in the temple at Jerusalem, sitting in the midst of the Jewish doctors, “ both hearing them, and asking them questions.” Erom this simple incident we may learn what were the occupations of His youth¬ ful mind. Even at that early age we see Him entering into the merciful purposes of His Father towards fallen men; and while unknown to men, yet preparing His mind to become the Teacher and the Saviour of the world. As He advanced in years, His human faculties gradually expanded, and He became more and more conscious of the miraculousness of His own person ; hut till the commencement of His ministry, He ful¬ filled the duties of life like any other man, and no doubt assisted in His foster-father’s handicraft — for He, as well as Joseph, was called “ the carpenter in Nazareth.” He was wise INFLUENCE OF HIS TEACHING ON THE WORLD. 449 and loving in all the relations of society, for He was holy and without sin. Words of power must have been continually dropping from His lips, and His deeds were an unerring ex¬ ample to those around. Still His relations and acquaintances did not suspect, from what they saw in a youth so pure, in a man so faultless, that incarnate Deity was dwelling among them. He kept His own miraculous Person a secret, waiting until His Father should give Him a sign to come forth to bear testimony to His Divine mission. At length the hour of His public career arrived. It was suddenly declared that a prophet had come, and was proclaim¬ ing the Messiah in the wilderness. The sound fell upon the ear of the people like the rolling of thunder. Ancient prophecy had predicted that from Israel the promised Redeemer was to come. Had the Jews preserved their power and importance among the nations, they might probably have paid too little attention to the prophetic declarations concerning their Deliv¬ erer ; but they had long been a humbled and depressed people. This made them keenly scan all the intimations of prophecy respecting this Personage ; and so completely were they conver¬ sant with all the records concerning Him, that they had ascer¬ tained when, in conformity with these predictions, He ought to be born. As the time of His advent drew nigh, the exactions of their foreign enemies became more and more exorbitant, and their increasing oppression maddened the people beyond en¬ durance. They writhed under the chain which bound them to the earth ; each lip muttered revenge for the evils under which they groaned ; each eye was turned, as the only hope, to a tem¬ poral Deliverer ; while every prophetic description of the quiet and peaceful nature of Messiah’s reign was lost in their yearn¬ ings for that terrible requital which they thought the future held out. There may have been some among the Jews, here and there, who could look beyond the veiled imagery of the prophets, and recognise the peaceful mission of Him who was “ to preach the Gospel to the poor, and to heal the broken-hearted,” but they were too few to influence the public mind. Ho sect into which the Jewish populace was divided — except it may have been the Essenes, who devoted their whole time to the study 2 F 450 THE PERSON OF CHRIST, AND THE of the inner meaning of the Scriptures — seem ever to have taken a spiritual view of Messiah as the Prince of Peace, or to have expected anything but the fulfilment of their own visions of conquest and dominion. Formerly they had been obeyed by the surrounding nations, now they were sunk into the lowest degradation. The sceptre had been taken from the hands of Judah. It was therefore time that Shiloh should come. Tradition, too, had said that sad would be the ordeal through which Israel should pass, before the time of their deliverance came. Convulsed by the impotence of rage and despair, they asked, Was not this the night of sorrow which was to precede the dawning of the light ? As in olden times of calamity, men dreamed dreams, while the people continued watching through the dark fortunes of Israel for the coming of the Mighty One, who was to scatter and destroy the uncir¬ cumcised and the accursed, and sweep them away as chaff be¬ fore the whirlwind. FTo people on earth had a more bitter consciousness of their present state ; it is not possible, therefore, to imagine an event which could so thoroughly move the national mind as the tidings that “ the forerunner of the Messiah had come.” Its effects were visible in all the circumstances and business of life — all minds were fixed upon this one topic, all tongues spoke of it, and Judea’s population speedily gathered round the man of God. The scene was such as no man living had ever seen before — what no man had ever seen for 400 years. John stood before the people in the garb of Elijah, clothed in sack¬ cloth — the old emblem of prophetic sorrow for the sins of Israel — and he cried out to the multitude who had come to him in the desert, “ Ptepent ye, for the kingdom of heaven is at hand ; make straight the way of the Lord. For after me cometh a greater One, who shall baptise with the Holy Ghost and with fire.” Among the thousands whom he addressed, there was the Pharisee, covered from head to heel with the marks of his sanctity, the most scornful of men, but now, for once, divested of his spiritual pride; there was the haughty Scribe, splen¬ didly attired, the expounder of the law ; there was the lordly Sadducee, the man of affected philosophy ; there was the pub¬ lican, the tribute-gatherer, conscious of his extortions ; there INFLUENCE OF HIS TEACHING- ON THE WOULD. 451 was tlie soldier, whose feelings had been hardened by the habits of his life, smitten and subdued. The words of the prophet penetrated all bosoms ; men of all ranks yielded to the impressions produced, and were baptised of John in Jor¬ dan, “ confessing their sins.” Baptism denotes the washing of persons in token of their dedication to God. The rite is ancient, and probably com¬ menced immediately after the flood. Jacob and his family purified themselves before they approached unto God at Bethel (Gen. xxxv. 2). The Israelites washed themselves before they entered into covenant with God at Sinai (Exod. xix. 14). After the Jews had circumcised their proselytes, they washed them in water ; but immersion in water was not the initiatory rite by which they were grafted into the Jewish Church, but only one of the ablutions obligatory on those who were already members of that Church. The baptism of John, however, had a wider basis than the custom of ablution under the law — it was that of repentance or reformation as a preparation for the reception of the kingdom of God ; it was a solemn recognition of that great article of Jewish belief, the appearance of the Messiah, accompanied with the additional assurance that it was nigh at hand. The J ewish mind was quite familiarised with ablution as a symbol of puri¬ fication. Very natural, therefore, and very appropriate, was the language of the prophets when describing the nature of the new covenant. Clean water, it was said, was to be sprinkled on those to whom, by the power of the Spirit, a heart of flesh would be given (Ezek. xxxvi. 25-27); a fountain was in that day to be opened for sin and for uncleanness (Zech. xiii. 1). Hence the Jews regarded baptism as a symbol of the near approach of the Messiah’s kingdom ; and hence their question¬ ing of John why, if he were not Elias, the immediate herald of Messiah, he presumed to baptise. John had received direct mission from God to baptise with water (John i. 33). It was not that, finding baptism or lustra¬ tion in use, he adopted it as deeming it a fit symbol of his mission, but that God, when he sent John to baptise with water, took the idea already familiar to the nation, and in¬ vested it with new significance. This is the plan which the 452 THE PERSON OF CHRIST, AND THE wisdom of God lias invariably followed in the arrangement of successive Dispensations. He has never introduced new rites without retaining some of the former. When He introduced O the Legal Economy, the simple ritual of the Patriarchal was not entirely set aside, but it was rather amplified and extended into a regular system of prefigurations of “ good things to come.” The mission of John constituted a distinct era, — it was one of preparation — it announced the immediate appear¬ ance of Messiah. The rite he administered was well known before — it was derived from the purifications of the Law, and applied at this time to a special purpose. John’s baptism was intended to indicate that purity of heart and reformation of life which were the only suitable preparations for Messiah’s advent. The baptism of John was of the same kind as that which Christ authorised His disciples to perform during His abode on earth ; for in the preaching of John, and in the language of our Lord when He sent out His disciples to baptise, we find a perfect identity — “ Eepent ye, for the kingdom of God is at hand.” It was the baptism for the remission of sin — important in the way of preparation — but, unless accompanied with the gift of the Spirit, did not confer that benefit. There may be a temporary reformation, or an appearance of repentance, when the heart is still unsubdued. The multitudes who once seemed moved by our Lord’s ministry and that of His forerunner, gradually became offended when the kingdom which they eagerly anticipated was declared to be of a spiritual nature, and was unattended by secular pomp and display. The parable of the house left for a season by an evil spirit, swept and gar¬ nished, to which he returned with seven more wicked than himself, is generally understood to represent this transient repentance of the Jewish nation, together with its subsequent apostasy. Our Lord during His personal ministry came seeking fruit of Israel, but there was none to be found except a little band of disciples who had gathered around Him. These knew that He was the Son of the living God. They were “ born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God.” Still, they were not the Christian Church. They were the INFLUENCE OF HIS TEACHING ON THE WORLD. 453 materials out of which it was to he composed. They were charged by their Lord not to depart from Jerusalem, but to “ wait for the promise of the Lather, which, saith He, ye heard of Me. Lor John truly baptised with water; but ye shall be baptised with the Holy Ghost not many days hence.” And on the day of Pentecost He did descend, and the disciples assembled in the upper chamber were all filled with the Holy Ghost. The Christian Church thus came into actual existence. The hundred and twenty disciples were now incorporated in one by the presence of the Holy Ghost. They had not received the Christian baptism of water, but that of the Holy Ghost, of which the baptism by water was but a symbol. John, and our Lord’s disciples till after the ascension, did not baptise in the name of the Triune God. The baptism they administered was a rite merely introductory to that higher baptism to be insti¬ tuted by Christ. He incorporated the rite of lustration under the Law into the Hew Testament Church, and conformed it to the peculiar views and objects of the last and perfect Dispen¬ sation. Immediately before His ascension, He empowered His Apostles to “ make disciples in all nations, baptising them in the name of the Lather, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost.” In these words, in which He instituted the rite of baptism, He inserted His own name between those of the Lather and the Holy Ghost, indicating thereby that He Himself is par¬ ticipant of the Divine Essence. Baptism is one of the two ordinances or sacraments which Christ bequeathed to His Church. Together they contain the central truths of Chris¬ tianity. Baptism represents the mystery of the Trinity ; and the Supper — the rudiments of which are perceptible in the Passover — shows the body and blood of Christ given for the sin of the world. The scheme of Redemption will thus be seen to have gradually progressed from one stage to a higher, until it reached its full development in the Christian Revelation. Among those who came to John to be baptised by him was Jesus Himself, then about thirty years of age. John knew Him as He whose life from the beginning had been sinless, and who needed no repentance or purification, and therefore was surprised that He should seek such a rite at his hands, and would rather have sought baptism from Him, as from One 454 THE PERSON OF CHRIST, AND THE higher and greater, “ whose shoe’s latchet he was not worthy to unloose.” But Jesus hade him perform his office even for Him, saying, “ Suffer it to be so now, for thus it becometh us to fulfil all righteousness.” This decisive reply completely removed his scruples as to his fitness for the function he was asked to perform, and he complied. Christ was born of a woman, and made under the law, that in our nature He might fulfil for us all the righteousness which the law prefigured. But it was not to repentance that He was baptised, for He had no sin, and needed no purification. His baptism in Jordan was a prophetic type of that bloody baptism in which, as the Lamb of God, He was to bear away our guilt ; it was also His consecration by the Holy Spirit to the office on which He was now to enter — the inaugural rite of that new Dispensation of which He was to he the Mediator. In attestation of this great truth, an awful sign was displayed, whether to others than John we know not. From the opened heaven the Spirit descended like a dove and lighted upon Jesus, while the Father’s voice audibly declared Him to he the incarnate Son of God. When John says that he knew not Jesus, we must clearly understand the meaning of his statement. He had been brought up at Hebron, which was about ninety miles southward of Naza¬ reth, so he had probably seen Him but little, yet enough to awaken within him the sentiment which at length deepened into conviction. He must have known the circumstances of his own birth, and have been informed that the child born six months after was designated as the individual to whom he was to bear testimony. Before Jesus had approached him at Jordan, he spoke of Him as a person much greater than himself, and so could not be unconscious of all that pointed Him out as the expected One. But he was ignorant of His Divine nature, and did not know till the supernatural sign was given that He was the Son of God. “ I have seen,” he says, “ and have borne witness that this is the Son of God.” He now knew Him as erewhile he had known Him not. He comprehended that great mystery in the same way as Peter did when he said, “ Thou art the Christ, the son of the living God.” After His baptism He was led away by the Spoirit into the wilderness, and there encountered mysterious temptations — becoming by experience INFLUENCE OF HIS TEACHING ON THE WORLD. 455 the better able to sympathise with and succour His people in their temptations. After this victory over Satan had been achieved, Jesus retired for a short while into Galilee, waiting for His hour and the Father’s command to lift up his voice as the world’s Teacher, before He laid down His life as the world’s Victim. He came back to the place where John was baptising, for He knew that His forerunner must bear witness of Him, and that his testimony was now ready. John, seeing Jesus walking in silent meditation by the Jordan, in accordance with the revela¬ tion made to him from heaven, fixed his eye upon Him whose way he was sent to prepare. He testified of Him, that this was “ He who baptiseth with the Holy Ghost.” He saw that His day had now come, and said, “ Behold the Lamb of God, that taketli away the sin of the world,” Gentiles as well as Jews. The people turned round, and marvelled no doubt at his words, but what effect they produced we are not told. However, on the next day the same testimony to Jesus, still walking thus, was repeated, “ Behold the Lamb of God ! ” Its meaning was then understood ; two of John’s disciples, Andrew, and pro¬ bably John, at once attached themselves to Jesus, and were bound to His cause for life. Jesus, after receiving this testimony from John, went forth as the Herald of His own Gospel. He traversed Judea, pro¬ claiming, “ I am the light of the world ; as many as follow Me shall not walk in the darkness, but shall have the light of life.” Crowds attracted by His deeds and by His words thronged Him everywhere. They brought unto Him diseased persons, chiefly such as were incurable by physicians, and He healed them all. In His sermon on the Mount (on the hill now called Hattin), He expounded the nature of the Divine Law in all its purity and extent. He announced to His hearers many important doctrines of His kingdom ; He explained the nature of prayer, of almsgiving, and of fasting. This discourse astonished all who heard Him, for He taught as with Divine authority. At Capernaum a great multitude assembling to hear Him, Jesus retired from the city to the shore, and taught the people from a boat. By the parable of Seed falling by the Wayside , and on the Stony , Thorny , and Good Soil, He represented the dif- 456 THE PERSON OF CHRIST, AND THE ferent effects of the Gospel on careless, hard-hearted, worldly- minded, and serious hearers. By that of the Tares among the Wheat , He showed that hypocrites would continue among the saints till the end of this world, when they would he sepa¬ rated. By the Gradual Groivth of Corn, He represented the gradual hut imperceptible growth of His Church, and of the graces of His people. By the parable of the Grain of Mustard Seed, He showed that it becomes a great tree capable of afford¬ ing shelter to the fowls of the air ; so His Church from small beginnings would gradually spread out its branches in every direction, and a variety of birds would seek shelter under its branches — not of one particular kind, but of different sorts : individuals would come into it out of every nation under heaven, and become one great family, members of the house¬ hold of faith. By that of the Leaven, He announced that the leaven he left in the world would work and leaven mankind. By that of the Treasure hid in the Field, He declared that Himself and His truth, found in the field of His Word, would with every wise man far overbalance every other consideration. By that of the Pearl of Great Price, He showed that men should possess themselves of Him and the blessings of the Gospel at whatsoever cost. By that of the Net cast into the Sea, He represented that by means of the Gospel Dispensation many of different kinds and nations would be brought into the Church, and that in the day of judgment the good would be separated from the bad. By the parable of the Pounds dis¬ tributed by a Nobleman to his Servants till he should return from a Far Country, He represented that He Himself would quickly ascend into heaven, to receive His glorious kingdom, and would return at “ the restitution of all things ” to judge the world; that it was only such as improved the gifts given them that would receive a suitable reward, while those who had made no use of the trust committed to them would be “ cast ” from His presence into “ outer darkness.” The ministry of J esus Christ, as narrated by the Evangelists, was one continued series of journeyings, full of untiring energy and patient endurance. His tender and affectionate kindness strike us in every word He utters, and in every act He per¬ forms. Gentle as the gentlest child, yet He rebuked with INFLUENCE OF HIS TEACHING ON THE WORLD. 457 inflexible sternness the proud, the covetous, and the hypocri¬ tical. Although He had unsullied purity of thought and life, yet He had a heart of such large and comprehensive sympathy that the very outcasts of society could come to Him for counsel and succour, and He never sent them away without comfort and relief. He did not shrink from such a loathsome object as a leper. Hitherto human skill had been powerless against this frightful malady. But when Jesus with kind eye looked upon him, He was moved with compassion, and did not disdain with His pure hand to touch the suppliant, and said, “ Be thou clean.” The corrupt disfigurement of the body disap¬ peared, the skin resumed its natural hue, and fresh blood flowed healthily through the veins. His disciples believed He had power to do all things. They had seen Him walk upon the sea, while it sustained Him ; they heard Him speak as He entered the ship on the crest of the troubled wave, and the storm was hushed into a calm. He was all love, all com¬ passion. all beneficence. His whole life is an epitome of His sublime and amiable religion. It admirably accords with that dispensation which He came to announce. He appeared among us “ full of grace and truth.” His love and His sympathy attested His Divinity, no less than the ancient predictions and the miracles which He ever and again performed. He loved mankind as He loved Himself. “ He went about continually doing good.” He healed the sick and gave sight to the blind. He made the lame man leap as an hart, and the tongue of the dumb sing. He taught the livelong day, and restored them to health, yet at the close of His fatiguing labours “ He had not where to lay His head.” His was a life of hardship unparal¬ leled among men. No reward attended His ministry ; and what is frequently bestowed on the statesman and the warrior was denied to the noblest and most benevolent soul that ever appeared upon earth. “ He was despised and rejected of men.” The hopes which the Jews entertained of the Messiah tended greatly to array them against the reception of Jesus of Nazar¬ eth. The gorgeous language of ancient prophecy contributed to form their notions. There He was depicted as a mighty conqueror coming from Edom, with dyed garments from Bozrah, marching in the greatness of His strength, treading 458 THE PERSON OF CHRIST, AND THE down His enemies in His anger, and trampling upon them in His fury — their blood sprinkled upon His garments, and stain¬ ing all His raiment. This prophetic imagery harmonised with the conceptions of the men of Judea. They were too earthly and sensual to think of their Messiah in any more peaceful character. They looked forward to the Great Deliverer as the Prince who was to give them victory over their enemies, raise them to the highest rank among the nations, and make Jeru¬ salem His throne whereon He was to rule all mankind. They could therefore trace no vestige of the Messiah in this peasant of Galilee. He appeared not as a warrior surrounded with the glitter of arms, and as a mighty king clothed in royal apparel, and attended by courtiers and princes : fishermen, publicans, and sinners were His only dependants. He had none of the circumstantials of human glory in which they had been accus¬ tomed to array their Messiah. Accordingly, neither the beauty of His precepts nor the marvellous power He displayed could reconcile them to His humble condition. They had been care¬ fully guarded against the fatal mistake into which they fell. They had been told that He was to be born of lowly parentage, though royally descended ; that He was to come at a period when the root of Jesse and the offspring of David should be “ as a root out of a dry ground ” ; that He was to grow up before God, not before men; that His kingdom was not to come with pomp and parade. True, He was to be the Son of David and the Heir of David’s throne. True, He was to reign and conquer and triumph. But look not for Him, said the prophetic voice, in kings’ houses ; inquire not for Him in the palace of the Herods ; search not for this Branch of renown among the cedars of Lebanon or the oaks of Bashan. But rather look for Him “ as a tender plant,” or “ as a root out of a dry ground ” in an obscure valley. Had not Christ come as He did, He could not have fulfilled some of the most important objects of His mission. Had He been surrounded with pomp and splendour, He could not have exemplified the lessons which He taught. He could not have said, “ Learn of Me, for I am meek and lowly.” He could not have commanded His disciples to deny themselves, and take up their cross and follow Him. Such an injunction INFLUENCE OF HIS TEACHING ON THE WORLD. 459 would have been inappropriate in circumstances where self- denial was never exercised, or where patience and fortitude were never required. But He exemplified all the virtues He recommended ; and being subjected to poverty and sorrow, He has left the most perfect pattern of meekness, fortitude, and resignation under all the trials and privations of life. He claimed to be a king and the heir of J udah’s throne ; but He avowed that the purpose of His mission was not to set up a kingdom of this world, but the kingdom of God. It was foretold by the patriarch Jacob that the promised One should come before political power departed from Judah — “The sceptre shall not depart from Judah, nor the ruler’s staff from between his feet, until Shiloh {the Peace-giver) come ; and unto Him shall the obedience of the nations be.” He was born in the reign of Herod the Great, before the total dissolu¬ tion of the Jewish government. And after the heathen be¬ came converts to Christianity, of whom Cornelius was the first, we find that they had not the least vestige of political power remaining, but were entirely subject to the Bomans. How wonderful was this prediction in its discernment and fulfilment. The dying patriarch casting his eye, irradiated by prophetic illumination, over 1700 years, sees the day of Jesus Christ, and hails the benign majesty which was to absorb all external dignity. He discerns the government which Judah had maintained, in defiance of those who had often attempted to wrest it from his powerful grasp, at length resigned, while the hand of the Messiah holds “a sceptre of righteousness,” and the dominion preserved for ages melts away into a king¬ dom not of this world — a kingdom purely spiritual — “ a king¬ dom which cannot be moved.” Our Lord, as the Head of this kingdom, exacted the most devoted loyalty and the most absolute obedience ; for he that loved father or mother more than Him was not worthy of Him. To the members of the kingdom He said, “ All ye are brethren ; ” but to those who desired to sit on His right hand and on His left, He only promised that they should drink of His cup of suffering, and be baptised with His baptism of blood. The heathen had learned an ardent patriotism, but the Jews had linked it with a burning hatred of their country’s enemies, and this was 460 THE PERSON OF CHRIST, AND THE never stronger in Judea than when Christ taught there. When, therefore, He taught them to subordinate their patriot¬ ism to the universal love of man, and said to His infuriated countrymen, “ Love your enemies,” His words must have sunk into their hearts, and raised their national prejudices to the highest pitch of fanaticism. They were startled at His talk¬ ing with the Samaritan woman at the well, and still more when He healed the daughter of the Canaanite mother — the member of an outcast race. They had no sympathy for a Saviour whose philanthropy was to comprise the whole human race. There was nothing in His kingdom national and ex¬ clusive. There was nothing in it answerable to Jewish ex¬ pectations. It assigned no place to those who gloried in their Abrahamic descent. On the contrary, our Lord plainly told the Jews that, instead of extending the earthly kingdom of Israel through the world, He would found a kingdom which should be united by spiritual ties, and held together by the bond of a common faith ; which should place the Samaritan and the Eoman on the same level with themselves ; and that His kingdom should embrace within the influence of its grasp man wherever he could be found. i It will be noticed by every attentive reader of the Gospels that Jesus Christ invariably called Himself “ the Son of man.” We know it was essential to His mediatorial character that He should assume human nature. But the reason why He thus called Himself was, no doubt, to guard against the error of denying His humanity, which very early crept into the Church. Such an appellation none of the ordinary sons of men would ever think of applying to themselves, because in their case it would be absurd to announce as a truth what, in fact, is a truism, and was never denied by any human being. But in the case of our Lord, who manifested such unequivocal proofs of Divine power, it was requisite to remove any mis¬ conception in regard to His manhood. But while He assumed the title of “ the Son of man,” He also confessed Himself to be “ the Son of God.” The full import of this designation no mortal can explain ; but that our Lord meant it to imply His equality with God is sufficiently clear, if language has a meaning, and it is no less clear that the Jews understood it INFLUENCE OF HIS TEACHING ON THE WORLD. 461 in this sense. Tor when Jesus said, “ I and My Father are one/’ the Jews, considering this blasphemy, attempted to stone Him. Did He tell them that they had misapprehended His meaning ? Quite the reverse ; for instead of disclaiming the inference which they had drawn from His words, He sub¬ mitted an argument conclusive of what He had said, — “ If I do not the works of My Father, believe Me not ; but if I do, though ye believe not Me, believe the works, that ye may know and believe that the Father is in Me, and I in Him.” The works to which He referred were the miracles which He publicly performed. When St John said that the Word was in the beginning with God, and was God, he was stating nothing but the received doctrine among the Jews. In whatever way they obtained this belief, it is certain that they, before the time of our Lord, ascribed a distinct personality to the Word of God. They believed that this Word would descend to earth, and be visibly manifested in the person of their Messiah. Had not Jesus of Nazareth appeared in circumstances so very different from what they expected, they would not have been offended at the claims He set forth in regard to His Divine person. This is evident from what took place at His arraignment before the Sanhedrim. The high priest said to Him, “ I adjure Thee by the living God, that Thou tell us whether Thou be the Christ, the Son of God.” Without abating one jot of His claims, He said, “ Thou hast said : nevertheless, I say unto you, Hereafter shall ye see the Son of man sitting on the right hand of power, and coming in the clouds of heaven.” This is an allusion to the prophecy of Daniel. On hear¬ ing our Lord apply these words to Himself, the high priest rent his garment, saying, “ He hath spoken blasphemy ; what further need have we of witnesses ? ” From this incident two facts are apparent — first, that the Jews considered the prophetic vision in Daniel, which our Lord applied to Himself, as applicable to the Messiah ; and, secondly, that though He is there called “ the Son of man,” they nevertheless admitted that He was to be in reality “ the Son of God.” This was the character which they recognised as belonging to the Messiah ; and our Lord was judged guilty of blasphemy because He 462 THE PERSON OF CHRIST, AND THE asserted that the words of the prophet had their fulfilment in Him. Had they known that He was the Word who spoke to Adam, to Abraham, and to Moses — who brought their fathers out of Egypt, and led them in the pillar of cloud — they would not have crucified their Christ. Even on the cross our Lord prayed that the guilt of His enemies might be forgiven, and in answer to His prayer the Divine mercy lingered over Jerusalem and the Jewish nation. No one can read the early chapters of the Acts without per¬ ceiving that the testimony therein given was specially addressed to the Jews. Had they even then repented of their sin in rejecting and crucifying their Messiah, God was still ready to pardon and blot out all. But, alas 3 they as utterly rejected all these gracious overtures by the Holy Ghost — in the ministry of the apostles, and in the martyrdom of Stephen — as in the crucifixion of Jesus they had refused the Bighteous One, who in incarnate love and tenderness would have gathered their children together. They were to be left to the judgments which overtook them, and in their subsequent history they have become a living miracle of the truth of what they denied. They had been favoured of God above all other nations, but their very privileges became the means of demonstrating their wickedness. Divine light had shone upon them in such a manner as it never had done before, but they refused to walk in the light. Their day of grace lingered on to its close. It was succeeded by the darkness of night — a night the likeness of which they had never seen amid all their vicissitudes — a night which still continues, and wherein yet we can hardly discern the faint glimmerings of an approaching dawn. There is a striking peculiarity in Christ’s manner of teach¬ ing, and to which we must pay special attention. He “ taught with authority,” inasmuch as the lesson which He taught was founded upon Himself. This peculiarity separates Him from every other teacher of religion and morality. He “ taught not as the Scribes.” The Scribes, it might be said, and the Babbis of Israel, taught as having authority. “ They sat in Moses’ seat.” They had the key of knowledge ; and when obscure and humble men presumed, for an instant, to question their judgment, they were ever ready to turn upon them, and to ask, INFLUENCE OF HIS TEACHING ON THE WORLD. 463 “ Dost thou teach us ? ” A prophet could scarcely exact obedience with an air of loftier command. Indeed many a prophet was received with far less reverence than those masters of Israel. Jerusalem, as we know, paid implicit obedience to the teaching of her Scribes and her Eabbis, but she stoned the prophets, and slew them that were sent unto her. But if the Scribes spoke as with authority, their authority was not their own, but borrowed from the names of those who had gone before them. It belonged not to their present seat nor to their office, but rested on the traditions of former times. The Jewish schools would not listen to the teaching of the Scribes if they spoke not of the traditions of the fathers, and the maxims of the wise men of old. The celebrated Hillel himself might teach learnedly and ingeniously, but he taught in vain unless he upheld the doctrines he advanced by adding, “ Thus saith the tradition, — I have heard this from the men whose praise and glory are in Israel.” This was not the manner in which Christ taught. The language of the Scribes was, “ Thus said the men of ancient days ” ; the language of Christ was, “ Verily, verily, I say unto you.” He spoke as if Divine authority became Him. He founded the truth of what He taught upon Himself. No other teacher of mankind had ever ventured to speak thus. God alone had thus spoken in the Old Testament. He not only showed Himself as the pattern of life, but He propounded Himself as the object of faith. “ I am the way; no man cometh unto the Father but by Me.” He made faith in Himself the absolute condition of salvation, and expressly forbade any attempt to approach the Father except through Him. The cause He advocated was the king¬ dom of God. It was Himself who established this kingdom, and faith in Him was the only means of entrance into it. The salvation He brought, the demands He made, the future He announced — all depended on Himself. The people were filled with amazement that one reared amid the care and the toil of an obscure craft should come forth and teach them with such authority as neither Scribe nor Prophet had ever taken to him¬ self ; and who told them that if they attended to His sayings, they should build upon a rock ; and that if they did not, they should build upon the sand, and be at the mercy of the tern- 464 THE PERSON OF CHRIST, AND THE pest and tlie flood. As the majesty of the Person who thus addressed them was concealed, they were lost in wonder at the thought that those declarations and injunctions should proceed from the lips of an unauthorised teacher who had never ap¬ proached the schools of the wise and of the Scribes. The era when Christ appeared was one in which the world was singularly in need of a moral Teacher. Heathenism had failed to satisfy its wants. The ancient monarchies had sunk one after another, oppressed by their own vices. There was a groan uttered from universal humanity for something to save it from the utter exhaustion of social and moral degradation. Heathen philosophy had for ages been seeking to reach a per¬ fect rule of duty, but in the absence of a Divine standard of righteousness it could not by its own powers arrive at any positive result. It always fell into the error of looking upon man as a being absolutely free, and could not take into account the destructive influence of sin. Without a Divine rule of duty, men cannot see their sinfulness in the sight of God, and thereby become contrite and penitent. Among the heathen sages some perceived and announced more valuable precepts than others, but these were ineffective to regulate the morals of mankind. Por what care men for moral precepts when they are uttered only by those whom they esteem as fellow- mortals, equal with themselves, and who have no authority to prescribe duty or to exact obedience. Moral truths never give life to the heart and conscience, so that they are em¬ powered to govern the will, unless they carry with them the authority of God Unsanctioned by Divine authority, they possess no efficacy to quicken the conscience or to purify the heart. Man is a compound being ; he possesses moral as well as intellectual powers. He has not only intelligence to know the Truth, but he has also conscience and the affections. The conscience and the heart will respond to the voice of God as moral ruler, but they will answer to no other. When con¬ science and the heart unite their power, they act upon the will and produce obedience. If the rule of duty is not con¬ nected with the authority of God, it does not become life in man’s moral nature. By human teaching his understanding may become so far enlightened, but the conscience and the INFLUENCE OF HIS TEACHING ON THE WORLD. 465 heart remain unchanged. This fact is verified in all history, as well as in the experience of every individual. In support of this assertion, let us glance at the Hinduism of Modern India. We know that Monotheism was the earliest form of religion among men, but “ when they did not like to retain God in their knowledge,” it was replaced by the worship of nature. Nature - worship gave rise to Pantheism. The Pantheistic view had obtained the ascendancy in Hindustan for 2000 years before Christ. That form of religious belief lias controlled the institutions and moulded the character of that cultivated and intellectual people until this day. It denies the distinction between virtue and vice. There is no room in it for the idea of moral excellence. Its prescriptions refer only to rites and ceremonies. Everything either defiles or purifies ceremonially, hut of moral defilement or purity it takes no cognisance. The Yedas are collections of hymns of various ages. The latter show no advance hut a retrogression o o from the purity of those belonging to the Monotheistic period. Until the light of Christianity had shone upon that coloured race, there did not arise among the two hundred millions of India a single teacher who could change the character and condition of Hindu life. If we turn to China, we find another effete religion of nature. The myth of Buddha affords no sustenance to the spiritual wants of man ; and China has remained, as far back as history extends, in the same low and unprogressive sphere of existence which it now exhibits. While Brahminism represents the highest state of felicity to which man can aspire to be final absorption in the soul of the universe, whose emanation he is, Buddhism carries out the idea of personality to the cause of all existence, and finally subjects everything to annihilation. Eatalism is its faith ; the future has no hopes and no terrors ; and a practical Atheism broods over that large section of mankind : nor will it ever be dispelled till the rays of evan¬ gelical truth penetrate into that region of the shadow of death. The Egyptians rendered any religious knowledge they pos¬ sessed perfectly inaccessible by the veil of symbols under which they concealed it. The attempts of human reason to explain matters of religion have only served to obscure what 2 G 466 THE PERSON OF CHRIST, AND THE was obvious, to mystify what was simple, and to degrade what was sublime. Symbolism has the sanction of Scripture, but to have a correct idea of the symbolic worship of primitive times, it is necessary to ascertain distinctly what were the views and impressions which, as parts of a Divinely appointed religion, they were calculated to produce in the ancient wor¬ shipper. It was the abuse of symbolism which led, as we know, to the idolatrous worship of Egypt and of every land. But do we find that the wise men of Greece and Borne had attained to a more accurate and more philosophical knowledge respecting the nature and government of God ? Their civil¬ isation once shed a brilliant light, and they have left the most indubitable monuments of genius, and specimens of taste and eloquence, which must serve as models so long as elegant literature has any value in the world ; but on the subject of religion they have betrayed the most unspeakable ignorance. If human philosophy could regenerate mankind, it could not have had a better trial. If it could do without a special revelation from God, surely the country of Socrates and Plato would become a model of virtue. The voices of these philo¬ sophers reached Borne and echoed through the civilised world. They greatly contributed to raise the intellectual character of their countrymen above that of any other nation of antiquity ; but in their ethical system they entirely failed to make any progress. With them, as with all the heathen sages, virtue was political and public. Obedience to the laws of the state was the sum of all moral obligations. The life of Socrates was blameless when measured by the Hellenic standard, but he did not make his disciples superior in morality to that of their fellow-countrymen. Critias and Alcibiades were moulded under his influence, yet they became examples of the worst characteristics of heathenism, of cruelty and licentiousness. He no doubt contended against vice, but he considered its antidote to lie in better knowledge. He asserted that know¬ ledge is essential to virtue — or, even more plainly, that know¬ ledge is virtue. He saw not that knowledge is powerless when opposed to the affections, and that with the development of the intellect there is also the development of evil. Culture may alter the form of sin, but cannot lessen its sway or INFLUENCE OF HIS TEACHING ON THE WORLD. 467 destroy its existence. But the true nature of sin was utterly unknown to the heathen. Socrates was ignorant of the source of all true morality, love to God and to our neighbour. Among his sayings he nowhere expresses sympathy with man in his extremest degradation or misery, or with indignation at his countrymen for their treatment of their slaves. The moral teaching of Plato, like that of his master, was political, and rose no higher than the interests of the state. In his ideal Eepublic he counsels the magistrate to use im¬ proper means, even falsehood, for a salutary end. This is merely an excuse for doing evil that good may come. He required for the regulation of his moral State the community of women, the exposure of weakly children, and the continu¬ ance of slavery. How such unnatural notions could be con¬ ceived by Plato to be admissible into a form of government which aimed at perfection, may well excite our astonishment. As they were unsuited for an ideal commonwealth, they are no less repugnant to a real one. They are at utter variance with any true views of humanity. The moral system of Socrates and Plato was incapable of preventing the decay of their nation. Subsequent systems of philosophy were alike insufficient. It was in one of those crises through which a nation sometimes passes, when all that has been venerated has lost its influence, and social anarchy is advancing with rapid strides, that Zeno appeared. Epicureanism and Scepticism concealed a canker- worm which had eaten into the heart of the people, and there was nothing to counteract them but the loose speculations of Plato, or the abstruse dissertations of Aristotle. And these were powerless to act upon the life of the people. Zeno came then with the spirit of a reformer, to arrest the evils which were degenerating his countrymen into indolence and vice. This system of philosophy was rather of a practical than of a specu¬ lative character. His aim was to stem the rushing torrent of enervating pleasure. He held that the passions had to be eradicated before true happiness could be attained. The system was a reaction, and so it adopted the opposite extreme. It was a warfare of the mind against the body, tending to produce in the latter the annihilation of all those instincts which Nature 468 THE PERSON OF CHRIST, AND THE had implanted. It was an effort to assign to apathy the highest condition to which morality can aspire. And yet what is true of heathen morality in general, is true in the highest degree of the morality of the Stoics. Nowhere is the spirit of pride and indifference so thoroughly inculcated as here. The Stoic wise man was not to resent insults, but only because he was too great in his own estimation to be affected by insolence. He was not to cherish wrath, because he was to regard himself as too exalted to allow anything to disturb his repose. But if matters went too far, or even if life became a burden, he was at liberty to leave this world by an act of self-destruction. By the liberty the system gave to commit suicide, it thereby reduced itself to the mere creed of the fatalist, differing only by its austerity and self-reliance. The doctrines of the Porch were embraced to a greater or less extent by some of the noblest minds of Greece and Borne, but they were never fitted for general acceptance ; indeed they can scarcely be said to have rippled the surface of social life. The decline of Greece is one of the saddest pictures on the page of history. Hellenic civilisation shone for a period with unsurpassing splendour, but it was quenched in a night of Cimmerian darkness, the inevit¬ able termination of sensuality and vice. Borne had no philosophy of its own, and therefore it only imitated that which it received from Athens. Grecian philo¬ sophy in some degree tinged the intellectual firmament, and softened the sternness of the Boman character ; but whatever fragments of truth it gave, it taught without authority, and the contentions of the rival sects only perplexed and bewildered the inquirer. Cicero reproduced in a Boman dress the best thoughts of the Academy and the Porch. But his philosophic discussions never attracted more than a few thoughtful minds. The prevailing system was that of Epicurus, the principle of which was pleasure. But it was a system utterly unfitted to regulate the life, because it professed not to guide either the intellect or the conscience. It involved no moral obligations, and could not possibly exercise a beneficial effect on the national existence. Deep thinkers who perceived that the doctrines of the conflicting sects could lead to no definite and certain conclusion, turned away from them all, and landed in INFLUENCE OF HIS TEACHING ON THE WORLD. 469 unavoidable scepticism. The old mythology was losing its hold on the public mind. The philosophers derided the heathen deities, and declared that they were only intended for the infancy of the human race. In the Augustan era literature and philosophy were in their zenith, but the morals of the nation were fast decaying.- If we desire to see the purest times of the Boman people, we must go back to their early days, when the light of primeval Bevelation had not en¬ tirely departed. In their later days the traditions of their Ionic ancestors had faded away, and the legends of mythology were substituted in their stead. These superstitions could stand no dialectic discussion ; the investigation of their claims to belief led to their exposure and ridicule ; and philosophic speculation was unable to construct a new religion to replace them. The nation, so far from advancing to a purer morality, became more and more corrupt, till the laws of Nature were set aside, and a seething mass of corruption ensued. In the time of Nero, Borne presents the same picture as Paris in the days of the Commune. Seneca, in his Treatise ‘ De Ira ’ (iii. 26), consoles himself with the world’s approaching dissolu¬ tion, according to ancient prediction, when the existing race of men shall perish, and a new race of mankind, free from crimes, shall arise (“ et dabitur terris homo insines scelerum ”). We are told by some that Bevelation is unnecessary ; because in all ages and in every clime mankind have gradually been jDrogressing from a lower to a higher state of civilisation, and have been coming by consentaneous advancement to the recognition of those sublime truths we have learned from Christianity. But what does history say to this theory of progression ? Do we find that the moral and spiritual con¬ dition of mankind has in all ages, and in all parts of the world, been steadily advancing ? We find just the reverse : we find nowhere a steady advance of humanity, except under the influence of the spiritual and moral teaching of Bevelation. The disgusting morality that existed in the most polished of the heathen nations is an incontrovertible proof that the light of Nature could not lead them to a life of holiness. There were germs of corruption in the very core of their civilisation 470 THE PERSON OF CHRIST, AND THE And the longer these nations lasted, the more were these de¬ veloped. That a Eevelation from God is possible, cannot for a moment be questioned. And if it be granted that mankind are placed in the world for the purpose of happiness, it will at once appear not only possible, but highly probable, that He would in due time give them a perfect rule to conduct them to the end proposed, and not leave them at the mercy of the vague and contradictory systems of human philosophy. On a view of the whole case, then, we conclude that it was not only probable that a general Revelation would be communicated, but absolutely indispensable that it should be so. The won¬ der is, not that it should have been given, but that it should have been so long delayed. Satisfactory reasons, however, may be assigned why a general Eevelation was so long withheld ; at least, we can perceive that many important advantages resulted from this circum¬ stance. There could have been no fulfilment of prophecy had the promised Redeemer been manifested immediately after the Fall. Christianity would thus have been deprived of one of the strongest evidences of its Divine origin. By a great variety of prophecies and remarkable events, which inter¬ vened between the fall of man and the manifestation of the Son of God, we are enabled to view Christianity, not as a soli¬ tary dispensation, but as one connected with all the develop¬ ments of the Divine government since the beginning of the world. There was hostility enough to the reception of the Gospel, in the passions and prejudices of the human heart ; this would have been greatly increased had the world been taken by surprise, without any previous intimation of the stu¬ pendous scheme which was afterwards disclosed. Besides, by the lapse of time which intervened between the Fall and the recovery of mankind, an opportunity was afforded of estimating the character and resources of human nature. Had the im¬ portant information afterwards communicated by Christianity been completely made known after the Fall — had it been diffused among the first race of men, and by them trans¬ mitted to their posterity — we should not have been able at the present day to decide whether we had derived it from a Divine Eevelation or from our own resources. But the INFLUENCE OF HIS TEACHING ON THE WORLD. 471 ignorance and misery which overspread the world during the reign of heathen darkness, compared with that light and truth in which it is our blessing to dwell, show us how much we are indebted to the Providence and mercy of God, and give us also the most humiliating view of our natural helplessness and sin. But though, for wise reasons, a general Revelation was long withheld, a partial Revelation was no less wisely given to a particular people, that the one design of the Almighty might stand recorded, and that mankind might see that He was steadily carrying forward His plan of mercy, amidst all the vices and corruptions of a fallen world. “ When the fulness of the time was come,” the Light of the world and the centre of its history — the incarnate Word — became man, that He might exemplify the pure and perfect life He describes, and by His death and passion make atone¬ ment for sin. The Incarnation, then, of the Son of God, is the great object of our faith — the manifestation of Jehovah in human nature, that He might suffer for the sins of men, and lead them back to God. This is the very end and design of Revelation ; and it is interesting to trace the gradual unfolding of the plan of salvation from the first obscure hint to its merciful and wondrous completion. The first intimation of the Messiah is contained in the promise that the seed of the woman should bruise the serpent’s head. It was afterwards revealed to Abraham that in his posterity all the families of the earth should be blessed. This has never received a literal fulfilment by any temporal blessings conferred on the human race by the natural seed of Abraham ; but it has been fulfilled, or is in progress of being fulfilled, by the blessings which Christ, his lineal descendant according to the flesh, has conferred, and is still conferring, upon the human race. Isaiah points out the great and beneficial effects that would result from His death. The sixty-nine weeks of Daniel which were to elapse between the rebuilding of Jerusalem and the cutting off of “ Messiah the Prince,” definitely marks the time when this sacrifice should be accomplished. In the interpretation of this proph¬ ecy, all commentators consider a day as representing a year ; and according to the most accurate chronology, by calculating- on this plan, the time of the Messiah’s death will be found to 472 THE PERSON OF CHRIST, AND THE be exactly defined. Thus slowly and gradually was the plan of Redemption unfolded. The law with its types and sacri¬ fices foreshowed Him that was to come ; but when the moment arrived, God’s full Revelation was disclosed in all its unspeak¬ able brightness and glory. Almost all the prophecies of the Old Testament foretell the rejection of the Jews for a season, and the calling in of the Gentiles. But how could this latter event take place under the close and narrow system of Judaism. The ceremonies ap¬ pointed by the Levitical law were rather intended to keep the Jews separate from the rest of the world, than to invite other nations to adopt their ritual. But the prophets announce a universal Dispensation, under which all men were to be brought to the knowledge of the truth. As an evidence in confirmation of Christianity, prophecy has an advantage over that of miracles — inasmuch as a miracle is seldom presented more than once to the senses, whereas prophecy can be carefully examined by the mind’s eye at any time. The great events which, in the course of Providence, are evolved between the prophecies and their fulfilment, carry with them the effects of a miracle to strengthen our faith in Divine Inspiration. St Peter declares, as the ground of his own conviction, that the miracles he had seen, and the voice he had heard on the Mount, were sufficient, so far as he was concerned ; but he adds another species of evidence more adapted to all mankind. “ We have also a more sure word of prophecy ; whereunto ye do well to take heed as unto a light shining in a dark place [alluding to the lamp that burned in the Holy Place as a symbol of prophecy], until the day dawn, and the day star arise in your heart” (2 Pet. i. 19).1 Modern Rationalists pay the highest respect to the proph¬ ecies when they assert that they are fictions written after the events which they presume to predict. This assertion amounts to an acknowledgment that the events and the prophecies correspond with each other. After this admission, we have only to prove the antiquity of the prophecies. We know that from about the times of the later prophets, not long after the captivity, the J ews have had a collection of sacred books which 1 Authorised Version, with alterations. INFLUENCE OF HIS TEACHING ON THE WORLD. 473 they retain without addition or diminution to the present day. To the preservation of these books they have paid extraordinary attention, and revised the copies with the most scrupulous care ; and though so many distinct prophecies convict them of obstinacy and wilful ignorance, they have yet never attempted to alter the original record, that they might thereby justify their unbelief. The vigilance of the Christians would have rendered such a design impossible, for they at once adopted the books of the Jewish canon as their own, and guarded them with the most jealous care, as displaying the development of that wonderful scheme of Eedemption which was accomplished by the mission and sufferings of Jesus Christ. Besides, there was the Septuagint or Greek version of the Scriptures. This version had been used by the Jews residing in Gentile cities for upwards of twTo centuries before the advent of Christ. It is as hostile to their notions as the Hebrew original ; but from the reverence they have ever shown to the Sacred Volume, they have not dared to subvert the evidence it produces against them by corrupting the Hebrew text. We have no reason, therefore, but to believe it as a fact that our version of the Old Testament is identical with what the Jews possessed many hundred of years before the Christian era. We are aware that there are Humanitarians who say that they can accept Christianity as the religion of a good life, but not its doctrine of atonement and sacrifice. But it is not a mere code of moral duties, as Bationalists both of older and more recent times suppose, who assume that reverence for the Deity, and the precepts of honesty, charity, and virtue, are the general ideas it enjoins. These ideas did not constitute the main teaching of Jesus Christ and His apostles. All moral precepts had been comprehended in the Old Testament, though, of course, they were placed by Christianity in a deeper and more intensified light. Do the apostles put forth moral duties as the essence of the new doctrine they were commissioned to teach ? Ho ; their exhortations to holiness of life are always added to the chief subject set forth, the Gospel of Jesus Christ — His death, His resurrection, and the redemption achieved through Him, and now offered to the world. In the first place, they always preach salvation through Christ as the only way 474 THE PERSON OF CHRIST, AND THE of acceptance with God, and then they require holiness of heart and life as the fruit which is to grow out of this saving faith in Christ. The end and design of Christianity is not merely to make a man righteous, but also to reconcile him to God. This is the teaching of Christ Himself : “ I am the way ; no man cometh to the Father but by Me.” These words not only imply that Christ is the way by which men are brought back to God, but that there is no other way. He declared that He gave His life a ransom for many (Matt. xx. 28). But if Christ is no more than one of us, then His life could not be a ransom for the souls of men, for no man “ can by any means redeem his brother, nor give to God a ransom for him ” (Ps. xlix. 7). The prophet Micah represents one deeply anxious to secure his soul’s salvation, as saying, “ Wherewith shall I come before the Lord, and bow myself before the High God ? shall I come before Him with burnt-offerings, with calves of a year old ? ” No ; the sacrifices appointed by the Jewish law would be an inadequate atonement. “ Shall I,” then, like the heathen, “ give my first-born for my transgression, the fruit of my body for the sin of my soul ” (Micah vi. 7, 8). Even this would be an insufficient propitiation. The divinity of Christ is essential to His making atonement for sin. It is true that He frequently calls Himself the Son of man, but He also con¬ fesses Himself to be the Son of God. He was not, in the sense of heathen mythology, a man-God, but the God-man, God dwelling in human flesh. The infinite was united to the finite in His person. Yet there was no mutation of Godhead into man ; for this union was performed, not by changing what He was, but by assuming what He was not. The Divine and human natures in Christ, therefore, are still distinct. Each nature retains its own peculiar properties. The human nature, though united to the Divine, is not dignified with the Divine attributes, nor is the Divine nature made finite, or de¬ pendent on the human. Christ’s humanity is not omnipotent, for “ He was crucified through weakness ” ; nor is it omni¬ present — “ I am glad for your sakes,” He said, “ that I was not there.” The Scriptures accordingly ascribe two wills to Him, a human and a Divine : “ Father, not My will, but Thine be done.” But though the two natures in Christ are INFLUENCE OF HIS TEACHING ON THE WORLD. 475 distinct, yet hath He not two Persons, hut one. It was requisite that His Divine and human natures should be en¬ tirely distinct — that His human nature might be capable of suffering, and His Divine nature of stamping an infinite value upon that suffering. A certain change, indeed, was effected in His human nature by its union with His Divine, inasmuch as no sin could thereby adhere to it. For Deity could have no fellowship with sin, much less could be united to it. And from the dignity to which His human nature was advanced by its union with His Divine, He was under no obligation to obey the law for Himself ; therefore it was that the obedience He rendered could be put to our account, as the ground of our acceptance with God. By His assumption of our nature, the law is honoured in the same nature that disobeyed it, the curse sustained in the same nature that deserved it, Divine justice satisfied in the same nature that offended it, God is glorified in the same nature that came short of His glory, Satan is vanquished in the same nature that He overcame, death is endured in the same nature that was doomed to die, and the inheritance of eternal life is purchased in the same nature that lost it. The redemption of the world, therefore, through the incarnation of the Word, is thus seen to be the highest display of the manifold wisdom of God. As Jesus Christ publicly claimed a Divine character and Divine honours, it was requisite that He should give the strongest evidence to establish such claims. He had said that He and His Father were one, and that all men should honour Him even as they honour the Father. It would have amounted to a falsification of His pretensions if He had been destitute of all power over the ordinary laws of Nature. Ac¬ cordingly, He expressly appeals to the miracles He wrought in confirmation of His doctrine, and as proofs of His Divine mission. “I have a greater witness than that of John,” says He, “ for the works which the Father hath given Me to finish, the same works that I do bear witness of Me that the Father hath sent Me.” God alone is possessed of absolute power over the laws of creation : in Christ’s miracles, therefore, the Father bears attestation to the doctrines of His Son, and de¬ clares that His pretensions to a Divine character and to Divine 476 THE PERSON OF CHRIST, AND THE honours are well founded ; for the Almighty would never lend His power to uphold a falsehood, or to countenance preten¬ sions that interfered with His own glory. In consistency with this idea, we find that the prophets of the Old Testament ap¬ pealed to the miracles they wrought to prove themselves teachers and messengers sent from God, and that the apostles of the Hew no less uniformly referred all their miracles to Jesus of Nazareth : this latter circumstance is itself a demon¬ stration that they conceived Him to be possessed of Divine power, and that He was truly what He proclaimed Himself to be — the Eternal Son of God. A wonderful event brought about by the immediate agency or will of God, without the intervention of any subordinate cause, is commonly called a miracle. The first great miracle which Scripture records is that of creation ; the second, and still greater, is that of the Word made flesh, who “ dwelt among us.” With Him the beginning of a new era is in¬ augurated, which will attain its consummation when “ all things shall have become new.” He is the miracle of Divine love, which was demanded on the one hand by the redeeming love of God, and on the other by the fallen condition and the ultimate destiny of man. Natural religion cannot satisfy man’s moral being and religious susceptibilities. Eevelation, therefore, becomes a necessity for the supply of his deepest wants. As Science indicates particular epochs of an energis¬ ing power of nature, so the Volume of Revelation records particular epochs of an energising power above nature. Miracles are not arbitrary acts, which may always be ap¬ pealed to, but come only into operation when nothing else could have supplied their place. They are the inseparable attendants of Revelation, and can only be understood if con¬ sidered in connection with the history of redemption. They belong to certain crises in which God’s kingdom is to make an important advance, and are intended to confirm the Divine mission of those who perform them, and to add to the weight of their testimony. The foundation of the law by Moses, its re-establishment by Elijah, and the first promulgation of the Gospel by Christ and His apostles, were epochs of this kind. INFLUENCE OF HIS TEACHING ON THE WORLD. 477 The first great outburst of miracles was at the establishment of the kingdom under Moses, on which occasion it is at once evident it would not have been wanting. Could Moses have made the power, truth, and majesty of Jehovah manifest to the rude people whom he led out of Egypt, if Jehovah had not Himself done it in His saving miracles in the sea and the wilderness, and in the lightning and thunder from Sinai ? The second was in the reign of Ahab, and then also there was the utmost need. Could Elijah, the sole champion of Jehovah, have held out against an entire apostate kingdom and people, had he not been able to summon to his aid the fire that fell on Carmel, when the nation was to choose between Baal and Jehovah ? And could Christ, when He took upon Him our nature — a race that felt far more their external than their internal misery — have opened the hearts of men to the recep¬ tion of the Divine compassion, if He had not caused its beams to fall sensibly and palpably on their earthly distress and sickness and death. Miracles are not sown broadcast over the whole Scripture history. They are ultimate resources reserved for the advance¬ ment of God’s kingdom, not its constant incidents. They cluster around certain epochs and crises, when we might fairly sup¬ pose that God would make manifest, if ever, His extraordinary power. Before the time of Moses, God performed miracles, but as yet without human agency. The patriarchs were en¬ dowed with the gift of inspiration, but they had not that of miracles. There were, however, visions and theophanies dur¬ ing this period. Moses had not only the gift of inspiration, but also that of miracles, as a confirmation of his Divine mis¬ sion. Under him, and also under Joshua after him, miracles frequently occurred ; but theophanies gradually disappeared. The Judges were under the influence of inspiration, but they had not miraculous power. At that decisive epoch when heathenism had wellnigh overborne the true worship of Jeho¬ vah, the two great prophets, Elijah and Elisha, arose, equipped with miraculous powers, which could testify that they were ambassadors from the God of Israel, whom Israel refused to acknowledge. David, the great theocratic king ; Daniel, “ the man greatly beloved ” ; and the later prophets, were pre- 478 THE PERSON OF CHRIST, AND THE eminently men of inspiration, but entirely without miracles. At length both the gift of miracles and that of inspiration ceased. When John the Baptist appeared as the forerunner of Christ, though he came in the garb of a prophet, yet he had not miraculous power, that the miracles of Christ might thereby make a deeper impression. The miracles of Christ were almost without exception beneficent acts of grace. They broke forth with unparalleled splendour. Christ did not perform them for the sake of being a worker of miracles, but because His pity impelled Him to interpose in human suffer¬ ing. Still His great object was not merely to relieve temporal misery, but to produce that faith in Him which would save souls. His miracles were thus not only acts of power, but also of saving love. Every separate miracle had in it a moral lesson of the Divine goodness and compassion. It illustrated some important spiritual truth. His whole earthly life was devoted to the service of God and the good of man. His miraculous power was constantly engaged in deeds of pure mercy, and was never exerted to acts of resentment or revenge ; for He came not to destroy men’s lives but to save them. He never used His power to gratify Himself, or to save Himself from trouble, or even from suffering, but always for the bene¬ fit of others. He made it subservient to His office as the Saviour of men. His miracles, accordingly, bore the testimony of facts to His Person and the design of His mission. When He delegated to His immediate disciples the task of converting the world, He imparted to them miraculous powers akin to His own. Thus to the apostles it was given to work “ the signs of an apostle.” But with them the gift ceased — at least, we have no certain evidence of a well-attested miracle having been performed by their immediate successors. In the middle a^es the members of the Bomisli Church be^an to revive pretensions to miracles, and having trodden ever since on the superstitious element in man’s nature, they have fabri¬ cated miracles so palpably absurd and false, that sceptics rejecting them are ready to class those of the Scripture with them, and hence to refuse credence to whatever savours of miraculous power. Bishop Douglas has carefully examined INFLUENCE OF HIS TEACHING ON THE WORLD. 479 the subject. He has shown that the evidence, the character, and the circumstances of such alleged wonders are altogether different from the proofs and descriptions of the miracles of Scripture.1 It was absolutely impossible that such a religion as that of Christianity could have been communicated except by miracles. God therefore did not make such an unreasonable demand on our belief as to require our assent to it without giving the most extraordinary and confirmatory proofs. He did not require us to accept on insufficient grounds and imperfect evidence a religion which involved the salvation of souls, but He exhibited acts of power fitted to convince even the gener¬ ation to whom the Gospel was first addressed, and to satisfy all succeeding generations of the world. The design of miracles is to authenticate a message as from heaven. They were indispensable to demonstrate the impor¬ tant truth that Christ “had power to forgive sin,” because nothing else could have produced this conviction. But after this point was established, the continuation of miracles would have been contrary to the plans of the Divine government, and it would have been foreign to the nature of man as a rational and moral agent were miracles interposed where the object could be attained by the judicious exercise of the faculties God has given us, aided, as He has graciously promised they shall be, by the influences of the Spirit of Truth — which in¬ fluences, however, are vouchsafed only to assist, not to super¬ sede, our exertions. We are thus left to form our opinion concerning Christianity from the truth it delivers, and from an attentive examination of the evidence on which that truth is founded. And if we attend with an unbiassed mind to the intrinsic excellence of the doctrines of Christianity, we shall be persuaded that no proofs more decisive of their veracity can reasonably be demanded, or can, in the nature of things, be afforded, than the miracles performed by Christ and His apostles. If a miracle were required to satisfy every doubt, the re¬ medy would soon lose its efficacy, for the oftener it was re- 1 The Criterion or Rules by which the True Miracles recorded in the New Testament are distinguished from Spurious Miracles. 480 THE PERSON OF CHRIST, AND THE peatecl the less impressive it would become, as was shown in the case of the Israelites in the desert, who, though fed and nourished every day by miracles, seem to have been no more affected by them than by the ordinary occurrences of nature. It is not reasonable to expect that miracles should be repeated to every successive generation. If any man will still require a demonstration from heaven in behalf of his faith, he can only be gratified through the medium of a candid and diligent inquiry into the character and evidence of the miracles recorded in Scripture. The Pharisees who lived in the time of our Lord did not dispute , the “ many miracles ” that He performed, but they imputed them to infernal agency. The early opponents of Christianity admitted that Jesus did wonderful works, but they attributed them to magic. Even the Emperor Julian, that most bitter adversary to Christianity, who had openly apostatised from it, who exhibited the most implacable hatred towards it, who laboured both by his pen and authority to combat and destroy it, — even he did not contradict the mar¬ vellous things that Jesus did, but he contended that He pro¬ duced them by the power of magic, or by some illusion wrought on the imagination. These attempts to account for our Lord’s miracles amount to a virtual acknowledgment of their reality. Lmreasonable as were the Jews and the first adversaries of Christianity, they did not dare to exhibit the extent of their hostility by denying what thousands could attest on the evidence of their own senses. It was reserved for modern sceptics to dispute facts which remained uncontroverted by those who had the best oppor¬ tunities of judging. Hume has asserted that a miracle is contrary to experience, whereas it is only different from it. Experience informs us that one event has happened often ; testimony informs us that another event has happened once, or more than once. The matter then resolves itself into a question of evidence, whether the testimony of those who affirm that an event was within their experience is to be over¬ borne by the testimony of those who declare that their experi¬ ence is against it. These opposite testimonies must be fairly balanced. The affirmative of eye-witnesses must be met by INFLUENCE OF HIS TEACHING ON THE WORLD. 481 the negative of eye-witnesses who were also present at the same time, but could say that no miracle could have occurred without their perceiving it, and that they did not so perceive it. Hume based his argument against the miraculous on a false assumption. It is simply this : Because, according to univer¬ sal experience, no miracles now take place, therefore none can ever have occurred. The universal experience here assumed is founded on the evidence of testimony, but if this universal experience is contradicted by testimony giving ojDposite evi¬ dence, the argument is at once destroyed, and the assumed proposition reduced to “ a begging of the question.” Are we not to believe what others tell us from their experience, be¬ cause it has not come within the sphere of our own observa¬ tion ? The legitimate conclusion from such a principle would be the negation of all belief, save that which was forced upon us by the evidence of our own senses. Our own experience is against a thousand things in everyday life which we may yet accept upon the credit of others, and act accordingly. Hume’s ‘ Essay on Miracles ’ would long since have been forgotten, had not its refutation by Paley, Campbell, and Chalmers kept it from falling into oblivion. Mythic theories have been invented in various forms to dis¬ credit the testimony we have for the miracles recorded in the Gospel history. In 1835 Strauss began these systems of mythic scepticism by his ‘ Leben Jesu,’ in two volumes, which was intended for the learned. He was deeply imbued with the Hegelian philosophy. He had attached himself to the Left, and was therefore an enemy to historical Christianity. He was frank and bold in his statements. He professed that he believed not in a personal God, nor in the immortality of the soul, nor in retribution after death. “ The personality of God,” he said, “ is not that of the individual, but of the uni¬ versal.” The pantheism of Spinoza is the best solution of God’s existence ; for God is not the personal, but the infinite personifying Himself. He confessed that in his ‘ Leben J esu ’ his standpoint was that of the Hegelian philosophy. Indeed pantheism is the guiding principle of the whole work. He obliterated the Divine element in the person of Christ ; re¬ jected His claim to the Messiahship, and regarded the idea 2 H 482 THE PERSON OF CHRIST, AND THE of the Messiah itself as purely mythical, being nothing more than the personification of humanity — that is, the description of the whole human race of which each individual man forms a part. He declared miracles to be impossible, but admitted that a case of sickness might really be cured or momentarily alleviated through excitement of the imagination. According to Strauss, the great miracles — such as the loaves and fishes, the raising of the dead, &c. — -were only gradually invented in the post-apostolic age. The primitive Christians regarded Jesus of Nazareth as the Messiah, and as the Old Testament prophecies described the Messiah as the doer of wonderful things, they began to form legends out of the events handed down of His life, and to apply them to Him as Messianic signs. These legends in the course of time were transformed into miracles, and were unconsciously received as such by the Evangelists, who were men of the second century, and by them incorporated into the Gospel narratives. The Gospels, however, were not composed in the second century. The Gospel of Matthew is believed to have been written eight years after our Lord’s ascension, though some give it an earlier date. The testimony of the Christian fathers proves that it was very early received into the Church. It existed at a very early period both in the Hebrew and Greek languages. Some suppose that it was first written in Hebrew and trans¬ lated into Greek by Matthew himself. As it was designed particularly for the use of the Jews in Palestine, it is not im¬ probable that he should write to them in their own language, and then furnish the Gentile Christians with a translation of equal value with the original. His is the earliest of the four Gospels, and certainly it bears characteristics of a narrative written soon after the events occurred. Mark’s is the second in order of the Gospels. He was not an apostle, nor an eye-witness of the history of our Lord. His Gospel was intended for Gentile readers, and contains the sub¬ stance of the public discourses and private conversations of our Saviour, obtained in a great measure, as Christian authors inform us, from the lips of the apostle Peter, whose intimate companion he was for several years. As to the time when it INFLUENCE OF HIS TEACHING ON THE WOKLD. 483 was composed, nothing can be affirmed with certainty. It is most frequently assigned to 63 or 64 A.D. Luke is traditionally said to be a native of Antioch, and a physician to his business. He was not personally a follower of our Lord, but, like Mark, he wrote what others delivered to him, and especially the apostle Paul, whom he accompanied in his travels. He expressly declares that he himself was not an eye-witness of what he records ; but that having “ traced the course of all things accurately from the first,” he resolved to write an authentic and orderly account of everything rela¬ tive to our Lord’s life, from His birth to His ascension. The time when this Gospel was written must have been prior to the composition of the Acts, some two or three years earlier. The book of the Acts closes two years after the imprisonment of Paul at Pome. Luke compiled the Acts as a continuation of his version of the Gospel ; and as the Acts is supposed to have been written as early as a.d. 64, we may therefore with much probability assign the date of the Gospel to about a.d. 61. Both books were dedicated to Theophilus, a distinguished Christian. Nothing in the New Testament is purer Greek than the language of Luke, and his copious style is admirably suited to history. The Gospel of John occupies the fourth place among the Gospels, and was chronologically the last of them. It was written at the urgent request of the elders of the Church at Ephesus. It affords clear proof of being the genuine work of John ; but Strauss and other critics of the mythic school assert that a Gentile Christian composed it under the name of the apostle, about the middle of the second century. The Church, according to their notion, was easily deceived, and hailed it as an important document. But it is not the Church but the critics themselves who are credulous and easily deceived. For to glance at external testimony, we have that of Jerome in the fourth century after Christ. He is esteemed the most learned of the Fathers. He resided long in Palestine, and collected many ancient copies of the New Testament. He informs Damasus, bishop of Kome, that “ as copies were dispersed over the world, he sat as an arbiter, and distinguished the copies which agreed with the truth of the Greek from others.” The 484 THE PERSON OF CHRIST, AND THE Church owes to him the Latin translation of the Bible, well known under the name of the Yulgate. In the beginning of the third and end of the second century, we find the leading writers in various parts of the Christian world recording their testi¬ mony to the authenticity of John’s Gospel. Of these, Clement of Alexandria, Tertullian, and Irenseus, may be specified. The last-named writer, in whose lifetime the forgery, if real, must have been committed, was himself a disciple of Polycarp, who was a disciple of the apostle John. Irenseus may therefore be taken as a competent witness, for his teacher would give him accurate information on the point, and he would never have ascribed it to John if it had been so contrary to the mind of that apostle as negative criticism asserts. Now he not only declares that in his time the fourth Gospel was universally received, but gives an elaborate account of the manner in which the four Gospels were written. There are still earlier testi¬ monies : Justin Martyr lived in the very next age to the apostle John, and wrote his Apology in the year 138. He quotes this Gospel of the aged apostle. He calls the Gospels “ the Memoirs of the Apostles,” and testifies that these memoirs or memoranda of the apostles were read with the writings of the prophets in public Christian assemblies.1 Further, the fourth Gospel is found in the Muratorian Canon of a.d. 170, as well as in the Syriac and Latin translations of the New Testament of that date. To the authenticity of the Gospels the testi¬ mony of the Church must also be added. It was not by means of the Gospels that an acquaintance with Christ’s his¬ tory had at first been obtained, but by the oral instruction which the members of the Church had unhesitatingly re¬ ceived from the apostles. Primitive Christian instruction was entirely of this kind. Oral instruction was contemporary with written documents, and had the Gospel narratives not been in accordance with this instruction, they would have been at once rejected. The early Church was most strict and tenacious in regard to transmission, and if the written records had not ap¬ pealed to eye-witnessing, whether their composers had them¬ selves been eye-witnesses, as Matthew and John, or, like Mark and Luke, had received their information directly from eye- 1 Apol., i. 6. INFLUENCE OF HIS TEACHING ON THE WORLD. 485 witnesses, they would not have met with acceptance. Even the early heretics of the second century would not have appealed to the canonical Gospels, had not their universally recognised authority necessitated this seeming vindication of their erroneous teaching:. The great object of John in writing his Gospel was to oppose the heresies which at this time were rising in the Church, particularly that of Cerinthus. He was a Jew imbued with Alexandrian philosophy, and he devised a fantastic combination of Christianity with Jewish and Gnostic ideas. Though the Gospel of John may therefore be considered in some measure supplementary to the other three, yet it is not a mere supple¬ ment, for it contains many things omitted by Matthew, Mark, and Luke, and chiefly a number of discourses of a doctrinal character, in which the mystery of Christ’s Person is revealed, and the errors of Cerinthus and of Gnosticism are refuted in their widest sense. When the first generation of Christians began to fall off, some sixty or seventy years after the commencement of our era, written narratives of the life of Jesus, under the name of Gospels, were felt to be necessary. Even if these Gospel narratives had not been written, all the leading facts of Christ’s life might be gleaned from the apostolic Epistles. These Epistles testify what a vivid remembrance of the life of Jesus was preserved in the Christian Church — for the Christ of the Epistles is the very same as the Christ of the Gospels. Let us then glance at the first four Epistles of the New Testament. These are universally admitted to be the genuine productions of the apostle Paul. When he wrote his Epistle to the Eomans, it was to a Church which he had not planted, for he had never been in the capital. But he had heard much of the Boman Christians, of their faith, and of the difficulties with which they were beset from the mixed character of their body • — for it was composed partly of converted heathens and partly of Jewish Christians. At what time the Christian religion was introduced into Borne is uncertain ; probably soon after the day of Pentecost. It is evident, however, that there were many Christians there when Paul addressed to them this Epistle. He says that he had a longing desire to go to them. 486 THE PERSON OF CHRIST, AND THE There had, therefore, been Christians at Rome for many years. The many could scarcely be less than ten ; and if the date of the Epistle be about 57 A.D., this would bring us to within thirteen years after the death of Christ. Now these Roman Christians professed the same faith as Paul in a Jesus Christ who had been crucified, and who had been raised from the dead. How they came by the knowledge of Christ we know not. They had not been converted by Paul. A man who had been crucified and was now alive was the centre of their hope and joy and confidence. In Him they felt that they were supernaturally united in a spiritual life. This testimony possesses independent value, because it was altogether inde¬ pendent of Paul’s preaching, and shows the utter futility of attempting to account for the belief in Christ’s resurrection on the supposition of some error or deception. This was the faith of the Roman Christians, and it was that of the primitive Church. It was the faith which Paul preached, and the power of which he felt throughout the whole of his future life. In his Epistle to the Galatians, written somewhat earlier still, he could say to them, “ I have been crucified with Christ, nevertheless I live ; and no longer I, but Christ liveth in me : and that life which I now live in the flesh I live in faith, the faith which is in the Son of God, and who loved me and gave Himself up for me ” (Gal. ii. 20).1 Language like this it would be impossible to counterfeit. No man could thus have spoken of a power which he had not felt. His First Epistle to the Corinthians is supposed to have been written in the spring of 58 A.D., and his Second Epistle in the autumn of the same year. In the second he speaks of himself as having been in Christ more than fourteen years before (2 Cor. xii. 2). This would bring us virtually to not more than ten years from the actual occurrence of the resurrection. All the great features of the portraiture of Jesus Christ were fully devel¬ oped when Paul wrote his Epistles. But if the portraiture be a fictitious creation, how could the Christian Church have transformed the human Jesus into the divine Christ of the Gospels in so short a period as that which elapsed between the history itself and its delineation ? Such an idea is opposed to 1 Authorised Yersion, with alterations. INFLUENCE OF HIS TEACHING ON THE WORLD. 487 all historical possibility. Mythic writers ask for sixty or seventy years for this transformation, but historical facts will not concede them more than ten. Strauss’s attempt to show that the Evangelists were men of the second century is worthless, for it is unhistorical. But there is another difficulty for the solution of which he has offered no explanation. If Jesus were a mere man, why should He have been regarded as the turning-point in time, in. which all former lines meet, and from which all subsequent lines proceed ? Why should all history have found its centre in a single man ? Why should hearts struggling with poverty and sorrow he consoled by the remembrance of Him who, while on earth, “had not where to lay His head”? Why should human nature he ennobled and sanctified by the recollection of Him who lamented the evils awaiting Jerusalem, and wept at the sepulchre of His friend ? Why should the life and teaching of Christ have exercised the greatest power ever tried upon man ? We are told that when Napoleon at St Helena was one day conversing with General Bertrand about the great men of antiquity, he suddenly said, “ Can you tell me who J esus Christ was ? ” And when the latter confessed he had net taken time to consider, the Emperor resumed: “Well, then, I will tell you. I understand somewhat of human nature. The heroes of antiquity were men ; and I am a man, hut not like Him. Christ was more than man. Alexander, Csesar, Charle¬ magne, and myself founded great empires ; but upon what did we rest the creations of our genius ? Upon force. Jesus Christ alone founded His empire upon love; and at this very day millions of men would die for Him. You are amazed at the conquests of Alexander. But here is a Conqueror who draws men to Himself for their highest good ; who incorporates with Himself, not a nation, but the human race.” 1 As the first ‘ Life of Jesus ’ was intended only for the learned, no one was more surprised than Strauss himself at the widespread excitement it had produced. Soon, how¬ ever, the most distinguished theologians of Germany came forward against him. The first reply was from Steudel of Tubingen. It was written but a few weeks after the publica- 1 Bertrand’s Memoirs, translated. 488 THE PERSON OF CHRIST, AND THE tion of the first volume of the ‘Life of Jesus.’ It discussed the question whether Christ’s life rested on a historic or a mythic foundation. The conclusion arrived at was in favour of the former view. Hengstenberg next dealt his first heavy blows from his professor’s chair at Berlin. His opinions carried great weight wherever the controversy attracted atten¬ tion. He has shown himself an unflinching hero on the battle-field, and has fought vigorously for “ the faith which was once delivered unto the saints.” Other divines appeared upon the arena, and, by undermining his system, shattered it in pieces. Bor a time Strauss defended himself ; but after some years he remained silent, and the controversy seemed to have come to an end. But in 1864 the hook once more appeared. This time, however, it was written in a popular style, and addressed to the German people. He left us in no doubt as to his reasons for re-writing his book. “ Since the great majority of theologians will not hear us, we must speak,” he said, “ to the people.” This is the language of a demagogue when he fails to obtain his end by other means. He laid the axe at the root of Bible history, in order that, when that was done away with, the theologians might be abolished too. It was in vgin that Strauss declared in his former edition that it was not designed for the laity, and that if they read it, it must be at their own risk. The work had been published, and therefore the public had a right to examine it. They had done so. In the new edition of his work, the author’s opinion on the mythical character of Christ remained unchanged, and “ the people of the Beformation,” to whom it was flatteringly addressed, gave it a cold reception. The public had got time to look into the speculations of the learned world, and the consequence was that they saw the aim of Strauss was to destroy all historical truth ; to remove the divine basis of the Christian faith ; to show that the Bible was a tissue of fictions ; that Jesus was a sinful man like others, neither risen from the dead nor now sitting at the right hand of His Bather ; that there was no certainty of a life beyond the grave ; and that reconciliation to God through Jesus Christ was merely a supposition and a day-dream. INFLUENCE OF HIS TEACHING ON THE WORLD. 489 The tide of popular opinion had turned since 1835. David Frederic Strauss felt and acknowledged that his attack had been a failure. His great object was to introduce into the Christian Church a pantheistic conception of God. But the denial of the miraculous leads to the destruction of all religion, for what advantage is there in religion if there be no God and no life to come ? Strauss’s view of the Godhead is the pantheistic Hegelian. In Christ, as stated in Scripture, “ dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily” (Col. ii. 9). But according to Hegel, God (i.e., the Absolute Idea) can never appear in its entire fulness in a single individual, but only in the whole human race. Therefore Strauss’s opinion of the Divine nature is, that it does not take place in a single person called Christ, but that it exists universally and continuously in humanity as a whole. Denying the miraculous, he was forced to substitute “ the ideal Christ ” for “ the historical.” This is precisely the way with all speculative philosophy. It invari¬ ably treats real history as a subordinate matter. Strauss attempted to solve historical problems by means of mythical hypotheses, and shared the fate of all pantheists who have consigned history to a gulf of endless development, to progress for ever from nothing to nothing. He died in 1873. Besides the mythic theories, the naturalistic have also been invented to combat the testimony we have for the occurrence of the miracles recorded in Scripture. According to rationalistic theories, the miracles of Scripture were but natural events mistaken by unphilosophic minds fired with enthusiastic ex¬ citement. Of the writers of the rationalistic school, Benan is best known to the English and American public. His standpoint in his ‘Vie de Jesus ’ is essentially the same as that of Strauss. In accordance with his pantheistic view of the universe, he absolutely denies the supernatural and the miraculous, because he cannot admit a free personal God and a personal immortality. He sees in Jesus nothing more than a man. He intends to sketch a beautiful yet accurately human picture of Him, excluding altogether the supernatural. But as he proceeds he spoils his portrait by leaving on it ugly stains. As Strauss employs the myth as the means of getting quit of the miraculous, so Benan employs the cognate 490 THE PERSON OF CHRIST, AND THE term of the legend for the same purpose. He acknowledges that the Gospels are genuine, and that they were written by the apostles or their disciples in the first century. Never¬ theless the real life of Christ is distorted in them by the legends and traditions of His miracle-loving disciples. Yet from these legendary documents a real life of Christ may still be extracted by means of a strict historical criticism. Upon this critical examination he then enters. Jesus, the son of Joseph and Mary, was horn in Nazareth. He grew up in humble circumstances. Into the Old Testa¬ ment Scriptures He would, according to Jewish custom, be early initiated, and “ probably ” the prophecies, and specially the visions of Daniel, made a deep impression upon His mind. The constant recurrence of such phrases as “ probably,” “ to all appearance,” “ perhaps,” “ it is necessary to suppose,” “ if I can say so,” indicate that Renan is writing history altogether upon imaginative hypotheses. He divides Christ’s public life into three periods. The first was the pure moral teaching of the Galilean life. There from the skies of Galilee, from the beautiful scenery of lake, valley, and mountain, He drew a consciousness of God, and begins to speak of a heavenly Father whom He has found. He declares that God is our Father, and that all men are brethren. This was the purport of His preaching at this period. He announced a kingdom which must be created within ourselves. His Sermon on the Mount is the most perfect code of a moral life ever given to the world. As yet He had performed no miracle. Had He died during this period, His idea would have remained pure. But to attain success, some amount of sacrifice must be incurred. For to render what is good successful among men, methods less pure are absolutely neces¬ sary, since no one has ever yet gone forth unstained from the great struggle of life. Here, then, we see the substratum underlying the whole of Renan’s theory. Christ had to de¬ scend step by step from His ideal heights, till at length He fell into the meshes of deception whenever He attempted to realise His ideal. The second period of Christ’s public life was brought in by the impression which John the Baptist’s austere spirit had INFLUENCE OF HIS TEACHING ON THE WORLD. 491 produced upon His milder temperament. He now adopts the Messianic belief of His nation, and begins to think more highly of Himself ; and as the Messiah was supposed to be the Son of David, He allows Himself to be called so, although He knew that He was not descended from him. Legends then began to collect about His lineage and birth at Beth¬ lehem. He now proclaims the kingdom of heaven which He Himself brings. He becomes intoxicated with His own dreams. He imagines that He is to create a moral revolution — a new order of things — which He calls the kingdom of God, — not by sanguinary means, but in a peaceable manner by men amongst men. He gathers around Him a band of disciples, of fishermen, publicans, women, and children. Thus He passes through the country, riding upon a mule along the lovely shores of the Galilean sea, attended by young fishermen, His enthusiastic friends — applauded by multitudes ■ — with women and children in His train. As miracles were con¬ sidered an indispensable proof of a Divine mission, He allowed Himself to assume the appearance of miraculous power. In some cases He effected improvement in the condition of the physical or mental sufferers by means of His moral influ¬ ence, and in others He alleviated the maladies of those who imagined themselves demoniacally possessed, by sympathy with their monomania. At length His miracles became pious frauds. This was especially the case in the resurrection of Lazarus. He practised an illusion upon him, after he had been laid in the grave alive, so that he might come forth at His call, and thereby strike a heavy blow at the unbelief of Jerusalem. But the great drama hastens on ; and the third period of Christ’s public life represents the fatal conflict with the Pharisees and ecclesiastical rulers. His place of action is changed from Galilee to Judea and Jerusalem. The sublime moral teacher, with His amiable and mild disposition, becomes a violent revolutionary and fanatical enthusiast. He now proclaims Himself to be the Messiah, who will abrogate the Mosaic law, and establish His own kingdom on the ruins of the existing. He speaks of His coming in the clouds of heaven as the Judge of all the earth, with all nations — the 492 THE PERSON OF CHRIST, AND THE dead, small and great — gathered before Him ; makes the angels of God His servants to execute judgment upon the world ; and pronounces belief in His person as the Son of God, in a superhuman sense, to be the fundamental law of His kingdom. But His death soon released Him from His fanatic dreams, in which tie only heard the trumpet of judgment, and instead of being a redemption for us, was a redemption for Himself from the difficulties of a work which had latterly been carried on by means of one deception after another, until at length it had become impossible to proceed any further. Benan closes his ‘ Life of Christ ’ with His death upon the cross. He never rose from the dead. The empty grave, and the imagin¬ ary vision which appeared to the excited Mary Magdalene, gave the impetus to the legend of the resurrection. “ Sacred moments,” concludes Benan, “in which the passion of a hallu¬ cinated woman gives to the world a resurrected God.” 1 Benan has constructed out of the Gospels a French romance. His work is an embodiment of the spirit of modern infidelity. It is wholly destitute of moral sincerity, scientific perception, and historic investigation. He regards the evangelical writings as essentially genuine ; yet while one passage is reduced to the briefest detail, another beside it is declared to be a legend. Various passages are detached, without the slightest regard to the chronological order of the Evangelists, and then put together again to answer a plan entirely new. We learn things un¬ known to us before, and for which we might have been thankful had they not been purely imaginary. Jesus, the son of Joseph and Mary, was born in Nazareth. The narratives of His birth at Bethlehem, and the miraculous occurrences connected with that event, are swept away as legends. Benan knows that the sisters of Jesus were married, and that the family of David was extinct at the time of His birth. What the Gospels record he often ignores, and infers that he knows better. According to the evangelical narratives, Christ meets with the Baptist before the commencement of His public ministry; according to Benan, the pure moral teaching of His Galilean life preceded this meeting. According to the Gospel narratives, Christ chose 1 c ‘ Moments sacres, ou la passion d’une hallucinee donne au monde un Dieu resnscite ! ” INFLUENCE OF HIS TEACHING ON THE WOULD. 493 His apostles at the beginning of His ministry ; according to Renan, these were not selected till the second period of His work, when He set forth pretensions to the Messiahship. All the Evangelists represent onr Lord as performing miracles at the very beginning of His ministry ; according to Renan, He did not assume the character of a miracle-worker till a much later period. St John tells us that as Jesus was travelling on foot, He became “ wearied ” with the journey ; hut Renan knows that Jesus progressed through Galilee “on a mule.” He says that every now and then His disciples displayed towards Him a sort of rustic pomp, at the expense of their own clothes, which served for the purpose of carpets. These they laid on the mule which bore Him, or spread them before Him on the way. All this is a piece of gross fabrication, constructed out of an incident which once took place at Jerusalem, for the pur¬ pose of representing it as an oft-repeated habit in Galilee. On that special occasion Jesus did not ride on a mule, but on an ass ; and it was the multitude, and not the disciples, that spread their garments in the way. Renan puts words into Christ’s mouth which He never uttered. He declared, says Renan, that the law was abolished. On the contrary, He expressly asserted that He had “ not come to destroy the law, but to fulfil it.” “ Destroy ye this temple,” He said, “ and in three days I will raise it up.” “ But he spake,” adds the evangelist, “ of the temple of His body.” The false witnesses changed this utterance into, “ I am able to destroy the temple of God, and to build it in three days.” Renan’s opinion is that it was in the latter sense that Jesus pronounced these words. He supposes that the evangelists have given us their ac¬ counts of Christ in somewhat the same manner as the achieve¬ ments of Napoleon might have been narrated by one or more grenadiers of the Guard, who would have given graphic details of events, while they would have confused the events them¬ selves. But were Matthew and John at such a distance from their Master as a few grenadiers would be from Napoleon ? Would it not have been a more appropriate comparison to have spoken of the members of his staff ? 494 THE PERSON OF CHRIST, AND THE In Renan’s description of the life of Christ there is a con¬ stant mixture of admiration and detraction. According to the Gospels, Jesus develops divinely upwards ; according to Renan, He continually sinks lower, both in purpose and practice. What does Renan mean by representing Jesus as a pure and moral teacher, and as constantly talking of a heavenly Father whom He has found, when, according to his own pantheistic conception, God is not a personal Being ? As miracles were considered to be an indispensable proof of a Divine mission, Jesus, when He advanced His claim to be the Messiah, was compelled, says Renan, to support it by im¬ posture. Here we perceive the fundamental error of Renan’s standpoint — the abnegation of the supernatural. “ To make what is good successful,” says Renan, “ less pure ways are necessary.” This maxim is in accordance with Hegelian phil¬ osophy — that “ the All must contain in itself even what is evil.” Renan does not believe in an absolute, nor even in the force of pure truth. He promises to show a sublimely human character. But how much of this sublimity remains at the tomb of Lazarus ? He is unwilling to include these moral stains in the portrait of Christ. He would gladly represent Him as pure, were this possible. But, denying the divinity of Christ and the miraculous, he has no other alternative than to ascribe the events recorded in the Gospels to visionary en¬ thusiasm or else to intentional fraud. It is useless to say it was necessary that Jesus should employ deceitful means to accomplish His purpose, since nothing great was ever achieved in this world without practising on the credulity of the public. It is equally useless to impute fraud, if not to Jesus Himself at least to His disciples, by saying that they resorted to this artifice in order to give credit to their Master, whose influence was endangered, and with the commendable motive of further¬ ing His salutary plans of reform. This is a supposition too coarse and improbable to dwell upon. How could such a de¬ ception be carried out under the very eyes of acute and subtle opponents ? And, more incredible still, how, if successful at first, was it that the fraud did not ooze out or was not dis¬ closed, when we know that there was even a traitorous apostle, who put himself in confidential correspondence with the priests INFLUENCE OF HIS TEACHING ON THE WOULD. 495 and rulers, and could thus have enabled them to crush the influence of Jesus at one blow ? What a reward might Judas have obtained from the chief priests for such a disclosure ! The miracles of Scripture are integral elements of faith. The facts of Christianity are attestations of its Divine author¬ ity. Miracles cannot be torn from the life of Christ. They form an essential part of His character and mission. But Benan prefers to annihilate the moral character of Christ, to acknowledging that in Him we meet with supernatural power. Bather than believe in the wonders which He performed, he chooses to view them as deceptions practised by Himself, and to ascribe to Him the application of the jesuitical maxim, that the end will sanctify the means. Benan confesses that there are no documents to work upon but the four Gospels ; and our amazement is, how from these Gospels he should have drawn such a distorted caricature of Him who was the purest of the pure. The Christ of the Gospels he has changed into a democrat of modern France. Is a man capable of writing history who has represented the noblest figure in Scripture, first as a moral teacher, then as an enthusiast, and lastly as a deceiver ? Benan’s description of Christ’s ministry is an entire fabrication from beginning to end. He introduces de¬ tails of events about which not one of the Gospels tells us anything, and draws on his imagination to depict Christ and His times in a style calculated to render his romance accept¬ able to the Barisian world. His object is to undermine Christianity, and to explode all its dogmas. Can any con¬ fidence whatever he placed in him ? He represents Christ as employing all sorts of artifices in order to forward the great plan He had in view ; and as declaring Himself to be the Son of God, and making this declaration the fundamental principle of His kingdom, while his own better knowledge knew that these statements were false. Though he does not think of accusing Christ Himself of anything impure, still he conceives it possible that in that dark hour in Gethsemane, Jesus thought not only of the streams of His native land, but also of the Galilean maidens who were ready to bestow their affections upon Him, but whose love He renounced, that He might live only for the great work set before Him. We 496 THE PERSON OF CHRIST, AND THE might have supposed that such notions could only have entered into the imagination of some one who had become insane, and that they could not have proceeded from a mind so highly gifted as that of Renan. But as long as the Gospels exist, so long will they bear ample refutation of such blas¬ phemies against the character and person of Jesus. The sceptic theories which have been invented to account for the miracles of Christ are not only in the highest degree improbable, but are also wholly fallacious. The miracles of our Lord, it must be observed, were publicly performed, and the record of them has come down to us in the very form in which it was circulated among the men of that generation which had witnessed them. If the adversaries of Jesus had declared from the first that the statements concerning the miracles were false, and that no miracles had ever been wrought, we may be sure that the same denial would have been maintained by their descendants. But, on the contrary, the Rabbinical writings admit that Jesus of Nazareth did many wonderful works. The ‘ Toldoth Jeshu,’ a book written in direct opposition to Christianity, mentions some very astonishing things, such as healing lepers, restoring the lame, and raising the dead. The Christian miracles were allowed by the heathen to be facts, though they ascribed them to magic. The Evangelists, also believing the miracles to be facts, boldly wrote and published to the world what they knew the most inveterate of their enemies dared not gainsay. They introduce miracles not as astounding incidents, for they were so thoroughly convinced of what their Master was, that they deemed nothing impossible for Him to do. They made no attempt to conciliate belief, for it never entered into their mind that any doubt could be entertained in regard to what they had attested. The miracles are therefore given as his¬ torical facts, for the information of those who had not seen them ; and the time and circumstances in which they were published may be regarded as equivalent to a challenge to the whole Jewish nation to contradict, if they could, any of their statements. If any one of the miracles which our Lord is said to have performed be carefully examined, it will be apparent that fraud, INFLUENCE OF HIS TEACHING ON THE WORLD. 497 collusion, or trickery, in any shape or form, is impossible. Could any persons in their sound mind have asserted, in the face of thousands who could have refuted them had they averred what was untrue, that Christ miraculously fed five thousand in the desert with five loaves and two fishes, and that twelve baskets of fragments remained at the conclusion of the meal ; that He raised Lazarus from the dead, after he had been four days buried, in the presence of many Jews who had assembled to condole with his sisters ; that on the ap¬ proach of Jesus to Jerusalem multitudes streamed out, both to see Lazarus, who had been dead and was now alive, and also to greet with palm branches in their hands the Conqueror of death ; and that as the vast procession moved on, thousands of voices behind and before rose up to heaven with loud ac¬ clamations to the coming King ? Again, could any one have ventured to affirm that a sudden darkness took place for three hours when our Lord hung upon the cross, had not this dark¬ ness been a fact notorious to the whole land of Judea ? 1 Neither at the time when the events occurred, nor a few years afterwards when the evangelical histories were written, were the Jews able to impeach the veracity of the facts then pub¬ lished. Had these statements been untrue, the simplest course would have been to expose their falsity, instead of trying to destroy the evidence of their truth. Lor a series of years, and indeed throughout the whole of that generation, the miracles recorded in the Gospels were fearlessly appealed to by Christian teachers as to “ things not done in a corner,” but in the face of thousands who had the evidence of their own senses, and who could easily have contradicted their assertions had they been false. We only propose to inquire minutely into the proof we have for one of the miracles recorded in Scripture, but it is one of cardinal importance, the resurrection of Jesus — for if it be untrue, the whole fabric of Christianity falls to the ground ; but if it can be established, the series of miracles connected with it may be substantiated by the same evidence. Our Lord stakes the credibility of His mission and the truth 1 ¥e may thence infer that the atmosphere was charged against permitting the sun’s rays to enter it, and thereby causing instant darkness. 2 i 498 THE PERSON OF CHRIST, AND THE of what He taught upon the miracle of His resurrection. The Scribes and Pharisees said to Him, “ Master, we would see a sum from Thee.” “ But He answered and said unto them, An evil and adulterous generation seeketh after a sign ; and there shall no sign be given to it, but the sign of the prophet Jonas : 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 in the heart of the earth”1 (Matt. xii. 39, 40). And in His teaching He repeatedly told His disciples that He should be put to death, and be raised again the third day (Matt. xvi. 21, xvii. 9). Here a clear criterion is afforded by which all the evidences of Christianity may be tried ; for it cannot be doubted that with the resurrection of Christ the truth of Christianity must stand or fall. It was either a fact or an imposture. There can he no alternative. St Paul ac¬ knowledges this when he says, “ If Christ he not risen, then is our preaching vain, and your faith is also vain” (1 Cor. xv. 14). But if this miracle be well ascertained, then it renders all the rest credible, and may indeed he considered as the crowning evidence by which the truth of the Gospel miracles and the Gospel doctrines is attested. The miracle of Christ’s resurrection is not only asserted in Scripture, but it is also declared to he the fundamental truth of the Gospel. It is an event the most important and the best authenticated in the annals of the world. Of the four contemporary historians who have given their testimony con¬ cerning Christ’s resurrection, two were eye-witnesses. The history of the world is seldom written by eye-witnesses, but by persons who have received their information from various 1 “Three days and three nights.” This is a Hebraism, signifying a part for a whole. The Greeks have a word wx^v^pov, “night and day,” denoting a space of time, or a part of it as a whole. So St Paul says, “ a night and a day I have been in the deep ” (2 Cor. xi. 25). Christ said that He should rise again on the third day. If He died at the end of the first day, and rose at the breaking of the third, He therefore means here nothing else than that in three days, or on the third day, He should rise again. Had He lain in the grave during three entire days and nights, then He could not have risen till the fourth day. But just so long as Jonah was in the belly of the fish, so long and no longer should the Son of Man remain in the grave. At the appointed time He shall come forth to life, as it happened to Jonah. (Compare Esther iv. 16, v. 1.) “In the heart of the earth.” This expression denotes nothing more than death and the grave. INFLUENCE OF HIS TEACHING ON THE WOULD. 499 and uncertain sources, — sometimes from documents which can¬ not be authenticated, or from unreliable report, and usually tinctured in its course by the imagination or the prejudices of the writers or reporters. Hence a considerable amount of doubt is allowed in regard to commonly received records of the world. But should we meet with two ancient historians who declare that they have been present during a war or a campaign, and who relate the leading events with no material differences, and should we find the same events corroborated by other two contemporary historians, we would not hesitate for a moment to give our implicit credit to the facts they have recorded. Indeed it has been questioned by some critics whether any one of the Evangelists saw the production of any other before he penned his own. If, therefore, we except the other occurrences in the life of Christ, there is no event of ancient history which has come down to us so strongly attested as that of the resurrection. We receive with implicit confidence Xenophon’s description of the expedition of Cyrus, and the retreat of the ten thousand Greeks, because he himself had been an eye-witness, and had conducted the retreat. We believe the brief account which Eutropius gives of Julian’s fatal expedition against the Persians, because he tells us that he himself had served under the cam¬ paign. We accept the account of the invasion of Britain by Julius Caesar, because he himself records it. But in all these cases there is only one competent witness on whose evidence we depend. Yet, generally speaking, we are liberal enough to give due weight to human testimony. If, then, heathen authors are so generously treated, we only claim that the same candour should be extended to the historians of the resurrection. We have here four authors writing separate and independent ac¬ counts of this wonderful event ; two of them were apostles and eye-witnesses, and two were apostolical men, the friends and companions of apostles. From the personal opportunities they enjoyed, they were well fitted for recording the life of their Master and His resurrection from the dead, provided that no suspicion could be cast upon their motives. Before any charge of imposture can be brought against them, it is but fair to show some reason for such a suspicion. 500 THE PERSON OF CHRIST, AND THE That they had no design of imposing upon the world must be evident to every one who candidly examines their account. They all agree in declaring that Christ’s resurrection was an event they did not expect, and that when they first heard of it, they regarded it as an idle tale. This is very unlike the language of impostors. Had they fabricated the account, the best way would have been to act as men devising an impos¬ ture generally do — to set a bold face to the business at once, and declare that the resurrection of their Master was an event which they had from the first expected. But their declara¬ tion that they would have looked for anything rather than His death, and that this event had rendered them inconsolable and hopeless, corresponds exactly with the idea they had formed respecting His character and kingdom. The proposal made by Peter on the Mount of Transfiguration to pitch tabernacles as the high-quarters, gives us some conception of the splendid kingdom he supposed was thus to be inaugurated. Our Lord in His teaching had repeatedly told His disciples that He should be put to death, and be raised again the third day, but they did not understand His words. The stronger their faith in their Master’s dignity, the less could they imagine that He would be so despitefully treated and slain ; they therefore puzzled themselves in vain to discover what the rising from the dead of which He spake should mean. As they never had allowed themselves to believe that their Master should die, so they could not possibly comprehend the hints He had given of His resurrection. But it has been said that, though the crucifixion had dashed the hopes which the disciples entertained of the Messiah, still they had motives of self-interest which induced them to frame and promulgate the doctrine that Jesus of Nazareth had risen from the dead. To carry out this idea, it was necessary that some of the disciples should rescue His body from the tomb. This is nothing more than what the Jews accuse the disciples of having done. But it is an assumption which has no basis whatever to rest upon, and is utterly untenable. We know it is no uncommon thing for impostors to try to build up a system which promises some advantage to themselves or to their class. But amidst all the inconsistencies of human con- INFLUENCE OF HIS TEACHING ON THE WOULD. 501 duct, we doubt if men who have advanced and maintained what is false, ever continued for any length of time to prac¬ tise a fraud which only subjected them to ignominy and contempt. Let us see if this reasoning does not apply in full force to the circumstances of the apostles in regard to Christ’s resur¬ rection. If we are told that the mighty fabric of Christianity is destitute of any foundation, and that the whole structure was the hurried invention of a few enthusiastic men, we shall ask, How came they to be enthusiastic in such a matter ? How came they — so completely prostrate, the very embers crushed out, dispersed and ready to return to their former occupations — how came they after their Master’s death to take up the notion they would not listen to in their Master’s life, and to propound the Gospel system all at once in its breadth and power ? They soon discovered it had no ten¬ dency to promote their reputation, but rather to cause them to be scoffed at as fools, as happened in the case of Paul, when he preached the doctrine of Christ’s resurrection to the sages at Athens. People can submit to be sneered at when they have anything to gain by it. But what advantage was to accrue to the apostles by proclaiming the resurrection of their Master ? Hot riches and pleasures, for they preached abstinence and self-denial ; nor power and preferment, for they knew that they were counted “ as the refuse of the world, and the offscouring of all things.” Here, then, is a phenomenon, that so many men should persist in propagating a known untruth without object or aim, without motive or interest, and that they should daily expose themselves to every possible insult, to persecution, and even to death itself, solely for the purpose of spreading an unprofitable falsehood. Could we conceive all this possible, no parallel could be found to it in the annals of human chimeras, replete as they are with absurd and inconsistent materials. Yet scarcely shall we find one man, much less numbers of men, who will try to impose upon the world a fraud which not only confers no advantage, but, on the contrary, will inevitably terminate in their own con¬ demnation and ruin. But how shall we reply to the alternative — that the first 502 THE PERSON OF CHRIST, AND THE disciples were weak and infatuated men, and that they became the dupes of their own delusions ? We at once admit that men may he mistaken with regard to matters of opinion, hut not with regard to matters of fact. No band of enthusiasts would agree in their testimony, if it issued only from the vagaries of a distempered mind. No stretch of imagination could make eleven men — nay, five hundred men — believe that they saw Jesus alive after He had been crucified, and that He conversed familiarly with them forty days before His ascension into heaven. But that there might be no room for doubt, He appeared to them on various occasions, and for a length of time, so as fully to convince the most scrupulous and incredu¬ lous among them of a fact not only extraordinary, but also un¬ expected. In St Paul’s first letter to Corinth, written fifteen years after the death of Christ, he enumerates several, though not all, of the times on which He appeared to the apostles after the resurrection, and adds, “ and to above five hundred of the brethren at once, of whom the greater part remain until now.” Prom the position he held in the Church, it is not too much to infer that the apostle was personally acquainted with many or most of those witnesses who were still alive, and so must personally have had numerous opportunities of amply satisfying himself as to the truth of the event which he so earnestly and persistently proclaimed. The argument ad¬ vanced by the opponents of Christianity against the evidence of the apostles and other witnesses concerning the resurrection — that they were enthusiasts — is contrary to the common experience of mankind, for enthusiasts are always con¬ sidered to be honest men. They may be mistaken in matters of opinion, but they have no desire to practise deception upon others. When they attest, therefore, not an extravagant idea of their own, but a fact which has come under the cognisance of their own senses, they are entitled to be believed. Let us look at the statement given by the sacred historians concerning Christ’s death and resurrection. Among the disciples of Jesus who beheld the crucifixion, there was one remarkable for his birth, fortune, and office, called from his residence “ Joseph of Arimathea.” He was a member of the INFLUENCE OF HIS TEACHING ON THE WORLD. 503 great council who condemned Jesus, but he dissented from his colleagues in their unrighteous sentence. When the dreadful crime of our Lord’s murder had been committed, Joseph, per¬ haps emboldened by the portents which accompanied it, and the evident consternation of the rulers, went at once to Pilate and begged the sacred body — because, if no friend had ob¬ tained it, it would have been ignominiously cast out among the executed malefactors. When Pilate had ascertained that Jesus was really dead, he gave the body to Joseph. In dis¬ charging this honourable duty, Joseph was assisted by another disciple named Mcodemus, the ruler who formerly came to Jesus by night and received instruction from Him on the subject of the new birth. These two took down the body, wrapped it in a linen cloth, and laid it in Joseph’s new tomb — a tomb cut out of the rock — a grave prepared for Himself, such as a rich man would use, and where it was intended that a rich man should be interred. The body was embalmed with spices, according to the Jewish mode of burial. They then rolled a great stone to the door of the tomb and departed. How exactly was fulfilled what the prophet had said seven hundred years before the event occurred ! His grave was appointed 1 with the wicked, yet He was with the rich in (or after) His death (Isa. liii. 9). The Jewish rulers were fully aware that our Lord had declared that He would rise again on the third day after His death. He had intimated this to His disciples more than once, but, as we have already shown, they did not understand His prediction, for they could not entertain the idea that their Master should die. But the Jews, who had all along been plotting His death, had no such notion to obscure their intel¬ lect. Judas, too, who had become traitor, and who had none of the sentiments and feelings of the other apostles to prevent him from having a distinct conception of what our Lord had said of His resurrection, would doubtless put the rulers in full possession of this information ; and they proceeded at once to act upon it, and to take every precaution of securing Christ’s 1 The word rendered “ He made ” is from ( nathan ), to give, to give into the ‘power of any one. Here it means “ He was given by design ” (to the grave of the wicked). 504 THE PERSON OF CHRIST, AND THE body after His death. The chief priests and Pharisees went to the governor and said : “ Sir, we remember that that deceiver said, while He was yet alive, After three days I will rise again. Command therefore that the sepulchre be made sure until the third day, lest His disciples come by night and steal Him away, and say unto the people, He is risen from the dead : so the last error shall be worse than the first. Pilate said unto them, Ye have a watch : go your way, make it as sure as ye can. So they went, and made the sepulchre sure, sealing the stone, and setting a watch.” But in spite of all these precautions, before the sun of the lower world rose upon the third day the Sun of Righteousness had already risen, — the Bridegroom had gone forth from His chamber. Why did this take place ? Because it was not possible that He should be liolden of death. The resurrection was a secret, for it is altogether a mystery to man. The eye of no earthly watcher had witnessed the assumption of the body, the rising, and the going forth. On the first day of the week there was a great earthquake, and a mighty angel de¬ scended and rolled the stone from the door of the sepulchre, showing that the Lord had departed from it. The glorious form in which the angel appeared struck terror into the guard, and caused them to flee from the garden. But some of them came into the city and reported to the priests what they had seen. Upon this a council was held, and it was resolved not to try to punish the soldiers for their supposed neglect of duty, for it was obvious they would not acknowledge a fault they had not committed, but would at once tell the truth. The council therefore agreed to bribe the soldiers, and to instruct them what to say, — that the disciples had stolen him away while they slept. As they knew that the soldiers, in publish¬ ing such a delinquency as this, must do it at the risk of their lives, they said to them, “ Should this come to the governor’s ears, we shall persuade him, and secure you.” They believed this would be no difficult task; for though Pilate was convinced of the innocence of Jesus, he could not be supposed to be interested in any matter which took place after His death. St Matthew, who narrates the whole of this transaction, adds: “ So they took the money and did as they were taught ; and INFLUENCE OF HIS TEACHING ON THE WORLD. 505 this report was spread abroad among the Jews, and continueth unto this day.” The Babbins, in the Talmud and elsewhere, give the very same account of the transaction. But the story has not even the semblance of truth, and is full of improba¬ bilities and contradictions. They who had universally for¬ saken their Master when alive, were not likely to risk much for Him after His death. We know not of what number of men the guard was composed, but no doubt it would be strong enough to frustrate any attempt to carry off the body either by stratagem or force. But could all the guard have been so profoundly asleep as not to be awakened by the stir of people rolling back a large stone from the door of the sepulchre, and bearing away a dead body from their midst ? Besides, if the guard were really asleep, it was impossible that they could know whether the disciples had rescued the body or not. The statement carries in its face incoherency and falsehood. It rests upon the authority of sleeping witnesses, who, in such circumstances, can only give testimony to their own dreams. Mary Magdalene and Mary the wife of Cleophas watched where He was laid. On the first day of the week they, Salome, and other women with them, came at early dawn to the garden, bringing the spices they had prepared for the fur¬ ther perfuming of the body. They knew of the stone which Joseph had rolled to the mouth of the sepulchre, but of guards and a seal they knew nothing. When the party of women were on their way, Mary Magdalene outstripped them, for she reached the tomb before the twilight had ended ; the others came up just as the sun was rising. Mary, seeing the stone removed, ran back to the city to apprise Peter and John of what had happened. Meanwhile the other women arrived, and entered into the tomb. They were perplexed at not finding the body, and especially at seeing two angels in the appearance of men standing by them in dazzling apparel. One of the angels addressed them and said, “ Be not frightened [i.e., like the guard] : ye seek Jesus, who was crucified : He is risen ; He is not here. But go, tell His disciples and Peter that He goeth before you into Galilee ; there shall ye see Him, as He said unto you.” And as they went, Jesus Himself met them and re¬ iterated the command. Peter and John, however ill-grounded 506 THE PERSON OF CHRIST, AND THE they reckoned Mary’s report, quickly ran to the sepulchre to see what had taken place. John outstripped Peter, and arrived first at the tomb. He looked in with reverent amazement, but did not enter until Peter had gone in, and then he followed. When they saw the grave-clothes, they were persuaded that he had risen, and hastened to inform their brethren. Mary Magdalene went hack a second time and wept at the grave. She looked in and saw two angels in white, and to whose inquiry she sobbed out her complaint that they had taken away her Lord. In her grief she turned away ; but there was Jesus Himself standing beside her. Blinded with her tears, she did not recognise Him ; and to His question she replied, mistaking Him for the gardener, that she would take away the body if He would tell her where it was. Jesus said unto her, “ Mary.” Startled by His well -remembered voice, she ex¬ claimed, “ Piabboni,” and with bewildered affection was going to embrace Him. But that must not be ; He was henceforth to be regarded by her not as an earthly but a heavenly Master. He therefore bade her refrain, and go and tell those whom He graciously called His brethren that He had risen from the dead, and would shortly ascend into heaven. Por forty days previous to the ascension Jesus tarried on the earth, and frequently appeared to His disciples, to afford them ample proof of the identity of His person and the truth of His resurrection. The accounts which the Evangelists give of these appearances, though particular, are brief, for no one pledges himself to narrate all the appearances of the risen Saviour ; nor does St Paul, in his Eirst Epistle to the Corinthians, when pointing to the resurrection of Christ as an established fact, mean to give a judicial enumeration of all the occasions on which He showed Himself to His disciples ; he only appeals in confirmation of what he says to witnesses who were still living. There is, therefore, some difficulty in fitting in the appearances of Christ in the exact succession in which they occurred. But if we compare the Gospel narratives with the appearances mentioned by St Paul, we can calculate ten, and these seem to have taken place in the following order : To the women, to Mary Magdalene, to Peter, to the two disciples at Emmaus, to the ten apostles at Jerusalem, a week after this INFLUENCE OF HIS TEACHING ON THE WORLD. 507 to the apostles again with Thomas, to seven at the lake of Tiberias, to the eleven on a mountain in Galilee and probably to the five hundred with them, to James the son of Cleophas, and finally to all the apostles at Jerusalem, when He led them out as far as to Bethany, and lifting up His hands He blessed them, and while the words were yet proceeding from His mouth, He rose insensibly from the earth. As He ascended, the eyes of the apostles were fixed in silent astonishment on a scene so full of wonder : at length a cloud received Him, and hid Him from their sight. While they looked steadfastly to¬ wards heaven, a vision was presented — two messengers ap¬ peared. The apparel in which they were arrayed showed them to be inhabitants of the region to which their Master had ascended ; and their words corresponding with what the apostles had seen, impressed upon their minds the important fact on which they were henceforth to rest their hopes : “ Ye men of Galilee, why stand ye gazing up into heaven ? This same Jesus, who is taken up from you into heaven, shall so come in like manner as ye have seen Him go into heaven.” The body in which Christ rose is identical with that in which He expired on the cross. This was proved by the marks of the nails which had pierced His hands and His feet; but it had assumed a spiritual form of existence. The nature of the change must for ever remain a mystery. We know that water is transmuted into vapour, and flint into crystal, by heat ; that the caterpillar which slowly crawls along the ground, at length develops into an airy butterfly ; and that the constitu¬ ents in all these changes remain the same. But we can form no clear conception of the change that takes place in the hu¬ man body when, without losing its identity, the mortal puts on immortality. Although, therefore, Christ’s body after His resurrection was identical with what it was before, yet it had undergone a wonderful change. The disciples sometimes scarcely recognised Him, till the well-known tones and well- remembered acts assured them that it was the Lord. He also passed strangely in and out among them. Such was the state of our Lord’s body during the forty days subsequent to His resurrection ; but perhaps it was not till His ascension that its transformation was completed. This is what we cannot pos- 508 THE PERSON OF CHRIST, AND THE sibly determine. It is sufficient that we know that His resur¬ rection declared Him to be God’s only begotten Son ; that His redeeming death was adequate and accepted ; and that at His second coming the bodies of the ransomed shall be fashioned anew, and conformed to His glorious body. The apostles returned from Mount Olivet to Jerusalem, and there, according to their Master’s command, they waited for the promised effusion of the Holy Ghost. After the day of Pentecost they were different men. The imperfect knowledge which they had of their Master was now changed into the full illumination of faith. The relation in which they had stood to Him, while He yet sojourned amongst them, was a relation rather of sight than of faith. They saw with their eyes the wonders He was daily performing before them, and heard with their ears the gracious words which proceeded from His mouth ; and they imagined that they loved Him above all things : yet no sooner did the armed band lay hold on Him than they fled. Such was the weakness of their fancied strength, that at the first trial it gave way. It is true that He was Immanuel, God in human nature — the Angel or Messenger Jehovah, who had so often appeared to the patriarchs under a human form, — an earnest and pledge of His assumption of our nature in the ful¬ ness of time ; but this they knew not. They regarded Him not as incarnate Deity, but more as a man, though far superior in power and knowledge to themselves — as when they mar¬ velled, saying one to another, “ What manner of man is this ?” After His departure, He was no more to be known as the man Christ Jesus, but as the eternal Son of God, having the Deity and humanity so inseparably united in one Person as to be no more divided. He had dwelt with them as man, under the limitations of humanity, in Galilee and Jerusalem, on the mountain and in the upper chamber, and they had known Him according to the laws of our nature ; He had thereby revealed to them His very and true manhood. They had seen Him journeying and fasting, sorrowing and suffering. They had heard Him teach¬ ing by words of human speech, and persuading by emotions of human sympathy. But this was only the prelude to their life of faith. They had greater things yet to learn. They had INFLUENCE OF HIS TEACHING ON THE WORLD. 509 to learn His very and true Godhead — His Divine and Infinite Majesty; and this was to be revealed to them by a power sent down from on high. While He yet sojourned amongst them, they had “ seen, and heard, and handled ” — they had “ known Christ after the flesh.” When He was taken from them, they were to know Him so no more. But it was not His departure which enlarged and purified their sense - bound perceptions. Even after the resurrection — though they had witnessed that stupendous act of His Divinity — though “ He had opened to them the Scriptures, and shown them how it behoved Him to suffer and to enter into His glory ,” — though He had declared to them the spiritual dominion which He had come from the Father to establish, and which He now sent them to spread, — - yet these things seem not to have produced any decided change. Their views were still indistinct and contracted, and their hearts full of earthly adhesions. Even on the day when our Lord was taken up into heaven, they had not ceased to hope for the res¬ toration of the visible kingdom of Israel. It was not till the Comforter — the Holy Spirit of God — visibly descended upon them, on the day of Pentecost, that they were led into a know¬ ledge of all the truth. Grievous as their Master’s departure was, and overwhelming as the loss could not but seem to the natural eye, that loss was soon to be turned by the power of the Spirit into their unspeakable gain. The Master whom they had lost they found anew — but they found Him not as a mere man, having “ no form nor comeliness to make men desire Him,” — they found Him as the Eternal and Only-begotten Son of God, sitting at the right hand of the Father, governing all things, having assumed His kingdom in heaven and on earth. The Spirit of Truth w~as to “ glorify Jesus,” was to “take and de¬ clare unto them the things of Jesus,” — and greatly as their Master was changed and glorified in their eyes, scarcely less was the change which was wrought upon their own hearts and minds. The fiery baptism of the day of Pentecost consumed and purged away the dross and weakness of their earthly nature, and they came out as silver refined and purified seven times by the fire. Christ’s visible presence had made truths sound strange and paradoxical. To hear Him speak as God, “ I and My Father are one ; ” “ All things are Mine, and Mine are 510 THE PERSON OE CHRIST, AND THE Thine,” — these were hard sayings. What wonder that Philip should say, “ Show us the Father ; ” and that Thomas should say, <£ We know not whither Thou goest, and how can we know the way ? ” Whilst He was yet with them, the light of these truths was veiled by His visible presence, and their minds were earthly, and interpreted all things by earthly concep¬ tions. But when the Spirit came upon them, the things that He had said were “ brought to their remembrance.” Truths and parables that had perplexed them received their solution ; words that they had mused upon in doubt were interpreted ; sayings that they had thought already clear were seen to have profounder meanings ; an illumination emanating from the sent Teacher unfolded to them “ the deep things ” of God and of His Christ. Their very faculties became enlarged ; they dreamt no more of a temporal kingdom, or of investiture with secular honours. They were no longer pent up by the limita¬ tions of sense and of time, but were lifted up into a light where all things are spiritual and eternal. A new power of insight was implanted in their moral nature, and a new view of Mes¬ siah’s kingdom rose before them ; for the Spirit of Truth dwelt in them, and the mystery of God was revealed. The apostles were uneducated and simple men, the obscurity of whose birth and condition was well known. They pursued the occupation of fishermen on the sea of Galilee until the very time when they came forth as teachers of the new faith. They were destitute of all natural qualifications for their arduous work ; but “ the weak things of the world were chosen to confound the things which were mighty,” that the excellency of the power might be seen to be of God, and not of men. It was by the coming of the Spirit that they were immedi¬ ately changed in character and deportment. They were no longer a timid and temporising band ; but, inspired with daunt¬ less courage, and animated with holy zeal, they instantly began in the very city where Jesus had suffered, and before His bitterest enemies, to declare that He whom they had crucified had risen from the dead, — not only that a dead man was alive again, but that He had risen with a body of a differ¬ ent kind, the same yet not the same, — that the mortal had INFLUENCE OF HIS TEACHING ON THE WORLD. 511 assumed immortality — that in this form He had repeatedly appeared to them — and that then He visibly ascended into heaven. They showed that what they related concerning Him was not a tale of wonder which they insisted on for a temporary purpose, but the fulfilment of 'what the Scriptures predicted of the Messiah ; so that their doctrine was merely the development and completion of the religious system held by the Jews, the rites and ordinances of which were designed to prefigure and prepare the way for the new and better dis¬ pensation which was to succeed. Such was the testimony given by these unlearned men in regard to the Gospel doctrine which they preached. If their Master had not risen, why did not the Jewish rulers expose the falsehood ? And if they had misapplied Hebrew prophecy, why did not the profound doctors point out their errors ? It was by the coming of the Spirit that the apostles were to be seated on their spiritual thrones, as the teachers, guides, and examples of the Church in all ages. It was by His coming that the Gentiles were to be admitted to the blessings and privileges of the Gospel. As the apostles had been commanded to begin at Jerusalem, and from thence to go forth into all lands carrying the message of salvation, it was absolutely necessary that in the fulfilment of such an extra¬ ordinary commission they should be endowed with the miracu¬ lous gifts of the Holy Spirit. Yet had not the same Spirit who furnished them with these gifts, subdued also by His secret influence the prejudices and purified the hearts of the hearers, Christianity would not have made its way in the world, opposed as it was to all the hopes entertained by the Jews, to all theories of the philosophers, to the vicious pro¬ pensities of human nature, and to the local prepossessions of every ignorant and degenerate tribe. But with all these dis¬ advantages, these devoted servants of Christ disseminated the doctrine of eternal life through every quarter of the then known world. Before they were called to their rest, Chris¬ tianity had been planted in all the accessible countries of the earth. They lived to see it established in Western Asia, in Northern Africa, and in almost the w7hole of Europe. It is not, however, the progress of a religion merely that we 512 THE PERSON OF CHRIST, AND THE have to contemplate, but the rapid and extensive diffusion of such a religion as Christianity. It was different from all others that had been presented to man, and the only one commensurate to the hopes and expectations of the human soul. It was not a fragmentary system, but one complete in all its parts, and in such shape and form that the acutest and most subtle minds have been able only to illustrate what they have received, and have not made any addition to it. It taught the unity of God, man’s ruin by the fall, his redemption by the cross, the regenerating influence of the Holy Spirit, the resurrection of the body, the life everlasting ; the graces it in¬ culcated were humility, repentance, faith, forgiveness of injuries. This system of religion was in broad contrast to the ruling principles of the time. It was a new and spiritual religion in the midst of a corrupt and idolatrous world. It was a practical and holy doctrine, “ turning men from darkness unto light, and from the power of Satan unto God.” The Jews who had conducted their Master to the cross showed every hostility within their power to His disciples. The heathens looked down with contempt on what seemed to be but a superstitious sect of Judea. But the apostles sought for converts both among Jews and Gentiles — and they found them. With the Jew the adoption of the new faith — if he rightly understood his own — required no violent transi¬ tion ; he had only to recognise the completion of his own imperfect system. But with the heathen it was altogether different. In the wreck of his former creed, there was nothing left to which he could cling; his conversion to Christianity was thorough and radical. His cherished views in every department of religion were swept away, and in their place was set up a new system utterly at variance with all in which he had formerly believed. He had entered on a new world of thought and feeling. “ Old things had passed away, and all things had become new.” Christianity could not tolerate a divided worship. It demanded the whole field to itself. It claimed the entire submission of the mind and heart. Borne was the stronghold of heathenism. It was guarded and protected by the whole power of the State. It was a religion which the people identified with all their ideas of INFLUENCE OF HIS TEACHING ON THE WORLD. 513 public, social, and intellectual life, and with what obscure conception they had of a life to come. The departments of religion and government were indissolubly united. All na¬ tional affairs and all public transactions partook of a religious character. Nothing was too lofty to be beyond its grasp ; nothing too insignificant to be under its inspection. The meetings of the Senate were always held in a temple or consecrated place, and its deliberations commenced with a sacrificial offering. The Emperor himself was the Chief Pontiff, and held that position for life. The exercise of the priesthood was not incompatible with retention, at the same time, of full political power. A consul might on one day lead the procession to the temple of Jove, and the next as a conqueror. To the College of Augurs was committed almost unlimited authority — which was often abused. An Augur hostile to a measure being passed by the Senate, could stop its discussion by simply declaring that he heard thunder. The heathenism of Pome was a tree of gigantic growth, and was rooted in the very centre of its constitution. It shot its branches through every region of the Empire, and towered to such a height and expansion that all other idolatries were sheltered and obscured beneath it. From this system of heathenism, which was cemented into the state, Christianity stood apart. It had no sympathy with that huge structure of Eoman greatness. Its converts were bound together in a bond of brotherhood which united them to their fellow-believers throughout the world. They held lightly the ties of family and country. They abstained from the games and the amphitheatre, partly because of the san¬ guinary or licentious character of some of the exhibitions, and partly because they were all founded on the ancient mytho¬ logy. They were hated on account of their new and unsocial creed, and were regarded as distinct from the rest of mankind. The Eomans cherished with remarkable fondness the remem¬ brance of former and brighter days, and when the atmosphere thickened and dark clouds gathered around them, they ascribed the threatening disasters to the neglect of the gods. Their minds were impressed with an old tradition, that when public faith decayed Eoman greatness would pass away. To the 2 K 514 THE PERSON OF CHRIST, AND THE gods they appealed as the arbiters of battles, and in the centre of the camp a shrine was always erected. They could not be present at a social feast without pouring out a libation to the gods. They looked to the gods for the success of seed-time and harvest. They referred the drought which blighted their fields, and the murrain which swept away their cattle, to the influence of the gods. In every field and garden, in every grove and by every fountain, their statues were set up. A fabulous deity presided over every act a Eoman could perform. When he travelled by land he was under the protecting care of one deity, and by sea of another. When, too, he entered his home, he passed at once into the protection of his house¬ hold gods, and of the ancestral deity of his family or tribe, which presided over his domestic hearth. Faith in the gods the Romans regarded as the life of the empire. A fraternity was springing up which avowed uncompromising hostility to the gods, which was knit together by the closest interests, and was winning its proselytes among both high and low. It included the inmates of Caesar’s household to the slave in bonds. As the Romans were devoted to their national gods, through whose guardianship they believed they had risen to power, so they looked upon this widespread fellowship with distrust and aversion. It is not surprising, therefore, that even patriotism exasperated them against it as being of all things most dangerous to the State. So early as the reign of Nero, it was, as Tacitus indignantly asserts, widely spread. It was about 64 A.D. that Rome sustained a general confla¬ gration. This disaster was imputed to the Emperor himself, and Suetonius has no doubt of his guilt. He tells us that somebody repeating in conversation — ’E fiov Oavouros, y ala iux6t]tco irvpl — “ When I am dead, let the earth be devoured by fire5’ — <£ Ret it be,” said Nero, “ whilst I am living,” — Ifxov £wvroc. Accordingly, pretending to dislike the old buildings and the narrow winding of the streets, he caused Rome to be set on fire in five different places. The conflagration soon became univer¬ sal, and during nine successive days the fire was unextinguished. Nero was the only person who enjoyed the consternation. He INFLUENCE OF HIS TEACHING ON THE WOULD. 515 beheld the conflagration from a high tower, and being so well pleased with the sight, went to his own theatre, and in his scenic dress tuned his lyre, and sang the destruction of Troy.1 The Emperor, lost as he was to all sense of reputation, and sunk in flagitiousness, was yet studious to divert from himself the infamy of such atrocious wickedness ; and knowing that the public mind was prejudiced against the Christians, he transferred the guilt to them, and accordingly proceeded to put a vast number of them to death, — “ not indeed,” as Tacitus says, “ because they had been convicted upon clear evidence of having set fire to the city, but because of their hatred of the whole human race.” 2 Tacitus calls the religion a detest¬ able superstition ( exitiabilis superstitio ) ; but if so judicious a historian as he can thus without proof asperse the Christians, we do not wonder that so execrable a wretch as Nero should not hesitate to charge them with the fact of burning Eome. They were executed with excpiisite cruelty, and to their suffer¬ ings Nero added insult and derision. “ Some were covered with skins of wild beasts, and left to be devoured by dogs ; others were nailed to crosses ; numbers were burnt alive ; and many, covered over with inflammable matter, were lighted up, when the day declined, to serve as torches during the night.” 3 But no steps that he could take were sufficient to eradicate the opinion that Borne had been set on fire by his own orders. It was not, therefore, by this artifice of Nero that the passions of the people were inflamed against the Christians, but because they had outgrown all feelings of contempt, and become for¬ midable as opponents of their ancestral worship, in the main¬ tenance of which the Bomans imagined that the safety of the state depended. In this fierce persecution St Paul was be¬ headed and St Peter crucified. It was the first persecution to which the Christians had been subjected, and it lasted till the earth got rid of the tyrant by a terrible exit. Persecution was renewed under Domitian. Then St John 1 Suet, in Neron., s. 38. 2 ‘ ‘ Multitude* ingens, haud perinde in crimine incendii, quam odio humani generis.” — Tacit. Ann., xv. 44. 3 “Pereuntibus addita ludibria, ut, ferarum tergis contecti, laniatu canum interirent, aut crucibus affixi, aut flammandi, atque, ubi defecisset dies, in usum nocturni luminis urerentur.” — Ibid. 516 THE PERSON OF CHRIST, AND THE was banished to Patmos. Many persons, being accused of atheism, were put to death. This was the common charge against the Christians, because they would not worship the heathen gods. Among these was the consul Plavius Clemens, the emperor’s cousin, who had espoused Flavia Domitilla, his relative. She herself was banished to the island of Panda- taria. It cannot be doubted that those two noble persons were genuine Christians distinguished by Divine grace, and so were able to live upon their faith and to suffer for it. The blood of the Caesars and the splendour of the Imperial house rendered them only more conspicuous objects of displeasure. It is clear that no positive crime is ascribed to either of them. Suetonius charges the husband with despicable indolence ; but this accusation is rather creditable to the man’s spiritual¬ mindedness, for it seems merely to imply that he could not mix himself up with the designs of secular ambition and with the vices of a licentious court. Again, after a short interval, a third persecution arose under Trajan. Then fell Ignatius, with many others. It was in this persecution that the younger Pliny, in his character of proconsular governor of Bithynia, wrote to the Emperor for information as to how he should pro¬ ceed with the Christians, who had become numerous in his pro¬ vince. He states that the real Christians were not to be forced by any means whatever to renounce the articles of their belief. He proceeds to the sum total of their guilt, which he found to be as follows : “ They were accustomed to meet on a stated day before it was light, and to repeat among themselves a hymn to Christ as to a god ; and to bind themselves by a solemn oath, not for any wicked purpose, but never to commit any frauds, thefts, or adulteries ; also never to falsify their promise nor deny a trust reposed in them.” 1 Such is his account of the religion which his friend Tacitus calls “ a detestable super¬ stition.” Under the two Antonines was a fourth persecution. Therein fell Justin Martyr, the eloquent apologist of Christian¬ ity, and also the aged Polycarp, whose martyrdom is one of 1 “Affirmabant banc fuisse summam vel culpse su?e, vel erroris, quod essent soliti stato die ante lucem convenire, carmenque Christo quasi deo dicere secum invicem ; seque Sacramento non in scelus aliquod obstringere, sed ne furta, ne latrocinia, ne adulteria committerent ; ne fidem fallerent, ne depositum appellati abnegarent.” — Plin., lib. x., ep. 97. INFLUENCE OF HIS TEACHING ON THE WORLD. 517 the most affecting records in Christian history. Therein like¬ wise fell Blandina and the noble martyrs of Lyons. Under Severus was the fifth, under Maximin a sixth, under Decius and Gallus a seventh, under Valerian an eighth, under Aurelian a ninth, and under Diocletian a tenth. This was the last and the most memorable conflict between Christianity and Pagan¬ ism. It was the most violent attempt ever known to abolish the Christian faith, and to quench it in the blood of its martyrs. But the martyrs, by means of their steadfastness, had hitherto been the most impressive preachers of the Gospel, and their blood had been the seed of the Church. The Christian Church had endured exquisite suffering for three hundred years, but the price had been paid and the victory was about to be won. During all that period Christi¬ anity had been silently but irresistibly spreading its influence over every province and corner of the empire. It had taken possession of the towns, the islands, the camp, the palace, the senate, the forum — to Paganism it had left only the temples. The priests murmured at the waning devotion of the age, and at the scantier offerings which rewarded their services. The Christians knew that the hour of triumph was at hand, and patiently awaited the issue. Year by year the courts of the temples were trodden by fewer worshippers, and silence had begun to reign where crowds used to be seen. Christianity had everywhere extended its spiritual dominion. It obeyed its own rulers, was governed by its own regulations, resisted all compliance with the Imperial edicts where these conflicted with the tenets which it held. It unsparingly denounced the idolatry which overshadowed the earth ; it had grown into a might which no human power could crush. There were other causes besides the appearance which Christianity presented, and which also tended to hasten on the crisis which had become inevitable. There were “ wars, and rumours of wars,” — the aspect of the times became more and more ominous and appalling. Numerous enemies were menacing the empire, both in the East and in the West. Superstition awoke, and the people in frantic terror looked around for victims to ap¬ pease the offended gods. The priests promised that with returning reverence for the forsaken religion, there should 518 THE PERSON OF CHRIST, AND THE also be a return of the golden days. The heathen power was alarmed at the position which Christianity had assumed, and was impressed with the idea that Christianity must now be rooted out from the earth, because in this way only could the deliverance of the empire be effected. A whole winter Diocletian and his associate Galerius were engaged in secret counsels. The latter was naturally of a cruel disposition, and proposed a general persecution of the Christians. The former remonstrated against such sanguinary measures, and was for limiting the persecution to officers of the Court and of the army ; but finding himself unable to refrain his colleague from carrying out his hostility to its utmost extent, he, after long hesitation, signed his edict. It commanded all Christian churches to be levelled with the ground, and the sacred books which were found to be burnt. It aimed at the utter extermination of the Christian faith throughout the Eoman world. In every province suffering and death awaited those who refused to return to the worship of the gods. One re¬ script after another was published, each more rigorous than the preceding. The persecution began in 302, and continued for ten years. Diocletian, soon after the publication of his edicts, divested himself of the Imperial purple, and left to other hands the work of persecution which he had authorised. Every human effort was exerted, every device was tried ; but neither skill nor urgency availed. Excruciating tortures of all kinds were then resorted to, but these seemed to awaken only the courage that could bear them. The heart sickens at the perusal of the grievous torments to which the Christians were subjected, and still more at the ferocity of the monsters who inflicted them. When reduced to the alternative of apos¬ tatising or dying, thousands cheerfully chose the latter rather than disown their Master. A city in Phrygia was besieged and destroyed by armed men. As the magistrates and the body of the people had embraced the Christian faith, it was apprehended that some resistance would be offered to the execution of the edict, so the governor of the province was supported by a numerous detach¬ ment of legionaries. All the inhabitants professing Chris¬ tianity were ordered to offer sacrifice, and on their refusal the INFLUENCE OF HIS TEACHING ON THE WORLD. 519 city was set on fire, and men, women, and children perished in the conflagration. Gibbon remarks that the gates were opened to permit them to depart, if they pleased. But was this per¬ mission unconditional ? Eusebius says that it was not, — that it was expected from them that they should sacrifice. The governors were at length wearied with murder, and, affecting to praise the clemency of the emperors, who were desirous to save life, contented themselves with plucking out the right eye, and cutting off or laming the left foot, and in that state they condemned vast multitudes to the mines. Persons of liberal birth were declared to be incapable of holding public honours or employments. Slaves were for ever deprived of all hopes of emancipation. Christians, as a class, were put out of the protection of the law. The judges were authorised to hear and determine any action that was brought against a Christian. But Christians were not permitted to complain of any injury which they themselves had sustained. Thus they were exposed to the rigour of the law, while they were excluded from the benefits of public justice. In France alone, where the mild and humane Constantius ruled, the Christians found some shelter. He was averse to the oppression of any part of his subjects. But so long as he remained in the subordinate station of Caesar, it was not in his power openly to reject the edicts of Diocletian, or to disobey the commands of his superior Maximian. To save appear¬ ances, therefore, he not only demolished the churches, but also ordered those of his domestics to quit the service who would not retract Christianity. The members of his household were tried by this means. But the result was contrary to their ex- pections. For Constantius retained the faithful, and dismissed the apostates — judging that those who were unfaithful to their God would also be so to their prince. This persecution was considered so successful in its project of rooting out the Christian name, that a medal was struck on the occasion. It is still preserved, and bears the inscription, “ The name of Christians being extinguished who were ruining the Republic.”1 It was the fiercest persecution the Church had ever met with, but the vigour of Christianity remained 1 ££ Nomine Christianorum deleto qui Rempublicam evertebant.” 520 THE PERSON OF CHRIST, AND THE undiminished. Thousands had perished in the flames, and thousands more were yet ready to press forward to occupy the place of those who had suffered. The bush was burning in a fire the most dreadful, but the bush was not consumed. Christ had still a Church in the world. There were, doubtless, many praying spirits who were wrestling with God for deliverance, and the hour of deliverance came, for the triumph of Chris¬ tianity was not to be that of unbending endurance alone. In 310, Galerius, who was the first and chief author of the persecution, was smitten with a loathsome and incurable dis¬ temper. Physicians and idols were applied to in vain. Like Herod, he was devoured by worms. In a situation the most dreadful he lingered a whole year. He died in the greatest agonies. The bodily pains and sufferings which preceded his death led him at length to reflect on the horrid and relentless cruelties he had inflicted on the most peaceable and exem¬ plary portion of his subjects. Prom his dying couch he issued in his own name, and in those of Licinius and Constantine, a general edict, repealing the severe statutes against the Chris¬ tians — allowing them to rebuild their places of worship, and even desiring them to intercede for him in their supplications to their God. Thus it was that Paganism was compelled to acknowledge its defeat, when the confession, wrung from the dying emperor, was published to the world. The prisons were opened ; captives who had been confined for years regained their liberty ; and in the edifices which were reared, anthems of praise were heard from multitudes who had maintained the Christian faith. A few years later Constantine, the son of Constantius, became the sole possessor of the Imperial throne. On his conversion to Christianity he appeared before the world as the upholder of that religion against which his predecessors had been arrayed. One decree followed after another, smiting the ancient Paganism, — closing its temples, abolishing its priest¬ hood, till it gradually lost its influence on the public mind. The cross, hitherto so shameful, was adopted as the emblem of honour and glory. It was represented on the labarum or Im¬ perial standard, it glittered on the helmets of the soldiery, was engraven on their shields, and interwoven into their ban- INFLUENCE OF HIS TEACHING ON THE WORLD. 521 ners. Christian orators spoke where heathen advocates had pleaded, and Christian judges decreed justice where praetors and proconsuls had presided. The Boman world was now under the government of a Christian ruler. By edicts he re¬ stored everything to the Church of which it had been deprived. He erected splendid places of worship, and was full of zeal for the propagation of the Christian faith, believing it to he the only religion of Divine authority. From his time to the pre¬ sent day it has continued to be the accepted religion of all civilised nations, and its laws, customs, and morals are those which are derived from the teaching of Jesus Christ. Christianity was the era of humanity. It has infused a new moral power into every phasis of life. Before its advent men did not contemplate themselves as members of one great fam¬ ily. But it is the unity of mankind which constitutes the all- important principle of universal love. The heathens were all in the dark respecting their origin. They considered themselves as autochthonous tribes, the direct offspring of their native soil, and regarded each other with pride, contempt, or hostility. Christianity teaches that God has made of one blood all nations of the earth; that all men are brethren, and ought to be united by one common bond of sympathy and love. It proclaims the liberty of conscience; and however this principle may be sinned against, it is now universally acknowledged to be man’s per¬ sonal right, and that, consequently, he ought not to be deprived of it. But Christianity has done more than this : it has brought quietude to the conscience, peace to the soul, and deliverance from the consciousness of guilt, through the atoning sacrifice and all-perfect righteousness of a Bedeemer. It has thereby healed conscience of all its wounds, relieved the mind from anxiety and the heart from heaviness. It has offered a remedy for all the miseries of life, and been the source of a hitherto unknown moral power. It has raised the standard of moral excellence above the highest standard of the ancient world, and the noblest of its characters. Heathenism was unable to form any conception of characters equally great in benevolence as in suffering, in self-denial as in activity, as those which Christianity has produced. Christianity has abolished polygamy, and assigned to woman 522 THE PERSON OF CHRIST, AND THE her due position. The laws of marriage recognised by civilised nations are not heathen, nor even Jewish, but strictly Christian. The heathen felt no scruple in destroying children either before or after birth. They were regarded as the property of the State, and so it was justified in disposing of them at its pleasure. Christianity has withdrawn them from the arbitrary power of the State, and placed them under the natural guardianship of their parents. It has cherished domestic affection, promoted social happiness, and drawn by the cord of charity man to man. Christianity inculcates the principle of the brotherhood of all men, of their common relation to God, and of their humanity with Christ. The principle that there is neither Jew nor Greek, neither male nor female, neither bond nor free, in the great Christian commonwealth, but that all are one in Christ — that a slave is a human being, a Christian brother or sister — this principle cannot be worked out without shattering in pieces a system which allows the abject servitude of one fellow-crea¬ ture to another. This fact has been admitted and acted on in many lands where slavery has been abolished. Christianity has mitigated the horrors of war, especially in the treatment of prisoners. The sick and the wounded are tended by medical men, and nursed in the hospitals of those against whom they have been fighting, and with whom it is possible they may yet be engaged in combat. It has broken down the wall of partition between nations and states. In the heathen world no such a thing as international law existed, upon which the whole framework of society in our day depends. It upholds the sway of law, but combines with it the spirit of gentleness, and ever reminds us that even the transgressor is still a man, and should be the object of our commiseration, because it is the will of God that all men should come to the knowledge of the truth and be saved. It has erected abodes for the sick and the incurable, opened asylums for the blind and the insane, and gathered the outcast into places of refuge. Whence has such regard for human life ever come, but from the influence of Christian teaching, and the source of Christian sympathy ? The spirit of meekness, resignation, and self-sac¬ rifice, which is the noblest exemplification of the moral life, proceeds from Christianity — from the humble contemplation INFLUENCE OF HIS TEACHING ON THE WORLD. 523 of the cross of Christ. Christianity fosters education of all kinds, and thus elevates man’s condition, not only in a religious and moral but also in an intellectual and social point of view. It has been in itself the highest power of civilisation ever known. It is true that much that is unjust, and even much that is infamous, has been practised in the name of Christianity. Men calling themselves Christians, instead of ameliorating the condition of savage tribes by giving them comfort and peace and civilisation, have, on the contrary, injured and enslaved them. But Christianity is not responsible for the acts of those by whom it has not been cordially embraced. It is, however, a most gratifying circumstance that, on British and North American soil, slavery — the bitterest evil ever inflicted on humanity — has now been done away with. No age for many centuries has been so pre-eminently an age of missionary exertion as the present, and the wonderful suc¬ cess which has attended it affords abundant evidence that the cause of Christ shall eventually triumph among the nations. The South Sea Islanders have been reclaimed from cannibal¬ ism and other unutterable vices by the preaching of Christ’s Gospel. This fact proves to demonstration the benign effects of Christianity when it has been fairly applied. These island¬ ers were not only ignorant of the true God and the way of salvation, but were unacquainted with almost all the useful arts of life, and were existing in the rudest and most barbarous state. But now, having been taught the principles of Chris¬ tianity, they have cast their idols to the moles and to the bats, have become peaceable members of society, and are pursuing the arts and industries of life. Much yet remains to be done. Millions of the human race are still enveloped in heathen darkness. But this state of things is not to continue for ever, for Christ’s sovereignty is to be universal. All nations from the rising to the setting sun shall acknowledge His sway, and bow before Him in pro¬ found homage and grateful adoration. This conviction rests not merely on the promise given to Abraham that in his seed all the nations of the earth should be blessed, nor on the sub¬ lime predictions of the Hebrew prophets — it rests on the ex- 524 THE PERSON OF CHRIST, AND THE press declarations of our Lord Himself and His apostles. These warrant us to expect the complete and universal establishment of Christ’s kingdom, not only in the hearts of men, but in the laws, governments, and institutions of the world at large. When He commands us to pray, “ Thy kingdom come,” it is an earnest and pledge that the prayer shall he fulfilled ; for He never commands us to pray for anything but what He is able and willing to grant. We may rest assured, therefore, that the time shall come when all “ the kingdoms of this world shall become the kingdoms of our Lord, even of His [God’s] Christ.” Laborious and difficult as the work may be before this object can be accomplished, we should not thereby be discouraged, nor inclined to fall into despair, but should rather the more ardently engage in every attempt to carry it forward, and especially since barriers hitherto deemed almost insur¬ mountable have been removed. The progress of science has amazingly increased the facili¬ ties of access and of intercourse. British and Foreign Bible Societies are displaying a greater activity than was ever known in the circulation of the Scriptures. These have now been translated into almost all living languages. Missionaries are planted in every quarter of the globe. Many thousands of the heathen are being gathered into the Church, while their children are receiving at their hands both secular and Chris¬ tian instruction. We have no intimation from Scripture that the conversion of the world shall be brought about by other means than those now in operation. But the Gospel and the power of the Spirit are adequate to accomplish this work. Yet as the Church approaches her millennial state we believe that, in the fulfilment of prophecy, there shall be a fresh and copious Pentecostal effusion of the Spirit, under whose quicken¬ ing influence both Jews and Gentiles shall be gathered into the kingdom of Christ. Ho two events can be more clearly established from Scrip¬ ture than the conversion of the Jews to the faith of Christ, and their restoration to the land of their fathers. But no general profession of Christianity among them is to be ex¬ pected till the mystical Babylon is overthrown. “ The chil¬ dren of Israel shall abide many days, without king, and with- INFLUENCE OF HIS TEACHING ON THE WORLD. 525 out prince, and without sacrifice, and without image, and with¬ out ephod, and without teraphim : afterward shall they return, and seek the Lord their God, and David their king ; and shall come with fear unto the Lord and to His goodness in the latter days.” 1 For eighteen centuries they have not been a body politic ; they have no king nor prince of their own ; the sceptre is departed from them ; neither is there any sacrifice offered by them, for their daily sacrifice has ceased ; and, what is still more remarkable, they have also remained without an image, ephod, or teraphim, — without any of those idolatrous rites and devices to which they were so prone when this prophecy was uttered, — for now there is not an image among them. Those of the Jews who, at their conversion, had joined the Eoman Catholics, as soon as they became acquainted with their image worship forthwith left them, and went over to the Protestants. Joseph Wolff, for example, the celebrated travel¬ ler and missionary to the Jews, was the son of a Jewish Eabbi. At a very early age he wished to become a Christian, and was received into the Eomish Church ; but dissenting from her practices and image worship, he came to London, and was ad¬ mitted into the Church of England. For the same reason, about a.d. 1659, the council of Jewish Eabbins in the plain of Ageda in Hungary, after many days’ controversy with Eomish priests, resolved to embrace the Christian faith, but on being told by the priests that they worshipped saints and their images, felt so disgusted that they exclaimed, “ No idols ! ” and the council broke up without further discussion. How sad the condition of this once highly favoured people ! The names of their ancestors are dear to us. Their lives are not only models of beauty, but patterns of faith. In them we recognise the principles which animated the Christian apostles and martyrs. Those all died in faith of the Messiah to come ; these of the Messiah as already come. Who would have sup¬ posed that a people whose believing ancestors had been ear¬ nestly expecting the Messiah for a succession of ages would have rejected Him when He appeared among them ? Yet so it was. “ He came unto His own, and His own received Him not.” Their own prophets had foretold that such would be the case — 1 Hosea iii. 4, 5 — Authorised Version, with alterations. 526 THE PERSON OF CHRIST, AND THE That He should possess neither form nor comeliness in their eyes, and that when they should see Him, there would be no beauty that they should desire Him.1 “ That after threescore and two weeks should Messiah be cut off, but not for Himself ; and that the people of the prince that should come should destroy the city and the sanctuary.”2 “ Of Jerusalem glorious things were once spoken ; beautiful for situation, the joy of the whole earth was Mount Zion ; God was known in her palaces for a refuge.” But what was now said ? — “ Behold your house is left unto you desolate ! ” God had sent them His beloved Son : “ It might he that they would reverence Him when they saw Him ” — when they saw Him “ full of grace and truth.” He had openly proclaimed Him to be the Messiah whom they looked for — “ the Christ of God.” They had heard Him speak as never man spake, and seen His words attested by the most wonderful works ; but instead of yielding to conviction, “ the chief priests and the Pharisees gathered a council, and said, What do we ? for this man doetli many miracles : if we let Him thus alone, all men will believe on Him, and the Bomans will come and take away both our place and our nation.” So they deemed it expedient that He should die, and that the whole nation should not perish. In carrying out this carnal policy, they employed the Boman power to crucify the Lord of glory. To this crime was added their rejection of the offers of mercy through that very blood, when proclaimed to them by the Holy Ghost sent down from heaven. For nearly forty years God’s mercy lingered over Jerusalem and the Jewish people ; but as the gracious overtures by the Holy Ghost were utterly rejected, God sent forth, as the ministers of His wrath, the very same Power which they themselves had employed, to lay Jerusalem even with the ground and her children within her, and to scatter the remnant of the doomed race over the face of the earth. In this forlorn and outcast condition the Jewish people have continued to the present day. How long this state of things shall last it is not for us to know, but of the issue we are certain. It is positively stated in the Word of God that “ Jerusalem shall be trodden down of the Gentiles, until the times of the 1 Isa. liii. 2. 2 Dan. ix. 26 — Authorised Version, with alterations. INFLUENCE OF HIS TEACHING ON THE WORLD. 527 Gentiles be fulfilled.” God is not slack concerning His promises to His ancient people, but it is contrary to His Word to expect that they shall be restored to their own land “ till the times of the Gentiles are fulfilled.” How useless it is for sceptics to discuss the evidence necessary to establish a miracle. Here is a standing miracle, “ seen and read of all men.” It cannot be called accidental, for no such phenomenon as the state of the Jews has been exhibited in the history of the world. While other nations of antiquity are lost in one undistinguish - able mass, the Jews still exist as a distinct people. They are a living evidence of the truth of prophecy. They date their pedigree from the creation of man. They may not know from what particular tribe or family they are descended, but they know certainly that they all spring from the stock of Abraham. Yet the contempt with which they have been treated should, one would think, have made them desirous to forget or re¬ nounce their original ; but, on the contrary, they exult in it, — they glory in it. After so many discouragements and perse¬ cutions, this extraordinary people still subsist, and are as numerous, it is believed, at the present day, as ever they were at any period of their power. This remarkable circumstance affords a forcible demonstration that God, in His providence, having preserved them in such a manner as no other nation has ever been preserved, will at His own time fully accom¬ plish the promise which He made to Abraham. God said to him, “ Unto thy seed have I given this land, from the river of Egypt [understood to be the Nile] unto the great river, the river Euphrates.” 1 The chosen people, through all the period of their national history, were pent up in the narrow strip between the Jordan and the Mediterranean Sea, except for a short while, when the two and a half tribes dwelt on the eastern side of Jordan. As the promise of God cannot fail, the time must come when the whole region granted to Abraham shall be inhabited by his posterity. The Jews mix with all nations ; but as oil mixes not with the running stream, so they still keep separate from all. They live as a distinct people. They have no land which they call their own but the land of Canaan. They dwell with unshaken 1 Gen. xv. 18, 528 THE PERSON OF CHRIST, AND THE confidence on restoration to their fatherland. This desire is interwoven with all their prayers from day to day, and more especially on the feast of the Passover, when it is repeatedly said, “ This year we are here ; at the next year we shall be in the land of Israel ! ” They are hated, persecuted, and de¬ pressed, but they will thus the more willingly leave the places where they are so used. Notwithstanding all the obloquy and discouragement to which they have been subjected, they have riches wherewith to support themselves on their journey to their native land, and to establish themselves therein. As many of them live at a great distance from Palestine, to travel so far, and to establish for themselves a settlement in a region almost desolate, is a thing not to be done without considerable wealth. Their present position is such, that they are as ready to depart as their fathers were when they came out of Egypt. Not only are they prepared by the remarkable course of Provi¬ dence to return at a moment’s warning, but the way is also preparing for them. The once terrible Turkish Empire is crumbling into pieces ; and the determined time for the land to be trodden under foot of the Gentiles is drawing to a close. We expect not, however, that the restoration of the Jews shall be accomplished by such miraculous displays as were manifested in crossing the Ked Sea, the wilderness, and the Jordan; nor that it shall take place before they are brought to repentance and faith. As the great body of the Jews were broken off from their own olive-tree because of their unbelief, so shall they be grafted into it again because of their repentance. But any general conversion of the Jews to Christianity is not to be looked for till the mystical Babylon is overthrown : when this event takes place, it will not be caused by Protestantism, nor by the increase of religious people who have seceded from her communion, as she has always apprehended, but by the revolt and opposition of her own adherents. The kings who have supported her will turn their hearts against her, and shall be instruments in her destruction. This is the way in which the apostate Church is doomed to fall. It may seem strange that the powers which supported her should be the means of her overthrow. But it has been appointed by God, who saw the end from the INFLUENCE OF HIS TEACHING ON THE WORLD. 529 beginning. He allowed for wise ends this system of apostasy to arise, and so to order it that European governments should unite in supporting it. But when His purposes are fulfilled, He will cause the spirit of discord to separate its supporters, so that they shall oppose one another, and by their broils lead to her destruction. The overthrow of the papal Babylon shall be eminently subservient to the conversion of the Jews, for an end shall thereby be put to every species of idolatry which has been practised under the name of Christian worship, and one of the most prominent obstacles which stand in the way of their conversion shall thus be removed. Ho people upon earth have evinced such antipathy to Christ as the Jews, yet the stony heart shall be taken away, and a heart of flesh shall be given them,1 when God shall pour upon them “ the spirit of grace and of supplications.” 2 Then shall they look unto Him whom their fathers crucified, and whom they themselves have pierced by their obduracy and unbelief. A believing view of Christ on the cross shall melt the hardened heart in godly sorrow. By looking unto Him they shall be wounded, and by looking unto Him they shall be healed. Their grief shall be intense. “ They shall mourn for Him, as one that mourneth for his only son, and shall be in bitterness for Him, as one that is in bitterness for his first¬ born.” It shall be like the mourning occasioned by the death of Josiah, in the valley of Megiddon. Although a general conversion of the Jews is not to be expected “ till the times of the Gentiles are fulfilled,” it is, nevertheless, just as incumbent on Christians of the present day to preach the Gospel to those of them who come in their way, as it was when Christ sent His disciples to preach His doctrine to the lost sheep of the house of Israel, and as when Paul went into the synagogue every Sabbath-day and reasoned with them from the Scriptures, if by any means he might save some. The Jews, as we have remarked, are numerous, and have vast wealth. They exercise, moreover, no unimportant influ¬ ence on the affairs of the world. But they have never en¬ deavoured to regain possession of their fatherland. Any such 1 Ezek. xi. 19. 2 Zecli. xii. 10. 530 THE PERSON OF CHRIST, AND THE attempt could have produced only individual misery, and could have been of no advantage to themselves or to the cause of Christianity. But when God’s time is come, He shall gather them from all the nations whither they have been scattered, and shall restore them to the land which He has promised to the seed of Abraham for ever. They shall return in crowds by land and by sea. Those by land shall go in vast caravans, and by railway conveyances ; those by sea, “ in vessels of bulrushes ” 1 — that is, in boats or steamships. This latter circumstance seems to indicate that they shall be assisted by a maritime Power, most probably by that of Bri¬ tain. But other Powers may also aid them both by sea and land. The promised land is now empty, as though waiting for their return. It shall then be filled with multitudes. But scarcely shall the Jews be resettled in Canaan, when the Turks, assisted, as we suspect, by the Bussians, and by the Tartars, Persians, Arabs, and Africans, shall attempt to dislodge them ; hut by mutual dissensions, “ every man’s sword being against his brother,” and by the signal vengeance of God, they shall perish in the attempt, and leave their carcasses to be buried, and their spoils to be possessed by the Jews. These forces of Magog, combined with those of other nations, compose the army described by Ezekiel which is to invade the land of Israel in the latter days, and is the same which John saw assembled unto the battle of the great day of God at a place called Armageddon. By the fall of mystical Babylon and of Mohammedan do¬ minion, a way shall be opened up both in the West and in the East for preaching the Gospel of Christ. In carrying forward this work, great assistance shall be contributed by the Christianised Jews, for these shall be filled with a spirit of exultation when they see realised what their own prophet Ezekiel and also the Christian apostles had foretold. Many of them shall be employed as officers in the Church — “ for the Lord shall take of them for priests and for Levites ; they shall be named the priests of the Lord ; men shall call them the ministers of our God.” 2 As a consequence of their dispersion, they have become acquainted with the language, customs, and 1 Isa. xviii. 2. 2 Isa. lxi. 6 and lxvi. 21. INFLUENCE OF HIS TEACHING ON THE WORLD. 531 climates of every land ; and on embracing the Gospel, they will go forth to proclaim the glad tidings of salvation to their perishing brethren of mankind in those regions where the name of a Saviour has not yet been made known. Their labours shall be largely crowned with success : men “ out of all the languages of the nations shall take hold of him that is a Jew, saying, We will go with you ; for we have heard that God is with you.” 1 In the course of a short period after the conversion of the Jews, the Christian Church shall have no other boundaries than the poles. Showers of blessing shall descend upon the Jewish people, and the fields of the Gentiles shall also be refreshed and fertilised by the same blessed influences. How soon after the Gospel has thus been widely spread the Church shall enter on that glorious period usually termed the millen¬ nium, we cannot determine ; but it is generally agreed that when the vices, errors, and superstitions by which she has been so long opposed have given way, her millennial state of purity and holiness shall almost immediately commence. During this millennial period, in which Christian influence shall predominate, Satan is to be bound.2 The term Satan is the appellation generally given to the devil, the mighty spirit of evil, in rebellion against God and antagonistic to man. Devil is derived from a Greek word SiafioXog, and means one who sets at variance , a slanderer. The Scriptures makes a distinction between 3m/3oXoc and which our transla¬ tors have not observed. They render Sai/uoveg and 3aqiovm, devils ; but in the spiritual world there is only one SiafloXog, devil , whereas of Sai/moveg, demons , there are many. These evil spirits were originally created holy. The chief of them is named “ the devil ’.” It may be that he was the great mover in the revolt in consequence of which “they fell from their first estate.” If he was originally higher than they, he has preserved in ruin his fatal pre-eminence. The rationalistic notion that he is only an abstract principle personified, is in¬ consistent with the statements of Scripture. He is represented as exercising powers, as influenced by motives, as performing actions, as suffering punishment, and as being reserved for 1 Zech. viii. 23. 2 Rev. xx. 2. 532 THE PERSON OF CHRIST, AND THE future judgment. What was the nature of his rebellion is not revealed. The general opinion is that it was pride, found¬ ed on what the apostle says of a novice, who is apt to be lifted up with pride, and to fall into the condemnation of the devil.1 The time when the transgression took place and the locality we know not. Some have conjectured that Satan was moved to rebel against God, and to seduce our first parents from their allegiance by a desire to rule over our globe and the human race. We must be careful not to let speculation carry us too far ; but the fact is patent that ever since the fall of man, he (the adversary) and the apostate angels who ranged themselves on his side have continued here, and shall remain till the final judgment, when they shall be cast out of the earth into eternal perdition. The race of man, on the contrary, whom they sought to destroy, in virtue of the union of the redeemed with the Divine nature in the person of Christ, shall be raised to a state of dignity and glory far higher than that in which Adam was created, or to which humanity could ever have attained. As Satan is represented in general terms as the enemy of God, he is especially set forth in Scripture as the head of the kingdom of darkness, which includes all evil spirits. The binding of him and his associates indicates that when the millennium has begun, their influence for evil shall, during that period, be remarkably restrained. Jews and Gentiles shall unite in one Christian faith and fellowship. On this principle the apostles uniformly acted. Under the Mosaic dispensation heathen proselytes were incorporated with the Jewish people without any distinction between them, and so it is under the Christian. Gentiles and Jews are united in undistinguished membership in the same Church, and shall continue to be so till the end of time. In the latter days the doctrine, worship, and discipline of the Christian Church shall exactly correspond with the Word of God. Both Church and State shall be ruled by the operation of Christian principles. None of the rulers, civil or ecclesiastical, shall be furnished with supernatural gifts ; but places of importance both in the world and in the Church shall be filled by righteous men. 1 1 Tim. iii. 6. INFLUENCE OF HIS TEACHING ON THE WORLD. 533 Righteousness shall flow as a river, and corruption and vio¬ lence shall recede before it. We conceive this to be the full extent to which we can carry the idea of the Church’s purity and felicity during the millennium. It is that glorious rest which she shall enjoy after the destruction of her Antichris¬ tian enemies. The Gospel shall then be widely disseminated, and, under the guidance of the Spirit, its influence shall be quite amazing. The desert and the wilderness shall become a fruitful field, and “ shall blossom as the rose ” — even “ the dry bones shall live.” “ All the kingdoms of the world shall bring their riches and glory into the Church” — utlie whole earth shall be full of the knowledge of the Lord ” — ■“ and there shall be peace unto the ends of the earth.” The Redeemer, and God in Him, shall be all in all. The officers of the Church shall be distinguished for activity in winning souls to Christ. Such shall be the multitude and quality of her members, as if the ancient martyrs had risen from the dead. They shall not rise in their own persons, but in their spiritual successors, who, though not called to suffer for the truth, shall nevertheless exhibit a very large measure of the intelligent zeal and other high virtues of the martyrs. These shall be raised up, and go forth in the spirit and power of those worthies. For nothing is more common in Scripture than to represent any remarkable revival in religion under the emblem of a resurrection. Thus when John the Baptist was predicted under the name of Elias, it was not meant that the old prophet, but one in his spirit and power, should arise and prepare the way of the Lord. In this manner the Church shall have her Pauls and Peters and Johns over again. The apostles and martyrs shall, as it were, be raised from their graves, and, in glorious fellowship with Christ, live again upon the earth, and reign over it during the millennial period. Prosperous as shall be the condition of the Church in the latter days, yet every individual shall not be a partaker of the true grace of God 5 for it is said that “ the rest of the dead lived not again, until the thousand years were finished.” Those not endowed with the spirit of the martyrs — the spiritually dead — shall during the whole millennial period be brought under to such a degree as if almost buried in their graves. 534 THE PERSON OF CHRIST, AND THE As a body they shall have no successors, and as individuals they shall be unable to impede the progress of the Gospel. After this, when their leader is let loose, and permitted to make one more desperate effort, they shall then “ live again/’ though it shall be but for a short season. An important point yet remains to be ascertained. In what sense are we to understand this period of the Church’s pros¬ perity, called a thousand years ? Is it meant of solar time, or is it to be calculated as other prophecies, wherein a day stands for a year, which would make them extend to 365,000 years ? Most interpreters understand them literally, and, arguing from the Mosaic days of creation, they infer that as God was em¬ ployed six days in finishing the existing creation and rested on the seventh, so shall the prosperity of the Church last only during the period of a thousand rotations of the earth round the sun, and the world shall not be continued beyond the space of seven thousand years. This opinion they suppose to be confirmed by the comparative statements of Scripture re¬ specting the numbers of the righteous and the wicked, the former being only a little flock and the latter very numerous — for though many are called, few are chosen. These statements, they conclude, could not be accurate if the thousand years were calculated prophetically, because during the millennial state of the Church the people shall be nearly all righteous ; and there¬ fore, if this period of prosperity lasted for 365,000 years, the righteous in the day of judgment should be by far the more numerous party. With all deference to those who interpret these thousand years literally, we shall give the reasons which induce us to calculate them upon the same scale as other prophecies. Firstly, The argument taken from the supposed analogy between the days of the week and the length of the world’s existence, is merely an old Jewish opinion. As God was engaged six days in producing the existing creation and rested on the seventh, so the Rabbins imagined that this world, after having continued for the space of 6000 years, should enjoy a kind of Sabbath rest during the next thousand, and that when this last period ran out, the present system of things should be dissolved. This argument is not countenanced by any prin- INFLUENCE OF HIS TEACHING ON THE WORLD. 535 ciple of reason or any doctrine of Scripture, and being founded only upon a Babbinical supposition, is undeserving of attention. Secondly, The argument taken from the comparative num¬ bers of the righteous and wicked is equally untenable. What part of Scripture declares that the wicked shall be more nu¬ merous than the righteous ? In the days of our Lord’s personal ministry, no doubt, His sheep were only a little flock. Though many were called, few seemed to be chosen. But these pas¬ sages have no reference to the proportion of the righteous and wicked in the day of judgment. They do not directly or in¬ directly intimate what sort of proportion shall subsist between them in every other period of the Church. They represent only how matters then stood, not how they should afterwards become. If this flourishing state of the Church shall be con¬ tinued through a period of 365,000 years, there cannot be a doubt whether in the day of judgment the number of the righteous shall exceed that of the wicked. We have, there¬ fore, no hesitation in calculating the time upon the same scale as other prophecies, because upon this principle only can a consistent and plausible explanation of it be given, whereas a literal interpretation renders it inexplicable. Thirdly, The invariable method of calculation employed by St John requires this interpretation. It is admitted that the 1260 days of the sackcloth state of the Church mean 1260 years, and that the 42 months of the profanation of the court by the Gentiles mean 42 prophetic months, or 1260 years. Indeed, no instance can be produced from any part of his pre¬ dictions in which he uses his chronological terms in a literal and not in a prophetic sense. Fourthly, The drift of the prophecy requires this interpreta¬ tion. Between St John’s time and that of the millennium the Church was to pass through severe trials, but during these she was not to be left without comfort. She was cheered by the prospect of deliverance. In this prospect there were two things to which her attention was especially called, as they were well calculated to give the strongest consolation. First, the bright prosperity she was afterwards to enjoy. “Comfort ye, comfort ye my people, saith your God. Speak ye comfortably to Jerusalem, and cry unto her, that her warfare is accom- 536 THE PERSON OF CHRIST, AND THE plished, that her iniquity is pardoned : for she hath received of the Lord’s hand double for all her sins.” 1 Second, this period of prosperity was to be of long duration. “ Lor a small moment have I forsaken thee ; but with great mercies will I gather thee. In a little wrath I hid My face from thee for a moment ; hut with everlasting kindness will I have mercy on thee, saith the Lord thy Redeemer.” 2 The same sources of consolation are unfolded by St John. The length of her prosperity is described not by days, as her sackcloth con¬ dition had been, but by years. She had been told that her members were to be “ killed all the day long ” 3 for a space of 1260 years. If after this she had been promised a season of prosperity, but which was to last only for a thousand years, what consolation could this have afforded ? The thought that the time of her calamity was to exceed that of her prosperity would have given intensity to her anguish, and rendered her oppression insupportable. But if the thousand years are reck¬ oned by prophetic time, nothing could have been better fitted to impart the strongest comfort. How encouraging the pros¬ pect that her adversity should be succeeded by a season of prosperity of such duration as to he almost too large for the mind to comprehend. Isaiah represents her sufferings as hut the wrath of a moment, but the compassion she should receive as great mercies and everlasting kindness ; and St John describes the one by the term days, and the other by that of years. Fifthly, Whenever the period of the Church’s prosperity in the latter days is referred to in Scripture, it is uniformly spoken of as being of lengthened duration — as if it were, in¬ deed, a kind of eternity. So it is represented in Ezekiel : “And they [the converted Jews] shall dwell in the land that I have given unto Jacob My servant, wherein your fathers have dwelt ; and they shall dwell therein ; even they, and their children, and their children’s children, for ever.” 4 But this strong expression “for ever” is not to be understood of eternity properly so called, as if this prosperity was never to come to an end, but only of a period of time so pro- 1 Isa. xl. 1, 2. 3 Ps. xliv. 22. 2 Isa. liv. 7, 8. 4 Ezek. xxxvii. 25. INFLUENCE OF HIS TEACHING ON THE WORLD. 537 tracted in its duration that it shall bear a greater resemblance to eternity than any period of tribulation which the Church has ever yet undergone. Thus in Isaiah — “ I will make thee an eternal excellency , a joy of many generations 1 And in Joel — “But Judah shall dwell for ever, and Jerusalem from generation to generation .” 2 In the same sense we must under¬ stand the promise of God to Abraham, and afterwards renewed to Jacob, that their seed should inherit the land of Canaan for “ an everlasting possession .” 3 It could not mean that they were to inherit that territory from generation to generation without interruption and without end, because it was not according to the Divine plan that this present world should be the eternal residence of man. It nevertheless intimates that the seed of Abraham should occupy that territory for a very lengthened period ; but their possession of it hitherto does not correspond with the terms of the grant. From the time of Joshua till that in which their political existence was abolished by the Homans there is only a period of fifteen hundred years, and as the land of Canaan has never since been possessed by them, they cannot as yet be said to have occupied it according to the terms of the grant. It is only, therefore, by interpreting the millennial period in a prophetic sense, that these promises can have their full accomplish¬ ment. Sixthly, The last ground we shall state in defence of the prophetic interpretation of the millennium is the prediction of Isaiah : “ He (the Messiah) shall see of the travail of His soul, and shall be satisfied.” 4 When it is said that “ He shall see of the travail of His soul,” the word result, or some similar word, is to be understood ; and the sense is, He shall see the result of all His toilsome work, and shall be satisfied. How sublime the thought ! The great and most glorious results that shall come out of this work, shall satisfy the mind of the Divine Eedeemer. We know that in proportion to the capacity and purity of the mind must be the excellence of the object which can satisfy it. Thus a depraved mind will be pleased with an object which would disgust a mind that is holy ; a narrow 1 Isa. lx. 15. 3 Gen. xvii. 8 and xlviii. 4. 2 Joel iii. 20. 4 Isa. liii. 11. 538 THE PERSON OF CHRIST, AND THE and uninformed intellect will be interested with a topic which a large and enlightened understanding would contemn. If we rise from the capacities of men to the contemplation of those of angels, we are overpowered in thought. We cannot con¬ ceive the design which would engage and satisfy these exalted beings. And yet, between the narrowest human intellect and that of the highest created being there is some measure of pro¬ portion, because both are finite. But between the mind of the highest being and that of the Eternal Word there can be no means of comparison. Finite and infinite are severed by an impassable barrier. What, then, must be the object which the Blessed Saviour can contemplate with plenary delight — which can satisfy the Eternal Mind ? And when we learn that it is the redemption of an immense host of the human race — a host which no man can number — what an exalted idea must we form of the ample result that will be necessary to be a suitable re¬ compense for the sufferings of the Son of God ? We delight in the accomplishment of a work in proportion to the great¬ ness of the issue which has resulted from it. To form, then, some estimate of the satisfaction of Christ in seeing the result of His sufferings, we must consider their nature and extent. We must recollect how small a part of them we are able to comprehend. And we must endeavour to raise our minds to the ample remuneration for all that He has done. But these topics surpass the reach of the human mind. The Saviour’s condescension is unspeakable — the depth of His humiliation cannot be fathomed — the extremity of His passion is beyond human conception. And yet upon all this will He reflect with satisfaction, when He shall behold the effects it has produced. We may, therefore, be assured that vast multitudes of the human race shall accept the blessings of His salvation. To masses of mankind have these blessings already been offered, and been rejected. But brighter days are yet before the Church and the world. The pure Gospel of Christ is to be spread over the globe, and become for ages the religion of the world. While millennial ages are rolling on, what multitudes shall in His name bow the knee, and confess that He is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.1 So that we may not unwar- 1 Phil. ii. 10, 11. INFLUENCE OF HIS TEACHING ON THE WORLD. 539 rantably assume that the number of the lost, compared with those who shall be saved, shall be no greater in proportion than the criminals who are incarcerated in a well-organised community are, compared with the number of peaceful and obedient citizens. We consider Christ’s millennial reign upon earth as entirely of a spiritual character, and to be carried on through the influ¬ ence of the Holy Spirit till the consummation of this world’s destiny, “ when He shall deliver up the (mediatorial) kingdom to God, even the Father.” 1 But though He shall appear a second time to judge the world in righteousness, and to com¬ plete God’s purposes in regard to it, instead of progressive holiness up to the period when time shall be no more, there shall be, in the closing scene of this world’s history, such a season of apostasy as shall render it ripe for judgment. The nature of this apostasy shall not assume an Antichristian form. Men shall not aim at being over-righteous, by adding to the institutions of Christianity, and giving imposing splen¬ dour to the Church, but shall lay aside every appearance of godliness, and openly avow their infidelity. They shall be sunk in sensuality and wickedness, till fires more terrible than those of the cities of the plain shall fall upon them and con¬ sume them. The world shall be taken by surprise in the midst of enormous wickedness. So it was in the days of Noah, — nothing could exceed the depravity and wickedness, the mockery and scorn and contempt, of that generation. Our Lord Himself gives the most emphatic representation of the prevailing wickedness of the last times, when He says, “ When the Son of man cometh, shall He find faith on the earth ? ” This intimation must necessarily puzzle all inter¬ preters who conceive that the history of this world is to con¬ clude with the millennial reign of righteousness ; but they who regard it as alluding to the dreadful depravity which shall succeed that reign of righteousness, shall experience no diffi¬ culty in the matter. The prophetic evangelist, having given a highly symbolical view of the triumphant reign of the Church during the millen¬ nium, immediately introduces us to a state of things directly 1 1 Cor. xv. 24. 540 THE PERSON OF CHRIST, AND THE the reverse of that holy and happy condition he had been describing. “ When the thousand years are expired, Satan shall be loosed out of his prison, and shall go out to deceive the nations.” He shall be freed from his former restrictions, and shall feel increased irritation of spirit against the strong arm which had restrained him, and be more than ever deter¬ mined upon the subversion of the cause of God and of truth upon the earth. “ He shall go forth to deceive the nations.” He shall be permitted for a season of short duration to achieve his last conquest. It shall be awful and extensive ; but here his devices shall cease — here his influence shall terminate. Many as his triumphs may have been, they shall be as noth¬ ing compared with the trophies of the Eedeemer’s purchase. The instruments that the grand mover of all mischief shall employ in his daring scheme of deceit and violence against the Church are, the “ nations which are in the four quarters of the earth, Gog and Magog.” The geographical expressions of Scripture are to be explained, not according to the modern but the ancient theories of the earth. The remotest countries with which the ancients were acquainted were bounded to¬ wards the south by the Indian Sea ; towards the west by the Pillars of Hercules ; towards the east by the river Indus ; and towards the north, all the different regions went under the general name of Scythia. According to their descriptions, these were the four corners of the earth. Judea may thus be regarded as a central point from which they are equally distant ; but the distance is so inconsiderable, that within a short space an army could easily be brought from these quarters, and mustered in the heart of that territory. The name given to the enemies of the Church is borrowed from the prophecy of Ezekiel, and is merely allusive. It was customary with the sacred writers to take names connected with former great events and annex them to other events which should occur. The sovereign of Magog would seem to have been ordinarily called Gog ; but in later times Gog and Magog are coupled as nations. The prophecy of John does not here refer to the same period as that of Ezekiel. The Gog and Magog of Ezekiel refer to a combina¬ tion among the nations against the house of Israel soon after their restoration to their own land, and which shall be prior INFLUENCE OF HIS TEACHING ON THE WORLD. 541 to the commencement of the millennium ; hut the Gog and Magog army of John is after the thousand years are finished. The enemy of mankind shall now go forth to make his last and most daring attack upon the Church ; and as if washing to risk the issue of this conflict upon a single engagement, he shall muster all his forces upon the field. In his schemes of mischief and seduction, every secret spring in the unrenewed heart shall be touched. He shall try to foster in the minds of multitudes the belief that the day of judgment shall never come. He shall tell the men of that age, that after the lapse of thousands of years all things continue as they were from the beginning ; that the sun shines with the same splendour as ever, and the phases of the moon and the changes of the seasons remain unaltered ; that the vegetative powers of the soil are equally productive as in the earliest periods of the world’s history, and therefore that it is natural for them to conclude that similar causes shall produce similar effects ; that one generation shall follow another in endless succession ; and that, as there is no judgment to come, so it is their wisest course to pursue their pleasures while their opportunity lasts. Let currency be given to such opinions, and it is at once apparent how Satan, even after so long and glorious a season of grace, should recover his influence in the world to so vast an extent, that the number of his adherents should become “ as the sand of the sea.” This statement clearly shows that no advantages which man may enjoy can ever make him inde¬ pendent of the grace of God ; and that the highest privileges naturally lead to the greatest corruptions, unless the heart he kept with all diligence, and unless the mind be steadily illum¬ inated with the light of Divine truth. The efforts of Satan for the subversion of Christianity shall not be without their corresponding results. The huge army of Gog and Magog is represented as being collected by him for that purpose. “ And they went up on the breadth of the earth,” we are told, “ and compassed the camp of the saints about, and the beloved city.” “ The camp of the saints, and the beloved city,” denote the same society, for the second expression has an epithet prefixed to it which is never applied to any other city but that of the Church. Either expression would have sufficed 542 THE PERSON OF CHRIST, AND THE to show that the Church was to be the object of this terrible assault ; but as it would especially be directed against the Jewish Church, she is described not merely as an encampment which might take place in any part of the earth, but also as the beloved city, which, under the ancient economy, could be found only in the land of Judea, The Jewish Church is first repre¬ sented as a camp, where every man is a soldier, and the strictest discipline is maintained ; she is next represented as a city, in allusion to Jerusalem, whither the tribes of the Lord were wont to go up, and where the solemn feasts were kept. The first part of the description is intended to convey to our minds an idea of the discipline and order of the society, and the second, that of the religious devotion and fellowship of her members. The strictness of discipline and purity of doctrine shall, it would appear, be maintained among them to the last ; hence they shall all the more be the peculiar objects of hatred to the licentious and profane, and, being deceived by the wicked one, they shall imagine themselves capable of rooting them out of the earth. It is clear from other parts of Scripture, that before the general judgment there shall be a great apostasy from the faith among the Gentile nations. Except this encampment of the saints, and within the precincts of the beloved city, there shall scarcely be found such a thing as faith on the earth. So terrible shall be this combination of the whole world of the ungodly against the Church, that nothing short of a miracle shall be sufficient to save it. These combined enemies shall feel con¬ fident that their plans have been well laid, and that nothing has been wanting to ensure their success : the camp of the saints — the beloved city — has been compassed about ; every point of attack has been marked out, every availing height reached, every gate occupied by the assailants ; and just as the storming of the city and the slaughter of its inoffensive in¬ habitants are going to commence, at that critical moment “ fire shall come down out of heaven, and consume them.” As there is no account of anything intervening between this fire and the resurrection of the dead, it can be no other than the general conflagration itself spoken of by the apostles Peter and Paul. “ The heavens shall pass away with a great noise, and INFLUENCE OF HIS TEACHING ON THE WORLD. 543 the elements shall melt with fervent heat ; the earth also, and the works that are therein, shall he burnt up.” 1 “ The Lord Jesus shall be revealed from heaven with His mighty angels, in flaming fire, taking vengeance on them that know not God, and that obey not the Gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ.” 2 When it is said that fire came down out of heaven and devoured the enemies of the saints, the language must be under¬ stood as intimating that no sooner shall they be consumed by the general conflagration which shall dissolve the present system of things, than their ashes shall be collected and changed in a moment into new bodies, and reunited to their spirits. In this transformed state they shall appear before their Judge. But what shall become of the saints ? If the heavens above their heads, and the earth under their feet, are melting with fervent heat, where shall they find a place of safety ? They, too, shall be changed “ in a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the sound of the last trump.” But their bodies shall not be reduced to ashes, and then fashioned into glorified bodies. Over them the element of fire shall have no power. Without any separa¬ tion between soul and body, their bodies shall put on immor¬ tality, and having undergone this change, they shall be caught up to meet the Lord in the air. No sooner was the blast of the last trumpet given, than those who were to be tried were placed at the bar. “ I saw,” says John, “ the dead, small and great, stand before God.” All must appear before the judgment-seat of Christ, young and old, rich and poor : there His friends shall be assigned to ever¬ lasting salvation, and His enemies to their final doom. When Peter informs us of the dissolution of the heavens and the earth, he adds, “ Nevertheless we, according to His promise, look for new heavens and a new earth, wherein dwelleth righteousness.” And John says, when the first heaven and the first earth had passed away, he saw a new heaven and a new earth. By “ the new heaven ” we are plainly to understand so much of the elements as shall not have been affected by the general conflagration ; and by “ the new earth,” the earth after it has been purified by it. When, therefore, it is said that “ the earth and the heaven fled away 1 2 Pet. iii. 10. 2 2 Thess. i. 7, 8. 544 THE PERSON OF CHRIST, AND THE from the face of the Judge,” and that “ there was no place found for them,” this refers only to their present form and appearance, and not to the matter or substance of which they are composed. The change wrought upon them, in respect of form and grandeur, was so great as if the former world had been annihilated, and another had been raised up in its stead. What portion of space the new heaven and the new earth are to occupy, Scripture gives no information ; we have therefore to wait in silence for the arrangements which the great Creator shall make. But the distinguishing excellency of our earth shall consist in this, that after being delivered from the bondage of corrup¬ tion, it shall be the everlasting home of redeemed and glorified man, and that here the Lord of glory shall make His abode among those whom He is not ashamed to call His brethren ; that He shall bring with Him upon earth that imperishable inheritance of His Sonship of which they are to be fellow- heirs ; that He shall erect among them His throne of grace and power; and that He, the Uncreated Light, shall shine upon them with an effulgence which no created being has ever yet beheld. This is the opinion we have already expressed in the concluding part of the Essay on “ The Scriptural and Scientific Becords of the Creation not at Variance ” (pp. 363-366). Tbe Scriptures inform us that the earth has been marked out as the grand theatre on which the greatest work of God should be performed — a work which should fill the intelligent and moral universe with astonishment. They teach us that sin has caused a disunion between men and the other parts of God’s moral creation. It is reasonable to suppose that it should be so. If the province of a great empire should cast off its allegiance to its rightful sovereign, all communication between the inhabitants of that province and the faithful adherents to order and obedience must cease. A line of separation would immediately be drawn by the sovereign, and all further intercourse between the one and the other pro¬ hibited. Nor would it be less in accordance with the inclina¬ tion than with the duty of all the friends of order, to disunite themselves from those who were in rebellion against the lawful INFLUENCE OF HIS TEACHING- ON THE WORLD. 545 government and the general good. Those who “ sang to¬ gether/’ and even “ shouted for joy,” when the foundations of the earth were laid, would now retire in holy indignation and abhorrence. But through the mediation of Christ the whole creation has been brought into union with the Church. In the dispen¬ sation of the fulness of times, it is said that God would “ gather together in one all things in Christ, both which are in heaven and which are on earth, even in Him ” 1 — that He is “ the Head of all principality and power.” 2 These passages represent the whole creation as being united under one Head, and that whatever may be the extent of creation, the influence of redemption is coextensive with it. The argument which infidelity has brought forward against Christianity is, that it is set up for the exclusive benefit of one insignificant province in the mighty field of creation. But the Bible does not view the earth as isolated from the uni¬ verse, but as the member of a system wide in its extent as the kingdom of nature itself. It intimates that the plan of redemption has its influences and bearings on other orders of created intelligence, and was not instituted only for the species to which we belong ; that “ now unto the principalities and the powers in the heavenly places has been made known through the Church the manifold wisdom of God.” 3 To ex¬ plore the wisdom of God in His innumerable works has ever been the employment of holy angels, and that in which a large proportion of their felicity consists. Before the accom¬ plishment of the work of redemption, they had contemplated the Divine character through the medium of creation and provi¬ dence. But God was pleased to present Himself in a new light to the adoration of His intelligent creatures. He was pleased to show in the redemption of Christ the most deter¬ mined hatred to sin, with the utmost compassion to the guilty ; the most inflexible adherence to rectitude, with the utmost riches of grace to save the undeserving from ruin. And so vastly does this last display of the Divine character transcend all that has gone before, that these holy spirits prefer to con- 1 Eph. i. 10. 2 Col. ii. 10. 3 Eph. iii. 10 — Authorised Version, with alterations. 54G THE PERSON OF CHRIST, AND HIS INFLUENCE. template it beyond every other subject. These “ things the angels desire to look into.” 1 They have not become indiffer¬ ent to any of their Creator’s works : creation and providence still continue to attract their attention ; but they now study them according to the order in which they exist in the Divine Mind — in their comprehensive relation to the scheme of redemption. Philosophy has taught us but little in comparison with Christianity. It has discovered worlds at least as numerous as what we call stars. It has thereby expanded our ideas of creation. But it neither inspires a love to the moral char¬ acter of the Creator, nor gives any well-grounded hope of eternal life. When philosophy has taken us to the height of human discovery, there it leaves us ; because there are things, and things of infinite moment, which are utterly beyond its grasp. Eevelation is the medium, and the only medium, through which may be obtained a glimpse of things which eye hath not seen, nor ear heard, and of which it never could have entered into the heart of man to conceive. It tells us that in the economy of redemption there is a grandeur com¬ mensurate to all the purposes of the Almighty ; and though it is but a small portion of His ways that we know, yet grat¬ itude and thankfulness belong to us for the knowledge He has imparted — which is more than sufficient to exercise our highest faculties ; whilst the assurance is given that “ what we know not now, we shall know hereafter.” “ What, then, think ye of Christ ? ” To this question the only answer consistent with Divine Eevelation is, that He is the Eternal Son of the Father, the Incarnate Word by Whom and for Whom all things were made, the Head of the new creation of God. 1 l Pet. i. 12. PRINTED BY WILLIAM BLACKWOOD AND SONS. CATALOGUE OF MESSRS BLACKWOOD & SONS’ PUBLICATIONS. PHILOSOPHICAL CLASSICS FOR ENGLISH READERS, Edited by WILLIAM KNIGHT, LL.D., Professor of Moral Philosophy in the University of 9t Andrews. In crown 8vo Volumes, with Portraits, price 3s. 6d. Now ready— By Professor Mahaffy, Dublin. By Rev. W. Lucas Collins, M.A. By Professor Campbell Fraser, Edinburgh. By Professor Adamson, Owens College, Manchester. By Professor Wallace, Oxford. By Professor Veitch, Glasgow. By Professor Edward Caird, Glasgow. By J. Theodore Merz. By Professor Flint, Edinburgh. By Professor Croom Robertson, London. By the Editor. By the Very Rev. Principal Caird, Glasgow. Part I. By Professor Nichol, Glasgow. In preparation — Bacon. Part II. — Philosophy. By Professor Nichol, Glasgow. 1. Descartes. 2. Butler. 3. Berkeley. 4. Fiehte. 5. Kant. 6. Hamilton. 7. Hegel. 8. Leibniz. 9. Vieo. 10. Hobbes. 11. Hume. 12. Spinoza. 13. Bacon. Bacon. Pa FOREIGN CLASSICS FOR ENGLISH READERS. Edited by Mrs OLIPHANT. In crown 8vo, 2s. 6d. Contents. Dante. By the Editor. Voltaire. By Lieut. -General Sir E. B. Hamley, K.C.B. Pascal. By Principal Tulloch. Petrarch. By Henry Reeve, C. B. Goethe. By A. Hayward, Q.C. Moliere. By the Editor and F. Tarver, M.A. Montaigne. By Rev. W. L. Collins, M.A. Rabelais. By Walter Besant, M.A. Calderon. By E. J. Hasell. Saint Simon. By Clifton W. Collins, M.A. Cervantes. By the Editor. Corneille and Racine. By Henry M . Trollope. Madame de S6 vign£ . By Miss Thackeray . La Fontaine, and other French Fabu¬ lists. By Rev. W. Lucas Collins, M. A . Schiller By James Sime, M.A., Author of ‘ Lessing : his Life and Writings.’ Tasso. By E. J. Hasell. Rousseau. By Henry Grey Graham. Now Complete. ANCIENT CLASSICS FOR ENGLISH READERS. Edited by the Rev. W. LUCAS COLLINS, M.A. Complete in 28 Vols. crown 8vo, cloth, price 2s. 6d. each. And may also he had in 14 Volumes, strongly and neatly hound, with calf or vellum back, ,£3, 10s. Saturday Review. — “It is difficult to estimate too highly the value of such a series as this in giving ‘ English readers ’ an insight, exact as far as it goes, into those olden times which are so remote and yet to many of us so close.” CATALOGUE OF MESSRS BLACKWOOD & SONS’ P U B L I C A T I 0 NS. - - ALISON. History of Europe. By Sir Archibald Alison, Bait,, D.C.L. 1. From the Commencement of the French Revolution to the Battle of Waterloo. Library Edition, 14 vols., with Portraits. Demy 8vo, £10, 10s. Another Edition, in 20 vols. crown 8vo, £6. People’s Edition, 13 vols. crown 8vo, £2, ns. 2. Continuation to the Accession of Louis Napoleon. Library Edition, 8 vols. 8vo, £6, 7s. 6d. People’s Edition, 8 vols. crown 8vo, 34s. 3. Epitome of Alison’s History of Europe. Twenty -ninth Thousand, 7s. 6d. 4. Atlas to Alison’s History of Europe. By A. Keith Johnston, Library Edition, demy 4to, £3, 3s. People’s Edition, 31s. 6d. - Life of John Duke of Marlborough. With some Account of his Contemporaries, and of the War of the Succession. Third Edition, 2 vols. 8 vo. Portraits and Maps, 30s. - Essays: Historical, Political, and Miscellaneous. 3 vols. demy 8vo, 45s. AIRD. Poetical Works of Thomas Aird. Fifth Edition, with Memoir of the Author by the Rev. Jardine Wallace, and Portrait, Crown 8vo, 7s. 6d. ALLARDYCE. The City of Sunshine. By Alexander Allar- dyce. Three vols. post 8vo, £1, 5s. 6d. - Memoir of the Honourable George Keith Elphinstone, K.B., Viscount Keith of Stonehaven, Marischal, Admiral of the Red. 8vo, with Portrait, Illustrations, and Maps, 21s. ALMOND. Sermons by a Lay Head-master. By Hely Hutchin- Almond, M.A. Oxon. , Head-master of Loretto School. Crown 8vo, 5s. 4 LIST OF BOOKS PUBLISHED BY ANCIENT CLASSICS FOR ENGLISH READERS. Edited by Rev. W. Lucas Collins, M.A. Complete in 28 vols., cloth, 2s. 6d. each ; or in 14 vols., tastefully bound, with calf or vellum hack, ^3, 10s. Contents of the Series. Homer: The Iliad, by the Editor. — Homer: The Odyssey, by the Editor. — Her¬ odotus, by George C. S wayne, M.A. — Xenophon, by Sir Alexander Grant, Bart., LL. D. Euripides, by W. B. Donne — Aristophanes, by the Editor. — Plato, by Clifton TV. Collins, M.A. — Lucian, by the Editor. — ZEschylus, by the Right Rev. the Bishop of Colombo. — Sophocles, by Clifton W. Collins, M.A. — Hesiod and Theognis, by the Rev. J. Davies, M.A. — Greek Anthology, by Lord Neaves. — Virgil, by the Editor. — Horace, by Sir Theodore Martin, K.C. B. — Juvenal, by Edward Walford, M.A. — Plautus and Terence, by the Editor. — The Commentaries of Caesar, by Anthony Trollope. — Tacitus, by W. B. Donne. — Cicero, by the Editor. — Pliny’s Letters, by the Rev. Alfred Church, M.A., and the Rev. W. J. Brodribb, M.A.- — Livy’, by the Editor. — Ovid, by the Rev. A. Church, M.A. — Catullus, Tibullus, and Propertius, by the Rev. Jas. Davies, M.A. — Demosthenes, by the Rev. TV. J. Brodribb. M.A. — Aristotle, by Sir Alexander Grant, Bart., LL.D — Thucydides, by the Editor. — Lucretius, by W. H. Mallock, M.A. — Pindar, by the Rev. F. D. Morice, M.A. AYLWAKD. The Transvaal of To - day : War, Witchcraft, Sports, and Spoils in South Africa. By Alfred Aylward, Commandant, Transvaal Republic. Second Edition. Crown 8vo, 6s. AYTOUN. Lays of the Scottish Cavaliers, and other Poems. By TV. Edmondstoune Aytoun, D.C.L. , Professor of Rhetoric and Belles-Lettres in the University of Edinburgh. Cheap Edition, printed from a new type, and tastefully bound. Fcap. 8vo, 3s. 6d. Another Edition, being the Thirtieth. Fcap. 8vo, cloth extra, 7s. 6d. - An Illustrated Edition of the Lays of the Scottish Cavaliers. From designs by Sir Noel Paton. Small 4to, 21s. , in gilt cloth. - Bothwell : a Poem. Third Edition. Fcap., 7s. 6d. - Poems and Ballads of Goethe. Translated by Professor Aytoun and Sir Theodore Martin, K.C.B. Third Edition. Fcap., 6s. - Bon Gaultier’s Book of Ballads. By the Same. Fourteenth and Cheaper Edition. With Illustrations by Doyle, Leech, and Crowquill. Fcap. 8vo, 5s. - The Ballads of Scotland. Edited by Professor Aytoun. Fourth Edition. 2 vols. fcap. 8vo, 12s. - Memoir of William E. Aytoun, D.C.L. By Sir Theodore Martin, K.C.B. With Portrait. Post 8vo, 12s. BACH. On Musical Education and Voeal Culture. By Albert B. Bach. Fourth Edition. 8vo, 7s. 6d. - The Principles of Singing. A Practical Guide for Vocalists and Teachers. With Course of Vocal Exercises. Crown 8vo, 6s. - The Art of Singing. With Musical Exercises for Young People. Crown Svo, 3s. BALLADS AND POEMS. By Members of the Glasgow Ballad Club. Crown 8vo, 7s. 6d BANNATYNE. Handbook of Republican Institutions in the United States of America. Based upon Federal and State Laws, and other reliable sources of information. By Dugald J. Bannatyne, Scotch Solicitor, New York ; Member of the Faculty of Procurators, Glasgow. Cr. Svo, 7s. 6d. BEDFORD. The Regulations of the Old Hospital of the Knights of St John at Valetta. From a Copy Printed at Rome, and preserved in the Archives of Malta; with a Translation, Introduction, and Notes Explanatory of the Hospital Work of the Order. By the Rev. W. K. R. Bedford, one of the Chaplains of the Order of St John in England. Royal Svo, with Frontis¬ piece, Plans, &c., 7s. 6d. BELL AIRS. The Transvaal War, 1880-81. Edited by Lady Bel- lairs. With a Frontispiece and Map. 8vo, 15s WILLIAM BLACKWOOD AND SONS. BELLAIRS. Gossips with Girls and Maidens, Betrothed and Free. By Lady Bellairs. New Edition.. Crown 8vo, 5s. BESANT. The Revolt of Man. By Walter Besant, M.A. Eighth Edition. Crown 8vo, 3s. 6d. - Headings in Rab-elais. Crown 8vo, 7s. 6d. BEVERIDGE. Cuirass and Tull i all an ; or Perthshire on Forth. Its History and Antiquities. With Elucidations of Scottish Life and Character from the Burgh and Kirk-Session Records of that District. By David Beveridge. 2 vols. 8vo, with Illustrations, 42s. - Between the Ochils and the Forth Bridge to Aberdour. Crown 8vor 6s. BLACK. Heligoland and the Islands of the North Sea. By William George Black. Crown 8vo, 4s. BLACKIF. Lays and Legends of Ancient Greece. By John Stuart Blackie, Emeritus Professor of Greek in the University of Edin¬ burgh. Second Edition. Fcap. 8vo. 5s. - The Wisdom of Goethe. Fcap. 8vo. Cloth, extra gilt, 6s. A Song of Heroes. Crown 8vo. [In the press. or, from Stirling O Index to Blackwood’s Magazine. Tales from BLACKWOOD’S MAGAZINE, from Commencement in 1817 to June 1888. Nos. 1 to 872, forming 143 Volumes. Vols. i to 50. 8vo, 15s. Blackwood. Forming Twelve Volumes of o Interesting and Amusing Railway Reading. Price One Shilling each, in Paper Cover. Sold separately at all Railway Bookstalls. They may also be had bound in cloth, 18s., and in half calf, richly gilt, 30s. Or 12 volumes in 6, Roxburglie, 21s., and half red morocco, 28s. - Tales from Blackwood. New Series. Complete in Twenty- four Shilling Parts. Handsomely bound in 12 vols., cloth, 30s. Tn leather back, Roxburghe style, 37s. 6d. In half calf, gilt, 52s. 6d. In half morocco, 55s. - Standard Novels. Uniform in size and legibly Printed. Each Novel complete in one volume. FLORIN SERIES, Illustrated Boards. Tom Cringle’s Log. By Michael Scott. The Cruise of the Midge. By the Same. Cyril Thornton. By Captain Hamilton. Annals of the Parish. By John Galt. The Provost, &c. By John Galt. Sir Andrew Wylie. By John Galt. The Entail. By John Galt. Miss Molly. By Beatrice May Butt. Reginald Dalton. By J. G. Lockhart. Or in Cloth Boards, 2s. 6d. Pen Owen. By Dean Hook. Adam Blair. By J. G. Lockhart. Lady Lee’s Widowhood. By General Sir E. B. Hamley. Salem Chapel. By Mrs Oliphant. The Perpetual Curate. By Mrs Oli¬ phant. Miss Marjoribanks. By Mrs Oliphant. John : A Love Story. By Mrs Olqihant. SHILLING SERIES, Illustrated Cover. Or in Cloth Boards, is. 6d. The Rector, and The Doctor’s Family. By Mrs Oliphant. The Life of Mansie Wauch. By D. M. Moir. Peninsular Scenes and Sketches. By F. Hardman. Sir Frizzle Pumpkin, Nights at Mess, &c. The Subaltern. Life in the Far West. By G. F. Ruxton. Valerius : A Roman Story. By J. G. Lockhart. BLACKMORE. The Maid of Sker. By R. D. Blackmore, Author of ‘ Lorna Doone,’ &c. New Edition. Crown 8vo, 6s. BLAIR. History of the Catholic Church of Scotland. From the Introduction of Christianity to the Present Day. By Alphons Bellesheim, D.D., Canon of Aix-la-Chapelle. Translated, with Notes and Additions, by D. Oswald Hunter Blair, O.S.B., Monk of Fort Augustus. To be com¬ pleted in 4 vols. 8vo. Vols. I and II. 25s. BOSCOBEL TRACTS. Relating to the Escape of Charles the Second after the Battle of Worcester, and his subsequent Adventures. Edited by J. Hughes, Esq., A.M. A New Edition, with additional Notes and Illus¬ trations, including Communications from the Rev. R. H. Barham, Author of the ‘ Ingoldsby Legends.’ 8vo, with Engravings, 16s. 6 LIST OF BOOKS PUBLISHED BY BROOKE, Life of Sir James, Rajah of Sarawak. From his Personal Papers and Correspondence. By Spenser St John, H.M.’s Minister-Resident and Consul-General Peruvian Republic; formerly Secretary to the Rajah. With Portrait and a Map. Post 8vo, 12s. 6d. BROUGHAM. Memoirs of the Life and Times of Henry Lord Brougham. Written by Himself. 3 vols. 8vo, £ 2 , 8s. The Volumes are sold separately, price 16s. each. BROWN. The Forester : A Practical Treatise on the Planting, Rearing, and General Management of Forest-trees. By James Brown, LL.D., Inspector of and Reporter on Woods and Forests. Fifth Edition, revised and enlarged. Royal 8vo, with Engravings, 36s. BROWN. The Ethics of George Eliot’s Works. By John Crombie Brown. Fourth Edition. Crown 8vo, 2s. 6d. BROWN. A Manual of Botany, Anatomical and Physiological. For the Use of Students. By Robert Brown, M.A., Ph.D. Crown 8vo, with numerous Illustrations, 12s. 6d. BUCHAN. Introductory Text-Book of Meteorology. By Alex¬ ander Buchan, M.A., F.R.S.E., Secretary of the Scottish Meteorological Society, &c. Crown Svo, with 8 Coloured Charts and other Engravings, pp. 218. 4s. 6d. BUCHANAN. The Shire Highlands (East Central Africa). By John Buchanan, Planter at Zomba. Crown 8vo, 5s. BURBIDGE. Domestic Floriculture, Window Gardening, and Floral Decorations. Being practical directions for the Propagation, Culture, and Arrangement of Plants and Flowers as Domestic Ornaments. By F. W. Burbidge. Second Edition. Crown 8vo, with numerous Illustrations, 7s. 6d. - Cultivated Plants : Their Propagation and Improvement. Including Natural and Artificial Hybridisation, Raising from Seed, Cuttings, and Layers, Grafting and Budding, as applied to the Families and Genera in Cultivation. Crown Svo, with numerous Illustrations, 12s. 6d. BURTON. The History of Scotland : From Agricola’s Invasion to the Extinction of the last Jacobite Insurrection. By John Hill Burton. D.C.L., Historiographer- Royal for Scotland. New and Enlarged Edition, 8 vols., and Index. Crown 8vo, £3, 3s. - History of the British Empire during the Reign of Queen Anne. In 3 vols. 8vo. 36s. - The Scot Abroad. Third Edition. Crown 8vo, 10s. 6d. - The Book-Hunter. New Edition. Crown 8vo, 7s. 6d. BUTE. The Roman Breviary ; Reformed by Order of the Holy Oecumenical Council of Trent; Published by Order of Pope St Pius V.; and Revised by Clement VIII. and Urban VIII.; together with the Offices since granted. Translated out of Latin into English by John, Marquess of Bute, K.T. In 2 vols. crown 8vo, cloth boards, edges uncut. £2, 2s. - The Altus of St Columba. With a Prose Paraphrase and Notes. In paper cover, 2s. 6d. BUTLER. Pompeii : Descriptive and Picturesque. By W. Butler. Post 8vo, 5s. BUTT. Miss Molly. By Beatrice May Butt. Cheap Edition, 2s. - Eugenie. Crown 8vo, 6s. 6d. CAIRD. Sermons. By John Caird, D.D., Principal of the Uni¬ versity of Glasgow. Sixteenth Thousand. Fcap. 8vo, 5s. - Religion in Common Life. A Sermon preached in Crathie Church, October 14, 1855, before Her Majesty the Queen and Prince Albert. Published by Her Majesty's Command. Cheap Edition, 3d. WILLIAM BLACKWOOD AND SONS. 7 CAMPBELL. Sermons Preached before the Queen at Balmoral. By the Rev. A. A. Campbell, Minister of Crathie. Published by Command of Her Majesty. Crown 8vo, 4s. 6d. CAMPBELL. Records of Argyll. Legends, Traditions, and Re¬ collections of Argyllshire Highlanders, collected chiefly from the Gaelic. With Notes on the Antiquity of the Dress, Clan Colours or Tartans of the Highlanders. By Lord Archibald Campbell. Illustrated with Nineteen full-page Etchings. 4to, printed on hand-made paper, ^3, 3s. CANTON. A Lost Epic, and other Poems. By William Canton. Crown 8vo, 5s. CAPPON. Victor Hugo. A Memoir and a Study. By James Cappon, M.A. Post 8vo, 10s. 6d. CARRICK. Koumiss ; or, Fermented Mare’s Milk : and its Uses in the Treatment and Cure of Pulmonary Consumption, and other Wasting Diseases. With an Appendix on the best Methods of Fermenting Cow’s Milk. By George L. Carrick, M.D., L.R.C.S.E. and L.R.C.P.E., Physician to the British Embassy, St Petersburg, &c. Crown 8vo, 10s. 6d. CAUVIN. A Treasury of the English and German Languages. Compiled from the best Authors and Lexicographers in both Languages. Adapted to the Use of Schools, Students, Travellers, and Men of Business; and forming a Companion to all German-English Dictionaries. By Joseph Cauvin, LL.D. & Ph.D., of the University of Gottingen, &c. Crown 8vo.7s.6d. CAVE-BROWN. Lambeth Palace and its Associations. By J. Cave-Brown, M. A., Vicar of Detling, Kent, and for many years Curate of Lam¬ beth Parish Church. With an Introduction by the Archbishop of Canterbury. Second Edition, containing an additional Chapter on Medieval Life in the Old Palaces. 8vo, with Illustrations, 21s. CHARTERIS. Canonicity ; or, Early Testimonies to the Existence and Use of the Books of the New Testament. Based on Kirchhoffer’s ‘Quel- lensammlung. ’ Edited by A. H. Charteris, D.D., Professor of Biblical Criticism in the University of Edinburgh. 8vo, 18s. CHRISTISON. Life of Sir Robert Christison, Bart., M.D., D.C.L. Oxon., Professor of Medical Jurisprudence in the University of Edinburgh. Edited by his Sons. In two vols. 8vo. Vol. I. — Autobiography. 16s. Vol. II. — Memoirs. 16s. CHURCH SERVICE SOCIETY. A Book of Common Order : Being Forms of Worship issued by the Church Service Society. Fifth Edi¬ tion, 6s. CLOUSTON. Popular Tales and Fictions : their Migrations and Transformations. By W. A. Clouston, Editor of ‘ Arabian Poetry for Eng¬ lish Readers,’ ‘ The Book of Sindibad,’ &c. 2 vols. post 8vo, roxburghe bind¬ ing, 25s. COCHRAN. A Handy Text-Book of Military Law. Compiled chiefly to assist Officers preparing for Examination ; also for all Officers of the Regular and Auxiliary Forces. Specially arranged according to the Syl¬ labus of Subjects of Examination for Promotion, Queen’s Regulations, 1883. Comprising also a Synopsis of part of the Army Act. By Major F. Cochran, Hampshire Regiment, Garrison Instructor, North British District. Crown 8vo, 7s. 6d. COLQUHOUN. The Moor and the Loch. Containing Minute Instructions in all Highland Sports, with Wanderings over Crag and Corrie, Flood and Fell. By John Colquhoun. Seventh Edition. With Illustra¬ tions. Complete in 1 vol. 8vo, 21s. COTTERILL. Suggested Reforms in Public Schools. By C. C. Cotterill, M.A., Assistant Master at Fettes College, Edin. Crown 8vo, 3s. 6d. COUNTESS IRENE. By the Author of ‘ Lauterclale and Caterina.’ 3 vols. post 8vo, 25s. 6d. CRANSTOUN. The Elegies of Albius Tibullus. Translated into English Verse, with Life of the Poet, and Illustrative Notes. By James Cran- stoun, LL.D., Author of a Translation of ‘ Catullus.’ Crown 8vo, 6s. 6d. 8 LIST OF BOOKS PUBLISHED BY CRANSTOUN. The Elegies of Sextus Propertius. Translated into English Verse, with Life of the Poet, and Illustrative Notes. By James Cran- stoun, LL.D., Author of a Translation of ‘ Catullus.’ Crown 8vo, 7s. 6d. CRAWFORD. Saracinesca. By F. Marion Crawford, Author of ‘ Mr Isaacs,’ ‘ Dr Claudius,’ ‘ Zoroaster,’ &c. &c. Third Edition. Crown 8vo, 6s. CRAWFORD. The Doctrine of Holy Scripture respecting the Atonement. By the late Thomas J. Crawford, D.D., Professor of Divinity in the University of Edinburgh. Fourth Edition. 8vo, 12s. - The Fatherhood of God, Considered in its General and Special Aspects, and particularly in relation to the Atonement, with a Review of Recent Speculations on the Subject. Third Edition, Revised and Enlarged. 8vo, qs. - - The Preaching of the Cross, and other Sermons. 8vo, 7s. 6d. - The Mysteries of Christianity. Crown 8vo, 7s. 6d. CUSHING. The Blacksmith of Yoe. A Novel. By Paul Cushing, Author of ‘ Misogyny and the Maiden,’ ‘ A Woman with a Secret,’ &c. 3 vols. crown 8vo, 25s. 6d. DAVIES. Norfolk Broads and Rivers ; or, The Waterways, Lagoons, and Decoys of East Anglia. By G. Christopher Davies, Author of ‘The Swan and her Crew.’ Illustrated with Seven full-page Plates. New and Cheaper Edition. Crown 8vo, 6s. DAYNE. In the Name of the Tzar. A Novel. By J. Bedford Dayne. Crown 8vo, 6s. - Tribute to Satan. A Novel. Crown 8vo, 2s. 6d. DESCARTES. The Method, Meditations, and Principles of Philo¬ sophy of Descartes. Translated from the Original French and Latin. With a New Introductory Essay, Historical and Critical, on the Cartesian Philosophy. By John Veitch, LL.D., Professor of Logic and Rhetoric in the University oi Glasgow. A New Edition, being the Ninth. Price 6s. 6d. DICKSON. Gleanings from Japan. By W. G. Dickson, Author of * Japan: Being a Sketch of its History, Government, and Officers of the Empire.’ In One Volume, with Illustrations. [In the press. DOBSON. History of the Bassandyne Bible. The First Printed in Scotland. With Notices of the Early Printers of Edinburgh. By William T. Dobson, Author of ‘ Literary Frivolities,’ ‘ Poetical Ingenuities, ‘ Royal Charac¬ ters of Scott,’ &c. Post 8vo, with Facsimiles and other Illustrations. 7s. 6d. DOGS, OUR DOMESTICATED : Their Treatment in reference to Food, Diseases, Habits, Punishment, Accomplishments. By ‘ Magenta.’ Crown 8vo, 2s. 6d. DU CANE. The Odyssey of Homer, Books I. -XII. Translated into English Verse. By Sir Charles Du Cane, K.C.M.G. 8vo, ios. 6d. DUDGEON. History of the Edinburgh or Queen’s Regiment Light Infantry Militia, now 3rd Battalion The Royal Scots ; with an Account of the Origin and Progress of the Militia, and a Brief Sketch of the old Royal Scots. By Major R. C. Dudgeon, Adjutant 3rd Battalion The Royal Scots. Post 8vo, with Illustrations, ios. 6d. DUNCAN. Manual of the General Acts of Parliament relating to the Salmon Fisheries of Scotland from 1828 to 1882. By J. Barker Duncan. Crown 8vo, 5s. DUNSMORE. Manual of the Law of Scotland, as to the Relations between Agricultural Tenants and their Landlords, Servants, Merchants, and Bowers. By W. Dunsmore. 8vo, 7s. 6d. DUPRE. Thoughts on Art, and Autobiographical Memoirs of Giovanni Dupre. Translated from the Italian by E. M. Peruzzi, with the permission of the Author. New Edition. With an Introduction by W. W. Story. Crown 8vo, ios. 6d. ELIOT. George Eliot’s Life, Related in her Letters and Journals. Arranged and Edited by her husband, J. W. Cross. With Portrait and other Illustrations. Third Edition. 3 vols. post Svo, 42s. WILLIAM BLACKWOOD AND SONS. 9 ELIOT. Works of George Eliot (Cabinet Edition). Handsomely printed in a new type, 21 volumes, crown 8vo, price £5, 5s. The Volumes are also sold separately, price 5s. each, viz. : — Romola. 2 vols. — Silas Marner, The Lifted Veil, Brother Jacob. 1 vol. — Adam Bede 2 vols.— Scenes of Clerical Life. 2 vols.— The Mill on the Floss. 2 vols. — Felix Holt. 2 vols. — Middlemarch. 3 vols. — Daniel Deronda. 3 vols. — The Spanish Gypsy. 1 vol. — Jubal, and other Poems, Old and New. 1 vol. — Theophrastus Such. 1 vol.— Essays. 1 vol. - George Eliot’s Life. (Cabinet Edition.) With Portrait and other Illustrations. 3 vols. crown Svo, 15s. - George Eliot’s Life. With Portrait and other Illustrations. New Edition, in one volume. Crown 8vo, 7s. 6d. - Novels by George Eliot. Cheap Edition. Adam Bede. Il¬ lustrated. 3s. 6d., cloth. — The Mill on the Floss. Illus¬ trated. 3s. 6d., cloth. — Scenes of Clerical Life. Illustrated. 3s., cloth. — Silas Marner: The Weaver of Baveloe. Illus¬ trated. 2s. 6d., cloth. — Felix Holt, the Radical. Illustrated. 3s. 6d., cloth. — Romola. With Vignette. 3s. 6d. , cloth. - Middlemarch. Crown 8vo, 7s. 6d. - Daniel Deronda. Crown 8vo, 7s. 6d. - Essays. By George Eliot. New Edition. Crown Svo, 5s. - Impressions of Theophrastus Such. New Edition. Crown Svo, 5s. - The Spanish Gypsy. New Edition. Crown Svo, 5s. - The Legend of Jubal, and other Poems, Old and New. New Edition. Crown 8vo, 5s., cloth. - Wise, Witty, and Tender Sayings, in Prose and Verse. Selected from the Works of George Eliot. Seventh Edition. Fcap. 8vo, 6s. - The George Eliot Birthday Book. Printed on fine paper, with red border, and handsomely bound in cloth, gilt. Fcap. 8vo, cloth, 3s. 6d. And in French morocco or Russia, 5s. ESSAYS ON SOCIAL SUBJECTS. Originally published in the ‘ Saturday Review.' A New Edition. First and Second Series. 2 vols. crown 8vo, 6s. each. EWALD. The Crown and its Advisers ; or, Queen, Ministers, Lords, and Commons. By Alexander Charles Ewald,F.S.A. Crown 8vo, 5s. FAITHS OE THE WORLD, The. A Concise History of the Great Religious Systems of the World. By various Authors. Being the St Giles’ Lectures — Second Series. Crown 8vo, 5s. FARRER. A Tour in Greece in 1880. By Richard Ridley Farrer. With Twenty -seven full -page Illustrations by Lord Windsor. Royal 8vo, with a Map, 21s. FERRIER. Philosophical Works of the late James F. Ferrier, B. A. Oxon. , Professor of Moral Philosophy and Political Economy, St Andrews. New Edition. Edited by Sir Alex. Grant, Bart., D.C.L., and Professor Lushington. 3 vols. crown 8vo, 34s. 6d. - Institutes of Metaphysic. Third Edition. 10s. 6d. - Lectures on the Early Greek Philosophy. Third Edition, 10S. 6d. - Philosophical Remains, including the Lectures on Early Greek Philosophy. 2 vols., 24s. FLETCHER. Lectures on the Opening Clauses of the Litany, delivered in St Paul’s Church, Edinburgh. By John B. Fletcher, M.A. Crown 8vo, 4s. FLINT. The Philosophy of History in Europe. By Robert Flint, D.D., LL.D., Professor of Divinity, University of Edinburgh. Vol. I. 8vo. [ New Edition in preparation . 10 LIST OF BOOKS PUBLISHED BY FLINT. Theism. Being the Baird Lecture for 1876. By Robert Flint, D.D., LL.D., Professor of Divinity, University of Edinburgh. Sixth Edition. Crown 8vo, 7s. 6d. - Anti-Theistic Theories. Being the Baird Lecture for 1877. Third Edition. Crown 8vo, 10s. 6d. - Agnosticism. Being the Croall Lectures for 1887-88. [In the press. FORBES. Insulinde : Experiences of a Naturalist’s Wile in the Eastern Archipelago. By Mrs H. O. Forbes. Post Svo, with a Map. 8s. 6d. FOREIGN CLASSICS FOR ENGLISH READERS. Edited by Mrs Oliphant. Price 2s. 6d. For List of Volumes prtblished, see page 2. GALT. Annals of the Parish. By John Galt. Fcap. 8vo, 2s. - The Provost. Fcap. Svo, 2s. - Sir Andrew Wylie. Fcap. Svo, 2s. - The Entail ; or, The Laird of Grippy. Fcap. Svo, 2s. GENERAL ASSEMBLY OF THE CHURCH OF SCOTLAND. ■ - Family Prayers. Authorised by the General Assembly of the Church of Scotland. A New Edition, crown 8vo, in large type, 4s. 6d. Another Edition, crown Svo, 2s. - Prayers for Social and Family Worship. For the Use of Soldiers, Sailors, Colonists, and Sojourners in India, and other Persons, at home and abroad, who are deprived of the ordinary services of a Christian Ministry. Cheap Edition, is. 6d. - The Scottish Hymnal Appendix. 1. Longprimer type, is. 2. Nonpareil type, cloth limp, 4d. ; paper cover, 2d. — - Scottish Hymnal with Appendix Incorporated. Pub¬ lished for Use in Churches by Authority of the General Assembly, x. Large type, cloth, red edges, 2s. 6d. ; French morocco, 4s. 2. Bourgeois type, limp cloth, is.; French morocco, 2s. 3. Nonpareil type, cloth, red edges, 6d. ; French morocco, is. 4d. 4. Paper covers, 3d. 5. Sunday-School Edition, paper covers, id. 6. Children’s Hymnal, paper covers, id. No. 1, bound with the Psalms and Paraphrases, French morocco, 7s. 6d. No. 2, bound with the Psalms and Paraphrases, cloth, 2s. ; French morocco, 3s. GERARD. Reata : What’s in a Name. By E. D. Gerard. New Edition. Crown 8vo, 6s. - Beggar my Neighbour. New Edition. Crown 8vo, 6s. - The Waters of Hercules. New Edition. Crown 8vo, 6s. - The Land beyond the Forest. Facts, Figures, and Fancies from Transylvania. By E. Gerard, Author of ‘ Reata,’ &c. In Two Volumes. With Maps and Illustrations. 25s. GERARD. Stonyhurst Latin Grammar. By Rev. John Gerard. Fcap. 8vo, 3s. GILL. Free Trade : an Inquiry into the Nature of its Operation. By Richard Gill. Crown 8vo, 7s. 6d. GOETHE’S FAUST. Translated into English Verse by Sir Theo¬ dore Martin, K.C.B. Part I. Second Edition, post 8vo, 6s. Ninth Edi¬ tion, fcap., 3s. 6d. Part II. Second Edition, revised. Fcap. Svo, 6s. GOETHE. Poems and Ballads of Goethe. Translated by Professor Aytoun and Sir Theodore Martin, K.C.B. Third Edition, fcap. Svo, 6s. GORDON CUMMING. At Home in Fiji. By C. F. Gordon Cumming, Author of ‘ From the Hebrides to the Himalayas. ’ Fourth Edition, post 8vo. With Illustrations and Map. 7s. 6d. - A Ladv’s Cruise in a French Man-of-War. New and 1 / Cheaper Edition. 8vo. With Illustrations and Map. 12s. 6d. WILLIAM BLACKWOOD AND SONS. 11 GORDON-CUMMING. Fire-Fountains. The Kingdom of Hawaii : Its Volcanoes, and the History of its Missions. By C. F. Gordon-Cumming. With Map and numerous Illustrations. 2 vols. 8vo, 25s. - Granite Crags : The Yo-semite Region of California. Illus- o o trated with 8 Engravings. New and Cheaper Edition. 8vo, 8s. 6d. - Wanderings in China. New and Cheaper Edition. In 1 vol. 8vo, with Illustrations, 10s. GRAHAM. The Life and Work of Syed Ahmed Khan, C.S.I. By Lieut. -Colonel G. F. I. Graham, B.S.C. 8vo, 14s. GRANT. Bush- Life in Queensland. By A. C. Grant. New Edition. Crown 8vo, 6s. GRIFFITHS. Locked Up. By Major Arthur Griffiths. Author of ‘ The Wrong Road,’ * Chronicles of Newgate,’ &c. With Illustrations by C. J. Staniland, R.I. Crown 8vo, 2s. 6d. HALDANE. Subtropical Cultivations and Climates. A Handy Book for Planters, Colonists, and Settlers. By R. C. Haldane. Post8vo, 9s. HAMERTON. Wenderholme : A Story of Lancashire and York¬ shire Life. By Philip Gilbert Hamerton, Author of ‘A Painter’s Camp.’ A New Edition. Crown 8vo, 6s. HAMILTON. Lectures on Metaphysics. By Sir William Hamil¬ ton, Bart., Professor of Logic and Metaphysics in the University of Edinburgh. Edited by the Rev. H. L. Mansel, B.D., LL. D., Dean of St Paul’s ; and John Veitch, M.A., Professor of Logic and Rhetoric, Glasgow. Seventh Edition. 2 vols. 8vo, 24s. - Lectures on Logic. Edited by the Same. Third Edition. 2 vols., 24s. - Discussions on Philosophy and Literature, Education and University Reform. Third Edition, 8vo, 21s. - Memoir of Sir William Hamilton, Bart., Professor of Logic and Metaphysics in the University of Edinburgh. By Professor Veitch of the University of Glasgow. 8vo, with Portrait, 18s. - Sir William Hamilton : The Man and his Philosophy. Two Lectures Delivered before the Edinburgh Philosophical Institution, January and February 1883. By the Same. Crown 8vo, 2s. HAMLEY. The Operations of War Explained and Illustrated. By Lieut.-General Sir Edward Bruce Hamley, K. C.B. Fourth Edition, re¬ vised throughout. 4to, with numerous Illustrations, 30s. - Thomas Carlyle : An Essay. Second Edition. Crowrn 8vo. 2S. 6d. - The Story of the Campaign of Sebastopol. Written in the Camp. With Illustrations drawn in Camp by the Author. 8vo, 21s. - On Outposts. Second Edition. 8vo, 2s. - Wellington’s Career ; A Military and Political Summary. Crown 8vo, 2s. - Lady Lee’s Widowhood. Crown 8vo, 2s. 6d. - Our Poor Relations. A Philozoic Essay. With Illus¬ trations, chiefly by Ernest Griset. Crown 8vo, cloth gilt, 3s. 6d. HAMLEY. Guilty, or Not Guilty? A Tale. By Major-General W. G. Hamley, late of the Royal Engineers. New Edition. Crown 8vo, 3s. 6d. - Traseaden Hall. “When George the Third was King.” New and Cheaper Edition. Crown 8vo, 6s. HARBORD. Definitions and Diagrams in Astronomy and Navi¬ gation. By the Rev. J. B. Harbord, M.A., Assistant Director of Education, Admiralty, is. HASELL. Bible Partings. By E. J. Hasell. Crown 8vo, 6s. - Short Family Prayers. By Miss Hasell. Cloth, is. 12 list of books published by HAY. The Works of the Bight Bev. Dr George Hay, Bishop of Edinburgh. Edited under the Supervision of the Right Rev. Bishop Strain. "With Memoir and Portrait of the Author. 5 vols. crown 8vo, bound in extra cloth, £1, is. Or, sold separately — viz. : The Sincere Christian Instructed in the Faith of Christ from the Written Word. 2 vols., 8s. — The Devout Christian Instructed in the Law of Christ from the Written Word. 2 vols. 8s. — The Pious Christian Instructed in the Nature and Practice ol the Principal Exercises of Piety. 1 vol., 4s. HEATLEY. The Horse-Owner’s Safeguard. A Handy Medical Guide for every Man who owns a Horse. By G. S. Heatley, M.R.C.V.S. Cx’own 8 vo, 5s. - The Stock-Owner’s Guide. A Handy Medical Treatise for every Man who owns an Ox or a Cow. Crown 8vo, 4s. 6d. HEMANS. The Poetical Works of Mrs Hemans. Copyright Edi¬ tions.— One Volume, royal 8vo, 5s. — The Same, with Illustrations engraved on Steel, bound in cloth, gilt edges, 7 s. 6d. — Six Volumes in Three, fcap., 12s. 6d. Select Poems of Mrs Hemans. Fcap., cloth, gilt edges, 3s. HOLE. A Book about Boses: How to Grow and Show Them. By the Very Rev. Dean Hole. Tenth Edition, revised. Crown 8vo, 3s. 6d. HOME PBAYEBS. By Ministers of the Church of Scotland and Members of the Church Service Society. Second Edition. Fcap. 8vo, 3s. HOMEB. The Odyssey. Translated into English Yerse in the Spenserian Stanza. By Philip Stanhope Worsley. Third Edition, 2 vols. fcap., 12s. - The Iliad. Translated by P. S. Worsley and Professor Conington. 2 vols. crown 8vo. 21s. HO SACK. Mary Queen of Scots and Her Accusers. Containing a Variety of Documents never before published. By John Hosack, Barrister- at-Law. A New and Enlarged Edition, with a Photograph from the Bust on the Tomb in Westminster Abbey. 2 vols. 8vo, £1, is. - Mary Stewart. A Brief Statement of the Principal Charges which have been made against her, together with Answers to the same. Crown 8vo, 2s. 6d. HUTCHINSON. Hints on the Game of Golf. By Horace G. Hutchinson. Fourth Edition. Fcap. 8vo, cloth, is. 6d. IDDESLEIGH. Lectures and Essays. By the late Earl of Iddesleigh, G.C.B., D.C.L , &c. 8vo, 16s. INDEX GEOGBAPHICUS : Being a List, alphabetically arranged, of the Principal Places on the Globe, with the Countries and Subdivisions of the Countries in which they are situated, and their Latitudes and Longitudes. Applicable to all Modern Atlases and Maps. Imperial 8vo, pp. 676, 21s. JAMIESON. Discussions on the Atonement : Is it Vicarious ? By the Rev. George Jamieson, A.M., B.D., D.D., Author of ‘ Profound Pro¬ blems in Philosophy and Theology.’ 8vo, 16s. JEAN JAMBON. Our Trip to Blunderland ; or. Grand Excursion to Blundertown and Back. By Jean Jambon. With Sixty Illustrations designed by Charles Doyle, engraved by Dalziel. Fourth Thousand. Handsomely bound in cloth, gilt edges, 6s. 6d. Cheap Edition, cloth, 3s. 6d. In boards, 2s. 6d. JENNINGS. Mr Gladstone : A Study. By Louis J. Jennings, M.P., Author of ‘ Republican Government in the United States,’ ‘The Croker Memoirs,’ &c. Popular Edition. Crown 8vo, is. JEBNINGHAM. Beminiscences of an Attache. By Hubert E. H. Jerningham. Second Edition. Crown 8vo, 5s. - - Diane de Breteuille. A Love Story. Crown 8vo, 2s. 6d. JOHNSTON. The Chemistry of Common Life. By Professor J. F. W. Johnston. New Edition, Revised, and brought down to date. By Arthur Herbert Church, M.A. Oxon. ; Author of ‘Food: its Sources, Constituents, and Uses; ’ ‘The Laboratory Guide for Agricultural Students ; ’ ‘Plain Words about Water,’ &c. Illustrated with Maps and 102 Engravings on Wood. Complete in one volume, crown 8vo, pp. 618, 7s. 6d. WILLIAM BLACKWOOD AND SONS. 13 JOHNSTON. Elements of Agricultural Chemistry and Geology. Fourteenth Edition, Revised, and brought down to date. By Sir Charles A. Cameron, M. D., F.R.C.S. I., &c. Fcap. 8vo, 6s. 6d. - Catechism of Agricultural Chemistry and Geology. An entirely New Edition, revised and enlarged, by Sir Charles A. Cameron, M.D., F.R.C.S. I. ,&c. Eighty-sixth Thousand, with numerous Illustrations, is. JOHNSTON. Patrick Hamilton: a Tragedy of the Deformation in Scotland, 1528. By T. P. Johnston. Crown 8vo, with Two Etchings by the Author, 5s. KENNEDY. Sport, Travel, and Adventures in Newfoundland and the West Indies. By Captain W. R. Kennedy, R.N. With Illustrations by the Author. Post 8vo, 14s. KING. The Metamorphoses of Ovid. Translated in English Blank Verse. By Henry King, M.A., Fellow of Wadham College, Oxford, and of the Inner Temple, Barrister-at-Law. Crown 8vo, 10s. 6d. ivINGLAKE. History of the Invasion of the Crimea. By A. W. Kinglake. Cabinet Edition. Illustrated with Maps and Plans. In Nine Volumes, crown 8vo, at 6s. each. The Volumes respectively contain : — I. The Origin of the War between the Czar and the Sultan. II. Russia Met and Invaded. III. The Battle of the Alma. IV. Sebastopol at Bay. V. The Battle of Balaclava. VI. The Battle of In- kerman. VII. Winter Troubles. VIII. and IX. From the Morrow of Inkerman to the Death of Lord Raglan. With an Index to the Complete Work. - History of the Invasion of the Crimea. Demy 8vo. Yol. VI. Winter Troubles. With a Map, 16s. Vols. VII. and VIII. From the Morrow of Inkerman to the Death of Lord Raglan. With an Index to the Whole Work. With Maps and Plans. 28s. - Eothen. A New Edition, uniform with the Cabinet Edition of the ‘ History of the Invasion of the Crimea,’ price 6s. KNOLLYS. The Elements of Field-Artillery. Designed for tike Use of Infantry and Cavalry Officers. By Henry Knollys, Captain Royal Artillery; Author of ‘From Sedan to Saarbrtick,’ Editor of ‘Incidents in the Sepoy War,’ &c. With Engravings. Crown 8vo, 7s. 6d. LAING. Select Remains of the Ancient Popular and Romance Poetry of Scotland. Originally Collected and Edited by David Laing, LL.D. Re-edited, with Memorial-Introduction, by John Small, M.A. With a Por¬ trait of Dr Laing. 4L), 25s. LAYERGNE. The Rural Economy of England, Scotland, and Ire¬ land. By Leonce de Lavergne. Translated from the French. With Notes by a Scottish Farmer. 8vo, 12s. LAWLESS. Hurrish : a Study. By the Hon. Emily Lawless, Author of ‘A Chelsea Householder,’ ‘A Millionaire’s Cousin.’ Third and cheaper Edition, crown 8vo, 6s. LEE. A Phantom Lover : A Fantastic Story. By Yernon Lee. Crown 8vo, is. LEE. Glimpses in the Twilight. Being various Notes, Records, and Examples of the Supernatural. By the Rev. George F. Lee, D.C.L. Crown 8vo. 8s. 6d. LEES. A Handbook of Sheriff Court Styles. By J. M. Lees, M.A., LL.B., Advocate, Sheriff-Substitute of Lanarkshire. New Eel., 8vo, 21s. - A Handbook of the Sheriff and Justice of Peace Small Debt Courts. 8vo. 7s. 6d. LETTERS FROM THE HIGHLANDS. Reprinted from ‘The Times.’ Fcap. 8vo, 4s. 6d. LIGHTFOOT. Studies in Philosophy. By the Rev. J. Lightfoot, M. A., D.Sc., Vicar of Cross Stone, Todmorden. Crown 8vo, 4s. 6d. LITTLE. Marl agascar: Its History and People. By the Rev. H. W. Little, some years Missionary in East Madagascar. Post 8vo, 10s. 6d. 14 LIST OF BOOKS PUBLISHED BY LOCKHART. Doubles and Quits. By Laurence W. M. Lock¬ hart. With Twelve Illustrations. Fourth Edition. Crown 8vo, 6s. - Fair to See : a Novel. Eighth Edition. Crown 8vo, 6s. - Mine is Thine : a Novel. Eighth Edition. Crown 8vo, 6s. LORIMER. The Institutes of Law : A Treatise of the Principles of Jurisprudence as determined by Nature. By James Lorimer, Regius Professor of Public Law and of the Law of Nature and Nations in the Uni¬ versity of Edinburgh. New Edition, revised throughout, and much enlarged. 8vo, i8s. - The Institutes of the Law of Nations. A Treatise of the Jural Relation of Separate Political Communities. In 2 vols. 8vo. Volume I., price 16s. Volume II., price 20s. M‘COMBIE. Cattle and Cattle-Breeders. Bv William M£Combie, Tillyfour. New Edition, enlarged, with Memoir of the Author. By James Macdonald, Editor of the ‘ Live-Stock Journal.’ Crown 8vo, 3s. 6d. MACRAE. A Handbook of Deer -Stalking. By Alexander Macrae, late Forester to Lord Henry Bentinck. With Introduction by Horatio Ross, Esq. Fcap. 8vo, with two Photographs from Life. 3s. 6d. M‘CRIE. Works of the Rev. Thomas M£Crie, D.D. Uniform Edi¬ tion. Four vols. crown 8vo, 24s. - Life of John Knox. Containing Illustrations of the His¬ tory of the Reformation in Scotland. Crown 8vo, 6s. Another Edition, 3s. 6d. - Life of Andrew Melville. Containing Illustrations of the Ecclesiastical and Literary History of Scotland in the Sixteenth and Seven¬ teenth Centuries. Crown 8vo, 6s. - History of the Progress and Suppression of the Reforma¬ tion in Italy in the Sixteenth Century. Crown 8vo, 4s. - History of the Progress and Suppression of the Reforma¬ tion in Spain in the Sixteenth Century. Crown 8vo, 3s. 6d. - Lectures on the Book of Esther. Fcap. 8vo, 5s. MACDONALD. A Manual of the Criminal Law (Scotland) Pro¬ cedure Act, 1887. By Norman Doran Macdonald. Revised by the Lord Advocate. 8vo, cloth. 10s. 6d. MACGREGOR. Life and Opinions of Major-General Sir Charles MacGregor, K.C.B., C.S.I., C.I.E., Quartermaster-Geneial of India. From his Letters and Diaries. Edited by Lady MacGregor. With Portraits and Maps to illustrate Campaigns in which he was engaged. In 2 vols. 8vo. MTNTOSH. The Book of the Garden. By Charles MTntosh, formerly Curator of the Royal Gardens of his Majesty the King of the Belgians, and lately of those of his Grace the Duke of Buccleuch, K.G., at Dalkeith Pad ace. Two large vols. royal 8vo, embellished with 1350 Engravings. £4, 7s. 6d. Vol. I. On the Formation of Gardens and Construction of Garden Edifices. 776 pages, and 1073 Engravings, £2, 10s. Vol. II. Practical Gardening. 868 pages, and 279 Engravings, £1, 17s. 6d. MACINTYRE. Hindu Koh : Wanderings and Wild Sports on and Beyond the Himalayas. By Major-General Donald Macintyre, V.C., late Prince of Wales’ Own Goorklias, F.R.G.S. In One Volume, with Illustrations. [In the press. MACKAY. A Manual of Modern Geography ; Mathematical, Phys¬ ical, and Political. By the Rev. Alexander Mackay, LL.D., F.R.G.S. Ath Thousand, revised to the present time. Crown 8vo, pp. 688. 7s. 6d. - Elements of Modern Geography. 53d Thousand, revised to the present time. Crown 8vo, pp. 300, 3s. - The Intermediate Geography. Intended as an Interme¬ diate Book between the Author’s ‘ Outlines of Geography’ and ‘ Elements ol Geography.’ Thirteenth Edition, revised. Crown 8vo, pp. 238, 2s. - Outlines of Modern Geography. 176th Thousand, re¬ vised to the present time. i8mo, pp. 118, is. WILLIAM BLACKWOOD AND SONS. 15 MACK AY. First Steps in Geography. By the Rev. Alexander Mackay, LL.D., F.R.G.S. 86th Thousand. 181110, pp. 56. Sewed, 4d. ; cloth, 6d. - Elements of Physiography and Physical Geography. With Express Reference to the Instructions recently issued by the Science and Art Department. 30th Thousand, revised. Crown 8vo, is. 6d. - Facts and Dates ; or, the Leading Events in Sacred and Profane History, and the Principal Facts in the various Physical Sciences. The Memory being aided throughout by a Simple and Natural Method. For Schools and Private Reference. New Edition. Crown 8vo, 3s. 6d. MACKAY. An Old Scots Brigade. Being the History of Mackay ’s Regiment, now incorporated with the Royal Scots. With an Appendix con¬ taining many Original Documents connected with the History of the Regi¬ ment. By John Mackay (late) of Herriesdale. Crown 8vo, 5s. MACKAY. The Founders of the American Republic. A History of Washington, Adams, Jefferson, Franklin, and Madison. With a Supple¬ mentary Chapter on the Inherent Causes of the Ultimate Failure of American Democracy. By Charles Mackay, LL.D. Post 8vo, 10s. 6d. MACKELLAR. More Leaves from the Journal of a Life in the Highlands, from 1862 to 1882. Translated into Gaelic by Mrs Mary Mackel- lar. By command of Her Majesty the Queen. Crown 8vo, with Illustrations, ios. 6d. MACKENZIE. Studies in Roman Law. With Comparative Views of the Laws of France, England, and Scotland. By Lord Mackenzie, one of the Judges of the Court of Session in Scotland. Sixth Edition, Edited by John Kirkpatrick, Esq., M.A. Cantab.; Dr Jur. Heidelb. ; LL.B. Edin. ; Advocate. 8vo, 12s. MAIN. Three Hundred English Sonnets. Chosen and Edited by David M. Main. Fcap. 8vo, 6s. MAIR. A Digest of Laws and Decisions, Ecclesiastical and Civil relating to the Constitution, Practice, and Affairs of the Church of Scotland. With Notes and Forms of Procedure. By the Rev. William Mair, D.D., Minister of the Parish of Earlston. Crown 8vo. With a Supplement, 7s. gd. MAITLAND. Parva. By E. Fuller Maitland (E. F. M.) Fcap. 8vo. 5s. MARMORNE. The Story is told by Adolphus Segrave, the youngest of three Brothers. Third Edition. Crown 8vo, 6s. MARSHALL. French Home Life. By Frederic Marshall. Second Edition. 5s. MARSHMAN. History of India. From the Earliest Period to the Close of the India Company’s Government ; with an Epitome of Subsequent Events. By John Clark Marshman, C.S.I. Abridged from the Author’s larger work. Second Edition, revised. Crown 8vo, with Map, 6s. 6d. MARTIN. Goethe’s Faust. Parti. Translated by Sir Theodore Martin, K.C.B. Second Ed., crown 8vo, 6s. Ninth Ed., fcap. 8vo, 3s. 6d. - Goethe’s Faust. Part II. Translated into English Verse. Second Edition, revised. Fcap. 8vo, 6s. - - The Works of Horace. Translated into English Verse, with Life and Notes. 2 vols. New Edition, crown 8vo, 21s. - Poems and Ballads of Heinrich Heine. Done into Eng¬ lish Verse. Second Edition. Printed on papier verge, crown 8vo, 8s. - Catullus. With Life and Notes. Second Ed., post 8vo, 7s. 6d. - Aladdin : A Dramatic Poem. By Adam Oehlenschlae- ger. Fcap. 8vo, 5s. - Correggio : A Tragedy. By Oehlenschlaeger. With Notes. Fcap. 8vo, 3s. - King Rene’s Daughter : A Danish Lyrical Drama. By Henrik Hertz. Second Edition, fcap., 2s. 6d. 16 LIST OF BOOKS PUBLISHED BY MARTIN. On some of Shakespeare’s Female Characters. In a Series of Letters. By Helena Faucit, Lady Martin. Dedicated by per¬ mission to Her Most Gracious Majesty the Queen. Third Edition. 8vo, with Portrait, 7s. 6d. MATHESON. Can the Old Faith Live with the New? or the Problem of Evolution and Revelation. By the Rev. George Matheson, D.D. Second Edition. Crown 8vo, 7s. 6d. - - The Psalmist and the Scientist ; or, Modern Value of the Religious Sentiment. Crown 8vo, 7s. 6d. MAURICE. The Balance of Military Power in Europe. An Examination of the War Resources of Great Britain and the Continental States. By Colonel Maurice, R. A., Professor of Military Art and History at the Royal Staff College. Crown Svo, with a Map. 6s. MEIIvLEJOHN. An Old Educational Reformer — Dr Bell. By J. M. D. Meiklejohn, M. A., Professor of the Theory, History, and Practice of Education in the University of St Andrews. Crown 8vo, 3s. 6d. - - - The Golden Primer. With Coloured Illustrations by Wal¬ ter Crane. Small 4to, boards, 5s. - The English Language : Its Grammar, History, and Litera¬ ture. With Chapters on Versification, Paraphrasing, and Punctuation. Second Edition. Crown 8vo, 4s. 6d. MICHEL. A Critical Inquiry into the Scottish Language. With the view of Illustrating the Rise and Progress of Civilisation in Scotland. By Francis que-Michel, F.S.A. Lond. and Scot., Correspondant de 1’Institut de France, &c. In One handsome Quarto Volume, printed on hand-made paper, and appropriately bound in Roxburgh e style. Price 66s. MICHIE. The Larch : Being a Practical Treatise on its Culture and General Management. By Christopher Y. Michie. Forester, Cullen House. Crown 8vo, with Illustrations. New and Cheaper Edition, enlarged, 5s. - Practical Forestry. Crown Svo, with Illustrations. [In the press. MILNE. The Problem of the Churchless and Poor in our Large Towns. With special reference to the Home Mission Work of the Church of Scotland. By the Rev. Robt. Milne, M. A., D.D. , Ardler. Crown 8vo, 5s. MIN TO. A Manual of English Prose Literature, Biographical and Critical : designed mainly to show Characteristics of Style. By W. Minto, M.A., Professor of Logic in the University of Aberdeen. Third Edition, revised. Crown 8vo, 7s. 6d. - - Characteristics of English Poets, from Chaucer to Shirley. New Edition, revised. Crown 8vo, 7s. 6d. - The Crack of Doom. 3 vols. post 8vo, 25s. 6cl. MITCHELL. Biographies of Eminent Soldiers of the last Four Centuries. By Major-General John Mitchell, Author of ‘Life of Wallenstein.’ With a Memoir of the Author. 8vo, qs. MOIR. Life of Mansie Wauch, Tailor in Dalkeith. With 8 Illustrations on Steel, by the late George Cruikshank. Crown 8vo, 3s. 6d. Another Edition, fcap. 8vo, is. 6d. MOMERIE. Defects of Modern Christianity, and other Sermons. By the Rev. A. W. Momerie, M.A., D.Sc., LL. D., Professor of Logic and Metaphysics in King’s College, London. Third Edition. Crowm Svo, 5s. - - The Basis of Religion. Being an Examination of Natural Religion. Second Edition. Crown 8vo, 2s. 6d. - - The Origin of Evil, and other Sermons. Fifth Edition, enlarged. Crown 8vo, 5s. - Personality. The Beginning and End of Metaphysics, and a Necessary Assumption in all Positive Philosophy. Third Ed. Cr. 8vo, 3s. - Agnosticism. Second Edition, Revised. Crown Svo, 5s. - Preaching and Hearing ; and Other Sermons. Second Edition. Crown 8vo, 4s. 6d. - Belief in God. Second Edition. Crown Svo, 3s. WILLIAM BLACKWOOD AND SONS. 17 MONTAGUE. Campaigning in South Africa. Reminiscences of an Officer in 1879. By Captain W. E. Montague, 94th Regiment, Author of ‘ Claude Meadowleigh,’ &c. 8vo, 10s. 6d. MONTALE MBERT. Memoir of Count de Montalembert. A Chapter of Recent French History. By Mrs Oliphant, Author of the ‘Life of Edward Irving,’ &c. 2 vols. crown 8vo, £1, 4s. MURDOCH. Manual of the Law of Insolvency and Bankruptcy : Comprehending a Summary of the Law of Insolvency, Notour Bankruptcy, Composition - contracts, Trust-deeds, Cessios, and Sequestrations; and the Winding-up of Joint-Stock Companies in Scotland ; with Annotations on the various Insolvency and Bankruptcy Statutes ; and with Forms of Procedure applicable to these Subjects. By James Murdoch, Member of the Faculty oi Procurators in Glasgow. Fifth Edition, Revised and Enlarged, 8vo, £1, 10s. MY TRIVIAL LIFE AND MISFORTUNE : A Gossip with no Plot in Particular. By A Plain Woman. New Edition, crown 8vo, 6s. By the Same Author. POOR NELLIE. New and Cheaper Edition. Complete in one volume, crown 8vo, 6s. NEAVES. Songs and Verses, Social and Scientific. By an Old Contributor to ‘Maga.’ By the Hon. Lord Neaves. Fifth Ed., fcap. 8vo, 4s. - The Greek Anthology. Being Vol. XX. of ‘Ancient Clas¬ sics for English Readers.’ Crown 8vo, 2s. 6d. NICHOLSON. A Manual of Zoology, for the Use of Students. With a General Introduction on the Principles of Zoology. By Henry Al- leyne Nicholson, M.D., D.Sc., F.L.S., F.G.S., Regius Professor of Natural History in the University of Aberdeen. Seventh Edition, rewritten and enlarged. Post 8vo, pp. 956, with 555 Engravings on Wood, 18s. — - Text-Book of Zoology, for the Use of Schools. Fourth Edi¬ tion, enlarged. Crown 8vo, with 188 Engravings on Wood, 7s. 6d. - Introductory Text-Book of Zoology, for the Use of Junior Classes. Sixth Edition, revised and enlarged, with 166 Engravings, 3s. - Outlines of Natural History, for Beginners ; being Descrip¬ tions of a Progressive Series of Zoological Types. Third Edition, with Engravings, is. 6d. - A Manual of Palaeontology, for the Use of Students. With a General Introduction on the Principles of Palaeontology. Second Edi¬ tion. Revised and greatly enlarged. 2 vols. 8vo, with 722 Engravings, £7., 2s. - The Ancient Life-History of the Earth. An Outline of the Principles and Leading Facts of Palaeontological Science. Crown 8vo, with 276 Engravings, 10s. 6d. - On the “ Tabulate Corals ” of the Paheozoic Period, with Critical Descriptions of Illustrative Species. Illustrated with 15 Lithograph Plates and numerous Engravings. Super-royal 8vo, 21s. - Synopsis of the Classification of the Animal King¬ dom. 8vo, with 106 Illustrations, 6s. - On the Structure and Affinities of the Genus Monticuli- pora and its Sub-Genera, with Critical Descriptions of Illustrative Species. Illustrated with numerous Engravings on wood and lithographed Plates. Super-royal 8vo, 18s. NICHOLSON. Communion with Heaven, and other Sermons. By the late Maxwell Nicholson, D.D., Minister of St Stephen’s, Edinburgh. Crown 8vo, 5s. 6d. - Rest in Jesus. Sixth Edition. Fcap. 8vo, 4s. 6d. NICHOLSON. A Treatise on Money, and Essays on Present Monetary Problems. By Joseph Shield Nicholson, M.A. , D.Sc., Professor of Commercial and Political Economy and Mercantile Law in the University of Edinburgh. 8vo, 10s. 6d. OLIPHANT. Masollam : a Problem of the Period. A Novel. By Laurence Oliphant. 3 vols. post 8vo, 25s. 6d. - Scientific Religion ; or, Higher Possibilities of Life and Practice through the Operation of Natural Forces. Second Edition. 8vo, 16s. 18 LIST OF BOOKS PUBLISHED BY OLIPHANT. Altiora Peto. By Laurence Oliphant. New and Cheaper Edition. Crown 8vo, boards, 2s. 6d. Illustrated Edition. Crown 8vo, cloth, 6s. - Piccadilly : A Fragment of Contemporary Biography. With Eight Illustrations by Richard Doyle. Eighth Edition, 4s. 6d. Cheap Edition, in paper cover, 2s. 6d. - Traits and Travesties ; Social and Political. Post 8vo,ios.6d. - The Land of Gilead. With Excursions in the Lebanon. With Illustrations and Maps. Demy 8vo, 21s. - The Land of Khemi. PostSvo, with Illustrations, 10s. 6d. - - Haifa: Life in Modern Palestine. 2d Edition. 8vo, 7s. 6cl. - - Episodes in a Life of Adventure ; or, Moss from a Bolling Stone. Fourth Edition. Post 8vo, 6s. - Fashionable Philosophy, and other Sketches. In paper cover, is. - Sympneumata : or, Evolutionary Functions now Active in Man. Edited by Laurence Oliphant. Post 8vo, 10s. 6d. OLIPHANT. The Story of Valentine ; and his Brother. By Mrs Oliphant. 5s., cloth. — - Katie Stewart. 2s. 6d. OSBOBN. Narratives of Voyage and Adventure. By Admiral Sherard Osborn, C.B. 3 vols. crown 8vo, 12s. OSSIAN. The Poems of Ossian in the Original Gaelic. With a Literal Translation into English, and a Dissertation on the Authenticity of the Poems. By the Rev. Archibald Clerk. 2 vols. imperial 8vo, ^1, ns. 6d. OSWALD. By Fell and Fjord ; or, Scenes and Studies in Iceland. By E. J. Oswald. Post 8vo, with Illustrations. 7s. 6d. OUTCASTS, THE. In Two Volumes. Post 8vo. \In the press. OUTBAM. Lyrics: Legal and Miscellaneous. By the late George Outram, Esq., Advocate. New Edition, with Explanatory Notes. Edited by J. H. Stoddart, LL.D. ; and Illustrated by William Ralston and A. S. Boyd. Fcap. 8vo, 5s. PAGE. Introductory Text-Book of Geology. By David Page, LL.D., Professor of Geology in the Durham University of Physical Science, Newcastle, and Professor Lapworth of Mason Science College, Birmingham. With Engravings & Glossarial Index. Twelfth Edition. Revised and En¬ larged. 3s. 6d. - - Advanced Text-Book of Geology, Descriptive and Indus¬ trial. With Engravings, and Glossary of Scientific Terms. Sixth Edition, re¬ vised and enlarged, 7s. 6d. - Introductory Text-Book of Physical Geography. With Sketch-Maps and Illustrations. Edited by Charles Lapworth, LL.D., F.G.S., &c., Professor of Geology and Mineralogy in the Mason Science College, Bir¬ mingham. 12th Edition. 2s. 6d. - Advanced Text - Book of Physical Geography. Third Editioh, Revised and Enlarged by Prof. Lapworth. With Engravings. 5s. PATON. Spindrift. By Sir J. Noel Paton. Fcap., cloth, 5s. - Poems by a Painter. Fcap., cloth, 5s. PATTEBSON. Essays in History and Art. By B. Hogarth Patterson. 8vo, 12s. - - The New Golden Age, and Influence of the Precious Metals upon the World. 2 vols. 8vo, 31s. 6d. PAUL. History of the Boyal Company of Archers, the Queen’s Body-Guard for Scotland. By James Balfour Paul, Advocate of the Scottish Bar. Crown 4to, with Portraits and other Illustrations. £2, 2s. PEILE. Lawn Tennis as a Game of Skill. With latest revised Laws as played by the Best Clubs. By Captain S. C. F. Peile, B.S.C. Fourth Edition, fcap. cloth, is. 6d. WILLIAM BLACKWOOD AND SONS. 19 PETTIGREW. The Handy Book of Bees, and their Profitable Management. By A. Pettigrew. Fourth Edition, Enlarged, with Engrav¬ ings. Crown 8vo, 3s. 6d. PHILOSOPHICAL CLASSICS FOR ENGLISH READERS. Companion Series to Ancient and Foreign Classics for English Readers. Edited by William Knight, LL.D., Professor of Moral Philosophy, Uni¬ versity of St Andrews. In crown 8vo volumes, with portraits, price 3s. 6d. [ For list of Volumes published, see page 2. POLLOK. The Course of Time : A Poem. By Robert Pollok, A.M. Small fcap. 8vo, cloth gilt, 2s. 6d. The Cottage Edition, 32mo, sewed, 8d. The Same, cloth, gilt edges, is. 6d. Another Edition, with Illustrations by Birket Foster and others, fcap., gilt cloth, 3s. 6d., or with edges gilt, 4s. PORT ROYAL LOGIC. Translated from the French ; with Intro¬ duction, Notes, and Appendix. By Thomas Spencer Baynes, LL.D., Pro¬ fessor in the University of St Andrews. Tenth Edition, i2ino, 4s. POTTS and DARNELL. Aditus Faciliores : An easy Latin Con¬ struing Book, with Complete Vocabulary. By A. W. Potts, M.A., LL.D., Head-Master of the Fettes College, Edinburgh, and sometime Fellow of St John’s College, Cambridge; and the Rev. C. Darnell, M.A., Head-Master of Cargilfield Preparatory School, Edinburgh, and late Scholar of Pembroke and Downing Colleges, Cambridge. Ninth Edition, fcap. 8vo, 3s. 6d. - Aditus Faciliores Graeci. An easy Greek Construing Book, with Complete Vocabulary. Fourth Edition, fcap. 8vo, 3s. PRINGLE. The Live-Stock of the Farm. By Robert 0. Pringle. Third Edition. Revised and Edited by James Macdonald, Editor of the ‘Live-Stock Journal,’ &c. Crown 8vo, 7s. 6d. PUBLIC GENERAL STATUTES AFFECTING SCOTLAND from 1707 to 1847, with Chronological Table and Index. 3 vols. large 8vo, ^3, 3s. PUBLIC GENERAL STATUTES AFFECTING SCOTLAND, COLLECTION OF. Published Annually with General Index. RAMSAY. Rough Recollections of Military Service and Society. By Lieut.-Col. Balcarres D. Wardlaw Ramsay. Two vols. post 8vo, 21s. . RAMSAY. Scotland and Scotsmen in the Eighteenth Century. Edited from the MSS. of John Ramsay, Esq. of Ochtertyre, by Alexander Allardyce, Author of ‘Memoir of Admiral Lord Keith, K.B.,’ &c. 2 vols. 8vo, 3Ls. 6d. RANKIN. A Handbook of the Church of Scotland. By James Rankin, D.D., Minister of Mutliill ; Author of ‘Character Studies in the Old Testament,’ &e. An entirely New and much Enlarged Edition. Crown 8vo, with 2 Maps, 7s. 6d. RANKINE. A Treatise on the Rights and Burdens incident to the Ownership of Lands and other Heritages in Scotland. By John Rankine M.A., Advocate, Professor of Scots Law in the University of Edinburgh. Second Edition, Revised and Enlarged. 8vo, 45s. RECORDS OF THE TERCENTENARY FESTIVAL OF THE UNIVERSITY OF EDINBURGH. Celebrated in April 1884. Published under the Sanction of the Senatus Academicus. Large 4to, £ 2 , 12s. 6d. RICE. Reminiscences of Abraham Lincoln. By Distinguished Men of his Time. Collected and Edited by Allen Thorndike Rice, Editor of the ‘ North American Review.’ Large 8vo, with Portraits, 21s. RIMMER. The Early Homes of Prince Albert. By Alfred Rimmer, Author of ‘Our Old Country Towns,’ &c. Beautifully Illustrated with Tinted Plates and numerous Engravings on Wood. 8vo, 10s. 6d. ROBERTSON. Orellana, and other Poems. By J. Logie Robert¬ son, m. a. Fcap. 8vo. Printed on hand-made paper. 6s. - The White Angel of the Polly Ann, and other Stories. A Book of Fables and Fancies. Fcap. 8vo, 3s. 6d. - Our Holiday Among the Hills. By James and Janet Logie Robertson. Fcap. 8vo, 3s. 6d. ROSCOE. Rambles with a Fishing-rod. By E. S. Roscoe. Crown 8vo, 4s. 6d. 20 LIST OF BOOKS PUBLISHED BY ROSS. Old Scottish Regimental Colours. By Andrew Ross, S.S.C., Hon. Secretary Old Scottish Regimental Colours Committee. Dedi¬ cated by Special Permission to Her Majesty the Queen. Folio, handsomely bound in cloth, £ 2 , 12s. 6d. RUSSELL. The Haigs of Bemersyde. A Family History. By John Russell. Large 8vo, with Illustrations. 21s. RUSSELL. Fragments from Many Tables. Being the Recollections of Some Wise and Witty Men and Women. By Geo. Russell. Cr. 8vo, 4s. 6d. RUSTOW. The War for the Rhine Frontier, 1870 : Its Political and Military History. By Col. W. Rtjstow. Translated from the German, by John Layland Needham, Lieutenant R.M. Artillery. 3 vols. 8vo, with Maps and Plans, £1, iis. 6d. RUTLAND. Notes of an Irish Tour in 1846. By the Duke of Rutland, G.C.B. (Lord John Manners). New Edition. Crown 8vo, 2s. 6d. RUTLAND. Gems of German Poetry. Translated by the Duchess of Rutland (Lady John Manners). Small quarto, 3s. 6d. - Impressions of Bad-Homburg. Comprising a Short Ac¬ count of the Women’s Associations of Germany under the Red Cross. By the Duchess of Rutland (Lady John Manners). Crown 8vo, is. 6d. - Some Personal Recollections of the Later Years of the Earl of Beaconsfield, K. G. Sixth Edition, 6d. - Employment of Women in the Public Service. 6d. - Some of the Advantages of Easily Accessible Reading and Recreation Rooms, and Free Libraries. With Remarks on Starting and Maintaining Them. Second Edition, crown 8vo, is. - A Sequel to Rich Men’s Dwellings, and other Occasional Papers. Crown 8vo, 2s. 6d. - Encouraging Experiences of Reading and Recreation Rooms. Aims of Guilds, Nottingham Social Guild, Existing Institutions, &c., &c. Crown 8vo, is. SCHILLER. Wallenstein. A Dramatic Poem. By Frederick von Schiller. Translated by C. G. A. Lockhart. Fcap. 8vo, 7s. 6d. SCOTCH LOCH FISHING. By “Black Palmer.” Crown 8vo, interleaved with blank pages, 4s. SCOTTISH METAPHYSICS. Reconstructed in accordance with the Principles of Physical Science. By the Writer of ‘ Free Notes on Herbert Spencer’s First Principles.’ Crown 8vo, 5s. SELLAR. Manual of the Education Acts for Scotland. By Alexander Craig Sellar, M.P. Eighth Edition. Revised and in great part rewritten by J. Edward Graham, B.A. Oxon., Advocate. Containing the Technical Schools Act, 1887, and all Acts bearing on Education in Scotland. With Rules for the conduct of Elections, with Notes and Cases. 8vo, 10s. 6d. SELLER and STEPHENS. Physiology at the Farm ; in Aid of Rearing and Feeding the Live Stock. By William Seller, M.D., F.R.S.E., Fellow of the Royal College of Physicians, Edinburgh, formerly Lecturer on Materia Medica and Dietetics ; and Henry Stephens, F.R.S.E., Author of ‘ The Book of the Farm,’ &c. Post 8vo, with Engravings, 16s. SETH. Scottish Philosophy. A Comparison of the Scottish and German Answers to Hume. Balfour Philosophical Lectures, University of Edinburgh. By Andrew Seth, M.A., Professor of Logic, Rhetoric, and Metaphysics in the University of St Andrews. Crown 8vo, 5s. - Hegelianism and Personality. Balfour Philosophical Lec¬ tures. Second Series. Crown 8vo, 5s. SETON. A Budget of Anecdotes. Chiefly relating to the Current Century. Compiled and Arranged by George Seton, Advocate, M.A. Oxon. New and Cheaper Edition, fcap. 8vo. Boards, is. 6d. SHADWELL. The Life of Colin Campbell, Lord Clyde. Illus¬ trated by Extracts from his Diary and Correspondence. By Lieutenant- General SHADwfeLL, C.B. 2 vols. 8vo. With Portrait, Maps, and Plans. 36s. SHAND. Half a Century; or, Changes in Men and Manners. By Alex. Innes Shand, Author of ‘Against Time,’ &c. Second Ed., Svo, 12s. 6d. WILLIAM BLACKWOOD AND SONS. 21 SHAND. Letters from the West of Ireland. By Alex. Innes Shand. Reprinted from the ‘ Times.’ Crown 8vo, 5s. SHARPE. Letters from and to Charles Kirkpatrick Sharpe. Edited by Alexander Allardyce, Author of ‘ Memoir of Admiral Lord Keith, K.B.,’ &c. With a Memoir by the Rev. W. K. R. Bedford. In two vols. 8vo. Illustrated with Etchings and other Engravings. SIM. Margaret Sim’s Cookery. With an Introduction by L. B. Walford, Author of ‘Mr Smith : A Part of His Life,’ &c. Crown 8vo, 5s. SKELTON. Maitland of Lethington ; and the Scotland of Mary Stuart. A History. By John Skelton, C.B., LL.D. Author of ‘ The Essays of Shirley.’ Demy 8vo, 12s. 6d. SMITH. Italian Irrigation : A Report on the Agricultural Canals of Piedmont and Lombardy, addressed to the Hon. the Directors of the East India Company ; with an Appendix, containing a Sketch of the Irrigation Sys¬ tem of Northern and Central India. By Lieut.-Col. R. Baird Smith, F.G. S., Bengal Engineers. Second Edition. 2 voJs. 8vo, with Atlas, 30s. SMITH. Tliorndale ; or, The Conflict of Opinions. By William Smith, Author of ‘A Discourse on Ethics, ’&c. New Edition. Cr. 8vo, 10s. 6d. - Gravenhurst ; or, Thoughts on Good and Evil. Second Edition, with Memoir of the Author. Crown 8vo, 8s. SMITH. Greek Testament Lessons for Colleges, Schools, and Private Students, consisting cnieflyof the Sermon on the Mount and the Parables of our Lord. With Notes and Essays. By the Rev. J. Hunter Smith, M. A., King Edward’s School, Birmingham. Crown 8vo, 6s. SMITH. Writings by the Waju By John Campbell Smith, M.A., Sheriff-Substitute. Crown 8vo, 9s. SMITH. The Secretary for Scotland. Being a Statement of the Powers and Duties of the new Scottish Office. With a Short Historical Introduction and numerous references to important Administrative Docu¬ ments. By W. C. Smith, LL.B., Advocate. 8vo. 6s. SOLTERA. A Lady’s Ride Across Spanish Honduras. By Maria Soltera. With Illustrations. Post 8vo, 12s. 6d. - - The Fat of the Land. A Novel. 3 vols. post 8vo, 25s. 6d. SORLEY. The Ethics of Naturalism. Being the Shaw Fellowship Lectures, 1884. By W. R. Sorley, M.A., Fellow of Trinity College, Cambridge, and Examiner in Philosophy in the University of Edinburgh. Crown 8vo, 6s. SPEEDY. Sport in the Highlands and Lowlands of Scotland with Rod and Gun. By Tom Speedy. Second Edition, Revised and Enlarged. With Illustrations by Lieut. -Gen. HopeCrealocke, C.B.,C.M.G.,and others. 8vo, 15s. SPROTT. The Worship and Offices of the Church of Scotland ; or, the Celebration of Public Worship, the Administration of the Sacraments, and other Divine Offices, according to the Order of the Church of Scotland. By George W. Sprott, D.D., Minister of North Berwick. Crown 8vo. 6s. . STARFORTH. Villa Residences and Farm Architecture : A Series of Designs. By John Starforth, Architect. 102 Engravings. Second Edi¬ tion, medium 4to,^2, 17s. 6d. STATISTICAL ACCOUNT OF SCOTLAND. Complete, with Index, 15 vols. 8vo, £16, 16s. Each County sold separately, with Title, Index, and Map, neatly bound in cloth, forming a very valuable Manual to the Landowner, the Tenant, the Manufac¬ turer, the Naturalist, the Tourist, &c STEPHENS’ BOOK OF THE FARM; detailing the Labours of the Farmer, Farm-Steward, Ploughman, Shepherd, Hedger. Farm-Labourer, Field-Worker, and Cattleman. Illustrated with numerous Portraits of Ani¬ mals and Engravings of Implements. Fourth Edition. Revised, and in great part rewritten by James Macdonald, Author of ‘Food from the Far West,’ Joint-Author of ‘Polled Cattle,’ ‘Hereford Cattle,’ &c., &c. Assisted by many of the leading agricultural authorities of the day. [In preparation. - The Book of Farm Buildings ; their Arrangement and Construction. By Henry Stephens, F.R.S.E. , Author of ‘The Book of the Farm ; ' and Robert Scott Burn. Illustrated with 1045 Plates and En¬ gravings. Large 8vo, uniform with ‘ The Book of the Farm,’ &c. £1, ns. 6d. 22 LIST OF BOOKS PUBLISHED BY STEPHENS. The Book of Farm Implements and Machines. By J . Slight and R. Scott Burn, Engineers. Edited by Henry Stephens. Large 8vo, uniform with * The Book of the Farm,’ £2, 2s. STEVENSON. British Fungi. (Hymenomycetes.) By Rev. John Stevenson, Author of ‘ Mycologia Scotia,’ Hon. Sec. Cryptogamic Society of Scotland. 2 vols. post 8vo, with Illustrations, price 12s. 6d. each. Vol. I. Agaricus— Bolbitius. Vol. II. Cortinarius — Dacrymyces. STEWART. Advice to Purchasers of Horses. By John Stewart, V.S., Author of ‘ Stable Economy.’ New Edition. 2s. 6d. - Stable Economy. A Treatise on the Management of Horses in relation to Stabling, Grooming, Feeding, Watering, and Working. By John Stewart, V.S. Seventh Edition, fcap. 8vo, 6s. 6d. STORMONTH. Etymological and Pronouncing Dictionary of the English Language. Including a very Copious Selection of Scientific Terms. For Use in Schools and Colleges, and as a Book of General Reference. By the Rev. James Stormonth. The Pronunciation carefully Revised by the Rev. P. H. Phelp, M.A. Cantab. Ninth Edition, Revised throughout. Crown 8vo, pp. 800. 7s. 6d. - Dictionary of the English Language, Pronouncing, Etymological, and Explanatory. Revised by the Rev. P. H. Phelp. Library Edition. Imperial 8vo, handsomely bound in half morocco, 31s. 6d. - The School Etymological Dictionary and Word-Book. Combining the advantages of an ordinary pronouncing School Dictionary and an Etymological Spelling-book. Fourth Edition. Fcap. 8vo, pp. 254- 2s. STORY. Nero ; A Historical Play. By W. W. Story, Author of * Roba di Roma.’ Fcap. 8vo, 6s. - Vallombrosa. Post 8vo, 5s. - He and She ; or, A Poet’s Portfolio. Fcap. 8vo, in parch¬ ment, 3s. 6d. - Poems. 2 vols. fcap., 7s. 6d. - Fiammetta. A Summer Idyl. Crown 8vo, 7s. 6d. STRICKLAND. Life of Agnes Strickland. By her Sister. Post 8vo, with Portrait engraved on Steel, 12s. 6d. STURGIS. John - a - Dreams. A Tale. By Julian Sturgis. New Edition, crown 8vo, 3s. 6d. - Little Comedies, Old and New. Crown 8vo, 7s. 6d. SUTHERLAND. Handbook of Hardy Herbaceous and Alpine Flowers, for general Garden Decoration. Containing Descriptions, in Plain Language, of upwards of 1000 Species of Ornamental Hardy Perennial and Alpine Plants, adapted to all classes of Flower-Gardens, Roekwork, and Waters ; along with Concise and Plain Instructions for their Propagation and Culture. By William Sutherland, Landscape Gardener; formerly Manager of the Herbaceous Department at Kew. Crown 8vo, 7s. 6d. TAYLOR. The Story of My Life. By the late Colonel Meadows Taylor, Author of ‘The Confessions of a Thug,' &c. &c. Edited by his Daughter. New and cheaper Edition, being the Fourth. Crown 8vo, 6s. THOLUCK. Hours of Christian Devotion. Translated from the German of A. Tholuck, D.D., Professor of Theology in the University of Halle. By the Rev. Robert Menzies, D. D. With a Preface written for this Transla¬ tion by the Author. Second Edition, crown 8vo, 7s. 6d. THOMSON. Handy Book of the Flower-Garden : being Practical Directions for the Propagation, Culture, and Arrangement of Plants in Flower- Gardens all the year round. Embracing all classes of Gardens, from the largest to the smallest. With Engraved Plans, illustrative of the various systems of Grouping in Beds and Borders. By David Thomson, Gardener to his Grace the Duke of Buccleuch, K.T., at Drumlanrig. Fourth and Cheaper Edition, crown 8vo, 5s. WILLIAM BLACKWOOD AND SONS. 23 THOMSON. The Handy Book of .Fruit-Culture under Glass : being a series of Elaborate Practical Treatises on tlie Cultivation ancl Forcing of Pines, Vines, Peaches, Figs, Melons, Strawberries, and Cucumbers. With En¬ gravings of Hothouses, &c., most suitable for the Cultivation and Forcing of these Fruits. By David Thomson, Gardener to his Grace the Duke of Buc- cleuch, K.T., at Drumlanrig. Second Ed. Cr. 8vo, with Engravings, 7s. 6d. THOMSON. A Practical Treatise on the Cultivation of the Grape- Vine. By William Thomson, Tweed Vineyards. Ninth Edition, 8vo, 5s. THOMSON. Cookery for the Sick and Convalescent. With Directions for the Preparation of Poultices, Fomentations, &c. By Barbaba Thomson. Fcap. 8vo, is. 6d. THOTH. A Romance. Crown 8vo, 4s. 6d. TOM CRINGLE’S LOG. A New Edition, with Illustrations. Crown 8vo, cloth gilt, 5s. Cheap Edition, 2s. TRANSACTIONS OF THE HIGHLAND AND AGRICUL¬ TURAL society of Scotland. Published annually, price 5s. TULLOCH. Rational Theology and Christian Philosophy in Eng¬ land in the Seventeenth Century. By John Tulloch, D.D., Principal of St Mary’s College in the University of St Andrews; and one of her Majesty ’s Chaplains in Ordinary in Scotland. Second Edition. 2 vols. 8vo, 16s. - Modern Theories in Philosophy and Religion. 8vo, 15s. - Luther, and other Leaders of the Reformation. Third Edition, enlarged. Crown 8vo, 3s. 6d. - - Memoir of Principal Tulloch, D.D., LL.D., one of Her Majesty’s Chaplains for Scotland. By Mrs Oliphant, Author of ‘Memoirs of Count de Montalembert,’ ‘ Life of Edward Irving,’ 8vo, with a Portrait. TWO STORIES OF THE SEEN AND THE UNSEEN. ‘ The Open Door,’ ‘ Old Lady Mary.’ Crown 8vo, cloth, 2s. 6d. VEITCH. Institutes of Logic. By John Veitch, LL.D., Pro¬ fessor of Logic and Rhetoric in the University of Glasgow. Post 8vo, 12s. 6d. - The Feeling for Nature in Scottish Poetry. From the Ear¬ liest Times to the Present Day. 2 vols. fcap. 8vo, in Roxburghe binding. 15s. - — Merlin and Other Poems. [In tlie mess. VIRGIL. The iEneid of Virgil. Translated in English Blank Verse by G. K. Rickards, M.A. ,and Lord Ravensworth. 2 vols. fcap. 8vo, 10s. WALFORD. The Novels of L. B. Walford. New and Uniform Edition. Crown 8vo, each 5s. Sold separately. Mr Smith: A Part of his Life. — Cousins. — Pauline. — Troublesome Daughters. — Dick Netherby. — The Baby’s Grandmother. — History of a Week. - Four Biographies from ‘ Blackwood Jane Taylor, Han¬ nah More, Elizabeth Fry, Mary Somerville. Crown 8vo, 5s. WARREN’S (SAMUEL) WORKS. People’s Edition, 4 vols. crown 8vo, cloth, 15s. 6d. Or separately : — Diary of a Late Physician. Cloth, 2s. 6d. ; boards, 2s. Ten Thousand A- Year. Cloth, 3s. 6d. ; boards, 2s. 6d. Nowand Then. The Lily and the Bee. Intellectual and Moral Development of the Present Age. 4s. 6d. Essays ; Critical, Imaginative, and Juridical. 5s. WARREN. The Five Books of the Psalms. With Marginal Notes. By Rev. Samuel L. Warren, Rector of Esher, Surrey; late Fellow, Dean, and Divinity Lecturer, Wadham College, Oxford. Crown 8vo, 5s. WATSON. Christ’s Authority ; and other Sermons. By the late Archibald Watson, D.D., Minister of the Parish of Dundee, and one of Her Majesty’s Chaplains for Scotland. With Introduction by the Very Rev. Principal Caird, Glasgow. Crown 8vo, 7s. 6d. WEBSTER. The Angler and the Loop-Rod. By David Webster. Crown 8vo, with Illustrations, 7s. 6d. 24 LIST OF BOOKS, ETC. WELLINGTON. Wellington Prize Essays on “the System of Field Manoeuvres best adapted for enabling our Troops to meet a Continental Army.” Edited by Lieut.-General Sir Edward Bruce Hamley, K.C.B. 8vo, 12s. 6d. WESTMINSTER ASSEMBLY. Minutes of the Westminster As¬ sembly, while engaged in preparing their Directory for Church Government, Confession of Faith, and Catechisms (November 1644 to March 1649). Edited by the Rev. Professor Alex. T. Mitchell, of St Andrews, and the Rev. John Struthers, LL.D. With a Historical and Critical Introduction by Professor Mitchell. 8vo, 15s. WHITE. The Eighteen Christian Centuries. By the Rev. James White. Seventh Edition, post 8vo, with Index, 6s. - History of France, from the Earliest Times. Sixth Thou¬ sand, post 8vo, with Index, 6s. WHITE. Archseological Sketches in Scotland — Kintyre and Knap- dale. By Colonel T. P. White, R.E., of the Ordnance Survey. With numer¬ ous Illustrations. 2 vols. folio, £$, 4s. Vol. I., Kintyre, sold separately, £2, 2S. - The Ordnance Survey of the United Kingdom. A Popular Account. Crown 8vo, 5s. WILLS and GREENE. Drawing-room Dramas for Children. By W. G. Wills and the Hon. Mrs Greene. Crown 8vo, 6s. WILSON. Works of Professor Wilson. Edited by his Son-in-Law, Professor Ferrier. 12 vols. crown 8vo, £2, 8s. - Christopher in his Sporting- Jacket. 2 vols., 8s. - Isle of Palms, City of the Plague, and other Poems. 4s. - Lights and Shadows of Scottish Life, and other Tales. 4s. - Essays, Critical and Imaginative. 4 vols., 16s. - The Noctes Ambrosianae. 4 vols., 16s. - Homer and his Translators, and the Greek Drama. Crown 8vo, 4s. WILSON. From Korti to Khartum : A Journal of the Desert March from Korti to Gubat, and of the Ascent of the Nile in General Gordon’s Steamers. By Colonel Sir Charles W. Wilson, K.C.B., K.C.M.G., R.E. Seventh Edition. Crown 8vo, 2s. 6d. WINGATE. Annie Weir, and other Poems. By David Wingate. Fcap. 8vo, 5s. - Lily Neil. A Poem. Crown 8vo, 4s. 6d. WORDSWORTH. The Historical Plays of Shakspeare. With Introductions and Notes. By Charles Wordsworth, D.C.L., Bishop of S. Andrews. 3 vols. post 8vo, each price 7s. 6d. WORSLEY. Poems and Translations. By Philip Stanhope Worsley, M.A. Edited by Edward Worsley. Second Edition, enlarged. Fcap. 8vo, 6s. YATE. England and Russia Face to Face in Asia. A Record of Travel with the Afghan Boundary Commission. By Lieutenant A. C. Yate, Bombay Staff Corps, Special Correspondent of the ‘Pioneer,’ ‘Daily Tele¬ graph,’ &c., &c., with the Afghan Boundary Commission. 8vo, with Maps and Illustrations, 21s. YATE. Northern Afghanistan ; or, Letters from the Afghan Boundary Commission. By Major C. E. Yate, C.S.I., C.M.G. Bombay Staff Corps, F.R.G.S. 8vo, with Maps. 18s. YOUNG. A Story of Active Service in Foreign Lands. Compiled from letters sent home from South Africa, India, and China, 1856-1882. By Surgeon-General A. Graham Young, Author of ‘ Crimean Cracks.’ Crown 8vo, Illustrated, 7s. 6d. YULE. Fortification : for the Use of Officers in the Army, and Readers of Military History. By Col. Yule, Bengal Engineers. 8vo, with numerous Illustrations, 10s. 6d. 9/88.