^;:t#;§/-

¦
mmmmmt

FOR IF OUR VIRTUES
NOT (GCJ FOOTfi ©F US,
'TWERE ALL ALIKE
AS IF WE HAD THEM NOT.

IX LIBRI

WILLIAM D.MtJERAY

DIVINITY SCHOOL
TROWBRIDGE LIBRARY

GIFT OF
GEORGE M. MURRAY '17
FROM THE LIBRARY OF
WILLIAM D. MURRAY '80

STUDIES

NEW TESTAMENT.

STUDIES

THE NEW TESTAMENT.

F. GODET, D.D.,
Professor of Theology, Neuchatel.

EDITED BY
W. H. LYTTELTON, M.A.,
Rector of ' Hag ley, and Canon of Gloucester .

EIGHTH EDITION.

NEW YORK :
E. P. DUTTON & Co.,
31, WEST TWENTY THIRD STREET.

TRANSLATOR'S PREFACE.

THIS volume of Essays by Professor Godet is a con
tinuation of that on the Old Testament by the
same author, previously translated by me.1 The few words
prefixed to that volume apply equally to this. I wish
again to acknowledge the help I have received from my
husband, without which I should have been unable to
render some of the subtler and deeper thoughts of M.
Godet into our own language. I trust that our joint
work may prove to be valuable ta English readers, in
making them acquainted with so important a work of an
eminent foreign theologian.
E. L.
't " Godet's Biblical Studies on the Old Testament." (J.
Parker and Son.)

PREFACE.

'T~,HE collection of sacred books which make up
our Holy Scriptures may be compared to an
edifice containing sixty-six rooms, in each of which
there shines a ray of the celestial light. Most
Christians are contented to gaze upon it from with
out, as mere tourists. Are they prevented from
entering by the fear of finding within it only closed
doors ? Such is, no doubt, the feeling of many.
We now come forward to offer them the key to
some of these mysterious chambers. If they are
willing to make use of it, they will soon extend
their visits to all the rooms in this Divine abode,
and take up as their own the prayer of David :
" One thing have I desired of the Lord, which I will
require, even that I may dwell in the house of the
Lord all the days of my life, to behold the fair
beauty of the Lord, and to visit His temple " (Ps.
xxvii. 4).

viii PREFACE.
The first volume of these studies has been so
kindly received, that I venture to hope for a not
less favourable reception of the second. Not that I
am not keenly sensible of its defects. But its
readers may perhaps be moved to extend to it some
degree of indulgence, when they remember what a
time of struggle and of anguish the summer which
gave birth to it was for the author. But the dedi
cation will also remind them how rich an autumn
succeeded to the storms of the summer.1
Two only of the five essays in this volume had
been previously published {The Earliest Traditions
respecting our f->ur Gospels, and the Essay on the
Apocalypse: Revue Chre"tienne, January, 1864, and
March, 1869). They have been entirely recast.
May the Lord render efficacious to the hearts of
my readers everything in this work that is truly
His!
F. G.
Neuchatel, November 29, 1873.
1 The dedication in the original is as follows : " To the
Evangelical Church of Neuchatel, independent of the State,
this book is offered by one pf her devoted members." — Tr.

CONTENTS.

PAGE
THE ORIGIN OF THE FOUR GOSPELS . . I
JESUS CHRIST  84
THE WORK. OF JESUS CHRIST . . .148
THE FOUR PRINCIPAL APOSTLES . . .201
ESSAY UPON THE APOCALYPSE . . . 294

THE ORIGIN OF THE FOUR GOSPELS.
OF all the important events which took place in
the world before the advent of Jesus Christ,
there is not one which has been recorded in four narra
tives, — much less in four narratives nearly contempo
raneous with the event and simultaneous with each
other. The appearance of Jesus on earth has been
alone the object of this signal distinction. Before the
end of the century in which Jesus Christ was born,
four original histories of His life and works were in
circulation among the Churches, and in the world.
These four pictures resemble one another in certain
respects to such a degree that, to the eye of an ordi
nary reader, they appear to be only copies of one
another. Put into the hands of the generality of
Christians the four gospels, or four copies of any one
amongst them, and the majority will discover scarcely
any difference between the two. But this apparent
uniformity vanishes at once on a more careful reading.
To the eyes of a discerning reader the differences
manifest themselves in as marked and decided a
manner as the difference of features amongst four

'¦?

BIBLICAL STUDIES.

brothers in whose faces one had at first only noticed
the family likeness. Ultimately the differences appear
so striking that it becomes a little difficult to recognise
in these documents that amount of agreement which
cannot fail to exist between four true accounts of the
same event.
The first contrast which the thoughtful reader
detects is that which exists between the gospel of St.
John and the three other The course of the ministry
of Jesus, though with some differences, is, speaking
generally, the same in these latter ; so that it is easy
to harmonise their narratives. It is for this reason
that they are called " the Synoptics." 1 St. John's
gospel does not lend itself so easily to such a process.
The course of the ministry of Jesus is traced in
lines so different as to render it difficult to make
this narrative agree with the three others.
But when we look deeper still, we discover, even in
the synoptics themselves, differences so marked that
we may compare them to various species in the same
genus ; and thus we are led to ask how this diversity
is compatible with the accuracy of the three narra
tives. No doubt faith is independent of the solution of
this problem. She perceives by direct intuition the
divine character, not only of the event narrated, but
1 From the Greek synopsis, which signifies a view compre
hending in one a number of distinct histories arranged side by
side.

THE ORIGIN OF THE FOUR GOSPELS. 3
even of the manner in which it is recorded. The
remark " This is not the style of an inventor " applies
both to the substance and to the form of our gospel
narratives : to the substance, — for the phenomenon
described is too miraculously holy to be the creation
of a human imagination ; to the form, — for such
sobriety, such unwavering objectivity in the narration
of so sublime a fact, can be the effect only of the
complete self-suppression of the writer in presence of
the divine reality. . . . Faith — that organ with which
we are endowed for the perception of divine things,
just as, by means of the eye, we perceive the light —
seizes at once on these characteristics, and appropriates
without hesitation the object which, in her eyes,
possesses them. But if faith is not dependent upon
the solution of the difficulty indicated, she seeks for it,
nevertheless. That which saves us is faith, and faith alone ; but
that which satisfies is a faith which has arrived at
perfect harmony with herself.
Such satisfaction is a lawful object of desire; and
our wish is by this essay to help to procure it for
our readers. We wish to show them that if the unity
of our four gospel narratives constitutes the certainty
of the knowledge we have of Christ, we are indebted
to their diversity for the richness, the fulness of this
knowledge. To attain this end it is necessary to go back to the
origin of these narratives, which alone will enable us

BIBLICAL STUDIES.

to explain their diversity without impeaching their
credibility. In the various domains of literature we possess two
classes of instruments for ascertaining the origin of
any ancient document : first, the records transmitted
from ancient times respecting its composition, and
especially its authorship, together with the traces which
its existence and its use have left upon contempo
raneous or subsequent writings; secondly, the indica
tions which the work itself contains on the various
questions relating to its origin — indications easily
discovered by a careful study of its contents.
When these two kinds of criteria * lead to the same
result, as great a degree of certainty is reached
as is attainable by science. If the results do not
agree, the student is compelled to suspend his judg
ment. Let us follow the same course. Science offers us
no other. Let us first consult the accounts trans
mitted by the most ancient teachers of the Church,
respecting the composition of our gospels. Amongst
these venerable witnesses were to be found some
men, as we shall see, who were personally acquainted
with the apostles. Their accounts of the origin of the
apostolic writings are generally marked by a character
of simplicity, as contrasted with the pious exaggera
tions noticeable in the reports of subsequent writers.
1 A Greek word which signifies means of judging and esti
mating.

THE GOSPEL OF ST. MATTHEIV.

Let us listen then, first of all, to those voices which
reach us, as it were, from the very threshold of the
apostolic times. Then let us confront the words
of these ancient witnesses with such indications as
study will enable us to gather from the gospels them
selves. For us faith is not to be called in question, but only
to be enlightened. She possesses Him whose life is
the subject of our four gospel narratives. But she
undertakes to account for the diversity between the
four portraits which have been preserved to us of His
Person ; for she would fain raise her intuition of the
Christ to the level of that of those who beheld Him,
agreeably to the words of one of these : " That which
we have seen and heard declare we unto you, that
ye also may have fellowship with us," 1 — that is to
say, that you may see and hear Him in spirit, as we
have seen and heard Him with our bodily eyes and
ears. I.
THE GOSPEL OF ST. MATTHEW.
We find this treatise placed, in all ancient docu
ments, at the head of the gospel records, and of the
whole canon of the New Testament, as constituting
the connecting link between the Old and the New

I John i. 3.

BIBLICAL STUDIES.

Covenant ; we will ourselves give reasons to justify
this way of viewing it.
I. We have two very ancient accounts of its origin,
— one given by Papias, bishop of Hierapolis, in Phrygia,
in the first half of the second century, who died pro
bably about the year 160; the other by Irenaeus,
presbyter, afterwards bishop of Lyons, who lived in
the second half of the same century, and died about
the year 200. The former had been, according to
ancient testimony, a hearer of the apostle John; the
latter a disciple of Polycarp, the friend and com
panion of the same apostle during his sojourn in
Asia Minor in the latter part of his life.
The words of the former are : " Matthew composed
the discourses in the Hebrew tongue, and every one
translated them as he was able." What are we to
understand by this expression, the discourses ? Does
it mean the sermons of Jesus ? If so, the Hebrew
document composed by Matthew would not have been
a gospel, properly so called, but simply an account ot
the teachings of Jesus. Or, are we to understand by
the discourses the revelation of God in Jesus Christ ? 1
If we take this to be the meaning, we might consider
the object of Matthew's treatise to be the whole his
tory of the ministry of Jesus, and there would be no
difference between our canonical Greek gospel, which
1 This is quite an admissible rendering of the Greek. In fact,
the word used by Papias (Logia) signifies oracles — divine dis
courses. Cf. Rom. iii. 2.

THE GOSPEL OF ST. MATTHEW.

bears the name of this apostle, and the document
attributed to him by Papias, except that of language.
As to the last words of this account, they signify, no
doubt, that before the publication of the Greek trans
lation of Matthew's Hebrew work, the wandering
preachers, or evangelists, who made use of it in the
Churches in which only Greek was spoken, and who
made it the text of their addresses, were obliged to
translate it vivd voce.
Irenaeus expresses himself as follows, on the same
subject : " Matthew also published the Gospel among
the Jews in writing, in their own language, while
Peter and Paul were preaching at Rome and founding
the Church there." The apostle in this case must
have written in Palestine, and about the year 63 ; for
that is the only date at which Peter and Paul could
have been present together in the capital of the world.
Against the soundness of this reasoning it has been
objected that the Church was not founded in Rome
by either the one or the other ; for it has been
proved that it existed many years before their ar
rival in that city.1 But it must be remembered
that from the standpoint of the second century,
— the date of Irenaeus' writing, — the whole of the

1 The unquestionable fact that the epistle to the Romans was
composed in the winter of the year 58-59, whilst the arrival of
St. Paul in Rome did not take place till 61 (Acts xxviii.), would
of itself be sufficient proof of this as far as that apostle is con
cerned.

BIBLICAL STUDIES.

apostolic period appeared as an age o'f laying foun
dations. To these two ancient testimonies we add a third, of
rather later date, but important as summing up all
that is told us by the fathers : it is that of Eusebius,
bishop of Cesaraea, at the close of the third and be
ginning of the fourth century. He expresses himself
as follows : " Matthew wishing, after having begun
by preaching to the Jews, to go and preach also
to other nations, put his gospel into writing, in the
language of the fathers (Hebrew), and thus filled up
the void about to be made by his absence." It would
seem that the apostles left Jerusalem about the year
60. Even in A.D. 59, at the time of his last visit to
that city, Paul seems to have found there, as rulers of
the Church, only James, the brother of Jesus, who
was not an apostle, and the council of presbyters over
whom he presided.1 The date indicated by Eusebius
coincides, then, very nearly with that given by Irenaeus.
Putting them together, we should say that it was
between the years 60 and 63 that, according to the
oldest traditions, Matthew composed his written
gospel in Palestine.
Finally, a collective testimony of the highest
importance is that contained in the title which our
canonical gospel has borne ever since the second
century — " the gospel according to Matthew."

1 Acts xxi. 18 sqq.

THE GOSPEL OF ST. MATTHEW.

In this title the word gospel means, not the book
itself, but, according to the original sense of the
word, the contents of the book : the gospel, that is,
the good news of salvation, according to the version of
Matthew.1 In this title was expressed, not the opinion of a
few theologians only, but that of the Churches of that
age. Accordingly, our gospel is constantly used by
the fathers from the middle of the second century.
Justin Martyr ranks it amongst those memoirs of the
apostles, and of their fellow-labourers, from which he
draws all his information upon the life of Jesus. We
even find our gospel quoted at a still earlier date.
The so-called epistle of Barnabas, which dates from
the end of the first century or the beginning of the
second, not only extracts from it a saying of Jesus,
but in so doing makes use of the form of quotation
which is only usual with regard to books considered
by the Church to have a divine authority — "as it is
written." 2
To sum up the result of these testimonies. Our
first canonical gospel was regarded and used, in the
1 See my commentaries on the gospels of John (vol. i., pp.
140 — 142) and of Luke (vol. i., pp. 63, 64, 2nd edit.)
2 Hilgenfeld, a critic belonging to the rationalistic school,
candidly admits, in speaking of this quotation, that " we have
here the earliest trace — dating from the end of the first century
— of the application of the notion of Holy Scripture to a state
ment in the Gospel." {Der Kanon, p. 10.)

BIBLICAL STUDIES.

second century of the Church, as the reproduction
in Greek of a document composed by Matthew
in Hebrew, about the year 60, or from that to
63, and which contained either an account of the
ministry of Jesus in general, or else of His teach
ings only.
II. Now let us put out of our minds all that has
been said ; let us put out of sight even the title of the
book we are studying ; and let us look in its own
pages for traces of its origin.
The object with which it was composed cannot be for
a moment doubtful. The author, recounting a history,
purposes, while doing so, to lay the foundations of
faith in the Person who is the subject of it. With this
view he introduces Him as the Messiah promised to
the Jews, and brings into special prominence through
the whole of his narrative that harmony between the
events and the prophecies by which Jesus is marked
out as the Christ.
This object is evident from its opening words :
" The book of the generation of Jesus Christ, the son
of David, the son of Abraham" (Matt. i. 1). He is
that descendant from Abraham "in whom," according
to Moses, " all the families of the earth were to be
blessed." He is that Son of David who, according to
Isaiah, was to " establish His kingdom for ever."1 He
is, then, the expected Messiah, the King of Israel, and
consequently also the Saviour of the world. The last
1 Gen. xii. 3 ; Isa. ix. 7.

THE GOSPEL OF ST. MATTHEW. n
words of the book correspond with this preamble, and
exhibit this programme fulfilled in Jesus, as the result
of all His conflicts and apparent defeats: "All power
is given unto me in heaven and in earth. Go ye
therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the
name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy
Ghost : teaching them to observe all things what
soever I have commanded you." (Matt, xxviii. 18 —
20.) The whole history which leads us onwards from
these first to these last words, is stamped with the
same Messianic seal.
The formula, " that it might be fulfilled" is like a
refrain repeated in every page of the book. In the
two first chapters we find five detached incidents of
the childhood of Jesus, connected with five prophetic
sayings. At the opening of the ministry, in chap, iv.,
is a prophecy of Isaiah which forms as it were its
general text or motto, and announces that Galilee is
to be the theatre of the Messianic work. In chap, viii.,
as the central point of a collection of miraculous
incidents, we have a saying of the same prophet,
revealing the moral significance of all these wonders:
" Himself took our infirmities and bare our sicknesses."
The series of teachings given in chap. xii. is also con
nected with a prophetic saying : " Behold my servant
whom I have chosen .... he shall not strive nor
cry .... a bruised reed shall he not break." And
so on, up to the account of the Passion, of which every

BIBLICAL STUDIES.

feature is in some way designated as the fulfilment of
a prophecy. The ruling thought of such a narrative as this is
evident. This gospel is the demonstration of the
rights of sovereignty of Jesus over Israel as their
Messiah. This treatise is addressed in the first place
to the ancient people of God. And if Israel will not
understand and believe, it will be for the world to
profit by it. For the King of Israel is also King of
the world.
It is not so easy to see clearly the manner of
composition, as the object, of this treatise. This
task, however, it does not seem to us impossible to
fulfil. On a closer study of the first gospel, we are struck
with a salient feature which may help to put us on the
right track. Interwoven into the text of the narrative
we meet at intervals with certain grand discourses, or
sets of discourses, fitted into the framework of the
history. These discourses are five in number :
I. The sermon of Jesus commonly called the
Sermon on the Mount (v. — vii.), which forms in our
gospel the opening scene of the ministry of Jesus
in Galilee. This is the new code of the kingdom of
God, proclaimed as from the top of another Sinai ;
the formula of a higher righteousness, before which
that of the Scribes and Pharisees was to pale.
2. An instruction addressed to the twelve apostles
upon the subject of their ministry, at the moment

THE GOSPEL OF ST. MATTHEW. 13
when Jesus for the first time commits to them an
independent mission (x.) This is the normal instruc
tion upon the apostolate.
3. A collection of parables on the kingdom of
heaven (xiii.) This constitutes a series of pic
tures, representing in a rational order the different
aspects of the great fact of the kingdom of God
upon earth : its foundation — in the parable of the
sower ; its development, abnormal in appearance but
divine nevertheless — in that of the tares ; its power,
considered first in its intensity, then in its extent — in
those of the leaven and of the mustard seed ; its
supreme value, in virtue of which it more than in
demnifies man for all the sacrifices he makes to gain
possession of it — in those of the hidden treasure and
the pearl of great price; finally its consummation — in
the parable of the net.
4. An instruction on discipline given to the Church
mainly with reference to the line of conduct she is
to adopt towards her erring members xviii.)
5. An important group of discourses connected
together by the one idea of the judgment exercised
by Jesus Christ (xxiii. — xxv.) ; comprehending these
three principal acts : the condemnation of the then
existing theocratic authorities; the destruction of
Jerusalem and the end of the world ; and the uni
versal judgment. This fifth group answers to the first
and third, as the office of judge is the complement of
those of lawgiver and of king. Had not Isaiah said

14 BIBLICAL STUDIES.
(xxxiii. 22), "The Lord is our judge, the Lord is
our lawgiver, the Lord is our king; He will save
us " ?
These five discourses certainly form the salient
feature in the physiognomy of the first gospel. They
are distinguished from the narrative in which they are
imbedded by the nearly identical form of words with
which they all five terminate : " And when Jesus had
ended these sayings " (vii. 28) ; " And it came to pass
when Jesus had made an end of commanding His
twelve disciples" (xi. 1). Compare, besides, xiii. 53 ;
xix. 1 ; xxvi. 1. Does it not seem as if, before
they belonged to the narrative of which they are now
a part, these five discourses had formed one whole,
which the author of our story had thought fit to take
to pieces in order to set each of these jewels in some
place which he had marked in the history of our
Lord's ministry. Add to this fact the following less
noticeable feature : that in the discourses of Jesus
the passages from the Old Testament are generally
quoted from the ancient Greek translation called the
Septuagint, while in the narrative portions the quota
tions are more often from the Hebrew text. Must
we not here recall the words of the aged Papias re
specting the original document of Matthew: " Matthew
composed the discourses " ? In fact, if we cut away
from our gospel all the narrative framework, the
purely historical portions, what have we left ? These
five great discourses ; in other words, the document of

THE GOSPEL OF ST. MATTHEW. \t,

St. Matthew exactly as Papias describes it, if we take
his word discourse in its strict sense.
We must here call to mind that Papias had him
self composed a work entitled " An Explanation of
the Discourses of the Lord," and that this work was
divided into five books. May not each of these books
have had for its subject one of the five great discourses
comprised in the document of the apostle ?
If such was in reality the primitive work of Matthew,
we should conclude from this that its character was
didactic and not historical. It was exclusively an
exposition of our Lord's teaching. And in that case
it is natural to admit that the plan of such a work
ought to be systematic. All the instructions of the
Master would be there grouped under some principal
heads, of which it is not difficult even now to trace the
titles, and of which we can easily see the connection :
ist, the new law; 2nd, the apostolate ; 3rd, the kingdom
of heaven ; 4th, the Church ; 5th, the consummation of
all things.
In such a work as this, of which the historical side
was almost completely effaced, it might happen that
the author, in order to set forth with greater clearness
and fulness the mind of the Lord on each of these
five subjects, put together words spoken by Jesus on
different occasions, and grouped into one whole the
parables which His wisdom as a Teacher would not
have allowed Him to accumulate in this way in
preaching to the people ; and this explains quite

r6 BIBLICAL STUDIES.
naturally how it is that the elements, combined
together in these discourses of Matthew, are found
in Luke scattered among five, six, and even ten dif
ferent sets of circumstances.1 It does not appear to
me that, in the majority of these cases, a thorough
student of the subject could refuse to give the pre
ference to the position indicated by the third gospel.2
Luke is in each case like a botanist who prefers to
contemplate a flower in the very place of its birth,
and in the midst of its natural surroundings. Mat
thew is like the gardener who, with a view to some
special object, puts together large and magnificent
bouquets. Assuredly there was delivered a " Sermon on the
Mount " ; Luke confirms it. There was delivered an
instruction to the Twelve; Mark and Luke bear
witness to it. There was a certain day in the ministry
of Jesus on which He first introduced the system of
teaching by parables. But to the discourses really
belonging to these decisive moments, Matthew has
added many words spoken by the Lord on other
1 It occurs no less than nine times that words grouped to
gether by Matthew in the Sermon on the Mount, are found in
Luke referred to particular and very different occasions.
2 Compare, for example, the manner in which the Lord's
Prayer is placed, Matt. vi. 9—13 and Luke xi. 1 — 4 ; and in the
same way the precepts on prayer, Matt. vii. 7, 8, and Luke xi.
9, 10 (at the close of the parable of the Friend at midnight) ; and
the precept on faith, Matt. vi. 26 — 30 and Luke xii. 24 — 29 (in
connection with the parable of the Rich Fool).

THE GOSPEL OF ST. MATTHEW. 17
occasions on the same subjects. Certainly there was
nothing to prevent his adopting this system, if his
book, instead of having an historical aim and plan,
was arranged in the order of subjects. We owe it tc
his legitimate adoption of this method that he has
succeeded in so marvellous a manner in reproducing
the unique impression which was produced upon the
multitude by the sermons of the Master, and that
we can even now form an idea of the effect described
in these words: "And the people were astonished at
His doctrine, for He taught them as one having
authority, and not as the scribes."
We ask ourselves in the third place, and as it
tradition told us nothing on the subject, who could
have been the author of the more ancient document
which forms the foundation of our canonical gospel,
and who was the compiler of this latter ?
As to the first question, the principal fact fitted to
throw light upon our researches is this : none but a
witness of the teachings of Jesus Christ could have
represented in so striking a manner thi ir majesty,
holiness, and force. He must have felt their power
himself, to succeed in giving them so much power
over others. To this fact we must add another, which
is being more and more recognised by all critics
worthy of the name : it is that the preaching of
Jesus, as reported in the first gospel, transports us
in an especially vivid manner into the midst of the
historic circumstances of Israelitish life at that time.
2

18 BIBLICAL STUDIES.
It is, then, impossible that this account should
not have proceeded from a man who had himself
lived through these scenes. Now this man — this eye
witness — who is he ?
Among the twelve apostles there was one, and
perhaps only one, whose previous occupation had
accustomed him to the use of the pen, — he who had
once been collector of taxes, Levi, surnamed Mat
thew. Might we not expect that he, first, would have
felt himself called upon, or have been asked by his
colleagues, to stereotype in writing the most import
ant part, but also that which it would be the most
difficult to preserve in its purity, of the Master's
legacy to the world — His instructions ?
The supposition that it was so — probable in itself
— is confirmed by two facts, sufficiently trifling, it is
true, in appearance, but perhaps in a case such as this
really so much the more significant.
i. The first gospel alone appends to the name of
Matthew, in the list of the twelve apostles, that
epithet, of little honour in the world's estimation, but
dear to the heart of him to whose thoughts it recalled
the love of which he had been the object — the pub
lican} 2. In the list of the twelve apostles contained in the
gospels and in the Acts, they are generally divided
into pairs, perhaps the very same which the Lord
Himself formed when He first sent them out to
1 Matt. x. 3.

THE GOSPEL OF ST. MATTHEW. 19
preach ; and the fourth pair is always composed,
except in the Acts, of Matthew and Thomas. Now,
in the other synoptists, Matthew is placed the first,
while in the gospel we are considering he occupies the
second place in relation to his associate.1
If, on the one hand, these indications naturally
direct our thoughts to the apostle Matthew, it must
be said, on the other hand, that, when we consider
attentively the narrative portions of the first gospel, it
is difficult to attribute them to an apostle. They are
all given in so compendious a form. The intuitive
descriptive character is altogether ' wanting. Com
paring these narratives with those of the other two
synoptists, we should even sometimes charge them
with inaccuracy,2 were it not evident that the author
is hastening on to the word of Jesus at the end, which
in his eyes is its soul, and which alone is, in fact,
essential to the object he has in view — that of setting
forth the Messianic dignity of Jesus.
How, then, are we to reconcile these contradictory
criteria ? By acknowledging that the discourses in
our canonical gospel are indeed the reproduction of
the Hebrew apostolic document, and that the his
torical portions, although founded upon the oral
1 Matt. x. 3, compared with Mark iii. 18 ; Luke vi. 15 (Acts i.
13)- 2 Compare the account of the healing of the centurion's ser
vant, Matt. viii. 5 — 13, with Luke vii. 1 — 10 ; and the raising ol
Jairus' daughter, Matt. ix. 18 sqq., with Mark v. 22 sqq. and
Luke viii. 41 sqq

BIBLICAL STUDIES.

narrations of the apostle, were not written by his
own hand. No doubt some coadjutor of Matthew,
who had helped him in his work of evangelisation,
undertook the labour of translating into Greek the
discourses which had been drawn up by him in their
original language, and to complete this work by dis
tributing their contents through an evangelical narra
tive, complete in itself, and conformable to the type
of Christian instruction adopted by the apostles.
Such a document, whoever may have been the
compiler, certainly deserved the name of the Gospel
according to Mattliew, given to it by Christian anti
quity. Lastly, we inquire to what date these two works
belong — that of the apostle, and that of the trans
lator and second editor.
An answer may be drawn from chap, xxiv., parti
cularly verse 15. This chapter contains a discourse
of Jesus, in which the two events of the destruction of
Jerusalem and the end of the world are completely
amalgamated into one. According to Luke, these
two future events were announced by our Lord in two
distinct instructions.1 The fusion of the two catas
trophes into one, in Matthew and Mark, leaves no
room to doubt that these gospels were written before
the first of the two events so closely united in the
prophecy. But verse 15 especially has a great import-
• Luke xvii. (the end of the world) and xxi. (the destruction of
Jerusalem).

THE GOSPEL OF ST. MATTHEW.

ance in the question now before us. Jesus wishes to
warn the Jewish disciples living in Palestine against
joining in the revolt, and in the war which will issue
in the destruction of Jerusalem. He persuades them
to retire in time to the mountain country on the other
side of Jordan, and gives as a signal for their flight
the moment when the pagan standards shall be planted
on the soil of the Holy Land. Here— an instance
unparalleled in our gospel records — the writer sud
denly interrupts the discourse ofthe Saviour with this
remark of his own : " Whoso readeth let him under
stand."1 This parenthesis proves that the writer drew
up this discourse before the fulfilment of the sign which
had been announced. For of what use would have been
this striking nota-bene, after the event had happened ?
As this warning is found in the Greek version — we
cannot say whether it had previously existed in the
original Hebrew — we must hence conclude that this
translation appeared just at the time when the storm
was seen approaching, a little before the year 66, when
this long-threatened war actually broke out, therefore
about 64 or 65 A.D.; and as some time must have
intervened between the publication of the Greek
version and that of the apostolic document, we shall
1 This remark has been sometimes attributed to Jesus Him
self, as if it referred to the prophecy of Daniel which He had just
been quoting. But this explanation cannot be applied to the
parallel passage, Mar'< xiii. 14, where the quotation from Daniel
should be omitted, according to the MSS., as an interpolation
from Matthew.

BIBLICAL STUDIES.

not be far wrong in placing the latter about the year
60 A.D.
This is the date to which, after innumerable vaga
ries,1 rationalistic criticism itself has returned, as wit
ness Holtzmann, who places the composition of St.
Matthew's document about the year 60, and that of
the Greek version about 68.
In this manner, like the prodigal son, does criticism
quietly re-enter the paternal home. After having
disdainfully rejected the assertions of tradition, it ends
by rendering them a deliberate homage.
It is not only on this chronological question that
criticism is brought to recognise the harmony between
internal evidence and primitive tradition ; but — as
we have just shown — on all the questions relating
to the somewhat complex origin of the first gospel.
The use of each of the two kinds of criteria has led
us on all the important points to the same results,
which we will formulate thus : —
The document which forms the basis of the first
gospel — the Hebrew work containing the discourses
of Jesus, was composed by the apostle Matthew
about the year 60 A.D., thirty years after the ascen
sion of our Lord. Our canonical gospel, which
includes this document, and completes it with regard
to the history, bears traces of the evangelising work
1 It is not long since Baur brought down the composition of
St. Matthew's gospel to the second century, about the year
130!

THE GOSPEL OF ST. MARK. 23
of the same apostle, and was composed about the
year 65.
These dates themselves give a clue to the real
object of this document. It had a theocratic mis
sion to fulfil. It was the ultimatum of Jehovah to
His ancient people. Believe, or prepare to perish !
Recognise Jesus as the Messiah, or await Him as
your Judge ! The book which contains this final
summons is the close of the Old Testament as well
as the opening of the New. It has just that place
marked out for it in the archives of the kingdom of
God on earth— the Bible — which has been assigned
to it by the feeling of the Church.

II.
THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO ST. MARK.
This work does not at first sight possess the
august stamp of a book written under a Divine
commission which characterises that which precedes
it. It produces upon us the effect of a narrative
containing simply some personal recollections put
together without any systematic aim or plan ; it
is the work of one who, having his mind full of the
great scenes he has contemplated, burns with the
desire to make all those who have not witnessed
them share with him his feelings of wonder and
adoration.

24 BIBLICAL STUDIES.
We will endeavour to bring into definite shape this
first and vague impression. And for that purpose let
us try to clear up the origin of this document.
I. We possess, with reference to this gospel, two
accounts of great antiquity, and very strongly authen
ticated: the testimony of Papias, of which the value is
in this case enhanced by the fact that it rests upon
that of an ancient presbyter, an immediate disciple of
Jesus ; and that of Clement of Alexandria, a con
temporary of Irenaeus. This latter, according to the
declaration of its author, only reproduces a tradition
handed down from one to another by the presbyters
who succeeded each other from the beginning.
The following are the words in which the presbyter,
a native of Palestine, who instructed Papias, narrated to
him the origin of the second gospel : " Mark, having
become the amanuensis of Peter,1 wrote down exactly
all that he remembered of things either said or done
by Christ ; but without order.2 For he had not
himself heard the Lord, nor actually accompanied
Him ; but had only, as I have just said, accompanied
Peter at a later time. Now this latter gave his
instructions as occasion called for them, and not as a
complete exposition of the discourses of the Lord ; so
that Mark is not to be blamed for writing down a
1 This might be also translated the interpreter.
* It is possible that the testimony of the aged presbyter extends
only to this point, and that the rest is an explanation added by
Papias.

THE GOSPEL OF ST. MARK. 25
certain number of detached facts, just as he remem
bered them. For he only aimed at one object : not
to omit anything he had heard, nor to alter it in any
point." The essential fact attested by this account is
that the gospel of Mark is simply a compilation of
the narratives that used to be given by St. Peter in
the Churches through which he passed, preaching the
Gospel. Mark had at first accompanied Paul, then Barna-^
bas ; it was only therefore at a later period, during
the latter journeys of Peter, that he joined him in
order to give him help in his mission. Now Peter,
journeying from place to place, used to recount the
acts or the teachings of Jesus according to the needs
of his auditors. He did not give, as Matthew had
done in his document, a connected and complete
exposition of the teaching of Jesus ; and Mark, draw
ing up by degrees what he bad heard from his lips,
could not, when he came to put together these
detached narratives, give them so much order as
might have been desirable. Hence arises, according
to Papias, the fragmentary, abrupt, and incomplete
character of his gospel, which we must attribute, not
to the negligence of its author, but to the circum
stances of its origin.
Papias does not tell us where and on what occasion
Mark devoted himself to this work of compilation ;
or, at all events, Eusebius, to whom we owe the pre
servation of the passage just quoted, has not trans-

z6 BIBLICAL STUDIES.
mitted to us anything more respecting the testimony
of this father. But the following account of Clement
may serve to complete that of Papias : " When Peter
was publicly preaching the Word in Rome, and in the
might of the Spirit proclaiming the Gospel, his audi
tors entreated Mark, who had for some time accom
panied him, and who remembered all that Peter had
said, to write down the things related by him, and
then, when he had written the Gospel, to send it to
those who had asked him for it ;l which request, when
Peter heard of it, he neither opposed nor supported."
It was, then, in Rome, in the latter part of the life
of Peter, about 64 A.D. — if Peter really fell a victim
to the persecution of Nero — that Mark drew up this
work. He did so at the request of the Church, which
had not heard Peter during so long a time as he who
had been his travelling companion. Peter, on his
part, took up a position altogether passive with
reference to this work. And, on due reflection, we
shall understand his motive for so doing ; it would
not be right for him to hinder the work, if it might
prove a source of any blessings to the Church;
neither, on the other hand, would he encourage it, for
if this work was to be really what it ought to be, was
it not necessary that it should originate in an impulse
1 This passage is usually translated thus : "And that Mark,
having written the Gospel, gave it to those who had asked him
for it," but the words which follow cannot be naturally explained
in this sense.

THE GOSPEL OF ST. MARK. 27
from a higher source ? This account of the facts,
though it has been treated with scorn, bears upon its
face a striking look of truthfulness.
After two such explicit testimonies, we shall only
cite in addition that contained in the title : the Gospel
according to Mark. These words give expression to
the belief of the whole primitive Church ; and they
evidently mean, not that we have here a document
compiled after the manner or according to the mode
of preaching of Mark (it could only have been
expressed so if Mark .had been an apostle), but that
it is the Gospel of Jesus Christ as set forth by Mark.
If, then, we are to attribute any value to these
testimonies, we shall be disposed to consider our
second canonical gospel as having been composed in
Rome for the Christians in that city, and at their
request, by Mark, the companion of Peter, and con
formably to the oral deliverances of that apostle, a
little before the persecution of Nero, to which he fell
a victim in August 64.
II. Hitherto we have listened to others ; let us now
proceed to the work of research and discovery for
ourselves. The book into whose origin we are search
ing lies before us ; we should be very wanting in skill
if we could not detect in it some indications of the
secret of its composition.
And first, let us inquire who may have been the
readers for whom this gospel was intended ? Were
they, like those of the first gospel, either Jews or dis-

28 BIBLICAL STUDIES.
ciples of Jewish origin, who were to be led to Jesus
or to be confirmed in the faith ? Assuredly not. The
second gospel quotes scarcely any prophecy.1 And
as he gives long explanations of Jewish customs —
explanations which Matthew abstains from altogether
in the parallel passages 2 — we must admit that it is for
Christians of Gentile origin that the author of this
gospel is writing. Where were such readers to be
found? In Asia Minor? In Greece ? In Italy? This
question, it seems to us, will best be answered by the
help of the following indications : —
The author has a marked preference for words of
Latin origin, whether he substitutes them for the
corresponding Greek words used by the other sacred
writers (as speculator instead of stratiotes, as the term
for a soldier ; centurion instead of hecaton tarchos, for
a captain ; xestes from sextarius, for a vessel of six
gallons), or appends them as an explanation to the
Greek word {" aule, that is to sa.yproztorium"). This
fact shows that the author is writing under the influ
ence of a Latin atmosphere. Once even he is led to
describe in Roman money the worth of a Jewish coin :
"two mites, which make a codrantes" (the Roman
quadrant). A very significant indication of thisdocument having
1 The only prophetic citation in the narrative is that in i. 2, 3 ;
that from Daniel xiii. 14 is not, according to the MSS., authentic.
It is an interpolation drawn from Matthew — the result of a
marginal note.
2 Compare especially Mark vii. 1 — 4 with Matt. xv. 1, 2.

THE GOSPEL OF ST. MARK. 29
been composed, not only in the Latin-speaking world,
but especially for the Church in Rome, occurs in the
account of the Passion Simon of Cyrene, the bearer
of the cross of Jesus, is described as the father of
Alexander and Rufus. This indication evidently pre
supposes that the two sons of Simon were persons
well known to, and of consideration in, the Church for
which the author was writing : there is no similar
instance in the other gospels. If, then, we can ascer
tain where these men lived, we shall know the place
from which the author wrote. The epistle to the
Romans here comes to our aid. " Salute," says Paul
to the Church in Rome, " Rufus, chosen in the Lord,
and his mother and mine" (Romans xvi. 13). The
family of Simon had therefore migrated to Rome.
Paul, who had known them in the East, sends his
greeting to them in that city. And the author of our
second gospel, having the surviving members of the
family before his eyes at the time he was writing, felt
constrained to do honour to the unique part which its
head had played in the drama of the Cross. These
indications seem to me clear enough.
The second question is this : What is the source
from which the facts related in this document have
been drawn ? Do they proceed from some legendary
tradition of a much later date than the lifetime of
Jesus Christ, or do they emanate from one of the
eye-witnesses of the ministry of Jesus ?
The answer to this question forces itself upon the

30 BIBLICAL STUDIES.
critical student with ever-increasing definiteness. If
there exists anywhere a narrative which bears upon
its face the stamp of autopsy, of the style of an actual
eye-witness, it is that of our second gospel. It is
marked with the vividness of local colouring, and the
freshness of directly personal recollection. Either it
is a mere imitation, — and the tone of candour and of
almost naive simplicity which marks the whole of it
forbids that supposition, — or else we are forced to
recognise in it the work of an eye-witness. Let us
recall a few of these graphic touches : "And He was
in the hinder part of the ship asleep on a pillow"
(iv. 38) ; " and he, casting away his garment, rose
and came to Jesus" (x. 50); "there were many
coming and going, and they had no leisure so much
as to eat" (vi. 31); "and looking up to heaven, He
sighed" (vii. 34). In other places we have the
record of the moral impressions produced upon our
Lord : "And when He had looked round about Him
with anger ..." (iii. 5) ; " then Jesus beholding him,
loved him" (x. 21); "and Jesus went before them,
and they were amazed ; and as they followed they
were afraid " (x. 32), etc. Who then was it who caught
these fleeting expressions of anger or of love in the
eye of the Master ? who could have thus pictured for
us the secret emotions of the disciples at certain im
portant moments ? The whole of this gospel is full of
touches of this kind, which, like jewels upon a dress
jmpart to its pictures an incomparable brilliancy .

THE GOSPEL OF ST. MARK.

Again, we must draw attention to the narrator's
habit of preserving the Aramaic expressions used by
our Lord while translating them into Greek — Talitha
cumi (v. 41), Ephphatha (vii. 34), Abba (xiv. 36). It
is as if he still heard the very sound of the voice of
Jesus, and felt constrained to report His words in
their original form.
It is therefore amongst those who formed the circle
of the habitual companions of Jesus that we are
driven to look for the writer of a narrative such as
this. Which of them shall we conjecture it to be ?
The feeling which inspires the whole of the second
gospel, from beginning to end, is that of wonder and
admiration for the Lord. I use the word admiration
rather than love, not that I would exclude the latter
sentiment, but the former predominates. It expresses
itself in the very first words of the book : " The
beginning of the Gospel of Jesus Christ, the Son of
God: "1 that is to say, Here begins the portrait of the
life of a being whose every word and every act is
stamped with the seal of Divinity. This feeling of
astonishment and admiration overflows in every part
of the narrative. The author loves to paint the
expression of that feeling in the multitudes, because
he was so filled with it himself. " And they were all
1 The omission of the words Son of God'm the MS. Sinaiticus,
and in that alone, cannot at all shake their authority. Such
omissions are common in that document, which is written with
astonishing carelessness.

32 BIBLICAL STUDIES.
amazed" (i. 27) ; " and all the city was gathered toge
ther at the door " (i. 33) ; " insomuch that Jesus could
no more openly enter into the city " (i. 45) ; " inso
much that they were all amazed " (ii. 12) ; "and they
were astonished with a great astonishment" (v. 42),
etc., etc. x
Now amongst those who lived in the closest inter
course with Jesus, who is that one who experienced
in the highest degree this feeling — which gives the
ruling inspiration to the second gospel ? and who on
all occasions expressed it with the greatest energy in
the name of all his comrades ? It is Peter. If per
haps this disciple was not the one who had the most
love of the Lord, he certainly had the most admira
tion for Him.
Some characteristics of a more special kind lead us
equally to recognise in Peter that one among the
disciples whose testimony fills the pages of the book
before us.
Assuredly it is no accident that, in the scene at
Cesarasa Philippi, the second gospel records the crush
ing answer of Jesus to Peter : " Get thee behind me,
Satan ; " while it omits those grand words which
precede it in Matthew : " Thou art Peter, and upon
this rock I will build my Church." 2 It is not without
some motive that in the account of the storm on the
1 Compare also i. 37 ; ii. 2 ; iii. 9, 20 ; iv. 1 ; v. 24; vi. 2, 51,
55 ; vii. 22, 37 ; ix. 14.
2 Compare Mark viii. 27 — 33 with Matt. xvi. 13 — 23

THE GOSPEL OF ST. MARK. 33
lake, Mark omits the fact, so glorious for Peter, of
his miraculous walk upon the water to meet Jesus.1
And are we to account it a mere chance that Mark
alone mentions, both in the prophecy and in the
history of Peter's denial, the two warnings given to
him by the two cock-crowings, which made the fall of
the disciple the more inexcusable ? 2
In all these instances we can only explain the
difference between Mark's account and that of
Matthew, which agree in all other points, by allowing
that Peter omitted, in the narrations he gave to the
Churches, and which were collected by Mark, all cir
cumstances which told in his favour, and brought into
notice only those which tended to his humiliation.
Otherwise we should have to assume that the second
gospel was the work of a determined enemy of Peter.
A distinguished critic, in a work just published, has
made a very sagacious analysis of Mark's gospel,3
and has arrived at this interesting conclusion, that
very often the text can only be explained by ad
mitting that we have in it the narrative of Peter
preserved literally, but modified only in this respect,
that the personal pronoun — the we of Peter — has
been changed to they, which alone suits the written
narrative. 1 Compare Mark vi. 50, 51, with Matt. xiv. 28 — 33.
5 Compare Mark xiv. 30, and 68 — 72, with the three parallel
accounts. 3 Klostermann, Das Marcus-Evangelium, 1867.

34 BIBLICAL STUDIES.
We will quote two examples. Mark relates (iii. 13
— 19) the account of the appointment of the Twelve.
But the election of Peter is not mentioned : only the
surname of Peter which Jesus gave him ; while the
appointment of John and James is expressly men
tioned, and that together with the surname which
Jesus also conferred upon them. How are we to
explain this omission with regard to Peter ? There is
but one way. Mark relates the fact thus : "And He
ordained twelve that they should be with Him. . . .
And Simon He surnamed Peter." Have we not here
the literal reproduction of Peter's own account:
" And he chose us twelve, and me he surnamed
Peter"? The election of the narrator being already
included in the us, there was no need to repeat it.
On coming out from the, synagogue at Capernaum
(i. 29), Jesus goes with His four disciples, Peter,
Andrew, James, and John (who had been mentioned
before in verses 16 — 20), into Peter's house. Mark
expresses it in this way: "And forthwith, when they
were come out of the synagogue, they entered into
the houseof Simon and Andrew with James and John."
" They entered "... who ? According to the pre
ceding verses it must have been Jesus and His four
disciples. But then the expression " with James and
John " has no meaning, since they were both included
in they. All is explained if we retranslate Mark's
account into that of Peter : " And we entered (Jesus,
Andrew, and I) into our house with James and Joha"

THE GOSPEL OF ST. MARK. 35
Let people dispute as they may as to the justness
of this refined analysis, which to my mind is quite
undeniable. The following is a fact of a more general
kind upon which there can be no disagreement ;
it is that our gospel of Mark is only a development
of Petefs p eaching to Cornelius (Acts x.), and that
the latter has with good reason been called the gospel
of Mark in nuce.
Such are the many traces of some kind of partici
pation of Peter in the composition of the narratives
preserved in the second gospel. Must we then con
clude that Peter himself composed this book ? By
no means.
In the first place, we possess an epistle by this
apostle, generally held to be authentic ; and the style
of it has nothing in common with that of this gospel.
Besides, we can scarcely imagine the apostle Peter,
the former Galilean fisherman, who later in life had
become a man, not of contemplation and study, like
John, but of action and missionary enterprise, taking
up his pen to draw up a work of such length.
If, then, the narratives which we have here are his,
and yet are not by his own hand, there remains but
one possibility : one of his hearers must have drawn
them up. Who then is this anonymous author ?
Even if tradition had not mentioned him, the first
epistle of Peter would have given us a clue to his
name. The apostle there sends greetings from Mark,
his son, taking this word evidently in the spiritual

36 BIBLICAL STUDIES.

sense in which Paul also applies it to Titus and
Timothy, — that of his son in the faith. John, surnamed
Mark, was the son of a mother living in Jerusalem,
and at whose house Peter was so well known that the
servant, even without seeing him, recognised him by
the sound of his voice.1 It is then natural to suppose
that it was this apostle who had sown the seeds of
faith in the young man's mind. For this reason he
calls him his son, and by this title designates him, in
a manner, as his spiritual heir, the depository of
his sole treasure — the knowledge of Jesus Christ, his
Lord. We cannot then attribute to any other person,
with greater probability, the putting together of the
narratives of Peter. And, once arrived at this point,
shall we not be tempted to ask whether the young
man mentioned in the scene at Gethsemane, and who
there plays a strange and mysterious part,2 was not
himself Mark, who, after the manner of painters, has
thus affixed his signature to his picture, as Matthew
had done to his in the account of the call of the pub
lican from the receipt of custom ?
The date at which the second gospel was composed
may be argued from the following facts. The two
sons of Simon of Cyrene, of whom one at least, ac
cording to Rom. xvi. 13, held an influential position
in the Church of Rome, were still living. The apos
tolic age was, therefore, not very far advanced. And
since the warning to the disciples in Palestine to take
1 Acts xii. 12—17. 2 Mark xiv. 51, 52.

THE GOSPEL OF ST. MARK. 37
heed to the sign given them by Jesus for the time of
their flight, is found in Mark (xiii. 14) as well as in
Matthew, the fated hour of the destruction of Jeru
salem (in 70), and even that of the beginning of the
war (in 66), had not yet struck. Thus it would be
about the year 64 or 65 that we must date the com
position of this document. Holtzmann also considers
the work of Mark, which formed the basis of the
second gospel, to have been anterior to the destruc
tion of Jerusalem.
Here a comparison suggests itself which, if well
founded, would not be without weight. It is well
known that the end of the second gospel, from xvi. 9,
is missing in some of the most ancient MSS. ; in '
others it is found in a different form ; and in some
others an altogether different conclusion takes its
place. How are we to account for this phenomenon ?
Mark cannot have concluded his narrative at ver. 8.
An appearance of the risen Jesus had been promised
by the angel to the women, in the first part of the
chapter; the author could not close his narrative
without first giving an account of it. It has been
conjectured that the last leaves of the book were
accidentally lost. We have an instance of the kind
in the loss of the end of the MS. Sinaiticus. But
then we shall have to suppose that there existed only
one copy of Mark's document in the Church. How
ever little this work may have been made use of up
to that time, still, would not some means have been

38 BIBLICAL STUDIES.

devised of filling up this accidental lacuna ? Is it not
much more likely that the author was interrupted in
his work at the moment when he had reached this
point in the narrative, and that he was obliged to
leave it unfinished ? In this way two kinds of docu
ments came to be circulated in the Church : the one
reproducing the original copy left in its incomplete
state ; the other, copies finished in various manners
at a later date. If this was the fact, it may be asked
what could have been the incident which so suddenly
interrupted Mark in his work. As we know that
this evangelist wrote in Rome in the latter part of
the life of Peter, it is natural to suppose that the
breaking out of the terrible persecution which befell
this Church, and put an end to the life of the apostle
in 64, was the cause of the interruption. If this
was so, the date of our gospel would be fixed very
exactly. However that may be, the gospel of Mark presents
itself to us, according to the evidence of tradition, as
well as of the indications furnished by the book itself,
as a collection, more or less complete, of the narra
tives which Peter used to give of his Master's ministry
— narratives intended, not like Matthew's gospel, to
give a final warning to God's people, but to reproduce,
as in a series of pictures, the unparalleled scenes which
had been witnessed by the actual spectators of our
Lord's life. This document, then, deserves more than
anv other the name of Apostolic Memoirs.

THE GOSPEL OF ST. LUKE. 39
III.
THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO ST. LUKE.
I. The records handed down to us by ecclesias
tical history with regard to the origin of the third
gospel are both fewer and shorter than those it has
preserved for us respecting the composition of the
two first. One reason of this probably is that the
evangelist has himself given us, in a remarkable pre
amble (i. 1 — 4), all the information we need upon the
origin and the nature of his work.
Here are a few words from the pen of Irenaeus :
"Luke, the companion of Paul, put into writing the
gospel preached by the latter."
In the so-called Muratori fragment, which seems tc
have been written about the same time (near 180 A.D.),
and which contains more especially the tradition of
the Italian Churches respecting the books of the New
Testament, we find the following passage relating to
Luke : " In the third place, the book of the gospel
according to Luke, Luke the Physician, whom Paul had
associated with himself, as one zealous for righteous
ness, to be his companion, wrote in his own name as
he thought good. Now he had not himself seen the
Lord in the flesh ; but having carried his inquiries as
far back as possible, he began his history with the
birth of John." It is difficult to distinguish in this
passage how much belongs really to tradition, and

40 BIBLICAL STUDIES.
how much is only a reproduction of the ideas con
tained in Luke's own preamble.
Clement of Alexandria reports, following the an
cient presbyters, " that the two gospels which contain
the genealogies (those of Matthew and Luke) were
written the first," — consequently, before Mark and
John. It is impossible to explain this declaration
otherwise than by an actual tradition. How can we
suppose it argued from exegesis ?
It appears from a passage in Tertullian that it was
an opinion received by many in his time, that " the
work of Luke was to be attributed to Paul himself."
This represents, roughly speaking, a fact of which we
shall establish the substantial truth.
Lastly, we find in St. Jerome the following passage:
" Luke, a Syrian physician, a native of Antioch, and a
disciple of the apostle Paul, composed his book in
the countries of Achaia and Bceotia." From whence
has this father drawn his information ? As he relates
that Luke was buried at Constantinople, to which
place his ashes were removed, together with those of
Andrew the apostle, in the twentieth year of the reign
of Constantius, he probably knew that it was from the
countries he mentions that the remains of these two
servants of Christ had been brought.
We gather from these brief notices that Luke's work
was composed in Greece, a little earlier than that of
Mark, consequently between the years 60 and 64, at the
;ame time as that of Matthew ; and that that document

THE GOSPEL OF ST. LUKE. 41

stands to St. Paul's apostolate in a relation analogous
to that which we have shown to exist between the
second gospel and Peter's ministry, or between the
first gospel and the ministry of Matthew.
II. Do these results agree with those to which we
are led by the study of the gospel itself?
As to the destination of this book, it was certainly
written by one who had before his mind the Greek
world, and probably by one who lived within its
limits. We see an indication of this, first in the
preamble, in which the author gives an account of his
plan and of the object he has in view. This prologue
precisely resembles those of the great Greek histo
rians, particularly Herodotus and Thucydides. There
is nothing like it in the two other synoptics. The
person, in some high position, to whom the work is
dedicated, is called Theophilus. This name, of Grecian
origin, though it is sometimes used by the Jews, leads
us to suppose that the noble person who bore it was
a Greek. We must add that, in dedicating this work
to him, St. Luke was probably not thinking only of the
use he would personally make of it. The publication
of a book was at that time a much more costly under
taking than it is now, since every copy had to be made
by hand. By accepting the manuscript which was
dedicated to him, the wealthy Theophilus became
what was called the patron, or, as we should now say,
the sponsor of the book. He undertook to make it
known, to have copies made of it, and to circulate

42 BIBLICAL STUDIES.
these amongst those about him, and who belonged to
the same nation as himself.1
Lastly, the character of the narrative agrees wonder
fully with the Greek turn of mind. " The Jews," says
St. Paul, " require a sign, and the Greeks seek after
wisdom." A work well shaped into an artistic whole,
a history advancing by well-marked steps, and syste
matically progressive, an interconnection easily per
ceptible of causes and effects, — these for a Greek
mind constituted the best material for carrying
conviction. Now it is precisely this kind of evidence
which is to be drawn from the third gospel. And the
preamble leads us even to think that such was the
deliberate intention of the author. " It seemed good
to me also, having had perfect understanding of all
things from the very first, to write unto thee in order,
most excellent Theophilus, that thou mightest know
the certainty of those things wherein thou hast been
instructed." He alone carries us back to the first
beginnings of this divine history, to the two births —
those of John and of Jesus. He pictures for us, as no
other evangelist does, the thoroughly human develop
ment, first of the infancy and then of the youth of
Jesus. Even in the most miraculous events of His
life, such as the Baptism and the Transfiguration, he
' The ancient Judaso-Christian romance entitled " The Cle
mentines,'' of about the year 160, makes Theophilus a man of
high position in Antioch, who after having listened to the
preaching of Peter, gave up his palace to be used as a church.

THE GOSPEL OF ST. LUKE. 4;
brings out carefully the human, or, as we might say,
natural element in the story — the prayer of Jesus.
From the day on which Jesus calls His four first
disciples (v.) to that on which He appoints the twelve
apostles (vi.), from this latter to the day He sends
them out on their first mission (ix.), and again to that
on which He organises a mission on a still larger scale
— that of the seventy disciples (x.), one sees in this
gospel the work of Jesus enlarging gradually, as
He Himself had " increased in wisdom and stature."
This organic growth of the Person and of the work,
constitutes at the same time the preparation for the
birth and development of the spiritual body of the
Church which the Lord is forming for Himself here
below. And it is in this way that the book of the
Acts has the appearance of a necessary continuation
of our third gospel. From Nazareth to Capernaum,
from Capernaum to Jerusalem, in the gospel, — from
Jerusalem to Antioch, from Antioch to Rome, in the
Acts, — we observe in the history an unbroken progress
such as satisfies the intelligence of the reader who
wishes to picture clearly to himself the progress of
the working of Christianity. This continuity consti
tutes the unity of the two parts of the work of Luke.
In this way it has come to pass that this author,
writing for a people gifted above all others with the
historic sense, has become the true historian of the
life and work of Jesus Christ.
It is not less evident that this author was one of

44 BIBLICAL STUDIES.

the friends and fellow-labourers of the apostle of the
Gentiles. He classes himself, in the preamble, not
with the apostles, but amongst those who owe their
knowledge of the Gospel to the tradition derived
from the first witnesses and ministers of the Word.
And which of these was to him the centre of
attraction ?
The analogy which is so remarkable between his
account ofthe institution ofthe Last Supper and that
of Paul (i Cor. xi.) is in itself a significant indication.
The relation in which the appearances of the risen
Jesus, recorded in Luke xxiv., stand to those enume
rated by Paul in i Cor. xv., is a no less evident
indication of the connection which existed between
Paul and the author of our narrative.
What, then, is the third gospel, in its entirety, but a
firm groundwork of historic fact, of which the purpose
is to serve as a foundation for the edifice raised by
Paul ? There were two key-notes of that apostle's
preaching : the complete gratuitousness of the salva
tion offered by Jesus, and the universality of its
intended scope. Now, what is the significance of
those features and of those words of the life and
teaching of Jesus which have been specially preserved
for us by St. Luke? Angels salute Him at His
nativity, not only with the name of Christ, but with
that of Saviour. They celebrate the good-will of
God, not towards the Jews, but towards men. The
genealogy of Jesus, in chap, iii., is traced up not only

THE GOSPEL OF ST. LUKE. 45
to Abraham, but to Adam, the father of all mankind.
In chap. iv. Jesus proclaims Himself, according to the
words of Isaiah, as He who comes to heal the broken
hearted. " My son, my daughter, thy sins are forgiven
thee ; thy faith hath saved thee." Such is His lan
guage, whether He addresses the paralytic laid at His
feet, or the sinner who bathes them with her tears, or
the sick woman who has taken courage to touch the
hem of His garment. The parables which Luke
specially loves to relate are not those in which we
see unfolded the grand historic development of the
kingdom of heaven on earth, but rather those which
picture to us the domestic scenes wherein the Divine
compassions are seen to meet the faith of the sinner ;
the lost sheep sought out by the shepherd, and carried
home upon his shoulders ; the lost piece of money,
searched for by the woman even to sweeping the
house ; the penitent son, whom paternal love restores
without delay or condition to his filial position ; or,
once more, the publican, the whole of whose worship
consists in striking his breast, and who returns from
it justified to his house. Amongst the words of Jesus
on the cross, Luke relates His prayer for His mur
derers, and His merciful reply to the prayer of the
penitent thief. The last picture given us by the
evangelist is that of the blessing given by Jesus to
His apostles as He ascends to Heaven, lifting up His
hands, as does a priest in blessing the people.
What is the lesson taught by all these distinguish-

46 BIBLICAL STUDIES.
ing traits which make up the peculiar heritage of
Luke ? It is this one : that salvation " by grace through
faith," 1 such as was proclaimed by Paul, corresponded
perfectly to the thought of Christ ; and that the work
of that apostle was but the continuation of the line of
which the Master's Hand had traced the beginning.
If the first gospel may be considered as a treatise
upon the Messianic sovereignty of Jesus over Israel,
the third is not less evidently that which sets forth
the right of the Gentiles to share in the salvation
marked out by Christ. A gospel such as this could
only originate in the circle which surrounded St. Paul
in his missionary life. It was only necessary to trans
form its facts into doctrine, to obtain what Paul calls
his gospel.
It would be possible, even apart from all tradition,
to discover the, one among St. Paul's fellow-workers
to whom this work should be attributed ; and that by
the help of the following indications : I. The author
of the Acts having adopted the expression " we " in
those cases in which he wishes to indicate that he was
present without mentioning himself by name, it follows
that he could not have been one of the companions of
Paul designated by name in the history (Barnabas,
Silas, Timotheus, etc. ; compare particularly xx. 4, 5).
2. Paul gives Luke the title of physician (Col. iv. 14) ;
and this profession demanded then, no less than it
does now, some scientific and literary study; this
1 Eph. ii. 8.

THE GOSPEL OF ST. LUKE. 47
quality also is precisely that which characterises, in a
remarkable manner, the author of the third gospel.
But have we not here an artifical composition, put
together expressly with the object of furnishing a
foundation for the preaching and labours of the
apostle ? Not so ; one fact is enough to indicate the
true manner of composition of this document — that is,
the complete difference of style between the four first
verses (i. 1 — 4) and the remainder of the gospel from
ver. 5 onwards. The preamble (ver. 1 — 4) exhibits
the purest and most classical Greek style ; but this
style does not recur again till the end of the book of
Acts. In the remainder of the gospel, from ver. 5,
and in the first part of the Acts, the language is more
or less tinctured with Aramaisms.1 This difference of
style can only be accounted for in one way — that is,
by supposing that in the preamble to the gospel, and
in the latter half of the Acts, the author wrote in his
own style and language ; while in all the rest of the
gospel, and in the first part of the Acts, he hay
consulted or reproduced written documents, either
Aramaic or translated from that language. This is,
besides, the conclusion we should draw from his own
declaration (i. 1, 2), from which it appears that at the
time at which he was writing, there were already in
existence a large number of written documents relating
1 That is, with words and terms of language borrowed from
Aramaic, akin to the Hebrew, which the Jews at that time
•poke.

48 BIBLICAL STUDIES.
to the ministry of Jesus. It is quite clear that he had
before him more than one of these works, and that he
made use of them in composing his own. And as
these documents contained, according to Luke him
self, the results of traditions received from the apostles,
they would naturally have been written either in the
language of the Twelve, or under the influence of that
language. Even had they been already translated
into Greek, they could not fail still to bear the stamp
of the language of the original tradition. We observe
here for the first time, in one of the evangelists, evidence
of the use of written documents. It is not, however,
impossible that here and there Luke may have put
together his history solely from information which
he had collected orally ; and that would explain why
it is that in many passages his style has a much less
decided Aramaic stamp than in others.
What was the date of Luke's work ? The majority
of the critics of our day, grounding themselves upon
the distinction so clearly drawn in this gospel between
the date of the destruction of Jerusalem and that of
the end of the world, and upon the fact that our author
interposes between these two events a whole period
which he calls " the times of the Gentiles" place the
composition of this gospel some time after the de
struction of the Jewish nation, between the years 70
and 80. Others bring it down to the year 100 or
no, and even later. It would be impossible in the
latter case to account for the wonderful purity of the

THE GOSPEL OF ST. LUKE. 49
traditions contained in this book, which contrast so
strongly with the legendary and already dubious
character of many of those relating to the life of
Jesus which have been transmitted to us by the
fathers of the second century — even by a Papias and
an Irenaeus. It would be still more difficult to explain
how, at so late a date, any author could have repro
duced so exactly the circumstances which gave occa
sion to certain words of Jesus, and which bring out in
so striking a manner their wonderful appropriateness.
Even written documents, in the hands only of private
individuals, would scarcely through so long a time
have escaped the alterations which very soon after
the death of the apostles began to sully oral tra
dition. Neither does it appear to me that the distinction,
which Luke marks so clearly in our Lord's discourses,
between the time of the destruction of Jerusalem and
that of the end of the world, gives sufficient reason for
thinking that this gospel must necessarily have been
written some time after the former of these events.
For, in fact, we have in many words of Jesus a proof
that He Himself clearly distinguished between these
two future events. He places the destruction of
Jerusalem in the time of the generation then living ;
while as to the end of the world, He announces that
that day is not known " by the angels, neither by the
Son, but by the Father only." He seems even to
relegate it to a distant future, when he says that " the
4

50 BIBLICAL STUDIES.
Gospel must first be preached in all the world," that
" the bridegroom will not come till midnight, when he
is no longer expected, or even in the morning," etc.
What, then, forbids our supposing that Jesus in His
discourses distinguished between these two events,
just in the way we find them actually kept distinct in
Luke ? And may we not see in this a fresh instance
of a truth which a comparison between Matthew and
Luke brings continually into notice — that the latter
separates and refers to their original context of cir
cumstances the various elements which the former
has massed together and combined into a whole;
and for this reason, that the one was aiming at his
torical accuracy, while the other only applied himself
to didactic teaching.
If, as we have elsewhere endeavoured to prove,1
Luke had before him neither our canonical Matthew
nor Mark's manuscript, his work must have appeared
at nearly the same date as the two others. Otherwise
he would assuredly have known and have made use of
these more ancient documents. This circumstance
leads us to place the composition of the third gospel
in the years 63, 64, at the same date as Matthew, and
a little before that of Mark, which agrees with the
traditions of the fathers.
Nevertheless we should have no difficulty — were
there sufficient evidence for it — in accepting Holtz-
1 See my Commentary on St. Luke, vol. ii., pp. 531—538, 2nd
edit.

THE GOSPEL OF ST. LUKE. 51
mann's conclusion, who, after having said, " Matthew
wrote immediately before the destruction of Jeru
salem," adds, " Few years can have elapsed between
Matthew's composition and that of Luke." This
writer seems astonished to find that he has thus
arrived at results which agree so entirely with the
data furnished by tradition. There is in this fact,
indeed, a good lesson for modern criticism, which,
after having rejected with contempt the assertions of
the fathers, ends in discovering that they agree in
nearly every point with the results of its own investi
gations. The fathers were but men, no doubt —
sometimes even men of small intelligence or educa
tion ; but they were men of gravity, sincerity, and
holiness, and who, for the most part, (such is the case
with Polycarp, Papias, Justin Martyr, etc.,) gave up
their lives for their faith. They may have been mis
taken or deceived ; but they did not speak lightly, or
without having some strong reason for the things they
affirmed, on matters which were so precious to their
hearts. Putting together all these indications, we can form
a tolerably clear idea, and one probably not far from
the truth, of the origin of this gospel. We know
from the Acts that in the year 59, when Paul arrived
in Jerusalem, immediately before his arrest, Luke
arrived there with him. We know also that when,
two years later, he left Caesarea for Rome, Luke was
his fellow-traveller, and shared with him the dangers

J2 BIBLICAL STUDIES.
of the shipwreck in which that voyage terminated.1
It is therefore probable that Luke passed the two years
which intervened between this arrival and this depar
ture, with Paul in Palestine, and that it was then that
he had the opportunity of gathering information and
collecting the materials which enabled him to compose
such a work as this. From Caesarea, where the apostle
was a prisoner, it was only a two days' journey to the
places which had been the principal scenes of the
ministry of Jesus — the borders of the lake of Gennesa-
reth. Like a bee which goes forth to forage in the
meadow, and returns to elaborate in its hive the honey
it has thus obtained, so, no doubt, he used to gather
in his travels the facts which it was his purpose to
utilise at a later time,2 and to prepare, together with
the help perhaps of the apostle himself, that admirable
work to which he only put the finishing touches at a
later date, probably in Greece, during the latter part
of the apostle's captivity in Rome in 63.'
Having thus inquired into the origin of each of the
synoptics separately, we must now endeavour further
to gain a view of the relations in which they stand to
1 Acts xxi. 17 : "And when we were come to Jerusalem, the
brethren received us gladly.'' xxvii. 1 : "And when it was
determined that we should sail into Italy. . . ."
2 Acts i. 3 : " Having had perfect understanding of these things
from the very first."
3 The apostle does not append a personal salutation from him
self in the epistle to the Philippians, as he does in those of a
slightly earlier date, addressed to the Colossians and to Philemon.

THE GOSPEL OF ST. LUKE. 53

each other. Many links connect them together. In
all we observe the same general division : the ministry
in Galilee, — the Passion in Jerusalem. The same
series of narratives recur in a considerable number of
cases. We will give but two instances : the connec
tion which is established by these three gospels
between the journey to Gadara, the healing of the
woman with an issue of blood, and the raising of
Jairus' daughter ; l and the almost complete paral
lelism between them with reference to the facts
relating to the latter part of the Galilean ministry.2
And, lastly, the same turn of the sentences, the same
selection of forms of expression, in innumerable
passages. It has been often thought that these striking
resemblances are to be accounted for by the use
which the later evangelist made of the documents of
one or other of his predecessors. But how could such
a process of copying, pushed sometimes to the extent
of a literalism the most servile, have given place on a
sudden to an independence in regard to both sub
stance and manner, carried almost to contradiction, or,
one might say, to total rebellion ? Why is it that,
side by side with these almost identical passages, we
find transpositions, suppressions or additions of facts,
which would indicate in the later evangelist a singular
1 Matt. viii. 23 to ix, 26 ; Mark iv. 36 to v. 43 ; Luke viii. 22-56.
2 Matt. xvi. 13 to xviii. 35 ; Mark viii. 27 to ix. 51 ; Luke ix.
18-50.

54 BIBLICAL STUDIES.
defiance of the authority of his predecessor's narrative,
if he had it before him at the time ? Or how, again,
are we to account for so important a modification
of the general plan as the interpolation by Luke,
between the ministry in Galilee and that in Jerusalem,
of a complete history of a journey, comprehending
ten chapters — that is, nearly half of his whole work —
and which has nothing analogous to it in the two
other gospels ?
The question has consequently been raised whether,
instead of accounting for the points of resemblance
by the direct influence of one of these documents
upon the others, it would not be better to admit that
they have all three been drawn from other documents
closely resembling each other, and which were in circu
lation in the Church at the time of their composition.
But if these more ancient writings, which the three
evangelists made use of, so much resembled each
other that we can by this means account for the
identity even of a great number of expressions and
constructions in our three gospels, how can we
account in the same way for the points of difference,
so numerous and sometimes so grave, which dis
tinguish them from each other ? And if these earlier
writings were themselves marked by differences so
considerable, how can we explain by their use the
employment by our evangelists, in common, of the
most trifling words ? Evidently the difficulty is only
removed a step further.

THE GOSPEL OF ST. LUKE. 55
For our own part, we are quite convinced that there
is but one way of accounting for this combination of
points of literal resemblance, with differences some
times considerable, which makes of our three gospels
a phenomenon unique in the history of literature.
St. Luke, in enumerating the principles upon which
rested the unity with each other of the members of
the Church in Jerusalem, and which made this whole
multitude to be of one mind and one spirit, specially
mentions the apostles' doctrine} Evidently the point
in question was the witness which they bore to Jesus
Christ, the account which they gave of the events of
His life, the exposition of His teachings grouped
together more or less systematically : all this, it
must be understood, by word of mouth only. This
daily teaching was the Church's nourishment, her
New Testament — at that time no other existed — and,
as has been said, her Heaven. Certain cycles of
narratives, more or less fixed, must at that time
have formed themselves, consisting of a series of facts
which they loved to relate in one course of instruction.
This whole exposition was governed by the sense of
a great contrast — that between the active ministry
which Jesus had carried on in Galilee, and by which
He had founded the Church, and the tragic end of His
earthly life in Judea. These narratives being con
tinually reproduced, first by the apostles, then by the
evangelists who had been taught in their school, soon
1 Acts ii. 42.

56 BIBLICAL STUDIES.
assumed, as any history does which is frequently
repeated by the same person, a more or less fixed and
stereotyped form ; and notwithstanding the variations
which necessarily resulted from the individuality of
the narrators and the diversity of their personal recol
lections, the primitive apostolic type marked with its
strong and indelible stamp the whole of the narratives
which constituted the oral tradition circulated in the
Churches. This type assumed a character still more fixed
when the traditions, after having been for some time
in circulation in their Aramaic form, were cast into
the mould of the Greek language, for the benefit of
the numerous Jews in Jerusalem and in Palestine
who could only speak this latter language, and who
from the first had joined the Church in great num
bers.1 The general distribution of the materials,
the interconnection of the several narratives which
had been already formed, were preserved. Certain
Greek phrases were selected and adopted once for
all as the established equivalents for Aramaic
words hard to translate, which Jesus had made use
of.2 This is, to our mind, the sole method of account
ing for the mysterious relation which exists between
the Synoptists, and which has for so long a time
' Acts vi. i — 6.
2 For instance, the Greek word epioitsios, which we translate
daily in the fourth petition of the Lord's Prayer.

THE GOSPEL OF ST. LUKE.

57

obstinately defied the efforts of criticism.1 The oral
tradition thus reduced to shape, first in Aramaic and
then in Greek, possessed on the one hand enough of
consistency to make it possible for us to account by its
aid for the resemblances in respect of general character
and of points of detail which we notice even to this
day in its threefold canonical form, and on the other
hand for the flexibility and elasticity which are required
if the points of disagreement are to appear as the
result of involuntary accident rather than of a delibe
rate protest of one of the narratives against another.
The transition from the oral teaching to its present
written form was only gradually brought about.
Probably the first step of the process was the reduction
to writing of certain special narratives or discourses.
It might be some evangelist who wished to fix in his
memory the tenour of one of our Lord's instructions,
or some hearer who desired to preserve accurately the
memory of some feature in His life of which he had
heard an account.
The time arrived when these fragmentary docu
ments, having become numerous, were put together
in such a manner as to form collections of anecdotes.
Such were probably the writings alluded to by St,
Luke in the two first verses of his preamble.2
1 The historian Gieseler has the merit of having been the first
to bring into prominent notice this way of solving the difficulty.
2 The Greek expression used by St. Luke (dvardt)a<r6ai 8ir)yrjo-iv)
is precisely fitted for describing compositions of this kind.

58 BIBLICAL STUDIES.
To these rudimentary gospels before long suc
ceeded those we now possess, which are distinguished
from the former by a more definite plan, and by the
preponderance of a central idea or dominant thought,
which constitutes the unity of the narrative. Let
any one now turn to the preamble in Luke, and say
whether the hypothesis we have just submitted of
the probable course of events does not correspond with
the order traced by the evangelist himself in this re
markable passage : 1st, an oral tradition, proceeding
immediately from the apostles, as the original source
of all the narratives which were in circulation in the
Church ; 2nd, the putting together of these into a
number of documents, none of which were adequate
to the greatness of their subject ; and, 3rd, the drawing
up of our canonical gospels.
This study of the Synoptists leads us to the follow
ing result : —
The first gospel contains the primitive apostolic
tradition, worked up and put together in that par
ticular form in which the apostle Matthew used to
state it. This form was characterised, first, by the five
great courses of instruction into which the publican-
apostle had gathered up the teaching of his Master;
and, secondly, by the tendency to demonstrate His
Messianic dignity by bringing into relief the relation
between the prophecies and His history.
The contents of the second gospel consist of the
same apostolic tradition, which was current from the

THE GOSPEL OF ST. LUKE. 59
beginning in Jerusalem and in Palestine ; but here it
takes the form in which St. Peter used to relate it in the
churches, allowing himself the free and spontaneous
insertion into it of a number of little points of detail,
as they were brought to his mind at the moment by
his personal recollection, and which Mark, his com
panion, and the compiler of his narratives, used eagerly
to take down.
What could be more natural, from this point of
view, than, on the one hand, the striking points of
resemblance noticeable in these two writings, which
both reproduce the same sacred tradition, and, on the
other, all those disagreements on secondary points
which result from differences of individual character
and of circumstances in the narrators ?
The gospel of Luke is a third branch growing out
of the same stem of primitive apostolic teaching, but
diverging much further from the other two than those
do from one another. The reason of this is that
the compilation of Luke does not proceed directly
from the oral tradition. There intervenes another
working up of the materials — namely, those collections
of anecdotes of which we have spoken, and which have
left their Aramaic stamp strongly impressed upon the
narratives of the third gospel. Further, Luke has
used a twofold liberty of criticism with respect to the
tradition received in the Church : first, in endeavour-
Jng to complete it with reference to particular events
which it had omitted ; and, secondly, in trying to

60 BIBLICAL STUDIES.
replace into their original context a number of our
Lord's sayings which tradition had incorporated into
large groups of His discourses. This is affirmed by
Luke himself in ver. 3 and 4 of his preamble ; and the
whole of his gospel confirms it.
Thus, then, the first gospel is a work of an essen
tially liturgical character, conformably to the didactic
tendency of Matthew's document which has been
inserted into it, and which will always form the salient
feature of its physiognomy.
The second has more of an anecdotical character;
that is to say, it is at once more familiar and more
picturesque, befitting the narrative of such a man as
Peter, with his sure and ready judgment and vivid
impressions, but a mind that had never undergone the
effects of a high intellectual culture.
The third, and the third alone, really deserves the
name of history, in the sense which had come to
attach to that, word among the Greeks, trained in
the higher efforts of the intellect. It consists of an
orderly and critical exposition ofthe facts, welladapted
to set them in their clearest light, and just such as
we might expect from such an author as Luke, whose
profession as a physician had initiated him into the
methods of procedure of the literary and scientific
culture of his time.
The date which we have assigned to the composition
of these three writings — between 60 and 65 — agrees
perfectly with the circumstances of the Church at that

THE GOSPEL OF ST. JOHN. 61
time. It was just the time when the first generation
of Christians were beginning to come to a clear under
standing with themselves, and when its great repre
sentatives were being dispersed among the nations,
soon to disappear one after another from the stage
of this world. How would it be possible for them
not to endeavour at that time to stereotype, in written
records, the great and sacred memories of which
they were in a sense the official depositaries ? " If
the art of writing had not existed before," says
Lange, " men would have invented it at that time,
and for that purpose."

IV.
THE GOSPEL OF ST. JOHN.
St. Matthew had set forth the life of Jesus from the
point of view of its relation with the sacred Israelitish
past. St. Mark had described it simply as it appeared
to the first eye-witnesses, without comparing the
Christ with anything but Himself. St. Luke had
seen opening before men, by means of it, a whole
new future — the conquest of the pagan world by the
Gospel. All aspects of it seemed exhausted ; — past, present,
and future, — are not these all the possible dimensions
of time ? If there was to be a fourth gospel, and it
was not to be, at least as to its fundamental idea, a

62 BIBLICAL STUDIES.
repetition of one of those which preceded it, it must
find its occasion and point of view in a sphere superior
to time — in eternity. This is, in fact, the special
characteristic of John's gospel.
I. Let us first recall to mind the accounts trans
mitted to us by Christian antiquity respecting the
origin of this document, as well as the facts, borrowed
from the literature of the second century, which may
throw light upon this question.
Irenaeus, who had lived in his youth with the friend
and disciple of St. John, Polycarp, bishop of Smyrna,
writes as follows : " After that, John, the disciple of
the Lord who had leaned on His bosom, himself also
published a gospel while he was living at Ephesus in
Asia." Irenaeus mentions in several places this sojourn
of John in Asia, of which many attempts have been
made in modern times to question the reality.1 "All
the presbyters who met with John, the disciple of the
Lord, in Asia, declare that it is he who communicated
these things to them ; for he lived there with them
up to the time of Trajan." We know that this
emperor came to the throne in the year 98. Irenaeus
adds that the principal object of John in writing this
gospel was to combat certain false doctrines which
were beginning to arise among the Asiatic churches.
We find in the Muratorian fragment, already quoted,
the following passage : " The fourth gospel is by
John. John, one of the disciples, being solicited by
1 Liitzelberger, Keim.

THE GOSPEL OF ST. JOHN. 63
his fellow-disciples and bishops, said to them, ' Let
us fast together for the next three days, and then
communicate to each other the revelations which
each shall have received.' The following night it
was revealed to Andrew, one of the apostles, that
John should write the whole in his own name, and
that all the others should criticise what he had
written. . . . What is there, then, surprising in the
fact that John should say in his epistles, speaking of
himself, ' That which we have heard, which we have
seen with our eyes, and our hands have handled
.... declare we unto you.' He thus proclaims him
self to be not only an eye and ear witness, but also
the narrator of all the wonderful events of the Lord's
life." The part which some of the other apostles
play in this history, especially Andrew, is very
remarkable. It must have been tradition which
furnished these facts.
Clement of Alexandria relates that which follows, in
accordance once more with the tradition which the
presbyters had handed down to one another up to
his time : " John, the last, having noticed that the
bodily things (the external events of our Lord's life)
were recorded in the gospels (our three synoptics of
which Clement had just been narrating the origin),
at the instigation of the men of note, and moved by
the Spirit, composed a spiritual gospel (one suited to
the purpose of initiating the Church into the spirit of
these events)."

U BIBLICAL STUDIES.
I omit the less original accounts of Eusebius and
of Jerome ; but I cannot refrain from quoting one
more testimony, more ancient than any of the pre-i
ceding, if it is authentic. It is drawn from a preface
to John's gospel, transcribed in a Latin manuscript
of the gospels which exists in the Vatican. In this
fragment, which, according to Tischendorf, dates from
a time anterior to that of Jerome, we read as follows :
" The gospel of John was published and given to the
Church by that apostle while he was still living ; as
Papias of Hierapolis, his beloved disciple, relates, at
the end of his five exegetical books." x A quotation
so direct is a fact of importance, which will make
it impossible any longer to plead, with the boldness
which has been common hitherto, the pretended
.silence of the aged Papias as an argument against
the authenticity of the fourth gospel.
To these sufficiently detailed accounts, we must
add a series of facts belonging to the ecclesi
astical history of the second century, and which all
corroborate our belief in the wide diffusion and in
the truly apostolic authority of this gospel at that
time. 1 In the fragment, the word is exoteric, which is clearly a
misreading of exegetic, an epithet drawn from the title of Papias'
work, " An Exegesis of the Discourses of the Lord." We have
already seen that this document was divided into five books
(see p. 15). The remainder of this fragment gives some other
details of much more doubtful character, and which do not
appear to rest on the same authority.

THE GOSPEL OF ST. JOHN. 65
Thus it is that we trace indications, more or less
distinct, of its influence, in the so-called epistle of
Barnabas, in the best authenticated letters of Igna
tius, in the epistle to Diognetes, in the Shepherd of
Hermas, and above all in the writings of Justin
Martyr. All these works belong to the orthodox
Church.1 But this influence appears still more evident
amongst the sects of the most opposite tendencies,
as in the Gnostic, Basilides, whose works contain
many express quotations from John ; in his successor
Valentine, whose whole system, as M. Bunsen has said,
was built of materials borrowed from John's prologue,
and whose principal disciple, Heraclion, even wrote a
complete commentary upon this gospel ; in Marcion,
a Gnostic heretic of quite another kind, who opposed
the law to the gospel, and whose letters, according to
the report of Tertullian, attested that he recognised
our gospel as the work of John, without, however,
attributing to it any authority, just for this reason,
that he considered its author tainted with Judaism ;
in the Judaeo-Christian or Essene party, from which
proceeded the famous Clementine Homilies, a book in
which our fourth gospel is more than once quoted ;
and yet this party constituted the ecclesiastical
antipodes of Marcion. One small sect alone seems
to have disputed the authenticity of this gospel — that
1 Keim thinks it impossible to deny the traces of the use of
the fourth gospel in all these documents, succeeding one another
in the first half of the second century. 5

66 BIBLICAL STUDIES.
which in later times received from Epiphanius the
name oi Alogi. But its rejection by them contains in
itself an indirect testimony in favour of this gospel;
for they attributed it to Cerinthus, the well-known
adversary of John in Ephesus, which proves that in
their belief it had been really composed in that town,
and in the time of the apostle.
It would be difficult to understand how all these
detailed accounts could have been fabricated and
adopted without dispute by the whole Church, and
how so many authors, orthodox and heretical, and
of the most opposite tendencies, could have given
such entire credence to this gospel, had not a very
well-founded tradition been the source of the idea
which men had formed for themselves of its apostolic
origin. The result of this summing up of the evidenre is:
(x) that the fourth gospel was written by the apostle
John ; (2) that this took place in Asia Minor during
the latter part of that apostle's life, in the midst of
the numerous churches founded there by St. Paul,
and with the object of lifting these former heathens
to an elevation of faith worthy of the divine object
of Christian worship ; (3) that it was written at the
instigation of the bishops of these churches, and even
of some of John's colleagues in the apostolate —
particularly Andrew, who was living then in those
countries ; (4) that John, while composing this
narrative of Christ's ministry, had before him the

THE GOSPEL OF ST. JOHN. 67
three earlier gospels already in circulation in the
Church. II. We have now to ascertain, by the study of
the gospel itself, how far we may trust these data
furnished by ecclesiastical history.
That the fourth gospel was intended for the use of
churches which had already made some progress in
the Christian life, and were well instructed in the
events of our Lord's ministry, it is not difficult to
prove. How came the narrator to speak of tho
Twelve, as he does in vi. 70, as well-known persons,
without having said a word of their election ? How
should he have left out between the return of Jesus
into Galilee (iv. 43) and His sojourn in Judaea (v. 1)
two whole months ; and again, between this sojourn
and the miracle of the multiplying of the loaves
(vi. 1), one whole month ; and yet again, between
this last event and the departure for Jerusalem
(vii. 1), nearly eight months ; and lastly, between
this journey and the following one to the Feast of
Dedication, an interval of more than two months, —
had he not supposed his readers to be well acquainted
with all the events of the Galilean ministry with which
the synoptic narratives are filled ? How could he have
described Bethany (xi. 1) as the town of Mary and
her sister Martha, when he had never even mentioned
these two persons ? How should he describe Mary
(xi. 2) as the woman which anointed the Lord with
ointment, not having yet related that incident ? We

68 BIBLICAL STUDIES.
see from one end of the book to the other, indications
that the author supposes his readers well acquainted
with the history of Jesus, and that he wishes only to
bring into notice certain events which had either been
omitted by tradition, or not sufficiently comprehended.
The churches for which this gospel was intended
belonged to the Gentile world. For not only is the
author moved to bring into special prominence the
part played by the Greeks in our Lord's ministry,1
but he also gives explanations of Jewish customs;2
and twice he translates the Hebrew word Messiah into
the Greek Christ?
Lastly, it is in Asia Minor, and not in Greece,
properly so called, that we have to look for these
Greeks. For it was in Asia that the speculations
were current to which the evangelist alludes in his
prologue, when he calls upon his readers to see in
Jesus the revelation of the Logos or Divine Word.
Was it not in the same way to the churches in that
country that Paul, in his epistles to the Ephesians
and to the Colossians, set forth more especially the
divinity of the Christ, because it was in that portion
of the Church that the questions relating to this
great subject were already being agitated ? So then
the fact of this gospel having been written for the
churches of Asia Minor cannot be called in question.
The object which the author had in view we find
1 vii. 35 ; xii. 20. * i. 42 ; iv. 25.
* ii. 6 ; iv. 9 ; xix, 40.

THE GOSPEL OF ST. JOHN. 69
expressly stated by himself in xx. 30, 31. It was his
wish, by the help of these few incidents selected out
of the history of his Master, to bring his readers to
perfect faith in Him as the Christ the Son of God
and to enable them to have life through Him. For
this purpose, the gospels already in circulation did
not seem to him sufficient. Even with regard to the
history, he found some points in them which needed
filling up : nearly a whole year of His active life in
Judaea, before the time when that Galilean ministry
began, to narrate which was almost the sole object of
the synoptic gospels ; also four residences in Jerusalem
and one visit to Bethany, before His last sojourn in
the capital — journeys which the synoptists had alto
gether omitted. These were historical lacunae which
he wished to fill up ; and connected with them were
some still more important omissions. It had been
nearly always on occasion of the great national festi
vals that Jesus had spoken those weighty discourses
about Himself in which He spiritualised the symbols
ofthe Old Testament, so as to apply them to Himself.
Now, if we except the great discourse on the bread
of life, delivered in Galilee on occasion of a Passover
celebrated in that province (vi.), it was in Jerusalem
that He had made these great assertions of His
Messianic character.1 Oral tradition had preserved
1 The conversation with Nicodemus (ii.) at the feast of the
Passover ; the discourse on His relation to the Father (v.) at
the feast of Purim ; the discourse on the fountain of living water

70 BIBLICAL STUDIES.
but feeble traces of them, as well as of these sojourns
in Jerusalem. It had naturally preserved with greater
care the memory of the popular preaching and familiar
intercourse which had marked the ministry of Jesus
in the small towns and villages of Galilee. It was of
great importance, therefore, to restore to the Church
those treasures which she was in danger of losing for
ever, and to reproduce in a permanent manner those
manifestations of the inner consciousness of Christ
in the way in which they had impressed themselves
deeply upon the mind of the beloved disciple. So
only could all believers be brought to re-echo that
full profession of faith uttered by Thomas, and which
sums up the teaching of the fourth gospel : " My
Lord and my God !"
This then is the direct object of our gospel. And
by this means the author at the same time overthrew
indirectly all the errors which began to arise in Asia
respecting the Person of our Lord : that of John the
Baptist's disciples, who placed their master above
Jesus ; of Cerinthus, who made of Jesus a mere man
to whom at a certain period of his life the heavenly
Christ had united Himself; ofthe heretics called the
Docetce, who maintained that our Lord's body was
nothing but a mere apparition ; of the Ebionites, who
saw in Jesus only the son of Joseph and Mary raised
to the dignity of Messiah. All these false systems
vii. — x.") at the feast of Tabernacles ; the discourse on the
subject, " I and my Father,'' at the feast of Dedication (x.b).

THE GOSPEL OF ST. JOHN. 71
fell to pieces before these words, of which our whole
gospel is the exhibition — " The Word was made
FLESH." The perfection of the divine life was realised
under the forms of human infirmity ; the abyss between.
the infinite and the finite was practically bridged over,
and the Logos of philosophy, which had hitherto been
dimly discerned only through clouds of speculation, is
henceforth, to the eye of faith, a being who has been
seen, known, apprehended. Such was the Jesus of
history, such is the Jesus of John, — a Being as per
fectly human as divine.
It has been often asserted that the Jesus of John is
not a being perfectly human. Nothing can be more
untrue. If there exists a true son of man, it is the
Jesus of the fourth gospel. He sits wearied with His
journey at Jacob's well ; He groans in the spirit at
the sight of His friends in tears ; He weeps Himself
at the grave of His friend ; His soul is troubled at
the thought of His approaching trial.1 The Jesus ot
John is human throughout.
Who is the author to whom we are to attribute such
a picture as this ?
He describes himself as one of the eye-witnesses
of our Lord's life. " We beheld His glory," he says
(i. 14) ; and if there could be any doubt ofthe literal
meaning of this word beheld, the question would be set
at rest by those other words (xix. 35) : "And he that
saw it bare record, and his record is true ; " and by
1 John iv. 6 ; xi. 33, 35 ; xii. 27.

72 BIBLICAL STUDIES.

the preamble to the first epistle of the same author :
"That which we have heard, which we have seen
with our eyes, which we have looked upon, and our
hands have handled, of the Word of life ; that which
we have seen and heard declare we unto you." x
Either he who thus speaks must be an audacious
forger, or he was himself an eye-witness of what
he relates. Now it is no easy matter to make of
the holiest work that ever issued from a human
pen one continued act of fraud. There are moral
inconsistencies which present difficulties quite as
insuperable as any logical contradictions.
That this character of eye-witness which the author
attributes to himself was really his, is also shown by
the position of sovereign authority which he takes up
with respect to the traditions received in the Church
and reported by the synoptists. He does not scruple
to correct a misunderstanding to which their record
had given rise : " For," he says (iii. 24), " John was
not yet cast into prison," — an evident allusion to those
words in Matt. iv. 12: "Now when Jesus had heard
that John was cast into prison, He departed into
Galilee," and to the parallel passage in Mark. He
takes the same independent line with respect to the
various sojourns at Jerusalem which the synoptists
had not mentioned ; also to the exact day of Christ's
death, which had not been indicated by them with
sufficient precision, etc., etc. In all these instances,
1 John i. \— 3.

THE GOSPEL OF ST. JOHN. 73
the author of the fourth gospel speaks as one who is
better acquainted with the facts than the rest, and who
knows that his personal testimony will be received
without dispute by the whole Church, even if it does
not agree in all points with the received tradition.
This position, boldly taken up in face of the synoptists
themselves, would have been impossible to any but an
eye-witness and an apostle.
Let us take one step further. This apostle could
have been none other than the disciple whom Jesus
loved. This disciple is often mentioned in the narra
tive, but never by name. How is it that, while the
author without scruple mentions all the other apostles
by name, he never fails to conceal this one under a
veil of anonymousness ? A strongly marked auto
biographic character is also impressed upon just those
points in the narrative in which this unnamed disciple
appears upon the scene, — as in the passage (i. 37 — 41)
in which his calling is recorded, and especially in the
narrative (xx. 1 — 9) where an account is given of
the manner in which his belief in the resurrection of
Jesus was formed. It was simply the sight of the
grave-clothes, folded up and lying separately, which
convinced him of the truth of this event. This in
cident belonging to the private life of the disciple
whom Jesus loved is related by the author in the third
person singular: "he saw and believed" (ver. 8); while
in the preceding and following verses he speaks in the
third person plural of that which relates both to his

74 BIBLICAL STUDIES.
companion Peter and to himself. Thus we see that
Peter did not so quickly reach to the same degree
of faith ; another means was needed for him — the
apparition of Jesus, of which mention is made else
where. As the author was at the foot of the cross (xix. 35),
and as the beloved disciple seems to have been the
only one of the disciples present during the last
sufferings of Jesus (ver. 24), the identity of these
two persons seems also proved by this coincidence.
These are the indications which obliged even Baur to
acknowledge that the author wished to pass himself
off as the disciple whom Jesus loved.
Lastly, the author must have been one of the sons
of Zebedee. This follows first from the fact that neither
John, nor his brother James, nor their mother Salome,
who all play a part more or less important in the other
gospels, are mentioned by name in this gospel. The
same conclusion follows also from the passage in xxi. 2,
which, if not written by the author himself, is due, at
all events, to a tradition emanating from him. In
this list, the sons of Zebedee are placed last relatively
to the other apostles present (Simon Peter, Thomas,
Nathanael) ; their names have the precedence only
over two unnamed disciples, who were, no doubt, not
apostles. Now we know that, in the lists of apostles,
James and John are always placed at the head of the
Twelve with Peter and Andrew. Either, then, we have
here a deliberate degradation of them by the author,

THE GOSPEL OF SI. JOHN. 75
or it must be from one of the two that this narrative
proceeds. As between James and John there can be
no doubt, since James died too early to allow us to
attribute this gospel to him. (Acts xii.)
This result of the study of the book itself is con
firmed by the remarkable attestation which closes it.
It is certain that ver. 24 and 25 of chap. xxi. could
not have been written by the author himself. The
use of the plural ''we know" proves that this is an
addition made by those to whom the author had
handed over his work to transmit to the Church at a
suitable time. Most likely these were the disciples
and pastors, mentioned in the Muratorian fragment
already quoted, who had urged the apostle to write
this gospel. The verb in the singular, " I think"
(ver. 25) refers to the one among "them who was
acting as secretary for the others, perhaps Papias. At
any rate, these persons affirm here that this gospel
is the work of the disciple whom Jesus loved, who
was still living at the time when they appended this
attestation to his work.1
Should we not then be justified, even if all tradition
relating to this document were wanting, in saying, in
the words of a German critic, who, nevertheless, does not
much favour evangelical orthodoxy:2 "The character
of the language, the freshness and vividness of the
1 Observe the contrast between the past tense, " who wrote"
and the present, " who testifies" ver. 28.
* Crednen

76 BIBLICAL STUDIES.

narrative, the accuracy and precision of the data, the
peculiar manner in which John the Baptist and the
sons of Zebedee are mentioned, the love, the glowing
tenderness which the author betrays towards the
Person of Jesus, the irresistible charm thrown by his
narrative over the gospel story, — all this leads us to
the conviction that the author of such a gospel could
have been no other than a native of Palestine, an eye
witness, an apostle, the disciple whom Jesus loved — -
that same John whose head had rested on His breast,
and who had remained close to His Cross — that John
whose subsequent abode in a town like Ephesus had
fitted him for fulfilling this task among Greeks who
were so eminent for their literary culture."
All other attempts to account for the origin of this
document involve greater difficulties than they remove.
Where are we to find a man in the second century,
after the time of John, capable of writing such a
narrative, of composing such discourses, of painting,
in this style, scenes of such grandeur ? We know the
eminent men of the second century ; their names are
Ignatius, Polycarp, Papias, Justin, etc. How striking
their mediocrity compared with the Johannean sub
limity ! And we must suppose that these men — holy,
no doubt, but so inferior to our author — were stars
of the first magnitude, while a man of genius, of an
originality so great, remained completely unknown,
and passed unnoticed in the midst of his contem
poraries ! This improbability far surpasses all those

THE GOSPEL OF ST. JOHN. 77
which it is usual to urge against the traditional
opinion. The conclusion, then, at which we arrive, by putting
all these arguments together, is as follows : —
John, with some of the apostles and older fol
lowers of Jesus, alone remained, at the end of the
first century, out of all that circle of eye-witnesses who
had surrounded Him during His lifetime. Some
of these were to be found at Ephesus. These were
Andrew, — who had been the first, in company
with John, to accost Jesus (John i.), — and Philip,
who lived close by at Hierapolis. They felt that
the portrait of their Master which had been be
queathed to the Church by the three evangelists,
though it was substantially accurate, yet gave but
an imperfect idea of the Person of Him whose
glory had illumined their hearts. This was also the
feeling of the heads of those churches in Asia to
whom John had been for a long time preaching the
Gospel, and who had heard things from his lips which
they did not find in these books. On hearing the
request which they addressed to him, the Holy Spirit
moved him to take up his pen. Taking account of
the writings already published, he composed his narra
tive straight off, as one who did not depend upon oral
tradition ; with no intention of repeating that part of
the history with which he knew his readers were
already well acquainted, but with the object of throw
ing upon that life the stronger light with which it was

80 BIBLICAL STUDIES.
proclaimed Jesus as Him who put the finishing stroke
to the establishment of that holy kingdom of God which
had been fore-announced by the prophets, and of which
the foundations had been laid in Israel. In Rome,
Mark presented Him as the irresistible conqueror
who founded His Divine right to the possession of
the world upon His miraculous power. Amongst the
generous and affable Hellenic races, Luke described
Him as the Divine philanthropist, commissioned to
carry out the work of Divine grace and compassion
towards the worst of sinners. In Asia Minor, that
ancient cradle of theosophy, John pictured Him as
the Word made flesh, the eternal life and light, who
had descended into the world of Time. Thus it was
under the influence of a profound sympathy with those
about him that each evangelist brought into relief
that aspect of Christ which answered most nearly to
the ideal of his readers.
But, on the other hand, each of the evangelists has
also, by means of the picture which he has drawn,
pronounced a judgment upon whatever was impure in
the aspirations with which in some respects he sym
pathised. The spiritual and inspired Messianic idea
presented by Matthew condemned that political and
carnal view of the Church which is the very soul of
false Judaism. The sanctified and divine Romanism
of Mark condemned the Caesarism of mere brute
force. The heavenly Atticism of Luke took the place
of the frivolous and corrupt Hellenism encountered

THE GOSPEL OF ST. JOHN. 81
by Paul at Athens. Lastly, Humanitarianism — the
Divine Humanitarianism of John — stands as an
eternal witness against the humanitarianism, profane
and anti-divine in its nature, of a world dazzled with
its own greatness, and lost in evil.
Our gospels are at once magnets to draw to
themselves whatever is left of divine in the depths of
human nature, and, as it were, winnowing machines
to sift out from it whatever is sinful. Hence the
power both of attraction and repulsion which they
exert upon the natural heart of man.
It has been sometimes asked why, instead of the
four gospels, God did not cause a single one to be
written, in which all the events should have been
arranged in their chronological order, and the history
of Jesus pourtrayed with the accuracy of a legal
document. If the drawing up of the gospels had
been the work of human skill, it would no doubt
have taken this form ; but it is just here that we
seem able to lay a finger upon the altogether Divine
nature of the impulse which originated the work.
Just as a gifted painter, who wished to immor
talise for a family the complete likeness of the father
who had been its glory, would avoid any attempt at
combining in a single portrait the insignia of all the
various offices he had filled — at representing him in
the same picture as general and as magistrate, as
man of science and as father of a family, but would
prefer to paint four distinct portraits, each of which
6

80 BIBLICAL STUDIES.
proclaimed Jesus as Him who put the finishing stroke
to the establishment of that holy kingdom of God which
had been fore-announced by the prophets, and of which
the foundations had been laid in Israel. In Rome,
Mark presented Him as the irresistible conqueror
who founded His Divine right to the possession of
the world upon His miraculous power. Amongst the
generous and affable Hellenic races, Luke described
Him as the Divine philanthropist, commissioned to
carry out the work of Divine grace and compassion
towards the worst of sinners. In Asia Minor, that
ancient cradle of theosophy, John pictured Him as
the Word made flesh, the eternal life and light, who
had descended into the world of Time. Thus it was
under the influence of a profound sympathy with those
about him that each evangelist brought into relief
that aspect of Christ which answered most nearly to
the ideal of his readers.
But, on the other hand, each of the evangelists has
also, by means of the picture which he has drawn,
pronounced a judgment upon whatever was impure in
the aspirations with which in some respects he sym
pathised. The spiritual and inspired Messianic idea
presented by Matthew condemned that political and
carnal view of the Church which is the very soul of
false Judaism. The sanctified and divine Romanism
of Mark condemned the Caesarism of mere brute
force. The heavenly Atticism of Luke took the place
of the frivolous and corrupt Hellenism encountered

THE GOSPEL OF ST. JOHN.

by Paul at Athens. Lastly, Humanitarianism — the
Divine Humanitarianism of John — stands as an
eternal witness against the humanitarianism, profane
and anti-divine in its nature, of a world dazzled with
its own greatness, and lost in evil.
Our gospels are at once magnets to draw to
themselves whatever is left of divine in the depths of
human nature, and, as it were, winnowing machines
to sift out from it whatever is sinful. Hence the
power both of attraction and repulsion which they
exert upon the natural heart of man.
It has been sometimes asked why, instead of the
four gospels, God did not cause a single one to be
written, in which all the events should have been
arranged in their chronological order, and the history
of Jesus pourtrayed with the accuracy of a legal
document. If the drawing up of the gospels had
been the work of human skill, it would no doubt
have taken this form; but it is just here that we
seem able to lay a finger upon the altogether Divine
nature of the impulse which originated the work.
Just as a gifted painter, who wished to immor
talise for a family the complete likeness of the father
who had been its glory, would avoid any attempt at
combining in a single portrait the insignia of all the
various offices he had filled — at representing him in
the same picture as general and as magistrate, as
man of science and as father of a family, but would
prefer to paint four distinct portraits, each of which
6

82 BIBLICAL STUDIES.
should represent him in one of these characters, — so
has the Holy Spirit, in order to preserve for mankind
the perfect likeness of Him who was its chosen reprer
sentative, God in man, used means to impress upon
the minds of the writers whom He has made His
organs, four different images — the King of Israel,
(Matthew) ; the Saviour of the world, (Luke) ; the
Son, who, as man, mounts the steps of the Divine
throne, (Mark) ; and the Son who descends into
humanity to sanctify the world, (John).
The single object which is represented by these
four aspects of the glory of Jesus Christ could not
be presented to the minds of men in a single book;
it could only be so in the form under which it
was originally embodied — that of a life ; first in the
Church — that body of Christ which was destined to
contain and to display all the fulness which had
dwelt in its Head ; and then again in the person of
each individual believer, if that is true which Jesus
said : " Ye in me, and I in you ;" and we are each of
us called to make the personality of Jesus live again
in ourselves in all the rich harmony of His perfection.
In the Church, then — in you, in me — we behold
the living syntheses which were to be the result of
that wondrous analysis of the Person of Jesus Christ
which produced our several gospel narratives. The
harmony of the four gospels is something better than
the best written book ; it is the new man to be formed
in each believer.

THE GOSPEL OF ST. JOHN 83
From the earliest times, the canonical gospels have
been compared to the four figures of the cherubim
which support the throne of God. This comparison
has given rise to many arbitrary and puerile exe
getical fancies. We would rather compare them to
the four wings, continually growing, with which the
cherubim more and more cover the whole extent of
the earth, and upon which rests the throne of the
majesty of Jesus,
Let criticism beware : to destroy one of these wings
is to mutilate the holiest thing on this earth.

JESUS CHRIST.
" T ESUS CHRIST has succeeded in making of
J every human soul an appendage of His
own:" — so is the prisoner of St. Helena reported
to have said in one of his private and intimate
conversations. The assertion made by those august
lips is true. By what means did Jesus reach this
marvellous result ?
Different men have different tasks and functions
assigned to them ; and we each of us feel most power
fully attracted by that one leading mind which reigns
supreme in our own sphere of life, and which, in it,
offers us the support which is required by our weak
ness or want of intelligence.
But there is one task which does not belong to a
few only, and which does not depend upon our special
aptitudes or upon our particular tastes : it is that
which is imposed upon us by moral obligation. The
task of fulfilling this obligation is universal and abso
lute ; it belongs to us all, and to us all at every
moment. It admits of no dispensation from its com
mands. The spirit who shall attain pre-eminence in
this province in such sort as to become the point

JESUS CHRIST. 85

of support in work to all the rest, and shall thus
make himself the fellow-worker with each man in
the realisation of his supreme destiny, will have
solved in practice the problem of the discovery of
the universal centre of gravitation for all souls. He
will be to them as a magnetic pole, towards which
they will turn just so far as the law of right shall
make itself felt within them ; he will be found to have
grouped for ever around his person all who deserve
the name of man.1
Of this problem Jesus first discovered the solution,
and then actually realised it. He has been to hu
manity the genius of holiness. And was not this,
in fact, what He meant when He so often described
Himself by the title the Son of Man? Fifty-five J
times in our gospels does He choose, by preference,
this title for Himself. His intention evidently is to
define by it the relation in which He stands to
humanity. A son of man in Holy Scripture means a
true man.2 The Son of Man means therefore the man
par excellence, the true man, the perfect realisation of
the type, man, the normal representative of the race
as it was conceived in the mind of Him who gave it
being. But this title is not the only one by which Jesus
designates Himself in His discourses. He also often
1 See the fine development of this thought in the work of
M. Waerner, Kirchenfreund, 1872, Nos. 18 and 19.
E Ezekiel xxvii. 3, and elsewhere.

86 BIBLICAL STUDIES.
calls Himself the Son of God, or the Son simply.1 By
this title Jesus defined the relation in which He stood
to the Divine nature, or, it would be better to say, to
the Person of God.
We see, then, how erroneous is the opinion, very
common amongst the interpreters of Holy Scripture,
which explains both of these titles as signifying the
Messiah, and makes them consequently synonymous.
They are, on the contrary, contrasted with and com
plementary to each other. In the one, Jesus wished
to express all that He is to men ; in the other, all that
He is to God.
Notwithstanding the duality of relation, and even of
nature, which belongs to Him, Jesus is nevertheless
one single and unique Person. It is evident, then,
that the contrast which we have pointed out is to be
explained by a higher unity, by a personality which
is the expression of the individual indissoluble con
sciousness of Him who thus speaks of Himself as /.
And of this unity, which is perhaps the greatest
mystery of theology, we are not forbidden to attempt
to fathom the depths ; the Church has formulated it
in the title, the God-Man.
But let man, as he enters upon this province of
1 John iii. 16 ; v. 25, etc.; Matt. xii. 27; xxviii. 19, etc.;
Mark xiii. 32.
2 It is generally very easy to see the reason of the use of these
two names by considering the different contexts in which they
occur. Compare, for instance, John iii. 14 and 16.

JESUS CHRIST. 87

thought, sacred above all others, never forget to take
off his shoes from his feet, — that is, to renounce his
own thoughts, and surrender himself to those of God
revealed in the wondrous facts of redemption, and
in the revelations which accompanied it.
This essay upon the Person of Jesus Christ will be
divided into three parts : the Son of Man, the Son of
God, and the God-Man.
We shall defer what we have to say more specially
upon the work of Jesus Christ till the essay which
follows. It will only be after thoroughly investigating
these two subjects that we shall be able to apprehend
in all its profundity that remarkable expression which
fell from a genius of another order, which we quoted
at the beginning of this work.

THE SON OF MAN.
We can study the facts of which the history of
Jesus consists — the material facts of His life, to use
the expression of Clement of Alexandria — while we
are assuring ourselves of its reality by the stamp of
truthfulness which marks the narratives which have
preserved it for us. This is the historico-critical point
of view. But we may arrive at the same result by
following the opposite line. We may start from
the facts of the gospel story, accepting them pro
visionally, as known to us by the religious instruction

88 BIBLICAL STUDIES.
we received in infancy, and observing the sense
attaching to each of them, and the idea which binds
them together into one whole ; and if we find a real
and deep harmony establishing itself without difficulty
among all these facts disseminated as by chance
through four distinct documents, we shall then be
compelled to recognise in this interconnection between
them, their historic and providential character. This
is the synthetic method. The nature of the work
would admit of no other.
We have then, first, to point out the idea which is,
in our view, the key to all the salient events of our
Lord's earthly life ; then, taking these events one by
one, to see if this idea can account satisfactorily for
them. The general idea which governs the earthly life of
Jesus Christ is none other than that which He Him
self enunciated when He gave Himself the title of
Son of Man. His life is the realisation of the normal
development to which, in principle, every human being
is called. Let us see if this simple idea will not throw light
upon the whole career of Jesus from its beginning to
its end.
The essential facts of the history of Jesus divide
themselves into three series. The first includes His
birth, the history of His development as a child and
young man, His baptism at the age of thirty, and His
temptation in the wilderness. This is the period oi

JESUS CHRIST. 89

preparation. The second series comprehends (to
express ourselves summarily, and grouping the
facts together) His holy living, His teaching, and
His miracles ; and closes with the mysterious event
of the Transfiguration. This constitutes the first
part of His work as the Redeemer. The third
series comprehends the supreme events of His
history, His Passion and Resurrection, and finally,
His Ascension, which is both the final term of the
series, and the crowning point of His whole life.
This constitutes the accomplishment of the second
part of His work. First Series.
L The Birth. — According to our Gospel narratives,
Jesus was not born in the ordinary course of nature.
Have we not here, then, at the very outset of our
undertaking, a rock upon which the thesis we have
to maintain comes to shipwreck ? If Jesus Christ is
truly man, must He not have been born in the same
manner as every other man ? This objection, however,
it is easy to see, proves too much ; for it would oblige
us to deny true humanity to the first man, upon the
ground that he came into existence by a different
process from that of ordinary human filiation.1 Now,
1 This would still remain true, even if we granted the Darwinian
hypothesis, which, taken in its utmost strictness, still only applies
to the body of man, not to his soul, unless indeed we are willing
to give up, in the case of man, the distinctive feature of his being
— his moral freedom.

90 BIBLICAL STUDIES.
would it not be a strange proceeding to deny real
humanity to that being from whom all that bears the
name of man has sprung ? This instance proves that
the quality of manhood does not depend upon the
manner in which the individual being came into
existence, but upon the possession of certain attri
butes which constitute humanity.
According to the account in Genesis, the body of
the first man, that masterpiece of the creative wisdom,
was formed out of the dust of the earth — that is to say,
it came into existence as the crowning-point of that
long development of animal life which the discoveries
of geology have brought to light. But the spirit of
man came from above. It was a direct inspiration
from the Divine Spirit. The circumstances of the
birth of Jesus Christ present a marked analogy with
this mode of creation. His body was derived, through
the medium of His mother, from humanity as it
already existed. But it was the breath of God, the
power of the Almighty Spirit, which called this
embryo life into the orderly development and onward
progress of human existence.
This analogy between the birth of Jesus and the
creation of the first man reveals distinctly to us the
divine idea which governed the earlier of these two
events. Jesus was, by His miraculous birth, restored to
the same condition of purity and innocence in which
the first man existed before the Fall ; and that was so
ordered that He might be able successfully to enter

JESUS CHRIST. 9 1

once more upon that pathway of progress from
innocence up to holiness which had been the course
originally opened to man, but at the very outset of
which Adam had fallen.
Man was not so created as to be able to reach his
ideal by drawing the required strength from his own
resources. He can only attain to that by the aid of
continual communications from God. Now, as soon
as he gives way to the sway of an evil power, these
communications are interrupted ; he does not any
longer ask for, or receive them. Retrogression then
takes the place of progress. Like a plant torn from
its natural soil, man vegetates and perishes, instead of
growing and bearing fruit.
In order, then, that the normal development of
mankind, which had been interrupted by sin, might
begin afresh, there was needed the appearance upon
the scene of a personality raised above the influence
of that downward tendency which had seized the
whole race, free from that spirit of rebellion against
God which had gained possession of us all, and com
pletely open also to those communications from above
which constitute for man the necessary condition of
all true progress.
Jesus was that personality. His whole life proves
it, as well as the new phase of history which has its
origin in Him. Up to that time the course of human
history might be summed up thus — "That which is
born of the flesh is flesh." From His time the true

92 BIBLICAL STUDIES.
drift of that history might be formulated in the words
— " That which is born of the spirit is spirit." For the
distinctive characteristic of spirit, in the Bible sense of
that word, is holiness ; and where else shall we find
holiness, save in Jesus, and in that which emanates
from Him ?
But it may be said : If so, then Jesus was not really
a free agent, for it was not possible for Him to sin as
we do. We reply, that this special mode of birth did
not entail in His case the impossibility of sinning, any
more than did that of the first man, which was analo
gous to it; it simply restored to Jesus that power of
not sinning which man possessed before the Fall, and
which we have lost by the rupture of that link which
united us to God.
So far, then, from depriving Him of liberty of action,
this miraculous birth restored it to Him, by giving
Him back in its integrity that power of self-determi
nation of which the tyranny of sin had in part robbed
us, and without which we could no longer fulfil the
holy and glorious calling opened to us by God.
The miraculous birth is, then, that divine act,
corresponding with the creation of the first man, by
which man has been placed in a fit condition for
carrying out that normal development to which he
was called, and answering in the end to the idea in
the mind of God.
II. The Development, — "And the Child grew and
waxed strong in spirit, filled with wisdom, and the

JESUS CHRIST. 93

grace of God was upon Him " (Luke ii. 40). So docs
the evangelist describe the development of Jesus as a
child. The expression he grew relates to His physi
cal development. The words which follow, bringing
out the two ideas of strength and of wisdom, refer to
the development of the soul, — that is, to the ever
growing energy of the will, and to its more and more
complete intuition of the true Good. Lastly, the
concluding expression, the grace of God resting upon
Him, indicates the religious principle which formed
the deep and sacred motive power of this twofold
development of soul and body. Thus did the Child
grow up to His twelfth year.
The development of the young man up to the age
of thirty years is also summed up in one sentence :
"And He increased in wisdom and stature, and in
favour with God and man" (Luke ii. 52). We find
here the three elements of the normal development of
man : a sound body, approaching day by day to the
stature of a full-grown man ; a soul drawing from God
an ever-increasing wisdom, — that is to say, the sense
of good, and good sense, in their deep-seated unity ;
lastly, the influence continuously exerted upon such a
being of divine grace. Here we have that true hier
archy which constitutes the state of health in man's
life ; — the Spirit of God guiding the soul in the use of
its various powers, and the soul so sanctified governing
the body in its manifold functions.
What a wonderful phenomenon was this Child, this

94 BIBLICAL STUDIES.
young man carrying on this His normal development
in the midst of a world in which every creature falls
so far below His ideal ! This was that progress in
absolute goodness which humanity would have realised
had sin not intervened. Mankind contemplated
with wonder this new thing in the earth, and the
eye of God Himself rested with an unmixed satis
faction upon the Being in whom at last He saw
one who answered completely to His design. His
presence in the midst of a fallen humanity was in
itself a first step of the reconciliation between heaven
and earth.
III. The Baptism. — The concluding act of this un-
deviating progress was the Baptism. Jesus was then
thirty years of age ; the period of human life when
man reaches the culminating point of his powers, and
when the faculties of his soul and the organs of his
body lend themselves with the greatest readiness and
flexibility to the execution of any work he has in hand.
This, according to the evangelical record (Luke iii. 23),
was precisely the age at which Jesus passed from His
life of silent development in the retirement of Nazareth
to that of His public and Messianic activity. The
date at which His baptism took place constitutes,
then, one feature of a profoundly human character in
the record of this event
There is another, not less remarkable from this
point of view. Before descending into the river, the
converts who came to John for baptism made confes-

JESUS CHRIST. 95

sion of their sins to him.1 Jesus, presenting Himself
like any other Israelite, should have done the same.
In what did this confession consist ? If there is a
human feeling which is alien to the heart of Jesus —
and there is one, and one only — it is that of penitence.
He made a confession like Isaiah, Daniel, Neliemiah,
laying before God the sins of the nation, and humbling
Himself for them in its name ; but with this difference
— that Jesus, in using the word me, did not use it
with any sense of personal participation in the gene
ral sinfulness, but only under the influence of the
profoundest sympathy. What can be more human
than that feeling of solidarity in which the love of
Jesus rivets for ever, in that solemn moment, the
chain which binds Him to a guilty humanity ! This
was the spectacle which, a little later, moved John
the Baptist to utter these sublime words : " Behold
the Lamb of God which taketh away the sins of the
world." He had recognised in Jesus, on the day of
His baptism, that sacred Victim who, while separating
between Himself and sin by a profound abyss as far
as His will was concerned, was at that same moment
making the sin of the whole race His own, in respect
of solidarity between Himself and them.
A third peculiarity of the baptism of Jesus, in which
the reality of His humanity reveals itself, is the act of
prayer with which He descends into the waters of the

1 Matt. iii. 6.

96 BIBLICAL STUDIES.
Jordan.1 In this prayer was expressed the first pure
utterance of the sigh of human nature in its sin for
pardon, and of the thirst of the same nature in its
purity for that which is the life of heaven, — the Holy
Spirit, without which the soul of man can but vegetate.
Prayer is the cry of human need ; Jesus prayed with
the feeling of that need, which He must therefore
have shared with us.
The answer of God to that prayer was not long in
coming. The heaven was opened ; that luminous sign
wherein was figured the communication of the Spirit
made its appearance ; the voice of God sounded ; —
three facts perceptible to the inner sense of John and
of Jesus, and which to them were signs of the highest
spiritual truths : the first, of the full revelation of the
divine decrees granted to Jesus ; the second, of the gift
of divine power bestowed upon Him to enable Him to
accomplish the scheme of salvation ; the third, of His
dignity as the well-beloved Son, without the assurance
of which He could not have executed that work. All
this is so human in character, that we find something
analogous to it in our own spiritual development.
How could we ourselves enter upon any sacred calling,
were we not enlightened from above respecting the
work which we have to accomplish ? were we not
endued with the divine power which corresponds to its
requirements ? were we not gifted with the assurance
of the adoption of our person and our work by God.
1 Luke iii. 21 : " And, praying, the heaven was opened."

JESUS CHRIST. 97

Himself ? The difference between Jesus and ourselves
in this respect is simply this, that He is charged with
the general work of the salvation of mankind, while to
each one of us is assigned only a slight part of that
work to fulfil with Him ; and consequently He receives
the Spirit in His fulness, while to each one of us is
given only our own particular measure of His gifts.
There can be nothing, then, more human, from
every point of view, than this scene of the Baptism
of Jesus. We recognise in it a true man, but at the
same time a man called to initiate the whole race
into that higher form of life for which it is destined,
— the life of the Spirit.
IV. The Temptation. — The scene ofthe Baptism is
completed, in our three synoptic records, by that of
the Temptation ; the two are inseparable even in
respect of their significance, and it is in the latter of
them that the truly human character of Jesus stands
out with the greatest clearness. To be raised above
temptation belongs to God only ; to tempt is the
proper work of the devil ; but to be tempted belongs
to the state of man.
Why, then, does God account it necessary to deliver
up to the ordeal of temptation the Being upon whom
He has just bestowed such rich gifts of grace ? Just
on account of these very gifts. He has to learn in
the school of temptation the habit of dedicating to
God alone the gifts which He has received. Will not
Tesus, in fact, be often tempted, in the course of His
7

n8 BIBLICAL STUDIES.
public ministry, to use His miraculous power for the
amelioration of His personal and terrestrial condition,
which would involve the abandonment of His true state
as man ? Will He not, many a time, have an oppor
tunity, offered Him by the enthusiasm of the people,
of playing the part of a political Messiah and glorious
earthly king, which would be nothing less than the
abandonment of the office of a redeeming Messiah,
such as God intended and the true needs of mankind
demand ? Lastly, will He not often be exposed to
the temptation of making use arbitrarily, and without
moral necessity, of the almighty power entrusted to
Him, which would be a supreme act of indiscretion
towards God His Father, and an abandonment of His
filial character ? In order to avoid these dangers in
His future life, He must learn to know them before
hand ; like the captain of a ship, who, before entering
upon the ocean, must first have studied on the map
the rocks which are scattered through the seas he will
have to traverse.
Such were the uses to Jesus of the temptation in the
wilderness. In His baptism He had learned what He
had to do ; by His temptation He perceived what He
was to avoid. Thus did the Father instruct — thus
did He warn Him. Is not such an education exactly
appropriate to the condition of man ? Is it not that
which was needed by Him to whom had been com
mitted the task of bruising, in the name of mankind
as a whole, the serpent's head ?

JESUS CHRIST. 99

Second Series.
Up to this time the work of Jesus had been His
own personal development. The hour has now arrived
when this development is to bear its fruits for the
good of the world. He has been receiving ; now
He is about to give. It is at this point that the
second stage of His life's work opens, — that which
relates to His public ministry. We will begin by
His holy living, because that constitutes the basis
of His whole redeeming work.
I. His Holiness. — Our sacred writings attribute
to Jesus a holiness without spot ; and one fact,
unique in the life of humanity, confirms the truth
of this assertion ; — the absence in the discourses of
Jesus of all expressions of repentance. We feel
that in this one life remorse has no place. This
fact is so much the more remarkable and decisive
in proportion as Jesus was more humble than other
men, and His conscience more sensitive than theirs.
The more advanced we are in the life of holiness,
the more painfully do we feel the stains of sin. If
the slightest defilement had existed in Him, He
would have been more affected by it than we are
by the gravest faults into which we fall.
But is not irreproachable holiness something in
itself superhuman ? Certainly not, if it be true that
sin is no necessary element of human nature, and

BIBLICAL STUDIES.

if we are not willing to throw the responsibility of
it in some degree upon God Himself. The only
question which we can and ought to ask here is
this : Does the holiness of Jesus bear the marks of
a human or of a divine holiness ? This question is
easily answered.
Two characteristics distinguish the holiness of God
from that of man ; the latter progresses, while the
former is stationary and immutable ; the latter is
developed by antagonism, while the former is exempt
from all conflict. Apply these two characteristics to
the holiness of Jesus. Was there progress, was there
conflict, in His moral life ?
As to progress, this is what is said of Him in the
epistle to the Hebrews : " He learned obedience by
the things which He suffered." And this is the
sentence which is put into His own mouth by that
Gospel which is most accused of denying or of mini
mising His humanity, — that of John: "And for their
sakes I sanctify myself, that they also might be
sanctified through the truth."1 To sanctify is not
synonymous with to purify. To purify oneself
implies that one is defiled ; to sanctify oneself is
simply to consecrate to God the natural powers of
the soul and of the body, as soon as they come into
exercise. Pure is the opposite of impure ; holy, of
what is profane, or merely natural. In themselves,
the forces of our nature are neither good nor evil ;
1 Heb. v 8 ; John xvii. 19.

JESUS CHRIST.

they become the one or the other in proportion as,
at the moment of their awaking into life, they re
ceive the stamp of consecration to God, or remain
in the service of that natural heart of man which
is always egoistic. There may even arise cases in
which holiness will require them to be entirely sacri
ficed, — that is, whenever they cannot be brought
into the service of the special task which has been
entrusted to their possessor. And it is in this
that progress consists, — in the consecration of our
natural gifts more and more to the work assigned
to us by God, or even in renouncing them alto
gether, — plucking out the right eye, or cutting off
-the right hand, if the forces so expressed cannot
be brought into the service of the mission entrusted
to us.
Such was the holiness of Jesus. The dedication of
His whole being to God progressed just in proportion
as all the faculties which awoke within Him were
either subjected to God, and dedicated entirely to
His service, or else sacrificed because they were
not applicable to His redeeming work. Jesus had in
Him all those qualities of the heart which confer the
power of enjoying the sweetnesses of family life, and
all those intellectual powers which are the subjects of
literary or scientific education. The parables prove
that He could have been a poet or an eminent
painter; many of His discourses exhibit the charac
teristics of an incomparable popular orator ; the

io* BIBLICAL STUDIES.
profoundest philosopher stands revealed in many of
His sayings on morality. But if He had given
Himself up exclusively to the practice of one or
other of these functions, He must have renounced,
or at all events have infringed in some degree
upon, the fulfilment of that one task which His
Father had appointed for Him ; and progress in
holiness consisted, in His case, in the exclusive
dedication of all the powers comprehended in His
personality to His work as Saviour of the world.
It was precisely in virtue of this profoundly human
character of His holiness that He could say : " T
sanctify myself, that they also might be sanctified
through the truth!' This sanctification of the life
of man, which He was accomplishing in Himself,
it was His purpose at a future time to reproduce
in all those who should join themselves to Him
by faith. Their holiness should be the same
which He was at that time realising in His own
person, and which the Spirit would communicate
to them when the right moment arrived. What a
decisive proof of the truly human character of
His holiness !
It is equally proved such by the conflict which
marks all its stages. Two tendencies, innocent in
themselves, belong to our nature ; the desire for en
joyment, and the fear of pain. But these tendencies,
legitimate as they are in themselves, may come into
antagonism with the mission which has been en-

JESUS CHRIST. 103

trusted to us. Then is the moment for sacrificing
them ; and hence arise the struggles to which the
most innocent of beings may be exposed.
At the age of twelve years, Jesus found Himself for
the first time in the temple. There He felt a happi
ness like that of a child in his father's house. It was
to Him a paradise, and He would have wished to live
there for ever. But the voice of His parents calls
Him back ; He recognises in it the voice of God.
" He is subject to them ;" and returns with them to
Nazareth ; but assuredly not without a sacrifice and
inward conflict. Here we see the purest of enjoy
ments sacrificed to the fulfilment of His appointed
work. In the wilderness He is tortured by hunger. What
can be more legitimate than this call of nature ? But
He unhesitatingly subordinates the fulfilment of its
demands to the moral principle of trustful submission
towards God. Again, He sees opening before Him
those glorious visions of power, for the exercise of
which He feels Himself fitted, and of which He would
make so noble a use. But there is a condition. . . .
The refusal is absolute, and the sacrifice is offered.
A few days before His passion He finds Himself
once more in the temple. Some foreign pilgrims ask
Him a question which awakens in Him the painfu'
presentiment of the terrible death towards which He
is advancing. The presentiment takes possession of
Him. and even troubles Him. "Now is mv soul

104 BIBLICAL STUDIES.
troubled," He exclaims before all the people, "and
what shall I say? Father, save me from this hour?"
This would indeed be the cry of nature ; but to
this cry, which He might have uttered, another
voice answers — the voice of the Spirit — overpowering
the first, and finding expression in the prayer, so
decisive and real, with which this conflict ends :
" Father, glorify Thy name ; " deal with me as
Thou wilt, only do Thou, through me, reap Thine
own glory ! And it is in the fourth Gospel that we
find the record of this inward conflict, so pro
foundly human in its character. Here the fear of
suffering is offered up as a sacrifice upon the altar
of His mission.
It is the same at Gethsemane. The first voice, the
voice of nature, cries, " Let this cup pass from me."
The higher voice, that of the Spirit — which is none
other than that of the task divinely imposed upon
Him — speaks in its turn: "Thy will, not mine, be
done." And the first subordinates itself to the
second; but not without a conflict which costs Jesus
a bloody sweat.
For sin does not consist in having a nature that
needs to be sacrificed — it is God who gave that
nature to us, and if we had it not, we should have
no victim to offer: sin consists only in the refusal
to sacrifice it to God when He demands it of us.
Jesus never opposed Himself to the Divine will by
such a refusal, either when there was some pleasure

JESUS CHRIST. 105

to be foregone, or some suffering to be borne. He
never allowed Himself the satisfaction of a desire,
if it did not fit into the accomplishment of the
task assigned to Him ; nor refused to submit to
any suffering which it demanded.
This characteristic of His holiness made of His life
an uninterrupted series of conflicts ; but this is the
very point which gives to it its truly human charac
ter, and which enables us to recognise in Him the
true High Priest of humanity, actually realising
the motto inscribed on the forehead of the Jewish
high priest : " Holiness to the Lord."
II. The Teachings. — What reader of Holy Scrip
ture, after meditating upon one of our Lord's in
structions, has not more than once been moved to
exclaim, How divine ! And yet what can be more
truly human than these discourses, whether in respect
of their contents or their form !
What is their origin ? Within the Person of Jesus,
when He was engaged in teaching, there was passing
an event of the inner life, which it is important for
us thoroughly to understand. Just as His holiness
consisted in the care with which He kept His will
free from every influence proceeding from Himself
only, in order to keep it ever open to the impulses
of the Divine will, so in His teaching, His whole
art consisted in allowing no thought originating in
self to rule His intelligence, and in keeping that
faculty in a state of absolute dependence upon

io6 BIBLICAL STUDIES.
the Divine mind. It was by this process, so simple
in itself, that He succeeded in making His human
speech the organ of Divine wisdom. "As I hear I
judge, and my judgment is just," He said Himself
(John v. 30) ; that is to say, before speaking, He
listened with the inward ear, and did not open His
lips to give expression to His thoughts till He
had received the answer of the Father to the silent
questioning which His heart had addressed to Him.
So did the judgment of God become His own, and
it was this which caused His own to be infallible.
"I speak not of myself," He says elsewhere; "as
my Father hath taught me, I speak these things."1
Here we have the explanation of the fact that His
precepts are at once so human and so divine.
They are divine, because in His teaching God Is
allowed in each instance to speak first, before any
hearing is given to man. They are nevertheless
human, because equally in each case a human ear
receives the utterance of the Divine wisdom, and
a human heart and intelligence give it shape.
In view of this wonderful interdependence, shall
we not say that here we see human speech elevated
at last to its intended destiny — that of serving as
an organ through which the Truth of God may
utter itself? Here again, as always, we find in Jesus
a true man, doubtless ; but in this true man, man
perfected. In His holiness He appeared as God's
1 John vii. 16, 17; viii. 28 ; xii. 49, 50.

JESUS CHRIST. 107

High Priest on earth, through the perfect submis
sion of His own will to the Divine will. In His
teaching He appeared as God's prophet here below,
by the free submission of His intelligence to that
of God. This was the second of the functions which
constituted from the beginning man's destination —
the image of God in him.
III. The Miracles. — The secret of the miraculous
working of Jesus does not essentially differ from that
of His doctrinal and moral infallibility. As in His
teaching He did not err, because He took care in eacr
instance to suppress every utterance of His own
which He might have invented, and to which He
could have given expression as easily as we do, in
order to give place to the word which came to Him
from God, so in His miraculous working He took care
to begin by renouncing every impulse of His own,
in order to make His will the unresisting agent of
the Divine will ; and hence it was that the former
derived from the latter the power to govern nature,
and to set in action the new agency needed
for bringing about the expected result. "I can of
mine own self do nothing," says Jesus, in explanation
of the healing of the impotent man (John v. 30) ;
" The Son can do nothing of Himself, but what He
seeth the Father do" (v. 19). The almighty power
of Jesus rests upon His inability, on purely moral
grounds, to do anything of Himself, in the same
way that His infallibility rests upon His voluntary

108 BIBLICAL STUDIES.
ignorance, that is, upon His inability to say any
thing that was not derived from God.
His miraculous power is then human as well as
divine ; it is in each case a loan drawn by the
indigence, and at the same time by the trustfulness,
of man from the bounty of God.
Contemplate Him as He heals the deaf and dumb
man. He puts His fingers into his ears ; by this
clearly indicating that the miraculous power about
to be put in action will be an emanation from
His person. But on the other hand, He first raises
His eyes to heaven, while uttering a deep sigh ; thus
indicating no less clearly that the power which will
restore to this man the gifts of hearing and of speech,
comes from the region in which the Divine powers
have their dwelling. Listen to His words and His
prayers at the moment when He is calling forth the
dead man from his grave : " I am the resurrection
and the life," He says to the sister of the dead man,
— so making her understand in how close a relation
the great work He is about to accomplish stands to
His person; but on the other hand: "Father, I
know that Thou hearest me always," is His ex
clamation before all the people. By this He bears
witness no less clearly to the Divine omnipotence
which is willing to lend Him its sceptre every
time He asks for it.
So it is with all the miracles of Jesus. They are at
once human and divine; divine in respect of their

JESUS CHRIST. IC9

primary cause, human in respect of the agent to
whom it pleases God to entrust His power. And
this exercise of the will of God is not arbitrary in
character. Our nature in its wantonness continually
misuses the physical powers and faculties of intelli
gence with which we are endowed. Only reflect
for a moment upon the use we make of the won
derful gift of speech ! This is the reason why God
cannot grant us a share in His power. To what
use should we put it ? — But if there appear upon
earth a being whose will has placed itself undet
the dominion of the Divine holiness and charity, God
will then rejoice in admitting him, as completely as
possible, to fellowship in His power. And thus will
at length be realised man's destiny as it had been
already pictured by the psalmist : " Thou makest
him to have dominion of the works of Thy hands ;
Thou hast put all things into subjection under his
feet." 1 And the appearance of such a human being
will not be a subject for joyful surprise, or a mere
happy accident in the sight of God ; it will be the
fulfilment of His eternal purpose with regard to man.
The function of king, as well as that of prophet and
priest, attaches to the idea of man as God originally
conceived it. It accords with the glorious destinies
of man, that he should become the representative
at once of the power, the wisdom, and the holiness of
God, and should realise in his own person, by means
1 Ps. viii. 6.

BIBLICAL STUDIES.

of this threefold mission, the visible image of God
upon earth.
IV. The Transfiguration. — What will be the ulti
mate issue of a human life which has reached to this
culminating point of perfection ? Will it have to
submit itself, as others do, to the law of decline, of
decrepitude, and of death ? No ; death is, with man,
the wages of sin. But if made one with God, man
would overcome all the powers of decay which
are inherent in the nature of his earthly body. A
royal pathway had been originally opened to him ;
it led, through temptation and moral progress, from
innocence to holiness — this was the first stage of
the journey — then, through a glorious transforma
tion, physical and spiritual, from holiness to glory.1
In this idea we shall find the key to the story of
the transfiguration.
The details of this event are known to all my
readers. But a point which many of them will not
have noticed is the place which it occupies in the
development of the history of Jesus. On the one
hand, this event marks the summit of His public
ministry ; on the other, it is the first step of the
descent which ends in the cross. Read once more
that very remarkable conversation which took place
at Caesarea Philippi, a week before the transfiguration,
1 The transformation of the caterpillar into the butterfly, so
often quoted as an emblem of the resurrection, is so, much
rather, of that glorious transformation of which we are here
speaking.

JESUS CHRIST.

according to our three Synoptics. This is a decisive
moment in the Lord's ministry. On the one hand, in
the energetic profession of faith by Peter, and by His
disciples, He reaps the fruit of the labours to which
He had devoted Himself during the last two years ;
on the other, He enters upon a new work in making
known to them for the first time His approaching
sufferings and His ignominious death.1 This moment,
then, marks the apogee of the public ministry of
Jesus, and, if we may venture to say it, the point of
transition from action to passion.
Jesus had thus reached that point of His existence
when, according to the royal law of which we have
been speaking, He was to raise Himself, by means
of a transformation, out of the ,form 0f existence
which belongs to earth, into the heavenly state.
The transfiguration was the first step in this
glorious ascent. That light which, from His inner
being illumined from above, irradiates His body,
and makes even His very raiment to glister, is the
beginning of His glorification. Those two messen
gers from a higher world, who present themselves
to Him, are ambassadors come to meet Him, and
to introduce Him into the heavenly habitations.
Lastly, that cloud — mysterious emblem of the
Father's presence — is, as it were, the chariot in
which the Holy One and the Just is to ascend
into the world of glory.
1 Matt. xvi. 13 seq. ; Mark viii. 27 seq. ; Luke ix. 18 seq.

BIBLICAL STUDIES.

But what happens now ? The light disappears ;
the heavenly messengers vanish ; the cloud is with
drawn. Jesus remains ; He is seen amongst His
disciples, the same as before ; and soon, as if nothing
had happened, He comes down the mountain with
His disciples, who had been witnesses of this scene.
How are we to explain this conclusion, so different
from that which had seemed so nearly coming to
pass ?
One sentence of the narrative gives us the explana
tion we desire : " And, behold, there talked with Him
Moses and Elias, who spake of the decease (literally,
the issue) which He should accomplish at Jerusalem."
So St. Luke expresses himself. Two opposite modes
of departing this life offered themselves to Him at
that moment. One, that to which He had a right
by virtue of His holiness, and which, so considered,
was in His case the normal issue, — the glorious trans
formation originally appointed for man, when not
separated from God, and of which this transfiguration
itself was the prelude. Jesus had it in His power to
accept this triumphant departure ; and it was right
that God should offer it to Him, for it was the
reward due to His holiness. But in thus re-entering
heaven, Jesus must have entered it alone. The door
must of necessity have closed behind Him. Hu
manity, unreconciled, would have remained on earth,
struggling with the bonds of sin and death until its
entire dissolution. Side by side with this mode -of

JESUS CHRIST. 113

departure, Jesus contemplates another, to be accom
plished at Jerusalem, that city which kills the
prophets, and which would still less spare the
Holy One of God, if He refuses to give way to
its carnal will. This painful end to His Life is the
subject of His conversation with the two great
representatives of the Old Covenant, and is the
one which, as He declares to them, He prefers
and accepts. And they were fitted to understand
this preference by the very contrast between the
departure which Jesus chooses and their own. Had
not one of them expired, as the Rabbis say, from
the embrace of the Eternal? Had not the other
ascended in a chariot of fire? Jesus initiates them
into the victory of perfect charity. He turns His
back upon the arch of triumph which rises before
Him, and resolutely decides in favour of the path
way of shadows which leads to heaven through
the grave. " Love," says the Song of Solomon, " is
stronger than death." The transfiguration proves
that it is stronger than something which is stronger
than death itself; stronger than heaven and the
attraction of heaven for the most heavenly mind.
Jesus had the power to ascend ; He exercises a free
choice, and prefers to descend and take the road
to Jerusalem.
After having fulfilled the task set before the in
nocent man, — that of becoming the holy man, perfect
in all respects, — Jesus, on the point of laying His hand
E

U4 BIBLICAL STUDIES.
on the crown which was the reward due to His
victorious course, turns away from it, because He sees
before Him another task, a final work indispensable
for Him if it was His purpose to ascend, not alone,
but followed by a great company — the rehabilita
tion of fallen humanity.
The transfiguration constitutes therefore the transi
tion to the last series of the essential events in the life
of Jesus. Third Series.
I. The Death. — It is not our business in this place
to paint over again those scenes of sorrow and of
pain which are known to all the world ; nor yet to
enquire into the relation in which this sanguinary
death stands to the salvation of the world; to set
forth this relation will be one of the objects of the
following essay. Our present task is solely to
determine the relation of Jesus to His human family
in that drama of blood which brought His terrestrial
life to so sudden an end.
The Old Testament had spoken of a " Servant of
Jehovah" whose mission should be to expiate the sin
of the world : " The Lord hath laid on Him the
iniquity of us all. . . . He was wounded for our trans
gressions, He was bruised for our iniquities." x From
ancient times the paschal lamb, whose blood had
1 Isa. liii. 5, 6.

JESUS CHRIST. 115

been for Israel in Egypt the means of his deliverance,
had been the symbol of the office of this servant and
victim in one. The brazen serpent, lifted in the
midst of their camp, on the top of a pole, for the
healing of the wounded Israelites, was likewise a
significant emblem of the office which this redeeming
Messiah was one day to fulfil.
Jesus applied to Himself these prophecies and
types ; He saw announced in them the fate which
awaited Him. Accordingly, at the moment when He
was about to go forth to His execution, He said
to His disciples : " For I say unto you, that this that
is written must yet be accomplished in me, And He
was reckoned among the transgressors."1 It was
while facing this supreme task that He cried in agony
at Gethsemane : " Father, if it be possible, let this
cup pass from me." Two sentences which escaped
from His lips shew us clearly the meaning which He
attributed to the end which awaited Him : " The Son
of man came to give His life a ransom for many ; "
and, a little later, when He gave the cup at the
last supper to His disciples : " This is my blood
which is shed for many, for the remission of sins." a
Jesus then evidently felt that in His sufferings and
death He was the representative of sinful humanity ;
His blood shed was in His eyes the expiation offered
to God for the sins of mankind ; the object of His
death was to pay the ransom of His brethren.
1 Luke xxii. 37 j cf. Isa. liii. 12. 2 Matt. xx. 28 ; xxvi. 28.

116 BIBLICAL STUDIES.
In His life He had acted out the task assigned
to the ideal man. In His death He fulfilled that of
fallen man.
Assuredly it was competent only to a man, a true
man, to be in this way the representative before God
of humanity in its guilt. An angel from heaven
could not have fulfilled this mission. To bear the
shame of a family, must one not be a member of it ?
In order that we may feel to the quick a great,
national crime, must we not ourselves belong to the
guilty nation ? Sympathy, carried to the extent of
the miracle of actual solidarity and even self-sub
stitution, presupposes complete community of life.
For a long time past, Jesus had been accustoming
Himself to play the noble part of a bearer of the
burdens of others. Had He not, many a time, as
a child, interceded in tears with God for His younger
brothers and sisters according to the flesh, and even
for His parents, when He saw them yielding to some
temptation ? As a young man, at the age when the
heart begins to open to the noble sentiments of
patriotism, had He not comprehended all Israel in
His sympathy, and many and many a time made the
iniquities of this people, whom He loved so fervently,
the subject of His sorrowing confessions ? Arrived at
man's estate, His pity extends to the whole world ;
all that bears the name of man, in the past, the
present, and the future, finds unconsciously a home of
refuge in the boundless charity of the Son of man.

JESUS CHRIST. 117

He makes Himself, by the irresistible power of His
love, the living centre of humanity in its fallen estate.
He becomes, as it were, the sound and healthy heart
of this diseased body. John the Baptist salutes Him
as such when he calls Him the Lamb of God
taking away the sin of the world. Lastly, He offers
to God, in the name of His brethren, the compen
sation which is due to Him, and in fact renders
homage to that divine right which God Himself
cannot surrender till the conscience of man has at
last brought itself to acknowledge its claims without
reserve. This substitution of Jesus for sinful humanity
implies not only the reality, but also the perfect
holiness, of His human nature. It was only in his
vesture of fine white linen that the high priest could
enter the holy of holies to intercede for the people
He was not permitted to sprinkle the blood of any
but a victim without blemish upon the altar of pro
pitiation. Accordingly, none but a perfectly holy
man could expiate sin, and intercede for the sinner.
In fact, only such an one could feel in his conscience
the hateful character of the sin that had to be washed
out, and estimate aright the greatness of the injury
offered to the Divine majesty by this act of rebellion.
Strange as it may seem, the moral compensation due
to God for the sin of mankind could only be offered
by a being who had not shared in it, and whose
conscience had therefore remained free from the

118 BIBLICAL STUDIES.
kind of pain which affects the man who has allowed
himself to be led astray and blinded by sin. In order
to be able to deplore and condemn sin in the way
in which God judges and condemns it, one must
be personally exempt from it. Man unfallen could
alone offer the compensation due to God from man
fallen. Such was the work accomplished by Jesus on the
Cross, and which could only be accomplished by the
Son of man, — by Him who was at once true man and
perfect man.
II. The Resurrection. The agonised death of Christ
was the revelation in act of the judgment of God
upon the sin of mankind ; His resurrection is the
revelation of the absolution pronounced by God upon
this same sin. Pardon is the taking away of sin
just in the same way as resurrection is the abolition
of death.
If then it is true that in Christ crucified we behold
mankind condemned, it is no less true that in Christ
risen we behold mankind justified. If it is we who
are dead in Him, in our guilt, must it not also be we
who in Him are risen again absolved ? So close is
the interweaving which His love has effected between
our lot and His, that after our death has become His
death on the Cross, His life becomes the principle
of our life in eternity. Jesus risen, then, personifies
humanity rehabilitated. In Him a man, a real man,
after having overcome sin by holiness, and disarmed

JESUS CHRIST. 119

the law by expiation, has overturned the throne of
death which had its foundation in the law of sin.1 A
man had placed the sceptre in the hands of the king
of terrors ; a man also took it from him.2,
III. The Ascension. — Up to the time of the trans
figuration, Jesus had been raising Himself step by
step to the condition of human perfection. After the
transfiguration He devoted Himself altogether to the
rehabilitation of fallen man. This twofold task having
been fulfilled, what will be the crowning point of this
life ? The transfiguration has already foreshadowed
it in act. The heavenly transformation which began
to take effect in Him upon the mountain, resumes its
interrupted course, and consummates itself. Jesus
had refused to enter into His glory before He had
opened to His whole family access into heaven.
That which He had generously denied Himself on
the mount of transfiguration, God restores to Him on
the mount of Olivet. Is it not the supreme law of
the moral world that "he who loseth his life shall
find it"?
Two heavenly messengers — are they the same as at
the transfiguration ? — once more descend to meet
Him. The mysterious cloud reappears, and this time
it opens to receive Him and carry Him out of sight

1 1 Cor. xv. 56, " The sting of death is sin ; and the strength
of sin is the law."
2 1 Cor. xv. 21, " For since by man came death, by ma?i came
also the resurrection of the dead."

BIBLICAL STUDIES.

of His disciples. For the redemption of the world
has been effected, and there is no fear that the door
of heaven, about to open for the Redeemer, will
close again after He has once passed through it. It
remains thenceforth open to all who will accept His
mediation. He consents then now to be raised from holiness to
glory, ana that in order that He may be enabled
from out of the midst of the latter to raise up His
brethren into nearness to Himself.1 This is the
prize of that ascension, so laborious, so heroic, by
which He raised Himself, first and alone, from
mnocence to holiness. The infallibility which He
already possessed is changed into omniscience. 2
Instead of influence exerted at a distance, He is now
endowed with omnipresence.3 The omnipotence which
He used to obtain as a loan, by means of prayer, is
now transformed into omnipotence actually possessed
by Himself.4
But in this glorious transformation of which He is
the subject, He does not at all divest Himself of His
1 John xvii. I, 2, " Glorify Thy Son, that Thy Son also may
glorify Thee : . . . that He should give eternal life to as many as
Thou hast given Him."
2 "Whatsoever ye shall ask ofthe Father, I will do it" (John
xiv. 13).
3 " I am with you alway, even unto the end of the world"
(Matt, xxviii, 20). " Where two or three are gathered together
in my name, there am I in the midst of them " (xviii. 20).
4 "All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth " (Matt.
xxviii. 18).

JESUS CHRIST.

humanity. It is as man that He appears to the dying
Stephen : " I see the Son of man standing at the
right hand of God" (Acts vii. 56). Jesus Himself
had applied by anticipation the title of Son of man
to His personality when glorified : " 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 " (Matt. xxvi. 64).
Here then we see human nature elevated in the
person of its normal representative into the possession
of the Divine life, and become the organ of the
supreme thought and will. Here we see the chasm
between the finite and the infinite bridged over by a
member of our race. If God is love, must not this
have been the concluding step of the ascending
progress He had planned ? A higher aim was not
conceivable ; a conclusion less lofty would have left,
it would seem (and seem after trial) something still
wanting in the development of the Divine love.
We have then a right to conclude by saying : Jesus
was a real man, and this real man was man brought
to perfection. From the cradle to the cross, from the
cross up to the throne, the spectacle of His life extorts
from us the exclamation, of which Pilate himself,
while first uttering it, did not comprehend the full
meaning : " Behold the man ! " — man fulfilling his
normal development ; man sinking under the weight
of the judgment he had brought upon himself by the
fall ; man restored gloriously ; lastly, man exalted to

BIBLICAL STUDIES.

the full height of his destination, as perfidiously anti
cipated by the enemy when he whispered in the ear
of humanity, on its first entry upon its course, that
sentence which expressed the final goal of his history :
"Ye shall be as gods."
How is it possible, we would ask in conclusion,
to admit for a single moment that all these scenes
which we have been considering are mere human
inventions contrived in the service of the idea which
makes of them such a well-connected whole ?
What ! can we believe these pictures, so simple and
so pure, of the childhood and youth of Jesus, these
detailed narratives of the Baptism and Transfigura
tion, of the Passion and Resurrection, to be nothing
more than an artificially composed dramatisation of
that ideal of the perfect man, or of the Son of
mafti, which to our minds stands out from all these
narratives with such perfect clearness and with a
consistency so admirable, and which is nevertheless
so little the result of calculation ! Oh ! what honour
should we be doing to those apostles and first
Christians, who at other times are represented to
us as so narrow and so limited in their views, if
we supposed that they could have themselves con
ceived this idea in its singular elevation, grandeur,
and sublimity, and have illustrated it with so much
naturalness and ability in this series of pictures of
their own invention ! No, the idea, as we conceive

JESUS CHRIST. 123

it in our own minds, was not the mother of the facts,
but their offspring. There exists assuredly a thought
which gave birth to these events, but it is not ours.
It is that of the God who makes history, of Him
who, from all eternity, willed the salvation and the
glory of man. *

II.
THE SON OF GOD.
But by the side of this wonderful collection of facts,
which the idea of the Son of man binds together into
one, we discern in our Gospels a series of features of
quite a different nature, less numerous and less salient
perhaps, when looked at from without, but in reality
still more astonishing. We are speaking of all those
indications in which there comes to light the super
human character of Him who on earth so faithfully
played the part of the Son of man.
And, in the first place, is it possible to contemplate
thoughtfully the person of Jesus, as it is pictured for us
by the pencil of the simple-minded and unambitious
evangelists, without being struck by the absolutely
unique relation in which this Man stood towards God;
during the whole of His existence ? God had found
in the world, before the advent of Christ, some faithful
1 1 Cor. ii. 7, " The wisdom which God ordained before the
world unto our glory."

124 BIBLICAL STUDIES.
servants, some devoted agents of His will. Such were
Abraham, the friend of God ; Moses, who had spoken
with Him as a man speaks with his friend ; Elijah,
who stood before the Eternal, and was consumed with
zeal for His glory. But what a distance was there
between the relation of these men to God, and that of
Jesus to His Father ! Even at twelve years old, when
He presents Himself for the first time in the temple of
God at Jerusalem, He feels Himself at once at home
as in His Father's house. So much is it His home
upon earth, that it is inconceivable to Him that His
parents should even for a moment have sought for
Him elsewhere. His reverence for Jehovah, while
quite as deep as that of the men we have mentioned,
or even more so, is not, like theirs, that of a servant or
of a worshipper only; it is that of a son who both
loves and feels himself beloved.
His trust in God bears alike the character of filial
tenderness and of filial assurance. Abraham has his
days of misgiving ; Moses his moments of bitterness
and even of murmuring ; Elijah his hours of self-will,
in which he withdraws himself from danger, and follows
the guidance of his own heart. When this latter per
forms the greatest of his miracles, the raising of the
widow's son, it is by means of a physical and moral
strain which reveals to us all the greatness of the
effort by which he succeeds in attaining the assurance
of the Divine concurrence in his act. In the case of
Jesus, all is quiet, calm, and natural. When perform-

JESUS CHRIST. 125
ing a much greater miracle than that of Elijah, the
raising of Lazarus, He says, with a peaceful assurance,
"Father, I know that Thou hearest me always."
Later on, when He finds Himself reduced to extremity
by the abandonment of His disciples, His confidence
is not shaken. He feels all the more closely united to
God, and says, " I am not alone, because the Father
is with me."
We have in this a trait entirely unique, which distin
guishes the piety of Jesus from that of every other
man, and His worship from all other worship before
or since. Accordingly, Jesus never combines under
one expression the statement of the relation in which
He Himself stands to the Father, and that of His
disciples to God. He does not say, our Father, our
God. In speaking of Him and of His disciples, He
says, " My Father and your Father ; My God and
your God."1 If, in the Lord's Prayer, He uses the
expression, Our Father, it is after having said : " When
ye pray, say," thus putting the words into the mouth
of the disciples, and not as speaking Himself in that
manner. From these facts of His life we pass to His positive
declarations respecting His person.
Just as He designates God as the Father, in the
strict sense of that word, so He calls Himself the Son,
in a sense no less decided and exclusive. " No man
1 John xx. 17

126 BIBLICAL STUDIES.

knoweth the Son, but the Father; neither knoweth
any man the Father, save the Son, and he to whom
soever the Son will reveal Him."1 " Of that day and
that hour knoweth no man ; no, not the angels which
are in heaven ; neither the Son, but the Father."2 By
that expression He attributes to Himself a relation to
God of a kind that is unique and quite unfathomable
by any created intelligence ; a relation of which the
Divine mystery can only be explained to us men by
the help of a revelation of which He alone is the
author. As God Himself, He has His angels, who
will constitute His escort on the day of His glorious
reappearing.3 And during the whole of the present
economy, the name by which God is to be worshipped
and confessed by the Church, and which is distinctive
of the New Covenant, is that of Father, Son, and Holy
Ghost. This is the formula of the new revelation
which thenceforth complements that of Jehovah, which
had been granted to Moses for Israel.4 To give in
these passages to the word Son the sense of Messiah
is impossible. Let any one try to substitute the latter
word for the former, and he will at once perceive the
absurdity of the asserted synonymousness of the two
expressions. " No man knoweth the Messiah, but the
Father ; neither knoweth any man the Father, save
the Messiah." . . . . " Baptising them in the name of
the Father, of the Messiah, and of the Holy Ghost."
1 Matt. xi. 27 ; Luke x. 22, * Matt. xiii. 41 ; xvi. 27.
* Mark xiii. 32. * Matt, xxviii. iq.

JESUS CHRIST. 127

Such words could have no meaning, unless it had
been agreed upon beforehand to attach to the term
" Messiah " the idea of a Divine being.
Let us add yet one more trait. The people had
saluted Jesus by the title of Son of David. He takes
occasion from this to ask the Pharisees how it comes
to pass that in Ps. ex. David, impelled by the Spirit,
calls that Messiah his Lord, whom the Israelitish
teaching designates as his son. Then He leaves them
under the pressure of this question, which admits but
of one solution, and which invalidates by anticipation
that accusation of blasphemy by which, in the course
of a few days, they would endeavour to justify His
condemnation to death.1
In presence ofthe Jewish monotheism, so jealous of
the incommunicable rights of Jehovah, such a manner
of speaking of Himself, from a Jew so eminent for
piety as Jesus, would be absolutely incomprehensible,
did not the fourth Gospel come to our aid, and give us
the explanation of these extraordinary expressions,
preserved for us by the Synoptists, by clearly re
vealing to us the background of the existence of this
mysterious personage.
On one occasion, the Jews, scandalised by some
expressions of this kind, were on the point of falling
upon Him, when He suddenly casts at them this
declaration, surpassing everything that He had pre
viously said to them, and which, if it were not divinely
1 Matt. xxii. 42, seq.

128 BIBLICAL STUDIES.
true, would be not merely false, but insane : " Before
Abraham was (literally, became), I AM."1 Another time
a great number x>f His disciples, offended by one of
His sayings, forsake Him, and He, as if to carry
paradox to the extreme, even while explaining it,
questions them in these words : " What and if ye shall
see the Son of man ascend up where He was before ? "2
Finally, at the supreme moment, when He is preparing
to mount the Cross, notice the words in which He
prays for Himself and for His disciples : " Father,
glorify Thou me with Thine own self, with the glory
which I had with Thee before the world was 
I will that they also, whom Thou hast given me,
be with me where I am ; that they may behold my
glory, which Thou hast given me : for Thou lovedst
me before the foundation of the world." 3
What means this " glory before the foundation of
the world," which Jesus claims to have restored to
Him ? He tells us Himself: it is that of having been
the object, before all ages, of the Father's love. Before
He came to live here below as man, He had been
enjoying, as Son, in the heavenly life, the riches of
the Father's love, and of the condition of Deity. And
now, arrived at the term of His terrestrial existence,
He claims once more the glory which He had before
possessed. Here we see the mystery, hidden from
human reason, to which He was alluding, when, as is
1 John viii. 58. 2 John vi, 62. 8 John xvii. 5, 24.

JESUS CHRIST. 129"
recorded in the Synoptists, He said : " No man
knoweth the Son, but the Father.
Even in the Old Testament, mention had been
made of an Angel of the Eternal, called also the Angel
of the Presence, the Angel of the Covenant, Adonai whom
ye seek, and respecting whom God had said to Moses :
" My name is in him,"1 an expression which indicates
not a mere angel or messenger, but the depositary of
R knowledge, sufficient for our needs, of the Eternal.
Jesus had in Himself the certain consciousness that
He was that Being. That which He felt to be behind
Him, when He searched into the profoundest depths
of His being, was not, as it is with us, the vacuum of
non-existence, but the plenitude of Divine life. To
Him, birth did not appear as the transition from
nothingness into existence, but the passage from the
fulness of Divine life into the state of dependence
which belongs to man. " I came forth from the
Father, and am come into the world," so He said
when on the point of terminating His earthly career ;
and He added, as if it were the natural consequence,
"Again I leave the world, and go to the Father."2
God is love. Before He created the universe, He
loved. And what was the object of this love, that
never had a beginning ? It could not be anything
external to Himself; otherwise, God would have been
dependent upon something not Himself. He possessed
1 Exod. xxxiii. 14 ; Isa Ltiil. 9 ; Mai. iii. 1 ; Exod. xxiii. 23.
2 John xvi. 28. 9

130 BIBLICAL STUDIES.
then in Himself the object of His love, the Being in
whom is realised everything that His thought conceives
of as true, everything that His heart feels to be
beautiful, everything of good that His will proposes
to itself : His ideal — not such an ideal as is generally
the ideal of man, the object of an ineffectual aspiration,
a mere idea of the imagination — but an ideal such as
that of God should be, the reflection of His own per
fection, as real as Himself; His image in the eternal
mirror of the Spirit, a Person living eternally as He
Himself does, the Son of His love, the expression, the
Lord of His thought.
This is the Person with whom the Son of man felt
Himself to be one and the same Being. We can
understand how, in the consciousness of this identity,
He was able to say, though He was born 750 A.U.C.,
" Before Abraham was, I am." The declarations of
the Synoptists, implying the Divine nature of Jesus,
can none of them be reconciled with the biblical
monotheism, save by means of this supreme revela
tion respecting His Person, which is contained in
the Gospel of John. And if this revelation were not
authentic, if the Son of man depicted by the Synop
tists were not really the Son of God in the sense
declared by John, the New Testament would contra
dict the Old.
It may be asked by what means Jesus arrived at
the apprehension of the mystery contained in His
Person. M. Renan, starting from the idea that this

JESUS CHRIST. 131

was nothing but an illusion on the part of Jesus,
supposes that He worked Himself up to this con
ception by degrees ; that He began by persuading
Himself that He was called to play the part of the
Messiah ; then little by little, drawn on, Himself, by
the enthusiasm of which He perceived Himself to be
the object in those about Him, He came to imagine
Himself to be a Divine apparition 
This explanation is not only contrary to all that
the moral purity of Jesus allows us to suppose — His
humility, His gentleness, His charity, perfect till
the end — but it conflicts also with a positive fact,
asserted, without the least appearance of intention
or collusion, by all our documents. Jesus did not
arrive at the consciousness that He was the Son of
God through any intermediate stage of consciousness
of being the Israelitish Messiah. On the contrary,
He recognised Himself as the Messiah, because He
had the feeling of Sonship towards God. Now if He
was Son, He alone could be the King of Israel and
the Sovereign of the world.
At the age of twelve years, when He finds Himself
in the temple, it is not a conviction, more or less of
the intellect, of His Messianic dignity which expresses
itself in Him ; it is the purely religious consciousness
of the unique relation in which He stands to God
as a Son : " Wist ye not that I must be about my
Father's business ? " This expression, My Father
does not imply the existence as yet in the mind of

132 BIBLICAL STUDIES.

the child of any definite dogma ; it is a moral rela
tionship to which He is referring. It is not in the
region of theological science that His thoughts are
moving, but in that of instinctive feeling ; and that is
just the reason why this declaration is of a nature to
fill us with admiration, and to inspire us with absolute
confidence in the child who thus speaks.
At the moment of His baptism, the revelation
which He receives from the Father does not take
the form of the assertion, "Thou art the promised
Messiah," as would infallibly have been the case had
the young enthusiast of Nazareth been the dupe of
a generous patriotism. God reveals Himself to Him
as His Father : "Thou art my beloved Son, in whom
I am well pleased." Here again we discern a fact of
the inner life, by which Jesus is made conscious of
that relation of love which binds Him to Him who
thus speaks to Him, — not by any means an intellectual
conviction of the part which He is called to play
with reference to His nation, upon the stage of the
world. It is true that the conviction of His Messianic
calling was the result of the experience He had just
had of His special relationship to God. But this
latter wastheprimary and fundamental fact in the
development of His personal consciousness.
If we study the first Messianic act of Jesus, we are
led to the same result. When, in John ii., Jesus
drives the buyers and sellers out of the temple, the
feeling which impels Him to this holy act is not

JESUS CHRIST. 133

the consciousness of the Messianic part He has to
play, — it is His feeling of Sonship. His filial heart
had been wounded by the sight of His Father's house
thus profaned : " Make not My Fathers house a
house of merchandise," He exclaims. This is not the
way in which He would have expressed Himself, had
the Messianic sentiment been the one at that moment
dominant in His mind.
Accordingly, those about Him, having begun, as
it was inevitable they should, by believing in Him
as the Messiah, rise at once to a higher intuition.
Nathanael confesses his newly formed faith, in these
words : " Rabbi, Thou art the Son of God, Thou art
the King of Israel." The feeling of a mysterious
relationship between God and this personage who has
just seen through him, as by a flash of omniscience,
at once gains the predominance in his mind over the
conviction of His Messianic character; and this lattei
takes but a secondary place in his enthusiastic
address. This fact so well established is one of primary
importance. It proves that the consciousness which
Jesus had of His Divine nature was not a result to
which He had worked Himself up gradually, by a
factitious and merely human process. This con
sciousness existed in Him in an elementary state
even from His infancy. Made more certain and
absolutely clear to Him by the revelation which
He received at His baptism, it formed from the

134 BIBLICAL STUDIES.
first the basis of His public ministry. It was the
feeling of this unique relationship which raised Him
above all the narrownesses and all the ambitions
of the false Jewish Messianism, and which im
pressed upon His work that exclusively religious
and moral character, of which no alloy of any
political element ever succeeded in impairing the
purity. His consciousness of Sonship was not
therefore, as M. Renan asserts, the last stage of a
growing infatuation about Himself, of which that of
His Messiahship had been the starting-point ; on
the contrary, His consciousness of His Messiahship
was from the first involved in that of Sonship, as the
corollary is implied in the principle ; and as to the
latter, it emanated directly from His personal contact
with God. Thus it contains its guarantee in itself,
as well as in the perfect holiness of Him who has
testified to this fact of His inner life.

III.
THE GOD-MAN.
Up to this point we have been keeping within the
province of faith, and have not crossed the borders of
the domain of theology. We have ascertained and
co-ordinated the facts contained in our Scriptures and
the declarations of Jesus respecting His own person ;
but whilst doing so we have discovered the existence

JESUS CHRIST. 135

of two classes of facts which seem to lead us to oppo
site conclusions.
If Jesus Christ is a being of Divine nature, how can
He be at the same time the ideal man which implies
that He is true man ? And if He is truly man, how
can He be of Pivine origin and essence ?
A clever woman once said : " God has given us the
materials to form a certain arc, and we want to make
a complete circle out of them." In other words : God
has thought fit to put before us, in His revelation,
certain facts which seem to be contradictory ; and we
presume, unjustifiably, to attempt to harmonise them.
But is this attempt blameworthy? I do not think so.
Only it is important to understand that, in under
taking this task, we are passing out of the province
of Faith into that of Theology. Faith realises the
facts of revelation ; she feeds herself upon them, she
draws her life from them, without seeking to discover
in what way they are reconcilable with each other
intellectually. Science endeavours to establish this
harmony by the help of the hypotheses which are
suggested to her by an earnest study of the facts.
And, to use a figure more accurate perhaps than the
one we have just quoted, she endeavours to construct
the arch of the bridge upon the two pillars which
Faith has provided for her.
In the particular case we are considering, the two
facts which Faith receives from revelation, and hands
over to be elaborated by Science, are the true

136 BIBLICAL STUDIES.
humanity and the true divinity of Jesus Christ ; and
the object of the labours of Science, of which the
result neither confirms nor in any way invalidates the
two facts which have been gained by Faith, will be to
shew that there is no contradiction between these two
fundamental data, but, on the contrary, that there
exists between them a profound harmony. Only, it
is important to bear in mind that these attempts at a
solution of the difficulty do not any longer belong to
the province of Faith, but to that of Theology. This
is a point we beg the reader to consider well while
reading the following pages.
Man ! God ! What an impassable gulf at first sight
separates these two expressions ! But here it is
proper we should call to mind two great principles of
the monotheism of the Bible. The first is the absolute
freedom of God. God is not, like a created being,
dominated by a nature imposed upon Him from
without, and in accordance with which He is com
pelled continually to make His caculations. " I am
that I am," said Jehovah to Moses ; that is to say,
in every instant I am that which it pleases me to
be. The second principle is the absolute perfectibility
of man. Man was made in the image of God. He
is not therefore condemned, like the lower animals,
to move incessantly in the same circle. His pro-
gressivity, if I may use the word, has no limit but
that of the absolute good to which he aspires. The
emblem of human life is a spiral, not a circle.

JESUS CHRIST. 137'

Once admit these two principles, and the problem
which now faces us will appear no longer insoluble.
It contains two questions : 1. How a Divine being
— the Son — could, without ceasing to be God, make
Himself man, and live as man ? 2. How the son of
man could, without ceasing to be man, be raised to
the perfection of the state of Deity ?
To the former question the first of the two prin
ciples we have laid down gives the answer. If God
be absolutely free, He is not indissolubly tied to the
condition of Deity. Where is the rich man who has
not the right, if he think fit to do so, to make himself
poor, and to live like a poor man? or where the king
who, if he be really free, has not the power to lay
down his crown, and make himself a simple citizen ?
This is the expression of St. Paul : " Ye know the
grace of our Lord Jesus Christ, that though He was
rich, yet for your sakes He became poor, that ye
through His poverty might be rich." His riches con
sisted in the glory of the condition of Deity, His
poverty in the state of dependence which is proper to
humanity. He exchanged the former for the latter,
because so alone could we be raised from out of the
latter into the former. Would His divinity have
been true riches to Him, if, when His love urged Him
to strip Himself of it, in order that He might associate
us with Himself in it, He had been indissolubly
bound to that mode of existence, and had no
power to adopt that which His love impelled Him to

138 BIBLICAL STUDIES.
assume ? Had that been so, the very freedom of the
condition of Deity would have become in His case a
chain, an intolerable slavery. He would not have
been that which He wished to be, had He not been
able to clothe Himself in our humanity.
The idea of this putting off of the condition of
Deity, and entering upon that of humanity, is
expressed by St. Paul still more clearly in another
passage (Phil. ii. 6 — 8) : " Who, being in the form of
God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God ;
but made Himself of no reputation, and took upon
Him the form of a servant, and was made in the
likeness of men." St. John also expresses in his own
way these two acts of un-clothing and re-clothing,
when he says, " The Word was made flesh."
He had been in possession of the Divine om
nipotence, and He enters upon a form of existence
in which, instead of commanding and bestowing
gifts, He has to receive, to ask, to obey; and it is
only at the last moment of this new stage of ex
istence that He announces, as an event of recent
occurrence, this fact : " All power is given unto me
in heaven and in earth."
He had been a sharer in the Divine omniscience,
and He accepts a condition in which He has cease
lessly to ask, constantly to learn, often to remain in
ignorance, as when He says : " Of that day and
hour knoweth no man, no, not the angels which
are in heaven, neither the Son."

JESUS CHRIST. 139

He had been filling all things, sharing in the
omnipotence of God Himself, and He confines
Himself within a human body, so localised that it
could be said of Him : " If Thou hadst been here"
such a thing would not have happened.
In Him there had been abiding the immutable
holiness, and He accepted a state of being of which
one of the fundamental laws is liberty of choice,
the possibility of undergoing real temptation, and
consequently the power to sin.
He had been loving with all the force of a per
fect, infinite love, and this kind of love He exchanges
for one which implies progress both in respect of
intensity and of comprehension.
He knew Himself as the Son, with that knowledge
with which the Father Himself knows Him eternally,
and — this is that putting off upon which all those we
have already mentioned depend — this consciousness
of Sonship, which was the light of His life, He
allowed to be extinguished within Him, to retain
only His inalienable personality ; the individual life
endued with freedom and intelligence as all human
individuality is endued ; for our personality is made
in the image of His. By means of this humiliation
He was enabled to enter into a course of human
development similar in all respects to our own.
Here we see the prodigy of love which is realised in
the life of Christ, and revealed to us by His word. If
this miracle is not possible, God is not free, and His

140 BIBLICAL STUDIES.
love has limitations imposed upon it. By what
mysterious principle ? I know not. It is for those
who deny the possibility of the incarnation to teach
it us. The second problem, that of the elevation of the
Son of man to the condition of deity without any
infringement upon His humanity, finds its solution, if
we are not mistaken, in that other principle with
which the theism of the Bible has supplied us; the
perfectibility of man even up to the point of absolute
goodness, in virtue of the image of God which is
imprinted upon his nature.
The very moment of the humiliation, that is, the
incarnation, was for Jesus the starting-point of the
exaltation. In proportion as He develops as a
child, there forms itself between God and Him a
relation of a most intimate and tender nature, to
which we sometimes see something faintly analogous
in our children. This relation issues in the spontaneous
creation of the expression, My Father, which Jesus
utters for the first time at the age of twelve years,
and which is a subject of surprise even to His mother.
In proportion as He continues to grow in submission
to His parents, in devotion to His brethren, in col-
lectedness in prayer, and under the illumination of
the Scriptures, He becomes more and more conscious,
by the contrast between His own moral and religious
state and the sin of which He realises, with sorrow,
the existence in all, even the best of those around

JESUS CHRIST. 141

Him, that His position in human life is an excep
tional one. The peculiar character of His personality
becomes to Him a great theoretical and practical
problem. Who am I, and what is my work here
below ? As the only sound member of a sick
family, must I not be called to be its physician ?
The answer to this presentiment is given to Him at
His baptism : " Thou art my Son ! I have given Thee
to the world, that Thou mightest save it." From this
moment Jesus recognises Himself as the manifest
ation in human nature of the Being who is the
eternal object of the Father's love, and as having the
mission committed to Him of giving life to mankind.
This revelation makes, however, no change in His real
condition. It is to Him a fact of consciousness, and
only that. He remains none the less confined within
all the obligations and infirmities of earthly existence.
In the wilderness, Satan's effort is precisely this, to
induce Him to turn aside out of the right path by
making Him feel painfully the contrast between
His outward condition and the consciousness of His
dignity as a Son which He had lately gained : "If
Thou be the Son of God, make bread of these
stones. . . . If Thou be the Son, cast Thyself down."
He is to raise His position to the level of His
nature, and thus to nullify the act of His incar
nation at the very moment at which He has become
conscious of it. The meaning of the refusal of
Jesus to act upon this perfidious suggestion is : I

142 BIBLICAL STUDIES.
may indeed know what I am by right ; none the less
do I remain what I am in fact, till it pleases God
Himself to lift the fact to the level of the right. The
incarnation became therefore more than ever a per
manent and free act on the part of the Son of man,
from the moment at which He became conscious
who He was.
Jesus even found, from that moment, in the re
cognition of His personal greatness, a motive for
humbling Himself still more profoundly than He had
hitherto done. Those words of John (xiii. 3 — 5) —
"Jesus knowing that the Father had given all things
into His hands, and that He was come from God,
and went to God; He riseth from supper, and laid
aside His garments, and took a towel, and girded
Himself, and began to wash the disciples' feet" —
express the feeling which dictated His actions
through the whole of His ministry. The greater
He knows Himself to be, the more does He un
derstand that it is His proper work to set an
example of the deepest self-humiliation, that so
He may draw all that are His, without the possi
bility of any exception, into the practice of that
self-sacrificing love which is the essence of the
kingdom He is come to found.
Each one of His acts of obedience and of charity is
a step towards a still deeper submission, towards a
still more absolute self-sacrifice. He empties Himself
now as man, as He had before done as God. And

JESUS CHRIST. 143

having reached the end of His course, instead of
pleading His righteousness as a ground on which to
claim the reward which is due to Him — the end of
the just — He takes upon Himself the punishment of
sinners. He had, by His incarnation, abandoned His
life as God ; He surrenders to death His life as man.
The second of these sacrifices is the complement of
the first. Then did He reach the bottom of the
pit which He had begun digging under His feet when
He made Himself man.
Accordingly it is at this moment that there com
pletes itself, with reference to His outward condition,
an exaltation corresponding to that effected in His
consciousness at His baptism. Taken into the arms
of His Father, He had felt Himself a Son ; from this
moment He becomes so once more as regards the
conditions of His existence ; first, by His resurrection,
which answers to His death, and which restores to
Him in a glorified form the human life which He had
freely sacrificed ; secondly, by the ascension, which
answers to the incarnation, and by means of which
He recovers the condition of Deity which He had no
less voluntarily surrendered. But do not let us forget
that He regains this condition without thereby re
nouncing His human existence. Thenceforth it is as
Son of man that He possesses as His own the life of
Son of God. How is this possible ? Can the Divine
glory inhabit the forms of human existence without
bursting them in every direction? "All the fulness

144 BIBLICAL STUDIES.

of the Godhead dwelleth in Him BODILY," is the
answer of St. Paul, who had beheld the Lord in His
glorified state first on the way to Damascus, and
afterwards in the third heaven to which he was caught
up, whether in the body or out of the body he himself
could not tell.
Why should not that human nature, which was
created in the image of God, have been destined
from the first to become the free organ of the life of
God, the agent of His omnipotence, the instrument of
the sovereign activities of His love ? The God-man
would in that case be no other than the true man,
such, that is, as God had conceived and willed Him to
be from eternity. Is not that the meaning of that
marvellous saying of St. Paul: "Those whom He
foreknew [as His own through faith], He also did
predestinate to be conformed to the image of His
Son, that He might be the firstborn among many
brethren."1 Would not the mystery of the double
nature, human and divine, of Jesus be in this way
solved ? What contradiction is there between the
divinity and the humanity of Jesus Christ, when once
it is an established fact that the man whom God
had in view from the beginning — the ideal man — was
the God-man ?
Will it be asked still what is the share which the
fact tf the fall has had in the execution of this divine
plan? Most certainly it did not determine its
1 Rom. viii. 29.

JESUS CHRIST. 14?

purpose. It can never be allowable, from a truly
Christian point of view, to glorify sin, exclaiming as
St. Augustine does, when speaking of the disobedience
ofthe first man : "Blessed fault !" God has assuredly
not done more for man fallen than He would have
done for man in the state of obedience. He has only
dealt with him in a different way. Perhaps for
unfallen man the dew of the Spirit shed upon him
would have sufficed, — a Pentecost, to make him
expand into that perfect holiness which is the ne
cessary condition of the state of glory. Or, if the
participation of the Son of God in our nature had
been, even in that case, the means appointed by the
will of God to bring about our exaltation into the
Divine condition, this incarnation would certainly not
have assumed the painful character of a redemption ;
it would have been an incomparable festal celebration
— the marriage between God and mankind.
Sin exercised an influence, not upon the result, but
upon the manner of reaching that result. Fallen
humanity lay helpless and paralysed, incapable of
raising itself by its own power, or of finishing the
course upon which it had entered towards its sublime
destination. The Son of God beheld it in this its
state of misery. He took into Himself that nature,
divinely created, which sin had so profoundly vitiated.
He restored it from its foundations ; He acted upon
it in conformity with all the laws of its being ; He
exhibited in His own person the development of which,
io

146 BIBLICAL STUDIES.
it was capable, and for which it was destined. He
consummated in His own life the complete con
secration of the life of man ; and in His death the
expiation of its rebellion. Then, taking possession of
that state to which it had been destined, He works ia
those that are His, by means of a daily Pentecost
poured upon them from the heights of heaven, that
miracle of sanctification which He had first consum
mated in Himself, and thus prepares them for their
exaltation into that position which He Himself
occupies in glory.
God altogether in One, and through that One at
last altogether in all; such are the means — such
the end to be attained. This latter is eternal ; the
former had to be conformed to. the conditions re
sulting from the fluctuations incident to man's
freedom. If once we admit the absolute perfectibility of man,
and the sovereign freedom of God, I do not see any
further obstacle in the way of this conception of the
person of Christ, except the difficulty of compre
hending a love which surpasses all that our poor
hearts can imagine and lay hold of. But, as St.
John says, " God is greater than our heart."
We hear, in our day, some who think themselves
wise, crying, as from the housetop : "We are sons of
God ! Jesus, in telling us what He Himself is, has
but told us what we all are." Sons of God . . . ? We
are not such yet ; we have to become so. Or. if we

JESUS CHtttST, 147

are such now, it is only in respect of our destiny. We
must become so in reality through Him alone, who,
having first run the glorious race Himself, afterwards
endues us with His might to run it after Him. That
Son, who from all eternity had been acting out, with
reference to the Father, a life perfectly filial, came to
imprint this same filial character upon our human
life, and thus to raise us from the rank of servants
into that of children. It is for us to accept this new
impress with which His Spirit would seal us. And
will that be difficult for us, if we ponder well the fact
that His intention is no less than to make of each ot
us a second Himself, a representative of that highest
type of being, the God-man ?
With such a destiny before us, it is worth while to
live, to wrestle, to suffer, to die, as men. Let our life
be even a via dolorosa, passing through a Gethsemane
and a Golgotha, still what matters it if its end is a
Mount Olivet and an Ascension 1

THE WORK OF JESUS CHRIST.
\\ 7"E have followed Jesus through His life on
* * earth. Accompanying Him thus step by
step, we have recognised in Him a real man, but at
the same time a man answering perfectly to the
Divine intention ; and in this complete man we have
recognised the apparition upon earth of a Divine
Being, the Eternal Son, who came to exhibit the
actual fulfilment by Himself, in our human nature,
of the task which no other man had hitherto fulfilled,
or would hereafter fulfil, and who has at last in His
own Person brought our humanity up to the highest
point of its sublime destination.
This study of the person of Christ comprehends
in itself already in some measure that of His work ;
for, like sin, salvation is a fact, not an idea. And this
fact is the actual life of the Saviour. It would be
impossible, therefore, to analyse the life of Jesus
without in some degree studying His work.
Nevertheless, we may also consider by itself the
influence which the very fact ofthe appearing of Jesus
en the earth was destined to exercise, and, if I may

THE WORK OF JESUS CHRIST. 149
so say, the fertile furrow which His passage through
it was to trace upon the field of human life.
The work of Jesus in the world is twofold : 1. It is
a work accomplished for us, destined to effect recon
ciliation between God and man. 2. It is a work
accomplished in us, with the object of effecting our
sanctification. By the one, a right relation is established
between God and us ; the other is the fruit of this
re-established order. By the former, the condemned
sinner is received into the state of grace ; by the
latter, the pardoned sinner is associated with the life
of God.
The distinction which we draw between these two
kinds of work done by Christ does not at all prevent
the existence of the closest connection between them,
in such a manner that the former may be truly called
the treasury out of which the latter draws all its
riches ; and the latter, the intended effect, without
which the former fails of its purpose.
The combination of the two constitutes salvation in
its plenitude, as the necessary condition of glory.

I.
THE WORK OF CHRIST FOR US.
To speak of reconciliation presupposes a previous
hostility. Can there exist hostility between God and
man ? Many will answer, Yes, but only on the side

150 BIBLICAL STUDIES.
of man. As soon as man has sinned, he becomes
afraid of God ; he flees from Him ; up to a certain
point he hates Him. He would prefer that his Judge
did not exist.
And, in fact, the history of all religions, ancient
and modern, outside those which have had their
origin upon the soil of revelation, proves that the
sentiment which has contributed above all others to
give them birth is that of fear. That was the case
even among the Greeks, the race who attained to the
purest intuition of God. The Greek word for the
worship of the gods signifies, literally, the fear of
superior beings} Not only is it the fact that Paganism
has never since those ancient ages raised itself above
this sentiment of fear in relation to the Deity, but it
has sunk continually deeper down into it, so that the
multiplied forms of worship which we see before us
in our day amongst the heathen are, for the most
part, inspired only by terror. The aim which they
propose to themselves is to propitiate a powerful but
malevolent being, from whom they think they have
nothing but evil to expect. And missionaries are
certainly not wrong when they call the religion of
the idolaters of our day a worship of the devil. The
being who fills the imagination of the worshipper is a
wicked being, an object of terror, of whom he endea
vours to gain the favour, or to mitigate the anger, by
the most extravagant and often cruel ceremonies.
' Deisidaimonia.

THE WORK OF JESUS CHRIST. 151

How infinitely he would prefer, had he the power, to
be rid of him altogether !
And yet it would be to extenuate strangely the
gravity of the state of things which sin has intro
duced into the relations between God and man, were
we to ascribe the hostility, which is its characteristic,
to one only of the two parties. Scripture does not
regard the matter from this superficial point of view.
As it knows the love of God better than man can do,
so does it speak in express terms of His hatred and
of His anger.
When Samuel, recalled from Scheol, appears before
Saul, he says to him : " Wherefore then dost thou
ask of me, seeing that the Lord is departed from thee,
and is become thine enemy ? " x This expression,
thine enemy, cannot mean here the object of thy
hatred ; it can only signify the enmity of God to the
rejected king.
In Romans xi., St. Paul, endeavouring to explain
the temporary rejection of the Jewish people, says to
the Gentile Christians (ver. 28) : " As concerning the
gospel, they are enemies for your sake ; but as touch
ing the election, they are beloved for the fathers'
sakes." The word enemy, opposed as it is here to
beloved, or well-beloved, can only be taken in the
sense of haired. In consequence of their rejection of
the gospel, the Jews are themselves rejected, and
become objects of the enmity of God. But in con-
1 1 Sam. xxviii. 16.

*52 BIBLICAL STUDIES.
sequence of the election of the patriarchs, which
extends to their descendants, they are none the less
objects of His love ; and the hour of reconciliation
will at last sound for them.
Lastly, when Paul, addressing himself directly to
believers, writes to them, in chap. v. of the same
epistle, verse 10, " For if, when we were enemies, we
were reconciled to God by the death of His Son, much
more, being reconciled, we shall be saved by His life,"
it is impossible to doubt that the word enemies means
objects of the enmity of God, since, in the proposi
tion which immediately precedes, mention is made of
the wrath of God, from which we have been saved by
the blood of Christ.
This idea of the wrath of God appears frequently
in Holy Scripture.1 We must, of course, separate
from the idea of wrath, when we apply it to God, all
the defilements which ordinarily attach to this senti
ment in human beings. It is moral indignation in all
its purity, the holy antipathy of the Good Being for
that which is evil, without the slightest alloy of per
sonal irritation, or of selfish resentment. It is the
dissatisfaction which is excited in a pure being by the
sight of impurity ; it signifies the outward manifesta
tions which testify to this deep dissatisfaction, and the
sufferings which resultfrom it to him who has provoked
it. The wrath of God, so understood, is a necessary
consequence of the profound difference which separates
1 C£ Rom. i. 1 8, ii. 5 ; Eph. ii. 3, etc

THE WORK OF JESUS CHRIST. 153
good from evil. To deny this would oblige us to
consider evil not as the opposite, but simply an
imperfect form, of good.
There are, I know, many who would not object to
adopt as their own this idea of wrath existing in God,
if we were content to apply it to sin in itself, but not to
the person of the sinner. One often hears expressions
such as these : God hates evil, but He ever loves the
sinner. This latter remains still an object of mercy
and pity to Him, even at the very time when his
conduct falls under Divine reprobation. We cannot
accept this distinction without reserve. In the pas
sages quoted, it is the persons themselves, not their
works only, that are designated as the objects of the
enmity of God. Doubtless one of these passages
(Rom. xi. 28) proves that the same man may be at
once hated and beloved of God ; hated in so far as
he is a sinner, loved in so far as he is capable of
salvation. But this simultaneousness of opposite
sentiments in God can only be temporary. It is
necessarily the state of transition into a fixed and
definitive condition. Man is will — in that consists
the essence of personality ; and will cannot oscillate
vaguely between good and evil. The end must be
that it decides absolutely in favour of the one or
the other. The relation between God and each
man must also, therefore, at last reach a state
of absolute simplicity. If the individual man frees
himself from the power of evil, all enmity will cease.

154 BIBLICAL STUDIES.
If he gives himself up completely to the spirit of
rebellion, hostility will prevail more and more over
love, in God. And let not God's immutability be
here objected to us; for it would be precisely an in
stance of mutability in God, if, while man changed,
. God did not also change with regard to him. This
progress of man in one direction or in the other is a
free act on his part ; but it involves his doom. In the
end the individual finds himself identified with the
principle to which he has surrendered himself, and
God can no longer separate them. It is either the
state of changeless salvation, or of absolute damna
tion — the two opposite poles of the moral world,
towards the one or the other of which, as all experi
ence proves, all free beings are ceaselessly gravitating.
It follows from this that the relation of hostility
in which God stands towards the sinner, although
gradual in its development, is a reality, and may end
in a state of absolute fixity. And it is this which
gives to the scriptural idea of reconciliation a charac
ter of such seriousness and solemnity.
Reconciliation is the fact which puts an end to this
double hostility, and which introduces a state of
things in which God can take pleasure in man as a
being who answers to His intention, and man can
rejoice in God as a master who no longer opposes
Himself to his happiness. What is the nature of the
act which can serve for the foundation of so decisive a
change in man's future ? It seems at first sight that

THE WORK OF JESUS CHRIST. 155
it could only be the re-establishment of holiness in
man's life. As it was sin which drew down upon us
the Divine displeasure, would it not be naturally the
opposite of sin — its destruction — which would restore
to man the Divine favour ?
The Bible does, in fact, recognise a reconciliation
between God and man, effected by the re-establishment
of holiness in the latter. Thus, in Rom. v. 9, 10,
St. Paul speaks of a salvation which will be the conse
quence of the life of Christ realised in man. But, on
the other hand, the Bible knows man too well, and his
powerlessness by nature, to make a salvation of which
holiness is the condition, the first step in his resto
ration. The reign of holiness within us can only
be the fruit of internal communications from God.
"There is none good but one," said Jesus : the creature
can only be good through communion with Him, the
Alone Good. Now it is precisely this bond of union
with God which sin has broken. It must be re-knit
by means of reconciliation, in order that holiness, the
fruit of this union, may become once more possible to
tis. There is then, certainly, such a thing as a recon
ciliation which rests upon the fact of a reign of holiness
established within us. But it is not with one of that
kind that we are now concerned, but with that initial
and preliminary reconciliation which precedes sancti
fication, and which can alone make it possible. The
former is the transition from the state of grace to the
state of glory, from the economy of faith to that of

(56 BIBLICAL STUDIES.

sight ; the latter, which comes first in point of time,
constitutes the transition from the state of condemna
tion into the state of grace, from the life of sin into
the life of faith.
What are the conditions of reconciliation, taking
the word in the latter sense which is its usual accep
tation in Scripture ? It is absolutely necessary, on
the one hand, that God should be enabled to regard
the sinner without feeling towards him that repro
bation which is called forth in Him by the sight
of sin ; and on the other hand, that sinful man should
be enabled to see in God the judge oi sin, without at
the same time feeling himself the object of His dis
pleasure and of His condemnation. By what means
can this double result be reached — without which there
can be no reconciliation ?
There is but one means — one only means — namely,
that some man should make his appearance who shall
accomplish these two tasks : — I. that of carrying
through to its completion, without ever stepping aside
from it, that course of normal development to which
mankind was called, and to bring human life, in His
own person, up to the state which had been appointed
for it by God ; 2. that of repairing the evil brought in
by our fall.
This is, in fact, what has been effected by Jesus
Christ ; this is His work for us. On the one hand,
He has consummated that development of humanity
which had been left incomplete through the fault of

THE WORK OF JESUS CHRIST. 157
the first man ; on the other, He has rehabilitated
fallen humanity, and has replaced it on the road on
which it has thenceforth the power to realise the
destiny assigned to it. Upon these two bases recon
ciliation is possible between God and us
1. Man, as created by God, was good, not in the
sense that he was perfect, but that he had all that
was needful for becoming so. It was goodness at its
starting-point, not at its goal. Moral perfection can
only be the fruit of freedom, the result of a series of
decisions, perfectly voluntary, in the direction of that
which is right. Man was therefore called to co-operate,
himself, in the realisation of his moral destiny ; that
was the reason why he was created innocent, but not
holy. Immediately after his appearance upon earth, that
work began, by means of which he was to attain from
his original state to that higher one for which he had
been created. The task assigned to him was to trans
form the life of nature into the spiritual life, and that
by means of the free sacrifice of the former, which was to
be effected by constantly submitting to the successive
manifestations of the Divine will. We know — and
the condition of every man who comes into the world
proves it — that man succumbed at the very beginning
of the struggle, and that his moral life was vitiated by
this fault even in its very germinating principle. We
are all born as so many individual manifestations of
this marred primordial human life, and the course of

158 BIBLICAL STUDIES.
our development differs more or less in us all from the
normal course of things.
What had He to do, to whom was assigned the task
of restoring to us the favour of God ? He must take
up the thread of the normal development of humanity
at the point where it had been broken through; re
commence the moral labour which was to conduct
man from innocence to holiness ; go through that
series of acts of obedience, of which each one was a
sacrifice of the natural life ; attain to that higher sphere
of existence which Scripture calls the spiritual life, and
thus sanctify the different spheres of human activity.
It is this that Jesus has done. We have perceived
it while following, in the preceding essay, the course of
His life as it is pictured for us in the gospel records.
He realised in Himself the humanity which was to be,
and accomplished, towards God and towards men, that
pure and complete sacrifice of self which every one
admires as that which is most perfect, and in which
we see that absolute satisfaction has been given to
the demands of morality.
It is just to such a life that the fine expression of
St. Paul applies, borrowed from the imagery of the
Levitical worship, "a sacrifice for a sweet-smelling
savour." J At the sight of this, God, if He is indeed a
moral Being, that is to say, one capable of feeling
love and joy, must have been satisfied; for satisfaction
had at last been offered in this life to His eternal will
' Eph. v. 2.

THE WORK OF JESUS CHRIST. 159
Henceforth the human race stands before Him em
bodied in a perfect example which is to become the
originating spring of a humanity renewed after the
image of this prototype.
To be united to this Second Adam, to be endued,
if only in purpose, with His type of moral life, is
itself, in the sight of God, to reproduce it ; it is to
have already accomplished the task ; it is to possess
righteousness, and, as St. Paul expresses it, "to be
accepted in the Beloved." x
II. Christ has not only consummated a humanity
which had been arrested in its development— He has
rehabilitated a humanity which had fallen. This is
the second part of the task which He has accomplished
for us, and by means of which He has effected our
reconciliation. But it is the most painful part of
His task, and the most difficult also for our intelli
gence to fathom ; the obscurity which envelopes sin
and all its results wraps it in its shadow.
There exists in God one perfection which is not much
in favour in our day in popular opinion, — that is, justice.
According to the received definition of the word, this
attribute consists in dealing with all men according
to their works. How can we eliminate it from the
Divine character ? Would God still be God, if He
were not just ? He, the creator of freedom and of
moral responsibility — would He be faithful to Him
self, if, after having laid down these great principles of
1 Eph. i. 4—6.

j6o BIBLICAL STUDIES.
all morality in the nature and conscience of man, He
did not do homage to them by judging man according
to these rules which He had Himself established ?
Right consists in the existence of such order among
all beings as results from their very nature. Divine
justice is the guardian of this order, and consequently
the guarantee of the existence of right in the universe.
It preserves order by means of punishment, when it
has been disturbed by the wanton acts of wilfulness
of free beings. Punishment may be defined as order
preserved in the midst of disorder, without infringe
ment upon freedom.
Suffering is the form which punishment takes.
This it is which brings the creature to the conscious
ness of evil as evil. Evil felt is for him a revelation
of evil done. In the physical sphere, what would
become of man if he were able to burn one of his
members without feeling pain in doing so ? His life
would be in danger every moment, without his being
in the least conscious of it. It is the same in morals.
Man must not have the power of sinning without
receiving a warning through some internal or external
suffering, that his soul has transgressed order, and is
incurring danger.
But if the sinner dares directly to fly in the face ofthe
Divine Majesty, and deliberately to deny the state of
dependence inwhich he stands relatively to theCreator,
mere suffering is no longer sufficient. It is man's
very existence which is compromised. " The wages

THE WORK OF JESUS CHRIST. 161
of sin is death." " I can live without Thee and in
spite of Thee," man says to God when he thus acts.
" Thy life was a gift, that gift is now withdrawn,"
such is the legitimate answer of Divine justice to this
challenge. Immediate death — death by the shedding
of the blood of the transgressor — for, as says Scripture,
the blood is the life — such is the punishment of sin, as
soon as it breaks out in the form of rebellion against
the Author of life. It was the penalty with which
God had threatened Adam: "In the day that thou
eatest thereof thou shalt surely die." Nevertheless
He did not think fit to execute the punishment in all
its rigour. Adam sinned and lived on, and through
a long course of centuries his descendants have con
tinued sinning — and living. No doubt death has
reigned, but apparently as the result of the natural
decay of the organs and faculties. This death did
not bear the stamp of a capital punishment ; it was
not by any means a manifest exhibition ofthe avenging
justice of God. This attribute of justice therefore
remained under a veil during this state of things, as
did also the goodness and holiness, and all the other
features, of the Divine character.
A day was to come when this abnormal state of
things should give place to that full manifestation of
justice, which had so long been delayed. And how
was this manifestation made ? Did God visibly put
forth His hand, seize all the sinners that were living
in the earth, and openly inflict upon each of them the
Ii

1 62 BIBLICAL STUDIES.
punishment due to him ? Did death, with one sweep
of his scythe, cut down the whole of rebellious
humanity ?
No ; that which God desired was not the satisfaction
of the demands of His justice by the effusion of
torrents of blood ; it was the revelation td the con
science of men of those demands which they had
refused to recognise ; it was the willing acknowledg
ment of them by that conscience itself. And why
was this ? Because herein lies the true restitution for
wrong committed ; and herein, consequently, the true
basis for the re-establishment of moral order when it
has been disturbed. When the will which has dis
turbed it has once convinced itself of having been in
the wrong, and has passed sentence of death upon
itself, then order has triumphed in the midst of the
world of disorder. God can the more easily relax the
demands of His justice, when the righteousness of those
demands has been recognised by the transgressor.
We must take this general view of the subject, if we
are to understand the explanation which St. Paul has
given, in a cardinal passage, of the sacrifice of Jesus
Christ. These are his words — " Being justified freely
by His grace through the redemption that is in Christ
Jesus : whom God hath set forth to be a propitiation
through faith in His blood, to declare His righteous
ness for the remission of sins that are past, through
the forbearance of God ; to declare, I say, at this
time His righteousness : that He might be just, and

THE WORK OF JESUS CHRIST. 163
the justifier of him which believeth in Jesus " (Rom,
iii. 24 — 26).
According to this passage, some great act of resti
tution was indispensable. The justice of God had
been concealed from view during the whole course
of history. Sinners were not definitely conscious of
the punishment which they deserved. Some solemn
manifestation was needed, by which God should
exhibit the claims of His justice, and should teach
mankind this great principle, that whoever rebels
against God merits death. Had this measure been
dictated by personal resentment, or had it been the
act of vengeance of a superior, injured in his dignity
and authority, God, in executing it, would not have
failed to shew Himself prodigal of the blood of the
guilty persons. He would have destroyed them in as
large numbers as possible, and by this terrible catas
trophe He would have proved that His toleration
towards the sinful world was the result of His long-
suffering to sinners, rather than of indifference to their
sin. But what would have been the result of such a
punishment ? It would have put an end to the his
tory of mankind, and not even have left room for a
reconciliation. Now that at which God aimed was
a reconciliation ; for He was not actuated by a senti
ment of revenge, but by the generous inspiration of
His love, by the desire to pardon.
The very fact of redemption proves that that which

1 64 BIBLICAL STUDIES.
God desired was, not the greatest, but, on the contrary,
the least possible amount of bloodshed consistent with
the attainment of the required moral effect. One man
sufficed for Him, in whose sanguinary death He
manifested openly what had really been deserved by
all ; one victim, at sight of whom all others might
exclaim : There I see the retribution of which I had
made myself worthy ! This death, of which I am but
the witness, I had myself deserved to suffer.
That unique man who was commissioned to play
this awful part in the history of humanity must be a
real man. On this condition only could He identify
Himself with those in whose place He was to stand ;
for He was not to take their place only outwardly,
but morally, by an act analogous to that by which we
throw down the barrier which separates our own per
sonality from that of our neighbour every time we
intercede for him in any vivid and truly sympathising
manner. This real man must, finally, be holy, perfectly holy-
For in order that that manifestation of His justice
which God proposed to make to the world, in this
central moment of its history, should become a com
plete demonstration of this Divine attribute, it was
necessary that it should include two things : (i) the
revelation of the claims of God upon a guilty
humanity ; (2) the recognition of these claims by that
humanity itself. Now these two things demanded
perfect holiness in the Redeemer.

THE WORK OF JESUS CHRIST. 165
1. Pie in whose person should be displayed God's
rights, must Himself be exempt from sin, in order
that it might be made perfectly clear that it was not
for His own personal faults, but for those of the whole
guilty race, that He thus suffered. When Moses was
commanded to lift a serpent upon a pole, in order
to manifest the ultimate powerlessness of the plague
which had been desolating the Israelites, God directed
him so to lift up, not a real serpent, but an artificial
image of one. Why was this ? Because in the former
case the victory thus exhibited would have been
only over the particular serpent thus nailed to the
pole ; whereas, in the latter, the brazen serpent was
evidently the type of the whole species. For the
same reason the sin of humanity was to be nailed to
the cross, not in the person of a sinner, but of a saint.
The sin thus punished is seen not to be that of the
particular victim, but of mankind in general. Isaiah
had arrived at the understanding of this when he said .
"We did esteem Him stricken, smitten of God, and
afflicted. But He was wounded for our transgressions,
He was bruised for our iniquities."
2. The end proposed to Himself by God — namely,
homage rendered to His outraged Majesty — impera
tively demanded that the personal will of Him in whom
this revelation of the rights of God was made, should
co-operate with holy zeal in this act of restitution. He
must not suffer against His own will, — complaining
against His destiny. It was necessary that He should

166 BIBLICAL STUDIES.
Himself ratify the justice of the punishment which
He endured ; that He should recognise it as deserved,
not indeed by Himself, but by those in whose name
He suffered. Thus only could such a punishment
become really an expiatory sacrifice, an open declara
tion of rights of God hitherto unrecognised. Now
such an expiation could not be offered by any one of
the sinners who had made it necessary. And why
not? We have already given the answer : the conscience
of the sinner is to a certain extent paralysed. It cannot
raise itself to the level of the Divine justice whence
issues the sentence which condemns sin. In order
sincerely to ratify the penalty of which the sinner is
the victim, sin must be hated as the Judge Himself
hates it. In order to condemn sin as God condems it,
we must be holy as He is holy.
Now this is just what Jesus Christ was. It was
because His conscience was a pure reflection of the
holiness of God that He was able to accept and to
undergo the penalty of sinners in the way that He
did, acquiescing completely in the claims of God.
Upon this narrow stage of the conscience of Christ,
there met, face to face, two opposing powers, which,
in us, can ordinarily contemplate each other only
from a distance, — the holiness of God in its most
delicate susceptibility, and the sin of man in all its
forms, the coarsest as well as the most subtle. There,
in this close contact between God and man, sin was

THE WORK OF JESUS CHRIST. 167
judged as it ought to be, but as we had no longer the
power to judge it. There were shed those perfectly
holy tears which we are no longer able to shed.
There was offered a full and complete satisfaction to
God. The bitterest death was accepted as the just
punishment of sin, and the Divine right to inflict such
a punishment upon sinful man was recognised unre
servedly. " Holy Father" was the exclamation of the
dying Son in the last prayer which He uttered with
His disciples.1
The manifestation of justice which God wished to
make to the world attained therefore in this case the
character of absolute perfection. To the adequacy of
the punishment inflicted was added the complete
concurrence of Him who consented to undergo it.
This reparative act had been foreseen and pre
pared for from all eternity.2 This, according to St.
Paul, was the ultimate result in which culminated
all the sins committed up to that time, and of which
God had not demanded punishment in a degree
proportionate to their gravity. For centuries God
had allowed to live in sin, even up to hoar old
age, innumerable generations of transgressors, whose
blood had not been shed for the expiation of their
faults. Among the Jews alone had expiatory sacrifices
recalled to the conscience of man the treatment
merited by sinners. Those myriads of sins to which
God had seemed to shut His eyes, had led up at
1 John xvii. 25. 2 Eph. i. 4 — 7; 1 Pet. i. 20.

168 BIBLICAL STUDIES.
length to this great judicial act ; and the sanguinary
death of the Son, which had been decreed from all
eternity, explained to the world why God had not
smitten with His thunderbolts all those sinners who
had braved Him to the utmost of their power, during
the time in which He bore with them. As to the
sins committed since, St. Paul does not mention them
in the passage we are endeavouring to explain,
because when once the manifestation of justice had
been made by the sanguinary death of the Son, the
state of things was thenceforth changed ; this Divine
attribute is no longer concealed from view, whatever
may be the toleration which God still extends to
sinners. And now what is the connection between that
manifestation of the Divine justice in the cross of
Christ, and the reconciliation of God with the sinful
world ?
We should deceive ourselves if we thought that the
sacrifice of Jesus Christ acted as a work of merit upon
the relation between God and man, in such a mannet
as to make it needless for the latter to co-operate in
any way in effecting the salvation which was to result
from it. It is remarkable that in the passage from
St. Paul which serves as a text to the whole theory
thus set forth, the apostle, after having called Jesus
a propitiatory victim, adds immediately, as a comment
upon this statement, these words : " through faith in
His blood." It is of the eternal decree of redemption

THE WORK OF JESUS CHRIST.

that St. Paul here gives us the formula ; J and he
does not fear to make the faith of man one of
the effective elements of the amnesty which is based
upon this decree. It had entered into it from the
first as a foreseen and indispensable condition, to such
a degree that, without it, St. Paul himself declares,
the victim would no longer be propitiatory, and the
amnesty would be annulled. What is the meaning
of this ?
Between the living God and man as a free agent
there is no place for a mere opus operatum. As
Christ did not carry the complete development of
humanity to its perfection in order to dispense us
from fulfilling it ourselves, and thus leave us in the
condition of unsanctified men, but His purpose is,
by sanctifying Himself, to draw us after Him and to
induce us to run ourselves that course of holiness of
which He was Himself the first to reach the goal, so
neither did He go through the act of expiation, in
which is manifested the punishment due to the sinful
world, in order to dispense us from offering to God
the restitution which we owe Him ; His object was, on
the contrary, to associate us with Himself in offering
the collective satisfaction which He has consummated
in the name of all, and to involve us, in a manner, in
that solemn act of protest on behalf of the claims of
God as against sin. Now it is faith that thus asso
ciates individuals with the act of restitution offered
1 " Whom God hath set forth," or " foreordained."

170 BIBLICAL STUDIES.
by Christ. It is by faith that we apply to our own
selves that which He did for the world, and to our
own sin that which He suffered for the sin of the
world. The sinful Israelite, before he slew the victim
before the altar, laid his hands upon its head while
confessing the sin on account of which he sacrificed
it ; just so, it is through faith in Jesus Christ crucified
that the sinner includes his own individual sin in that
of mankind, which Christ has voluntarily taken upon
Himself, and recognises in the death upon the cross
that which he has himself deserved, but which God
forbears to demand of him. By every act of faith he
exclaims, as he looks to Jesus crucified, "There I see
myself!" or, as was once said by Betjuana, who
understood the Cross better than many a theologian,
" Jesus, come down from thence ; it is my place ! "
Thus does he renew the atonement of blood offered
to God by Christ, and make it valid for himself.
The forgiveness of God springs undoubtedly from
His love — so the whole Bible declares. But His love
meets with an obstacle in His justice. Sin is so grave
a fact, that it has indeed originated this conflict
between the attributes of God — justice requiring that
the sinner should be dealt with according to his deeds,
and love demanding his forgiveness. The obstacle
opposed to love by justice had to be removed, in
order that free course might be given to the gracious
wish of God to exercise on our behalf His prerogative
of pardon. This is precisely the result which has

THE WORK OF JESUS CHRIST. jji

been reached by means of that great manifestation of
justice, to which the conscience of mankind has given
its adhesion in the first place in Christ Himself, and
then again in each individual believer. Divine justice
does not require, in order to leave the way open to
mercy, to have its demands satisfied in act, but only to
be recognised. Upon this recognition depends, in fact,
the restoration of him who has put a slight upon
these claims by sinning. Towards one who acknow
ledges them, justice lays aside her arms, and love is
free to unfold her treasures.
We can understand, therefore, why we find the
atonement made by Christ, and the faith by which we
appropriate it to ourselves, to be the conditions of our
reconciliation. There is nothing arbitrary in this.
Faith in the atonement becomes itself an atonement.
Its virtue in this respect is not derived from its intensity,
nor even from its nature so essentially moral — charac
teristics always imperfect — but from its object, the
perfect expiation made by Christ. That which
satisfies justice is not a certain quantum of suffering
equivalent to a certain quantum of sin ; but it is, on
the part of God, the complete revelation of this
attribute of His Being ; on the part of man, the un
qualified adhesion which he gives to this revelation
Now this it is precisely which faith discerns in the
sacrifice of Jesus, and which God, on His part, sees in
faith. It is with this feeling that St. Paul finishes the

172 BIBLICAL STUDIES.
passage quoted with these remarkable words : "that
He might be just, and the justifier of him which
believeth in Jesus." God would not be really just, if
He did not manifest Himself as such, and the world
would not have been compelled to believe in His
justice, if, once at least in the history of mankind, He
had not revealed this attribute in its plenitude. One
might even ask whether, without the Cross, the final
judgment would have been morally possible — whether
it would not have been for the impenitent sinner a
surprise, of which he might have had some reason to
complain. He might have said to God : " Thou hast
revealed Thy mercy to me by an act of free grace,
in such a manner that there was no room left in my
mind for believing in the possibility of final punish
ment. Thus Thou hast Thyself helped to mislead
my judgment, and to put my vigilance to sleep."
But by the manifestation of justice made upon the
cross, this language of the sinner is for ever excluded.
God has not forgiven without inflicting punishment,
and this act of punishment not only makes the for
giveness of others possible, but expressly holds in
reserve the future act of judgment with respect to
any who do not accept the forgiveness, or who abuse
it by taking it in a different sense from that in which
it was granted. God has therefore manifested His
justice in order that He might be just in fact — that is
to say, in order that He might not cease to be so, as
would have been the case had He acted otherwise;

THE WORK OF JESUS CHRIST. 173
and in order that He might be enabled to act as such
"in the day in which He will judge the world in
righteousness by that man whom He hath ordained."1
To these words, " that He might be just," Paul adds,
" and the justifier of him which believeth in Jesus."
As, on the one hand, He would not have been just if
He had forgiven without punishing, so, on the other,
He would have been only just if He had punished
without forgiving. In both cases the revelation of His
moral character, which is one of the objects of the
providential history of the world, would have remained
incomplete. But, His claims having been once recog
nised by Jesus, and by all who believe in Him, God
can refrain from enforcing them, and can legitimately
declare to be righteous even the sinner himself. For
this justification is not the final one. It is not that
which opens to man the entrance into glory ; it is
that which introduces him into the state of grace, and
which makes him breathe the life-giving air of recon
ciliation. Final justification presupposes the faithful
use of this boundless grace. If God proclaims the
sinner righteous who recognises His rights, it is because
this recognition contains in principle the moral restora
tion of man to the full height of the Divine holiness.
It is impossible to lay hold of the object of faith, the
atonement made by Christ, without breaking alto
gether with sin, which has been the cause of such a
death, or without laying within ourselves the fonnda-
1 Acts xvii. 34.

174 BIBLICAL STUDIES.
tion of sanctification. This consequence of faith is
the result, as we have seen, of the nature of its object.
We cannot, therefore, completely agree either with
a view which is very prevalent in our day, and which
has been unfolded in a very brilliant manner by M. de
Pressense in his Vie de Je"sus, according to which the
atonement consisted only in the perfect obedience
offered to God by Christ in the active consecration of
Himself which He made to Him by closely uniting
His will with His ; nor with the old orthodox for
mula, according to which Jesus on the Cross became,
as the representative of the sinful world, the object of
the displeasure and reprobation of God.
The first of these two conceptions does not admit
of our accounting sufficiently for the preponderating
part assigned through the whole of the New Testa
ment to the blood of Christ in the work of redemp
tion. This blood is not in Scripture the symbol only
of obedience carried to its utmost limits, but certainly
also of expiation by suffering and death. Accord
ingly, St. Paul not only says that Christ was an
offering unto God for a sweet-smelling savour; but,
uniting the two aspects of Christ's work on our behalf
which we have just explained separately, he says,
"an offering and a sacrifice for a sweet-smelling
savour." x There is to be seen, assuredly, in Christ
crucified, the Divine judgment upon sin, and not only
the renunciation of sin. It is this which is so keenly
1 Eph. v. 2.

THE WORK OF JESUS CHRIST. 175
felt by the conscience of a Christian who accepts
unreservedly the teaching of the New Testament
The first method of reconciliation, which we have
expounded — the sanctification of the life of man by
Christ — ought not to make us forget or deny the
second. On the other hand, the old orthodox view offends
in some respects against Christian feeling trained in
the school of Holy Scripture. Does not St. Paul call
Jesus a sacrifice for a sweet-smelling savour ? Does
he not apply this expression to Him at the very
moment when He is sacrificing Himself for us, and
when He is being made, as the same apostle says, a
sin and a curse for us .?1 Never certainly was any act
done upon the earth more pleasing to God than this
sacrifice, which was inspired by the purest love for
mankind, and the deepest reverence for the Divine
holiness ; and never was the person of Jesus so much
the object ofthe favour and blessing of His Father as in
that moment in which He identified Himself with the
sin of the world, in order to bear, in His own Person,
the whole curse which was attached to it, and which
included even a temporary abandonment of Him by
God Himself. For Jesus, as we have seen, met the
first claims of God, not by satisfying, but by revealing
and recognising them. The sufferings He underwent
upheld the principle of justice and of judgment : they
were an equivalent in quality, not quantity. They
1 2 Cor. v. 21 ; Gal. iii. 13.

170 BIBLICAL STUDIES.
represented our own in such a way that we may be
spared from undergoing them ourselves, if we profit
by His. From this point of view the doctrine of sub
stitution, against which so many objections have been
raised, no longer presents anything to offend the moral
sense. Assuredly one could, without injustice, suffer
for all, if His suffering was not a compensation for the
lack of theirs, but a revelation made to all of what all
would have deserved to suffer, and what those will
really suffer who are not brought back to God, in
penitence and faith, by the spectacle of this expiation.
Jesus sanctified Himself for us ; by so doing He
realised in His own person the ideal of human nature ;
Jesus was crucified for us ; so did He atone for the
outrage that had been offered to God by sinful man
kind : these are the two aspects of the work which He
accomplished for us ; these are the two means by
which He has rendered possible the reconciliation
between God and us. The believer who accepts this
twofold work is regarded by God as having fulfilled
it himself, since this acceptance is the means and the,,
pledge of its accomplishment by the believer himself.
The wonderful greatness of the atoning work of
Christ will appear so much the more clearly, when we
remember that He accomplished the two tasks in
cluded in it, simultaneously, and, if we may venture
so to express it, at one stroke. Picture to yourself a
train which has run off the rails, and has fallen down
a precipice. A deliverer appears, who succeeds in, at

THE WORK OF JESUS CHRIST. 177
the same moment, lifting it on to the rails again, and
conducting it to the end of the journey. Thus did
Jesus, in His passage through the world, at the same
time lift fallen humanity out of its state of condemna
tion, and consummate the moral development, which
had been scarcely begun, of unfallen humanity.
To the execution of these two tasks belong all the
salient facts of His history ; to the latter, His miracu
lous birth, by which He begins anew, from the very
first step, the course of life laid down for man ; His
baptism, by which He effects the lifting of natural
and psychical into spiritual life ; His transfiguration,
the seal of His individual perfection ; and His ascen
sion, the absolute realisation of the glorious destiny
of humanity. To the former task belong His death
and resurrection — that is to say, the atonement offered
by man, and the absolution given by God.
Rationalism has a special predilection for the former
aspect of this sublime work, that which relates to the
perfecting ofthe moral nature of man ; orthodoxy has
only understood the latter — that which relates to
expiation. We believe that a perfect intuition of the
method ofthe reconciliation ofthe world, of the justi
fication of sinners, and generally of the relation of
Christianity to human nature, can only be formed in
the mind of him who combines in one, as we have
been endeavouring to do — the two aspects of the
work of redemption. Jesus, the consummator of
creation, and the repairer of the fall ; Jesus, the
12

178 BIBLICAL STUDIES.
second Adam, in whom man accomplishes the task
which had been originally set him, and comes forth
from the grave absolved from the sin of the humanity
of the past — this is the complete Jesus, considered
from the point of view of His work on our behalf.
Every man who accepts Him by faith in this twofold
character, becomes immediately, in the sight of God,
all that He is Himself. For that which Jesus has been
for him, He will infallibly become in him : " That
the love wherewith Thou hast loved me may be in
them, and 7 in them."1 In other words : "Thou wilt
be enabled to love them as Thou lovest Me, because
it will be Myself whom Thou wilt love in them."
This is the mystery contained in that favourite
expression of Paul : Christ our righteousness.
II.
CHRIST IN US.
We have, in accordance with the New Testament,
distinguished between two justifications, the one pre
liminary, founded solely upon faith ; the other defini
tive, resting upon holiness firmly established in the
soul of the believer.2 Sanctification, or the work of
1 John xviii. 26.
2 " Much more then, being now justified by His blood, we
shall be saved from wrath through Him. For if, when we were
enemies, we were reconciled to God by the death of His Son,
much more, being reconciled, we shall be saved by His lifer
(Rom. v. 9, 10).

THE WORK OF JESUS CHRIST. 179
Christ within us, has its place between the two, as the
consequence of the former, and the condition of the
latter. Many Christians are perplexed by an apparent
contradictipn which strikes them in the Scriptures.
On the one hand, salvation is granted to faith — to
faith only. St. Paul continually affirms it ; and this
thought makes its appearance in all the other apostolic
writers. On the other hand, they all equally speak
of a judgment which is to take effect, according to the
works of each.1 St. Paul is not less explicit upon this
point than all his colleagues.2 How are we to recon
cile these two doctrines ?
The solution is to be found precisely in the distinc
tion which we have just drawn. It is, as it seems to
us, this : Every favour received from God ought to
have for its effect a step of moral progress, but this
effect can only be produced by the co-operation of the
person favoured. Every grace granted by God issues
in a trial of man's fidelity. Now that which is true of
the details of the Christian life is true also of the whole.
The fundamental grace, that of the forgiveness of
sins, presupposes no other moral condition than faith
only. But this immense act of grace is no sooner
granted by God, and accepted by man, than there
results from it a new task, with the responsibility
which attaches to it. This is the work of sanctifica-
1 Matt. xvi. 27, and parallels ; John v. 29 ; Rev. xx. 12, 13.
2 Rom. xiv. 10, 12 ; 1 Cor. iv. 5; 2 Cor. v. 10 : Gal. vi. 7.

180 BIBLICAL STUDIES.
tion ; the renewal of the life in the likeness of Christ.
And this is the work, according to which the believer
will one day be judged. This is the fruit which will
be demanded of him in return for the grace given.
We cannot fail to be reminded here of the unmerciful
servant, in whom the mercy of his master did not
produce that effect of mercy towards his fellow-servant,
which should have resulted from it. The sentence of
absolution which had been already pronounced upon
him was annulled j1 and the sinner, who had been
justified freely, but in whom that act of mercy had
not borne its proper fruit, was placed once more under
the jurisdiction ofthe law. St. Paul threatens with a
precisely similar fate Christians of evil lives in Corinth,
Galatia, etc.2
The reason is that justification by faith is only the
door of entrance by which we are admitted into the
state of salvation; whilst final justification, which is but
the simple acceptance by God of holiness actually
realised, is the door of exit through which we reach
from the state of salvation into that of glory.
Thus are the two scriptural principles of justifica
tion by faith, and of judgment according to works,
brought into harmony. Though apparently opposed
to each other, they are both equally true ; only they
apply to two different periods of the Christian life.
Few, even among Christians, seem to understand
1 Matt, xviii. 23 — 39.
! I Cor. vi. 9, 10; Gal. v. 19—21 ; vi. 7, 8.

THE WORK OF JESUS CHRIST. 1S1
this great and important truth : that the attainment
of holiness in the soul of the believer is the object of
the Divine work, and that the forgiveness of sins is but
the means. How many express themselves as if when
forgiveness, with the peace which it procures, has been
once obtained, all is finished, and the work of salva
tion complete ! They seem to have no suspicion that
salvation consists in the health of the soul, and that
the health of the soul consists in holiness. Forgive
ness is not the re-establishment of health, it is but the
crisis of convalescence. If God thinks fit to declare
the sinner righteous, it is in order that He may by
that means restore him to holiness. The righteousness
which He imputes to him for the moment is to be
come his actual and personal property ; otherwise it
will not fail to be withdrawn from him.
There is, therefore, an indissoluble connection be
tween justification and holiness ; and it is with regard
to this connection that we must now endeavour to
some to an understanding. This will be the best way
to reach at the same time a comprehension of the true
nature of Christian sanctification.
Two different powers of sanctification are contained
in justifying faith. One is included in the object
itself of this faith ; the other proceeds from the new
relation which faith establishes between the soul and
God. The former belongs to the human side in the
work of sanctification ; it is the inward law which
impels the Christian to undertake this great tas!;.

r82 BIBLICAL STUDIES.
The latter belongs to the divine side of this work ; it
is the new force which makes it possible to him.
St. Paul, in Rom. vi. and viii., has unfolded in suc
cession these two aspects of Christian sanctification.
I. The object of justifying faith is not an idea, it is
a fact ; it is the work of reconciliation which Jesus
Christ accomplished in His life and in His death.
Now this fact is essentially moral in its nature. That
which constitutes the propitiatory power of the life of
Jesus is the perfectly normal character of its holiness.
That which gives to His death its power of expiation
and reparation is not a certain amount of suffering
undergone, no matter in what manner; it is the
perfect submission with which these sufferings were
accepted, as the legitimate consequence of sin.
If the object of faith be in its nature essentially
moral, how can faith be limited to the mere acquies
cence of the reason ? Must not the act of faith share
the nature of its object ? The assent which we give
to a work of art is aesthetic in nature, like that creative
operation which, in the author's mind, produced the
masterpiece that we admire. Just so the adhesion
which we give to the purely moral work of reconcilia
tion accomplished by Jesus Christ will have its spring
necessarily in the moral sense, and will, like the work
itself — that masterpiece of the human conscience —
take the character of an act of the conscience.
Is it possible to acquiesce in the holy life of Jesus
Christ, in His incessant victory over even the most

THE WORK OF JESUS CHRIST. 183
legitimate natural instincts, in His perfect self-
dedication to the will of the Father, in His un
broken communion with Him, as picturing to us
the normal human life which ought to have been
that of us all, without appropriating to ourselves
ipso facto the moral principle of that life, and making
it henceforth the soul of our own? To give our
adhesion to a life so offered to God is equivalent
to offering ourselves.
Would it be possible to accept the moral redemption
offered by Him as an act which ought properly to have
been offered by ourselves, — to ratify in our own con
science the sentence which the normal conscience of
the Redeemer pronounced upon the sin of the world,
when He underwent the punishment due to it, without
making of that sentence ipso facto a sentence of death,
passed in our own heart and will, upon our own sin ?
This assimilation of the conscience of Christ crucified,
which is involved in the act of faith, is that which
St. Paul, in his strong language, at once literal and
figurative, characterises by these expressions : to fa
crucified with Christ; to be baptized (immersed) into the
death of Christ.1 To join ourselves by an act of the
will to the death of Christ for sin, is to die to sin,
that is, to break altogether with it. It is the response
called out in the heart of the believer himself by the
object of faith, which had been so profoundly felt
by that other member of the Betjuana people, who
Gal. ii. 20 ; Rom. vi. 3.

184 BIBLICAL STUDIES.
exclaimed: "The Cross of Christ condemns me to
become a saint." That word "condemns" expresses
in a very natural manner the effect which the sight
of the cross produces at first upon the old nature in
us, when it feels itself drawn by faith to gaze upon
that instrument of a terrible death upon which the sin
of mankind has been once for all condemned in the
person of the Son of God.
It is then ofthe essence of justifying faith to create
in the soul of the believer, by the very nature of its
object, an insuperable antipathy to the sin so painfully
expiated by Christ, and an inexhaustible sympathy
with the goodness so wonderfully realised in His
person. We may compare the life of Christ on earth to
what would be, in the life of any one of us, a moment
of miraculous insight and holiness in which it should
be given to us to discern perfectly the real nature of
sin, and to pass judgment upon it, as God Himself
does. This ray of heavenly light would radically
renew the conscience, the heart, and so the whole life,
of him whom it reached. Such has been the effect
produced upon mankind by the appearance upon
earth, and by the work of Jesus Christ ; and in order
to feel its effects in ourselves, it suffices to allow this
supreme object of faith to unfold within our inmost
being the power which is inherent in it.
II. At the same time, in order to become victoriously
efficacious, this connection which establishes itself

THE WORK OF JESUS CHRIST. 185
between the object of faith and the soul of the believer,
must be sealed by a direct act of God. Here we have
the divine side of the relation which connects sanctifica
tion with justification.
As long as the state of hostility between man and
God lasts, no intimate communication is possible
between the one and the other. God especially could
not, during this state of things, quicken man by His
inspiration, by His Spirit. This commuriication of
His own individual life presupposes a reconciliation
already effected, and peace restored between Him and
man. But as soon as a right relation is restored
between the two, the gift of the Holy Spirit becomes
as natural as before it was impossible. The state of
condemnation was the barrier which prevented the
Spirit from giving Himself. No sooner is this
obstacle removed by the act of justification, no sooner
does man find himself placed once more in his normal
position with reference to God, than the Divine bless
ing again takes the course which had been forcibly
interrupted ; grace is again poured forth, and like a
torrent whose banks have been broken down, the Holy
Spirit flows freely into the reconciled heart.
Jesus had pointed out this relation in which His
atoning death stood to all future Pentecosts, whether
collective or individual : " If I go not away," He had
said, " the Comforter will not come unto you ; but if
I depart, I will send Him unto you."1
1 John xvi. 7.

186 BIBLICAL STUDIES.
These remarkable words prove at the same time,
that, in order to understand this new aspect of Christ's
work, we must call to our aid the third period of His
existence, — that of His heavenly glory and ministry.
Not only is it true that Jesus participates, since His
ascension, in the omnipresence, the omnipotence, and
the omniscience of God, in such a manner that He can
at any moment help and deliver those that are His, in
the difficulties of their earthly existence ; but above
all, that after having, during His sojourn here below,
completely appropriated to Himself the Divine Spirit.
and made of it His own personal life, as God Himself
does, He is become the sovereign dispenser of it to
His brethren. And this is the divine source of
Christian sanctification.
If chap. vi. of the Epistle to the Romans makes
us understand the imperative obligation of holiness
which is for the Christian conscience the result of the
fact of justification, in chap. viii. the apostle reveals to
us the divine power which renders the justified man
able to fulfil this obligation : " For the law of the
Spirit of life in Christ Jesus hath made me free from
the law of sin and death. For what the law could
not do, in that it was weak through the flesh, God
sending His own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh,
and for sin, condemned sin in the flesh : that the
righteousness of the law might be fulfilled in us, who
walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit."1
1 Rom. viii. 2 — 4.

THE WORK OF JESUS CHRIST. 187
This passage, no less cardinal than that in chap.
iii., from which we have drawn our light upon the
subject of redemption, opens to us a view info the
scene of the Divine operations in which the work of
Christian sanctification is being carried on.
God began His work by sending His Son, clothed
in a body like ours, to realise in that body itself perfect
holiness, so passing sentence upon sin by signalising
it as that which ought not to be, and excluding it
from that part of our being in which Pie had chosen
to take up His abode, and from which He extends
His dominion over all our faculties. This work once
accomplished in Jesus Himself, there emanates from
His glorified person, as a life-giving power, His
Spirit, who wins the same victory in us that Jesus
has won in His own person, and who realises in
our life, as Jesus did in His, the righteousness
demanded by the law, on this sole condition, that
we take for the governing law of our conduct, not
the flesh as it is in us, but this Spirit.
Our holiness is not therefore a mere imitation of
that of Jesus, which we realise in ourselves by our
own resolutions ; it is actually His own — that which
He realised here below through conflicts and sacri
fices, and now communicates to us from out of His
life in glory. It is human life such as He has made
it in His own person, freed from sin, and pleasing to
God, which He reproduces in us through His Spirit.
Himself the Prototype of this new life, He is at the

188 BIBLICAL STUDIES.
same time its source and author in the soul of the
believer. He makes to shine forth in the heart of
him who looks to Him in faith, His own image ; He
makes it to shine there with such power that it
begins to live in the man ; it becomes the new man
in him, and the believer is thus " changed from glory
to glory, even as by the Spirit ofthe Lord."1
Jesus had Himself indicated this relation which
should one day exist between His holiness and our
own, in that expression, often thought difficult, but
which, after all that has been said, seems to me very
clear : " I sanctify myself, that they also might be
sanctified through the truth."2 In other words, the
holiness which I realise in my own life shall become
theirs by my communicating it to them ; and then
they shall be indeed holy as I am holy. Jesus has
included the same thought in those mysterious
images, drinking His blood, eating His flesh, which
evidently have reference, according to the explana
tion which He Himself gives of them (v. 6^), to the
operation by which His Spirit appropriates to the
believer His flesh, — that is to say, His life dedicated
to God, and His blood, — that is to say, His death
for sin, together with the death to sin which is
involved in it.
From the point of view of ordinary orthodoxy,
which makes the whole work of Christ to consist in
the atonement, and the whole of salvation in the
1 2 Cor. iii. 18. 2 John xvii. 19.

THE WORK OF JESUS CHRIST.

forgiveness of sins, one might ask why Jesus Christ
did not come down from heaven to ascend the cross
immediately, why He lived before He died. It may
no doubt be replied that the holiness of the victim
was a necessary condition of the atonement ; but
this answer would evidently be incomplete. The
true solution is to be found in the view of Christian
holiness which we have just propounded. Jesus
Christ lived because His holiness was at last, after
His death and ascension, to become ours.
Perhaps it will be asked what is the connection
between the passages in which our sanctification is
attributed to the Holy Spirit, and those in which
it is attributed to Christ Himself living in us .?1 The
answer is easy. In reality these two classes of ex
pressions refer to one and the same fact. What is
the work of the Holy Spirit ? It is to impart Christ
to us, with everything that is His, and to make Him
live again in us, as the grain of wheat which lies
dead in the earth is made by the power of nature to
live again in each of the grains in the ear. And, on
the other hand, by what means does Christ live in
us ? By the operation of the Holy Spirit. There
takes place in the believer, by the power of that
Divine agent, an effect similar to that which produced
the miraculous birth of Jesus Christ. " My little
children," said St. Paul, " of whom I travail in birth
again till Christ be formed in you."2 Our holiness
1 Gal. ii. 20. » Gal. iv. 19.

igo BIBLICAL STUDIES.
does not, properly speaking, consist in our changing
and becoming better ourselves ; for after fifty years
of faithful labour it may happen that all at once we
find ourselves, when our own nature gains the upper
hand, as bad as we were half a century before ; it
is rather He, He Himself, born and growing in us,
in such a way as to fill our heart and gradually to
drive out our natural self, our "old man," which
cannot itself improve, and whose destiny is only to
perish. How is this kind of incarnation practically effected,
by which Christ Himself becomes our new self ? By
a process of a free and moral nature, described by
Jesus in words which surprise us, because they place
His sanctification upon nearly the same footing as
our own : " As the living Father hath sent me, and I
live by the Father ; so he that eateth me, even he
shall live by me."1 Jesus derived the nourishment of
His life from the Father who had sent Him, and
lived by Him. The meaning of that is, doubtless,
that every time He had to act or speak, He first
effaced Himself; then left it to the Father to
will, to think, to act, to be everything in Him.
Similarly, when we are called upon to do any act,
or to speak any word, we must first efface ourselves
in presence of Jesus ; and after having suppressed
in ourselves, by an act of will, every wish, every
thought, every act of our own self, we are to leave it
1 John vi. 57

THE WORK OF JESUS CHRIST. 191
to Jesus to manifest in us His will, His wisdom,
His power. Thus it is that we live by Him, as He
lived by the Father ; that we " eat Him '' (this is the
image He employs), as He was nourished by the
Father. The process is identical in Jesus and in
ourselves. Only in Jesus it was carried on with God
directly, because He was in immediate communion
with Him, whilst in our case the transaction is with
Jesus, because it is with Him that the believer holds
direct communication, and through Him alone that
we find and can possess the living Father. In that
lies the secret, generally so little understood, of
Christian sanctification.
But no one would be able to practise this sublime
art without from the first taking up the glorious
position opened to us in Jesus Christ through justi
fication, such as St. Paul teaches. When that apostle
wishes to teach us how we can attain to die unto
sin, and to live unto God, this is the way he expresses
himself: "Likewise reckon ye also yourselves to be
dead indeed unto sin, but alive unto God, through
Jesus Christ our Lord."1 This language is scarcely
conformable to that of reason. Human wisdom says,
" Disengage yourself by degrees from the bonds of
sin ; learn gradually to love God and to live for
Him." But in this way we never break radically
with sin, and give ourselves wholly to God. We
remain in the dull troubled atmosphere of our own
Rom. vi. 11.

192 BIBLICAL STUDIES.
nature, and never attain to the contemplation of the
full light of the Divine holiness. Faith, on the
contrary, raises us, as it were, at one bound, into
the regal position which Jesus Christ now holds, and
which in Him is really ours. From thence we
behold sin cast under our feet ; we taste of the life
of God as our true essential being in Jesus Christ.
Reason says, Become holy in order to be holy. Faith
says, You are holy : therefore become so. You are
holy in Christ ; become so in your own person. Or, as
St. Paul says to the Colossians (iii. 3, 5), "Ye are
dead .... mortify therefore your members which
are upon the earth." (
This is, perhaps, the most paradoxical feature of
pure evangelical doctrine. He who disowns it, or
puts it from him, will never cross the threshold of
Christian sanctification. We do not get rid of sin
by little and little ; we have to break with it, with
that total breaking which was consummated by Christ
upon the cross. We do not ascend one by one the
steps of the throne ; we spring upon it, and seat
ourselves there in Christ, by the act of faith which
incorporates us in Him. Then from the height of
that position, holy in its essential nature, we reign
victoriously over self, the world, Satan, — all the
powers of evil ; it is in that atmosphere of absolute
holiness that we put on the image, both divine and
human, of the Son of God.
The relation between justification and sanctification

THE WORK OF JESUS CHRIST. 193
is perhaps one of the points upon which the difference
of view which distinguishes the two great forms of
Western Christianity is the most keenly felt ; though
it is nevertheless true that a completely scriptural
conception of this important subject cannot be said
to be in perfect agreement with either the one or
the other way of viewing it.
Protestantism, we must confess, has always shewn
itself weak and embarrassed, when called upon to
point out precisely the organic connection between
these two elements of salvation — forgiveness and
holiness. Theologians of this way of thinking have
generally looked for this connection in the feeling
of gratitude;1 or else they have contented them
selves with simply adding on the exposition of the
law to that of grace, without seeking to discover the
internal relation which connects the latter with faith
and the former with obedience.2 But a simple juxta
position is not sufficient ; and as to the feeling of
gratitude, it could never furnish any solid foundation
for the duty of Christian sanctification. How could
the emotion of gratitude provide the motive and
justification of an act demanded by the author of the
benefit received, if that act were not in itself morally
good ? Gratitude is an incentive well -fitted to make
the practice of duty easier for us ; but it could never
supply the principle ofthe duty itself.
1 See, for instance, the Heidelberg Catechism.
2 As in the Catechism of Osterwald. 13

194 BIBLICAL STUDIES.
On the other hand, Catholicism rightly lays great
stress, in the question of sanctification, upon real,
vital, even substantial, communications from Christ
to the believer. It understands, better than Protes
tantism, the sacred mystical truth of the incarnation
of Christ in each of His members. But why does
it connect it in so childish a manner with outward
rites, material usages, which, first instituted as
symbols, have since been transformed into merito
rious acts and necessary conditions, and have had
the effect of excluding the one only true means, —
justifying faith, and the free access to the throne
of grace which that opens to every believer ?
In their almost total ignorance of justification by
faith, as it is set forth by Paul, and their desire
nevertheless to do justice to his teaching, the most
enlightened among the Catholics — and indeed some
pious Protestants with them — make, as St. Paul does,
justification to depend indeed upon faith, but on condi
tion that the latter shall possess certain indispensable
qualities. Thus, men imagine they find in the fervour
of faith, or in the charity which is its necessary fruit,
the secret of its justifying power. And the idea of
merit, which had seemed to be excluded by the
substitution of faith for works, returns again in full
force through this tacit addition of works to faith.
But what is the result ? As the most exemplary
fervour is but lukewarmness when compared with its
ideal, and the riches of the fruits of faith but scarcity,

THE WORK OF JESUS CHRIST. 195
in proportion to that abundance which faith in the
Divine work ought legitimately to have produced, it
thence follows that these sincere souls never feel
themselves certainly justified, or completely freed '
from condemnation. Never, consequently, do they
arrive at that high position which is our birthright
in Christ, and which faith assures to us, not by the
degree of its intensity, or the abundance of its
practical effects, but solely by the nature of its
object.1 Or, if they are for an instant transported
to these heights, as, for instance, at the time of the
celebration of the Sacrament, the blessed moment is
no sooner passed, than, human frailty making itself
felt once more, they fall again, and are obliged to wait
for a fresh sacerdotal absolution, before they can regain
the height of the state of justification, and then hold it
in a manner just as unstable and insecure. A joyless
system ! which, no doubt, answers the purpose of the
priest by making his intervention constantly neces
sary, but does not answer that of the Christian, who
is held down by it in a state of perpetual nonage.
Is not the time arrived for these two sections of
the Western Church, who have, as it were, divided
the truth upon this cardinal doctrine, at last to
reunite and set it forth in its fulness : when justi
fication, as Protestantism has understood the doctrine,
more especially Lutheran Protestantism, or, to ex
press ourselves better, justification according to the
1 Meditate upon that wonderful passage, Eph. ii. 1 — 10.

196 BIBLICAL STUDIES.
meaning of Isaiah, of Jesus, and of Paul, shall be
placed, without reserve or subterfuge, at the base
of the work of salvation, but with the earnest and
decided intention to erect upon it the edifice of
sanctification, the work of Christ within us, as under
stood by Catholicism ; that is, the infusion of the holy
life of Christ into the faithful soul by the Holy Spirit.
Christ, substituted for us before God, as our right
eousness; Christ, substituted for us in ourselves, as our
sanctification : " Christ, made unto us," as St. Paul
says, "wisdom, and righteousness, and sanctification,
and redemption " (i Cor. i. 30) ; such is the plenitude
of Christian salvation. Let us learn, both of us, so to
regard Christ, and the true form of union will have
been discovered. It is that which Paul has before
indicated in the words (Col. ii. 20), "And ye are
complete in Him."
We have studied the work of Christ, both in the part
which has been accomplished once for all, and in that
which is still in process of being accomplished. Let
us now endeavour to comprehend it in its totality, by
taking into our view its future stages and its crowning
glories. From this more general point of view it pre
sents itself to the eye of faith as a twofold victory,
gained over the two great enemies of humanity.
One has seen devoted men dedicating their lives
to the restoration of their impoverished or dis
honoured families.

THE WORK OF JESUS CHRIST. 197
One has seen others who have made the deliverance
or the glory of their country the whole object of their
ambition. But one Man set before Himself a still more lofty
object. At a time when the idea of the human race
was only beginning to dawn upon the most advanced
minds, that mass which we call humanity, divided
into nations hostile one to another, almost wholly
disintegrated by the egoism of individuals, presented
itself to His mind in its essential unity ; He took
this humanity in its entirety to His heart as His
own people, — His family whom He should save. He
looked the two tyrants who were oppressing it, and
whose rule over it seemed to form an integral part
of the very existence of that race — Sin and Death
— in the face. And He dared to say, This being
sinful and mortal, is not man such as God intended
him to be, or now wills him to be. God reigns
over all ! Let sin flee before Him, and let death
perish! And let holiness and immortality, those
two characteristic features of the work of God, shine
forth upon this earth which He has created for the
manifestation of His glory !
And this grand idea He has adopted and elaborated.
This task He took upon Himself as that of His life;
He did not shrink back in presence of the apparent
impossibility of its accomplishment. In order to
execute the work of which He alone dared to con
ceive the idea, He did not begin with any great plan

BIBLICAL STUDIES.

of social reform. His first work was upon Himself :
He realised the essential, true, Good in the humble
sphere of His personal existence — in that which was
apprehended immediately by His moral consciousness.
In that field did He fight with the first enemy, sin,
and overcame it. He refused it any foothold in His
heart and life, and made the holy will of God to be
the absolute master of His existence.
This first victory gained, He found Himself face to
face with the second enemy, death. This adversary
appeared even more invincible ; for death is not, like
sin, the result of a free determination of the human
will ; it is a law which seems to pass upon humanity
with the power of fate, and to envelope Nature herself.
Nevertheless, in presence of this terrifying sight, the
courage of the Divine hero did not flinch. He looked
the gloomy tyrant in the face, and by the light of God
He perceived that it was but a phantom, which at the
single word grace, when it descended from heaven,
would vanish away. He recognised in death, inflicted
upon man, the result of a sentence of condemnation ;
and He boldly believed that if once the condemnation
were removed, the throne of death would be overturned.
He discerned two causes of that condemnation — sin
which calls for it, and the law which pronounces it.
As for sin, He had already overcome it in His own
person ; and He was reserving to Himself the task of
overcoming it in humanity also. Already had He
kindled here below, in His own person, a central fire of

THE WORK OF JESUS CHRIST. 199
perfect holiness, and He beheld, grouping themselves
around it, all those who seek for light, and who do the
truth} But the law ? It is a Divine manifestation. It
cannot be treated in the way sin is ; it cannot be
destroyed ; all that can be done is to disarm it, and
this can only be effected by meeting all its just
demands. Here is the way in which this Man resolved to
vanquish the law : He had in His life offered to it that
perfect obedience which it demanded ; He had by
His death offered the atonement which was required
by the transgressions of its violators. By this means
He had gained over to His side the justice of God,
which hitherto had been against us. And as God had
pronounced upon the guilty a sentence of condemna
tion which was their death-warrant, Jesus staked His
righteousness to pronounce upon those who believed
in Him an absolution which is their life.
Sin being vanquished, the law satisfied, the two
foundations of the kingdom of death were undermined,
and its power fell.
In the resurrection of Jesus Christ the victory which
had just been obtained over death was for the first
time displayed. And this first prey torn from the
tyrant's grasp is the guarantee of the deliverance and
future resurrection ofthe whole of justified humanity.
The Church glorified will be the magnificent harvest
1 Cf. Luke xii. 49, and John iii. 21.

BIBLICAL STUDIES.

of which Jesus risen was the firstfruits. Complete
incorruption, moral and physical, will crown the work
which the heroic love of Jesus dared to conceive and
succeeded in accomplishing. What were the works
of Thrasybulus, of Tell, of Washington, compared
with that of such a deliverer ?
" Since by man came death, by man came also the
resurrection of the dead  O death, where is thy
sting ? O grave, where is thy victory ? The sting of
death is sin ; and the strength of sin is the law. But
thanks be to God, which giveth us the victory through
our Lord Jesus Christ."1
How can we think it any longer wonderful that He
Who conceived and has accomplished such a work as
this, ceases not to gather around Himself all the slaves
of sin and death that are to be found here below, who
feel the weight of their chains — all who exclaim with
St. Paul, " Wretched man that I am ! Who shall
deliver me ? " Is it surprising that this Being should
have succeeded in reaching that result which astonished
the genius whom nothing, it might have seemed, could
any longer astonish, that of " making of every human
soul an appendage of His own."
Jesus is necessary to the human soul, because He
has made Himself its indispensable fellow-worker in
the accomplishment of its moral destiny.
' I Cor. xv. 21, 55 — 57.

THE FOUR PRINCIPAL APOSTLES.
THE person of the Lord has been presented to us
in four pictures, of which each, as we have seen,'
brings into relief some one particular aspect of His
relations with God and with the world.
The work of Christ for the salvation of humanity is
also set forth in the New Testament under four different
points of view.
Ancient orthodoxy ignored all such contrasts.
Modern criticism exaggerates them, and makes them
out to be contradictions. Perhaps the time has now
arrived at which a just appreciation of this diversity
'will make its way in the Church, and when the
thoughtful Christian, far from ignoring the unity
which is at the bottom of this variety, will admire
the abundance of various forms in which, under the
influence of different factors, one and the same life
can clothe itself.
Will any one ask how such contrasts could arise
among writers equally inspired ? The question itself
shews how ill the idea of inspiration has been under
stood in the Church, and what a transformation it will
have to undergo. Just as the water with which we

202 BIBLICAL STUDIES.
water the seed sown in the ground does not create
the plant which grows out of it, but stimulates the
development ofthe organs which had previously been
formed in the germ, and sets their power in action, so
in the same way the Holy Spirit does not substitute
Himself for the individuality of the sacred author;
He awakens his faculties, He groups his experiences,
He places him in immediate contact with salvation,
and by that means confers upon him a special gift —
the distinct intuition of that aspect of gospel truth
which answers most specially to his own character
and needs. For, as M. Reuss most admirably says,
speaking of the difference between the sacred writers,
"The pole which attracted the magnetic needle of
their sentiment, or of their intelligence, was not
situated for all at the same point on the sphere ot
revelation." This is just what St. Paul himself wished to express
when he made use of the expression, " my gospel." x
The four different conceptions of the nature of
Christian salvation which we are about to study are
those of Peter, of James and Paul, and lastly of
John. We place Peter at the head, not only in conformity
with history, which assigns to him the first place
chronologically, but chiefly because his conception of
the gospel seems to us the most instinctive, that which
reproduces most simply and directly the first impres-
1 Rom. ii. 16 ; xvi. 25 ; 2 Tim. ii. 8.

THE FOUR PRINCIPAL APOSTLES. 203
sion. We are aware that the epistle in which this
conception is set forth is later in date than the epistle
of James, and than the larger number of those of Paul.
But the preaching of Peter, as a missionary, furnished,
nevertheless, the body of doctrine which served as a
foundation for others which were brought out later.
The elements contained in the preaching of that
apostle divide themselves into the two types of doctrine,
apparently opposed to one another, of James and Paul.
A contrast does exist ; and this contrast seems even
to bear the traces of deliberate intention. How far
does this difference extend ? This is the point we
have to determine accurately.
If we speak here of James, it is not that we regard
him as one of the apostles properly so called. But
his qualification as the Lord's brother, his moral
character, which very soon gained for him the venera
tion of the first Christians, and the high position which
he occupied in the Church at Jerusalem, confer upon
the epistle which he has left us, and upon the concep
tion ofthe gospel of which that epistle is the depositary,
a dignity in some degree apostolic.
The higher unity into which the contrast between
James and Paul resolves itself manifest itself in John.
The type of gospel which characterises the writings of
this apostle is in many respects a reproduction of that
which we meet with in Peter. But these two types
differ as the maturity of the old man differs from the
artless freshness of the child, or as the rich colours

204 BIBLICAL STUDIES.
shed by the setting sun differ from the fresh tints
poured forth by it at its rising.

ST. PETER.
We will first collect all we can ascertain con
cerning the personality and the religious development
of this apostle. We will then compare with these
facts the intuitions which characterise his teaching,
whether in the Acts or in his epistle.1 And thus we
shall endeavour to determine what was the special
benefit offered by the gospel salvation which won
his heart and satisfied his deepest aspirations.
The surname of Peter, which Jesus gave to Simon,
son of Jona, at his first interview with Him, indicates
the impression he made upon Him. He recognised
in him a young man of courageous impulses, and an
energy always ready to take the initiative — the man
given Him by God, to serve, if we may use the expres
sion, as a kind of pivot for the work He was about to
undertake. We can see nothing in this honourable
designation to make us suppose that Peter was
endowed with a profound contemplative genius, or
with a mind gifted with great dialectic sagacity.
1 We speak here deliberately of only one epistle of Peter.
The ecclesiastical tradition of the first centuries concerning the
second epistle, as well as the study of that document itself,
compel us to exclude it, if not from the Canon, at least from the
number of the genuine apostolic books.

THE FOUR PRINCIPAL APOSTLES. 205
Jesus was thinking only of aptitude in the sphere of
practical life. All that is implied by a superiority of
this kind is, either a calm and sound judgment, if the
task to be taken in hand is to edify and to preserve,
or else warmth of heart, freshness of imagination, and
the faculty of giving oneself up enthusiastically, if the
work is rather to found and create.
Now it is evidently to this last type of men that St.
Peter belonged. This apostle had always more of
free impulse than of reflection. This characteristic
makes us understand at once the contagious energy
pf his faith, and its surprising moments of weakness.
It was doubtless in consideration of these ruling
qualities of his mind that Jesus set Peter at the head
of the college of the twelve, and entrusted him with
the direction of the work they were about to do;1
which, however, in no way implied any permanent or
universal supremacy over Christendom in general.
Even at Jerusalem the words of James seem to have
had more weight than his ; and as to the Gentile
churches, the absolute independence of St. Paul's
apostolate was recognised by the representatives of
the apostles, and by Peter himself, in a decisive con
ference. The primacy as a leader which was assigned
to Peter, was by common consent limited to the
mission of the twelve with regard to Israel ; and the
province of the evangelisation of the heathen world,
which was recognised as a wholly distinct sphere, was
1 Matt. xvi. 18 ; Luke xxii. 32 ; John xxi. 15 — 17.

*o6 BIBLICAL STUDIES.
entrusted by the Lord to Paul. " When they saw,"
says St. Paul, " that the gospel of the uncircumcision
was committed unto me, as the gospel of the circum
cision was unto Peter; (for He that wrought effectually
in Peter to the apostleship of the circumcision, the
same was mighty in me toward the Gentiles)."1 How,
with such words before us, can we, without charging
Paul with heresy, continue to maintain that the
Western Churches, all of which belong to the domain
of the Gentiles, are under the patronage of the Apostle
Peter ? The province of Paul was placed not within
that of Peter, but alongside and outside of it. There
existed between these two agents of the Lord a
relationship of association, but not at all of subordina
tion.2 We know nothing of the moral development of
Peter up to the time of his first meeting with Jesus.
That ardent spirit, that fervent heart, that lively
imagination, had, certainly, up to that time, found
their religious sustenance in the intuitions revealed
to Israel by the word of prophecy, and typically
figured in the Levitical worship. At every Passover
at which he was present, the young worshipper
beheld the chosen people assembled in their metro
polis and in their temple. He took part in the sac
rifice of the paschal lamb and in the sacred feast
which followed, and he saw in those rites the pledge
of the future deliverance and glory of that people.
1 Gal. ii. 7, 8. 2 Gal ii. o. "The right hand of fellowship."

THE FOUR PRINCIPAL APOSTLES. 207
The land of Canaan appeared to him as the centre
of that kingdom of God which was to extend the
dominion of the law of Israel to the ends of the earth ;
and the caravans which he saw returning after the
feast into all the different countries of the heathen
world, appeared to him as so many bodies of troops
destined to prepare the way for the conquest of the
world. These views, though not erroneous, had to undergo
a transformation before they could correspond per
fectly with the truth of things. This process began
when Peter became a disciple of John the Baptist and
heard that bold preacher laying down, without reserve,
holiness as the foundation of the Messianic work. It
was completed when, from the school of John the
Baptist, the young patriot passed to that of Jesus.
Then it was that all those theocratic ideas upon which
his spirit had fed began to take in his mind a direction
more and more spiritual.
But this transformation was not effected without a
crisis. We know that none among the apostles had
more difficulty than St. Peter in accepting the idea of
the sufferings of Christ and of His rejection by the
people. We call to mind his protest, as bold, to say the
least, as the noble confession which had preceded it :
"That be far from Thee, Lord. This shall not be
unto thee." The vision of Messianic glory which
filled his heart left no room in it for expectations so
gloomy. The Cross was therefore, to him especially,

ao8 BIBLICAL STUDIES.
a terrible surprise ; the death-blow to the false
Messianic idea which he, like the rest of the apostles,
had inherited from the prevalent doctrine of his time.
But as no one was more confounded than Peter by
that catastrophe, so no one was more overjoyed and
transported by the resurrection of Jesus. The Mes
sianic ideal, which had suffered temporary eclipse in
his heart, shone out afresh, transformed and trans
figured, like Jesus Himself. The kingdom which he was
expecting took then, to his eyes, a heavenly character.
The brightness of that glorious state of things would
doubtless extend its rays even to the earth ; but the
kingdom of the risen Messiah meant thenceforth, to
Peter's mind, something different from, and better
than, a Mosaism universally victorious, and a perfected
earth. Among all the apostles, then, Peter is the one who
must have felt most keenly in his heart the reac
tion caused by his Master's resurrection. This event
occupied, in his life, the place which the apparition of
Jesus in glory did in that of Paul ; it divided his
life into two halves, as distinct from each other as the
shadow and the light of noonday.
These results, gathered from the Gospels, will inter
pret to us the peculiar aspect in which the Christian
salvation is presented to us in the sermons attributed
to him in the Acts and in his epistle.
We notice naturally, above all, in these records of
Peter's faith, the traces of the vivid impression made

THE FOUR PRINCIPAL APOSTLES. 209
upon him by the time which he spent here below in
the company of Jesus. He feels profoundly the great
ness of the privilege which attaches to the position
of an eye-witness which had been granted to him. It
is with this feeling that he says in the Acts : " We
who did eat and drink with Him ;" and that, in his
epistle, he addresses to the Christians in Asia Minor,
who had not enjoyed the same privilege as himself,
those touching words : " Whom having not seen, ye
love."1 We may notice also the freshness of personal
recollection in that picture of the meekness of Jesus :
"Who, when He was reviled, reviled not again ; when
He suffered, He threatened not ; but committed Him
self to Him that judgeth righteously."2 The author
of these words need scarcely have designated himself,
as he does, "a witness ofthe sufferings of Christ."3
But the event which formed the principal object of
his faith is evidently the Resurrection, with its com
plement, the Ascension. " God has raised up Jesus,"
— this is the theme of his discourse. " Blessed be the
God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, which
according to His abundant mercy hath begotten us
again unto a lively hope by the resurrection of Jesus
Christ from the dead, to an inheritance incorruptible
and undefiled, and that fadeth not away, reserved
in heaven for you:"4 this is the introduction to his
epistle. Might we not imagine ourselves listening to
1 Acts x. 41 ; 1 Pet. i.8. a 1 Pet. v. I.
2 1 Pet. ii. 23. * 1 Pet. i. 3, 4. 14

BIBLICAL STUDIES.

an account of the moral resurrection of the apostle
himself on that Easter morning ? His mind delights
in recurring to the fact of the Resurrection. Baptism
itself appears to him as the act by which the conscience
of the believer joins itself consciously to Jesus Christ
risen (iii. 21). We see clearly that it is by this
decisive event that Jesus became to him the rock of
his faith.
Peter was a man of heart and imagination. This
is the impression left upon us by his whole epistle.
We see in it no trace of systematic doctrinal exposi
tion ; it is entirely of a practical character ; and if,
from time to time, the author takes a spring into the
sphere of dogmatic teaching, he cannot sustain himself
long in those regions which are evidently unfamiliar
to him, and he descends again immediately into the
domain of moral application. But these practical
instructions are clothed in the freshest and most
poetical imagery, which Peter borrows for the most
part from the symbols of the theocracy. All his
theology is summed up in one word : the New
Covenant is the Old, realised under the form given by
the Spirit.
For the land of Canaan, that heritage which Israel
profaned, Christ substitutes henceforth the heritage
which man can neither corrupt nor defile, and which is
already reserved in heaven for us.1 The lamb which
every Israelite set apart five days before the Passover,
1 1 Pet. i. 3 — 5.

THE FOUR PRINCIPAL APOSTLES. 211
and which represented that to which the nation owed
its deliverance in Egypt, was but the symbol of the
Lamb without blemish and without spot, whom God
had fore-ordained before the foundation of the world,
and who has now redeemed us by His blood from
that subjection to vanity which we have inherited
from our fathers.1
The Church is the reality symbolised by the ancient
people of God. To her belong all the titles of honour
which Moses had given by anticipation to Israel,
and which were applicable to it only in virtue of a
typical consecration : " Ye are the chosen generation,
the royal priesthood, the holy nation, the peculiar
people."2 Just as the ancient Israel lived in great measure
dispersed in the heathen countries, so does Christendom
live on earth, disseminated in a great number of
churches, which, like colonies that have been founded
in a foreign soil, keep up an aspiration after return
to their native country. That is, if I am not mistaken,
the true meaning of the expressions made use of by
Peter in the introduction to his epistle (i. 1, 2) : " To
the expatriated elect of the dispersion, in Pontus,
Galatia, etc."3 The Jews used to designate by the
expression the dispersion {diaspora) all that portion of
the nation which lived in the heathen countries, far
1 1 Pet. i. 18 — 20.
2 1 Pet. ii. 9, 10 ; cf. Exod. xix. 5, 6.
8 We adopt this translation of M. Renan as the most exact
and the most French.

BIBLICAL STUDIES.

from the Holy Land and from the Israelite metropolis.
We cannot think that St. Peter at all intends to say,
as has been supposed, that he is addressing only
ancient Jews ; too many passages evidently pre
suppose the pagan origin of some at least of his
readers. Neither does he intend to say, as M. Renan
thinks, that those Christians among the Gentiles are,
as it were, a part of the people of Israel, and that for
them also " Jerusalem is the only point in the world
in which they are not in a state of exile." How could
Peter, in any sense whatever, make of the earthly
Jerusalem the true home of the heathen populations,
now Christian, of Asia Minor ? Far from the Church
being confounded in his eyes with the Synagogue, the
moment at which he was writing was the critical one
when the name of Christians, by which believers were
beginning to be designated, expressly distinguished
them from the Jews, with whom the heathen had until
then confounded them ; when those edicts of tolera
tion which covered the Jewish religion ceased, for that
reason, any longer to shelter them ; and when they
found themselves exposed to persecution, that dread
contingency for which St. Peter specially labours to
prepare them in this epistle.
The true sense of this expression, "to the expatriated
elect" comes out clearly, in the first place, in the very
fact of the association with each other of these two
words, which forbids our assigning to the second of
them a coarse material sense ; but above all, from the

THE FOUR PRINCIPAL APOSTLES. 213
passage, ii. n, where this same word1 is used certainly
in the spiritual sense : " I beseech you as strangers and
pilgrims, abstain from fleshly lusts, which war against
the soul." Christians, as strangers and pilgrims here
below, must not allow themselves to be caught by the
allurements of this land of exile, nor to be hindered
in their march towards the heavenly country which
has been won for them by Jesus Christ. The Canaan,
then, from which they are separated, is not the earthly
one, but that heavenly Canaan of which Palestine was
but the image. And the churches dispersed through
the empire are, in relation to the Church triumphant
in heaven, a diaspora, like that composed of the
Jewish communities dispersed through the pagan
countries, in its relation to that part of the nation
which is fortunate enough to inhabit Jerusalem and
the Holy Land.
With this allegorical sense of the words, expatriated
and dispersion, in the introduction to the epistle,
agrees the figurative use of the name Babylon in the
last lines of this document. This term is borrowed
from the same symbolical language which reigns in
the whole epistle. The Fathers were not mistaken
there. M. Renan fully admits and confirms their
interpretation.2 Babylon indicates the capital of the
1 Parepidemoi.
2 Antichrist, p. 122. We should have other reasons to add to
those adduced by M. Renan, but it seems to us superfluous to
do so.

214 BIBLICAL STUDIES.
vast empire in which the Christians are now dispersed,
as the Jewish tribes had formerly been in Chaldea.
It is in Rome that St. Peter is writing, and it is from
thence that he sees with his mind's eye those edicts of
persecution issuing, which are soon to reach to all the
provinces of the monarchy. It is in this way that the
first and last words ofthe epistle answer to each other:
the exiles, Babylon.
We could cite in addition many other instances ;
they would lead us to the same result. The state
of salvation presented itself to the eyes of Peter as
a supra-terrestrial theocracy, a transfigured Canaan.
Beauty incorruptible, holiness raised above all possi
bility of profanation, such are the features of that
higher order of things of which the foundation was
laid by the resurrection of Jesus Christ, and which
awaits us in that upper world. It is glory, in the
scriptural and perfect sense of that word.
This is the divine magnet, of which the attraction
had mastered the warm heart of the apostle. The
Resurrection was the fact in which he had seen this
ideal approaching him, and had been able to grasp
the pledge of its realisation. The dominant charac
teristic of his faith became, consequently, the glorious
expectation of that state — hope.
That would naturally have happened in the case of
a devout Jew, who had become a Christian and an
apostle, and in whose character the ruling forces were
the impulses of the heart and the fire of the imagina-

THE FOUR PRINCIPAL APOSTLES. 215
tion. In such an one the old Israelite ambition must
disappear in presence of the Cross, and revive at the
sight of the Risen One, but transformed then into
the hope of the true glory, — of that which has holiness
for its principle, and heaven for its stage.
There remains one important point to be cleared
up. It is asserted that Peter was an advocate for the
maintenance of the Mosaic law within the Church ;
that not only did he continue to observe it himself,
with all the Christians of Jewish origin, but that he
wished even to impose it upon converts from among
the Gentiles, as a condition of salvation.1
But if Peter had attributed such importance to the
observance of the law, whether for the Gentiles or for
himself, how could he have freed himself and them
from it, even for a time, at Antioch ? How should his
party at Corinth be expressly distinguished by St.
Paul from the party designated as that " of Christ"
which, according to 2 Corinthians,2 was certainly that
of the judaizing Christians ? There is yet another con
sideration. If we attributed that opinion to Peter, we
1 M. Nicolas, Etudes sur le Nouveau Testament, pp. 224,
235,243 — 245. M. Sabatier associates himself completely with
this way of thinking, in his article on Paul of Tarsus, the
Apostle of the Gentiles, Revue Chrdtie7ine, July, 1873. (" Mark,
Barnabas, Silvanus forsake Paul, and attach themselves to the
twelve.") MM. Reuss and Renan are more cautious in their
judgment, though they also come under the unhealthy influ
ence of Baur, an influence from which the Church recovers only
by slow degrees.
1 1 Cor. i. 12 compared with 2 Cor. x. 7, xi. 21, 22.

216 BIBLICAL STUDIES.
should be absolutely compelled to charge the whole
narrative of the Acts with falsehood, since in it Peter
himself combats this Pharisaic tendency; we should
have to do violence to the plain meaning of Gal. ii., in
which St. Paul contrasts the apostles with the false
brethren who wished to compel the Gentile Christians
to practise circumcision j1 we should have, lastly, to
make up our minds to brand as unauthentic St. Peter's
first epistle, one of the documents of the New Testa
ment to the authority and use of which in the Church
we have the earliest testimonies. For there is not a
single mention of the law in that epistle, which
could not have been the case had its author still re
garded the Mosaic observances as necessary for
Christians ; so much the more as, from the beginning
to the end, his thoughts are moving in the sphere of
precepts of morality.
All the documents, impartially consulted, agree in
shewing that St. Peter, as well as most of the Christians
of Jewish origin, continued to observe the law as a
form originally of divine institution, and not yet
abolished by God Himself; but without imposing it
upon the Gentiles, and consequently also without
making its observance a condition of salvation ; since
if such observance had been in their view a second
v. 6. " But (Se) those who seemed to be somewhat (James,
Peter, and John, v. 9) added nothing to me " (that is to say,
imposed nothing new ; in connection with v. 2, "I communicated
unto th';m that gospel which I preach among the Gentiles.")

THE FOUR PRINCIPAL APOSTLES. 217
condition of salvation equivalent to faith, they evi
dently could not have absolved the Gentiles from
it. From this point of view we can understand the
vacillations of Paul and Barnabas in their practical
conduct. A pious observance does not stand on the
same ground as an absolute moral obligation ; it is a
conventional matter from which it may be allowable
temporarily to dispense oneself.
In the first epistle, Peter insists more exclusively
than Paul upon moral duties, but without ever resting
them upon any other foundation than that of faith ;
he leans, at the same time, more strongly than James,
upon the gospel verities ; for instance, upon redemp
tion by the blood of Christ, the descent of Jesus into
Scheol, His resurrection, etc., but never in any other
aspect than that of their practical application.1
We have, then, a right to say that in him we find
1 The essay of M. Nicolas on St. Peter's first epistle presents
a strange specimen of scientific levity. This writer wishes to
prove that the object of this epistle is to labour at the reconcilia
tion of Paulinism and Judaso-Christianism. To this end M.
Nicolas says: "If we consider, lastly, that this epistle con
cludes by an apology for St. Paul, whose epistles, sometimes
hard to be understood, are wrested from their true sense by
ignorant persons . . . (1 Pet. iii. 15, 16)." (p. 266.) Now
these words, quoted as evidence of the tendency of the first
epistle of Petei, do not belong to that treatise ; they are found,
as everybody knows, in the second epistle ! — It is, then, a fact
that it is possible to write a criticism on a book of the Bible, by
consulting for the purpose volumes of learned Germans, . . .
while at the same time omitting to read the book itself. What
a criticism of criticism — of this specimen of it at least I

218 BIBLICAL STUDIES.
the simple synthesis, not formulated systematically,
of the elements, whose antithesis in relation to each
other is about to be presented to us in the concep
tions of Peter and of Paul. II.
ST. JAMES.
As Peter personifies in himself the normal transition
from the Jewish economy into the free grace of Chris
tianity, James represents — I beg to be allowed the
expression — the transition into that transition.
The person best known under this name in the
gospel story is the son of Zebedee, the brother of
the apostle John, and himself an apostle. He suffered
martyrdom about fifteen years after Pentecost, in 44,
by order of King Herod Agrippa.1
The New Testament mentions another apostle of
the name of James the son of Alpheus ; this latter
was not, like the former, of the rank of the chief
apostles ; he belonged to the lower group of the
college of the twelve.
Lastly, mention is sometimes made of a James
surnamed the brother of the Lord? This title leaves
no room to doubt the identity of this person with the
James who is placed at the head of all the lists of the
brothers of Jesus given in the Gospels and in the Acts.8
It remains to enquire whether or no, as many learned
1 Acts xii. 2. * Matt. xiii. 55, for instance.
1 Gal. i. 19, for instancej

THE FOUR PRINCIPAL APOSTLES. 219
men in all ages have thought, this James was the same
as the one last mentioned, the apostle James, the son
of Alpheus. According to a very ancient tradition,
Joseph, the reputed father of Jesus, had a brother
named Cleophas. Now this name may be considered
as the Aramaic equivalent of the Greek Alpheus, so
that James the son of Alpheus may well have been
the nephew of Joseph, and the first cousin of Jesus.
We must, according to this supposition, give to the
word brother, in the expression " the brother of Jesus,"
the sense of cousin ; and it is permissible to suppose
either that, after the death of Cleophas, his wife and
son came to live in the house of Joseph and Mary, or
that, after the death of Joseph, Mary and Jesus, her
only son, took up their abode with Cleophas. Brought
up together, the children of the two families would
have been, in the language of ordinary life, designated
as brothers, not cousins.
But this combination is inconsistent with the many
passages in the Gospels which prove that the brothers
of Jesus were not, during His lifetime, believers, nor,
consequently, apostles.1 There is no exception made
to this statement. The incompatibility of these two
characters is true, therefore, also in the case of James.
Besides, in the Acts and in I Corinthians, the brothers
of Jesus are distinguished from the apostles.2
1 Mark iii. 21, 31 ; John vii. 5: "Neither did His brethren
believe in Him."
2 Acts i. 13, 14 ; 1 Cor. ix. 5.

BIBLICAL STUDIES.

It is impossible, therefore, to identify James the
apostle, the son of Alpheus, with James the Lord's
brother; and it is consequently natural to suppose
the latter to have been either a son of Joseph by a
former marriage, or a son of Joseph and Mary, a
younger brother of Jesus.
It is to this James, called the Lords brother,
that ecclesiastical tradition is generally agreed in
ascribing the first of our catholic epistles which sets
forth the view of Christian doctrine we have now to
analyse. James and Peter both of them came out of a world
of the most marked Jewish character ; but there were
well-defined differences in the disposition and in the
development of the two men. Both of them were of
simple, upright, practical natures ; but Peter's tem
perament was vivacious and impressionable, whilst in
James the conscience and the judgment seem to have
predominated. According to the accounts given by the Fathers,
James must have always led a severely ascetic life,
after the manner of those Israelites who took the life
long vows of a Nazarite, such as were Samson and
John the Baptist. The following is the way in which
a Father of the second century, Hegesippus, describes,
in language a little emphatic, his manner of life : " He
was a saint from before his birth. He never drank
wine or strong drink ; he abstained altogether from
animal food. He never cut his hair. He never

THE FOUR PRINCIPAL APOSTLES. 221
allowed himself the use either of anointing or the
bath." Did James choose this kind of life, which was
regarded amongst the Jews as especially holy, from a
secret feeling of rivalry or jealousy with regard to his
Brother, whose high destiny was not entirely unknown
to him ? One could understand on this hypothesis
the sort of hostility of which we seem to detect indi
cations in his conduct during the ministry of Jesus.1
His resistance was at last overcome by a manifestation
of the Risen One, of which — and this is a strange
circumstance for those who make Paul the fierce
enemy of James — the first epistle to the Corinthians
alone has preserved the memory.2 James recognised
in the vanquisher of death the Messiah whom he had
failed to discern in the person of his Brother during
the days of His flesh — the Lord of glory?
As soon as he entered the Church, he took a promi
nent position in it. The extraordinary consideration
accorded to him, although he did not bear the title of
apostle, was due doubtless to two causes, — to his rela
tionship to Jesus, which carried weight with the Jewish
Christians in whom the purely spiritual appreciation
of things was as yet not highly developed, — and to his
1 Mark iii. 21, 31 ; John vii. 5.
2 1 Cor. xv. 7: "After that, He was seen of James.'' It is well
known how eagerly this slight hint has been laid hold of, and
how largely it has been amplified by the Judaeo-Christian
apocryphal Gospels.
s James ii. 1.

222 BIBLICAL STUDIES.
rigorous legalism, which he did not at all renounce
after he had reached the life of faith, and which gained
him the favour of the whole Jewish people. This
circumstance rendered him more fit than any other
person to act as a link — a sort of bridge of connection
— between the Synagogue and the Church. Thus he
was quite naturally the person to carry on the work
of the forerunner, taking his place apparently as a
member of the Jewish nation, of which he strictly
observed the law, and at the same time loudly pro
claiming Jesus as the national Messiah, the King of
Israel. Accordingly, none of the apostles seem to have had
so much prestige with the mass of the people as he
had. Not having taken part with Jesus in the public
conflicts into which His ministry brought Him, his
popularity suffered less than theirs from his profession
of the Christian faith. Moreover, the twelve were
occupied with their mission, which often called them
away from Jerusalem, while James, settled in the
metropolis, became by degrees the centre of the
most highly revered of the churches of Christendom.
Whether the office of bishop — that is to say, in the
primitive language of the Church, head of the college
of presbyters — was officially conferred upon him, or
whether this pre-eminence grew naturally out of his
circumstances, makes little difference. It is a fact
that he governed the mother-Church. Paul, in the
account he gives of the conference which he held with

THE FOUR PRINCIPAL APOSTLES. 223

the three representatives of that Church, places him
before Peter and John.1 It is in his house that, at the
time of Paul's last visit to Jerusalem, the council of
presbyters meets to receive the apostle of the Gentiles.2
It is in his hands that Paul deposits the collection he
has been making in all the churches of Asia and
Greece on behalf of the Christians in the capital. As
late as the fourth century, the episcopal chair of James
was still shewn in Jerusalem.3
Faith in Christ would, we can easily understand,
naturally take, in such a man, a peculiar form, espe
cially as compared with the faith of Peter. To the
causes of difference which we have already indicated,
we will, with Neander, add the following : — Peter, in
common with the other apostles, had only known
Jesus from the commencement of His public ministry,
whilst James had lived with Him on familiar terms
from his childhood. The person of Jesus had there
fore, in his mind, a reality independent of His office as
the Messiah. And when this latter character was at
length revealed to him in his Brother, it was only a
new feature which had to be added to the conception
which he had already formed of Him ; it was not the
foundation of the knowledge he had of His person.
His new faith was only the crown of the relation in
which He had stood to him before.4 There is perhaps
1 Gal. ii. 9; 2 Acts xxi. 18.
8 Eusebius, vii. 19 (Lsemmer's edition).
* Is there any allusion to this fact in 2 Cor. v. 16?

224 BIBLICAL STUDIES.
some connection between this fact and the difference
that marks the Christian intuition of Peter and of
James, a difference which we might define by saying
that, in the mind of the former, Christianity appeared
as a Judaism transformed, whilst the latter seems
rather to have regarded it as a Judaism completed.
This result, to which we are led by the historical
data which we gather from the New Testament and
from the Fathers, is in accordance with the contents
of the epistle which Christian antiquity attributes to
the first bishop of Jerusalem. As we read this letter,
we seem to ourselves to discern all the time, as
through a transparent veil, the well-known form of
this personage, unique in its kind.
The author designates himself, not as an apostle,
as he would doubtless have done had he been in
vested with that office, but as a servant of the Lord
Jesus Christ. The title of the Lord's brother, given
to him by the Church, would have been in him pre
tentious and unsuitable.
He addresses his epistle " to the twelve tribes which
are scattered abroad." It might seem from this
address that those for whom it was intended were
still Jews. But this conclusion is inadmissible ; for
faith in Jesus Christ is expressly presupposed in the
readers of this epistle, in many passages.1 Looking"
at it from another side there is no indication that we
1 i, i. "Servant of the Lord Jesus Christ (the Messiah);"
ii. i, " Jesus Christ the Lord of glory." (Cf . also v. 6 and 8.)

THE FOUR PRINCIPAL APOSTLES. 225
are to attribute to these words, as we have done to
some similar expressions in 1 Peter, a spiritual sense,
and to see in them a figurative description of the
Christian Church generally. What meaning then are
we to give to this address ? Neander seems to us to
have solved the difficulty: "The author," he says,
" regards the recognition of Jesus as the Messiah as
an essential feature of true Judaism. Believers are
in his eyes the only true Israelites. For Christianity
is in his view Judaism come to its perfection." Such
in truth must the relation between the two economies
have appeared to the mind of a man in whom the
faith in Christ had been but the matured flower of the
Israelitish life.
The epistle contains some minor features still
more characteristic.
It insists repeatedly and urgently upon the duty of
prayer. Now we know that the Lord's brother was
peculiarly a man of prayer. Hegesippus asserts
that he was so continually kneeling upon the
temple steps, interceding on behalf of the people,
that "his knees had become hard like those of a
camel." In the whole of this epistle there breathes a spirit
of vigorous moral energy, and even of high austerity.
Religious belief has no value, according to James,
save so far as it is accompanied by the practice of
what is right. Pious words without good works are
but so much wind. We must learn to hate the world,
15

226 BIBLICAL - STUDIES.
' the enemy of God, if we would possess in its reality
the love of God. We discern clearly in these indica
tions the character of the man who, in the mouth of
the whole Jewish nation, bore the title which the
Athenians of old had given to the best ofthe Greeks,
the just one, and who, in virtue of his holy life, so
universally admired, and of his constant intercession
for Israel, was also called Obliam, that is to say, the
wall (or bulwark) of the nation. We learn from the
Jewish historian, Josephus, that many in Israel re
garded the murder of this just man as the sweeping
away of the last of the embankments which still pro
tected Jerusalem from the in-pouring of the Divine
judgments. It is remarkable that James speaks of Jesus in his
epistle by the title, the just one, by which he was
himself known : " ye have condemned and killed the
just."1 It is as if he had desired to cast his crown
beforehand at the feet of his Divine Brother.
Lastly, let us not forget that to write such an
epistle, so weighty, so firm, so severe even, "to the
twelve tribes which are scattered abroad " — that is
to say, to all the Judaeo-Christian communities, and
even to the whole Jewish nation, so far as it was
destined to become Christian — a man was needed
who should feel himself possessed of exceptional
consideration, and of the authority, in some sort, of
a prophet. Now James, the Lord's brother, is pro-
' v. 6.

THE FOUR PRINCIPAL APOSTLES. 227
Lably the only Christian personage who ever occupied
such a position.
It is therefore with more reason than good taste
that M. Renan says of the epistle of James and of
I Peter : " The circumstantial details which we meet
with in these epistles, anticipate facts known to us
from external evidence, and may be included in
them." And this remark applies, as we are about
to see, to the moral situation of those for whom
the epistle was intended, no less than to the character
of its author.
When St. Paul summons Jewish morality to the
bar of judgment, at the beginning ofthe epistle to
the Romans (ii.), the principal fault with which he
charges it is that it substitutes the profession of the
lips for practical obedience to the law. Every one
knows that this is precisely the danger against which,
above all others, James warns his readers. Here
then, already, we have come upon a point in which
the epistle perfectly fits the needs of Judaeo-Christian
communities. Religious fluency, the lust of teaching, the rage
for casuistical discussion, have in all ages been the
characteristic features of pharisaic piety. The third
chapter of the epistle is entirely devoted to attack
ing these faults.
One of the distinctive features of the Church in
Jerusalem, and of the Judaeo-Christian communities,
seems to have been the general poverty of their

228 BIBLICAL STUDIES.

members. Rationalism wishes to see in this poverty
the natural result of the community of goods which,
as it is pretended, had established itself after Pente
cost. But did not Jesus Himself, during His sojourn
here below, already see a clear line of demarcation
beginning to be drawn between the indigent portion
of the people who received Him favourably, and the
richer classes who, with few exceptions, openly took
pait against Him V- The occasional acts of liberality
mentioned by Luke in the picture he gives us of the
primitive Church, could not have produced effects so
general, and above all, so lasting. Recruited for the
most part from among the poorer classes of the popu
lation, the churches of Judea depended for their work
and for their subsistence upon the rich who detested
them. These are the very simple causes of that indi
gence which the rest of Christendom was so often
called upon to aid. This state of general poverty is
just what we perceive in the communities which James
addresses. The appearance of a rich man is an event
to be noticed : every one is tempted servilely to do
him homage. " Let the brother of low degree rejoice
in that he is exalted, and the rich in that he is made
low." As for the opulent grandees, Pharisees, and
Sadducees, living in Jerusalem amidst the pleasures of
a life of the most unbridled luxury, James addresses
1 Luke vi. 20 — 26. " Woe unto you that are rich ! woe unto
you that are full ! . . . Elessed be ye poor : blessed are ye that
hunger."

THE FOUR PRINCIPAL APOSTLES. 229
them bluntly in these words : " Go to now, ye rich
men, weep and howl ! your riches are corrupted, and
your garments are moth-eaten. Your gold and silver
is cankered ; the rust of them shall eat your flesh as
it were fire!"1
M. Renan reads in these words a condemnation of
riche^ as such. We see fermenting here, according to
his view, the spirit of social revolutions. We are to re
cognise in the words the programme of the Ebionites,2
of which James has made himself the organ. M. Renan
is mistaken here, as he is also in his explanation of
the analogous passages in the Gospels. It is not rich
men in the abstract, but rich men such as those James
saw actually before him, that he is here characterising
and condemning ; just as Jesus had done before him.
"Do not rich men oppress you, and draw you before the
judgment seats ? Do not they blaspheme that worthy
name by which ye are called?" They "keep back
the hire of tlte labourers, whose cries reach to heaven.^
They " live in pleasure; " they " nourish their hearts
as in a day of slaughter." Is it not indeed they,
" who have condemned aud killed the just who did not
resist them ? "3 It is not therefore against riches in
themselves, but against that misuse of riches which
he was witnessing every day in Jerusalem, that James
rises up to protest.
1 ii. 1 — 6 ; i. 10; v. 1 — 5.
* A sect which makes a principle of poverty.
• ii. 6, 7 ; v. 5, 6.

230 BIBLICAL STUDIES.
Scarcely eight years intervened between this pro
phetic warning and the catastrophe which, in the year
70, fulfilled it. It must have been in fact a little
before the year 62 that this epistle was composed.
For that was the year in which Ananias the high
priest caused James to be cast down from the top of
the temple. The latter was at that time at the
highest point of his favour with the people. That
was, doubtless, the time at which he composed his
epistle. It was intended for circulation amongst the
Judaeo-Christian churches of Palestine and Syria, the
only countries in which were to be found communities
of wholly Jewish origin, such as are presupposed in
this letter. Perhaps the epistle was distributed at
Jerusalem during one of those great national feasts
which still drew to that city the representatives of all
those churches, of those " thousands of Jews which
believe" according to the expression of James when
speaking to Paul.1 If such is the origin of our
epistle, we can easily understand how it came to
pass that this document appeared first in the canon
of the churches of those countries, in the Syriac
version of the New Testament called Peschito, and
did not gain currency in the West till a somewhat
later date.
We are now in a position to estimate aright the
spirit of this document, and to define more accurately
1 Acts xxi. 2a

THE FOUR PRINCIPAL APOSTLES. 231
the conception which its author had formed of the
Christian salvation.
Salvation depended, in his eyes, upon the moral
conduct of man — upon the faithfulness with which he
fulfilled the will of God : " Was not Abraham our
father justified by works, when he had offered Isaac
his son upon the altar ? Ye see then how that by
works a man is justified, and not by faith only."1
This doctrine, at first sight, seems contradictory to
that of Paul. It looks even as if James had deli
berately intended to controvert Paul, and to oppose
formula to formula.2 Does not Paul say (Rom.
iii. 28), "Therefore we conclude that a man is justi
fied by faith without the deeds of the law " ?
But there are grave difficulties in the way of this
hypothesis of a deliberate intention on the part of
James to controvert Paul's teaching.3
The principal one is that the faith of which
James affirms that it does not justify, is quite of a
different kind from that of which Paul affirms that it
suffices for justification. They differ with respect to
their object and their nature. When Paul teaches
justification by faith, he means faith in the redemption
1 James ii. 21, 24.
2 M. Nicolas thinks such was really the case. Such is the
opinion also of M. Renan : " James is the adversary of Paul. . . .
A whole paragraph of his epistle is intended to warn the faithful
against Paul's doctrine, of the uselessness of works, and of salva
tion by faith only." M. Renan goes so far as to insinuate that
James's words, O vain man.' are addressed to Paul.
" They are well pointed out by M. Reuss.

232 BIBLICAL STUDIES.
accomplished by Jesus Christ, or at least — when he is
dealing with Old Testament personages — faith in the
gracious promises of Jehovah, of which this redemption
was the fulfilment ; whereas the faith which James
declares to be insufficient for salvation, means simply^
he says so himself — that belief in the one only God
which distinguished the Jews from the heathen ; con
sequently it consists in adhesion to an article of
the Jewish faith : " Thou believest that there is one
God ; thou doest well : the devils also believe, and
tremble." 1 But where has St. Paul ever taught that
man could be justified by faith in a dogma not
specially Christian ?
The theory of salvation by faith in the unity of God,
which James attacks, belonged to a cycle of ideas
totally different from Paul's ; rather let us say, it
belonged to the system of his most declared adver
saries — to pharisaic orthodoxy. We have many
indications of this fact. Does not Justin Martyr, in
his dialogue with Tryphon the Jew, say to him : " As
for you Jews, you affirm that even when you are
sinners, yet if you know God, He will not impute to
you your sins ? " And do we not, in a document of
the second century, belonging to a school of the most
marked judaistic tendency,2 find these words : " A
monotheistic soul has this privilege above that of an
idolator, that even when it has lived in sin it cannot
perish " ?
1 ii. 19. ! The Clementine Homilies,

THE FOUR PRINCIPAL APOSTLES. 233
This Jewish prejudice, which makes of the mere
acceptance by the intellect of the dogma of the unity
of God the sole and sure condition of salvation, is
attacked by Paul with as much indignation as by
James himself: "Behold, thou art called a Jew, and
restest in the law, and makest thy boast of God ....
and thou dishonourest God through breaking the
law ! " ' Had then the blows of James fallen upon
Paul, he would have been unintentionally striking at
one of his own allies !
Compelled then to give up the idea that James
deliberately attacked the apostle Paul, many writers
have put forward the supposition that his purpose was
to warn his readers against the abuses which might be
made of his doctrine if misunderstood.
But why, in that case, are we to give to this doctrine,
as we have just stated it, an entirely different inter
pretation from that of Paul ? Or why, at any rate,
does he not begin by stating to the reader whatever
in the doctrine was well founded and in conformity
with Scripture, and then go on to refute the misunder
standings to which it might give rise ? Lastly — and
this is perhaps the most cogent argument — is there
the least likelihood that there should ever have pre
vailed among the Judaeo-Christian communities, for
whom James was writing, any inclination to exaggerate
the doctrine of grace, as taught by Paul, and to push
1 Rom, ii. 17, 23.

234 BIBLICAL STUDIES.
it to the length of antinomianism ? x Was not Paul
himself, with all his teaching and all his actions, a
constant object of suspicion to Christians of Jewish
origin ? 2
Neither does the selection, common to both these
sacred writers, of Abraham's example, prove that the
one intended to allude to the writings of the other.
For this patriarch was, in the eyes of the Jews, the
very personification of salvation. To discuss his case
was to discuss the principle itself of salvation.
There remains a third hypothesis —that James con
tradicted Paul without knowing it.
In order to maintain this, we should have first to
efface from the epistle of the former of these two
writers some maxims which lead logically and directly
to the doctrine of the latter, and consequently to the
precise opposite of that which is attributed to James
himself. "Whosoever," he says, "shall keep the whole
law, and yet offend in one point, he is guilty of all."
Compare this maxim with the confession, " In many
things we offend all," 3 and we shall agree that Paul
could not have laid down better premisses upon which
to build his gospel of justification by faith, and that
James could not have taught anything which would
more radically undermine the doctrine of salvation by
works. 1 That is, systematic and practical opposition to the law.
• Acts xxi. 20—22.
1 ii. io, and iii. 2.

THE FOUR PRINCIPAL APOSTLES. 235

Let us examine more closely the idea of salvation
which James endeavours to inculcate into his readers
in the well-known passage which gives rise to this
dispute.1 We must, it appears to me, if we are to state with
perfect definiteness the relation in which this passage
stands to the teaching of Paul, draw three distinctions,
which arise out of the passages themselves, and which
bear upon the meaning of the three words common to
both the formulae which are usually considered con
tradictory to each other.
Paul says : Faith justifies without works. James
says : Faith does not justify without works.
Three words occur in both of these formulae —
justify, works, and faith. And. no contradiction, it is
evident, exists between the two authors, except so far
as they both attributed the same meaning to these
three words. But we shall find that they did not do
so — the fact is quite otherwise.
First, as to the word justify, we have already re
marked, in the essay on the work of Christ, that Holy
Scripture recognises two kinds of justification : one,
that by which man passes from his natural state of
condemnation into the state of grace, — this is, if we
may venture so to speak, initial justification : the
other, that by which the believer, already a participator
in the Divine reconciliation, abides in it, even to the
end, and is finally received into glory ; this is con-
1 ii. 17—26.

236 BIBLICAL STUDIES.
tinuous, daily justification, of which the issue is defini
tive absolution.
Now the justification of which Paul habitually speaks
is the former of these two — that by which we enter
into the state of salvation. His mission being tq
open the door of the new covenant to the heathen, it
was this that must of necessity chiefly occupy his
attention. And he makes this justification depend
entirely upon faith. The passage in James, on the
contrary, is written with reference to the latter ; which
is quite natural, since it is intended for Jews, who,
having been born in the state of covenant with God,
did not need to be admitted into it, but only to persevere
in it. Now for this, holiness is the indispensable con
dition. Every gift of grace received, whether it belong
to the initial or decisive stage of the spiritual life, is a
talent entrusted to us. God expects a substantial
moral result from it. Otherwise the talent is soon
withdrawn. It is upon this side of the truth that
James insists, in perfect agreement with Jesus, who
has said to each of His disciples, " By thy words thou
shalt be justified (in the day of judgment), and by
thy words thou shalt be condemned ; " and who,
applying to the relation in which He Himself stands
to God this same condition of faithfulness in practice,
expresses Himself thus : " If ye keep my command
ments, ye shall abide in my love (the love that I have
for you) ; even as I have kept my Father's command
ments, and abide in His love (the love that He has for

THE FOUR PRINCIPAL APOSTLES. 237
me)."1 Now could Paul have meant to attack this
assertion ? On the contrary, is it not he who addresses
these words to men who came under the same category
as James's readers ? " Not the hearers of the law are
just before God, but the doers of the law shall be
justified ... in the day when God shall judge the
secrets of men."2 Is not that the very formula of
James, complete ? And, speaking of himself, does he
not say, "For I know nothing by myself; yet am I
not hereby justified : but He that judgeth me is the
Lord."3 James does not then, by any means, teach an initial*
justification for which good works would be required,
which would be really contradictory to Paul; and
Paul does not teach a final justification for which
good works are not required, which would be really
contradictory to James.
In the Bible idea of justification, as soon as it is
clearly understood, there is room at the same time for
both these formulae ; man is justified by faith without
works ; man is not justified by faith without works.
For they relate to two different moments in the
Christian life : one, to that in which the sinner first
reaches faith ; the other, to that in which the believer
is judged according to the fruits of his faith.
1 Matt. xii. 36, 37 j John xv. 10.
2 Rom. ii. 13, 16.
' 1 Cor. iv. 4, referring to the final judgment alluded to in
ver. 3 and 5.
* That by which the state of grace is begun.

238 BIBLICAL STUDIES.
Or, to say the same thing in another way : James
would be in contradiction to Paul, if he affirmed that,
in order to obtain grace, the sinner's faith must be
accompanied by a certain quantum of meritorious
works ; and Paul would be in contradiction to James,
if he taught that the believer could be finally saved
whilst still living in sin. But that is just what neither
of them does say.1
The distinction which we have just drawn is con
firmed by the different manner in which the two
writers quote the example of Abraham. Paul brings
forward the moment at which he was for the first
time declared righteous by Jehovah.2 James recalls
a much later moment in the life of the patriarch,
that at which, already believing and justified, he
accomplishes his greatest work of obedience, the
offering up of Isaac, and receives a solemn con
firmation of this justification which he had already
obtained.3 The example of Rahab, quoted by James, is not
contradictory to this explanation, as might be sup
posed. At the time when this woman saved the
spies, she had been already for some time a believer.
She herself relates to them how the fame of the
exploits of the God of Israel on behalf of His people
1 See upon the necessity of sanctification for final salvation,
according to Paul : 1 Cor. vi. io ; vii. 19 ; xvi. 22; Gal. v. 6, 21 ;
vi. 7, 8 ; Eph. ii. 10, etc.
2 Gen. xv. ; cf. Rom. iv. 3 ; Gal. iii. 6.
¦ Gen. xxii. ; cf. James ii,_2 1 .

THE FOUR PRINCIPAL APOSTLES. 239
had reached her, and how she had believed in Him,
as the Lord of the whole universe.1 The work which
she did on behalf of the spies was therefore subse
quent to her entrance into the life of faith. It was
the act in which the reality of her faith came into
light. And God responded to it by granting to her a
new gift of grace, that of her temporal preservation.
To this distinction between the two applications of
the word justify, may be added another, with regard
to the use of the word works. The works which Paul
declares to be unavailing for justification are works
which precede faith, — those which he himself calls the
works of the law? forced from the sinner by the con
straint of the law, and destitute of that which alone
could give them any moral value in God's sight — the
spirit of love. The works which James set forth as
necessary for justification are those which are wrought
in faith, and which St. Paul designates by the name of
good works, in opposition to the works of the law.3
Neither, lastly, is the third word, faith, taken in the
same sense by the two writers. We know what Paul
understands by faith — an act of the moral conscious
ness 4 which takes possession of the whole man — feel
ing, intellect, and will. On the other hand, we have
1 Josh. ii. 9— n.
2 Rom. iii. 20, 28.
3 Eph. ii. 10. " Created in Christ Jesus unto good works."
Tn antithesis to the works of the law, ver. 8, 9 : " By grace
are ye saved . . . not by works."
' pp. 182, 183.

*4° BIBLICAL STUDIES.

already seen what is meant by faith in the language
of James. It is true that this language is not his own ;
it is borrowed from that of his readers. According to
this terminology, more Jewish than Christian, faith
consists in the adhesion of the intellect to a truth of
the reason — that of the unity of God.1
It is easy to understand in this way the difference
of the relation in which faith and works are made to
stand to one another by the two authors. According
to Paul's view, the active element of the soul, the will,
is included in the idea of faith ; works then emanate
spontaneously from faith, in which they are virtually
contained, as the consequence is contained in its
premise. In the language of James, the adhesion of
the will is to be added, subsequently, to faith (belief),
so as to bring forth works — and that, as a new fact,
perfects faith.
But in reality James, when he himself calls a faith
dead which is not accompanied by works as its com
plement, makes us perceive that true faith — that which
alone merits the name, and which is in his eyes living
— is inseparable from the will which brings forth
works ; and this leads directly to St. Paul's view.
When, in answer to the vain boasting of a dead
orthodoxy, which has knowledge only without works,
St. James says, " Shew me (if thou canst) thy faith
without thy works, and I will shew thee my faith by
my works," are not works put forward in these words,
1 pp. 231, 232.

THE FOUR PRINCIPAL APOSTLES. 241
as they are in Paul, as the embodiment of faith — as
the security that it is living ?
To recapitulate, — The justification intended by
Paul is, that by which man enters into the state of
salvation ; but James is speaking of that by which
he abides in it.
Works are, in Paul's view, those which are anterior
to faith ; in James's view, they are those done in the
state of faith.
Faith, as conceived by Paul, is that of the con
sciousness, which is the act of the whole man, and
operates through the will; faith is, according to
James, the belief of the intellect, which is dead in
itself, unless the will import into it life and efficacy.
When once these distinctions have been grasped,
we perceive the simultaneous truth of the two formulae
in which the two points of view are summed up.
And now we are in a position to attempt a defini
tion ofthe form under which the Christian salvation
presented itself to the mind of James.
That which, above all other things, occupied the
mind of the brother of Jesus evidently was good works.
In Peter the dominant idea was the brilliant picture
of the perfect state which the coming of Christ was
ultimately to bring about. James dwelt more upon
the severe aspect of salvation — upon that holiness
which alone leads to glory.
The ruling principle of this holiness he discovered
in the law, the revealed expression of the Divine will.
16

242 BIBLICAL STUDIES.
But he did not separate the Jewish law from that
commentary and complement to it which is given to
us in Christ — from the word planted in us by the
preaching of the gospel. Explained by Jesus, changed
by His Spirit into a principle of the inner life, the
law had become for him the royal law, a law of
liberty, the wisdom which is from above.1
James, then, did not take the view of the law
of an ancient Pharisee, who would have seen in it
only a means of establishing his own righteousness,
and of laying up before God by his obedience a store of
merits ; but who, separating the observance of the law
from those succours of Divine grace which attached to
it even under the old covenant, would at last have
found in it only a principle of condemnation. James
assigns to the law the same position as do the authors
of the Psalms and Proverbs, who endeavoured to
fulfil it in a spirit, not of pride, but of obedience. Far
from undertaking this work in any confidence in theii
own strength, they accomplished it only in communion
with the God of that covenant which had already
been opened to the faithful Israelite by many
ordinances of mercy. Thus the law was to them a
daily object of joy and admiration, a treasure mors
precious than gold, food sweeter than honey.
Such was James's feeling. The gospel therefore
naturally presented itself to him as the crown and
consummation of this institution intended for the
1 i. 18, 23—25 ; ii. 8—1 1 ; iii 17.

THE FOUR PRINCIPAL APOSTLES. 243
moral education of the people of God — as the perfect
law, perfect in respect of the spirituality of its com
mandments; perfect in respect of the living model of
its fulfilment presented in Jesus; perfect in respect
of the Divine strength, abundantly sufficient for its
purpose, which is granted to man to fulfil it in his
turn. The part played by Jesus, according to this idea, is
pre-eminently that of the supreme legislator; of the
judge, who alone can save or destroy ; of the Lord of
glory, whose hand places the crown upon the head of
him who has overcome.1
It is not easy to see what, from this point of view,
was the method of appeasing the conscience after a
fault had been committed. Was it the sacrifice of
Christ alone, or was it necessary to add to that the
observance of the rites of the law ? Perhaps this
question did not even occur to the minds of James
and the Judaeo-Christians whom he was addressing.
The Levitical rites, being symbolical of the sacrifice
of Christ, were associated in their minds with the
contemplation and the celebration of the latter. What
is certain is, that in Peter's view the question was
settled. His epistle does not allow us to doubt it ;
the whole redemptive power had definitely passed
over from the typical sacrifices into that of the Cross.
But the epistle of James does not contain one word
' Legislator, iv. 12 ; judge, iv. 12, v. 9 ; Lord of glory, ii. 1 ;
giving the crown, i. 12.

244 BIBLICAL STUDIES.
which betrays the opinion entertained by its author
on this subject.
In all times there have been and there will be
upright natures, instinct with force and power, severe
to themselves, who seek in the gospel an instrument
of sanctification rather than of pardon, who see in
Christ a pattern and a force rather than an atoning
victim. Pardon, they think, should of necessity ac
company serious labour undertaken with a view to
moral amelioration. Such natures have, it seems to
us, a right to see themselves reflected more or less in
that of James. The conception of the nature of salva
tion which is suggested by this habit of mind needs
to be complemented rather than corrected. It con
tains no error, but the truth does not as yet shine
forth in it distinctly. If this should surprise any of
my readers, let them remember, with regard to James,
as well as to Jude, that neither of them had been
invested by Jesus with the dignity of apostles.
The teaching of Paul had had the effect of affixing
an eternal stigma in the Church of Christ upon dead
works — external observances without the inner life ;
that of James, to brand with lasting condemnation a
dead faith — intellectual belief separated from moral
activity. These two errors — like two reefs which
rise to the surface at different points of the ocean,
but which beneath the surface are blended in one
and the same rock — both belong to the same
religious principle, that ever-recurring Pharisaism

THE FOUR PRINCIPAL APOSTLES. 245
which at one time knows without acting, at another
acts without feeling.
The writings of Paul are especially indispensable in
ages of formalism ; they lift the banner of that spirit
uality which is characteristic of all true obedience,
such as is worthy of the God who is a Spirit. James's
epistle is especially appropriate in times of intellectual
dogmatism and of dead orthodoxy ; it contains the
protest of the moral principle upon which Divine sal
vation rests.
The epistle of James forms a part therefore, as do
also the writings of Paul, of that sacred viaticum which
the Lord bequeathed to His Church for its use during
the whole period of its development and of its earthly
activity — of the authentic canon of the New Testa
ment. And here it is fitting to do homage to the
breadth of view, to the freedom of mind, to the bold
ness of faith, with which the churches of the fourth
century, at the very time when they were proclaiming
loudly the divinity of the Scriptures, dared, without
grudging, to assign a place in their infallible canon
to writings which included formulas which, taken in the
letter, were mutually contradictory upon the subject
of salvation. How far does Luther, with his un
guarded assertions, dictated by the too exclusive
pre-occupation of his mind with the controversies of
his own time, stand below these courageous synodal
decrees -which governed the closing acts of the forma
tion of the Christian canon !

246 BIBLICAL STUDIES.

In view of this fact, have we not a right to speak
of a providential canon, and to recognise in this
collection of writings as it has been issued from the
hands of the Church, the fruit of guidance from
above ? III.
ST. PAUL.
We have said of James that he was a unique man ;
he was so indeed, among all the eminent persons of
the primitive Church, on account of the special point
of view which he represents. But there is another
servant of Christ who has still more right to this
epithet, from the novelty of the path opened by him,
and the grandeur of the work he has accomplished.
St. Paul was, like James, a man of strong moral
sense and of firm and upright judgment. He pos
sessed also, like Peter, wealth of imagination joined
to depth of feeling, as well as a spirit of bold en
terprise in the sphere of practical work. But he
was distinguished from both of them by the possession
of dialectic skill of the most flexible as well as
penetrating kind, and, at the same time, of that faculty
for rapid and large intuitions which is so rarely com
bined with closeness of reasoning. From this combi
nation of gifts, which are seldom developed to so
eminent a degree even separately, and still more
seldom when two or three of them are combined in
one man, has resulted one of the most powerful and

THE FOUR PRINCIPAL APOSTLES. 247
fertile natures in the domain of action as well as of
thought, which humanity has ever produced.
It was not in Palestine that this rich intelligence
was developed, but under the skies of Asia Minor, in the
midst of the life of Greek literature and art, at Tarsus,
— one of the most brilliant centres of civilisation in
that age. It is hard to believe that a spirit so wake
ful as that of this child should have been insensible
to the influence of the atmosphere in which it came
into being. The traces of the study of Greek poetry
and the numerous comparisons taken from the social
life of the Greeks, which we meet with in his epistles,
and which distinguish them in so marked a way from
the Gospels and from the writings of the Twelve, in
which we never find anything of the kind, betray,
not, it is true, a highly developed Greek culture, but
at all events a very real sympathy with that people,
and with its life and works of genius. Now such a
sentiment could only have been formed in him
before the time when he became imprisoned in the
strait-waistcoat of a Pharisaic education.
It is therefore probable that he passed the whole of
his childhood at Tarsus, and that it was not till he
was about twelve years old, — the time when the child
became, according to the saying of the Jews, a son of
the law, because he was from that time subjected to
all the customs of the law, — that he was sent to
Jerusalem.1 There he had a married sister ; and he
' Acts xxiii. 16. In his article upon Paul of Tarsus, M.

248 BIBLICAL STUDIES.
very soon received instruction from the most cele
brated Rabbi of the time, Gamaliel. Here began for
the youthful Saul a severe discipline, which must have
had the effect of at the same time curbing the im
pulses of his ardent nature, and narrowing the sphere
of activity of his lively intelligence. In the lessons of
Pharisaic rabbinism everything turned upon the expla
nation of the precepts of Moses, and their different
applications. It was a kind of casuistry in which
masters and pupils often found occasions for display
ing a rare sagacity. To these intellectual exercises —
a real gymnastic training, for which the law was, if we
may so say, the machinery — were added, at least
amongst the more earnest youths like Saul, serious
practical efforts at realising that ideal of the true
Good which was shadowed forth by the law. We
know from the later declarations of the apostle, that
he devoted himself to the fulfilment of the duties of
the law with no less zeal than to the study of their
theory. The consideration in which the doctors were held
at that time is almost incredible. Their person was
regarded as sacred; and of their words it was said
that they were equivalent to those of the Most High.
A young man could become a rabbi at the age of
sixteen. From that time he had the right to expound
the decisions of the school to the people, and upon
Sabatier says : " While he was still of tender age, he was sent to
Jerusalem." This does not follow necessarily from Acts xxii. 3.

THE FOUR PRINCIPAL APOSTLES. 249
his person was shed a reflection of the glory which
shone around the heads of the great masters. Thus
there opened before Paul a vista of the highest
honours, and he seems to have climbed the first steps
of the ladder which was to lead him up to them with
a firm and decided step. " I profited in the Jews'
religion," he says himself, when later in his life he
recalls this time, "above many my equals."1 But
it is easy to see how self-love and ambition would
have gathered strength in him in such a course of life,
especially in the case of a nature so highly gifted as
his. And the eyes of the noble and pious youth were
by no means blind to the wrong feelings which were
developing themselves within him. Under cover of
the holiness of which he bore the appearance, he de
tected in his heart the plague-spot of impurity of
which he could not cleanse himself. He has himself
described this grievous conflict in the admirable seventh
chapter of the epistle to the Romans. It was covet-
ousness, he says, (v. 7 and 8,) which had revealed to
him his condition of moral corruption. With regard
to the first nine commandments he might have de
ceived himself, and have sincerely declared himself
free from blame. But the tenth, " Thou shalt not
covet," condemned him without mercy, and reduced
him to despair, — a touching confession, implying as
much of purity in his external conduct as of candour
and severity in his examination of his conscience.
1 Gal. i. 14.

-250 BIBLICAL STUDIES.
By the illumination shed by the law, the depths of his
evil nature, hidden from the eyes of the world, were
brought into the broad daylight of his conscience.
The secret sin with which Saul had to struggle
broke forth at last in a definite act. It was the great
blot upon his youth, and became the bitter memory of
all his after-life ; but the Divine mercy was able to
make of this sin an occasion for miracles of grace.
He declared himself, with a fanatical zeal, to be
the enemy of Jesus and of His followers. Probably
the pride which had been fostered in him by his
talents and success was the primary source of this
violent animosity. That persecution of the Chris
tians to which the young disciple of the Pharisaic
doctors gave himself up with a kind of frenzy, was a
revenge for the little consideration in which Jesus and
the apostles had seemed to hold his teachers and the
Pharisaic philosophy of which he was himself so
proud. At the same time, it was probably something
more than this. It was the endeavour to make up by
some great meritorious act for those shortcomings of
his own righteousness, which he was compelled more
and more to acknowledge. Never were the words
more applicable which Jesus had spoken to His disci
ples : " They shall put you out of the synagogues :
yea, the time cometh that whosoever killeth you will
think that he doeth God service." But this act, which
was intended to establish his own righteousness, did
but serve to complete its ruin. The blood of Stephen,

THE FOUR PRINCIPAL APOSTLES. 251
shed by Paul and his fellow-disciples, envenomed the
wound of his conscience instead of healing it. And
then it was that Christ, taking advantage of the
moment in which his conscience was most athirst for
righteousness, came suddenly from the throne of His
glory to reveal Himself to him, and to give him in his
own person that for which he was so ardently seeking
— the righteousness of God, that is to say, the sentence
of absolution which God the righteous Judge, alone
can pronounce without appeal upon the sinner.
This righteousness which Jesus brought him was
something quite different from the ideal which he had
formed to himself of this grace — the first of all graces
in his eyes. He had pictured to himself as the object
of life the power of settling accounts, as it were, satis
factorily with God, upon the footing of a strict appli
cation of the terms of the law, and of offering to Him
a faultless obedience as the work of his own moral
strength. And now righteousness was, on the con
trary, to be granted to him as the work of another,
and to be imputed to him gratuitously. It descended
upon him from heaven, instead of springing from the
ground of his own heart as the fruit of his own labour.
He has himself described this contrast better than we
could do it : "If any other man thinketh that he hath
whereof he might trust in the flesh, I more : circum
cised the eighth day, of the stock of Israel, of the
tribe of Benjamin, an Hebrew of the Hebrews ; as
touching the law, a Pharisee ; concerning zeal, perse-

252 BIBLICAL STUDIES.
cuting the church ; touching the righteousness "which
is in the law, blameless. But what things were gain
to me, those I counted loss for Christ .... that I
may be found in Him, not having mine own right
eousness, which is of the law, but that which is
through the faith of Christ, the righteousness which
is of God by faith."1
We observe here — and not less distinctly in other
passages — a difference, which appears at first sight
strange, between the sentiments of James and those
of Paul with regard to the law. James seems to look
upon the law as a basis upon which to rest his moral
activity, — a beneficent and friendly principle. Paul
represents it rather as a ground of condemnation. In
James's view, the law does but transform itself into the
gospel ; in that of Paul, they are two opposite prin
ciples. Whence arises this difference of view ? James
took the law in that fulness of meaning in which it
includes all the numerous institutions of grace with
which God had already furnished the old covenant.
He had no thought of fulfilling it without having first
strengthened himself in God by the use of all these
means, just as now the sincere Christian never separates
the practice of evangelical duties from communion
with Jesus, and the use of the Divine means of grace
which He has bestowed upon His church. Paul, on
the contrary, treats of the law in the sense in which it
was understood by the Pharisees among the Jews, and
Phil. iii. 4—9-

THE FOUR PRINCIPAL APOSTLES. 253
by his Pharisaic adversaries in the Church itself. It is
the law solely as a moral commandment and as a
meritorious observance — the Divine command isolated
from communion with Jehovah Himself, and regarded,
consequently, as the opposite of grace. For it was the
object ofthe Pharisee to do some work by which he
might prevail with God, as being the act of his own
personal righteousness.1 In the eyes of James, this
opposition between the law and grace, between the
work of man and the work of God, has no existence.
For the idea of merit does not falsify in him, as it does
in Pharisaism, the relations between God and man.
Human obedience is the work of God Himself in man
by the instrumentality of the law.2 To the Pharisee,
on the contrary, — and it is at this point of view that
Paul places himself in discussing this question with
his Pharisaic adversaries, — obedience, being purely the
work of man, gives him a right, if it is complete, to the
promised recompense, and becomes the foundation of
his glory in the present age, and in that which is to
come. If we do not distinguish between these two points
of view from which the law may be regarded, we shall
not be able to understand the very different manner
in which this divine institution is spoken of, as well as
1 " What good thing shall I do, that I may have eternal life ?"
(Matt. xix. 16.)
2 James i. 17, "Every good gift and every perfect gift is from
above ;" ver. 18, "Of His own will begat He us with the wed
of truth," etc.

254 BIBLICAL STUDIES.
its relation to the economy of salvation in James's
epistle and in those of Paul.1
Paul was now, then, in possession of that grace for
which he had laboured and wrestled so earnestly. He
had found in Christ crucified and risen, the righteous
ness which he had vainly sought to obtain by his own
works. Faith — not belief in the dogma of the unity
of God, but absolute trust in this Jesus, Who was
delivered for his offences, and raised again for his
justification — was henceforth, in his eyes, the sole con
dition of his receiving this grace from the hands of
God. The divine mystery with respect to the salva
tion of the world was revealed to him. That which
was needed to rehabilitate the fallen world was not,
as he had up to that time thought, to extend the
supremacy of the law to all the heathen nations — to
judaise or even pharisaise them. What advantage,
then, — he must have said to himself, after his late
experience, — would it be to them to possess a law
which makes demands, but does not provide the
means of fulfilling them ; which passes sentence of
condemnation, but offers no effective means for re
moving the burthen which it imposes ? He under
stood that Christ had put an end to this re'gime ; that
it was no longer a question of saying to a man:
" Do this, and your works shall make you righteous
1 We may observe also, that the fact that Paul's point of view
is not foreign to James, nor that of James foreign to Paul, follows
clearly from Jas. iii. 2 : " For in many things we offend all;" and
Rom. vii. 10 : "The commandment which was ordained to life."

THE FOUR PRINCIPAL APOSTLES. 255
be) ore God ; " that henceforth it was true that all
that had to be done had already been done by
Christ ; that we become righteous by accepting His
perfect work ; and that the proclamation of this
good news was for him to take the place of the
work of proselytising on behalf of the law.1 To
preach Christ as the righteousness of sinful man,
appeared to him thenceforth to be the work of his
life. It was not only the actual calling which had
been addressed to him from the Lord through
Ananias, that made him feel this need; it was
principally the result of the work that had been
accomplished in himself. It was the shining forth of
the light which had arisen within his own soul.2
We know how from this time he fulfilled this
mission of a preacher of justification by faith. It was
the primary part of his work. We cannot give a
sketch even in outline of this heroic work. In three
great bounds, if we may venture so to call his three
great missionary journeys, he traverses the heathen
world, and conquers it for the gospel. Just as the
full revelation which had been granted to him upon
the cardinal point of justification by faith is the pri
mordial illumination which is reproduced in all sub
sequent illumination in the Church, so was it his
1 Rom. x. 4, 18.
2 " For God, who commanded the light to shine out of dark
ness, hath shined in our hearts, to give the light of the know
ledge ofthe glory of God in the face of Jesus Christ" (2 Cor.
iv. 6).

256 BIBLICAL STUDIES.
model apostolate which opened the way for that of all
missionaries who have followed.
But his work as a missionary was but half of Paul's
task. At the same time that he was extending Chris
tianity over the heathen world, he was obliged to
labour at setting it free from those swathing bands
of Judaism in which the new religion had at first been
confined. The bird could not spread its wings until
it had freed itself from its native prison.
Paul, more thoroughly than any other apostle, had
recognised — and that through his very Pharisaism —
the radical unfitness of all commandments and rites to
justify and convert mankind. That was the reason
why, more distinctly than any one else, he had cleared
the idea of Christian salvation of all admixture of
legal alloy. But — and here only are we in a position
to conclude the treatment of this subject — it is untrue
to say that Paul, in teaching such doctrines, had the
Twelve for adversaries. We have seen that they
observed the law, though not as a condition of sal
vation. The law was to them a divine and national
institution, which, so long as God did not abolish it,
continued to be the normal form of Jewish life. This
common observance was therefore for them aremaining
link, connecting them with this unconverted people
which was their proper mission field. James himself
did not go farther than the Twelve. If there was any
difference between him and them, and especially
Peter, it was solely upon this point, that he insisted

THE FOUR PRINCIPAL APOSTLES. 257
upon the observance of the law for the Judaeo-Chris-
tians absolutely, in whatever country they might live ;
whilst Peter, Barnabas, and their colleagues, seem to
have allowed of a certain relative liberty for believers
of Jewish origin, when they lived amongst the Gentile
churches. This is evident from the passage in Gala
tians with regard to the contention between Peter
and Paul, chap, ii., particularly ver. 12 : "Before that
certain came from James, he did eat with the Gentiles ;
but when they were come, he withdrew and separated
himself." The concordat agreed upon at Jerusalem
(Acts xv.) had not stated explicitly what was to be
done in this particular case. And this it was which
gave rise to the contention at Antioch. Both ways of
acting, upon this secondary point, were in reality com
patible with the decision that had been arrived at.
The only words spoken on that occasion which could
be applied to this question-^-" Moses of old time hath
in every city them that preach him, being read in the
synagogues every Sabbath day" — belong to the speech
of James, not to the apostolic decree. Accordingly,
the reproach which Paul addresses to Peter bears only
upon his inconsistency, — upon the flagrant fact that
he built up again by his subsequent conduct what
he had before pulled down — the obligation to keep
the law. With James himself Paul would not have
so contended. He would have accepted James as
he was.
In fact, St. Paul granted to the Judaeo-Christians 17

258 BIBLICAL STUDIES.
the full right to continue observing the law, whether
under James's more rigorous form of it, or in the milder
manner practised at first by Peter at Antioch. He saw
nothing to . condemn in that course, provided such
observance was not made essential to salvation. Upon
this point, therefore, he was in full agreement with the
Twelve.1 The Pharisaic judaisers alone made any
division. But the difference was, that Paul felt him
self from that time completely freed from the law by
the death of Christ, Who had by fulfilling, abolished it;
whilst the Twelve, in order to put into practice with
complete freedom of conscience this abolition, waited
for the return of Christ, Who, by changing the whole ex
isting state of things, would inaugurate the concluding
age. This liberation from the law, for which, according
to them, an external event was to give the signal,
Paul found for himself in the moral fact of belief in
the work of Christ,2 so completely, that he felt him
self at liberty not only to renounce the observance of
the law, but even to subject himself again to it when
ever such submission could further the cause of Christ.
Such observance was to him so much a matter of
indifference from a moral point of view, that he was
free to choose between the two usages in every case
as it arose. It is this voluntary subjection, so different
from the judaising bondage, which he describes when
he speaks of putting himself under the law to them that
1 Gal. ii. i— ia
2 See the admirable but difficult passage, Rom. vii. I — 6.

THE FOUR PRINCIPAL APOSTLES. 259

are under the law, and of becoming weak to the weak}
It is also because of this conviction and this principle
of action, that at Jerusalem he was able to accede in
perfect good faith to the request of James, that he
would join himself to some Nazarites who were ful
filling a vow in the temple ; with the express pur
pose of convincing the Judseo-Christians, who came
in crowds to the feast, that they were mistaken in
taking him for a fanatical adversary, an enemy on
principle of the observance of Jewish rites by Jews
who had become Christians. Had he indeed ever
deterred a single Judaeo-Christian living in a heathen
country, from circumcising his sons, or from bringing
them up according to the national customs ? No ; the
observance in itself did not seem to him to deserve to
be so far honoured as to be made a subject of con
tention. It would fall of itself like a dead tree.2
Never did anybody, we venture to say, infuse
into the treatment of practical difficulties more of
condescension, of conciliatoriness, and of gentleness,
than did Paul in settling this anxious question with
the apostles. Just as inflexible as he shewed him
self towards the false brethren, the judaisers, with
whom the very principle of justification by faith
1 1 Cor. ix. 20 — 22.
2 The above exposition seems to us fitted to correct many fals
ideas which have been disseminated of late upon this subject by
the school of Baur. We are sorry to see even M. Sabatier
associating himself in some measure with such erroneous views.
Revue Chretienne, pp. 394, 395.

260 BIBLICAL STUDIES.
was at stake, so was he conciliatory with regard to
all concessions, in the practical application of the
principle, demanded by the other apostles, and by
the Judaeo-Christians generally, who had not yet
reached such complete liberty as he had.1
It was this flexibility in conduct, running parallel
with that which he practised in his reasoning, which
brought upon him those accusations from his adver
saries of double-facedness and of astuteness, of which
we find indications in his letters. It was this con
descension, carried almost to an extreme in the case
of James, which caused his arrest and his long im
prisonment. With respect to this again, St. Paul
has been strangly misrepresented in some portraits
recently made of him. He has been painted as
a stiff, severe, peremptory man. Possibly these de
fects did exist in his natural character. But the
strong man had been broken like an oak tree by
a thunder-bolt. When, on the road into which his
human nature had allowed itself to be led by its
own wisdom or self-will, he suddenly discovers that
he is at open war with the God whom he thought
he was serving, his heart melts in a moment, as
in a furnace. This is the annihilation of his pride,
of his old self, — it is death. And the lion comes
forth transformed into a lamb, out of this terrible
crisis. 1 Cf. the two cases of Titus (Gal. ii. 35), and of Timothy
(Acts xvi. 3).

THE FOUR PRINCIPAL APOSTLES. 261
It was the radical transformation which he had
gone through at Damascus which fitted St. Paul for
accomplishing the most difficult of tasks — that of
establishing the kingdom of God among the Gentiles
without breaking with the Judaeo-Christian Church, the
cradle of the gospel. To effect this, what tact was
required in the methods to be adopted ! what sus
tained perseverance in delicacy of treatment of them !
After each of his missionary journeys, Paul hastened
to return to Jerusalem, to grasp the hand of those
among the apostles who might still be there,
especially of James, the leader of the flock. And
he did not arrive with empty hands. He came to
lay at the feet of the saints of the capital the tribute
of gratitude offered by the whole of pagan Chris
tendom.1 Never was the base metal put to a nobler
use. Thus did the whole world acquit itself of the
sacred debt which it owed to Israel.
St. Paul understood perfectly that the successive
layers of the building which he was erecting among
the heathen nations could only rest firmly upon the
historic foundation laid in Israel by the Lord Him
self; that otherwise they would remain suspended
in the air, and would soon fall to pieces. It was on
this account that he said : " I went up to Jerusalem
.... lest by any means I should run, or had run, in
vain."2 It was, then, no empty form, as some have
asserted, when Paul and Barnabas on the one hand,
1 Gal. ii. 10. 2 Gal. ii. 2.

262 BIBLICAL STUDIES.
and James, John, and Peter, on the other, gave each
other the right hand of fellowship as the result
of a critical conference. It was the symbol, deliber
ately adopted, of a real fellowship between them.1
Distinct as to their manner of service, and as to
the fields of work they occupied, these workers were
one with respect to the Master whom they served,
and to the work which they were doing for Him.
It might be said that James, established at Jeru
salem, was like the fixed point of the compass,
while Paul, embracing the whole world in the im
mense circuits of his mission, represented its move
able needle. This formed an instrument at once
twofold and single, moved by one and the same
hand. We have brought into prominence that one among
the elements of salvation which was the central
point of the life, the thought, and the activity of
St. Paul ; that is, the state of justification before
God. Let us now turn our attention to the vast
perspectives which opened before his view as soon
he had attained this blessing, which had been the
object of his most intense aspirations. One may
compare these fruitful intuitions to a series of
luminous rings developing themselves around a
brilliant focus which formed their centre.
But we must first clear out of our way two opinions
' Gal. ii. 9.

THE FOUR PRINCIPAL APOSTLES. 263
which have been often proposed, but which seem
to us rather unproved hypotheses than results of
ascertained facts.
It has been asserted that St. Paul's ideas under
went a transformation with regard to many points
in the course of his apostolate, and that his epistles
bore the traces of these modifications. We have in
the first place a psychological objection to make
to this view. Was not that crisis in his soul's history,
which transformed St. Paul, so radical a renewal of
his whole being, that his nature must have issued
from this recasting all of one piece, if I may so say,
and such as it was to remain to the end ? With
respect to his epistles, we recognise indeed in them
a progress in the exposition of his thought, but no
change in the thought itself. They treat of the
question of the future of the kingdom of God (in
the epistles to the Thessalonians) before bringing
into light the ground upon which salvation is founded
(in the epistles to the Galatians, Corinthians, and
Romans) ; and it is not till after he has completed
this second task, that Paul reaches the point at
which he can set forth in all its grandeur the per
son of Christ, and in all its beauty the institutions
of the Church which is His body (in the epis
tles to the Colossians, Ephesians, and Philippians),
Having thus gone through the cycle of Christian
theology, he occupies himself in his latest writings
with questions of a practical nature ; 'he urges the

264 BIBLICAL STUDIES.

establishment of the ministry in the churches, and
the necessity of good works (in the pastoral epistles).
But does it follow from this that he did not from
the first admit the duty of holy living, or the neces
sity of establishing a ministry in the Church? The
epistles to the Thessalonians and the book of the
Acts prove the contrary. 1 Or were his views on
salvation and its conditions not settled till after
his stay at Thessalonica ? It is easily proved that
they date even from his call to the apostolate, and
are contemporaneous with it. Or, lastly, did Paul
arrive only by degrees at the idea of the divinity of
the person of Christ ? — But it can be proved, and it has
been proved to wearisomeness, against Baur, from the
epistles of the first groups, that all the ideas which he
developed later on this subject, were present to his
mind even from the beginning of his ministry. 3
What are we to conclude from this ? That from
the very first the new heavens displayed themselves
in their fulness, with all their constellations, above
his head, and that he surveyed them with his eyes,
but only reproduced them by degrees, if I may
venture to use such an image, upon his astrono
mical chart; in other words, he only unfolded
the contents of the revelation he had received, in
1 Acts xiv. 23 ; 1 Thess. v. 12.
2 Jesus Christ Divine in nature (Rom. i. 3 ; viii. 32) ; Gjd
(Rom. ix. 5) ; the Jehovah of the ancient covenant (1 Cor. x. 4) ;
Creator of the world (1 Cor. viii. 6).

THE FOUR PRINCIPAL APOSTLES. 265
his writings, in proportion as the practical needs
of the Church called him to do so. The elements
of the evangelical idea which unfolds itself by degrees
in the long series of his epistles, were all present
to his mind in a more or less rudimentary state,
as the immediate result of the three days which
transformed his whole life and thought.
In order to prove that the apostle's ideas had
undergone a change, certain passages are specially
alleged which seem to imply a different view as to
the nearness of the return of Christ. Even were
this granted, it would prove nothing in favour of
the thesis against which we are contending ; for a
question of time is quite a different thing from one
of dogma. Jesus Himself, while upon earth, knew
not the day of His advent. But is the fact really so ?
Does not St. Paul write in one of his later epistles,
just as he might have done in the earlier: "The
Lord is at hand " ? l And in one of the earlier,
does he not write, just as he might have done later :
"We beseech you that ye be not troubled ... as
that the day of Christ is at hand"?2 The fact is,
that in St. Paul's view, as in that of Jesus Himself,
the normal attitude of the faithful servant is the
constant waiting for his Master's return. The only
real change which we can observe with certainty re
specting his predictions on this subject, is that some
time before his martyrdom he leads us to suppose
Phil. iv. 5. z 2 Thess. ii. 2.

266 BIBLICAL STUDIES.

that the Lord's return will not precede his death, but
that his death will precede this return.1 Now this
is not a change in his ideas with regard to Christ's
return ; it is only a modification in his view of the
relation in which that return would stand to the
completely accidental event of his own death. We
do not see how either dogma or morality is con
cerned in that. St. Paul never pretended to know
beforehand the date of his death. a
There is another assumption widely prevalent, —
that Paul imported into his Christian views many
ideas which had belonged to his past Judaism. The
doctrine of the two Adams, of predestination, etc.,
are quoted in proof of this. 3 To this again we
must in the first place oppose the psychological
argument which we urged against the former
theory. The profound and complete transform
ation which St. Paul underwent, must have taken
effect upon his thought, as well as upon the whole
of his life ; and the temptation must have been
greater for him to reject the elements of truth con
tained in his former way of thinking which he
had now repudiated, than to retain any false or
' 2 Tim. iv. i — 6.
2 If he seems to class himself (i Thess. iv. 15 : we which are
alive . . .) among those who shall remain till the coming ofthe
Xord, he places himself, on the other hand, in 1 Cor. vi. 14,
amongst those "whom the Lord will raise up by His power ;""
which clearly proves that in both cases the we is to be taken in
a collective, not an individual sense.
* M. Sabatier, Revue Chritienne, p. 38.

THE FOUR PRINCIPAL APOSTLES. 267
doubtful ideas which had belonged to it. It is not
difficult to explain the necessary connection between
his idea of the two Adams and the light which
on the day of his conversion fell upon the contrast
between the state of man by nature and his new
condition in Christ. Besides, the ideas which he
may have learned upon this subject in the school
of the Rabbins, were drawn from the preparatory
revelation contained in the Old Testament, and they
grouped themselves like scattered particles of truth
around the perfect revelation which had now been
granted to him. Assuredly none of his former ideas
passed into his apostolic preaching without having
received the stamp of that new creation which had
taken place within him.
We must say the same of the dogma of predes
tination. Whatever he may have heard upon this
subject, in the Jewish schools, had been purified
and made more precise by its application to Christ
and to the Church, before it was admitted into his
teaching. There is no trace in Paul of a fatalistic
predestination. Human free-will and responsibility
are always presupposed, and often asserted by him ;
and as to Rom. ix. and x., we will undertake to
prove that they contain precisely the strongest pro
test against that fatalistic predestination, of which
Israel audaciously made use as a reason for not
receiving the gospel.
To the Christian theology of the apostle, as well.

268 BIBLICAL STUDIES.
as to his moral life, we may apply those great words :
" If any man be in Christ, he is a new creature :
old things are passed away ; behold, all things are
become new."
The first point upon which the light of revelation
fell, after the question of salvation had received its
full solution in the consciousness of the apostle, was
the person of the Saviour. He had seen Him in
His Divine glory, even with his bodily eyes, with such
intensity that he was struck blind by the brightness
of that sudden apparition. It is from this moment,
doubtless, that we must date the impression which is
conveyed in those words in the epistle to the Colos
sians : " In Him dwelleth all the fulness of the
Godhead bodily." None of the subsequent visions of
the apostle, not even that in which he was carried up
into the third heaven, can so well account for the use
of this word bodily, — especially from the pen of Paul,
who has so exalted an idea of the spirituality of
Christ, and who goes so far as to say: "The Lord
is that Spirit."
St. Paul had probably up to that time shared the
rabbinical opinion, according to which the Messiah
was to be man elevated to his highest power.
Perhaps — but this is less probable — he was already
initiated into the idea which forms the foundation
of all the later cabalistic speculations, according to
which the Messiah was to be the apparition of the
archetypal man, of the celestial model after which

THE FOUR PRINCIPAL APOSTLES. 260
the terrestrial Adam had been created.1 But the
contemplation of the Messiah in the person of Jesus
glorified, raised him at once to a higher idea; he
recognised in Him the apparition of a Being divine
in essence. This is clear from all his great epistles
— Galatians, Corinthians, Romans.2 If he did not
at that time develop this thought, because he was
then wholly occupied with the question of grace and
of the law, he nevertheless clearly proclaimed it. The
exegetical necessity which compels us to apply the
adoring exclamation, (Rom. ix. 5,) "God over all,
blessed for ever," to Jesus Christ, has been proved
in a manner which may well be called definitive, in
the classical dissertation of M. Schultz.3 And if we
reflect upon the distance which, in the Jewish mind,
separates between the Creator and the creature, we
shall perceive that Paul's thought could not have
passed over it by mere speculative impulse.
Doubtless the Old Testament might have already
started him in the right direction, since it gave
hints in many passages of the divinity of the future
Messiah ; and one passage in the last of the prophets
expressly represented the advent of this Personage as
the supreme theophany.4 But it was probably only
by degrees that St. Paul learned to put together these
1 Baur asserts that Paul never got beyond that idea.
* See note, p. 264.
' J ahrbiicher fur deutsche Theologie, 1 868.
4 i.e. apparition of God ; cf. Mai. iii, 1.

270 BIBLICAL STUDIES.
scriptural proofs. It was the truth already possessed
by him which drew his attention to them — not the
converse. We must, besides, take note here of a difference to
which Neander has already drawn attention. James
had known Jesus from childhood, Peter had accom
panied Him in His ministry, Paul did not know Him
by sight till He appeared to him in glory. When
we meditate upon these differences of circumstance,
we cease to wonder at the manner in which each
speaks of Christ, — especially at the fact that the
Divine attributes are continually applied to His
person in the writings of St. Paul.
It is in his later epistles that he has set forth directly
his manner of thinking upon the person of Christ.
He represents Him as voluntarily exchanging His
condition as "in the form of God" — His Divine
manner of existence — for " the form of a servant ; "
then submitting Himself in this human condition to
the profoundest abasement ; and finally raised again,
as man, to the full height of Divinity, of which, by ,
becoming incarnate, He had emptied Himself.1
1 Phil. ii. 6 — 1 1. We do not understand how M. Sabatier can
see in that expression of St. Paul, " the form of God " (of which
Christ emptied Himself), no higher meaning than that of "an
empty form which was to be filled — that is to say, spiritually
realised " — by His holy life {Thise sur St. Paul, p. 224). This
expression must necessarily indicate a state neither more nor less
real than that other of the "form of a servant? which constitutes
its antithesis. Now this latter is evidently taken in the most real

THE IOUR PRINCIPAL APOSTLES. 271
One of the most important of St. Paul's views in
this province of thought is the union of the natural
and the moral creation, produced by means of the link
between them in the person of Christ, who is the com
mon Head of both. These two processes are part of
the carrying out of a single and connected plan,1 in
such a manner that in nature as in history, in humanity
as in the Church, everything has its spring and origin
in the same starting-point, Christ ; and leads up to
the same goal, Christ, the " Alpha and Omega," ac
cording to the expression of the Apocalypse. This,
according to St. Paul, is the foundation-principle of a
new wisdom in Christ, a wisdom of which He reserves
the full exposition for them that are perfect, and of
which the design which God decreed from all eternity
for our glory, forms the main substance. For the
historical sense. But who could maintain that in that passage
from the same apostle, " Who being rich, became poor . . . . "
(2 Cor. viii. 9), the word rich is to be taken in a purely ideal, but
the word poor in an historical sense ? Besides, the Greek word
morphe does not admit of being used in the sense of an empty
form — a simple idea. It always indicates a form that is organic,
and consequently living and full of reality. Men may deny, if
they will, the real pre-existence of the Lord, but at least let
justice be done to the plain sense of texts. No more can we,
as to the words which follow, accept the forced sense which
the author with whom we are arguing wishes to give them. The
context clearly shews St. Paul's thought: — " In becoming in
carnate, Jesus did not come, as He might have done, to make
a display of His Divine condition ; instead of presenting Him
self here below as God, He appeared simply as man, and in the
form of a servant."
' 1 Cor. viii. 6; Eph. i. 8 — 10; Col. i. 15, 20.

272 BIBLICAL STUDIES.
Church being one with her Head, when He is glori
fied, she is glorified with Him. And the supreme
position which belongs to Christ in the universe
becomes necessarily ours also.1
It is to this general view of the person of Christ
that we must attach the idea which St. Paul forms
for himself of Nature. M. Sabatier has asserted that
St. Paul had not realised, as Jesus had, the conception
of Nature. But this implies, it would seem, that he
who says so has never read the magnificent passages
in Rom. viii., in. which the apostle pictures to us
Nature subjected in its whole being to that condition
of frailty and of corruption into which it has been
brought by our fall ; and joining his groans to those
of the children of God, and of the Holy Spirit Him
self, who fervently long for the renewal of the external
world as the crown of the spiritual renewal of humanity
by Jesus Christ. Nature, to the mind of St. Paul, is
what in our days it has become to science, in conse
quence of the discoveries of geology — a living whole,
which is in process of self-transformation, not a dead
thing, imprisoned in the grip of mathematical laws ;
the scene of a continuous progress ; consequently the
prelude to a work still more magnificent, which is
one day to evolve itself out of her, like a child from
its mother's womb.2 This furnishes the basis for a
true philosophy of nature.
1 Col. i. 26—28 ; 1 Cor. ii. 6, 7; xii. 26, 27; Rom. viii. 29, etc.
2 Rom. viii. 22 : " The whole creation groaneth and travaileth
in pain together." .

THE FOUR PRINCIPAL APOSTLES. 273
The history of humanity is grasped by St. Paul with
equally profound insight. The universality of the fact
of sin is proved by the universality of the fact of death.
But over against this universality of corruption and
condemnation is set the equal universality of justifica
tion and of life. The two are summed up in the two
personalities — that of Adam and that of Christ. As
by our birth we are involuntarily connected with the
former, so by a free act of faith we have the power to
unite ourselves to the latter, and to find in Him, not
only the equipoise to the evil which we suffer in Adam,
but a surplusage of grace infinitely surpassing the
transitory effects of the primeval and collective sin of
the race.1
Within the compass of history so understood, arises
the problem of the mysterious people of Israel, elected
of God, and yet, in the end, rejected by Him. What
an inconsistency ! What a moral impossibility ! Must
we not despair of the truth of the gospel, if it can
only be maintained at the cost of holding to the
untenable assumption of God's faithlessness to His
chosen people ? St. Paul addresses Himself to this
formidable problem, and treats it under all its aspects
in the famous dissertation, Rom. ix. — xi. As against
the idea of an election imposing itself upon the Divine
will as an obligation from which there is no escape, the
apostle asserts the sovereign liberty of God, who can
reject even the elect nation, if it should cast away the
indispensable condition of its election — faith ; and can
' Rom. v. 18

274 BIBLICAL STUDIES.
call to Himself individuals even belonging to non-elect
nations, if they should fulfil this moral condition of
election — faith (ix.). He proves that the former of
these two cases has been realised in Israel, since, instead
of allowing themselves to be led by the law to Christ,
they made use of the Mosaic system for establishing
their own righteousness, and obstinately rejected the
offer of salvation with which God pursued them in all
countries by His messengers (x.). Then he unfolds
at last, before his readers, this grand perspective : —
When, by the very means of this rejection of the
Israelitish people, free access into salvation shall have
been opened to all other nations; and when, like the
prodigal son, they shall have re-entered their Father's
house, then the mercy thus shewn to them will turn
into a source of repentance and conversion to proud
Israel — that elder son who went out of the house
because his brother was received back into it. In this
manner both the theocratic nation and the undisci
plined Gentile world — the two spiritual halves of
humanity — after having each of them passed through
their time of disobedience and unbelief, will finally
unite in the acceptance of a common salvation, and
will arrive, by widely different roads, at the glorious
goal fore-ordained in the counsels of God. For " God
hath concluded them all in unbelief, that He might
have mercy upon all. Oh the depth of the riches
both of the wisdom and knowledge of God ! " (xi. 32,
35.) Such is the coup dceil cast by St. Paul upon the

THE FOUR PRINCIPAL APOSTLES. 275
march of the religious development of humanity. No
grander conception has ever been propounded with
regard to this aspect of the philosophy of history.
Modern thought is still in doubt upon the true idea
of the State. Some recognise the Divine element
which is at the root of this institution ; but they are
too often inclined to make a theocracy of it, and
place it under the yoke of the clergy. Others refuse
to oppose the modern instinct, which demands, as the
most precious of all kinds of liberty, that of conscience
and worship ; but they generally fail to recognise the
Divine principle which is at the root of the State, and
see in civil society only the result of a contract
originating in motives merely utilitarian. St. Paul's
well-balanced thought hits the truth exactly between
these opposite errors. On the one hand, the work
assigned to the State is limited by him to the purely
psychical and terrestrial sphere j1 but, on the other
hand, he attributes, without hesitation, to it within this
domain, a Divine origin and object. God has willed
the existence of the State as well as of the Church.
Conscience, and not interest only, requires of a
Christian that he should be in all respects a faithful
citizen.2 Thus do we find sketched in broad outlines
the true idea of the State, and the only solid basis
upon which the philosophy of right can be founded.
1 Rom. xiii. 1 : " Let every soul be subject unto the higher
powers." 2 Rom. xiii. I — 6.

276 BIBLICAL STUDIES.
It may be said that upon every subject upon which
the apostle brings his thought to bear, he sheds a ray
of light from heaven.
Finally, what are we to say of this man who, besides
being the founder of churches which, in twenty-five
years, conquered the Roman empire — the thinker who
illumines, without losing his way for a single moment,
domains of thought the most varied and the most
obscure — the writer who, during ten months of an
apostolic career, to a rare degree burdensome and
hampered with difficulties, contrives to compose those
three master-pieces, the two epistles to the Corinthians
and that to the Romans — writings of which each sen
tence is like a cut diamond ; what shall we say of this
man when, together with all this, we find in him the
most watchful of friends, who can even remember
to recommend his youthful fellow-labourer not to
neglect to take a little wine — a man so considerate
to his colleagues, that he delights in giving, even to
the lowest of his helpers in the common work, a place
of honour by his side — the tenderest of brothers, who,
with his own hand, commends an unfaithful slave,
whom he has " begotten in his bonds," to his former
master as his own self, his own bowels !
If it be true that a man is great in proportion to
the greatness and to the multiplicity of the contrasts
which he combines in his own person, there is perhaps
no one upon earth who can be legitimately com
pared to St. Paul. A man gifted with vast intuitions

THE FOUR PRINCIPAL APOSTLES. 277
as well as subtle analytic power, of the profoundest
mysticism together with the most unfailing good
sense, combining with the genius of speculation and
of practice — that is to say, with all the faculties of
the intellect — all the graces, all the amenities, the
tendernesses, and all the deep-seated passions of the
heart — we understand how Christ had need of such an
instrument for carrying out the greatest work after
His own, and how, not finding it offered to Him
willingly, He should have taken possession of it by
main force.
Whilst the other apostles walked, Paul flew, across
the world ; and what is perhaps most admirable is
that, without forcing them, or allowing himself to
be in the least interfered with by them, he succeeded
in preserving intact the link of fraternity and of
mutual co-operation which united him with them.
The preservation of this bond between them was
the crowning work of the love of Christ, which bore
sway in those hearts, and which made all their wills
converge upon one sole end — His glory.
IV.
ST. JOHN.
In the intellect of St. Paul the dialectic powers pre
dominated over the contemplative, which however, as
we have seen, were not wanting in him. In John, on

278 BIBLICAL STUDIES.
the contrary, the faculty of intuition preponderated to
such a degree as to leave scarcely room in his mind
for the labour of reasoning. John did not reason — he
saw. Accordingly, he did not dispute ; he simply
affirmed or denied ; resting his assertions solely upon
their intrinsic truth, which ought to be perceived at
once by every sincere mind. To this primary contrast
between the two men, there was added another relating
to the tendencies of their characters. Paul was of a
practical turn, and very wise in the management of
affairs ; John's nature was dreamy, rather poetical
than practical, more inclined to the ideal than to
outward activity. Accordingly, he did but little;
there is no creation in ecclesiastical matters due to
his apostolate. The world in which his mind moved
was that of supersensuous realities. His mind and
will tended to the centre of things, not to their
circumference. When such natures are stirred by a tender and
loving heart, their affections easily take a character
somewhat passionate and exclusive. They so entirely
identify themselves with the object of their love, that
they retain no other life, and towards all who are not
of their mind they indulge, a degree of intolerance
which sometimes amounts to violence. Such a person
John seems to have been before he underwent the
influence of the renewal worked in him by the Spirit
of Christ. It was he who imperiously silenced the
man who allowed himself to cast out devils in the

THE FOUR PRINCIPAL APOSTLES. 279
name of Jesus without having taken his place among
His disciples. It was he who demanded that fire
should descend from heaven upon the Samaritan
village which shut its gates against Jesus. Nothing
can be more different from the real John than the idea
which men commonly make to themselves of that
apostle. Instead of a soft, pliant nature, we must
rather picture one of ardent, trenchant, brusque, abrupt
character, whom Jesus well described by that epithet,
son of thunder {Boanerges), which He gave to him as
well as to his brother James. Like the lightning
which issues suddenly with a crash from out of the
silent, motionless clouds, so did love or hate burst
forth from these two youths, true representatives of
the Semitic mind.
We have recognised in Peter, in James, and in Paul,
the ruling aspirations which found their response in
the gospel. We shall not, we think, be mistaken if
we say that the profound necessity which filled the
soul of John from the first was the desire for the
infinite. The name of " mal de linfini " J has been
given to that nameless desire which consumes sensitive
and dreamy natures until they have found the object
of their aspirations. From St. John's writings we can
perceive that this was the necessity of his nature which
opened his soul to the gospel. It is not without
significance that the word life is the dominant one in
his writings. In life we see the natural vanity and
1 Literally, a thirst for infinity — akin to home-sickness.

2§o BIBLICAL STUDIES.
emptiness of finite existence, saturated with the rich
ness of infinite being. It is the heart of the creature
quenching its thirst with peace, with holiness, with
strength, by immediate access to the supreme fountain-
head. It is man lifted to God, and God living in
man. This seems to have been the ideal of John
from his youth. This was that spiritual good which
he found in Jesus, which he obtained for himself
through Him, and which established between his
Master and himself the close intimacy characterised
by the expression, the disciple whom Jesus loved.
It does not seem, then, that John arrived at faith
by means of any conflict or moral revolution. He
had not, like James, to overcome a jealousy provoked
by any rivalry during childhood. Neither did Jesus
meet with open resistance in him, as in St. Paul, from
the effects of prejudice and pride. From the first
moment of his conversing with Jesus, John was drawn
to Him by an irresistible attraction, and surrendered
himself to Him with all his soul. Faith, in him,
resulted from an immediate intuition, due to that
inward teaching from God of which he so often speaks
in his writings. He recognised in Jesus the Messiah,
with all that that name signified to his mind, that is
to say, as the supreme Good. The pious instructions
of his mother, Salome, had brought him under the
teaching of John the Baptist ; the invitation of the
forerunner led him with the same facility into the
arms of Jesus. He had no gloomy darkness, or

THE FOUR PRINCIPAL APOSTLES. 281
mists of any kind, to traverse. He walked on from
light to light, till full noonday shone upon him in all
its brightness.
Hence arises a great difference between his evan
gelical intuition and that of St. Paul. In the mind
of the latter, the idea of salvation predominates; in
St. John, that of the Saviour. It is in the fact of
deliverance that Paul finds the liberator ; in salvation
itself, that he discovers the author of salvation. In
the mind of John, on the other hand, the person of
the liberator takes precedence; salvation to him is
only an emanation from the Saviour, Jesus Himself
communicating Himself to the soul.
If he describes to us the person of Christ, who is to
him the gospel itself, as the Word made flesh, do not
let us believe that he borrows the idea thus expressed
from the speculations of his age. The most that can
be said is that he takes from these the imperfect form
of words which he needs for expressing his thought.
This latter was formed in him by the contemplation
of his Master, and the daily listening to His words.
He drank at the fountain of that one life in which he
recognised the true Life worthy of the name ; — more
than that, he heard Him who so completely realised
his ideal, say, " I am the bread of life, which came
down from heaven to give life unto the world ; " and
he exclaimed, in consequence of that experience, and
on the strength of that testimony, "The life which
was from the beginning with the Father was mani-.

282 BIBLICAL STUDIES.
fested, and we have seen it." x Divine truth, which is
the light of the soul, grew within him as he listened to
Jesus ; — more than that, he heard Him say Himself,
"I am the Truth;" and immediately he exclaimed,
" Truth came by Jesus Christ. . . . He is the light of
life? Here is the simple origin of this theorem, which
is of a religious, not at all of a metaphysical, character
— the Word made flesh — of which men have sought
the source in Philo and even in Plato. From" the
point of view of Jewish monotheism, a man could not
be the truth and the life for the human soul, except
so far as he was the revelation of God Himself, and
partook of His essence, — so far as he was His living
image, the reflection of Him in the eternal mirror of
the Divine consciousness, the adequate expression,
co-eternal with Himself, of His mind and being. The
Old Testament had already consecrated the term
word to designate the all-powerful manifestations of
the Divine will. Jewish theology had, long before
the time of St. John, applied the expression, the Word
of the Lord3 to all the visible signs of the action of
Jehovah in the external world. The term Word, of
which John makes use to designate the Divine aspect
of the person of his Master, does not therefore even
require to be explained by the philosophy of his age.
1 John vi. 48, 51 ; 1 John i. 1 — 3.
2 John xiv. 6; viii. 12 ; i, 17.
8 Memrah di Jehovah, in the Chaldaic paraphrases of the Old
Testament.

THE FOUR PRINCIPAL APOSTLES. 283

The Bible, and the teaching of the Jewish schools
which flowed from it, are sufficient to account for it.
A contemplative and reserved nature is the soil in
which poetical or philosophical geniuses grow. The
philosophic faculty, which consists in the power of
ascending rapidly from each individual fact to its
general principle, is evidently the child of contem
plation ; and the poetical mind, which is quick at
discovering at once the concrete image in which the
abstract idea may be clothed and embodied, pre
supposes the habit of surrendering oneself to a medi
tative reverie, of which the only aim is to fix more
firmly in the mind the idea with which it is pre-occupied,
and to give it a body. The first of these faculties
comes out most conspicuously in his gospel ; the
second in the great biblical poem, the Apocalypse.
In the former, every manifestation of the person of
Jesus is contemplated from the point of view of its
eternal and spiritual significance. Reading this narra
tive with attention, we feel the Divine Word throbbing
in every fibre of the flesh of the Son of man. Each
of His miracles is like the illumination of some one
of the aspects of His dignity as the Son. The various
effects which are seen produced around His path,
however accidental they may seem at first sight, are
all referred to their distinctive principles, whether in
the direction of good or evil; and beyond the secondary
causes we can always discover, in the two domains of
light and darkness, the higher cause, God or Satan.

284 BIBLICAL STUDIES.
From this we understand why it is that his polemics
against heresy, which are naturally not found in the
gospel, but which develop themselves in the first
epistle, should be summary and affirmative, not
analytical or discursive ; — thundering, such as befit the
son of thunder.
The poetic faculty of John blossomed in the Apoca
lypse, which is the complement of his gospel. We
do not understand how it is possible to do what is,
however, so often done — to oppose these documents
the one to the other. If they differ in respect of
language, the reason is easily perceived. The in
fluence of the Old Testament is perceptible from
one end of the Apocalypse to the other; for that
book is, in fact, but the reproduction at the close of
the New Testament of all that part of the prophecies
of the Old Testament which had not been fulfilled by
the first advent of Christ. With respect to its drama,
it corresponds exactly, as we shall see, with that of
the gospel history. It is poetry completing narrative,
prophecy finishing history. Just as, in the gospel,
John is ever mounting up from the particular event
to its originating principle, from the terrestrial Jesus
to the eternal Word, so in the prophetic picture does
he bring into view those supreme principles from
which things proceed coming down into their ultimate
consequences, the mysterious powers which govern
the history of the world making their appearance at
length upon the stage of the world in their most
concrete form.

THE FOUR PRINCIPAL APOSTLE*. 285
As to the conflict between the law and grace which
occupied so large a part of the life of Paul, it is to
John a storm that has blown by. There is not a
trace in his writings of that antagonism which plays
so important a part in the writings of the apostle of
the Gentiles. Faith, in John's view, is not the be
lief which has to be completed by works, as in James;
nor yet the cause which produces works, as in Paul,
It is work itself — the supreme work, the act of taking
direct possession of Christ — that is, of salvation, of
life. "What shall we do that we might work the
work of God ?" the Jews ask of the Lord. " This is
the work of God," Jesus answers, " that ye believe on
Him whom He hath sent." x Faith is the work of
works. To believe is to give oneself up ; and to give
oneself up is the apogee of the whole moral activity
of man. This is the point we must reach before we
can perceive the profound harmony between Paul and
James ; faith is only faith in so far as it is a work,
and works are only works in so far as they are faith.
Jesus had beforehand formulated this concordat be
tween the two. All the storms which succeeded the
passing away of the Master had not stifled, in the
memory of John, those sweet accents which once fell
from His lips, putting an end to all controversy, and
bringing into harmony all the different aspects of
truth. The practical work of John was next to nothing.
1 John vi. 28, 29.

286 BIBLICAL STUDIES.
To lay foundations was not his gift. All that he
could do in this external sphere was to labour at
maintaining in existence that which his colleagues had
created. This was the work he did in Asia Minor,
amongst the churches that had been founded by
St. Paul in his third missionary journey. There, — the
last remaining depositary of the immediate personal
knowledge of the Lord, the most intimate con
fidant of His thoughts, the living reflection of His
words and of His person, — he wore, as Polycrates,
the Bishop of Ephesus, says, in his poetical language,
the tiara of the high priest, with the gold plate and
the inscription, Holiness lo the Lord; thus presenting
in his own person an example of the summit of the
Christian life already reached — Christ's perfection
realised in the believer — and thus bringing up the
Church of the firstborn into a relative consummation,
to serve as a type of that of all subsequent ages. John
completed the work begun by his predecessors. He
placed the crown upon the building of which they had
laid the foundation. This glorious office which he
fulfilled is clearly seen in his three principal writings.
By his gospel he has consummated the knowledge
which the Church possesses of Christ ; by his first
epistle, her knowledge of the holiness of the believer ;
and finally, by the Apocalypse, the light granted to
her with regard to her own life — to her great final
conflict, and the triumph which is to follow. Christ,
the Christian, the Church — all are irradiated, in the

THE FOUR PRINCIPAL APOSTLES. 287

writings of John with a sublime splendour like that
with which the setting sun colours the Alpine heights.
Glory, as the ultimate goal ; good works, as the path
by which the believer attains to glory ; righteousness,
as the threshold which has to be crossed before
entering upon this course ofthe practice of virtue;
and finally life, as the inmost essence of these different
elements of salvation, — these are the four aspects
under which the supreme Good granted to man in
Jesus Christ presented itself to the minds of the four
principal apostles.
When we are contemplating a journey which we are
about to undertake, the first thing which presents
itself to our minds is the end to be reached ; next
come the questions relating to the route to be fol
lowed ; . then we decide upon the point from which to
start ; and finally, we take in at a glance the whole
undertaking before us, while considering the principal
thought which inspires it.
Entering upon the course along which the Church
was to travel, Peter fixes his eyes upon the proposed
goal, that is, the promised glory ; this was the point
of attraction, the originating spring ofthe movement.
James simply sketches the route — holiness, without
which no man shall see the Lord. Paul points out
the entrance into that route — personal justification,
reconciliation with God, the alone Good, apart from
communion with whom man can do nothing. John,
lastly, contemplates this whole work under the form

288 BIBLICAL STUDIES.
of a divine life communicated to man through the
medium of righteousness, with the view to producing
holiness, and in prospect of the final glory.
Observe this remarkable fact : that these four con
ceptions of salvation correspond more or less with the
four aspects under which the person of Christ is set
before us in the Gospels.
Long since it has been noticed that there is a close
relationship between the gospel of Matthew and the
epistle of James. In both these writings, salvation in
Jesus Christ is represented as the fulfilment of the
law. Raised to its full spirituality by Jesus, the
Divine law sheds itself abroad in the heart as a power
of holiness, by the influence ofthe glorified Saviour,
and becomes there the health of the soul's salvation.
Let any one read over again the Sermon on the
Mount and the epistle of James, and see whether
this is not the fundamental thought common to both.
Paul occupies, in the epistolary canon of the New
Testament, exactly the place that Luke does in the
evangelical canon. In both these authors, the prin
cipal subject is the act by which the sinner enters
into the state of grace before God. This consists, on
God's part, in the gratuitous gift of forgiveness ; on
the part of man, it is faith. Let any one read the
three parables of the lost sheep, the lost piece of
money, and the prodigal son, in Luke xv., and he will
be driven to the conclusion that Paul, in his epistle,
has developed nothing else, and in his missionary

THE FOUR PRINCIPAL APOSTLES.

action has realised nothing else, than the thought of
Jesus as it is expressed in these three pictures.
The analogy between Mark and Peter is perhaps
less striking. The point of similarity between them
is rather to be found in the intermediate position
which these two men occupied between the re
presentatives of the two preceding points of view.
Nevertheless, the idea of Jesus as the Messiah and
Son of God, which runs through the gospel of Mark,
connects itself closely with that of the kingdom of
glory which occupies the mind of St. Peter in his
epistle. To both these writers, Jesus appears as
the Jewish Messiah raised to the dignity of the Son
of God, and the Church as the Jewish theocracy
glorified. With respect to John, the idea of life which fills his
epistles pervades also the whole of his gospel ; — not
that he has imported it by his own authority into this
latter. The disciple did not allow himself to re
fashion the Master after his own image. It is, on the
contrary, his spirit which has taken the impression of
his Master's image. It is because he had heard Jesus
say, as the gospel tells us, " I am the bread of life,"
or, " He that believeth on me, out of his belly shall
flow rivers of living water," that in his epistle he sets
Him forth as the Eternal Life made visible, seen and
tasted by faith.
And now we are in a position to appreciate the part
to be played in the life of the Church in all ages by
19

290 BIBLICAL STUDIES
these four historical and doctrinal expositions of the
salvation to be found in Christ. Jesus, in His last
prayer, said, as He contemplated His apostles assem
bled around Him : " Father, I pray Thee for all them
which shall believe on me through their word." It
is then the preaching of the apostles which is made
by Jesus the necessary, and in itself sufficient, inter
mediary agent between His manifestation on earth
and the belief in Him of all mankind. He that be
lieves, does so only because he receives the testimony
and the preaching of the apostles : he comes to the
living Jesus only through their instrumentality. Jesus
only reveals Himself to a soul by making use of that
fourfold representation of His person and of His work,
which is contained in the New Testament, and which
is its normal and complete revelation. It is by means
of this Divine dispensation, so full of wisdom, that the
Church is saved from all false mysticism ; and all
pretension to any action of the Holy Spirit indepen
dently of this written revelation is thereby branded
beforehand as false. " I am glorified in them," said
Jesus, in speaking of His apostles ; for His glory as
the promised Messiah, as the Saviour of all men, as
the Son of God, as the eternally Beloved of the
Father, had been revealed to them ; they were the
depositaries of it for the whole world. Now it is pre
cisely this glorifying of Jesus in the minds of the
Twelve which has, as it were, concentrated itself in
those four groups of evangelical or apostolic writings

THE FOUR PRINCIPAL APOSTLES. 291
to which we have just been drawing attention in the
New Testament. The glory of Jesus is there set
forth as the Saviour, perfect from all points of view,
and He can only be similarly glorified in us by the
use of the same means. Every revelation of Christ
in after-ages is but a reproduction of the direct and
primordial revelation preserved in these four groups
of canonical books.
From this we may estimate the value of this four
fold portraiture of Christ, which the Church possesses
in the New Testament.
But that which we feel constrained to bring into
prominence above all, in concluding this work, which
has brought before us four individualities so different
and so marked in character, is the greatness of Him
who had so powerfully subjugated to Himself all the
four, and pressed them into His service. Two of
these, Paul and John, were of the elect of the world,
although gifted with very different qualifications.
The former would have played a brilliant part in the
Synagogue as he did in the Church, and his name
would certainly have remained impressed upon the
rolls of history, even had it not been inscribed there
as that of the apostle of the Gentiles. That would
probably not have been the case with John, notwith
standing the undeniable eminence of his talents. The
natural reserve of his timid and modest character
would have hindered him from ever placing himself
prominently before the world. He would have been

292 BIBLICAL STUDIES.
the leader of a small band of elect minds and spirits,
who would have grouped themselves around him, like
Banus, to whom, in his youth, the historian Josephus
attached himself. But what must not He have been,
who had so absolutely subjugated to Himself these
two minds, that, there was not in their whole being a
single fibre which did not throb for Him, or in their
minds a single thought which was not a radiation
from His own ! The most subtle dialectician whom
the spirit of humanity ever produced, devotes his
whole sagacity to the work which had been conceived
by this Master ; and at the same time one of the most
remarkable mystic geniuses of all time, recognises,
thenceforth, no other object of intuition than the
person of this same Master.
James and Peter are natures certainly much less
highly gifted. But perhaps the spiritual greatness of
Jesus is more triumphantly shewn in their poverty
than in the riches of John and of Paul. It is not to
their own gifts that we can attribute the work accom
plished by them. All that they effected — it was
Jesus, to whom they ever bore witness, Who effected
it. Their intellectual gifts contributed nothing to
it ; and to them applies in the highest degree St.
Paul's image, when he compares Jesus to a treasure
displaying its glories in an earthen vessel. For the
rest, this is what the Father willed when He gave
to Jesus such men for His apostles, and Jesus fully
recognised it. "I thank Thee, O Father, because

THE FOUR PRINCIPAL APOSTLES. 293
Thou hast hid these things from the wise and pru
dent, and hast revealed them unto babes."
Thus this same Jesus, who had the art of making
the great, such as John and Paul, play lowly parts,
had also that of making lesser men, such as James
and Peter, great, — great in such a way as to surpass
even the greatest personages of history. And it is
hard to say by which of the two — by the influence
He exerts over gr<:at souls, or by the works He
effects through the instrumentality of the simple —
He most displays His own greatness.

ESSAY UPON THE APOCALYPSE.
THIS work upon the Apocalypse is the pendant to
the Essay on the Song of Songs which concludes
our first volume.
There is a close relationship both in substance and
in manner between these two works, and it is not
without reason that the one has been called the Apo
calypse of the Old Testament, the other the Canticle
of the New. In both writings there appear, per
sonified, and as if acting on the visible scene of the
world, the high and invisible powers which govern
on the one hand the development of the life of Israel,
and on the other the history of the Christian Church.
In each of the two it is by the help of poetic language
that the author renders perceptible to the minds of
men the action of these hidden forces, whether for
good or evil.
But the two works do not belong to the same kind
of poetry. We have seen that the Canticle only
becomes intelligible when we agree to consider it a
dramatic composition. Like the book of Job, the
Apocalypse belongs rather to the epic class of poetry.
It is the epopee of the supreme conflict between God

ESSAY UPON THE APOCALYPSE. 295

and Satan, the possession of humanity being the
prize of the battle.
Perhaps some reader will ask whether the notion of
a poem is compatible with that of prophecy, parti
cularly when prophecy takes the form of a vision. Is
not the prophetic picture, as well as the thought which
is revealed in it, the creation of the Holy Spirit?
The marriage between the Divine Spirit and the
intellect of man is the profoundest of mysteries, and
I do not presume to attempt here to fathom its
depths. But do we not know that in those lower
spheres to which the notion of inspiration is applied
in the aesthetic meaning of that word, its mightiest
breath does not at all exclude the labour of reflection ?
Music is certainly the art of all others in which it
would seem that the creative power ought to be
most free from all restraint ; yet it is the one of
which the results are subjected to the most rigorous
laws — those of rhythm and of the scale. Does not the
rich intuition which forms the primary substratum of
all poetic work continue to exert its influence upon all
the labour of careful and detailed thought, by which
the author lays out the plan of his poem, makes up
its details, and determines its form, even to the rhyme
and the measure of the verse ? Preaching, even
when most inspired, is not therefore the less elabo
rated ; and the beauty of its form, which is the object
of our admiration, is due to no other inspiration
than that which called forth its general conception.

BIBLICAL STUDIES.

The more sublime a thought is, the more does it
aspire, in the mind of him who has conceived it, to
give itself a form worthy of it.
These analogies prove, it seems to me, that there
is no contradiction between the Divine origin of the
prophecy of the Apocalypse, and the labour of
thought in the writer who, in drawing it up, gave
it its shape. To say it is prophecy or poetry, is to
propose a false dilemma. The vision is the simul
taneous result of the Divine inspiration and the
imagination of man, co-operating in a way that cannot
be defined. The essential point here is, that while
in other domains the intellect lends its powers as the
unbiassed organ of the Divine thought, in this the
imagination offers itself the docile instrument of pro
phetic revelation.
The apocalyptic vision is the last form in which
prophecy in the Old Testament clothed itself. It
appears for the first time in a complete form in
Daniel. It consists of a series of visions, forming a
whole, of which the essential subject is the final stage
of development of the history of humanity, and of
which the aim is to prepare the people of God for
passing victoriously through the terrible struggles
which must precede that final term.
This kind of writing having once been introduced by
Daniel, it was imitated in the following centuries by the
authors of divers fictitious Jewish writings, as the Sibyl
line oracles and Une fourth book of Esdras, for example.

ESSAy UPON THE APOCALYPSE. 297
The Apocalypse of John sums up in a picture of
the same kind all the prophetic contents of the
teaching of Jesus and of the apostolic revelations ;
and as Daniel had his spurious imitators amongst the
Jewish people, so has John had his in the Christian
Church. It is enough to mention the book of Enoch,
j>f which the Christian character seems now well
established, the Testament of the Twelve Patriarchs,
and the Christian portions of the so-called Sibylline
books. From the beginning of its history, humanity has
lived in a state of expectation, of disquieting fears,
and of glorious hopes. " The seed of the woman shall
bruise the serpent's head," — this prophecy contains
already an indication of the formidable struggles
which are impending, and of the assured final victory
This expectation concentrated and purified itself in
the heart of the people of Israel, which was ever
attracted towards the future, and whose fervent
aspirations were met on their upward way towards
heaven by the prophecy which was descending from
thence to meet it. Through Jesus this divine aspi
ration became that of the Church ; and the book of
the Apocalypse is the precious vessel in which this
treasure of Christian hope has been deposited for
all ages of the Church, but especially for the Church
under the Cross.
The more deeply the Church plants in the earth
the stakes of her tent, and establishes herself at

298 BIBLICAL STUDIES.
her ease here below, the more does the Apocalypse
become to her a foreign and even repulsive book.
The more, on the other hand, tempestuous winds
shake the curtains of her temporary dwelling-place,
and threaten to break their cords, the more does she
feel the value of this marvellous book, which teaches
her to look up continually towards the Bridegroom
whose return she expects. This is indeed her proper
attitude in all times, whether those of prosperity or
of persecution. Did not the Lord say to the be
liever: "Be like unto men that wait for their lord
when he will return from the wedding " ? l

The first part of our task is to study, without any
prejudice in favour of any particular interpretation,
the plan oi the prophetic vision.
The general idea ofthe book stands out clear from its
beginning to its end — Christ will return. The Gospels
had given the history of His first, the Apocalypse
describes, in the language of prophecy, His second
coming. The salutation of John to the Churches
is so worded as to convey this idea : " Grace be
unto you, and peace, from Him which is, and which
was, and which is to come ..." (v. 4). This salutation
is immediately followed by the words which, properly
speaking, form the opening of the book : " Behold, He
' Luke xii. 36.

ESSAY UPON THE APOCALYPSE. 299
cometh with clouds; and every eye shall see Him, and
they also which pierced Him. ... I am Alpha and
Omega, the beginning and the ending, which is, and
which was, and which is to come, the Almighty." The
last word of the book corresponds with the first : " He
which testifieth these things saith, Surely / come
quickly; Amen. Even so, come, Lord Jesus!"
Did not the Lord declare in the assembled San
hedrim, and at the very moment when His death was
about to put an end to His presence upon earth : " 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 " .?1 In that notable saying, Christ's
return in glory, as King and Judge — this latter is the
idea implied in the symbol of the cloud — is closely
connected with the fact of the Ascension. The reason
is that in fact from this moment the office fulfilled by
Jesus in the world's history is that of establishing,
by the instrumentality of preaching, and of the Holy
Spirit whom He sends forth from the seat of His glory,
His kingdom in the earth, and of successively over
throwing all the obstacles which oppose themselves to
its progress. His glorious appearing, when the close
of this period of His working has been reached, will
not be His coming — for that began to take place from
the time of His ascension — but His Advent. The
coming of Christ takes place during the whole of the
present age ; it will only be consummated in the event
1 Matt. xxvi. 64.

300 BIBLICAL STUDIES.
which is specially called the Parousia, or Advent.
Accordingly, the sigh of the Church, and of the in
spired bard, who prays in her name, is not, Come
soon, but more exactly and literally, Come quickly.
This expression refers, properly speaking, not to the
nearness' of the arrival, but to the rapidity of the
journey, though the former is the necessary result of
the latter.
This coming of Christ, from the time of the Ascen
sion to that of the Parousia, is therefore the true
subject of the Apocalypse, just as His first coming,
between the fall of man and the Incarnation, was the
true subject of Old Testament prophecy. " Behold,
He shall come," said the last of the prophets, at the
highest summit of ancient revelation, speaking of
the Messiah-Jehovah.1 The history of the world,
in its essential character, is summed up in these three
sayings : He is coming ; He has come ; He will come
again. It is upon this idea that the whole plan of the
apocalyptic drama rests. In every journey we con
template as distinct from one another, the starting-
point, the journey itself, and the arrival.
The starting-point in the coming of the Apocalypse
is the state of the Church at the time the authoi
receives the vision. We find it described i. — iii.
Ihe journey consists in all. the preparations which
1 Mai. iii. i.

ESSAY UPOh THE APOCALYPSE. 301
lead up to the final appearing of the Lord. They are
described iv. — xix. 10.
Lastly, the arrival is the Parousia itself with all its
consequences. From xix. 10 to the end of the book.
We do not here distinguish the first part from the
preamble (i.) or the third from the conclusion (xxii.
6—21).
First Part. Chap. i. — m.
In the first chapter, which is the preamble of the
first part and of the whole book, the Lord appears to
John clothed in all the insignia which serve as em
blems of the different aspects of His glory. He is
surrounded by seven golden candlesticks, symbols of
the seven churches which are about to be mentioned
by name ; and He holds in His hand seven stars,
figures of the pastors of these churches.
It is from this picture of the glory of the Lord that
the emblems by which He describes Himself in His
messages to the seven churches are drawn. These
emblems represent the qualities in virtue of which
He will have power to do all that He announces to
them. The seven messages are contained in ch. ii. and iii.
The seven churches to which they are addressed are
all situated in Asia Minor, but they are deliberately
selected from among the churches, very much more
numerous, of that country. There is, in fact, no
mention made of Miletus, nor of Colosse, etc. What

302 BIBLICAL STUDIES.

was the principle of this selection ? It is not difficult
to discover.
The first, Ephesus, is described in such a mannei
that praise and blame are almost equally balanced
in the message from the Lord ; though the rebuke
expressed in verses 4 and 5 stands out as the dominant
note of the epistle.
In the second church, on the contrary, Smyrna,
praise predominates. There is no serious rebuke, no
threat, but a marked recognition of the fidelity which
is the general characteristic both of the community
and of its pastor.
On the other hand, the tone of menace and rebuke
preponderate again in the third epistle, addressed to
the church of Pergamos, and is emphasized with even'
greater force than in the letter to Ephesus.
The Lord addresses, no doubt, words of rebuke to
the fourth church, Thyatira ; but the faithful mem
bers of that church receive unmitigated praise, and
are the subjects of a magnificent promise.
The fifth church, Sardis, is openly accused of being
dead, while having the reputation of being alive ; and
the call made to her to repent is developed in a
tone severe and urgent.
No church receives richer praise than Philadelphia,
the sixth. It seems as if she had but one step to
make in advance, to obtain her admittance into the
bosom of the Church triumphant.
Lastly, the seventh, Laodicea, is the one of which

ESSAY UPON THE APOCALYPSE. 303
the state is described in the darkest colours, and
whose future seems to be most compromised. She is
threatened with immediate rejection : " Because thou
art lukewarm ... I will spue thee out of my mouth."
There is here more than an expression of indignation
— it is one of disgust. Laodicea has fallen as low as
a church can fall, while still bearing the name of a
church. The law, then, according to which the seven churches
have been disposed in this picture seems to be this :
the numbers 1, 3, 5, and 7, indicate the different de
grees of the dominion of sin over the Christian life in
a church, — its graduation in evil. The numbers 2, 4,
and 6, indicate, on the contrary, the different degrees
of the victory gained by the work of God over sin, —
its progress in good.
We are now in a position to seize the general idea
of this picture. It contains the portraiture of all the
shades, and, in a manner, the statistics of all the
spiritual states, either of good or evil, in which Chris
tianity on earth may find itself. The Lord chose, in
order to characterize these seven degrees, the churches
of the country in which John lived, which embodied
most perfectly these seven types. The number seven
indicates here, as it always does, a totality. But the
idea of the book is that of a simultaneous, not that
of a successive, totality, as those think who see in these
seven churches the portraiture of the principal phases
of the history of the Church. One may, doubtless,

304 BIBLICAL STUDIES.
by taking up this latter stand-point, succeed in bring
ing out some ingeniously conceived points of harmony,
but they always have a somewhat arbitrary character.
Besides, the subject itself of this first part is against
such an interpretation. It is the starting-point of the
Lord's progress which should be here indicated ; this
starting-point is the state of the Church at the time
of the vision, and not the unrolling of its future
history, which is contained rather in the subsequent
visions. We find, for the first time, in this arrangement of
the messages to the seven churches, that alternation
of bright and dark pictures which is to form one of
the most striking characteristics of the whole book.
The author has taken pains expressly to indicate his
intention by an outward sign. He has introduced
into the four epistles with odd numbers, and into
those only, the formula, " Repent," followed by a
threat in the event of obstinate hardness of heart.
Is it not most remarkable that the churches thus
reprimanded and threatened are, with the exception
of one, Pergamos, entirely effaced from the map of
Christendom, whilst the three which are the subjects
of the Lord's promises have lasted through the ages,
and are flourishing even to this day ? 2
1 ii. 5 (Ephesus); 16 (Pergamos) ; iii. 3 (Sardis); 19 (Laodicea).
" Ephesus, Sardis, and Laodicea are now nothing but heaps of
ruins, while Smyrna is in possession of many churches of all the
Christian creeds ; Thyatira numbers more than three hundred

ESSAY UPON THE APOCALYPSE. 305

Second Part. Chap. iv. — xix. io.
Here we have a picture of the progress of the Lord
down the ages, to come and take possession of His heri
tage, the earth. He has for this end a war to wage.
Just as Israel resisted the solicitations of Jesus during
His life on earth, so will the Gentiles resist the pressure
exerted upon them by the action of Jesus glorified.
The conflict which the heavenly King will have to
maintain with the intractable Gentiles will compre
hend three principal phases, described in the Apoca
lypse under the image of the seven seals, the seven
trumpets, and the seven vials.
The seal is the emblem of an event still hidden, but
divinely decreed. The trumpet is something more
than the mere revelation of an event that is to happen
in the future ; it is a manifestation of will which calls
for a speedy realisation. Lastly, a vial poured out
is the image of a decree as identified with its execu
tion. There is, therefore, an evident gradation from
one of these emblems to another.
A progression may also be remarked in the effects
which result from the three orders of phenomena
thus represented. The events designated by the seals
bring about the destruction of the fourth part of the
inhabitants of the earth; those announced by the
houses inhabited by Christians ; and in Philadelphia, Christian
worship is celebrated every Sunday in five churches. (See Keith
on the fulfilment of prophecy.) 20

306 BIBLICAL STUDIES.
trumpets, the third ; and the vials destroy the half of
the remainder.
There is, lastly, a gradation in the idea which
governs each of these three series of events. The
seals signify the first assault of the heavenly King
against the fortress of rebellious heathenism ; the
trumpets, the final summons to submission and repent
ance ; and the vials are the chastisements which come
upon men hardened in rebellion ; or, to make use
here of an historical analogy which naturally presents
itself, the seals answer to the first miracles of Moses
before Pharaoh, the trumpets to the ten plagues, and
the vials to the catastrophe of the Red Sea.
In the apocalyptic vision, these three series of
chastisements, by the help of which the Lord of glory
aims at overcoming the resistance of the pagan world,
are unfolded as follows : —
The fourth chapter is a vision of the glory of God.
His throne is supported by four living creatures, and
twenty-four elders fall down before it. These are the
representatives of Nature and of the Church. The
former represent the forces of nature, which, in the
ancient religions, sat upon the throne, personified in the
pagan deities, but which, in the monotheism of the Bible,
play a more modest part, and are employed in bearing
up the throne of God, — that is to say, in establishing
His kingdom. They are represented by the four
living creatures which are supposed to be the chefs
d'cmvre of the animate creation, — the lion, the bull,

ESSAY UPON THE APOCALYPSE. 307
the eagle, and man. The twenty-four elders represent
the Judaeo-Christian and the Gentile Church, twelve
for each of these two moieties of the primitive Church,
in conformity with the types of the twelve patriarchs,
the twelve tribes, and the twelve apostles.
The fifth chapter pictures the glory of the Lamb, —
Jesus sacrificed and risen again. In His hands is a roll
made up of seven leaves, and sealed with seven seals;
this book contains the Divine decrees which are about
to be put into execution with regard to the world.
These two circumstances, — that the Lamb is entrusted
with it, and that it is He who successively breaks its
seals, — evidently signify that it is He who is to be the
executor of the designs of God ; accordingly, He is
represented as possessing the seven eyes and the seven
horns; that is to say, the fulness of omniscience and
of omnipotence, without which He could not accom
plish this divine work.
In the sixth chapter the opening of the first six
seals takes place.
First seal : A white horse appears, whose rider is
armed with a bow, and adorned with a victor's crown.
This is an emblem of the gospel, which, through the
instrumentality of preaching, is about to extend itself
victoriously through the earth.
Second seal : A red horse, whose rider is armed with
a sword, and who is none other than the angel of war.
Third seal : A black horse, whose rider holds a
pair of balances in his hand, with which he measures

308 BIBLICAL STUDIES.
out to men their daily portion of wheat and of barley ;
— the angel oi famine.
Fourth seal : A pale horse, with two riders, Death
and Hell;1 — an emblem of contagious sickness — of
pestilence. Fifth seal : A scene in the invisible world ; the cry
of the martyrs whose blood has been shed unjustly,
and who demand the appearing of the Judge of the
world. White robes are given them until the time
shall arrive when they shall be joined by the martyrs
whose blood has yet to flow for the name of Christ.
It is the announcement of the last persecutions, but
also of the glory which those already enjoy who have
made of their life on earth a sacrifice to the Lamb.
Sixth seal : A great earthquake shakes the con
tinents and seas; the earth trembles to its foundations;
it seems to the dwellers upon it as if the stars were
falling. They cry out in terror, as if the last day was
come. This is the expression of that presentiment of
the end of the world which seizes men in the great
catastrophes of nature.
How can we fail, as we study these six pictures, to
be reminded of the words of Jesus in the prophecy of
the destruction of Jerusalem, and of the end of the
world ? (Matt. xxiv. 7,) " Nation shall rise against
nation, and kingdom against kingdom (second seal),
and there shall he famines (third seal), and pestilences
(fourth seal), and earthquakes (sixth seal) in divers
1 The place of departed spirits.

ESSAY UPON THE APOCALYPSE. 309
places ;" words to which we must add (ver. 14), " And
the gospel of the kingdom shall be preached in all
the world, for a witness unto all nations (first seal) ;
and then shall the end come." Does not even the
fifth seal, the only one which at first sight does not
seem to be taken from one of the expressions in this
discourse of Jesus, rest upon these words : " They
shall deliver you up to be afflicted, and shall kill
you"? (ver. 9.)
The opening of the seventh seal is prepared for by
two scenes, of which the serene and luminous charac
ter is contrasted with the dark pictures which precede
it (vii.). A hundred and forty-four thousand members
of the people of Israel, twelve thousand from each of
the twelve tribes, are sealed with the seal of the liv
ing God ; that is to say, marked out to continue His,
in the midst of that general apostasy which is about
to invade the earth, and to absorb even the Jewish
nation itself. It is impossible to interpret, as many
wish to do, these hundred and forty-four thousand as
signifying the Christian Church — the spiritual Israel.
What purpose would be answered, in this figurative
sense, by the enumeration by name of the twelve
tribes of Israel ? Besides, the contrast evidently
intended between this scene and that which is to
follow, leaves no doubt as to the author's meaning.
In fact, after this scene referring to Israel, we are
led on to the contemplation of a second ; a multi
tude which 110 man can number, of all nations, and

310 BIBLICAL STUDIES.
people, and kindreds, and tongues, who triumph before
the throne of the Lamb. This is the Christian Church.
Its members are not counted ; for this innumerable
multitude comprehends the elect, not of one nation
only, like the hundred and forty-four thousand, but
of all nations. The foresight of her own triumph
is to inspire the Church with courage to face the
formidable crises which still stand between her and
the object of her hope.
The seventh seal is broken (viii.). Its contents do
not consist of any particular event, but of all that is
still left unfulfilled of God's plan ; — the seven trumpets,
and the great events which they are to herald. Heaven
prepares by a solemn silence, and a redoubling of
prayer, for the conflicts which are coming on.
First trumpet : Hail, mingled with fire and blood,
brings barrenness upon the earth. This is the aggrava
tion of the judgments of the third seal (famine).
Second trumpet : The sea is smitten ; its inha
bitants perish ; commerce is interrupted. Nothing
consequently can diminish the terrible effects of the
preceding calamity.
Third trumpet : The waters are corrupted over the
whole earth ; a terrible mortality seizes mankind ;
this is the pendant of the fourth seal (pestilence).
Fourth trumpet : After the earth, the sea, and the
fountains of waters, the air takes its turn. It becomes
dark, and the inhabitants of the earth are deprived of
a part of the light of the sun and of the stars.

ESSAY UPON THE APOCALYPSE. 311
There is nothing to indicate that these plagues are
to be understood in an allegorical sense. They are
the convulsions of Nature in process of dissolution.
The last three trumpets are distinguished from the
preceding ones by a special name, the three woes (ix.).
Fifth trumpet (first woe) : From out of the bottom
less pit, the dwelling-place of the devils,1 issue a cloud
of evil spirits, represented under the image of locusts,
of brilliant and attractive colours, but armed with the
sting of a scorpion, and who for five months (the time
during which in the East the plague of locusts lasts —
May to December) throw into a kind of delirium —
not of joy, but of deep sadness — mankind crushed
under the weight of its struggle against the Almighty.
It is as if the inhabitants of the earth were subjected
to possession on a great scale, after the likeness of the
single instances of the kind which we find in the
gospel history. The fifth trumpet corresponds to the
fifth seal in this respect, that both scenes belong to
the invisible world, one in the celestial sphere, the
other in the world of darkness.
Sixth trumpet (second woe) : An invasion of foreign
nations coming out of the East, leaves nothing in the
earth but ruin and disaster.
And yet, notwithstanding all these calamities, — last
appeals from the Divine holiness to the conscience of
man, — men do not come to themselves. They continue
to live in their idolatrous and corrupt practices. The
1 Luke viii. 31.

312 BIBLICAL STUDIES.
Apocalypse, in fact, does not recognise any conversion
of the pagan world between the time of the primitive
Church and the epoch of the Parousia.1 It sees the
abominations of idolatry lasting on to the end.
Just as the opening of the seventh seal had been
preceded by a twofold consolatory scene, guaranteeing
the fidelity of a part of Israel and the final triumph
of the Church, so is the seventh trumpet preceded by
an episode which, if we are not mistaken, has specially
in view (like the first of the two scenes in chap, vii.)
the destiny of Israel in the crisis which is coming on.
In order clearly to indicate that we are here dealing
with a scene by itself, and, as it were, isolated in the
midst of the great apocalyptic drama, the author
makes it the subject of a special little book, inserted
within the great one (x.). John is to eat it. This
represents the most complete spiritual assimilation.
This nourishment is to strengthen him for taking up
again the great prophecy relating "to peoples, and
nations, and tongues, and kings " (x. ii).
The contents of the " little book," which are at once
joyful and bitter, are comprehended in xi. i — 13.
An angel, holding in his hand a rod, is employed
in measuring the temple at Jerusalem, "with the
altar and them that worship therein." This emblem
corresponds with that of the seal set upon the
1 Rev. ix. 20, 21 : "And the rest of the men . . . repented
not of the works of their hands, that they should not worship
devils and idols of gold and silver. . . , Neither repented they
of their murders. ..."

ESSAY UPON THE APOCALYPSE. 313

hundred and forty-four thousand. Just as those
were sealed to mark them for ever as the heritage
of God, so is the temple measured as destined to
remain His domain for ever. But the court with
out the temple was not to be measured, it is said,
because it is "given unto the Gentiles," for a period
of forty-two months, or three years and a half. The
event here spoken of cannot be a material seizure of
this court by the Romans ; for if so, would not the
taking of the temple accompany that of the court in
the midst of which the temple stands ? The temple,
together with the court, is therefore here the emblem
of the Jewish nation. One part will remain faithful
to its God — that represented by the temple measured
by the angel, with the altar and its worshippers — and
the other part, carnal Israel, will give itself up to the
spirit of apostasy which will carry captive the Gentiles.
This is the court which the Gentiles will tread under
foot. The worshippers around the altar are none
other than the hundred and forty-four thousand who
were sealed in order that they might be preserved,
and whom we soon come upon once more in the final
struggle. All the rest is an Israel thenceforth eman
cipated from the fear of Jehovah, and confounded
with the pagan nations,
This twofold Israel, the carnal and the spiritual, is
once more established as a nation. It has its capital
at Jerusalem ; for it is impossible not to take this
name in its literal sense, in view of the explanation

314 BIBLICAL STUDIES.
(ver. 8) : " the great city, which spiritually is called
Sodom and Egypt, where also our Lord was crucified."
Jn the midst of this restored Israel arise two witnesses
for God, two preachers of repentance, who, dressed
like the ancient prophets, and endued with their powet
and with their miraculous gifts, prepare the conversion
ofthe nation. But the beast, that is, the Antichrist —
this is the first time of his appearance ; and as he is
not properly introduced into the apocalyptic picture
till chap, xiii., we perceive clearly here that this " little
book" is an anticipation in the course of the great
prophecy — the beast, we say, kills these two men,
who smite the earth with all kinds of plagues, and
thus rids himself of his two most formidable adver
saries. The inhabitants of the earth rejoice, but their
joy is short-lived. The two witnesses for the truth
rise again on the fourth day, and are glorified in
presence of their enemies. At this moment an earth
quake destroys the tenth part of the holy city, seven
thousand persons perish, and the remnant of the
Israelites give glory to God.
This is the picture of the conversion of the Jewish
nation, in the sense in which St. Paul said : " And so
all Israel shall be saved."1 As this event is the
principal fact in the future development of the
kingdom of God, it is contained, for this reason, in a
1 M. Reuss and M. Renan recognise, as we do, in this verse,
the announcement of the general conversion of Israel to the
gospel.

ESSAY UPON THE APOCALYPSE. 315

special book ; and as the mention of it at this point
ofthe vision is a prophecy within the prophecy, the
author indicates this by using in general the future
tense: "I will give power unto my two witnesses to
prophesy ; . . . . they shall be clothed in sackcloth ;
.... when they shall have finished . . . ." etc.
The seventh trumpet (xi. 15), or third woe, has
reference to the appearing of the Antichrist. The
preceding verse (14) is intended to take up the thread
of the general vision, which had been interrupted by
the intercalation of the little book. Compare this
verse, " The second woe is past, and behold the
third woe cometh quickly," with ix. 12, which pre
ceded the sixth trumpet : " One woe is past, and
behold there come two woes more hereafter."
We shall see that it is the reign of Antichrist which
brings upon men the last calamities, represented by
the seven vials ; hence it follows that these latter are
included in the seventh trumpet, just as the seven
trumpets formed the contents of the seventh seal.
There is great art in this way of picturing history as
a series of periods, each of which arises out of the last
term of the period which precedes it. In this simple
image is expressed one of the profoundest laws of the
progress of the world.
The preparation for the appearing of Antichrist
(xii.) is as follows. (This event on earth is the result
of a revolution in heaven.)
A woman, in whom we recognise the symbol of the

316 BIBLICAL STUDIES.
kingdom of heaven — the word kingdom is feminine
in Greek, basileia — is on the point of giving birth to a
son, no longer the Messiah in a state of humiliation,
who was the child of the Jewish theocracy in the
days of Herod, but the Messiah who is to rule the
nations with a rod of iron (ver. 5), — that is to say, the
Messiah as King and as Judge. Satan, who from the
high position which he occupied in the celestial
regions up to the time of his last fall, still rules the
Gentile nations, watches for the moment in which the
son of the woman will appear, in order to devour him.
But Michael, the champion of God, the defender of
monotheism, watches and fights. Satan is thrown
down from the position which he is still holding, and
cast upon the earth ; and he it is who, in order to
avenge himself, calls forth from the depth of the seas,
that is, from the midst of the nations, Antichrist — his
instrument for waging a final conflict against Christ.1
The appearing of Antichrist is described in chap.
xiii. He is a universal ruler. As the beast, who
represents him in the vision, combines in himself the
characteristics of all the animals previously described
by Daniel, so will the empire of this last representa
tive of the power hostile to God in the earth include
in itself all the kingdoms which existed before it. It
will at length realise that universal monarchy towards
which a secret instinct impels mankind.
» The true reading of xiii. 1, seems to be : " And he stood (nc*
I stood) upon the sand of the sea."

ESSAY UPON THE APOCALYPSE. 317
It is, no doubt, indicated by the vision contained in
the little book (xi.) that the beast is to reign in
Jerusalem, but not that his throne will be there at first.
Chap, xvii., in which his capital is characterised by the
seven hills, proves that Rome is the place in which his
empire is to be founded.1
But the seven heads, which figure the seven moun
tains, are also seven kings, it is said (xvii. 10); that is
to say, according to Daniel's manner of writing, seven
kingdoms; and this explains to us the reason why the
beast unites in himself the insignia of all the preced
ing monarchies (xii. 2). To this power, of which
Rome is to be the centre, all the empires which
have succeeded each other in history contribute their
share. One of these heads has received a deadly wound
(according to xvii. 10, we may suppose that it is the
fifth) ; but this wound, contrary to all expectation, is
suddenly healed, and this marvel astonishes the whole
earth, and brings all its inhabitants to worship the beast.
We see here, therefore, one of the earlier forms of the
anti-Divine power on the earth, which, after having
been put down by an act of the Divine power,
reappears suddenly in the person of the Antichrist
himself, in such a manner that the kingdom of the
latter seems to be only the restoration of that ancient
power. This is one of the most important features
1 " The seven heads (of the beast) are seven mountains
(ver. 9).

318 BIBLICAL STUDIES.

of the apocalyptic vision. We must be satisfied here
with having pointed it out distinctly.
The object ofthe enmity ofthe beast is God and
His tabernacle (xiii. 6) ; and next, all the inhabitants
of the earth who refuse to bend the knee before him,
and to blaspheme God and heaven. The Church is
declared outlawed (ver. 16, 17). This is the time
of the last persecutions announced in the fifth seal.
The Antichrist has an auxiliary, a second power
represented under the image of a beast "which had
two horns like a lamb, and spake as a dragon"
According to xix. 20, this is the false prophet. Here
again we find ourselves in presence of the very text
of the discourse of Jesus in Matt. xxiv. In ver. 24,
we read these words : " There shall arise false Christs
and false prophets." The Lord adds : " And shall
shew great signs and wonders, insomuch that if it
were possible they shall deceive the very elect,"
These expressions are almost literally reproduced in
Rev. xiii. 13, 14, and applied to the false prophet. In
this diabolical work, Antichrist represents political
despotism, and the false prophet spiritual error.
This dark picture of the reign of Antichrist is
followed (as is always the case in the Apocalypse) by
a scene adapted to strengthen the believers who might
be shaken by prospects so terrible. In chap. xiv. the
Lamb passes in review before Him, on Mount Sion,
those hundred and forty- four thousand faithful Israel
ites who are to form the strength of the Church

ESSAY UPON THE APOCALYPSE. 319
during this supreme calamity. In fact, they form
henceforth part of the Church, and are the /lite of her
army (xiv. 4). The conversion of Israel to the gospel,
foretold in the " little book," is therefore now com
pleted. Accordingly, the development of the mission
to the heathen takes a new step forward. The ever
lasting gospel is proclaimed to all the inhabitants of
the earth (ver. 6). Men are warned by faithful ser
vants against all concessions which they might be
tempted to make to the power of the beast (ver. 9 —
12) ; they are reminded of the glorious and immediate
rewards of fidelity (ver. 1 3). Lastly, the visions which
follow, of a harvest and of a vintage (ver. 14 — 20)
typify the time, now nigh at hand, in which God will
gather in His own, and will trample His enemies in
the winepress of His wrath.
Chapters xv. and xvi. describe the pouring out of
the seven vials, that is to say, the extremest punish
ments of God, upon the throne and empire of the
beast. Antichrist had promised to mankind a new
golden age under his rule ; but he promised without
God. Christ now wields His own sceptre, and smites
with repeated blows the nations who have been led
astray. It is the history of the plagues of Egypt over
again. A noisome sore consumes the flesh of the
subjects of the beasts (first vial). The waters of the
sp'a are corrupted, and all the inhabitants of the ocean
perish (second vial: an aggravation of the second
trumpet). A similar judgment smites the rivers and

320 BIBLICAL STUDIES.
fountains of waters (third vial ; compare the third
trumpet). A burning sun scorches the inhabitants of
the earth (fourth vial). These four vials constitute a
first series of plagues, after which the author remarks
that men only blasphemed with so much the greater
audacity the name of the God who had sent these
plagues upon them.
A thick darkness comes upon the kingdom of the
beast, as before upon the kingdom of Egypt (fifth
vial) ; men gnaw their tongues in their rage, rather
than confess their faults. The Euphrates is dried up,
to open the way for a new invasion of the Eastern
nations, whom three unclean spirits summon to the
last battle against the Eternal (sixth vial ; compare
the invasion described under the sixth trumpet).
Lastly, an earthquake of unprecedented violence falls
upon Babylon, the capital of the beast, and the other
cities of that empire (seventh vial; compare the
similar phenomenon described under the sixth seal).
Many reasons may incline us to think that these
plagues let loose upon mankind when subject to Anti
christ are the same as those which in chap. xi. are
attributed to the power of the two witnesses preach
ing repentance in Jerusalem (xi. 5, 6), those two pro
phets of whom it is said (ver. io) that they tormented
them that dwell on the earth. And this explains the
presence of the beast in Jerusalem (chap. xi.). Anti
christ has perceived the origin of the punishments
which desolate his empire, — the power and the prayers

ESSAY UPON THE APOCALYPSE. 321
of those two men who exercise at this time, with
regard to the world, a ministry similar to that which
Moses and Aaron fulfilled in old time with regard
to Egypt ; and he goes to Jerusalem, in order to
annihilate this centre of resistance to his universal
power. With regard to the earthquake which follows
the murder of the two witnesses, and which is the
signal for the conversion of the Jewish nation, it
may perfectly well be identical with that of the
seventh vial, which introduces the destruction of
Babylon. But what is the result of all these chas
tisements ? "And men blasphemed God" (xvi. 21).
There comes a time when all that should convert
man, only hardens him. Then it is that society, and
individual men are ripe for judgment.
The vision in xvii. and xviii. refers to the fate of
Babylon. We note here an unexpected change in
the conduct of Antichrist with respect to his capital.
Before, the beast had carried Babylon upon his seven
heads, but now becomes violently hostile to it. To
gether with the ten auxiliaries who had assembled
around him, Antichrist pillages Babylon, and burns it
with fire (xvii. 16, 17). What is the meaning of this
sudden antagonism, and why does the beast now
turn against his ancient dwelling-place ? There is a
mystery here in the apocalyptic vision, which we
shall endeavour to clear up.
All God's enemies receive- in succession their judg
ment. Babylon has just undergone hers at the hands
21

322 BIBLICAL STUDIES.
of the very same power which had before exalted her.
The time has arrived when Antichrist in his turn must
receive the reward he has deserved.

Third Part. Chap. xix. ii — xxii.
In the midst of the reign of the beast, heaven
opens, and the Messiah appears upon a white horse,
the emblem of victory. He calls Himself the Word
of God; His armies follow Him ; that is, the believers,
clothed in white — the symbol of holiness. Antichrist
and the false prophet are cast into the lake of fire ;
those whom they have led away in their revolt perish.
Then Satan, the tempter, is imprisoned in the bottom
less pit for a thousand years. This period is the time
of Christ's reign amongst men. The gospel sheds
upon society all its beneficent effects; the faithful
dead who have risen again take, from their higher
spheres, an active part in this perfected manifestation
of the kingdom of God upon earth. The second
petition of the Lord's prayer is fulfilled ; the kingdom
of God is come.
But the reintegration of earth into heaven is not
yet consummated. At the end of this period, Satan
is unloosed ; a long time of spiritual and social pros
perity has prepared the way for a last crisis. It breaks
forth, and the result is the complete overthrow of the
Evil Spirit. Satan is now cast headlong into the lake
of fire, where the beast and the false prophet await

ESSAY UPON THE APOCALYPSE. 323
him. The universal resurrection and the last judg
ment take place, and are followed by the appearing of
the new heaven and the new earth. In the midst of
this transformed universe appears the New Jerusalem,
the society of the elect, whose perfection is magni
ficently described in this one sentence : " The length
and the breadth and the height of it are equal." It
follows from this that it forms a perfect cube. What
is the meaning of this image, which, taken literally,
sounds absurd ? The cubical form was, as is well
known, that of the holy place in the temple at Jeru
salem. The meaning of this emblem is, therefore, that
the whole city is henceforth the same as was the holy
place — the place of the immediate manifestation of
God. This is the reason that John sees no temple
there. It is itself, taken as a whole, the perfect
temple. Accordingly, all creatures who have not yet
shared in the redemption, come thither to be healed
(xxii. 2).
In the second part of chap, xxii., the angel who is
the interpreter of the revelation returns to John and
to the actual state of the Church and of the world at
the time of the vision. He calls upon the Church to
grow in holiness even unto perfection, and upon the
world to ripen, by ever-growing defilement, for the
judgment. Then John adjures the copyists who shall
reproduce this prophecy to respect scrupulously its
text ; and making himself the organ of the aspira
tions of the Church, he calls upon the Lord to hasten

324 BIBLICAL STUDIES.
His coming : " Lord Jesus, come quickly." The Lord
replies : " Yea, I come ; " and this last word expresses
the essence of the history from the time of the vision
up to that of the Parousia.
After this analysis, no one will be tempted to
dispute the unity of this book, or to see in it, as has
been sometimes done, a compilation of collected docu
ments. The idea which dominates the whole is the
conflict of Jesus glorified with the Gentile world. This
conflict develops itself through a certain number of
phases which succeed each other in an evident grada
tion up to the end. The unity of the vision is made
manifest also by a number of details ; for instance,
by the fact that the seven promises made to the
churches in the epistles of chaps, ii. and iii. find their
realisation in the splendours of the New Jerusalem,
described at the end of the book.
But, some may ask, is it possible to allow that a
vision of such length, and composed with so much
skill, is the result of Divine revelation ? Should we
not rather see in it a human composition somewhat
artificial, and of a character altogether poetical? This
question is closely connected with that of the author
ship of the book. But let us, first of all, call to mind
some analogies in tlie Old Testament — the vision
in Isaiah liii., where the whole picture of the suf
ferings and the triumph of the servant of Jehovah
passes before the eyes of the prophet ; — Ps. ii. and ex.,

ESSAY UPON THE APOCALYPSE. 325
in which the seer contemplates the elevation of the
Messiah to the throne of God, His conflict with the
assembled nations and with their kings who conspire
against His power ; lastly, His victory (as a royal
priest, reigning after the manner of Melchisedec) over
the principal enemy from whom He conquers His
heritage, the ends of the earth. But the most striking
instance is offered us in the series of visions with
which the book of Zechariah opens. In nine pictures
presented to the inward eye of the prophet, in the
course of a single night, he beholds the Lord protecting
Jerusalem after its rebuilding, the casting down of the
heathen monarchies who had oppressed it, the help of
God assured to the labours of Joshua and Zerubabbel
for the complete restoration of the people of God,
renewed corruption and renewed captivity, and finally
the appearing of the Priest- Saviour, upon whose head,
contrary to the law of Moses, and to the fundamental
charter of Israel, is to be placed a kingly crown.
(Zech. i. — vi.) Such precedents approximate very
closely to the vision of the Apocalypse.
Shall it be said that though we, weak human
creatures as we are, are enabled, by the magic power
of speech, to awaken in the mind of one, or in those
of even thousands of listeners, a whole world of ideas,
which an instant before were quite strange to them,
God, on the other hand, " the Father of the spirits of
all flesh" cannot call forth, when it pleases Him, in the
depths of the human soul, a succession of pictures

326 BIBLICAL STUDIES.
which shall be the expression of His own thought ? Of
course such a fact is not to be conceived as an isolated
act ; it can only be one step in a great process of the
same nature, — that is to say, of a work of education
and of Divine revelation ; but is it not just in this way
that it presents itself in the history, and is pictured
for us in the Scriptures ? The great apocalyptic
vision which we have just gone through is the crown
and the highest development of the organism of the
Divine revelations.
But that which authorises us above all in attributing
the character of a revelation to the vision we are
studying, is that, according to our conviction, the book
in which it is transmitted proceeds from that disciple
whom Jesus had admitted more deeply than any
other into the inmost secrets of His thought.
II.
Who is the person, named John, who twice over
designates himself as the author of the Apocalypse ? 1
Is it one of the believers in Asia Minor, one of the
presbyters, for instance, of the Ephesian church, as
has been sometimes supposed, and therefore quite a
different person from the apostle John ? But in that
case, would he not have designated himself in a more
definite manner, especially since it is certain, from the
writings of the Fathers, that John, the disciple whom
Jesus loved, ended his ministry and his life amongst
' i. 4, and xxii. 8.

ESSAY UPON THE APOCALYPSE. 327

the churches of Asia Minor, and that a confusion
would therefore be inevitable ? The author who, in
addressing those churches, and, at that time, designated
himself simply by the name John, must either have
been John the apostle, or have intended to pass for
him. Now we think we may put aside at once the
idea of an imposture. The spirit of falsehood is in
compatible with the Divine breath of holiness and of
truth which pervades every page of the Apocalypse.
This conclusion, drawn from the book itself, is con
firmed by the unanimous conviction of the churches
of the second century, and of their principal doctors.
We will only draw attention here to two testimonies
of special importance. The first is that of Justin
Martyr. In a public discussion with a Jew named
Trypho, which he held at Ephesus less than fifty years
after the death of St. John, and of which he has given
an account in a work which has been preserved to us,1
he says : " One of our body, named John, one of the
twelve apostles of our Christ, in the revelation which
was made to him, has predicted that the faithful shall
spend a thousand years in Jerusalem" Justin had
visited a number of churches, and in this passage he
expresses their sentiments, and not his own only.
The other testimony which we must quote, of later
date than that last mentioned by thirty years, but
which nevertheless has an even greater weight, on
account of the circumstances of the life of the man
1 Dialogue with Trypho the Jew.

328 BIBLICAL STUDIES.
from whom it comes, is that of Irenaeus. " John, the
disciple of the Lord," he says, "beheld in the apoca
lyptic vision the sacerdotal and glorious advent of
the kingdom of Christ." And when speaking of the
number of the beast (xiii. 18), he says : " This number
is to be found in all the ancient and correct manu
scripts, and even those who have seen John declare
that this number is that of the name of the beast."
Irenaeus had, in his childhood, received Christian in
struction from the venerable Bishop of Smyrna,
Polycarp, who was himself a disciple of St. John.
The testimony of such a man, of whose honesty also
there can be not the least doubt, carries a weight
which none can fail to recognise.
We are not ignorant of the objections that have
been urged to the view which we are defending.
John does not give his name in his Gospel ; why,
then, should he do so in the Apocalypse ? Because
the Gospel is a history, and the Apocalypse a pro
phecy. The Hebrew historians do not give their
names, the contents of their narratives being mattei
of public notoriety ; but all the Hebrew prophets dc-
so, because their names are the only guarantee for
the reality of the revelation which they claim for
themselves. If John was the son of Zebedee, could he speak of
himself as he does in xxi. 14, when he relates that the
names of the twelve apostles were engraved upon the
foundations of the New Jerusalem ? Yes, because he

ESSAY UPON THE APOCALYPSE. 329
did not attribute this dignity of apostleship to his
own merit, but to the gratuitous gift of his Lord and
Saviour. But is not the spirit of the Apocalypse as grossly
Judaeo-Christian in its character as the Gospel of John
is the contrary ? The difference is in the form of the
book, not in its substance. The Apocalypse speaks in
a language of imagery and figures. There is but one
way of making it into a judaising document — that is,
by failing to recognise the spiritual sense of this lan
guage, and taking all this imagery literally. Nothing
can be conceived more absurd than this process in
some cases. We have just seen that the height of the
New Jerusalem was equal to its length and to its
breadth ; and we had no difficulty in discovering the
idea conveyed under this image. As the image lite
rally understood would be startling, grotesque, and
absurd, — a city wall twelve thousand stadia, that is to
say, 450 leagues, in height ! — so, understood allegoric-
ally, it conveys a sublime idea. Baur, the great ad
versary of the authenticity of the Gospel, but the not
less zealous defender of that of the Apocalypse, has
said that the Gospel was nothing but " a spiritualised
Apocalypse." One could not do more complete
though unintentional homage to the fundamental
harmony that exists between the two books. The
Apocalypse, spiritually understood (as it should be
whenever it describes the kingdom of God), is there
fore identical with the Gospel.

330 BIBLICAL STUDIES.
It is further said : All the wrath of John the evan
gelist is reserved for the Jews— call to mind the con
flicts between Jesus and the inhabitants of Jerusalem
in the fourth Gospel — while that of John, the author of
the Apocalypse, is for the Gentiles. But this contrast
arises precisely from the fact that the two documents
are but two moieties of one and the same whole. The
idea of the complete work is the conflict of the
Messiah with the world. The Gospel describes the first
act in this drama — the conflict of the Messiah, during
His earthly ministry, with His people Israel. The
Apocalypse describes, prophetically, the second act of
the same drama — the conflict of Jesus glorified with
the Gentile nations. These two subjects, considered
from a logical point of view, are mutually exclusive,
just because they complement each other, and make
up in reality but one whole.
But John was a gentle and kind man ; how can we
attribute to him the sanguinary threats and the terrific
pictures of the Apocalypse ? The character of the
apostle John, as commonly represented, is a pure
fiction, as we have endeavoured to prove in the pre
ceding essay. The Lord characterised His chosen
disciple quite otherwise when He called him a son of
thunder; and it is this surname which we must call to
mind when picturing to ourselves the author of the
Apocalypse. Is it not the same St. John who, at
Ephesus, on entering a bath-house with Polycarp, and
understanding that a false teacher, called Cerinthus,

ESSAY UPON THE APOCALYPSE. 331
was there at the time, exclaimed sternly : " Let us
depart hence, lest the house should fall in upon the
heretic and us." This is he who, in the Apocalypse,
beholds, in the spirit, our ancient universe falling in
ruins upon mankind in its rebellion. His charity is
not weakness ; according to the Bible expression, it
has truth for its girdle.
The only serious objection that can be urged against
the authenticity of the Apocalypse lies in the differ
ence which is observable between its style and that of
the fourth Gospel. The latter is free from Aramaic
expressions, the former is saturated with them. But
this difference is to be explained by that which exists
between the style of narrative and that of prophecy.
In the Gospel, John speaks simply the language which
is natural to him — a kind of Greek, in which we easily
recognise Jewish thought clothed in Hellenic forms.
In the Apocalypse, in which he imitates and copies,
so to say, the prophets of the Old Testament, he is
obliged to appropriate their style, and does not suc
ceed in conforming it to the requirements of the Greek
language, to which that style was completely foreign.
On the whole, a profound study of the two documents
discovers, in the style of them both, such deep-seated
and significant analogies, that men belonging to the
critical party which is the most opposed to orthodoxy
have attempted to demonstrate from this very fact the
identity of authorship of the two documents.
We have answered the principal objections ; let us

332 BIBLICAL STUDIES.
now look into some of the indications by which we
perceive that the two writings do, in fact, proceed from
one and the same mind.
Such are the correlation between the personages
who play a part in each of the pictures : — in the Gospel
— Jesus, the Jews, and the disciples ; in the Apocalypse
— Jesus, the Gentiles, and the Church (or the Bride).
In both cases are presented to us — first, the object of
faith, and, next, the personifications of unbelief and
of faith.
Next, notice the correspondence between the pro
gressive steps of the two narratives ; in both a conflict
increasing in intensity, ending in the defeat, externally,
of the cause of God, and in its ultimate triumph by
means of that very defeat ; the end always seeming to
be approaching, and yet always retiring into the dis
tance again. The formula of postponement, which is
of such frequent occurrence in the Gospel, " For His
hour was not yet come," is not less exactly applicable
to the apocalyptic drama.
Then we find the same preponderance of the law of
contrast in both documents: a continual alternation
between the dark and the bright pictures, between the
scenes of faith and those of unbelief.
Notice, again, two other points of detail. Jesus is
designated by two names in the Apocalypse — the
Lamb (through the whole course of the prophecy) and
the Word of God (xix. 13). Now we know that of
these two names the former is only to be found in the

ESSAY UPON THE APOCALYPSE. 333
writings of Peter and of the fourth evangelist, who had
heard it from the lips of their master, John the Baptist ;
and the latter is never, in the whole of the New Testa
ment, given to Jesus, except in two other of the writ
ings of St. John, his gospel and his first epistle.1
We do not think, then, that we can be wrong in
maintaining that when criticism wishes to impose
upon us the alternative of John the apostle, the author
of the Gospel, or John the apostle, the author of the
Apocalypse, it is strangely mistaken. Even if Christian
antiquity did not attribute both these works to the
beloved disciple, a thorough study of the two must, it
seems to me, lead to that conviction.
III.
The question of the exact date of the composition of
the Apocalypse has no necessary connection with that
of its authorship ; for the two principal dates between
which there can be a doubt, are both of them compre
hended within the lifetime of the apostle John. These
are, as we shall see, the time of the short reign of
Galba, in 68, and the reign of Domitian, from 81 to
96. This latter date is the one indicated by Christian
antiquity. Irenaeus says, speaking of the interpreta
tion of the number 666 which is the mark of the beast,
" If it had been intended to reveal clearly the name of
the personage designated by this cipher, at that time,
it would have been indicated by him to whom the
1 John i. 36; 1 Pet. i. 19; John i. 1 ; 1 John i. 1.

334 BIBLICAL STUDIES.
revelation was granted. For it is not in a long past
age that this vision was seen, but almost in the present
generation, towards the end of the reign of Domitian."
This testimony is clear and precise ; there is nothing
in it which savours of the vagueness of hypothesis, or
of the uncertainty of exegetical calculation. Irenaeus
professes, moreover, in more than one place, to have
received his teaching from the lips " of the presbyters
who lived with John in Asia Minor up to the time of
Trajan." In these words he refers more particularly
to Polycarp and Papias.
The other date, that of the year 68, is a result of
the exposition which most of the critics of our day
give to the Apocalypse. According to them, the
beast, or Antichrist, represents the Roman emperor
in the collective sense of that word. The seven
heads are the first seven emperors ; and as the
author says (xvii. 10) that the sixth "is now," we
conclude from this that he must be writing in the
reign of Galba, that is, in the second half of the
year 68 ; since, from the point of view of the Roman
historians, the emperors succeed each other as follows :
Augustus, Tiberius, Caligula, Claudius, Nero, Galba.
Nero, the fifth, is signified by the head which re
ceived a deadly wound (an allusion to his tragical
end). The sixth is Galba; Otho and Vitellius
are left out, as not having really reigned. The
seventh head is the expected successor of Galba;
and the eighth, which is identified with the beast

ESSAY UPON THE APOCALYPSE. 335
itself, is none other than Nero risen again, whose
reappearance is thus announced by the author, in
accordance with a legend which was current at that
time, and of which some ambitious persons took
advantage in their attempts to play the part of a
pseudo-Nero. We will examine this interpretation considered in
itself later on. At present we are treating only of
the date at which the book was composed ; and
enquiring which of the two dates proposed is the
more probable, — that indicated by tradition, or that
which modern science thinks it has discovered.
I. Let us consider first the condition of the churches
in Asia Minor. They had been founded by St. Paul
between 55 and 58, and, therefore, ten years before
the date at which, according to the interpretation
now prevalent, the Apocalypse was written. Now
let us weigh well the rebukes addressed to them in
the seven messages contained in chaps, ii. and iii.
Ephesus has fallen from her first works. Sardis has
a name to live, but is dead. Laodicea is lukewarm,
and ready to be spued out of the mouth of the Lord.
No respite is promised or announced ; if they do not
repent, the Lord will come and will remove their
candlestick. Is that, then, a condition to which the
churches founded by St. Paul could have been reduced,
after not more than ten years of existence ? If it
were only a question of the breaking out of some
heresy, as in the case of the Galatians, or of a return

336 BIBLICAL STUDIES.
to certain vicious habits, as at Corinth, there would
be nothing in this difficult to understand. But that
which is described is a falling away so complete, that
the evil seems to have reached its consummation-
death. Luther is reported to have said that a religious
revival lasts for thirty years. The revival which has
taken place in our own day began about the year
1 8 17, and has not yet, after more than fifty years,
spent its force ; and yet we are to believe that those
"powers of the world to come," those graces ofthe
" first love," which the ministry of St. Paul had called
forth in the most flourishing churches of the world —
those of Asia Minor — had exhausted themselves in
ten years ! Do I say in ten years ? Why, in 63, Paul
writes to the Ephesians and to the Colossians; —
in 61 or 64, Peter writes also to all the churches in
Asia, Bithynia, etc. ; not a word that escapes from
either apostle would lead us to suppose that the
slightest loss of energy had supervened in the
religious or moral life of these churches. And we
are asked to believe that all at once, in the year 68,
only four or five years later, John could address to
them the language we know so well ! We venture
to say that this is a complete moral impossibility;
and if the modern interpretation can only be main
tained at the cost of an improbability so gigantic,
it seems to us sufficiently condemned by that fact
alone. 2. The ecclesiastical organisation which is pre-

J
ESSAY UPON THE APOCALYPSE. 337
supposed by the Apocalypse is no less incompatible
with so early a date as the year 68. It is well known
that in the constitution of the apostolic churches, the
communities were governed by colleges of presbyters,
who were also called bishops. These two titles, of
which one proceeded from the Synagogue and the
other was of Greek origin, described precisely the
same office.1 It is only towards the end of the
apostolic age that the presbyteral authority concen
trates itself in the person of a head of the flock, who
takes specially the name bishop. The epistle of
Clement of Rome, written probably in the reign of
Domitian, at the end of the first century, and the epis
tles of Ignatius, which date from the reign of Trajan,
at the beginning of the second century, are the first
monuments in the patristic writings of that form of
the ministry which we meet with in the Apocalypse :
" Unto the angel of the church of ... . write." This
name, as of a person — angel — as well as the fact of
the responsibility which is laid upon the functionary
so designated by the rebukes and praises addressed
to him by the Lord, will not allow us to take this
expression to mean a collective or abstract being, nor
an angel properly so called — the invisible patron of
1 Cf. Acts xx. 17, " He called the elders of the church,"
with ver. 28, " Take heed therefore ... to the flock, over the
which the Holy Ghost hath made you overseers " (ema-Konoi) ;
Titus, i. 5, " I left thee .... that thou shouldest ordain
elders . . . ." with ver. 7, "For a bishop must be," etc.
Lastly, Acts xiv. 23, with Phil. i. 1.
22

338 BIBLICAL STUDIES.
the flock. It can only mean a bishop, such as we
find in all churches from the end of the first century.
The Apocalypse brings before us the period of tran
sition from the primitive presbyterian constitution
to the monarchic organisation which is universally
admitted to have prevailed in the second century.
This point of detail therefore just as positively
excludes the date 68 as it agrees naturally with that
indicated by Irenseus.
3. An ecclesiastical usage, to which allusion is made
in another passage, leads to the same result. It is
said (i. 3) : " Blessed is he that readeth, and they that
hear, the words of this prophecy." These expres
sions presuppose two things : first, that the writer is
speaking here of reading in pubhc, in an official
manner, in a congregation gathered for worship, and
not only of any one reading privately and to himself.
This is indicated by the opposition between the
singular, he that readeth, and the plural, they that hear.
Moreover, the use of the present tense, lie that readeth,
implies, especially in Greek, an habitual, often-repeated
act. Now the regular reading of the apostolic
writings as a part of worship could not have been
begun so early as the year 68. I may here appeal to
M. Reuss, one ofthe inventors ofthe modern exposi
tion, who says : " During the whole ofthe remainder
of the first century, and during at least a third part
of the second, the apostolic writings had not yet been
made the subjects of an official, repeated, and so to

ESSAY UPON THE APOCALYPSE. 339
say, liturgical reading."1 This assertion certainly goes
beyond the truth ; men did not wait till the year 130
before they began to read in public the writings of
the apostles, thus filling up the void left by the loss
of their personal ministry ; but at any rate we shall
be right in admitting that this custom did not exist, as
a received form, before the destruction of Jerusalem in
the year 70, and that consequently the Apocalypse,
which implies the use of that custom, cannot have
been composed in the year 68.2
4. We find in this book one expression so foreign to
the style of the other New Testament writings, that it
would of itself lead us to the same conclusion — that
is, the word Lord's day applied (i. IO) to Sunday. It
is well known that the apostolic writings of a date
anterior to the destruction of Jerusalem never speak
of this day except as the first day of the week? The
expression, the Lord's day, is of purely Christian
origin, belonging to the ecclesiastical and technical
language of the later times of the apostolic age, when
the Church had broken off all connection with the
Synagogue. Accordingly, we find it only in the
writings of the second century. The date indicated
1 Histoire du Canon des Saintes Ecritures, p. 14.
2 M. Renan, another defender ofthe modern interpretation
understands this passage exactly as we do: "Allusion is here
made to the reading in the Church by the Anagnostes."
(E Antichrist, p. 360.)
3 1 Cor. xvi. 2 (in the year 58) ; Acts. xx. 7 (some years later
at least).

340 BIBLICAL STUDIES.
by Irenaeus is the only one compatible with the use
of this expression.1
5. Again, the name given to the Jews in the
Apocalypse will not allow us to suppose that this
book was written before the great judgment of God
upon Jerusalem. They are called (ii. 9, and iii. 9)
the synagogue of Satan. What Christian author-
especially what Judaeo-Christian writer, such as the
author of the Apocalypse must have been — would
have allowed himself to brand with such a name the
chosen people, before God had finally broken with
them ? Call to mind how the whole Judaeo-Christian
Church, according to the Acts, took part in the
worship of the temple up to the year 60 ; read over
again the epistle to the Hebrews, which was written
in the year 67 or 68, with the object of consoling the
Christians of Jewish origin for their loss of the worship
of the sanctuary — a loss so deeply felt that it became
to them even a temptation to apostasy ; . . . . and
yet we are asked to suppose that one of these same
Hebrew Christians could at that very time have given
to his compatriots the name of a Satanic assembly !
No, nothing but an event of so decisive a nature as
the destruction of Jerusalem and of the Jewish nation
can explain so novel a manner of speech with respect
to the ancient people of God.
1 A comparison with iv. 2 will not allow us to explain i. 10 in
the sense which has been proposed : " I was in the Spirit on
the day ofthe Lord,— that is to say, at His advent."

ESSAY UPON THE APOCALYPSE. 341
6. Lastly, let us notice a striking coincidence
between one feature of the apocalyptic vision and
the special form taken by the persecution under Do
mitian. In that of Nero, the Christians had been
at once delivered up to execution. It was not so
under Domitian. Many persons of eminence were,
according to the historians of that time, transported
into islands far away in the sea.1 The banishment of
the author of the Apocalypse to Patmos is exactly
an instance of this kind of punishment.
According to all these indications, we have no
hesitation in saying that the Apocalypse belongs to
the end of the first century of the Church. Judging
from the several features which we have now pointed
out, it marks the transition between the state of the
primitive churches as they had been founded by the
apostles, and that of the episcopal churches of the
second century. IV.
We come now to the most important and most
difficult part of our task, — the interpretation of the
book. The number of the expositions of the Apoca
lypse is almost past calculation ; and it is not even
easy to classify all these essays, which start from the
most opposite points of view, and arrive at the most
1 Eusebius mentions particularly — quoting from the heathen
historians — an instance of a Christian lady, Domitilla, who
was transported to the island of Pontia (or, according to Dion
Cassius, Pandateria).

342 BIBLICAL STUDIES.
diverse results. In a general way we may say that
these expositions may be referred to three different
systems : i. That which we may call the modern
interpretation, though we find some traces of it in
/ancient times, but it has only prevailed decidedly
since the year 1836, when four learned men discovered
'at the same moment1 the meaning ofthe number 666,
'which established in their view unanswerably the
truth of this interpretation. From this point of view
the book is wholly determined by the passing circum
stances of the time in which it appeared. 2. The
traditional exposition, which sees in the apocalyptic
vision, in a manner more or less general or detailed,
a picture of the destinies of the Church from the first
century till the return of Christ. 3. A mixed system,
of which M. de Pressense has sketched an outline,2
and which endeavours to effect a combination between
the two preceding points of view by the help ofthe sup
position that it was the particular circumstances of the
time of its composition which awoke in the mind of
John the vast intuitions that are contained in his book.
The assurance with which the former of these two
forms of interpretation adjudges to itself the honours
of victory3 obliges us to examine its claims very
1 Fritzsche, in Rostock ; Hitzig, in Zurich ; Benari, in Berlin ;
Reuss, in Strasburg.
* Histoire des trois premiers siecles, vol. ii., p. 315, sqq.
a Reuss, Histoire de la thiologie biblique, vol. i., p. 429, sqq. ;
Reville, Revue des deux Mondes, October, 1868 ; Renan, I' Anti
christ, p. 341, sqq.

ESSAY UPON THE APOCALYPSE. 343
closely. If we are brought to perceive the falsehood
of its first assumption — the application of the vision
of Antichrist to Nero, supposed to be risen from the
dead — the whole theory falls to the ground at once
together with it, and the intermediate system at
tempted to be established by M. de PreSsense, which
supposes its relative truth, falls also with it. We '
shall then be able to take our stand at the second J
point of view — that which the Church has instinctively
admitted ; and to seek in some application, ancient
or modern, of the picture which forms its centre —
that of the Antichrist — the key of the sanctuary.
The following are our principal objections to the
interpretation which sees in the apocalyptic vision
an amplification of the popular legend of the re
appearance of Nero, returning as a persecutor of the
Church, and at the same time an exterminator of
ancient Rome : —
1. This exposition, as we have seen, supposes that
the Apocalypse was written in the reign of the sixth
emperor, and at the moment at which men were
expecting the advent of the seventh,1 consequently
under Galba, in the latter half of the year 68. Now
we think we have discovered some sure indications
that the Apocalypse dates from a much later period
of the apostolic times.
2. The legend of Nero's reappearance is supported
1 xvii. 10 : " Five are fallen, and one is, and the other is not
yet come." The eighth is to be the last — Antichrist himself.

344 BIBLICAL STUDIES.
by the fact of the attempts of some false Neros who
endeavoured at that time to seduce the provinces, and
to gain possession of power. We find traces of it also
in the Sibylline books, the earliest in book iv., which
seems to have been composed soon after the eruption
of Vesuvius in 79 ; that, at least, is the latest event to
which the author alludes at all clearly. There is also
some allusion to the reappearance of Nero in books
v. and viii. But all that is here spoken of is a return
from the far East, where he was thought to have been
concealed, and not a miraculous cure such as that
supposed in Rev. xiii., nor even an escape from the
bottomless pit, or Hades (xvii. 8); that is, a resurrection,
properly so called. Moreover, the description which
the pretended Sibyl gives of Nero, in book iv., seems
to refer, not to Nero himself, but rather to the pseudo-
Nero who, immediately after the eruption of Vesuvius,
raised the standard of revolt in the East, in the reign
of Titus, and perished miserably.1 If this be so, this
picture has nothing in common with the meaning
usually attributed to the description in the Apocalypse
and its application to the real Nero. With regard to
books v. and viii., they belong to too late a date (the
reign of Hadrian) to enable us to draw any safe con
clusion from them respecting the ideas which were
prevalent in the first century. We should have then
to admit that it was the author of the Apocalypse
himself who invented and set afloat the fantastical
1 Hengstenberg, Die Offenbarung, vol. ii., p. 75.

ESSAY UPON THE APOCALYPSE. 345
idea of a miraculous cure, or of a resurrection, of Nero
after his suicide. Is this supposition reconcilable
with the lofty and holy spirit which reigns throughout
the whole book, particularly in the seven epistles at
the beginning, and in chap. xxii. ? Augustine and
Lactantius consider that belief as an instance of a kind
of delusion into which none but men in delirium
(deliri) could fall ; — and we are asked to believe that
this is the fundamental idea of the Apocalypse !
3. According to this exposition, very few years
would have sufficed to convict the whole apocalyptic
prophecy of falsehood. The successor of Galba was
only to reign for a short time (xvii. 10) ; then Nero,
the head with the deadly wound, was to reappear,
and play the part of Antichrist. But what, on the
contrary, did really happen ? Vespasian succeeded
Galba, and reigned for ten years ; then came Titus,
who, it is well known, was by no means a Nero.
The risen Nero was to reign three years and a half as
Antichrist, to establish the universal monarchy, to per
secute the Church, to destroy Rome, and to kill the
two witnesses in Jerusalem. The temple, finally, was to
be miraculously preserved at the time of the taking of
the capital. But we ask, once more, what did really
happen ? The hour fixed by the pretended prophet
struck, and nothing of all this took place ; Rome
remained standing ; no divine witness appeared at
Jerusalem ; the city was destroyed, and the temple
with it; and the false Neros, one after another, failed

346 BIBLICAL STUDIES.
so totally in their attempts, that soon afterwards the
wretched game which had been suggested by this
name came to an end. Lastly, the empire still stood
firm, and the secbnd successor of Galba was by no
means that last Roman monarch whom the appear
ance of the glorified Christ was suddenly to suppress.
And we are asked to believe that this prophecy — a
tissue of mistakes, or, it would be more correct to say,
of impostures, and in excuse for which only one ex
tenuating circumstance could be pleaded — that the
brain which gave it birth was under the influence of
delirium — was the work of St. John, of the beloved
disciple of the Lord, of the apostle with whose
holy life of calm activity in Asia Minor we are ac
quainted through the narratives of the Fathers, and
through his gospel and epistles ! No, certainly, say
Liicke, Neander, and other religious writers who
adopt, as to its essential features, the modern system
of interpretation, it is not to the apostle John that we
attribute such a book, but to some eminent Christian
of his time, of the same name with the apostle. But
then how could it have happened that a book, against
which the charge of delusion had been so clearly es
tablished by the events of the years which followed
upon its appearance, instead of losing all credit, should
have gained so much in the respect of the contempo
rary generation, and of those which succeeded it, that
in the second century we find it universally attributed
to the apostle John ? It rises in the estimation of the

ESSAY UPON THE APOCALYPSE. 347

Church just in proportion as facts pronounce against
it the sentence of degradation !
4. We are well acquainted with the ideas of St.
John respecting the Antichrist through his first
epistle ; and they in no respect resemble that which
he would have conceived of that personage if he had
for a moment entertained the notion of him as a
Nero risen from the dead. The Antichrist of John's
epistle is at the same time a collective being and a
spiritual principle. " Even now," he says, " there are
many Antichrists." These persons, he adds, "went
out from us, but they were not of us." Antichrist
is " the liar that denieth that Jesus is the Christ."
" Every spirit that confesseth not that Jesus Christ is
come in the flesh (the truth of the incarnation) is not
of God ; and this is that spirit of Antichrist whereof
ye have heard that it should come, and even now
already is it in the world."1 What connection is there,
we ask, between these false teachers who go out from
the Church without having really belonged to it, and
the Emperor Nero ? We should have then to admit
that between the date of the composition of the
Apocalypse and that of his epistle, John' had com
pletely changed his ideas upon this fundamental
point ; and that, after having had to recant his doc
trines, the apostle could have retained his self-respect
before the whole Church !
5. It is probable that the apostles had often con-
1 ii. 18, 19, 22; iv. 3.

348 BIBLICAL STUDIES.

versed together, when they met at Jerusalem, upon a
subject which occupied so important a place in the
hopes and fears of the Church. Now we know the
ideas of the chief among them upon this subject. St.
Paul has set them forth in 2 Thess. ii. He says first
that the Antichrist will be the representative of the
great apostasy which is to take place before the return
of Christ. This expression implies that he will come
forth, with all his adherents, from out of a holy society,
consecrated to God. Only in such circumstances can
any one be an " apostate." Will it be from the midst
of Judaism or of the Christian Church that this
defection will take place ? Paul does not tell us. It
seems that it will invade simultaneously both these
divine kingdoms, of which one is but the extension of
the other ; and we recognise here, consequently, the
fact pointed out by John — the Antichrist already
come, come forth out of a religious and even Christian
society. Next, Paul declares that the mystery of
iniquity doth already work, which has no meaning if
applied to an individual such as Nero, and can only
refer to a spiritual principle working for a certain time
within the hearts of men, before it breaks forth as an
actual phenomenon in history. This is exactly the
idea we have just been discovering in John : " Even
now are there many Antichrists," and " Even now
already is it in the world." Finally, St. Paul declares
that there is a power which he calls " he that" or " that
which letteth," (in one place it is masculine, in another

ESSAY UPOA THE APOCALYPSE. 349

neuter,) which hinders as yet the manifestation of the
Antichrist. Whenever the apostles or the prophets
make use of expressions of that kind, which have a
character of mystery about them, we may be sure that
they allude to the political powers of the time. We
cannot then but agree completely with the view of
M. Reuss, who understands this withholder to be the
Roman power, and the man of sin, or Antichrist,
whose coming forth is for a time restrained, to be
the false Messiah of Judaism, that principle of carnal
Messianism which has been the soul of that nation's
life ever since (to use the language of the Song of
songs) they preferred the glories of Solomon to the
invisible Shepherd, Jehovah, and the empire of this
world to the kingdom of God. It is this principle
which impelled them to say in the presence of Jesus,
" We have no king but Caesar," but which ever seeks
to give birth to a Caesar of its own, a Jewish Caesar
who is to crush the Roman Caesar. About half a
century after the composition of the second epistle to
the Thessalonians, Barcochba, the son of the star, at
tempted to play the part to which St. Paul alluded,
and the withholder did not fail in his mission. The
Roman legions annihilated this false Messiah, be
cause the time of Antichrist's appearing was not yet
come. But this time may and will come at last.
And then the world will know what is meant by the
Antichrist or counter-Christ ; for there shall be no
longer any Roman legions to keep back his coming.

35° BIBLICAL STUDIES.
This is St. Paul's idea of the man of sin, or Antichrist.
But if so, how could the Roman imperial power, the
principle which, according to St. Paul, is still hinder
ing the manifestation of Antichrist, be, according to
John in the Apocalypse, the Antichrist himself? We
should have to admit that the two apostles had never
conversed together on this subject, and that the most
contradictory ideas prevailed in the primitive Church
respecting it. This hypothesis is undeniably very im
probable, and we have ascertained one fact directly
opposed to it in the harmony which exists between
the first epistle of John and the second to the Thessa
lonians. 6. The strongest proof in favour of the application
of the beast to Nero is certainly that which is drawn
from the explanation of the number 666 (Rev. xiii. 17)
It is supposed that this number is the sum which
is obtained by adding together the letters which
form the word Antichrist when taken as ciphers.1
Now the letters of the two words in Hebrew, Neron,
C&sar, added together, give precisely the sum 666?
There is even a special point worthy of notice.
Irenaeus mentions manuscripts in which the reading
is six hundred and sixteen instead of six hundred
1 It is well known that the Hebrews and the Greeks have no
special signs for numerical figures, and that they make use, for
that purpose, of the letters of the alphabet.
2 : (N), 50 ; i (r), 200 ; , (0), 6 ; 3 (n), 50 ; p (ki. 100 ; D (s),
60 ; ., (r), 200.

ESSAY UPON THE APOCALYPSE. 351
and sixty-six. Now, if we admit the Latin form
of the name indicated {Ccesar Nero, without the
final n), we reach precisely the number 616, since in
Hebrew the letter n is equal to fifty. We will not
object to this calculation that in a Greek book
we should expect the name and title to be rather
in Greek than Hebrew. As the Apocalypse bears,
from one end of it to the other, the character of a
Hebrew prophecy, it would not be impossible that
the author should have wished at once to reveal and
to disguise his thought under a form borrowed from
that language. Neither will we insist upon the in
accuracy of translating the Greek text, as M. Renan
does, " it is the number of a man ;" whereas it really
means, it is a man's number ; that is to say, human,
calculable in the manner of men, just as in xxi. 17,
" the measure of a man " does not mean that of any
individual man, but the measure of man (human), as
opposed to that of an angel. But what is more im
portant is, that in order to arrive at the number 666,
it is necessary to cut out the second letter of the
name Caesar, which represents the e, and which in
Hebrew is a consonant, and therefore forms part of
the body of the name itself. M. de Vogue has
proved by a Nabathean inscription of the year 47,
that the name Caesar used to be written in Hebrew
with four letters (k e s r), and not with three only
(k s r), which agrees with the inscription on the
Asiatic coins where we find this name (Neron

352 BIBLICAL STUDIES.
Kaisar).1 It is said, it is true, that in the
Talmudic writings, and in some inscriptions of the
third century, the word Caesar is reduced to three
letters by. simply cutting off the e; and that in
the word Caesaraea, the second letter, which ought
to be ai, is abridged into e, which leads to its sup
pression as a consonant ; and that consequently it
may be omitted in the same way in the name Caesar.
But in the word C&sarea, this abbreviation arises
naturally out of the lengthening of the name, just as
in the word aromatique, the letter o loses the circum
flex which it bears in ardme ; or as in the word supre"-
matie, the e becomes short, while it is long in supreme.
Does it follow from that that we might write, arome,
supreme? This example, therefore, proves nothing;
and as to the inscriptions of the third century, they
scarcely prove anything, particularly in the face of the
instance quoted relating to the orthography which was
received in the first century. The true sum ofthe letters
of the name Ccesar Neron is therefore 6"j6, not 666.
The subsidiary proof which has been drawn from
the other reading, 616, turns, when examined more
closely, into an insurmountable objection. If the
application of this number to the name of Nero was
so well known that the copyists in the West, who
knew the name under this form Nero, had inten
tionally modified the number 666 in order to make
it agree with their orthography, how could an inter-
1 See M. Renan, V Antichrist, p. 447,

ESSAY UPON THE APOCALYPSE. 353
pretation so widely prevalent have been totally
unknown to Irenaeus, who had occupied himself
specially with this question, and who quotes all the
attempts which had been made in his time to solve
the mystery .?1 Above all, when once the mistake
of the prophecy had been so completely unveiled,
how could the credit of the book survive such an
ordeal, and even grow still greater ?
The inadequacy of this explanation of the number
of the beast is so evident, that two of its most recent
defenders find themselves obliged to make the follow
ing concessions. M. Renan thinks that the second
letter in the name Caesar has been cut out because the
number 676 would " look less well " than 666, which is
made up of a threefold repetition of the same figure.
Is not this allowing that this number has a symbolical
value independently of the letters of which it is the
sum, and of the name which it represents ? On the
other hand, M. Volkmar2 perceives in the cipher %f 93
{ch, 600 ; x, 60 ; st, 6) that since the first and third
letter are the abbreviation of the name Christ, and the
second is the emblem ofthe serpent, theenemyof Christ,
this cipher indicates, by its very form, that it has an em
blematical sense — Christ destroyed by His adversary.4
1 It is well knoWn that he mentions the Greek words Lateinos,
Teiton, and others, of which the letters make 666.
2 Commentar zur Offenbarung Johannis,^. 18,215.
3 The number 666 is thus written in the Greek text (xiii. 17).
4 This idea, first proposed by Heumann, had already received
the approval of Herder. 23

354 BIBLICAL STUDIES.
The irrefragable proof which was believed to have
been found in this calculation in favour of the modern
interpretation, does not then give it so firm a support
as is supposed. Accordingly, men such as De
Wette, Liicke, Bunsen, who cannot be suspected of
partisanship, and who have even adopted in a general
way the application of the apocalyptic vision to Nero,
reject this explanation of the number of the beast,
and prefer one of those mentioned by Irenaeus —
Lateinos, for instance, or some other.
M. de Pressens^'s attempt to accommodate this
interpretation to a broader and higher view of the
apocalyptic vision seems to us to break down under
the following dilemma : Either the various features
of the picture, and the number 666 in particular, refer
to Nero, and if so, how can we transform this historical
personage, so clearly described, into a final Antichrist
still to come ? or else all these features refer directly
to this latter, and then where is the necessity for still
giving an integral place in the vision to the absurd
legend (which belongs besides to a much later date) of
Nero risen again ?
M. Diisterdieck has endeavoured to give a different
application to the modern system of interpretation.
According to him, the head mortally wounded and
then miraculously healed, does not signify Nero, but
the imperial power of paganism, which, after Nero,
seemed on the point of perishing, until Vespasian
restored it by delivering the Roman people from

ESSAY UPON THE APOCALYPSE. 355
anarchy, and substituted the family of the Flaviani
for that ofthe Caesars which had become extinct with
Nero. The sixth head, then, which now is, would not
be Galba (whom the prophetic vision omits, as well
as Otho and Vitellius), but Vespasian himself, undei
whose reign the Apocalypse would have been com
posed at the beginning of the year 70. The seventh
head, who was only to reign for a short time, would
be Titus, for whom, owing to the dark character of
Domitian, it was easy to foresee an early and violent
death. And the eighth, who is at the same time the
beast itself, would be Domitian, whose advent to
power the Christians vere already dreading. The
number 666 answers accordingly, in the view of the
commentator, to the word Lateinos. Most of the rea
sons which we have urged against the application of
the Apocalypse to Nero equally forbid our applying
it to Vespasian ; and this interpretation is even less
plausible, since, instead of alluding to past or present
events, the Apocalypse would in that case rest its
assertions upon historical previsions of so uncertain a
nature as the possibility of the murder of Titus by his
brother Domitian, and the approaching advent to
power of the latter as the last emperor. Who would
have ventured to build a prophecy upon such a cal
culation of probabilities as this ?
The course of criticism we have now been pursuing
conducts us necessarily, by its negative results, to a
third system of interpretation, — that which sees in the

356 BIBLICAL STUDIES.
Apocalypse a general view of the fortunes of the
Church until the complete setting up of the kingdom
of Christ. But here again three paths open before us,
which lead to very different issues. According to one
system of interpretation, we should take the Apo
calypse to be a picture, more or less detailed, of the
history of the world from the time of Jesus Christ,
not only from a religious point of view, but also with
reference to the great events which have marked the
phases of political and social development. Thus
Bossuet and Hengstenberg — two writers who must
certainly be surprised to find themselves in agreement
— seeing in the image of the beast a figure of the
Roman empire, understand by its mortal wound the
fall of that empire, brought about by the establishment
of Christianity; according to which, the healing of the
wounded head must signify the foundation of the
holy Roman empire by Charlemagne, and the reign
of a thousand years would prefigure neither more nor
ess than the Christian society from that time up to
the present day. The present crises would signify the
end of this happy state of things, and would prepare
for that final conflict which in the Apocalypse is repre
sented under the image of the invasion of Gog and
Magog at the end of the millennium (xx. 7 — 9). The
Romish Church has certainly no right to complain of
this interpretation as developed by Hengstenberg,
which identifies its reign with the most brilliant period
of the apocalyptic vision. But what can we make,

ESSAY UPON THE APOCALYPSE. 357

from this point of view, of the resurrection of the head
with the deadly wound ? Did, then, Roman paganism
come to life again in the holy Roman empire of the
middle ages ? And further, what can we make of the
first resurrection, which is to precede the millennium ?
And how can we recognise the slightest real analogy
between the picture of the millennium as painted in
the Apocalypse, and the state of the world and of the
Church before the Reformation ? We can, certainly,
get out of all difficulties by the help of subtle expla
nations ; but our sense of truth protests.
The case is the same with the expositions of the
bishops of the middle ages, who interpreted the beast
of Mahomet ; and with that of the persecuted sects of
the same period, who saw distinctly pictured in it the
image of the papacy; and, once more, with that of the
Romish writers, who took it for a representation of the
empire in its fierce struggles with the papal authority.
All these expositions establish, with more or less of
ingenuity, certain points of contact between some
features of the apocalyptic picture and that historical
phenomenon upon which the pre-occupied mind of
their authors has chosen to fix its attention. But the
impossibility of finding an application for a number of
other features soon forces upon the impartial reader
the conviction that these explanations are but a kind
oijeu d'espril, and that they do not correspond in any
way with the idea really contained in the vision.
We affirm the same of the application, drawn out

35» BIBLICAL STUDIES.

into the most minute details, of the history of the
Church up to our own time, which has been so often
attempted, especially by the Anglo-French school.
The most distinguished representatives of this method
are Faber, in England, Bengel, in Germany, Gaussen
and M. de Rougemont, in French Switzerland.1 How
can we feel any confidence in this method df interpre
tation when we see, for instance, one and the same
vision — that of the locusts with the tail of a scorpion
(ix.) — interpreted by some of the Arabian invasion in
the seventh century ; by others, of the incursion of the
Persians under Chosroes ; by a third party, ofthe intro
duction of the Talmud among the Jews ; and by others
again, of the establishment of monasticism ? Is not
the arbitrariness which gives birth to such a method
of interpretation most glaring? and can we help ask
ing ourselves what object the Holy Spirit could have
had in view, in writing, according to the malicious
expression of M. Reville, " a history of the Church in
riddles " ? If this vision is intended to serve as a
guide to the caravan during its march, must it not be
made more intelligible ? If it is not to be understood
until the end comes, and when the goal shall have
been reached, of what use will it be then ?
M. Darby has felt the force of this, and has sug-
1 M. Henriquet, pastor at St. Fay, has just published a new
exposition from this point of view. It gives us pleasure to
announce this work, " L' Apocalypse, brievetnent expliquie par
tEcriture et I' histoire."

ESSAY UPON THE APOCALYPSE. 359
gested quite a different method, — the second one in
this system. According to him, the Church having
apostatised from the apostolic times, and not being
destined to be restored till the Lord's return, the
whole of that period of infidelity is omitted in the
prophecy ; and the apocalyptic vision, which begins in
chap, iv., and which represents the last days, is found,
by reason of that omission, following immediately
upon the picture of the apostolic church in chaps, ii.
and iii. Thus it is that the last conflicts and the last
victories of the Church find their places quite natu
rally at the end of the apostolic age. Far, then, from
having to look for the fulfilment of the seals and
trumpets in the past, as in the preceding system, we
are rather to see in them an image of the crises which
shall immediately precede the coming of the Anti
christ. This method has some attractions in it. It
agrees well with the passages in the New Testament
which seem to announce the near approach of the
Parousia. And moreover, by placing the fulfilment
of these pictures in the future, it has the advantage of
greatly facilitating the task of the interpreter. But is
it the real idea of the book ? And when it is said, in
chap, iv., "After this I looked, and behold a door was
opened in heaven," is it not more natural to believe
that the heavenly picture about to be unfolded before
the eyes of the seer is immediately connected with the
earthly picture of the seven churches which he had
just been contemplating ?

360 BIBLICAL STUDIES.
Between, then, those who see in the Apocalypse a
detailed photographic picture ofthe whole history of
the Church and of the European states since the time
of Jesus Christ, and those who admit into this vision
a complete blank between the first ages and the end
of the world, we must once more endeavour to steer a
middle course. We know none but Auberlen, — that
religious savant so early removed from the Church of
which he was one of the brightest lights, — who has
attempted this method ; and even he seems to us to
have leaned a little too much to one side, that is to
say, to that of those who discover in the apocalyptic
vision a greater number of historical indications than
it contains in reality. We, for our pari, are per
suaded that the intuitions of the prophet did not
wander for a single instant into the domain of political
history, and that they have reference solely to the
great conflicts which constitute the religious progress
of humanity. If, in order to explain an apocalyptic
detail, it is found necessary to make use of any source
of knowledge other than the Bible itself — to be in
possession, for instance, of data foreign to the pro
phecies of Jesus and of His apostles, with regard to
the latter days, we may conclude that the method
which has been followed is an erroneous one, and will
lead only to the discovery of ingenious but arbitrary
points of coincidence. It is with the Apocalypse as
with the Song of songs. It can only hold its ground
as part of the canon, on the condition that it refers

ESSAY UPON THE APOCALYPSE. 361

solely, with regard to its fundamental ideas and to its
details, to the sphere of the kingdom of God.
Let us endeavour to give, from this point of view, a
brief outline of its principal pictures.
It begins, as we have seen, with a description of
seven churches in Asia Minor, which, taken as a
whole, present a complete picture of the Christian
Church at the time of the vision. Christendom, as
represented by these seven churches, is therefore the
real audience to which the author addresses himself.
The six seals (for the seventh has a place by itself)
represent, not each of them a special event, but catego
ries of judgments by which God in all ages supports
the preaching of the gospel. This we perceive
clearly by the words of Jesus, to which these seals
refer, and of which they are but a paraphrase: " There
shall be wars, and famines, and pestilences, and earth
quakes, in divers places ; but the end is not yet."
Out of each word in this sentence the vision makes a
picture. M. Darby perfectly describes these plagues
when he calls them " the governmental measures "
adopted by Providence.1 The application of these
general measures lasts till the moment at which the
trumpets begin to sound. The vision of the seals
refers therefore to all that period of the history of the
Church which may be called preparatory ; — this is the
time of God's calls to the Gentiles. The first seal
' The Old Testament had already enumerated these plagues
in the same sense — Ezek. v. 12; vi. 11, 12, etc.

362 BIBLICAL STUDIES.
signifies all the preachings of the gospel, the second
all the wars, the third all the famines, the fourth all
the contagious sicknesses, the fifths// the persecutions,
the sixth all the earthquakes, which have visited the
earth, or will visit it, until the concluding phase, and
for which the trumpets are to give the signal. It is,
then, in the vision of the seals that we must place the
whole history of the Church up to our own day; a
history of which we must not, as will be seen, seek for
the details either in the seals or the trumpets, but
which, on the other hand, could not be altogether
omitted. It is evident that the practical application
of all these pictures is in this way very easily made,
and that the use of the Apocalypse for purposes of
edification gains infinitely by the adoption of this
method. Curiosity is the only loser.
The two pictures in chap, vii., which precede the
opening ofthe seventh seal, alike represent two abid
ing facts in the religious history of mankind. The
act by which the angel seals the hundred and forty-
four thousand Jews signifies that in all ages, from
the time of the dispersion of the chosen people
until that of the fulfilment of the task which will
be committed to them in the latter days, God pre
serves in the midst of them a faithful few, who,
even under the pressure of the surrounding heathen
nations, will not abandon Jehovah and His law,
and will remain obedient to His commands. M.
Renan does not understand the continued existence

ESSAY UPON THE APOCALYPSE. 363
of Judaism after the coming in of Christianity. "In
one sense," he says, " after the birth of Christianity,
Judaism has no longer any raison d'etre. It is like a
walking skeleton which has survived the blow which
has smitten it  There is no stranger sight in
history."1 It is true that the obstinate existence for
two thousand years of this wandering and homeless
people is a great problem in history for those who do
not believe in Providence ; but faith knows that God
holds in His hands the key to this enigma. And He
makes it shine before our eyes in the Apocalypse. It
is not for nothing, nor even for a trifling reason, that
this nation subsists, and that the miracle of its history
is perpetuated before our astonished sight. There are
amongst them more than seven thousand men who,
even to this day, have not bowed and will not bow the
knee to Baal. God holds them in reserve for a great
and sublime destiny.
In the second picture we behold the abundant
fruits of apostolic evangelisation, and then of Christian
preaching in all ages. Faithful men from all nations,
and kindreds, and people, and tongues, enter, like a
triumphant army, the celestial abodes. These innu
merable troops are like a contingent furnished by the
Gentile churches to the victorious retinue of the Lamb.
Some have had the boldness to maintain, on account
of their incalculable numbers, that these Gentiles are
but as a vile plebs, compared to the hundred and
1 L' Antichrist, pp. 544, 545.

364 BIBLICAL STUDIES.

forty-four thousand Israelites who are divinely sealed ;
as if these redeemed Gentiles were not clothed in white
robes ; as if they did not carry palms in their hands ;
as if the Lamb did not lead them unto living foun
tains of waters ! The hundred and forty-four thou
sand, on the contrary, are not yet even members
of the Church. They do not appear as forming part
of the army of the Lamb, till chap. xiv. I — 5. This
picture, painted with such enthusiasm, would suffice
to prove the admiration and lively sympathy which
the author of the Apocalypse felt for the work of Paul
in the Gentile world, and to put an end to all idea of
an opposition of principles and of tendency between
him and the apostle of the Gentiles.
Chap. vii. establishes, then, the fact that, up to the
time of the last phase, there will exist in Israel an
elect few, faithful to God and to the law of their
fathers, and in the Gentile world a multitude of souls
washed in the blood of the Lamb, and ready to reign
with Him.
The sixth seal, as we have seen, is only, if we may
so speak, the container of the seven trumpets. The
disciplinary measures of a more general kind, with
which God has hitherto enforced the preaching of the
gospel, are about now to give place to a system of
measures of a more decisive nature, and which are to
constitute an ultimatum offered by Him to the heathen
world which is hardening itself instead of being con
verted. It may be asked in what way this intuition

ESSAY UPON THE APOCALYPSE. 365

corresponds with the history which exhibits to us, on
the contrary, the Gentiles entering in a body into the
Church, and receiving Christian baptism. This official
Chris tianisation of the heathen nations is not recog
nised by the vision; for it is not a reality in the sight
of God. This so-called Christianity is in most cases
no more than a varnish spread over a substratum
which remains none the less heathen. Divine revela
tion could not recognise a fact of so equivocal a nature.
The six trumpets — for the seventh is isolated from
the six preceding ones — are the preparation for the
decisive ordeal which is to be brought in by the Anti
christ. They remind us of the trumpets of the priests,
which, after having during six days shaken the walls
of Jericho, caused them to fall on the seventh. They
are signals for. the dissolution of the ancient social
order, and then for the establishment, followed by the
ruin; of the empire of the Antichrist. Convulsions
accumulated in the four domains so often united in
prophecy, the earth, the sea, the rivers, and the air (from
the first to the fourth trumpet) ; next, convulsions in
society, which is undermined by a diabolical visitation
(fifth trumpet), and of which an invasion of savages
overthrows the foundations (sixth trumpet), — these
are the judgments which prepare the way for the last
adversary. It is upon the ground of these ruins that
he is to build his throne.
And let us not say that such an accumulation of
plagues, of physical misfortunes and social catas

366 BIBLICAL STUDIES.
trophes, is improbable or unheard of. Against such
an assertion I appeal to the striking picture which M.
Renan has drawn of the state of the world at the time
to which he refers the composition of the Apocalypse,
about the year 70 of our era. " Never," he says,
" had the world been seized with such a trembling-
fit ; ... . the earth itself was a prey to the most
terrible convulsions : the whole world was smitten
with giddiness  The planet seemed shaken to
its foundations, and to have no life left in it 
The conflict of the legions (amongst themselves) was
terrible ; . . . . famine was added to massacre ; . . . .
misery was extreme  In the year 65, a horri
ble plague visited Rome ; during the autumn there
were counted thirty thousand deaths  The
Campagna was desolated by typhoons and cyclones ;
.... the order of nature seemed to be overturned ;
frightful tempests spread terror in all directions.
But that which produced the greatest impression
was the earthquakes. The globe was undergoing
a convulsion analogous to that of the moral world ;
it was as if the earth and mankind were taken with
fever simultaneously. .... Vesuvius was preparing
for the terrible eruption of the year 79  Asia
Minor was in a chronic earthquake. Its cities had to
be continually rebuilt. From the year 59 onward we
find scarcely one year unmarked by some disaster.
The valley of the Lycus, especially, with its Christian
towns of Laodicaea and Colosse, was laid waste in the

ESSAY UPON THE APOCALYPSE. 367
year 60, etc." x And why, we may ask, should not
times such as these return, and with a redoubled in
tensity in proportion to the nearness of the approach
of the dissolution of this our old world, and the birth-
throes of a new earth ? And, as we have just seen, we
cannot separate, in such periods of commotion, the
physical world from the moral ; the two domains are
connected together by mysterious affinities ; and just
as Palestine followed, in its cycles of desolation, the
fate of Israel, so is the earth similarly related to man.
Is not humanity that "soul of the world" of which
men used in ancient times to dream ? And is it not
so that in this great whole, as well as in our own
persons, nothing can take place in the soul without
something to answer to it in the body, and nothing in
the body which does not react simultaneously upon
the soul ?
The last signal — that of the seventh trumpet — is
preceded, as the opening of the seventh seal had
been, by a scene of an encouraging tendency — that
of the two witnesses (xi.). This episode refers, as
did the former of the two which prepared for the
seventh seal, to the destinies of the Jewish people.
This subject is so important that it is treated here
in a little book which forms, as it were, a parenthesis
in the great book. It is the announcement (already
anticipated in the prophetic vision itself) of the
conversion of Israel. The faithful Jews, together
1 L' Antichrist, p. 326, sqq.

368 BIBLICAL STUDIES.
with the hundred and forty-four thousand, (cf.
chap, vii.,) are seen prostrated in the holy place
before the golden altar (the symbol of Judaism)
in an ideal temple ; for the material temple is no
longer in existence. They are awaiting the new
revelation which is to carry them on a step farther,
into the most holy place. The mass of the people
are given up to the Gentiles, who tread them under
foot. The author here reproduces the exact words
of Jesus: "Jerusalem shall be trodden down of the
Gentiles, until the times of the Gentiles be fulfilled."
John does not, any more than Jesus, use the ex
pression to tread under foot in a literal sense. The
subject in his mind is that of the moral domination
of the Gentiles over Israel, and of the apostasy, be
coming ever more and more general, of that ancient
elect people, in abjuring the divine principle of their
national existence, and basely seeking to identify
themselves with the heathen nations amongst whom
they were scattered. Thus, whilst the elect part of
the nation, by their unshaken fidelity, prepare them
selves for a sacred mission, the mass of the people
— these constitute the outer court given up to the
Gentiles — degrade and materialise themselves more
and more to the level of the heathen. In the midst
of this defection appear — as did in ancient times
Enoch in the midst of the degenerate children of
Seth, Moses before Israel corrupted by Egyptian
idolatry, Elijah amongst the ten tribes who had

ESSAY UPON TBE APOCALYPSE. 369
become almost completely paganised — the two wit
nesses, whose preaching, as well as their dress and
acts of power, preach repentance to Israel. It is at
Jerusalem that this scene takes place. Israel has
therefore regained its own land ; and finds itself
once more in possession of its capital. For, as
we have seen, it is impossible to interpret other
wise than literally this expression : " The great city
.... where our Lord was crucified" (xi. 8). If the
author had intended to describe Christendom, and
the spiritual crucifixion of the Saviour in the midst
of her, he would have used the present or the future
tense — is or will be crucified ; and not the past —
"was crucified." But — and this is surprising — the
beast now appears upon the scene, though his coming-
has not yet been described. The reason is that the
contents of the little book constitute a special pro
phecy within the great one. We shall see later
on why the Antichrist thinks it expedient to leave
Rome, his capital, and to take up his abode at
Jerusalem. The two witnesses are killed by him,
but they come to life again miraculously. The city
is smitten with an earthquake, and one part of the
inhabitants are swallowed up in it. The remainder
of the people, and particularly those who have been
specially reserved for these supreme moments, give
glory to God, and are converted to Him. Accord
ingly, we shall find in chap. xiv. the hundred and
forty-four thousand surrounding the Lamb, between
24

370 BIBLICAL STUDIES.
the time of the advent and that of the destruction
of the Antichrist.
This picture is well adapted to encourage the
Church in presence of the terrible conflict she is
about to be called upon to sustain. She knows now
beforehand that she will have within humanity
itself a powerful ally — that is, the people of peoples,
of which the elect part will occupy a central place
in the Christian army, and form a kind of body
guard of the Lamb.
Now that the Church has been reassured as to
the issue of the conflict, she can listen without fear
to the sound of that seventh trumpet, which is to
call forth the Antichrist from out of the seas — that
is, from the midst of the nations.
But his appearance is preceded by a combat waged
in heaven between Michael, the champion of God, the
representative of monotheism — that is the meaning
of his name, "who is like unto God?" — and Satan, the
seducer of men, who entices them into idolatry, into
that worship of imaginary beings which is, at bottom,
only the adoration of Satan himself and of his angels.
" The things which the Gentiles sacrifice, they sacri
fice to devils," says St. Paul (i Cor. x. 20). What
is then the meaning of this combat ? It represents
the final conflict between monotheism and paganism,
and the fall of the latter. In one sense this conflict
takes place upon earth. It is the voice of the
preachers of the gospel which overthrows the temples

ESSAY UPON THE APOCALYPSE. 371
of the idols. But the reference here is to an event
belonging to a higher than a merely terrestrial sphere.
The power obtained by Satan over the spirit of the
nations, through the fascination of idolatry, is a phe
nomenon which results from the elevated position
which he still occupies in the supernatural sphere —
in the heavenly places, as says St. Paul (Eph. vi. 1 2).
Jesus, when He saw His disciples returning from
their first evangelising expedition, in which they had
healed some demoniacs, led them to contemplate the
sublime significance of these first victories, when He
said to them : " I saw Satan fall like lightning from
heaven." These isolated facts formed in His view
a pledge of the future destruction of idolatry by the
evangelic messengers who should carry on the work
of the disciples. This saying of the Lord is the
text of the vision in Rev. xii., just as the words of
Jesus, quoted above, had formed the subject of the
vision of the six seals.
Satan loses his place in the celestial spheres from
whence he had been still ruling over men's hearts, and
making himself worshipped as God. He is cast down
to the earth ; that is to say, his reign in the sphere
of religion comes to an end. The diabolical super
stitions of paganism disappear from human society.
But a certain degree of power is still left to this
enemy in the terrestrial sphere. Only he cannot
exert it directly ; and just as evil spirits require the
body of those who are possessed, as a medium for

372 BIBLICAL STUDIES.
their action, so Satan needs a man wholly given up
to him, to enable him to realise the plans of ven
geance which he is revolving in his heart. "Thou
hast robbed me of my heathens," he seems to say
to Christ, as he casts upon Him a look of hellish
defiance ; " but wait — I, on my part, am about to
rob Thee of Thy Christians." And the coming of
the Antichrist is the means which he employs for
realising this threat.
What will become of the Church under these cir
cumstances ? The end of the vision in chap. xii.
tells us ; and chap. xiii. will confirm it. She will
disappear temporarily from off the face of the earth,
at least as far as the kingdom of the Antichrist shall
extend. But she will find a place of refuge prepared
for -her by God — a land of Goshen, into which the
perfidious solicitations of the Antichrist cannot pursue
her. And Christ, the King and Judge, whom she
has just brought forth, but whose reign is still post
poned for a time — until the Antichrist shall have
realised his own — is withdrawn temporarily into
heaven, awaiting the day when He shall appear to
substitute Himself definitively for the diabolic monarch
whose advent was to precede His own.
This vision of the woman in travail has often been
made to represent the Jewish Church giving birth to
the Messiah. But what meaning could there be in
such a return — in the middle of the prophecy — to a
period long since passed away, and one so perfectly

ESSAY UPON THE APOCALYPSE. 373

well known? This vision is not retrospective, but
prospective. This is, moreover, sufficiently proved
by the three years and a half during which the exile
of the woman lasts, and which answers to the forty-
two montlis of the reign of the Antichrist, and to the
twelve hundred and sixty days during which the two
witnesses preach. These three periods are really one
and the same, applied successively, under these three
forms, — to the Church during the time of her emi
gration, — to Israel during the days of its future, purely
national, restoration,— and to the Antichrist during
the time of his domination.
The Antichrist, the subject of the signal given by
the seventh trumpet, appears in chap. xiii. What is
this personage to be ?
His very name tells us. Antichrist means counter-
Christ, or anti-Messiah. This name, then, with the
idea represented by it, is Jewish in origin and in
character. The Anti-Messiah, as well as the Messiah
Himself, is necessarily a product of Judaism.
The apostle Paul confirms this idea. We have
seen that his doctrine lays it down very decidedly
that the man of sin realises in himself the spurious
Jewish Messiah, set up by carnal Israel, in oppo
sition to the Messiah of God. This personage will
be the Israelite, who shall consent to that act of
felony to which Jesus would not consent — that of
doing homage to the sovereignty of the prince of this
world, in order that he might receive from his hands

374 BIBLICAL STUDIES.
universal empire. Satan will fulfil to him the promise
which he made to Jesus : " If thou wilt worship me,
I will give thee all these kingdoms, and the glory of
them ; for that is delivered unto me." Further, St.
Paul has taught us that that which kept back in his
time the manifestation of this principle, ever latent
in the heart of every Israelite not purified from above,
was the Roman power, which put an immediate stop
to the acts of ambitious self-will of the Jewish people,
and was able to curb the leaders who arose from time
to time and undertook to stir them into insurrection.
We have also seen how far this description of the
man of sin drawn by St. Paul resembles the manner
in which John speaks of the Antichrist in his first
epistle. In both of them this personage represents a
religion opposed to the gospel, and at the same time
a political power. These two characteristics in com
bination belong naturally only to a Jew.
We can easily understand from the very nature
of things how it should come to pass that as it was
from the Jewish nation that there issued the most
perfect fruit of humanity, so from it also there should
proceed the worst that it will ever produce. Corruptio
optimi pessima. "The Jewish nation comprehends
within it both extremes," says M. Renan. " Nothing
can equal in wickedness the wickedness of Jews ; at
the same time the best of men have been jews. You
may say of this race whatever good or evil you please,
without danger of overstepping the truth." In bias-

ESSAY UPON THE APOCALYPSE. 375

phemy, as well as in adoration, the Jew is the fore
most of mankind ; and one of these peculiarities
always goes with the other. To blaspheme with
energy is not within the power of every man. In
order to do so, a character by nature religious is
needed. The Roman will never excel in that art,
precisely for the reason that to him the things of faith
are in their nature foreign and indifferent. We of
the other western nations are more or less in the
same case. He must spring from a holy race, that is
to be impious with fervour and force. It is only
an apostate who can blaspheme with all his heart.
Hence the unquestionable superiority of the Jew
in this region. No one can form any idea of the
hatred which a materialistic and antichristian heart
can feel towards the gospel, till he has seen it
gleaming in the eyes of a Jew; and to understand
what the words curse and blaspheme really mean,
one must have heard profane irony poured from
the lips of a child of Israel. Our Gentile Voltaires,
let them try as they may, are in comparison but
lambs when the object is to revile Christ and His
Church. None but Israel could have given birth to
Judas; and it alone, accordingly, is in possession of
the frightful privilege of a capacity for opposing to
Jesus Christ the rival who, during the time marked
out, shall hold seriously in check the kingdom of God
on earth.
Moreover, history has demonstrated the truth of all

376 BIBLICAL STUDIES.
that we are now saying. It testifies to the per
secuting hatred of the Jews as soon as they had
possession of power. "You curse us in your syna
gogues," says Justin to Trypho the Jew, — "us
who believe in Christ. Only you have not the
power to touch us, because those who now govern
the world (the Romans) prevent you. But when
ever you have been able, you have not failed to
do it." And in his first Apology, the same author
writes to the emperor concerning the Jews thus :
" As soon as they have the power, they carry us
off and torture us. In the war which Barchokeba
has just been carrying on at the head of the
Jewish people, it was the Christians alone upon
whom the extreme penalties were inflicted, when
they would not deny and blaspheme Jesus the
Christ." And what a painful feeling of the furious
hatred of this people against the gospel is ex
pressed in that passage of St. Paul : " Who both
killed the Lord Jesus, and their own prophets, and
have persecuted us ; and they please not God, and
are contrary to all men ; forbidding us to speak to
the Gentiles that they might be saved, to fill up
their sins alway." x
Finally, — and this is the decisive point, — the
picture drawn in the Apocalypse of the Antichrist
can, it seems to us, only be explained when we
apply it to a Jew. What is this beast which was,
1 i Thess. ii. 15, 16.

ESSAY UPON THE APOCALYPSE. 377
which is not, and which shall be? (xvii. 11.) What
is this head wounded to death, which had preceded
that which was reigning at the time in which John is
writing, and which was to be miraculously healed
in order to play, as the eighth head, the part of
Antichrist? There are only two possible interpre
tations of all these mysterious characteristics. Either
we must see in them traits intended to point to
Nero risen again, — that is, to an absurd fable, — or
we must interpret them of Israel ; of its destruction,
nearly two thousand years ago, and of its final resto
ration, when it will form that last monarchy of which
the Anti-Messiah will be the head. We have already
refuted the former of these explanations. The latter
alone, we are convinced, answers to the idea of the
apocalyptic vision.
We can prove from the fourth Sibylline book,
written about the year 80, that it was even at that
time the custom to include in one vast and com
prehensive coup d'osil the whole past history of man
kind, and the succession of the great monarchies
which had marked its phases. According to this
poem, six out of the twelve successive races of man
kind belong to the Assyrian age, two to the Median,
two to the Persian and Greek, one to the Roman ;
and the twelfth and last is that of the times of the
Messiah. All intuitions of this kind evidently rested upon
Daniel's prophecy. The author of. the Apocalypse

378 BIBLICAL STUDIES.
himself gives us a proof of the connection which
exists between his picture of the Antichrist and that
of this ancient prophet, when he attributes to the
beast the form of a leopard, the feet of a bear, and
the mouth of a lion. These three animals repre
sented in Daniel the Grecian and Persian monarchies
and the Babylonian empire. John intends us there
fore to understand that the empire of the Antichrist
will combine in itself all the powers which these
different nations had in succession possessed.
But did the Jewish nation ever really occupy such
a position in the series of the ancient kingdoms, that
John could lawfully make of it one of the seven heads
of the beast, in the sense which we attribute to this
symbol ? From the standpoint of political history
we might answer in the negative ; but from that of
the religious history of mankind — which is that of
John — the truth of this intuition needs no demon
stration. Did not Israel, by the hand of Herod,
declare war against the Messiah, even from His
birth ? And did it not, by means of the Sanhe
drim, seek to suppress His kingdom ? The conduct
of Israel towards the infant Church was the same as
that of Egypt towards Israel in its cradle; and it is
not without reason that St. Paul, in Rom. ix., applies
to this nation all the scriptural passages relating to
Pharaoh. According to this, the first four heads of the beast
are the following States : In the Old Testament_times,

ESSAY UPON THE APOCALYPSE. 379
Egypt, which endangered the existence of Israel when
still in its infancy ; Assyria and Babylonia, which
put an end to its existence as an independent
nation ; Persia, which held it in bondage until the
time of its own humiliation ; and Greece, with its prin
cipal representative, Antiochus Epiphanes, the true
Antichrist of this former period, the persecutor pro.
perly so called. But as there had been four heads
hostile to the Divine power during the times of Israel,
there are also four during the times of the Gentiles,
which have carried on war against the Church. The
first is Israel itself, numbered henceforth among the
nations of the earth (the Gojim) and deprived tem
porarily of its title of the people of God. Did not
the Jews pronounce sentence of degradation against
themselves with their own lips when they exclaimed :
" We have no king but Caesar " ? 1 Accordingly, John
calls them, in the epistles to the seven churches, the
synagogue of Satan. Israel is, then, the fifth head ;
and it is not difficult therefore to understand what
the apostle means by the deadly wound with which
one of the first five heads has been smitten. Who
could fail to recognise in this fatal sword-thrust
(xiii. 14), proceeding from an unknown hand, the
destruction of the people of Israel by the Roman
sword in the year 70, and their dispersion among
the heathen? Israel, which had been the first of
the nations, disappearing suddenly from its place
1 John xix. 15.

3»o BIBLICAL STUDIES.
among them — this is the beast " that was, and is not,
and yet is," and which, the prophecy adds, shall be
again. It is this Israel, humanly speaking annihi
lated, which will come to life again, to give the final
expression to the revolt of mankind against God the
Creator. If the fifth head represents Israel, what are the
two powers represented by the sixth and seventh ?
" Five are fallen," says the angel, " and one is." This
expression gives us the desired answer. The sixth
head (the second in relation to the Church) is the
Roman power which is reigning over the world at
the time in which St. John is writing. This apostle
is therefore here quite in accord with St. Paul when
the latter recognises the actually existing imperial
power as the force which still keeps back the break
ing forth of the Jewish Messianic principle. The
seventh head (the third Antichrist of the times of
the Gentiles) consequently, quite naturally, repre
sents the power upon which will devolve the work of
making a clean sweep of the Roman dominion, and
thus of preparing the way for the advent of the final
antichristian power. St. Paul indicates it with suffi
cient clearness, 2 Thess. ii. 7. In order that Anti
christ may come, it is necessary that " he who now
letteth (Rome) shall be taken out of the way." This
destruction presupposes some one to execute it — a
•power who shall '.sweep away the last remains of the
Roman empire. The agent indicated by this passage

ESSAY UPON THE APOCALYPSE. 38l

in St. Paul is no other than the seventh head of the
apocalyptic vision. What is this head ? One might
take it to signify the barbarous nations whose in
vasion put an end, in a certain sense, to the empire.
But the barbarous monarchies have rather continued,
than replaced or destroyed the Roman power; the
existing European states formed themselves out of
the materials of the Roman edifice. They are like
the ten toes of the statue in Daniel's vision, and still
form a part of the colossus. Roman civilisation
remains mistress of the world. It is these remains
which a violent force, and one, as the vision says,
of transitory duration,1 is to sweep away, like a de
vastating torrent. Then will the Antichrist appear,
the eighth head, and at the same time the beast
himself, issuing this time not only from the sea of
nations, but from the abyss — in virtue of the diabolical
inspiration which animates him. He will present
himself to mankind, in their disorganised and des
perate condition, as their saviour, and in order that
he may accomplish the work of their social resto
ration, will only ask to be recognised as the incarna
tion of the Infinite Spirit.2 And to the surprise of
the whole world, the power which will keep him in
check will be found to be that Israel which had been,
it was thought, erased for ever from the catalogue
of the nations, which scarcely even retained its place
1 Rev. xviii. io.
1 2 Thess. ii. 4 : " He as God sitteth in the temple of God."

3?2 BIBLICAL STUDIES.

in statistics, and which will reissue suddenly from
its grave as what it really is, the foremost among
the nations, the one to which belongs, for good or
for evil, the sceptre of the world.
There exists in the heart of this people a pledge of
this future which belongs to it, in the indestructible
hope which they carry with them of hereafter possess
ing the world. This is the secret of their mysterious
vitality. We are not to look for an explanation of
their strange preservation in any external circum
stances. They live because they will to live ; they
will to live because they feel themselves called to
reign, and specially gifted for this high vocation.
But they are to fulfil this mission after a diabolical
before doing so after a divine, fashion. It is nearly
always so in the history of mankind. Divine ideas
do not generally appear embodied in facts under their
true form, till after they have appeared as caricatures.
Guessing in some way at the order of the day of the
Divine government, the devil forestalls God, and casts
an ape upon the earth just at the moment at which
God is about to create a man. Thus will the Jewish
Antichrist precede the advent of the Christ.
Will it be asked in what way this is to come to
pass ? Are we to believe that this people with their
bowed backs and trembling knees, whose only wish
seems to be to dissemble before the Gentiles, are to
become some day their masters ? I beg permission
to answer this objection by a personal recollection.

ESSAY UPON THE APOCALYPSE. 383

As I was conversing one day with a rabbi of the most
extreme opinions, I said to him at last, " Shall I tell
you what I think ? It is you that are destined one
day to become the rod in God's hand to chastise us."
I expected this would astonish him a little. But he
answered at once with a frigid smile, "And shall I
tell you what I think ? We are so already." He was
right, and he evidently knew more about it than I
did. The whirlwind which is now carrying the world
captive is the inspiration of the Jewish spirit. Jewish
finance dominates society from Europe to the United
States. As a careful observer remarks,1 " There is not
one of us who does not already, whether consciously
or not, do homage to this power." With the sceptre
of finance, the Jew dominates also the politics of the
world. M. de Rothschild was the third party with
the President of the French Republic and the Emperor
of Germany in concluding the last peace. It is the
Jewish mind which is guiding the religious and moral
movements of society in our day. Jouinalism and
the lesser literature belongs to it almost entirely,
especially in Germany ; and in places where, as in
France, things have not perhaps as yet gone so far,
every one nevertheless pays court to the Jew. M.
Renan is perhaps alone among free-thinkers in not
kissing the hand in adoration of this rising sun.
Together with the Voltairians or materialists in all
countries — what are these little shades of difference
1 Osman Bey, La conquete du monde par les Juifs.

,384 BIBLICAL STUDIES.
to him ? — the Jew, through the thousand voices which
are everywhere at his disposal, cries to the' world,
" Fraternity ! Toleration ! " And in secret he is
forging the chains with which he is preparing to load
these miserable Gentiles, who are looking down upon
him in their folly. More and more are they the repre
sentatives of his race who shine in art, and who take
precedence in science. Ere long it will fall to him to
offer to the unchristianised masses that moral refuge
of which they will be feeling the need. After having
favoured and brought about the triumph in every place
of the antichristian tendencies of the day, he will
boldly proclaim the fall of the Christ of the Gentiles.
Was it not the sole mission of Jesus and of Christianity
to spread abroad amongst heathen nations the worship
of the God of Abraham ? This work is now accom
plished. The gospel has laboured well in the cause
of Judaism. Its task is fulfilled. Let it now give
place, and let Israel reap the fruit of its labours ! The
latest self-accommodation of Providence to the ido
latries of the Gentiles — the adoration of Jesus — has
but to give way, and mankind will have reached its
goal — it will at last have become Israelite ! Such is
the hope of the Jew, and this it is which encourages
him in his labours. One must be blind not to see
the work which has been already done, and that which
is in preparation. As the author whom I have just
quoted says,1 "Although not visible, the colossus is
* Osman Bey, pp. 32 — 44.

ESSAY UPON THE APOCALYPSE. 385
none the less real, like the atmosphere, which is
present everywhere, though hidden from our eyes.
There needs but one more cataclysm,1 and then he
will be manifested to the nations, saying, " Worship
me, and I will give you happiness."
The Antichrist has an acolyte represented under
the image of a second beast, having horns like a lamb,
and called, later on, the false prophet. M. Renan gives
up in despair the task of explaining this personage in
the vision. The reason is easy to see. These lamb's
horns are evidently the symbol of a religious influence
which places itself at the disposal of the political
power of the Antichrist. Now, what fact analogous
to this can be discovered amongst the surroundings
of a risen Nero, or even — for it would seem that this
is the real idea of M. Renan with regard to the Anti
christ of St. John — what false prophet can we find
amongst the band of deserters who were the com
panions of the pseudo-Nero in that island of the
Archipelago in which he had taken refuge ? To us,
it seems clear that a Jewish monarchy could not exist
without a clergy at its command ; and that by the
side of the new Solomon there would infallibly be
found a complaisant high priest, willing to place his
piety, his pantheistic wisdom, and even his tricks and
pretended miracles, at the service of this false Messiah.
May we not believe that we are actually witnessing
the first noiseless steps of the approach of this power,
1 Which will be precisely that of the seventh head. «5

386 BIBLICAL STUDIES.
when we hear it said that even now there is a tendency
to give to the decrees of the grand Rabbi of Jerusalem
an universal authority in the Judaism of the whole
world ? 1 This is the new infallibility which is silently
substituting itself for that of which the claims are in
our day disturbing the world ; and the Jerusalem in
fallibility will be more formidable than the Roman.
Whilst the monarch will exert his despotic power over
the bodies of men by his legions, he will exert it over
their minds, through the priest-prophet who will cele
brate the mysteries and the worship of the beast.
It is said that the beast will begin by carrying
Babylon away with him ; then, that he will cast her
into the fire, and deliver her over to be pillaged by the
ten kings, his allies. Babylon is certainly the capital
of the universal monarchy which the Antichrist is to
found. And since the author describes her sitting upon
seven hills, it is clear that she represents Rome. It is
then in Rome that, during the first period, the Jewish
monarch is to take up his residence. This sovereign
will make himself the guardian of humanitarian civi
lisation, of social cosmopolitanism ; and the great
religious capital of past times will be at the outset
the centre of his empire. But the taking up of this
position will be but a stroke of policy intended to
give security to his first steps, and to lay the foun
dations of his power. How could a Jew ever forget
the death-blow which his nation had received at the
1 Renan, L Antichrist, p. 547, note.

ESSAY UPON THE APOCALYPSE. 387

hands of Rome, or overlook his opportunity of re
venge ? The hour of vengeance, long expected, has
now struck. God made Rome His weapon to punish
Israel; now He will make Israel His weapon to
execute judgment upon Rome. It is the old anta
gonism between the Jews and the heathen, the pro
foundest antithesis of history, which is now reaching
its supreme crisis. Rome is reduced by victorious
Israel to a condition like that of Nineveh, or of
Babylon. After this act of vengeance, the Antichrist
will, as we saw in ch. xi., take up his residence in
Jerusalem, his natural capital. It is a repetition of
the fate which Rome underwent for the first time
when Constantine abandoned it for Constantinople,
and transferred the seat of monarchy to the East.
It is here that we must place the conflict between the
beast and the two witnesses, and the conversion of
the Jewish nation politically restored.
The reign of Antichrist will last three and a half
years. The interpretation of this number has been
sought in chronology; but it is rather in the sym
bolism of numbers that we must look for a key to its
meaning. The number seven represents a whole ;
three and a half, the half of this whole. This number,
then, signifies simply that in the midst of its develop
ment, and during the strongest stage of its growth,
the power of the Antichrist will be suddenly destroyed.
Instead of completing his course, he will come to an
end like a tree that has been struck by lightning*

BIBLICAL STUDIES.

"The Lord Jesus," says St. Paul, "will destroy the
wicked one with the spirit of His mouth." x
It remains to explain the number 666, the mark of
the Antichrist. Observe, first, that in the Greek it is
written, not with the same figure three times repeated,
but with three letters of different shapes, the mutual
relation of whose values {six hundreds, six tens, six
units) is not at first sight clear. This is why John
speaks of a calculation that must be undertaken to
find the value first, then the meaning of the number
represented by these letters (% f ?) 2
Next we must observe that these three Greek
letters have a peculiarity which is not reproduced in
our numerical writing. The first letter, ^ {ch), whose
value is 600, and the third, ? (the final s) equivalent
to 6, make up, in Greek, the abridged form of the
name Christ (Christos) ;3 the middle letter, £ (x), which
as a cipher signifies 60, is, in virtue of its form and of
the sibilant sound with which it is pronounced {chsi),
an emblem of the serpent.4 Now, as the name which
1 2 Thess. ii. 8.
2 The reading of certain MSS. which give in extenso the
number six hundred and sixty-six, is only a paraphrase of the
cypher in three letters. This is proved by the fact that the MSS.
which give this reading present it in the three forms — the mascu
line {Alexandrinus), the feminine {Sinaiticus), or the neuter.
The true form has been preserved in the Vaticanus.
* It is in this form that this name is generally written, whether
in the ancient MSS. or in the ancient Greek inscriptions (Didron
Iconographie Chritienne, p. 178, and elsewhere). The two letters
are joined by a hyphen placed above them, X~ C.
* The antique majuscule form of this letter (2) in an in-

ESSAY UPON THE APOCALYPSE. 389

John commonly gives to Satan in the Apocalypse is
the old serpent, in allusion to the story of the tempta
tion in Gen. iii., one is naturally disposed to see in
these three letters, so arranged, a figurative sign of
the Satanic Messianism, substituted for that of the
Divine Messianism, or Christianity.
And let not this interpretation be charged hastily
with puerility. We have here, as the text says, a
mark, — a kind of graphic decoration, intended to serve
as a coat of arms, an official seal, a stamp engraved
upon metals or coins, perhaps even as an amulet, in
the kingdoms of the Antichrist, and which was to be
openly worn, in some form or other, by all his
adherents, as M. de Remusat observes, in his inte
resting work on the Christian Museum at Rome :
" The imaginations of Asiatics are by nature inclined
to delight in imagery. Faith, amongst these nations,
has its officially sanctioned designs, just as moderns
have their coats of arms.1
We have a very striking proof of the truth of the
fact brought out by this writer in the many gems,
called by the name of abraxas, which are brought to
light in our day, and which were probably used as
amulets. They proceed from very ancient religious
sects. Sometimes they bear a simple inscription, at
other times a symbolical figure is attached to the
scription of Melas is just the same as the Greek minuscule
form (£).
1 Revue des deux Mondes, 15th June, 1863, pp. 864, 866.

39° BIBLICAL STUDIES.
inscription — very frequently that of a serpent coiled
up. M. Didron gives us one which represents the
ruler of the world, under the image of a dragon with
his tail folded back ; on his right is the image of the
sun, and on his left that of the moon : exactly as in
the symbolical cypher of the Apocalypse, the first
and last letters of the name Christos are separated by
the %}
This form of the mark of the beast reminds us of
an ancient Christian sect, which in all probability was
the parent of that to which is attributed the invention
of the abraxas — the Ophites, or serpent worshippers,
whose origin is to be traced as far back as to the first
century of the Church. In our time the Ophites are re
garded as the earliest Gnostics — a name which signifies
those who know, and by which was designated, in the
primitive Church, a large philosophico-religious party.
The serpent in Genesis was, according to the Ophites,
the saviour of mankind, the champion of liberty, of
intelligence, of progress ; and the invisible being re
presented by him must therefore be the truly good
God ; whilst Jehovah, his adversary, was the jealous
god, the spirit of evil. It seems to me that John
alludes to speculations of this kind when he speaks,
in the epistle to the church of Thyatira, of the doc
trine of those who have known, as they say, the depths
of Satan. We may trace also to these doctrines, as
its origin, the blasphemous exclamation, " Accursed
' Iconographie Chritienne, p. 39,

ESSAY UPON THE APOCALYPSE. 391
Jesus!" which St. Paul puts into the lips of certain
fanatics of his day.1 The mark chosen by the beast
is nothing more than the summing up in a picture of
this whole class of ideas as found historically existing
in the age of the Apocalypse, and in the countries in
which it was composed.
There is a singular various reading of the passage
in the first epistle of St. John, relating to the Anti
christ. The ordinary text has: "Every spirit that
confesseth not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is
the spirit of Antichrist." But these words are quoted
by Irenaeus, Origen, Augustine, etc., in this form :
" Every spirit which dissolves or analyses (Kvei) Jesus
is the spirit of Antichrist." To " dissolve " Christ is
precisely the act which is figured by the three letters
of the name of the beast. In the place of the hyphen
which ordinarily unites the two letters of Christos, is
substituted the emblem of the serpent, which separates
them. But the text does not speak only of the mark of
the beast ; it also draws attention to the number of his
name. This number, when we give the three letters
their numerical value, is, as we have seen, 666. What
is the meaning attributed by John to this number ?
Seven, we know, is the emblem of a divine totality.
If, therefore, the plenitude of the Divine essence, as it
is revealed in the gospel, was to be expressed in a
number, it would be by a 7, and by a 7 three times
1 1 Cor. xii. 3.

392 BIBLICAL STUDIES.

repeated ; for the number 3 designates the complete
cycle of the phases through which a being arrives at
his perfection. Six, as the number nearest to seven,
expresses an aspiration — but a powerless aspiration —
after the plenitude of life and strength figured by seven :
and if ever there should present itself here below an
impious trinity, daring to usurp the office and the
honours of the Divine Trinity, it could not be repre
sented, in the symbolical language of numbers, more
fitly than by the number 6 three times repeated.
Now the case we are supposing is exactly that
which presents itself at the point of the apocalyptic
drama at which we have now arrived. As God
transmits, in heaven, His power to the Son, and the
Son exerts it in the Church through the Holy Spirit
who glorifies Him, so has Satan just transmitted his
power to the false Messiah, who, in his turn, exerts it
in the world through the false prophet, whose influ
ence is altogether at his service. Remember, to com
plete this comparison, that Satan is called the god
of this world, that the Antichrist wishes to be its
Lord, instead, and in the place of, the Son, and that
the false prophet is the personification of the spirit
of falsehood, whose work it is to exclude the Divine
Spirit. After this, the mystery of the number 666
seems to us to be cleared up. John sees in this
cypher the symbol of a threefold powerlessness — that
of the dragon to equal God, that of the beast to
equal Christ, and that of the false prophet to equal

ESSAY UPON THE APOCALYPSE. 393
the Spirit. The last and final effort of the creature to
make himself God does not reach its aim ; and the
very mark of the Antichrist contains in itself already
the unconscious avowal of his defeat.
No poor act of arithmetical calculation, therefore,
has to be gone through in order to discover the
meaning of this number. We are here, as in the
whole of the Apocalypse, in the region of symbolism,
not of arithmetic. Otherwise, as Hengstenberg ob
serves, a cunning Jew would be better able to interpret
this sacred book than a believer whose soul is illumined
by God.
As to the opinion, held by some to this day, which
finds the meaning of this number in chronology, by
combining it with that of the twelve hundred and
sixty days translated into as many years, how are we
to harmonise it with the expression, " the number of
the name of the beast " ?
M. Renan gives up the point of explaining in any
way the name A.rmageddon, applied to the field of
battle in which the coming in ofthe Christ is to destroy
the beast and his army. It is the name of a place in
Palestine celebrated in the history of the Jews ; it
designates the hill of Megiddo in the vast plain situated
at the foot of the chain of Carmel, where so many
important battles were fought in ancient and modern
times. If, as John has announced, the Jewish anti-
Christian monarchy, after having established itself at
Rome, is to have its seat in the East, at Jerusalem

394 BIBLICAL STUDIES.
— the rival of Rome — then the choice of this field of
battle, the normal one of Palestine, has nothing sur
prising in it.
Are we to see in the victorious apparition of the
Christ, described in chap, xix., an event purely
spiritual, or a visible phenomenon ? Jesus compares
it to the lightning which shines instantaneously from
the one end of heaven to the other j1 the latter view
is the only one compatible with this expression. On
the other hand, it follows from His use of this image,
that Jesus had no thought of a permanent and visible
abode of His glorified Person on the earth, whether at
Jerusalem or elsewhere, as the Millenarians 2 in all
ages have thought. The Parousia will be, on the con
trary, like the stroke of the red-hot rod, which is to
startle mankind absorbed in fleshly living, and to
prepare the way for the mighty reaction whence the
plenitude of the spiritual blessings of the millennium
is to proceed. Living in a higher sphere, but near at
hand, the faithful who will have been glorified at the
advent of the Lord 3 will be in communion with the
earthly Christendom, just as the risen Christ was in
communion with His disciples until the ascension.
This will be the time of the complete development of
spiritual worship and of Christian civilisation, in which,
as in the middle ages, but under the effects of the
1 Luke xvii. 24.
2 The advocates of the idea of a visible reign of Jesus on the
earth for a thousand years.
s I Cor. xv. 23.

ESSAY UPON THE APOCALYPSE. 395
shining forth of a more intense and pure light, science,
art, industry, commerce, will lend their resources to the
Christian spirit to enable it to incarnate itself com
pletely in the life of man. Then will be fulfilled the
image of the leaven which leaveneth the whole lump.
The number a thousand is symbolical, like all numbers
in the Apocalypse. It represents a complete develop
ment which nothing external to itself will interfere
with, or abridge — an era which shall expand itself at
ease in the latter days of history.
It does not seem to us that the apocalyptic vision
of the reign of a thousand years contains a single
feature which overpasses the conception of which we
have just sketched the outline. It is that perfect state
of things which Ezekiel had already described in the
last nine chapters of his prophecy, under the image of
an ideal temple.
We do not think we are called upon to pursue this
rapid and too incomplete sketch, beyond this point,
which is the real denouement oi the apocalyptic drama.
To reach this concluding stage of our course, we have
not had to appeal to any other data than those which
are furnished by sacred history and biblical revelation.
The great antagonism set up by God Himself, which
forms the foundation of the development of His king
dom amongst men — that between the Jews and the
Gentiles — has been our key to prophecy, as it is the
key to history, which has been shewn by St. Paul in
Rom. ix. — xi.

396 BIBLICAL STUDIES.
About the year 90, near the first secular jubilee of
the new creation, John, lifted as it were upon a rock
from whence to command a view far into the past
and into the future, beholds, as Moses did before him
on Sinai, the visions of God. Behind are the traces ot
the torrents of blood shed by Nero ; before him the
sea of fire J of a new persecution, with which Domitian
— that monster who might well be compared to a Nero
risen again — threatens the Church. The eight emperors
who have just succeeded one another on the throne of
Caesar, appear to him as types of the eight phases of
the anti-divine power in the history of mankind. In
Rome triumphant, and Jerusalem in ruins, he sees the
two poles between which the destinies of our race
oscillate ; in the times of the Gentiles, and in the ordeal
to which these nations are now subjected, he sees the
pendant and the complement of the times of Lsrael,
and of the ordeal now brought to a close through
which that people had to pass. The issue of one of
these two ordeals does not seem to him less tragical
than that of the other. The heathen will go on harden
ing themselves. Paganism will no doubt fall ; but Satan
will turn this victory to his own profit. The Gentile
Church will be apparently destroyed, as was once Jesus
at Golgotha ; but the faithful Israel will maintain the
kingdom of God in face of the pagan rebellion, as the
Gentiles had before maintained it in face of the obdu
racy ->f the Jews ; Israel divided will be at once the
1 Rev. xv. 1 — 4.

ESSAY UPON THE APOCALYPSE. 397
great power of the Lamb, and His supreme adversary,
uttering the final word of humanity in two opposite
directions — that of the flesh and that of the spirit —
under the form of Antichrist, who makes everything
give way to his power, and under that of Christ, who
returns from heaven to overthrow his throne 
Is not this really the history of the Church, not in its
details, but in its essence ? Did not John behold at
Patmos the work of the Redeemer, as Moses on Sinai
had beheld that of the Creator ?
Between these holy and vast intuitions, and the
puerilities of the apocryphal apocalypses — grotesque
imitations of our own, such as the book of Enoch or
the fourth book of Esdras — there is a distance like
that between the sublime simplicity of our gospel
narratives and the religious and moral monstrosities
of the apocryphal gospels.
The Apocalypse is the crown of the New Testament
and of the whole Bible.
If the Gospels are principally intended to lay the
foundations of faith, and the Epistles to enkindle love,
the Apocalypse gives food to hope. Without it we
should perhaps see in the Church only a place across
which believers pass in order to attain, individually, to
salvation. But by its help we recognise in her a body
which develops and which struggles, until with all its
members it attains to the full stature of Christ.
The Apocalypse at the same time closes the scheme

398 BIBLICAL STUDIES.
which was opened by Genesis, and concludes Holy
Scripture. It shews us the denouement of the drama
which was inaugurated by the victory of Satan over
the first man — the fulfilment of that ancient promise
which is the summary of all those which follow : " The
seed of the woman shall bruise the serpent's head."
By the aid of the first chapters of Genesis, we assist
at the birth-throes of the present order of things in
nature and in history. The last chapters of the
Apocalypse give us the picture of the convulsions
which are to bring about its dissolution, and to
prepare the birth of the new heavens and the new
earth. What a grand whole ! What book can be compared
to the aggregate of the books of the Bible ? How can
we fail to recognise in this beginning, middle, and end,
the finger of God, and exclaim with Jacob at Bethel,
" The Lord is in this place, and I knew it not ! This
is none other but the house of God ! " Each time,
then, that we take up this volume, we may say with
St. Paul in sacred ecstasy, " I hold in my hands the
thought of God."

FINIS.

Printed by Hazell, Watson, & Viney, Ld. , London and Aylesbury,