'r. 4 r'

.,

" .
c

J

f,
,. '
,.,

.....
.f

I.. :
.-

&,
e'

.j

',',

,I:. :.

I

J
t 011

.:w"",

--'1
9j

THE I{ERNEL

AND

THE HUSK

,

.

.
.
. V \
.
. 4t

.s>

o

THE

KERNEL

AND

THE

HUSK

rttrrfJ on _
piritual
gri
tianit!J

BY THE AUTHOR OF
"PHILOCHRISTUS" AND" ONESI11US"

11.01\1:I0n :
1\1 A C 1\1 ILL A NAN D C O.
1886

The Right of Tr.11ls1atío:t a1ld Reþroduction is ReSC1'lwf.

TO
THE DOUBTERS OF THIS GENERATION .
AND
THE BELIEVERS OF THE NEXT

TO THE READER

THE time is not perhaps far distant when few will
believe in nliracles who do not also believe in an
infallible Church; and then, such books as the present
will appeal to a larger circle. But, as things are, the
author would beg all those who worship a nliraculous
Christ without doubt and difficulty to pause here and
-
read no further. The book is not intended for them;
it is intended for those alone to whom it is dedicated,
"the doubters of this generation."
For there are SOUle who feel drawn towards the
worship of Christ by love and. reverence, yet repelled,
by _an apparently inextricable connection of the story
of Christ with a nliraculous eleulent which, in their
minds, throws a doubt over the whole of His acts,
IIis doctrine, His character, and even His existence.
Others, who worship Christ, worship Him inse-
curely and tren1ulously. They aSSUlne that their faith
nlust rest on the basis of the Bible miracles; and at

VI

TO THE READER

times they cannot quite suppress a thrill of doubt and
terror lest some horrible discovery of fresh truth,
resulting in the destruction of the nliraculous element
of the Bible,
ay in l pair t heir right to regard Christ
as "anything Letter than a l1lere l1lan." It is to
these two classes-the would-be worshippers and the
doubtful worshippers of Christ-that the following
Letters are addressed by one who has for Inany years
found peace and salvation in the worship of a non
miraculol1s Christ.
Not very long ago, but some years after the
publication of a work called Phi/ochris/us, the author
received a letter fronl a stranger and fellow-clergyman,
asking hinl whether he could spare half an hour to
visit hin1 on his death-bed, "dying of a disease "_
so ran the letter-" which will be fatal within SOllle
uncertain weeks (possibly however days, possibly
l1lonths). No pains just now, head clear, voice
sound. And nlind at peace, but the peace of
reverent agnosticislll. . . . . . Now I have read and
appreciated Plli/ochris/us. It would COll1 fort l1ïY
short renlainder of life if you would conle and look
me dying in the face and say, 'This theology and
Christology of mine is not n1erely literary: I feel
with joy of heart that God is not unknown to man:
try even now to feel with 111C.' "

TO THE READER

Of what passed at the subsequent interview nothing
Inust be said except that the dying man (whose
anticipations of death were speedily verified) expressed
the conviction that one reason why he had fallen into
that abyss of agnosticism-for an abyss he then felt
it to be-was !
t he h a
been "tanght to believe
too much when young;" and he urged and almost
besought that something might be done soon to "give
young men a religion that would wear." These words
were not to be forgotten; they recurred again and
again to the author with the force of a command.
The present work is an attempt to carry thenl into
effect, an attempt, by one who has passed through
doubts into conviction, to look the doubting reader in
the face and say, "This theology and Christology of
mine is not merely literary. I feel with joy of heart
that God is not unknown to man. Try even now to
feel with me."
The author does not profess to clear Christianity
from all "difficulties." If a revelation is to enlarge
our conceptions of God, it must involve some spiritual
-
effort on our part to receive the larger truth; if it
- claims to be historical, i t may well 1m pose on sonle of
its adherents the labour needed for the judgment of
historical evidence; if it prompts, without enforcing,
obedience, it must excite in all some questionings as

vii

.

viii

TO THE READER

.

to the causes which led the Revealer not to Inake
His revelation irresistibly convincing. Even the ex-
planations of the mysterious phenomena of motion,
light, and chenlistry, involve "difficulties" in the
acceptance of still more mysterious Laws which we
cannot at present explain. N everthcless we all feel
that we understand astronomy better in the light of
the Law of gravitation: and in the sanle way some
may feel that Christianity becomes more spiritual,
as well as more clear, when it becomes nlore natural;
and that many of its so-called "difficulties" fade or
vanish, when what nlay be called its celestial and its
terrestrial phenomena are found to rest upon similar
principles.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Letter
1 Introductory.
2 Personal
3 Knowledge
4 Ideals
5 I deals and Tests
6 Imagination and Rta-
son ..

Fa.t;e
1

47
7 The Culture of Faith 59
8 Faith and Demon-
stration. 72
9 Satan and Evolution 80
10 illusions 97
What is l,f/orshiþ? 1 1 1
The Worship of
Christ 1 2 5
lVhat -is "Nature"? 134
The Miracles of the
Old Testament .
The Miracles of the
NL'W Testament
The Growth of the
Gosþel.'ì .. . 1 7 0
J 7 Christian Illusions. 18 5
18 A re the Miracles In-
setarable from the
Life of Christ? 201
The Feedlng of the
FourThousand and
the Five ThcJusand 212
7" he Maniftstatlon of
ChrÙt 10 St. Paul 225

II

12

13
14.

15

16

19

20

5
20
29
4 0

Le!ter Far;:
21 The Develoþment of Ò
Imaginatlo1z and
its bearlng on
the Revelatlon of
Christ's Resurrec-
tion 233
22 Christs Resurrection
regarded naturally 240
23 Faith in the sþiritual
R tSurrection is better
than so-called know-
ledge of the material
Resurrection 24Ó
24 What is a Spirz"t? 258
25 The Incarnatlolt . 267
26 Prayer, Heaven, Hell 281
27 Pauline TheJ/ogy . 298
28 Objections. 3 I 0
29 Can Natural Christi-
anity commend it-
self' to the masses? 3 2 ::>

14 2

15 8

APPENDIX
30 Can a believer in
Natural Christz"an-
ity be a Minister
in the Church of
England? . 339
31 What the Bishops
mzj?ht do 3
4
DEFINITIONS 369
Ó

.

THE I{ERNEL

AND

THE H U S K.

INTRODUCTORY

I
:\1 Y DEA.R
_,
...(.(.. Û
I am more pained than s
lrprised to infer fron1 your
Jast letter that your faith has received a severe shock,
A single tenn at the University has sufficed to make you
doubt whether you retain a belief in miracles; and" If
nlÏracles fall, the Bible faUs ; and with the faU of the Bible
I lose Christ; and if I n1ust regard Christ as a fanatic, I
do not see how I can believe in a God who suffered such
a one as Christ thus to be deceived and to deceive others."'
Such appear to be the thoughts that are passing through
your mind, as I infer them fron1 incidental and indirect
expressions rather than from any definite statement.
Unfortunately I understand aJ1 this too weJ1 not to be
able to foHow with ease such phases of disbelief even
when con\'eyed in hints. l\lany young men begin by being
taught to believe too n1uch, a greàt deal too much. Then,
-when they find they lnust give up something, (the husk
of the kernel) their teachers too often bid them swaIlow
husk and aU, on pain of swaHowing nothing: and they
prefer to swaI10w nothing. An instance of this at once
OCcurs to me. l\Iany years ago, a young man who wished
B

.

2

INTRODUCTORY

[Letter I

to be ordained, asked me to read the Old Testmnent with
hiln. \Ye set to work at once and read some miraculous
history- I forget precisely what-in which I thought my
young friend Inust needs see a difficulty. So I began to
point out how the difficulty n1ight be at least diIninished
by critical cfJl1siderations. I say" I began" : for I stopped
as soon as I had begun, finding that my friend saw no
difficulty at all. He accepted every 111irac1e on every--pîge
-of the Old and 1\ ew TestaInent on the
hority of the
Bible; just as a Ron1an Catholic accepts every ecc1esias-
tical doctrine on the authority of the Church. This seemed
to Ine not a state of mind that I ought to interfere with: I
n1ight do I110re hann than good. So I stopped.
have
since regretted it. Circumstances prevented me from
meeting n1Y friend for SOlne weeks. During that time he
had fallen in with companions of negative views, against
which he had no power to I11aintain his position: and
he had passed fronl believing everything to believing
nothing. That is only too easy a transition; but I hope
you will never experience it. Surely there is a n1ediul11
between swallowing the husk, and throwing the nut away.
Is it 110t possible to throwaway the husk and keep the
kernel?
N ow I have no right (and therefore I try to feel no
wish) to extract fronl you a confidence that you do not
care to repose in me. I ha,'e never tried to shake any
one's faith in I11irac1es. There n1ay COlne- I think there
will soon come- a time when a belief in 111irac1es will be
found so incon1patible with the rcyerence which we ought
to feel for the Supren1e Order as ahnost to necessitate
superstition, and to encourage iI11I110rality in the holder
of the belief: and then it Inight be necessary to express
one's condeI11nation of miracles plainly and even aggres-
sively. But that tilne has not COlne yet: and for 1110St
people, at present, an acceptance of I11irac1es seen1s, and

Letler I]

INTRODUCTORY

3

perhaps is, a necessary basis for their acceptance of
Christ. In such minds I would no nlore wish to disturb
the belief
acles than I would shake a little child's
faith that his father is perfectly good and wise. But when
a man says, "the Iniracles of Christ are inextricably con-
nected with the life of Christ; I am forced to reject the
fonner, and therefore I nlust also reject the latter "-then
I feel nloved to shew him that there is no such inextric-
able connection, and J:h
t Christ will remain for us a
necessary object of worship, even if we detach the Iniracles
fron1 the Gospels. Now I cannot do this without shewing
that the miraculous accounts stand on a lower le\'el than
the rest of the Gospel narrative, and that they may have
been easily introduced into the Gospels without any suffi-
cient basis of fact, and yet without any intention to
deceive; so that the discrediting of the nliracles will not
discredit their non-miraculou
context. In doing this, I
nlight possibly destroy any lingering vestige of belief which
you may still have in the miïaculous; and this I aln most
unwilling to do, if you find miracles a necessary founda-
tion of Christian fai tho
I do not therefore quite kno'.v as yet how I ought to try
to help you, except by saying that I have nlyself passed
through the same valley of doubt through which you are
passing now, and that I have reached a faith in Christ
which is quite independent of any belief in the Iniraculous,
and which enables nle not only to trust in H inl, but also
to worship Hinl. This new faith appears to me purer,
nobler, and happier, as well as safer, than the old: but I
do not feel sure that it is attainable (in the present con-
dition of thought) without nlore unprejudiced reflection
and study than most people are willing to devote to
subjects of this kind. And to give up the old faith,
without attaining the new, would be a terrible disaster.
Hence I am in doubt, not abæt what is best, but abou t
B 2

.,.

4

IXTRODUCTORY

[Leiter I

what may be best for you. Do not at all events assun1e
-so 111uch I can safely say -that you n1ust give up your
faith in Christ, if you are obliged to give up your belief in
lniracles. At the very least, wait a while; stand on the
old paths; keep up the old habits, above aIJ, the habit of
prayer; pause and look round you a little before taking
the next step. I do not say, though I am inclined to say,
"a\"oid lur the present all discussions with people of
negative view
," because I fear my advice, though really
prudent, would seem to you cowardly: but I do unhesi-
tatingly say, "avoid all frivolou s talk, and ligþt, airy,
epigran1matic conversations on religious subjects." -You
cannot hope to retain or regain faith if y
t hrow a Waj '
t he habit of reverenc e. \Vith this advice, farewell for
the present.

})ERSOK A L

5

II

:\lv DEAR ---,
You tell n1e that you fear your faitb is far too roughly
shaken to suffer now frOln anything that lnay be said.
against luiracles: you are utterly convinced that they
are false. As for the possibility of worshipping a nOl1-
luiraculous Christ, "the very notion of it," you say, " is
inconceivable: it seen1S like a new religion, and n1ust
surely be no n10re than a very transient phase of thought."
But you would" very much like to know what processes
of reasoning led to such a state of 111ind," and how long
I have retained it.
I think I am hardly doing you an injustice in inferring
from some other expressions in your letter, about "the
difficulty which clergyn1en must necessarily feel in putting
themselves into the luental position of the laity," that you
entertain some degree of prejudice against 111Y views, not
only because they ?ppear to you novel, but because--
although you hardly like to say so-they come fron1 a
clerical source, and are likely to savour of clericalisn1,
Let me see if I can put your thoughts into the plain words
from which your own modesty and sense of propriety
have caused you to refrain. "A clergyman," you say to
yourself, " has enlisted; be has deliberately t
n
i

bound to fight for it. After twenty years of seeing
one side of a question, or only so much of the other side
as is con,'enient to see, how can even a candid, middle-
aged cleric see two sides impartial1y? All his interests

,"

6

PERSON AL

[Letter 2

combine with all his synlpathies to make hinl at least in
some sense orthodox. The desire of social esteenl, the
hope of preferment, loyalty to the Church, loyalty to
Christ Hinlself, make hiln falsely true to that narrow
form of truth which he has bound himself to serve. Even
if truth and irresistible conviction force him to deviate a
little frOln the beaten road of orthodoxy, he win find
his \Yay back by some circuitous by-path; and of this
kind of self-persuasion I have a remarkable instance in
the person of myoId friend, who rejects miracles and
yet persuades hÏ111self that he worships Christ. He has
cut away his foundations and now proceeds to substitute
an aerial basis upon which the old superstructure is to
remain as before. Such a novel condition of mind as this
can only be a very transient phase."
I do not complain of this prejudice against novelty,
although it comes ungraciously fronl one who is hinlseIf
verging on advanced and novel views. It is good that
new opinions should be suspiciously scrutinized and passed
through the quarantine of prejudice. And when a man
feels (as I do) that he has at last attained a profound
spiritual truth which win, in an probability, be generally
accepted by educated Christians who are not Ronlan
Catholics, before the twentieth century is far advanced, he
can well afford to be patient of prejudice. Even though
the truth be not accepted now, it is pretty sure to be re-
stated by others with nlore skin and cogency, and perhaps
at a fitter season, and to gain acceptance in due tinle.
But when you speak of my opinions as a "transient phase,"
which I am likely soon to give up, and when you shew a
manifest suspicion that any modicunl of orthodoxy in me
111ust needs be tbe result of a clerical bias, then I hardly
see how to reply except by giving you a detailed answer
to your question about" the processes" by which I n.as led
to " such a novel condition of l1lind." Yet how to do this

letter 2]

PERSONAL

7

without being somewhat egotistically autobiographical
I do not know. Some good may conle of egotisnl perhaps,
if it leads you to see that even a clergyman may think for
himself, and work out a religious problem without regard
to consequences. So on the whole I think I will risk
egotism for your sake. A few paragraphs of autobiography
Inay sen-e as a summary of the argUlllent which I might
draw out more fully in future letters. If I am tedious,
lay the blame on yourself and on your insinuation that my
views must be " a transient phase." A man who is getting
on towards his fiftieth year and has retained a form-a
novel form if you please-of religious conviction for a full
third of his life may surely claim that his views-so far at
least as he himself is concerned-are not to be called
"transient." Prepare then for my Aþologia.
During Iny childhood I was very much left to myself in
the Inatter of religion, and may be almost said to ha '"e
picked it up in a library. I was never Blade to learn the
Creed by heart, nor the Catechism, nor even the Ten
COlnmandments; and to this day I can recoIIect being
reproached by a class-nlaster when I was nearly fourteen
years old, for not knowing which was the Fifth Command-
ment. All that I could plead in answer was, that if he
would tell n1e what it was about, I could give him the sub-
stance of the precept. Having read through nearly the
whole of Adam Clar ke's com mentary as a boy of ten or
eleven, and ha\'i
bsequently imbued "nlyselfwith books
of Evangelical doctrine, I was perfectly" up," or thought I
was, in the Pauline scheme of salvation, and felt a nlost
lively interest-on Sundays, and in dull moments on week
days, and especially in tilnes of illness, of which I had
plenty-in the salvation of my En soul. 1\ly religion
served largely to intensify ìñÿÏiatural selfishness. In better
and healthier moments, my conscience revolted against it ;
and at times I felt that the morality of Plutarch's Li\res was

8

PERSOX
\L

[letter 2

better than that of St. Paul's Epistles-as I interpreted
them. Only to one point in the theology of Iny youthful
days can I now look back with ple1.sure; and that is to
my treatn1ent of the doctrine of Predestinarianism and
necessity. On this matter I argued as follows: "If God
knows all things beforehand, God hCls them, or may have
them, written down in a book; and if all things that are
going to happen are already written down in a book, it's of
no use our tryìng.to alter them. So, if it's predestined that
I sh.:lll have 111)' dinner to-day, I shan certainly have it, even
r if I don't COlne home in tin1e, or even though I lock myself
up in 111Y bedroom. But þractically, if I dOll' t come home
in time, I know I shall not have my dinllcr. Therefore
it's 110 use talkillg about these things ill this sort of wa)',
bt!cause it doesn't answer.; and I shall 110t bother 11lyselj
allY J1zore about Predestination, but act as though it did
1/ot exist." 1 This argument, if it can be caIIed an argu-
ment, I afterwards found sheltering itself under the high
authority of Butler's A nalo;;y; and I stiU adhere to it,
after an experience of more than fiveãnd thirty y
;S.
To some, this "Short \Vay with Predestinarians" may
seeln highly ilIogical ; but it wo!:.ks. ____
Up to this time I haa been little, if at an, impressed by
preaching. Our old Rector was a good Greek scholar
and a gentlelnan ; but he had a difficulty in making his
thoughts inteIIigible to any but a refined I11inority among
the congregation; and even that select few was made fewer,
partIy by an awkwardness of gesture which reminded one
of Don1inie San1pson, and partly by a grievous Í1npedi-

] That children, even at a much younger age than ten, do sometimes
exerci,;e their young minds to very ill purpose about these subtle metaphysical
questions is probably within the experience of all who kn3w anything about
children. and it is amusingly illustrated by the following- answpr (which I have
un the authority of an intimate friend) from a seven-years-oId to his mother
when blaming him for some misconduct: " Why did you born me then
I
didn't want to be borned. You shou1d have asked m
before you borneJ
nle:'

Leflt:r 2]

PERSOX .\L

9

ment in his speech. Consequently I had been permitted,
and indeed encouraged, ne\'er to listen, nor even to appear
to listen, to the weekly sern10n; and as soon as the Rector
gave out his text, I used to take up n1Y Bible and read
steadily away till the sermon was over. This sort of thing
went on till I was about sixteen years old; when a new
Rector caIne to preach his first sermon. That was a re-
n1arkable Sunday for me. To my surprise, when he read
out his text, and I, in accordance with unbroken precedent,
reached out my h:lnd for the invariable Bible, my father,
somewhat abruptly, took it out of my hand, bidding n1e
"for once shut up that book and listen to a sermon." I
can still remember the resentment I felt at this infringe-
Inent on my theological and constitutional rights, and how
I stiffened Iny neck and h lrdened n1Y heart and deter-
l1lined "hearing to hear, but not to understand." I?ut I
was compelled to understand. For here, to my astonish-
ment, was an entirely new religion. This n1an's Chris-
tianity was not a " scheme of salvation" ; it was a faith in
a great Leader, hunlan yet divine, who was leading the
armies of God a gai nst the arn1ies of Evil; "Each for
hil11self is the Devil's own watchword: but with us it n111st
be eîch for Christ, and each for all," The scales fell from
nlY eyes. After all, then, Christianity was not less noble
than Plutarch's lives; it was more noble. There was to
be a contest; yet not each man conten ding fo r his own
soul, but for goo d aga inst evil. A Christidn was not a
mercenary fighting for reward, nor a slave fighting for fear
of stripes, but a free soldier fighting out of loyalty to
Christ and to humanity.
But what about the doctrine of the Atonement, J ustifica-
tion by Faith, and the other Pauline doctrines? About
these our new Rector did not say much that I could
understand. He was a foremost pupil of 1\1r. l\laurice,
and in ì\Ir. l\faurice's books (which now began to be read

10

PERSON AL

[Letter 2

freely in n1Y home) I began to search for light on these
questions. But help I found none or "ery little, except in
one book. 1\lr, l\Iaurice seeilled to llle, and stilI seems,
a "ery obscure writer. Partly owing to a habit of taking
things for granted and "thinking underground," partly
(and llluch more) owing to a confusing use of pronouns for
nouns and other mere Inechanical defects of style, he re-
quires "ery careful reading. But his book on Sacrifice,
-I after I had three times read it through, gave n1e more
intel1ectual help than perhaps any other book on Christian
doctrine; for here fir!:t I learned to look below the surface
of a rite at its inner meaning, and also to -discern the
possibility of iIIustrating that inner meaning by the
phenomena of daily life. It was certainly a revelation
to me to know that the sacrifice of a lamb by a human
offerer was nothing, except so far as it Ineant the sacrifice of
a human life, and that the sacrifice of a life meantno more
(but also no less) than C
)1
one's life. to Gp d's wi]],
doing (and not saying trlere!y) "Thy ",iII, not n1ine, be
done." If one theological process could be iIIustrated in
this way, why not another? If:' sacrifice" wa
going on
before n1Y eyes every day, why might there not be also
justification by faith, inlputation of righteousness, re-
n1ission of sins, yes, even atonelllent itself? Thus there
was sown in my mind the seed of the notion that all
the Pauline doctrines n1ight be natural, and that Redemp-
tion through Christ was ...2.Qly a colo ss<il fo.J.1ll..2[ tl
kind
of redemption which was gOIng on around n1e, Re demption

h Nature:- This thð11ghrw
grear1y stimulated by
the study of 111 Memoriam, which was given to me by a
college friend about the time when I lost a brother and a
sister, both dying within a few weeks of one another. I
read the poen1 again and again, and committed much of it
to memory; andl (é';certed an "epoch-making" influence
on my life. However, for a long time this notion of the

Lctkr 2]

PERSONAL

naturalness of Redelnption existed for me merely in the
-f
germ.
l\leantilne, as to the miracles I had no doubts at all, or
only such transient doubts as were suggested by pictures
of Holy Fan1iJies and other sacred subjects, which ex-
hibited Christ as essentialIy non-human, with a halo
around his head, or as an infant with three outstretched
fingers blessing his kneeling mother. As a YO'.lth, I took
it for granted that God could not become lnan save by a
miracle, and therefore that the God-man m
\'ork
miracles. Further, I assumed that lVloses and son1e of
the prophets had worked miracles, and if so, how could it
he that the Servants should work miracles and the Son
should not? As I grew towards manhood, such rising
quahns of doubt as I felt on this point were stilled by the
suggestion (which I found in Trench's book on miracles)
that the miracles of Christ lnust be in accordance with
some latel) t law of spiritual nature. It was a little strange
certainly that these latent laws should be utili sed only for
the children of Abraham, and it was inconvenient that
the n1Ìracles of l\Ioses should be, materially speaking, so
stupendously superior to those of Christ; but I took re-
fuge in the greater beauty and emblematic n1eaning of the
latter. Even at the time when I signed the Thirty-nine
Articles I had no suspicion that the miracles were not
historical. Partly, I had never criticaIly and systematic-
ally studied the GospeJs as one studies Thucydides or
Æschylus ; partIy the miracles had always been kept in
the background by my Rector and the books of the
Broad Church School, and I had been accllstomed to rest
my faith on Christ Himself and not on the miracles; and
so it came to pass that, for some time after I was ordained,
I was qnite content to accept an the miracles of the Old
and New Testaments, and to be content with the ex-
planation suggested by "latent laws."

II

.

12

PERSON AL

[Letter 2

But now that I was ordained, I set to work in earnest (the
stress of working for a degree and the need of earning one's
living had left no tinle for it before) at the study of the
New Testaillent. Of course I had "got it up" before, often
enough, for the purpose of passing examinations; but now
I began to study it for its own sake and at leisure. \Vhile
reading for the Theological Tripos I had been struck by
the inadequacy of many of the theological books that I
had had to " get up." Especial1y on the first three Gos-
pels-looking at them critically, as I had been accustomed
to look at Greek and Latin books-I was anlazed to find
that little or nothing had been done by English scholars
to compare the different styles and analyse the narratives
into their component parts. For such a task I had myse lf
received some little preparation. I had picked up my
classics without very much assistance frOlll the ordinary
means, mainly by ,.oluntarily committing to meillory whole
books or long continuous passages of the best authors,
and so inlbuing nlyself with them -as to "get into the
swing of the author." I had early begun to tabulate these
differences of style; and in my final and most inlportant
Universityexanlination I remenlber sending up more than
one piece of composition rendered in two styles. Though
I was never a first-rate composer, owing to my want of
practice at school, this method had succeeded in bringing
me to the front in "IllY year"; and I now desired to
apply my classical studies to the criticism of the first
three Gospels. It seemed to me a nlonstrous thing
that we should have three accounts of the same life,
accounts closely agreeing in certain parts, but widely
varying in others, and yet that, with all the aids of modern
criticislll, we should not be able to detenlline which ac-
counts, or which parts of the three accounts, were the
earliest. At the same tillle I began to apply the same
method, though without the same attenlpt at exactness,

Ltl/cr 2]

PERSONAL

'3

to the study of the text of Shak
speare; in which I per-
ceived some differences of style that implied difference
of date, and some that appeared to ilnply difference of
authorshi p.
About this time people began to talk in popular circles
concerning Evolution, and alarm began to be felt in
some quarters at the difficulty of hannonizing its
theories with theology. \Vith these fears I never could
in the least degree sympathize. I welcomed Evolution \
-
as a lmninous commentary on the divine scheme of
the Redemption of lllankind. That l110st stin1ulating of
boo
{s, the Ad7/allcemellt of LeanzÙlg, had taught me to be
prepared to find that in vcry lnany cases" while Nature or
lllan intendeth one thing, God worketh another" ; and it
was a joy to n1e to find new light thrown by Evolution on
the unfathon1able problelns of waste, death, and conflict.
Death and conflict could never be thus explained-I
knew that-but one was enabled to wait 1110re patiently
for that explanatioll which win never con1e to us till we
are behind the veil, when one found that death and
conflict had at least been subordinated to progress and
development. .So I thought; and so I said from the
pulpit of Qne of the Universities in times when the
clergy had not yet learned to call Darwin" a n1an of
God." !\Iy doctrine was thought" advanced" in those
days; but time has gone on and left me, in some respects,
behind it. I should never have thought, and should not
think now, of calling Darwin" a man of God," except so
far as all patient seekers after truth are men of God:
but I still adhere to the belief that Evolution has nlade it
1110re easy to believe in a rational, that is to say
on-
n1iraculous, though supernatural, Christianity.
,

In this directio n;th en, my t h oughts went forward and,
so far, found no stumbling block. Guided by the poets
and analytic novelists, I was also learning to find in the

14

PERSONAL

[Letter 2

study of the phenomena of daily life fresh ilIustrations
of the Pauline theology, confirming and developing 111Y
11otion (now of some years' standing) that the Redemp-
tion of mankind was natural, nothing n10re than a colossal
representation of the spiritual phenOlllena that 111ay be
seen in ordin:uy men and women every day of our lives;
just as the lightning-flash is no more than (upon a
large scale) the crackling of the hair beneath the cOlnb.
Good men and women, I perceived, are daily redeeming
the bad, bearing their sins, Ï1nputing righteousness to
them, giving up their lives for them, and in1buing thçn1
with a good spirit. This thought, as it ga ined force, was
a great help towards a rational Christianity.
But now my feet began to be entangled in snares and
pitfalls. I had begun the study of the Greek Testament,
believing that it would bring forth some new truth, and
assuming that all truth must tend to the glory of God and
of Christ. "Christ," I said, "is the living Truth, so that
I have but, as Plato says, to ' follow the Argument,' and
that must lead n1e to the truth, and therefore to Him."
But I was not prepared for the result. After SOlne years
of work I found 111yself gradually l
d to the conclusion
that the lniraculous elelnent in the Gospels was not his-
torical. A mere glance at the Old Testament shewed
that, if there was not evidence enough for the miracles
in the New Testament, much less \vas there for the
n1iracles in the Old.
Before 111e rose up day by day fresh facts and infer-
ences, not only demonstrating the insufficiency of the
usual evidence to prove that the miracles were true, but
also indicating a very strong probability that they were
false. Often, as I studied the accounts of a miracle, I
could see it as it were in the act of growing up, watch its
first entrance into the Gospel narrative, note its modest
beginning, its subsequent development: and then I was

Letter 21

PERSONAL

15

forced to give it up. \Yorst of an, that ll1iracle of
Iniracles which was n10st precious to n1e, the Resurrection
of Christ, began to appear to be supported by the feeblest
evidence of all. I had not at that tin1e learned to dis-
tinguish between the Resurrection of Christ's ll1aterial
body and the Resurrection of His Spirit or spiritual body.
Christ's Resurrection seemed to t11e therefore in those
days to be either a Resurrection of the n1aterial and
tangible body or no Resurrection at all. Now for the
- RësU';rection of the material body I began to be forced to
acknowledge that I could find no basis of satisfying
testimony. I had heard an anecdote of the Head ofsOllle
CoIIege of Oxford in old days, how he fell asleep after ·
dinner in the COlnbination Room, while the Fel10ws over
their wine were discussing theology, and presently made
them all start by exclain1ing as he awoke, " After all there
is no evidence for the Resurrection of Christ!" I realized
that now, not with a start, but gradually, and with a
growing feeling of deep and wearing anxiety. If the
Resurrection of Christ fell, what was to becon1e of l11Y
faith in Christ?
An1id this in1pendil1g ruin of n1Y old belief I saw one
tower standing firm. I t was clear that sometlzÙzg had
happened after the death of Christ to make new Inen of
His disciples. It was clear also that St. Paul had seen
something that had induced him to believe that Christ
had risen from the dead. That which had convinced St.
Paul, an enemy, n1ight very well convince the Ap03tles,
the devoted followers of Christ. \Vhat was this SOJJle-
tlzÙzg? I t seemed ta me that I ought to try to find out.
:\Ieantime, I detern1ined to adopt the advice I gave you
in n1Y last letter-to stand upon the old ways and look
around n1e and consider n1Y path before taking another
step. Circmllstances had placed me in such a position
that I was not called on to decide whether a clergyman

IG

PERSONAL

[Letlt:r 2

could entertain such views as were 100l11ing on l11e, and
relnain a clergynlan. I was not engaged in any work
directly or indirectly requiring clerical qualifications; and
as far as nlY affections and sentinlents were concerned,
I '
lent heartily with the services of the Church of
England.
So I resolved to put aside all theology for two or three
years anrl to devote myself, during that time, to literary
work of another kind. l\IeantÎ1ne, I would retain, as far
as possible, the old religious ways of thought, and, at all
events, the old habits. None the less, I would not give
up the intention of investigating the whole truth about
. the Resurrection. That there was som.e nucleus of truth
I felt quite certain; and even if that truth had been en1-
bedded in some adm.ixture of illusion, what then? \Vere
there no illusions in the history of science? \Vere there
no illusions in the history of God's Revelati03 of Himself
through the Old and New Testaments? :l\Iight it not be
God's n1ethod of Revelation that men should pass through
error to the truth? This line of thought seelned pron1ising,
but I would not at once follow it. I would wait three
years and then work. out the question of the influence of
illusion on religious truth.
.An old college acquaintance, an agnostic, whom I met
about this time, was not a little startled when I told hilll
Iny thoughts. He frankly informed HIe that, though I
was" placed in a painful position," I was "bound to speak
out." I also thought that I was" bound to speak out" ;
but I did not feel bound to oþtrude immature views upon
the world, with the result perhaps of afterwards altering
or recanting thenl. So I took time, plenty of time; I
looked about nle, on life as well as on books; I fonned a
habit of testing assumptions and asking the meaning of
comlnon words, especially such words as knowledge,
faith, certainty, belief, proof, and the like. Believing that

Lefler 2]

PERSO
AL

17

theology was made for lnan and not man for theology, I
began to test theological as well as other propositions by
the question" How do they 'work?" l\Ieantinle I tried
Il1Y utmost to do the duties of 111)' daily life without dis-
traction and with the same energy as before, hoping that
life itself, and the needs of life, would throw s::nne light
upon the question, "\Vhat knowledge about God is
.necessary for men who are to do their duty? And how
can that knowledge be obtained?"
By these means I was led to see that a great part of
what we call knowledge does not COIl1e to us, as we falsely
suppose it does, through lnere logic or Reason, nor through
unaided experience, but through the en10tions and the
hnagination, tested by Reason and experience. Even in
the w(;"rld of scìenCë; I fotiÏ1d that the sö:"called " laws and
properties of Il1atter," nay, the very existence of matter,
were nothing more than suggestions of the scientific
Imagination aided by experience. A great part of the
envlrol11ncnt and development of n1ankind appeared to
have been directed towards the building up of the imagina-
tive faculty, without which, it seemed that religion, as well
a3 poetry, would have been non-existent. So by degrees,
it occurred to n1e that perhaps I had been on the wrong
track in lny search after religious truth. I had been
craving a purely historical and logical proof of Christ's
divinity, and had felt Iniserable that I could not obtain it.
Rut now I perceived that I was not intended to obtain it.
Not thus was Christ to be enlbraced. There must indeed
be a basis of fact: but after all it was to that ilnaginative
faculty which we call" faith," that I l11USt look, at leãStiñ
part, for the right interpretation of fact. That Christ
could be apprehended only by faith was a Pauline
cOlnmon-place; but that Christ's Resurrection could be
grasped only by faith, and not by the acceptance of
evidence, was, to lne, a new proposition. But I gradually
C

18

PERSO
AL

[Letter 2

perceived that it was true. I might be doubtful whether
Thmnas touched the side of the risen Saviour, yet sure
that Christ had risen f1
th e_dead in the Spirit, and
had Inanifested HÏ1nself after death to His disciples.
l\Iy standard of certainty being thus shifted, many things
of which I had. fOrlnerIy felt cenain becarne uncertain;
but, by way of compensation, other things-and these
the most necessary and vital-became more certain
than ever. I felt less inclined to doginatize about the
existence of Inatler; but nlY soul was imbued with a
fuller con viction of the existence of a God; and deeper
still became the feeling that, so far as things are known
to nle, there is nothing in heaven or earth more divine
than Christ.
Thus at last light dawned upon my darkness; and when
the sun rose once n10re upon nle, it was the same sun as
before, only nlore clearly seen above the mists of illusion
which had before obscured it. The old beliefs of Iny
youth and childhood remained or canle back to n1e, ex-
hibiting Jesus of Nazareth as the Incarnate Son of God,
the Eternal \V orJ trimnphant over death, seated at the
rilS"ht hand of the Father in heaven, the source of life and
light to all mankind. Like Christian in Pi
í{rÙIl's Pro-
gress, I found Inyself suddenly freed frOln a great burden
-a burden of doubts, and provisos, a.nd conditions which,
in old da ys, had seelHed to forbid nle frOln accepting
J eSlls as the Lord and Saviour of nlankind unless I could
strain my conscience to accept as true a number of stories
Inany of which I ahnost certainly knew to be false. In
oïder to believe in Christ, it was now no longer needful
to believe in suspensions of the laws of Nature: on the
contrary, all Nature seenled to combine to prepare the
way to confornl humanity to that Ï1nage of God which
was set forth in the Incarnation. I did not, as SOlne
Christians do, ignore the existence of Satan (and ahnost

.

Letter 2]

PERSON AL

of sin) which Christ Himself most deady recognized;
but I seenled to see that evil was being gradually sub-
ordinated to good,
falsehood made the stepping-stone
to -truth-:-
Through evil to good; through sin to a righteousness
hig
an
ould l
ve been attained save throug h sin ;
through falsehood to the truth; through superstition to
religion-this seemed to nle the divine evolution discern-
ible in the light that was shed from the cross of Christ.
No longer now did it
eem impossible or absurd that the
Gospel of the Truth nlight have been temporarily
oüscured by illusions or superstitions even in the earliest
tÏ1nes.
I think it must be now some ten years since I settled
down to the belief that the history of Christianity had
been the history of profound religious truth, contained
in, and preserved by, illusions; a
c
.!1.t...Q.f_worship
fhrough illusion to the truth. A belief that has been
fifteen years in Inaking, and for ten years n10re has been
reviewed, criticized, and finally retained as being histori-
cally true and spiritually healthful, you niust not call, I
think, "a transient phase ". But I forgive you the
expression. A dozen pages of autobiography are a
sufficient penahy for three offending words.

C2

19

.

20

KXO\VLEDGE

III

1\Iv DEAR --,
You ask n1e to explain, in detail, ,yhat I Inean by
asserting that the Imagination is the basis of knowledge.
" Apparently," you say, "our knowledge of the \\-orld ex-
ternal to ourselyes seen1S to you to spring, not fr0111 the
sensations as interpreted by the Reason, but (at all eyents
to a large extent) fron1 the sensations as interpreted by the
hnagination. If you 111ean this, I wish you WL uld show
how the Imagination thus builds up our knowledge of
the world. But I think I Inust have n1isunderstood you."
You have not 111isunderstood me. I would go e\'en
further than the limits of your statement: for I believe
that we are largely indebted to the Imagination for our
knowledge, not only of the external world, but also of
ourseh-es. However, suppose we first take a sin1f Ie
instance of the knowledge of external things: "This
inkstand is hard. How did I C0111e to know that it was
hard? How do I know that it is hard now?"
Let us begin fron1 the beginning. I an1 an infånt
scrambling on the floor where the said in

stand is casually
lying. Having a congenital Î111pulse (commonly called
,. instinct ") to touch and suck anything that comes in Iny
way, and especially anything bright, I greedily and rapidly
approxilnate my lips to the corner of this polished object.
I recoil with a sharp shock of pain. The p:tin abates.
The instinctive recoil fr01n the inkstand has left in me an
instinctive aversion to the pain-causing object: but my

leiteI' 3]

KXO'VLEDGE

21

touching and sucking instinct again revives, and as soon
as it prevails over the recoiling instinct, I am Í1npelled
again towards the inkstand, not so rapidly as before, but
still too rap
dly. I recoil again, with pain lessened but
still acute. I am acquiring "knowledge": I "know,"
though I cannot put it into words, that I have twice found
the inkstand not- to- be- ra pidly-approached -under-pen alt y-
of-a-certain-kind-of-pain, in other words, "hard." But I
try again; I try four, five, six time3: I find that when I
approach with less velocity n1Y pain is less, and when with
sufficiently diminished velocity, there is no pain at all; I
touch and suck in peace: but when I forget my experience
and suppose that the inkstand-even though J da::h wildly
at it after Iny old fashion-will "behave differently this
tilne," I find that I am n1istaken: the inkstand will not
"behave differently"; it always behaves in the S:ll11e
way. By this time then I know so
nething very in1portant
indeed.
But pause now, my friend, and ask yourself how n1uch
this infant has a right to say he "knows," so far as the
evidence of the senses guides hilll. All that the senses
have told him is that on five, six, seven, say even seventy,
occasions, he found the inkstand hard. But is this all
that he "knows"? You know perfectly weB that he knows
infinitely more: he has n1ade a leap from the past into
the future and knows that the inkstand will be found hard
whenever he touches it. \Vhen he grows up and attains
the power of spe
ch he will generally express his know-
ledge in the Present Tense: "I mU3t not strike the ink-
stand with n1Y Inouth for it is hard": but in reality this
" is " implies" will be"; "I must not strike the inkstand
with my 1l10uth for I shall find it h
rd." Now what is it
that has produced in hin1 this conviction which no philo-
sopher can justify by mere logic, but which every baby
acts on? It seems to have arisen thus. The b:1by has

22

KNO'VLEDGE

[Letter 3

received in rapid succession two sensations, first, that of a
violent approximation to the inkstand, secondly, a sudden
sho:k of pain. Having received this pair of sensations
very frequently, he cannot help associating then1 together
in his thoughts; so tbat now the thought of a violent
approxinlation to the inkstand necessarily suggests to hinl
the thought tbat it is not-to-be-approached-violently, or
" hard." He began by leJ.rning to expect that perhaps, or
probably, the fir
t sensation would be followed by the
second; but baving found, after constant experiments,
that the second sensation, so far as his experience goes,
always follows the first, he gradually passes fr0111 belief
into certainty, or knowledge, that the second always
will, or must, follow the first.
A
imilar transition is going on at the sanle time in the
infant's n1ind-I Inean the transition fron1 belief to certainty
---in regard to thousands of other propositions besides the
one we have sel
cted, "this inkstand is hard." Every
single case of such transition facilitates the transition in
other cases, by n1aking the child feel that, if he is to get
on in the world and Inake his way through it without in-
curring the constant pains and penalties of Nature, he
lnust not disregard these juxtapositions, or pairs of sen-
sations, (which, when he grows older, he will, if ever he
becomes an educated man, call "cause" and" effect "),
but must take them to heart and rClnember them; when
the first of a fanliliar pair comes, he must be prepared to
find the second iInmediately following. Not unfrequently
the child's limited experience associates together in his
mind sensations that Nature has not associated; as, for
example, when he infers that a clock 11lust tick because
he has never yet in his life seen a clock that has stopped.
In this and other cases the child has afterwards to dis-
sociate what he had too hastily joined together, and to
correct his conclusions by wider experien:e. But, on the

Letter 3]

KNOWLEDGE

23

whole, tl:e transition from belief to certainty, in anyone
case, is facilitated by the great n1ajority of similar cases
in which the same transition is going on with results that
are con finned by his own ex
eriel1ce and by that of his
elders. \Vhat helps the transition, in each case, is its
general Sllccess; it 'Zf.Jorks: it helps the child to n10ye
nlore and more confidently in the world without subjecting
himself to the punishments which Nature has attached to
Ignorance.
Now tl:erefore, reviewing the stages of the progress
upwards, Vi e see that the knowledge of which we âre
speaking is based upon an inherent and fundament:d
bel ief o f which we can give no logical justifi
ation what-
ever. \Vhy should an inkstand always be hard? The
child can allege no reason for this excer:t that, having
found the inkstand to be hard in a gre:lt l1um'.:er of past
instances, he is compelled to believe th:lt it will be always
hard, with such a fùrce of conviction that he cannot bl
t
feel and S.1.y he "' knows" it. But of course there is nJ
logical justification for this assertion. He might argl!e
f0r some n10nths or even ycaï.3, in precisely the san1e way
about a dock, and say that" a clock always ticks," because
he h3.s seen the dock tick time3 innun1erable and never
known it not to tick. \Vby should not a larger experience
confute his so-called knowledge in the case of the ink-
stand as in the case of the clock? As the clock collapses,
wby should not the nature of t
e inkst.1.nd collar-se-be,
con1e unwound, so to speak, or altogether transmuted?
There is no possible answer to this qu
stion .1or the
c
, at preser.t, except the following :-" It never has
-done so, and therefore I believe tlw.t it never will. I
believe in the unifo!.i11i
y of N atare. The sequences of
observed caU3e and effect are Nature's promises, and if
she does not keep theIn, life will break down. I am com-
pelled to believe, and to act on the belief, that Efe will

..

24

KKO'VLEDGE

[LeUtY 3

not break down. I believe that this inkstand is hard,
because this belief "ivorks.' "
I concluùe therefore that aU knowledge of the kind we
are now describing is based on belief (viz. the belief that
what has been will be) tested by experience. I think it
nlUst also be admitted that Imagination contributed to the
result: for the child not only renlembers his t\\'o past
consecutive sensations but gradually images in his n1Ïnd a
kind of bond between them, which lnemory pure and
simple could not have contributed. l\Ielnory reproduces
"Inkstand and thell hardness;" Imagination paints, or
begins to paint, a new idea, " Inkstand and therefore hard-
ness." Again, l\len10ry reproduces vaguely numerous in-
stances, "The inkstand was hard ten, eleven, twenty,
many tiInes;" then COlnes hnagination and at a leap
sets before the n1ind an entirely new notion, and invents
for it the word" always."
Concerning other and n10re complex kinds of knowledge
what need is there to say a word? For if such simple
propositions as "a stone is hard," are shown to depend
upon Imagination for suggesting, and Faith for retaining,
a cOI1\'iction of the uniformity of Nature, I11uch n10re mllst
these intluenccs be presupposed if the child is to attain
knowledge about Inatters avowedly future, e.g. "the sun
will rise to-Inorrow." In rea1ity all knowledge of any
practical value has to do with a future, inu11ediate or
re1110te ; and therefore I do not think I shall be exaggerat-
ing in saying that for all knowledge about things outside
us we depend largely upon Imagination and Faith.
Rut I pass now to consider a child's knowledge about
himself. Take for example such a proposition as this,
"I like sugar." Is Faith or Imagin:ltion required to enable
a child to arrive at the knowledge of this proposition
about himself? I think so. The very use of the word
" I," if used intelligently, appears to need some Í1l1agin-

LeIte;" 31

KNO\VLEDGE

25

ative effort. Of course I do not deny that this subtle
metaphysical idea Inay have been suggested to us origin-
ally by our faculty of touch, and especially the faculty
of self-pinching or self-touching. I dare say you have
read how men have s01netimes caught hold of their own
benumbed hand by night, and awakened a household
by shouting that they had caught a robber: has it ever
occurred to you that, if you never had the power of dis-
tinguishing your own hand fron1 anybody else's hand by
the sense of touch, you might have gone through life with
no sense, or with a very tardily acquired sense, of your
own identity? If the 1110nkey who boiled his own tail in
the caldron had felt no pain, n1ight he not have been
excused for doubting sometin1es whether the tail be-
longed to him? And if his head were equally painless or
joyless when he thUlnped it or scratched it, ought he to be
condemned for disowning his own head? And if a
n10nkey, or e\'en a child, could not lay clclim to its own
head, it seen1S to me doubtful whether he could ever claim
such a separation fr0111 the outside world as would necessi-
tate his using the word" I." But, as it is, having this
self-pinching faculty, the child soon finds that to pinch a
ball, or a bladder, or a sister, is an entirely different thing
fron1 pinching hiInseìf: and this self-touching faculty con-
6rn1s the evidence suggested by the bumps and thumps
of the external world; all of which lead him to the bel
cf
that he has a bodily frame of his own, liable to p:tin and
to pleasure, and largely dependent for pain and pleasure
on his own motions, which motions he din1ly perceives
dependent upon something that appears to be inside
himself.
But neithc:r this nor any other explanation of the
111anner in which the sensations prepare the way for the
construction of the idea of the" I," ought to prevent us
frOln recognizing that the idea itself is the work of the

25

KNO\VLEDGE

[Letter 3

Imagination, and not of the unaided sensations, nor of the
unaided reason. Self-pinching and cor:tact with the rough
external world might cunvince the child that he was differ-
ent from his envirOlunent at the tin1e when he Inade his
last experin1ents and underwent his last experiences; but
they coulà not conyince hÏ1n that he is different 71OU', or
that he 'if/ill be different in the next instant; and for this
conviction he depends upon faith. Again, the imagination
of the" I " seelllS closely bound up with two other nearly
simultaneous in1aginations, those of Force and Cause.
First he feels a desire to touch the inkstand, then he feels
hin1self n10viug towards the inkstand, then he feels the
inkstand touched. These sequences of desire, actiun,
resl1Jt, he can repeat as often as he likes. By their fre-
quency therefore, as wen as by their vividness, they
in1press him more powerfully than sequences of pheno-
Inena not dependent on hin1seif; and it is fron1 these
probably that he first imagines the idea of ,; must," or
" necessity," or" cause and effect." If he feels a desire to
Inove a lÏ1nb, the n1otion of the limb immediately follows;
it always obeys him; it must obey hin1. He pushes a
brick; what caused the brick to fall? He feels that it
was his own force that caused it ; he no longer looks upon
the push and the fall as if the furn1er merely preceded
the lat
er ; he imagines a connection of nece.ssity between
the push and the fall, the cause and the effect, and gradu-
ally conles to imagine himself as the causer of the cause.
Eut all these Ïlnaginations are mere imaginations, not
proofs. To gather together all the sens
tions of which
he retains the n1elnory, the sensations of which he is at
present conscious, and the
ensations to which he looks
forward, and to put an " I :, behind or below all these, as
the foundation of theln all, and partial causer of then1 all
-what an audacious assmnption is this! Not Plato and
Aristotle con1bincd could prove to a child, Gr to the 1110st

Letfer 3]

KNO\VLEDGE

27

consumlnate of philosophers, that he has a right to call
himself" I," or that he is any other than a Inachine and a
part of the universal machinery. How can I prove and
vindicate my independence, n1Y right to an " I"? By saying
that I will do, or not do, and by then doing, or not doing,
any conceivable thing at any conceivable time? Such
an attempt is futile. The retort is unanswerable: "In the
great nlachine which you call the universe, that Sll1all
part which you call 'I' was so constructed and wound
up that it could no more help sayìng and doing what
it did and said, than a. clock could help pointing and
striking."
\Vhat then is the real proof that we are right in using
the word" I " and in distinguishing ourselves from other
objects which we call external? There is no proof at all
except that, first, ,,'e are led to this way of looking at
things by Nature and hnagination, and secondly, this way
of looking at things works best. The" I-viév" is bettcr
fitted than the "machine-view" to develop in us the
faculties of judgment and self-control, to give us a sense
of responsibility and a capability of mnendment, and to
make us u1tÏ1nately more hopeful and lllore active. So
ioo, the belief in " cause and effect" works better than a
mere mental record of past antecedents and sequences,
accompanied by a blank and strictly logical neutrality of
mind as to what will happen in the future. Faith in
"cause and effect" is the foundation of all stable life and
all regular progress alike in the individual and in the
state. The unfaithful unbeliever in causality is the Esau,
both in the n10ral and in the intellectual world, the happy-
go-lucky hunter who depends on stray venison and refu
es
to resort to systen1 in order to make a sure provisiún
for the needs of the future j the believer is the quiet plod-
ding Jacob who has his goats in the fold where he knows
he can find them when wanted. The unbeliever is the

23

KNO\VLEDGE

[Le!lc 1 ' 3

unimaginative savage who has not faith enough to see the
harvest in the seed; the believer is the ll1an of civilisation
\\'ho can trust Nature through six long months of waiting
and can say to her, not in the language of hope, "do ut
des," but in the bnguage of conviction, "do daturae."
Nevertheless, convenient as these ideas lnay be for our
c0111fort, nay, though they may be even necessary for our
existence, we an
bound to recollect that they are nlerely
ideas. Like tbe ideas of force, cause, effect, necessity,
so the idea of "I,"-though produced with the aid of
experience and tested by appeal to experience and reason
-appears to be nothing but a child of the Inlagination,
and a foster-child of Faith.
Perhaps your conclusion frolll all this is that I anl
proving tbat we can know nothing? Not in the least.
\Vhat I anl saying does not proye that we know le3s or
more than we profess to know at present. I anl merely
showing that our knowledge comes to us froll1 SOUl ces
other than those which are ordinarily assumed.

IDEALS

29

IV

J\Iv DEAR --,
You ask lne to pass to the consideration of
knowledge of a new kind, knowledge of Inathematical
truth. "Here at least," you say, "severe reasoning
donlinates supreme, and hnagination has no place."
"Two and one make there," "The angles at the base of
an isosceles triangle are equal:" "surely we luay assume
that Imagination has nothing to do with these proposi-
tions. They must be decided by pure Reason." Never
was assumption lnore grotesque. Excuse n1e ; but by what
other adjective can I characterize the statement that the
Imagination has "nothing to do with" propositions for
the very terms of which we are indebted to the huagina-
tion? I Inaintain without fear of contradiction that the
knowle::1ge of these propositions requires an effort of the
I magination so severe that the very young and the
completely untrained cannot attain to it.
For, in the first place, what do you Inean by "one,"
" two," and" three"? I have never had any experience
of such things; nor have you; nor can you. "Two"
oranges, "two)' apples, and the like, we have had
experience of, and can realize; but to think of "one" or
,,; two" by themselves (" one" or " two" with" any things,
or with "nothings" after them), "one:' or "two" as
" abstract ideas "-this really is a most difficult or rather
(1 am inclined to say) an impossible task. \Vhen I say

3 0

IDEALS

[Letler 4

" one " and" two," I think I see before me din1ly " one "
or " two" dots or small strokes, and I perceive that two
and one of these dots or strokes make up three dots or
stro
{es. \Vhen I speak of "twenty" and "thirty," I do
not see any ilnages of these existences; and when I
say that "twenty" and "thirty" make "fifty," I do not
realize the process of addition at all visibly; I 111erely
repeat the statement on the authority of previous obser-
vations and reasonings mostly made by others and not by
myself. But so far as I approximate to the realization of
an abstract nmnber, I do it by a kind of negative imagin-
ation. And in any case we can hardly deny that all
arithmetical propositions, since they enlploy tenns that
denote lnere Ï1naginary ideas, Blust be regarded as based
on the imagination.
It i3 the same with Geometry. The whole of what we
can" Euclid" is based upon a 1110st aerial effort of the
Imagination. \Ve have to imagine lines without thick-
ness, straightness that does not deviate the billionth part
of an inch from perfect evenness, perfectly symmetrical
circles, and-climax of audacity !-points that have "no
parts and no magnitude!" Obviously these things have
no existence except in the dreams of IInagination; yet
Euclid's severe reasoning applies to none but these things.
I f you step ffonl your ideal triangle in Dreamland into
your Inaterial triangle in chalk-land, you step from abso-
lute truth into statements that are not absolutely true.
The angles at the base of your chalk isosceles triangle
are not exactly equal, if you measure them with sufficient
accuracy. In a word the whole of Geometry is an appeal
to the Imagination in which the geOllleter says to us, "I
know that n1Y propositions are not exactly true except
with respect to invisible, ideal, and imaginary figures,
planes, and solids. These ideas, therefore, you nlust
endeavour to imagine. In order to relieve the s:rain on

Ldlt"r 4]

IDEALS

your imagination, I will place before you material and
visible figures about which my reasoning will be ap-
proxÍ1nately true. Fronl these I n1ust ask you to try to
rise upward to the Í1nagination of their archetypes, the
immaterial r 2alities."
\Yhat shall we reply to our overbearing n1athematician
who in this abrupt and audacious n1anner introduces the
non-existent and imaginary creatures of his brain as
being" realities"? Shall we deride him, and the arith-
nletician Ekewise? Shall we bid the latter exchange his
ca1culations in abstract numbers for n1anifestly useful
sums about sacks of wheat and casks of beer? Shall we
bid the mathematician descend frOln his high geometrical
theories to the practical measurements of agriculture?
Pouring scorn on his avowal that the objects of his
reasoning are" invisible, ideal, and in1aginary," shall we
decline to study a science that is confessedly- so we can
word it-visionary and illusive? If we do, he will not be
,..-ithout a reply, somewhat after this fashion: "My
practical friends, it will be the worse for you if you
despise these invisible, ideal and imaginary objects. I
say nothing about the 11lentaI training and development
to be derÏ\'ed fronl the study of these things j for to this
argument you do not appear to Ine to be at present
accessible: but I will take your own line-the practical.
Do you then want to measure your fields with ease and to
111:lke accurate Inaps and charts j to construct houses that
sh_lll stand longer, ships that shall sail faster, cannon that
shall shoot further, eagines that shall pull harder, than
any known before; do you want to utilize electricity for
lighting, gas for motion, water for pressure; in a word do
you wish to make yourselves lords over the nlaterial
world and to have all the forces of Nature at your beck
and call? If you do, you 111USt not despise the non-
existent numbers of my arithmetical brother, nor my

3 1

"

3 2

IDEALS

[Letler 4

immaterial and iInaginary lines. Give l1le leaye to repeat,
in spite of your indignation, that though they are (in this
present visible world of ours) non-existent, yet these lines
and numbers are' realities.' That they are realities, and
that our conclusions about them are real and true, is
proved by the one test of truth: our conclusions work.
Our discoveries are in hannon y wi th the universe. A
per fect circle you never saw and neve
ill se
et it is
as real as a beefsteak and a pint of porter. I believe in
a perfect circle by Faith; I accept it with reverence as
an impression, if I Ina)' so dare to speak, on the 1\Iinq of
the Uni\'erse, which He has communicated to me. \Yhat
is more, I believe that He intended us to study this and
other inlmaterial realities that our minds might approxi-
mate to His. Take a cone, my practical friends. \Yhat
do you see in it? Nothing, I fear, except a shape that
relninds you of an extinguisher or a fool's cap. Yet this
little solid contains within itself the suggestions of a1l
the mysteries of motion in heaven and earth. Slice your
cone parallel to the base: there you have the perfect
circle. Slice it again, parallel to one of the sides: there
you have the parabola, the curve of terrestrial motion.
Slice it once more, nlidway between these two sections:
there you have the ellipse, the curve of celestial 1110tion
for which all the astronomers were seeking in vain
through something like a score of centuries. Seriously
now, my half-educated friends, in spite of the sense YOll
Inay for the 1110st part entertain of your own importance,
do you not in your more nlodest moods sOlnetimes feel
inclined to say that, 'A circle is, after all, a reality,
perha ps Inore real than I am myself'?"
\Vhat do you think of all this? For nlY part, I anl
inclined to think tbe l\Iathematician has the best of it.
A good deal will turn upon the Ineaning of that dangerous
word" reality," about which I will give you Iny notions,

Letter 4]

IDEALS

33

perhaps, hereafter. l But even if you dispute his assertions
about the reaJity of his "ideas," you cannot, I am sure,
deny the immense practical importance, as well as the
universal acceptance, of his conclusions and discoveries;
and you will do well to remen1ber that this immensely
important, this undisputed and indisputable knowledge,
could never have been attained if we had not called in the
I magination to create for us ideas that never will be, and
never can be, realised in this present material world.
Let us paS3 now from knowledge about things to know-
ledge about persons, i.e. about actions and motives.
Our knowledge about actions depends on (I) personal
observation; (2) testimony; (3) circumstantial evidence
or any combination of these three.
The knowledge that we derive of actions from our OWi1
observation is of course independent of Faith, so far as
concerns the past; but it is very limited, and entirely
useless and unpractical, except as a basis for knowledge
about the preseßt and future; for which knowledge (as we
have seen) Faith in the permanence of Nature is absolutely
necessary.
The knowledge of actions that comes to us from
evidence, direct and circumstantial, is largely dependent
on Faith. "Julius Cæsar invaded Britain "-how certain
we all feel of that! Yet bow slight the testimony!
Simply a few pages of narrative, written by the supposed
invader himself, and some casual remarks by one or two
contemporary letter-writers about Cæsar's doings in
Britain and the Senate's reception of the news. Why
should we believe on so apparently flimsy a basis? Why
should not Cæsar have sent one of his lieutenants to in-
vade the island, and afterwards have taken the credit of
it himself? Or there nlight have been no invasion at all,
nothing but a reconnaissance grossly exaggerated and
1 See the Definitions at the end ')f the book.

D

34

IDEALS

[Lrt/,'y 4

intermixed with facts derived from travellers. Yet we
believe in the invasion without the slightest hesitation.
Cæsar, we say, would not have told the lie; or, if he had,
it would have been quickly exposed by his enemies. In
other words, we believe in the truth of the narrative,
because a belief in its falsehood does not "work," that
is to say, does not suit with what we know (or, more pro-
perly, with what others know) oL Cæsar's character and
Cæsar's times. .Of precisely the same kind is almost all
our knowledge about history: it is based upon evidence,
but it is belief; and the only test of its truth is, does it
" work," i.e. does it fit in with other knowledge which we
regard as established truth?
But you see that, even in dealing with a simple action of
Cæsar's, we have already drifted into a reference to Cæsar's
motives: and obviously knowledge about "nlotives" is
an important and indeed a paramount element in know-
ledge about persons. " My father," says the child, "has
his brows knit; his face looks dark; he speaks very loud;
his eyes look brighter than usual: "-this is knowledge
about actions derived fron1 personal observation, but, so
far, perfectly useless, until sometlÏing is added to it.
"Whenever my father has looked and spoken like this
before, he has been angry and has punished somebody:
therefore he is angry and will punish somebody now"-
this is not knowledge, it is only belief; but it is belief not
about actions simply, but about motives as well as actions,
and Ü may be of the greatest use.
How do we gain knowledge about motives, the moving
powers of the human machine? Since we cannot take
thi5 n1achinery to pieces, or experiment with it freely, we
must derive our knowledge largely frOln the consciousness
of our own 1110tives. Tickling produces laughter in us,
and pricking, a cry; affection, and the command of those
whom we love, produce in us obedience; desire of a result

Letlt"r 4]

IDE.\LS

or reward produces effort; fear of pain or penalty pro-
duces avoidance of certain actions, perforn1ance of others.
Hence we infer that, in others also, similar effects have
been produced, or will be produced, by similar causes.
In either case, our inference is based partly upon our
observation that these causes have preceded these effects
in other persons, and partly upon our faith that other
people's machinery is like our OWI1.
But we have not yet touched one of the n10st powerful
of Illotives, that power within us which we call Conscience
(" joint-knowle--1ge"); as though there were in us an
Assessor sitting in judgment by the side of the lllysterious
" I," the two together pronouncing sentence of " Right"
or " \Vrong" upon the several proposition3 and intentions
which are, as it were, called up before their tribun
l.
The development of Conscience and our sensibility to its
dictation appears to n1e largely due to the Imagination.
If a philosopher tells me that when Conscience appears
to us to say "Right" it really says "Expedient for
society and ultin1ately for your:3elf," or "Calculated to
gain esteeu1 for yourself," or
'Conducive to your own
peace of mind," I am obliged, with all deference to him,
but w ith greater deference to tru th, to assure hin1 that
(however correct he may be as to tlîëõrigin of this feelinr

in my own infant mind or in the n1atured mind of my
prin1æval ancestors) he is mistaken, at all events in nl.Y own
case, as to the action of Conscience now. I may possibly
have been long ago guided to my idea of " Right" by
my observation of what is expedient: but, to n1e, now, the
sense of "right" is as different from the sense of "ex-
pedient," as the eye is different froll1 some sensitive
protuberance which may ultimately be developed into an
eye, but is at present responsive only to the touch.
How then do we gain this knowledge of right and
wrong? For of course it is not enou,:{h to reply that we
D 2

35

.

3 6

IDEALS

[I etter 4

gain it by the voice of Conscience: such an answer only
makes us repeat our question in a different shape: " In the
very young, Conscience, though it Inay be existent, is cer-
tainly latent; when and whence does it begin to work?"
I should reply that t he first idea of good and evil is COlTI-
municated to the very young through the habit of obe-
dience to their parents or those who stand to thelTI in
the parental position. A child is so created as to be in
constant dependence on the favour and good-vvill of his
mother. \Vhen he is obedient to her he finds himself at
peace and happy, and he we1comes on her face that sun-
shine which indicates that she is pleased with him. When
he is disobedient, harsh sounds follow, a lowering dark-
ness on the countenance close to his, obstacles to his
freedom, restrictions of his pleasures, perhaps sharper
pains or penalties: and he is now out of harmony with
his little Universe. All this strange and subtle evil inside
hilTI and outside hinl he has brought on himself by dis-
obeying tbe maternal will; and hence there gradual1y
springs up in his n1Ïnd an Imagination of some unname-
able thing, which is his first idea of right. But as he
grows older and widens his sphere of observation he
finds-if he is placed in anything like those favourable
circumstances. which Nature has appointed for most ot
u,:;-that this parental will is in harmony with the widen-
ing world a round him
The parents say, "Do not play
with fire;" Nature says the sanle, and punishes him if
he transgresses. The parents say, " Do not touch that
knife;" again Nature confirms their authority by inflicting
a penalty on disobedience. Thus, if the parents have
anything of parental forethought, the child gradually
a
sociates thelTI with the governing powers of his growing
Universe, and begins to feel that the parental will is also
the will, or order, of Nature. They are as God to him:
and the confirmed habit of obedience to then1 deepe1i.S in

Letter 4]

IDEALS

37

his heart the conviction-but still a conviction rathe
springing froni hnagination than from Reason-that the
power which thus induces him to obey is a great and
grand Power, orderly, not to be resisted; wise and
justified by results, but to be obeyed without thinking
about results; it ought to be obeyed; it is Riglzt. t
N ow he steps out into the world of other human
beings; and here he learns to widen his idea of Right.
Perhaps he also learns to alter it. If he was born and
reared among thieves, his conscience may have been alto-
gether perverted so that he actually thought it honourable
to steal. But in any case, even though he may come frOlu
the best of hOllies, he often learns that the parental will
is not alwaIsjn harmony with the highesLand best will ;
al ld grad llalJy l
forn1s a different standard of " Right"
frOl11 that which he held before. It was once the will of
his parents, now it is often the will of Society. Conforming
himself to the will of Society he is free frOln pains and
penalties; he is at peace with those around him, and he
is generally at peac
with himself. I say generally, not
always: for by this time he has begun to think for himself
and to see that Conscience ought to speak in the interests
not 111erely of his parents, nor of a select circle of his own
friends or companions, but of all mankind. His In1agina-
tion pictures for hÏ1n an ideal Order such as he has never
actually experienced. He feels that he "ought
' to be
at peace and in harmony with this imaginary Order, and
n
with some distorted and narrowed conception of it
conveyed to hÏ1n by his "set," his class, his city, his
nation, or his church. In his conscience, he hears the
voice of this Moral Order of hlln1anity. Hence it is
that men have been sometimes impelled to thoughts
beyond, or even against, the conscience of their conteln-
poraries; to protest, for example, against unjust wars,
against war of any kind, against slavery, against duelling,

.

3

IDEALS

[Lt'!to' 4

against legalized oppression. In every cas
the impeliing
power has been the same, a sense of discord between the
n1an's inlaginary ideal and the actual enVirOl1nlent in
which these evils and disorders have existed. Others, his
C0l111110nplace companions, have been content to go with the
world around theIn-to be kind sLlve-holders, honourable
duellists, moderate oppressors-and they have felt no
pangs of conscience. Dul by a few, a chosen few there
has been acquired a keener sense of the ld
f nIoral
harmony, a ke
ner eye for detecting moral disorder, and
an abhorrence of it which will.not pernIit them. to live in
peace amid such evils: they lllust either die or nlend
them.
They often do die in nIending thenl ; but \vhilc in the
process of dying, or preparing for death-with all de-
ference to the clergynIan who lately nIaintained that" if
there is no hereafter, and if the only reward of self-sac-
rifice and the only punishment of crime are those which
happen in the present life, it 'lfJould have beell far better to
Izave been FoucJzé thall Pattl"-they have at le3.st a peace
of nIind which they could not have attaíned by conformity
with the world. The grosser conscience that " worked "
well enough in their companions would not have" worked "
in theln. Even, t,erefore, though they appear to be ex-
ceptions to the rule that tests truth by its "working,"
they are not really exceptional. They have been in
discord with the world but in CO:1cord with thelnselves.
Often they prove to o
hers the truth of their conceptions
by raising up the world to their level, and by pointing to
the moral order which bas iS3ueJ fiom the fulfilment of
their ideas. But in any case, though they may fail fur
a time or (apparently) for all time, they have had in
theillselve3 a sufficient test of the truth of their icleas:
t,ey have followed their conscience and they have found
that this course" worked "-th:lt is to say, suited and

Letler 4]

IDEALS

developed their nature-as no other course could bave
- worked for them. But in order thus to hear and obey the
voice of conscience and to discern its higbest truths,
how much of faith, how much of in1agination has been
needed!
But this digression about Conscience has led me a little
astray from my subject, which was "the knowledge of
persons:" I must return to it in my next letter.

39

.

4 0

IDEALS AND TESTS

v

:rvlv DEAR --,
Let us now return to the consideration of the
" knowledge of persons." How do we gain knowledg
of
a hun1an being, tbat is to say of his motives? "By observ-
ing his actions in many different circumstances, especially
in extremities of joy, sorrow, fear, temptation, and then by
comparing his actions with what we, or others, have done
in the san1e circumstances? " But this is a very difficult
and delicate business, especially that part of it which
involves comparison. Here we may easily go wrong;
and we therefore naturalIy ask what test have we that
our knowledge is correct. One test of any useful know-
ledge of a machine would be, not our power to discourse
fluently about it, but our power to "work" it, i.e. to make
it perform the work for which it is intended: and sÍ1nilarly
one test of useful knowledge of a hun1an being must be
our power to "work" him, i.e. to make him perform the
work for which he is intended. A perfectly selfish TIlan
of the world may have considerable knowledge of men
and "work" theln cleverly in a certain sense: he is not
cheated by them; he is perhaps obeyed by some, not
thwarted by others; he knows the weak points of all,
jostles down one, persuades another to lift him up, gets
something out of everyone, and is, in a word, largely
successful in making men help hin1 to do wlzat lze in-
tends. But this is a very poor kind of "working," as
compared with that which has been practised by the

Letter 5]

IDEALS AND TESTS

lawgivers, poets, philosophers, and founders of religion;
who have moulded and fashioned great masses of men so
as to be better able than they were before to do the noblest
works tbat men can do, the works for wIdell they are
intended. Now I think it will not be denied that the men
who, in this sense, have" worked" mankind have had
great ideas of what men could do and ought to do.
Sometimes they have had ideas so high that they have
seemed impossible of attainment and almost absurd, even
as ideas. Yet these are the .men, these idealizers of hUlnan-
ity, who' have most helped n1ankind on the path of pro-
gress. And this would lead us to the conclusion that the
111en who have" worked" mankind best have been those
who have refused to accept men as they are. Constrained
by the Imagi
tionJ they have kept before their eyes an
Ideal of hun1anity, towards which they have aspired and
laboured with sanguine enthusiasm.
To the same effect tends our observation of mankind
in smaller groups, and especially in that sn1allest of
groups called the family. It is generally the parents who
have n10st influence over their child, most power to
" work" hiIn; and we can often see that the reason of
their influence does not arise fron1 the power to reward or
punish, but frOln their affection for him, and from their
faith in hiIn. Especially do we perceive this in the.
familiar but mysterious process called forgiving. We
see parents, yes even wise parents, constantly placing
faith in a child beyond what seems to a dispassionate ob-
server to be warranted by facts, treating him as though
he were better than he bas shewn himself to be, better
than he appears to us likely ever to become. And,
strange to say, this iInaginative systen1 has on the whole
proved n10re successful than the in1partial and dispassion-
ate disposition w1:ich would take a human being exactly
for what he is, and treat hin1 as being that and no n10rc.

4 1

"

42

IDEALS AKD TESTS

[Ldte1 5

I do not Inean to say that there have not been blind and
fond parents in abundance who-having no high moral
standard and being merely desirous to see cOlnfort and
bright faces around them-have done their children harm
by ignoring their faults and regarding then1 as perfect: but
on the other hand, I call on you to admit the paradox that
just, wise, and righteous parents, who have had
high
111 oral standard, have been 1110st successful in enabling
their child to rise to that standard, by treating hin1 as
t
ough he were better than he really has been, Further,
I say that this systeu1 has been pursued by all those who
have forgiven others, and by Hin1 above all others who
has done J110st to nlake forgiveness "current coin"
aInong n1ankind.
I can understand a n1an of cold-blooded and dispas-
sionate telnperament objecting to any such idealization of
humanity. "The whole theory," he might say, " is raáically
unfair and unreasonable. You argue that you ought to
love a n1an and ignore his faults if you wish to know hÍ1n
and nlove hiIn. You might just as well argue that you
ought to hate a man and ignore his virtues for the same
purpose. Hate is as keen-eyed as love. Hate spies out
the least defeèts, anticipates each false step, predicts each
hasty word, and caricatures beforehand each hasty gesture.
Hate n1akes a study of its objects: hate, therefore, as
weB as love, might be said to stinlulate us to know others.
But the right course is neither to hate, nor to love, but to
judge. As hate blinds us to virtues, so love blinds us to
vices. \Ve ought to be blind to nothing, to extenuate no-
thing, to ignore nothing, but to be p
and r}:aso
bly
critical. Thus we shall know....humanIty as it is.
The answer to this very plausible theory is extreu1ely
silnple: ,. Your theory appears to be just and wise upon a
cursory and unscientific view of human nature: but it
has not endured the scientific test of cxperÍ1nent; it has

Ldler 5]

IDEALS AND TESTS

43

not worked. I believe the reason why it does not work is,
that it ignores some faintly discernible but growing ten-
dencies in human nature which are not to be discerned
without lliore sympathy than you appear to possess: no
human bein g can be understood in the daylight of Reason
alone ; affection and Imagination are needed to transport
us as it were into the heart of a fellow-creature, to enable
us tQ realize him as we realize ourselves, and to treat hinl
as we would ourselves be treated; faith also in the possi-
bilities of hmlianity is a very powerful help not only
towards discerning the best and noblest that nlen can do,
but also towards developing their power of doing it. But
in any case, whatever 111ay be the reasons for its failure,
your theory does not "work," and nlust therefore be
gl ven up.
"By 'failure,' I do not Inean that your theory will
prevent you fronl getting on and making your way in the
world, but that it will prevent you fr01li operating on your-
self and on mankind, so that you and they lliay do the
work which you are intended to do, You say the business
of a student of men is to be critical. I say that such a
student is a luere pedant, a book-philosopher: but the
scientific student of men is he who knows how to 'work'
them: and those who have in the true sense of the term
, worked' nlen, have not been of the critical tempe1
llnent
which you eulogize, but often quite uncritical, wondrously
uncritical, but full of a fervent faith in a high ideal of
humanity, and in a destiny that would ultimately conform
hmuanity to its ideal. If you aÌ1u at exerting no social
ennobling influence of this kind, if you are content, while
leading the life of a man of the world, to abide, spiritually
speaking, in the cave of a recluse, then keep on your pre-
sent course. Criticize 111en dispassionately to your hea"rt's
content. Try to persuade yourself that you know thenl.
But yoú will never succeccl--you will never pcrsuade

44

IDEALS AND TESTS

[Letter 5

even yourself that YOll have succeeded-in making a
single human being the better for your influence.
"In morals as in nlathematics nothing can be done
without faith in the Ideal. If you want to operate scien-
tifically upon imperfect men you must keep constantly
before your 111ind the inlage of the Perfect l\Ian. \Ve ha,'e
seen that, before we can attain to 'applied lnathematics,'
which constitute the basis of those sciences by which we
dominate the luaterial world, we have to begin with' pure
Inathematics.' In that region of study we have to idealize
and speak of things, not as they are in our experience,
but as they nlight be if certain tendencies that we see
around us could be infinitely-yes, and we must add,
impossibly-extended. Yet in the end, if ,ve go patiently
onward, we find that our' pure 111athematics' lead us to
conclusions of immense practic
l inlportance.
" It is precisely the saIne in the science of hunlanity,
which we ll1ay call anthropology. In order to prepare
the way for 'applied anthropology' whereby we may
donlinate the inlmaterial world, the lllinds and tempers
of Blen, we nlt1st begin with 'pure anthropology'; that is
to say, we 111llst idealize and speak of man not as he is but
as he would be if certain tendencies which we see in him,
conduci,'e to social order and individual development,
could be infinitely-yes, and we 111USt add, if we limit
.i'
our horizon to this present life, impossibly-extended.
In the end, if we go patiently onward, we shall find that
, pure anthropology' will be of immense practical impm t-
ance in helping us to control and develop ourselves and
individuals around us and all con1111unities of men. This
'pure anthropology,' having to do with the Ideal of
hmnanity, is necessarily associated or identified with the
conception of God; and some would call it ' theology' or
'Christianity.' But that is a luere nlatter of nanles. CalI
it by whatever nanl.e you please, but study it you must.

Ldlrr 5]

IDEALS AND TESTS

45

You will never 'work' mankind -that is to say you will
never make men do the work for which they are intended
-till you have studied the Ideal J\lan."
You may repl y, and with
e justice, that there is a
danger in this repeated appeal to the test of " working."
" What," you may ask, ,;, about the Buddhist and the
Mobanlmedan, the one with his peaceful missions, the
other with his victorious sword? Cannot both make the
same appeal? In advocating the in'-ariable appeal to
"working," do we not COlne dangerously near urging the
acceptance of any doctrine that will afford good leverage
to moral effort, regardless of its truth or falsehood?
Ought not, after all, the harmony of the doctrine with
Reason (in the highest sense-not only syllogistic, but
intuitive, imaginative, or whatever you choose to call it)
to be the ultin
ate criterion? "
I suppose there is a "danger" in every means of at-
taining truth, a danger in observation, a danger in experi-
ment, a danger in inductive, a danger in deductive,
reasoning: but it does not follow tbat any of tbese nleans
are to be discarded, only that they are to be carefully
us
. If the Buddhist can appeal to the successes of
centuries, that proves, I should say, that there is some
element of genuine truth in his religion; if the Moh

- ñiCc1anpoints to conversions, in India and elsewhere, far
nlore rapid than those made by Christianity and not
dependent on "the victorious sword," that also proves
that in some important respects-for example in the
practical recognition of the equality of all believers
without respect to rank or race-.Mohamnledans have
been far nlore faithful to their teacher than ,ve have been
to ours. And generally, any religioh that succeeds in
nlak ing nlen better with it than they were without it,
must be admitted (I think) to contain (so far as it suc-
ceeds) so;21_

1ement of divine re,-elation. And therefore,

4 6

IDEALS AXD TESTS

[Lefler 5

while admitting the appeal to Reason, I cJ.nnot reject the
appeal to Experience as well. Do not think that, in
laying so much stress on "working," I ignore the differ-
ence between the propositions of Natural Science and
those of Religion, or forget how much 1110re ready and
convincing verification is in the fonner than in the latter.
The meaÚs of verifying may differ in different ages: why
not? In the ear
iest period of Christianity, men had, as
a test, the contrast between the heathen and the Christian
life; the burning zeal of the freshly Ï1nparted Spirit of
Christ; and the" 111ighty works" wrought by the Apostles
and perhaps by sonle of their successors. Now, for us in
Christendonl, the proof frOl11 "contrast" is less obvious,
and we have lost also something of the fresh and fiery ze:11
-must we not add the occas
onally 111isguided zeal ?-of
the first Christians: but, by way of conlpensation, we have,
besides our individual experiences, the col1ective evidence
of 111any generations shewing what Christ's Spirit can do
to help us wben we obey it, to chasten us when we dis-
obey. Are we wrong then in inferring that one test of
religions is the same which our Lord appointed for testing .
men: "By their fruits ye sha11 know thel11" ?
There is undoubtedly a great difference between proof
in Science and proof in 111atters of Religion: and Religion
depends, far more than Science, upon Imagination. But
I have 110t ignored this difference. On the contrary, I
have attenlpted to show that, since Religion depends far
more than Science upon Imagination; and since Science
itself depends largr/y upon Imagination; therefore Re-
ligion must depend vfry largl'ly upon Imagination, and
especially upon that fonn of Imagination to which we
give the nanle of Faith.

Il\IAGI

\ TION L\ND RE.\SON

<17

VI

l\IY DEAR --,
You suspect that I am "pus'3ing the claims of
the hnagination so far as to deprive the Reason or U n-
derstanding 1 of its rights;" and you ask me whether I
dispute the universal belief that the fonner is an " illusive
fd.culty." As for your suspicion, I will endeavour to show
that it is groundless. As for your question, I admit that
the In1agination is "illusive," but I n1ust add that it also
--- - -
leads us to truth. It constructs the hypotheses, as well as
tIie illusions, which, when
by experience, guide us
towards Knowledge.
Imagination is the" imaging" faculty of the mind.
I t does not, strictly sp èak m g-; cr

eJ any more than an
artist, strictly speaking, creates. But as an artist com-
-.!:2.!E es lines, colours, shades, sounds, and thoughts, each
one of which by itself is familiar to everybody, in such
new combinations as to produce effects that impress us
all as original and unprecedented, so does the Imagination
out of old fragments make new existences and unities.
Attention impresses upon us the present; !Vlemory
recalls the past; but the Imagination is never content
simply to reproduce the past or present. It sums up the

1 "Reason" is used, in these letters, in a sense for which Coleridge (I
believe) preferred to use" Understanding," But as long as we have a verb
" reason," commonly used of mathematical, logical, and ordinary processes
of arguing, so long it will be inexpedient, in a popular treatise, to use th

word in any but its popular sense. Perhaps some might give the name of
"higher Reason" to what I call Imagination,

4 8

IMAGINATION AND REASON

[I dler 6

pa.st of 1\r emory (sometimes perhaps also the present of
Attention) and combines it with a conjectured future in
such a way as to produce a whole, It is always seeking
for likenesses, orderly connections, regular sequences,
beãutiful relations, suggestions of unity in some shape or
other, so as to reduce 111any things into one and to obtain
a satisfying picture.
For example, suppose a large mill-wheel at rest to
be almost hidden fron1 my eyes by intervening trees so
that, even if it were 1110ving, I could only see one spoke
at a time; and at present I am not aware that it is clòse
before n1e. Something begins to n10ve. I look up.
Attention tells me that I see before me, moving fron1 left
to right, something like a plank or pole: it passes and I
see nothing; but then con1es another similar object mov-
ing similarly; then a third, rather quicker; then a fourth,
quicker still. The n1ind at once sets to work to find the
cause. The Men10ry tells me that I have seen simply a
number of poles or planks moving from left to right with
quickened motion; the Attention tells me that I see one
now; but the Imagination, taking In the isolated reports
of Memory and Attention, includes then1 in a larger
hypothesis of her own, in which, if I may so express it,
the constituent elements, the spokes, are subordinated,
and the explanatory unity, the wheel, is brought into
rrominence: and thus the motion from left to right,
which explained nothing, is replaced, in my mind, by the
motion of revolution, which explains everything.
It is on the basis of the Imagination, aided by
Experience and Re as on, that we establish our conviction
of the permanence of the simplest Laws of Nature.
This I have touched on in one of my previous letters. The
l\lemory, recalling the sight of many stones faIling to
the ground, comes perhaps to the aid of Attention, as
a child notes a particular stone falling to the ground, and

Lt Iter 6]

I:\IAGIN A TION A
D REASON

49

suggests to the child's imitative nature an experin1ental
attempt to make a stone fall to the ground. The child
does it once and again, as often as he likes. Then, as a
result of this unvarying experience, there springs up in
the child's Inind a picture in which he sees reproduced an
apparently endless vista of his sensations as to stone-
falling and its antecedents, a picture not confined, like
the pictures of lYlemory, to past time, but incJuding
future as well as past and present: and thus the childish
thought leaps upwards all at once to the conception of
that sublime word" always," and dares to pron1lllgate its
first universal proposition, and attains to the definite
certainty of a Law of Na41re.
But you say that the hnagination is "illusive." It is ;
it rarely conducts us to truth without first leading us
through error. Its business is to find likenesses and con-
nectionS-and to suggest explanations, not to point out
differences, and mãke distinctions, and test explanations :
these latter tasks are to be accomplished not by In1agin.a-
tion but by Reason with the aid of enlarged experience.
The In1agination suggests to the child that every man is
like his 'father, every W0111an like his nlother; that the
nlotion of the sea is like the motion of water in the wash-
ing-basin; that the thunder is caused by the roIling of
barrels or discharge of coals up above; that a clock goes
on of itself for ever: and a l1luItitude of other illusions
all arising fr0111 the same healthy iInaginative conviction
in every young mind that "\Vhat has been will be," and
"The whole world is according to one pattern." The
conviction is based on a profound general truth, but the
particular shapes which it assumes are often erroneous.
It is only after a course, and smnetimes a very long course,
of experience and experilnent, that the child, or perhaps
the IHan, eliIninates with the aid of Reason those ideas
which will
t ,vork, and confirms those that will work,
E

50

I:\L\GIN.\ TIO
r\KD REASON

[leltt'r 6

till the latter becOlne at last strong and inherent and
quasi -instinctive convictions. N one the less, if the
I magination did not first suggest the ideas on which the
Reason is to operate, we should never obtain anything
worth calling knowledge.
\Ve might express all this by saying that Imagination
is the 1110ther of working-hypotheses: and this is true of
all working-hypotheses, those of the observatory and
laboratory 9-S well as those of the nursery. Noone who
grasps this truth will henceforth deny the debt of science
to Imagination. Knowledge is not worth calling know-
ledge till it is reduced to .Law ; and Law, as I havc
shown you above, is a Inere idea of the Imagination.
I do not deny the subsequent yalue of Reason; but
Imagination must COlne first. It was fron1 the Imagin:l-
tion that there first flashed upon the mind of Newton the
vision of the working-hypothesis by which the apple's faU
qnd the planet's path lnight be sinuIltaneously explained.
Then came in Reason, with experjinent, testing, com-
paring, prepared to detect discrepancies, unlikelihoods,
and any want of hannony between the new theory and
the old order of things. Finally, the onr.e-no -1l10rc-
than-working-hypothesis, having been found to harn10nize
with countless past and present phenon1ena and having
enabled us to predict countless future phenomena, is now
called a Law, and we are practicaI1y certain that it will
act. The approval of this Law we owe to Reason, but
for the suggestion of it we are indebted to IInagination.
On thedebt owed to Imagination by 1\Tathematics-the
foundation of all science- I will not add anything to what
has been said in a recent letter.
!\' ext as to the work of Imagination in art. Poets and
artists, as well as astronomers, must be, sa to speak,
ex allalo,gia Ulliversi,. that is to say, they Inust be in
harn10ny with that order of things which they long to

Leller 6J

Il\IAGI
ATION AND REASO

51

reveal to their fellow-men; they n1ust see Law and Unity
where others fail to see it ; they n1ust have inherited or
received capacities and intuitions which give them an
intense sympathy with the deep-down-hidden rhyth111S
and abyslnal 1110tions which regulate atoms and sounds
and hues and shapes, and the thoughts and feelings of
men. An artist who wishes to paint a hill-side, or a wave,
or a face, n1ust have a vision of it. He must see it 110t
only exactly as it is, but how it is : he sYlnpathizes, as it
were, with every cleft and runlet and holIow 2.nd projec-
tion of the hilI, with every turn and fold and shade and
hue of the ever-varying wave: he realizes the secret of
K ature's working. ShaH we make a distinction between
the secret in the one case and the other? Shan we say
the "spirit" of the face, but the "law" of the hill
and the "law" of the wave? Or will not the intuition
into this complex combination of multitudinous forces,
apparently free and conflicting yet all guided and con-
trolled into one hannonious result, be better expressed by
saying tb.at he enters into the" spirit" in all cases, the
" spirit" of the hilI, the wave, and the face? In propor-
tion as he has this power, a great artist will be less likely
to speak about it, and less able to explain it: but have it
he 111ust ; and it is a power really not dissin1ilar, though
apparently most different, from the scientific Imagination.
It is, in both cases, a power of recognizing Order and
Unity. The test also of the artistic, is (roughly sreaking)
the san1e as that of the scientific In1agination. Those
ideas are right which "work." Does a scientific idea
open, like a key, the secrets of Nature? Then it " works,"
and is, so far, right. So in art: t
Í1nagine rightly is to
imagine powerfully so as to sway the minds of men.
Those artistic in1aginations are wrong which fail to fit
the wards of the complicated hun1an lock and to stir the
inmost thoughts. There are obvious objections to this
E 2

52

L\L\GIXATIO
AND REASO

[Letler 6

definition of what is artistically right; what stirs the
Athenian may not stir tbe Esquimaux. But, roughly
speaking, we l11ay say that the test has held good. \Vhat
has stirred the Athenian has stirred the great civilising
races of the world. There may be a better and a higher
test hereafter; but, for the present at all events, prolonged
experience of its "working" is the test of artistic
Imagination.
But the Imagination plays, perhaps, its most important
part in our conceptions of human emotions and hmnan
character. These things cannot be exactly defined, like
triangles or circ1es; nor can they or their results be pre-
dicted like the results of chen1Îcal action or the instinc-
tive motions of irrational animals. Yet the Inlagination
helps us, after a sympathetic conteillplation of what a
friend has done and said and wished, 1.0 complete the
picture by taking as it were a bird's-eye view of his past,
present and future, so as to be able hl some nleasure to
realize and predict what he 'LviII do llid say and wish.
This nlental "inlagination," "image," or "idea" of our
friend we might describe as the "law" of his being, so far
as it was grasped by us: but so much more subtle and
variable than any known "law" are the sequences of
human thought and conduct, that we gencraBy prefer the
phrase which we just now used to describe the intuition
of the artist; and so we speak of "entering into the
spirit" of a man. It is usual to say that we do this by
" sympathy:" but sympathy is only one fornl of Imagina-
tion tinged with Ìõve, the power of ilnagining the joys
and sorrows of others and of realizing them as one's own.
Imagination, without love: might realize the sorrows of
an enemy to gloat over thell1: love, if it could be without
Imagination-which it cannot be, since love implies at
least some imagination of what the beloved would wish-
would be a poor lifeless sentiInent doing nothing, or nothing

Idler 6]

L\IAGIXATIOX AXD REA SOX

3

to the purpose. But imaginati\'e loye, or sympathy, gi\'es
ns the key to the knowledge of all human nature, and is
the foundation of all dOlnestic and social unity and order.
As to the test of Imagination when brought to bear
upon human nature, you will remember, I dare say, that
it was determined to be the success with which it " worked"
hunlan nature, or, in other words, lnade nlen do" what
they are intended to åo." But I was then speaking oi the
way in which the great prophets, lawgiyers, and founders
of religions haye influenced great masses of mankind,
and in which alnlost e\'ery mother influences her children,
by idealizing then1. I might have added, and I will now
add, a worù on the manner in which an iInaginary ideal of
human nature pro\'es its truth experimentally to the
imaginer, by "working" lzilll
that is, by nlaking hiìll
capable of doing" the work he was intended to do." It
is the 1110re necessary to do this because the illusions of
Imagination are nowhere so strong and so lasting as in
the study of human :\ ature ; and there is a danger that
we may be deterred by the thought of them frOl11 steadily
pursuing the truth. The cynic tells us with a sneer that
babies, and none but babies, think Inen and women better
than they are, and that, the older one grows, the lnore one is
disillusionised about the \'irtue of human nature. But that
is not true, o!...9nly a half truth. If we, as children, imagine
the men and women about us to be perfections of power,
wi:;dom, and virtue, one reason is, that we ha\'e, as chil-
dren, a 11105t inadequate standard of physical, n1ental,
and nloral excellence. As our standard rises, our sense of
inadequacy increases; but the reason why, as we grow -
older, we cease to think people perfect, is, \'ery often, not
that we think worse of hmnan beings, but that we think
better of human possibilities.
But in wnle Ininds defect of Imagination conlbines
with other Càuses to induce the repeatedly disillusionised

54

E\L\GI
A TIO
AXD RE4\SON

[Letter 6

man to give up the search after t he truth that li es beneath
the illusion and to cast away all trust, a ll thought;õT ãñY
iùeal of hunlanity. Those who do this 111ake shipwreck
of their own lives. Their low ideal or no-ideal of conduct
do
s 110t " work;" that is to say, it does not fit theln to
do the work they were intended to do. Even for the pur-
poses of their own happiness their life is a failure. So
far as the spiritual side of their nature is concerned, a
dun and stagnant self-satisfaction is the highest prize they
can hope to acquire: they have none of the keen joys of
spiritual aspiration, of failures rcdeell1ed, of gradu,tl pro-
gress, and of deeper insight into the glorious possibilities
of hmnan nature. But those who, while not rejecting tee
sobering adnlonitions of Experience and Reason, can
nevertheless so far obey the pr0111ptings of hnagination
as to retain in their hearts an ever fresh and expansive
and healthful Ideal of life, find themselves led on by it
fr01n hope to nobler hope, fronl effort to 1110re arduous
effort, until life and effort end together.
Let this suffice as my protest against the popular fallacy
that the Imagination is an abnormal faculty, limited to
pods and painters and "artists," nlostly illusive, and
always to be subordinated in the search after truth. I
nlaintain, on the contrary, that it lies at the basis of all
knowledge; tbat it is no less necessary for science, for
I Inorals, and for religion, than for artistic success; and
, that the illusions of lmagination are the stepping-stones
to Truths.
N ow to speak of Reason, or, as sonle would call it,
Understanding. "VVhile dealing with Imagination, we re-
cognized that the work of Reason is mostly negative and
corrective: but let us C0111e to detail. Reason is comnlonly
said to proceed by two nlethods; (i) by Induction, where-
in, by " inducing," or introducing, a number of particular
instances (e.g. " A, B, C, &c., are men and are 1110rtal "),

Ldler 6]

L\L\GI
ATIO
AND REASON

55

you establish a general conclusion (" all n1en are mortal ") ;
(ii) by Deduction, wherein, from two previous state-
ments called Premises, you deduce a third, called a
Conclusion.
(i) As regards Induction, surely you 111Ust adn1it that
the initial part of the task falls not upon the Reason but
upon the Imagination; which sees likenesses and leaps to
general conclusions, 11l0stly premature or false, but all con-
taining a truth fron1 which the falsehood n1ust be elin1inated.
"'Thus;ã-child Ï1llagines, by premature Induction, that all
men are (I) like his father; (2) black-haired; (3) between
fi,-e and six feet 11igh ; (4) white-skinned, and so on. Then
comes Reason afterwards, comparing and contrasting
these imaginative pren1ature conclusions with a wider and
contradictory experience and widening the conclusion
accordingly. Hence it is the part of Reason to suggest
those varied experiments which are a necessary part of
scientific Induction; and this is generally done by pointing
out to us some neglected difference: " You say you had
a Turkish bath three times, and each tin1e caught a cold:
but were the antecedents of these three colds quite alike?
If not, how did they differ? Did you not on the first
occasion sit in a draught at a public meeting? on the
second, forget to put on your great coat? on the third, let
the fire out though it was freezing? Consider therefore,
not the single point of likeness, the Turkish bath, but the
points of unlikeness. also, in the antecedents of your three
colds; .and try the Turkish bath again, on1itting these
antecedents, before you say' A Turkish bath al ways gives
me cold.'"
You see then that in Induction the positive and sugges-
tive part of the work is done by the IInagination; the
negative and eliminative part by Reason.
(ii) As regards Deduction, the business of Reason is to
ascertain that the Premises are not only true but also

56

IMAGINATION AKD REASON

[Letter 6

connected in such a way that a conclusion can be drawn
fron1 then1. But even here Imagination plays a part: for
the conclusion of every syllogislu (roughly speaking)
depends upon the following axion1 : "If a is included in
b, and b is included in c, then a is included in c; in other
words, if a watch is in a box, and the box is in a roo111,
then the watch is in the room." .r\ ow this general propo-
sition, like all general propositions, is arrived at with
the aid of the Imagination, so that we may fairly say that
the Imagination, helps to lay the foundation of tl1e
Syllogisn1. \Vhen therefore you bear i':1 lnind that in
every Sylbgisn1 the Premises are often the result of an
Induction in which Imagination has played a part, and
that the conclusion always depends upon an axiom of
the Imagination, you must adn1it that even Deductive
Reasoning by no means excludes the Imagination.
(iii) Practically, errors seldOlu arise, and truth is seldOln
discovered, fron1 mere Deductive Reasoning. Anyone
can see his way through a logical Sy1l0giSl11, and almost
anyone can lay his finger on the weak point in an illogical
one. But the difficulty is to start the Reasoning in the
right direction and to begin the Logical Chain with an
appropriate Syllogisll1.
For exan1ple, suppose we wish to prove that "every
triangle which ha
two angles equal, has two sides opposite
to then1 equal": how can our Reason, our discriminatiye
faculty, help us here? At present, not at all. \Ve HUlst
first call to our aid the Imagination, which sayj to us,
" IlIlagiJle the triangle with two equal angles to have two
unequal sides opposite to then1, and see what follows."
And everyone who has done a geometrical Deduction
knows that we frequently start by" imagining" the con-
clusion to be already proved, or the problem to be already
perforIl1ed, an"l then endeavouring to rea1ise, all10ng the
luany consequences that would follow, which of those

Le/ter 6]

I
IAGI
ATIO
AND REASON

57

consequences would hannonize with, or be identical with,
the data to which we are working back.
The same process is comn10n in the reasoning that deals
with what is called Circumstantial Evidence. Thus, it is
asserted by A that he saw B commit a nlUrder in the
n1idst of a field, five minutes before midnight, on the first
day of last month: how can we test the truth of A's
assertion? The negative faculty of Reason cannot answer
the question. But once nlore Imagination steps in and
says, " Imaf{Ùze the story to be true; imagine yourself to
be in A's place; imagine the circumstances which would
have surrounded him, the hidden place from which he saw
the nuuder, the light which enabled hin1 to see it, the
precise sight that he saw, the voices or sounds that
he heard, and, in a word, all the details of a likely and
coherent narrative." \Vhen.the 11nagination has done this
and" Ï1nagined " the place-perhaps a hedge-the light-..
moonlight, and so on, Reason steps in, and corroborates
or rejects, by shewing that there waS", or was not, a hedge
whence the deed could have been witnessed; that thel e
was a full n100n or no moon on the night in question;
that, if there had been a moon, the place in question was
open to the moonlight, or in deep shadow: and thus
hnagination and Reason (aided by experience of the place
and knowledge of the tÏ1ne) arrive at a conclusion, the
former making a positive, the latter a negative contri-
bution. Hence it appears tbat even in those questions
which are called pre-eminently "practical "-for what
can be more "practical" than a trial in a law-cour
for life or death ?-the Imagination plays so great a
part that without its aid the reason could effect little
or nothing.
Here I must break off; but I hope I have said enough
to satisfy you that the imaginative faculty, though it needs
the constant test of Reason and Experience, is far nlore

58

L\L\G IN A TIO:N AND REASON

[letter 6

intÏI11ately connected with what we can knowledge, than
is commonly supposed. But if this be so, we ought
not (I think) to be surprised if a careful analysis of
our profoundest religious convictions should reveal that
for these also we are indebted, and intended by God to
be indebted, to the Imagination far n10re than to the
Reason.

rIlE CULTURE OF FAITH

59

VII

:\Iv DEAR -,
I have been very much pained by your sprightly
account of the lively and witty conversation between you
and your clever young friends, -- and --, on the proofs
of the existence of a God. Bear with me if I assure you
that discussions in that spirit are likely to be fatal to real
faith. They may often be far nlore dangerous than a
serious collision bet\veen untrained faith and the most
highly educated scepticisnl. I do not deprecate discussion,
but I dO...!llost earnestly plead for reverence.
- Young Inen at the Universities stand in especial need
of this warning because their studies lead thenl to be
critical; and habits of criticisnl may easily weaken the )
habit of reverence. I renlember once b
ing shewn over
a great public school by the Headluaster, justly celebrated
as a Headlnaster once, and nluch nlore celebrated since
in another capacity. It was a grand school, though a
little too eccl
siastical to suit nlY taste. \Vhile we were
in the chapel ll1Y friend spoke earnestly of the pleasure it
gave hÎ1n on Sundays to see in the chapel the falniliar
faces of the old boys who came to revisit the old place. At
the saIne time he deplored the contrast between those
who went into th
anny, and those who went to the U niver-
sities : "The arnlY fellows," he said, "almost always
come to COlnmunion, the university fellows almost always
stop away." These words made an indelible Ï1npressiùl1
011 my mind, " Who is to blanle, or praise, for this?" asked

"

60

TIlE CULTURE OF F
\ITH

[Letter 7

I, on my journey hOllleward. "Is it the arnlY that is to be
praised for its inculcation of discipline and self-sub-
ordination, helping the young fellows to realise the
I11eaning of self-sacrifice? Or is it the University that
is to be blamed for its negative and destructive teaching?
Or can it be that the school is in part to blanle for
teaching the boys to believe too much; and the U ni-
versity in part to blanle for teaching the young Inen to
criticize too I11uch?"
Over and over again, since that time, I have asked
11l)'self these same questions about III any other young
nlen frOlll many other public schools. I honour the army
as nluch as 1110st lnen, nlore perhaps than Iuan)' do: but
after all the profession of a soldier is the profession of a
throat-cutter; throat-cutting- in an extensive, expeditious,
and honourable way,-throat-cutting in one direction often
undertaken merely to prevent throat-cutting in another
direction-but still throat-cutting after all: and it seemed
very hard to believe that the profession of throat-cutting
is, and ought to be, a better preparation than the pursuit
oflearning at the U ni,'ersities, for participation in the Holy
Conlnlunion. Gn the whole I was led to the conclusion
that the young men in the army had retained and
deepened the instinctive obedience to authority, the sense
of the need of the subordination of the individual to the
cùnununity, and perhaps also the feeling of reverence,
while they had not been taught so fully to appreciate all
that was implied in attendance at Conll11union or to realize
the intellectual difficulties presented by the New Testa-
Inent. In other words-to put it briefly and roughly-the
\ young cadets and officers caIne to Conullunion because
they had been taught to feel and not taught to think; and
the University Inen stayed away because they had been
taught to think and not to feel. Now I will ask you to
excuse Ille if I suggest that the principal danger to your

Letter 7]

THE CULTURE OF FAITH

character at present arises fron1 the want of such disci-
pline as may be obtained by SOll1e in the army, and by
others in the practical work of life. You need some
emotional and moral exercise to counterbalance your
meni;l-;;d intellectual training, You are not aware how
111uch of the n10st valuable knowlerlge, conviction, cer-
tainty-call it what you will, but I mean that kind of moral
and spiritual knowledge which is the basis of all right
conduct-springs in the main from spiritual and enlotional
sources.
In the present letter I should like to confine l11yself to
this subject, the culture, if I may so say, of Christian faith.
Let me then ask you first to clear your mind by asking
yourself what is the essence of the faith which you would
desire to retain. It is (is it not?) a faith or trust in the
fatherhood of God. This surely is the Gospel or Good
News for which Christ lived and died, in order that He
might breathe it into the hearts of men, "Fatherhood"
-some of your young friends will exc1aim-" \\That an
antiquated notion! Flat anthropomorphisnl !" By" an-
thropon10rphisl11 " they Inean a tendency to n1ake God in
human shape; just as Heine's four- legged poetic Bruin
n1akes God to be a great white Polar Bear, and the frogs
of Celsus imagine Him to be a gigantic Frog. No doubt,
this is very funny; but the decryers of anthropo-
morphism who yenture on any conception of a God-
are they any less funny? Do not they shew a sÏ1nilar
disposition to make God in the shape of human works
or human experiences? Shall I be exploring a nobler
path of spiritual speculation if I say God is a Rock
or a Buckler, or a Centre, or a Force, than if I say
God is a Father in heaven? Ask your sceptical com-
panions what conception of God they can mention
which is not open to objection, and they will perhaps
reply" An Eternal, or a Tendency, not ourselves, which

61

.

nl ( ,

62

TIlE CULTURE OF F.\ITII

[lcUrl' 7

,\

l11akes for righteousness." Now to reply" an Ete.rnal,"
appears to n1e to be taking a rather mean and pedantical
advantage of the uninflected peculiarities of English (and
Hebrew), which leave it an open question whether you
l11ean your" Eternal" to be l11élsculine, or neuter. And
" Tendency "-what is it? Is it not a "stretching," or
" pulling," or partially neutralised force-a common
human experience? N ow we are dealing with the accu-
sation of lin1iting our conception of God to Ollr experiences
as Inen. And, so far as this charge is concerned, what
is the difference between caHing God a " Tendency," or
a " Rock," or a "Shield," or a.' House of Defence," as
the old Psahnist does? Arè not all these names mere
Inetaphors derived fr0111 hun1an experience? In the same
way to call God a Father is (no doubt) a Inetaphor: but
is it more a Inetaphor than to call HiIn a Tendency?
Some metaphors, which describe God by reference to
the relations of n1an to Inan, may be called anthropo-
1110rphic; others, which describe Hin1 by reference to
implements (such as a Shield) 111ay be called organo-
Inorphic; others, which assimilate Hin1 to lifeless and
inorganic objects (such as a Hill) l11ay be called by SOl11e
other grand nalTIe, such as apsychOlTIorphic; others,
which would subtilize HilTI down to a thought, or a n1ind,
or a spirit, lTIay be called phronesin10rphic, noumorphic,
pneumatOl11orphic; but in the name of common sense-
or in the nan1e of that sense which ought to be common,
and which ought to revolt against bondage to l11ere words
-what is there in that termination "111orphic" which
should stagger a seeker after divine truth? Do we not all
recognize that all tenus appJied to the supreme God are
" morphisms" of various kinds? And the question is not
how we can avoid a " 1110rphism "-for we cannot a'"oicl
it-but how or where we can find the noblest and most
spiritually helpful "ITIorphis1l1." And as between the

Lettd' ï]

TIlE CULTURE OF F_\ITH

63

ancient and the lnodern metaphors just set before you can
you entertain a lno.nent's doubt? l\light we not imagine
the question put - after the old ROlnan authoritative
fashion-to an asseillbly of the consciences of universal
l1lankind: "Christ says that God is a Father in heaven;
refined thinkers say that He is a Tendency; ltlri creditis,
gentes?" To which I seen1 to hear the answer of the
Universe con1e back, "\Ve will have no Tendencies seated
on the throne of Heaven. Giye us a Father, or we will
haye nothing." .And you, my dear friend, how is it with
you ?

fri credis .'2
But perhaps you complain, or some of your friends
nlight complain, that this is not treating the question fairly.
" The doctrine of the Fatherhood of God," they may say,
"is to be discussed like any other proposition, upon the
e,-idence. " I entirely deny it, if frOln your "evidence"
you intencl..!.o exclude the witness of Imagination expressed
in Faith and Hope. I assert, on the contrary, that it is
to be believed in, against what nlay be called quasi-
evidence. It cannot be delnonstrated to be either true or
false. Do not misunderstand me. There is abundant
eviclënce of a certain kind-as I will hereafter shew-for
the Fatherhood of God; but there is also evidence against
it: and what I lnean is, that the mind is not to sit iln-
partially and coldly neutral between the two testilnonies,
but is to grasp the former and hold it fast and keep it
constantly in view, while it lays less stress on and (after a
tilne) puts on one side the latter. I have shewn you that
luany of our deepest and n10st vital convictions are based
less upon Reason than upon hnagination, \Vhy then should
,,-e be surprised if the n10st profound convictions of all,
our religious certainties, rest upon that iInaginative
. desire to which we have given the name of Faith? 1 If
1 Faith is "desire (approved by the Conscience) of which we imagine the
fulfil me nt, while putting doubt at a distance" : see the Definitions at the
end of the volume.

.

64

TIlE CULTURE OF FAITH

[Letter 7

an archangel (robed in light) were to step down to me
ttIis 1110ment and were to cry aloud, " Verily there is no
God," I should reply, or ought to reply, " Verily thou art
a devil." If the same archangel were to conle in the same
way and to say " Verily there is a God," I should reply,
"I felt sure there was; and now I aIll l1lore sure than
ever." How unfair, how i11ogical, if our belief is to
be a matter of luere evidence! But it is not to be a
Inatter of Inere evidence. It is to be a struggle against
an evil thought-shall I not sayan evil being ?-that is
perpetually attelllpting to slander God to men by repre-
senting Him as penllitting or originating e,'il.
Does this startle you-this suggestion of an evil being-
as being too old-fashioned for an educated Christian?
\Vell then, put it aside for the tillle (thoug"h it is indeed
Christ's doctrine): and nlerely assunle as a telllporary
hypothesis that the essence of Christ's G8spel is a trust in
..
the Fatherhood of God. Now, if this be so, and if this
trust or faith is to be kept pure and strong, must it not be
regarded with reverence and reserve as being (what indeed
it i
) a kind of private, domestic, and family relation? Is
ii: to be 111ade the subject for light, casual, frivolous dis-
cussions; epigralllmatic displays; cut-and-thrust exhibi

tions of word-fence; logical or rhetorical symposia?
\;Vhat would you say of a young man who should allow his
relations with his father and mother to be discussed with
hml10ur and epigram 011 every light occasion? \V ould
he be likely long to retain the bloOlll of donlestic affection
unimpaired? I remember reading about SOl1le well-
educated and enlightened free-thinker-I fancy it was
Bolingbroke-on whose table a Greek Testament was
regularly placed by the side of the port when the cloth was
drawn, and whose favourite topic for discussion after
dinner was the existence and attributes of the Deity.
Does not your instinct teach you that from such discus-

Letter ï]

THE CULTURE OF FAITH

sions as these no good could possibly come, nothing but
a hardening of the conscience, a fatal familiarity with
sacred things regarded with a view to witticisn1-that kind
of famili ari ty which too surely breeds contelnpt? \Vhat
a terrible contrast it is-complacent Bolingbroke at his
wine, analysing the attributes of God, and the aU-pitying
Father looking down from heaven and pleading, through
Christ, not to be analysed but to be loved and trusted!
May we not go a step further and say that Christian
Faith or trust-if it be once recognized as faith or
trust, altogether distinct from the kind of assent which
we give to a proposition of Euclid-needs not only to
be protected from certain evil influences but also to be
subjected to certain good influences? It is a kind of
plant, and requires its spiritual soil, air, rain and sunshine;
in other words it needs good thoughts,
spirations,
and unselfish acts, to keep it alive. You may retort per-
haps that Faith itself ought to produce these results, and
not to be produced by them. But I reply that, though
Faith does tend to produce these results, it is strengthened
by producing theln; and it is weakened and finally ex-
tinguished by not producing them. "Our faith" has been
described as " the victory that hath overcome the world,"
\Vhat is there in the world that it should need to be
" overcOlne"? I suppose the writer meant that this
present, visible, tangible, enjoyable system of things-
which ,vas meant by the Supreme to be a kind of glass
through which we 111ight discern something of the
greatness and order of the l\Iaker-has been converted, I
partly by our selfishness, partly by some Evil in the world
outside us, il"lto a mirror shutting out aU glimpse of God
and giying us back nothing but the reflection of ourselves.
On the other hand, there is a different way of regarding
the world when, our eyes being opened like the eyes of
Aeneas amid burning Troy, we discern in the midst of
F

6

:J

F,

"""'--

v't

,

66

TIlE CULTURE OF FAITH

[Leiter 7

this present condition of things a great conflict between
Good and Evil, and on the side of goodne.3s, we see the
fonns of Righteousness, Justice and Truth, supported by
Faith, Hope, and Charity; aInid the smoke and roar of
battles and revolutions, the destructions of nations, and the
downfalJ of empires and of churches, \ve realise that these
are abiding influences; that either in this world, or in
some other, these things shall ultimately prevail, because
these are the Angels that stand about the throne of the
Ruler of the Universe. This state of Inind is Faith, and
it is to be nurtured by effort, partly- in acti
ïrtly in
thought. Bacon bids us l1urture it by "cherishing the
good hours of the l11ind." St. Paul says nearly the same
thing in different words: "\Vhatsoever things are honour-
able, whatsoever things are just, whatsoever things are
pure, whatsoever things are lovely, whatsoever things are
of good report, if there be any virtue, and if there be any
praise, think on these thÙl/!,s."
Are you surprised at this? Does faith seem to you, on
these tern1s, a possession of little worth-this quicksilver
quality which varies with every variation of our spiritual
atmosphere? \Vhy surely everything that lives and grows
is liable to flux. You do not disparage bodily health
because it is dependent on supports and influences, and
liable to changes; why then disparage spiritual health
because it is similarly dependent? No doubt one would
not be willingly a religious valetudinarian; a l11an'S
spiritual constitution ought not to be at the l11ercy of every
slight and passing breeze of circumstance; but at present
there is little danger of spiritual valetudinarianism.
Physical" sanitation" is on e\'ery one's tongue; but no
one thinks of the necessity of good spiritual air and of the
evils of bad spiritual drainage. \Ve do not recognize that
there are laws of our spiritual as well as of our l11aterial
nature. \Ve wilfully narrow our lives to the sabbath less

Letkr 7]

THE CULTURE OF FAITH

67

pursuit of gain or pleasure-self cyer) where, God nowhere
-and then go about hypocritically whining that the age
of faith has passed and that we have lost the power of
believing. 'Vit h our o wn hands we put the stopper on the
telescop.e. and then complain that we cannot see! -
- Do not however, suppose that I call upon you, because
hope is the basis of Christian belief, on that account to
hope against the truth and to believe against reason. I
bid you believe in the Fatherhood of God, first becau$e
your conscience telIs you that this is the best and noblest
belief, but secondly also because this belief-although it
may be against the su
e rficial evidence of the phenOll1ena
of the Universe-is m accordance with these phenomena
when you regard them n10re deeply and when you include
in your scope the history of Christianity.
I admit that we have to fight against temptations in
order to retain this belief; and sometin1es I ask n1)'self,
"If I and my children had been slaves in one of the
Southern States of America; or if I and my family had
suffered such indelible outrages as were recently inflicted
by the Turks upon the Bulgarians; or if I were at this
lnoment a matchbox-seller or a father of ten children (girls
as well as boys) in the East of London-should I find it
so easy to believe that God is our Father in heaven?"
And I am obliged to reply, " No, I should not find it easy; "
I fear that I lnight be tempted to say, as a workman did
not long ago to a lecturer on co-operation who mentioned
the name of God: "Oh, no ; no God for us; the work-
man's God deserted hÏ1n long ago." And perhaps you
yourself may remember the answer of one of those
,vretched Bulgarians to some newspaper correspondent
who endeavoured to console him in his anguish by the re-
flection that" After all there is a God that governs the
world: " " I believe you," was the reply; "there is indeed
a God; and he governs the world indeed; and he is the
F 2

63

TIlE CULTURE OF FAITH

[Letler 7

DeviL" Or take a spectacle of the J\liddle Ages as a
problem. In the lists are two armed knights; on the
one side a man of nlight and n1uscle, exulting in conflict;
on the other, a slight, weak creature,. who never fights
save on COlllpubion, and is to fight now on sternest com-
pulsion, being accused (though innocent) of some gross
crime by yonder Inan of flesh, who combines scoundrel,
liar, traitor, oppressor, thief, and adulterer, all in one; and
the fight is to begin under the sanction of the Church of
Christ. As the trun1pets sound, while the heralds are stiH
c r dlin6" on God to "shew the right," the two l1len nleet,
and" the right" is cast to the ground, trampled on by his
enemy, and dragged frOlll the lists to the neighbouring
gallows, while the 111uscular scoundrel wipes his forehead
and receives congratulations. Do you suppose that the
innocent ulan's wife, if she were loo
ing on, would be able
easily to say at that IllOlnent, " \T erily there is a God that
judgeth the earth " ?
Can I possibly put the case for scepticism nlore strongly?
I would fain put it with all the force in my power in order
to convince you thJ.t I have thought often over these
Inatters, and that, although my own life l11ay have been
happy and free from stUll1bling-blocks, I have at least
tried to understand and sympathize with those who find
it very hard to believe that there is a God. But, in the
presence of such n10nstrous evils as these, I take refuge in a
belief and in a fact; first, in the belief (which runs through
aln10st every page of the Gospels and has received the
sanction of Christ HiInself) that there is an Evil Being in
the world who is continually opposing tbe Good but will
be ultimately subdued by the Good; secondly, in the
fact that in one great typical conflict between Good and
EviI,-where apparently God did 110t "shew the right,"
and where, i1,L1l-E,Eearance, there was consUll1mated the
1110St brutal triumph-of Evil over Good that the world

Leiter ï]

TIlE CULTURE OF FAITH

ever witnessed-there the Good in reality effected its most
signal triumph. The issue of the conflict on the Cross
of Christ is 111Y great conlfort and mainstay of faith, when
my heart is distracted with the thought of all the spurns,
buffets, and outrages, endured by much-suffering hmnanity.
" At last, far off," I cry, " the right wiII be shewn, even as
it was in the contest on the Cross."
You see then the nature of the conflict of faith. It is
a struggle of hope against fear, trustfulness against
trustlessness, where strict logical proof is impossible.
But I do not caIl you to set Faith against Re on, or to
make hope trample on the understanding, or to shut your
eyesto the presence or absence of historical evidence.
If religion comes down from the region of hope and
aspiration into the region of fact and evidence, and
asserts that this or that fact happened at this or that time
and place, then, so far, it appeals to e'Tidence, and by
evidence it n1ust be judged.
Half the earnest scepticism of the present day is not
really spiritual scepticism but simply doubt about his-
torical facts. Distinguish carefully and cõñsiãn tIy b etween
two terms entirely different but continually confused-the
slIþer-natural and the miraculoZts.
In the super-natural every rational man must believe,
if he knows what is meant by the term; for every
rational man must acknowledge that the world had either
a beginning or no beginning, a First Cause or no First
Cause; and either hypothesis is altogether above the
level of natural phenomena, and therefore supernatural.
The theist and the atheist are alike be1ievers in the
supernatural. The agnostic, poised between the two,
admits that some supernatural origin of the world is
necessary, but is unable to decide which of the two is the
1110re probable. AIl alike therefore believe in the super-
natural; but the ÏIl1portant difference is that some take a

69

\-A
I

,0

TIlE CULTURE OF FAITH

[I clle1 7

hopeful or faithful, others a hopeless or faithless, view of
the supernatural. Proof in this region is not possible,
unless the testilnony of the conscience lnay be accepted
as proof. If Jesus were to appear to-1110rrOW sitting on
the clouds of heaven and testifying that there is a Father
in heaven, I can imagine SOll1e men of science replying,
" This is a mere phantOln of the brain,'J or, " This is the
result of indigestion," or "Assertion is not proof."
l\Iere force of logical proof or personal observation can
convince no one that there is a God or that Jesus is the
Eternal Son of God; such a conviction can only COlne fronl
a leaping out of the human spirit to nleet the Spirit of
God; and hence St. Paul tells us that" no nlan can say"
-that is, " say sincerely "-" that Jesus is the Lord save by
the Spirit." Here therefore, in this region of tbe in-
demonstrable, I can honestly use an effort of the will to
aUy lnyself with the spirit of faith. "I will pray to God; I
will cling to God; will refuse to doubt of God; refuse to
listen to doubts about God (except so far as nlay be
needful to do it, in order to lighten the doubts of others,
and then only as a painful duty, to be got through with all
speed) ; I aln determined (so help me God) to belie\'e in
God to the end of nlY days: ;'-in resolving thus I aIn not
acting insincerely nor shutting nlY eyes to the truth, but
taking nature's appointed nleans for rea ching and holding
fast the highest spiritual truth :--
But I do not feel justified in thus using my will to
constrain myself to believe in the miraculous; for here
God has given lue other means-such as history, experi-
ence, and evidence-for arriving at the truth. Nor does
a belief in the super-natural in the least in1ply a belief in
the miraculous also. I 111ay believe that God is con-
tinuaIIy supporting and ilnpelling on its path every
created thing; but I nlaY also believe that there is no
evidence to prove that His support and impulsion have

Ldtcy 7]

THE CULTURE OF FAITH

7 1

ever been n1anifested save in accordance with that
orderly sequence which we call Law. I may even believe
that the Universe is double, having a spiritual and
invisible counterpart corresponding to this visible and
n1aterial existence, so that nothing is done in the world
of flesh below which has not been first done in the
world of spirit above; yet even this latitude of spiritual
speculation would not in the least establish the con-
clusion that the observed sequence of what we call
cause and effect in the n1aterial world has ever been
violated. To take a particular instance, I 111ay be con-
vinced, that Jesus of Nazareth \\-as the Eternal vV ord of
God, n1ade flesh for n1en; and yet I nlay remain uncon-
vinced that, in thus taking flesh upon Him, He raised
Himself above the physical laws of hmnanity. In other
words I lnay, with the author of the Fourth Gospel,
heartily believe in the supernatural Incarnation while
on1itting from my Gospel al1 mention of the :Miraculous
Conception. 'Nay, I may go still further. \Vhile cor-
diaHy accepting the divine nature of Christ, I 111ay see
such clear indications and evidences of the manner in
which accounts of miracles sprang up in the Church
without foundation of fact, that I may be con1pel1ed not
111erely to omit Iniracles from my Gospel and to confess
myself un convinced of their truth, but even to avow n1Y
conviction of their untruth. But into this negative aspect
of things I do not wish now to enter. I would rather urge
on you this positive consideration, that, since our recogni-
tion of the Laws of Nature themselves, depends in a very
large degree upon faith, we ought not to be surprised if our
acknowledgment of the Founder of these Laws rests also on
the same basis. And, if this be so, we cannot speak accu-
rately about the "evidence" for the existence of a God,
unless we include in that tern1 the aspirations of the human
conscience toward a l'vlaker and Ruler and Father of all.

7 2

F AITII AND DEl\IONSTRA TIOX

VIII

l\Iv DEAR -,
I am afraid your notions about "proof" are still
rather hazy; for you quote against n1e a stern and self-
denying dictUln which passes current an10ng SOlne of
your young friends, that" it is immoral to believe what
cannot be proved."
Have you seriously asked yourself what you mean by
" proved " in enunciating this proposition? Do you 111ean
"ll1ade sufficiently probable to induce a man to act upon
the probability" ? Or do you nlean " absolutely demon-
strated " ?
If you mean the fonner, not so many as you suppose
are guilty of this" immorality." Give me an instance,

if you can, of a man who" believes what cannot be n1ade
sufficiently probable to induce hÎIn to act upon the pro-
bability." Of course some men say they believe what
they, in reality, do not believe; but you speak, not about
" saying" but about "believing; " and I do not see how any
111an can" believe" what he does not regard as probable.
I am inclined to think therefore that, in this sense of the
word" prove," your proposition is meaningless.
But perhaps by " prove," you Inean " absolutely demon-
strate;" and your thesis is that" it is immoral to believe
what cannot be absolutely demonstrated;" in that case I
aln obliged to ask you how you can repeat such cant, such
a n1ere parrot cry, with a grave face.
Do you not see that, as soon as you conceded (as I

Le!tèY 8]

FAITH AND DEl\fO::\STRA TION

understand you to have done) that our belief in the Laws
of Nature is based upon the Imagination, you virtually
conceded the validity of a kind of proof in which faith
and hope playa large part, and in which demonstration
is impossible. "Demonstration" applies to Inathematics
and to syllogislns where the premises are granted, though
it is also sometÏ1nes loosely used of proof conveyed by
personal observation; "proof" applies to the other affairs
of life. Demonstration appeals very largely (not entirely,
as I have shown above, but very largely) to Reason;
proof is largely based on Faith. Having defined" angles,"
"triangles," "base," and "isosceles," and having been
granted certain axion1s and postulates, I can delnonstrate
that the angles at the basis of an isosceles triangle are
equal to one another; but I cannot" demonstrate" that,
if I throw a stone in tbe air, it will come down again,
though I am perfectly convinced tbat it will come down,
and though I con1monly assert that I can" prove" that it
will come down.
\Yhy, your whole life is full of beliefs-as certain as any
beliefs can be-which it is impossible to demonstrate!
\Vhen you got up this morning did you not believe that
your razor would shave and your looking-glass reflect;
that your boiling water would scald jf you spilt it, and
your egg break if you dropped it; and a score or two of
other similar perfectly certain beliefs-all entertained and
acted on in less than an hour, but all incapable of demon-
stration? But you maintain perhaps that" these beliefs are
not beliefs, but knowledge based on the uniforn1ity of the
laws of nature; you know that the laws of nature are
uniforn1, and therefore you knew that your razor would
shave." But how, I ask, do you know that the laws of
nature are uniform? "By the experience of mankind
during many thousands of years." But how do you know
that what has been in the past will be in the future-will

73

"

74

F AITII A
D DE
IO
STI<.A TIO

[Ld!cr 8

be in the next instant? " \Vell, if a law of nature were
broken-say, for example, the lawof gravitation-the whole
Universe would fall to pieces." In other words, you and
I would feel e"Xtremely uncOll1fortable, if we existed long
enough to feel anything; but what does that delnonstrate?
Absolutely nothing. It would no doubt be extremely
inconvenient for both of us if any law of nature observed
in the past did not continue to be observed in the future;
but inconvenience proves nothing logically. It is no doubt
extremely inconvenient not to be able to believe that your
razor will shave; but what of that? \Vhere is the demon-
stration? And remember your own dictulJl, " It is in1n10ral
to believe what cannot be demonstrated."
Perhaps you may try to writhe out of this application of
your own principle by the use of grand terms; "The Laws
of Nature have been proved to be true by experilnent as
well as by observation; they ha\'e been made the basis
for abstruse calculations and inferences as to what will
happen; then the philosopher has predicted 'this will
happen,' and it has happened. Surely no one will deny
that this is a proof!" A proof of what? Of the future
invariableness of the sequences of Nature? I shall not
only deny, but enjoy denying, that it is a proof; if you
111ean by proof such a demonstrative proof as you obtain
in a syllogisnl, where the premises arc assUlned, or in
lnathematics, where you are reasoning about things that
haye no real existence but are merely convenient ideas
of the Ünagination. Believe nIe, this distinction of
tenns is by no means superfluous. You and your young
scientific friends are continually confusing" proof " with
"demonstration;" and you have one use of the word
"proof" for religion and another for science. \Yhcn you
speak of religion, you say" it is immoral to believe in it
for it cannot be þroved" (meaning" demonstrated") ;
when you speak of science, you say, "This can beþro'Zled"

Letter 8]

FAITH .AND DEl\10NSTR.A TIO

75

(not Ineaning "demonstrated," but simply" n1ade prob-
able," or " proved for practical purposes "). --
Yõû may discourse for hours upon the Laws of Nature,
but you will neyer succeed in convincing anyone, not even
yourself, that they will remain valid in the moment that is
to come, by the lnere force of logic. You are certain-so
an1 I practically quite certain-that the stone which I
throw at this n10n1ent up in the air, will, in the next
n10ment, fall to the ground. But this certainty does not
arise fron1 logic. \Ve haye absolutely no reason for this
leap into the darkness of the future except faith,-faith of I
course resting upon a basis of facts, but still faith. The
yery nan1es and notions of" cause" and "effect" are due
not to observation, nor to demonstration, but to faith. The
name, and the notion, of a Law of Nature are nothing but
convenient ideas of th
scientific in1agination, based upon
faith:- Take an instance. \Ve say, and genuinely believe,
that fire and gunpowder" cause" explosion; that explosion
is the" effect" of gunpowder and fire; and that the effect
follows the causes in accordance with the "laws of
nature;" but you have not observed all this and you
cannot demonstrate it, You have merely obselTed in the
past an invariable sequence of explosion following (in all
cases that you have seen or heard about) the combination
of gunpowder and fire; you haye also perhaps predicted
in the past that explosion would follow, and demonstrated
that it did follow this combination;as often as you pleased;
you have found, or have heard that others have found,
that this sequence agrees with other chelnical sequences,
which you are in the habit of calling causes and effects;
but all this is evidence as to the past, not as to the future.
Your certainty as to the future arises not from any de-
monstration about the future, but from your faith or trust
in the fixed order of Nature, and frOln nothing else. Now
the greater part of the action of life deals with the future.

.

7 6

F AITII A
D DE:\10NSTRA TION

[Lettt'r 8

I t follows therefore that, in the greater part of life, we act,
not frOln den10nstration, but from a proof in which faith
is a con3tituent element.
\Vhence arises this trust in the uniformity of the phe-
nomena of the Universe? \Ve can hardly give any other
answer except that we could not get on without it. Having
been found to "work" by ourselves, and by n1any genera-
tions of our forefathers, this faith is possibly by this time
an inherited instinct as ,vell as the inbred result of our
own earliest experiences. But when we analyse it we are
forced to confess that we can give no logical account of
it. Logically regarded, it savours of the n10st audacious
optÏ1nisln, arguing, or rather sentin1entalizing, after this
fashion: "It would be so in1mensely inconvenient if
Nature were every moment changing her rules without
notice! All forethought, all civilization would be at an
end; nay, we could not so n1uch as take a single step
or n10ve a IÍ1nb with confidence, if we could not depend
upon Nature!" Does not this personification of Nature,
and trust or faith in Nature, somewhat reselnble our trust
or faith in God? I think it does; and it is very in-
teresting to note that the very foundations of science are
laid in a quasi-religious sentiment of which no logical
justification can be given.
I might easily go further and shew that, even as regards
the past, we act in our daily lives very often on the grounds
of faith and very seldOln on the grounds of demonstration.
On this I have touched in a previous letter; but your
dictl1ln about the" immorality of believing what cannot be
proved" lnakes it clear that you are hardly as yet aware of
the nature of the ordinary "proofs" on which we act.
How few there are who have any grounds but faith for be-
lieving in the existence of a Julius Cæsar or an Alexander!
Yet they believe implicitly. l\fany have heard these two
great men loosely spoken of, or alluded to ; but they have

Ltlt,'Y 8]

FAITH A
D DEMONSTRATION

77

never weighed, nor have they the least power to weigh, the
evidence that proves that Cæsar and Alexander actually
existed. Now as the unlearned are quite certain of the
existence of a Julius Cæsar, so are you too quite certain
of n1any facts upon very slight grounrls. You ask one
man his name; another, how luany children he has; a
third, the nan1e of the street in which he lives, and so
on; how certain you often feel, on the slight evidence of
their answers (unless there be special grounds for sus-
pecting theln) that your information is correct! The
reason is that all social intercourse depends on faith; if
you began to suspect and disbelieve every lnan who gaye
you answers to such simple questions as these, social life
would be at an end for you, and you might as well at once
retire to a henllitage; scepticisn1 in matters of this kind
has not woÚ:ed, and faith has worked; and this has gone
on with you fron1 childhood and with your forefathers
frorTI their childhood for many generations. Thus faith has
become a second instinct with you, and you act upon it so
often and so naturally that you are not aware of the degree
to which it influences and permeates your actions. The
cases in which you act thus instinctively upon very slight
evidence, and upon a large and general faith in the people
who give the evidence, are far n10re nmnerous than those
cases in which you formally wei
h evidence and attempt
to arrive at something like demonstrative proof. In other
words, not only as regards the future but also as regards
the past, faith is for the n10st part the underlying basis of
action. You believe, to a large extent and in a great
ll1any cases, simply because" it would be so immensely
inconvenient not to believe."
I c1ain1 that I have fulfilled my pron1ise of shewing
that people act n1uch n10re upon faith than upon demon-
stration in eyery departn1ent of life; and I now repeat
and en1phasize what I said before, that if all our e\':istence

7 8

FAITH AND DEl\IONSTRATION

[Leiter 8

is thus dominated by faith, it is absurd to attelnpt to ex-
clude faith frOln any religion. But if our special religion
consists in a recognition of God the l\Iaker as God the
Father, then it is more natural than ever to suppose that our
religion will require a large element of faith or trust. J list
as fanlily life would break down if the .sons were always
analysing the father's character, and declining to believe
anything to his credit beyond what could be denlonstrated
to be true, so religious life will break down, if we treat the
Father in heaven as a 11lere topic for logical discussion
and declare that it is " immoral to believe " in His father-
hood if it cannot be proved.
Of course I do not deny that you Inust have evidence of
the existence of the Father before you can trust in Hinl,
You could not trust your parents if you had not seen,
touched, heard them-known sOInething of them in fact
through the senses: so neither can you trust God if you
have not known something of HiIn through the senses.
\Vell, I maintain that is what you are continually doing.
God is continually revealing Himself to us in the power,
the beauty, the glory, the harmony, the beneficence, the
mystery, of the Universe, and pre-enlinently in hU11lan
goodness and greatness. Contel11plate, touch, hear; con-
centrate your nlind on these things, and especially on t
le
perfectio11 of hUl11an goodness, power, and wisdOl11: thus
you will be enabled to realize the presence of the Father
and then to trust in Hirl1. Conten1plate also the Evolution
of the present frOl11 the past: the ascent frOl11 a pr6-
toplasn1 to the first man, from the first 111an to a Homer,
a Dante, a Shake3peare and a Newton; do not entirely
ignore Socrates, St. Paul, St. Francis. You cannot indeed
shut your eyes to the growth of evil simultaneously with
the growth of good: but do not fix your eyes too long
upon the evil: prefer to contemplate the defeat of evil by
goodness, especially in the struggle on the Cross; and

Letter 8]

FAITH AND DEl\IONSTRATION

79

with your contemplation let there be some admixture of
action against the evil and for the good, Do this, and I
think you will have no reason to complain of the want of
"evidence" of the existence of One who has lnade us to
trust in Him.
I have told you what to do: let me add one word also
of warning as to what you are not to do. You are not to
regard the world from the point of view of a neutral
and amused spectator. You are not to detach yourself
from the great struggle of good against evil, and to look
on, and call it "interesting." That attitude is fatal to
all religion. Reject, as frOln the devil, the precept nil
admirari..; better be a fool than a dispassionate critic
of Christ. Again, you are not to regard the world from
the mere student point of view, looking at the Universe
as a great Examination Paper in which you may hope to
solve more problems and score n10re marks _ than any-
body else. High intellectual pursuits and habits of en-
thusiastic research are son1etÏ1nes terribly den10ralizing
when they ten1pt a man to think that he can liye above,
and without, social ties and affections, and that lnere senti-
ment is to be despised in comparison with knowledge.
This danger in1pends over literary as well as other
students, over critical theologians as well as over scientific
experimenters; we all sometimes forget-we students-
that, if we do not exercise the habit of trusting and
loving men, we cannot trust and love God. To harden 1
oneself against the mute but trustful appeal of even a

beast is not without some spiritual peril of incapacitating (
oneself for worshi p.

80

SATA
AXD EVOLUTION

IX

l\lv DEAR --,
Your grounds of objection appear to be now changed.
You say you do not understand lilY position with regard
to Evolution, as I described it before, and referred to
it in 111Y last letter. If I adlnit Evolution, you ask how
I can consistently deny that every nation and every
individual, Israel and Christ included, " proceeded fronl
material causes by necessary sequence according to fixed
laws; " and in that case what becOlnes of such 111etaphors
as "the regulating hand of God," "God the Ruler of
the Universe" and the like? It is a common saying,
you tell nle, among those of your companions who have
a turn for science, that " Evolution has disposed of the old
proofs of the existence of a God: " and you ask me how I
Ineet this objection.
I Ineet it by asking you another question exactly like
your own. I take a lump of clay and a potter's wheel,
and" fronl these n1aterial causes by necessary sequence
according to fixed laws" I mould a vessel; is there no
room in this process for" the regulating hand of man"
and for" man the creator of the vessel" ? In other words,
nlay not these "fixed laws," and that "necessity" of
which you admit the existence, represent the perpetual
pressure of the Creator's hand, or will, upon the Universe?
By Evolution is meant that all results are evolved fronl
inlnlediate causes, which are evolved fronl distant causes,
which are thenlseh'es evolved fronl nlore distant causes;

Letter 9]

SATAN AKD EVOLUTION

81

and so on. In old times, n1en believed that God made
the world by a number of isolated acts. Now, it is be-
1ieved that He made a primordial something, sayaton1s,
out of which there have been shaped series upon series of
results by continuous motion in accordance with fixed
laws of nature. But neither the isolated theory nor the
continuous theory can dispense with- a Creator in the
centre. \Ve speak of the "chain of creation;" and we
know that in old days men recognized few links between
us and the Creator. Now, we recognize n1any. But,
because a chain has more links than we once supposed,
are we excused for rejecting our old belief in the existence
of a chain-maker? \Yhether things came to be as they
are, by many creations, or by one creation and n1any
evolutions, what difference does it make? In the one
case, we believe in a Creator and Sustainer: in the other
case, in a Creator and Evolver. In either case, do we not
believe in a Go

--==
\Vhat then do your young friends mean-for though
they express thelllselves loosely, I think they do n1ean
something and are not merely repeating a cant phrase-
when they say that Evolution has" disposed of the old
proofs of the existence of a God"? I think they mean
that Evolut
on is inconsistent with the existence of suclz a
God as the Christian religion þroclaims, that is to say,.
a Father in lleave1Z. The old theory of discontinuous
creation (in its most exaggerated fonn) maintained that
everything was created for a certain benevolent purpose-
our hair to shelter our heads from the weather, our eye-
brows and eyelashes to keep off the dust and the sun, our
thumbs to give us that prehensile power which largely
differentiates us from apes; in a word, paternal despotisln
was supposed to do everything for us with the best of in-
tentions.' The new theory says there is no sufficient
evidence of such paternal benevolence. Our hair and our
G

82

SATAN A
D EVOLUTIO

[Letter 9

eyebrows and eyelashes and thumbs caine to us in quite
a different fashion. Life, ever since life existed, has been
one vast scralnble and conflict for the good things of this
world: those beings that were best fitted for scran1bling
and fighting destroyed those that were unfit, and thus
propagated the peculiarities of the conquerors and de-
stroyed the peculiarities of the conquered. Thus the
characteristics of body or brain best fitted for the purpose
of life were developed, and the unfit were destroyed.
Although therefore a purpose was achieved, it was not
achieved as a purpose, but as a consequence. There is
no room, say the supporters of Evolution, in such a theory
as this for the hypothesis of an Ahnighty Father of man-
kind, or even of a very intelligent l\laker. \Vhat should we
think of a British workman who, in order to Inake one
good brick, made a hundred bad ones, or of a cattle-
breeder whose plan was to breed a thousand inferior beasts
on inadequate pasture, in order ultimately to produce, out
of their struggles for food, and as a result of the elimination
of the unfittest, one pre-eminent pair?
\Yhen he expresses hÌ111self in this way, my sympathies
go very far with the l11an of science, if only he could rc-
men1ber that he is protesting, not against Christ's teaching
about God, but against some other quite different theory.
Though God is called" Almighty" in the N" ew Testan1ent,
,,'e lllust ren1ell1ber that it is always assumed that there is
an opposing Evil, an Adversary or Satan, who will ulti-
mately be subdued but is meantin1e working against the
will of God. The origin of this Evil the followers of
Chris t do not profes-stõu nde rstand; but we believe that
it was not originated by God and that it is not obedient
to Him. \Ve cannot therefore, strictly speaking, say that
God is the Almighty ruler of" the Universe as it is." God
is King de jure, but not at present de facto (n1etaphors
again! but metaphors expressive of distinct realities).

Lettä' 9]

S_\TAN AXD EVOLUTIO

s...
.)

His kingdOlll is "to come:" He will be hereafter recognized
as Almighty; He cannot be so recognized at present.
I know very well that I can give no logical or consistent /' '
account of this Inysterious resistance to the Supreme God." \D
But I an1 led to recognize it, first, by the facts of the
visible world; secondly, by the plain teaching of Christ
Himself. Surely the authority of Christ n1ust count for
sOlnething with Christians in their theorizing about the
origin of evil. \Y ould not even oC'ln agnostic adn1Ít that as,
in poetry, I should be right in following the lead of a poet,
so in matters of spiritual belief (if I an1 to have any
spiritual belief at all) I ain right in deferring to Christ? ] t
is a n1arvel to Ine how SOlne Christians who find the
recognition of n1iracles inextricably involved in the life
and even in the teaching of Christ, nevertheless fail to
see, or at all events are n10st unwilling to confess, that the
recognition of an evil one, or Satan, is an axion1 that under-
lies all His doctrine. In the view of Jesus) it is Satan that
causes son1e forms of disease and insanity; Satan is the
author of teInptation, the destroyer of the good seed, the
sower of tares, the " evil one "-so at least the text of
the Revisers tells us-from whon1 we n1ust daily pray to
be delivered. The saIne belief pervades the writings
of St. Paul. Yet if you preach nowadays this plain
teaching of our Lord, the heterodox shrug their shoulders
and cry" Antediluvian!" while the orthodox think to
dispose of the whole Inatter in a phrase, "Flat l\Iani-
chæisin ! " But to the heterodox I Inight reply that
Stuart l\Iill (no very antiquated or credulous philosopher)
deliberately stated that it was more easy to believe in the
existence of an Evil as well as a Good, than in the
existence of one good and all-powerful God; and the
orthodox n1ust, upon reflection, adn1it that in this doctrine
about Satan Christ's own teaching is faithfully followed.
Of course if anyone replies, "Christ was under an
G2

.l

84

SATAN AND EVOLUTION

[Lettcr 9

ilIus
on in believing in the existence of Satan," I have
llJ llleans of logically confuting hinl. But I think there
Blust be Inany who would say, with Il1e: "If I aln to have
any theory in nlatters of this kind which are entirely
beyond the sphere of denlonstration, I would sooner
accept the testinlony of Christ than the speculations of
all the philosophers th
l t ever were or are. Christ was
fossibly, or even probably, ignorant (in His humanity) of
a great mass of literary, historical, physiological, and
other scientific facts unknown to the rest of the Jews.
But we cannot suppose HiIn to be spiritually ignorant;
least of all, so spiritually ignorant as to attribute to the
Ù.clversary what ought to have been attributed to God the
Father in Heaven.
It would be easy for you to shew that any theory of Satan
is absurdly illogical; nobody can be convinced of that
nlore finnly than I anI already. \Yhether Satan was good
at first and becalne evil without a cause; or was good
at first and became evil fronl a certain cause (which pre-
supposes another pre-existing Satan) ; or was evil fronl tbe
beginning and created by God; or evil frOln the beginning
and not created by God-in all or any of these hypotheses
I see, as dearly as you see, insuperable difficulties. If
you cross-exalnine me, I shall avow at once a logical
collapse, after thi
fashion: "\V ere there then two First
Causes?" I believe not. " Did the Evil spring up after
the Good?" I believe so. "Did the first Good create
the Evil? "1 I believe not. "Did the Evil then spring
1 Some passages in the Old Testament (notably Isaiah xlv. 7) state that
God" created evil;" and re"ults attributed by one author to Satan (1 Chron.
xxi. 1) are attributed by another to "the ang
r of the Lord" (2 Sam. xxiv.
1). l\luch of course depends upon the meamng of the word" evil;" and I
am knowingly guilty 01 talking absurdly when I first define evil as" that
which is not in accordance with G )d's intention," and then proceed to say
that" God did not create evil." But all people who discourse philosophi-
('any on this subject talk far more absurdly than I do : for I am consciously,
hut they are unconsciou:>ly, iBogical. The belief that God "created evil,"
whether h
ld or not by the authors of.., ny of the books cf the Old Testament,
is against the whole tenour of the teaching of Christ.

Letter 9]

SATAN AND EVOLUTION

85

up without a cause?" I cannot tell. "Did the Good,
when He created the Goodness that issued in Evil, know
that he, or it, contained the germ of evil, and would soon
become wholly evil?" I do not believe this. "\Vhence
then came the Evil, or the germ of the Evil?" I do not
know. " Are you not then confessing that you believe,
where you know nothing? " Yes, for if I knew, there
would b
no need to believe.
Here you have a sufficiently amusing exhibition of in-
consistency and ignorance: but this seelns to Ine of in-
finitely little concern where I an1 dealing not with matters
that fall within the range of experience, but with spiritual
and supernatural thing5 that belong to the reahn of faith,
hope, and aspiration. I could just as easily turn inside
out my cross-examiner if he undertook to give me a
scientific theory on the origin of the world. No doubt he
might prefer having no theory about the origin of the
world, and Inight recOlllu1end lne to imitate him by
having no theory about the ori 6 in of Evil, or about
the nature of the Supreme Good. But IllY answer
would be as follows: "I have a certain work to do in
the \yorId, and I cannot go on \yith my work without
having son1e theories on these subjects. l\Iost men feel
with n1e that they n1ust have some answer to these
stupendous problems of existence. As the senses are
intended to be our guide in n1atters of experience, so our
faculty of faith seems to me intended to guide us in matters
quite beyond experience." There is another answer
which I hardly like to give because it seems brutal; but
I believe it to be true, and it is certainly capable of being
expressed in the evolutionary dialect so as to con1n1end
itself to the scientific lllind : "An agnostic nation will
find itself sooner or later unsuited for its environn1ent, and
will either come to believe in some solution of these
spiritual problellls or stagnate and perish. And son1ething

86

S
\ T
\X AXD EVOLUTIOX

[Letter 9

of the same result will follow from agnosticism in the
family and in the individual."
From this doctrine of Christ then I aln not to be dis-
lodged by any philosophic analysis demonstrating that
good and evil so run into one another that it is impossible
to tell where one ends and the other begins. "Is an pain
evil? Is it an evil that a sword's point pains you? \V ould
it not be a greater evil that a sword should run you through
unawares because it did not pain you? Is not the pain
of hunger a useful n10nitor? Has not pain in a thousand
cases its use as a preservative? Is not what you can
" sin" very often misplaced energy? If a child is restless
and talkative and consequently disobedient, n1llst you con-
sequently bring in Satan to account for the little one's
peccadiIJoes? If a young lnan is over-sanguine, reckless,
rash, occasionalIy inten1perate, must an these faults be
laid upon the back of an enen1Y of n1ankind? Is anin1al
death frOln Satan, but vegetable death fr0111 God? And
is the death of a sponge a half and half contribution frOln
the joint Powers? And when I swal10w an oyster,lnay I
give thanks to God? but when a tiger devours a deer, or
an eagle tears a hare, or a thrush swallows a wor111, are
they doing the work of the Adversary? \Vhere are you
to begin to trace this pern1eating Satanic agency? Go
back to the primordial aton1, Are we to say that the Devil
ilnpelled it in the selfish tangential straight line, and that
God attracts it with an unselfish centripetal force, and that
the result is the hannonious curve of actuality? If you
give yourself up to such a degrading dualisl11 as this, will
you not be more often fearing Satan than loving God?
Win you not be attributing to Satan one Inon1ent, what
the next moment win cOlnpel you to attribute to God?
\Vhere wiII you draw the line?" To an this my answer
is very silnple: "I shall draw the line where the
spiritual instinct within n1e draws it. \Yhatever I aI11

Letter 9]

S
\ T A
AXD EVOLL'TIO

87

forced to pronounce contrary to God's intention I shall
call evil and attribute to Satan." Herein I n1ay go wrong
in details, and I may have to correct n1Y judgments as I
grow in knowledge; but I am confident that, on the
whole, I sha11 be following the teaching of Christ. My
spiritual convictions accord with the teaching of that
ancient allegory in the book of Genesis, which tells us
that Satan, not God, brought sin and death into the world.
There was a Fa11 somewhere, in heaven perhaps as well as
on earth--" war in heaven " of the Evil against the Good
--a declension from the divine ideal, a lapse by which the
whole Universe became imperfect. It has been the work
of God, not to create death, but upon the basis of death
to erect a hope and faith in a higher life; not to create
sin, but out of sin, repentance, and forgiveness, to elicit a
higher righteousness than would have been possible (so we
speak) if sin had never existed. Similarly of disease, and
pain, and the conflict in the anin1al world for life and
death: good has resulted from then1; yet I cannot think
of them, I cannot even think of change and decay, as
being, so to speak, " parts of God'sjirst intention." Stoics,
and Christians who imitate Stoics, Inay call these things
" indifferent:" I cannot. And even if I could, what of
the ferocity, and cruelty, and exultation in destruction,
which are apparent in the animal world? "Death," say
the Stoics, "is the mere exit from life." Is it? I was
once present at a theatre in Rouen where the hero took a
full quarter of an hour to die of poison, and the young
Normans who sat round me expressed their strenuous
disapprobation: "C'est trop long," they murmured. I
have made the same remonstrance in my heart of hearts,
ever since I was a boy and saw a cat play with a mouse,
and a patient stoat hunt down and catch at last a tired-
out rabbit: "It is too long," "It is too crueL" "Did
God ordain this?" - I asked: and I answpred unhesitat-

88

SATA
AND EVOLUTION

[Letter 9

ingly " No." These are but small phenomena in Nature's
chan1ber of horrors: but for me they have always been,
and will always remain, horrible. I believe that God in-
tends us to regard them with horror and perhaps to see in
them sonle faint reflection of the wantonly destructive and
torturing instinct in man.
Those are fine-sounding lines, those of Cleanthes :-

OL
i TL yiYVETaL ;pyov È7Tl X8ov1 CTOV
íxa,
aîJ.1ov,
"',.., t '}- , rl.' "1
7T1\1JV o7ToCTa pf
OVCTL KtlKOt U
ETEPllCTLV aVOtat
.

I should like to agree with them; but I cannot. The
picture of the cat and the mouse appears-fertile in sug-
gestions. "This at least," I say, "was not wrought by
, evil men in their folly;' and yet it did not come direct
fronl God." Isaiah pleases me better with his prediction,
physiologically absurd, but spiritually l110st true: "The
lion shall eat straw like a bullock." That is just the con-
fession that I need: it comes to me with all the force
of" a divine acknowledgment, as if God thereby said:
" Death and conflict must be for a time, but they shall not
be for ever: it was not my intention, it is not my will, that
n1Y creatures should thrive by destroying each other."
Applying this theory to Evolution, I believe that Satan,
not God, was the author of the wasteful and continuous
conflict that has characterized it; but that God has
utilized this conflict for the purposes of development and
-progreSS:-- This is w hat ]- h;-td in my mind when I said
thãr- Evolution diminished the difficulties in the way of
acknowledging the existence of a God. The problems
of death, destruction, waste, conflict and sin, are net new;
they are as old as Job, perhaps as old as the first-created
Inan; but it is new to learn that g
)Qd has resulted from

1 I, Naught is on earth, 0 God, without thy hanll,
Save deejs of folly wrought by evil men."

Letter 9]

SATAN A
D EVOLUTIO

89

those evils. In so far as Evolution has taught this, it has
helped to strengthen, not to weaken, our faith. But then,
if we are to use this language, we must learn to think, not
of "Evolution by itself," but of " Evolution with Satan."
" Evolution without Satan" would appal us by the seeming
wastefulness and ubiquity of conflict and the indirectness
of its benefits; but "Evolution with Satan" enables us
to realize God as our refuge and strength anlid the utn10st
storms and te!11pests of destruction.
If anyone says that the belief in Satan is inexpedient,
I am ready to give hin1 a patient hearing; but I find it
difficult to listen patiently to what people are pleased to
call arguments ag.1inst it. For example, " Duty can exist
only in a world of conflict; " to which the reply is obvious,
"But God might have n1ade men for love and harm.onious
obedience, and not for duty and conflict." This, of
course, is a very presumptuous statement, such as Bishop
Butler would have condel11ned; but it is a fitting reply to
a still more presUl11ptuouS Ï111plied staten1ent. God has
revealed H in1self as Righteousness and Goodness without
internal conflict; He has also revealed His purpose to
conform us to Himself; and the Bible speaks of Him as
being opposed by an Adversary who caused men for a
time to differ frOl11 the divine image; is it not then a very
presumptuous thing to Ï1nply that" God could not have
created n1en but for conflict and duty," or, in other words,
"God could not have n1ade us better than we are, even
had there been no Adversary opposing His will?" Again,
we hear it said that, " An evil Spirit contending against a
good Spirit must needs have produced two distinct worlds,
and not the one progressive world of which we have ex-
perience : " to which the answer is equally obvious, "The
orbit of every planet, or the path of any projectile, shews
that two different forces may result in one continuous
curve."

9 0

S
\T
-\X AKD EVOLUTIO

[Ltlter 9

The only consistent and systematic way of rcjccting a
belicf in the existence of Satan is to rcject thc belicf in
the existence of sin. Then you can argue thus, " The notion
of a Satan arises frOln the false and sharp antagonis111
which our human inl:1ginations set up bctween 'good'
and' cvil,' whereas what we call' eyil ' is really nothing
but an excess of tendencies good in thcmselves and only
e,-il when carried to excess. The difference therefore
bctween good and evil is only a question of degree."
That theory sounds plausible; but it ignores the essence
of sin, which consists in a rebellion against Conscience.
It is not excess, or defect, the n10re, or the less; it is the
1110l-al disorder, the subversion of hmnan nature, which is
so frightful to contelnplate that wc cannot believe it to
have procecded from God. But perhaps YO'J reply, " That
yery disorder is merely the result of energy out of place
or in excess." \Yell, in the same way, when gas is
c5caping in a roon1 in which thcre is a lighted candle,
there is first a quiet and inoffensive escapc of the gas,
and secondly a violent and perhaps calamitous explosion;
and you might argue similarly, " The differcn:e was only
one of degree; the explosion was ll1ercly the result of a
useful clement out of place and in excess." But I should
answer that no sober and sensiblc householder ,,"ould
justify hiInself in this way for allowing a lighted candle
and escaping gas to COlne togethcr; and so I cannot
belicve th,lt God is willing that men should justify Hin1
for tolerating theft, ll1urder, and adultery, on the ground
t
at these things are" only questions of degrcc." I think
we please HilTI better. and draw closer to Him, when wc
say, " An Enemy hath done this." And besides, for our
own sakes, if we are to resist sin with our utmost force, it
seems to me we are far more likely to do so ,,-hen we
regard it as Christ and St. Paul regarded it than when
we gi,'e it the nall1e of "lnisplaced energy," or "an

Leila' 9]

S-\ TAi\
\XD E\
OLUTIO

9 1

excessÎ\'e use of faculties, in themseh-es, good and
necessary."
To me it seems that if we are to ha,'e a genuine trust
in God; it is almost necessary that we should belieye in
the existence of a Satan. I say" abnost," because there
Il1ay be rare exceptions. A few pure saintly souls, of inex-
tinguishable trust, may perhaps be able to face the awful
phenOlnena of Evil and to say,
, Though He hath done all
this yet will we trust in Hiln ; what Inay have mo,'ed Hin1
to cause His creatures to struggle together, and to thrive,
each on the destruction of its neighbour, we know not,
and we are not careful to know; our hearts teach us that
He is aboye us in goodness, and in wisdom, as in power;
we know that we must trust Him; n10re than this we do
not wish to know." Such men are to be admired- but to
be admired by 1110st of us at a great distance. For the
masses of men, and especially for those who know some-
thing of the depth of sin, it must be a great and ahnost a
necessary help to say, "The Good that is done upon I
Earth, God doeth it- Himself; the evil that is upon earth
God doeth it not: an Enemy hath done this."
One evil resulting frmil the rejection of Christ's doctrine
is that we consequently fail to understand much of His
1ife and sufferings. If Christ was really 111anifested that
He Blight destroy the works of the Devil, then 111uch is
clear that is otherwise incOll1prehensible. There was then
no delusion nor insincerity in the parables of the Sower
and the Tares. God did not first cast the good seed and
then blow it away with His own breath. God did not sow
wheat with the right hand and tares with the left. "An
Enemy" had done the 111ischief. There was no fiction
when Jesus spent those long hours by night on the Inoun-
tain top in prayer. He needed help, and needed it sorely.
He was fighting a real battle. It was not the mere an-
ticipation of pains in the flesh, the piercing nails, the

9 2

SAT.\.N AND EVOLUTION

[Ldler 9

parching thirst, the long-protracted death, that made the
bitterness of Christ's passion. Even when He had re-
gained composure, and in perfect calm was going forth to
nleet His death, we find Hin1 declaring that Satan had
asked for one of his Apostles" to sift him as wheat ", and
in1plying that all His prayers were needed that the faith
of the tempted disciple should not" fail." But in Geth-
sen1ane the battle for the souls of men was still pending.
There was an Enemy who was pu1ling down His heart,
striving hard to make HÏ1n despair of sinful Inankind,
perhaps to despair of we know not what 1110re beyond;
forcing H in1 in the extremity of that sore conflict to cry
that He was "exceeding sorrowful even unto death," and
afterwards, on the Cross, to utter those terrible words,
" 1\1 y God, n1Y God, why hast thou forsaken me?" All
this is full of profound meaning, if there was indeed an
Enemy. But if there was no Enemy, what becomes of
the conflict? \Vhat n1eaning is left to the Crucifixion,
except as the record of n1ere physical sufferings, the like
of which have been endured, before and after, by thousands
of ordinary men and women?
This belief in the existence of Satan appears to me to
be confirmed by daily present experience as well as by
the life of Christ. It" works." It enables us, as no other
belief does, to go to the poor, the sick, the suffering, and
the sinful, and to preach Christ's Gospel of the father-
hood of Gocl. All sÏ1nple, straightforward people who
are acquainted with the troubles of life must naturally
crave this doctrine. If yon ascribe to Providence the
work of Satan, they will consciously or unconsciously
identify Providence with the author of evil, and look to
One above to rescue then1 fr0111 Providence. Instead of
atten1pting to console people for all their evils by laying
then1 on the Author of Goodness, we ought to lay then1
In part upon thel11selves, in part on the author of evil.

Letter 9]

SATAN AND EVOLUTION

93

"God, the Father in heaven, did not intend you to be
thus miserable "--thus we can begin our n1essage-" your
sufferings come from an Enemy against whom He is con-
tending. Do not fùr a nlonlent suppose that you are to
put up in this life with penury, disease, misery, and sin
as jf these things came from God. Very often they are
the just punishments of your own faults, as when drunken-
ness brings disease; but as the sin, so also the punish-
ment, was of Satan's nlaking, though God Inay use both
for your good. You are to be patient under tribulation;
you are to be n1ade perfect through suffering; you are to
regard the trials and trou bles of life as being in some sense
a useful chastisement proceeding from the fatherly hand
of God. But never let your sense of the need of resigna-
tion lead you to attribute to the origination of God that
which Christ teaches us to have been brought into the world
by God's adversary. Satan n1ade these evils to lead nlen
wrong; God uses thelll to lead nlen right. Death, for ex-
ample, came frOln Satan, who would fain n1ake us be-
lieve that our souls perish with our bodies, that friends
are parted for ever by the grave, and that there is no
righteousness hereafter to compensate for what is wrong
here: but God uses death to make men sober, thought-
ful, steadfast, courageous, and trustful. It remains with
you to decide whether you will bear your evils so as
to succumb to the temptations of Satan, or so as to pre-
vail over them and utilize them to your own welfare and
to the glory of God. On which side win you fight? \Ve
ask you to enlist on the side of righteousness."
I feel sure that this theory of life would commend itself
to the poor, that it would be nlorally advantageous to the
rich, and that it would be politically useful to the State.
There has been too prevalent a habit-aIl1ong those be-
lievers especially who ignore Satan and attribute all things
to God-of taking for granted that the social inequalities

"

94

8.\ T.\X .Axn EVOLUTIO

[Ldter 9

and Iniseries of the lower classes which have cOlne down
to us frOll1 feudal and non- Christian times, can never pass
away. I remeillber once in IllY boyhood how, when I
represented to a farnler that the condition of his labourers
,,"as not a happy one, he met Ille with a text of Scripture,
,e The poor shall ne,"er depart out of the land; " and that
seenled to hinl to leave no nlore to be said. It is this
provoking acquiescence of the comfortable classes in
the 11Iiseries of the suffering classes, which irritates the
latter into a disbelief of the religion that dictates so
great a readiness to see in the Iniseries of others a
divinely ordained institution.
The time will soon cOlne (J 885) \\' hen the very poor will
demand a greater share in the happiness of life: and the
question will arise whether they can be helped to obtain
this by their own individual efforts or by the co-operation
of those of their own class, or by the State, or by the
Church. Caution must be shewn in trying experiments
with nations; but as some experiments will assuredly
have to be tried, it is most desirable in this crisis of our
history that the Church at aU events should faithfully
follow Christ by regarding physical evil, not as a law of
fåte, but as a device of Satan. lí, by descending a step
or two lower in the scale of c0111fort, the comfortaule
classes could lift the very poor a step or two higher,
the Church ought not to help the rich to shut their eyes
to their obvious duty by giving theln the excuses of such
texts as ,e The poor shall never depart out of the land,"
or, "l\lan is born to trouble as the sparks fly upward."
Poverty is often a good school: but penury is distinctly
an evil; and the Church should regard it as an evil not
coming frOln God, and should Inake war against it, and
teach the poor not to acquiesce in it. The Gospel of
Christ would be nlade 1110re intelligible to the poorer
classes than it has been Inade for IHany centuries past, if

Letter 9]

s.\ T
\N AXD EVOLUTIO

95

it could be preached as a war against physical as weB as
moral hann. Such a crusade would call out and enlist
on the right side all the combative faculty in us; it would
inspire _ in
s a passionate allegiance towards Christ, as
our Leader, desiring, asking, yes, and we Inayalmost say,
needing our hdp in a real conflict in which His honour
as well as our happiness and highest interests are at
stake; it would attract the co-operation of all faculties in
the individual, of all classes in the country. In other
words the theory would work; and so far as a religious
theory works, so far have we evidence, present and in-
telligible to all, that it contains truth.
1 have recently heard views sin1ilar to mine contro\"erted
by an able theologian, who contended that, although they
professed to be illogical, they went beyond the bounds
even of the illogicality permissible in this subject. But
the controverter's solution of the problem was this:
"Evil is a þart of God's intention. \Ve have to fight,
with God, against son1ething which 'we recogllise to be
His 'luork." Is not this a "hard saying"? Is it not
harder than the saying of Christ, "An enelny hath done
this" ? 1 say nothing about its being illogical and absurd:
but does it not raise up a new stumbling-block in the path
of those who are striving to follow Christ?
It Inay be urged that the belief in Satan has been tested
by the experience of centuries and has been found to be
productive of superstition, insanity, and in1n10rality; but
these eYils appear to me to have sprung, not fr01n the
belief in Satan, but fr01n a superstitious, disorderly and
Inaterialistic forn1 of Christianity, which has perverted
Christ's doctrine about the Adversary into a recognition
of a licensed Trafficker in Souls. The Saine Inaterialistic
and inllnoral tendency has perverted Christ's sacrifice into
a bribe. But, just as we should not reject the spiritual
doctrine of Christ's Atonelnent, so neither should we

9 6

SATAN AXD EVOLUTIO

[Letler 9

reject the spiritual doctrine of an Evil in the world resisting
the Good, although both doctrines alike have been grossly
and harn1fully 1l1isinterpreted.
Of course it is possible that in our notions of spiritual
personality, and therefore in our personification of Satan,
we lnay be under SOlne partial illusion. The subject
teems with difficulties ; and I have not concealed from
you n1Y opinion that some passages in the Old Testament
appear to support a view at variance with the tenour of
the New. The real truth, while justifying our Lord's
language, may not accord with all our inferences as to its
meaning; and I should lnyself adn1Ìt that it would be most
disastrous to atten1pt to personify the Ad\'ersary with the
SaIne vividness with which we personify the Father in
heaven. Still,-in answer to the taunt of the agnostic or
sceptic, "Is this, or that, the work of the God whom
you describe as Love ?"-I think we avail ourselves of
our truest and most effective answer, when we resolve to
separate certain aspects of Nature from the intention of
God, and to say, with Christ, "An enemy hath done
these things."

I LLUSIO
S

97

x

IY DEAR -,
I see you are still violently prejudiced against iIIu-
sions, that is to say against recognising the very important
part which they have played in the spiritual development
of luankind. You clearly believe that, though the wodd
Inay be fuIl of ilIusions, Revelation ought to be free from
them. "The \Vord of God," you say, "ought to llispel
iIlusions, not to add to them." I maintain on the cún-
trary, that the \Yord of God, if it comes to earth, l1lU
t
needs conle in earthen vessels; and that the most divine
-;:Uth Inl
n
ds be contained in illusion. Let iIlu
ions
then be the subject of IllY pre::ent letter. At the saIne
time I shall attempt to answer your prejudice against the
natural worship of Christ as being a "new religion".
Kot of course that I admit that it is a "new religion";
on the contrary I regard it as the old religion, the
predestined God-determined religion to which we are to
return after extricating ourselves from the corruptions of
Protestantism, as our forefathers extricated themselves
from the corruptions of Romanism. I shall not deal
here with the special illusions of Christianity, but with
your evident a priori prejudice against any admixture of
illusion with Revelation.
But first, what do I mean by" illusion," and how does
my meaning differ from ,l error" or "mistake'" generaIly,
and fronl "fallacy," "delusion," and "hallucination" in
particular? I say" IllY lllcaning," becau
e the word is
H

9 8

ILLUSIOXS

[Ldtcr 10

often used loosely (I do not say wrongly) for any of these
synonyms: but I restrict it to a special sense.
"Illusion," then, is wholesome error tending to the
ultimate attainment of truth; "delusion" is hannful error
arising from a perverted Imagination; "hallucination" is
a wandering of the Imagination, without any guidance or
support of fact, involving" delusion" of the nlost obstinate
character; "fallacy" is an error of inference or reasoning;

'nlistake" is the result of mal-observation or weak
memory; and" error" a general name for any deviation
frmn the truth.
Illusion, in nlany cases, is an exaggerati,'e and ornatiye
tendency of the mind. It leads the very young to think
their parents perfection. and the young to think them far
better and wiser than they really are; it constrains the
lover to exaggerate the beauty, accomplishments, and
qualities of the wmnan whom he loves; it tends to the
distortion of history by inclining all of us to accommodate
facts to the wishes and p;-ëëònceptions of our idealizing
nature
-hich i;;I\V
s longing for" a nlore ample great-
ness, a more exact goodness, and a more absolute variety
than can be found in the nature of things" ; 1 and it lures
us onward, young and old alike, over the rough places of
life, even to the very brink of the grave, by the ever-fleet-
in CT ,
ver-reappearing suggestions of a bri CTht to-morr ow
t
t sl;ll nlake ame-;;'ds for the dt; ll and common place
to-day. --
-
These illusi,'e hopes, beliefs, and aspirations are ne,Ter
fulfilled in this life; but even the cynic and the pessinlist
nlust acknowledge, with Francis Bacon, that they consti-
tute the very basis of all poetry that" tends to magnaninlity
and morality." Those who believe in God will further
recognize in illusion a divinely utilized integument for the
preservation and developnlent of aspirations that shall
1 Advancemcnt {If Learning, ii, 4, s.

Letter 10]

ILLUSIO
S

99

ultimately find a perfect fulfìlment in a harmonious co-
operation with the didne Love and in the unending con-
templation of the divine Glory. Nor are il]usions without
a present practical purpose. 1\len are more hopeful, 1110re
acti,-e, more loving on account of thenl. On the other
hand, even optimists must acknowledge that no man should
shut his eyes to the truth in order to remain in what he
knows to be no Inore than a cOlnfortable error. The venial
illusions.of childhood, youth, and ignorance, beconle un-
pardonable or hypocritical in experienced a.;e. Do you
ask how we are to distinguish "illusions" from "delusions"?
The answer is easy-on paper; but, in practice, often diffi-
cult to apply. However, the test is the same as that by
which we distinguish knowledge from ignorance. Illusions
"work"; that is to say, men are on the whole the better
for them, and they prepare the way fur truth. Delusions
fail; men are in no way the better f r them, and they often
prepare the wayf
insani ty a
d for physical or spiritual
death.
\Ve have spoken of moral illusiol1s; let us touch <;>n
another kind of illusions to which SOIne (I dù not say
rightly) have given the nanle of "illusions of sense."
I doubt whether the name is correctly given; for to m e l
it seems that the illusion proceeds not frOln the senses
(which, as far as I can judge, r
ever deceÌ\-e us) but from
the imaginations and inferences which we base upon thel
report of the senses. Take an extrelne case, fit r
ther to
be called" delusion " than" illusion." If I see the phan-'
tom of a cat before the fire, which cat nobody else in the
roon1 can see, do my senses deceive me?
0; but I am
deceived by the imaginative inference which leads n1e to
assmne from past experience that the object which I see
is visible to, and can be touched by, everybody else. 1\1)
visual sense (which has to do with images only) reports-
and can do no otherwise-that it discerns the image of a
H .2

.

100

ILLUSIOXS

[Le ft.:r 10

cat, That report is truc. But then n1Y iU1agination forces on
n1e the belief that this is an ordinary tangible and visible cat.
That belief is false. Or take again the not infrequent case
of colour-blindness. I an1 a signahl1an, and cannot tell a
green light froln a red: do my senses decei\-c me when I
c III a red light green? "K 0; 1l1Y sense reports inaL
e-
quately for my nccessities, and coarsely-as compared with
those \\-ho possess a finer sense of colour, but not deceit-
fully.
I y error arises fron1 having loosely and servilely
used the distinctive words" red ", and" green" from child-
hood to Inanhood, although my senses continually protested
t hat they could not distinguish two colours corresponding
to the two words: but I Ï1l1:1gined that there IllUst be some
such distinction for the two, and that I must be capable
of recognizing- it, because everybody around me recognized
it. If we are to say that the signahllan's senses deceÌ\ C
hinl we must be prepared to admit that every lnan's senses
decei\-e him n10re or less. Do you suppose, when YOll see
anything, that Y:::ll see that which the thing is? -, This is
a yellowish-green," say YOll. "Of course," a Superior
Being might reply; "but which of the one hundred and
fifty shades of yellowish-green is it? Y Oll might as weB
tell me, when I shew you a sheep, , This is a being,' as tell
Ine simply this is 'yellowish-green.';' \Ye do not see
things as Superior Beings see them; but we are 110t on
that account to say that our sight deceives us, Our \'isual
sense reports the truth more or le;:s adequately: but our
IInagination, prOlllpted by insufficient experience and
inference, leads us sometimes to illusive conclusions.
StilJ, although" illusions of sense" ought perhaps to be
rather called" illusions froJll sense/'-i.e. illusions arising
" frOl11 " the report of the senses, but not illusions in \\ hich
the senses are themselves deceived-no one will deny that
such illusions exist. Sometimes they are e
ceptionaI, but
SOll1ctillles so common as to be almost universal. Lct us

Le!ter 10}

ILLUSIOXS

101

enumerate a few and ask whence they sprIng, and what
purpose they sen-e?
They spring from a very strong- conyiction-erected
upon the basis of Experience by Faith, but absolutely
necessary for healthy life and spontaneous action-that
the ordinary inferences which we aJmost instincti,"ely
derive from the report of the senses, are true, that is to
say, wi11 correspond to experience; and that we can act
upon thell1 without fon11ally reasoning upon them.
Take the foUowing instance. Shut your eyes, and get
a friend to prick the back of your hand with the two points
of a pair of compasses simultaneously, so that the two
points may be about the eighth of an inch apart when they
touch you; you will feel-and if YOll could not correct the
inference by the sense of sight, you would infer-that only
one point is pricking you. The reason is that the skin
of the b3.ck of the hand only reports or.e sensation; and
the mini leaps to the conc1u;;ion-owing to the multitude
of past instances where one sensation has resulted from
one object-that, in this instance also, one object alone is
producing the sensation. A 1110re curious instance is
Cle fonowing: Place the Inid::lle finger over the first finger,
and between the two fingers thus interlaced place a
single marble or your nose: you will appear to be touching
two marbles or two noses. The reason is this: when the
two fingers are in their usual position (not tInts interlaced)
and touching marbles or si milar objects, two simultaneous
sensations on the right side of the right finger and on the
left side of th
left finger would always imply hem marbles;
now you have constrained the two fingers to assume an
unusual position where these two simultaneous sensations
can be pr0duced by one marble; but you, folIowing custom,
would infer the presence of two marbles, if sight, or other
evidence, did not shew there was only O
le.
l
t1t illusions from the sease of to.lch are Lr less

102

ILL USIONS

[Letter 10

common than illusions frOlll tbe sense of sight. 'Ye all
know how a c10ud or sheet or coallnay be converted by the
I magination into an Ï1nage of something entirely different
and visible only to the imaginer, although he supposes
that others" Blust see it "too. But these are, so to speak,
private illusions: the great public and, at one time, uni-
versal illusion, was the conviction that the sun and the
stars move and that the earth does not move. There is
scarcely any illusion more natural than this. Our senses
give no indication whatever of the earth's motion; but
they do indicate that the sun and the stars are 1110ving.
So c0I11plicated a process of reasoning, and so much ex-
perience, are needed before a n1an can realize (as distinct
from repeating on authority) the causes for believing in the
earth's motion that it is by no means surprising that, even
now, only a minority of the human race believe that t l ley
are dashing through space at the rate of some thousands
ofilliles an hour; and, except during the last three hundred
years, the iiIusion that the earth is at rest was unirersaI.
Another common illusion from sight is that which leads
us to suppose that, when we see anything in the air, a
straight line fronl our eye towards the image which we
see would touch the object itself: wherea
, in reality, the
i,nage is raised by refraction so that in misty weather we
see an object considerably higher than it is, and I suppose
(to speak with strict eX.1ctness) we never" see" an object
precisely where it is.
I have mentioned a few of the "i11usions from the
senses" ; and now YOll wi11 probably ask me what purpose
they serve, how they can be called "wholesome," and
how they" tend to the ultinlate attainment of truth,"
They appear to me to be "wholesome" because they
represent and spring fr01l1 a wholeS01l1e belief that
" Nature win not decei\'e us ; Nature does not chang-e
her nlÌnd; Nature keeps her pr01l1ises," Sent into the

LettEr 10]

ILLUSIONS

10 3

world with but little of the instinctive equipment of non-
human animals, we are forced to supply the place of in-
stincts by inferences from sensation. Now if we ,vere
always obliged consciously to argue and deliberately to
infer, whenever the sensations hand over a report to the
Imagination, we should be at a great disadvantage as
compared with our instinct-possessing cOl11peers, whOl11
we call irrational. " This inkstand which I see before Ine
was hard yesterday, and the day before-but will it be
hard if I touch it to-day or to-n10rrow? "-if a child were
to argue after this fashion every time he reached out his
hand to touch anything, the life of :Methuselah would be
too short for the ratiocinations necessary as a basis for the
action of a week. For healthy progress of the human be-
ing , trustful activity is needed, and for trustful activity we
must trust Nature, or, in other words, we must lrust these
quasi-instinctive inferences about K ature which we deri,"e
-from our sensations. This trust or faith in tbe order of
material things within our in1mediate observation, I have
àTready described as being the gern1 of a trust or faith in a
higher order altogether, that uni'Tersal order, at present
in1perfectly realized, which we call the Divine \ViII.
Now when we say to Nature, "\Ve trust you; you will
not deceive us," Nature replies for the ITIOst part, " You
do right; I will not deceive you; you will be justified in
your faith." But occasionally she replies in a different
tone.
" Yes, I have deceived you; you did not use the
Ineans you had of obtaining the truth; therefore you de-
ceived yourselves, or, if you please to say so, I deceived
you, in order that, after deceiving yourselves by a pro-
longed experience, you n1ight learn, while trusting I11Y
order and permanence in general, not to trust every con-
ception of your own about that order and pern1anence in
particular.

10 4

ILLUSIOKS

[Letlt:r 10

" Yet in reality, what you call my , deceptions' "'cre, in
part, the re
lts of your own defects (soBle blalueworthy,
SOBle perhaps inherent and not blameworthy), in p1.rt the
results of 111)' method of teaching mankind, by line upon
line and inference upon inference. How does a child gain
knowledge? By generalizing from too few instances: by
inferring too soon; then by enlarging the circle of in-
stances from which he generalizes; by correcting his
inferences with the aid of experience: tInIs the progress
of every child towards truth is through a continuo.us series
of illusions. But wheri I break each one of your false and
rudimentary conceptions of Iny Order, I always reveal to
you, concealed in the husküf it, the kernel of a better con-
ception. Thus while I teach you-daily to distrust your
own hastily adopted and unverified assumptions or in-
. ferences about Iny Order, I give you no cause to distrust
111Y Order itself; and by the self-saIne act I strengthen
both your faculty of scientific reason and also your faith
in n1e. You may find fault with 111e that I did not bestow
on each one of you, even in the cradle, the perfection of
all knowledge and wisdonl. Deeper laws, deeper than I
can now speak of, forbade that rapid consunllnation:
but, since that could not be, since it needs nlust be that
ÏInperfection should be in the intel1ectual, as well as in
the moral, world, rejoice at least that illusion is made
subject to truth."
\Vell, after this long but needful account of" illusions,"
in the sense in which I use the term, let me now recur to
your objection that "tbe \V ord of God ought to dispel
illusions, not to add to them." I suppose those who
believe in a God at all, will in these days regard Him
as the Maker of the world, as a whole, in spite of the evi
that is in it. SOlne of the Gnostics, as you know, belie\Ted
that the good God who had not made the visible world
was opposed to the bad God who had made it; but with

Leiter 10]

ILLUSIOXS

10 5

them we need not at this tinle conccrn ourseh'cs, as there
are probably none who now entertain that belief. Those
then who believe in a God, Maker of heaven and carth,
will not deny that God partially reveals Himself to nlen
by the things He has Inade. Now by which of all His
creatures does God reveal Himself most clearly? You
will say perhaps-indced I have heard you say it-" By
the stars and their Inovements." I do not belicve it. I
say, "B\r the life of the hu nlan fanlilv first
nd by the
stars of
hea, =-e n, secon cf." But -I-will""
sume that your
answer is correct, and that God reveals Himself mainly
by the 1110yements of the stars of heaven; and I will try
to shew you that in thij revelation Gad leads nlcn to truth
through illusion. Then I think it must seen1 reasonable
to you that, if God does not dispense with illusion in that
intellectual revelation of Himself which n10st closely
approaches to a direct spiritu:ll revelation, illusion may
also have been intended or pernlitted by Him to play an
ordained part in spiritual revelation itself.
\Vhere, then, I ask, in all the teaching of Nature's (;
school, has there been nlore of illusion than in her
lessons of astrononlY? \Vhen I was a boy, I remell1ber,
in the midst of a hateful sum of long division that would
not conle out right, devoting ll1Y attention to the sun
lllOving through the branches of certain trees, and an-
nouncing to nlY tutor that "The sun moyes." " 1\ 0, you
are mistaken." "But I cannot be Inistaken, for I saw it."
I rivalied-I exceeded-the obstinacy of Galileo; I was
ready to be punished rather than consent to say what
seemed to Ine a manifest falsehood, that the sun did not
mo
Surely this boyish experience represents the expe-
rience of mankind, except that the tutor who has corrected
their astronomical illusions, has been their own long, very
long experience. Does it not seenl s0111etimes as if God
Himself had said, when lie made the heavens to declare

106

ILLUSIOXS

[LtileY 10

His glory, " Being what they are, my children n1ust be led
to knowledge through error, to truth through illusion"?
It nlay be. said that in SOll1e cases men have fanen into
astrononlical Inistakes through their own fault; through
haste, for exanlple, through the loye of neat and complete
theories, through carelessness, through excessiye regard
for authority; and so indeed they have. But is it always
so? \Vhen you and I last walked out together on
Hampstead Heath, you took out your watch, as the sun
went dU\\Jn over Harrow, and said, " Now he's gone, and
it's just eight." I remember replying to you, "So it
seenlS; but of course you know he 'went' more than
cight nlinutes ago." You stared, and I said no more; for
something el5e diverted your attention ctt the time, and I
felt I had been guilty of a little bit of pedantry. But 1
said quietly to l1lys
lf as we went down the hill, "I
don't suppose he knows it, but the sun certainly 'went'
eight minutes ago; and what my young friend S:l\V was an
image of the sun raised by the refraction of the lnist, like
the image of a penny seen in a basin of water." \Vell
now, was this your fault, this error of yours? No, it was,
in the second placf', the fau1t of the University of Oxford,
which has bribed the schools to desi3t fronl ted.ching
mathematics to any boy with a taste for dassics and
literature, so that you had to gi\Te up your mathematical
studies before YOll came to optics; and it was, in the
first place, the fault of-what shall I say? Shall I say the
fault of Nature? That nleans the fault of God. Say, if
you like, that it wa:; the fault of l\Iatter, or of an Evil
principle, Say, it was no one's {,lUlt. Say that Blore
good than bann results from it, in the way of stimulating
thought and research. Deny it was a fault at al1. Yet
do not deny that it represents a Law 2 th
La\
of the
attaÎnnlent of truth through illusion-a Law which it is
folly to ignore.

Letter 10]

ILLUSIONS

10 7

So far [ have been going on the assumption that your b
answer was correct as to the means by which God 111ainly ,
reveals Himself. But now let us assume that n1Y answer,
and not yours, is correct, and that God reveals Himself
mainly by the relations of the family. In that case we
must agree that each rising generation is led up to the
conception of the divine fatherhood Inainly by the pre-
liminary teaching of human fatherhood. Now surely in
the don1estic atInosphere refraction is as powerful and as
illusive as in the 111aterial strata of the air. Nay, the
better and purer the fal11ily, the stronger is the illusion.
Unloving children may be logical and critical; but what
loving child does not idealise a good mother as perfectly
good, and. a strong wise father as the perfection of wi::.dOl11
and strength? To the good child the parents stand in the
place of God; and it is his illu3ive belief in these earthly
creatures, which, when it has been corrected and purified,
is found to have contained and preserved the higher belief
in th;- eternal Father. You see then that in the-family
IÌÕ1ess than in science, in the spiritual as in the intellectual
side of Nature's school, the pupils pass upwards through I
illusion to the truth.
I have promised to say nothing of the special illusions
of Christianity which I n1ust reserve for a later letter.
But let me say thus much from the a þriori ground on
which we are now standing, that if illus.ions in Nature are
most powerful in her noblest and most spiritual teaching,
rhen, so far fron1 there being a prejudice against finding
illusion in religion, we ought on the c012trary to be þrcþarcd
to find illusion most þ{ltcnt in the eatly stages of the
purest religion of all. \Vas ever people so illusively trained
as the faithless children of faithful Abraham, the rejected
Chosen People? Is not tIle Promised Land to this day a
proverbial type of illusion? Do we not recognize illusion
in every age of Christian revelation? And if the very

10

ILLUSIOXS

[Leiter 10

A postles of the Lord Jesus-so n1uch I will here assume-
had their illusions ooth during, and after, the life of their
l\laster; if the early Christians had their illusions also
concernin.j the speedy coming of Christ; if in the l\Ie-
diæval Church and in the later Roman Catholicisll1 there
have predominated vast illusions about transubstan-
ti
ltion, the powers of the priesthood, and the infal1i-
hility of the Pope; if the Protestant Churches themselves
have not been exempt from illusions about the literal in-
spiration and absolute infallibility of the Bible; is it not
the mark of astounding presumption to suppose that for
the Anglican branch of the Reformed Church there should
have been re:;en-ed a unique ÏInmunity from an otherwise
universal law?
But possibly you think that the Gospels have been so
long in our hands, and the Christian religion so long in
practice and under discussion, that nothing new can now
be said or thought about the1H? Just so Francis Bacon, in
160 3, expressed his conviction (the innocent philosopher!)
that there had at last con1e about a cOlnplete "con-
sumption of all things tInt could be said on controversies
of theo]ogy." Reflcct a I11OInent. How long ha,'e t
e
stars been with us "under discussion "? And how recent
have been our discovcries of the rcal truth about them!
H ow recently have these discoveries been e,'en possible?
I n the same way the exact criticism of the K ew Testament
has only become recently practicable. The subject nlatter
and thought could of course be appreciated centuries ago,
and often perhaps by th
simple-minded and unlearned as
weB as by tbe subtle and profound theologian; though,
even as to the thought of the New Testan1ent, I oftcn
think that we are greatly to blame if our increased
knowledge of history and psychology does not illun1Ïnate
n1uch that was dark in its pages for those wha had not
Clur a(h'anta
es. But we are speaking of that kind of

Lct'er 10]

ILLPSIONS

10 9

intellectual criticisn1 which dispels illusions; and for tbe
purposes of the critical analysis of the First Three
Gospels, Bruder's ConCOrdal)Ce was as necessary as
Gali1eo's telescope was for the discovery of Jupiter's
n100ns, or the thermometer for the investigation of tbe
laws of heat. Other influences have been at work, as
well as mere lnechanical aids, to throw light on the
central event of the world's history. And surely if
Abrahan1 could wait nineteen hundred years for the
coming of Christ, the spiritual descendants of Abrahan1
-for such we c1ain1 to be-may well wait another nine-
teen hundred years to realize His nature and enter into
the full n1eaning of His worship.
Yon see I an1 not now trying to prove the existence of
any illusion in our present fOrIn of Christianity; I aIn
simply ar,J{uillg agaiJlst your þrejudice that, if the present
forn1 of Christianity be not true, then any new form nUlst
necessarily be false. You say, or perhaps till lately you
were inclined to say, " If I could only breathe the at111o-

phere of Augustine! If only I could ha ye been a
c01npanion of the Ante-N icene or (better still) of the
Apostolic Fathers! Or (best of a11) of the Apostles! Or
of Christ Himself! Then I should haye been free fr01n
illusions," I reply,"
0, you. would j 10t; and your as-
piration is a mark of ingratitude to God. Yon deliberately
reject the comlnentary He has giyen you in the History
of the Church during these 'cighteen centuries. You
think the story of Christ is completely told and completely
expJained. It is not so, All the createJ world is in-
tended to bear witness an cf1ií" ustration to Hi; life and
work. S hake speare and N e\yton and
vin, as well
as Origen, Augustine, and Chrysostom, have added to the
divine commentary, All the good and all the evil of
eighteen hundred years have borne witness to the diyine
nature of .H is mission; to the impotence and ruin which

110

ILLUSIO
S

[Let!.?r 10

await the nations tbat cast Him off; to the blessing that
'- - --
attends those who follow H is Spirit; to the mischief that
dõgSthos
l
bstitute for His Spirit a lifeless code of
rules or a fa bri c of superstitions."
And now one last word as to the special iIlusion from
which (in my belief) we 111ust in the short remnant of this
century s ri,oe to deliyer ourselves. I think we have
worshi pped Christ too t)1uch as G od, and too little as l\Ian.
\Ve have erroneously supposed thãt He exempted lIim..
self during His manhood from the laws of hmnanity.
Like the Roman soldiers, we ha,-e stripped from Him the
carpenter's clothes, and put upon Him the purple rags of
wo nder-w orking imperialism, and placed in His h::md the
sceptre of worldly ostentation, and in that guise we have
bowed the knee to the purple and the sccptre, and, doing
hOl111ge to these things, we have cried, "Uehold our
God." But now the time has con1e when we must take
fr0111 off HÏIn these tawdry trappings, and gi,-e Hin1 hack
His workn1an's garments. Then we may find ourseh'es
constrained to bow the knee again in a purer homage
offered no Jong-er to the clothes but to.Jhe l\Ian.
Call this homage by what name we '\Om, it is already of
the nature of worship. And as we grow older and more
able to distinguish the realities fr0111 the Inirage of life,
more capable of trust, Jove, and reyerence, and better
able to discriminate what n1ust be, and what 111ust not be,
loved, trusted, and revered-looking from earth to heaven,
and fron1 heaven to earth, we shall ask in vain where we
can find anything, aboye or below, nobler, and bettcr,
lnd more powerful for good, than_this l\lan to whon;,
our hearts go forth in spontaneãus love and trust and
reverence. Then we shall turn once n10re to the Cross
finding that we have been betrayed into worship whiJe
we knew it not, and while we cry," Behold the l\Ian,"
we shall feel "Behold our God."

\YIIAT IS \YORSHIP?

III

XI

lVlv DEAR --,
Admitting the doctrine of i11usion, and dismissing
an prejudice against what is new, you declare that stiIllny
position remains absolutely unintelligible to you. I will
set down your objection in your own words: " App:uently
you maintain that Christ is a mere man who calue into
the world, lived, worked, and died according to the laws
of human nature; even His resurrection you apparently
intend to explain away tin it becomes a 111ere vision, and
therefore not a sign of any other than a human existence.
N ow worship is a tribute conceded to God alone. To a
luere man, who li,'ed eighteen centuries ago, how can you
force yourself, by any effort of the will, to pay worship
simply because you have reason to believe that this
individual was pre-eminently good" ?
In reply, I ask you, "\Vhat else js more worthy ot
worship? " There is no question of" forcing InyselP'
at all. I worship Christ naturally. That is to say I love,
trust, and reverence Him more than I love, trust, and
reverence any other person or thing or universe of things.
This I do because I cannot help it ; and if I have brought
myself to do this naturally by fixing my thoughts on the
power of Goodness, and on Christ as the inc arnate
representation of Goodness; thi
uses me no s h

and involves In; i
fliCf w Ith my Reason.
But you-have you not on1itted some important features
in the description of this "mere n1an"? Jesus was not

112

\VIL\ T IS \YORSIIIP?

[le/lt/' II

only pre-elninently good, He was also pre-elninently
powerful and wise for spi
.itual purposes. His influence
regenerated the civilized world; it is manifest around
us. He Hilnself spoke of Himself in language which
shews that He believed Hill1self to be endoweù with a
divine authority over men, and to stand in a unique
relatiol1 to God. In a fanatic or a fool that would mean
nothing: in one so wise, so soberly wise, so utterly
unselfish, so lnar\'ellously successful, it 111USt needs count
for ll1uch. Although I reject the Iniraculous, I do not
reject-nor understand how anyone can reject--the
supernatural. I regard] e.3US as being a "lnere ll1an"
indeed, if by "mere In3.n" you lnea n a "reaL!rD.Ð "; non-
111iraculous, subjected to all the Inatcrial li111itations of
humanity; but still a Inan such as is described in the first
cha pter of the Fourth Gospel; the \Y ord of God incarnate;
the :\Ian in \yh0111 ,,-as concentrated God:5 e..xpress.io.u. of
Himself; the Divine Perfection 111adc hmnanly percept-
ible. Thi;-I-Lclie ved o11c;;- upon the authority of the
Fourth Gospel; but I believe it 110W on the testÏ1nony of
history and n1Y own conscience.
Put yourself in my place, Suppose, as I suppose, that
Christ was what He was, and did what He did, naturally
and without 111irac1es. Does not that 111ake His person-
ality in a certain sense n10re wonderful and certainly
n10re lovable? It is cOl11paratively easy, with n1Ïrac1e3
at C0l11111and, to persuade IHen to anything; but, without
ll1irac1es, to introduce a new religion, to bring in a new
power of forgiving sins, to offer up one's life, not for friends,
nor for country, ÌJut for Inankind, to manifest oneself so
to one's disciples during life that after your death they
shall see you and shall be convinced that you have
triumphed oyer death; to disarm an anned ,,'orId by non-
resistance, and to breathe a spirit of enthusiasm for
righteousness and a passionate love of mankind i.Bto

Le:ter I I]

\VIlA T IS WORSHIP?

113

myriads of a renlote posterity-these surely are feats
which, if natural, should make us exclaÏ1n, " Verily we
have here a divine nature."
I trust I am not being goaded into any exaggeration of
what I really feel, by the hope of inducing you to share
my feelings. Perhaps it is not possible to worship any
man, not even such a one as Jesus, as long as he remains

in the flesh. Not tin death takes a friend from us do we
seeln to know tJ!e real spirit that lay behind the flesh and -
blo
;ñõ"t till Jes us was taken from u
c-;uld that Spirit
èðme,\\Thich was to reveal the real Being that underlay
the humanity of the Nazarene. I win admit that I should
not have worshipped Jesus of Nazareth on earth-in
Peter's house for example at Capernaun1 ; for though love
l11Ïght have been present, the trust and awe that were to be
developed by His resurrection would have been wanting.
Jesus does not claim our worship nor even our recognition,
as an isolated being, but as inseparably linked to One with-
out whom He H i
selr;- aid He could "do nothing ". It was
not tin He was removed from the visible world and
enthroned in the hearts of men by the side of the Father,
that men could perceive His real nature; and He is to
be worshipped not by Hin1self, but as the Son of God,
and one with God. Christ did not merely tell us about
the Father; He revealed the Father ill HimseifJ' and, if
we worship the Father as Christ revealed Him, we are,
consciously or unconsciously, worshipping the Son.
Almost all language about all spiritual existences is
necessarily metaphorical. What is "righteousness"
except a straiglztness, and what is "excellence" except
þre-eminence? The proposition" Christ is the Son of
God" is a metaphor; it is a metaphor to say that" God
is our Father in heaven," and that "God is Love."
Perhaps even to say that" God is" is a metaphor, ex-
pressing a truth, but expressing it inadequately. But
I

114

\VHA T IS \VORSHIP?

[Letter I I

it would be the ignorance of a Inere child to suppose
that a Inetaphor 111eans nothing. There is no deeper
truth in heaven or earth than the n1etaphor that God is
the Father of man, and that the Lord Jesus Christ is His
Eternal Son, vVhen I try to think of God and to pray to
God as n1Y Father, I can think of Hin1 as being without
the seas, without the stars, without the whole visible world;
but I can never thil1
": of HÌ111 aright, nor ever conceive of
Hin1 as being Love, without conceiving also of One whom
He loves,
vho-is-\Vith Hin1 from the beginning; whOln
wher! I try to realize, I can realize only in one shape;
and hence it comes to pass that I find myself without
any" effort of the will," spontaneously worshipping God
through, and in, and with, that one shape, I mean the
Lord Jesus Christ. \V orshipping the Father I find that
I have been unconsciously worshipping, and must
consciously continue to worship, the Eternal Son.
But there is another difference between us, besides
your failure to recognise the spiritual power and spiritual
wisdon1 of Christ. V ou do not know what you n1ean by
worship; you do not know what you ought to worship;
and you do not know how little you know of God.
You tell n1e that "worship is a tribute conceded to
God alone." But what is God? T he abso lute God no one
knows. Our n10st perfect conception of Hil
i
lyã
conception of a l\lediat or of S0 111e kind by which we

- --- ---
approach Hin1. To each man, that which he worships,
and that al
is God. I worship Christ, therefore to me
Christ is God. \Vhat wil1 you say to that? I s.uppose
you will say" A non-miraculous Christ ougltl ?lot to be
God to you"? \Vhy not? How does He differ fron1 your
conception of God? Is He less loving, less 111erciful, less
just? "No," you reply, "but He is less powerful." How
is He less powerful? Has He less powe
of .Eitying, loving,
forgiving, raising Inen from sin to righteousness? Is He

Letter I I]

'VHA T IS 'YORSIIIP?

115

less powerful in the spiritual world? "Perhaps not; but
Heis less powerful in the n1aterial wodel He never, accord-
ing to your account, rose above, never even for a m0111ent
suspended the laws of nature." Indeed? And God, the
l\Iaker of the world-did He ever rise above, or suspend
the laws of nature? \\Then? "\VelI, He is said to have
done so frequently in the records of the Bible". But
many men deny that, and you yourself are disposed to
agree with them. "At alI events He did so when He
made the world.."
Here at last we can come to an understanding. You
look up to God as to the l'vlaker of the world, and arc
more ready to worship Him, as such, than to worship a
non-miraculous Christ. If by "the l\laker of the world ,.
you n1ean-as I am quite sure many lnean-" the Maker

of the mere material forces of Nature," or even "the l/}
1Iaker of all things ajart from Christ," then words fail \
lne to express how entirely I differ from you. But let
111e try to put your view into my own language, in
order to shew you that I do not condenln it without
understanding it. " We cannot," you say, "worship a
mere non-Iuiraculous luan, who did nothing but talk and
lead a good life, and perhaps perforn1 a few acts of faith-
healing, however beneficial may have been his influence
on posterity. The fact that, after his death, visions of hÏ1n
were seen by excited and enthusiastic followers, and in
one case by an enen1Y of highly emotional tendencies,
cannot alter this decision. It is impossible to worship a
being so helpless, so limited, so aweless as this. What is
such a creature in comparison with the mysterious Maker
of the stars or Ruler of the ocean? Surely the sight of
a storm at sea ought to suffice to turn anyone fron1 the
imaginary and self-deceiving worship of the n1erely human
Jesus of Nazareth to the worship of One whose greatness
and glory and terror surround us on every !!Side with
I 2

116

'VHA. T IS 'YORSIIIP?

[Letter II

n1aterial witnesses, One in con1parison with whon1 no
mere man may be mentioned. "
Natural as such an argun1ent may seeIll to you and to
n1any others who call thenlselves Christians, it is in reality
based upon a diabolical prejudice in favour of power. I
can understand our forefathers, worshippers of Thor and
Odin, arguing thus; and so great is our own inherited
and inbred adn1iration of n1ere force that even to us
Christians the ten1ptation is still very strong to bow down
before the whirlwind and the fire, rather than before the
stiIl smal.Lvoice. But it is a ten1ptatior to be resisted and
overcome. Yon call upon me to worshi p the Ruler of the
waves. Now the sea is full of the gifts of God to Illen ;
yet if I knew nothing n10re of the Creator than that
He had made and rules the sea, then-with all the
knowledge of the death and destruction that reign beneath
the depths of ocean among its non-hun1an tenants, and
of the destruction that reigns on its surface when it wages
war against man and conquers- I should say, " So far as
the sea alone reveals the nature of Him who n1ade it, I
would a thousand tin1es sooner worship Jesus of Nazareth,
the non-miraculous n1an, than the Maker of the ocean."
It is the n10st vulgar and contemptible cowardice to cringe
before the l\laker of the destroying ocean-who n1ight be
the Devil and not a good God, so far as the ocean's
destructive power reveals its Maker-rather than to do
hOInage to the best of men. I grant that in a stornl at
sea, with the lightning blInding n1y eyes, and the pitiless
waters tearing n1Y C0111panions fron1 1ny side and
threatening every instant to devour n1e- I grant that I
n1ight, and should, feel ten1pted to exclain1, " A n1ightier
than Christ is here."
iLl.. did , !-s
ld be

11ed
of it. It would be a traItorous tendering of allegiance to
S
\Vhen force and terror and death con1e shrieking
on the wave-crests, and proclain1ing that" Power after

Letter II]

WHAT IS \VORSHIP?

117

an is Lord of the world," then is our faith tested; It IS
" the victory of our faith" to overcome that lie and to
lllake answer thus: "No, Goodness is Lord over the
world; Love is Lord over t ne wo rld; and therefore He
who is -
i.tlL
aI.lcLQ.oodness, the Lord Jesus
O1 nst, He is Lord O\Ter the world. Do with llle as thou
wilt, thou Mighty IYlaker of all things! If Christ was not
deceived, thou art His Father and I can trust thee. But
if Christ was deceived, then art thou Satan and I defy
thee, be thou the l'vlaker of a world of worlds. Better to
perish and be deceived with Christ, than to be saved and
caressed by a Maker who ll1ade Christ to perish and to
be deceived! If there be in truth any opposition of will
between the l'viaker and the Lord Jesus Christ, then is
the Lord Jesus the superior of the two; and in the Lord
Jesus alone will I put my trust, and to Him alone will
I cleave as my Lord and my Saviour and my God."
Have I made my ll1eaning clear to you? I do not say,
Have I persuaded you that I am right? But have I made
you understand that it really is possible for one who has
apprehended even imperfectly the illimitable extent of
the goodness of Christ and the divine nature of that
goodness, to feel heartily and sincerely that, of all things
in heaven and earth and in the waters under the earth,
the goodness and power and wisdOln of God in Christ are
the fittest objects for our love, our trust and our reverence,
in other words, for our worship? Can you name any
fitter object? If you will not worship God in the man
Jesus, you will hardly worship Him in Socrates, or Paul,
or any other specimen of hunlanity. \Vill you then turn
to inanimate nature, and worship hinl in that? Then you
will be turning from the higher to the lower conception
of God. Before I knew Christ, I nlight perhaps have
worshipped God the Maker, being led to him, so to
speak, by the world as Mediator. Inspired by awe for
-

1I8

\VIlA T IS \YORSHIP?

L Letter I [

the Creator of so vast and orderly a n1achine, I might
have adored Him as the éHtificer of the stars and this
terrestrial globe. But now, Christ has n1ade this kind
of "natural religion" impossible. He, the ideal l\Ian,
has revealed to me depths of love, pity, Inercy, self-
sacrifice, in comparison with which the ocean is but the
" water in a bucket," and the stars of hea ,-en are as "a
I yery little thing." If therefore I try to conceiye of God
as alien and apart fron1 Christ, God beconles at once
degraded and inferior to man.
How shall I try to express myself I110re clearly? Let
me use words not my own, in which a n1an of recognized
ability once sU111med up for Ine 111Y own conceptions; "I
see;' he said, "you do not, as n10st do, worship Christ
out of c0111pliment to God; you worship God out of C0I11-
plÌInent to Christ." The words then sounded to me a
little profane, though they were not nleant to be so; but
I had to confess that they exactly expressed my 111eaning.
Since then, it has seelned to 111e that thése words were but
an incisive way of saying, what everyone says and
few realize, that Christ is the l\lediator between us and
God: we worship God the Father because we attribute
to Hi111 the character that we adore in God the Son.
By this time you will have seen that while answering
thequestion, "\Vhom, or what, ought we to worship ?" I
have indirectly answered a preliminary question, "\Vhat
do we n1ean by worship? :, You have also probably
noticed what answer I have given to this question:
worship appears to me a combination of love, trust, and
awe. Do you accept tins ? - I hãve never seen any serious
objection taken to this definition except by those who
refuse practically to define it at all and who would simply
say" \V orship is the homage paid by n1an to the Creator:
and it has nothing to do with, and cannot be explained
by, the feelings with which we regard man." If I had

Letter I I]

\YHA T IS \VORSIIIP?

09

not seen this in the columns of a theological journal, I
should not h:lve believed it possible that n10dern super-
ficiality and conventionalislll could achieve quite so trans-
parent a shallowness. The sum total of our feelings
towards God-more especially our awe for Him-cannot
indeed be adequately expressed in the SaIne language
which expresses our feel1ngs for n1en : but that is a very
different thing from saying that the former" have nothing
to do with" the latter. I believe that a large part of most
luen's worship consists of a shrinking from an Unknown,
the sort of dread that children feel for" the dark." But
righteous worship lnust imply other feelings; and these
feelings-some of them at all events-must have names;
and whence are the names to be derive d but fr0lll our
feelings towards n1en and thi
t
ds men, surely:ãS
W"Cll as towards things? \Ve must either love God, or hate
Him, or be indifferent to Hin1 ; we n1ust either trust, or dis-
trust Him. I do not see how the people who would sever
worship from all reference to hUlnan relations can look
upon it as other than a mere homage of the lips or knees,
a going to church, and attendance at religious services.
Need I say that, when I define worship, I alll defining the
worship of the heart, not the attitude of those who honour
God with their lips but whose heart is far fron1 Hin1?
N ow the attitude of man to God has varied greatly in
accordance with their co nception of God, a ccording as
they hav e conceived lTfri1 to b e l\loloch, or Apollo, or
Jehovah, or the Father of the Lord Jesus Christ" In
SOlne men worship has been luere terror; in SOlne, it has
been a desire to bribe; in son1e it has been faint gratitude
and strong adn1iration ; in SOllle it has been intense awe
and reverence. All such fonus of worship have been im-
perfect, and son1e have been very bad. At the best, none
of them have combined all the best and noblest feelings of
aspirati0:3 which N atl1re tends to develop in us by means

120

'VIlA T IS 'VORSHIP l

[Letter I I

of human and non-hUll1an agencies. Human nature-
acting through the relations of the family-should elicit
love and loving trust; non-human nature-acting through
the seas and skies, with their suggestions of vastness and
power-should elicit awe and awful trust; and the com-
bination of these two natural influences should elicit love,
trust and awe, which three-fold result constitutes worship.
Has the worship of God through the mediation of
Christ entirely superseded-was it intended to supersede
-the worship of God through the mediation of the
visible \Vodd? I think not yet. It will in the end
but not now, There may come a tin1e, in son1e future
existence, when we shall see righteousness Eke the sun,
when we shall have visions of the beauty and order of holi-
ness like the stars, and behold the glory of sacrifice spread
out before our eyes like the firn1an1ent of heaven; and
then the revelation of God through visible Nature will be
swallowed up in the revelation of God through invisible
Nature. But now, not l11any of us can pretend to such a
power of spiritual insight. \Ve feel that, if we learned
the story of Christ without the help of the commentary of
the awful powers of material nature, we might be in
danger of repeating it with a glib fan1iliarity which would
hinder us from penetrating its meaning. Those who live
in the stir of cities where they are d oomed never to be alone,
never to realize perfect silence, never to see ñ10re t nan a fe w
square-feet of sky, are living as the \Vord of. God did not
intend then1 to live; they n1ay have-they often have-great
spiritual con1pensations ; they certainly have some spiritual
disadvantage in these unnatural negations. As long as
we have eyes and ears and the faculties of wonder and
admiration, so long must we suppose that the revelation
of t be \V ord of God through Jesus of Nazareth has not
dispensed with the revelation of the \V ord of God through
the forces of material nature. If we wish to approach

Letter I I]

\VHA T IS WORSHIP?

121

God we should not despise the 1Vlediation of the \V ord of
God in its entirety, that is to say, the mediation of "the
World with Christ."
N ow what practical inferences follow from our defini-
tion of worship, if we are satisfied that it is roughly true?
Here let Ine put in a caution. Our definition cannot be !
exactly true; for, in its exactness, worship n1eans the sum
total of all the feelings that should be felt by the nlind of
man, when he contemplates God through the n1ediation
of "the World with Christ." Who can enumerate
these without confessing that he may have passed over
some so subtle and so deep that language itself has left
them unnamed? We must therefore be content with a
rough definition. But if it be roughly true that worship
means love, trust and awe, what practical inferences may
we thence deduce as regards our own conduct?
First, then, worship is not the formal thin g
gener-
ally supposed to be. I t is not a mer e sn100thness of the
hinges of the knees, or a readiness to take the name of
God within one's lips. It is a natural going forth of the
heart to that which one loves, trusts, and reverences most.
Smne men have little power of reverencing; others, of
trusting; others, of loving; such Inen's worship Inust
necessarily be n1aimed and imperfect. If a man who is
destitute of reverence loves and trusts money n10re than
anything else, money really is that man's God; it is no
hyperbole, it is the fact; th
d óe s actually worship
money; he does not say prayers to it, does not go down
on his knees to it, but he love s it and trusts it nl ore than
anything
lse; therefore, so f
he can worshipany-
thing, he worships nloney. Similarly another n1an wor-
ships pleasure; another, his children; another, power.
Weare accustomed to apologize for such expres5ions
as if they were metaphors or exaggerations.; but they
are not; they are plain staten1ents of spiritual realities.

122

\Yl-L\ T IS \VORSHIP?

[Leiter I [

Thousands of Inen who say they worship Christ, and who
honestly suppose they worship Christ, do nothing of the
kind. This is the dark side of the self-delusion of wor-
ship, but there is a brighter. There are Inany n1en at
the present day who call themsehoes agnostics, but who
would hardly deny that they loye and reverence Jesus of

azareth nlore than any other being. They worship HÏ1n
then. T he i
ship is tinged with hopelessness, and
therefore i111perfect; but so far as it goes, it is a genuine
worship of Christ. Perhaps, too, S0111e who profess
Jnere Theism feel, in their hearts, that though they
dislike to say they worship Christ, they love Christ 1110re
than they love their conception of" God without Christ; "
if so
111ay we not say that, so far as that elen1ent of love
goes, they worship Christ? Thousands of thousands of
people, before Christ was born, worshipped Goodness
and a good God in their lives and hearts, though they
were, in nan1e, worshippers of A polIo or :;\Ioloch. Thou-
sands of people in the saIne unconscious way have been,
and stilI are, worshipping the Incarnate Christ. They
n1ay not acknowledge this, they l11ay not even know it :
but their hearts have gone out to HÏ1n in love and trust
and awe, n10re than to any other person or thing in
heaven or earth. l
Search your own soul and acknowledge how little you
know of God; I do not 111ean how little you profess to
know, but how little you realIy know; how very n1uch of

1 It is a strange but common mistake to expect a purer morality from a
conventional Christian than from a heathen or an atheist. One ought to
e"pect less, much less. The man who can be familiar with the character, and
:'Icknowledge the claims, of Christ, without really loving Him or serving
Him, and who can believe all that the Church teaches about Him, without
at all believing in Him, must surely be far below the atheist wh.] now and
th
n does a good turn for humanity, out of mere pity and without the least
hope of any ultimate triumph of goodness, For my part, I am quite sur.
prised at the apparent goodness of conventional Chri"tians: but I think they
are not so good as their actions would imply, They are forced, by tradition
and the example of a few, to keep up an artificial standard of morality in
some departments of life.

letter I I]

'VHA T IS \VORSIIIP?

12 3

what you th
nk you know, is but second-hand knowledge,
scraps of sayings repeated on authority, but not repre-
senting any heartfelt faith, Then-after deducting all
the verbiage that yOll once esteen1ed a part of your o-\vn
belief-take the poor residuum of your conception of the
Godhead, and put it by the side of your conception of the
vV ord of God incarnate in Christ, making SOlne faint
attell1pt at the same tin1e to realize the stupendous life and
character of Jesus. Then ask yourself in what respects
the former conception differs from the latter for the better.
Lastly ask yourself what you n1ean by worship-not lip-
worship, or knee-worship, but the worship of the heart;
and whether your heart does not go out in heart-worship
as much towards the latter as to the former of these two
conceptions. If you will do this fairly and honestly, Iny
only fear would be that YOll n1Ïght find that your con-
ception of God Hilnself was too weak to retain its grasp 011
you; but if God still held His place in your heart, then I
should feel confident that Christ would sit enthroned by
His side, as being the Son without whom the Father
could not be known, worshipped in virtue of a cIain1
which no mere perfonnance of Iniracles could establish,
and which no mere non-perfornlance of miracles
could inyalidate.
The sum is this. In Nature there is evil as ,veIl as
good. I cannot therefore worship the Author of all Nature,
but must worship the Author of Nature-milius-the e1Jil.
\Vhere is He to be found? He is revealed in what we
recognize to be good, true, and beautiful. N ow no one
luan can include in his life all that we n1ean by scientific
truth, and artistic beauty, as well as moral goodness.
But, truth being a hannuny, there is no deeper and nobler
truth than the harmony of a hU111an will with the will of
the Suprelne; and, beneath perishable artistic beauty,
there is an eternal beauty to be discerned in righteous-

12 4

\VHA T IS \VORSIIIP

[Letter II

ness. I t ought not therefore to surprise us that the
Eternal \V ord, after endeavouring for thousands of years
to lead creation up from the worship of Power to the
worship of Goudn ess, should -ãt faSt take- upon HÏ1nself
the Tóñ ñO f a c reä ture;-ëõñSpi cuou
l y powerless frOlD the
world's point of view, ignorant of science, and destitute
of outward beauty, but of a goodness so divinely beautiful
and so true to the underI Yll;gt
f spiritual Nature,
that;vhen He held
HiSãññs and ëalled upOI;-;vandering
mankind to come to H iIn, the enlightened conscience of
hU111anity sought refuge in His e111brace.

THE \VORSHIP OF CHRIST

12 5

XII

My DEAR -,
Your letter of yesterday raises two objections,
which I will do my best to meet. First, if I regard
Christ as God, I ought not, you think, to stumble at
the miracles, but to we1come, and even to require, them;
and secondly, you are not satisfied with my definition
of worship. Let me deal first with your first objection,
rèstating it in your own words.
" I admit," you say, "that Jesus, even without IniracIes,
would be worthy of worship in yonr sense of the word;
but that is not the san1e thing as regarding Him as the
Eternal Son of God, the Creative Word. I agree with
Plato that there is nothing n10re like God than the n1an
who is as just as man may be; but you demand more of
me than this; you wish me to regard Hin1 not as being
merely' like God' but as 'being God,' 'very God of very
God.' Surely you must therefore adlnit that Jesus was
exceptional, and not' in the course of nature;' and the
introduction into the visible world of such an exceptional
and supernatural Being surely n1akes it antecedently
probable, if not necessary, that He would bring with HÏ1n
some quite exceptional phenomena in the way of evidence.
The Miraculous Conception and Resurrection of Christ's
Body (if only they were true) would supply just the
requisite evidence that Jesus was the Creative Word,
Lord over the issues of life and death, If the creative

126

TIlE \VORSIIIP OF CHRIST

[Letter 12

Power of God, no less than the Righteousness and the
Love of God, was incarnate in the person of Jesus, it would
ha\Te been no less manifest in His life and works, But
you desire to reduce Him to a being in no way distin-
guishable frOlTI other Inen except by superior n10ral
excellence. There is, it seems to I11e, no logical connec-
tion between ITIoral excellence and creative power. Th

two attributes, being generically different, den1and different
kinùs of evidence to substantiate them.
"Again," YOll continue, "even if I put aside your
contention that Jesus is the 'V ord of God, there relnains
your assertion that He is sinless. Now a sinless Jesus is,
in Himself, a n1iracle; and if you call on me to believc
that Jesus was without sin, you ought to see no ante-
cedent improbability, nay, you ought to see an antecedent
probability, that He would work n1iracles."
\Vell, I feel that we are walking in a slippery region-
this land of antecedent n1etaphysical probabilities; but I
will try to fonow you. Let me take your second objection
first. Does it then really seen1 to you no less antecedently
probable that the \V ord of God, I11ade man, should have
the powel" (say) of walking on water, than that He should
he sinless? Surely we see in the best nlen approxiI11a-
tions to sinlessness, but no approxin1ations at all to what
spiritualists (I believe) call "levitation"! In proportion
as men approximate to our conception of God, in that pro-
portion they are free frOln sin, but they do not" levitate; "
hence, while we are led to believe that the l\Ian who
completely represents God (the 'Vord of God Incarnate)
win be absolutely sinless, we are led to no such conclu-
sion as to "levitation." Or will you lnaintain that the best
ITIcn shew any germ of any the least power to suspend
any the least law of nature? There is no vestige of
any such tendency around us; and your only support for
such a belief would be found in the miracles of the Old

Letter 12]

THE 'YORSIIIP OF CHRIST

127

Testament, which you yourself deny, and as to whicl. I
shall have something to say in a future letter.
I admit however that there is one seenling argument
derived from the" mighty ,,'orks" of healing undoubtedly
wor:.,ed by the disciples of Jesus as well as by Jesus Him-
self. \Vithout anticipating a subject that nlust be deferred
to a future letter, I win 111erely ask you at this stage to
distinguish between those "111ighty works" on the one
hand which were marvellous but not miraculous, and the
" 111iracles" on the other hand which, if true, involved
suspensions of the laws of nature. Trat Jesus Inay
have healed certain diseases through faith, would be
acknowledged by the most sceptical physiologists as
quite possible in accordance with the laws of nature;
and t
is power would be consistent with such a faith-
inspiring personality as we attribute to our Lord. Even
. from ordinary nlen and women there "goes out virtue,"
we scarcely kilo\\' how, to the sick and suffering who are
imbued with their hopefulness, their cheerfulness, their
faith; much l110re nlight we suppose that from the Ideal
of Humanity" virtue" would probably go forth in unique
ll1easure and produce unique results, though always in
accordance with those laws of 111aterial nature to which
He had submitted Hinlself. But this is no argument for
real "miracles"; and-even while arguing-I protest
against this method of arguing about facts, fronl meta-
physical "antecedent probability." I do not object to
the argument from "antecedent probability" where you
can appeal to experience and argue frOl11 what happened
in the past to what is likely to happen in the future,
But where you can have no such evidence (because the
Son of God was not twice incarnate) ; where the question
is, " Did Jesus do this or did He not?" and where we
have history and evidence to guide us, as to what He
did and said; it seems to me we ought to be guided by

128

TIlE \VORSHIP OF CHRIST

[Letter 12

evidence and not by" antecedent probabilities," especiaUy
when these" probabilities" are derived from nothing but
metaphysical considerations.
But you teU me that you see" no logical connection
between moral excellence and creative power;" and
another passage in your letter says that "we have no
reason for thinking that the best men shew any tendency
to approxin1ate, in creative power, to the co-eternal Word,"
\Vhat do you thence infer? Apparently this, that, as
Christ revealed God's righteousness and love by His own
righteousness and love, so He must have revealed God's
creative power by His own creative acts. I, too, believe
that. But by what creative acts? By changing water
into wine, or seven loaves into seven thousand loaves, or
three fishes into three thousand fishes? Think of it
seriously. Do these two or three abrupt and dislocated
achievements appear to you adequately to represent the
quiet, gradual, orderly, creative power of the true Word
of God, by whom the heavens were made? For my part
I see a noble n1eaning in your words, but the meaning I
see in them is not what you mean. I t was necessary-so
far I agree with you-that the Incarnate \Vord should
manifest God's creative Power as well as His Love and
Righteousness. But how? Can you not answer for your-
self without Iny prompting? Does not your own con-
science suggest to you what is the highest effort of creative
_ power? Are we not taught-and do not our hearts
respond to the teaching-that God is
Spirit? And, if
God is "Spirit, must not the highest kind of creation
be, not material, but spiritual?
N ow I maintain that it is a greater, more sublime,
and more God-like act to create righteousness in accord-
ance with God's spiritual laws than to create loaves and
fishes and wine against God
s material laws. And I
maintain also-in opposition to your opinion--that "the

Letlt?' 12]

TIlE \VORSHIP OF CHRIST

12 9

best nlen" do manifest "a tendency to approxinlate in
creative po\ver to the co-eternal \V ord," so far as con-
cerns this, the highest kind of creation. I t is hard, very
hard, for us to realize--in
pite of the teaching of the
prophets in old times and of the great English poets in
our own days-that the creation of the heaven and the
earth is "a very little thing, a drop of a bucket," ,as coE1 -
pared with the creation of righteousness. It is a desperate
struggle;-this battle of the spirit against lTIatter, of the in-
visible against the visible, beflJre we can b
lieve, with all
our being-with our minds as wen as our hearts-that the
creation described in the first chapter of the Fourth
Gospel was more divine than that described in the first
chapter of the Book of Genesis. But it was so. The
first creation of orderly matter was but a shadowy, un-
substantial metaphor, predicting the second creation of
orderly spirit. "All things were made by him, and with-
out hilTI was not anything made that was nlade:" so
writes the Evangelist, describing the first, and proceeding
to describe the second, creation: and he continues thus,
"In him was life, and the life was the light of men." To
the same effect writes St. Paul: "The first Adanl became
a living soul. The last Adam became a life-giving spirit."
Is it not possible, on the testimony of one's own con-
science, and on the testinlony of history present and past,
and on the testimony of the Apostles and Evangelists-
even when critically reviewed and disencumbered of the
nliraculous element-to acknowledge that Jesus has been
inJeed "a life-giving Spirit" to mankind, and to wor-
ship HilTI as representing the Creative \Vord who has
lnoved on the face of the material and of the spiritual
waters, creating order alike in the lnatter of the Univer
e
and in the minds and consciences of nlen?
And now to deal with your second objection (directed
against my definition of worship) which I will repeat in
K

13 0

TIlE \VORSIIIP OF CHRIST

[Letter 12

your own words :--" Yon define wor
hip as consisting of
the sentiments of love, trust, and awe. I confess this
does not express all my notion of worship. Such senti-
l11ents I have felt towards n1Y teachers, whether dead or
living, but I do not consider that I \vorship them. \Vhf'l1
we apply the word to God, we l11ean by it a direct açt of
c omlnunio n-or at least a reãI effort af
m
u nio n-
be tween t;o min ds. \Yhen I pray to God, I believe my-
self to be di recting n1y thoughts towards a Being with
WbOlll I aln spiritually in direct and in1mediate relation-
the .l\Iaker of all, 1Izy :l\1aker and Father. But I cannot
persuade n1yself that I stand in a like relation to Jesus of
Nazareth. \Ve do not pray to Paul or Plato, and I do
not see any such difference in the historical n1anifestations
of Jesus as should lead me to believe that I, and millions
of other belieyers, can Inake my thoughts known to hÏ1n,
and can receive back iInpressions fron1 him, when we
cannot do so to other minds which have helped to change
the world's history and have been revealers of the
Father."
Are you not here confusing a state of Inind with an
action resulting frOll1 that state of mind? \Ye have been
speaking, not of lip-worship, but of heart-worship, defin-
ing it as a state of 111ind. Now is not prayer the result
of worship, rather than identical with worship, as we have
defined it above? A child feels love, and trust, as well as
re\'erence, for its parents; and, in consequence he asks
thelll to grant his desires, or he thanks theIll for kindnesses;
but yet the asking and thanking are not identical with the
feelings of the children towards their parents, but spring
from those feelings. Sin1ilarly we, feeling a trust and an
awe for the l\laker and Father, far beyond what we can
feel for Paul or Plato, impart to Him our petitions for our
highest needs, or offer Hinl our thanks: but this asking
and this thanking are not identical with, but the results

Letter 12]

THE \VORSIIIP OF CHRIST

13 1

of, the feelings we entertain towards God. \Vhat you really
mean is that your love, trust, and awe towards God so far
transcend those corresponding feelings when entertained
by you for your fel1ow-creatures, that you ask from Him
things which you would never dream of asking from them.
rvloreover you consider (rightly or wrongly) that a dead
or absent man cannot enter into cOlnmunion with you,
but that God is superior to death and to the limitations
of space, and that He alone can always hear and always
answer; and this you appear to think a non-n1iraculous
Christ cannot do.
\VeIl, here I confess there is a vast difference between
us; for I feel sure that Christ can do this. You say, I
do not "pray to Paul and Plato:" I do not, though I
sometimes think that it would be better to pray to Paul
or Plato than to the sun or n100n. But I do not find
Paul, I do not find Plato, claiming power to forgive sins;
or declaring that he came to die for mankind and that
his blood was to be shed for the remission of sins; or
predicting that he should be slain and that he should rise
fronl the dead; or promising that whatsoever his disciples
asked from the Father in his name should be performed;
or prOll1isil1g to give his disciples, after his death, a spirit,
the Holy Spirit of the Father, which should enable them
to resist all adversaries after he had left them; or, in other
words, making a manifest preparation to prepare his
disciples for his death on the ground that after death he
would still be present with them and still their guide and
helper. Now even when I set aside the Fourth Gospel,
and elin1inate all miraculous narrative from the first three
Gospels, I find myself in the presence of One who, I am
convinced, both said these things, and made them good
in deeds. I atn penetrated with the conviction that He
said them and had a right to say theln; and that this is
proved by literary and historical eyidence, and by the
K 2

.

13 2

TIlE \VORSHIP OF CHRIST

[Le:te' 12

history of the Church, and by my own experience. The
nliracles I can easily disentangle from the life of Christ;
but His divine claims to be our Helper and Saviour after
death and to all eternity, I cannot. Accepting them, I
can neither deny Him worship nor n1yself the right of
access to Him in prayer.
Christ's whole life and doctrine, His plan (so to speak) for
the establishment of spiritual empire over the hearts of
men, appear to Ine imbued with divinity; but if I were
forced to choose some one particular discourse or incident
in His life as a reason for my adoration of Him, I should
not choose any of His mighty works of healing, nor any
of His parables or discourses, nor even His death upon
the cross: I should point to the institution of the Lord's
Supper. As the years pass over n1y head, the picture
of that mysterious evening becomes more and more
powerful and vivid with 111e and more and more inexpli-
cable unless Jesus was verily the Life of the world. I t is
ten times Inore vivid and Inore powerful now than it \vas
when I believed in a Iniraculous Jesus. \Vhen I kneel
down at the altar-rails there rises up through the distance
of eighteen centuries that strange scene in the guest-
chan1ber at J erusalen1, where Jesus portioned out His
flesh and blood, bequeathing HiInself to His discipìes
for ever. Then fol1ows the thought of the countless
myriads of souls who have derived spiritual strength frOln
this rite and have lived again in Christ, and I say to
myself, " Truly God was in the self-doomed man who thus
gave us His flesh and blood for nlankind. A n1ere nlan
devise so strange a rite! So (at first) repel1ently strange!
so profoundly siInple ! so perfectly and spiritually success-
ful ! " I solenlnly protest to you that the inexpressible
depth of the divine intuition which found utterance in the
Lord's Supper, impresses me 1110re and more-far more
than all the miracles put together-as a proof that we

Lel/n'12]

THE \VORSHIP OF CHRIST

133

have in Christ a Being in initial and fundamental harn10ny
with the very source of our spiritual life; and, rationalist
though I am, I find myself, nevertheless, praying natur-
ally and spontaneously after this fashion: "l\Iaster, n1Y
only true Lord and l\laster, grant that I n1ay feed on thy
body and be quickened by thy blood, and live in thee
a new and spiritual life! Thou Cne Forgiver of sins,
thou Bearer of all the burdens of mankind, bear Thou the
burden that I cannot bear, and blot out all nlY offences;
Thou who siuest at the right hand of the l\1ajestyon high,
lift me in thyself even to the throne of heaven, and
present me to the Father as His child! Thou who didst
die in the flesh and rise again in the spirit never to die,
rise thou in my heart and sQ.!!1 ; take lIlY whole being into
th yse lf and cãuse me there to die unto sin and to live with
thee unto righteousness! Grant me eternal life, thou Lord
of Life! Say within my soul, , Let there be righteousness,'
and there shall be righteousness! Create Ine anew, 0
Lord, thou ever-living, co-eternal \V ord of the Creator."
You may object that many of these prayers, with slightly
different wording, might equally well be addressed to the
Father through the Son. They might, and, as a rule, they
probably would be so addressed. But in moments of un-
usually deep en10tion prayers of this kind go forth I
think, more naturally to the Father in the Son than to the
Father through the Son; and surely your very objection,
and my answer to it, shewing that prayers n1ay be indiffer-
ently addressed to the Father or to the Son, constitute a
strong argun1ent for the unity (in the heart of the person
praying) of Son and Father. And if I can pray like this, do
I not worship, n1ust I not worship, Christ as the Creative
\V ord, the Eternal Son of God? And is there anything
to prevent me from praying like this in the fact that He to
whom I pray, when He recei,'ed our hU111anity, received it
in truth and honesty, with all its materiallin1Ïtations?

I3.f

"THAT IS KATURE?

XIII

l\lv DEAR --,
Desiring to approach the subject of miracles, you
ask me whether I do not accept the following sentence as
a statement of my views concerning nature: " The
Universe is perennially renewed and created afresh by
an active energy of the Spirit of God, and what we caIl
, laws of nature' are the
de in which ou!:...lin1Ïted n1inc1s
are enabled to apprenend t
rki ng o f Creati,;e Pow er,"
If I accept it, you declare you cannot understand why I
should stumble at miracles. "It is a lnatter of every-day
experience," yon say," and natural, that the human wi11
should suspend the laws of nature, as for example by
arresting the lnotion of gravitation; and consequently it
seems unreasonable for you, or for other believers in a
personal God, to be scandalized if He also now and then
pern1its Himself the same liberty."
I accept your staten1ent, so far as concerns the perennial
energy of the Spirit of God upon the material and im-
n1aterial Universe; but I do not quite agree with the
thought, or perhaps I should say with the expression, of
the last part of your sentence-" the mode in which our
limited n1inds are enabled to apprehend the working of
Creative Power." I should prefer to caIl the Laws of
Nature "a revelation of Himself bv God to men, on the

.. ------- -------
recognition of which our very existence depends." The
Laws of Nature are ind eed nothi ng but ideas of our own
Imagination; but they appear to me, n10re or lc
s ,
e

Letter 13]

\YHAT IS NATURE?

135

ideas, through which God has revealed H' mself to us as a
God of Law and Crder. I believe in the fixity of natural
Law as much (I think) as the man of science does; I
reverence a Law of Nature, not as a result of necessity,
but as an expression of God's "vill. But your own remarks
-about the ordinary" suspension of the law of nature by
the human will" appear to me to imply a little confusion
of thought arising frOll1 a confused use of the word
"nature" in two or more senses. On this point there-
fore I should like to say a few words.

1. Nature
i. Nature sOJJldÏJJles means the ordinary cOllrse of
things aþart fro l1 l us and from our intervention./ as
when we Sé..y that "Nature looks gay"-an expression
which we might use of fields and even of a not too
artificial garden, but not of a city or a street.
In this sense it may be occasiona]]y applied to the
ordinary cour:5e of things in our own bodily frame, so far
as it goes on without our deliberate intervention; as when
a physician tells a fussy patient to cease fron1 medicining
himself and to "let Nature take its course."
ii. Nature sometimes means the ordinary course of
things ill ourselves, not in our bodies but ill some other
þart of us, but still aþart from our deliberate intervention;
as when we say that" lVature impels us to avoid pain, to
preserve our lives, to cherish our children, to love and
revere our parents, and to seek the esteen1 and friendship
of our neighbours."
But sometimes in human beings one" natural" impulse
is opposed by another: as when the desire to preserve
one's life is opposed by the desire to gain the esteem of
one's neighbours, \Vhen these two conflict, which is to
be called the more" natura! " ?

.

13 6

""H...\ T IS NATURE?

[Letter 13

The answer will be different, according as we use the
word" natural" in the sense of " ordinary" or " orderly."
One class of natural impulses, which n1ay be called selfish
or self-regarding, is perhaps n10re ordinarily predOlni-
nant; another class, those which regard the good of
others, contrib ute s_n1ore_to
progress--ê-
cr of
society. In the individual, as well as in society, the
former or " ordinary" iInpulses, if unchecked, often tend
to excess of passion, anJ what we call n1ental "disorder" ;
the atter (which are seldom in excess) tend to self-conjrol
and a well-ordered n1ind. In the former sense, it is more
H natural," because more" ordin,.uy," to laugh when we
are tickled, or to seize food when we are hungry, than to
die for our country or to provide food for our children;
but, in the latter sense;', the nobler ac ti ons are n10re
" natural" because Inore in accordance with order.
\Vhat do we Inèan by
\Vell-ordered n1Ïnd? \Ye Inean
one in which the \Yill does not at once yield to tbe
impulses from the things which seem nearest to ourselves;
in which the Imagination vividly presents to us the wants
of our neighbours as well as our own; in which the
H.eason states what can be said for and against each
proposal, and the Conscience finally decides the course
to be taken, Here then we see an entirely new notion of
Nature, at least so far as man is concerned; a course or
order of things no longer apart fron1 human intervention,
hut entirely dependent upoIL.!be suprem..j!cy _of the \V i ll
and Conscien ce aided by Reason and Imagination: and
h è'i1'Ce we are led to a double definition of human Nature
as follows :-
iii. Human l\Tature meaJls, sometimes tIle ordinary,
sometimes the orderly, course of human things.
Even as to non-human Nature we sometilnes find a
popular tendency to c:Ill, or t
ink, "unnatural," some
phcnOlnena which strike us as being contrary to the

Letter 13]

\YHAT IS NATURE?

137

general order and beneficence of things: and hence we
are less fond of saying that Nature prompts the cat to
torture the mouse or the moth to fly into the flame, than
that she iInplants in the anilnal race the parental instinct
to protect the young. I confess I sympathize with this
tendency, and with all those who in their hearts look
upon death and pain as being contrary to the ideal order
of things and ultimately destined to be destroyed. But
for the present, apart from sentiment, let us sin1ply not

the fact that in our popular language we sometilnes say
that it is th
nature of a dock to indicate the right time,
but sometimes that it is its nature to deviate fro
l1 the
ri
ht time: whence we deduce the conclusion that :-
iv. The Nature of a thing Illcans sometimcs its object,
sometimes its clIstom.

L'1.WS of Nature
1\Iany of those unbroken sequences of phenomena I-
around us, which have been nlost frequently observed,
have been made the subject of the hnagination and have
received an Ï1naginative name. \Vhen we find Nature,
upon an invariable system, dealing out rewards for one
rourse of action and penalties for another, there is
suggested to us the thought of a great Lawgiver laying
down laws and affixing rewards for obeying, and penalties
for disobeying. Hence the sequences of natural pheno-
111ena have been called" Laws of Nature."
Every action of every mOlnent of our lives is p-:rformed
for the 1110st part in the instinctive and unconscious
confidence that Nature will not deceive us by breaking
her Laws: and hence they n1ight, from another point of
view, be called" Promises of Nature," or " Expressions
of the \Vill of Nature; " but" Law of Nature" has been
selected-not perhaps altogether happily-as suggesting

13 8

\YHAT IS NATURE?

[LetÜr 13

sOlnething more fixed and definite than even the PrOlnises
or \Vill of the Maker of the world.
Law of iVature is a metaþhorical name f.!!.! afrCfj!!I'lj!Jy
observed sequence of þ!!.!..llome na (aþart from human
"'Vi!!), implyiìì'J!:"to some minds, regularity
' to others,
absolute invariability.

Suspension of L'1WS of Natura
Does human \Vill ever suspend a Law of Nature?
I am standing, we will suppose, under a tree in autumn.
If a leaf flutters down and rests upon my head. the Law
of gravitation is no more suspended by my \YiII, than if
it rests upon some intercepting bough. The result of the
La
is modifi ed; downward motion is r.eplaçcd by down-
ward pressure :but the Law itself is not suspended.
Bu
upon the comn1and of a 111an, the leaf were
arrested in mid air and remained immovable for an hour
together, and if I were led to the conclusion that this was
effected by no force which J could conceive as being
consistent with the ordinary course of N alure and with
the limitations of human power, then I should be obliged
to say that the Law of gravitation, in this particular
instance, did not work. U sing a n1ttaphor, I 111ight say
that the Law was "suspended," and the phenomenon
itself I should call a miracle.
I 11 reality the true explanation might be quite different.
I t is conceivable that an extraordinary man, once in a
thousand or once in ten thousand years, might be
endowed with the power of arresting the n10tion of a
stone in the air, without the intervention of the body and
by the mere exercise of \Yill; and this might be done by
him as easily, as regularly, and (for him) as naturally, as
we ordinary men stop a stone in the air by the exercise
of \Vill acting upon our bodily machinery, In that case

Letter 13]

\YHAT IS NATURE?

139

gravitation would still act, pressing the stone, so to
speak, upon an invisible hand: and the explanation
would be, not that the Law was suspended, but that the
results of the Law were uniquely modified by the peculiar
action of a unique hmnan nature, in the same way in
which they are commonly n10dified by the regular action
of an ordinary hun1an nature. This, I say, is conceivable.
Yet if we find (I) in past history, a general tendency to
believe in miracles on very slight evidence; (2) in tbe
present time, a general and, as many think, a uniyersal
refutation of the evidence on which miracles haye been
accepted; (3) an increasing power of explaining many
so-called miracles in accordance with natural Laws-it
becomes our obvious duty to regard miraculous narratives
with a very strong suspicion until cogent evidence has
been produced for their truth.

The Action of the Will
Hitherto we have been consideri:ng the action of the \Vill
upon external Nature; but now what as to the action of
our \Vill upon our own Nature, upon the Inachinery of
our own body? Is that to be called a Law of Nature or
a suspension of a Law of Nature?
It is to be caned neither. Our definition of " Law of
Nature" was" a metaphorical name given to the ordinary
course of things aþart from the intervention of human
will:" consequently the action of hmnan will (about
which we are now speaking) is expressly excluded from
the province of Nature, in this sense, and can neither be
called" a Law of Nature," nor a "suspension of a Law of
Nature." The action of the \Vill falls under the head of
"human Nature; " and, discussing it under that head, we
Inay call it by any metaphor we pleas.e, a custom, habIt,
law of hmnan Nature.

.

14 0

\YIL\T IS NATURE?

[Letter 13

This distinction betwcen the name given to the course
of non-human Nature and the name given to the action
of the human \Vill on the bodily framework, is based
on our diostinction between the regular and (if I may
use the word) the anticipable seqpences of the forn1er,
as contrasted with the irregular and unanticipable se-
quences of the latter. \Yhen the \Vill is undeveloped or
enfeebled; when the human being is a baby, or one of
an excited and undisciplined crowd, or lnaò, or drunk, or
llarcoticized, or mesmerized, or reduced to the bestial
level by some overpowering instinct; we can occasionally
prophesy his actions or movements with son1ething of the
certainty and accuracy with which \V
predict the 1110tions
of a machine: but we cannot thus calculate the actions
of a lnature, healthy, and reasonable Inan. Hence it has
been usual to contrast with the" Laws of Nature" the
"freedom of the hmnan \Vill." \Ve cannot den10nstrate
the freedom of the \Vill any 1110re than the fixity of the
Laws of Nature: the belief in both is suggested by
hnagination, tested and approved by Experience and
Reason, and finally retained by Faith. Of course, when I
speak thus, you will not suppose that I assmne that my
mind, or being, is divided into distinct parts (as the body
consists of distinct liInbs) called \Vill, Reason, &c,: you
will understand that I Inerely use the ordinary brief and
convenient p
raseology which says "The \ViIi does so-
and-so," meaning "I do so-and-so with a certain con-
sciousness which appears to me to result frOln a facuIty
inherent in me of choosing between two or more courses
of action, which facuIty I call \Vill." \Vith this precaution,
I assert that the action of the \Vill is natural as regards
human Nature, but outside Nature or " extra-natural" as
regards non-hmnan Nature, and that it does not involve
the suspension of what are technicaIly called" the Laws
of Nature."

Letter 13]

\YHAT IS NATURE?

14 1

It is thus shewn that the human \Vill acts directly on
the hUlnan body in accordance with the Laws of human
Nature, and that it does not interfere with the external
world except indirectly, through the body, in accordance
with the Laws of Nature (as technicaIly defined). There
is nothing therefore in the action of the human \Vill
that would justify the a þriori inference that the divine
Will would, by any direct intervention, disturb or suspend
that fixed Order in the external world which constitutes
a large part of the revelation of God to mankind.
If indeed we are to draw any kind of parallel between
divine and human action, we shall have to ask ourselves
what is there appertaining to the divine Spirit which can
in any sense be said to correspond to its" Body"? And
I suppose we shall reply, in Pauline language, that l\Ian-
kind, \vhich is said to have Christ for its Head, might be
mystically and spiritually called the Body of the divine
\Vill or Holy Spirit. If this be so, proceeding with our
parallel, might we not repeat, word for word, with the
needful proportionate changes, the language of the last
paragraph: "The divine \Vill or Spirit acts directly on
the divine body (that is on mankind) in accordance with
the Laws of Spiritual Natur
, and it does not interfere
with the external world, except indirectly, through Inan-
kind, in accordance with the Laws of Nature (as technically
defined) "? I do not say that this analogy is logic-proof:
for what can be called a "body;' or what "external;' in
relation to the all-pervading God? Nevertheless, as it
falls in with our actual experiences, this n1ystical parallel
seen1S as well worth recording as most a priori notions on
this subject, though we take it as no more than an illus-
tration of possibilities. But, if we are to confine ourselves
to certainties, the one thing certain is, that Nature, in
the fullest sense, human as well as non- human, emphati-
cally discourages us from expecting" miracles."

.

14 2 TIlE
nRACLES OF TIlE OLD TESTA:\IE:KT

XIV

ry DEAR --,
Your last letter now comes to the point which I
have been long anticipating, or rather it recurs to the
point from which our correspondence started-the credi-
bility of the Iniracles attributed to Christ. You tell me
that during the long vacation you have been rapidly
reviewing my letters and attempting to enter into my
views. There is much, you say, that is new, and there is
something that improves on acquaintance, in this forB1of
"Christian Positivism" as you call it; its intellectual
security has attractions for you, and it seems to you to
satisfy at once the aspirations of those who are drawn to
worship humanity, and of those who are drawn to worship
son1ething above humanity. All this looks very well on
paper, you say; but when you take up the Gospels, it
seems to fade away into a mere student's dream: and
you state the objection thus: "For our knowledge of
Christ, we depend ahnost entirely upon the New Testa-
ment; now the New Testament contains accounts of
luiracles; these miracles we are unable to accept as
historical; consequently the 1\ ew Testament n1ust be
regarded as non-historical, and the whole story of Christ
becomes a myth."
In return for this argument about the New Testament
let me supply you with a sin1ilarly sceptical one about the
Old Testan1cnt, and ask you whether you are prepared

Lett,y 14] J\IIRACLES OF THE OLD TEST Al\1ENT [43

consistently to adopt it. "For our knowledge of the
children of Israel, we depend almost entirely upon the Old
Testament; now the Old Testament contains accounts
of miracles; these n1iracles we are unable to accept
as historical; consequently the Old Testament must be
regarded as non-historical, and the story of the descend-
ants of Israel becomes a n1yth."
N ow are you really satisfied \vith this argument? The
so-called Law of 110ses, the wandering in the \Vilderness,
the conquest of Canaan, the lives of the wonder-working
Gideon and of Barak, the wars and songs of David, the
denunciations, warnings, consolations, sorrows, visions, of
Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel and the other prophets, are
they indeed, in your judgment, converted into -mere myths
by the admixture of the miraculous element? Are they
even made so far n1ythical as not to reveal the story of
the training of one of the most remarkable of nations, a
nation theologically quite singular upon earth? I contend
on the contrary, that the removal of the miraculous
element results in a two-fold advantage, on the one hand
placing the story of Israel in the province of history, and
on the other hand, not bringing it down to the level of
the common-place, but elevating it to a pinnacle aillong
the histories of nations, and making it in a certain sense
lllore wonderful than before. If Moses was a plenipo-
tentiary miracle-worker frOlll God, then there was nothing
unexpected or wonderful in the spiritual results that he
achieved; and the wonder rather is that he achieved so
little, Give me the thunders of Sinai, with power to burn,
blast, and plague my opponents; add to these the power of
producing without labour and without delay miraculous
supplies of manna, quails, and water, and I myself would
undertake to terrify or allure any nation into obeying a far
less noble and attractive code of laws than was set forth
in the nan1e of Moses. But when I see a lawgiver with

144 :\IIRACLES OF THE OLD TESTA:\IE
T [ldtLr 14

no such powers, doing what l\loses did, and shaping, or
preparing the way for shaping, one of the most carnal
and unspiritual of r:lces into a nation of Priests and
Prophets for the civilised world, then I am ready to fall
upon my face and to take my shoes from off my feet,
saying from the depth of my heart, " Truly God is in this
place." " But," say you, " the so-called Law of :\Ioses is
no more due to l\Ioses than trial by jury is ciue to Alfred."
That matters not. It is not an)' one Israelite; it is Israel

a
hole, Israel and its lawgivers and poets and prophets
colle ctively; it is the evolution of the spiritual from the
carnal I srael that I revere; and all the more, if that
evolution be natural. Regarded as miraculous, the history
of Israel is somewhat of a failure and a bathos; but,
regarded as non-miraculous, it becomes a n10st miracu-
lous triumph of divine intention and persistence, eyen
though the walls of Jericho succumbed to the trumpets of
Israel only in hyperbole, and although the sun stood still
at the bidding of Joshua only in the impassioned language
of an Oriental poet. -
I am quite sure you must feel this as strongly as I do ;
you cannot honestly and sincerely put aside all the history
of Israel as a myth because it contains a non-historic
c1elllent of miracles, any more than you put aside the
battles of Salamis and Regillus because they too hayc
received their miraculous adornment. But SOlne are
probably perplexed and scandalized at the task that is
apparently set before then1 of disentangling the true frOlll
the false, the myth frOlll the non-myth: "How strange,"
they say, "that the story of the"training of the Priests of
the world, that story which should have been a light to
guide our feet, has been suffered to shed darkness instead
of light and falsehood instead of truth! Is it probable,
is it e\Ten decent and reverent, to suppose that God should
have allowed the Book of Revelation to be so falsificd

LI'/ter 141 :MIRACLES OF THE OLD TEST A:\IEXT 145

that the simple and unlearned cannot depend upon it
without the aid of scholars and specialists? "
1\1y reply is that, as long as men reason in this way,
assuming that Revelation ought to have been conveyed
by some perfect medium, and therefore that it must have
been conveyed by smne perfect medium, so long it will
be as impossible to refute them as it was to refute the
Aristotelian astronomers who argued that "The planets
ought to move in perfect curves; and the circle is a
perfect curve; and therefore the planets must move in
circles." \Ve are like children crying for the moon if we
demand that this world, or that anything in this world,
shall be arranged as if the world were the best of all
possible worlds:- I t is not the best possible world, and
'''e- know it is not. Some things attest the glory
of God more perfectly than others; but nothing attests
it quite perfectly. You might as well hope to remove
refraction from the atmosphere, as to remove from the
human mind the prejudices which compel and always
have compelled mankind to exaggerate and nlisrepresent
divine truth by forcing us to think that God must have
acted as we should have acted had we been in His place,
If you and I were omnipotent and had to re-n1ake the
Universe, I suppose there is no question but we should
Inake nlan perfectly good (according to our notions of
goodness) and that we should force him to remain good.
And if you or I were Olnnipotent and had to reveal any-
thing to In en, we should write it large and clear in the sky,
or in the heart, legible to all without effort, so that men
should be forced to understand it. But God has neither
done this nor anythivg like it. Therefore, since in other
respects He has departed so very far fron1 our notions of
the best method, we cannot be surprised if He has not
composed the Old Testament quite in the Inanner which
would commend itself to us as the best. Fronl our point
L

146 l\IIR
\CLES OF TIlE OLD TESTA
IENT [Letfer 14

of view the Bible teems with obvious itnperfections. In
the first place there are none of the n10dern arrangements
for securing accuracy. No special newspaper reporters,
not even conten1porary writers of men10irs or histories,
have handed down to posterity the exact words and deeds
of 110ses J David, Isaiah, and the great heroes and prophets
of Israel. :J\light we not alnlost say tbat there have been
as it were arrangements for securing inaccuracy? The
authors wrote, in many case
a
the
vents they
recorded, under conditions which rendered accuracy
of detail quite impossible. They have often been lengthy
where we could have desired brevity (as for example in
the enumerations of pedigrees and in the details of the
furniture and ritual of the Temple or the Tabernacle) and
yery brief where we should have prized alnplitude. \Vriting
as Orientals for the most part write history, without
statiStical exactness, they have sometimes lllade mistãï;s
(sffiñëtirñës-se1f-conträdictory-;.istak
s) in nm nbe rs and
names, which it is now impossible to rectify. Nay, we
can hardly acquit then1 sometin1es of n1m"al error; they
have at all events sometimes appeared to praise, or at
least not to blan1e, sometimes even to impute to God, acts
that would seem to us-e,'en when all due allowance is
n1ade for difference between ancient and rnodern star.dards
of morality-deserving of express and severe censure.
But their special error which we are now considering
remains yet unmentioned. You know that nations, like
individuals, in their i
ancy_ have very vague notions of
the uniformity of Nature , and very strong notions of the
pcrsonality of Nature or of some Beings bëhindßature.
Even in lllodern times Orientals-would say that God or
Allah did this or that, where we say that this or that
"happened;" and I reillelnber hearing not lllany years
ago that some Jews of Palestine, suffering from the con-
sequences of extensive conflagration, wrote to England for

Letter 14]
IIRACLES OF THE OLD TEST A:\IENT 147

relief in a letter which declared-in perfect good faith, and
without any intention to Ì1nply a Iniracle-that God had
"sent down fire frOln heaven upon their town." An
Eastern traveller of modern times tells an amusing story
to the same effect how a camel-dri,-er, when questioned as
to the cause of his rheumatisn1, could not be induced for
a 100"lg time to make any other answer except that" Allah
had caused it ; " and even when the traveller had elicited
the imlnediate cause, the n1an would still persist that
" Allah had sent the rheumatism, though it had followed
upon drinking a great quantity of camels' milk when he
was in a violent heat." You should therefore accustom
yourself, if you want to understand the Bible, to look at
\Vestern narrative from an Oriental point of view. Take
for example the interesting account given by the African
traveller .M ungo Park of the manner in which a trifling
incident saved his life in the desert. Alone and desperate,
faint and famished, he had thrown himself down to die,
when he suddenly caught sight of a small but exquisitely
shaped plant of great rarity and interest: "And can God
ha ve taken so much thought and care for the creation of
this little plant," he cried, " and ha ve no thought or care
for me?" In the strength of this suggestion he started up,
pressed on his way, and reached safety. N ow compare
this striking little story with the sÌ1nilar incident of the
gourd, recorded in the Boo

of Jonah, and imagine how a
prophet of Israel could have described the message of
salvation. He would have told us (as the prophet Jonah
tells us) how the Lord God in the same. day caused a
plant to grow up before the face of the man, and how the
Lord God said unto the man" lIath the Lord thy God
taken thought for this plant, and shall He take no thought
for thee? Arise, go on thy way" - giving, as from God,
the actual words of the thought which the \Vestern
traveller describes as suggesting itself or occurring to his
L 2

I.t. S l\IIR_\CLES OF TIlE OLD TESTAl\IE?\T [Letler 14

n1ind. You must surely see how naturally this con\'ersion
of the natural into the seelningly ll1iraculous would haye
been effected by a penlnan of Israel, without the least
intention to imply a real suspension of the laws of nature.
Keeping yourself still in the position of an Oriental
historian, consider what you would be calleel on to de-
scribe, in setting down the story of Israel. You would find,
as your Inaterials, various traditions, mostly oral, mostly
perhaps poetic, describing a great deliverance wrought in
every particular by the hand of Jehovah Himself: you
would find the nation around you, and yourself among the
rest, believing that Jehovah Himself had drowned the
Egyptians in the Red Sea, that His terrible voice had gi\'en
the Law from Sinai, that He had been to wandering Israel
a cloud in the noontide to protect them from the sun, and
a light in the darkness to give them guidance, that He had
supplied them with food from Hem'en and spread a table
for them in the wilderness, that He had HÌ1nself giyen
them water frOln Himself (the Rock of Israel !) to quench
their thirst. If the Jordan's fords, unusually shallow, had
allowed the whole nation to pass across, as upon dry land,
you would be taught as a child to hear and sing, in hYlnns
that reiterated the national deliverance, that the Lord
Himself had done this: "The waters saw thee, 0 Lord,
the waters saw thee, and were afraid." If, in the general
terror of the Canaanites, a strong city suffered itself to be
taken on the Inere onset and war cry of the invaders as
easily as though it had been an unwalled hamlet, the
traditions would tell how the walls fell flat at the sound
of the trmnpets of Joshua; if SOllle sudden storm, accom-
panied with hail and inllnediately followed by an inunda-
tion of swollen streallls, threw the chariots and horses of
the enelny into confusion and ensured their speedy rout; or
if, on another occasion, the sudden gloOln of a stonn had
been succeeded by a long evening of peculiar brightness

Letter 14] :.\IIRACLES OF THE OLD TEST A:\IEKT 149

and clearness facilitating the pursuit and destruction of
the foe, then you would hear that the "stars in their
courses" fought against Sisera, or that in the day of
Beth-horon the Lord Himself sent down hailstones upon
the enemy and stopped the sun at the prayer of Joshua :-

" The sun and moon stood still in their habitation ;
At the light of thine arrows as they went,
At the shining of thy glittering spear." 1

All these materials, expressed in terse poetic phrase,
you, as a historian, would have to amplify into prose. Is
it not easy to see how, in the process, without any fraud or
conscious exaggeration on your part, you would trans-
mute the natural into the miraculous?
To go through the whole of the miracles in the Old
Testament and to attelnpt to shew how in almost every
case the miraculous part of the story lnay have crept in
without intention to deceive, would be a task far above
m y po wers; and it would require a book not a letter. If
you were to study with care the articles in the Encyclo-
þædia Britannica on the books of the Old Testament they
would give you a good deal of light on this subject. But
the problem is cOlnplicated by the fact that the causes that
originated the miraculous element are not always the
same. For example the seven miracles of Elijah and the
fourteen miracles of Elisha (the latter number being
exactly the double of the former in order to fulfil the
prayer of Elisha for a "twofold" portion of the spirit of
his master) cannot be explained in the saIne way as the
miracles of the \Vanderings or as those in the life of
Samson. The eminent Hebraist to whOln we are in-
debted for the Articles abmTe-mentioned would confer on
all students of the Bible a very great benefit, if he would
gÌ\Te us a separate treatise on the G ld Testament miracles.
l\Icantime I lnust content myself with shewing how some
1 Habakkuk iii, IT.

I 50
I IR.\CLES OF THE OLD TESTAMENT [.ldl<r 14

ll1iracles, of what I may call a " grotesque " kind, may be
explained as the lTIere result of misunderstood nan1es.
y ou must
aIni li
I;ti 1is kind of exp lãñãti on, I think,
in ancient history, and e,-en in n10dern English history,
although you have never thought of applying it to the
Bible. Perhaps you have read in l\Ir. Isaac Taylor's
IVords and Places how the sexton in Leighton Buzzard
u
ed to show the eagle of the lectern as the identical
bu:::zard from which the place derived its nalne-little
guessing that" Duzzard" is a lnere corruption of "Beau-
désert ; " and the porter at \Varwick Castle, when he shows
you the bones of the" dun cow" slain by Guy of \Varwick,
hands down a silnilar erroneous tradition probably derived
from a misunderstanding of" dun." 1 A far more famous
instance connects itself with the Phænician name of
"13osra," belonging to the citadel of Carthage. This
name nleant, in the Phænician language, "citadel;" but
the Greeks confused it with the Greek word "Bursa," a
" hide; " and then they proceeded to invent a story to ex-
plain the name. Queen Dido, they said, had bought for
a slnall price as lnuch ground as she could encompas

with a hide; she had cut the hide into thin thongs and
thereby purchased the site of a city for a trifle: 11C'nce tne
city received the name of "Hide." Thus subtilized the
Greeks; but it may interest you to know that our own
ancestors consciously or unconsciously followed in their
footsteps. There is near Sittingbourne a castle called Tong
or Thong Castle, situated on a" tongue" of land (N orse,
tU71ga) which has given it its nalne. But tradition has
invented or iInitated the old Greek story, and has de-
clared that the castle was so-called because the site was
bought like Dido's, a trifling price being gi,'en for so

1 U The legend of the v:ctory gained by Guy of \Varwick over the dun cow
mo"t prJbably or,ginated in a lI1i
under'tood tradition of his conqlle<;t d the
lJena gnu or Danish settlement in the neigh!_ourhoud of \Var\\ iLk.' -1 aylor's
JVords and Pl,lCCS. p, 269.

Leiter 14] :\IIRA.CLES OF THE OLD TESTAMENT 15 1

lnuch land as could be included in the "thong" made
frmn a bull's hide.
But now to come to the particular instance which is
the only one I shall give from the Old Testament. You
must recollect, and I think you ought to have been
perplexed by, the astounding incident in the life of Samson,
connected with the" ass's jawbone." The hero is said
first to have slain smne hundreds of lnen with the jaw-
bone of an ass, and then to have thrown away the jaw.
bone in the anguish of a parching thirst. Upon this, the
Lord is said, (in the Old Version of the Bible) to have
opened a fountain of water in the hollow of the jawbone
in answer to his cry: and the fountain was henceforth
named En-hakkore, i.e. the" fountain of him that calleth,"
because Samson" called upon the Lord." l\Ioreover,
when he cast away the jawbone, he is said to have caBed
the place Ratnath-Iehi; \\-hich the margin (not of the New
Version but of the Cld) interprets, "the lifting up of the
jawbone" or "the casting away of the jawbone." \Vithout
pausing to dwell on the extreme improbability of the
details of the story, I will merely state the probable
explanation, I t is probable that the valley containing
the" hollow" in which the fountain lay, was called, from
the configuration of the place, "the Ass's Jawbone,"
before the occurrence of any exploit of Samson in it.
Indeed we find it actually called" Lehi," or " Jawbone,"
in the narrative now under discussion, just before the
supposed incident of the jawbone took place: "The
Philistines went up, and pitched in Judah, and spread
themselves in Lehi (Jawbone)," Judges xv. 9. This
latter fact indeed is not conclusive (as the narrator,
living long after the event, might possibly use the
natne of the place handed down to him, even in writing
of a time when he believed the name to have been not
)"et given) : but the probability of a natural explanation of

152 :MIRACLES OF TIlE OLD TEST AMEKT [LeIter 14

the origin of the name receives strong confinnation from
a passage in Strabo (303) who actually lllentions S0111e
other place (I think in Peloponnesus) called the" Ass's
Jawbone. " I need not say that Strabo narrates no such
Samsonian incident to explain the name, and that it was
probably derived (like Dog's Head, Hog's Back and
111any other such names) from some similarity between
the shape of an ass's jawbone and the shape of the valley.
l\Ioreover, the word translated" hollow," though it might
represent the cavity in an ass's jawbone, Inight also repre-
sent the hollow in a vaHey, as in Zephaniah (i. I I) " Howl,
ye inhabitants of the llOllow." Again, the name Ramath-
lehi cannot mean" casting away of the jawbone;" it
means" lifting up," or " ltill':' of Lehi: and accordingly
the Revised Version translates, "that place was called
Ralnath-lehi ;" and the margin interprets the name thus,
" The Izill of the jawbone ". I should add also that the
Revisers-instead of the Old Version, "clave an hoIlow
place that was i1l tile ja'lf.J "-gÏ\-e us now, "clave the
hollow place that is in Lehi." You n1ust see now surely
how on every side the old miraculous interpretation
breaks down and makes way for a natural and non-
miraculous explanation of the legend. But we have still
to explain the name of the fountain, said to have been
given from the" calling" of Samson. This is easily done.
It appears that the phrase" him that calleth," or "the
Caller," is a Hebrew name for the Partridge, so named
from its "call," or cry. The" Fountain of the Caller,"
therefore, in the" hollow place" of the" Ass's Jawbone,"
was simply, as we might say, Partridge 'VeIl in Jawbone
Valley, which lay below Jawbone Hill.
But now, many years after the chalnpion of Israel had
passed away, comes the legendary poet or historian, who
has to tell of some great exploit of deliverance wrought
by the hero Samson in this Valley of the Jawbone of the

Letter 14] MIRACLES OF THE OLD TESTAßIENT 153

Ass by the side of the Fountain of the Caller. Straight-
way, every local name must be connected with the
incident that fills his rnind and the minds of all his
countrymen who live in the neighbourhood. And so
"Jawbone Valley" becalne so called because it was there
that Samson smote the Philistines with "the jawbone
of an ass;" and "Jawbone heights" are so-called
because on this spot Samson "lifted up" the jawbone
against his foes, or "threw it away" aiter he had de-
stroyed them; and" the \Vell of the Caller" derives not
only its nalne but even its miraculous existence frOln
" the callÙl/{ of Samson upon Jehovah."
I think you will now perceive the kind of reasoning
which has compelled me to give up the miracles of the
Old Testalnent. It is not in any way because I have an
a priori prejudice against miracJes: on the contrary,
I started with an a priori prejudice for n1iracles in the
Bible, though against miracles in general. It is not simply
because there is not sufficient evidence for theln; it is
in great measure because there is evidence against them.
For, when you can shew how a supposed miracle may
naturally have occurred, and how the miraculous account
11lay naturally and easily have sprung up, I think that
amounts to evidence against the miracle. And of course
when you find yourself compelled to explain in this way
a large number of miracles in the Old Testalnent, it
becomes far more probable than before that the rest are
susceptible of some natural explanation. I do not pretend
to have investigated in detail every n1iraculous narrative
in the Old Testament. I mn ready to admit that at the
bottOln of the miraculous, there may have been in many
cases sornething very wonderful. Being for example
personally very much inclined to the 111ysterious, I woujd
not deny that in the Hebrew race, as in some others,
there n1ay have been some strange power, natural but at

154 :MIRACLES OF TIlE OLD TESTA:\IEKT [Leffer 14

present inexplicable, of "second sight;" but, on the
w hole, looking at the evidence for and against the miracles
of the Old Testament, I have now no hesitation in rejecting
them as Iniracles, however Inuch I n1ay admire the spirit
that suggested the narratives, as exhibiting a profound
and spiritual sense of the sYlnpathy of God with men.
But we n1ay perhaps be called upon to belie,-e in the
luiracles of the Old Testament on the authority, so to
speak, of the n1Ìracles of the K ew Testament. Such at
least I take to be the meaning of the following extract
frOln an author who has done so much good educational
as well as episcopal work, and has n1anifested such an
openness to new truth, that I differ from hin1 with diffi-
dence where I nlay possibly have misunderstood his
nleaning, and witb regret where I aIn confident that I
have understood him correctly. The passage is from
Bishop Telnple's Balnpton Lectures,! and I will give it
at full length, partly because I n1ay ha,-e to refer to it
again, partly because I am afraid of n1isinterpreting it
if I separate one or two sentences from the context:

" \Ve have to a<;k \\' hat e\.idence can be given that any such miracles as are
recorded in the B.blc have ever been wùrked? It is r-Iain at once that the
answer must be given by the New Testament. K 0 such 2 evidence can now
be produced on behalf of the miracles 0f the Old Testament. The times are
remote. the date and authorship of the Books not establl
hed with certainty;
the mixture of þoetry 'Zuitlt history, no IOllger caþable 0/ allY sure seþaration
into its þarts.. and. if the New Testament did not exi
t, it would be im-
possible to show such a di<;tinct preponderance of probability as could justify
us in calI.ng many [ ? any] to accept the miraculous parts of the narrative as
historically true."

If I understand this argmnent, I fear I n1ust dissent
fronl it. But let us try at least to understand it. Dr.
Temple adn1its (what I should not be disposed to have
admitted without a good deal of qualification) that" the
mixture of þoetry with history" (and the context makes it
clear that he is referring to the n1iraculous accounts of

1 Page 206.
2 The italics are in the text. In the next sentence, the italics are mine.

Leiter 14] MIRACLES OF THE OLD TEST A:\IENT 155

the Old Testament) is "no longer capable of any sure
separation into its parts." This is a very important
admission indeed, A plain Englishman may n1iss, at
first sight, the full ill1portance of it. He n1ay be dis-
posed to say, "\Vhat does this matter to me? \\That
do I care whether a miracle is told in poetry or in prose,
provided only it is true?" But by" poetry" Dr. Temple
does not mean "verse;" he means byperbole, poctic
figures of .speech
d n1etapl
in plain English, he
meãñs language that is literally and historically untrue.
Consequently the admission amounts to this, that it is now
no longer possible in the miraculous narratives of the Old
Testament to separate what is historically true from what
is historically untrue. If this be so, I cannot understand
how the question is substantially affected by the New
Testament, Let us suppose for a mOll1ent that, many
centuries after the times of :Moses and Samson, real
miracles were wrought by Christ and the apostles; suppose
cyen, in addition, that the reality of the miracles wrought
by Christ and his followers could constitute any evidence
for the l\losaic l\liracles or could refute the evidence
against such stories as that of the Ass's jawbone; yct
even then, what is the use of knowing that there may be
a miracle somewhere concealed in an Old Testament
narrative in which it is impossible to "make any sure
separation" of the historically true from the historically
untrue?
But for my part I an1 quite unable to adopt either of
these suppositions. I cannot see how "a distinct pre-
ponderance of probability" for the Samsonian n1yth or
the story of the stopping of the sun could be secured by
the fact that miracles were really, long afterwards, per-
formed by Christ. All that could fairly be said, as it
seems to n1e, would be this, that since n1iracles were
actually wrought by the Redeemer of the race, who was

.

156 :l\1IRACLES OF THE OLD TEST..\l\IEi\T [Ld/e;- 14

Himself a child of Israel, it is not so improbable as be-
fore that Iniracles might have been also wrought by other
previous deliverers of Israel. But this could not go far,
and certainly cannot constitute" a distinct preponder-
ance of probability," if we find positive evidence for a
miracle almost wanting, and negative evidence against it
very strong. 1
So far as Dr. Temple's argument has weight, so far it
appears to Ine to be capable of being used in the opposite
direction to that which he intended, For if there is any
connection between the miracles of the Old and of the
K ew Testament, so that the probability of the latter lllay
be fairly said-I wiII not say to constitute" a distinct
preponderance of probability," but to contribute slightly
to the probability of the fonner, then surely we nlust
also admit that the delllonstrated improbabIlity of the
fonner must contribute slightly to the II þriori improba-
bility which we ought to attach to the latter. If the
Bible is to be regarded as a whole, and Bible miracles as
a whole, then the fact that the Divine Author of the Bible
allowed revelation in the earlier part of the Book to be
conveyed through an imperfect and non-historical nlediul1l
will constitute a reasonable probability that He nlay also
have conveyed His later revelations through the same
nleans. In other words, the acknowledged presence of
the law of "Truth through IIIusion" in the Old Testa-
nlent should prepare us not to be disappointed if we find

I A more plausible argument might be derived fr0m any expressions of
Jesus which nÜght appear to imply a belief in the historical nature of the
Old Testament miracles. This argument appeals strongly to our sense of
reverence. \Ve do not like to think that J e')us was mistaken even in a purely
intellectual matter. Yet do we really supp<.se that Jesus, in His humanity,
was exempt from the popular intellectual and scient.fic errors of contem}Jorary
humanity? For example, do we really suppose that Jesus was exempt from
the popular belief that the sun moves? For tho,e who realize His humanity
it is hard to think ,hat He was intended to be so far separated from the men
and women around Him; and, if He was not so separated, I find little mr re
difficulty in suppo:>ing that He would have had the same belief <JS was held hy
all His countrymen concerning the historical character of the Old Testament.

Ldtcr 14] MIRACLES OF THE OLD TESTA
IENT i 57

the same law traceable in the New Testament: and the
collapse of n1iracles in the fOrIner should prepare us for a
collapse of n1iracles in the latter.
Do not however suppose for a n10n1ent that a collapse
of n1iracles implies a collapse of the Bible, and do not be
disheartened by such expressions as that "the mixture of
poetry with history is no longer capable of any sure
separation into its parts." If that expression refers
merely to son1e of the legends of the times of the Patri-
archs, or to a few isolated passages elsewhere, it n1ay be
accepted without fear; but it cannot apply to the great
bulk of the history of the Chosen People. Here you will
find very little difficulty in rejecting the obviously non-
historical and miraculous element; and you will lose
nothing by the rejection. Read through Stan!ey's Lectures
Oil the Jewish Church and ask yourself whether you have
n1issed anything from the campaigns of Joshua and the
exploits of Gideon and Samson because the n1irac1es
have vanished frOl11 his pages. \Vhere miraculous
narratives are manifestly not deliberate fabrications, but
(as here) late prosaic interpretations of early poetic
traditions, they very often afford trustworthy evidence of
ancient historical events which Ì1nprinted then1selves upon
the hearts of a simple people. Certainly I can say for
myself that I never real
zed Israel as a nation and had not
half my present appreciation of the wisdom and wonder
of the deliverance and training of Israel by Jehovah till
I had learned to interpret the n1iracles as being nothing
more than man's inadequate attempt to set forth in visible
shape the unique reden1ption of the Chosen People.
Spiritually as well as intellectually, n1)' enjoyment of the
Old Testament has been doubled ever since I have been
able, howe
erjQ1 peY
ctly, to separate the historical ele-
lnent in It from th e non-historical, and to interpret the
prose asprose and the poetry as poetry.

"

ISS THE l\IIRACLES OF THE NE\V TEST AMEI\T

x_v

l\Iv DEAR -,
You demur to the parallel that I draw between the
Old Testament and the New Testament: "The Dattle of
Beth-horon can be disentangled from the miracle of the
stopping of the sun, just as the battles of SalanlÍs and
Regillus can be disentangled from the visions which are
said to have accOlnpanied them: and so of other Old
Testament narratives. But is it possible," you ask, " that
the life of Christ can be disentangled from miracles? Do
not His own words and doctrine imply a continual as-
sumption that He had power to do ' mighty works' superior
to those of ordinary lnen ?"
You could not have put your question more happily:
for you unconsciously illustrate the almost universal con-
fusion-common to a great number of theologians and
agnostics as well as to the ordinary Bible reader-between
" miracles" and" mighty works." You are really asking
not one but two questions. Your first question asks about
" miracles;" by which you mean some kind of suspen-
sion of a law of nature, or, if you prefer it, some act
not conceived as explicable in accordance with any
natural law by the person who is attempting explana-
tion. Your second question asks about" mighty works,"
a phrase of constant occurrence in the New Testament,
by which phrase we may understand works superior
to the works of ordinary persons, but not necessarily
suspensions of the laws of nature. \V orks may be

Le':ter 15] MIRACLES OF THE N"E\Y TESTA
IENT 159

"mighty" and yet quite explicable in accordance with
natural law.
You seenl to expect a No to your first question and a
Yes to your second. I answer Yes to both. (I) The life
of Christ can be disentangled from" miracles." (2) Christ
always assumed that He could do "mighty works," and
from them H is life cannot be separated.
It is a law of human nature that the mind influences the
body. By acting on the imagination and the emotions men
have in all ages consciously or unconsciously effected
instantaneous cures in accordance with natural laws.
There has been nluch quackery and deception mixed up
with cures of this kind; but no physician, and no man of
any general information, would doubt that such cures
have been and still are performed. The J ansenists,
subjected to the test of hostile observation, had some
undeniable successes of this nature. Everyone has
heard of the so-called "miracles" of Lourdes; and no
unprejudiced person would deny that amid possible ex-
aggerations and (I greatly fear) some frauds, they have
contained an element of reality. " Faith-healing" is
going on in England during this very year; and in the
very place where I am now writing I heard a captain of
the Salvation Army just now give out a notice that,
beside!:; a "free and easy meeting," and a " holiness meet-
ing," and sundry other meetings, there is to be a l11eeting
on one evening this week for the purpose of "casting out
devils." If I go there, I shall probably see attempts,
with partial success, to excite a paralytic to motion, or to
arouse some one from a dull stupor approximating to
insanity. These attempts, even though immensely as-
sisted by the intense interest and sympathetic demon-
strations of the spectators, will probably produce only a
temporary effect; and when it passes away the patient
will very likely be worse than before. But the law of

16;)
IIR.\CLES OF TIlE KE\V TESTA1\IEXT [Lctlc:r 15

nature is the same with all ; in modern times with the
J ansenists, the miracle-workers of Lourdes, the "faith-
healers':' and the Salvation Anny, and in ancient tilnes
with the priests of ./Esculapius. Cures can be effected
by a strong en1otional shock, sometimes of a gross kind
such as nlere terror or violent excitell1ent, sometimes of a
much purer kind, an ecstatic hope and trust. A Inarked
distinction must of course be made between those cures
which can, and those which cannot, be effected by appeal
to the emotions. Paralysis (called in the New Testalnent
" palsy"), mental disease (often called in the 1:\ ew Testa-
ment "possession "), and various kinds of neryous dis-
order, are all susceptible of emotional cure: but the loss
of a limb cannot be so cured. The cure of a man sick
of the palsy by the emotional method would be a 111iracle
for spectators of the first century, but it would not be a
111iracle for us now; that is to say, it would be explicable
by us, but not by them, in accordance with known natural
laws: but the restoration of a lost limb by faith would
be a miracle for thell1 and for us alike: we know nothing
of any natural law in accordance with which such an act
could be performed by any degree of faith.
K ow it will be adll1itted by all that the great 111ajority
of Christ's "nlighty works" were acts of healing, and
that many of these were expressly attributed by Him to
faith. "Seeing their faith" is the preface, in each of the
three Synoptic Gospels, to the account of the cure of the
paralytic man, and it is a very curious preface; for it
seems to shew that Jesus recognized a kind of sponsorial
and contagious efficacy of faith in that instance (as also
in the case of the father of the epileptic boy); and we
know by modern experience of" faith-healing" how great
is the influence of a sympathetic and trustful audience.
Elsewhere, "Thy faith hath made thee whole," " Accord-
ing to your faith be it unto you," "Great is thy faith, be

Ldter 15] MIRACLES OF THE NE\V TEST A:\IENT 161

it unto thee even as thou wilt," "Thy faith hath saved
thee," "If thou canst believe, all things are possible,"
" Believe ye that I am able to do this?" "Be not afraid,
only believe "-these and similar expressions lead us to
conclude that many of the "mighty works" of ] esu<;
were conditional on faith. Perhaps it might startle you
if I were tõSãÿ that Jesus was not able to perform a
"mighty work" unless faith \yas present; yet if I said
this, I should only be repeating what 51. lVIark (d. 5),
the earliest of the Evangelists, says on a certain occasion,
that on account of the general unbelief at Nazareth] esus
'was 110t able (OVK E'
úvaTo) to do there any mighty work,
"save that he laid his hands upon a few sick folk and
healed them." This confession is so frank and almost
scandalizing in its plainness that we cannot be surprised
that the later Evangelist, in his parallel narrative, softens
it down by omitting the words" was not able," and by
inserting" many." 1 \Ve need by no Ineans infer from
this narrative that Jesus attempted "mighty works" and
failed. It may be that He did not attempt them because
He discerned the faithlessness of those around Him,
and felt His own consequent inability. But, interpret it
as we nIay, this passage remains a most important con-
firmation of the other passages in which] esus Himself
implies the necessity of faith. \Vhere there was no faith,
there] esus "'was 110t able to do any mighty work;" and
this limit to His power] esus Himself recognized.
Here then we find at once a remarkable difference
between most of the" mighty works" of Jesus and the
"miracles" of the Old Testament. The former were con-
ditional on faith, and, this condition suggests that many
of them may be explicable on natural laws; the latter

1 St. Matthew ix. 58, "And he did not many mighty work.. there because
of their unbelief." For a demonstrative proof that the Go<;pel of St. Mark
contains the earliest tradition, see the beginning of the article" Gospels" in
the Entyc/opædia Britannica.

1\1

162 )IIR.\CLES OF THE XE\V TESTA:;\IENT [Letter 15

have no condition attached to them and there is nothing
to suggest that they are explicable on any natural law.
Indeed the miracles of the Old Testament are very often
wrought, not as a natural response to belief, but as a
rebuke to unbelief: thus the hand of Moses is made
leprous one n10ment and pure the next, in order to in-
spire hin1
vith faith; Gideon lays out a fleece on the
grass, and the laws of nature are suspended for the
purpose of making it wet to-day and dry to-lTIOrrOW,
simply in order that his unbelieving heart may be en-
couraged by a sign frOln God; the faithless Ahaz is
encouraged by God in the Old Testament to ask for
that very favour which Christ in the New Testament
systematically refused to the Pharisees-a sign frOln
heaven: and for the sake of Hezekiah (who asks" \Yhat
shall be the sign that the Lord will heal me?") the dial
goes miraculously backward! Could contrast be more
complete?
I t follows that we shall be acting hastily if we place
the "mighty works" of Jesus on the same level as the
,. miracles" of the Old Testament, inasmuch as the former
are (in the strict sense of the tenn) "mighty works;'
while the latter (again in the strict sense of the term) are
" miracles." But in addition to this reason, derivable
from the nature of the works themselves, there is another
reason, derivable from the evidence, for drawing a dis-
tinction. Besides the direct testin10ny of the Gospels,
we have other testimony, indirect but even more cogent,
to prove that Jesus wrought wonderful cures. The earliest
of the Gospels was probably not composed in its present
shape till more than a generation had passed away after
the death of Christ; and, during the lapse of thirty years
evidence-especially if handed down by oral, and that
too Oriental, tradition-may undergo many corruptions.
But the letters of St. Paul are earlier, some of them much

Le!lt:r IS] MIRACLES OF TIlE XE\V TEST A:\IEXT 16 3

earlier; and many of them are of such an unaffected, per-
sonal, informal nature that it is absolutely impossible to
suppose that they were written to express a conviction
that the writer did not feel, or to make the readers believe
in truths which were no truths. Now in his letters St.
Paul quietly assumes that many of his fellow-Christians,
and he himself in particular, had the power of working
wonderful cures without the ordinary means. 1 He even
sets down this power as one among many "gifts" or
"graces" vouchsafed to the Church, and he places it by
no means high in the list. A man must be absolutely
destitute of all power of literary and historical criticism,
if he can persuade himself that these expressions in St.
Paul's letters had no basis of fact, and that they were
inserted, though unmeaning both to the writer and to the
hearers, in order to delude posterity into a false belief.
There is nothing in the Epistles to indicate the nature of
the diseases which were cured by St. Paul and his
followers. \Ve may conjecture with much probability
that they were nervous diseases, paralysis, "possession,"
and the like, such as might be acted on by the "emo-
tional shock" of faith: and the conjecture is confirmed
by the fact that, in the time of J osephl1s, healers of de-
moniacs were very common in Palestine; and certain
Jews of Ephesus are recorded in the Acts of the Apostles
to have tried an experiment, after Paul's manner, in
attempting to cure a case of one "po
se3sed." But be
this as it may, the fact that St. Paul and St. Paul's con-
temporaries unquestionably cured some kinds of diseases
in the name of Jesus, and did this after SOlne sort of
I To the same effect is James V. 14. IS: .. Is any among you sick? Let
him call for the eIders of the church; and let them pray over him, anointing-
him with oil in the name of the Lord: and the prayer of faith shall save the
sick, and the Lord shall raise him up." There can be no doubt that this
refers to literal healing; and it is interesting as an indication that probably
these early Christian attempts at healing were often tentative. For it will
hardly be maintained that allwho were thus anointed were healed: otherwise
death would have been exterminated in the early Christian church.
1\I 2

.

16 4 :MIRACLES OF TIlE NE\V TESTA
IENT [Letter 15

system, by the utterance of the name of Jesus, without
the ordinary lneans, is a very strong confirmation of the
accuracy of the Gospels in attributing to Jesus the power
of working instantaneous cures. I t would be strange
indeed that the Disciples, ang. not the Master, should
ha ve had such powers.
I have laid stress upon the fact that Jesus wrought
" mighty" but natural cures, in the first place, because it
ought to increase our appreciation of His personal influ-
ence and power o,'er the souls of men, to know that He
not only possessed this power in an unprecedented degree
but also communicated it to H is disciples; and secondly,
because the fact that He performed these" mighty works"
has naturally led people, frOln the earliest times down to
the present day, to infer that He performed "miracles."
Even at the present tilne you will find that the great mass
of Christians make no distinction at all between healing
a paralytic or a demoniac or a dumb Inan, and restoring a
severed ear or blasting a fig-tree: all alike seem to then1
" miracles." If this is so even in these days, in spite of
physiology, you cannot be surprised that the first Chris-
tians and their followers made no such distinction; they
assunled that the man who could heal a paralytic by a
word could heal any other disease in the same way, and
do any other work he pleased contrary to the course of
nature. This belief would prepare the way for attributing to
Jesus other works of a very different kind, real" miracles,"
that is, suspensions of the laws of nature. Considering
the multitude of such acts recorded in the (ld Testanlent
as having been perfornled by rvloses, Elijah, Elisha and
others, we may well be surprised to find how very few
have been attributed to Jesus: and I believe it can
be shewn that each of these few has originated fronl
some misunderstanding, and with
t any inte ntiOl
.JO
ciéëe ive. Of ãlñWSt all of thëSë real "rnirac1es/ said

Letter 1.5] MIRACLES OF THE NE'V TESTA:\IENT 165

to have been wrought by Christ, I believe we are justified
in saying with Bishop Temple that, if we take each by
itself, we cannot find for it any" clear, and unmistake-
able, and sufficient evidence." 1 So far from being an ex-
aggeration this is rather an understatement of the case:
there is not only no "clear and unmistakeable and suffi-
cient eyidence " for them, there is also very strong indi-
rect evidence against some of them. In some future letter
I may deal in detail with these miracles; for the present
I will select only one.
This one shall be the most striking of all the miracles
in the New Testament, a miracle exceeding in wonder
even the raising of Lazarus. It is found only in St.
Matthew's Gospel, and describes an incident that followed
immediately on the death of Jesus. Here are the exact
words:

,C And the earth did quake. and the tombs were opened; and many bodies
of the saints that had fallen a,leep were raised; and coming forth out of the
tombs after his resurrectLon they entered into the Holy City and appeared
unto many. t,

Have I at all exaggerated this miracle in declaring
it to be n10re startling than even the raising of Lazarus?
I t records the resurrection, not of one man, but of
many. N or are we allowed by the author to suppose
that he referred to visions of the dead, appearing unto
friends; for he tells us that" the tombs were oþened, and
many bodies of the saints arose." 110reover this would
appear to have been a n1iracle not wrought in private as
many of the mighty \vorks of Jesus were, nor a sight vouch-
safed to a chosen few (like the manifestations of Jesus
after death) ; for these "bodies" went into Jerusalem,

I Bishop Temple excepts only the Resurrection. which is not here under
consideration. H is words are: .. It is true too that, if we take each miracle
by itself, there is but one miracle, namely our Lord's ResurrectIOn, for
'Which clear, a1zd unmistakeable, and sufficient e'llidencc is gÍ7'CI1."-
Bfl1llþto1Z Lectures, p. 154.

166
IIR.\CLES OF TIlE NE\V TEST_\
IEKT [Letter 15

during the Passover, at a tin1e ,,-hen the city was
thronged with visitors, and "appeared unto roany." \Vhat
subsequently became of these "bodies "--whether they
remained on earth till the Ascension when they ascended
with Jesus, or whether they lived their lives over again
and were buried a second time, or whether they \\ent
back to their ton1bs again after they had appeared in
J erusalen1-is a question of some difficulty, which has
exercised the minds of comn1cntators and has been
answered rather variously than satisfactorily. Bc this as
it may, the miracle must be confessed by an to bc
stupendous.
N ow for the evidence of it. I have been quoting fron1
St. 1\1 atthew' s account of this miracle. \Yhat would a
dispassionate and intelligent heathen say of it, coming
for the first time to the study of our four Gospels? \V ould
it not be something of this sort: "Here you call on nlC
to belie,'e a miracle that appears to me to be motiveless
and is certainly singularly startling: but I will suspend
my judgment of it till I hear the accounts given by your
other three Evangelists. \Vhat do they say of the effect
produced upon the disciples and bystanders by this earth-
quake and this most extraordinary resurrection? There
were present the won1en that loved and followed Jesus,
there was the Roman centurion, there were' many' who
witnessed the appearances of the dead: even to those
who were not present, an earthquake rending the rocks
in the neighbourhood could not be imperceptible: what
therefore is said on these points by other contemporary
authors as well as by your four Gospels? Tell me
that first; and then I will tell you what I think of the
miracle."
In answer to this request, which I think we must
characterize as a very natural one, we should ha ,'e first
to admit that no profane author Inakes any mention of

Letter IS] MIRACLES OF TIlE NE\V TEST A
IENT 167

the resurrection of these numerous "bodies," nor of the
carthquake that accompanied it. Then we should have
to set down the four records of the four Evangelists as
follows:

Iark xv. 37-39.
37. And Je5us
uttered a loud
\ oice and gave
up the-ghcst.
38, And the
veil of the temple
was rent in twain
from the top to
the bottom.

[A blank.]

39. And when
the centurion,
which stood by
over against him,
saw that he so
gave up the
ghost, he said,
Truly this man
was the Son of
God.

Matt. xxvii. SO-54.
50. And Jesus
cried again with a
loud voice, and
yielded up his spirit.
51. And behold
the veil of the tem-
ple was rent in
tW3in from the top
to the bottom [and
the earth did
Quake, and the
rocks were rent;
(52) And the tombs
'lvere oþened; and
many bodies {If the
Sr,ÙltS that had
fallen asll::eþ were
raised; (53) And
coming fodlz out of
the tomb.'ì after his
resurrection tlzcy
entered into tIle
Iloly city and aþ-
þeared unto many.]
54, N uw the cen-
turion, and they
that were with hIm,
watching Jesus,
when they saw [the
eartlzquake mid]
the thmgs that were
done, feared ex-
ceedingly, saying-,
Truly this was the
Son of God.

Luke xxii. 46-7'
46. And when
Jesus had cried
with a loud voice,
he said, Father,
into thy hands
I commend my
spirit: and having

aid this, he gave
up the ghost.

[A blank.]

47. And when
the centurion saw
what was done,
he glorified God,
saying. Certainly
this was a right-
eous man.

John xix. 3 0 , 31.
30. And he
bowed his head
and gave up his
spirit.

[A blank.]

31. The Jews
theref.Jre. because
it wa
the pre-
paration, &.;.

You see then that this extraordinary incident, startling
enough to be the very centre of a galaxy of wonders, is
omitted by tlzree out of the Jour E7/angelists. You see
also that two of the Evangelists agree with St. Matthew in
placing a centurion at the foot of the cross, and in assign-
ing to him expressions of faith: but neither of them
nlcntions the" earthquakc " as being even a partial cause

6

I6S 1\IIRA\CLES OF TIlE
E\V TEST.\:\IENT [Letter 15

of the centurion's faith, nor is there so much as a
hint of any resurrection of the" bodies of- saints" from
the tombs.
N ow if you and I, with full knowledge of the facts,
were writing a biography of a great man, we might un-
doubtedly exhibit many variations and divergences in our
story. E\'ery biographer who knows everything about a
man must omit something; many things therefore that
you would omit, I should insert, and 'l'ice versâ. But sup-
pose we were writing in son1e detail the description of
the great man's execution (as the crucifixion is written in
great detail by the Evangelists), and, in particular, the
emotion and utterances of the soldier who superintended the
execution. I s it possible under these circumstances that
you should relate (and with truth) that the soldier's emo.
tion was caused in part by an earthquake which happened
at the moment of the man's death-adding also that a
large number of people rose at the san1e time bodily from
the graves-and that I, with a full knowledge that both
these facts are true, should make no mention at all either
of the earthquake or of this stupendous resurrection? I
say that such an omission of facts is absolutely Í1npossible
in any sincere and straightforward biographer, on the suþ-
position tllat he kno7vs them, The argument that" it is
unsafe to argue fron1 iilence" is quite inapplicable here:
nor is it in point to allege the silence of a courtly historian
who writes the life of Constantine but omits the Emperor's
execution of his son. The answer is that we have not
here to do \\'ith courtly historians} but with simp
e
unsophisticated compilers of tradition whose main object
was to set down in truth and honesty all that could shew
Jesus of Nazareth to be the Son of God. N ow it is im-
possible that the Evangelists should not have recognized in
this miracle, if true, a cogent proof-cogent for the n1inds of
n1en in these days-of the divine mission of Jesus: we arc

Letter 15] MIRACLES OF THE :KE\V TEST
\
IENT 16 9

therefore driven to the conclusion that they omittedit either
because they had never heard of it, or because although
they had heard of it, they did not believe it to be true.
You must not however suppose that this evidently
legendary narrative was added with any intent to falsify.
Like many of the miraculous accounts in the Old Testa-
ment, this story is probably the result of misunderstanding
-an allegory misinterpreted. The death of Christ
abolished the gulf between God and man; it tore down
the veil between the Holy Place and the Holy of Holies,
whereby Christ took mankind, in Himself and with Him-
self, into the direct presence of the Father: and this
spiritual truth found a literal interpretation in two of the
Gospels which Inention the" rending of the ,oeil." But
Christ's death did more than this. It struck down the
power of death itself: it broke open the tombs, and pre-
pared the way for the Resurrection of the Saints; and
this spiritual truth, being misinterpreted as if it were
literally true, gave rise to a tradition (which does not how-
ever seem to have been widely received) that at the
moment of Christ's death certain tombs were actually
broken open, and certain of" the Saints" rose bodily from
the dead and walked into Jerusalem. 1

1 In the early apocryphal work called Clzrist's Desce1lt illto Hell, a striking
description is given of the joy of the saints and the terror of Satan, wh(;n
Christ de"cends tu Hades and rescues the dead, leading them up to Paradise.
In one of the version,> of this work. the number of tho
e "risen with the
Lord" is mentioned as ., twelve thousand men."

17 0 THE GRO\YTII OF TIlE GOSPELS

XYI

l\lv DEAR-,
You force me to digress. :\1 y object just now was to
shew that the life of Christ (no lcss than the history of
the redemption of Israel) can be disentangled from
"miracles", although not from "mighty works"; and I
proposed to take the six or se\"cn principal miracles
attributed to Christ by the Synoptists and to shew of each
account that it may have naturally and easily crept into
the Gospels without any intention to decei,'e.
But you will not let me go on in my own way; for you
ask a question that claims immcdiate ans" er, and some-
thing n10re than ét mere Yes or No: "Did or did not,
the Publican and Apostle St. l\Iatthew write the Gospel
attributed to hin1? And if he did, how can he have
suffered a 'legendary' miracle to 'creep into' his
narrative? The same question," you add, "applies to the
Gospel of St. John. If these two Gospels, as they stand,
,,"ere written by Apostles, that is, by personal disciples of
Jesus and eye-witnesses of the events they profess to
describe, then there is no alternati\"e ; either Jesus wrought
Iniracles, or the Apostles lied. No eye-witness can err as
you suppose some one (I know not whom) to ha\"c
erred, by interpreting metaphor as though it were literal
statement. Imagine I3oswell, for exan1ple, misinterpreting
son1e metaphorical expression concerning Dr. Johnson to
the effect that' the great lexicographer was exalted by his
countrymen to the pinnaclc of honour and fame' and

Leiter 16] TIlE GRO\YTII OF TIlE GOSPELS IiI

consequently inferr.ng that his statue was set up on a
column like Lord 1\ elson or the Duke of York! The
notion is too grotesque. If then Jesus did not perform
miracles we are forced to conclude either that the Apostles
deceived us or that the Gospels bearing their names are
forgeries. \Vhich is it ? "
I n order to meet this objection I must say a few words
about the composition of the Gospels. For indeed your
question shews a complete misapprehension of the man-
ner in which the Gospels grew up, and of the ancient
notions ab
ut authorship. In particular, you are far too
free in the use of the word" forgeries." The book called
the
VisdOJ/l of Solomon contains some of the noblest
sentiments that have ever found eloquent expression, and
yet the philosophic author who compos..:d it (probably in
Alexandria about eight or nine centuries after Solomon's
death) does not hesitate to appeal to the Almighty in
words by which he ascribes the authorship to SolOlnon
himself: "Thou hast chosen me to be a king of Thy
people and a judge of Thy sons and daughters: Thou
hast comn1anded me to build a temple upon Thy Holy
Inount," (ix, 7, 8). 1\ ow do you call hiIn a forger? The
book of Ecclesiastes, one of our own canonical books,
declares that it was written by " the son of David, king in
Jerusalem " and that the author was a " King over Israel
in Jerusalem," (i. 1-12). 1\0 one now (worth mentioning)
believes these statements to be true. Yet would you can
the composer of Ecclesiastes a forger? Probably in
both cases the authors felt that they we
o
uring the
memory of the great king in thus introducing new truths
to the worIg, under the protection of his name. I believe
manyõtber instances Inight be given of the literary laxity
of ancient times. But besides, in the case of the Gospels,
you must remember that authorship hardly came into
question at all events for a long time. The storl of the

17 2 THE GRO'YTH OF THE GOSPELS [Letter 16

life of Christ would be, in some shape, current among the
Church as the comn10n property of all, as soon as the
Apostles began to proclaim the Gospel. Probably it was
not, for some time, reduced to writing. An10ng the Jews
the Old Testament was spoken of as \Yriting or Scripture;
but thcir most revered and sacred comments on it were
retained in oral tradition: and hence all through the
New Testament you will find that" Scripture" refers to
the Old Testament, and that no mention is made of the
doctrine about Christ except as " tradition :, or " teaching."
\Vhat therefore would probably at first be current in the
Church, perhaps for thirty or forty years after Christ's death,
would be simply a number of" traditions:' or oral yersions of
the Gospel, current perhaps in different shapes at the great
ecclesiastical centres, such as Jerusalem, Antioch, Ep
esus,
Alexandria, Rome, yet presenting a general affinity, and
all claiming to represent" the Memoirs of the Apostles"
or to be " the Gospel of the Lord J csus Christ."
It ought not to seem strange to you that the Church
could exist, and the Good Tidings be preached for
some years without the aid of written Gospels. Did not
St. Paul preach the Gospel in his letters? Surely he
preached it very effectually: yet his letters do not contain
a single quotation from any written Gospel. 1 The saIne
may be said of the letters attributed to St. Peter, St.
J ames, and St. John: not one quotes a single saying of
Christ, or contains a phrase that can be said, with cer-
tainty, to be borrowed from our Gospels. The book of
the Acts of the Apostles, the earliest summary of Church
history, contains many speeches by Apostles, one by St.
J ames, some by St. Peter and several by St. Paul: in all
these spceche
ly .Qne saying of our Lord is quoted; and
- - -

1 If I Tim. v. 18 were an exception. it would shew that that letter, quoting
a Gospel as" Scripture," was later than St. Paul. But it is possibly not a,l
t:xception.

Letter 16] THE GRO\VTH OF THE GOSPELS 173

that is a saying not found in any of our extant Gospels.
Conjecture might have led us to conclude that this would
be so. \Ve might reasonably have inferred that, as long
as the Church had in its midst the Apostles and their
companions, and as long also as they daily expected that
Christ would" conle", the notion of committing the Gospel
to writing for posterity would seem superfluous, distasteful,
almost imply ing a want of faith. But when we find this con-
jecture confirmed by the undeniable fact that the earliest
teachers and preachers of the Gospel, in their teaching as it
is handed down to us, made no use whateyer of our written
Gospels, we may regard it as a safe conclusion that, during
the first generation after the crucifixion, written Gospels
were neither widely used nor much needed.
But soon the need would arise. One after another the
Apostles and their companions would pass away, and
Christ's immediate " coming" would now be less and less
sanguinely anticipated, The great mass of the earliest
Christians were either Jews or proselytes to the Jewish
religion; but now the Gentiles, who had come to Christ
without first passing through the Law of Moses, would
become the majority in the Church; and for them the
Old Testanlent would not have the same pre-eminent
title as "\Yriting" or "Scripture." For these Gentiles
too the old Rabbinical prejudice against committing the
teaching of the Church to writing would have no weight.
N ow therefore in several churches simultaneous efforts
would be made to write down the traditions current
amongst the brethren; and hence we find St. Luke pre-
facing his own Gospel with the remark that he was
induced to attempt this task because" many" others had
attempted it. St. Luke could hardly have written thus if
one authentic and apostolic document already occupied the
ground and stood pre-eminent in the Church as the written
record of Christ's life by an eye-witness. That there was

174 TIlE GRO\YTIl OF TII
GOSPELS [Letler 16

no such document, known to St. Luke, we lTIay also infer
from his acknowledgment of his obligations to those who
were" eye-witnesses and ministers of the word." It says
that he shapes his narrative" as they handed down the
tradition" -for that is the meaning of his word-not" as
they 'wrote the tradition."' You must have noticed that
the extant titles of the Gospels declare thelTI to haye
been written not "by," but "according to" their se\'eral
authors. The explanation (which has not been successfully
impugned) is that, even in the later times in which their
titles were giyen, the old belief continued, that the nlen
who compile =I them did no more than commit to writing
their version of a tradition already current. They did not
compose, they reported, the tradition; the Gospel was
supposed to be the sanle in an Churches, but here
" according to" one version or writer, there" according to"
another. The Apostles, being with one or two exceptions
mere fishermen and unlearned men, ignorant of letters,
could not very well be supposed to be authors of written
compositions; but St.l\latthew, being a tax-gatherer, would
necessarily be an expert writer, and therefore one of the
earliest traditions committed to writing would be naturally
attributed to his penmanship. But the evidence for St.
l\latthew's authorship appears, when tested, to be ex-
tremely slight. It was the uni,"r Jal belief of the early
Church that the Gospel according to St. 1\latthew was
originally written in Hebrew, and Jerome has quoted,
as coming from the Hebrew original, a passage not found
in our Greek Gospel of St. 1\latthew. Even when this
Gospel is quoted by the earliest writers, it is frequently
quoted inexactly, and never connected by them with the
name of St. l\Iatthew as the author. \Ve ought not to
infer from these unnamed and inexact quotations that the
writers did not recognize St. I\latthew as the author
for their habit is almost invariably to quote Gospels,

Letter 16] THE GR0\VTII OF THE GOSPELS 175

simply as Gospel, inexactly; and without mentioning the
name of the Evangelist. But this unfortunate habit
leaves us without any early and trustworthy evidence for
St. l\1atthew's authorshi p. On the whole, then, there is
very little evidence for supposing that any part of our
present Gospel according to St. Matthew was written by
an Apostle or by an eye-witness of Christ's life, and
there is very much evidence tending to shew that such a
supposition is extremely improbable.
Even if we grant that parts of th
Gospel were com-
posed by an Apostle, it by no means follows that the
whole was. There was a very natural tendency, in the
earliest days of the Church-when the traditional Gospel
was as it were everybody's property and had not yet
acquired the authority of Scripture-to make the tradition
as full, as edifying, and as correct, as possible, If we
may judge from the style of the book of Reyelation
(which is said on rather more substantial grounds than
are generally alleged for the authorship of most of the
books of the New Testament, to have been the work of
the Apostle John) the earliest Greek traditions must ha,"e
been composed in an ungrammatical, mongrel kind of
Greek, which must have been as distasteful to the well-
educated Christian as cockney English or pigeon English
would be to us. This could not long be tolerated in
traditions that were repeated in the presence of the whole
congregation; and alterations of style, for edification,
would naturally facilitate alterations of matter, also for
edification. The love of completeness would introduce
many corrections and sometimes corruptions. Often,
in those early times, the teacher, catechist, or scribe,
who knew some additional fact tending to Christ's glory,
and not mentioned in the tradition or document, would
think that he was not doing his duty if he did not add it
to his oral or written version of the tradition. Even in

17 6 TIlE GRO\VTII OF TIlE GOSPELS [Letter 16

l\lSS. of the fourth or fifth centuries we have abundant
instances to shew how this tendency multiplied interpo-
lations; principally by interpolating passages frmn one
G.ospel into another, but sometimes by interpolating
traditions not found now in any Gospel with which we
are acquainted. Occasionally there are also corruptions
of omission, arising frmil the desire to Olnit difficult or
apparently inconsistent passages; but by far the more
common custom is to add. If this corrupting tendency was
in force in the fourth century when the Christian religion
was on the point of becoming the religion of the empire,
and when the sacred books of 01ristianity had attained
to a position of authority in the Church not a whit below
the books of the Old Testament, you nlay easily imagine
what a multitude of interpolations and amplifications
Inust have crept into the original tradition at a time when
it was still young, un authoritative, and plastic, during the
first two or three generations that followed the death of
Christ. The result of all these considerations is that we
are not obliged-and this, to my mine!, is a great relief-
to suppose that any passage which we may be forced to
reject from our Gospels as false, was written by an Apostle.
I say this is to me a great relief, but perhaps it is not
so to you. Your notion of "hat the Gospels ought to be,
is perhaps borrowed from a passage in Paley's Evidences
where he likens the evidences for the miracles of Christ to
that of twelve eye-witnesses, all ready to be martyrs in
attestation of the truth of their testimony; and you are
shocked perhaps when you find that the Gospels fall \Tery
far indeed below the level of such a standard of evidence.
\Vhat would have seemed best to you would have been an
exact record of Christ's teaching and acts, drawn up by
one of the Apostles in the name of the Twelve, duly
dated and signed by all, and circulated and received by
the whole Church from the day after the Ascension down

LetttY 16] THE GRO\VTH OF TIlE GOSPELS 177

to the present time. And I quite agree with you. But
then, as we have seen in the history of astronomy and in
the history of the Old Testament, it has not pleased God
to re\'eal Himself or His works to Inen in the way
which Inen have thought best. N ow you are not indeed
obliged to infer that, because revelation in the Old Testa-
ment was accompanied by illusion, therefore revelation
in the New Testan1ent 111'USt have contained a similar
alloy; but you ought at least to be prepared for such
a discovery. For me, it would be a terrible shock indeed
if I were forced to suppose that a faithful Apostle of
the Lord Jesus Christ had wilfully Inisrepresented the
truth with a view to glorify His lVlaster: but it is no
shock at all to find that the highest revelation of God to
man has been, like all other revelations, to SOlne extent
misinterpreted, obscured, materialized. I have learned
to accept this as an inevitable law of our present nature,
If it had been God's will to suspend this law of nature in
favour of the New Testament, I think He would have
consistently gone further, and miraculously prevented the
scribes from making errors, or posterity from per-
petuating them. But how can I think God has done this,
when I know that even the words of the Lord's own
Prayer are variously reported in the two Gospels of St.
11atthew and St. Luke, and that every page of a critical
edition of the New Testament teems with various readings
between which the ablest commentators are perplexed
to decide?
You must therefore make up your mind to believe that
the earliest Gospel traditions-and even that triply at-
tested tradition I which is common to the first three Gospels

1 '<Attested" is not the
ame as C< orif;"inated." The tradition may (prssibIy)
have been originated by a single author: but witness, or U attestat:on," was
borne to its authOIitative character by the three earliest Gospels, whose
authors. or compilers, independcntly adupted it. It is therefore ,. triply
attested,"

N

Iï S TIlE GRO\VTII OF THE GOSPELS [I e{ter [6

and which runs through the thrce with a separate character
of its own, like a distinguishablc stream-passed through
scvcral phases before they assumed their present shape.
In n1Y next letter I shall probably ask you to consider
what phases they passed through; but you may pcrhaps
expect me to say something at once about the Fourth
Gospel; for to that book many of the previous remarks
do not apply. It was much latcr than the rest; it has
littlc in subject-matter, and nothing at all in style, in
COll1mon with the rest; it contains scarcely a "'ord of the
Common Tradition which pcrvades the first three Gospels;
it probably passed through no phases and suffered few
accretions; and it diffcrs from the other Gospel5
eyen
from St. Luke's, in bearing ;t far more manifest impress
of pcrsonal authorship. The three synoptic Gospels
really agree with their titles in representing the Gospel
"according to" their several authors; but the Fourth
Gospel (although, like the rest, preceded by" according
to") is a Gospel written" by "-whoeyer wrote it.
The question is, who did write it? If it was writtcn by
an Apostle, an eye-witness of thc life of Christ, then wc
haye to face-I all1 not sure we have to accept-your
alternative: "Either Jesus workcd miracles, or the
Apostles lied," But there is yery little evidence (worth
calling evidence) for the hypothesis that an Apostle
wrote it, and much evidence against that hypothesis.
St. John, the reputed author, is said, on the evidence of
J ustin
Iartyr, to have written the Apocalypse; which,
while it rescmbles in style what we might hayc expected
from a Galilean fisherman, differs entirely from thc style
of the Fourth Gospel. \Vhocver wrote the Gospel, we
n1ay be sure that he did not reproduce the words
of Jesus, but gave rather what appeared to hill1 to be
their latent and spiritual 111eaning. This can be proved
as follows. Suppose thrcc writers- say Boswcll, 1\lrs.

Letter 16] THE GRO\VTH OF THE GOSPELS 179

Thrale, and Goldsmith-had composed accounts of the life
and sayings of Dr. Johnson, widely differing in the subject-
lnatter and style of the narrative, but closely agreeing in
the character of Johnson's thoughts, as reported by them,
and very often agreeing in the actual words Í1nputed to
Johnson; and suppose a fourth writer, say Burke, had
written his reminiscences of Dr. Johnson, which entirely
differed in language, in thought, and in subject-matter from
the first three: would you not say at once that this was
strong proof, that Burke did not report Dr. Johnson's actual
words, and that he had probably tinged them with his
own style and thought? But if furthermore Burke repoited
Dr. Johnson's words and long discourses in tlie same
lallguage as he reþorted Sheridan's, and in language
Ùz distÙz/:ltish able fro lit his own contcxtual1Zarrative, then
you would, I am sure, find it difficult to be patient with
anyone who, through force of prejudice and pleasing
associations, obstinately maintained that Burke's bio-
graphy was equally faithful and exact with the three other
concordant or synoptic biographies. Now this comparison
exactly represents the facts. You will find several of the
most learned and painstaking commentators differing as
to where the introductory words of the author of the Fourth
Gospel cease, and where John the Baptist's words bcgin ;
and the style of our Lord's.discourses in the Fourth Gospel
is quite indisting'uishable from the style of the author
himself. As to the immense difference, in respect of style
and thought and subject-matter, bctwcen the Synoptic
Gospels, and the Fourth Gospel, you n1ust have felt it,
even as a child, reading them in English.
I must refer you to the article on "Gospels" in the
EllCycloþa>ditl Britannica for what [ believe to be the lnost
probable explanation of the origin of this remarkable work,
I tis thcre shewn that there are extraordinary points of simi-
larity between the cmblcmatic language and emblclnatic
N2

180 TIlE GRO\YTII OF THE GOSPELS [Le!le r 16

acts attributed to Jesus in the Fourth Gospel, an cl the
emblematic conceptions of the Alexandrine philosopher
Philo, who flourished some sixty or seyenty years before
that Gospel was written. De2.ling, for instance, with
the dialogue between Jesus and the WOll1an of Samaria
near the well at Sychell1, the writer of that article shews
that, in the works of Philo, the well is an emblcll1 of the
search after knowledg-e; Sychem is an emblem of
m3.terialism ; the" five husbands,"- or, as Philo calls them,
"five seducers "-represent the five senses; so that the
whole dialogue appears to contain a poetic appeal to the
heathen world, to turn frOln the materialistic knowledge
which can never satisfy, to the knowledge of the \V ord of
God which is the" living water. 'J Still more rell1arkable
is Philo's emblematic use of Lazarus (or Eleazar, for the
words are the same) as a type of dead humanity, helpless
and lifeless till it has been raised up by the help of the
Lord. But into this I have no space to enter. If you
care to pursue the subject, I must refer you to the article
above mcntioned, Canon \Vestcott has pointed out that
in arrangell1ent and structure the Fourth Gospel has
some distinct poetic features. I should go further and
say that, in this Gospel, History is subordinated to poetic
purpose, and that its narratives of incidents, resting
sometimes on a basis of fact, but more often on a basis
of metaphor, are intended not so n1uch to describe inci-
dents as to lead the reader to spiritual conclusions.
\Ve have no account of the authorship of the Fourth
Gospel tin the year 170 A.D" and this we find to be
"already legendary." 1 It is there said that, being
requested by his fellow-disciples and bishops to write
a Gospel, John desired them to fast for thrce days and
then to relate to one another what reyelation each had

1 "1 he Fragment of l\Iuratori," \Vestcott, Introduction to the Gosþds,
p. 255.

Letter 16] THE GRO"\VTH OF THE GOSPELS 18 I

received. It was then revealed to the Apostle Andrew
that" while all endeavourèd to recall their experiences,
John should write evelJ,thÙlg Ùz his OWIl name." No
confidence can be placed in the exactness of testin10ny
that COlnes so long after the event; but it points to some
kind of joint contribution or revision such as is implied
in John xxi. 2..J.: "This is the disciple which testifieth of
these things and we know that his testimony is true."
That the Gospel was written "in the name of John" by
some pupil of hi3-perhaps by some nan1esake-and
re,'ised and issued in the name of John by the Elders of
the Ephesian Church, is by no means improbable. In
smne matters of fact, for example in distinguishing between
the Passover and" the last supper," the Fourth Gospel
corrects an (apparent) error of the Synoptic Gospels, a
correction that possibly proceeded frOln the Apostle
John; and perhaps the solemn asseveration as to the
issue of blood and water from the side of Jesus (" And
he that hath seen hath borne witness, and his witness is
true: and he knoweth that he saith true, that ye also Inay
believe") n1ay be a reminiscence of some special testimony
from the aged Apostle; but it is impossible to ascertain
how far en1blematic and historical narrati,-es are blended
in such passages as the dialogue with the Samaritan
,,'oman, the miracle at Cana, and the raising of Lazarus.
The author was convinced (like every other belie\-er, at
that tÍ1ne) that Jesus did work Inany miracles, and could
have worked any kind of miracle; but he had noted the
unspiritual tendency to magnify the "mighty works" of
Jesus as merely "mighty:" he therefore selected frOln
the traditions before him. those in which the spiritu.tl and
clnblematic meaning was predon1inant. In doing this,
he sometimes took a spiritual n1etaphor and expanded it
into a spiritual history. Again, he had also noted an
unspiritual tendency to Jay undue stre5S upon the exact

,

182 THE GRO\VTII OF TIlE GOSPELS [Lettu 16

words of Jesus; and he tberefore detennined-besicles
giving prominence to the promise of Jesus concerning
His Spirit, which was to guide the disciples into all truth
-to exhibit, in his Gospel, the spiritual purport of Christ's
doctrine rather than to repeat each saying as it was
actually delivered.
As 1 write these words, with the pages of the Gospel
open before me, Iny eye falls upon the story of the raising
of Lazarus: "Jesus said unto her, I am the resurrection
and the life: he that believeth on lue, though he die, yet
shall he live; and whosoever liveth and believeth on me
shall never die." Is it possible, I say to lnysdf, that
Jesus did ?lot say these entrancing words? And how
often does the saIne question arise as one turns over the
leaves: c. Peace I leave with you; Iny peace I give unto
you: not as the world giveth, gi ve I unto YOll :" " Yet a
little while and the world beholdeth nle no more; but ye
behold n1e: because I live, ye shall live also." Could any
one at any time have invented such sayings? Still less,
is it possible they could have been invented in the timej
of Trajan or Hadrian by any Asiatic Greek or Alexandri,ln
Jew? But truth cOlnpels Ine to answer that, just as the
Asiatic Jew St. Paul, although he never saw or heard
Jesus, was inspired by the Spirit of Jesus to utter words
of spiritual truth and beauty worthy of Jesus Hilnself, so
an Asiatic Greek or Alexandrian Jew of thc tiIne of Trajan
lnay have been prOlnpted by the san1e Spirit to penetrate
to the vtry depths of the Ineaning of Jesus and to exprcss
some of the conclusions to be deri,.cd frOln His sayings
more clearly than we can see then1 even in the words of
Jesus HÏ1nself, as tbey are recorded in the Synoptic
Gospels. I do not see on what principle we can so limit
the operation of the I loly Spirit as to say it could not
extend, in its most perfect force, beyond the age of
Domitian or Nen'a or even Trajan. Having before me

Letter 16] THE GRO\VTH OF THE GOSPELS IS3

the doctrine of the Synoptic Gospels, I anl forbidden by
mere considerations of style and literary criticism frOl11
believing that Jesus use=! the exact words, " I al11 the true
vine," "I am the good shepherd," "I anl th
light of
the world," "I am the resurrection and the life;" but I
accept these sayings as divinely inspired, and as being
far deeper and fuller expressions of the spiritual nature of
Jesus than any of the inferences which I could draw for
myself frOlu the Synoptic doctrine. Do not then say
that I "reject" the Fourth Gospel. I accept all that is
essential in it; and this I accept on far safer grounds than
l11any who would accuse 111e of rejecting it. For their
acceptance 11light be shaken to-morrow if SOl11e new
piece of evidence appeared decisively shewing that the
Gospel was not written by John the Apostle; but Iny
acceptance is independent of authorship, and is based
upon the testimony of my conscience.
Surely you must feel that it would be absurd for one who
tests religious doctrine to sonle extent by experience and
by history, to reject the Fourth Gospel because it is in a
great measure emblematic, and because it was not written
by the luan who was supposed to have written it. Be the
author who he 111ay, I
hall never cease to feel grateful to
hinl. The all-embracing sweep of view which enabled
him to look on the Incarnation as the central incident of
_ the world's history and to set forth Christ as the Eternal
\Yord and Eternal Son, not dependent for tbis claim
upon a nlere l'vliraculous Conception; tbe spiritual COI1-
tempt for Inere "l11ighty works," which leads him re-
peatedly to claim faith for Jesus Himself firstly, and for
the" words" of Jesus secondly, and only as a last reserve
to demand belief "for the works' sake;" and the true
intuition with which he fastens on the prOlnise of Jesus
(only hinted at in the Synoptic Gospels) that He would
be present with IIi
disciples at every tin1c and place and

1
4 TIlE GRO\YTJI OF THE GOSPELS [Lct'cr 16

that He would give them" a voice," and a Spirit not to be
gainsaid-from which brief suggestion the author worked
out in detail the promise of the Holy Spirit, and predicted
the nobler and ampler future of the Church-these true,
and profound, and spiritual intuitions will always excite
my deepest gratitude and admiration. The doctrine of
the Eternal \V ord had its origin perhaps in the schools of
Alexandria, and certainly formed no part of the teaching-
of J e;:us; but, Christianized as it is by the author of the
Fourth Gospel, it commends itself as a key to lnany
mysteries, and (like the Fourth Gospel itself) it appears
to be but one an10ng n1any illustrations of the divine
development of Christian doctrine: "I have yet many
things to say unto you, but ye cannot bear theln now.
Howbeit when he, the Spirit of Truth, is come, he will
guide you into aU truth." In a ,,"ord, without the Fourth
Gospel, Christendom might (it would seem) have failed
for ever to appreciate the true nature of its Redeemer.
I cannot indeed repress some regret that this most
lnarvellously endowed minister and prophet of Christ
should have been allowed to select a poetic and e,"en illu-
sive form in order to publish his divine truths. Hitherto
I have been able with pleastire and satisfaction to see
the illusive integument being gradually separated from
the inner truth, as in astronomy and in the history of the
Old Testament. Now comes a point where I myself
should like to recoil. But how puerile and faithless
should I be if I assumed that God would give to the
world along with His divine revelation precisely that
modicum of illusion (and no more) which I myself per-
sonally am just able to receive with pIcasure! Let us
rather follow where, as Plato says, "the argument leads
us." Or, if you prefer me to quote from the Fourth
Gospel itself, Jet us follow the guid
nce of Him who is
both" the \Vay and the Truth."

CHRISTIAN ILLUSIONS

IS5

XVII

l\Iv DEAR -,
Once more I am cOlnpelled to digress: and, this
time, it is in 01 der to lneet what you lnust let lne call a
preconception of yours. You say that it appears to you
"impossible that Christ, if really divine, should have
been permitted by God to be worshipped as a worker
of miracles for eighteen centuries, although in reality he
had no power to work them,"
Is this 111uch more than a repetition of your former
objection that my views amount to "a new religion," and
that illusion, although it 111ay abound in the history of the
thoughts of mankind, can never have been pern1itted to
connect itself with a really divine revelation? I have
already in part answered these prejudices-for they are
nothing more- by shewing that illusion permeates what is
called "natural religion," and by subsequently shewing
that the inspired books of the Old TestalTIcnt e
hibit
illusions in every page; not only the illusions of the chosen
people, but illusions also on the part of the authors of the
several books, who misinterpreted tradition so as to con-
vert a non-miraculous into a miraculous history. But now
let us deal more particularly with Christian illusions,
Here I will try to shew you, first, how natural and
(humanly speaking) how inedtable it was that illusions
should gather round the earliest Christian traditions, and
how easily there might ha,'e sprung up miraculous ac-
counts in cone.ection with them. Then, and not till then,

186

CHRISTL\
ILLUSIO
S

[LflÜr 17

having done IllY best to dispe1 your natural prejudice, I
will take in detail the si'\: or seven principal miracles attri-
buted to Christ by all the three Synoptic Evangelists, and
will endeavour to shew you that these accounts did actually
spring up in a natural and inevitable way, after thelnanner
of illusions, without any attempt to dccei,-e on the part of
the con1pilers of the Gospels. It will appear, I think, that
the life and doctrine of Christ are independcnt of these
miracles and can easily be separatcd from thcm.
For the present then I alll to speak of the naturalness
or incvitability of illusions gathering about Christ's acts
and words in the minds of His disciples, Does any student
of the Fourth Gospcl need to be convinced of this?
Perhaps the author of that work discerned the illusions of
the early Church even too clcarly, so that he slightly
overshot the mark in thc frequcncy of the false inferences
and misunderstanding-s" ith whichhe delights to encon1pass
the words and deeds of Jesus. Perhaps the composer of
"the Spiritual Gospel" has been led even too far by his pro-
found and true perception that this Incarnate \Vord -this
Being from anothcr sphere who was and is in the bosom of
the Fathcr-could not mo,'e on the e
rth, among earthly
creatures, wi thou t being perpctuall y l11i sundcrstood by thCl11.
Hut is there not manifest truth in his conception of J CSl1S
as of One having different .thoughts from those of COlllmon
men, different ways of regarding all things small or great,
a spiritual dialect of His own, not at oncc to be cOlnpre-
hended by ordinary beings? Certain it is that, in the F ol1rth
Gospel, Christ's discourses are one string of l11etaphors
which are literally and falsely interpreted by those to whon1
they are addresscd. "Flesh,"" blood,"" water," " sleep,"
"birth," "death,"" life," "templc," "bread," "111cat/'
" light," "night," "way," -these and I know not how l11any
more simple words present themselves, as we rapidly turn
oycr the p
gcs of tbat Gospel, always 111ctaphorically used,

Letter 17]

CHRISTL\N ILLUSIONS

18 7

and always misunderstood. Nor can it be said that they
were misunderstood by enemies and unbelie,'ers alone;
His disciples constantly misunderstood them. The life of
Christ in the Fourth Gospel is one continuous misunder-
standing. I will not say that this represents the exact
fact; but I doubt not that the inspired insight of the
author, be he who he may, took in the full meaning of all
the hints that are given by the Synoptists as to the mis-
understanding of the disciples about their :Master, and led
him to the deliberate conclusion that the life of Christ in
the flesh was one perpetual source of illusions to the
Twelve-illusions through which, by the guidance of the
Spirit, they were to be led to the truth: "What I do ye
know not now, but ye shall know hereafter." I believe he
went even further and perceived that Christ's life was in
danger of becoming a total delusion to the earliest
Christians through their tendency to the materialistic and
the miraculous, and that the best means of preserving the
Church from such a danger was to accustOll1 the faithful
to attach value to the words and deeds of Christ only so
far as they could interpret them spiritual1y, trusting to the
Spirit for continual guidance into new truth.
This then is 111Y first proposition, that Christ was sure
to be Inisunderstood by those around HiIn, owing to His
Inanner of using the language of metaphor, You must
know very well that this conjecture is confinned by fact.
Sometilnes the Synoptists note the fact, as when He spoke
of "leayen " and the Twelve misunderstood Hiln literally;
and several other instances are on record. But it is of
course possible that on many other occasions the mis-
understanding ll1ay have existed, but may not have been
noted by the Evangelists. Take one instance. In the
discourse of Jesus to the Seventy Disciples (Luke x. 19)
Jesus makes the following statement: "I have gi,'en you
authority to tread upon serþcnts and scorþions and over

.

188

CHRISTIAN ILLUSIOKS

[Letter 17

all the po,,-er of the enemy, and nothing shaH in any wise
hurt (àÔLK
(TH) you." How are we to undel
tand this
"treading upon serþcnts and scorþions"? Literally or
lnetaphorically? SurcJy the text itself n1akes it evident
that Jesus used the words metaphorically to refer to " the
power of the Enelny," i.e. "the Serpent," or Satan, pro-
bably with a special reference to the casting out of de,'ils.
::\Ioreover the passage is introduced by a statement that
., the Seventy returned '(f.llilt joy, saying, Lord, eVClt the
devils are subject lOlto us in tllY name. And he said, I
beheld Satan fall as lightning from Heaven. Dehold I have
given you authority to tread uþon selþellts"....llo'lf/bai in
this rejoice 1Wt that tIle sþirits are subject unto )'011.1' but
rejoice that your names are written in Heaven." As for
the other part of the prOlnise, " nothing shal1 hurt you," it
surely does not seem to you that these words must imply
literal" hurt"? If it does, let me direct your attention to a
lnuch more striking instance of Christ's extraordinary use of
lnetaphor in a passage where the Disciples are told, almost
in a breath, that 110t a Ilair of their heads shall þerish and
yet that smne of them shall be "þllt to dea/lt " (Luke xxi.
16- I 8). I think then that you will agree with me that the
"authority to tread upon serþents" mentioned in St. Luke
contained not a literal, but a spiritual prOlnise, to tread
upon the power of" the Serpent." Nevertheless, that this
prmnise about "serpents" was very early misinterpreted
literally can be shewn, not indeed from a genuine passage
of the Gospels, but frpm a very early interpolation in St.
1\lark's Gospel, xvi, 17, 18: "These signs shall follow them
that believe; in my name shall they cast out devils; they
shall speak with new tongues; they sllall take 'lIþ serþalts,
and if they drink any deadly thing, it shall in no wise hurt
them; they shall lay hands on the sick and they shall
reco,-er."
Eere then we have a cle:lf instance of misunderstanding

Leiter 17 j

CHRISTIAN ILLUSIOXS

18 9

(not noted by the Evangelists) arising in very early if not
in the very earliest times from the metaphorical language
of Jesus, C ne more instance of probable misunderstanding
lnust suffice for the present, You know how often in the
Epistles of St. Paul the word" dead" is used to indicate
spit:itually "dead" i,e. "dead in sin." A similar use is
attt:ibuted to Christ in the Fourth Gospel: "He that
believeth in me, though he were dead, yet shall he live"
(John xi. 25); but here the impending resurrection of
Lazarus gives the reader the impression that it is literally
used, However it is almost certainly metaphorical in
John v. 24, 25, 23, " He that heareth my word and be-
lieveth him that sent me, hath etern::lllife, and cometh not
unto judgment, but is þasscdJyolll de,lllt into lzfe. Verily,
yerily, I say unto you, the hour cometh and now is, when
the dead slzall hear tIle voice of tIle Son of God, and tlley
that hear slltllllive. . . . l\Iarvel not at this, for the hour
con1eth in which all that are in the tombs shall hear his
voice, and shall come forth" &c. Here apparently the
Ineaning is that the hour has already come (" now is ")
when the spiritually dead shall hear the voice, and the hour
is on the point of coming when the literally dead (" all that
are in the tombs") shall hear it. In any case, the meta-
phorical nleaning is indisputable in the striking saying
of Jesus (Luke ix. 60) " Let the dead bury their dead."
N ow if Jesus was in the habit of describing those who
were lost in sin as being "dead," and of bidding His
disciples" raise the dead "-meaning that they were to
restore sinners to spiritual life- we can easily see how
such language might be misunderstood, I t is probable
that Jesus Himself had actually restored life to at least
one person given over for dead, the daughter of J airus,
though by natural means, Of such revivification you
may find an instance described in Onesilllus (pp. 77-8 I)
which is taken almost verbatirn from the account of his own

19 0

CHRISTIAN ILLUSIO
S

[Ldltr 17

revivification given by the late Archbishop of Bordeaux to
the late Dean Stanley, and sent Ine by the Dean as
being taken down from the Archbishop's lips, If that was
so, how natural for son1e of the Disciples to attach a
literal meaning to the precept, "raise the dead"! They
would argue thus, " Our l\laster healed diseases at a word,
so can ""e; He once raised a child frOl11 the dead and
bade us also raise the dead; SOl11e of the Disciples there-
fore ought to be able to do this." How natural, under
the circm11stances, such a confusion of the material and
the spiritual! Yet I have little doubt that the diseases
which were cured by the Twelve were almost always
" possession," or paralysis, or nervous diseases. Compare
the different accounts given by the Synoptists of the
instructions of Jesus to the T\\"eh'e when He sent then1
forth on their first Inission :

l\Iark vi. 7'
And he called unto him
the twelve, and began to
s.:n::1 them forth by two
and two; and he gave
them authority over the
unclean spirits.

l\Iatthew x. I.
And he cal'ed unto him
his twelve disciples and
gave them authority over
unclean spirits to cast
them out, and to heal all
manner of disease and all
manner of sickness.

Luke ix, 1.
And he called the
twdve together and
gave them power
and authority over
all devils and to
cure diseases,

Here you find that the first Gospel (St. Mark's) makes
n1ention only of the" authority over unclean spirits," and
this probably represcnts the fact. The third account is
an amplification; and the second altogether exaggerates,
Hence, when we read, in the context of the second ,"crsion
of these instructions, "Ileal the sick, raise tIle dead,
cleanse the lepers, cast out devils; freely ye rcceived
freely give" (:\Iatthew x. 8), wc cannot fail to see several
arguments against the probability of the italicized words
being literally intendcd by Jesus. First, the language of
Christ habitually dcalt in metaphor, and in metaphor
habitually misundcrstood by His disciples; seconJly, there

Letter J 7]

CIIl{ISTIAN ILLUSIONS

19 1

is no instance in which a single one of the Twelve carried
out this precept during the life of their :Master, and only
one in which one of the Twelve (Peter) is said to have raised
a woman fronl the dead (for St. Paul's incident with
Eutychus can hardly be called a case in point); thirdlf
the precept is recorded by only one Evangelist; I fourthly
that saIne Evangelist records only one case in which our
Lord Himself raised anyone from the dead, i,e. the
revivified daughter of J airus-and it seems absurd to
represent Christ as cominanding all the Apostles to do
that which most of thein probably ncver did, and He
Himself (according to the First Gospel) only did once.
\Ve pass now to another cause that Inay have originated
miraculous narratives in the Gospels. Try to extricate
yourself from our \Vestern, cold-blooded, analytical, and
critical way of looking at things. Sit down in the reign
of Vespasian or Domitian in the midst of a congrega-
tion of Jewish and Græco-Oriental brethren, assembled
for a sacred service, "singing a hyInn" (as Pliny says,
describing them a few years afterwards) "to Christ as to
a t;od," \Vhat effect on the traditions of Christ's life and
works would be produced by these" hymns and spiritual
songs" which St, Paul's testimony (as well as Pliny's)
shews to have been a common part of the earliest
Christian ritual? \V ould they not inevitably tend, by
poetic hyperbole and Inetaphor, to build up fresh tradi-
tions which, when literally interpreted, would-like the
songs and psalms of the Chosen People-gi,.e rise to
111iraculous narratives? Part of the service indeed would
not consist of hymns but of the reading of the" Scriptures"
i.e. the Old Testalnent; but this also would tcnd in the
same direction. For there you would hear, read out to

1 Of course its omission Ly the other Evangelists might indicate that the
words were not uttered by Jesus; but it might also indicate that the precept,
being generally misunderstood, was considered so strange and at variance
with facts that it had come to be discredited and considered spurious.

19 2

CIIRISTL\
ILLUSIONS

[Le!tä 17

the congregation, man"ellous prophecies how, in the day
of the Lord the Redeemer, the eyes of the blind should be
opened and the ears of the deaf unstopped, and the lame
should leap as a hart; and the sale thought possessing
you and e\"ery man in the congregation would be, " How
far did all these things find fulfilment in the Lord Jesus
Christ? " You would hear from the" Scriptures "' narra-
tives of marvellous miracles, how :l\Ioses gave water from
the rock to Israel in the wilderness and fed them with
food frOln hea\"en, how Elijah raised the widow's child
from death, and how Jonah spent three days in the belly
of the fish; and the sale thought possessing you would be,
" H ow far were like wonders wrought by Christ? " Then
would arise the hymn describing, in imagery borrowed
from the Old Testament, how Christ had done all these
things, and more besides, for the spiritual Israel; how He
had spread a table for H is people in the wilderness, and
given to thousands to partake of His body and His blood;
how 1\loses had merely given water to the people, but
Jesus had changed the water of the Jews (i,e. the Law)
into the wine which flo\\'ed from His side; how Jesus had
fulfilled the predictions of the prophets by curing the halt,
the maimed, the blind, the leper, the deaf; how He had
even raised the dead and bidden His disciples to raise the
dead; how He, like Jonah, had spent three days in the
darkness of the grave. If you look at the earliest
Christian paintings you will find that they represent
Christ as the Fish (the emblem of food) ; others depict the
l\Iosaic miracles of the manna and the wàter from the
rock. These shew what a hold the notion of the mira-
culous food had taken on the mind of the earliest believers.
How easy it would be to amplify a metaphor derived from
the Eucharistic feeding on the Bread of Life and perhaps
on the" honey-sweet fish " (as Christ is actually called in a
poem written about the Iniddle of the second century)

Letler 17]

CHRISTIAN ILLUSIONS

193

into a miraculous account of the feeding of many
thousands upon material bread and material fish! It is
greatly to be regretted that we have not one left out of
the many hymns and psalms of which St. Paul and Pliny
make mention. The only vestige of one that I know is
found in a verse of St. Paul's Epistle to the Ephesians.
It is at all events printed by \Vestcott and H ort as poetry,
and it is thought by many commentators to be an extract
from some well-known hymn (Eph. v. 14) :

"Wherefore (he) saith,
A wake thou that sIeepest
And arise from the dead
And Christ shall shine upon thee."

This perhaps is our only specimen of the earliest Chris-
tian hymnals. Surely then it is noticeable that in three
lines of this unique specimen there are three llletaphors,
and in the second line a metaphorical use of the
word "dead" which - as I have pointed out above-
has probably elsewhere resulted in serious misunder-
standing.
After the hymn would come the sermon. The preacher
would stand up like Apollos to "prove from the Scriptures,"
that is, from the Old Testament, that Jesus is the Christ.
If you wish to know how some of the Christian Preachers
would probably discharge their task you should look at
the Dialogue with Trypho written (about a hundred years
after Apollos) by Justin l\fartyr-who, I take it, was very
much superior in judgment, learning, and ability, to the
great mass of Christian Preachers in the first and second
centuries. There-aillong many other instances of the
adaptation of hi story to preconception-you will find Justin
declaring that Jesus was born in a cave, and that the ass on
which lIe rode into Jerusalem was tied to a vine, simply
because certain prophecies of Isaiah mention a cave and a
vine, and because he is determined to find fulfilments of
o

194

CHRISTIAN ILLUSIONS

[Letter 17

them in the life of Christ. But in the early tÌ1nes of Apollos,
and during the next twenty or thirty years, before the
Gospels had been committed to writing, there must have
been a far stronger gravitation towards the Old Testament
and a far more powerful tendency to find something in
the life of Christ to fulfil every prediction about the
Messiah and to correspond to every miracle wrought by
1Ioses and the prophets. Judged in the light of these
considerations, our present record of Christ's life ought
to surprise us not by the number, but by the paucity, of
the fulfilments of prophecy and the miracles contained
in them.
Against these arguments for the antecedent probability
that miracles would be baselessly imputed to Jesus (to be
followed presently by a few instances to shew that they
have been so Ï1nputed) I know nothing that has been re-
cently urged except a consideration drawn from the life of
John the Baptist: "To the Baptist no miracle has been
iInputed by the Gospels; to Christ Iniracles have been
imputed; why not to both? \Vhat is the reason for this
distinction except that the former did not perform
miracles, while the latter did?" Two reasons can be
given. In the first place Christ worked" mighty wor
s,u
while John did not; and since many of these "mighty
works" could not in the first centcry be distinguished from
" n1iracles," they served as a nucleus round which a
miraculous narrative might gather; in the history of the
Baptist there would be no such nucleus. The second and
perhaps more important reason is, that, as a counter-
poise to the natural exaggerative tendency which might
have led men to attribute miracles to the Baptist, there
would be also a tendency to heighten the contrast between
the Servant and the :l\1aster. This tendency appears to
me to increase in the later Gospels till at last in the Fourth
we come to the express statement, "John worked no

Letter 17]

CHRISTIAN ILLUSIONS

195

miracle" (J ohn x. 4 1 ). But whether I am right or not in
this conjecture, it is quite certain that the attitude of the
Christians towards the mere forerunner of the l\Iessiah-
about whom the Prophets had simply predicted that he
would" turn the hearts of the chiJdren to the fathers "-
would not be such as to render likely any imputations of
miracles to him. At Ephesus, in the days of St. Paul,
there were some quasi-Christians who had received none
but" John's Baptism," and had" not so much as heard
whether there is a Holy Ghost." That gives us a much
stronger impression of the Prophet's influence, and a
much weaker impression of the prevalence of the doctrine
about the Holy Spirit in the earliest Christian teaching,
than we should have inferred from what we read in the
Fourth Gospel: was it likely, when the Baptist's influence
seemed to the contemporaries of St. Paul still so powerful
(perhaps too powerful) that they would be tempted
unconsciously to magnify it by casting round him that
halo of miraculous action which naturally gathered around
the life of Christ?
Does it seem to you very hard, and almost cruelly un-
natural, that the life of the Baptist-in whom the world
takes comparatively little interest-should be handed
down with historical accuracy (at least so far as miracles
are concerned) while the life of Christ, the centre of the
hopes and fears of the civilized world, has been permitted
by Providence to become a nucleus for illusion and super-
stition as well as for the righteous faith and love of
mankind? It is hard; it is not unnatural.

"\Vhen beggars die there are no comets seen;
The heavens themselves blaze forth the death of princes."

\Vhat does Shakespeare mean by this except to exem-
plify the universal, and natural, but illusive belief, tha t
whatever affects the greatest man must also affect material
o 2

.

19 6

ClIRISTL\N ILLUSIONS

[Letter I j

nature? Therefore in proportion to the greatness of any
man we must expect that the illusions about hinl will be
great in the minds of posterity. H ow indeed could it be
otherwise? Reflect for a nloment. Jesus came into the
world to be a spiritual Saviour, a spiritual Judge; but how
few there were in those days who could fully appreciate
even the meaning of these titles! Do you yourself, even
at this date, after the lapse of eighteen centuries, grasp
firmly this notion of spiritual judgment? Reverence can
hardly restrain you from smiling at the Apostles for their
unspiritual dreams of a "carna)" elnpire with. twelve
tangible thrones to be set up for their twelve selves in
Palestine; but you yourself, have you never, at all events
in younger days, dreamed sometinles of a visille white
throne on material clouds, of a visible and perhaps
tangible tnlnlpet, of an audible verdict of "Guilty" or
" Not guilty" e},.ternally pronounced on each soul? per-
haps also of palpable palm branches, and of I know not
what more sensuous apparatus, without which you can
scarcely realize the notion of the Day ofJ udgment? And yet
all these are adventitious and accidental accompaniments
of the real and essential h judgment "-which is in Greek
the" sifting" or " division" i.e. the division between good
and evil in the heart of each one of us. But I doubt even
now whether you understand the meaning of this spiritual
" division" or judgment. Let me try to explain it. Haye
you not at any time suddenly, in a flash, been brought face
to face with some revelation of goodness-some good
person, or action, or book, or word, or thought-which in
a moment, before you were aware, has lighted up all the
black caverns of your nature and made your mind's eye
realize them, and your conscience abhor them, setting your
higher nature against yeJur lower nature, so that, without
your knowing it, this angelic visitant has taken hold of
you, carried away the better part of you along with itself

Leiter 17]

CHRISTIAN ILLUSIOKS

197

into higher regions of purer thought than yours, from
whence your better nature is forced to loo
( down upon,
and condemn, your lower and grosser self? This" divi-
sion" is the operation of the two-edged sword of the
Spirit; and when a man's cheeks flush with shame, or his
heart feels crushed with remorse, under this "dividing"
power, and he feels the verdict" I am guilty, " then he is
being judged far more effectually than any earthly law
court could judge him. Now it is this kind of judgment
that Jesus had in mind when He spoke of the judglTIent
of the world by the Son of l\lan. In this sense He has
been judging, is judging, and will judge, till the Great
Judgment consummates the story of such things as are to
be judged. But how little has the world realized this!
Probably some would have realized less of the spiritual if
they had imagined less of the material. You know how
the English judges of our times still insist on much of the
old pomp and ceremony which in the days of our fore-
fathers was thought necessary in order to make justice
venerable. The trumpets, and the javelin-men, and the
sheriffs in the procession, the wig and gown and bands
in court -they all seem a little ridiculous to most of us
now; yet possibly the judges are right in retaining them.
Possibly our brutal English nature will need for some
decades longer these antique and now meaningless
trappings before they will be able to respect the just judge
for the sake of justice itself. And in the same way, frOlTI
the days of Clovis to those of Napoleon, many a man
who would have found it impossible to realize the righteous
Judge as the invisible wielder of the two-edged sword of
the Spirit, has felt a fear, which perhaps did Inore good
than harm, at the thought of the opening graves, the
unclothed trembling dead, the thunder-pealing verdict
and the flames of a nlaterial hell. \Vho also can deny
that the illusion which has represented Jesus as having

J9 3

CHRISTIAN ILLUSIONS

[Letttr 17

possessed and exerted the power to cure every imaginable
disease of the body, has led many to realize Him as the
Healer of something more than material disease, in a
manner otherwise Ï111possible for masses of men living
under an oppression which often scarcely left theIl1 the
consciousness that they possessed anything but bodies
wherewith to serve their masters?
Do not suppose, because I am forced by evidence to
reject the mira
les, that I am blind to the part that they
once played in facilitating faith in Christ. A whole essay,
a volume of e,;says might be written on that subject, with-
out fear of exaggeration. The l\Iiraculous Conception,
the
liraculous Resurrection and Ascension, the miracles
of the feeding of the four thousand and of tbe five thousand

-it would be quite possible to shew from Christian
literature and history, how in times gone by, when laws
of nature were unrecognized, these supposed incidents of
Christ's life not only found their way into men's 111inds
without hesitation and without a strain upon intellect or
conscience, but also conveyed to the human heart, each in
its own way, SOlne deep spiritual truth satisfying son1C
deep spiritual need. It is the old lesson once more
repeated: the eyes take in, as a picture, what the ears
fail to convey to the brain or heart, when expressed in
mere words.
But now, there are abundant symptoms that the tempers
and minds of men are greatly changed. Men's minds
are more open than before to the need of some spiritual
bond to keep society together; and the character and
spiritual claims of Christ, and the marvellous results that
have followed from His life and death, are beginning (I
think) to be recognized with more spontaneousness and
with less of superstitious formalism. On the other hand,
the vast regularity of Nature has so come home to our
hearts that SDrl1e believe in it as if it had a divine sanctity j

Letter 17]

CHRISTIAN ILLUSIONS

199

the thought of praying that the sun or moon may stand
still shocks us as a profanity; and boys and girls, as
they stand opposite to some picture setting forth a Bible
Iniracle, look puzzled and perplexed, or, if they are a little
older, say with a sententious smile that "the age of
miracles is past." In a word, that very element of inex-
plicable wonder which once strengthened the faith, now
weakens it, by furnishing weapons to its assailants, and
by inducing rash believers to take up and defend against
sceptics a position that is indefensible.
In any case, it is the duty of each generation of
Christians to put aside, as far as it can, the illusions of the
previous generation and to rise higher to the fuller know-
ledge of Christ: for the outworn and undiscarded illu-
sions of one generation become the hypocrisies of the
next. The illusions of the permanence of the Mosaic
Law, of the speedy Consunlmation, of Transubstantia-
tion, of the Infallible Church, of the Infal.lible Boo\ have
all been in due course put away. A candid and modest
Christian ought surely to argue that, where so many
illusions have already been discarded-and all without
injury to the worship of Christ-some may remain
to be discarded still, and equally without injury to the
Eternal Truth.
\Vhat if miraculous Christianity is to natural Christianity
as the Ptolemaic astronomy is to the Newtonian? Both
of these astrononlical systenIs were of practical utility;
both could predict ecli p
es; bofh revealed God as a God
of order. But the former imputed to the unnloving sun
the terrestrial l1Iotion which the latter correctly imputed
to the earth; the fornler eXplained by a number of arbitrary,
non-natural, and quasi-miraculous suppositions-spheres,
and spirals, and epicycles, and the like-phenomena which
t
e latter more simply eXplained by one celestial curve
tra
ed out in accordance with one fixed law. I believe that

.

200

CIIRISTL\X ILLUSIOKS

[/>ttl.r 17

in religion also we have Inade a similar mistake and are
being prepared for a sin1ilar correction. \Ve have imputed
to Christ some actions which have sprung frOln the
promptings of our own imaginations-imaging forth wbat
our ideal Deliverer would have done-and which have
represented, not His n10tions, but the InotiGns of our own
hearts. By what we have euphen1istically denOlninated
"latent laws," that is to say by hypotheses as arbitrary
and baseless as the old epicycles, unsupported by sufficient
evidence and inconsistent with all that we see and hear and
feel around us in God's world, we have endeavoured to
explain a Redemption which no more needs such explana-
tion5 than forgiveness needs theIn-a Reden1ption which is
as natural (that is to say, as n1uch in accordance with the
laws of physical nature and the ordinary processes of
human nature) as that Law of Love, or Spiritual gravitation,
which Inay be illustrated in the microcosnl of every human
househol1. Now we are to learn the new truth: and as
the God of Newton is greater (is He not?) than the God
of Ptolen1Y, so let us not doubt that the God revealed
in spiritual Christianity will be greater than the God
revealed in material and miraculous Christianity. The
n
'...- heavens will not cease to declare the glory of God;
the new firmament will not fail to tell of His handiwork.

ARE THE :MIRACLES INSEPARABLE FROM THE
LIFE OF CHRIST?

XVIII

My DEAR -,
From the digressions concerning the growth of the
Gospels and the possibility or probability that their truths
would be conveyed through illusion I now return to our
main subject, the question whether the life of Christ can
be disentangled from miracles. And here you tell me
that some of your agnostic and sceptical friends quote
with great satisfaction the following sentence from Bishop
Temple's recent Bamþto71 Lectures 1: "Many of our
Lord's most characteristic sayings are so associated with
narratives of miracles that the two cannot be torn apart."
I can well believe what you tell me as to the advantage
which they naturally take of this admission: "Here,"
they say, "is a statement made on high authority that,
unless you can believe that J e
us worked bOllâ fide miracles,
such as the blasting of the fig-tree and the destruction
of the swine, you must give up 'many of Christ's most
characteristic sayings '-in other words, you must give up
the hope of knowing what Jesus taught." I wish your
friends, who quote this assertion w.ith so much pleasure,
would also have quoted the "characteristic sayings"
alleged by Dr. Temple in proof of this assertion; for
you would then have seen for yourself that many of
these "characteristic sayings" are associated not with
" miracles" but with" mighty works;" and I an1 sure you
have not forgotten the difference between the two. 2

1 Page 155.

2 See above, p. 15 8 .

202 ARE THE l\nR
\CLES I
SEP ARABLE [Letter 18

For example the first of the" characteristic sayings"
is, "Son, thy sins be forgiven thee." Now these words
were spoken to the paralytic man; and, as we have seen
above, the cure of paralysis by appeal to the emotions-
although a remarkable act, and although, if permanent,
so remarkable as to deserve to be called" a mighty work "
-cannot be called a miracle. But I need say no more
of this, as I have treated of cures by "emotional shock"
in a previous letter. Now all the other sayings quoted by
Dr. Temple refer to " faith" or "believing;" and all, I
think, are connected with acts of healing. There may be
doubtless in some of our present accounts of the" mighty
works" some inaccuracies or exaggerations as to the
nature of the disease and the circumstances of the cure.
For example, when the cure is said to have been performed
at a distance from the patient, either (I) faith must have
wrought in the patient by his knowledge that his friends
were interceding with Christ, or (2) we n1ust assume
some very doubtful theory of "brain-wave" sympathy, or
admit that (3) the story is exaggerated, or else that (4)
there is a bOllii.fide miracle. For my own part I waver,
in such cases as that of the centurion's servant and the
Syro-Phænidan's daughter, between the hypotheses which
I have numbered (I) and (3), with a sentimental reserve
in favour of (2); but anyone of these seems to me so far
more probable than the hypothesis of a suspension of the
laws of nature that I do not feel in the least constrained
by reason of such "characteristic sayings" concerning
faith, to give in my adhesion to a narrative of n1iracle.
On the contrary I say the l11ention of" faith," and Christ's
"marvel" at faith, and His eulogy of the" greatness" of
the" faith" in certain cases, all go to prove that these acts
were not miracles, but simply acts of faith-healing on a
colossal scale. I hope you will not feel inclined to sneer
at the reservation in those last four words. Yon will

Letter 18] FROfiI THE LIFE OF CHRIST? 203

surely admit that, if Christ did anything naturally, the
result might be proportionate to His nature; and if His
power of appealing to the emotions was colossal, the
material result of that appeal might be proportionately
colossal. I begin, therefore, the process of disentangle-
ment between the historical and the miraculous in Christ's
life by a protest against a hasty and blind confusion which
refuses to discriminate between" miracles" and" mighty
,vorks," and calls on us to reject from the history not only
the miraculous but the marvellous as well; and I assert
that the acts of faith-healing with which, as Bishop Temple
truly says, there are associated many of our Lord's most
characteristic sayings, may be accepted as generally
historical and natural.
This, howeyer, would not apply to such a miracle as the
restoration of the ear of the high priest's servant; and the
reasons are obvious. The faith necessary for an act of
emotional healing is not said to have existed, and is not
likely to have existed, in a man who probably looked on
Christ as an impostor. Even if it had existed, the case
was not one where we have reason to think faith could
have healed. Besides, the miracle is omitted by three out
of the four Evangelists. It is possibly a mistaken infer-
ence from some tradition about an utterance of Jesus,
" Suffer ye thus far;" which may have really had an entirely
different meaning, but which led the third Evangelist to
conclude that Jesus desired His captors to give Him so
much liberty as \VDuld allow him to perform this act of
mercy-a humane and picturesque thought, but not history.
It is scarcely conceivable that the other three Evangelists
shcmld have mentioned the wound inflicted on the servant;
that lVIatthew and John should have added a rebuke
addressed by Jesus to Peter for inflicting it ; and that John
should have taken the pains to tell us the nalne of the
h
gh priest's servant-and yet that they should have

20 4 ARE Tll E :\IIIL\CLES IKSEP _\R_\BLE [Letter 18

omitted, if they actually knew, the fact that the \\ ound
was immediatcly and miraculously healed by Jesus. The
irresistible conclusion is that St. l\lark, St. l\latthew, and
St. John, knew nothing of this miracle.
\Vhen the acts of healing are set apart, and considered
as "mighty works" but not "lniracles," the bOlltÍ fide
miracles in the Synoptic Gospels will bccome few indecd :
and I think it will be found that these fcw are susceptible
of explanation on natural grounds, \Ye ,vill pass ovcr
the finding of the coin in the fish's month-which is found
in St. 1\latthew's Gospel alone and can hardly be asso-
ciated with any "characteristic saying" of Jesus-and
come to a miracle common to the three Synoptists,
the destruction of two thousand 6wine following on the
exorcism of the Gadarene.
This is a very curious case of misunderstanding arising
frOln literalism. It was a con1mon belief in Palestine
(as it was also in Europe during the n1Íddle ages), that
the bodies of the "possessed," or insane, wcre tenanted
by familiar demons in various shapes-toads, scorpions,
swine, serpents, and the like. These demons were sup-
posed to have as their normal hon1e an "abyss" or
" deep" (Luke viii. 3 J, éI(3v(]"(Fov); but this they abhorred,
and were never so happy as when they found a home in
some hun1an body. The" possessed" believed that these
demons were visible and lnaterial; and the juggling
exorcist would sometimes (so Josephus tells us) place a
bucket of water to be overturned by the demons in pass-
ing, as a proof that they were driven out. In a word, the
" possessed" could hardly be convinced that be was
cured, unless he saw, or thought he saw, the frogs,
serpents, scorpions, or swine actually rushing frOln his
mouth in some definite direction.
The explanation of the miracle will now readily suggest
itself to you. Some man, perhaps a patriotic Galilean, to

Letter 18] FRO
I THE LIFE OF CHRIST? 20 5

whom nothing would be more hateful than a Roman
arnlY, conceived himself to be possessed by a whole
"legion," two thousand "unclean swine." Identifying
hinlself-as was the habit of those who were" possessed "
-with the demons whOln he supposed to have posses-
sion of him, the insane man declared that his name
was "Legion, for we are nlany;" and they (or he)
besought Jesus that He would not dri,.e them into the
"deep,':i.e. into the" abyss" above-mentioned. But by the
voice of Jesus the man is instantaneously healed: he
sees the legion of denlons that had possessed hinl rushing
forth in the shapes of two thousand swine and hurrying
down into "the deep;" and what he sees, he loudly
proclaims to the bystanders. I t is easy to perceive how
on some such a basis of fact there nlight be built the
tradition that Jesus healed a demoniac whose name
was Legion, and sent two thousand swine into the deep
sea; and from thence by easy stages the tradition 1"4 ighl
arrive at its present shape.
So far, I think, you do not find it very difficult to
separate the miraculous fronl the historical in the life of
Christ, nor feel yourself forced to sacrifice any of the
" most characteristic sayings of J estIs." Let us now come
to a miracle of greater difficulty, the blasting of the
barren fig-tree.
Even of those commentators who accept the miracle
of the fig-tree as historical, most, I believe, see in it a
kind of parable. The barren fig-tree, they say, which
Blade a great show of leaves but bore no fruit, obviously
represents, in the first place, the Pharisees, and in the
second place, the nation, which, as a whole, identified
itself with the Pharisees. Both the Prophets and the
Psalms delight in siulilar nletaphors. Israel is the vine;
Jehovah, in Isaiah, is the Lord of the vine, who demands
good fruit and finds it not, and consequently resolves to

206 ARE THE l\nR
\CLES INSEPARABLE (Ldlt'r 18

destroy the yine. So here, the Lord comes to the fig-tree
of Phariseeism, the tree of degenerate I srael, seeking
fruit; and finding none, He curses it, and withers it with
the breath of His 1110uth. Is it not easy to see how a
parable, thus expressed in the hymns and earliest tradi-
tions of the Church, might speedily be literalized and give
rise to a 111iraculous narrative?
Let me point out to you a curious fact confirn1atoryof
this view. I dare say you may have noticed that St. Luke,
although he agrees with St. l\lark and St. Matthew in the
context of this miracle, omits the miracle itself. \Vhy so?
Is it because he never heard of the miracle? Not quite
so. I t is because he had heard of it in a slightly different
fonn, not as a miracle but as a parable, which he alone
has preserved. St. Luke's version of the tradition is
that the Lord comes to the barren tree and, finding no
fruit on it, gives orders that it is to be cut down: but the
steward of the farm pleads for a respite; let the ground
be digged and n1anured, then, if there be no fruit, let it be
cut down. A similar thought, you see, is here expressed
in two different shapes, a Iniraculous and a non-lniracu-
lous; and it is not difficult to understand how the forn1er
m
y have been developed from the latter.
But I see that your last letter has a remark on this very
miracle, and on the difficulty of rejecting it. " I t is asso-
ciated'" you say, "with one of the most characteristic
sayings of Jesus: for it is in connection with the wither-
ing of the fig-tree that J esus says (M aU. xxi. 2 I), 'I f ye
have faith, ye shall not only do w/lat is done to the fig-tree.
but even if ye shall say unto this mountain, Be thou
taken up and cast into the sea, it shall be done.'"
"Here," you say, "we have a characteristic saying of
Jesus expressly referring to son1ething done, and done
miraculously."
\Vould it not have been wise, before ll1aking so

Letter IS] FROI\1 THE LIFE OF CHRIST?

20 7

emphatic a statement, to consider how St. Mark, the
earlier of the two narrators of this ll1irac1e, sets forth the
con1ment of Jesus? The COlnn1ents run thus in the first
two Gospels, and I will add a parallel saying from the
third Gospel, not attached to any miracle:

Mark xi. 21-23-
And Peter, calling to
remembrance, saith unto
him, "R3.bbi, beh.ld the
fig tree which th.)u cur-
sedst is withere.::l away."
And J e
us answeÚng saith
unto them, ,. Have faith
in God. Verily I say unto
you, \Vhosoever shall say
unto this mountain, Be
thou taken up and cast
into the sea; and shall not
doubt in hi,; heart, but
shall believe that what he
saith c;:ometh to rass; he
shall have it."

l\Iatthew xxi. 20-21.
And when the di
ciples
saw it, they marvelled,
saying, " How did the fig
tn.e immediately wither
away?" And Jesus said
unto them, " Verily I say
unto you, If ye have faith,
and doubt not, ye shall
[1trJt only do what is d01te
to the fig tree, bitt eVt!1l if
ye shallJ say unto this
mountain, Be thou taken
up and cast into the sea,
it shall be done."

Luke xvii. 5-6.
And the apostles
said unto the L::Jrd
"Increase our
faith." Anj the
LJrd said, "If ye
have faith as a
grain of mustard
seed, ye would say
unto thi,; sycamine
tree, Be thou rOuted
up, and be thou

lanted in the sea;
and it would have
obeyed y _u."

You see then that the more authoritative (because earlier)
of our two witnesses Olnits those very words on which you
lay so n1uch stress, the "express reference to something
done, and done miraculously." And ought not this fact to
nlake you pause and ask yourself" Am I really to suppose
that the Lord Jesus encouraged His disciples to comlnand
material mountains to be cast into the sea, and n1aterial
trees to be destroyed? Did He Himself so habitually
act thus that He could naturally urge His disciples to do
the like? Does it not seeln, literally taken, advice con-
trary not only to common sense but also to a reverent
appreciation of the law and order of nature?" I would
suggest to you that you 111ight weigh the inherent improb

ability of the words in St. l\Iatthew (literally taken), as well
as the external probability-which I will now endeavour to
shew-that the whole passage was nletaphoricaI.
\Ve know from St. Paul's works, as well as from
Rabbinical literature, that "to move mountains" was a

.

208 ARE THE 1IIR.\CLES INSEPARABLE [Letter 18

common metaphor to express intelIectual or spiritual
ability. St. Paul speaks of faith that would "ll1ove
1l10untains ;" and you will find in Lightfoot's lIorae
Ilebraicae (ii. p. 285), " There was not such another rooter
uþ of ll/olInldÙlS as Ben Azzai." Now we know from St.
Luke's Gospel (xvii. 6), that Jesus used a similar Inetaphor
of trees, as well as of 1110untains, to exemplify the power
of faith; and this without any reference to "something
done and done Iniraculously: " "If ye have faith as a
grain of mustard seed, ye would say unto this sycamine
tree} Be thou rooted uþ and þlanted in tlte sea; and it
would ha ,-e obeyed." Planted in the sea! Can you
ùreal11 that so preposterous a portent could have been
prayed for by any sane and sober follower of Christ in C0111-
pliance with his i\Iaster's suggestion? Bear in mind that
these words in St. Luke's Gospel were uttered a long til11e
before the, blasting of the fig-tree is supposed to have
happened, and at a ditTerent place. Does not then a C0111-
parison of this passage with the other two ll1ake it pro-
bable that Jesus was in the habit of encouraging His
disciples to be " pluckers up of mountains" and" rooters
up of trees," not literally but metaphorically, meaning
thereby that they were to attempt and accomplish the
greatest feats of faith?
You will, perhaps, be surprised when you find what it
was that Jesus regarded as the greatest feat of faith in the
passage of St. Luke just mentioned. It was a feat of
which we a
e accustomed to think rather lightly; partly,
perhaps, because we are often contented with the appear-
ance of it without the reality: it was simply forgiyeIiess.
He had told the disciples they must forgive " till se,-enty
times seven..' The Apostles, in despair, replied" Increase
our faith :" and then Jesus tells them that if they had but
a germ of living trust, they could become "uprooters of
sycamine trees," in other words they could perfonn for-

Letter 18] FROM: THE LIFE OF CHRIST? 20 9

giveness, the greatest feat of faith. But perhaps you will
say, " At all events in St, Mark, the earliest authority for
the n1iracle of the blasting of the fig-tree, there is no
mention of forgiveness, and nothing that would indicate
that his version of the words of Jesus referred to what you
call ' the greatest feat of faith,' i.e. forgiveness," On the
contrary, you will find that St. Mark, with some apparent
confusion of different thoughts, retains the trace of the
original spiritual signification of the words (l\Iark xi.
22-25): " Havefaith in God. Verily I say unto you, who-
soever shall say unto this mountain, Be thou taken up and
cast into the sea, and shall not doubt in his heart but
shall believe that what he saith cometh to pass, he shall
have it. Therefore I say unto you, All things whatsoever
ye pray and ask for, believe that ye have received them,
and ye shall have them; And whensoever ye stand þraying,
forgive, if ye have aught against anyone,. that your Father
which is in heaven n1ay forgive your trespasses,"
I contend that, upon the whole, an impartial critic must
come to the conclusion that neither the miracle, nor the
reference to the miracle, is historical; and that, in all
probability, both the miracle and the reference to it arose
from a misunderstanding, without any intention to deceive.
We must remember that the" short sayings" of the Lord
Jesus-as they are called by some early writer, Justin, I
think-must have caused considerable difficulty to the
compilers of the earliest Gospels in the attempt to arrange
them in order. Pointed, pithy, and brief, pregnant with
meaning, sometimes obscured by metaphor, many of these
sayings, if taken out of their context, were very liable to be
misunderstood. Some compilers might think it best, as the
author of St. Matthew's Gospel has done in the Sermon on
the Mount, to group a number of these sayings together
without connection; others, as the author of St. Luke's
Gospel, might object to this arrangement, and might make
p

,

210 ARE TIlE
IIR.\CLES INSEPARABLE [letter 18

it a lllain object to set forth these sayings "in order,"
attaching to each its appropriate and explanatory context.
N ow to apply this to the particular case of the legend of
the fig-tree. It seems probable that the compilers had
before thelll two traditions, one, a parable about a barren
fig-tree destroyed by the Lord of the vine-yard because it
bore no fruit; another, a precept about the power of
faith in uprooting a lllolmtain or a tree, i.e, in achieving
the greatest of spiritual tasks, the task of forgiving, St.
Luke interpreted both the parable and the precept
spiritually, and kept the two distinct. St. l\Iark inter-
preted the parable literally and adopted the tradition which
made it refer to an actual destruction of a tree; he also
appended to it the saying on the power of faithful prayer to
work any wonders soever, as being an appropriate comment
on so startling a miracle; but he did not think fit to adapt
the saying to the miracle by any insertion of the word
" tree" (" Verily I say unto you, whosoever shall say unto
this mountain, Be thou taken up" &c.) ; and he retained
the old connection of the saying with forgiveness.
St. 1\Iatthew-of course, when I say St. 1\latthew, I 111ean
the unknown authors or compilers of the Gospel called by
his name-is more consistent. He, like St. 11ark interprets
the parable literally, and he appends to it the saying on the
power of faithful prayer; but he inserts in the latter an
express reference to the miracle which, according to his
hypothesis, had recently been worked before the eyes of the
Disciples and could hardly therefore fail to be mentioned:
" If ye have faith and doubt not, ye shall [not only do what
is done to the jig-tree, but even if .,.ve shall] say unto this
mountain," &c, In order to complete the adaptation, he
also omits the words that connect the saying with forgive-
ness, and relegates them to the Sermon on the I\lol1nt (vi.
1-1-, IS) which he makes the receptacle for all those sayings
of Jesus for which he can find no special time and place.

Letter 18] FROM THE LIFE OF CHRIST? 2I1

" All this is shadowy, barely possible, mere conjecture."
I maintain that conjecture, faIrly supported, is enough to
give the finishing blow to all faith in a miracle so different
from Christ's other "n1ighty works" as this of the fig-
tree. Before finally and utterly rejecting a story found in
a generally truthful narrative we wish not only to know
that the story is improbable, but also to answer the
question, "How may it have crept into the narrative?"
The above conjecture supplies a fairly probable answer to
that question; and the combined result of the evidence for
the probability of some rational explanation, and against
the probability of the miraculous occurrence, is so great
that I can feel no hesitation in rejecting the miracle of the
fig-tree and in declaring that the "characteristic sayings"
of Jesus about the uprooting of mountains and trees were
never intended to be literally understood.
And now, before going further, ask yourself once more,
"Whãt have I lost, so far, by giving up the miracles of
Jesus? Does He sink in my estimation because He did
not blast a fig-tree or destroy t\vo thousand swine, or draw
a fish with a stater in its mouth to the hook of Peter? Or
have I lost a precious and' characteristic saying' of Jesus
because I no longer believe that He really encouraged His
disciples to pray for the uprooting of material mountains
and material trees?" I am quite sure your conscience
nlust reply that you have hitherto lost nothing. If so, take
courage, and follow on step by step where the argument
leads you.

P 2

212 THE l\nR
\CLES OF FEEDING

XIX

lVlv DEAR -,
You remind me that I have omitted the most
important of all those sayings of Christ which are asso-
ciated with miracles-the passage in which he comments
on the feeding of the Four Thousand and on that of the
Five Thousand, as two separate acts, apparently implying
their miraculous nature. I have not forgotten it; but I
reserved it to the last because it is, as you justly say, the
most important and the most difficult of all; but I
believe it to be susceptible of explanation.
Let us first have the facts before us. In the Gospels of
St. Matthew (viii. 15) and St. l\lark (xvi. 6) Jesus is
introduced as bidding the Disciples" beware of the leaven
of the Pharisees and the leaven of Herod" (or, as
Matthew, "the Sadducees.") Upon this the disciples, as
usual, interpret the words of Jesus literally; they suppose
that, since they have forgotten to bring bread with them
(for they had but one loaf) their Master wishes to warn
them to beware of leaven during the approaching feast of
Passover or unleavened bread. Hereupon Jesus, in order

Letter 19] THE :MIRACLES OF FEEDIXG

213

to shew them that He was not speaking literally, rebukes
their dull and literalizing minds as follows :-

Mark viii. 17-21.
"'Vhy reason ye because ye have
no bread? Do ye not yet perceive?
. . . , . 'Vhen I brake the five
loaves among the five thousand, how
many baskets full of broken pieces
took ye up?" They say unto him,
.. Twelve." U And when the seven
among the four thousand, how many
baskets full of broken pieces took
ye up?" And they say unto him,
"Seven," And he said unto them,
" Do ye not yet understand?"

Matthew xvi. 8-12.
"'Vhy reason ye among yourselves
because ye have no bread? Do ye
not yet perceive neither remember
the five loaves of the five thousand
and how many baskets took ye up?
Neither the seven loaves of the four
thousand and how many baskets ye
took up? How is it that ye do not
perceive that I spake not to you
concerning bread? But beware of
the leaven of the Pharisees and Sad-
ducees." Then understood they how
that he bade them not beware of the
leaven of bread, but of the teaching
of the Pharisees and Sadducees.

N ow before I proceed further I must point out to you
that these words are not found in St. Luke's Gospel. For
lnyown part I am disposed to believe them to be genuine,
though not quite in the exact form in which we now
find them. I think St. Luke may have omitted them
because he found some difficulty or obscurity in them; or
because he did not know of them; or perhaps because he
did not know of, or did not accept, the feeding of the Four
Thousand, to which they refer. But suppose we are forced
to give them up as altogether spurious, that is to say, as
not being genuine words of Jesus, though genuine parts of
the first and second Gospels; what is the consequence?
Simply that we shall be reduced to St, Luke's version of
the words, which is as follows (Luke xii. I): "Beware ye
of the leaven of the Pharisees which is hypocrisy." Can
we say that St. Luke has herein omitted words that are es-
sential to the life of Christ, or that we have lost anything
of the highest importance, or even that we have lost a very
"characteristic saying" of Jesus in omitting the statistical
cOlnparison which St, Luke omits? I think not.
But now let us assume that Jesus uttered these words
or something like them. I think you would perceive that

214 THE MIRACLES OF FEEDING [Let/er 19

they could be interpreted metaphorically, if you could only
comprehend how the accounts of the miraculous feeding of
the Four Thousand and of the Five Thousand (obviously
literal as they now stand in our Gospels) could be referred
to as spiritual incidents. In order to answer this question
we must now pass to the narratives of the two Iniracles
themselves. I suppose even those who accept then1
literally would admit that they are emblematic, and that
they represent Jesus, the Bread of Life, giving Himself
for the world. The Fourth Gospel manifests this in the
subsequent discourse where the feeding on the bread and
fishes introduces the subject of the feeding on the flesh
and blood of Christ. The notion that we feed on the
\Y ord of God, first found in Deuteronomy (viii. 3), per-
vades all Jewish literature. It is found in Philo (i. 119) :
"The soul is nourished not on earthly and corruptible
food, but on the words which Gods rains down out of His
sublime and pure nature which lIe calls heaven." It re-
appears in the account of our Lord's temptation, when He
replies to Satan, quoting Deut. viii. 3, ":\Ian shall not
live by bread alone but by every word that proceedeth
out of the mouth of God; " and again (John iv. 32), " I
have meat to eat that ye know not."
On that last occasion the Fourth Gospel tells us that the
disciples actually misunderstood the metaphor and inter-
preted it literally; and to this day I dare say many would
give a literal interpretation to the" daily bread" of the Lord's
prayer; but there can be little doubt that Jesus meant by
" bread" every gift and blessing that constitutes life, and
primarily the spiritual sustenance of the soul. As to the
emblematic use of the" fish," it cannot be traced to the
Old Testament; but in a very early period of the existence
of the Church, as early as the reign of Vespasian, we find
the Fish in rude paintings representing the Eucharistic
food of the faithful; and it is said that this appellation was

Leiter 19] THE MIRACLES OF FEEDING 21 5

given to Jesus from the initial letters of the Greek title
I(esous) Ch(ristos) Th(eou) U(ios) S(oter) [Jesus Christ,
Son of God, Saviour] because they made up the Greek
word Ichthus, fish. About the middle of the second
century we find one of the earliest extant Christian poems
describing how the Church everywhere presented to the
faithful, as their food, "the Fish, great and pure, which
the Holy Virgin had caught." The poet evidently did not
invent this metaphor; it was established, intelligible, and
inherited, at the time when he used it, and must have
been in use much earlier. To speak of "crmnbs" meta-
phorically may perhaps seem to us a bold metaphor,
but it may be illustrated by the dialogue between Jesus
and the Syro-Phænician woman: "It is not meet to take
the children's food and cast it unto dogs:" "Truth, Lord;
yet even the dogs eat of the crumbs which fall from the
master's table." Now it was a comlnon-place in the
doctrine of Jesus that every disciple who ministered the
Word or Bread of Life invariably received it back in
ample measure: "Freely ye have received, freely give."
Give what? Certainly not material bread, but the truth
or bread of life, And again, " Give, and it shall be given
unto you : good measure pressed down and running over
shall THEY 1 give into your bosom." Again, I ask, give
what? \Vhat but the spiritual Bread, which, by the laws
of spiritual nature, cannot be freely given without a yet
more rich return into the giver's heart? It was this
Bread that Christ ministered to His disciples and bade
them set before the people; it was this l3read which the
disciples found multiplied in their hands so that it sufficed
for all, and they themselves were fed from the crumbs
that fell from the food.
In course of time the story of this spiritual banquet
finding its way into Christian hymns and traditions would
1 i.e. the Powers of He
\ren,

216

THE l\nR
\CLES OF FEEDI
G

[Letter 19

be literalized and amplified with ,'ariations. As l\Ioses
h spread a table" for Israel "in the wilderness," so also,
it would be said, did Jesus of Nazareth when he fed
thousands of His followers on divine Bread. The Fish,
whicll is 110t mcntioncd ill our Lord's dialfJl!lte (with the
Disciþlcs, Inight naturally be added to the Bread, in the
narratire, as a Eucharistic eillblem, If the Fish had
been mentioned by our Lord in the dialogue under ques-
tion, IllY explanation would at once fall to the ground;
but it is not mentioned; and the only difficulty is in ex-
plaining how Jesus could have spoken metaphorically of
the" seven " as well as the" twelve" baskets. \Ve can un-
derstand the "twelve "-each one of the tweh'e Apostles
who ministered, receiving a return of spiritual" crumbs"-
but whence the "seven?" Here I can but conjecture.
You know that seven is what is called" a sacred nmnber."
I find in the Fourth Gospel, xxi. 2-14, a story (evidently
emblematic) of a miraculous meal of bread and fishes in
which "seven" apostles took part. This n1ay have been
based upon some tradition in which seven apostles were
recorded as having taken part in a spiritual Eucharistic
feeding of the n1ultitude. If that was so, it would follow
that in the latter case there would be "seven baskets" of
fragments, as in the former case there were" Ì\veh-e," cor-
responding to the nmnber of the lllinistering apostles: and
Jesus, in the dialogue under consideration, would remind
His disciples how on two occasions where the bread of
life was multiplied for the hungry, the twelve Apostles
received the twelve baskets of crumbs, and the seven
recei ved the seven.
\Vhat is the argument in the words under consideration,
according to your interpretation? I presmlle you would
take them thus: "\Vhy do you suppose I am talking
about literal bread? Can I not lllake bread as I please?
Do you not relnember my two miracles, and how from

Lette?' 19] THE l\HRACLES OF FEEDING

21 7

five loaves for fi,'e thousand people there carne t"Telve
baskets of fragments, while frOITl seven 10a,Tes for four
thousand people there caIne se,'en baskets? 1 How then
can I (or you while you are with me) be in need of literal
bread?" But this interpretation is open to one serious
objection. It is opposed to the whole ten our of Christ's
life. Nowhere else in the Gospels do we find that Jesus
used any n1iraculous power to exelnpt Himself and His
disciples from hunger. \Ve are even taught that on one
occasion He resisted a prompting to turn stones into
bread, as being a temptation frOln the Evil One. For
His disciples he Illight undoubtedly have been willing to
do what He would not do for Himself; but that Jesus
(like Elisha) so habitually used miraculous powers to
shelter His disciples from the inconveniences and hard-
ships of a wandering life, that he could encourage them to
believe that he would do so on the present occasion, is a
hypothesis quite inconsistent with the Gospel history.
Moreover, plausible although this interpretation may
appear to us-because we are familiar with the literalizing
interpretation of the miracles of the Four Thousand and
Five Thousand-it does not, if I may so say, bring out the
proportion of the sentence. Surely it does not sound logical
to say, " Did I not once supply you with bread for four and
five thousand people (literally)? \Vhy then do you not
understand that I now speak of ' leaven' metaphorically?"
Instead of this, should we not rather expect: " Do you not
remember how on two previous occasions 'bread' was
used spiritually? \Vhy then do you not understand that
, leaven' is here used spiritually?" Now this is what I
believe to have been the original meaning of the words,
if genuine. I believe that Jesus intended to relnind the

I Two different kinds of ba<;kets appear to be denoted by the two ciifferent
Greek words, A similar difference is also found in the narratives of the

ed.ng of the Four Thousand and the Five Thousand: but it would be easy
to -shew that no inference of imporlance can be drawn from this distlllction,

.

218

TIlE
nR.ACLES OF FEEDING

[Letter 19

Disciples how on two previous occasions the multitude
had been fed with the spiritual Bread, the Bread of Life:
" You know that that was what I meant before, when I
spoke of Bread; how is it then that you do not understand
IllY meaning now when I speak similarly of leaven?"
I do not pretend to say that this explanation is com-
pletely satisfactory even to me, l1luch less to claim that it
should cOlnpletely satisfy others. Some may prefer to
rationalize the Iniracle as an exaggeration with a substra-
tum of fact; others Il1ay reject the dialogue as a late inter-
polation. Yet even then I think the considerations above
alleged-which I have put forward, on the supposition
that the dialogue is genuine-may go a long way toward
shewing how these Il1iraculous stories may have sprung
up without any real basis of miracle, and how, in the
elaboration of these narratives, words that cannot be
accepted as historical may have been attributed to
Jesus wit/LOut allY fraudulent þurþose. Although I
an1 unwilling to admit (and do not feel called upon by
evidence to admit) that the words and doctrine of Jesus
have been seriously modified to suit the miraculous in-
terpolations of early Christian times, yet of course (on
my hypothesis) some slight occasional Inodifications
cannot be denied. For example, in the miracle of the
Four Thousand, Jesus is introduced as saying, "How
many loaves have ye?" These words must necessarily
be rejected by anyone taking my view of the narrative,
as the addition of some later tradition which, interpret-
ing a metaphor literally, endeavoured to set forth the lite-
ral fact dramatically as it was supposed to have occurred.
In the saIne way it is possible that the dialogue now
under consideration may be an ainplification of a simple
rebuke from Jesus to the disciples for Inisunderstanding
His precept as to leaven, the early tradition having run
somewhat after this fashion: "The Lord spread a tablc

Leiter 19] THE MIRACLES OF FEEDING

219

for the hungry in the wilderness: He gave them bread
from heaven to eat. The Lord gave food unto the multi-
tude through the hands of the Twelve; and in their hands
the Bread of Life was multiplied so that a few loaves
satisfied many thousands. Then did the Lord warn His
disciples tbat they should be7vare 0/ leaven and feed on
nought sa7/e the one true Bread. But tlley understood not
His words, and remembered not the mighty works of His
hands." It seems to me quite possible, I say, that the
dialogue under discussion may have arisen from an ampli-
fication of some such words as those above italicized; and
I am somewhat the more inclined to take this view because
St. lVlark's narrative (the earliest) contains a curious little
detail which looks like a trace of some old hymn about
" the one true Bread" i.e. Jesus: "They had not in the
boat with them more than one 10af(Gr. bread)."
If these suggested solutions seem improbable, letme once
n10re remind you that you have to choose between theln
and greater improbabilities. Either the miraculous
narrative must be historically true; or it must have been
deliberately fabricated; or it must have sprung into
existence without intention to deceive. As to the impro-
bability of the first of these solutions, I say nothing, because
you have rejected it. Certainly it would be difficult for a
painter to depict in detail the processes necessitated by
this miracle without producing a grotesque impression: but
on this point I am silent, as it is beside my purpose. It
remains therefore for you to decide whether the theory of
deliberate falsehood, or of the unconscious accretions of
tradition aQd misunderstanding of metaphor, supplies
the least improbable explanation. For my part, having
regard to the character of Christ's disciples, the abundant
evidence that they misunderstood the teaching of their
Master, and the frequent instances of miraculous nàrrative
arising from misunderstanding in other cases, I have no

220 TIlE :\IIRACLES OF FEEDING [letter 19

hesitation in saying that, in this case also, the hypothesis
of deceit is far more in1probable than that of misunder-
standing.
I had not intended to touch on any other miracle; but
one more can be so briefly discussed that I will not omit
it. I dare say you have anticipated (though you have not
read OJlesiJlllts 1 ) that I should explain the" walking on
the waves" and the "stilling of the sea" as narratives
derived from early Christian hymns representing the Son
of God as stilling the storms that threaten the bark of
the Church. Nevertheless you may not have perceived
how easily a historical and authentic tradition of the
deeds and words of Christ would lend itself to amplifi-
cation so as to be elaborated into the full miraculous
narrative as we now find it in the Gospels. \Vell
then, open your Greek Testament at St. l\lark's narrative
(i. 25- 2 7, or Luke iv. 3;,36) of the exorcism of an unclean
spirit. You will there find it stated that Jesus "rebuked
an unclean spirit; " and a somewhat rare word is used to
express the rebuke, "Be thou 1Jluz:::led (cþLp.wB1JrL)." It
is further added that the disciples, in their astonishment,
said to one another" \Vhat, is this? 1 Vith autllOrity he
cOJJlluandeth even t/ze uncleall sþirits and they obey him."
N ow you know very \vell that the same Greek word
(1iveûp.a) expresses two totally distinct English words
" spirit" and" wind; " but you may not so well know that
the same ambiguity is found in Hebrew. Look at Psalm
civ. 4 in the Old Version, and you will find" \Vho maketh
his angels (i,e. messengers) sþirits/" but the New Version
gives, more correctly, "\Vho maketh winds his mes-
sengers," or," \Vho maketh his angels winds." Now sup-
pose that in SOlne cases where the above tradition was
circulated in the Church, either in Greek or Aramaic, the
word "unclean" was omitted, as it ea5ily might be for
1 Pp. 275- 6 .

Letter 19] TIlE :MIRACLES OF FEEDING 221

brevity. It would follow that, without the change of a
single word, the hearers might interpret the story as
follows: "Jesus rebuked the fluÙzd, saying to it, Be thou
1Jluzzled. His disciples n1arvelled, saying, '\That is this?
IVitlt authority he cOlllJJlalldeth even the winds and they
obey him."
But you may say perhaps, " Jesus could not use such
an extraordinary phrase as 'Be thou muzzled,' in ad-
dressing the wind. To a hmnan being it would be
applicable, or even to a spirit, but not to the wind. "
\Vell, it certainly would be rather unusual: but turn to
St. l\lark iv. 39, and you will there find a passage telling
you how, in a storm at sea, Jesus awoke and" rebuÁ'cd
the wind" with the words" Be tholt muzzled (ÇJIP,CùBr;n),"
and how the wondering disciples said to one another,
"
Vho is this that even the wind (Matthew and Luke,
'the 'It'Ùlds') and sea obey him J? " It appears to me by
no means unlikely that we have here two versions of the
same tradition; the one in the earlier chapter of St. l\lark
representing the facts; the other in the later chapter
resulting from a misunderstanding of the facts, whence
there sprang up the amplified and beautiful tradition of
the Stilling of the Storm-a story which n1ust have in all
ages commended itself to the Church, and may still
commend itself, by reason of its deep spiritual truth,
but which ought, in this age, to be recognized as in all
probability, not historically true.
N either of the above-mentioned explanations of this
miraculous narrative appears to Ine by any means certain;
but either seems to me decidedly 1nore likely than that
Jesus so far raised Himself above the conditions of
humanity as to rebuke and check the winds and the seas.
If I interpret the life of Christ aright, He neither did,
nor wished to do, any such thing, and would have
regarded the suggestion to do it as a temptation frOl11

222

THE MIRACLES OF FEEDI
G

[Lellt,y 19

Satan. I say this with reverence, almost with fear and
trelnbling, knowing that 1 must give account of these
words hereafter before Him. But what can a n1an do
more to shew his homage for the Truth than follow where
the Truth appears to lead?
In any case I am sure we cannot rightly understand
the life and mind of Jesus until, by a great effort,
we have di,-estecl ourselves of our inveterate and vulgar
belief that He wrought His n1ighty works as mere
demonstrations of His divine mission, and that He had
power to perform any works whatever, quite regardless of
the laws of nature. Had that been the case, I do not see
how He could have blamed the Pharisees for asking Hin1
to work a sign in heaven. \Yhy should they not have
asked it, and why should not He have worked it?
Jugglers and impostors were very comlnon in the East:
Galilee and Samaria were thronged with professional
exorcists: in miracles performed on men there was
always the possibility of collusion; any act on earth was
open to suspicion of imposture, but in heaven-this was
the general belief-there could be certainty; no mere
magician could work a sign in heaven. "Let but the sun
stand still for half a day, and we will believe," surely this,
from the demonstration-point-of-view of miracles, was a
very natural request; and if Jesus really had the power of
stopping the sun for half a day, and if He felt that His
wonder-working faculty was given to HiIn for the mere
purpose of demonstrating His divine power, I cannot
understand how He could have refused, much less rebuked,
the request of the Pharisees.
But in truth His mighty works or signs were not wrought
in this deliberate way for the mere purpose of demonstra-
tion. They were the results of an irrepressible pity,
appealing to an instinct of power. He could not see a
demoniac or a paralytic look trustfully upon Hiln without

Letter 19] THE NIJR
-\CLES OF FEEDING 223

longing to help, and in many cases feeling that it was
God's will that He should help. To suppose that He cured
all who were brought to HiIn is absurd, and is contrary
(as we have seen above) to the evidence of the earlie3t
Evangelist. He had the power of distinguishing- between
faith and not faith; had He an equal power of discerning
physiological possibilities from impossibilities? Did a
kind of instinct tell Him that the restoration of a lost IÍlnb
was not like the cure of a paralytic, not one of the works
"prepared for Him by His Father?" I do not suppose
that such physiological distinctions were intellectually
known by Christ in His human nature, any more than the
modern discoveries of geology, astronomy, or history.
But experience and some kind of intuition may have
enabled Him to distinguish those cases which He could
heal from those (a far more numerous class) which He
could not, In performing these" mighty works" of healing,
Jesus appears on many occasions to have studiously
avoided that very publicity which-on the theory of their
being intended as demonstrations-ought to have been a
condition of their performance. He takes the patient
apart, or expressly warns him to be silent about his cure-
acts quite inconsistent with the demonstration-hypothesis.
Probably He felt that these works, although they came to
Him fresh from His Father's hands, were not without a
danger. l\len crowded round Him, not to hear the truth
but to see" the miracles," Instead of recognizing that lIe
did only such works as "the Father had prepared for Him
to do," they thought that He could do "anything He
pleased." I think we ought to feel that the very notion of
such a power as this was absolutely revolting to Jesus:
" To stop the sun, to call down fire or bread from heaven, to
stay the course of rivers, and cast down the walls of cities
-doubtless Joshua and Elijah had done these works;
but they were not the works that the Father had prepared

21 4

TIlE
nRACLES OF FEEDIXG

[Lefler 19

for the Son to do." Joshua and Elijah were but servants.
He was the Son: and, being the Son, He felt bound to
conform Himself each moment to that hea,"cnly \Vill
which He evcr felt within Him and saw bcfore Him,
which dictated" mighty works" indeed, but always works
of love and healing. In one sense He was entirely free;
He could do all things because all things were possible
with the Father, and the Father and He wcre one; in
another sense He felt Himself less free than any being-
that had ever assumed the shape of n1an, because all
other human creatures had deviated, but He alone could
never deviate, no, not by a hair's breadth, from the
indwelling \Yill of the Father.
It is for these reasons then that I reject 111iracles, not
because they are impossible, not even because they are
a þriori improbable, not because thcy were once useless
and are now harmful; but because the facts are against
them. If the evidence shewed that miracles had actually
occurred, I should be prepared to learn from these
materialized parables as reverently as from word-parables,
and to believe that God-in order to break down lllen's
excessive faith in the machine-like order of the visible
world, and in order to divert their attention from Sequence
to \Vill-fore-ordained these divergences from the lllono-
tonous routine of things. But the evidence does not shew
this. The criticism of the Old Testament, and the
criticislll of the New Testaillent, and the researches of
science, and the closer study of the life of Christ H illlself,
all converge to this conclusion-that Christ conquered
the world, not by working miracles, but by living such a
life and dying such a death as might be lived and died by
the Son of God, incarnate as a Son of man, and self-sub-
jected to all the physicalliIllitations of humanity; and by
bequeathing to mankind, after His death, such a Spirit as
was correspondent to His own nature.

THE
IANIFEST A TION OF CHRIST 225

xx

1
Iy DEAR -,
You wish to draw my attention to the Resurrection
of Christ. "That," you say, "is either miraculous or
nothing. The arguments by which you appear to be
driving miracles into non-existence--expelling them first
from profane history, then from the Old Testan1ent, then
step by step from every part of the New-cannot make a
stand at your convenience, so as to except the Resurrec-
tion. Yet even St. Paul mak
s the Resurrection of Jesus
the basis of his own belief and Gospel. If, therefore, that
final miracle falls to the ground, the Pauline Gospel falls
with it: and to that downfall I fear your arguments all
tend, although you yourself do not see it or wish it."
I entirely deny the quiet assumption of your first sen-
tence; which, as it stands (but I am sure you cannot mean
it), affirms that the Resurrection of Christ "is either
miraculous or nothi.og." I assert, without fear of contra-
diction, that if the phenomena which convinced the
earliest disciples and St. Paul of the reality of the
Resurrection of Christ, were not miraculous but natural,
they constitute the most wonderful event in the history of
the world. But what you wish to say, I suspect, is this:
"Dy the Resurrection of Christ I mean the Resurrection
of the body; now if Christ's body was raised again,
the act must have been miraculous." But how if the
Resurrection was spiritual? St. Paul himself speaks of
a "spiritual body," not a material body, as rising in the
Q

226 THE
IANIFEST A TIO
OF CHRIST [Lctter 20

Resurrection. Do you suppose that a "spiritual body"
can be touch
d? Or that St. Paul could ba ve touched the
presence that appeared to hiln when he heard the words,
"Saul, Saul, why persecutest thou me?" N ow if the
Resurrection of Christ was spiritual and not material,
there may have been no suspension at all of the la\ys of
n1aterial nature, but simply a real, spiritual fact, mani-
fested to the world according to certain laws by which
spiritual facts are manifested to the senses.
But this theory, you will reply, although possibly con-
sistent with the Pauline narrative, is inconsistent with the
Gospel accounts of the Resurrection. It certainly is. But
it is quite certain-however unprepared you may possibly
be for the statement-that the Gospel accounts of the
Resurrection, taken altogether, cannot be compared, for
weight, with the Pauline evidence. You know that the
oldest Gospel (St. l\Iark xvi. 8) terminates (probably
because it was left incomplete) with a vision of angels
who speak of the tomb as empty and of Christ as risen;
but not a word about Christ's resurrection itself. The next
Gospel in chronological order (St. l\latthew's) mentions
one appearance of Christ to some WOlnen, and another to
some disciples in Galilee; but as to the last it is said that
"some doubted." Not till we come to St. Luke's Gospel
do we find detailed appearances of Jesus to disciples in or
near Jerusalem, in the course of which Jesus is present at
a meal and offers to eat, as evidence that He is no mere
spirit. In the last Gospel of a)l (St. John's) there is added
an appeal to the sense of touch; and in an Appendix to
that Gospel, Jesus is represented as inviting the discip1c

to a repast of fish and bread, apparently miraculously
supplied and prepared (" they see a fire of coals thcle
and fish laid thereon, and bread," John )(.-xi. 9), which He
distributes to the disciples. Afterwards he holds a long
discourse with them. Similarly long discourses between

Letter 20]

TO ST. PAUL

227

the risen Saviour and the disciples are recorded in the
first chapter of the Acts of the Apostles, which we know
to have been written after the Gospel of St. Luke. You
see how unsatisfactory all this is. The further back
we go, and the nearer to the event, the more meagre
and shadowy does the evidence become. I t does not
appear in a form ample and cogent until a period so late
as to throw irresistible doubt upon its truth. How can
we possibly answer the doubter's natural question," If
there was this unanswerable evidence of the material
resurrection of Jesus, why was it suppressed for two
generations?" Moreover, some of these later accounts,
which relate the handling of the body of Jesus, or the
presence of Jesus at the breaking of bread, might be
literal misinterpretations of some traditions concerning
visions of Christ accompanying the" handling of the body
of the Lord Jesus" in the Lord's Supper. It is very
significant that St. Peter-whose allusions in the Acts of
the Apostles to his personal evidence concerning the
Resurrection of Christ are of the briefest kind-is in.
troduced by St. Luke as mentioning only one definitt.
kind of n1anifestation of Jesus; and that is one in which
the Apostles" did eat and dri1lk with him after he rose
from the dead" (Acts x. 41). Lastly, there are traces
of interpolations, or additions, at a very early date in
the post-resurrection chapters of St. Luke, and probably
of St. i\Iatthew and St. John; and in dealing with
the post-resurrection narrative of the life of Christ SOlne
of the earliest Fathers quote passages not found in our
Gospels but agreeing somewhat with the suspected addi-
tions in the third and fourth Gospel. The sum of all is, so
far as my own experience goes, that after a patient and pro-
longed study of the evidence, with every desire, and indeed
I may say with an intense anxiety (at one period of my life),
to justify 111ysclf in continuing to believe all that I once
Q 2

223 THE
L\:XIFESTA TION OF CHRIST [Letter 20

believed, I now rise from the perusal of the last chapters
of the Gospels and the first chapter of the Acts of the
Apostles, with the conviction that SOJJlethÙ
l[ certainly
happened to persuade the Apostles that their l\Iaster had
verily risen from the dead, but what that something was,
the evidence, so far as it can be obtained frOln the Gospels,
does not enable us to determine.
But we have not yet touched on the evidence of St. Paul
and to this we now pass. Here at last we stand on firm
ground. Here for the first tÏ1ne we find (in St. Paul's first
Epistle to the Corinthians xv. 8), the unquestionable
evidence of an eye-witness, probably recordE.d several
years before-the appearance of any Gospel now extant.
Noone who is cOlnpetent to fonn an opinion on the
question can for a llloment doubt St. Paul's assertion
that Christ" appeared " to him, and that some such ap-
pearance as that recorded thrice in the Acts, convcrted
hiin from a persecutor into an apostle of Christianity.
\Ve have just been asking, "\Vhat was that unknown
something-possibly some manifestation of Jesus after
death-which inspired the Twelvc with the conviction and
the facultics necessary to overcome the world?" Now
we seem to have found the answer. An appearance that

vercan1e and converted a recalcitrant enemy might well
satisfy and in1bue with confidence loving disciples, longing
to believe. Especially might this be the case if Jesus had
predicted, as 1 believe He did predict, that His work
would not be cut short by death, but that in Him would
be fulfilled the saying of Hosea: "In the third day he
shall raise us up and we shall live in his sight." Although
these words may ha ,'e been neglected or not understood
at the time when they wcre uttered, they Inay ha'"e wcll
recurred to the minds of the Disciples, after their :\Iaster's
death, with a powerful effect. To urge that the despair of
the Twelve could be a greater obstacle than the veheI11ent

Letter 20]

TO ST, PAUL

229

and bigoted antagonism of Saul, in the way of their
receiving a vision of their belo,'ed :Master, is a paradox
so pedantical that it is scarcely worth mentioning. You
cannot have forgotten, too, how St. Paul himself assumes
that the appear"ances of the Saviour to himself, and to the
original Apostles, were of the same kind and on the same
footing: "He aþþeared unto Cephas, he aþþeared unto
J ames, he aþþeared unto five hundred brethren . . . and
last of all he aþþeared unto me also.
' In the two latest
Gospels these" appearances" have been magnified into
accounts that represented Jesus as possessed of flesh and
bones, as capable of eating, as.reclining at a meal, and as
entering into long and familiar discourses: naturally we
ask as to St. Paul's, the indisputably earliest account of a
manifestation of Christ, what traces it exhibits of similar
distortions and exaggerations? You know the answer.
There are no such traces. The manifestation to St. Paul
is plainly admitted by the accounts in the Acts to be what
is commonly called subjective. The" subjectivity" of
some of the earlier manifestations of Jesus to the disciples
is din11y suggested by some passages in the Gospels which
describe how" some doubted" and others failed to re-
cognize Him; but it is not merely suggested, it is plainly
expres:3ed, in the accounts of the manifestation to St.
Paul. The Apostle is clearly stated to have seen a
sight and heard words, which other people, his companions,
with the same opportunities for seeing and hearing, did
not see and did not hear. Putting aside some slight dis-
crepancies in the three accounts given in the Acts 1_

1 "And the men that journeyed with him stood speechless hearing the
voice but beholding no man," Acts ix 7; "And they that were with me
beheld indeed the light. but they heard n)t the v.Jice of him th:n spake to
me," ib. xxii. 9. \Vhether Saul"s comp:mions saw and heard nothing except
subjectively, through fo;:,ce (If sympalhy, or whether (comp. J0hn xii. 29)
s )me natural phenomenon may have been interpreted in one way by Saul
and in anJther way by his compani ms, cann)t now be determined: but I

,

230 THE :\L\XIFEST.\ [lOX OF CHRIST [Ldttr 20

discrepancies easily and natura]]y explicable, and valuable
as shewing that the accounts have not been arbitrarily
harmonized-we may say that this is the substantial
result: the Lord Jesus appeared to St. Paul in what is
called a vision. I myself firmly believe that there was a
spiritual act of Jesus simultaneous with the conveyance
of the Inanifestation to the brain of the Apostle. But
none the less,-however coincident it Inay have been \vith
a spiritual reality, if there was no presence of a material
hody, the n1anifestation of Jesus to St. Paul must be placed
in the class of visions: and if it was not seen by others
who had the same physical means of seeing, it must be
called, in SOlne sense, " subjective."
Yet this vision sufficed for hiln and for the world. In
the strength of this vision, (followed, no doubt, by subse-
quent visions and con1munings with the Lord Jesus), the
Thirteenth Apostle, the intruder, as he might be called-
not ".chosen of men," like l\latthias, not called by Christ
in the flesh-did the great work of which you and I, with
lnillions of others, are now joint inheritors. Think of it !
Is it not a relnarkable instance of "men working one
thing while God worketh another" to see the Apostles with
due form and ceremony electing thcir substitute for the
Traitor to be the solemnly ordained Twelfth Apostle,

henceforth unnamed in Holy \Vrit) and all the while
the Holy Spirit preparing a Thirteenth! And for this
Thirteenth Apostle, who never looked on the face of
Christ, never heard a single word of His doctrine, it has
been reserved to tell us perhaps more about the meaning
of Christ's teaching and certainly to give us lnore cogent
proof of His Resurrection than all the other Apostles and
Evangelists put togcther! Truly the last has been first!

have confined myself to indisputable fact in stating that Saul" saw a sight
an 1 heard word.. which other people, his conpanifJßs, with the same opr or -
tun1tleS for seeing an1 hearing, did not see and did nút hear."

Ldler 20]

TO ST. PAUL

23 1

And in the strength of his proof of Christ's Resurrection
-mere vision though we may call it-this Thirteenth
Apostle, in the face of persecutions outside the Church,
and discouragements and jealousies inside the Church,
first converted the Roman empire to the Christian faith;
t hen, fifteen centuries - afterwards, reconverted and purified
a large section of the Church from mediæval corruptions;
and now, as I believe, some nineteen centuries afterwards,
is on the point of still further purifying the Church frmll
antique superstition and frmn modern Inaterialism !
\Vhat shall we say of the mighty vision that originated
these stupendous results? Shall we take the view of the
modern scientific young man, and lecture the great Apostle
on the folly of that indiscreet journey to Damascus at
noon-tide, when his nerves were a little over-wrought after
that unpleasant incident of poor Stephen? Shall we
say it was all ophthalmia and indigestion-that flash 0 f
blinding light, those unforgettable words, "Saul, Saul,
why persecutest thou me? "-all a mere vision? Is a fact
that changed the destinies of Europe to be put aside with
the epithet " mere" ? Would not even a materialist stone-
mason recognize that a vision which built St. Peter's
and St. Paul's is of some tangible importance? You and
I and your scientific young lecturer-do we not in some
sort owe our existence to this "mere vision," but for
which the earth might be a chaos of barbarism, England
a forest scantly populated with tattooed bipeds, and our
civilized selves non-existent? Patricidal creature-<;, let
us not speak lightly of the" mere" author of our o\Vn
iIn portant being !
To my mind the manifestation of the Resurrection of
Christ appears, not as an isolated fact, but as a part, and
the central part, of the great revelation of the Ï1nmortality
of the soul which has been conveyed by God to man, in
accordance with the laws of hmnan nature;: from the

232 TII E f\IA
IFEST A TIO:N OF CHRIST [Leiter 20

beginning of the creation of the worId by the meclimn of
imaginative Faith. In the saIne way the laws of astronomy
have been conveyed by God to man, in accordance with
the laws of human nature, from the beginning of the
creation of the world, by the medium of imaginative
Reason. I ha,.e shewn in previous letters that Imagina-
tion has been the basis of all that is worth calling
knowledge. To shew the bearing of this on the lnani-
festations of the Resurrection of Christ shall be the object
of my next letter.

THE RESURRECTION REVEALED

2 '">'">
.).)

XXI

!\lv DEAR --,
You are startled, and well you may be, "at the
notion that the resurrection of Christ has been the mere off-
spring of the imagination." I anl quoting your words, but
you have not quoted mine. I never said, nor should I
dream of saying, that the resurrection of Christ was" the
offspring of the imagination," any lnore than I should say
that the law of gravitation is "the offspring of the imagina-
tion," or that light is " the offspring of the eye," But this
is just an ordinary specimen of the way in wllich people
whose lninds are blocked and choked with prejudice, mis-
understand what is contrary to their preconceptions. You
have Inade up your mind that the Imagination is a kind
of excrescence on humanity, a faculty independent of the
Creator, and incapable of being made by Him the medium
of revelation; and so you pervert my words to suit your
fancies. But what I said was that Inlagination is the basis
of all that is worth calling knowledge, and that, as God
reveals the laws of astronomy through imaginative Reason,
so He has revealed the Resurrection of Christ through
imaginative Faith.
Before speaking of the special bearing of the Imagina-
tion upon the manifestation of Christ's Resurrection, let
IDe say a word or two on the manner in which our human
enviromnent appears to have been adapted to foster the
growth of this faculty. You will be better prepared to

23-J THE RESURRECTION REVE
\LED [Letler 21

expect great things from the Ilnagination when you
reflect on the great things that have been wrought by
God for its development. You say that you do not under-
stand the statelnent in the last paragraph of my last letter,
that the Imagination has been made" the Inedium of
conveying the revelation of the immortality of the soul,"
and still less do you comprehend how this revelation has
been going on" frOln the creation of the world," especially
since, during a large portion of this time, there Inust
have been no men to receive any revelation at all.
I said deliberately "from the creation of the world,"
and not" from the creation of Inankind," because inani-
lnate creation itself appears to me to bear witness to a
purpose, frOln the first, that this visible ,,,orld should help
its future tenants to ÏInagine things invisible. Consider
but one instance, the immense influence of Night upon
the hnagination, and you will perhaps come to the con-
clusion that, but for the provision of darkness (" tbese
orbs of light and shade "), men would never have
been led to a faith in the light of ilnInortality. In the
first place by revealing to us the wonder-striking order
of the infinite stars-which, but for darkness, would have
remained for ever a closed book to men- Night leads us
to dream, or to infer, that there Inay be other pages still
unturned in the book of Nature's mysteries, and stilnulates
us, however far we may progress in thought, still to press
on to something more beyond; and at the saIne tin1e,
throwing a temporary veil over all the sights of day, it
persuades us to trust that on the morrow the veil will
be removed, and that in the meantime all things will
continue in their order.
Kight is aided by sleep and dreams. Slmnbering in the
dar
{ness, and bereft of the control of the understanding,
lmagination has reproduced before the mind's eye the
sights of daylight, blended together without thought of

Letter 21] THROUGH THE I
IAGINA TIO)J" 235

fitness, order, time, or place, so as to fonn quite new com-
binations which scarcely any deliberate daytin1e effort
could have so vividly depicted: and in the long train of
confused visionary Ï1nages there have sometimes passed
before the mental eye of the mourner or the murderer the
very shapes, and even the voices of the dead, forcing the
slumberer to start up and cry, "They li\
, they still live ;
there is a life beyond the grave." This trans-sepulchral
existence having been once discerned, the Imagination
has set to work to formulate the laws of it, and to map out
and people its regions, thus causing heaven and hell to
becOlne realities and (in course of time) ancestral tradi-
tions, and almost inherited instinct? Sometimes, Ima-
gination has come with a special and rarely Inanifested
force to the aid of a belief in a future life. Not in drean1s,
but in wakeful n10ments, though for the most part by
night, there have appeared before the mind's eye such
vivid images of the departed, as have convinced not only
the seers of the visions but also their friends-and so, by a
pervasive influence, all but a small minority of the human
race-that something real has been seen, the spirit of the
dead made visible: and to this day, in England, there are
not wanting men of the highest ability, culture, and love
of truth, who busy themselves with serious investigations
into the reality of apparitions.
Does this seen1 to you fanciful? Surely it is the fact
that Night and its phenomena have largely influenced the
spiritual, or superstitious, side of hmnan nature: and if
you admit this to be the fact, the only difference between
us is this, that to you this subtle but universal influence
of Darker Nature on l\Ian appears to have been the
result of chance, whereas I think it came from God. To
you, one half of Time appears to have been allowed by
God to be spiritually bJ.rren, set apart for the mere
repairing of the human lnatcrial l11ac:.line: I do not

23 6 TIlE RESURRECTIO
REYEALED [Letler 21

belie'-e that the spiritual making of l\Ian W3.S fore-
ordained on this "half-time" principle.
If however you ask 111e what a'11ount of truth or reality
there has been in these dreams and visions, I should
reply, as about poetry and prophecy, tlnt some of these
imaginations ha,-e represented realities, some unrealities;
but that the total result to which they have led n1en, the
belief in the iUllnortality of the soul, is a reality. nut
when I speak of a "real vision" of a spirit or ghost, I
hope you will not misunderstand me so far as to suppose
that I coulcllnean a Inaterial, gas-like (though intangible)
for111, occupying so nlany cubical inches of space. A
spirit, so far as I concei,-e it, does not occupy space;
nor is it the object of sight, any nlore than of sn1ell or
touch; it is, to me, of the nature of a thought, only a
thought personified, i.e. a thought capable of loving and
being loved, of hating and being hated. But though it
may not be the object of the senses in the san1e way in
which e>>ternal things are, it nlay be Inanifested to the
Imagination, i.e, the mind's eye, in such a way as to pro-
duce the same effect as though it were an external object
seen by the body's eye.
Everyone who loves truth win tread with cautious steps
in this mysterious pro,-ince of phantasn1al existence, and
carefully measure his language, knowing that we are in
a region of illusion, exaggeration, and (sometimes) of
imposture. But there does seem eYÌdence to shew that
people (mostly perhaps twins), at a distance from one
another, have in some at present inexplicable manner
influenced one another so that the disease or death or
calamity of one has been silnultaneously made known to
the other; and you ha,-e probably read of cases, fairly
supported, which would shew that a passionate longing on
the part of a dying nlan to see SOlne distant friend may
create a responsi,-e eJnotion, if not an actual vision, in the

Letter 21] THROUGH TIlE L\IAGINA TION 237

mind of that friend. \Ve are so completely in the dark as
to the originating causes (for physiology teUs us nothing
but the instrumental causes) which produce our thoughts,
that I see nothing at all absurd in the notion that every
truthful and vivid conception of one human being in the
1l1ind of another upon earth, arises from some communion
in the spirit-world between the spirits of the two.
So much for conjectures as to the possible reality or
possible causes of some c1asses of apparitions. I do not
often myself set much store on them, except so far as they
are of use in reminding us how wide is the province of
possibility, or how narrow the province of certainty, in
the region of ultimate causation. I lay stress, not upon
any conjectural explanation of ghost phenomena, but upon
the following general considerations, most of which are
of the nature, not of conjectures, but of facts: I st, man
is what he is, largely in virtue of the Imagination; 2nd,
one half of man's tilne and one half of the phenmnena
of Nature seeln to have no other purpose (so far as man
is concerned) than to stÍ1nulate the Imagination; 3rd,
if we suppose that this wonderful world is under the
government of a good God, although opposed by an
inferior Evil, we are led to infer that He has implanted
in us this faculty of hnagination and that the noble aspir..-t-
tions and beliefs which have been developed by it ha,-e
not been unmixed delusions; 4th, aIl10ng the noblest
of the beliefs thus developed, has been the belief in the
Ïlnmortality of the soul, which, after being tested by the
faith of many centuries, is at this day cherished by the
majority of civilized mankind; 5th, this belief has proved
its truth, so far as imaginations can prove themselves
true, by w'orking well, i.e. it has raised and ennobled those
who have entertained it, and has made them (on the
whole) morally the better for it; 6th, a part of the train-
ing of the Imagination, intimately connected with the

.

23 S TIlE RESURRECTIO:\ REVEALED [Lcttt!r 21

production of the belief in the ilnmortality of the soul, has
been the developlnent of a powcr to see mental visions,
with all the vividness of lnaterial visions; 7th, among
these visions, S0111e of the most comn10n have been appa-
ritions of the forms of the dead, and some of the best
authenticated of these have occurred "here a strong un-
fulfiUed desire has possessed the departed in the mOlncnt
of dying and where the scer of the apparition has becn
bound by close ties to the dead.
These are the considerations, mostly facts-you may
dispute some of them, but not all I think-in the light of
which I should endeavour to illustrate the manifestation
of Christ to His disciples after death. To these facts I
luerely added the conjecture that possibly there lnay be
something besides the mere movement of our brains that
produces these images of the departed, sOlnething-1
will not say external, for a spirit, if independent of place,
can be neither external to us nor internal-but some act in
the invisible world of spirits corresponding to everyappa-
rition upon the visible world. But I did not pledge myself
to such a theory. I only insisted that the whole revelation
of poetry and religion through the I magination has becn
of such inestimable importance to man that we cannot
put it all aside as false because imaginative; we must
regard it with reverence and be prepared to find that in
the central event of the purest religion of all, the Imagi-
nation has been made the nlediul1l of the culminating
revelation of spirit and truth. Indeed, if the spiritual
world is real and near, it is difficult to conceive how God
-without breaking the Laws of Nature and without
unfitting us for life in a world of sense-could bettcr give
us glimpses of an invisible environment, than by causing
it to press in, as it were, upon the Imagination, so that
the mind's eye, thus stin1ulated by real invisibilities, may,
for the time, supplant the bodily faculty of sight, and

Letter 21] THROUGH THE Il\L\GIl\A TIOX 239

afterwards leave behind in us a permanent suggestion
that, as there is a material world corresponding to the
bodily eye, so there is a mind's world corresponding to
the mind's eye. \Vith this pre-conception I will ask you
to approach the narratÏ\-e of Christ's Resurrection as I
shall endeavour to set it forth in my next letter fron1 the
natural point of view.

24 0

THE RESURRECTION

XXII

l\Iv DEAR -,
1\1y last letter broke off rather abruptly with a
pr01nise to do my best to set forth hereafter the Resur-
rection of Christ as it 111ay be regarded frOll1 a natural
point of view.
Looking at the facts in this light, wc ha\'c in the first
place to set beforc ourselves the short life of One of
whom we n1ust merely say that He was unique in the
goodness and grandeur of His character, and that He
dicd with the unfulfilled purpose of redeeming mankind
frOll1 sin, deserted for thc mOlnent by the few disciples
who had adhered to Hill1 almost to the last. He died,
for the time, the Inost pitiable, the 1110st despair-inspiring
death that thc world has ever witnessed, asking in His
last moments why He had been" forsaken" by God. But
lIis death-pardon me if I dcviate for one 1110111ent from
Inaterial to celestial facts, prodded that I never deviate
into miracles-was rea]]y the triumph over death, and
His Spirit had in reality (\ve speak in a 111etaphor) broken
open the bars of the gra ,'e and a
\.cnded to the throne of
the Father carrying with Himself the prOlnise of the
ultiu1ate redelnption of lTIankind. This was now to be
re,'ealed to the world as the culminating vision in that
continuous Revelation through the Imagination by which
the minds of n1en had been led to look beyond this life
to a life that knows no end. Speaking terrestrially, wc
Inust say that the influence of Jesus, love, faith, remorse,

Leltt,. 22]

REGARDED NATURALLY

24 1

were moulding the hearts of the disciples on earth to
receive the truth; speaking celestially we may say that
Jesus bent down from His throne by the right hand of
God to prepare thelll for the manifestation of His victory
\Vhat in this crisis exactly befell on earth we shall never
know. The tradition that Jesus appeared on the third
day, or after three days, to His disciples, is so naturally
derived from the prophecy of Hosea" on the third day
he shall raise us up "-a prophecy probably applied by
Jesus to Himself-that we can place no reliance on its
numerical accuracy. Nor do we know exactly where
Jesus first appeared to His disciples.' The oldest
tradition 1 declared that they were to "go to GalÜee"
after their 1\1aster's death, and that He had promised to
guide them thither; but a subsequent account interpreted
the words about "Galilee" quite differently.2 In any
case, before many days had elapsed, to some one disciple,
perhaps to l\fary lVIagdalene-out of whon1 there had
been cast" seven devils "-it was given to see the Lord
Jesus.
Here, by the way, we must note the remarkable pro-
111inence given in all the Gospels to the part played by
WOlllen in receiving the first manifestations of Christ's
Resurrection. \Vriters who were careful to avoid giving
occasion for unbelief might naturally have desired to give
less prominence to the testÏ1nony of bighly imaginative
and impressionable witnesses; and indeed St. Paul, in
his brief list of the appearances of Jesus (possibly because
writing as an Apostle who had seen Christ, be desired to
confine hÌlnself almost entirely to manifestations witnessed
by Apostles), n1akes no Inention of the appearances to
women: their pro111inence, therefore, in all the Gospels,

1 Mark xvi. 7: Matthew xxvIii. 7: "He goeth before you info Galilee:'
2 Luke xxiv. 6: "Remember how he spake unto you 'while he 'wtts VIi
ilz Galilee,"

R

..l4 2

TIlE RESURRECTIO

[Letter 22

testifies strongly to the early and universal acceptance of
the tradition that wmnen were the first witnesses to the
risen Saviour. But to resume. The news quickened
the faith e,-en of those disciples who had not seen and
who could not yet be1ie,'e; and presently apparitions
were seen-a thing almost, though (I believe) not quite,
unique in visions-by several disciples together. Pro-
bably the n10st frequent occasions for these nlanifestations
were when they had met together to partake of the body
and blood of their l\laster; and it was in the monlent
of the breaking of the bread that the image of the
Li,'ing Bread was flashed before them, appearing in the
fonn of Jesus giving Hinlself for them, and uttering words
of blessing, comfort, or exhortation, audible to the ears of
the faithful, who at the same n10ment were handling His
body and touching the blood which flowed from His side.
A t other tÎ111es he appeared before then1 with other nles-
sages ; to the won1en he seenled to \Va ve thenl off as if
deprecating a too close approach, or as if bidding then1 go
hence and carry the glad tidings to the Apostles; others
He seenlecl to rebuke for their want of faith; in the sight
of others, His hands, outstretched in the attitude of part-
ing benediction, seemed to send forth His disciples to
preach His word with promise of His presence; but
how these Inessages were conveyed, whether by gesture
simply, or by spiritual voice (as in the case of St. Paul),
audible perhåps to one, and by hinl interpreted to the rest,
or audible to all that were in the same faithful sympathy-
these and other details cannot now be detern1ined.
"\Yhy did not the adversaries of Christ confront His
followers by producing the body from the tOll1b, thus dis-
proving the story that H is body had risen frOIn the
dead?" The tomb was probably empty. That is pro-
bable for two reasons, first because the earliest traditions
agree that the women going to the tomb found the stone

Leite',. 22]

REGARDED NATURALLY

243

rolled away; and secondly, because the adversaries of
Jesus appear to have themselves subsequently circulated
a story that the disciples had stolen away the body. This
they would hardly have done if they had known that
their own explanation could be at any moment refuted by
opening the tomb, which would have shewn the body still
lying there. Possibly some of the enen1ies of Jesus had
themselves removed the body, influenced by some of those
predictions of Jesus about Himself, which, though they
had not the power to inspire the disciples with faith in the
moment of His death, had power to inspire His enemies
with a vague fear. Being ahnost surprised in the act, they
nlay not have had tilne to replace the great stone at the
entrance of the tomb, when the women arrived; if
so, the action of Christ's ow n enemies prepared the way
for the belief in His resurrection by exhibiting to the
sorrowing disciples the stone rolled away and the empty
sepulchre. First came the cry," He is not here;' and
that prepared the way for" He is risen."
How long the visionary period lasted we cannot tell.
It is almost certain that there were many more visions
than the five recorded by St. Paul (I Cor. xv. 6, 7). At
least one of St. Paul's five visions, that to St. J alnes, is
not mentioned in any of our extant Gospels; on the
other hand St. Paul omits some of those peculiar to the
third or fourth Gospels, as well as the manifestations to
the women. Perhaps the visions were so many, and all
so like each other, that the Church found it difficult to
select which to record; and each Evangelist chose thos
which appeared to him fittest, either because they were
the earliest, or because the witnesse
were numerous, or
because they were apostolic, or because they contained
the most striking proof of a veritable resurrection. \\' e
may therefore easily accept the statement that the period
of visions lasted for forty days or even for a much longer
R :z

.2+4

TIlE RESURRECTION

[Letter 22

tilne, probably till the disciples felt emboldened to take an
acti ve course in preaching the Gospel.
Concerning Christ's manifestation to St. Paul I have
s,Üd enough in n1Y last letter-if anything needed to be
said-to shew that it must have been of the nature of a
vision, and (in a sense) "subjective." But it differs from the
rest in that it was made to an enemy while the other
n1anifestations were made to devoted disciples. Love,
relnorse, faith, affection, stimulated the Apostles to cry,
" He cannot have died," and prepared their souls to see
the in1age of Jesus risen; but where, it n1ay be asked,
was the spiritual preparation in the heart of St. Paul to
receive such a vision? You may trace it in the words
which St. Paul heard frOl11 Jesus: "It is hard for thee
to kick against the pricks." They shew that the future
Apostle had been struggling, and struggling hard, against
the compunctions of conscience. Being a lover of truth
frOl11 his childhood, he was prepared to give up all for its
sake; but recent events had made him ask whether he
was not fighting against the truth instead of for the truth.
He had been persecuting the Christians; but their faith and
patience had made him doubt whether they might not be
right and he wrong. \Vhen the first n1artyr Stephen
looked up to heaven and there saw Jesus seated at the
right hand of God, then or soon afterwards, the question
must have arisen in the mind of the persecutor, "\Yhat
if the follower of the 1\ azarene was speaking truth?
\Vhat if the crucified Jesus whom I am now persecuting
was really exalted to God's throne?" Such was the
struggle through which Saul's Inind was passing when the
Spirit of Jesus, acting indirectly through the constancy
and faith of His persecuted disciples, having first insensibly
permeated and undermined the barriers of Pharisaic
training and education, now swept all obstacles before
it in an instantaneous deluge of conviction that this

Ldtey 22]

REGARDED NATURALLY

245

persecuted Jesus was the :l\1essiah. At that same moment
the l\lessiah Himself (who during these last months and
weeks of spiritual conflict had been bending down closer
and closer to the predestined Apostle from His throne in
heaven) now burst upon the con,'ert's sight on earth.
But I think I hear you saying, "All this sounds well;
but he has repeatedly described these visions of the risen
Saviour as subjective: how then can he can theIn real?
\Vhat is real?" Let H1e refer you to the paper of
Definitions which I enclosed in a previous letter. 1
I. Absolute reality cannot be comþrehended by mCll, and
can 01lly be aþþrehended as God, or Ùz God, by Faith.
2. A m07zg objects of sensation, those are (relative
v)
real which þresent similar sensations Ùz similar circum-
stances.
N ow if you try to regard the manifestation of the
risen Christ under the second head, as an "object of
sensation," you Inust pronounce it "unreal," inasn1uch
as it would not" present sÏInilar sensations in similar cir-
cumstances ;" by which I mean that, with sin1ilar oppor-
tunities of observation, different persons (believers, for
example, and unbelievers) would not have deriyed si111ilar
sensations fron1 it. But your conclusion would be false be-
cause you started fr01n a false premiss: these manifesta-
tions cannot be classed " amOl
g- objects of sensation."
The movements of the risen Saviour appear to me to
haye been the Inoven1ents of God; His manifestations to
the faith of the Apostles were divine acts, passing direct
from God to the souls of men. Since therefore these
manifestations belonged to the class of things which" can
only be apprehended as God, or in God, by faith," I call
theIn "absolute realities "-as 111uch 1110re real than flesh
and blood, as God HiInself is more real than the paper
on which I aI11 now writing.
1 See Deþnifio11S at the end of the book,

24 6 TIlE SPIRITU .\L RESURRECTION

XXI II

l\lv DEAR -,
I an1 not surprised to hear that you consider the
theory aboye described of Christ's resurrection, "vague,
shadowy, and unsatisfying." But as in tbe very saIne
letter you say that YOll are quite convinced of the un-
historical nature of the account of the resurrection pf
Christ's material body, I think you ought not to dismiss
the subject without giving more attention than you ha,-e
gIven as yet to It. As a student of history and as a young
man bent on attaining such know ledge as can be attained
concerning the certainties or probabilities that ha,.e the
most itnportant bearing on the life and conduct of myriads
of your fellow-creatures, you ought at least to ask yourself
what better explanation YOll have to offer of tbe Inarvellous
phenOlnena of the Christian Church and in particular of
St. Paul's part in spreading Christianity.
I sympathize with the h sense of bathos," as you call it,
which comes over you when YOll hear that the phenomena
of the Resurrection of Christ are to be explained by a
study of the growth a nd development of the revelation
given to Inankind through the Imagination. I sympathize
with YOll; but I syn1pathize with you as I should with a
child who might be standing by Elijah's side at the time
when the prophet saw his never-to-be-forgotten vision.
That child would feel, no doubt, "a sense of bathos"
because the Lort was not in the fire, nor in the whirl-
wind, nor in the earthquake, but in the still small voice.

Letft'r 23] THE SPIRITUAL RESURRECTION 2-l7

You are in the childish stage of susceptibility to anything
that is noisy and big; you have not been taught by
experience and thought to appreciate the divineness of
things obvious, ordinary, and quiet; above all you have
not yet learned to revere your own nature nor to acknow-
ledge (except with your lips) that you are made in the
image of God. Retaining still a keen recollection of the
pain with which I passed through that stage myself, I have
neither the inclination, nor the right, to despise your pre-
sent condition of mind; but I believe, if you will still keep
the question open in your mind, and if you willlneditate a
little now and then on the frequency, or I may say the
universality, of illusion in the conveyance of all the highest
truth, you will gradually.come, as I caIne, to perceive that
the essence of the resurrection of Christ is that His Spirit
should have really trimnphed o\'er death, and not that
His body should have risen from the gra\'e.
No doubt you would be much more impressed if the
tangible body of some dead friend of yours, after being
buried in the earth, had appeared to certain witnesses and
touched them, and eaten in their company, than if a vivid
apparition of the friend had appeared to the same wit-
nesses; but I think you would much more easily believe
the latter than the former; and you Inight be n10re im-
pressed by a strong conviction of the latter than by a
doubtful, tÏ1nid, clinging to the former. I can hardly think
that if you had received several accounts from independent
witnesses, of apparitions of this kind resulting in a mar-
vellous change of character in all who had seen them, you
would at once put them aside simply because they might
be called in some sense natural. The very fact of their
being natural would lead you to consider how strange
must have been the causes that had produced such
strange results; how powerful must have been the per-
sonality that had thus forced itself on the mental retina

248 TIlE SPIRITUAL RESURRECTION [Let!er 23

of the seers of the apparition; and if something important
had followed fronl such a vision, say, for example, the
writing of a great poem, or the foundation of a noble
eInpire, I cannot think that you would set down the vision
as a negligible trifle.
But you feel, I dare say, that, though you might be
iInpressed by the stories of such an apparition, you could
not feel certain that the apparition represented any reality;
there would be no definite proof that the witnesses of the
apparition were not under the influence of a delusion.
\Yell, I will adnlit that there would be no proof of the
ordinary kind, that is to say, no proof such as is con-
veyed through the senses about ordinary terrestrial phe-
nomena; but I think you might feel certain; only it would
be that kind of certainty which is largely bred from Faith
and Hope, And this sort of certainty, and no other,
appears to Ine that which was intended to be produced by
the Resurrection of Christ. llis n1anifestations were un-
seen and unheard save by the eye and ear of Faith. If
the proof of His resurrection had not depended upon Faith,
then the Rmnan soldiers would have seen His n1aterial
body ll1iraculously issuing frOIn the shattered sepulchre,
and the cOlnpanions of Saul would haye both seen Christ
and understood the voice that cried," Saul, Saul, why
persecutest thou ll1e ?" If we could ascertain exactly the
historical basis for the account in the Fourth Gospel of
Christ's manifestation to the doubting Thonlas we should
probably find-supposing that we were really justified in
treating the account as historical-that there was in
ThOInas a strong desire to believe, combined with a
strong sense of the impossibility of attaining adequate
proof. As in the life of Christ, so in the resurrection of
Christ, conviction appears never to have been forced on
any entirely unwilling unbeliever.
In order to believe in the rC5
.Irrcction of Christ, it is not

Letter 23] THE SPIRITUAL RESURRECTION 249

enough to be convinced that the evidence is honest and
genuine, and that the witnesses could not be deceived;
that kind of belief savours of the lmv-court, and there is
nothing spiritual in it; but the man wh9 truly and spiritu-
ally accepts Christ's resurrection is he who says to himself
as he reviews the life of Christ and the history of the
Church: "Being what He was, and having done the work
that He has done, this Jesus of Nazareth ought not to
have succumbed to death. If there is any evidence to
shew that the veil of the invisible has been so far thrown
back, be it for a moment, as to shew n1e Jesus- in the
spiritual world still living and triumphant over death,
my conscience opens its arn1S at once to en1brace that
belief." And there is this advantage in basing your faith
on the spiritual resurrection of Jesus, that you keep the
region of faith distinct from the region of disputable testi-
mony, If you rest your hopes on the Inaterial resurrec-
tion, that is a question of doubtful evidence. Your heart
says, "Oh that it might be true! " Your brain says, "I
cannot honestly say that I think it is true." Hence a
constant conflict between heart and brain, while you are
forced again and again to ask yourself, " 1\1 ust I be dis-
honest in order that I may persuade myself that I am
happy? And even if I can honestly believe in the n1aterial
resurrection to-day, how do I know that some new evidence
-the discovery of some new Gospel for example-may
not o,-erturn my belief to-lnorrow ? "
But the life and doctrine of Christ, the conversion
and letters of St. Paul, the growth and victories of the
Church, and the present power of Christ's Spirit arc
facts that can never be overthrown; and if you say, " On
the basis of these indisputable facts, considered as a part
of the evolution and training of mankind I rest my hope
and my faith that Jesus has conquered death and still
li,"cs and works among us and for us "-why then you rest

25 0 TIlE SPIRITUAL RESURRECTION [letler 23
on a basis that cannot be shaken. And surely such a
faith is n10re strong, Inore spiritual, n10re cmnforting,
yes, and more certain too, than a "knowledge" which
you know in your o\\'n heart to be no knowledge! How
long will Inankind' be content to be ignorant that the
HALF which constitutes truth is worth more than the
WHOLE which is Il1ade up of truth and truth's integu-
mentary illusion! How many there are to whmn the
saying of old Hesiod is still unn1eaning:-

Alas thou know'st not, silly soul,
h'ow 1Jluch tIle half exceeds the whole!

You cannot obtain, and 111USt not expect to obtain, any
den10nstrati"e proof of the Resurrection of Christ, any
1110re than you can obtain a den10nstrative proof of the
existence of a God: yet you can feel as strong and as
sincere a conviction of the fonner fact as of the latter.
I t is curious that St. Paul's parallel between the Resur-
rection of Christ and that of Inen should bc so habitually
overlooked, He assl11nes, as a Il1atter of course, a simi-
larity, almost an identity, behyeen the Resurrection of men
and the Resurrection of Christ: " If there is no resurrection
of the dead neither hath Christ been raised," and again:
" Now hath Christ been raised fron1 the dead, the first
fruits of them that are asleep." This reasoning holds ex-
cellently, if the Resurrection is to be the sa111e for us as it
was for our Saviour, a spiritual Resurrection, and if the
Resurrection of Christ visibly revealed the uni,'crsallaw
which shall apply to all who are animated by the Spirit
of God. But if Christ's Resurrection was of a quite
different kind, if it was a bodily stepping out of the tomb
three days after burial, how can this be caJIed the" first
fruits " of the Resurrection of Inen whose bodies will all
decay and for whon1 therefore no such stcpping out frOlTI
the tomb can eycr bc anticipated? Thc best, the truest,

Letter 23] THE SPIRITUAL RESURRECTION 25 1

the most comforting belief in the end will be found to be
that Jesus was "put to death in the flesh but quickellcd
(not in the flesh but) Ùz the sþirit." And as it was with
Hin1, so we believe it will be with us.
But perhaps you will remind Ine that one of the Creeds
mentions" the Resurrection of the body," and that St. Paul
anticipates the Resurrection, not of a "spirit," but of ,. a
spiritual body
'" and you may ask me what I infer frOln
this, I for my part infer that St. Paul desired to guard
against the notion that the dead lose their identity and
are merged in God or in some other essence; he wished
to convey to his hearers that they would still retain their
individuality, the power of loving and of being lo,'ed ; pos-
sibly also he wished to suggest a life of continued activity
in the service of God; and in order to express this he
used such language (n1etaphorical of course) as would
unmistakeably imply that identity would be presen"ed,
and activity would be possible. But he took care to guard
his language against materialistic misinterpretation by
insisting that the body would be " spiritual" and therefore
invisible to the earthly eye and cognizable only by the
spirit, The new body, he says, is "a building from God,"
" a house not made with hands, eterJlal.J'" and he prefaces
this by saying" the tl
ngs which are seen are temporal;
but the things whicl
are not seen are eternal." Hereby he
clearly implies that the new body will be "not seen."
Elsewhere he tells us that" the things prepared by God"
for them that love Him (and of course he includes in these
the" building from God, the house not made with hands ")
are such as eye" hath 110t sccn nor ear heard, nor have
they entered into the heart of Inan; but God hath re-
yealed them unto us by tIle Sþirit
." and again, "the
things of God none knoweth save tlte Spirit of God,"
which has been imparted to the faithful.
To speak honestly, I must add that, even if I found St.

25 2 TIlE SPIRITU AL RESURRECTIO
[Leiter 23

Paul had committed himself repeatcdly to any theory of
a material or setni-material Resurrection, consonant with
the feelings of his time
, I should not have felt bound to
place a belief in a 111 'lterialistic detail of this kind up')n
the same high and authoritati, e level as the belief in the
Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, or any other general
and spiritual article of faith. But I find no such material-
ism in St. Paul. He appears to me to say consistcntly,
I st, that Christ's Resurrection W3 sa type of (" the first
fruits of') the Resurrection of mankind; 2nd, that in
contrast to the first man Adaln, the earthy, who bCCatlle
a living soul, the last Adan1, the hea,.cnly, becan1e a "life-
giving spirit;" 3rd, that, as we ha,.e borne the image of
the earthy, so wc shall also bear the image of thc hea-
yenly; 4th, that the" body" of thc faithful after death will
be "spiritual," just as the Church of God is " a sþiritual
house," and the sacrifices of the saints are "sþiritual
sacrifices." There is no more ground for thinking that
St. Paul supposed that we should hereafter ha,-e spiritual
hands, or be spiritual bipcds, than for thinking that he
supposed the sacrifices of the Church to be spiritual
sheep, or the ten1ple of thc Church to be COlllposcd of
celestial stones. After our Resurrection, we are still to
bc conscious of God's past love, still to rejoice in His
present and ne,rer-ending lo,-e, still to be capablc of
glorifying and serving God, of loving as well as of being
loved-this St. Paul's theory of the" spiritual body" cer-
tainly implies; and it need not ilnply lnore. And what our
Resurrection will be, that Christ's Resurrection was.
Thc ordinary fancies about the Rcsurrection teem with
absurdities, and are redeemed from being ridiculous, only
bccause they all spring from the natural and reasonable
dcsire that we may hereafter preserve our identity. But
they ought to be suppressed if they crcate, as I fear they
create, additional difficulties in the way of conceiving,

.

Ldter 23] THE SPIRITUAL RESURRECTIO
253

and believing in, a future life. I do not wish to scoff at
the popular views; but it is important that those who
adopt the materialistic theory of the Resurrection should
realize the unnecessary and grotesque inconsistencies with
which they obscure the Christian faith. Popular Christi-
anity appears generally to accept a sensuous paradise,
only excJuding what some may deem the coarser senses,
the sn1eIl, touch, and taste. But what is the special merit
of the other two senses, hearing and seeing, that they
alone should be allowed places in Paradise? And this
visible, semi-spiritual body upon which the vulgar fancy
so insists-what purpose will it serve? "The purposes
of recognition between friends." Then it will be like the
old material body of the departed-at ,vhat period of his
existence? Shall he be represented as a youth of twenty
or a man af forty, or of fifty, or as a child of ten? And
how as to the body of one who was deformed, maimed, or
hideously ll1isshapen and ugly? "It would be a purified
likeness, summarizing, as it were, every period of life, so
tbat it would be recognizable, not indeed by our eyes but
by those of spiritual beings." That is conceivable: but
why all this trouble to obtain a visible body that shall
make recognition difficult, when recognition can be con-
ceived so much lTIOre easily as the result of mere spiritual
communion? Keep by all means the language of the
Aþocalypse and of the Pilgrim's Progress in order to
describe in poetry the condition of the blessed dead; but
remen1ber that it is the language of poetry; and let every
such use of words be concluded (as with a doxology) by
the thought, "Thus will it be, only far better, infinitely
better; fl)r God is lo,-e; and our future comlTIunion with
the love of God will be a height of happiness such as no
power of sense can reveal, and only the spirit-guided soul
can faintly apprehend,"
But perhaps you will say" You are ready enough to

.

254 TIlE SPIRITUAL RESURRECTION [Ldtt'Y 23

attack other people's notions about the semi-material
resurrection; but you are not equally ready to explain
your own notions about a spiritual resurrection. You
c
nnot eyen tell us what a spiritual body is, except that
it has the power of loving and being loved." Precisely
so; I am quite ignorant. Yet in my knowledge of this
matter I am superior to a very great nmnber of other
theologians. For they think they know, whereas I know
that neither I nor they know. Let l1le go a little further
in my confession of ignorance and admit that I do not
really possess knowledge about a nunlber of other matters
about which Inan)' profess with great glibness to know
c'Terytbing. I anl certain that I exist; but I doubt whether
I can analyse and explain the reasons for my certainty,
and I aIn quite sure I cannot prove Iny eÀistence by logic,
If I anl pressed for a proof, I should say (as I have stated
in a previous letter) that my belief in my existence was
largely due to the Imagination. Co..r::ito, cr..f!o SlIlll, "I
think, therefore I am,"-if intended as a serious proof,
and if there is any reallneaning in the" cr..f!o "-appears
to nle to be the most babyish of arguments. I respect the
gigantic intellect of the arguer, but not e,'en a giant can
Inake ropes of sand; and it needs but a little grammar to
dissoh-e this reasoning to nothing. "I think" means " r
anl one thinking." In sOlne languages, in Hebrew for
example, you Inight ha,'e no other \Yay of e;-.,pressing the
proposition than in this fOrIn : " I am one thinking." 'Vhat
sort of reasoning then is this! "I am one thinking, there-
fore I am." "This is white paper, therefore it is!" Surely
a ridiculous offspring to issue frOln great logical travail!
And besides, what infinite assumptions are presupposed
in that nlonosyllable "I"! How do I know that "I
think," and that it is not the great world-spirit who thinks
in Ine, as well as rains outside n1e? \Vhy ought I not to
say" it thinks," just as I say "it rains "? '''hat do you

Letter 23] THE SPIRIT V AL RESURRECTIO
255

mean by " I"? Tell us what" I "is. And how can the
desperate logician set about telling us what "I" is, with-
out assuming that his own "I" is, which is equivalent to
assuming" I am "? Surely this is altogether a hopeless
muddle, and we ought to gh-e up reasoning about "I"
and" aln ;" yes, and I would add not only about" I " and
"am," but also about a number of other fundamental
conceptions, which are far more profitably assumed as
axioms. For my part, when eyer I use the words" n1ind,"
"matter," "substance," "spirit,"" soul," "intellect," and
the like, and make any serious statelnent about them, I
hardly ever do so without a n1ental reservation, saying to
myself-" but of course there may be no such things
precisely as these, but some other things quite different,
producing the results which we ascribe to these; so that
all these statements may be only proportionately true."
I do not object to the use of the materialistic language
where it is re.9)gnized as n
!9-p

!:.by those who use and
those who h ear it; but the mischief is that it is often not
so recognized. Once make yourself the slave of the
popular language about "spirit," and "substance," and
what not--and you are in danger of being manacled
intellectually as well as theologically. The popular be-
lief is that a man's spirit is inside him, like his qualities;
the latter like peas in a box, the former like gas in a
bladder. Dri,-e a hole through a man's left side or
the middle of his head, and-out goes the spirit; that
is the common materialistic creed. Now I have a strong
desire to declare that this creed is ridiculously false.
But I will be consistent and simply say that I know
. nothin g whatever ab QJ.l.L.it . :My spirit may possibly be

n sl d e me; but i t may possibly be outside Ine; say at a
point six feet, or six miles, above me; or away in Jupiter,
or Saturn, or down at the earth's centre; or it 111ay be
incapable of occupying space. \Vhat does it matter to

2j6 THE SPIRITUAL RESURRECTION [Let/n' 23

yon or to me, theologically or intellcctually, whether that
part of us which we call our" spirit" has its local habita-
tion inside us, or outside, or in no locality at all? Is it
not enough to rccognize that we have powers of acting,
lo\'ing, trusting, and believing, and to feel certain that God
intends these powers to be developed and never to perish?
Yet I relnember that a friend of lnine was shocked, and
ahnost appalled, when I avowed ignorance as to the
locality of lny spirit. He seemed to think I lnight as
well have no spirit at all, if it could not prove its respect-
ability by giving its name and address!
For nlY part I aln now quite certain of Christ's spiritual
Resurrection, and in that conviction I an1 far happier
and far nlore trustful than when I at first lnechanically
accepted upon authority and evidence the belief in the
Resurrection of Christ's boùy, and subsequently strove to
retain that belief, against the testinlony of nlY intelligence
and my cOI1:3cience. I think you also will find, as years
go on, when it becOlnes your lot to stand by the gra\'c into
which friend after friend is lowered, that a heartfelt con-
viction of the spiritual Resurrection of Christ affords morc
comfort to you at such 11lonlcnts than your old belief-
based largely upon historical evidence, and brain-felt
rather than heart-felt-in His physical Resurrection.
For the fonner unites us with Christ, the latter separatcs
us fron1 Christ. \Ve none of us expect that the matcrial
and tangible b0dies of our friends will rise frOlll the dead
in the fle
ithout " seeing corruption; " but we do trt'st
that they shall rise as "spiritual bodies" over whom death
shall have no powcr. This trust is confirmed by the belief
that Christ rose as we trust they shall hercafter rise. If,
therefore, Christ rose a material body frOln the grave-
that stirs no hope in us. But if, while His body rClnained
in the gra\Te, His spirit rose triumphant to the throne of
God, then we see a hope indeed that may suit our case and

Letter 23] THE SPIRITUAL RESURRECTION 257

give us some gleam of consolation. The bodies of the
dead may lie there and decay; but what of that? Even
so was it with the Saviour: but the spiritual body is in-
dependent of the flesh and shall rise superior to death.
Do not imagine th
t the s piri tual body is one whit less
real than the n1ateriaíbody ; only, as the n1aterial body
belongs to thë time-world, so the spiritual body belongs
to the eternal world. Each is suited to its own environ-
ment, but each of them is a real body. As to the relation
between the n1aterial and the spiritual body we know
nothing, and we need know nothing.
When will men learn to be less greedy of shams and
bubbles of pretended material knowledge, and more
earnest and patient in their sober aspirations after
spiritual truth? When will they realize that an un-
hesitating faith in a few elementary principles is better
than a tremulous quasi-knowledge of a whole globe of
dogmas?

s

25 8

\YIIA T IS A SPIRIT?

XXIV

:rvlv DEAR-,
You take me to task for the abrupt termination
of my last letter. I broke off, you say, just when you
thought I was on the point of explaining what I meant
by a spirit: "Surely you have SOUle theory of your own
and are not content with disbelieving other people's
theories." \ Veil, I thought I had said before that I am
content to know merely this about a spirit, that it pos-
sesses capabilities for loving and serving God, or other
nobler capabilities corresponding to these. But if you
press nle to set up some theory of my own that you may
have the pleasure of pulling it to pieces, I will confess to
you that my nearest conception of a spirit is a personified
virtue. This cannot very well be quite right; any more
than a carpenter can be like a door, or like anything else
that he has constructed. But it is the nearest I can come
to any conception that is not too repulsively material.
And sometimes, when I try to conceive of the' causes of
terrestrial thoughts, and enlotions, and spiritual move-
ments, I find myself recurring to the antique notion, hinted
at in one or two passages of the Bible, and I believe
encouraged by some of the old Rabbis, that there are two
worlds; one visible, terrestrial, and material, the other
invisible, celestial, and spiritual; and that whatsoever
takes place down here takes place first (or simultaneously
but causatively) up there; here, the mere outsides of

Lette1' 241

\V I-I A T IS A SPIRIT?

259

things; there, the causes and springs of action; the bodies
down on earth, the spirits up in heaven.
This is but a harmless fancy. Let me give you another.
You know-or might know if you would read a little book
recently published called Flatland, and still better, if you
would study a very able and original wor
by 11r. C. H.
Hinton I-that a being of Four Dimensions, if such there
were, could come into our closed rooms without opening
door or window, nay, could eyen penetrate into, and
inhabit, our bodies; that he could simultaneously see
the insides of all things and the interior of the whole
earth thrown open to his vision: he would also have the
power of making himself visible and invisible at plea-
sure; and could address words to us from an invisible
position outside us, or inside our own person. Why then
might not spirits be beings of the Fourth Dimension?
\Vell, I will tell you why. Although we cannot hope
ever to comprehend what a spirit is--just as we can
never comprehend what God is-yet St. Paul teaches
us that the deep things of the spirit are in some de-
gree made known to us by our own spirits. Now when
does the spirit seem Inost active in us? or when do we
seem nearest to the apprehension of "the deep things of
God"? Is it not when we are exercising those virtues
whIch, as St. Paul says, " abide "-1 mean faith, hope and
love? Now there is obviously no connection between
these virtues and the Fourth Dimension. Even if we could
conceive of space of Four Dimensions-which we cannot
do, although we can perhaps describe what some of its
phenomena would be if it existed-we should not be a whit
the better morally or spiritually. It seems to me rather a
moral than an intellectual process, to approximate to the
conception of a spirit: and toward this no knowledge of
Quadridimensional space can guide us.
1 "A Romance 0/ the Fourth Dil1.e1zsion," S"an & Sonnen-;chein.
S 2

260

\YIIA T IS A SPIRIT?

[Letter 24

\Vhat, for exmuple, do we mean when we speak of the
Holy Spirit, and describe Hin1 as the Third Person in the
Trinity? I hope you will not suppose- because I happen
to be a rationalist as regards the historical interpretation
of certain parts of the Dible, or because I ha\"e not dis-
guised n1Y dislike of the forn1al and quasi-arithmetical
propositions in which the Athanasian creed sets forth the
doctrine of the Trinity-that I reject the teaching of the
New Testament on the nature and functions of the Holy
Spirit. Literary criticislu may oblige us to regard the long
discourses on the functions of the Paraclete or Advocate
in the Fourth Gospel as being in the style of the author
and not the language of Christ; but it is difficult to sup-
pose that the sublime thoughts in those passages are the
mere inventions of a disciple of Jesus; and the character-
istic sayings of Christ in the Synoptic Gospels bear
cogent though terse witness to His acknowledgment of a
Holy Spirit who should" speak" in His disciples, and
"teach" His disciples what to say, when they were
summoned before the bar of princes : "it is not ye that
speak, but the Holy Spirit," l'vlark xiii. I I ; "it is not ye
that speak, but the Spirit of your Father which spcakcth
in you," lVlatth. x. 20; "the Holy Spirit shall tcach you
in that very hour what ye ought to say," Luke xii. 12. I
nced not remind you how large a space "the Spirit"
claims in St. Paul's Epistles, and espccially of the use
which the Apostle makes of the triple combination of the
Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. Even, therefore,
if I could give no explanation of the whole of it, nor so
n1uch as put into words the faint glimpse I may have
gained into the meaning of a part of this doctrine, I should
be inclined to accept the existence of the Holy Spirit on
the authority of Christ or St. Paul, as being a doctrine that
docs not enter into the domain of eddcnce, a conception of
the divine n
tl1re from which I might hope to learn much,

Letter 24]

\VHA T IS A SPIRIT?

261

if I would reverently keep it before me and try to apprehend
it. But I seem to have a glimpse of it. That influence
or "idea" of the dead which, as Shakespeare says,
" creeps into our study of imagination," and which repro-
duces all the best and essential characteristics of the
departed-when this has once taken possession of us, do
we not naturally say that we now realize "the spirit" of
the dead, feeling that it guides us for the first time to the
appreciation of his words and deeds? N ow as God, the
initial Thought, needed to be revealed to us by n1eans of
the \V ord of God, so the \V ord needed to be revealed
to us by means of the Influence of the Word. Or, to
put it more personally, as the Father needed to be re-
vealed by the Son, so the Son needed to be revealed by
the Spirit. Those who knew Christ merely in the flesh
knew but little of Him, and had little understanding of His
words. It was the Spirit of Christ that guided, and still
guides, His disciples into the fuller knowledge of the
meaning of His past life on earth and His present
purposes in heaven.
I own, however, that I have sometimes felt at a loss
when I have asked myself, " How is this Spirit a Person?
And do I love Him or It? And if Jesus and the Spirit of
Jesus are two Persons, then must I also infer two per-
sonalities for myself, one for my mortal terrestrial
humanity, another for my immortal celestial spirit?"
These questions are extremely difficult for Ine to answer
with confidence: yet I feel instinctively that they have a
profound and satisfying answer to which I have not yet
attained; but I suggest some answer of this kind, ,. \Vhen
we endeavour to form a conception of God we ought to
put aside the limitations of human individuality. Now we
cannot do this whil.
we conceive of God simply as the
Father, and still less while we conceive of Him simply as
the Son; but we can do it when ,ve conceive of IIin1 as

262

\YIL\ T IS .\ SPIRIT?

[Ldlð- 2{

being an all-pervasive Power, the source of ordcr and
harmony and light, son1ctimes as a Breath breathing life
into all things good and beautiful, sometimes as a Bono,
or Law, linking or attracting together all things material
and spiritual so as to make up the Kosmos or Order of
the Universe. The traditions of the Church have taught
us that there has been such a Power, subsisting frOll1 the
first with the Father and the Eternal Son, in whom the
Father and the Son were, and are, united; and by whom
the whole human race is bound together in brotherhood
to one another and in sonship to the Eternal Father.
\\That is this Being but the Personification of that Power
which, in the material world, we call Attraction and in the
immaterial, Love? Is it not conceivable that this Being
which breathes good thoughts into every human breast
should love those whom It inspires? And we-can we
love our country, and love Goodness, Purity, Honour,
Faith, Hope, and yet must we find it impossiblc to love
this personified Love, this Holy Spirit? But if "e love
the Spirit of God, and the Spirit loves us, then we can
understand how it Inay be called a Person."
I foresee the answer that might be given to these-
I will not call them reasonings, say meditations. "All
this is the 111ere play of fancy: you personify England,
Virtue, Goodness, Hope, Faith, and the like; and such
personifications are tolerable in poetry; but you do not
surely maintain that such personifications ha,.e any real
existence: in the same way, you may find a certain con-
ception of the Supreme Being useful for the encourage-
ment of devotion, but you have no right hence to infer
that this conception represents an objective reality, much
less God IlimselC' l\Iy reply is that in the region of theo-
logical contemplation where demonstration, and proof
of the ordinary kind, are both impossible, I conceive I
" hasc a right" to do this on the authority of Christ and

I etter 24]

\VHAT IS A SPIRIT?

26 3

St. Paul and the Fourth Gospel, and the general tradition
of the Church. I would sooner believe that myself and
my spirit have a dual personality; I would sooner
recognize the presence of the Angels of England and
France and the other great nations of the world about the
heavenly throne, like the Angels of the seven churches of
Asia or the Angel of the Chosen People; I would sooner
acknowledge the actual personality of Hope, Faith, and I
know not what other celestial ministers between God and
man; I would sooner, in a word, believe that personality
depends upon some subtle combination such as only
poets have dimly guessed at, than I would give up the
belief that there is beside the Eternal Father, and the
Eternal Son, an Eternal Spirit, to the description of whOln
we can best approxin1ate by calling Him personified
Love,
Looking at the Spirit of God in this way I sometimes
seem to discern a closer connection than is generally
recognized between the Resurrection and the power of
loving. You will remember that St. Paul constantly
connects the Resurrection of Christ with the "Spirit;"
Christ was" raised from the dead ill, or ty, the S þin"! ; "
and St. Peter says that Christ was "put to death in the
flesh, but quickened ill the Sþirit." Now this Spirit is
the Power of Love. Do we ask for an explanation of this
connection? It is surely obvious that the Resurrection of
Christ would not have directly availed men (so far as we
can see) unless it had been manifested to them. But
how was it manifested? \Ve think it was by love: on
the one hand by the unsatisfied and longing love of the
sorrowing disciples, creating a blank in the heart which
could only be filled by the image of the risen Saviour; on
the other hand by the unsatisfied and longing love of the
Lord Jesus Christ, dying with a purpose as yet unfulfilled.
Thus-so far as concerns the influence of the Resurrection

264-

\VHAT IS A SPIRIT?

[Lctler 24

of Jesus upon humanity-it was the Spirit of Love that
raised Jesus from the abyss of inert oblivion and ex-
alted Him to the right hand of God in the souls of mcn.
I dare not say that, if Jesus had failed to root Himself in
the hearts of men He could never have been raised frOlTI
the dead; just as I dare not say that, if St. Peter had not
been inspired to say" Thou art the Christ," the Church
could never have been founded on the rock of heaven-
imparted faith. Let us avoid this way of looking at
things, as being repulsive and preposterous, putting
things terrestrial before things celestial. Let us rather
say that, because the rock of faith was being set up by the
hand of God in heaven, therefore at that same instant the
Apostle received the strength to utter his confession of
faith; and because Christ's Spirit had soared up after
death to the heaven of heavens and thence was bending
down lovingly to 100k upon His despairing followers,
therefore they recei \.cd power to see Him again, living
for them on earth.
Yet as regards ordinary men, I cannot help occasionally
reviving that same preposterous method which I would
discard in the case of Christ. And starting from terrestrial
phenomena first, I sometimes ask myself, Is it possible
that the resurrection of each human soul may depend upon
the degree to which it has rooted itself in the affection 0 f
others? The Roman Catholic Church teaches that the
condition of the dead may be affected by the prayers of
survivors; and many abuses have resulted from a perverted
and mechanical misinterpretation of that doctrine; but
how if the spirit of a dead n1an actually owes its spiritual
resurrection, not indeed to formally uttered petitions, but
to the silent prayers, the loving wishes, the irrepressible
desires, of fellow-spirits on earth and in heaven? How if
a man lives in heaven and in the second life so far as his
spirit has imprinted itself on the loving memories of other')

Letter 24]

\YHA T IS A SPIRIT?

265

above and below? "Has the dead man kindled in the
heart of one single human being a spark of genuine
unselfish affection? To that extent, then, he receives a
proportional germ of expansive and eternal life-might it
not be so? And if it were so, then we could better un-
derstand how both the Lord Jesus Christ, and we mortal
men, die in the flesh but are raised to a life eternal after
death "in the Spirit" and "by the Spirit "-that great
pervasive spiritual Power of Love which links all things
in heaven and earth together,
I trust I have theorized enough to please you. I have 1
done so because on the whole I think it best that you \
should see all the weakness, as well as all the strength,
of my position--the credulous and fanciful side of it, as
well as its breadth, its naturalness, its reasonableness,
its spiritual comfort, its dependence on moral effort, its
recognition of Law, its consistency with facts, and its
absolute freedom fronl intellectual difficulties. Regarded
in the ordinary way, as being the revivification of the
material body, the Resurrection of Christ becomes an
isolated portent in history; regarded naturally, it becomes
the triumph of the Spirit over the fear of death, the
central event of our earthly history. Central I say, but
not isolated; because there are seen converging towards
it, as it were predictively, an the phenomena of the evolu-
tion and training of the Imagination; all instances of true
poetic and prophetic vision; the stars of heaven and all
the creative provisions of night and darkness and sleep and
dreams, nay even death itself. And what higher tribute
(short of actual worship) can be paid to the personality of
Christ than to say that" the phenomena of His resurrec-
tion are natura!." I thiu.k if I were depressed and shaken
in faith-as one is liable to be at times, not by intellectual
but by moral considerations, when one feels that evil is
stronger than it should be, both in oneself and outside

266

\\ IIA T IS A SPIRIT?

[Leiter 24

oneself-it would be a great help to go and hear some
agnostic saying with vehement conviction, "The resur-
rection of Christ was natural, purely natural." I should
bid him say it again, and again; and I would go home
and say it o'"er and over again to myself by way of
comfort, to strengthen my faith: "The manifestations
of the Resurrection of Christ were purely natural. So they
were. Things could not be otherwise. Being what He
was, Christ could not but thus be Inanifested to His fol-
lowers after death. I t was the natural effect of Christ's
personality upon the disciples; and through the disciples
upon St. Paul. Then what a Person have we here! A
Person consciously superior to death, and, after His
death, fulfilIing a promise which He n1ade to His disciples
that He would still be present with them! \Yhat wonder
if He is even now present with us, influencing us with
something of the power with which He moved the last of
the Apostles! \Vhat wonder if lIe is destined yet for
future ages to be a present Power among men until the
establishment of that Kingdom which He proclaimed
upon earth, the Fatherhood of God and brotherhood
of man ! "

THE INCARNATIOK

267

xxv

My DEAR-,
I had not forgotten that, in order to complete the
brief discussion of the miraculous element in the New
Testament, it is necessary to give some explanation of the
origin of the accounts of the birth of Christ. Your last
letter reminds IDe of this necessity, and you put before me
two alternatives. "If," you say," Christ was born of a
Virgin, then a miracle is conceded so stupendous that it
is absurd to object to the other miracles: but if Christ
was not born of a Virgin, then, unless the honesty of the
Gospel narratives is to be impeached, some account i'5
needed of the way in which the miraculous legend found
its way into the Gospels;" and you add that you would
like to know what meaning, if any, I attach to the state-
Illent in the Creed, that Jesus was" born of a Virgin."
As you probably anticipate, I accept the latter of your
alternatives, and I will therefore endeavour briefly to shew
how the story of the Miraculous Conception "found its
way into the Gospels." But first I must protest against
your expression as inexact. The story of the l\liraculous
Conception, so far from having" found its way into the
0
osþe!s," found its way into only two out of the four,
namely, St. Matthew's and St. Luke's. And this fact,
strong as it is, does not represent the strength of the
negative argument from omission. Of the ni1le authors,
or thereabouts, of the different books in the New Testa-
ment, only two contain any account, reference, or allusion

268

THE INCARN.\TIO

[Letter 25

to the l\liraculous Conception. No mention is lnade of it
in any of the numerous Epistles of St, Paul; nor in any of
his speeches, nor in those of St. Peter, recorded in the Acts
of the Apostles, nor in any part of that book; nor in the
Epistles of St. John, St. James, St. Peter, St. Jude; nor in
the Apocalypse; nor in the Gospels of St. :Mark and St.
John! Even the two Gospels that n1ention it contain no
evidence that it was known to any of the disciples during
the life-time of Jesus, and one of these (Luke iii. 23) traces
the genealogy of Jesus from Joseph and expressly declares
that He " was supposed" to be "the Son of Joseph." 1
This negative evidence becomes all the more weighty if
you consider how very natural it was, and I may almost
say inevitable, that the story of a 11iraculous Conception
should speedily find its way into the traditions of the early
Church, The causes that worked toward this result
were, first, Old Testament prophecy; secondly, traditions
and expressions current among a certain section of the
Jews; thirdly, the preconceptions of pagan converts.
Recall to mind what was said in a previous letter con-
cerning the importance attached by the earliest Christians
to the argument from prophecy. N ow there is a
prophecy in Isaiah which, zl seþarated from its context,
might sceln to point to nothing but the l\1il aculous
Conception of the l\lessiah: "The Lord himself shall
give you a sign: behold a virgin shall conceive and bear
a son and shall call his nJ.me ImmanueL" But a careful
study of the context puts the matter in a quite different
light. Isaiah (vii. lo-viii. 4) is promising to King Ahaz
1 Yet I have heard it said, "So far as evidence
(Ies, you have no more
reason for rejecting the Miraculous Conception than for rejecting the story
that Jesus washed the feet of the Apostles: for two witnesses attest the
former; but only one, the latter, Your objection is a þriori." Such argu-
ments seem to me to fail to recl'gnize the first principles of evidence. The
omission of a stupendous marvel. an ir.tegral part (and is not the parenta
e
an integral part?) of a biography, by biographers who have no motive for
omitting it and every motive for inserting it, i
a strong Ploaf that tl,ey did
lUll know it, .Fo. a similar instance, see above, p. 161.

Letter 25]

THE INCARNATION

2 6 9

deliverance from the kings of Syria and Samaria. As the
king will not ask for a sign, the prophet promises that the
Lord will give him one; a virgin shall conceive and bring
forth a child and shall call his nalne Immanuel (" God with
us") : he shall" eat butter and honey" when he arrives at
the age of distinction between good and evil; for before
he arrives at that age, the land abhorred by Ahaz shall be
"forsaken by both her kings." The meaning appears to
be that, within the time necessary for the conception and
birth of a child, that is to say, in less than a year, the
prospects of deliverance for Judah from her present
enemies (Syria and Samaria) shall so brighten that a child
shall be born and called by a name implying the favour of
God; afterwards, before that child shall grow up to child-
hood, the two aggressive countries of Syria and Samaria
shall be themselves desolated, as well as Judah, by the
"razor" of Assyria which shall shave the country clean
from all cultivated crops. Amid the general desolation,
the fruit trees will be cut down, the corn will not be sown;
bread there will be none; there will be nothing to eat but
" butter and honey;" it is not the new-born child alone
who shall eat" butter and honey;" "butter and honey
shall e7.1ery one eat that z"s left in the land" (vii. 22).
In all this, even though we may suppose that there n1ay
have been some l'vlessianic reference, there is no prediction
at all of a conception from a virgin or of a miracle of any
kind. Indeed, the prophecy appears to find some sort of
fulfilment in what happens immediately afterwards (Isaiah
viii. I -4), when the prophet contracts a marriage, and calls
the son who springs from it by a name implying the
vengeance imminent on Samaria and Assyria: "Call
his name Maher-shalal-hash-baz (i.e. booty, quick, spoil,
speedy): for before the boy shall have knowledge to cry
my father! my mother! the riches of Damascus and the
spoil of Samaria shall be taken away before the king of

27 0

TIlE INCARN A TIOX

[Letter 25

Assyria." K 0 doubt it may be said that this son was not
called" hnmanuel," so that the prophecy was not fulfilled
in hiIn. But the same argument might be urged against
the application to our Lord; for He also was not called
" I mlnanucl," but received the old national name of
" Joshua," "J eshua," or "Jesus." Reviewing all the
circumstances of the prophecy, I think we may say,
without exaggeration, first, that there are no grounds for
seeing in it any reference to a l\Iiraculous Conception;
secondly, that, when isolated, it might easily be mis-
interpreted so as to convey such a reference,l
Even if no such prophecy had existed, the language and
"" preconceptions of the earliest Christians and their converts
would almost necessarily have introduced a belief in the
Miraculous Conception. The language of Philo-who
represents not a mere individual eccentricity but the
current phraseology of the Alexandrine school of thought,
and whose influence may be traced in almost every page

1 You remember that the two accounts of the Miraculous Conception differ
in respect of the "annunciation"; which St. Matthew describes as being
made to Joseph, St. Luke as being made to Mary. It is interesting to note
how these two variations correspond to two variations in the ancient prophecy.
In the LXX the name is to be given to the child, not by the mother, but
by the future husband: "The virgin shall be with child and bring forth a
son, and tlwtt shalt can his name Immanuel". In the Hebrew, the "virgin,"
or " maiden," is herself to name the child: "A virgÙt shall. . . bring forth
and shall call, &c." Adopting the former version, a narrator would infer
that the announcement of the birth was to be made to Joseph, as the first
Gospel does: "She shall bring forth a child and thou (Joseph) shalt call
his name J e
us." Adopting the latter version, and changing the third into
the second person for the purpose of an " annunciation," the narrator would
infer that since the name was to be given by the mot/ler. the announcement
was made to the mother, as the third Gospel does: "Thou shalt be with
child, and shalt bring forth a son, and shalt call his name Jesus"
Note also that afterwards, when St. Matthew actually quotes the whole
prophecy with the name "Immanuel" (i. 23), he alters the verb into the
third þerson Plural: "That it might be fulfilled which was spoken of the
Lord by the prophet. saying, Behold the virgin shall be with child, and
shall bring forth a child, and they shall call his name Immanuel." The
reason is obvious, It would not be true to say that Ma1')' called her son
.. Immanuel" ; it would only be possible to suggest that men in general
(" they"), looking on the Child as the token of (, .od's presence among them,
might be
tow on him some such title (not name) as "God with us." Con-
sequently St. Matthew here alters" thou" into .. they".

Let/er 25]

THE IKCARNATIO

27 1

of the Fourth Gospel-consistently affinns that, whenever
a child is mentioned in the Old Testament as having been
born to be a deliverer in fulfilment of a divine promise, that
child is "begotten of God." The words of Sarah, he says,
indicate that, in reality, "The Lord begot Isaac." God
is also spoken of as "the husband of Leah." Zipporah
is described as being" pregnant by 1/0 mortal." Samuel,
in words that contain an implied belief that only his
maternal parentage was mortal, is declared to be "perhaps
a man," and" born of a human mother." I have already
quoted one passage about Isaac; but another asserts that
he is to be considered "not the result of generation but
the work of tIle unbegotten." Sometimes the language
of Philo is so worded as to convey even to a careful
reader the impression that he believed in a literally
Miraculous Conception, as for example when he says that
" Moses introduces Sarah as being þregnant when alone,
and as being visited by God." Elsewhere, he removes
the possibility of misunderstanding by saying that" the
Scripture is cautious, and describes God as the husband,
not of a virgin, but of virginity." None the less, you can
easily see how expressions of this kind, current among
Jewish philosophers a generation before the time of St.
Paul, might be very easily interpreted literally by ordinary
people unskilled in these metaphorical subtleties, and
especially by Gentile converts asking for a plain answer
to a plain question, "What was the parentage of this 1
man whom you call the Son of God?" f/
In truth the preconceptions of the Gentile converts
must have played no small part in preparing the way for
the doctrine of the literal Miraculous Conception. The
Greeks and ROlnans who worshipped or honoured
Æsculapius son of Apollo, Romulus son of Mars,
Hercules son of Jupiter, and a score of other demi-gods,
would be quite familiar with the notion of a god or hero

27 2

THE INCARN
\ TIO:N

[Lelkr 25

born of a human Inother and of a divine father; they
would not only be prepared for it in the case of Jesus,
whOln they were called on to adore as the Son of God,
they would even demand and assume it. They would
argue much as Tertullian argued: "If he was the son
of a man, he was not the son of God; and if he
was the son of God, he was not the son of a man."
This argument ought to have been met by a flat
denial, thus: "The mere physical and carnal union by
which, according to your legends, the gods, assuming the
forms of men, generated Æsculapius, Romulus, and
Hercules, is not to be thought of here. \Vhen we speak
of Jesus being the Son of God, we do not mean that His
body was formed by God descending from heaven and
assuming human shape or functions, but that His Spirit
was spiritually begotten of God. It is therefore quite
possible that Jesus may have been the Son of God
according to the Spirit and yet the son of man according
to the flesh." But instead of that, the whole truth, there
came back this half-true answer. "The parentage was
divine, but not of the materialistic nature you suppose:
God did not assume human shape: the generation was
spiritual." By these words there may have been meant
at first, simply what Philo meant, that while the spiritual
parentage was divine, the material parentage was human:
but such an answer would leave many under the impres-
sion that the body as well as the spirit of Jesus resulted
from a spiritual generation in which no human father
participated. The Gentiles would naturally interpret the
Philonian doctrine literally and say of ::\Iary, as Philo
had said of Sarah, that she was "pregnant when alone,
and visited by God."
From a very different point of view, the ritual and
hymnals of some of the Jews might facilitate the growth
of the belief that Jesus was born of a virgin. For they

Letler 25]

THE INCARNATION

273

11light naturally speak of their l\fessiah as being a child
of the virgin daughter of Sion, whose only husband was
Jehovah. And hence in the Apocalypse, a book imbued
with Jewish feeling, we find Jesus described (xii. 1-6) as
the child of a woman who evidently represents Israel:
"A \\Toman arrayed with the sun, and the moon under
her feet, and upon her head a crown of twelve stars; and
she was with child. . . . And she was delivered of a son,
a man child, who is to rule all the nations wi/It a rod oJ
Ù
01Z." This personification of the daughter of Israel or
of Jerusalem as representing the nation, the bride of
Jehovah, is very comnlon in the prophets, You may find
similar personifications in the New Testament. The
Apocalypse describes the Church as the Holy City, the
New Jerusalem, descending from Heaven "as a bride
adorned for her husband." St. Paul speaks of the New
Jerusalem, which is above (i.e. the spiritual Jerusalem,
free from the law), as being" the 1Jlother of us all." Some-
times the personification of the Church is liable to be
nlisinterpreted literally, as in St. Peter's and St. John's
Epistles, where" the elect lady" "thine elect sister" and
"the (lady) in Babylon" have been supposed by some
to refer to individuals, but are believed by Bishop
. Lightfoot to represent the Churches of the places fronl
which, and to which, the epistles were written. The
whole of St. Paul's Epistles presuppose the metaphor
of a Virgin Church, and toward the end of the second
century (177 A. D.) we find a very curious passage (in
an epistle from the Church of Lyons) in which the
repentance and martyrdom of some previous apostates
are described as a restoration to "the Virgin Mother" of
her children, "raised from the dead. " You see then
how this personification runs through all Jewish and all
early Christian literature, so that the Church, old or new,
might be described as a woman; and I ought perhaps
T

274

THE I
CAR
ATION

[Letter 25

not to ha,.e omitted the strange dream in th
second
book of Esdras (x. 44-46) where Israel is a woman and
the Temple is the son: "This woman whom thou sawest
is Sion . . . she hath been thirty years barren, but
after thirty years Solomon builded the city and offered
offerings, and then bare the barren a son." Does not
this continuous stream of thought shew how natural it
would be for the earliest Jewish Christians to adore
Christ in their hymns as the son of the daughter of Zion,
the son of the Virgin :\lother? Add to this the prejudice
alnong the Gentile converts against a human paternity for
the Son of God, the influence of the Alexandrine Jewish
philosophy and the still more powerful influence of Isaiah's
prophecy about" the virgin," and I think you will see that
the causes at work to produce the belief in the
1iraèulous
Conception were so strong that I may almost say a
111iracle would have been needed to prevent it.
But it has been urged that St. Luke was a historian and
a physician; that he had great power of careful descrip-
tion-as may be seen frOln his exact account of St. Paul's
shipwreck ;-that he describes the circunlstances of the
nliraculous birth in a plain and simple manner: and that
he assures us that he had taken every pains to Inake hi111-
self acquainted with the truth of the things which he
records. l All this nlay be: but because a nIan can describe
eX3.ctly a cOlnparatively recent shipwreck, which he Inay
have hiInself witnessed, or which at all ev
nts Inay ha,'e
been witnessed by sonIe who told him the story, it does
not follow that he has exact infornlation about a miracu-
lous birth which occurred (if at all) upwards of sixty
years-more probably upwards of seventy-before he
wrote. The nlother of J e5US had, in all probability, passed
away when St. Luke was writing, Such obscurities and
variations by this tiine attended the stories concerning
1 c'mtemjorary Rlvlezu, Feb. 1886, p. J93.

Letter 25]

TIlE INCARXATIOX

275

the infancy of Jesus, that we find even the compiler of
St. .l\latthew's Gospel apparently ignorant that the home
of the parents of Jesus was (if 51. Luke is correct on this
point) not Bethlehem, but Nazareth. It is bardly possible
to deny his ignorance when we find in the First Gospel
these words: "Now when Jesus was born in Bethlehem
of J udæa. . . . And he arose and took the young child
and his mother and came into the land of Israel. But
when he heard that Archelaus was reigning over Judæa,
he was afraid to go thither
' alld beillg warned [of God]
in a dreaJlz, he withdrew illto the þarts f!f Galilee and
.ame and dwelt ill a city called Nazareth." Obviously
the writer is ignorant that" a city called Nazareth" was
the original home of the parents of Jesus, and that they
had no reason for returning to "J udæa ;" his whole
narrative assumes that Bethlehem in J udæa was the home,
and that the parents of Jesus were only prevented from
returning thither by the fear of Archelaus, which forced
them to leave their native C!ty and to take up their abode
in " a city called N azaretb." N ow it is probable that St.
Luke's account is here the correct one, and that the
erroneous tradition found in the First Gospel was a mere
inference from the prophecy that "from Bethlehem" there
should" come forth a governor." But what a light does
this discrepancy throw upon the uncertainty of the ,-ery ear-
liest traditions about the infancy of Jesus when we find the
only two Evangelists 'who say anything about it, differing
as to the þlaæ where the þarents of Jesus lh'ed at the time
when they were married.' I have no doubt that St. Luke
did his best, in the paucity, or more probably in the variety,
of conflicting traditions, to select those which seemed to
him most authoritative and 11105t spiritual. Eyen the most
careless reader of the English text must feel, without know-
ing a word of Greek, that St. Luke's first two chapters
-which contain the stories of the infancy-are entirely
T 2

.

2j6

TIlE I
CARNATION

r Letter 25

different from the style of the preface (i. 1-4), and from that
of the rest of the Gospel. The two chapters sound, even
in English, like a bit out of the Old Testament; and any
Greek scholar, accustomed to the LXX, would recognize
that they were either a close translation from the Aramaic,
or written by some one who wrote in Greek, modelling
his style on the LXX. It is probable that they represent
some traditions of Aran1aic origin, the best that St. Luke
could find when he began to write of the wonders that had
happened more thJ.n sixty or seventy years ago. To those
"ho can form the least conception of the e
tent to which
Oriental tradition in the villages of Galilee 111:ght be
transmuted after an interval of sixty or seyenty years, it
must seem quite beside the mark to assert the historical
accuracy of the tradition concerning the .Miraculolls Con-
ception which St. Luke has incorporated in his Gospel,
on the ground that he was a physician; that he took
pains to get at the truth; and that he has written a
Inasterly and exact account of a shipwreck which he, or
some friends of his, may ha"e witnessed in person.
The very sobriety of his own preface ought to put us
on our guard against attaching to St. Luke's history such
weight, for example, as we attach to the history of Thucy-
dides. He says, it is true, that he had" traced the course
of all things accurately from the first, i.e. from the COlU-
Inencement of Christ's life:" but this an10unts to much
less than the statement of Thucydides, who tells us that
he had personally inquired fron1 those who knew the facts,
besides having seen some of the facts himself (Thuc. i. 22).
He does not say that" the eye-witnesses and n1inisters of
the word" had given hiJll any special information: on the
contrary he 111entions hilusclf only as one of many who had
received" traditions" from eye-witnesses, and he implies
that a good n1any of the existing narratives, based upon
tI:ese 'l/ery traditions, were at least so far unsatisfactory

Letltr 25]

THE I
CARNATIOX

277

that they did not dispense with an additional nar.rative
from him. The emphasis which 5t, Luke lays on the fact
that he has traced things "from the first," and that he
writes "in order,"-co111bined with the mention of
"many" predecessors who have" taken in hand" the
work which he intends to do over again-makes it almost
certain that some of these Evangelists had omitted all
account of our Lord's birth; others had not regarded
chronological order; others had not written "accurately."
An these deficiencies indicate a great and general diffi-
culty in obtaining exact information; and the n1ere
honesty of a new attempt, under circumstance so disad-
vantageous, cannot justify us in attaching a very high
authority to a tradition in this new Gospel, of a miraculous
character, and in a style that appears to be not St. Luke's
own, referring to an incident supposed to have occurred
upwards of sixty years before. This digression about
St. Luke's Gospel will not be without its use if it leads
you to perceive that history, and experience, and criticisI11,
while they tend to make us believe more. tend also to
make us know less, about Christ's life and doctrine;
I mean, that we find we know a little less about the
historical facts of Christ's life than we supposed we
knew, while we are led to believe a great deal more in
the divine depth and wisdom of His ideas.
I pass to the second question which you put to me,
"What sense, if any, do YOll yourself attach to the state-
ment in the Creed that Christ was born of a Virgin?"
Before I tell you what sense I attach to it, or rather
what sense seems to me the only one con1patibJe with
the facts, I must honestly express n1Y doubt whether any
sense that is compatible with the facts, is also com-
patible with the words. To speak plainly, the statement
appears to be so obviously literal that I shrink from inter-
preting it metaphorically; and yet, if taken literally, it

278

TIlE IKCARX A TIOX

[Letter 25

appears to me to be faIse. The word" Virgin" is perhaps
the only word in the service and ritual of the Church of
England (if the Athanasian Creed be left out of considera-
tion, owing to the non-natural and humane interpretations
of it which have been sanctioned by high authority) which
has made me doubt at times whether I ought to do official
work as a minister in that Church. As regards the" re-
surrection of the body," asserted in one of the Creeds,
I feel little or no difficulty: for St. Paul's use of the tern1
" spiritual body" allows great latitude to those who would
give a spiritual interpretation to the phrase in the Creed;
and I trust that I have made it clear to you that I ac-
cept Christ's Resurrection as a reality, though a spiritual
reality.l But the words implying the birth fronl the
Virgin stand on a different footing. In the Resurrection
of Jesus I believe that there was a unique vision of the
buried Saviour, apparent to several disciples at a time;
but in the conception and birth of Jesus I have no reason
for thinking that there was anything unusual apparent to
the senses. \Vhat can I mean then by saying that Jesus
is "born of a Virgin"?
All that I can mean is this. Human generation does
not by any 111eans account for the birth of a new human
spirit. So far as we are righteous, we all owe our right-
eousness to a 5piritual seed within us; "we are not," as
Philo would say, "the result of generation but the work
of the U nbegotten." So far as we are righteous, we are
" born not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the
will of man, but of God" (J ohn i. 13). But of the Lord
Jesus Christ we are in the habit of saying and believing

1 I must admit that a more seriolls difficulty is presented to Sponsors by
the interrogative form of the Creed in the Baptismal service, to which they
are expected to reply in the affirmative: c, Dost thou believe . . in the
Resurrection of thefiesh ? " But I can hardly think that many clergymen
would wish to reject an otherwise eligible Sponsor who confided to them that
he could only accept" flesh" in the sense of "body," and that too in the
Pa.\1li
e seuse of c. spiritual body."

Letter 25]

THE INCARNATION

279

that He was uniquely and entirely righteous; and there-
fore we say that He was uniquely and entirely born of
God. In all human generation there must be some con-
genital divine act, if a righteous soul is to be produced;
and in the generation of Christ there was a unique con-
genital act of the Holy Spirit. That \V ord of God which
in various degrees inspires every righteous human soul
(none can say how soon in its existence) did not inspire
Jesus, but was (to speak in metaphor) totaUy present in
Jesus from the first so as to exclude all imperfection of
humanity. Human unrighteousness-such as we are in the
habit of attributing to human generation-there was, in
this case, none. Therefore we say that the generation of
Jesus was not human but divine.
So much I can honestly say because I heartily believe
it. How far one is justified in putting so strained an in-
terpretation on the words "born of the Virgin l\1ary"-
even in the Church of England, where simultaneous con-
servatism and progress have been bought at the cost of
many strained interpretations-is a question on which I
may perhaps hereafter say a word or two, but not now.
Meantime let me merely add my conviction that there
n1ay have been a time when this illusion of the l\liraculous
Conception did more good than harm. In forn1er days,
that spiritual truth which we can now disentangle from
the story of the Miraculous Conception may have been
conveyed by means of it to hearts which would have
otherwise never recognized that Jesus was the Son of God.
I t was surely better then, and it is better now, that n1cn
should believe the great truth that Jesus is the Son of God,
at the cost of believing (provided they can honestly
believe) the untruth that Jesus was not the son of
Joseph, than that they should altogether fail to recog-
nize His divine Sonship, because they were alive
to the fact that He was born of human parents in

.

280

TIlE INCARNATION

[Ld/
r 25

.

accordance with the laws of humanity. But in these days
the doctrine of the 1\1 iraculous Conception seems to me
fraught with evil; partly because the weakness of the
evidence makes the narrative a stumbling-block for many
who are taught to consider this doctrine essential and who
cannot bring themselves to believe it; partly because it
tends to sanction a false and n10nastic ideal of life; to
separate J eSllS frOlll common humanity and from human
love and sympathy; and to encourage false notions about
a material Resurrection of the body of Jesus, which
naturally result in a false, bewildering, and disorderly
expectation of a material Resurrection for ourselves.

P
YER, HEAVEN, HELL

281

XXVI

1\lv DEAR -:--,
You ask TIle whether one who has seceded frOtTI
miraculous to non-miraculous Christianity still finds him-
self able to pray as before. But towards the end of your
letter you amend your question. You are (; quite sure,"
you are pleased to say, from what you know of me, that I
shall "answer this question affirmatively, though in
defiance of all logic:" and therefore, anticipating my
answer, you state your objection to it beforehand, and ask
n1e how I can meet your objection, which is to this effect:
" If the laws of nature are never suspended, then it is
absurd, or perhaps impious, to pray for that which implies
their suspension. For example, a friend of mine may be
in a stage of disease so fatally advanced that, without a
suspension of the laws of nature, it is no more possible
that he should recover from the disease than that his body
should rise from the grave. According to the tenets of
your non-miraculous Christianity, must I not abstain from
praying that he may recover?"
I do not see any great difficulty here. Change the
hypothesis for a moment. Suppose your friend to be no
longer living, but dead. Are you willing-would you be
willing, even were you the most orthodox believer in
n1iraculous Christianity-to pray that the body of your
dead friend might arise revivified from the grave a week
after he had been laid in it ? You know you would not be
willing. Why not ? You cannot say" Because it is im-

.

282

PR.\ VER, HEAVEN, fiELL

[Letter 26

possible," for you would admit (on the supposition of your
being a believer in the n1iraculous) not only that it is
possible, but that it has actually been done in times past.
But you would feel, I am sure, that you dare not, and
ought not, to pray for this object, because such a prayer
would be a revolt against that established order of thing::;
which you recognize to be a manifestation of God's present
will. I say" God's present will," because you do not (if
you agree with me) regard death as being in accordance
with God's future will: it is an evil, sprung, not from God,
but from evil, out of which God is working good. But
He bids us acquiesce in it during our present imperfect
state of existence; and hence, though you believe He
will ultimately destroy death, you do not feel justified in
praying that its present operation may be neutralized by
a suspension of the laws of nature.
N ow to return to your own supposition that your friend
is not dead, but merely in danger of death. Health and
life are dependent upon many complex causes, among
which (it will be admitted by all) are those n1ysterious
fluctuations of the thoughts and emotions, which I believe
in many cases to proceed-I speak in a metaphor-
straight from God Himself. To one who believes that
the spirits of men are in constant communion with the
all-sustaining Spirit of the Creator, the thoughts of men
may well seem to be as dependent upon their divine
Origin as the air in my little room is at this moment
dependent upon the changes of the circumambient
atmosphere. Of course, if you are a thorough-going,
scientific hope-nothing and trust-nothing, such a belief
as this appears to you an idle dream. From your
point of view, you are a machine; your friend is a
machine; all n1en are l11achines ; the world is a machine;
the action and inter-action of all these animate and inani--
mate machines is predetermined, eyen to the minutest

Letter 26]

PRA VER, IlEA VEN, HELL

28 3

movement of a limb, or most fleeting sha::Ie of thought, in
each one of the myriads of human mechanisms called
n1en.
The thorough-going materialist, when he rebukes his
son and tells him that be "ought not to have" told a lie,
knows perfectly well that his son could not possibly help
telling that lie, and that he was bound by all the laws of
nature to tell it. The materialist father is, in fact, telling
a lie himself; only more deliberately than the little son.
He is using words which have no true meaning for hin1, as
a kind of oil to grease the wheels of the little machine
before him, having learned by accumulated experience
that this lying phrase, "You ought to have," has for many
thousands of years proved a very effective kind of oil, and
that the true and scientific phrase, " It would have been
better if you could have, but you could not," would be
wholly inefficacious. But since it is obvious that this view
of existence converts all moral language, and almost all
the higher relations of life, into one gigantic lie, I make
no apology at all for putting it by with contempt as being
beneath the consideration of a child of ten-at which age,
as far as I remember I grappled with this question of
predestination, and settled it (so far as I was concerned,
for ever) by coming to the conclusion that "it does not
work." Now when you have once given up, as unwork-
able, the theory that all our thoughts and emotions spring
necessarily from antecedent material causes, you have
bidden good-bye to Knowledge, so far as concerns the
origin of human thought, and you are thrown back upon
Faith. I believe therefore, and I make no apology for
my belief, that the mysterious fluctuations of human
thought and will may sometimes proceed from God with-
out the intervention of material causes, perhaps in virtue
of the existence of some invisible law of union by which
the souls of men are united to God and to one another.

28 4

PRAYER, HEAVEN, HELL

[Letter 26

This being my belief-which at aU events does not contain
so many and such perpetually-recurring inconsistencies as
the belief of your thorough-going materialist-you will
understand, without much further explanation, when and
why I should pra) 'even for those of whom the physician
is inclined to despair. Faith and hope, have, before now,
worked such wonders in healing, that" while there is life
there is hope" has passed into a proverb. I cannot be
sure that my prayers might not have some kind of direct
power-by a kind of brain-wave such as we have heard of
lately-in affecting the emotions and spirits of the sufferer.
I t is seldom that even a physician can speak with certainty
about the immediate issue of a disease: and whatsoever
is uncertain is (if it be also right) a reasonable subject for
prayer. But if I were myself absolutely convinced that
there was no chance of my friend's recovery without a
suspension of the laws of nature, I should feel that prayer
rightly and naturally gave way to resignation.
Noone however who is in the habit of praying win
think it necessary to spend much time or thought in
discriminating exactly between that which may be, and
that which cannot possibly be. He must know that, very
often, where his prayer trenches on the province of the
material, the line cannot be drawn except by an expert in
science, which he may not happen to be; and besides, in
the mood of prayer, he will feel that the scientific and
discriminating spirit is out of place. He is not thinking
of things scientifically, but spiritually, putting his wishes
before the Father in heaven, and content to couple each
wish with an " If it be possible." Sometimes he learns,
after constant repetition, that the prayer is an unfit one,
and he discontinues it; in that case he has gained by his
prayer a closer insight into, and conformity with, the will
of God. In
other cases he continues his prayer and
receives an ,answer to it-either the answer that he him-

Letttr 26]

PRAYER, HEAVEN, HELL

28 5

self desires, or some other p
rhaps, quite different from
that which he expected, but one which he ultimately re-
cognizes to be the best. But there will be cases where he
will continue his prayer, feeling it to be right and natural,
although he receives no answer to it at all, so far as he can
discern. For he will feel quite certain that no genuine
prayer is wasted. Our spirits, or our angels-to use the
language ofn1etaphor-are not on earth: they sit together
in heaven, that is to say, in the heart of God; and whenever
one of us can conceive a genuinely unselfish and righteous
wish for a brother spirit and wing it with faith so that it
flies up to heaven-a flight by no means so easy or so
common as we suppose, and probably not often flown,
unless the arrow is feathered by deeds and pains as well
as words-then it not only brings back a blessing upon the
wisher but also thrills through the spiritual assembly above
and comes back as a special blessing to the person prayed
for. But need I add that this is not a process "to be per-
formed mechanically? There is no recipe for effectual
prayer.
But, to come down from metaphors, let me attempt to
answer your question, "What difference of attitude in
prayer will there be between the believer in natural, and
the believer in miraculous, Christianity?" As far as n1Y
experience goes. there will be very little; except that the
former will be rather more disposed to ask, before uttering
a prayer, how far the granting of it might indirectly affect
others. Logically and theoretically there ought to be a
great deal of difference; for if the believer in the miracu-
lous were consistent, he might naturally pray that a miracle
might be perfonned for him, as it has been for others,
for a good purpose. As a matter of fact, the prayers
of children trained in orthodoxy are thus sometin1es
consistent. I dare say one might find a child who has
prayed that the sun might stand still that he might have

286

PRAYER, IlEA VE
, IlELL

[Letter 26

a longer holiday. And why not now-fronl the child's
point of view-as we1l as fonnerly? But I suppose
few men in England, now, e,'en of the strictly orthodox,.
are in this puerile stage. Ahnost a1l full-grown English
Protestants recognize that, although miracles were freely
performed from the year 4004 B.C. to, say A.D.61 or there-
abouts-when St. Paul shook off the serpent and took no
harm-yet" the age of miracles is now past." Yet I have
heard of men of business who make a point of praying
earnestly on the subject of commercial speculations, the
rise and fan of consols, the price of sugar and the like.
\Vill anyone 11laintain that people are not the worse for
such prayers as these, or that the believer in natural
Christianity is not a gainer by losing the desire and the
power to utter them? On the whole, I see but one
subject of prayer 111entioned in our English Prayer-book,
as to which natural Christianity would probably dictate
silence: I nlean the weather. I t might be argued that,
"since the weather is affected by human action (by the
clearing of forests, draining of marshes, and so on), and
since prayers affect human action, therefore they do affect
the weather Ílzdirectly, and may affect it directly." But
from" indirect" to "direct" is a great leap; and I am
nloved toward resignation rather than prayer, by the
thought that, in revea1ing to us more and more of the
extent of the causes and effects of Ineteorological pheno-
mena, God seems to be shewing us that, in asking for
weather that suits ourselves, we may be asking for
weather that may not suit others. I should be sorry to
see han.est prayers excluded fronl our Church service;
but I think they should express our hope and trust in
God's orderly government of the seasons, beseeching Him
to bestow on the husbandlnan patience and skill so as to
meet and improve adversity, and on the nation thrift and
frugality so as to a ,.oid waste.

Letter 26 J

PRAYE
HE
VEN, HELL

2S7

Since writing the last paragraph I was interrupted; and
now, returning to 111Y letter, I feel strongly inclined to
cancel the last two or three pages of apologetic argumen-
tation; arguing about prayer seems so absurdly useless.
Yet perhaps my remarks may weigh for something with
you in your pre3ent oscillation. They may possibly
prevent you from giving up, in a n10ment of virtuous
logic, a habit which, once discontinued, is not easily
resumed. Let theiTI pass then; but let them not pass
without a protest that they by no means express my sense
of the vital necessity of prayer for a Christian. To me
it seems the very breath of our spiritual life, as needful
for peace and union with God as communion between
children and parents is needful for domestic concord.
\Vitbout it, faith Inust speedily vanish. Even a com-
paratively dull and lifeless petition at stated intervals has
some value as a sign-post, indicating the road on which
we ought to be travelling though our feet Inay be straying
elsewhere. But in truth real Christian prayer (mostly
silent) should be, as St. Paul says "without ceasing;"
for prayer is but aspiration and desire, emerging into
shape. When a man has reached such a height that he
has ceased to wish to be something better than he is,
then and then only may he cease to pray.
One kind of prayer at all events I have felt able to
retain which seems to me of far more value than the
prayer for fair weather-I mean prayer for the dead, I
do not deny that, when coupled with superstitious views
about heaven and hell, the custom of praying for the dead
may result in superstition, and even in the encouragement
of immorality; and the hired and conventional prayers
for the dead prevalent in the sixteenth century appear to
me to have constituted an abuse against which our Eng-
lish Reformers did well to protest. . But these abuses and
corruptions seem to me accidental, and quite insufficient

2S8

PRAYER, IIEAVE
, HELL

[Letter 26

to deter us from use of the n10st helpful of spiritual
habits. I do not propose to argue about it, but you may
like to know the sort of accident by which I was led to
form this habit, and the practical reasons for which I
clung to it, and still cling to it, with the deepest convic-
tion that it is not only spiritually useful, but also based on
spiritual truth.
1\Iany years ago a brother of Inine was drowned at sea
through the sudden capsizin.g of a vessel by night. \Vhen
the news came, I was at first distracted between an in-
tense desire to pray as before, and a kind of instinctive
and general repugnance to all prayers for the dead as
being " a Romanist practice." All the books I had read,
and all the notions I had formed, about the fixed future of
the dead, suggested that such prayers were useless, if not
blasphemous. On the other side there was no argument
at all, nothing but a vague strong desire to pray. The
painful conlEct of that night-a conflict, as it seems to me
now, between true natural religion and the false appear-
ance of revealed religion-is still present to my recollec-
tion. At last it occurred to me that more than a month
had elapsed between the death and our knowledge of the
death, and throughout all those thirty days my prayers
had gone up to God for one whose soul was no longer
upon earth. \Vere those prayers wasted? I could not
believe it. Besides,-we had not yet received full details of
the loss of the vessel. It was just possible that my brother
might have been saved in one of the ship's boats: he might
be still living, and in sore need of help: how Inonstrous,
if it were so, that I should in such a crisis cease to pray
for him! So with doubt and trembling I still continued
my custom, fashioning some kind of prayer to suit the
emergency. \Yhile I was in this oscillating state of mind,
news came that a second boatful, and almost immediately
afterwards that a third, had been picked up at sea. 1\1 y

Letter 26]

PRAYER, HEAVEN, HELL

28 9

brother was not in either: but why might there not be a
fourth? For some time, with less doubt than before, I con-
tinued to pray. Days, weeks, months rolled on, and now
all hope had slipped away; but the habit was now fixed.
I could not, or would not, break it. Praying day and
night for one who was possibly living; just possibly living;
probably not living; certainly dead-I had learned to
realize the presence of my brother's spirit, as very near
and close to me, as one with whom I was still in some
kind of communion; and now to drop his name out of
my prayers, simply because I should never touch his
hand again in this world, seemed a faithless, a wicked, a
cruel act. The prayer could not indeed remain the same
in circumstances so completely changed; I could of
course no longer pray that the dead might be restored to
me on earth: but it was still open to me to make mention
of his name, and to beseech God that he and I might
meet again in heaven: and thus, with a curious kind of
compromise, worthy of a less youthful theologian, I cir-
cum, ented my own orthodoxy by still praying in reality
for my brother while I appeared to be praying for myself.
l\lore than se,.en-and-twenty years have now passed away,
but not a night or morning has passed without thc men-
tion of that familiar name; and I entreat you to believe
me that, next to the power of Christ Himself upon the
soul, I have not found, nor can I imagine, any influence
so potent as this habit of praying for the dead, to dctach
the mind from petty and visible things, to unlock the
spiritual world, to carry the soul up to the '"ery source
and centre of spiritual life, and to bring us into faithful
communion with the Father of the spirits of all flesh.
You see I have kept my promise of not arguing on
this matter. I have simply told you how I have longed
and doubted; how my doubts were dissipated by prac-
tice; and what strength I have personally deriycd frOll1
U

29(,

PR.\ YER, IlEA VEN, HELL

l Ltllt'r 26

the practice. Probably this will seem to you, if interest-
ing, at all events inadequate. "Logically," you will
perhaps say to yourself, "he ought to ha,'e attempted
first to convince me that the- eternal state of the dead is
not finally determined at thc mon1ent of death; so that
prayer l11ay reasonably be expected to have some power
to change thci-,- condition. He ought to ha,'e told mc
whether he bc\íeves in a Purgatory, or in a lilnited Hell;
whether he i') a U nivcrs3.list; or whether he believes in
the annihih-.tion of all who are not to bc saved. In a
word, he ought to have gi,'cn Ine a full account of his
theory about the condition of the dead, before he com-
n1ends to me the habit of praying for theln."
Hcre I fcar I shall terribly disappoint you; but, at the
risk of whatever disappointment, I will confess to you the
whole truth. This part of Iny lYlanual of Theology has
large print, large luargin, and several blank pages_ I
believe some things with such force and clearness that I
prefer to say I do not believe thcm-I see then1: but
about many other things which most people belicve, I
know little or nothing, Do I believe in a Hell ? Yes, as
firmly as I believe in a Heaven; but not in your Hell
perhaps, and certainly not in the ordinary guide-books to
Hell and Heavcn. Perhaps smne would call my Hell
"Iucrely retl ibution," or "an illogical and ill-defined
Purgatory;" and fron1 thcir point of view they could be
Tight in cOlnplaining of its indefiniteness; for thcy profcss
to know all about it and to be able to define it. But frOln
111y point of view I m11 equally right in speaking inde-
finitely; for I profess to have only a glimpse of it. Of
the principles of Hell and Heaven I am certain, but of the
details I am entirely ignorant. I know nothing whatcvcr,
and I know that no one else knows anything whatcvcr,
about the state of the dead; except that they are just as
much in God's hand when clc3.d as when living, and that

Letter 26]

PRAYER, IlEA VEN, HELL

29 1

He will ultilnately do the best thing for each; but what
that" best thing" may be I cannot tell in detail, although
I am very sure that it will be one thing for St. Francis
and quite another for Kero. For the rest, all the elaborate
structures and fancy-fabrics of Heaven and Hell, Purga-
tory, Paradise, Lin1bo, and other regions, whether theo-
logians or poets be the architects, appear to me built
upon the flimsiest foundations, tags of texts, fragments of
words, quagmires of met.aphor, quicksands of hyperbole.
.N 0; such real knowledge-or shall we say such cony ic-
tion ?-as we have about the eternal future of the dead, is
to be based, not upon argmnent or inference from Ininute
and disputable interpretations of small portions of Scrip-
ture, but mainly upon our faith in the divine righteousness
and power. You will not, I hope, misunderstand -lny
words that" God win do the best thing for each," or draw
from them the inference, "Then he is a Universalist after
all." I took for granted- I hope I was not ,\"rong-that
you would remember the definition of justice which you
113.ve read in Plato. In fact therefore I merely expressed
in those words Iny conyiction that God would be " just"
to us aftcr death. l l\light we not also define the highest
mcrcy, in the sanle terms in which we dcfine the highest
justice, as being the feeling that prOlnpts us to " do what is
best for each
'? And, if so, does it not seem to follow that
in H ell God will not cease to be n1crciful, and in H ea ,-en
God will not cease to be just? And hence are wc not
brought close to the conclusion that Heaven and Hell are
not really places, but the diverse results of the operation
of the Eternal-the just l\lcrcy, thc Inerciful J usticc-upon
the di,'erse dcad? But here the qucstion widens and
deepens into cxpanses and depths altogether too vast

1 Has not some confusion of thought arisen fror.l a habit of confusin

"just" \\ ith "severe"? I believe surne men would feel more revere:ltly
tow
rds Ç,od, if they would speak, not of His" justice," but .of Hi"
.. fairness,

U 2

29 2

PRAYER, IlEA VEN, IIELL

[Letter 26

and profound for me, and I give up the problem. All that
I know is, that there will be hereafter a just retribution.
Yet if I am to tell you my own conjectural imaginations
--for who can help at times iInagining what the infinite
unknown may be, however loth he may be to insist or
dogmatize about it, or even to bestow much attention on
it, ,,,hen the urgent present presses its superior clain1s ?
_ I will say for myself that I cannot belieye I shall
have sen-ed all my apprenticeship to righteousness in
my brief life upon this earth, or that I shall be fit
inuuediately after death, for that closest communion with
God which appears to me the Heaven of Hea"ens. Some
cleansing retribution, SOlne further purification, seelUS to
me necessary and likely for myself-and, I must add, for
the greater number of those human beings with whon1
I have had to do-before we attain to that blessed
consummation.
"So you believe in a Purgatory then?" How do I
know? Say rather, I conjecture there may be Iuany
he3.ven3. In any case, I find it very easy to in1agine a
retribution and a purification that shall be purely spi-
ritual, without having recourse to any matenal flalnes
or physical horrors. Some people find a difficulty in this
notion: they consider it, but deliberately put it aside; as
if mere remorse, sorrow, and self-condelunation, could
never be bitter enough to constitute a just Hell. I do not
think they have ever realized-perhaps they have never
tried to realize-the pain that may be felt by a spirit sitting
alone, away from this familiar world and every well-known
face, and quietly judging and conden1ning itself. A mere
accident, a ludicrous accident, once gave Iue a Inoment's
experience of this feeling, and I ha,'e ne,'er been able to
forget it, never been able to put aside the conviction that
that feeling, intensified, might constitute Hen.
It happened in this way. Some years ago, before

Letter 26]

PRAYER, REA VE
, HELL

293

nitrous oxide had co_ne into very general use among
dentists, I went to have a tooth extracted, and determined
to try the gas. Perhaps I had some misgivings that it
was a little cowardly; perhaps I was a little nervous; in
any case I remen1ber at the last moment thinking that I
should like to be conscious of the precise mOlnent when
unconsciousness caine; I remember struggling to retain
consciousness-even w hen a tell-tale throbbing in the
temples shewed that sOlnething new was going on-pro-
testing to myself that the gas had" no power," " no po\\-cr
at all yet," " I don't believe it's going to have any power "
-till the portcullis came down. I suppose the conse-
quence was that I inhaled rather more than was usual;
and when I came to myself I heard the voices of the
denti;:,t and the physician-a long way off, as it seemed to
me, but with perfect distinctness-saying that" he was a
long tilne coming to" and they did not" quite like the
look of things," and so on. l\Ieantime I lay motionless
and without power either to move or speak, but perfectly
conscious. I took in the whole situation at once. I was
dead. I had passed into another state of existence. I
could think more clearly than before. I was a spirit.
And then the thought came pressing in upon me, as I
reviewed my whole life and the manner of nlY death,
that to a void a little pain I had done a wrong thing and
had deserted those who needed me and would miss me.
No fcar possessed me, not the slightest fear, of any ex-
ternal pm1Îshn1ent for the fault which I thought I had
committed: but in a detached solitude I seemed to be
quietly and coldly sitting in judgment upon myself, im-
partially hearing what I had to say in self-defence, rejecting
it as inadequate, and passing against myself the \'crdict
of Guilty. Painful, increasingly painful, the burdcn of
this self-condemnation seemed to press and crush 111e down
more and more past power of bearing, so that at last,

29+

PR.\ VER, IIE
\ VE
, HELL

[
elt
r 26

when in one n101nent I recovered both power of 111otion
and knowledge that I was alive again, I leapt up from the
dentist's arn1-chair, and, without taking the least notice of
the t\vo operators, I gave vent to my feelings by shouting
aloud the well-known words fron1 Clarence's drcam-

"-and f()r a space
Could not believe but that I was in hell."

I shall not easily forget the loo

of nlingled hUlnour
and horror with which the dentist replied, "\Y eIl, sir,
considering you arc a clergyInan, I should havc hoped
it might have been the other place," I tried to explain.
I assured hin1 that it was a quotation fron1 Shakespeare;
that I had not really belie\'ed that I was in the place
c01111110nly called Hell; and so on. But I am quite sure
111y explanations were utterly ineffectual; and to this day
I probably labour under the suspicion, in the 1ninds of
at least two worthy persons, of having committed some
horrible crime by which 1ny conscience is racked with
agony. In reality, however, it was a small offence, if any,
for which I suffered that bad quarter of a 1ninute ; and
I have often since thought that, if the mind is capable of
inflicting such pain upon itself for a \'enial error, those
pangs must be terrible indeed \\.ith which our sinful souls
111ay be forced to scourge then1seh'es when we judicially
review the actions of a selfish life with a con1pulsory
knowledge of all the evil, direct and indirect, which we have
wrought, and when wc realize at last-ah, how differently
fr01n the duB, dccorous, con\'entional contrition with which
we droned out the words on earth, kneeling on the hassocks
in the family pew-that" \\'c have left undonc those things
which we ought to have donc, and done those things
which we ought not to have clone,"
But why do I thus discourse in detail upon a subject

Letter 26]

PR.\VER, HEAVEN, HELL

295

about which I ha,'e admitted that I know no details? It
is in order to shew you that though I do not know much,
the little I do know greatly influences me. The thought
of a material Hen has probably contributed largely to
insanity, and has exercised a haneful influence upon many
women and children; but the n1ajority of healthy men who
profcss to believe in a pit of flame are little influenced by it.
lt is so horrible, so unnatural, so unjust, that in their heart
of hearts they feel sure the good God cannot mean it; He
will let them off; or they will get off somehow-by absolu-
tion, by forensic justification, by baptism, by unco"enanted
111ercies, or what not. This is but natural. How can it
not be natural to belie,'e that an unnatural and arbitrary
Hell may be dispensed with by an unnatural and arbitrary
indulgence? I ha,'c no such consolations. \Vith me,
Hell is a different thing altogether: it is natural, it is
inevitable, it is just, it is merciful. Not a day passes but
I think of it and anticipate it in sorne sort for 11lYSelf
and my friends. Tout st'þa}'era: this act, I say, or this
neglect, was wrong, and must have been injurious: the
doers cannot eSClpe fron1 the consequences of it; I do
not wish to escape from the consequences of it. God will
work good out of cvil; but He will bejust, not indulgcnt.
I do not want Him to be indulgent, Thus Heavcn and
Hell, Í1npcnding oyer the routine of nlY c,'ery-day life,
become to me practical and potent rcalities; but they are
real to IDe because the conceptions I have formed of them
are in accordance with the profound laws of spiritual
nature, and quite independent of the conflicting fancics of
theologians.
Ask me what I trust to be in Heavcn, and I can gi,'e you
no answer sa,re that one which I have often given you
beÍore-a being capable of loving and of serving God.
Ask me the nature of Hell and Heaven, and my only reply
is that they will be God's retribution. Ask me whether

29 6

PRAYE
HE
VE
HELL

[Leiter 26

all will be hereafter" saved," and I am silent, or 11lerely
answer that God is good, and that I believe a tinlc will
come when we, in Him, shall look back, and around, and
forward, and shall see that His work has been "ycry
good." Enough for me to work and fight on the side of
God and against Evil, that His righteous KingdOl11 nlay
come and bring with it the time when His work will be
seen to have been "very good." As for other details,
I know nothing and delight in knowing nothing. I do
not know whether I shall live again on earth or elsewhere;
whether I shall be a being of three dimensions, or four, or
of no dimensions at all; whether I shall be in space or out
of space. It is far better to give up speculations about
accidental trifles such as these: for accidents they are, as
cOlllpared with the essence of the second life, \\ hich con-
sists in Love. Do not give up the belief in that, at any
cost; least of all, at the cost of a little banter. "But

urely it is possible that our very highest and purest
conceptions of Heaven may fall short of the reality.'
Granted: but we must hold fast to the belief that there is
at all events a proportion between our best terrestrial
aspirations and their celestial equivalents. \\T e must re-
ject, as from Satan, the suggestion (was it Spinoza's?)
that there is no more likeness between God and our con-
ception of God than between the constellation Canis and
a dog. "God may not be Love:" I do not believe you:
but if He is not Love, He will be SOUle celestial fOrIn of
Love, corresponding to our Love, only infinitely better.
" You will not retain your individuality:" possibly not,
but certainly we shall have something corresponding to
individuality, only better. And so of the rest. \Ve shall
talk humbly, as beseems our 11licrocosmic faculties; we
are but the transitory tenants of a little world, which is to
the Universe but as a dew-drop to the ocean: yet e\-en a
dew-drop exhibits the same infrangible laws of light and

Lettt1' 26]

PRAYER, HEAVEN, HELL

297

the same divine glories that are manifested in the rain-
bow and the sunset. So it is with a human soul: there
are laws in it of righteousness and justice and retribution-
laws which cannot be broken by the fictions and illusions
of theology, but must be manifested in all places and in all
time, now and for all eternity, on earth, in Hea\"en,
in Hell.

29 8

r
\l
LI
E THEOLOGY

XXVII

l\Iy DEAR -,
I will begin this letter by quoting the end of your
last. For when you have thought over the Blatter I am
sure your mind will be so completely changcd that unless
I send you an exact copy of your o\\
n words you will
hardly believe you could e\-er havc written thenl. You
are speaking about the theology of St. Paul, and this is
what you say: "I presume that Natural Christianity,
however glad it l11ay be to shelter itself under Pauline
authority in the low estill1ate it sets on miracles, will find
it difficult to digest or swallow Pauline theology. The ab-
struse and artifi .:ial doctrines of the Ï111putation of right-
eousness, justification by faith, and the atonement, must
surely stand at the very antipodes of any religion, Chris-
tian, or other, that can claim the nanle of natural."
I do not believe you can e\Ter 11J.ve given fi\"c Ininutc5
of attention to these subjects: or if you have, you Blust
have attended, not to St. Paul, but to sonle voluminous
commentator who has buried 51. Paul's text under his own
and other people's annotations. Cast your commcntarics
a way. Read St. Paul for yourself in the light of his own
works and the Old Testament (especially the Septuagint
version), and I will guarantce that his general drift shaH
conle out clear and dcfinite enough; and, what is more,
you shall acknowledgc that his re1igial1 is perfectly
natural, so natural that you l1leet excmplifications of it
cvcry ùay of your life, in cvcry f..unily, in your own homc,

Le/kr 27]

P
\ ULIXE THEOLOGY

299

in your own heart. It would be tedious if I were to give
you a scheme of Pauline theology and then shew you
the naturalness of each part of the scheme. For me it
would be long and wearisome; and you too would be in-
clined to stop me at the end of every other sentence and
say" I know that St. Paul says this or that, but how is it
natural? " I will therefore begin at the other end, that is
to say, with Nature, and endeavour to shew you that the
natural history of a child, under favourable circumstances,
exhibits the general features of St. Paul's theology, tbe
scheme of Redemption by which the Apostle believed
Inankind to have been led to God.
\Ve begin then with a baby-a creature wholly selfish
(in no bJ.d sense), 5J.Y, "self-regarding." He is of course
"in the flesh," or "walks according to the flesh; " that is
to say, he obeys e,.ery impulse of the moment, and these
impulses are what we call aninlal impulses. He is con-
scious of no Law, and therefore of no error: being" with-
out the Law" he "knows not sin." As he grows up,
he finds himself making mistakes, trespassing against
1\ ature's rules, playing with fire, for example: and Nature's
punishment Blakes him conscious of miSl;:ake, and de-
sirous of avoiding nlistake for fear of being punished;
t 1 1at is to say, he learns to avoid playing with fire because
he ha
been burned for it. This is his first introduction
to "the Law;" and if he obeys Nature's Law, through
fear of 1\ ature's punishment, or hope of 1\ ature's reward,
so much the better for him. Hitherto, however, there is
no question of sin, only of mistake. But now comes in
the parental Law, saying" Do this," "Do not do that."
S0111etimes he obeys: sometimes, when" the flesh" is too
strong, he disobeys. In the latter case he is punished.
This new kind of Law is not a Inachine-like reward or
punishment like that of Nature: it is connected with a
\Vill, which is dimly felt by the child to be higher and

3 00

PAULIXE THEOLOGY

[Letter 27

bctter than his own, yet constantly opposed to his own.
Here then arises a conflict betwecn his strong anÏ1nal inl-
pulses, i.e. "the flesh," and a weak nascent impulse of con-
science, i.e. " the spirit;" the former bidding hin1 disobey
the higher \Vill, the latter bidùing hin1 obey. Ev
n when
he disobeys, the spirit has at least the power to Inake him
uneasy in his disobedience, and this uneasiness for the
first tin1e re,'eals in him the nature of sin. 1 J ntil the
Law of the higher \Vill was thus placecl sicle by side with
his own will, and until the det1e.:tions of his own will fr01n
the higher \Vill were thus made manifest and rebuked by
conscience, the child had no notion of sin. !\ ow he
knows it: "by Law has CO
l1e the knowledge of sin."
As long as he is thus "under the Law" he cannot
possibly be righteous; he can neither be "justified" nor
feel " justified':' \Vhen he is disobedient under the Law,
he is conscious of sin; but when he is obedient under the
Law, he is not conscious of peace or inward harn10ny : the
Law stands up, for ever antagonistic to his natural im-
pulses, and he cannot but dislike it, although he acknow-
ledges its claims upon hin1: consequently, e,-en when he
obeys it, he obeys it with a sense of servitude, obeying in
the fear of punishment or in the hope of reward. Such
actions as are pcrfonned in this spirit have no spontane-
ou .,ncss or grace; they are the tasks of a hireling, luere
piece. work-" works," as St. Paul more shortly calls then1.
or "the works of the Law;" anù "by the works of the
L3w shall no flesh be justified." During this period he
finds no guidance from the spirit of loving obedience, but
has to trust in formularies and prescriptions, "do this,"
"avoid that;" he fears lest he may do too little, and
grudges lest he may do too much: he is in the condition,
not of a son, but of a servant working for wages. Just
as the Stoic said of the n1an who was not "wise," that
whatever he did, even to the moving of hi5 little finger,

Le!ler 27]

P A ULIXE THEOLOGY

3 01

was sure to be wrong, so St. Paul taught-and it is the
truth-that our every action. as long as we are" under the
Law," is void of harmony, beauty, freedom, and spiritual
life: it is but obedience to a dead rule; such actions are
of the nature of sin and tend to spiritual destruction:
"the wages of sin are death."
During thi3 state the raw, half-developed, ungraceful,
unnarmonized, and ever-erring boy of fifteen appears to
ha\'e retrograded frOln the perfectly graceful and uncon-
scious selfishness of the innocent child of four. But it
is not so. The knowledge of sin is the stepping-stone to
a higher righteousness than could have been obtained by
perpetuating the innocence of childhood. Even during
the period of the 'I bondage to the Law" there were
occasional intervals of freedom, prophetic of a higher
state. Duty, sOlnetimes, shining out before the child as
something purer and nobler than a mere inevitable debt,
appeared" sweet and honourable;" 1 and wher.ever Duty
thus revealed herself, the child, in freely and ungrudgingly
obeying her, was obeying no unworthy emblen1 of the
Father in heaven; and by such obedience his character
was strengthened and matured, But now the time
has come for another step upwards. The boy dis-
obeys and is forgiven. At first, forgiveness makes no im-
pression on hin1. He does not understand it, does not
believe in it, because he does not quite believe in the
author of it; he regards his father as one too far above
hin1 to be able to sYlnpathize entirely with his boyish de-
sires and impatience of restraint, too much like a Law to
be capable of feeling real pain at his faults. As long as
he is in this condition, forgiveness comes to him as the
mere remission of penal ty; he is glad to "get off," but
his heart is not yet touched, and there is therefore no real
remission of sin, partly because he has no suffi:'ient
1 "Dulce et decru-n est þro þatria 1flori."

3 02

P.\ULI
E THEOLOGY

[Leltel 27

sense of sm, partly bccause he has no faith in the
forgi ver.
But at last conIes the revelation of the meaning of for-
giveness. Some outward sign, a n10ther's tear, thc l11ere
expression of the father's face-it may be this, or it Inay
be something of nluch longer duration and far 1110re COl11-
plex- but something at last brings h0111e to hin1 the fact
that his sin weighs like a crushing burden upon the heart
of SOB1e one else, who, in spite of his sin, stilllo\'cs him
and still trusts in hin1. His parents, he finds-or it 111ay
be sOlne brother, sister, or friend-are bearing his sin and
carrying his iniquity as if it were their own: the shalne
and the pain of it, which he feels as a mere unpleasant
uneasiness, are causing to others an acutc sorrow of which
he had not dreamed before. Instead of being savagely
angry with him, furious at the 111ischief he has donc,
and at the disgrace which he has brought upon them, in-
stead of visiting upon hiln all the consequences of his
fault, his parents are thelnsehres suffering some part of it,
thcmselves crushed down by it: if they punish him, they
are not punishing hin1 vindictively but for his good-it is
hard indeed to believe this, but he believes it at last-the
chastisement of his peace falIs upon then1 as well as upon
hin1; their heart is broken and contrite for his sake; their
souls are a sacrifice for his; they feel his siB a5 if it were
their own; they have appropriated his sin; have been
identified with his sin; they are" made sin" for hiln.
N ow if the youth has not in hin1 the germ of faith or
trust whereby he can believe in the sincerity of these (to
him) n1ysterious and at first inexplicable feelings, why then
the parental forgiveness is worse than nothing to him.
If he resist, its influence and calls it cant or humbug, it
hardens instead of softening the boy's heart; and then
the little spiritual sensiti,'eness that he once had, dies
rapidly away, In this casc "from him that hath not thcrc

Let/ä' 27]

P.AULIXE THEOLOGY

3 0 3

hath been ta' en away e,'en that which he seemed to
have," and the good-tidings or Gospel of forgi,'eness has
prO\'ed, in this case, "a S3.\Tour of death unto death,"
But if he has the genn of faith to begin with, then the
Gospel works its natural result: "to him that hath there
is added, and he hath more abundantly." "Proceeding
from faith" the message of forgi,"eness tends" to the in-
crease of faith," 1 Insensibly he finds himself raised
up fron1 his fonner position to the Ie, el of those who
have forgi,-en him; he is identified with his forgivers in
spirit, so that he now sees things as they see them, and
for the first tilne discerns the ha.tefulness of sin, and
hates it as they hate it, and longs to shake it off as a
burden alien to his nature. At the s:une time, finding
himself trusted by those in whose truth as well as good-
ness he himself places trust, he learns a new self-respect
e,'en in the moment when he awakens to his past degrada-
tion ; he has (he feels it to be true) something within hin1
that may be trusted, some possibility of better things which
at once springs up into the reality of fulfilment under the
warm breath of affectionate and trustful forgi,'eness. 111
other words, righteousness is "Ï1nputed to him," and he
becomes righteous. The gulf bet\veen the parental will
and hÏ1nself is now bridged over by a kind of atonelnent.
The relations ,':hich he ilnagined and createcÌ for himselt
before between his parents and himself, were angry justice
on the one side, sullen obedience or open disobedience on
the other side: all this is now exchanged for an entirely
different relationship, lo,'e on both sides, kind control
from the one, willing, zealous obedience from the other,
resulting in perfect peace and in an atmosphere of Inutual
goodwill, happiness, joy, favour. For this kind of" fa,'our"
we have no exact word in English, but in the"Greek Testa-
ment it is called by a word which we must translate
I. Rom. i. 17.

3 0 4

P
\ULIXE THEOLOGY

[Letter 27

" grace:" the youth then is "no more under the law but
under grace." K 0 longer now is he a servant, performing
" works;" a community of feeling unites him with those
abo,'e him, ,,-h<?m he had once regarded as hostile and
despotic. 1\ 0 longer the slave of rules and orders, no
longer fearing punishment nor drudging for reward, he is
quickened by a spirit within hin1 "hich guides him natur-
ally to do, and to anticipate, not only the bidding, but
even the unexpressed wishes, of that higher \Yill. His
whole life is now a sen-ice de,-oted to this new :ì\laster :
yet he is not a servant, but free, because he seryes willingly
in a seryice ,,-hich is the noblest freedon1, The simplest
actions are performed in a fresh spirit; all things ha,-e be-
C0l11e new; the life of the flesh is ended, the life of the
spirit has begun. Looking back upon his fon11er self he
finds that it is dead; he has died unto sin and risen from
the dead that he 111ay liye again to righteousness,
Is it necessary for me to trace the parallelisl11 between
these phenomena in the life of the indiYidual and the
Pauline scheme of the redemption of man? You must
ha ,-e recognized in each step of the de,-clopment sketched
above S0l11e feature of the Pauline doctrine, 1\1 y fear is,
not so m'uch that you may fail to acknowledge this, as
that you may doubt whether the indi,-idual always passcs
through these phases. But I am confident that it must be
so for all who are to be sayed: there is no royal road of
privilege or miracle by which a man can pass from the inno-
cent selfishness of childhood to the practised righteousness
of lnanhood, without passing through the na1 row defiles of
the flesh and fighting his battle with sin; nor do I believe
that any man.has e,-er been" savcd;' that is to say, has
passed through that struggle so far safely as to attain
some thoughtfulness for others, SOl11e lo,-e of righteousne
s
for its own sake, unless he has received through the \Y ord
of God some such rc,-elation as 1 ha \"e described.

Lef'er 27]

PAULINE THEOLOGY

3 0 5

The typical revelation of this kind, which sums up aU
others, is the revelation made by the atonement 0
Jesus Christ: but that revelation has been a silence for
the myriads who have died in ignorance of the very name
of Jesus: is there no other way then in which the \Y ord
of God has taught them, redeemed them, forgiven them,
n1ade atonement for them? Yes, assuredly the \V ord of
God has been mediating between God and men since men
first existed-long before the time when the children of
Israel" drank of that Rock which followed them, and that
Rock was Christ "-and the chief vehicle of His n1ediation
has been the influence of the righteous on the unrighteous,
especially of parents on children. In this influence, the
bright and central point has been the power which each
lnan has, in some poor degree, of forgiving, and making
atonement for, the sins of others-a power so weak and
small, compared with the same power in Christ, that it
may be easily ignored by superficial observers; and some
may think to do God honour by ignoring it. But in reality
whoso ignores it is ignoring the best gift of God to man.
This undeveloped power of forgiving has been that un-
effaced likeness of God in which He created us; and
every act of forgiveness, from Adaln down to John the
Baptist, has been inspired by the \V ord of God to be a type
and prophecy of that great and unique act which sums
up and explains all forgiveness, the Atonement made by
the \V ord's own sacrifice. I said above that the mother's
tear might for the first time reveal to a child the meaning
and power of forgiveness. What the tear of a mother
may be to her child, that the Cross of Christ has been
to mankind; the expression as it were, of the Father's
pitifulness for His sinful children, revealing to theln the
meaning, and the pain, of forgiveness.
St. Paul (you will find) in all his epistles recognizes the
analogy between the human race and the individual j and
X

3 06

PAULI
E THEOLOGY

[Ldter 27

all that he teaches about mankind corresponds to the de-
velopment I ha ,-e tried to sketch above. You will be told
indeed that the attempt to trace such a parallelism as I
have traced above, is an attempt to" read modern thoughts
into an ancient author." But do not be in haste to call St.
Paul an " ancient author," not at least in any disparaging
sense, as if we had outgrown the antiquated limits of his
thoughts. Being a man of realities St. Paul di,-ed deep
down below the surface of language, cant, and formularies;
he reached the very source and centre of the human
heart where righteousness is made. He realized the
making of righteousness as a visible process, Others,
who have not realized it, think his writings misguided,
antique, occasionally untrue, But do not you fail to dis-
tinguish between St. Paul's style and St. Paul's thought.
He wrote in a hurry; he did not think in a hurry. The
general scheme of his theology needs no excuse, nor
allowance, nor patronage. His illustrations of it, argu-
ments in defence of it, even his expressions of it, are,
frOlll our point of view, often inadequate; but his spiritual
truths are the deepest truths of human nature, as it may be
seen ascending through illusion and frailty to divine
knowledge and divine righteousness. St. Paul has been
wonderfully obscured by fonnularizing commentators,
The best commentary on him that I know is an ordinary
home; but for a young nlan, away from home, and in
danger of forgetting his childhood, the next best commen-
tary is Shakespeare, and the next to that is \V ordsworth,
or, frOll1 a different point of view, the In i1lcmoriam.
Tell me now; was I wrong in saying that the Pauline
scheme of salvation is eminently natural? I do not of
course mean materialistic, but natural in the sense of
orderly. 'Vhere, in the whole of this doctrine, is there any
necessity for believing that the Son of God-" born of a
woman" and manifested "in the flesh that he might

Letlt'r 27]

PAULI
E THEOLOGY

3 0 7

destroy the works of the dedI "-did or said anything
that involves a suspension of the laws of nature? I
have already shewn that the" miracles" wrought by St.
Paul himself were in alJ probability works of healing,
and natural; and the manifestations in which Christ
" appeared" to him and to the other disciples have been
shewn to be, in all probability, visions in accordance with
the laws of nature, though representing an objective
reality. There is no reference in St. Paul's works to the
1\Iiraculous Conception, nor to any of those miracles of
Jesus which, if historical, must be admitted to be real
miracles. en the other hand there runs through all his
epistles an acknowledgment of a continuous spiritual Law,
predetermined and inviolable. 'Vhat else does St. Paul
mean by the continual assertion that the calling of the
Gentiles, and the "election" of all men, are" predestined?;'
Perhaps you have never yet appreciated the circumstances
which led the
\ postle to lay so much stress on the" pre-
destination" apparent in history. I do not think you can
ever understand St. Paul's teaching on this subject, as
long as you fasten your attention on two or three isolated
texts which appear to set it forth. You must look at it as
a whole, and have regard to the lnotive of the author;
and then you will find that it is to be understood negatively
rather than positively. \Vhen St. Paul says "God pre-
destined this, or that," he lneans," God did not make a
mistake, or change his mind, about this or that: the gifts
and callillg of God are without reþelltance."
In setting forth Predestination, S1. Paul is always
mentally protesting against two tendencies already per-
ceptible to hÏIn in the Church, the tendency of the
Jews to regard the admission of the Gentiles into the
Church as an after-thought, perhaps as a mistake;
and the tendency of the Gentiles to regard the Law of
X 2

3 08

PAULIl\E THEOLOGY

[Ldler 27

l\loses as a cOlnplete and useless failure. It was one
of St. Paul's main objects to shew that the history of
I srael and of the Gentile world revealed a thread of im-
mutable purpose of salvation running through the whole
-a purpose to subordinate evil to good, the flesh to the
spirit, the Law to the Gospel; so that there has been no
mistake, no dislocation of the divine scheme, nor change
of the divine will. Although the Apostle always refers
things to a "\Till and not a Law as their ultimate origin,
yet the whole ten our of his argument exhibits that \\Till as
being not liable to caprice or accidental shifting, but a
\Vill of predestination, a Law, so to speak, tinged with
emotion. No doubt St. Paul, sometimes, in the attempt to
shew the immutability of the divine purposes, puts forwanl
somewhat baldly and repellently the insoluble probleln of
the origin of evil, as if God Hin1self predestined not only
rejection but also the sin that was the cause of rejection.
But it was not his intention to e>..hibit God as originating
evil; and the cause that leads him so to do, or so to
appear to do, is his intense desire to exhibit God's
mysterious plan of JlOt at once annihilating evil.... but of
utilizing it and subordinating it to good. The fore-
ordained purpose of God before the fouñdation of the
world is the redemption of mankind; and in order to help
Inen to attain to this height, the flesh, the law, death, yes,
even sin itself, are forced to serve as stepping-stones.
Hence even in rejection, as well as in election, the Apostle
cannot fail to discern the hand of God. There is a Law
in all God:s doing, and especially in His election. God
hath chosen the weak things of this world to confound the
strong 2nd the foolish things of this world to confound the
wise; the first-born is rejected, the younger son is chosen.
This is not accident; it is a type of the general law ex-
emplified in the vision of Elijah. Not by the whirlwind

Letter 27]

PAULINE THEOLOGY

3 0 9

or the fire or the earthquake but by the quiet and neglected
processes of nature does God perform His mightiest works.
This deep truth pervades the doctrine of St. Paul. Pierce
through the antique and Oriental integument of his ex-
pression, and you will find no other Christian writer who
so clearly brings out that the Christian religion is not
according to caprice but according to Law.

3 10

OBJECTIONS

XXVIII

1Iv DE.\R --,
You tell me that you have been shewing my letters
to some of your young friends, and that they have expressed
various objections to non-miraculous Christianity. Some
say that I am an "optimist;" others that it is a com-
pron1ise between faith and reason, and that compromises
are always to be rejected; one says that I aln for in-
troducing "a new religion;" others that a Gospel of
illusion must, by its own shewing, be itself illusive;
others, that" these new notions are so vague that they
can never be put into a definite shape, and they are
so mixed up with theories and fancies and suppositions
of error in every period of the Church, that they can
never commend themselves to the masses.':
Do you know what "cant:' means, and why it was so
called? "Cant " is the sort of language used (not always
deceitfully) when a man "chants," or utters in a kind of
sing-song, words that he has not felt himself, or, if he has
ever felt, has ceased to feel, through the too frequent use
of them. Hence he cannot speak them, but" sing-songs"
them, " chants" or" cants" them. Now I take leave to
think that two or three of the objections above-mentioned
come under this head of "cant." I mean that your young
objectors, not knowing exactly at the moment what to say
about opinions that are new and require SOIne thought
to understand or criticise, and being desirous of saying
something at the moment, and something, if possible, that

Letter 2S]

OBJECTIOXS

3 11

shall be brief and smart, say what they have heard other
people say about other sets of opinions which have some
affinity of sound with mine. This is a very common habi t
with inferior professional reviewers., who are bound to say
something readable and epigrammatic for limited remune-
ration and consequently in limited time: but your friends
ha ve not come to that yet, and are therefore not to be so
easily excused,
" Optimist!" How can a man who believes in a re3.1
Satan be an optimist? I thought an optimist was one who
believed the world to be the best of all possible worlds.
This I do not, and cannot, believe. I trust indeed that a
time may come when we may be optimists after a fashion;
when we sha11 100\: back, in God, upon the universal sum of
things and find that it has been the best possible under
the circumstances, and that evil has bcen man"cIIousl y
subordinated to good: but I ne"er can believe that
a Universe in which God defeats Satan is better than a
Universe in which God reigns unresisted; and therefore,
as to this "best of all possible worlds," I rest always
humbly silent. Some people may believe, if they can,
that evil is another form of good; that the \-vorld is li
e
one of those spectroscopes- I think they call them-where
several different pictures on a round card, each meaning-
less by itself, are converted into one significant picture by
whirling the card round too quickly for the eye to follow.
In the same way they seem to suppose they can take little
pictures of oppression, adultery, murder, and the other
Inyriad shapes of sin, spin them round fast enough along
with other little pictures of temperance, purity, peace, and
all the virtues.; and the whole becomes a panorama of
moral perfection! Argue thus who will; I cannot.
If I am not an optimist in my vicw of this world, you
will surely not accuse me of optiInism in my views of the
next. Do my notions of hea'"en and hell encourage any

.

3 12

OBJECTIONS

[Leiter 28

one to be selfish and luxurious or idle now, in the hope
that he will be let off easily hereafter? Have I not said
that there will be no "letting off"? That God will do
the best thing for Nero-is that do you think likely to
make Nero altogether an optimist in the life to COlne ? I
think He wiII do the best thing for me ; but I sometimcs
shiver when I say it; awe possesses me, awe lningled
with trust, but certainly not without a touch of fear.
AssUl edly the certainty of retribution in heaven n1akcs
me no optimist for myself or others, as to the life
after death. In one sense only am I an cptimist, that
I believe that the best win ultimately prevail, and th.lÌ
faith, hope, and lo,'e, wiIl prove the don1inant powers in
the Universe. This I believe, and to this belief I cling
as a most precious hope, to be cherished by action as
weIl as by 111cditation ; but this is not, I think, what is
ordinarily meant by optilnisnl ; and certainly it does not
encourage the spirit of laissez faire which optÜnism is
supposed to breed.
N ext as to "comprOInise." The ordinary cant about
" compromise" is sOlnetilnes the lazy expedient of those
who wish to avoid the trouble of coming to a decision, and
to shelter their indolence under a noble censoriousness.
'Vhat they mean by "comprOlnise" is any theory that
attributes results to more than one cause. It is generally
very easy to elaborate some extreme theory which shaH
explain almost everything by sonle single c,\Use, by Faith,
for example, on the one side, or by Reason on the other;
and it is equally easy for the advocates on either side to
demolish the theory of their adversarics; but it is far
from easy afterwards to shew how, and to what extent,
both causes are accountable for the result which has been
tictitiously attributed to a single cause. 1\ ow the two
extreme parties, in their contests, afford us fine cut-and-
thrust exhib
tions; the via media exhibits an organizcd

Le!It:'Y 28]

OB]ECTIOKS

3 1 3

caInpaign. The theatrical n1ultitude, which does not care
in the least about truth, but delights in intellectual
slashers, soon finds it dull work, after clapping an exciting
mê/le, to have to sit still and listen to a dispassionate
and impartial discussion; so they cry" compromise" and
hiss. But the term is a misnomer. "COlnpromise," or
" mutual promise," cannot describe a legitimate conclusion
that hits the mark missed by two pre\Tiously divergent
shots. It is as if A were to hit the top of the target, and
B the botton1, and then both A and B wcre to fall foul of
C, and accuse him of "compromising ", because he pierces
the bull's eye half way between the two. " Compromise"
often implies a failure of exact justice; as when Smith
thinks Jones owes him 50/., and Jones thinks he owes Smith
only 40/.; and they" split the difference" and ma.ke it
45/.; both of theln thinking that the arrangement is
unjust, but both preferring the injustice to the expensi,.e
formalities of legal justice. This is "compromise," and
illogical; but there is none of this illogicality in a fair
iInpartial discussion avoiding previous bias.
So in the present instance. Some have been biassed in
favour of Faith, others in favour of Reason; sóme have
accepted as historical all the miracles and Inighty WOl ks
in the Old and l'\"ew Testament indiscriminately, others
have rejected all indiscriminately; some have declared
that every word in the Old and New Testament (I don't
quite know how they have got rid of the difficulty of
various readÏ1
gs) is exactly inspired and every detail
historically true; othcrs, that there are so many errors
and illusions that the books may be put aside as no
better than myths: some have said that, since wc cannot
worship an unknown Being, we must worship the human
race; others that, since we cannot worship our very
degraded selves, we must worship some being altogether
different from ourselves: some have said that Christ is

3 1 4

OBJECTIONS

[Leiter 28

God, and have ignored His humanity; others have said
that He was a "mere man," and therefore not di,"ine.
K ow in all these cases the truth lies between the two
extremes. l\Ian derives religious truth from Faith, but
Faith assisted by Reason; Christ did not perfonn
miracles, but He did perform Inighty works; the l)ld and
New Testament, like all other vehicles of re\"elation,
contain illusion, but illusion preserving and protecting
truth; we must not worship ourselves, and yet we cannot
worship one who is altogether different from ourselves;
Christ is a man, and yet Christ is God. But to all these
conclusions we are not led by "Inutual prOlnise," give
and take of any kind, but by full and unbiassed considcr-
ation of all sides of the subject, knowing that (for the
present at all events) we shall displease all, both the
orthodox and heterodox alikc.
So far from suggesting any compromise betwcen Faith
and Reason, I have merely pointed out that the provinces
of the two are, to a yery large extent, distinct, so that
m:lny of their operations can be performed altogether
independently. I have nc"er said, "Do not follow out
the conclusions of your Reason in this or that instance
because you would be led to inconvenient results," but,
" Follow out the conclusions of your Reason in every
instance and presently acknowledge that you are led, in
SOlne cases, to results so absurd and unpractical that you
nlust infer Rcason to be out of its province in these cases.
Reason your utmost for example about a First Cause and
Predestination and the ( rigin of Evil and the like; but
then, when you ha,"e come to the conclusion that, logically
speaking, it is equally absurd to suppose that the world
had no cause, and that the First Cause had no cause, gi, e
the subject up as being beyond the syllogistic powers."
Surely there is no unworthy compromise here, nothing
but common sense! \Yhere\"er historical facts are affirmed

Letler 28]

OBJECTIONS

3 1 5

in religion, I have said that the accounts of those facts are
to be judged upon evidence and by Reason alone; here
Faith and Hope have no place; history in the New
Testament is to be judged like history in Thucydides.
In reality it is not I with my via media that am guilty
of compromise; it is the Hyper-orthodox (if I may use a
tenn that is nominally meaningless but really quite intel-
ligible) and the Agnostic. For the Hyper-orthodox say
" Accept the Scriptures in a lump." \Vhy? "Because it
would be so very inconvenient not to have an infallible
guide." Of course they do not say so in these precise
words: but this is what their replies ultimately amount
to. Again the Agnostics say, "Reject the Scriptures
ill toto." \Vhy? "Because it would be so very incon-
venient to weigh evidence and discriminate ihe true from
the false." It is these, not I, who are calling in emotion
to do the work of Reason, and who (partly, I think, to
avoid facing unpalatable facts) force Reason to make a
compromise with prejudice, "Convenience," as I have
pointed out in a previous letter, may be a legitin1ate basis
for accepting as a Law of N" ature the tried and tested
. suggestions of the Imagination; but it is not a legitin1ate
basis on which to construct a belief in the genuineness of
the Book of Daniel or the Second Epistle of St. Peter.
Let n1e mention one point where, in appearance
but
not in reality, my theory is liable to the charge of com-
promise: I n1ean the discussion of the l\Iiraculous Concep-
tion and the Supernatural Incarnation, In discussing the
:Miraculous Conception I have advised you to trust to your
Reason alone, because here you have to deal with a state-
ment of physical facts, true or untrue, and to be proved
or disproved by evidence; but as regards the Super-
natural Incarnation and the statelnent that the \V ord
of God became a human spirit, I have pointed out that
here we have a statement that cannot be proved or

,

3 16

OBJECTIO
S

[Letter 28

disproved by silnple historical evidence, nor even by
miracle, because even if an archangel descended fron1
heaven to trumpet forth a "Yes" or "No" to the
world, the message Inight be from the Devil. If then
we are to believe in the Incarnation we must have a
twofold testimony. First 111ust come the historical evi-
dence indicating the words, and deeds, and character,
and results, of the life of Christ, the truth of which
Inust be judged by the Reason; and then there Inust
come the witness of the conscience exclaiming "This
life is divine; this l11an is one with God." Conse-
quently it is quite possible to accept the Supernatural
Incarnation while denying the ?\liraculous Conception;
and this I have felt obliged to do. But where is the
compromise or inconsistency? I am compelled by evi-
dence and Reason to deny the truth of the .Miraculous
Conception, on ac.count of the very small amount of
evidence for it and the very large an10unt of evidence
against it; I aIn equally compelled by evidence and
Faith to accept the Supernatural Incarnation, because
the evidence convinces me that a certain life has been
lived on earth, and my conscience convinces n1e that this
life could not have been lived by any being who was not
one with God.
Are my accusers equally free from confusion? I think
not. Ask the Hyper-orthodox why they believe in the
::\1 iraculous Conception in spite of the silence of aU the
earliest documents; they will reply, (if you penetrate
below their first superficial answers, such as, "Because
it is in the Bible," "Because I have believed it from
my youth upward," and the like), "Jesus must have
been born miraculously, because He was the Son of God"
-a confusion of things historical and spiritual, and a
manifest expulsion of Reason from her rightful province.
Again, ask the Agnostic why he does not believe that

Leiter 28]

OBJECTIONS

3 1 7

Jesus was the Son of God; he will reply that he sees no
proof of the fact, nor even of the existence of a God ;
and if you press him to define what he means by " proof"
of the existence of a God, you will find that he wholly
ignores the influence of hnagination as a means of arriv-
ing at truth, and that he requires some kind of evidence
that shall entirely dispense with Faith. Thus the Hyper-
orthodox and the Agnostic are equally guilty, the one of
dispossessing Reason, the other of dispossessing Faith,
from their rightful provinces; and they accuse me of
"cOIn promising," not because I really cOlnpromise, but
because I pursue truth at the cost of some trouble, while
they-partly perhaps to avoid the pain of thinking, and
the prospect of colliding with lnrd unpleasing truths--
pursue severally that form of untruth to which they are
inclined by prejudice.
And now for the next objection, that" this is a new
religion." How can men give the nan1e of a new rel
gion
to that which proclaims as the one me:lns of salvation the
Eternal \V ord of God believed in of old by Jews as well
as by Christians? Or is it a mark of novelty to accept
Jesus of Nazareth as that \V ord incarnate? The one
thing new about the opinions put forward in my letters is
this--that it is not a necessary condition for believing
in Christ, that men should accept a number of historical
statements which are, and have been, doubted by many
honest seekers after truth. I believe I Inight add, without
any exaggeration, that the statements which I impugn are
rejected by so large a number of those who are most com-
petent to judge, that, in spite of many inducements-some
richly substantial, some nobly spiritual-many of the ablest
and best educated young men of England cannot in these
days be persuaded to become Ininisters of the religion which
appears to insist on them. Beyond this protest, there is
nothing, or very little, that is new about the theory which

3 18

OBJECTIOXS

[LcI!ër 28

I have endea,-oured to set forth. I do not protest against
any Inoral abuse in the Church of England or the
orthodox churches-such abuses as made a great gulf in
the days of Luther bet\\Ten the ROlnan Catholic Church
and the Protestants, when indulgences for sins were sold
by the cart-load. Possibly indeed the protracted belief
in the miraculous, ",hen it has long outlived the conditions
which made it natural or pardonable, may tend to produce
some moral evil; SOlne o,-er-estimation of ostentatious
and, so to speak, theatrical force: some depreciation of
the quiet processes by which God has mostly taught and
shaped mankind; some latent trust in a capricious God,
who will not" re,,-ard men according to their works " but
will exercise a dispensing power at the Day of Judgment.
I say this may possibly soon happen, if it has not already
begun to happen; but at an eyents it is at present latent,
and it is not on any ground of this kind that I am advo-
cating a new view of the Old and l\ew Testament. l\Iy
object has been not to destroy the old belief, but to
remove certain obstacles which tend to pre\-ent people
from embracing the essence of the old belief. The
existence of a God, the imn10rtality of the soul, the
conflict between God and Satan, the redemption of 111an-
kind through the sacrifice of the eternal Son of God
incarnate in Jesus of Nazareth, the Resurrection of the
Lord Jesus, the operation of the Holy Spirit, the certainty
of a heaven and hell, the efficacy of prayer, the ultimate
triumph of goodness and God-all these things I stead-
fastly believe, But I see not the slightest reason why, in
order to hold fast these precious truths, I should be com-
pelled to believe that Joshua stopped the sun (or the
earth ?) or that an ass talked with a human voice, or that
the incarnate Son of God drowned two thousand swine or
destroyed a fig-tree with a word.
I am Drobably doing no more than give utterance to

Letter 28]

OBJECTIO
S

3 1 9

thoughts which have been already expressed by others, or
which, though unexpressed, are latent in thousands of
doubtful anò expectant souls. But even were it otherwise,
even were it granted that the form of Christianity set
forth in my letters has some points of novelty, is Inere
novelty to suffice for its condemnation ?-and this in our
century, when God has been teaching and is teaching
lIis children so nluch that is new in every department of
knowledge! Is it absolutely in
redible that the same
Suprenle Teacher who allowed sonle nineteen centuries to
elapse between the Promise and the promised Seed, should
allow another nineteen centuries to elapse between the
Seed and the Harvest? Is it inconsistent that He who
has led men to the truths of science through mistakes and
illusions should lead lllen by the same paths to spiritual
truth? How often nlust the Law of Illusion be inculcated
before we take it to heart? Illusions have encompassed
spiritual truth for Israel, for the Jews, for the Twelve in
their 1Iaster's lifetime, for the first generation of Christians,
and for every subsequent generation down to the time of
Luther. So much we Protestants are bound to admit.
Are we not then intolerably presumptuous in assuming
that illusions must have suddenly disappeared in the
fifteenth century and have left the theological atmosphere
for the first time since the creation of the world free fron1
all spiritual refraction? How much humbler and truer
to suppose that every century and every generation has
its special cloud of illusions through which in due course
we must all toil upward, penetrating layer after layer of
the illusive mist till we reach at last the summit of the hill
of Truth!
I find I have left myself too little time to answer your
last two objections as to the" vagueness" of my views and
their inability to "commend themselves to the masses."
I will try to answer theln in my next letter.

320 TIlE RELIGION OF TIlE 1\IASSES

XXIX

1\Iv DEAR-,
I have been thinking over your objection that my
notions are" vague; " feeling that there is some truth in it,
but that your words do not quite express your probable
111eaning. I think you mean, not that the" notions" are
vague, but that the proofs are vague. The" notions" are
in the Creeds, if you interpret the Creeds spiritually: and
I do not think that the Creeds are more I' vag-ue " when
interpreted spiritually than when interpreted literally.
The spiritual Resurrection of Christ, for exan1ple- is it
more vague than the material Resurrection? If you admit
that there is a spirit in man, and that this spirit is made
apparently powerless by death, is it "vague " to say that
the spirit of Jesus, after passing through this state of
death, manifested itself to the disciples in greater power
than ever? E,'en those who maintain the material
Resurrection admit that it wQuld be a mere mockery with-
out the spiritual Resurrection, and that the latter is the
essence of the act: so that to declare the statement of the
spiritual Resurrection of Jesus to be "vague," appears to
be equivalent to declaring that allY statel11ent of the essell-
tial Resurrection of Jesus is "vague." Again, redemp-
tion frOl11 sin is a spiritual notion, redemption from the
flames of a material hell is a material notion; but is the
former lnore " vague" than the latter? If so, then we are
led to this conclusion, that all spiritual notions are more
\-ague than n11terial notions; and the vagueness which

Letter 29] THE RELIGION OF THE :J\fASSES 321

you censure is a necessary characteristic of every religion
that approaches God as He ought to be approached, I
lnean, as a Spirit and through the nledium of spiritual
conceptions, But to my mind you are not justified in thus
using the word "vague,"which ought rather to be applied to
notions wanderingly and shiftingly defined; as for example,
if I defined the Resurrection of Jesus as being at one time
the rising of His body, at another the rising of His Spirit;
or if I spoke of redenlption, now as deliverance from sin,
and now as deliverance from punishnlent. Convict me
of such inconsistencies, and I will submit to be called
': vague;" but at present I plead, " Not guilty."
Howe'v'er I think you meant that the proofs, and not the
notions were vague; and here, although you should not have
used the word" vague," I will adlnit that you would have
been right if you had said that they were "complex" and
" more easy to feel than to define." No doubt the proof of
Christ's divinity from the material Resurrection is simple
and straightforward enough: " It is impossible that a man's
body could have arisen from the grave, and that the man
could have afterwards lived with his friends on earth for
several days, and then have ascended into heaven, ifhe had
not been under the express protection of God ; and such a
lnan we are prepared to believe, if he tells us that he is the
Son of God." That certainly would seem to a large num-
ber of minds a very plain and straightforward argument
-as plain as Paley's E7Jidntces. No trust, no faith, no
affection, is here requisite: nothing is needed except that
rough and ready assumption-in which we are all disposed
to acquiesce-that any altogether exceptional and startling
power must come from God. It must be admitted that this
sort of proof would be cogent as well as direct. Let a
man rise from the dead to-nlorrow, and transport his body
through closed doors, and say that he is Christ, and then
mount up to the clouds and disappear; and I doubt not
y

3 22 THE RELIGION OF TIlE :MASSES [letter 29

many of those who saw him would cry" This lnust be the
Christ," without so much as enquiring what manner of
man he was. But cogent and popular and delightfully
simple though it may be, this is not the kind of proof on
which Jesus appears to have relied, or by which Jesus has
produced a spiritual change in the hearts of mankind. The
very fact that no trust or faith or affection is needed in such
a demonstration, unfits it for spiritual purposes. In order to
believe in the Resurrection of Jesus, a nlan needs the testi-
mony of all his powers, en10tional as well as intellectual, trust
and love as well as reason; and I have endeavoured to
shew above that the whole of the training of the human
I magination, and all the mysterious natural provisions
which have stilnulated the eye of the mind to see what the
eye of the body cannot see, have contributed to bring
about the faith in the risen Saviour. As we are to love
God with our strength and with our mind as wel] as with
our heart and our soul, so are we to believe in Christ with
the same collective energy. The proof therefore of
Christ's Resurrection and of Christ's divinity is intended
to be, in a certain sense, complex, because it is intended
to appeal to our every faculty and to be based upon our
every expenence.
But "this form of Christianity can never commend
itself to the masses." Objection in the shape of prophecy
is always difficult to meet, and not often worth meeting.
However, this prophecy has so specious a sound that it
deserves son1e reply. But first let me ask, Does the
present form of Christianity comn1end itself to the masses?
Surely not to the very poor, that is to say, not to the class
to WhOln Christ appears to have specially addressed Hin1-
self. And even among the classes which retain the tra-
dition of worshipping Christ, has Christianity been such as
would cOlnmend itself to Christ? Has not our religion
been too often divorced from n10rality? Has there been

Lct!t'1' 29] THE RELIGION OF THE
L\SSES 3 2 3

dominant aInong us that habit of mutual helpfulness-
" comforting one another," as St. Paul calls it--which is
the criterion of a truly Christian nation? Ha,'e not the
laws in almost all cases, until the French Revolution, been
Inade in the interests of the rich, rather than in the interests
of the poor; and where the poor have been considered,
has not the consideration arisen largely from the fear of
violence and revolution? There has been a certain amount
of alms-giving, or legacy-leaving, on the part of the minority
who have laid themseh-es out to lead religious Ji,'es ; and
there has always been a still more select minority who
have been imbued with a truly Christian enthusiasm for
their feHow-creatures, a passionate desire to do sonlething
for Christ, and to leave the world a little better for their
having li,'ed: but the great unheeding 11lass of IHen in
Chrîstian countries has rolled on in its selfish path, less
selfish certainly, less brutishly intent on present pleasure
than the masses of heathendom, and indirectly humanized
and leavened by a thousand Christian influences, but
still not more than superficially Christian. The reason for
this comparative failure has been, in part, that Christ
has not been rightly presented to the hearts of the people.
Too often it has not been Christ at all-it has been
but a lifeless semblance of Christianity-to which they
have given their adhesion. The fear of hell, the hope
of heaven-these have been often the chief motives of
religion; and alms-giving, church-going, Bible-reading,
and the use of the sacraments, have been the ll1eans by
which men have thought they could escape the one and
secure the other. Asking stilI further the cause for this
perversion, by ,,-hich Christ has been converted into a
second Law, we find that in some cases, and more
especially in recent times, it appears to have arisen
in part from the miraculous element in our religion.
This has made Christ unreal to some of us by taking
y 2

,

3.:!'
TIlE RELIGIO
OF THE MASSES [Lettä' 2Y

Him out of the reach of our sYlllpathies and affectiun ;
this also has artificialized our religious conceptions and
divorced our religion from n10rality by n1aking us think
that God will suspend the laws of spiritual nature for us,
as He has s.1spended the laws of material nature for
Christ and Christ's Apostles. Hence has arisen too often
a pitiable and preposterous reversal of the Pauline theology.
\Ve have" died" unto Christ, and" risen again" unto the
Law. "Grace" has fled away, and, with it, all natural and
harmonious morality; and the whole duty of a Christian
Ulan has been degraded to a routine of" works."
I t is for this cause that the morality of Agnostics
frequently surpasses the n10rality of professing Christians.
The philanthropy of the fonner, so far as it goes, is at
all events perfectly natural. They do not love their
brother n1an in order to obey the Gospel or save their
own. souls; they lo\re because they must love. Christ's
leaven is often in their hearts without any of the corrup-
tions of a conventional Christianity. They do not believe
in a capricious Heaven and Hell, but they are drawn
towards goodness, kindness, justice and mutual helpfulness,
whenever and wherever they see then1 ; and such worshi p
as they have, they give to these qualities. Hence also in
foreign politics the working people and the Agnostics
often manifest a much purer and n10re Christian feeling
than church-goers. For the Hyper-orthodox, foreign
politics lie outside the Bible; and whatsoever lies outside
the Bible lies, for them, outside morality: but the
Agnostic ll1akes no such distinction; he does not believe
that the laws of right and wrong can be n1iraculously
suspended in favour of his own country. The disbelief in
a future Heaven ll1akes the poor indisposed to tolerate
present remediable miseries in the hope of coming COll1-
pensation. Hence they shew a much stronger detern1i-
nation not to put up with a state of things in which the

Letter 29] TIlE RELIGION OF TIlE MASSES 3 2 5

happiness and prosperity of a whole nation are purchased
by the n1isery of one class. They are willing enough
individually to make sacrifices for one another, and, in
bad times the working people have sometin1es collectively
borne considerable burdens with an admirable patience;
but that the unwilling wretchedness of some should form
the basis of the prosperity of the rest, and that the rest
should be content to have it so-this they cannot endure;
and sooner than this, they would prefer to see every class
in the nation pulled down two or three degrees in wealth
and refinement, if thereby the lowest class could be raised
a single degree,
Rich church-goers are far more ready to acquiesce in
present inequalities, sometimes consoling themselyes with
the thought that in heaven all these evils will be re-
dressed, sometÏInes fortifying their acquiescence in the
inevitable with a text of Scripture. But the poor declain1
passionately against the Bible, when thus quoted-as being
a l11ere instrument in the hands of the rich, and the priests
their accomplices, to keep the miserable in a state of
contentment with their misery. It is a pity that the poor
should be embittered by misrepresentations against that
which is pre-eminently the poor man's Book; for no tribune
or democrat more persistently than the Bible takes the
side of the oppressed, or more emphatically declares that it
is part of God's n1ethod to raise up the poor from the dung-
hill and to fill the hungry with good things, while He casts
down the princes and sends the rich empty away. But the
fact remains that, even when he raves against his own Book,
the poor man is raving in the spirit of the Book. It is not
in accordance with the Bible-and still less in accordance
with the spirit of the New Testament and of Christ- that
any nation should tolerate and perpetuate the n1isery of
a class in order that the whole nation may prosper.
I ndeed in such a nation permanent prosperity-in any

.

3 26 TIlE RELIGION OF THE l\I.ASSES [Leiter 29

sense, and much more in the Christian sense-is quite
impossible. Even though they n1ay suppress rebellion
and escape revolution for the time, the governing classes
cannot escape the spiritual evils that must uItiInately
spring from that comfortable acquiescence in the
wretchedness of others to which they may give the
name of resignation but to which Christ would have
given the name of hypocrisy. 1\Iaterial misery 1Jzay imply
the immorality of those who are forced to endure it; but
it 1JiltS! imply the imn10rality and spiritual degradation
of those who acquiesce in it because it does not come nigh
them, and because" the Bible says it must be so," Let
but such Pharisaisn1 continue for a generation, and it will
have gone far to e
tinguish the purest of religions and to
prepare the way for revolutionary strife.
I t appears then that what is called" socialism" is really
nothing but a narrow and unwise fonn of Christianity;
narrow because it excludes the rich from its syn1pathies,
and unwise because, instead of going to the root of evils,
it simply aims at the branches; capable also, of course,
(like every other theory) of being made to appear im-
n10ral, when adopted for self-interested or vindicti\'e pur-
poses-yet nevertheless containing much more of the
Spirit of Christ than that selfish form of Christianity
which has for its sole object the salvation of the individual.
Socialism owes all that is good in it to Christ.
The gigantic evil of sla\-ery (which is antagonistic to aJI
true socialism) after a contest of eighteen centuries, has
succumbed at last in Christian countries to Christ's Spirit
and to no other champion. Do you suppose that it per-
ished owing to the" march of intellect," or the discoveries
of science, or the general refinement and rise in the stand-
ard of comfort and happiness among Inankind? There
is no reason at all for thinking so, The Law of l\Ioses,
as you know, recognized, though it controlled and miti-

Letter 29] THE RELIGION OF THE :l\IASSES 3 2 7

gated} the institution of slavery. The race that gave
birth to Socrates, Aristotle, Sophocles, Phidias, Euclid,
Archimedes, and Ptolemy, was unable so much as to
conceive of a state of society where slavery should not
exist: civilization appeared to them to require the servi-
tude of the masses as its necessary foundation. It was
not cruelty or callousness that prompted Aristotle to
divide "tools " into two classes, "lifeless" and ,; living"
-under which latter head CaIne slaves: it was want
of faith in human nature. "\Vho would do the scullion-
work in the great household of humanity if there were
no slaves? " Such was the question which perplexed
the great philosophers of antiquity and which Christ
came to answer by making Himself the slave of mankind
and classing HÏInself among the scullions. How strangely
dull and unappreciative do those words of Renan sound,
that, if you deduct from what Christ taught, what othel
people have taught before Him, little will be left that
is original! "Taught!" It was not the teaching, it was
the doing. Nay, it was not the doing, it was the in-
breathing into mankind of a new Spirit, by means of
doing, that ultimately destroyed slavery. "Even as the
Son of man came not to be ministered unto but to
minister and to give his life a ransom for many"-the
Spirit that dictated these words, dictated also the death
upon the Cross; and this Spirit has destroyed slavery and
will establish true socialisn1 upon earth.
" But this Spirit of Christ has never been fully obeyed
or even understood by His followers: even St, Paul does
not seem to have understood that Christianity was incom-
patible with slavery." You are quite right. The Spirit of
Christ has never yet been fully obeyed, and, when we thus
obey it, life will be heaven. Do you not see that your
objection ignores the fact that we are not yet in heaven,
and that Christianity is to be a gradual growth? Are you

3 28 THE RELIGION OF THE J\IASSES [Lefler 29

not a little like the child who sows his mustard-seed at
night and comes down next morning expecting to see
the great tree in which the birds of the air ought to have
built their nests? The important question is whether
the Christian Spirit so far as it has been obeyed, has
worked well.; so that we may trust it to lead us still fur-
ther forward into practical ameliorations of our existence,
whether individual or national. But to expect it to do
everything in eighteen hundred years, is to forget all the
teaching of history, astronomy, and geology, three voices
that unite in proclaiming that the Hand of God works
slowly.
And further, as to your objection that even St. Paul did
not realize the incompatibility between Christianity and
slavery, what fol1ows from that? Nothing I suppose
except a confirmation of the words in the Fourth Gospel,
that the followers of Christ must not depend entirely upon
St. Paul, but upon that Spirit which shall" guide us into
all truth." To my mind it is refreshing and delightful to
' confess-as I am sure St. Paul himself would have been
the first to confess-that he had not fully realized all the
consequences to which the Spirit of Christ would lead
posterity. I believe that St. Paul wished slaves to take
every lawful opportunity of becoming free, but that he
would by no means have encouraged slaves to run away
or to rise violently against their Inasters. I f he had en-
encouraged them, and if he had universally suc(eeded, he
would have caused the whole Elnpire, all civilized society,
to collapse at once. \Vas he wrong in not causing this? I
am not prepared to say so. I think he shewed more states-
manlike and Christian intuition in doing nothing of the
kind. But he did much. He had no slaves of his own,
you may be sure; he worked like a slave all night, that
he might preach all day; he bore fetters like a slave, and
was proud to call himself a slave for the sake of Christ;

Letter 29] THE RELIGION OF THE
iASSES 3 2 9

he inveighed against the spirit of slavery, declaring that
in Christ" there is neither bond nor free;" and on the only
occasion that we know of, when he had to mediate in a
practical way between an angry master and a runaway
slave, he sent the man back to his master without con-
ditions or stipulations, but with a letter that was equivalent
to an emancipation: "For perhaps he was therefore
parted from thee for a season that thou shouldest have him
for ever; no longer as a slave, but n10re than a slave, a
brother beloved, specially to me, but how much rather to
thee, both in the flesh and in the Lord. If then thou
countest me a partner, receive him as myself." Was not
this, practically and morally, more efficacious than if the
Apostle had fulminated against the master Philemon fiery
utterances about the rights of man and the incompatibility
between Christianity and slavery? \Vas not Onesimus more
sure of being emancipated by the quiet apostolic method?
\Yas not Philemon likely to feel a quickened sense of new
and higher duty when the Spirit of Christ was breathed
into his heart by these touching and affectionate words,
than if a Pauline edict had confronted him with a "Thou
shalt" and "Thou shalt not"? St. Paul's method has
been the method of the Spirit of Christ: for eighteen
centuries Christ has been saying to men, not" All slavery
is unlawful," but to each master about each individual
slave, " If then thou countest lYre a partner, receive him as
l\Iyself," Hence by degrees has been shaped a conviction
that slavery in itself is against the will of God.
But the destruction of slavery has not destroyed other
problems of life which still await their solution from
Christian socialism. \Vhen men cease to work from
the compulsion of a master, they either give up working,
or they work for some other motive-their own subsist-
ence, or their own comfort, luxury, avarice, ambition,
the mere pleasure and interest of work, or for the sake of

330 TIlE RELIGION OF THE l\IASSES [I cltel' 29

others. Are people to give up working? And, if they
work, which of these motives is to take the place of the
old bestial coercion which prevailed in the days of
slavery? These are the great questions of the present,
affecting the happiness, morality, and religion of the
whole human race. True Christians and true socialists
are here at one. " I f a man will not work, neither let hinl
eat " is their answer to the first fluestion ; and the more we
can cOlnbine to lnake the drone feel that he is out of place
in the hive, and that he must either confonn to the hive's
ways or betake hiInself elsewhither, the better will it be
1110rally, and therefore ultimately better in all respects,
for the inhabitants of the hive. As to the second ques-
tion, socialists and lnoralists agree that each must work
for the sake of others, and, as far as possible, for all.
To my mind, therefore, one of the most hopeful signs of
the tiInes is to be discerned in the spread of the higher
socialist spirit which protests against lnaking cOlnpetition
the basis of national prosperity. Disguise it as you may,
competition contains an ugly element which ,,-as clearly
brought out by its first eulogist, the practical agricultural
Hesiod, who tells us that there are two kinds of strife,
namely, war and competition. The latter, he says, is
good; for it rouses even the sluggard to action, when he
sees his neighbour hastening to wealth:

" - this strife is good for mortals,
And potter envietlt potter and carpenter carpenter."

This is the plain truth. Competition is always in danger
of producing" envy," and, when it is carried consistently
to its extreme-as where a large manufacturer under-
sells and ruins small 111anufacturers that he n1ay secure
a nlonopoly-it verges on that other kind of strife which
Hesiod has himself described as " blanleful ;" it becomes
a kind of war, and is lnanifestly unchristian. ChI istianity

Letter 29] THE RELIGION OF THE l\iASSES 331

might have been therefore expected to protest against it ;
but it has not done so: that task has been reserved for
the informal kind of Christianity called socialisill. But
very much 1110re than protest is needed. The problem of
competition and how to dispense with it--or how to re-
strain it while remedying its evils-is far lllore complex
than that of slavery. Some people regard it as an inhe-
rent law of hmllan society, a natural and continuous de\'e-
lopment of the law of the struggle for existence which
we have inherited fron1 our reillotest ancestry. Others,
while admitting this primæval origin, hope that, as pro-
gressive man has worked out from his nature n1uch else
of the baser element, so he may in time eliminate this
also. But, if any success is to be attained, all sorts of ex-
periments will have to be tried; all sorts of failures will
have to be encountered; and it may be that in the end
the Pauline method of dealing with slavery may be found
the best means of dealing with competition-not so much
protesting and fulminating, but the earnest, informal action
of individual enthusiaslll. Action like St. Paul's may
prepare the way for legislation; but, without change of
temper,lllere legislation cannot permanently help a people
to deal with a great social difficulty.
In the solution of the complicated problems presented
by competition, socialism, when severed from Christianity,
labours (1885) under most serious disadvantages, Ignoring
Christ, it reads amiss the whole of the history of the past
and is in danger of making terrible mistakes in the future.
Even where it avoids revolutionary extravagances, it is
tempted to trust far too much to force, moral if not physical
coercion, legislative enactments, and other shapes of what
St. Paul would call "Law." Looking up to no Leader in
heaven, it does not feel sufficiently sure of ultimate success.
" He that believeth," says the prophet, "shall not make
haste:" now socialism has no firm basis of belief and

332 THE RELIGION OF TIlE :l\IASSES [Ll'tt.r 29

therefore is disposed to "make haste," not always the
haste of energy, sometimes the spasmodic haste of self-
distrust and error, followed perhaps by dejection or in-
action. Its neglect of the true religion leads it into political
as well as religious mistakes. Taking too little account
of sentÌInents, imaginations, and associations, it aims
at a merely material prosperity which, if attained, would
leave the minds of n1en still vacant and craving more; and
besides, it proceeds by methods which excite alarm and
distrust in many well-wishers. The most serious evil of
all is that the leaders of the socialist movement, if they
themselves see no Leader above them, are actuated by no
sense of loyalty and affection such as Christians should
feel for Christ, and consequently are far more exposed to
the dangers arising from their own indiyidual weaknesses
and shortcomings. Their mainspring of action is a
passionate enthusiasm for poor toiling humanity: but how
if humanity shews itself to them at tin1es in its basest
aspects, ungrateful, suspicious, mean and shabby, timorous
and traitorous, quite unworthy of their devotion? Are they
to serve such a god as this? And it is a perishable god
too; for must not all things perish, and the earth itsc1f
become ultimately as vacant as the moon? For so vile a
master as this, then, are they to endure to be humiliated
and attacked by the rich and powerful, envied and slan-
dered by rival leaders, occasionally suspected even by
the very poor to whom they are giving their lives? In
moments of depression, when thoughts like these occur-
as occur they must--it is hard indeed for a leaderless
leader of men to refrain from flinging up his task, or
from continuing to pursue it out of mere shame of incon-
sistency, or mere love of occupation, excitement, and
power. \Vhen that change comes over the tribune of the
poor, all is over with him. His work is done, though he
may have done nothing. Outwardly such a man's conduct

Letter 29] THE RELIGIO
OF THE :l\IASSES 333

lnay be little changed, but inwardly his spirit is dead within
him. His religion-for it was a religion to him-is now
dead; and sooner or later his changed influence HUlst make
itself felt in an infection of deadness spreading through
the whole of the multitudes whom he once inspired.
I t is for these reasons that I look to a simpler form of
Christianity as the future religion of the masses; first
because I see that the most active religious forces of the
present day are already unconsciously following on the
lines traced by Christ's spirit; and secondly, because these
lnovements already exhibit a deficiency which the worship
of Christ alone can fill up.
The worship of Christ as the type and King of men
helps to solve the problems of the individual as well as
those of the nation. As long as human nature is what it
is, as long as friends and families are parted by death, as
long as the lnind is liable to be weighed down by depres-
sion, and the body to be racked by physical pain, so long
will there be hours when we shall all look upward and
- d emand some other consolation than the commonplace;
"These misfortunes are common to all." Stripped of all
myth and miracle, the life and death and triumph of Christ
convey to the simplest heart the simplest answer that can
be given to the irrepressible question, "\Vhence comes this
misery?" From the cross of Christ there is sent back to
each of us this answer, "\Ve know not fully; but our
Leader bore it, and gooJëame of it in the end." And
when we stand at the brink of the grave and ask, "What
is death? " again the answer comes back from the same
source, "\Ve know not fully; but He passed through it
and He still lives and reigns,"
But besides the powerful influence of religion in the
critical and exceptional moments of our lives, the influence
of Christ would come full of strength and blessing to the
working Inen of England even if they acknowledged Him,

334 TIlE RELIGIO
OF THE l\IASSES [letlcr 29

at first, in the most inarticulate of creeds, as the n1an
whom they admired most: H \Ve used to think that Christ
was a fiction of the priests; at all events not a man like
us in any way; a different sort of being altogether; one
who could do what he liked-so people said-and turn the
world upside down if he pleased: and then we could not
111ake him out at all. \Vhy, thought we, did he not turn
the world upside down and make it better. if he could? It
was all a mystery to us, But now we find he was a man
after all, like us; a poor working man, who had a heart
for the poor, and wanted to turn the world upside down,
but could not do it at once; and he \\"ent a strange way,
and a long way round, to do it; but he has come nearer
doing it, spite of his enemies, than any man we know; and
now that we understand this, we say-though we don't
understand it all or anything like it-' He is the n1an for
us,'" I say that even if this rudimentary feeling of
gratitude and admiration for their great Leader could
possess the hearts of English working men-and this is
surely not too much to expect-l11uch would come frOln
e"'.en this inadequate worship. And, for Inyself, I un-
hesitatingly declare that I would sooner be in the position
of a working man who doubts about Heaven and Hell and
even about God, but can say of Christ, " He is the l11an for
me," than I would be in the position of the well-to-do
manufacturer who is persuaded of the reality of Heaven
and Hell and of the truth of all the theology of the
Church of England, but can reconcile his religion with
the deliberate establishment of a colossal fortune on the
ruin of his fellow creatures.
But I do not believe that the feeling of the working man
for Jesus of Nazareth could long confine itself to admira-
tion. It is not so easy to make a happy nation or a happy
world as the working man thinks: and this he will soon
find out. \Yhen sanitation, education, culture, science,

Letter 29] THE RELIGION OF THE
IASSES 335

political rearrangements, enlargen1ents for the poor, and
restrictions for the rich, have all done their best and
failed-as they necessarily lTIUst fail, unless helped by
something more-then the working man will find what
that " something more" is, without which nothing effectual
can be done. Then he will perceive that, after all, unless
there is a spirit of mutual concession in classes and
individuals, no Acts of Parliament can ever be devised to
secure lasting prosperity and concord. Then he will
awaken to the fact that Jesus of Nazareth revealed and
exemplified that spirit of concession or self-sacrifice, and
that it was by this means that He went as far as He did
toward" turning the world upside down;" and so he will
be gradually led still further to see that the way which He
went was after all not such a very" long way round," but a
divine way, a way truly worthy of the Son of God. I
believe that the recognition of this single fact would go
further than even the recognition of the marvellous
phenomena which manifested the Resurrection of Christ,
to convince working men that the man who possessed this
sublime intuition into spiritual truth, and the perfect
unselfishness and self-control needful to give effect to his
plans for the raising up of mankind, must be no other than
the Son of God, The rest would follow. They would find
they had been all their lives on a wrong track in their
search after the divine reality; worshipping brute force
while protesting against it; bowing in their hearts to
pomp, and wealth, and high birth, even while they pro-
fessed to deride them; despising things familiar and near;
gaping in stupid servile admiration at things far and
unknown; yet all the time God was near them, an10ng
them, in them; the Spirit of God was none other than the
spirit of true socialism; the Son of God was none other
than the poor and lowly \V orkman of Nazareth.

APPENDIX

z

J.\n
ISTERIAL TESTS

339

APPENDIX

xxx

l\lv DEAR -,
Excuse Iny delay in answering your letter of las t
month. The fact is I have not so much leisure as I had.
I was glad indeed to hear frOln you (last Christmas, I think)
that you could not so lightly put away the worship and
service of Christ as you had felt disposed, or compelled
to do, some eighteen months before; that the question
appeared to you now a deeper one than you had then sup-
posed, not to be decided by mere historical evidence but,
to SOlne extent, by the experience of life; and that you
were inclined at least so far to take my advice as to \yait
a while, to stand in the old ways, and to adhere-so far as
you honestly could-to old religious habits, including the
habit of prayer and attendance at public worship. This
was as much as I could reasonably hope. I could not ex-
pect that a few letters from one who is quite conscious
that he does not possess the strange and sometimes instant-
aneous influence exerted by a strong religious character,
would do all that will, I trust, be done for you by patience,
by a prayerful and laborious life devoted to good objects,
and by cherishing habits of reverence for the good, and
of thoughtfulness for all. I had been in the habit of
regularly giving Iny Sundays, and occasionally some hours
Z 2

3-1- 0

l\IIXISTERL\L TESTS

[Lel/a- 30

on week days, to our theological correspondence: but
when I received that announcenlent from you, I felt that
IllY time nlight now be devoted to other objects, and I
made arrangements accordingly. Hence, when your
recent letter reached me, I was not quite at leisure to
reply to it immediately. But you pressed Ille to answer
" one last question," which I should rather call two ques-
tions (for they are quite distinct, although you cOlnbine
thenl so closely as to leave me uncertain whether you
recognize the wide difference between them): "Can a
man who rejects the miraculous element in the Bible
remain a nlember or a minister in the Church of
England? ;,
Your first question I should answer with an unhesitating
affirmative. The Church of England does not requirc
from its lay mcmbers any signature of the Articles or any
test but a profession of belief in the Creed at the time of
baptism, renewed in the CatechisITI and Confirmation
service; and I cannot think that any sinccrc worshipper
of Christ ought so far to take offence at onc or 1\'.TO cx-
pressions in the Creed-which may be interpreted by him
metaphorically, though by others literaIIy-as to separate
himself on that account from the national church. Grant
th3.t his interpretation may be a little strained, nay, grant
even that he is obliged to say "I cannot be1ie'"c this;"
yct I should doubt the necessity, or c,-en wisdOln and
rightness, of cutting hiIllself off from the Church of England
because of one or two clauscs in the Creed, as long as he
fcels himself in gencral harmony ,,-ith thc Church doctrine
and scrvices. There would be no end to schisms, and no
possibility of combining for worship, if evcry one scparatcd
himsclf fron1 every congregational uttcrance with which
hc could not heartilyagrce in cvery particular. On this
point I find myself obliged to rcmember for my 0"-11 sakc,
and to apply to myself, the ad, ice I once gave a very

Letter 30]

Ï\IIKISTERIAL TESTS

3--1-1

little child many years ago. \Ve were singing a hymn,
and had come to the words:

" Ah me, ah me, th3.t I
In Kedar. s tents here stay:
No place like that on high,
Lord, thither guide my way."

" I suppose," said the child (who was young but somewhat
old-fashioned in thought and expression), "that these words
lnean that you want to die, if they ll1ean anything. But
I don't want to die. So I don't think I ought to say
then1," In lny own n1ind I sympathized very ll1uch with
the objector; but I endeavoured to meet the objection.
., Hymns," I said, " are ,,'ritten not for single persons but
for congregations. In a whole churchful you will find all
sorts of people of different ages and ways of thinking.
Smne are glad and strong, others sad and weak. Some
rejoice in life and look forward eagerly to labour. These
are n10stly the young; but the older sort are sometimes
tired of life and longing for rest. N ow when we are sing-
ing a hymn we must all do our best, young and old, happy
and sad, to enter into one another's feelings, and we must
not expect that every word in eyery hymn will precisely
represent our own particular feelings at the n10lnent: the
time will perhaps COlne when the words that now seem
meaningless to us will exactly represent our deepest
feelings, and we shall wonder how we could have ever
failëd to feel them; but for the present we must not be
disposed always to be asking, 'Do I agree with this?
Do I exactly feel that?' Of course if it occurs to you
that these or those words are so opposite to what you
think, that you would be telling a lie to God in uttering
them, why then you n1ust not utter them: but you ought
not to suppose that in a church sen'ice God exacts from
you a rigid account for every word of the congregational
utterances in which you take p
ut: if you can heartily

.

3.1-2

IIXISTERL\L TESTS

[LelttT 30

Join in the greater part of the seryice, do not be afraid;
He accepts your prayers and praises." l\Iany years have
passed away sint:e I spoke thus: and, since then, I have
found myself often obliged to repeat to myself, for n1Y
own guidance, the advice which I then gave to guide
another. In a public sen-ice one Inust give and take,
and I see no reason at all why a believer in non-n1iracu-
lous Christianity should not find himself in harmony with
the services of the Church of England. His interpreta-
tion both of the Bible and of the Prayer-book will be
different frOln that of 1110st of the congregation; but he
will accept both the Bible and the Prayer-book as the
best books that could be used for their several purposes,
and would be sorry to see them replaced by anything that
could be devised by hÌ1nself or by those who think as
he does.
So far I can speak confidently; but I am more doubtful
as to the answer that should be given to your second
question, " Can a believer in non-n1iraculous Christianity
remain a minister in the Church of England?" Looking
at the Articles, if I were forced to assume that everyone
of them is binding on a Church of England Ininister, I
should say that a belief in the lniraculous is necessary for
everyone who can honestly sign an assent to the Article
on Christ's Resurrection, which asserts that, " Christ did
truly rise again frOln death, and took again H is body with
flesh, bones, and all things appertaining to the perfection
of man's nature, wherewith He ascended into heaven."
These words distinctly declare the Resurrection of
Christ's material body; and as I do not bclieve in
the fact, 1 cannot assent to the words, nor do I see how
any believer in non-n1iraculous Christianity can assent
to them.
Perhaps you n1ay think, in your innocence, that this
disposes of the question, arguing logically thus: "The

Letter 30]

)Il
ISTERL\L TESTS

343

Church of England appoints certain Articles as tests of
belief for her nlinisters; A cannot assent to one of these
Articles; therefore A has no right to remain a Ininister :
there is no loophole out of this logical statement of the
case." There is not: and if the Church of England were
governed in accordance with logic, I (and a good 111any
others) ought to have left the ranks of her ministers as
soon as we found that we had been forced to reject a
single clause of a single Article. But the Church has not
been for several generations governed in this logical way.
Besides practically and generally allowing anlong its
11lembers a great degree of freedom and latitude, it has
enlarged that latitude during the last generation by a
specific and authoritative alteration of the terms of sub-
scription to the Articles. \Vhen I signed them-which I
did, with perfect honesty and sincerity, sonle three or four
and twenty years ago -we were obliged to "assent and
consent" to " each and every" Article in each particular:
I forget the exact terms, but I know they were as stringent
as they well could be. But in 1865 the Clerical Sub-
scription Act introduced a new form :-" I assent to the
Thirty-nine Articles of Religion and to the Book of Com-
Inon Prayer. . . . I believe the doctrine of the Church of
England as therein set forth to be agreeable to the \V ord
of God." J:\ ow if "therein" Ineant "in each and every
clause of each and every Article," that would have been
tantatnount to a nlere repetition of the old requirelllent.
Obviously therefore this alteration implies an obligation
of the subscriber to assent, no longer to "each and every
Article" in particular, but to the Articles as a ,,-hole,
regarded as an expression of Anglican doctrine. Conse-
quently, at present, the necessity of subscription need not
repel anyone unless he finds himself unable to accept
H the doctrine of the Church of England as set forth,"
not in detail, but generally, in the Articles and the

344

l\IIXISTERL\L TESTS

[Letter 30

Prayer-book; and I. need not say that a believer in non-
miraculous Christianity by no nleans occupies a position
of such dissent as this.
The only obstacle therefore for a scrupulous minister
will be in the services of the Church and in the reading
of the Bible: and here I admit that there is a very con-
siderable obstacle, though it appears to nle to be less than
it was a dozen years ago, and each year lessens it still
further. The difficulty lies, not in the scepticisnl of the
minister (who may be a more faithful worshipper of
Christ than anyone in his fI02k) nor in any congregational
suspicion or alarm (for his advanced views lie quite
beyond the horizon of the thoughts of any country con-
gregation, and any but an exceptional congregation else-
where) but almost entirely in the minister's own uneasy
sense of a difference between hilTIself and his people; in
his fear that he may be acting hypocritically; in his
consequent loss of self-respect; and in a resulting denlo-
ralization affecting all his work.
Clearly this is a difficulty which would be diminished,
if not altogether removed, by publicity; but as long as it
is not publicly recognized that widely different interpreta-
tions of the Scripture are possible and compatible with
the worship of Christ, the difficulty is a very serious one.
\Vhenever such a man reads the Bible in the discharge
of his public duty, he is liable to be haunted with the con-
sciousness that he is two-faced. He conveys to his con-
gregation an obvious meaning and they assume "that he
accepts that meaning himself; but he does not. Suppose,
for example, he reads the story of the battle of l3eth-
horon: his congregation believes that it is listening to the
most stupendous ll1iracle that the world has witnessed;
the minister believes that he is reading an account of one
of the twenty, or more, decisive battles of history. Simi-
larly, in the New Test3.ment, if he reads the narrative of

Letter 30]

:MINISTERIAL TESTS

3-1-5

the feeding of the 4,000 or 5,000, he reads it as a religious
legend, curiously preserving a deep spiritual truth, but of
no value except for its emblelnatic nleaning; but his con-
gregation listens to him as if he were reciting one of the
1110st Ünportant proofs that Jesus was no mere ll1an, but
truly the Son of God. I do not wish to exaggerate the
difference between the rationaJizing 111inister and the
literalizing congregation. Both he and they believe that
in the battle of Beth-horon God was working out the
destiny of Israel and preparing for Himself a chosen
people; both he and they believe that Jesus Christ was
the true Bread of Life; and sin1ilarly, as regards nlany
other miraculous narratives of the Scriptures, the con-
gregation and the n1inister, though divided as to the
acceptance of the historical fact, will be united in ac-
cepting the spiritual interpretation which is the essence
of the narrative. l\Ioreover, every year is probably in-
creasing the number of the laity who take the saIne
esoteric view as the lninister takes about lnany of the
miracles. In any educated congregation there must
be a large number of lnen, and there will soon be a large
nmnber of WOlnen, who do not believe in the literal
stories of Balaan1" s ass, Elisha's floating axe-head, and
Salnson's exploit with the jaw-bone. Unless educated
people are kept out of our churches, or separate theln-
selves frOln the Church, this nmnber lnust soon increase.
Thus the gulf between the rationalizing 111inister and the
congregation tends yearly to dÌ1ninish through the action
of the congregation; and if only both the esoteric and
the exoteric interpretation of the Scripture were generally
recognized as being compatible with the faithful worship
of Christ, I do not see why the lninister should not
clailn for himself, without any sense of constraint or
insincerity, the same freedon1 of interpreting the Bible
which is accorded to tl
e laity.

34 6

1\IINISTERL\L TESTS

[Letter 30

There still remains ho\\-ever the clause in the Creed
stating the l\Iiraculous Conception, which to lne appears
the greatest difficulty of all. It is one thing, in lny judg-
Inent, to repeat the prayers of the Church and to read
passages from the sacred books of the Church, as the
1110uthpiece of the congregation, and rather a different
thing to stand up and say-not only as the lnouthpiece
of the congregation, but in your individual character, as a
Christian, and as a priest as \\"ell-" I believe this, or
that," and to take nloney for so saying; while all the time
you are saying under your breath, " But I only believe it
metaphorically,:' Here, again, my scruples would be
relno\'ed, if it were only generally understood that the
Inetaphorical interpretation was possible and pennissible.
As regards the Athanasian Creed, for exmnple, I should
have no scruples at all. For the tone and spirit, as well
as for the phraseology, of that Greed, I feel the strongest
aversion. Yet I should repeat it as the mouthpiece of
the congregation without any hesitation, because they
would all know that the Church of England, so far as it
can speak through the archbishops and bishops, has
signified that the repulsive clauses in the Creed nlay all
be so explained as practically to be explained away. I
do not in the least believe that this lnild interpretation of
the damnatory clauses explains their original lneaning;
but that lnatters little or nothing. Provided there be no
suspicion of insincerity, I aln willing to lnake considerable
sacrifices of personal convictions in so c01nplex a rite as
congregational worship, The clergYlnan whom I most
respect has not read the Athanasian Creed for thirty
years: for my own sake, as a participator in the worship
of his church, I rejoice; but all my respect for him did
not prevent lne fr0111 doubting sometimes whether he was
right in this matter, until I found that his action had
been prompted by an expression of feeling on the part of

Letter 30]

l\II
ISTERIAL TESTS

347

some representative members of his congregation. For
if one clergyman is justified in omitting the Athanasian
Creed whenever he likes, I do not see why another is not
justified in reading it whenever he likes: the liberty of the
clergy might easily become the slavery of the laity. I
should therefore be ready to read the repugnant Athan-
asian Creed because every member of my congregation
would know (and I should feel justified in letting them
know from the pulpit) that I read it in obedience to the
law and in spite of my convictions. But I am not so
ready, at present, to read the Apostles' Creed or Nicene
Creed, although I cordially accept them except so far as
concerns the one word which expresses the 1Yliraculous
Conception. 1\1 y reason is, that I should not like to
leave my congregation under the impression that lac...
cepted that dogma, and on the other hand I should not
feel justified in using a pulpit of the National Church
to explain why I rejected it.
Here again, as in the previous instance, I feel that tÍ1nes
are rapidly changing, and the freedOlll of ministers in the
Church of England is rapidly increasing. For scruples as
to the use of the Creeds, no less than for scruples as to the
reading of the Scriptures, publicity is the chief remedy
wanting to dissipate scruples: and time is on the side of
freedOlll. Belief in miracles now rests on an inclined
plane; friction is daily lessening, the downward motion is
rapidly increasing; in a few lllore years the authorities of
the Church of England may recognize, not with reluctance
but with delight, that there are some young men who
know enough of Greek, and of history, and of evidence,
to be convinced that the llliracles are unhistorical, and
who, nevertheless, are worshippers of Christ on conviction,
with a faith not to be shaken by anything that science
or criticism can discover, and with a readiness to serve
Christ, as ministers in the English Church, if they can do

34 8

l\IIXISTERIAL TESTS

[Letter 30

so without sacrifice of their opinions and without suspicion
of insincerity.
Personally, I have not felt these scruples very acutely.
Circumstances have placed me where nothing has been
required of me which might not haye been done as well
by a Nonconformist as by a meInber of the Church of
England. To help a friend, or do occasional work in an
unofficial way, has never caused me the least Inisgiving;
for I have always remained in cordial accord with the
forms of worship current in the Church of England. The
only difference that my views have Inade in Iny clerical
action has been this, that I ha \'e preferred for a tilne not
to place Inyself in any position where ministerial work
might officially be required of Ine. Yet even these
scruples haye been doubtfully entertained, and would
vanish altogether if ever I were to publish a volume of
such letters as I am now writing to you, so that I could
be sure that nlY opinions were no secret frOlTI my Bishop
and frOln such Inembers of my congregation as were likely
to understand theln.
The advice which I have given to Inyself, I should
also be inclined to give to others who are already ministers
in the Church of England, and who have scruples of con-
science in consequence of some divergence from orthodo:'\.
views: "Stay where you are, as long as you feel that
you can sincerely worship Christ as the Eternal Son of
God, and as long as you can preach a gospel of faith
and strength, not only frOlTI the pulpit but also by the
bedside of" the dying. If you can do this, you Ina)'
stay, though you are obliged to interpret Inetaphorically
some expressions in the Creed. If you cannot do this,
go at once, even though you can accept e\'ery syllable
in aU the Creeds in the most literal sense,"
To young Inen who have not yet been ordained and
who incline to "rational" views of Christianity, I have

Letla' 30]

IIKISTERL\L TESTS

3-l<J

been disposed hitherto to give different advice: "\Vait
a while. The fashion of men's opinion is rapidly changing;
the excessive fear of science on the part of the Clergy-
lnany of whon1 come from Public Schools where they have
received no training in the rudiments of science or
mathematics-is, strange to say, predisposing all but ex-
treme High Churchmen to welcome the adhesion of any
who are firm believers in Christ, even though they may
doubt or reject the miracles. It would be a lniserable
thing to be ordained, and to undertake the task of preach-
ing a doctrine implying the highest conceivable morality,
and presently to find yourself condelnned by those to
"hom you should be an example' as well as an instructor,
for what appears to them patent insincerity-conden1ned
by others, and perhaps not wholly acquitted by yourself.
In a few years you may perhaps find it possible to be or-
dained not upon tolerance but with a hearty reception, and
then there need be no concealment of your opinions."
Such is the language that I have hitherto used on the
very fey occasions when I have been consulted, generally
advising delay, But now I am inclined to think that the
time has come when young men with these opinions ought
not to wait, but ought at least to set their case before the
Eishops, lea\Ting it to theln to accept or refuse then1 as
candidates for ordination. Schisms and prosecutions are
very objectionable things, but there are worse evils even
than these. There is the danger of hypocrisy, spreading,
like an infection, from oneself to others. The hour has
perhaps COlne for authorizing or condemning the extrelne
freedom of opinion which some of the Broad Churchmen
ha ve assumed. Proverbs and texts lnight be quoted in
equal abundance to justify action or inaction in the ab-
stract; but two important practical considerations appear
to me to dictate some kind of action without delay.
On the one hand, we hear the complaint that the ablest

35 0

::\IIXISTERL\L TESTS

[Leller 30

and most conscientious men are deterred by scruples from
entering the ministry in the Church of England, e,'en
when they feel a strong bent for clerical work. If this
scarcity of able candidates for ordination continues for
lnany more years, we shall have bad times in store for us.
Already I think I have noted, among SOlne ministers who
are conscious of but little intellectual and not much lnore
spiritual power, a disposition unduly to lnagnify their
office, the ritual: the lnechanical use of the sacraments,
parochial lnachinery, processions, sensational hYlnns,
church salvation-armies, and church-routine generally,
because they feel they have no evangelic n1essage of their
own, no individual inspiration. In some degree, such a
subordination of self is good and may argue modesty;
but in lnany cases it is not good, when it leads young lnen
to materialize and sensualize religion, to suppose that the
preaching of Christ's Gospel and the elevation of the souls
of men can be effected by ecclesiastical battalion drill; to
dispense with study, thought, and observation; to acquiesce
in the letter of the collected dogmas of the past, and to
hope for no new spiritual truth frOln the progress of the
ages controlled by the ever fresh revelations of the Spirit
of God,
On the other hand, there is the opposite evil, on which
I have already touched-l mean the danger that some of
the more intellectual among the clergy, those who do not
sympathize with sacerdotalism and are popularly reckoned
among the" Broad Church," may not only be suspected
of insincerity in professing to belie,'e what they, as a fact,
disbelieve, but may also become actually demoralized by
self-suspicions and hence indirectly demoralize their con-
gregations. I confess my sympathies are very lnuch with
a man in that position. He has been sOlnetimes the victin1
of cruel circumstances. In his youth, the religious prob-
lems of the present day lay all in the background. Before

Letter 30]

l\n
ISTERIAL TESTS

35 1

he was ordained, he may yery well haye discerned no
difficulties at all in the career before hiln, nothing but
the prospect of a noble work, to which he felt himself
called. His life was probably spent in a public boarding-
school, where he scarcely ever had a minute to himself
for thought and meditation; it being the ideal of the
educator so to engross the time and energy of each pupil
in studies or in games that the average youth lnight be
kept out of moral mischief and the clever youth might get
a scholarship at Oxford or Cambridge. \Vhen he came
to the University he found himself expected to de\Tote
himself to "reading for a degree," and there was little or
no time for theology; after taking his degree he found
himself under the necessity of earning his living, and if
he was intending to become a clergyman he naturally
desired to be ordained as soon as possible. I f he was very
fortunate, he may have contrived (as I did) to get a year's
reading at theology while he supported himself by taking
pupils; but that was probably the utmost of his prepara-
tion. Soon after reaching his twenty-third year he was
ordained. And now, for the first tÎ1ne, leaving school and
college, he begins to realize what life means, and to think
for himself. Can we wonder that this "thinking for
himself" produces considerable changes of thought? If
he is healthy, and active in his parish, and has not much
tilne for reflection and reading, the changes will be long
deferred, and he will be scarcely conscious of them: but
if he has any mind at all in him, and gives it the least
exercise, it is hardly possible that an able and honest
student of the Bible at the age of forty-six, when he comes
to compare the opinions of his manhood with those of his
youth, will not find that he has ceased to believe, or at all
events to be certain of, the historical accuracy of a good
deal which he accepted with unquestioning confidence at
the age of twenty-three.

35 2

l\IIXISTERL\L TESTS

[Letter 30

Changes of this kind are inevitable, and they ought not
to be fearcd. Yet perhaps the fear of them dctcrs some
of the Inore thoughtful young Inen from presenting them-
selves for ordination. They know that they belicve in
such and such facts now, but, say thcy, " l\Iany sincere
and thoughtful persons dispute the truth of these facts;
and what will be Iny position some ten years hence if I find
that I am drivcn to deny what I now affirm? " \Vhat
one would like to be able to reply, in answer to such an
appeal, would be, that the worship of Christ does not
depend upon the truth of a few isolated and disputable
pieces of evidence, but upon the testimony of the con-
science based upon indisputable (though complex) evi-
dence; so that, if the man's conscience remains the same,
he need not fear lest the fundamental principles of his
faith will be shaken by any historical or scientific criticism.
Fron1 the terrestrial point of view, Christ is human
nature at its divinest. \Vhocver therefore in the highest
degree loves and trusts and reveres hum.an nature at its
divinest, he naturally worships a representation of Christ,
even though he Inay never have heard of the name.
N ow life will bring a young n1an Inany disappointInents
and disillusions and paradoxes: but no one, who has
once worshipped Christ in this natural way, need fear (or
hope ?) that life will ever bring him anything more worthy
of representing hU111al1 nature at its divinest, anything
therefore n10re worthy of worship, than Jesus of Nazareth.
The only danger is, that one Inay cease to be able to lo\"e
and trust and revere the objects that deserve these feelings.
There is indeed that danger, just as there is the danger
that one 111ay cease to be able to bc honest. But what
young man, in mapping out his future, would make in-
surance against such a moral paralysis? A man ought
no Inore-a man ought still less-to contemplate the
possibility of becoming unablc to worship Christ, than

Lettc:r 30]

MINISTERIAL TESTS

353

the possibility of becoming unable to revere a kind father
or love affectionate children. If then our candidate for
ordination regards Christ in this spirit, one would like to
encourage him to present himself for ordination even
though he may already doubt the Biblical narrative
on some points, and though he may be pretty certain
that he will change his lllind on lllany others by
the time he is twice as old as he is now. However it
rests very llluch with Bishops to settle this question; and
the question as to what the Bishops might do is so
important as to demand a separate letter.

P.S, Since writing the above remarks about the reluct-
ance of the ablest men at the Universities to be ordained,
I have been told that the state of things is even worse than
I had conceived at Cambridge. There, at the two largest
colleges, Trinity and St. John's, I am told that of the
Fellows who took their degrees between 1873-9 only eight,
out of sixty or thereabouts, took holy orders; and of those
who took degrees between 1880-6, only three out of sixty.
Trinity is conspicuous; of the sixty Fellows \\Tho took
degrees frOlll 1873-86 only two have been ordained.

AA

354 'YHAT THE BISHOPS
IIGIIT DO

XXXI

l\lv DEAR -,
I reminded you in my last letter that ordination or
non-ordination must largely depend upon the judgment of
the Bishops. This, I suppose, Inust have always been the
case to some e'l:.tent : but there are reasons why it may
well be so now to a greater extent than before. The
important change made in the form of subscription to the
Thirty-nine Articles has supplied a solid and definite
ground upon which the Bishops may fairly claim to
ascertain from candidates for ordination some details
about their religious opinions. In the times when candi-
dates had to assent to every point in every Article, no
further exmnination was necessary: but now that the
candidate is allowed (by implication) to dissent from SOll1e
things in the Articles, the Bishop may surely, without
any inquisitorial oppression, say: "Before I ordain you,
I should like to know, in a general way, how far your
dissent from the Articles extends." Some Bishops may
be inclined to shrink from such an interrogation, as
though it implied doubt of the candidate's sincerity: and
of course such an examination Inight be abused in a
narrow or bigoted or even tyrannical manner. But on the
whole, I think, it might be even more useful as a pro-
tection and help to the young candidate than to the
Bishop. Here and there, perhaps, a young Inan might
be advised to give up, or defer, the prospect of ordination;
but others (who would have otherwise been deterred

Leller 31] 'VII.-\. T THE BISHOPS :MIGHT DO 355

by scruples) might be encouraged to be ordained in spite
of some intellectual difficulties; and this fatherly encour-
agement from a man of authority and experience would be
a great help and comfort, strengthening the young man in
the conviction that mere intellectual difficulties could not
interfere with his faith in Christ. Still lTIOre valuable
would be the young man's consciousness that he could
not be called insincere or hypocritical, since he had con-
cealed nothing from the Bishop, who, after hearing all,
had decided that there was nothing to exclude him fron1
ordination.
I would therefore advise any man who desired to be
ordained but was deterred by present scruples or the fear
of future scruples, to write at an early period to the Bishop
at whose hands he would be likely to seek ordination,
st ating
_ difficulties frankly an d full y, and a sking
w h ether they would be considered an impediment. If he
felt any touch of doubt on the subject of the miracles, I
would have him make them the subject of a special
question. In some dioceses I should expect the answer
to be unfavourable. From others perhaps the answer
would come that the Bishop was" unwilling to undertake
so heavy a responsibility; each man must decide for
himself whether. he can honestly read the services of the
Church and the lessons from the Scriptures without
believing in miracles." That answer would be, in my
judgment, regrettable, though not unnatural or indefen-
sible. But even that ans\ver would be of value, as it
would be a record that, at all events, the Bishop had not
been kept in ignorance of anything that the candidate
ought to have revealed to him: and this in itself would be
of great value in lightening for a scrupulous and self-
introspective young man the burden of the questions
which might sometimes arise in his mind as he read
aloud in the congregation the words of the Bible or tbe
A A 2

35 6 \VHAT THE BISHOPS
IIGHT DO [Letter 31

Prayer-book. lVloreover, I should anticipate that every year
would see an increase in the number of those dioceses
from which a still more favourable answer might be
returned: "If with all your heart you worship Christ as
the Eternal Son of God, if you can honestly and sincerely
accept the Church services as excellent (though imperfect)
expressions of congregational ,yorship ; and the Scriptures
as super-excellent (though imperfect) expressions of spiri-
tual fact; if you feel that you have a message of good
news for the poor and simple as well as for the rich and
educated, and that you can preach the spiritual truths
which you and all of us recognize to be the essence of
the Gospel, without attacking those material shapes in
which, for many generations to come, all spiritual truths
lnust find expression for the vast majority of Christians,
then I can encourage you to come to the n1inistry of Christ.
I Inyself am of the old school and believe in the miracles,
or if not in all, at all events in most; but I recognize that
this belief-though to nle it seems safer and desirable-is
not essential: come therefore to the ministry, with the
llliracles if you can, without thell1 if you cannot."
Here indeed is a reasonable criterion of fitness for
ordination: and if a man cannot satisfy this, I do not
see how he can complain of being excluded. But no
other criterion seelns likely to be pernlanently tenable.
For imagine yourself to be a Bishop, trying to lay down
some short, precise, and convenient test, as regards the
belief in the Iniraculous: where are you to draw the line?
A young man, eminently fit in all respects for n1inisterial
work, comes to you and says that he accepts all the
lniracles but one; he cannot bring himself to believe that
Joshua stopped the 1110Veinent of the sun (or earth).
\Vhat are you to do? Reject him? Surely not: not
even though you were Canon Liddon, raised (as I hope he
will be raised) to the episcopal bench, The Universities

Letter 31] \VI-IAT THE BISHOPS :MIGHT DO 357

would join in protest against your bigotry; the whole
of educated society would secede from the Church on
such conditions: the masses of non-Christian and semi-
Christian working men would cry out that such a rejection
was a portent of tyranny, and that the men who could
accept adlnission to the priesthood on such terms as these
were no better than superstitious dolts and slaves,
creatures to be suppressed in a free country! \Vell,
then, you adlnit him: will you reject his younger brother
next year, who finds that he cannot accept the miracle of
Balaam's ass speaking with a human voice? Certainly
you will admit him too, And now where are you to
stop? If you adn1Ït a man who denies two 111iracles, will
you accept a man who denies a third, say, the Iniracle of
Elisha's floating axe-head? And if three, why not four?
why not five? and so on to the end of the list?
Again, a man comes to you and says that he feels
obliged to reject as an interpolation-although willing to
read then1 as part of an erroneous but long cherished
tradition-the well-known words at the end of the Lord's
Prayer, "for thine is the kingdom, the power and the
glory, for ever and ever:" what will you do to him?
Refuse him? Surely not. The Revisers of the New
Testalnent have themselves rejected the addition, and
I am quite sure no scholar who valued God's \V ord, and
certainly no Bishop, would wish to reject a Ulan for pre-
ferring the N ew Version of the Bible to the Old. But, if
you adn1it him, what are you to say to his companion,
who rejects also the last twelve verses of St. :Mark's
Gospel? In my opinion, a nlan must be, Hellenistically
speaking, an "idiot,"-a Greek "idiot," what the Greeks
call idiotès-to believe in their genuineness. But even
though you, being a busy Bishop, may have forgotten a
good deal of Greek, you cannot forget the decision of the
Revisers. For here again the Revisers are on the young

35 8 'VIlA T THE BISHOPS l\HGHT DO [Letter 3 1

man's side. They have printed this passage as a kind of
Appendix, placing an interval between it and the Gospel,
and appending this note: "The two oldest Greek l\lSS.
and some older authorities, omit from verse 9 to the end.
Some other authorities have a different ending to the
Gospel." Now if you admit the rejecter of these two
passages, will you refuse his companion, who tells you
he is compelled to agree with the Revisers also as to a
third passage, John vii. 53-viii. I I, where the Revised
Version brackets several verses, adding this note, " 1\lost
of the ancient authorities omit John vii. 53-viii. I I.
Those which contain it vary nluch from each other
'?
You must certainly accept him. But if you accept him,
what are you to say to young men who go further and
reject whole books of the New Testament, for example,
the Second Epistle of St. Peter; the genuineness of
which has been impeached by a great consent of autho-
rities, and concerning which Canon \\7 estcott says that it
is the "one exception" to the statement that the com-
bined canons of the Eastern and \Vestern Churches would
produce "a perfect New Testament"? And if we let
hiln pass, under Canon \Vestcott's wing, how shall we
deal with the next candidate, who reminds us that
Luther rejected the Apocalypse and the Epistle of St.
J ames, and declares that he cannot help agreeing with
Luther? \Vhat lastly is to be the fate of those who a,'ow
that they cannot shut their eyes to the traces, e,'cn in the
Synoptic Gospels, of considerable interpolations or late
lraditions, especially in those portions which contain
miraculous narrative? Perhaps we might feel inclined
to say, "\Ve will take our stand Qn \Vestcott and Hort's
text, or on the text of the Revised Version, and will
refuse any candidate who rejects a word of the K ew
Testamcnt that is contained in either of these texts; the
lin..: J.ilast be drawn somewhere. and we will draw it there."

Letter 31] vYHAT THE BISHOPS MIGHT DO 359

What ! Shall we reject a candidate for ordination because
he does not accept the Gospel according to Westcott
and Hort, or the Gospel according to an unauthorized
though scholarly knot of men called the Revisers?
Impossible! all Christendom would cry shame upon us.
On the whole, we seem driven to the conclusion
that no candidate for Anglican ordination can be reason-
ably rejected for believing that parts of the Bible are
spurious or un-historical, provided that he is willing
to read in the presence of the congregation the portions
of Scripture appointed by the Church.
If the test of miracles fails, and if the test of an in-
fallible book fails, so too does failure await the test of
an infallible Creed. It would be, at all events, departing
strangely from the spirit of the Reformers and from the
spirit of the Articles, to allow men laxity as regards the
interpretation of the Scriptures, which are regarded as
specially inspired, and yet to pin them to the letter of the
Creeds, which are regarded as being authoritative because
they are based on the Scriptures. If a candidate were to
tell you, his Bishop, that "he accepted the Resurrection
of Christ, and even of Christ's body, but that he could not
honestly say that Christ rose on the third day; for Christ
was buried on the evening of Friday, and rose early on
the morning of Sunday, that is to say, on the second day,"
you would perhaps reason with him, and say that it was
the Jewish way of reckoning; and if he were then to
reply to you that to the greater part of the congregation
this way of reckoning was unknown, and that the phrase
might therefore convey a false impression-what would
you say to this ultra-conscientious young man? This
probably: that" the Creeds of Christendom could not be
disturbed on account of the eccentricities of well-meaning
individuals; that, if this was his only obstacle, you, his
Bishop, could take upon yourself to justify him in repeating

3 60 \YHA T THE BISHOPS
IIGHT DO [Leite? 3 1

these words as the mouthpiece of the congregation;
that it was quite open to hin1 to explain the true meaning
of the words from the pulpit; and that little misunder-
standings of this kind, if indeed there was danger of any,
were insignificant as compared with belief in the essential
fact that Jesus rose from the dead."
\Vhen the young man goes out-probably satisfied, un-
less he is very obstinate, and you a little impatient-let
us suppose that another man comes in, with a different
objection to the same clause. He accepts the essential
fact that Jesus rose from the dead, and he does not object
to the words, "the third day," but he does not believe
that the material body of Jesus rose from the tomb. He
believes that Jesus Himself, that is to say, His spirit,
rose from the dead, and that He Inanifested Himself to
His disciples in a spiritual body, which, in accordance
with some law of our human spiritual nature, was mani-
fested to those, and only to those, who loved Him or
believed in Him.! This is a more serious objection by
far: for you have to consider, first, whether the young
man is likely to hold fast his belief in the spiritual
Resurrection of Jesus, when based on such evidence as
-this; and secondly whether he can preach the Gospel of
the risen Saviour without raising all sorts of questions
and difficulties in minds unprepared to grapple with them.
At this point, then, I cannot blame your episcopal judg-
ment if you take time to decide, and if, before deciding,
you do your best to ascertain what manner of Inan you
have to deal with, and, in particular, whether his stability
is equal to his ability. "Doubts and difficulties" may
sometimes betoken, not so much a l11ind that thinks for
itself, as a disposition to affect singularity and to strain
after constant novelty. But if you are satisfied on this
point, I think you would do well to admit hiln to ordina-
I For the apparent exception of St, Paul, see above) p. 2-44-

Letter 31] \VHA T THE BISHOPS l\IIGIIT DO 361

tion. I would not exclude frOlTI the ministry anyone who
can conscientiously worship Christ in accordance with
the services of the Church of England, and preach the
Gospel without shaking the faith of the masses,
Perhaps I shall seem to you (not now in the temporary
episcopal capacity which you have occupied during the
last few paragraphs, but as plain ---) very illiberal
in excluding from the broad boundaries of the National
Church those who are unable to worship Christ. But I
am not prepared to alter the N icene Creed or the Church
Services; and if I could not worship Christ, I cannot
think that I nlyself should desire to be included in the
Church of England, as long as that Creed and the Church
Services relnained in use. For how could I offer prayer
to Jesus? or say, in any sense, "I believe in Jesus
Christ, God of God, Light of Light, yery God of very
God" ? No plea of metaphor would ever enable me to
repeat these words with any honesty, as long as I found
myself unable to worship Christ. I confess to a secret
feeling that many of those who at the present time think
they do not worship Christ, do in reality worship Him;
and I have good hopes that some of them may, in time,
when they search out their deepest feelings, find out that
they have long been unconsciously worshipping Him, and
that they can accept, with a spiritual interpretation, some
things that have hitherto appeared to thenl inadmissible. 1
But to demand that the Creeds and Church Services may
be remoulded, is a very different thing from asking to
be allowed to put a metaphorical interpretation on one or

1 You should look at a most interesting and instructive article by Dr.
Martineau in the Christiall R if(l rille r (vol. i. p. 78), in which he points out
that, in a certain sense, the faith professed by Trinitarians" in the Son, is
so far from being an idolatry, that it is identical, under change of name,
with the Unitarian worship of Him who dwelt in Christ. He who is the Son
in one creed is the Father in the other; and the two are agreed. not indeed
by any means througllout, but in that which consliLUtes the pith and kernel
of both faiths. " .

'I

362 \VIlA T THE BISHOPS
IIGHT DO [Letter 31

two phrases in them. \Vhen Parochial Councils are estab-
lished, it may be found ultimately possible to give some
larger latitude in the modification or multiplication of
Services so as to make them more inclusive: but, after
all, congregations meet for worship. not for the sake of
being liberal and inclusive; and the inclusion of non-
worshippers of Christ can hardly be demanded from a
Church that worships Christ. N or must the inclusion
of " advanced thinkers" be carried to such an extent as
to exclude the great mass of ordinary believers.
I IllY self, deeply though I sympathize in all essential
matters with the Church of England, should neverthe-
less be willing not only to be excluded from it, but
also to see excluded all who may take the saIne views
as I take, rather than that the simple faith in Christ
entertained by the great body of Christians should be
injured by the prelnature disruption of those n1aterial
beliefs and integumentary illusions with which, at present,
their spiritual beliefs are inseparably connected. And
this brings me to another side of the question. If I were
publishing an appeal to the Bishops, I should certainly
add an appeal to the younger Broad Church clergy.
It ought not to be asking too much fron1 a young
preacher who is an " advanced thinker," to remember that
some reverence is due to the simpler members of his
flock. !'vIany of those whom he authoritatively instructs are
older, wiser at present, of larger experience in life, some
of them perhaps more spiritually minded, than he is.
What if their deepest and most cherished religious con-
victions, right in the main, are tied to certain expressions
and narratives that Inay not be historically accurate?
Does it follow that their feelings are to be outraged
at any moment by assaults upon the ancient forms
and expressions of their belief from the lips of a young
nlan who professes to accept these forms, and takes the

Letter 31] \VHA T THE BISHOPS
nGHT DO 3 6 3

money of the Church for accepting them? Such attacks
upon the forms are at present worse than useless, because
they are sure to be construed into attacks upon the
spirit. In time a change will come, and even now a
minister may do something to prepare the way for the
change. He may institute Bible lectures to which he
may invite the attendance of those alone who wish to
study the Bible critically, and those whose reading and
attainments qualify them to criticize, or to follow criticism.
But, from the pulpit, lnatter of this kind should be
altogether excluded.
N or need the preacher fear lest such restriction should
shackle his liberty and take the life out of his sermons.
I n almost every case one in variable rule can be laid
down which will give ample scope to hÎln and no offence
to his hearers: "Always preach what you believe to be
true, and never go out of your way in order to attack
what you believe to be untrue." For example, your flock
believes that Christ's body (the tangible body) was raised
from the grave; you do not. \Vell then, do not attack
their material belief; but preach your spiritual belief.
Teach them that Christ's Resurrection implies a real
though invisible triumph over the invisible enemy death;
a real, though invisible, sitting at the right hand of God;
a real, though invisible, presence in the heart of every
one who loves and trusts Him. Thus you may teach the
habit of reverence, simultaneously with the habit of
inquiry; a love of the old forms, con1bined with a still
deeper love of the new truths that may be discovered
beneath them; thus you will not shake the faith of a
single child; you will be impressing upon all alike un-
adulterated, precious truth without sacrificing a tittle of
your own convictions; and at tbe same time you win be.
insensibly preparing the younger portion of your flock
to detach the material part of their belief from the

3 6 4 'YHA T TIlE BISHOPS l\IIG lIT DO [Leiter 3 I

spiritual, and to retain the latter when the time n1ay
come that shall force thenl to give up the former. In a
similar spirit you should deal with the Ascension and the
Incarnation, not pointing out the difficulties involved in
the material belief of those dogmas, nor saying a word
to disparage those who believe in them, but doing your
Utl110st to bring out the spiritual truths and invisible
processes which are represented by those dogn1as.
Surely such a self-restraint as this is not more than
may fairly be delnanded from any honourable l1lan, I
will not say from a Christian, but from a gentlelnan.
Your congregation are in their own parish church; they
are bound by conventional respect and by deeply-
rooted reverence for tradition and for the House of God,
not to manifest any such open disapprobation of your
teaching as would be freely permissible at a public meet-
ing; you are their servant, and the servant, the paid
servant, of the National Church; and yet you have
them at your mercy while you stand in the pulpit.
Profound consideration may fairly be expected from
you for their prejudices, as you may please to call
them; and all the n10re because they are, as it were, in
possession of the church, while you are an innovator,
holding what must-at all events r some tin1e to COlne-
appear to the multitude an entirely new doctrine: they
" stand on the old ways."
If the teachers of natural or non-miraculous Christianity
could be trusted to preach in this spirit, they might, I think,
do a good work as ministers in the Church of England,
without injury to themselvcs, and with much advantage to
the nation. If not, they must come out of the Church for
the purposes of teaching; and that, I fear, would result in
mischief both for the Church and for the State, I believe
that not a few of the educated clergy are either suspending
thcir belief about miracles, or have decided against them;

Letter 31] 'YHA T THE BISHOPS MIGHT DO 3 6 5

and if these were suddenly to be banished, or gradually to
drop out of the clerical ranks without receiving any suc-
cessors of their way of thinking, the gulf would be widened
between the clergy and the educated laity. The men who
might discover new religious truth and prepare the way for
new religious development, having henceforth to earn their
living in other ways, would find little leisure for critical
study. The end would be that the nation would be for a
time divided between superstition and agnosticism; and
sober religion would go to the wall.
Not indeed that the destinies of the Gospel of Christ
are to be supposed to be permanently detenninable by the
fate of a fraction of the Broad Church section of the
English clergy! The attraction of the natural worship of
Christ-strange, nay, impossible though it may seem when
first presented to the miracle-craving mind-is far too
great to admit the possibility of its ultimate failure. But
first there must come a vast and depressing defection on
the part of those nominal Christians who haye hitherto
worshipped Christ on the basis of an infallible Church,
or on the basis of an infallible Book, or on the basis of
indisputable l\Iiracles. Perhaps this collapse will be pre-
cipitated by the discovery of a copy of some Gospel of the
first century, turned up when Constantinople is evacuated
by the Turks. You cannot have forgotten how this year
( 188 5) the educated religious world in England held
its breath in horrible suspense when the correspondent
of the Timcs telegraphed that among the Egyptian manu-
scripts recently purchased by an Austrian arch-duke, there
had been disinterred a fragment belonging to a Gospel
preceding, and differing from, any now extant. From this
terrible discovery orthodoxy was delivered, for this once,
by the learning of Professor H ort : but who shall guarantee
that a Professor Hort shall be able, or even willing, to
deny the proto-evangelic clainls of the next-discovered

36ó \YIIA T TIlE BISHOPS MIGHT DO [Leiter 31

manuscript fron1 the East? And then, what will become
of some of us !
In any case, with or without such discoyeries, the
present word-faith, and book-faith, and authority-faith in
the Lord Jesus, must sooner or later collapse; and people
must be driven to the conclusion that the Lord Jesus Him-
self must somehow be worshipped through Himself-Jesus
through the Spirit of Jesus, that Spirit which is apparent
in families and nations and Churches as well as in the
New Testament, the Spirit of Love whence springs that
mutual helpfulness which in the New Testament we call
"fellowship" and in the newspapers" socialism." This
and this alone will help us to apply our science to settle
land questions, Church questions, and war questions, policy
domestic and foreign, and to establish concord in the
world, the nation, and the human heart. I do not say that
a time will ever come when there will be no obstacles to
faith in Christ. lVloral obstacles will still exist to make faith
difficult: but some at least of the intellectual difficulties
by which we now shut ourselves out from Christian hope
will then be dissipated. Odium theologiczt11l will becon1e
meaningless. There will have arrived at last that blessed
tÏ1ne, predicted (1603) by Francis Bacon (shaH we say just
three hundred years too soon ?), bringing with it" the con-
sumption of all that can ever be said in controversies
of religion ;" and henceforth there will be no "contro-
versies,
' only discussions and discoveries.
Then, with its mind freed from superstitious terrors and
full of an unquenchable hope, the human race, owning its
allegiance to the Eternal Goodness) and accepting as its
captain the Working J\1an of Nazareth, will address itself
steadily to the work of Christian socialism, honouring
and encouraging labour without unwise and spasmodic
pampering of it, dishonouring and discouraging idleness
without unwise and direct recourse to forcible suppression

Läter 31] \VHA T THE BISHOPS l\1IGHT DO 367

of it; remembering always that, as the ideal \V orking
lVlan was subject to law, so must they be subject to law,
and. as He bore suffering for the good of others, so
must they be prepared to suffer as well as to work. This
is true socialism and this is true Christianity. Do you
deny it, and say, "This is not the Christianity that has
been current for eighteen centuries"? I reply, Perhaps
not; and, if it is not, we can call it by some other name.
You remember the saying of Lessing, that after eighteen
centuries of Christianity, it was high time to try Christ.
Let us then amend our phrase and say that true socialism
will not be "the Christian religion" but something better.
It will be the Christian Spirit.
\Ve are taught by our Scriptures that it has been some-
times God's l11ethod to teach the wise in this world by
means of those whom the world calls foolish, and the
strong and the rich in this world by those whom the world
calls weak and poor. If history is thus to repeat itself, it
may be reserved for the semi-Christian or non-Christian
working man, for the heretic or agnostic socialist, to guide
orthodox and religious England into a higher and purer
and more spiritual form of Christianity. Yet on the other
hand, since intellectual movements come often from above,
though moral movements come from below, I cannot give
up the hope that it may be reserved for the clergy of the
Church of England to do something towards the removal
of those merely intellectual difficulties which are at
present keeping multitudes of the workers, and not a few
of the thinkers, in our country, from recognizing their
true Deliverer.

DEFIKITIONS

3 6 9

DEFINITIONS

i. Reality
I. Absolute reality cannot be comþrellellded by men, and
can Ollly be aþ þrehended as God or Ùz God by a
combÙzatimz of Desire and Imagination, to 'lvhiclz
we give tIle name of Faith.
2. Among objects of" sensation tlwse are (relatively)
real wlzich þresent similar selzsations in similal'
circltJllstaJlces.

it Force

., Imagined" is inserted, throughout these Definitions,
as a reminder that the existence of all these objects
of definition, however real, is suggested to us by the
I maginati on.

Force is that which is imagined to immediately þro-
duce, or tend to þroduce, lJwtimz.
\Vhy "immediately" ? Because a particle of" matter"
-attracting, as it does, every other particle of" matter"-
n1ay be said to "tend to produce motion." Yet" matter"
is not said to be force, but to "exert" force. "l\-1atter "
is ilnagined to attract "matter" through the medil1ln of
force, or "mediately." But force is imagined to act
"immediately." Hence the insertion of the word.
n B

37 0 .

DEFINITIOXS

iii. Cause and Effect

VheJl OJle thing is ima,[{Ùzed to þroduce, or tend to
þroduce, a second, the first i.'ì called tIle Calise of
the second, and the second the Effect of the first.

iv. Spirit
Sþirit, i.e. Breath or Wind, is a 1lletaþhorical na7lle-
i;;lþlying subtleness, invisibility, ubiquitousness and
lijè-givÙz/; þ07ver-gi'Zlell to the ultimate Cause of
Force J' and he/zce s01lletiJJzes to the Cause of belleficent
Force in tile Universe, i.e. God j sometimes to tIle
Calise of Force in t/ze Human Ùzdividual J ' lJlOre
rarely to the Cause or Causes of lJlalejicent Forces
in the Universe.

v. Matter
The existence of Matter has never been proved; and
it is nothing but a hypothesis. All the phenomena calJed
" material" 111ight be explained, without l'vlatter, by the
hypothesis of a nun1ber of centres of force. The raison
d'être of l'vlatter is the notion of tangibility. But scien-
tific men now tell us that no atom ever touches another.
If this be so, scientific tangibility disappears and the
raison d'être of l\iatter disappears, with it. But it is' so
natural a fign1ent that we shall all probably talk about
it, and 1110st of us probably will believe in it, until hU111an
nature is very much ch=tnged.
Matter cannot be defined positively except by repeating,
in son1e disguise, the word to be defined, as thus :-
lUàterial, or Jlfatter, is a 7lallle given to an unascer-
tained and Izyþothetical "lIlaterial," "lIlatter,"

DEFIXITIO
S

37 1

" substance," or "fundamental stuff," of'lvhidl we
COJJlJJlOnly imagine all objects of sensatioll to be
composed.

vi. Nature
I. Nature 1JleanSS01Jletimes the (I) ordinary, or(2) ordetly
course of tllÙlgS aþart from tIle þresent and direct
intervention of Ill/man vVill./ sometimes the (3)
ordinary or (4) orderly course of Izuma7tity J' some-
times the (5) ordinary or (6) orderly course of all
things.
2. Law of Nature is a metaþhoricalnamc for a frequently
observed sequence of þhenomena (aþart from human
IVill), imþlyinþ,", to SOtJle minds, regularilJl J' to
otlzers, absolute invariability.
3. 111iracle means a suþþosed susþension of a Sequence,
(w Law, of Plature J ' lJIarvel, or flfighty tVork,
means a rare SefJ.uence of Nature, Ùl whic//' great
Effects are þroduced by Causes seemingly, but ?lot
really, inadequate.
4. "Suþernatural" is the name given, Ùz these letters,
to tIle existence of a God J ' and to His creation and
continuolts develoþment of all tlzÙy;s: the di'lJille
action beÍ1z..f{ regarded, /lot as contrary to J\Tature,
but as above Nature J' not as susþendÙlg tile
sequences of l\/ature, but as originating and
suþþortÍ1tg tlleUt.

vii. Will
The Will is the þowe1' of givÙz.R to some one of our
desires, or to SOlne otze grouþ of cOJJzþatible desires,
permanent þredomÙlance over the rest.

37 2

DEFINITIONS

An addition Inight be suggested: "the power ot con-
trolling our desires." But we appear never to control our
desires except by enthroning some one desire (or group
of desires)-whether it be the desire to gain power, to
ruin an enelny, to do right, or to serve God.

viii. Attention

Attention is the power by which we Ùllþress uþon our
lJlÙzd tllat whicll is þresent.

ix. Memory
,Jlemory is the þower by which 'If.1e retain or recall
to our lIlÙld that whicll is þast.

x. Imagination
Imagination is the þower by whic/t we cOJJlbÙze or
vary tIle lJlental Ùllages retained by lIfelllOry, oftcll
with a 7/ieW to finding some unity in IltelJl J' and by
7,t'hic/l 'lve are enabled to image forth tIle future
through allticiþatÙlg its IlarlllOllY 'luitll tIle þast
and þresent.

xi. Reason

Reason (or, as some prefer to call it in this limited
sense, Understanding) is the þower by which we
COlllþa re, and, from our comþariso1ls, draw illfer-
ences or conclusions. By 1JleallS of it we comþare
tIle sll....f:geslio1ls of the l1JlflgÙzation willl the sU/Jges-
lions (If Experience, a1ld acceþt or reject the former
ill accord(llicc 7uilll the result of our comþarison.

DEFINITIONS

3i3

xii. Hope
Hoþe is desire, of wldcn we i71lagÙze tlze fulfilment.
while recognizing the þresence of doubt.

xiii. Faith

The following Definition appears to me to be the basis
of all theology. It is no more than an en1phatic restate-
lnent of the old saying, "Faith is the assurance of (or
giving substance to) things hoþed for." Since hoþe is but
a weaker and more hesitant form of desire, the illla,f?,"Íng
fortll (}f(or gÍ7'ing substa?zce to) things earnestly lzoþedfor
I11Ust imply the vivid Í1Jlf1gÙzation of the fulfilment of
things desired.

Faith (wIlen ?lot loosely used for Belief) is desire
(aþ/roved by the COllsdence) of wlzich we imagine
tile fuljilmellt, wllile þzdtÙzg doubt at a distance.

" Faitlt in a friend " n1eans a desire-as well as a belief
-that he will do what you think he ought to do. "Faith l'
should never be used to express a belief that something
undesirable or wrong will happen, e.g. ., I have great
faitll that the boy will go wrong." " Faith" in the
uniformity of Nature implies a desire that Nature should
be ul1lform, and a feeling that it is God's will. In
l110lnents when we dread the unifonnity of Nature we
should say that we have a "conviction" or " expectation"
of it, not that we have" faith" in it.
" Putting doubt at a distance is intended to include the
different degrees of faith: in the highe5t faith, the
" distance" is infinite.

.

374

DEFI
ITIONS

" \Vhen " faith" is said to be " shaken," "-e n1ay n1ean
that, though the desire may relnain, doubt is not "put at
a distance;"
or that the Conscience no longer approves
of the desire; or that the desire itself is weakened.

xiv. Belief

Belief (whell it is not used for Faith) means a se1/se,
mixed 'lvitlt doubt, tlillt tlze affirmatioJls of our lIlÍJul
will harmollize 'with Exþerience.!

xv. Certainty, or Conviction
Certainty, or Conviction, -is a sense, unmixed 'with
do II bt, that tIle affirmatio1ls of our milld 'will
harmolli:::e with E'xþerlence.

xvi. Knowledge
I. Absolute knowledge, which is þossessed by 110 man,
'If./Oltld be an idelddy between our IJli'Jltal affirmations
and those of the Creator J' 'ZulLO k1loWS all tlzÍ11l:s ill
their Essence and Causes.
2. Knowlet{l{e (relative and ordinary) is (7 l ery Of/ell) a
1lallle loosely givell to a IlarJJLOllY bet'ZueeJl.ouy IJlelltal
affirmations alld tlze ajjirmatioJls of the vast lllajority
of tllOse 'who have (or are t1lOltght by the majority
to have) lite best oþþortunities for observation and
judgmcnt.
It 1Jll
{{ltt be more usefully defined as those mental

1 Some might prefer "harmonize with experience or with fact." Dut
" harmony with fact" can 1ze1/er be proved: you can only prove harmony
with your experience, or with the general experience, of the fact; or with
experience of \\ hat others say about the fact.

DEFIXITIONS

375

ajjirmations which harmonize with our nature and
e1Zviro1ZlIlcllt, i.e. with our sþiritual and lIzaterial
exþerienre.

xvii. Illusions and Delusions
I llusiolls are mental affirmations 110t harmonizing
'with immediate exþerience, but þrcþaratory for
absolute knowledge. Delusions are !/lental affirma-
tions 110t hanl101zizi1lg with exþerience, ?lor þre-
þaratory for absolute kllO'Zuledge.

THE END

c

RICHARD CLAY AND SONS, LONnON AND BUNGAY.

/I
!.
'
t
1
I
II
,I
jl
;1
:1
.,
.,
.
"
"
..
,.
"
'

11
'I
I
I

,.