Skip to main content

Full text of "Silanus the Christian"

See other formats 


S&S&3S3 

Sir-lf^ 

3»>4iQ!*?%%k4w 

SvwS^Hfiiiri 

c?v5? 

TOKffiUV*? 

■-'■■-., 

■-:.-'•• 

BBSS 

kse&w 

fgBraMft 

IPS 

SPHP^S!?6 

<£i/' 

.  ■ 

iw* 

ts*LJP!J&S* 

^a^. 

■*•'""-. 

3@£ 

■"-''-•■ 

*ur*S 

3»1Cl 

.    .\    -  ■      . 

flt1^^'*  H 

OT& 

WBB 

IP 

-''■'■.- 

®« 

M^^:v^« 


j    *■ "  - 


SILANUS    THE    CHEISTIAN 


BY   THE   SAME   AUTHOR 


CLUE  :    A  Guide  through  Greek  to  Hebrew 
Scripture  (Diatessarica — Part  I). 
Demy  8vo,   Cloth,  Price  7s.  6d.  net. 

THE  COREECTIONS   OF   MARK   (Diatessarica— Part  II). 
Demy  8vo,   Cloth,  Price  15s.  net. 

FROM   LETTER   TO   SPIRIT   (Diatessarica— Part  III). 
Demy  8vo,  Cloth,  Price  20s.  net. 

PARADOSIS   (Diatessarica- Part  IV). 
Demy  8vo,  Cloth,  Price  7s.  6d.  net. 

JOHANNINE   VOCABULARY   (Diatessarica— Part  V). 
Demy  8vo,  Cloth,  Price  13s.  6d.  net. 

JOHANNINE   GRAMMAR   (Diatessarica— Part  VI). 
Demy  8vo,   Cloth,  Price  16s.  6d.  net. 


AGENTS 

America    .     The  Macmillan  Company 

64  &  66  Fifth  Avenue,  New  York 

Canada      .     The  Macmillan  Company  of  Canada,  Ltd. 
27  Richmond  Street  West,  Toronto 

India     .     .     Macmillan  &  Company,  Ltd. 

Macmillan  Buildin«,  Bombay 

309  Bow  Bazaar  Street,  Calcutta 


SILANUS 
THE  CHRISTIAN 


BY 


EDWIN   A.   ABBOTT 

AUTHOR   OF   "PHILOCHRISTUS"   AND    "  ONESIMUS " 


"  The  love  of  Christ  constraineth  us." 

2  Cor.  v.  14. 


LONDON  y3 


\\y\s\w 


ADAM   AND   CHARLES   BLACK 
1906 


(Cambridge: 

"PRINTED     BY     JOHN     CLAY,     M.A. 
AT    THE    UNIVERSITY   PRESS. 


TO   THE   MEMORY 
OF 

EPICTETUS 

NOT   A   CHRISTIAN 
BUT  AN  AWAKENER   OF   ASPIRATIONS 
THAT   COULD   NOT   BE   SATISFIED 
EXCEPT    IN   CHRIST 


PREFACE 

~\  M  ANY  years  have  elapsed  since  the  author  was  constrained 
-*-*-*-  (not  by  a  priori  considerations  but  by  historical  and  critical 
evidence)  to  disbelieve  in  the  miraculous  element  of  the  Bible. 
Yet  he  retained  the  belief  of  his  childhood  and  youth — rooted 
more  firmly  than  before — in  the  eternal  unity  of  the  Father 
the  Son  and  the  Holy  Spirit,  in  the  supernatural  but  non- 
miraculous  incarnation  of  the  Son  as  Jesus  Christ,  and  in 
Christ's  supernatural  but  non-miraculous  resurrection  after  He 
had  offered  Himself  up  as  a  sacrifice  for  the  sins  of  the  world. 

The  belief  is  commonly  supposed  to  be  rendered  impossible 
by  the  disbelief.  This  book  is  written  to  shew  that  there  is 
no  such  impossibility. 

The  vast  majority  of  the  worshippers  of  Christ  base  their 
worship  to  a  very  large  extent — as  the  author  did  in  his  early 
youth  under  the  cloud  of  Paley's  Evidences — on  their  ac- 
ceptance of  His  miracles  as  historical  facts.  In  the  author's 
opinion  this  basis  is  already  demonstrably  unsafe,  and  may 
be  at  any  moment,  by  some  new  demonstration,  absolutely 
destroyed. 

Nevertheless  such  worshippers,  if  their  worship  is  really 
genuine — that  is  to  say,  if  it  includes  love,  trust,  and  awe, 
carried  to  their  highest  limits,  and  not  merely  that  kind  of 
awe  which  is  inspired  by  "  mighty  works " — will  do  well  to 
avoid  this  book.  If  doubt  has  not  attacked  them,  why  should 
they  go  to  meet  it  ?     In  pulling  up  falsehood  by  the  roots  there 


8  PREFACE 

is  always  a  danger  of  uprooting  or  loosening  a  truth  that  grows 
beside  it.  Historical  error,  if  honest,  is  better  (and  less  mis- 
leading) than  spiritual  darkness.  For  example,  it  is  much 
better  (and  less  misleading)  to  remain  in  the  old-fashioned 
belief  that  a  good  and  wise  God  created  the  world  in  six  days 
than  to  adopt  a  new  belief  that  a  bad  or  unwise  or  careless 
God — or  a  chance,  or  a  force,  or  a  power — evolved  it  in  sixty 
times  six  sextillions  of  centuries. 

To  such  genuine  worshippers  of  Christ,  then,  as  long  as 
they  feel  safe  and  sincere  in  their  convictions,  this  book  is  not 
addressed.  They  are  (in  the  author's  view)  substantially  right, 
and  had  better  remain  as  they  are. 

But  there  may  be  some,  calling  themselves  worshippers  of 
Christ,  who  cannot  honestly  say  that  they  love  Him.  They 
trust  His  power,  they  bow  before  Him  as  divine ;  but  they 
have  no  affection  at  all  for  Him,  as  man,  or  as  God.  What 
St  Paul  described  as  the  "constraining"  love  of  Christ  has 
never  touched  them.  And  yet  they  fancy  they  worship  !  To 
them  this  book  may  be  of  use  in  suggesting  the  divinity  and 
loveableness  of  Christ's  human  nature  ;  and  any  harm  the  book 
might  do  them  can  hardly  be  conceived  as  equal  to  the  harm  of 
remaining  in  their  present  position.  One  may  learn  Christ  by 
rote,  as  one  may  learn  Euclid  by  rote,  so  as  to  be  almost  ruined 
for  really  knowing  either.  For  such  learners  the  best  course 
may  be  to  go  back  and  begin  again. 

It  is,  however,  to  a  third  class  of  readers  that  the  author 
mainly  addresses  himself.  Having  in  view  the  experiences  of 
his  own  early  manhood,  he  regards  with  a  strong  fellow  feeling 
those  who  desire  to  worship  Christ  and  to  be  loyal  and 
faithful  to  Him,  if  only  they  can  at  the  same  time  be  loyal 
and  faithful  to  truth,  and  who  doubt  the  compatibility  of  the 
double  allegiance. 

These,  many  of  them,  cannot  even  conceive  how  they  can 
worship  Christ  at  the  right  hand  of  God,  or  the  Son  in  the 
bosom   of  the   Father  in   heaven,  unless  they  first  believe  in 


PREFACE  9 

Him  as  miraculously  manifested  on  earth.  Not  being  able  to 
accept  Him  as  miraculous,  they  reject  Him  as  a  Saviour.  To 
them  this  book  specially  appeals,  endeavouring  to  shew,  in  a 
general  and  popular  way  —  on  psychological,  historical,  and 
critical  grounds — how  the  rejection  of  the  claim  made  by  most 
Christians  that  their  Lord  is  miraculous,  may  be  compatible 
with  a  frank  and  full  acceptance  of  the  conclusion  that  He  is, 
in  the  highest  sense,  divine. 

Detailed  proofs  this  volume  does  not  offer.  These  will  be 
given  in  a  separate  volume  of  "  Notes,"  shortly  to  be  published. 
This  will  be  of  a  technical  nature,  forming  Part  VII  of  the 
series  called  Diatessarica.  The  present  work  merely  aims  at 
suggesting  such  conceptions  of  history,  literature,  worship, 
human  nature,  and  divine  Being,  as  point  to  a  foreordained 
conformation  of  man  to  God,  to  be  fulfilled  in  the  Lord  Jesus 
Christ,  of  which  the  fulfilment  may  be  traced  in  the  Christian 
writings  and  the  Christian  churches  of  the  first  and  second 
centuries. 

It  also  attempts,  in  a  manner  not  perhaps  very  usual,  to 
meet  many  objections  brought  against  Christianity  by  those 
who  assert  that  its  records  are  inadequate,  inaccurate,  and 
contradictory.  Instead  of  denying  these  defects,  the  author 
admits  and  emphasizes  them  as  being  inseparable  from  earthen 
vessels  containing  a  spiritual  treasure,  and  as  (in  some  cases) 
indirectly  testifying  to  the  divinity  of  the  Person  whom  the, 
best  efforts  of  the  best  and  most  inspired  of  the  evangelists 
inadequately,  though  honestly,  portray.  Specimens  of  these 
defects  are  freely  given,  shewing  the  modifications,  ampli- 
fications, and  (in  some  case)  misinterpretations  or  corruptions, 
to  which  Christian  tradition  was  inevitably  exposed  in  passing 
from  the  east  to  the  west  during  a  period  of  about  one  hundred 
and  thirty  years,  dating  from  the  Crucifixion. 

These  objects  the  author  has  endeavoured  to  attain  by 
sketching  an  autobiography  of  an  imaginary  character,  by  name 
Quintus  Junius  Silanus,  who  in  the  second  year  of  Hadrian 


10  PREFACE 

(A.D.  118)  becomes  a  hearer  of  Epictetus  and  a  Christian 
convert,  and  commits  his  experiences  to  paper  forty-five  years 
afterwards  in  the  second  year  of  Marcus  Aurelius  Antoninus 
and  Lucius  Verus  (a.d.  163). 


EDWIN   A.   ABBOTT. 


Wellside,    Well   Walk, 
Hampstead. 
28  Aug.  1906. 


SUMMARY 


Quint  us  Junius  Silanus,  born  90  A.D.,  goes  from  Rome  at  the  suggestion 
of  his  old  friend  Marcus  JEmilius  Scaurus,  to  attend  the  lectures  of  Epictetus 
in  Nicopolis  about  118  A.D. 

Scaurus  {like  Silanus,  an  imaginary  character)  born  about  50  A.D.,  is  a 
disabled  soldier,  and  has  been  for  many  years  a  student  of  miscellaneous 
Greek  literature,  including  Christian  writings.  In  reply  to  a  letter  from 
Silanus,  extolling  his  new  teacher,  Scaurus  expresses  his  belief  that  Epictetus 
has  passed  through  a  stage  of  infection  with  " the  Christian  superstition" 
from  which  he  has  borrowed  some  parts  of  the  superstructure  while  rejecting 
its  foundation. 

Silanus,  in  order  to  defend  his  teacher  Epictetus  from  what  he  considers 
an  unjust  imputation,  procures  the  epistles  of  Paul.  His  interest  in  these 
leads  him  to  the  "scriptures"  from  which  Paul  quotes.  Thence  he  is  led  on  to 
speculate  about  the  nature  of  the  " gospel"  preached  by  Paid,  and  about  the 
character  and  utterances  of  the  "Christ"  from  whom  that  " gospel"  originated. 
The  epistles  convey  to  him  a  sense  of  spiritual  strength  and  "  constraining 
love."     He  determines  to  procure  the  Christian  gospels. 

During  all  this  time  he  is  occasionally  corresponding  with  Scaurus  and 
attending  the  lectures  of  Epictetus,  which  satisfy  him  less  and  less.  Con- 
trasted with  the  spiritual  strength  in  the  epistles  of  Paid  the  lectures  seem  to 
contain  only  spiritual  effervescence.  And  there  is  an  utter  absence  of 
"  constraining  love." 

When  the  three  Synoptic  gospels  reach  Silanus  from  Rome,  he  receives  at 
the  same  time  a  destructive  criticism  on  them  from  Scaurus.  Much  of  this 
criticism  he  is  enabled  to  meet  with  the  aid  of  the  Pauline  epistles^  But 
enough  remains  to  shake  his  faith  in  their  historical  accuracy.  Nor  does  he 
jind  in  them  the  same  presence  that  he  found  in  the  epistles,  of '" constraining 
love."     The  result  is,  that  he  is  thrown  back  from  Christ. 

At  this  crisis  he  meets  Clemens,  an  Athenian,  who  lends  him  a  gospel  that 
has  recently  appeared,  the  gospel  of  John.  Clemens  frankly  admits  his 
doubts  about  its  authorship,  and  about  its  complete  accuracy,  but  commends 
it  as  conveying  the  infinite  spiritual  revelation  inherent  in  Christ  less  in- 
adequately than  it  is  conveyed  by  the  Synoptists. 


12  SUMMARY 

A  somewhat  similar  view  is  expressed  by  Seaurus,  though  with  a  large 
admixture  of  hostile  criticism.  He  has  recently  received  the  fourth  gospel, 
and  it  forms  the  subject  of  his  last  letter.  While  rejecting  much  of  it  as 
a  a  historical,  he  expresses  great  admiration  for  it,  and  for  what  he  deems  its 
fundamental  principle,  namely,  that  Jesus  cannot  be  understood  save  through 
a  "  disciple  whom  Jesus  loved." 

Wliile  speculating  on  what  might  have  happened  if  he  himself  had  come 
under  the  influence  of  a  "  disciple  whom  Jesus  loved,"  Seaurus  is  struck  down 
by  paralysis.  Silamis  sets  sail  for  Italy  in  the  hope  of  finding  his  friend 
still  living.  At  the  moment  when  he  is  losing  sight  of  the  hills  above 
Nicopolis  where  Clemens  is  praying  for  him,  Silanus  receives  an  apprehension 
of  Christ's  "constraining  looe"  and  becomes  a  Christian. 


No  attempt  has  been  made  to  give  the  impression  of  an  archaic  or  Latin 
style.  Hence  "Christus"  and  "Paulus"  are  mostly  avoided  except  in  a  few 
instances  where  they  are  mentioned  for  the  first  time  by  persons  speaking  from 
a  non-Christian  point  of  view.  Similar  apparent  inconsistencies  will  be  found 
in  the  use  of  "He"  and  "he,"  denoting  Christ.  The  use  varies,  partly 
according  to  the  speaker,  partly  according  to  the  speaker's  mood.  It  varies 
also  in  quotations  from  scripture  according  to  the  extent  to  which  the  Revised 
Version  is  followed. 

The  utterances  assigned  to  Epictetus  are  taken  from  the  records  of  his 
sayings  by  Arrian  or  others.  Some  of  these  have  been  freely  translated, 
paraphrased,  and  transposed;  but  none  of  them  are  imaginary.  When  Silanus 
says  that  his  friend  Arrian  "never  heard  Epictetus  say"  this  or  that,  the 
meaning  is  that  the  expression  does  not  occur  in  Epictetus's  extant  works, 
so  far  as  can  be  judged  from  Schenkl's  admirable  Index. 

The  words  assigned  to  Arrian,  Silanus's  friend,  when  speaking  in  his  own 
person,  are  entirely  imaginary ;  but  the  statements  made  about  Arrian' s  birth- 
place and  official  career  are  based  on  history. 

Any  words  assigned  by  Seaurus  to  his  "friend  "  Pliny,  Plutarch,  or  Josephus, 
or  by  Silanus  to  "the  young  Irenaeus,"  or  Justin,  may  be  taken  to  be  historical. 
The  references  will  be  given  in  the  volume  of  Notes. 

Seaurus  and  Silanus  occasionally  describe  themselves  as  "finding  marginal 
notes"  indicating  variations  in  their  mss.  of  the  gospels.  In  all  such  cases  the 
imaginary  "marginal  notes"  are  based  on  actual  various  readings  or  inter- 
polations which  will  be  given  in  the  volume  of  Notes.  Most  of  these  are  of 
an  early  date,  and  may  be  based  on  much  earlier  originals ;  and  care  has  been 
taken  to  exclude  any  that  are  of  late  origin.  But  the  reader  must  bear  in  mind 
that  we  have  no  mss.  of  the  gospels,  and  therefore  no  "marginal  notes,"  of  so 
early  a  date  as  118  a.d. 


CONTENTS 


CHAPTER 

I  The  first  lecture        .... 

II  Epictetds  on  the  Gods 

III  Arrian  on  the  oath  of  the  Christians 

IV  Scaurus  on  Epictetus  and  Paul 

V  Epictetus  alludes  to  Jews 

VI  Paul  on  the  Love  of  Christ    . 
VII  David  and  Moses 

VIII  Epictetus  on  Sin 

IX  Arrian's  departure 

X  Epictetus  on  Death     . 

XI  Isaiah  on  Death  . 

XII  Isaiah  on  Providence. 

XIII  Epictetus  on  Providence 

XIV  Paul's  conversion 

XV  Epictetus's  gospel 

XVI  Paul's  gospel 

XVII  Epictetus  confesses  failure 
XVIII  Paul's  only  record  of  words  of  Christ 

XIX  How  Scaurus  studied  the  three  gospels 

XX  Scaurus  on  Forgiveness 

XXI  Scaurus  on  the  Cross 

XXII  Scaurus  on  Mark 

XXIII  Scaurus  on  some  of  the  miracles 

XXIV  Scaurus  on  Christ's  Birth 

XXV  Scaurus  on  Christ's  Discourses 


PAGE 

15 

25 

33 

41 

54 

65 

77 

85 

91 

97 

102 

109 

117 

125 

136 

143 

151 

160 

172 

183 

193 

201 

211 

220 

234 


14 


CONTENTS 


chaptb:r 

XXVI  Scaurus  on  Christ's  Resurrection  (I) 

XXVII  Scaurus  on  Christ's  Resurrection  (II)    . 

XXVIII  The  last  lecture 

XXIX  SlLANUS   MEETS   CLEMENS  .... 

XXX  SlLANUS   CONVERSES   WITH    CLEMENS 

XXXI  Clemens  on  the  fourth  gospel 

XXXII  Clemens  lends  Silanus  the  fourth  gospel 

XXXIII  Scaurus  on  the  fourth  gospel. 

XXXIV  The  last  words  of  Scaurus 

XXXV  Clemens  on  the  Sacrifice  of  Christ 

XXXVI  SlLANUS   BECOMES   A   CHRISTIAN       . 


PAGE 

248 
257 
267 
280 
291 
302 
312 
322 
333 
347 
360 


ERRATA. 

Page  49,  for  "  offending  to "  read  "  offending." 
„     134,  for  "a  divine"  read  "divine." 


CHAPTER   I 


THE   FIRST   LECTURE 


"  i"  forbid  you  to  go  into  the  senate-house."  "  As  long  as  I 
am  a  senator,  go  I  musty  Two  voices  were  speaking  from 
one  person — the  first,  pompous,  coarse,  despotic  ;  the  second, 
refined,  dry,  austere.  There  was  nothing  that  approached 
stage-acting — only  a  suggestion  of  one  man  swelling  out 
with  authority,  and  of  another  straightening  up  his  back  in 
resistance.  These  were  the  first  words  that  I  heard  from 
Epictetus,  as  I  crept  late  into  the  lecture-room,  tired  with 
a  long  journey  over-night  into  Nicopolis. 

I  need  not  have  feared  to  attract  attention.  All  eyes 
were  fixed  on  the  lecturer  as  I  stole  into  a  place  near  the 
door,  next  my  friend  Arrian,  who  was  absorbed  in  his  notes. 
What  was  it  all  about  ?  In  answer  to  my  look  of  inquiry 
Arrian  pushed  me  his  last  sheet  with  the  names  "  Vespa- 
sian "  and  "  Helvidius  Priscus "  scrawled  large  upon  it. 
Then  I  knew  what  it  meant.  It  was  a  story  now  nearly 
forty  years  old — which  I  had  often  heard  from  my  father's 
old  friend,  iEmilius  Scaurus — illustrating  the  duty  of  obeying 
the  voice  of  the  conscience  rather  than  the  voice  of  a  king. 
Epictetus,  after  his  manner,  was  throwing  it  into  the  form 
of  a  dialogue : — 

"  Vespasian.     I  forbid  you  to  go  into  the  senate-house. 

"  Priscus.     As  long  as  I  am  a  senator,  go  I  must. 

"  Vespasian.     Go,  then,  but  be  silent. 

"  Priscus.     Do  not  ask  my  opinion,  and  I  will  be  silent. 

"  Vespasian.     But  I  am  bound  to  ask  it. 


16  THE  FIRST  LECTURE  [Chapter  1 

"  Priscus.     And  I  am  bound  to  answer,  and  to  answer  what 
I  think  right. 

"  Vespasian.     Then  I  shall  kill  you. 

"  Priscus.     Did  I  ever  say  that  I  could  not  be  killed  ?     It 
is  yours  to  kill ;  mine,  to  die  fearless." 

I  give  his  words  almost  as  fully  as  Arrian  took  them  down. 
But  his  tone  and  spirit  are  past  man's  power  to  put  on  paper. 
He  flashed  from  Emperor  to  Senator  like  the  zig-zag  of 
lightning  with  a  straight  down  flash  at  the  end.  This  was 
always  his  way.  He  would  play  a  thousand  parts,  seeming, 
superficially,  a  very  Proteus  ;  but  they  were  all  types  of  two 
characters,  the  philosopher  and  the  worldling,  the  follower  of 
the  Logos  and  the  follower  of  the  flesh.  Moreover,  he  was 
always  in  earnest,  in  hot  earnest.  On  the  surface  he  would 
jest  like  Menander  or  jibe  like  Aristophanes  ;  but  at  bottom 
he  was  a  tragedian.  At  one  moment  he  would  point  to  his 
halting  leg  and  flout  himself  as  a  lame  old  grey-beard  with  a 
body  of  clay.  In  the  next,  he  was  "  a  son  of  Zeus,"  or  "  God's 
own  son,"  or  "  carrying  about  God."  Never  at  rest,  he  might 
deceive  a  stranger  into  supposing  that  he  was  occasionally 
rippling  and  sparkling  with  real  mirth  like  a  sea  in  sunlight. 
But  it  was  never  so.  It  was  a  sea  of  molten  metal  and  there 
was  always  a  Vesuvius  down  below. 

I  suspect  that  he  never  knew  mirth  or  genial  laughter  even 
as  a  child.  He  was  born  a  slave,  his  master  being  Epaphroditus, 
a  freedman  of  Nero's  and  his  favourite,  afterwards  killed  by 
Domitian.  I  have  heard — but  not  from  Arrian — that  this 
master  caused  his  lameness.  He  was  twisting  his  leg  one  day 
to  see  how  much  he  could  bear.  The  boy — for  he  was  no 
more — said  with  a  smile,  "  If  you  go  on,  you  will  break  it," 
and  then,  "  Did  not  I  tell  you,  you  would  break  it  ?  "  True  or 
false,  this  story  gives  the  boy  as  I  knew  the  man.  You  might 
break  his  leg  but  never  his  will.  I  do  not  know  whether 
Epaphroditus,  out  of  remorse,  had  him  taught  philosophy ;  but 
taught  he  was,  under  one  of  the  best  men  of  the  day,  and  he 
acquired  such  fame  that  he  was  banished  from  Rome  under 
Domitian,  with  other  philosophers  of  note — whether  at  or 
before  the  time  when  Domitian  put  Epaphroditus  to  death  I 


Chapter  1]  THE  FIRST  LECTURE  17 

cannot  say.  In  one  of  his  lectures  he  described  how  he  was 
summoned  before  the  Prefect  of  the  City  with  the  other 
philosophers :  "  Come,"  said  the  Prefect,  "  come,  Epictetus,  shave 
off  your  beard."  "  If  I  am  a  philosopher,"  he  replied,  "  I  am 
not  going  to  shave  it  off."  "  Then  I  shall  take  your  head  off." 
"  If  it  is  for  your  advantage,  take  it  off." 

But  now  to  return  to  my  first  lecture.  Among  our  audience 
were  several  men  of  position  and  one  at  least  of  senatorial  rank. 
Some  of  them  seemed  a  little  scandalized  at  the  Teacher's 
dialogue.  It  was  not  likely  that  the  Emperor  would  take 
offence,  for  in  the  second  year  of  Hadrian  we  were  not  in  a 
Neronian  or  Domitian  atmosphere ;  moreover,  our  Teacher  was 
known  to  be  on  good  terms  with  the  new  Emperor.  But 
perhaps  their  official  sense  of  propriety  was  shocked ;  and,  in 
the  first  sentence  of  what  follows,  Epictetus  may  have  been 
expressing  their  thoughts  :  "  '  So  you,  philosophers,  teach  people 
to  despise  the  throne  ! '  Heaven  forbid  !  Which  of  us  teaches 
anyone  to  lay  claim  to  anything  over  which  kings  have 
authority  ?  Take  my  body,  take  my  goods,  take  my  reputation ! 
Take  my  friends  and  relations !  '  Yes,'  says  the  ruler,  '  but 
I  must  also  be  ruler  over  your  convictions.'  Indeed,  and  who 
gave  you  this  authority?" 

Epictetus  went  on  to  say  that  if  indeed  his  pupils  were  of 
the  true  philosophic  stamp,  holding  themselves  detached  from 
the  things  of  the  body  and  with  their  minds  fixed  on  the  freedom 
of  the  soul,  he  would  have  no  need  to  spur  them  to  boldness, 
but  rather  to  draw  them  back  from  over-hasty  rushing  to  the 
grave ;  for,  said  he,  they  would  come  flocking  about  him, 
begging  and  praying  to  be  allowed  to  teach  the  tyrant  that 
they  were  free,  by  finding  freedom  at  once  in  self-inflicted 
death :  "  Here  on  earth,  Master,  these  robbers  and  thieves, 
these  courts  of  justice  and  kings,  have  the  upper  hand.  These 
creatures  fancy  that  they  have  some  sort  of  authority  over  us, 
simply  because  they  have  a  hold  on  our  paltry  flesh  and  its 
possessions  !  Suffer  us,  Master,  to  shew  them  that  they  have 
authority  over  nothing  ! "  If,  said  he,  a  pupil  of  this  high 
spirit  were  brought  before  the  tribunal  of  one  of  the  rulers  of 
the  earth,  he  would  come  back  scoffing  at  such  "  authority  "  as 
a.  2 


18  THE  FIRST  LECTURE  [Chapter  1 

a  more  scarecrow  :  "  Why  all  these  preparations,  to  meet  no 
enemy  at  all  ?  The  pomp  of  his  authority,  his  solemn  ante- 
room, his  gentlemen  of  the  chamber,  his  yeomen  of  the  guard — 
did  they  all  come  to  no  more  than  this !  These  things  were 
nothing,  and  I  was  preparing  to  meet  something  great ! " 

On  the  scholar  of  the  unpractical  and  cowardly  type, 
anxiously  preparing  "  what  to  say  "  in  his  defence  before  the 
magistrate's  tribunal,  he  poured  hot  scorn.  Had  not  the  fellow, 
he  asked,  been  practising  "  what  to  say  " — all  his  life  through  ? 
"  What  else,"  said  he,  "  have  you  been  practising  ?  Syllogisms 
and  convertible  propositions ! "  Then  came  the  reply,  in  a 
whine,  "  Yes,  but  he  has  authority  to  kill  me  ! "  To  which  the 
Teacher  answered,  "  Then  speak  the  truth,  you  pitiful  creature. 
Cease  your  imposture  and  give  up  all  claim  to  be  a  philosopher. 
In  the  lords  of  the  earth  recognise  your  own  lords  and  masters. 
As  long  as  you  give  them  this  grip  on  you,  through  your  flesh, 
so  long  must  you  be  at  the  beck  and  call  of  every  one  that  is 
stronger  than  you  are.  Socrates  and  Diogenes  had  practised 
'  what  to  say  '  by  the  practice  of  their  lives.  But  as  for  you — 
get  you  back  to  your  own  proper  business,  and  never  again 
budge  from  it  !  Back  to  your  own  snug  corner,  and  sit  there  at 
your  leisure,  spinning  your  syllogisms  : 

'  In  thee  is  not  the  stuff"  that  makes  a  man 
A  people's  leader. '  " 

Thence  he  passed  to  the  objection  that  a  judicial  condem- 
nation might  bring  disgrace  on  a  man's  good  name.  "  The 
authorities,  you  say,  have  condemned  you  as  guilty  of  impiety 
and  profanity.  What  harm  is  there  in  that  for  you  ?  This 
creature,  with  authority  to  condemn  you — does  he  himself  know 
even  the  meaning  of  piety  or  impiety  ?  If  a  man  in  authority 
calls  day  night  or  bass  treble,  do  men  that  know  take  notice  of 
him  ?  Unless  the  judge  knows  what  the  truth  is,  his  'authority 
to  judge '  is  no  authority.  No  man  has  authority  over  our 
convictions,  our  inmost  thoughts,  our  will.  Hence  when  Zeno 
the  philosopher  went  into  the  presence  of  Antigonus  the  king, 
it  was  the  king  that  was  anxious,  not  the  philosopher.  The 
king  wished  to  gain  the  philosopher's  good  opinion,  but  the 
philosopher  cared  for  nothing  that  the  king  could  give.     When, 


Chapter  1]  THE  FIRST  LECTURE  19 

therefore,  you  go  to  the  palace  of  a  great  ruler,  remember  that 
you  are  in  effect  going  to  the  shop  of  a  shoemaker  or  a  grocer 
— on  a  great  scale  of  course,  but  still  a  grocer.  He  cannot  sell 
you  anything  real  or  lasting,  though  he  may  sell  his  groceries 
at  a  great  price." 

At  the  bottom  of  all  this  doctrine  about  true  and  false 
authority,  there  was,  as  I  afterwards  understood,  a  belief  that 
God  had  bestowed  on  all  men,  if  they  would  but  accept  and 
use  it,  authority  over  their  own  wills,  so  that  we  might  conform 
our  wills  to  His,  as  children  do  with  a  Father,  and  might  find 
pleasure,  and  indeed  our  only  pleasure,  in  doing  this — accepting 
all  bodily  pain  and  evil  as  not  evil  but  good  because  it  comes 
from  His  will,  which  must  be  also  our  will  and  must  be  honoured 
and  obeyed.  "  When,"  said  he,  "  the  ruler  says  to  anyone,  '  I 
will  fetter  your  leg,'  the  man  that  is  in  the  habit  of  honouring 
his  leg  cries,  'Don't,  for  pity's  sake!'  But  the  man  that 
honours  his  will  says,  '  If  it  appears  advisable  to  you,  fetter  it '." 

"  Tyrant.     Won't  you  bend  ? 

"  Cynic.     I  will  not  bend. 

"  Tyrant.     I  will  show  you  that  I  am  lord. 

"  Cynic.  You  !  impossible  !  I  have  been  freed  by  Zeus. 
Do  you  really  imagine  that  He  would  allow  His  own  son 
to  be  made  a  slave  ?  But  of  my  corpse  you  are  lord.  Take 
it. 

In  this  particular  lecture  Epictetus  also  gave  us  a  glimpse 
of  a  wider  and  more  divine  authority  imparted  by  God  to  a 
few  special  natures,  akin  to  Himself,  whereby,  as  God  is  supreme 
King  over  men  His  children,  so  a  chosen  few  may  become  sub- 
ordinate kings  over  men  their  brethren.  Like  Plato,  he  seemed 
to  look  forward  to  a  time  when  rulers  would  become  philosophers, 
or  else  philosophers  kings.  Nero  and  Sardanapalus,  Agamem- 
non and  Alexander,  all  came  under  his  lash — all  kings  and  rulers 
of  the  old  regime.  Not  that  he  denied  Agamemnon  a  superiority 
to  Nero,  or  the  right  to  call  himself  "  shepherd  of  the  people  "  if 
he  pleased.  "  Sheep,  indeed,"  he  exclaimed,  "  to  submit  to  be 
ruled  over  by  you  ! "  and  "  Shepherd,  indeed,  for  you  weep  like 
the  shepherds,  when  a  wolf  has  snatched  away  a  sheep  ! " 

From  these   old-fashioned  rulers  he   passed  to  a  new  and 

9       9 


20  THE  FIRST  LECTURE  [Chapter  1 

nobler  ideal  of  kingship :  "  Those  kings  and  tyrants  received 
from  their  armed  guards  the  power  of  rebuking  and  punishing 
wrongdoing,  though  they  might  be  rascals  themselves.  But  on 
the  Cynic" — that  was  the  term  he  used — "this  power  is  bestowed 
by  the  conscience."  Then  he  explained  to  us  what  he  meant 
by  "  conscience  " — the  consciousness  of  a  life  of  wise,  watchful, 
and  unwearied  toil  for  man,  with  the  co-operation  of  God.  "  And 
how,"  he  asked,  "  could  such  a  man  fail  to  be  bold  and  speak  the 
truth  with  boldness,  speaking,  as  he  does,  to  his  own  brethren, 
to  his  own  children  and  kinsfolk  ?  So  inspired,  he  is  no  meddler 
or  busybody.  Supervising  and  inspecting  the  affairs  of  mankind, 
he  is  not  busying  himself  with  other  men's  matters,  but  with 
his  own.  Else,  call  a  general,  too,  a  busybody,  when  he  is  busy 
inspecting  his  own  soldiers  ! " 

This  was,  to  me,  quite  a  new  view  of  the  character  of  a  Cynic. 
But  Epictetus  insisted  on  it  with  reiteration.  The  Cynic,  he 
said,  was  Warrior  and  Physician  in  one.  As  a  warrior,  he  was 
like  Hercules,  wandering  over  the  world  with  his  club  and  de- 
stroying noxious  beasts  and  monsters.  As  a  physician,  he  was 
like  Socrates  or  Diogenes,  going  about  and  doing  good  to  those 
afflicted  with  sickness  of  mind,  diagnosing  each  disease,  pre- 
scribing diet,  cautery,  or  other  remedy.  In  both  these  capacities 
the  Cynic  received  from  God  authority  over  men,  and  men 
recognised  it  in  him,  because  they  perceived  him  to  be  their 
benefactor  and  deliverer. 

There  are,  said  Epictetus,  in  each  man  two  characters — the 
character  of  the  Beast  and  the  character  of  the  Man.  By  Beast 
he  meant  wild  or  savage  beast,  as  distinct  from  tame  beast, 
which  he  preferred  to  call  "sheep."  "Sheep"  meant  the  cowardly, 
passive-greedy  passions  within  us.  "  The  Beast "  meant  the 
savage,  aggressive-greedy  nature,  not  only  stirring  us  up  to 
external  war  against  our  neighbours,  but  also  waging  war  to  the 
death  against  our  inward  better  nature,  against  the  "  Man." 
The  mark  or  stamp  of  the  Beast  he  connected  with  Nero. 
"  Cast  it  away,"  he  said.  The  opposite  mark  or  stamp  he  con- 
nected with  the  recently  deceased  Emperor,  Trajan.  If  we  acted 
like  a  beast,  he  warned  us  that  we  should  become  like  a  beast, 
and  then,  according  to  his  customary  phrase,  "  You  will  have 


Chapter  1]  THE  FIRST  LECTURE  21 

lost  the  Man. "  And  was  this,  asked  he,  nothing  to  lose  ?  Over 
and  over  again  he  repeated  it :  "  You  have  thrown  away  the 
Man. "  It  was  in  this  light — as  a  type  of  the  Man — that  he 
regarded  Hercules,  the  first  of  the  Cynics,  the  Son  of  God,  going 
on  the  errands  of  the  Father  to  destroy  the  Beast  in  its  various 
shapes,  typifying  an  armed  Missionary,  but  armed  for  spiritual 
not  for  fleshly  warfare,  destroying  the  Beast  that  would  fain 
dominate  the  world.  But  it  was  for  Diogenes  that  he  reserved 
his  chief  admiration,  placing  him  (I  think)  even  above  Socrates, 
or  at  all  events  praising  him  more  warmly — partly,  perhaps,  out 
of  fellow-feeling,  because  Diogenes,  too,  like  himself,  had  known 
what  it  was  to  be  a  slave.  Never  shall  I  forget  the  passage  in 
this  lecture  in  which  he  described  Alexander  surprising  the 
great  Cynic  asleep,  and  waking  him  up  with  a  line  of  Homer : — 

"To  sleep  all  night  suits  not  a  Councillor," 
— to    which    Diogenes    replied    at   once   in  the  following  line, 
claiming  for  himself  the  heavy  burden  (entrusted  to  him  by 
Zeus)  of  caring  like  a  king  for  all  the  nations  of  the  earth  : — 

"  Who  holds,  in  trust,  the  world's  vast  orb  of  cares." 
Diogenes,  according  to  our  Teacher,  was  much  more  than  an 
^Esculapius  of  souls ;  he  was  a  sovereign  with  "  the  sceptre  and 
the  kingdom  of  the  Cynic."  Some  have  represented  Epictetus 
as  claiming  this  authority  for  himself.  But  in  the  lecture  that 
I  heard,  it  was  not  so.  Though  what  he  said  might  have  been 
mistaken  as  a  claim  for  himself,  it  was  really  a  claim  for  "  the 
Cynic,"  as  follows.  First  he  put  the  question,  "  How  is  it 
possible  for  one  destitute,  naked,  homeless,  hearthless,  squalid, 
with  not  one  slave  to  attend  him,  or  a  country  to  call  his  own, 
to  lead  a  life  of  equable  happiness  ? "  To  which  he  replied, 
"  Behold,  God  hath  sent  unto  you  the  man  to  demonstrate  in 
act  this  possibility.  '  Look  on  me,  and  see  that  I  am  tvithout 
country,  home,  possessions,  slaves ;  no  bed  but  the  ground,  no  wife, 
no  children — no  palace  to  make  a  king  or  governor  out  of  me — 
only  the  earth,  and  the  sky,  and  one  threadbare  cloak !  And  yet 
what  do  I  want?  Am  I  not  fearless?  Am  I  not  free?  When 
saiv  ye  me  failing  to  find  any  good  thing  that  I  desired,  or 
falling  into  any  evil  that  I  woidd  fain  have  avoided?  What 
fault  found  I  ever  with  God  or  man?      When  did  I  ever  accuse 


22  THE  FIRST  LECTURE  [Chapter  1 

anyone  ?  Did  anyone  ever  see  me  with  a  gloomy  face?  How  do 
I  confront  the  great  persons  before  whom  you,  worldlings,  bow 
abashed  and  dismayed?  Do  not  I  treat  them  as  cringing  slaves? 
Who,  that  sees  me,  does  not  feel  that  he  sees  in  me  his  natural 
Lord  and  Master  ? ' 

I  confess  that  up  to  this  point  I  had  myself  supposed  that 
he  was  speaking  of  himself,  standing  erect  as  ruler  of  the  world. 
But  in  the  next  instant  he  had  dropped,  as  it  were,  from  the 
pillar  upon  which  he  had  been  setting  up  the  King,  and  now,  like 
a  man  at  the  pedestal  pointing  up  to  the  statue  on  the  top,  he 
exclaimed,  "  Behold,  these  are  the  genuine  Cynic's  utterances : 
this  is  his  stamp  and  image  :  this  is  his  aim  !  " 

He  passed  on  to  answer  the  question,  What  if  the  Cynic 
missed  his  aim,  or,  at  least,  missed  it  so  far  as  exerting  the  royal 
authority  over  others  ?  What  if  death  cut  his  purpose  short  ? 
In  that  case,  he  said,  the  will,  the  purpose,  the  one  essential 
good,  had  at  all  events  remained  in  its  purity ;  and  how  could 
man  die  better  than  in  such  actions  ?  "  If,  while  I  am  thus 
employed,  death  should  overtake  me,  it  will  suffice  me  if  I  can 
lift  up  my  hands  to  God  and  say,  '  The  helps  that  I  received 
from  thee,  to  the  intent  that  I  might  understand  and  follow  thy 
ordering  of  the  universe,  these  I  have  not  neglected.  I  have 
not  disgraced  thee,  so  far  as  in  me  lay.  See  how  I  have  used 
these  faculties  which  thou  hast  given  me  !  Have  I  ever  found 
fault  with  thee  ?  ever  been  ill-pleased  with  anything  that  has 
happened  or  ever  wished  it  to  happen  otherwise  ?  Thou  didst 
beget  me,  and  I  thank  thee  for  all  thou  gavest  me.  I  have 
used  to  the  full  the  gifts  that  were  of  thy  giving  and  I  am 
satisfied.  Receive  them  back  again  and  dispose  them  in  such 
region  as  may  please  thee.  Thine  were  they  all,  and  thou  hast 
given  them  unto  me.' '  Then,  turning  to  us,  he  said,  "  Are  you 
not  content  to  take  your  exit  after  this  fashion  ?  Than  such  a 
life,  what  can  be  better,  or  more  full  of  grace  and  beauty  ? 
Than  such  an  end,  what  can  be  more  full  of  blessing  ? " 

There  was  much  more,  which  I  cannot  recall.  I  was  no 
longer  in  a  mood  to  note  and  remember  exact  words  and  phrases, 
and  I  despair  of  making  my  readers  understand  why.  Able 
philosophers  and  lecturers  I  had  heard  before,  but  none  like  this 


Chapter  1]  TEE  FIRST  LECTURE  23 

man.  Some  of  those  had  moved  me  to  esteem  and  gained  my 
favourable  judgement.  But  this  man  did  more  than  "move"  me. 
He  whirled  me  away  into  an  upper  region  of  spiritual  possibility, 
at  once  glad  and  sad — sad  at  what  I  was,  glad  at  what  I  might 
be.  Alcibiades  says  in  the  Symposium  of  Plato  that  whereas 
the  orator  Pericles  had  only  moved  his  outer  self  to  admiration, 
the  teaching  of  Socrates  caught  hold  of  his  very  soul,  "  whirling 
it  away  into  a  Corybantic  dance."  I  quoted  these  words  to 
Arrian  as  we  left  the  lecture-room  together,  and  he  replied  that 
they  were  just  to  the  point.  "  Epictetus,"  he  said,  "  is  by  birth 
a  Phrygian.  And,  like  the  Phrygian  priests  of  Cybele,  with 
their  cymbals  and  their  dances,  he  has  just  this  power  of  whirling 
away  his  hearers  into  any  region  he  pleases  and  making  them 
feel  at  any  moment  what  he  wishes  them  to  feel.  But,"  added 
he  thoughtfully,  "  it  did  not  last  with  Alcibiades.  Will  it  last 
with  us  ? " 

I  argued — or  perhaps  I  should  say  protested — at  considerable 
length,  that  it  would  last.  Arrian  walked  on  for  a  while  without 
answering.  Presently  he  said,  "  This  is  your  first  lecture.  It  is 
not  so  with  me.  I,  as  you  know,  have  heard  Epictetus  for 
several  months,  and  I  admire  him  as  much  as  you  do,  perhaps 
more.  I  am  sure  he  is  doing  me  good.  But  I  do  not  aim  at 
being  his  ideal  Cynic.  'In  me  is  not  the  stuff' — I  admit  his 
censure — that  makes  a  man  into  a  King,  bearing  all  the  cares  of 
all  mankind  upon  his  shoulders.  My  ambition  is,  some  day,  to 
become  (as  you  are  by  birth)  a  Roman  citizen" — he  was  not 
one  then,  nor  was  he  Flavius  Arrianus,  but  I  have  called  him  by 
the  name  by  which  he  became  known  in  the  world — "  and  to  do 
good  work  in  the  service  of  the  Empire,  as  an  officer  of  the 
State  and  yet  an  honest  man.  For  that  purpose  I  want  to  keep 
myself  in  order — at  all  events  to  some  reasonable  extent.  Epi- 
ctetus is  helping  me  to  do  this,  by  making  me  ashamed  of  the 
foul  life  of  the  Beast,  and  by  making  me  aspire  to  what  he  calls 
'  the  Man.'     That  I  feel  day  by  day,  and  for  that  I  am  thankful. 

"  But  if  you  ask  me  about  the  reality  of  this  '  authority,' 
which  our  Teacher  claims  for  his  Cynic,  then,  in  all  honesty,  I 
must  confess  to  doubts.  Socrates,  certainly,  has  moved  the 
minds  of  civilised  mankind.     But  then  he  had,  as  you  know, 


24  THE  FIRST  LECTURE  [Chapter  1 

a  '  daemonic  something '  in  him,  a  divine  voice  of  some  kind. 
And  he  believed  in  the  immortality  of  the  soul — a  point  on 
which  you  have  not  yet  heard  what  Epictetus  has  to  say.  As 
to  Diogenes,  though  I  have  always  faithfully  recorded  in  my 
notes  what  our  Teacher  says  about  him,  yet  I  do  not  feel  that 
the  philosopher  of  the  tub  had  the  same  heaven-sent  authority 
as  Socrates,  or  as  Epictetus  himself.  And,  indeed,  did  you  not 
yourself  hear  to-day  that  God  gives  us  authority  over  nothing 
but  our  own  hearts  and  wills  ?  How,  then,  can  the  Cynic  claim 
this  authority  over  others,  except  as  an  accident  ?  But  I  forget. 
Perhaps  Epictetus  did  not  mention  to-day  his  usual  doctrine 
about  '  good '  and  '  evil,'  about  '  peace  of  mind '  and  about  the 
'  rule '  of  our  neighbours  as  being  '  no  evil '  to  us.  It  reappears 
in  almost  every  lecture.     Wait  till  you  have  heard  this. 

"  Again,  as  to  the  origin  of  this  authority,  the  Teacher  tells 
us  that  it  is  given  by  God — or  by  Gods,  for  he  uses  both 
expressions.  But  by  what  God  or  Gods  ?  Is  not  this  a  matter 
of  great  importance  ?  Wait  till  you  have  heard  him  on  this 
point.  Now  I  must  hasten  back  to  my  rooms  to  commit  my 
notes  to  writing  while  fresh  in  my  memory.  We  meet  in  the 
lecture-room  to-morrow.  Meantime,  believe  me,  I  most  heartily 
sympathize  with  you  in  your  admiration  of  one  whom  I  account 
the  best  of  all  living  philosophers.  I  have  all  your  conviction 
of  his  sincerity.  Assuredly,  vvhencesoever  he  derives  it,  he  has 
in  him  a  marvellous  power  for  good.  The  Gods  grant  that  it 
may  last ! " 


CHAPTER   II 

EPICTETUS   ON  THE   GODS 

Arrian  was  right  in  thinking  that  the  next  lecture  would 
be  on  the  Gods.  I  had  come  to  Nicopolis  at  the  end  of  one  of 
the  lecture-courses,  and  had  heard  its  conclusion — the  perfecting 
of  the  Cynic.  The  new  course  began  by  describing  the  purpose 
of  God  in  making  man. 

But  at  the  outset  the  subject  was,  not  God,  but  the  Logos 
— that  word  so  untranslateable  into  our  Latin,  including  as  it 
does  suggestions  of  our  Word,  Discourse,  Reason,  Logic,  Under- 
standing, Purpose,  Proportion,  and  Harmony.  Starting  from 
this,  Epictetus  first  said  that  the  only  faculty  that  could,  as  it 
were,  behold  itself,  and  theorize  about  itself,  was  the  faculty  of 
the  Logos,  which  is  also  the  faculty  with  which  we  regard,  and, 
so  to  speak,  mentally  handle,  all  phenomena.  From  the  Logos, 
or  Word,  he  passed  to  God,  as  the  Giver  of  this  faculty :  "  It  was 
therefore  right  and  meet  that  this  highest  and  best  of  all  gifts 
should  be  the  only  one  that  the  Gods  have  placed  at  our 
disposal.  All  the  rest  they  have  not  placed  at  our  disposal. 
Can  it  be  that  the  Gods  did  not  wish  to  place  them  in  our 
power  ?  For  my  part,  I  think  that,  if  they  had  been  able,  they 
would  have  entrusted  us  also  with  the  rest.  But  they  were 
absolutely  unable.  For,  being  on  earth,  and  bound  up  with 
such  a  body  as  this  " — and  here  he  made  his  usual  gesture  of 
self-contempt,  mocking  at  his  own  lame  figure — "  how  was  it 
possible  that  we  should  not  be  preVented  by  these  external 
fetters  from  receiving  those  other  gifts  ?  But  what  says  Zeus  ?  " 
— with  that,  the  halting  mortal,  turning  suddenly  round,  had 


26  EPIGTETUS  [Chapter  2 

become  the  Olympian  Father  addressing  a  child  six  years  old : 
"  Epictetus,  if  it  had  been  practicable,  I  would  have  made  your 
dear  little  body  quite  free,  and  your  pretty  little  possessions  quite 
free  too,  and  quite  at  your  disposal.  But  as  it  is,  don't  shut  your 
eyes  to  the  truth.  This  little  body  is  not  your  very  own.  It  is- 
only  a  neat  arrangement  in  clay." 

After  a  pause,  the  Epictetian  Zeus  continued  as  follows,, 
falling  from  "  I  "  to  "  we."  Some  of  our  fellow-scholars  declared 
to  Arrian  after  lecture  that  Epictetus  could  not  have  meant 
this  change,  and  they  slightly  altered  the  words  in  their  notes. 
I  prefer  to  give  the  difficult  words  of  Zeus  as  Arrian  took  them 
down  and  as  I  heard  them  :  "  But,  since  I  was  not  able  to  do  this, 
WE  gave  you  a  portion  of  OURSELVES,  this  power" — and 
here  Epictetus  made  believe  to  put  a  little  box  into  the  child's, 
hand,  adding  that  it  contained  a  power  of  pursuing  or  avoiding,. 
of  liking  or  disliking — "  Take  care  of  this,  and  put  in  it  all 
that  belongs  to  you.  As  long  as  you  do  this,  you  will 
never  be  hindered  or  hampered,  never  cry,  never  scold,  ojnd  never 
flatter." 

The  change  from  I  to  WE  was  certainly  curious ;  and  some 
said  that  "we  gave,"  edokamen,  ought  to  be  regarded  as  two 
words,  eddka  men,  "  I  gave  on  the  one  hand."  But  "  on  the  one 
hand  "  made  no  sense.  Nor  could  they  themselves  deny  that 
Epictetus  made  Zeus  say,  first,  "  /  was  not  able,"  and  then,  "  a. 
part  of  ourselves."  I  think  the  explanation  may  be  this. 
Epictetus  had  many  ways  of  looking  at  the  Divine  Nature. 
Sometimes  he  regarded  it  as  One,  sometimes  as  Many.  When 
he  thought  of  God  as  supporting  and  controlling  the  harmonious 
Cosmos,  or  Universe,  then  God  was  One — the  Monarch  or  General 
to  whom  we  all  owed  loyal  obedience.  Often,  however,  "  Gods  " 
were  spoken  of,  as  in  the  expression  "  Father  of  Gods  and  men,'" 
and  elsewhere.  Once  he  reproached  himself  (a  lower  or  imagin- 
ary self)  for  repining  against  the  Cosmos  because  he  was  lame, 
almost  as  if  the  Cosmos  itself  were  Providence  or  God : 
"  Wretched  creature  !  For  the  sake  of  one  paltry  leg,  to  impeach 
the  Cosmos ! "  But  he  w&it  on  to  call  the  Cosmos  "  the  Whole 
of  Things."  And  then  he  called  on  each  man  to  sacrifice  some 
part  of  himself  (a  lame  man,  for  example,  sacrificing  his  lame 


Chapter  2]  ON   THE  GOBS  27 

leg)  to  the  Universe :  "  What !  Will  you  not  make  a  present  of 
it  (i.e.  the  leg)  to  the  Whole  of  Things  ?  Let  go  this  leg  of 
yours  !  Yield  it  up  gladly  to  Him  that  gave  it !  What !  Will 
you  sulk  and  fret  against  the  ordinances  of  Zeus,  which  He — 
in  concert  with  the  Fates  present  at  your  birth  and  spinning  the 
thread  for  you — decreed  and  ordained  ? " 

I  remember,  too,  how  once,  while  professing  to  represent 
the  doctrines  of  the  philosophers  in  two  sections,  he  spoke,  in 
the  first  section,  of  "  Him,"  but  in  the  second,  of  "  Them,"  thus : 
"  The  philosophers  say  that  we  must  in  the  first  place  learn  this, 
the  existence  of  God,  and  that  He  provides  for  the  Universe, 
and  that  nothing — whether  deed  or  purpose  or  thought — can  lie 
hidden  from  Him.  In  the  next  place  [we  must  learn]  of  what 
nature  They  (i.e.  the  Gods)  are.  For,  of  whatever  nature  They 
may  be  found  to  be,  he  that  would  fain  please  Them  and  obey 
[Them]  must  needs  endeavour  (to  the  best  of  his  ability)  to  be 
made  like  unto  Them." 

What  did  he  mean  by  "  THEM  "  ?  And  why  did  he  use 
THEM  directly  after  HIM  ?  I  believe  he  did  it  deliberately. 
For  in  the  very  next  sentence  he  expressed  God  in  a  neuter 
adjective,  "  If  THE  DIVINE  [BEING]  is  trustworthy,  man 
also  must  needs  be  trustworthy."  He  seemed  to  me  to  pass 
from  masculine  singular  to  masculine  plural  and  from  that 
to  neuter  singular,  as  much  as  to  say,  "  Take  notice.  I  use 
HIM,  THEM,  and  IT  in  three  consecutive  sentences,  and  all 
about  God,  to  shew  you  that  God  is  not  any  one  of  these,  but 
all." 

Similarly,  after  condemning  the  attempt  of  philosophers  to 
please  the  rulers  of  the  earth,  he  said,  "  I  know  whom  I  must 
needs  please,  and  submit  to,  and  obey — God  and  those  next  to 
Him."  But  then  he  continued  in  the  singular  ("  He  made  me 
at  one  with  myself"  and  so  on).  And  I  think  I  may  safely  say 
that  I  never  heard  him  allow  his  ideal  philosopher  or  Cynic  to 
address  God  in  the  plural  with  "  ye  "  or  "  you."  It  was  always 
"  thou,"  as  in  the  utterance  I  quoted  above — "  Thine  were  they 
all  and  thou  gavest  them  to  me." 

Well,  then,  whom  did  he  mean  by  "  those  next  to  "  God  ? 
I  think  he  referred  to  certain  guardian  angels — "  daemons  "  he 


28  EPICTETUS  [Chapter  2 

called  them,  and  so  will  I,  spelling  it  thus,  so  as  to  distinguish 
it  from  "  demon  "  meaning  "  devil  " — one  of  whom  (he  said)  was 
allotted  by  God  to  each  human  being.  This,  according  to 
Epictetus,  did  not  exclude  the  general  inspection  of  mankind  by 
God  Himself:  "To  each  He  has  assigned  a  Guardian,  the 
Daemon  of  each  mortal,  to  be  his  guard  and  keeper,  sleepless 
and  undeceivable.  Therefore,  whenever  you  shut  your  doors 
and  make  darkness  in  the  house,  remember  never  to  say  that 
you  are  alone.  For  you  are  not  alone.  God  is  in  the  house,  and 
your  Daemon  is  in  the  house.  And  what  need  have  these  of 
light  to  see  what  you  are  doing  ?  " 

This  guardian  Daemon,  or  daemonic  Guardian,  was  said  by 
some  of  our  fellow-scholars  to  be  the  portion  of  the  divine  Logos 
within  us,  in  virtue  of  which  our  Teacher  distinguished  men 
from  beasts.  Notably  did  he  once  make  this  distinction — in 
answer  to  some  imaginary  questioner,  who  was  supposed  to 
class  man  with  irrational  animals  because  he  is  subject  to 
animal  necessities.  "  Cattle,"  replied  Epictetus,  "  are  works  of 
God,  but  not  preeminent,  and  certainly  not  parts  of  God ;  but 
thou  " — turning  to  the  supposed  opponent — "  art  a  fragment 
broken  off  from  God  ;  thou  hast  in  thyself  a  part  of  Him.  Why 
then  ignore  thy  noble  birth  ?  Why  dost  thou  not  recognise 
whence  thou  hast  come  ?  Wilt  thou  not  remember,  in  the 
moment  of  eating,  what  a  Being  thou  art — thou  that  eatest — 
what  a  Being  it  is  that  thou  feedest  ?  Wilt  thou  not  recognise 
what  it  is  that  employs  thy  senses  and  thy  faculties  ?  Knowest 
thou  not  that  thou  art  feeding  God,  yea,  taking  God  with  thee 
to  the  gymnasium  ?  God,  God  dost  thou  carry  about,  thou 
miserable  creature,  and  thou  knowest  it  not ! " 

We  were  rather  startled  at  this.  In  what  sense  could  a 
miserable  creature  "  carry  about  God  "  ?  Epictetus  proceeded, 
'  Dost  thou  fancy  that  I  am  speaking  of  a  god  of  gold  or  silver, 
an  outside  thing  ?  It  is  within  thyself  that  thou  earnest  Him. 
And  thou  perceivest  not  that  thou  art  defiling  Him  with  impure 
purposes  and  filthy  actions !  Before  the  face  of  a  mere  statue 
of  the  God  thou  wouldst  not  dare  to  do  any  of  the  deeds  thou 
art  daily  doing.  Yet  in  the  presence  of  the  God  Himself, 
within  thee,  looking  at  all  thy  acts,  listening  to  all  thy  words 


Chapter  2]  ON   THE   GODS  29 

and  thoughts,  thou  art  not  ashamed  to  continue  thinking  the 
same  bad  thoughts  and  doing  the  same  bad  deeds — blind  to 
thine  own  nature  and  banned  by  God's  wrath  ! " 

From  this  it  appeared  that  the  Daemon  in  each  man  was 
good  and  veritably  God,  and  turned  men  towards  God  and 
goodness ;  but  that  some  did  not  perceive  the  presence  and 
were  deaf  to  the  voice.  These  were  "  miserable  wretches  "  and 
"  banned  by  God's  wrath."  Thus  in  some  sense,  the  same  God 
seemed  to  be  the  cause  of  virtue  in  some  but  of  vice  in  others. 
This  accorded  with  a  saying  of  Epictetus  on  another  occasion 
that  God  "  ordained  that  there  should  be  summer  and  winter, 
fruitfulness  and  fruitlessness,  virtue  and  vice."  Then  the 
question  arose,  To  how  many  did  the  Logos  of  God  bring  virtue 
and  to  how  many  did  it  result  in  vice  ?  And  again,  Did  it 
bring  virtue  to  as  many  as  the  Logos  of  God,  or  God,  desired  ? 
Or  was  He  unable  to  fulfil  His  desire,  as  in  the  case  of  that 
imaginary  opponent,  for  example,  so  that  the  Supreme  would 
have  to  say  to  him,  as  to  Epictetus,  "  If  I  could  have,  I  would 
have.  But  now,  make  no  mistake.  I  could  not  bring  virtue 
unto  thee."  I  was  disposed  to  think  that  Epicbetus  would 
have  laid  the  blame  on  the  opponent,  who,  he  would  have  said, 
might  have  obeyed  the  Logos  in  himself,  if  he  had  chosen  to  do 
so.  According  to  our  Teacher's  doctrine,  God  would  say  to  this 
man  nothing  more  cruel,  or  less  just,  than  He  says  to  all,  "I 
could  not  force  virtue  on  thee,  nor  on  any  man.  If  I  forced 
virtue  on  thee,  virtue  would  cease  to  be  virtue  and  God  would 
cease  to  be  God."  But  still  the  uneasy  feeling  came  to  me — not 
indeed  at  the  time  of  this  lecture  (or  at  least  not  to  any  great 
extent)  but  afterwards — that  the  God  of  Epictetus  was  hampered 
by  what  Epictetus  called  "the  clay,"  which  He  "would  have  liked" 
to  make  immortal,  if  He  "  had  been  able."  What  if  each  man's 
"  clay "  was  different  ?  Who  made  the  clay  ?  What  if  God 
controlled  nothing  more  than  the  shaping  of  the  clay,  and  this,  too, 
only  in  conjunction  with  the  Fates  ?  What  if  the  Fates  alone 
were  responsible  for  the  making  of  the  clay  ?  In  that  case,  must 
not  the  Fates  be  regarded  as  higher  Beings,  even  above  the  Maker 
of  the  Cosmos — higher  in  some  sense,  but  bad  Beings  or  weak 
Beings,   spoiling   the    Maker's  work   by  supplying    Him   with 


30  EPIGTETU8  [Chapter  2 

bad   mate 'Hal  so  that  He  could  not  do  what  He  would   have 
liked  to  have  done? 

Epictetus,  I  subsequently  found,  would  never  see  difficulties 
of  this  kind.  He  represented  the  Supreme  as  a  great  stage 
manager,  allotting  to  all  their  appropriate  parts:  "Thou  art 
the  sun ;  go  on  thy  rounds,  minister  to  all  things.  Thou  art 
a  heifer ;  when  the  lion  appears,  play  thy  part,  or  suffer  for  it. 
Thou  art  a  bull ;  fight  as  champion  of  the  herd.  Thou  canst 
lead  the  host  against  Ilium ;  be  thou  Agamemnon.  Thou  canst 
cope  with  Hector ;  be  thou  Achilles."  He  did  not  add,  "  Thou 
canst  spit  venom  and  slander  against  the  good  and  great ;  be 
thou  Thersites."     But  I  did  not  think  of  that  at  the  time. 

For  the  moment,  I  was  carried  away  by  the  fervour  of  the 
speaker.  "  He,"  I  said,  "  has  been  a  slave,  the  slave  of  Nero's 
freedman ;  he  has  seen  things  at  their  worst ;  and  yet  he 
believes  that  virtue,  freedom,  and  peace,  are  placed  by  God  in 
the  power  of  all  that  will  obey  the  Logos,  His  gift,  within  their 
hearts  ! "  So  I  believed  it,  or  persuaded  myself  that  I  believed 
it.  Epictetus  insisted,  in  the  strongest  terms,  that  the  divine 
Providence  extends  to  all.  "  God,"  he  said,  "  does  not  neglect 
a  single  one,  even  of  the  least  of  His  creatures."  Stimulating 
us  to  be  good  instead  of  talking  about  being  good,  he  exclaimed, 
"  How  grand  it  is  for  each  of  you  to  be  able  to  say,  The  very 
thing  that  people  are  solemnly  arguing  about  in  the  schools  as  an 
impossible  ideal,  that  very  thing  I  am  accomplishing.  They  are, 
in  effect,  expatiating  on  my  virtues,  investigating  me,  and  singing 
my  praises.  Zeus  has  been  pleased  that  I  shoidd  receive  from 
my  own  self  a  demonstration  of  the  truth  of  this  ideal,  while  He 
Himself  tests  and  tries  me  to  see  whether  I  am  a  worthy  soldier 
of  His  army,  and  a  worthy  citizen  of  His  city.  At  the  same  time 
it  has  been  His  pleasure  to  bring  me  forward  that  I  may  testify 
concerning  the  things  that  lie  oidside  the  will,  and  that  I  may 
cry  aloud  to  the  world,  'Behold,  0  men,  that  your  fears  are  idle ! 
Vain,  all  vain,  are  your  greedy  and  covetous  desires.  Seek  not 
the  Good  in  the  outside  world  !  Seek  it  in  yourselves !  Else,  ye 
will  not  find  it.'  Engaging  me  for  such  a  mission,  and  for  such 
a  testimony  as  this,  God  now  leads  me  hither,  now  sends  me 
thither;  exhibits  me  to  mankind  in  poverty,  in  disease — ruler  in 


Chapter  2]  ON  THE   GODS  31 

fact  but  no  rule?'  in  the  eyes  of  men — banishes  me  to  the  rocks  of 
Gyara,  or  drags  me  into  prison  or  into  bonds !  And  all  this, 
not  hating  me.  No,  God  forbid !  Who  can  hate  his  own  best 
and  most  faithful  servant  ?  No,  nor  neglecting  me.  How  could 
He  1  For  He  does  not  neglect  the  meanest  of  His  creatures. 
No,  He  is  training  and  practising  me,  He  is  employing  me  as 
His  witness  to  the  rest  of  mankind.  And  I,  being  set  down  by 
Him  for  such  high  service  as  this — can  I  possibly  find  time  to 
■entertain  anxieties  about  where  I  am,  or  with,  whom  I  am  living, 
or  what  men  say  about  me  ?  How  can  I  fail  to  be,  with  my  whole 
might  and  my  whole  being,  intent  on  God,  and  on  His  command- 
ments and  ordinances  f  " 

I  noted  with  pleasure  here  the  words,  "  He  does  not  neglect 
the  meanest  of  His  creatures."  To  the  same  effect  elsewhere, 
•speaking  of  Zeus,  he  said,  "  In  very  truth,  the  universal  frame 
of  things  is  badly  managed  unless  Zeus  takes  care  of  all  His 
own  citizens,  in  order  that  they  may  be  blessed  like  unto 
Himself."  A  little  before  this,  he  said  about  Hercules,  "He  left 
his  children  behind  him  without  a  groan  or  regret — not  as 
though  he  were  leaving  them  orphans,  for  he  knew  that  no  man 
is  an  orphan,"  because  Zeus  is  "  Father  of  men." 

In  all  these  passages  describing  the  fatherhood  of  God  and 
the  sonship  of  man,  Epictetus  spoke  of  virtue  as  being,  by  itself, 
a,  sufficient  reward,  in  respect  of  the  ineffable  peace  that  it 
brings  through  the  consciousness  of  being  united  to  God.  But 
how  long  this  union  lasted,  and  whether  its  durability  was 
proof  against  death — as  Socrates  taught — about  this  he  had 
hitherto  said  nothing.  The  Cynic,  he  again  and  again  insisted, 
was  God's  son  ;  but  he  did  not  insist  that  the  son  was  as 
immortal  as  the  Father.  Sometimes  indeed  he  described  the 
man  of  temperance  and  self-control  as  "banqueting  at  the  table 
■of  the  Gods."  Still  more,  the  man  that  had  passed  beyond 
temperance  into  contempt  of  earthly  things — a  rank  to  which 
Arrian  and  I  did  not  aspire — such  a  Cynic  as  this  he  extolled 
as  being  not  only  fellow-guest  with  the  Gods  but  also  fellow-ruler. 
These  expressions  reminded  me  of  what  we  used  to  learn  by 
heart  in  Rome  concerning  the  man  described  by  Horace  as 
"'just  and  firm  of  purpose."     The  poet  likened  him  to  Hercules 


32  EPICTETUS   ON  THE  GODS        [Chapter  2 

transported  aloft  to  the  fiery  citadel  of  heaven,  and  to  the 
Emperor  Augustus  drinking  nectar  at  the  table  of  the  Gods. 
But  this  was  said  about  Augustus  while  he  was  still  alive ;  and 
the  poem  did  not  seem  to  me  to  prove  that  Horace  believed  in 
the  immortality  of  the  soul.  However,  what  Epictetus  said 
about  that  will  appear  hereafter.  For  the  present,  I  must 
explain  why  the  teaching  of  Epictetus  concerning  the  Gods, 
although  it  carried  me  away  for  a  time,  caused  me  bewilderment 
in  the  end,  and  made  me  feel  the  need  of  something  beyond. 


CHAPTER   III 

ARRIAN  ON  THE  OATH  OF  THE  CHRISTIANS 

Up  to  the  time  of  my  coming  to  Nicopolis,  my  faith  in  the 
Gods  had  been  like  that  of  most  official  and  educated  Romans. 
First  I  had  a  literary  belief  not  only  in  Zeus  but  also  in  Apollo, 
Athene,  Demeter,  and  the  rest  of  the  Gods  and  Goddesses  of 
Homer,  tempered  by  a  philosophic  feeling  that  some  of  the 
Homeric  and  other  myths  about  them,  and  about  the  less 
beautiful  divinities,  were  not  true,  or  were  true  only  as  allegories. 
In  the  next  place  I  had  a  Roman  or  official  belief  in  the  destiny 
of  the  empire,  and  a  recognition  that  its  unity  was  best 
maintained  by  tolerating  the  worships  of  any  number  of  national 
Gods  and  Goddesses ;  provided  they  did  not  tend  to  sedition 
and  conspiracy,  nor  to  such  vices  as  were  in  contravention  of 
the  laws.  Lastly,  I  recognised  as  the  belief  of  many  philosophers 
— and  was  myself  half  inclined  to  believe — that  One  God,  or 
Zeus,  so  controlled  the  whole  of  things  that  it  would  hardly  be 
atheistic  if  I  sometimes  regarded  even  Apollo,  and  Athene,  and 
others,  as  personifying  God's  attributes  rather  than  as  being 
Gods  and  Goddesses  in  themselves — although  I  myself,  without 
scruple  and  in  all  willingness,  should  have  offered  them  both 
worship  and  sacrifice.  Personally,  apart  (I  think)  from  the 
influences  of  childhood,  I  always  shrank  from  definitely  believing 
that  the  One  God  ever  had  been,  or  ever  could  be,  "  alone." 

It  was  with  these  confused  opinions  or  feelings  that  I 
became  a  pupil  of  Epictetus.  And  at  first,  whatever  he 
asserted  about  God,  or  the  Gods,  he  made  me  believe  it — as 
long  as  he  was  speaking.  When  he  said  "  God,"  or  "  Zeus," 
or  "  Father,"  or  "  HIM,"  or  "  THEM,"  or  "  Providence,"  or  "  The 

a.  3 


34  ARM  AN  [Chapter  3 

Divine  Being,"  or  "The  Nature  of  All  Things,"  or  whatever 
else,  he  dragged  me  as  it  were  to  the  new  Name,  and  made  me 
follow  as  a  captive  and  do  it  homage.  But  afterwards  there 
came  a  reaction.  The  limbs  of  my  mind,  so  to  speak,  became 
tired  of  being  dragged.  I  longed  for  rest  and  found  none.  My 
homage,  too,  was  dissipated  by  distraction.  When  he  repeated 
as  he  often  did — addressing  each  one  of  us  individually,  and 
therefore  (I  assumed)  me  among  the  rest — "Thou  carriest  about 
God,"  he  seemed  to  say  to  me,  "  Look  within  thyself  for  Him 
whom  thou  must  worship."  That  was  not  helpful,  it  was  the 
reverse  of  helpful — at  least,  to  me.  I  felt  vaguely  then  (and 
now  as  a  Christian  I  know)  that  men  have  need  not  only  to 
look  within,  but  also  (and  much  more)  to  look  up — up  to  the 
Father  in  heaven  with  the  aid  of  His  Spirit  on  earth.  It  was 
due  to  Epictetus  that  at  this  time  I — however  faintly — began 
to  feel  this  need. 

Epictetus  seemed  to  have  no  consistent  view  either  of  the 
unity  of  God  or  of  the  possibility  of  plural  Gods.  In  Rome,  we 
have  three  altars  to  the  Goddess  Febris,  or  Fever.  Epictetus 
once  referred  to  Febris  in  the  reply  of  a  philosopher  to  a  tyrant. 
The  latter  says,  "I  have  power  to  cut  off  your  head";  the  former 
replies,  "  You  are  in  the  right.  I  quite  forgot  that  I  must  pay 
you  homage  as  people  do  to  Fever  and  Cholera,  and  erect  an 
altar  to  you,  as  indeed  in  Rome  there  is  an  altar  to  Fever."  It 
was  hardly  possible  to  mistake  the  Master's  mockery  of  this 
worship.  On  the  other  hand,  he  was  bitterly  sarcastic  against 
those  who  denied  the  existence  of  Demeter,  the  Kore  her 
daughter,  and  Pluto  the  husband  of  the  Kore.  These  deities 
our  Master  regarded  as  representing  bread.  "  O,  the  grati- 
tude," he  exclaimed,  "  O,  the  reverence  of  these  creatures  !  Day 
by  day  they  eat  bread  ;  and  yet  they  have  the  face  to  say  '  We 
do  not  know  whether  there  is  any  such  a  being  as  Demeter,  or 
the  Kore,  or  Pluto ! '  It  never  seemed  to  occur  to  him  that 
the  worshippers  of  Febris  might  retort  on  him,  "  Day  by  day 
scores  of  people  in  Rome  have  the  fever,  and  yet  you  have  the 
face  to  say  to  us  Romans,  '  I  do  not  know  whether  there  is  any 
such  a  being  as  Febris  or  Cholera  ! '  " 

I  think  he  never  spoke  of  Poseidon,  Ares,  or  Aphrodite,  and 


Chapter  3]    ON  THE  OATH  OF  THE  CHRISTIANS    35 

hardly  ever  of  Apollo.  Even  Athene  he  mentioned  only  thrice 
in  Arrian's  hearing  (so  he  told  me),  twice  speaking  of  her  statue 
by  Phidias,  and  once  representing  Zeus  as  bemoaning  His 
solitude  (according  to  some  notion,  which  he  ridiculed)  after  a 
universal  conflagration  of  gods  and  men  and  things,  "  Miserable 
me  !  I  have  neither  Hera,  nor  Athene,  nor  Apollo ! "  It  was  for 
Zeus  alone,  as  God,  that  our  Teacher  reserved  his  devotion. 
And  for  Him  he  displayed  a  passionate  enthusiasm,  the  absolute 
sincerity  of  which  it  never  entered  into  my  mind  to  question ; 
nor  do  I  question  it  now.  Under  this  God  he  served  as 
a  soldier,  or  lived  as  a  citizen.  To  this  God  he  testified  as 
a  witness  that  others  might  believe  and  worship.  In  this  view 
of  human  life — as  being  a  testimony  to  God — his  teaching  was 
most  convincing  to  me,  even  when  I  felt,  as  I  always  did,  that 
something  was  wanting  in  any  conception  of  God  that  regarded 
Him  as  ever  being  "  alone." 

Now  I  pass  to  another  matter,  not  of  great  interest  to  me 
at  the  time,  but  of  great  importance  to  me  in  its  results, 
because  it  led  to  my  first  knowledge — that  could  be  called 
knowledge — of  the  followers  of  the  Lord  Jesus  Christ.  It  arose 
from  a  passage  in  the  lecture  I  described  in  my  last  chapter. 
Epictetus  was  speaking  about  "  the  whole  frame  of  things  "  as 
being  a  kind  of  fluid,  in  which  the  thrill  of  one  portion  affects 
all  the  rest,  and  about  God  and  the  Guardian  Daemon  as 
feeling  our  every  motion  and  thought.  He  concluded  by 
calling  on  us  to  take  an  oath — a  military  oath,  or  sacramentum, 
as  we  call  it  in  Latin — such  as  soldiers  take  to  the  Emperor. 
"  They,"  he  said,  "  taking  on  themselves  the  life  of  service  for 
pay,  swear  to  prefer  above  all  things  the  safety  of  Caesar. 
You,  who  have  been  counted  worthy  of  such  vast  gifts,  will  you 
not  likewise  swear,  and,  after  taking  your  oath,  abide  by  it  ? 
And  what  shall  the  oath  be  ?  Never  to  disobey,  never  to 
accuse,  never  to  find  fault  with  any  of  the  gifts  that  have  been 
given  by  Him ;  never  to  do  reluctantly,  never  to  suffer  reluct- 
antly, anything  that  may  be  necessary.  This  oath  is  like  theirs — 
after  a  fashion.  The  soldiers  of  Caesar  swear  not  to  prefer 
another  to  him ;  God's  soldiers  swear  to  prefer  themselves  to 
everything." 


36  ARRIAN  [Chapters 

On  me  this  came  somewhat  as  bathos.  But  it  was  a 
frequent  paradox  with  him ;  and  of  course,  in  one  sense,  it  was 
not  a  paradox  but  common  sense.  What  he  meant  by  bidding 
us  "  prefer  ourselves "  was  "  prefer  virtue,"  which  he  always 
described  as  each  man's  true  "  profit."  Everyone,  he  said,  must 
prefer  his  own  "  profit "  to  everything  else,  even  to  father, 
brothers,  children,  wife.  Zeus  Himself — so  he  taught — prefers 
His  own  "  profit " — which  consists  in  being  Father  of  all.  Take 
away  this  thin  veil  of  apparent  egotism,  and  the  oath  might  be 
described  as  an  oath  to  live  and  die  for  righteousness,  for  the  Logos 
or  Word  of  God  within  us,  and,  thus,  for  God  Himself.  But  why, 
I  thought,  disguise  loyalty  under  the  mask  of  self-seeking  ? 
This  notion  of  a  military  oath  taken  to  God,  and  at  the  same 
time  to  oneself — and  an  oath,  so  to  speak,  of  negative  allegiance,, 
not  to  do  this  or  that — did  not  inspire  me  with  the  same 
enthusiasm  as  the  more  positive  doctrine  and  the  picture  of  the 
wandering  Cynic  going  about  the  world  and  actively  doing  good 
and  destroying  evil. 

Arrian,  however,  was  taking  down  this  passage  about  the 
military  oath  with  even  more  than  his  usual  earnestness  and 
rapidity.  "  Did  that  impress  you  ? "  said  I,  as  we  left  the 
lecture-room  together.  "  On  me  it  fell  a  little  flat."  He  did 
not  answer  at  once.  Presently,  as  if  rousing  himself  from  a 
reverie,  "  Forgive  me,"  he  said,  "  I  was  thinking  of  something 
that  occurred  in  our  neighbourhood  about  fifteen  years  ago. 
You  know  I  was  born  in  Bithynia.  Well,  about  that  time, 
there  was  a  great  outbreak  of  that  Jewish  superstition  of  which 
you  must  often  have  heard  in  Rome,  practised  by  the  followers 
of  Christus.  They  are  suspected  of  all  sorts  of  horrible  crimes 
and  abominations,  as  you  know,  I  dare  say,  better  than  I  do, 
being  familiar  with  what  the  common  people  say  about  them 
in  Rome.  Moreover  the  new  work  just  published  by  your 
Tacitus — a  lover  of  truth  if  any  man  is — severely  condemns 
them.  I  am  bound  to  say  our  Governor  did  not  think  so  badlv 
of  them  as  Tacitus  does.  Perhaps  in  Rome  and  in  Nero's 
time  they  were  more  savage  and  vicious  than  among  us  in 
Bithynia  recently.  However,  that  matters  little.  The  question 
was  not  about  their  private  vices  or  virtues.     Our  Governor 


Chapters]    ON  THE  OATH  OF  THE  CHRISTIANS    37 

believed  them  guilty  of  treasonable  conspiracy.  So  he  deter- 
mined to  stop  it. 

"  Stop  it  he  did ;  or,  at  all  events,  to  a  very  great  extent. 
But  the  point  of  interest  for  me  is,  that  when  these  fellows 
were  had  up  before  our  Governor — it  was  Caius  Plinius  Caecilius 
Secundus,  an  intimate  friend  of  the  Emperor  Trajan — he  found 
there  was  really  no  mischief  at  all  to  be  apprehended  from 
them.  Secundus  had  heard  something  about  a  sacramentum, 
or  military  oath — and  this  is  my  point — which  these  people 
were  in  the  habit  of  taking  at  their  secret  meetings.  Naturally 
this  convinced  him  at  first  that  there  must  be  something 
wrong.  But,  when  he  came  to  look  into  it,  the  whole  thing 
came  to  no  more  than  what  I  will  now  tell  you.  I  am  sure  of 
my  facts  for  I  heard  them  from  his  secretary,  who  had  a  copy 
of  his  letter  to  the  Emperor.  It  was  to  this  effect, '  They  affirm 
that  the  sum  total  of  their  crime  or  error  is,  that  they  were  tvont, 
on  an  appointed  day,  to  meet  together  before  daybreak  and  to 
sing  an  alternate  chant  to  Christus,  as  to  a  Cod,  and  to  bind 
themselves  by  an  oath — not,  as  conspirators  do,  to  commit  some 
crime  in  common,  but  to  avoid  committing  theft,  robbery,  adultery, 
fraud,  breach  of  faith.  This  done,  they  break  up.  It  is  true 
they  return  to  take  food  in  common,  but  it  is  a  mere  harmless 
repast'  After  the  Governor  had  gone  carefully  into  the  matter, 
putting  a  few  women  to  the  torture  to  get  at  the  truth, 
he  came  to  the  conclusion  that  this  so-called  military  oath, 
or  sacramentum,  had  no  harm  whatever  in  it.  The  thing  was 
merely  a  perverted  superstition  run  wild.  He  very  sensibly 
adopted  the  mild  course  of  giving  the  poor  deluded  people  a 
chance  of  denying  their  faith  as  they  called  it.  The  Emperor 
sanctioned  his  mildness.  Most  of  them  recanted.  Things 
settled  down,  and  promised  to  be  very  much  as  they  were 
before.  At  least  so  the  Governor  thought.  We,  outside  the 
palace,  were  not  quite  so  sanguine.  But  anyhow,  what  struck 
me  to-day  was  the  similarity  between  the  military  oath  of  these 
Christians  and  the  military  oath  prescribed  by  our  great 
Teacher   to    his    Cynics." 

"  But,"  said  I,  "  does  it  not  seem  to  you  that  our  military 
oath  ought  to  be  a  positive  one,  namely,  that  we  Cynics  will  go 


38  ARRIAN  [Chapter  S 

anywhere  and  do  anything  that  the  General  may  command — 
and  not  a  negative  one,  that  we  will  abstain  from  grumbling 
against  His  orders  ? "  Arrian  replied,  "  As  to  that,  I  think  our 
Master  follows  Socrates,  who  expressly  says  that  he  had  indeed 
a  daemon,  or  at  all  events  a  daemonic  voice  ;  but  that  it  told 
him  only  what  to  avoid,  not  what  to  do."  "  Surely,"  replied  I, 
"  what  Socrates  said  on  his  trial  was,  '  How  could  I  be  fairly 
described  as  introducing  new  daemons  when  saying  that  a  voice 
of  God  manifestly  points  out  to  me  what  I  ought  to  do  V  "I  do 
not  remember  that,"  said  my  friend,  "  but  we  are  near  my 
rooms.     Come  in  and  let  us  look  into  Plato's  Apologia." 

So  we  went  in,  and  Arrian  took  out  of  his  book-case  Plato's 
account  of  the  Speech  of  Socrates  before  the  jury  that  con- 
demned him  to  death.  "  There,  Silanus,"  said  he,  "  you  see  I 
was  right."  And  he  pointed  to  these  words,  "  There  comes  to  me, 
as  you  have  often  heard  me  say,  a  divine  and  daemonic  some- 
thing, which  indeed  my  prosecutor  Meletus  mentioned  and 
burlesqued  in  his  written  indictment.  This  thing,  in  its 
commencement,  dates  back  (I  believe)  from  my  boyhood,  a  kind 
of  Voice  that  comes  to  me  from  time  to  time,  and,  whenever  it 
comes,  it  always  " — "  Mark  this,"  said  Arrian — "  turns  me  back 
from  doing  that  (whatever  it  may  be)  which  I  am  purposing  to 
do,  but  never  moves  me  forward." 

I  seemed  fairly  and  fully  confuted.  But  suddenly  it 
occurred  to  me  to  ask  my  friend  to  let  me  see  Xenophon's 
version  of  the  same  speech.  He  brought  it  out.  I  was  not  long 
before  I  disinterred  the  very  words  that  I  have  quoted  above,, 
"  a  Voice  of  God  that  manifestly  points  out  to  me  what  I  ought 
to  do."  And  the  context,  too,  indicated  that  the  Voice — which 
he  calls  daemonic,  or  a  daemonion — gave  positive  directions,, 
recognised  as  such  by  his  friends. 

This  very  important  difference  between  Plato  and  Xenophon 
in  regard  to  the  daemon  of  Socrates,  as  described  by  Socrates 
himself,  interested  Arrian  not  a  little.  "  Come  back,"  he  said, 
"  in  the  evening,  when  I  shall  have  finished  reducing  my  notes 
to  writing,  and  let  us  put  the  two  versions  side  by  side  and  see 
how  many  passages  we  can  find  agreeing."  So  I  came  back 
after  sunset,  and  we  sat  down  and  went  carefully  through  them. 


Chapter  3]     ON  THE  OATH  OF  THE  CHRISTIANS    39 

And,  as  far  as  I  remember,  we  could  not  find  these  two  great 
biographers  of  this  great  man  agreeing  in  so  much  as  a  dozen 
consecutive  words  in  their  several  records  of  his  Apologia,  his 
only  public  speech.  Presently — Arrian  having  Xenophon  in 
his  hand  and  I  Plato — I  read  out  the  well-known  words  of 
Socrates  about  Anytus  and  Meletus,  his  accusers,  and  about 
their  power  to  kill  him  but  not  to  hurt  him.  "  What,"  said  I, 
"  is  Xenophon's  version  of  this  ?  "  "  He  omits  it  altogether," 
replied  Arrian ;  "  but  I  see,  reading  on,  that  he  puts  into  the 
mouth  of  Socrates  an  entirely  different  saying  about  Anytus, 
after  the  condemnation.  Let  me  see  the  Plato."  Taking  it 
from  my  hand,  he  observed,  "  Our  Master,  Epictetus,  who  is 
continually  quoting  these  words  of  Plato's,  never  quotes  them 
exactly.  'Anytus  and  Meletus  may  kill  me  but  they  cannot 
hurt  me  ' — that  is  always  his  condensed  version.  But  you  see 
it  is  not  Plato's,  Plato's  is  much  longer." 

So  the  conversation  strayed  away  in  a  literary  direction. 
We  talked  a  great  deal — without  much  knowledge,  at  least 
on  my  part — about  oral  tradition.  I  remarked  on  the  possi- 
bilities in  it  of  astonishing  divergences  and  distortions  of 
doctrine — "  unless,"  said  I,  as  I  rose  up  to  go,  "  it  happens,  by 
good  fortune,  to  be  taken  down  at  the  time  by  an  honest 
fellow  like  you,  who  loves  his  teacher,  but  loves  the  truth  more, 
so  that  he  just  sets  down  what  he  hears,  as  he  hears  it."  "  I 
do  my  best,"  said  Arrian ;  "  but  if  it  were  not  nearly  midnight, 
I  could  shew  you  that  even  my  best  is  not  always  good  enough. 
I  suspect  that  such  sayings  of  our  Master  as  become  most 
current  will  be  very  variously  reported  a  hundred  years  hence." 

"  Good-night,"  said  I,  and  was  opening  the  door  to  depart, 
when  it  flashed  upon  me  that  all  this  time,  although  we  had 
been  discussing  Socrates,  and  assuming  a  resemblance  between 
him  and  our  Master,  we  had  said  nothing  about  that  great 
doctrine  in  the  profession  of  which  Socrates  breathed  his  last — 
prescribing  a  sacrifice  to  iEsculapius  as  though  death  were  the 
beginning  of  a  higher  life — I  mean  the  immortality  of  the  soul. 
"  I  will  not  stay  now,"  said  I,  "  but  we  have  not  said  a  word 
about  Epictetus's  doctrine  concerning  the  immortality  of  the 
soul ;  could  you  lend  me  some  of  your  notes  about  it  ?  "     "  He 


40  ARRIAN  [Chapter  3 

seldom  speaks  of  it,"  replied  my  friend ;  "  when  he  does,  it  is 
not  always  easy  to  distinguish  between  metaphor  and  not- 
metaphor.  My  notes,  so  far,  do  not  quite  satisfy  me  that  I 
have  done  him  justice.  He  is  likely  to  touch  on  it  in  the  next 
lecture  or  soon  after.  I  should  prefer  you  to  hear  for  yourself 
what  he  says." 

"  One  more  question,"  said  I.  "  Did  our  Master  ever,  in  your 
hearing,  refer  to  that  last  strange  saying  of  Socrates,  '  We  owe 
a  cock  to  ^Esculapius  '  ?  Sometimes  it  seems  to  me  the  finest 
epigram  in  all  Greek  literature."  "  Never,"  replied  Arrian. 
"  He  has  never  mentioned  it  either  in  my  hearing,  or  in  the 
hearing  of  those  whom  I  have  asked  about  it.  And  I  have 
asked  many." 

Departing  home  I  found  myself  almost  at  once  forgetting 
our  long  literary  discussion  about  oral  tradition,  in  the  larger 
and  deeper  question  touched  on  in  the  last  few  minutes.  Why 
should  not  Arrian  have  been  able  to  "  do  justice  "  to  Epictetus 
in  this  particular  subject  ?  Was  it  that  our  Teacher  did  not 
quite  "do  justice"  to  himself?  Then  I  began  to  ask  what 
Epictetus  had  meant  precisely  by  such  expressions  as  that  men 
may  become  "  fellow-banqueters  "  and  even  "  fellow-rulers  "  with 
"  the  Gods."  "  If  God  Himself  is  immortal,  how,"  said  I,  "  can 
'  God's  own  son  '  fail  to  be  immortal  also  ? " 

All  through  that  night,  even  till  near  dawn,  I  was  harassed 
with  wild  and  wearying  dreams.  I  travelled,  wandering 
through  wilderness  after  wilderness  in  quest  of  Socrates  and 
nowhere  finding  him.  Wherever  I  went  I  seemed  to  hear 
a  strange  monotonous  cry  that  followed  close  behind  me. 
Presently  I  heard  a  flapping  of  wings,  and  I  knew  that  the 
sound  was  the  crowing  of  the  cock  that  was  to  be  offered  for 
Socrates  to  iEsculapius.  Then  it  became  a  mocking,  inarticulate, 
human  voice  striving  to  utter  articulate  speech.  At  last  I 
heard  distinctly,  "  If  Zeus  could  have,  he  would  have.  If  he 
could  have,  he  would  have.     But  he  could  not." 


CHAPTER   IV 

SCAURUS  ON  EPICTETUS  AND  PAUL 

The  cock  was  still  crowing  when  I  started  out  of  my  dream. 
It  was  not  yet  dawn  but  sleep  was  impossible.  When  Arrian 
called  to  accompany  me  to  lecture,  he  found  me  in  a  fever  and 
sent  in  a  physician,  by  whose  advice  I  stayed  indoors  for  two  or 
three  days.  During  this  enforced  inaction,  I  resolved  to  write 
to  my  old  friend  Scaurus.  Marcus  iEmilius  Scaurus — for  that 
was  his  name  in  full — had  been  a  friend  of  my  father's,  years 
before  I  was  born ;  and  his  advice  had  been  largely  the  cause  of 
my  coming  to  Nicopolis.  .  Scaurus  had  seen  service ;  but  for 
many  years  past  he  had  devoted  himself  wholly  to  literature, 
not  as  a  rhetorician,  nor  as  a  lover  of  the  poets,  but  as  "  a 
practical  historian,"  so  he  called  it.  By  this  he  meant  to 
distinguish  himself  from  what  he  called  "  ornamental  historians." 
"  History,"  he  used  to  say,  "  contains  truth  in  a  well ;  and  I  like 
trying  to  draw  it  out." 

For  a  man  of  nearly  seventy,  Scaurus  was  remarkably 
vigorous  in  mind  and  thought,  with  large  stores  of  observation 
and  learning,  of  a  sort  not  common  among  Romans  of  good 
birth.  His  favourite  motto  was,  "  Quick  to  perceive,  slow  to 
believe."  I  used  to  think  he  erred  on  the  side  of  believing  too 
little,  and  his  friends  used  to  call  him  Miso-mythus  or  "  Myth- 
hater."  But  over  and  over  again,  when  I  had  ventured  to 
discuss  with  him  a  matter  of  documentary  evidence,  I  had 
found  that  his  incredulity  was  justified ;  so  that  I  had  come  to 
admit  that  there  was  some  force  in  his  protest,  that  he  ought 
to  be  called,  not  "  Myth-hater,"  but  "  Truth-lover." 


42  SCAUR  US  [Chapter  4 

In  the  year  after  my  father's  death,  when  I  was  wasting  my 
time  in  Rome,  and  in  danger  of  doing  worse,  Scaurus  took  me 
to  task  as  befitted  my  father's  dearest  friend — a  cousin  also  of 
my  mother,  who  had  died  while  I  was  still  an  infant.  He  had 
long  desired  me  to  enter  the  army,  and  I  should  have  done  so 
but  for  illness.  Now  that  my  health  was  almost  restored,  he 
returned  to  his  previous  advice,  but  suggested  that,  for  the 
present,  I  might  spend  a  month  or  two  with  advantage  in 
attending  the  lectures  of  Epictetus,  of  whom  he  knew  something 
while  he  was  in  Rome,  and  about  whom  he  had  heard  a  good 
deal  since.  When  I  demurred,  and  told  him  that  I  had  heard  a 
good  many  philosophers  and  did  not  care  for  them,  he  replied, 
"  Epictetus  you  will  not  find  a  common  philosopher."  He 
pressed  me  and  I  yielded. 

Since  my  coming  to  Nicopolis,  I  had  written  once  to  tell 
him  of  my  arrival,  and  to  thank  him  for  advising  me  to  come 
to  so  admirable  a  teacher.  But  I  had  been  too  much  absorbed 
in  the  teaching  to  enter  into  detail.  Now,  having  leisure,  and 
knowing  his  great  interest  in  such  subjects,  I  wrote  to  him  even 
more  fully  than  I  have  done  for  my  readers  above,  sending  him 
all  my  lecture  notes;  and  I  asked  him  what  he  judged  to  be 
the  secret  of  Epictetus,  which  made  him  so  different  from  other 
philosophers.  Nor  did  I  omit  to  tell  him  of  my  talk  with 
Arrian  about  the  Christians  and  their  sacramentum. 

Many  days  elapsed,  and  I  had  been  attending  lectures  again 
for  a  long  time,  before  his  letter  in  reply  reached  Nicopolis ;  but 
I  will  set  it  down  here,  as  also  a  second  letter  from  him  on  the 
same  subject.  In  the  first,  Scaurus  expressed  his  satisfaction 
at  my  meeting  with  Arrian  (whom  he  knew  and  described  as  an 
extremely  sensible  and  promising  young  man,  likely  to  get  on). 
He  added  a  hope  that  I  would  take  precisely  Arrian's  view  of 
the  advantage  to  be  derived  from  philosophy.  But  a  large 
part  of  his  letter — much  more  than  I  could  have  wished — was 
occupied  with  our  "wonderful  discovery"  (as  he  called  it)  that 
Plato  and  Xenophon  disagreed  in  their  versions  of  the  Apologia 
of  Socrates.  On  this  he  rallied  us  as  mere  babes  in  criticism, 
but,  said  he,  not  much  more  babyish  than  many  professed 
critics,    who    cannot    be    made   to   understand    that — outside 


Chapter*]       ON  EPICTETUS  AND   PAUL  43 

poetry,  and  traditions  learned  by  rote,  and  a  few  "  aculeate 
sayings  "  (so  he  called  them)  of  philosophers  and  great  men — 
no  two  historians  ever  agree  independently — he  laid  stress  on 
"  independently  " — for  twenty  consecutive  words,  in  recording  a 
speech  or  dialogue.  "  I  will  not  lay  you  a  wager,"  said  he,  "  for 
it  would  be  cheating  you.  But  I  will  make  you  an  offer.  If 
you  and  Arrian,  between  you,  can  find  twenty  identical 
consecutive  words  of  Socrates  in  the  whole  of  Xenophon's 
Memorabilia  and  Plato's  Dialogues,  I  will  give  you  five  hundred 
sesterces  apiece1.  Your  failure  (for  fail  you  will)  ought  to 
strike  you  as  all  the  more  remarkable  because  both  Plato  and 
Xenophon  tell  us  that  Socrates  used  to  describe  himself  as 
'  always  saying  the  same  things  about  the  same  subjects.'  That 
one  similar  saying  they  have  preserved.  For  the  rest,  these 
two  great  biographers,  writing  page  upon  page  of  Socratic  talk, 
cannot  agree  exactly  about  '  the  same  things '  for  a  score  of 
consecutive  words  ! " 

He  added  more,  not  of  great  interest  to  me,  about  the 
credulity  of  those  who  persuaded  themselves  that  Xenophon's 
version  must  be  spurious  just  because  it  differed  from  Plato's, 
whereas,  said  he,  this  very  difference  went  to  shew  that  it  was 
genuine,  and  that  Xenophon  was  tacitly  correcting  Plato.  But 
concerning  the  secret  of  Epictetus  he  said  very  little — and  that, 
merely  in  reference  to  the  sacramentum  of  the  Christians  which 
I  mentioned  in  my  first  letter.  On  this  he  remarked  that 
Pliny,  with  whom  he  had  been  well  acquainted,  had  never 
mentioned  the  matter  to  him.  "  But  that,"  he  said,  "  is  not 
surprising.  His  measures  to  suppress  the  Christian  superstition 
did  not  prove  so  successful  as  he  had  hoped.  Moreover 
he  disliked  the  whole  business — having  to  deal  with  mendacious 
informers  on  one  side,  and  fanatical  fools  or  hysterical  women 
on  the  other.  And  I,  who  knew  a  good  deal  more  about  the 
Christians  than  Pliny  did,  disliked  the  subject  still  more.  My 
conviction  is,  however,  that  your  excellent  Epictetus — rationa- 
list though  he  is  now,  and  even  less  prone  to  belief  than 
Socrates — has  not  been  always  unscathed  by  that  same 
Christian  infection  (for  that  is  the  right  name  for  it). 
1  In  "Notes  on  Silanus,"  2809«,  the  author  repeats  this  offer. 


44  SCAURUS  [Chapter*! 

"  Partly,  he  sympathizes  with  the  Christian  hatred  or 
contempt  for  '  the  powers  of  this  world  '  (to  use  their  phrase) 
and  partly  with  their  allegiance  to  one  God,  whom  he  and  they 
regard  as  casting  down  kings  and  setting  up  philosophers. 
But  there  is  this  gulf  between  them.  The  Christians  think  of 
their  champion,  Christus,  as  having  devoted  himself  to  death 
for  their  sake,  and  then  as  having  been  miraculously  raised 
from  the  dead,  and  as,  even  now,  present  among  them  whenever 
they  choose  to  meet  together  and  '  sing  hymns  to  him  as  to  a 
God.'  Epictetus  absolutely  disbelieves  this.  Hence,  he  is  at 
a  great  disadvantage — I  mean,  of  course,  as  a  preacher,  not  as 
a  philosopher.  The  Christians  have  their  God,  standing  in  the 
midst  of  their  daily  assemblies,  before  whom  they  can 
'  corybantize  ' — to  repeat  your  expression — to  their  hearts' 
content.  Your  teacher  has  nothing — nay,  worse  than  nothing, 
for  he  has  a  blank  and  feels  it  to  be  a  blank. 

"  What  does  he  do  then  ?  He  fills  the  blank  with  a 
Hercules  or  a  Diogenes  or  a  Socrates,  and  he  corybantizes 
before  that.  But  it  is  a  make-believe,  though  an  honest  one. 
I  have  said  more  than  I  intended.  You  know  how  I  ramble  on 
paper.  And  the  habit  is  growing  on  me.  Let  no  casual  word 
of  mine  make  you  doubt  that  Epictetus  is  thoroughly  honest. 
But  honest  men  may  be  deceived.  Be  '  quick  in  perceiving, 
slow  in  believing.'  Keep  to  Arrian's  view  of  a  useful  and 
practical  life  in  the  world,  the  world  as  it  is,  not  as  it  might 
be  in  Plato's  Republic — which,  by  the  way,  would  be  a  very 
dull  place.     Farewell." 

This  letter  did  not  satisfy  me  at  all.  "  Honest  men,"  I 
repeated,  "  may  be  deceived."  True,  and  Scaurus,  though 
honest  as  the  day,  is  no  exception.  To  think  that  Epictetus, 
our  Epictetus — for  so  Arrian  and  I  used  to  call  him — had 
been  even  for  a  time  under  the  spell  of  such  a  superstition  as 
this !  I  had  always  assumed — and  my  conversation  with 
Arrian  about  what  seemed  exceptional  experiences  in  Bithynia 
had  done  little  to  shake  my  assumption — that  the  Christians 
were  a  vile  Jewish  sect,  morose,  debased,  given  up  to  monstrous 
secret  vices,  hostile  to  the  Empire,  and  hateful  to  Gods  and 
men.     What  was  the  ground   for  connecting   Epictetus    with 


Chapter  4]       ON  EPICTETUS  AND   PAUL  45 

them  ?  Contempt  for  rulers  ?  That  was  no  new  thing  in 
philosophers.  Many  of  them  had  despised  kings,  or  affected 
to  despise  them,  without  any  intention  of  rebelling  against 
them.  What  though  Epictetus  suggested,  in  a  hyperbolical  or 
metaphorical  way,  a  religious  sacramentum  for  philosophers? 
This  was  quite  different  from  that  of  the  Christians  as 
mentioned  by  Arrian.  I  could  not  help  feeling  that,  for  once, 
my  old  friend  had  "  perceived  "  little  and  "  believed  "  much. 

Perhaps  my  reply  shewed  traces  of  this  feeling.  At  all 
events,  Scaurus  wrote  back,  asking  whether  I  had  observed  in 
him  "  a  habit  of  basing  conclusions  on  slight  grounds."  Then 
he  continued  "  I  told  you  that  I  knew  a  good  deal  about  the 
Christians.  I  also  know  a  great  deal  more  about  Epictetus 
than  you  suppose.  When  I  was  a  young  man,  I  attended  the 
lectures  of  that  most  admirable  of  philosophers,  Musonius 
Rufus.  About  the  time  when  I  left,  Epictetus,  then  a  slave, 
was  brought  to  the  classes  by  his  master,  Epaphroditus ;  and 
Rufus,  whom  I  shall  always  regard  with  respect  and  affection, 
spoke  to  me  about  his  new  pupil  in  the  highest  terms.  After- 
wards he  often  told  me  how  he  tried  to  arm  the  poor  boy  with 
philosophy  against  what  he  would  have  to  endure  from  such  a 
master.  Many  a  time  have  I  thought  that  the  young  philo- 
sopher must  have  needed  all  his  Stoic  armour,  going  home 
from  the  lecture-room  of  Rufus  to  the  palace  of  Nero's  freed- 
man. 

"  But  I  also  remember  seeing  him  long  before  that,  when 
he  came  one  morning  as  a  mere  child  not  twelve  years  old, 
along  with  Epaphroditus,  to  Nero's  Palace.  I  was  then  about 
fourteen  or  fifteen.  After  we  had  left  the  Palace — my  father 
and  I — we  came  upon  him  again  on  that  same  evening,  staring 
at  some  Christians,  smeared  with  pitch  and  burning  away  like 
so  many  flaring  torches,  to  light  the  Imperial  Gardens — one  of 
Nero's  insane  or  bestial  freaks  !  I  have  never  been  able  to 
forget  the  sight,  and  I  have  often  thought  that  he  could  never 
forget  it.  Somewhere  about  that  time,  one  of  the  Christian 
ringleaders,  Paulus  by  name,  was  put  to  death.  As  happens  in 
such  cases,  his  people  began  to  collect  every  scrap  of  his 
writings  that  could  be  found.     A  little  volume  of  them  came 


46  SCAURUS  [Chapter* 

into  my  hands  some  twenty  years  ago.  But  long  before  that 
date,  all  through  the  period  when  Epictetus  was  in  Rufus's 
classes,  the  Christian  slaves  in  Rome  had  in  their  hands  the 
letters  of  this  Paulus  or  Paul.  One  of  them,  the  longest, 
written  to  the  Christians  in  Rome  (a  few  years  before  Paul  was 
brought  to  the  City  as  a  prisoner)  goes  back  as  far  as  sixty  years 
ago.  Some  are  still  earlier.  I  saw  the  volume  more  than  once  in 
Caesar's  Palace  in  the  days  of  Vespasian.  This  Paul  was  one 
of  the  most  practical  of  men.,  and  his  letters  are  steeped  in 
practical  experience.  Epictetus,  besides  being  a  great  devourer 
of  literature  in  general,  devoured  in  particular  everything  that 
bore  on  practical  life.  The  odds  are  great  that  he  would  have 
come  across  the  book  somewhere  among  his  slave  or  freedman 
friends. 

"  But  I  do  not  trust  to  such  mere  antecedent  probabilities. 
You  must  know  that,  ever  since  Epictetus  set  up  as  a  philo- 
sopher, I  have  followed  his  career  with  interest.  Recluse 
though  I  am,  I  have  many  friends  and  correspondents.  These, 
from  time  to  time,  have  furnished  me  with  notes  of  his  lectures. 
Well,  when  I  came  to  read  Paul's  letters,  I  was  prepared  to 
find  in  them  certain  general  similarities  to  Stoic  doctrine ; 
for  Paul  was  a  man  of  Tarsus  and  might  have  picked  up  these 
things  at  the  University  there.  But  I  found  a  great  deal  more. 
I  found  particularities,  just  of  the  sort  that  you  find  in  your 
lectures.  Paul's  actual  experiences  had  been  exactly  those  of 
a  vagrant  iEsculapius  or  Hercules.  Your  friend  idealizes  the 
wanderings  of  Hercules ;  Paul  enacted  them.  Paul  journeyed 
from  city  to  city,  from  continent  to  continent,  everywhere 
turning  the  world  upside  down — Jerusalem,  Damascus,  Antioch, 
Ephesus,  Colossse,  Philippi,  Thessalonica,  Corinth,  Jerusalem 
again — last  of  all,  Rome.  Everywhere  the  slaves,  the  poor,  the 
women,  went  after  him.  Everywhere  he  came  into  collision 
with  the  rulers  of  the  earth.  If  he  did  not  proclaim  a  war 
between  them  and  his  God,  he  at  all  events  implied  war. 

"  Now  this  is  just  what  Epictetus  would  have  liked  to  do. 
Only  he  could  not  often  get  people  to  take  him  in  the  same 
serious  way,  because  he  had  not  the  same  serious  business  in 
hand.     I  verily  believe  he  was  not  altogether  displeased  when 


Chapter*]       ON  EPICTETUS  AND  PAUL  47 

the  Prefect  of  the  City  banished  him  with  other  philosophers 
of  note  under  Domitian.  I  know  certain  philosophers  who 
actually  made  money  by  being  thus  banished.  It  was  an 
advertisement  for  their  lectures.  Don't  imagine  that  your 
philosopher  made,  or  wished  to  make,  money.  No.  But  he 
made  influence — which  he  valued  above  money. 

"  However,  the  Emperors  and  Prefects  after  Domitian  were 
not  such  fools.  They  knew  the  difference  between  a  real 
revolution  and  a  revolution  on  paper.  A  mere  theoretical 
exaltation  of  the  mind  above  the  body,  a  mere  scholastic  laudation 
of  kingship  over  the  minds  of  men  as  superior  to  kingship  over 
their  bodies — these  things  kings  tolerate;  for  they  mean  nothing 
but  words.  But  a  revolution  in  the  name  of  a  person — a 
person,  too,  supposed  by  fanatics  to  be  living  and  present  in 
all  their  secret  meetings,  '  wherever  two  or  three  are  gathered 
together,'  for  that  is  their  phrase — this  may  mean  a  great 
deal.  A  person,  regarded  in  this  way,  may  take  hold  of  men's 
spirits.  Missionaries  pretending — or,  still  worse,  believing — 
that  they  are  speaking  in  the  name  of  such  a  person,  may  lead 
crowds  of  silly  folk  into  all  sorts  of  sedition.  They  may 
refuse,  for  example,  to  adore  the  Emperor's  image  and  to 
offer  sacrifice  to  the  Gods  of  the  State ;  or  they  might  even 
attempt  to  subvert  the  foundations  of  society  by  withholding 
taxes,  or  by  encouraging  or  inculcating  some  wholesale  manu- 
mission of  slaves.  This  sort  of  thing  means  war,  and  Paul,  fifty 
years  ago,  was  actually  waging  this  war.  Epictetus  longs  to  be 
waging  it  now.  As  he  cannot,  he  takes  pleasure  in  urging  his 
pupils  to  it,  painting  an  imaginary  battle  array  in  which  he 
sees  imaginary  soldiers  waging,  or  destined  to  wage,  imaginary 
conflicts  with  imaginary  enemies. 

"  Hence  that  picturesque  contrast  (in  the  lecture  you  tran- 
scribed for  me)  between  the  unmarried  and  the  married  Cynic — 
which,  besides  the  similarity  of  thought,  contains  some  curious 
similarities  to  the  actual  words  of  Paul.  It  ran  thus,  'The 
condition  of  the  times  being  such  as  it  is,  opposing  forces,  as  it 
were,  being  drawn  up  in  line  of  battle ' — that  was  his  ex- 
pression. Well,  what  followed  from  this  non-existent,  hypo- 
thetical, imminent  conflict  ?     The  Philosopher,  it  seems,  must 


48  SCAURUS  [Chapter  4 

be  a  soldier,  '  undistracted,  wholly  devoted  to  the  ministry  of 
God,  able  to  go  about  and  visit  men,  not  bound  fast  to  private 
personal  duties,  not  entangled  in  conditions  of  life  that  he  cannot 
honourably  transgress.'  And  then  he  describes  at  great  length 
a  married  Cynic  dragged  down  from  his  royal  throne  by  the 
claims  and  encumbrances  of  a  nursery.  Now  this  same  '  undis- 
tractedness'  (using  the  very  word)  of  unmarried  life  Paul 
himself  has  mentioned  in  a  letter  to  the  Corinthians,  where  he 
says  that  '  owing  to  the  pressing  necessity '  of  the  times,  it  was 
good  for  a  man  to  be  unmarried,  and  that  he  wished  them  to 
be  '  free  from  anxiety.'  He  concludes  '  But  I  speak  this  for 
your  own  profit,  not  that  I  may  cast  a  noose  round  you  but 
that  you  may  with  all  seemliness  attend  on  the  Lord  undis- 
tractedly.'  Again,  he  writes  to  one  of  his  assistants  or  subalterns, 
'  Endure  hardship  with  me  as  a  good  soldier  of  Christ  Jesus. 
No  one  engaged  in  a  campaign  is  entangled ' — your  friend's 
word  again — '  in  the  affairs  of  civil  life.' 

"  I  lay  little  stress  on  the  similarity  of  word,  but  a  great 
deal  on  the  similarity  of  thought.  There  is  no  such  conflict  as 
Epictetus  describes.  There  is  no  such  '  line  of  battle  ' — not  at 
least  for  us,  Romans,  or  for  you,  Cynics.  But  there  is  for  the 
Christians — arrayed  as  they  are  against  the  authorities  of  the 
Empire.  And  that  reminds  me  of  your  Epictetian  antithesis 
between  '  the  Beast '  and  '  the  Man.'  It  is  a  little  like  a 
Christian  tradition  about  '  the  Beast.'  By  '  the  Beast '  they 
mean  Nero.  They  have  never  forgotten  his  treatment  of  them 
after  the  fire.  For  a  long  time  after  his  death  they  had  a 
notion — I  believe  some  of  them  have  it  still — that  the  Beast 
may  rise  from  the  dead  and  persecute  them  again.  They  also 
expect — I  cannot  do  more  than  allude  to  their  fantastic  dreams — 
a  sort  of  'Son  of  Man'  to  appear  on  the  clouds  taking  vengeance 
on  the  armies  of  the  Beast.  So,  you  see,  they,  too,  recognise  an 
opposition  between  the  Man  and  the  Beast.  Only,  with  the 
Christians  it  is  of  a  date  much  earlier  than  Epictetus.  It  goes 
back  to  a  Jewish  tradition,  which  represents  a  sort  of  opposition 
between  the  empires  of  Beasts  and  the  empire  of  the  Son  of 
Man,  in  a  prophet  named  Daniel,  some  centuries  ago. 

"  Epictetus,  of  course,  does  not  believe  in  all  this.     But  still 


Chapter*]       ON  EPICTETUS  AND  PAUL  49 

he  persuades  himself  that  there  is  such  a  '  line  of  battle '  in  the 
air,  and  that  he  and  his  followers  can  take  part  in  this  aerial 
conflict  by  '  going  about  the  world '  as  spiritually  armed 
warriors,  making  themselves  substantially  miserable — or  what 
the  world  would  call  such — while  championing  the  cause  of 
unsubstantial  good  against  evil.  All  that  you  wrote  to  me 
about  the  missionary  life  and  its  hardships — its  destitution, 
homelessness,  nakedness,  yes,  even  the  extraordinary  phrase 
you  added  from  Arrian's  notes  about  the  cudgelled  Cynic, 
how  he  '  must  be  cudgelled  like  a  donkey,  and,  in  the  act  of 
being  cudgelled,  must  love  his  cudgellers  as  being  the  father  of 
all  and  brother  of  all ' — all  this  I  could  match,  in  a  compressed 
form,  from  a  passage  in  my  little  Pauline  volume.  Here  it  is : 
'  For  I  think  that  God  has  made  a  show  of  us  Missionaries ' — 
Missionaries,  or  Apostles,  that  is  their  name  for  their  wandering 
iEsculapii — '  like  condemned  criminals  in  the  arena.      We  have 

been  made  a  theatre-show  to  the  universe,  to  angels  and  men : 

— up  to  this  very  moment,  hungering,  thirsting,  naked,  buffeted, 
driven  from  place  to  place,  toiling  and  labouring  with  our  own 
hands.  Reviled,  we  bless;  persecuted,  we  endure.  Men  imprecate 
evil  on  us,  we  exhort  them  to  their  good.  We  have  been  made  as 
the  refuse  of  the  universe,  the  offscouring  of  all,  up  to  this  very 
moment.' 

"  Again,  elsewhere,  Paul  brings  in  that  same  Epictetian 
contrast  between  the  external  misery  and  the  internal  joy  of 
the  Missionary:  'Never  needlessly  offending^  anyone  in  anything, 
lest  the  Service ' — which  your  philosopher  calls  '  the  service  of 
God' — 'be  reproached,  but  in  everything  commending  ourselves  as 
the  Servants  of  God,  in  much  endurance,  in  tribulations,  in 
necessities,  in  hardships,  in  scourgings,  in  prisons,  in  tumults,  in 
toils,  in  watchings,  in  fastings'  Now .  comes  the  contrast, 
indicating  that  all  these  things  are  superficial  trifles,  the  petty 
pin-pricks  inflicted  by  the  spite  of  the  contemptible  world, 
but  underneath  lie  the  solid  realities : — 'in  purity,  in  knowledge, 
in  longs uffering,  in  kindness  and  goodness,  in  the  holy  spirit,  in 
love  unfeigned,  in  the  word  of  truth,  in  the  power  of  God.' 

"  This  leads  Paul  to  the  thought  of  the  armour  of  God,  and 
the  friends  and  enemies  of  God,  the  good  and  the  evil,  which 

a.  4 


50  SCAURUS  [Chapter  4 

this  wandering  Christian  Hercules  has  to  deal  with  :  '  By  the 
arms  of  righteousness,  on  the  right  hand  and  on  the  left;  by  glory 
and  dishonour;  by  ill  report  and  good  report — ,'  he  means,  I 
think,  '  glory  in  the  sight  of  God,  dishonour  in  the  sight  of  men,' 
and  again,  '  ill  report  on  earth,  good  report  in  heaven.'  And  so 
he  continues,  '  as  knaves  and  true ' — that  is,  '  knaves  in  ap- 
pearance, in  the  world's  false  judgment,  but  true  men  in  the 
sight  of  Him  who  judges  truly.'  It  is  a  marvel  of  compression. 
And  it  is  kept  up  in  what  follows : — '  misunderstood  [i.e.  by 
men]  and  well  understood  [i.e.  by  God];  dying,  and  behold  we 
live;  under  the  headsman s  scourge,  yet  not  beheaded;  grieving, 
but  always  rejoicing;  beggars,  but  making  many  rich;  having 
nothing,  yet  having  all  things  for  ever ! ' 

"You  will  be  tired  of  this.  But  your  zeal  for  your  new 
teacher  brought  it  on  you.  You  admire  his  '  fervour.'  Then 
what  do  you  think  of  this  man's  fervour  ?  He  could  give  points 
to  Epictetus  both  for  fervour  and  for  compression.  I  admit 
that  Paul  has  not  your  master's  dramatic  flash,  irony,  and 
epigrammatic  twist.  But,  as  for  '  fervour,'  here,  I  contend,  is 
the  original  Falernian,  which  your  friend  Epictetus  has 
watered  down.  Not  that  I  blame  him,  either  as  regards  style 
or  in  respect  of  morality.  His  humorous  description  of  the 
nursery  troubles  of  the  married  Stoic  was  very  good — for  his 
purpose,  and  for  a  lecture.  But  it  would  not  have  suited  Paul. 
A  lecturer  must  not  be  too  brief.  If  Epictetus  were  to  pack 
stuff  in  his  lectures  as  Paul  packs  it  in  his  epistles,  your  lesson 
would  sometimes  not  last  five  minutes. 

"  But  I  am  straying  from  the  question,  which  is,  whether 
Epictetus  borrowed.  Let  me  give  you  another  instance.  The 
Christians  are  permeated  with  two  notions,  the  first  is,  that 
they  have  received  an  '  invitation,'  '  summons,'  or  '  calling ' 
(Klesis  they  call  it)  to  a  heavenly  Feast  in  a  Kingdom  of 
Heaven.  The  second  is,  that,  if  they  are  to  attain  to  this 
Feast,  they  must  pass  through  suffering  and  persecution,  by 
'  witnessing '  or  '  testifying '  to  Christ,  as  being  their  King,  in 
opposition  to  the  Gods  of  the  Romans.  This  '  witness,'  or 
martyria,  is  so  closely  associated  in  their  minds  with  the  notion 
of  persecution  that  '  martyrdom,'  with  them,  has  come  to  imply, 


Chapter  4]       ON  EPICTETUS   AND   PAUL  51 

almost  always,  death.  Now,  as  far  as  I  know,  the  Greeks  do 
not  anywhere  use  the  word  '  calling '  in  this  sense.  But  look  at 
what  Epictetus  says  about  a  sham  philosopher,  who,  having  been 
'  called  '  by  God  to  be  a  beggar,  '  disgraces  his  calling ' :  '  How 
then  dost  thou  mount  the  stage  now  ?  It  is  in  the  character  of 
a  witness  called  by  God,  who  says  "Come  thou,  and  bear  witness 
to  me." '  Then  the  sham  philosopher  whines  out,  '  I  am  in  a 
terrible  strait,  O  Lord,  and  most  unfortunate.  None  take 
thought  for  me ;  none  give  to  me.  All  blame  me.  All  speak 
evil  of  me.'  To  which  Epictetus  replies,  '  Is  this  the  witness 
thou  wouldst  bear,  hinging  shame  on  the  calling  wherewith  He 
hath  called  thee,  in  that  He  honoured  thee  with  so  great  an 
honour,  and  counted  thee  worthy  to  be  promoted  to  the  high 
task  of  such  a  witnessing  ? '  Now  this  phrase,  '  worthy  of  the 
calling,'  is  Pauline  in  thought,  and  Pauline  in  word.  Here  is  an 
instance,  from  a  letter  to  the  Thessalonians,  '  That  our  God 
would  count  you  worthy  of  the  calling!  And  Paul  writes  to  the 
Ephesians,  '  That  ye  walk  worthily  of  the  calling  wherewith  ye 
were  called.7 

"  Again,  you  yourself  remarked  to  me  on  the  strangeness 
and  originality  of  Epictetus's  expression  about  '  eating,'  namely, 
that,  in  the  very  act  of  eating,  or  going  to  the  gymnasium,  or 
whatever  else,  the  philosopher  was  to  remember  that  he  was 
'  feeding  on  God '  and  '  carrying  about  God,'  and  that  he  must 
not  '  defile '  the  image  of  the  God  within  him.  Well,  I  admit  it 
is  strange,  but  I  do  not  admit  that  it  is  original.  I  can  match 
it  in  the  first  place  with  another  passage  from  Epictetus  himself, 
where  he  bids  some  of  his  uppish  pupils,  who  wished  to  reform 
the  world,  first  to  reform  themselves.  'In  this  way,'  he  said, 
'  when  eating,  help  those  who  eat  with  you ;  when  drinking, 
those  who  drink  with  you.'  In  the  next  place,  I  can  match 
both  out  of  the  letter  to  the  Corinthians,  which  says,  '  Ye  are 
God's  temple,'  and  '  If  anyone  destroys  God's  temple,  him  will 
God  destroy,'  and  again,  '  Your  body  is  the  temple  of  the  Holy 
Spirit,  which  ye  have  from  God.'  It  adds  that  people  cause 
shame  to  others  and  injury  to  themselves  by  greediness  at  the 
sacred  meals  they  take  in  common ;  and  lastly,  says  Paul, 
'  Whether  therefore  ye  eat  or  diHnk,  or  whatsoever  ye  do,  do  all  to 

4—2 


52  SGAURUS  [Chapter  4 

^e  glory  of  God.'  There  are  things  like  this,  of  course,  in 
Seneca,  but  none,  as  far  as  I  know,  that  come  so  near  as 
Epictetus  does  to  the  language  of  Paul. 

"  I  could  quote  more  from  Paul,  and  also  from  other  sacred 
books  of  the  Christians,  to  shew  that  Epictetus  is  indebted  to 
them.  But  I  have  been  already  led  on  by  the  fascination — to 
me  it  is  a  fascination — of  a  merely  literary  discussion,  to  say 
more  than  enough,  and  a  great  deal  more  than  I  intended.  Let 
me  conclude  with  an  extract  from  a  letter  I  lately  rummaged 
up  from  my  dear  old  friend  Pliny,  whom  I  greatly  miss.  He 
was  the  former  Governor  of  Bithynia  about  whom  you  wrote. 
It  refers  to  a  very  fine  fellow,  Artemidorus  by  name,  a  military 
tribune,  son-in-law  of  the  excellent  Musonius  (Epictetus's 
teacher,  whom  I  mentioned  above).  '  Among  the  whole  multi- 
tude of  those  who  in  these  days  call  themselves  philosophers, 
you  will  hardly  find  one  so  sincere,  genuine,  and  true,  as 
Artemidorus.  I  say  nothing  about  his  bodily  endurance  of 
heat  and  cold  and  the  most  arduous  toil,  of  his  indifference  to 
the  pleasures  of  the  table,  of  the  strict  control  with  which  he 
keeps  his  eyes  and  his  passions  in  order.  These  are  great 
virtues,  but  only  great  in  others.  In  him  they  are  but  trifles 
compared  with  his  other  merits.' 

"  So  wrote  Pliny.  Well,  for  me  at  all  events,  '  to  keep  eyes 
and  passions  in  order '  is  not  '  a  trifle.'  Perhaps  it  is  not 
'  a  trifle '  for  you.  I  fully  believe  that  Musonius's  successor — 
for  as  such  I  regard  Epictetus — in  spite  of  some  opinions  in 
which  I  cannot  quite  follow  him,  will  help  you  to  attain  this 
object.  Give  yourself  wholly  to  that.  I  knew  Artemidorus. 
So  did  your  father.  We  both  thought  him  the  model  of  a 
soldier  and  a  gentleman.  Believe  me,  my  dear  Quintus,  it 
would  be  one  of  the  greatest  comforts  in  my  last  moments  if  I 
could  feel  assured  that — to  some  slight  extent  in  consequence 
of  advice  from  me — the  son  of  my  old  friend  Decimus  Junius 
Silanus  was  following  in  the  footsteps  of  one  whom  he  so 
esteemed  and  admired.     Farewell." 

This  was  the  end  of  the  letter.  But  out  of  it  dropped  a 
paper  containing  a  sealed  note.  On  the  paper  were  these 
words:  "To  convince  you  that  I  had  not  judged  your  philo- 


Chapter  4]        ON  EPICTETUS  AND  PAUL  53 

sopher  unfairly,  I  transcribed  a  few  passages  from  other  Christian 
documents,  containing  words  assigned  by  Christians  to  Christ 
himself,  which  seem  to  me  to  have  influenced  Epictetus.  On 
second  thoughts,  I  have  come  to  think  it  was  waste  of  my  time. 
That  it  might  not  waste  yours  too,  I  was  on  the  point  of 
throwing  the  thing  into  the  fire.  But  I  decided  to  send  it 
rather  than  let  you  suppose  me  to  be  a  crotchety,  suspicious, 
prejudiced  old  man,  ungenerous  towards  one  whom  both  you 
and  I  respect  with  all  our  hearts.  I  grant  that  I  am  slow  to 
believe  in  new  facts ;  but  I  need  hardly  assure  you,  my  dearest 
Quintus,  that  I  am  not  slow  to  believe  in  good  motives — the 
motives  of  good  men,  tried,  tested,  and  proved,  by  such  severe 
trials  as  have  befallen  your  admirable  Master.  Rather  than 
suspect  me  thus,  break  the  seal  and  read  it  at  once.  But  I 
hope  you  will  not  want  to  read  it.  Discussions  of  this  sort 
must  not  be  allowed  to  distract  your  energies  as  they  might  do. 
Better  burn  it.     Or  keep  it — till  you  are  military  tribune." 


CHAPTER  V 

EPICTETUS  ALLUDES  TO  JEWS 

I  DID  not  open  the  sealed  note,  though  I  was  not  convinced 
that  Epictetus  had  been  a  borrower.  Paulus  the  Christian  had 
begun  to  interest  me,  because  of  Scaurus's  quotations  and 
remarks  on  his  style.  Indeed  he  interested  me  so  much  that 
I  determined  at  once  to  procure  a  copy  of  his  letters.  But 
Christus  himself — whom  I  call  Christus  here  to  distinguish  the 
meaning  with  which  I  used  the  name  then  from  that  with 
which  I  began  to  use  the  name  of  "  Christ "  soon  afterwards — 
Christus,  I  say,  at  that  moment,  did  not  interest  me  at  all. 

Moreover  I  was  impressed  by  what  Scaurus  said  about  a 
military  career.  Though  too  young  to  remember  much  about 
the  shameful  days  of  Domitian,  yet  I  had  heard  my  father 
describe  the  anguish  he  used  to  feel,  when  letters  from  the 
Emperor  to  the  Senate  came  announcing  a  glorious  victory 
(duly  honoured  with  a  triumph)  after  which  would  come  a 
private  letter  from  Scaurus  informing  him  that  the  victory  was 
a  disgraceful  defeat.  And  even  later  on,  even  after  the  successes 
of  Trajan,  my  father,  in  conversations  with  Scaurus,  had  often 
expressed,  in  my  hearing,  still  lingering  apprehensions  of  a  time 
when  the  barbarians  might  break  in  like  a  flood  upon  the 
northern  borders  of  the  empire — if  ever  the  imperial  throne 
were  cursed  with  a  second  Domitian.  Patriotism  would  be 
even  more  needed  then,  he  said,  than  when  Marius  beat  back 
the  Cimbri.  All  this  gave  additional  weight  to  Scaurus's 
remarks.  "  Artemidorus,"  I  said,  "  shall  be  my  model.  I  will 
try  to  be  a  good  soldier  and  a  good  Stoic  in  one."  So  I  locked 
up  the  note,  still  sealed. 


Chapter  5]       EPIGTETUS  ALLUDES   TO   JEW 8  55 

Here  I  may  say  that  afterwards,  when  I  did  open  it,  it  did 
not  greatly  influence  the  course  of  my  thoughts.  By  that  time, 
I  had  come  to  think  that  Scaurus  was  right,  and  that  Epictetus 
had  really  borrowed  from  the  Christians.  I  opened  it,  therefore, 
not  because  I  distrusted  the  fairness  and  soundness  of  his  judg- 
ment, but  because  I  trusted  it  and  looked  to  him  for  information. 
As  a  fact,  it  rather  confirmed  his  hypothesis  of  borrowing,  but 
did  not  demonstrate  anything.  The  real  influence  of  that  little 
note  in  my  cabinet  amounted,  I  think,  to  little  more  than  this. 
In  the  period  I  am  now  about  to  describe,  while  daily  studying 
the  works  of  Paulus  the  Christian,  I  was  beginning  to  ask 
myself  "  If  Paulus  the  follower  of  Christus  was  so  great  a 
teacher,  must  not  Christus  have  been  greater  ? "  In  those 
days,  when  taking  out  Paul's  epistles  from  my  bookcase,  I 
used  often  to  see  that  packet  lying  there,  with  WORDS  OF 
CHRISTUS  on  it,  and  the  seal  unbroken.  Then  I  used  to  say 
"  If  only  I  could  make  up  my  mind  to  open  you,  you  might  tell 
me  wonderful  things."  This  stimulated  my  curiosity.  It  was 
one  of  many  things — some  little,  some  great — that  led  me 
toward  my  goal. 

The  reader  may  perhaps  think  that  I,  a  Roman  of  equestrian 
rank,  must  have  been  already  more  prone  to  the  Christian 
religion  than  I  have  admitted,  if  I  attempted  to  procure  a  copy 
of  Paul's  epistles  from  a  bookseller  in  Nicopolis  frequented  by 
my  fellow-students.  But  I  made  no  such  attempt.  Possibly 
our  bookseller  there  would  not  have  had  a  copy.  Probably  he 
would  not  have  confessed  it  if  he  had.  In  any  case,  I  did  not 
ask  him.  It  happened  that  I  needed  at  this  time  certain 
philosophic  treatises  (of  Chrysippus  and  others).  So  I  wrote  to 
a  freedman  of  my  father's  in  Rome,  an  enterprising  bookseller, 
who  catered  for  various  tastes,  giving  him  the  titles  of  these 
works  and  telling  him  how  to  prepare  and  ornament  them. 
Then  I  added  that  iEmilius  Scaurus  had  sent  me  some  remark- 
able extracts  from  the  works  of  one  Paulus,  a  Christian,  and 
that  the  volume  seemed  likely  to  be  interesting  as  a  literary 
curiosity.  This  was  perhaps  a  little  understating  the  case. 
But  not  much.  With  Flaccus,  my  Roman  bookseller,  I  felt 
quite    safe.     Rather   than   buy   Paul's    epistles  from  Sosia   in 


56  EPICTETUS  [Chapter  5 

Nicopolis,  I  am  sure  I  should  not  have  bought  them  at  all. 
Such  are  the  trifles  in  our  lives  on  which  sometimes  our  course 
may  depend — or  may  seem  to  have  depended. 

Meantime  I  had  been  attending  lectures  regularly  and  had 
become  familiar  with  many  of  Epictetus's  frequently  recurring 
expressions  of  doctrine.  They  were  still  almost  always  interest- 
ing, and  generally  impressive.  But  his  success  in  forcing  me 
to  "  feel,  for  the  moment,  precisely  what  he  felt " — how  often 
did  I  recognise  the  exact  truth  of  this  phrase  of  Arrian's ! — 
made  me  begin  to  distrust  myself.  And  from  distrust  of  myself 
sprang  distrust  of  his  teaching,  too,  when  I  found  the  feeling 
fade  away  (time  after  time)  upon  leaving  the  lecturer's  presence. 
When  I  sat  down  in  my  rooms  to  write  out  my  notes,  asking 
myself,  "  Can  I  honestly  say  I  hope  to  be  ever  able  to  do  this 
or  that  ?  "  how  often  was  I  obliged  to  answer,  "  No  ! " 

I  could  not  trust  his  judgment  about  what  we  should  be 
able  to  do,  because  I  could  not  trust  his  insight  into  what  we 
were.  Two  causes  seemed  to  keep  him  out  of  sympathy  with 
us.  One  was  his  own  singular  power  of  bearing  physical  pain 
— almost  as  though  he  were  a  stone  and  not  flesh  and  blood. 
He  thought  that  we  had  the  same,  or  ought  to  have  it.  Another 
cause  was  his  absorption  in  something  that  was  not  human,  in 
a  conception  of  God,  whom  (on  some  evidence  clear  to  him  but 
not  made  clear  by  him  to  us,  or  at  all  events  not  to  me)  he  kneiv 
(not  trusted  or  believed,  but  knew)  to  have  bestowed  on  him, 
Epictetus,  the  power  of  being  at  once — not  in  the  future,  but  at 
once,  here  on  earth,  at  all  times,  and  in  all  circumstances — 
perfectly  blessed.  Having  his  eyes  fixed  on  this  Supreme 
Giver  of  Peace,  our  Master  often  seemed  to  me  hardly  able  to 
bring  himself  to  look  down  to  us,  except  when  he  was  chiding 
our  weakness. 

Passing  over  several  of  the  lectures  that  left  me  in  the 
condition  I  have  endeavoured  to  describe,  I  will  now  come  to 
the  one  in  which  Epictetus  alluded  to  Christians.  "  Jews  "  he 
called  them.  But  he  defined  them  in  such  a  way  as  to  convince 
Arrian  that  he  meant  Christians.  Even  if  he  did  not,  the 
impression  produced  on  me  was  the  same  as  if  he  had  actually 
mentioned  them  by  name.     The  lecture  began  with  the  subject 


Chapter  5]  ALLUDES   TO   JEWS  57 

of  "steadfastness."  "A  practical  subject,  this,"  I  said  to  myself, 
"  for  one  in  training  to  be  a  second  Artemidorus."  But  the 
"  steadfastness "  was  not  of  the  sort  demanded  in  camps  and 
battlefields.  The  essence  of  good,  said  the  lecturer,  is  right 
choice,  and  that  of  evil  a  wrong  choice.  External  things  are 
not  in  our  power,  internal  things  are  :  "  This  Law  God  has  laid 
down,  If  thou  wilt  have  good,  take  it  from  thyself."  Then 
followed  one  of  the  now  familiar  dialogues,  of  which  I  was 
beginning  to  be  a  little  tired,  between  a  tyrant  threatening 
a  philosopher,  who  points  out  that  he  cannot  possibly  be 
threatened.  The  tyrant  stares  and  says,  "  I  will  put  you  in 
chains."  The  wise  man  replies,  "  It  is  my  hands  and  feet  that 
you  threaten."  "  I  will  cut  off  your  head,"  shouts  the  tyrant. 
(l  It  is  my  head  that  you  threaten,"  replies  the  philosopher. 
After  a  good  deal  more  of  this,  a  pupil  is  supposed  to  ask,  "Does 
not  the  tyrant  threaten  you  then  ? "  To  this  the  lecturer 
replies,  "  Yes,  if  I  fear  these  things.  But  if  I  have  a  feeling 
and  conviction  that  these  things  are  nothing  to  me,  then  I  am 
not  threatened."  Then  he  appealed  to  us,  "  Of  whom  do  I  stand 
in  fear  ?  What  things  must  he  be  master  of  to  make  me  afraid  ? 
Do  you  say, '  The  master  of  things  that  are  in  your  power '  ? 
I  reply,  '  There  is  no  such  master.'  As  for  things  not  in  my 
power,  what  are  they  to  me  ? " 

Epictetus  had  a  sort  of  rule  or  canon  for  us  beginners,  by 
which  we  were  to  take  the  measure  of  the  so-called  evils  of  life : 
"  Make  a  habit  of  saying  at  once  to  every  harsh-looking  appari- 
tion of  this  sort,  '  You  are  an  apparition  and  not  at  all  the 
thing  you  appear  to  be.  Are  you  of  the  number  of  the  things 
in  my  power,  or  are  you  not  ?  If  not,  you  are  nothing  to  me.' ' 
Applying  this  to  a  concrete  instance,  our  Master  now  dramatized 
a  dialogue  between  himself  and  Agamemnon,  who  is  supposed 
to  be  passing  a  sleepless  night  in  anxiety  for  the  Greeks,  lest 
the  Trojans  should  destroy  them  on  the  morrow. 

"  Epict.  What !  Tearing  your  hair !  And  you  say  your 
heart  leaps  in  terror !  And  all  for  what  ?  What  is  amiss  with 
you  ?     Money-matters  ? 

"  Ag.     No. 

"  Epict.     Health  ? 


58  EPICTETUS  [Chapter  5 

"  Ag.     No. 

"  Epict.  No  indeed  !  You  have  gold  and  silver  to  spare. 
What  then  is  amiss  with  you  ?  That  part  of  you  has  been 
neglected  and  utterly  corrupted,  wherewith  we  desire  etc. 
etc." 

Here  Epictetus — after  some  customary  technicalities — 
turned  to  us  like  a  showman,  to  explain  the  royal  puppet's 
condition  :  "  '  How  neglected  ? '  you  ask.  He  does  not  know 
the  essence  of  the  Good  for  which  he  has  been  created  by 
nature,  nor  the  essence  of  evil.  He  cries  out,  '  Woe  is  me,  the 
Greeks  are  in  peril '  because  he  has  not  learned  to  distinguish 
what  is  really  his  own  etc.  etc."  After  this  apostrophe,  which 
I  have  condensed,  he  resumed  the  dialogue  : 

"  Ag.  They  are  all  dead  men.  The  Trojans  will  extermin- 
ate them. 

"  Epict.  And  if  the  Trojans  do  not  kill  them,  they  are 
never,  never  to  die,  I  suppose ! ! 

"  Ag.  O,  yes,  they'll  die.  But  not  at  one  blow,  not  to 
a  man,  like  this. 

"  Epict.  What  difference  does  it  make  ?  If  dying  is  an 
evil,  then,  surely,  whether  they  die  all  together  or  one  by  one, 
it  is  equally  an  evil.  And  do  you  really  think  that  dying  will 
be  anything  more  than  the  separating  of  the  paltry  body  from 
the  soul  ? 

"  Ag.     Nothing  more. 

"  Epict.  And  you,  when  the  Greeks  are  in  the  act  of 
perishing,  is  the  door  of  escape  shut  for  you  ?  Is  it  not  open 
to  you  to  die  ? 

"  Ag.     It  is. 

"  Epict.  Why  then  bewail  1  Bah  !  You,  a  king  !  And 
with  the  sceptre  of  Zeus,  too !  A  king  is  never  unfortunate, 
any  more  than  God  is  unfortunate.  What  then  are  you  ?  A 
shepherd  in  truth  !  For  you  weep,  like  the  shepherds — when 
a  wolf  carries  off  one  of  their  sheep.  And  these  Greeks  are  fine 
sheep  to  submit  to  being  ruled  over  by  you.  Why  did  you 
ever  begin  this  Trojan  business  ?  Was  your  desire  imperilled 
etc.  etc.  ? "     [Here  I  omit  more  technicalities.] 

"  Ag.     No,  but  my  brother's  darling  wife  was  carried  away. 


Chapter  5]  ALLUDES   TO   JEWS  59 

"  Epict.  And  was  not  that  a  great  blessing,  to  be  deprived 
of  a  '  darling  wife  '  who  was  an  adulteress  ? 

"  Ag.  Were  we  then  to  submit  to  be  trampled  on  by  the 
Trojans  ? 

"  Epict.  Trojans  ?  What  are  the  Trojans  ?  Wise  or 
foolish?  If  wise,  why  make  war  against  them?  If  foolish, 
why  care  for  them  ?  " 

I  doubt  whether  Epictetus  quite  carried  his  class  with  him 
on  this  occasion.  He  certainly  did  not  carry  me,  though  he 
went  on  consistently  pouring  out  various  statements  of  his 
theory.  For  the  first  time  in  my  experience  of  his  lectures,  I 
began  to  feel  that  his  reiterations  were  really  tedious.  My 
thoughts  strayed.  I  found  myself  questioning  whether  my 
model  soldier  and  philosopher,  Artemidorus,  could  possibly 
accept  this  teaching.  Would  Trajan,  I  asked,  have  been  so 
sure  of  beating  Decebalus,  if  he  had  considered  the  disgrace  of 
Rome  a  matter  "independent  of  choice,"  and  therefore  "nothing 
to  him,"  "  neither  good  nor  evil "  ? 

From  this  reverie  I  was  roused  by  a  sudden  transition — to 
a  picture  of  a  well-trained  youth  going  forth  to  a  conflict  worthy 
of  his  mettle.  And  now,  I  thought,  we  shall  have  something 
more  like  the  ideal  of  my  first  lecture,  a  Hercules  or  Diogenes, 
going  about  to  help  and  heal.  But  perhaps  Epictetus  drew 
a  distinction  between  a  Diogenes  and  mere  well-trained  youths, 
mere  beginners  in  philosophy.  At  all  events,  what  followed  was 
only  a  kind  of  catechism  to  prepare  us  against  adversit}^,  and 
especially  against  official  oppression.  "  Whenever,"  said  he, 
"you  are  in  the  act  of  going  into  the  judgment  hall  of  one  in 
authority,  remember  that  there  is  also  Another  from  above, 
taking  note  of  what  is  going  on,  and  that  you  must  please  Him 
rather  than  the  authority  on  earth."  This  catechism  he  threw 
into  the  form  of  a  dialogue  between  the  youth  and  God — whom 
he  called  "  Another." 

"  Another.  Exile,  prison,  bonds,  death,  and  disgrace — what 
used  you  to  call  these  things  in  the  Schools  ? 

"  Pupil.     I  ?     Things  indifferent. 

"  Another.  Well,  then,  what  do  you  call  them  now  ?  Can 
it  be  that  they  have  changed  ? 


(iO  EPICTETUS  [Chapter  5 

"  Pupil.     They  have  not. 

"  Another.     You,  then — have  you  changed  ? 

"  Pupil.     I  have  not. 

"  Another.     Say,  then,  what  are  '  things  indifferent '  ? 

"  Pupil.     The  things  outside  choice. 

"  Another.     Say  also  the  next  words. 

"  Pupil.     Things  indifferent  are  nothing  to  me. 

"  Another.  Say  also  about  things  good.  What  things  used 
you  to  think  good  ? 

"  Pupil.     Right  choice,  right  use  of  phenomena. 

"  Another.     And  what  the  end  and  object  ? 

"  Pupil.     To  follow  thee. 

"Another.     Do  you  say  the  same  things  still  ? 

"  Pupil.     I  say  the  same  things  still. 

"  Another.  Go  your  way,  then,  and  be  of  good  cheer,  and 
remember  these  things,  and  you  will  see  how  a  young  and  well- 
trained  champion  towers  above  the  untrained." 

I  wanted  to  hear  him  explain  why  he  spoke  of  "  Another," 
instead  of  Zeus,  or  God.  It  struck  me  that  he  meant  to  suggest 
to  us  that  in  this  visible  world,  whenever  we  say  "this,"  we 
must  also  say,  in  our  minds,  "another,"  to  remind  ourselves  of 
the  invisible  counterpart.  "  Especially  must  we  say  'Another'" — 
this,  I  thought,  was  his  meaning — "  when  we  speak  about 
rulers.  Visible  rulers  are  mostly  bad.  We  must  prevent  them 
from  encroaching  on  the  place  that  should  be  filled  in  our 
hearts  by  the  Other,  the  invisible  Ruler." 

Instead  of  this  explanation,  however,  he  concluded  his 
lecture  by  warning  us  against  insincerity,  or  "speaking  from 
the  lips,"  and  against  trying  to  be  on  both  sides,  when  we  ought 
to  choose  between  two  contending  sides.  This  he  called 
"  trimming."  And  here  it  was — while  addressing  an  imaginary 
"  trimmer  " — that  he  used  the  word  "  Jew." 

"  Why,"  said  he — addressing  the  sham  philosopher — "  why 
do  you  try  to  impose  on  the  multitude  ?  Why  pretend  to  be  a 
Jew,  being  really  a  Greek  ?  Whenever  we  see  a  man  trimming, 
we  are  accustomed  to  say,  '  This  fellow  is  no  Jew,  he  is  sham- 
ming.' But  when  a  man  has  taken  into  himself  the  feeling  of 
the  dipped  and  chosen " — these  were  his  exact  words,  uttered 


Chapter  5]  ALLUDES   TO  JEWS  61 

with  a  gesture  and  tone  of  contempt — "  then  he  is,  both  in 
name  and  in  very  truth,  a  Jew.  Even  so  it  is  with  us,  having 
merely  a  sham  baptism ;  Jews  in  theory,  but  something  else  in 
fact ;  far  away  from  any  real  feeling  of  our  theory,  and  far  away 
from  any  intention  of  putting  into  practice  the  professions  on 
which  we  plume  ourselves — as  though  we  knew  what  they  really 
meant ! "  I  could  not  quite  make  out  this  allusion  to  Jews. 
But  there  was  no  mistaking  his  next  sentence,  and  it  was  the 
last  in  the  lecture,  "  So,  I  repeat,  it  is  with  us.  We  are  not 
equal  to  the  fulfilment  of  the  responsibilities  of  common 
humanity,  not  even  up  to  the  standard  of  Man.  Yet  we  would 
fain  take  on  ourselves  in  addition  the  burden  of  a  philosopher. 
And  what  a  burden !  It  is  as  though  a  weakling,  without 
power  to  carry  a  ten-pound  weight,  were  to  aspire  to  heave  the 
stone  of  Ajax  ! " 

Thus  he  dismissed  us.  I  went  out,  feeling  like  the  "  weak- 
ling "  indeed,  but  without  the  slightest  "  aspiration  to  heave 
the  stone  of  Ajax."  Perhaps  Arrian  wished  to  encourage  me. 
For  after  we  had  walked  on  awhile  in  silence,  he  said,  "  The 
Master  was  rather  cutting  to-day.  I  remember  his  once  saying 
that  we  ought  to  come  away  from  him,  not  as  from  a  theatre 
but  as  from  a  surgery.  To-day  the  surgeon  used  the  knife,  and 
we  don't  like  it." 

"  But  what  good  has  the  knife  done  us  ?  "  I  exclaimed.  "  If 
only  I  could  feel  that  the  surgeon  had  cut  out  the  mischief,  a 
touch  of  the  knife  should  not  make  me  wince.  But  the  mischief 
within  me  seems  more  mischievous,  and  my  strength  for  good 
less  strong,  for  some  things  that  I  have  heard  to-day.  Is  a 
Roman  to  say,  when  fighting  against  barbarians  for  the  name 
and  fame  of  Rome,  '  These  things  are  nothing  to  me '  ?  Is 
Diogenes,  healing  mankind,  his  brethren,  to  say,  '  Your  diseases 
are  nothing  to  me '  ?  And  that  fine  phrase  in  the  Catechism, 
'  follow  thee ' — is  it  not  really  a  disguised  form  of  '  follow 
myself?  Does  it  not  mean,  'follow  the  logos  within  me,  my 
own  reason,  or  my  own  reasonable  will,'  or  '  follow  my  own 
peace  of  mind,  on  which  my  mind  is  bent,  to  the  neglect  of 
everything  else '  ? " 

"  It  does  not  mean  that,  for  Epictetus  himself,  I  am  con- 


62  EP1CTETUS  [Chapter  5 

vinced,"  said  Arrian.  "  I  believe  not,  for  him,"  said  I ;  "  but  it 
has  that  meaning  for  me.  His  teaching  does  not  teach — not 
me,  at  least,  however  it  may  be  with  others — the  art  of  being 
steadfast.  And  what  about  others  ?  Did  not  he  himself  just 
now  admit  that  his  logos  was  less  powerful  than  the  pathos  of 
the  Jews  to  produce  steadfastness  ?  What,  by  the  way,  is  this 
pathos  ?  Does  it  mean  passionate  and  unreasonable  conviction  ? 
And  who  on  earth  are  these  Jews  that  are  '  dipped  and 
chosen '  ? " 

My  friend's  face  brightened.  Perhaps  it  was  a  relief  to  him 
to  pass  from  theology  to  matter  of  literary  fact.  "  I  think,"  he 
replied,  "  that  he  must  mean  the.  Jewish  followers  of  Christus — 
the  Christians,  about  whom  we  were  lately  talking."  "  Then 
why,"  said  I,  " does  not  he  call  them  Christians  ? "  "I  do  not 
know,"  replied  Arrian,  "  He  has  never  mentioned  either  Chris- 
tians or  Christus  in  my  hearing ;  but  he  has,  in  one  lecture  at 
all  events,  used  the  term  '  Galila?ans '  to  mean  the  Christians. 
And  I  feel  sure  that  he  means  them  here,  because  the  other 
Jews  do  not  practise  baptism,  except  for  proselytes,  whereas 
the  Christians  are  all  baptized."  "  But,"  said  I,  "  he  does  not 
call  them  '  baptized.'  He  calls  them  '  dipped  '."  "  That  is  his 
brief  allusive  way,"  said  Arrian.  "  You  know  that  we  provincials, 
and  sometimes  even  Athenians  too,  speak  of  dippiyig  the  hair, 
or,  if  I  may  invent  the  word,  bapting  it,  where  the  literary 
people  speak  of  blacking  or  dyeing  it.  That  is  just  what  our 
Master  means.  These  Christians  are  not  merely  baptized ;  they 
are  bapted.  That  is  to  say,  they  are  permanently  and  unalter- 
ably stained,  or  dyed  in  grain.  They  are.  We  are  not.  That 
is  his  meaning.  Afterwards,  as  you  noticed,  he  dropped  into 
the  regular  word  '  baptism,'  and  spoke  of  us  as  sham-baptists." 

"  But  he  also  called  them  chosen,"  said  I,  " — that  is  to  say, 
if  he  meant  chosen,  and  not  caught  or  convicted."  Arrian  smiled. 
"  You  have  hit  the  mark  without  knowing  it,"  said  he.  "  I 
noticed  the  word  and  took  it  down.  It  is  another  of  his  jibes ! 
These  Christians  actually  call  themselves  '  elect '  or  '  chosen.'  I 
heard  all  about  it  in  Bithynia.  They  profess  to  have  been 
'  called '  by  Christus.  Then,  if  they  obey  this  '  calling,'  and 
remain  steadfast,  following  Christus,  they  are  said  to  be  '  chosen ' 


Chapter  5]  ALLUDES   TO   JEWS  63 

or  '  elect.'  But  our  Master  believes  this  '  calling '  and  '  choosing  ' 
to  be  moonshine,  and  these  Christian  Jews  to  be  the  victims  of 
a  mere  delusion,  caught  by  error.  So  he  uses  a  word  that  might 
mean  'chosen'  but  might  mean  also  'caught.'  They  think 
themselves  the  former.     He  thinks  them  the  latter." 

I  hardly  know  why  I  refrained  from  telling  my  friend  what 
Scaurus  had  told  me  about  the  probability  that  Epictetus  had 
borrowed  from  the  Christians.  Partly  it  was,  I  think,  because 
it  was  too  long  a  story  to  begin  just  then;  and  I  thought  I 
might  shock  Arrian  and  not  do  Scaurus  justice.  Partly,  I  was 
curious  to  question  Arrian  further.  So  after  a  short  silence, 
during  which  my  friend  seemed  lost  in  thought,  I  said  to  him, 
"  You  know  more  about  the  Christians  than  I  do.  Do  you 
think  Epictetus  knows  much  about  them  ?  And  what  precisely 
does  he  mean  by  'feeling'  when  he  speaks  of  '  taking  up  the 
feeling  of  the  dipped  '  ?  " 

"  As  for  your  first  question,"  said  Arrian,  "  I  am  inclined  to 
think  that  he  knows  a  great  deal  about  them.  How  could  it 
be  otherwise  with  a  young  slave  in  Rome  under  Nero,  when  all 
the  world  knew  how  the  Christians  were  used  to  light  the 
Emperor's  gardens  ?  Moreover  his  contrast  between  the  Jew 
and  the  Greek  seemed  to  me  to  come  forth  as  though  it  had 
been  some  time  in  his  mind,  though  it  had  not  broken  out  till 
to-day.  He  spoke  with  the  bitterness  of  a  conviction  of  long 
standing.  If — contrary  to  his  own  rules — he  could  be '  troubled,' 
I  should  say  our  Master  felt  a  real  '  trouble '  in  being  forced  to 
confess  that  the  Jew  is  above  the  Greek  in  steadfastness  and 
constancy.  As  to  your  second  question,  I  think  he  means  that, 
whereas  Greeks  attain  to  wisdom  through  the  reason  (or  logos) 
these  Jews  follow  their  God,  or  Christus,  through  what  we 
Greeks  call  emotion  or  affection  {i.e.  pathos).  And  I  am  half 
disposed  to  think  that  this  word  pathos  was  used  by  him  on  the 
other  occasion  when  he  spoke  of  the  Christian  Jews  as  Gali- 
laeans."  "  Could  you  quote  it  ?  "  said  I.  "  No,  not  accurately," 
said  Arrian,  "  it  is  rather  long,  and  has  difficulties.  I  should 
prefer  you  to  have  it  exactly.  Come  into  my  rooms.  I  am 
going  out  on  business,  so  that  we  cannot  talk  about  it  at 
present.     But  you  shall  copy  it  down." 


64  EPICTETUS  ALLUDES   TO  JEWS       [Chapter  5 

So  I  went  in  to  copy  it  down.  Arrian  left  me  after  finding 
the  place  for  me  in  his  notes.  "  You  will  see,"  he  said,  "  that 
the  Galila?ans  are  there  described  as  being  made  intrepid  '  by 
habit.'  Well,  that  is  certainly  how  I  took  the  words  down. 
But  I  am  inclined  to  think  it  might  have  been  '  by  feeling ' — 
which  seems  to  me  to  make  better  sense.  But  read  the  whole 
context  and  judge  for  yourself.  The  two  phrases  are  easily 
confused.  Now  I  leave  you  to  your  copying.  Prosit !  More 
about  this,  to-morrow." 


CHAPTER  VI 

PAUL   ON   THE   LOVE   OF   CHRIST 

The  lecture  from  which  I  was  transcribing  was  on  "  fearless- 
ness." What,  it  asked,  makes  a  tyrant  terrible  ?  The  answer 
was,  "his  armed  guards."  A  child,  or  madman,  not  knowing 
what  guards  and  weapons  mean,  would  not  fear  him.  Men  fear 
because  they  love  life,  and  a  tyrant  can  take  life.  Men  also 
love  wealth,  wife,  children.  These  things,  too,  a  tyrant  can 
take ;  so  men  fear  him.  But  a  madman,  caring  for  none  of 
these  things,  and  ready  to  throw  them  away  as  a  child  might 
throw  a  handful  of  sand — a  madman  does  not  fear.  Now  came 
the  words  about  "  custom  "  and  "  Galilseans  "  to  which  Arrian 
had  called  my  attention :  "  Well,  then,  is  not  this  astonishing  ? 
Madness  can  now  and  then  make  a  man  thus  fearless !  Custom 
can  make  the  Galikeans  fearless!  Yet — strange  to  say — reason 
and  demonstration  cannot  make  anyone  understand  that  God 
has  made  all  that  is  in  the  world,  and  has  made  the  world 
itself,  in  its  entirety,  absolutely  complete  in  itself  and  un- 
impeded in  its  motions,  and  has  also  made  its  separate  parts 
individually  for  the  use  of  all  the  parts  collectively  !  " 

The  context  made  me  see  the  force  of  Arrian's  remark. 
Epictetus  appeared  to  be  mentioning  three  influences  under 
which  men  might  resist  the  threats  and  tortures  of  a  tyrant. 
In  the  first  place  was  the  "  madness  "  of  a  lunatic.  In  the  third 
place  was  the  "  logic,"  or  demonstration,  of  philosophy.  In  the 
second  place,  it  would  make  good  sense  to  suppose  that  Epictetus 
meant  "  feeling,"  or  "  passionate  enthusiasm."  This  passage 
would    then   accord    with    the    one    mentioned    above.       Both 


66  PA  UL  [Chapter  6 

passages  would  then  affirm  that  the  Christian  Jews  or 
Galilaeans  can  do  under  the  influence  of  "  feeling "  what  the 
Greek  Philosophers,  or  "  lovers  of  wisdom,"  cannot  do  with  all 
the  aid  of  reason  (or  "  logos  ").  "  Custom  "  would  not  make 
good  sense  unless  the  "  Galikeans,"  or  Christians,  had  made  a 
"  custom  "  of  hardening  their  bodies  by  severe  asceticism.  This 
(I  had  gathered  from  Arrian)  was  not  the  fact.  In  any  case,  it 
seemed  clear  that  Epictetus  was  here  again  contrasting  some 
kind  of  Jew  with  the  Greek  to  the  disadvantage  of  the  latter. 

Curiosity  led  me  to  read  on  a  little  further.  The  text  dealt 
with  Man's  place  in  the  Cosmos,  or  Universe,  as  follows :  "  All 
the  other  parts  of  the  Cosmos  except  man  are  far  removed  from 
the  power  of  intelligently  following  its  administration.  But 
the  living  being  that  is  endowed  with  logos,  or  reason,  has 
therein  a  kind  of  ladder  by  which  he  may  reason  the  way  up  to 
all  these  things.  Thus  he,  and  he  alone,  can  understand  that 
he  is  a  part,  and  what  kind  of  part,  and  that  it  is  right  and  fit 
that  the  parts  should  yield  to  the  whole."  This  reminded  me 
of  the  saying  I  have  quoted  above,  "  Will  you  not  make  a 
contribution  of  your  leg  to  the  Universe  ? "  I  think  he  meant 
"  Will  you  not  offer  up  your  lameness,  as  a  decreed  part  of  the 
whole  system  of  things,  and  as  a  sacrifice  from  you  to  the 
Supreme  ? " 

This  reasonable  part  of  the  Cosmos,  this  "  living  being  that 
is  endowed  with  logos,"  Epictetus  declared  to  be  "  by  nature 
noble,  magnanimous,  and  free."  Consequently,  said  he,  it 
discerns  that,  of  the  things  around  it,  some  are  at  its  disposal, 
while  others  are  not;  and  that,  if  it  will  learn  to  find  its  profit 
and  its  good  in  the  former  class,  it  will  be  perfectly  free  and 
happy,  "  being  thankful  always  for  all  things  to  God." 

This  puzzled  me  not  a  little.  I  could  not  understand  how 
Epictetus  explained  the  means  by  which  these  "noble,  mag- 
nanimous, and  free "  creatures,  created  so  "  by  nature,"  had 
degenerated  into  the  weaklings,  fools,  profligates,  and  oppressors, 
upon  whom  he  was  constantly  pouring  scorn.  Was  not  each 
man  a  "part"  of  the  Cosmos?  Was  not  the  Cosmos  "perfect 
and  exempt  from  all  disorder  or  impediment  in  any  of  its 
motions "  ?     Did    not    each    "  part  "    in    it — and    consequently 


Chapter  6]        ON  THE  LOVE   OF  CHRIST  67 

man — partake  in  this  perfection  and  exemption,  being  "  made 
for  the  service  of  the  whole  "  ?  What  cause  did  Epictetus  find 
for  the  folly,  vice,  and  injustice  that  he  so  often  satirised  and 
condemned  as  "subject  to  the  wrath  of  God"?  Man  was  a 
compound  of  "  clay  "  and  "  logos."  The  fault  could  not  lie  in 
the  "  logos."  Was  it,  after  all,  the  mere  "  clay  "  that  caused  all 
this  mischief?  And  then,  lost  in  thought,  turning  over  the 
loose  sheets  of  Arrian's  notes,  one  after  the  other,  I  came  again 
on  the  passage  I  have  quoted  above  from  Epictetus,  "  If  I  could 
have,  I  would  have  " — laying  the  fault,  as  it  seemed,  upon  the 
"  clay."  I  could  not  help  asking,  "  If  God  '  could  '  not  remedy 
it,  how  much  less  '  could '  I,  being  '  clay,'  remedy  myself, 
'  clay  '  ?  " 

Musing  on  these  things  I  returned  to  my  rooms,  and  was 
sitting  down  to  write  to  Scaurus,  when  my  servant  entered  with 
a  parcel,  from  Rome,  he  said,  forwarded  by  Sosia  our  bookseller. 
It  contained  the  books  I  had  ordered  from  Flaccus,  with  a  letter 
from  him,  describing  in  detail  the  pains  he  had  taken  in  having 
some  of  the  rolls  of  Chrysippus  and  Cleanthes  transcribed  and 
ornamented,  and  saying  that  in  addition  to  the  "  curious  little 
volume  containing  the  epistles  of  Paulus,"  which,  as  I  no  doubt 
anticipated,  were  "  not  in  the  choicest  Greek,"  he  had  forwarded 
an  epistle  to  the  Hebrews.  "  This,"  he  said,  "  does  not  include 
in  the  commencement  the  usual  mention  of  Paulus's  name,  and 
it  is  not  in  his  style.  But  I  understand  that  it  originated  from 
the  school  of  Paulus." 

There  was  more  to  the  same  effect,  for  Flaccus  and  I  were 
on  very  friendly  terms;  and  he  was  a  good  deal  more  than  a 
mere  seller  of  books.  But  I  passed  over  it,  for  I  was  in  haste 
to  open  the  parcel.  At  the  top  were  the  copies  of  Cleanthes, 
Chrysippus,  and  others,  in  Flaccus's  best  style.  At  the  bottom 
of  all  were  two  rolls  of  flimsy  papyrus.  The  larger  and  shabbier 
of  the  two  fell  to  the  ground  open,  and  as  I  took  it  up,  my  eye 
lit  on  the  following  passage : — "  Who  shall  separate  us  from 
the  love  of  Christ?  Shall  tribulation  or  suffering  or  persecution 
or  hunger  or  nakedness  or  peril  or  the  sword  ?     As  it  is  written : 

'For  thy  sake  are  we  done  to  death  all  the  day  long: 
We  were  accounted  as  sheep  of  the  shambles.' 


68  PA  UL  [Chapter  u 

Nay,  in  all  these  things  we  are  more  than  conquerors  through 
Him  that  loved  us.  For  I  am  persuaded  that  neither  death,  nor 
life,  nor  angels,  nor  sovereignties,  nor  things  present,  nor  things 
to  come,  nor  powers,  nor  height,  nor  depth,  nor  anything  in  all 
creation,  will  he  able  to  separate  us  from  that  love  of  God  which 
is  in  Christ  Jesus  our  Lord." 

"  This,  at  all  events,"  said  I,  "  Scaurus  cannot  say  that 
Epictetus  has  borrowed  from  Paul.  Never  have  I  heard 
Epictetus  mention  the  word  '  love  ' ;  and  here,  in  this  one  short 
passage,  Paul  uses  it  twice ! "  My  next  thought  was  that 
Scaurus  was  quite  right  in  his  estimate  of  Paul's  style.  It  was 
indeed  terse,  intense,  fervid,  strangely  stimulating  and  con- 
straining. "  There  is  no  lack  of  pathos,"  I  said,  "  Let  us  now 
test  the  logos."  So  I  sat  down  to  study  the  passage,  tiying  to 
puzzle  out  the  meaning  of  the  separate  words  and  phrases. 

"  The  love  of  Christ."  Well,  Christus  was  their  leader.  The 
Christians  still  loved  him,  and  clung  to  his  memory.  That  was 
intelligible.  But  "  that  love  of  God  which  was  in  Christ " 
perplexed  me.  I  read  the  whole  passage  over  again.  Gradually 
I  began  to  see  that  the  passage  implied  the  Epictetian  ideal — 
according  to  Scaurus,  not  Epictetian  but  Pauline  or  Christian — 
of  a  Son  of  God  standing  fearless  and  erect  in  the  face  of 
enemies,  tyrants,  oppression,  death.  But  it  also  suggested 
invisible  enemies — "  angels  and  sovereignties  "  that  seemed  to 
be  against  the  sons  of  God.  And  still  I  could  not  make  out  the 
expression,  "  that  love  of  God  which  is  in  Christ  Jesus." 

So  I  turned  back  to  the  words  at  the  bottom  of  the  pre- 
ceding column  : — "  If  God  is  for  us,  who  is  against  us  ?  He 
that  spared  not  His  own  Son  but  delivered  him  up  for  us  all, 
hoiu  shall  He  not  also,  with  him,  freely  give  us  all  things?  It  is 
God  that  maketh  and  calleth  us  righteous :  who  is  he  that  shall 
condemn?  It  is  Christ  Jesus  that  died — or  rather  that  was 
raised  from  the  dead,  who  is  on  the  right  hand  of  God,  who  also 
maketh  intercession  for  us."  And  so,  coming  to  the  end  of  the 
column,  I  looked  on  again  to  the  words  with  which  I  had  begun, 
"  Who  shall  separate  us  from  the  love  of  Christ?" 

Now  I  could  understand.  "  This,"  said  I,  "  is  a  great  battle. 
There  are  sovereignties  of  evil  against  the  good.     The  Son  of 


Chapter  6]       ON   THE  LOVE   OF  CHRIST  69 

the  good  God  is  supposed  to  devote  himself  to  death,  fighting 
against  the  hosts  of  evil.  Or  rather  the  Father  sends  him  into 
the  battle  and  he  goes  willingly.  This  Christus  of  the  Galilseans 
is  regarded  by  them  as  we  Romans  might  think  of  one  of  the 
Decii  plunging  into  the  ranks  of  the  enemy  and  devoting 
himself  to  death  for  the  salvation  of  Rome.  Philosophers  might 
ask  inconvenient  questions  about  the  nature  of  the  God  to 
whom  the  brave  man  devotes  himself — whether  it  is  Pluto,  or 
Zeus,  or  Nemesis,  or  Fate.  No  philosopher,  perhaps,  would 
approve  of  this  theory.  But,  in  practice,  the  bravery  stirs  the 
spirits  of  those  who  believe  it.  Even  if  the  sacrifice  is  dis- 
creditable to  the  Gods  accepting  it,  it  is  creditable  to  the  man 
making  it." 

Turning  back  still  further,  I  found  that  Paul  imagined  the 
Cosmos — or  "  creation  "  as  he  called  it — to  have  gone  wrong. 
He  did  not  explain  how.  Nor  did  he  prove  it.  He  assumed  it, 
looking  forward,  however,  to  a  time  when  the  wrong  would  be 
made  right,  and  even  more  right  than  if  it  had  never  gone 
wrong :  "  For  I  reckon  that  the  sufferings  of  this  present  season 
are  not  fit  to  be  spoken  of  in  comparison  of  the  glory  that  is 
destined  to  be  revealed  and  to  extend  to  us.  For  the  earnest 
expectation  of  the  creation  waiteth  intently  for  the  revealing  of 
the  sons  of  God.  For  the  creation  ivas  made  subject  to  change, 
decay,  corruption — not  willingly  but  for  the  sake  of  Him  that 
made  it  thus  subject — in  hope,  and  for  hope :  because  even  this 
very  creation,  now  corrupt,  shall  be  made  free  from  the  slavery 
of  corruption  and  brought  into  the  freedom  of  the  glory  of  the 
children  of  God.  For  we  know  that  the  whole  of  creation 
groaneth  together  and  travaileth  together — up  to  this  present 
time." 

This  struck  me  as  a  very  different  message  from  that  of 
Epictetus  about  Zeus.  Both  Paul  and  Epictetus  seemed  to 
agree  as  regards  the  past,  that  certain  things  had  happened 
that  were  not  pleasing  to  God,  taken  by  themselves.  But 
whereas  the  Greek  said  about  God,  "  He  would  have,  if  He 
could  have ;  but  He  could  not,"  the  Jew  seemed  to  say,  "  He 
can,  and  He  will.  Only  wait  and  see.  It  will  turn  out  to  have 
been  for  the  best." 


70  PA  UL  [Chapter  6 

Reading  on,  I  found  something  corresponding  to  Epictetus's 
doctrine  of  the  indwelling  Logos,  namely,  that  each  of  us  has  in 
himself  a  fragment  of  the  Logos  of  God, — but  Paul  called  it 
Spirit — in  virtue  of  which  we  may  claim  kinship  with  Him, 
being  indeed  God's  children.  Epictetus,  however,  never  said 
that  we  were  to  pray  to  our  Father  for  help.  He  seemed  to 
think  that  each  must  derive  his  help  from  such  portion  of  the 
Logos  as  each  possessed.  "  Keep,"  he  said,  "  that  which  is  your 
own,"  "  Take  from  yourselves  your  help,"  "  Within  each  man 
is  ruin  and  help,"  "  Seek  and  ye  shall  find  within  you,"  or 
words  to  that  effect.  Paul's  doctrine  was  different,  teaching 
that  we  do  not  at  present  possess  salvation  and  help  to  their 
full  extent,  but  that  we  must  look  forward  in  hope  :  "  And  not 
only  so,  but  we  ourselves  also,  though  possessing  the  firstfruits  of 
the  Spirit — we  ourselves  also,  I  say,  groan  wit/tin  ourselves, 
waiting  earnestly  for  the  adoption,  namely,  the  ransoming  and 
deliverance  of  our  body  " — as  though  a  time  would  come  when 
that  very  same  clay,  which  (according  to  Epictetus)  the  Creator 
would  have  wished  to  make  immortal  but  could  not,  would  be 
transmuted  and  transported  in  some  way  out  of  the  region  of 
flesh  into  the  region  of  the  spirit. 

Moreover,  besides  looking  onward  in  hope,  we  must  also 
(Paul  said)  look  upward  for  help.  Epictetus,  too,  as  I  have  said 
above,  sometimes  spoke  of  looking  "  upward,"  and  of  the  Cynic 
stretching  up  his  hands  to  God.  That,  however,  was  not  in 
pra}^er  but  in  praise. 

Epictetus  never  used  the  word  "  prayer "  in  my  hearing 
except  of  foolish,  idle,  or  selfish  prayers.  But  Paul  represented 
the  Logos,  or  rather  the  Spirit,  within  us,  as  an  emotional,  not 
a  merely  reasonable  power.  "  It  searcheth  all  things,  yea,  even 
the  deep  things  of  God,"  he  said  to  the  Corinthians  ;  and  by  it 
(so  he  told  the  Romans  in  the  passage  I  was  just  now  quoting) 
the  children  express  to  the  Father,  and  the  Father  receives 
from  the  children,  their  wants  and  aspirations  :  "  For  by  hope 
were  we  saved.  But  hope  that  is  seen  is  not  hope.  For  who 
hopeth  for  that  which  he  seeth  ?  But  if  we  hope  for  that  which 
we  fail  to  see,  then  in  patient  endurance  we  earnestly  wait  for  it. 
And   ill  the  same  way  the    Spirit    also    taketh  part  with  our 


Chapter  6]       ON  THE  LOVE  OF  CHRIST  71 

weakness.  For  as  to  what  we  should  pray  for,  according  to  our 
needs,  we  do  not  know.  But  the  Spirit  itself  maketh  representa- 
tion in  our  behalf  in  sighings  beyond  speech.  Now  He  that 
searcheth  the  liearts  knoweth  what  is  the  mind  and  temper  of  the 
Spirit,  because,  being  in  union  and  accord  with  God,  it  maketh 
representation  in  behalf  of  the  saints." 

This  passage  I  only  vaguely  understood.  For  I  started 
with  the  preconception  that  the  spirit  or  breath  or  wind, 
must  be  only  another  metaphor — like  "  word  " — to  describe  a 
"  fragment "  of  God  (as  Epictetus  called  the  Logos  in  man). 
I  did  not  as  yet  understand  that  this  Spirit  might  be  regarded 
as,  at  one  and  the  same  moment,  in  heaven  with  God  and  on 
earth  with  men,  representing  the  love  and  will  of  God  to  man 
below,  and  the  love  and  prayers  of  man  to  God  above.  Still 
I  perceived  that  in  some  way  it  was  connected  with  the 
Christian  Christ ;  and  that  the  Father  and  the  Spirit  and  Christ 
were  in  some  permanent  relation  to  each  other  and  to  man,  by 
which  relation  man  and  God  were  drawn  together.  And  this 
led  me  back  again  to  the  words,  "  Who  shall  separate  us  from 
the  love  of  Christ  ? "  and  "  We  are  more  than  conquerors 
through  Him  that  loved  us." 

Comparing  this  "  love "  with  the  friendship  felt  by  the 
Epictetian  Diogenes  for  the  whole  human  race,  I  found  the 
latter  thin  and  poor.  The  Greek  philosopher,  being  a  "  friend  " 
of  the  Father  of  Gods  and  men,  seemed  to  me  to  be  friendly  to 
men  in  the  region  (so  to  speak)  of  the  Logos,  "  because  " — I 
was  disposed  to  add — "  the  Logos  within  him,  in  a  '  logical ' 
way,  commanded  him  to  be  friendly  to  them,  for  consistency's 
sake,  as  being  '  logically  '  akin  to  him."  Perhaps  some  reaction 
against  the  constant  inculcation  of  loyalty  to  the  Logos  during 
the  last  few  weeks  led  me  to  be  a  little  unfair  to  the  Epictetian 
ideal.  But,  fair  or  unfair,  these  were  my  thoughts  at  the 
moment,  while  I  was  turning  over  the  letters  addressed  by  this 
wandering  Jewish  Diogenes  to  some  of  the  principal  cities  of 
Greece  and  Asia,  coming  every  now  and  then  on  such  sentences 
as  these  :  "  /  have  strength  for  all  things  in  Him  that  giveth  me 
inward  power "  :  "  Being  made  powerful  with  all  power,  in 
accordance  ivith  the  might  of  His  glory,  so  that  we  rejoice  in 


72  PAUL  [Chapter  6 

endurance  and  longsuffering ,  being   thankful   to   the   Father": 
"  Be  ye  made  powerful  in   the  Lord  and  in  the  might  of  His 
strength."     Here  I  noted  that  he  did  not  say  (as  Epictetus  did) 
"  take  power  from  yourselves."     Moreover  Paul  added  "  Put  on 
the  panoply  of  God."     Then  I  turned  back  again  to  the  Roman 
and  Corinthian  letters;  and  still  the  same  thoughts  and  phrases 
met  me,  about  "power"  in  various  contexts,  such  as  "demon- 
stration of  Spirit  and  power,"  and  "  abounding  in  hope  through 
the  power  of  the  Holy  Spirit."   "  Love,"  too,  was  represented  as  an 
irresistible  power.     "  TJte  love  of  Christ  constraineth  us,"  he  said. 
And  then  he  added,  "  One  died  for  all  "  and  "  He  died  for  all, 
that  the  living  should  be  living  no  longer  to  themselves,  but  to 
Him  that  for  their  sake  died  and  was  raised  up  from  death." 
There  was  a  great  deal  in  this  Roman  letter  that  was  almost 
total  darkness  to  me  at  first.    The  references  to  Abraham — and, 
still   more,   those   to   Adam,   coming  abruptly   in  the   phrases, 
"death  reigned  from  Adam,"  and  "  the  transgression  of  Adam" 
— perplexed  me  a  great  deal  till  I  perceived  that  the  Jews  fixed 
their  hopes  on  God's  promise  to  their  forefather  Abraham,  just 
as  Romans — if  they  believed  Virgil — might  fix  theirs  on  the 
forefather  of  the  Julian  race.     As  iEneas  was  the  divine  son  of 
Anchises,  so  Isaac,  by  promise,  was  the  divinely  given  son  of 
Abraham.    Paul,  I  thought,  might  draw  a  parallel  between  our 
iEneas  and  his  Isaac,  as  though  both  were  receivers  of  divine 
promises  of  empire  extending  over  all  the  nations  of  the  earth. 
At  this  Jewish  fancy  (so  I  called  it)  I  remember  smiling  at 
the  time,  and  quoting  Virgil  from  a  Jew's  point  of  view : 

"  Tantse  niolis  erat  Judceam  condere  gentem." 

But  I  soon  perceived,  not  only  that  Paul  was  in  serious  earnest, 
quite  as  much  as  Virgil,  but  also  that  his  scheme,  or  dream,  of 
universal  empire  for  the  seed  of  Abraham  was  compatible  with 
the  fact  of  universal  empire  for  the  seed  of  Anchises.  Rome, 
the  new  Troy,  claimed  dominion  over  nothing  but  men's  bodies. 
The  new  Jerusalem  claimed  it  over  men's  souls. 

I  did  not  fully  take  all  this  into  my  mind  till  I  had  read  the 
story  of  Abraham  and  Isaac  in  the  scriptures,  as  I  shall  describe 
later   on.     But,   with   Virgil's   help,  and   Roman   traditions,   I 


Chapter?*]       ON  THE  LOVE   OF  CHRIST  73 

partially  understood  it  even  now ;  and  I  remember  asking 
myself,  "  If  Virgil  were  now  alive,  would  he  be  as  sanguine  as 
this  Jew  ?  Is  not  Rome  on  the  wane  ?  Ever  since  the  Emperor 
cried  to  Varus,  '  Give  me  back  my  legions ! '  have  we  not  had 
qualms  of  fear  lest  we  should  be  beaten  back  by  the  barbarians  ? 
Do  not  even  the  wisest  of  our  rulers  say,  '  Let  us  draw  the  line 
here.  Let  us  conquer  no  more '  ?  But  this  Jew  sets  no  limits 
to  his  conquests.  His  projects  may  be  mad.  But  at  least  he 
has  some  basis  of  fact  for  them.  If  he  has  conquered  so  far, 
why  not  further  ? " 

As  to  "the  transgression  of  Adam,"  I  remained  longer  in 
the  dark.  But  I  perceived  from  other  passages  in  the  epistles 
(and  from  the  Jewish  scriptures  soon  afterwards)  that  the  story 
of  Adam  and  Eve  resembled  some  versions  that  I  had  read  of 
the  story  of  Epimetheus  and  Pandora,  who  caused  sins  and 
pains  to  come  into  the  world,  but  "  hope "  came  with  them. 
Adam  and  Eve  did  the  same.  But  Paul  believed  that  the 
"  hope  "  sprang  from  a  promise  of  a  higher  and  nobler  life  than 
would  have  been  possible  if  Adam  and  Eve  had  never  gone 
wrong.  I  took  this  for  a  mere  legend,  but  a  legend  that  might 
represent  the  will  of  Zeus — namely,  that  man  should  not  stand 
still,  but  that  he  should  go  on  growing,  from  age  to  age,  in 
righteousness,  which,  as  Plato  says,  is  the  attribute  of  man  that 
makes  him  most  like  God. 

Thus  I  was  led  on  to  higher  and  higher  inferences  about 
Paul's  "  power."  First,  it  was  real  power,  attested  by  facts — 
facts  visible  in  great  cities  of  Europe  and  Asia.  In  the  next 
place,  this  power  was  based  on  faith  and  hope.  Lastly,  this 
faith  and  this  hope — although  they  extended  to  everything  in 
heaven  and  earth  (since  everything  was  to  be  bettered,  purified, 
drawn  onward  or  upward  to  what  Plato  might  call  its  idea  in 
God,  that  is,  its  perfection) — were  themselves  based  on  Christ, 
as  having  once  died,  but  now  being  alive  for  ever  in  heaven. 

But  not  only  in  heaven.  For  Paul  seemed  to  think  of 
Christ  as  also  still  perpetually  present  with,  and  in,  his 
disciples  on  earth.  Socrates  in  the  Phsedo  says  "As  soon  as  I 
have  drunk  this  poison  I  shall  be  no  longer  remaining  among 
you,  but  shall  be  off  at  once  to  the  isles  of  the  blessed."     But 


74  PA  UL  [Chapter  6 

Paul  spoke  of  Christ's  love,  and  spirit,  and  of  Christ  himself,  as 
still  remaining  amongst  his  followers.  I  knew  that  the  common 
people  think  of  Hercules  as  descending  from  heaven  now  and 
then  to  do  a  man  a  good  turn ;  and  at  this  I  had  always  been 
disposed  to  laugh.  But  Paul's  view  of  Christ  as  being  always 
in  heaven,  and  yet  also  always  on  earth,  among,  or  in  the  hearts 
of,  those  who  loved  him — this  seemed  to  me  more  noble  and 
more  credible ;  though  I  did  not  believe  it. 

Now  I  was  to  be  led  a  step  further.  For  while  I  was 
repeating  Paul's  words  "  one  died  for  all,"  and  again,  "  one 
died,"  it  occurred  to  me  "  Yes,  but  he  does  not  say  how  he  died. 
Is  he  ashamed  to  speak  of  the  shamefulness  of  the  death,  the 
slave's  death,  death  upon  the  cross  ? "  So  I  looked  through  the 
Roman  letter,  right  to  the  end,  and  I  could  find  no  mention  of 
the  "  cross  "  or  of  "  crucifying."  But  in  the  very  next  column, 
where  the  first  Corinthian  letter  began,  I  found  this  passage : 
"  Christ  sent  me  not  to  baptize  but  to  preach  the  Gospel,  not  in 
wisdom  of  'logos'  (i.e.  word),  lest  the  cross  of  Christ  should  be 
emptied  of  its  power.  For  as  to  the  '  logos '  of  the  cross,  to  those 
indeed  who  are  going  the  way  of  destruction,  it  is  folly :  but  to 
us,  who  are  going  the  way  of  salvation,  it  is  the  power  of  God. 
For  it  is  written : 

'I  will  destroy  the  wisdom  of  the  wise 
And  the  subtlety  of  the  subtle  will  I  bring  to  naught.' 
Where  is  the  'wise'?     Where  is  the  learned  writer ?     Where  is 
the  '  subtle  '  discusser  and  dispute)'  of  this  present  age  ?  " 

Then  followed  some  very  difficult  words:  "Hath  not  God 
made  foolish  the  ivisdom  of  the  Cosmos  ?  For  since,  in  the 
wisdom  of  God,  the  Cosmos,  through  that  wisdom,  recognised  not 
God,  God  decreed  through  the  foolishness  of  the  proclamation  of 
the  gospel  to  save  them  that  go  the  way  of  belief:  for  indeed 
Jews  ask  for  signs  and  Greeks  seek  after  wisdom,  but  we 
proclaim  Christ  crucified ;  to  the  Jews,  a  stumbling  block ;  to  the 
other  nations,  a  folly ;  but,  to  the  called  and  summoned — Christ 
the  power  of  God  and  the  wisdom  of  God" 

I  have  translated  this  literally  so  as  to  leave  it  as  obscure  to 
the  reader  as  it  was  to  me  when  I  first  read  it.  Even  when  I 
had  read  it  over  two  or  three  times,  there  was  a  great  deal  that 


Chapter^]       ON   THE  LOVE   OF  CHRIST  75 

I  could  not  understand.  But  it  appeared  to  me  to  be  ironical. 
It  suggested  that  the  "  logos "  of  God  may  be  different  from 
the  "  logos "  of  men,  or  at  all  events,  the  "  logos "  of  Greek 
philosophers.  I  had  for  some  time  been  drawing  near  to  a 
belief  that  "  logos "  might  include  feeling  as  well  as  reason. 
But  this  strange  contrast  between  the  unwise  "wisdom  of  logos  " 
and  the  wise  "  logos  of  the  cross  "  came  upon  me  as  (possibly)  a 
new  revelation.  As  for  the  saying  "  the  Greeks  seek  wisdom," 
it  reminded  me  how  Epictetus  used  to  deride  the  man  of  mere 
logic,  words  without  deeds,  the  futile  spinner  of  syllogisms. 
"  Epictetus,"  I  said  to  myself,  "  would  agree  with  this  accusa- 
tion." But  then  I  reflected  that  Paul  would  perhaps  class 
Epictetus  himself  among  these  futile  Greeks ;  and  had  not  my 
Master  himself  confessed  that  the  Jew,  by  mere  force  of 
"  pathos,"  outclassed  the  Greek  in  resolution  and  steadfastness, 
although  the  latter  was  backed  by  "  logos  "  ?  The  conclusion 
fell  upon  me,  like  a  blow,  "  Here  is  Paul  boasting  as  a  conqueror 
what  my  Master  confesses  as  a  man  conquered  !  Both  agree 
that  the  '  feeling '  of  the  Jew  is  more  powerful  in  producing 
courage  than  the  '  reasonableness '  of  the  Greek  ! " 

I  did  not  like  this  turn  of  things.  But  I  was  intensely 
interested  in  it ;  and  it  quite  decided  me  to  continue  the 
investigation.  The  question  turned  on  "  logos  "  and  I  quoted 
to  myself  Plato's  precept,  "  Follow  the  logos."  Epictetus  made 
much  of  "  logos."  Well,  I  would  "  follow  the  '  logos,'  "  in  its 
fullest  sense,  and  would  try  to  find  out  whether  it  did,  or  did 
not,  indicate  that  "  feeling,"  as  well  as  "  reason,"  may  help  us 
towards  the  knowledge  of  God.  Dawn  was  appearing  when  I 
rolled  up  the  little  volume  and  placed  it  in  my  cabinet  by  the 
side  of  Scaurus's  sealed  note  with  WORDS  OF  CHRISTUS 
on  it.  That  reminded  me  of  my  old  friend.  What  would  he 
think  of  all  this  ? 

I  sat  down  at  once  and  wrote  to  him  that  I  had  not  opened 
his  note.  If  I  ever  did,  it  would  be,  I  said,  because  I  accepted 
his  verdict.  Epictetus  really  did  seem  to  have  borrowed  from 
Paul.  The  subject  was  very  interesting  to  me  from  a  historical 
as  well  as  a  literary  point  of  view ;  and  I  hoped  he  would  not 
think  it  waste  of  time  if  I  investigated  it  a  little  further.     At 


76         PAUL  ON  THE  LOVE  OF  CHRIST      [Chapter  6 

the  same  time,  I  sent  a  note  to  Flaccus.  iEmilius  Scaurus,  I 
said,  had  sent  me  some  "  words  of  Christus "  extracted  from 
Christian  books,  and  I  desired  to  receive  the  books  themselves. 
As  for  the  "  scriptures  "  from  which  Paul  so  frequently  quoted 
in  their  Greek  form,  I  knew  that  I  should  have  no  difficulty  in 
procuring  copies  of  all  or  most  of  them  from  Sosia.  This  I 
resolved  to  do  on  the  morrow,  or  rather  in  the  day  that  was 
now  dawning.  It  was  not  a  lecture-day.  Even  if  it  had  been, 
in  the  mood  in  which  I  then  was,  I  should  have  thought  a 
lecture  or  two  might  be  profitably  missed. 


CHAPTER   VII 


DAVID   AND   MOSES 


The  Greek  translation  of  the  Scriptures  shewn  me  by  Sosia 
was  in  several  volumes  of  various  sizes  and  in  various  conditions. 
Unrolling  the  one  that  shewed  most  signs  of  use,  I  found  that, 
although  it  was  in  prose,  it  was  a  translation  of  Hebrew  poems, 
mostly  very  short,  and  of  a  lyrical  character.  One  of  them  had 
in  its  title  the  name  of  "  David,"  which  I  had  met  with  in 
Paul's  letter  to  the  Romans.  Sosia  told  me  that  he  was  the 
greatest  of  the  ancient  kings  of  the  Jews.  Ordering  the  other 
volumes  to  be  sent  to  my  rooms,  I  took  this  back  with  me,  and 
began  to  read  it  immediately,  beginning  with  the  poem  on 
which  I  had  chanced  in  the  shop. 

It  was  a  prayer  for  purification  from  sin :  "  Pity  me,  O  God, 
according  to  thy  great  pity,  and  according  to  the  multitude  of 
thy  compassions  blot  out  my  transgression.  Cleanse  me  still 
more  from  my  crime,  and  purify  me  from  my  sin."  So  far,  the 
poem  was  intelligible  to  me.  I  was  familiar  with  the  religious 
rites  of  cleansing  from  blood-guiltiness — mentioned  in  connexion 
with  Orestes  and  many  others  by  the  Greek  poets  and  recognised 
in  various  forms  all  over  the  world.  So  I  said,  "  This  king  has 
committed  homicide.  He  has  been  purified  with  lustral  rites 
and  sacrifices.  But  he  needs  some  further  rites :  '  Cleanse  me 
still  more,'  he  says.  The  poem  will  tell  me,  I  suppose,  what 
more  he  needs." 

After  adding  some  words  to  the  effect  that  the  transgression 
was  against  God,  against  God  alone,  the  king  continued,  "  For 
behold,  in  transgressions  was  I  created  at  birth,  and  in  sins  did 
my  mother  conceive  me.     For  behold,  thou   hast  ever  loved 


78  DAVID   AND   MOSES  [Chapter  7 

truth ;  thou  hast  shewn  unto  me  the  hidden  secrets  of  thy 
wisdom.  Thou  wilt  sprinkle  me  with  hyssop  and  I  shall  be 
purified ;  thou  wilt  wash  me  and  I  shall  be  whiter  than  snow." 
Here  I  was  at  a  stand.  It  seemed  to  me  a  great  and  sudden 
descent  to  a  depth  of  superstition,  to  suppose  that  this  particular 
additional  rite  of  "  cleansing  with  hyssop "  could  satisfy  the 
king's  conscience.  Moreover  I  thought  that  "  wisdom  "  must 
mean  the  wisdom  of  the  Greeks.  It  was  not  till  afterwards 
that  I  discovered  how  great  a  gulf  separates  our  syllogistic  or 
rhetorical  or  logical  "  wisdom  "  from  that  of  the  Jews — which 
means  "  knowledge  of  the  righteousness  of  the  Creator  based 
upon  reverence."  Thence  comes  their  saying,  "  Reverence  for 
God  is  the  beginning  of  wisdom." 

These  two  misunderstandings  almost  led  me  to  put  down 
the  book  in  disgust.  But  the  passionateness  of  the  king's 
prayer  made  me  read  its  opening  words  once  again.  Then  I 
felt  sure  I  must  have  done  him  injustice.  So  I  read  on. 
Presently  I  came  to  the  words,  "  Create  in  me  a  clean  heart, 

0  God,  and  renew  a  right  spirit  within  me.  Cast  me  not  away 
from  thy  countenance,  and  take  not  thy  holy  spirit  from  me." 
These  made  me  ashamed  of  having  taken  "  hyssop "  literally. 

1  saw  now  that  it  was  just  as  much  metaphorical  as  "  whiter 
than  snow,"  and  that  it  meant  a  deep  and  inward  purification — 
of  the  heart,  not  of  the  body.  Still  more  was  I  ashamed  when 
I  came  to  the  words,  "  If  thou  hadst  delight  in  sacrifice  I  would 
have  given  it  to  thee,  but  thou  wilt  take  no  pleasure  in  whole 
burnt-offerings.  The  sacrifice  for  God  is  a  broken  spirit.  A 
broken  and  contrite  heart  God  will  not  despise." 

This  was  all  new  and  strange  doctrine  to  me.  The  graceful 
lines  of  Horace  about  the  efficacy  of  the  simplest  sacrifice — of 
meal  and  salt — from  the  hand  of  an  innocent  country  girl,  and 
about  its  superiority  to  the  proffered  bribe  of  a  hecatomb  from 
a  man  of  guilt,  these  I  knew  by  heart ;  but  they  did  not  touch 
the  present  question,  which  was  as  to  how  the  man  of  guilt 
could  receive  purification,  without  a  hecatomb,  without  the 
blood  of  bulls  and  goats.  And  the  question  went  even  beyond 
that.  For  the  king  said  that  he  had  been  "  in  sins  "  even  from 
the  beginning,  even   before  birth.     Did   he   speak  of  himself 


Chapter  7]  DAVID   AND   MOSES  79 

alone,  or  of  himself  as  the  type  of  erring  mankind  ?  I  thought 
the  latter.  He  seemed  to  me  to  say,  "  Man  is  from  the  first  an 
animal,  born  to  follow  appetite.  In  part  (no  doubt)  he  is  a 
divine  being,  born  to  follow  the  divine  will ;  but  in  part  he  is 
an  animal,  born  to  follow  animal  propensity."  So  far  this  agreed 
with  Epictetus's  doctrine  about  the  Beast.  The  Beast,  at  the 
beginning,  tyrannizes  over  the  divine  Man,  so  that  the  human 
being  may  be  said  to  be  in  sin — and  indeed  is  in  sin,  as  soon  as 
he  becomes  conscious  of  the  tyranny  within  him.  "  No  lustral 
rites,  no  blood  of  bulls  and  goats,"  the  king  seemed  to  say, 
"can  purify  this  human  heart  of  mine  now  that  it  has  been 
tainted  and  corrupted  by  submitting  to  the  Beast  within  me. 
A  moment  ago,  my  prayer  was  '  Purge  me  with  hyssop,'  but 
now  it  is  '  Destroy  me  and  create  me  anew,'  '  Take  away  my  old 
heart  and  give  me  a  new  heart.' " 

These  last  words  were  quite  contrary  to  the  doctrine  of 
Epictetus,  who  taught  us  that  we  are  to  receive  strength  and 
righteousness  from  that  which  is  within  our  own  hearts.  And, 
thought  I,  is  not  the  king's  prayer  superstitious  ?  The  witches 
in  Rome  suppose  they  can  draw  down  the  moon  by  incantations. 
This  king  David  in  Judaea  supposes  he  can  draw  down  "  a  clean 
heart "  and  "  a  right  spirit "  by  passionate  invocation  to  the 
God  of  the  Jews !  Are  not  the  two  superstitions  parallel  ? 
Would  not  Epictetus  say  so  ?  Would  not  all  the  Cynics  say  so  ? 
I  thought  they  would :  and,  as  I  was  rolling  up  the  little  book, 
I  said,  "  It  is  a  fine  and  passionate  poem,  but  the  prayer  is  not 
one  for  a  philosopher."  Then,  however,  it  occurred  to  me  that 
there  was  a  true  and  a  deep  philosophy — though  I  knew  not  of 
what  school — in  the  doctrine  that  the  true  and  purifying 
sacrifice  for  guilt  is  a  penitent  heart.  That  set  me  pondering 
the  whole  matter  again  and  reflecting  on  some  of  the  things  in 
my  own  life  of  which  I  was  most  ashamed,  things  that  I  would 
have  given  much  to  forget,  and  a  great  deal  more  to  undo.  In 
the  end,  I  found  myself  thinking — not  saying,  but  thinking  of 
it  as  a  possible  prayer — "  In  me,  in  me,  too,  create  a  clean 
heart,  0  thou  God  of  forgiveness  !  "  It  might  not  be  a  prayer 
for  philosophers,  but  I  could  not  help  feeling  that  it  might  be 
a  good  prayer  for  me. 


80  DAVID   AND   MOSES  [Chapter  7 

While  I  was  placing  my  new  volume  by  the  side  of  Paul's 
epistles  it  occurred  to  me  that  the  words  I  had  just  been 
reading  might  throw  some  light  on  a  passage  in  the  epistle  to 
the  Romans  at  which  I  had  glanced  last  night.  Then  I  could 
make  nothing  of  it.  Now  I  read  it  again  :  "  I  know  that  in  me, 
that  is,  in  my  flesh,  there  dwelleth  no  good  thing.  To  will 
[that  which  is  good]  is  present  with  me,  but  to  do  is  not 
present.  I  will  to  do  good  and  I  do  it  not.  I  will  not  to  do 
evil,  and  I  do  it."  This  now  seemed  to  me  a  truer  description 
of  the  state  of  things  (within  me  at  all  events)  than  the  view 
mostly  presented  to  us  in  our  lecture-room.  Epictetus  often 
talked  as  though  we  had  merely  to  will,  and  then  what  we 
willed — at  least  so  far  as  concerns  the  mind  and  the  things  in 
the  mind's  province — would  at  once  come  to  pass.  True,  he 
did  not  always  say  this.  Sometimes  he  insisted  on  the  need  of 
training  or  practice,  and  then  he  likened  the  Cynic  to  an 
athlete  preparing  for  the  Olympian  games.  But  it  seemed  to 
me  that  he  habitually  underrated  the  difficulty  of  conforming 
the  human  to  the  divine  will :  and  he  never — never  even  once, 
as  far  as  I  know — recognised  the  need  or  efficacy  of  repentant 
sorrow. 

My  immediate  conclusion  was  that,  although  it  was  not  for 
me  to  decide  between  the  "  feeling "  of  the  Jews  and  the 
"  reason  "  of  the  Greeks  in  general,  yet  one  thing  was  certain — 
I  had  a  good  deal  to  learn  from  the  former.  So  I  welcomed  the 
arrival  of  Sosia's  servant  bringing  the  rest  of  my  new  books. 
A  good  many  of  them  I  unrolled  and  cursorily  inspected  at 
once.  Both  from  their  number,  and  from  the  variety  of  their 
subjects,  it  was  clear  that  I  should  only  be  able  to  study  a  few. 
I  resolved  to  confine  myself  to  such  parts  as  bore  on  Paul's 
epistles,  and  to  dispense  with  lectures  for  a  day  or  two.  Then 
it  occurred  to  me  that  Arrian,  who  had  proposed  to  resume 
to-day  our  conversation  on  the  Jews  and  Galilseans,  might 
come  in  at  any  moment.  I  put  away  the  Jewish  books  and 
went  to  his  lodging,  thinking  that  I  could  perhaps  tell  my 
friend  of  my  new  studies  in  order  to  explain  to  him  my  non- 
attendance  at  lecture.  Instead  of  Arrian,  however,  I  found  a 
note  informing  me  that  he  had  been  obliged  to  go  suddenly  to 


Chapter  7]  DAVID  AND   MOSES  81 

Corinth  (in  connexion  with  some  business  of  his  father's)  but 
hoped  to  return  before  long. 

This  saved  explanation ;  and  I  spent  several  days  (during 
his  prolonged  absence)  in  studying  my  new  volumes.  They  led 
me  into  a  maze — or  rather,  maze  after  maze — of  bewildering 
novelties.  Sosia  had  told  me  that  my  first  volume,  containing 
five  books,  was  called  by  the  Jews  "  the  Law."  But  it  included 
pedigrees,  poems,  prophecies,  histories  of  nations,  and  stories  of 
private  persons.  The  legal  portion  of  it  was  largely  devoted  to 
details  about  feasts  and  purificatory  sacrifices — the  very  things 
that  David  appeared  to  call  needless.  However,  when  I  came 
to  look  into  the  Law  more  closely,  I  found  that  its  fundamental 
enactments  were  humane  and  gentle — so  much  so  as  to  give  me 
the  impression  of  being  unpractical.  It  enjoined  on  the  Jews 
kindness  to  strangers  as  well  as  to  citizens.  While  retaining 
capital  punishment,  it  prohibited  torture.  At  least  I  took  that 
to  be  a  fair  inference  from  the  fact  that  it  even  forbade  the 
infliction  of  more  than  forty  blows  with  the  scourge,  on  the 
ground  that  a  "  brother  " — that  was  the  word — must  not  be  so 
far  degraded  as  to  become  "  vile  "  in  the  eyes  of  his  fellow- 
citizens.  It  also  placed  some  limitations  on  the  right  of  masters 
to  punish  slaves,  even  when  the  latter  were  foreigners. 

Having  been  accustomed  to  regard  the  Jews  as  unique  for 
their  moroseness  and  unneighbourliness  I  was  all  the  more 
astonished  at  these  things.  It  occurred  to  me  then,  as  it  does 
sometimes  now,  that  the  Law  was  almost  too  humane  to  have 
been  ever  fully  obeyed  by  the  greater  part  of  the  people.  For 
example,  even  the  slaves,  even  the  beasts  of  burden,  were  to  have 
one  day  in  seven  as  a  holiday,  on  which  all  labour  was  forbidden. 
Periodic  remission  of  debts  was  enacted  by  law  !  This  surprised 
me  most  of  all.  To  think  that  the  revolutionary  measure — so 
our  Roman  historians  called  it — for  which  our  tribunes  of  the 
people  had  contended  in  vain  under  the  Republic,  should  here 
be  found  legalised  by  the  Law  of  Moses — and  this,  too,  not  as 
an  exceptional  and  isolated  condonation,  but  as  a  regular 
remission  after  a  fixed  number  of  years ! 

"  How,"  I  asked,  "  could  the  Lawgiver  expect  people  to  lend 
money  to  borrowers  if  the  creditor  knew  that  in  the  course  of  a 

a.  6 


82  DAVID  AND   MOSES  [Chapter  7 

few  months  the  obligation  to  pay  the  debt  would  cease  ? " 
Was  he  blind  to  the  most  manifest  tendencies  of  human  nature  ? 
No,  I  found  he  was  not  blind  to  them.  He  simply  said  that 
they  must  be  resisted  :  "  Beware,"  said  he,  "  that  there  be  not  a 
base  thought  in  thine  heart,  saying,  The  seventh  year,  the  year 
of  release,  is  at  hand." 

This  notion  of  forbidding  an  action,  or  abstinence  from 
action,  in  a  code  of  laws  as  being  "base" — not  as  being  "subject 
to  a  penalty  of  such  a  kind,"  or  "  a  fine  of  so  much,"  was  quite 
new  to  me.  I  had  given  some  time  to  the  study  of  Roman 
law,  and  had  always  assumed  that  when  the  law  says  "Do  this," 
it  adds  a  punishment  in  some  form  or  other,  "  Do  this,  or  you 
shall  suffer  this  or  that."  But  here,  embedded  in  the  Law  of 
Moses,  was  a  law,  or  rather  a  recommendation,  without  penalty. 
And  presently  I  found  that  the  last  of  their  Ten  Greater 
Laws — if  I  may  so  call  them — was  of  the  same  kind.  It  could 
not  possibly  be  enforced — for  it  forbade  "  coveting  "  !  Only  a 
few  days  ago,  before  I  had  bought  these  books  from  Sosia,  I 
had  read  in  Paul's  epistle  to  the  Romans  "  I  should  not  have 
known  covetousness  if  the  law  had  not  said,  Thou  shalt  not 
covet " ;  and  these  words  had  puzzled  me  a  good  deal.  I  had 
thought  that  they  must  refer  to  some  "  law "  of  a  spiritual 
kind,  such  as  we  might  call  "  the  law  of  the  conscience "  or 
"  the  law  of  our  higher  nature,"  or  the  like.  Yet  I  felt  that 
this  interpretation  did  not  quite  agree  with  the  context.  Now 
I  found,  to  my  utter  astonishment,  that  this  was  the  very  letter 
of  the  first  clause  of  the  tenth  of  the  Greater  Laws,  "  Thou 
shalt  not  covet." 

To  crown  all,  I  found  that  elsewhere  the  whole  of  the  code 
was  based  by  the  Lawgiver  on  two  fundamental  precepts.  The 
first  was,  "  Thou  shalt  love  the  Lord  thy  God,"  and  this  love 
was  to  call  forth  all  the  powers  of  mind  and  soul  and  body. 
The  second  was,  "  Thou  shalt  love  thy  neighbour  as  thyself." 
How  was  either  of  these  to  be  enforced  ?  "  Love,"  say  all  the 
poets,  "  is  free."  The  Law  neither  prescribed  nor  suggested 
any  means  of  enforcing  these  two  Great  Commandments  of 
"  loving."  And  how  could  "  love  "  be  at  once  "  free,"  as  poetry 
protests,  and  yet  a  part  of  the  Law,  as  Moses  testified  ?     There 


Chapter  7]  DA  VID  AND   MOSES  83 

seemed  no  answer  to  this  question,  unless  some  God  could 
make  us  willing  and  eager  to  enforce  the  two  commandments  on 
ourselves,  constraining  us  (so  to  speak)  by  love  to  love  both 
Him  and  one  another.  "  Truly,"  said  I,  "  this  Law  of  Moses  is 
very  ambitious."  It  seemed  to  aim  at  more  than  Law  could 
accomplish.  It  reminded  me  of  a  sentence  I  had  found  in  one 
of  my  new  volumes,  entitled  "  Proverbs,"  "  The  light  of  the 
Lord  is  as  the  breath  of  men ;  He  searcheth  the  storehouses  of 
the  soul." 

Somewhat  similar  was  a  saying  imputed  to  Epictetus — 
which  I  had  not  heard  from  Arrian  but  from  a  fellow-student — 
reproving  one  of  his  disciples  in  these  words,  "  Man,  where  are 
you  putting  it  ?  See  whether  the  basin  is  dirty ! "  The 
disciple,  though  an  industrious  scholar,  was  of  impure  life  ;  and 
Epictetus  meant  that,  if  the  vessel  of  his  soul  was  foul,  all  the 
knowledge  put  into  that  vessel  would  also  become  foul.  The 
moral  was,  "  First  cleanse  the  vessel ! "  So  the  Jewish  Proverb 
seemed  to  say,  "  The  light  of  the  Lord  must  first  search  the 
storehouse  of  the  soul :  then  the  food  taken  out  from  the  store- 
house will  be  pure  and  wholesome."  This  brought  me  back  to 
the  words  of  David,  who  seemed  to  think  that  the  searching 
and  cleansing  must  come  from  God  and  not  from  man  alone, 
"  Create  in  me  a  clean  heart,  O  God,  and  renew  a  right  spirit 
within  me ! " 

Comparing  these  two  fundamental  or  Greatest  Laws  of 
Moses  with  the  fundamental  law  of  Epictetus,  "  Keep  the 
things  that  are  thine  own,"  I  thought  at  first  that  the  Jew  and 
the  Greek  were  entirely  opposed.  On  second  thoughts,  however, 
I  perceived  that  in  "  the  things  that  are  thine  own  "  Epictetus 
would  include  justice  and  kindness,  and  all  social  so-called 
virtues  so  far  as  they  did  not  interfere  with  one's  own  peace  of 
mind — for  he  would  perhaps  exclude  pity,  and  certainly 
sympathy  in  the  full  sense  of  the  term.  But  Epictetus  thought 
that  people  could  be  sufficiently  kind  and  just  and  virtuous 
without  other  aid  than  that  of  the  "  logos  "  within  them.  David 
did  not,  in  his  own  case,  unless  that  which  was  within  him 
had  been  cleansed  or  renewed  by  a  Power  regarded  as  outside 
him,  to  whom  he  prayed,  as  God.     There  seemed  to  me,  in  this 

6—2 


84  DAVID   AND  MOSES  [Chapter  7 

difference  of  "  within  "  and  "  outside,"  more  than  a  mere  differ- 
ence of  metaphor.  But  I  had  no  time  to  think  over  the  matter. 
For,  just  as  I  was  regretting  that  Arrian  was  not  with  me  to 
talk  over  some  of  these  subjects,  Glaucus,  coming  in  to  borrow 
a  book,  informed  me  that  he  had  met  my  friend  late  in  the 
previous  night  coming  from  the  quay.  I  had  intended  to  stay 
at  home  that  morning.  But  now,  rinding  that  Glaucus  was  on 
his  way  to  the  lecture,  I  resolved  to  accompany  him,  expecting 
to  meet  Arrian  there. 


CHAPTER  VIII 

EPICTETUS    ON   SIN 

When  we  reached  the  lecture-room,  a  little  late,  we  found 
it  unusually  crowded.  My  place  was  taken,  and  I  could  not  see 
Arrian  in  his  customary  seat.  Epictetus  was  in  one  of  his 
discursive  moods.  He  began  with  the  assertion — by  this  time 
familiar  to  me,  but  somewhat  distasteful  now,  fresh  as  I  was 
from  the  atmosphere  of  the  Jewish  writings — that  Gods  and 
men  alike  seek  nothing  but  "  their  own  profit."  As  in  most  of 
his  epigrams,  he  meant  just  the  opposite  of  what  he  seemed  to 
assert.  He  hated  high-flown  language  as  much  as  he  loved 
high  thought  and  action.  Even  when  he  mentioned  "  the 
beautiful  " — on  which  most  Greeks  go  off  into  rhapsodies — he 
almost  always  subordinated  it  to  the  "  logos  "  or  told  us  that  we 
must  look  for  it  in  ourselves.  So  here  again.  Man,  he  declared, 
must  give  up  all  things — property,  reputation,  children,  wife, 
country,  if  they  are  incompatible  with  his  true  "  profit."  Then, 
of  course,  he  shewed  that  man's  "  profit "  is  virtue,  so  that  we 
need  not  give  up  these  blessings  unless  their  possession  is 
incompatible    with    virtue. 

What  he  said  next  was  new  to  me.  A  father,  losing  a  child 
in  death,  must  not  say  "  I  have  lost  my  child,"  but  "  I  have 
given  it  back."  When  I  say  "  new,"  I  mean  new  in  his  teaching. 
But  I  had  recently  met  something  like  it  in  my  books  of 
Hebrew  poems,  "  The  Lord  hath  given,  the  Lord  hath  taken 
away.  Blessed  be  the  name  of  the  Lord."  Later  on,  I  heard 
Epictetus  repeat  this  almost  in  the  same  form.  This  seemed  to 
me  not  only  beautiful  and  devout  but  also  consistent  with 
reasonable    faith. 


86  EPICTETUS  [Chapter  8 

But  I  could  not  follow  him  when,  in  reply  to  the  objection, 
"  He  that  took  away  this  thing  from  me  is  a  villain,"  he  said, 
"  What  does  it  matter  to  you  by  whom  the  Giver  asked  back 
the  gift  ? "  It  seemed  to  me  that  a  recoil  from  villainy,  as  well 
as  delight  in  virtue,  ought  to  find  a  place  even  in  the  calmest 
of  mankind.  No  philosopher,  he  said,  can  have  an  "  enemy," 
because  no  one  can  do  him  any  harm  or  touch  anything  that 
really  belongs  to  him.  This  was  true — in  a  sense.  Its  reason- 
ableness contrasted  with  the  passionate  poetry  of  the  Jews, 
which  I  had  found  full,  too  full,  of  talk  about  enemies.  And  yet, 
the  more  I  meditated  on  the  contrast,  the  more  this  "  What  does 
it  matter  to  you  ?"  seemed  to  become  a  cold-blooded,  unnatural, 
and  immoral  question.  Surely  it  ought  to  "  matter  "  to  us  a 
great  deal  whether  we  suffered  loss  from  some  neighbour's 
forgetfulness  or  from  some  enemy's  premeditated  and  malignant 
treachery.  He  went  on  in  the  same  chilling  style.  "  Desire," 
said  he,  "  about  that  which  is  happening,  that  it  shall  happen. 
Then  you  will  have  a  stream  of  constant  peace."  I  seemed  to 
see  Priam  "  desiring  that  which  was  happening  "  when  he  saw 
Troy  burned  and  the  women  ravished  !  His  son,  Polites,  was 
being  butchered  by  Pyrrhus  before  his  eyes,  and  the  old  king 
was  standing  by,  placidly  enjoying  "  a  stream  of  constant 
peace  " ! 

Then  Epictetus  said,  "  An  uneducated  man  blames  others 
for  his  own  evils.  A  beginner  blames  himself.  An  educated 
man  blames  neither  others  nor  himself."  After  this,  he 
introduced  what  he  called  the  law  laid  down  by  God.  "  Right 
convictions  make  the  will  and  purpose  good.  Crooked  and 
perverse  convictions  make  the  will  bad.  This  law,"  he  said, 
"  God  has  laid  down,  and  He  says  to  each  of  us,  '  If  you  will 
have  anything  that  is  good,  take  it  from  yourself."  Then 
came  another  mention  of  the  law — "  the  divine  law  "  he  now 
called  it.  It  was  connected  with  "  right  convictions,"  as  to 
which  he  asked  "  What  are  these  ?  "  His  reply  was,  "  They  are 
such  as  a  man  ought  to  meditate  on  all  the  day  long.  We 
must  have  such  a  conviction  as  will  prevent  us  from  attaching 
our  feelings  to  anything  that  is  other  than  our  own — whether 
companion,  or  place,  or  bodily  exercise,  or  even  the  body  itself. 


Chapter  8]  ON  SIN  87 

We  must  remember  the  law  and  have  it  always  before  our 
eyes." 

This  phrase,  "meditate  all  the  day  long,"  reminded  me  of 
some  words  of  David,  which  I  had  been  reading  the  day  before, 
"  Oh  how  I  love  thy  law !  It  is  my  meditation  all  the  day." 
Other  Hebrew  expressions  also  came  into  my  mind  concerning 
the  sweetness  and  fragrance  of  the  Lord's  commandment,  how 
the  poet  "  opened  his  mouth  and  drew  in  his  breath  "  to  taste 
its  delight.  These  I  could  understand,  when  they  applied  to 
a  law  of  love,  a. law  of  the  emotions,  a  "feeling."  But  I  won- 
dered what  Epictetus  could  produce  for  us  of  a  nature  to  kindle 
such  enthusiasm.  He  continued,  "And  what  is  the  divine 
law  ?  It  is  this.  First,  Keep  the  things  that  are  your  own. 
Secondly,  Do  not  claim  things  not  your  own ;  use  them,  if 
given;  do  not  desire  them,  if  not  given.  Thirdly,  When 
anything  is  being  taken  from  you,  give  it  up  at  once  in  a 
detached  spirit,  and  with  gratitude  for  the  time  during  which 
one  has  used  it." 

"  Keep  the  things  that  are  your  own  ! " — This  he  placed 
first,  and  on  this  he  laid  most  emphasis,  dwelling  on  each 
syllable.  I  fancied  that  he  knew  he  was  disappointing  us  and 
almost  took  pleasure  in  it  as  though  he  were  administering 
to  us  a  wholesome  but  bitter  medicine.  "  You  find  this  sour," 
he  seemed  to  say :  "  Sour  or  not,  it  is  the  truth,  the  only  solid 
and  safe  truth.  It  is  not  the  dream  of  a  poet,  or  the  scheme  of 
a  student.  It  is  the  plan  of  a  man  of  business,  practicable  for 
all — for  slaves  as  well  as  free  men,  for  individuals  in  a  desert  as 
well  as  for  communities  in  a  city.  '  Love  your  neighbour ' — 
that  is  expecting  too  much.  '  Do  not  covet  what  is  your  neigh- 
bour's ' — that  is  expecting  too  little.  '  Keep  that  which  belongs 
to  you  ! '  There  you  have  a  rule  that  makes  you  independent 
of  all  neighbours."  I  was  miserably  disappointed ;  yet  I  could 
not  help  respecting  and  admiring  our  Master's  unflinching 
frankness,  his  determination  to  force  us  to  face  the  austere 
truth,  and  his  contempt  for  anything  that  seemed  incapable  of 
being  put  into  practice  at  all  times  and  in  all  circumstances. 

He  spoke  next  of  "  sin  "  or  "  error."  Some  of  his  language 
strangely  resembled  Paul's,  but  with  great  differences.  He 
made  mention  of  a  "conflict,"  but  he  seemed  mostly  to  mean 


88  EPICTETUS  [Chapter  8 

"  a  conflicting  state  of  things,"  "  logical  contradiction,"  or  in- 
consistency. It  might  be  called  self-contradiction,  taken  as 
including  actions,  and  not  words  alone.  He  also  used  the  very 
same  phrase  as  Paul's  "  that  which  he  willeth  he  doeth  not," 
but  not  in  the  same  way,  as  may  be  seen  from  the  following 
extract  which  I  took  down  exactly :  "  Every  error  includes  self- 
contradiction.  For  since  the  person  erring  does  not  wish  to  err 
but  to  go  straight,  it  is  clear  that  what  he  wills  to  do  he  does 
not  do —  Now  every  soul  endowed  with  '  logos  '  by  nature  is 
disposed  to  dislike  self-contradiction.  As  long  as  a  man  has 
not  followed  up  the  facts  and  perceived  that  he  is  in  a  state  of 
self-contradiction,  he  is  in  no  way  prevented  from  doing  things 
that  are  self-contradictory ;  but,  when  he  has  followed  them  up, 

he  must  necessarily  revolt  from  the  self-contradiction Here 

then  comes  in  the  need  of  the  teacher  skilled  in  'logos '...but 
the  teacher  needs  also  power  to  refute  what  is  wrong  and  to 
stimulate  the  pupil  to  what  is  right.  This  teacher  will  give 
the  erring  man  a  glimpse  into  the  self-contradiction  in  which 
he  errs,  and  will  make  it  clear  to  him  that  he  is  not.  doing  that 
which  he  wills  to  do  and  that  he  is  doing  that  which  he  ivills  not 
to  do.  As  soon  as  this  is  made  clear  to  the  person  in  error,  he 
will,  of  himself  and  of  his  own  accord,  depart  from  his  error." 

Then  he  supposed  a  case  where  a  man  had  relapsed  from 
philosophy  into  a  profligate  and  shameless  life.  And  first  he 
tried  to  shew  the  offender  how  much  he  had  lost  in  losing 
modesty  and  decency  and  true  manliness.  "  There  was  a  time," 
he  said,  "  when  you  counted  this  as  the  only  loss  worth  men- 
tioning." Next,  he  shewed  each  of  us  how  to  regain  what  we 
had  lost.  "  It  is  you  yourself,"  he  exclaimed,  "  you  yourself,  no 
other  whom  you  have  to  blame.  Fight  against  yourself! 
Tear  yourself  away  to  seemliness,  decency,  and  freedom." 

Lastly,  he  appealed — as  I  had  never  heard  him  do  before — 
to  the  feelings  of  loyalty  and  affection  that  we  might  entertain 
for  himself.  I  thought  he  must  be  recalling  his  old  days  in 
Rome,  when  he,  a  boy  and  a  slave,  in  the  house  of  Epaphroditus, 
might  be  exposed  to  the  temptations  and  coercions  to  which 
such  slaves  were  subject ;  and  he  asked  his  pupils  to  imagine 
their  feelings  if  someone  came  to  them  reporting  that  their 
Master,  Epictetus,  had  been  forced  to  succumb. 


Chapter  8]  ON  SIN  89 

"  If,"  said  he,  very  slowly  and  deliberately,  with  emphasis 
on  each  syllable,  "if  someone  were  to  come  and  tell  you  that  a 
certain  man  was  compelling  me  " — here  he  hurried  onward — 
"  to  lead  the  sort  of  life  that  you  are  now  leading,  to  wear  the 
sort  of  dress  that  you  wear,  to  perfume  myself  as  you  perfume 
yourself,  would  you  not  go  off  straightway  and  lay  violent 
hands  on  the  man  that  was  thus  abusing  me  ?  Rescue  yourself, 
then,  as  you  would  have  rescued  me.  You  need  not  kill  anyone, 
strike  anyone,  go  anywhere.  Talk  to  yourself!  Persuade  (who 
else  should  do  it  better  ?) — persuade  yourself." 

Never,  in  my  experience,  had  Epictetus  more  nearly  fulfilled 
the  promise  made  in  his  behalf  by  Arrian — that  he  would 
always  make  his  hearers  feel,  for  the  moment,  precisely  what  he 
wished  them  to  feel.  There  were  two  or  three  in  the  class 
notorious  for  their  profligacy;  but  the  appeal  went  home  to 
others  as  well,  conscious  of  minor  derelictions.  "  Persuade 
yourself ! "  There  was  no  need  of  it.  We  were  all,  to  a  man, 
already  persuaded.  Infants  and  babies  though  we  were,  we  could 
all  stand  up  and  walk — for  the  moment.  He  proceeded  in  the 
same  spirit-stirring  tone,  as  though — now  that  we  had  all 
resolved  to  go  on  this  arduous  journey  with  him  as  a  guide — 
he  would  go  first  and  shew  us  how  to  push  our  way  through 
the  forest. 

"  First  of  all,"  said  he,  "  give  sentence  against  the  present 
state  of  things."  He  did  not  say  "  against  yourselves."  That 
would  have  been  too  discouraging.  We  were  to  condemn  "  the 
present  state  of  things"  ;  that  is,  our  present  self.  "  In  the  next 
place,"  he  continued,  "  do  not  give  up  hope  of  yourself.  Do  not 
behave  like  the  poor-spirited  creatures  who,  because  of  one 
defeat,  give  themselves  up  altogether  and  let  themselves  be 
carried  downward  by  the  stream.  Take  a  lesson  from  the 
wrestling-ring.  That  young  fellow  yonder  has  had  a  fall. 
'  Get  up,'  says  the  trainer,  '  Wrestle  again,  and  go  on  till  you 
get  your  full  strength.'  Act  you  in  the  same  spirit.  For,  mark  you, 
there  is  nothing  more  pliable  than  the  human  soul.  You  must 
will.  Then  the  thing  is  done,  and  the  crooked  is  made  straight. 
On  the  other  hand,  go  to  sleep ;  and  then  all  is  ruined.  From 
your  own  heart  comes  either  your  destruction  or  your  help." 


90  EP1CTETUS   ON  SIN  [Chapter  8 

He  concluded  with  a  word  of  warning.  Perhaps  some  of  us 
might  appeal  to  his  own  dictum  about  seeking  our  own  "profit," 
as  being  the  only  right  and  wise  course.  He  met  it  as  follows : 
"  After  this,  do  you  say  '  What  good  shall  I  get  by  it  ? '  What 
greater  '  good  '  do  you  look  for  than  this  ?  Whereas  you  once 
were  shameless,  you  will  now  have  received  again  the  faculty  of 
an  honourable  shame.  From  the  orgies  of  vice  you  will  have 
passed  into  the  ranks  of  virtue.  Formerly  faithless  and 
licentious,  you  will  now  be  faithful  and  temperate.  If  you  seek 
any  other  objects  better  than  these,  go  on  doing  still  the  things 
you  are  doing  now.     Not  even  a  God  can  any  longer  save  you." 


CHAPTER   IX 


ARRIAN'S   DEPARTUEE 


When  we  came  out  from  the  crowded  room,  as  Arrian  was 
nowhere  to  be  seen,  I  went  at  once  to  his  lodging.  To  my 
surprise,  he  was  busy  packing,  amid  books  and  papers,  and  a 
student's  other  belongings.  "  Thanks,  many  thanks,"  he  said, 
"  for  this  timely  visit.  This  is  my  last  day  in  Nicopolis.  I  was 
just  coming  round  to  wish  you  good-bye.  You  know  I  had  to 
go  to  Corinth.  Well,  when  I  got  there,  I  found  a  letter  from 
my  father  bidding  me  wait  a  few  days  for  further  news  from 
him ;  and  on  the  fourth  day  came  a  message  that  I  was  to 
conclude  my  studies  at  once  and  return  to  Bithynia,  as  his 
health  had  quite  given  way  and  his  affairs  required  all  my 
attention.  I  had  intended  to  start  to-day  at  the  fifth  hour; 
but  I  have  just  learned  that  the  vessel  will  not  sail  till  the 
eighth.  So  sit  down.  Epictetus  there  is  not  time  to  call  upon. 
When  I  write  to  you  I  shall  ask  you  to  deliver  him  a  letter 
from  me.  Sit  down,  and  begin  by  telling  me  about  the  lecture 
I  have  just  missed,  while  it  is  fresh  in  your  memory." 

When  I  had  finished,  he  said,  turning  over  the  papers  he 
was  sorting,  "  I  remember  another  of  his  lectures  in  which  he 
warned  us  against  a  licentious  and  effeminate  life.  Here  it  is, 
and  these  are  his  exact  words :  '  Do  not,  in  the  name  of  the 
Gods,  do  not  you,  young  man,  fall  back  again  !  Nay,  rather  go 
back  to  your  home  and  say,  now  that  you  have  once  heard  this 
warning,  It  is  not  Epictetus  that  has  said  this.  How  sliould 
he  ?  It  is  some  God  wishing  well  to  me  and  speaking  through 
him.     It  would  never  have  come  into  the  mind  of  Epictetus  to 


92  ARRIAN'S  DEPARTURE  [Chapter  9 

say  tJ/is,  for  it  is  never  his  custom  to  make  personal  appeals. 
Gome,  then;  let  us  obey  the  voice  of  God,  lest  we  fall  under  God's 
wratli.'1  I  have  never  forgotten  these  words,  and  I  trust  I 
never  shall.  I  think  a  God  speaks  through  Epictetus.  Do  you 
not  agree  with  me  ?  " 

"  I  do  indeed,"  said  I,  "  but  I  am  not  convinced  that  God 
speaks  all  that  Epictetus  says,  and  that  there  is  not  more  to  be 
spoken.  For  example,  he  says,  '  You  have  but  to  will  and  it  is 
done.'  Is  that  a  common  experience  ?  Is  it  yours  ?  He  says, 
'  Take  from  yourself  the  help  you  need.'  Do  you  find  in 
yourself  all  the  help  you  need  ?  When  you  fall,  he  says,  '  Get 
up,'  as  though  we  were  boys  in  the  wrestling-ring.  But  what 
if  we  have  been  stunned  ?  What  if  one's  ankle  is  sprained  or  a 
leg  broken  ?  Do  you  remember  what  you  said  to  me  at  the 
end  of  my  first  lecture,  '  Will  it  last  ? '  You  also  said  that 
Epictetus  could  make  us  feel  just  what  he  wished  us  to  feel — 
as  long  as  he  was  speaking.  Well,  while  I  was  sitting  on  the 
bench  in  the  lecture-room,  I  felt  that  getting  up  from  vice  was 
as  easy  as  sitting  on  that  bench.  When  I  walked  out,  it  began 
to  seem  less  easy.  Now  that  I  am  quite  away  from  the 
enchanter,  talking  the  matter  quietly  over  with  you,  the  feeling 
has  almost  vanished ;  and  I  am  obliged  to  repeat  your  question 
about  this,  and  about  much  more  of  our  Master's  doctrine, 
'  Will  it  last  ? '  " 

"  Some  of  it  will  last,"  said  Arrian,  "  We  must  not  expect 
impossibilities.  I  have  heard  him  admit  that  it  is  impossible 
to  be  sinless  already,  but  he  bade  us  remember  that  it  is 
possible  to  be  always  intent  on  not  sinning."  "  Did  he  mean," 
asked  I,  "  by  'already,'  that  we  could  not  be  sinless  in  this  life,  but 
that  we  might  be  sinless  at  what  he  calls  the  feast  of  the  Gods, 
after  death  ? "  Arrian  did  not  at  once  reply.  Presently  he 
said,  "  I  do  not  think  so.  I  believe  he  meant  that  we  must  not 
expect  to  be  sinless  as  soon  as  we  have  reached  the  intermediate 
stage  of  what  he  calls '  the  half-educated  man.'  We  must  wait 
till  we  have  reached  the  further  stage,  that  of  complete  educa- 
tion, where,  as  you  said  just  now,  a  man  never  blames  himself, 
because  he  does  not  find  in  himself  any  fault  that  he  could 
blame." 


Chapter  9]  ARRIAN' S  DEPARTURE  93 

Here  Arrian  made  a  still  longer  pause.  Then  he  continued, 
in  his  usual  slow,  deliberate  way,  but  with  a  touch  of  hesitation 
that  was  not  usual  with  him,  "  I  have  here  a  few  duplicates  of 
my  notes.  Among  them  are  some  on  the  subject  on  which 
your  remarks  bear,  and  about  which  (I  gather)  you  would  like 
to  question  me — the  immortality  of  the  soul.  In  my  hearing, 
he  has  seldom  used  that  precise  phrase.  And,  when  he  has 
used  the  epithet  '  immortal,'  it  has  generally  applied  to  life 
like  that  of  Tithonus — I  mean,  a  deathless  life  in  this  present 
world.  To  desire  such  a  life,  deathless  and  free  from  disease, 
he  thinks  unreasonable.  But  I  remember  his  saying  once,  that 
he  was  prepared  for  death,  '  whether  it  were  the  death  of  the 
whole  or  of  a  certain  part ' — that  was  his  expression.  And  I 
think  he  may  possibly  believe  that  the  Logos  within  us  is 
reabsorbed,  after  death,  into  some  kind  of  quintessential  or 
divine  fire  from  which  it  sprang.  But  I  cannot  say  that  this 
satisfies  me." 

Neither  did  it  satisfy  me.  But  I  said  nothing.  Arrian, 
too,  was  silent,  turning  over  some  of  his  papers  and  marking 
passages  for  my  perusal.  But  presently,  rousing  himself,  "  Did 
you  agree  with  me,"  he  said,  "about  the  passage  you  transcribed, 
when  we  last  met,  concerning  that  sect  of  the  Jews  which  he 
called  the  Galilseans  ? "  I  could  see  that  Arrian  wished  to 
divert  the  conversation  to  "  the  Galilseans,"  as  being  a  subject 
of  a  less  serious  character  than  the  doctrine  of  the  immortality 
of  the  soul.  But  the  subject  of  the  Galilseans  or  Jews  had 
become  much  more  serious  for  me  now  than  it  had  been  when 
we  last  conversed  together.  How  much  more,  I  shrank  from 
telling  him,  in  the  few  minutes  at  our  disposal.  He  was  good, 
just,  a  truthful  scholar,  a  gentleman,  and  a  kind  friend.  Given 
a  few  days  more — even  a  few  hours — in  one  another's  company, 
and  I  should  not  have  kept  my  secret  from  him.  But  how 
could  I  hope,  in  so  brief  an  interval,  and  amid  so  many 
preoccupations,  to  make  him  understand  what  a  vast  continent 
of  new  history,  religion,  literature — and,  above  all,  "  feeling  "  as 
opposed  to  "  logic  " — had  emerged  before  my  mind's  eye,  during 
my  recent  voyages  of  exploration  in  the  scriptures  and  in  Paul's 
epistles  ?     So  I  replied   briefly  that   I   agreed  with  his  view. 


94  ARRIAN'S  DEPARTURE  [Chapter  9 

Epictetus,  I  said,  seemed  to  me  to  be  speaking,  not  of  the 
Galilsean  "  custom,"  but  of  their  "  feeling,"  as  also  in  the  case 
of  the  Jews.  "  And  indeed,"  I  added,  "  the  force  of  this 
'  feeling '  in  producing  courage  appears  to  me  most  remarkable." 
With  these  words  I  rose  to  go. 

"  Well,"  said  he,  "  I  fear  we  shall  hardly  meet  again  in 
Nicopolis.  But  I  shall  always  cherish  the  recollection  of  the 
hours  Ave  have  spent  together  here,  and  of  our  common  respect 
for  our  common  Master,  whom  you  already  love,  and  whom,  if 
you  come  to  know  him  as  I  do — in  his  home,  and  in  his 
kindness  to  those  who  need  kindness — you  will  (I  trust)  love 
still  more."  "  I  do  love  him,"  said  I.  "  But  tell  me,  do  you 
love  all  his  teaching  about  indifference  to  what  is  happening  ? 
You  know  how  our  Master  scoffs  at  the  agony  of  Priam  looking 
on  the  ruin  of  Troy.  Well,  suppose  you  were  a  Roman  citizen, 
as  I  am  sure  you  will  be  before  long.  Or,  rather,  suppose  you 
were  our  new  Emperor  Hadrian,  and  saw  the  northern  bar- 
barians not  only  at  our  gates  but  inside  our  walls,  and  the  City 
in  flames,  and  the  Dacians  doing  in  Rome  what  the  Greeks  did 
in  Troy  to  the  Trojan  men  and  women,  would  you,  our  Emperor 
Hadrian,  feel  it  right  to  say,  '  All  this  is  nothing  to  me '  ? " 
"  By  the  immortal  Gods,"  exclaimed  Arrian,  "  I  should  not." 
"  And  if  Epictetus  were  in  Hadrian's  place,  or  Priam's  place,  do 
you  think  he  could  say  it  ? " 

I  had  to  wait  for  an  answer.  "  WThat  I  am  going  to  say," 
he  replied  at  last,  "  may  seem  to  you  monstrous.  But  I  really 
cannot  reply  No.  I  cannot  tell  what  he  would  say.  I  am  not 
able  to  judge  him  as  I  should  judge  others."  Then  he  pro- 
ceeded, with  an  animation  quite  unusual  in  him,  "  Of  any  other 
Hadrian  or  Priam  I  should  say  that  such  an  utterance  stamped 
him  as  either  liar,  or  beast,  or  stone.  But  Epictetus — absorbed 
in  Zeus,  devoted  to  His  will,  resolved  to  believe  that  His  will  is 
good,  and  seeing  no  way  out  of  the  belief  that  all  things  happen 
in  accordance  with  His  will — might  not  Epictetus  conceivably 
feel,  in  moments  of  ecstasy,  that  all  these  fires  and  furies, 
massacres  and  outrages,  cannot  prevent  him  from  believing  in 
Zeus  and  being  one  with  Zeus,  so  that  he  himself,  Epictetus, 
might  be,  nay,  must  be,  in  the  bosom  of  Zeus  (so  to  speak)  at 


Chapter  9]  ARM  AN' S   DEPARTURE  95 

the  very  moment  when  not  only  Rome,  but  all  the  cities, 
villages,  and  hamlets  of  the  world — nay,  when  the  universe 
itself  was  being  cast  into  destruction  ?  Well,  I  am  out  of  my 
depth.  I  confess  it.  But  will  you  not  agree  with  me  thus  far, 
that  if  Epictetus  said  that  he  felt  thus,  he  would  really  feel 
thus  ? " 

"  Yes,"  replied  I,  "  I  am  sure  that  he  would  not  say  it  unless 
he  felt  it.  But  I  am  not  sure  that  he  might  not  feel  it  merely 
because  he  had  forced  himself  to  feel  it.  However,  let  us  say 
no  more  now  on  such  subtle  matters.  It  is  no  small  help  to 
have  been  lifted  up  by  such  a  teacher  above  the  mere  life  of 
the  flesh.  We  part,  do  we  not,  in  full  agreement  that  Epictetus 
has  been,  for  both  of  us,  a  guide  to  that  which  is  good  ? "  And 
thus  we  did  part.  I  accompanied  him  to  the  quay.  "  May  we 
meet  again,"  were  my  last  words.     "  May  it  be  soon,"  were  his. 

But  we  never  met.  The  death  of  his  father  plunged  him 
almost  immediately  into  domestic  cares  and  matters  of  business. 
When  the  pressure  of  private  affairs  relaxed,  it  was  soon 
followed  by  affairs  of  state.  This  was  due  in  part  perhaps  to 
his  having  been  a  pupil  of  Epictetus.  The  new  emperor,  long 
before  he  became  emperor,  had  always  admired  our  Master; 
whose  recommendation  (I  am  inclined  to  think)  had  something 
to  do  with  Arrian's  subsequent  promotions.  At  all  events, 
when  I  was  on  service  in  the  north,  I  heard  without  any 
surprise,  and  with  a  great  deal  of  pleasure,  that  my  former 
fellow-student — known  now  to  literary  circles  as  Flavianus,  a 
Roman  citizen,  and  author  of  the  Memoirs  of  Epictetus — had 
been  appointed  governor  of  Cappadocia. 

From  time  to  time  we  corresponded.  But  it  was  not  upon 
the  topics  that  used  to  engross  us  in  old  days.  He  took  a  great 
interest  in  geography.  Military  service,  at  one  time  in  the 
north  and  then  in  the  east,  gave  me  some  knowledge  of  this 
subject,  which  I  was  glad  to  place  at  his  disposal.  He  also 
studied  military  affairs  with  a  view  to  writing  on  Alexander. 
Here  again  I  was  of  use  to  him.  But  we  never  resumed  in  our 
letters  that  subject  about  which  he  had  once  said  to  me,  "More 
of  this  to-morrow."  Our  paths  had  branched  off,  leading  us  far 
away  from  each  other  in  everything  except  mutual  good  will 


96  ARRIAN'S  DEPARTURE  [Chapter  9 

and  respect.  He  had  become  a  Roman  magistrate.  Subse- 
quently he  was  a  priest  of  Demeter.  I  had  become  a  Roman 
soldier,  but — a  Christian.  Many  of  my  friends  knew  this  and  I 
have  little  doubt  that  Arrian  guessed  it.  Privately  I  feel  sure 
he  always  loved  me.  Officially  he  must  have  been  forced  to 
disapprove.  Hadrian,  it  is  true,  discouraged  informations 
against  the  Christians,  and  I  had  been  hitherto  connived  at : 
but  could  I  condemn  my  old  friend  if  he  shrank  from  opening 
up  old  speculations  that  might  lead  him  into  unofficial,  sus- 
pected, and  dangerous  results  ?  Much  more  might  I  myself 
rather  feel  condemned  for  keeping  silence.  Sometimes  I  have 
felt  thus.  But  not  often.  More  often  I  feel  that  it  was  better 
for  him  not  to  know  what  I  know,  than  to  know  it,  in  a  sense, 
and  to  reject  it.  Presented  in  mere  writing,  I  felt  sure  that  it 
would  have  been  rejected.  Writings  and  books  brought  me  on 
the  way  to  Christ,  but  something  more  was  needed  to  make  me 
receive  Christ. 

Arrian,  I  think,  avoided  such  opportunities  as  presented 
themselves  for  meeting.  I  am  sure  I  did.  If  we  had  met, 
surely  I  should  have  been  constrained  to  open  my  mind  to 
him.  Once,  at  least,  I  touched  (in  a  letter)  on  our  old 
conversation  about  "  logos  "  and  "  pathos."  He  replied  that,  in 
his  new  career,  both  "  logos  "  and  "  pathos  "  had  to  give  place  to 
pragmata,  "  business,"  which,  he  thought,  was  likely  to  take  up 
all  his  energies  during  the  rest  of  his  life. 

Even  if  I  had  opened  my  mind,  I  cannot  help  thinking  that 
his  would  have  remained  unchanged.  One  thing,  however, 
I  do  not  think  about,  but  know — namely,  that,  if  we  had  met, 
Arrian  and  I  would  still  have  had  common  ground,  as  of  old,  in 
our  love  of  truth  and  justice,  and  that  we  should  still  have 
esteemed,  respected,  and  loved  each  other.  For  myself,  love 
him  I  always  shall,  not  for  his  own  sake  alone,  but  also  because 
he  helped  me  directly  and  immediately  to  understand  Epictetus, 
and  indirectly  and  ultimately  to  perceive  the  existence  of 
something  beyond  any  truth  that  Epictetus  could  teach. 


CHAPTEE   X 


EPICTETUS   ON   DEATH 


Returning  to  my  rooms,  I  sat  down  to  think  out  my 
problems  alone.  Presently,  on  taking  up  the  lecture-notes 
Arrian  had  given  me,  I  found  that  the  title  of  the  first  was, 
"  What  is  meant  by  being  in  desolation  or  deserted  ?  And  who 
can  call  himself  deserted  ?"  The  subject  suited  my  mood,  and 
I  began  to  read  it,  as  follows  :  "  Desolation  is  the  condition  of  a 
man  unhelped.  To  be  alone  is  not  necessarily  to  be  deserted. 
To  be  in  the  midst  of  a  multitude  is  not  always  to  be  un- 
deserted.  A  man  may  be  in  the  centre  of  a  crowd  of  his  own 
slaves.  But  still,  if  he  has  just  lost  a  brother,  he  may  be 
deserted.  We  may  travel  alone,  yet  never  feel  deserted  till  we 
fall  into  the  midst  of  a  band  of  robbers.  It  is  not  the  face  of  a 
man  that  delivers  us  from  desolation ;  it  is  the  presence  of 
someone  faithful  and  trustworthy,  thoughtful  and  kind,  good 
and  helpful." 

I  liked  this.  But  afterwards  the  lecture  strayed  into  what 
seemed  to  me  controversial  theology  or  metaphysics,  "  If  being 
alone  suffices  to  make  you  deserted,  then  say  that  Zeus  Himself 
is  deserted  when  the  final  fire  comes  round  in  its  cycle,  con- 
suming the  universe.  Say  that  He  bewails  His  loneliness 
exclaiming  '  Alas,  me  miserable  !  I  have  no  Hera  now !  No 
Athene  !  No  Apollo  !  Not  a  single  brother,  son,  or  relation  ! ; 
Some  people  actually  do  assert  that  Zeus  behaves  like  this  in 
the  final  fire ! "  I  gathered  that  he  was  attacking  some 
philosophic  tenet.  But  it  did  not  interest  me  any  more  than 
his  subsequent  assertion — or  rather  assumption —  that   "  Zeus 

a.  7 


98  EPIGTETUS  [Chapter  10 

associates  with  Himself,  reposes  on  Himself,  and  contemplates 
the  nature  of  His  own  administration."  I  have  never  felt 
drawn  towards  the  conception  of  a  self-admiring,  or  a  solitary 
God. 

Arrian's  next  note  bore  on  the  peace  of  the  universe,  a 
peace  proclaimed  by  the  Logos,  a  peace  resembling,  but  far 
surpassing,  the  peace  proclaimed  by  the  Emperor,  such  a  peace 
that  every  man  can  say,  even  when  he  is  alone,  "  Henceforth  no 
evil  can  befall  me.  For  me,  robbers  and  earthquakes  have  no 
existence.  All  things  are  full  of  peace,  full  of  tranquillity. 
Whether  I  am  travelling  on  the  high  road,  or  living  in  the  city, 
whether  in  public  assemblies  or  among  private  friends  and 
neighbours,  nothing  can  harm  me.  There  is  Another,  not 
myself,  who  makes  it  His  care  to  supply  me  with  food.  He  it 
is  that  clothes  me.  He,  not  myself,  gave  me  the  perceptions  of 
my  body.  He,  not  myself,  bestowed  on  me  the  conceptions  of 
my  mind." 

Then  followed  a  passage  about  death,  which  Arrian,  during 
our  last  conversation,  had  marked  for  my  special  attention : 
"  But  if  at  any  moment  He  ceases  to  supply  you  with  the  things 
needful  for  your  existence,  then  take  heed !  In  that  moment  He 
is  sounding  the  bugle  for  you  to  cease  the  conflict.  He  is  saying 
to  you,  '  Come ! '  And  whither  ?  Into  no  land  of  terrors. 
Simply  into  that  same  region  from  which  you  entered  into  being. 
Into  the  company  of  such  existences  as  are  friendly  and  akin  to 
you.  Into  the  elements.  Such  part  as  was  fire  in  you  will 
depart  into  fire ;  such  part  of  earth  as  was  in  you,  into  eartJi  ; 
such  part  of  air  or  wind  as  was  in  you,  into  air  or  wind ;  of 
water,  into  water.  No  Hades!  No  Acheron!  No  Cocytus ! 
No  Pyriphlegethon  !  All  things  are  full  of  Gods  and  dcemons ! " 
By  this  I  think  he  meant  "  good  Gods  and  guardian  angels." 
He  concluded  thus,  "  Having  such  thoughts  as  these  in  his  heart, 
looking  up  to  the  sun,  the  moon,  and  the  stars,  and  enjoying  the 
earth  and  the  sea,  man,  has  no  more  right  to  call  himself  deserted 
than  to  call  himself  unhelped." 

It  was  not  clear  to  me  how  I  could  continue  to  call  myself 
"  helped  "  when  I  was  on  the  point  of  being  dissolved  into  the 
four  elements.     If  I   were  a  criminal,  successful  in   escaping 


Chapter  10]  ON  DEATH  99 

punishment  on  earth,  I  might  deem  it  "  help  "  (after  a  fashion) 
to  know  that  I  should  be  equally  successful  after  quitting  the 
earth,  because  I  need  not  fear  Hades  and  its  three  rivers  as 
enemies.  But  where  were  the  "  friends  "  ?  The  four  elements 
promised  but  cold  friendship  !  Arrian's  comment  rose  to  my 
mind,  and  a  second  time  I  assented  to  it,  "  I  cannot  say  that 
this  satisfies  me."  Epictetus  was  so  averse  from  anything  like 
cant  or  insincerity  of  expression  that  I  was  amazed — as  I  still 
am — that  he  could  use,  in  such  a  context,  the  words  "  friendly 
and  akin."  Surely  Sappho's  cry  was  truer,  when  she  wandered 
alone  through  the  woods  where  she  had  once  been  loved  by 
Phaon — 

"This  place  is  now  dead  dust.     He  was  its  life." 

What  would  it  profit  that  my  "  fiery  part "  should  return  to  fire  ? 
It  might  as  well  go  astray  into  water,  or  earth,  or  into  extinction, 
as  far  as  I  cared.  To  be  still  loved  would  have  been  to  be  still 
in  some  kind  of  home.  But  who  would  love  my  four  elements? 
I  should  be  "  not  I,"  but  only  four  severed  portions  of  what  had 
once  been  "I,"  fragments  incapable  even  of  mourning,  wandering 
among  "  dead  dust,"  no  better  than  "  dead  dust "  themselves  ! 
How  infinitely  should  I  have  preferred  that  Epictetus — if  he 
could  not  honestly  accept  the  confident  hope  of  Socrates 
concerning  a  life  after  death, — should  have  said  simply  this, 
"  As  to  what  Zeus  does  with  our  souls  after  death,  others  think 
they  know  much.  I  know  nothing,  except  that  He  does  what 
is  best." 

Reviewing  passages  in  which  Epictetus  had  mentioned  the 
"  soul,"  I  was  more  perplexed  than  ever.  For  in  those  he 
distinctly  recognised  the  "  soul "  as  "  better  than  the  flesh,"  or 
"  better  than  the  body,"  and  as  using  the  body  as  its  instrument. 
When,  therefore,  he  spoke  of  God  as  saying  to  man,  "  Come  ! " 
he  ought  to  have  supposed  God  to  be  addressing  the  whole  man, 
soul  as  well  as  body,  or  perhaps  the  soul  alone,  (using  the  body, 
or  the  flesh,  as  its  instrument).  But  if  God  said  to  the  human 
soul  "  Come  !  "  how  could  He  go  on  to  say  "  Such  part  as  was 
fire  in  you  "  and  so  on,  just  as  though  we  knew,  without  proof, 
that  the  soul  was  composed  of  nothing  but  fire,  earth,  air  and 

7—2 


100  EPICTETUS  [Chapter  10 

water  ?  We  knew  no  such  thing.  On  the  contrary,  Epictetus 
continually  assumed  that  we  have  within  ourselves  "  mind " 
and  "  logos."  He  also  said  that  "  The  being  of  God  "  is  "  mind, 
knowledge,  right  logos."  Now  he  could  hardly  suppose  that 
"mind"  and  "logos"  were  composed  of  fire,  earth,  air,  and 
water.  For  my  part,  I  did  not  feel  that  I  knew  anything 
certain  about  the  distinctions  between  "  mind,"  "  soul,"  "  logos  " 
and  "  I."  But  those  who  made  distinctions  appeared  to  me 
under  an  obligation  to  say  what  they  meant  by  them. 

It  appeared  to  me  that  our  Master  had  been  inconsistent. 
As  a  rule,  he  dealt  with  each  of  us  as  having  a  soul  that  was 
our  real  self,  and  a  body  that  was  the  tool  of  the  soul. 
"  Tyrants,"  he  would  say,  "  can  hurt  your  body  but  they  cannot 
hurt  you."  Might  not  a  pupil  of  his  go  on  consistently  to  say„ 
"  Death  can  kill  your  body  but  it  cannot  kill  you  "  ?  This,  at 
all  events,  was  what  Socrates  meant,  when  he  said,  "  As  for  me,. 
Meletus  could  not  hurt  me.... He  might  kill,  or  banish,  or 
degrade,"  for  he  certainly  meant  "  kill "  the  body,  not  "  kill  " 
the  soul. 

Subsequently,  when  I  came  to  read  the  Christian  gospels, 
I  found  two  of  them  making  this  distinction  in  the  words,  "  Be 
not  afraid  of  them  that  kill  the  body."  One  of  them  added, 
"  but  cannot  kill  the  soul,"  the  other  added  "  but  cannot  do 
anything  more."  Then  I  understood  more  clearly  why  Epictetus 
said  nothing  about  what  became  of  the  soul  after  death.  For 
these  two  Christian  writers  spoke  of  a  possibility  that  the  soul 
might  be  "destroyed  in  hell"  or  "cast  into  hell."  Now  this  was 
just  what  Epictetus  did  not  himself  believe,  and  wished  to  make 
others  disbelieve.  He  preferred  to  give  up  the  belief  of  Socrates 
that  the  good  "  go  to  the  islands  of  the  blessed"  after  death, 
rather  than  believe  also  that  the  bad  go  to  a  place  of  the 
accursed.  Hence  he  dropped  all  thought  of  the  essential  part, 
or  parts,  of  man,  namely,  the  soul,  mind,  and  logos,  as  soon  as  he 
came  to  speak  of  man's  death. 

The  consequence  was  that  Epictetus  confused  us  by  an 
ambiguous  use  of  "  you."  As  long  as  we  were  alive  he  said  to 
us,  "  You  must  regard  your  body  as  a  mere  tool,"  where  by 
"  you  "  he  meant  the  incorporeal  part  of  man.     As  soon  as  we 


Chapter  10]  ON  DEATH  101 

were  on  the  point  of  death,  he  said  to  us,  "  Do  not  be  alarmed. 
You  are  going  into  the  four  elements,"  where  by  "  you  "  he 
apparently  meant  our  corporeal  part.  I  felt  sure  then  (as  I  do 
now)  that  he  did  not  intend  to  confuse  us.  He  seemed  to  me 
to  have  been  confused  by  his  own  intense  desire  to  persuade 
himself  that  men  must  do  good  without  hope  of  any  reward  at 
all  except  the  consciousness  of  doing  good  in  this  present  life. 
I  had  not  at  that  time  read  the  Christian  gospels  ;  but  several 
passages  in  Paul's  epistles  occurred  to  me  as  contrary  to  this 
doctrine  of  Epictetus,  and  I  thought  that  our  Master  might 
have  been  biassed  in  part  by  Paul  (as  Scaurus  had  suggested) 
— only  not,  in  this  instance,  imitating  Paul,  but  contradicting 
him.  So  I  took  up  the  epistle  to  the  Romans  intending  to  read 
what  Paul  said  there  about  Christ's  death  and  resurrection. 


CHAPTER   XI 

ISAIAH   ON   DEATH 

I  took  up  the  epistle  to  the  Romans,  but  I  did  not  read  it 
long.  Another  subject  stepped  in  to  claim  immediate  attention 
in  the  first  words  on  which  I  lighted.  They  were  these,  "  Isaiah 
cries  aloud  on  behalf  of  Israel,  Though  the  number  of  the  sons  of 
Israel  be  as  the  sand  of  the  sea,  the  remnant  [alone]  shall  be 
saved"  and  then,  "  Even  as  Isaiah  has  foretold,  If  the  Lord  of 
Sabaoth  had  not  left  seed  to  us,  we  should  have  become  as  Sodom 
and  shoidd  have  been  made  like  unto  Gomorrah."  Previously 
when  I  had  read  these  words  I  could  neither  understand  them 
nor  see  the  way  to  understand  them,  not  knowing  the  meaning 
of  "  Sodom  "  and  "  Gomorrah,"  nor  even  "  Isaiah."  But  now, 
knowing  that  Isaiah  was  one  of  the  principal  Hebrew  prophets, 
I  began  to  see  that  many  obscure  passages  of  Paul  might 
become  clearer  to  me  if  I  first  studied  this  prophet.  This  view 
was  confirmed  when  I  found  Paul,  later  on,  quoting  him  again, 
"  But  Isaiah  is  very  bold  and  says,  /  was  found  by  them  that 
sought  me  not,  I  became  manifest  to  them  that  consulted  me  not ; 
but  with  reference  to  Israel  he  says,  All  the  day  long,  I  stretched 
out  my  hands  to  a  people  disobedient  and  gainsaying. "  The 
name  also  occurred  toward  the  close  of  the  epistle  thus,  "  Isaiah 
says,  There  shall  be  the  root  of  Jesse,  and  he  that  is  raised  up  to 
rule  over  the  nations ;  on  him  shall  the  nations  set  their  hope." 
These  last  words  reminded  me  of  the  doctrine  of  Epictetus 
about  Diogenes  "  to  whom  are  entrusted  the  peoples  of  the 
earth  and  countless  cares  in  their  behalf." 


Chapter  11]  ISAIAH  ON  DEATH  108 

But  I  did  not  know  what  "  root  of  Jesse  "  meant.  The  name, 
"  Jesse,"  I  faintly  remembered  reading  in  the  poems  of  David ; 
but  where  it  was  I  could  not  recall.  Hence  the  phrase  was 
obscure.  I  determined  to  put  off  the  further  study  of  Paul  for 
the  present,  and  to  glance  through  the  book  of  Isaiah  in  the 
hope  of  meeting  this  and  other  passages  quoted  above.  Ac- 
cordingly I  unrolled  the  prophecy  and  began  to  read  it  from 
the  beginning. 

At  first,  the  language  was  clear — though  the  Greek  was  as 
bad  as  in  the  poems  of  David.  The  "  children  "  of  God,  said  the 
prophet  (meaning  the  ancient  Jews  or  Hebrews,  whom  he  often 
spoke  of  as  "  Israel ")  had  rebelled  against  their  Father  and 
were  being  punished  with  fire  and  sword  by  hostile  nations 
executing  God's  vengeance  on  their  impiety.  Then  came  the 
sentence  I  quoted  above,  from  Paul,  about  the  "remnant." 
After  this,  the  prophet  introduced  "  the  Lord  " — that  is  the 
God  of  the  Jews — as  saying  that  He  cared  no  longer  for  their 
incense  or  their  offerings  because  they  came  from  hands  stained 
with  blood.  This  was  somewhat  like  the  saying  of  Horace  about 
Phidyle  mentioned  above.  But  what  followed  was  not  like  any- 
thing in  Horace  :  "  Wash  you,  make  you  clean ;  cease  to  do  evil, 
learn  to  do  good;  seek  judgment,  relieve  the  oppressed,  judge  the 
fatherless,  plead  for  the  widow."  If  they  would  act  thus,  then, 
said  God,  "  though  your  sins  be  red  as  scarlet,  they  shall  be  as 
white  as  snow."  As  though  the  nation  were  molten  metal  in  a 
crucible,  and  He  Himself  were  refining  them  with  fire,  the  Lord 
said  to  the  whole  people  of  Israel,  "  I  will  purge  away  thy 
dross... afterwards  thou  shalt  be  called  the  city  of  righteous- 
ness." 

I  had  begun  to  hope  that  I  should  be  able  to  understand 
this  author  as  easily  as  Euripides  and  much  more  easily  than 
^Eschylus.  But  now  came  obscurities.  First  I  read  of  a  golden 
age.  People  were  to  "beat  their  swords  into  ploughshares," 
and  not  to  "  learn  war  any  more."  Then  I  found  a  mention  of 
general  destruction  as  by  a  universal  earthquake.  Then  came, 
without  any  chronological  or  other  order  apparent  to  me,  the 
following  pictures,  or  predictions : — a  land  without  a  ruler 
governed  by  children  and  women ;  a  picture  of  luxurious  ladies 


104  ISAIAH  [Chapter  11 

of  rank,  a  list  of  their  dresses,  ornaments,  jewels  and  cosmetics ; 
a  "  branch  of  the  Lord,  beautiful  and  glorious " ;  a  purifying 
with  a  "spirit  of  burning";  "a  song  of  my  beloved  touching 
his  vineyard  " — all  confused  together  (so  it  seemed  to  me  at  the 
time)  like  the  prophecies  of  the  Sibyl. 

As  far  as  I  could  see,  most  of  these  prophecies  dealt  with 
the  internal  corruption  of  the  nation.  The  "  vineyard  "  of  the 
Lord  was  the  people  of  Israel.  When  He  visited  the  vineyard, 
looking  for  fruit,  said  the  prophet,  "  He  looked  for  judgment 
but  behold  oppression."  After  this,  came  a  vision  of  the  Lord's 
glory,  and  then  predictions  of  external  calamities,  and  invasions 
of  foreign  nations.  But  yet  there  was  a  promise  of  the  birth  of 
a  Deliverer,  a  Prince  of  Peace,  to  sit  "  upon  the  throne  of 
David."  Following  this,  at  some  interval,  were  the  words  for 
which  I  was  searching,  about  "  the  root  of  Jesse."  And  now  I 
could  understand  them,  for  they  were  preceded  by  this  pre- 
diction, "  There  shall  come  forth  a  shoot  out  of  the  stock  of 
Jesse,  and  a  branch  out  of  his  roots  shall  bear  fruit."  Just 
before  that,  there  had  been  a  description  of  an  invading  army, 
coming  as  the  instrument  of  the  Lord's  wrath  and  "  lopping  the 
boughs  with  terror "  and  hewing  down  "  the  high  ones  of 
stature." 

Then  all  was  clear  to  me.  I  perceived  the  connexion 
between  the  "  child  "  that  was  to  sit  on  "  the  throne  of  David," 
and  the  "  shoot  out  of  the  stock  of  Jesse."  The  two  together 
brought  back  to  my  mind  that  passage  which  I  could  not  before 
recall  from  the  Psalms,  "  The  prayers  of  David  the  son  of  Jesse 
are  ended."  The  words  of  Isaiah  were  like  those  of  Sophocles 
where  he  is  speaking  of  the  destruction  of  the  royal  house  of 
Laius.  Sophocles  calls  the  surviving  child  the  "  root,"  and 
laments  because  the  axe  of  Fate  was  destroying  it  just  when 
a  branch  was  on  the  point  of  "  shooting  up  "  from  the  "  stock  " 
so  as  to  produce  fruit.  So  now,  but  in  an  opposite  mood  of 
hope  and  joy,  Isaiah  said  that  the  royal  house  of  David  the  son 
of  Jesse  would  not  be  exterminated,  though  many  of  its  scions 
would  be  cut  off.  A  "  branch "  would  "  shoot  up "  and  the 
succession  to  the  kingdom  would  be  maintained. 

In  the   same   way,  I  perceived,  the  great    Julius,   or   the 


Chapter  U]  ON  DEATH  105 

Emperor  Augustus,  being  descended  from  lulus,  the  son  of 
vEneas,  might  be  called  "the  shoot  out  of  the  stock  of  Anchises," 
transported  from  Asia  to  Europe  so  as  to  "  shoot  up  "  into  a  new 
kingdom  more  glorious  than  the  old.  This,  too,  explained  the 
word  "remnant"  used  by  Paul.  As  the  Trojan  followers  of 
iEneas  were  a  "  remnant,"  so  too  must  be  the  Jewish  followers 
of  this  "  child,"  a  remnant  left  from  defeat,  disaster,  and  cap- 
tivity, after  a  great  "  lopping  of  the  boughs  with  terror." 
Virgil  sang  about  the  empire  of  the  house  of  lulus  not  as  a 
prophet,  but  as  a  poet,  prophesying,  so  to  speak,  after  the  event. 
Isaiah  appeared  merely  to  predict  empire  as  a  prophet,  and  a 
false  prophet,  prophesying  what  had  not  been,  and  never  would 
be,  an  "  event."  The  tree  of  the  empire  of  Rome  was  erect  for 
all  the  world  to  look  on.  The  tree  of  the  kingdom  of  Jesse 
appeared  to  me  as  extinct  as  the  house  of  Laius.  So  I  thought 
then. 

Yet  I  knew  that  Paul  looked  at  the  matter  differently  and 
regarded  these  prophecies  as  having  been,  or  as  about  to  be, 
fulfilled.  And  when  I  looked  more  closely  into  the  sayings  of 
Isaiah  about  the  future  kingdom,  I  saw  that  many  of  them  were 
capable  of  two  meanings.  Sometimes  the  prophet  appeared  to 
be  contemplating  a  kingdom  established  in  the  ordinary  way  by 
force  of  arms — a  conquest  achieved,  or  at  all  events  preceded, 
by  fire,  sword,  and  desolation.  But,  for  the  most  part,  it  seemed 
to  be  an  empire  of  peace  to  be  brought  about  by  some  kind  of 
persuasion,  or  feeling.  A  sudden  conviction  was  to  take  hold 
of  all  the  nations  of  the  earth,  so  that  they  were  to  exclaim, 
with  one  consent,  as  at  the  sound  of  a  trumpet,  "  Come  ye  and 
let  us  go  up  to  the  mountain  of  the  Lord,"  meaning  the  Temple 
in  Jerusalem. 

In  this  kingdom,  however  brought  about,  the  Lord  was  to 
be  King,  and  there  was  to  be  a  "  covenant "  between  Him  and 
all  the  citizens  or  subjects,  a  covenant  of  righteousness.  The 
subjects  were  to  obey  the  King  and  the  King  would  give  them 
a  righteous  spirit.  In  some  respects  the  covenant  of  obedience 
was  to  resemble  that  philosophic  oath  which  Epictetus  had 
enjoined  on  us,  namely,  to  consult  our  own  interests,  to  be  true 
to  ourselves  (meaning,  to  the  spirit  of  righteousness  within  us). 


106  ISAIAH  [Chapter  11 

But  the  prophet  regarded  righteousness  as  loyalty,  or  truth,  not 
to  ourselves,  but  to  our  King. 

That  seemed  to  me  one  great  difference  between  the  Greeks 
and  the  Hebrews  in  their  notions  of  worship.  The  Greeks, 
when  they  lifted  their  thoughts  above  themselves,  looked,  in 
the  first  place,  each  man  to  his  several  city,  and  in  the  next 
place,  to  the  Gods.  They  did  not  think  in  the  first  place  of  the 
Gods.  For  the  Gods  were  many,  while  the  City  was  one.  But 
the  ancient  Jews,  the  men  of  Israel,  or  at  least  their  prophets, 
looked  to  their  Lord  God  as  their  King — the  Father,  or 
sometimes  the  Husband,  of  Israel.  Although  they  were  many 
tribes,  they  had  but  one  God,  the  Lord  God,  who  had  delivered 
them  from  the  land  of  Egypt.  This  Lord  God  was  a  God  of 
justice  and  truth,  hating  oppression,  a  defender  of  the  widow 
and  the  fatherless.     To  be  loyal  to  Him  was  righteousness. 

And  herein — as  I  soon  began  to  perceive — was  the  great 
difference  between  the  view  of  righteousness  or  justice  taken  by 
Isaiah  and  that  taken  by  our  Roman  lawyers,  or  any  lawyers 
bound  to  a  written  law.  The  lawyer's  righteousness  was 
legality ;  the  prophet's  was  loyalty.  Epictetus  and  Isaiah 
agreed  together  in  aiming  at  loyalty,  not  legality.  Both 
disliked  obedience  paid  to  mere  rules  and  commandments  of 
men.  But  the  former  for  the  most  part  inculcated  loyalty  that 
seemed  like  loyalty  to  oneself;  the  latter,  loyalty  to  God.  This 
precept  of  Isaiah  agreed  with  the  fundamental  law  prescribed 
in  the  code  of  Moses  that  the  men  of  Israel  were  to  "  love  "  the 
Lord  their  God. 

After  searching  carefully  to  see  what  the  prophet  said 
concerning  the  immortality  of  the  soul  (about  which  Moses 
seemed  to  be  silent)  I  could  find  little  of  a  definite  kind.  In 
one  passage  I  read  "  The  dead  shall  arise  and  they  that  are  in 
the  tombs  shall  be  roused  up."  But  the  preceding  lines  said 
"  The  dead  shall  assuredly  not  see  life " :  so  that  it  was  not 
clear  whether  the  words  meant  that  one  nation  should  be 
destroyed  for  ever  and  another  nation  should  be  raised  up  from 
destruction  to  life.  The  prophet  appeared  to  be  thinking  of 
the  nation  collectively,  more  often  than  of  separate  citizens. 
The  metaphor  of  the  Vine  of  Israel  seemed  to  be  almost  always 


Chapter  11]  OR  DEATH  107 

in  his  thoughts.  And  his  hope  seemed  to  be,  not  concerning 
separate  branches,  that  every  branch  should  remain ;  but  that, 
in  spite  of  being  cruelly  pruned  and  cut  down  almost  to  the 
ground,  the  tree,  as  a  whole,  would  yet  grow  up  and  bear  fruit. 
I  noticed  also  that  a  certain  king  called  Hezekiah,  when  praying 
to  be  delivered  from  a  disease  likely  to  prove  fatal,  spoke  as 
though  there  were  no  life  after  death. 

But  there  was  one  passage,  of  very  mysterious  import,  which 
seemed  to  point  to  a  different  conclusion.  It  spoke  about  a 
"servant  of  God,"  of  mean  aspect  but  destined  to  be  a  great 
Deliverer — such  as  Epictetus  had  described — "bearing  upon  him 
the  cares  "  of  multitudes.  He  was  to  grow  up  "  as  a  root  in 
the  thirsty  ground,"  which  suggested  that  he  was  to  be  "the 
root  of  Jesse "  above  mentioned.  But  he  was  not  to  be  like 
iEneas,  "  the  root "  of  Anchises.  For  iEneas  divided  the  spoils 
in  Italy  as  the  prize  of  his  sword.  But  this  Deliverer — so  the 
prophet  declared — was  "despised  and  reckoned  as  naught." 
He  was  "  delivered  over "  to  the  enemies  of  his  nation  as  a 
ransom  to  save  his  fellow-countrymen,  and  it  was  by  their 
wickedness  that  "  he  was  led  to  death."  Yet  in  the  end,  said 
the  prophet,  "  He  will  inherit  many  men,  and  will  divide  the 
spoils  of  the  strong,  because  his  soul  was  delivered  over  to 
death,  and  he  was  reckoned  among  criminals,  and  he  carried 
the  sins  of  many  and  he  was  delivered  over  on  account  of  their 
crimes." 

This  was  altogether  beyond  my  comprehension  at  the  time. 
But  I  saw  that  I  should  have  to  return  to  this  prophecy 
hereafter;  for  I  recognised  its  last  words  as  having  been  quoted 
by  Paul  in  writing  to  the  Romans.  I  found  afterwards  that  the 
passage  in  Paul  spoke  about  "  believing  in  Him  that  raised  up 
Jesus  our  Lord  from  the  dead,  who  was  delivered  over  for  the 
sake  of  our  transgressions,  and  was  raised  up  for  the  sake  of  our 
being  made  righteous."  For  the  present,  however,  the  passage 
in  Isaiah  about  the  "  servant "  of  God  seemed  to  me  important, 
for  this  reason  mainly,  because  it  indicated  a  belief  in  a  life 
after  death.  And  so  did  another  difficult  passage — if  Paul  had 
interpreted  it  rightly.  My  copy  of  the  prophecy  said,  "  Death 
by  its  strength   hath   swallowed   up " ;   but    the    margin   said 


108  ISAIAH    ON  DEATH  [Chapter  11 

"  Death  is  swallowed  up  in  victory,"  and  these  latter  words,  too, 
I  recognised  as  being  quoted  by  Paul ;  and  this,  or  some  similar, 
sense  appeared  to  be  required  by  the  context. 

It  was  growing  late  and  I  was  obliged  to  break  off.  But  I 
resolved  to  return  to  the  book  next  morning  before  lecture. 
So  far  as  I  had  read,  it  appeared  to  me  that  the  prophet  did 
not  formally  recognise  the  immortality  of  the  soul  in  general. 
But  in  the  case  of  the  Suffering  Servant  he  did  seem  to 
recognise  it.  Having  the  Servant  in  my  mind,  I  unrolled  the 
book  of  Isaiah  to  other  passages  using  the  same  word,  such  as, 
"  for  my  servant  David's  sake,"  "  But  thou,  Israel,  art  my 
servant"  "  My  servant  whom  I  have  chosen."  At  last  I  came  to 
"  the  seed  of  Abraham  my  friend."  In  all  these  passages,  God 
was  supposed  to  be  speaking.  Then  it  occurred  to  me,  "  Did 
the  prophet  make  an  exception  for  the  Suffering  Servant  only  ? 
Did  he  not  also  believe  that  Abraham's  soul  was  immortal  ? " 
It  seemed  to  me  impossible  that  if  the  God  of  the  Jews  were 
asked,  "  Where  is  Abraham  thy  friend  ? "  He  would  reply — or 
that  the  prophet  would  regard  Him  as  replying — "  Resolved 
into  the  four  elements."  On  the  whole,  I  was  led  to  the 
conclusion  that  Isaiah  implied,  though  he  did  not  express,  some 
kind  of  doctrine  of  human  immortality  dependent  on  the 
relation  between  man  and  God. 


CHAPTER   XII 


ISAIAH   ON   PROVIDENCE 


Even  when  I  was  in  the  act  of  rolling  up  the  book  of 
Isaiah,  very  late  at  night,  it  occurred  to  me  that  the  question 
"  Is  there  a  life  after  death  ? "  might  be  connected  with  another, 
"  Is  there  to  be  hereafter  a  reign  of  righteousness  ? "  I  tried  to 
give  my  mind  rest  by  thinking  of  other  things ;  but  this  second 
question  came  back  to  me  again  and  again  both  before  and 
after  I  retired  to  rest.  Epictetus  spoke  about  "  the  sceptre  and 
throne  of  Diogenes  " :  but  I  knew  he  would  not  assert  that  the 
philosopher's  "  sceptre "  implied  any  present  kingdom  except 
over  his  own  mind  and  the  minds  of  a  small  band  of  Cynics — 
small  in  comparison  with  Stoics  and  Epicureans,  and  nothing  at 
all  in  comparison  with  the  non-philosophic  myriads.  As  for  a 
kingdom  of  righteousness  after  death  in  another  world,  I  was 
now  certain  that  Epictetus  did  not  expect  it ;  and  I  began  to 
doubt  whether  he  expected  such  a  kingdom  at  any  time  in  this 
world.  If  to  believe  in  Providence  means  to  believe  in  a  God 
who  foresees  and  prepares  that  which  is  best — I  could  not 
understand  where  Epictetus  could  find  a  basis  for  such  a 
belief. 

With  the  Jews,  it  was  otherwise.  They,  I  could  see,  had 
received  a  special  training,  which  made  them,  more  than  any 
other  nation  known  to  me,  begin  by  expecting  a  reign  of 
righteousness  on  earth.  Beginning  thus,  and  being  largely 
disappointed,  they  might  be  led  on  to  expect  a  reign  of 
righteousness  in  heaven.  Their  history  was  like  a  collection 
of  stories  for  children,  teeming  with  what  a  child  might  call 


110  ISAIAH  [Chapter  12 

surprises,  but  a  prophet  judgments — evil,  uppermost,  suddenly 
cast  down ;  humble  patient  goodness,  chastened  by  pains  and 
trials,  lifted  up  to  lordship  over  its  past  oppressors.  Examples 
occurred  to  me  before  I  slept,  and  many  more  during  the  night, 
in  my  waking  moments.  I  had  not  noticed  them  so  clearly 
when  reading  the  Law  consecutively.  Now,  grouped  together, 
they  came  almost  as  a  new  revelation — if  not  of  history,  at  all 
events  of  legend,  and  of  a  nation's  thoughts,  and  of  the  training 
through  which  the  Jew  Paul  must  have  passed  in  his  childhood 
and  youth. 

First,  there  was  Abraham — Abraham  the  homeless,  going 
out  from  unbelievers  to  worship  the  one  God,  and  receiving  a 
promise  that  he  should  be  the  father  of  blessing,  for  multitudes 
in  all  the  nations  of  the  earth  ;  Abraham  the  childless,  rewarded 
with  the  child  of  promise ;  Abraham  the  kind  and  yielding, 
who  gave  way  to  his  kinsman  Lot,  so  that  the  older  patriarch 
was  content  with  the  inferior  pastures  while  the  younger  chose 
the  fertile  lands  of  Sodom  and  Gomorrah ;  Abraham  the  father 
of  the  one  child  that  embodied  the  truth  of  the  one  God, 
offering  up  that  child  on  the  altar,  and  receiving  him  back 
as  if  from  Hades ;  Abraham  the  landless,  without  a  foot  of 
ground  in  the  land  promised  to  him,  buying  with  money  a  cave 
to  bury  his  family.  "  Surely,"  I  said,  "  the  story  of  Abraham, 
in  itself,  is  a  compendium  of  national  history  not  indeed  for 
Rome,  but  for  a  nation  of  peace  (if  only  the  nation  could  live 
up  to  it !)  most  fit  for  training  a  child  to  become  a  citizen  in 
the  City  of  Righteousness  ! " 

If  the  life  of  Abraham  was  full  of  surprises  or  paradoxes,  so 
too  were  the  lives  of  the  other  patriarchs  and  leaders  of  the 
nation.  Isaac,  "  laughter,"  laid  himself  down  to  die  in  ap- 
pearance, but  to  "  laugh  "  at  death  in  reality.  Esau  was  the 
"  elder,"  yet  he  was  to  "  serve  the  younger."  Jacob  was 
promised  lordship  over  his  brother  in  the  future,  but  he  bowed 
down  before  him  in  the  present.  The  same  patriarch,  a  poor 
man,  with  nothing  but  his  "  staff,"  became  rich  and  prosperous. 
Yet,  because  he  had  deceived  his  father,  he  in  turn  was  deceived 
by  his  children  and  sorely  tried  by  their  contentions.  Through 
Samuel,  the  little  child,  God  rebuked  Eli  the  high  priest ;  and 


Chapter  12]  ON  PROVIDENCE  111 

the  little  one  became  the  prophet  and  judge  of  Israel.  David, 
the  despised  and  youngest  of  many  brethren,  became  the 
greatest  of  Israel's  kings. 

Such  was  the  history  of  the  great  men  of  the  ancient  Jews — 
tried,  but  triumphing  over  trial.  On  the  other  hand,  the 
history  of  the  mass  of  the  common  people,  from  the  time  when 
they  were  a  family  of  twelve  sons,  shewed  them  as  going  astray, 
lying,  quarrelling  and  rebelling.  For  this  they  were  punished 
by  plagues  and  enemies  ;  then,  delivered  by  judges  or  prophets  ; 
but  only,  as  it  seemed,  again  to  fall  away,  and  to  be  delivered 
again ;  so  that  the  reader  of  the  histories,  apart  from  the 
prophecies,  might  well  suppose  that  these  ebbs  and  flows  were 
to  go  on  for  ever;  that  Israel  was  to  be  always  imperfect, 
always  liable  to  rebellion ;  and  that  the  promise  to  Abraham 
was  never  to  be  fulfilled.  More  especially  might  a  reader  of 
the  histories  anticipate  this  when  he  saw  the  great  empires  of 
the  east,  Assyria  and  Babylon,  leading  the  tribes  away  into 
captivity  and  destroying  Jerusalem  and  the  Temple. 

Such  were  my  thoughts  by  night  concerning  the  Law  and 
the  Histories  of  Israel.  Resuming  the  study  of  the  prophecy 
early  next  morning,  I  perceived  that  in  the  sins  and  back- 
slidings  of  the  people  there  was  yet  another  and  far  deeper 
illustration  of  what  might  be  called  "  the  law  of  paradoxes." 
Not  only  came  prosperity  out  of  adversity  but  also  righteousness 
out  of  sin,  and  out  of  punishment  promise.  Some  of  Isaiah's 
most  comforting  prophecies  arose  from  the  invasion  of  Israel  by 
Assyria.  In  this  connexion  there  came  a  promise  about  a 
"  child "  that  was  to  be  "  born,"  of  whom  it  was  said  "  the 
government  shall  be  upon  his  shoulder."  These  things  re- 
minded me  of  passages  in  the  poems,  where  the  poet — musing 
on  the  chastisements  and  deliverances  that  followed  the  sins  of 
Israel — exclaims  "His  mercy  endureth  for  ever,"  or  "I  remember 
the  days  of  old,  I  meditate  on  all  thy  doings."  In  the  history 
of  Greece  and  Rome  I  could  find  comparatively  few  stories  of 
such  "  doings."  How  indeed  could  I  reasonably  expect  them  ? 
Romans  and  Greeks  worship  many  Gods,  but  only  one  Father 
of  Gods  and  men.  Athens  might  claim  Athene,  and  other  cities 
might  have  their  special  patrons  among  the  Gods.     But  how 


112  ISAIAH  [Chapter  12 

could  it  be  supposed  that  the  Father  of  Gods  and  men  would 
make  any  one  nation  His  peculiar  care  ?  Virgil  says  that 
Venus  was  on  the  side  of  the  future  Rome,  and  that  Jupiter 
favoured  Venus ;  but  Juno  intervenes  for  Carthage.  Then 
Jupiter  has  to  compromise  between  Juno  and  Venus,  or  to 
conciliate  Juno  by  laying  the  blame  on  fate  !  "  How  different,'" 
I  exclaimed,  "  all  this  is  from  the  Hebrew  egotism  that  repre- 
sents the  one  God  as  continually  saying  to  Israel  '  Thee  have  I 
chosen ' ! " 

Yet  I  had  hardly  uttered  the  word  "  egotism  "  before  I  felt 
inclined  to  qualify  it,  adding,  "  But  it  is  not  '  egotism '  from 
Paul's  point  of  view."  For  indeed  Paul  seemed  to  think  that 
God  chose  Abraham,  not  for  Abraham's  own  sake — or  at  all 
events  not  merely  for  Abraham's  own  sake — but  for  the  sake  of 
"  all  the  nations  of  the  earth,"  to  bring  light  and  truth  to  them. 
Epictetus  spoke  of  Diogenes  as  "  bearing  on  himself  the  orb  of 
the  world's  vast  cares."  Somewhat  similarly — when  I  took  up 
the  Law  of  the  Jews  to  revise  the  thoughts  that  had  come  to 
me  in  the  night — I  found  the  Law  describing  the  life  of 
Abraham  the  friend  of  God.  For  I  did  not  find  Abraham 
blessed  or  happy — as  the  world  would  use  the  terms  "  blessing  " 
and  "  happiness." 

Abraham  begins  as  a  homeless  wanderer,  going  forth  from 
his  kindred  at  the  bidding  of  the  one  true  God ;  and  a  homeless 
wanderer  he  remains  to  the  end.  He  is  a  father  of  kings  but 
no  king  himself,  not  even  a  landowner !  He  has  to  buy  with 
money  land  enough  to  bury  his  dead !  His  life  is  one  of 
intercession  as  well  as  concession.  Abraham  intercedes  for  the 
dwellers  in  Sodom  and  Gomorrah,  feeling  it  a  painful  thing 
that  even  a  few  righteous  should  suffer  with  the  many.  Once 
indeed  Abraham  becomes  a  soldier.  But  it  is  not  for  himself. 
It  is  for  his  kinsman  and  for  the  rescue  of  captives.  Abraham 
makes  himself  a  servant,  waiting  at  table  upon  his  guests. 
Abraham  offers  to  God  the  life  of  his  only  son.  If  Paul  was 
right,  and  if  the  children  of  Abraham  mean  the  men  that  do 
such  things  as  these  in  such  a  spirit  as  this,  and  if  "  the  seed  of 
Abraham "  is  the  man  that  incarnates  this  spirit,  then,  I 
thought,  there  was  perhaps  no  egotism  when  the  prophet  of 


Chapter  12]  ON  PROVIDENCE  113 

Israel  represented  God  as  saying  to  the  descendant  of  Abraham, 
"  Thou,  Israel,  my  servant,  Jacob  whom  I  have  chosen,  the 
seed  of  Abraham  my  friend."  For  it  may  mean  "  I  have  not 
chosen  the  rich,  I  have  not  chosen  the  great  and  strong.  I 
have  chosen  the  good  and  kind  and  truthful  and  courageous ; 
him  only  have  I  chosen."  And  soon  afterwards  God  says, 
"  I  have  chosen  thee  in  the  furnace  of  affliction,"  that  is  to  say, 
"  I  have  not  chosen  thee  to  make  thee  selfishly  happy  and 
prosperous,  but  to  make  thee  my  servant,  like  Abraham,  for  the 
service  of  all  the  world." 

The  same  truth  appeared  to  apply  to  Moses,  who,  next  to 
Abraham,  might  be  called  the  greatest  of  the  "  servants  of  the 
Lord."  Even  from  the  cradle  he  was  in  peril  of  death.  He 
delivered  his  countrymen,  as  it  were,  against  their  will.  The 
burden  of  their  rebellions  pressed  on  him  through  his  life,  and 
caused  him  to  be  cut  off  from  the  land  of  promise  in  the 
moment  of  his  death.  He  saw  it  from  afar  off  but  was  not 
allowed  to  enter  it.  He  was  prohibited  because  of  his  sin ;  and 
his  sin  fell  upon  him  because  his  people  sinned.  "  The  Lord 
was  wroth  with  me,"  said  Moses,  "  for  your  sakes."  That  was 
the  greatest  burden  of  all.  With  the  lives  of  Abraham  and 
Moses  before  me,  it  seemed  that  the  greatest  servants  were  also 
the  greatest  sufferers. 

Having  this  fresh  light,  I  turned  again  to  the  description  of 
the  Suffering  Servant  in  Isaiah.  Did  the  prophet  mean  some 
particular  prince  of  the  house  of  David  who  was  actually 
"  chosen  in  the  furnace  of  affliction  "  in  order  to  deliver  Israel  ? 
Or  did  he  mean  Israel  itself,  scattered  through  the  world  and 
afflicted  in  order  that  it  might  deliver  the  world  ?  Plato 
modelled  his  Republic  in  the  form  of  a  man :  had  Isaiah  any 
such  double  meaning  ?  Did  he  predict  a  second  David  de- 
livering sinful  Israel,  and  also  a  purified  Israel  delivering  a 
sinful  world  ?  Was  he  carried,  so  to  speak,  by  the  past  into 
the  future  ?  That  is  to  say,  had  he  in  mind  some  prince 
actually  tortured  and  imprisoned,  and  as  good  as  dead,  for  the 
sake  of  the  people,  and  did  the  prophet  regard  this  prince  as 
destined  to  be  raised  up  from  the  darkness  of  the  prison  house 
and  to  reign  on  earth  ?  Or  else  was  the  prince,  though  actually 
a.  8 


114  ISAIAH  [Chapter  12 

killed,  destined  to  be  raised  up  and  to  reign  after  death  in  his 
own  person,  or  to  reign  in  the  person  of  his  descendants  ? 

About  all  these  questions  I  felt  that  it  was  not  for  me  to 
judge.  I  did  not  know  enough  about  the  history  of  the  people 
and  the  language  of  their  poets  and  prophets.  But  there 
remained  with  me  this  general  truth,  as  being  not  only  at  the 
bottom  of  this  prophecy,  but  also  pervading  the  history  of 
Israel,  namely,  that  in  order  to  make  a  great  nation,  great  men 
must  die  for  its  sake.  And  I  began  to  conceive  a  possibility 
that  the  greatest  of  all  men,  some  real  "  son  of  Abraham  " — 
I  mean  some  spiritual  son  of  Abraham,  not  necessarily  a  Jew — 
might  arise  in  the  history  of  the  world,  who  might  be  willing  to 
die  not  for  one  nation  alone  but  for  all  the  nations  of  the 
empire.  But  how  ?  And  against  what  enemies  ?  As  soon  as 
I  asked  myself  these  questions,  the  conception  faded  away. 
I  thought  of  Nero  enthroned  in  Rome,  and  of  the  Beast 
enthroned  in  the  heart  of  man.  Against  either  of  these  foes 
I  did  not  understand  how  the  death  of  any  "  son  of  Abraham," 
or  "  servant  of  God,"  could  avail.  How  could  such  a  Servant 
"  divide  the  spoils  of  the  strong,  because  his  soul  was  delivered 
over  to  death  "  ?     This  was  beyond  me. 

For  the  rest,  Isaiah  appeared  to  me  to  carry  on  throughout 
the  book  of  his  prophecies  that  thread  of  unexpectedness  about 
which  I  spoke  above — I  mean,  that  what  prophets  (foreseeing 
them)  call  judgments,  men  of  the  world  (not  foreseeing)  call 
surprises.  Yes,  and  even  prophets  and  righteous  men — not 
foreseeing  enough — often  lift  up  their  hands  in  amazement, 
exclaiming,  "  This  hath  God  wrought ! "  or  "  The  stone  that  the 
builders  rejected  hath  become  the  headstone  of  the  corner!" 
But  there  was  a  dark  as  well  as  a  bright  side  in  these  surprises. 
The  disappointments  were  often  most  strange.  For  example, 
Isaiah  saw  a  vision  of  the  Lord  "  high  and  lifted  up."  But 
with  what  result  ?  The  prophet  himself  was  straightway  cast 
down  with  the  thought  of  being  "  unclean."  Even  afterwards, 
when  his  lips  had  been  cleansed  with  the  coal  from  off  the  altar 
so  that  he  might  deliver  God's  message,  the  message  was, 
"  Hear  ye,  indeed,  but  understand  not !  " — because  his  warning 
was  to  be  rejected.     And   so   it  was  throughout,  paradox  on 


Chapter  12]  ON  PROVIDENCE  115 

paradox  !  Israel  was  "  chosen  "  in  one  sentence,  "  backsliding  " 
in  the  next.  The  "  despised  and  rejected  "  servant  was  to  be 
"  lifted  up."  The  transgressions  of  the  world  were  to  be  taken 
away  by  a  deliverer,  who  was  to  be  "reckoned  among  trans- 
gressors." Sometimes,  as  if  despairing  of  the  noble  and  learned 
among  his  own  people,  the  prophet  seemed  to  appeal  to  the 
poor  and  simple,  according  to  the  words  of  David,  "  Out  of  the 
mouths  of  babes  and  sucklings  hast  thou  ordained  strength ! " 
Sometimes  he  even  seemed  to  turn  away  from  Israel  itself — at 
all  events  from  the  majority  of  the  nation — to  the  remnant, 
and  to  the  pious  among  other  nations,  as  though  they,  yes, 
even  foreigners,  might  receive  the  fulfilment  of  the  promise 
made  to  the  seed  of  Abraham ! 

Amid  all  these  (to  me)  perplexing  paradoxes,  one  thing 
was  clear — constituting  a  great  difference  between  Isaiah  and 
Epictetus.  The  former  saw  God  in  history.  The  latter  did 
not.  Epictetus  said  (as  I  have  shewn  in  a  previous  chapter) 
that,  up  to  the  time  of  death,  man  can  always  find  peace  by 
following  the  "  logos  "  within  himself  during  life ;  after  death 
he  ceases  to  exist.  "  Bearing  these  things  in  mind,"  said  he, 
"and  seeing  the  sun  and  moon  and  stars,  and  enjoying  the 
earth  and  sea,  man  is  not  deserted  any  more  than  unhelped." 
These  words  now  returned  to  my  mind,  and  I  perceived  the 
force  of  what  they  did  not  say.  They  said  that  God  was  to  be 
seen  in  the  sun  and  moon  and  stars ;  but  they  did  not  say  that 
He  was  to  be  seen  where  Isaiah  saw  Him,  in  the  nations  of  the 
earth  controlled  by  the  Supreme.  It  is  true  that  Isaiah,  too — 
like  Epictetus — bade  his  readers  look  up  to  the  stars  as 
witnesses  to  God.  But  Isaiah  seemed  to  me  to  reckon  men 
superior  to  stars. 

David  certainly  did  so.  David  had  "  considered "  all  the 
glories  of  the  visible  heaven.  Yet  he  counted  them  inferior  to 
"  man,"  who  was  "  made  but  little  lower  than  God,"  and  inferior 
to  the  "  son  of  man,"  who  had  received  "  dominion  "  over  God's 
works.  In  the  same  spirit,  Isaiah,  as  it  seemed  to  me,  spoke  of 
the  Maker  of  the  heavenly  bodies  as  being  adorable,  not  because 
He  had  made  them  multitudinous  and  bright,  but  because  He 
led  them  like  a  flock — as  though  even  a   star  might  wander 

8—2 


116  ISAIAH    ON  PROVIDENCE        [Chapter  12 

but  for  the  kindness  of  the  divine  Shepherd.  Moreover  God 
seemed  to  him  to  be  controlling  the  mighty  powers  of  the 
heaven  for  the  service  of  man,  "  Behold,  the  Lord,  the  Lord,  He 
cometh  with  strength,  and  His  arm  with  lordship.  Behold,  His 
reward  is  with  Him,  and  His  work  before  Him.  As  a  shepherd 
shall  He  shepherd  His  sheep,  and  with  His  arm  He  shall  gather  the 
lambs,  and  encourage  those  that  are  with  young.  Who  measured 
out  tJie  water  with  His  hand,  and  the  heaven  with  a  span,  and  all 
the  earth  with  His  fingers?  Who  established  the  mountains  by 
measure  and  the  valleys  with  a  scale?  Who  Jtath  known  the 
mind  of  the  Lord  and  who  hath  become  His  fellow  counsellor  so 
as  to  instruct  Him  ?  " 

Thus,  according  to  the  prophet,  there  was  to  be  a  great 
advent  in  which  God  was  to  "  come  "  with  "  reward."  He  pre- 
dicted a  future  "shepherding"  of  the  "sheep"  and  "gathering" 
of  the  "  lambs,"  corresponding  to  the  past  "  measuring  "  of  the 
"  heaven."  According  to  the  philosopher  there  was  to  be  no 
such  future.  All  things  were  to  go  round  and  round.  Instead 
of  "  sheep "  or  "  lambs,"  bubbles  in  an  eddy  seemed  a  more 
appropriate  metaphor  to  describe  the  results  of  human  life  in 
accordance  with  the  general  tendency  of  Epictetian  doctrine. 


CHAPTER   XIII 

EPICTETUS   ON   PROVIDENCE 

It  was  now  almost  the  third  hour  and  I  was  on  the  point  of 
rolling  up  the  volume,  when  a  fellow-student  suddenly  entered 
to  borrow  some  writing  materials.  Thrusting  the  book  in  my 
garment  I  supplied  him  with  what  he  needed,  and  we  hastened 
together  to  the  lecture-room. 

We  conversed,  about  trivial  subjects,  but  my  mind  was  not 
in  them.  It  was  with  Isaiah.  I  could  not  help  marvelling  that 
a  native  of  so  small  and  weak  a  country  should  take  so  wide  and 
imperial  a  view  of  the  movements  of  the  nations.  In  a  Roman, 
I  could  have  understood  it  better ;  or  in  a  Greek  of  the  days  of 
Alexander.  But  that  a  Jew — whose  people  was  as  it  were  the 
shuttlecock  between  the  great  empires  surrounding  it — that  a 
Jewish  prophet  should  think  such  thoughts  filled  me  with 
astonishment.  Then  I  wondered  what  Epictetus  would  say  on  the 
administration  of  the  world  if  he  ever  dealt  with  it  fully.  "  He," 
I  said,  "was  a  Phrygian  and  a  slave.  Is  it  possible  that  he,  too, 
like  Isaiah,  could  speak  in  this  imperial  fashion  ? "  Arriving 
somewhat  late,  we  found  the  room  almost  filled ;  but  my  seat 
was  vacant,  and  I  was  glad  to  find  Glaucus  next  to  me,  in  the 
place  vacated  by  Arrian's  departure. 

Epictetus  was  just  beginning  his  first  sentence.  I  will  give 
it  as  Glaucus  took  it  down,  exactly :  "  Be  not  surprised  if  other 
animals,  all  except  ourselves,  have  ready  at  hand  the  things 
needful  for  their  bodily  wants  provided  for  them,  not  only  food 
and  drink  but  also  bedding,  and  no  need  of  sandals  or  blankets 
or  clothes — while  we  have  need  of  all  these  additional  things." 
He  proceeded  to  say  that  the  beasts  were  our  servants,  and 


118  EPICTETUS  [Chapter  13 

that  it  would  be  extremely  inconvenient  for  us  if  we  had  "  to 
clothe,  shoe,  and  feed  sheep  and  asses !  As  if,"  said  he,  "  a 
colonel  had  to  shoe  and  clothe  his  regiment  before  they  could 
do  the  service  required  of  them !  And  yet  men  complain, 
instead  of  being  thankful ! "  Any  single  created  thing,  he  said, 
would  suffice  to  demonstrate  Providence  to  a  grateful  mind. 
Then  he  instanced  the  production  of  milk  from  grass  and  of 
cheese  from  milk.  Thence  he  passed  from  the  "  works "  of 
Nature  to  "  by-works,"  such  as  the  beard,  distinguishing  man 
from  woman.  This  (I  think)  was  one  of  his  customary 
digressions  against  the  fashion  of  smooth-skinned  effeminacy : 
"  How  much  more  beautiful  than  the  comb  of  cocks !  How 
much  more  noble  than  the  mane  of  lions  !  Therefore  it  was 
our  duty  to  preserve  God's  appointed  tokens  of  manhood :  it 
was  our  duty  not  to  give  them  up,  not  to  confuse  (so  far  as  lay 
in  us)  the  classes,  male  and  female,  distinguished  by  Him." 

"  Are  these,"  he  continued,  "  the  only  works  of  Providence 
in  our  behalf?  What  praise  can  be  proportionate  to  our 
benefits  ?  Had  we  understanding,  we  should  be  ever  hymning 
the  graces  He  has  bestowed  on  us.  Whether  digging,  or 
ploughing,  or  eating,  ought  we  not  to  sing  the  appropriate 
hymn  to  God,  saying  '  Great  is  God,  because  He  hath  given  us 
tools  wherewith  to  till  the  ground,'  '  Great  is  God,  who  hath 
given  us  hands,  and  the  power  of  swallowing,  and  a  stomach, 
and  a  faculty  of  growing  in  stature  painlessly  and  insensibly, 
and  of  breathing  even  when  we  sleep '  ?  Hymns  and  praises 
such  as  these  we  ought  to  sing  on  each  occasion.  But  the 
greatest  and  most  divine  hymn  of  all  should  be  sung  in  thanks 
for  that  power " — he  meant  the  Logos — "  which  intelligently 
recognises  all  these  blessings,  and  which  duly  and  methodically 
employs  them.  But  you  are  silent.  What  then  ?  Since  you, 
like  the  common  herd,  are  blind  to  God's  glory,  it  was  but  fit 
that  there  should  be  some  one  herald,  though  it  be  but  one> 
to  fill  the  place  left  empty  by  your  default,  and  to  chant  the 
hymn  that  goes  up  to  God  in  behalf  of  all.  What  else  am  I  fit 
to  do,  a  halting  old  man  like  me,  except  to  sing  the  praises  of 
God  ? " 

And  so  he  drew  toward  the  conclusion  of  the  first  part  of 


Chapter  13]  ON  PROVIDENCE  119 

his  lecture.  Were  he  a  nightingale  or  a  swan,  he  said,  he 
would  do  as  a  nightingale  or  a  swan — that  is  to  say,  utter 
mere  sounds,  songs  without  words,  songs  void  of  reasonable 
thoughts,  without  Logos — "  But  as  it  is,  I  am  endowed  with 
Logos.  Accordingly  I  must  sing  hymns  to  God.  This  is  my 
special  work.  This  I  do.  Never  will  I  abandon  this  post  of 
duty,  as  long  as  it  is  given  to  me.  And  I  invite  and  urge  you 
also  to  the  same  task  of  song."  From  this  he  proceeded  to 
speak  of  "  the  things  of  the  Logos,"  or  "  the  logical  things,"  as 
being  "  necessary  " ;  and  he  spoke  of  the  Logos  as  that  which 
"  articulates  " — by  which  he  meant,  distinguishes  the  joints  and 
connexions  of  all  other  things — and  also  as  being  that  which 
accomplishes  all  other  things.  He  appeared  to  mean  that  this 
Logos  was  reason ;  and  he  assumed  that  it  is  "  impossible  that 
anything  should  be  better  than  reason."  But  he  refused  to  enter 
into  the  question,  If  the  Logos  within  us  goes  wrong,  what  shall 
set  it  right  ?  His  language  at  this  point  was  very  obscure. 
The  impression  left  upon  me  was  that  Logos,  with  him,  meant 
two  different  things  and  that  he  did  not  distinguish  them. 
When  he  sang  hymns  to  God  in  accord  with  the  Logos,  I 
thought  he  must  intend  to  include  something  more  than  reason; 
but  when  he  passed  on  to  say  that  "the  things  of  the  Logos" 
(or  "  the  logical  things ")  are  necessary,  he  seemed  to  mean 
"  reason  "    alone. 

Later  on,  he  returned  to  his  first  subject :  "  When  you  are  in 
the  act  of  blaming  Providence  for  anything,  reflect,  and  you 
will  recognise  that  it  has  happened  in  accordance  with  Logos." 
Then,  taking  the  case  of  some  man  supposed  to  have  been 
defrauded  of  a  large  sum  of  money,  he  placed  in  his  mouth  the 
objection  that,  if  the  fraud  is  "  in  accordance  with  Logos,"  it 
would  seem  that  injustice  is  "  in  accordance  with  Logos."  For, 
said  the  objector,  "  the  unjust  man  has  the  advantage."  "  In 
what  respect  ? "  asked  Epictetus.  "  In  money,"  says  the 
objector.  To  which  Epictetus  replied,  "  True,  for  he  is  better 
than  you  are  for  this  purpose  " — he  meant,  for  making  money — 
"because  he  flatters,  he  casts  away  shame,  he  is  always  un- 
weariedly  working  for  money.  But  consider.  Does  he  get  the 
better  of  you  in  respect  of  faithfulness  and  honour  ?  "     Then  he 


120  EPICTETUS  [Chapter  13 

rebuked  us,  would-be  philosophers,  for  being  angry  with  God 
for  bestowing  on  us  His  best  gifts,  namely  virtues,  and  for 
allowing  bad  men  to  take  away  from  us  what  was  not  good  in 
itself,  namely,  our  worldly  possessions. 

This  view  of  Providence  and  of  wealth  seemed  to  differ  from 
the  one  assumed  in  Isaiah  and  often  stated  by  Moses  and  David. 
For  they  had  taught  me  that  righteousness,  and  truth,  and 
obedience  to  parents,  and  neighbourly  kindness,  tend  to  "  length 
of  days  "  and  to  peace  and  prosperity  on  the  earth — for  the 
righteous  man  himself  as  well  as  for  the  community ;  and  they 
also  distinguished  honest  wealth,  acquired  by  labour,  from 
dishonest  wealth  acquired  by  greediness  and  injustice.  But 
Epictetus  here  made  no  such  distinction. 

The  Jewish  poems  recognised  it  as  being,  at  all  events  on 
the  surface,  a  strange  thing  that  a  righteous  man  should  be 
subjected  to  exceptional,  crushing,  and  continuous  calamities 
by  the  visitations  of  God.  Epictetus  appeared  to  teach  us  that 
God  had  ordained  some  men  to  be  restless,  pushing,  shameless, 
and  greedy,  that  they  may  take  away  the  wealth  acquired 
honestly  by  the  good  and  honest  and  just.  God  had  made 
these  rascals  "  better  "  than  the  virtuous — in  rascality  !  Then 
he  called  on  us  to  admire  or  accept  this  ordinance  or  law: 
"  Why  fret,  then,  fellow  ?  You  have  the  better  gift.  Remember, 
therefore,  all  of  you  always,  and  have  it  by  heart  and  on  the  lips, 
This  is  a  Law  of  Nature  that  the  better  should  have — in  the 
province  in  which  he  is  better — the  advantage  of  the  inferior. 
Then    none    of  you    will    fret    any  more." 

In  his  general  theory,  Epictetus  was  careful  to  separate 
himself  from  those  who  maintain  that  the  Gods  do  not  interfere 
with  the  affairs  of  men,  or  never  interfere  except  on  great  and 
public  occasions,  and  he  approved  of  the  words  of  Ulysses  to  the 
Allseeing,  quoted  by  Socrates,  "  Thou  seest  my  every  motion." 
If  man,  he  said,  can  embrace  the  world  in  his  thought,  and  if 
the  air  and  sun  can  include  all  things  in  their  influence,  why 
cannot  God  ?  But  this  seemed  to  lead  to  the  conclusion  that  the 
influence  of  God  is  being  perpetually  and  ubiquitously  exerted 
on  men  in  order  to  produce  knaves,  slaves,  tyrants,  and  fools  :  for 
such  our  Master  appeared  to  deem  the  majority  of  mankind. 


Chapter  13]  ON  PROVIDENCE  121 

In  practice,  Epictetus  avoided  such  a  blasphemy  against 
God,  by  drawing  no  inference  as  to  Providence  from  any  of 
the  laws  or  institutions  of  men,  for  he  appeared  to  regard 
human  institutions  as  radically  bad.  At  all  events  he  allowed 
his  pupils — as  I  have  shewn  above — to  say  that  the  rulers  of 
the  world  are  "  thieves  and  robbers "  and  that  the  courts  of 
justice  are  "  courts  of  injustice."  His  belief  in  Providence  was 
— I  seemed  to  see  clearly — based  on  nothing  but  the  conscious- 
ness of  the  Logos  within  himself.  The  Logos  in  the  vast 
majority  Of  mankind  appeared  to  him  to  have  done  them  no 
good :  so  he  could  not  argue  from  that. 

When  someone  mentioned  the  fate  of  the  Emperor  Galba  as 
disproving  a  belief  in  Providence,  Epictetus  implied  a  scornful 
disavowal  of  any  intention  to  base  belief  on  any  such  historical 
event.  Nor  did  he  ever  refer  to  God  as  controlling  the  move- 
ments of  nations.  In  answer  therefore  to  my  silent  question, 
"  Does  our  Master  see  God  in  the  history  of  individuals  or 
nations?"  his  teaching  seemed  to  reply  "  No,  I  see  it  in  nothing 
except  Socrates,  Diogenes,  and  a  few  other  philosophers,  and  also 
in  myself.  Beyond  this  little  group  of  souls,  though  I  feel 
myself  able  to  infer  God  in  everything,  I  cannot  really  infer 
Him  in  anything  mental  or  spiritual.  Hence  I  am  driven  to 
such  physical  instances  as  butter,  cheese,  stomachs,  and  beards!" 

On  leaving  the  lecture-room  I  chatted  with  Glaucus  and 
tried  hard  to  be  cheerful.  But  how  I  missed  Arrian !  I  felt 
inclined  to  turn  Epicurean.  The  "  careless  "  gods  of  Epicurus 
seemed  at  least  less  unloveable  than  the  Providence  of  Epictetus. 
Too  much  depressed  for  any  kind  of  study,  I  did  not  return  to 
my  lodging  but  walked  out  into  the  country  by  unfrequented 
paths,  resting  after  mid-day  in  a  little  village  inn.  Coming 
out,  toward  the  close  of  the  afternoon,  I  found  an  acquaintance  of 
mine,  Apronius  Rufus,  standing  in  the  porch  and  amusing  himself 
by  throwing  figs  and  nuts  to  a  crowd  of  boys  just  emerging 
from  the  doors  of  a  neighbouring  school.  From  scrambling  and 
scuffling  the  boys  had  come  to  fighting — all  but  two  or  three, 
who  held  aloof  with  an  air  of  sulky  superiority;  and  one,  I  think, 
saw  the  schoolmaster  in  the  distance.  My  acquaintance  was 
attending  the  Epicurean  classes  in  Nicopolis.     We  Cynics  called 


122  EPICTETUS  [Chapter  13 

the  followers  of  Epicurus  "  swine,"  and  I  could  not  resist  the 
temptation  of  saying,  "  Rufus,  you  are  making  converts.  When 
they  grow  up,  these  little  pigs  will  do  you  credit."  He  laughed 
good-humouredly  :  "  Not  all  of  them,  Silanus  !  A  few,  as  you 
see  yonder,  remain  of  your  persuasion,  true  Cynics,  that  is  to 
say,  puppies  or  prigs.  But  we  do  pretty  well.  Nature  is  for 
us,  though  you  and  the  schoolmaster  are  allied  against  us.  By 
the  way,  I  think  I  see  your  ally  coming  round  the  corner.  I 
will  be  off.  Two  against  Hercules  are  one  too  many.  Fare- 
well!" "Farewell!"  said  I,  "Your  wit  is  as  much  stronger 
than  mine  as  your  philosophy  is  weaker." 

"  But  is  it  weaker  ? "  thought  I,  as  he  strode  back  to 
Nicopolis,  and  I  in  the  opposite  direction.  Was  not  Apronius 
right  in  saying  that  Nature  was  on  his  side  ?  Does  not 
Providence,  like  Circe,  throw  down  figs  and  nuts  for  us  human 
creatures  to  make  us  swine  ?  Is  she  not  always  saying  to  us, 
"  Push,  and  be  greedy !  Then  you  will  get  what  you  want "  ? 
And  did  not  Epictetus  acquiesce  in  this,  in  effect,  saying  to  the 
two  or  three  non-pushers,  "  Be  content.  The  others,  the 
masses  of  men,  are  '  better  '  than  you  are  for  pushing  and  for 
kicking  and  for  fighting  like  greedy  swine  "  ?  But  who  made 
them  "  better  "  ?  Was  it  not  Nature  ?  And  how  could  I  feel 
sure  that  this  same  Nature  or  Providence  that  made  "grass  "  (as 
Epictetus  said)  to  produce  "  milk  and  butter  and  cheese,"  did 
not  make  man  to  produce  scrambling  and  scuffling  and  fighting 
— a  spectacle  for  some  amused  God,  who  watches  from  the 
windows  of  heaven,  like  Apronius  Rufus  from  the  inn-door  on 
earth  ? 

After  a  long  circuit,  returning  to  Nicopolis,  I  sat  down  to 
rest  in  a  copse  when  the  sun  was  drawing  towards  the  west. 
Tired  out  b}7  my  walk,  I  fell  asleep.  When  I  awoke,  the  sun 
had  set  and  the  evening  star  was  shining.  As  I  sat  in  silence 
gazing  upon  it,  better  thoughts  were  brought  to  me.  "  Five 
minutes,"  I  said,  "  with  Hesper  teach  more  about  Providence 
than  an  hour  with  Epictetus."  Then  it  occurred  to  me,  "  But, 
were  I  Priam,  and  were  this  the  evening  before  Troy  was  taken, 
would  not  Hesper  shine  as  brightly  before  me  ?  What  does 
Hesper  prove  ?  "     Presently,  the  lesser  stars  began  to  appear, 


Chapter  IS]  ON  PROVIDENCE  123 

growing  each  moment  in  number.  Then  I  remembered  how 
Moses  represents  the  Lord  God  appearing  to  Abraham  (when 
he  was  as  yet  childless)  and  saying  to  him,  "  Look  up  to  the 
heaven  and  number  the  stars,  if  thou  art  able  to  number  them 
all.  So  shall  thy  seed  be."  And  what  had  come  of  it  all  ? 
A  nation  that  was  no  nation,  a  race  of  captives,  known  to  us  in 
Rome  chiefly  as  hating  pork  and  strangers  no  less  than  they 
loved  their  sabbaths.  Then  I  thought,  "  Had  Hesper  any  more 
favour  for  Abraham  than  for  Priam  ?  Perhaps  the  stars 
promised  peace  and  prosperity  to  both  and  broke  their  promise! 
What  Troy  is,  that  Jerusalem  is.  Nay,  worse.  Troy  has  produced 
a  New  Troy.  Where  is  the  New  Jerusalem  ?  And  where  is 
the  great  nation  promised  to  Abraham  ?  A  flock  (or  flocks)  of 
exiles,  fanatics,  and  slaves  ! " 

Just  then  came  into  my  mind  the  memory  of  some  words 
about  the  stars  in  Isaiah.  I  had  taken  the  book  with  me  to 
lecture.  So  I  unrolled  it  till  I  came  to  them  :  "  Lift  up  your 
eyes  on  high  and  see.  Who  hath  appointed  all  these  1  He  that 
leadeth  forth  His  host  in  a  numbered  array.  He  ivill  call  them 
all  by  name.  Because  of  thy  great  glory,  and  in  the  might  of 
thy  strength,  not  one  escapeth  from  thine  eye."  Then  the  prophet 
declared  that,  even  as  the  stars  of  heaven  are  made  visible  in 
the  darkness,  so  the  seed  of  Abraham  was  not  hidden  by  any 
darkness  from  God's  eye :  "  Say  not,  0  Jacob  (ah,  why  didst 
thou  dare  to  say  it,  0  Israel  ?)  '  My  way  is  hidden  from  God, 
and  my  God  hath  taken  away  judgment  and  hath  departed  from 
me.'  Hast  thou  not  even  now  found  out  the  truth?  Hast  thou 
not  clearly  heard  it  ?  The  God  eternal,  the  God  that  framed  and 
fashioned  the  earth,  even  to  its  furthest  corners,  He  will  not  faint 
for  hunger,  nor  is  there  any  fathoming  of  His  wisdom.  To  them 
that  hunger  He  giveth  strength— but  sorroiu  to  them  that  have  no 
grief.  For  hunger  shall  fall  on  the  youths,  and  weariness  on  the 
young  men,  and  the  chosen  warriors  shall  utterly  lose  strength; 
but  they  that  wait  patiently  for  God  shall  renew  their  strength ; 
they  shall  put  forth  wings  like  eagles ;  they  shall  run  and  not  be 
weary  ;    tltey  shall  walk  erect  and  shall  not  faint  for  hunger." 

I  could  not  believe  all  this.     But  neither  could  I  disbelieve 
it.     One  voice  said  to  me,  "  The  poet  is  casting  on  the  God  of 


124  EPICTETUS   ON  PROVIDENCE       [Chapter  13 

the  stars  the  mantle  that  he  has  borrowed  from  the  God  of 
Abraham,  Isaac,  and  Jacob."  But  another  voice  kept  saying  to 
me,  "  Wait  patiently  for  God :  He  shall  renew  thy  strength." 
In  the  afternoon,  when  I  had  thrown  myself  down  to  rest,  I  had 
thought  that  I  would  give  up  the  search  after  truth,  get  rid  of 
all  my  books,  leave  Nicopolis,  and  go  at  once  into  the  army. 
Now  I  was  more  hopeful.  But  I  could  not  give  any  logical 
reason  for  my  hope.  Isaiah  had  not  convinced  me.  Far  from 
it !  The  promise  to  Abraham  seemed  still  to  me  to  have 
resulted  in  failure.  I  had  broken  off  my  study  of  Paul,  almost 
at  its  commencement,  in  order  to  study  Isaiah.  And  Isaiah, 
without  Paul,  presented  many  difficulties  that  might  perplex 
wiser  minds  than  mine.  "  Grant,"  said  I,  "  that  David  the  son 
of  Jesse  was  a  great  poet.  Grant  that  Isaiah  was  a  great 
prophet.  Yet  what  were  their  poems  and  prophecies  except 
so  many  pillars  of  vapour,  or,  if  of  substance,  then  substantial 
failures ;  pillars  with  the  capital  gone  and  the  shaft  broken,  no 
longer  sustaining  anything  ?  Their  temple  is  burned  a  second 
time,  never  to  be  rebuilt ;  the  rod  of  Jesse,  cut  off  from  the 
very  root,  with  no  life  left  in  it,  '  despised  indeed  and  rejected ' 
but  with  no  compensation  of  being  '  exalted  or  of  '  dividing 
the  spoils  of  the  strong ' ! " 

All  these  things  I  said  over  and  over  again  to  myself.  But 
still  another  voice,  deeper  than  my  own,  seemed  to  be  repeating 
"  Wait  patiently  on  God  and  He  will  renew  thy  strength ! 
Wait  patiently  !  Wait ! "  Up  to  the  moment  of  retiring  to 
rest  that  night  my  mind  was  in  a  state  of  oscillation.  On  the 
one  hand,  Scaurus  might  be  right,  and  my  best  course  might 
be  to  give  up  the  study  of  philosophy,  and  to  prepare  myself 
for  a  military  career.  On  the  other  hand,  there  appeared 
nothing  in  these  poems  or  prophecies  of  Isaiah  that  would 
make  a  man  less  fit  to  be  a  soldier.  My  last  thought  was,  "  I 
should  like  to  see  how  the  modern  Jew,  Paul,  takes  up  the 
teaching  of  the  ancient  Jew,  Isaiah.  I  have  but  glanced  at 
his  quotations  as  yet."  So  I  decided  to  examine  this  point  on 
the  following  day. 


CHAPTER   XIV 

PAUL'S   CONVERSION 

Hitherto  my  study  of  Christian  or  Jewish  literature  had 
never  followed  my  intentions.  I  had  intended  to  read  Paul 
continuously.  But  first  Isaiah,  then  David,  then  Moses,  and 
then  Isaiah  again,  had  intervened.  I  was  going  forward  all  the 
while,  but  by  a  winding  course,  like  a  stream  among  hills  and 
rocks.  Now  again  I  have  to  describe  how — although  I  sat  down 
with  a  determination  to  digress  no  more  but  to  read  through 
the  epistles  from  the  beginning  to  the  end — I  was  led  off  to 
another  investigation. 

The  first  phrase  in  the  volume  did  not  long  occupy  me. 
True,  I  had  greatly  disliked  it  when  I  first  glanced  at  it,  a  few 
days  ago — "  Paul  a  slave  of  Jesus  Christ."  "  Slave  "  was  always 
used  by  Epictetus  in  a  bad  sense,  and  I  had  then  thought  it 
savoured  of  servility.  But  now  I  knew  that  the  translation  of 
Isaiah  often  used  it  to  denote  a  devoted  servant  of  God ;  and  it 
seemed  to  me  that  Paul  had  perhaps  no  other  word  that  could 
so  well  express  how  he  felt  bound  to  service  by  Christ's 
"constraining  love." 

Nor  did  the  next  words  now  cause  me  much  difficulty : — 
"  Called  to  be  an  apostle,  set  apart  to  preach  the  good  tidings  of 
God,  which  He  promised  beforehand  through  His  prophets  in 
the  holy  scriptures."  Scaurus  had  told  me  how  Epictetus  had 
borrowed  from  the  Christians  this  notion  of  being  "  called  "  to 
bear  testimony  to  God.  Whether  he  was  right  or  wrong,  he 
had  prepared  me  to  find  "  called  "  in  such  a  passage  as  this.  It 
was  connected  here  with  an  "apostle,"  that  is,  someone  "sent" 
by  God.     This,  too,  seemed   natural.     Though  Epictetus  did 


126  PAUL'S   CONVERSION  [Chapter  14 

not  use  the  noun,  he  often  used  the  verb  to  describe  his  ideal 
Cynic — and  especially  Diogenes — as  being  "sent"  to  proclaim  the 
divine  law.  "  Set  apart  "  I  understood  to  mean  "  set  apart  "  by 
special  endowments  of  body  and  mind  such  as  Epictetus 
frequently   attributed    to    Socrates    and    Diogenes. 

As  to  the  "good  tidings,"  I  knew  that  Epictetus  would  have 
considered  it  to  be  a  message  from  God  to  this  effect,  "  Children, 
I  have  placed  your  true  happiness  in  your  own  control.  Take  it 
from  yourselves,  each  of  you,  from  that  which  is  within  you."  But 
what  was  Paul's  "  good  tidings  "  ?  Isaiah  had  described  God's 
messengers  as  "  proclaiming  good  tidings,"  namely,  that  God  was 
coming  to  the  aid  of  men :  "As  a  shepherd  will  He  shepherd 
His  flock  and  with  His  arm  will  He  gather  the  lambs."  Epictetus, 
as  I  have  shewn  above,  scoffed  at  this  metaphor  of  "  shepherd." 
But  I  could  not  help  liking  it.  Homer  used  it  about  kings, 
Isaiah  about  God.  I  thought  Paul  meant,  in  part,  that  God 
would   manifest  Himself  as  the   righteous   King. 

But  I  knew  that  Paul  must  also  mean  more,  and  that  he 
would  not  have  claimed  the  attention  of  the  Romans  for  a  mere 
repetition  of  an  ancient  written  prophecy.  Any  child  able  to 
read  could  have  repeated  that.  Paul  must  have  more  good 
news — either  about  the  Shepherd,  or  about  the  time,  or  about 
the  certainty  of  His  coming.  At  this  point,  it  occurred  to  me, 
"  Why  wait  for  the  gospels  that  Flaccus  is  to  send  me  ?  Why 
not  search  through  the  epistles  to  find  out  what  Paul's  gospel 
is  ? "  But  I  checked  myself,  saying,  "  No  more  digressions." 
The  next  words  were  these  :  "  Concerning  His  Son,  who  came 
into  being  from  the  seed  of  David  according  to  the  flesh ;  who 
was  defined  Son  of  God,  in  power,  according  to  the  spirit  of 
holiness,  from  the  resurrection  of  the  dead,  Jesus  Christ  our 
Lord."  These  words  I  have  translated  literally  and  obscurely 
so  as  to  indicate  to  the  reader  how  exceedingly  obscure  they 
seemed  to  me.  "  I  must  pass  on,"  I  said,  "  I  can  make  nothing 
of  this.     What  follows  may  make  things  clearer." 

I  began  to  read  on,  but  soon  desisted.  The  words  that 
followed  took  no  hold  of  my  mind.  I  tried,  and  tried  again, 
but  was  irresistibly  dragged  back  to  "resurrection  of  the  dead," 
and  "power,"  and  "spirit  of  holiness,"  and  "defined" — especially 


Chapter  14]  PAUL'S   CONVERSION  127 

to  "  resurrection."     What  kind  of  "  resurrection  "  ?     During  my 
childhood  I  had  heard  my  father  tell  a  story  or  legend  how,  just 
before   the  battle  of   Philippi,  the  spirit   of  the  great  Julius 
appeared  to  Brutus,  saying  "  Thou  shalt  see  me  at  Philippi." 
There  Brutus  slew  himself.     And  Scaurus  had  remarked  that  a 
similar  fate  had  overtaken  others  of  the  conspirators ;  so  that 
some  might  declare  that  Julius  had  power  to  rise  from  the  grave 
and  turn  the  swords  of  his  assassins  against  themselves.     That, 
if  true,  was  an  instance  of  the  power  of  a  man,  or  a  man-god, 
rising  from  the  dead  in  a  spirit  of  vengeance.     But  Paul  spoke  of 
"  resurrection  of  the  dead,"  and  "  power,"  in  connexion  with  a 
"spirit    of    holiness."     Paul    (I    knew    that    already    from    the 
epistles)  had  been  an  enemy  of  Christ,  as  Brutus  had  been  of 
Caesar.     Comparing  the  two  conquests,  I  asked  whether  more 
"  power  "  might  not  be  claimed  for  Christ's  "  spirit  of  holiness  " 
than    for  Cgesar's    spirit    of   vengeance.     For   Paul,  instead   of 
being  killed  by  Christ,  had  been  made  a  willing  and  profitable 
"slave."     Brutus  had  been  forced  to  turn   his   sword   against 
himself;  Paul  had  been  constrained  by  love  to  turn  his  new  sword, 
"  the  sword  of  the  spirit,"  against  the  enemies  of  his  new  Master. 
What  light  did  this  passage  throw  on  the  causes  of  Paul's 
conversion  ?     I  read  it  over  again.     Christ,  he  said,  "  came  into 
being,"  or  was  born,   "  of  the  seed  of  David  according  to  the 
flesh."     Well,  that  might  be  one  cause.     A  Jew  would  be  more 
likely  to  accept  as  king  a  descendant  of  the  house  of  David. 
And  besides,  Jews  might  think  that  such  a  birth  fulfilled  the 
prophecy  above  mentioned   about    "  the  root  of  Jesse."     But 
there  might  be  many  born  "  of  the  seed  of  David  according  to 
the  flesh."   That  which  "defined"  Christ  to  be  "the  Son  of  God  " 
was  "  the  resurrection  of  the  dead  " ;  and  the  "  defining  "  was 
"  in  power"  and  "according  to  the  spirit  of  holiness."     By  these 
last  words,  Paul  seemed  to  separate  Christ's  resurrection  from 
any  such  apparition   as   that   of  Julius,   or  other  ghosts  and 
phantasms ;  which  may  appear  to  this  man  or  to  that,  and  then 
vanish,  either  caused   by  evil   magic,  and  doing  an  evil  and 
magical  work,  or  doing  no  work  at  all;  whereas  the  rising  again 
of  Christ  was  caused  by  a  holy  power  and  resulted  in  a  work  of 
abiding  power  and  "holiness." 


128  PAUL'S   CONVERSION  [Chapter  14 

This  it  was  that  led  me  into  a  new  digression.  Recalling 
how  the  spirit  of  Csesar  was  said  to  have  appeared  and  spoken 
to  Brutus,  I  desired  to  know  what  words  the  spirit  of  Christ 
said  to  Paul,  and  when  and  how  Christ  appeared  to  him. 
I  wished  also  to  inquire  about  the  nature  of  Paul  himself, 
before  and  after  his  conversion  ;  and  whether  he  shewed  signs 
of  restlessness,  and  of  ambition  to  become  a  leader  in  a  new  sect. 
Perhaps  I  should  have  spared  myself  this  searching  if  I  had 
known  that,  along  with  the  gospels,  Flaccus  was  sending  me 
Luke's  Acts  of  the  Apostles.  But  the  results  of  the  search 
were  helpful  to  me.  So  I  will  set  them  down  in  case  they  may 
be  helpful  to  others. 

First,  then,  I  found  that,  before  his  conversion,  Paul  had 
been  a  Jew  of  the  strictest  kind.  "  Ye  have  heard,"  he  said  to 
the  Galatians,  "how  that  beyond  measure  I  used  to  persecute  the 
church  of  God  and  laid  it  waste,  and  I  advanced  in  the  Jews' 
religion  beyond  many  of  mine  own  age  among  my  countrymen, 
being  more  exceedingly  zealous  for  the  traditions  of  my  fathers." 
That  expression  "  ye  have  heard  "  clearly  shewed  that  it  was  a 
matter  of  notoriety.  The  writer  meant  (I  thought)  not  only 
"  ye  have  heard  from  me,"  but  also  "  from  others,"  perhaps 
meaning  his  enemies,  the  Judaizers  (often  mentioned  in  this 
epistle),  who  pointed  at  him  the  finger  of  scorn,  saying,  "  This 
is  the  man  that  changed  his  mind.  This  man  thought  once  as 
we  do."  To  the  Philippians  also  Paul  said  that  he  had  every 
claim  to  be  confident  "  in  the  flesh,"  being  "  A  Hebrew  of 
Hebrews ;  as  to  the  law,  a  Pharisee ;  as  to  zeal,  persecuting  the 
church ;  as  to  the  righteousness  that  is  in  the  law,  blameless." 
So  also  he  said  to  one  of  his  assistants,  Timothy,  that  he, 
Paul,  had  been  "the  chief  of  sinners"  because  he  had  persecuted 
the  church. 

Elsewhere  I  found  him  writing  to  the  Romans  that  his 
heart  sorrowed  for  his  countrymen  and  that  he  could  almost 
have  prayed  to  be  "  accursed  from  Christ "  for  their  sake, 
for  they,  he  said,  had  the  Patriarchs,  and  to  them  were  made 
the  promises  ;  and  he  expressed  a  fervid  hope  that  in  the  end 
the  nation  would  receive  the  promises,  though  for  a  time  they 
were  shut  out.     What  he  said  to  the  Romans  convinced  me,  in 


Chapter  14]  PAUL'S   CONVERSION  129 

an  indirect  way,  almost  as  strongly  as  what  he  said  to  the 
Galatians  and  Philippians,  that  Paul  had  been  a  genuine  patriot, 
observing  the  traditions,  as  well  as  the  written  law,  of  the  Jews, 
and  persecuting  the  Christians  with  all  his  might  because  he 
thought  (as  we  also  were  wont  to  think  in  Rome)  that  they 
were  a  pestilential  sect,  destructive  of  law,  order,  and  morality. 
So  much  for  what  Paul  was  before  his  conversion. 

Next,  as  to  what  happened  to  him  at  the  moment  of  his 
conversion.  First  I  turned  to  the  Corinthian  letter  describing 
the  appearances  of  Christ  after  death,  to  see  whether  anything 
had  escaped  me  in  the  context — any  words  uttered  by  Christ 
to  Paul,  for  example,  at  the  time.  But  there  was  nothing 
except  the  bald  statements,  by  this  time  familiar  to  me,  "  He  is 
recorded  to  have  been  raised  on  the  third  day  according  to  the 
scriptures;  and  he  appeared  to  Cephas;  then  to  the  twelve; 
afterwards  he  appeared  to  above  five  hundred  brethen,  of  whom 
the  greater  part  remain  till  now,  but  some  are  fallen  asleep ; 
then  he  appeared  to  James ;  then  to  all  the  apostles ;  and  last 
of  all,  as  unto  one  born  out  of  due  time,  he  appeared  to  me 
also.  For  I  am  the  least  of  the  apostles,  that  am  not  meet  to 
be  called  an  apostle  because  I  persecuted  the  church  of  God." 
All  this  Paul  had  previously  delivered  to  the  Corinthians — so 
says  the  letter — as  a  "  tradition,"  and  as  a  part  of  his  "  gospel." 

This  gave  me  no  help.  All  that  I  could  infer  from  it  was 
that  Christ  probably  "  appeared "  to  his  enemy  Paul  in  the 
same  way  in  which  he  had  "  appeared "  to  his  friends  and 
followers,  and  that  the  "  appearing "  must  have  been  of  a 
cogent  kind,  since  it  convinced  an  enemy.  Nor  did  I  gain 
much  more  from  the  Galatian  account,  which  was  as  follows : 
"  But  when  it  was  the  good  pleasure  of  God — who  set  me  apart 
for  this  service  even  from  my  mother's  womb,  and  called  me  by 
His  grace — to  reveal  His  Son  in  me  that  I  might  make  it  my 
life's  work  to  preach  the  good  tidings  about  him  among  the 
nations,  immediately  I  conferred  not  with  flesh  and  blood, 
neither  did  I  go  up  to  Jerusalem  to  those  that  had  been 
apostles  before  me,  but  I  went  away  into  Arabia,  and  turned 
back  again  to  Damascus." 

Here  I  was  in  doubt  whether  "reveal   His   Son  in  me," 

a.  9 


130  PAULS   CONVERSION  [Chapter  14 

meant  " reveal  by  my  means"  or  " reveal  in  my  heart,"  that  is, 
"  unveil  in  my  soul  the  image  of  the  Son,  which  up  to  that  time 
I  had  smothered  with  self-will  and  obstinacy  " — as  though  "  the 
Son  "  had  been  all  the  while  in  Paul's  heart,  but  he  had  been 
refusing  to  acknowledge  him.  This  latter  interpretation  I 
preferred.  But  still  there  was  no  mention  of  any  words  uttered 
by  Christ  to  Paul  at  the  moment  of  his  conversion.  Only,  as 
Paul  implies  elsewhere  that  he  had  not  seen  Jesus  in  the  flesh, 
that  is,  in  person,  I  presumed  that  there  must  have  been  some 
such  utterance  as  "  I  am  Jesus,"  or  "  I  am  the  crucified  " : — 
else,  how  would  Paul  have  recognised  the  appearance  ? 

As  to  the  place  of  conversion,  however,  some  light  was 
afforded  by  the  words  "  I  turned  back  to  Damascus,"  shewing 
that  he  had  been  near  Damascus  when  it  happened.  And  the 
epistle  to  the  Corinthians  said  that  he  had  been  let  down  in  a 
basket  from  Damascus  so  as  to  escape  the  Jews.  It  appeared 
that  he  was  persecuting  the  Christians  up  to  the  time  of  his 
conversion ;  that  he  was  doing  this  in  or  near  Damascus  when 
he  was  converted ;  and  that  the  Jews  living  in  that  city  turned 
against  him  after  his  conversion,  so  that  he  had  to  escape  from 
them. 

Hereupon  I  tried  to  imagine  Paul  the  persecutor,  in  his 
course  of  "  persecuting  the  church,"  suddenly  stopped  by  an 
apparition  of  Christ.  In  respect  of  his  acts,  Paul — though  he 
could  not  possibly  have  been  so  cruel — might  be  compared  to 
Nero,  who  also  persecuted  the  Christians.  But  in  respect  of 
righteousness  and  truth  and  fervour,  Paul  was  like  Epictetus. 
Then  I  recalled  the  story  recently  told  me  by  Scaurus,  how  he 
and  his  father  had  come  suddenly  upon  the  young  Epictetus,  in 
the  Neronian  gardens,  staring  upon  the  Christians  in  their 
torments,  and  how  Scaurus  had  remarked  upon  the  ineffaceable- 
ness  of  the  impression  produced  on  his  own  mind  and  (as  he 
believed)  on  that  of  my  future  Teacher.  That  I  could  well 
understand.  But  Scaurus  and  Epictetus  were  merely  passive 
spectators.  Paul  was  a  perpetrator.  "  How  much  deeper," 
I  said,  "  and  all  the  more  deep  and  terrible  in  proportion  to  his 
sense  of  justice  and  truth,  must  have  been  the  impression  on 
Paul's  mind,  when  he  suddenly  woke  up  to  the  fact  that  he  had 


Chapter  14]  PAUL'S   CONVERSION  131 

been  persecuting  the  followers  of  Truth,  the  disciples  of  the 
Suffering  Servant  of  God,  predicted  by  the  prophets ! " 

Then  it  appeared  to  me  that  perhaps  the  precise  words 
uttered  by  Christ  in  that  moment  of  Paul's  shock  and  agony 
were  not  of  so  much  importance  as  the  feeling  of  shock  and 
agony  itself,  followed  by  a  great  wrenching  away  of  prejudices 
and  misconceptions,  and  by  a  sudden  influx  of  a  dazzling  light 
on  eyes  habituated  to  darkness.  Looking  again  at  the  Philip- 
pian  letter,  I  perceived  how  much  Paul  had  to  give  up,  how 
lightly  he  regarded  the  sacrifice  of  all  his  prospects  of  prosperity 
and  promotion  among  his  own  people :  "  But  whatever  things 
were  once  gams  to  me,  these  I  have  counted  as  loss  for  Christ's 
sake.  Nay,  more,  I  count  all  things  as  loss  for  the  sake  of  the 
'preeminence  of  the  knowledge  of  Christ  Jesus  my  Lord;  for 
whose  sake  I  suffered  the  loss  of  all  that  I  had,  and  I  count  it 
all  as  refuse,  in  order  that  I  may  gain  Chi'ist  and  be  found  in 
Him — not  having  as  my  own  righteousness  that  which  is  of  the 
law,  but  that  which  is  through  faith  in  Christ,  the  righteousness 
that  is  from  God  based  on  that  faith — that  I  may  know  Him, 
and  the  power  of  His  resurrection  and  fellowship  ivith  His 
sufferings,  being  conformed  with  His  death ;  if  by  any  means  I 
may  attain  to  the  resurrection  of  the  dead !  Not  that  I  have 
already  received,  or  am  already  perfected.  But  I  pursue  the 
chase,  if  by  any  means  I  may  seize  as  a  prize  that  for  which  I 
was  also  seized  as  a  captive  by  Christ  Jesus ! " 

These  last  words  made  me  understand  how  Paul  might  have 
regarded  Christ  as  manifested  in  him  rather  than  to  him. 
Isaiah  saw  God  uplifted  on  high  outside  him.  But  Paul  felt 
the  Son  of  God  enthroned  as  sovereign  within  him :  I  re- 
membered reading  in  some  drama  how  the  wife  of  a  dethroned 
and    submissive    sovereign   goads    him    to    rebel    against    his 

successor,  saying — 

"  Hath  he  deposed 
Thine  intellect  ?     Hath  he  been  in  thy  heart  ? " 

This  was  just  what  Paul  experienced  and  exulted  in  avowing. 
Christ  had  "  deposed  "  Paul's  former  self,  and  substituted  a  new 
self  of  his  own  as  viceroy,  to  rule  Paul,  "  in  his  heart."  A 
soldier  might  say  that  Christ,  in  the  moment  of  taking  Paul 

9—2 


132  PAUL'S  CONVERSION  [Chapter  14 

prisoner,  had  (so  to  speak)  given  him  back  his  sword,  saying 
"Use  it  on  my  side  among  all  the  nations  of  the  earth,  that 
they  also  may  receive  the  good  tidings  of  the  forgiveness  of 
sins."  But  in  fact  (according  to  Paul's  view)  Christ  had  done 
much  more  than  this.  He  had  given  Paul  a  new  sword,  "  the 
sword  of  the  spirit."  He  had  also  made  his  whole  nature  anew, 
according  to  Paul's  own  saying,  "  If  any  man  be  in  Christ,  he  is 
a  new  creature,  behold  all  things  are  made  new." 

Not  that  I  was  as  yet  convinced  that  Christ  had  actually 
risen  from  the  dead.  For  I  did  not  yet  feel  sure  that  Paul 
might  not  have  been  deceived  by  himself  and  by  the  Christians. 
But  I  did  now  feel  sure  that  Paul  was  honest  and  did  not 
knowingly  deceive  his  readers.  And  it  was  becoming  more  and 
more  difficult  to  believe  that  self-deception  or  Christian  decep- 
tion could  have  produced  effects  on  multitudes  of  men  so  great 
and  permanent  as  those  which  were  plainly  discernible  in  the 
epistles. 

I  remember  at  this  time  trying  to  prevent  my  growing 
admiration  for  Paul's  work  from  blinding  me  to  his  defects. 
Such  phrases  as  "  let  him  be  anathema,"  and  "  dogs,"  and 
"  whose  belly  is  their  glory,"  and  "  I  would  that  those  who  are 
thus  desolating  you  would  even  emasculate  themselves  " — these 
and  others  I  marked  with  red  in  my  volume.  I  knew  Epictetus 
would  have  condemned  them.  But  I  soon  perceived  that  these 
fiery  flashes  of  wrath  were  reserved  for  those  whom  Paul 
regarded  as  proud  and  greedy  ensnarers  and  oppressors  of 
helpless  souls ;  proud  of  knowledge  that  was  no  knowledge ; 
greedy  of  money  and  influence  to  which  they  had  no  right ; 
shutting  their  eyes  against  the  light,  and  dragging  back  poor 
pilgrims  just  as  they  were  on  the  point  of  entering  into  the 
City  of  Truth.  Towards  others,  even  if  they  might  have 
appeared  as  rivals,  he  seemed  to  me  to  feel  no  rivalry,  merging 
all  such  feeling  in  allegiance  to  Christ.  Some,  he  said  to  the 
Philippians,  preached  Christ  "  thinking  to  add  affliction  "  to  his 
bonds,  out  of  jealousy  and  spite.  "  What  then  ? "  he  says, 
"  Whatever  may  be  the  motive,  Christ  is  preached,  and  I 
rejoice.  Yea,  and  I  will  rejoice."  In  the  same  spirit  he  wrote 
to  the  church  of  Corinth  concerning  those  among  them  who 


Chapter  U]  PAUL'S   CONVERSION  133 

said,  "  I  am  of  Apollos,"  "  I  am  of  Cephas,"  "  I  am  of  Paul " — - 
condemning  all  partisanship,  although  he  gently  reminds  them 
of  his  singular  relation  to  them,  "  Even  though  ye  have  ten 
thousand  tutors  in  Christ,  yet  ye  have  not  many  fathers :  for  in 
Christ  Jesus  through  the  Gospel  I  begot  you." 

Another  detail  interested  me.  Paul  (I  found)  differed 
greatly  from  Epictetus  in  physical  constitution.  Epictetus 
used  to  teach  us  that  a  Cynic  had  no  business  to  be  "  infirm  " 
of  body.  At  all  events,  he  said,  no  such  person  can  do  the 
work  of  a  Cynic  Missionary.  When  he  extolled  "  the  sceptre  of 
Diogenes,"  he  used  to  tell  a  story  of  the  way  in  which  that 
philosopher,  lying  by  the  roadside,  sick  of  a  fever,  called  on  the 
wayfarers  to  admire  him.  It  was  the  road  to  Olympia,  and 
people  were  on  the  way  to  the  games :  "  Villains  ! "  he  shouted 
to  them,  "  Stay !  Are  you  going  all  that  way  to  Olympia  to 
see  athletes  fight  or  perish,  and  will  you  not  stay  to  behold  a 
contest  between  a  man  and  a  fever  ? "  But  this  contest,  I 
think,  ended  in  Diogenes's  death.  As  a  rule,  both  he  and 
Socrates  had  been  perfectly  and  robustly  healthy :  and  Epi- 
ctetus seemed  somewhat  to  despise  those  who  were  otherwise. 

Paul,  on  the  other  hand,  frequently  spoke  of  his  "  weakness," 
meaning  physical  infirmity  or  sickness.  It  was  "owing  to 
weakness,"  he  told  the  Galatians,  that  he  preached  the  gospel 
for  the  first  time  among  them ;  and  he  called  it  a  "  temptation 
(or,  trial)  in  the  flesh."  This  I  took  to  mean  that  he  had  been 
delayed  in  Galatia  by  some  sickness,  and  had  founded  the 
Church  there  while  in  that  condition.  So  to  the  Corinthians 
he  said,  "  In  weakness  and  in  fear  and  in  trembling  did  I  come 
addressing  myself  to  you."  But  that  letter  went  on  to  say, 
"  And  my  word  and  my  preaching  were  not  in  the  persuasive 
words  of  wisdom,  but  in  demonstration  of  the  spirit  and 
poiver  " — so  that  "  power  "  went  hand  in  hand  with  "  weakness." 
Once  at  least  I  found  Paul  praying  to  be  delivered  from 
"  weakness."  "  I  will  not  boast  about  myself " — so  he  writes  to 
the  Corinthians — "  except  in  my  weaknesses."  And  then  he 
went  on  to  explain  the  "  boasting "  as  being  quite  different 
from  that  of  Diogenes.  For  the  Cynic  cried,  in  effect,  "  Come 
and  see  how  strong  I  am  ! "     But  Paul  meant  that  he  would 


134  PAULS   CONVERSION  [Chapter  U 

"  boast "  because,  when  he  felt  weakest,  then  his  Master  came 
to  his  aid  and  made  him  strong.  This  he  expressed  in  a  way 
that  perplexed  me  at  first:  "  There  was  given  to  vie  a  tJiorn  in 
the  flesh,  an  angel  of  Satan,  to  buffet  me,  that  I  might  not  be 
lifted  up  above  measure.  About  this,  I  besought  the  Lord  thrice 
that  it  might  depart  from  me.  And  He  said  unto  me,  My  grace 
sujjiceth  for  thee,  for  in  iveakness  is  Power  made  perfect." 

For  some  time  I  could  not  understand  this  phrase,  "  an 
angel  of  Satan."  But  afterwards  I  found  Paul  writing  to  his 
Thessalonian  converts  that,  when  he  wished  to  come  to  help 
them,  "  Satan  hindered  him,"  so  that  Satan  appeared  to  be  a 
hinderer  of  the  gospel.  Then  it  seemed  to  me  that  among  the 
Jews  and  Christians  certain  diseases  might  be  regarded  as 
demons,  or  the  work  of  demons — just  as,  in  Rome,  "Fever"  is 
worshipped  as  a  divine  and  has  temples.  This  fact  I  had  heard 
Epictetus  mention ;  and  he  also  condemned  those  who  pray  to 
be  delivered  from  fever.  The  right  course  was,  he  said,  "  to 
have  the  fever  rightly."  Paul  seemed  to  say,  "  first  pray  to  be 
delivered  from  fever,  if  it  seems  to  hinder  you  from  doing  the 
work  of  the  Lord.  Then,  if  it  be  revealed  to  you  as  the  will  of 
the  Lord  that  you  should  bear  the  fever,  be  sure  that  He  will 
make  your  bodily  weakness  spiritually  strong.  Thus  the 
temptation  from  Satan,  the  Hinderer  and  Adversary,  shall  be 
turned  into  a  strengthening  trial  from  God,  your  Helper  and 
Friend." 

Summing  up  the  marvellous  changes  that  seemed  to  have 
come  about  for  Paul  in  consequence  of  Christ's  "  appearing  "  to 
him,  I  was  more  than  ever  disposed  to  believe  that  it  was  of  a 
divine  origin  and  a  great  deal  more  than  a  mere  "  appearing." 
I  thought  it  must  have  been  an  "  appearing  "  to  the  inner  eye, 
the  spirit,  as  well  as  to  the  outer  eye. 

When  we  Romans  and  Greeks  use  the  word  "spirit,"  we 
mostly  think  of  a  shadowy  unreal  appearance  of  the  dead.  We 
should  not  call  Jupiter,  or  Zeus,  a  "  spirit."  But  I  perceived 
that,  with  Paul,  "  spirit "  was  more  real — and,  if  I  may  so  say, 
more  eternally  solid — than  "  body."  It  was  the  real  "  person.'* 
The  word  "  person  "  in  Greek,  as  also  in  Latin,  means  a  "  mask  " 
or  "  character."     There  is,  with   us,  no  one  word  to  express 


Chapter  U]  PAUL'S   CONVERSION  135 

"  real  person."  Common  people  think  the  body  real,  but  the 
spirit  unreal.  Paul  used  the  name  "  spiritual  body  "  to  describe 
a  "  real  person,"  raised  from  the  dead  in  Christ.  Well,  then,  it 
seemed  to  me  that  the  power  of  Christ  on  Paul  might  be 
described,  not  only  as  an  "  appearing  "  but  also  as  the  grasp  of 
a  "real  person,"  "taking  hold  of"  Paul's  spirit  with  a  spiritual 
hand  so  as  to  strengthen  and  direct  him.  What  else  was  it 
that  made  him  so  strong  ? 

The  strength  of  Epictetus  in  bearing  trials  and  sufferings 
had  long  excited  my  admiration.  But  now  the  strength  of 
Paul  seemed  greater.  Epictetus  bore — or  at  least  professed  to 
bear— only  his  own  burdens.  As  for  those  of  others,  he  said, 
"  These  are  nothing  to  me."  Paul  was  like  a  gentle  nurse  or 
tender  mother  with  the  weaklings  among  his  converts.  '  Who," 
he  asked,  "  is  made  to  stumble,  and  I  burn  not  ?  Who  is  weak, 
and  I  am  not  weak  ? "  And  yet,  in  his  weakness,  he  was  a  very 
Hercules  or  Atlas,  strong  enough  to  bear  "  the  care  of  all  the 
churches  "  !  This  "  weak "  man  was  always  fighting,  always 
craving  to  fight,  and  always  conquering — up  to  the  time  of  his 
impending  departure,  when  he  exclaimed  that  he  had  "  fought 
the  good  fight "  !  And  through  what  an  extent  of  the  civilised 
world  !  "  From  Jerusalem  to  Illyricum  " — so  he  wrote  to  the 
Romans !  In  that  same  letter  he  announced  his  intention  of 
carrying  the  eagles  of  the  New  Empire  into  Rome  itself,  and  of 
passing  onward  from  Rome  to  the  invasion  of  Spain !  No 
wonder  that  he  felt  able  to  say,  "  I  take  pleasure  in  weaknesses, 
in  outrages,  in  straits  and  necessities,  in  persecutions  and 
hardships,  in  Christ's  behalf;  for  in  the  moment  when  I  am 
weak,  in  that  moment  I  am  strong." 

"  I  am  strong  "  !  Yes.  Rolling  up  the  volume  as  I  retired 
to  rest  that  night,  I  was  constrained  to  agree  with  that,  at  all 
events.  "  About  some  things,"  said  I,  "  or  perhaps  about  many 
things  in  your  letters  I  am  doubtful ;  but  assuredly  you  are 
strong.  I  myself  am  also  certain  that  you  are  honest.  But 
that  you  are  strong — and  that,  too,  with  a  strength  that  comes 
from  faith  in  the  resurrection  of  your  Master — this  not  even  an 
atheist  or  Epicurean  could  deny." 


CHAPTER   XV 

EPICTETUS'S   GOSPEL 

I  went  somewhat  unwillingly  to  the  next  day's  lecture. 
It  would  probably  be  interesting,  I  thought ;  but  I  could  no 
longer  deny  that  I  was  beginning  to  feel  doubtful  about  that. 
And  certainly  I  was  more  interested  in  Paul's  letters.  Soon 
after  I  was  seated,  Glaucus  came  in.  He  looked  worn  and 
haggard,  but  there  was  no  time  to  ask  him  questions.  The 
subject  of  the  lecture  was,  How  are  we  to  struggle  with 
adversity  ?  The  answer  was,  By  bearing  in  mind  that  death  is 
no  evil ;  that  defamation  is  nothing  but  the  noise  of  madmen ; 
and  that  only  the  rich,  the  lords  and  rulers  of  the  earth,  are  the 
subjects  of  tragedies.  But  the  main  point  was  that  "  the  door" 
is  always  open :  "  Do  not  be  more  cowardly  than  children.  The 
moment  they  are  tired,  they  say,  '  I  won't  play  any  more.'  Say 
you  the  same,  '  I  won't  play  any  more.'  And  be  off.  But  if 
you  stay,  don't  keep  on  complaining."  This  topic  had  become 
familiar.  What  followed,  though  not  quite  novel,  interested 
me  more,  because  it  seemed  to  bear  on  the  Jewish  Law. 

First  came  a  general  descant  on  the  advantages  of  being 
absolutely  free  from  fear.  Why  should  a  man  fear  1  Had  he 
not  power  over  everything  that  might  cause  him  fear  ?  Then 
a  pupil  was  supposed  to  ask  for  more  rules  of  life,  saying,  "  But 
give  me  commandments."  The  reply  was,  "  Why  am  I  to  give 
you  commandments?  Has  not  Zeus  given  you  commandments? 
Has  He  not  given  and  appointed  for  you  what  is  your  own, 
unhindered  and  unshackled ;  but  what  is  not  your  own,  hindered 
and  shackled  ?     Well,  then,  what  is  the   commandment  ?     Of 


Chapter  15]  EPIGTETUS'S   GOSPEL  137 

what  nature  is  the  strict  injunction  with  which  you  have  come 
into  the  world  from  Zeus  ?  It  is  this,  '  Keep  in  all  ways  the 
things  that  are  yours,  desire  not  the  things  that  are  for 
others '....  Having  such  suggestions  and  commands  from  Zeus, 
what  further  commands  can  you  crave  from  me  ? "  He  finished 
this  section  of  his  discourse  thus,  "  Bring  these  commandments, 
bring  your  preconceptions,  bring  the  demonstrations  of  the 
philosophers,  bring  the  words  you  have  often  heard  and  have 
often  yourself  spoken,  read,  and  pondered." 

I  could  not  feel  sure  whether  "  bring  "  meant  "  bring  to  bear 
on  each  point,"  or  "  bring  to  your  aid  " ;  but,  in  either  case,  this 
conclusion,  to  me  at  least,  was  disappointing.  "  It  is  all  very 
true,"  I  thought,  "  and  strictly  according  to  reason.  We  are 
sure  we  have  '  preconceptions.'  We  are  not  sure  that  we 
receive  strength,  in  this  or  that  emergency,  from  any  being 
except  ourselves.  And  yet  how  tame — and,  in  emergencies, 
how  fiat  and  unhelpful — such  an  utterance  as  this  appears  in 
comparison  with  the  oracle  that  the  Christian  believed  he  had 
heard  from  his  Lord,  '  My  grace  is  sufficient  for  thee.  For 
Power  is  made  perfect  in  weakness ' ! " 

The  rest  of  the  lecture  was  more  lively  and  expressed  with 
more  novelty,  but  old  in  substance — addressed  to  those  who 
wanted  to  enjoy  the  best  seats  in  the  theatre  of  life  but  not  to 
be  squeezed  by  the  crowd.  His  prescription  was,  "  Don't  go  to 
see  it  at  all,  man,  and  then  you  will  not  be  squeezed.  Or,  if 
you  like,  go  into  the  best  seats,  when  the  theatre  is  empty,  and 
enjoy  the  sun  there."  Then  he  added  something  that  made 
my  companion  Glaucus  shrug  his  shoulders  and  cease  taking 
notes,  "  Remember  always,  We  squeeze  ourselves,  we  pinch 
ourselves.  For  example,  we  will  suppose  you  are  being  reviled. 
What  is  the  harm  in  that  ?  Why  pinch  yourself  on  that 
account  ?  Go  and  revile  a  stone.  What  harm  will  you  do  the 
stone  ?  Well  then,  when  you  are  reviled,  listen  like  a  stone. 
And  then  what  harm  does  the  reviler  do  you  ? " 

We  went  out  together,  Glaucus  and  I.  I  think  I  have  said 
before  that  Glaucus  had  some  troubles  at  that  time  in  his  home 
at  Corinth,  but  of  what  kind  I  did  not  exactly  know.  "Silanus," 
he  said  presently  to  me,  with  a  bitter  smile,  "  I  am  pinching 


138  EPICTETUS'S   GOSPEL  [Chapter  15 

myself  with  my  shoe."  "  Then  take  it  off,"  said  I.  "  By  the 
immortal  Gods,"  he  exclaimed,  "  I  wish  I  could  !     But  what  if 

my  shoe   is  the  universe  ?     What  if  it  is "     He  stopped. 

I  replied  at  once,  like  a  faithful  disciple  of  Epictetus,  "  Not  the 
universe,  Glaucus,  but  your  opinions  about  the  universe." 
"  Well  then,"  said  he,  "  my  '  opinions  about  the  universe/ 
What  if  my  '  opinions  about  the  universe '  include  '  opinions 
about '  certain  persons  and  things — home,  father,  mother,  sister, 
and  other  such  indifferent  trifles  ?  To  put  an  imaginary  case, 
could  I  by  '  taking  off '  my  '  opinion  about '  my  father,  take  my 
father  out  of  prison,  or  save  him  from  death,  or  others  from 
disgrace  worse  than  death  ?  No,  Silanus,  I  am  beginning  to 
be  a  little  tired  of  hearing  '  Remember  always,  You  pinch 
yourselves.'     Often  it  is  so.     But  not  always.     What  say  you  '( " 

What  ought  I  to  have  said  ?  I  knew  exactly  what  was  the 
correct  thing  to  say.  "  In  such  cases,  give  up  the  game.  The 
door  is  open.  Do  you  say  the  universe  pinches  you  ?  Then 
take  off  your  shoe  by  going  out  of  the  universe."  This  would 
have  been  the  orthodox  consistent  answer.  But  I  was  incon- 
sistent, not  indeed  in  words,  but  in  a  heretical  glance  of 
sympathy,  which  Glaucus — I  could  see — interpreted  rightly. 
We  parted.  As  I  walked  slowly  back  to  my  rooms,  I  had 
leisure  to  reflect  that  the  gospel  of  Epictetus  had  no  power  to 
strengthen  Glaucus,  and — I  began  to  fear — no  power  to 
strengthen  me,  except  to  bear  comparative  trifles.  It  was 
not  strong  enough — at  least  in  me — to  stand  up  against  the 
great  and  tragic  calamities  of  human  life. 

With  these  thoughts,  I  sat  down  once  more  to  study  Paul's 
epistles  from  the  beginning.  Once  more  (but  now  for  the  last 
time)  I  was  led  into  a  digression.  It  was  the  word  "  gospel " 
that  thus  dragged  me  away,  coming  upon  me  (in  Paul's  first 
sentence)  just  when  I  had  been  deploring  the  failure  of  the 
"  gospel "  of  Epictetus.  Reading  on,  I  found  that  Paul's 
"  gospel "  had  been  "  promised  beforehand,  through  God's  pro- 
phets, in  the  holy  scriptures  concerning  His  son."  A  little 
later,  the  writer  said,  "I  am  not  ashamed  of  the  gospel.  For 
it  is  God's  power  tending  to  salvation  for  every  one  that  hath 
faith,  Jew  first,  and  then  Greek.     For  God's  righteousness  is 


Chapter  15]  EPICTETUS'S   GOSPEL  139 

therein  revealed,   from  faith   tending   to   faith,  even  as    it   is 
written,  '  Now  the  righteous  shall  live  by  faith '." 

The  next  words  surprised  me  by  mentioning  "  God's  wrath  " 
as  a  part  of  the  gospel :  "  For  there  is  revealed  therein  God's 
wrath  from  heaven  against  all  ungodliness  and  unrighteousness 
of  men  that  hold  down  the  truth  in  unrighteousness."  But  I 
immediately  perceived  that  it  might  be  regarded  as  "  gospel " 
or  "  good  tidings "  to  be  informed  that  God  does  really  feel 
"wrath"  at  unrighteousness,  or  injustice,  and  that  He  will 
sooner  or  later  judge  and  punish  it.  Accordingly  I  was  not 
surprised  to  find  Paul,  soon  afterwards,  connecting  "  gospel " 
and  "judging"  thus:  "In  the  day  when  God  shall  judge  the 
secrets  of  men  according  to  my  gospel,  through  Jesus  Christ." 

From  this  I  perceived  that  Paul's  gospel  promised  a 
righteous  judgment  as  well  as  immortality.  But  how  could 
it  be  proved  that  there  would  be  this  righteous  judgment  ? 
Paul  said  that  it  was  "revealed  from  faith  to  faith."  He 
added,  "  as  it  is  written  " ;  and  a  note  in  the  margin  of  my  MS. 
shewed  me  that  he  was  referring  to  a  certain  prophet  named 
Habakkuk.  I  unrolled  the  passage.  It  seemed  that  this 
Habakkuk  was  living  in  times  when  his  nation  was  grievously 
oppressed.  The  oppressors  were  like  fishermen  catching  the 
oppressed  at  their  pleasure.  The  prophet,  standing  on  a  tower, 
said  to  the  people,  "  Wait  and  have  faith.  The  righteous  shall 
live  by  faith."  Paul  meant  that  if  we  would  begin  by  having 
some  faith  in  a  righteous  God,  in  spite  of  appearances  on  the 
surface  of  things,  we  should  be  helped  to  rise  "  from  faith  to 
more  faith,"  and  consequently  that  we  should  "  live  " — that  is 
have  real  life.  Faith  seemed  to  Paul  needful  for  life.  Life 
without  faith  seemed  to  him  no  real  life  but  a  living  death. 

As  I  read  on,  I  saw  that  this  kind  of  "  faith  "  was  regarded 
by  Paul  as  the  foundation  of  all  righteousness.  He  quoted 
scripture  thus,  "  Abraham  had  faith  in  God,  and  it  was  reckoned 
unto  him  for  righteousness."  Then  I  remembered  that  he  had 
quoted  the  same  passage  in  writing  to  the  Galatians,  in  order 
to  prove  to  them  that  the  seed  of  Abraham  did  not  obtain 
righteousness  by  doing  the  works  prescribed  in  the  code  of 
Moses,  but  by  following  in  the  faith  of  their  forefather.     Now 


140  EPICTETUS'S   GOSPEL  [Chapter  15 

this  faith,  in  the  case  of  Abraham,  had  seemed  to  me  at  first  of 
a  narrow  and  selfish  nature : — "  God  will  keep  His  promise  to 
me,  God  will  give  me  a  child  in  my  old  age."  But  Paul  shewed 
that  the  promise  concerned  "  all  the  nations  of  the  earth,"  and 
that  Abraham  was  not  selfish  in  his  faith — any  more  than  in 
his  pleading  with  God  for  such  righteous  people  as  might  be  in 
Sodom  and  Gomorrah  when  he  said,  "  Shall  not  the  judge  of  all 
the  earth  do  right  ? "  This  faith  in  God's  truth  and  righteous 
judgments  was  at  the  bottom  of  Paul's  gospel,  and  Paul  taught 
that  it  was  at  the  bottom  of  all  righteousness  both  of  Jews  and 
Gentiles. 

But  here  came  a  great  difficulty  and  obstacle  in  the  way  of 
faith,  because,  when  men  departed  from  God's  righteousness. 
God  Himself  (so  Paul  taught)  departed  from  them  for  a  time, 
allowing  them  to  do  the  unrighteousness  that  was  in  their 
hearts  and  to  judge  unjustly.  For  this  cause  (according  to 
Paul)  God  introduced  Law  into  the  world,  and  especially  the 
Law  of  Moses.  The  Law  was  brought  in  to  represent  His 
righteousness  in  a  poor  rough  fashion,  until  the  time  should 
come  when  He  would  send  into  the  world  the  real  righteousness 
or  justice,  the  real  judge  or  spirit  of  judgment.  Such  a  judge 
(according  to  Paul's  gospel)  was  Jesus  Christ,  judging  the  world 
already  to  some  extent,  but  destined  to  judge  it  in  complete 
righteousness,  "in  the  day  when  God  shall  judge  the  secrets 
of  men  according  to  my  gospel,"  said  Paul,  "  through  Jesus 
Christ." 

At  this  point  came  the  doctrine  of  the  immortality  of  the 
soul,  enabling  Paul  to  say,  "  Wait,  and  you  will  see  justice 
done  "  ;  whereas  Epictetus  was  forced  to  say,  in  effect,  "  Justice 
will  never  be  done," — not  at  least  what  a  plain  man  would  call 
justice — "  since  the  justice  of  this  life  was,  is,  and  will  be, 
oppression,  and  no  second  life  is  ever  to  exist." 

The  only  passage  in  which  Epictetus  (as  far  as  I  could 
recollect)  described  a  good  judge,  was  one  in  which  the  philo- 
sopher was  supposed  to  hold  a  dialogue  with  the  Censor,  or 
Judge, of  Nicopolis.  The  man  was  an  Epicurean;  and  Epictetus, 
after  representing  him  as  boasting  that  he  was  "  a  judge  of  the 
Greeks,"  and  that  he  could  order  imprisonment  or  flogging  at 


Chapter  15]  EPICTETUS'S   GOSPEL  141 

his  discretion,  replied  that  this  was  coercing,  not  judging. 
"  Shew  us,"  said  he,  "  the  things  that  are  unprofitable  for  us 
and  we  shall  avoid  them.  Make  us  passionate  imitators  of 
yourself,  as  Socrates  made  men  of  himself.  He  was  really  a 
ruler  of  men.  For  he,  above  all  others,  so  framed  men  that 
they  subordinated  to  him  their  inclinations,  aversions,  and 
impulses." 

This  seemed  to  me,  at  first,  a  fine  ideal  of  a  spiritual  judge. 
I  contrasted  it  with  Paul's  picture  of  the  Lord  as  Judge  taking 
vengeance  in  fire  upon  His  enemies ;  and  Epictetus  seemed  to 
have  the  advantage.  But  on  consideration  it  appeared  that 
Epictetus  was  confusing  his  hearers  by  passing  suddenly  from  a 
judge  to  a  ruler.  According  to  his  own  account  elsewhere, 
Socrates  did  not  persuade  a  thousandth  part  of  those  to  whom 
he  addressed  himself.  On  the  other  hand  Paul  distinguished 
two  aspects  of  Christ.  In  one,  He  appeared  as  constraining 
His  subjects  to  love  Him  and  to  become  "passionate  imitators" 
of  Him.  In  the  other,  He  appeared  as  a  judge,  making  the 
guilty  shrink  from  their  own  guilt,  and  feel  pain  at  their  own 
sin,  when  the  light  of  judgment  reveals  them  to  themselves. 
Paul  spoke  of  "  fire "  according  to  the  metaphors  of  the 
scriptures.  He  appeared  to  be  describing  the  Supreme  Judge 
as  destroying  the  evil  while  purifying  the  good — as  fire  may 
destroy  some  things  but  purify  others. 

This  was  not  the  only  occasion  when  the  gospel  of  Epictetus 
seemed  to  me — not  at  first,  but  upon  full  consideration — inferior 
to  the  gospel  of  Paul  in  recognising  facts  fairly  and  fully.  For 
example,  Paul,  in  the  epistle  I  was  now  reading,  adopted  the 
ancient  Jewish  tradition  that  death  came  into  the  world  as  a 
result  of  the  sin  of  the  first  man  Adam.  According  to  this 
view,  death  was  a  "  curse."  Now  Epictetus  appeared  to  be 
directly  attacking  this  doctrine  when  he  spoke  as  follows,  "  If 
I  knew  that  disease  had  been  destined  to  come  upon  me  at  this 
very  moment,  I  would  rush  towards  it — just  as  my  foot,  if  it 
had  sense,  would  rush  to  defile  itself  in  the  mire.  Why  are 
ears  of  corn  created  ?  Is  it  not  that  they  may  be  parched  and 
ripened  ?  And  are  they  to  be  parched  and  ripened,  and  yet 
not  reaped  ?     Surely,  then,  if  they  had  sense,  the  ears  of  wheat 


142  EPICTETUS'S   GOSPEL  [Chapter  15 

ought  not  to  pray  never  to  be  reaped.  Nay,  this  is  nothing 
short  of  a  curse  upon  wheat — never  to  be  reaped  !  So  you 
ought  to  know  that  it  is  nothing  short  of  a  curse  upon  men,  not 
to  die.  It  is  all  the  same  as  not  being  ripened — not  to  be 
reaped." 

How  much  finer,  thought  I  at  first,  is  this  doctrine  of 
Epictetus  than  the  doctrine  of  Paul !  And  how  superstitious  is 
that  Hebrew  story  about  a  serpent,  causing  death  to  fall  upon 
man  as  a  curse  from  God !  But  coming  back  to  the  matter 
again  after  I  read  some  way  in  the  epistle,  and  thinking  over 
what  "  death  "  meant  to  Epictetus  and  what  it  meant  to  Paul, 
I  began  to  waver.  For  Epictetus  thought  that  "  death  "  meant 
being  dissolved  into  the  four  elements.  And  how  was  this 
like  "  being  ripened  and  reaped  "  ?  When  corn  is  reaped,  men 
get  good  from  it.  But  when  I  am  "  reaped,"  that  is  to  say, 
distributed  into  my  four  elements,  who  will  get  any  good  from 
that  ?  So,  once  more,  the  gospel  of  Epictetus,  as  compared  with 
the  gospel  of  Paul,  seemed  to  be  deficient  not  only  in  power 
but  also  in  directness  and  clearness  of  statement. 

It  reminded  me  of  the  saying  of  Paul  when  he  said  that 
God  sent  him  to  preach  the  gospel  "  not  in  wisdom  of  word 
lest  the  cross  of  Christ  should  be  made  of  no  effect."  "Wisdom 
of  word  "  appeared  to  mean  "  calling  old  facts  by  new  names 
without  revealing  any  new  truth."  So  far  as  I  could  under- 
stand the  gospel  of  Epictetus,  his  language  about  my  being 
"  ripened  and  reaped  "  was  like  that  other  earlier  promise  that 
I  should  find  "  friends "  in  the  four  elements  when  I  passed 
into  them  in  the  dissolution  of  death.  It  was  all  "  wisdom  of 
word." 


CHAPTER   XVI 

PAUL'S   GOSPEL 

In  contrasting  Epictetus  with  Paul  to  the  disadvantage  of 
the  former,  I  was  far  from  imagining  that  the  latter  had  unloosed 
the  knot  of  the  origin  of  sin.  But  at  all  events  he  recognised 
the  existence  of  the  knot.  Epictetus  ignored  it,  or  failed  to 
recognise  it.  He  spoke  in  the  same  breath  of  God's  ordaining 
"vice  and  virtue,  winter  and  summer,"  as  though  God's  appoint- 
ing that  some  men  shall  be  bad  caused  him  no  more  difficulty 
than  His  appointing  that  some  days  shall  be  cold. 

Paul,  on  the  other  hand,  treated  death  as  though  it  were  a 
curse  in  the  intention  of  Satan,  but  a  blessing  (or  step  towards 
blessing)  through  the  controlling  will  of  God.  He  also  spoke 
of  a  spiritual  body  rising  out  of  the  dead  earthly  body,  as  flower 
and  fruit  rise  out  of  the  decaying  seed.  I  did  not  at  first  feel 
sure  what  he  meant  by  this.  Flower  and  fruit  resemble  seed 
in  that  they  can  be  touched.  Did  Paul  mean  that  the  spiritual 
body  resembled  the  earthly  body  in  being  tangible,  besides 
being  more  beautiful  ?  I  thought  not.  It  seemed  to  me 
possible  that  a  person  in  the  flesh,  dying,  might  become  a 
person  in  the  spirit,  living  for  ever.  A  man's  actions  and 
sufferings,  sown  in  the  transient  flesh,  might  after  death 
become  part  of  the  flower  of  the  imperishable  spirit,  the  real 
man,  the  spiritual  body.  That,  I  thought,  was  what  Paul 
meant.  This  belief  I  found  also  stimulative  to  well-doing, 
according  to  the  saying  of  Paul  himself,  "  I  press  on,  if  by  any 
means  I  may  attain  to  the  resurrection  of  the  dead."  Moreover 
I  remembered  the  "  angel  of  Satan  "  appointed  for  Paul  to  keep 
him  from  pride,  and  how  he  prayed  against  it,  and  received  a 


144  PAULS   GOSPEL  [Chapter  16 

revelation  "  My  grace  is  sufficient  for  thee."  If  prayer  and 
strength  were  brought  about  for  Paul  by  an  "  adversary "  of 
prayer,  might  not  righteousness  be  brought  about  for  the 
human  race  by  the  "  adversary  "  of  righteousness  ?  I  did  not 
myself  at  that  time  believe  in  the  existence  of  such  an 
"  adversary  " ;  but  Paul's  belief  seemed  to  me  not  unreasonable. 

This  turned  me  to  other  passages  in  the  epistles  concerning 
"  Satan,"  or  the  "  angels  of  Satan,"  or  "  principalities  and 
powers."  And  I  contrasted  them  with  what  Epictetus  had 
said,  "  All  things  are  full  of  Gods  and  daemons,"  meaning  good 
daemons.  Once  more,  the  words  of  Epictetus  seemed  the 
nobler.  But  were  they  true  ?  What  did  they  amount  to  in 
fact  ?  Nothing  except  "  wisdom  of  word,"  calling  the  four 
elements  "  friends  "  !  Thus  in  the  end — though  very  slowly 
and  reluctantly — I  was  brought,  first,  to  understand,  and  then 
to  favour,  Paul's  opinion,  namely,  that  so  far  as  we  can  see  the 
truth  in  the  "enigma"  of  the  "mirror"  of  this  world,  there  is 
being  waged  a  battle  of  good  against  evil,  order  against  disorder, 
light  against  darkness,  life  against  death. 

What  Isaiah  said  concerning  the  stars  and  God's  "  leading 
them  forth "  gave  me  some  help,  just  when  I  was  thinking 
about  the  "  conflict  between  light  and  darkness."  For  how,  I 
thought,  does  God  bring  forth  the  stars  except  through  the 
hand  of  His  angel  of  darkness  ?  Yet  we,  men,  mostly  speak  of 
"  darkness  "  as  an  enemy.  And  so,  in  a  sense,  it  often  is.  Yet 
it  is  revealed  in  the  aspect  of  a  servant  of  God  when  besides 
bringing  us  the  blessing  of  rest  and  sleep  it  leads  forth  the 
hosts  of  glories  that  (except  for  darkness)  would  never  have 
been  perceived.  So,  darkness  brings  GLod's  greatness  to  light. 
Paul  certainly  predicted  that  the  same  truth  would  hereafter 
be  recognised  about  death  and  about  the  apparent  disorder  of 
Nature,  and  her  "  groanings  and  travailings  " ;  and  it  seemed  to 
me  that  he  extended  the  same  doctrine  even  to  sin. 

The  result  was  that  I  found  myself  content  to  accept — in  a 
manner,  and  provisionally — what  Paul  said  about  "  Satan  "  and 
about  "  principalities  "  and  at  the  same  time  what  he  said  to 
the  effect  that  all  things  are  from  God  and  through  God  and  to 
God,  and,  "  For  them  that  believe,  all  things  work  together  for 


Chapter  16]  PAUL'S  GOSPEL  145 

good."  In  my  judgment,  it  was  better — yes,  and  more  reason- 
able, in  Paul's  sense  of  the  word  "  reason  " — to  feel  that  I  was 
in  the  Universe  fighting  a  real  fight  against  evil  but  looking 
up  to  God  as  my  Helper,  than  to  feel  that  there  was  no  evil  or 
enemy  for  me  anywhere  except  in  myself,  and  no  friend  either. 
So  in  the  end  I  said,  "  Better  to  have  been  under  the  curse  of 
death  with  Paul,  if  the  curse  may  lead  to  a  supreme  blessing  of 
life  eternal  in  the  presence  of  the  Father,  than  to  pass  out 
of  life  with  Epictetus,  without  any  experience  of  curse  at  all,  as 
so  much  earth,  air,  fire  and  water,  into  the  nominal  friendship 
of  Gods  and  daemons  ! " 

In  allowing  myself  thus  to  be  led  away  by  my  new  Jewish 
teacher  I  was  not  influenced  by  his  letters  alone,  but  by  legends 
and  traditions — to  some  of  which  he  referred — in  the  Hebrew 
histories,  visions,  and  prophecies.  Some  of  these  taught, 
predicted,  prefigured,  or  suggested  that,  while  man  and  the 
brute  forces  of  man  and  nature  blindly  imagine  that  they  are 
moving  the  wheel  of  the  universe,  God  alone  is  really  moving  it, 
and  is  using  them  to  move  it,  towards  His  own  decreed  and 
foreordained  purpose. 

To  the  most  beautiful  of  all  such  visions  I  was  drawn  by 
these  words  of  Paul,  "  Know  ye  not  what  the  scripture  saith  of 
Elijah  ? "  Here  a  marginal  note  in  my  MS.  referred  me  to  the 
whole  story,  how  Elijah,  having  slain  with  the  sword  the 
adversaries  of  God,  was  himself  forced  to  flee  from  the  sword  of 
King  Ahab,  to  Mount  Horeb  or  Sinai,  where  the  Law  had  once 
been  given  to  Israel  amid  lightnings  and  thunders.  And  here 
the  prophet  was  taught  that  God  is  not  in  the  principalities  of 
Nature,  not  in  the  tempest  or  fire  or  earthquake,  but  in  "  the 
still  small  voice."  This  agreed  with  a  passage  in  Isaiah 
concerning  the  Deliverer,  "  He  shall  not  cry  aloud."  In  com- 
parison with  these  and  other  similar  poems  and  prophecies,  the 
best  things  that  the  Greeks  have  written  began  to  appear  to 
me  like  mere  "  wisdom  of  word." 

As  regards  the  time  when  Paul's  "  good  news  "  or  "  gospel " 
of  "  the  righteous  judgment  "   of  God   was  to  be  fulfilled,  I 
gathered  that  the  judgments  of  God  had  been  revealed  to  the 
a.  10 


146  PA  UL'S   GOSPEL  [Chapter  16 

apostle  as  having  been  working  from  the  beginning  of  the 
world — seen,  as  it  were,  through  openings  in  a  veil — in  the 
deluge,  in  the  destruction  of  Sodom  and  Gomorrah,  in  the 
punishment  of  the  Egyptians  for  persecuting  Israel,  in  the 
punishments  of  Israel  during  and  after  the  Exodus,  and 
especially  in  their  captivity  and  the  destruction  of  their  temple. 
But  he  seemed  to  believe  that  he  had  received  also  some 
special  revelation  about  a  judgment  to  fall  upon  the  Jews,  or 
upon  all  mankind,  as  soon  as  the  gospel  had  been  proclaimed 
±o  the  world,  but  not  before. 

His  language,  however,  varied.  To  the  Philippians  he 
spoke  as  though  he  were  in  doubt  whether  to  desire  to  depart 
and  to  be  with  Christ,  or  to  "  remain  in  the  flesh  "  for  the  sake 
of  his  converts.  This  shewed  that  he  contemplated  the  possi- 
bility of  his  dying  before  the  Lord's  coming.  And  this  was  made 
still  clearer  in  some  of  his  sayings  to  Timothy,  such  as  "  I  have 
fought  the  good  fight,"  if  taken  with  their  contexts.  But  to 
the  Thessalonians  he  wrote  somewhat  differently.  It  appeared 
that  certain  of  them  were  grievously  disappointed  because  some 
of  their  brethren  had  died  before  the  Lord's  coming.  Paul 
wrote  to  console  them,  saying  that  they,  too — that  is  the  dead 
brethren — would  be  raised  up.  "  We  that  are  alive,"  he  said, 
'"  shall  in  no  wise  precede  them  that  are  fallen  asleep " — as 
though  he  anticipated  that,  on  the  day  of  the  Coming,  the 
greater  number  of  the  brethren,  and  he  among  them,  would  be 
still  "  alive." 

From  several  of  these  passages,  and  from  similar  words  in 
the  prophets,  I  gathered  that,  had  he  lived  long  enough  to 
witness  it,  Paul  would  have  considered  the  destruction  of 
Jerusalem  by  Titus  to  have  been  a  "  day  of  the  Lord  "  or  "  day 
of  judgment."  But  he  was  assured  that  the  greatest  day  of  all 
would  not  arrive  till  the  sins  of  mankind  had  come  to  a  head. 
Also  it  appeared  to  me  that  Paul  did  not  profess  to  know  when 
the  last  "judgment"  would  come  to  pass,  and  that  he,  like 
other  Christians,  at  first  expected  it  to  come  soon,  and  after- 
wards changed  his  mind. 

Summing  up  the  results  of  my  study,'  I  found  that  Paul's 


Chapter  16]  PAUL'S   GOSPEL  147 

gospel  appeared  to  be  good  news  in  a  double  aspect,  first 
outside  us,  then  inside  us.  First,  it  said  that  man  was  made 
by  a  perfectly  good  God  to  be,  in  the  end,  perfectly  good,  but 
was  allowed  by  the  Maker  to  fall  into  imperfection,  through 
Satan,  as  a  step  towards  perfection.  This  could  be  seen  in  the 
history  of  God's  judgments  from  the  beginning,  but  most  of  all 
in  the  fact  that  the  Son  of  God,  having  been  sent  into  the  world 
as  a  son  of  David,  for  the  salvation  of  all  the  nations  of  the 
earth,  and  having  been  killed  by  the  Jews,  had  been  raised 
from  the  dead  to  save  and  judge  mankind  in  righteousness. 
Secondly,  it  said  that  there  was  in  every  human  being  a  faculty 
of  faith  in  the  goodness  and  love  and  righteous  judgments  of 
God,  and  that  this  faith,  when  fixed  on  the  Saviour,  enabled 
men  to  receive  His  spirit  of  righteousness  and  His  love,  to 
await  His  judgments,  and  to  lead  a  life  of  righteousness  on 
earth  followed  by  an  immortality  of  blessedness  in  heaven. 

Comparing  this  with  the  gospel  of  Epictetus  I  could  not 
but  feel  that  Paul's  was  far  more  helpful,  but  also  more  difficult 
to  believe.  Yet  it  was  not  incredible.  Epictetus  himself 
recognised  in  Socrates  some  traces  of  a  power  to  frame  men  to 
his  own  will.  If  Socrates  the  Athenian,  and  Diogenes  the 
Sinopian,  and  others,  whom  God  called  "  His  own  sons,"  had  this 
power  in  some  degree,  in  proportion  to  their  possession  of  a 
share  of  the  divine  Logos,  why  might  not  Jesus  the  Jew  be 
regarded  as  possessing  this  power  to  the  fullest  extent,  having 
the  fulness  of  the  Logos  so  that  he  could  succeed  where  Socrates 
and  Diogenes  and  Epictetus  failed  ? 

I  write  here  "  Jesus  the  Jew,"  to  shew  that,  at  that  time, 
I  did  not  know  that  Jesus  was  called  the  Nazarene,  nor  had  I 
any  notion  that  he  was  born  otherwise  than  naturally  "  of  the 
seed  of  David."  But  I  clearly  perceived  that  Paul  placed 
Jesus  far  above  all  patriarchs  and  prophets.  Also  I  think  (but 
am  not  quite  sure)  that  I  already  understood  Paul  to  believe 
that  the  Son  of  God  was  Son  from  the  beginning  of  the  world, 
before  taking  flesh  as  "  the  seed  of  David  " — but  not  in  any 
miraculous  way.  About  this  point  I  did  not  employ  my 
thoughts.     The  question  for  me  was,  Had  this  Jesus  the  power 

10—2 


148  PAULS   GOSPEL  [Chapter  16 

attributed  to  him  by  Paul's  gospel — to  conform  men  to  himself? 
I  was  obliged  to  answer,  "  Yes,  with  some  men."  For  the 
epistles  had  long  ago  compelled  me  to  give  up  the  notion  that 
the  Christians  were  a  vicious,  immoral,  and  rebellious  sect.  It 
was  clear  to  me  that  they  were  above  the  average  in  morality. 
And  as  for  Paul  himself,  I  felt  sure  that  Jesus  had  exerted  this 
power  over  him,  and,  through  him,  over  vast  multitudes  in 
various   nations. 

Now,  too,  having  a  clearer  conception  of  Paul's  gospel,  I 
began  to  understand  better  something  that  had  perplexed  me  a 
good  deal  on  the  first  reading — I  mean  Paul's  description  to 
the  Galatians  of  the  course  he  took  immediately  after  his 
conversion.  I  had  expected  that  he  would  have  said  something  to 
this  effect,  "  You  Galatians  are  revolting  from  my  gospel.  But 
it  is  the  true  gospel.  I  have  told  you  the  truth  about  all 
Christ's  words  and  deeds.  It  is  true  that  I  did  not  know  Him 
— or  hear  Him,  or  even  see  Him — in  the  flesh.  But  after  I 
was  converted,  I  took  great  pains  to  ascertain  as  soon  as 
possible,  from  those  who  had  known  Him  in  the  flesh,  all  that 
He  did  and  said.  I  wrote  down  these  traditions  at  once,  and 
read  them  again  and  again  till  I  knew  them  by  heart.  These 
are  the  traditions  I  gave  you."  This  is  what  I  had  expected 
Paul  to  say.  But  what  I  found  him  actually  saying  to  the 
Galatians  was  this  :  "  /  make  known  unto  you  brethren,  as  to  the 
gospel  preached  by  me,  that  it  is  not  on  any  human  footing,  nor 
did  I  receive  it  from  any  human  being,  nor  was  I  taught  it  as 
teaching,  but  [it  came  to  me]  through  revelation  of  Jesus  Christ." 

What  he  meant  by  "  gospel "  was — I  now  perceived — not 
Christ's  teaching  before  the  resurrection,  but  His  teaching  after 
the  resurrection.  And  this  included  an  unfolding  of  the  will  of 
God  as  revealed  in  the  scriptures  and  in  all  the  history  of 
Israel.  This  appeared  in  what  followed.  The  Galatians  all 
knew  (he  said)  how  bitterly  he  had  persecuted  the  Christians. 
For  he  had  been  a  most  bigoted  and  bitter  zealot  of  strict 
Judaism.  But,  said  he,  "  When  it  pleased  God  to  reveal  His 
Son  in  me  that  I  might  preach  His  good  tidings  among  the 
nations,  straightway  I  conferred  not  with  flesh  and  blood,  nor 


Chapter  16]  PAUL'S  GOSPEL  149 

went  I  up  to  Jerusalem  to  those  that  were  apostles  before  me,  hut 
I  went  away  to  Arabia."  Afterwards  (but  not  in  this  context) 
he  spoke  of  "  Mount  Sinai  in  Arabia."  Sinai  being  the  place 
where  Moses  received  the  revelation  of  the  old  Law,  and  where 
Elijah,  too,  received  the  revelation  of  the  "  still  small  voice," 
I  had  assumed  (at  the  time  of  reading  the  epistle)  that  Paul 
went  to  Mount  Sinai  in  Arabia  that  he  also  might  receive  his 
revelation  of  the  new  Law  of  Christ.  Perhaps,  however,  it  merely 
meant  that  he  wished  to  be  alone.  If  so,  I  was  wrong.  But  it 
does  not  seem  to  me,  even  now,  wrong  to  infer  that,  all  through 
that  sojourn  in  Arabia,  Paul  was  in  communion  with  that  same 
Jesus  Christ,  who  had  recently  appeared  to  him,  and  who  had 
converted  him  from  an  enemy  into  a  friend. 

The  same  Galatian  letter  described  Paul  as  not  going  up  to 
Jerusalem  till  "  three  years "  had  elapsed.  Even  then  he 
remained  only  "  fifteen  days "  in  Jerusalem,  and  saw  (as  I 
gathered)  only  one  or  two  of  the  apostles,  and  did  not  go  up 
again  till  "  after  the  space  of  fourteen  years."  All  these  details 
about  time  he  appeared  to  add,  not  out  of  any  jealousy  of  the 
older  apostles,  but  to  shew  that  he  did  not  attach  importance  to 
the  things  that  Christ  had  said  "  in  the  flesh,"  before  death,  in 
comparison  with  the  things  that  He  had  said  after  death, 
"  being  raised  up  according  to  the  spirit  of  holiness."  And 
who  could  be  surprised  at  this  ?  The  things  that  Christ  said 
after  death,  when  He  had  been  "  defined  as  Son  of  God  from 
the  resurrection  of  the  dead  " — how  should  not  these  be  more 
deeply  impressed  upon  the  mind  of  the  hearers,  and  also  be 
most  deep  and  spiritual  in  themselves,  being  reserved  till  the 
disciples  were  spiritually  prepared  to  receive  them  ? 

So  the  gospel  of  Paul  resolved  itself  into  this,  that  God, 
having  decreed  from  the  beginning  that  men  should  love  Him 
as  Father  and  one  another  as  brethren,  had  sent  His  Son  into 
the  world  to  enable  them  to  do  this,  by  dying  for  them,  and  by 
imparting  to  them  His  Spirit.  The  Son  dictated  no  code  of 
laws  to  obey.  All  that  He  asked  was  faith  in  Himself  as  the 
Son  of  God,  dying  for  men,  and  victorious  over  sin  and  death. 
This  seemed  simple,  but  its  simplicity  did  not  deceive  me  into 


150  PAUL'S   GOSPEL  [Chapter  16 

imagining  that  I  believed  it.  "  That  is  all  that  is  needed," 
said  I,  as  I  closed  the  volume  of  the  epistles ;  "  but  it  is  more 
than  I  possess,  or  can  possess.  Paul's  gospel  is  not  a  message 
but  a  person.  It  is,  as  he  says  somewhere,  '  Christ,  dwelling  in 
the  heart  through  faith.'  I  feel  no  such  indwelling.  In  the 
gospel  of  Epictetus  I  am  neither  able  nor  willing  to  believe. 
I  might  perhaps  be  willing,  but  I  am  not  able,  to  believe  in  the 
gospel  of  Paul." 


CHAPTER   XVII 

EPICTETUS   CONFESSES   FAILURE 

From  such  thoughts  about  my  own  desires  and  inabilities 
it  was  a  relief  to  turn  to  some  definite  matter  of  fact.  I  had 
been  spending  several  hours  in  attempting  to  find  out  what 
Paul's  gospel  was.  But  what  was  Christ's  gospel,  so  far  as  it 
could  be  gathered  from  the  epistles  ?  This  I  had  made  no 
attempt  to  discover.  "  Epictetus,"  I  reflected,  "  though  he  does 
not  profess  to  teach  a  gospel  of  Socrates  or  Diogenes,  yet 
frequently  quotes  from  them.  Might  I  not  expect  to  find  at 
least  a  few  words  of  Christ — whether  uttered  before  or  after  the 
resurrection — quoted  here  and  there  in  some  at  least  of  these 
numerous  letters  ? "  Hitherto  I  had  met  with  none.  But  now, 
on  rapidly  unrolling  the  volume  and  searching  onwards  from 
the  end  of  the  epistle  to  the  Romans,  I  came  to  a  quotation 
that  had  escaped  me.  It  was  in  the  first  of  the  Corinthian 
letters,  following  immediately  after  some  details  (not  of  great 
interest)  about  women's  head-covering.  I  had  just  time  to 
note  that  the  passage  contained  the  words  "  the  Lord  Jesus 
said,"  and  "  on  the  night  on  which  he  was  delivered  over,"  when 
my  servant  announced  that  Glaucus  wished  to  see  me,  and  I 
put  the  book  aside. 

Ostensibly  Glaucus  had  come  to  compare  some  of  his  lecture 
notes  with  mine.  But  I  soon  found  that  his  real  object  was  to 
forget  his  troubles  in  the  society  of  a  friend.  To  forget  them, 
not  to  reveal  them.  He  avoided  anything  that  might  lead 
to  personal  questions,  and  I  respected  his  reticence.  When, 
however,  he  rose  to  go,  he  made  some  remark  on  the  difficulty 
of  retaining  the  imperturbability  on  which  Epictetus  was  always 


152      EPICTETUS  CONFESSES  FAILURE    [Chapter  17 

insisting,  "  under  the  sword  of  Damocles."  Knowing  vaguely 
that  his  alarm  was  not  for  himself  but  for  others,  I  suggested 
that  he  might  return  at  once  to  Corinth.  "  I  would  do  so,"  he 
said,  "  but  my  father  expressly  bids  me  remain  at  Nicopolis." 
He  said  this  uneasily,  and  with  a  wistful  look,  as  though  he 
suspected   that  something  was  amiss  and   longed  for   advice. 

"  If  action  of  any  kind  is  possible,"  said  I,  "  take  it.    If  not ." 

Then  I  stopped.'    "  Well,"  said  he,  "  '  if  not ' ."     He  waited 

for  me  to  complete  my  sentence.  I  would  gladly  have  left  it 
uncompleted.  For  the  truth  was  that  I  had  begun  the  sentence 
in  one  mood  and  was  being  called  on  to  complete  it  in  another. 
When  I  said,  "  If  not,"  I  had  a  flash  of  faith  coming  with  a 
sudden  memory  of  Isaiah's  message  about  God  as  the  Shepherd 
of  the  stars  and  his  exhortation  to  "wait  patiently  on  the  Lord." 

But  it  had  vanished  and  left  me  in  the  dark.     " '  If  not ' ," 

repeated  Glaucus  for  the  second  time.  I  ought  to  have  replied, 
"  Then  at  least  keep  yourself  ready  for  action."  What  I  did  say, 
or  stammer  out,  was,  something  about  "  waiting  and  trusting." 

Glaucus  looked  hard  at  me.  "  '  Wait  and  trust ! '  That  is 
to  say,  '  Wait  and  believe.'  That  is  not  like  you,  Silanus.  You 
don't  mean  it,  I  see.  It  is  not  like  you  to  say  what  you  don't 
mean.  I  would  sooner  have  heard  you  repeat  your  old  friend 
Scaurus's  advice,  which  was  more  like  '  Wake  and  disbelieve.' 
'  Wait,'  s&y  you,  '  and  trust.'  Trust  whom  ?  Wait  for  what  ? 
Wait  for  the  river  of  time  to  run  dry  ?  I  have  kept  you  up  too 
late.  Sleep  well,  and  may  sleep  bring  you  better  counsel  for 
me  ! "  So  saying,  he  departed,  but  turned  at  the  door  to  fling 
a  final  jibe  at  me,  "Silanus,  you  are  a  Roman  and  I  am  only  a 
Greek.  But  you  must  not  think  we  Greeks  are  quite  ignorant 
of  your  Horace.  And  what  says  he  about  waiting  ?  Rusticus 
expectat :  '  Hodge  sits  by  the  river.'  Farewell,  and  sleep 
well." 

This  was  bitter  medicine ;  but  I  had  deserved  it,  and  it  did 
me  good.  My  cheeks  burned  with  shame  as  I  recalled  his  words 
"  It  is  not  like  you  to  say  what  you  don't  mean."  Had  I  come 
to  this  ?  Was  this  the  result  of  my  study  of  these  Jewish 
writings  ?  And  yet,  did  I  not  "  mean  "  it  ?  Was  not  the  fact 
rather  this,  that  in  my  own  mind  I  did  to  some  extent  mean 


Chapter  17]    EPICTETUS  CONFESSES  FAILURE      153 

and  believe  it  ?  But  it  was  a  dormant  belief.  And  I  had  no 
power  to  communicate  it  to  others.  Then  I  perceived  the 
reason.  I  had  said  "  Wait  and  trust."  But  Isaiah  said  "  Wait 
thou  upon  the  Lord."  In  preaching  my  gospel  to  Glaucus  I  had 
left  out  "  the  Lord  " — the  life  and  soul  of  the  precept !  If  "  the 
Lord "  had  been  in  me,  as  He  was  in  Isaiah  and  in  Paul,  I 
could  not  have  left  Him  out.  But  I  left  Him  out  because  He 
was  not  in  me.  The  truth  was  that  I  had  no  true  gospel  to 
preach. 

In  great  dejection  I  was  on  the  point  of  retiring  to  rest 
when  it  occurred  to  me  that  I  had  left  unfinished,  and  indeed 
hardly  begun,  the  study  of  Christ's  words  in  the  Corinthian 
epistle.  Too  weary  to  resume  it  now,  I  extinguished  the  light 
and  flung  myself  down  to  forget  in  sleep  all  thought  of  study. 
But  I  could  not  forget.  All  through  the  dreams  of  a  restless 
and  troubled  night  ran  threads  of  tangled  imaginations  about 
what  those  words  would  prove  to  be,  intertwined  with  other 
imaginations  about  the  words  of  Christ  to  Paul  at  his  con- 
version. Along  with  these  came  shadows  or  shapes,  with 
voices  or  voice-like  sounds : — Epictetus  gazing  on  the  burning 
Christians  in  Rome,  Paul  listening  to  the  voice  of  Christ  near 
Damascus,  Elijah  on  Horeb  amid  the  roar  of  the  tempest. 
Last  of  all,  I  myself,  Silanus,  stood  at  the  door  of  a  chamber  in 
Jerusalem  where  Christ  (I  knew)  was  present  with  His  disciples, 
and  from  this  chamber  there  began  to  steal  forth  a  still  small 
voice,  breathing  and  spreading  everywhere  an  unspeakable 
peace — when  a  whirlwind  scattered  everything  and  hurried 
me  away  to  the  Neronian  gardens  in  Rome. 

There,  someone,  masked,  took  me  by  the  hand  and  forced 
me  to  look  at  the  Christian  martyrs  whom  he  was  causing  to 
be  tortured.  I  thought  it  was  Nero.  But  the  mask  fell  off 
and  it  was  Paul.  The  martyrs  looked  down  on  us  and  blessed 
us.  Paul  trembled  but  held  me  fast.  I  felt  that  I  had  become 
one  with  him,  a  persecutor  and  a  murderer.  They  all  looked 
up  to  heaven  as  though  they  saw  something  there.  At  that, 
Paul  vanished,  with  a  loud  cry,  leaving  me  alone.  Fear  fell 
upon  me  lest,  if  I  looked  up,  I  should  see  that  which  the 
martyrs  saw.     So  I  kept  my  eyes  fixed  on  the  ground.     But 


154      EPICTETUS  CONFESSES  FAILURE    [Chapter  17 

the  blessings  of  those  whom  I  had  persecuted  seemed  to  enter 
into  me  taking  me  captive  and  forcing  me  to  do  as  they  did. 
Then  I  too  looked  up.  And  I  saw — that  which  they  saw,  Jesus 
the  crucified.  I  tried  to  cry  out  "I  see  nothing,  I  see  nothing," 
but  my  voice  would  not  speak.  I  struggled  to  regain  control 
over  my  tongue,  and  in  the  struggle  I  awoke. 

I  had  dreamed  long  past  my  usual  hour  for  rising ;  and  the 
lecture  was  already  beginning  when  I  took  my  seat  next 
Glaucus.  It  was  a  relief  to  me  to  find  him  there ;  for  his  late 
outbreak  of  bitterness  had  made  me  fear  that  he  might  prove  a 
deserter.  Epictetus  was  describing  man  as  being  the  work  of 
a  divine  Artist,  a  wonderful  sculpture,  he  said,  superior  to  the 
Athene  of  Phidias.  Appealing  to  us  individually,  "  God,"  he 
said,  "  has  not  only  created  you,  but  has  also  trusted  you  to 
yourself  alone,  and  committed  the  guardianship  of  you  to 
yourself,  saying  '  I  had  no  one  more  trustworthy  than  yourself 
to  take  charge  of  yourself.  Preserve  this  person  for  me,  such 
as  he  is  by  nature,  modest,  faithful,  magnanimous ' " — and  he 
added  many  other  eulogistic  epithets.  Here  Glaucus  passed 
me  his  notes  with  a  bitter  smile,  pointing  to  the  words  "  pre- 
serve me  this  person  such  as  he  is  by  nature."  He  had  marked 
them  with  a  query.  Nor  could  I  help  querying  them  in  my 
mind.  I  felt  that  at  all  events  they  were  liable  to  be  inter- 
preted in  a  ridiculous  way.  My  thought  was,  "  Paul  bids  us 
trust  in  God  or  in  the  Son  of  God.  Epictetus  never  does  this. 
But  here  he  says  that  God  trusts  us  to  ourselves.  Does  He 
then  trust  babies  to  preserve  themselves  ?  And  if  not,  when 
does  He  begin  to  trust  us — whether  as  boys  or  as  youths  or  as 
men — to  preserve  ourselves  as  we  are  by  nature  ? "  And  here 
I  may  say  that,  as  regards  belief,  or  trust,  or  faith,  Epictetus 
differed  altogether  from  Paul.  The  former  inveighed  against 
babblers,  who  "trust"  their  secrets  to  strangers,  and  against  the 
Academic  philosopher  for  saying  "Believe  me  it  is  impossible  to 
find  anything  to  be  believed  in."  But  he  never  insisted  (as 
Paul  does)  on  the  marvellous  power  possessed  by  a  well -based 
belief  or  faith  to  influence  men's  lives  for  good.  For  the  most 
part  Epictetus  used  the  word  "  belief,"  like  the  words  "  pity  " 
and  "  prayer,"  in  a  bad  sense. 


Chapter  17]    EPICTETUS   CONFESSES  FAILURE      155 

But  to  return  to  the  lecture.  In  order  to  illustrate  his 
favourite  topic  of  the  necessity  of  seeking  happiness  in  oneself, 
Epictetus,  as  it  were,  called  up  Medea  on  the  stage,  expostu- 
lating with  her  for  her  want  of  self-control :  "  Do  not  desire 
your  husband,  then  none  of  your  desires  will  fail  to  be  realised." 
She  complained  that  she  was  to  be  banished  from  Corinth. 
"Well,"  said  he,  "Do  not  desire  to  remain  in  Corinth."  He 
concluded  by  advising  her  to  desire  that  which  God  desires. 
"  And  then,"  said  he,  "  who  will  hinder  or  constrain  you  any 
more  than  Zeus  is  constrained  ? "  To  me,  even  as  a  dramatic 
illustration,  such  advice  seemed  grotesque.  Nor  was  it  a  good 
preparation  for  what  followed,  in  which  he  bade  us  give  up 
desires  and  passions  relating,  not  only  to  honour  and  office,  but 
also  to  country,  friends,  children :  "  Give  them  all  up  freely  to 
Zeus  and  to  the  other  Gods.  Make  a  complete  surrender  to 
the  Gods.  Let  the  Gods  be  your  pilots.  Let  your  desires  be 
with  them.  Then  how  can  your  voyage  be  unprosperous  ? 
But  if  you  envy,  if  you  pity,  if  you  are  jealous,  if  you  are 
timid,  how  do  you  dare  to  call  yourself  a  philosopher  ? " 

I  could  perceive  that  Glaucus  was  ill  pleased  at  this,  and 
especially  at  the  connexion  of  "  pity  "  with  "  envy  " — though  it 
was  not  the  first  time,  nor  the  last,  that  I  heard  Epictetus 
speak  of  "  pity "  in  this  contemptuous  way.  Perhaps  others 
were  in  the  same  mood  as  Glaucus,  and  perhaps  our  Teacher 
felt  it.  If  he  did,  he  at  all  events  made  no  effort  to  smooth 
away  what  he  had  said.  Far  from  it,  he  seemed  to  harden 
himself  in  order  to  reproach  us  for  our  slackness  and  for  being 
philosophers  only  in  name.  "  Observe  and  test  yourselves,"  he 
exclaimed,  "  and  find  out  what  your  philosophy  really  is.  You 
are  Epicureans — barring  perhaps  a  few  weak-kneed  Peripatetics. 
Stoic  reasonings,  of  course,  you  have  in  plenty.  But  shew  me  a 
Stoic  man !  Shew  me  only  one  !  By  the  Gods,  I  long,  I  long 
to  see  one  Stoic  man.  But  perhaps  you  have  one — only  not  as 
yet  quite  completed  ?  Shew  him,  then,  uncompleted !  Shew 
him  to  me  a  little  way  towards  completion  !  I  am  an  old  man 
now.  Do  me  this  one  last  kindness !  Do  not  grudge  me 
this  boon — a  sight  that  up  to  this  day  my  eyes  have  never 
enjoyed  ! " 


156      EPICTETUS   CONFESSES  FAILURE    [Chapter  17 

We  were  all  very  quiet  at  this  outburst,  so  unusual  in  our 
Teacher.  Two  or  three  youths  near  my  seat  seemed  stimulated 
rather  than  depressed.  But  to  me  it  seemed  a  sad  confession  of 
failure,  amounting,  in  effect,  to  this,  "  I  have  taught  from  the 
days  of  Vespasian  to  the  second  year  of  Hadrian.  My  business 
has  been  to  produce  Stoics.  Up  to  this  day,  a  real  Stoic  is  " — 
these  were  his  words — "a  sight  that  up  to  this  day  my  eyes  have 
never  enjoyed."  What  a  contrast,  thought  I,  between  my 
Teacher  (for  "  mine "  I  still  called  him)  and  that  other,  the 
Jew,  Paul,  (whom  I  refused  to  call  "  mine  ")  who  numbered  his 
pupils  by  cities,  and  whose  campaigns  from  Jerusalem  to  Rome, 
through  Asia  and  Greece,  had  been  a  succession  of  victories, 
leading  trains  of  prisoners  captive  under  the  banner  of  the 
Crucified  ! 

What  followed  amazed  me,  forcing  me  to  the  conclusion 
that  Epictetus  was  profoundly  ignorant  of  human  nature,  at  all 
events  of  our  nature,  and  perhaps  of  his  own.  For  instead  of 
saying,  "We  have  been  on  the  wrong  road,"  or  "You  have  not 
the  power  to  walk,  and  I  have  not  the  power  to  make  you 
walk,"  he  found  fault  with  himself  and  us,  without  attempting 
to  shew  what  the  fault  was.  At  first  it  seemed  our  lack  of 
noble  ambition.  "  Not  one  of  you,"  he  exclaimed,  "  desires, 
from  being  man,  to  pass  into  becoming  God.  Not  one  of  you  is 
planning  how  he  may  pass  through  the  dungeon  of  this  paltry 
body  to  fellowship  with  Zeus ! "  But  then  he  shifted  his 
ground,  saying,  in  effect,  "  I  am  your  teacher.  You  are  my 
pupils.  My  aim  is  so  to  perfect  your  characters  that  each  of 
you  may  live  unrestrained,  uncoerced,  unhindered,  unshackled, 
free,  prosperous,  blessed,  looking  to  God  alone  in  every  matter 
great  or  small.  You,  on  your  side,  come  here  to  learn  and  to 
practise  these  things.  Why,  then,  do  you  fail  to  do  the  work 
in  hand,  if  you  on  your  side  have  the  right  aim,  object,  and 
purpose,  and  /  on  my  side — in  addition  to  right  aim,  object,  and 
purpose — have  the  right  preparation  ?     What  is  deficient  ?  " 

Here  was  our  Master  assuming  as  absolutely  certain  that  he 
had  "  the  right  preparation  "  !  But  that  was  just  the  point  on 
which  I  had  long  felt  doubtful,  and  was  now  beginning  to  feel 
absolutely  certain  in  a  negative  sense.     However,  he  continued 


Chapter  17]    EPICTETUS   CONFESSES  FAILURE     157 

with  the  same  perfect  confidence  in  himself  and  in  the  practi- 
cability of  his  theory,  "  I  am  the  carpenter,  you  the  material. 
If  the  work  is  practicable,  and  yet  is  not  completed,  the  fault 
must  rest  with  you  or  with  me.  Then  he  concluded  with  the 
following  personal  appeal ;  these  were  his  exact  words,  "  Is  not 
this  matter" — he  meant  the  art  of  living  as  a  son  of  Zeus,  free, 
and  in  perfect  peace — "  capable  of  being  taught  ?  It  is.  Is  it 
not  in  our  own  hands  ?  Nay,  it  is  the  only  thing  that  is  in 
our  own  hands.  Wealth  is  not  in  our  own  hands,  health  is  not, 
reputation  is  not.  Nothing  is — except  the  right  use  of  our 
imaginations.  This  is  the  only  thing  that  is  by  nature  ours, 
unpreventable,  unhinderable.  Why  do  you  not  perform  it 
then  ?  Tell  me  the  reason.  Your  non-performance  is  either 
my  fault,  or  your  fault,  or  the  natural  and  inherent  fault  of  our 
business.  Now  our  business,  in  itself,  is  practicable,  and  is 
indeed  the  only  business  that  is  always  practicable.  It  remains, 
then,  that  the  fault  rests  either  with  me,  or  with  you,  or,  which 
is  nearer  the  truth,  with  both  of  us.  What  is  to  be  done,  then  ? 
Are  you  willing  that  we  should  begin  together,  at  last  though 
late,  to  bring  this  purpose  into  effect  ?  Let  bygones  be  bygones. 
Only  let  us  begin.     Believe  me,  and  you  will  see." 

With  that,  he  dismissed  us.  I  was  curious  to  know  what 
Glaucus  thought  of  it,  so  I  waited  for  him  to  speak.  To  my 
surprise,  he  said,  "It  is  not  often  that  the  Master  speaks  in  this 
way  or  suggests  that  he  himself  may  be  in  fault.  Who  knows  ? 
He  may  have  something  new  in  store.  I  felt  so  angry  with 
him  at  the  beginning  of  the  lecture  that  I  was  within  an  ace  of 
going  straight  out.  But  now,  as  he  says,  '  Let  bygones  be 
bygones.'  I  shall  go  on  with  him  a  little  longer.  What  say 
you  ?  For  the  most  part  he  is  too  cold  for  me,  always  talking 
about  the  Logos  within  us,  and  the  God  within  us,  as  though  I, 
Glaucus  the  son  of  Adeimantus,  who  need  the  help  of  all  the 
Gods  that  are,  were  myself  all  the  God  that  I  needed !  He 
chills  me  with  his  Logos.  But  when  he  appealed  to  us  in  that 
personal  way  '  Believe  me,'  he  gave  me  quite  a  new  sensation. 
Did  it  not  stir  you  ?  I  don't  think  I  ever  heard  him  say  that 
before." 

"  It  did  stir  me,"  said  I,  "  and  I  am  sure  I  never  heard  him 


158      EPICTETUS   CONFESSES  FAILURE    [Chapter  17 

say  it  before.  Plato  represents  Socrates  as  always  persuading 
his  hearers  to  '  follow  the  Logos,'  not  to  follow  Socrates ;  and 
Epictetus,  for  the  most  part,  uses  similar  language.  For  the 
rest,  I  am  not  sure  that  our  Master  will  do  me  all  the  good 
I  had  hoped.  But  I  shall  do  as  you  do.  We  shall  still  sit, 
I  hope,  together."     So  we  parted. 

I  had  not  said  more  than  the  truth.  Epictetus  had  stirred 
me,  but  not  in  the  way  in  which  he  had  stirred  Glaucus.  "  Let 
bygones  be  bygones  " — the  "  bygones  "  of  nearly  forty  years  ! 
Why  were  they  to  be  "  bygones "  ?  Had  they  no  lesson  to 
teach  ?  Did  they  not  suggest  that  for  forty  years  Epictetus 
had  been  on  the  road  to  failure  and  that  he  had  consequently 
failed  ?  Could  I  believe  that  during  all  that  time  Epictetus 
himself  had  been  deficient  in  "  purpose "  ?  Not  for  a  day ! 
Not  for  a  moment ! 

As  I  sat  down  to  revise  the  notes  of  my  lecture,  it  occurred 
to  me  that  Glaucus — who  was  of  a  much  less  settled  tempera- 
ment than  Arrian — must  have  heard  better  news  from  home, 
and  that  this  helped  him  to  take  a  brighter  view  of  things  in 
general  and  of  philosophy  in  particular.  "If  my  old  friend  were 
here,"  said  I,  "  would  he  not  regard  Glaucus's  change  of  mood 
as  one  more  instance  of  Epictetus's  power  to  '  make  his  hearers 
feel  precisely  what  he  desired  them  to  feel '  ?  But  what  if  I 
went  on  to  say  that  this  '  power '  was  mere  rhetoric,  not  indeed 
'  wisdom  of  word '  in  the  sense  of  hair-splitting  logic,  but 
'  wisdom  of  speech,'  the  knowledge  of  the  language  and  imagery 
best  fitted  to  stir  the  emotions  ?  What  would  Arrian  say  to 
that  ? " 

I  mentally  constructed  a  dialogue  between  us.  "There  is 
something  more,  Silanus."  "  But  what  more  ? "  "  That  I  do 
not  know.  Only  I  know  there  is  something  more  behind." 
Then  Scaurus's  explanation  recurred  to  me  of  that  "  something 
more  behind."  For  Scaurus  had  asserted  that  Epictetus  had 
been  touched  by  what  he  called  the  Christian  superstition, 
which,  although  he  had  shaken  it  off,  had  left  in  his  mind  a 
blank,  a  vacant  niche,  which  he  vainly  tried  to  fill  with  the 
image  of  a  Hercules  or  a  Diogenes.  That  brought  back  to  my 
thoughts  Scaurus's  first  mention  of  "  Christus " ;  and   then   it 


Chapter  17]    EPICTETUS   CONFESSES  FAILURE     159 

came  upon  me  as  a  shock  that  I  had  spent  half-an-hour  in  my 
rooms,  musing  over  Epictetus  and  Glaucus  and  Arrian,  and 
there,  on  the  table  before  me,  was  Paul's  first  epistle  to  the 
Corinthians  containing  his  only  quotation  of  the  words  of  the 
Lord,  and  I  had  taken  no  notice  of  it.  So  I  put  my  notes 
aside  and  unrolled  the  epistle. 


CHAPTER  XVIII 

PAUL'S   ONLY   RECORD   OF   WORDS   OF   CHRIST 

The  first  words  of  the  sentence  were,  "  For  /  received  from 
the  Lord" — he  emphasized  "J,"  as  though  it  meant  "I  myself" 
or  "Whatever  others  may  have  received,  /  received  so  and  so" — 
"  that  which  I  also  delivered  over  to  you,  that  the  Lord  Jesus, 

on  the  night  on  which  he  was  to  be  delivered  over "     Here 

I  paused  and  looked  back,  to  see  what  "  for  "  meant  (in  "for  I 
received ")  and  why  Paul  was  introducing  this  saying  of  the 
Lord.  I  found  that  the  apostle  had  been  warning  the 
Corinthians  thus,  "  Ye  meet  together,  not  for  the  better,  but 
for  the  worse."  In  the  first  place,  he  said,  there  were  dissensions 
among  them,  and  in  the  next  place,  "  When  ye  come  together 
it  is  not  possible  to  eat  the  Lord's  Supper,  for  each  one  taketh 
his  own  supper,  and  one  is  hungry  while  another  is  drunken." 
Then  I  understood  that  the  Lord's  Supper  meant  that  same 
Christian  feast  of  which  Arrian  had  spoken.  This  interested 
me  because  in  Rome,  as  a  boy,  I  had  heard  it  said  that  the 
Christians  partook  of  "  a  Thyestean  meal,"  that  is,  they  killed 
children  and  served  up  the  flesh  to  the  parents.  This  I  do  not 
think  I  had  myself  believed,  except  perhaps  in  the  nursery;  but 
it  was  commonly  taken  as  truth  among  the  lower  classes  in 
Rome. 

Now  I  perceived  that  the  meal  was  to  have  been  a  joint 
one — like  that  of  the  Spartan  public  meals  or  syssitia,  where 
all  fed  alike.  But  in  that  luxurious  city  of  Corinth  many  of 
the  Christians  had  introduced  Corinthian  luxury  and  turned 
the  public  meal  into  a  group  of  private  meals,  so  that  some 


Chapter  18]     PAUL  AND    WORDS   OF  CHRIST         161 

had  too  little  and  others  too  much.  Paul  tried  to  bring  them 
back  to  better  things  by  telling  them  what  Christ  said  to  his 
disciples  on  the  night  of  his  last  meal,  "  the  night  on  which 
he  was  to  be  delivered  over."  He  implied  that  their  meal 
ought  to  have  been  like  Christ's  last  meal ;  and  now  the 
question  for  me  was,  what  that,  the  Lord's  Supper,  was  like. 

But  first  I  had  to  ask  myself  the  meaning  of  Christ's  being 
"  delivered  over."  About  this  I  had  no  doubt  that  it  referred 
to  the  prophecy  in  Isaiah  concerning  the  Suffering  Servant, 
who  "  was  delivered  over  on  account  of  our  sins."  These  words 
Paul  had  quoted  in  the  epistle  to  the  Romans,  and  he  elsewhere 
spoke  of  God,  or  the  Father,  as  "  giving,"  or  "  delivering  over," 
the  Son  for  the  salvation  of  mankind.  Now  both  Isaiah  and 
Paul  had  made  it  quite  clear  that  the  Servant,  or  Son,  thus 
"  delivered  over  "  by  the  Father,  goes  voluntarily  to  death,  and 
this  I  assumed  to  be  the  case  here.  But  I  did  not  know  by 
what  agency  God  was  said  to  have  "  delivered  him  over."  I 
thought  it  might  be  by  a  warning  or  daemonic  voice,  as  in  the 
case  of  Socrates,  bidding  him  surrender  himself  to  the  laws  of 
his  country.  Or  Christ's  own  people,  the  citizens  of  Jerusalem, 
might  have  delivered  him  up  to  Pilate,  to  procure  their  own 
exemption  from  punishment  on  account  of  some  rebellion  or 
sedition.  Or  he  might  be  said  to  have  been  delivered  over  by 
a  decree  of  Fate,  to  which  he  voluntarily  submitted. 

So  much  was  I  in  the  dark  that  for  a  moment  I  thought  of 

Christ  as  fighting  at  the  head  of  an  army  of  his  countrymen 

and  giving  himself  up  for  their  sakes,  like  Protesilaus  or  the 

Decii ;  and  I  tried  to  picture  Christ  doing  this,  or  something 

like  this.     But  I  failed.     Still  I  was  being  guided  rightly  so 

far  as  this,  that  I  began  faintly  to  recognise  that  this  "delivering 

over  "  might  be  not  a  mere  propitiation  of  Nemesis,  occurring 

now  and  then  in  battles,  but  part  of  the  laws  of  the  Cosmopolis, 

occurring  often  when  a  deliverance  is  to  be  wrought  for  any 

community  of  men.     Of  such   a  propitiation   Protesilaus  was 

the  symbol,  concerning  whom  Homer  says, 

"  First  of  the  Achaeans  leaped  he  on  Troy's  shore 
Long  before  all  the  rest." 

He  leaped  first,  in  order  to  fall  first.     But  his  country  rose  by 

a.  11 


162  PAUL'S   ONLY  RECORD  [Chapter  18 

his  fall.  His  wife  sorrowed,  "  desolate  in  Thessaly,"  and  his 
house  was  left  "  half  built."  But  in  the  minds  of  men  he 
abides  among  the  firstfruits  of  the  noble  dead,  who  have 
counted  it  life  to  lay  down  life  for  others.  This  legend  I  now 
began  to  apply  to  spiritual  things.  I  was  being  prepared  to 
believe  that  the  sons  of  God  in  all  places  and  times  must 
needs  be  in  various  ways  and  circumstances  "  delivering  them- 
selves over  "  as  sacrifices  to  the  will  of  God,  in  proportion  to 
their  goodness,  wisdom,  and  strength — the  good  spending  their 
life-blood  for  the  evil,  the  wise  for  the  foolish,  the  strong  for 
the  weak. 

After  this,  came  a  sentence  that  perplexed  me  greatly, 
"  This  is  my  body,  which  is  in  your  behalf.  Do  this  to  my 
remembering  or  reminding."  Not  being  able  to  make  any 
sense  at  all  of  this,  I  read  on,  in  hope  of  light :  "  In  the  same 
way  also  the  cup,  after  supper,  saying,  This  cup  is  the  new 
covenant  in  my  blood."  The  word  "  covenant "  helped  me  a 
little,  because  I  had  found  Paul  speaking  elsewhere  to  the 
Corinthians  in  his  own  person  about  a  "  new  covenant "  and  an 
"  old  covenant."  Also  to  the  Galatians  he  mentioned  "  two 
covenants,"  one  of  which,  he  said,  "corresponds  to  Mount  Sinai." 
So  I  turned  to  the  scripture  that  described  how  God  made  a 
"  covenant "  with  Israel  that  they  should  obey  the  Law  given 
to  them  from  Mount  Sinai.  It  had  these  words  :  "  And  Moses, 
having  taken  the  blood  " — that  is,  the  blood  from  a  "  sacrifice 
of  salvation"  consisting  of  bullocks — "sprinkled  it  on  the  people 
and  said,  '  Behold  the  blood  of  the  covenant  that  the  Lord  has 
covenanted  with  you  concerning  all  these  words '."  The  blood 
of  the  old  covenant  (I  perceived)  was  blood  of  "  sprinkling," 
purifying  the  body.  David  prayed  for  something  more  than 
that,  when  he  said,  "  Create  in  me  a  clean  heart,  0  God,  and 
renew  a  right  spirit  within  me."  So  it  occurred  to  me  that  the 
"  new  covenant "  was  to  purify,  not  the  body  but  the  heart  and 
the  spirit,  entering  into  man  and  becoming  part  of  him  so  as 
to  cleanse  him  from  within. 

This  seemed  to  agree  with  Paul's  opinion,  and  with  what 
I  had  read  in  Isaiah,  that  the  sacrifices  of  bulls  and  goats 
cannot    make    the   heart    clean.     Now,    therefore,    going    back 


Chapter  IS]         OF   WORDS  OF  CHRIST  163 

again  to  the  first  words  "  This  is  my  body,  which  is  in  your 
behalf,"  I  inferred  that  Christ  was  speaking  about  Himself  as 
being  the  "  sacrifice  of  salvation  "  above  mentioned,  and  that 
He  used  these  words,  purposing  to  devote  Himself  to  death  for 
the  people,  in  order  to  redeem  them  from  sin  by  purifying  their 
hearts. 

I  am  writing  now  in  old  age.  Forty-five  years  have  passed 
since  the  night  when  I  first  read,  "  This  is  my  body,  which  is  in 
your  behalf."  During  that  interval  I  have  done  my  best  to 
ascertain  the  exact  words  spoken  by  the  Saviour  in  His  own 
tongue.  And  now  it  is  much  more  clear  to  me  than  it  was 
then  that  the  Lord  Jesus  was  herein  giving  Himself,  His  very 
self,  both  as  a  legacy  to  the  disciples  and  also  as  a  ransom  for 
their  souls.  But  even  then  I  perceived  that  some  such  meaning 
must  be  attached  to  the  words,  and  that  they  could  not  have 
been  invented  by  any  disciple ;  and  they  made  me  marvel 
more  than  anything  else  that  I  had  met  with  in  the  Jewish 
scriptures  or  Paul's  epistles.  Such  a  confidence  did  they  shew 
in  the  power  of  His  own  love,  as  being  stronger  than  death  ! 
I  do  not  say  that  I  believed  that  the  words  had  been  fulfilled. 
But  I  felt  sure  that  Christ  had  uttered  them  in  the  belief  of 
their  being  fulfilled ;  and,  just  for  a  few  moments,  the  notion 
that  He  should  have  been  deceived  seemed  to  me  so  contrary  to 
the  fitness  of  things,  and  to  the  existence  of  any  kind  of 
Providence,  that  I  almost  believed  that  they  must  have  had 
some  kind  of  fulfilment.  I  did  not  stay  to  ask,  "How  fulfilled?" 
I  merely  said,  "  This  is  divine,  this  is  like  the  '  still  small  voice.' 
This  is  past  man's  invention.     This  must  be  from  God." 

Then  I  checked  myself,  doubt  rising  up  within  me.  "Paul," 
I  said,  "  was  not  present  on  the  night  of  the  Last  Supper.  He 
says  concerning  these  words,  '  I  received  of  the  Lord  that  which 
I  also  delivered  unto  you.'  Is  it  not  strange  that  the  oracles  or 
revelations  supposed  by  Paul  to  have  been  delivered  to  him  by 
Jesus  after  the  resurrection  should  have  included  matters  of 
historical  fact,  and  historical  utterances,  which  could  have  been 
ascertained  from  the  disciples  that  heard  them  ?  I  must  wait 
till  I  receive  the  Christian  gospels  from  Flaccus." 

Then  this  also  occurred  to  me.     "  Socrates,  too,  like  Christ, 

11—2 


164  PAULS   ONLY  RECORD  [Chapter  18 

was  unjustly  condemned.  Socrates  might  have  escaped  from 
death,  but  he  refused.  The  daemonic  voice  that  told  him  what 
to  do  and  not  to  do,  bade  him  remain  and  die,  and  he  obeyed. 
In  effect,  then,  this  voice  from  heaven  '  delivered  over '  Socrates 
to  death.  Or  he  may  be  said  to  have  '  delivered  himself  over.' 
Now  what  were  the  last  words  of  Socrates  ?  Did  he  leave  any 
such  legacy  to  his  disciples?  Might  I  not  find  some  help  here? 
For  assuredly  Socrates,  like  Christ,  endeavoured  to  make  men 
better  and  wiser."  I  remembered  hearing  Epictetus  say — and 
I  recognised  the  truth  of  the  saying — "Even  now,  when  Socrates 
is  dead,  the  memory  of  the  words  and  deeds  of  his  life  is  no  less 
profitable  to  men,  perhaps  it  is  more  so,  than  when  he  lived." 
So  I  turned  over  Arrian's  notes  and  found  several  remarks  of 
our  Master  about  Socrates  and  his  contempt  for  death ;  and 
with  what  a  humorous  appearance  of  sympathy  he  accepted 
the  jailer's  tears,  though  he  himself  felt  they  were  altogether 
misplaced.  At  last  I  came  to  a  passage  where  Epictetus 
compared  Socrates,  on  his  trial,  and  in  his  last  moments,  to 
a  man  playing  at  ball :  "  And  what  was  the  ball  in  that  case  ? 
Life,  chains,  exile,  a  draught  of  poison,  to  be  parted  from  a  wife, 
to  leave  one's  children  orphans.  These  were  his  playthings, 
but  none  the  less  he  kept  on  playing  and  throwing  the  ball 
with  grace  and  dexterity." 

This  was  enough,  and  more  than  enough.  It  was  hopeless, 
I  perceived,  to  search  in  Epictetus  for  what  I  sought — some 
last  legacy  of  Socrates  to  his  disciples,  implying  that  he  longed 
to  help  them  after  death.  Epictetus  would  have  rebuked  me, 
saying,  "  How  could  he  help  them  when  he  was  dissolved  into 
the  four  elements  ?  What  could  Socrates  bequeath  to  them 
beyond  the  memory  of  his  words  and  deeds  ?  " 

Failing  Epictetus,  I  took  out  from  my  bookcase  such  works 
of  Plato  and  Xenophon  as  might  contain  the  last  thoughts  of 
Socrates.  Both  of  these  writers  believed  in  the  immortality  of 
the  soul.  Yet  I  could  not  find  either  of  them  asserting,  or 
suggesting,  that  Socrates  felt  any  trouble  or  anxiety  for  his 
friends  and  for  their  faith,  nor  any  token  of  a  hope  that  his  soul 
might  help  theirs  after  his  death — or  rather,  to  use  his  phrase, 
after  he  had  "transferred  his  habitation."     When  I  tried  to  find 


Chapter  18]  OF    WORDS   OF  CHRIST  165 

such  a  hope,  I  could  not  feel  sure  that  I  was  interpreting  the 
words  honestly.  It  seemed  to  me  that  I  was  importing  some- 
thing of  the  Jewish  pathos,  or  feeling,  into  an  utterance  of  the 
Greek  logos.  I  still  retained  the  conviction  that  Socrates,  in 
his  last  moments,  had  his  disciples  at  heart,  and  that,  in 
enjoining  that  last  sacrifice  to  iEsculapius,  he  wished  to  stimu- 
late them  to  something  more  spiritual  and  more  permanent 
than  that  single  literal  act.  But  I  longed  for  something  more. 
I  thought  of  Christ's  "constraining  love,"  and  how  a  man  might 
be  "  constrained  "  in  a  natural  way  by  the  love  of  the  dead — 
the  love  of  a  wife,  father,  mother,  or  child.  Such  a  love 
I  said,  might  be  no  less  powerful,  for  help  and  comfort,  than 
the  hate  of  Clytemnestra  following  Orestes  for  evil.  iEneas 
(I  remembered)  used  the  word  "  image,"  speaking  to  the  spirit 
of  Anchises,  "  Thy  image,  0  my  father,  constrained  me  to  come 
hither."  But  Anchises  replies  that  he  himself  had  been  all  the 
while  following  his  son  in  his  perilous  wanderings,  so  that  it 
was  not  a  mere  "  image."  It  was  a  presence.  "  Is  it  possible," 
I  asked,  "  that  Christ,  not  in  poetry  but  in  fact,  thought  of 
bequeathing  to  His  disciples  such  a  presence,  to  follow  and  help 
them  after  His  death  ?  " 

Yes.     It  seemed  quite  possible,  nay,  almost  certain — that 

Christ    thought    this.      But    who,    except    a    Christian,    would 

believe  that  the  thought  was  more  than  a  dream  ?     "  Scaurus," 

I  said,  "  who  often  jests  at  me  as  a  dreamer,  would  now  jest 

more  than  ever.     Here  am  I,  pondering  poetry,  when  I  ought 

to  be  studying  history  !     Yet  how  can  I  study  history  in  Paul, 

when  Paul  himself  tells  me  that  he  received  these  words  from 

one   that   had  died — presumably   therefore  in  a  vision  ?     The 

right  course  will  be  to  wait  till  Flaccus  sends  me  the  gospels. 

These  may  chance  to  be  historical  biographies— not  records  of 

.things  seen,  or  words  heard,  in  visions."     And  then  Scaurus's 

saying  recurred  to  me,  that  no  two  writers  agree  independently 

in   recording  a  speech  or  conversation  for  twenty  consecutive 

words  that  are  exactly  the  same.     "  And  this,"  said  I,  "  I  hope 

to    test    before    many   days   are    over,    with    regard    to    these 

mysterious   words    of  Christ." 

But  before  rolling  up  the  book  it  came  into  my  mind  that 


166  PAUL'S   ONLY  RECORD         [Chapter  IS 

Paul  said  somewhere  to  the  Romans  "  I  beseech  you  therefore 
by  the  compassionate  mercies  of  God  to  present  your  bodies  a 
living  sacrifice,  holy,  acceptable  to  God."  Having  found  these 
words  and  read  them  carefully  over,  I  thought  that  the  writer 
must  have  had  in  view  some  allusion  to  the  sacrifice  of  Isaac. 
For  that  was  the  only  "  living  sacrifice  "  that  I  could  find  (and 
indeed  it  is  the  only  one)  mentioned  in  scripture.  Then  I 
turned  to  the  first  book  of  the  Law  and  there  I  found  that  God's 
promise  of  Isaac  to  Abraham  had  been  called  a  covenant,  and 
this,  said  Paul  to  the  Galatians,  was,  so  to  speak,  the  real 
thought  of  God.  The  covenant  of  Sinai  was  only  an  after- 
thought. The  sign  of  Abraham's  covenant  by  promise  was  in 
the  blood  of  circumcision  stamped  permanently  on  man's  body. 
The  sign  of  the  covenant  of  Sinai  was  in  the  blood  of  bullocks 
merely  sprinkled  on  the  body.  Also  there  was  yet  another 
covenant  between  God  and  man,  earlier  than  both  of  these. 
This,  the  earliest  covenant  of  all,  was  with  Noah.  Now  the 
sign  of  this  was  not  on  man  at  all,  but  on  the  sky,  being  the 
rainbow.  And  in  the  covenant  with  Noah  there  was  no  mention 
of  blood  (either  of  man  or  beast)  except  this — that  man  was  not 
to  taste  the  blood  of  beasts  when  he  ate  their  flesh,  and  that  he 
was  not  to  pour  out  the  blood  of  men,  much  less  to  taste  of  it. 

Then  it  seemed  to  me  that  the  words  and  thoughts  of 
Christ,  being  a  Jew,  must  be  studied  in  the  light  of  the  words 
and  thoughts  of  his  countrymen  the  ancient  Jews.  The  first 
covenant,  that  of  Noah,  said,  "  The  blood  is  the  life,  therefore 
ye  shall  not  taste  of  blood ;  and  whosoever  shall  taste  of  blood, 
whether  of  man  or  beast,  shall  die ;  and  whosoever  shall  pour 
out  the  blood  of  man,  his  blood  shall  be  poured  out  and  he 
shall  die."  This  was  confirmed  by  the  Covenant  of  Moses  the 
Lawgiver.  Then  came  a  second  covenant,  that  of  the  Son, 
saying,  "  I  have  changed  all  that.  I  am  the  New  Covenant. 
The  New  Covenant  is  in  my  blood,  that  is,  in  my  life.  My 
blood  is  truly  my  life.  Ye  shall  taste  of  my  blood.  It  shall  be 
poured  out  for  all,  as  a  living  sacrifice.  Whosoever  shall  taste 
of  my  blood  shall  not  die  but  shall  live  for  ever,  even  as  I 
live." 

Looking  back  now  to  that  moment,  I  seem  to  perceive  that 


Chapter  18]  OF   WORDS  OF  CHRIST  167 

I  was  being  led  on  by  the  Spirit  of  God,  far  beyond  my  own 
natural  powers  of  thought  and  reason,  in  order  that  I  might 
have  some  foretaste  of  the  revelation  of  the  Lord's  sacrifice,  so 
as  to  be  strengthened  and  prepared  for  the  trial  that  was 
shortly  to  fall  upon  me,  when  I  was  to  be  dragged  away  from 
the  shore  that  I  had  just  touched,  back  again  into  the  tumul- 
tuous deep.  For  a  long  time  I  continued  musing  on  this 
mystery,  and  turning  over  passage  after  passage  in  Paul's 
epistles  describing  how  believers  are  all  one  "in  Christ," 
and  "  Christ  in  them,"  and  how  they  are  made  righteous,  or 
brought  near  to  God,  "  in  the  blood  of  Christ." 

So  passed  the  greater  part  of  the  day,  up  till  the  ninth 
hour.  Then  came  a  reaction.  The  thought  of  Scaurus  re- 
turned, and  of  his  criticisms.  "  He  is  right,"  I  said,  "  I  am  a 
dreamer.  I  will  go  out  into  the  fields."  So  I  went  out,  taking 
my  Virgil  as  company.  When  I  came  into  the  woods  I  sat 
down  in  the  warmth  of  the  westering  sun.  There,  for  a  time, 
listening  to  the  songs  of  the  thrushes  and  the  cooing  of  the 
doves,  I  felt  at  peace,  and  opened  my  Virgil,  intending  to  read 
about  the  bees  and  the  fields.  But  I  had  brought  the  iEneid 
by  mistake,  and  the  first  words  I  met  were  these : 

"Si  nunc  se  nobis  ille  aureus  arbore  ramus 
Ostendat  nemore  in  tanto  ! " 

Then  back  again  came  suggestions  of  doubt.  For  I  recog- 
nised it  as  a  kind  of  oracle  from  the  Gods,  that  I  must  still  be 
seeking  for  the  light  of  the  truth  in  the  dark  forest  of  error, 
and  that  I  could  not  find  it  without  divine  help.  "  But,"  said  I, 
as  I  started  up  to  return  home,  "  it  shall  be  such  help  as  a 
Roman  may  accept  without  shame.  The  faith  of  Junius 
Silanus  shall  never  be  constrained  by  spells,  or  incantations, 
or  by  anything  except  reasonable  conviction  and  the  force  of 
facts." 

Returning  home  as  the  sun  was  sinking  I  found  letters 
awaiting  me.  Among  these,  one  was  from  Flaccus,  saying  that 
he  had  sent  me  three  little  Christian  books  called  "  gospels,"  in 
accordance  with  my  order.  After  his  usual  fashion,  addressing 
me  as  the  son  of  his  old  master,  but  also  as  a  companion  in 


168  PAUL'S   ONLY  RECORD  [Chapter  18 

the  fellowship  of  book-lovers,  he  added  some  remarks  on  the 
contents  of  the  parcel.  "  The  third  of  these  books,"  he  said, 
"  is  written  by  a  man  of  some  education,  named  Lucas,  a 
companion  of  Paulus  (whose  works  I  recently  sent  you) ;  and 
he  has  published  a  supplementary  volume,  which  I  have 
ventured  to  add  although  you  did  not  order  it.  The  supple- 
ment is  entitled  '  The  Acts  of  the  Apostles,'  that  is,  of  the 
missionaries  sent  out  by  Christus.  The  '  gospel,'  as  you 
probably  know,  is  a  record  of  the  acts  and  words  of  Christus 
himself.  Also,  as  you  are  interested  in  this  sect,  I  have  sent 
you  a  book  called  the  Revelation  of  John.  It  is  written  in 
most  extraordinary  Greek,  without  pretensions  to  grammar, 
much  less  to  style.  But  it  has  some  poetic  touches  in  it. 
Of  the  eastern  style,  of  course.  But  that  you  will  understand. 
This  John  was  himself — (I  am  told) — one  of  their  'apostles,' 
and  a  man  of  note  among  the  Christians.  He  is  said  to  have 
written  it  soon  after  the  reign  of  Domitian." 

There  was  also  a  letter  from  Scaurus,  or  rather  a  packet  of 
letters.  Out  of  it  fell  a  separate  note  of  the  nature  of  a 
postscript,  and  I  read  that  first,  as  follows :  "  Two  things  I 
forgot  to  say.  First,  if  you  decide  to  open  my  sealed  note 
about  the  similarities  of  Paul  and  Epictetus,  I  shall  not  now 
feel  hurt.  For  the  reasons  I  have  given  in  my  letter,  I  hope 
you  will  not  open  it,  because  I  trust  you  will  turn  your  mind 
to  other  matters.  But  I  do  not  now  regard  that  note  as 
important.  By  this  time,  you  probably  have  the  books  of  the 
Christians.  You  also  know  more  than  you  did  about  Epictetus, 
so  you  have  been  able  to  judge  for  yourself  whether  I  have  not 
spoken  the  truth.  But  now — I  repeat — my  advice  is  to  put 
the  whole  investigation  aside.  Go  to  Ulyria  and  see  whether 
you  cannot  find  an  opening  there  for  a  military  philosopher." 

As  to  the  sealed  note,  I  have  explained  above  that,  when 
I  opened  it,  I  found  it  was,  as  Scaurus  said,  of  very  little 
importance  to  me — knowing  what  I  then  knew.  Such  effect 
as  it  had  on  me  was  produced  before  I  had  opened  it,  because 
it  provoked  my  curiosity  and  stimulated  me  to  study  the  books 
of  the  Christians. 

The  postscript  continued  as   follows.     "  The  second   thing, 


Chapter  18]  OF    WORDS   OF  CHRIST  169 

much  more  important,  concerns  a  fundamental  matter  in  this 
Christian  superstition.  You  know,  I  am  sure,  from  Paul's 
letters,  that  the  ancient  Jews — better  called  Israelites — have 
always  claimed  that  God  has  honoured  them  above  all  nations 
by  making  a  special  '  treaty  '  or  '  covenant '  with  them.  Well, 
Paul  admits  this  for  Jews,  but  claims  for  Christians  that  they 
have  a  still  better  '  treaty '  or  '  covenant,'  which  he  calls  '  new,' 
as  distinct  from  that  of  the  Jews,  which  he  calls  '  old.'  He 
represents  his  leader,  Christ,  as  making  or  ratifying  this  '  new 
covenant'  with  his  blood,  on  the  night  on  which  he  was 
betrayed.  Not  only  this,  but  he  gives  the  exact  words  uttered 
by  Christ — and,  mark  you,  this  is  the  only  occasion  on.which  he 
quotes  any  words  of  Christ  at  all.  Not  only  this,  but  he  says 
that  he  received  them  from  his  leader;  'I  received  from  the 
Lord  that  which  I  also  delivered  over  to  you.'  Now,  Silanus, 
look  for  yourself.  Do  not  believe  me.  Look  in  Paul's  first 
epistle  to  the  Corinthians,  some  way  after  the  middle,  and  see 
whether  he  does  not  quote  these  words,  '  This  cup  is  the  new 
covenant  in  my  blood.  Do  this  as  often  as  ye  are  drinking,  to 
my  remembering.'  What  the  words  mean  I  do  not  precisely 
know.     But  there  they  are.    Next  look  in  the  three  gospels " 

"  Now,"  said  I,  "  I  shall  get  light."  I  put  down  the  letter 
and  took  up  the  three  gospels — the  packet  from  Flaccus.  But 
a  glance  shewed  that  it  would  be  a  long  and  difficult  business 
to  find  the  passage  in  them,  and  to  compare  their  three  versions 
with  the  one  in  Paul's  epistle.  So  I  turned  to  the  postscript 
again,  "Next  look  in  the  three  gospels  and  prepare  to  be 
surprised.  You  will  find  the  following  four  facts.  First,  none 
of  them  contain  the  words  'Do  this  to  my  remembering.' 
Secondly,  the  latest  gospel  (that  of  Lucas)  makes  no  mention 
of  a  '  covenant.'  Thirdly,  the  two  earliest  gospels  do  not  call 
the  covenant  '  new.'  Fourthly,  the  Greek  word  may  mean  not 
'  covenant '  at  all,  but  '  testament ' ;  and  the  meaning  may  be 
that  their  leader  bequeaths  them  his  blood — whatever  that  may 
mean — by  his  last  will  and  testament. 

"  Now  I  put  it  to  you,  Silanus,  as  a  reasonable  man,  whether 
it  is  worth  while  investigating  a  superstition  as  to  which  the 
earliest  documents  disagree  concerning  such  a  fundamental  fact 


170  PAUL'S  ONLY  RECORD  [Chapter  IS 

(or  rather  allegation).  These  Christians — for  I  am  informed 
they  mostly  take  Paul's  view — assert  that  their  Founder  made 
a  '  new  covenant '  between  them  and  God  on  a  special  night. 
Three  of  them  give  accounts — detailed  accounts — of  all  manner 
of  things  that  happened  on  that  night.  A  fourth,  Paul,  pro- 
fesses to  give  the  very  words  of  the  Founder  of  the  Covenant, 
as  he  received  them  from  the  Founder  himself,  not  alive  of 
course  but  dead  !  And  he,  Paul,  alone  of  the  four,  mentions  the 
ph  rase  '  new  covenant.'     What  do  you  think  of  this  ? " 

Indeed  I  did  not  know  what  to  think  of  it.  And  Scaurus's 
next  words  almost  decided  me  to  take  his  view  of  the  whole 
matter,  to  put  away  all  my  Jewish  and  Christian  books  and  to 
have  done  with  every  kind  of  philosophy.  "  Spare  me,"  so  the 
postscript  proceeded,  "  for  the  sake  of  the  immortal  Gods,  my 
dearest  Quintus,  spare  me  the  pain — during  the  few  years  or 
months  of  life  that  may  still  remain  for  me — of  seeing  the  son 
of  my  dearest  friend  ensnared  in  the  net  of  a  beguiling  super- 
stition that  must  lead  you  away  from  your  duty  to  your  country. 
Be  kind  to  me  and  to  your  father." 

Not  having  read  the  preceding  part  of  his  letter,  I  was 
amazed  at  this  outburst  of  alarm  in  my  behalf.  But  I  perceived 
that,  with  his  usual  sympathetic  insight,  he  had  read  some  of 
my  thoughts  almost  before  I  was  conscious  of  them  myself,  and 
I  was  grateful  to  him.  If  he  had  stopped  there,  I  sometimes 
think  things  might  have  happened  differently.  But  he  con- 
tinued, "Truth,  as  Sophocles  says,  is  always  right,  Be  true  to 
the  truth.  Be  true  to  yourself.  Amid  all  the  shifting  fancies 
and  falsehoods  around  you,  esteem  the  knowledge  of  yourself 
the  only  knowledge  that  is  certain  and  unchangeable.  In  that 
respect  the  old  philosophers  were  right.  '  Know  thyself  is  the 
only  divine  precept.  On  self-knowledge  alone  is  based  the  only 
covenant — if  indeed  it  is  fit  to  imagine  any  covenant — between 
God  and  man." 

From  these  last  words  I  found  myself  in  absolute  revolt. 
During  the  past  few  days  I  had  come  to  think  that  perhaps  the 
only  certain  and  unchangeable  truth  was  that  self-knowledge 
without  other  knowledge  is  impossible,  or,  if  possible,  most 
harmful.     Dissenting  from   these   last   words   I   went  back  to 


Chapter  18]  OF   WORDS   OF  CHRIST  171 

dissent  further,  or  rather  to  draw  a  different  inference.  "  Truth 
is  always  right."  Then  could  it  be  right  for  me  to  give  up  the 
search  for  truth,  lest  I  should  pain  myself  or  Scaurus  ?  From 
my  father,  one  of  the  most  just  and  honourable  of  men,  how 
often  had  I  heard  the  maxim,  Audi  alteram  partem !  Why 
should  I  not  "  hear  the  other  side  "  since  that  very  day  had 
placed  at  my  disposal  (thanks  to  Flaccus)  the  means  of  doing 
this  ?  Scaurus  had  indirectly  challenged  me  to  do  it.  My 
father  had,  in  a  sense,  commanded  it.  Before  I  retired  to  rest 
that  night,  I  resolved  to  devote  the  whole  of  the  next  day,  and 
as  much  time  as  I  could  spare  afterwards,  to  the  examination  of 
the  Christian  gospels. 


CHAPTER   XIX 

HOW   SCAURUS   STUDIED   THE   THREE   GOSPELS 

Beginning  with  the  passages  that  described  the  Lord's 
Supper,  I  soon  found  that  Scaurus  was  correct  in  saying  that 
the  words  of  the  Lord  quoted  by  Paul  were  not  in  any  of  the 
gospels.  But  my  copy  of  Luke — an  old  one,  having  been 
transcribed  in  the  reign  of  the  emperor  Nerva  as  the  scribe 
stated — contained  a  note  in  the  margin,  not  in  the  scribe's 
handwriting,  "  After  '  my  body,'  some  later  copies  have  these 
words,  'which  is  being  given  in  your  behalf.  Do  this  to  my 
remembering;  and  the  cup  likewise,  after  sapping ,  saying ,  This 
cup  is  the  new  testament  in  my  blood  which  is  being  shed  for 
you '."  Now  these  words  were  very  similar  to  Paul's  quotation, 
and  Flaccus  had  told  me  that  Luke  was  a  companion  of  Paul. 
So  I  reflected  that  Luke  must  often  have  partaken  of  the 
Christian  Supper  with  Paul,  and  must  have  heard  these  words 
from  Paul.  Why  therefore  were  the  words  omitted  in  Luke, 
except  in  "  some  later  copies "  ?  Mark,  Matthew,  and  Paul 
agreed  in  inserting  some  mention  of  "  covenant."  Why  did 
Luke,  Paul's  companion,  alone  omit  it  ? 

Looking  into  the  matter  more  closely,  I  found  that  Luke, 
though  he  omitted  the  phrase  about  "covenant,"  inserted  in  his 
context  some  mention  of  "covenanting,"  or  "making  covenant,"  as 
follows :  "  I  covenant  unto  you  as  my  Father  covenanted  unto 
me."  The  "  covenant  "  was  "  a  kingdom,  that  ye  may  eat  and 
drink  at  my  table."  Also,  in  the  same  context,  Jesus  said, 
"The  kings  of  the  nations  lord  it  over  them,  and  those  who 
play  the  despot  over  them  are  called " — I  think  he  meant, 
"  called  "  by  their  flatterers — "  benefactors.     But  you,  not  so." 


Chap.  19]    SCA  URUS  AND  THE  THREE  GOSPELS    173 

And  Jesus  went  on  to  say,  "  He  that  ruleth  must  be  as  he  that 
serveth,"  and,  "I  am  among  you  as  he  that  serveth."  The 
words  "  my  Father  covenanted  unto  me  "  appeared  to  mean  a 
covenant  of  sacrifice,  namely,  that  the  Son  was  to  sacrifice 
Himself  for  the  sins  of  the  world,  and  to  pass,  through  that 
sacrifice,  into  the  Kingdom  at  the  right  hand  of  the  Father. 
And  the  other  words  meant  that  Jesus  "  covenanted  "  with  the 
disciples  that  they  should  sacrifice  themselves  in  like  manner, 
taking  Him  as  it  were  into  themselves,  by  drinking  the  blood 
of  the  sacrifice  (that  is,  His  blood)  and  eating  its  flesh  or  body 
(that  is,  His  body).  And  thus  they,  too,  being  made  one  with 
Him,  were  to  pass  into  the  Kingdom. 

Such  a  "  covenant "  as  this,  would,  I  perceived,  be  so  "  new  " 
that  it  might  be  described  as  turning  the  world  upside  down — 
all  the  kings  serving  their  subjects,  all  the  masters  waiting  on 
their  servants.  This  was  indeed  strange.  But  it  was  not 
peculiar  to  Luke.  Mark  and  Matthew  (I  found)  had  a  similar 
doctrine,  though  not  in  this  passage:  only,  instead  of  "I  am 
among  you  as  he  that  serveth,"  they  had,  "  to  give  his  soul  as  a 
ransom  for  many."  This  accorded  with  what  was  said  above, 
namely,  that  the  "  covenant,"  or  condition,  on  which  the  Son 
came  into  the  world,  was,  that  He  should  be  the  "  servant,"  or 
"  sacrifice,"  or  "  ransom,"  for  mankind.  All  three  names  ex- 
pressed aspects  of  one  and  the  same  thing.  David  had  said, 
"  The  sacrifice  of  the  Lord  is  a  contrite  spirit."  That  meant, 
contrite  for  one's  own  sins.  Jesus  seemed  to  go  outside  a  man's 
self,  and  to  say,  "  The  sacrifice  of  the  Lord  is  a  spirit  of  service 
to  others."  Romans,  I  reflected,  would  call  this  doctrine  either 
an  impracticable  dream,  or — if  practicable,  and  if  attempted — 
a  pestilent  revolution.  But  once  more  the  thought  recurred 
that  the  Jew  would  say  to  us,  as  the  Egyptian  said  to  Solon, 
"  You  Romans  are  but  children,"  and  that,  although  Rome  had 
the  power  (as  Virgil  said)  of  "subjecting  the  proud  oppressors 
in  war,"  it  might  not  have  what  Epictetus  described  as  the 
power  of  the  true  Ruler  (which  this  Jewish  Ruler  seemed  to 
claim),  namely,  to  draw  the  subjects  towards  the  ruler  with  the 
chain  of  "  passionate  affection." 

Scaurus  next  asserted  that  some  disagreements  here  between 


174  HOW  SCAURUS  STUDIED        [Chapter  19 

the  evangelists  arose  from  translating  Hebrew  into  Greek. 
Where  Mark  has  "and  they  drank,"  Matthew  has  "drink  ye." 
Scaurus  said  that  the  same  Hebrew  might  produce  these  two 
Greek  translations.  "  Also,"  said  he,  "  supposing  Jesus  to  have 
said  in  his  native  tongue,  This  is  my  body  for  you,  some  might 
take  '  for  you '  to  mean  '  given  to  you  as  a  gift,'  but  others 
'  given  for  you  as  a  sacrifice  '."  Hence  he  inferred  that  it  was 
hardly  possible  to  discover  what  Jesus  actually  said,  because, 
besides  differences  of  memory  in  the  witnesses,  there  might  be 
differences  of  translation  in  those  who  remembered  the  same 
words.  But  on  the  other  side,  if  Scaurus  was  right,  the  facts 
shewed  the  independence  of  the  witnesses,  as  well  as  their 
honesty  and  accuracy.  If  Jesus  used  one  Jewish  phrase  that 
might  imply  two  meanings,  it  seemed  natural  that  his  disciples 
should  try  to  express  both  meanings  in  Greek.  The  nearness 
of  the  Passover  (at  the  time  when  the  words  were  uttered),  and 
the  connexion  in  scripture  between  "  covenant "  and  "  sacrifice," 
and  many  things  that  I  had  read  in  Paul's  epistles,  made  me 
believe  that  "  sacrifice "  was  implied.  Why  should  not  the 
disciples  suppose  that  their  Saviour  bequeathed  a  legacy  to 
them  that  was  also  a  sacrifice  for  them  ?  This  seemed  to  me  a 
beautiful  and  intelligible  belief. 

The  result  was  that  I  resolved  not  to  give  up  the  study 
of  these  books.  Repeating  my  father's  maxim,  Audi  alteram 
partem,  "  Scaurus,"  I  said,  "  shall  be  on  one  side,  and  the  three 
gospels  " — which  I  spread  out  on  the  table — "  shall  be  on  the 
other."  I  soon  found,  however,  that  my  task  was  not  so 
simple.  There  was  not  merely  "  the  other  side,"  there  were 
often  three  "sides  " — so  strangely  did  the  gospels  vary.  Scaurus 
made  a  fourth,  or,  rather,  a  commentary  on  the  three.  From 
my  youth  up  (thanks  largely  to  Scaurus)  I  had  some  skill  in 
comparing  histories.  It  was  necessary  first  (I  perceived)  to 
have  the  three  gospels  side  by  side.  For  this  purpose,  the 
penknife  and  the  pen — the  former  for  transposing,  the  latter 
for  transcribing — had  to  be  freely  used.  Mark's  gospel  I 
preserved  intact.  Extracts  from  Matthew  and  Luke — copying 
or  cutting  them  out — I  placed  parallel  to  the  corresponding 
passages  in  Mark.    I  also  made  use  of  marginal  notes  in  my  Ms. 


Chapter  19]         THE   THREE  GOSPELS  175 

referring  me  to  parallel  passages  in  the  other  gospels  or  in  the 
scriptures.  Some  days  were  spent  in  this  labour.  After  that, 
I  determined  to  attend  lectures  regularly,  but  to  devote  all  my 
leisure  to  a  close  examination  of  the  gospels  with  the  help  of 
Scaurus's  comments.     Now  I  must  speak  of  his  letter. 

It  began,  as  his  postscript  had  ended,  with  a  personal 
appeal,  warning  me  against  a  tendency  to  dreaming,  "  which," 
said  he,  "  I  think  you  must  have  inherited  from  my  Etrurian 
grandmother,  whose  blood  runs  in  your  veins — through  your 
dear  mother — as  well  as  in  mine.  I  myself,  at  times,  have  to 
fight  against  it."  Then  he  cautioned  me  against  the  Jews. 
"  They  are  all  of  them,"  he  said,  "  dangerous  people,  though  in 
different  ways.  There  are  two  sorts,  plotters  and  dreamers ; 
the  plotters,  all  for  themselves ;  the  dreamers,  all  for  someone 
else,  or  something  else  (the  Gods  know  what !)  outside  them- 
selves. Now  a  dreamer  in  the  west,  mostly  a  Greek  (for  a 
Roman  dreamer  is  a  rare  bird)  is  a  harmless  creature — dreaming 
passively.  But  the  Jewish  dreamer  dreams  actively.  He  is,  to 
use  the  Greek  adjective,  hypnotic.  If  I  might  invent  a  Greek 
verb,  I  would  say  that  he  'hypnotizes'  people.  He  makes 
others  dream  what  he  dreams.  And  his  dreams  are  not  the 
dreams  of  Morpheus,  '  golden  slumbers '  on  '  heaped  Elysian 
flowers.'  No,  they  are  often  dreams  like  those  of  Hercules 
Furens — destroying  himself  and  his  friends  while  he  thinks  he 
is  destroying  '  powers  of  evil ' !  I  have  known  several  Jews, 
some  very  good,  more  very  bad ;  only  one,  perhaps,  half-and- 
half.  That  was  Flavius  Josephus,  whose  histories  you  have 
read.  He  could  be  all  things  to  all  men  in  a  very  clever  way, 
mostly  for  his  people,  sometimes  for  himself. 

"  Paul  was  all  things  to  all  men  in  a  very  different  way,  and 
always  the  same  way.  Paul,  as  you  know,  frankly  warns  his 
readers,  '  I  am  become  all  things  to  all  men  that  I  may  by  all 
means  save  some,'  and  '  I  became  to  the  Jews  a  Jew  that  I 
might  gain  the  Jews ' — not  for  himself,  of  course,  but  for  his 
Master,  the  King  of  the  Jews.  I  have  never  told  you,  before, 
something  that  I  will  tell  you  now — to  warn  you  against  these 
Jews,  especially  the  Christian  Jews.  I  once  saw  this  Paul, 
only  once.     I  was  but  a  boy.     He  was  standing,  chained,  in  a 


176  HOW  SCAURUS  STUDIED       [Chapter  19 

corridor  in  the  palace,  waiting  to  be  heard.  One  of  the 
Praetorian  guard  was  talking  to  him  and  Paul  was  replying, 
while  my  father  and  I  were  passing  by ;  and  my  father,  having 
something  to  say  to  the  guardsman,  made  some  courteous 
remark  to  Paul  about  interrupting  their  talk.  Paul  stood  up. 
He  was  rather  short,  and  bent  down  besides  with  the  weight  of 
his  chains;  and  the  guardsman  (quite  against  regulations)  had 
put  a  stool  for  him  to  rest  on.  He  reached  up  his  face  to  my 
father's  as  though  he  could  not  see  very  distinctly :  but  it  was 
not  exactly  the  eyes,  but  the  look  in  them,  the  unearthly  look, 
that  I  shall  never  forget.  No  doubt,  he  was  thankful  for  the 
few  syllables  of  kindness.  It  seemed  to  me  as  if  he  wished  to 
return  the  kindness  in  kind.  He  said  something.  What  it 
was  I  don't  know.  Probablv  bad  Greek  or  worse  Latin.  Thanks 
of  some  sort,  no  doubt.  But  it  was  the  look — the  look  and  the 
tone,  that  struck  me.  Struck !  No,  rather,  bewitched.  For 
days  and  nights  afterwards  I  saw  that  man's  face,  and  heard 
his  voice  in  my  dreams.  I  did  not  like  the  dreams.  But  he 
made  me  dream.  He  was  a  retiarius.  If  he  had  had  me  alone 
for  a  day  or  two,  I  feel  even  now  that  he  would  have  caught 
me  in  his  Christian  net.     I  don't  want  you  to  be  caught." 

Then  Scaurus  went  on  to  speak  of  himself  at  some  length. 
I  will  set  down  his  exact  words  for  two  reasons.  First,  they 
shew  what  pains  he  had  taken  to  prepare  himself  for  the  work 
of  a  critic.  Secondly,  his  letter  seemed  to  me  to  explain  in 
part  why  he  was  so  set  against  what  he  called  the  soporific  or 
hypnotic  art  of  Paul.  He  and  I  approached  the  apostle  in 
different  circumstances.  I  came  to  Paul  before  coming  to  the 
gospels.  He  read  the  gospels  first,  and  found  it  impossible  to 
believe  them.  Then,  with  a  mind  settled  and  fixed  against 
belief,  approaching  Paul,  he  found — this  I  believe  to  be  the 
fact — that  Paul  was  drawing  him  towards  Christ.  He  resisted 
the  constraint,  thinking  that  he  was  resisting  a  sort  of  witch- 
craft. Yes,  and  even  to  the  end  of  his  life,  he  fought  against 
the  truth,  seeing  it  masked  as  falsehood.  Yet  assuredly  he 
loved  the  truth  and  spared  no  pains  to  reach  it.  Let  my  old 
friend  speak  for  himself  in  what  I  will  call — 


Chapter  19]  THE  THREE  GOSPELS  177 


SCAURUS'S  AUTOBIOGRAPHY 

"  While  I  am  in  the  mood  for  telling  secrets  I  may  say  that, 
for  me,  too,  this  Christian  superstition  has  not  been  without 
attractions  ;  and,  had  there  been  anything  solid  in  it,  I  think  I 
should  have  ascertained  it.  You  must  know  that  in  the  last 
year  or  two  of  Domitian  this  sect  was  brought  into  notice  in 
Rome  among  the  highest  circles  by  rather  painful  circumstances 
— painful,  I  mean,  to  me.  I  had  retired  from  the  army.  As 
soon  as  I  had  recovered  from  my  wounds,  enough  to  be  able  to 
limp  about,  I  looked  round  me  for  something  to  do.  I  was  not 
in  favour  with  the  Emperor.  He  had  lost  reputation  in  the 
Dacian  war;  and  he  was  supposed  to  dislike  those  officers — 
there  were  only  a  few — who  had  done  creditably  in  that  most 
discreditable  business.  I  was  supposed  to  be  one  of  the  few. 
At  all  events,  in  the  'regrettable  incident'  of  Fuscus,  I  brought 
off  most  of  my  men  safe,  and  we  did  not  run  away.  Well,  I 
thought  I  had  better  lead  a  retired  life.  So  under  the  plea  of 
disablement — which  was  unfortunately  only  too  true,  as  I  was 
lamed  for  life — I  kept  at  home  in  Tusculum  all  through  the 
reign  of  Domitian,  giving  myself  up  to  literature. 

"  Even  as  a  boy,  I  was  very  fond  of  Greek,  and  I  liked 
learning  it  in  my  own  way  and  not  according  to  the  ways  of  my 
masters.  My  way  was  to  commit  to  memory — and  to  keep  in 
memory  by  constant  repetition,  a  very  different  thing  from  mere 
'  committing ' — great  masses  of  such  literature  as  I  liked  best. 
Many  and  many  a  time  have  I  met  and  passed  a  friend  or  school- 
fellow in  the  Via  Sacra,  and  heard  his  voice  behind  me,  'Are  you 
going  to  cut  me,  Scaurus  ? '  But  I  had  not  been  '  Scaurus  ' 
when  I  passed  him.  I  had  been  Medea  frantic,  or  Demosthenes 
haranguing  the  Athenians,  or  Plato  describing  Thales  on  the 
well's  brink,  or — for  I  was  an  eclectic — Thucydides  recording 
his  personal  experiences  of  the  plague.  I  kept  this  up,  even  in 
the  army.  Many  a  long  night  in  Dacia  has  been  shortened  in 
the  company  of  my  friends,  the  great  Greek  authors.  The  result 
of  all  this  was,  that  when  I  reached  consular  age,  and,  instead 
of  going  in  for  consulships,  went  in  for  lameness  and  literature, 

a.  12 


178  HOW  SCAURUS  STUDIED       [Chapter  19 

I  was  well  provided,  so  far  as  concerned  the  Greek  raw  material, 
for  critical  studies. 

"  Well,  as  time  went  on,  extending  the  course  of  my  reading, 
I  happened  to  pick  up  in  Flaccus's  shop  a  Greek  translation  of 
the  Hebrew  book  of  Job.  It  was  a  chaos,  with  occasional 
lucidities — some  of  them  magnificent.  '  On  my  shewing  it  to  a 
learned  Jew  (whom  Josephus  had  recommended  to  me)  he 
explained  to  me  that  the  Greek  translators  had  often  been 
misled  by  similarities  of  Hebrew  words.  Hebrew  is  a  queer 
language.  It  has  vowels  but  does  not  write  them.  I  saw  at 
once  what  an  abundant  source  of  error  this  might  be.  Even  in 
Latin,  where  vowels  are  written,  I  have  known  Greeks  go  wrong 
by  rendering  amnis  as  though  it  were  omnis.  How  much  more, 
if  there  were  no  vowels !  My  rabbi — that  is  their  name  for 
'  teacher ' — informed  me  that  even  the  Greek-speaking  Jews 
were  now  beginning  to  be  dissatisfied  with  the  Seventy  (that  is 
the  name  they  give  to  their  authorised  version).  Several  new 
translations  of  some  of  the  books  were  floating  about,  he  said, 
and  a  good  and  faithful  translation  of  the  whole  would  probably 
be  produced  before  long.  This  interested  me.  Under  his 
guidance  I  studied  the  parallelisms  in  the  two  books  of  Esdras 
and  other  books  of  theirs.  I  learned  just  enough  Hebrew  to 
understand  how  it  would  be  possible  for  an  expert  to  go  back 
to  a  lost  Hebrew  original  from  two  extant  parallel  Greek 
translations.  You  see  Avhat  I  mean.  A  very  little  knowledge 
of  Latin  might  enable  anyone  to  see,  that,  in  two  Greek 
documents,  '  oaks '  and  '  flintstones,'  being  parallel,  point  to  a 
Latin  '  ilices '  or  '  silices ' — the  reading  being  doubtful — from 
which    two    Greeks    have    been    translating. 

"  Now  I  must  pass  to  the  last  year  or  last  but  one  of 
Domitian.  You  have  heard  your  father  speak  of  Flavius 
Clemens  (not  exactly  a  strong  man,  but  a  good  one)  who  was 
put  to  death  by  his  uncle,  the  Emperor,  for  '  Judaism '  (so  it 
was  called)  and  his  poor  wife  exiled.  'Judaism,'  with  our 
people,  was  only  a  more  respectable  name  for  '  Christianism,' 
though  the  two  superstitions  are  poles  asunder.  Poor  Domitilla 
was  a  downright  Christian.  Her  husband  Clemens  was  at  all 
events  Christian  enough  for  Domitian's  purposes.     He  was  put 


Chapter  19]  THE  THREE  GOSPELS  179 

to  death  and  his  effects  confiscated.  I  bought  a  few  of  his 
books  as  memorials  of  my  old  friend,  and  among  these  were 
certain  Christian  publications  called  '  gospels.' 

"  Every  Christian  missionary  is  supposed  to  '  preach  the 
gospel ' ;  so,  of  course,  there  might  be,  theoretically,  as  many 
gospels  as  missionaries,  and  '  a  gospel  according  to '  each 
missionary,  if  each  chose  to  write  down  what  he  preached. 
Accordingly  I  gather  from  Flaccus  that  there  have  been  a  great 
number  of  these  '  gospels ' ;  but  only  three  are  now  in  large 
demand  among  Christians  in  Rome — the  three  he  sent  you. 
The  earliest  of  these  is  '  The  Gospel  according  to  Mark.'  That 
it  is  the  earliest  you  can  see  thus.  Put  them  (that  is,  of  course, 
the  parallel  parts  of  them)  in  three  columns,  Mark  in  the 
middle.  Then  imagine  three  schoolboys  seated  together — 
Sinister,  Medius,  and  Dexter — writing  a  translation  of  Homer. 
Suppose  Sinister  and  Dexter  to  be  cribbing  from  Medius,  who 
sits  between  them.  The  experienced  schoolmaster  will  speedily 
discover  that,  whenever  Sinister  and  Dexter  closely  agree,  it  is 
because  they  cribbed  from  Medius.  Similarly  Matthew  and 
Luke  largely  copied — not  '  cribbed,'  for  they  did  it  honestly 
enough,  no  doubt— from  Mark.  Consequently  (subject  to 
certain  exceptions,  which  I  will  state  later  on)  Matthew  and 
Luke  never  agree  together — in  those  parts  of  the  gospel  where 
there  are  three  parallel  narratives — without  also  agreeing  with 
Mark.     Don't  trust  me  for  this.     Try  it  yourself." 

I  did  try  it.  And  I  found  that — subject  to  the  exceptions 
defined  by  Scaurus  in  another  letter — his  statement  was  correct. 
His  letter  continued,  "  So  I  began  with  Mark.  Do  not  suppose 
that  I  began  with  any  prejudice  against  him.  On  the  contrary, 
your  old  friend,  whom  you  are  so  fond  of  calling  Misomythus, 
must  plead  guilty,  I  fear,  to  a  latent  desire  of  the  philomythian 
kind — that  Mark  might  contain  truth  and  not  myth.  But 
hereby  hangs  another  tale,  and  I  must  begin  another  confession. 

"Among  Domitilla's  slaves  was  one  especially  dear  to  her, 
her  librarian,  whom  she  would  (no  doubt)  have  manumitted  if 
she  had  anticipated  the  blow  that  was  soon  to  fall  on  her 
husband  and  his  household.  He  was  an  old  man,  of  Alexandrian 
extraction,  and    of  some    education,  simpleminded  as  a  child, 

12—2 


180  HOW  SCAURUS  STUDIED       [Chapter  19 

perfectly  honest,  giving  an  impression  of  firmness,  gentleness, 
and  dignity,  quite  unusual  in  a  slave.  I  liked  old  Hernias — that 
was  his  name,  you  must  have  seen  him,  I  think,  in  your  child- 
hood— for  his  own  sake,  as  well  as  for  his  love  of  literature. 
When  I  bought  the  books  I  bought  him  at  the  same  time. 
He  was  nearly  seventy  and  ailing.  The  calamities  of  his 
mistress  helped  him  to  his  grave,  and  he  died  a  few  days 
after  he  had  come  to  my  household.  We  had  very  little  talk 
together,  and  least  of  all  at  our  last  meeting ;  but  what  we  had 
then,  I  never  forgot.  It  happened  thus.  One  afternoon,  when 
he  came  into  the  library  a  little  later  than  usual — slowly,  and 
painfully,  and  leaning  on  his  staff — I  happened  to  have 
Domitilla's  three  gospels  rolled  out  on  the  table  before  me. 
There  were  some  notes  in  the  margin  of  Matthew.  These  were 
in  his  neat  small  handwriting  and  I  was  looking  at  them. 
'  Not  Domitilla's  hand,  I  think,'  said  I,  with  a  smile.  He  shook 
his  head,  opened  his  lips  as  if  to  speak,  looked  long  and 
wistfully  at  me,  as  if  he  would  greatly  have  liked  to  talk  about 
something  more  than  mere  librarian's  business.  But  all  he 
said  was,  '  Will  my  lord  give  his  instructions  for  the  day's 
work  ? '  I  gave  them.  They  were  that  he  should  go  to  bed 
and  keep  there  till  he  was  fit  for  business.  He  bowed,  moved 
slowly  toward  the  door,  turned  and  looked  at  me  a  second  time 
with  that  same  expression,  only  more  intense ;  .then  left  the 
room  without  a  word.  I  felt  strangely  drawn  towards  the  old 
man,  and  had  almost  called  him  back.  But  I  did  not.  '  To- 
morrow,'   I   said,    'to-morrow.' 

"  Unexpected  business  took  me  from  Tusculum  late  in  that 
afternoon  and  kept  me  away  for  three  days.  On  my  return 
I  was  told  that  Hermas  was  no  more.  He  had  earnestly  desired 
to  see  me,  they  said ;  and  when  he  found  that  I  had  left 
Tusculum,  and  that  my  return  might  be  delayed,  and  that  his 
voice  was  failing,  and  death  perhaps  imminent,  he  had  spent 
his  last  strength  in  writing  a  letter,  which,  by  his  request,  was 
to  be  left  by  his  side  until  he  was  carried  to  the  funeral  pyre — 
in  case  I  might  come  to  take  it.  I  went  at  once  to  his  bedside 
and  read  it  there.  I  keep  it  still.  But  I  will  not  transcribe  it 
for   anyone,    not    even    for   you,    Silanus.     It    is   a   confidence 


Chapter  19]  THE   THREE   GOSPELS  181 

between  me  and  old  Hennas,  a  private  confession  of  a  dream  of 
his.  A  dream  fulfilled  and  to  be  fulfilled,  he  says.  All  a  dream, 
I  say.  Who  shall  decide  ?  Though  I  will  not  give  you  the 
words,  you  shall  have  the  substance  of  his  letter. 

"  Well,  then,  if  I  might  believe  this  letter,  he,  old  Hernias, 
lying  dead  on  the  couch  before  my  eyes,  was  not  really  dead, 
but  only  on  the  way  to  a  beautiful  city  of  justice  and  truth,  to 
which  all  the  just,  honourable,  and  truthful  might  attain, 
Roman,  Greek,  Jew,  Scythian,  rich  and  poor,  bond  and  free, 
high-born  and  low-born.  No  franchise  was  needed  except  a 
patient  and  laborious  pursuit  of  virtue.  In  this  city  no  one 
citizen  was  greater  than  another.  If  anyone  could  be  called 
greatest,  it  was  the  one  that  made  of  least  account  his  own 
pleasures,  his  own  wealth,  fame,  and  reputation,  serving  the 
state  and  his  fellow-citizens  in  all  things.  Yet  it  was  not  a 
republic,  for  it  had  a  king.  But  this  king  was  not  a  despot  like 
the  kings  of  the  east,  abhorred  by  Greeks  and  Romans.  The 
kingdom  was  a  family  at  unity  with  itself,  the  citizens  being 
closely  bound  by  affection  to  their  king  as  father  and  to  their 
fellow-citizens  as  brethren.  'And  if,' said  Hermas,  'you  desire  to 
be  drawn  towards  that  king  and  to  become  one  with  all  the 
fellow-citizens  of  the  City  of  Truth,  I  beseech  you,  my  dear  lord 
and  benefactor — being,  as  you  are,  a  lover  of  truth — to  study 
with  all  patience  those  books  of  my  dearest  mistress  Domitilla, 
which  I  saw  before  you  on  that  day  on  which  you  spoke  to  me 
your  words — your  last  words  to  me,  so  God  wills  it — words  of 
kindness  following  deeds  of  kindness,  for  which  may  the  Father 
in  heaven  be  kind  to  you  for  ever  and  ever.' 

"  A  postscript  added  a  further  request,  that  I  would  search 
for  other  papyri,  which  contained  the  epistles  of  Paul,  and 
which,  he  said,  belonged  to  Domitilla's  library,  though  he  had 
been  unable  to  find  them.  '  These,'  he  said,  '  give  a  clue  to  the 
meaning  of  many  things  that  are  obscure  in  the  gospels ;  for  in 
the  gospels  traditions  derived  from  different  documents  or 
witnesses,  are  sometimes  set  down  without  uniform  arrangement, 
and  without  proportion ;  so  that,  in  Mark,  a  whole  column  of 
forty  lines  might  be  given,  for  example,  to  the  exorcism  of  some 
evil  spirit,  and  only  three  or  four  lines  to  some  principal  and 


182     SCA  URUS  AND  THE  THREE  GOSPELS    [Chap.  19 

fundamental  saying  of  Christ.  But  Paul,  though  he  was  neither 
an  eye-witness  nor  an  ear-witness,  understood  spiritual  things, 
according  to  his  saying,  We  have  the  mind  of  Christ.' 

"  This  was  written  on  the  day  before  his  death.  Another 
postscript,  added  on  the  following  day,  contained  nothing  but  a 
hope  or  prayer  that  he  might  meet  me  in  the  City  of  Truth. 
I  should  add  that  I  searched  at  the  time  in  vain  for  Domitilla's 
copy  of  Paul's  letters.  It  was  not  till  three  years  afterwards 
that  I  read  them,  having  procured  a  copy  from  another  source. 
Sometimes  I  regret  this  and  ask  myself  whether  Hermas  might 
have  been  right  in  thinking  that  Paul  would  have  led  me  to 
understand  the  gospels  better.  But  I  cannot  think  that  the 
Gods  have  decreed  that  those  alone  shall  find  the  way  to  the 
City  of  Truth  who  may  happen  to  have  studied  four  Christian 
papyri  in  a  particular  order.  Now  I  must  pass  from  all  this 
prattle  about  regrets,  hopes,  prayers,  and  preconceptions,  to 
describe  my  exploration  of  the  gospels  and  my  search  for  historical 
fact." 


CHAPTER   XX 

SCAURUS   ON   FORGIVENESS 
At  this  point,  Scaurus  had  drawn  two  lines,  thus 


Then  the  letter  continued,  "These  two  lines,  my  dear 
Silanus,  represent  two  portions  of  Mark's  ' gospel'— which  word 
you  know,  I  presume,  that  the  Christians  use,  as  the  Greeks  do, 
to  mean  '  good  news.'  Well,  the  short  thin  line  represents  the 
portion  given  by  Mark  to  the  moral  precepts  or  sayings  of  Christ. 
The  long  thick  line  represents  the  portion  given  to  framework — 
for  example,  to  describing  a  certain  John,  called  the  Baptist, 
who,  so  to  speak,  introduces  Christ  to  the  people  ;  to  casting 
out  devils;  to  healing  specified  diseases,  fever,  leprosy,  paralysis, 
blindness,  deafness,  dumbness,  lameness ;  to  the  raising  up  of  a 
child  apparently  dead ;  to  the  destruction  of  a  herd  of  swine  by 
suffering  devils  to  enter  into  them ;  to  walking  on  water ;  to 
calming  a  tempest ;  to  a  feeding  (or  rather  two  feedings)  of 
thousands  of  men  with  a  few  loaves  and  fishes ;  to  blasting  a 
fig-tree  (but  that  comes  later  on) ;  to  the  character  of  Herod  the 
tetrarch,  and  his  birth-day  feasting,  ending  in  the  beheading  of 
the  above-mentioned  John;  to  the  finding  of  an  ass  by  the  disciples 
in  exact  accordance  with  Christ's  predictions  and  precepts ; 
lastly,  to  very  minute  details  of  Christ's  trial  and  crucifixion. 
There  are  also  a  few  fables,  called  parables,  likening  the  good 
news,  or  gospel,  to  seed,  which  will  not  grow  if  sown  in  wrong 
places  but  will  grow  without  man's  interference  if  sown  rightly. 


184  SCAURUS  [Chapter  20 

But,  all  this  while,  about  the  good  news  itself,  and  about  its  nature, 
and  about  the  persons  to  whom  the  good  news  is  to  be  brought, 
and  about  the  good  that  it  will  do  people — hardly  one  word  ! 
Do  not  take  my  word  for  this.  Take  your  own  copy  of  Mark 
and  look  at  the  first  words  of  Jesus,  '  Repent  and  believe  the 
gospel.'  But  what  gospel  ?  Jesus  has  not  mentioned  the  word 
before.  This  is  a  specimen  of  the  whole  work.  It  is  not  a 
gospel  at  all.  It  leaves  out  essential  things.  It  is  only  the 
frame  of  a  gospel." 

I  did  not  see  at  first  how  to  answer  this.  But  on  looking 
into  the  matter  it  seemed  to  me  that  Scaurus  had  not  noticed 
Mark's  first  words,  "The  beginning  of  the  gospel  of  Jesus  Christ 
as  it  is  written  in  Isaiah  the  prophet."  Moreover  Christ's  first 
words  were  not  "  Repent,"  but  "  The  time  is  fulfilled,  and  the 
kingdom  of  God  hath  drawn  near.  Repent  and  believe  in  the 
gospel."  Now  the  first  mention  of  "  preaching  the  gospel "  in 
Isaiah  is  in  a  passage  that  begins  thus :  "  Comfort  ye,  comfort 
ye,  my  people,  saith  God... because  her  humiliation  is  fulfilled, 

her  sin  is  loosed The  voice  of  one  crying  in  the  wilderness, 

Prepare  ye  the  way  of  the  Zorc£... and  the  glory  of  the  Lord 
shall  appear  and  all  flesh  shall  see  the  salvation  of  God..." ;  and 
soon  afterwards  come  the  words,  "  Unto  a  high  mountain  get 
thee  up,  0  thou  that  preachest  the  gospel  to  Sion."  A  marginal 
note  in  my  Isaiah  said  that — instead  of  "  her  humiliation  is 
fulfilled " — the  right  translation  was  "  her  time  of  service  is 
fulfilled,"  which  resembled  Mark,  "The  time  is  fulfilled" — words 
omitted  by  Matthew  and  Luke. 

Reviewing  Mark  and  Isaiah  together,  I  came  to  the  con- 
clusion that  Mark  took  for  granted  that  his  readers  would  refer 
to  the  passage  in  Isaiah,  and  that  he  meant,  in  effect,  this : 
"  The  beginning  of  the  gospel  of  Jesus  Christ  was  the  fulfilment 
of  Isaiah's  gospel  (namely,  '  Comfort  ye  my  people  because  the 
time  is  fulfilled  and  her  sin  is  loosed ')."  John  the  Baptist, 
according  to  Mark,  fulfilled  Isaiah's  prophecy.  He  was  the 
voice  crying  in  the  wilderness,  "  Prepare  the  way,"  namely,  for 
this  gospel  of  the  salvation  of  God.  Then  came  Jesus  saying, 
in  the  words  of  Isaiah,  '"The  time  is  fulfilled,'  that  is,  for  the 
gospel  of  the  '  loosing  of  sins ' ;  believe  in  this  gospel."    Looked  at 


Chapter  20]  ON  FORGIVENESS  185 

in  this  way,  Mark,  though  brief  and  obscure,  did  not  seem  to 
me  to  have  "  left  out "  what  was  (as  Scaurus  said)  "  essential," 
but  to  have  referred  his  readers  to  Isaiah  for  what  was 
essential,  if  they  were  not  already  familiar  with  the  passage, 
so  that  they  might  understand  the  meaning  to  be,  "  Believe  in 
the  gospel  of  the  loosing,  or  forgiveness,  of  sins,  predicted  by 
Isaiah,  and  fulfilled  now." 

Scaurus's  next  objection  was  this:  "Soon  after  telling  us 
that  Jesus  called  four  men  away  from  being  fishers  of  fish  to  be 
'  fishers  of  men ' — without  explaining  the  nature  or  object  of 
this  '  fishing,'  Mark  says,  '  Men  were  amazed  at  his  teaching. 
For  his  way  of  teaching  was  that  of  one  having  authority  and 
not  as  the  way  of  the  scribes.'  But  what  kind  of  '  authority '  ? 
Listen  to  the  rabble,  how  they  define  it  (a  few  lines  lower 
down).  '  What  is  this  ?  A  novel  teaching !  With  authority 
does  he  dictate  even  to  the  unclean  spirits  and  they  obey  him.' 
Now  Flavius  Josephus  has  told  me  that  he  himself  has  known 
a  conjurer  or  exorcist  cast  out  an  unclean  spirit  or  demon — in 
the  presence  of  Vespasian  and  his  officers — and  make  it  knock 
over  a  bucket  of  water  in  its  exit :  but  he  never  told  me — and 
you  may  be  sure  he  would  never  have  supposed — that  the 
conjurer,  on  the  strength  of  his  exorcisms,  would  claim  to 
preach  a  gospel ! " 

This  struck  me  at  first  as  a  very  forcible  objection.  And 
I  was  not  surprised  that  Matthew  omitted  the  whole  of  this 
narrative ;  for  it  is  liable  to  be  misunderstood.  But  I  found  on 
examination  that  Jesus  did  not  (as  Scaurus  said)  "claim  to 
preach  a  gospel "  on  the  strength  of  such  exorcisms.  On  the 
contrary,  Mark  and  Luke  say  soon  afterwards,  that  Jesus 
"would  not  allow  the  demons  to  speak  because  they  knew 
him."  Moreover  I  found  that  the  man  from  whom  the  demon 
was  said  to  have  been  expelled  cried  out  that  Jesus  was  "  the 
Holy  One  of  God."  So  it  appeared  possible  that  Jesus — if  he 
possessed,  like  Apollo  or  ^Esculapius,  some  divine  power  of 
healing — might  heal  lunatics  or  possessed  persons  among  others, 
and  yet  might  not  claim,  on  the  strength  of  such  exorcisms 
alone,  to  preach  a  gospel.  From  what  I  had  read  in  Paul's 
epistles,  and  also  from  my  recent  reading  of  Isaiah's  prediction 


186  SCA  UR  US  [Chapter  20 

of  the  "  gospel,"  it  seemed  to  me  more  likely  that  Jesus  would 
connect  his  gospel — though  what  the  connexion  would  be  I  did 
not  yet  see — with  the  forgiveness  of  sins. 

And  this  indeed  I  found  to  be  the  subject  of  Scaurus's  next 
objection ;  "  Then  Jesus  says  that  he  will  cure  a  man  of 
paralysis  in  order  that  the  spectators  '  may  know  that  the  Son 
of  man  hath  authority  on  earth  to  forgive  sins.'  Now  this  is 
the  first  mention  of '  the  Son  of  man.'  Who,  or  of  what  nature, 
is  this  Son  of  man  ?     There  is  no  answer." 

Scaurus  spoke  thus,  perhaps,  because  he  had  in  his  mind 
some  passages  in  the  Jewish  scriptures  where  a  "  son  of  man  " 
is  described  as  coming  on  the  clouds  to  judge  mankind,  and 
others  where  a  "  son  of  man  "  means  "  son  of  a  mere  mortal." 
He  may  have  thought  that  Mark  ought  to  have  explained 
which  of  the  two  was  meant. 

But  Paul's  epistles  had  shewn  me  that,  when  he  regarded 
Christ  as  having  authority  over  all  things,  he,  Paul,  was  in  the 
habit  of  quoting  one  of  the  most  beautiful  of  David's  Psalms, 
which  said,  "  What  is  man  that  thou  art  mindful  of  him,  and 
the  son  of  man  that  thou  visitest  him  ?  For  thou  hast  made 
him  but  little  lower  than  the  angels."  Now  here  my  MS.  said, 
in  the  margin  of  the  Psalm — as  I  quoted  it  above — "  but  little 
lower  than  God."  Then  David  continued,  "  Thou  hast  subjected 
all  things  under  his  feet."  These  words  "subjecting  all  things" 
are  frequently  applied  by  Paul  to  the  reign  or  lordship  of  Christ 
over  mankind.  And  "  to  subject  "  was  precisely  the  word  used 
by  Epictetus  concerning  the  ideal  ruler,  when  he  taught  us 
that  Socrates  had  the  power  "  so  to  frame  his  hearers "  that 
they  would  "  subject "  their  wills  to  his.  It  seemed  to  me,  then, 
that  if  Scaurus  had  said  to  Mark  "Why  did  you  not  explain 
which  son  of  man  Jesus  meant  ? "  Mark  might  have  replied, 
"Because  the  Lord  Jesus  did  not  recognise  two  'sons  of  man.' 
He  taught  us  that  the  son  of  man  on  earth  is  intended  by  God 
to  be  the  son  of  man  in  heaven,  and  that  the  son  of  man,  even 
on  earth,  is  superior  to  the  moon  and  the  stars,  having  'authority 
over  all  things '." 

Afterwards  I  found  that  Jesus  (in  Matthew)  quotes  else- 
where part  of  another  passage  in  this  same  psalm  of  David, 


Chapter  20]  ON  FORGIVENESS  187 

namely,  "  Out  of  the  mouth  of  babes  and  sucklings  hast  thou 
established  strength,  because  of  thine  adversaries,  that  thou 
mightest  still  the  enemy  and  the  avenger."  Paul  taught  that 
the  "  adversaries  "  of  the  Lord  are  the  angels  of  Satan,  and  the 
"  enemy  "  is  the  devil,  and  these  are  like  wild  beasts  seeking  to 
devour  the  soul  of  man.  David,  therefore,  might  be  interpreted 
spiritually  as  meaning  that  God  has  given  "  authority  "  to  the 
Son  of  man,  not  only  over  the  visible  "  beasts  of  the  field  "  but 
also  over  the  invisible  "  beasts  "  that  attack  the  heart  of  man. 
"Over  these  "- — Paul  might  say — "  hath  the  Son  of  man  received 
authority  that  he  may  still  the  enemy  and  avenger,"  that  is  to 
say,  that  he  may  put  Satan  to  silence  by  delivering  man  from 
the  bondage  of  sin.  Some  thought  of  this  kind  occurred  to  me 
at  the  time.  And  I  was  confirmed  in  it  afterwards  when  I 
found  in  the  gospels  elsewhere  mention  of  "  authority "  to 
"  trample  on,  or  rule  over,"  wild  "  beasts "  of  various  kinds. 
The  facts  seemed  to  shew  that  Jesus  often  meditated  on  this 
beautiful  poem  of  David  and  on  the  power  given  by  God  to 
"  the  Son  of  man  "  and  to  "  babes  and  sucklings  " — to  whom 
Jesus  appears  often  to  refer  under  the  title  of  "  the  little 
ones." 

These  considerations  to  some  extent  met  Scaurus's  next 
objection :  "  Now  as  to  authority  to  forgive  sins — what  is  meant 
by  this  ?  I  can  forgive  you  a  debt  of  a  thousand  sesterces. 
But  I  cannot  forgive  you  a  theft  of  a  thousand  sesterces — except 
in  the  language  of  the  people.  Whether  you  stole  them  from 
me  or  from  somebody  else,  that  makes  no  difference.  You 
remain  a  thief — a  past  thief  of  course — till  the  end  of  your 
days.  Jupiter  himself,  as  Horace  in  effect  declares,  cannot 
unthieve  you." 

This  caused  me  a  great  deal  of  thought.  It  was  logical, 
yet  I  felt  it  was  not  true.  It  seemed  to  me,  for  example,  that 
if  two  sons  had  stolen  money  from  two  several  fathers,  one 
father  might  so  deal  with  the  child  that  he  might  feel  himself 
forgiven,  even  though  he  had  to  pay  the  money  back  again; 
while  another  father,  though  not  exacting  the  money,  might 
make  the  boy  feel  that  he  was  not  forgiven,  and  that  he  would 
be  a  thief  all  his  life  long.     Even   Epictetus,  I  remembered, 


188  SCAURUS  [Chapter  20 

said  about  Diogenes,  "  He  goes  about  like  a  physician  feeling 
the  pulses  of  his  patients,  and  saying,  '  You  have  a  fever ;  you, 
a  headache ;  you,  the  gout.  You  must  fast ;  you  must  eat ; 
you  must  not  bathe ;  you  must  have  the  knife ;  you  must  have 
cautery.' '  He  was  talking  of  mental  or  spiritual  diseases. 
Well,  to  be  slavishly  afraid  of  God — was  not  this  a  disease  ? 
And  to  one  thus  diseased,  might  not  a  healing  Son  of  God  come 
with  a  message  from  the  Father,  "  He  loves  you,  though  He 
may  punish.  He  will  punish  as  a  Father  that  loves.  Steal  no 
more  ;  He  will  not  treat  you  as  a  thief.  Sin  no  more ;  He  will 
not  treat  you  as  a  sinner." 

Epictetus  once  declared  that  Diogenes  had  been  sent  before 
us  as  a  reconnoitrer  into  the  regions  of  death  and  had  brought 
back  his  report,  "There  is  nothing  terrible  there."  I  never 
could  quite  understand  on  what  grounds  our  Teacher  based 
this  assertion,  unless  it  was  because  the  Cynic  himself  had 
absolutely  no  fear  of  death.  It  was  more  easy  for  me  to  under- 
stand— I  do  not  say,  to  prove,  but  to  understand — that  a  great 
prophet  might  bring  a  similar  report  from  the  Father  of  men, 
"I  come  from  the  House  of  God  to  tell  you  that  there  is  nothing- 
terrible  there — except  for  the  cruel  and  base.  There  is  nothing 
but  kindness  and  justice  and  true  fatherhood."  About  the 
alleged  "  report "  of  Diogenes,  I  had  felt  that — if  I  believed 
it — it  would  deliver  me  from  bondage  to  the  fear  of  death. 
Similarly  I  felt,  about  the  message  or  gospel  of  this  Jewish 
prophet,  that — if  I  believed  it — it  might  raise  me  above  fears 
into  a  region  of  love  and  trust  and  loyalty  to  the  righteous 
Father.  This  was  only  theory.  I  did  not  believe  it.  But 
I  felt  the  possibility  of  believing  and  of  being  strengthened 
by  the  belief. 

Scaurus  next  objected  to  the  words,  "I  came  not  to  call  the 
righteous  but  sinners."  This  was  in  Mark  and  Matthew. 
"  Luke,"  he  said,  "  adds  '  to  repentance  ' ;  and  that  of  course  is 
meant.  Now  it  is  quite  right  that  '  sinners '  should  be  '  called  ' 
to  '  repentance.'  But  is  that  '  good  news '  ?  Is  that  '  gospel '  ? 
And,  if  it  is,  what  about  '  the  righteous '  ?  They,  it  seems,  are 
not  '  called.'     There  is  no  '  gospel '  for  them  ! " 

Here  Scaurus  seemed  on  strong  ground.     And  I  felt  that 


Chapter  20]  ON  FORGIVENESS  189 

he  might  urge  against  Mark  what  Epictetus  says  about  Dio- 
genes, namely,  that  the  ideal  physician  inspects  others,  besides 
those  who  are  manifestly  diseased,  in  order  to  see  who  are 
healthy  and  who  are  not.  But  then  I  asked  myself,  "  Who  are 
'  the  righteous '  ? "  And  the  answer  Paul  put  into  my  mouth 
was,  "  None  are  righteous  except  through  faith  in  God's  Son." 
That  is  to  say,  "  None  are  righteous  save  through  the  Spirit  of 
Sonship.  None  are  righteous  through  the  Law."  Moreover, 
on  examining  the  context,  I  found  that  the  words  "  I  came  not 
to  call  the  righteous "  were  uttered  to  unrighteous,  envious 
people,  the  Pharisees,  who  grudged  forgiveness  of  sins  to  the 
sinners.  Elsewhere  Luke  described  the  Pharisees  as  "  counting 
themselves  to  be  righteous  and  despising  others."  That  is, 
they  were  "  righteous "  in  their  own  estimation.  In  reality, 
then,  Jesus  regarded  all  men  as  in  need  of  health,  that  is  to 
say,  in  need  of  righteousness.  Also,  what  Jesus  called  "re- 
penting "  was  what  the  prophets  call  "  turning  to  Jehovah." 
So  the  message  of  the  gospel  was,  "  Turn  ye  to  the  Lord  and 
He  will  forgive  you  and  will  grant  health  to  your  souls."  This 
was  addressed  to  all  that  needed  better  health,  that  is,  to  all 
the  nation.  But  some  made  themselves  blind  to  their  own 
sinful  acts  and  deaf  to  the  sinful  utterances  of  their  own  hearts. 
These  could  not  hear  the  gospel.  The  "  call "  of  the  gospel  did 
not  come  into  their  ears.  But  it  was  not  the  gospel's  fault  but 
theirs. 

The  more  I  thought  over  Scaurus's  trenchant  criticism,  the 
stronger  grew  my  suspicion  that  Romans  and  Greeks  might  be 
inferior  to  the  best  of  the  Jews  in  the  knowledge  of  the  depths 
of  human  nature.  I  knew  from  Paul's  epistles  that  the  apostle 
recognised  a  certain  mysterious  power  of  forgiving  sins  and 
infirmities  by  bearing  them.  This  Paul  called  "the  law  of 
Christ,"  saying,  "  Bear  ye  one  another's  burdens  and  so  fulfil 
the  law  of  Christ,"  and  again,  "  If  anyone  be  overtaken  in  a 
fault,  do  ye,  who  are  spiritual,  restore  such  a  one  in  a  spirit  of 
meekness."  This  word,  "  restore,"  came  into  my  mind  when 
Scaurus  said,  "  Once  a  thief,  always  a  thief."  It  seemed  to  me 
truer  to  say  that  a  father  might  "  restore  "  his  child,  after  the 
theft,  so  that  he  might  be  honest  for  the  rest  of  his  life.     This 


190  SCAURUS  [Chapter  20 

power  of  "restoring"  was  (as  indeed  it  still  is)  a  great  mystery 
to  me.     But  it  is  a  mysterious  fact,  not  a  mere  imagination. 

Also  Scaurus  himself  said,  "  It  is  very  likely  that  many  of 
the  poorer  Jews  were  called  '  sinners '  by  the  Pharisees  for 
breaking  small  and  perhaps  disputed  rules  about  purification  or 
about  the  exact  observance  of  the  sabbath.  This  my  rabbi 
admitted,  although  he  did  not  care  to  say  much  about  it. 
I  can  understand  that  Christ  might  deal  epigrammatically  (so 
to  speak)  with  poor  creatures  of  this  kind  by  pronouncing  them 
'forgiven'  or  'righteous.'  But  they  would  be  just  as  'righteous' 
as  before ;  neither  more  righteous  nor  less  righteous ;  his 
'  pronouncing '  would  make  no  difference.  The  Jews  closely 
connect  '  pronouncing  righteous '  and  '  making  righteous,'  as 
though  the  sentence  of  the  judge  is  anything  more  than  the 
expression  of  the  judge's  opinion  !     But  it  is  a  pure  delusion." 

I  did  not  think  Scaurus  was  right.  It  did  not  seem  to  me 
that  the  voice  of  the  true  Son  of  man,  saying,  "  I  pronounce 
you  righteous  in  the  name  of  the  Father  of  men,"  would  be  of 
the  same  kind  or  efficacy  as  the  voice  of  a  lawyer,  saying, 
"  Having  in  view  sect.  3  of  chap.  4  of  such  and  such  a  Code, 
I  pronounce  you  not  guilty."  I  had  come  to  feel  that  the  Son 
of  man  represented  the  "  authority "  of  humanity — divine 
humanity,  such  humanity  as  commends  itself  (without  support 
from  statute  law)  to  the  consciences  of  mankind.  The  Pharisees 
(I  thought)  might  have  made  some  of  these  poor  men  really 
unrighteous  by  making  them  frightened  of  God — as  though 
He  were  an  austere  lawgiver  or  hard  taskmaster.  The  Son, 
delivering  them  from  this  servile  terror,  and  raising  them  into 
a  wholesome  fear,  that  is  to  say,  into  a  free  and  loving  reverence 
for  a  righteous  God,  might  bring  the  Spirit  of  the  Father  into 
their  hearts,  thus  making  them  righteous.  If  so,  Christ's  voice, 
saying  "I  forgive  you,"  would  not  be  a  mere  judge's  "sentence," 
or  expression  of  "  opinion."  It  would  be  a  power,  causing  the 
guilty  to  feel,  and  to  be,  forgiven. 

Scaurus  then  said,  "  Now  pass  on,  and  you  will  find  nothing 
worth  mentioning  except  a  wilderness  of  wonders  and  portents 
until  the  twelve  apostles  are  sent  out  to  '  preach  the  gospel.' 
And  now,  say  you,  Jesus  must  surely  tell  his  missionaries  what 


Chapter  20]  ON  FORGIVENESS  191 

this  '  gospel '  is.  But  no.  Not  a  word  about  it.  Mark  himself 
says,  '  They  preached  that  men  should  repent.'  Wholesome 
tidings,  no  doubt,  but  hardly  good  tidings  ! "  Here,  as  before, 
Scaurus  (as  it  seems  to  me)  had  failed  to  see  that  Jews  would 
understand  Mark's  meaning  to  be  "They  preached  that  m  a 
should  turn  to  God  and  receive  forgiveness  " — which  would  be 
"  good  tidings."  Moreover  he  had  omitted  Christ's  doctrine 
that  "  the  Son  of  man  is  lord  even  of  the  sabbath,"  to  which 
Mark  alone  (I  found)  prefixed  "  The  sabbath  was  made  for  man 
and  not  man  for  the  sabbath."  According  to  this  doctrine  God 
seemed  to  say  to  men,  "  Priests,  temples,  sacrifices,  fasts, 
sabbaths,  rites  and  ceremonies,  psalms,  hymns,  and  prayers — 
all  these  I  have  given  you  for  your  own  sake,  to  draw  you 
nearer  to  me."  This,  in  a  way,  was  like  the  doctrine  of 
Epictetus,  that  each  man  must  take  an  oath  to  himself  to 
think  of  his  own  interest.  But  in  another  way  it  was  different. 
For  Matthew  added,  "  I  desire  kindness,  not  sacrifice."  That 
went  to  the  root  of  the  difference  between  Epictetus  and  Christ. 
The  former  said,  "  Think  of  your  own  virtue " ;  the  latter, 
"  Think  how  your  neighbour  needs  your  kindness."  According 
to  the  gospel,  the  rule  of  God  was,  "  Draw  near  to  me."  Then, 
in  answer  to  men's  question,  "  How  draw  near  ? "  the  reply  was, 
"  Draw  near  to  one  another.  That  is  the  best  way.  Drawing 
near  to  me  by  sabbaths  or  sacrifices  is  a  second  best  way.  The 
second  best  must  not  interfere  with  the  first  best." 

It  appeared  to  me  that  Scaurus  dealt  with  Mark  more 
severely  than  he  would  have  dealt  with  Plato.  Plato  regards 
"justice,"  not  as  obedience  to  the  written  laws,  but  as  "doing 
that  which  is  best  for  all."  If  therefore  retribution  of  good  and 
evil  comes  on  the  welldoer  and  on  the  evildoer,  severally,  as 
being  "the  best  thing"  for  each  and  for  all,  this  is  "justice." 
But  Scaurus  quoted  Mark,  "In  the  moment  when  ye  stand 
praying,  forgive,  if  ye  have  any  charge  against  anyone,  that 
your  Father  also  in  heaven  may  forgive  you  your  trespasses," 
and  then  said,  "This  is  not  just.  If  I  forgive  my  slave  for 
robbing  me  or  for  cruelly  maiming  one  of  his  fellow-slaves,  does 
it  follow  that  Jupiter  should  forgive  me  for  theft  or  murder  ? 
Not  in  the  least.     He  ought  to  punish  me  twice  over,  first,  for 


192  SCAURUS   ON  FORGIVENESS       [Chapter  20 

unjustly  forgiving  crime,  and  then  for  being  a  criminal  myself." 
Here  Scaurus  was  thinking  of  remitting  penalty,  whereas  Mark 
meant  bearing  the  burden  of  sin.  And,  although  the  matter 
was  not  then  as  clear  to  me  as  it  is  now,  I  could  see  how  a  man 
wronged,  and  prosecuting  the  wrong-doer,  not  as  offending 
against  society  and  justice  but  as  offending  against  himself — a 
man  that  does  not  wish  to  "  do  the  best  thing  "  for  offenders 
and  for  the  community — creates  for  himself  an  image  of  a  God 
bad  and  selfish  and  unforgiving  like  himself;  so  that  either  he 
trembles  before  his  bad  God  and  is  a  slave ;  or  else  he  regards 
himself  as  the  favourite  of  a  bad  God,  and  becomes  confirmed 
in  his  own  badness. 

On  the  whole,  though  I  was  forced  to  admit  the  justice 
of  many  charges  that  Scaurus  brought  against  Mark — and 
especially  the  charge  of  disproportion,  and  of  neglecting  great 
doctrines  while  emphasizing  small  details  of  narrative — still 
I  was  satisfied  that  Mark  did  contain  a  gospel,  namely,  the 
good  tidings  of  the  forgiveness  of  sins.  Scaurus  called  Mark's 
gospel  a  mere  frame.  It  seemed  to  me  that  it  would  have  been 
less  untrue  to  call  it  a  picture  in  which  the  principal  figure 
was  not  clearly  seen  because  of  intervening  objects  and  inferior 
figures.  Or  it  might  be  called  a  drama  in  which  the  leading 
character  is  too  often  absent  from  the  stage ;  or,  when  present, 
he  speaks  too  little,  while  minor  characters  are  allowed  to  speak 
too  much. 


CHAPTER   XXI 

SCAURUS   ON   THE   CROSS 

ScAURUS  continued,  "  I  pass  over  a  good  many  columns  in 
Mark  before  I  come  to  anything  of  the  nature  of  a  precept. 
Then  I  find  the  following,  '  There  is  nothing  outside  the  man, 
entering  into  him,  that  can  defile  him.'  Now  you  might 
suppose  that  this  would  have  been  good  news,  addressed  as  it  is, 
to  the  needy  multitude.  For  it  would  have  enabled  them  (you 
may  say)  to  eat  pork  like  their  Greek  neighbours  and  would 
have  saved  them  trouble  and  expense  in  preparing  food. 

"  But  look  at  the  context.  Jesus  is  upholding  the  written 
law  of  Moses  against  the  teachers  of  unwritten  traditions. 
These  teachers  told  people  that  if  a  particle  of  this  or  that 
came  off  their  hands  into  their  mouths  while  they  were  eating, 
they  were  defiled.  These  traditions  also  prescribed  minute 
regulations  about  preparing  meat,  and  about  avoiding  meat 
sold  in  the  markets  of  Greek  cities.  Look  at  Paul's  Corinthian 
letters  about  this.  These  regulations  must  have  been  very 
inconvenient  for  the  poor  Jews  in  the  Greek  cities  of  Galilee. 
Jesus  stood  up  for  the  poor,  and  for  the  written  law,  which  said 
nothing  about  such  details.  Long  after  the  crucifixion,  Peter 
was  told  by  '  the  Lord  '  in  a  vision  (you  will  find  it  in  the 
Acts)  that  he  might  eat  anything  he  liked,  pork  included.  But 
Jesus  said  nothing  of  the  kind  before  his  death.  Turn  to  the 
Acts  and  you  will  find  it  as  I  have  said." 

I  turned,  and  found,  as  usual,  that  Scaurus  was  right, 
though  there  was  no  special  mention  of  pork  in  the  Acts,  but 
only    of    "  beasts    and    creeping    things,"    which    Peter    calls 

a.  13 


194  SCAURUS  [Chapter  21 

"  unclean."  Scaurus  continued,  "  Now  look  carefully  at  what 
follows  in  Mark  and  Matthew.  Mark  represents  the  disciples — 
but  Matthew  represents  Peter — as  questioning  Christ  privately 
about  this  startling  saying.  The  questioners  are  said  to  have 
called  it  a  '  parable.'  There  was  no  '  parable  '  about  it  at  all. 
But  the  fact  was  that,  after  the  resurrection,  it  was  revealed  to 
Peter,  or  to  the  disciples,  that  the  meaning  of  the  saying 
'  Nothing  outside  defileth '  went  far  beyond  its  original  scope  ; 
so  that  it  swept  away  the  whole  of  the  Levitical  ordinances 
about  things  'unclean.'  If  you  examine  Mark's  words  carefully 
you  will  see  that  he  inserts  a  comment  of  his  own  (which 
Matthew  omits)  namely  that  Jesus  uttered  these  words  'puri- 
fying all  kinds  of  food.'  If  by  '  purifying,'  Mark  meant 
'  purifying  in  effect,'  or  '  purifying,  as  the  disciples  subsequently 
undei'stood,'  then  he  was  right.  If  he  meant  'purifying  at 
once,'  or  'purifying  in  such  a  way  as  to  abrogate  immediately 
the  Levitical  prohibitions'  then  he  was  wrong ;  for  that  was  not 
the  meaning. 

"  What  indeed  do  you  suppose  would  have  happened,  if 
Jesus  and  his  disciples  had  sat  down  to  a  dinner  of  pork  on 
that  same  day?  They  would  have  been  stoned  by  the  multitude. 
The  meaning  was  limited  as  I  have  said  above.  Mark  has 
probably  mixed  together  what  occurred  before,  and  what 
occurred  after,  the  crucifixion.  It  was  very  natural.  How 
many  of  the  '  dark  sayings '  or  '  parables '  of  Jesus  might 
remain  '  dark '  to  the  disciples,  till  they  reflected  on  them 
after  his  death  !  Moreover  the  evangelists  believed  that  Jesus, 
after  his  death,  rose  again  and  appeared  on  several  occasions  to 
the  disciples,  apart  from  the  rest  of  the  world — that  is,  '  in 
private  ' — and  that  he  explained  to  them  after  death  what 
had  been  dark  sayings  during  his  life.  How  inevitable  for 
biographers — writing  thirty,  forty,  or  fifty  years  after  the 
events  they  narrated — sometimes  to  confuse  explanations,  or 
other  words  of  Christ,  uttered  '  in  private '  after  death,  with 
those  uttered  before  death,  whether  in  private  or  not !  I  shall 
have  to  mention  other  instances  of  such  confusion.  It  is  not 
surprising  that  Luke  omits  the  narrative." 

I  could  not  deny  the  force  of  this.     But,  though  it  derogated 


Chapter  21]  ON  THE  CROSS  195 

from  Mark  as  a  witness,  it  did  not  seem  to  me  to  derogate  from 
Christ  as  a  prophet.  I  felt  that  no  wise  teacher  could  have 
desired,  thus  by  a  side-blow,  to  sweep  away  the  whole  of  the 
national  code  of  purifications.  So  I  was  ready  to  accept 
Scaurus's   view,    at    all    events   provisionally. 

"I  pass  over,"  said  Scaurus,  "  the  precept,  'Beware  of  leaven,' 
which  was  certainly  metaphorical;  and  two  narratives  of  feeding 
multitudes  with  'loaves,'  which  in  my  opinion  are  metaphorical; 
and  a  mention  of  'crumbs,'  which  my  reason  leads  me  to  in- 
terpret in  one  way,  while  my  desire  suggests  another.  About 
this  I  shall  say  something  later  on,  as  also  about  predictions 
of  being  killed  and  rising  again.  Now  I  reach  these  words,  '  If 
anyone  wishes  to  come  after  me,  let  him  disown  himself,  and 
take  up  his  cross  and  follow  me.  For  whosoever  desires  to  save 
his  life  shall  lose  it,  and  whosoever  will  lose  his  life  for  the  sake 
of  me  and  the  gospel  shall  save  it.'  Note  that  these  words  are 
preceded  by  a  prediction  that  the  Son  of  man  must  be  '  killed.' 
Also  remember  that  the  '  cross  '  is  a  punishment  sanctioned  by 
Koman  but  not  by  Jewish  law.  Bearing  these  facts  in  mind, 
imagine  yourself  in  the  crowd,  and  tell  me  what  you  would 
think  Christ  meant,  if  he  turned  round  to  you  and  said,  '  You 
must  take  up  your  cross.'  Do  not  read  on  to  see  what  I  think ; 
for  I  doubt  whether  Christ  used  these  words.  But,  if  he  did 
use  them,  tell  me  what  you  think  he  meant  by  them." 

I  was  taken  aback  by  this.  For  I  perceived  that  the  sense 
required  a  metaphorical  rendering,  and,  at  the  same  time,  that 
such  a  metaphor  was  almost  impossible  among  any  Jews,  before 
Christ's  crucifixion.  At  first  I  tried  to  justify  it  from  Paul's 
epistles,  which  declared  that,  in  Christ's  death,  "  all  died " — 
meaning  that  all,  by  sympathy,  died  to  sin  and  rose  again  to 
righteousness.  Paul  said  also  "  I  have  been  crucified  with 
Christ,"  and  "  our  old  man" — meaning  "our  old  human  nature" 
— "  has  been  crucified  with  Him,"  and  "  the  world  has  been 
crucified  to  me  and  I  to  the  world."  But  these  expressions 
were  all  based  on  the  Christian  belief  that  the  "  cross  "  was  the 
way  to  "  resurrection."  They  were  quite  intelligible  after  the 
resurrection,  but  not  before  it. 

Then  I   tried   to  imagine  myself  in  the  circle  of  disciples 

13—2 


196  SCAUB.US  [Chapter  21 

surrounding  Socrates  in  prison,  and  the  Master,  with  the  bowl 
of  poison  in  his  hands,  preparing  to  drink  it,  and  looking  up  to 
us  and  saying,  "  If  you  intend  to  be  disciples  worthy  of  me,  you 
too'  must  be  prepared  to  take  up  the  hemlock  bowl."  What, 
I  asked,  should  I  have  understood  by  this  ?  It  seemed  to  me 
that  the  words  could  only  mean  "  You,  too,  must  be  prepared 
to  be  put  to  death  by  your  countrymen." 

Now  as  the  hemlock  bowl  was  the  regular  penalty  among 
the  Athenians,  so  the  cross  (as  Scaurus  had  said)  was  the 
regular  penalty  among  the  Romans  but  not  among  the  Jews. 
So,  when  I  tried  honestly  to  respond  to  Scaurus's  appeal,  and 
to  imagine  myself  in  the  crowd  following  Jesus,  and  the  Master 
turning  round  to  us,  and  saying,  "  Take  up  your  cross,"  I  was 
obliged  to  admit,  "  I  should  have  taken  the  Master  to  mean,  '  If 
you  are  to  be  worthy  followers  of  mine,  you  must  be  prepared  to 
be  put  to  death  as  rebels  by  the  Romans '." 

Scaurus  took  the  same  view.  "  Well,"  he  continued,  "I  will 
anticipate  your  answer,  for  it  seems  to  me  you  can  only  come 
to  one  conclusion.  You,  in  the  crowd,  would  take  the  words  to 
mean  that  you  must  follow  your  Master  to  the  death  against  the 
Romans.  But  all  intelligent  readers  of  the  Christian  books  ought 
to  know  that  he  could  not  have  said  that.  He  was  a  visionary, 
and  utterly  averse  to  violence,  so  averse  that  he  was  on  one 
occasion  reproached  for  his  inaction  by  John  the  Baptist — who 
once  said  to  him,  in  effect,  '  Why  do  you  leave  me  in  prison  ? 
Why  do  you  not  stir  a  hand  to  release  me  ? '  Moreover,  if  Jesus 
had  said  this,  what  would  the  chief  priests  have  needed 
more  than  this,  to  get  Pilate  to  put  him  to  death :  '  This  man 
said  to  the  rabble,  If  you  are  intending  to  follow  me,  you  must 
go  with  the  cross  on  your  shoulders  '  ?  '  Can  you  prove  this  ? ' 
would  have  been  Pilate's  reply.  They  would  have  proved  it. 
Then  sentence  would  have  followed  at  once  as  a  matter  of 
course.     And  who  can  deny  that  it  would  have  been  just?" 

I  certainly  could  not  deny  it.  Then  Scaurus  pointed  out  to 
me  how  Luke  avoided  this  dangerous  interpretation,  by 
inserting  "  daily,"  so  as  to  give  the  words  a  metaphorical  twist, 
"  Let  him  take  up  his  cross  daily."  But  this,  he  said,  was 
manifestly  an  addition  of  Luke's.     If  Jesus  had  inserted  "daily" 


Chapter  21]  ON  THE  GROSS  197 

why  should  Mark  and  Matthew  have  omitted  it  ?  "  Daily  " 
would  make  no  sense  till  a  generation  had  passed  away,  so  that 
"  to  be  crucified  with  Christ "  had  become  a  metaphorical 
expression  for  mortifying  the  flesh.  On  this  point,  at  all  events, 
Scaurus  seemed  to  me  to  be  right. 

He  continued  as  follows,  "  I  am  disposed  to  think  that 
Mark  has  misunderstood  a  Jewish  phrase  as  referring  to  the 
cross  when  it  really  referred  to  something  else.  You  know 
that,  in  Rome,  a  rascally  slave,  regarded  as  being  on  the  way  to 
crucifixion,  is  called  '  yoke-bearer,'  which  means  practically 
'  cross-bearer.'  Mark,  who  has  a  good  many  Latinisms,  might 
regard  '  take  the  yoke'  as  meaning  'take  the  cross' — if  the  former 
expression  could  be  proved  to  have  been  used  by  Jesus.  Still 
more  easily  might  '  take  the  yoke '  be  regarded  as  equivalent  to 
'  take  the  cross'  if  it  could  be  proved  that  the  Jews  themselves 
connected  'taking  the  yoke'  with  martyrdom. 

"  Both  these  facts  can  be  proved.  In  the  first  place, 
Christ  actually  said  to  the  disciples,  '  Take  my  yoke  upon  you.' 
It  is  true  that  this  saying  is  preserved  by  Matthew  alone  ;  but 
its  omission  by  others  is  easily  explained,  as  I  will  presently 
shew.  In  my  judgment,  it  is  certain  that  Christ  did  give  this 
precept,  and  that  it  had  nothing  to  do  with  crucifixion.  The 
context  in  Matthew  declares  that  the  kingdom  of  heaven  is 
revealed  only  to  '  babes ' — whom  Christ  elsewhere  calls  '  little 
ones  '  or  those  who  make  themselves  '  least '  in  the  kingdom  of 
God — and  soon  afterwards  come  the  words,  '  Take  my  yoke  upon 
you  and  learn  from  me,  for  I  am  meek  and  lowly  in  heart.' 
This  is  the  fundamental  truth  of  Christ's  teaching,  that  those 
who  make  themselves  the  humblest  of  servants  to  one  another 
are  greatest  in  his  '  kingdom.'  In  order  to  reign,  one  must 
serve,  or  '  take  the  yoke.' 

"  The  next  fact  is  that  Jews  of  the  present  day — so  I  am 
credibly  informed — would  say  of  a  Jewish  martyr  that  he  '  took 
the  yoke  upon  himself,'  when  he  made  a  formal  profession  of 
obedience  to  the  Law  just  before  death.  This  I  must  ask  you 
to  take  for  granted.  It  would  be  too  long  to  prove  and 
explain."  I  suppose  Scaurus  heard  this  from  the  teacher  he 
called  "  his  rabbi."     It  was  confirmed,  to  my  own  knowledge, 


198  SCAURUS  [Chapter  21 

* 

by  something  that  happened  nearly  thirty  years  ago  when  one 
of  the  most  famous  Jewish  teachers,  Akiba  by  name,  was  put 
to  death  under  Hadrian.  I  heard  it  said  by  a  credible  eye- 
witness that  "they  combed  his  flesh  with  combs  of  iron,"  and 
another  added  "Yes,  and  Akiba,  all  the  while,  kept  taking  upon 
himself  the  yoke  of  the  Kingdom  of  Heaven,"  by  which  he  meant 
repeating  the  profession  of  faith. 

"  A  third  fact,"  said  Scaurus,  "  is  that  the  Christians,  from  a 
very  early  period,  used  the  word  'yoke'  in  a  depreciatory  sense  to 
mean  the  '  bondage ' — as  they  called  it — of  the  Law  of  Moses. 
Paul  calls  the  latter  '  the  yoke  of  bondage.'  The  Christians,  at 
their  first  public  council,  speak  of  it  as  'a  yoke';  and  a  Christian 
writer  named  Barnabas  says  that  '  the  new  law  '  is  '  without  the 
yoke  of  necessity.'  I  suspect  that  among  the  Greeks  and 
Romans  the  servile  associations  of  '  yoke  '  have  also  tended  to 
the  disuse  of  the  term  among  the  Christians  of  the  west.  You 
may  object  that  the  associations  of  'cross'  are  still  more 
disgraceful  than  those  of  '  yoke.'  But  I  do  not  think  they 
would  be  so  for  Christians,  who  regarded  the  disgrace  of  the 
cross  as  a  step  upward  to  what  they  call  '  the  crown  of  life.' 
Indeed  I  am  rather  surprised  that  Matthew's  tradition  '  Take 
my  yoke  upon  you  '  has  been  retained  at  all,  even  by  a  single 
evangelist." 

Most  of  this  was  new  to  me.  But,  even  if  it  was  true — as 
seemed  to  me  not  unlikely — the  same  conclusion  followed  as 
above.  The  mistake  derogated  from  Mark,  not  from  Christ. 
Indeed  Scaurus's  interpretation  seemed  to  me  to  exalt  Christ. 
For  might  not  some  people,  of  austere  and  fanatical  minds,  find 
it  easier  to  "  take  up  the  cross,"  that  is,  to  lacerate  and  torture 
themselves,  than  to  "  take  up  the  yoke,"  that  is,  to  make  their 
lives  subservient  to  the  community  in  a  spirit  of  willing  self- 
sacrifice  ?  Indeed  Scaurus  himself  said,  "  If  I  am  right,  the 
Christians  have  lost  by  this  misunderstanding.  When  I  say 
'  lost,'  I  mean  '  lost  in  respect  of  morality.'  For  some  may 
'  take  up  the  cross '  like  the  priests  of  Cybele,  finding  a  pleasure 
in  gashing  themselves — such  is  human  nature.  But  it  is  not 
so  exciting  a  thing  to  '  take  up  the  yoke '  if  it  implies  making 
oneself  a  drudge  for  life  to  commonplace  people." 


Chapter  21]  ON  THE  GROSS  199 

This  seemed  very  true.  And  afterwards  I  was  not  surprised 
to  find  that  the  fourth  gospel  contains  no  precept  to  "  take  up 
the  cross."  But  it  commands  Christians  to  "love  one  another" — 
a  precept  that  nowhere  occurs  in  Mark.  Also  what  Scaurus 
said  about  "  making  oneself  a  drudge  "  was,  in  effect,  inculcated 
by  the  fourth  gospel  where  it  commands  the  disciples  to  "wash 
one  another's  feet."  Sometimes  I  have  asked  why  this  gospel 
did  not  restore  the  old  tradition  about  "  yoke."  Perhaps  the 
writer  avoided  it  as  he  avoids  "  faith,"  and  "  repentance,"  and 
other  technical  terms  that  might  come  between  Christians  and 
Christ.  Scaurus  himself  said,  "  There  seems  to  me  more 
morality  in  the  old  rule  of  Moses,  '  Love  thy  neighbour  as 
thyself  than  in  either  'Take  up  the  cross'  or  'Take  up  the 
yoke.'  If  ever  this  Christian  superstition  were  to  overrun  the 
world,  I  could  conceive  of  a  time  when  half  the  Christians 
might  fight  with  the  war-cry  of  '  the  yoke,'  and  the  other  half 
with  the  war-cry  of  '  the  cross,'  cutting  one  another's  throats 
for  these  emblems.  But  I  could  not  so  easily  conceive  of  a 
time  when  men  would  ever  cut  one  another's  throats  with  the 
war-cry,  'We  love  one  another'." 

These  words  of  Scaurus  seemed  to  me  at  the  time  to  be 
quite  true.  Now,  forty-five  years  afterwards,  they  seem  to  me 
true  as  to  fact,  but  not  quite  true  as  to  interpretation.  For, 
since  what  Scaurus  called  "  the  old  rule  of  Moses "  included 
"  Love  God,"  as  well  as  "  Love  thy  neighbour,"  it  followed  that 
the  Lord  Jesus,  in  saying  "Take  my  yoke,"  meant  "Serve  God," 
as  well  as  "  Serve  man."  And,  in  order  to  serve  God,  must  not 
one  be  prepared  to  suffer,  as  God  also  is  called  "longsuffering"? 
And  of  such  "  suffering  "  can  there  be  any  better  emblem  than 
Christ's  cross  ? 

I  cannot  honestly  deny  the  force  of  the  evidence  adduced 
by  Scaurus  to  prove  that  the  Saviour  did  not  really  utter  the 
precept  of  "  taking  up  the  cross,"  and  that  He  did  utter  the 
precept  of  "  taking  up  the  yoke."  But  I  can  honestly  accept 
the  former  as  an  interpretation  of  the  latter,  an  interpretation 
fit  for  Greeks  and  Romans  when  the  gospel  was  first  preached, 
and  likely  to  be  fit  for  all  the  races  of  the  world  till  the  time  of 


200  SCAURUS   ON  THE  CROSS  [Chapter  21 

the  coming  of  the  Lord.  If  Scaurus  is  right,  only  the  precept 
of  the  yoke  was  inculcated  by  Christ  in  word.  But  all  agree 
that  the  precept  of  the  cross  was  inculcated  by  Christ  in  act. 
Both  metaphors  seem  needed,  and  many  more,  to  help  the 
disciples  of  the  Lord  to  apprehend  the  nature  of  His  Kingdom, 
or  Family. 


CHAPTER  XXII 

SCAURUS   ON   MARK 

Scaurus  continued  as  follows :  "  I  now  come  to  a  passage 
where  Mark  represents  Christ  as  saying,  'Whosoever  shall  be 
ashamed  of  me  and  of  my  words,  the  Son  of  man  also  shall  be 
ashamed  of  him.'  This  suggests  to  me  for  the  first  time 
(re-perusing  these  strange  books  after  an  interval  of  more  than 
twenty  years)  that  I  may  have  been  blaming  Mark  for  not 
doing  what,  as  a  fact,  he  had  no  intention  of  doing — I  mean, 
for  not  giving  a  collection  of  Christ's  utterances  in  connexion 
with  the  'good  news.'  If  we  were  to  question  Mark  about 
the  expression  '  me  and  my  words,'  and  to  say,  '  What  words  do 
you  refer  to  ? '  perhaps  he  might  reply,  '  I  do  not  profess  to  give 
Christ's  ivords,  but  only  their  tenor.'  Perhaps  Mark  has  in 
view  a  person,  or  character,  rather  than  any  gospel  of  '  words.' 
And  I  think  I  ought  to  have  explained  that,  at  the  very  outset 
of  his  work,  Mark  described  a  divine  Voice  (a  thing  frequently 
mentioned  in  Jewish  traditions  of  the  present  day  about  their 
rabbis)  calling  from  heaven  to  Christ,  '  Thou  art  my  beloved 
Son.'  It  is  this  perhaps  that  Mark  may  consider  a  '  gospel,' 
namely,  that  God,  instead  of  sending  prophets  to  the  Jews,  as 
in  old  days,  now  sends  a  Son." 

This  did  not  seem  to  me  a  complete  statement  of  the  fact. 
"  Gospel,"  as  I  have  said  above,  seemed  to  me  to  have  meant, 
in  Mark,  the  gospel  of  forgiveness  of  sins  promised  by  Isaiah. 
And  Scaurus  himself  was  justly  dissatisfied  with  his  own 
explanation,  for  he  proceeded,  "  Still,  this  is  not  satisfactory. 
For  ought  not  the  Son  to  have  a  message,  as  a  prophet  has  ? 


202  SCAURUS  [Chapter  22 

Nay,  ought  not  the  Son  to  have  a  much  better  message  ?  The 
Voice  from  heaven  is  repeated  at  the  stage  of  the  gospel  at 
which  we  have  now  arrived.  But  both  before  and  now,  it  is 
apparently  hoard  by  no  unbelievers.  Nor  does  Christ  himself 
ever  repeat  it  to  unbelievers.  He  never  says,  '  I  am  the  Son  of 
God,'  nor  even,  '  I  am  a  Son  of  God.'  He  simply  goes  about,, 
curing  diseases,  and  saying  'The  sabbath  is  made  for  man,'  and, 
on  one  occasion,  '  Thy  sins  are  forgiven  thee,'  and,  '  The  son  of 
man  hath  authority  on  earth  to  forgive  sins,'  and  a  few  more 
things  of  this  sort.  What  is  there  in  all  this  that  would  induce 
Christ  to  use  such  an  expression  as,  ■  Whosoever  shall  be 
ashamed  of  me  and  of  my  words '  ?  I  could  understand  his 
saying  '  of  me,'  but  not  '  of  my  words.'  Surely  it  would  have 
been  better  to  say,  'Whosoever  shall  be  unjust,  or  an  adulterer, 
or  a  murderer,  I  will  be  ashamed  of  him '." 

Here  it  seemed  to  me  that  Scaurus  had  not  quite  succeeded 
in  his  attempt  to  do  justice  to  Mark  by  reconsidering  his  gospel 
in  the  light  of  the  words  "Thou  art  my  beloved  Son."  For 
suppose  a  Son  of  God  to  have  come  into  the  world,  like  an 
Apollo  or  iEsculapius  of  souls.  Suppose  Him  to  have  had  a 
power,  beyond  that  of  Moses  and  the  prophets,  of  instilling  into 
their  hearts  a  new  kind  of  love  of  God  and  a  new  kind  of  love 
of  neighbour.  Lastly,  suppose  this  Son  of  God  to  feel  quite 
contented,  and  indeed  best  pleased,  to  call  Himself  Son  of  man, 
because  He  regarded  man  as  the  image  of  God,  and  because 
He  felt,  within  Himself,  God  and  man  made  one.  Would  not 
such  a  Son  of  God  say,  just  as  Epictetus  might  say,  "Preserve 
the  Man,"  "  Give  up  everything  for  the  Man,"  "  Save  the  Man 
within  you,  destroy  the  Beast "  ?  Only,  being  a  Jew,  He  would 
not  say  "  Man,"  but  "  Son  of  man,"  exhorting  His  disciples  to 
be  loyal  to  "the  Son  of  man"  and  never  to  disown  or  deny  "  the 
Son  of  man." 

I  was  confirmed  in  this  view  by  a  mention  (in  this  part 
of  Mark)  of  "  angels  "  with  "  the  Son  of  man,"  thus  :  "  The  Son 
of  man  also  shall  be  ashamed  of  him  when  he  shall  come  in 
the  glory  of  his  Father  with  the  holy  angels."  This  seemed 
to  say  that  the  Son  of  man  although,  as  David  said  according 
to  one  interpretation  of  the  Psalm,  "  below  the  angels  "  on  earth, 


Chapter  22]  ON  MARK  203 

will  be  manifested  in  the  glory  of  the  Father  with  the  attendant 
angels  in  heaven — thus  reconciling  the  two  aspects  of  the  Son 
of  man  described  by  David  and  Daniel. 

I  noticed,  however,  that  Matthew,  in  this  passage,  does  not 
say  (as  Mark  and  Luke  do)  "  the  Son  of  man  will  be  ashamed  " ; 
and  it  occurred  to  me  that,  where  Christ  used  the  phrase  "  Son 
of  man,"  and  spoke  about  "  the  coming  of  the  Son  of  man," 
different  evangelists  might  render  these  phrases  differently  so 
as  to  make  the  meaning  brief  and  clear  for  Greeks.  Indeed 
Scaurus  himself  suggested  something  of  this  kind,  saying  that 
some  might  use  "  I  "  or  "  me  "  for  "  Son  of  man  "  (in  Christ's 
words).  He  also  added  that  "  the  Son  of  man  "  might  some- 
times be  paraphrased  as  "  the  Rule,  or  Law,  of  Humanity  " ; 
and,  said  he,  "  Matthew  has  a  very  instructive  parable,  in  which 
the  Son  of  man  in  his  glory  and  with  his  angels  is  introduced 
as  seated  on  his  throne,  judging  the  Gentiles  at  the  end  of  the 
world.  Then  those  who  have  been  kind  and  helpful  and 
humane  are  rewarded  because — so  says  the  Son  of  man — '  Ye 
have  been  kind  to  me.'  '  When  have  we  been  kind  to  thee  ? ' 
they  reply.  The  Son  answers,  '  Ye  have  been  kind  to  the 
least  and  humblest  of  my  brethren.  Therefore  ye  have  been 
kind  to  me.'  This  goes  to  the  root  of  Christ's  doctrine.  The 
Son  of  man  is  humanity  and  divinity,  one  with  man  and  one 
with  God,  humanity  divine." 

Scaurus  went  on  to  say  that  Mark's  sayings  about  the  Son 
of  man  would  have  been  much  clearer  if  some  parable  or 
statement  of  this  kind  had  been  inserted  making  it  clear  that 
Christ  as  it  were  identified  himself  with  the  empire  of  the  Son 
of  man  mentioned  by  the  prophet  Daniel,  against  the  empire  of 
the  Beasts.  "  There  is  always  a  tendency,"  said  Scaurus, 
"  among  men  of  the  world,  and  perhaps  among  statesmen  quite 
as  much  as  among  soldiers — yes,  and  it  exists  among  some 
philosophers,  too,  spite  of  their  creeds — to  deify  force.  I  own 
I  admire  Christ  for  deifying  humanity.  But  his  biographers — 
Mark,  in  particular — do  not  make  the  deification  clear.  If  I 
were  to  lend  my  copy  of  Mark  to  a  fairly  educated  Roman 
gentleman,  I  really  should  not  be  surprised  if  he  were  to  come 
to  me,  after  reading  it  right  through  from  beginning  to  end, 


204  SCAURUS  [Chapter  22 

and  ask  me,  '  Who  is  this  Son  of  man  ? '  These  words 
impressed  me  at  the  time ;  but  much  more  afterwards  when 
I  actually  met  this  very  question  in  the  fourth  gospel,  asked  by 
the  multitude  at  the  end  of  Christ's  preaching,  "Who  is  this 
Son  of  man  ? " 

"  After  this,"  said  Scaurus  (not  speaking  quite  accurately, 
for  he  omitted,  as  I  will  presently  shew,  one  short  but  important 
saying  of  Christ)  "  comes  a  statement  that  a  certain  kind  of 
lunacy  cannot  be  cured  by  the  disciples  unless  they  fast  as  well 
as  pray.  But  here,  I  am  convinced,  Mark  has  made  some 
mistake  through  not  understanding  '  faith  as  a  grain  of 
mustard-seed,'  which  the  parallel  Matthew  has.  That  is  a  very 
interesting  phrase,  which  I  must  go  into  another  time. 

"  Close  on  this,  occurs  a  prediction,  with  part  of  which  I  will 
deal  later  on.  But  about  part  of  it  I  will  say  at  once  that 
I  find  it  quite  unintelligible.  It  is, '  The  Son  of  man  is  on  the 
point  of  being  betrayed  into  the  hands  of  men.'  Why  'of  men"? 
Surely  he  could  not  be  betrayed  into  the  hands  of  anyone  else  ! 
I  observe  that  Mark  and  Luke  say,  '  They  were  ignorant  of  this 
saying,'  and  I  am  not  surprised.  I  presume  it  is  simply  a 
repetition  of  Christ's  prediction  of  his  violent  death,  introduced 
in  order  to  emphasize  his  foreknowledge  of  the  treachery  of  one 
of  his  own  disciples.     But  I  do  not  understand  '  of  men  '." 

As  to  this,  I  have  shewn  above  that  the  word  rendered  by 
Scaurus  "  betrayed,"  occurs  in  Isaiah's  description  of  the 
Suffering  Servant,  "  He  was  delivered  over  for  our  transgres- 
sions," and  that  it  is  quoted  from  Isaiah  by  Paul.  I  had  always 
rendered  it  "  delivered  over."  And  now,  too,  it  appeared  to  me 
much  more  likely  that  the  Lord  Jesus  used  the  word  in  that 
sense.  If  so,  it  would  have  no  reference  to  treachery,  but  would 
mean  "  delivered  over  by  the  Father."  This  would  explain 
"of  men,"  because  it  would  mean  that  the  Father  in  heaven 
delivers  over  His  Son  "  into  the  hands  of  men "  on  earth. 
I  have  heard  that  one  of  the  brethren,  a  learned  man,  explains 
"  of  men  "  as  being  opposed  to  "  of  Satan,"  but  "  men  "  seems 
to  me  more  likely  to  be  in  antithesis  to  "  God."  I  found 
afterwards  that  in  the  gospels  the  word  "  deliver  over "  is 
regularly  used  about  Judas  Iscariot  "  delivering  over  "  Jesus  to 


Chapter  22]  ON  MARK  205 

the  Jews.  So  Scaurus  may  be  right.  But  Paul's  rendering 
seems  to  me  to  make  better  sense  in  Christ's  predictions. 

I  had  been  prepared  by  Paul  and  by  Isaiah  to  recognise 
that  Christ  might  have  had  in  view  the  thought  that  the  Son 
was  to  be  "  delivered  over "  to  death  by  the  Father  for  the 
salvation  of  men.  Scaurus  had  not  been  thus  prepared. 
Otherwise  I  think  he  would  have  been  more  patient  with 
obscurities  in  Mark.  Mark  seemed  to  me  to  assume  that  his 
readers  would  know  the  general  drift  of  "  the  gospel "  as  Isaiah 
predicted  it,  as  Christ  fulfilled  it,  and  as  the  apostles  preached 
it.  Hence  he  was  not  so  careful  as  the  later  evangelists  to 
make  his  meaning  clear  to  those  who  had  no  such  knowledge. 
Take,  for  example,  the  words  "  If  any  one  desires  to  be  first  he 
shall  be  last."  "  This,"  said  Scaurus,  "  might  mean  '  He  shall  be 
degraded  so  as  to  be  last '."  Scaurus  also  attacked  the  saying 
that  whosoever  receives  a  child  in  Christ's  name  receives 
Christ,  and,  "  Whosoever  shall  not  receive  the  kingdom  of 
God  as  a  little  child  shall  surely  not  enter  therein."  "  I 
suppose,"  said  he,  "  this  means  we  are  to  put  aside  the  vices 
of  youth  and  manhood  and  to  start  afresh.  But  that  is  more 
easily  said  than  done.  And  there  is  nothing  in  Mark  to  shew 
how  it  can  be  done." 

Here  Scaurus  seemed  to  me  not  to  have  quite  done  justice 
to  Mark,  because  he  had  not  given  weight  to  the  precept  at 
the  very  beginning  of  his  book.  It  was  very  short,  and  might 
easily  have  escaped  me  but  for  Paul's  guidance.  Paul,  I  knew, 
taught  that  Abraham  was  "  made  righteous "  by  "  having 
faith "  in  God's  good  tidings.  Hence  I  had  noted,  what 
Scaurus  had  not  noted,  that  Mark,  alone  of  the  evangelists, 
placed  the  precept  "Have  faith,"  in  the  first  sentence  uttered  by 
Christ,  saying  "Have  faith  in  the  gospel."  This,  then,  I 
perceived — this  "  faith  in  the  gospel  "  was  supposed  by  Mark 
to  have  power  to  "  make  men  righteous." 

This  seemed,  from  a  Christian  point  of  view,  to  answer 
Scaurus's  objection,  " '  Start  afresh '  is  more  easily  said  than 
done."  The  answer  was — not  my  answer,  but  such  an  answer 
as  I  thought  a  Christian  might  make — "  Yes,  it  is  much  more 
easily  said  than  done.     But  the  Son  of  God  has  authority  both 


206  SCAURUS  [Chapter  22 

to  say  it  and  to  give  power  to  do  it.     He  says,  in  effect,  '  Be 
thou  able  to  start  afresh,'  and  the  man  is  '  able  to  start  afresh  '." 

Then,  if  Scaurus  replied,  "  Prove  this,"  Paul  came  forward 
saying,  "  I  at  all  events  have  received  power  to  '  start  afresh.' 
Even  my  enemies  will  attest  what  I  have  been,  a  persecutor 
of  the  Christians.  Now  I  have  been  '  forgiven  '  by  Him  that 
has  authority  to  forgive.  The  old  things  are  passed  away. 
Behold,  they  are  become  new."  And  if  Scaurus  had  said, 
"  But  have  others  been  enabled  to  '  start  afresh '  ?  "  Paul 
would  have  answered,  "  Yes,  multitudes,  from  the  Euphrates 
to  the  Tiber.  Do  not  trust  me.  Take  a  little  journey  from 
Tusculum  into  the  poorest  alleys  of  Rome,  and  judge  for 
yourself."  Here  I  felt  Paul  would  have  been  on  such  strong 
ground  that  Scaurus  would  have  given  way.  "  Paul  " — he 
might  have  said — "  is  superstitious,  and  under  hallucinations, 
but  I  must  frankly  confess  he  has  the  power  to  help  people  to 
'  start  afresh  '."  That  is  just  what  I,  too,  felt.  It  was  quite 
different  from  the  feeling  inspired  in  me  by  my  own  Teacher. 
When  Epictetus  said  "  Let  bygones  be  bygones,"  "  Let  us  start 
afresh,"  "  Only  begin  and  we  shall  see,"  I  felt,  almost  at  once, 
that  he  was  imagining  impossibilities.  When  Paul  said  "  There 
is  a  new  creation,"  I  felt  that  he  was  describing  not  only 
a  possibility  but  also  a  fact — a  fact  for  himself  and  for 
multitudes  of  others ;  not  indeed  a  fact  for  me,  but,  even 
for  me,  a  possibility. 

To  return  to  Scaurus.  "  At  last,"  said  he,  "  I  came  upon 
a  definite  precept  to  shew  how  perfection  could  be  obtained. 
A  rich  young  man  asks  Jesus  how  he  can  inherit  eternal  life. 
Jesus  replies,  '  One  thing  is  lacking  to  thee.  Go,  sell  thy 
substance,  and  give  to  the  poor,  and  thou  shalt  have  treasure 
in  heaven,  and  come,  follow  me.'  Definite  enough  !  But  is  it 
consistent  with  morality  ?  Is  it  not  entirely  against  Paul's 
protest,  '  Though  I  give  all  my  goods  to  the  poor  and  have  not 
love,  I  am  nothing  '  ? "  Here  Scaurus  did  not  seem  to  me  so 
fair  as  usual.  For,  knowing  the  gospels  as  well  as  he  did,  he 
was  aware  that  Jesus  did  not  enjoin  this  rule  on  all,  for 
example,  on  Zaccha^us.  He  laid  down  no  rules.  One  man 
He  bade  go  home,  another  He  bade   follow  Him.     Moreover 


Chapter  22]  ON  MARK  207 

Scaurus,  who  accused  Epictetus  of  borrowing  from  Christ, 
knew  that  Epictetus  inculcated  poverty  and  unmarried  life, 
not  on  all  his  disciples,  but  on  any  Cynic  wishing  to  go  as 
a  missionary ;  and  therefore  he  ought  not  to  have  inferred  that 
Jesus  inculcated  poverty  on  all  His  disciples  because  He  gave 
it  as  a  precept  in  answer  to  the  question,  "  What  lack  I  yet  ? " 
For  my  part,  although  I  was  not  at  that  time  a  Christian,  yet 
when  I  read  Mark's  words,  "  Jesus,  looking  upon  him,  loved  (or 
embraced)  him  and  said,  One  thing  is  lacking  to  thee  " — I  could 
understand  that,  for  this  particular  man,  the  "one  thing 
lacking  "  really  might  be  that  he  should  "  sell  all  that  he  had," 
and  that  Jesus,  knowing  this,  gave  the  precept  out  of  His  great 
love.  Scaurus  called  this  "  a  definite  precept  to  shew  how 
perfection  could  be  obtained."  But  I  found  only  Matthew 
saying  "  If  thou  wouldest  be  perfect."  Mark  and  Luke  did 
not  here  use  the  word  "  perfect." 

Scaurus  proceeded  thus  :  "  Little  remains  to  be  added  in 
the  way  of  precepts.  There  is  a  repetition  of  '  whosoever 
desires  to  be  great,  he  shall  be  your  servant.'  And  this 
is  supported  by  the  saying  that  '  the  Son  of  man  came  not 
to  be  ministered  unto  but  to  minister.'  Then  comes  a  most 
startling  statement,  '  All  things  that  ye  pray  and  ask,  believe 
that  ye  received  them  and  they  shall  be  unto  you,'  and,  '  In 

the  moment  when  ye  stand  praying '  but  I  have  spoken  of 

that  above.  I  really  do  not  think  that  I  have  omitted  any- 
thing of  importance.     Does  not  this  amaze  you  ? " 

About  the  "  startling  statement "  I  will  speak  later  on. 
But  here  I  may  say  that  Scaurus  had  omitted  one  short 
precept  "  Have  salt  in  yourselves."  And  this,  to  some  extent, 
answered  one  or  two  of  his  objections.  For,  as  I  understood 
it,  "  Have  salt  in  yourselves "  corresponded  to  a  saying  of 
Epictetus,  who  bade  us  seek  help  from  "  the  Logos  within 
us."  On  one  occasion  (noted  above)  Epictetus,  rebuking  one 
of  our  students  for  saying,  "  Give  me  some  precepts  to  guide 
me,"  replied,  "  Have  you  not  the  Logos  to  guide  you  ?  "  Mark 
appeared  to  me  to  represent  Christ  as  saying,  "  Take  into  your 
hearts  the  spirit  of  the  Son,  which  the  Son  gives  you.  It  will 
be   the  salt  of  life,  life  for  you  and  life  passing  from  you  to 


208  SCAURUS  [Chapter  22 

others,  purifying  all  your  words  and  actions  by  imbuing  your 
heart."  Elsewhere,  also,  Mark  represented  Christ  as  con- 
demning the  Pharisees  (in  the  words  of  Isaiah)  because,  though 
•  they  honoured  God  with  their  lips,  their  heart  was  far  from 
Him  and  they  "  taught  as  doctrines  the  commandments  of  men." 
Mark  seemed  to  say  "  Obey  the  commandments  of  the  Logos," 
not  "  of  men."  Still,  I  could  not  but  admit  that  this  brief 
metaphor,  overlooked  by  Scaurus,  might  easily  be  overlooked  or 
underrated  by  hundreds  of  other  readers  less  careful  and  candid ; 
and  I  was  forced  to  sympathize — though  not  wholly  to  agree — 
with  the  outburst  of  disappointment  which  concluded  his  letter. 
"  O  that  my  old  friend  Plutarch  had  had  the  writing  of  the 
life  of  this  Jewish  prophet !  Or  that  at  least  he  had  been  at 
Mark's  elbow,  to  check  him  when  he  began  descanting  on 
extraneous  matters  and  to  remind  him  that  his  readers  wanted 
to  hear  what  he  had  to  say  about  Christ,  not  about  John  the 
Baptist  or  Herod  Antipas !  Many  of  my  friends  think  but 
poorly  of  Plutarch ;  but  he  would  have  been  at  all  events 
infinitely  superior  to  Mark.  I  do  not  wish  to  be  hard  upon 
the  latter.  The  chariot  of  the  gospel,  so  to  speak,  was  already 
moving  before  he  was  harnessed  to  it,  and  he  (not  being  a 
disciple  of  special  insight  or  information)  had  to  go  the 
chariot's  way.  Although  his  book  hardly  ever  quotes  prophecy 
it  is  based  on  prophecy  and  continually  alludes  to  prophecy.  It 
does  not  deal  with  Christ's  life  as  the  ancient  Jews  dealt  with 
the  lives  of  Moses,  Samuel,  and  David.  Though  it  plunges 
into  the  midst  of  things  like  a  book  of  the  prophets — Jeremiah, 
for  example,  or  Ezekiel — it  does  not  give  the  words  of  the 
prophet  in  full,  but  runs  off  into  all  sorts  of  minor  matters. 

"  You  remember  what  Plutarch  says  about  the  importance 
of  expression  in  biography.  Mark  occasionally  attempts  to 
represent  a  sort  of  expression — mostly  by  means  of  such 
phrases  as  '  being  moved  with  compassion,'  '  being  grieved/ 
'  looking  steadfastly  at  him,'  '  turning  round,'  and  so  on.  But 
the  deeper  sort  of  '  expression/  the  prophet's  attitude  towards 
God  and  man,  towards  the  past  and  the  future,  towards  the 
kingdom  of  God  and  the  kingdoms  of  men — this  he  does  not 
represent.     Not  at  least  consciously.     Perhaps  he  does,  some- 


Chapter  22]  ON  MARK  209 

times,  unconsciously,  when  he  preserves  Christ's  darker  sayings 
where  the  later  writers  alter  or  omit  them.  For  this,  he  deserves 
thanks.  But,  in  spite  of  this,  Mark's  gospel  remains,  me 
judice — regard  being  had  to  the  greatness  of  the  prophet 
whose  life  he  is  writing — the  most  inadequate  of  all  the 
biographies  I  know." 

So  far  Scaurus.  But  his  admission  that  Mark  "  sometimes 
preserves  Christ's  darker  sayings  where  the  later  writers  alter 
or  omit  them "  suggested  to  me  that,  in  summing  up,  he 
felt  that  he  might  have  passed  over  some  of  Mark's  unique 
traditions.  And,  as  a  fact,  he  had  omitted  "  every  one  shall  be 
salted  with  fire,"  and  three  passages  declaring  that  "  all  things 
are  possible."  He  also  omitted  the  precept  "  Be  at  peace 
with  one  another."  Matthew  and  Luke  omit  all  these,  except 
that  Matthew  once  has  "  all  things  are  possible." 

This  last  tradition  presents  manifest  difficulty.  I  have 
heard  unbelievers  scoff  at  it  and  ask  whether  "  evil  things " 
are  "  possible  "  for  God.  Moreover  Scaurus  himself  urged  on 
one  occasion  that  not  even  God  can  undo  the  past.  Later  on, 
when  I  studied  the  gospels  with  more  leisure,  it  seemed  to  me 
that,  in  saying  "  all  things,"  the  Lord  Jesus  had  constantly  in 
view  "  the  things  of  the  invisible  world "  or  "  the  things 
pertaining  to  the  redemption  of  man."  So  I  found  "all  things" 
used  in  Paul's  epistle  to  the  Philippians,  declaring  that  the 
Lord  Jesus  Christ  was  to  "  fashion  anew  the  body  of  our 
humiliation  that  it  may  be  conformed  to  the  body  of  his  glory, 
according  to  the  working  whereby  he  is  able  even  to  subject  all 
things  unto  himself." 

When  I  came  to  read  the  fourth  gospel  (called  John's), 
finding  how  often  it  supports  Mark  against  Luke,  I  looked 
about  for  this  word  "  possible  "  or  "  able  "  (for  one  and  the  same 
Greek  adjective  represents  the  two  meanings).  But  John 
nowhere  uses  it.  So  I  thought,  "  This  then  is  an  exception." 
But  I  soon  found  that  John  expressed  Mark's  saying,  though  in 
a  different  way.  It  is  in  a  paradox,  saying  that  the  Son  is 
"  able  to  do  nothing  from  himself."  This  looks  like  a  confession 
of  not  "  being  able."  But  the  sentence  proceeds,  "  unless  he  sees 
the  Father  doing   something " ;    and,    after  this,   "  The   Father 

a.  14 


210  SCAURUS   ON  MARK  [Chapter  22 

loveth  the  Son  and  sheweth  him  all  things  that  He  Himself  is 
doing."  So  the  meaning  really  was,  "The  Son  can  do  all  that 
the  Father  is  doing  and  wills  the  Son  to  do."  John  did  not 
therefore  deny  the  power  of  the  Son.  He  asserted  it.  But  he 
disliked  speaking  of  "  power."  He  avoided  all  words  that  mean 
"  able,"  "  strong,"  "  powerful  " — meaning  "  might  "  as  distinct 
from  "  right."  He  prefers  "  authority,"  as  when  he  says  that 
the  Son  has  "  authority  to  lay  down  his  life  and  to  take  it 
again." 

My  conclusion  was  that  Mark  had  recorded  the  actual  words 
of  Jesus,  "all  things  are  possible,"  assuming  that  his  readers, 
being  instructed  in  the  teaching  of  the  apostles,  would  under- 
stand that  the  words  had  a  spiritual  meaning,  "All  things  are 
put  by  the  Father  under  the  feet  of  the  Son  of  man."  But 
sometimes,  as  in  the  Healing  of  the  Lunatic,  the  meaning 
might  be  ambiguous,  or  the  context  might  not  be  so  given  as 
to  make  the  words  clear.  Hence  Luke  always  omitted  or 
altered  them,  as  being  obscure  and  likely  to  be  misunderstood. 
John  paraphrased  and  explained  them.  If  these  facts  were 
correct,  it  followed  that  a  great  debt  was  due  to  Mark  for 
preserving  the  difficult  truth  when  there  must  have  been  a 
great  temptation  to  omit  it  or  to  alter  it  into  what  was  easy 
but  not  true.  Scaurus  gave  some  weight,  but  hardly  weight 
enough  (I  thought)  to  this  merit  in  Mark. 


CHAPTER   XXIII 

SCAURUS   ON   SOME   OF   THE   MIRACLES 

"  And  now,"  continued  Scaurus,  "  I  will  tell  you  how  the 
vision  of  the  City  of  Truth  and  Justice,  conjured  up  for  me 
by  that  dear  old  dreamer  Hermas,  vanished  into  thin  air. 
I  intended  to  have  spoken  first  about  some  of  the  miracles ; 
but  I  will  come  back  to  them  afterwards.  For  the  present, 
turn  over  your  Mark  till  you  come  nearly  to  the  middle,  and 
you  will  find  a  story  about  an  act  of  healing  at  a  distance. 
I  have  heard  a  Greek  doctor  tell  stories  of  a  man's  being 
influenced  by  the  death  of  a  twin  brother  at  a  distance.  He 
invented  the  word  telepatheia  to  express  it.  Well,  I  will  invent 
an  analogous  word  for  healing  at  a  distance — teliatreia.  How- 
ever, it  is  not  from  the  miraculous  point  of  view  that  I  wish  to 
discuss  the  story,  but  simply  as  a  question  of  morality. 

"It  contains  these  words,  'It  is  not  fit  to  take  the  children's 
bread  and  to  cast  it  unto  the  dogs.'  Who  says  this  ?  Jesus. 
To  whom  ?  To  a  poor  woman,  called  '  Greek,  Syrophcenician 
by  extraction.'  What  is  her  offence  ?  She  has  been  asking 
Jesus  to  cast  an  evil  spirit  out  of  her  daughter.  Now  what  do 
you  think  of  that  ?  The  Greeks,  of  old,  affected  to  call  all 
non-Greeks  barbarians.  But  would  their  philosophers,  would 
Socrates,  or  gruff  Diogenes,  or  any  respectable  Greek  philo- 
sopher, say  such  a  thing  to  any  non-Greek  woman  ?  I  admit 
that  Jesus  ultimately  granted  this  poor  creature's  request. 
But  that  was  only  because  she  answered  with  the  tact  and 
patience  of  a  Penelope,  acquiescing  in  the  epithet  '  dogs '  and 
replying,  '  Yea,  Lord,  yet  even  the  dogs  beneath  the  table  eat 

14—2 


212  SGAURUS  [Chapter  23 

of  the  crumbs  of  the  children.'  Had  it  not  been  for  her  almost 
superhuman  gentleness,  she  would  have  retired  rejected,  gaining 
from  her  petition  nothing  but  the  reproach  of  '  dog.'  I  write 
bitterly.  I  confess  I  felt  bitter  when  I  saw  so  noble  and 
sublime  a  character  as  that  of  this  Jewish  prophet  apparently 
degraded  and  polluted  by  an  indelible  taint  of  national  un- 
charitableness." 

I  was  beginning  to  investigate  the  passage,  when  my  eyes 
fell  on  a  note  that  Scaurus  had  appended  at  the  bottom  of  the 
column.  "  Since  writing  this,  I  have  looked  into  the  passage 
again,  to  see  whether  I  could  have  been  misled.  And  I  notice 
that  Luke  omits  the  whole  narrative.  Also,  while  Mark 
represents  the  woman  as  coming  to  Jesus  and  '  asking  him ' 
to  heal  the  child,  Matthew  represents  the  disciples  as  coming 
to  Jesus  and  '  asking  him '  to  send  her  away.  I  should  like  to 
be  able  to  believe  that  the  woman  was  really  a  Jewess  turned 
Gentile,  that  the  disciples  tried  to  drive  the  woman  away, 
calling  themselves  '  the  children  '  and  her  '  the  dog,'  that  Jesus 
replied,  as  in  Matthew,  '  It  was  precisely  these  lost  degraded 
ones  that  I  was  sent  to  restore.'  In  order  to  obtain  this 
meaning,  the  changes  of  the  text  would  not  be  very  great. 
But  I  fear  this  cannot  be  maintained." 

I  caught  at  Scaurus's  explanation,  and  was  sorry  that  he 
himself  did  not  hold  to  it.  For  I  was  more  troubled  by  this 
objection  of  his  than  by  anything  else  that  he  had  said  ;  and 
I  thought  long  over  it.  Finally,  I  came  to  the  conclusion  that 
Scaurus  was  nearly  right ;  that  this  woman,  though  called 
"  a  Syrophcenician  by  extraction,"  was  a  Jewess  (as  Barnabas 
the  Jew  is  called  "  a  Cyprian  by  extraction  ")  and  that  she  had 
fallen  away  into  Greek  idolatry  and  an  evil  life,  so  that  Jesus — 
being,  like  Paul,  all  things  to  all  men  and  women — was  on  this 
one  occasion  cruel  in  word  in  order  to  be  kind  in  deed,  stimu- 
lating her  to  better  things.  This  agreed  with  Paul's  use  of  the 
word  "  dogs,"  which  assuredly  he  would  not  have  applied  except 
to  "  evil-doers."  If,  however,  it  should  be  demonstrated  that 
the  woman  was  not  a  Jewess,  and  not  leading  an  impure  life, 
and  that  Jesus  (not  the  disciples)  used  these  words  to  her,  then 
I  should  still  believe  in  the  kindness  of  Jesus,  although  these 


Chapter  23]         ON  SOME   OF  THE  MIRACLES         213 

words  were  apparently  unkind.  No  one  would  suspect  cruelty, 
in  a  man  habitually  kind,  except  on  very  strong  evidence. 
Here  the  evidence  was  not  strong.  The  witnesses  were  two, 
not  three  ;  and  the  two  narratives  disagreed  in  important  details. 
This  was  the  conclusion  to  which  I  then  came. 

If  Scaurus  had  read  the  epistles  before  the  gospels,  ap- 
proaching the  latter  with  some  feeling  of  Christ's  constraining 
"  love,"  he  could  hardly  have  stumbled  (so  I  thought  and  so 
I  think  still)  at  this  single  narrative.  Jesus  did  not  call  the 
centurion  a  "  dog."  Jesus  had  also  supported  the  law  of 
kindness  against  the  law  of  the  sabbath.  He  had  said  that 
"  that  which  goes  into  the  mouth  "  does  not  defile  a  man.  He 
had  eaten  and  drunk  with  publicans  and  sinners.  How  was  it 
possible  that  a  prophet  of  such  broad  and  lofty  views  as  these 
could  call  a  poor  afflicted  woman  a  "  dog  "  simply  because  she 
was  not  a  Jewess  ?  I  longed  to  be  near  my  old  friend  and  to 
appeal  to  his  common  sense  and  justice,  and  I  felt  sure  that 
I  should  have  convinced  him.  Even  if  Jesus  bade  the  mis- 
sionaries at  first  go  only  to  "  the  lost  sheep  of  the  house  of 
Israel,"  that  seemed  to  me  quite  consistent  with  a  purpose  that 
in  the  end  the  gospel  should  be  proclaimed  to  all  nations. 

In  another  narrative,  which  had  caused  me  difficulty  of  the 
same  kind,  Scaurus  gave  me  help.  It  is  not  in  Mark.  But 
I  will  set  it  down  here  because  it  bears  on  kindness.  Matthew 
and  Luke  represented  a  disciple  as  asking  to  be  allowed,  before 
following  Christ,  to  "bury"  his  father,  and  as  not  being  allowed. 
"  As  to  this,"  said  Scaurus,  "  I  have  no  doubt  that  the  man 
meant,  '  Suffer  me  to  wait  at  home  till  I  have  seen  my  aged 
father  into  the  grave  and  have  duly  buried  him.'  Similarly 
Esau  says,  in  effect,  'My  father  will  die  before  long.  I  will 
wait  till  I  have  mourned  for  him  before  killing  Jacob.'  So,  in 
Latin,  we  say  '  I  have  buried  them  all,'  meaning  '  I  have 
survived  and  buried  all  my  relations.'  My  rabbi  confirms  me 
in  this  view.  Christ  always  defends  nature  and  natural  affec- 
tion against  man's  conventions,  so  that  it  seems  to  me  absurd 
to  suppose  that  he  would  enjoin  anything  really  inhuman." 

Scaurus  next  proceeded  to  attack  the  miraculous  part  of 
Mark's  narrative.     Mark,  he  said,  considering  the  smallness  of 


2 1 4  SGA  UR  US  [Chapter  23 

his  gospel,  describes  many  more  miracles,  relatively,  than 
Matthew  and  Luke.  "  As  to  miracles,"  said  he,  "  I  am  ready  to 
believe  in  anything,  miraculous  or  non-miraculous,  on  sufficient 
evidence.  But  the  evidence  about  Mark's  miracles  leads  me  to 
two  conclusions.  Some  of  them  occurred  but  were  not  mira- 
culous. The  rest,  although  they  were  honestly  supposed  to 
have  occurred,  did  not  occur. 

"  Let  us  take  the  first  class  first.  Mark  calls  them  '  powers,' 
i.e.  works  of  power.  That  is  a  good  name  for  them.  But  Mark 
seems  to  think  that,  if  a  man  has  '  power '  to  cast  out  demons 
and  perform  cures  without  medical  means,  such  a  one  must  be 
a  great  prophet  or  even  a  Son  of  God.  To  that  I  demur. 
I  remember,  when  I  was  in  Dacia,  one  of  my  men  was  down 
with  fever,  and  bad  fever,  too.  But  when  the  bugles  sounded 
out  one  night,  and  the  enemy  came  on,  beating  in  our  outposts 
and  pouring  into  our  camp  on  the  backs  of  some  of  our  cowardly 
rascals,  this  brave  fellow  was  .up  and  doing,  without  helmet  or 
armour,  in  the  front  with  the  best  of  them.  Next  morning,  he 
was  none  the  worse.  Nor  was  there  any  relapse.  He  was 
quite  cured.  I  think  I  have  told  you  how  Josephus  described 
to  me  the  casting  out  of  a  demon  in  the  presence  of  Vespasian. 
And  I  might  remind  you  of  Tacitus's  story  about  the  cure  of  a 
blind  man  by  the  same  emperor.  I  suspect,  however,  that  the 
former  was  a  mere  conjuring  trick  and  that  the  latter  was  got 
up  by  the  priests  of — Serapis,  I  think  it  was.  So  I  lay  no 
stress  on  either.  But  I  have  spoken  to  many  sensible  physicians, 
who  tell  me  that  paralysis  and  some  kinds  of  fever  can  be  cured 
by  what  they  call  an  emotional  shock.  Often  the  cure  does  not 
last.  Some  of  these  physicians  go  a  little  further  and  ascribe 
to  certain  persons  a  peculiar  power  of  quieting  restless  patients 
and  pacifying  or  even  healing  the  insane.  But  I  entirely  refuse 
to  believe  that,  if  a  man  has  such  a  power,  he  can  consequently 
claim  to  be  a  Son  of  God." 

About  the  objection  thus  raised  by  Scaurus  I  have  said 
enough  already.  It  seemed  to  me  that  the  power  of  per- 
manently healing  the  paralysed,  and  permanently  pacifying  and 
healing  the  insane,  was  quite  different  from  that  of  startling  a 
paralysed  man  into  a  temporary  activity.    The  former  appeared 


Chapter  23]         ON  SOME   OF  THE  MIRACLES         215 

to  me  allied  with  moral  power  and  with  steadfastness  of  mind, 
and  likely  to  be  an  attribute  of  the  Son  of  God.  Still  I  was 
sorry  that  Mark  devoted  so  much  space  to  it.  Here  I  agreed, 
in  part,  with  Scaurus. 

He  then  passed  to  the  second  class  of  miracles,  "  those  that 
were  honestly  supposed  to  have  occurred,  but  did  not  occur." 
"If,"  said  he,  "I  assert  that  Mark  turned  metaphorical  traditions 
into  literal  prose,  you  must  not  suppose  that  I  accuse  him  of 
dishonesty.  All  the  ancient  Jews  did  it.  Look  at  the  story  of 
Joshua,  describing  how  he  stopped  the  sun.  Perhaps  also  you 
have  read  how  God  caused  a  stream  to  spring  up  from  the 
Ass's  Jawbone  (originally  a  hill  of  that  name,  like  the  headland 
or  peninsula  called  Ass's  Jawbone  in  Laconia,  which  you  and  I 
passed  together  some  five  or  six  years  ago).  The  second  (the 
jawbone  miracle)  is  somewhat  different  in  origin  from  the  first 
(the  sun  miracle).  There  are  many  shades  of  verbal  misunder- 
standing capable  of  converting  non-fact  into  alleged  fact.  There 
was  all  the  more  excuse  for  this  error  in  Christian  Jews  (such 
as  Mark  and  others)  because  of  two  reasons.  In  the  first  place, 
the  prophets  had  predicted  that  all  manner  of  disease  (blindness, 
deafness,  lameness)  would  be  cured  in  the  days  of  the  Messiah 
(using  even  such  expressions  as  '  thy  dead  men  shall  awake '). 
In  the  second  place,  Christ  did  actually — as  I  have  admitted — 
cure  some  diseases,  such  as  insanity,  fever,  and  paralysis. 
How,  then,  could  it  be  other  than  a  difficult  task,  in  such 
circumstances,  to  distinguish  the  literal  from  the  metaphorical 
traditions  about  the  cures  effected  by  Christ  ?  " 

I  could  all  the  less  deny  the  force  of  these  remarks  because 
I  had  been  studying  the  words,  "Whatsoever  things  ye  ask, 
praying,  believe  that  ye  have  received  them  and  they  shall  be 
unto  you."  These  words,  if  applied  literally — to  bread,  for 
example,  or  money — were  manifestly  not  true.  Indeed  they 
were  absurd.  How  could  a  man  honestly  believe  that  he  had 
received  a  thousand  sesterces  in  the  act  of  praying  for  them  ? 
But  if  applied  spiritually,  as  in  Paul's  prayer  concerning  the 
thorn  in  the  flesh,  they  might  (I  felt)  be  true  for  one  endowed 
with  great  faith.  Paul  prayed  that  the  "thorn"  might  "depart" 
from  him.     In  one  sense  it  did  not  depart.     But  in  another 


216  SCAURUS  [Chapter  23 

sense,  it  did  depart  because  God  so  increased  his  strength  that 
the  "  thorn  "  became  as  nothing. 

Now  in  this  same  passage  of  Mark  I  found  the  following : 
"  Whosoever  shall  say  to  this  mountain,  '  Be  lifted  and  thrown 
into  the  sea,'  and  shall  not  doubt  in  his  heart  but  believes  in 
that  very  moment  that  what  he  says  is  happening,  it  shall  be 
unto  him."  Luke  also  elsewhere  had,  "  If  ye  have  faith  as  a 
grain  of  mustard-seed,  ye  would  say  to  this  sycamine-tree, 
'  Be  uprooted  and  be  planted  in  the  sea,'  and  it  would  have 
obeyed  you."  I  took  for  granted  that  "  mountain,"  "  mustard- 
seed,"  and  "  sycamine-tree,"  must  all  have  been  metaphorically 
used. 

Scaurus  confirmed  this  view,  saying  that  the  Jews  were  in 
the  habit  of  calling  a  learned  interpreter  of  the  Law  an  uprooter 
of  mountains,  i.e.  of  spiritual  obstacles  blocking  the  path  of  the 
students  of  the  law.  But  then  he  added  something  that 
amazed  me,  "  Matthew  has,  '  If  ye  have  faith,  and  doubt  not, 
ye  shall  not  only  do  the  deed  of  the  fig-tree,  but  even  if  ye  say 
to  this  mountain,  Be  lifted  and  thrown  into  the  sea,  it  shall 
come  to  pass.'  Now,  '  mountain '  being  metaphorical,  you 
might  naturally  anticipate  that  Matthew  intended  '  fig-tree  '  to 
be  metaphorical.  But  if  you  look  back  a  little,  you  will  find 
that  Matthew  actually  imagines  that  there  was  a  literal  fig-tree 
in  question.  So  does  Mark.  He  and  Matthew  turn  the  meta- 
phor into  a  literal  miracle,  as  follows. 

"  In  the  first  place,  Jesus  comes  to  a  literal  fig-tree,  seeking 
literal  fruit.  He  finds  none.  Consequently,  say  Mark  and 
Matthew,  a  curse  of  barrenness  was  pronounced  on  it  by  Jesus. 
What  followed  ?  The  tree  was  at  once  '  dried  up,'  or  (according 
to  Mark)  '  dried  up  from  the  roots.'  Now  first  note  that  the 
Hebrew  word  that  means  '  barren '  means  also  '  root  up,'  '  cut 
off,'  or  '  cut  down.'  Then  pass  to  Luke.  He  omits  the  whole 
of  this  miracle  about  a  fig-tree.  But  he  has  a  parable  about  a 
fig-tree.  The  Lord  of  a  vineyard  comes  to  a  barren  fig-tree, 
and  gives  orders  that  it  shall  be  '  cut  down.'  The  vinedresser 
intercedes  for  it  that  it  may  be  spared  for  one  year  more  in 
case  it  may  bear  fruit." 

I  looked  and  found  that  the  story  in  Mark  and  Matthew 


Chapter  23]         ON  SOME   OF  THE  MIRACLES         217 

was  as  Scaurus  had  described  it.  But  another  detail  astonished 
me.  It  was  a  phrase  that  followed  the  words,  "While  they 
were  passing  by  early  in  the  morning  "—i.e.  the  morning  after 
the  curse  had  been  pronounced — "  they  saw  the  fig-tree  dried 
up  from  the  roots."  Instead  of  writing  that  they  were  all 
amazed  at  the  speed  with  which  the  curse  had  been  fulfilled, 
Mark  wrote,  "And  Peter,  remembering  it,  says  to  him,  '  Rabbi, 
behold,  the  fig-tree  that  thou  cursedst  is  withered  up'."  Trying 
to  put  myself  in  the  place  of  Peter,  I  asked,  "What  should  I 
have  done  when  I  approached  the  spot  ?  How  could  I  fail  to  be 
on  the  alert  to  note  the  tree  that  my  Master  cursed  yesterday  ? 
How  could  any  of  my  companions  fail  ?  How  was  it  possible 
that  any  of  us  could  forget  ?  How  could  I  possibly  talk  about 
'remembering'  it  ?  How,  therefore,  could  a  historian  suppose  it 
needful  to  insert  that  I,  or  any  of  us,  'remembered '  ?  " 

Turning  to  Matthew,  I  found  that  he  got  rid  of  "  re- 
membering," and  of  "  Peter  "  too,  by  making  the  miracle  occur 
instantaneously,  thus,  "  He  said  unto  it  [i.e.  to  the  tree],  '  Let 
there  be  no  fruit  from  thee  henceforward  for  ever.'  And 
immediately  the  fig-tree  withered  away.  And  when  the  dis- 
ciples saw  it,  they  marvelled,  saying,  '  How  did  the  fig-tree 
immediately  wither  away '  ?  " 

Scaurus  explained  the  whole  matter  as  follows :  "  Look  at 
Ezekiel's  saying,  '  I  the  Lord  have  dried  up  the  green  tree,'  and 
its  context.  You  will  find  that  '  the  green  tree '  is  Tyre. 
Elsewhere  Luke  has  a  proverb  about  '  the  green  tree  and  the 
dry,'  where  '  the  dry  '  refers  to  the  destruction  of  Jerusalem  by 
the  Romans.  So  here,  the  fig-tree,  green  but  barren,  is 
Jerusalem.  Luke  has  given  the  parable  correctly.  The  Lord 
of  the  vineyard,  he  says,  comes  to  a  fig-tree,  i.e.  Jerusalem,  in 
the  vineyard,  that  is,  in  Judah.  He  does  not  say  that  it  is 
green,  but  we  may  imagine  that.  However,  it  has  no  fruit. 
'  Let  it  be  cut  down,'  says  the  Lord.  Well,  I  have  shewn  you 
that  '  Let  it  be  cut  down '  might  mean,  in  Hebrew,  '  Let  it  be 
barren  so  that  none  may  eat  fruit  from  it,'  or  '  Let  it  be  dried 
up.'  As  a  historical  fact,  the  fig-tree  was  cut  down,  or  dried  up, 
when  Jerusalem  was  destroyed  by  Titus.  But  that  was  not  im- 
mediate.    It  was  long  after  the  resurrection.     When  Jerusalem 


218  SCAURUS  [Chapter  U 

was  destroyed,  the  disciples  remembered " — this  explained  my 
difficulty  above  mentioned — "that  the  Lord  had  pronounced 
this  curse  on  Jerusalem.  I  could  shew  you,  if  space  allowed, 
that  the  name  'Peter'  (which  would  be  in  Hebrew  'Simon') 
might  be  confused  (in  Hebrew)  with  our  Latin  phrase  'qui  cum 
eo  erant '  meaning  '  those  that  were  with  him,'  i.e.  Christ's 
disciples,  and  also  that  Mark's  phrase  '  passing  by  early '  may 
be  an  error  for  'passing  along  to  inspect,  visit,  or  seek  fruit.' 
Having  regard  to  the  fact  that  Peter  died  a  year  or  two  before 
the  city  was  destroyed,  I  am  inclined  to  think  that  it  was  '  the 
disciples,'  not  '  Peter,'  that  '  remembered.'  But  there  is  no 
space  for  details.  It  must  suffice  to  have  shewn  you  how  a 
parable  of  Jesus,  about  cutting  down  a  fig-tree,  '  remembered ' 
by  his  disciples  long  afterwards  as  referring  to  Jerusalem,  has 
been  converted  by  Mark  and  Matthew  into  a  portentous  miracle 
about  withering  a  fig-tree  instantaneously  (according  to  Matthew) 
or  by  the  following  morning  (according  to  Mark)." 

This  explanation  of  "  remembering  "  seemed  exactly  to  meet 
my  difficulty.  I  accepted  it  at  once.  Subsequently  I  found 
that  the  fourth  gospel  twice  represents  the  disciples  as  "  re- 
membering," after  Christ's  resurrection,  things  that  He  had  said 
or  done  before  the  resurrection,  which  things,  at  the  time,  they 
had  not  fully  understood.  Moreover  that  gospel  declared  that, 
up  to  the  evening  before  Christ's  crucifixion,  His  words  had 
been  "  dark  sayings  "  to  them,  but  that  the  Spirit  would  "  call 
them  back  to  their  minds,"  or  "remind  them"  of  their  meaning. 
This  confirmed  me  in  the  conclusion  that  the  Withering  of  the 
Fig-Tree  was  a  parable,  not  a  history,  and  that  the  disciples 
"remembered"  it,  and  were  reminded  of  its  meaning  by  the 
Holy  Spirit,  after  the  Lord  hud  risen  from  the  dead. 

Scaurus  added  a  reference  to  a  lecture  of  Epictetus,  which, 
he  said,  I  must  have  heard,  and  which  bore  on  the  story  of  the 
fig-tree.  I  had  heard  it  and  remembered  it  well.  The  subject 
was,  in  effect,  "The  Precocious  Philosopher."  Epictetus  likened 
him  to  a  precoc^s  fruit-tree.  "  You  have  flowered  too  soon," 
he  said ;  "  The  winter  will  scorch  you  up,  or  rather  you  are 
alread}-  frostbitten.  Let  me  alone !  Why  do  you  wish  me, 
before  my  season  " — he  meant,  blooming  before  the  seasonable 


Chapter  23J         ON  SOME  OF  THE  MIRACLES         219 

preparation — "  to  be  withered  away  as  you  are  withered  your- 
self ? "  This,  Scaurus  said,  was  perhaps  borrowed  from  Mark. 
I  examined  the  text  of  the  lecture,  and  it  seemed  to  me  that 
his  conjecture  was  by  no  means  improbable. 

Scaurus  proceeded,  "  I  could  go  through  Mark's  other 
miracles  in  the  same  way — those  I  mean  that  are  not  acts  of 
healing — and  shew  you  that  they  are  all  metaphors  misunder- 
stood. But  I  have  given  too  much  space  to  these  unimportant 
matters.  At  least  I  consider  them  unimportant  except  so  far 
as  they  shew  Mark  to  be  historically  untrustworthy.  Now 
I  must  pass  to  more  important  things,  merely  adding — as  an 
instance  of  this  man's  curious  want  of  all  sense  of  proportion — 
that  while  giving — how  often  must  I  repeat  this ! — a  whole 
column  to  Herod  Antipas's  birthday  and  its  consequences,  he 
does  not  give  one  line,  or  one  word,  to  Christ's  resurrection — 
except  in  predictions  made  by  Christ  himself  or  in  statements 
made  by  angels.  I  am  not  a  Christian,  nor  a  half-way  Christian. 
But  I  have  an  immense  admiration  for  Christ  and  an  immense 
curiosity  to  know  the  exact  facts  about  his  life,  death,  and 
subsequent  influence  on  his  disciples.  To  me  therefore,  simply 
as  a  historian — or  as  a  mere  man  interested  in  the  affairs  of 
men — this  absolute  silence  about  that  which  should  have  been 
most  fully  stated  and  supported  by  the  evidence  of  eyewitnesses, 
is  nothing  short  of  provoking.  Will  you  not  agree  with  me, 
after  this,  that  Mark  is  the  most  inadequate  of  biographers  ? " 

I  could  scarcely  believe  my  eyes  when  I  read  this.  "  Scaurus," 
I  said,  "must  for  once  have  made  a  mistake,  or  his  copy  of  Mark 
must  have  been  defective."  But  my  copy  confirmed  his.  It 
ended  with  the  words,  "  For  they  were  afraid."  This  was  too 
much  for  me.  Perhaps  I  was  overwrought  with  long  and  close 
study  and  with  the  strain  of  attempting  to  grapple  with 
Scaurus's  criticisms.  I  remember  to  this  day — and  not  with 
entire  self-condemnation,  for  it  was  Mark,  not  Mark's  subject, 
that  disappointed  me — that  in  a  sudden  storm  of  passion  I 
threw  the  gospel  down  and  vowed  I  would  never  look  at  it 
again. 


CHAPTER   XXIV 

SCAURUS   ON   CHRIST'S   BIRTH 

On  the  following  morning  my  indignation  against  Mark 
began  to  seem  certainly  hasty  and  possibly  unjust.  True,  his 
book  was  apparently  without  beginning  or  end,  disfigured  by 
superfluities  and  omissions,  and  extraordinarily  disproportioned. 
But  what  if  he  had  no  time  to  revise  it  ?  What  if  it  was  a 
collection  of  notes  about  Christ's  mighty  works  and  short 
sayings,  which  he  was  intending  to  combine  with  a  collection 
of  Christ's  doctrine  when  he  died — died  perhaps  suddenly, 
perhaps  was  put  to  death  ?  I  tried  to  find  excuses  for  his  work. 
Still,  I  could  not  deny  that,  if  Scaurus  was  right  as  to  the  story 
of  the  fig-tree,  the  earliest  of  the  evangelists  shewed  a  deplorable 
inability  to  distinguish  the  things  that  preceded  Christ's 
resurrection  from  the  things  that  followed  it.  I  resolved, 
however,  that  this  should  not  deter  me  from  continuing  my 
study  of  the  other  gospels.  My  disappointment  with  Mark 
increased  my  admiration — it  was  not  then  more  than  admiration 
— for  Christ,  whom  he  seemed  to  me  to  have  failed  to  represent. 
"  Perhaps,"  said  I,  "  Matthew  and  Luke  will  do  more  justice  to 
the  subject."  So  I  took  up  their  gospels.  The  resurrection 
was  what  I  most  wanted  to  read  about.  But  I  decided  to 
begin  at  the  beginning. 

"In  style,  proportion,  arrangement,  and  subject-matter," 
said  Scaurus,  "  Matthew  and  Luke  are  much  more  satisfactory 
than  Mark,  although  Mark  often  preserves  the  earliest  and 
purest  form  of  Christ's  short  sayings.  When  I  say  '  Matthew,' 
you   must  understand  that   I  do  not  know  who  he  is.     I  am 


Chapter  24}      SCAURUS  ON  CHRIST'S  BIRTH         221 

convinced  that  Matthew  the  publican,  one  of  Christ's  twelve 
apostles,  is  not  responsible  for  the  work  called  by  his  name. 
Flaccus — whom  I  more  than  suspect  of  Christian  proclivities- 
knows  a  good  deal  about  these  matters.  Well,  according  to 
Flaccus,  '  Matthew  '  wrote  in  Hebrew.  '  Everyone  agrees  about 
it,'  he  says.  An  early  Hebrew  gospel  would  naturally  be 
attributed  to  Matthew.  He,  being  a  'publican,'  or  tax-collector, 
would  necessarily  be  able  to  write.  Peter  and  John  are  said  to 
have  been  ignorant  of  letters.  There  are  more  styles  than  one 
in  Matthew — a  fact  that  suggests  compilation.  Luke,  an 
educated  man,  and  perhaps  identical  with  a  '  beloved  physician  ' 
mentioned  in  one  of  Paul's  epistles,  certainly  compiled  his 
books  from  various  sources  ;  '  Matthew '  almost  certainly  did 
the  same.  Later  on,  I  will  speak  of  their  versions  of  Christ's 
discourses.  Now  I  must  confine  myself  to  their  accounts  of  a 
very  important  subject — Christ's  supernatural  birth." 

Up  to  this  point  I  had  been  reading  with  little  interest, 
doubting  whether  it  would  not  be  better  to  pass  on  to  the 
accounts  of  the  resurrection.  As  I  have  explained  above,  my 
study  of  Paul's  epistles  had  not  led  me  to  believe  that  there 
would  be  anything  miraculous  about  the  birth  of  Christ.  The 
phrase  "  supernatural  birth,"  therefore,  came  on  me  quite 
unexpectedly.  What  followed,  riveted  my  attention :  "  Mark, 
as  you  know,  says  nothing  about  Christ's  parentage.  First  he 
gives,  as  title,  '  The  beginning  of  the  gospel  of  Jesus  Christ ' — 
where,  by  the  way,  old  Hermas  has  written,  in  my  margin,  'some 
add,  Son  of  Cod.'  Then  there  is  a  Voice  from  heaven,  at  the 
moment  of  Christ's  baptism,  heard  (apparently)  only  by  John 
the  Baptist  and  Jesus,  '  Thou  art  my  beloved  Son.'  A  similar 
Voice  occurs  later  on.  Mark  represents  a  blind  man  as  calling 
Jesus  '  son  of  David,'  and  his  fellow-townsmen  say,  '  Is  not  this 
the  carpenter,  the  son  of  Mary  ? '  This  might  indicate  merely 
that  Joseph  the  carpenter  was  dead.  But  'Son  of  Mary'  might 
be  used  in  two  other  ways.  The  enemies  of  Jesus  might  use  it 
to  suggest  that  he  was  a  bastard.  The  worshippers  of  Jesus 
might  use  it  (later  on)  to  shew  that  he  was  a  Son  of 
God,  not  born  of  any  human  father.  Matthew  has,  '  Is  not 
this   the    carpenter's    son  ? '     This,    however,    Matthew    might 


222  SCAURUS  [Chapter  24 

write  not  as  his  own  belief,  but  as  that  of  Christ's  fellow- 
townsmen.  Luke,  who  has  'Is  not  this  Joseph's  son?',  gives 
the  whole  of  the  narrative  quite  differently.  I  should  add  that 
the  first  Voice  from  heaven  is  differently  given  in  some  copies  of 
Luke."  I  examined  this  at  once.  My  copy  had  a  marginal 
note,  "  Some  have,  Thou  art  my  Son,  this  day  have-  I  begotten 
thee." 

"  You  see,"  said  Scaurus,  "  in  these  early  divergences,  traces 
of  early  differences  as  to  the  time  and  manner  in  which  Jesus 
became  the  Son  of  God.  Paul  appears  to  me  to  have  believed 
that  the  sonship  pre-existed  in  heaven.  '  God,'  he  says,  '  in  the 
fulness  of  time,  sent  forth  His  son,  born  of  a  woman,  born  under 
the  law,  that  he  might  redeem  those  that  were  under  the  law.' 
In  Job,  '  born  of  a  woman '  implies  imperfection,  or  mortality. 
In  Paul,  'born  of  a  woman'  and  'born  under  the  law'  imply  two 
self-humiliations  undergone  by  the  Son  of  God.  Paul's  view 
is  that  the  Redeemer  must  needs  make  himself  one  with  those 
whom  he  redeems.  Since  the  Jews  were  not  only  'born  of  a 
woman'  but  also '  born  under  the  law,'  the  Son  of  God  came  down 
from  heaven  and  placed  himself  under  both  these  humiliations. 
Paul,  therefore,  seems  to  have  regarded  the  divine  birth  as 
taking  place  in  heaven  from  the  beginning,  but  the  human 
birth  as  a  self-humbling  on  earth,  wherein  the  Son  of  God 
becomes  incarnate  in  the  form  of  the  son  of  Joseph,  of  the 
seed  of  David,  after  the  flesh." 

This  had  been  my  inference  from  Paul's  epistles,  as  I  have 
said  above.  But  what  followed  was  quite  new  to  me :  "  You 
are  aware  from  Paul's  epistles  that  Christ  is  regarded  by  him 
as  preeminently  the  Seed  of  Promise,  Isaac  being  merely  the 
type.  Well,  listen  to  what  Philo,  a  Jew,  somewhat  earlier  than 
Paul,  declares  about  the  birth  of  Isaac.  Philo  says,  '  The  Lord 
begot  Isaac'  Philo  describes  Sarah  as  'becoming  pregnant 
when  alone  and  visited  by  God.'  It  was  God  also,  he  says,  who 
'  opened  the  womb  of  Leah.'  Moses,  too,  '  having  received 
Zipporah,  finds  her  pregnant  by  no  mortal.'  All  this  is,  of 
course,  quite  distinct  from  our  popular  stories  of  the  love  affairs 
of  Jupiter.  You  may  see  this  from  Philo's  context :  '  It  is 
fitting  that  God  should  converse,  in  an  opposite  manner  to  that 


Chapter  24]  ON  CHRIST'S  BIRTH  223 

of  men,  with  a  nature  undefiled,  unpolluted,  and  pure,  the 
genuine  Virgin.  For  whereas  the  cohabitation  of  men  makes 
virgins  wives  (lit.  women),  on  the  other  hand  when  God  begins 
to  associate  with  a  soul,  what  was  wife  before  He  now  makes 
Virgin  again.'  I  could  quote  other  instances,  but  these  will 
suffice.  Now  I  ask  you  to  reflect  how  such  language  as  this 
would  be  interpreted  in  the  west,  not  only  by  slaves,  but  even 
by  people  of  education,  unaccustomed  to  the  language  of  the 
east,  but  familiar  with  our  western  stories  of  the  births  of 
Hercules,  Castor  and  Pollux,  Bacchus  and  others." 

I  saw  at  once  that  the  language  would  be  liable  to  be  taken 
literally.  But  on  the  other  hand  it  seemed  to  me  that  no 
disciple  of  Paul  could  accept  anything  like  our  western  stories. 
Scaurus  had  anticipated  an  objection  of  this  kind  in  his  next 
words :  "  You  must  not  suppose,  however,  that  Hebrew 
literature  contains,  or  that  Jewish  or  Christian  thought  would 
tolerate,  such  stories  as  those  in  Ovid.  Nor  will  you  find 
anything  of  this  kind  in  Matthew  and  Luke,  to  whose  narratives 
we  will  now  pass.  Matthew  says,  rather  abruptly,  that  Joseph, 
finding  Mary,  his  betrothed  but  not  yet  his  wife,  to  be  with 
child,  and  intending  to  put  her  away  secretly,  received  a  vision 
of  an  angel  and  a  voice  bidding  him  not  to  fear  to  take  to 
himself  Mary  his  wife,  for  she  was  with  child  from  the  Holy 
Spirit,  and  '  she  will  bring  forth  a  child  and  thou  shalt  call  his 
name  Jesus.'  Luke,  after  a  much  longer  introduction  (about 
which  I  shall  speak  presently),  says  that  a  vision  and  a  voice 
came  to  Mary — he  does  not  mention  one  to  Joseph — bidding 
her  not  to  fear,  and  saying '  Thou  shalt  conceive  and  bring  forth 
a  child,  and  shalt  call  his  name  Jesus.'  In  theory,  it  is  of 
course  possible  that  two  similar  visions  might  come,  one  to 
Mary  and  another  to  Joseph,  bidding  both  '  not  to  fear.'  But 
Matthew  adds  something  that  points  to  an  entirely  different 
explanation :  '  Now  all  this  hath  come  to  pass  that  it  might 
be  fulfilled  which  was  spoken  by  the  Lord  through  the  prophet, 
saying,  Behold  the  virgin  shall  be  with  child  and  shall  bring 
forth  a  son  and  they  shall  call  his  name  Emmanuel '." 

These  words  I  had  myself  read  in  Isaiah  and  had  taken  as 
referring  to  a  promise  made  in  the  context,  namely,  that  in  a 


224  SCAURUS  [Chapter  24 

short  time — two  or  three  years,  just  time  enough  for  a  child  to 
be  conceived  and  to  be  born  and  to  grow  up  to  the  age  when  it 
could  say  "father"  and  "mother" — the  kings  of  Syria  and 
Samaria  would  be  destroyed.  Accordingly  Isaiah  says  that  he 
himself  married  a  wife  immediately  afterwards  and  that  the 
prophecy  was  fulfilled.  Having  recently  read  these  words  more 
than  once,  I  was  prepared  to  find  that  Scaurus  interpreted 
them  in  the  same  way.  He  added  that  the  most  learned  of  the 
Jews  themselves  did  the  same,  and  that  the  Hebrew  does  not 
mention  "  virgin,"  but  "  young  woman."  "  This,"  said  he,  "  I 
heard  from  a  learned  rabbi,  who  added,  '  The  LXX  is  full  of 
blunders,  but  we  are  hoping  for  a  more  faithful  rendering,  from 
a  very  learned  scholar  named  Aquila,  which  will  probably 
appear  soon '."  Here  I  may  say  that  this  translation  has 
actually  appeared— it  came  out  about  ten  years  ago — in  quite 
unreadable  Greek,  but  very  faithful  to  the  Hebrew ;  and  it 
renders  the  word,  not  "virgin,"  but  "young  woman,"  as  Scaurus 
had  said. 

It  was  this  very  rendering  that  caused  a  coolness  between 
me  and  Justin  of  Samaria.  It  happened,  I  am  sorry  to  say, 
shortly  before  he  suffered  for  the  sake  of  the  Saviour,  in  this 
present  year  in  which  I  am  writing.  I  chanced  to  meet  him 
coming  out  of  the  school  of  Diodorus,  in  his  philosopher's  cloak 
as  usual,  but  hot  and  flustered,  not  looking  at  all  like  a 
philosopher.  Some  people — Jews,  to  judge  by  their  faces — 
were  jeering  and  pointing  after  him  in  mockery.  Justin — 
furious  with  them,  but  also  (as  I  thought)  worried  and 
uncomfortable  in  himself — appealed  to  me :  "  I  have  been 
contending  for  the  Lord,"  said  he,  "  against  these  dogs.  They 
flout  and  mock  me  for  demonstrating  how  fraudulently  and 
profanely  they  have  mutilated  the  Holy  Scriptures,  cancelling 
some  parts  and  altering  others,  when  translating  them  into 
Greek."  Then  he  instanced  this  very  passage,  in  which  he  said 
the  Jews  had  vilely  corrupted  the  rendering  of  the  Hebrew 
from  "  virgin  "  to  "young  woman."  I  would  have  kept  silence; 
but,  as  he  pressed  me  to  say  whether  I  did  not  agree  with  him, 
I  was  obliged  to  reply  that  I  did  not ;  and  I  added  that  not 
only  Aquila  rendered  it  thus,  but  other  good  scholars,  many  of 


Chapter  24]  ON  CHRIST'S  BIRTH  225 

them  Christians.    Upon  this,  he  flung  away  from  me  in  disgust, 
without  one  word  of  salutation,  and  I  never  saw  him  again. 

The  fact  was,  he  had  committed  himself  in  writing,  about 
ten  years  before,  to  this  false  charge  against  the  Jews,  and  to 
many  other  baseless  accusations.  There  was  no  way  out  of  it 
now,  but  either  to  retract  or  to  face  it  out.  He  was  a  brave 
man  and  knew  how  to  face  death.  But  he  was  not  brave 
enough  to  allow  himself  to  be  conquered  by  facts.  Samaritan 
by  birth,  he  had  something  of  the  Samaritan — but  not  of  the 
Good  Samaritan — in  his  hatred  of  the  Jews.  Had  he  loved  the 
truth  as  much  as  he  hated  those  whom  he  called  truth's  enemies,, 
he  would  perhaps  have  gone  on  to  cease  from  his  hate,  and 
would  have  become  no  less  faithful  as  a  Christian  than  as  a 
martyr. 

Now  I  must  return  to  Scaurus.  "  Luke,"  said  he,  "  was  an 
educated  man,  and  saw  at  once  that  this  prophecy  about  '  the 
virgin '  did  not  apply.  So  he  omitted  it.  This  he  had  a  right 
to  do.  It  was  only  an  evangelist's  opinion,  not  a  statement  of 
anything  that  had  actually  occurred.  But  there  remained  the 
tradition  of  fact,  namely,  that  an  angel  had  appeared  and  had 
announced  the  future  birth  of  a  child  begotten  from  the  Holy 
Spirit.  Luke  regarded  this  announcement  as  made  to  the  mother, 
like  the  announcements — not  the  same  of  course,  but  similar — 
made  to  Sarah,  Rebecca,  and  the  mothers  of  Samson  and  Samuel. 
Moreover  in  Matthew's  account — as  I  judge  from  Hermas's 
marginal  notes — there  are  many  variations,  some  of  which  leave 
it  open  to  believe  that  the  utterance  to  Joseph  (like  that  to 
Abraham  before  Isaac's  birth)  referred  merely  to  God's  spiritual 
generating,  so  that  Jesus,  though  the  Son  of  God  according  to 
the  spirit,  was  yet,  according  to  the  flesh,  the  son  of  David  by 
descent  from  Joseph.  Luke  expresses  his  disagreement  from 
this  view  by  giving  various  utterances  of  Mary  and  the  angel 
at  such  length  that  they  may  be  called  hymns  or  poems.  And 
indeed — if  judged  liberally  and  not  by  the  pedantical  rules  of 
Atticists  or  over-strict  grammarians — they  are  poems,  by  no 
means   without   beauty. 

"  Luke  adds  another  narrative  in  which  he  makes  the  birth 
of  John  the  Baptist  serve  as  a  foil  (so  to  speak)  to  the  birth  of 

a.  15 


226  SCAURUS  [Chapter  24 

Christ.  John,  like  Christ,  was  born  as  a  child  of  promise,  after 
a  vision  of  an  angel.  But  there  the  likeness  ceases.  The 
vision  is  to  the  father,  not  to  the  mother.  The  father  disbelieves 
and  is  punished  by  dumbness.  Elizabeth,  the  mother,  was  not 
a  virgin.  She,  like  the  wife  of  Abraham,  was  barren  up  to  old 
age.  There  is  no  vision  to  Elizabeth,  and  no  mention  of  divine 
generation.  If  a  Jew,  Philo  for  example,  were  to  say  to  Luke, 
'  Your  Messiah  may  have  been  a  son  of  God  and  yet  son  of 
Joseph  (as  Isaac  was  son  of  Abraham)'  Luke  might  reply, 
'  Read  my  book,  and  you  will  see  that  it  was  not  so.  John  the 
Baptist  might  be  called  son  of  God  after  this  fashion,  but  Jesus 
was  born  in  quite  a  different  manner '." 

After  this,  Scaurus  went  on  to  treat  of  Christ's  pedigrees,  as 
given  by  Matthew  and  Luke,  shewing  Christ's  descent,  the 
former  from  Abraham,  the  latter  from  Adam.  These  details 
I  shall  not  give  in  full.  Scaurus  had  something  of  the  mind  of 
a  lawyer  and  something  of  the  eagerness  of  a  hound  hunting  by 
scent,  and,  as  he  said  himself,  when  once  on  a  trail  he  could  not 
stop.  "  Matthew,"  said  he,  "  omits  three  consecutive  kings  of 
Judah  in  one  place  and  a  fourth  in  another.  I  pointed  this 
out  to  my  old  rabbi  above-mentioned,  and  he  laughed  and  said, 
'  My  own  people  do  that  sort  of  thing.  History  is  not  our 
strong  point.  We  like  facts  to  fit  nicely,  and  this  writer  of 
yours  has  made  them  fit.  Does  he  not  himself  almost  tell  you 
that  he  is  squaring  matters,  when  he  says  that  there  are 
fourteen  generations  from  Abraham  to  David,  and  fourteen 
from  David  to  the  captivity,  and  fourteen  from  the  captivity 
to  Christ  ?  This  is  symmetrical,  but  it  is  not  what  your 
model  Thucydides  would  call  history.'  My  rabbi  went  on  to 
say,  '  A  more  serious  blunder,  from  our  point  of  view,  is  that 
this  Christian  has  included  in  the  ancestry  of  his  Christ  a  king 
called  Jeconiah  about  whom  one  of  our  prophets,  Jeremiah, 
says,  "  Write  ye  this  man  childless,  for  no  man  of  his  seed 
shall  prosper,  sitting  upon  the  throne  of  David  and  ruling  any 
more  in  Judah  ".'  Then,  seeing  the  two  papyri  lying  side  by 
side  on  the  table  before  me,  he  added,  '  I  see  you  have  another 
pedigree  there,  does  that  make  the  same  blunder  ? '  '  No,'  said 
I,  '  the  author  was  named  Luke,  a  physician,  an  educated  man 


Chapter  24]  ON  CHRIST'S  BIRTH  227 

and  a  great  compiler  of  documents.  He  gives  quite  a  different 
pedigree.'  '  I  am  not  surprised,'  said  my  rabbi.  '  If  he  was  a 
sensible  man,  he  could  hardly  do  otherwise  '." 

So  far  Scaurus.  He  did  not  anticipate  what  I  have  lived  to 
experience.  Quite  recently  I  heard  some  Christians  use  this 
very  mention  of  Jeconiah  in  an  opposite  direction,  namely,  as  a 
proof  that  Matthew  believed  Jesus  to  have  descended  from  God, 
but  not  from  Joseph  after  the  flesh.  In  particular,  I  have 
heard  a  young  but  rising  teacher,  Irenseus  by  name,  argue  as 
follows,  "If  indeed  He  had  been  the  son  of  Joseph,  He  could  not, 
according  to  Jeremiah,  be  either  king  or  heir,  for  Joseph  is 
shewn  to  be  the  son  of  Joachim  and  Jeconiah  as  also  Matthew 
sets  forth  in  his  pedigree."  Then  he  went  on  to  quote 
Jeremiah's  prophecy  that  Jeconiah  should  be  childless  and  have 
no  successor  on  the  throne  of  David.  And  his  argument  was 
to  this  effect,  "  Christ  is  the  royal  son  of  David.  Therefore  He 
could  not  have  descended  from  Jeconiah,  Joseph's  ancestor. 
Matthew  knew  this.  Therefore  Matthew,  though  giving 
Joseph's  pedigree,  did  not  mean  to  imply  that  Jesus  was  the 
son  of  Joseph."  And  this  seemed  to  convince  those  who  heard 
him  !  I  also  heard  this  same  Irenseus,  in  the  same  lecture,  say, 
"  If  He  were  the  son  of  Joseph,  how  could  He  be  greater  than 
Solomon,... or  greater  than  David,  when  He  was  generated 
from  the  same  seed,  and  was  a  descendant  of  these  men  ? " 
After  we  had  gone  out  from  Irenseus's  lecture,  I  asked  the 
friend  sitting  next  to  me  to  explain  this  argument  to  me  ;  for  it 
seemed  to  me  to  prove  that  a  man  could  not  be  greater  than  his 
ancestors.  "  Ah,  but  you  forget,"  he  replied,  "  what  ancestors. 
They  were  royal  ancestors.  How  could  the  son  of  a  mere 
carpenter  be  greater  than  David  or  Solomon?"  It  seemed 
to  me  that  the  sinless  son  of  "  a  mere  carpenter "  might  be 
greater  in  the  eyes  of  God  than  a  whole  world  of  such  royal 
sinners.  But  I  found  it  hard  to  convince  him  that  I  was 
even    speaking  seriously  ! 

To  return  to  Scaurus.  He  dealt  next  with  the  pedigree  in 
Luke.  '  You  might  have  supposed  in  these  circumstances," 
said  he,  "  that  Luke  would  drop  the  pedigree  of  Joseph 
altogether,  and  give  only  that  of  Mary.     Well,  he  has  not  done 

15—2 


228  SCA  UR  US  [Chapter  24 

this.  Another  course  would  have  been  to  state  clearly  that 
Jesus  was  not  really,  but  only  putatively,  the  son  of  Joseph 
(being  really  the  son  of  God)  and  to  add  that  he  gave  the 
pedigree  of  Joseph,  as  Matthew  gives  it,  because  Joseph 
was  the  putative  father.  Well,  he  has  not  quite  done  this 
either ;  but  he  has  done  half  of  it.  He  has  written  '  being  the 
son,  as  was  supposed,  of  Joseph.'  But  he  has  also  given  a 
pedigree  of  Joseph  differing  from  that  of  Matthew  in  that 
portion  which  extends  from  Joseph  to  David.  What  do  you 
think  of  this  ? " 

I  thought  that  the  whole  thing  was  a  cobweb  and  wished 
Scaurus  would  pass  to  something  more  interesting.  But  he 
continued,  "My  rabbi  suggested  that  Luke  had  invented  a  new 
genealogy.  But  when  I  dissented — for  I  am  convinced  that 
neither  Luke  nor  Matthew  invented,  and  that  these  early 
writers  generally  were  very  simple  honest  souls — he  asked 
me  whether  I  knew  of  any  instance  in  the  gospels  where  the 
name  spelt  in  Greek  Eli  or  Heli  was  misunderstood.  I  replied 
that  there  was  one  instance  where  Jesus  used  it  to  mean  my 
God,  but  the  bystanders  took  it  to  mean  Elias.  '  Well  then,' 
said  the  rabbi,  '  I  should  not  be  surprised  if  your  honest 
compiler  Luke,  a  learned  man  perhaps  in  Greek,  but  innocent 
of  Hebrew,  had  got  hold  of  some  tradition  saying,  Jesus  was 
supposed  to  be  the  son  of  Joseph,  being  the  son  of  God.  Though 
in  Hebrew  there  is  a  difference  between  the  spelling  of  El, 
God,  and  the  name  Eli,  there  is  not  much  difference  in  Greek. 
And  Luke,  having  once  started  on  the  scent  of  a  new  pedigree 
supposed  to  connect  Jesus  with  Heli,  ransacked  various  Jewish 
genealogies  till  he  found  one  containing  the  name,  and  adopted 
it  as  a  substitute  for  Matthew's.'  This  was  what  my  rabbi 
suggested.  All  I  can  say  is  that  it  seems  to  me  more  probable 
than  that  Luke  invented  the  genealogy." 

Scaurus  entered  into  further  details  to  vindicate  Luke's 
honesty,  concluding  as  follows,  "  My  own  belief  is  that  the 
parents  of  John  and  of  Jesus  were  good,  pure,  simple,  noble- 
minded  people,  liable  to  dreams  and  to  the  seeing  of  visions 
and  to  the  hearing  of  voices.  As  to  '  dreams,'  by  the  way,  look 
at   the   earliest   account  of  the   Lord's  appearing  to  Solomon, 


Chapter  24]  ON  CHRIST'S  BIRTH  229 

'In  Gibeon,  the  Lord  appeared  to  Solomon  in  a  dream. .  .Solomon 
awoke,  and  behold  it  was  a  dream!  Then  look  at  the  later 
account  in  Chronicles,  'In  that  night  did  God  appear  unto 
Solomon,'  No  'dream'  and  no 'awaking'!  Verbum  sa-pienti ! 
The  facts  above  alleged — to  which  I  could  add — when  combined 
with  the  influence  of  prophecy — seem  to  me  to  explain  every- 
thing in  Matthew's  and  Luke's  Introductions  as  being  at  once 
morally  truthful  and  historically  untrue." 

Later  on,  Scaurus  said,  "Luke  himself  in  his  story  of  Christ's 
childhood,  does  not  seem  to  me  to  be  so  consistent  as  an 
educated  writer  would  have  been  if  he  had  been  dishonestly 
inventing.  For  he  represents  Mary  as  saying  to  her  son, 
*  Behold,  thy  father  and  I  seek  thee  sorrowing.'  By  '  thy 
father'  she  means  Joseph.  But  could  she  have  used  this 
language,  or  felt  this  sorrow,  if  she  had  realised  indeed  that 
her  son  was  not  one  of  the  many  children  of  the  Father  of  Gods 
and  men,  but  that  he  was  unique,  God  incarnate  ?  This  and 
many  other  points  convince  me  that  Luke  (in  his  account  of 
the  birth)  is  not  composing  fiction,  but  only  compiling,  har- 
monizing, adapting,  and  moulding  into  a  historical  shape,  what 
should  have  been  preserved  as  poetic  legend." 

Scaurus  then  gave  one  more  detail  from  Mark,  "  who,"  said 
he,  "meagre  though  he  is,  often  records  actual  history  where 
later  accounts  disguise  it.  Mark  says  that,  when  Jesus  was 
preaching  the  gospel,  his  own  family  (literally  '  those  from  him,' 
that  is,  '  those  of  his  household ')  '  came  to  lay  hands  on  him ; 
for  they  said.  He  is  beside  himself.'  Matthew  and  Luke  omit 
this.  But  Matthew  and  Luke  agree  with  Mark  when  the  latter 
goes  on  to  describe  how  the  mother  of  Jesus  and  his  brethren 
come  to  the  place  where  he  is  preaching.  Not  being  able  to 
reach  him  through  the  crowd,  they  send  word  that  they  desire 
to  speak  to  him.  Jesus  does  not  go  out  nor  stop  his  preaching. 
Those  who  obeyed  the  gospel,  he  said,  were  his  mother  and  his 
brethren.  I  have  said  that  Matthew  and  Luke  omit  the 
attempt  of  Christ's  family  to  stop  him  from  preaching  as  being 
out  of  his  mind.  Probably  variations  in  the  text  enabled  them 
honestly  to  omit  it,  believing  it  to  be  erroneous.     And  indeed 


230  SCAURUS  [Chapter  24, 

how  could  they  believe  otherwise  ?  How  could  Matthew  and 
Luke  believe  that  Mary  would  accompany  the  brethren  of  Jesus 
in  an  attempt  to  '  lay  hands '  on  him  after  recording  what  they 
have  previously  recorded  about  the  supernatural  birth  ?  Lay 
hands  on  her  divine  Son,  the  Son  of  God,  engaged  in  pro- 
claiming the  will  of  his  Father  in  heaven  !  The  story  might 
well  seem  to  them  incredible.  But  it  bears  the  plain  stamp  of 
genuine  truth." 

Scaurus  then  pointed  out  the  divergence  between  Matthew 
and  Luke  as  to  the  manner  in  which  Jesus  came  to  be  born  in 
Bethlehem.  This  I  omit.  But  in  the  course  of  it  he  shewed 
me  how  Matthew  has  been  influenced  by  prophecies  applied  by 
the  Christian  Jews  to  Christ,  as  being  their  Deliverer  from 
Captivity,  and  their  Comforter  in  time  of  trouble.  "  For 
example,"  said  he,  "since  'Egypt'  in  Hebrew  poetry  is  often 
synonymous  with  'bondage'  the  Christian  Jews  might  naturally 
praise  God  in  their  songs  and  hymns  for  fulfilling,  through 
Christ,  the  prophecy,  '  Out  of  Egypt  have  I  called  my  son,' 
i.e.  Israel,  meaning  that  God  had  called  them,  the  new  Israel, 
out  of  '  bondage '  (as  Paul  often  says)  into  the  liberty  of  the 
children  of  God.  But  Matthew  takes  this  as  meaning  that, 
when  Christ  was  a  little  child,  he  wTas  literally  '  called  out  of 
Egypt.'  Hence  he  is  driven  to  infer  that  he  must  have  been 
taken  to  Egypt.  For  such  a  journey  he  finds  a  reason  by 
supposing  that  it  was  to  escape  from  the  sword  of  Herod.  He 
fits  in  this  story  with  another  prophecy  representing  Rachel  as 
weeping  for  her  children,  and  as  being  consoled  by  the  Lord. 
Hence  Matthew  infers  a  massacre  of  children  by  Herod  in 
Bethlehem,  corresponding,  on  a  small  scale,  to  the  wholesale 
destruction  from  which  the  infant  Moses  escaped.  But  such  a 
massacre  is  not  mentioned  by  any  evangelist,  or  by  Josephus,  or 
by  any  other  historian  or  writer  known  to  me." 

I  was  depressed  by  this,  and  eager  to  pass  on  to  something 
more  satisfactory.  So  was  Scaurus.  "  I  have  no  desire,"  he 
said,  "  to  dwell  on  these  points.  I  am  interested  in  the  bio- 
graphies of  all  great  teachers,  philosophers,  and  lawgivers,  as 
well  as  conquerors — so  far  as  they  are  true.     Untruth  gives  me 


Chapter  24,]  ON  CHRIST'S  BIRTH  231 

no  pleasure,  but  disappointment — unmixed  except  for  the  slight 
pleasure  one  may  find  in  tracking  an  error  to  its  hole  and 
killing  it. 

"  With  much  greater  pleasure  shall  I  turn  to  Matthew's  and 
Luke's  accounts  of  the  words  and  deeds  of  Christ.  Only  I  will 
add  that,  were  I  a  Christian,  I  should  long  for  a  new  gospel 
that  would  go  back  to  facts,  rejecting  these  additions  of  Matthew 
and  Luke.  Not  that  I  would  go  back  to  Mark.  By  'facts,' 
I  do  not  mean  such  facts  as  John  the  Baptist's  diet  of  locusts 
and  clothing  of  camel's  hair.  But  surely  a  genuine  worshipper 
of  Christ — I  can  conceive  such  a  thing ;  for  after  all,  what  is 
more  worthy  of  worship  on  earth,  next  to  God  Himself,  than 
'  the  man  that  is  as  righteous  as  possible,'  concerning  whom 
Socrates  says  that  there  is  '  nothing  more  like  God '  ? — I  say  a 
genuine  Christian,  if  he  were  also  a  philosopher,  might  surely 
find  it  possible  to  state  in  a  few  simple  words  his  conviction 
that,  whereas  John  the  son  of  Zachariah  was  sent  by  the  Logos, 
and  contained  only  a  portion  of  the  Logos,  Jesus  the  son  of 
Joseph  was  actually  the  Logos  incarnate.  I  wholly  reject  such 
a  notion  myself,  partly  because  I  am  not  sure  that  I  believe 
that  there  is  any  divine  Logos  at  all — having,  in  fact,  given  up 
speculating  on  these  matters.  But  if  I  were  as  sure  on  that 
point  as  your  Epictetus  is,  and  if  I  were  a  Christian  to  boot, 
I  am  not  sure  that  I  should  have  any  great  difficulty  in 
believing  that  some  one  man  might  exist — might  be  'sent  into 
the  world,'  I  suppose,  a  Christian  would  say — as  different  from 
ordinary  possessors  of  the  Logos  as  steam  is  from  water — after 
all,  steam  is  water — superior  to  Numa  the  Roman,  superior  to 
Lycurgus  the  Spartan,  to  Solon  the  Athenian,  yes,  superior  to 
Moses  the  Hebrew. 

"  You  will  be  disposed  to  smile  at  my  '  Moses,'  as  an 
anticlimax.  But  let  me  tell  you  that  this  Moses  was  a  very 
great  man.  He  was  a  genuine  maker  of  a  republic.  I  don't 
mention  your  friend's  ideal,  Diogenes,  for  I  don't  regard  him  as 
a  maker  of  anything.  I  do  not  even  mention  my  own  favourite 
Socrates.  He  is  not  for  the  man  in  the  street.  He  is  a  maker 
of  thinkers.  I  am  speaking  of  makers  of  men,  and  contem- 
plating the  possibility  of  a   unique   Maker,   a   Creator  of  an 


232  SCAURUS  [Chapter  24 

altogether  new  social  condition.  Well,  then,  suppose  I  believed 
in  the  Logos  in  heaven  and  the  Logos  on  earth.  Your  philo- 
sophers would  tell  me  to  regard  it  as  a  divine  flame  lighting 
many  human  torches  without  self-diminution.  Granted.  Then 
I  should  believe  that  every  man  had  his  share  of  the  Logos ; 
some,  a  great  share ;  others,  a  very  great  one.  Why  should 
I  not  contemplate  the  possibility  of  a  unique  and  complete 
man,  not  '  sharing,'  but  containing  or  being — a  man  that  might 
be  or  contain  the  totality,  or,  as  Paul  says,  the  fulness,  of  the 
Logos  ?  I  see  weak  points  in  this  torch-analogy  except  as  an 
illustration  of  the  belief;  yet  the  belief  itself  does  not  appear 
to  me  against  reason.  But  enough  of  this  rambling !  I  have 
discerned  of  late  many  signs  that  I  am  growing  old,  and  none 
more  patent  than  this  tendency  to  expatiate  on  my  cast-off 
Christian  explorations  begun  in  the  years  when  I  was  vigorous. 
I  pass,  and  with  great  relief,  to  some  things  that  are  real 
possessions — I  mean  some  portions  of  Matthew's  and  Luke's 
versions  of  Christ's  discourses." 

For  my  part,  it  was  not  with  unmixed  "relief"  that  I  turned 
to  the  next  portion  of  Scaurus's  letter.  His  conclusions  about 
Christ's  birth  had  merely  accorded  with  my  inferences  from 
Paul's  epistles ;  but  he  had  shaken  my  faith  in  Matthew  and 
Luke  as  trustworthy  historians ;  and  I  looked  forward  with 
misgivings  to  his  further  criticism,  which,  I  feared,  might  prove 
destructive.  In  this  depression,  I  endeavoured  to  recall  the  words 
of  Paul  to  the  Corinthians  about  having  a  "  treasure  in  earthen 
vessels."  Mark  certainly  was  an  "  earthen  vessel."  Matthew 
appeared  likely  to  be  no  better,  so  far  as  I  could  judge  from  his 
story  of  Christ's  birth  and  childhood.  Luke,  trying  to  reduce 
these  legends  to  historic  shape,  did  not  seem  to  me  to  have 
succeeded,  in  spite  of  all  his  pains  and  sincerity.  While  I  was 
unrolling  the  Corinthian  epistle  to  refresh  my  memory,  the 
thought  occurred  to  me,  "  Is  it  possible  that  any  God  should 
choose  such  writers  to  set  forth  the  life  and  character  of  His 
Son  !  How  could  the  All-wise  be  guilty  of  such  foolishness  ? " 
I  had  hardly  uttered  the  word  "foolishness  "  when  my  eyes  fell 
on  the  words,  "  The  foolishness  of  God  is  wiser  than  the  wisdom 
of  men."     Then  I  became  more  modest.     "  God's  ways,"  I  said, 


Chapter  24]  ON  CHRIST'S  BIRTH  233 

"  are  not  our  ways.  Perhaps  He  desires  to  force  us  to  think 
and  to  feel  for  ourselves."  I  felt  grateful  even  to  Mark  because 
he  alone  had  preserved  some  of  Christ's  deep  and  difficult 
sayings.  And  in  the  end  I  recurred  to  the  thought  that  had 
been  of  late  growing  stronger  and  stronger  within  me  con- 
cerning the  possible  inferiority  of  Romans  and  Greeks  to  Jews 
in  things  of  the  spirit.  "  Thucydides,"  I  said,  "  would  have 
surpassed  Isaiah  in  describing  exactly  the  campaign  of  Sen- 
nacherib against  Hezekiah.  But  in  describing  visions  and 
judgments  of  the  Lord,  Isaiah  is,  perhaps,  the  man,  and 
Thucydides  the  babe.  I  will  continue  my  exploration,  with 
Scaurus  as  a  guide." 


CHAPTER   XXV 

SCAURUS   ON   CHRIST'S   DISCOURSES 

"  Matthew  and  Luke,"  said  Scaurus,  "  go  even  beyond  Mark 
in  the  inculcation  of  a  doctrine,  beautiful  after  a  fashion,  but 
unjust,  and  impracticable.  Mark  says,  '  Love  thy  neighbour 
as  thyself.'  Surely,  that  is  as  far  as  reason  can  let  us  go. 
I  should  say  it  is  farther.  But  Matthew  and  Luke  say,  '  Love 
your  enemies.'  Now  I  can  recall  one  passage  where  Epictetus 
says  that  the  Cynic  must  love  the  men  that  thrash  him,  but 
I  am  sure  that  his  general  view  is  this,  '  The  man  that  treats 
me  thus  behaves  like  a  beast,  or  like  a  mere  scourge  in  the 
hand  of  Zeus,  whose  pleasure  it  is  thus  to  try  me.  How  can 
I  hate  a  beast  ?     Or  how  can  I  hate  a  scourge  ? ' 

Then,  after  reminding  me  how  he  had  declared  that  Epi- 
ctetus borrowed  from  the  Christians,  he  said,  "  This,  I  think, 
is  an  instance.  The  Christian  really  loves  the  beast-like 
man  because  he  believes  the  man  to  be  made  in  the  image 
of  God  and  degraded  by  Satan.  The  Christian  really  pities 
him ;  he  is  troubled  for  the  man's  sake.  Christ  says  '  Pray  for 
him  ' ;  and  the  Christian  honestly  prays,  '  This  man  is  behaving 
like  a  beast.  God  help  him  ! '  The  Epictetian  does  not 
recognise  prayer  or  pity  ;  he  recognises  his  own  peace  of  mind 
as  God's  supreme  gift.  '  This  man,'  he  says,  '  is  behaving  like 
a  beast.  But  it  is  no  evil  to  me.  I  must  see  that  it  does  not 
interfere  with  my  peace  of  mind.  I  must  beware  of  pitying 
him.'  Elsewhere  Epictetus  says  that  when  you  are  reviled  you 
are  to  make  yourself  a  '  stone/  whereas  Christ  says,  '  Bless 
them    that   curse   you.'     This   exceptional   sentence,   then,  in 


Chapter  25]  SCAURUS  ON  CHRIST'S  DISCOURSES  235 

which  Epictetus  speaks  about  '  loving  one's  cudgellers  '  appears 
to  me  a  case  where  our  friend,  while  cutting  away  the  Christian 
foundation,  has  tried  to  keep  the  Christian  superstructure. 
Perhaps  the  view  of  Epictetus  (at  all  events  in  word  and  in 
appearance)  is  somewhat  selfish.  But  certainly  the  Christian 
precept  is  contrary  to  justice  and  common  sense.  One  ought 
no  more  to  love  the  wicked  than  to  admire  the  ugly." 

This  seemed  at  first  convincing,  or,  at  all  events,  over- 
powering. But  he  went  on  to  connect  it  with  the  doctrine  of 
forgiveness,  which  Matthew  and  Luke  included  in  the  Lord's 
Prayer.  "  This  doctrine,"  said  Scaurus,  "  I  have  mentioned 
above,  as  being  in  Mark,  although  he  does  not  give  the  Lord's 
Prayer.  It  is,  in  fact,  intended  by  Christ  to  be  the  very  basis 
of  his  community.  Now  of  course,  Silanus,  you  and  I  and  all 
reasonable  people  are  agreed  that  we  ought  to  be  patient,  and 
equable,  and  to  condone  faults  to  our  equals,  and  not  to  lose 
our  temper  with  our  inferiors,  if  (as  Epictetus  says)  a  slave 
'  brings  us  vinegar  instead  of  oil'  And  a  magnanimous  man 
will  put  up  with  much  greater  offences  than  these,  sometimes 
with  injustice  or  fraud,  sometimes  even  with  insults,  if  he  feels 
that  his  honour  is  not  touched  by  them,  or  that  society  does 
not  require  a  prosecution  of  the  offence.  But  there  is  all  the 
world  of  difference  between  this — which  any  gentleman  would 
do,  philosopher  or  no  philosopher — and  the  extraordinary 
dishonesty — for  I  can  call  it  by  no  other  name — reduced  to 
a  system  by  the  Christians,  of  'letting  people  off'  in  the  hope 
that  God  may  '  let  you  off.'  I  do  not  want  to  be  '  let  off '  by 
God.  I  should  prefer  to  say  (as  Epictetus  says  to  the  tyrant) 
'  If  it  seem  advisable,  punish  me  '." 

As  soon  as  Scaurus  used  this  argument,  I  perceived  that 
he  confused  the  remission  of  penalty  with  the  forgiveness  of 
sin,  that  power  of  "  bearing  the  burdens  "  of  others,  and  of 
"  restoring "  others,  which,  as  I  have  shewn  above,  Paul 
recognised  as  a  fact  and  which  Paul  made  me  recognise  as 
a  fact,  though  a  very  mysterious  fact.  Hence,  reasoning 
backward,  I  saw  that  this  faculty  of  discerning  the  image  of 
God  in  the  most  sinful  of  sinners,  and  of  pitying  the  sinner, 
yes,  and  even  of  loving  him,   might  belong  to  God  Himself, 


236  SCAURUS  [Chapter  25 

and  to  men  in  so  far  as  they  are  like  God.  If  so,  the  existence 
of  this  power  of  loving  one's  enemies  was  a  reality,  just  as  the 
power  of  forgiving  was  a  reality.  "  Scaurus  himself,"  I  said, 
'■  has  and  uses  this  power.  He  often  sees  good  in  people  where 
most  men  would  fail  to  see  it.  He  likes  those  in  whom  others 
see  nothing  to  like.  I  can  conceive  that  a  Son  of  God  might 
not  only  possess  but  impart  a  power  of  this  kind,  increased  to 
such  a  degree  that  it  might  be  justly  called  a  new  power." 

"  The  curious  thing,"  said  Scaurus,  "  about  this  doctrine  of 
loving  and  forgiving  is  this.  Although  it  appears  unpractical 
and  paradoxical,  yet  the  '  kingdom  '  (to  use  the  Christian  word) 
based  on  this  doctrine  is,  I  must  confess,  not  unpractical  at  all, 
but  on  the  contrary  a  very  solid  and  inconvenient  fact  in 
a  great  number  of  our  largest  cities  and  among  the  poorest  and 
most  squalid  of  the  populace.  Note  the  difference  between  the 
kingdom  of  the  Christian  and  that  of  the  Stoic.  The  Christian 
missionary  cries  aloud  like  a  herald,  '  Repent  ye ;  the  kingdom 
of  God  is  at  hand,'  the  Cynic  says  '/  am  a  king'  or — to  quote 
Epictetus  exactly — 'Which  of  you,  having  seen  me,  does  not 
recognise  in  me  his  natural  king  and  master  ? '  The  former 
prays,  and  teaches  his  proselytes  to  pray,  looking  up  to  a  God 
in  heaven,  '  Thy  kingdom  come ' ;  the  latter  neither  prays  nor 
enjoins  prayer  of  any  kind. 

"  I  suppose  no  Greek  or  Roman  philosopher  would  apply 
the  title  of  king  to  God  quite  as  freely  and  naturally  as  Hebrew 
and  Jewish  writers  do ;  for  when  Ave  Romans  say  '  king,'  we 
think  of  '  tyrant.'  But  apart  from  that  (which  is  only  a 
superficial  difference  of  word)  our  philosophers  have  little  or 
none  of  that  expectation  which  underlies  the  words  '  Thy 
kingdom  come.'  The  Christians  assert  (supported  by  Matthew 
and  Luke)  that  Christ  himself  taught  them  to  pray  thus.  They 
anticipate  a  new  kingdom — new  family,  if  you  prefer  the  term — 
where  all  the  world  will  be  brothers  and  sisters  doing  the  will 
of  the  Father.  When  they  pray  'Thy  kingdom  come,'  they 
mean  '  Thy  will  be  done.'  Indeed  Matthew  has  inserted  '  Thy 
will  be  done  '  in  his  version  of  the  Lord's  Prayer.  Perhaps  it 
was  a  paraphrase,  which  Luke  has  rejected  because  it  was  not 
a  part  of  the  original.     But  in  any  case,  '  Thy  will  be  done  '  is 


Chapter  25]         ON  CHRIST'S  DISCOURSES  237 

well  adapted  to  make  the  meaning  of  '  kingdom  '  clear  in  the 
churches  of  the  west.  If  a  Christian  philosopher  were  to  write 
a  gospel,  I  should  not  wonder  if  he  were  to  go  still  further  and 
drop  the  word  '  kingdom  '  altogether,  because  it  is  calculated 
to  give  a  false  impression  to  all  that  are  unacquainted  with  the 
Hebrew  or  Jewish  method  of  speech."  Scaurus  was  nearly 
right  here.  When  I  came  to  study  the  fourth  gospel,  I  found 
that  Jesus  is  represented  as  never  using  the  word  except  in 
explanations  to  Nicodemus  and  Pilate. 

"  Now,"  said  Scaurus,  "  I  do  not  deny  that  there  are 
advantages  in  this  scheme  of  a  kingdom  over  the  whole  world, 
where  the  king  is  not  a  despot  but  a  beneficent  ruler  to  whom 
all  may  feel  heartily  and  permanently  loyal.  As  compared  with 
Christ,  such  Epictetian  '  kings '  as  Socrates,  Diogenes,  and 
Zeno,  pass  before  us  like  solitary  champions,  fighting,  so  to 
speak,  each  for  his  own  hand.  Or  we  may  liken  them  to  torch- 
bearers,  lighting  up  the  darkness  for  a  time  but  not  succeeding 
in  transmitting  the  torch  to  a  successor.  They  depart.  There 
is  a  momentary  wake  of  light.  It  disappears.  Then  we  have 
to  wait  for  a  new  torchbearer,  or  a  new  champion;  and  the 
fighting,  or  the  torch-waving,  has  to  begin  all  over  again. 
Take  notice  of  my  qualification — '  as  compared  with  Christ.' 
Even  thus  qualified,  perhaps  my  remarks  about  Socrates  are 
too  strong.  For  assuredly  his  light  has  not  gone  out.  But 
to  tell  the  truth,  resuming  my  study  of  these  half-forgotten 
gospels  in  the  light  of  Paul's  epistles,  I  find  myself  sometimes 
admiring  rather  to  excess  that  visionary  letter-writer  and 
practical  church-builder.  Our  philosophers  do  not  consolidate 
a  kingdom.  The  Christians  do.  I  am  impressed  by  what  Paul 
calls  somewhere  their  'solid  phalanx.'  There  is  something 
about  it  that  I  cannot  quite  fathom." 

I  too  was  impressed  by  Scaurus's  confession  that  he  had 
somewhat  changed  his  mind  about  the  gospels  in  consequence 
of  Paul's  epistles.  It  seemed  to  me  to  explain  some  incon- 
sistencies in  his  letters.  Also  I  noted  that  Paul's  phrase  was 
"  the  solid  phalanx  of  your  faith,"  and  that  perhaps  "faith  " 
explained  "phalanx."  Scaurus  now  passed  to  the  doctrine 
of  New  Birth.     "  I  call  it  thus,"  said  he,  "  for  brevity.     Mark 


238  SGA  UR  US  [Chapter  25 

expresses  it  ambiguously,  saying  that  no  man  can  enter  into 
the  kingdom  unless  he  receives  it  '  as  a  little  child.'  Now  this 
might  mean  '  as  he  receives  a  little  child.'  And  this  inter- 
pretation is  rather  favoured  by  the  fact  that,  somewhat  earlier, 
Mark  has  a  doctrine  about  '  receiving  one  of  such  little  children.' 
I  suspect  some  mystical  doctrine  is  concealed  in  Mark.  But 
Matthew  has,  '  unless  ye  turn  and  become  as  little  children.' 
There  is  no  mistaking  that.  Now  I  say,  in  the  first  place,  this 
is  impossible  ;  in  the  second  place,  it  is  wrong.  First,  it  is 
impossible.  The  Father  of  heaven,  says  Horace,  may  send  fair 
weather  to-day  and  foul  tomorrow.     But  not  even  He — 

' diffiuget  infectumque  reddet 

Quod  fugiens  simul  hora  vexit.' 

You  must  agree  with  me.  Jupiter  cannot  cause  what  has 
been  done  to  have  been  not  done.  In  the  next  place,  it  is 
wrong.  A  full-grown  man  has  no  right  to  divest  himself  of 
full-grown  faculties.  How  much  better  is  the  doctrine  of 
Epictetus,  '  My  friend,  you  have  fallen  down.  Get  up.  Try 
again.'  This  is  possible.  This  is  encouraging.  But  tell  the 
same  man,  '  Become  a  little  child,'  '  Be  born  again ' !  He  will 
think  you  are  playing  the  fool  with  him." 

I  wondered  why  Scaurus  did  not  see  that  here  again  he  was 
inconsistent.  He  had  forgotten  the  admissions  he  had  made  in 
view  of  Paul's  epistles.  In  the  cities  of  Asia  and  Greece,  some 
of  the  vilest  among  the  vile  had  been  told  by  Paul,  "  You  must 
become  new  creatures  in  Christ,"  "  You  must  die  to  sin  and 
rise  again  to  righteousness."  They  did  not  "  think  he  was 
playing  the  fool."  They  had  (as  Scaurus  confessed)  been 
morally  "born  again."  Moreover  Paul  had  met  his  objection  as 
to  "  full-grown  faculties  "  by  saying,  "  Be  ye  babes  in  respect  of 
malice,  but  in  understanding  be  full-grown  men."  Still  I  was 
sorry  that  the  gospels  had  expressed  this  obscurely.  Neither 
of  us  had  as  yet  read  the  fourth  gospel.  That  makes  the 
doctrine  quite  clear  by  shewing  that  what  is  needed  is  not  to  be 
"  born  over  again  " — for  one  might  be  "  born  over  again  "  ten 
times  worse  than  one  was  before — but  to  be  "  born  from  above." 
This  was  quite  different  from  "  causing  what  has  been  done  to 
have  been  not  done."     It  meant  "created  anew,"  or  "reshaped," 


Chapter  25]         ON  CHRIST'S  DISCOURSES  239 

so  that  the  Spirit  of  Christ,  within  the  Christian,  dominated 
the  flesh.  Both  here  and  elsewhere,  Scaurus's  criticisms  would 
have  been  very  different,  if  he  had  known  the  fourth  gospel. 

"  The  next  point  to  be  considered,"  said  Scaurus,  "  is  the 
laws  for  the  new  kingdom.  Matthew  has  grouped  together  a 
collection  of  precepts  as  a  code.  Some  of  these  contrast  what 
1  has  been  said,'  or  '  has  been  said  to  men  of  old,'  with  what 
Christ  now  says.  Apparently  Matthew  intended  this  code  of 
laws  (uttered,  he  says,  on  a  '  mountain  ')  to  correspond  to  the 
code  promulgated  on  Mount  Sinai.  But  Luke  (who  by  the  way 
omits  the  '  mountain '  and  makes  the  scene  '  a  place  on  the 
plain')  while  giving  many  of  these  precepts,  scatters  them  about 
his  gospel  specifying  various  occasions  on  which  several  of  them 
were  uttered ;  and  he  never  inserts  the  contrasting  clause 
above-mentioned.  The  conclusion  I  draw  is,  that  Christ 
promulgated  no  law  at  all.  Law  deals  almost  exclusively  with 
actions.  Christ  dealt  almost  exclusively  with  motives,  as  the 
last  of  the  Ten  Commandments  does.  When  Christ  inculcates 
actions,  they  are  often  metaphorical  or  hyperbolical,  as  when  he 
says,  '  If  you  are  struck  on  one  cheek,  turn  the  other  to  the 
striker,'  '  Let  not  your  right  hand  know  what  your  left  hand 
does,'  '  If  a  man  takes  your  cloak,  give  him  your  coat  too,'  and, 
'  If  anyone  wants  to  make  you  go  a  mile  with  him,  go  two 
miles,' — to  which  last  precept,  by  the  way,  Epictetus  would  say, 
No." 

I  think  Scaurus  was  referring  to  a  passage  where  Epictetus 
said,  "  Diogenes,  if  you  seized  any  possession  of  his,  would 
sooner  give  it  up  to  you  than  follow  you  on  account  of  it." 
Scaurus  went  on  to  say,  "  Matthew's  habit  of  grouping  sentences 
makes  it  difficult  to  distinguish  sayings  uttered  before  the 
resurrection  from  those  uttered  after  it.  For  example,  he 
speaks  of  a  power  of  '  binding  and  loosing '  given  to  Peter,  in 
connexion  with  a  mention  of  the  'church.'  On  another  occasion, 
a  similar  power  is  given  to  the  other  disciples,  again  in 
connexion  with  the  'church.'  Now  this  'binding  and  loosing' 
is  not  mentioned  by  any  other  evangelist.  What  does  it  mean  ? 
And  when  was  this  saying  uttered  ? 

"  My  rabbi  tells  me  that  '  binding  and  loosing '  is  regularly 


240  SCAURUS  [Chapter  25 

used  by  the  Jews  to  indicate  that  a  rabbi  'forbids'  or  'sanctions' 
a  certain  action — for  example,  the  eating  of  a  particular  food. 
Thus  in  the  Acts  of  the  Apostles,  the  Lord  would  be  said  by 
the  Jews  to  '  loose  '  the  eating  of  food  that  was  before  unclean, 
saying  to  Peter,  '  Arise,  kill  and  eat.'  And  I  can  conceive  that 
a  gospel  might  describe  Jesus  as  saying  to  Peter,  '  I  give  thee 
this  power  of  loosing  unclean  food,  that  thou  and  the  rest  of  my 
disciples  may  henceforth  eat  with  the  Gentiles,  and  in  their 
houses,  asking  no  questions  concerning  the  food;  But  I  do  not 
myself  believe  that  Christ  used  the  phrase  '  bind  and  loose  ' 
in  this  sense.  I  think  he  connected  it  with  that  strange 
doctrine  of  forgiveness  of  sins  on  which  he  laid  so  much  stress, 
and  that  it  was  uttered  after  the  resurrection,  when  the  term 
'  church '  might  be  more  naturally  used."  Scaurus  was  so  far 
right  in  this  that  I  afterwards  found  in  the  fourth  gospel  a 
doctrine,  not  indeed  about  "  binding  and  loosing,"  but  about 
"imprisoning  and  loosing"  or  "  arresting  and  loosing";  and  this 
was  connected  with  "  sins,"  and  Christ  gave  this  power  to  the 
disciples  after  the  resurrection. 

Scaurus  continued,  "  Look  at  Matthew's  words  in  one  of 
these  passages,  '  But  if  he  refuse  to  hear  the  church,  let  him  be 
unto  thee  as  the  heathen  and  the  publican,'  and  then,  at  some 
interval,  '  Where  two  or  three  are  gathered  together  in  my 
name,  I  am  there  in  the  midst  of  them.'  Then  look  at  the  last 
words  of  Matthew's  gospel,  uttered  after  the  resurrection, 
'  Behold  I  am  with  you  always.'  Does  not  the  saying,  '  I  am 
there  in  the  midst  of  you  when  you  are  gathered  together,' 
come  more  appropriately  from  Christ,  appearing  after  the 
resurrection,  than  from  Christ  before  the  resurrection  ?  I  think 
so.  The  context  indicates  a  tradition  of  some  utterance  made 
after  the  resurrection,  conveyed  through  some  apostle  in  a 
Jewish  form,  promising  Christ's  presence  to  the  disciples.  Paul 
assumes  such  a  presence,  writing  to  the  Corinthians  '  When  ye 
are  gathered  together,  and  my  spirit,  together  with  the  power 
of  the  Lord  Jesus  Christ,  to  deliver  over  such  a  one  to  Satan.' 
These  last  words  about  '  Satan '  I  do  not  profess  to  comprehend 
fully;  but  they  seem  to  me  to  imply  the  opposite  of  'loosing' — 
some  kind  of '  binding '  or  '  remanding  to  prison.'     And  it  is  to 


Chapter  25]         ON  CHRIST'S  DISCOURSES  241 

take  place  in  the  presence  of  Christ,  with  Paul's  spirit,  when 
the  church  of  Corinth  is  '  gathered  together '." 

I  thought  Scaurus  was  probably  right  as  to  the  date  of  this 
promise.  But  I  was  much  more  impressed  by  what  he  said 
concerning  the  tradition,  in  Luke,  "Eat  those  things  that  are 
served  up  to  you."  This,  in  Luke,  was  almost  meaningless  to 
me,  but  it  had  been  full  of  meaning  in  Paul's  epistle  to  the 
Corinthians,  where  the  apostle  spoke  about  meat  sold  in 
Gentile  markets :  "  If  an  unbeliever  invites  you,  and  ye  desire  to 
accept,  eat  everything  that  is  served  up  to  you,  asking  no 
questions." 

Scaurus  said,  "  This  tradition  about  '  eating  what  is  served 
up '  occurs  nowhere  in  the  gospels  except  in  Luke's  account  of 
the  sending  of  the  Seventy,  beginning,  '  After  these  things  the 
Lord  appointed  other  seventy.'  Now  this  word  '  appoint '  does 
not  in  the  least  necessitate  the  conclusion  that  Christ  appointed 
the  Seventy  before  the  resurrection.  Look  at  the  'appointment' 
of  the  thirteenth  apostle  in  the  place  of  Judas.  The  Acts  says 
'  Lord,  appoint  him  whom  thou  hast  chosen.'  Then  Matthias  is 
'  appointed.'  The  Lord  is  supposed  to  'appoint '  him  in  answer  to 
the  prayer.  Concerning  this,  Luke  might  say,  'After  these  things 
the  Lord  appointed  Matthias.'  If  these  words  had  been  inserted 
in  the  gospel,  they  would  have  given  the  false  impression  that 
Jesus,  while  living,  had  appointed  Matthias.  Well,  that  is  just 
the  impression — a  false  one — that  Luke  gives  as  to  the  'appoint- 
ment' of  the  Seventy.  The  fact  is  that  the  Seventy  (a  number 
often  used  by  the  Jews  to  denote  all  the  nations  or  languages 
of  the  world)  represent  the  missionaries  '  appointed '  after  the 
Lord's  death  to  go  to  the  cities  of  the  Gentiles  to  prepare  them  for 
the  Coming  of  the  Lord  from  heaven.  These  were  to  go  into  the 
houses  of  Gentiles.  Though  Jews,  they  were  to  eat  of  Gentile 
food — '  everything  that  is  served  up.'  Without  this  explanation, 
the  tradition  has  no  meaning — or,  if  any,  an  unworthy  one, 
'  Do  not  be  fastidious.  If  you  cannot  have  pleasant  food,  eat 
unpleasant  food.'  This  seems  to  me  absurd.  But  with  this 
explanation,  the  precept  becomes  intelligible  and  necessary." 

This   convinced  me.     Moreover  Luke's  use  of  "  the  Lord," 
for  "  Jesus  " — since  "  the  Lord  "  would  be  more  likely  to  be  used 

a.  16 


242  SCAURUS  [Chapter  2b 

than  "  Jesus  "  after  the  resurrection — seemed  slightly  to  favour 
Scaurus's  conclusion.  He  passed  next  to  a  tradition  of 
Matthew's  about  abstinence  from  marriage  "  for  the  sake  of 
the  kingdom  of  heaven."  On  this  he  said,  "  Looking  at  Paul's 
advice  to  the  Corinthians  about  celibacy  and  marriage,  and 
at  the  distinction  he  draws  between  '  advice,'  and  '  allowance ' 
and  '  command,'  and  '  not  I  but  the  Lord,'  I  am  convinced  that 
Paul  spoke  on  his  own  responsibility,  except  as  to  Christ's 
insistence  on  the  old  tradition  in  Genesis,  '  The  two  shall  be 
one  flesh.'  I  mean  that  Christ  upheld  monogamy  against 
polygamy  and  against  that  modified  form  of  polygamy  which 
arose  from  the  husband's  unrestricted,  or  scarcely  restricted, 
right  of  divorce.  Soon  after  the  resurrection,  in  the  midst  of 
persecutions,  when  the  Christians  expected  that  Christ  might 
■speedily  return  and  carry  them  up  to  heaven,  it  was  natural 
that  the  Corinthians  should  apply  for  advice  to  Paul,  and  other 
churches  to  other  apostles. 

"My  belief  is  that  Christ's  words  extended  to  only  the 
first  half  of  Matthew's  tradition.  The  disciples  complain, 
in  effect,  '  If  a  man  cannot  divorce  his  wife  when  he  dislikes 
her,  it  is  best  not  to  marry.'  To  this  Christ  replies,  as 
I  interpret  him,  '  Not  all  grasp  the  mystery  of  the  true 
marriage  contemplated  from  the  beginning  (namely,  "  the 
two  shall  become  one ")  but  only  those  to  whom  it  is  given.' 
This  seems  to  me  to  have  been  explained  in  a  wrong  sense 
in  the  words  that  follow  about  '  eunuchs.'  At  all  events, 
Paul  twice  quotes  the  words  quoted  by  Christ  (about  the  '  two  ' 
becoming  '  one  ')  as  though  they  were  the  basis  of  his  doctrine 
about  marriage  and  also  a  type  of  the  mysterious  wedlock 
between  Christ  and  the  church.  I  do  not  think,  however, 
that  any  confident  conclusion  is  deducible.  Christ  elsewhere 
indicates — when  dealing  with  an  imaginary  case  where  a 
woman  has  married  seven  brothers  consecutively — that  the 
marriage  tie  does  not  extend  to  the  next  life.  By  the  Jews, 
marriage  is,  and  was,  regarded  as  honourable,  and  almost  as 
a  duty.  But  a  Jewish  sect  called  the  Essenes,  or  some  of  them, 
practised  celibacy ;  and  you  know  how  Epictetus  inculcates 
celibacy  on  his  Cynics  of  the  first  class.     These  facts,  and  the 


Chapter  25]         ON  CHRIST'S  DISCOURSES  243 

pressure  of  hard  times,  and  Paul's  example,  may  not  only  have 
favoured  abstinence  from  marriage  among  Christians  but  also 
have  favoured  some  tampering  with  tradition  in  order  to  enjoin 
celibacy.  A  letter  to  Timothy  speaks  of  certain  heretics  as 
'  forbidding  to  marry.'  Perhaps  the  only  safe  conclusion  about 
Matthew's  tradition  is  that  no  conclusion  can  be  deduced 
from  it." 

Scaurus  next  discussed  the  question  whether  Christ  incul- 
cated poverty  on  his  disciples.  He  denied  it.  Not  that  he 
denied  Luke  to  be  more  correct  verbally  in  saying  "  Blessed 
are  the  poor  "  than  Matthew  in  "  Blessed  are  the  poor  in  spirit." 
But  he  asserted  that  Christ  meant  "poor  in  spirit"  Similarly 
(said  Scaurus)  Christ  meant  "  hungering  after  righteousness," 
as  Matthew  says,  though  Luke  was  right  verbally  in  omitting 
"  after  righteousness."  For,  according  to  Scaurus,  "  Christ 
hardly  ever  used  such  words  as  '  bread,'  '  leaven,'  '  water,' 
'  hunger,'  '  thirst,'  '  fire,'  '  salt,'  '  treasure,'  and  so  on,  except 
metaphorically."  Then  he  quoted  the  following  instance  out  of 
Mark's  version  of  Christ's  instructions  to  the  twelve  apostles, 
where,  he  said,  Mark's  metaphors  had  been  misunderstood 
literally — and  consequently  altered — by  Matthew  and  Luke. 

"  Mark,"  said  he,  "  has,  '  that  they  should  take  nothing  for 
the  journey,  save  a  staff  only,  no  bread,  no  wallet,  no  money  for 
the  purse.'  Matthew  and  Luke  have  '  no  staff.'  Now  turn  to 
Genesis,  where  Jacob  thanks  God  for  helping  him  on  his 
journey,  '  I  passed  over  Jordan  with  my  staff.'  He  means, 
'with  my  staff  only.'  Philo  explains  this  'staff'  meta- 
phorically, as  '  training,'  i.e.  the  instruction  or  guidance  given 
by  God.  David  says  to  God,  '  Thy  rod  and  thy  staff  are 
my  help,'  or  words  to  that  effect — manifest  metaphor.  My 
rabbi  shewed  me  a  Jewish  paraphrase  of  Jacob's  words,  '  I  had 
neither  gold,  nor  silver,  nor  herds,  but  simply  my  staff.'  He 
also  told  me  that  this  '  staff '  was  supposed  by  the  Jews  to  have 
been  given  by  God  to  Adam  from  whom  it  descended  to  the 
patriarchs  in  succession.  This  shews  that  Jews  might  find  no 
difficulty  in  Christ's  metaphor,  '  Go  forth  with  nothing  but 
a  staff,'  i.e.  the  staff  of  Jacob,  the  rod  and  staff  of  God.  But 
Greeks  and  Romans  would  naturally  take  the  word   literally 

16—2 


244  SCAURUS  [Chapter  25 

as  meaning  '  walking-stick.'  Then  they  would  find  a  difficulty, 
asking,  '  Why  should  Jesus  say.  No  bread,  no  wallet — only 
a  walking-stick  V  Hence  many,  writing  largely  for  Gentiles, 
might  alter  it  into  '  no  walking '-stick, ,'  This  is  what  Matthew 
and  Luke  have  done.  Similarly  they  altered  Mark's  metaphor 
'  but  shod  with  sandals,'  i.e.  with  light  shoes  fit  for  the  'beautiful 
feet '  of  the  preachers  of  the  gospel,  into  .'  no  boots,'  or  words 
to  that  effect.  The  error  is  the  same.  Jewish  metaphor  has 
been  in  each  case  taken  literally  by  Matthew  and  Luke." 

Scaurus  added  a  few  remarks  on  Christ  as  a  historical 
character,  "  dimly  traceable,"  he  said,  "  in  the  combined 
testimony  of  Mark,  Matthew,  and  Luke " — where  I  thought 
he  might  have  added,  "  and  in  the  epistles  of  Paul."  His 
main  thought  was  that,  in  spite  of  all  the  defects  of  these  three 
writers,  it  was  possible  to  discern  in  Christ  a  successor  of 
Moses  and  Isaiah.  "  This  man,"  said  Scaurus,  "  may  be 
regarded  in  two  aspects.  As  a  lawgiver,  he  took  as  the  basis 
of  his  republic  a  re-enactment,  in  a  stronger  form,  of  the  two 
ancient  laws  that  enjoined  love  of  the  Father  and  love  of  the 
brethren.  As  a  prophet,  he  saw  a  time  when  all  mankind — 
recognising  in  one  another  (man  in  man  and  nation  in  nation) 
some  glimpse  of  the  divine  image,  and  of  the  beauty  of  divine 
holiness — would  beat  their  swords  into  ploughshares,  and  go 
up  to  the  City  of  peace,  righteousness,  and  truth,  to  worship 
the  Father  of  the  spirits  of  all  flesh.  Isaiah  had  foreseen  this. 
But  this  prophet  was  also  possessed  with  a  belief,  beyond 
Isaiah's,  in  the  unity  of  God  and  man.  He  was  persuaded  that 
the  true  Son  of  man  was  the  Son  of  God,  higher  than  the 
heavens.  I  think  also  that  he  trusted — but  on  what  grounds 
I  do  not  know,  unless  it  was  an  ingrained  prophetic  belief, 
found  in  all  the  great  prophets,  carried  to  its  highest  point  in 
this  prophet — that,  as  light  follows  on  darkness,  so  does  joy  on 
sorrow,  righteousness  on  sin,  and  life  on  death.  A  Stoic  would 
say  that  these  things  alternate  and  that  all  things  go  round. 
But  this  Jewish  prophet  believed  that  all  things  in  the  end 
would  go  up — up  to  heaven.  That  is  how  I  read  his  expecta- 
tion. Feeling  himself  to  be  one  with  God,  he  placed  no 
limits,  except  God's  will,  to  the  mighty  works  that  God  might 


Chapter  25]         ON  CHRIST'S  DISCOURSES  245 

do  for  him  in  his  attempt  to  fulfil  God's  purpose  of  exalting 
men  from  darkness  to  light  and  from  death  to  life. 

"It  is  in  some  of  these  mysterious  aspirations,"  said  Scaurus, 
"  that  I  cannot  follow  this  prophet  of  the  Jews.  At  times  he 
seems  to  me  to  act  and  speak  (certainly  Paul  speaks  thus)  as 
though  God  had  caused  mankind  to  take  (if  I  may  say  so)  one 
disease  in  order  to  get  rid  of  another.  I  am  speaking  of  moral 
disease.  God  seems  to  Paul  to  have  allowed  man  to  contract 
the  disease  of  sin  in  order  to  rise  to  a  health  of  righteousness, 
higher  than  would  have  been  possible  if  he  had  not  sinned. 
On  these  and  other  mystical  notions  this  Jewish  prophet  may 
perhaps  base  views  of  forgiveness,  and  of  love,  and  of  the 
efficacy  of  his  own  death  for  his  disciples,  all  of  which  perplex 
me.  Sometimes  I  reject  them  entirely.  Sometimes  I  am  in 
doubt."  These  last  words  of  Scaurus  seemed  to  me  to  explain 
many  inconsistencies  in  his  letters.  But  how  could  I  be 
surprised  ?  Was  I  consistent  myself  ?  Was  not  my  own  mind 
at  that  instant  fluctuating  like  a  very  Euripus  ?  I  could 
understand  his  doubts  only  too  well. 

He  concluded  by  contrasting  Christ  with  John  the  Baptist. 
"  The  one  point,"  said  Scaurus,  "  in  which  these  two  prophets 
or  reformers  agreed,  was  that  the  Lord  God  would  intervene 
for  the  people,  if  only  the  people  would  return  to  Him.  But 
in  other  respects  they  appear  to  me  to  have  altogether  differed. 
John  the  Baptist  seems  to  have  desired  to  bring  about  a 
remission  of  debts  in  accordance  with  the  Law  of  Moses,  as 
insisted  on  by  previous  prophets.  He  also  desired  an  equalisa- 
tion of  property.  That  is  what  I  gather  from  the  gospels 
themselves,  interpreted  in  the  light  of  the  ancient  Law  of  the 
Jews.  Moreover  Josephus  told  me  that  Herod  the  tetrarch  put 
John  to  death  on  political  grounds,  because  he  seemed  likely 
to  stir  up  the  people  to  sedition,  nor  did  he  ever  mention  the 
influence  of  Herodias  as  contributing  to  the  prophet's  execution. 
Of  course  the  story  about  the  dancing  and  the  oath  may  be 
true,  and  yet  the  oath  may  have  been  a  mere  excuse  for  getting 
rid  of  an  inconvenient  person.  John  was  not  unwilling  (as 
I  gather)  to  resort  to  the  sword  of  Gideon  or  the  fire  of  Elijah 


246  8CA  UR  US  [Chapter  25 

if  the  word  of  the  gospel  did  not  suffice  to  establish  the  new 
kingdom. 

"  Jesus,  on  the  other  hand,  was  absolutely  averse  to  violence. 
Jesus  was  penetrated  with  the  belief  in  the  power  of  '  little 
ones '  and  '  babes '  and  '  sucklings.'  How  far  he  anticipated  the 
future  in  store  for  himself  I  cannot  say.  Sometimes  I  am 
inclined  to  believe  that  he  thought  God  would  intervene  at 
the  last  moment  and  deliver  him  from  the  jaws  of  death. 
Sometimes  he  seems  to  have  deliberately  faced  death  with 
the  conviction  that  he  would  be  swallowed  up  by  it  for  a  short 
time,  emerging  from  it  to  victory. 

"  The  Baptist  certainly  expected  to  be  delivered  by  Jesus 
from  the  prison  in  which  he  was  being  kept  by  Antipas,  and  to 
have  been  disappointed  by  his  friend's  inaction.  It  must  have 
been  a  very  bitter  moment  for  the  latter  when  John  sent  to 
reproach  him,  as  good  as  saying,  '  Are  you,  too,  a  false  Messiah  } 
Will  you  leave  me  to  perish  in  prison  ?  Are  you  really  our 
Deliverer,  or  must  we,  the  whole  nation,  turn  from  you  as 
a  laggard,  and  wait  for  another  ? '  In  my  opinion,  this  was 
the  very  greatest  temptation  to  which  Jesus  was  exposed.  In 
that  moment — as  I  judge  when  I  try  to  guess  the  eastern 
metaphor  corresponding  to  western  fact — Jews  would  say  that 
Satan  said  to  Christ  '  Worship  me,  and  I  will  give  you  the 
empire  of  the  world,'  or  '  Take  the  risk !  Throw  yourself  down 
from  the  pinnacle  !  See  whether  God  will  save  you  ! '  In  plain 
words,  the  temptation  was,  '  Appeal  to  the  God  of  battles ! 
Rouse  the  people  to  arms,  first  against  Antipas,  and  then 
against  the  Romans ! '  For  a  perfectly  unselfish  and  noble 
nature,  believing  in  divine  interventions,  this  must  indeed 
have  been  a  great,  a  very  great  temptation." 

Scaurus  finished  this  part  of  his  letter  by  quoting  a  passage 
that  I  had  long  had  in  mind,  but  I  had  forgotten  its  context, 
"  Do  you  remember,  Silanus,  how  the  old  Egyptian  priest  says 
in  the  Timaeus,  '  Solon,  Solon,  you  Greeks  are  always  boys '  ? 
Then  comes  the  reason,  '  You  have  not  in  your  souls  any  ancient 
belief  based  on  tradition  from  the  days  of  old.'  Well,  we 
Romans  are  in  the  same  position  as  the  poor  Greeks.     So  are 


Chapter  25]         ON  CHRIST'S  DISCOURSES  247 

the  Egyptians  for  the  matter  of  that.  For  it  is  not  antiquity 
alone,  but  divine  antiquity,  that  counts.  None  of  us  have  this 
divine  antiquity  of  '  tradition  from  the  days  of  old  '  going  back 
to  such  characters  as  Abraham,  Moses,  and  the  prophets. 
I  think  we  must  put  up  with  our  inferiority.  These  things 
we  had  better  leave  to  others.  We  have,  as  Virgil  says,  '  arts  ' 
of  our  own,  the  arts  of  war  and  empire.  There,  we  are  men, 
full-grown  men.  But  as  compared  with  Moses,  Isaiah,  and 
above  all  with  this  Jesus,  or  Christ,  I  must  frankly  confess 
I  sometimes  feel  myself  a  'boy,'  and  never  so  much  as  now. 
My  conclusion  is,  7"  will  keep  to  the  things  in  which  I  am  not  a 
'  boy.'     Do  you  the  same." 


CHAPTER   XXVI 

SCAURUS   ON   CHRIST'S   RESURRECTION   (I) 

Passing  next  to  the  subject  of  Christ's  resurrection,  "  To 
deal  first,"  said  Scaurus,  "  with  Christ's  alleged  predictions  that 
he  would  '  rise  again,'  what  strikes  me  as  the  strangest  point  in 
them  is  his  frequent  mention  of  being  '  betrayed!  For  the  rest, 
if  Jesus  believed  himself  to  be  the  Messiah  or  Christ — as  I 
think  he  did,  if  not  at  first,  yet  soon — or  even  if  he  did  not 
believe  himself  to  be  the  Christ,  but  thought  that  he  was  to 
reform  the  nation,  I  can  well  understand  that  he  adopted  the 
language  of  one  of  their  prophets,  Hosea  by  name,  who  says, 
'Come  and  let  us  return  unto  the  Lord... he  hath  smitten,  and 
he  will  bind  us  up.  After  two  days  will  he  revive  us.  On  the 
third  day  he  will  raise  us  up,  and  we  shall  live  in  his  sight.' 
Using  such  language  as  this,  a  later  Jewish  prophet,  such  as 
Christ,  might  lead  his  followers  up  to  Jerusalem  at  the  Passover, 
not  knowing  whether  he  should  live  or  die,  but  convinced  that 
the  Lord  would  work  some  deliverance  for  Israel.  And  the 
predictions  of  '  scourging,'  and  '  smiting,'  and  '  spitting,'  I  could 
also  understand,  as  coming  from  the  prophets.  Eut  'betrayal ' 
is  not  mentioned  by  the  prophets,  and  I  cannot  understand  its 
insertion  here." 

With  this  I  have  dealt  above,  and  with  the  double  sense  of 
the  word  meaning  "  deliver  over  "  and  "  betray."  I  now  found 
that  the  evangelists  sometimes  apply  the  word  to  the  act  of 
Judas  the  betrayer  (because  by  his  betrayal  Christ  was 
"  delivered  over "  to  the  Jews) ;  and  Scaurus  regarded  it  as 
meaning  "betray"  here.  I  could  not  however  believe  that  Jesus, 
when  predicting  His  death,  used  the  word  in  the  sense  "betray." 


Chap.  26]  SCA  URUS  ON  CHRIST'S  RESURRECTION  249 

It  seemed  to  me  that  He  predicted  that  His  end  would  be  like 
that  of  the  Suffering  Servant  in  Isaiah,  namely,  that  He  would 
be  "  delivered  over  "  as  a  ransom  for  the  sins  of  the  people  by 
the  will  of  His  Father.  Long  afterwards,  I  found  that,  whereas 
the  Greek  in  Isaiah  has  "  delivered  over  for,"  the  Hebrew  has 
"  make  intercession  for."  Then  I  saw,  even  more  clearly  than 
before,  the  reason  why  Christ  may  have  often  repeated  this 
prediction,  if  He  foresaw  that  His  death  would  "make  inter- 
cession "  for  the  people.  The  evangelists  rendered  this  so  that 
it  might  be  mistaken  for  "would  be  betrayed."  But  Paul  made 
the  matter  clear. 

Scaurus  added  that  the  rising  again  was  predicted  as 
about  to  occur,  sometimes  "  on  the  third  day,"  as  in  Hosea, 
but  sometimes  "  after  three  days,"  corresponding  to  a  period  of 
three  days  and  three  nights  spent  by  Jonah  (according  to  a 
strange  Hebrew  legend)  in  a  whale's  belly.  And  he  also  said, 
"  Mark  and  Matthew  represent  Jesus  as  saying,  concerning 
what  he  would  do  after  death,  '  I  will  go  before  you  to  Galilee.'1 
But  Luke  omits  these  words.  Later  on,  after  the  resurrection, 
Mark  and  Matthew  again  mention  this  prediction ;  but  there 
Luke  has  '  remember  that  which  he  said  to  you  while  yet  in 
Galilee.'  My  rabbi  tells  me  that  the  words  '  to  Galilee '  might 
easily  be  confused  with  other  expressions  having  quite  a  different 
meaning.  This  seems  to  me  probable,  but  into  these  details 
I  cannot  now  enter.  I  take  it,  however,  that  Luke  knew 
Mark's  tradition  '  to  Galilee,'  and  rejected  it  as  erroneous. 
Matthew  also  says  that  certain  women,  meeting  Jesus  after 
death,  '  took  hold  of  his  feet,'  and  Jesus  sent  word  by  them 
to  the  disciples  to  'depart  into  Galilee.'  Here  you  see  'Galilee' 
again.  But  this  tradition  is  not  in  any  other  gospel.  Luke 
makes  no  mention  of  any  appearance  in  Galilee." 

These  discrepancies  about  "  Galilee  "  might  have  interested 
me  at  any  other  time ;  but  "  took  hold  of  his  feet  " — this  was 
the  assertion  that  amazed  me  and  carried  away  my  thoughts 
from  everything  else.  I  had  approached  the  subject  of  the 
Resurrection  through  Paul,  who  mentions  Christ  merely  as 
having  "  appeared  "  to  several  of  the  apostles  and  last  of  all  to 
himself.     I  had  all  along  assumed  that  the  "  appearances "  of 


250  SCAURUS  [Chapter  26 

the  Lord  to  the  other  apostles  had  been  of  the  same  kind  as 
the  appearance  to  Paul,  that  is  to  say,  supernatural,  but  not 
material  nor  tangible.  Having  read  what  Paul  said  about  the 
spiritual  body  and  the  earthly  body,  I  had  supposed  that 
Christ's  earthly  body  remained  in  the  tomb  but  that  His 
spiritual  body  rose  from  the  dead,  passed  out  of  the  tomb — as 
a  spirit  might  pass,  not  being  confinable  by  walls  or  gates  or 
by  the  cavernous  sides  of  a  tomb — and  "  appeared  "  to  the 
disciples,  now  in  this  place,  now  in  that.  That  the  "  spiritual 
body"  meant  the  real  spiritual  "person  " — and  not  a  mere  "  shade " 
or  breath-like  "spirit"  of  the  departed — this  (as  I  have  explained 
above)  I  had  more  or  less  understood.  But  I  had  never 
supposed  that  the  "  body  "  could  be  touched.  And  now,  quite 
unexpectedly,  Scaurus  thrust  before  me,  so  to  speak,  a  tradition 
that  some  women  "took  hold  of  Christ' s  feet"  after  He  had  risen 
from  the  dead. 

"  Of  course,"  said  Scaurus,  "  most  critics  would  say  at  once 
that  the  women  lied.  But  in  the  first  place,  even  if  they  did 
lie,  that  would  not  explain  why  Mark  and  Luke  omitted  it. 
For  you  may  be  quite  sure  the  evangelists  would  not  believe 
that  the  women  told  a  lie;  and,  if  they  believed  that  the  women 
told  the  truth,  why  should  they  not  report  it  ?  For  the  fact,  if 
a  fact,  is  a  strong  proof  of  resurrection.  In  the  next  place,  I  am 
convinced  that  the  Christian  belief  in  Christ's  resurrection  is  far 
too  strong  to  have  been  originated  by  lies.  I  believe  it  was 
originated  by  visions,  and  that  the  stories  about  these  visions 
were  exaggerated  in  various  ways,  but  never  dishonest  ways.  In 
this  particular  case,  the  explanation  probably  is,  that  the  women 
saw  a  vision  of  Christ  in  the  air  and  '  would  have  held  it  fast  by 
the  feet,'  that  is,  desired  to  do  so,  but  could  not.  I  could  give 
several  instances  from  the  LXX  where  '  would  have '  is  thus 
dropped  in  translation.  The  belief  of  the  Christians  was,  that 
Christ  ascended  to  heaven.  The  women  are  perhaps  regarded 
as  desiring  to  grasp  his  feet  while  he  was  ascending,  but  Christ 
prevents  them,  sending  them  away  to  carry  word  to  his 
'  brethren  ' — for  so  he  calls  them — of  his  resurrection."  I  had 
not,  at  the  time,  knowledge  enough  to  judge  of  Scaurus's 
explanation  ;  but  I  afterwards  found  that  "  would  have  "  might 


Chapter  26]     ON  CHRIST'S  RESURRECTION  (I)      251 

be  thus  dropped,  and  that  the  fourth  gospel  represents  a 
woman  as  attempting,  or  desiring,  to  "  touch  "  Jesus,  but  as 
being  prevented  (by  the  words  "  touch  me  not ")  because  He 
had  "not  yet  ascended  ";  and  Jesus  says  to  her  "  Garry  word  to  my 
brethren."     Scaurus's  explanation  was  confirmed  by  these  facts. 

Scaurus  continued  as  follows,  "  Mark,  the  earliest  of  the 
evangelists,  contains  no  account  of  the  resurrection,  except  as 
an  announcement  made  by  angels.  He  says  that  the  women 
"  were  afraid  "  when  they  heard  this  announcement ;  and  there 
he  ends.  But  in  my  copy  of  Mark  there  is  an  appendix  (not  in 
the  handwriting  of  the  same  scribe  that  wrote  the  gospel) 
which  begins,  '  Now  having  arisen  on  the  first  day  of  the  week 
he  became  visible  at  first  to  Mary  of  Magdala,  out  of  whom 
he  had  cast  seven  devils.'  Then  it  says  that  Jesus  '  was 
manifested  in  a  different  form '  to  two  of  his  previous  companions, 
when  walking  in  the  country.  Then  it  mentions  a  third 
and  last  manifestation  to  'the  eleven'  seated  at  a  meal." 
I  turned  at  once  to  my  copy  of  Mark,  but  there  was  no  such 
appendix.     It  ended  with  the  words  "  for  they  were  afraid." 

Scaurus  proceeded,  "  This  appendix  is  not  at  all  in  Mark's 
style,  but  it  is  probably  very  ancient.  Luke  mentions  no 
appearance  of  Christ  to  women.  But  he  describes  an  appearance 
to  two  disciples  walking  toward  a  village  near  Jerusalem  ;  or 
rather,  not  to  them  while  walking,  for  Jesus  did  not  appear  to 
them  at  first  so  as  to  be  recognised ;  he  first  walked  and  talked 
with  them  and  '  opened  their  minds  to  understand  the 
Scriptures.'  Then,  in  the  village,  during  the  breaking  of 
bread,  he  was  recognised  by  them,  and  vanished.  As  regards 
'  walking,'  I  may  mention  that  the  ancient  Jews  describe  God  as 
'  walking  with  Israel,'  and  I  have  read  in  a  Christian  letter, 
'  The  Lord  journeyed  with  me,'  meaning  'enlightened  me.'  So 
the  word  may  be  used  metaphorically.  These  two  disciples 
expressly  mention  a  '  vision  of  angels  '  spoken  of  by  the  women, 
who  told  them  that  angels  had  announced  that  Christ  had 
risen  from  the  dead  ;  but,  according  to  Luke,  the  two  disciples 
and  their  companions  disbelieved  the  women's  tale.  And  not 
a  word  is  said  by  Luke,  then  or  afterwards,  about  any  appearance 
of  Christ  himself  to  women. 


252  8GA  UR  US  [Chapter  26 

"  You  can  see  for  yourself,  Silanus,  under  what  a  dis- 
advantage this  Mark-Appendix  placed  these  poor,  simple, 
ignorant,  honest  Christians,  when  it  called  as  their  first  witness 
to  the  resurrection  a  woman  that  had  been  formerly  a  lunatic. 
I  believe  they  have  been  already  attacked  by  their  Jewish 
enemies  on  this  ground.  If  they  have  not  been,  I  am  sure 
they  will  be.  Luke,  a  physician  and  an  educated  man,  chooses 
his  ground  much  more  sensibly.  First,  he  omits  all  direct 
mention,  in  his  own  narrative,  of  manifestations  to  women. 
Secondly,  he  says,  in  effect — not  in  narrative  but  in  dialogue — 
'  The  women  did  see  an  apparition,  but  it  was  only  of  angels.' 
Thirdly,  '  the  men  (and  men  are  not  liable  to  the  hysterical 
delusions  of  women) — the  men,'  he  says,  '  treated  the  women's 
vision  as  a  mere  delusion.  The  men  saw  Jesus  himself.' 
Possibly  Luke  was  influenced  by  Paul,  who  in  his  list  of  the 
witnesses  of  manifestations  makes  no  mention  of  women.  The 
Law  of  Moses  does  not  expressly  exclude  women's  testimony. 
But  Josephus  once  told  me  that  his  countrymen  allowed  neither 
women  nor  slaves  to  give  public  testimony.  So  it  is  clear  that 
Jewish  tradition  has  interpreted  the  Law  as  excluding  women, 
and  that  Paul,  when  controverting  Jews,  would  not  appeal  to 
the  evidence  of  women,  because  Jews  would  not  accept  it. 
Perhaps  Luke  followed  in  the  same  path. 

"  Luke  also  makes  the  following  attempt  to  meet  the 
objections  of  those  who  might  urge  that  Christ's  apparition  was 
not  a  rising  of  the  actual  body  from  the  grave.  He  represents 
Christ  as  saying  to  the  disciples,  '  Handle  me  ' — as  a  proof  that 
he  was  not  a  disembodied  spirit.  Now  I  do  not  believe  that 
Luke  invented  this,  although  he,  the  latest  of  the  three 
evangelists,  is  alone  in  recording  it.  Curiously  enough,  I  have 
only  recently  been  reading  a  letter — very  wild  and  extravagant 
but  manifestly  genuine — written  some  four  or  five  years  ago  by 
a  Christian  named  Ignatius,  which  throws  light  on  these  very 
words  in  Luke.  A  few  months  after  writing  it,  the  man 
suffered  as  a  Christian  here  in  Rome,  and  his  letters  naturally 
had  a  vogue.  Flaccus  sent  me  a  copy  as  a  curiosity.  Well, 
this  letter  says  that  when  Christ  came  to  his  disciples — Ignatius 
says  '  to  those  around  Peter '  but  the  meaning  is  '  to  Peter  and 


Chapter  26]     ON  CHRIST'S  RESURRECTION  (I)      253 

his  companions,'  that  is,  '  to  Christ's  disciples,'  as  I  have 
explained  above — in  the  flesh,  after  his  resurrection,  he  said  to 
them,  '  Take,  handle  me,  and  see  that  I  am  not  a  bodiless 
dgemon.'  Then  Ignatius  adds— and  these  are  the  words  I  want 
you  to  mark — '  Straightway  they  touched  him  and  believed, 
having  been  mixed  with  his  flesh  and  blood! 

"  Do  you  remember  my  laughing  at  you  as  a  boy  because 
you  translated  Diodorus  Siculus  literally,  '  They  touched  one 
another  because  of  extreme  need,'  when  it  ought  to  have  been, 
'  They  fed  on  one  another'  ?  I  quoted  to  you,  at  the  time,  the 
saying  of  Pythagoras,  '  Do  not  touch  a  white  cock,'  i.e.  '  do  not 
feed  on  it.'  There  are  many  instances  of  this  meaning.  Well, 
the  Christians  believed  that  they  fed  on  Christ.  His  flesh  and 
blood  was  mixed  '  with  theirs — or  they  were  '  mixed '  with  his — 
when  they  fed  on  him  in  their  sacred  meal.  If  there  were 
some  Greek  traditions  saying  '  they  touched  him,'  meaning 
'  they  fed  on  him,'  there  would  naturally  be  other  traditions 
about  '  touching '  Jesus  meaning  that  they  '  handled '  him.  The 
latter  would  suggest  that  they  touched  the  wounds  in  his  body 
inflicted  during  the  crucifixion." 

I  remembered  my  boyish  mistake,  and  I  saw  clearly  that 
Christians  would  have  had  much  more  excuse  for  making 
a  similar  one.  Scaurus  added,  "  This  also  explains  Ignatius's 
curious  use  of  '  take '  (as  in  Mark  and  Matthew)."  At  first 
I  could  not  understand  what  Scaurus  meant ;  but  on  looking  at 
Ignatius's  Greek,  which  Scaurus  gave  me,  I  perceived  that  the 
words  were  not  "  Take  hold  of  me,  handle  me,"  but  "  Take,"  i.e. 
"  Take  me,"  or  "  Take  my  body  (as  a  whole)."  Now  "  take  "  is 
similarly  used  by  Mark  and  Matthew  in  the  sentence  "  Take, 
eat,  this  is  my  body,"  where  Mark  omits  "  eat." 

"  Moreover,"  continued  Scaurus,  "  Luke  goes  on  to  relate 
that  Jesus  said  to  the  disciples,  '  Have  ye  anything  to  eat  ? ' 
and  that  they  gave  him  some  broiled  fish,  and  that  he  ate  in 
their  presence.  Christians  in  Rome  have  been  in  the  habit — 
it  would  take  too  long  to  explain  why — of  using  FISH  as  the 
emblem  of  Christ.  The  sense  requires  '  he  gave'  not  '  they 
gave.'  I  think  Luke  has  confused  '  he  gave '  with  '  they  gave.' 
The  confusion,  in  Greek,  might  arise  from  one  erroneous  letter." 


254  SCAURUS  [Chapter  26 

After  giving  me  several  instances  of  such  confusion,  he  said, 
"  I  should  not  be  surprised  if  some  later  gospel  stated  the  fact 
more  correctly,  namely,  that  Christ  gave  the  disciples  '  fish '." 
This  I  afterwards  found  to  be  the  case  in  the  fourth  gospel. 

Scaurus  then  proceeded,  "  I  think,  however,  that  Luke's 
error  may  have  arisen  in  part  from  another  tradition,  which  he 
has  preserved  in  the  Acts — somewhat  like  that  of  the  Christian 
Ignatius  which  I  have  quoted  above.  Ignatius  spoke  of  'mixing I 
Luke,  in  the  Acts,  speaks  of '  incorporating ' — I  can  think  of  no 
better  word  to  give  the  meaning — saying  that  Jesus,  '  in  the  act 
of  being  incorporated  with  '  the  disciples,  bade  them  not  to 
depart  from  Jerusalem  till  they  had  received  the  Holy  Spirit. 
Now  this  word  '  incorporate ' — which  is  used  of  men  brought 
into  a  city,  hounds  into  a  pack,  soldiers  into  a  squadron,  and  so 
on — is  adapted  to  represent  that  close  union  which  is  a  mark 
of  almost  all  the  Christians,  who  say  with  Paul  that  they  are 
'  one  body  in  Christ '  and  '  members  one  of  another.'  But  this 
compact  union  of  Christians  is  also  represented  by  their 
Eucharist,  so  that  Paul  says  to  the  Corinthians,  in  effect, 
not  only, '  Ye  are  one  body,'  but  also  '  Ye  are  one  loaf.'  And 
I  rather  think  that  some  Christians  at  the  present  time,  in 
their  Eucharists,  pray  that,  as  the  grains  of  wheat  scattered 
in  the  field  are  made  into  one,  so  the  scattered  children  of 
God  may  be  gathered  into  one.  I  think  you  must  see  how 
easily  errors  might  spring  up  from  metaphors  of  this  kind  used 
in  the  various  churches  of  the  empire,  among  people  varying 
in  language,  customs,  and  traditions,  and  for  the  most  part 
illiterate. 

"  Even  in  the  letter  of  Ignatius  above-mentioned,  a  scribe 
has  altered  the  word  '  mixed  '  into  '  constrained  '  in  the  margin  ; 
and  I  am  not  surprised.  I  do  not  by  any  means  accuse  Luke 
of  dishonesty,  nor  of  carelessness.  He  did  his  best.  But  he 
was  probably  a  physician— a  man  of  science  therefore — and 
liked  to  have  things  definitely  and  scientifically  stated.  This 
word  above-mentioned,  '  being  made  into  one  compact  body 
with  them,'  might  easily  be  supposed  to  mean  'partaking  of 
salt  with  them,'  that  is,  '  sharing  a  meal  with  them.'  That 
rendering  had  the  advantage  of  constituting  a  definite  proof 


Chapter  26]     ON  CHRIST'S  RESURRECTION  (I)      255 

of  Christ's  resurrection  with  a  body  that  might  be  called  in 
some  sense  material,  since  it  (i.e.  the  body)  was  capable  of 
eating.  Then,  of  course,  Luke  would  adapt  his  other  accounts 
of  the  resurrection  to  this  tradition,  which  he  would  naturally 
regard  as  one  of  central  importance.  But,  though  honest  and 
pains-taking,  Luke  appears  to  me  to  have  altered  and  corrupted 
what  was  perhaps,  in  some  sense,  a  real — yes,  I  will  admit,  in 
some  sense,  a  real — manifestation  (if  indeed  any  visions  are 
real)  into  a  mere  non-existent  physical  sign  or  proof. 

"  Luke  represents  Jesus  as  feeding  on  his  own  body  in  order 
to  satisfy  his  unbelieving  disciples  that  he  is  really  among 
them.  I  can  easily  imagine  how  very  different  may  have  been 
the  feelings  of  those  simple  enthusiasts,  the  early  Galilaean 
disciples,  when  they  used  these  words — never  dreaming  that" 
they  would  be  reduced  to  dry,  evidential  prose — in  psalms 
and  hymns  and  spiritual  songs,  praising  the  Lord  for  allowing 
them  to  '  sit  at  His  table/  and  to  '  eat  and  drink  with  Him,'  or 
for  making  them  '  sharers  in  the  sacred  food  of  His  body  '  and 
'  partners  of  His  board.'  It  was  only,  after  a  generation  or 
more  had  passed  away,  outside  the  atmosphere  of  Galilee — it 
was  only  to  a  compiler  laboriously  tracing  back  the  truth 
through  documents — that  all  these  phrases  would  suggest  the 
thought  of  Jesus  proving  his  reality  by  partaking  of  food  that 
his  disciples  give  to  him. 

"  It  may  be  said,  as  though  it  were  to  Luke's  discredit,  '  He 
represents  Peter  as  positively  testifying  to  this  eating.'  Of 
course  he  does.  You  know  how  speeches  are  written,  even 
in  the  most  accurate  histories.  No  historian,  as  a  rule,  professes 
to  record  a  speech  of  any  length  exactly.  If  Luke  first  inferred 
that  Christ  ate  with  the  apostles  after  his  death,  he  would 
also  naturally  go  on  to  infer  that  Peter,  in  attesting  Christ's 
resurrection,  must  necessarily  have  included  some  mention  of 
this  fact.  I  cannot  blame  him.  I  think  he  was  perfectly 
honest,  though  in  error."  I  agreed.  But  it  seemed  to  me 
an  error  much  to  be  regretted. 

On  one  point,  however,  Scaurus  seemed  to  me  to  be  not 
quite  accurate,  when  he  said  of  Luke,  "  He  represents  Peter 
as  positively   testifying   to   this   eating."      For  Peter's  speech 


256  SCA  URUS  ON  CHRIST'S  RESURRECTION  [Chap.  26 

was  to  this  effect,  "  God  raised  him  up  on  the  third  day  and 
granted  that  he  should  be  manifested — not  to  all  the  people 
but  to  witnesses  previously  appointed  by  God,  namely  us,  who 
ate  with  him  and  drank  with  him — after  he  had  risen  from 
the  dead."  Scaurus  regarded  this  as  meaning  that  "  the 
eating  and  drinking "  of  Christ's  disciples  took  place  "  after 
his  death."  Even  if  that  had  been  so,  it  might  be  that 
Jesus  was  merely  present  (not  eating  and  drinking)  when 
the  disciples  ate  and  drank :  and  something  of  this  kind 
I  afterwards  found  in  the  fourth  gospel.  But  I  punctuated 
the  words  differently,  and  interpreted  them  differently,  as 
meaning  that  the  "  manifestation "  (not  the  "  eating ")  took 
place  after  the  resurrection  ;  and  that  the  manifestation  was 
limited  to  those  who  had  been  Christ's  intimate  companions, 
or  as  the  Greeks  say,  "  sharers  of  his  table,"  during  his  life. 

I  remembered  also  an  old  remark  of  Scaurus's  about  our 
modern  Roman  use  of  "  convivo,"  meaning  "I  live  with,"  and 
how  easily  it  might  be  taken  to  mean  the  ordinary  "  convivor," 
meaning  "I  feast  with."  Since  that,  I  have  found  that,  in 
other  ways,  "  living  with "  and  "  eating  with "  may  be  easily 
confused.  For  these  reasons  I  concluded  that  the  supposition 
that  Jesus  ate  with  the  disciples  after  His  resurrection  was 
not  justified. 


CHAPTER   XXVII 

SCAURUS   ON   CHRIST'S   RESURRECTION   (II) 

"I  now  come,"  said  Scaurus,  "to  one  of  the  most  interesting 
of  all  the  traditions  of  the  resurrection — the  '  rolling  away  of 
the  stone '  from  the  tomb.  As  to  the  alleged  facts,  all  the 
evangelists  agree.  But  Mark  alone  has  preserved  traces  of 
what  I  take  to  be  the  historical  fact,  namely,  that  the  narra- 
tive, as  it  now  stands,  has  sprung  from  Christian  songs  and 
hymns  based  on  Hebrew  scriptures  and  Jewish  traditions. 
I  shewed  you  above  how  the  precept,  '  Go  forth  with  the 
staff  alone,'  did  not  mean  '  with  a  walking-stick '  but  '  with 
the  staff  of  God,'  a  metaphor  from  the  story  of  Jacob  in 
Genesis.  Curiously  enough,  the  same  story  will  help  us  to 
explain  the  rolling  away  of  the  stone. 

"  There  Jacob  rolls  away  the  stone  from  the  well  for  Rachel 
in  order  that  her  flocks  may  obtain  water.  The  Jews  have 
many  symbolical  explanations  of  this  '  rolling  of  the  stone.' 
One  is,  that  the  stone  is  the  evil  nature  in  man.  When 
worshippers  go  into  the  synagogue,  the  stone  (they  say)  is 
rolled  away.  When  they  come  out,  it  is  rolled  back  again. 
Philo  comments  fully  on  the  somewhat  similar  action  of  Moses 
helping  the  daughters  of  Jethro,  taking  it  in  a  mystical  sense. 
The  scriptures  may  be  regarded  as  the  '  water  of  life '  or 
'  living  water.'  The  '  stone '  prevents  the  '  water '  from 
issuing  to  those  that  thirst  for  it.  You  may  perhaps 
remember  that  Paul  says  something  of  the  same  kind,  but 
using  a  different  metaphor.  To  this  day,  he  says,  a  '  veil ' 
lies  on  the  hearts  of  the  Jews  when  the  scriptures  are  read. 
a.  17 


258  SCAURUS  [Chapter  27 

So  Luke  says — concerning  one  of  Christ's  predictions  about 
his  resurrection — '  it  was  veiled  from  them.'  Luke  also  relates 
that  Christ,  after  the  resurrection,  conversed  with  two  disciples, 
but  did  not  make  himself  visible  to  them  till  he  had  '  inter- 
preted the  scriptures '  to  them.  Then,  when  he  broke  bread, 
'  their  eyes  were  opened  and  they  recognised  him.'  This 
'  interpreting,'  the  two  disciples  call  '  opening  the  scriptures.' 
The  '  opening  of  the  scriptures '  might  be  called  '  taking  the 
veil  from  the  heart,'  or  '  rolling  away  the  stone.'  But  the  last 
phrase  might  still  better  be  used  for  'rolling  aivay  the  burden 
of  unbelief'." 

All  this  seemed  fanciful  to  me.  But  as  I  knew  very  little 
about  Jewish  tradition  I  waited  to  see  what  traces  of  this 
poetic  language  Scaurus  could  shew  in  the  Greek  text  of  Mark. 
Before  passing  to  that,  however,  Scaurus  shewed  me,  from 
Isaiah,  that  "  the  stone  "  might  be  used  in  two  senses,  a  good 
and  a  bad ;  a  good,  for  believers,  as  being  "  the  stone  that  had 
become  the  head  of  the  corner  "  ;  but  a  bad,  for  unbelievers,  as 
"  the  stone  of  stumbling  and  rock  of  offence."  And  he  said 
that  the  stone  rolled  away  by  Jacob  was  called  by  some  Jews 
the  Shechinah  or  glory  of  God.  According  to  Matthew,  the 
"  stone "  at  the  door  of  the  tomb  was  "  sealed  "  by  the  chief 
priests,  the  enemies  of  Christ.  There  it  stood,  as  an  enemy, 
saying  to  the  disciples,  "  Your  faith  is  vain.  He  will  come  out 
no  more.  He  is  dead."  This  was  "  a  stone  of  stumbling."  On 
the  other  hand  Scaurus  said  he  had  read  an  epistle  written  by 
Peter,  which  bids  the  disciples  come  to  Christ  as  "  a  living 
stone." 

"  Now,"  said  Scaurus,  "  taking  the  accounts  literally,  we 
must  find  it  impossible  to  explain  how  the  women,  at  about 
six  o'clock  in  the  morning,  could  expect  to  find  men  at  the 
tomb  ready  and  willing  to  roll  the  stone  away  for  them ;  or, 
if  guards  were  on  the  spot,  how  the  guards  could  be  induced  to 
allow  it.  And  there  are  also  other  difficulties,  too  many  to 
enumerate,  in  the  differences  between  the  evangelists  as  to  the 
object  of  the  women's  visit.  But  taking  the  account  as  originally 
a  poem,  we  are  able  to  recognise  (I  think)  two  or  three  historic 
facts  found  in  Mark  alone. 


Chapter  27]    ON  CHRIST'S  RESURRECTION  (II)     259 

"  First,  take  the  statement  that  the  women  '  said,'  or  '  said 
to  themselves,'  '  Who  will  roll  away  the  stone  for  us  from  the 
door  of  the  tomb  ? '  I  am  not  surprised  that  someone  has 
altered  this  into,  'Who  has  rolled  away  the  stone  for  us?' 
Improbable  though  the  latter  is,  it  is  at  all  events  conceivable. 
But  it  is  inconceivable  that  women,  going  to  the  guarded  door 
of  a  prison,  should  ask,  as  a  literal  question, '  Who  will  open  the 
door  for  us  ? '  Taken  literally,  Mark's  text  implies  something 
almost  as  absurd  as  this.  But  now  take  it  as  a  prayer  to 
heaven.  Then  you  may  illustrate  it  by  the  language  of  the 
Psalmist,  '  Who  will  rise  up  for  me  against  the  evil-doers  ? 
Who  will  stand  up  for  me  against  the  workers  of  iniquity  ? ' — 
followed  by  '  Unless  the  Lord  had  been  my  help  my  soul  had 
soon  dwelt  in  silence.'  So  the  Psalmist  says,  '  Who  will  bring 
me  into  the  fenced  city  ? '  and  then  adds,  '  Hast  not  thou  cast 
us  off,  O  God  ? '  You  see  in  all  these  cases  the  question  is  really 
a  prayer,  a  passionate  and  almost  desperate  prayer,  implying 
'  What  man  will  do  this  for  us  ?  No  man.  No  one  but  God.' 
So  it  is  in  the  Law,  '  Who  will  go  up  to  heaven  ?  Who  will  go 
down  into  the  deep  ? '  These  last  words  Paul  quotes  as  the 
utterance  of  something  approaching  to  despair.  So  I  take  the 
women's  words  as  having  been  originally  a  cry  to  God,  '  Who, 
if  not  God,  will  roll  away  the  stone  ! ' 

"  Secondly,  note  that  Mark  says  nothing  about  any  guards 
at  the  tomb.  According  to  him,  no  obstacle  was  to  be  antici- 
pated by  the  women,  in  their  attempt  to  enter  the  tomb,  except 
the  weight  of  the  stone,  which  was  '  exceeding  great.'  No 
other  evangelist  says  this.  But  I  have  seen  traditions  describing 
the  stone  as  so  heavy  that  twenty  men  could  scarcely  roll  it,  or 
that  it  required  the  efforts  of  the  elders  and  scribes  aided  by 
the  centurion  and  his  soldiers.  In  my  opinion  the  omission  of 
the  '  greatness '  by  Matthew  and  Luke,  and  the  literalising  of  it 
by  later  traditions,  arise  from  a  misunderstanding  of  its  poetical 
and  spiritual  character.  The  '  stone  '  was  '  exceeding  great '  in 
this  sense,  that  it  could  not  be  moved  except  by  the  help  of 
God. 

"  Thirdly,  '  the  women  looked  up  and  saw  it  (i.e.  the  stone) 
rolled  upward'  that  is,  as   I   take  it,  to  heaven,  in  a  vision. 

17—2 


260  SCAURUS  [Chapter  27 

The  word  here  used  for  '  look  up '  may  mean  '  regain  sight,'  as 
though  the  women  were  blind  to  the  fact  till  they  had  uttered 
their  aspiration  ('  who  will  roll  it  away  ? ')  and  then  their  eyes 
were  opened.  Anyhow,  it  is  more  than  'looked.'  I  think  it  means 
'  saw  in  a  vision  '."  I  was  certainly  astonished  at  this  use  of 
"  look  up,"  but  much  more  at  the  "  rolling  up  "  of  the  stone. 

"  As  to  Mark's  '  rolling  up ',"  said  Scaurus,  "  I  have  looked 
everywhere,  trying  to  find  his  word  used  by  others  in  the 
sense  of  '  roll  away,'  or  '  roll  back.'  But  in  vain.  Its  use  here 
is  all  the  more  remarkable  because,  when  Jacob  rolls  away  the 
stone  for  Rachel,  the  word  '  roll  cuuay '  is  used.  You  may  say, 
'  This  shews  that  the  term  is  not  borrowed  from  Jacob's  story.' 
I  cannot  agree  with  that.  The  Christian  hymn  might  contrast 
Jacob,  the  type  of  Christ,  rolling  the  stone  merely  on  one  side, 
with  Christ,  the  fulfilment,  rolling  it  right  up  to  heaven. 
I  should  add  that  a  marginal  note  in  Mark  inserts  an  ascension 
of  angels  with  Jesus  at  this  point." 

In  attempting  to  do  j  ustice  to  this  narrative  and  to  Scaurus's 
criticisms  of  it,  I  felt  at  a  great  disadvantage  owing  to  my 
ignorance  of  Jewish  literature  and  thought ;  and  at  first  I  was 
much  more  disposed  to  put  by  the  whole  story  as  an  inexplic- 
able legend  than  to  accept  Scaurus's  explanation.  But  after- 
wards, looking  at  Matthew's  narrative,  I  found  that  Matthew 
described  an  "angel"  as  "rolling  away  the  stone,"  and  as  saying 
to  the  women,  "  Fear  not."  This  seemed  decidedly  to  confirm 
the  conclusion  that  the  women  saw  "  a  vision  of  angels  "  (a 
phrase  used  by  Luke)  in  which  vision  the  stone  was  seen  rolled 
away — or  (as  Mark  says)  "rolled  upward" — when  the  angels  went 
up  to  heaven.  But  all  this — though  it  confused  and  wearied  me 
— did  not  prevent  me  from  believing  that  the  spirit,  or  spiritual 
body,  of  Christ  had  really  risen  from  the  dead,  since  I  had  all 
along  supposed  that  this  alone  was  what  was  meant  by  Christ's 
resurrection,  in  accordance,  as  it  appeared  to  me,  with  Paul's 
statements.  Nothing  that  Scaurus  had  said,  so  far,  seemed  to 
me  to  shake  Paul's  testimony  to  the  resurrection. 

But  Scaurus's  next  remarks  dealt  with  this  matter,  and 
greatly  shook  my  faith.  "  I  had  almost  forgotten,"  he  said,  "  to 
speak  of  Christ's  appearance  to  Paul.     It  was  clearly  a  mere 


Chapter  27]    ON   CHRIST'S  RESURRECTION  (II)    261 

image  of  Paul's  thought,  called  up  by  his  conscience — nothing 
more.  I  need  write  no  further  about  it.  Flaccus  has  sent  you 
Luke's  Acts  of  the  Apostles.  If  you  are  curious,  look  there, 
and  you  will  find  enough  and  more  than  enough.  My  belief  is, 
that,  if  Stephen  had  not  seen  Christ,  Paul  would  not  have  seen 
Christ.  That  puts  the  matter  epigrarnmatically,  and  therefore 
(to  some  extent)  falsely ;  for  all  epigrams  are  partly  false.  But 
it  is  mainly  true.  There  may  have  been  other  Stephens  whom 
Paul  persecuted.  But  Stephen,  I  think,  summed  up  the  effect 
of  all.  Read  what  Paul  says  to  the  Romans  about  the  perse- 
cuted and  their  conquest  of  persecutors  : — '  Bless  them  that 
persecute  you ' ;  that  is,  instead  of  resorting  to  the  fire  of 
vengeance  against  one's  enemy,  use,  he  says,  the  refiner's  fire  of 
kindness,  '  for  in  doing  this  thou  shalt  heap  coals  of  fire  on  his 
head ' ;  finally,  '  Be  not  conquered  by  evil,  but  conquer  evil 
with  good.'  Read  this.  Then  reflect  that  Paul  '  persecuted.' 
Then  read  the  Acts  and  see  how  he  persecuted  Stephen,  and 
how  Stephen  interceded  for  his  enemies.  I  take  it  that  Paul 
is  writing  from  experience — that  the  intercession  of  Stephen 
*  overcame '  Paul  (he  would  say  '  overcame,'  /  should  say 
'  hypnotized  '  him)  and  compelled  Paul  to  see  what  Stephen 
saw,  namely,  Jesus  raised  from  the  dead  and  glorified.  Read 
the  Acts  and  see  if  I  am  not  right." 

It  had  not  occurred  to  me  before,  while  I  was  reading  what 
Flaccus's  letter  said  incidentally  about  the  inclusion  of  the  Acts 
of  the  Apostles  in  my  parcel,  that  this  book  would  probably 
give  me  Luke's  account  of  the  conversion  of  the  apostle  Paul, 
which  had  been  so  much  in  my  thoughts,  in  my  conjectures, 
and  even  in  my  dreams.  Now,  therefore,  although  barely  a 
dozen  lines  of  Scaurus's  letter  remained  to  read,  I  immediately 
put  them  aside  and  took  up  the  Acts.  Here  I  found  that  I 
had  been  wrong  in  most  of  my  wild  anticipations  about  the 
circumstances  of  Paul's  conversion;  but  I  had  been  right  in 
supposing  that  the  conversion  took  place  near  Damascus,  and 
that  the  utterance  of  Christ  would  contain  the  words,  "  I  am 
Jesus."  Moreover  the  words,  "  Saul,  Saul,  why  persecutest 
thou  me  ? "  accorded  (not  indeed  exactly  but  as  to  their 
general  sense)  with  my  dream  about  the  Christian  martyrs — 


262  SCAURUS  [Chapter  27 

how  they  looked  at  me,  as  though  saying,  Why  didst  thou  rack 
me,?  Why  didst  thou  torture  me  ? ;  and  how  they  blessed  me, 
and  looked  up  to  heaven ;  and  how  they  made  me  fear  lest  I, 
too,  should  be  compelled  to  look  up  and  see  what  they  saw. 

Now  therefore  once  more  I  was  seized  with  a  kind  of  fellow- 
feeling  for  Paul  as  he  journeyed  to  Damascus.  I  began  again 
to  imagine  his  efforts  to  prevent  himself  from  thinking  of 
Stephen,  and  from  seeing  Stephen's  face  looking  up  to  heaven, 
and  from  hearing  Stephen's  blessing.  It  seemed  to  me  that 
I,  too,  should  have  rebelled  as  Paul  rebelled  at  first,  striving 
against  my  conscience,  like  the  bullock  that  kicks  against  the 
goad.  Then  I  asked,  "  Should  I  have  done  what  Paul  did 
afterwards  ?  Should  I,  too,  have  been  '  overcome  '  as  Paul  was, 
being  brought  under  the  yoke  ? "  I  thought  I  might  have 
been. 

But  was  it  seemly  or  right  that  a  free  man  should  be 
brought  under  a  "  yoke  "  ?  That  was  the  question  I  had  now 
to  answer.  I  seemed  to  have  come  to  the  branching  of  the 
paths.  All  depended  on  the  nature  of  the  "  yoke."  What  was 
it?  On  the  one  hand,  Paul  said  it  was  "the  constraining  love  of 
Christ."  He  had  made  me  feel  that  there  was  nothing  base  in 
it,  nothing  to  be  ashamed  of.  Nay,  under  Paul's  influence,  this 
"  yoke  "  had  begun  to  seem  an  ensign  of  the  noblest  warfare, 
a  sign  of  royalty,  the  emblem  of  service  undertaken  b}^  God 
Himself,  the  yoke  of  the  risen  Saviour,  the  Son  of  God, 
enthroned  by  the  Father's  side  in  heaven,  and  in  the  hearts 
of  men  on  earth.  But  on  the  other  side  stood  Scaurus, 
maintaining  that  all  these  Jewish  stories  were  dreams — not 
falsehoods,  but  self-deceits  more  dangerous  than  falsehoods. 
He  had  also  convinced  me  that  the  gospels  contained  an 
unexpected  multitude  of  errors  and  exaggerations  and  dispro- 
portions. This  I  could  not  honestly  deny.  Thus  the  gospels 
flung  me  back — or  at  least,  as  interpreted  by  Scaurus,  seemed 
to  fling  me  back — from  the  faith  to  which  I  was  just  on  the  point 
of  attaining  through  the  epistles.  In  my  bewilderment  I  was 
no  longer  able  to  say  clearly  and  firmly  as  before,  "Nevertheless 
the  moral  power  of  the  gospel  is  attested  by  facts  that  Scaurus 
and  Arrian  both  admit,  facts  that  Epictetus  would  be  only  too 


Chapter  27]    ON   CHRIST'S  RESURRECTION  (II)    263 

glad  to  allege  for  himself — by  myriads  of  souls  converted  from 
vice  to  virtue.     Does  not  this  moral  power  rest  on  reality  ? " 

The  Christians  themselves  seemed  to  attach  so  much 
importance  to  "  Christ  in  the  flesh "  that  I  began  to  attach 
importance  too.  The  evangelists  appeared  to  say,  in  effect,  "  If 
we  cannot  prove  that  Christ  in  the  flesh  arose  from  the  dead, 
then  we  admit  that  He  has  not  arisen."  So  they — or  rather 
my  impression  about  them — led  me  away  to  say  the  same  thing. 
A  few  days  ago,  I  had  neither  desired  nor  expected  that  Christ 
should  be  demonstrated  to  have  risen  in  the  flesh.  Now  I 
said,  "  I  fear  it  cannot  be  proved  that  Christ  in  the  flesh,  that 
Christ's  tangible  body,  rose  from  the  dead.  Nay,  more,  I  feel 
that  the  belief  in  what  might  be  called  a  tangible  resurrection 
arose  from  some  such  causes  as  Scaurus  has  specified.  So 
I  must  give  up  all  belief." 

I  ought  to  have  waited.  I  ought  to  have  asked,  "  All 
belief  in  what  ?  "  "  Belief  in  what  kind  of  resurrection  ?  " 
Scaurus  himself  had  casually  admitted  that  visions,  though 
not  presenting  things  tangible,  might  present  things  real.  If 
so,  then  the  visions  of  Israel  might  be  real,  the  visions  to 
Abraham  and  the  patriarchs,  to  Moses,  to  the  prophets.  These 
might  be  a  series  of  lessons  given  to  the  teachers  in  the  east 
to  be  passed  on  to  the  learners  in  the  west.  Among  the  latest 
of  these  was  a  vision  of  "  one  like  unto  a  Son  of  man."  He  was 
represented  as  "  coming  "  with  the  clouds  of  heaven.  That  was 
a  noble  vision.  Yet  how  much  better  and  nobler  would  be 
a  vision  of  the  Son  of  man  "  coming  "  into  the  hearts  of  men, 
taking  possession  of  them,  reigning  in  them,  establishing  a 
kingdom  of  God  in  them !  Such  a  Son  of  man  had  been 
revealed  to  Paul,  "  defined  "  as  "  the  Son  of  God  "  "  from  the 
resurrection  of  the  dead."  Being  both  God  and  man  He 
brought  (so  Paul  said)  God  and  man  into  one,  imparting  to  all 
men  the  sense  of  divine  sonship,  the  light  of  righteousness  and 
spiritual  life,  triumphant  over  spiritual  darkness  and  death. 
This  is  what  I  ought  to  have  thought  of,  but  did  not. 

Such  an  all-present  power  of  divine  sonship  Paul  seemed 
also  to  have  in  view  when  he  likened  belief  in  the  risen  Saviour 
to  the   faith  described  by   Moses  in  Deuteronomy.     The  true 


264  SCAURUS  [Chapter  27 

believer,  said  Paul,  is  not  the  slave  of  place,  saying,  "  Who 
shall  go  up  to  heaven  ?  "  that  is,  to  bring  Christ  down  to  us 
from  the  right  hand  of  God.  Nor  does  he  say,  "  Who  shall  go 
down  to  the  abyss  ?  "  that  is,  to  bring  Christ  up  to  us  from  the 
dead.  The  word  of  faith  is  "  very  near."  It  is  "  in  the  heart." 
It  says,  "  Believe  with  the  heart  that  God  raised  Christ  from 
the  dead."  Such  belief  is  not  from  the  "eyes"  nor  from  the 
"  understanding  " — as  if  one  saw  with  one's  own  eyes  the  door 
of  the  grave  burst  open  by  an  angel,  or  heard  the  facts  attested 
in  a  lawcourt  by  a  number  of  honest  and  competent  eye- 
witnesses incapable  of  being  deceived  and  of  deceiving.  To 
say,  "  I  believe  it  because  Marcus  or  Gaius  believed  it,"  is  to 
avow  a  belief  in  Marcus  or  Gaius,  not  in  Christ,  unless  the 
avower  can  go  on  to  say  "  and  because  I  have  felt  the  risen 
Saviour  within  me." 

He  alone  really  and  truly  believes  in  the  resurrection 
of  Christ  whose  belief  is  based  on  personal  experience.  If 
he  has  that,  he  can  contemplate  without  alarm  the  diverg- 
ences of  the  gospels  in  their  narratives  of  this  spiritual 
reality.  He  will  understand  the  meaning  of  Paul's  words,  "  It 
pleased  God  to  reveal  His  Son  in  me  " — not  "  to  me,"  but  "  in 
me."  For  indeed  it  is  a  revelation — not  a  demonstration 
from  the  intellect  and  senses  alone — derived  from  all  our 
faculties  when  enlightened  by  God.  God  draws  back  the  veil 
from  our  fearful  and  faithless  hearts  and  gives  us  a  convincing 
sense  of  Christ  at  His  right  hand  and  in  ourselves.  This  "  con- 
viction "  is  derived  from  no  source  but  the  convincing  Spirit 
of  the  Saviour,  coming  to  us  in  various  ways,  and  through 
many  instruments,  but  mostly  through  disciples  whom  the 
Saviour  loves,  and  who  have  received  not  only  His  Spirit  but 
also  the  power  of  imparting  it  to  others. 

All  these  things  I  knew  afterwards,  but  not  at  the  time 
I  am  now  describing.  I  had  indeed  already  some  faint 
conjecture  of  the  truth,  but  not  such  as  I  could  put  into 
definite  words.  I  was  defeated.  In  the  bitterness  of  defeat 
I  exclaimed,  "  There  is  more  beyond,  but  I  cannot  reach  it. 
I  cannot  even  suggest  it.  These  evangelists  give  me  no  help. 
They  take  part  with  Scaurus  against  me.     I  am  beaten  and 


Chapter  27]    ON  CHRIST'S  RESURRECTION  (II)     265 

must  surrender."  Yet  I  felt  vaguely  that  I  was  not  fairly 
beaten.  I  was  like  a  baffled  suitor  retiring  from  a  court  of 
justice,  crushed  by  a  hostile  verdict,  victorious  in  truth  and 
equity,  but  beaten  and  mulcted  of  all  his  estate  on  some  point 
of  technical  law. 

In  this  mood,  sullen  and  sick  at  heart,  weary  of  evidence 
and  evidential  "  proofs  "  that  were  no  proofs,  and  irritated  rather 
with  the  evangelists  than  with  Scaurus — who,  after  all,  was 
doing  no  more  than  his  duty  in  pointing  out  what  appeared 
to  him  historical  errors — I  was  greatly  moved  by  an  appeal 
to  my  love  of  truth  with  which  my  old  friend  concluded  his 
letter.     It  was  to  this  effect. 

"  Well,  Silanus,  now  I  have  really  done.  I  cannot  quite 
understand  what  induced  me  to  take  up  so  much  of  my  time, 
paper,  and  ink — and  your  time,  too,  which  is  worse — and  all 
to  kill  a  dead  illusion.  Why  do  I  say  '  dead '  if  it  was  never 
alive  ?  Perhaps  it  was  once  nearly  alive  even  in  my  sceptical 
soul.  I  think  I  have  mentioned  before  that  I,  even  I,  have 
had  moments  when  the  dream  of  that  phantom  City  of  Truth 
and  Justice  had  attractions  for  me.  Perhaps  I  fancied  it  might 
be  possible  to  receive  this  Jewish  prophet  as  a  great  teacher 
and  philosopher — helpful  for  the  morals  of  private  life  at  all 
events,  even  though  useless  for  politics  and  imperial  affairs — 
apart  from  the  extravagant  claims  now  raised  for  him  by  his 
disciples.  But  it  is  gone — this  illusion— if  it  ever  existed. 
The  East  and  the  West  cannot  mix.  If  they  did,  their  offspring 
would  be  a  portent.  This  Christian  superstition  is  a  mere 
creature  of  feeling,  not  of  reason.  I  do  not  say  it  has  done 
me  harm  to  study  it.  Else  I  would  not  have  sent  you  this 
letter.  It  is  perhaps  a  bracing  and  healthful  exercise  to 
remind  ourselves  now  and  then  that  things  are  not  as  we 
could  wish  them  to  be,  and  that  we  must  not  '  feign  things 
like  unto  our  prayers.'  A  truthful  man  must  see  things  as 
they  are  in  truth.  The  City  of  Dreams  has  closed  its  gates 
against  me,  and  I  am  shut  out.  It  is  warm  in  there.  I  am 
occasionally  cold.  So  be  it !  Theirs  is  the  fervour  of  the  fancy, 
the  comfortable  warmth  of  the  not-true.  I  must  wrap  myself 
in   the  cloak  of  truth — a  poor  uncomfortable   thing,  perhaps, 


266  SCA  URUS  ON  CHRIST'S  RESURRECTION  [Chap.  27 

but  (as  Epictetus  would  say)  '  my  own.'  Truth,  my  dear 
Silanus,  is  your  own,  too — that  is  to  say,  truth  to  your  own 
reason,  truth  to  your  own  conscience.  Never  let  wishes  or 
aspirations  wrest  that  from  you.     '  Keep  what  is  your  own  ! ' 

For  the  time,  this  appeal  was  too  strong  for  me.  I  wrote 
to  Scaurus  briefly  confessing  that  the  City  of  Dreams  had  had 
attractions  for  me,  as  well  as  for  him,  but  that  I  had  resolved 
to  put  the  thought  away,  though  I  might,  perhaps,  continue 
a  little  longer  the  study  of  the  Christian  books,  which  I,  too, 
had  found  very  interesting.  When  I  grew  calmer,  I  added 
a  postscript,  asking  whether  it  was  not  possible  that  "  feeling," 
as  well  as  "  reason,"  might  play  a  certain  lawful  part  in  the 
search  after  truths  about  God.  My  last  words  were  an 
assurance  that,  whereas  I  had  been  somewhat  irregular  of  late 
in  my  attendance  at  Epictetus's  lectures,  I  should  be  quite 
regular  in  future.  This  indeed  was  my  intention.  As  things 
turned  out,  however,  the  next  lecture  was  my  last. 


CHAPTER  XXVIII 

THE   LAST   LECTURE 

Awaking  early  next  morning,  two  or  three  hours  before 
lecture,  I  spent  the  time  in  examining  the  gospels,  and  in 
particular  the  accounts  of  Christ's  last  words.  So  few  they 
were  in  Mark  and  Matthew  that  I  could  not  anticipate  that 
Luke  would  omit  a  single  one  of  them  or  fail  to  give  them 
exactly.  They  were  uttered  in  public  and  in  a  loud  voice. 
According  to  Mark  and  Matthew,  they  were  a  quotation  from 
a  Psalm,  of  which  the  Jewish  words  were  given  similarly  by  the 
two  evangelists.  They  added  a  Greek  interpretation.  Luke, 
to  my  amazement,  omitted  both  the  Jewish  words  and  the 
Greek  interpretation.  Afterwards,  Mark  and  Matthew  said 
that  Jesus,  in  the  moment  of  expiring,  cried  out  again  in 
a  loud  voice.  On  this  occasion  they  gave  no  words.  But 
there  Luke  mentioned  words.  Luke's  words,  too,  were  from 
a  Psalm,  but  quite  different  in  meaning  from  the  words 
previously  given  by  Mark  and  Matthew. 

Still  more  astonished  was  I  to  find  what  kind  of  words  the 
two  earliest  evangelists  wrote  down  as  the  last  utterance  of 
Christ — "  My  God,  my  God,  why  hast  thou  forsaken  me  ?  " 
That  Christ  said  this  I  could  hardly  believe.  Reading  further, 
I  found  that  some  of  the  men  on  guard  exclaimed  "  This  man 
calls  for  Elias  " — because  the  Jewish  word  "  Heli  "  or  "  Eli," 
"  my  God,"  resembles  the  Jewish  "  Elias."  I  wished  that  these 
men  might  prove  true  interpreters.  Then  I  found  that, 
although  Luke  mentions  neither  "  Eli "  nor  "  Elias,"  he 
nevertheless  mentions  "  Elios "  or  "  Helios,"  which  in  Greek 
means  "  sun."     This  occurred  in  the  passage  parallel  to  Eli  or 


268  THE  LAST  LECTURE  [Chapter  28 

Hcli.  What  Luke  said  was  that  there  was  an  "  eclipse,"  or 
"  failing,"  of  "  the  sun."  I  thought  then  (and  I  think  still) 
that  Luke  was  glad — as  a  Christian  historian  might  well  be 
without  being  at  all  dishonest — to  find  that  Mark's  "  Eli  "  had 
been  taken,  at  all  events  by  some,  not  to  mean  "  my  God." 
Perhaps  some  version  gave  "  Elios,"  or  "  Helios,"  "  sun."  This 
Luke  might  gladly  accept.  Indeed,  in  the  genitive,  which  is 
the  form  used  by  Luke,  the  word  "  Heliou  "  may  mean  either 
"  of  the  sun  "  or  "  of  Elias." 

But,  on  reflection,  I  could  not  find  much  comfort  from 
Luke's  version.  For  the  difficult  version  seemed  more  likely 
to  be  true.  And  how  could  there  be  an  "  eclipse  "  of  the  sun 
during  Passover,  when  the  moon  was  at  the  full  ?  Then  I 
looked  at  the  Psalm  from  which  the  words  were  taken,  and 
I  noted  that  although  it  began  with  "  Why  hast  thou  forsaken 
me  ?  "  it  went  on  to  say  that  God  "  hath  not  hid  his  face  from 
him,  but  when  he  cried  unto  him  he  heard  him."  Also  the 
Psalm  ended  in  a  strain  of  triumph,  as  though  this  cry 
"  Why  hast  thou  forsaken  me  ?  "  would  end  in  comfort  and 
strength  for  all  the  meek,  so  that  "  all  the  ends  of  the  earth 
shall  remember  and  turn  unto  the  Lord."  Nevertheless  this 
did  not  satisfy  me.  And  even  the  help  that  I  afterwards 
received  from  Clemens  (about  whom  I  shall  speak  later  on) 
left  me,  and  still  to  this  day  leaves  me,  with  a  sense  that  there 
is  a  mystery  in  this  utterance  beyond  my  power  to  fathom, 
though  not  beyond  my  power  to  believe. 

I  was  still  engaged  in  these  meditations  when  my  servant 
brought  me  a  letter.  It  was  from  Arrian,  informing  me  of  the 
death  of  his  father,  which  would  prevent  him  from  returning  to 
Nicopolis.  He  also  requested  me  to  convey  various  messages 
to  friends  to  whom  he  had  not  been  able  to  bid  farewell  owing 
to  his  sudden  departure.  In  particular  he  enclosed  a  note, 
which  he  asked  me  to  give  to  Epictetus.  "Add  what  you  like," 
he  said,  "  you  can  hardly  add  too  much,  about  my  gratitude  to 
him.  I  owe  him  morally  more  than  I  can  express.  Moreover 
in  the  official  world,  where  everybody  knows  that  our  Master- 
stands  well  with  the  Emperor,  it  is  sometimes  a  sort  of  recom- 
mendation to  have  attended  his  lectures.     And  perhaps  it  has 


Chapter  28]  THE  LAST  LECTURE  269 

helped  me.  At  all  events  I  have  recently  been  placed  in  a 
position  of  responsibility  and  authority  by  the  Governor  of 
Bithynia.  I  like  the  work  and  hope  to  do  it  fairly  well.  Even 
the  mere  negative  virtue  of  not  taking  bribes  goes  for  some- 
thing, and  that  at  least  I  can  claim.  I  am  not  able,  and  never 
shall  be  able,  to  be  a  Diogenes,  going  about  the  province  and 
healing  the  souls  of  men.  But  I  try  to  do  my  duty,  and  I  feel 
an  interest  in  getting  at  the  truth,  and  judging  justly  among 
the  poor,  so  far  as  my  limited  time,  energy  and  intelligence 
permit. 

"  In  the  towns,  among  the  artisans  and  slaves,  I  have  been 
surprised  to  find  so  many  of  the  Christians.  You  may 
remember  how  we  talked  about  this  sect  more  than  once.  You 
thought  worse  of  them  than  I  did.  But  I  don't  think  you  had 
much  more  basis  than  the  impressions  of  your  childhood,  derived 
from  what  you  heard  among  your  servants  and  the  common 
people  in  Rome.  I  have  seen  a  great  deal  of  them  lately  and 
have  been  impressed  by  the  high  average  of  their  morality, 
industry,  and  charity  to  one  another. 

"  You  never  see  a  Christian  begging.  What  is  more,  they 
set  their  faces  against  the  exposing  of  children.  I  have  often 
thought  that  our  law  is  very  defective  in  this  respect.  We 
will  not  let  a  father  strangle  his  infant  son,  but  we  let  him  kill 
it  by  cold,  starvation,  or  wild  beasts.  Every  such  death  is  the 
loss  of  a  possible  soldier  to  the  state.  It  is  a  great  mistake 
politically,  and  I  am  not  sure  whether  it  is  right  morally. 
WThen  I  first  came  to  Nicopolis  I  used  to  hear  it  said  that  our 
Epictetus — one  of  the  kindest  of  men  I  verily  believe — once 
adopted  a  baby  that  was  on  the  point  of  being  exposed  by  one 
of  his  friends,  got  a  nurse  for  it,  and  put  himself  to  a  lot  of 
trouble.  I  sometimes  wonder  why  he  did  not  first  give  his 
friend  the  money  to  find  a  nurse  and  food  for  the  baby,  and 
then  give  him  a  good  sharp  reprimand  for  his  inhumanity. 
For  I  call  it  inhuman.  But  I  never  heard  Epictetus  say  a 
word  against  this  practice.  The  Jews  as  well  as  the  Christians 
condemn  it.  Perhaps  the  latter,  in  this  point,  merely  followed 
the  former;  but  in  most  points  the  Christians  seem  to  me 
superior  to  the  Jews. 


270  THE  LAST  LECTURE  [Chapter  28 

"  I  am  proud  to  call  myself  a  philosopher,  and  perhaps 
I  should  be  prouder  than  Epictetus  would  like  if  I  could  call 
myself  a  Roman  citizen ;  but  I  am  free  to  confess  that  there 
are  points  in  which  philosophers  and  Romans  could  learn  some- 
thing from  these  despised  followers  of  Christus.  Fas  est  et  a 
Christiano  doceri.  I  have  been  more  impressed  than  I  can 
easily  explain  to  you  on  paper  by  the.  behaviour  of  this 
strangely  superstitious  sect.  There  is  a  strenuous  fervour  in 
their  goodness — I  mean  in  the  Christians,  I  am  not  now 
speaking  of  the  Jews — which  I  don't  find  in  my  own  attempts 
at  goodness.  I  am,  at  best,  only  a  second-class  Cynic,  devoid  of 
fervour. 

"  You  may  say,  like  an  orthodox  scholar  of  Epictetus,  '  Let 
them  keep  their  fervour  and  leave  me  calmness.'  But  these 
men  have  both.  They  can  be  seasonably  fervid  and  seasonably 
calm.  I  have  heard  many  true  stories  of  their  behaviour  in 
the  last  persecution.  Go  into  one  of  their  synagogues  and  you 
may  hear  their  priest — or  rather  prophet,  for  priests  they 
have  none — thundering  and  lightening  as  though  he  held  the 
thunderbolts  of  Zeus.  Order  the  fellow  off  for  scourging  or 
execution,  and  he  straightway  becomes  serenity  itself.  Not 
Epictetus  could  be  more  serene.  Indeed,  where  an  Epictetian 
would  '  make  himself  a  stone  '  under  stripes  and  say,  '  They  are 
nothing  to  me,'  a  Christian  would  rejoice  to  bear  them  '  for  the 
sake  of  Christus.'  And  even  Epictetus,  I  think,  could  not 
reach  the  warmth,  the  glow,  of  their  affection  for  each  other. 
I  am  devoutly  thankful  that  I  did  not  occupy  my  present  office 
under  Pliny.  It  has  never  been  my  fate  to  scourge,  rack, 
torture,  or  kill,  one  of  these  honest,  simple,  excellent  creatures, 
whose  only  fault  is  what  Epictetus  would  call  their  '  dogma '  or 
conviction — surely  such  a  '  dogma '  as  an  emperor  might  almost 
think  it  well  to  encourage  among  the  uneducated  classes,  in 
view  of  its  excellent  results.     Farewell,  and  be  ever  my  friend." 

The  third  hour  had  almost  arrived  and  I  had  to  hasten  to 
the  lecture-room  taking  with  me  the  note  addressed  to  Epictetus. 
All  the  way,  I  could  think  of  nothing  but  the  contrast  between 
what  Arrian  had  said  about  the  Christians,  and  what  Mark  and 
Matthew    had   said    about    Christ's    last    words — the    servants 


Chapter  28]  THE  LAST  LECTURE  271 

tranquil,  steadfast,  rejoicing  in  persecution;  their  Master  crying 
"My  God,  my  God,  why  hast  thou  forsaken  me?"  It  perplexed 
me  beyond  measure. 

In  this  bewilderment,  I  took  my  accustomed  place  beside 
Glaucus,  who  greeted  me  with  even  more  than  his  usual  warmth. 
He  seemed  strangely  altered.  It  was  no  new  thing  for  him 
to  look  worn  and  haggard.  But  to-day  there  was  a  strange 
wildness  in  his  eyes.  Absorbed  though  I  was  in  my  own 
thoughts,  I  could  not  help  noticing  this  as  I  sat  down,  just 
before  Epictetus  began. 

The  lecture  was  of  a  discursive  kind  but  might  be  roughly 
divided  into  two  parts,  one  adapted  for  the  first  class  of  Cynics, 
those  who  aspired  to  teach  ;  the  other  for  the  second  class, 
those  who  were  content  to  practise.  The  first  class  Epictetus 
cautioned  against  expecting  too  much.  No  man,  he  said,  not 
even  the  best  of  Cynic  teachers,  could  control  the  will  of 
another.  Socrates  himself  could  not  persuade  his  own  son.  It 
was  rather  with  the  view  of  satisfying  his  own  nature,  than  of 
moving  other  men's  nature,  that  Socrates  taught.  Apollo 
himself,  he  said,  uttered  oracles  in  the  same  way.  I  believe 
he  also  repeated — what  I  have  recorded  before — that  Socrates 
"  did  not  persuade  one  in  a  thousand  "  of  those  whom  he  tried 
to  persuade. 

I  remembered  a  similar  avowal  in  Isaiah  when  the  prophet 
declares  that  his  message  is  "  Hear  ye  indeed,  but  understand 
not " ;  and  this,  or  something  like  it,  was  repeated  by  Jesus 
and  Paul.  But  Isaiah  says,  "  Lord,  how  long  ? "  And  the 
reply  is  that  the  failure  will  not  be  for  ever.  In  the  Jewish 
utterances,  there  was  more  pain  but  also  more  hope.  I  pre- 
ferred them.  Nor  could  I  help  recalling  Paul's  reiterated 
assertions  that  everywhere  the  message  of  the  gospel  was 
a  "  power," — sometimes  indeed  for  evil,  to  those  that  hardened 
themselves  against  it,  but  more  often  for  good — constraining, 
taking  captive,  leading  in  triumph,  and  destined  in  the  end 
to  make  all  things  subject  to  the  Son  of  God.  Compared  with 
this,  our  Master's  doctrine  seemed  very  cold. 

In  the  next  place,  Epictetus  addressed  himself  to  the  larger 
and  lower  class  of  Cynics,  those  who  were  beginning,  or  who 


272  THE  LAST  LECTURE  [Chapter  28 

aspired  only  to  the  passive  life.  These  he  exhorted  to  set  their 
thoughts  on  what  was  their  own,  on  their  own  advantage  or 
profit — of  course  interpreting  profit  in  a  philosophic  sense 
as  being  virtue,  which  is  its  own  reward  and  is  the  most 
profitable  thing  for  every  man.  It  was  all,  in  a  sense,  very 
true,  but  again  I  felt  that  it  was  chilling.  It  seemed  to  send 
me  down  into  myself,  groping  in  the  cellars  of  my  own  nature, 
instead  of  helping  me  to  look  up  to  the  sun.  Most  of  it  was 
more  or  less  familiar;  and  there  was  one  saying  that  I  have 
quoted  above,  to  the  effect  that  the  universe  is  "badly  managed 
if  Zeus  does  not  take  care  of  each  one  of  His  own  citizens  in 
order  that  they  like  Him  may  be  divinely  happy."  Now 
I  knew  that  Epictetus  did  not  use  the  word  eudwmon,  or 
divinely  happy,  referring  to  the  next  life,  for  he  did  not  believe 
that  a  "  citizen  of  Zeus  "  would  continue  to  exist,  except  as 
parts  of  the  four  elements,  in  a  future  life.  He  meant  "  in 
this  life."  And  if  anyone  in  this  life  felt  unhappy — more 
particularly,  if  he  "  wept " — that  Avas  a  sign,  according  to 
Epictetus,  that  he  was  not  a  "  citizen  of  Zeus."  For  he 
declared  that  Ulysses,  if  he  wept  and  bewailed  his  separation 
from  his  home  and  wife — as  Homer  says  he  did — "  was  not 
good."  So  it  came  to  this,  that  no  man  must  weep  or  lament 
in  earnest  for  any  cause,  either  for  the  sins  or  sorrows  of  others, 
or  for  his  own,  on  pain  of  forfeiting  his  franchise  in  the  City 
of  Zeus.  I  had  read  in  the  Hebrew  scriptures  how  Noah,  and 
Lot,  and  others  of  the  "  citizens  of  God,"  lived  alone  amongst 
multitudes  of  sinners ;  but  they,  and  the  prophets  too,  seemed 
to  be  afflicted  by  the  sins  around  them.  Also  Jesus  said  in 
the  gospels,  "  O  sinful  and  perverse  generation !  How  long 
shall  I  be  with  you  and  bear  you ! "  as  though  it  were  a 
burden  to  him.  And  I  had  come  to  feel  that  every  good 
man  must  in  some  sense  bear  the  sins  and  carry  the  iniquities 
of  his  neighbours — especially  those  of  his  own  household,  and 
his  own  flesh  and  blood.  So  I  flinched  from  these  expressions 
of  Epictetus,  although  I  knew  that  they  were  quite  consistent 
with  his  philosophy. 

Glaucus,  I  could  clearly  see,  resented  them  even  more  than 
I  did.     He  was  very  liable  to  sudden  emotions,  and  very  quick 


Chapter  28]  THE  LAST  LECTURE  273 

to  shew  them.  Just  now  he  seemed  unusually  agitated.  He 
was  writing  at  a  great  pace,  but  not  (I  thought)  notes  of  the 
lecture.  When  Epictetus  proceeded  to  warn  us  that  we  must 
not  expect  to  attain  at  once  this  perfection  of  happiness  and 
peace,  but  that  we  must  practise  our  precepts  and  wait, 
Glaucus  stopped  his  writing  for  a  moment  to  scrawl  something 
on  a  piece  of  paper.  He  pushed  it  toward  me,  and  I  read 
"  Rusticus  expectat."  I  remembered  that  he  had  replied  to 
me  in  this  phrase  when  I  had  given  him  some  advice  about 
"  waiting  patiently,"  saying  that  all  would  "  come  right,"  or 
words  to  that  effect.  I  did  not  now  feel  that  I  could  say,  "  All 
will  come  right."  Perhaps  my  glance  in  answer  to  Glaucus 
expressed  this.  But  he  said  nothing,  merely  continuing  his 
writing,  still  in  great  excitement. 

Epictetus  proceeded  to  repeat  that  "  pity  "  must  be  rejected 
as  a  fault.  The  philosopher  may  of  course  love  people,  but  he 
must  love  them  as  Diogenes  did.  This  ideal  did  not  attract  me, 
though  he  called  Diogenes  "  mild."  The  Cynic,  he  said,  is  not 
really  to  weep  for  the  dead,  or  with  those  sorrowing  for  the 
dead.  That  is  to  say,  he  is  not  to  weep  "from  within."  This 
was  his  phrase.  Perhaps  he  meant  that,  although  in  the  ante- 
chamber and  even  in  some  inner  chambers  of  the  soul  there 
may  be  tearful  grief,  and  sorrow,  and  bitterness  of  heart,  yet 
in  the  inmost  chamber  of  all  there  must  be  peace  and  trust. 
But  he  did  not  say  this.  He  said  just  what  I  have  set  down 
above.  At  the  words  "  not  from  within"  Glaucus  got  up  and 
began  to  collect  his  papers,  as  though  intending  to  leave  the 
room.  The  next  moment,  however,  he  sat  down  and  went 
on  writing. 

The  lecture  now  turned  to  the  subject  of  "distress" — 
which  interested  me  all  the  more  because  I  had  noticed  in  the 
morning  that  Luke  had  described  Christ  as  being  "  in  distress  " 
when  he  prayed  fervently  in  the  night  before  the  crucifixion. 
But  it  seemed  to  me  that  Luke  and  Epictetus  were  using  the 
same  word  for  two  distinct  things.  Epictetus  meant  "  distress  " 
about  things  not  in  our  power,  and  among  these  things  he 
included  the  sins  of  our  friends  and  neighbours.  But  Luke 
seemed  to  mean  "  distress  "  about  things  in  Christ's  power, 
a.  18 


274  THE  LAST  LECTURE  [Chapter  28 

because  (according  to  Luke's  belief)  Christ  had  a  power  of 
bearing  the  sins  of  others.  If  so,  Luke  did  not  mean  what 
Epictetus  meant,  namely,  nervous,  faithless,  and  timid  worry 
or  terror,  but  rather  an  agon,  or  conflict,  of  the  mind,  corre- 
sponding to  the  agon,  or  conflict,  of  the  body  when  one  is 
wrestling  with  an  enemy,  as  Jacob  was  said  by  the  Hebrews 
to  have  wrestled  with  a  spirit  in  Penuel. 

At  this  point,  after  repeating  what  I  had  heard  him  say 
before,  concerning  the  grace  and  dexterity  with  which  Socrates 
"  played  at  ball "  in  his  last  moments — the  ball  being  his  life 
and  his  family — Epictetus  passed  on  to  emphasize  the  duty  of 
the  philosopher  to  preserve  his  peace  of  mind  even  at  the  cost 
of  detaching  himself  from  those  nearest  and  dearest  to  him. 
Suppose,  for  example,  you  are  alarmed  by  portents  of  evil, 
you  must  say  to  yourself  "  These  portents  threaten  my  body, 
or  my  goods,  or  my  reputation,  or  my  children,  or  my  wife ; 
but  they  do  not  threaten  me."  Then  he  insisted  on  the 
necessity  of  placing  "  the  supreme  good "  above  all  ties  of 
kindred.  "  I  have  nothing  to  do,"  he  exclaimed,  "  with  my 
father,  but  only  with  the  supreme  good."  Scarcely  waiting 
for  him  to  finish  his  sentence,  Glaucus  rose  from  his  seat, 
pressed  some  folded  papers  into  my  hand,  and  left  the  room. 

I  think  Epictetus  saw  him  go.  At  all  events,  he  immedi- 
ately put  himself,  as  it  were,  in  Glaucus's  place,  as  though 
uttering  just  such  a  remonstrance  as  Glaucus  would  have 
liked  to  utter,  "  Are  you  so  hard  hearted  ?  "  To  this  Epictetus 
replied  in  his  own  person,  "  Nay,  I  have  been  framed  by  Nature 
thus.  God  has  given  me  this  coinage."  What  our  Master 
really  meant  was,  that  God  has  ordained  that  men  should 
part  with  everything  at  the  price  of  duty  and  virtue.  "  Duty  " 
or  "  virtue  "  is  to  be  the  "  coin  "  in  exchange  for  which  we 
must  be  ready  to  sell  everything,  even  at  the  risk  of  disobeying 
a  father.  A  father  may  bid  his  son  betray  his  country  that 
he,  the  father,  may  gain  ten  thousand  sesterces.  In  such 
a  case  the  son  ought  to  reply — as  Epictetus  said — "Am  I  to 
neglect  my  supreme  good  that  you  may  have  it  [i.e.  what  you 
consider  your  supreme  good]  ?  Am  I  to  make  way  for  you  ? 
What  for  ? "     "I  am  your  father,"  says  the  father.    "  Yes,  but 


■Chapter  28]  THE  LAST  LECTURE  275 

you  are  not  my  supreme  good."     "  I  am  your  brother,"  says 
the  brother.     "  Yes,  but  you  are  not  my  supreme  good." 

All  this  (I  thought)  was  very  moral  in  intention,  but  might 
it  not  have  been  put  differently — "  Father,  I  must  needs 
disobey  you  for  your  sake  as  well  as  mine,"  "  Brother,  you 
are  going  the  way  to  dishonour  yourself  as  well  as  me "  ? 
Glaucus  could  not  have  taken  offence  at  that.  However,  this 
occasional  austerity  was  characteristic  of  our  Teacher.  Perhaps 
it  was  an  ingredient  in  his  honesty.  He  liked  to  put  things 
sometimes  in  their  very  hardest  shape,  as  though  to  let  his 
pupils  see  how  very  cold,  reasonable,  definite,  and  solid  his 
philosophy  was,  how  self-interested,  how  calculating,  always 
looking  at  profit !  Yet,  in  reality,  he  had  no  thought  for 
what  the  world  calls  profit.  His  eyes  were  fixed  on  the 
glory  of  God.  This  alone  was  his  profit  and  his  gain.  But 
unless  we  were  as  God-absorbed  as  he  was — and  which  of  us 
could  boast  that  ? — it  was  almost  certain  that  we  should  to 
some  degree  misunderstand  him.  Just  now,  he  was  in  one  of 
these  detached — one  might  almost  call  them  "  non-human  " — 
moods. 

A  few  moments  ago,  I  had  been  sorry  that  Glaucus  went 
out.  But  I  ceased  to  regret  it  when  I  heard  what  followed. 
It  was  in  a  contrast  between  Socrates  and  the  heroes  of 
tragedy,  or  rather  the  victims  of  calamity.  We  must  learn, 
he  said,  to  exterminate  from  life  the  tragic  phrases,  "  Alas ! " 
"  Woe  is  me  !  "  "  Me  miserable  ! "  We  must  learn  to  say 
with  Socrates,  on  the  point  of  drinking  the  hemlock,  "  My 
dear  Crito,  if  this  way  is  God's  will,  this  way  let  it  be  !  "  and 
not,  "  Miserable  me  !  Aged  as  I  am,  to  what  wretchedness  have 
I  brought  my  grey  hairs  ! "  Then  he  asked,  "  Who  says  this  ? 
Do  you  suppose  it  is  someone  in  a  mean  or  ignoble  station  ? 
Is  it  not  Priam  ?  Is  it  not  CEdipus  ?  Is  it  not  the  whole 
class  of  kings  ?  What  else  is  tragedy  except  the  passionate 
words  and  acts  and  sufferings  of  human  beings  given  up  to 
a  stupid  and  adoring  wonder  at  external  things — sufferings 
set  forth  in  metre  ! " 

This  seemed  to  me  gratuitously  cruel.  If  ever  human 
being    deserved    pity,    was    it    not    the    poor    babe    CEdipus, 

18—2 


276  THE  LAST  LECTURE  [Chapter  28 

predestined  even  before  birth  to  evil,  cast  out  to  die  on 
Mount  Cithaeron,  but  rescued  by  the  cruel  kindness  of  a 
stranger — to  kill  his  own  father,  to  marry  his  own  mother, 
to  beget  children  that  were  his  brothers  and  sisters,  and  to 
die,  an  exile,  in  self-inflicted  blindness,  bequeathing  his  evil 
fate  to  guilty  sons  and  a  guiltless  daughter  !  But  Epictetus 
would  not  let  (Edipus  alone  :  "  It  is  among  the  rich,  the  kings, 
and  the  despots,  that  tragedies  find  place.  No  poor  man  fills 
a  tragic  part  except  as  one  of  the  chorus.  But  the  kings  begin 
with  prosperity,  commanding  their  subjects  (like  (Edipus)  to 
fix  garlands  on  their  houses  in  joy  and  thankfulness  to  the 
Gods.  Then,  about  the  third  or  fourth  act,  comes  '  Alas, 
Cithaeron,  why  didst  thou  receive  and  shelter  me  ? '  Poor, 
servile  wretch,  where  are  your  crowns  now  ?  Where  is  your 
royal  diadem  ?     Cannot  your  guards  assist  you  ? " 

All  this  was  in  stage-play,  the  agony  of  the  king  and  the 
scoffing  of  the  philosopher  so  life-like  as  to  be  quite  painful — 
at  least  to  me.  Then  Epictetus  turned  to  us  in  his  own  person : 
"  Well,  then,  in  the  act  of  approaching  one  of  these  great 
people,  remember  this,  that  you  are  going  to  a  tragedian. 
By  '  tragedian '  I  do  not  mean  an  actor,  but  a  tragic  person, 
(Edipus  himself.  But  perhaps  you  say  to  me  '  Yes,  but  such 
and  such  a  lord  or  ruler  may  be  called  blessed.  For  he  walks 
with  a  multitude  '  " — of  slaves,  he  meant — "  '  around  him/ 
See,  then  !  I  too  go  and  place  myself  in  company  with  that 
multitude.  Do  not  I  also  '  walk  with  a  multitude '  ?  But  to 
sum  up.  Remember  that  the  door  is  always  open.  Do  not  be 
more  cowardly  than  the  children.  When  they  cease  to  take 
pleasure  in  their  game,  they  cry  at  once  '  I  will  not  play  any 
more.'  So  you,  too,  as  soon  as  things  appear  to  you  to  point 
to  that  conclusion,  say,  '  I  will  not  play  any  more.'  And  be 
off.     Or,  if  you  stay,  don't  keep  complaining." 

This  was  the  end  of  the  lecture,  and  I  felt  gladder  than 
ever  that  Glaucus  had  gone ;  for  he  seemed  to  me  to  have 
been  just  in  the  mood  to  take  to  heart  that  last  suggestion, 
"  The  door  is  always  open."  I  hastened  to  his  rooms,  but  he 
was  not  there.  I  found  however  that  he  was  expected  back 
soon,  for  he  was  making  preparations  for  a  journey.     Leaving 


Chapter  28]  THE  LAST  LECTURE  277 

word  that  I  should  call  again  in  an  hour,  I  determined  to  use 
the  interval  to  leave  Arrian's  note  with  Epictetus. 

The  Master  was  disengaged  and  gave  me  a  most  kindly 
welcome,  asking  with  manifest  interest  about  Arrian  and 
his  prospects,  and  giving  me  to  understand  that  he  had 
heard  of  me,  too,  from  Arrian  and  others.  His  countenance 
always  expressed  vigour,  but  on  this  occasion  it  had  even  more 
than  its  usual  glow.  Perhaps  he  was  a  little  flushed  with  the 
exertion  of  his  lecture.  Perhaps  he  was  glad  to  hear  that  at 
least  one  pupil,  likely  to  do  good  work  in  the  world,  was 
remembering  him  gratefully  in  Bithynia.  Possibly  he  thought 
another  such  pupil  stood  before  him.  I  had  never  seen  him 
close,  face  to  face.  Now  I  felt  strongly  drawn  towards  him, 
but  not  quite  as  pupil  to  master.  From  the  moment  of 
leaving  the  lecture-room  that  day,  I  had  been  repeating, 
"  Alas,  Cithaeron,  why  didst  thou  receive  and  preserve  me  ? " 
Poor  CEdipus  !  He  seemed  to  sum  up  the  cry  of  myriads  of 
mortals  predestined  to  misery.  And  what  gospel  had  my 
Master  for  them  ?  Nothing  but  mockery,  "  Poor,  servile 
wretches ! " 

Yet  I  had  felt  almost  sure,  even  from  the  first  utterance 
of  the  cruel  words,  that  he  had  not  intended  to  be  cruel. 
Now,  as  I  stood  looking  down  into  his  face  and  he  up  at 
mine,  some  kind  of  subtle  fellowship  seemed  to  spring  up 
between  us.  At  least  I  felt  it  in  myself  and  thought  I  saw 
it  in  him.  And  it  grew  stronger  as  we  conversed.  I  rapidly 
recalled  the  reproach  he  had  just  now  addressed  to  himself 
in  his  lecture,  as  coming  from  one  of  his  pupils,  "  Are  you 
so  hard  hearted  ?  "  At  the  moment  I  had  asked  "  Could  it 
possibly  be  true  ?  "  Now  I  knew  it  was  not  true.  Certainly 
he  had  been  absorbed  in  God.  His  God  was  not  the  God 
of  Christ.  It  was  a  Being  of  Goodness  of  some  sort,  but 
impersonal,  an  Alone,  not  a  real  Father.  Such  as  it  was, 
however,  Epictetus  had  been  absorbed  in  it.  He  motioned 
to  me  to  be  seated,  and  began  to  question  me  about  friends 
of  his  in  Rome. 

I  was  on  the  point  of  replying,  when  the  door  burst  open  and 
Glaucus  suddenly  rushed  in,  beside  himself  with  fury.     Striding 


278  THE  LAST  LECTURE  [Chapter  28 

straight  up  to  Epictetus,  he  began  pouring  forth  a  tale  of 
wrongs,  treacheries,  outrages  and  malignities,  perpetrated  on 
his  family  in  Corinth.  He  took  no  notice  of  my  presence,  and 
I  doubt  whether  he  was  even  aware  of  it,  as  he  burst  out  into 
passionate  reproaches  on  our  Master  for  teaching  that  a  son 
must  witness  such  sufferings  in  a  father  or  mother,  brother  or 
sister,  and  say,  "  These  evils  are  no  evils  to  me." 

It  would  serve  no  useful  purpose,  nor  should  I  be  able,  to 
set  down  exactly  what  Glaucus  said.  Let  it  suffice  that  he  had 
only  too  much  reason  for  burning  indignation  against  certain 
miscreants  in  Corinth.  He  had  only  that  morning  received 
news — which  had  been  kept  back  from  him  by  treachery — that 
cruel  and  powerful  enemies  had  brought  ruin,  desolation,  and 
disgrace  upon  his  family.  His  father  had  been  suddenly 
imprisoned  on  false  charges,  his  sister  had  been  shamefully 
humiliated,  and  his  mother  had  died  of  a  broken  heart. 
"  Epictetus,"  he  cried,  "  do  you  hear  this  ?  Or  do  you  make 
yourself  a  stone  to  me,  as  you  bid  us  make  ourselves  stones 
when  men  smite  us  and  revile  us  ?  Do  you  still  assert  that  there 
are  no  evils  except  to  the  evil-minded  ?  By  Zeus  in  heaven,  if 
there  is  a  Zeus  and  if  there  is  a  heaven,  I  would  sooner  torture 
myself  like  a  Sabazian,  or  be  crucified  like  a  Christian,  or 
writhe  with  Ixion  in  hell,  that  I  might  at  least  cry  out  in  the 
hearing  of  Gods  and  men,  '  These  things  are  evil,  they  are,  they 
are,'  than  be  transported  to  the  side  of  the  throne  above  with 
you,  looking  down  on  the  things  that  have  befallen  my  father, 
mother,  and  sister,  and  repeating  my  Epictetian  catechism, 
/  am  in  perfect  bliss  and  blessedness ;  these  things  are  no  evils  to 
me !  O  man,  man,  are  you  a  hypocrite,  or  are  you  indeed  a 
stone  ? "  So  saying,  without  waiting  for  a  word  of  reply,  he 
rushed  from  the  room. 

I  went  with  him.  I  was  not  sure — nor  am  I  now — whether 
Epictetus  wished  me  to  stay  or  to  go.  But  I  thought  Glaucus 
needed  me  most.  My  heart  went  out  to  him  when  I  heard  for 
the  first  time  how  shamefully  he  had  been  deceived  and  how 
cruelly  his  family  had  been  outraged,  and  I  did  not  know  what 
he  might  do  in  his  despair.  Besides,  if  I  had  stayed,  could 
Epictetus  have  helped  me  to  help  my  friend  ?     What  would  his 


Chapter  28]  THE  LAST  LECTURE  279 

helping  have  been  ?  It  could  have  been  nothing  more — if  he 
had  been  consistent — than  to  repeat  for  the  thousandth  time 
that  Glaucus's  "  trouble,"  and  my  "  trouble  "  for  Glaucus's  sake, 
were  mere  dogmas,  or  "convictions,"  and  that  our  "convictions" 
were  wrong  and  must  be  given  up.  Would  he  have  been 
consistent  ?     Would  he  have  said  these  things  ? 

To  this  day  I  cannot  tell.  As  I  followed  Glaucus  out  of 
the  room,  while  in  the  act  of  turning  round  to  close  the  door, 
I  had  my  Master  at  a  disadvantage.  I  saw  him.  but  he  did 
not  see  me.  His  head  was  drooping.  The  light  was  gone  from 
his  face  ;  the  eyes  were  lacking  their  usual  lustre ;  the  forehead 
was  drawn  as  if  in  pain.  It  was  no  longer  Epictetus  the  God- 
absorbed,  but  Epictetus  the  God-abandoned.  If  I  had  turned 
to  him  with  a  reproach,  "  Epictetus,  you  are  breaking  your  own 
rule.  You  are  sorrowing,  sorrowing  in  earnest,"  would  he  have 
replied,  "  No,  only  in  appearance,  not  from  within  "  ?  I  do  not 
think  he  would.  He  was  too  honest.  To  this  day  I  verily 
believe  that  for  once,  at  least  for  that  once,  our  Master  broke 
his  own  rule  and  felt  real  "  trouble"  And  I  love  him  the 
better  for  it.  That  indeed  is  how  I  always  like  to  remember 
his  face — as  I  saw  it  for  the  last  time,  not  knowing  that  it  was 
the  last,  through  the  closing  door — clouded  with  real  grief, 
while  I  was  leaving  him  for  ever  without  farewell,  never 
trusting  so  little  in  his  teaching,  never  loving  the  teacher  so 
much. 


CHAPTER   XXIX 

SILANUS   MEETS   CLEMENS 

We  walked  on  together,  both  of  us  silent,  till  we  came  to 
Glaucus's  rooms.  "  Farewell,"  said  he.  I  replied  that  I  would 
come  in  to  see  whether  I  could  help  him  to  make  arrangements 
for  his  journey.  He  said  nothing,  but  suffered  me  to  enter. 
For  some  time  I  busied  myself  with  practical  matters.  So  did 
Glaucus.  But  every  now  and  then  he  stopped,  and  sat  down 
as  though  dazed.  I  questioned  him  about  his  journey  and 
time  of  starting.  Finding  that  only  two  or  three  hours 
remained,  I  urged  him  to  rouse  himself.  "  It  will  be  of  no  use," 
he  said,  "  but  you  are  right."  Then  he  exclaimed  bitterly, 
"  Am  I  not  obeying  Epictetus  ?  Am  I  not  making  myself 
a  stone  ? "  "  Not  quite,"  said  I,  "  for  a  stone  feels  nothing. 
You  are  worse  than  a  stone.  For  you  feel  much,  yet  do 
nothing  to  help  those  for  whom  you  feel."  "  Thank  you  for 
that,"  said  he.  Then  he  roused  himself.  He  did  injustice  to 
Epictetus,  yet  I  perceived,  as  never  before,  how  harmful  this 
"  stone-doctrine  " — if  I  may  so  call  it — might  prove  to  many 
people. 

I  have  no  space,  nor  have  I  the  right,  to  describe  more 
fully  Glaucus's  private  affairs,  the  courage,  affection,  and  stead- 
fastness with  which  he  bore  the  burdens  of  his  family  and  saved 
his  father  and  sister  from  their  worst  extremity.  His  course 
was  different  from  Arrian's.  Arrian  remained  outside  the  fold. 
Glaucus  found  peace  as  I  did.  And  I  know  that  many  a 
suffering  soul  in  Corinth  suffered  the  less  because  Glaucus, 
having    experienced    such    a    weight    of  sorrow    himself,    had 


Chapter  29]     SI  LAN  US  MEETS   CLEMENS  281 

learned  the  secret  of  lightening  it  for  others.  He  died  young, 
thirty  years  ago,  but  he  lived  long  enough  to  "  fight  the 
good  fight." 

Our  last  words  together,  as  he  was  in  the  act  of  departing, 
I  remember  well :  "  What  was  that  you  said  to  me,  Silanus, 
about  waiting  and  having  one's  strength  renewed  ?  "  It  was 
from  Isaiah.  I  repeated  it.  Then  I  added,  "  But  I  spoke  the 
words,  I  fear,  because  I  had  once  felt  them  to  be  true.  I  did  not 
quite  feel  them  to  be  true  at  the  moment  when  I  repeated  them 
to  you.  Perhaps  I  was  not  quite  honest,  or  at  least  not  quite 
frank."  "  Then  you  don't  hold  to  them  now  ?  "  said  he.  "  God 
knows,"  said  I.  "  Sometimes  I  do,  sometimes  I  do  not.  For 
the  most  part  I  think  I  do.  I  believe  that  there  is  good  beneath 
all  the  evil,  if  only  we  could  see  it,  or  at  least  good  in  the  end, 
good  far  off."  "  Then  "  replied  he,  "  you  believe,  perhaps,  in  a 
good  God  ?  "  "I  hope  I  may  hereafter  believe,"  said  I,  "  nay, 
I  am  almost  certain  I  believe  in  a  good  God  now.  But,  if  I  do, 
it  is  in  a  God  that  is  fighting  against  evil,  a  God  that  may 
perhaps  share  in  our  afflictions  and  in  our  troubles."  "What?" 
said  he,  "you,  a  pupil  of  Epictetus,  believe  that  God  Himself  can 
be  troubled  !  Then  of  course  you  believe  that  a  good  man  may 
be  troubled?"  "Indeed  I  do,"  said  I.  "  At  least  I  half  believe 
it  about  God,  and  wholly  about  man."  "Then  you  think  I 
have  a  right  to  be  troubled.  You  are  a  heretic."  "  We  are 
heretics  together,"  said  I.  "  You  have  a  right  to  be  troubled,  and 
I  to  be  troubled  with  you."  "  Thank  you,  and  thank  the  Gods, 
for  that  at  least ! "  said  he.  "  Do  you  know,"  said  I,  "  that 
I  am  certain  that  Epictetus  felt  troubled  too,  for  your  sake  ? 
I  saw  him  when  he  did  not  see  me,  as  I  was  leaving  the  room ; 
and  I  could  not  be  mistaken."  "  Ah  ! "  said  Glaucus,  drawing 
in  his  breath.  Then  suddenly,  as  we  were  clasping  hands  in 
our  last  farewell,  he  added  "Do  not  think  too  much  about  those 
scrawls  ! "  And  before  I  had  time  to  ask  his  meaning,  he  had 
ridden  away. 

Returning  to  my  rooms,  I  put  away  my  lecture-notes  and 
took  out  the  gospels.  But  I  could  not  read,  and  longed  to  be 
in  the  fresh  air.  As  I  rose  from  my  seat  to  go  out,  my  first 
thought   was,  "  I  will   take  no  books   with    me."     But    Mark 


282  SILANUS   MEETS   CLEMENS    [Chapter  29 

happened  to  be  in  my  hand,  the  smallest  of  the  gospels. 
"  This,"  I  said,  "  will  be  no  weight."  But  it  weighed  a  great 
deal  in  the  rest  of  my  life,  as  the  reader  will  soon  see. 

Before    long,    unconsciously    seeking    familiar   solitudes,    I 
found  myself  on  the  way  to  the  little  coppice  where  some  days 
ago  I  had  seen  Hesperus  above  the  departed  sun,  and  Isaiah 
had  shed  on  me  the  influence  of  his  promise  of  peace.    "Now," 
said  I  sadly  to  myself,  "  I  have  with  me  a  book  that  calls  itself 
the  fulfilment  of  that  promise.     But  it  fulfils  nothing  for  me." 
As  I  spoke,  and  drew  the  book  from  the  folds  of  my  garment, 
several   pieces   of  paper  fell   on  the  ground.     When  I  picked 
them  up,  I  found — what  I  had  completely  forgotten — Glaucus's 
"  scrawls."     I    thought  they   would  contain   some   requests  to 
perform  commissions  for  him  in  Nicopolis,  or  to  convey  messages 
to  friends,  and  that  he  might  have  written  these  in  the  lecture- 
room   when  he   expected  to  hear  news    that   might    call  him 
suddenly  away.    But  they  were  something  quite  different.    The 
first  that  I  opened  was  entitled  "A  Postscript,"  written  in  verse, 
rallying  me  upon  my  advice  about  "  waiting."     It  shewed  me 
how  Glaucus,  too,  had  been  affected,  not  only  by  the  lecture 
that  drove   him   from   the   room,  but   also  by  that   saying    of 
Epictetus  concerning  Zeus  ("  He  would  have  if  he  could  have  ") 
which  had  disturbed  me  so  much.     It  was  wildly  written  as 
Glaucus  himself  confessed :  but  I  will  give  it  here,  because — 
besides  being  a  rebuke  to  me,  and  to  all  teachers  that  preach 
a  gospel  they  do  not  feel — it  shews  how  Epictetus  himself,  the 
perfection  of  honesty,  stirred   up   in   an    honest   and    truthful 
pupil   questionings    and   doubts   that   he   could  not   satisfy   or 
silence : 

POSTSCRIPT. 

If  you,  my  Silanus 

(  Who  think  hopelessness  heinous, 

And  lectured  me  lately 

So  sweetly,  sedately, 

Discussing,  dilating, 

I  will  not  say  "prating," 

On  the  great  use  of  waiting, 

You,  whom  I  respected 

But  never  suspected, 


Chapter  29]     81  LAN  US  MEETS   CLEMENS  283 

Never,  no  never, 
Of  being  so  clever) 

Would  but  do  your  endeavour 
To  find  more  rhymes  for  "  ever" 
Then  cease  would  I  never 
But  rhyme  on  for  ever, 
Like  that  horrible  lecture, 
Our  Master's  conjecture, 
About  Zeus,  a  kind  creature, 

Whose  principal  feature 

Was  his  frankly  regretting 
That  the  Fates  keep  upsetting, 
By  their  cruel  'preventions, 
His  noble  intentions  ; 
"  'Tis  not  that  I  would  not, 
But  I  coidd  not,  I  could  not," 
So  said  Zeus  in  a  lecture 
Our  Master's  conjecture. 

P.S.     Mad,  isn't  it  ?     But  isn't  the  lecture  madder? 

P.P.S.     I  do  hope  and  trust  the  Master  is  mad.     I  must  go  out. 

The  larger  "scrawl"  touched  me  more  nearly  because  it 
condemned  those  who  indulge  in  "self-deceiving"  and  "call  it 
believing " — a  thing  that  Scaurus  dreaded,  and  taught  me  to 
dread ;  and  I  was  in  special  dread  of  it  at  that  time.  I  have 
been  in  doubt  whether  to  give  this  in  full.  But  I  am  sure 
Glaucus,  now  in  peace,  would  not  take  it  amiss  that  his  wild 
words  of  trouble  should  be  recorded  if  they  may  help  others 
who  have  lost  peace  for  a  time.  So  I  give  it  to  the  reader  just 
as  Glaucus  gave  it  to  me.  Outside  was  written,  in  large  letters, 
"  RUSTICUS  EXPECTAT."  Before  the  verses  came  a  letter 
in  prose  as  follows : 

Rusticus  sends  greeting  to  Silanus. 

I  am  scrawling  yoth  a  little  poem,  Silanus,  to  distract  myself  from  this 
accursed  lecture,  lest  Epictetus  should  make  me  absolutely  sick  with  his 
nauseating  stuff  about  the  duty  of  sons  not  to  be  troubled  by  the  troubles  of 
their  parents.  Some  days  ago  you  gave  me  some  edifying  advice.  Here  is 
the  answer  to  it — a  little  drama. 

Dramatis  personae  only  two: — (1)  Rusticus,  for  shortness  called  Hodge, 
i.e.  Glaucus  the  Rustic,  or  perhaps  Glaucus  persuaded  by  Silanus,  so  that 
Glauco- Silanus  is  the  true  Rustic,  unless  you  like  to  take  the  role  entirely  for 
yourself.     Anyhow  Hodge  is  a  great  fool;  (2)  The  River,  i.e.  Destiny,  alias 


284  SILANUS  MEETS   CLEMENS    [Chapter  29 

Fate,  alias  Zeus,  alias  the  God  of  Epictetus,  alias  the  Whirlpool  of  the  A 11, 
alias  Nothing  in  Particular. 

The  metre  is  appropriate  to  the  subject  matter,  i.e.  whirlpooly,  eddyish, 
chaotic.  There  is  no  villain.  The  River  would  be  if  it  coidd.  But  it  can't 
— not  being  able  to  help  being  what  it  is — like  Zeus,  you  know,  who  said  in 
our  lecture-room  recently,  "  /  looidd  if  I  could  but  I  couldn't."  Hodge  starves 
or  drowns.  This  should  make  a  tragedy.  But  he  is  such  a  fool  that  he  turns 
it  into  a  comedy — for  the  amusement  of  the  Gods.  They  are  intensely 
amused — which  perhaps  should  turn  the  thing  back  again  into  a  tragedy. 
Comedy  or  tragedy?  Or  tragicomedy?  Or  burlesque?  I  give  it  up. 
The  one  thing  certain  is,  Chaos  I 

RUSTICUS  EXPECTAT. 

Hodge  sits  by  the  river 

Awaiting,  awaiting. 

Across  he  is  going 

If  it  will  but  stop  flowing. 

But  tvhen?     There's  no  knowing. 

He  dare  not  try  swimming 

In  those  waves  full  and  brimming. 

On  foot  there 's  no  going, 

And  there  's  no  chance  of  roioing. 

So  there  he  sits  blinking 

And  calling  it  "  thinking  "  ! 

God  nor  man  can  deliver 

His  soul  from  that  river, 

But  Hodge  won't  believe  it 

His  soul  can't  receive  it ! 

Himself  he  's  deceiving, 

But  he  styles  it  "  believing" ! 

So  this  simpleton  artless 

To  a  THING  that  is  heartless 

Prays! — yes,  takes  to  praying 

In  the  hope  of  its  staying 

His  soul  to  deliver: 

"  Good  river,  kind  river, 

Across  I'd  be  going 

If  you  would  but  stop  flowing 

Stay  !  pity  my  moping  ! 

I'm  hoping,  I'm,  hoping 

That  you  won't  flow  for  ever. 

Oh,  say,  will  you  never 

Cease  flowing,  cease  flowing  ? 

Across  I'd  be  going, 


Chapter  29]     SILANUS  MEETS   CLEMEN'S  285 

Rest!     Flow  not  for  ever!" 
Says  the  river,  deep  river: 
"I  care  not  a  stiver 
For  all  your  long  waiting 
And  praying  and  prating 
And  whining  and  pining 
And  hoping  and,  moping. 
Wait,  if  you  like  waiting, 
Prate,  if  you  like  prating, 
Pray,  if  you  like  praying, 
But  think  not  I'm  staying, 
Dream  not  I'm  delaying 
For  a  man  and  his  praying, 
For  his  smiling  or  frowning, 
His  swimming  or  drowning. 
Hope,  if  you're  for  hoping, 
Mope,  if  you're  for  moping, 
I'm  not  made  for  consoling 
But  for  rolling  and  rolling 
For  ever. 
Time's  stream  none  can  sever. 
Then  cease  your  endeavour 
Your  soul  to  deliver 
By  coaxing  the  river. 
Cease  shall  I  never 
But  flow  on  for  ever 

FOR  EVER." 

I  was  walking  slowly  onward,  with  the  paper  in  my  hand, 
my  eyes  bent  on  the  ground.  Suddenly  a  shadow,  and  a 
courteous  salutation,  made  me  aware  that  a  stranger  had  met 
me  and  was  passing  by.  Surprised  and  startled,  I  recovered 
myself  after  a  moment  and  turned  round  to  answer  his  greeting. 
He,  too,  turned,  a  man  past  threescore  as  I  guessed,  but 
vigorous,  erect,  with  a  dignity  of  carriage  that  appeared  at 
the  first  glance.  He  bowed  and  passed  on.  The  face  reminded 
me  of  someone,  but  I  could  not  think  who  it  was.  I  turned 
again  to  Glaucus's  paper.  "  Don't  think  too  much  of  those 
scrawls "  had  been  his  last  words.  But  how  could  I  help 
thinking  of  them  ?  How  many  myriads  were  in  the  same 
case !  The  myriads  did  not  say  what  Glaucus  said.  But 
how  many  of  them  felt  it !     They  had  not  suffered  perhaps 


286  SILANUS  MEETS   CLEMENS    [Chapter  29 

as  he  had,  but  they  had  suffered  enough — crushed,  maimed, 
forsaken ! 

Yes,  FORSAKEN  !  As  I  uttered  the  word  aloud,  there 
came  back  to  me  both  the  face  of  the  stranger  and  the  face 
like  his,  the  face  that  I  had  not  been  able  to  recall.  I  had 
been  thinking  of  old  Hennas,  whom  I  had  seen  as  a  child  of 
five  or  six  and  had  never  forgotten.  Scaurus's  letters  had 
recently  brought  him  back  to  my  memory  again  and  again, 
depicting  him  just  as  I  remembered  him,  and  suggesting  to 
me  all  sorts  of  new  questions  as  to  the  mystery  that  lay  behind 
those  quiet  eyes  and  that  strong  gentle  look,  which  even  in 
my  childhood  had  left  on  me  an  indelible  impression.  I  had 
been  asking  myself,  What  was  the  secret  of  it  ?  Now  I  knew. 
Hermas  was  not  "forsake?!.."  And  this  man,  the  man  I  had 
just  met,  he  too  looked  not  "forsaken."  "  Yet  I  wonder,"  said 
I,  "  what  that  stranger  would  think  if  Hermas  were  to  invite 
him  to  worship  a  Son  of  God  whose  last  words  to  the  Father 
were,  '  Why  hast  thou  forsaken  me  ? '  Epictetus,  I  know,  would 
declare  that  the  words  expressed  an  absolute  collapse  of  faith. 
How  would  old  Hermas  explain  them  ?  And  what  would 
Scaurus  say  if  I  confessed  that  I  found  no  God  anywhere  in 
heaven  or  earth  to  whom  my  heart  was  so  drawn  as  this 
'  forsaken '  Christ  ?  What  would  the  Psalmist  say  if  I  used 
his  words  thus,  '  Whom  have  I  in  heaven  but  thee  ?  And 
there  is  none  on  earth  that  I  should  desire  in  comparison  with 
thee,  0,  thou  FORSAKEN  SON  OF  GOD!"' 

By  this  time  I  had  reached  the  wood.  Pacing  up  and 
down,  full  of  distracting  thoughts,  I  came  on  the  place  where 
I  had  had  my  first  vision  of  peace.  There,  tired  out  in  body 
and  mind,  I  threw  myself  down  to  rest.  Presently,  feeling  in 
the  folds  of  my  garment  for  the  gospel  of  Mark,  I  could  not 
find  it.  Yet  I  had  felt  it  when  I  first  drew  out  Glaucus's 
paper.  There  was  nothing  for  it  but  to  retrace  my  steps  as 
exactly  as  possible  in  the  hope  of  hitting  on  the  place  where 
I  must  have  dropped  it.  But  I  had  not  gone  a  hundred  paces 
before  I  heard  a  rustling  in  the  bushes,  and  the  tall  stranger 
reappeared  and  a  second  time  saluted  me. 

I    returned    his    salutation.     Then    we    were    both    silent. 


Chapter  29]     SILANUS  MEETS  CLEMENS  287 

Nothing  was  in  his  hand,  yet  I  felt  sure  that  he  had  found 
my  book,  and  I  waited  for  him  to  speak.  But  a  moment's 
reflection  shewed  me  his  difficulty.  Was  he,  a  stranger,  to 
ask  a  Roman  knight  whether  he  had  dropped  one  of  the 
religious  books  of  a  proscribed  superstition  ?  It  was  for  me, 
if  for  either,  to  begin.  I  liked  the  stranger's  look  even  better 
than  before  and  felt  that  he  could  be  trusted;  so  I  told  him 
of  my  loss.  He  at  once  placed  the  volume  in  my  hands  saying 
that  he  had  come  back  to  restore  it,  believing  me  to  be  the 
owner.  I  thanked  him  heartily.  He  replied  that  I  was 
welcome,  then  waited  a  moment  or  two,  as  though  to  allow 
me  to  say  more  if  I  pleased.  I  stood  silent,  wanting  to  speak, 
but  as  it  were  tongue-bound — not  so  much  afraid  as  ashamed. 
At  last,  I  stammered  out  something  about  the  wood  and  its 
distance  from  Nicopolis.  He  smiled  as  though  he  understood 
my  embarrassment.  Then  he  repeated  that  I  was  welcome 
and  moved  away. 

I  had  suffered  him  to  go  a  dozen  paces  when  a  voice  said 
within  me,  "  Why  do  you  let  him  go  ?  Scaurus  let  Hermas 
go  and  repented  it.  You  said  that  this  man  did  not  look 
'  forsaken.'  Why  do  you  let  him  '  forsake '  you  ?  Why  do 
you  make  yourself  '  forsaken '  ?  Perhaps  he  can  help  you." 
I  called  him  back.  "  Sir,"  said  I,  "  pardon  me  one  question. 
Doubtless  you  looked  at  this  roll  to  find  some  clue  to  its 
owner  ? "     "I  did,"  he  replied.     "  I  am  interested,"  said  I,  "  in 

this    little    book" .     Then   I   paused.      I    had   grown    into 

the  habit  of  adding — in  writing  to  Flaccus,  to  Scaurus,  and 
in  speaking  to  myself  too — "  from  a  literary  point  of  view," 
"  as  a  historical  investigation,"  and  so  on.  But  now  I  could 
not  say  such  things.  In  the  first  place,  they  would  not  be 
true.  In  the  second  place,  I  knew  instinctively  that  the 
man  would  know  that  they  were  not  true.  Moreover  I  had 
a  presentiment  that  he  was  to  be  to  me  what  Hermas  had 
almost  been  to  Scaurus.  On  the  other  hand,  had  I  the  right 
to  ask  a  perfect  stranger  whether  he  had  studied  a  Christian 
gospel  ?  He  read  my  thoughts.  "  You  desire,"  he  said,  "  to 
ask  me  something  more.  Am  I  acquainted  with  this  book  ? 
That,  I  think,  is  your  question  ?     If  so,  I  say,  '  Yes  '."     "  There 


288  SILANUS  MEETS   CLEMENS    [Chapter  29 

are,"  said  I,  very  slowly,  and  almost  as  if  the  words  were  drawn 
out  of  me  by  force,  "  some  few  things  that  I  greatly  admire 
and  many  things  that  greatly  perplex  me,  in  this  little  book. 
I  think  I  might  understand  some  of  the  latter,  had  I  some 
guidance."  "  I  am  but  a  poor  guide,"  he  replied.  "  Neverthe- 
less, if  it  is  your  will,  I  am  quite  willing.  I  have  an  hour's 
leisure.  Then  I  must  go  on  my  business.  Shall  we  sit  down 
here  ? " 

So  we  sat  down,  and  I  began  to  question  him  about  Mark 
and  the  other  gospels.  But  before  I  describe  our  conversation, 
I  must  remind  my  readers  that  at  that  time,  forty-five  years 
ago,  in  the  second  year  of  Hadrian,  the  gospels  of  Mark, 
Matthew,  and  Luke,  were  not  regarded  as  on  the  same  level 
as  scripture,  nor  as  entirely  different  from  other  writings 
composed  by  pious  Christians  such  as,  for  example,  the  epistle 
of  Clemens  Romanus  to  the  Corinthians.  No  doubt,  some 
Christians,  even  at  that  date,  were  disposed  to  rank  the  three 
gospels  by  themselves  as  superior  to  all  others  past  or  future ; 
and  some  of  them  may  have  asserted  that  the  number  three 
was,  as  it  were,  predicted  in  the  Law.  For  Moses  said,  "  Out 
of  the  mouth  of  two  witnesses "  (that  might  be  Mark  and 
Matthew)  "  or  three  witnesses "  (that  would  include  Luke) 
"  shall  every  word  be  established."  But  if  they  spoke  thus, 
I  do  not  know  of  it.    • 

On  the  contrary,  I  have  heard,  that  about  the  very  time  of 
our  conversation,  that  is  in  the  second  year  of  Hadrian,  there 
were  traditions  about  Mark  (current  in  the  neighbourhood  of 
Ephesus)  placing  him  on  a  very  much  lower  level  than  the 
Hebrew  prophets.  Some  used  to  accuse  him  (as  I  have 
confessed  above  that  I  was  perhaps  too  prone  to  do)  of  being 
disproportioned  and  lengthy  in  unimportant  detail.  An  Elder 
near  Ephesus  defended  Mark.  He  laid  the  blame  on  the 
necessities  of  the  case,  saying  that  Mark  recorded  what  he 
had  heard  from  Peter,  and  that  Peter  adapted  his  teachings 
to  the  needs  of  the  moment,  so  that  "  Mark  committed  no 
error "  in  writing  some  things  as  he  did.  Whether  this  Elder 
was  right  or  wrong,  his  words  shewed  that  neither  he,  defend- 
ing Mark,  nor   his  opponents,  attacking  Mark,  regarded   the 


Chapter  29]     SILANUS  MEETS  CLEMEN'S  289 

evangelist  as  perfect.  Indeed  his  gospel  was  generally  under- 
rated, being  placed  far  below  that  of  Matthew  and  Luke, 
because  people  did  not  perceive  that  Mark  often  contained 
the  account  that  was  the  truest — although  expressed  obscurely 
or  in  such  a  way  as  to  cause  some  to  stumble. 

At  that  time  it  would  have  been  thought  profane  to  put 
Mark  or  Luke  on  the  same  level  with  Moses,  Samuel,  David, 
Solomon,  Isaiah  and  the  prophets,  to  whom  "  the  word  of  the 
Lord  "  is  said  to  have  "  come."  Luke  never  says,  "  The  word 
of  the  Lord  came  to  me,"  but,  in  effect,  this :  "  I  have  traced 
things  back  carefully  and  accurately,  and  have  thought  it  well 
to  set  them  forth  in  chronological  order."  Matthew,  as  being 
an  apostle,  might  have  been  placed  on  a  different  footing. 
But  as  he  wrote  in  Hebrew,  and  his  gospel  was  circulated  in 
Greek,  it  was  not  thought  that  we  had  the  very  words  of  the 
apostle.  Moreover  Matthew's  words  often  differed  in  such 
a  way  from  Luke's,  that  even  a  child  could  perceive  that 
two  writers  were  describing  the  same  words  of  the  Lord  in 
two  different  versions,  so  that  both  could  not  be  exactly 
correct.  And,  very  often,  Luke's  version  appeared  better 
than  Matthew's. 

Yet  even  in  the  reign  of  Trajan  there  had  perhaps  been 
springing  up  among  a  few  people  the  belief  that  the  three 
gospels  above-mentioned  were  not  only  superior  to  others 
then  extant  but  also  to  others  that  might  hereafter  be  written. 
These  men  thought  that  Luke  had  said  the  last  word  on  the 
things  that  were  to  be  believed,  correcting  what  was  obscure 
in  Mark  and  adding  what  was  wanting.  Perhaps  it  was 
natural  that  those  who  thus  favoured  Luke's  gospel  should 
be  for  a  time  averse  to  a  fourth  gospel.  I  believe  that  my 
friend  Justin  of  Samaria,  who  suffered  as  a  martyr  in  this  very 
year  in  which  I  am  now  writing,  always  retained  a  prejudice 
of  this  kind,  favouring  the  three  gospels,  and  especially  Luke. 
Even  though  he  could  not  sometimes  avoid  using  some  of  the 
traditions  that  had  found  a  place  in  the  fourth  gospel,  he 
disliked  to  quote  it  as  a  gospel,  and,  as  far  as  I  know,  never  did 
quote  it  verbally  in  his  writings. 

On  the  other  hand,  some  of  the  younger  brethren  now  go 

a.  19 


290  SILANUS   MEETS  CLEMENS    [Chapter  29 

into  the  opposite  extreme,  and  maintain,  not  only  that  the 
fourth  gospel  is  to  be  accepted,  but  also  that  the  number  four 
was,  as  it  were,  predestined.  This  seems  to  me  as  unreasonable 
as  it  would  have  been  to  maintain,  in  Trajan's  time,  that  the 
gospels  must  be  three  because  of  the  "  three  witnesses "  pre- 
scribed by  Moses  on  earth,  and  the  three  in  heaven  (the 
Father,  the  Son,  and  the  Holy  Spirit)  and  the  three  angels 
that  visited  Abraham,  and  so  on.  Yet  I  have  actually  heard 
the  teacher  Irenaeus — the  young  man  about  whom  I  spoke 
above — asserting  that  the  gospels  must  needs  be  four  to 
correspond  with  the  four  quarters  of  the  globe,  the  four 
elements,  the  four  living  creatures  in  Ezekiel,  and  other 
quadruplicities. 

However,  I  thank  God  that,  when  I  was  a  young  man,  no 
such  stumbling-block  as  this  lay  between  me  and  my  Saviour. 
Nor  was  any  such  belief  in  the  necessity  of  four  gospels  enter- 
tained by  my  new  friend  Clemens — for  that  was  his  name, 
though  he  was  not  a  Roman  but  an  Athenian.  He  had  long 
accepted  the  three  gospels  as  containing  the  truth  about  Christ 
and  about  His  constraining  love.  Recently,  he  had  accepted 
the  fourth  gospel  as  also  containing  the  same  truth.  But  he 
neither  believed  nor  expected  me  to  believe  that  every  word  in 
these  four  writings  was  so  inspired  as  to  convey  the  unmixed 
truth.  It  was  in  these  circumstances  and  with  these  pre- 
conceptions— or  perhaps  I  should  rather  say  freedom  from 
preconceptions — that  Clemens  and  I  began  our  conversation. 


CHAPTER   XXX 

SILANUS   CONVERSES   WITH   CLEMENS 

I  explained  to  Clemens  that  I  had  been  attending  the 
lectures  of  Epictetus.  He  had  taught  us,  I  said,  to  neglect 
external  things,  and  to  value  virtue,  as  being  placed  by  God 
in  our  own  power  and  a  possession  open  to  all.  "  This,"  said 
I,  "  has  strengthened  me — this  and  the  influence  of  his 
character — in  the  determination  to  lead  a  life  above  the 
mere  pleasures  of  the  flesh.  But,  on  the  other  hand,  Epictetus 
teaches  us  that  we  are  never  to  be  troubled,  not  even  by  the 
troubles  or  misdoings  of  those  nearest  and  dearest  to  us.  We 
are  to  say,  '  These  things  are  nothing  to  us  '."  I  then  explained 
to  Clemens  how  this  doctrine  had  repelled  me,  and  how  I  had 
been  led  by  an  accident  to  study  the  letters  of  Paul,  in  which 
I  found  a  very  different  doctrine. 

"  Paul,"  said  I,  "  counts  many  external  things  as  evil, 
and  especially  the  errors  and  transgressions  of  his  converts. 
These  he  feels  as  evils  and  pains  to  himself.  Yet  he  always 
seems  hopeful  and  helpful,  full  of  strength  both  for  himself 
and  for  others.  I  have  felt  drawn  towards  him,  and,  through 
him,  to  the  prophet  Jesus,  or  Christ,  whom  he  calls  Son  of 
God.  Paul  speaks  of  himself  as  led  towards  this  Jesus  by 
a  '  constraining  love '  filling  the  heart  with  joy  and  peace. 
I  have  felt  something  of  this,  or  at  least  have  felt  the  possi- 
bility of  it.  In  my  childhood,  '  Christus '  was  called  one  of 
the  vilest  of  the  vile,  and  I  believed  it.  Now  I  have  come  to 
regard  him  as — I  know  not  what.  Just  now  I  said  '  prophet.' 
But  Epictetus  calls  Diogenes  God's  '  own  son.'     Christ,  in  my 

19—2 


292  SILANUS  [Chapter  30 

judgment,  stands  far  above  Diogenes  and  perhaps  even  above 
Socrates.  When  I  say  '  above  Socrates,'  I  do  not  mean  in  reason, 
but  in  feeling,  and  in  the  power  to  draw  men  towards  kindness 
and  steadfast  welldoing.  I  think  I  had  come  almost  to  the 
point  of  calling  this  Jesus  '  God's  own  son '  in  a  very  real  sense, 
as  being  above  all  other  men,  yes,  and  more — more  than  I  could 
understand.     And  then ." 

"And  then?"  said  Clemens.  I  had  paused.  He  waited  an 
instant  longer,  questioning,  or  rather  interpreting  me,  with  his 
eyes.  "  And  then,"  said  he,  "  something  threw  you  back  ? " 
'  Yes,"  said  I,  "  something  threw  me  back.  And  what  do  you 
think  it  was  ?  Paul  drew  me  on.  But  the  author  of  this  little 
book,  he,  and  Matthew,  and  Luke — -these  threw  me  back.  It 
happened  in  many  ways.  I  must  tell  you  the  last  first. 
A  friend,  a  fellow-student,  has  just  now  left  me  for  Corinth, 
crushed  to  the  earth  by  the  most  shameful  outrages  on  his 
family.  I  wished  to  give  him  some  comfort,  to  point  him 
towards  some  hope,  to  give  him  what  you  Christians — for 
surely  you  are  a  Christian  ?  "  He  assented.  "  Well,  what  you 
Christians  call  '  good  tidings '  or  '  gospel.' 

"  Now  if  I  could  believe  Paul,  I  should  have  a  '  gospel.' 
For  then  the  spirit  of  Jesus,  having  risen  from  the  dead,  would 
be  travelling  about  the  world  everywhere  at  hand  to  strengthen 
His  disciples,  and  to  comfort  their  hearts,  and  to  assure  them 
that  all  will  be  well  in  the  end.  '  I  have  prevailed  over  death ' 
— so  His  Spirit  would  say  to  us — '  I  will  always  help  the  poor 
and  oppressed.  I  will  never  forsake  them  till  I  have  made 
them  sharers  in  my  eternal  kingdom.'  This  it  would  say  to 
each  one  of  us,  '  You,  Gaius,  or  you,  Marcus,  I  will  be  with  you 
always.  I  will  never  forsake  you.'  But  how  can  I  believe 
these  beautiful  assurances,  when  I  find  Mark  declaring  (and 
Matthew  agreeing  with  him)  that  Christ's  last  articulate 
utterance  was,  '  My  God,  my  God,  why  hast  thou  forsaken  me?' 
How  can  I  assure  my  friend  that  God  never  forsakes  the 
oppressed,  if  He  forsook  His  own  Son  ?  And  how  can  I  deny 
that  '  forsaking,'  when  the  Son  Himself  says,  Why  hast  thou 
forsaken?!  Epictetus  forbade  us  to  admit  that  we  are  ever 
alone.     '  God,'  said  he,  '  is  always  within  you.'     Is  not  that  the 


Chapter  SO]     CONVERSES    WITH  CLEMENS  293 

better  and  nobler  doctrine?  If  the  better  and  nobler  doctrine 
is  not  true,  does  it  not  follow  that  the  truth  is  bad  and  ignoble, 
and  that,  in  real  truth,  there  is  no  good  and  noble  power 
controlling  the  world  ?  Which  of  the  two  is  right,  Epictetus 
or  Christ  ? " 

"  Both,  I  think,"  said  Clemens.  He  had  been  listening 
with  attention  and  manifest  sympathy,  but  without  any  change 
in  that  steadfast  look  of  peace  and  trust  which  his  face 
habitually  wore.  I  seemed  to  read  in  his  countenance  at  once 
pain  and  faith,  pain  for  my  burden,  faith  that  he  could  help  me 
to  bear  it  or  to  cast  it  away.  Presently  he  added,  "  Do  not 
suppose  that  by  answering  so  briefly  and  quickly  I  wished  to 
cut  short  your  objection  or  to  deny  the  difficulty.  Far  from  it. 
You  have  asked,  I  think,  one  of  the  hardest  questions,  perhaps 
the  very  hardest,  that  could  be  put  to  a  worshipper  of  Christ. 
Often  have  I  thought  of  it,  and  I  should  not  like  to  answer  it 
hastily.  You  know  perhaps  that  Luke  omits  these  words,  and  that 
he  mentions,  instead,  something  about  the  '  sun '  ? "  "  Yes,"  said 
I,  "  but  that  seemed  to  me  only  to  shew  that  Luke  was  willing 
to  accept  a  version  that  removed  the  difficulty  in  the  original." 
"  I  agree  with  you,"  said  Clemens,  "  and,  if  so,  that  indicates 
that  the  difficulty  was  recognised  before  Luke  compiled  his  gospel. 
Certainly,  certainly,  those  wonderful  words  were  really  uttered." 

Then  he  said,  "  First  let  me  give  you  an  explanation  that  is 
not  unreasonable  and  may  have  some  truth  in  it.  You  know, 
I  dare  say,  that  the  words  are  from  the  Psalms  ? "  "  Yes," 
I  replied,  "  but  the  Psalmist  changes  his  mood.  He  goes  on  to 
say,  '  He  hath  not  hid  his  face  from  him,  but,  when  he  cried 
unto  him,  he  heard  him,'  and  afterwards,  '  All  the  ends  of  the 
earth  shall  remember  and  turn  unto  the  Lord  '."  "  You  have 
mentioned,"  said  Clemens,  "  the  very  words  that  seem  to  some 
of  our  brethren  to  answer  your  question ;  for  they  say  that  the 
Lord  had  in  mind  the  whole  of  the  Psalm  when  He  quoted  the 
first  words,  and  that  He  meant  this,  'I  cry  unto  thee,  0  Father, 
in  the  words  of  scripture  Why  hast  thou  forsaken  me?  knowing 
that  thou  hast  not  indeed  hidden  thy  face  from  me,  but  thou 
art  hearing  me  :  and  all  the  ends  of  the  earth  shall  remember 
my  crying  and  thy  hearing  and  shall  turn  unto  thee  '." 


294  SILANUS  [Chapter  30 

"  And  are  not  you  content  with  this  explanation  ? "  said  I. 
"  Not  quite,"  said  Clemens.  "  For,  though  this  may  be  true, 
more  may  be  true.  I  have  read  in  another  gospel,  later  than 
these  three,  that  the  Son  did  no  work  on  earth  and  uttered  no 
word,  without  looking  up  to  the  Father  in  heaven  and  listening 
to  the  Father's  voice,  which  told  Him  from  time  to  time  what 
to  do  and  to  say.  And  I  have  heard  one  of  the  brethren, 
a  man  full  of  spiritual  understanding,  and  well  read  in  the 
scriptures,  interpret  the  question  as  though  it  were  a  real 
question,  not  an  exclamation — the  Son  questioning  the  Father 
as  to  His  will.  If  that  were  so,  the  Son  might  be  conceived  as 
saying,  '  For  what  reason,  O  Father,  hast  thou  forsaken  me  for 
a  while  and  hidden  the  light  of  thy  countenance  from  me  ? 
Teach  me,  O  Father,  in  order  that  I  also  may  be  willing  to  be 
forsaken,  and  may  desire  to  be  deprived  of  the  light  of  thy 
countenance.'  And  then  the  Father  replies,  '  I  forsake  thee,  0 
my  Son,  because  thou  must  needs  die,  and  in  my  presence  is  the 
fulness  of  life.  The  time  hath  come  for  thee  to  give  up  thy 
life,  that  is,  to  lose  my  presence  for  a  brief  space,  that  all  men 
may  gain  for  ever  by  thy  brief  loss  and  be  saved  from  death  by 
thy  sacrifice  of  life.'  And  after  this,  said  the  brother,  the  Lord 
cried  out  a  second  time.  What  He  said  then,  Mark  and 
Matthew  have  not  recorded ;  but  they  write  that  He  then 
expired  or  sent  forth  His  Spirit.  The  brother  I  am  speaking 
of  believed  that  the  Son,  by  crying  aloud  '  Why  hast  thou 
forsaken  ? '  prepared  Himself  to  be  willingly  forsaken,  and  to  be 
under  the  darkness  of  this  momentary  forsaking  just  before  He 
gave  up  His  life  as  a  sacrifice  for  men." 

"  But  you  say,"  said  I,  "  that  Epictetus,  too,  is  right." 
"  Certainly,"  replied  Clemens.  "  Epictetus  says  that  men,  God's 
children,  are  never  '  alone.'  And  that  is  true.  Indeed  I  can 
shew  you  presently  a  new  Christian  gospel — the  one  I  mentioned 
just  now — which  represents  Christ  as  saying  this  very  thing, 
'  Ye  shall  leave  me  alone — and  yet  I  am  not  alone,  because  the 
Father  is  with  me.'  Look  at  the  matter  thus.  Do  we  not 
know  that  God  may  be  regarded  as  being  in  all  places  at  once, 
so  that  to  speak  of  Him  as  '  here  and  not  there '  is  no  less 
a  metaphor  than  to  speak  of  His  '  hiding  His  countenance,'  or 


Chapter  SO]     CONVERSES    WITH  CLEMENS  295 

'  bearing  us  in  His  arms '  ?  God  therefore  is,  as  Epictetus  often 
affirms,  '  within  us.'  But  is  He  not  also  (as  I  think  Epictetus 
seldom  or  never  affirms)  '  outside  us '  ?  Is  not  the  Psalmist's 
metaphor  right  when  he  says  that  God,  being  outside  us,  hides 
His  face  sometimes  from  His  children  ?  Sometimes  He  does 
this  because  they  have  sinned,  in  order  that  they  may  seek  His 
face  and  cease  to  sin.  But  does  He  not  also  do  this  when  men 
have  not  sinned,  in  order  that  the  righteous  may  become  more 
righteous  and  the  pure  more  pure,  by  longing  more  than  ever 
for  the  sight  of  His  countenance  and  by  thirsting  anew  for  His 
presence  ? 

"  I  do  not  quite  like  to  explain  the  dealings  of  God  with 
men  by  anything  that  frail  human  creatures  do  in  sport.  And 
yet  there  is  something  so  sacred  (at  least  I  think  so)  in  the 
relations  between  parents  and  young  children,  that  I  have  been 
sometimes  led  to  liken  God  hiding  His  face  from  His  children 
to  a  mother  hiding  her  face  from  the  babe  in  her  arms.  She 
hides  it,  but  only  for  a  moment,  only  that  the  child  may  be  the 
more  joyful  afterwards.  And  the  arms  never  let  go  their 
embrace."  Then,  after  a  pause,  he  added,  "  But  perhaps  you 
say,  '  Do  not  you  Christians  believe  that  Christ  was  already 
perfectly  righteous,  and  perfectly  pure,  and  that  He  already 
rejoiced  to  the  utmost  in  the  Father's  love  ?  Why  then  should 
God  forsake  such  a  Son  ?  Why  should  He  hide  His  face  from 
the  Holy  One,  even  for  a  time  ? '  That,  I  think,  is  the 
question  you  would  like  to  ask  ? " 

Reading  assent  in  my  face,  he  proceeded,  "  Some  might 
reply  that  this  question  has  been  answered  by  the  brother 
above-mentioned,  who  says,  in  effect,  '  The  Son  was  forsaken 
by  the  Father,  not  that  the  Son  might  be  made  purer,  or  freed 
from  sin,  but  that  He  might  know  the  Father's  will  and  might 
prepare  Himself  for  His  imminent  self-sacrifice.'  But  is  that — 
I  will  not  say  a  complete  answer,  for  who  will  venture  to  say 
that  he  knows  completely  all  the  purpose  of  the  Father  in 
causing  the  Son  to  feel  forsaken  ? — is  it  even  an  answer  that 
ought  rightly  to  satisfy  us  ?  Will  you  be  patient  with  me,  my 
friend — for  friends  we  are  already  (are  we  not  ?)  in  our  joint 
search  after  truth "     "  We  are  indeed,"  said  I,  "  and  I  would 


296  SILANUS  [Chapter  30 

gladly  hear  your  fullest  thoughts  on  this  matter."  "  Permit 
me  then,"  said  he,  "  to  put  another  thought  before  your  mind, 
namely,  that  the  Son  of  God,  being  Son  of  man,  may  have  been 
forsaken  by  the  Father  in  order  to  learn,  as  a  man,  the  heights 
and  depths  of  human  nature,  and  to  what  an  abyss  of  darkness 
the  purest  and  most  faithful  saint  may  sometimes  sink  ;  and 
how  even  in  that  abyss,  the  saint  may  feel,  through  faith,  that 
there  are  still  beneath  him  the  arms  of  God,  not  indeed 
supporting  him  but  ready  to  support  him  ;  and  that  he  is — as 
the  prophets  say  about  Israel — '  forsaken '  yet  '  not  forsaken.' 
No  height  in  saintliness  is  higher  than  such  a  faith  as  this. 

"  The  scriptures  tell  us,"  he  continued,  "  that  man  is  to  love 
God  with  all  his  heart  and  with  all  his  soul  and  with  all  his 
power,  and  with  all  his  understanding.  You  know  this?"  I 
nodded  assent.  "Consider  then  how  you  and  I  will  feel  in  the 
moments  or  hours  before  our  departure,  if  God  has  decreed  that 
we  shall  pass  away  by  a  slow  and  tedious  passage,  with  a  gradual 
weakening  of  our  mental  and  spiritual  powers,  a  chill  of  the 
heart,  a  deadening  of  the  understanding,  and  a  fading  away 
of  the  fire  of  the  soul ;  so  that  it  is  no  longer  possible  for  us, 
no  longer  permitted  to  us  by  God  Himself,  to  love  Him  with  all 
our  human  powers,  because  our  powers  themselves  are  becoming 
powerless.  May  we  not  then  perhaps  feel  our  grasp  on  the 
hand  of  the  heavenly  Father  loosening,  and  our  souls  slipping 
back  from  the  supporting  strength  of  His  presence,  downward, 
and  still  downward,  into  the  darkness  of  the  infinite  abyss  ? 
Should  that  hour  of  trial  come  upon  us,  would  it  not  be  a  very 
present  help  in  our  trouble  to  know  that  the  Lord,  the  Saviour, 
the  Eternal  Son  of  God,  in  the  form  of  man,  was  troubled 
likewise  ?  " 

Indeed  I  thought  it  would — if  only  I  "  knew  "  it.  I  suppose 
my  face  must  have  shewn  this,  for  Clemens,  without  waiting 
for  an  answer,  continued  with  a  kindling  countenance,  "  And 
now,  dearest  brother,  be  still  more  patient  with  me  while  I  put 
one  more  thought  before  you.  You  have  been  talking  to  me 
about  '  trouble  '  and  about  your  friend's  '  trouble  ' :  and  you  said 
that  it  made  you,  as  well  as  your  friend,  feel  '  forsaken '." 
I  assented.     "  And  you  were  not  ashamed,"  he  continued,  "  of 


Chapter  SO]     CONVERSES    WITH  CLEMENS  297 

feeling  his  '  trouble  '  to  some  extent  as  yours,  nor  was  your 
friend  ashamed  of  feeling  the  '  trouble '  of  his  family  ?  Well, 
then,  believe  me,  the  Lord  Jesus  Christ  felt  the  troubles  of  all 
His  disciples,  friends,  followers,  yes,  all  the  troubles  of  all  the 
sinful  children  of  men,  as  though  they  were  His  own  troubles. 
And  in  feeling  '  troubled '  along  with  others  I  venture  to  think 
that  He  also  felt  '  forsaken '  along  with  others. 

"  This  is  sacred  ground.  I  fear  even  to  kneel,  much  less 
to  tread  upon  it.  But  I  think  the  Lord  Jesus  meant  this  also, 
amidst  a  multitude  of  meanings,  '  0  Father,  why  hast  thou 
forsaken  me,  making  me  feel  one  with  the  sinners  whom  thou 
forsakest  ?  Is  it  that  thou  art  breaking  for  a  time  the  sensible 
bond  between  me  and  thee  in  order  to  bind  me  to  them  ?  Is 
it  that  I  may  be  made  one  with  them,  so  as  to  make  them  one 
with  me  ?  Wouldst  thou  make  me  to  be  sin  that  the  world 
may  be  made  to  be  righteousness  ? '  " 

I  remembered  the  words  of  Paul,  "  Him  that  knew  not  sin 
God  made  sin  in  our  behalf " :  but  I  had  never  understood  them 
before.  Nor  did  I  now,  but  I  thought  I  caught  a  glimpse  of 
their  meaning.  It  was  only  a  glimpse,  and  I  sat  silent,  afraid 
as  it  were  to  move  lest  I  should  lose  it.  I  seemed  in  a  new 
world,  or  rather,  in  a  mixed  world,  in  which  the  old  and  the 
new  were  contending.  I  could  neither  see  clearly  nor  move 
freely  as  yet.  I  felt  that  light  and  freedom  were  around  and 
very  near,  forcing  their  way  towards  me,  if  I  would  but  reach 
out  my  hand  to  them.     But  I  could  not  do  it. 

"  I  feel,"  said  I,  "  as  though,  in  time,  these  hard  words 
might  become  intelligible,  or  rather,  I  should  say,  beautiful 
and  full  of  comfort  to  me.  But  how  different  they  are  from  the 
last  words  of  Socrates  ! "  "  Most  different,"  replied  Clemens. 
"  Often  have  I  pondered  on  the  difference.  I  was  born  in 
Athens,  and  I  admire  the  literature  and  language  of  my  native 
city.  But  my  mother  was  of  Jewish  extraction ;  and  when 
I  worship,  and  pray,  and  feel  sorrow,  and  seek  consolation,  it 
is  in  the  thought  and  phrase  (though  not  in  the  language)  of 
my  mother's  people.  And  again  and  again  have  I  reflected  on 
the  strange  contrast  between  the  two  '  last  words,'  the  Jewish 
and  the  Greek.     These  '  last  words '  represent  last  thoughts. 


298  SILANUS  [Chapter  30 

Socrates  felt  righteous,  and  happy,  and  not  '  forsaken,'  and  not 
at  all  anxious  about  his  friends  nor  about  his  doctrine.  The 
Lord  Jesus  felt  forsaken — doubly  forsaken.  First  He  sorrowed 
for  His  disciples  because  He  knew  that  they  would  forsake 
Him ;  and  He  prayed  for  them  that  they  might  not  utterly 
fail.     Afterwards  He  Himself  felt  forsaken  by  the  Father. 

"  Perhaps,  so  far,  Socrates  may  seem  to  have  the  advantage. 
But  what  has  followed  ?  Socrates  is  enshrined  in  books,  a 
companion  and  dear  friend  of  students  for  ever,  but  in  books. 
He  is  not  for  the  crowd  in  the  street,  nor  for  the  ploughman 
in  the  field,  nor  for  the  poor,  the  simple,  and  the  unlettered. 
And  though  he  may  fortify  some  of  us  against  the  fear  of 
death,  he  does  not  bring  the  deepest  consolation  to  those  who 
are  suffering  under  a  perpetual  burden  of  pains  or  sorrows. 
But  the  Spirit  of  the  Lord  Jesus  moves  among  all  sorts  and 
conditions  of  life  in  all  the  races  of  mankind,  bringing  joy  to 
them  that  rejoice  righteously,  and  wholesome  sorrow  to  those 
that  sin,  and  strength  to  the  heavy  laden,  and  comfort  to  all 
that  mourn,  and  freedom  from  all  servile  fear.  Yes,  He  brings 
freedom,  even  to  those  enemies  against  whom  He  makes  war, 
turning  their  consciences  against  themselves  and  making  them 
His  willing  captives  to  lead  others  captive  in  turn.  For  indeed 
this  captivity  is  no  captivity  but  an  embracing  with  the  arms 
of  a  Father  revealed  in  the  Son  according  to  the  words  of 
Hosea  'I  taught  Ephraim  to  walk.  I  took  him  in  my  arms. 
He  knew  not  that  I  healed  him.  I  drew  him  with  cords,  with 
bands  of  love.'  Dear  friend,  it  is  my  firm  conviction  that  those 
only  can  relieve  pain  of  the  heart  who  have  felt  pain  of  the 
heart.  Those  only  can  save  the  forsaken  who  have  felt 
forsaken.  It  was  in  fact  because  Christ  had  been  forsaken 
that  He  was  enabled  to  draw  Paul  towards  Him  with  the 
cords  of  His  constraining  love." 

"  But,"  said  I,  "  if  love  was  the  foundation  of  Christ's 
doctrine,  how  is  it  that  Mark  hardly  ever  mentions  it  ?  Should 
I  be  wrong  in  saying  that  Mark  never  mentions  '  love '  at  all 
except  in  one  place  where  Jesus,  being  asked  what  is  the 
greatest  commandment,  quotes  from  the  scripture  the  ancient 
commandment    to   love   God  and   one's  neighbour  ?  "     "  Alas," 


Chapter  SO]     CONVERSES    WITH  CLEMENS  299 

replied  Clemens,  "  you  would  be  only  too  right !  Yet  believe 
me,  Christ's  doctrine  of  doctrines  was  '  love ' — and  that,  too, 
not  the  old  commandment,  but  a  new  commandment,  because 
Christ  introduced  into  the  world  a  new  kind  of  love,  a  more 
powerful  love,  a  constraining  love.  This  He  imparted  through 
His  blood  to  His  disciples,  as  is  made  clear  in  this  new 
gospel  " — and  here  he  took  a  roll  out  of  his  garment — "  about 
which  I  spoke  to  you  lately,  and  in  a  letter,  by  the  same 
author,  which  is  an  appendix  to  the  gospel."  And  then  he 
read  to  me,  from  John's  gospel,  the  words,  "  A  new  command- 
ment give  I  unto  you  that  ye  love  one  another,"  and  "  By  this 
shall  all  men  know  that  ye  are  my  disciples  if  ye  have  love 
one  to  another  "  ;  and  he  pointed  out  the  newness  and  great- 
ness of  the  love,  reading  the  words,  "  Greater  love  hath  no 
man  than  this  that  a  man  lay  down  his  life  for  his  friends." 
Lastly,  he  added,  from  the  epistle,  "  God  is  love." 

All  this  astonished  me  not  a  little,  and  I  replied,  "  Here 
at  last,  it  seems  to  me,  we  have  the  only  true  gospel,  Paul's 
gospel,  the  gospel  of  the  constraining  love  of  Christ.  But  how 
came  it  to  pass  that,  whereas  this  was  the  true  gospel,  such 
a  gospel  as  Mark's,  full  of  marvels,  and  portents,  and  exorcisms, 
should  be  the  first  published  to  the  world — so  I  have  been 
told  on  good  authority — a  gospel  that  gives  a  whole  column 
to  the  dancing  of  the  daughter  of  Herodias  and  not  one  line 
to  '  love  one  another ' ? " 

"  Often  and  often,"  replied  Clemens,  "  have  I  asked  myself 
the  same  question.  I  think,  though  I  am  not  sure,  that  the 
reason  is  this.  After  the  resurrection  of  the  Lord,  the  apostles 
went  forth  to  the  world  to  attest  the  resurrection,  and  to  preach 
the  gospel,  saying,  in  effect,  what  we  find  Peter  and  Paul 
actually  saying  in  their  epistles.  But  perhaps  you  have  not 
read  Peter's  epistle  ? "  I  had  not.  "  If  you  had,  you  would 
have  found  that  Peter,  like  Paul,  teaches  this  commandment 
of  love.  Doubtless  all  the  apostles  did  the  same.  Consequently, 
before  any  gospels  were  written,  all  the  churches  were  familiar 
with  this  doctrine  of  love,  and  with  the  doctrine  of  the  resur- 
rection. These  were  the  important  things.  These  had  been 
handed  down  by  the  apostles  to  the  elders,  and  by   the  first 


800  SI  LAN  US  [Chapter  30 

generation  of  the  elders  to  the  second.  These,  therefore,  the 
churches  knew.  But  the  unimportant  things,  as  Paul  deemed 
them,  the  things  that  concerned  Christ  in  the  flesh,  and  His 
works  of  healing  and  of  casting  out  spirits,  and  His  sayings 
in  the  flesh  to  the  disciples,  and  His  discussions  and  contro- 
versies with  the  Pharisees,  and  how  He  was  delivered  over  to 
Pilate,  and  how  He  suffered  this  and  that  particular  humili- 
ation (such  as  '  spitting '  and  '  smiting ')  in  exact  accordance 
with  the  scriptures — these  things  the  churches  had  not 
committed  to  memory  in  any  kind  of  detail.  These  therefore 
the  earliest  evangelist  wrote  down.  Hence  it  came  to  pass 
that  he  recorded,  in  large  measure,  not  the  most  important 
but  the  least  important  things." 

"  I  understand  now,"  said  I,  "  but  is  it  not  to  be  regretted  ? " 
"  For  all  reasons  but  one,"  replied  Clemens,  "  I  think  it  is  to  be 
regretted.  I  am  often  sorry  that  Mark  does  not  give  us  the 
Lord's  Prayer.  I  suppose  he  omitted  it,  as  being  known  to 
everybody.  But,  as  it  is,  we  have  two  versions,  and  Matthew's 
is  very  different  from  Luke's.  A  version  by  Mark  might  have 
taught  us  whether  the  two  versions  are  from  one  original,  or 
whether  the  Lord  gave  His  disciples  two  prayers  at  two 
different  times — perhaps  one  before  the  resurrection,  one 
after  it.  Again,  Mark  does  not  give  us  any  account  of  the 
Lord's  resurrection.  Some  think  that  a  page  of  the  manu- 
script of  his  gospel  was  lost.  I,  too,  once  thought  so ;  but 
now  I  am  disposed  to  think  that  he  stopped  short  here,  saying, 
'  Here  begins  the  testimony  of  the  apostles.  It  is  their  part 
to  testify  to  the  Lord's  resurrection.'  In  any  case  it  is  to  be 
regretted." 

"But,"  said  I,  "your  expression,  just  now,  was,  'to  be 
regretted  for  all  reasons  but  one!  What  did  you  mean  by 
that  ? "  "I  meant,"  said  Clemens,  "  that  if  all  the  evangelists 
had  agreed  exactly  in  their  reports  of  all  Christ's  words, 
there  might  have  been,  amidst  many  advantages,  this  one 
disadvantage,  the  danger  that  the  letter  of  the  words  of  the 
Lord  might  have  become  a  second  law,  like  the  law  of  Moses, 
to  be  interpreted  by  lawyers.  In  that  case,  what  the  Lord 
said   about  divorce,  and   marriage,  and  about   the   manner  of 


Chapter  SO]     CONVERSES    WITH  CLEMENS  301 

life  of  the  evangelists,  and  their  sustenance,  and  about  giving 
up  or  retaining  one's  possessions — all  these  things  might  have 
been  collected  into  a  small  code.  On  this  code  might  have 
been  written  a  large  commentary;  on  that,  perhaps,  another 
commentary,  still  larger.  Thus  the  Church  of  Christ  might 
have  drifted  into  the  legalities  of  men  far  away  from  the  one 
true  law  of  Christ,  as  it  is  denned  in  Paul's  epistles  '  Bear  ye 
one  another's  burdens,'  and  (in  the  new  gospel  that  I  shewed 
you  just  now)  '  Love  one  another  with  the  love  with  which 
I  have  loved  you  '." 

"  Tell  me  more  about  that  new  gospel,"  said  I.  "  I  would 
gladly  do  so,"  said  Clemens,  "if  time  permitted.  But  the 
shadows  are  lengthening  and  the  hour  we  were  to  spend 
together  is  past.  Most  willingly  would  I  stay  with  you,  but 
my  work  calls  me  away.  Tomorrow,  however,  if  you  would 
like  to  come  to  my  lodging  in  the  house  of  Justus,  at  the 
corner  of  the  market-place,  soon  after  sunset,  I  shall  have 
returned  to  Nicopolis,  and  you  shall  have  a  sight  of  the  new 
gospel  and  such  aid  as  I  can  give  you  in  explaining  it."  So  we 
parted  for  the  time,  after  I  had  eagerly  accepted  his  invitation. 


CHAPTER   XXXI 

CLEMENS   ON   THE   FOURTH   GOSPEL 

"  How  many  things  I  should  have  asked  him  if  he  could 
only  have  stayed  !  "  was  my  first  thought,  as  Clemens  disap- 
peared behind  the  bushes.  My  next  thought  was,  "  How  many 
new  things  I  already  have  to  think  about ! "  Mechanically 
I  turned  homewards  and  took  a  few  steps  on  the  way  to  the 
city.     Then  I  sat  down  to  reflect. 

Not  many  minutes  had  elapsed  before  I  heard  footsteps 
behind  me.  Presently,  a  little  on  my  left,  Clemens,  without 
noticing  me,  passed  striding  hastily  onwards  in  the  direction  of 
Nicopolis.  I  called  to  him.  He  turned  and  came  up  to  me  with 
an  exclamation  of  joy,  "I  am  thankful  to  have  found  you  so  soon. 
It  has  been  on  my  mind  that  I  ought  to  have  at  least  explained 
to  you  why  I  did  not  offer  to  lend  you  this  new  gospel." 
"  I  would  not  have  lent  it  to  anyone  had  I  been  in  your  place," 
said  I.  "  Yes,"  said  Clemens,  "  you  would  have.  Trust  me, 
dear  friend,  if  you  believed  this  gospel,  as  I  do,  you  would  long 
to  lend  it  to  those  who  did  not  as  yet  believe  it.  But  the 
truth  is,  I  did  not  wish  to  lend  it  to  you  without  a  few  words  of 
introduction,  for  which  I  feared  there  would  be  no  time. 
I  forgot  that  the  moonlight  would  suffice  to  guide  me  to  the 
end  of  my  journey.  Have  you  leisure  and  desire  for  a  little 
more  conversation  ?  Without  it,  I  fear  this  little  book  might 
make  you  stumble,  might  even  repel  you.  It  is  entirely 
jdifferent  from  the  other  three  gospels  both  in  its  style  and  in 
its  language.  Whether  reporting  Christ's  sayings  or  relating 
His  actions,  it  almost  always  differs  from  the  earlier  accounts. 
It  is  also  largely  different  in  the  facts  related.     What  say  you?" 


Chap.  31]    CLEMENS  ON  THE  FOURTH  GOSPEL     303 

"  I  say  '  Thanks,'  with  all  my  heart,"  replied  I ;  then,  as  we 
sat  down  together,  "  May  I  ask  first,  who  wrote  it  ?  "  "  You 
not  only  may,  but  ought,"  he  replied.  "  It  is  just  the  question 
I  expected  from  you,  and,  alas  !  just  one  of  the  questions  that 
I  cannot  answer  in  the  usual  way  by  saying  'A  the  son  of  B.' 
It  seems  to  hint  the  authorship  in  dark  expressions.  At  the 
end  of  the  book  it  says,  '  This  is  the  disciple  that  beareth 
witness  of  these  things  and  he  that  wrote  these  things '  ;  but 
the  texts  vary  and  it  is  not  quite  clear  whether  the  'writer'  and 
the  'bearer  of  witness'  are  one  and  the  same.  Nor  does  it  give 
any  name  to  the  witness  or  the  writer,  nor  any  means  of 
ascertaining  the  name  or  names,  except  that  it  describes  him, 
a  little  before,  as  being  '  the  disciple  whom  Jesus  loved,  who 
also  leaned  on  His  breast,'  i.e.  at  the  last  supper.  Also,  going 
back  further,  I  find  it  written  concerning  a  certain  flow  of 
blood  and  water  from  the  side  of  the  Saviour  on  the  cross,  'He 
that  hath  seen  hath  borne  witness  and  his  witness  is  true,  and 
he  knoweth  that  he  saith  true,  that  ye  may  believe.'  Going  back 
further  still,  and  comparing  the  beginning  with  the  end  of  the 
gospel,  the  reader  is  led  indirectly  to  the  conclusion  that  the 
disciple  that  '  hath  borne  witness '  is  John  the  son  of  Zebedee. 

"  This  John  is  often  referred  to  as  one  of  the  chief  apostles, 
in  the  three  gospels  ;  but  his  name  is  not  so  much  as  once 
mentioned  in  the  fourth.  Whenever  'John'  occurs  in  this 
gospel,  it  is  always  John  the  Baptist,  even  though  '  Baptist '  is 
not  added.  Not  till  the  last  chapter  does  it  become  clear  that 
the  author  is  one  of  the  '  sons  of  Zebedee  '."  "  But  might  it  not 
be  James  ?  "  said  I.  "  It  might,"  replied  Clemens,  "  but  for  the 
following  fact.  The  gospel  goes  on  to  say,  in  effect,  that, 
whereas  Peter  was  to  be  crucified  hereafter,  this  disciple  was  to 
live  so  long  that  a  report  sprang  up  in  the  church  that  he 
would  never  die.  Now  this  could  not  apply  to  James,  as  he 
was  beheaded  quite  early  in  the  history  of  the  church.  It 
follows  therefore  that  the  author  was  John,  who,  though  he 
became  a  martyr,  or  witness,  for  the  Saviour,  survived  his 
martyrdom    and    lived    to    a    great    age." 

This  seemed  to  me  an  unsatisfactory  way  of  writing  history, 
and  not  quite  fair  to  readers.     For  ought  they  not  to  be  partly 


304  CLEMENS  [Chapter  31 

guided,  in  their  judgment  of  the  historian's  statements,  by 
their  knowledge  of  his  character,  and  of  his  opportunities  for 
obtaining  information  ?  "  How  much  more  satisfactory,"  said  I, 
"  is  the  honest  straightforwardness  of  the  Greek  writer,  '  This 
is  the  third  year  of  the  history  that  Thucydides  compiled  '." 
"You  are  right,"  replied  Clemens,  "I  cannot  deny  it.  It  would 
have  been  more  satisfactory — if  it  could  have  been  written  with 
truth — that  we  should  read  at  the  end  of  this  little  roll,  'I  John, 
the  son  of  Zebedee,  wrote  this  work.'  But  what  if  he  did  not 
write  it  yet  had  a  great  part  in  originating  it  ?  What  if  there 
was  some  kind  of  joint  production,  revision,  or  correction,  of  the 
work,  so  that  it  would  not  have  been  true  to  say,  '  I  John 
wrote  it '  ?  " 

"  Is  there  any  evidence  of  this  ?  "  I  asked.  "  A  little,"  he 
replied.  "  It  is  the  only  one  of  the  four  gospels  that  contains 
'we'  in  its  conclusion,  thus,  ' We  know  that  his  testimony  is 
true.'  I  have  also  heard  a  tradition  that  it  was  revealed  to 
Andrew  that  John  was  to  write  the  gospel  and  that  his  fellow- 
disciples  and  bishops  should  revise  it.  But  the  following  is 
more  important  evidence :  John  the  son  of  Zebedee  wrote 
a  book  called  the  Apocalypse — have  you  seen  it  ?  "  I  said  that 
I  had  glanced  at  it.  "  It  was  written  when  he  was  a  very  old 
man,  after  he  had  been  sent  to  the  mines  in  Patmos  by  Domitian, 
and  it  is  written  in,  I  will  not  say  bad  Greek,  but  a  dialect 
of  Greek  entirely  different  from  that  of  any  of  the  gospels  or 
epistles.  Now  the  fourth  gospel  is  written  in  very  fair  Greek 
and  in  a  style  as  different  as  possible  from  that  of  the 
Apocalypse.  It  is  quite  impossible  that  John,  after  writing 
the  Apocalypse  when  he  was  eighty  or  ninety,  should  then 
write  a  gospel  in  a  style  so  absolutely  different." 

"  Then  why,"  said  I,  "  should  the  gospel  be  called  by  his 
name  ? "  "I  explain  it  thus,"  said  Clemens.  "  When  John 
returned  from  Patmos  a  very  old  man,  saved  from  the  fiery 
trial  of  the  sufferings  he  had  undergone — both  before  his 
condemnation  and  also  afterwards  in  the  mines — it  was  natural 
that  every  word  uttered  by  him  should  be  treasured  up.  I  have 
heard  it  said  that  he  could  hardly  be  carried  into  the  church, 
and  that,  when  there,  he  repeated  nothing  but  '  Little  children, 


Chapter  SI]      ON  THE  FOURTH  GOSPEL  305 

love  one  another.'  In  time,  the  brethren  grew  weary  of  this 
and  remonstrated  with  him.  This  seems  to  have  gone  on  for 
a  long  while.  For  (as  I  have  said  above)  a  report  was  current 
about  him  that  he  would  '  never  die  '  but  would  wait  for  the 
Lord's  coming.  There  is  no  record  (known  to  me)  of  any  time, 
place,  or  manner,  of  his  departure.  I  infer  that,  during  the 
period  of  his  decrepitude,  the  brethren  at  Ephesus  would  collect 
traditions  from  him  and  preach  his  gospel  for  him  as  far  as 
they  could.  Afterwards,  when  it  was  clear  that  he  would  die, 
the  gospel  would  be  reduced  to  writing."  "  But  this,"  said  I, 
"  greatly  lowers  the  value  of  the  gospel  as  history."  "  It  does," 
said  he,  "and  its  historical  value  may  also  be  lowered  by  the 
fact  that,  even  before  the  gospel  was  written,  the  apostle  was  a 
great  seer  of  visions.  A  seer  is  not  the  best  kind  of  historian. 
He  is  liable  to  mix  vision  with  fact.  Especially  might  this  be 
done  by  a  seer  that  had  seen  Christ  both  before  and  after 
Christ's  death.  But  still  I  greatly  value  this  gospel  because, 
like  the  epistles  of  Paul,  it  seems  to  me  to  go  to  the  root  of  the 
matter.  I  told  you  just  now  that  the  old  man,  when  he  could 
say  nothing  else,  repeated  over  and  over  again  the  words 
'  Little  children,  love  one  another.'  When  they  asked  him  to 
say  something  else,  he  said  '  that  was  enough.'  And  the  old 
man  was  right.  It  is  '  enough ' — if  we  can  receive  strength  to 
do  it." 

"  This  greatly  attracts  me,"  said  I.  "  But,  if  your  explana- 
tion is  true,  a  great  deal  depends  upon  the  apostle's  friend,  or 
friends,  who  wrote  down  the  substance  of  his  traditions  and 
arranged  them  as  a  gospel."  "A  great  deal,  as  you  say," 
replied  Clemens.  "I  have  been  informed  that  there  was  a  great 
teacher  near  Ephesus,  who  was  called  preeminently  '  the  Elder ' 
— a  name  given,  I  believe,  by  students  to  their  teacher,  even  in 
some  of  the  schools  of  the  Stoics.  Has  that  ever  fallen  within 
your  experience  ? "  "  Something  of  the  kind,"  I  replied. 
"  I  remember  that  Epictetus  lately  spoke  of  himself  as  '  the 
Elder.'  It  seemed  to  me  a  modest  way  of  saying  '  I  whom  you 
call  your  Teacher,  or  your  Master,  but  I  merely  call  myself  your 
Elder.'  He  said  we  ought  to  be  so  superior  to  the  fear  of  death 
that  his  great  business  ought  to  be  to  keep  us  from  dying  too 
a.  20 


306  CLEMENS  [Chapter  31 

soon,  not  to  make  us  fearless  of  death.  '  This,'  he  said,  '  ought 
to  engage  the  attention  of  the  Elder  sitting  in  this  chair.' 
And  then  he  added,  '  This  ought  to  be  the  great  struggle  of 
your  Teacher  and  Trainer,  if  indeed  you  had  such  a  one ' — as 
though  Elder  and  Teacher  were  milch  the  same  thing." 

'  That,"  said  Clemens,  "  is  exactly  to  the  point.  Well  then, 
you  must  know  that  John  the  son  of  Zebedee  is  commonly 
supposed  to  have  written  not  only  a  gospel  but  also  an  epistle, 
or  perhaps  three  epistles.  The  first  epistle  is  quite  in  the  style 
of  the  gospel,  but  it  mentions  not  '  John,'  nor  even  '  I,'  at  the 
beginning,  but  '  we'  '  That  which  we  have  heard.'  The  two 
other  letters,  which  are  very  short,  begin,  '  The  Elder  to  so-and- 
so.'  These  two  letters  are  in  style  similar  to  that  of  the  first, 
but  some  doubt  exists  as  to  their  authorship,  and  I  have  seen 
it  written,  in  connexion  with  them,  that  the  Wisdom  of  Solomon 
was  not  written  by  Solomon  but  '  by  his  friends  to  do  him 
honour.'  Whoever  wrote  that,  seems  to  have  believed  that  '  the 
Elder  '  mentioned  in  the  two  epistles  was  not  John  the  son  of 
Zebedee  but  one  of  his  '  friends '." 

"  What  was  the  Elder's  name  ?  "  said  I.  "  The  two  epistles 
do  not  mention  it,"  replied  Clemens.  "  But  the  Elder  near 
Ephesus  of  whom  I  spoke  above,  was  called  by  the  same  name 
as  the  son  of  Zebedee,  '  John  ' ;  and  the  tradition  that  mentions 
him  (along  with  another  teacher  named  Aristion)  appears  to 
distinguish  the  two  Johns,  mentioning  both  in  the  same  sentence. 
I  ought  to  add  that  I  mentioned  this  same  Elder  above  as 
defending  Mark  on  the  ground  that  he  was  the  mere  interpreter 
of  Peter.  '  Mark,'  said  the  Elder,  '  made  it  his  single  object  to 
leave  out  nothing  of  the  things  that  he  heard  and  to  say  nothing 
that  was  false  therein.'  Now  you  will  find — I  think  I  have  already 
mentioned  the  fact — that  this  new  gospel  frequently  intervenes, 
where  Luke  omits,  or  alters,  anything  that  is  in  Mark,  so 
as  to  explain  Mark's  obscurity  or  set  forth  Mark's  tradition  in 
different  language.  This  points  to  the  conclusion  that  the 
writer  of  the  fourth  gospel  agreed  with  the  Elder  called  John  in 
his  verdict  on  Mark,  which  is,  in  effect,  '  Not  erroneous  in  fact 
though  imperfect  in  expression.'  My  own  belief  is  that  this 
tradition  about  two  persons  of  the  same  name  is  accurate ;  and 


Chapter  31]      ON  THE  FOURTH  GOSPEL  307 

that,  besides  John  the  Apostle,  there  was  also  the  Elder  John, 
residing  in  or  near  Ephesus  about  the  same  time." 

"  But,"  I  asked,  "  might  not  '  John  the  elder  '  naturally  be 
taken  to  mean  'older  in  age'  as  opposed  to  'John  the  younger'? 
And  is  it  not  strange  that,  in  view  of  the  great  age  of  John  the 
Apostle,  such  a  distinctive  appellation  should  be  given  to  his 
namesake  ?  "  "  Perhaps  it  would  be,"  replied  Clemens.  "  But 
it  is  not  given.  Have  you  not  noticed  that  I  did  not  speak  of 
'  John  the  Elder  '  but  of  '  the  Elder,  John '  ?  The  two  are  quite 
different.  The  former  (at  least  among  Christians)  would 
simply  mean  '  John  the  Presbyter  or  Elder '  as  distinct  from 
'  John  the  Deacon,'  '  John  the  Bishop,'  and  so  on.  But  '  the 
Elder,  John ' — a  phrase  twice  repeated  in  my  tradition — may 
imply  that  the  teacher  was  known  during  his  life  among  his 
pupils  as  '  the  Elder,'  and  that,  after  his  death,  '  John '  was 
added  for  the  sake  of  clearness.  I  believe  it  was  the  custom  to 
describe  the  elders  near  Ephesus  in  this  indefinite  way." 

The  view  here  taken  by  Clemens  has  been  somewhat 
confirmed  of  late  years  by  a  practice  that  I  have  noticed — a 
bad  practice,  I  think — in  the  young  Irenseus.  In  the  course 
of  his  lectures,  when  referring  to  his  authority — instead  of 
mentioning  an  elder  by  name,  Polycarp,  Aristion,  Papias,  John, 
as  the  case  may  be — he  used  such  expressions  as  "  He  that  is 
greater  than  we  are,"  "  The  divine  old  man  and  herald  of  the 
truth,"  "  He  that  is  superior  to  us,"  and  all  these,  as  far  as 
I  could  gather,  about  elders  in  the  province  of  Ephesus. 
Concerning  this  indefiniteness  I  am  in  the  same  mind  now  as 
I  was  when  I  replied  to  Clemens,  "  It  is  very  unfortunate." 

"  It  is,"  said  he,  "  but  I  believe  it  is  fact.  Well  then, 
according  to  my  view,  one  particular  elder  of  these  Johannine 
elders — I  mean  the  elders  in  the  region  of  Ephesus  collected 
round  the  aged  apostle,  John  the  son  of  Zebedee — was  so  much 
superior  to  the  rest  that  he  was  called  preeminently  'the  Elder.' 
If '  the  Elder '  preached  and  wrote  for  John  the  Apostle,  and  if 
the  Elder's  name  was  John,  there  would  be  an  additional  reason 
why  the  writer  of  the  gospel  would  avoid  the  name  John 
(except  in  connexion  with  John  the  Baptist)  throughout  the 
gospel. 

20—2 


308  CLEMENS  [Chapter  31 

"  But  my  conviction  is  that  the  aged  apostle,  besides 
preferring  oral  tradition  to  books  (as  you  will  see  from  the 
last  lines  of  his  work),  shrank  from  putting  himself  forward 
as  the  author  by  the  name  of  '  John,'  and  insisted  that,  if 
he  was  to  be  mentioned  at  all,  it  was  to  be  only  by  the  title, 
'  the  disciple  whom  Jesus  loved.'  John  the  Elder  may  have 
accepted  this  condition  because  he  felt  it  to  express  a  deep 
truth — namely,  that  the  Lord  Jesus  is  best  known  through 
some  one  whom  He  has  loved. 

"  You  know  how  carefully  the  Greeks  distinguish  '  voice  * 
or  '  sound '  from  '  word.'  Well,  this  new  gospel  introduces 
John  the  Baptist  as  testifying  to  Christ  and  saying  that  he  was 
a  mere  voice,  '  I  am  the  voice  of  one  crying  in  the  wilderness, 
Make  straight  the  way  of  the  Lord!  To  the  inferior  and 
preparatory  witness  is  given  a  distinctive  name  'John.'  The 
superior  and  perfected  witness  was  also  called  '  John '  after  the 
flesh ;  but  the  writer  of  the  gospel  preferred  that  the  name 
after  the  flesh  should  be  dropped,  yes,  and  even  his  distinctive 
personality  merged,  as  it  were,  in  the  title,  '  the  disciple  whom 
Jesus  loved'." 

"  But  you  spoke,  above,  about  '  brethren  '  as  perhaps  preach- 
ing John's  gospel  for  him  during  his  decrepitude.  Now  you 
seem  to  incline  to  think  that  only  one  man  wrote  it  ?  "  "  Yes," 
replied  Clemens,  "  I  used  '  brethren '  first,  to  leave  the  question 
open.  Then  I  endeavoured  to  give  reasons  for  thinking  it  was 
one  brother ;  and  this  conclusion  is  supported  by  the  style. 
There  are  some  slight  differences  in  this  gospel  between  the 
words  of  the  Lord  and  the  words  of  the  evangelist,  in  respect  of 
style.  That  is  natural ;  indeed,  one  would  expect  many  more. 
But,  taken  as  a  whole,  the  gospel  does  not  shew  many  styles,  as 
Luke's  does,  but  only  one  style — extending  to  the  words  of  all 
characters  introduced  in  the  book,  so  that  it  is  sometimes  hard 
to  say  where  a  speaker  ceases  to  speak  and  the  evangelist 
begins  to  comment." 

"  But  this  is  surely  astonishing,"  said  I,  "  that  the  author 
should  have  so  little  regard  for  the  words  of  the  Lord  as  not 
to  make  it  absolutely  and  always  clear  where  they  end,  and 
where  his  own  comments,  or  the  words  of  someone  else,  begin." 


Chapter  SI]      ON  THE  FOURTH  GOSPEL  309 

"  It  is  astonishing,"  said  Clemens,  "  but  I  am  disposed  to  think 
that  John  the  Apostle  himself  may  in  some  cases  have  left  his 
friends  in  doubt ;  and  the  Elder — or  whoever  it  was  that  wrote 
the  gospel — may  have  thought  it  best  to  leave  the  ambiguity 
as  he  found  it.  I  pointed  out  to  you  above  how  the  differences 
between  the  three  gospels  had  this  advantage  that  they  forced 
the  reader  to  think  of  the  spirit  rather  than  the  letter  of  the 
words  of  the  Lord.  But  they  also  had  a  danger,  namely,  that 
men  might  be  puzzling  their  brains  as  to  the  differences  of 
scribes  and  reporters  instead  of  refreshing  their  hearts  with  the 
Spirit  of  Christ.  Now  if  the  Elder  had,  so  to  speak,  simply 
added  a  fourth  parallel  column  to  the  three  existing  parallel 
columns  of  the  sayings  of  the  Lord,  the  result  might  have 
been  to  increase  that  danger. 

"  You  may  say  that  if  the  Elder  felt  sure  that  he  had 
received  the  exactly  correct  form  of  the  Lord's  words  from 
John  the  Apostle,  he  ought  to  have  set  them  down  thus, 
whatever  might  be  the  consequences.  But  I  do  not  believe 
that  he  did  feel  sure.  More  probably  he  knew  that  it  was 
impossible,  from  the  old  man's  reminiscences,  to  restore  the 
words  exactly,  as  uttered  by  Jesus,  and  that  it  was  best  not 
to  attempt  a  restoration,  but  to  prefer  paraphrase,  giving 
their  spiritual  essence.  Or  else,  in  cases  where  the  three 
evangelists  differed  seriously  among  themselves,  the  Elder 
might  think  it  best  to  substitute  an  entirely  new  tradition 
on  the  same  subject." 

"  Is  it  not  possible,"  said  I,  "  that  some  part  of  the  gospel 
may  have  been  written  at  an  earlier  date  ?  Are  there  for 
example  any  expressions  that  shew  the  Temple  to  have  been 
still  standing  at  the  time  of  writing  ? "  "I  have  looked 
through  the  volume,  searching  for  such  evidence,"  replied 
Clemens,  "  and  can  find  absolutely  nothing  except  a  phrase 
in  a  rather  obscure  and  corrupt  passage  about  the  existence 
of  a  pool,  an  intermittent  pool,  near  Jerusalem.  Now  Of 
course  a  pool  is  not  destroyed  even  when  a  neighbouring  city 
is  utterly  destroyed  ;  and  parts  of  Jerusalem  continued  to  be 
inhabited,  after  its  capture  by  Titus,  although  the  walls,  and 
a  large  part  of  the  city,  were  razed  to  the  ground.     The  gospel 


310  CLEMENS  [Chapter  31 

says,  'There  is  in  Jerusalem  a  pool... having  five  porches.' 
I  have  not  ascertained  whether  this  pool  is  still  used  (as  the 
narrative  says  it  was  then)  for  medicinal  purposes,  and  whether 
the  'porches  '  still  exist.  I  must  also  confess  my  belief  that  this 
is  one  of  several  narratives  in  which  perhaps  allegory  may  have 
modified  history.  But  in  any  case  the  phrase  '  there  is  a  pool ' 
seems  to  me  to  afford  no  basis,  worth  calling  such,  for  a  hypo- 
thesis of  date.  It  seems  to  me  of  little  more  importance  than 
if  a  writer  said  '  There  is  a  mountain  called  the  Mount  of 
Olives '  or  '  There  is  a  brook  called  Kedron.'  I  could,  if  you 
liked,  discuss  the  passage  with  you  more  fully." 

"  Let  me  rather  ask  you,"  said  I,  "  about  a  matter  that 
greatly  interests  me.  The  words  of  Christ  at  the  last  supper — 
does  John  give  them  as  Mark  and  Matthew  do,  or  as  Luke,, 
or  as  Paul  ? "  "  That  is  a  case,"  said  Clemens,  "  where  John 
does  not  correct  but  substitutes.  He  does  not  give  these 
words  at  all.  But  he  inserts  a  narrative  about  Christ's  washing 
the  feet  of  the  disciples,  and  a  precept  that  the  disciples  are 
to  do  the  same.  The  '  washing  of  feet,'  as  I  could  shew  you 
if  time  allowed,  is  connected  with  sacrifice,  in  Leviticus.  As 
to  the  partaking  of  the  bread  and  wine,  he  says  expressly  that 
the  Saviour  gave  some  of  it  to  Judas — meaning  (I  think)  to 
shew  that  there  was  no  efficacy  for  good  in  the  food,  apart  from 
faith  and  love." 

"  And  what,"  I  asked,  "  as  to  the  words  about  '  forsaking ' 
uttered  on  the  cross,  where  Luke  again  differs  from  Mark  and 
Matthew  ? "  "  Here,"  replied  Clemens,  "  I  do  not  feel  sure 
whether  John  introduces  a  new  saying  altogether,  or  gives 
the  substance  of  the  old  saying  in  Mark.  Certainly  he  does 
not  agree  with  Luke.  And  let  me  add  that  I  have  examined 
a  great  number  of  passages  where  words  of  Mark,  being  obscure 
or  difficult,  are  altered  or  omitted  by  Luke,  and  I  find  that 
in  almost  every  case  John  intervenes  to  support  Mark — only 
expressing  Mark's  meaning  more  clearly  and  spiritually. 

"  Concerning  the  '  forsaking,'  I  suggested  to  you  before  that 
it  is  a  metaphor.  If  so,  the  reality  may  be  expressed  by  other 
metaphors  in  the  scriptures,  such  as  '  I  have  lost  the  light 
of  thy  countenance,'  '  I  am   cast  away    from    the  joy    of  thy 


Chapter  31]      ON  THE  FOURTH  GOSPEL  311 

presence,'  '  My  soul  is  deprived  of  the  fountain  of  thy  light.' 
The  Psalms  say,  '  O  God,  my  God... my  soul  is  athirst  for  thee,' 
and  again,  'My  soul  thirsteth  for  God,... when  shall  I  come 
and  appear  before  God  ? '  The  '  thirst '  implies  absence  from 
God.  It  will  be  satisfied  by  '  coming '  to  God.  Well,  John 
represents  Jesus  as  saying,  '  I  thirst,'  in  accomplishment  of 
'  the  scriptures.'  Then  (as  I  take  it)  the  soldiers  misunder- 
stand this  thirst  as  meaning  simply  literal  thirst.  They  offer 
Christ  vinegar.  Christ  '  took  it,'  says  the  gospel.  Then  He 
said,  '  It  is  finished '  and  '  rested  His  head  ' — that  is  to  say, 
on  the  bosom  of  the  Father,  and  '  delivered  over  His  spirit '." 

"  '  Rested  His  head  '  is  a  strange  expression,"  said  I.  "  It 
is,"  said  Clemens,  "but  it  occurs  in  Matthew  and  Luke  as 
follows,  '  The  Son  of  man  hath  not  where  to  rest  His  head,' 
meaning  '  He  hath  no  home,  no  resting-place,  on  earth,  but 
only  with  the  Father  above.'  One  of  the  ablest  Greek  scholars 
among  the  brethren  assures  me  that  John  also  uses  the  phrase 
to  mean  this;  and  I  believe  it  is  not  used  in  Greek  in  any 
other  sense.  So,  too,  '  delivered  over  His  spirit '  signifies  that 
in  the  supreme  moment  the  '  delivering  over '  of  the  Suffering 
Servant  was  not  passive  but  active.  He  delivered  Himself  over. 
But  I  ought  to  add  that,  in  Aramaic,  the  same  verb  means  (in 
different  forms)  '  finish,'  '  deliver  over,'  and — the  word  used  here 
by  Mark  and  Luke — '  expire '." 

Scaurus  had  said  something  of  this  kind  concerning  the 
three  gospels,  and  had  argued  that  it  increased  the  difficulty  of 
ascertaining  what  Christ  actually  said.  But  I  had  supposed 
that  it  would  not  extend  to  a  gospel  written  in  a  Greek  city 
like  Ephesus  and  so  long  after  the  other  gospels,  when  Greek 
traditions  might  be  expected  to  predominate.  I  was  depressed 
by  this  frank  avowal  on  the  part  of  Clemens,  and  remained  in 
silence  for  a  moment  or  two  weighing  its  consequences. 


CHAPTER   XXXII 

CLEMENS   LENDS   SILANUS   THE   FOURTH   GOSPEL 

Clemens  waited  patiently  for  me  to  resume  our  conversation. 
Soon  it  occurred  to  me  that  I  had  been  unreasonable  in  my 
expectations  if  the  circumstances  were  as  he  had  described 
them.  Suppose  this  new  gospel  to  have  originated  from  the 
reminiscences  of  John  the  son  of  Zebedee,  a  fisherman  of 
Galilee,  and  the  aged  author  of  such  a  book  as  the  Apocalypse. 
How  could  such  traditions,  if  set  down  exactly  as  they  came 
from  the  old  man's  lips,  fail  to  abound  in  Jewish  phrases  and 
thoughts  such  as  I  had  met  with  in  the  apocalyptic  work  ? 
But  these  would  have  made  the  gospel  very  unsuitable  for 
Greeks  and  Romans  and  indeed  for  almost  all  except  Jews. 
It  was  therefore  natural,  and  indeed  almost  necessary,  that 
the  old  man's  recollections,  after  being  imparted  to  his  friends, 
who  would  probably  be  the  elders  of  Ephesus,  should  be  freely 
interpreted,  or  perhaps  paraphrased,  in  a  form  fit  for  all  readers. 
Such  interpreters,  or  such  an  interpreter,  might  not  always  be 
perfectly  successful. 

It  was  foolish  of  me  not  to  have  foreseen  this.  But  still 
I  was  disappointed.  "This,"  said  I,  "adds  a  new  element  of 
uncertainty,  if  John  has  sometimes  preserved  traditions  of 
Christ's  words  translated  from  the  Jewish  tongue."  "  It  does," 
said  Clemens,  "  and  so  does  another  fact  that  applies  both  to 
Greek  and  to  Hebrew  or  Aramaic.  You  know  that,  in  Greek, 
'  he  said '  or  '  used  to  say,'  or  '  it  says'  often  signifies  '  he  meant ' 
or  '  it  means.'  The  same  is  true  in  Hebrew.  Hence  if  an 
evangelist   or    scribe,    after   giving    Christ's    actual   words,   for 


Chapter  32]  THE  FOURTH   GOSPEL  313 

example,  'Do  righteousness,'  were  to  add  'But  he  meant,  Do 
alms ' — because,  in  Hebrew,  '  righteousness '  often  means 
'alms' — it  would  be  possible  to  misinterpret  the  addition  as 
meaning  '  But  he  [also]  said  (or,  used  to  say)  Do  alms,'  thus 
erroneously  creating  a  second  precept.  For  these  and  other 
reasons  I  cannot  feel  sure  that  the  saying  '  I  thirst,'  about 
which  we  were  just  now  conversing,  may  not  be  a  paraphrase 
of  the  Lord's  words  about  being  '  forsaken.'  John  the  son  of 
Zebedee  may  have  known  that  the  latter  words  were  misunder- 
stood from  the  first  by  the  soldiers,  and  also  that  they  were 
misinterpreted  by  some  Christians.  Hence  I  think  the  aged 
apostle  may  have  prayed  for  a  revelation  as  to  the  true 
meaning  of  the  words,  and  it  may  have  been  revealed  to  him, 
'The  Lord  said — that  is,  He  really  said,  His  real  meaning 
was — that  He  "  thirsted  ".'  This  indeed  would  be  a  surprise 
or  paradox  compared  with  what  the  gospel  says  elsewhere. 
But  the  scriptures  are  full  of  such  paradoxes." 

"  But  how  '  elsewhere '  ?  "  said  I.  "  Do  you  mean  that  here 
Christ  feels  thirst  whereas  '  elsewhere '  He  quenches  thirst  ? 
I  do  not  remember  that."  "  I  forgot,"  replied  Clemens,  "  that 
you  had  not  read  the  new  gospel.  That  gospel  represents 
Christ  as  saying  to  a  sinful  woman,  '  Give  me  to  drink,'  and 
afterwards,  to  the  same  woman,  '  He  that  believeth  on  me  shall 
never  thirst,'  and,  after  that,  to  the  Jews,  '  If  any  one  be 
athirst,  let  him  come  unto  me  and  drink.'  This  same  gospel 
says  that  the  '  food  '  of  the  Son  is  to  do  the  will  of  the  Father. 
This,  then,  may  be  described  as  His  meat  and  drink.  If, 
therefore,  He  '  thirsts,'  He  is  athirst  to  do  the  Father's  will, 
so  that  He  hungers  and  thirsts  for  righteousness  in  the  souls 
of  sinful  men  and  women,  thirsting  to  free  them  from  thirst 
by  giving  them  the  water  of  life.  All  through  His  life  He  has 
not  thirsted  because  the  living  water  has  been  passing  freely 
from  the  Father  to  Him  and  from  Him  to  others.  But  now, 
on  the  point  of  death,  the  Giver  of  the  water  of  life  is  Himself 
caused  to  thirst  for  it !  The  Father,  in  His  infinite  love,  causes 
the  Son  Himself  to  thirst  for  that  love !  Instead  of  helping 
others,  the  Son  is  constrained  to  ask  as  it  were  to  be  helped — 
in  order  that  He  may  help  others  better.     This  is  perhaps  the 


314  CLEMENS  LENDS  SLLANUS     [Chapter  32 

deepest  and  most  wonderful  of  all  the  Lord's  deep  sayings — 
'  I  thirst  for  the  righteousness  and  love  of  God,  that  I  and  mine 
may  be  in  the  Father,  and  that  the  Father  may  be  in  me  and 
mine.'  In  the  end,  this  will  be  one  of  the  Lord's  words  that 
'  will  never  pass  away.'  But  what  was  its  effect  at  the  time  ? 
When  Socrates  uttered  his  last  wishes,  Crito  was  at  hand  to 
say,  '  This  shall  be  done.'  But  when  Christ  cried  '  I  thirst/ 
no  friend  was  at  hand  to  satisfy  that  thirst,  and  the  cry  was 
taken  by  the  soldiers  as  meaning,  '  I  thirst  for  a  little  of  your 
sour  wine  ' !  " 

"  It  seems  to  me,"  said  I,  "  that  you  regard  this  gospel,  not 
exactly  as  history,  but  as  history  mingled  with  poetry  or  with 
vision  ? "  "  Not  quite  so,"  said  Clemens.  "  I  should  prefer  to 
say,  '  as  history  interpreted  through  spiritual  insight  or  poetic 
vision.'  I  take  the  historical  fact  to  be  that  there  came  into 
the  world,  as  man,  a  divine  Being,  endowed  with  a  power  of 
drawing  man  and  God  into  one,  by  drawing  the  hearts  of  men 
towards  Himself,  and,  through  Himself,  to  the  Father.  Making 
men  one  with  Himself,  He  also  made  them  one  with  each 
other  in  Himself.  This  is  the  great  historical  fact,  the  fact  of 
facts,  foreordained  before  the  foundation  of  the  world.  This, 
then,  is  the  fact  that  needs  to  be  brought  out  clearly  in  the 
history  of  Christ — not  the  facts  (though  they  are  facts)  that 
the  Pharisees  often  washed  their  hands  and  that  the  daughter 
of  Herodias  danced  before  John  the  Baptist  was  beheaded. 
Well,  then,  put  yourself  in  the  position  of — whoever  it  was 
that  wrote  this  fourth  gospel,  say,  '  the  Elder.'  Imagine  him 
returning  fresh  from  an  interview  with  the  old  man  John,  the 
son  of  Zebedee,  who  will  not  allow  himself  to  be  called  a  '  son 
of  thunder' ." 

"  But  why,"  said  I,  "  should  he  not  have  allowed  himself  to 
be  called  John  the  son  of  Zebedee  ?  And  why  should  he  object 
to  be  called  one  of  the  sons  of  thunder,  if  Jesus  called  him  so  ? " 
"  As  to  the  latter  name,"  replied  Clemens,  "  I  very  much  doubt 
whether  Mark  has  translated  the  term  correctly  ;  I  will  tell  you 
why,  another  time  :  but  assuredly  he  was  not  a  noisy  '  son  of 
thunder '  as  we  should  understand  the  phrase  in  the  west. 

"  As  to  the  former  name,  you  will  find  in  this  gospel  that 


Chapter  32]  THE  FOURTH   GOSPEL  315 

'  Simon  son  of  John '  is  thrice  mentioned  as  Peter's  name,  in 
a  passage  where  Peter  is  rebuked  for  having  denied  his  Master. 
It  is,  so  to  speak,  his  name  after  the  flesh,  his  unregenerate 
name.  '  Peter,'  or  '  stone,'  is  his  regenerate  name.  So, 
'  John  son  of  Zebedee '  would  be  this  disciple's  unregenerate 
name.  The  fourth  gospel  never  uses  that  name  except  once, 
in  the  phrase  '  the  sons  of  Zebedee,'  on  the  same  occasion  on 
which  Peter  is  rebuked  as  '  Simon  son  of  John.'  For  the  most 
part  John  the  son  of  Zebedee  is  described  (in  this  gospel)  as 
'  the  other  disciple  ' — that  is,  the  one  as  yet  unheard,  the  one 
whose  testimony  is  still  to  be  given.  Or  else,  the  name  is  con- 
nected with  Christ's  love — '  the  disciple  that  Jesus  loved.'  He 
feels  that  he  owes  all  that  he  has,  his  very  being,  to  the  fact 
that  Jesus  loved  him,  that  Jesus  made  him  what  he  now  is. 
Moreover  Jesus  gave  him,  by  perpetual  visions  after  His  death, 
an  insight  into  the  meanings  of  His  words  uttered  before  death. 
Hence  he  might  feel  that  Christ's  words,  once  dark  sayings, 
have  now  become  clear.  From  being  old,  they  have  become 
quite  new,  so  as  to  require  an  altogether  new  record." 

"  I  am  not  sure,"  said  I,  "  that  I  understand  your  meaning. 
Do  you  hold  that  the  fourth  gospel  differs  from  the  three 
because  of  the  special  character  of  John  the  son  of  Zebedee, 
or  because  of  the  special  interpretation  of  '  the  Elder '  ? " 
"  Because  of  both,"  said  Clemens.  "  Then,"  said  I,  "  you  think 
that  John  the  son  of  Zebedee,  far  from  being  a  '  son  of  thunder ' 
in  the  sense  in  which  Pericles  might  be  so  called  by  Aristo- 
phanes, was  a  man  of  a  retiring  and  vision -seeing  nature,  who 
merged  himself  in  Christ ;  and  that  his  namesake,  the  Elder, 
believed  that  the  aged  apostle  was  as  it  were  a  mirror,  in 
whom,  and  in  whose  traditions,  it  was  possible  to  discern 
more  of  Christ's  real  expression  than  in  the  ancient  document 
of  Mark." 

"  That  comes  near  the  truth,  I  think,"  replied  Clemens. 
"  And  yet  I  should  be  very  far  from  denying  that  Mark,  and 
the  other  early  gospels,  are  right  in  several  features  apparently 
omitted  by  John — for  example,  Christ's  love  of  '  the  little  ones,' 
and  His  anxiety  lest  they  should  be  caused  to  stumble,  and  His 
insistence  on  the  necessity  of  receiving  the  Kingdom  of  God  as 


316  CLEMENS  LENDS  SILANUS     [Chapter  32 

little  children.  But  it  seems  to  me  that  some  of  these  precepts 
about  '  little  ones '  may  have  been  misunderstood  so  that  the 
brethren  needed  Paul's  warning,  '  Be  not  little  children  in  your 
minds,'  and  again,  '  In  malice  be  babes,  but  in  understanding  be 
men.'  The  root  of  all  these  precepts  was  the  divine  feeling  of 
'  littleness,'  or  '  childhood,'  or  '  sonship.'  This  is  realised  in  the 
Son  of  God  doing  the  will  of  the  Father.  In  order  to  do  that 
will  on  earth,  He  must  be  always  keeping  His  eyes  on  the 
Father  in  heaven.  The  earlier  gospels  represent  Christ  with 
His  eyes  fixed  on  the  '  little  ones '  on  earth,  the  sick,  the 
sorrowful,  the  ignorant,  the  sinful.  That  also  is  true.  The 
new  gospel  appears  to  me  to  attempt  to  shew  how  the  two 
truths  are  combined." 

"  But  you  surely  do  not  mean  to  say,"  I  exclaimed,  "  that 
Jesus,  in  the  new  gospel,  never  makes  mention  of  the  '  little 
ones  '  or  the  '  little  children,'  so  frequently  mentioned  by  the 
earlier  evangelists  !  "  "I  do  indeed,"  replied  Clemens.  "  He 
does  not  make  mention  of  either  term  once,  except  that,  after 
the  resurrection,  seeing  the  disciples  engaged  in  labour  that 
has  lasted  through  the  night  and  effected  nothing,  He  calls  to 
them  and  says  '  Little  children  ! '  But  yet,  although  He  does 
not  elsewhere  use  the  word  '  children,'  He  has  the  thought 
constantly  before  Him.  At  the  beginning  of  the  gospel,  He 
teaches  that  men  must  be  '  born  from  above,'  that  is,  become 
little  children  in  the  eyes  of  God.  Towards  the  end,  He  uses  a 
mother's  word  to  them  ('  teknia'  '  darlings ').  He  also  says,  '  I 
will  not  leave  you  orphans'  and  declares  that  His  disciples  are 
to  be  in  Himself,  the  Son.  Now  to  be  in  the  Son,  means  to  be 
made  '  a  little  child '  in  the  perfect  sense  of  Christ's  meaning." 

"  Perhaps,"  said  I,  "this  explains  why  Paul  seldom  mentions 
the  word  '  little  children  '."  "  '  Seldom  ',"  said  Clemens,  "  is  not 
the  right  word.  Paul  never  mentions  it,  except  in  the  warning 
I  mentioned  above.  Moreover  John,  in  his  epistle,  says, 
'  I  have  written  unto  you  little  children,  because  ye  have  known 
the  Father.'  That  word  'known'  goes  to  the  root  of  the  matter. 
The  essence  of  '  little  childhood,'  in  Christ's  sense,  is  not 
ignorance,  but  knowledge — 'knowing  the  Father.'  And  'knowing 
the  Father '  implies  loving  the  Father,  or  desiring  the  Father. 


Chapter  $2]  THE  FOURTH   GOSPEL  317 

There  are  cases  where  'desire'  may  perhaps  be  well  substituted 
for  '  love,'  so  as  to  indicate  that  kind  of  love  which  leads  one 
onwards  to  the  object  desired.  This  gospel  seems  to  me  to 
attempt  to  express — if  I  may  so  speak  in  accordance  with  the 
prophets  of  Israel — a  desire  of  God  for  man,  producing  a  desire 
of  man  for  God.  The  work  of  the  Son  of  God  is  to  unite  these 
two  desires.  This  is  a  great  mystery,  a  mystery  past  mere 
logic,  that  God,  the  Creator,  should  '  desire.'  Yet  I  accept  it — 
as  it  has  been  expressed  by  a  certain  holy  woman  of  Athens, 
whom  I  verily  believe  to  have  been  inspired  by  God,  '  The  Son 
of  God  chose  to  be  lifted  up  upon  the  tree  of  the  Cross  that  we 
might  receive  the  food  of  angels.  And  what  is  this  food  of 
angels  ?  It  is  the  desire  of  God,  which  draws  to  itself  the 
desire  that  is  in  the  depths  of  the  soul  and  they  make  one 
thing  together'." 

This  saying  was  beyond  me  at  the  time.  But  I  felt  that  it 
contained  truth,  and  that  I  should  grow  into  some  apprehension 
of  it.  And  what  Clemens  had  said,  though  very  strange  at 
first,  had  been  gradually  growing  to  seem  possible  and  even 
reasonable,  if  one  may  use  the  word  concerning  that  which 
accords  with  the  spiritual  Logos — namely,  that  the  Son  of  God, 
being  human,  was  caused  to  feel  forsaken  by  God,  and  to  desire 
God,  and  to  ask  why  this  strange  feeling  of  forsakenness,  this 
unwonted,  unsatisfied  desire,  was  brought  upon  Him  by  the 
Father.  Then,  according  to  the  saying  of  this  holy  woman  of 
Athens,  the  answer  of  the  Father  was,  "  In  receiving  this 
forsakenness  and  this  desire  for  my  presence,  thou  art  receiving 
from  me  my  desire,  which  draws  up  to  me  thy  desire,  and  they 
two  make  one  together." 

But  to  return  to  Clemens,  whom  I  began  to  trust  all  the 
more  because  I  felt  that  he  was  keeping  back  nothing  from  me. 
"  What  I  am  attempting,"  said  he,  "  to  express,  but  expressing 
very  feebly,  is  this.  I  am  trying  to  put  myself  in  the  position 
of  the  Elder,  preaching  the  gospel  for  John  the  son  of  Zebedee 
in  Ephesus,  some  time  after  the  aged  apostle  returned  from  his 
martyrdom  in  Patmos,  when  he  was  quite  decrepit  and  no 
longer  able  to  be  carried  into  the  midst  of  the  congregation,  to 
utter  even  a  few  words.     If  I  came  into  that  old  man's  presence 


318  CLEMENS  LENDS  SILANUS     [Chapter  32 

and  heard  from  him  traditions  about  the  Master,  whom  he  loved 
and  who  loved  him,  I  might  say,  'Here  indeed  is  a  revelation  of 
Christ.  Here  I  feel  Christ  Himself.'  Nevertheless,  on  going  out, 
I  might  find  it  very  hard  to  make  a  chronological  and  consecutive 
history  out  of  his  utterances.  Sometimes  he  might  be  describing 
past  fact ;  sometimes  he  might  be  prophesying  the  future ; 
sometimes  he  might  speak  of  the  past  as  if  still  present — as 
though  he  were  even  now  with  his  Master  in  Cana  or  Jerusalem; 
sometimes  he  might  be  rapt  in  a  present  ecstasy ;  sometimes  he 
might  be  describing  ecstatic  visions  of  the  past ;  sometimes  he 
might  speak  in  poetic  metaphor,  sometimes  in  literal  prose ; 
but  always  he  would  be  penetrated  and  imbued  with  the  love 
of  Christ.  The  result — for  me,  I  confess  it — would  be  that 
I  should  go  out,  thinking,  '  This  is  not  history  in  the  common 
sense  of  the  term.  But  it  is  something,  I  will  not  say  better, 
but  more  needed  by  the  church,  than  a  mere  history  of  facts 
such  as  a  writer  like  Mark  could  have  given  with  fuller 
information.  It  gives  glimpses  into  a  divine  and  human 
personality  that  includes  in  itself  a  real  history — a  history  of 
a  great  invisible  war  of  good  against  evil,  a  great  invisible 
redemption,  God  coming  down  to  earth  to  lift  man  up  to 
heaven '." 

"  But,"  said  I,  "  do  not  Matthew  and  Luke  give  these 
glimpses  in  their  description  of  the  incarnation  ? "  "I  should 
rather  have  said,"  replied  Clemens,  "  that,  instead  of  giving 
glimpses,  they  attempt  to  describe  a  spiritual  fact  in  the 
language  of  material  history.  John,  you  will  find,  does  not 
make  this  attempt.  He  simply  says  that  '  the  Logos  became 
flesh.'  Then  he  introduces  disciples  believing  in  their  Master 
as  Messiah,  undeterred  by  their  supposition  that  He  is  '  the  son 
of  Joseph  '  and  '  from  Nazareth.'  John  assumes  all  through  his 
gospel  that  Jesus  came  down  from  heaven  and  is  to  go  up 
thither  again.  He  refuses  to  recognise  that  this  coming  down 
and  this  going  up  are  impossible  for  the  Son  of  God  incarnate 
as  the  son  of  Joseph.  All  this  appears  to  me  true.  And  in 
many  respects  I  admire  this  little  book  more  than  I  can  find 
time  or  words  to  express.  Yet  I  must  deal  frankly  with  you 
and  confess  that  this  new  gospel,  like  the  rest,  appears  to  me 


Chapter  32]  THE  FOURTH   GOSPEL  319 

inadequate.  What  gospel  would  be  otherwise  ?  All  the  written 
records  of  Christ's  words  and  acts  seem  to  me  to  have,  as  their 
main  use,  the  awakening  in  us  of  a  want  of  something  more, 
a  sense  of  something  insufficient  and  imperfect  and  unjust  to 
the  reality,  so  that  we  cry  vehemently  to  God  for  the  reality, 
the  living  truth,  the  spiritual  light — such  light  as  no  words  or 
books  can  give  us.  The  Spirit  alone  can  bestow  it,  crying  within 
us  Abba,  Father.  Some  interpreters,  however,  seem  in  a  special 
degree  to  have  '  the  mind  of  Christ.'  Among  the  foremost  of 
these  seems  to  me  to  stand  '  the  disciple  whom  Jesus  loved  '." 

"  I  understand,"  said  I,  "  at  least  I  think  I  do,  a  little.  You 
mean  that  the  written  biographies  must  first  make  the  reader 
feel  that  they  are  dead  in  comparison  with  the  living  person. 
Then  the  reader  is  to  feel  drawn  towards  his  ideal  of  the  living 

person,  and  more  and  more  drawn,  so  that  in  the  end ."    "  In 

the  end,"  said  Clemens,  "  assuredly  the  living  Person  will  come 
to  him,  or  draw  him  to  Himself,  if  he  will  but  be  patient  in 
waiting,  walking  according  to  the  light  he  already  has."  On 
this  he  rose  to  depart.  "  One  word  more,"  said  I.  "  You  told 
me  that  John  gives  nearly  a  quarter  of  his  gospel  to  the  doctrine 
of  the  Lord  on  the  night  on  which  He  was  delivered  over. 
Does  he  give  much  space  to  the  period  after  the  resurrec- 
tion ?  And  what  does  he  say  about  that  ?  Does  he  agree  with 
Matthew  and  Luke  ?  " 

"  No,"  said  Clemens,  "  he  differs  greatly,  and,  as  it  appears 
to  me,  deliberately,  intending  to  correct  them.  For  example, 
Matthew  represents  certain  women  as  taking  hold  of  Christ's 
feet,  before  He  sends  them  to  carry  word  to  His  'brethren.' 
John  says  that  Jesus  said  to  Mary  Magdalene,  '  Touch  me  not 
for  I  am  not  yet  ascended  to  my  Father,'  and  then  sends  her  to 
His  '  brethren.'  Luke  says  that  Christ  said  to  all  the  disciples, 
'  Handle  me,'  to  shew  that  He  was  not  a  bodiless  spirit.  John 
says  that  an  offer  of  this  nature  was  made  to  Thomas,  but 
mentions  no  such  offer  to  any  other  disciple.  Luke  says  that 
the  disciples  gave  Jesus  food  and  He  ate.  John  says  that  Jesus 
gave  food  to  the  disciples.  In  all  these  points  John  appears  to 
me  to  be  nearer  than  Matthew  and  Luke  to  the  truth.  And 
sometimes  I  think  that  the  touching  of  Christ's  body  by  the 


320  CLEMENS  LENDS  SI  LAN  US     [Chapter  32 

disciples  in  the  Eucharist,  that  is  to  say,  the  touching  of  the 
bread  and  tasting  of  the  wine  in  our  sacred  meal,  has  been 
taken  by  Luke  (if  not  by  Matthew)  in  a  literal  sense  " — here 
Clemens  agreed  with  Scaurus — "  whereas  John  understood  the 
meaning  correctly.  But  at  the  same  time  I  think  that  the 
Saviour  may  have  been  visibly  present  at  the  Eucharist, 
shewing  the  wounds  in  His  body,  though  it  was  not  a  body  that 
could  be  touched." 

"  Does  it  not  seem  to  you,"  I  asked,  "  that  this  agrees 
better  with  Paul's  descriptions  of  the  manifestations  of  Jesus 
after  death  ? "  "  Yes,"  said  Clemens,  "  and  in  other  respects 
John  seems  to  me  to  be  nearer  the  truth.  For  he  apparently 
represents  Christ  as  having  ascended  to  the  Father  before  He 
could  be  'touched,'  that  is  to  say,  before  His  spiritual  body 
and  blood  could  be  imparted  to  the  disciples.  Moreover, 
whereas  Matthew  places  before  the  Resurrection  a  tradition 
relating  how  Christ  imparts  to  the  disciples  authority  to  bind 
and  to  loose  i.e.  to  forgive  sins,  John  places  it  afterwards.  And 
John  also  describes  Peter  as  plunging  into  the  water  and 
coming  to  Jesus  after  the  Resurrection, — which  seems  to  me 
a  symbol  of  Peter  passing  through  the  waters  of  temptation  to 
the  Saviour  whom  he  had  denied.  But  Matthew  places  it 
before  the  Resurrection  and  takes  it  literally,  as  though  Peter 
tried  to  walk  on  literal  water  and  was  nearly  drowned,  but  for 
the  Lord's  help." 

"  Then,"  said  I,  after  a  long  pause — for  I  was  not  prepared 
to  find  Clemens  so  far  in  agreement  with  Scaurus,  an  unbeliever, 
concerning  the  facts  of  the  Christian  histories — "  you  are  very 
far  indeed  from  saying,  '  I  believe  in  every  word  of  the  gospels 
of  Mark,  Matthew,  and  Luke,  as  being  historically  accurate.' 
Nay,  I  can  hardly  think  you  would  say  that,  even  about  the 
gospel  of  John  ? "  "  Assuredly,"  he  replied,  "  I  would  not 
say1  that  about  any  of  the  gospels.  Indeed,  dear  friend,  do  you 
yourself  think  you  would  venture  to  say  as  much  as  that,  even 
about  the  history  of  your  favourite  Thucydides  ?  And  does  it 
not  seem  to  you  that,  in  any  book  that  describes  the  life  of 
a  man,  the  greater  the  man,  and  the  more  living  the  life,  the 
greater  must  be  the  failure  of  the  book,  and  the  deadness  of  the 


Chapter  32]  THE  FOURTH   GOSPEL  321 

book,  as  compared  with  the  inexpressible  spirit,  not  to  be 
expressed  in  any  book,  no,  not  in  a  universe  of  books  ? " 

Then,  rising,  and  pointing  seaward,  "  Look  !  "  he  said,  "  the 
moon  is  up  already !  Now  indeed  I  must  stay  with  you  no 
longer.  I  have  done  my  best  to  deal  fairly  with  you,  even  to 
the  point  perhaps  of  being  not  quite  fair  to  this  little  book, 
which  I  now  hold  in  my  hand,  and  am  about  to  place  in  yours, 
if  you  desire  it.  But  are  you  sure  that  you  do  still  desire  it  ? 
If  you  do  indeed,  I  shall  most  gladly  lend  it,  and  you  can  return 
it  to  me,  this  time  to-morrow,  at  the  house  of  Justus.  But  be 
honest  with  me  as  I  have  tried  to  be  with  you.  Do  not  take  it 
as  yet  if  you  are  not  prepared  to  read  it  as  a  book  that  comes 
from  the  east  through  a  western  medium ;  a  book  that  mingles, 
so  as  not  always  to  be  clearly  distinguished,  words  of  the  Lord 
with  words  of  the  evangelist,  facts  and  visions,  histories  and 
prophecies,  metaphors  that  may  be  misunderstood,  and  poems 
that  may  be  taken  as  literal  prose.  It  will  make  you  feel 
perhaps  irritated,  certainly  unsatisfied.  Perhaps  you  may  end 
in  saying,  '  I  want  much  more,  I  want  to  see  the  person  to 
whom  this  book  points,  but  whom  no  book  can  make  me  feel.' 
Then  it  will  have  done  you  good.  But  perhaps  you  will  put  it 
aside  and  say,  '  I  want  no  more '." 

He  paused,  and  looked  anxiously  at  me.  "  In  that  case," 
continued  he,  "I  shall  have  done  you  harm.  But  what  say  you  ? 
After  this  warning,  do  you — a  Roman  with  Greek  training, 
a  reader  of  Homer  and  Thucydides — do  you  still  desire  to  see 
this  little  volume  that  is  neither  a  true  poem  nor  a  true  history, 
a  biography  that  hardly  professes  to  draw  the  life  of  Jesus  as 
He  was,  but  only  to  make  us  feel  that  it  must  be  felt,  if  at  all, 
through  '  a  disciple  whom  Jesus  loved  '  ?  "  I  assured  him  that 
I  greatly  desired  to  read  it  and  thanked  him  with  all  my  heart 
for  the  loan,  and  for  the  frankness  of  his  warning.  "  Farewell," 
said  he,  placing  the  book  in  my  hand,  "  my  friend,  my  brother 
— brother  in  the  search  after  truth,  farewell ! "  "  Your  help," 
said  I,  as  he  turned  away  from  me,  "  has  been  more  like  that 
of  a  father."  He  stopped  and  looked  round  at  me  for  a 
moment.  "  Would  indeed,"  said  he,  "  that  it  might  prove  so  ! 
Farewell ! " 

a.  -  21 


CHAPTER   XXXIII 

SCAURUS   ON   THE   FOUETH   GOSPEL 

The  sun  had  set,  and  the  moon  was  well  above  the  sea, 
when,  after  parting  from  Clemens,  I  turned  towards  Nicopolis, 
with  the  new  gospel  in  my  hand.  Unrolling  it,  I  found  twilight 
enough  to  read  the  first  few  lines  while  I  walked  slowly  for 
some  two  or  three  hundred  paces.  Then  I  stood  still  to  read 
better  in  the  fading  light.  When  it  had  quite  faded,  I  sat 
down  repeating  what  I  had  read. 

"  In  the  beginning  was  the  Logos."  Never  shall  I  forget 
the  unexpectedness  of  those  words.  I  had  supposed  that  the 
Christians  altogether  rejected  the  Logos  except  as  meaning 
"  utterance  "  or  "  doctrine."  "  In  the  beginning  "  was,  in  some 
senses,  familiar.  I  had  read  in  Mark,  "  The  beginning  of  the 
gospel  of  Jesus  Christ."  Luke,  too,  had  spoken  of  "  those  who 
were  from  the  beginning  eyewitnesses  and  ministers  of  the 
Logos."  But  how  different  was  Luke's  "  Logos "  and  Luke's 
"  beginning  "  from  this  ! 

I  read  on  :  "  In  the  beginning  was  the  Logos  and  the  Logos 
was  with  God."  What  did  "  with  "  mean  ?  Was  the  Logos 
"  at  home  with  God  "  ?  Or  "  conversing  with  God  "  ?  Or  "  in 
union  with  God  "  ?  Or  did  "  with  "  include  all  these  meanings  ? 
And  what  was  this  Logos  ?  The  next  words  gave  the  answer : 
"  The  Logos  was  God." 

These  words  alone,  contrasted  with  Luke's  preface,  sufficed 
to  indicate  a  difference  between  Luke  and  John,  just  such  as 
Clemens  had  suggested.     Luke  began  with  a  reference  to  many 


Chapter  33]  SOAURUS  ON  THE  FOURTH  GOSPEL   323 

inadequate  "  attempts  "  to  draw  up  a  relation  about  what  he 
called  "  the  facts" — meaning  "facts"  as  distinct  from  fancies — 
"consummated  among  us."  Then,  like  a  careful  compiler,  he 
distinguished  his  authorities,  giving  the  first  place  to  "  eye- 
witnesses" the  second  to  accessories,  or  "  ministers"  These 
were  eyewitnesses,  he  said,  "  from  the  beginning " ;  and  he 
declared  that  he  had  followed  and  traced  their  evidence  from 
the  fountain  head.  John,  like  a  prophet,  went  back  to  a 
"  beginning  "  of  which  there  could  be  no  "  eyewitnesses."  He 
did  not  say,  as  Luke  did,  "  it  seemed  good  to  me "  to  write. 
He  said — as  though  he  had  himself  been  with  Him  who  was 
from  the  beginning — "  The  Logos  was  God." 

Glancing  down  the  column  before  folding  up  the  scroll, 
I  could  barely  read  in  the  fast  expiring  twilight  the  words, 
"  And  the  Logos  became  flesh  and  tabernacled  among  us,  and 
we  beheld  his  glory,  glory  as  of  the  only  begotten  from  the 
Father."  Clemens  had  prepared  me  for  such  words.  As 
I  understood  them,  the  "  glory "  did  not  mean  any  splendour 
of  material  light  or  fire,  such  as  is  mentioned  sometimes  in 
the  theophanies  of  Greek,  Roman,  and  Hebrew  writers,  but 
the  glory  of  God's  constraining  love.  But  I  greatly  desired 
to  study  the  words  in  their  context.  Repeating  them  over  and 
over  again,  as  I  rolled  up  the  book,  I  hurried  homeward.  Star 
after  star  came  out  in  the  darkness ;  and  with  each  new  star 
a  new  suggestion  of  invisible  "  glory  "  shone  on  me  more  clearly. 
"  This  gospel,"  I  said,  "  will  grow  on  me  like  these  visible 
glories.  Night  by  night,  and  day  by  day,  its  words  will 
become  less  strange  and  more  wonderful." 

On  my  arrival,  I  lit  my  lamp,  and  sat  down  at  once, 
preparing  to  continue  my  reading,  when  my  servant  entered 
with  a  letter.  Not  recognising  the  superscription,  I  put  it  on 
one  side.  The  boy  waited  about  in  the  room,  doing  nothing 
that  needed  doing.  I  was  on  the  point  of  dismissing  him, 
when  he  said,  "  Sir,  I  think  it  is  from  Tusculum ;  but  the 
superscription  is  not  in  my  lord's  handwriting."  Looking 
again,  I  saw  that  it  was  in  the  handwriting  of  Marullus, 
Scaurus's  secretary.  Scaurus  usually  superscribed  his  letters 
to  me  with  his  own  hand.     In  alarm  about  his  health,  I  tore 

21—2 


324  SO  A  UR US  [Chapter  33 

the  letter  open,  and  throwing  the  cover  hastily  aside,  glanced 
at  the  beginning.  This  reassured  me.  It  was  from  Scaurus, 
and  in  his  handwriting. 

My  apprehensions  were  soon  banished.  He  had  been  ill,  he 
said,  but  had  now  recovered  after  a  somewhat  severe  attack. 
Then  the  old  war-horse  passed  on  to  his  favourite  battle-field — 
criticism  of  Christian  gospels.  I  was  in  the  act  of  putting 
the  letter  down — for  I  had  had  enough,  for  the  present,  of 
criticizing  the  old  gospels,  and  was  longing  to  study  the  new 
one — when  I  caught  sight  of  the  words  "  fourth  gospel,"  and 
discovered  that  he  had  recently  procured  the  very  book  I  was 
beginning  to  read,  and  that  his  letter  contained  a  discussion 
of  it.  This  was  not  quite  welcome — not,  at  least,  at  the 
moment.  I  wished  to  read  the  gospel  first,  for  myself,  before 
looking  at  Scaurus's  criticism,  which  (I  felt  sure)  would  be 
destructive.  "  Yet,"  thought  I,  "  I  have  heard  Clemens  on 
the  one  side ;  ought  I  not  to  hear  Scaurus  on  the  other  ?  If 
Scaurus  goes  wrong,  ought  I  not  to  be  able  to  find  it  out  ? " 
Scaurus  was  always  fair  and  honest,  and  had  helped  me 
hitherto,  even  when  I  had  not  agreed  with  him.  These 
considerations  made  me  finally  decide  to  read  the  letter  and 
the  gospel  together,  comparing  each  criticism  with  the  passage 
or  subject  criticized,  as  I  went  on. 

"  Let  me  begin,"  wrote  Scaurus,  "  with  the  point  that  will 
most  interest  you.  I  have  accused  Epictetus  of  borrowing  from 
the  Christians.  I  now  assert  that  this  writer — Flaccus  tells 
me  that  the  Christians  say  it  was  John  the  son  of  Zebedee ; 
I  am  sure  they  are  wrong,  but  for  convenience  I  will  call  him 
John — -this  man  John  deliberately  contradicts  Epictetus,  using 
our  friend's  language  but  in  a  different  or  opposite  sense,  or 
with  opposite  conclusions. 

"  For  example,  Epictetus  mocks  at  Agamemnon  for  calling 
himself  a  shepherd  of  the  people.  He  dislikes  the  Homeric 
language  and  says  '  Shepherd  you  are  in  truth ;  for  you  weep, 
as  the  shepherds  do,  when  a  wolf  snatches  away  one  of  their 
sheep!  John  makes  Christ  distinguish  between  the  good 
shepherd  and  the  hireling.  It  is  only  the  hireling  that  fees 
and  lets  the  wolf  snatch  away  the  sheep.     In  John,  Christ  says,. 


Chapter  33]      ON  THE  FOURTH  GOSPEL  325 

'  I  am  the  good  shepherd,'  and  '  The  good  shepherd  lays  down 
his  life  for  the  sheep.' 

"  Again,  Epictetus  declares  that  a  good  man  never  weeps. 
He  blames  Ulysses  in  particular  for  weeping  at  his  separation 
from  Penelope.  John  represents  Christ  as  shedding  tears  in 
sympathy  with  a  woman  weeping  for  her  dead  brother. 

"  Epictetus  constantly  says  that  self-knowledge  is  every- 
thing— herein  (I  must  admit)  going  with  other  philosophers. 
John  represents  Christ  as  saying,  '  This  is  eternal  life,  to  know 
thee,  the  only  true  God  and  Jesus  Christ  whom  thou  hast  sent.' 
It  is  impossible  that  Christ  could  have  uttered  the  last  part 
of  this  sentence  exactly  as  it  stands.  But  that  does  not  weaken 
my  argument,  which  is,  that  John  (alone  of  the  evangelists) 
insists  on  other-knowledge,  not  on  self-knowledge,  as  being  the 
essential  thing.     And  this  he  does  throughout  his  gospel." 

Then  Scaurus  came  to  that  cardinal  doctrine  of  Epictetus 
which  had  caused  Glaucus  and  me  so  many  searchings  of  heart. 
"'  You  know,"  he  said,  "  that  Epictetus  teaches  that  no  good  man 
is  ever  troubled.  It  is  not  John's  custom  to  contradict  what  he 
deems  errors  in  a  formal  and  direct  way.  But  if  he  had  resorted 
for  once  to  direct  methods,  he  could  hardly  have  contradicted 
this  Epictetian  doctrine  more  effectively  than  he  does  in  his 
indirect  dramatic  fashion.  He  represents  Christ  as  thrice 
*  troubled.'  First — on  the  same  occasion  on  which  he  lets  fall 
tears  in  sympathy  with  the  woman  above  mentioned — he  is 
said  to  have  '  troubled  himself.'  Secondly,  on  an  occasion  when 
he  is  (as  I  take  it)  preparing  for  some  act  of  self-sacrifice,  he 
says,  '  Now  is  my  soul  troubled.'  On  a  third  occasion,  when 
announcing  that  he  is  to  be  betrayed  by  one  of  the  Twelve, 
he  is  said  to  have  been  '  troubled  in  spirit.'  I  cannot  doubt 
that  this  description  of  threefold  '  trouble '  is  intended  to 
attack  the  Stoic  doctrine  that  the  wise  and  good  man  is  to 
shrink  from  '  trouble '."  This  convinced  me,  and  it  convinces 
me  still. 

Scaurus  proceeded  to  say,  "  Some  innocent  readers  of  this 
gospel  might  say,  '  Well  at  all  events  John  agrees  with 
Epictetus  in  his  use  of  the  term  Logos.'  And  (no  doubt) 
the  first   three  lines   of  the  gospel   might  suggest  this.     But 


326  SCAURUS  [Chapter  33 

read  on,  and  yon  will  find  the  two  are  in  absolute  opposition. 
The  Logos,  in  John,  instead  of  being  the  philosophic  Logos 
or  reason,  is  really  an  unreasonable  and  hyperbolical  sort  of 
love,  regarded  by  him  as  born  from  God,  and  as  part  of  God's 
personality,  and  as  constituting  unity  in  God's  nature.  This 
Logos  he  regards  as  incarnate  as  a  man  for  the  purpose  of 
uniting  mankind  to  God !  This  doctrine  Epictetus  would 
absolutely  reject. 

"  Later  on,  in  this  gospel,  you  will  find  Christ  saying  to  the 
disciples,  '  Ye  are  clean  on  account  of  the  Logos  that  I  have 
spoken  to  you.'  Now  Epictetus  also  connects  cleanness  with 
the  Logos.  '  It  is  impossible,'  he  says,  '  that  man's  nature 
should  be  altogether  clean,  but  the  Logos  being  received  into 
it,  as  far  as  possible  attempts  to  make  it  cleanly.'  Verbally, 
there  is  an  appearance  of  agreement.  Read  the  two  contexts, 
however,  and  you  will  find  that,  whereas  Epictetus  makes 
'  cleanness '  consist  in  right  convictions,  John  makes  it  consist 
in  a  mystical  doctrine  of  sacrifice,  or  service,  typified  by  the 
Master's  washing  the  feet  of  the  disciples. 

"  I  could  give  you  other  instances  of  the  way  in  which  John 
uses  other  language  of  philosophers  in  a  non-philosophic  sense. 
But  his  use  of  Logos  suffices  for  my  purpose.  It  gives  the 
clue  to  the  whole  gospel.  This  writer  adds  one  more  to  my 
list  of  Christian  retiarii.  The  innocent  reader,  unrolling  the 
book  and  reading  its  first  words,  prepares  himself  for  a  Platonic 
treatise  in  which  he  is  to  '  follow  the  Logos '  in  accordance 
with  Socratic  precept.  Then,  step  by  step,  he  is  lured  on 
into  regions  of  non-logic  and  sentiment,  till  the  net  suddenly 
descends  on  him,  and  he  finds  himself  repeating,  '  the  Logos 
became  flesh  '." 

What  Scaurus  said  interested  me  but  did  not  convince  me 
as  to  John's  motive.  Nor  did  Scaurus  himself  adhere  to  it. 
He  did  not  always  use  the  epithet  "  retiarian "  in  a  bad 
sense.  As  I  have  said  above,  I  had  come  to  believe  that 
right  "  feeling,"  rather  than  right  "  reason,"  may  be  regarded 
as  revealing  the  nature  of  God.  So  I  did  not  feel  that 
John  was  beguiling  his  readers.  But  Scaurus's  criticism 
helped  me  to  recognise   the   extreme  skill  and  tact — as   well 


Chapter  33]      ON  THE  FOURTH  GOSPEL  327 

as  the  terseness,  beauty,  and  solemnity — with  which  the 
evangelist  introduces  the  doctrine  of  the  incarnation.  And 
I  could  not  help  agreeing  with  my  friend's  next  remark,  "  The 
man  that  wrote  the  Apocalypse — though  he,  too,  was  a  prophet 
and  a  poet  in  his  line — could  no  more  have  written  this 
prologue  than  Ennius  could  have  written  the  iEneid." 

After  some  more  observations  on  the  difference  of  style  in 
the  Apocalypse  and  the  Gospel,  he  returned  to  the  criticism 
of  the  latter.  "  Compare,"  he  said,  "  the  prologue  and  the 
conclusion  with  the  rest  of  this  book,  and  you  will  see  that 
there  is  some  mystery  about  its  authorship.  Under  one  style 
it  conveys  two  currents  of  thought.  Sometimes  it  repeats  itself 
like  an  old  man.  Sometimes  it  is  as  brief  and  dark  as  an  oracle- 
Moreover,  some  events — such  as  the  expulsion  of  the  trades- 
people from  the  temple — which  ought  to  come  at  the  end — 
this  writer  places  at  the  beginning.  It  has  occurred  to  me  that 
he  must  have  started  with  the  intention  of  describing  nothing 
but  Christ's  acts  in  Judsea  and  then  changed  his  mind.  Or 
is  it  possible  that  documents  arranged  Hebrew-fashion — last, 
first — have  been  interpreted  Greek-fashion  and  consequently 
reversed  ?  Allegory  is  most  strangely  mixed  with  fact.  There 
is  a  wedding  in  which  water  is  changed  into  wine.  This  is 
allegory.  The  Bride  is  the  Church.  The  water  of  the  law  is 
changed  into  the  wine  of  the  gospel.  After  that,  comes  a 
statement  that  Christ  spoke  about  destroying  the  temple  and 
building  it  in  three  days.  This  is,  according  to  Mark  and 
Matthew,  history.  Luke  took  it  as  not  history  and  left  it  out. 
John  took  it  as  history  and  allegory  and  put  it  in.  But  how 
differently  from  Mark  and  Matthew  !  Look  at  the  passages. 
John  often  does  this.  I  mean,  that  where  Luke  differs  from 
Mark,  John  (who  prefers  Mark)  intervenes  to  support  the 
latter." 

This  general  remark  (about  John's  "preferring  Mark") 
agreed  with  what  Clemens  had  said.  As  for  the  particular 
instance,  I  found  that  Scaurus  was  right.  Mark  and  Matthew 
had  mentioned  a  project  to  "  destroy  the  temple "  as  having 
been  imputed  to  Christ  by  false  witnesses.  Luke  omitted  it. 
John    declared    that    Christ   said   to   the  Jews,  "Destroy  this 


328  SCAURUS  [Chapter  33 

temple ! "    and   that  Christ  "  spoke  about   the   temple    of  his 
body." 

"  If  I  could  believe,"  continued  Scaurus,  "  that  John  the  son 
of  Zebedee,  the  author  of  the  Apocalypse,  had  any  part  in  the 
production  of  this  gospel,  I  should  be  disposed  to  say  that  he 
must  have  contributed  to  it,  not  as  a  scribe,  but  as  a  prophet 
or  seer.  Take,  for  example,  the  description,  recorded  in  this 
gospel  alone,  of  a  flow  of  blood  and  water  from  the  side  of 
Christ  on  the  cross.  I  do  not  believe  for  a  moment  that  this 
was  invented,  any  more  than  Luke's  description  of  the  sweat 
of  blood  on  the  night  before  the  crucifixion.  But  I  should 
explain  the  two  as  resulting  from  two  quite  different  causes, 
differing  as  the  authors  differ.  Luke  was  not  a  seer,  but  a  man 
of  literature,  a  student  of  documents.  He  found  some  narrative 
based  on  the  expression  that  it  was  '  a  night  of  watching  and 
sweat ' — which  you  know  very  well  means  in  Greek  '  watching 
and  anxious  toil.'  The  narrator  took  this  literally.  This  literal 
interpretation  commended  itself  to  Luke,  who  desired  to  connect 
the  death  of  Christ  with  the  Jewish  sacrificial  '  blood  of 
sprinkling '."  I  had  not  noticed  in  Luke  any  tradition  about 
"  sweat."  But  on  referring  to  my  copy  I  found  that,  though 
not  in  the  text,  words  of  this  kind  were  written  in  the  margin. 

Scaurus  went  on  to  shew  in  detail  that  John's  tradition  was 
quite  different  in  origin.  It  was  supported  by  an  asseveration, 
"  He  that  hath  seen  hath  borne  witness,  and  his  witness  is 
true ;  and  he  knoweth  that  he  saith  true  that  ye  also  may 
believe."  As  to  this,  Scaurus  said,  "  Only  a  little  child,  a 
baby  Gaius,  would  use  such  an  asseveration  as  '  Gaius  knows 
that  Gaius  is  telling  the  truth.'  '  He  knoweth '  means  '  HE 
knoweth,'  i.e.  '  The  Lord  knoweth.'  HE  is  often  thus  used  in 
the  epistle  that  forms  a  sort  of  epilogue  to  this  gospel.  The 
prophet,  or  seer,  is  appealing  to  his  Lord  about  the  truth  of 
the  vision  of  blood  and  water,  which  the  Lord  has  revealed  to 
him.  In  the  Bible  '  he  that  seeth  '  is  a  common  phrase  for 
<  the  seer,'  a  man  habitually  seeing  visions.  When  John  came 
back  from  Patmos  and  wrote  the  Apocalypse,  he  might 
naturally  be  called  by  preeminence,  '  he  that  hath  seen.'  Or 
the  phrase  might  apply  to  this  special  vision  :    '  The  seer  (he 


Chapter  33]      ON   THE  FOURTH   GOSPEL  329 

that  hath  seen)  hath  borne  witness  to  the  vision  of  the  stream 
of  blood  and  water,  and  HE  {i.e.  the  Lord)  knoweth  that  his 
witness  is  true.' 

"I  do  not  deny  that  the  vision  is  a  fulfilment  of  a 
prophecy — which  you  may  have  read  in  the  book  of  Zechariah — 
concerning  a  certain  '  fountain  to  cleanse  sin  and  defilement.' 
But  still  I  say  that  it  is  an  honest,  genuine,  vision,  not  an 
invention.  That  it  is  not  a  fact  could  be  proved,  if  needful. 
According  to  the  other  evangelists,  some  women  were  present 
near  the  cross,  but  no  men  are  mentioned.  It  is  extremely 
doubtful  whether  two  streams  of  water  and  blood  could  issue 
from  the  side.  If  they  had  issued,  and  if  John  had  been 
present,  the  soldiers  would  not  have  let  him  stand  near 
enough  to  distinguish  them.  My  copy  of  Matthew,  in  a 
marginal  note,  has  a  similar  tradition,  but  before  the  death,  and 
without  any  order  from  Pilate  to  kill  the  crucified  criminals — 
as  if  a  soldier  would  dare  to  do  this  at  his  own  pleasure  !  A 
book  called  Acts  of  John  (only  recently  circulated,  Flaccus 
tells  me)  contains  other  visions  of  John,  and,  among  them, 
some  revealed  during  the  crucifixion.  The  Acts  is  not  written 
by  the  author  of  this  new  gospel,  and  it  is  very  wild  and 
fanciful ;  but  it  suggests  that  visions  may  have  been  falsely 
ascribed  to  John  because  he  was  known  to  have  really  seen 
visions  (like  laws  falsely  assigned  to  Numa  because  he  was 
supposed  to  have  really  made  laws).  I  take  it  that  John  the 
son  of  Zebedee  may  have  had  a  vision  of  this  kind  about 
a  '  fountain  '  of  blood  and  water.  This  may  have  been  current 
among  the  Christians  for  some  time.  My  annotator  in  Matthew 
seems  to  have  found  it  in  a  wildly  improbable  form.  The  new 
gospel  gives  it  less  improbably." 

Scaurus  then  commented  on  the  contrast  between  what  he 
called  the  "  soaring "  thought  of  the  book  and  its  occasionally 
'  pedestrian  "  or  vernacular  language,  as  when  John  preserves 
the  old  traditional  "  crib  "  for  "  bed  " — a  word  abominated  by 
Atticists  and  avoided  by  Luke.  He  also  commented  on  his 
ambiguities,  his  subtle  plays  on  words,  his  variations  in  the 
forms  of  words,  and  his  veiled  allusions — utterly  unlike  anything 
that  might  be  expected  from  a  fisherman  of  Galilee — declaring 


330  SCA  UR  US  [Chapter  33 

that  the  writer  must  have  been  conversant  with  the  works  of 
Philo  as  well  as  with  the  teaching  of  the  Cynics. 

Then  he  pointed  out  how  Christ  in  this  gospel  never  uses 
the  word  "  cross "  but  always  speaks  of  being  "  lifted  up  " — 
a  phrase,  he  said,  current  among  Jews  as  well  as  Roman  slaves, 
to  mean  "  hanged "  or  "  crucified " :  and  he  gave  it  as  an 
instance  of  the  writer's  irony — and  of  his  recognition  that 
things  low  in  man's  eyes  are  high  in  God's  eyes — that  a. 
criminal's  death  is  called  by  this  writer  "  being  exalted,"  or 
"  being  glorified."  "  Have  you  not  " — he  said — "  heard  your 
servants  ever  say  that  Geta  has  been  '  lifted  up,'  or  that  Syrus. 
has  been  a  rich  man  and  has  '  fed  multitudes ' — meaning  that 
the  poor  wretch  has  been  crucified  and  has  fed  multitudes  of 
crows  with  his  flesh  on  the  cross  ? "  I  had  often  heard  it ; 
and  I  was  astonished  that  such  a  phrase  could  be  used  in  this 
gospel.  Scaurus  continued,  "  He  uses  this  vernacular  talk,  this 
unfeeling  slavish  jest,  to  represent  the  very  highest  truth  of 
Christian  doctrine,  that  the  Redeemer  is  to  be  '  exalted '  by 
suffering  on  the  cross  so  as  to  give  his  flesh  and  blood  to  be 
the  food  of  all  the  world ! " 

According  to  Scaurus,  although  the  style  was  very  different 
indeed  from  that  of  Philo,  and  although  the  writer  knew  (what 
Philo  did  not)  that  the  Septuagint  was  often  erroneous,  yet 
there  was  a  great  likeness  between  John  and  Philo  in  respect 
of  their  symbolism.  Of  this  he  gave  a  great  number  of 
instances.  And  he  also  quoted  allusions  to  Jewish  proverbs 
or  sayings,  one  of  which  I  will  set  down  here,  because  it  has 
given  rise  to  an  error  among  some  of  the  brethren  at  the 
present  day. 

John  represents  the  Jews  as  saying  to  Jesus,  "  Thou  art  not 
yet  fifty  years  old."  Now,  according  to  Scaurus,  this  referred 
to  an  enactment  in  the  Law  that  the  Levites  must  serve  with 
laborious  service  "  up  to  fifty  years  of  age,"  after  which  they 
are  exempt,  so  that  the  saying,  "  Thou  art  not  yet  fifty  "  meant, 
"  Thou  art  but  a  junior  Levite,"  used  as  a  term  of  reproach. 
"This  enactment,"  said  Scaurus,  "was  applied  by  Philo  to 
inferior  spiritual  attainment,  and,  I  have  no  doubt,  was  used 
allusively  by  John.     But  it  might  easily  give  the  impression 


Chapter  SB]      ON   THE  FOURTH  GOSPEL  331 

that  Christ  was  about  fifty  years  old  and  that  the  Jews  meant 
the  saying  literally." 

I  mention  this  because  I  have  myself  heard  the  young 
Irenseus  maintain  that  Christ  was  actually  about  fifty  years 
of  age.  And  he  not  only  quoted  John  in  support  of  this 
assertion  but  declared  that  it  was  also  the  opinion  of  the  elders 
conversant  with  John.  When  I  heard  him,  I  remembered 
what  Scaurus  had  said.  I  have  never  had  any  doubt  that 
Scaurus  was  right.  At  the  same  time  it  seems  to  me  that 
a  Jewish  allusion  of  this  kind  was  extremely  liable  to  be 
misunderstood,  and  that  the  writer  of  this  gospel  would  not 
perhaps  have  set  it  down  if  he  had  not  received  it  from  the 
originator,  John  the  son  of  Zebedee.  This,  however,  is  only 
my  conjecture.  The  error  of  Irenseus  is  a  fact.  And  I  could 
mention  another  of  the  brethren,  who  wrote  a  commentary  on 
John,  and  actually  altered  "fifty"  to  "forty" — I  suppose,  to 
make  sense  !  Both  these  errors  arose  from  not  understanding 
John's  allusion. 

Then  Scaurus  passed  to  the  structure  of  the  work  which, 
he  said,  under  appearance  of  great  simplicity,  and  of  an 
iteration  that  might  sometimes  seem  almost  garrulous  or 
senile,  conformed  to  certain  Jewish  rules  of  twofold  and 
threefold  attestation.  He  shewed  how  the  book — describing 
a  new  creation  of  the  world — begins  and  ends  with  six  days. 
He  also  shewed  how  the  author  takes  pleasure  in  refrains  of 
words,  and  cycles  or  repetitions  of  events.  For  example,  he 
describes  Christ  as  being  baptized  at  the  beginning  in  one 
Bethany  and  anointed  at  the  end  in  another  Bethany.  "  I 
could  give  you,"  he  said,  "  other  instances  of  this  sort  of  thing. 
The  book  is  a  poem,  not  a  history." 

About  this  I  was  not  yet  able  to  judge;  but  I  felt  that  by 
"  poem  "  he  did  not  mean  "  mere  fiction."  For  he  had  already 
admitted  that  the  book  contained  historical  as  well  as  spiritual 
truth.  And  knowing  his  deep  love  of  goodness,  I  was  not 
altogether  surprised  at  what  came  next :  "  O  my  dear  Quintus, 
while  reading  this  extraordinary  book  I  have  been  more  than 
once  tempted  to  say,  '  Along  with  a  great  deal  that  I  do  not 
want,  this  man  almost  gives  me  what  I  do  want — what  I  have 
been  long  desiring.'     I  have  told  you  how,  years  ago,  I  craved 


332   SCAURUS  ON  THE  FOURTH  GOSPEL  [Chapter  33 

for  a  city  of  truth  and  justice.  Well,  I  knew  the  Jews  were 
a  narrow,  bigoted,  and  uncharitable  race.  No  Jewish  philo- 
sopher or  prophet  was  likely  to  be  my  guide  to  such  a  city. 
But  Isaiah  was  an  exception.  And  somehow  I  fancied  that 
this  Jesus  might  be  a  developed  Isaiah,  and  that  his  new  city 
would  have  over  its  gates,  '  Entrance  free.  Not  even  Roman 
patricians  excluded.'  But  what  did  I  find  in  some  of  the 
earliest  gospels  ?  In  effect,  this,  '  None  but  the  lost  sheep  <  >f 
the  House  of  Israel  admitted  here ! ' 

"  Now  comes  this  latest  of  all  the  evangelists  and  says,  '  We 
have  changed  all  that.  The  old  inscription  is  taken  down. 
See  the  new  inscription,  ROOM  FOR  ALL !  We  welcome 
the  universe.  Read  me,  and  see  what  I  say  about  other  sheep, 
and  about  one  flock,  one  shepherd.'  To  all  which  I  reply,  '  Alas, 
my  unknown  but  well-intentioned  friend,  I  see,  too  clearly,  that 
your  friendliness  exceeds  your  judgment.  You  honestly  think 
that  your  gospel  is  so  good  that  it  must  be  true.  You  are  not, 
I  feel  sure,  decoying  me — not  consciously  at  least.  You  are 
the  decoy  bird.  You  have  been  decoyed  yourself  to  decoy 
others.  But  Scaurus  is  too  old  a  bird  to  be  caught  in  such 
a  manifest  net.  Whence  this  new  doctrine  ?  Why  was  it 
not  in  the  earliest  gospels  ? '  I  think  John  would  find  it 
hard  to  answer  that  question  !  If  I  had  come  to  Jesus  the 
Nazarene  and  said  to  him,  '  What  shall  I  do  to  inherit  eternal 
life  ? '  I  doubt  not  that  he  would  have  replied  to  me,  '  Marcus 
yEmilius  Scaurus,  you  doubtless  think  yourself  a  great  person, 
as  much  superior  to  the  low  born  Pontius  Pilate  as  Pilate 
thinks  himself  superior  to  me.  Understand,  then,  that  I  have 
no  message  for  you.  You  know  what  name  I  gave  to  the 
Syrophcenician  woman.     I  give  the  same  to  you '." 

This  passage  was  written  in  very  large  irregular  characters, 
especially  towards  the  close,  quite  unlike  my  old  friend's 
usual  hand.  Then  followed  these  words,  in  his  own  neat 
regular  writing — as  though  he  had  been  interrupted  and 
resumed  his  pen  in  a  cooler  mood — "  Let  me  try  to  be  honest. 
I  may  have  said  rather  more  than  I  meant.  I  meant  this 
fifteen  years  ago.  Perhaps  I  mean  it  still.  But  after  reading 
this  new  gospel,  I  feel  somewhat  less  certain.  Still,  I  fear  that 
the  truth  may  be  as  I  have  said." 


CHAPTER   XXXIV 

THE   LAST   WORDS   OF   SCAURUS 

Had  I  read  to  the  end  of  Scaurus's  letter  I  should  not  have 
been  so  startled  by  this  sudden  outburst.  As  it  was,  I  had  but 
a  faint  perception  of  the  cause.  I  did  not  give  weight  enough 
to  the  indications— slight  to  others  but  they  ought  to  have  been 
clear  to  me — that  the  old  man  was  writing  under  a  great  mental 
strain.  Striving  to  be  fair  to  the  evangelists,  he  desired  also  to 
do  justice  to  himself,  half  repenting  that  he  had  rejected  the 
Saviour,  half  vindicating  the  rejection  on  the  ground  that  truth 
constrained  it.  The  whole  tone  of  his  letter — the  handwriting 
itself,  if  I  had  only  noted  it  more  closely — should  have  made  me 
perceive  that  he  was  passing  rapidly  through  many  transient 
phases,  and  that  this  outburst  of  passionate  indignation — not  with 
Christ  but  with  what  he  supposed  to  be  Mark's  Christ — was  but 
one  of  them.  I  did  not  notice  these  things.  I  was  too  much 
wrapped  up  in  my  own  thoughts,  and  in  imaginations  of  what 
I  could  have  said,  and  how  I  could  have  pleaded  with  him  for 
Christ. 

It  was  now  late,  and  I  could  read  no  more.  I  retired  to 
rest — but  not  at  first  to  peaceful  rest.  Thoughts  and  dreams, 
fancies  and  phantoms,  passed  indistinguishably  before  me : 
Scaurus  and  Clemens  opposing  one  another,  Hernias  mediating, 
while  Epictetus  looked  on;  Troy,  Rome,  Jerusalem,  and  the 
City  of  Truth  and  Justice  coming  down  from  heaven ;  sunset 
and  sunrise  ushered  by  Hesper  and  Phosphor — with  snatches 
of  familiar  utterances  about  "  perceiving,"  "  believing,"  and 
"  deceiving,"    and    mocking  repetitions    of  "  logos,"   "  logos " — 


334  THE  LAST    WORDS  [Chapter  34 

a  confused,  shifting,  and  multitudinous  medley  that  resolved 
itself  at  last  into  one  vast  and  dizzying  whirlpool,  in  which  all 
existence  seemed  endlessly  revolving  round  a  central  abyss, 
when  suddenly  I  heard  "  In  the  beginning  was  the  Logos." 
Then  the  whirlpool  was  drawn  up  to  the  sky  as  though  it 
had  been  a  painted  curtain;  and  we  were  standing  below, 
Scaurus  and  I,  and  Clemens,  and  Epictetus,  and  Hennas — all 
of  us  gazing  upwards  to  an  unspeakable  glory  ascending  and 
descending  between  heaven  and  earth.  Then  I  fell  into  a 
peaceful    sleep. 

Next  morning  I  continued  reading  the  letter.  "  About  the 
marvels  or  miracles  in  this  gospel,"  said  Scaurus,  "  it  is  worth 
noting  that  the  author  mentions  only  seven,  that  is  to  say, 
seven  before  the  resurrection.  This,  I  believe,  is  the  number 
assigned  to  Elijah,  whereas  Elisha  has  fourteen — having  '  a 
double  portion  '  of  Elijah's  spirit.  This  selection  of  seven  is 
one  among  many  indications  that  the  work  uses  Jewish 
symbolism.  I  have  shewn  above  that  the  Jewish  genealogies 
are  sometimes  adapted  in  that  way,  as  with  Matthew's  'fourteen 
generations.'  A  more  important  fact  is  that  this  writer  calls 
the  miracles  '  signs ' — not  '  mighty  works,'  which  is  the  term  in 
the  three  gospels.  This  is  very  interesting  and  I  like  him  for 
it.  He  hates  the  words  '  strong,'  and  '  mighty,'  and  '  mighty 
work.'  For  the  matter  of  that,  so  does  Epictetus.  Both  would 
agree  that  it  is  only  slaves  that  obey  'the  stronger.'i 

"  He  also  dislikes  arithmetical  '  greatness '  and  discussions 
about  '  who  is  the  greatest  ? '  He  prefers  to  lay  stress  on  unity. 
Christians,  he  thinks,  are  '  one  with  the  Son,'  or  they  are  '  in ' 
the  Son,  or  the  Son  is  '  in '  them.  They  are  also  to  be  '  one,'  as 
the  Father  and  the  Son  are  '  one.'  When  men  are  regarded  in 
this  way,  arithmetical  standards  of  greatness — based  on  one's 
income,  or  on  the  amount  of  one's  alms,  or  the  amount  of  one's 
prayers,  or  one's  sufferings,  or  one's  converts — become  ridiculous. 
He  is  quite  right. 

"  He  makes  no  mention  of  '  repentance.'  That,  I  think,  is 
because  he  prefers  such  expressions  as  '  coming  to  God '  or 
'  coming  to  the  light,'  rather  than  mere  '  change  of  mind.'  He 
never  uses  the  noun  '  faith '  or  '  belief.'     Probably  he  found  it 


Chapter  34]  OF  SCAURUS  335 

in  use  as  a  technical  term  among  some  foolish  Christians — 
speaking  of  '  faith  that  moves  mountains  '—who  forgot  to  ask 
'  faith  in  what  ? '  For  the  same  reason,  no  doubt,  he  preferred 
the  word  '  signs '  to  '  mighty  works,'  because  the  former — at  all 
events  while  it  was  a  novel  term — might  make  men  ask  '  signs 
of  what  1 '  The  phrase  '  mighty  work  '  makes  us  ask  nothing. 
Nor  does  a  '  mighty '  work  prove  anything,  except  that  the  doer 
is  '  mighty ' — perhaps  a  giant,  perhaps  a  magician,  perhaps 
a  God.  Who  is  to  decide  ?  Epictetus  says  that  Ceres  and 
Pluto  are  proved  to  be  Gods  because  they  produce  '  bread.'  So 
this  John  represents  Christ  as  producing  bread  and  wine  and 
healing  disease  and  raising  the  dead  ;  and  these  are  '  signs ' 
that  he  is  a  Giver  of  divine  gifts  and  a  Healer,  like  Apollo. 

"In  the  case  of  one  miracle,  omitted  by  Luke,  John 
intervenes  and  gives  the  sign  a  different  aspect — I  mean  the 
one  in  which  Mark  and  Matthew  represent  Christ  as  walking 
•over  the  water  to  the  disciples  in  a  storm  and  as  coming  into 
their  boat.  John  represents  Christ  as  standing  on  the  edge  of 
the  sea  and  as  drawing  the  disciples  safely  to  himself  as  soon 
as  they  cry  out  to  him.  I  have  no  doubt  that  the  story  is  an 
allegory.  But  John  seems  to  me  to  give  it  in  the  nobler,  and 
perhaps  the  earlier,  form. 

"  There  were  probably  multitudes  of  exorcisms  performed 
by  Jesus,  as  I  have  said  to  you  before.  But  John  does  not 
mention  a  single  instance.  Perhaps  he  thought  that  more 
than  enough  had  been  said  about  these  things  by  the  earlier 
evangelists.  On  the  other  hand,  he  describes  the  healing  of 
a  man  born  blind,  and  the  raising  of  a  man  named  Lazarus 
from  the  dead,  after  he  had  lain  in  the  tomb  three  days. 

"  The  nearest  approach  to  this  is  a  story  in  Luke  about 
raising  from  the  coffin  a  young  man,  the  son  of  a  widow. 
I  was  long  ago  inclined  to  think  Luke's  story  allegorical,  and 
a  curious  book,  which  recently  came  into  my  hands,  confirms 
this  view.  It  is  assigned  to  Ezra,  but  was  really  written,  at 
least  in  its  present  form,  about  five  and  twenty  years  ago. 
I  think  it  mixes  Jewish  and  Christian  thought.  Ezra  sees 
a  vision  of  a  woman  sorrowing  for  her  only  child.  She  has  had 
no  son  till  after  '  thirty  years '  of  wedlock.     The  son  grew  up 


336  THE  LAST   WORDS  [Chapter  34 

and  was  to  be  married.  When  he  '  entered  into  his  wedding 
chamber,  he  fell  down  and  died.'  Presently  it  is  explained, 
'The  woman  is  Sion.'  For  'thirty  years'  there  was  'no  offering.' 
After  '  thirty  years,'  Solomon  '  builded  the  city  and  offered 
offerings.'  Then  Jerusalem  was  destroyed.  But  Ezra  sees 
a  new  city  builded,  '  a  large  place.'  It  is  a  strange  mixture. 
David,  -says  the  scripture,  was  a  '  son  of  thirty  years '  when  he 
began  to  reign,  and  he  may  be  supposed  to  have  died  about  the 
time  when  the  Temple  began  to  be  built.  On  the  other  hand 
Christ  also  was  a  '  son  of  thirty  years  '  when  he  began  to  preach 
the  gospel,  and  Christ  might  be  said  to  have  died  at  the  time 
when  he  entered  the  Temple  to  purify  it  (that  is,  as  Jews  might 
say,  '  entered  the  wedding  chamber '). 

"  I  don't  profess  to  explain  all  this  Ezra-allegory.  The  only 
point  worth  noting  is  that  it  describes  events  that  befell  the 
City  and  the  Temple  of  the  Jews  as  though  they  befell  persons 
— a  '  woman '  and  a  deceased  '  son.'  Luke  omits  the  charge 
brought  against  Christ  that  he  threatened  to  destroy  '  the 
temple '  and  build  another.  But  there  can  be  no  doubt  that 
there  was  some  basis  of  fact  for  the  charge.  John  gives  that 
basis,  by  saying  that  Christ  had  in  view  a  '  body,'  meaning 
himself.  This  indicates  that  Luke  was  misled  through  not 
understanding  Jewish  metaphor.  So  here  Luke  may  have  been 
misled  again.  He  found  a  tradition  describing  the  '  raising  up ' 
of  .the  '  widow's  son,'  and  he  took  it  literally."  The  explanation 
thus  suggested  by  Scaurus  seemed  to  me  probable.  It  explained 
why  Luke  omitted  "  the  raising  up  of  the  temple."  It  also 
explained  why  Mark  and  Matthew  omitted  "  the  raising  up  of 
the  widow's  son." 

Scaurus  proceeded  to  the  account  of  the  raising  of  Lazarus. 
"  This  narrative,"  he  said,  "  is  extremely  beautiful  and  may 
perhaps  have  had  some  basis  of  historical  fact.  Luke  speaks  of 
a  Lazarus,  who  dies,  and  is  carried  after  death  into  Abraham's 
bosom.  Some  Christians  might  take  this  Lazarus  for  a  historical 
character.  But  I  do  not  think  any  confusion  arising  from  that 
story  can  have  had  very  much  to  do  with  the  story  in  John. 
The  latter  seems  to  me  to  have  been  thrown  into  allegorical 
form,  so  that  Lazarus  may  represent  humanity,  first,  corrupt, 


Chapter  34]  OF  SCAURUS  337 

mere  'flesh  and  blood ' ;  secondly,  raised  up  by  '  the  help  of  God' 
'  My  God  helps '  is  the  meaning  of  Eliezer  or  Lazarus.  Philo 
sees  in  the  name  these  two  associations.  Also  a  Christian 
writer  named  Barnabas  has  some  curious  traditions  that  may 
bear  on  this  name ;  and  so  have  the  Jews.  Possibly  John  may 
mean — over  and  above  the  man  Lazarus — the  human  race, 
raised  up  to  life  by  the  Messiah  at  the  intercession  of  two 
sisters,  representing  the  Jewish  and  the  Gentile  Churches  of 
the  Christians.  Similarly  I  am  told  that  Christians  describe 
the  two  sisters  Leah  and  Rachel  as  representing  the  Synagogue 
and  the  Church. 

"  For  my  part,    having    spoken    to    many   physicians,    and 
having  investigated  some  instances  of  revivification,  I  have  come 
to  the  conclusion  that  Jesus  possessed  a  remarkable  power  or 
healing  the  sick  and   even  perhaps  of  restoring  life  to  those - 
from    whom    (to    all    appearance)    life   had    recently   departed.. 
Nay,    I    am    dreamer    enough    to    go    beyond   anything    that 
physicians  would  allow,  and  to  suppose  that  Christ  may  have- 
had  a  certain  power  of  what  I  called  above  teliatreia,  '  healing 
at  a  distance,'  producing  a  corresponding  telepatheia,  or  '  being 
healed  at   a  distance.'     But  there   is    against    this  particular 
narrative  the  objection — not  to  be  overcome  except  by  very  strong 
evidence  indeed — that  the  other  evangelists  say  nothing  about 
this  stupendous  miracle.     Having  in  view  Christ's  precept  to 
the  disciples, '  Raise  the  dead,'  I  see  how  easily  honest  Christians 
might  be  led   to  take   metaphor  for  fact.     It  is    much    more 
easy  to  explain  how  the  narratives  of  the  widow's  son  and  of 
Lazarus  may  have   arisen  from  misunderstanding  in  the  two 
latest  gospels,   than   to   explain  how,  though  true,  they  were 
omitted   in  the    two  earliest." 

Upon  this,  I  read  the  story  of  the  raising  of  Lazarus  two  or 
three  times  over.  It  appeared  to  me  certain  that  the  writer  of 
the  gospel  must  have  taken  the  story  as  literally  true.  But 
I  saw  how  easy  it  was  to  mistake  metaphor  for  literal  meaning 
in  stories  of  this  kind.  I  was  also  impressed  by  what  Scaurus 
said  concerning  the  precept,  "  Raise  the  dead,"  which  is 
recorded  by  Matthew.  No  other  writer  mentions  this ;  and 
I  had  assumed,  at  the  time  of  which  I  am  now  speaking,  that 
a.  9,2 


338  THE  LAST    WORDS  [Chapter  34 

it  was  meant  spiritually,  and  that  Luke  omitted  it  because 
he  thought  that  it  might  be  misunderstood  as  having  a  literal 
meaning.  And  here  I  may  say,  writing  forty-five  years  after- 
wards, that  I  have  lately  spoken  to  several  of  the  brethren 
about  this  precept.  Some  leave  it  out  of  their  text  of  Matthew. 
Some  refuse  to  say  anything  about  it.  But  I  have  not  as  yet 
found  a  single  brother  ready  to  admit  that  Jesus  must  have 
used  it,  or  even  probably  used  it,  metaphorically. 

All  this  I  did  not  know  at  the  time  when  I  was  reading 
Scaurus's  letter ;  but  I  recognised  the  force  of  his  arguments 
and  was  constrained  to  sympathize  with  his  disappointment 
when  he  proceeded  as  follows  :  "  O,  my  dearest  Quintus,  what 
earthen  vessels,  what  mere  potsherds,  these  gospel  writers  are, 
even  the  best  of  them,  in  comparison  with  the  man  whom  they 
fail  to  set  before  us  !  Yes,  even  this  John,  whom  I  regard  as 
by  far  the  greatest  of  them  all,  even  he  is  a  failure — but  in  his 
case,  perhaps,  from  want  of  knowledge,  not  from  want  of  insight. 
As  for  the  others,  why  do  they  not  trust  to  the  greatness  of 
their  subject,  the  man  Jesus  Christ  ?  Why  can  they  not 
believe  that  the  Logos  might  become  incarnate  as  a  man,  that 
is  to  say,  a  real  man — what  Jesus  himself  calls  '  son  of  man  '  ? 
Why  do  they  lay  so  much  stress  on  mere  '  mighty  works,'  some 
of  which,  even  if  they  could  be  proved  to  have  happened,  would 
give  us  little  insight  into  the  real  greatness  of  their  Master, 
whom  they  wish  us  to  worship  ? 

"  For  my  part,  I  take  such  stories  as  those  of  the  destruction 
of  the  swine  and  the  withering  of  the  fig-tree,  to  be  allegories 
misinterpreted  as  facts.  But  even  if  I  were  shown  to  be  wrong, 
they  would  not  prove  to  me  that  I  was  right  in  worshipping 
the  doer  of  such  wonders.  If  I  can  judge  myself  aright, 
I,  Marcus  ^Emilius  Scaurus,  am  quite  prone  enough  already 
to  worship  the  God  of  the  Thunderbolts  and  the  God  of  War. 
These  Jews  might  have  taught  me  better.  They  have,  to 
some  extent — especially  this  fourth  writer.  But  how  much 
more  from  the  first  might  have  been  effected  if,  from  the  first, 
they  had  recognised  the  truth  taught  in  the  legend  of  Elijah — 
that  the  Lord  is  '  not  in  the  earthquake  '  but  '  in  the  still 
small  voice  '  ! " 


Chapter  M]  OF  SOAURUS  339 

At  this  point,  Scaurus's  handwriting  became  irregular  and 
sometimes  not  easy  to  read.  "  I  have  been  interrupted  again," 
he  said.  "  This  time,  it  was  Flaccus.  Now  I  take  up  my  pen 
positively  for  the  last  time,  wondering  why  I  take  it  up,  and 
why  I  ramble  on  in  this  maundering  fashion.  I  think  it  is 
because  I  feel  as  though  you  and  I  were  dreaming  together, 
and  I  am  loth  to  leave  off.  There  is  no  one  else  in  the  world 
with  whom  I  can  thus  dream  in  partnership.  This  shall  really 
be  my  last  dreaming. 

"  Do  not  be  vexed  with  me,  Quintus,  for  charging  Flaccus 
not  to  send  you  a  copy  of  this  little  book.  He  told  me  that  for 
some  time  past  you  had  been  interested  in  these  subjects,  and 
that,  if  he  could  find  another  copy,  he  intended  to  forward  it 
to  you.  The  rascal  added  something  about  '  mere  literary 
interest.'  I  suspect  him  of  Christian  tendencies.  Your  recent 
letters  have  reassured  me.  But  I  cannot  help  feeling  that 
there  have  been  moments  with  you,  as  with  me,  when  the 
'  interest '  was  more  than  '  merely  literary.'  I  had  half  thought 
of  sending  you  my  copy.  But  I  shall  not.  The  subject  is  too 
fascinating — like  chess ;  and,  like  chess,  it  leads  to  nothing. 
I  was  glad  to  hear — in  your  last  letter,  I  think — that  you  were 
now  giving  your  mind  to  practical  affairs.  If  you  decide  on 
the  army  at  once,  there  is  likely  to  be  work  soon  in  Illyria. 

"  Things  also  look  cloudy,  not  black  yet  but  cloudy,  in  Syria. 
In  spite  of  the  thrashing  they  got  from  the  late  Emperor,  these 
Jews  have  not  yet  learned  their  lesson.  They  are  as  stubborn 
and  obstinate  as  Hannibal  made  us  out  to  be : — 

'  Gens  quae  cremato  forth  ab  Ilio 
Jactata  Tuscis  aequoribus  sacra 
Natosque  maturosque  patres 
Pertulit  Ausonias  ad  urbes, 
Duris  ut  ilex  tonsa  bipennibus 
Nigrae  feraci  frondis  in  Algido 
Per  damna,  per  caedes,  ab  ipso 
Ducit  opes  animumque  ferro.' 

"  How  every  word  of  this  would  suit  the  Jews  !  I  mean  in 
their  past  history.  According  to  my  news  (from  a  friend  of 
Rufus  the  new  Governor)  it  may  suit  their  future,  too  ;  and  we 

22—2 


340  THE   LAST    WORDS  [Chapter  34 

may  have  to  take  Jerusalem  again.  Then — to  quote  Isaiah 
and  Horace  in  one — there  will  be  another  '  lopping  of  the 
boughs '  in  the  future.  But  I  mean  their  past.  I  wonder 
whether  you  understand  what  I  am  dreaming  of.  Probably 
not,  and  it  is  not  worth  explaining.  Nor  indeed  am  I  well 
enough  to  explain  clearly  and  briefly.  I  have  been  going  in 
too  much  for  books  of  late,  and  feel  at  this  moment  (to  quote 
an  old  friend)  '  dead  from  the  waist  down.'  However — as  I  am 
not  going  to  write  about  these  Jews  again — I  will  scribble  my 
last  thoughts  to  the  end. 

"  How  strange  it  would  have  been,  then,  my  dearest  Quintus, 
if  these  Jews — I  mean  the  Jewish  Jews  not  the  Christian 
Jews — how  strange,  I  say,  it  would  have  been,  looked  at  as 
a  poem,  if  these  fellows  had  fulfilled  Hannibal's  prophecy. 
They  went  some  way  towards  it.  Though  their  Ilium  has  been 
twice  burned  they  are  still  alive,  numerous,  and  active.  Their 
"  ilex '  has  had  '  pruning '  enough,  heaven  knows,  from  the 
Roman  axe  of  late,  and  from  the  Assyrian  and  Babylonian 
axes  in  days  gone  by.  But  they  want  pruning  still.  Witness 
a  score  of  eastern  cities,  where  they  have  lately  been  massacring 
myriads  of  Greeks — not,  I  own,  without  having  seen  myriads 
of  their  countrymen  massacred  first. 

"  Their  disadvantage  has  been  that  they  have  never  made  a 
new  start  as  JEneas  did,  so  as  to  turn  old  Troy  into  new  Rome. 
iEneas  could  take  his  gods  with  him.  The  Jews  could  not. 
The  only  place  where  they  have  done  anything  of  the  kind  is 
Alexandria.  There  they  have  an  imitation  temple — not  a  rival 
temple  of  course,  but  an  imitation — and  there  they  are  at  their 
best.  But  elsewhere  the  stubborn  creatures — from  Gaul  to 
Euphrates — recognise  no  home  or  sacred  ground  except  in 
a  little  corner  of  Syria.  Providence  has  done  its  best  to  detach 
them  from  this  servitude  by  using  Titus  to  destroy  their  temple 
a  second  time,  and  by  leaving  their  sacred  utensils  no  existence 
except  upon  Titus's  arch.  But  still  they  are  servants  of  the 
genius  loci,  so  to  speak.  As  they  cannot  serve  the  temple, 
they  serve  the  ground  on  which  it  stands  and  the  traditions 
that  have  collected  round  it. 

"  The  Christian  Jews  have  immense  advantages.     They  are 


Chapter^]  OF  SCAURUS  341 

like  the  Trojan  Romans.  The  Christians  have  left  their  Troy 
(that  is  to  say,  carnal  Jerusalem)  in  order  to  dwell  in  Rome 
(that  is  to  say,  heavenly  Jerusalem)  the  city  of  truth,  the  city 
of  justice,  the  city  of  freedom  and  universal  brotherhood. 
Their  sacred  fire  is  the  Holy  Spirit.  Their  sacred  vessels  are 
human  beings.  Every  great  city  in  Asia  contains  their  '  holy 
things.'  To  celebrate  their  feast  on  the  body  and  blood  of  their 
Saviour,  a  table  of  pine  wood,  a  platter,  and  a  mug,  supply 
them  with  all  they  need  !  A  little  bread,  and  wine  mingled 
with  water,  have  taken  the  place  of  Solomon's  hecatombs ! 
Surely  this  is  the  very  perfection  of  religious  simplicity — an 
ambassador  in  a  plain  Roman  toga  amid  the  courtiers  of 
a  Ptolemy  ! 

"  Again,  when  we  Romans  call  on  Jupiter,  offering  our 
costliest  white  oxen,  who  supposes  that  Jupiter  descends  ? 
But  when  these  Christians  meet,  without  a  denarius  in  their 
pockets,  three  in  a  room,  they  tell  you  that  Christ  is  with  them. 
What  is  more,  many  of  them  believe  it !  What  is  most,  some 
of  them  act  as  though  they  believed  it !  I  have  called  their 
city  a  city  of  dreams,  and  I  repeat  it.  But,  mark  you,  a  city 
of  dreams  has  one  great  advantage  over  a  city  of  bricks  or 
stone.  You  can  smash  the  latter.  But  neither  Nero,  nor 
Trajan,  has  been  able  to  smash  the  former;  and  I  begin  to 
doubt  whether  it  could  be  smashed  by  Hadrian,  if  he  tried. 
At  the  present  rate,  I  should  not  be  surprised  if,  in  the  next 
hundred  years,  the  empire  from  the  Euphrates  to  Britain  were 
dotted  with  colonies  of  Christ. 

"  '  Let  arms  of  war  give  place  to  the  gown  of  peace  ! '  So 
sang  the  lawyer  of  Arpinum  when  he  tried  his  hand  at  poetry. 
He  was  better  advised,  in  his  lawyer's  gown,  when  he  confessed 
'  Laws  are  silent  among  arms.'  But  there  is  a  third  power 
more  powerful  than  either  laws  or  arms.  You  won't  believe 
me  when  I  tell  you  its  name.  It  is  '  dreams.'  Yes,  '  Among 
dreams,'  says  Scaurus — and  he  knows,  having  been  himself 
a  dreamer,  in  his  day,  besides  being  a  bit  of  a  soldier  and 
a  good  deal  of  a  looker  on — '  Among  dreams,  arms  are  vain.' 
I  don't  say  they  are  'silent.'  That  is  their  contemptible 
feature — they  are  not '  silent.'     But  they  are  impotent.     Mars 


342  THE  LAST    WORDS  [Chapter  34 

against  dreams  may  make  what  fuss  and  bustle  he  pleases, 
clash,  clang,  thunder,  like  the  brazen  wheels  of  Salmoneus. 
But  his  thundering  will  effect  nothing.  Nor  will  his  steel. 
'  Frustra  diverberet  umbras.' 

"  When  I  say  '  dreams,'  do  not  take  me  to  mean  that  the 
personality  of  a  great  prophet  is  a  '  dream.'  But  the  notion 
that  an  empire  can  be  spun  out  of  it,  or  built  on  it,  seems  to 
me  a  dream.  Yet  there  is  something  attractive  in  it — I  mean 
in  the  conception  of  a  soul  like  a  vast  magnet,  attracting  and 
magnetizing  a  group  of  souls,  of  which  each  in  turn  becomes 
a  new  magnet,  magnetizing  a  group  of  its  own,  and  so  on,  and 
so  on,  till  the  whole  empire  (or  family)  of  souls  is  bound 
together  by  this  magnetic  law.  Yes,  '  law '  one  may  call  it, 
not  a  magical  incantation,  but  a  natural  law,  the  law  of  the 
spiritual  magnet.  It  is  all  very  strange.  Yet,  given  the 
personality,  it  is  possible. 

"  For  it  all  comes  to  this,  a  personality — nothing  more. 
There  is  nothing  new  in  what  the  Christians  call  their  Testa- 
ment or  Covenant — nothing  new  at  all,  from  the  Jewish  point 
of  view,  except  that  the  new  Jews  have  cast  aside  a  great  deal 
of  the  Covenant  of  the  old  Jews.  I  sometimes  think  the 
Christian  leader  was  really  what  Socrates  calls  himself,  a 
'  cosmian '  or  '  cosmopolite,'  going  back,  behind  the  law  of 
Moses,  to  a  beginning  of  things  before  unclean  food  was 
Levitically  forbidden  and  before  free  divorce  was  Levitically 
sanctioned.  His  two  fundamental  rules  are  the  same,  both  for 
Jews  and  for  Christians,  '  Love  God,'  '  Love  man.' 

"  The  difference  is,  that  to  the  Christians  (so  they  assert) 
Christ  has  introduced  a  new  kind  of  love,  a  new  power  of  love. 
He  has  not  only  breathed  it  into  his  disciples  but  also  given 
them  (they  say)  the  power  of  breathing  it  into  others.  The 
question  is,  Have  they  this  power  ?  I  am  obliged  to  admit — 
from  what  I  hear — that  a  good  many  of  them  appear  to  me  to 
have  it.  This  is  the  real  miracle.  This,  if  true,  is  sunlight. 
All  the  so-called  miracles  of  their  books,  even  if  true,  are  the 
merest,  palest  moonlight  compared  with  this. 

"  This  dreamer  seems  to  me  to  have  planned  an  imperial 
peace  throughout  his  cosmopolis,  to  be  brought  about,  not  by 


Chapter  34]  OF  SCAURUS  343 

threats  based  on  the  power  of  inflicting  death,  not  by  edicts 
on  stone  backed  by  punishments  with  steel,  but  by  means 
of  a  spirit  that  is  to  creep  into  our  hearts,  dethrone  our 
intellects,  drag  us  in  triumph  behind  his  chariot  wheels, 
making  us  fanatically  happy  when  we  are  in  love  with  him — 
and  with  all  the  weak,  the  foolish,  the  suffering,  and  the 
oppressed — and  making  us  unreasonably  unhappy,  foolishly 
sad  and  sick  at  heart,  when  we  resist  a  blind  affection  for 
others  and  when  we  consult  our  own  interests  and  our  own 
pleasures,  following  the  path  of  prudent  wisdom. 

"  In  one  respect,  this  work  of  John's  has  proved  me  a  false 
prophet.  I  prophesied  that  East  and  West  could  not  unite  in 
one  religion.  They  have  united — on  paper,  and  in  theory— 
in  this  little  book.  But  I  also  said  that,  if  they  did  unite,  their 
offspring  would  be  a  portent.  To  that  I  adhere.  If  John's 
form  of  the  Christian  superstition  were  to  overspread  the  world, 
do  you  seriously  suppose  that  it  would  remain  in  his  form  ? 
No,  it  is  impossible  but  that  the  spiritual  will  be  despiritualised, 
The  superstition  of  pure  spirit  will  probably  become  a  super- 
stition of  unmixed  matter.  The  life  will  be  narrowed  to  the 
Body  and  the  Blood.  The  Body  and  the  Blood  will  be 
narrowed  down  still  further  to  the  Bread  and  the  Wine.  Then 
their  hyperbolical  self-sacrifice  will  give  way  to  hyperbolical 
malignity.  How  these  Christians  will,  in  due  time,  hate  one 
another  !  How  they  will  wall  in,  and  imprison,  the  Spirit  that 
bloweth  whither  it  listeth !  How  they  will  war  against  one 
another  for  their  Prince  of  Peace  !  How  they  will  philosophize 
and  hair-split  about  the  Father  and  the  Son,  tearing  one 
another  in  pieces  for  the  unity  of  the  one  God  !  And  yet,  and 
yet,  even  if  all  my  prophecies  of  the  worst  come  to  pass,  might 
not  a  Christian  philosopher  of  those  far-off  days  say  that  the 
'  worst  is  often  the  corruption  of  the  best,'  and  that  his  Prophet 
had  discovered  a  '  best,'  buried  for  a  time  beneath  all  this 
rubbish  and  litter,  but  destined  to  emerge  and  grow  into  the 
tree  of  a  great  spiritual  empire  ?  It  may  be  so.  I  do  not 
deny  that  there  may  be  such  a  '  best.'     But  it  is  not  for  me. 

"  I  give  it  up.  The  problem  of  the  Sphinx  is  too  hard  for 
my  brains.     Perhaps  Destiny  knows  its  own  mind,  and  it  may 


.;SM  THE  LAST    WORDS  [Chapter  34 

be  a  good  mind — not  my  mind,  but  perhaps  an  infinitely  better 
and  wiser.  Perhaps  this  Christian  superstition  is  intended  to 
found  an  empire  after  the  Spirit,  an  empire  of  '  the  Son  of 
man,'  like,  but  unlike,  the  empires  of  Egypt,  Babylon,  Greece, 
Rome.  Daniel  dreamed  this  for  Jewish  Jews.  It  may  come 
true  for  Christian  Jews.  If  it  should  come,  what  a  tyranny  it 
will  be — for  those,  at  least,  who  are  tyrants  at  heart  !  The  yoke 
of  the  Imperium  Romanian  will  be  nothing  to  the  yoke  of  the 
Imperium  Romanochristianum.  We  Romans  despotize  over 
bodies :  the  Roman  Christians  will  despotize  over  souls. 
'  Debellare  superbos  '  is  only  one  of  our  arts.  '  Pacis  imponere 
mores'  is  a  second.  '  Parcere  subjectis '  is  a  third.  These 
Roman  Christians  will  know  how  to  crush,  but  not  how  to 
spare.  What  saints  it  will  create — for  the  spiritual !  What 
devils — for  the  carnal !  And  which  will  win  in  the  end,  saint 
or  devil  ?  I  incline,  with  oscillation,  to  the  saint.  But  I  am 
sick  and  tired  of  inclinations  and  oscillations ;  I  want  to  know. 
I  know  that  the  sun  shines.  I  want  to  know — just  at  this 
moment  I  feel  very  near  knowing,  nearer  than  I  ever  have 
been  in  my  whole  life — that  the  world  has  been  made  all  of 
a  piece,  and  is  being  shaped  by  the  Maker  to  one  end,  and 
that,  the  best. 

"  O,  my  dear  Silanus,  I  am  weary  of  these  books.  I  must 
go  out  into  the  fresh  air  and  see  the  sun.  Books,  books,  books  ! 
I  agree  with  Epictetus,  who  thinks  that  Chrysippus  wrote  some 
two  hundred  too  many.  I  agree  with  John,  too,  who  says,  in 
effect,  that  not  all  the  pens  and  paper  in  the  world  could  draw 
the  portrait  of  his  master — or  rather  his  friend,  for  '  friend,' 
not  '  servant,'  is  the  title  at  the  end  of  the  book.  That  reminds 
me,  by  the  way,  of  a  beautiful  thought  in  this  gospel — I  mean 
that  the  author  is  '  the  disciple  whom  Jesus  loved  ' !  As  much 
as  to  say,  '  Do  you  want  to  know  Jesus  ?  Then  get  a  friend  of 
his — some  one  whom  Jesus  loved — to  introduce  you.  There 
is  no  other  way.  Not  an  impartial  biographer — he  is  of  no 
use — but  a,  friend.'  And  I  think  he  means  to  hint,  at  the  close 
of  his  little  book,  that  there  always  will  be,  '  tarrying,'  till  Jesus 
comes  again,  a  'disciple  whom  Jesus  loved,'  to  represent  him 
to  the  world. 


Chapter  34,]  OFSCAURUS  345 

"  That  is  most  true.  That  is  real  insight,  the  insight  of  an 
artist  and  a  prophet  in  one.  I  can  forgive  John  almost  all  his 
faults — ambiguities,  artificialities,  statements  of  non-fact  as 
fact,  I  can  condone  them  all  as  orientalisms  or  Alexandrian 
Judaisms — for  the  sake  of  this  one  truth,  that  we  cannot  know 
the  greatest  of  the  departed  great,  save  through  a  human 
being  that  has  loved  him  and  has  been  loved  by  him.  This  is 
the  thought  with  which  John  ends  and  with  which  I  will  end. 
I  wish  to  part  friends  with  him.  Indeed  at  this  moment,  for 
his  sake,  I  could  almost  call  myself  an  amateur  Christian.  But 
then  I  pull  myself  together  and  recognise  that  it  only  proves 
what  I  have  said  to  you  a  score  of  times,  and  now  repeat  for 
the  last  time,  that  whereas  we  Romans  are  only  coarse,  clumsy, 
brutal  Samnites,  these  Christians  are  the  wiliest,  kindest,  and 
gentlest  of  retiarii. 

"  And  that  makes  me  think  of  old  Hermas.  You  remember 
I  told  you  of  our  last  interview.  It  comes  back  to  me  while 
I  am  finishing  this  last  dream.  I  always  felt  there  was  more 
in  his  face  than  I  could  understand.  Now,  after  reading  this 
gospel,  I  seem,  just  at  this  moment,  to  understand  his  face  for 
the  first  time,  quite  well.  The  old  man  had  in  him  the  love  of 
'  the  disciple  whom  Jesus  loved.'  It  had  been  breathed  into 
his  being.  This  it  was  that  half  fascinated  me,  shining  out  of 
his  eyes  as  he  silently  left  the  room  on  that  afternoon — to  me 
unforgettable — when  I  dismissed  him.  What  if  I  had  not 
dismissed  him  ?     What  if ." 

These  words  were  the  last  of  a  column.  They  were  the  last 
that  Scaurus  was  ever  to  write.  The  next  column  was  blank. 
At  first  I  thought  he  had  been  again  interrupted  and  had 
forgotten  to  finish  the  letter.  But  then  I  recollected  with 
alarm  that,  quite  contrary  to  custom,  the  cover  had  not  been 
directed  in  his  handwriting.  I  had  thrown  it  hastily  aside  on 
the  previous  evening.  Now  I  searched  for  it  and  my  alarm 
was  speedily  justified.  Inside  was  a  short  and  hurried  note 
from  Marullus  saying  that  my  dear  old  friend  had  been  struck 
suddenly  with  paralysis  in  the  act  of  writing  to  me.  A 
messenger  (said  Marullus)  who  happened  to  be  at  that 
moment  waiting  to  carry  Scaurus's  letter,  would  carry  at  the 


346  THE  LAST  WORDS  OF  SCAURUS    [Chapter  34 

same  time  Marullus's  note.  On  the  following  day,  whatever 
might  happen,  he  would  send  a  second  letter  by  a  special 
messenger. 

It  was  now  drawing  towards  evening.  I  hastened  out  to 
ascertain  how  soon  a  vessel,  available  for  my  purpose,  would  be 
leaving  Nicopolis.  Finding  that  I  could  start  on  the  following 
day  at  noon,  I  determined  not  to  wait  for  Marullus's  second 
letter  but  to  make  preparations  for  an  immediate  return. 


CHAPTER   XXXV 

CLEMENS   ON   THE   SACRIFICE   OF   CHRIST 

Scaurus,  and  not  the  fourth  gospel,  nor  any  other  book, 
person,  or  thing,  was  uppermost  in  my  mind,  when,  late  in  the 
evening,  I  hurried  to  the  house  of  Justus  to  keep  my  engage- 
ment with  Clemens.  Two  or  three  hours  ago,  I  had  been  longing 
for  this  interview.  Now  I  would  willingly  have  avoided  it. 
I  seemed  to  see  my  old  friend  speechless  on  his  bed  in  Tusculum, 
saying  to  me  with  his  eyes,  "  Do  not  desert  me.  Do  not  go 
over  to  the  enemy."  Not  till  later  did  I  feel  that  Scaurus 
could  not  have  called  Clemens  "  enemy." 

"  I  am  tired  of  books  " — so  Scaurus  had  written.  So  was  I, 
quite  tired.  I  wanted  to  think,  not  talk  ;  or,  if  to  talk,  to  talk 
about  Scaurus,  not  about  gospels  or  books  of  any  sort.  "  How 
glad  should  I  be  to  exchange  this  interview  for  five  minutes' 
chat  with  old  Marullus  ! " — that  was  my  thought  when  I  found 
myself,  more  than  an  hour  after  sunset,  sitting  face  to  face  with 
Clemens. 

I  returned  him  the  book — so  precious  to  me  yesterday — 
with  some  words  of  formal  thanks.  What  should  I  say  next  ? 
About  the  one  subject  that  filled  all  my  thoughts  I  felt  no 
desire  to  talk  to  a  stranger — "  yes "  (I  said  to  myself)  "  a 
stranger  to  Scaurus,  though  a  friend,  a  real  friend,  to  me." 
Yet  something  had  to  be  said.  I  began  by  excusing  myself, 
at  an  absurd  length,  for  being  late.  Clemens  acknowledged 
the  excuse  with  a  slight  inclination  of  the  head.  His  face  was 
questioning  me,  and  his  eyes  were  reading  me.  But  he  left  it 
to  me   to  speak,  and  to  open  our  interview  if  I  desired  one. 


348  CLEMENS  [Chapter  35 

Then  I  blundered  out  some  absurd  stuff — in  the  way  of 
humour ! — about  the  possibility  that  he  might  suppose  me  to 
have  forgotten  my  engagement. 

Clemens  did  not  seem  in  the  least  ruffled  or  even  surprised. 
After  a  pause,  in  which  the  questioning  look  gave  place  to 
one  of  sympathy,  he  said,  very  slowly  and  gently,  "  No,  my 
dear  friend,  I  could  not  suppose  that.  Nor  could  you  think 
that  I  could  suppose  that.  Some  trouble,  I  perceive,  has 
befallen  you.  You  felt  bound  to  keep  your  engagement  with 
me,  and  you  have  done  so.  You  did  right.  But  you  will  not 
do  right  if  you  stay  longer,  out  of  courtesy  to  me,  when  your 
conscience  tells  you  that  it  would  be  better  for  you  to  be 
alone." 

When  I  entered  the  room,  I  had  distinctly  preferred  to  be 
alone.  Even  now,  I  so  far  desired  solitude  that  I  murmured 
some  words  of  thanks  for  his  consideration,  and  rose  to  go. 
But  something  kept  me  standing  irresolute.  I  do  not  know 
what  it  was  at  first.  Certainly  it  was  not  any  thought  about 
the  new  gospel.  Perhaps  it  was  my  new  friend's  directness, 
truthfulness  and  insight,  in  discerning  and  brushing  aside  my 
pretence,  and  his  kind  and  courteous  way  of  forgiving  it,  that 
made  me  suddenly  feel,  "  This  is  a  man  that  Scaurus  would 
have  liked  to  know.  This  is  a  man  that  Scaurus  would  like  me 
to  know.  He  tells  me  to  go  if  I  feel  that  it  will  be  '  better '  for 
me  to  be  alone.     But  will  it  be  '  better '  ?  " 

It  may  have  been  this  that  checked  my  going.  I  do  not 
know  for  certain.  But  I  do  know  what  decided  me  to  stay. 
I  suddenly  saw  Scaurus.  He  was  in  the  library  at  Tusculum, 
with  his  back  to  me,  at  his  writing-table,  but  not  writing, 
half  risen  from  his  seat,  and  looking  towards  the  door,  which 
was  slowly  closing.  As  it  closed,  he  turned  and  looked  round 
at  me,  with  such  a  sadness  as  I  had  never  seen  on  his  face  except 
once  or  twice,  when  I  had  gone  wrong  and  he  was  striving  to 
lead  me  right.  I  knew  what  he  meant,  as  well  as  if  he  had  said 
the  words  aloud,  "  Hennas  is  gone,  and  I  shall  repent  it  through 
my  life.  Do  not  let  your  Hennas  go ! "  I  resumed  my  seat 
and  tried  to  collect  my  thoughts. 

It  seemed  to  me  now  only  right  and  natural  that  I  should 


Chapter  S5]    ON  THE  SACRIFICE   OF  CHRIST       349 

tell  Clemens  of  Scaurus's  illness  and  of  my  intention  to  leave 
Nicopolis  on  the  morrow.  He  took  my  departure  as  a  matter 
of  course.  Could  he  be  of  service,  he  asked,  in  making  arrange- 
ments for  my  sailing  ?  I  assured  him  that  everything  had 
been  done  that  was  needful  for  that  day.  Then  I  told  him  how 
Scaurus  had  urged  me  to  join  Epictetus's  classes,  and  that  he 
wished  me  afterwards  to  join  the  army.  Finding  him  interested 
and  sympathetic,  I  gave  him  an  account  of  my  old  friend's  life, 
his  affection  for  me,  his  love  of  research,  his  literary  pursuits, 
and  his  study  of  Jewish  as  well  as  Greek  literature,  not 
omitting  his  early  reading  of  the  gospels,  nor  forgetting  to  tell 
him  about  old  Hermas  the  Christian,  his  librarian.  He  listened 
with  more  and  more  attention.  "  I  am  not  surprised,"  he  said, 
"  that  you  love  so  good  a  friend  and  so  honest  a  man." 

Presently   I    said,    "  I    wonder   whether   it   would   be    still 

possible  and  right  for  me  to  join  the  army,  if "  and  there 

I  stopped.  "  Dear  friend,"  said  he,  "  if  that  unmentioned  thing 
were  to  come  to  pass,  trust  me  that  nothing  would  be  possible 
or  right  for  you  against  which  your  conscience  cried  out,  and 
nothing  wrong  that  your  conscience  permitted.  Some  might 
condemn  your  decision — whether  to  join  the  army  or  not  to 
join.  But  you  would  not  be  bound  by  their  condemnation. 
Your  conscience  would  receive  guidance.  Those  who  follow  on 
that  unmentioned  path  do  not  follow  with  an  '  if.'  Should  that 
path  be  taken,  it  would  be,  not  on  conditions,  but  because  of 
a  friendly  constraint.  Let  us  not  speak  of  that  now.  Tell  me 
more  about  your  friend."  "  I  have  his  letter  here,"  said  I,  "and 
would  read  it  if  you  cared  to  hear  it.  But  it  deals  freely,  very 
freely,  with  the  gospels.  Once,  at  least,  I  think  my  old  friend 
is  unfair  to  them.  It  would  perhaps  pain  you."  "It  would 
not  pain  but  please  me,"  said  he.  "I  always  like  to  hear  honest, 
able,  and  educated  men  speak  their  minds  freely  about  our 
Christian  writings.  The  pity  of  it  is,  that  we  have  hitherto 
had  few  such  critics.  If  we  had  had  them  when  the  gospels  were 
first  written,  perhaps  they  would  have  contained  fewer  things 
that  may  in  after  times  cause  some  of  the  faithful  to  stumble." 
So  I  began  to  read  Scaurus's  letter  to  him.  At  first 
I  omitted  portions  here  and   there,  either  because  they  were 


350  CLEMENS  [Chapter  35 

personal,  or  because  they  might  hurt  the  feelings  of  a  Christian. 
Presently,  halting  in  the  middle  of  a  bitter  saying,  I  finished 
the  sentence  in  my  own  way — somewhat  awkwardly.  Clemens 
smiled.  "  Pardon  me,"  said  he,  "  for  interrupting  you.  I  am 
not  a  master  of  styles.  Yet,  if  I  mistake  not,  those  last 
words  did  not  come  from  vEmilius  Scaurus.  If  I  am  wrong, 
forgive  me.  But  if  I  am  right  in  thinking  that  you  altered 
something  to  spare  my  feelings,  then  let  me  assure  you  again 
that  it  would  trouble  me  that  you  should  do  this,  even  though 
the  criticism  came  from  the  bitterest  enemy  of  the  Christians. 
As  it  is,  I  have  learned  already  to  esteem  your  friend  as  a 
genuine  lover  of  truth,  and  one  from  whom  I  have  even  now 
learned  some  things  and  hope  to  learn  more.  The  more  you 
will  allow  me  to  learn  (without  giving  pain  to  yourself)  the 
better  shall  I  be  pleased."  "  Well  then,"  said  I,  "  we  will  talk 
about  the  letter  afterwards.  For  the  present,  I  will  read  on 
steadily  without  omitting  a  single  word,  unless  you  stop  me." 
And  so  I  did.  Clemens  listened  intently,  without  stopping  me, 
only  he  now  and  then,  especially  towards  the  end,  expressed 
assent  or  interest,  or  sympathy,  by  a  slight  movement  or 
inarticulate  murmur ;  till  we  came  to  the  last  words,  the 
uncompleted  sentence,  suggesting  what  might  have  happened 
on  one  memorable  afternoon,  if  he  had  not  dismissed  a  "disciple 
whom  Jesus  loved."  This  I  did  not  read,  but  I  placed  the 
letter  before  him.  "  These,"  said  I,  "  were  his  last  words,  the 
very  last." 

He  read  them,  and  turned  away  his  face.  I  thought,  and 
rightly,  that  he  was  feeling  with  me.  But  I  am  sure  now  that 
he  was  also  praying  for  me,  and  for  Scaurus  too.  For  a  time 
we  sat  in  silence.  I  was  the  first  to  break  it,  expressing  my 
sorrow  that  the  story  of  the  Syrophoenician  woman  should  have 
led  Scaurus  to  form  what  seemed  to  me  a  wrong  conception  of 
Christ.  "  But  you  see,"  replied  Clemens,  "he  revolted  from  that 
wrong  conception,  or  was  ready  to  revolt  from  it,  at  the  last 
moment  of  all.  And  I  agree  with  you  that,  if  he  had  approached 
that  story  with  the  preparation  that  Paul  gave  you,  he  would 
have  regarded  it  as  you  did.  I  am  sure  Christ  was  never  cruel 
to  anyone.     If  He  really  uttered  those  seemingly  cruel  words 


Chapter  35]     ON  THE  SACRIFICE  OF   CHRIST       351 

to  that  sorrowful  woman,  He  was  cruel  in  word,  only  that  He 
might  be  the  more  kind  and  the  more  helpful  in  deed.  He 
intended  this  gospel  to  be  preached  to  all  the  world,  though 
He  waited  for  the  Father  to  teach  Him  the  time  and  the 
manner  of  the  preaching  to  the  Gentiles." 

"Is  there  anything  in  John's  gospel,"  said  I,  "that  resembles 
this  story  ? "  "  There  is  a  dialogue,"  he  replied,  "  between 
Christ  and  a  Samaritan  woman,  who  is  described  as  living  in 
sin,  just  as  you  have  suggested  concerning  the  Syrophcenician. 
And  Christ  chides  her,  but  with  great  gentleness,  and  finally 
reveals  Himself  to  her  as  Messiah.  It  has  occurred  to  me  that 
this  is  one  of  the  many  instances  where  John  steps  in  to  remove 
a  misunderstanding  liable  to  be  caused  by  some  passage  in 
Mark,  which  Luke  omits." 

Then  he  added,  "  I  will  talk  with  you,  if  you  please,  about 
the  letter  or  the  gospel  or  anything  else,  if  you  really  desire  it. 
But  if  you  would  wish  to  be  alone  with  your  own  thoughts  (as 
you  well  might  wish),  do  not,  I  beseech  you,  stay  longer. 
You  have  laid  me  under  a  debt  by  introducing  me  to  a  genuine 
lover  of  truth  on  whom  the  Light  of  the  World  has  dawned, 
even  though  it  may  not  be  given  to  him  to  see  the  full  day. 
May  he  find  peace  !  " 

I  was  quite  willing  to  stay  now.  "  Do  you  agree  with 
Scaurus,"  said  I,  "  that  John  alludes  in  parts  of  his  gospel  to 
the  teaching  of  Epictetus  ?  "  "I  feel  sure,"  replied  Clemens, 
"  that  John  alludes  to  the  doctrine  of  the  Stoics  and  Cynics. 
Now  Epictetus  has  been,  for  some  years  past,  most  widely 
known  among  all  classes,  rich,  poor — yes,  and  slaves,  too — as  the 
representative  of  the  Cynic  doctrine.  So  that  your  friend  seems 
to  me  likely  to  be  right."  "  Scaurus,"  said  I,  "  mentions  self- 
knowledge  and  God-knowledge  as  if  the  former  were  inculcated 
by  Epictetus,  the  latter  by  John,  in  opposition.  Is  that  so,  in 
your  opinion?"  "Not  quite,"  said  he,  "but  nearly  so.  All  the 
Stoics  lay  stress,  as  you  know,  on  self-knowledge.  Epictetus, 
perhaps  more  than  most,  teaches  men  to  look  for  God  within 
themselves.  Luke  also — alone  of  the  evangelists — has  one 
tradition  of  this  kind,  '  The  kingdom  of  God  is  within  you.' 
John,  feeling  that  many  were  prevented  thereby  from  looking 


352  CLEMENS  [Chapter  35 

for  God  out  of  themselves,  laid  stress  on  the  latter.  That  is  to 
say,  John  paraphrased  Christ's  teaching  about  '  the  Father  in 
heaven '  in  such  a  form  that  it  should  be  more  familiar  to  the 
Greeks,  urging  them  to  'know  God.'  So  Paul  is  said  by  Luke 
to  have  taken  as  his  text  on  the  Areopagus  an  inscription  TO 
THE  UNKNOWN  GOD;  and  he  tried  to  teach  the  philosophers 
that  God  could  be  '  known.'  But  neither  Paul  nor  John  would 
deny  that  self-knowledge,  and  the  consciousness  of  our  own  sins,. 
and  the  sense  of  our  own  burdens,  are  necessary  if  we  are  to 
have  our  burdens  lightened,  our  sins  forgiven,  and  our  souls 
brought  into  the  light  of  the  glory  of  the  knowledge  of  God." 

"  And  as  to  the  '  troubling '  of  Christ,"  said  I,  "  mentioned 
thrice  in  the  fourth  gospel,  do  you  agree  with  Scaurus  that 
there,  too,  the  author  is  alluding  to  Epictetus?"  "I  do  indeed," 
said  he.  "  I  did  so  from  the  first  moment  when  I  read  the  new 
gospel.  Man  is  born  to  trouble  as  the  sparks  fly  upward.  We 
are  born  to  be  lifted  up  to  heaven  by  troubles.  But  trouble  of 
soul  does  not  mean  confusion  or  turbidness  of  soul.  Trouble  is 
on  the  surface,  peace  is  beneath,  peace  that  is  deeper  than  the 
deepest  of  depths.  In  the  world,  says  the  Saviour,  we  shall 
have  tribulation,  and  tribulation  brings  trouble  with  it.  But  He 
bids  us  be  of  good  cheer  amidst  and  beneath  all  our  trouble, 
because  He  has  overcome  the  world.  Perhaps,  however,  John 
emphasizes  this  doctrine  of  '  trouble,'  not  out  of  hostility  to  the 
Cynic  philosophy,  but  rather  out  of  a  friendly  feeling  to  it,  as. 
much  as  to  say,  '  This  notion  of  yours,  that  you  must  avoid 
"trouble,"  is  the  weak  point  in  your  teaching.  It  tends  to  lower 
you  to  the  level  of  the  Epicureans.  And  it  gives  you  a  false  and 
unworthy  notion  of  God,  who  is  our  Father,  and  who  bears  the 
troubles  of  His  children '." 

From  that  we  passed  to  other  matters,  most  of  which  I  shall 
omit — details  about  the  fourth  gospel,  about  its  authorship  and 
about  Scaurus's  view,  that  it  blended  history  with  allegory. 
On  some  of  these  he  thought  that  Scaurus  might  be  correct. 
But  he  was  doubtful  as  to  the  possibility  of  explaining,  as 
Scaurus  had  suggested,  the  different  order  in  which  the 
evangelists  place  the  purification  of  the  Temple.  "  For,"  said 
he,  "it  seems  to  me  scarcely  possible  that,  within  the  time  from 


Chapter  35]    ON  THE  SACRIFICE  OF  CHRIST       353 

Tiberius  to  Trajan,  an  evangelist  should  be  led  to  change  the 
order  of  such  an  event  simply  because  of  its  order  in  some  one 
book — because  it  was  placed  at  what  Gentiles  might  take  to  be 
the  beginning  (being  really  the  end)  of  a  Hebrew  gospel."  At 
the  same  time  Clemens  admitted  that  there  was  an  astonishing 
difference  of  opinion  among  Christians  as  to  the  period  of 
Christ's  preaching,  "  and,"  said  he,  "  instead  of  quoting  state- 
ments or  referring  to  historical  facts,  they  often  quote  pro- 
phecies, or  argue  from  the  fitness  of  things.  It  is  all  very 
unsatisfactory." 

Of  this  I  afterwards  had  experience.  For,  after  I  had 
become  a  Christian,  I  found  that  some,  even  though  they 
received  the  gospel  of  John,  argued  that  Christ  could  only  have 
preached  for  one  year — because  Isaiah  contains  the  words,  "  to 
preach  the  acceptable  year  of  the  Lord  "  !  On  the  other  hand, 
the  young  Irenseus,  bitterly  attacking  this  view,  maintained 
that  Christ  must  have  preached  till  His  fortieth  or  fiftieth 
year !  As  I  have  said  above,  I  have  actually  heard  him 
supporting  this  extraordinary  supposition  by  appealing  to  the 
authority  of  the  elders  that  had  seen  John  ! 

Clemens  therefore  admitted  that  he  could  not  feel  certain 
as  to  the  order  of  events  in  John's  gospel.  It  might  be,  he 
said,  that  two  events,  mentioned  in  different  parts  of  the  gospel 
as  taking  place  at,  or  before,  a  feast,  and  apparently  at,  or 
before,  different  feasts,  might  really  have  taken  place  at,  or 
before,  the  same  feast.  Among  several  details  in  which  he 
agreed  with  Scaurus,  one  was  the  narrative  of  the  Walking  on 
the  Water.  Concerning  this  he  said  that,  according  to  John, 
the  walking  was  not  really  on  the  water,  any  more  than  a  city 
is  really  "  on  a  sea  "  when  it  is  said  to  lie  "  on  the  iEgean  "  or 
"  on  the  Hadriatic."  He  also  agreed  with  Scaurus  as  to  the 
story  about  Peter  plunging  into  the  water  to  come  to  Christ, 
which  might  (he  thought)  explain  Matthew's  story,  according 
to  which  Christ  first  walked  on  the  water,  and  then  Peter 
attempted  to  walk  on  it  towards  the  Lord,  but  failed.  Both 
these,  he  thought,  might  be  metaphorical. 

As  regards  what  Scaurus  had  said  concerning  the  ambiguity 
of  many   words   and  phrases   in    the   fourth   gospel,   Clemens 
a.  23 


354  CLEMENS  [Chapter  35 

admitted  it.  "  But,"  said  he,  "  my  conviction  is  that  the  writer 
did  not  use  them  thus  for  the  mere  purpose  of  being  am- 
biguous, like  the  oracle  '  Aio  te,  zEacida.'  I  do  not  deny  that 
he  plays  upon  words,  but  so  does  Isaiah.  He  also  repeats  and 
varies  phrases,  but  so  do  all  the  prophecies  and  the  Psalms. 
Similarly  he  is  often  dark  and  obscure.  But  are  there  not 
obscurities  also  in  ^Eschylus,  and  Pindar,  and  in  the  deepest 
thoughts  of  Plato  ?  And  whence  do  these  arise  ?  Not  surely 
from  a  desire  to  be  ambiguous,  but  from  the  lawful  feeling  of 
a  great  poet,  prompted  to  use  strange  language,  and  sometimes 
dark  language,  that  is  put  into  his  mind  to  express  strange 
and  dark  thoughts.  So  it  is  with  John,  at  least  in  my 
judgment.  And  as  to  other  parts,  which  seem  artificial — as, 
for  example,  when  he  repeats  things  twice  or  thrice  in  a  kind 
of  refrain — I  should  plead  in  the  same  way  that  a  poet,  even 
when  most  inspired,  follows  rules.  iEschylus  and  Pindar  do 
not  break  the  laws  of  Greek  metre.  Well,  Jewish  tradition 
also  has  rules  of  its  own,  quite  different  from  ours,  and 
I  believe  John  observes  them." 

Then  he  referred  to  John's  use  of  the  word  "  logos." 
Scaurus  had  described  John  as  leading  on  his  readers  from 
logos  to  pathos.  Clemens  admitted  that  this  was  true  if  pathos 
meant  the  affections  and  included  that  one  affection  in 
particular  which  we  call  "  love."  And  he  justified  John's 
course.  "  For,"  said  he,  "  if  the  Logos  is  related  to  God  as 
word  is  to  thought,  must  we  not  say  that  '  word '  should  include 
every  expression  of  thought,  and  that  the  perfect  Logos  must 
be  the  expression  of  the  perfect  thought  ?  And  what  thought 
can  be  more  perfect  than  that  which  Scaurus  himself  suggests, 
in  his  similitude  of  a  magnet  attracting  all  things  to  itself  and 
causing  each  attracted  object  to  attract  others,  so  that  the 
multitudinous  world  is  made  one  harmony  ?  And  in  the  region 
of  the  affections,  what  is  this  but  the  highest  kind  of  love, 
as  your  friend  himself  testifies,  binding  men  together  in 
families,  cities,  nations,  and  destined,  in  the  end,  to  unite  all 
as  citizens  of  the  city  of  the  universe,  or  children  in  the  family 
of  God?" 

Then  Clemens  added,  without  any  questioning  from   me, 


Chapter  35]     ON   THE  SACRIFICE   OF   CHRIST       355 

that  he  entirely  concurred  with  Scaurus  in  his  feeling  that  the 
miracles  or  signs  of  Christ,  however  far  they  might  be  literally 
true,  would  not  be  so  convincing  a  proof  of  His  greatness  as 
the  power  of  His  Spirit  to  infuse  peace  and  power,  yes,  and 
wisdom,  and  harmony  of  thought,  into  the  minds  of  those  who 
received  Him.  "  I  do  not  mean  to  assert,"  said  he,  "  that  all 
who  receive  Christ  remain  steadfast  in  Him.  Many  have 
fallen  away  through  subtle  temptations  of  the  world  and  the 
flesh ;  some  few,  under  persecution  and  the  open  cruelty  of  the 
devil.  But  as  to  these  last  I  have  noted  this.  Strong  men 
have  fallen  while  boasting  '  We  can  endure  every  torture.' 
Weak  women  have  stood  fast  confessing  '  We  can  do  nothing. 
Our  strength  is  in  the  Lord.  Our  Saviour  will  stand  fast  for 
us.'  Yes,  that  has  been  the  great  miracle,  to  see  slaves  changed 
to  nobles,  peasants  and  clowns  to  orators,  fools  become  wise, 
and  human  beasts,  not  worthy  to  be  called  men — ape-like  and 
wolf-like  creatures — transmuted  into  citizens  of  the  kingdom 
of  God. 

"  And  that  reminds  me  of  what  I  specially  admired  in  your 
friend — 'the  sagacity  with  which  he  penetrated  to  the  root  of 
the  matter,  declaring  that  our  religion  is,  in  reality,  no  religion 
at  all  (not  at  least  what  augurs  or  priests  would  call  a  religion) 
but  only  union  with  a  personality,  a  Lord  and  Saviour  and 
Friend,  who  is  in  us  and  in  whom  we  are,  '  a  very  present  help 
in  trouble.'  We  have  no  system  of  sacrifices.  For  He  is  our 
sacrifice  offered  up  once  visibly  on  the  cross,  and  offering 
Himself  up  invisibly  and  continually  in  the  hearts  of  His 
faithful  disciples.  We  have  no  code  of  laws.  For  He  is  our 
law,  uttered  by  Himself  once  to  the  ears  of  the  disciples  in  the 
two  commandments  'Love  God'  and  'Love  thy  neighbour,' 
when  He  shewed  them  how  to  make  all  men  '  neighbours ' ;  and 
now  He  utters  the  same  law  to  our  hearts,  every  moment  of 
our  lives,  giving  us  a  strong  desire  to  do  that  which  is  best  for 
our  '  neighbours,'  and  helping  us  to  see  what  is  best,  and,  seeing 
it,  to  do  it." 

When  Clemens  said,  "  He  is  our  sacrifice,"  I  thought  of 
Paul's  words,  "  Christ  our  Passover  is  sacrificed  for  us,"  and 
of  "  the  blood  of  sprinkling  "  about  which  Scaurus  had  written. 

23—2 


356  CLEMENS  [Chapter  35 

And  this  led  me  to  ask  concerning  that  other  tradition  which 
(Scaurus  had  told  me)  was  written  in  the  fourth  gospel  alone, 
about  blood  and  water  issuing  from  Christ's  side. 

"  That,"  said  Clemens,  "  was  the  only  passage  in  your 
friend's  letter  where  I  was  strongly  moved  to  ask  you  to  stop 
reading  that  we  might  talk  of  it  at  once.  His  view  was  new 
to  me.  Yet  I  confess  I  had  always  found  it  difficult  to  explain 
how  the  writer  could  call  on  himself  to  testify  to  what  he 
himself  had  asserted.  If  ^Emilius  Scaurus  should  prove  right, 
that  difficulty  of  mine  would  be  removed.  Moreover  I  cannot 
but  admit  that  John,  or  any  other  disciple,  would  probably 
have  been  prevented  by  the  soldiers  from  approaching  to  the 
cross  close  enough  to  distinguish  the  water  from  the  blood 
flowing  from  His  side.  Yet  it  came  on  me  as  a  shock  to 
believe  that  this  particular  narrative — to  which  I  attach  great 
importance — was  based  on  a  vision.  Now  the  shock  is  some- 
what softened.  I  have  been  thinking  over  your  friend's 
arguments.  He  is  quite  right  in  saying  that  in  John's  epistle, 
which  may  be  called  an  epilogue  to  his  gospel,  the  words  '  He 
knoweth,'  as  expressed  in  this  particular  emphatic  phrase, 
would  mean  '  Jesus  knoweth.'  The  meaning  may  be  the  same 
here.  Nevertheless,  even  if  it  is  so,  and  even  if  the  narrative 
describes  a  vision,  I  should  still  feel  as  certain  as  ever  that  this 
vision  expressed  the  real  eternal  truth." 

"  What  do  you  mean,"  I  said,  " by  eternal  truth  ?  "  "I 
mean  this,"  replied  Clemens,  "  that  the  sacrifice  of  Christ  on 
the  cross  appears  to  me  foreordained  from  eternity  and 
destined  to  last  to  eternity,  as  the  symbol  of  the  fundamental 
law  of  the  universe,  what  Scaurus  calls  the  Law  of  the  Magnet. 
Call  it  a  dream,  if  you  please.  Then  such  is  my  dream.  But 
I  act  on  it,  or  try  to  act  on  it,  as  a  reality.  The  Father  gives 
His  life  to  men  in  giving  His  Son  to  them.  The  life,  says  the 
scripture,  is  the  blood.  Some  of  our  brethren  would  not  scruple 
to  say  '  God  gives  His  blood  to  men.'  I  would  rather  say  God 
has  been  giving  of  His  life  to  men  from  the  time  when  man 
was  first  created — not  only  as  a  Father  and  a  Mother,  but 
also  as  a  Servant,  serving  His  servants,  nursing  His  children, 
'  washing  their  feet '  (so  to  speak)  as  a  nurse  does,  and  as  Christ 


Chapter  So]    ON  THE  SACRIFICE   OF  CHRIST       357 

did.  There  are  two  spiritual  realities,  or,  if  you  like,  two 
metaphors,  to  express  this  spiritual  reality.  One  is,  that  life 
or  blood  is  to  be  infused,  like  new  blood,  into  our  veins.  The 
other  is,  that  in  this  life,  or  life-blood,  we  are  also  to  bathe 
ourselves,  that  we  may  be  born  again.  I  know  that  this  will 
seem  to  you  and  to  many  others  an  exaggerated,  or  (as  I  have 
heard  it  called)  an  '  unsavoury  and  distasteful  similitude.'  But 
these  protests  are  outweighed,  in  my  mind,  by  the  faith  and 
feeling  of  multitudes  of  simple  devout  Christians  of  the  deepest 
and  purest  insight.  One  of  these,  a  woman — the  most  inspired 
of  all  women  known  to  me  with  holy  wisdom — continually 
speaks  of  bathing  herself  in  the  blood  of  Christ  crucified ;  and 
so  do  some  of  our  most  inspired  poets.  You  have  spoken  to  me 
of  '  the  constraining  love  of  Christ.'  One  of  our  poets — a  man 
experienced  in  troubles  and  knowing  only  too  well  what  it  is 
to  feel  forsaken  of  God — describes  it  thus  in  the  person  of 
Christ  :— 

'  Mine  is  an  unchanging  love, 

Higher  than  the  heights  above, 

Deeper  than  the  depths  beneath, 

Free  and  faithful,  strong  as  death.' 

Do  not  these  words  seem  to  you  to  come  from  the  heart  ? 
Are  they  not  heart-realities  ?  Yet  they  are  metaphors.  Well, 
this  same  poet  speaks  of '  seeing  by  faith  '  the  '  stream '  supplied 
by  Christ's  '  flowing  wounds.'  Are  such  visions,  or  metaphors, 
or  heart-realities,  lightly  to  be  discarded  ?  Speaking  for  myself, 
I  cannot  give  up  this  heart-fact — if  I  may  so  call  it — for  fact 
it  is  to  me,  whether  seen  by  the  material  or  by  the  spiritual 
eye.  Some  may  think  it  to  be  spiritually  false.  For  them  it 
must  be  (in  efficacy)  false,  even  if  it  were  historically  true. 
For  me  it  is  true." 

He  checked  himself,  and  then  continued,  "  Do  not  suppose, 
dear  brother  and  fellow-seeker  after  truth,  that  I  expect  all 
others  to  see  the  truth  in  the  same  form  in  which  I  see  it. 
Only  I  should  hope  to  induce  them  to  see  the  same  truth  in 
some  form.  See  here  these  words  " — and  he  took  up  a  scroll 
and  shewed  them  to  me — "  '  Every  wise  man  is  a  ransom  for 
the  bad.'     Do  they  remind  you   of  anything  ?  "     "  Yes,"  said 


358  CLEMENS  [Chapter  35 

I,  "  they  are  like  the  saying  in  Mark  and  Matthew,  '  The  Son 
of  man  came  to  give  his  soul  a  ransom  for  many.'  Luke  omits 
those  words."  "  He  does,"  said  Clemens.  "  Luke  has  '  I  am 
among  you  as  one  that  serveth.'  John  combines  the  two  views. 
For  first  he  represents  Jesus  as  girt  with  a  napkin  like  a 
servant  pouring  forth  water  in  a  basin  and  washing  the  feet 
of  the  disciples ;  and  then  he  represents  Him  as  pouring  forth 
His  blood  and  water  for  their  souls." 

Then  Clemens  told  me  that  the  words  "  Every  wise  man  is 
a  ransom  for  the  bad  "  were  written  by  Philo  of  Alexandria, 
who,  though  a  Jew,  was  also  a  philosopher,  and  he  shewed  me 
a  similar  passage  in  the  same  writer,  to  the  effect  that  the 
good  and  worthy  and  wise  are  both  the  physicians  and  the 
ransoms  of  every  community  in  which  they  exist.  Then  he 
took  up  Ezekiel  and  read  to  me  the  vision  of  the  dry  bones 
in  the  valley,  and  how  they  come  together  into  living  bodies, 
being  quickened  by  the  breath  of  the  Lord.  Next  he  turned  to 
Greek  literature,  touching  on  the  old  allegory  of  Amphion, 
whose  music  was  so  sweet  that  the  very  stones  were  con- 
strained by  it  to  come  together  in  unity  building  up  the  walls 
of  a  great  city. 

"  Should  we  be  wrong,"  said  Clemens,  "  in  saying  that  all 
these  metaphors  (to  which  others  might  be  added)  from  various 
nations  and  literatures — about  '  harmony,'  and  '  service,'  and 
'  ransom,'  and  '  blood,'  and  '  breath  ' — point  to  one  deep  truth, 
not  exaggerated  by  Philo,  that  the  less  are  purified  by  the 
greater,  and  that  the  greater  are  intended  to  sacrifice  their 
independence  and  to  come  together  with  the  less,  in  order  to 
create  cities  and  nations,  which  are  the  larger  families  that 
lead  men  towards  the  Fatherhood  of  God  ?  No  doubt,  the 
greater  are  also  purified  by  the  less.  Every  community  is 
built  up  and  bound  together  by  the  self-sacrifice  of  all.  And 
this  binding  together  implies  a  purification  of  all,  a  cutting 
away  of  excessive  protuberances,  a  purging  away  of  selfish, 
isolating,  schism-making  qualities,  so  that  each  soul  may  take 
its  place  in  the  wall  of  the  City  of  Concord.  But  still,  as  a  rule, 
the  less  are  purified  by  the  greater ;  the  most  selfish  by  the 
least  selfish  ;  families  by  the  father  and  the  mother ;  peoples 


Chapter  35]     ON  THE  SACRIFICE   OF  CHRIST       359 

b}^  their  true  princes,  priests,  and  prophets.  Prince,  priest, 
prophet,  each  according  to  his  several  gift,  washes  the  feet  of 
his  inferiors,  and  spends  his  life  to  increase  and  ennoble  theirs. 
Looking  back  to  our  childhood,  do  we  not  recognise  this,  as 
a  matter  of  our  own  experience  ?  How  then  can  we  call  God 
Father,  and  yet  refuse  to  believe  that  He  may  be  as  loving  as 
a  human  father,  and  that  God's  children  may  be  purified  by 
God  Himself,  giving  His  own  blood  in  the  blood  of  His  Son  as 
a  ransom  for  the  sinful  souls  of  men  ? " 

As  he  said  these  words,  he  stood  up,  extending  his  hand. 
"  I  have  allowed  myself,"  he  said,  "  to  keep  you  too  long,  when 
you  have  many  things  to  do.  Once  or  twice,  intending  to 
check  myself,  I  have  broken  loose  again.  I  will  not  a  third 
time.  Only  this  word,  this  one  additional  word.  Believe  me, 
JEmilius  Scaurus  was  right,  in  saying  '  The  religion  of  the 
Christians  is  a  person.'  But  your  friend  went  on  to  say  '  and 
nothing  more.'  I  should  prefer  to  say  the  same  thing  differently. 
'  Our  religion  is  a  person— and  nothing  less.' ' 


CHAPTER   XXXVI 

SILANUS   BECOMES   A   CHRISTIAN 

It  was  very  late,  but  I  was  unwilling  to  say  farewell. 
During  the  last  two  or  three  hours,  Clemens  had  in  some 
strange  way  so  associated  himself  with  my  thoughts  of  Scaurus 
that  I  now  began  to  feel  as  though,  in  parting  from  my  new 
friend,  I  should  be  parting  from  the  old  one — whose  living  self 
I  should  perhaps  not  see  again  in  Tusculum  and  whose  likeness 
I  was  leaving  in  Nicopolis.  But  Clemens  would  not  resume 
his  seat.  Quoting  Scaurus's  words  with  a  kindly  smile,  "  It 
takes  a  great  deal,"  he  said,  "  to  make  you  '  tired  of  books '." 
"  Perhaps  my  old  friend  would  not  have  been  tired,"  I  replied, 
"  if  he  had  had  you  as  his  interpreter.  I  wish  he  could  have 
been  present  with  us  to-night."  "  I  shall  always  think  of  him 
as  a  friend,"  said  Clemens,  "  for  your  sake,  for  his  own  sake,  and 
for  truth's  sake." 

Then  he  asked  me  at  what  hour  I  was  to  set  sail,  to-morrow, 
"  or  rather,"  said  he,  "  to-day,  for  it  is  long  past  midnight." 
"About  noon,"  I  replied.  "Long  before  noon,"  said  he,  "I  must 
be  at  some  distance  from  Nicopolis  on  a  visit  to  some  sick  folk. 
But  I  expect  to  be  returning,  by  way  of  the  wood  where  we 
first  conversed  together,  just  in  time  to  catch  sight  of  your 
vessel  before  it  disappears  round  the  cape.  So  you  must  think 
of  me  then  as  wishing  you  over  again  from  a  distance  the 
good  things  that  I  now  wish  you  face  to  face."  "  When  we 
last  parted,"  said  I,  as  we  clasped  hands  at  the  open  door, 
"  you  wished  me  peace.     Wish  it   me  again."     "  May  peace," 


Chapter  36]    SILANUS  BECOMES  A    CHRISTIAN    361 

he  said,  "  be  multiplied  to  you  ! "  Then,  drawing  me  gently 
towards  himself,  after  standing  for  a  moment  as  though  unable 
to  speak,  "  that  peace,"  he  said,  "  which  passes  understanding !  " 

When  I  returned  to  my  lodging  I  found  a  messenger 
awaiting  me  with  a  note  from  Marullus.  Scaurus  was  still 
living,  though  unconscious.  The  doctors  thought  it  possible, 
though  not  probable,  that  he  might  recover  for  a  short  time. 
"  I  fear,"  said  Marullus,  "  that,  by  the  time  you  receive  these 
lines,  my  dear  patron  will  be  no  more.  If  you  wish  to  come,  in 
the  slight  hope  of  seeing  him,  you  will  do  well  to  come  at  once." 
I  was  prepared  for  this,  so  that  it  made  no  difference  in  my 
arrangements.  These  were  nearly  completed  except  for  writing 
letters  of  farewell  to  friends  in  Nicopolis. 

The  sun  was  well  above  the  horizon  before  I  began  the 
letter  that  I  had  reserved  for  the  last — my  farewell  to  Epictetus. 
To  several  acquaintances  I  had  been  scribbling  away,  fluently 
enough.  Nor  had  I  been  at  a  loss  for  what  to  say  to  the  one 
<jr  two  more  intimate  friends  to  whose  kindness  I  was  indebted. 
But,  all  the  time,  there  had  been  in  my  mind  an  undercurrent 
of  anxious  questioning  as  to  what  I  should  say  to  the  man  to 
whom  I  owed  most.  Should  I  explain  ?  Should  I  confess  ? 
Should  I  distinguish  between  what  I  had  received  from  him 
for  which  I  was  his  debtor,  and  what  I  had  not  been  able  to 
receive  so  that  I  could  not  call  myself  indebted  ?  To  what 
end  ?  Whatever  might  happen  in  the  future,  I  could  never 
cease  to  be  grateful  to  him  for  having  raised  me  to  a  higher 
sense  of  a  life  above  the  level  of  the  Beast,  and  for  stimulating 
me  to  follow  and  revere  the  Man.  What  though  a  new  ideal  of 
the  Man  had  been  presented  to  me  ?  Did  that  make  me 
less  Epictetus's  debtor  ?  Nay,  did  it  not  possibly  increase  my 
debt,  because,  but  for  him,  I  might  not  have  taken — if  ever 
I  should  be  proved  to  have  taken — the  path  that  led  towards 
a  higher  and  nobler  goal  ? 

I  wrote,  tore  up,  re-wrote,  corrected,  re-corrected,  and  again 
re-wrote.  There  was  a  want  of  directness  in  all  my  attempts, 
and  they  all  ended  in  tearing  up.  At  last  I  said,  "  I  will  try  to 
write  as  my  Master  himself  would  have  written."  That  made 
my    letter    of    the    briefest.     After    explaining    my    sudden 


362  SILANUS  [Chapter  36 

departure,  and  thanking  him  for  his  teaching,  "  I  am  your 
debtor,"  I  wrote,  "  and  always  shall  be."  I  was  on  the  point  of 
adding,  "  If  ever  I  possess  myself,  I  shall  owe  myself  to  you.'" 
But  the  words  struck  me  as  familiar.  Then  I  remembered 
something  like  them  in  the  Epistle  to  Philemon  :  "  I  say  not 
unto  thee  how  that  thou  owest  to  me  even  thine  own  self." 
Could  I  say  with  strict  Epictetian  truth  that  I  owed  to 
Epictetus  as  much  as  Philemon  owed  to  Paul  ?  I  re-wrote  it 
thus :  "  If  ever  I  possess  myself  I  shall  in  large  measure  owe 
myself  to  you."  That  had  the  disadvantage  of  being  a  little 
longer,  but  the  advantage  of  being  quite  true.  Sealing  the 
letter  that  I  might  not  be  tempted  to  alter  it  again,  I  threw 
myself  down  for  two  or  three  hours  of  rest. 

A  little  before  noon  my  servant  roused  me.  All  was  ready, 
and  we  went  down  at  once  to  the  quay.  Besides  the  usual 
bustle — sailors,  fishermen,  merchants,  passengers  mostly  in 
a  hurry — there  was  some  dispute  (I  know  not  what,  but  I  think 
it  was  among  the  fishermen).  This  added  to  the  confusion. 
Not  many  blows  were  interchanged,  but  there  was  no  lack  of 
threats,  imprecations,  scurrilous  jests,  and  obscene  abuse.  As 
I  was  making  my  way  through  the  crowd,  some  one  touched 
me  on  the  shoulder.  It  was  my  Epicurean  friend,  Apronius 
Rufus,  whom  I  had  last  seen  in  the  little  village  of  Lycus, 
scattering  nuts  and  figs  to  make  the  schoolboys  scramble. 
I  had  caught  sight  of  him,  a  minute  or  two  before,  lounging  in 
a  corner  and  looking  on  at  the  quarrelsome  crowd ;  but  being  in 
no  mood  for  his  jests  I  had  turned  aside  in  the  vain  hope  that 
he  would  not  see  me.  As  soon  as  he  overtook  me,  he  began  in 
his  usual  fashion,  "  What  brings  you  here  at  this  hour,  most 
serious  Cynic  ?  A  truant  humour,  I  fear.  For  it  is  lecture 
time,  or  at  all  events  not  much  past :  and  Epictetus  gives  long 
lessons.  Yet  no.  You  are  no  truant.  Truants  don't  look  so 
serious.  You  have  come  here  as  a  philosopher,  to  see  life  as  it 
is,  and  to  set  up  as  a  heretic.  You  come  from  books  to  things ; 
from  ideals  to  facts.  Good !  Now  begin  to  learn  !  Look  at 
these  bipeds  !  Look,  and  listen  !  Up  above,  in  your  school- 
room, they  were  '  sons  of  God,'  were  they  not !  Look,  then,  at 
that  son  of  God  hitting  his  brother  son  of  God  in  the  eye ! 


Chapter  36]        BECOMES  A    CHRISTIAN  363 

Listen  to  those  two  daughters  of  God  and  their  harmonious 
antiphon ! " 

I  was  vexed,  but  let  him  talk  on,  as  being  the  best  means 
of  getting  myself  free  from  him  without  explanation ;  and  he, 
following  close  behind  me,  kept  pouring  his  jests  into  my  ear, 
till,  I  suppose,  he  got  a  clearer  view  of  my  face.  For  he 
suddenly  checked  himself,  saying,  "  But,  my  dear  Silanus, 
pardon  me  if  something  is  really  wrong.  You  would  not,  I  am 
sure,  let  my  idle  talk  pain  you.  Your  servant  is  here  with 
baggage.  I  fear  some  bad  news  is  taking  you  from  Nicopolis." 
Then  I  briefly  explained. 

He  had  some  slight  acquaintance  with  Scaurus  and  was 
instantly  and  sincerely  apologetic.  "  I  was  a  fool,"  said  he, 
"  not  to  have  noticed  that  something  was  amiss.  Really  I  am 
grieved.  And  Scaurus,  too  !  That  fine  old  soldier !  Often  have 
I  heard  my  father  speak  of  his  splendid  service  in  Moesia. 
Well,  Silanus,  there  are  humanities  as  well  as  philosophies. 
Believe  me,  I  feel  with  you.  Farewell  1  Forgive  me  as  sincerely 
as  I  condemn  myself."  He  pressed  my  hand,  and  I  his.  He 
was  a  good  fellow  at  heart  and  died  in  Syria,  a  soldier's  death — 
such  as  Scaurus  would  have  approved  and  no  Cynic  could  have 
censured. 

In  a  few  minutes,  we  were  outside  the  port,  seeing  from 
a  distance  (without  hearing)  the  bustle  on  the  quay.  It  was 
not  an  unpleasing  scene — now.  A  few  minutes  more,  and  the 
whole  of  the  city  stood  out  as  a  bright  picture  in  a  framework 
of  fields.  Presently  Nicopolis  was  receding  and  lessening. 
Hills  rose  up  behind.  The  frame  was  becoming  the  picture 
and  Nicopolis  a  small  part  in  it.  I  paced  the  deck,  this  way 
and  that,  turning  in  my  mind  all  that  had  befallen  me 
since  I  had  gazed  on  these  same  scenes  in  reversed  order, 
arriving  from  Italy.  How  few  days  ago  in  time  !  How  many 
ages  ago  in  thought  and  experience  !  "  What  strange  things," 
I  exclaimed,  "  what  marvellous  things  have  happened  to  me  ! 
Am  I  not  a  changed  man  ? "  Then  a  sense  of  unreality  began 
to  creep  over  me.  "  Am  I  not,  after  all,  the  same  Silanus, 
recovering  from  a  dream  ?  Have  these  '  strange  things '  been 
real  things  ?     Have  they  not  been  mere  pictures — pictures  of 


364  SILANUS  [Chapter  36 

the  mind,  phantasms,  dreams,  from  which  I,  the  old  Silanus, 
am  now  awaking  to  find  myself  just  what  I  was  in  old  days 
when  I  was  wasting  my  time  in  Rome  ? " 

I  looked  back  on  Nicopolis  and  it  was  now  little  more  than 
a  hamlet,  and  the  quay  was  a  dot.  But  it  still  loomed  large 
on  my  mind.  I  had  spoken  of  "phantasms"  and  "dreams." 
But  I  could  not  think  of  the  human  scene  in  the  harbour  as 
a  "  dream."  Only  too  life-like  were  those  bipeds — noisy, 
scurrilous,  vile,  obscene  !  How  unworthy  of  the  bright  and 
glorious  sunlight  in  which  all  things  were  bathed  at  that 
moment  of  full  noon — all  things  in  heaven  and  earth  !  How 
glorious  was  everything  except  man !  Yes,  everything  except 
man!  Rufus  spoke  in  jest,  but  did  he  not  speak  the  truth? 
What  were  those  "  sons  of  God  "  on  the  quay  ?  Surely,  surely, 
they  were  "  sons  of  clay,"  mere  puppets  to  play  with  and  break ! 
To  this  day  I  cannot  tell  why  just  at  this  moment  so  strong  a 
temptation  should  have  so  suddenly  seized  me.  But  seize  me 
it  did.  I  write  it  as  it  happened,  that  others  may  take  heart  if 
the  same  thing  should  happen  to  them.  It  was  God's  way  of 
dealing  with  me,  suffering  me  to  be  almost  cast  down  by  evil 
that  He  might  lift  me  up  for  good. 

Feeling  the  evil  coming,  I  tried  at  first  to  strengthen 
myself  with  the  sayings  of  my  Master,  Epictetus,  "  See  then 
that  thou  do  nothing  as  a  beast.  Else  thou  hast  lost  the  Man. 
Thou  hast  not  fulfilled  the  promise  of  the  Man,"  and  again, 
"  Man  is  a  being  that  has  nothing  more  sovereign  than  his  will. 
He  has  all  other  things  in  subjection  to  this."  Then  I  thought 
of  Man  as  the  Psalmist  describes  him,  saying  to  God,  "  Thou 
hast  put  all  things  under  his  feet... yea,  and  the  beasts  of  the 
field,"  and  how  the  Christians  regarded  this  as  meaning  that 
Man  was  to  triumph  over  sin. 

But,  against  these  hopeful  thoughts,  there  rose  up,  first, 
the  confessions  of  Epictetus  that  he  had  never  succeeded  in 
producing  a  Man  of  this  kind,  nor  anything  approaching  to  it ; 
and  then  the  words  of  the  other  Psalm,  "  Man  being  in  honour 
hath  no  understanding,  but  is  like  unto  the  beasts  that  perish." 
I  longed  to  believe  the  good  Voices,  but  truth  seemed  to  compel 
me  to  believe   the  bad   Voices.     Worst  and  strongest   of  all, 


Chapter  86]         BECOMES  A    CHRISTIAN  365 

there  rose  up  recollections  of  my  own  evil  deeds,  words,  and 
thoughts,  from  childhood  upwards,  and  they  strengthened 
the  Voices  of  evil.  I  could  not  at  that  moment  recall  the 
brighter  and  better  side  of  my  own  life.  I  could  not  remind 
myself  how  different  a  man  in  a  crowd  may  be  for  a  moment 
from  the  same  man  in  his  home  and  at  his  work  during  his 
daily  life.  It  seemed  to  me  that  I  ought  to  be  on  my  guard 
against  hoping  contrary  to  facts.  Was  not  Glaucus  right  in 
taunting  me  with  "  self-deceiving,"  which  I  called  "  believing  "  ? 
Was  it  not  the  plain  and  manifest  fact  that  the  Beast  was 
Lord  over  the  Man  ? 

Again  and  again  this  question  put  itself  before  me,  as 
though  from  the  mouth  of  the  Beast,  saying,  "  Am  I  not  your 
Lord  ?  Can  you  honestly  deny  it  ?  "  And  at  that  instant 
I  could  not  deny  it.  Never  had  I  felt  so  weak,  so  forsaken — 
abandoned  by  all  the  hopes  that  had  been  lately  gathering 
round  me,  more  hopeless  than  if  I  had  never  entertained 
them. 

But  just  when  I  seemed  to  be  touching  the  bottom  of  the 
lowest  depth,  I  received  a  sense  of  the  nearness  of  help.  If 
I  could  not  trust  in  the  Good,  at  least  I  could  rebel  against  the 
Evil.  What  though  the  Beast  be  Lord  of  mankind  ?  "  At 
least,"  I  exclaimed,  "  there  are  those  who  will  not  be  his 
slaves — Epictetus,  Scaurus,  my  father,  others  known  to  me, 
multitudes  unknown.  Rather  than  submit  to  the  Beast,  it 
is  better  to  be  on  the  conquered  side — along  with  the  good, 
and  worthy  and  noble.  It  is  better,  yes  much  better,  to  be  on 
the  side  of  the  Man  crushed  down,  trampled  on,  destroyed ! " 
Then  a  great  longing  fell  on  me  that  the  Man  thus  crushed 
down  and  destroyed  by  the  Beast  might  prove  to  be  not 
destroyed  in  the  end,  for  such  a  Man,  if  only  He  existed, 
seemed  the  only  fit  object  of  worship  for  mankind.  Yes, 
victorious  or  defeated,  He  alone  was  to  be  worshipped. 
"  Whom  have  I  in  heaven  but  thee  ?  And  there  is  none 
upon  earth  that  I  desire  in  comparison  with  thee,  O  thou 
FORSAKEN  SON  OF  GOD!" 

As  I  uttered  these  words  I  remembered  where  I  had  first 
uttered  them — on  the  hills  yonder,  while   I   was  thinking  of 


366  SILANUS  [Chapter-  36 

Glaucus's  troubles  just  before  I  met  my  new  friend  Clemens. 
That  made  me  think  of  him  and  of  his  promise  to  wait  on  the 
hill,  and  look  on  my  vessel  as  it  vanished,  and  "  wish  me  well." 
I  glanced  back  over  the  stern  just  in  time  to  see  our  little 
coppice  disappearing.  "  Clemens,"  I  said,  "  is  there.  Clemens 
is  praying  for  me."  With  that,  there  came  back  to  me  all  he 
had  said  about  the  power  of  the  FORSAKEN  to  help  those 
who  felt  "  forsaken  " ;  and  about  the  "  cross,"  as  the  real  throne 
whereon  the  Son  of  man  reigns  as  the  real  king  and  subjects 
all  things  to  Himself.  In  that  moment  I  understood  how  both 
the  Psalms  were  true :  "  Man  being  in  honour — as  the  world 
counts  honour — is  like  unto  the  beasts  that  perish."  But 
"  man  being  in  honour — as  God  counts  honour — is  uplifted  on 
the  throne  of  suffering  and  reigns  over  those  for  whom  He 
suffers  and  whom  He  redeems."  A  sudden  conviction  fell  upon 
me  that  here  at  last  I  had  the  light  that  makes  all  things  clear, 
and  I  cried  from  the  deepest  depth  of  my  being,  "  Whom 
have  I  in  heaven  but  thee,  O  thou  forsaken  one  that  art  NOT 
FORSAKEN  ?  And  there  is  none  upon  earth  that  I  desire  in 
comparison  with  thee.  Make  no  long  tarrying,  O  my  Helper 
and  my  Redeemer  ! " 

All  this,  which  takes  time  to  describe,  passed  in  the 
twinkling  of  an  eye,  and  then  something  befell  me  that 
I  cannot  exactly  describe.  Only  I  know  that  it  was  no  act 
of  reason.  Nor  was  it  vision.  It  was  more  like  feeling.  The 
arm  of  the  Lord  seemed  to  lift  me  up  and  carry  me  to  some- 
thing that  I  felt  to  be  the  Cross.  Then  the  thought  of  the 
Cross  sent  down  upon  me  the  thought  of  an  overwhelming 
flood  of  the  mighty  love  and  pity  of  God,  the  Father  of  the 
fatherless  and  Servant  of  the  meanest  of  His  servants, 
descending  on  my  soul  from  the  side  of  the  Saviour  and 
bathing  me  in  His  purifying  blood,  creating  me  anew  in  the 
eternal  Son.  And  thus,  at  last,  after  so  many  delays,  refusals, 
and  resistances,  willingly  led  captive  out  of  the  dominion  of 
darkness  and  fear  and  sin,  I  was  carried  as  a  little  child  into 
the  joy  of  the  family  of  God. 


Chapter  36]        BECOMES  A    CHRISTIAN  367 

When  I  reached  Tusculum,  Scaurus  was  in  his  grave.  He 
had  died  on  the  day  when  I  left  Nicopolis,  and  about  noon. 
I  could  not  discover  among  his  papers  any  last  instructions,  or 
indications  of  any  wishes  connected  with  the  subject  of  his 
last  letter.  Only  I  found  a  paper  with  "  For  Hermas's  tomb  " 
on  it.  Below  was  written  in  large  characters  IN  PEACE. 
I  asked  Marullus  whether  he  understood  this.  He  said  that 
on  the  morning  of  the  last  day  of  his  active  and  conscious  life 
the  old  man  had  gone  (with  Marullus's  aid,  for  he  was  very 
feeble)  to  see  the  tomb  he  had  erected  for  Hennas  in  years 
gone  by.  After  standing  for  some  time  silent  he  repeated  aloud 
the  last  words  of  the  inscription,  "For  memory's  sake."  "That," 
said  he,  "  is  not  enough."  Then,  as  they  walked  home,  he  said, 
"  Hermas  would  have  liked  IN  PEACE.  There  is  room.  See 
that  those  words  are  added."  I  saw  that  they  were  added. 
I  also  placed  them  on  Scaurus's  own  tomb. 

For  the  rest,  in  the  years  that  followed — forty-five  in 
number — nothing  has  befallen  me  that  would  greatly  interest 
my  readers.  I  became  a  soldier.  Many  of  the  brethren 
condemned  me  for  it.  But  when  the  war  broke  out  in 
Illyria  I  felt  that,  although  a  Christian,  I  had  no  right  to 
cease  to  become  a  Roman,  or  to  spare  my  blood,  if  need  arose, 
in  defence  of  the  peace  of  the  Empire.  In  doing  this,  I  was 
glad  to  think  that  I  had  fulfilled  Scaurus's  last  wish.  Clemens 
also  supported  me. 

From  him  I  received  several  letters  before  I  went  to  Illyria. 
Soon  afterwards,  he  passed  away  in  Corinth,  but  not  before  he 
had  done  for  Glaucus  the  same  service  that  he  did  for  me.  His 
first  letter  told  me  that  he  had  seen  my  vessel  at  noontide 
from  the  hills  above  Nicopolis,  and  that  he  had  kept  his 
promise  of  "  wishing  me  well."  He  always  called  me  brother ; 
and  no  brother  could  have  been  more  brotherly.  But  assuredly 
he  was  more  than  that.  Paul  sowed  the  seed  of  the  gospel  in 
my  heart,  but  it  was  the  spirit  of  Clemens  that  helped  to 
quicken  and  to  foster  it.     He  was  my  father  in  the  faith. 

Yet  Scaurus,  too,  was  a  helper — helper  in  deed  even  when 
opposing  in  word — guiding  me  indirectly  towards  the  City  of 
Truth.     I  have  read  Apologies  for  the  Christian  faith  written 


368     SILANUS  BECOMES  A   CHRISTIAN    [Chapter  36 

by  worthy  men — Justin  for  example  and  others.  But  they 
have  not  helped  me  towards  Christ  as  Scaurus  did.  They  have 
been  special  pleaders  for  their  religion,  and  sometimes  great 
manipulators  of  words  and  arguments.  But  what  Scaurus  said, 
even  in  dispraise  of  the  gospels,  was  often  so  qualified  by  praise, 
admiration,  yes,  and  love,  of  the  character  of  the  Saviour,  that  it 
had  much  more  effect  with  me  than  the  arguments  of  Justin 
afterwards  had,  when  I  came  to  know  them.  Moreover  Scaurus 
was  such  a  lover  of  truth,  and  so  quick  and  keen  to  detect  an 
untruth,  that  in  meeting  his  attacks  upon  the  gospels  I  felt 
I  had  met  the  worst.  I  doubt  not  that  he  has  found  peace  in 
one  of  the  "  many  mansions."  If  I  may  not  call  him  my  father 
in  the  faith,  yet  certainly  he  was  the  kindest  of  stepfathers, 
helping  me  to  the  living  Truth  by  causing  me  to  love  all  truth, 
and  indirectly  strengthening  my  feet  in  the  path  towards  the 
Saviour  by  not  suffering  me  to  walk  too  soon. 

And  you,  too,  good  Epictetus,  truthloving,  keen  Epictetus — 
I  will  not  say  "  kind  Epictetus,"  not  at  least  always  kind  in 
word,  though  always  good  at  heart  even  when  most  bitter  in 
word — always  fervid  against  falsehood,  always  zealous  with 
a  fiery  zeal  for  that  strange  cold  aspect  of  a  "  Father  of  all "  in 
which  you  placed  your  trust  and  strove  to  make  us  place  ours  : 
what  shall  I  say  of  you  and  how  thank  you  for  the  help  you 
gave  me  !  How  often  in  Rome  and  Tusculum,  how  often  on 
nightwatches  in  Illyria,  Moesia,  and  the  East,  have  I  seen  your 
face,  dear  Master,  as  I  saw  it  for  the  last  time  in  Nicopolis, 
leaving  you  without  bidding  you  farewell,  spying  on  you 
unfairly  through  the  open  door,  and  detecting  you  in  the  act 
of  breaking  the  rules  of  your  own  philosophy  by  feeling  trouble, 
real  trouble,  for  a  sorely  troubled  disciple  !  Epictetus  in  trouble, 
yes,  Epictetus  in  trouble,  that  is  how  I  shall  remember  you  to 
my  dying  day,  as  seen  in  the  moment  when  I  trusted  your 
teaching  least  and  loved  you  most,  when  you  dropped  the 
veil  of  your  philosophy  to  shew  me  your  real  human  heart — 
my  "  tutor  "  to  bring  me  to  Christ. 

THE  END 


CAMBRIDGE  :    PRINTED   BY  JOHN  CLAY,   M.A.,   AT   THE   UNIVERSITY   PRESS. 


|0 


P 

P 

O 

,0 


m 

P 

P 

O 

rO 


© 


S 


00 


O 


CQi 


a; 


CO! 


4) 


University  of  Toronto 
Library 


DO  NOT 
REMOVE 
THE 


1 


CARD 
FROM 
THIS 
POCKET 


Acme  Library  Card  Pocket 

Under  Pat.  "Ref.  Index  File" 

Made  by  LIBRARY  BUREAU 


anLt 


'■'"   ' 


■■■■'■>■■■■--■''■ 
"■'   •     '-  I ' 

JIQIfH