Strivings for the faith : a series of lectures, delivered in the New Hall of Science, Old Street, City Road, under the auspices of the Christian Evidence Society

NYPL RESEARCH LIBRARIES

3 3433 07954861 0

^mmm'mimmmmi^

^n\

MimA'mvur

XET

Watson & Hazell, Printers, London and Aylesbury.

PREFACE.

The following Lectures were delivered in the same
Hall where the lectures contained in the volume en-
titled "Popular Objections to Revealed Truth" were
delivered last year. They are intended similarly to com-
bat some of the objections, or to meet some of the diffi-
culties that are raised at the present day in reference to
Christianity, dealing more particularly with some of the
points insisted upon by the '' Secularists."

The Committee trust that these "Strivings for the
Faith " may prove useful both to many w^ho may them-
selves be feeling the force of the objections referred to,
and to many who may be seeking for further confirma-
tion of that faith which already they hold.

Whilst these lectures were delivered at the request
and under the auspices of the Christian Evidence
Society, the Committee wish it to be understood that
each author is responsible for the statements and argu-
ments of his own lecture; no revision of the lectures
having been in any way made by the Committee.

2, Duke Street, Adelphi, London, W.C.
August, 1874.

CONTENTS.

LECTURE I.

DIFFICULTIES ON THE SIDE OF UNBELIEF IN ACCOUNTING
FOR HISTORICAL CHRISTIANITY.

BY THE

REV. G. F. MACLEAR, D.D„

Head Master of King s College School, and late Assistant Preacher at
the Temple Church.

I. Limitation of subject.
II. Remarkable cessation of the old universal custom of
sacrifice.

III. The sense of sin, the basis of the idea of sacrifice,

still remains, and has become intensified.

IV. Although sacrifices have ceased, sacrificial terms are

associated with the remarkable rite of the Lord's
Supper, which professes to commemorate the death
of its Institutor.
V. Sketch of the Life of Christ, and of the Institution of

the Lord's Supper.
VI. The universal adoption of this rite ; the simplicitv
of the narrative of its origin ; the difficulty of ac-
counting for its continued observance, if nothing were
implied, beyond the death of its Founder.
VII. The historical fact of the Resurrection alone an ade-
quate ground for celebrating this rite.

vi Contents.

PAGE

VIII. Difficulties to be met, supposing the Resurrection not

to be true. ...... i

LECTURE 11.

THE VARIATIONS OF THE GOSPELS IN THEIR RELATION
TO THE EVIDENCES AND TRUTH OF CHRISTIANITY.

BY THE

REV. T. R. BIRKS, M.A., Camb.,

Professor of Moral Philosophy in the University of Cambridge, and
Honorary Canon of Ely Cathairal.

I. Common characteristics of the Gospels, and marks of
their unity in respect of their brevity — their silence —
their simplicity — their proportion — their selection of
minor incidents — their common object in regard of
proving the Messiahship of Jesus.
II. Consideration of five possible modes of variation in the
testimony of witnesses, Under which are we to class the
variations of the Gospels ? — Are the alleged contradic-
tions contained in them apparent or real ?

III. Examination of some of the variations in the four Gospels :

(i.) Their mutual relation as to sameness and diversity ;
(ii.) The historical unity and special adaptation of each
Gospel ; (iii.) The moral and spiritual character of the
Gospels; (iv.) The genealogies; (v.) The accounts of
our Lord's infancy ; (vi. ) The main scene and locality
of our Lord's public ministry.

IV. Conclusion. — The seeming divergences in the Gospels con-

ceal below their sinface deep evidence of real consist-
ency and truth. Importance of patient and prayerful
thought and labour in order to ascertain the true har-
mony of the revelation contained in God's Word . J7

Contents, vii

PAGE

LECTURE III.

THE APOCRYPHAL GOSPELS,
BY

B. HARRIS COWPER, Esq.

I. Unfair treatment of Apocryphal Gospels by attempting
i.) to exalt them to the level of the Canonical Gospels ;
(ii.) to lower the true Gospels to the level of the
Apocryphal.
II. An explanation of the origin and intention of the Apociy-
phal Gospels. Some of the characteristics of them —
distinguished from the genuine Gospels.

III. The Apocryphal Gospels not supported by ecclesiastical

authority. Examination of traditions referring to the
formation of the canon, and of unreliable statements on
the subject made by some infidel writers.

IV. Testimonies of ancient writers as to the existence of cer-

tain apocryphal books, and a brief account of the six
false Gospels now extant.
V. Conclusion. — The Apocryphal Gospels (i.) not so ancient
as the four canonical Gospels; (ii.) not received as of
equal authority with them (except by certain sects) ;
(iii.) not genuine productions of the apostolic age or
of apostolic men. The Apocryphal Gospels distin-
guished from the canonical in regard of their general
character and literary style . . . ♦ 73

Appendix. — An outline of the Apociyphal Gospels of

Matthew and of Nicodemus . . . , I02

viii Contents.

LECTURE IV.

THE EVIDENTIAL VALUE OF THE EARLY EPISTLES O!
ST. PAUL VIEWED AS HISTORICAL DOCUMENTS.

BY THE

REV. PETER LORLMER, D.D.,

Professor of Theology in the English Presbyterian College, London'

The Epistles of St. Paul to the Thessalonians, Corinthians,
Galatians, and Romans, allowed by all eminent scholars
to be genuine. To be examined now simply as historical
documents (as we might examine the letters of Cicero, etc).
Their evidential value (i.) as to the outlines of the life of
Christ ;
(ii.) As to the personal history of St. Paul, especially
with reference {a) to the independent origin of his '
preaching — not derived from Greek and Oriental sources •*
(Jb) to the relation between himself and St. Peter and the
other Apostles ; (r) to his alleged mythological develop-
ment of the teaching of Christ,
(iii.) As to the supernatural element in the earliest propaga-
tion of Christianity. Important to observe that these
Epistles give the testimony both of St. Paul and of those
to whom he v/rites as to facts of which both he and they
were witnesses.
I. Testimony to the new character and life which had

sprung up under St. Paul's teaching.
2. Testimony to the supernatural origin of the Gospel, as-
proved by its moral and religious influence.

3, Testimony to the Divine presence and power which ac-

companied St. Paul's preaching of the Gospel, as
manifested by his miracles, the ' ' signs of an
Apostle. "

4. Testimony to the same, as manife 'ed by the "spiritual

gifts " of the Church.

Contents, ix.

Concluding remarks : ^^^^

(i.) The Church of Christ was planted before any part of the
Nevvl estamentwas written : — andhence the existence
of the Church is not really endangered by any attacks
made upon the writings of the New Testament,
(ii.) These early Epistles of St. Paul are genuine historical
documents, and worthy of credit, quite apart from
the question of their inspiration.
(iii.) Facts, such as those concerning the early Church, men-
tioned in the Lecture, are evidence of the existence
of God, and of His providential government ; they
cannot be explained or accounted for satisfactorily by
any naturalistic solution. .... 109

LECTURE V.

LORD LYTTLETON ON THE CONVERSION OF ST. PAUL

BY THE
REV. JOHN GRITTON.

Variety of evidence required for the conviction of various
classes of minds, — illustrated by variety of effect produced
by scientific or historical difficulties, etc., on those who-
may have been induced by the evidence of prophecy, or
of miracles, or of the character of Christ, to accept the
Bible as containing a Divine Revelation.

Testimony to the Divine origin of Christianity derived from
the life and writings of Lord Lyttleton, particularly from
his treatise on St. Paul's conversion.

The facts which Lord Lyttleton postulates acknowledged to
be true, even by unbelieving critics.

The testimony to St. Paul's miraculous call to the Apostle-
ship, as contained in his own speeches before Festus and
King Agrippa, and before the Jews in Jerusalem ; in St.
Luke's record in the Acts ; and in the confessedly genuine
writings of St. Paul.

X Contaits,

PAGE

Three suppositions may possibly be made to account for the
facts of the case, without allowing the miraculous element :
I. That St. Paul said what he knew to be false, with an
intent to deceive. Difficulties of this supposition :
(i.) What wc^/Zev could St. Paul have for thus acting?
Possible motives, as the desire of wealth, fame, or
power, or the desire to gratify some passion, examined,
and shown to be baseless, (ii.) He could have had no
reasonable prospect of success in carrying out his im-
posture {a) in relation to the other Apostles ; {U) in
preaching among the Gentiles, and contending (i) with
the policy of the magistrates ; (2) with the interests of
the priests ; (3) with the prejudices of the people ;
(4) with the wisdom of the philosophers.

II. That he was an enthusiast, imposed upon by the

force of an overheated imagmation. But he exhibits
none of the marks of an enthusiast, and it is even more
difficult on this supposition than on the previous one to
account for his life and worlcs.

III. That he was deceived by the fraud of others. This

supposition shown to be impossible and absurd.
Hence we must fall back on the supposition that St.
Paul does give an authentic account of his conversion,
and we must conclude, therefore, that Christianity is
a Divine Revelation • . • « • I4:

Contents. xi

LECTURE VI.

ALLEGED DIFFICULTIES IN THE MORAL TEACHING OF
THE NEW TESTAMENT.

BY THE

REV. C. A. ROW, M.A.,
Prebendary of Si. Paul's,
Auihor of " The Nature and Extent of Divine Inspiration" " The
yesus of the Evangelists," " The Moral Teaching of the New
Testament," etc.

Subject limited to examination of certain objections made by
Mr. F. W. Newman and Mr. J. S. Mill. Opposition
between Mr. Newman and Mr. Mill, as to whether princi-
ples contrary to truth and right preponderate in the
teaching of the New Testament. Both agree that its
teaching is defective.

A "system of moral teaching " must set forth gtxi^x'A principles,
but cannot contain specific precepts applicable to every
detail of duty. Superiority of the New Testament in this
point over other professed systems of morals.

Leading principles of Christian morality, — love to God, love
to our neighbour, self-sacrifice (this last entirely over-
looked both by Mr. Ne\vman and Mr. Mill); also the
principles of truth, honour, justice, and the morally beau-
tiful, etc., are appealed to.

Some special objections made by Mr. Newman, stated and
examined : (i.) That their sense of the nearness of the future
world, as insisted upon by the writers of the New Testament,
must have rendered them inadequate moral teachers ; (ii. )
That the New Testament is deficient in its teaching as to
our political relations ; (iii. ) That it contains no precept
regulating the practice of war ; (iv. ) Nor any precept
directly commanding the abolition of slavery ; (v.) That
it is deficient in not enunciating the rights of man.

Objections made by Mr. Mill considered: (i.) That in

xii Contents,

PAGE

Christian ethics the duty of patriotism is not sufficiently
esteemed or set forth; (ii.) That all recognition of the
idea of public duty in modern times is derived from Greek
and Roman sources, not from Christian ones ; (iii. ) That
in the morality of private life all sense of personal dignity^
honour, etc., is derived from the human and not from the
religious part of our education.
Objections considered in reference to the alleged contradiction
between the New Testament and the teachings of Political
Economy : —
(i.) The principles of Political Economy inadequate to #
grapple with many difficulties which can only be dealt
with by the energy that is supplied by the principles of
Christian morality.
(ii.) The precepts of Christ not all intended to be under-
stood literally,
(iii. ) Christian teaching in relation to the principle of pru-
dent saving and to the accumulation of capital,
(iv.) Mr. Newman's objections considered against St. Paul's
teaching as to the relations between masters and
servants, parents and children, husbands and wives.
Conclusion. — The personal influence of Christ as a moral
and spiritual power — Quotation from Lecky's Kistoiy of
Morals. ....... i8r

LECTURE VII.

THE COMBINATION OF UNITY WITH PROGRESSIVENESS OF

THOUGHT IN THE BOOKS OF THE BIBLE,

AN ARGUMENT IN FAVOUR OF DIVINE REVELATION.

BY THE

REV. J. H. TITCOMB, M.A.,
Vicar of St. Stephen's, South Lambeth, and Rural Dean of Clapham.

The extent of time covered by the enquiry. The Old Testa-
ment Scriptures represent the religious faith and hope

Contents.

of the Hebrews, from at least the time of Abraham
to Christ.
I. Inquiry whether there is not a unity combined with pro-
gressiveness of thought in the Scriptures, running over
a prodigious lapse of time, yet making up one harmo-
nious and perfect whole,
(i.) The historical development of the traditional hope

respecting a coming Deliverer,
(ii.) The doctrinal development, with reference {a) to the
Prophetic or Teaching Office of the Redeemer, {b) to
His Kingly Office.
H. Contrast, in respect of this "unity with progressiveness,"
between the religion of the Hebrews, and the religions
of Egypt and China, and the systems of Buddhism and
Brahminism.
III. The only explanation of this characteristic of the He-
brew Religion to be found in the belief that it is a result
of Divine Revelation,
(i.) Consideration of the fact itself:
(i) It is set forth in the books of the Old Testament,
which were certainly in existence about 200 B.C.

(2) These books contain the remains of an actual faith
and hope never extinguished in Israel.

(3) This faith and hope confirmed by a succession of
religious teachers, and set forth in a variety of
methods.

(ii.) Consideration of the circumstances attending this fact :
(i) The vicissitudes in fortune of the Israelites.

(2) The writers who developed this hope were men of
various positions, modes of thought, etc.

(3) Many of the facts, predicted of the coming Re-
deemer, of such a kind as to be at once capable
of refutation, if not actually fulfilled.

(4) Harmony between the statements respecting Jesus
of Nazareth contained in the confessedly genuine
Epistles of St. Paul, and the anticipations regarding
the Messiah set forth by the Old Testament writers.

XUl

iv Contents.

FAGB

(</) The promised Redeemer was rejected and slain

by His own jieople.
{b) The result of His teaching was to introduce a new

dispensation, open to Gentiles as well as to Jews.
{c) This new dispensation was in the course of actually
breaking up the whole Jewish nationality,
(iii.) Three possible explanations of this fact on natural
gi'ounds considered, and their unsatisfactoriness ex-
hibited,
(i) That the sayings of the Old Testament had no
proper application to a coming Redeemer.

(2) That these sayings were only the surmisings of genius,
strangely and unexpectedly fulfilled.

(3) That Christ and His Apostles purposely moulded
events so as to bring about the fulfilment of the
guesses and speculations contained in the Old
Testament.

(iv.) Christianity supplies the only key which unlocks with
reasonableness the full meaning of the books of the
Old Testament . . . , .221

LECTURE VIII.

THE AUTOBIOGRAPHY OF JOHN STUART MILL.

BY

W. R. BROWNE, M.A.,

Fellow of Trinity College, Cambridge.

Value of an Autobiography, especially of such a man and

thinker as J. S. Mill.
Examination of the book with respect to Mill's religious

opinions.

Contents. xv

PACK

He accepted and continued throughout life to hold the reli-
gious opinions impressed upon him by his father, reject-
ing on a priori grounds everything supernatural.

Reasons why no weight is to be attached to his Scepticism,
(i) He seems never to have thoroughly investigated the
evidences of Christianity. (2) The result of his early
training was to look upon Christianity exactly as upon any
of the ancient religions, as something which in no way
concerned him. (3) Disbelief in the freedom of the wilL
at the bottom both of his own and of his father's scep-
ticism.

Consideration of the doctrine of necessity. The freedom of
the will shown to be necessary for the development of
virtue and of all morality. The existence of evil shown
to be at once possible, when the freedom of the will is
admitted. Evil essential for the discipline and growth of
virtue. The dignity of suffering as exhibited in the
Christian religion.

James and John Mill, whilst rejecting free-will, and there-
fore rejecting Christianity, still retained those conceptions
of right and of duty, which imply free-will — hence an
argument in favour of Christianity.

The philosophy of the Seculai-ist powerless as to any moral

influence ; — thus contrasted with Christianity , . 259-

DIFFICULTIES ON THE SIDE OF UNBE-
LIEF IN ACCOUNTING FOR HISTORICAL
CHRISTIANITY.

REV. G. F. MACLEAR, D.D.,

Head Master of Kings College School, and late Assistant Preacher at the
Temple Church,

liiicttlti^s on the sxdt oi Enbelief
in aacrtintmg
iox '^xstoxicd Christtanitg.

T^

'HE subject on which I have to speak this
evening relates to the " Difficulties on the
side of Unbelief in accounting for Historical Chris-
tianity."

2. I think it will be best, in treating such a subject, to
confine myself to one or two points, instead of surveying
a large number, which could not be satisfactorily dealt
with in the compass of a single lecture.

3. I propose, therefore, to ask you to review certain
facts of history, which, as it seems to me, remain and
must remain absolutely inexplicable and unintelligible
without the solution Christianity supplies, and I wish to
inquire whether the difficulties these facts present do
not, except on the supposition that Christianity is true,
involve conclusions more miraculous and unaccountable
than anything that has ever occurred in the world.

4 Difficulties on the side of Unhditf

II

1. In a famous letter, written between a.d. 104 and
no, by the pro-pr^etor Pliny to the Emperor Trajan,
he mentions that in his province of Pontus and Bithynia
certain strange tenets had for some years been spread
abroad, in consequence of which the temples of the gods
were forsaken, the sacred solemnities intermitted, and
the sacrificial victims found very feiv pwchasers.

2. It has been remarked by Paley'^ that no evidence
remains, by which it can be proved that the description
he gives is to be confined to these provinces, and was
unknown in other parts of the Roman Empire. The
evidence, indeed, rather points to the contrary, and the
words of the pro-prsetor are brought forward here because
they refer to the commencement within historic times,
and not at a period so remote as to be lost in a fabulous
antiquity, of one of the most striking religious revolu-
tions which the annals of the past record.

3. How singular this revolution is we can, perhaps,
estimate most effectively by supposing a Jew of the days
of Solomon or Herod, or a Gentile of the days of Pericles
or Augustus, to visit one of the churches of modern
Christendom. Amongst many other things which would
strike him, none, it may be believed, would do so with
greater force than the absence of that ancient sacrificial
ritual, with which he had been familiar from earliest

* Evidences, Part ii. chap. ix. It is to be remembered that his
province included several important towns — Neocsesareia, Chalcedon,
Nicomedeia, Amisiis, Trapezus, and the colonies of Heracleia and
Sinope. See Merivale's History of the Romans under the Eni'
perorSf riii. 144. '

in accounting for Historical Christianity. 5

childhood, and without which he could not conceive the
possibility of any religious worship at all.

4. To us the phenomenon presents nothing either
difficult or singular. Our difficulty rather is even to
realise the celebration of those sacrifices, which once
obtained almost universally throughout the world, and
which were once regarded as the true modes of approach-
ing the Supreme Being, under whatever form He was
conceived, and with whatever attributes He was clothed.

5. The traveller, it is true, in lands still heathen, will
discern traces of this once universal ritual, but in all
countries calling themselves Christian, that is to say
amongst the most enlightened and cultivated nations of
the present day, it has not only ceased, but, in spite of
all the violent reactions of nearly two thousand years,
has never, as a form of national worship, been perma-
nently restored.

6. But it will be well perhaps to endeavour to realise
more clearly what we say has disappeared.

7. A form, then, of religious worship has passed
away, which the oldest Book in the world represents as
prevailing at the very infancy of the human race,* and
which once gave employment to thousands and tens of
thousands of a particular caste in the Mosaic Tabernacle,
in the costlier and more enduring structures of Solomon
and Herod, in the temples of classic Greece and imperial
Rome.

8. A form of religious worship has passed away, which
was once equally accepted by the " Father of the

* Gen. iv. 4 ; viii. 20 ; xii. 7, 8 : Job i. 5 ; xlii. 8.

6 Diffictdties on the side of Unbelief

faithful," by the sweet Psalmist of Israel, by the Grecian
statesman, and the Roman magistrate ; which was once
inextricably entwined with all the more solemn epochs of
man's domestic life — birth, and marriage, and death ;
with all the most momentous epochs in his national and
political life — the foundation of cities, the ratification of
treaties, the declaration of war, the celebration of solemn
triumphs ; with all the most powerful emotions of his
personal and religious life — his hopes and fears, his joys
and sorrows, his hours of despondency, his consciousness
of guilt, his yearning for restoration to the Divine favour.

9. A form of religious worship has passed away, to
which men once resorted ahnost instinctively, whether
they desired to acknowledge the power and supremacy
of the Deity they adored, to present him with some
pledge of homage and subjection, to return thanks for
gifts received or protection afforded, to deprecate anger,
or to implore reconciliation, and without the intervention
of which, in some form or other, it is hardly too much to
say that once no morning dawned, no evening closed, no
public entertainment was celebrated, no private meal was
eaten, no harvest was housed, no vintage was gathered
in, no sin was expiated, and no ceremonial impurity was
removed.

10. In other matters, nations and tribes have differed
as widely as it is possible to conceive. In this habit of
sacrifice they have been as one. And yet, universal as it
once was, it is now unknown to the civilised world.
This is a fact, brought home to us by our daily expe-
rience. The solemn procession of sacrificial victims, the
slaughtering of them before the altar, the sprinkling of

171 accounting for Historical Christianity. 7

their blood upon the offerer, the sacrificial feast that
followed — these things are with us entirely matters of the
past, and whether we read of them in Jewish history, or the
poems of Homer, or the narrative of Livy, we experience
the utmost difficulty in realizing to ourselves that they
ever obtained amongst men.

11. Now^ it does not require a very extended acquaint-
ance with human nature to know that of all habits, ideas,
and associations, none retain their ascendancy more
pertinaciously over man than those which concern him
as a religious being."^'

12. And yet, in reference to one religious custom,
though the most ancient and the most universal of all,
for the sake of which, indeed, priests, altars, and temples
originally came into being,! we have only to look around
us to be confronted with a spectacle of a change so
complete and overmastering that it would fill us with
astonishment if we were not accustomed to it from day
to day.

III.

I. I have already observed that this remarkable revo-
lution of thought and feeling may be traced back to a
period not lost in a hazy antiquity, but to one strictly
within the domain of history, to a period which had its
records, its archives, and its monuments. Important as
this fact will be found to be hereafter, I propose first to
notice another feature of this religious revolution, which
is no less striking and no less deserving of attention.

♦ This is fully acknowledged by Renan, Les Apl)tres, chap. xvii.
t Dollinger's Gentile and Jew, i. 225.

8 Difficulties on the side of Unbelief

2. Without entering upon the (juestion of the origin of
the ancient sacrifices, it may be asserted without fear of
contradiction tliat they were to a considerable extent
based upon a sense, more or less real, of personal short-
coming ; that they were gifts, whereby man sought to
make good his imperfect consecration of himself to his
Maker ; that they represented the conviction that some-
thing over and above mere repentance was needed to
expiate the consequences of guilt. -'^

3. Now to the practice of sacrifice the great exception
is found, as is well known, in the system of Buddhism.
But along with sacrifice Buddhism rejects the notion that
lay at the root of it, namely, that past sin presents any
objective obstacle to man's reconciliation with God.f
If, then, among the nations of Christendom, together
with the cessation of sacrifice there had passed away also
man's conviction of personal shortcoming, there would
be a eonsiste?icy in the revolution^ and the disappearance of
the cojivictiofi ivould accou7it in a great measure for the
disappeara7ice of the sacrifical obsei'vwnce.

4. But is this the case ? Has the conviction of per-
sonal shortcoming vanished from the midst of Christen-
dom like the phantom of a troubled dream ? So far is
this from being the fact, that it may be safely said there
has never been a time when the conviction of sin has
been more and more intensified amongst the most
cultivated nations than during the last eighteen hundred
years.

* Butler's Analogy^ Part 11. chap. v.

t Kreuger, Syvibolik, i. 2, 5 ; Hardwick's Christ and other
Masters^ ii. 60 ; Macdonnell's Donnellati Lectures, p. 90.

in accowiiitig for Historical Christianity. 9

5. In saying this I do not seek to depreciate for a
moment the feeling upon this momentous subject which
undoubtedly existed in the ancient world. I would
acknowledge freely the sense of inward contradiction, and
of the awful power of conscience expressed by many of
the wisest of the heathen. I would give their full force
to all those proverbs in ancient writers which represent
sin as disharmony, as spiritual bondage, as the trans-
gression of limits prescribed by Virtue, as inflicting
wounds upon the soul, as entailing terrible consequences
in the world to come.

6. But no one will deny that all this has been infinitely
deepened and intensified. The very word '' Sin " has
acquired a meaning such as it never bore in the mouth
of the greatest of the moral teachers of Greece and
Rome. A mournful catalogue of terms based on a great
variety of images has been employed in writings of in-
spired authority to set forth its heinousness and disastrous
effects. A code of morality has been promulgated,
which is stricter than the strictest requirements of the
Mosaic Law, and brings out, as was never done before,
the infinite distance between the guilt-laden sinner and
the infinitely holy Creator. Words have been reverbe-
rating through the last eighteen centuries — passing into
laws, into proverbs, into doctrines, but never passing
away — demanding the obedience of die heart and soul,
as well as of the hand and tongue.

7. These words have found a lodgement in the breasts
of men like no other words before or since. They have
exercised and are exercising still a momentous influence.
Moreover, on the authority of the voice that uttered

10 DiJJicuItics 071 the side of Utibelief

them, life has been invested with a more real and myste-
rious import than ever was associated with it in the
ancient world. Not only is it the portal of another life,
but beyond it lies an awful tribunal before which all
must stand. It is the Judgment Seat of no shadowy
^acus or Rhadamanthus, but of One who tvieth the
very hearts a?id reins ^' and who will judge every man
according to the deeds done in the body.]

8. I do not here assume that these convictions have
exercised anything like an adequate effect on the lives
and actions of men, but I say they have exerted an
effect such as never was known before the modern era,
and they have gone far to foster a national conscience,
and to deepen the sense of individual responsibility.
There may be much in modern society to startle and
alarm any who will look below the surface. There may
be times when the philanthropist is tempted to doubt
the reality of any progress at all, and the moralist to
sigh almost in despair over the grossest violations of
justice and honesty. But, taken as a whole, there never
was a period when sin was less generally regarded with
indifference, or the consciousness of it less deemed an
infirmity and an illusion.

9. It will not be disputed that man is now mainly
what he has been from the beginning. He is still a
being subject to all the vicissitudes of earthly existence ;
he still " cometh up and is cut down like a flower ; " he
still " has but a short time to live and is full of misery ;"J

* Ps. vil. g. t I Cor. iv. 5 ; 2 Cor. v. 10.

i " We live in a world which is full of misery and ignorance,
and the plain duty of each and all of us is to trv and make the

in accounting for Historical Christianity. ii

he still acknowledges the inability of the things of time
and sense entirely to satisfy his longings ; he still confesses
by the voice of his greatest poets the nothingness of his
highest glory, - and he has often testified by the terrible
earnestness of his penances and self-tortures that the side of
his life most full of suffering is the religious side,t and that,
great as he may be, he yet contains within him some
profound source of misery. J

lo. And yet, though the conviction of personal short-
coming has been thus deepened and intensified, the
ancient sacrificial ritual has never succeeded in regaining
its hold. Though man has never constructed for himself
a religion of despair, yet during the last eighteen hundred
years he has never sought relief in a system which
was once almost universally recognised as the proper
means for seeking reconciHation with God. Though he
still is conscious that he is not as he ought to be, yet this
sense of demerit has not restored the sin and trespass-

iittle corner he can influence somewhat less miserable, and somewhat
less ignorant, than it was before he entered it." — Prof. Huxley.

* " Read Johnson's Vanity of Huriian Wishes; all the examples
and mode of giving them sublime. 'Tis a grand poem, and so
true." — Byron's Diary, 1821. **If all that the old poets have
sung, in isolated passages, of the miseries of existence ; if all those
sad songs of a truly terrible view of the world which the notion of a
blind fate has scattered amidst the legends and histories of various
nations in deeply significant tragedies were collected into one
picture, and the transitory and poetic fancy exchanged for true and
lasting earnestness, the peculiarity of the Indian view of life would
be best comprehended." — Fr. Schlegel, Uebe7- der Sprache und
Weisheit der Inder, quoted in Luthardt, 338 n.

t Ackennann's Christian Element in Plato, pp. 203 — 207.

X Pascal, Pensecs, ii. 88, 104.

12 Difficulties on iJie side of Unbelief

offerings of the Jew, or brought back those propitiatory
sacrifices of the Gentile, which were once, especially in
seasons of national or domestic calamity, multiplied with
such frightful prodigality, and prompted man to surrendei
even the fruit of his body for the sin of his soul.

II. Here, then, we are confronted with another and
very singular feature of the religious revolution we are
considering. Sacrifices, we know, formed a part uni-
versally of ancient worship. The sense of Sin was then
confessedly weak. How is it, now that it has been so
strengthened and developed, that the old ritual has
passed away ? It will scarcely be pretended that it con-
cerned the mere surface of man's life. If there be any
emotions, deep, serious, and permanent, in the human
breast, they are those which prompted these modes of
bridging over the gulf between the creature and his
Creator. What has caused this surprising change of
thought and feeling ? To say that the sentiment of man-
kind was gradually alienated from and that imperial
decrees^* forbade the ancient rites only removes the
difficulty a single step backwards. The question still
remains, whence came the feeling that inspired the legis-
lation, and how comes it to pass that legislation, in
religious matters notoriously weak and incompetent, has
succeeded in thus effectually eradicating a system once
so universal ?

IV.

I. May we conclude, then, that with the ancient
sacrificial ritual the ancient sacrificial phraseology has

* Like those of Theodosius, A.D. 381 ; Gibbon, iii. 413, and
notes.

in accounting for Historical Christianity. 13

disappeared also ? Are such expressions as *' victim "
and " offering," " oblation " and " satisfaction," " pro-
pitiation " and " atonement " utterly unknown ? Do we
trace them only as relics of a vanished world of thought
in the pages of the Pentateuch or the writings of Livy ?

2. What we might naturally have expected, what on
every ground of probability we had almost a right to
expect, has not taken place. Sacrifices have passed away,
sacrificial terms remain, and they not only remain, but
they have found a centre, round which they group them-
selves ; they have found a fact of history, to which they
have been transferred.

3. There exists at this day in every part of Europe,
and in various parts of Asia, Africa, and America, one
single Rite, that of the Lord's Supper, which alone ap-
proximates to the complex system that has passed away.

4. It has been celebrated for eighteen hundred years.
However it may have come, whencesoever it may have
come, here it is. "It has lasted through a great many
storms and revolutions. The Roman Empire has passed
away ; modern European society has risen out of its
ruins. Political systems have been established and over-
thrown. Even the physical world has undergone mighty
alterations, and our conception of its laws is altogether
changed."'^ But this Rite still survives. Manners,
habits, modes of thought, theories, opinions, philosophies,
have changed. This Rite has outlived them all.

5. But does this mode, in which the Rite is celebrated,
recall also the old sacrificial habit .^ Would it in any

♦ Maurice's Kingdom of Christ, ii. 5.

14 Dijjicidtics on the side of Unbelief

degree remind a Greek of the days of Pericles, or a
Roman of the time of Augustus, of the ancient ritual ?
The ceremonial to which they had been accustomed from
their earliest years was extremely complex. The victim,
adorned with garlands, was led up to the altar; meal and
salt were mixed and crumbled over its head ; a libation
of wine was poured out ; the victim was slain ; its blood
was poured on and about the altar; certain portions were
burnt with wine, meal, and incense, and the rest of the
flesh was distributed to the people.

6. Of all this how much survives in this Rite ? What
are the outward and visible signs presented during its
celebration to the eyes of the worshippers ? Suppose the
pro-praetor of Bithynia had been present at one of those
meetings of the early Christians which he describes in his
letter to the Emperor Trajan, and about which he was so
anxious, what tokens of any sacrificial ritual would he
have beheld ? In some upper room, perhaps, lit up with
the light of many torches, or the first rays of the rising
sun,"* he would have seen couches laid and the walls
hung, after the manner of the East,t for a harmless
banquet, j To this meal the rich would have contributed
of their abundance and the poor of their poverty, and all
would be joining in it with singleness of heart. Then,
after the offering of prayer and the reading of holy writings
and exhortation to a godly life, he would have seen
Bread brought in§ and placed before some elder amongst
the company, and likewise a cup of Wine. He would

* "Ante lucem," Plin. Ep. xcvi. f Stanley on i Cor. xi. vol. i.
p. 249.

X Plin. Ep. xcvi. § Comp. Justin. Apol. cap. Ixv.

ift accowitmg for Historical Christianity. 15

have seen the Bread solemnly blessed, broken, and eaten.
He would have seen the Wine solemnly blessed, poured
out, and drunk by those assembled.

7. Now, it is true that in ancient times, though the
victim itself was the efficacious element of sacrifice, it
was offered with and by means of bread and wine, and
that mealtime and sacrifice were so essentially connected
together that ''even the modes of expressing the two acts
were frequently interchanged."'^

8. But what thoughts would have instantly risen in the
mind of the pro-praetor ? What question would he most
certainly have put ? Would he not have asked, " If this
is a solemn meal, a religious feast, when and where was
the sacrificial victim offered? The victims for our
sacrifices find few purchasers, the temples are abandoned,
the sacred rites are neglected ; where is He whom ye
worship,! and what is the sacrifice ye are celebrating? "

9. To such a question, what would have been the reply
of any Christian in his province ? Would he not have
said, " This Meal, whereof we partake, is a sacred Feast,
instituted by Him, from whom we are called Christians.
He commanded Bread to be eaten, and Wine to be drunk
by us in memory of His Death, which He underwent
upon the Cross " ?

10. A Christian of Bithynia would undoubtedly have

* For the religious importance attached by Jews to the actions of
breaking bread and pouring out wine, even at a common meal, see
Lightfoot's Temple Service ; Godwyn's Moses and Aaro?:, -pp. Sg, go;
The Book of JriSjish Cerefnonies, by Gamaliel Ben Pedahzur, pp. 51
— 56 ; Cudworth's True Notion, chap. i.

t " Carmenque Christo quasi Deo dicere," Plin. Ep. xcvl.

1 6 Difficulties on the side of Unbelief

gone on to say more upon the subject to his inquirer.*
But the answer, even as far as it goes, brings out a very
remarkable feature in reference to this Rite. It claims
to rest not upon any conception or theory, but upon a7i
objective^ historical fact, and this fact is the death of its
Institiitor,

11. Now this is deserving of note. The disappearance
of an ancient, time-hallowed mode of religious worship is
a fact of history. The celebration of this Rite is a fact
of history, the rise and origin of which can be traced back
to a certain, definite period, of wJiich we know a great deal.

12. We are relegated, then, for an explanation of the
origin of this unprecedented Rite, not to a land of hazy
theories or shadowy mythology, but to one where we can
plant our footsteps on solid ground.

13. This Rite claims to rest within historic times on
the death of a Person. Either this death took place, or
it did not. If it did, there must have been circumstances
connected with it utterly unlike any otheE- that has taken
place in history, if we are to account for its commemora-
tion ever since by means of the reception of Bread and
Wine, to which Jew and Gentile alike attached a solemn
and even a religious importance.

V.

I. Who, then, instituted this Rite? When did He
institute it, and under what circumstances ? The answer
to these enquiries is not a matter of dispute. All the
Churches that have received the Symbol, Latin or Greek,

* The question of a higher or lower view of the Eucharist is not
material to the argument. The question is, Whal is the meaning of
the Rite at all ?

in accounting for Historical Christianity. 1 7

Catholic or Protestant, whatever other view they may
take of it, agree in referring it to one and the same Person,
and to one and the same time.

2. The Institutor — such is the testimony of Christian
writers, and it is strengthened by every incidental notice
of the facts which . occurs in profane authors — appeared
about eighteen centuries and a half ago, during the reigns
of the Emperors Augustus and Tiberius, in Palestine, an
obscure corner of the ancient Roman Empire.

3. Apparently He was of the humblest origin. His
reputed father was a carpenter of Nazareth, a town hidden
away amidst the Galilean hills, unknown and unnamed
in the pages of the Old Testament Scriptures. His
mother was a Jewish maiden of Bethlehem in Judcea, who
lived at Nazareth. Here for thirty years the Institutor of
this mysterious Rite grew up, sharing with the town its
seclusion and obscurity, far removed alike from the stir
and bustle of the great capitals of the Empire, and the
disputes of the theological schools of His native land.

4. When the thirty years of seclusion were over. He
left His humble home and came forth as a Teacher of
His countrymen, and after a while gathered round Him
a small body of disciples of equally humble origin as
Himself — peasants, publicans, fishermen of Galilee.

5. To these His followers He endeared Himself by a
life of self-sacrificing devotion to their highest interests.
With them He went about amongst His countrymen. He
visited their capital, their towns, their villages, and
addressed Himself as a teacher to all classes, rich and
poor, learned and unlearned.^

* For the sake of the argument, the supernatural element involved
in the Saviour's miracles is not here pressed. 2

1 8 Difficulties o?i the side of Unbelief

6. His teaching, it has been already* noticed, has
exercised a very remarkable influence in the world. It
combined terrible severity against sin with infinite tender-
ness towards sinners ; it united a marvellous simplicity
with a claim unhesitatingly and unfalteringly urged to an
absolutely boundless authority! over the minds and souls
of men. But it provoked determined opposition. Its
denunciations of hypocrisy, pretence, and formalism, its
assertion, never retracted or modified, of the Speaker's
natural title to universal royalty and coequality with God,:|:
arrayed against Him the most powerful classes of His
countrymen, and they resolved to compass His death.

7. The extant biographies§ of the Institutor of this Rite
tell us that He was well aware of the deepening intensity
of this opposition. He saw the tide setting in steadily
against Him, and He never disguised from His followers

* See above, p. 4, and Milman's History of Cht'isilanify, i. 189.

t "Jesus makes everything depend upon His person ; in fact, His
person is His matter. When He would most emphatically assure
or confirm, His words are, Verily, verily, I my unto you. We are
to believe His words, not because of the truth of their matter, but
because of the dignity of His person — and yet He was the meekest
of men ! " — Luthardt's Fundamental Truths, p. 284; Liddon's Bavip-
ton Lectures, 166 — 179; see also the comparison in this respect
between Christ and Socrates in Eccc Homo, pp, 94, 95.

+ John V. 17, 18.

§ " Into the question of their authenticity and genuineness it is not
necessary to enter here. That the three earliest Gospels at any rate
existed before the siege of Jerusalem, and that they had before the
middle of the seccnd century acquired a sacred authority, may be
regarded as a conclusion which has been wrung from the inevitable
candour of reluctant adversaries." — Farrar's Witness of History ia
Christ, pp. 52, 53.

in accounting for Historical Christiajiity. 19

its inevitable issue. It formed the subject of frequent
and earnest conversation with them.'-' Without the
slightest trace of misgiving, and with an unearthly calm-
ness, He never faltered in His declaration that on His
death depended the most momentous issues alike to His
disciples and to the world at large.

8. At length the hatred and opposition of the ruling
powers reached its climax, and they were enabled, owing
to the treachery of one of His own disciples, to ensure
His delivery into their hands. The evening before their
designs were carried out was the Eve of the Passover,
the great historic Festival of His countrymen. Jerusalem
was crowded with strangers and pilgrims from every
quarter of the world. The hills around were whitened
with countless flocks of sheep and lambs ready for the
morrow's Festival. The Institutor of the Rite we are
examining had made careful preparation! for celebrating
this Feast with twelve of His more immediate followers,
and on the evening in question He celebrated it with
them according to the custom of the nation.

9. The end, which He had foreseen, and of which He
had so often spoken, was now close at hand. But He
was neither perturbed, nor alarmed, nor anxious to retract
or modify any of His boundless claims. Calmly and
quietly. He took, as the Festal Meal proceeded, one of
the unleavened cakes that had been placed before Him
as Master of the Feast, and giving thanks. He brake it,
and gave it to them, saying — " Take, eat, This is My body,

* (i) Matt. xvi. 21 ; Mark viii. 31 ; Luke ix. 21, 22 ; (2) Matt.
xvii. 9 ; Mark ix. 9 ; Luke ix. 44 ; (3) Matt. x. 33, 34.

t Matt. xxvi. 17 — 19; Mark xiv. 12—16; Luke x.xii. 7—13.

20 Difficulties on the side of Unbelief

which is given for you ; do this in remembnxjice of Me."
Afterwards He took a cup of wine, and having given thanks
in like manner, He gave it unto tliem, saying — " Drink
ye all of this; for this Cup is My Blood of the New
Covenant, which is shed for you and for ma7iy for
the retnission of sins ; this do as oft as ye shall drink it,
in refnembrajice of Mel'

10. Such was the institution of the Eucharist. The
evening on \vhich it was instituted deepened into night,
but before the following morning dawned He who insti-
tuted it was apprehended by His enemies. Their malice
did its worst ; He was dragged from one tribunal to
another ; He was beaten, buffeted, spit upon, and at last
He was led out to crucifixion, and He died the death of
the malefactor and the slave.

11. The fact of His death is recorded in each of the
four biographies of Christ. However condensed they
may be in other portions, they " expand into the minute
particularity of a diary," as they approach the foot of the
Cross. The historical fact of His decease is mentioned
by later authors as a matter of common notoriety, and it
gave point to the opprobrious epithets applied to the
first disciples. In an historical age, which had its
archives, its registers, and its monuments, the fact was
always accepted, and never disproved.

12. Now, in the annals of the world, is there anything
really parallel to this ? " Other founders of systems or
societies have thanked a kindly Providence for shroud-
ing from their gaze the vicissitudes of coming time."
But the Institutor of this Rite, though to all outward
appearance He stood literally alone in the world, though

/';/ accounting for Historical Christianity. 2 r

amongst the little band of his attached followers He had
none on whom He could lean, or from whom He could
receive the slightest real sympathy or support, though in
the immediate foreground of His future was an awful and
humiliating death, yet was so far from deeming this any
hindrance to His planof establishing a Universal Kingdom,
that He actually made provision for its commemoration
to all future time ! About to disappoint every hope
and every anticipation of His followers, He established the
commemoration of that disappointment in a mysterious
Ordinance, and directed that it should be universally
celebrated ! *

VI.

1. Marvellous and unparalleled as this is, the fact re-
mains that this Rite has been uninterruptedly observed.
The anticipations of the Institutor have been fulfilled.

2. Now it will be allowed without hesitation that there
is nothing so rare as to find any religious system which is
capable of transcending the limits of race, clime, and the
scene of its historic origin ; a religious system which, if
transplanted, will not quickly vanish away, which by any

* Even Schenkel admits that "never before had Jesus stood at so
lofty a height as at the moment of instituting the Lord's Supper.
With a violent death before Him, expecting from His disciples, in
their weakness of character, neither help nor comfort, without pros-
pect for the victory of His cause from man, thrown with His hopes
and expectations only upon His heavenly Father, and upon tlie trutli
and power inherent in His life and Avorks, and uniting with all tliis
such elevated repose, such still submission, and also such perfect
patience with him who at this very moment was meditating the
basest treachery ! " Schenkel, p. 278,, E. Tr.

22 Difficulties on the side of Unbelief

real permanence can prove itself anything better than a
mere local or national outgrowth of superstition.

3. But this Rite, though it is utterly unhke anything
ever thought of, invented, or taught before, though it
commemorates a cruel and ignominious Death, though
that Death was the disappointment of every hope and
every anticipation of the first disciples, has been found
capable of universal transplantation, has transcended
alike the scene of its historic origin and the limits of
race and clime, and wherever it has been received and
celebrated the multipHed sacrifices of antiquity have
retired before it into the darkness of oblivion.

4. Now we can trace back this revolution to its source.
We can tell when the old system gave signs of
*' vanishing away," and the new Symbol, so unique and
unprecedented, began to take its place. It is not a point
so distant that we strain our minds in vain to realize it
amidst the mists of a hoary antiquity. It is not a period
of which we have no certain records or memorials. It
produced historians of good repute, whose narratives of
the events of their omi time are universally accepted as
authentic and trustworthy. It was a period in which the
*' transactions of every province within the limits of the
late Macedonian and then Roman Empire — the bar-
barian, so termed, as well as the Grecian, and the acts of
Herod among the number — were the objects of research
and careful narration, by natives of the soil as well as by
strangers."*

* Mill's Fantkcisfn, II. ii. sect. II ; Eclipse of Faith, p. 210;
Aids to Faith, p. 71 ; Restoration of Belief, pp. 40, 41 ; Sherlock's
Trial of the Witnesses, Discourse iv. 360.

in accounting for Historical Christianity. 23

5. To represent, therefore, that this Rite can be re-
garded as embodying a gradually developed Mytholog}^,
is to ascribe it to causes utterly inadequate to meet the
facts of the case. There is no known instance of a
mythical history growing up in such an age,* under such
circumstances, and with the rapidity we know it spread
amongst Christian societies of many different nations
and languages. A Rite of such marked peculiarity pre-
supposes an act of institution. Its universal spread
presupposes a general acquaintance mth the history of
the institution. The first Christians were neither mystic
jDhilosophers, enthusiastic dreamers, nor weak and credu-
lous men.' They were not likely to accept the history
on mere hearsay, nor to celebrate a Rite so strange and
unique without some adequate explanation. Men do not
lightly take up a creed which hits their fancy, or vaguely
embodies their aspirations, at the cost of their lives, and
with the certainty of being exposed to danger, suffering,
and persecution.

6. But when we look at the history of the institution
of this Rite as it has come down to us, — and it is to be
remembered that there is no other account of it, — we
cannot but be struck with its remarkable brevity and
conciseness. Considering all it was designed to import,
considering its utterly unprecedented character as a

* "The idea of men writing mythic histories between the time of
Livy and Tacitus, and St. Paul mistaking such for realities ! "
Arnold's Life^ ii. 58. " In the whole sphere of criticism there is no
absurdity more uncritical than the idea that a rite which universally
prevailed should have grown up accidentally and gradually, espe-
cially a rite of such marked peculiarity." Ebrard, GosJ)el Hisiory.
p. 409.

24 Difficulties on tJic side of Uiiheliif

Jewish institution, considering the shock which the idea
of commemorating the death of a Crucified Messiah must
necessarily have involved to the mind of every Jew, it is
brief to a degree perfectly astonishing. We find nowhere
any long, laboured, and specific justification of its in-
stitution. We find nowhere any minute and circum-
stantial directions as to the method of its celebration,
such as we find in the Apostolic constitutions.'-' In the
Evangelic narrative the account is brief, simple, and
artless. In those documents the particularity of direction
is like that of a " modern rubric."

7. Paley has noticed these features of the narrative as
strong proofs of its genuineness. If the account '' had
been feigned," he remarks, " it would have been more
full : it would have come nearer to the actual mode of
celebrating the Rite, as that mode obtained very early
in Christian Churches; and it would have been more
formal than it is."t To this we may add, that it is
too brief, simple, and concise for a scheme resting either
on imposture or on an eclectic Mythology. The super-
structure is too solid and weighty to rest on such founda-
tions as these. The simplicity of the account is too
grand for the impostor or the enthusiast, and we will now
present our conclusion from the facts we have reviewed.

10. The early Christians must have been able to give
some adequate accoiuit of the historical facts of the case,X
before they could either have celebrated themselves or
taught others in different lands to adopt a Rite so novel

* See Paley's Evidences, i. vii. 3. f Ibid. Part 11. chap. iii.
'I More substantial than the ^einte de suave mysticitc, which Renan
ascribes to their imagination, Vie de Jesus, chap, xxiii.

in accounti?ig for Historical Christianity. 25

and unprecedented as this. The historical fact this
Rite proclaims was their Master's cruel and ignominious
death; and He ordained it to proclaim His death.
Now, if after it took place — and this we know has
never been disproved — He passed away and was no
more seen ; if between His death and the celebration of
the Rite by the first disciples there was no intervening
event to link the one thing with the other — the celebra-
tion of this Rite, at such an age of the world's history,
and by those who celebrated it, is, on natural principles,
more miraculous and more inexplicable than anything
that ever occurred in the world.

VH.

1. Was there any event, then, intervening between the
death of the Institutor and its celebration by the first
disciples ? Was there anything which transfigured the
shame of their Master's Death, and presented the whole
action in a new light ?

2. Their own conduct when that Death took place has
been described minutely with the most artless simplicity.
When He died, the Evangelic narratives admit that one
alone of the Apostles was standing by His Cross,* that
one had denied with an oath he had even known Him,t
that all had forsaken Him and fled. J This is their own
account of. the matter. They neither hide nor disguise,
they neither palliate nor excuse it. With singular open-

* John xxi. 25,26.

t Matt. xxvi. 69—75 J Mark xiv. (>(i — 72 ; Luke xxii. 54 — 62 ;
John xviii. 15—27. + Matt. xxvi. 56.

26 Difficulties oil the side of Unbelief

ness, with surprising particularity, they dwell upon the
story of their own cowardice and faithlessness.

3. What interest they had in describing themselves as.
worse than they really were it is difficult to see. But if
then they were cowards, stupefied with sorrow and over-
whelmed with despair, what made them bold afterwards ?
If before they never could bear the idea of their Master's
Death, and when it took place were crushed to the earth
with disappointment, with what conceivable object could
they have joined within a very short period in this Eu-
charistic Feast, and that in the very city where He died ?*
Why did they ever rally together again to commemorate
His Death, and to proclaim by a symbolical action the sad
fate of One, whom they had given up everything to fol-
low, but in whose grave every hope was noAv buried ?

4. An adequate and consistent explanation of these
extraordinary facts is needed. Is there one such produ-
cible ?

5. There is one, which, in spite of obloquy, contempt,
and cruel persecution, the first disciples made it the busi-
ness of their lives to proclaim, which every extant letter
of every Apostle, and every author contemporaneous with
the Apostles, of the age immediately succeeding them,
and every Christian writer from that age to the present,
concur in representing as a fact no less historical than
that of the death of the Institutor of the Eucharistic
Feast.

6. The Evangelists inform us that when He died. His

* Acts ii. 46 ; xx. 7, 1 1. Why also did they continue to attach
to this Meal even the "mystic sense" which Renan admits, Les
Ap^tresy chap. v. ?

tn accottnting for Historical Christianity. 27

Body was taken down from the Cross and laid in a new
tomb.''^ They are careful to impress upon us — with
what object it is difficult to see, unless it was true — that
even this act of kindness and consideration was due not
to any of the Apostolic body, but to secret disciples and
comparative strangers. In that tomb the Holy Body lay
during the Friday night, Saturday, and Saturday night
which followed the sad scene on Calvary. A sealed stone
and a guard of Roman soldiers,! we are told, protected
the spot and defended it from the intrusion alike of friends
and enemies. But early in the morning of the third day,
a day which ever since has been observed, J that stone
was found to have been rolled away, and the sepulchre-
was discovered empty, §

7. A fact more momentous in its significance it is im-
possible to conceive, but as a fact it was placed beyond
all doubt, and it is related with the same simplicity, calm-
ness, and absence of strain and effort as any other inci-
dent in the life of the Lord. Indeed, so simple and art-
less is the narrative at this point, so blended is it witii
confessions of fear, doubt, misgiving, and incredulity,
that as we read the record we almost forget the marvellous
features of the occurrence, and can with difficulty realize
its exceptional character, j]

* Matt, xxvii. 57 — 61; Mark xv. 42 — 47; Luke xxiii. 50 — 56;
John xix. 38 — 42. t Matt, xxvii. 62 — 66.

X Barnab. Ep. xv. Aio Kal dyofiev rrju ijfxepav rrjv oydorjv etJ
ev(ppo(Tvv7]v , iu Tj 6^l7](T0V5 hvicTrj kK v€KpQv.

§ Thus much Renan, Les Apotres^ chap i., and Schenkel, p. 311,
admit.

II ^e?Xco\.\!s Gospel of t/ie Resurrection,^. 157.

28 DiJJicuUies on the side of Unbelief

8. But if the sei)ulchrc was empty, where was He who
had been laid therein ? He was no longer there,* He
had risen, and by many infallible proofs He gave token
of the reality of the fact. On the world's first Easter
Day He show Himself to Mary Magdalene,! to the other
ministering women,:}: to St. Peter,§ to two disciples jour-
neying towards Emmaus,]] to ten of the Apostles in the
upper room at Jerusalem, when St. Thomas was absent. 11
Eight days afterwards He manifested Himself to them
when that Apostle was present.'*'^ Subsequently He was
seen by seven of their number on the lake of Gennesaret,tt
then by St. James,J:}: then by more than five hundred
brethren at once on a mountain in Galilee, §§ and lastly by
all the Apostles once more on one of the hills near
Bethany, where He was parted from them, and ascended
into heaven.ll ||

9. Simple as the narrative is, it is circumstantial in the
details it records. Every avenue of misconception was
closed up, every ground for delusion was removed. " It
was not one person but many who saw the Risen Saviour.
They saw Him not only separately, but together ; not by
night only, but by day ; not at a distance, but near ; they
not only saw Him, but touched Him, conversed with Him,
ate with Him, examined His Person to satisfy their

* Luke xxiv. 3. f John xx. 11 — 18 [Mark xvi. 9 — ii].

X Matt, xxviii. 9, lO ; Mark xvi. 5—7 ; Luke xxiv. 4 — 8.

^^ Luke xxiv. 34 ; i Cor. xv. 5. || Luke xxiv. 13 — 35.

*T Luke xxiv. 36—43 ; John xx. 19 — 25 [Mark xvi. 14].

** John XX. 26 — 29, ft John xxi. i — 24. XX ' Cor, xv. 7.

\\ Matt, xxviii. 16— 18 ; i Cor. xv. 6.

1111 Luke xxiv. 50 — 53; Acts i. 3 — t2.

in accounting for Historical Christianity. 29

doubts."* It is conceivable that the enthusiasm of a single
member of the Apostolic company could have given an
imaginary shape to individual hopes. But it is impossible
to conceive how a number of witnesses, all incredulous,!
and one pre-eminently so, could have been simultaneously
affected in the same manner,

I o. The Institutor of this Rite rose from the dead. This
is the historical fact, to which the Apostles declared that
they were raised up to bear witness. Upon it they staked
everything, their life, their credit, their veracity,:}: and
their hopes. In order to proclaim it they confronted
danger, suffering, and death itself in some of its most
appalling forms. As believers in it they were obliged
to become separate from other men, to sever the ties of
home and family and common intercourse, to exchange
all that life holds dear for sacrifices which made life little
better than a daily martyrdom. It is important ever to
bear in mind what joining the Christian Society meant in
early times ; for even if we allow that the majority of
men were at this period uncritical and credulous, aud
that they were unacquainted with the rigorous demands
of " exact science," yet it cannot be said that they were

* Paley's Evidatces, 11. viii.

t *'It is most instructive to notice that the report of the Lord's
Resurrection was in each case disbelieved. Nothing less than sight
convinced those who had the deepest desire to believe the tidings ;
and even sight was not in every case immediately convincing." —
Westcott's Gospel of the Resurrection, p. iii.

X I Cor. XV. 15. "There is something to him very touching in
the manner in which the Apostle writes this monstrous supposition.
That he should be a false witness ! a thing incredible and mon-
strous."— Robertson's Lectures on First Corinthians, p. 253.

30 Difficulties on the side of Unbelief

more credulous than men in any age have been found to
be when -worldly interests are in jeopardy and an entire
change of conduct is demanded, when old habits have to
be broken up, and insult, contempt, danger, and a death
of torment, to be confronted.*

11. A hope of a life beyond the grave, a prospect of
his own resurrection, was all that the early Christian had
to support him in hours which try men to the uttermost,
and show of what stuff they are made. If his hopes
were bounded by this life only, if they were rounded off
by this " bank and shoal of time," then indeed he was
of all men most miser able. '\ His life was a blunder, a
gratuitous folly, and it is impossible but to believe that
the early converts weighed carefully the evidence upon
which they were called to exchange ease for toil, comfort
for discomfort, quiet for perpetual danger.

12. The more the subject is considered, the more
hopeless it will be found to reconcile with what went
before the vast and overmastering change which came over
the entire thoughts and feelings of the Apostles after the
death of their Master, without some intervening fact as
certain and as historically real as that event itself The
more the subject is considered, the more hopeless it
will be also found to reconcile the celebration of the
Eucharist, considering all that it imported, and the age
in which its celebration began, with the gradual cessation
of the ancient sacrificial ciiltiis, except on the supposition
that something occurred between the Passion and the

* vSee Butler's Ajtalogy, part ii. chap, vii,

f EXeeivore/soi Trdivriavv Bpuiruav ea/xeu, I Cor, xv. 1 9.

in accounting for Histoi'ical Christianity. 31

observance of this Rite, powerful enough to remove
once and for evei the torturing doubts which must ever
have attended the celebration of the Eucharist, and
glorious enough to transfigure the desolation and despair
of the Story of the Cross.''

13. A " splendid guess," a " vague but loving hope,"
a doctrine fouijded on subjective ideas, the dream of an
enthusiast, — these will not account for facts so hard, ob-
jective, stubborn, and indubitable. They will not bear
the weight of the suj^erstructure they have to support,
they crumble to dust before the vastnessof the revolution for
which they have to account. The Resurrection — and the
Resurrection alone — supplies an adequate cause, an his-
torical event sufficient to account for historical facts.
" As a fact with which the disciples were familiarised by
repeated proofs, it was capable of removing each linger-
ing doubt : as a Revelation of which the meaning was
finally made known by the withdrawal of Christ from the
earth, it opened a new region and form of life, the ap-
prehension of which would necessarily influence all their
interpretations of the Divine promises. If the crucified
Lord did rise again, we can point to effects which answer
completely to what we may suppose to have been the
working of the stupendous miracle on those who were the
first witnesses of it : if He did not, to what must we look

* " We shall not say too much if we designate the Supper the
climax of the ancient Christian worship, in which the congregation
celebrated its reconciliation with God in Christ, the Mediator be-
tween God and man ; and find in its uninterrupted celebration the
first proof of the steadfast faith of the Church in the Divine nature
of Christ."— Donier'c^^rj(?;2 of Christ, i. 186, E. Tr.

32 Difficulties on the side of Unbelief

for an explanation of phenomena for which the Resur-
rection is no more than an adequate cause ? "*

VIII.

1. Lefore I close, let me finally review the difficulties
with which we are confronted, supposing that the Resurrec-
tion was not a fact and the Gospel History is not true.
Let us survey them calmly, and see if they do not
involve conclusions more miraculous and unaccountable
than anything that has ever occurred.

2. If the Resurrection is not an historical fact, we are
called upon to believe that plain, simple, unsophisticated
men like the Apostles, who had been trained from their
youth up in sacrificial habits, who from early associations
would naturally have been disposed to exalt the ancient
ritual, and did adhere to many of their ancient customs,
yet could bring themselves to assert that the entire system
of sacrifice was "dene away" and "fulfilled" in and
through the death of One, who by that death only dis-
appointed every hope and dashed to the ground every
anticipation they had ever cherished.

3. We are called upon to believe that they could de-
tach themselves from and persuade many others also to
forsake a religion which even at the final siege of Jeru-

♦ Westcott's Gospel of the Resurrection, pp. 1 18, 119. "The
fact of a Christian Church being formed at all notwithstanding the
shock which the idea of a crucified Messiah must necessarily have
given to the mind of every Israelite of that day, can only be explained
on the assumption of the Divinity of Christ and the historical reality
of His Resurrection." — Ebrard's Gospel History, p. 447.

in accowiting for Histoi'ical Christianity. -^^i

salem still exercised an irresistible spell over the minds
of thousands and tens of thousands in Palestine ; which
with all its far-back memories and associations could
kindle a fire of enthusiasm in the heart even of the rene-
gade Josephus -^ which could rally to the banner of the
boasting impostor Barcochab multitudes of the nation
burning with zeal and filled with the enthusiasm resulting
from the consciousness of past greatness and former
triumphs;! that they could forsake all this and persuade
others to join a Society which could offer as a com-
pensation for the loss of recollections so august, and of
institutions so hallowed by time, literally nothing.

4. We are called upon to believe that men who till the
last moment could not bring themselves to realise the
possibility of their Master's death, who whenever He
spoke to them on the subject could not understand His
words or comprehend His meaning, who on the day He
died were scattered as sheep without a shepherd, every
hope buried in His grave, could within fifty days after
the event be transformed into new men, with new hopes,
new conceptions, new impulses, could confront danger,
face persecution, and ascribe to a Crucified I\Ian divine,
predicates, which stood in direct contradiction to Jewish
monotheism — though for such an ascription they could
adduce no reason or justification higher at best than a
"vague impression'" or an ''enthusiastic fancy."

* Joseph, Bell. Jiid. chap, i, ; Stanley's Scrtnons on the Apos-
tolical Jgc, p. 354.

t " Even after the destruction of Jerusalem many Jews clung to
the hope of the renewal of the Temple,, and the restoration of the
services in their full splendour." Dollinger, ii. 416.

3

34

Difficulties on the side of Unbelief

5. We are called upon to believe that in an age when
neither civilisation nor philosophy had eradicated or sim-
plified the ancient sacrificial ritual, when men were rather
exhausting themselves in their efforts to invent some
fresh ceremony of superstition, and were seeking in cruel
and revolting rites purification from guilt and ease of
mind, yet there emerged at this period, from the centre
of Judaism, a Society of men to embody in a mysterious
Rite the idea that all sacrificial observances had found
their consummation and fulfilment in the degrading
death of an obscure Galilean, who expiated the charge of
blasphemy on the Cross.

6. Finally, we are called upon to believe that though
the Rite only commemorated another of the innumerable
triumphs of the great conqueror Death, though it only
embodied a Disappointment, and enshrined Despair, yet,
in spite of the proverbial difiiculty of discovering any
religion which can transcend the limits of its original
home, it has secured an undisputed acceptance among the
most cultured nations, and has succeeded in banishing
into the darkness of oblivion one of the most deeply
rooted forms of religious worship which has ever
appeared in the world.

7. It is only necessary to review these difficulties, to
see that they remain, and for ever must remain, ab-
solutely unintelligible without the fact of the Re-
surrection. But if we accept the Resurrection as
a fact as truly historical as the Passion, then we are in
a position to interpret events which are notorious, which
took place not in a fabulous age, but one of which we
know a great deal, and which had its records, its monu-

in account i/ig for Histo?'ical Christianity. 35

ments, and its archives. We can understand whence
came the flood of b'ght which irradiated the minds of the
first disciples, and which revealed to them once for all
the true meaning of a Death they had not before dared
to contemplate or even make the subject of enquiry.

8. If we accept the Resurrection as a fact, we can
look back and see how it came to pass that, in spite of
the shame of the Cross, the Christian Society could
gather and concentrate itself around the Person and
Work of Him who died thereon, and how the associations
connected with a grand historical Deliverance of a single
nation, commemorated in a Paschal Feast, could be
absorbed in the commemoration of a grander, ^\^der,
more universal Victory.

9. This solution places us on sure and solid ground.
We can look back and trace out the efficient cause of the
greatest religious revolution the world has seen. In the
Passion and Resurrection of our Lord, the Past and the
Present find a common meeting point,'" and shed each on
the other a mutual light. That which was Perfect had
come, that which was in Part was done aivay.

10. But if the Resurrection is nothing higher than a
^' vague impression'^ or a '^glorious guess," what hope
have we in this mysterious world ? We must believe that
its religious history was for upwards of four thousand
years a long, purposeless parenthesis of useless rites and
idle ceremonies. We must believe that Judaism pointed
on to nothing, which was to be the reality and substance

* See Schlegel's Philosophy of History, p. 278 ; and Professor
\Ycstcott's remarks on the Resurrection and History, pp. 53 — 134.

36 Difficulties on t/ic side of Unbelief.

of its mysterious ordinances.* ^Ve must believe that
there was no Perfect Sacrifice, for which the ten thousand
sacrifices of heathenism were a confused outcry. We
must beheve that " Death still remains the great Con-
queror," of whose defeat no pledge event has been given
to mankind.

lo " Nature/' says Goethe, J " tosses her creatures out
of nothingness, and tells them not whence they come or
whither they go : she wraps man in darkness, and makes
him for ever long for light." Is abject prostration before
her terrible forces and inexorable laws still to remain the
only attitude for man ? What else is left for him, if the
deepest yearning of his heart has never been satisfied, if
He, who died upon the Cross, still lies near a Syrian
town, and His Resurrection is a dream?

* See Archer Butler's Sermons, i. 262. "Judaism with a typified
atonement may be a miracle, or a chain of miracles ; but Judaism
without it is a greater miracle still."

t On the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ as the pledge of
our redemption, see Canon Swainson's Hulsean Lectures, p. 213 ;
Archbp. Trench On the Miracles, p. 35.

X Goethe's Aphori&ms on Nature, quoted in Farrar's Hulsean
Lectures^ p. 43 n.

THE VARIATIONS OF THE GOSPELS IN
THEIR RELATION TO THE EVIDENCES
AND TRUTH OF CHRISTIANITY.

BY THE

REV. T. R. BIRKS, M.A., Camb.,

Professor of Mo;nl Philosophy z« the University of Cambridge, and
Honorary Cano7i of Ely Cathedral.

Ihe Sanations 0! tlu ^oB^ds in

ihtix Relation ta the €bibeitas

mxb %xxitk of Christianitg,

"HpHE variations in the Gospels, in the midst of
■^ substantial unity, are no argument against their
historical truth." Such is the original title of this
lecture. The assertion is very modest and cautious.
But I cannot do justice to my o-\vn convictions, or to the
line of thought I wish to unfold, without going much
beyond this purely defensive and limited averment. The
real thesis I shall seek to establish, so far as time will
allow, may be stated in these words : " The unity of the
four Gospels amidst their partial diversity, and their
diversities amidst substantial unity, are a powerful argu-
ment for their veracity, and the truth of the main facts
they record. They are also a proof that the writers
were guided and controlled by a higher wisdom than
their own, and thus confirm the claim of the Gospels to
be viewed as a Divine message to mankind."

The four Gospels, even apart from their sacred cha-
racter, have certain features in which they seem unique

40

The Variations of the Gospels in their Relation

and without a parallel. The number of persons, of
whom memoirs liave been published, is very great ; and
that of the memoirs themselves, of course, is much
greater still. They vary widely in size and extent, from
a few pages to several volumes. In this vast multitude
of writings, I doubt whether another instance can be
found of four memoirs, and four only, of the same person,
professedly written by eye-witnesses of his life, or their
immediate companions, each complete in itself, so brief
that six or seven would be needed to make a volume of
ordinary size, so closely connected that three of them
have often been supposed to have made use of some
common document, so distinct that friends as well as
adversaries have often ascribed to them partial contra-
diction, and still oftener entire independence, and yet
producing, when compared together, an almost irresis-
tible impression of reality, honesty, and truth. In
the whole range of known biographical literature, this
fact seems to stand alone. No writings of the kind have
left on plain and simple readers a stronger impression of
reality. None have occasioned more difficulty to those
who look below the surface, compare them with each
other, and seek to explain in a reasonable way at once
their differences and their agreement. The instrument
is most simple. The effect produced is constant, long-
lasting, and profound. These four simple, unadorned
narratives, amounting to less than three hundred octavo
pages, have determined and upheld the faith of millions
of readers, have inspired the great, the noble, and the
wise, with thoughts and hopes full of immortality, and
have moulded the very history of the world through sixty

to the Evidences and Truth of Christianity. 41

generations down to the present day. Devout Christians
see and own in this great fact the finger of God. The
more closely they study it, the more will they find to
confirm their faith. And sceptical doubters may well be
invited to turn aside and see this strange sight, like that
which Moses saw in the desert. The bush is so mean
and humble in form and size, but it is lit up manifestly
with a Divine glory. It has been beat upon with the
fierce light of opposition and hatred, and surrounded by
flames of persecution ; and still it abides in its lowly
beauty, unconsumed and imperishable, from age to age.

Let us first observe the remarkable unity of the four
Gospels in the midst of their manifold diversity. We
shall find here many clear marks of Divine wisdom,
adapting them to their great object, and scarcely capable
of being assigned to the purpose of the separate writers. I
would single out these features, their fourfold character ;
their brevity, their silence, their simpHcity, their propor-
tion, their selection of minor incidents, their common
aim and issue, rising through facts of history into a
message of religious faith.

The first and simplest view of the EvangeHsts is that
they are witnesses to the truth of certain facts, on which
the whole fabric of Christianity depends. Now the rule
of common sense and of the Jewish law is the same, that
" in the mouth of two or three witnesses shall every word
be established." A single Gospel, of the same length as
the four w^e now have, and including all their details,
would by no means answer the same end, and supply the
historical basis which is needed, where the superstructure
is of such immense importance. There would then be

42 TJie Variations of the Gospels in their Relation

no concurrence of testimony. The building of our faith,
instead of resting harmoniously on four pillars, would
rest on one pillar alone. The principle laid down alike
by Divine and human law would be set aside ; and, how-
ever honest the solitary witness might be, his testimony
would be wanting in the simplest, the most usual, and
the most decisive mode of confirmation. And hence,
while some histories of the Old Testament are confirmed
only by fragmentary repetition in other books ; and
others occur in a double narrative, as in Samuel, Kings,
and Chronicles ; and some in a threefold account, as the
Assyrian invasion and overthrow; a fourfold witness,
exceeding the alternative of two or three witnesses
prescribed in the law, is reserved for the Gospel record
alone as the crowning and most vital part of the
whole sacred history. This could be no plan of the
earlier Evangelists. No sign of its contemplation, as a
distinct purpose of the writer,' appears even in the fourth
Gospel, where there is no mention of the three which
had already appeared. But a wisdom higher than their
own has thus secured for all plain and simple readers an
evidence of substantial truth, by the direct concurrence
of two, three, and sometimes of four witnesses, which
could not have been attained so fully and simply in any
other way.

A second feature of the Gospels, closely allied to the
list, is their brevity. When four narratives are given
instead of one, each of them needs to be more brief,
or else the total may become of inconvenient length.
For one object in records of such events as these, which
bear a sacred character and are intended to found a new

to the Evidences and Truth of Christianity.

43

faith, must be ready accessibility and ease of reproduction.
A Gospel history, rivalling in size a folio volume, would
have been greatly inferior in practical value. It would
have been more rarely copied, more seldom . studied
and read, and even perhaps by a very few learned
students alone. Christianity would thus have been in
danger of becoming an esoteric creed, a kind of
Eleusinian mystery, blindly received, with no roots
in the general conscience, instead of a message ap-
peahng to mankind at large. Its moral worth must
have been obscured and clouded, even if it did not
wholly disappear. But the Gospels, from their briet
size, are within the reach of the learned and unlearned
alike, and may easily be read, or heard and remembered
when read by others, by all who really care to become
acquainted with the great truths and facts they reveal.

The Evangelists, if eye-witnesses, or intimates of eye-
witnesses, must have had access to very large materials in
those three years of our Lord's ministry, in which every
day had its work and message of Divine love. Where
the topic was of such absorbing interest, each of them
v/ould thus be naturally tempted to compose a very full
account of the sayings and doings of One whom they
loved and adored. Or, even if we assume for a moment
the rival hypothesis that they were idealists and en-
thusiasts, who lived rather later, and whose actual mate-
rials were more scanty, still in such enthusiasts the same
temptation would have appeared in another form. They
v/ould be prone to amplify their materials by comments,
fancies, and rhetorical or poetical additions of their own ;
so that their work would gain in bulk, while it lost in

44 TJlc Variations of the Gospels in their Relation

solidity, and the rainbow lines of their own ardent fancy
would have prolonged the narrative, and tinged it with
a colouring due to that fancy alone.

Such a result seems probable on either view, had the
Evangelists been common writers, and, in composing
these sacred memoirs of the Lord, whom they so reve-
renced and honoured, had been left to their own human
impulses and instincts alone. But now, on the contrary,
a singular brevity marks all the four Gospels. Two of
them correspond nearly in length to eighty pages of a
modern octavo, the second to only fifty, and the fourth
to sixty pages. And this in recording thirty years of a
life, which they must have regarded with most profound
interest, and three years of public labour, in which every
day had actions or discourses worthy, in their view, of
lasting honour and veneration.

Near akin to this brevity of the Evangelists is their
remarkable silence. Two of them give an account of
the birth and infancy of the Lord Jesus, and one records
a solitary visit to Jerusalem at twelve years of age. But
with this one exception, all of them pass over thirty
years of His life in absolute silence. From the visit to
Jerusalem with Joseph and Mary, when He stayed
behind in the temple, to the opening of the Baptist's
ministry, not one word is given on the life, the occu-
pation, the friends, the companions or relatives, of the
Master whom they loved and adored. Assuming the
histories to be genuine, it is clear that their authors
must have had access to a great variety of facts and
incidents during those earlier years, of which no trace
appears in the narrative. Indeed the later apocryphal

to the Evidences and Truth of Christianiiy

45

Gospels, the products of unrestrained and unscrupulous
fancy, abound in supposed incidents of this very kind.
The instinct of human curiosity, when freed from the
secret control which guided the four sacred writers,
indulged itself by filling up a void of which it wns
impatient. The common reverent silence of all the four
Gospels on those earlier years of privacy and retirement
is one out of many signs, that they were secretly guided
in their work by a wisdom higher than their own.

Another feature of the four Gospels is their historical
simplicity. The narrative they set before us is naked
and unadorned. There is no independent preface or
conclusion, no rhetorical amplification, but only narrative
of the simplest, plainest, and most straightforward kind.
They record events full of wonder, miracles of startling
grandeur, words of surprising tenderness and dignity,
which must have touched and stirred the deepest chords
of believing and pious hearts. But the most supersti-
tious devotee hardly abstains more rigorously from food
on a fast day than the Evangelists refrain from comment-
ing, in their own person, on the great events and sacred
discourses they record. In the three first Gospels this
abstinence seems to be complete. In the fourth, the
writing of St. John in his old age, and intended plainly for
those who had read one or more of the earlier Gospels,
the rigour of this law is relaxed, and a few passing com-
ments are interposed. But even when we include the
sublime and reverent introduction, and the digression in
chap. xii. on Jewish unbelief, they amount altogether,
even here, to less than one-twentieth of the whole. This
strict and severe historical simplicity, complete in the

4'3 llic ViU'iaiions of the Gospels in iJieir Relation

three earlier Gospels, and slightly relaxed, under special
reasons for the change, in the fourth only, is wholly
unlike the practice of mere enthusiasts. It implies a
secret control exercised over the minds of the writers,
restraining them from all utterance of their own deepest
emotions, and confining them to the one office of provid-
ing a true and faithful record of the events themselves.

Another feature common to the four Gospels is their
historical proportion. Two only give some account of
the birth and infancy of our Lord. But the space occu-
pied by this part of the narrative is only one-twelfth of
the Gospels where it appears, or just one-twentieth of the
whole record. Except one brief incident in St. Luke, the
thhty years that follow are passed over, in each alike, in
entire silence. The three years of the public ministry
occupy two-thirds in St. Matthew and St. Mark, three-
fourths in St. Luke, and three-fifths in St. John. The
single week of conflict and suffering at the close, with the
appearances after the resurrection, form one-third of St.
Matthew and St. Mark, one-iburth in St. Luke, and two-
fifths in St. John ; or one-third of the four narratives,
taken together. This one week then, with its sequel,
fills as large a place in one Evangelist, and a larger in
the rest, than each year, on the average, of the public
ministry. Such a fulness in this part of the record may
be explained in some measure by the deep interest it
awakened in the minds of the writers, and of their readers,
the first disciples. But this near approach to the same
proportion in all the four, when combined further with
their common silence as to all the earlier years, is a mark
of Divine unity of plan in the fourfold narrative, hardly

to the Evidences and Truth of Christianity. 47

to be explained by human authorship alone, and which
must impress every thoughtful and observant mind.

The large proportion of common incidents or repeated
narratives is another prominent feature of the Gospels.
Nearly every incident which is given by St. Mark appears
also in St. Matthew, and also more than half, perhaps
nearly two-thirds, of those which are recorded by St.
Luke after the public ministry began. Now the facts and
words recorded in all the Gospels must bear a small pro-
portion to the events themselves. This contrast receives
a passing notice from St. John at the close of the fourth
Gospel. During the three years of our Lord's ministry each
day would have had its work, or its sayings and discourses,
public or private, worthy of record, and all would be of
deep interest to the first believers in Jesus as the long
promised Messiah, the Incarnate Son of God. Such
words or actions, we may well suppose, filled up six or
seven hours at least of every day throughout the thousand
days of that public ministry. And how much, or rather
how little, has been placed on record ! All the sayings
of our Lord in the four Gospels, even neglecting the
plain fact that repeated records are given of the same
address or conversation, might be read or spoken deli-
berately within six or seven hours only. Thus it appears
that what is actually recorded is not one part in a hun-
dred, but more nearly one in a thousand, of the whole
amount of what the Lord Jesus did and spoke during His
public ministry. Thus the words of St. John are a very
lawful hyperbole, that if the whole were recorded, " the
world would not be able to contain the books that
should be written."

4«S The Variations of the Gospels in their Relation

How is it that, while the materials in themselves were
so ample, the writers traverse plainly so much common
ground ? The fresh facts in the third and fourth Gospels
show clearly that means of enlargement and expan-
sion were within their reach. Consciously or uncon-
sciously, they thus fulfilled one main purpose of con-
senting witnesses of the events, by confirming each
others testimony to the main facts of their common
narrative. If the later had seen the earlier, as must
clearly have been the case with St. John, this does not
affect the conclusion. One main object of a fourfold
record is signally fulfilled, and, most of the selected
incidents being the same, in the mouth of two or three
witnesses the words are established.

There is another mark of unity, nowhere obtrusive,
which underlies all the four narratives. Their common
object is to prove the great doctrine that Jesus of Naza-
reth is the true Messiah of God. And hence, unlike the
Epistles, or even the Book of Acts, the personal name,
Jesus, is used simply throughout, almost to the exclusion
of every other. This practice is unifonn and constant
in the two earlier Gospels, with one exception at the
very close of the second. In St. Luke there are only
about ten exceptions, and in St. John about six or seven
in explanatory remarks, while the name Jesus is actually
used more than two hundred times in either Gospel.
Titles of honour and reverence, such as occur perpetually
in all the Epistles, must have risen spontaneously to
their lips. That they should uniformly have refrained
from them is more than a mark of unity in the midst of
diversity. It is a sign also of that secret wisdom by

to the Evidences and Irtith of Christianity. 49

wiiich these sacred memoir-writers were guided and
controlled. The hand of God's Spirit was upon
them, while they wrote, and, in spite of their strong
instinct of deep reverence for their Divine Master,
confined them to the use of that simpler title, Jesus,
which suited best with the great purpose of their
record. An advocate is unskilful, and damages his
own cause, who assumes in the outset that guilt or
innocence of his client which it is his business to prove.
The Evangelists, then, were not allowed to obtrude pre-
maturely their own deep convictions on their readers.
The facts were to speak for themselves without a com-
mentary. And this design, common to all the four
writers, is simply and clearly stated at the close of the
latest Gospel : " These things are written, that ye may
believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that
beheving ye may have life through His name."

The variations of the Gospels, however, have often
been held to counteract the evidence of their truth and
inspiration, derived from these and other marks of
striking unity in the four narratives, and their consent in
all the main facts they reveal. I believe that they have
really, when closely questioned, and seen aright, an
opposite effect ; and supply still stronger reasons, because
more latent, and needing deeper thought for their
detection, to prove them not only honest and veracious
narratives, but inspired messages of sacred truth. The
subject, however, is too wide and inexhaustible to be
treated properly in a single lecture. I will strive to con-
dense as much as possible under seven or eight heads,
some of the main grounds which lead me, without any
hesitation or doubt, to this important conclusion.

50 The Variaiions of t/ic Gospels /;/ t/ieir Relation

The mutual relation of differing witnesses to the same
facts or events may be roughly classed under five varieties :
dishonest and collusive agreement; honest agreement,
but deceptive and illusive ; honest discordance, so wide
and deep as to render the consent nearly worthless ; a
like discordance so limited and partial, as to strengthen
the remaining concurrence, and leave the weight of the tes-
timony not seriously impaired ; and, last of all, consistent
and reconcilable diversity, which confirms in the first
place the independence and plurality of the witness,
and, when questioned more deeply, serves to establish
its perfect truth.

The first case is that of a collusive and fraudulent
concert to bear false witness. In this case the agreement,
at first sight, may seem more perfect than with genuine
evidence. But the seeming perfection of the harmony,
unless the witnesses are of high character, and well-
known, awakens strong suspicion, and the consent breaks
do^\^l in a rigorous cross-examination on points over-
looked and forgotten in the concerted story. The diver-
sities of the Gospels, which have perplexed believers,
and gratified hasty adversaries, have at least one clear
gain. They exclude this first alternative altogether. No
dishonest compact could have produced four Gospels
with so much of seeming discordance hard to explain.

The second case is that of an agreement illusive, but
not dishonest. In our courts of law important witnesses
in a cause are not allowed to be present, while any one of
them is giving evidence. It is not supposed that most
of them would be dishonest, and consciously garble
their own statements, so as to agree better with those which

fo the E%)idenus and Truth of Christianity. 51

they have heard. But it is wisely judged that witnesses
of imperfect memory and average clearness of thought and
judgment would be biassed unconsciously by such previous
Icnowledge. If they wished to confirm the general drift
of the previous evidence, they would emphasize points of
agreement, and insensibly pass by points of difference, or
those of which their own first impressions were different
and opposite. The evidence, if not rendered a mere
repetition, would become more alike, or in the case of
opposing witnesses more widely divergent, than if their
depositions were made in perfect ignorance of those
which had gone before. The divergences of the Gospels
equally exclude this second hypothesis. There is no
such agreement, either collusive or illusive, as would
result from dishonest concert, or even from the uncon-
scious moulding of independent testimony to avoid any
appearance of discord and partial contradiction.

Many Christian writers have carried this view so far
as to maintain that the Evangelists wrote in complete in-
dependence, and never saw each other's writings. But
this is to assume an improbable fact, without evidence, iw
order to strengthen a conclusion which results directly
from the certain facts alone. The divergences of the
Gospels really prove the truth of one of two alternatives,
and do not decide between them. The first is that the
later had not seen the earlier, and v/ere wholly inde-
pendent. The second is that they were witnesses too
honest, too vivid, and of too high an order, to garble
their own testimony, or disguise divergences in their view of
the life they record, in order to avoid the risk of being
charged with contradiction, and thus to produce on super-
ficial minds an impression of more complete agreement.

52 The Variations of the Gospels in their Relation

Three alternatives then alone remain. The first is
that of the honest doubter or sceptic, who thinks that
the Gospels contain proofs of partial contradiction,
and these so extensive as really to damage and almost
destroy their claims to credit, even where they agree.
The second is that of many Christians, more candid and
accommodating than thorough going and entire in their
defence of the Gospel history. The third and last is
that which has been the usual faith of the Church of
Christ, and to which I myself fully and firmly adhere,
that the contradictions of the Gospels are apparent, not
real ; that they change sides when closely and fairly ex-
amiined, and are then transformed into more latent and
decisive evidence of their common truth and Divine in-
spiration.

Now in comparing the two former views, truth requires
an admission to be made on either side. If the facts
recorded in the Gospels were common facts, and the case
were the same as of an ordinary civil or criminal trial,
or anhistorical inquiry of the usual kind, the preponderance
in favour of the Christian advocate would be immense
and overwhelming. The substantial agreement so far
exceeds the partial disagreements, as, when every abate-
ment is made for alleged inaccuracies or apparent
contradictions, to leave the main evidence far stronger
than that of any single testimony, however honest and
trustworthy. But then, on the other hand, the case is
not the same. The facts to be attested are special and
extraordinary. They depart wholly from the usual cha-
racter of human experience. They profess to be the
groundwork of a Divine revelation, which claims the

io t/ie Evidences and Truth of Christianity. 53

allegiance, and affects the present and future destiny, of
countless millions of men. The foundation of a building
needs to be strong, in proportion to the weight of the
superstructure to be reared upon it. The Gospel history,
from its very object and nature, needs a degree of strength
in the evidence of its truth beyond the measure of a com-
mon suit at law, or any ordinary question in modern his-
tory. These writings claim indirectly to be sacred
documents, records of a Divine message. As such they
have been received and honoured by the Church in suc-
cessive generations. An amount of inaccuracy and con-
tradiction, which would scarcely have any sensible effect
in lowering their character, and weakening the effect of
their concurrence, if their contents were of a vulgar and
ordinary kind, must here assume a very different impor-
tance. In the first place, it destroys at once their claims
to special and Divine inspiration in the sense which
Christians have usually attached to the phrase, for a God
of perfect truth and holiness cannot prompt and inspire
even partial falsehood. And it forms a moral objection
even to their substantial truth, of a very real kind. Such
a message, involving results of immense and vital import-
ance, according as it is neglected or received, must surely
demand from the wisdom of its Author some answerable
care in the mode of its delivery to mankind. It seems most
unlikely, if truly Divine, that it would be obscured and
placed in jeopardy, by entrusting it to ill-informed wit-
nesses, who on many details disprove and contradict
each other. So that these alternatives land us in a strange
paradox. If the Gospel be viewed as a purely human
message, the evidence is decisive and overwhelming to

54 The Variations of the Gospels in their Relation

prove the truth of tlie main facts, and hence that the
whole is Divine. If viewed as Divine, and the existence
of partial and repeated contradictions be ajlowed, there
arises at once a strong presumption against its super-
natural claims, whicli must tend to lower it to the rank of
an ill-attested and therefore human message.

But if, on the other hand, the seeming contradictions
are apparent only, and the variations in the four Gospels
are instances of reconcilable diversity, the body and form
of the history and its moral essence are in harmony with
each other. The apparent divergences are signs of the
honesty of every separate witness, while their agreement ;
beneath the surface, when brought to light, becomes even
a stronger proof than their direct and open correspon-
dence for the truth of their common message, and the
Divine inspiration under which it has been given. And if
I can show, under many different heads, that the variations
are of this character, that they are not signs of imperfect
knowledge, or the chance-medley of uninformed and
careless narrators, but are full of marks of design which
become visible only after close research, and do not appear
on the surface, the thesis of this lecture will have been
abundantly, though not exhaustively proved.

The mutual relation of the four Gospels as to sameness
and diversity is my first argument. Is this the result of
chance and a fortuitous concourse of witnesses, if not
dishonest, at least vague, enthusiastic, imperfectly-in-
formed, or easily deceived ? Or does it yield, when ex-
amined, all the signs of a hidden and mysterious wisdom ?
It may be urged, on a casual view, that St. Mark is so
much like St. Matthew, and the incidents are so entirely

to the Evidences and Truth of Christianity.

55

common, that it hardly can be viewed as a separate
testimony j and that the facts in St. John are so distinct
as hardly to confirm the other Gospels, or to be confirmed
by them, but rather to awaken the doubt how a miracle
like the raising of Lazarus could have been silently
omitted by three previous writers.

But now let us apply a key which the Bible and com-
mon sense both provide, and at once a secret and unsus-
pected harmony comes to light. ^' In the mouth of two
or three witnesses every word shall be established. ' In
weighty questions of fact the concurrence of two witnesses
is almost essential, that of three is desirable, to be the
ground of a reasonable faith. A fourth is a kind of
luxury or superfluity. Hence, if we have four successive
memoirs on a subject of high importance, which hold the
character of human or Divine witnesses, when they are
taken in order, three results naturally follow. The
second, compared with the first, will have for its main and
almost sole object to confirm the earlier testimony. The
third, compared with its two predecessors, will have the
double object, in almost equal measure, to confirm
facts already given, and to supplement them with fresh
information. The fourth, again, being nearly super-
fluous for the end of confirmation, maybe expected to be
almost entirely a supplement and completion to the rest.

Now this, on close observation, will be found to be the
exact relation between the four Gospels ; assuming, as we
may reasonably do, that the traditional order in which
they now stand is also the true order of their first appear-
ance. St. Mark differs doubly from St. Matthew, by a
comparative absence of our Lord's discourses, and by

56 21ie ]\}riations of the Gospels in tJieir Kdaiion

llie greater fulness with which the outward details of His
miracles and journeyings are described. But the inci-
dents recorded are almost wholly the same. The chief
exceptions are only these — the presence of wild beasts
in the hour of temptation ; the healing of the deaf man in
the coasts of Decapolis,and of the blind man at Bethsaida;
the rei)ly to St. John as to the man who was casting out
devils in the name of Jesus ; and the incident of the young
man, who fled naked from the soldiers in the hour ot
temptation, treachery, and sorrow.

St. Luke, again, as compared with St. Matthew, holds
exactly a middle place. He agrees with him, and differs
from St. Mark, in recording the miraculous conception,
the birth, and the infancy of the Lord Jesus. But the
facts connected with them in detail are almost wholly
different. Again, in the public ministry the facts recorded
are either the same, or closely similar, through six chap-
ters, or about one-fourth of the Gospel. The accounts
then mainly diverge, though still with some common
features, in Luke ix. 51 — xviii. 14, or eight chapters and
one-fourth of two others. The agreement is then sub-
stantial, though not complete and unbroken, through
seven remaining chapters to the close. The confirmatory
and supplemental characters thus coexist in nearly equal
proportion.

In St. John the relation varies once more, but still
conforms to the same secret law. Except the record of
the miracle of the five thousand in the former half of
chapter vi., and that of the eventful week of the Passion,
all the incidents, without exception, are fresh and
original, and such as had not been given by the three

to the Evidences and Truth of Christianity

57

others. Even in the record of the last week, the new
facts or new discourses greatly exceed those which are
resumed, and had been already given before. Yet still
there are so many allusions to facts already recorded, as
familiar and notorious, that the Gospel takes its place as
one harmonious and needful element in the structure of
the conjoint and fourfold narrative.

This special relation of the four Gospels, inwrought
into their whole texture, by which they are essentially
diverse, with a distinct plan and method in their diver-
sity, the second simply confirming the first, the third
confirming and supplementing the first and second, the
fourth and last restricted almost wholly to the office of
supplementing those which had been published before,
is a powerful argument that their variations, far from dis-
proving their Divine origin, are really the direct
consequence and effect of that Divine wisdom which
presided at their birth.

2. The historical unity and adaptation of each Gospel
is a second argument.

These four Gospels, however closely united and widely
circulated in later times, must have had, each of them, its
own immediate and special object, depending either on
the date, or the special class of disciples or inquirers for
whose use it -was composed. The circle to which they
all appealed was not homogeneous. In fact the history
of the early growth of Christianity reveals four successive
centres, and differing classes for whom such provision
would naturally be made. The first centre was Jeru-
salem, or perhaps rather Galilee, the home and centre of
the first disciples who were gained to the faith, and whose

5S The Variations of the Gospels in their Relation

first thought would be the conversion of their Jewish
brethren. The second centre was C^esarea, where the
first Gentile convert, CorncHus, the Roman centurion,
was gathered in. Tlie Roman soldiers and civilians
resident in Palestine were the first class, beyond the Jews,
to whom the Gospel was accessible, and Ccesarea, the
scene of that conversion, was like the Syrian outpost of
Imperial Rome. The third centre was Antioch, where
the name Christian had its birth, and where extensive
preaching to the Greeks first began. The fourth and
last centre was Ephesus, where St. Paul resided two years,
and St. John still later took up his residence, with the other
Asian churches, which form the subject of address in
the opening of that prophecy, which carries on the sacred
history, and completes the record of the New Testa-
ment.

The four Gospels have features of marked correspon-
dence with these four successive centres of the early
church history. They seem adapted, in the first place,
for Jewish or Galilean inquirers and disciples, for Roman
military- converts, for the Greeks of Antioch and Syria,
and for believers established in the faith, like the churches
of Asia, over which St. John presided in his latest years.
St. I^Iatthew begins with the promises to the Jews in
Abraham and David, and a genealogy wich connects our
Lord with the line of the kings of Judah. He introduces
him at once under this special title, the King of the Jews.
He presents Him to us as the Lawgiver, greater than
Moses, and appeals throughout to the Jewish prophecies
which He fulfilled. St. Mark, again, whose name is a
Roman name, records chiefly the actions of Christ, and

to the Evidences and Truth of Christianity.

59

omits His discourses, in harmony witli the practical and
outward character of the Roman mind. He uses the
Latin, not the Greek name, for the Roman centurion
and the executioner. He expounds Jewish usages, as if
writing directly for readers who were outside the Jewish
synagogue. But he nowhere expounds or explains Jewish
localities, which implies that he addressed readers familiar
with the country, and the sites and towns of Palestine. St.
Luke, by early tradition, was a native and resident oi
Antioch. His Gospel, and still more the Book of Acts,
have the features of classic Greek histories. He professes
to have inquired closely into the facts by a comparison
of authorities, and to observe the order of time. He
introduces features especially Syrian, the government of
Cyrenius, the years of Tiberius, the four tetrarchies and
their occupants, the rivalry of Herod and Pilate, and the
name of Herod's steward, and speaks of Arimathea,
" a city of the Jews," as if his readers were not familiar
with Jewish localities. St. John, again, writes as
for those who were established in the faith, and fa-
miliar with the names and character of the apostles, and
he continually mentions the Jews in a way which
implies that the separation of the Church from the Jewish
peopk and synagogue was then complete. This unity,
in character and tone of each Gospel, corresponding with
four quickly successive stages of the Church's develop-
ment, and of which the types may be seen in Jerusalem
and the five hundred Galilean disciples; in Ca^sarea, Cor-
nelius, and the first Roman converts; in Antioch and the
Hellenists who first received the title of Christians; and in
Ephesus and the Asian churches, when Jerusalem had

6o The J arialious of the Gospels in their Relatioti

fallen, and the Church had received its full development,
is one out of many proofs that the diversity of the Gos-
pels for from being the result of chance, and involving
imperfection and contradiction, arises from the reality of
their adaptation to special classes of readers in the early
times.

3. The moral and spiritual unity of each Gospel is a
tlvird argument that their diversity is no result of igno-
rance and imperfection, but fulfils a secret and important
design of their Divine Revealer.

The Gospel is a message at once intensely real and
sublimely ideal. In this it corresponds to the great
doctrine on which it is based, the Incarnation. Each of
the four has its distinctive unity on the real side, as
adapted to a special class, for whose use it was first
written. St. Matthew corresponds with the wants of the
first Jewish inquirers, and St. John with those of the full-
grown believers of the Asian churches. But there is a
like distinction and contrast no less observable on the
doctrinal and spiritual side. This has led to their asso-
ciation, from early times, with the sacred symbols of the
cherubim. Space will not allow me to amplify and con-
firm this contrast. Stated briefly, it may be thus ex-
pressed. The first Gospel looks backward, and links the
life of Christ with all the earlier messages of the Old Tes-
tament, and exhibits His claims as a Lawgiver and King.
'I'he second looks outward, and exhibits Him as the
Great Husbandman, unwearied in patient labour. It
omits His longer discourses, but gives the outward and
visible details of His work far more largely than St.
Matthew; and it retains this outward character to the last.

to the Evidences and Truth of Christianity. 51

in the form of that parting charge, to preach the Gospel
to every creature. St. Luke deals with the human and
priestly or sacred elements of our Lord's person and
work. His Gospel looks forward to the later triumphs of
tlie faith, and the spread of the Church, and hence it finds
its continuation in a later work of the same writer, the
Acts of the Apostles. St. John's Gospel looks upward.
It begins with a distinct revelation of the truth that Jesus
is the Word of God, become incarnate for man's salvation .
And it closes, not with a message concerning the earthly
diffusion of the Gospel, but like the others, with a call
to heavenward aspiration : " Jesus saith unto him,
Follow Me ! "

This double unity, which close observation reveals in
each of the four Gospels, both on the historical and the
deal side, removes their diversity from the region of chance
and mperfection into that of profound adaptation and
Divine wisdom. As the slight diversities in the two
pictures of a stereoscope are not accidental and trivial
errors, but the very elements on which our full conception
of solidity depends, so this fourfold presentation of the
life of our Lord combines special adaptation to the
wants of the Church in its first origin and growth, with
an harmonious fourfold exhibition of His perfection, who
is the King, the Shepherd, and the Sympathising High
Priest, and more than all, the Second Adam, the Lord
from Heaven.

Let us now examine rapidly a few of the main discre
pancies in detail, and we shall see that they yield, when
sifted, only deep and latent signs and proofs of unity
and Divine wisdom.

62 IVic Variatio7is of the Gospels m their Relation

4. The Genealogies.

The contrast of the two genealogies in St. Matthew
and St. Luke meets us at the opening of the Gospels.
It has given rise to a great variety of Christian comments
and explanations ; and to objections, often repeated and
raised, on the part of opposers of the faith. The ques-
tion to be answered is this. Does their contrast prove
ignorance and error, or is it a reconcilable diversity,
which gives the strongest evidence of special design,
guiding and overruling this double record ?

The true explanation, in spite of all sceptical cavils,
and the frequent mistakes even of Christian commentators,
seems to me clear, simple, and decisive, and amounts
to a moral demonstration. St. Matthew and St. Luke
both agree to affirm our Lord's '• miraculous conception.''
He was, in popular estimation and in right of legal inherit-
ance alone, the Son of Joseph. But He was really and
substantially the Son of Mary, and had no earthly father.
In common cases a man may have three genealogies.
The first in precedence and dignity is the paternal, the
line of his father. The second, which comes next, is the
maternal, the line of his mother. The third, in some
cases only, is the adoptive or purely legal, the line of an
adopted father. By the first and second, natural quali-
ties may be transmitted. The child inherits the likeness
only of real parents ; the third does not convey natural
characters, but legal rights alone. The case of our Lord
was peculiar and unique. He had a real mother, but no
real human father. The paternal and the adoptive line
were one and the same, and the maternal alone was the
real line. One was the popular genealogy, and decided

to the Evidences and Truth of Christianity.

u3

His legal right of inheritance in the public eye ; but
the other alone was a true descent, and decided the
form and true character of the great mystery of the
incarnation. Thus the genealogy, which usually has
the first place in dignity and importance, here be-
comes the second, and the second becomes the first.
That Joseph should be of the seed of David was es-
sential, if our Lord was to seem even to outward
observers, ignorant of the mystery of His birth, to be the
heir of the promises. That Mary should be of the seed
of David was essential, that the promise of a Messiah of
the seed of David might be really fulfilled, and not in
deceptive appearance alone. The paternal genealogy
would still be of high importance. It would serve to
establish the claims of Jesus of Nazareth in the outward
court of Jewish law and. opinion, where the mystery of
His birth was unknown. The other genealogy would be
more important still, since on this would rest the fulfil-
ment of many prophecies, and the real truth of His title
as the Son of David.

This contrast, plain to a reflecting mind, explains the
two sacred genealogies. Both in form belong to Joseph,
but he could not have two fathers, two strictly paternal
genealogies. If one is proper, one must be improper,
that is maternal, conjugal, or adoptive. The proper Jine
of Joseph could only give an improper, legal, and
adoptive line of the Son of Mary. A maternal or other
adoptive line of Joseph would be neither a proper nor an
improper line of Jesus. But the conjugal line of Joseph,
as the son-in-law of Mary's father, would be the true
line of our Lord's actual descent. St. Matthew, coming

(3 1 The Variations of the Gospels in their Relation

first, gives the descent by which our Lord would be
usually recognised by the Jews as the Son of Joseph.
For he wrote for Jews, and his genealogy precedes his
narrative of the incarnation. The term used is one Avhich
rec^uires strict and real descent, and is never used of a
father-in-law or a merely adoptive parent. In the last
step, then, the imperfection of this genealogy comes to
light. " And Jacob begat Joseph, the husband of Mary,
of which Mary was born Jesus, who is called the Christ."
In St. Luke the genealogy comes later, at the time of the
baptism, after the mystery of the miraculous birth has been
fully unfolded. The descent of Mary and Joseph alike is
referred to the Davidic family. The name of her unborn
Son, as the Son of David, is given Him in the same
message which excludes an earthly father. And the
connective term throughout the whole list would apply
equally to a son, a son by adoption, or a son-in-law. In the
Talmudical writings, also, Mary is called the daughter of
Heli. The later Gospel, then, designed for Gentile
converts, and tracing the line up to Adam, not down from
Abraham, replaces the legal genealogy of our Lord's
putative father by one still more important, that of His
real mother, on which alone His Davidic descent and
the mystery of His incarnation in human flesh really
depend. The minor diversities would detain me too
long. But I believe that they admit equally of a solution
which ^shows the Divine harmony of the narratives and
their common truth.

5. The accounts of our Lord's infancy in the two
Gospels have been further charged by Strauss and
others with direct contradiction. " It is impossible," he

io the Evidences and Truth of Christiayiity. 65

states boldly, "that both can be true, and one must
necessarily be false." St. Luke makes Nazareth the
original residence. But Matthew ii. 22, it is said, ''ren-
ders certain that Matthew did not suppose Nazareth, but
Bethlehem, to have been the original dwelling-place."
When he represents Joseph on his return as prevented
from going to Judea solely by his fear of Archelaus, he
ascribes to him an inclination to proceed to that pro-
vince, unaccountable if the affair of the Census alone
had taken him to Bethlehem, and which is only to be
explained by the supposition he had formerly dwelt there.
This objection, made with a confidence truly amazing,
will be found on examination, as is often the case, to
change sides and become a strong evidence for the truth
of the sacred history. It is here assumed that the good-
will of a Jewish carpenter's business in a Galilean
village, away from the traditional home of his family,
would be an attraction of such extreme force, that no
providential changes, however surprising, no angelic
visions and messages, no hopes of honour and royalty
for the new-born son, whose birth itself was a miracle
unique and unexampled, could possibly break the spell, or
ever induce Joseph to prefer the birthplace of Jewish royalty
to the despised and ill-famed Galilean village. But what
notion could be more unreasonable and preposterous ?
Are working carpenters so immovable from place to
place in our own days ? Once assume the reality
of the main facts recorded, and their effect on the
minds of Joseph and Mary might be foreseen with
certainty, had the Gospel been silent, and the least
knowledge of human nature might have made it plain,

5

66

The Variations of the Gospels in their Relation

even to the dull eyes of a dreaming speculator and
recluse. They had been brought to Bethlehem unex-
pectedly, at the very time when the promised child was
bom. An angel had announced His royal honours. Wise
men from the east had laid royal gifts at His feet. Jerusa-
lem had been stirred by the tidings, and Herod's fears
awakened by the tidings of a rival who was destined
to succeed to David's throne. The words in the
message to the Virgin had received repeated
pledges and signs of their truth. What place could
be so fit and natural as David's home for the
training and dwelling place of his heir and successor,
till the way should be open for His assuming His rightful
honours? All the indications of the present, the memories
of the past, and the hopes of a near future would conspire
to impress the parents with the thought that here surely,
in the city of David, to which the Roman decree had
brought them, where eastern sages had been guided to
come and worship, and where a prophecy, newly repeated
to Herod, had fixed Messiah's origin, was the right and
fitting place for the great work of educating for His
promised dignity the Son who had just been born.
The idea that Joseph would of course, on his return
from Egypt, have gone back to Nazareth to recover
his tools, or, to revive his suspended business as a
carpenter, and forsake his ancestral seat, the seat
of royal ancestors, and the birthplace of the coming
King, is worthy of a dreamy pedant, steeped in the
spirit of doubting and self-conceit, but unworthy of a
reasonable man. What is said to be a necessary proof
of falsehood is a clear sign of consistency and truth.
The Evangelist does not pause to explain what explains

to the Evidences and Truth of Christianity. 67

itself, when all the facts are thoroughly considered. The
seeming contrast of the two Gospels, when the transition
in the minds of Joseph and Mary would follow so
naturally and inevitably from the wonders recorded, and
the hopes to ^vhich they must have led, is really a
powerful indirect evidence of their common truth. The
writers, it has been well said, "were too well aware of
their agreement and consistency to be afraid of the
effect of apparent collision. They neither apprehended
it themselves, nor feared that it would be objected to
them by others."

6. The main scene and locality of our Lord's public
ministry is the next principal subject, on which seeming
contrast and disagreement turns, on further search, into
a remarkable harmony of statement. The three first
Gospels agree to place our Lord's ministry in Galilee.
They begin, after His baptism, by speaking of His removal
from Nazareth to Capernaum. And after this all the
local allusions are Galilean, down to the last week, when
die passage through Judea and the entry into Jerusalem,
were followed by the crucifixion. The places named in
St. Matthew are successively, Capernaum, GaHlee and
Decapolis, Capernaum, the Sea of Gahlee,the Gergesenes,
Chorazin and Bethsaida, the sea side, Nazareth, a desert
place near the sea, Gennesaret, the coasts of Tyre and
Sidon, the sea of Galilee again, the coasts of Magdala,
Csesarea Philippi, Galilee once more, and the coasts of
Judea beyond Jordan. In St. Mark nearly the same,
with one added miracle in Decapolis, and one at Bethsaida,
In St. Luke, we have Nazareth, Capernaum,Gennesaret,the
wilderness, Capernaum, Nain, the land of the Gadarenes,

6cS TJie Variations of tJie Gospels in iJicir Relation

]>ethsaida,Chorazin,thc midst of Samaria and Galilee, and
Jericho. The disciples are identified by their Galilean
dialect. And in the Book of Acts the same feature is
conspicuous on the question at the day of Pentecost,
"Are not all these which speak Galileans."

But here an objection will arise. For our Lord is
described as saying before His death — " O Jerusalem,
Jerusalem ! how often would I have gathered thy chil-
dren, and ye would not ! " The complaint is given, at
different times, both by St. Matthew and St. Luke. Yet
strange to say, in all the three first Gospels we have no
single line to show that this complaint was true, or that
such attempts had ever been made.

When we turn to St. John, in its almost entire diversity
of materials, its wholly supplemental character, we have
a key by which the perplexity is entirely removed. This
Gospel speaks scarcely at all of the Galilean ministry. Its
■'ontents belong, with one exception, to the successive visits
our Lord paid to Jerusalem. The first of these is recorded
in ch. ii. at the first Passover, and was followed by a stay
of some weeks in Judea, before the opening of the
Galilean ministry. The second was the visit when the
impotent man was healed, at a feast of the Jews, which
was probably the second Passover. At the third Pass-
over, from the malice of the Jews, which then en-
dangered our Saviour's life, no visit was paid to the
metropolis, because the time of His sacrifice was
too remote. Here only one main event in Galilee is
recorded, shortly before the Passover, and then we
are told that He went on walking in Galilee, because
of that murderous malice of the Jews. But then followed,

to the Evidences and Truth of Christianity, 69

in the latter part of that year, two successive visits, one
at the Feast of Tabernacles, and another at the Feast of
Dedication. And thus, by comparison, the enigmais solved,
and the Divine complaint of the Saviour is verified. The
ministry was mainly Galilean. But its course had been
intersected by four visits to Jerusalem at the first and
second Passovers, the third Feast of Tabernacles and of
Dedication. And it was during a fifth and final visit
that those sacred words were uttered, of complaint and
sorrow at their persevering unbelief.

Other main topics, to which the same truth will fully
apply, that seeming divergence conceals below its surface
deep evidence of real consistency and truth, are these :
the apparent dislocation of separate sayings or miracles,
the real irregularity of one part of St. Matthew, the rela-
tion of the Sermon on the Mount to the same or a similar
discourse in St. Luke, the visits to Nazareth, the call of
the four apostles, the two miraculous draughts of
fishes, the celebration of the Last Passover, and the
narratives of the Resurrection. But each of these would
almost require a separate lecture, and my time is nearly
exhausted. I would close with a few remarks upon the
first alone.

Whenever it is made an objection to the accuracy of the
Evangelists that the same, or nearly the same, parable .or
saying or miracle is found in very different parts of the
narrative, one plain fact seems to be forgotten, or at
least the weight is not given to it which its importance
deserves. All the sayings of our Lord, recorded in the
four Gospels, including every repetition of those
doubly or trebly recorded, might be spoken deliberately

7 o llic Variations of the Gospels in tJieir Relation

without undue haste, in much less than the working
hours of a single day. But our Lord's public ministry
lasted three full years, or more than a thousand
days. None of these were spent in dull inaction or
total silence. Each of them was filled with its own
works and words of love. And thus the whole of His
sacred words, if all alike had been given in their own
time and place, must have formed a volume nearly a
thousand fold larger than the collective amount of the
four Gospels. But His life was one of ceaseless journey-
ing from town to town, and from village to village. The
same discourse in substance, even when of considerable
length, may probably have been delivered to some
thronging audience ten or twenty times, but varied by
new insertions and additions, and the omission of some
parts which were spoken before. In the case of shorter
sayings, brief parables or maxims of Divine wisdom,
there is no reason why several of them may not have been
really uttered, in different places, even hundreds of times.
There is no presumption, then, when such passages are
found differently placed in different Gospels, for supposing
that one or the other has erred wholly in their arrange-
ment. On the contrary, there may often be traced a
remarkable suitableness and beauty in some change,
which occurs in the later repetition, under fresh circum-
stances, of a saying already uttered. Thus we read in
St. Matthew at the Mission of the Twelve, " Are not two
sparrows sold for a farthing ? and one of them shall not
fall on the ground without your Father. But the very
hairs of your head are all numbered." In St. Luke,
apparently much later, after the Mission of the Seventy

io the Evidences and Truth of Christianity. 71

and their return, ''Are not five sparrows sold for two
farthings ? and not one of them is forgotten before God.
But even the very hairs of your head are all numbered."
How strangely does the general truth, the care of
Divine Providence even over events the most minute
and seemingly insignificant, receive a fresh illustration,
when our Lord can notice even so slight a change in the
usual price, at one time or another, at one place or
another, of the sparrows themselves !

I feel how impossible it is, v/ithin the limits of a
lecture, to do justice to a subject so wide as the one on
which I have offered these remarks, I would hope
on some other occasion to complete the outline,
and to throw some new light, which I believe to be
possible, on the topics I have named, but am compelled
for the present to pass by. I can only, in closing, ex-
press my own deep conviction, not lightly formed, but
the result of careful examination, that the objections
brought against the consistency and truth of the Gospel,
even those which have sometimes been hastily accepted
as real by Christians themselves, are due to imperfect,
superficial study, or hasty and groundless inference
alone, and that in the great majority of cases they serve
only to disclose a secret harmony, too deep and full to
be seen by careless eyes. For if hundreds of years are
too short a time to trace out all the wonders of God in
His works, and to discover and unfold those laws which
order the course of the planets, and govern the currents
and tides of the ocean, how can we wonder that diffi-
culties should meet us at first sight, and only yield
slowly to patient thought, prayerful inquiry, and intelli-

72 TJic Variations of the Gospels, c^r.

i^ent comparison of Scripture with Scripture, in that
Word of God which is more excellent in His sight than
even all the works of Nature, and of which we read that
stately description, '* Thou hast magnified Thy Word
above all Thy Name."

THE APOCRYPHAL GOSPELS.

BY

B. HARRIS COWPER.

^he Jlp0crgphal ^aspels.

IT is worthy of notice that some writers who seek to
disparage the four Canonical Gospels ingeniously
endeavour to exalt the so-called Gospels which are
Apocryphal. To raise these spurious and third rate
productions to the level of the genuine Gospels is not all
that is meant ; if it were, the question would soon be
decided. There is a sinister purpose behind, and that
is, to pull down the true Gospels by means of the false.
Now we believe the former are of inestimable value,
while of the latter we say with Dr. Ellicott, the present
Bishop of Gloucester : " Their real demerits, their men-
dacities, their coarseness, the barbarities of their style,
and the inconsequence of their narratives, have never
been excused or condoned. It would be hard to find any
competent writer in any age of the Church, who has been
beguiled into saying anything civil or commendatory. '"'^
Every word of this will be endorsed by the most accom-
plished of even sceptical critics, who will admit with M.
Nicolas, who is not in the ranks of orthodoxy, that " i]i
reality, they are all, without exception, infinitely beneaiii

* Cambridge Essays for 1856, p. 153.

7 6 TJie Apocryphal Gospels.

the Canonical Gospels in all respects."* Such are the
books we have to deal with now.

The course pursued by the more skilful opposers of
the true Gospels is, to confess the want of authenticity,
authority, veracity, and merit of the Apocryphal Gospels,
and then to turn round upon us and say, "Your Gospels
labour under similar defects, and yet the others are as
ancient, and have been received with similar reverence
by the Churches ! " We, on the contrary, maintain that
they are not as ancient, and were never of equal autho-
rity among orthodox Christians. We might demand of
our adversaries the proof of what they say, but without
waiting for that, we are ready to disprove it. The two
classes of books have been carefully investigated, and the
result is that only folly or fraud can place them on the
same level. This is true, whether we regard them from
a critical, an historical, a moral, or a religious point of
view. Some of these matters I hope to make clear
before I conclude ; but I must proceed now to say what
the Apocryphal Gospels are.

In the introduction to my translation of those which
exist I have \mtten as follows : " Several of these books
are still extant in one language or another, but of the
larger part we only possess fragments, or the mere
titles. I would thus describe in a few words the character
of the books in question : They are all spurious ; they
all relate to Christ and to those who were associated
^vith Him in His earthly career, or to the Apostles and
their associates ; they all seek to supplement or develop

* Etudes sur Ics Evangiles Apocryphes. Prcf. p. xxiii.

The Apocryphal Gospels. ^^

the writinojs of the New Testament ; and all that we hav

'&

•e

are of more recent date than any of the Canonical books.
The series commenced in the second century at latest,
and continued for many centuries. The materials are
drawn, partly from the New Testament, partly from tra-
ditions, and partly from the imagination of their authors.
They are of no historical or doctrinal authority, and were
never officially recognised in the Church." These re-
marks apply to all the New Testament Apocrypha, and
therefore to the false Gospels, which alone at present
concern us.

I will trouble you with another extract from my book,
in which I give an explanation of the origin and intention
of the Apocryphal Gospels, and similar books : —

" I. The Evangelical narratives were simple and
meagre in their mode of describing what (i) preceded,
(2) attended, and (3) followed, the facts with which they
are mainly concerned. This applies to

" (i). The Family of Christ ; (2), His Infancy ; (3), His
Inauguration ; (4), His Trial and Crucifixion ; (5), His
visit to the Underworld; (6), His Resurrection and
Ascension ; (7), His Mother and the Aposdes after-
wards.

''II. The Evangelical narratives were almost or wholly
silent on various points, e.g.

"(i), Doctrines to be believed, but requiring explana-
tion ; (2), Certain matters connected with the unseen and
spiritual world ; and (3), The organisation and discipline
of the Church.

" III. Sundry sects, heresies, and parties wanted sup-
port from Apostolical and Divine authorities.

78 The Apocryphal Gospels.

" IV. Men took pleasure in producing religious novels,
fictions, Hagadoth (a Jewish form of religious fiction), or
whatever we call them ; and they knew such things were
popular."

Let me repeat that " the materials are drawn, partly
from the New Testament, partly from traditions, and
partly from the imagination of their authors." This being
the case, while we admit that they contain elements
which are true, we are required to speak of them as
fictions. They are not all wholly false, and they were not
all meant to be taken as literal history. A similar prin-
ciple holds good with other books and works of art. It
is applicable to the *' Paradise Lost" of Milton, the
" Pilgrim's Progress " of Bunyan, and the '' Robinson
Crusoe " of Defoe, to the historical plays of Shakespeare,
the historical novels of Scott, to Franklin's " Parable of
Abraham," and to the "Ammergau Passion Play." It
applies also to Godfrey Kneller's picture in Hampton
Court Palace of '' William III. Landing at Torbay," to
David's painting in the Louvre of " Napoleon crossing
the Alps," and to the '' Shadow of Death " by Holman
Hunt. These all rest upon a basis of truth, but not one
of them represent events as they happened. As their
merits are independent of historical accuracy, so are the
merits or demerits of the Apocryphal Gospels.

In some respects certain of the false Gospels cannot be
corhpared with the works I have enumerated ; I mean
those which were written in the interests of heresy or of
superstition. That some were so written is matter of
history, and that it is true even of a part of those which
we have in a more or less complete state is apparent to
every careful student,

The Apocryphal Gospels. 79

Very few of the Apocryphal Gospels profess to be in-
spired, and none have been viewed as such by the Church
of Christ. Occasionally they refer to our Gospels as of a
more elevated rank^ which is an acknowledgment of their
own inferior pretensions. But when we come to look into
them and subject them to criticism, we soon begin to see
how far they are from any just claim to equality with
our Gospels. Among the phenomena which present
themselves to our notice are these : — i. The same book is
often ascribed to different authors. 2. The same book
appears with different titles. 3. Different books occur
with the same title. 4. The same book may have dif-
ferent forms, one much longer than the others. 5. Two or
three books are sometimes amalgamated into one. 6.
The various readings are as divergent as they are numer-
ous, immensely in excess of those which belong to the
four Gospels, although the latter have been copied a
hundred times more often to say the least. The negli-
gence in copying, and the liberties taken in altering in
every v/ay, prove that these books were not looked upon
with any veneration as sacred and Divine.

Now none of these things are true of the genuine
Gospels, and therefore we may affirm that the eighteen
centuries which have revered and testified to them have
trifled with and borne witness against the others. I say
that eighteen centuries have trifled with the Apocryphal
Gospels, but I do not mean that we have any so ancient.
I believe we have not, although I find things in some of
them which Irenseus speaks of as in those of his day,
seventeen centuries ago. You will, however, carefully
observe that as these writers copied much from one

So The Apocryphal Gospels.

another, similar statements occur in books written at most
distant intervals. Wc cannot, therefore, decide the age
of any one of these Apocrypha by a reference to Irenaeus
alone. With the genuine Gospels the case is widely dif-
ferent, and no one who reads them carefully can doubt
whether they are the same as Irenoeus mentions and uses
so much. The one truth which we gather from Hippo-
lytus, Origen, Clement of Alexandria, Tertullian, and
Irenceus, is, that the series of spurious Gospels must have
begun in the second century. Later authors, and the
very books in our hands, make it plain that the series
continued during several hundred years ; perhaps it
would not be too much to say they range over a thousand
years or more. If I included the visions and revelations
of monks and nuns and devout hypochondriacs, 1 should
have to say that the long array of falsehoods extends from
the second century to the nineteenth. As we must draw
the line somewhere, I have decided now to consider only
the anonymous Apocrypha of a few centuries.

Should I be asked why I call books anonymous which
bear such well known names as Matthew, Peter, Thomas,
James, and Nicodemus, I would answer, Because no one
believes those writers were the authors, and, so far as we
can tell, no one ever did believe it, unless incompetent.
How different with our four Gospels ! Every man who
has recorded the writers' names has ascribed them to
Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John !

With regpect to the question of their first origin, I may
be told that the Apocryphal Gospels must have begun
before St. Luke wrote, because he says, "Many have
taken in hand to set 'forth in order a declaration of those

The Apocryphal Gospels. 81

things which are most surely believed among us." The
answer to this is that the Evangelist does not say one
word of the fabulous character of the books he refers to ;
and from this I infer that they were honest, but unsatis-
factory attempts to write the Gospel history. Whatever
they were they passed at once into oblivion, and we have
not a trace of a record of them afterwards. I am sure no
one will believe in the ludicrous list of twenty-six Gospels
referred to in the New Testament, as drawn up by Robert
Taylor and printed at p. 75 of . his "Syntagma." The
utter untrustworthinessofthis writer is now so well-known
and admitted that no intelligent and candid unbeliever
places any reliance upon him. Him, therefore, I dismiss
without apology.

I may perhaps be reminded that some Christian writers
have understood St. lAike as alluding to Apocryphal
Gospels. I am quite aware of the fact, but have given
my reason for a different opinion.

It may be said that several of the earliest Christian
Fathers mention incidents and sayings not to be found in
the four Gospels, but once existing in the Apocryphal.
The inference is that in these cases Apocryphal Gospels
were quoted. I am again of a different opinion, and after
minute examination conclude that such incidents and
sayings in all human probability belong to tradition. The
compilers of false Gospels naturally embodied such facts
and words in their books.

If it is alleged that several of the fathers, such as
Clement of Alexandria, Origen, and Tertullian, avowedly
quote from false Gospels, it need not be denied ; but it
must be observed that they do not appeal to them with-

6

32 The Apocryphal Gospels.

out reservation and explanation. These very (quotations
therefore supply historical proof that such Gospels were
not accounted Canonical and genuine.

Leaving the question of antiquity for the present, let us
look at that of authority. This is partly answered by a
remark already made, on the way in which the early
Fathers quote the Apocryphal Gospels. But it may be
urged that at least one church, that of Rhossus in Cilicia,
adopted a false Gospel, and that other examples might
possibly be traced. It may be so, but the exception
proves the rule, which is all I have need to establish.
Even in the case of Rhossus an enquiry was at one insti-
tuted, and the true character of the spurious Gospel was
made known.

The fact that the Apocryphal Gospels were drawn upon
in after times, and their legends foisted into so-called
histories and into liturgical works is no argument against
my position, because the books which were borrowed
from had already been declared Apocryphal by name in
the decrees of councils or of Popes. The books them-
selves having been condemned, it is for those who
plundered them to justify their thefts ; I do not undertake
to do so. If there are saints in the calendar and stories
in the Breviary which come from the Apocryphal Gospels,
it is a discredit to those who have adopted them without
acknowledging, and even while condemning the parentage.

One curious fact connected with some of the Apocry-
phal Gospels must not be overlooked. Maurice, the
author of " Indian Antiquities,'' wrote a book called " The
Indian Sceptic Confuted, and Brahmin Frauds Exposed,"*
* London, 1812,

TJie Apocryphal Gospels. 83

in which he directs attention to the existence of certain
of these productions in India, among the ancient Chris-
tians estabhshed there. He undertakes to prove that
these false Gospels were used by the Brahmins, who
compiled the famous legends of Krishna. His arguments
were highly commended by such men as Dean Vincent
and Adam Clarke, and they are certainly every way
worthy of attention. At an earlier date Sir William
Jones, in his well known essay on the " Gods of Greece,
Italy and India," expressed a similar opinion. He says,
when speaking of the Krishna fables, " This motley story
must induce an opinion that the spurious Gospels, which
abounded in the first age of Christianity, had been
brought to India, and the wildest parts of them repeated
to the Hindus, who ingrafted them on the old fable of
Cesava, the Apollo of Greece." Cesava is another name
for Krishna, and hence we may infer, not only that the
Krishna story as we have it is less ancient than our
Gospels, but is indebted to those very Apocryphal
Gospels which we have under our notice.

I will now mention the amusing shifts to which re-
course has been had by some who have wished to make
the unlearned beheve that the Apocryphal Gospels were
used in common with our own. According to one story
the selection of Canonical books was made by the vote
of a council of bishops ; while another is that the selection
was ascribed to some sort of miracle. The latter is an
exceedingly silly fable, yet very often printed. It even
appears in the second of the tracts bearing the title,
" Christian Evidences Criticised : being the National
Secular Society's Reply to the Bishop of London, and the

^4 The Apocryphal Gospels.

Christian Evidence Committee."' The writer has got
hold of the idea that the Canon of the New Testament
was formed by the process of " selection," and after speak-
ing of the uncertainty of the time when this supposed
"selection" was made, he proceeds to say : "Equally
uncertain is history as to the mode of selection. Some
writers mention that when the bishops met to decide
what should be the word of God, the books were
put to the vote of the meeting, and those Gospels and
Epistles which had the majority of votes, were regarded
as ' Divine.' By other writers it is stated that the bishops
put the whole of the books under the table, and besought
those that were inspired to leap on the top, and it hap-
pened accordingly. To believe this, however, would re-
quire a leap of the imagination. What became of the
rejected books we know not. The Apocryphal New
Testament contains some of them, but there are many
of which we have no trace."

Here we have the two untrue accounts— 7?;-^-/, that the
" selection " was made by a vote of bishops at some
council, which is not named ; and secondly, that the anony-
mous council obtained a decision by a miracle. We are
told that " some AVTiters " give one account, and " other
writers " the other. The " some writers " in the one case
are none of them named, and the " other writers " are
equally nameless. Let me supply the deficiency by
observing that Thomas Paine tells the first story, and
that William Hone, who recanted his scepticism, tells the
second, as you will find by referring to "The Age of
Reason," and " The Apocryphal New Testament." Such
are the allegations, and what are the facts ?

The Apocryphal Gospels. 8"

1. That there is absolutely no genuine record or docu-
ment, and no modern writer of note, to show that eithei
the Council of Nice in 325 a.d., or that of Laodicea a
few years later, and one of them must be meant, selected
the Canonical books of the New Testament by a majority
of votes against the Apocryphal ones. There is an
ancient list of New Testament books which it is said was
draAvn up at Laodicea, but nothing about the false and
spurious books. Besides, we have plenty of evidence
that the New Testament in a collected form existed ages
before this, and that it did not contain any Apocryphal
Gospels.

2. The tale about the miraculous selection of the books
which we receive seems to have been unknown for at
least from five to six hundred years after its supposed
occurrence. I am ashamed to feel called upon to give
its history, but the obstinacy with which sceptics of a cer-
tain class continue to publish it on the platform and
through the press renders it a duty. The pretended fact
is taken from a book called " Libellus Synodicus," which
was first published by a Strasburg professor named Pap-
pus in the year 1601, and in Greek and Latin. It is said
by the Abbe Bergier to have been Avritten at the earliest
in the ninth century, "by an unknown and visionary
author." "It is," he adds, "a work full of errors, anachron-
isms and fables, and despised by all critics, not one of
whom has ever made use of it,"-'" M. Bergier mentions
that by some sceptical writers of his time the fable by the
unknown Greek had been produced with variations. The

* Traite de la Vraie Religion, Vol. VIII., p. 127. Paris, 17S5.

S5 The Apocryphal Gospels.

author of the " Critical History of Jesus Christ," of which
I have a copy in French without date, or name of place
of publication,"' says the inspired books got upon the
altar. Another version is that the books were all placed
upon the altar and that the Apocrypha fell off, while the
mspired books remained. A third account is that the
altar was artificially contrived to bring about the desired
result.

This is the history of the matter. Until the time of
Pappus the story was not even published, and it was not
repeated until the French infidels got hold of it a century
ago, or very little more. They did not believe it and no-
body else believed it. Why then do our opponents make
so much of it, as if it was any part of true and really
ancient history ? Is it because they are prejudiced men,
who will not or cannot investigate the truth of what they
say?

I will ask you diligently to note what I am about to
say further in reference to the fable published by Pappus.
The men who so often mention it without accepting its
truth practically accept it as supplying a date when Apo-
cryphal Gospels were finally excluded from all claim to
authority by the adoption of our four. From this it follows,
first, that the Canonical Gospels have held their place
and stood supreme for fifteen centuries and a half. It
follows, secondly, that no Apocryphal Gospel written since
the Nicene or Laodicean Councils can have had any claim
to a place in the Canon. Therefore all Apocryphal Gos-
pels which have appeared since the Councils mentioned

♦ It appeared in French about 1770.

The Apocryphal Gospels. 87

are confessedly excluded from all the honours which un-
believing writers have claimed for those written at an
earlier date. This is a logical conclusion to which no
reasonable man can object; and it suggests that we should
find out the dates at which the Apocryphal Gospels first
appear or were written. Every false Gospel which cannot
be traced to an earlier date than the Nicene Council is
rejected by the arguments of the Infidels themselves.

Another most important consequence follows, and it is
that if at any earlier date than a.d. 325 we find our four
Gospels only accepted as Canonical, all Apocryphal Gos-
pels not older than that earlier date must be rejected.
Whenever, no matter when, our Gospels were regarded
as alone Canonical all other Gospels must have be^n un-
canonical. Hence all we have to do is to find out who
first mentions four Gospels as alone received, and then
to discover Avhat other so-called Gospels existed at an
earlier date because they only can have claimed to be
Canonical. To follow this course will very much simplify
our enquiry, and its results will settle the question.

One hundred years before the Council of Niceawefind
Origen writing in his Commentaries on Matthew : " I
have learnt by tradition concerning the foi/r Gospels
which alone are uncontroverted in the Church of God
spread under heaven, that that according to Matthew,
who was once a publican but afterwards an Apostle of
Jesus Christ, was written first ; ...that according to Mark
second ; ...that according to Luke third : ...that accord-
ing to John last of all."*

♦ As quoted by Westcott on the Canon, Part II., from Eusebius,
Ecclesiastical History, 6, 25.

88 The Apocryphal Gospels.

Tertullian, who was born about 130 years after the
death of Christ, in his writing against Marcion* enumerates
four Gospels only as genuine and ascribes them to
]\Iatthew, Mark, Luke, and John.

Clement of Alexandria, who belongs to the same period,
speaks of " the four Gospels which have been delivered to

us."t

Irenaeus of Lyons, who wrote still earlier, reckons four

Gospels as alone accepted by the universal Church of

God4

For the purposes of this lecture I need not go further
with the present branch of our enquir}^^ We have the
evidence of four of the most eminent Christian writers of
the second part of the second century, and of the first
part of the third century, that only the four Gospels of
Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John were then received by
the Church. These four men represent Europe, Asia, and
Africa, and had what may be called an immense acquain-
tance with Christian literature and opinions, orthodox and
heretical. They all refer to Apocryphal Gospels, but it
is manifest that such books were excluded by them from
the sacred Canon.

There is still earlier testimony for the four Gospels and
their place in the Church, but I pass it by, as not belong-
ing to our actual business. It is enough for me that men,
some of whom could look back to within a hundred and
fifty years of the birth of our Saviour, and had conversed
with other men much older than themselves, knew nothing

♦ Book 4, 2. t Stromata, Book 3.

X Heresies, Book 3, ch. 11, sec. 8.

The Apocryphal Gospels. So

of more than four Gospels as received by the Church,
although they knew of other so called Gospels in use by
certain heretical sects, as they carefully indicate.

Before proceeding to speak of the claims of the false
Gospels now in existence to be older than the times of
Tertullian, Clement, and Irenaeus, and before saying any-
thing of so-called Gospels which were earlier, but are nov/
known only by name, by fragments and in other forms,
I will ask you to coiripare with the facts already
established a few statements made by writers with whom
you are, most of you, familiar.

In his discussion with Mr. Woodman, Mr. Bradlaugh
says (p. 32) : " I would ask him whether there are not
many others of the Greek Gospels, some more ancient
than these, which are abandoned and rejected ? If our
friend says not, I will read over a list of fourteen or fifteen
Gospels, the names of which have been preserved, and
some of which have been substantiated as being more
worthy of credence than some that have been adopted."
Hereupon I would say that we know of no Greek Gospels
more ancient than those of the New Testament, and that
no Apocryphal Gospel has been substantiated as more
worthy of credence than some of the Canonical Gospels.

The same writer at p. 25 of his tract, " When were our
Gospels written?" gives a list of what he describes as fabu-
lous histories written not long after Christ's resurrection.
Those in the list which are called Gospels are, "the Gospel
of Peter ; the Gospel of Andrew ; the Gospel of John ;
the Gospel of Jariies ; the Gospel of the Egyptians." Why
the Gospel of John, which is one of our four, is put down,
I know not, and some information should have been given

go The Apocryphal Gospels.

respecting the rest. This I know, that not one of the
false Gospels named by Mr. Bradlaugh is mentioned
within a hundred and lifty years of the Ascension of
Christ. That of Peter first appears in notices of Serapion,
Bishop of Antioch, whom Cave places at a.d. 190. That
of xVndrew first occurs in the decree of Gelasius, a.d. 492
That of James seems to be mentioned as one with that of
Peter by Origen, though as a flict the Gospel of James
does not occur under that title in any of the ancient
Fathers. The Gospel of, or according to, the Egyptians
is referred to by Clement of Alexandria, at the end of the
second century.

A sceptic of a very different class, Dr. Perntt, says the
modern reader "hears of thtfact that about the close of
the second century various Gospels were known and
highly esteemed, which are no longer accepted by the
Churches ; he finds that these rejected works were quoted
in common with those received by the Fathers who are
still praised alike by Catholic and Protestant believers,"
&c. This is an exaggerated statement, and consequently
mischievous. We learn from Irenaeus, that some of the
extreme heretics had certain books which they had
forged, and we get similar evidence from some later
writers, but these books were not highly esteemed by the
Churches, neither were they quoted in common with ours
by Fathers in high repute. How, and how far they are
quoted, will be duly stated as we proceed.

I cannot allude without a feeling of shame to p. 33 of
" Our First Century," — one of the 'tracts issued by
Thomas Scott. The writer professes to gather together
the principal incidents in the life of Jesus, according as

The Apocryphal Gospels. 91

they are related in the various extant New Testament
\vritings. Under this designation he quotes most from
the Apocryphal Gospels, an act which no upright and
intelligent man can fail to condemn, because no explana-
tion whatever is offered. True, he elsewhere says, (p. 18),
" The extant Apocryphal New Testament literature is
almost universally admitted to be a production of the
second century," but even this is grossly inaccurate.

I must next mention Dr. Giles as one who has dealt
unfairly with this matter in his "Christian Records."
He gives six instances in which he says Justin Martyr
'^ quoted sayings of Christ or events of Christ's life which
do not occur in our Gospels, but were found in other
uncanonical \\Ti tings." For his first and second examples
which are trivial, he offers no proof ; and all he can say
for his third is, that "Grotius and others thifik that it is
taken from the Gospel according to the Egyptians." For
his other three he does refer to Apocryphal books, but
most of them do not appear till long after the time of
Justin.

Among the boldest transgressors of accuracy I have
met with is Mr. E. P. Meredith, who in his " Prophet of
Nazareth " says, at p. 306, that the Gospels which are
termed Apocryphal "are supported by quite as strong
evidence of their genuineness, as can be adduced for
that of the Canonical Gospels." He says " there is quite
as much evidence of the genuineness of the Gospel of
the Infancy, as there is of that of either of the Canonical
Gospels. Indeed, we have evidence that it is of higher
antiquity than either of them ; for we have no proof that
our present Gospels existed in the second century/' Upon

92 The Apocryphal Gospels.

the respective items in this ([notation, I simply say that,
in the face of well known evidence, no more untrue
series of allegations ever came under my notice. Not
one of the details has the shadow of fact as its founda-
tion.

If space permitted I would have set over against
these too hasty utterances the calm and scholarHke
views of the most eminent modem criticSj who almost
with one voice declare that the four Gospels were
accepted as Canonical at a very early date, and do not
regard the Apocryphal Gospels as having had any such
position. If a party in Egypt had a peculiar Gospel ;
if another party in Judea had a peculiar Gospel ; if the
disciples of Basilides and of Marcion had their peculiar
Gospels during the second century,- — the Church as a
whole had the Gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and
John, and no other. If we may judge by the specimens
of false Gospels w^iich have come down to us, the Church
could never have entertained them. The intellectual, the
moral, and the religious faculties of sober minded Chris-
tians would have revolted against them ; for as the
"Edinburgh Review "' (July 1868) says: "What strikes
every one, whatever be his opinion of the origin and
merits of these writings, is their immeasurable inferiority to
the Canonical Gospels An impassable line sepa-
rates the simple majesty, the lofty moral tone, the pro-
found wisdom and significance of the Canonical Gospels
from the qualities which we forbear further to particularise
in the writings that claim to be their complement."

The most important of the few earliest non-canonical
Gospels of which we find any trace, were more or less

The Apocryphal Gospels. 93

altered copies of those which we have. Thus the Gospel
according to the Hebrews was a Hebrew or Aramaic
copy, answering generally to that by Matthew. In like
manner the Gospel of Marcion was only an altered copy
of that by Luke. It is the opinion of Jeremiah Jones
that six or seven of the early corrupted Gospels, styled
Apociyphalwere simply modifications of Matthew. Under
this head he places the so-styled Gospels of the Hebrews,
of the Nazarenes, the Twelve Apostles, the Ebionites, and
those of Cerinthus and Bartholomew. Others may
perhaps come under the same description. We know
very well that one or two fabulous Gospels about the
Infancy of Christ have been multiplied by ingenious
scribes into not less than half a dozen, but probably into
a larger number. By doggedly pursuing the motley
crowd of these Apocrypha, until we run them to earth,
we secure two momentous results : firsts that not a few of
them are of far more modern date than has been asserted ;
and secondly^ that the remainder become for the most
part mere aliases^ leaving a very small number of originals.
Those which are proved to be too modern, are disposed
of by the argument of our opponents themselves ; such
as are merely alterations of our Gospels have no logical
place in the discussion ; the Gospels of sects and parties
have no right to compete with those of the Canon. If
there be any others I do not know where to lay my
hand upon them, nor do I know any one who does.
What is the conclusion? Why evidently that four
original Gospels and no more were received by the
Church in its really early period. All others disappear,
and, " like the baseless fabric of a vision, leave not a
wrack behind."

^^ The ApocrypJial Gospels.

Taking the sceptical ground, tliat the first to name a
Gospel is the first witness for its existence, I turn to Jones
on the Canon, where the authorities are ranged chrono-
logically, with the following results : —

1. Hegesippus (a.d. 173.) contemporary with Irenaeus
is said to have used the Gospel according to the Hebrews.
The authority for this is Eusebius, who wrote a hundred
and fifty years later, and who does not say that Hegesippus
gave the name of the Gospel in question. No matter
whether he did or not, there is no doubt that the Gospel
according to the Hebrews agreed in the main with our
Matthew.

2. Irenjeus, at the close of his first book against
Heresies, says that the sect called the Cainites had a
fictitious history, which they styled the Gospel of Judas ;
/.d, Judas Iscariot the betrayer of Christ. The same
author mentions, " The Gospel of Truth/' which the
Valentinians used. He also refers to false Gospels which
he does not name.

3. Serapion, Bishop of Antioch, about the same time
wrote against a book called " The Gospel of Peter," a
forgery which had been received by some members of
the Church of Rhosse, or Rhossus, in Cilicia.

4. Clement of Alexandria mentions the Gospel accord-
ing to the Hebrews, and the Gospel according to the
Egyptians.

5. Tertullian speaks of the Gospel of Valentinus, the
Gospel of Marcion, and the Gospel of Peter.

6. Origen has references to the Gospel according to the
Hebrews, the Gospel according to the Twelve Apostles,
ihe Gospel of Basilides, that of Thomas, that of IMatthias,
and that of Peter or the Book of James.

The Apocryphal Gospels. 95

7. Hippolytus, who lived at the same time with Origen,
also refers to the Gospel of Thomas, but the extracts he
gives do not appear in the Gospel with that name which
has come down to our day.

8. Eusebius, a hundred years later, mentions several
of the false Gospels above named, and adds the Gospel
of Tatian, but that was only a Harmony formed out of
our four Gospels, because he expressly says so, and calls
it by the name of Diatessaron, which a similar work bears
to this day.

These are all the false, falsified, or modified Gospels of
which the v/riters of the Church speak down to the time
of the Council of Nicea — three hundred years after the
crucifixion of Christ. The total is thirteen, from which
we must throw out several : the Gospel of the Hebrews,
based on Matthew ; the Gospel of Marcion, based on
Luke ; the Gospel of Tatian, a collection from our four ;
and the Book of James, which Origen speaks of as if the
same with that of Peter. Of the nine which remain, the
the Gospels of Judas and of Truth appear to have been
mystical and not historical bookS;, and that of Valentinus
seems to have been like them. Six only have to be
accounted for. (i) The Gospel of Peter, which is perhaps
the same as a book styled the Preaching of Peter, but
which we know to have been a forgery because Serapion
declared it such in the time of Irenseus. (2) The Gospel
according to the Egyptians, of which Clement of Alex-
andria speaks, but which he does not accept, and which
seems to have been a really Apocryphal Gospel, part
fable and part history. It has perished, which is very-
good proof that it was never Canonical. It was used

96 The Apocryphal Gospels.

only by some heretics. (3) The Gospel according to the
Twelve Apostles, which Origcn mentions as used by the
heretics, and Jerome tliinks was another form of our
IMatthew. There is little doubt that it corresponded
witli the Gospel according to the Hebrews. (4) The
Gospel of Basilides, was written by an ancient heretic
of that name, and as such, whatever its forms, it did not
appeal to the Church at large. (5) The Gospel of
Thomas, is mentioned by Origen as received by heretics,
and is declared by Cyril to have been written by a Mani-
chean of the name of Thomas. If Cyril is right it could
not have been so ancient as the Apostolic age. There
may, however, have been two or more books with that
title, I think there were, and that the first Avas as early as
the days of Irenasus. The original Gospel of Thomas is
very likely the basis of those books which we now have
under that name, but if so it was written to favour the
Gnostics, and was opposed to the views of the orthodox,
which shows that it could never have claimed to be
Canonical. (6) The Gospel of Matthias, which we cannot
identify with anything we now possess, which Origen says
was used by the heretics, and which Eusebius condemns
as impious and absurd, as well as heretical.

You will not forget that the first to really mention the
false Gospels is that same Irenaeus who first names all
our four, and declares them alone genuine. If you wish
to get beyond Irenaeus you must adopt the methods we
follow ; you must rely on more modern authors, or upon
alleged quotations. There is no third course open, and
the sceptic is driven to uphold the claims of false Gospels
by the very measures he condemns when used to upheld

The Apocryphal Gospels, 9-

the true. There are other arguments in support of the
four Gospels which cannot be employed for the Apocry-
phal books, but I have not time to enumerate them.
They relate to the internal character of the books, the
use made of them by sects, ancient translations, &c.

Such of the false Gospels as are now extant are con-
tained in my translation of them,'^ with a careful account
of them all. They are as follows : —

1. The Gospel of James, or Protevangelium, the latter
title having been given to it by Postel in 1552. It exists in
Greek and in Latin, and contains an account of the birth,
education and marriage of Mary, of the birth of Jesus,
and His being worshipped by the Magi. It probably
received its actual form in about the fourth century,
though some of its materials are older.

2. The Gospel of Pseudo-Matthew, otherwise called
the Book of the Birth of the Blessed Mary and of the
Infancy of our Saviour, and sometimes said to have been
written in Hebrew by the Evangelist Matthew, and trans-
la/;ed into Latin by Jerome. This book is a compila-
tion not so ancient as the Gospel of James, but probably
dating from the fifth century. The original seems to have
been in Greek and an ampHfication of older documents.

3. The Gospel of the Nativity of Mary. This we have
in Latin, and as the writer uses Jerome's translation, it is
not older than the fifth century. It ends with the birth
Df Jesus.

4. The Gospel of Thomas, or Gospel of the Infancy of
Jesus. We have this in several forms, very different from

* The Apocryphal Gospels, &c. London, 4th Edition, 1874.

7

98 The Apocryphal Gospels.

each other, and it represents one of the oldest false Gos-
pels of which we have any knowledge. It professes to
record events in the life of Christ from his fifth year to
his twelfth. There is no doiibt that its origin was here-
tical, as it represents the infant Saviour in a very unortho-
dox light. We do not appear to have the primary form
of the book, the nearest approach to it being in the Syriac
text, which I have translated and printed at the end of
my volume. Three others of different dates are given by
me in the same work.

5. The Gospel of the Infancy, from the Arabic. This
is by no means so ancient in its actual form as some ot
the others. I view it as a compilation from older books
with large additions by the Arabic editor. It begins
with the journey to Bethlehem and is continued down to
the twelfth year of Christ's age, but ends with a summary
mention of His life onward until His baptism.

6. The Gospel of Nicodemus, or the Acts of Pilate.
This consists of two principal parts, which are often
separated, the first giving an account of the trial, death,
and burial of Jesus, and the second an account of His
exploits among the dead. It has no right whatever to
be called the Acts of Pilate, which is the title of a much
older and quite different document. What we now have
exists in several forms, but none of them can be older
than the end of the fourth century or the commencement
of the fifth.

From what has been said it will appear that five out of
the six Apocryphal Gospels now extant relate solely to
events which terminate with the infancy of Jesus. The
sixth of them relates to the concluding scenes in the life

The Apocryphal Gospels. gg

of Christ and the time during which He lay in the grave.
Hence it is evident that none of them are in any sense
the rivals of our Gospels, but are lame attempts to sup-
plement them by means of imaginary narratives. The
logical conclusion is that none of them are so ancient as
our Gospels, the existence and authority of which is im-
plied by their avoidance of the period of the Saviom-'s
public ministry, the history of which had been already
written and was recognised as true.

The false Gospels which have perished were, so far as
can be ascertained, of three kinds : i. Such as were, like
those now existing, endeavours to supplement the
Canonical Gospels. 2. Such as were of a mystical and
allegorical description, abounding in Gnostic speculations.
3. Such as were altered forms of one or another of' our
Gospels.

This brings us again to the conclusion that none of
the Apocryphal Gospels were so ancient as Matthew,.
IMark, Luke, and John ; that few of them ever pretended
to rival these in authority, and when they did, that it
was only within the limits of sects which departed
widely from the common faith. Finally it follows, that
no known Apocryphal Gospel, whether extant or not,
can claim to be a genuine production of the Apostolic
age, or of Apostolic men. Thus the only three ques-
tions of importance which can be raised are settled.
The Apocryphal Gospels are not genuine, they are
without authority, and they are too modern.

From a literary point of view the false and true Gospels
are as different as books well can be. Most of them
never were Gospels at all in the proper sense of the

ICO The Apocryphal Gospels,

word ; and tliose which were so, were paraphrases of our
four. The language and internal features place them as
far below ours as can well be imagined. The uncon-
trolled liberty taken with them by transcribers and
editors is utterly inconsistent with the idea that they
were regarded as inspired productions. They have been
ridiculed and condemned from the first mention of them
seventeen centuries ago down to our own day. Many
of them have utterly perished. Their very titles and
reputed authorship have not been respected, but have
been changed according to the fancy of those who have
copied and published them. No competent critic or
scholar in any age or country has been able to give an
honest verdict in their favour, although a few rationalistic
or sceptical writers have been anxious to think well of
two or three, of which we know next to nothing. I
decline to accept as judges in such a case such avowed
partisans of unbelief as have never studied either the
Apocryphal Gospels or their history.

When men like Renan admit that by about the year
I GO A.D. "all the books of the New Testament were
almost fixed in the form in which we now read them,"*
it ill becomes those of lesser note to advocate the opinion
that the Apocryphal Gospels of later d;ite were ^ any
time in practice a part of the New Testament. We
simply know they were not, and after an exile of so many
ages, it is not possible for them to gain the title which
they never had a right to.

I will conclude with three short extracts from the

* Vie de Jesus. 13th Edition, Introd. p. 34.

The Apocryphal Gospels. loi

essay of Bishop Ellicott, one of the best ever written on
tlie subject. Speaking of these Apocryphal Gospels, he
says : —

" Our vital interest in Him of whom they pretend to
tell us more than the Canonical Scriptures have recorded
is the real, though it may be hidden, reason why these
poor figments are read with interest, even while they are
despised " (p. 156.) " We know before we read them that
they are weak, silly, and profitless; that they are despicable
monuments of religious fiction, yet still the secret conviction
buoys us up, that perchance they may contain a few traces
of time-honoured traditions — some faint, feeble glimpses
of that blessed childhood, that pensive and secluded
youth, over which in passive moments, we muse with such
irrepressible longing to know more — such deep, deep
desideration " (p. 157). "If they do not deserve to be
known for their own sakes, they still involve several
singular and interesting questions ; they illustrate some
curious phases of early Christian thought and feeling ;
they throw some light on ancient traditions, and certainly
have not been without influence on ancient and mediaeval
art" (p. 158). The writer might have added that they
have been very useful to the forgers of ecclesiastical
fictions and superstitions, but have never promoted the
true interests of the Gospel of our Lord and Saviour Jesus
Christ.

APPENDIX.

I HAVE not in this Lecture dealt with every one of the documents
which are included in roy volume of Apocryphal Gospels. The
reason for this is, that I have inserted in that volume, not only the
extant false Gospels, but, as the title says, " other documents
relating to the History of Christ." Those which are not mentioned
in the Lecture are —

The History of Joseph the Carpenter ; the Letters ascribed to
Jesus, Abgar, and Lentulus ; the Prayer of Jesus ; the Story of
Veronica ; the Letters ascribed to Pilate and Herod ; the Report of
Pilate ; the Trial and Condemnation of Pilate ; the Death of
Pilate ; the Story of Joseph of Arimathca ; and the Revenging of
the Saviour.

Of the fictitious Gospels, it will be remembered that they fall
into two classes : — (i) Those which end with the early years of our
Saviour, and (2) those which begin with his trial and condemnation.
We have no knowledge of any false Gospels, properly so called,
which record the events of the ministry of Christ. The falsified
Gospels which relate to his active ministry appear to have all been
modifications, or corrupted forms of one or another of our four.
Of purely mystical or allegorical Gospels we know little, and need
say nothing.

It has been thought desirable to supplement the foregoing Lecture
by an outline of some one of each of the two extant classes of
Apocryphal Gospels. As those of each class contain so much in
common, a sample of each will be sufficient to show what sort of
materials they are made up of. For the first I select the false
Gospel of Matthew, and for the second I take one form of the
Gospel of Nicodemus.

Appendix. lo?

The False Gospel of Matthro), or Gospel of Pseudo- Matthew, com-
mences with an account of one Joachim, of the tribe of Judah and
the city of Jerusalem, who was a shepherd, and married one Anna,
with whom he hved twenty years without having a family. They
were both very pious, and grieved over their childless lot, when a
promise of offspring was given by an angel to Anna, and a like
promise to Joachim, who was then absent from home. These
promises wore fulfilled in the birth of Mary, who at three years of
age was consecrated to God, and was brought up in the temple till
she was fifteen years old, when it was thought she should be married.
The choice of a husband was decided by lot, and the lot fell upon
Joseph, who was an old man, and had sons and grandchildren.
Joseph was reluctant to take her, but consented to keep her till he
knew which of his sons might have her to wife. Mary soon
received messages from angels announcing the great honours in
store for her, and after a time Joseph was distressed in finding her
pregnant. The news spread, and Joseph was taken before the
Chief Priest and subjected to an ordeal along with Mary, but both
came out free from blame.

Soon after, the taxing was ordered by Augustus, and Joseph and
Mary had to go to Bethlehem ; but before they reached that place
Mary was overtaken by the pains of childbirth, and entered a cave
which was divinely illuminated. While Joseph went to seek assist-
ance Jesus was bom, and on Joseph's return with two women,
Zelomi and Salome, the last had her hand wit heredas a punishment
of unbelief, but was cured by touching the border of the infant's
clothes. After a reference to the shepherds, and a star which shone
over the cave, we read that on the third day Mary left the cave and
went into a stable with the babe, where the ox and ass adored him.
On the sixth day they entered Bethlehem, and on the eighth the
child was circumcised, and Simeon and Anna worship Jesus in the
temple. Two years later the Magi come from the East, Herod is
enraged, and the flight into Egypt follows to escape from the death
intended. The family enter a cave where dragons are seen, but
they adore Jesus and leave him. Lions and leopards in the wilder-
ness form a sort of reverential body guard and guide. After three
days Mary longed for the fruit of a palm tree, and at the bidding of

1 04 Appendix,

her infant it bowed down till all its fmit %vas gathered, a spring
ijushed from its roots, and an angel took one of the branches to
plant in paradise. The journey being wearisome, Jesus miracu-
lously shortened it, so that they found Egypt at once before their
eyes. Entering Ilermopolis they were refused hospitality, so
entered a temple where three hundred and fifty-five idols were, and
straightway these idols all fell to the ground and were broken. All
the people of the city believed in the Lord God through Jesus Christ.

After returning from Egypt and being in Galilee, Jesus, now
four years old, played by the Jordan, and collected water in pools
with mud banks. A boy broke down the pools, and Jesus cursed
him and he died, but on entreaty and with a kick restored him to
life. Another day he made sparrows of mud, and when complaint
was made that it was the Sabbath, he clapped his hands and bade
the birds fly away, which they did. A second boy who broke
down the pools was stricken with death. Joseph being afraid, took
Jesus away to lead him home. As they went, a rude boy pushed
against him and at once died. After entreaty, Jesus pulled this boy
up by the ear and bade him live, which he did.

Some time after one Zaccheus wanted to teach Jesus, but the
child quite confounded him with his speeches. However, a second
application was made, and the pupil was intractable, so the master
hit him with a stick, which brought from him another of his
wonderful speeches. The family then removed to Nazareth, where,
while playing on a house top with Jesus, a boy fell down and died,
but was raised to life by Jesus. After this he was sent to the
fountain for water, being now six years old, and on the way back a
child thrust against him and broke the pitcher, so Jesus spread out
his cloak and took home in it as much water as there was in the
pitcher. Again, he sowed a little wheat, which multiplied im-
mensely. At eight years of age, near Jericho, he entered a cavern
where there was a lioness and her whelps. The old lion fawned
on him and adored him, and the young ones fawned and played
with him. He then crossed the Jordan with the lions, the river
dividing to let him and them go over, and he dismissed them.
Joseph being a carpenter received one day an order for a couch, and
told Jesus to cut the wood, which he did, but cut one piece too

Appendix. 105

short, which made Joseph angry. So Jesus made him take the two
pieces, and they pulled the short one to the proper length. A
second time he went to school, and the master struck him and died,
A third time he went to school, and his sayings so amazed them
that they worshipped him.

After these things the family removed to Capernaum, where he
raised a dead man to life. Then they went to Bethlehem, where he
cured the hand of James, which a viper had bitten. The whole
concludes with a family sketch, indicating the reverence with which
Jesus was regarded.

The Gospel of Nicodemus opens with a preface declaring that one
Ananias had found the book in Hebrew, and translated it into
Greek about a.d. 440. Then follows the accusation which the
Jewish priests and others laid against Jesus before Pilate, who
gave orders that Jesus should be brought. The officer who went
to fetch him no sooner saw him than he worshipped him, and spread
a scarf on the ground for him to walk on, but returned without
him. Being sent again the officer did as before, and when Jesus
entered, the tops of the imperial standards bowed to Jesus. This it
was alleged was a trick of the men who held the standards, so
others were chosen by the Jews themselves, with no better result.
Pilate was troubled by this, and by a message from his wife who
had had a strange dream. However, the trial proceeded, and
charges were adduced, though vritnesses proved them false. Eventu-
ally Pilate partly consents to his death, whereupon Nicodemus,
followed by various others, bear testimony in his favour. Several
details succeed, which are based upon the Gospel record, and Jesus is
at last crucified and buried. Joseph of Arimathea is caught by the
Jews and imprisoned. The report of the resurrection of Jesus is
accompanied by the announcement that Joseph had been miracu-
lously set at liberty. Sundry confirmations of these events, and
discussions are introduced. Search is made for Joseph, who gives
the story of his deliverance. Evidence is obtained of the resurrec-
tion of Jesus, and of his ascension. A wonderful impression in
favour of Christ is produced, so that even Annas and Caiaphas seem
to be convinced. Amid general demonstrations of joy, the first
part of Nicodemus is brought to a close.

I o6 Appendix.

The second part begins with an intimation that of those wliom
Jesus had raised from the dead, the two sons of Simeon were living,
and might perhaps be brought to narrate what they knew. Tlte
two men were accordingly sent for, and having made the sign of the
cross and asked for pen, ink, and paper, sat down and wrote their
story. They were in the underworld, or Hades, they said, among
the departed, when there appeared a great light causing great com-
motion. Abraham, Isaiah, and John the Baptist point out the true
reason, and Adam calls on his own son Seth to tell the story of the'
oil of mercy. Meanwhile Satan is in consternation, and holds an
animated conversation with Hades, which is disturbed by the
approach of Jesus, whom Hades is compelled, much against his
will, to admit. Hades owns himself subdued, and the King of
Glory orders Satan to be bound in irons and placed in charge of
Hades. Jesus calls Adam and blesses him, and removes him from
Hades with patriarchs, prophets, martyrs, and ancestors, who are
taken to Paradise, where they meet Enoch and Elijah, and soon
after the repentant thief. All this the two brothers saw and heard,
and were appointed to make known. Having handed their papers
to the chief priests, and to Joseph and Nicodemus, they vanished.
With their disappearance the whole story ends.

It is evident that the so-called false Gospel of Matthew is little
more than a series of idle and puerile stories, with only just enough
allusion to the facts of our Gospels to show that the writer or writers
knew them. The greater portion of the details are mythical and
legendary, and therefore not at all founded on fact. Taken in con-
nection with the malevolent character and capricious habits of
Jesus, they stand in painful contrast with the representations of Him
which we find in the four Gospels. As the string of fables which
convey no moral resemble in no literary feature the Evangelical re-
cords, so the ideal Christ of the false Gospeller is quite a different
Christ from that of the New Testament. Even in the narration of
alleged matters of fact the false Gospel is often not only at variance
tvith the true Gospels, but contradicts what we otherwise know to be
true. The writer of Pseudo-Matthew used older similar books, and
:idded to them or altered them as he chose. He never rises to the
dignity of a historian, and indulges his fancy for the grotesque and

Appendix. iq^

marvellous. He has no critical faculty whatever, and seems to have
written more to amuse children than to instruct men ; unless, indeed,
he wished to astonish the ignorant, and to propagate erroneous ideas
of Christ. If his intentions were harmless, his views were incoherent
and inconsistent, and he failed to produce even a plausible prelim-
inary Gospel. What he wrote has probably been altered, but what
we have is as near any approach to the mythical as can be imagined.
He jumbles the impossible, the improbable, and the unnatural to-
gether in such a way that nobody can believe his tale. How
different from the natural, truthful, and beautiful allusions and
narrations of the Evangelists.

The Gospel of Nicodemus was written at different times and by
different persons. Dr. Lipsius, ^n eminent German critic, believes
that it comprises not fewer than five portions of various dates. The
book he thinks was in substance written between a.d. 326 and
376, but it received additions and alterations at a much later date.
The first great division makes free use of the Gospels, and intro-
duces episodes and developments for the sake of effect. Tlie second
division is a simple fiction, the author of which allowed his imagi-
nation perfect liberty. Dr. Lipsius thinks this second part origi-
nated with the Gnostics in the third century, but its present form
is not older than the latter part of the fourth century, after which
it was adopted and moulded up with the other. It is needless to
criticise it further, though it should be said that both divisions,
with all their faults, are superior to the other Apocryphal Gospels.
From the summary it will be seen that the object in view has been
to produce a sort of supplement to the Gospels.

The attempts to concoct preliminary and supplementary Gospels
are easily accounted for, one chief reason being the desire to be
wise above what is written. The desire for such wisdom has led
to the invention of these idle tales, as most of them truly are. The
solemn simplicity and earnestness of purpose which the Canonical
Gospels exemplify, will for ever as it heretofore has done, keep
them at an innneasurable elevation above these poor rivals and
helpers. The mythical spirit is a childish spirit, and its fruits are
puerility. It cannot hope to win even literary respectability. But
the spirit of the Gospel writers is pure and noble, and with literary

1 o8 Appendix.

honour, combines moral and spiritual power. Of moral and
spiritual power the false Gospels are utterly destitute, because they
fail to appreciate and exhibit the true and living Christ. Having
neither intellectual, moral, nor spiritual vitality, none can wonder
at the discredit under which they liave existed. That they have
existed, any of them at all until now, has been due partly to the
curiosity Avhich they have awakened, and perhaps a little to their
vain promise to tell us a few facts about our Saviour and not in
the four Canenical Gospels.

THE EVIDENTIAL VALUE OF THE EARLY
EPISTLES OF ST PA UL VIE WED AS HIS-
TORICAL DOCUMENTS.

EV THE

REV. PROFESSOR LORIMER, D.D.,

Professor of Theology in the English Presbyterian College, London.

%ht €bitiential lalxte of the C^arlg

dpistks of (St. ^pad
\ik\3itb US historical documents.

n^HE early Epistles of St. Paul include two Epistles
to the Thessalonians, two to the Corinthians, the
Epistle to the Galatians, and the Epistle to the Romans.
They are the oldest writings in the New Testament.
They were all written between twenty-five and thirty
years after the death of Christ, and have the remarkable
distinction of being the earliest literary monuments of any
kind, or from any source, or in any language, relating to
Christianity and the Christian Church which have come
down to us, without challenge from almost any quarter,
from ancient times.

You will allow me to start with these statements with-
out proof, for there is nobody now or hardly anybody
who denies them. The genuineness of the last four of
these Epistles is now conceded by all eminent scholars
and critics, even by Strauss and Renan themselves ; and
though Baur and a few of his disciples had something
to say against the genuineness of the Epistles to the
Thessalonians, we may take it as good proof that there

1 1 2 The Evidential Value of the Early Epistles

was very little force in their objections when they are all
set aside by such critics of our own as Prof Jowett and
Dr. Davidson, who are in no way characterised by a
conservative or traditional style of criticism, but very
much the reverse. The least conservative of the two is
Dr. Davidson who, in the later and more rationalistic
edition of his "Introduction to the New Testament,"
remarks that "the established authorship of these two
Epistles will hold its place among critics notwithstanding
the assaults it has encountered."

I propose to handle these early Epistles of St. Paul
simply as historical documents — simply as I would make
use of the Epistles of Cicero or Pliny, or the Letters and
Despatches of Napoleon and the Duke of Wellington. I
have nothing to say at present on the subject of their
Inspiration or Divine Authority.

I am to treat of their Evidential Value as historical
documents. By that I mean their value as attestations to
the truth of Christianrty — as vouchers especially for the
authenticity and certainty of the earliest Christian history,
at least in its chief outlines, as given in the four Gospels
and the Acts of the Apostles. As attestations and vouchers
of historical facts, no documents are more valuable than
the original letters of the personages who were the chief
actors in history. Hence the diligence and care with
which the original correspondence of such persons is
preserved, collected and edited, and published to the
world. And if this is admitted by all as a general prin-
ciple of historical criticism, how can it be denied in
reference to Christian history ? Was not St. Paul a chief
actor in the earliest history of the Christian Church ?

of St, Paul vieived as Historical Docuinenis.

11^

And why should not his original letters have the same
primary authority in that field of inquiry as the original
letters of any other historical personage in any other
field?

There are three great subjects of Christian history on
which the early Epistles of St. Paul can thus be brouglit
evidentially to bear.

The first of these is the life and history of Jesus
Christ Himself, the Author and Finisher of the Christian
faith. Distinguish between the great historical outlines
of that life and the minute details of word, deed and
incident with which the four written Gospels fill up the
outHnes. It is not pretended that more than the outline-
facts of the life are to be found in these Epistles ; they
contain or imply none of the details, or very few of them.
But it is of great evidential importance that they clearly
recite and everywhere imply the outline-facts, in which
I include the advent of Christ, His public ministry
in Judea, His crucifixion, His ascension, and His in-
auguration of the Pentecostal Church. This proves un-
answerably that at least these chief Gospel facts were
knov\^n and accepted throughout all the churches of the
Gentiles, in Asia and Europe, before any of the Gospel
histories were written. These facts were everywhere
received as the ultimate historical ground of the Christian
Church and the Christian life. Even, therefore, if you
could destroy the credit of the written Gospels as genuine
and credible writings of the Apostolic age, you should not
thereby destroy the truth and reality of the outline
facts which were everywhere received before them.
These facts are to be distinguished from all the Gospel

S

114 '^^^'^ Evidential Value of the Early Epistles

narratives, whether Canonical or not, that were after-
wards written upon the basis of these facts. It was
because tliese foundation-facts were from the first
accepted as historical verities by all Christians that the
full and detailed narratives of the life of Christ were after-
wards composed. Nothing therefore of any real effect is
done on the side of unbelief, if you merely try to destroy
the authority of the written Gospels. What unbelievers
need to achieve is to destroy the credit of the ground-
facts which were received many years before these narra-
tives were written. You do not attack the primary
foundations in attacking the later histories. You do not
shake the foundations by shaking the histories — even it
I were to admit, which I do not, that you do shake them
— and till the very foundations of the edifice are shaken
and displaced the edifice will stand firm like an impreg-
nable fortress upon a rock.

A second great subject to which these Epistles of St.
Paul apply, in a very authoritative and decisive way, is
the personal history of St. Paul himself — a point of early
Christian history inferior only in fundamental importance
to the history of Christ himself. What better or more
authoritative evidence could we have on everything per-
sonally relating to St. Paul than the genuine Epistles of
St. Paul himself? If Cicero's Epistles are of primary
authority on everything relating to the life of Cicero — for
instance, as to his home education, the schools in which
he attained his knowledge of the Greek philosophy, and
the foreign philosophers from whom he learned the most,
and whom he valued most — why, I ask, should not
Paul's Epistles be also of primary authority in everything

of St. Paul vicived as Historical Docuvieiits

15

relating personally to St. Paul ? As to his education, for
■example, and the various sources or schools, whether in
Tarsus or Jerusalem, from which he derived his culture
and knowledge, who could inform us so well and with
so much authority as Saul of Tarsus himself? And par-
ticularly as to the sources from which he drew his
knowledge of Christianity itself; and how it came to
pass that he who began his public career as a fanatical
persecutor of the Christians very soon went over with
his whole soul to the cause which he had persecuted, and
became, to the equal astonishment of friends and foes,
its foremost champion — surely St. Paul himself, on all
ordinary principles of historical judgment, is better able
to give us accurate information than any other man.
Surely St. Paul himself is more worth listening to on all
such points of his own biography, and better entitled to
belief (if you simply allow that he was an honest man, and
not a cheat and an impostor) than any critic of the nine-
teenth century can pretend to be. If I believe Cicero on
such particulars of his personal history with entire reliance,
why am I not to beHeve St. Paul on similar points ? If
Cicero is oi primary authority on such personal particulars,
why is St. Paul to be no authority at all ? If you would
not believe Renan contradicting Cicero on such
matters, known to none so well as to Cicero himself, why ,
should you believe Renan contradicting St. Paul on
matters of which he and he only had and could have
absolute knowledge? Why am I to believe Renan
assuring me that the Gospel which St. Paul began to
preach was a mixed doctrine — partly Jewish, partly
Greek, partly Oriental, put together skilfully by himself —

iiO The Evidential Value of the Early Epistles

a Gospel wliich in this way was a mere natural product
of all the world's best i)revious thinking, and having
nothing supernatural in it at all either as to source or
authority— Why, I say, am I to believe this teaching of
his in the teeth of all that St. Paul says upon the sub-
ject himself? If I would be quite right to believe Cicero
rather than Re'nan on points of Cicero's mental history,
am I not ecjually right to believe Paul rather than
Renan on points of Paul's mental history as a Christian
disciple and convert ? Of course I am speaking only
of facts and incidents in the lives of either, not of
Cicero's or Paul's deductions from the facts. They
might be mistaken in their deductions, but they could
not be mistaken as to the facts themselves. We may
feel quite certain that St. Paul did not go to the sources
of Greek and Oriental wisdom for the Gospel which he
preached to the world, when he tells us himself as a point
of his own biography that these were not his sources.

There are other important questions of St. Paul's life
and the history of his v/ork to which his early Epistles
apply — as, for example, the relations in which he stood
to St. Peter and the other Apostles, and the question
whether Christianity in his hands grew as the development
of a myth grows, or whether this new Straussian theory
.of the rise of the Christian system is without any real
basis and historical foothold. On the first of these
questions the Epistle to the Galatians is of primary-
authority ; and as Paul knew best the whole history of
his relations to the other Apostles, and the real state of
his own mind and feeling with regard to them and their
ministry and the churches which they had planted, and

of St. Paul viewed as Historical Dociwients. 117

the forms of Christian and Church Hfe which they favoured
and propagated, no theory of these things — the theory
of Baur, e.g. — can possibly be a true one which exaggerates
or diminishes the statements of St. Paul himself, or
makes him feel or act differently from what he tells us of
liis own feelings and acts in this Epistle. Nor is his
great Epistle to the Romans less relevant and important
in relation to that other grand question debated so
keenly in our own time : Whether the theology of the
Epistles of the New 'Testament is a mythological re-
casting and re-clothing of a few natural elementary facts
of the life of Christ ? The evidence furnished by the
Epistle to the Romans in negation of this theory appears
to me to be final and decisive. Within less than thirty
years after the death of Christ we have there a full, ex-
haustive and almost systematic exhibition of the whole
body of Christian doctrine and morals. If Christianity
be a mythology, as alleged by Strauss and others, in what
a brief space of time has the myth been developed ! And
how extraordinary, how unexampled that all this should
have been developed in a single mind, during the halt
of a single life ! and this too (Saul's miraculous conversion
being on the same theory denied) without any expla-
nation being possible of the quarter from v/hich the
original stimulus to such a mythological process in this
single mind was derived. The truth briefly is (for I
cannot dwell upon the subject further at present), the
existence of the Epistle to the Romans is, singly and
alone, fatal to the credit of such a mythological theory of
Christianity ; its very early date, and its grand doctrinal
fulness, and its thorough maturity of dogmatic state-

iiS The Evidential Value of the Early EpisiUs

mcnt, arc all utterly irreconcilable with the theory. All
the conditions are proved by this Epistle to have been
absent, to have been reversed, which all experience has
shown to be indispensable to the development of grand
masses and systems of myth. It has taken eighteen
centuries and more to develop the mythology of Mary in
the Church of Rome, and the myth is not yet complete ;
but in less than three decades after the death of Jesus of
Nazareth, the Son of David is already in the Epistle to
the Romans " the Son of God with power," declared
and set apart as such from all other sons of men by
His resurrection from the dead. (Rom. i. 3, 4.) The
Crucified One is already " Christ over all ; Lord both
of the dead and living; to whom every knee shall bow
and every tongue confess." (Rom. xiv. 9, 11.) What a
mighty difference in the two cases ! — a difference which,
more than any other of the Epistles, this Epistle helps us
to estimate and to understand.

Such are two of the fundamental subjects of Christian
history upon which the early Epistles of St. Paul can be
brought to bear with much evidential force and effect.
But I merely indicate them at present. I do not dwell
upon them, for I wish to go more fully into a third
subject of fundamental importance in the early history' of
Christianity and the Church, upon which these Epistles
seem to me to have an interesting and effective bearing,
and to which I purpose to devote the remainder of the
present lecture.

The Christian Church maintains that there was a
supernatural element not only in the life of Christ and in
the conversion and mission of St. Paul (the two subjects

of St. Paul viewed as Historical Documents. : 1 9

to which I have hitherto referred), but no less also in
the earliest propagation of Christianity throughout the
world — in the earliest manifestations and church-organi-
sations of the Christian life, both among Jews and
Gentiles. As our Apostle expresses it — " Our Gospel
came to men not in word only but also in power,
and in the Holy Ghost, and in much assurance." He
says, " Our Gospel " — meaning the Gospel which he
himself preached and propagated throughout the world,
and the working and effects of which upon men • none
knew so well as himself, or were so well able to speak
about. Well, then, I propose that we should now listen
to him speaking about these very points, and I could not
have done better than to quote these few words of his
just recited, in which he as much as tells us that there
was somethifig more than natural in the effects produced
by the Gospel on the world, for " it came not in word
only, but also in power;" and he means a Divine power,
for he adds — '' in the Holy Ghost," and therefore also
"in much assurance," i.e., with a force and effect of such
deep conviction that it gave men the courage of a new
faith and hope — carried men right over to the side of
Christ, laid the foundations everywhere of Christian and
Church life, and commenced in that first Christian century
a grand history and progress which has continued un-
broken ever since, and is still going on with unexhausted
force before the face of the whole world.

Before I break ground upon the argument let me
clearly announce the method of using the Epistles which
I mean to. adopt, and the principles of historical reason-
ing which I intend to apply.

1 20 The Evidential Value of the Early Epistles

Remember the nature of the historical documents
which are now before us ; they are not treatises, they are
letters, and not letters addressed to individuals, but to
communities — to tlie Christian communities or societies
of Thessalonica, Corinth, Galatia, and Rome. They
refer to subjects of common concern between the writer
and these communities ; they are full of express refer-
ences to matters of Christian faith and life ; and, passing
from a Christian Apostle to his Christian disciples and
converts, they everywhere assume and proceed upon
numerous Christian facts and doctrines and usages and
institutes of the Christian life in which he and they
believed in common, or to which they were in common
attached. AVe are in presence, therefore, everywhere in
these pages not only of what he believed, but of what
they believed as well as he ; in presence of Christian facts
which were not only such to him, but quite as much
so to them. For it was upon this basis of common faith
and fact that the correspondence between him and
them proceeded. But for this common basis — the basis
on which these societies were founded — there could have
existed no such correspondence of apostolic letters at all;
no, nor even any such relation of apostleship and disci-
pleship between the parties.

But here I make a distinction (an important one for
my present argument) among these matters of Christian
faith and fact common to both the parties in the
correspondence. These Christian communities believed
in many Christian facts of which they had no inde-
pendent knowledge from their own observation ; such,
e.g.^ as all the facts of Christ's life which the Apostle had

of St, Paul viewed as Historical Dociujients. 121

communicated to them, or all the facts concerning his
own conversion and apostleship, which were known in
the first instance only to himself and a very small num-
ber of other witnesses. I do not mean to make any use
of such facts as these, or of their belief in them, because
in relation to these their testimony was of no authority
— at least, of no primary authority. They had not been
eye-witnesses of them. They had been dependent foi
all their knowledge of them upon St. Paurs own teach-
ing and testimony ', and their reception of them, in the
first instance at least, was only the echo of his own voice.
But I am going to point out several facts referred to in
these Epistles of quite a different kind — several facts of a
supernatural character which the Apostle refers to as
having taken place among themselves — before their own
eyes, and within the scope of their own independent
knowledge — he too having been an eye-witness of
them himself Here then is apparently a common
basis of knowledge and conviction between the two
parties in regard to facts of a supernatural kind,
in which both parties are on equal terms, both
having an original, primary, and independent know-
ledge and conviction of their reality. If this can be
shown to be more than an apparency of a common basis
of knowledge and conviction — if it can be shown that
both parties had and must have had this common know-
ledge and conviction (otherwise the references to these
supernatural facts and experiences could never have oc-
curred in the Epistles), then the argumentative, evidential
effect of this will clearly be to prove that these matters
of supernatural fact rest on the united testimony both of

1 2 2 The Evidential Vaiiie of the Early Epistles

the Aposllc and the churches — that the testimony in both
cases was original and of primary authority, and that the
Episdes before us become virtually and in effect the joint
attestation to these facts of the Apostle as having seen
them with his own eyes, and of hundreds of men in
Thessalonica, Corinth, Galatia, and Rome, as having
.seen them and known them to be facts as well as he.

Proceeding now to the substance of the argument itself,
I shall be able to do litde more than to suggest the chief
points as subjects for your own reflection when you turn,
as I hope you will be induced to do, to the Epistles
themselves, to read them over again in view of the evi-
dential values of their contents which this lecture will
point out.

I. First then let us turn to the two Epistles to the
Thessalonians to see what is to be found there on the
subject of the new Christian character and life which had
sprung up in Thessalonica under the Apostle's preaching,
and had continued to thrive and grow and develop itself
since his recent visit. One or two readings will suffice to
set this picture before us : —

(i. Thess. i. 2, 3.) " We give thanks to God always for
you all, making mention of you in our prayers ; remem-
bering without ceasing your work of faith, and labour of love,
and patience of hope in our Lord Jesus Christy in the sight
of God a?id our Father." (i. Thess. i. 8-10.) " In everyplace
your faith to God-ivard is spread ab?'oad ; so that we 7ieed
7iot to speak anything. For they themselves shew of us what
manner of e?itering in we had unto you, and how ye twned
to God from idols to serve the living and true God ; and
to wait for His Son from heaven, whom He raised froi?t

of St Paul viewed as Historical Documents. 123,

the dead, ei'en Jesus, which delivered us from the wrath
to come. (i.Thess. ii. \.) For yourselves, breth'en, knov/
our entrance in imto you, that it was not in vain.^^

All at once, on hearing the preaching of Paul, these
Thessalonians had abandoned their idolatries and turned
to the living and true God, to serve Him in a holy and
blameless life, in the power of a new and heavenly hope.
All at once they had become men of faith and faith's
work — men of love and love's labour — men of hope
and of hope's patience, in the midst of persecution and
affliction endured on account of their new faith and life.

Nor was this sudden change illusory and transient.
Months passed away, and a second letter is despatched ta
them, beginning in the same, strain of warm-hearted
thankfulness. (2. Thess. i. 3, 4.) " We are bound to thank
God always for you, brethren, as it is meet, because that
your faith groweth exceedingly, and the charity of every
one of you alltoivard each other aboundeth; so that we
ourselves glory in you in the chu7'ches of God for your
patiefice and faith in all your persecutions and tribulations
that ye endure. ^^

The language seems strong and high-coloured. Was
the Apostle flattering them ? Did he use such words
" as a cloke of coveteousness " — concealing and subserv-
ing some selfish ends and designs of his own ? Impos-
sible ! for what does he say to them on this very point
of flattery and cloaked self-seeking? (Chap. ii. 5.) Ap-
pealing directly to their own knowledge of him and his
ways, he could boldly say, " For neither at any time used
we flattering words, as ye know, nor a cloke of covctous-
ness, as God is witness. Nor of men sought we glory,

I :;4 The Evidential Value of the Early Epistles

neither of you ?ior yet of others whom ive viigJit have been
burdensome as the Apostles of Christ." He had nevei
ftattered these Thessalonians, and they knew it. All he
says here about the rise and growth of the Christian life
among them was no more than the truth ; for which he
might well give fervent and constant thanks to God.
But how could he have thanked Him for a flattery and a
lie ? Would he have dared to appeal to these men as
being no flatterer, if he had been conscious that he was
even now flattering them in thus describing their cha-
racter and life ? To flatter them, and in the same breath
to appeal to their own knowledge of him that he had
never been a flatterer, is that conceivable in such a man ?
And would not such a proceeding have been utterly fatal
to his character and credit among them as their religious
teacher and guide ?

Here then we have virtually a joint testimony from
him and from them as to the matter of fact in question —
the first appearance in Thessalonica of Christian cha-
racter and life, and of Church society resting upon these.
It is a memorable fact. It marks a grand epoch in the
history of Greece and of Europe, Here in Macedonia
and in Thessalonica, is the first rise of Christian life
under the ministry of the great Apostle of the Gentiles.
It is quite a new and strange phenomenon. The like
eftects of reHgious and moral teaching had never been
seen before — never among the Pagans, never among the
Jews. And it was the same wherever the Apostle had
been, or was yet to be in the fulfilment of his mission — in
Galatia, in Ephesus, in Corinth, and in Rome. His
experience everywhere was what he expresses in one of

of St. Paid viewed as Historical Documents. 125

his Epistles to the Corinthians (2 Cor. v. 17, 18) : " If
any man is in Christ," if any man becomes a real and
tme Christian, " he is a new ci'catiire; old things are
passed away from him, behold ! all things are made new ;
and all things," he adds, all these things of the Chris-
tian man and the Christian life, "are of God."

Yes ! All these things, he asserted, were of God.
They had a Divine source and origin. These spiritual
and moral phenomena never seen in the world before,
which the Gospel of Christ was everywhere calling forth
into view, had a supernatural character and quality about
them — not sprung from the lap of mother-nature, but
bom of a truth and a power which had both descended
from heaven, from the love and grace of the Heavenly
Father.

The facts of the case defy contradiction. Do you
accept also the Apostle's explanation of them? He
maintained the facts to have a supernatural cause in two
distinct particulars, viz., in a Gospel Divinely revealed
and in a Divine presence and power accompanying this
Gospel. Do you accept this solution of the origin of
the facts in either or in both its parts, or do you disallow
and reject it, and substitute another of a naturalistic
kind, asserting that even if the facts were really such as
we have been looking at, you still see no sufficient reason
to think that they had anything in them which was
beyond the powers of nature to produce ?

2. This brings me to the second link in the chain of
proof which I wish to present to you. I invite you to
turn with me for our second reading of these Epistles to
the First Epistle to the Corinthians.

126 The Evidential Value of the Early Epistles

Let mc suppose that your view of the Gospel is
that it is a merely liuman thing, a mere natural product
of the age in which it was first ])reached to the world.
In the case of St. Paul in particular, its chief preacher
and propagator, your view, I suppose, would be that
in his hands the Gospel was nothing more than a com-
plex or mixture of the best tilings which he had learned
in the schools of Tarsus and Jerusalem, with some
addition, perhaps, of Oriental ideas from the Greco-
Jewish sources of Alexandria. The whole effect of his
preaching, you think, was due to this combination of in-
gredients of human wisdom. It was a great improve-
ment, you admit, upon either Judaism or Heathenism,
taken separately. The Alexandrian mixture of the two
in such writers as Philo had already made something
"better than either, and the Pauline mixture of the three
was something better still ; and this, you think, is suf-
ficient to account for its power to work the effects it did.
Well, then, let me bring this way of thinking into com-
parison with the experiences and the convictions of the
most earnest minds at the time when Christianity was
making its earliest conquests in Corinth. The situation
of matters there was singularly appropriate for such a
comparison ; for not only the Jewish and the Greek
wisdom but also the Alexandrian gnosis or science had
its representatives among the Corinthian Christians at
that very time ; for Apollos of Alexandria had arrrived
there shortly after the Apostle's first visit, and his " excel-
lency of speech and of wisdom " had made so great an
impression upon those who were able to appreciate them
that a party had arisen in the Church who preferred to be

of St. Paul viewed as Historical Docunieiiis. 127

called the disciples of Apollos rather than of Paul. It
was partly owing to this movement which, without any
blame attaching to Apollos, had taken the direction, after
he left Corinth, of an undue overvaluing of human
wisdom and rhetoric in the things of God, that the
Apostle addressed to the Church this very Epistle. And
it was with the view of correcting this dangerous tendency
that he penned the remarkable passages which we are
now to consider :

(i Cor. i. 17-19.) '' Christ sent me not to baptize, hut to
preach the Gospel ; not with wisdom of words, less the cross
of Christ should be made of none effect. For the preaching
of the cross is to them that are perishing foolishness ; hit
zinto us which are saved, it is the power of God. For it is
written, I will destroy the wisdom of tJie wise, and will
hringto nothing the under staiiding of the prudent. ^^

You see here how far the Apostle was from thinking
that the preaching of the Gospel was only one of the
better forms, or the very best extant form of human
wisdom, or that human wisdom had anything to do with
giving it effect. The very contrary was his conviction on
both points. The Gospel was simply the preaching of
the Cross of Christ, and the whole power .of that
preaching lay in its own absolute newness and origi-
nality. To mix anything of human wisdom with it was
to spoil it, and make it as weak as all mere human
wisdom had been. No doubt there was also a '•'wisdom
of the wise," and an "understanding of the prudent,"
and these were all well enough in their own place and
for their own work. But it was never possible that they
should have the place and the power of saving souls —

7 28 The Evidential Value of iJic liarly Epistles

of delivering men, tliat is to say, from tlic yoke and
power, the bondage and the misery of sin, and bringing
them back into God's image and God's peace. That
is a power, St. Paul thouglit, which comes forth from
God alone, and which is communicated only in the
preaching of the Cross. That is a power which " the
wisdom of the wise " may put in a claim to possess, and
which " the understanding of the prudent " may affect
to put forth, but God has said, " I will destroy the
wisdom of the wise, I will bring to nothing the under-
standing of the prudent " — in the sense of exposing to
shame their utter emptiness and impotence for any such
saving and redeeming work. For such work the wisdom
of man is folly, and the strength of man utter weakness
and abortion. Not only has God said it, He has also
made it good by the demonstration of world-facts and
world-history. For mark how the Apostle goes on
(vv. 20 — 25) : " Where is the wise? 7a here is the scribe 1
where is the disputcr of this world ? Did not God make
foolish (i.e., cojivict of foolishness) the wisdom of the world 1
For when in the wisdom of God (i.e., /;/ His wise dispen-
sation and ordering of epochs and events) the world through
its wisdom knew not God (i.e., had failed nttejiy to reach
the knowledge of His mind and will)^ it pleased God through
the foolishness of preaching to save them that believe. For
the yews require a sign, and the Greeks seek after wisdom.
But we preach Christ crucified, to the yetus a stumbling
block and to the Greeks foolishness, but to them which are
called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God and
the wisdom of God. Because the foolishness of God is wiser
than 7nen ; and the lucakness of God is stronger than menP

of Si. Paul vieiued as Historical Docufiieiits. 1 2 9

In other words, it is proved by the whole history of the
world down to the era of Christ that no wisdom of man
is able to save the souls of men from sin, and that the
Gospel of Christ which is able to do this for mankind,
and has already done it in the experience of so many, is
not any form or growth or adaptation of human wisdom
but a Gospel of God — a truth revealed to men from
Heaven. In point of fact, and of history, the world at
its advent was still unsaved from its sin — in spite of all
the boasted wisdom of the schools of Greece, of Jeru-
salem, and the East. In point of fact it is the preachings
of the Cross alone that has brought to the world an
epoch of salvation — a way of life and peace. Some men
call it indeed foolishness, but none the less it is God's
wiser wisdom. Some men scoff at it as weakness, but
none the less it is God's stronger strength.

But now mark well what follows next in the Apostle's
pleading. He makes his appeal in support of all this to
the independent knowledge and experience of the
Corinthians themselves. He compares ideas with them^
he makes a confident call upon their own consciousness
and knowledge and recollection to support his own
(vv. 26 — end) : ^'' For consider your callings hi'ethi'cn., /low,
that not many (of you) were luise men after the flesh (^i.e.,
in the sense of human 7aisdom), not many mighty men, not
many noble. But God chose the foolish things of the
world that He might put to shame the things that are
wise, a?id God chose the lueak things of the world that
He might put to shame the things that are mighty, and
the base things of the world and the things which are des-
pised did God choose, yea, the things which are not, that

9

i-o TIw Ei'idcntial Value of tJw Early Epistles

He tnight bring to nougJit i/ie t/ii/igs iJiat are, t/iat 710 Jlesh
should glory in His presence. But of Him are ye in Cliris^
y^esns, wJio from God was made inito us ivisdotfi, ana
rigliteoiisness, and sanetifcatio/i, and redemption. That
according as it is icritten, He that glorieth let him glory in
the Lord."*' What in commoner language is the gist of
all this? Simply that the Corinthians themselves were
instances and proofs of the truth of what the Apostle
had said, and could be appealed to as such. Who
and what were these Corinthian Christians ? Not many
of them were men of high education, or of much rank and
influence in the society of their great city. It was not
to these advantages that they could ascribe the change that
had come over their whole character and life as Christian
men. All these advantages had done nothing for the
religious and moral condition of the few among them who
possessed them, and the great majority of them had never
possessed these advantages at all. The preaching of the
Cross, and that alone, had done for them what all the
wisdom, and teaching, and influence of men had never
been able to achieve. They were now for the first time
new men — new creatures in character, life-habit, and life-
hope ; but they had become so only in Christ Jesus —
only by the knowledge and faith of His truth and grace,
only by the preaching of Christ the power of God, and
the wisdom of God. This is what I take to be the true
meaning of the Aposde's vigorous words about the con-
founding of the wise by the foolish, and of the mighty by
the weak, and about the bringing to nought of the things
that are by the things that are not — of the men that were
somethings in the world by the men that were nothings

of Si. Paul viewed as Historical Documents. 131

in it, or mere nonentities. For see ! (he as much as says)
how the tables are turned now by the coming in upon the
world of Him " who brings down the mighty from their
seats and exalteth the humble and meek." It is the fools
now who are made wise in Christ, and the weak strong,
and the nobodies somebodies. It is the Christless wise
who are fools now, the Christless strong who are weak
now, the Christless somebodies who are nobodies now
in religion and morals, in the true philosophy of life, in
life's true use, and work, and hope.

I beg you, to remember and realise that all this is
put by the Apostle in this place, not as a matter of
doctrine or theology, but as a matter of fact and history —
as a matter of actual experience and observation, and
therefore of special value and weight for the purposes
of my argument. It is a lesson of history which the
Apostle here reads off to us, as it was plainly taught by
all that he had read in the annals of the world, by all
that he had seen and known of the religious and moral
conditions of the nations, and by all that he had ex-
perienced in his apostolic travels and labours. The
passage has also the great additional value of being a
comparison of his own observations and experiences with
those of his Corinthian disciples. Both parties had been
eye-witnesses of the situation of matters before the Gospel
began to be published, and since — and here we have the
result which was forced by the demonstration of facts upon
both parties alike, viz., that the religion which had wrought
the great changes of character and life which as a matter
of fact were plain and undeniable, was the wisdom 01
God, and not the wisdom of man — the truth and revela-

132 The Eviihniiid Value of the Early Epistles

tion of God, and not the speculation or invention of man.
As the Apostle so eloquently puts it, " Eye of man had
never seen, ear of man had never heard, nor had it ever
entered into the heart of man to conceive the things which
God hath prepared for them that love Him," the things of
the Gospel ; but God hath revealed them to the Church by
His Spirit. This ^^•isdom is from above. It could not be
Jewish wisdom in a new form, for to the Jews as a nation
it was a stumbling-block. And it could not be Greek
wisdom brought into a new connexion, for to the Greeks
the preaching of Christ crucified was utter foolishness.
No ! it was a new thing in the earth, it was a new crea-
tion in the sphere of religion and morals. It was a new
starting-point and beginning in the religious and ethical
life of the world. And such a new creation for man,
drawing nothing from man himself, could only have
sprung out of the life-power of Almighty God. Such a
new starting-point for the world, which owed none of its
impulses to the world itself, could only have received its
impulse from a Supreme hand — from Him who, without
Beginning Himself, is the providential and beneficent
Beginner of all the grand movements of the world
towards light and goodness.

To bring now this section of the argument to a distinct
point. We have here the joint testimony of St. Paul and
the Corinthian Christians to the supernatural origin of
the Gospel of Christ, as proved by the mighty influences
of a religious and moral kind which they had seen it
produce. Is their testimony valid ? Ought it to have
weight with us ? Ought it to have more weight with us
than the opinions of the unbelievers and disbelievers of

of St. Paul vieived as Historical Dociimciits. j^->

this nineteenth century? I think in all justice and in all
common sense it ought. The conviction of the first
Christians on this subject rested upon observation and
experience — and these not other men's, but their own.
The disbelief of the present age rests on mere specula-
tion and foregone philosophical conclusions. An abstract
alleged axiom of philosophy lies at the base of it, \iz.,
that the supernatural is impossible, and that therefore
there was and there could be nothing supernatural either
in the effects produced by Christianity in the first
age, or in the substance and origin of Christianity
itself. But such an axiom as this is anything but
axiomatic. It needs to be proved before it is applied,
and it never has been proved, and never will be,
and never can be. Call in question the axiom, and all
its (Z/rw-/ applications to theological controversy become
inept and null at once. I prefer the practical reasoning
of St. Paul and his converts — " We and many thousands
more," said they, ''find ourselves new creatures in Christ;
it was the Gospel of Christ that did this for us and
nothing else ; it is more than the wisdom of the world ever
did for us or could do ; it is more than ever we were able
to do for ourselves. He who did it for us by His Gospel
must be greater and mightier than men. He must be
what we call Him, 'the Son of God with power;' and
His Gospel — the rod of His power, the arm of His
strength, must be like himself, Divine." It is a plain,
practical kind of reasoning, I admit. It may not sound
in some ears very philosophic, but it has the ring none
the less of sound common sense ; and we should remem-
ber that, after all, the philosopliy of common sense, the

1 34 ^^^^ Evidential Value of the Early Epistles

philosophy of observation and experience is acknow-
ledged by philosophers themselves to be the wisest and
safest and most fruitful of all philosophies.

Let me now point out to you a iJiird and a fourth
link of evidence supplied by these early Epistles, and
bearing specially on the point of the V>\\\Xi^ presence and
power which accompanied tlie preaching of the Gospel in
the hands of the Apostles. If this was a reality, it was
of course a supernatural element. Do these Epistles
contribute anything to prove that it was a real historical
thing ? Let us see. First, listen to the convictions of
St. Paul himself upon the point — a point on which, more
than any other man in the world, he was entitled to
speak with authority and weight, as it so closely con-
cerned the one great work cf his whole life, and pene-
trated to the very core of its meaning and force. And
let it be carefully observed, as before, that in the passage
I am now to read from him he is not dogmatizing, not
laying down a doctrine or article of faith : he is recalling
the circumstances of his first visit to Corinth; he is
referring to personal facts and incidents and conditions
of that visit of which the Corinthians were cognizant as
well as himself. The passage is a bit of St. Paul's auto-
biography— a bit of early Church history, not of early
Church dogma, (i Cor. ii. i, 4). '■'■ And I, brethren, wJien
I came to yon, came declaring nnto yon the testimony of
God; not 7(1 ith excellency of speech or of wisdom, for I deter-
mined not to know anything among you save ycsus Christ
ajid Him crucified ; and I was zuith you in lueakness and
in fear and in much trembling; and my speech and my
preaching was not 7vith persuasive words of man's wisdom^

of St. Paul viaued as Historical Documents, i : -

but with demonstration of the Spirit and of poiver ; to the
ejid that your faith might riot stand in the wisdom of men,
but in the power of Godi" That is to say, as he came to
Corinth to publish solely a Divine message and not a
hmnan one, so his sole confidence for the eftect of his
publication of it was confidence not in his own power or
persuasiveness as a preacher, for he felt nothing but weak-
ness, but in the power of that God whom he served,
in the demonstration and manifestation of " the
Spirit." If they received his message, their faith
was to stand or rest not in any manifestation of the
power of man, but only in the manifested power
of God. They were to be, as he says in another place,
God's own husbandry, not his. It was the presence and
power of God's Spirit that was to work their conversion
in Christ, and to make them new creatures in Christ.
That, he tells them, was his \:oxkmg programme when he
first came among them ; and what was the upshot of his
work so projected and planned? It had been an im-
mense success. The pov/er of God had been " demon-
strated '' among them as he had expected. *' God gave
the increase ; for neither is he that planteth anything ;
neither he that watereth ; but God that giveth the in-
crease " — He is everything in this work, He is all in all.

But here I shall suppose that you stand in doubt of the
reality of this supernatural power accompanying the
Gospel on the ground of its being an invisible and
impalpable power, working unseen in men's minds, if
working at all, and not manifesting its presence and
force in any undeniable way to the senses. I do not
sympathise much with such a doubt, resting upon such a

136 The Evidctitial ]'aluc of tJic Early EpistUs

ground, because surely revolutions of character and life
and conduct in men are eftects of power palpable
enough even to men's senses. 13ut let that pass, and
rather let me call your attention to two remarkable facts
l)reserved to us by these Kpistles to the Corinthians,
which i)rove in tlie most unanswerable manner that a
supernatural presence and power were then at work in
Corinth in the most palpable forms possible, and with
effects and manifestations of a kind which might even be
called sensational. And these two facts are the two
additional links of proof to which I referred.

(2 Cor, xii. 12.) "Z>7//y the signs of an Apostle were
wroiigJit among you in all patience^ in signs a7id won-
(fas, and mighty deeds. For 7vhat is it whei-ein
ye zvere inferior to other Churches ? Except it be
that I myself raas not burdensome to yon. Forgive vie
this 7c>rong.'' He plainly means " miracles " of the most
palpable kind — he means " mighty deeds,'' only to be
wrought upon nature and the common order of the
world by a power above nature herself. Yes ! and he
refers to them as having taken place before the eyes of
the Corinthians themselves — as things which they knew
to have taken place, and were as certain of having seen,
as he was himself Could he have written in that manner
to them, about miracles done among them, if no such
miracles had ever been done ? Could he have appealed
to these miracles as signs of his Apostleship, if they had
been all myths and unrealities ! Could he have so
appealed to them in a context, where he is finding grave
fault with the Corinthians, where he is remonstrating
with them for giving too much countenance to men whom

of St. Paul vieived as Historical Documents. 137

he characterises as false Apostles, transforming them-
selves into Apostles of Christ? He points to those
miracles as the seals of his own Apostleship, as vouchers
of its being a true and not a false Apostleship. He is
arguing with the Corinthians, he is putting them in the
wrong; he is pressing his controversy closely home
upon them. And it is in such a connexion and discourse
that he is bold to say, '* Truly the signs of an Apostle
were wrought ainongyou.^'' This could only be the boldness
of conscious truth. This was an appeal which he well
knew it was impossible for them to resist. They had
seen " the mighty deeds" of God in Corinth as well as
he. They were God's witnesses to them as well as he.

The other fact referred to — the remaining link of the
argument — is the remarkable one so fully set out in the
twelfth chapter of i Corinthians, a chapter too long to be
quoted in full here, touching the "spiritual gifts " of that
church, which he calls " the manifestation of the Spirit,
given to every man to profit withal." ^^ For to one is
given by the Spirit the word of 7aisdo7n, to another the W07'd
of knowledge according to the same Spirit, to aiiothcr the
gifts of healing, to another the wo7'king of miracles, to
another prophecy, to another discerning of spirits, to a7iothcr
divers kinds of tongues, to another interpretatiofi of tongues.
But all these worketh the one and self sa7ne Spirit, dividing
to every man severally as He ivilleth." Here, verily, was
a demonstration of the Spirit of God and of powxr in
the most manifold and palpable forms. If gifts like
these did not and could not manifest a supernatural
presence and working, I know not what could manifest
them. And there was an indubitable and indisputable

joS The Evidential Value oj' the Early Epistles

reality in the whole matter. If I am sure that this
letter is from the hand of St. Paul, and was addressed
to the hands of the Corinthian Christians — and I may
be as sure of these facts as of the genuineness and the
date of any letter of Cicero or Pliny — I may be also
equally sure that the things which he refers to in
these extraordinary terms were real things and no de-
lusions. For he speaks of things of which he claims
to have himself large experience. " I thank my God,"
he exclaims (i Cor. xiv. i8), I speak with tongues
more than you all." Could he be under a delusion as to
the reality of a supernatural endowment possessed by
himself in so high a degree ? or could he have expected
the Corinthians to believe at his suggestion that
they had been endowed with it too, if they had
had no knowledge and experience of the fact them-
selves, if they had known the exact contrary to
be the fact ? I am compelled by the inexorable
logic of common sense to believe that these gifts
of the Spirit were facts of the church-life of Corinth ;
and the inexorable logic of the facts themselves compels
me to believe and confess " that God was in the midst of
them of a truth." It was for the sake of this inexorable
logic of facts that the facts were brought to pass ;
they were meant to be " signs to the unbelievers,"
to heal them of their unbelief. We know that they
answered that purpose then (i Cor. xiv. 24, 25);
and such a genuine contemporary original record of
them as we have here handed down to us, is well fitted
to answer the same evidential purpose still. I know, of
course, the difficulties which it is possible to raise upon

of St. Paul viewed as Historical Documents. 139

the collateral points of a subject like this, of which we
have nowhere in the New Testament an exhaustive
account, and of which we have had no personal expe-
rience ourselves. But the difficulties upon collateral
points attaching to facts are no disproof of the facts
themselves, when the facts are strongly attested and
vouched. I know also how easy it is for men to ride off
from this whole subject in a contemptuous manner upon
the allegation that both St. Paul and his Corinthian
converts must have been in a frenzy of enthusiasm, or
had fallen into a fit of religious madness. But St. Paul
might well have replied at the bar of modern disbelief in
the memorable words which he used at the bar of
Festus : " I am not mad, but speak forth the words of
truth and soberness." Yes, his soberness of mind on this
very subject vouches for his truthfulness and accuracy
upon it. He writes upon the whole matter, supernatural
as it was, like a man of sense and of a well-regu-
lated mind ; like a man whose judgment was as sound
and enlightened as his personal endowments were mira
culous. "In the Church," he writes (i Cor. xiv. 19),.
" I had rather speak five v/ords with my understanding
that I might teach others also, than ten thousand words
in an unknown tongue. Brethren, be not children in
understanding, but in understanding be men." Is.
not that spoken like a man of sense ? Is that
the language and bearing of a heated enthusiast,
proud of his own imaginary endowments, dazzled by
them beyond the power of clear-seeing, and wildly
exaggerating and extoUing their value? Does not
this great teacher, who desires all his friends at

140 Tht Evidential Value of the Early Epistles

Corinth to be men and not children in understanding,
begin by showing that he was such a man himself? —
no childish dreamer deluding himself with fond fables
and conceits, but a manly thinker with senses well
trained and exercised to discern good and evil, truth
and error, fact and fable, history and myth, reality and
seeming.

Here my present argument must end. But before I
quite close this address, will you allow me to throw out
one or two suggestions arising naturally from my subject,
with the view of correcting one or two very common
misai)prehensions which, for anything I know, may at
this moment be influencing some of yourselves.

You see here how the early Church of Christ was
planted and rooted in the world before any part of the
New Testament collection w\is \\Titten at all. The
Churches of Galatia, Thessalonica, Corinth, and Rome,
were all gathered to Christ before the Epistles to these
Churches were written, and these Epistles we have
seen, are the oldest writings in the New Testament.
It is foolish then for men to think that by picking
faults with the New Testament here and there they can
rid themselves of Christianity altogether. Christianity
existed and flourished both in Asia and Europe before
any part of the New Testament came into existence. The
Gospel of Christ was a spoken and victorious Gospel be-
fore it was a written one, and if it was true and triumphant
even as a spoken Gospel it must be true and worthy to
triumph still.

Again, if you admit, as you cannot help doing, that
at least these early Epistles of St. Paul are genuine

of St. Paul vieived as Historical Vocuments. 141

historical documents, do not imagine that you get
rid of their historical truth by denying their Divine in-
spiration. I shall suppose that you do not agree with
the Church of Christ upon that matter of inspiration.
You think you see many strong objections against such
a claim. You think you can break it down by no end
of arguments. Very well, but remember that you have
here the earliest historical documents of Christianity be-
fore you — and these of undoubted genuineness, and of
high historic validity — and you have no warrant to neglect
or ignore these documents for the uses of history, merely
because you do not take them to be inspired. You ac-
cept innumerable things of the past as true and important
upon the credit of ancient or modern histories — though
these had no claim to be given by inspiration of God.
Well, then, act in the same way by these early Epistles of
St. Paul. To begin with, distinguish between the truth of
ancient facts of Christian history and the alleged inspira-
tion of the documents which record and establish them.
Convince yourselves first, if you are able, of the truth of
the facts contained in the documents viewed simply as
materials of history. Afterwards it will be time enough
for you to take up and setde the ulterior question of their
Divine quality and authority. If Christianity, as we have
seen, might have been true and triumphant without a
single book of the New Testament being written, it might
have been equally so without a single book of the New
Testament being inspired.

Last of all, let me suppose that you have one grand a
priori objection to everything that can be said about
supernatural truths, facts, writings, and personages, — viz.

1^2 ^/'^' Evidential Value of the Eafiy Epistles

that you sec no sufficient reason to think that there is
any supernatural being or power in the universe at all,
anything above nature, or distinct from it, or able to
interfere with it, or either to order it or to dislocate its
order.

Well ! but I do not suppose you undertake to prove
that there is no God. That were a Quixotic undertaking.
All you mean to say is that as yet you have seen no suffi-
cient proof of God's Being and Power and agency. If so,
it is more proof which you are in quest of or should be.
If so, I think such historical documents as those we have
been speaking of to-night have something to say upon
that grand question. I do not see how the supernatural
facts there vouched for are to be got rid of by the bare
assertion that there is nothing in the universe above
nature. That seems to me to be a mere begging of the
question. You say you are without evidence enough to
prove that there is any God at all. I reply, and am en-
titled to reply, Well ! here at least is some relevant evi-
dence of a historical kind applicable to the question.
Impossible ! you urge, there is nothing to prove that
there is a God in history. Nay, I reply, not i?npos-
sible. It is possible enough that there may be facts of
history which admit of no other explanation than by
referring them to supernatural Being and Power, and
the facts vouched by these earliest of all the Christian
documents appear to me to be of that kind. It is no
argument to deny and exclude all supernatural solutions
a priori. You are bound by good logic and by common
sense, first, to try whether any naturalistic solution of
these facts can be found that will bear a searching criti-

of St. Paul viewed as Historical Dociwieuts. 143

cism, and failing any such, to admit that here at least
you have come upon some facts which multitudes not only
of intelligent but learned men have interpreted in a super-
natural sense, and which cannot be explained or accounted
for satisfactorily in any other way.

If the facts of nature are at least relevant materials in
arguing the question of God's Being and Work, I do
not see why facts of history thoroughly well attested
should not be relevant materials also. We have come, I
am persuaded, upon some such materials of history to-
night, and I commend them to the serious thoughts of
any among you v/ho are still debating with yourselves
the most fundamental of all questions of Being and Power.

LORD LYTTLETON ON THE CONVERSION
OE ST. PAUL.

REV. JOHN GRITTON.

fort) f gttlet^n on §t fml

THE EVIDENTIAL FORCE OF THE CONVER-
SION OF THE APOSTLE PAUL.

BY reason of the endless variety in the minds of men
— as endless possibly as the varieties of human
countenances — the same argument will become weighty
or weak according to the person to whom it is addressed,
and a kind of evidence which affects one person conclu-
sively may fail to influence another person in even the
slightest degree. But underlying this variety there is an
uniformity of mind — as to its nature and its capacity for
for being influenced by evidence — which encourages men
to seek in one way or another, by this or that process,
to influence their fellows towards the acceptance of be-
liefs which they themselves have adopted. In conse-
quence of this uniformity, and of this variety, the Christian
believer is led to present evidences to the minds of non-
believers, and is induced to present many kinds of evi-
dence, and to place the points of evidence in varying
proportion and relation, hoping that some kind ot evi-
dence, or various evidential elements in varying relations,

14S Lord Lytllcton on St. Faul.

may beget in the hearer's mind tlie conviction that the
Cliristian system is Divine in its origin and worthy of the
fullest credit.

Some minds are so constituted or are so trained, that
if one line of evidence presents itself forcibly, and they are
able to grasp it as conclusive, they are never again
troubled by difficulties which affect only other line? of
evidence. But minds of a different type or habit can
never be satisfied by one strong line of argument on a
given subject, while objections lie against some other kind
of evidence by which also the subject may be exhibited
or proved. Let us illustrate this difference. Here is a
man who has been persuaded that Christianity is from
God, and that the Books of the Old and New Covenant
in which that system is contained are given by inspira-
tion of God. He has attained to that conviction, so far
as mental exercise is concerned, by observing that in
revealed religion there is a wonderful likeness to many
things in the order of nature, and by inferring from this
likeness that both come from the same hand and have
been fashioned by th*e same wisdom, prevision, and power;
or conviction may have resulted from observing the
wonderful uniqueness, originality and verisimilitude in the
character of Jesus Christ of Nazareth ; or the argument
from prophecy may have established his confidence in
the verity of the Bible as the Word of God : at all events
in some way or other he has arrived at that conviction.
In the course of after investigation he finds himself face
to face with difficulties such as those w-hich exist or seem
to exist in reconciling the Mosaic cosmogony with geo-
logical fact or geological theory, but he will never be

Lord Lyttleton on St. Paul. 149

shaken or troubled in mind by such difficulties, knowing
that the Book is true whatever may be the case as to
geology ; and concluding that if the fact in nature fall not
in with the apparent statement of the Bible, it is not the
Book but the interpretation of the Book which is faulty,
and that if the statement in the Book is absolutely con-
tradictoiy of the supposed fact in science the fact is after
all but a theory miscalled. In the same way he deals
consciously or unconsciously with biblical difficulties
touching on arithmetic, or ethnology, or morals. He has
settled the verity of the Book on one clear line of argu-
ment, and he considers that his partial knowledge of the
whole field in debate fully justifies him in waiting and
expecting the solution of difficulties.

Let us take the case of a man who is the type of the
other habit of mind to which reference has been made.
He has concluded from prophecy or miracles, or the cha-
racter of Jesus, or the general concensus of differing lines
of evidence, that the Bible is of God and that therefore
Christianity is Divine. But he too meets with difficulties,
numerical, moral, scientific or historical, and they have
so much effect on him that he never quite rests in his
conviction of the truth and certainty of the Bible because
there are these difficulties ; and, even when with increas-
ing knowledge he is conscious that the difficulty of yes-
terday is no difficulty now, he still never learns to con-
clude that remaining difficulties will disappear before the
brighter light of advancing study.

Under these varying circumstances the Christian advo-
cate will learn to deal with many lines of evidence and
in many different ways. He will endeavour at one time

x^o Lord Lyitleton on St. Paul,

to present a general view of testimony, and at another
will confine himself to some specific and limited line of
thought. To-day he will endeavour to place the enquirer
where he may obtain a coup d'ccil of evidence which, how-
ever, from its very breadth and fulness will be lacking in
definition and sharpness. To-morrow he will place the
student at a selected point of view whence he will see
some one or some few objects with distinctness, but will
see them only.

It is this latter process to which we give ourselves to-
night. I wish to lay before you in a brief way the special
line of enquiry by which one particular person was led to
the conclusion that Christianity is of God. There may
be many in this assembly unwilling or even unable to see
the full importance and force of the evidence which will
be adduced, because pre-engaged with general scepticism
or with some special objections ; but others may be here
who will see in the evidence adduced, the same force and
conclusiveness which it presented to the mind of Lord
Lyttleton, to whose process of investigation I invite
you to-night.

The Lord Lyttleton of whom we speak was an active
politician and statesman of the reign of George the
Second. He was well acquainted with the world and at
the same time studious and reflective. As a poet he en-
joys the honour of a place in ''Johnson's Lives." His
'' Dialogues of the Dead " exhibits him as the thoughtful
moralist, while his voluminous but heavy "History of
Henry the Second " testifies to his ability to investigate
fact and weigh evidence.

The period in which he lived was not favourable to

Lord Lyttldon on St. Paul. 151

Christian studies or to godly living. General scepticism
in sentiment, and abounding profligacy in life marked the
whole period in which Lord Lyttleton lived and acted,
and he did not escape unscathed in the furnace of evil in
which he lived. Johnson who sketches his life testifies
^' He had, in the pride of youthful confidence, with the
help of corrupt conversation, entertained doubts of Chris-
tianity," and it was not till he was nearly forty years of age
that he was led into that course of reading and reflection
of which Johnson writes, " His studies, being honest,
ended in conviction."'

We do not know with certainty what were the facts
which first arrested his attention, or the arguments which
overcame his scepticism ; but we do know from his own
writings that he regarded the conversion of St. Paul, and
his after life as an Apostle, taken in connexion with his
undisputed writings, as containing on one single and
limited line of evidence a force and conclusiveness suf-
ficient to convince an honest enquirer, or, to use his own
words, '' I thought the conversion and Apostleship of St.
Paul alone, duly considered, was of itself a demonstration
sufficient to prove Christianity to be a Divine revelation."

It appears that in a conversation with Gilbert West, the
author of an invaluable Monograph on the Resurrection of
Jesus Christ, Lord Lyttleton had expressed his opinion as
given above, and that athis friend's request he engaged to
reduce to writing the argument which seemed to his own
mind so convincing. This engagement he observed, and
sent to his friend his '* Observations on the Conversion
and Apostleship of St. Paul."

Before I proceed to sketch the argument of his letter

1^2 Lord Lyithlon on St. Paul.

I would remark that it has now been before the world for
a hundred and seventeen years, and that while particular
expressions and conclusions here and there have been
questioned, no opponent of Christianity has ever written
a reply to it. It will be well also to notice that, although
Lord Lyttleton wrote before the birth of the modern
school of scientific criticism of the books of the Bible, he-
takes for granted only such points as are at the present
time regarded as established by the more recent sceptical
writers. He postulates nothing beyond the points which
Strauss admits, and which Renan in his more recent work
takes as certain. I speak of admitted fads. Strauss,
Paulus, and Renan offer varying and contradictory ex-
planations of the facts, and they differ as to the actuality
of certain things lying outside the facts which are taken
for granted in the " Observations ; " but, with Lord Lyttle-
ton, they admit the existence of Saul of Tarsus — his emin-
ent acquaintance with Judaism and addiction to its most
severe form, that of Pharisaic scrupulosity. They admit
his persecution of the followers of the Crucified — his
journey to Damascus with authority from the Jewish Chief
Priests to bind the followers of Jesus whom he might find
in that city ; and they also admit that from some cause or
other this red-handed opponent became a preacher of the
faith which before he hated, and a companion and fellow
worker with those whom he had sought to destroy. They
regard as actual events the incidents in his after life which
are contained in the book of the Acts of the Apostles,
which history even Renan ascribes to a date not later
than A.D. 80 ; and finally they assert the authenticity ot
those Epistles to which Lord Lyttleton turns for evidence

Lord Lyttleton on St. Paul. 1^3

and illustration, admitting that some of those letters were
written by Paul at least as early as the year a.d. 58.

Thus the most destructive schemes of criticism which
were ever applied to the books of Scripture have, by a
process of mutual destruction and antagonistical admission,
left a residuum of confessed fact, which contains all that
is necessary for the validity of the argument of the " Ob-
servations."

I now proceed to lay the argument before you, not iif
the fulness of detail given by Lord Lyttleton, but with
sufficient fulness and accuracy to convey the general re-
sults at which he arrives.

The event with which we have to do is thus narrated
by Paul himself at Ceesarea in the presence of Festus the
Roman Governor, and Agrippa a Jewish King, and before
many of his enemies who knew his history and were ready
to detect any error or falsehood in his statement : —

" My manner of life from my youth, which was at the
first among mine own nation at Jerusalem, know all the
Jews ; which knew me from the beginning, if they would
testify, that after the most straitest sect of our religion I
lived a Pharisee. And now I stand and am judged for the
hope of the promise made of God unto our fathers : unto
which promise our twelve tribes, instantly serving God
day and night, hope to come ; for which hope's sake.
King Agrippa, I am accused of the Jews. Why should
it be thought a thing incredible with you, that God should
raise the dead ? I verily thought with myself, that I
ought to do many things contrary to the name of Jesus
of Nazareth. Which thing I also did in Jerusalem : and
many of the saints did I shut up in prison, having re-

154 Lord Lyttlcton on St. Paul.

ceived authority from the chief priests ; and when they
were put to death I gave my voice against them. And
I punished tliem oft in every synagogue, and compelled
them to blaspheme ; and being exceedingly mad against
them, I persecuted them even unto strange cities. Where-
upon as I went to Damascus with authority and com-
mission from the chief priests, at mid -day, O King, I
saw in the way a light from heaven, above the brightness
of the sun, shining round about me and them which
journeyed with me. And when we were all fallen to the
earth, I heard a voice speaking unto me, and saying in
the Hebrew tongue, Saul, Saul, why persecutest thou
me ? It is hard for thee to kick against the pricks. And
I said, Who art thou. Lord % And He said, I am Jesus
whom thou persecutest. But rise, and stand upon thy
feet : for I have appeared unto thee for this purpose, to
make thee a minister and a witness both of these things
which thou hast seen, and of those things in the which I
will appear unto thee ; delivering thee from the people,
and from the Gentiles, unto whom now I send thee, to
open their eyes, and to turn them from darkness to light,
nnd from the power of Satan unto God, that they may
receive forgiveness of sins, and inheritance among them
\\hich are sanctified by faith that is in me. Whereupon,
O King Agrippa, I was not disobedient unto the heavenly
vision : but shewed first unto them of Damascus, and at
Jerusalem, and throughout all the coasts of Judea, and
then to the Gentiles, that they should repent and turn
to God, and do works meet for repentance." (Acts xxvi.

4—20.)

On another occasion, defending himself before the Jews

Lord Lyttleton en St. Paul 155

in Jerusalem he gives in substance the same statement
but adds other particulars : —

'^ And I said, What shall I do, Lord? And the Lord
said unto me, Arise and go into Damascus ; and there it
shall be told thee of all things which are appointed for
thee to do. And ^Yhen I could not see for the glory of
that light, being led by the hand of them that were with
me, I came into Damascus. And one Ananias, a devout
man according to the law, having a good report of all the
Jews which dwelt there, came unto me^ and stood, and said
unto me. Brother Saul receive thy sight. And the same
hour I looked up upon him . And he said, The God of
our fathers hath chosen thee, that thou shouldest know
His will, and see that Just One, and shouldest hear the
voice of His mouth. For thou shalt be His witness unto
all men of what thou hast seen and heard. And now why
tarriest thou ? Arise, and be baptized, and wash away
thy sins, calling on the name of the Lord." (Acts xxii.
10 — 16.)

The same historian who records these statements of the
convert, and was himself a companion of Paul in much
of his life of ministry, narrates the incident in another
chapter of the book of the Acts, mentioning other cir-
cumstances besides those recounted by Paul in his apolo-
gies before his enemies — as that Saul in a vision saw
Ananias before he came to him, coming in and putting
his hand on him, that he might receive his sight. And
that when Ananias had spoken to him, " immediately
there fell from his eyes as it had been scales." (Acts ix. 12
18.) All these statements are in the book of the Acts of
the Apostles. Statements made by Paul in letters which

156 Lord Lyttkkm c?i St. Paul.

he addressed to various Cliurchcs and persons are agreeable
to them, and they occur in letters of which Lord Lyttle-
ton says their authenticity " cannot be doubted without
overturning all rules by which the authority and genuine-
ness of any writings can be i)roved or confirmed," and
which since the writing of the " Observations " have been
subjected to the test of modern criticism in the hands of
Paulus, Strauss, Renan and others, and have stood that
test beyond all question. Writing to the Christian
Churches which he had founded in Galatia, Paul says, " I
certify you brethren that the Gospel which was preached
cf me is not after man. For I neither received it of man,
neither was I taught it, but by the revelation of Jesus
Christ. For ye have heard of my conversation in time
past in the Jews' religion, how that beyond measure I

persecuted the Church of God, and wasted it But

when it pleased God, who separated me from my mother's
womb; and called me by His grace, to reveal His Son in
me, that I might preach Him among the heathen, imme-
diately I conferred not with flesh and blood." (Gal. i.
II— 16.)

To the Philippians he writes, " If any other man
thinketh that he hath whereof he might trust in the flesh,
I more : Circumcised the eighth day, of the stock of
Israel, of the tribe of Benjamin, an Hebrew of the
Hebrews ; as touching the law, a Pharisee ; concerning

zeal, persecuting the Church; But what things

were gain to me, those I counted loss for Christ." (Philipp.
iii. 4-7-')

In a letter to Timothy, who was one of his converts
and a fellow-labourer in the Gospel, he writes, '' I thank

Lord Lyttldoii on St. Paid. 157

Christ Jesus, our Lord, who hath enabled me, for that
He counted me faithful, putting me into the ministry ;
who was before a blasphemer, and a persecutor, and in-
jurious." (i Tim. i. 12-13.)

Elsewhere he calls himself " An apostle by the will of
God, by the commandment of God our Saviour, and an
apostle, not of men, neither by men, but by Jesus Christ
and God the Father, who raised Him from the dead,"
(2 Cor. i. I ; Col. i. i ; i Tim. i. i ; Gal. i. i.) and con-
cerning Jesus Christ, he asserts in a letter to Corinth,
" Last of all He was seen of me also, as of one born out
of due time." (i Cor. xv. 8.)

Here are assertions made to his enemies and his friends
in public apologies and private letters, to Churches which
he had gathered and to friends who were fellow workers.
These assertions were made before and to those who had
the best means for ascertaining their truth or falsehood.
They were made in the emotion of public debate and in
the quiet hours of imprisonment. They were not dis-
proved then. They have never been disproved since.
AVhat is the great point which they all include ? If words
have any meaning, Paul asserts for himself, and the his-
torian Luke asserts for him, a " miraculous call which
made him an apostle."

In that call we have the beginning of a life of ministry
lasting for, certainly, more than thirty years, during which
period it may be followed in the book of the Acts, and
by the light of the information contained in many
letters which he wrote.

The account which Christian believers give of the
matter is that it was true, — true, not only in the incidents

158 Lord Ly it let on on St. Paul.

whicli even sceptical criticism admits, but true also in the
miraculous element, in the revelation of Jesus Christ, the
manifested glory of God — the voice from the brightness —
the conversation between the prostrate persecutor and
the exalted Jesus — the sudden blindness — the vision of
Ananias — the message from God — and the instantaneous
recovery of sight.

But believers know that there are many persons who
do not admit this, and who endeavour to account for the
admitted facts of the case on one assumption or another
which excludes the miraculous elements.

Lord Lyttleton enumerates three suppositions which
may possibly be made to account for the facts of the
case without admitting the miraculous element, and we
may feel secure in saying that no other solution is pos-
sible. Our author thus states the case : —

" It must of necessity be that the person asserting
these things of himself, and of whom they are related in
so authentic a manner, either was an impostor who said
what he knew to be false with an intent to deceive ; or
he was an enthusiast, who by the force of an over heated
imagination imposed on himself; or he was deceived by
the fraud of others, and all that he said must be imputed
to the power of this deceit \ or what he declared to be
the cause of his conversion, and to have happened in
consequence of it, did all really happen, and therefore
the Christian religion is a Divine revelation."

The three first of these suppositions are those which we
have to examine. If they fail I shall be fully justified in
accepting the fourth, unless my hearers will suggest some
other solution not covered by these, a task to which I

Lord Lyttleton on St. Faiil. i^c^

seriously invite them, and which they will have to per-
form, or be led to the conclusion that Paul's conversion
was miraculous ; and, in connexion with the events
which followed, is a sufficient evidence that the Christian
religion is from God.

First then we have to examine the assumption of
imposture, that is to say that Paul said what he knew
not to be true with intent to deceive. This assumption
raises two difficulties, for it cannot be shown either that
he could have any rational motives to undertake such an
imposture, or that he could possibly have carried it on
with any success by the means we know him to have
employed.

When we search for motives to such an imposture, we
are shut up to one of two — either the hope of advancing
himself in his temporal interests, credit or power ; or the
gratification of some of his passions under the authority
of it by the means it afforded.

What hope of temporal interest had Saul the Perse-
cutor when he became Paul the Apostle ? Jesus had
been crucified as an impostor and. blasphemer ; and by
that crucifixion the Jewish conviction that He was not
their promised Messiah and King had been confirmed.
His disciples indeed asserted that He was risen from the
dead, and confirmed or seemed to confirm their state-
ment by miracles ; but the Jewish rulers w^ere not con-
vinced, and by imprisonment, beating and persecution
unto death manifested their implacable rage against the
believers. Paul concurred in these cruelties, voted for
the death of the Christians in judicial assemblies, aided
at their martyrdom, and in the intensity of his zeal perse-

iGo Lord Lyttkton on St. Paul.

cutes them to strange cities, going with authority and
commission to Damascus, to hale them to prison and
death. Then it was and under tliose circumstances that
Paul became a Christian. What wealth could he antici-
pate ? All wealth and the power of conferring wealth
were with the party he left. Those whom he joined
were indigent men, oppressed and kept down from all
means of improving their fortune. Some few disciples
were better provided than others and aided the poorer,
but during the lifetime of Paul, the whole community
were not more than barely supplied with the necessaries
of lile, and Paul so far from availing himself of their
veneration for him to secure wealth, refused oftentimes,
even in the Churches he had founded, to accept ought at
their hands. Of this abundant evidence exists in his own
statements made to the various Churches. Thus he
writes twenty-four years after his conversion in a letter to
Corinth, " Even unto this present hour we both hunger,
and thirst, and are naked, and are buffeted, and have no
certain dwelling-place ; and labour, working with our own
hands." (i Cor. iv. ii, 12,) A year later in a.d. 60, he
writes again to Corinth thus, *' I will not be burdensome
to you : for I seek not yours, but you." (2 Cor. xii. 14.)
Appealing to the Christians in Thessalonica, at a some-
what earlier date, he says, " Neither at any time used
we flattering words, as ye know, nor a cloak of covetous-

ness; God is witness For ye remember brethren,

our labours and travail, for labouring night and day,
because we would not be chargeable to any of you, we
preached unto you the Gospel of God." (i Thess. ii. 5, 9.)
And face to face with the ministers of the Ephesian

Lord Lyitlcfon on St. Paid. j^j

Church, he thus appeals to them : " I have coveted no
man's silver, or gold, or apparel. Yea, ye yourselves
know, that these hands have ministered unto my necessi-
ties, and to them that were with me." (Acts xx. -^t^, 34.)

It is clear then that neither could Paul have anticipated
wealth as the reward of submission to the Gospel, nor did
he care to take even such support and emolument as the
poor Christians might have been able to confer on him.
The hope of fortune would have bound him to the Jewish
rulers. When he broke with them he faced and he found
poverty.

But perhaps contemning wealth he was animated by
the prospects of credit or reputation. That also rested
with those whom he left. " The sect he embraced was
under the greatest and most universal contempt of any
then in the world." What gain of reputation could
come to the disciple of Gamaliel, the member for the
Sanhedrim, the trusted ambassador of the rulers of the
people, by joining himself to a party without birth, edu-
cation or rank — whose works were attributed to imposture
or magic, whose founder had died a felon's death, and
whose centraland fundamental preaching, Christ crucified,
was to the Jew a stumbling block, and to the Greek
fooHshness ? (i Cor. i. 23.) Experience did but confirm
his necessary anticipation of shame and reproach. A
quarter ot a century after the vision at Damascus, he
wrote to the Corinthians. " We are made as the filth of
the world — the offscouring (TrepiKaOapjuaTa refuse — offal),
of all things unto this day." (i Cor. iv. 13.) Very cer-
tainly the bubble reputation could neither have lured
him nor rewarded him. t t

iC2 T.ord Lyitldon on St, Paul.

But perhaps it was tlie love of power — that " Infirmity
of noble minds!" "Power? Over whom? Over a
flock of sheep driven to the slaughter, whose Shepherd
Himself had been murdered a little before !" What
power could he dare to hope for which would be of any
avail against the power, now energized and sharpened by
hatred to one who had forsaken and betrayed them, which
was on the side of those he left ? Nor will his after life
and teaching shew that he sought or regarded power. He
affected no superiority over the other Apostles. He termed
himself ''the least of them," (i Cor. xv. 9), and "less
than the least of all saints," (Ephs. iii. 8). Did he try
to form a party for himself or to elevate himself to primacy?
Hear his appeal, " was Paul crucified for you ? or were
ye baptized in the name of Paul ? I thank God that I
baptized none of you, but Crispus and Gaius ; lest any
should say that I had baptized in mine own name."
(i Cor. i. 13 — 15.) "Who then is Paul, and who is
Apollos, but ministers by whom ye believed, even as the
Lord gave to every man ?" (i Cor. iii. 5.) " For we preach
not ourselves, but Christ Jesus the Lord ; and ' ourselves
your servants for Jesus' sake." (2 Cor. iv. 5.) Moreover
Paul affected no earthly power. " He innovated nothing
in government or civil affairs, he meddled not with legis-
lation, he formed no commonwealths, he raised no sedi-
tions.'' " Obedience to rulers was the doctrine he taught
to the Churches he founded ; and what he taught he him-
self practised." (Rom. xiii.) It is certain that his higher
birth, and better education and knowledge of the world
gave him oj^portunities for pre-eminence ; but it is not
less certain that he made even light of these advantages

Lord Lyttkton oji St Pmd. 163

esteeming those with whom he was associated as " fellow-
labourers " and '' fellow-servants," and distinctly affirm-
ing, "I came not with excellency of speech or of wisdom,
but determined to know nothing among you,, save Jesus
Christ, and Him crucified. That your faith should not
stand in the wisdom of men, but in the power of God.''
(i Cor. ii. I, 2, 5.)

On the other hand, while the Gospel could not tempt
Paul by promises of wealth or reputation, or power, and
he found in eftect that in serving Christ he embraced
poverty and shame, he did by the very fact of submitting
himself to Jesus as Master and Lord put from him wealth
and reputation and power which were actually his in
possession, or were the certain reward of continuance in
liis course as an opponent of the Gospel.

" Upon the whole then," says Lord Lyttleton, at this
point, " I think I have proved that the desire of wealth,
or fame, or power could be no motive to make St. Paul
a convert to Christ ; but that on the contrary he must
have been checked by that desire, as well as by the just
apprehension of many inevitable and insupportable evils,
from taking a part so contradictory to his past life, to all
the principles he had imbibed, and all the habits he had
contracted."

But it may be said Paul was actuated by the desire of
gratifying some irregular passion under cover of the
Christian religion, and by the means which it afforded.
Undoubtedly such persons have been — men who have
desired to set themselves free from the restraints of gov-
ernment, law, and moraHty — but there is nothing in the
teaching or in the life of the Apostle to give the slightest

i64 Lord Lyttldon on St. Faul.

strength to this objection. '' His writings breathe nothing
but the strictest niorahty, obedience to magistrates, order
and government, with the utmost abhorrence of all licen
tiousness, idleness, or loose behaviour, under the cloak
of religion." As confessedly among the Jews, eo among
ihe Christians his conversation and manners are blame-
less. (See Rom. xi. and xiii.) It was no libertine
who could appeal to those among whom he had lived,
and whom he had won to the Gospel, " Our exhortation
was not of deceit, nor of uncleanness, nor of guile. Yc
are witnesses, and God also, how holily and justly and
unblameably we behaved ourselves among you that be-
lieve." (i Thes. ii. 3, 10.) "We have wronged no
man, we have corrupted no man, we have defrauded no
man." (2 Cor. vii. 2 ; see also 2 Cor. i. 12, and iv. 2.)

Is it said that all this notwithstanding, Paul might
have been an impostor in that for the sake of advancing
the morality of the Gospel he gave himself to pious frauds
— doing evil that he might promote good ? It is true
here also that some men have thus acted, as Lycurgus in
the case of the Spartans, or Numa in the case of the
Romans, who lent themselves to superstitions which they
did not believe, that they might advance things which
they held to be useful ; but let it be noted that neither
their superstition nor their teaching brought on them per-
secution and enmity : while in the case of Paul not only
was the morality he taught unpalateable, but the persecu-
tion he endured sprang from enmity to i\\Q facts on which
he based the morality. Nor must it be forgotten that he
of whom this supposition is hinted wrote these words :
" There are those who say, Let us do evil, that good may
come ? whose damnation is just." (Rom. iii. 8.)

Lord Lyitleton on St. Paul. 165

We may then safely conclude that no rational motive
existed which could impel Saul of Tarsus to become, as
an impostor, Paul the Apostle ; and if any motive existed
to such a course it must have been simply capricious, as
men sometimes act on absurd impulses, they know not
why. But to this the answer is simple. There is abso-
lutely nothing in the conduct or the writing of the Apostle
which can for a moment justify the thought. Nothing
capricious or unreasoning appears in the methods by which
he promoted the Gospel. On the contrary his is a life
constantly guided by thoughtfulness, prudence and sus-
tained purpose.

But if any one, in the face of evidence given thus far,
should still insist that Paul was in his conversion an
impostor unmixed, or an impostor who was a strange
specimen of a capricious fool to boot, let him consider
that " he could not possibly have carried on his impos-
ture to success by the means that we know he em-
ployed."

Paul did not found Christianity. He accepted an ex-
isting religion, and did not draw the doctrines he pro-
claimed from his imagination. He had not learned of
Jesus, nor had he had any connexion with the Apostles
except as their persecutor. How could he obtain a suffi-
ciently accurate knowledge of their teaching but by in-
tercourse with them ? He set up as an Apostle of their
faith, but with such ignorance of the teaching of the other
Apostles, that either they must have been forced to
ruin his credit or he would have ruined theirs. They
could not but have detected the variance, in a thousand
points, between his fancies and the teaching which they

i66 JLord LyttUton on St. Paul.

had received from Jesus Himself. He must therefore act
in confederacy ^vith the Apostles, not only to gain an
accurate acquaintance ^vith the Ciospel, but also to learn
the secret arts with which they beguiled men into the
common belief that they worked miracles. Now how did
he incline them to communicate with him on these essen-
tial matters ? 15y furiously i)ersecuting them and their
brethren to the moment of his conversion ? This he did,
and then they immediately entrust their capital enemy
with all the secrets of their imposture.

" Would men so secret, as not to be drawn by the
most severe persecutions to say one word which would
convict them of being impostors, confess themselves such
to their persecutor in hopes of his being their accom-
plice?"

Not this only, if his conversion was unreal, and the
events connected with it non-existent, consider the risk of
exposure from those who journeyed with him — employed
with him by the Jewish rulers to extirpate Christianity
— and breathing his old temper of opposition to the fairfi
to which he now addicted himself Again he was to be
instructed by one at Damascus, and the teacher and his
disciple met as absolute strangers each to the other ; and
this man, Ananias, " who had goodly report of all the
Jews who dwelt in Damascus," and an excellent
character, must have been confederate with the impostor
in liis guilt. But on the supposition of imposture how
futile this connexion with Ananias, who appearing this
once in the affair is never heard of afterwards — their
whole known intercourse having been private, and Ananias
having knowledge of his own and Paul's dishonesty.

Lord Lyttldon on St. Paul, 167

But consider also how, some years afterwards, when
pleading before Agrippa, in the presence of Festus, he was
bold enough to appeal to him upon his own knowledge of
the truth of his story, and that in the presence of many
only too ready and desirous of convicting him of false-
hood and crime — " a very remarkable proof both of the
notoriety of the facts, and the integrity of the man, who
with so fearless a confidence could call upon a king to
give testimony for him even while he was sitting in judg-
ment upon him."

Then, inasmuch as he must secure his recognition as
an Apostle by the Apostles and bring them to admit him
into a participation of all their mysteries, doctrines, and
designs, he was necessitated to court their society and win
their good favour : but this he did not do, for he went
away to Arabia and then, returning to Damascus, did not
goto Jerusalem till after three years (Gal. i. 17-18.) ; and
w^hile on the supposition of imposture, the Aix)stles and
Churches must have known how and when he gained his
knowledge of the Gospel, he ventured to assure the
Galatians that he neither received his knowledge of men,
nor was he taught it, but by revelation of Jesus Christ.
(Gal. i. 12.) Consider again how by rebuking his fello^v
Apostle Peter openly at Antioch, and defending that re-
buke in his letter to the Galatians (Gal. ii. 11 — 14.) he
incited Peter to revcxl, in self-defence or in anger, any
want of righteousness in himself. " Accomplices in fraud
are obliged to shew greater regards to each other ; such
freedom (of rebuke) belongs to truth alone."

The supposition of imposture cannot be adequately
judged unless it be also remembered that Paul was devoted

i(iS Lord J.ytilcto7i on St. J\ui/.

mainly to the propagation of tlie Gospel among the
Gentiles, in which enterprise he would have to contend
with four adverse influences against which the help and
presence of God could help him, but against which, on
the supposition of imposture, he was utterly unprovided.
He had to contend : i. With the policy and power of the
magistrates. 2. With the interests, credit, and craft
of the priests. 3. ^Vith the prejudices and passions of
the people. 4. \\'ith the wisdom and pride of philoso-
phers.

Heathen magistrates permitted considerable laxity
in the choice and worship of gods, but certainly did not
endure so exclusive a system as that of Christianity, which
not only demanded a place and recognition, but asserted
itself as true, and alone true. It did not ask a nich in
the Pantheon, but set to vrork to rase the Pantheon with
all its gods, and to erect on its ruins the temple of the
true God. Judge then what chance of success Paul had
at Ephesus, Corinth, and Athens, at all which places he
founded Churches which presently after swept the idols
away altogether.

Consider also the difiiculty arising from the priesthood
who, finding their craft in danger, could wield all the
power of the State for the repression of the teaching they
abhorred. These men might tolerate the easy atheistical
philosopher who would be content with theorizing
against religion and yet maintain the popular religions
as useful cheats ; but they would have no patience with
the aggressive system which Paul propounded, which
endured no rival near its throne.

And again consider the difficulties springing from

Lord Lyiileton on St. Paid. 169

the prejudices and passions of the people. In Judea
the voice of the people often restrained the violence
of the rulers in their opposition to Christianity ; but in
the case of the Gentiles, intense and violent prejudices
existed in favour of the popular religions, and were more
than ever intense when opposing anything taught by a
Jew — one of a nation on whom the then world looked
with unutterable scorn. Such an one carried only new
ideas when he appealed to the Gentiles, and told them
that Jesus was the Christ of God. They expected no
Christ, they allowed no such Scriptures as those to which
Paul made his appeal. They had to be taught the New
Testament, but were ignorant of the book of the old
covenant on which the Apostles turned for evidence when
seeking to convince the Jew. There was not even the
common ground of Monotheism on which Paul and the
Gentile populations could take their stand. Thus he
must come before them with no political, or social, or
religious authority, and bid them surrender the idolatry
which gratified their tastes, ministered to their passions,
and satisfied their lower nature. He bade them forsake
these idolatries for the spiritual worship of '^one invisible
God, and to accept salvation by the death and sufferings
of a crucified Jew " — to their view such an one as a con-
demned criminal executed at Newgate would be to us.
To these accumulated difficulties must be added those
springing from the wisdom and pride of the philosophers.
They had prejudices of their own still more repugnant to
the doctrines of the Gospel than those of the vulgar, more
deeply rooted, and more obstinately fixed in the mind.
The wisdom on which they prided themselves — " their

1 -JO Lord Lyiilclon en St. Fa id.

vain metaphysical siieculations, their logical subtleties —
their endless disputes — their high flown conceits of the
perfection and self-sufficiency of human wisdom — their
dogmatical positiveness about doubtful opinion — their
sceptical doubts about tlie most clear and certain truths"
made the soil in which a humble stranger, a despised
Jew, and in their eyes a contemptible apostate had to sow
the seeds of the doctrine of Christ. " If St. Paul had
had nothing to trust to but his own natural faculties, his
own understanding, knowledge, and eloquence, could he
have hoped to be, singly, a match for all theirs united
against him ? Could a teacher unheard of before, from
an obscure and unlearned part of the world, have with-
stood the authority of Plato, Aristotle, Epicurus, Zeno,
Arcesilaus, Carneades, and all the great names which
held the first rank of human wisdom % "

" From a'l this it may I think be concluded that no
human means employed by St. Paul in his design of con-
verting the Gentiles were, or could be, adequate to the
great difficulties he had to contend with, or to the suc-
cess that we know attended his work ; and we can in
reason ascribe that success to no other cause but the
power of God, going along with and aiding his ministry,
because no other was equal to the effects."

And on this follows the conclusion, that whatever Paul
may have been besides, he was no impostor.

But while many yield this point, they are yet unable to
accept the miraculous element in the history of his con-
version ; they fall back on the assumption that he " was
an enthusiast, who by the force of an overheated imagi-
nation imposed on himself." Probably this opinion will

Lord Lytileton on St. Paul. 17 j

impose on men only so long as they rest in generals, and
fancy to themselves an enthusiast who is void of the
qualities which constitute enthusiasm. The general
ingredients of enthusiasm, as men use the word, are great
heats of temper, melancholy, ignorance, credulity and
vanity, or self conceit. But of all these one only, that of
a quick and warm disposition, is to be found in Paul as
it was in the Gracchi, in Cato, in Brutus, and in many of
the best and wisest of men. And even this quality
never had such command of the mind of Paul as to rule
and darken his understanding. The best test is this^
that in things where principle was not concerned, he
was so easy as to "become all things to all men."
(i Cor. ix. 20, 22.) And that in moments of the most
trying and exciting character he manifested prudence,
and had regard to the civilities and decorums of society,
as appears clearly in his behaviour when defending him-
self before Agrippa, Felix, and Festus. His was a zeal
ever tem.pered by prudence.

Where again is the proof that he v/as a sour, melan-
choly enthusiast ? Remorse he felt indeed for his former
life as a persecutor, but it led him only to a nev/ life of
unwearied and cheerful labour. He inflicted on himself
no gloomy penances or extravagant mortifications. H'is
holiness was the simplicity of a good life and the industry
of a devoted Apostle. He bore sufferings cheerfully, but
he did not court them — even pleading his Roman citizen-
ship to avoid being beaten, and at Athens he avoided
the application of a capital law which forbad the intro-
duction of a new god by prudently laying hold on the
presence of an altar to the Unknown God, and thus con-

I 7 2 Lord Lyttlcton on St. PauL

necting his teaching of the Hving and true God with a
recognised but unknown being : " whom therefore ye
ignorantly worship, him declare I unto you." (Acts xvii.
and Josephus cont. Apion. Book II. Ch. 37.) Paul
indeed desired "to depart and to be with Christ," which
he knew to be l)etterthan his life of sorrow and suffering ;
but he sought not to die, and was ready to remain with
the Churches he had founded, because his presence and
leadership was an advantage to them. Willing to labour,
ready to rest, and impressing the same condition of mind
on multitudes, he cannot in any fairness be called a
melancholy enthusiast.

Again is there proof that Paul had the mark of igno-
rance? Hardly so when he was master of Jewish and
Grecian learning, and in this respect commanded the
enforced commendation of Festus, and on their own
ground could cope with the Athenians on Areopagus.
Nor is credulity — as distinguished from assent to truth on
suthcient evidence — observable in Paul. He was in fact
slow and hard of belief The miracles done by the
Saviour, the resurrection of Him who was crucified and
buried, miracles wrought by Peter and John — even that
well known and much canvassed marvel the healing the
lame man at the Beautiful Gate of the Temple (Acts iii.)
had not persuaded him to believe. Other miracles and
several proclamations of the Gospel (Acts v. 18, 32), with
the eloquent defence of Stephen before the council had
left him untouched — left him to attend the martyrdom ot
Stephen as consenting to his death (Acts viii. and ix.) —
left him with his zeal against Christ only embittered and
deepened, so that he set forth to Damascus, " breathing

Lord Lyttkton on St. Paul. ^^^

out threatenings and slaughter " against the disciples.
All evidence up to this point he had resisted, " so that
his mind far from being disposed to a credulous faith, or
a too easy reception of any miracle worked in proof of
the Christian religion, appears to have been barred
against it by the most obstinate prejudices, as much as
any man's could possibly be ; and from hence we may
fairly conclude, that nothing less than the irresistible
evidence of his own senses, clear from the possibility of
doubt, could have overcome his unbelief."

But these points failing, may not the position and work
of Paul be accounted for by self-conceit, a quality which
often places men in extraordinary circumstances, and
urges them to amazing doings ? With high conceits of
their importance, such men may mistake the workings of
their own folly as the will of God, and may persuade
themselves that, as favourites of heaven, they are the
recipients of Divine revelations. Such were Montanus,
Santa Theresa, Catharine of Sienna, Francis of Assisi, and
others famous in the martyrology and sanctology of the
Romish Church. But was Paul such an one, eaten up
by self-conceit of knowledge, goodness and favour : vain
of personal gifts,higher genius, or Divine communications ?
Listen to his words to the Ephesians, the Corinthians,
and to his beloved fellow-Avorker Timothy. I v/ho am
"less than the least of all saints." (Eph. iii. 8.) "I am
the least of the Apostles, that am not meet to be called
an Apostle, because I persecuted the Church of God."
(i Cor. XV. 9.) "Jesus Christ came into the world to
save sinners, of whom I am chief Howbeit for this
cause I obtained mercy, that in me first Jesus Christ

174 /(W Lyttlcton on St. Paul.

might show forth all long-siififcring, for a pattern to them
which should hereafter believe on him to life everlasting."
(i Tim. i. 15, 16.) Only once does he use language
opposed to this, saying, " I was not a whit behind the
very chiefest Apostles." (2 Cor. xi. 5.) And then the
very safety of the Corinthian Church — their deliverance
from false teachers — necessitated a strong assertion of his
authority among them ; and even then he does it in such
a way that his very boasting becomes the most evident
humility, and does in no wise counteract his deliberate
statements to the same Church. (Vide 2 Cor. xi. 16-19, 3° ')
2 Cor. xii. 2, 6, 7.) "Who then is Paul and who is
ApoUos, but ministers by whom ye believed, even as the
Lord gave to every man? I have planted, Apollos
watered, but God gave the increase. So then neither
is he that planteth anything, neither he that watereth,
but God that giveth the incre/\!se." "By the grace of
God I am what I am, and His grace which was bestowed
upon me was not in vain, but I laboured more abun-
dantly than they all ; yet not I, but the grace of God
which was with me." (2 Cor. xii. 1-5 ; i Cor. iii. 5-7 ;
I Cor. XV. 10.) And lastly, let us listen to the lesson
which he laboured to impress on his followers, exalting
a, self renouncing love above all other things.

"Though I speak with the tongues of men and of
angels and have not love, I am become as sounding
brass or a tinkling cymbal. And though I have the
gift of prophecy, and understand all mysteries and all
knowledge ; and though I have all faith, so that I could
remove mountains, and have not love, I am nothing.
And though I bestow all my goods to feed the poor, and

Lord Lytthton on St. Paul.

I 0

though I give my body to be burned and have not love,
it profiteth me nothing." (i Cor. xiii. 1-4.) He who can
read this and trace the example which illustrates it in the
life of the Apostle, and yet attribute his conversion and
his Apostleship to self-conceit, must either mistake the
sense of words, or be very determined to bring the
Apostle in guilty. Since therefore we do not find in the
writings or acts of Paul those characteristics which mark
the hot headed enthusiast, we may conclude he was not
such an one. But even did we find in him these quali-
ties of mere enthusiasm it can be proved, '' That he
could not possibly have imposed on himself by any
power of enthusiasm, either in regard to the miracle
which caused his conversion, or to the consequential
effects of it, or to some other circumstances which he
bears testimony to in his epistles." Imagination is
doubtless very strong, but it is strong in the direction
imprinted on it by opinions held at the time of its work
ing. Now Paul on his journey to Damascus was un-
doubtedly possessed of opinions utterly hostile to Chris-
tianity, and his passions w^ere at that time inflamed by
the irritating consciousness of his past treatment ot
them, the pride of continuing in a line of conduct on
which he had voluntarily and publicly entered, and the
credit and praise that line of conduct obtained from
him among the rulers of his nation.

In this state of mind visions, marvels, alarms, and
any other thing acting on his imagination only, would
not undo the whole current and tide of his life and his
opinions. Everything within him hurried him along in
opposition to Jesus Christ \ and when his imagination is

1^5 lj)rd J.yttklon on St. Paul.

impressed it is in a direction utterly hostile to his every
opinion, passion, and line of conduct. But even were
this self deception under the force of mere imagination
possible in Paul, how can it be explained that his fancy
should be so real to others ; that his companions also,
nothing actually happening, should see the light and
hear the voice, and fall from their horses, and be speech-
less with terror." (Acts ix. 3 ; Acts xxii. 9 ; Acts ix. 7 ;
Acts xxvi. 14.)

But it may be said, "something did happen. A storm
broke, or a meteor of unusual brilliancy fell." But how
did this storm frame articulate voice and carry on a con-
versation in Hebrew ? and how can the meteoric light
have given visions to Paul and Ananias simultaneously,
and in such wise that each was led to a course of action
fitting in with that of the other, and exactly correspond-
ing ; and how could the thunder and the meteoric light
combined have both struck Paul blind and have given to
Ananias the power of restoring his sight suddenly and
effectually ? Moreover the fact of Paul's conversion and
the miracle of Ananias were but parts in a long series of
wonderful events. Could imagination thus excited shew
to Paul the vision of Jesus Christ many times? Could a
power of marvel-working, thus originated, have enabled
Paul to preach the Gospel among the Gentiles from Jeru-
salem round about to Illyricum (that is to say in Judea,
Samaria, Galilee, Syria, the Lesser Asia, Pontus Galatia,
Cappadocia, Bithynia, in Greece, and away to the confines
of Northern Italy), ''with mighty signs and wonders
wrought by the power of the Spirit of God, to make the
Gentiles obedient to his preaching." (Acts ix. 17,

Lord Lyttkton on St. Paid. i-^-j

i8j xxii. 13, 17, 18; xi., xxi., xxii., and xxiii. ;
and Rom. xv. 18, 19.) "Surely such a series
of miraculous acts, all consequential to and depen-
dent on the first revelation, puts the truth of that
revelation beyond the possibility of doubt or deceit."
The supposition is that Paul was an enthusiastic mad-
man ; but ^' if the difficulties which have been shewn to
have obstructed that work which he did were such as the
ablest impostor could not overcome, how much more
msurmountable were they to a madman ?" Indeed, how-
ever difficult it may be to account for the conversion and
Apostleship of Paul on the supposition that he was an
impostor, it is a harder task to give an account of things
on the assumption that he was a mad enthusiast. His
" madness " in its unreasoning, honest blundering did
things too wonderful. His fellow travellers, Ananias at
Damascus, Sergius Paulus the prudent deputy at Paphos,
Elymas the sorcerer, Eutychus at Troas, the priests and
people at Lystra, the jailor at Philippi, the barbarian
^Maltese, Erastus the city treasurer at Corinth, and Dio-
nysius the learned areopagite at Athens, must have all
been equally mad, and mad with marvellous uniformity ;
mad too with a madness which gave feet to the lame,
eyes to the blind, healing to the sick, freedom to iron-
bound captives, and life to the dead ; mad with a mad.
ness which subdued to the faith of Christ men and wo-
men of many nations, of various religions, of every kind
of intellectual and educational degree, and of all ranks of
society. Men here and there however still ascribe to im-
magination that which Paul ascribes to the power of God,
not perceiving that " they ascribe to imagination the same
omnipotency which he ascribes to God." j 2

I 78 Lord LyitJcton on St. Paul.

One other enquiry remains. Was Paul the victim of
others' deceit, and can all he said and did be referred to
the power of that deceit.

" But I,'' to (juotc the words of Lord Lyttleton, " need
say little to show the absurdity of this supposition. It
was morally impossible for the disciples of Christ to con-
ceive such a thought as that of turning His persecutor
into His Apostle, and to do this by a fraud in the very
instant of his greatest fury against them and their Lord.
But could they have been so extravagant as to conceive
such a thought, it was physically impossible for them to
execute it in the manner we find his conversion to have
been effected. Could they produce a light in the air which
at mid-cky was brighter than that of the sun ? Could
they make Saul hear words from out of that light which
were not heard by the rest of the company ? Could they
make him blind for three days after that vision ? and then
make scales fall from off his eyes, and restore him to his
sight by a word ? Beyond dispute no fraud could do
these things ; but much less still could the fraud of others
produce those miracles subsequent to his conversion, in
which he was not passive but acti^'e, which he did him-
self and appeals to in his epistles as a proof of his Divine
mission. I shall then take it for granted that he was not
deceived by the frauds of others, and that what he said
of himself cannot be imputed to the power of that deceit,
no more than to wilful imposture or to enthusiasm ; and
then it follows that what he related to have been the
cause of his conversion, and to have happened in conse-
quence of it, did all really happen, therefore the
Christian Religion is a Divine Revelation."

Lcrd Lytikton on St. Paul.

179

To the mind of the Christian believer the conclusion
is absolute : but even in the case of the sincere but
sceptical enquirer, it ought to carry so much at least of
force and probability as will make him very cautious and
watchful before he rejects it ; and will lead him to give a
truly humble and kindly attention to the exhortation of
Paul, which in all love and brotherly kindness, I adopt as
my own, " Believe in the Lord Jesus Christ and thou
shalt be saved."

ALLEGED DLFFLCULTLES LN THE MORAL
TEACLLLXG OF THE NEW TESTAMENT.

REV. C. A. ROW, M.A.,

Prebendary of St. Pauls,

An ''■:■>!■ of " The Nature aiid Extent of DiviJic Inspiration," " The l^'ents of

tJic Ez-angeiists," " The Moral Teachi)>g cf the N. w Testament," etc.

^llegct) ^ifKcdttes in the floral
U^achittQ oi the ^eto ^estitment.

IN treating of this subject within the limits of an
hour's lecture, it will be necessary for me only to
deal with objections which are urged by writers of high
literary reputation. It would be simply impossible to
meet every conceivable objection in the space allotted to
me. Nor is it necessary that I should do so, for we may
conclude that difficulties which eminent writers, who do
not believe in Christianity, pass over in silence, exist only
in the imagination of those who adduce them. Just in
the same way it would be quite a legitimate answer to
make to me, who am profoundly ignorant of the various
mechanical arts, if I v/ere to attempt to instruct an ex-
perienced workman how to do his work better, — Pray
try to master the very elements of the trade, and try your
own hand at it, before you presume to lecture us, who
have been in the business all our lives.

There are two well-known writers in this country, whom
we are quite ready to recognise as men of unquestionable
ability, who have raised exceptions against certain aspects

184 The Alleged Dijjkulties in the

of the moral teaching of the New Testament — Mr. F.
W. Newman and tlie late Mr. J. S. Mill. Among other
things, the first of these has published a tract, evidently
intended to be widely circulated, directly inculpating it ;
and the second has published opinions which, while he
directly asserts that he does not think that there is any-
thing in its teaching contrary to sound moral it}-, yet
he implies that he considers it defective.

On one point I cordially agree with Mr. Newman, and
I solicit the attention of all unbelievers to it, for it is
one which in controversy they greatly overlook. " Our
sole concern," says he, " here is with the New Testament
as it stands, as it is popularly received, and is read in
the Church." This is the only correct principle. Let it
be understood therefore, that in dealing with the moral
teaching of the New Testament, we are are not concerned
with that of anything which stands outside its pages.
We have neither to discuss the practice of Christians,
nor to deal with the teaching of any other book. IMr.
Newman's principle is thoroughly sound : I only regret
that he does not always abide by it.

The following passage will explain Mr. Newman's
general opinions on this subject :

'• If one is asked to specify the defects in the New
Testament morality, the difficulty of reply is caused by the
too great abundance of material. The defects are not
partial, but total. They pervade the entire moral system,
and are the greater in each part, the greater its im-
portance. Fully to enumerate the defects would be
equivalent to writing a complete moral treatise. . . It
must be added, that the defectiveness here comiolained of

Morel Teaching of the Nezu Testament. 185

is sometimes that of total omission ; sometimes that of
precei:>ts contrary to those of right and truth. In fact,
the latter is the common case."

I think that it will be conceded that Mr. INIill was a far
more profound philosopher than Mr. Newman. On the
most important portion of this charge he is hopelessly at
issue with him. Having pointed out the clear distinction
which exists between the moral teaching of the New
Testament and what Mr. Mill designates '"Theological
Morality/' — by which he means various systems of morality
evolved during the centuries of the Church's history, and
which he charges with various defects, — Mr. Mill says: " I
am as far as anyone from pretending that these defects are
necessarily inherent in Christian Ethics, in any manner in
which it can be conceived ; or that the many requisites of
a complete moral doctrine which it does not contain do
not admit of being reconciled with it. Far less would I
insinuate this of the doctrines and precepts of Christ
himself. I believe that the sayings of Christ contain all
that I can see any evidence of their having been
intended to be ; that they are irreconcilable with nothing
which a comprehensive morality requires ; that every-
thing which is excellent in Ethics may be brought within
them with no greater violence to their language than has
been done to it, by all who have attempted to deduce
from them any practical system whatever." (Essay on
" Liberty.")

Mr. Newman affirms that principles contrary to truth
and right preponderate in the teaching of the New
Testament ; and in making this affirmation he includes
many of the sayings of Jesus Christ. Mr. Mill, however,

1 86 TJie Alleged Difficulties in the

is of opinion that " the sayings of Christ arc irreconcil-
able with nothing which a comprehensive morality re-
quires." No contradiction can be more complete. Mr.
Mill is certainly the higher authority on moral questions.

Still, however, 1 apprehend that they agree in con-
sidering that the moral teaching of the New Testament
is defective — z>., that it does not fulfil the requirements
of our present form of civilization. Yet there is an
obscurity in Mr. Mifl's language on this subject. Strictly
speaking, he is charging this defect on " Theological
IMorality" alone ; but as at page 90 he refers expressly to
the New Testament, I think that it will be the most candid
course for me to conclude that he intended to include
the teaching of the New Testament in this charge of
deficiency, while he expressly absolves it from that of
immorality.

Before examining the positions of either of these
writers, I must lay down what I mean when I use the
expression "a system of moral teaching," and when I
affirm that that in the New Testament is adequate to
meet the requirements of every stage of civilization. By
this expression is frequently understood not only a body
of principles, but of precepts, which should give suitable
directions as to what is the correct line of duty in every
emergency in which we can be placed. I restrict it to
a body of principles, from which the correct line of duty
may be evolved in all special cases ; and I also include
under the term those various moral and spiritual forces,
powers, and motives which are adequate to make the moral
law predominate over the mind of man. If I understand
Mr. Newman rightly, he is of opinion that the New

Moral Teaching of the New Testament. 1S7

Testament ought also to have contained a body of precepts
elaborated so as to meet the various circumstances of
life, if it is to be entitled to be considered an effective
moral guide to man in every stage of civilization. The
number of questions which he considers that it ought to
have solved is very numerous. Thus he complains that
its political teachings are very obscure and inadequate.
He charges it with having omitted several most important
questions of individual and social morality altogether,
or v/ith having dealt with them on false principles.
Judging by the special instances adduced by him, he
seems to consider that it ought to have contained solu-
tions of all the individual, social, and political questions
of morality which can arise. I am not sure that he would
not add a complete body of casuistry. I reply that a
system of moral teaching may be complete and wholly
adequate which leaves unattempted the various things of
which Mr. Ne\rman demands that the New Testament
should contain a complete solutioiL

I am happy to say that the pages of the New
Testament make no pretensions whatever to solve every
conceivable detail of duty or doubtful moral question
which may arise. If they had done so, it would have
constituted an objection against it far more formidable
than the strongest which can be urged by unbelievers.
The writers v/ould have attempted to do what is impossible
to be done, and what, if done, would degrade man from
a free moral agent into a machine. In proof that it
makes no such pretension, I shall quote thei authority of
Mr. Mill. " If it [Christian Morality] means,'' says he,
"the teaching of the New Testament, I wonder that

i8S The Alleged Difjiculiics in the

anyone avIio derives liis knowledge of this from the book
itself, can suppose that it was announced, or intended, as
a complete doctrine of morals." In this expression of
wonder I heartily concur, whether the contrary has been
affirmed by Christians or unbelievers. It contains all the
great principles of moral tcnching, but leaves the elabora-
tion of them, and their application to specific cases, to
be determined by the enlightened conscience of the
individual.

Yet such an attempt has been made, and the result
only shows that it is incapable of realization. The Jewish
Talmud is a movement in that direction. Its bulk is about
fourteen folio volumes, yet it contains very litde which is
applicable to our Western civilization. The Scribes and
Pharisees, the predecessors of the Talmudists, expended
their powers in refinements on moral duties, which led to
a disregard of the weightiest obligations. Many Christian
writers have been guilty of the same folly, into which
heathen ones had fallen before them. The treatise of the
great Roman orator Cicero, entiUed "De OtHciis," gives us
many specimens of this mode of raising curious questions
on moral subjects, as for instance whether, in case of a loss
at sea, a man should save a worthless slave or a valuable
horse ; whether a wise man when in the water should
wrench a plank from a fool ; also, in case two wise men
are shipwrecked, and there is only a single plank sufficient
to support one, which of the two should seize the plank,
and which should yield it to the other. The mode of
settling this last question is somewhat curious. The two
wise men are to determine in the water whose life is most
valuable for his own sake or for that of the republic.

Moral Teaching of the New Testameni. 189

Having settled this rather complicated problem in the
water, the man whose life is the most valuable is to
retain the plank, and the other to go quietly to the
bottom. Such questions will only be discussed where
there is little or no moral earnestness.

Instead of attempting to settle questions of casuistry,
or to lay down rules of conduct, which can be applied
mechanically to the ever-varying circumstances of life,
Mr. Mill says, and says truly, " The Gospel always refers
to a pre-existing morality, and confines its precepts to the
particulars in which that morality was to be corrected or
superseded by a wider and a higher." He would have
described the case more correctly, if he had said that it
contents itself with laying down the great fundamental
principles of duty, and then appeals to the conscience
enlightened by its teaching, as the only adequate guide
to direct us as to what is the course of duty in the
innumerable and often conflicting circumstances in which
we are placed. Instead of attempting to lay down a set
of rules as guides to conduct, it announces the utter
worthlessness of such systems. The seat of all sound
morality it places in man's spirit. Its precepts are
intended as illustrations of its great principles under
existing circumstances. Above all things let it be
observed that Christianity professes to be a law of
liberty, and not of slavish adhesion to a mere literal
commandment.

Still, however, the New Testament professes to be,
and is a moral guide adequate to meet the wants of man
in every condition of civilization. How then, if the
case be as I have stated, is this possible ? Ought not it

iQo The Alleged Difficulties in the

to contain wliat Mr. Mill designates a complete system
of Ethical doctrine ? I answer that it effects its purpose
much better by laying down great principles, which
embrace every possibility of moral obligation. It also
brings a number of mighty forces to bear on the heart
and the spirit of man. It directs its appeals to every
principle of our nature which can be enlisted into the
service of holiness. When these principles are kindled
into activity, it constitutes the enlightened conscience a
law to itself.

I will at once lay down the great principles which
constitute the essence of Christian morality, and which,
when they have thoroughly penetrated our being, are
adequate to be the guide of life. First, the moral law as
proclaimed by Jesus Christ is announced as consisting
of two great commandments, which are the foundations of
all moral obligation. The first of these flows from man's
relationship to his Creator. Being His creature, he is
bound to love Him with every affection which he pos-
sesses, and to devote to Him his entire being. By laying
down this as the great fundamental principle of His
teaching, Jesus Christ did what the whole of the ancient
pliilosophers failed to accomplish. He brought to bear
on man's moral nature the whole force of his religious
being, and presented the idea of duty on the widest
and most comprehensive principle. On this duty of
man to God, He erected the second great principle
on which all obligation between man and man must
rest, and which embraces every possible duty in its
all-comprehensive sweep, '' Thou shalt love thy neighbour
as thyself." He then proclaimed that the idea of neigh

Moral Teaching of the New Testament.

191

bourhood as between man and man was not limited by
the ties of country, citizenship, sect, or race, but that its
essence was, man wherever met with in need of help.
Neighbourhood in Christ's teaching consists in the power
of performing acts of kindness on the one hand, and the
presence of necessity on the other. This great law of
obligation of man to man was not limited by one single
selfish consideration. This is plainly and definitely
taught in the parable of the man who fell among thieves,
in which Jesus Christ broke down all the narrow distinc-
tions which separated man from man in the ancient
world. Let it be particularly observed that He has ex-
tended this obligation by further teaching that Christians
are bound to love one another, not only as they love
themselves, but as He has loved them. So wide has He
laid down the principle of obligation.

This principle of self-sacrifice is the central position of
the moral teaching of the New Testament. It is one
most wide and all-embracing. I will cite a single passage
as an illustration of it. *' None of us," says St. Paul,
" liveth to himself, and no man dieth to himself; for
whether we live, we live unto the Lord ; and whether we
die, we die to the Lord : whether we live therefore, or
die, w^e are the Lord's ; for to this end Christ both died
and rose, that He might be the Lord of the dead and
living." This principle is adequate to determine every
question of moral obligation. It demands the most
absolute sacrifice of self in the service of Jesus Chi"ist.
If a doubt arises whether this or that line of conduct is a
duty, or what is the amount of self-sacrifice which is
required at our hands in the discharge of it, we have

ic)2 The Alleged DiJ/icuiWes in the

only to ask ourselves two questions, and the answer will
at once determine the line of conduct which ought to be
pursued, and the degree of self-sacrifice required. The
first of these questions is, What do I wish that anothei
should do to me, if I were in his place ? The second is,
To what extent has Jesus Christ saaificed Himself for
me? I owe a similar sacrifice of self to Him. In what-
ever position of life a Christian may be placed, he is
Christ's, bound to discharge every duty which it requires
for His sake ; and that not grudgingly, but measured
only, as to the extent of the obligation, by the self-
sacrifice of Jesus Christ for him.

It is (luite evident that both Mr. Mill and Mr.
Newman have overlooked this great and fundamental
principle of the moral teaching of the New Testament,
Avithout the deepest attention to which it is impossible to
form a correct estimate of its scope and bearing. At any
rate I can find no reference to it in their estimate of its
moral teaching. It is to this that their complaint that
its teaching is inadequate in reference to the require-
ments of advancing civilization is due. I maintain, on
the contrary, that it is adequate to guide us on every
question of individual, social, or political morality which
can arise. Jesus Christ claims, not only our reli-
gious duties, but every portion of our secular calling.
The distinction between them is destroyed by Chris-
tianity. In its view all secular duties have become
religious ones. Christ demands as His the entire life,
nothing short of it. The Christian is to continue in the
calling in which he is called of God. There is no
injunction in the New Testament that a man, when he

Moral Teaching of the New Testament 195

became a Christian, was to leave his secular calling,
unless it positively ministered to vice. On the contrary,
it contains many exhortations to discharge it faithfully as
to the Lord, and not unto man. Whenever good is to
be done, he is bound to do it. Whenever the condition
of man can be ameliorated, the morality of Christianity
teaches that we are bound to exert our utmost efforts to
effect it, as due not only to our brother man, but unto the
Lord. " Ye are not your own," \vrites St. Paul ; " there-
fore glorify God in your body and in your spirit, which
are God's."

But while the New Testament appeals to this as the
fundamental groundwork of its teaching, let it be ob-
served that it has invoked every other principle of our
nature which can be enlisted into the service of holiness.
In proof of this I quote a single passage, but it is a very
comprehensive one. " Finally," writes St. Paul, " what-
soever things are true, whatsoever things are honest,
whatsoever things are pure, whatsoever things are lovely,
whatsoever things are just, whatsoever things are of good
report : if there be any virtue, if there be any praise,
think of these things." Here we find the principle of
truth, of honour, of justice, of the morally beautiful,
that of the approbation of society, man's love of excel-
lence, and even his desire for praise, appealed to, to ex-
cite us in the pursuit of what is good and virtuous, i ask
whether any teaching can be more comprehensive ?

It is satisfactory to observe that Mr. Mill deals with
the teaching of the New Testament in a spirit very dif-
ferent from that of Mr. Newman. While the Tract before
me is an attack upon it of the strongest character, it does

194

TJie Alleged DiO'iciiilies in the

not contain a single allusion to the fact that its teaching
is based on the widest and most comprehensive princi-
ples which I have enumerated, and which are indelibly
stamped on its pages. Yet to judge the teaching of a
book, without estimating the principles on which it is
founded, is impossible. They assign to the subordinate
details their entire meaning. I ask emphatically whether
such a mode of dealing with questions can be conducive
to the interests of truth ?

I will now deal with as many of the special objections
before me as my space will allow. Mr. Newman objects
that the views of the writers of the New Testament as to
the nearness of the future world must have rendered
them inadequate moral teachers. I believe that it is an
idea widely spread among unbelievers, and is certainly
entertained by very many in this hall, that a Christian's
interest in this life is so short, and that his desire to
effect his own salvation ought to be so absorbing, as
necessarily to make the consistent Christian indifferent
to all the higher interests of humanity.

I reply, that this opinion is not founded on anything
contained in the New Testament. Whatever may be the
assertions of unbelievers with respect to the expectation
of the followers of Jesus Christ as to the speedy end of
the present dispensation, it is a plain fact that many of
our Lord's parables, in which He explained the nature of
His kingdom, assert that it would be one of a slow and
gradual growth, and that human nature would become
penetrated with Christian principles only by means of a
slow and gradual progress. Of this the parables in Matt.
xiii. are a striking example.

Moral Teacmng of the New Testament. 19^

Whatever views may be entertained about the relative
nearness or distance of the period of the end, there is one
very palpable fact on which we must all agree, that
human life is short. In a moral point of view there can
be little difference whether we are firmly persuaded that
life is short, or the coming of Christ's kingdom near. It
is a plain fact both to Christians and unbelievers, whether
they like to think about it or not, that at best our time
for doing any important work here is very limited, and that
our interest in earthly things may pass away at any hour.
The objection applies to both alike.

Next, Christianity expressly teaches that a man's
interest in the world to come will be best provided for by
a diligent discharge of the duties of the present. Where is
it said, 1 ask, that a man should neglect his duties to
save his soul ? On the contrary, he is expressly told that
his best mode of promoting his interests in the world to
come, is by the diligent discharge of every known duty in
the present life. Does not the New Testament expressly
teach that every opportunity of doing good, every faculty,
and every endowment, is a stewardship entrusted to the
Christian by his Master ? Surely, if there is a great deal
to be done, and but a short time to do it in, the harder
one works, the better. If a railway station is a mile off,
and I have only fourteen minutes before the arrival of the
train, I think this an urgent reason for mending my pace.
As the parable teaches, it is only the slothful servant who
hides his talent in the earth. I fully concede that the
New Testament lays down that the next world is vastly
more important than the present one. So is the subse-
quent period of our lives, compared with the interval of

-[(jC The Alleged Diffieulties in the

five or six years which we pass at school. Cut those who
have spent their school-days in idleness have inflicted an
irreparable damage on their interests in their future life, and
frequently the deepest repentance is unable to repair the
mischief The more important are our interests in the
world to come, the more important is it for us rightly to
use the present life as a preparation for it.

But Mr. Newman further observes : " That St. Paul's
teaching should not be definite concerning the rights and
duties of citizens, concerning war, concerning slavery, and
the rights of man, followed necessarily from his belief that
the end of all things was so close at hand. No time was
left to improve the world, to regenerate politics, to en-
franchise slave castes ; radical change was impossible ;
Dalliation of evil was only to be thought of."

I reply, first, that if it is necessary to render a system
of moral teaching an adequate guide, that it should con-
tain definite information on all these points, it would
involve the production of a library of considerable size.
Nor is this all : it would be necessary that it should be
constantly enlarged, to meet the ever varying circum-
stances of our political and social life. Yet this is really
what it would have been necessary that the writers of the
New Testament should have done if the absence of these
subjects is to be viewed as an objection against the ade-
quacy of their teaching. They have acted more wisely
by enunciating great principles of morality which render
the entering on such subjects entirely unnecessary.

Next, as I have observed, the shortness of the time
is an additional reason for the diligent discharge of duty.
Its teaching is, that duties are to be discharged at all

Moral Teaching of the A^ew Testament. 197

hazards, without reference to results. The measuring
duties by results belongs to the modern utilitarian gospel,
and not to that of Jesus Christ. Mr. Newman imagines
that no man with the views which he attributes to the
first Christians could be in favour of radical changes, but
would only attempt palliations of existing evils. I find
this nowhere hinted in the pages of the New Testament.
The opponents of Christianity in the first century took
a very different view of the subject, and mistook the
apostles for a species of radicals. The charge which
they preferred against them was, " Those who have
turned the world upside down, have come hither also."
Christianity really seeks to effect a most radical change
in human nature.

There is doubtless a great diversity of view between
the writers of the New Testament and modern unbe-
lievers as to the most effectual mode of acting on man.
Both alike are animated by a desire to effect a radical
change in his condition, and seek to effect his elevation.
The one were of opinion that the right way to effect this
was to begin with that which is inward, and to work from
the inward to his outward condition. The other think
that the correct method of procedure is to reverse this
process. The difference is one of method, not of prin-
ciple I assert that all experience is in favour of that
pursued by Christ and His apostles, and that all great
and beneficial changes have been efiected by bringing
mighty forces to bear on man's inmost being, and that
all moral and spiritual regeneration must originate from
v/ithin.

I will now take Mr. Newman's points seriatim.

igS The Alleged Difficulties iji the

If I understand him riglitly, he considers that the New
Testament ought to have laid down a positive doctrine, as
to what is right and wrong in our poHtical relations. On the
contrary, 1 have always considered that its abstinence from
attempting to do this constitutes one of the particular ex-
cellences of its teaching. By this alone it has been able to
accommodate its teaching to the universal condition of man.
What would have been the result if it had been the duty of the
Church of Jesus Christ to meddle with political questions?
When it has unwisely attempted to do this the results
have been disastrous. Nothing is more certain than that
the different races of men require different forms of political
government. The laws and constitutions which fit one
nation do not suit another, just in the same way as it is
impossible to manufacture a coat which will fit every man's
figure and size. We have had abundance of evidence
that the attempt to foist the institutions of one nation on
another have ended in failure. Its freedom from advo-
cating any particular form of political constitution has
adapted Christianity to every nation under heaven.

Next, if they had commenced their labours by en-
deavouring to regenerate the faulty political constitutions
around them, they would have ensured the active oppo-
sition of every existing government, and brought them to
a speedy termination. In this respect the contrast
between it and Judaism is remarkable. Judaism was
designed for a single nation, and it contains the outlines
of a political constitution suited to its requirements.
Christianity was intended to exert a mighty moral and
spiritual influence over every nation under heaven, and
it contains none. Yet the writers of the New Testament

Moral Teaching of the Nezv Testament. 199

were Jews, who felt for the Old Testament a profound
veneration ; and yet they have deliberately abandoned its
political institutions, and substituted no others in their
place. Nearly every ancient philosopher, at the con-
clusion of his writings on morals, favoured the world with
his ideas on the laws and constitution of a republic,
through which he hoped to effect the regeneration of society.
But it always fell still-born ; and neither the men of his
own age, nor of any subsequent one, have been persuaded
to adopt it. Mahomet fell into the error of uniting with
his moral code a body of political legislation. The result
is that Mahometanism is only fitted for Orientals. The
Koran will never extend its influence beyond the unpro-
gressive races of mankind. The same remark is true
respecting Hindooism. Its caste system is both destructive
to itself, and unfit for every other nation.

Yet the New Testament lays down a few broad prin-
ciples respecting political duties. It teaches that political
society is an ordinance of God ; that to public authorities
obedience is to be rendered conscientiously ; that the end
of political society is the good of the governed ; and that
there are certain limits within which civil government has no
right to interfere. In ancient States political and religious
obligations were frequently confounded, and no respect
was shown in their legislation for the rights of conscience.
Jesus Christ laid down clearly that man is bound by
higher obligations than those due to the State. " Render
to Caesar," says He, " the things which are Caesar's, and
to God the things which are God's." In no work of
any ancient philosopher is there any so clear a distinction
as to the limits of civil obedience. If Jesus Christ and

2 00 The Alleged Difficulties in the

His apostles had been the fanatics which unbelievers
charge them with having been, they would have dealt
Avith i)olitical (juestions in a very difterent spirit. Fanatics
have so done in all times. Their mode of referring to
them is one of the strongest proofs of their calmness of
judgment.

I\rr. Newman next asserts that the New Testament
contains no precept regulating the practice of war. I am
astonished at this assertion, for I have read it to litdc
purpose if it does not contain many which have the closest
bearing on it. The only thing whicli is true is, that it does
not contain a formal treatise on the law of nations, or one
regulating the duties of belligerents. What ! Nothing about
war, when every virtue which it pronounces to be pre-
eminently Christian is utterly opposed to its practice?
Nothing about war, when it contains a direct precept to
feed one's enemy? Let its moral teaching become an
actuality, and war will become an impossil^ility. This pe
culiarity of its teaching is all the more striking when we
take into consideration the fact that ancient writers do
not say one word in condemnation of war, but many in its
praise, and that the martial virtues received their highest
commendation. The most eminent men of ancient times
had no compunction to kill, to enslave, or to destroy.

A similar objecdon is made, because it contains no
precept directly commanding the abolition of slavery. Is
it the only, or even the most efficacious way, I ask, to biing
about the extincdon of an institution deeply interwoven
with the whole fabric of society, by commanding its aboli-
tion by direct precept ? Is not the inevitable result of the
great principles of its teaching, when they have thoroughly

Moral Teaching of the Neiv Testament. 201

penetrated the mind of man, its certain and gradual
destruction ? What mean, I ask, its reiterated declara-
tions, that all men are brothers in Jesus Christ ? What
is the meaning of its positive assertion, that in Jesus
Christ there is no distinction between bond nor free, and
between one race and another, but that all are children
of a common father ? I should simply weary you it I
were to quote passages which assert the elevation of the
humbler classes of mankind, and multitudes of others
which utterly conflict with every principle on which
slavery is built. Some of the grandest exhibitions of
Christian martyrdom were exhibited in the persons of
slaves. Renan tells us that the Neronian persecution of
the Church commenced the elevation of both slave and
woman.

I assert that nothing more exhibits the sobriety of
the teaching of the New Testament, than the mode in
which it deals with the question of slavery. It has been
objected, that its greatest missionary tolerated it. He did,
and he acted wisely in so doing. There were elements
in society enough for stirring up a servile war. There had
been many such in the previous history of Rome. Witii
what result had they been attended ? The aggravatior.
of the slave's condition, and the suspension ot
thousands of slaves on crosses on tlie public roads of
Italy. Would the Christian missionary have promoted
the interest of the slave, by stirring up a servile war,
while the emperor was the master of forty legions ? The
writers of the New Testament acted wisely, in laying
down principles which could not help sapping slavery to its
centre. Unbelievers are alwavs anxious to refer to the

2 02 ^/'^^ Alleged DiJJlciiliics in the

teacliings of ancient philosopliy. What philosopher, I
ask, has laid down any princii)le which \vas subversive of
slavery ? On the contrary, some of the greatest of them
expressly taught that slavery was the natural condition of
society. An eminent Roman, I mean Cato the Censor,
left his worn-out slaves to perish and die. St. Paul says,
*' Masters, give to your slaves that which is just and equal,
knowing that you have a Master in heaven." Please to
observe his words, ''just and equal;" do you except against
this as the right principle for regulating the relations of the
capitalist and the workman? He tells the Christian
slave, i. he had the opportunity of getting his freedom, to
embrace it. He sent back to his master, it is true, a
runaway slave, whom he had converted, but accom-
panied with a letter compared with which there is nothing
more pathetic in the whole range of literature — the
Epistle to Philemon. It is worth your reading as an
exquisite piece of composition, though somewhat marred
in our translation He promises under his hand to
pay any debt he might have contracted ; and then
hinting that he had a right to command, he entreats his
liberty by every pathetic consideration which could weigh
on a sensitive mind. " Receive him," says he, " not as a
slave, but above a slave, a brother beloved, specially to
me ; but how much more unto thee, both in the
flesh, and in the Lord." He designates him as "his
son, born in his bonds, his own heart." Are not these
facts subversive of the fundamental principles on which
slavery rests ?

I cannot forbear drawing your attention to a striking
contrast. A great philosopher, justly admired by unbe-

Moral Teaching of the New Testament. 205

lievers, the Emperor Marcus Aurelius Antoninus, sat on
the imperial throne of the Roman Empire during the
middle of the second century of our era. He was influenced
by a deep sense of duty, but he issued no edict enjoining
the manumission of the slave. In our day an emperor
who is not a philosopher, but a Christian, has issued an
edict abolishing slavery throughout the wide extent of
his dominions. He has liberated serfs by tens of
milHons, and for so doing he deserves the gratitude
of mankind. I fearlessly put the question, Which is more
favourable to liberty, that philosophy which teaches that
all mankind are descended from an ape \ or Christianity
which teaches that all men have a common father, even
God?

But Mr. Newman further objects, St. Paul's teaching is
deficient in not enunciating the rights of man. Does he
mean deliberately to affirm, that it would have been an
improvement to the pages of the New Testament if they
had contained a direct discussion on this subject ? It
has done better. Although it may not have said
much about the rights, it has said much about the duties
of man. But adds Mr. Newman, " Better irrigation, or
cultivation, better roads, better laws of land, better condi-
tion for the poor, better government, equally with improved
astronomy or other science, were matters of little worth
to one who expected a Divine Governor and Avenger,
shortly to appear in the clouds of heaven." Does Mr.
Newman mean to imply that for the purpose of constituting
the New Testament an adequate guide as to the duties of
life, that it ought to have contained a treatise on road
making, or agriculture, or astronomy, or exhortations en-

2C4

The Alleged Difficulties in the

joining special diligence in these pursuits ? But it will
be objected, nothing is more suited to prevent attention
to such subjects than the expectation of the nearness of the
end of tlic world ? I reply, that the shortness of life is a
fact ; if man perishes with his body, all earthly interest
may be over to us at any moment, and cannot endure
long. Why should not a full realization of this unques-
tionable fact, on the part of unbelievers, produce a similar
result ? There are passages in St. Paul's writings which
show that he was far from being indifferent to the evils
by which society is afflicted. He was very far from being
insensible to the perils to which the traveller was exposed,
the wrongs inflicted by magistrates, or the dangers arising
from mobs, and he uniformly dealt with such questions
with practical wisdom. One thing is certain, that the
Author of Christianity laid down, whether His coming was
near or remote, that diligence in their respective callings
was the great duty of His followers ; that He would call
them to account for everything with which He had en-
trusted them ; and that those who simply endeavoured to
preserve what they had, without actively using it, would
be visited with His heaviest censure. If it is a man's
duty to cut a road, or to improve a piece of land, or to
study astronomy, the teaching of the New Testament
requires that he should do it with his utmost diligence.
'• Whatsoever ye do, do it heartily as unto the Lord, and
not unto men."

IVIr. Newman's complaints of the defectiveness of
the teaching of the New Testament on the principles
of social and political morality are widely scattered
throughout this Tract. Among them, is the old charge

Moral Teaching of the Neiu Tesiament 205

of its omission to enforce the duty of patriotism. Mr.
Mill also seems to be of opinon, that it greatly ignores
our public duties. At page 90 of his Essay on Liberty, he
writes as follows : " And while in the morality of the best
pagan nations, dutytotheState held a most disproportionate
place, infringing on the just liberty of the individual, in
purely Christian Ethics, that grand department of duty is
scarcelynoticed or acknowedged." If I were to understand
the words " Christian Ethics" in this passage, as meaning
what Mr. Mill has elsewhere laid down as its meaning, viz.
"Theological Morality," as contradistinguished from
the teaching of the New Testament, the observation
before me would He beyond the purpose of this lecture.
But he adds : " It is in the Koran, and not in the New
Testament, that we read the maxim, a ruler who appoints
any man to an office, when there is another man in his
dominions better qualified for it, sins against God and
against the State. What little recognition the idea of
obligation to the public obtains in modern morality, is
derived from Greek and Roman sources, not from
Christian ; as even in the morality of private life, whatever
exists of magnanimity, high-mindedness, personal dignity,
even the sense of honour, is derived from the purely
human, not from the religious side of our education."
It seems to me that in this passage Mr. Mill intended to
include the moral teaching of the New Testament in liis
charge of defectiveness, and not simply "Theological
Morality."

I concur with Mr. IMill in thinking that in the ancient
systems of morality the duty of patriotism occupied a
very disproportionate place. In fact, ancient moralists

2o6 TJie Alleged Difficulties in the

viewed morality as a branch of politics. When, how-
ever, he censures Christianity for disregarding this duty,
he has committed an oversight, of which his own account
in his autobiography of his early training affords an
adequate solution. I propose the following answer : —

First, as to the general principle. Patriotism as a
virtue is far from being one which admits of an indiscri-
minate commendation. As it was exhibited in the ancient
world (nor is the modern world blameless), the evils
which were connected with it were enormous. What did
it mean in the mouth of a Roman ? A ruthless disregard
of the rights ot those who were not citizens, and the
trampling on a conquered world. What were the views
entertained respecting it by the Greek ? A devotion to
the interests of a little state consisting of 30,000 citizens,
and rarely coming up to that number ; a disregard of the
interests of the vast servile class and of neighbouring states;
the right to consign enemies to death or slavery; and a con-
temptuous trampling on every one whom he considered a
a barbarian, whom he might enslave or plunder at his plea-
sure. What effects had it on the Jew ? It shrivelled up his
character into an exclusive narrowness, such as we have it
described in the classic writers. In the midst of the weary
mass of selfishness with which the pages of history are
filled, I own that I cannot help feeling a certain amount of
admiration for the self-sacrifice which it envoked, even in
the midst of the manifold evils with which its practice was
attended. There is always something noble in the
sacrifice of self, in whatever form it may be exhibited.
The inscription placed over the 400 Spartans and their
companions, who perished at Thermypolce, is one of grand

Moral Teaching of the New Testament. 207

simplicity : "We lie here, obeying her laws." The laws
of Sparta told the citizen not to turn his back on his
enemy, but to die. Still it is impossible to close our
eyes to the enormous evils which were wrought in the
name of patriotism. The New Testament therefore is
right in not taking notice of this quality as a virtue. It
has consecrated as the first of virtues all that was essen-
tially good and great in it, the principle of the sacrifice
of self for the good of others, and placed it the highest
among duties. It gives us all that was noble in it,
without any of its defects.

I have never read a work written by an unbeliever, in
which the duty of self-sacrifice has been recognised as the
great and all-distinguishing principle of Christian teaching,
or in which a proper place has been assigned to it in esti-
mating its teaching as a whole. Yet it is evident to every
careful reader of the New Testament that it forms the cor-
ner-stone of Christian morality, and that it is impossible
to do it justice without deeply considering the place which
it holds in it. While this is the case, it must be carefully
observed that those principles of our moral nature which
terminate in self, have their proper place assigned to them
in the New Testament. But above them, regulating them,
and controlling them, stands this great duty of self-sacrifice.
A holy Christ seats Himself down in the place, which in
ancient morality was occupied by citizenship and race.
He calls forth the highest sacrifice of our selfish nature ;
He claims the entire man, body, soul, and spirit, to
be consecrated to His service, and to be engaged in
doing His work. That work is to do good with all his
power, and with all his means ; no act is too great, none
too lowly, not to be demanded by this great principle.

2o8 The A/7(-<^rii DiljicitUics in the

I assert then that this duty constitutes a great prin-
ciple, which is adequate to guide us in all the require-
ments of political or social morality. By it the Christian
is bound to do to his brother man all the good he can ;
and he is to do it with the best light which his under-
standing imparts. The Christian politician is bound to
feel an entire responsibility to do his duty with his
utmost powers in the situation in which he is placed. So
is the magistrate, and every public officer. The Christian
landlord is bound by it to exert the influence of his
position for the good of those dependent on him ; so is
the Christian capitalist ; so is the Christian merchant ;
so is the Christian in every possible calling. So, let me
add, is the Christian workman bound to do his work
honestly and well, and not, as Carlyle says, to manu-
facture shoddy, and to worship Beelzebub. There is no
social or political duty which this principle does not
require the Christian to perform, and to perform well.
Slightly altering Mr. Mill's precept from the Koran, I
affirm if a Christian ruler were to appoint a man to an
office, while there is another man better qualified to dis-
charge it, and he was aware of the fact, it requires no
special precept to inform him that he sins against this
great duty.

Mr. Mill's next assertion, that whatever recognition the
idea of obligation to the public obtains in modern
morality " is derived from Greek and Roman sources, not
from Christian ones," is surely owing to his want of
appreciation of the all-comprehensive duty of which I
have been speaking. No inconsiderable portion of the
teaching of the New Testament is occupied in enforcing

Moral Teaching of the New Testament. 209

on us the duties we owe to others, i.e. to the pubUc.
" Look not," says St. Paul, " every man to his own
things, but every man to the things of others." This
duty is in the strongest manner enforced by example, " I
would gladly," says he, " spend and be spent for you,
though the more earnestly I love you, the less I be loved."
The whole life of the apostle was occupied in the dis-
charge of public as distinct from private duties. Ordinary
men and women are far more indebted to such teaching,
as the source of their obligations to society, than anything
which they have learned from Greek or Roman writers.
All that can be said i^;, that the New Testament contains
no chapter specially devoted to the elaboration of our
political or social duties, though it lays down principles
abundantly adequate to guide us in the discharge of
them, and to excite us to their practice.

I am still more astonished at the following passage,
which I can only attribute to the prepossessions pro-
duced by Mr. Mill's early education, as set forth in his
autobiography : "As even in the morality of private life,
whatever exists of magnanimity, high-mindedness, personal
dignity, even the sense of honour, is derived from the
l^urely human, not from the religious part of our
education."

I ask boldly, is this a fact ? The New Testament
forms the most important ingredient in the training of
ordinary men and women. Its principles have largely
modified modern society. Is not high-mindedness to be
found therein? Is not personal dignity ? Is not a sense
of honour ? Doubtless it teaches humility ; but the most
perfect humihty is consistent with all these qualities.

;4

2 10 The Alleged Difjieiilties in the

The human side of the character of Jesus Christ is a
perfect exhibition of magnanimity, high-mindedness, and
personal dignity. Was not the man who would not in-
trude himself on other men's labours, but who worked
with his own hands to support himself and his com-
panions, instead of allowing his converts to contribute to
it, a high-minded man ? Was he ever deficient in
showing self-respect or dignity ? Has he not appealed to
the highest principles of human nature, to our love of
truth, of honourable conduct, justice, purity, moral beauty,
to the enlightened opinion of society, even to our love of
approbation ? This man expressly writes, " Be ye fol-
lowers of me."

I now address myself to that numerous class of
objections which may be summed up in the assertion, that
the teaching of the New Testament contradicts that of
the science called Political Economy.

Probably many in this room do not consider this a
very grievous charge, for I suspect that in some of its
principles you are far from being hearty believers.
Thomas Carlyle, as you know, has designated it " the
dismal science ;" and if its teachings are the sole message
of good news which we have to address to degraded
man, I shall not dispute that it is dismal enough. I will
state my own opinion. This science is an exhibition of
a number of partial truths respecting human nature ; but
it contemplates only one aspect of it, and if it is pro-
pounded as the sole means of regenerating or elevating
mankind, or as adequate to the entire wants of our moral
nature, or as the sole physician of our condition morally
and physically, it becomes a cruel parody. Man has

Moral Teaching of the Neiv Testament. 2 1 r

wants and aspirations which this science can never meet,
and is subject to disasters which it cannot remedy.

The following, I apprehend, contains the real point of
the objection. Christianity is so earnest in teaching the
duties of benevolence, kindness, and almsgiving, that it
must come into collision with those of industry, saving,
accumulation of capital, and the production of wealth,
without which advancement in civilization is impossible ;
and that it is even adverse to the accumulation of the
fund necessary for the payment of wages.

First, I observe that mankind are subject to dire
calamities, with which the principles of this science are
wholly inadequate to grapple. Let us consider an in-
stance or two. A man who is the sole support of his
family dies suddenly, and leaves them destitute, or is
seized with sickness which utterly incapacitates him ; ot
his children are idiots, and otherwise incapable of earning
their bread. I need not enumerate to you the ten thou-
sand calamities to which life is liable. Multitudes of
men also are sunk into a profound state of moral degra-
dation. All these things can only be adequately provided
for by the stimulation of those virtues and affections, to
which Christian moral teaching directs its most earnest
appeals.

I think that you will agree with me, that the selfish
a.ffections in man are far stronger than the benevolent
ones. If men could be cured of the vices which Chris-
tianity pre-eminently denounces, the affections which
terminate in self are quite adequate to take care of them-
selves, and require no stimulation. Our benevolent
feelings, under which head I include all those which

2ir The A//ei;c'd DiJ/kii/tu's in iJie

prompt us to self-sacrifice, are comparatively feeble. Tlie
idea presented to my mind when (juietly surveying the
most crowded parts of the City during the most active
hours of business is, The weakest to the wall. Sorrow,
misery, or misfortune do not expect relief or atten-
tion here. When, then, the moral teaching of the New
Testament throws all its energy into the attempt to
quicken the benevolent feelings of our nature, and leaves
the selfish ones comparatively uncared for, I think that
you will not take exception to this portion of its teaching.
I w'ill examine a few of the objections in detail.

First, Mr. Newman affirms that all the precepts of
Jesus Christ were intended to be taken literally. On this
point Mr. ^lill disagrees with him ; and he also thinks that
they are irreconcilable with nothing which a comprehen-
sive morality requires. Mr. Newman endeavours to sup-
port his position by affirming that His first followers so
understood Him, referring to the opening chapters of
the Acts of the Apostles. These undoubtedly tell us,
that under the peculiar circumstances in which the infant
Church w^as placed, large numbers of its members con-
tributed their property to a common fund. But there is
a portion of the narrative which he has omitted to notice,
and which is conclusive against his position. Peter is
represented as saying, "Ananias, why hath Satan filled
thine heart to lie to the Holy Ghost ? Whiles it {i. e.
the land) remained, was it not thine own ? and after it
was sold, was it not in thine own power ?" These words
make it clear that the act of contributing to the common
stock w-as a purely voluntary one ; that it formed no con-
dition of Church membership, nor was it any portion of

Moral Teaching of the New lestament 213

the law of Christ. The circumstances of the times ren-
dered it necessary to support large numbers out of the
common fund, precisely as you yourselves do when a
strike takes place. In their zeal large numbers of the
converts sold their possessions for the purpose of contri-
buting to this. What Ananias did was that he professed
to give up the whole, and thus to entitle himself to sup-
port from the fund, whereas he only surrendered a part
of the proceeds of the sale. The epistle of St. James
proves that the state of things mentioned by St. Luke
was only designed to serv^e a temporary purpose. It had
then ceased.

Again, many of the precepts of the New Testament are
uttered in opposition to some corrupt moral principle then
extensively prevalent, or are addressed to men under par-
ticular circumstances ; to take an instance, that given to the
rich young ruler. What is there in the context to imply that
it was intended for any other purpose than to test him, or
that it was designed for universal appHcation? All such pre-
cepts no doubt involve a great moral principle which is ot
universal obligation ; but it is simply absurd mechanically
to apply the mere letter of a precept to all states and con-
ditions of mankind. Against this practice the New Testa-
ment emphatically protests. To do so is to imitate those
quacks, who pretend that they have found out a universal
medicine, able to cure every malady. You will probably
ask, How are we to determine when this is the case ? I
answer, By the use of a little common sense and common
candour ; by entering into the spirit of its teaching, and
viewing its subordinate parts in relation to it. I need
hardly say, that this is necessary to enable us to get hold
of the meaning of every writer.

214 ^/^^ A Helped Difficulties in the

But you will object, Docs not the teaching of the
New Testament utterly discourage saving ? Does it not
absolutely forbid us to make provision for the future ?
What can you say to such a precept as this, " Consider
the ravenS; which have neither storehouse nor barn, yet
God feeds them. Arc ye not much better than they? "

Yes, truly, we are much better than the ravens. We
possess reason and foresight, which they do not, and this
makes all the difference. God provides for both men
and ravens within the range of their respective faculties.
The raven, according to the faculties which God has given
it, is provided for. In a similar way man shall be provided
for within the range of his. This forms a good reason
why men should not be devoured with anxiety for the
future ; but none for taking no care about it. It were
absurd to argue because God provides for a raven to whom
He has given no faculty Hke foresight, that therefore
He will provide for men, to whom He has given it,
and who neglect to use it. What the speaker in-
tended to teach is the great truth that we ought to trust
in providence, after we have used the best faculties which
God has given us.

But it will be urged, that the precepts respecting alms-
giving are without the smallest limitation. They say
nothing about looking out for deserving objects. So are
numerous other duties in the New Testament. If all
the qualifying circumstances had been inserted, the book
would have been sw^ollen into a library. The duties are
strenuously affirmed, and each individual is lei'c to fill up
the details by the aid of common sense and an en-
lightened Christian judgment.

Moral Teaching of the New Testament. 2 1 5

But it will be objected, the charge has not been met
that Christian teaching is antagonistic to the principle of
prudent saving, and that it renders the accumulation of
capital impossible. I reply —

First. The New Testament teaches that a man is bound
to act as God's steward, in whatever position in society
he may be placed by providence. This is distinctly
recognised in the parables of the Talents, the Pounds,
and the Unjust Steward. All waste is strongly dis-
couraged. Idleness is forbidden. Diligence in business
is expressly commanded. So is laying by for charitable
purposes. So is making a suitable provision for a man's
family. It was needless for it to teach directly the duty
of accumulating capital, for the desire to do so is one of
the strongest in human nature ; so strong is it, that
instead of requiring encouragement, there is the greatest
danger of its absorbing every noble and generous prin-
ciple.

Secondly. Christian teaching wages an internecine war
against those vices which tempt men to extravagance. I
need not draw your attention to them, for their injurious
consequences no one can mistake. They are the fruitful
sources of the misery of mankind. It also in the most
emphatic manner enjoins moderation in all things. If
then its injunctions were obeyed, we should see an end of
misery, squalor, and rags. Savings would be as large as
the political economist could desire, and the most ample
provision made for providing the requisite wages fund.
Get rid of these vices, practice the opposite virtues, and
all the supposed collision between Christian teaching
and social science will cease ; all its demands will be

2 1 6 T//C AlL'i^cd Dtfjknliics in the

coni])licd with, and in addition society will have at its
command all the resources necessary for the exercise of
the benevolent affections.

I cannot here help noticing a charge which Mr. Newman
brings against Christ and His apostles as being mendicants.
This is simply invidious. They are described as de-
voting their lives to the work of doing good. Is it
mendicancy, I ask, to receive a simple maintenance for
<loing so, and to eke this out by labouring with one's own
liands, as St. Paul did ? Is every popular lecturer who
receives maintenance for devoting himself to the work of
lecturing, a mendicant ?

There is nothing therefore in the principles of the
New Testament, if these were fully, and not partially
carried out, which is adverse to such reasonable accu-
mulation as is requisite for the purposes of social progress.
I say emphatically, if they ivere fully ^ and not merely
partially^ carried out ; for it is not possible to form a
correct judgment of any system by dwelling only on one
half of its teaching. Let its teaching respecting benevo-
lence, and its utter denunciation of the vices tending to
extravagance be set sideby side, and then estimate the result.
Selfishness in man is pre-eminently strong. It therefore
exerts all its efforts to call into activity our benevolent
fcelings. That numbers of evils exist in the world which
no principle founded on self-love can adequately meet
is no theory, but a fact. It addresses itself strongly to
those principles of our nature, whose proper function is
to palliate those evils. It wages internecine war against
those vices which impel men to extravagance. Its
demands of self-sacrifice in the work of doing good are one

Moral Teaching of the New Testament. 217

of its strongest characteristics ; but let it be observed
in proportion as the evils of the world are got rid of, the
sacrifice of capital necessary to eftect this will diminish
likewise. I ask you not to survey one portion of the
teaching of the New Testament without the other.

I do not think that there are many persons in this room
who will find fault with the New Testament because it
teaches that there is something more in the relation
between the employer and the employed than a mere
pecuniary bargain, and that the mere inspection of the
rate of wages in the labour market, is not the full dis-
charge of the duties which they owe to each other. In
this portion of the subject, Mr. Newman is guilty of an
incredible unfairness. He affirms that St. Paul teaches the
unqualified obedience of slaves to their masters, of child-
ren to their parents, and of wives to their husbands.
What shall we say of a writer who quotes a line or two in
which such duties are enjoined, and omits even to no-
tice the context, which enjoins the duties correlative to
these. It is perfectly true that there is such a passage
in St. Paul's writings, as " Servants, obey in all things
your masters according to the flesh." Here Mr.
Newman stops. But the Apostle adds, " not with eye-
service, as men-pleasers, but as doing the will of God
from the heart ; for of the Lord ye shall receive the
inheritance, for ye serve the Lord Christ." The same
apostle has a very strong precept for masters, enjoining
their corresponding duties. " Masters," says he, "give to
your servants that which is just and equal, knowing that
ye have a Master who is in heaven, and there is no
respect of persons with Him." Faithful service on the

2iS The Alleged Difficulties in the

part of the employed ; just and equal treatment on the
part of the employer, is St. Paul's golden rule to regulate
the relations between these two classes. Do you except
against it ? Is it not a far better one than the squeezing
as much labour as possible out of the employed on
the one hand, and the rendering the smallest amount of
loyal service as he can to the employer on the other?
There is a morality in conducting an argument as well
as in striking a bargain. What shall I say of a ^vriter
who afiirms that St. Paul taught unlimited obedience
to servants, and who has omitted all mention of his
teaching to masters, to give that which is "just and
equal"?

Mr. Newman also asserts that St. Paul teaches, without
the smallest qualification, the duty of absolute submission of
wives to husbands. Will it be believed that in the direct
context he has enjoined on husbands "to love their
wives, as Christ has loved the Church, and has given
Himself for it" } Observe the last words, and '■'' gave Him-
self for it.''' As Christ then gave His life for the Church,
so it is the duty of the husband to give his life for the
wife. Yet this writer affirms that St. Paul held a degraded
view of the married state. You will find no such teach-
ing in any work of ancient moralists. In the ancient
world the wife was degraded into a chattel. The woman
who flouted herself before the world's eye, and had
comparative freedom was the courtezan. The Christian
husband is to love his wife as Christ loved the Church,
and gave His life for her. The Christian husband is
therefore bound, not only to sacrifice himself, but if need
be, to give his life for his wife. Wliere will you find the

Moral Teaching of the New Tesfafne?it. 2 1 9

rights of women so effectually vindicated as by this teach-
ing ; or the marriage union placed on so high an elevation?

There are many other subjects which I would have
gladly treated of in this lecture, but my space is ex-
hausted. My selection has been regulated by their im-
portance. If I have succeeded in showing that those
difficulties which I have discussed are devoid of any real
foundation, or have arisen from misconception of the
great principles on which the teaching of the New Testa-
ment is based, the less important ones may be solved by
the application of the same line of reasoning. I believe that
the great principles which I have laid down are adequate to
meet every difficulty. I ask you first to ascertain what those
principles are, and then to apply them to the investiga-
tion of its subordinate details. Above all, do not be
guilty of a course so utterly unphilosophical, as to apply
a precept intended for one condition of society to a
wholly different one, or to except against one portion of
its teaching, while you have utterly neglected to take into
account the other, which is its legitimate complement.

Finally, let me observe that there is one portion of
the moral teaching of the New Testament which the
limits assigned to this lecture have only permitted me to
allude to. To give it an effective treatment has been
simply impossible. Yet it constitutes the most dis-
tinguishing feature of its teaching. I allude to the all-
important fact, that Christianity not only professes to lay
down a number of moral principles, which are adequate
to guide man in every advancing stage of his civilization ;
but to create a moral and spiritual power, which is able
to rescue unholy men from their unholiness, degraded

2 20 Alleged Difficulties^ 6^t.

men from tlicir degradation, and to elevate men whose
virtue is imperfect to liigher degrees ot purity and good-
ness. Unless we keep this fact steadily in view, it is
impossible to form a right estimate of its moral teaching.
I repeat it, this forms its most distinguishing characteristic.
Philosophers sighed for such a power, but they found it
not ; they left the degraded masses of mankind in their
degradation, and contemplated their condition with de-
spair. The lowest haunts of humanity formed the sub-
ject of the special care of Jesus Christ. They heard th.e
voice of no philosopher; but they heard His. At His
call multitudes have forsaken their evil ways, and ha\c
striven to follow Him. The wisest, the best, and the holiest
of men, have proclaimed Him their Master and their Lord.
The influence which has been exerted by Jesus Christ has
exceeded that of all philosophers and moralists united.
No personal influence which has been brought to bear
on the world has been equally mighty. In proof of this
I adduce the authority of Mr. I.ecky, in his History of
jMorals from Augustus to Charlemagne. With this quo-
tation I will conclude : " It was reserved for Christianity
to present to the world an ideal character, which tlirough
all the changes of eighteen centuries, has inspired the
hearts of men with an impassioned love, and has shown
itself capable of acting on all ages, nations, temperaments,
and conditions ; has not only been the highest pattern
of virtue, but the highest incentive to its practice ; and
has exercised so deep an influence, that it may be truly
said that the simple record of three short years of active
life has done more to regenerate and soften mankind, than
all the disquisitions of philosophers, and all the exhorta
tions of moralists "

THE COMBINATION OF UNITY WITH PRO-

GRESSIVENESS OF THOUGHT IN THE

BOOKS OF THE BIBLE,

An Argument in Favour of Divine Revelation.

BV THE

REV. J. H. TITCOMB, M.A.,

Vicar of St. Stephen's, South Lambeth^ and Rural Deati of Claphapt,

Wftt Olombinatktt ai Enttji toitk

l^xo^tssxUntss of ^hongftt in

the ^0ok0 0f the ^ible,

AN ARGUMENT IN FAVOUR OF DIVINE
REVELATION.

There is one element of consideration underlying this
subject which is not at first sight conspicuous, I mean
the element of time, or the fact of there having been an
interval of af least one thousand years between the pub-
lication of the earliest Old Testament literature and the
birth of our Lord Jesus Christ. We who receive the
whole Scripture as containing an authentic revelation
from God, of course believe this interval to have been
longer ; but, in view of the question now to be raised,
that variation of opinion is not of much consequence.
For, even assuming that no portions of the Old Testa-
ment were written before the time of David or Solomon
(B.C. I, coo), it is now admitted on all hands that many
very ancient documents must have been preserved to the
times of the Hebrew monarchy ; and that notwithstand-
ing the forms into which such documents were afterwards

J 24 The Combination of Unity with Progrcssivencss

thrown, they must still have enshrined the faith and
feelings of previous generations which had not only
dated historically from Abraham, but had looked back
traditionally even into earlier and more remote periods.

I do not enter, therefore, into any arguments about
the authenticity of the books of Moses ; nor do I even
take for granted their Divine inspiration. I only lay
down as the basis of my position, that the Old Testament
Scriptures, whatever may have been the dates of their
various publication, practically represent the religious
faith and hope of one continuous stream of people from
the time of Abraham to Christ. Which faith was briefly
this : that as soon as the human race first felt the curse and
misery of sin, it had been cheered by a revelation from
God, which promised it a final victory of good over evil,
and of happiness over sorrow, by means of some coming
Deliverer who should one day be born as ^'' the Seed of the
woman.'' Upon that simple thought the Hebrew people
ever looked back as to the first bud of promise, and the
first germ of hope which had gladdened the world in its
sufferings — a hope which they had not only inherited
from their forefathers, but which had never ceased to be
the theme of a long series of sacred writers, whose litera-
ture professed to have been Divinely inspired.

It is this fact, gentlemen, to which I now desire to call
your attention. I ask you to follow me in an argument
by which I shall endeavour to show (i) that the Sacred
Scriptures contain a unity, combined with progressive-
ness of thought, running over a prodigious lapse of time,
making up one harmonious and perfect whole. I shall
then (2) inquire v;hether such a fact finds a single

of Thought in the Books of ilic Bible. 22^

coimtei-part in any other religion of the world. And (3)
whether, taking all circumstances into consideration, the
conviction is not forced upon us, that this must have
involved a great deal more than what was merely
natural or human ; and that the only solution of the
matter left to us is a belief of its having been really the
result of Divine Revelation.

I. Let us Inquire, whether there is not a

UNITY COMBINED WITH PROGRESSIVENESS OF THOUGHT

IN THE Scriptures, running over a prodigious

LAPSE of TIME, YET MAKING UP ONE HARMONIOUS AND
PERFECT WHOLE.

We may look at this subject either Historically or
Dodrinally,

I. Regarding the Historical development of the pro-
mised " Seed," it maybe enough to say that the Hebrews
dated a tradition of it from the beginning of human woe ;
believing that, however much of this idea may have been
gradually overlaid by idolatry and unbelief, it was,
nevertheless, always to some minds the germ of a living
hope. Mark you, I am not assuming this tradition to
have been an actually supernatural revelation. I am
■only treating it now as a floating opinion wliich was
handed dov/n from generation to generation, with the
view of tracing it out briefly in regard to its historical
grr-,vth.

In the first place, then, you will please to observe that
this traditional hope belonged to the whole race of man.
It simply announced the coming of a human Redceme:-,
without the slightest reference either to time, or to place,
or to family. It said that the " Seed of the v/oman "

15

226 The Combination of Unify with Frogrcssivcness

was to bruise the Serpent's head (Gen. iii. 15). From
the date of Abraham, however, we gather that this behef
became handed down under a more limited form, inas-
mucli as tlie Promised Seed was then made a special gift
to that patriarch's house ; the word of promise being
" In thcc shall all families of the earth be blessed "
(Gen. xii. 3). Call this hope superstition if you like, it
was, at any rate, the Hebrew belief. And so it passed
on, through Isaac and Jacob, until we reach the twelve
tribes of Israel, and the kingdom of David ; when
a revelation was alleged to have been given, announcing
that the covenant of God with that king's house should
be inalienable, and his dynasty established for ever.
*' And when thy days be fulfilled, and thou shalt sleep
with thy fathers, I will set up thy Seed after thee which
shall proceed out of thy bowels, and I will establish His
kingdom. He shall build an house for My name, and I
will establish the throne of His kingdom for ever"
(2 Sam. vii. 12, 13). By and by, the manner in
which this Son of David was to make His appearance
became still more distinctively marked. One prophet
taught the Church that He would come out of Beth-
lehem : " But thou, Bethlehem Ephratah, though thou
be little among the thousands of Judah, yet out of thee
shall He come forth unto Me, that is to be Ruler in
Israel ; whose goings forth have been from of old, from
everlasting " (Mic. v. 2). Another prophet announced that
the monarchy which was to be overthrown by Babylon
should continue to be humbled by its enemies till the
birth of this long looked for Ruler : " I will overturn,
overturn, overturn it ; and it shall be no more until He

of Thought in the Books of the .Bible. 227

come whose right it is ; and I will give it Him "
(Ezek. xxi. 27). Another prophet declared that when
He did come there would be a breaking up of the whole
Jewish nationality : " After threescore and two weeks
shall IMessiah be cut off, but not for Himself; and the
people of the prince that shall come shall destroy the
city and the sanctuary ; and the end thereof shall be
with a flood, and unto the end of the war desolations
are determined " (Dan. ix. 26). In the same strain
spake Malachi, the last of the prophets : " But who may
abide the day of His coming ? And who shall stand
when He appeareth? For He is like a refiner's fire,
and like fullers' soap. And He shall sit as a refiner and
purifier of silver ; and He shall purify the sons of Levi,
and purge them as gold and silver " (Mai. iii. 2, 3). At
length, after 400 years, there appeared One in whom all
these characteristics were alleged to have been combined.
Now, of course, as Christian believers, we feel sure they
were combined. We believe that Christ did come of
Abraham's seed, and of David's house ; that He 7uas
born in Bethlehem, and at a time when the royal dynasty
7uas in ruins ; and that the issue of His coming zuas the
actual destruction of Jerusalem, and the scattering of
the nation, and the purging of the priesthood by fire.
As for yourselves, gentlemen, all I wish to press upon
you, for the present, is this: that here is a long-con-
tinuous development of one idea, progressively evolved,
and harmoniously sustained by a number of different
writers lasting from at least the time of Abraham to the
first century of our own era. And just notice also how
this unity of belief is expressed in the Gospel of

2 2S The Couibiiiation oj Unity ijith Progrcssivcncss

St. Luke : " Dlcsscd be tlic Lord God of Israel ; for
He hath visited and redeemed His people, and hath
raised up an horn of salvation for us in the house of His
servant Uavid ; as He spake by the mouth of His holy
prophets, which have been since the world began : that
we should be saved from our enemies, and from the
hand of all that hate us ; to perform the mercy promised
to our f:ithers, and to remember His holy covenant, the
oath which He sware to our father Abraham ' (Luke i.
68-73). ^^"^ other words, one continuous and pro-
gressive hope is described as having travelled through a
period of about 2,000 years, living on freshly to the last,
with a permanence which was incapable of destruction.

2. I might have said very much more upon this part
of the subject, but the whole question is so vast that I
must hurry on rather to the Doctrinal hopes which
gathered around this promised Redeemer ; inasmuch as
the preservation of those hopes, in their unity yet grow-
ing fulness, throughout so long a period and by so many
different witnesses, is one of the greatest human marvels.
According to the oldest tradition of the Hebrew race,
the Promised Seed was to be looked for as a Redeemer
from sin and its attendant curse. Not a word, however,
was at first stated as to the vieans by which that con-
quest should be effected. Those particulars were opened
out gradually — grouping themselves around three aspects
of character, namely, the Prophetic, Kingly, and Priestly
offices. I am afraid it will be only on the two former (jf
these that I shall now have time to enlarge.

First, then, let us view Him in His Prophetic or
Teaching Office.

of Thought in the Books of the Bible. 229

This was distinctly announced by Moses. I say by
him ; for although you may deny that Moses was the
actual penman of the whole Pentateuch, yet you can
scarcely deny that it was in the main a compilation of
traditionary, if not documentary, fragments which had
been handed down to the Church througii that lawgiver.
What, then, are the recorded or traditional words of
Moses upon this point ? He says : " The Lord thy
God will raise up unto thee a Prophet from the midst of
thee, of thy brethren, like unto me ; unto Him shall ye
hearken" (Deut. xviii. 15). Whether the full meaning
of those words was detected by the Hebrews at once,
and the hope thereby engendered of any ultimate abro-
gation of the burdensome law through the coming in of
a greater Prophet who should bestow upon them a
higher, holier, and more permanent covenant, we cannot
say ; but certainly that view was gradually introduced
afterwards. For example, David hinted at it when he
described in the 40th Psalm how " burnt offering and sin
offering " were not to be required for ever ; and how One
zuas to come who should say : " I delight to do Thy will,
O my God, yea Thy law is within my heart. I have
preached righteousness in the great congregation "
(Ps. xl. 6 — 9). Isaiah brought it out still more clearly
v/hen he said, " It shall come to pass in the last days
that the mountain of the Lord's house shall be estab-
lished in the top of the mountains .... and all nations
shall flow into it. And many people shall go and say :
Come ye, and let us go up to the mountain of the Lord,
to the house of the God of Jacob : and He 7cill teach us
of His ways, and wc will walk in His paths : for oat of

2,^o The Ccvihhiation of Unity ivitJi Progressivcncss

Ziofi s/inl/ go forfh ihe lam, and the ivord of the Lord from
ycnisaJcm " (Is. ii. 2, 3). In other words, this promised
Prophet M-as to be, like Moses, a new lawgiver, teaching
not only the Hebrews, but many nations also in the
spirit of the freest possible education. For which reason
Joel, speaking, as we believe, in the name of the Lord,
said : " And it shall come to pass afterwards that I will

pour out My Spirit upon all flesh Also upon

the servants and upon the handmaids in those days will
I pour out My Spirit" (Joel ii. 28). And afterwards
Jeremiah, still more plainly : " Behold the days come,
saith the Lord, that I will make a new covenant with the
house of Israel, and with the house of Judah. . . . This
shall be the covenant that I will make with the house of
Israel : After those days, saith the Lord, I will put My
law in their inward part, and write it in their hearts, and
I will be their God, and they shall be My people "
(Jer. xxxi. 31, 2)Z)- So in an earlier chapter: "It shall
come to pass in those days, saith the Lord, they shall no
more say, The ark of the covenant of the Lord ; neither
shall it come to mind ; neither shall they remember it.
At that time they shall call Jerusalem the throne of the
Lord, a7id all 7iations shall he gathered into it, i?i the name
of the Lord'' (iii. 16, 17). Could any truth, then, be
more continuously evolved through successive centuries
than this ? If Moses said that the coming Prophet was
to be a lawgiver like himself, and Isaiah that He should
give His law from Jerusalem to all nations {i.e. the Gen-
tiles), Jeremiah enlarged the picture by proclaiming it,
not only a new covenant, but so new that the ancient
ark, as a symbol of their then worship, should be known

of TJioiigJit in the Books of the Bible. 231

no more. In other words, the whole basis of their
worship was to be altered. It was no longer to be repre-
sented by one local symbol, and to be confined to the
Hebrew people, but to consist in the worship of God by
the whole Gentile world, based upon a perfectly new
dispensation. How changed this new dispensation was
to be under this new Prophet, Malachi also made known
200 years after Jeremiah, when he said : " From the
rising of the sun even unto the going down of the same My
name shall be great among the Gentiles., and in every
plaee incense shall be offered unto Me, saith the Lord
of Hosts " (Mai. i. 11). Four hundred more years passed
away after Malachi, and yet this doctrinal hope of the
coming Prophet survived. You may not beheve the
testimony of the Gospels as to the miracles of Jesus.
But granting even that those miracles v/ere never per-
formed and that the Jews who thought so were mere
credulous enthusiasts, still their exclamation, "This is
of a truth that Prophet that should come into the world"
(St. John vi. 14), exhibits the survival of a strong national
hope upon this subject. At any rate, the Nev/ Testa-
ment covenant, as it has actually been handed down to
us, is in wonderful accordance with this long-continued
development of Old Testament thought. Believers or
unbelievers. Christians or infidels, no one can fail to see
that New Testament thought here fits into Old Testa-
ment thought with the same propriety and neatness that
a well-made key fits into a complex and elaborate lock ;
and that although it was the work of many centuries, yet
the hope and its fulfilment were, from first to last,
coJ-ercnt.

232 The Combination of Unity ivitk Prognssivcncss

Secondly, let us now view this promised Hope of Israel
in relation to His Kingly office.

For some reasons this should, perhaps, have come first,
inasmuch as the primeval tradition of Eden, which is
recorded in the book of Genesis (viz., that the Seed of
the woman should bruise the Serpent's head), funda-
mentally involved the idea of an universal dominion over
the powers of evil. That is to say, it embodied the
belief that as man had ruined his own race, so One
of that race should hereafter rise up to extricate and
deli\'er it from ruin. Hence the thought of conquest
and kingship had been an underlying element in this
traditional hope of a coming Redeemer, even from the
beginning. Abraham {e.g.) had beheld Him as blessing
the whole human family (Gen. xii. 3) ; Jacob as gathering
the nations under one great dominion (Gen. xlix. 10) ;
and Balaam as smiting down all the opposition of his
enemies (Numb. xxiv. 17). In this way the picture was
unfolded with unswerving fidelity through all the roll of
the prophets. Isaiah said : " The government shall be
upon His shoulders ; and His name shall be called Won-
derful, Counsellor, the mighty God, the everlasting Father,
the Prince of Peace. Of the increase of His government
and peace there shall be no end, upon the throne of
David, and upon His kingdom, to order it, and to
establish it with judgment and with justice from hence-
forth even for ever " (Is. ix. 6). Jeremiah said : I will
raise unto David a righteous Branch, and a King shall
reign and prosper, and shall execute judgment and justice
in the earth " (Jer. xxiii. 5). Ezekiel said : " I will
set up one Shepherd over them, and He shall feed them.

of Thought in the Books cf the Bible.

^Z3

even my servant David; He shall feed them, and ITe
shall be their Shepherd ; and I the Lord will be their
God, and My servant David a prince among them "
(Ezek. xxxiv. 23). Daniel said : " Behold one like the
Son of Man came with the clouds of heaven, and came
to the Ancient of days, and they brought Him near
before Him. And there was given Him dominion, and
glory, and a kingdom, that all people, nations, and lan-
guages should serve Him : His dominion is an everlasting
dominion which shall not pass away, and His kingdom
that which shall not be destroyed " (Dan. vii. 13). The
same prophet also stated the same symbolically, when he
represented " a stone cut out without hands smiting the
image upon his feet and breaking it to pieces ; " and
then interpreted it thus : " In the days of these kings
shall the God of heaven set up a kingdom which shall
never be destroyed ; and the kingdom shall not be left
to other people, but it shall break in pieces and consume
all the kingdoms, and it shall stand for ever " (Dan. ii.
34, 44). Zechariah also said: "Rejoice greatly, O
daughter of Zion ; shout, O daughter of Jerusalem, be-
hold thy King cometh unto thee ; He is just and
having salvation ; He shall speak peace unto the heathen,
and His dominion shall be from sea to sea " (Zee. ix. 9).
How strongly these hopes still abode among the Jews
at the time of Christ's appearing no one can doubt. We
do not need the New Testament to prove this, because
the whole bulk of ancient Jewish literature does so.
Whether, therefore, those words recorded by St. Luke
were a true revelation from God or not, they were,
at any rate, an embodiment of the national belief.

2 34 ^//^ ComhinatioJi of Unity iviili Progrcss'rccness

" He shall be great, and shall be called the Son of the
Highest, and the Lord God shall give unto Him the
throne of His father David : and He shall reign over the
house of Jacob for ever ; and of His kingdom there shall
be no end" (Luke i. 32, 33). Now this is all I want
for my present purpose. I am simply pressing on your
attention the fact that one living hope of a coming King
had been nursed among the Hebrew race from the
beginning, and that not a single epoch in its history
can be pointed to in which that thought had ever been
lost sight of. I will not say that ei^cry feature in the
prophetic portrait of this King was equally nursed up to
the last moment in the national heart. For it was with
the Jews as with most of ourselves ; they clung to what
was joyous and pleasant, but ignored the painful and
unpropitious. David had first brought out to view the
fact, that just as his own pathway to the crown of Zion
had been opened through sufferings and persecutions, so
the ideal David of his own house — the promised King of
Israel, could only be exalted to the throne of Zion in the
same manner. This was the picture in the 2nd Psalm :
''\Vliy do the heathen rage and the people imagine
a vain thing ? The kings of the earth set themselves,
and the rulers take counsel together against the Lord

and against His Anointed Yd have I set My

King upon INIy holy hill of Zion." The same idea came
out in other Psalms, such as the 22nd, which said :
'' They pierced My hands and My feet. They part My
garments among them, and cast lots upon My vesture "
iver. 16, 18) — words which, never having been personally
fulfilled in David, are necessarily held as prophetic of

of ThougJit in the Books of the Bible. 235

David's ideal — the promised King of Israel j and no less
in the 118th Psalm which said: "The stone which the
builders refused is become the Head stone of the corner ''
{I'er. 22). Not, however, till the time of Isaiah was the
whole picture openly manifested. " My Servant shall
deal prudently ; He shall be exalted and extolled"
(Is. Hi. 13). Nevertheless, it was added : — He shall
'^ grow up as a tender plant and as a root out of a dry
ground." He must be " bruised " and " put to grief,"
and be brought " as a lamb to the slaughter, and as a
sheep before her shearers is dumb, so He opened not
His mouth" (Is. liii. 2, 7, 10). Thus the exaltation and
glory of the Redeemer's kingship were to be preceded
by the antagonism of an unrighteous world. Only
through the pathway of suffering could He finally and
effectually overcome the powers of evil, and redeem the
world itself from its sufferings on account of sin. Daniel
said the same thing : — '' Messiah shall be cut off^ but not
for Himself '' (Dan. ix. 26). Zechariah also repeated it :
" Awake, O sword, against My Shepherd, and against
the man that is My fellow, saith the Lord of Hosts.
Smite the Shepherd, and the sheep shall be scattered "
(Zech. xiii. 7). If time allowed other texts might be
quoted. These were points, I say, which, though plainly
painted in the sacred writings as part and parcel of the
professed revelations of God^ were yet neglected and
forgotten by the nation at the appearing of Christ,
because unpalatable and difficult of apprehension.
Nevertheless, if you will only calmly read the New Tes-
tament, you will see that the teaching of the Gospels
exactly harmonised with these pictures of the Redeemer's

2'G 2 he Combination of Unity ivith P/vgrLSsiicncss

kingship. P^or without entering into any critical question
as to the credibility of the claim, it is undoubted and
certain that the Jesus of the Evangelists dia claim to be
Israel's promised King ; that He 'tcas opposed by a
persecuting world, and rejected alike by the heathen and
Jewish rulers ; that His hands and feet 7tv7r pierced, and
His garments divided among His enemies ; that He 7vas
"bruised," and ''put to grief;" that the Shepherd was
smitten, and His sheep scattered ; and that He did
claim to come forth as conqueror of Death, and after-
wards to be exalted to the throne of Zion. And on that
throne we Christians believe Him to be still resting —
according to another prophecy : " Sit thou on My
right hand, till I make Thine enemies Thy footstool "
(Ps. ex. i).

I regret that I have only time to take up these two
points, viz., the Prophetic and Kingly ofiices of this
long looked for Redeemer, as illustrations of my argu-
ment. They do but form parts of a mighty subject
which would rather require a volume to unfold than
a lecture. Yet they are enough to indicate what remains
behind. They show how one continuous stream of ever
developing but united thought went sweeping on through
.successive generations in the shape of predicted hopes ;
and how accurately those hopes harmonised at last with
the doctrinal and historical teaching of the New Testa-
ment in reference to Him who claimed to have appeared
as the promised Redeemer.

Now mark, gentlemen, I am not asking you to believe
that He was your Redeemer because the Evangelists say
so ; nor yet because they tell you that He proved His

of Tho2ight in the Books of i/ie Bible.

^37

commission by miracles ; nor because we assert the
Gospels to have been really written by the men whose
names they bear ; nor because the Church of Christ has
handed them down to us with an authority which demands
our faith. You may smile as much as you please at all
these points of Christian evidence. You may stamp
upon them, and tread them under foot as you like. But
this you cannot deny : that for a thousand years or
more the Hebrew race, as exhibited in the various
writings of the Old Testament, held to one great hope —
ever the same, yet ever expanding — which hope became
accurately re-exhibited in the writings of the New Testa-
ment as having been actually fulfilled.

The wonderful extent to which that fulfilment goes
might occupy us all night, especially if I applied it to the
typical ceremonial of the law of Moses, and to the way
in which the recorded life, death, and resurrection of
Christ satisfied the moral purport of that law, and
explained its final abrogation. Could we employ one
hour expressly for that subject, I might show you how
the Christian doctrine of redemption interprets all the
sacerdotalism of the Mosaic institutions, and explains
their hidden meaning with a beauty and perspicuity
which are marvellous. Whether that doctrine be true or
false is not now under debate. All I contend for is
that, taking it as it is written, it fits like a golden key
into the ceremonial ordinances of the Old Testament,
and harmonises with that faith and hope which had been
gradually developing among a people who had been in
professed covenant with God for at least 2,000 years or
more previously.

23S The Conibinatioii of Unify with Progrcssivmcss

II. Let us now Inquire whether axythixg sqhlar
ro this can be found in connection with other
Religions of the World.

(i.) Take ancient Egypt for example. It is true
there existed in that country a pantheon or assemblage
of gods and goddesses, which lasted for 3,000 years.
So far, we allow, there was a certain well sustained unity
of tliought in its religion. But there was no progressive-
ness of thought in it. There was not the vaguest
semblance of any historical or prophetic belief in a
coming Person who should embody in Himself the hope
and happiness of all nations, and who should ultimately
bring back the world into an universal empire of peace,
love, and righteousness. Thoughts and hopes like those
had never entered into the religion of any other country
upon the face of the globe, except Palestine ; still less
were they ingrained into a sacred literature, which
(always consistent with the expression of such thoughts
and hopes) went on century after century in portraying
them with increasing minuteness, and with growing
fulness. If you tell us that among the philosophers of
ancient Greece and Rome there was, notwithstanding,
great progressiveness of thought, we reply — Yes, because
all philosophy implies a seeking after truth ; and where
truth is honestly searched after, there cannot but be
more or less of mental progress. But, on the other
hand, those philosophers exhibited little or no unity in
the midst of their progressiveness. Some of them be-
lieved in the mythological deities of their country, and
some did not. Some began their search after truth by
the study of external nature; others by denying the

of Thought in the Books of the Bible, 23^

reality of matter. Some held that God and the universe
were one ; others that God and the universe were
eternally distinct. Some beHeved that the Divinity took
no interest in the affairs of men ; others just the opposite.
It would be endless to narrate the utter incoherences
which separated even the best of these philosophers
from one another, through the different centuries during
which they flourished. Scarcely any truth of importance
was settled and fixed. And as for writings which were
homogeneous in the texture of their thought, or progres-
sive in their descriptions of even ojie religious belief
respecting the future, you might search on for ever with-
out discovering them. No one pretends to do so. All
those religions or philosophical productions were just
what you might have expected them to be as the mere
offspring of natural enlightenment. Many of them were
acute, subtle, refined, and even noble. But they were
continually discordant and hostile to each other ; bear-
ing marks upon their very forefront that they were the
outcome of independent minds and judgments, without
any supernatural inspiration to weld them together into
one common web.

(2.) What shall we say of China, whose authentic
annals far exceed in duration those of ancient Greece or
Rome — stretching back from the present moment to
about the seventh century before Christ ? In some
respects the religion of this great empire is more like
that of ancient Egypt than of Greece or Rome, and is
analogous even to that of the Hebrews. For it possesses
a sacred literature j it has inherited holy books. The
first of these books, the Yih-kingy is a mysterious treatise

"40 The Combination of Unity luith Prop-essivcncss

upon the nature of the universe, and tlie action of the
elements in creation. The second, called the Shu-kin^^^
is more historic. The third, called the S/ie-king, is
chiefly lyrical, and for the most part moral and ethical.
Another is the Z/'-Xv, or book of rites and manners, pro-
scribing rules for society. Confucius, the second founder
of the Cliinese state religion, revived the teaching of
these old books, and established them on a firmer basis,
upon which basis they still rest. One thing is certain,
however, in the midst of all this unity of purpose — viz.,
that, from first to last, it was simply utilitarian and
materialistic ; rejecting everything which could not be
comprehended by the natural understanding. It was
pre-eminently an appeal to reason, subordinated to the
uants and welfare of society — a system in which the
emperor was the fountain-head of order, and the parental
relationship its living soul.

You will see, then, that while the sacred literature of
China possessed a certain amount of social and ethical
unity within itself, yet it was essentially fixed and
stationary. It admitted of no new development, and never
looked out beyond th j world of sense and sight. It lacked
the intellectual progressiveness of Grecian thought, be-
cause it tied men down to the rigid rules of sacred books
which were, after all, more political than religious, and
which were so compretely utilitarian as to choke all
imagination and speculation. There was nothing, there-
fore, analogous in this country to the Hebrew literature,
whose sacred books were not only much more numerous,
but, while social, political, and ethical, like the Chinese,
^vere also full of enthusiastic hopes prophetical of the
time to come.

of Thought ill the Books of the Bible.

24:

(3.) Let us turn now to Buddhism. If this is not
the oldest it is, at any rate, the widest-spread religion of
the world ; not perhaps geographically, but numerically
without a doubt. It boasts of three hundred millions of
disciples.

It too can boast of its sacred books, such as the Siitras,
the Vinaya, and Abhidharma. But, like the Chinese
books, they are without any elements of a future hope
for this world ; still less of a hope which was continually
getting more and more definite with increasing years.
There is but one idea of supreme happiness in the creed
of Buddhism — Nirvana ; i.e., deliverance from existence
into a state of impenetrable apathy, or absolute annihila-
tion. With the deepest convictions of present wretched-
ness in the world, the only ultimate hope which it sets
before man is extrication from the bonds of individuality.
True, there is much that is noble, mild, and lofty in its
attention to the charities and duties of life ; in its
cultivation of meekness, forgiveness of injuries, and
resignation under suffering. But, speaking of it as
containing a creed for the future, what parallel is there
between its sacred books with those of Hebrew Scrip-
ture ? The latter, in full view of the same wretchedness
as that which Buddhism contemplated, were always
expanding and developing the portrait of one living
Person who should come to deliver the world from its
suffering — teacher after teacher rising up to add some
fresh touch to the picture, which made its historical
fulfilment all the more complex and difficult. The
former, on the other hand, had no hope to communicate
concerning a living Person who was to come ; nothing

16

242 The Combination of Unity ivith Progress ivcness

that could be brought to the test of an actual historical
proof ; nothing which could be proved or disproved by
identification with the predicted delineations of previous
teachers. Anything of that kind was as much unknown
among tlie Buddhists as it had been among the
Confucians of China, or the old Egyptians, and Greeks
and Romans.

(4.) Was it different with Brahminism m Hindus-
tan ? This religion can boast indeed of its sacred books
— the Vedas, the Puranas, the Shastras. But what unity
of thought is there in them ? There is plenty of pro-
gressiveness we allow, but little unity. In the Vedas
there are many prayers and hymns addressed to the
powers of nature, which exhibit noble thoughts, repre-
senting the Brahmin seeking after nearer approaches to
the Divine Spirit. In the subsequent Puranas, and
other sacred books, however, we pass on to deities and
immoralities which it is shameful even to think of. At
one time worship is given to Brahma ; at another time it
is superseded by Vishnu worship ; then comes the stern
and cruel Siva worship ; and out of all has followed a
pantheon in which deities may be reckoned by the
million. The voice of such a religion is truly a testi-
mony to the inner cravings of mankind after some sort
of revelation from God ; and the contents of all these
books doubtless embody, with more or less of fulness,
the longing of the human heart to have converse with
the unseen world. In the Avatars, or incarnations of
Vishnu, for example — w^ho is represented in the Bhagavat
Gita to say — " As often as there is a decline of virtue,
and an insurrection of vice in the w^orld, I make myself

of Thought in the Books of the Bible. 243

evident ; and thus I appear from age to age for the pre-
servation of the just, the destruction 01 the wicked, and
the establishment of virtue," — we see a faint trace of
something like the Hebrew hope. Yet what comparison
is there between the two, when you examine the literature
of these religions in detail ? In the earliest Vedas you
trace Monotheistic hope and aspirations. In the latter
books you have hope rising up for man through tlic
grossest Polytheism. And if Vishnu be represented in
these books as revealing himself from time to time for
the world's good, yet what continuity of thought com-
bined with progressiveness of portraiture is ever given
by successive Hindoo writers respecting his appearance,
through two thousand years or more before his arrival,
followed also by an historical narrative of that appear-
ance, in broad harmony with such forecast outlines of
his portrait ? None but a madman would attempt even
to look for it. In the Hebrew theology alone do we
find any such phenomenon. Just where all the future of
hope for a world of sin and sorrow is, in other religions,
at the best vague, shadowy, and undefined, in the Bible
it is clear and distinct. Mind, I am not saying at pre-
sent that these its utterances were supernaturally in-
spired. But, at all events, those utterances for centuries
went on expanding with a growing breadth and defini-
tiveness, which cannot be gainsaid ; and they stand out
now amongst the religions of the world as absolutely
separate from anything and everything which ever ex-
isted by their side.

Having said thus much, let us

III. Inquire, whether, taking all circumstances

2 44 "^^^^ Cotnbination of Unity unth Progressivemss

INTO CONSIDERATION, THE CONVICTION IS NOT FORCED
UPON US THAT THIS FACT MUST HAVE INVOLVED A GREAT
DEAL MORE THAN WHAT WAS MERELY NATURAL OR
HUMAN, AND THAT THE ONLY SOLUTION OF THE MATTER
LE T TO US IS A BELIEF IN ITS HAVING BEEN REALLY THE

KESULT OF Divine Revelation.

First. As to the Fact itself, lahich divides itself into
three parts.

(i.) There are thirty-nine books of the Old Testament,
which were certainly all in existence in the time of
Antiochus Epiphanes, nearly two hundred years before
Christ. The most unbelieving critic does not deny this. It
is as much an historical truth as that of the existence of
the British Museum Library in the reign of Queen Victoria.

(2.) Assuming (for the sake of argument) that these
thirty-nine books were not all necessarily written by the
authors to whom they are popularly assigned, it is never
theless perfectly incontrovertible that they represent the
progressive faith and hope of one continuous stream ot
people from the time of Abraham to Christ. Allowing,
for example, that the Pentateuch was only finally
throwTi into its present form during the latest age of the
Hebrew monarchy it is nevertheless confessed, even by
the most remorseless of critics, that the materials of
which it is composed belonged to various antecedent
ages, running back through many ancient documents
and traditions. Some of those accounts maybe rejected
by unbelievers as fabulous ; the belief in a coming
Personal Redeemer, which they nursed within the
Hebrew race, may be laughed at as superstition ; their
miraculous elements may all, for the time being, be

of Thought in the Books of the Bible. 245

obliterated ; yet it is acknowledged that they still embalm
the remains of an actual faith and hope which never
became extinguished in Israel.

(3.) It was the peculiarity of this religious hope of the
Hebrews not ooly to fix itself steadily on the coming of
one living Personal Redeemer, who should through their
race bring in salvation for the entire world, but to be
gradually confirmed and enlarged by a succession of
religious teachers, and by a variety of distinct methods,
which made any guesses at what should happen extremely
hazardous, and any accurate fulfilment more and more
improbable.

This fact, I maintain, constitutes a phenomenon un-
like anything else in the religious history of the world.
The more so when we look minutely into the whole case.
Hence a few words further.

Secondly. As to the Circumstances which attend this
fact.

(i.) The people who so tenaciously clung to this
fixed yet growing hope were subject to the greatest
vicissitudes of fortune. Mind, I am not relying at
present upon any of the miraculous elements of the
Hebrew narrative, but only on that plain outline of
Hebrew history which is so abundantly confirmed by
profane authors, and by monumental remains. I do
not stay to inquire how this people got into the land of
Canaan. Authentic history undoubtedly finds them
there. It finds them there established as a strong
monarchy. It finds them there closely attacked by
foreign enemies, and afterwards carried for a long period
of exile into the heathen emi)ire of Babylon. It finds

24^ The Conihination of Unity 7vith Progrcssiveness

them again restored to their own land, but distressed
and discouraged by new foes. It finds them there aUke
ravaged by the Greeks and Romans, and reduced into
a miserable state of vassalship to the latter power.
Nevertheless, throughout all these political changes we
see the same great hope abiding in the national heart.
Nor is that hope stationary. Instead of being suppressed
it rises higher, and expands more fully, and becomes
portrayed with more and more of minuteness.

(2.) The writers who developed this hope were men
of various orders — kings, priests, prophets, statesmen
herdsmen. Yet with all these antecedent grounds for
expecting their witness to be different, it was practically
the same. Separated as they were from each other by
education, by position, by modes and habits of thought,
and by variations in national experience, they all had in
view the same living picture of one coming Redeemer ;
and without variation or contradiction they painted Him
in colours of increasing brightness.

(3.) Some of the points brought out in this developed
portraiture were of the most strikingly practical charac-
ter, admitting of the plainest possible refutation, sup-
posing the result should not agree therewith. Moreover,
this picture of the living I\Ian and His times was
confessedly finished off and stereotyped about 200 years
before the time when a new set of writers proclaimed
its fulfilment in the person of Jesus Christ. In the
prolonged unity, therefore, of this wonderful chronicle of
predicted hope, there vvas a wide front of thought open
to the charge of misconception and error if events should
not correspond with the description.

of Thought in the Books of the Bible, 247

(4.) Fully 250 years after the time of Antiochus
Epiphanes, when every one admits the thirty-nine books
of the Old Testament had been written, it is now most
fully conceded, even by infidel writers like Renan and
others, that St. Paul wrote the episdes to the Romans,
Galatians, and Corinthians, containing many historical
allusions to the existence of Jesus of Nazareth. For
argument sake, therefore, I will exclude all that was
miraculous in these epistles, and take up only those
points which belong to simple and actual fact. I will
treat them for the moment, that is to say, as merely
human compositions, and see how far they bear witness
to what you may be pleased to call the surmises of the
Old Testament writers.

Not to be too diffuse, let nic name only three points of
singidarly clear and undoubted harmony between these
epistles and the Old Testament teaching previously
referred to.

(i.) St. Paul here declares it to be the belief of the
Church, that although Christ was of the seed of David,
the long promised King of the Old Testament prophets
(Rom. i. 2, 3), yet that He had been despised and
rejected by His own nation (i Cor. ii. 8, and i. 23).

(2.) He shows that Christ was not only acknowledged
by believers in His Prophetic office {i.e. as a great
spiritual teacher), but that the result of His teaching had
introduced them into a new covenant, under which
certain old Jewish ordinances {e.g. Circumcision and
the Passover) had disappeared as obligatory (Gal. v. 2, 6 ;
vi. 12, 15 ; I Cor. V. 7, 8), and the law of Moses had
been set aside for a new Gospel dispensation where

^48 7//t' Combination of Unity ivith Frogressiveness

Gentiles stood as welcome as Jews (Rom. ix. 24-30 ;
X. 12, 13 ; XV. 16).

(3.) He teaches that this changed dispensation was
in the course of actually breaking up the whole Jewish
nationality (Rom. xi. 7-10), and of thus bringing upon
it all the woes predicted by the prophets — circumstances
which, I need not say, were fulfilled in the destruction
of Jerusalem by Titus, and in the '^ scattering and
peeling" of the people through the whole world.

Here then were, at least, three undeniable facts,
entirely removed from the region of myth or miracle, —
three actual and historical circumstances which were as
plainly authentic as any that were ever recorded by the
pen of a contemporary writer. And these three facts,
moreover, were in absolute harmony with certain Old
Testament statements made from 200 to 2,000 years
before they happened.

I have mentioned only these three, because time alone
allows of it; otherwise I might have adduced more.
But taking these three as sufficient for my purpose, I
now ask you to rise up and account for this unity com-
bined with progressiveness of thought, running on through
2,000 years and more, and all winding up harmoniously
in the historical Christ just as it had been portrayed,
on any other principle than that of Divine Revelation.

You have already seen that there was nothing like it
in any other religion of the world. What, then, accounts
for this unique phenomenon in the religion of the
Hebrews ? How is it that in the sacred books of the
Old Testament — separated, at least, by 200 years from
the first authentic books of the New Testament — there

of Thought in the Books of the Bible. 249

is one golden thread of thought which runs on through
both ; one great hope predicted, and then fulfilled ; one
distinct web of events prophetically announced, and
afterwards as plainly woven together into actual history ?
I ask you, gentlemen, to account for this by any natural
law of human probabiUties.

Consider, first, that in the ordinary phases and
changes of human thought (subject as they are to all
sorts of disturbing elements from rival schools of teachers,
and from different idiosyncracies of mind) this unity
and continuity of hope in one coming Redeemer,
throughout many centuries, would be naturally most
improbable. Assuming there was no external revelation,
and that nothing gave rise to such a style of writing
except the inspiration of human genius, and the sur-
misings of men's imagination, — I ask you to account for
this uniformity of witness to one thought, and for the
gradual development of this one prophetic portrait
through successive centuries, without any mutual con-
tradiction or incoherence. As I have remarked before,
these writers were men of various orders, and of different
dates ; and belonged to a nation whose political and
religious life was subject to many convulsions. Ever}^-
thing, therefore, was calculated to disturb their unity of
sentiment. Yet nothing broke it. If you can produce
one single case even approaching to such a phenomenon
in any other religion, we will say no more ; but as we
knov/ you cannot, we maintain it to be a marvel of mental
unanimity which, in itself, so reaches the miraculous as
to be only capable of explanation upon the supposition
of its having resulted from the gift of Divine Revelation.

2:^0 The Combination of Unity icith r7vgr€ssivcncss

This, at least, is our explanation. We ask you to find a
better.

Tlie case, nevertheless, becomes stronger — very much
stronger — when you consider —

Secondly. That there was not merely a correspondence
of sentiment in relation to this Promised Hope of Israel
between the books of the Old Testament and the first
authentic books of the New Testament, notwithstanding
an agitated interval of two or three hundred years ; but
that there was also a perfect agreement between t/ie pre-
diction of actual events relating to Him in the one, and the
fulfilment of such ri'cnts in the other.

You will remember that, to meet your own objections,
I have eliminated all the miraculous elements of Scrip-
ture ; and that I have placed no weight in my argument
upon the necessary authenticity of the Old Testament
records. I have taken them, for the moment, as mere
human compositions, which, somehow or other, no
matter by whom, were confessedly written at different
periods of Hebrew history, and were gathered at all
events into one sacred canon by the time of Antiochus
Epiphanes, or nearly 200 years before the birth of Jesus
Christ. Even on this naked basis, how^ever, you have
seen that the Old Testament records pledged their
veracity to the fulfilment of three coming events — viz.,
(i) That the Redeemer when He appeared would be
opposed and persecuted, and rejected and slain by His
own people. (2) That the result of His ministerial
teaching v/ould be to introduce a new covenant, by
which the law of Moses would be set aside for a new
dispensation, granting equal privilege to the Gentiles as

of TJiought in the Books of the Bible. 251

to the Jews. And (3) that this changed dispensation
would have the effect of breaking up the Jewish nation-
ahty. You have also seen, on the authority of four New
Testament books, whose authenticity is now universally
admitted, \vritten about 250 years after the time of
Antiochus Epiphanes, that those events were in the
course of an actual historical fulfilment. Now those
events were not miraculous. You cannot treat them as
myths. They are ordinary historical events which still
remain uncontradicted and indisputable. We therefore
call upon you to give us some reasonable explanation,
upon natural grounds and on human laws of probability,
for this wonderful harmony between the events as pre-
dicted and the events as fulfilled.

To do this you will be driven to one or other of the
three following alternatives: either (i) to prove that
these sayings of the Old Testament have no proper
application to the coming of a Redeemer ; or (2) that, if
they had, they were only the surmisings of genius — the
forecasts of penetrating minds as to future probabilities,
which were strangely and unexpectedly brought about by
a series of lucky coincidences ; or (3) that being mere
guesses and speculations, subsequent events were S3
moulded by Christ and His apostles as purposely to
bring about the fulfilment of them.

If you take \X\t first of these alternatives, then I con-
front you with a literary difficulty. For it runs clean
contrary to the whole current of the most ancient Jewish
mterpretation. Take the 53rd chapter of Isaiah, for
example, the Messianic interpretation of which was only
abandoned by later Rabbis, such as Abenezra, Jarchi,

2 5-" T/ic Covihi nation of Unity icith Progt'essivcness

and Abarbancl. Gcscniiis says : " It was only the later
Jews who abandoned this interpretation ; no doubt in
consequence of their controversies with the Christians."
This is the interpretation, for instance, in the Chaldee
Paraphrast. And. even some of the later Rabbis assent
to it. Thus Rtil>l>i Alschcch, in his commentary on that
chapter says : " Upon the testimony of tradition, our
old Rabbis have unanimously admitted that king Messiah
is here the subject of discussion." In a similar manner
yonathan Ben Uzziel, the author of the Chaldee Tar-
giun, who lived a little before the time of Christ, says, in
allusion to Daniel, when speaking on the prophet
Habakkuk, that " the four great kingdoms of the earth
should be destroyed in turns, and be succeeded by the
kingdom of Messiah." It would be endless to adduce
proof upon this point, and needless too ; for however
much our modern rationalists may argue to the contrary,
it is simply a matter of fact that all the opinions of the
ancient Jewish Church are against them.'^

If you adopt the second alternative, maintaining that
these predictions of the coming Messiah were merely the
surmisings of natural genius, which were strangely and
unexpectedly brought about by a series of lucky circum-
stances ; then I challenge you to prove that there was
anything in the state of the Jewish mind, even for a
thousand years before Christ, that naturally led to such a
development of thought. On the contrary, was not
everything directed against it ? Did it flatter any national
hopes ? Was it in keeping with any feeling of patriot-

* See Dr. AUix, "On the Judgment of the Ancient Jewish
Church."

of Thought in the Books of the Bible. 253

ism ? Was there any one element in the Mosaic theology
which led up to it ? Were not all the hopes which clus-
tered around this expected King of Israel naturally of a
joyous and triumphant nature? What teacher of a people
having such hopes could have ever instinctively had the
slightest antecedent ground for prognosticating that the
arrival of their King would issue in the downfall of their
nation ? Or that when He appeared, it would be to
overthrow their temple, and abrogate their laws, and in-
troduce a totally new dispensation ? Or that the coming
of such a King would be signalised by his rejection and
death ? Such predictions were no outcome of human
genius — no forecasts of probabilities founded upon astute
observation. We look in vain for any natural germ of
such thoughts. At all events, if there were any, we ask
you to, produce them, and we challenge you to bring
them forward.

If you adopt the third alternative, viz., that these
thoughts were mere rough guesses, first originated as
speculations, then elaborated artificially, and afterwards
moulded into realities by the determined conduct of
Christ and His apostles, who purposely brought them
about in order to make their fulfilment agreeable with
the prediction — then we bid you explain how it was
done. That line of reasoning might, perhaps, be applied
to some points of the evangelistic narratives, such as our
Lord's entrance into Jerusalem on " a colt, the foal of an
ass " (see Zech. ix. 9), or to the commencement of His
ministry in Galilee (see Is. ix. i) — circumstances which
were perfectly within His own control, and which, there-
fore, might possibly be alleged as having been effected

2 54 The Co}!ih'uiatioii of Unity is.i'itJi Prcgrcssivciicss

to secure the fulfilment of Jewish ])roi>hecy. But these
instances of which we speak were very different. They
were perfectly beyond the control of any individual will
of man. You will tell me, perhaps, that any one might
have risen up as a teacher in Israel, and by setting forth
claims which were opposed to the prejudices of the Jewish
rulers, have brought about his own death. Doubtless.
But will you have the kindness to inform me how a man
by those means could have forced on, after his death, a
series of gigantic events so as to produce a disruption of
Jewish nationality, just because such a catastrophe had
been flincifuUy sketched out some hundred years before
as a consequence of the coming of the King whose
claims that teacher had ambitiously assumed ? You will
reply, perhaps, that the time was well selected, inasmuch
as Palestine, already in captivity, was already giving
preliminary signs of an expiring nationality ; and that,
therefore, its fmal conquest by the Romans was suffi-
ciently probable to justify its speedy expectation. But
even this subtle argument fails you. For the voice ot
that continuous and progressive teaching throughout the
Old Testament, of which I have been speaking — though
in one point of its development it foretold the breaking
up of Jev^'ish nationality as a consequence of the rejection
of its promised King — yet did not let that fact stand
alone. It predicted the going forth of a new law from
Jerusalem, by which all nations ^vere to be gathered into
it, as into a spiritual metropolis for the world. The
King, whose rejection was to bring ruin on that city
literally, was also to be a Teacher or Prophet whose
doctrine and influences after death should spiritually

of Thought in the Books of the Bible. 255

restore it for ever, by making it a common centre round
which the affections of the converted heathen were to be
gathered, and into which their forces should flow. The
testimony of past centuries, we repeat, was not merely to
the breaking up of the old Jewish nationaUty, but to the
coincident uprising of an universal though spiritual
empire, in which the long promised King and Prophet
of the Jews should administer His kingdom under new
laws and statutes, fitted to the moral and spiritual wants
of humanity at large. Now such a kingdom we actually
behold in the Christian Church ; not as a matter of
speculation, but as a hard, dry fact. You may ridicule
our faith as superstition, you may deny the personal
resurrection of Jesus as a delusive sham ; but you cannot
deny that through the teaching of apostles and evan-
gelists there came forth a risen power from Christ which
lived after He had disappeared, and which, coincidently
with the dissolution of the Jewish nationality, peacefully
opened a new kingdom of faith to all nations. I say
peacefully opened it ; because however much you may
retort that it was debased by violence in later times, yet
it should be ever remembered that the kingdom of Christ
was not set up like Mahomet's, by the power of the
sword, but simply by that of argument, of faith, of
patience, and of love. Its victories through the first few
centuries were purely moral and spiritual. Nevertheless,
it triumphantly ran throughout many nations, and so
fulfilled the predictions of the ancient prophets, is in
the union then of these two facts which are both strictly
historical, and each of which survives (be it observed) up
to this very day j it is the union of these two facts, each

256 2'hc Combination of Unity with Progress n'cness

so difficult of achievement yet so widely spread, so
established and permanent, that we see how utterly
impossible it must have been for any one will to have
personally planned and carried them into execution. If
any of you think this complicated moulding of public
events according to a preconceived programme possible,
let him try the experiment. Let Mr. Bradlaugn, for
example, so set himself against the rulers of this country
that he is obliged to lay down his life as the penalty.
Let him and his principles then rise up, as it were, from
the dead, and so reassert themselves through the pages
of the National Reformer, as to bring on a total collapse
of the British empire by means of foreign invasion and
conquest. Let his followers then manage simply by
moral and intellectual means, without the slightest vio-
lence or turbulence, to get rid of Christianity in Europe,
so that its churches perish and all its institutions fall.
When you have done this, gentlemen, as the simple result
of your own will and pleasure, we will give you a right to
the argument now propounded. But meanwhile, whether
you like to hear it or not, we maintain that Christianity
is a supernatural continuation of the Old Testament
church of the Hebrews — the predicted evolution of its
prophecies — the only key which unlocks with reasonable
ness the full meaning of its sacred books ; a continuation
up to the present moment of the same line of thought
which had been in one long course of progressive develop-
ment from the beginning. I remind you once more that
this continuation of Church life is not an arbitrary as-
sumption ; it is a fact. Apart from religion altogether,
it takes the shape of an historical and literary truth which

ef Thought in the Books of the Bible. 257

can neither be gainsaid nor got rid of. All other religions
are ideal and speculative. The Hebrew faith is historical.
Its sacred books are a deposit of national literature,
bristling with every form and variety of style, and ex-
tending over a vast period; yet never deviating from
one witness in religious hope and thought. You have,
therefore, to account for this fact. As for ourselves, we
contend that the phenomena here presented to us were
above all human causation j that there is not only no-
thing like them in the history of any other religion in the
world, but that no other theory except that of super-
natural revelation is left to us, if we fairly wish to account
for them. Upon that theory everything is clear. There
is then an intelligible connection between cause and
effect ; but without it, we search in vain for a solution.
If you think you can give us abetter solution, gentle-
men, try your hands upon it now; and I promise we
will listen to you patiently.

THE AUTOBIOGRAPHY OF JOHN STUART
MILL.

W. R. BROWNE, M.A.,

Fellow of Trinity College, CatJtbridgg.

'Wxt JlxttaMorfi'itphg of John

I MUST begin this lecture upon the Autobiography of
John Stuart Mill by observing that I have already
published a review of that work in the first number of
the Christia7i Evidence Journal. In this review are
contained the chief conclusions and reflections to which
the study of the book had then led me. I have, however,
followed a somewhat different path in this investigation,
and it is therefore only a few phrases and arguments
contained in the review which I have found occasion to
reproduce ; but I allude to the fact lest there should be
anyone here present who has read the review, and
might be surprised to hear some parts of it repeated
without explanation.

The very first point I wish to note is one which has
already been alluded to in the review, and that is the
exceeding value of the book before me. No thoughtial
man should, in my opinion, neglect to read it, whether
he agree or disagree with the opinions of its author. We
live so much to ourselves, each in his own litde world of

262 T/ic Autobiography of yohii Stuart Mill.

thought and feeHng and cxi)erience, that we should
ihvays seize the opportunity to look into another man's
mind and sec how the problems of life appeared to him,
and what means he took to solve them. Now there is
no such opportunity to be compared with that of reading
an autobiography, if only the writer sets forth faithfully
the history of his convictions, of the causes which led to
them, and the effects on life and character which they
produced. This holds true even if the writer is an ordi-
nary man like ourselves, with no special talents or high
qualities. But the value is of course far greater where
the writer is no ordinary man, but a leader of his age,
either in thought or in action, and perhaps in the former
case more than in the latter. Now this John Stuart
!Mill undoubtedly was. Whatever may be the estimate
of his powers into which the world will finally settle
down, he, more than any one man, moulded and in-
fluenced on all abstract questions the thought of the age
in which he lived. And here we have the record of this
man's own thoughts — the picture of his inner life — traced
out, as all must admit, with simplicity and frankness and
truth. I think no one reading the book can doubt that
what he there describes himself to have thought and felt
that he really did feel and think; and although there was
probably much in his life which he does not teii us, ye',
that what he does say may be fully relied on. Therefore,
as 1 said before, this book is one which all thoughtful
men should read ; one from which many lessons may be
learnt, and on many subjects. But my business to-night
is not with the book as a whole, nor with all the pursuits
• — political and social and literary — in which its author

The Autobiography of yohn Stuart Mill. 263

was immersed. I am going to look at the life of John
Stuart Mill from one point of view only, and that is the
point of view of religion. The one question which we
have to discuss in this hall — to my mind the one ques-
tion which the world has to discuss — is the question
whether Christianity be true or false. I am going to
examine this man's life in order to see how it bears upon
that one question ; what evidence it furnishes, what
lessons we may draw from it that may help us to that
question's solution.

I need hardly stop to explain why the life of this par-
ticular man is specially suited to furnish such evidence.
The reason is not far to seek. John Stuart Mill was one
of the keenest, the clearest, the most influential thinkers
of his day. He was also a man much beloved by his
friends — (Heaven forbid that I should stint a word that
can be uttered in praise of the dead) — devoted to the
welfare of his fellow men, regular and temperate in his
life, honest, upright, sincere ; and he was an utter un-
believer in any form of religion whatsoever. This fact,
which was tolerably well known in his lifetime, is made
perfectly clear and certain by the volume before us. He
was all that I have described, morally and intellectually,
either in consequence of or in spite of his rejection of all
which Christians hold true and sacred. Which of these
IS the case ? There can be no denying that at first sight
his life makes against the party of religion. I know
that it has been felt to be so by many ; I have felt it to
some extent myself Can that be true which a thinker
so careful and so brilliant — the greatest master, in this
age at least, of the science of logic and the laws of evi-

264 "^^^^ Auiobio^7'aphy of yoJin Stuart Mill.

dcnce — pronounced unhesitatingly to be false ? This is
the (question which men have asked themselves in looking
at the fact of John Mill's unbelief before light was
thrown upon the subject by the appearance of this
volume. I ask that « question again to-night, and in the
light so afforded I will try to answer it.

With this object I turn to the book itself, in order to
learn (i) what John Mill's religious opinions really were;
(2) what were the causes which produced them, and the
grounds on which they rested. And here I am met by a
very striking fact. The subject of religious opinion is
the only subject which does not run through the book.
There is one passage near the beginning where, in giving
a general account of his education, he states at length
and distinctly what were the religious views held by his
father and impressed from earliest childhood on himself;
and from that time forward we hear no more on the
topic, except in a few casual allusions, referring more to
others than to himself. Considering how minutely he
describes the change and development of his views upon
politics, social science, and mental philosophy, this
silence is certainly remarkable. It must mean one of
two things — either that his religious views underwent no
change throughout his life, or that the changes were such
as for some reason he thought proper to conceal. The
latter supposition — that he did alter his opinions but
would not say so — is opposed to all we know of him
otherwise, and to what we may glean from the book
itself. We must therefore fall back on the first supposi-
tion— that his religious views remained throughout
exactly what they were in his boyhood. And on looking

The Autobiography of yohn Stuart Mill. 265

again at the book, I think we may see very clearly why
this was so, and at the same time of how little weight
his authority is on this matter. I must here quote the
one important passage which I have already mentioned.
Having described the extraordinary course of mental
training to which he was subjected, he goes on to speak
of moral influences, and introduces the subject of re-
ligion thus : —

(P. 38.) "I was brought up from the first without any
religious belief, in the ordinary acceptation of the term.
My father, educated in the creed of Scotch Presbyte-
rianism, had by his own studies and reflections been
early led to reject not only the belief in Revelation, but
also the foundations of what is commonly called Natural

Religion Finding no halting place in Deism, he

remained in a state of perplexity until, doubtless after
many struggles, he yielded to the conviction that co7i-
cerning the origui of things 7iothing whatever ca7i be knowji.
This is the only correct statement of his opinion : for
dogmatic Atheism he looked upon as absurd ; as most
of those whom the world has considered Atheists have
always done. These particulars are important, because
they show that my father's rejection of all that is called
religious belief was not, as many might suppose, primarily
a matter of logic and evidence : the grounds of it were
moral still more than intellectual. He found it impossible
to believe that a world so full of evil was the work of an
Author combining infinite power with perfect wisdom
and righteousness. . . . His aversion to religion, in the
sense usually attached to the term, was of the same kind
with that of Lucretius : he regarded it with the feelings

266 The Autobiography of John Stuart Mill.

due not to a mere mental delusion, but to a great moral
evil. He looked upon it as the greatest enemy of morality:
lirst by setting up fictitious excellences — belief in creeds,
devotional feelings, and ceremonies, not connected with
the good of human kind — and causing them to be
accepted as substitutes for genuine virtues : but above
all by radically vitiating the standard of morals : making
it consist in doing the will of a being, on whom it
lavishes all the phrases of adulation, but whom in sober
truth it depicts as eminently hateful. I have a hundred
times heard him say that all ages and nations have repre-
sented their gods as wicked, in a constantly increasing
progression ; that mankind have gone on adding trait
after trait till they reached the most perfect conception of
wickedness which the human mind can devise, and have
called this God and prostrated themselves before it.
This ne plus ultra of wickedness he considered to be
embodied in what is commonly presented to mankind as
the creed of Christianity. Think (he used to say) of a
being who would make a Hell — who would create the
human race with the infallible foreknowledge, and there-
fore with the intention, that the great majority of them
were to be consigned to horrible and everlasting torment."

Such then were the opinions of the father. Were they
imparted to and acquiesced in by the son? On this
head we are not left in doubt. A little further on we
read : —

" It would have been wholly inconsistent with my
father's ideas of duty to allow me to acquire impressions
contrary to his convictions and feelings respecting
religion : and he impressed upon me from the first, that

The Autobiography of yohn Stuart Mill. 267

the manner in which the world came into existence was
a subject on which nothing was known : that the ques-
tion ' Who made me?' cannot be answered, because we
have no experience or authentic information from which to
answer it : and that any answer only throws the difficulty
a step further back, since the question immediately pre-
sents itself, ' Who made God ? ' He at the same time
took care that I should be acquainted with what had
been thought by mankind on these impenetrable pro-
blems."

It is thus certain that no pains were spared to impress
upon John Mill the religious opinions of his father.
That he retained those opinions through life there can
be, as I have already said, as little doubt. Not merely
does he here quote them with manifest approval, but the
few scattered notices further on in the book are all in
the same tone. Thus in the course of an eulogy on the
character of unbelievers (p. 46) he speaks of them as men
*'who think the proof incomplete that the universe is the
wxuk of design, and assuredly disbelieve that it can have
an Author and Governor who is absolute in power, as Avell
as perfect in goodness." This then may be taken as the
creed, or rather the no-creed of James Mill and his son.
Looking into it we are at once struck by this fact; that
the grounds of unbelief in this case have nothing what-
ever to do with what are commonly called the Evidences of
Religion natural or revealed; nothing whatever to do
with the claims of Christianity as compared with those of
other forms of belief. What we are dealing with is
simply a sweeping rejection of everything that we call
supernatural, a rejection made on a prior/ grounds, which

2 68 The Autobiography of John Stuart Mill.

are quite independent of the positive evidence, however
strong, that may be offered on its behalf. All such
evidence is in fact shut out of court and barred by the
position that the world being evil, cannot have an Author
absolute in jiower and goodness. The strength of that
position I shall consider presently. What 1 now wish to
point out is the effect that it exercises on the minds of
its supporters. It is my full belief that John Mill never
fairly studied the Evidences of Christianity at all. I ex-
pect to be told that this is inconceivable : that a man of
his powerful intellect and grasp of mind could not but
have made a thorough investigation of so weighty a
matter. It is well therefore that I should state clearly
my reasons for making such an assertion ; and they are
these.

(i.) He never in any part of the book gives any hint
of his having made such an investigation. Considering
the full information given us as to all he did and thought,
this omission is very significant : at any rate it throws on
my opponents the burden of proving that such an investi-
gation was made. There is one passage of the Auto-
biography where we should certainly have expected some
notice of the kind : and that is the description in ch. v.
of the mental crisis through which he went in early man-
hood. In the full tide of youthful zeal and ambition to
be a reformer of the world he suddenly asked himself
whether, if all the objects for which he was working
could be completely realised at the instant, this would be
a great joy and happiness to him : and an irrepressible
self-consciousness answered " No." On this he fell into a
state of utter and hopeless dejection, which lasted for

The Autobiography of yohn Stuart Mill. 269

some months. It is in such circumstances that many
men have recourse to religion, and we might have ex-
pected that John Mill would at least have made an effort
to do so : but though the whole crisis is minutely
detailed, there is no hint of his even entertaining the idea.
He at last found a refuge from his state of despair in the
enjoyment derived from the contemplation of nature,
from books, conversation, and in general the cheap and
quiet resources of life ; and it may fairly be questioned
whether any man having passed through such a crisis
without the aid of religion is likely ever afterwards to
have recourse to it.

(2.) The early training of John Mill is sufficient in
itself to account for his never giving any thought to the
subject of Christian Evidences. What this training was
we have already seen. The effect produced may be
described in his own words (p. 43) : "I ^m one who
has not thrown off religious belief, but never had it : I
grev/ up in a negative state with regard to it. I looked
upon the modern exactly as I did upon the ancient
religion, as something which in no way concerned me.
It did not seem to me more strange that English people
should believe what I did not than that the men I read
of in Herodotus should have done so." In fact John
Mill's attitude towards Christianity was precisely that of
a learned and thoughtful Christian towards Mahometan-
ism : an exhaustive inquiry into the subject would not
appear necessary in the one case any more than in the
other. The powerful influence of such early training is
allowed on all hands — by none more than by the sceptical
school. The only possible means they can take to ex-

2yo The Autobiography of yoJin Stuart Mill.

\>\\\\\ the fact that the great bulk of mankind, even of the
clever and intellectual, profess a belief in religion — the
only justification of their outcry as to the evils of preju-
dice and priestcraft and superstition — is the fact that men
are as a rule very slow to give up the opinions that
have been impressed on them in childhood and youth.
It may be objected that this applies rather to the stupid
and ignorant ; that the keener and more cultivated minds
find much less difficulty in shaking oft' the trammels in
which they have been bred. But whatever force there
may be in this objection, there is an influence on the
opposite side which much more than counterbalances it
— the influence of that subtle snare, intellectual pride.
It must be confessed that there is no credit to one's
intellect in being a Christian. It is a conviction shared
with the dullest, the humblest, the most ignorant of man-
kind. The founder of our faith openly thanked God
that he " had hid these things from the wise and prudent
and had revealed them unto babes." But it seems
obviously and on the face of it a grand thing to be a
doubter. It shows that we are wiser than our parents
and teachers : clever enough to see the weakness of argu-
ments which they think conclusive ; too clear-sighted to
be blinded by the mists of prescription and authority.
This is to march with the age and rise superior to the
antiquated superstitions of the past. Therefore it is a
matter of common observation that a clever, shallow,
half-instructed man is always more or less of a sceptic in
religion. Of course this character does not apply to
John Mill. But there are evidences enough even in the
book before us of a calm abiding sense of superiority,

The Autobiography of yoh?i Stuart Mill. 2 7 1

not at all the same thing as vanity and conceit, but quite
as great a hindrance to the real grasping of truth. lie
had been taught, and had taught himself to believe, tliat he
stood by training and instruction on a higher level than
the mass of mankind ; on their narrow views and sordid
interests he looked down as from an eminence with pity,
and not without contempt. Was it likely that such men
should have the key to a mystery which defied his
powers to penetrate? Is there wisdom in such as these ?
But I may be reminded that these causes, however far
they may go towards accounting for the scepticism of
John Mill, do not apply to the case of his father. Be it
so. I will show you another cause, more powerful than
any of those I have named, and affecting father and son
alike ; a fatal error on what may seem a mere abstract
metaphysical question, but is really of the most tre-
mendous and vital import. These two men were un-
believers, essentially and directly because they did not
admit the freedom of the will. Once allow that man is
free, and the whole ground on which they stand is cut
away from them. To show this let us state their view of
religion, look it fairly in the face and see what it amounts
to. Religion cannot be true (this is what they say in
effect) because the world is evil. " You tell us that all
things are under the rule of an unseen Being, boundless
in power, perfect in goodness. But, in fact, men find
themselves living under an empire, not of good, but of
evil. They have to struggle against pain and sickness,
and poverty and oppression, and all manner of adversi-
ties. Why should this be ? If God desires his creatures
to be happy, why does he not make them so ? Nor is

2-2 The AutohiograpJiy of Jo Jin Stuart Mill.

this all. As if the misery of this world was not enough
for him, he has prolonged it into eternity. He has
made a hell — has created the human race ^vith the
infallible foreknowledge, and therefore with the intention
that the great majority of them are to be consigned
to horrible and everlasting torment. Is not this the
most perfect conception of wickedness which the human
mind can devise ? Is it not a palpable contradiction to
assert that a Being who would so act can at the same
time be perfectly good ? And if so, must not a system
which involves such an assertion be utterly false ? But
all modern religious systems do involve such an asser-
tion, and therefore all such systems stand self-condemned,
apart from any evidence that may exist for or against
their historical truth."

This, put as briefly and plainly as I can, I believe to
be the position held by James and John Mill. I think
all will acknowledge its strength. It is at any rate clear
and definite. The argument appears to me fauUless ;
the conclusion to be, on one assumption, undeniable.
That assumption, though not expressed, underlies the
whole, and it is utterly false. It is the assumption that
man is not a free agent, that he is in the hands of God
exactly as a machine is in the hands of its maker, only
that he is a machine capable of feeling pleasure and
pain. God being almighty must do all things, and if
man is miserable it must be because God of his own
pleasure makes him so, and for no other reason. That
God being almighty could make man free; that he
could put before him good and evil, and leave him to
choose between them, such choice being the one end for

The Autobiography of John Stuart Alill. 273

which he existed, and for which existence was worth
having ; and that if he chose evil he suffered, not from
God's act, but from his own : these are conceptions
which such a theory as Mill's can never embrace, or
even conceive. We know that it must have been so. I
need hardly remind you that John Mill has done more
than any other man of this century to advance the modern
theory of Necessity, and present it in its most complete
and plausible form. That theory, as set forth in his
"Logic," is quite different from the Fatalist doctrine
which has been largely held both in ancient and modem
times. The Fatalist believes in a great overruling power
that settles man's destiny beforehand, and brings it to
pass without fail ; but it does not fetter man's will, it
only conquers it. If a man is predestined to be drowned
he will be drowned, do what he may ; but he still is free
to struggle, only he will assuredly struggle in vain. Such
a belief, though it may deaden man's energy, does not
relieve his conscience. The modern theory is much
more subtle and much more dangerous. According to
this theory man is simply the connecting link in a chain
of unalterable sequences. He is born with a certain
disposition and tendencies, for which, of course, he is
not responsible ; the outward circumstances with which
he is surrounded act upon this disposition, and inevitably
produce certain special actions on the man's part. These
actions by the like fixed law issue in certain habits, and
so the man's whole life goes on in a fixed mechanical
succession of events, which could be calculated before-
hand by any one knowing the complex forces which act
on it just as accurately as astronomers can calculate the

18

2 74 -^'^''' Autobiography of yoJni Stuart MilL

complex path of a planet. The essence of the theory is
in fact just this : that the reign of law — of fixed invariable
succession — which has been proved to hold in the world
of matter extends also to the world of mind. Now, to
discuss this great question fully would be impossible to-
night. But to the theory I have described there is this
one fatal objection — that it is clean against man's con-
sciousness, or rather I should perhaps say against my
consciousness, since each man can speak only for him-
self. But for myself (and I think that I must speak also
for every one here present) I know that I am free, that I
am not the slave of circumstances, that I may act
according to a motive, but do not obey it any more than
a king obeys the councillor whose advice he follows.
When I move my hand near a flame, the consciousness
of heat is no whit more clear or certain than the con-
sciousness that such movement was my own free act
alone, and not due to any power whatsoever ; and you
are as likely to persuade me to disbelieve the one fact as
the other. Further, what is still more to my purpose to
remark is that this theory is utter destruction to all that
we call morality. It asserts that the life of man is just
as much the product of certain causes as the life of a
plant ; that knowing all the conditions you could describe
it beforehand just as exactly as you could describe the
life of a plant if you knew the nature of the seed and all
the conditions of soil, weather, and so forth under which
it sprang up and grew. Then if so, how can man be
more responsible for his actions than a plant is ? He did
not make his own nature nor the circumstances in which
he lived; how did he in any sense make what that

The Autobiography of John Stuart Mill. 275

nature and those circumstances produced ? How can we
possibly honour this man for his truth and virtue, blame
that man for his baseness and infamy? May we not just
as well honour the rose for its sweetness, or blame the
hemlock for its poison ? This is so plain and obvious
that even the opponents of free will find it very hard to
shut their eyes to it. I appeal on this head to the
witness of John Mill himself The difficulty pressed
hard upon him, and he got rid of it by an evasion as
shallow and as flagrant as was ever used by the votary of
superstition in the attempt to reconcile reason with
faith. After teUing us (p. 168) that he felt as if he was
scientifically proved to be the helpless slave of antecedent
circumstances — as if his character and that of all others
had been formed for us by agencies beyond our own
control, and was wholly out of our own power — he goes
on to say, " I pondered painfully on the subject, till
gradually I saw light through it. ... I saw that though
our character is formed by circumstances, our own
desires can do much to shape those circumstances ; and
that what is really inspiriting and ennobling in the
doctrine of free will is the conviction that we have
real power over the formation of our own character:
that our will, by influencing some of our circumstances,
can modify our future habits or capabilities of willing."
Our desires can do much to shape our circumstances.
But what have we to do with our desires ? Do they not
rise unbidden in our minds, just as the outward circum-
stances rise unbidden around us ? It is true that our
actions, by which alone we can influence circumstances,
do modify our future desires, and produce habits. But

2-6 The Autobiography of John Stuart Mill.

if each action from the first moment of our existence
was the simple result of whatever desires and circum-
stances existed at that moment, liow are we responsible
for such modification ? Unless at some point at least of
the chain of events our own independent will has come
in, that " power over the formation of our own characters"
of which Mr. Mill speaks is not a reality but a phan-
tom. And it is a phantom, because this independent
action is exactly what Mr. JNIill and his school deny.
Therefore his escape from the difficulty is a mere paltry
evasion. Therefore on the doctrine of free will, and of
free will alone, has man any responsibility for his
actions, or such words as right, duty, and morality any
proper meaning whatever.

I hold therefore as a certain truth this great axiom
of the freedom of the will. And now I will show
you how utterly it changes the face of the question
as to the possibility of believing in religion. I have
already sketched out for you the scheme of religion as
it appeared to James Mill and to his son : I will now
sketch it out again, as it appears to me. It is a fact
accepted by all wise and true men, that happiness with-
out virtue is poor and worthless : that virtue without
happiness is noble, but too hard to bear ; lasdy, that hap-
piness with virtue is the one good thing which man
desires, for which he is fitted, for which alone it is worth
while to live, to dare and to suffer all things. But what
do you mean by virtue ? Not merely doing acts which
are useful and beneficial to others ? If so, a machine
could be virtuous. If you think of what you mean by
virtue it is this : to do good when you might do evil ; to

The Autobiography of John Stuart Miil. 277

walk steadfastly in the narrow road when the broad lies
open before you. There is the clue to the mystery
which has so puzzled men in all ages, the mystery of
evil. Choose any virtue you please, and you will see that
but for the presence of evil it could not exist. Where
would be the merit of truthfulness, if it were impossible
to lie ? of courage if there were nothing to fear ?
Where would benevolence be, if all were happy? or
trustfulness, if none were false ? Even love itself, the
crowning grace, the message of the Gospel, is not a virtue
so long as it is a mere natural feeling for those who are
near to us, and contribute to our happiness : it becomes
such only when it extends to the unknown and the out-
cast, and to our enemies themselves. Evil is necessary
to the growth, nay to the very existence of virtue ; to
overcome evil with good is the grandest thing, is the one
only grand thing, which the mind of man can conceive.
And doubtless, grand though it be to us, it is far grander
in the sight of God. God who made the world and all
things therein would have the reasonable service of free
men, rather than the blind obedience of slaves. There-
fore he has created a world of mingled good and evil,
pleasure and pain ; therefore he has placed man in that
world, having given him from the treasure of his own
omnipotence the supreme gift of will ; and setting before
him good and evil, blessing and cursing, he leaves him
to choose between them. As his choice is so is he
virtuous or vicious, happy or miserable. Here comes in
the explanation of moral evil, as distinct from physical.
Once admit that man is free to choose, and you must
admit the possibility of his choosing wrong. Once

2'jS The AutohiograpJiy of yohn Stuart Mill.

admit this to be possible, and there can be no cause for
surprise that it has actually happened, or that it has hap-
pened any number of times. And whilst to those who
choose and cleave to the good, there is an end ere long
of trial and discipline, and virtue perfected receives its
exceeding great reward : so those who wilfully give them-
selves to evil, must sooner or later reap the just recom-
pense of their deeds, as even by the working of natural
law, guilt brings in general its own punishment. Sin
when it hath conceived, bringeth forth death.

Hitherto I have spoken in the language of natural
religion only, and the Jew, the Deist, the Mahometan,
may all go with me thus far. But we Christians claim
for this doctrine of the majesty of suffering a witness
such as no other creed knows of, no philosophy has con-
ceived. The God whom we worship has not given us
precepts of virtue merely : he has also " left us an example
that we should follow in his steps." The fiery trial of
adversity was in his eyes a thing so precious that even
his o\vn perfections he deemed imperfect until they had
thus been tried. When man in his weakness chose evil
rather than good, and fell ever deeper and deeper into
the gulf of sin, then God not willing that any should
perish found out a remedy by the sacrifice of himself.
He descended from his secure throne above into the
forefront of the battle, and dying gave to us in one act
pardon for past failure, and strength for victories to come.
Therefore is he not our Lord only, but also our pattern
and our guide ; how often so ever we fall, yet in his
name we may arise ; he was tempted in all our tempta-
tions, and in all our sorrows we are filling up the measure

The Autobiography of John Stuart Mill.

279

of tke sufferings of Christ. What have other religions to
offer in comparison with this ? They may paint the un-
approachable si^lendour of their deity, the immutability
of his repose, and invest him with the poor attributes of
wisdom and strength : but we know Jesus Christ and
him crucified. Ours is a God who went about doing
good ; who had not where to lay his head ; who was
despised and rejected of men ; who made himself in the
form of a serv^ant and became obedient unto death, even
the death of the cross. Yours may be a God of power,
but ours is a God of love : of love than which none is
greater, in that he has laid down his life for our sakes.

Such, as we learn it from nature and from the Bible, is
the mystery of godliness : such are the purposes of God
in the creation and government of this world. And now
I ask you to tell me whether this is a scheme of things
which a philosopher should view with horror and disgust :
which he should regard (I am quoting from the Autobio-
graphy) "with the feelings due not to a mere mental
delusion, but to a great moral evil." Is this a belief
which is likely "radically to vitiate the standard of morals'' ?
Do you recognise in the Being I have tried to describe,
'' the most perfect conception of wickedness which the
human mind can devise " ? If not, was not the abhor-
rence on which Mill dwells so forcibly directed not
against the Deity whom we worship, but against a demon
of his own imagining? But observe (and this brings
me back to the direct line of my argimient), that the
truth and the beauty of such a system as I have tried to
paint, depends entirely on our admitting that man's will is
free. Deny that and the picture changes at once and

2 So The Autobiography of yohn Stuart Mill.

returns to the hideous colours in which Mill has de-
scribed it. The whole argument lies in the nutshell of
this single unassailable truth : it is just and righteous
that man should be rewarded for his good or punished
for his bad actions, provided, and only provided, that he
is free to act.

If then this doctrine of freedom was denied both by
James Mill and his son (of which there is ample proof),
then their rejection of religion followed in strict logical
sequence. In the case of James Mill there is evidence
enough that this denial was influenced by the religious
school in which he had been brought up. He was
educated we are told for the ministry of the Scottish
church, and doubtless therefore in the strict doctrine
of Calvinism. Now without wishing to pronounce
any judgment on that doctrine, there can be no doubt
that if it does not deny free will, at any rate it so ob-
scures and disfigures it as to make it almost invisible.
James Mill therefore had only to accept that doctrine
and push it to its rigorous consequences. Man, accord-
ing to Calvin, is not free to rise ; therefore, Mill would
argue, he is not free to fall. The injustice of what he
had been taught to regard as the only true scheme of
religion would then appear clear to his logical mind ;
and we can imagine how even his good qualities —
courage, philanthropy, love of justice — helped his natural
self-assertion and pugnacity to open revolt. With his
son the work was easier, for the two reasons I have
already given ; first, that the training v»'as begun and
persevered in from earliest childhood ; and secondly,
that the same training, together with the tone of the

The Autobiography of John Stuart Mill. 281

society in which he moved, so inculcated the superior
wisdom of unbeHef, that to a much more humble man it
might have seemed a truth beyond all possibility of ques-
tion. Therefore I claim to have proved that the rejection
of Christianity by these two men, and more especially by
the son, is no evidence at all against its truth except
in so far as it is an evidence against the truth of free will.
But I can do more than this : I can call these very
men to give testimony on my side of the argument. For
whilst rejecting with all possible emphasis the idea of
freedom they yet, by an inconsistency of thought which
they would have been the first to blame in others, re-
tained a belief in morality — in those conceptions of right
and duty which, as I have already shown, are absolutely
meaningless, unless man is free. The doctrine I have
insisted on, namely that the only thing worth living for is
to uphold the right and strive against the wrong, had no
firmer adherent than James Mill. Listen to the account
which his son gives of his convictions on this head (p. 46).
" My father's moral convictions, wholly dissevered from
religion, were very much of the character of those of the
Greek philosophers ; and were delivered with the force
and decision which characterised all that came from him.'^
"His moral inculcations were justice, temperance (to
which he gave a very extended application), veracity,
perseverance, readiness to encounter pain, and espe-
cially labour ; regard for the public good, estimation of
persons according to their merits, and of things accord-
ing to their intrinsic usefulness ; a life of exertion in
contradiction to one of self-indulgent ease and sloth.
These and other moralities he conveyed in brief sentences.

2S2 The Autohio'^raphy of yoJui Siuart Mill.

littered as occasion arose, of grave exhortation, or
stern reprobation and contempt." Reprobation and
contempt ! What can be more irrational than for Mr.
]\Iill to cherish such feelings against persons who are
only acting as he acted, that is in absolute harmony with
the motives imposed on them by nature and circum-
stances ? We should all think it absurd to be angry
with a lunatic, and on tliis theory sane men and
lunatics stand on exactly the same footing so far as
praise and blame are concerned. They each of them
ciQtJust as their nature makes them, act ; the nature of the
one is rational and of the other not ; but rationality and
irrationality are not moral qualities, and have no praise
or blame attaching to them. In short man is a machine :
and it is no more reasonable to blame him for commit-
ting a crime, than to blame a steam engine for causing
an accident. Therefore I say that these moral senti-
ments and inculcations of James Mill are a proof that his
scheme, however complete in theory, broke down in
practice ; that in spite of himself he felt what all do feel
— that human actions, according as they are good or
evil, deserve praise or censure, reward or punishment.
His theory ran altogether counter to those feelings, and
ihe feelings got the better of it. There is a line of
Horace which says forcibly that you may pitchfork
Nature out of the cart, but she will always find her way
back again ; and that I hold to have been the case with
James Mill. But further, his language goes to prove
that true philosophers, whatever may be their speculative
opinions, do unite in that practical conviction which the
strong sense of honest men has in all ages approved ;

The A^iiohiography of yohn Stuart Mill. 283

the conviction that the life to which all men should and
can aspire, the only life worth living, is (to use Mill's own
words) a life of justice, temperance, veracity, perseve
ranee : a life of exertion in contradiction to one of self-
indulgent ease and sloth. like the Christian he p^id
honour to that man, and that man only, who walks the
straight path of duty proof against flattery, fear, or pain ;
and by so doing he bears unconscious witness to the
truth of that great principle which I have been defending.
For what is the true essence of this life of exertion, the
inward principle to which honour is due? Why has
England but lately leapt up to welcom.e those gallant
men who have been fighting her battles in the deadly
air of Africa ? Why has she still more lately been earnest
to offer all that remained to pay of honour to that great
traveller who in a yet nobler spirit gave up everything,
even to life itself, for the welfare of that same distant
land ? Why but because they did this when they might
have done otherwise — because when they might have
shrunk from the danger they pressed on to meet it ; be-
cause they preferred the life of labour and suffering to
that of luxury and ease which lay equally within their
reach ; because, in a word, they made a right and noble
use of God's sovereign gift of will.

My task is well nigh over. I have tried to show you
that no argument against the truth of Christianity can
properly be drawn from the unbelief of James and John
Mill. I have put before you the theory of life and being
as it was held by them, and also the theory which under-
lies the faith of the Christian. I must leave you to
choose between them. Only in choosing there is one

2.S4 The Autobiogtaphy of Jo fin Stuart Mill.

point wliicli I would ask you to weigh well and carefullyj
and that is, how far each theory suits itself to the great
moral facts of our experience, and to those needs and
yearnings and aspirations of which all enlightened souls
are conscious. This moral evidence has no small weight
in a question which concerns exclusively the moral and
not the physical side of man's nature ; and he is a lool
who in making up his beliefs neglects to inquire how
those beliefs square with his inmost needs, and how they
will aid him through the troublesome voyage of life.
Now the philosophy of the Secularists, as represented by
James and John Mill, is utterly powerless as to any moral
influence ; it has no nourishment to strengthen the weak,
no medicine to heal the afflicted. It asserts that con-
cerning the origin and end of things nothing is or can be
known ; whence we come and whither we are going is
alike behind a veil ; of the existence and nature of God
we are w^ioUy ignorant, except that he cannot be, as
Theists hold, infinite both in power and goodness.
Placed as we are in this life we have only to do the best
we can for our own happiness ; and that is to be found
in promoting the happiness of the world at large, in
abjuring pleasure and excitement, and leading a life of
philanthropic exertion. Now this view of life may suit
men who have the cold unimpassioned temperament
characteristic of sceptical philosophers. Thus of James
Mill we read (p. 48) : '■' He had scarcely any belief in
pleasure, at least in his late years. He was not insensible
to pleasures, but he deemed very few of them worth the
price which, at least in the present state of society, must
be paid for them. He never varied in rating intellectual

The Autobiography of yohn Stuart Mill. 285

enjoyments above all others even in value as pleasures,
independently of their ulterior benefits. The pleasures
of the benevolent affections he placed high in the scale.
For passionate emotions of all sorts he professed the
greatest contempt. He regarded them as a form of
madness. The intense was with him a by- word of
scornful disapprobation." Now we can imagine a man
of this character being well contented with a life of self-
denying labour and philanthropy. But a voluptuary may
answer him : " I have no objection to your idea of life,
so long as you carry it out yourself; but unfortunately it
does not suit me. You may have no belief in pleasure,
but I have a great deal. The satisfaction you find in
working for your fellow men, I find in gratifying my
senses ; and so long as I do not interfere with others I
claim the right to follow my own instincts as you do
yours. You may perhaps urge that indulgence in plea-
sure will bring its own punishment ; but I reply that this
is by no means a certain and universal consequence —
that what is certain is the immediate gratification :
lastly, that if enjoyment should one day cease and life
become a burden, there is still an unfailing resource — one
can always die." To such an argument I do not see
how this philosophy can possibly make any answer
whatever. It fails therefore in finding means to enforce
those rules of morality which it professes to uphold. But
if it can offer no defence against vice, still less has it any
supporting force against the pressure of care. A man
may perhaps live well enough on such a creed while the
world smiles on him and all things are prosperous. But
Vet adversity come, as sooner or later it comes to all,

286 TIu Aulobioi^raphy of yo/in Stuart Mill.

and 1 know nothing more dreary, more utterly blank and
hopeless than his view of life must be. For remember
that this creed takes away all that to us Christians makes
life bearable at its worst — the promises of Scripture and
the hope full of immortality, the glory of patience, and
the inseparable love of Christ — it takes away all these and
it gives nothing whatever in their stead. All that it can
tell of or point to is earthly happiness, and now earthly
happiness is gone. I am here drawing no fancied picture.
I ne*ed go no further for my authority than the book
before us. Remember that these two men, James and
John Mill, lived on the whole singularly prosperous and
useful lives ; they reached the highest eminence in the
paths they had chosen, and might boast of having done
much to advance the cause of humanity. Yet of the
father we read as follows (p. 48) : " He thought human
life a poor thing at the best, after the freshness of youth
and of unsatisfied curiosity had gone by. This was a
topic on which he did not often speak, especially it may
be supposed in the presence of young persons ; but when
he did it was with an air of settled and profound convic-
tion. He would sometimes say that if life were made what
it might be by good government and good education
it would be worth having ; but he never spoke with
anything like enthusiasm even of that possibility."
And the son, with his loftier mind and keener sensi-
biHties, found even less refuge in the tenets of his
philosophy against the storms of life. In that moral
crisis of early manhood, of which he has left the record,
we find his mind turning to suicide as its natural re-
source. "I frequently asked myself (p. 140) if I could,

The Autobiography of Jo J in Stuart AT ill. 28 7

or if I was bound to go on living, if life was to be passed
in this manner. I generally answered to myself that I
did not think I could possibly bear it beyond a year."
And in later days how sad and hopeless is his clinging to
the image of her whose mind he had made his standard
of intellect, and whose character he had worshipped with
a devotion that was almost akin to idolatry. "Her
memory is to me a religion, and her approbation the
standard by which — summing up as it does all wor-
thiness— I endeavour to regulate my life." " Because I
know she would have wished it, I endeavour to make
the best of what life I have left, and to work on for her
purposes with such diminished strength as can be derived
from thoughts of her, and communion with her memory."
To me, thinking over this the last utterance of scepticism's
last apostle, there seems to come the voice of another
teacher, speaking in words no less sweet because so
familiar : '' Come unto me, all ye that travail and are
heavy laden, and I will give you rest. Take my yoke
upon you and learn of me, for I am meek and lowly of
heart, and ye shall find rest unto your souls." So to the
weary and oppressed of that distant place and day spoke
the man Jesus of Nazareth ; so across the centuries he
speaks to the heavy-hearted now, and they believe him.