GS 
 
 3 
 A. 
 Aes 
 
 2 
 
 a 
 
 T 
 
 e, 
 
From the Library of 
 Yrafessor Benjamin Breckinridge Warkeld 
 Begueathed by him to 
 
 the Library of 
 
 Princeton Theological Seminary 
 
 an c 
 1095 
 
OF nga RE = me 
 
CHRISTIAN EVIDENCE LECTURES, SERIES V. 
 
 “STRIVINGS FOR THE FAITH. 
 Oat Br fee af 
 
 : . OFF Bx 
 AvCOURSTG@hrBhEC LURES 
 
 DELIVERED IN THE NEW HALL OF SCIENCE, OLD STREET, CITY ROAD, 
 AT THE REQUEST OF THE 
 
 CHRISTIAN EVIDENCE SOCIETY. 
 
 London t 
 HODDER AND STOUGHTON, 27, PATERNOSTER Row. 
 
 CHRISTIAN EVIDENCE SOCIETY, 
 13, BUCKINGHAM STREET, STRAND. 
 
 MDCCCLXXX, 
 
 Sei! (AU rights reserved.) 
 
BOOKS PUBLISHED BY THE 
 CHRISTIAN EVIDENCE SOCIETY, 
 
 OR AT THEIR INSTANCE. 
 
 CHRISTIAN EVIDENCE LECTURES :— 
 
 Series 1. MODERN SCEPTICISM. 
 
 2. FAITH AND FREE THOUGHT. 
 
 3» 3+ CREDENTIALS OF CHRISTIANITY. 
 
 »5 4 PopuLaR OpjEcTIONS TO REVEALED TRUTH. 
 ~, 
 
 33 
 
 . STRIVINGS FOR THE FAITH. 
 
 a 
 
 33 
 
 Tue SUPERNATURAL IN THE New TESTAMENT, PossIBLE, CREDIBLE, AND His- 
 TORICAL. By the Rev. Preb. Row, M.A. 125. 
 
 Tu GosPELs IN THE SECOND Century. An Examination of the critical part fo 
 “Supernatural Religion.” By the Rev. W. Sanpay, D.D. tos. 6d. 
 
 Some Mopgern Reticious Dirricuttigs. Course of six Sermons. 1s. 6d. 
 SomE WITNESSES FOR THE FaitTH. Course of six Sermons. 1s. 6d. 
 THEISM AND CHRISTIANITY. Course of six Sermons. 1s, 6d. 
 
 THE Jews IN RELATION TO THE CHURCH AND THE WorLp. Course of six 
 Lectures. 35. 6d. 
 FrencH LeEcTuURES, delivered at the Paris Exhibition, 1878. 
 
 13, Buckingham Street, Strand, London, W.C. 
 
 Hazell, Watson, and Viney, Printers, London and Aylesbury. 
 
PoE aCe. 
 
 a: od 
 
 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 who 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. 
 
oe? ibe pe ‘298 
 
 reLiet be x4 Pits 
 
 ay ‘ sit: ” ® 
 Ais is a 1 si saale ia at 
 
 aaa i maces ad ya 
 
 i ain ei, 4; SP 
 & a8 ala 
 
 ee ry tio ‘ate vine 
 Haitoe di We i we 
 
 aN Teen r aie 13 bear ies een. | 
 tae abr sighteid ae iv, sa gieieiae ds, 
 sede boateeshyi dd! ot: # ibe. selena)’ 
 
 1) ign bees adiaotan if} 10 abizdinggeoy, ab} 
 3 end diefl. tot set ie. pion : 
 
 ae, ai 
 
 “A 
 
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 Lemple Church, 
 
 .-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 simplicity 
 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. 
 
v1 1 Contents. 
 
 PAGE 
 VIII. Difficulties to be met, supposing the Resurrection not 
 tO;De trie sa. : : ° . . I 
 
 LECTURE II. 
 
 THE VARIATIONS OF THE GOSPELS IN THEIR RELATION: 
 TO THE EVIDENCES AND TRUTH OF CHRISTIANITY. 
 
 BY THE 
 REV: T. R. BIRKS, M.A., Cams., 
 
 Professor of Moral Philosophy in the University of Cambridge, and 
 Honorary Canon of Ely Cathedral. 
 
 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. 
 
 If. 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 surface 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 - . 37 
 
Contents. 
 
 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 Apocry- 
 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 
 
 ApPENDIX.—An outline of the Apocryphal Gospels of 
 Matthew and of Nicodemus ‘ ° } 4 
 
 Vii 
 
 PAGE 
 
Vill Contents. 
 
 LECTURE IV. 
 
 THE EVIDENTIAL VALUE OF THE EARLY EPISTLES OF 
 ST. PAUL VIEWED AS HISTORICAL DOCUMENTS. 
 
 BY THE 
 REV. PETER LORIMER, 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—vzot derived from Greek and Oriental sources ; 
 (4) to the relation between himself and St. Peter and the 
 other Apostles ; (c) to his alleged mythological develop- 
 ment of the teaching of Christ. 
 
 (ii), 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 writes as to facts of which both he and they 
 were witnesses. 
 
 1. ‘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 manifested by the ‘spiritual 
 gifts” of the Church. 
 
Contents. ix 
 
 Concluding remarks : PAGE 
 
 (i.) The Church of Christ was planted before any part of the 
 New Testament was written :—and hence 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 Contents. 
 
 Three suppositions may possibly be made to account for the 
 facts of the case, without allowing the miraculous element : 
 
 J. That St. Paul said what he knew to be false, with an 
 intent to deceive. Difficulties of this supposition : 
 (i.) What motive 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 (2) in relation to the other Apostles ; (4) in 
 preaching among the Gentiles, and contending (1) 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 imagination. 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 works. 
 
 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 , p' e e ‘ 
 
 PAGR 
 
Contents. Xl 
 
 LECTURE VI, 
 
 ALLEGED DIFFICULTIES IN THE MORAL TEACHING OF 
 THE NEW TESTAMENT, 
 
 BY THE ; 
 REV. Cc. A. ROW, M.A,, 
 Prebendary of St. Paul's, 
 Author of ‘‘ The Nature and Extent of Divine Inspiration,” “‘ The 
 
 Fesus of the Evangelists," ‘‘ The Moral Teaching of the New. 
 Testament,” etc. | 
 
 Subject limited to examimation 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 general principies, 
 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. Newman 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 
 
Dab 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 3 (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 of 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 History of 
 Morals. , : . ° ; . + r8I 
 
 LECTURE VIL 
 
 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 Aéstorical 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, (4) to 
 His Kingly Office. 
 
 II. 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: 
 
 (1) 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: 
 
 (1) 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. 
 
 Nill 
 
 PAGS 
 
 (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. 
 
XIV Contents. 
 
 (2) The promised Redeemer was rejected and slain 
 by His own people. 
 (4) 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. 
 fill.) Three possible explanations of this fact on natural 
 grounds considered, and their unsatisfactoriness ex- 
 hibited. 
 
 PAGE 
 
 {1) 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 : . . ° : 
 
 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. 
 
 221 
 
Contents. 
 
 He accepted and continued throughout life to hold the reli- 
 gious opinions impressed’ upon him by his father, reject- 
 ing on @ priori grounds everything supernatural. 
 
 Reasons why no weight is to be attached to his Scepticism. 
 (1) 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 zmly free-will—hence an 
 argument zz favour of Christianity. % 
 
 The philosophy of the Secularist powerless as to any moral 
 influence ;—thu; contrasted with Christianity , ‘ 
 
 XV 
 
 PAGE 
 
 259 
 
et lee vy | iohaot vl 
 rat 1 sea 
 
 {5 
 
 i 4 } oa ib 
 
 hy estas Beer) shia us + i 
 ah, dost atts [lby ont 6A 
 
 : * o Fars - | 
 done, Sard oF 88 pes pee 
 
 itis Rilstn 
 
 ait tpn 2, aie 
 
 i* a 
 
 t 
 
 ‘ 
 any , ae Ty 
 ee . 
 
 net 
 
 nih ee ede, tan 
 
 if? 
 
DIFFICULTIES ON THE SIDE OF UNBE- 
 LIEF IN ACCOUNTING FOR HISTORICAL 
 CHRISTIANITY. 
 
 BY THE 
 REV. G, F. MACLEAR, D.D., 
 Htad Master of King’s College Scheol, and late Assistant Preacher at the 
 Temple Church, 
 
a s Beit 7 
 
 Se 
 
 ? 
 f4 i 
 Ay 
 
 FAAS RO AG TWAt 
 
 TEs 
 aie) j : 
 Withee, 
 pam ea os oS 
 4 ‘ 
 i, F 
 
 eae 
 
 { 
 
Hitticulties on the side of Anbelief 
 m accounting 
 for Mistorical Christianity, 
 
 € 
 
 Ti 4 Pats 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 Unbelief 
 
 II 
 
 1. In a famous letter, written between A.D. 104 and 
 110, by the pro-pretor 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 few purchasers. 
 
 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-prztor 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 11. chap. ix. It is to be remembered that his 
 province included several important towns—Neocesareia, Chalcedon, 
 Nicomedeia, Amisus, Trapezus, and the colonies of Heracleia and 
 Sinope. See Merivale’s History of the Romans under the Em- 
 perors, viii, 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. 43 viii. 203 xii, 7,8: Jobi 5; alii. 
 
fe} Difficulties 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 almost 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 
 
tn 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. 
 
 dg Wi 
 
 1. I have already observed that this remarkable reyo- 
 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 Apétres, chap. xvii. 
 { Dollinger’s Gentile and Few, i. 225. 
 
8 Difficulties on the side of Unbeluf 
 
 2. Without entering upon the question of the origin of 
 the ancient sacrifices, it may be asserted without fear of » 
 contradiction that 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 consistency in the revolution, and the dtsappearance of 
 the conviction would account in a great measure for the 
 disappearance of the sacrifical observance. 
 
 4. But is this the case? Has the conviction of pet- 
 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 t1. chap. v. 
 t Kreuger, Symdolik, i. 2, 53 Hardwick’s Christ and other 
 Masters, ii. 60; Macdonnell’s Donnellan Lectures, p. 99. 
 
in accounting for Historical Christianity. 9 
 
 5. In saying this I do not seek to depreciate fora 
 moment the feeling upon this momentous subject which 
 undoubtedly existed in the ancient world. I woyld 
 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 the 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 Difficulties on the side of Unbelief 
 
 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 
 AfZacus or Rhadamanthus, but of One who ¢rzeth the 
 very hearts and reins,* and who will judge every man 
 according to the deeds done in the body.t 
 
 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 ;”¢ 
 
 * Ps. vii. 9. f 2, Cor! iv.'8 9's Cor ite: 
 ft “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 
 
tx accounting for Historical Christianity. 11 
 
 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-torturesthat the side of 
 his life most full of suffering is the religious side,+ and that, 
 great as he may be, he yet contains within him some 
 profound source of misery. 
 
 ro. 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 reconciliation 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- 
 
 little corner he can influence somewhat less miserable, and somewhat 
 less ignorant, than it was before he entered it.”—Prof. Huxiey. 
 
 * “Read Johnson’s Vanity of Human 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, Ueber der Sprache und 
 Weisheit der Inder, quoted in Luthardt, 338 n. 
 
 t Ackermann’s Christian Element in Plato, pp. 203—207, 
 
 + Pascal, Pensées, ii. 88, 104. 
 
12 Difficulties on the side of Unbelioff 
 
 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 surrender 
 even the fruit of his body for the sin of his soul. 
 
 11. 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. 
 
 1. May we conclude, then, that with the ancient 
 
 sacnificial ritual the ancient sacrificial phraseology has 
 
 * Like those of Theodosius, A.D, 381; Gibbon, iii. 413, and 
 notcs. 
 
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. 
 
 's. But does this mode, in which the Rite is celebrated, 
 recall also the old sacrificial habit? Would it in any 
 
 * Maurice’s Aingdom of Christ, ii. §. 
 
14 Difficulties on the side of Unbehef 
 
 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-preetor 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,} for a harmless 
 banquet.{ 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. ZZ, xcvi. + Stanley ont Cor. xi vol. 1. 
 PF 249. 
 = Plin. Zf. xevi: § Comp. Justin. 4Z0/. cap. lxv. 
 
in accounting for fistorical Christianity. 5 
 
 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-preetor? 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 ?” 
 
 g. 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” ? 
 
 to. A Christian of Bithynia would undouvtedly have 
 
 * For the religious importance attached by Jews to the actions of 
 breaking bread and pouring out wine, even at acommon meal, see 
 Lightfoot’s Zemple Service ; Godwyn’s Moses and Aaron, pp. 89, 90; 
 The Book of Fewish Ceremonies, by Gamaliel Ben Pedahzur, pp. 51 
 —56; Cudworth’s Zrue Notion, chap. i. 
 
 ¢ ‘* Carmenque Christo quasi Dco dicere,” Plin. Z/. xevi. 
 
16 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 az 
 objective, historical fact, and this fact is ¢he death of its 
 Lnstitutor. 
 
 11. Now this is deserving ofnote. 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 which 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, ot 
 it did not. If it did, there must have been circumstances 
 connected with it utterly unlike any other 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. 
 
 1. 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, What is the meaning o) 
 the Rite at all ? 
 
in accounting for Historical Christianity, 17 
 
 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 Juda, 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 
 
13 Difficulties on the side of Onbelief 
 
 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 Hestory of Christianity, i. 189. 
 
 + ‘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 say 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 Bamp- 
 ton Lectures, 166—1793 see also the comparison in this respect 
 between Christ and Socrates in Zece Homo, pp; 94,95: 
 
 t John v. 17, 18. 
 
 § “Into the question of their authenticity and genuineness it 1s 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 second 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 ta 
 Christ, pp. §2, 53: | 
 
tn accounting for Historical Christianity. 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 preparationt 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. 
 
 g. 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—“ Zuke, eat, This is My body, 
 
 * (1) Matt. xvi. 21; Mark viii. 31; Luke ix. 21, 223 (2) Matt. 
 xvii. 9; Mark ix. 9; ai Ix. 44; (3) Matt. x. 33, 34. 
 ft Matt. xxvi. 17—~—19 ; Mark xiv, 12—163 Luke xxii. 7-13: 
 
20 ~ Difficulties on the side of Undelicf , 
 
 which is given for you; do this im remembrance of Me.” 
 Afterwards He took a cup of wine, and having given thanks 
 in like manner, He gave it unto them, saying—“ Drink 
 ye all of this; for this Cup is My Blood of the New 
 Covenant, which is shed for you and for many for 
 the remission of sins; this do as oft as ye shall drink tt, 
 in remembrance of Me.” 
 
 ro. Such was the institution of the Eucharist. The 
 evening on which 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. 
 
 1. 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, 1s 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 
 
in accounting for fistorical Christianity. 21 
 
 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 the truth 
 and power inherent in His life and works, and uniting with all this 
 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 unlike 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 multiplied 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 own 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 Pantheism, WU. ii. sect. 11; 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 Mythology, 
 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 with the history of 
 the institution. ‘The first Christians were neither mystic 
 philosophers, 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 1" 
 Arnold’s Zifz, 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, Gospel History. 
 
 Pp. 409. 
 
24° Difficulties on the side of Unbelief 
 
 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.’ 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 account of the historical facts of the case, 
 before they could either have celebrated themselves or 
 taught others in different lands to adopt a Rite so novel 
 
 * See Paley’s Lvidences, 1. vii. 3. t Ibid. Part 11. chap. iii. 
 t More substantial than the /e/n/e de suave mysticit2, which Renan 
 ascribes to their imagination, Vie de Fésus, chap. xxiii. 
 
in accounting 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 thc 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. 
 
 VII, 
 
 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.{ ‘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. 
 + Matt. xxvi, 69—75; Mark xiv. 66—72; Luke xxii. 54—62; 
 John xviii. 15— 27. } Matt. xxvi. 56. 
 
26 Difficulties on 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 now 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 il. 46; xx. 7, 11. Why also did they continue to attach 
 to this Meal even the ‘‘mystic sense” which Renan ee Les 
 Apétres, chap. v.? 
 
wn accounting 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,{ 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 with 
 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.|| 
 
 * Matt. xxvii. 57~-61; Mark xv. 42—47; Luke xxiii. 5o-—56; 
 John xix. 38— 42. + Matt. xxvii. 62—66. 
 { Barnab. ZZ. xv. Aw kal dyouev rip juépay rhyv dyddnv eis 
 _ evppoctvny, ev 7) 6’Inoous avéorn &x vexpav. 
 } Thus much Renan, Les Afpétres, chap i., and Schenkel, p. 311, 
 admit. 
 “|| Westcott’s Gospel of the Resurrection, p. 157+ 
 
28 Difficulties on the side of Unbelief 
 
 8, But if the sepulchre 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,t 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. 
 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, }T 
 then by St. James,{{ 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.|| || 
 
 g. 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. + John xx. 11—18 [Mark xvi. 9—11]. 
 + Matt. xxviii. 9, 10; Mark xvi. 5—7; Luke xxiv. 4—8. 
 § Luke xxiv. 34; 1 Cor, xv, 5. || Luke xxiv. 13—35. 
 
 4} Luke xxiv. 36—43 ; John xx. 19—25 [Mark xvi. 14]. 
 
 ** John xx, 26—29, tt John xxi. 1—24. {ff 1 Cor, xv. 7. 
 §§ Matt, xxviii. 16—18 ; 1 Cor. xv, 6. 
 
 \\|| Luke xxiv, 50—53; Acts i. 3-—12, 
 
in accounting for Historical Christianity. 29 
 
 doubts.”* It is conceivable that the enthusiasm ofa 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. 
 
 10. 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 ot 
 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 Lvidences, U1. viil. 
 
 ¢ ‘*It is most instructive to notice that the vefort 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. 111. 
 
 f¢ 1 Cor. xv, 15. ‘*There is something to him very touching in 
 the manner in which the Apostle writes this monstrous supposition. 
 That e 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 miserable.t 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, zithout some intervening fact as 
 certain and as historically real as that event ttself. ‘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 cv/¢tws, except on the supposition 
 that something occurred between the Passion and the 
 
 * See Butler’s Analogy, part 11. chap. vii, 
 t Endcewédrepor ravrwuv Opdrwdy eoudv, 1 Cot, xV¥. 19. 
 
in accounting for Historical Christianity. 31 
 
 observance of this Rite, powerful enough to remove 
 once and for eve1 the torturing doubts which must ever 
 have attended the celebration of the Eucharist, and 
 glorious enough to transfigure the desolation and despait 
 of the Story of the Cross.“ 
 
 13. A “splendid guess,” a “ vague but loving hope,” 
 a doctrine founded 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 superstructure they have to support, 
 they crumble to dust before the vastness of 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 .”’—Dorner’> Person 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 r ’* 
 
 VIIL. 
 
 1. Before 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 “done 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. 118, 119. “The 
 fact of a Christian Church Jdeing 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. 
 
an accounting for Historical Christianity. 33 
 
 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 ;f 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, Zterally 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 Man 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, Fud. chap. i, ; Stanley’s Sermons on the Aposa 
 tolical Age, 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.” Dé6llinger, ii. 416. 
 
34 Difficulties on the side of Unbelief 
 
 s. 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 difficulty 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 accounting for Ldistorical Christianity. 35 
 
 ments, and its archives. We can understand whence 
 came the flood of light 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, wider, 
 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 erfect had 
 come, that which was in Part was done away. 
 
 ro, 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 3 and Professor 
 Westcott’s remarks on the Resurrection and History, pp. §3—134. 
 
36 Difficulties on the side of Unbelief. 
 
 of its mysterious ordinances.* We must believe that 
 theze was no Perfect Sacrifice, for which the ten thousand 
 éacrifices of heathenism were a confused outcry. We 
 must believe that “ Death still remains the great Con- 
 queror,” of whose defeat no pledge event has been given 
 to mankind. 
 
 19. *‘ Nature,” says Goethe,{ “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 P 
 
 * 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 isa greater miracle still.” 
 
 + On the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ as the Aledge of 
 our redemption, see Canon Swainson’s Hulsean Lectures, p. 2133 
 Archbo. Trench Ox the Miracles, p. 35. 
 
 ~ Goethe’s Aphorisms on Nature, quoted in Farrar’s Zulsean 
 Lectures, P. 43 We 
 
THE VARIATIONS OF THE GOSPELS IN 
 THEIR RELATION TO THE EVIDENCES 
 AND TRUTH OF CHRISTIANITY. 
 
 BY THE 
 
 REY. T. R. BIRKS, M.A., CAMB, 
 
 Professor of Moral Philosophy in the University of Cambridge, and 
 LTonorary Canon of Ely Cathedrai. 
 
iS arte 
 
 eae 
 
 Awe 
 
 we. ’ eat 
 Bier Wise 
 
 Ale 
 ’ 
 
 OR ida Aik 
 
 a anor Pade. eace 
 
 aa i 
 i > be ty 
 
 tae ; [ f ae 
 tt sf Os teal emma ma 
 te) ee. BEE eo, 
 7 ani y mana 
 seer Bus primates fs 
 MERA TY 
 
 ys st 
 
 te 
 
The Variations of the Gospels im 
 their Relation to the Evidences 
 and Truth of Christianity, 
 
 «THE 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 own 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 Zhe Variations of the Gospels in their Relation 
 
 and without a parallel. The number of persons, of 
 whom memoirs have 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 difference# 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 simplicity, 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 Evangelists 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 we 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 The Variations of the Gospels tn 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- 
 pealing 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 
 would 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 
 would 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 Zhe Variations of the Gospels in their Relation 
 
 solidity, and the rainbow hues 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. ‘I'wo 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. T'rom 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 Christianity. — 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 was 
 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 
 
46 Lhe Variations of the Gospels in their 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 
 thirty years that follow are passed over, in eachalike, 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 weck of conflict and suffering at the close, with the 
 appearances after the resurrection, form one-third of St. 
 Matthew and St. Mark, one-fourth 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 ina hun- 
 dred, but more nearly one ina 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.” 
 
43 The Variations of the Gospels in their Relation 
 
 How is it that, while the materials in themselves were 
 ¢o 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 
 other’s 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 uniform 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 Truth of Christianity, qv 
 
 which 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 
 _ believing 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. 
 4 
 
so The Variations of the Gospels in their 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 
 down 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 
 
to the Evidences and Truth of Christianity. By 
 
 they have heard. But it is wisely judged that witnesses 
 
 of imperfect memory and average clearness of thought and 
 
 judgment would be biassed unconsciously bysuch previous 
 
 knowledge. 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, in 
 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 were 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 theirview 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. 
 
g2 Zhe Variations of the Gospels in their Relation 
 
 Three alternatives then alone remain. The first 1s 
 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- 
 amined, 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 
 ‘1 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 
 
to the 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 Zhe Variations of the Gospels in their Relation 
 
 prove the truth of the main facts, and hence that the 
 whole is Divine. If viewed as Divine, and the existence 
 of partial and repeated contradictions be allowed, there 
 arises at once a strong presumption against its super- 
 natural claims, which 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, ona casual view, that St. Mark is so 
 much like St. Matthew, and the incidents are so entirely 
 
 tt nt a a i al 
 
to the Evidences and Truth of Christianity. = 55 
 
 common, that it hardly can be viewed as a separate 
 testimony ; 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 ona 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, may be 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 The Variations of the Gospeis in their Relation 
 
 the 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 manat Bethsaida ; 
 the reply 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 of 
 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. 54 
 
 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 cither 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 
 
58 Lhe Variations of the Gospels in their Relation 
 
 first thought would be the conversion of their Jewish 
 brethren. The second centre was Czesarea, where the 
 first Gentile convert, Cornelius, the Roman centurion, 
 was gathered in. ‘The Roman soldiers and civilians 
 resident in Palestine were the first class, beyond the Jews, 
 to whom the Gospel was accessible, and Cesarea, 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. Matthew 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 with 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 of 
 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 
 people 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 Ceesarea, 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 
 
60 Lhe Variations of the Gospels in their Relation 
 
 fallen, and the Church had received its full development, 
 is one out of many proofs that the diversity of the Gos- 
 pels far 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 - 
 
 third 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 asa Lawgiver and King. 
 The 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. 61 
 
 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 
 the faith, and the spread of the Church, and hence it finds 
 ‘ts 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 Zhe Variations of the Gospels in their Re‘ation 
 
 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.” 
 Fe 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. 63 
 
 e 
 
 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 
 
64 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 which 
 requires 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 lst would apply 
 equally to a son, a son by adoption, or a son-in-law. In the 
 ‘{almudical 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. | 
 
 s. 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 
 
Zo the Lvidences and Truth of Christianity, 65 
 
 states boldly, “that both can be true, and one must 
 necessarily be false.” St. Luke makes Nazareth the 
 original residence. But Matthew 4. 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 J ewishroyalty 
 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 haye 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 
 born. 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 tival 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 ofa 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 
 prought 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 which 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 
 the passage through Judea and the entry into Jerusalem, 
 were followed by the crucifixion. The places named in 
 St. Matthew are successively, Capernaum, Galilee and 
 Decapolis, Capernaum, the Sea of Galilee, the Gergesenes, 
 Chorazin and Bethsaida, the sea side, N azareth, a desert 
 place near the sea, Gennesaret, the coasts of Tyre and 
 Sidon, the sea of Galilee again, the coasts of Magdala, 
 Czsarea Philippi, Galilee once more, and the coasts of 
 _ Judea beyond Jordan. In St. Mark nearly the same, 
 with one added miracle in Decapolis, and oneat Bethsaida, 
 _ InSt. Luke, wehave Nazareth, Capernaum,Gennesaret, the 
 _ wilderness, Capernaum, N ain, the land of the Gadarenes, 
 
68 he Variations of the Gospels in their Relation 
 
 Bethsaida, Chorazin, the 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!” T he 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, oF 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 
 ‘n 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 Evidenes 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 ora similar 
 _ discourse in St. Luke, the visits to N azareth, 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 
 
70 The Vartations of the Gospels in their 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 
 
fo the Lividences 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, within 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 The Variations of the Gospels, &é. 
 
 gent 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, ‘‘‘fhou hast magnified Thy Word: 
 above all Thy Name.” 
 
BY 
 
 B, HARRIS COWPER. 
 
<4 
 
 “asamzan dispaeshy 
 
 . aan 
 - : . 
 4 BY 
 
 y ea ag 
 A Oe 
 
 Abe & 
 
The Apocrpphal Gospels. 
 
 T 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 “in 
 reality, they are all, without exception, infinitely beneath 
 
 ® Cambridge Essays for 1856, p. 153. 
 
76 The 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 written 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 
 with Him in His earthly career, or to the Apostles and 
 their associates ; they all seek to supplement or develop 
 
 & Etudes sur les Evangiles Apocryphes, Pref. p. xxiii, 
 
The Apocryphal Gospels. a 
 
 the writings of the New Testament ; and all that we have 
 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 :— 
 
 “‘T, The Evangelical narratives were simple and 
 meagre in their mode of describing what (1) preceded, 
 (2) attended, and (3) followed, the facts with which they 
 are mainly concerned. This applies to 
 
 (1), 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 Apostles after- 
 wards. 
 
 “IJ, The Evangelical narratives were almost or wholly 
 silent on various points, ¢.g. 
 
 “(1), Doctrines to be eiRVE 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. 
 
 “TV, 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 
 compared 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 :—1. 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 way, 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 Irenzus speaks of as in those of his day, 
 Seventeen centuries ago. You will, however, carefully 
 observe that as these writers copied much from one 
 
80 The Apocryphal Gospets. 
 
 another, similar statements occur in books written at most 
 distant intervals. We cannot, therefore, decide the age 
 of any one of these Apocrypha by a reference to Irenzeus 
 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 Irenzeus mentions and uses 
 so much. ‘The one truth which we gather from Hippo- 
 lytus, Origen, Clement of Alexandria, Tertullian, and 
 Irenzeus, 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, I 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 respect 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 Gosfe:s. 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 amsureno 
 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 untrustworthiness of this 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. Luke as alluding to Apocryphal 
 Gospels. Jam 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 againof 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 seyeral 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 
 
62 The Apocryphal Gospels. 
 
 put 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 donot 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 adepted 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, 
 
The Apocryphal Gospels. . 83 
 
 in which he directs attention to the existence of certain 
 of these productions in India, among the ancient Chris- 
 tians established 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 believe 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 
 
84 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—/jirs?, 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 writers” 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? 
 
Lhe Apocryphal Gospels. 8; 
 
 1. That there is absolutely no genuine record or docu- 
 ment, and no modern writer of note, to show that either 
 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 2 majority 
 of votes against the Apocryphal ones. ‘There is an 
 ancient list of New Testament books which it is said was 
 drawn 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 Abbé Bergier to have been written 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 
 
 * Traité de la Vraie Religion, Vol. VIII., p. 127. Paris, 1785. 
 
86 , 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 
 inspired 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 been un- 
 canonical. Hence all we have to do is to find: out who 
 first mentions four Gospels as alone received, and then 
 to discover what 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 Nicea we find 
 Origen writing in his Commentaries on Matthew: “1 
 have learnt by tradition concerning the /fowr 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 A ocryphal 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 
 Matthew, 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 - 
 
 Irenzeus of Lyons, who wrote still earlier, reckons four 
 Gospels as alone accepted by the universal Church of 
 God.t 
 
 For the purposes of this lecture I need not go further 
 with the present branch of our enquiry. 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. os 
 
 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. + Stromata, Book 3, 
 
 t Heresies, Book 3, ch, 11, sec. 8 
 
The Apocryphal Gospels. 89 
 
 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 Irenzeus, and before saying any- 
 thing of so-called Gospels which were earlier, but are now 
 known only by name, by fragments and in other forms, 
 I will ask you to compare 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 overa 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 cur 
 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 James ; 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 fifty years of the Ascension of 
 Christ. ‘That of Peter first appears in notices of Serapion, 
 Bishop of Antioch, whom Cave places at a.pD. 190. That 
 of Andrew 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 fact 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. Perfitt, says the 
 modern reader “‘hears of the fact 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 Irenzeus, 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. gt 
 
 they are related in the various extant New Testament 
 writings. 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 writings.” 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 /Aink 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 ot 
 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 Apocryphai Gospels. 
 
 the respective items in this quotation, 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. 
 
 lf space permitted I would have set over against 
 these too hasty utterances the calm and scholarlike 
 views of the most eminent modern critics, 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 which 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 
 
 aitered 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 
 - Apocryphal, were 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 : fist, 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.” 
 
| 94 The Apocryphal Gospels. 
 
 Taking the sceptical ground, that 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 Irenzeus 
 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. Ireneus, 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 ; 
 z.¢., Judas Iscariot the betrayer of Christ. The same 
 author mentions, “The Gospel of Truth,” which the 
 Valentinians used. He also refers to false ie oe, which 
 he does not name. 
 
 3. Serapion, Bishop of Antioch, about the same time 
 wrote against a book called “The Gospel of Peter,” 
 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, 
 the Gospel of Basilides, that of Thomas, that of Matthias, 
 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 writers 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. (1) 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 Irenzeus. (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 someheretics. (3) The Gospel according to the 
 Twelve Apostles, which Origen mentions as used by the 
 heretics, and Jerome thinks was another form of our 
 Matthew. ‘There is little doubt that it corresponded 
 with 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 Mant- 
 chean of the name of Thomas. If Cyril is right it could 
 not have been so ancient as the Apostolicage. ‘There 
 may, however, have been two or more books with that 
 title, I think there were, and that the first was as early as 
 the days of Irenzus. 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 Irenzeus who first names all 
 our four, and declares them alone genuine. If you wish 
 to get beyond Irenzeus 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 uphold 
 
Ihe Apocryphai Gospels. 97 
 
 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 Postelin 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- 
 lated 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 amplification 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 
 
 of Jesus. 
 _ 4. The Gospel of Thomas, or Gospel of the Infancy of 
 Jesus. We have this in several forms, very different from 
 
 * The Apoeryphal Gospels, &c. London, ath Edition, 1374. 
 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 doubt 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. 
 
 s. The Gospel of the Infancy, from the Arabic. ‘This 
 is by no means so ancient in its actual form as some of 
 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 the: life 
 
The Apocryphal Gospels. 99 
 
 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 Saviour’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: 1. 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, 
 Mark, 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. 
  Froma literary point of view the false and true Gospels 
 are as different as books well can be. Most of them 
 _ hever were Gospels at all in the proper sense of the 
 
100 The Apocryphal Gospels. 
 
 word; and those 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 
 too 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 dzte 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: 
 
Lhe Apocryphal Gospels. IOI 
 
 essay of Bishop Ellicott, one of the best ever written on 
 the 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, thougk 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 medizval 
 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 my 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 Arimathea ; and the Revenging of 
 the Saviour. . 
 
 Of the fictitious Gospels, it will be remembered that they fall 
 into two classes :—(1) 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. 103 
 
 The False Gospel of Matthew, 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 lived 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 were 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 born, 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 
 4 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 fox the fruit of a palm tree, and at the bidding of 
 
104 Appendix, 
 
 her infant it bowed down till all its fruit was gathered, a spring 
 gushed 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 Hermopolis 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 Jesys ta cut the wood, which he did, but cyt one piece tog 
 
Appendix. PS TOs 
 
 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 witnesses 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, 
 
106 Appendix. 
 
 The second part begins with an intimation that of those whom 
 Jesus had raised from the dead, the two sons of Simeon were living, 
 and might perhaps be brought to narrate what they knew. The 
 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 
 with the true Gospels, but contradicts what we otherwise know to be 
 true. The writer of Pseudo-Matthew used older similar books, and 
 added to them or altered them as he chose. He never rises to the 
 ‘lignity of a historian, and indulges his fancy for the grotesque and 
 
ba 
 
 Appendix. 107 
 
 -narvellous. 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 
 oi 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 bave 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, an 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. The 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 immeasurable 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 
 
108 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 have existed. That they have 
 existed, any of them at all until now, has been due partly to the 
 curiosity which 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 Canonical Gospels, 
 
THE EVIDENTIAL VALUE OF THE EARLY 
 EPISTLES OF ST. PAUL VIEWED AS HIS- 
 TORICAL DOCUMENTS. 
 
 BY THE 
 REV. PROFESSOR LORIMER, D.D., 
 
 Professor of Theology in the Engtish Presbyterian College, Londort. 
 
5 “di 
 
 rw le 7 
 Sere ft es ig ago sb aft 
 Le ARR oe Beale 
 3 } a ' a 
 
 iJ 
 
 ae ah ost so: N29 ARE 
 yuh) oy ta ae oie AMO. x1 
 
 an'’s a 
 
 ne Me Hiner Aone xioay a0 
 a V8 i es Ay a" oe” Vas ween: hb ia Rad ay eda 
 
 Ps 
 
The Evidential Value of the Early 
 Epistles of St, Paul 
 biewed as Pistoriwal Documents. 
 
 pie LE 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 Rénan 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 
 
t12 Lhe 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 Luédential Value as historical 
 documents. By that I mean their value as attestations to 
 the truth of Christianity—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. Paui viewed as Historicai Documents. 4, 3 
 
 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 brougiit 
 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 
 outlines. 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 
 known 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 
 7 8 
 
114 Lhe Evidential Value of the Early Epistles 
 
 narratives, whether Canonical or not, that were afier- 
 wards written upon the basis of these facts. It was 
 because’ these foundation-facts were from the first 
 accepted as historical verities by all Christians that the, 
 fll 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 if 
 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 ef St. Paui 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 viewed as Historical Documents. 115 : 
 
 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 believe St. Paul on similar points? | If 
 Cicero is of grimary authority on such personal particulars, 
 why is St. Paul to be no authority at all? If you would 
 not believe Rénan contradicting Cicero. on such 
 matters, known to none so well as to Cicero himself, why> 
 should you believe Rénan contradicting St. Paul on’ 
 - matters of which he and he only had and could haye 
 absolute knowledge? Why am I to believe Rénan 
 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— 
 
116 The Evidential Value of the Early Epistles 
 
 a Gospel which in this way was a mere natural product 
 of all the world’s best previous 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 Rénan on points of Cicero’s mental history, 
 am I not equally right to believe Paul rather than 
 Rénan 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 work 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 Si. Paul viewed as Historical Documénts. +17 
 
 the forms of Christian and Church life 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 
 his 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 half 
 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 which 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- 
 
 e 
 
118 Zhe Evidential Value of the Early Epistles 
 
 ment, are 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.) Whata 
 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 
 
i 
 
 of St. Paul viewed as Historical Documents. 19 
 
 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 something 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 
 ‘Cin much assurance,” z.¢., 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. 
 
120 06. 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 the 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. We 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, 
 é.g., aS all the facts of Christ’s life which the Apostle had 
 
of St. Paul viewed as Historical Documents, 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 for 
 all their knowledge of them upon St. Paul’s 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 
 
122 Lhe LEvidentiai Value of the Early Epistles 
 
 the Apostle and the churches—that the testimony in both ~ 
 cases was original and of primary authority, and that the — 
 
 Epistles 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 little 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. 
 1. 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 :— 
 
 (1. Thess. i. 2, 3.) “ We give thanks to God always for 
 
 you all, making mention of you in our prayers; remenr- 
 
 bering without ceasing your work of faith, and labour of love, 
 
 and patience of hope tn our Lord Fesus Christ, in the sighi 
 
 of God and our Father.” (1.'Thess.1.8-10.) “ Ln every place 
 
 your faith to God-ward ts spread abroad ; so that we need 
 not to speak anything. Lor they themselves shew of us what 
 manner of entering in we had unto you, and how ye turned 
 to God from idols to serve the living and true God; ana 
 to wait for Elis Son from heaven, whom He raised from 
 
: 
 
 of St Paul viewed as Historical Documents. 123 
 
 the dead, even Fesus, which delivered us from the wrath 
 to come. (1. Thess. il. 1.) For yourselves, brethren, know 
 
 our entrance in unto you, that it was not tn 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 to 
 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 ts meet, because that 
 your faith groweth exceedingly, and the charity of every 
 
 one of you all toward each other aboundeth ; so that we 
 
 ourselves glory in you in the churches of God for your 
 patience and faith in all your persecutions and tribulations 
 that ve 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, “‘ Aor neither at any time used 
 
 we flattering words, as ye know, nor a cloke of covetous- 
 ness, as God ts witness, Nor of men sought we glory, 
 
124 The Lvitentiai Vaiie of the Early Epistles 
 
 —e 
 
 neither of you nor yet of others whom we might have been 
 burdensome as the Apostles of Christ.’ He had nevet 
 fiattered 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_ 
 
 { 
 
 r 
 
 ; 
 
 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 aman? 
 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 
 effects of religious 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. Paul viewed as Historical Documents. 128 
 
 his Epistles to the Corinthians (2 Cor. v. 17, 18): “If 
 any man is in Christ,” if any man becomes a real and 
 true Christian, “he is a@ new creature; 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.” 
 
 Ves! 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 
 born 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 Lvidential Value of the Early Epistles 
 
 Let me suppose that your view of the Gospel is 
 
 that it is a merely human thing, a mere natural product 
 of the age in which it was first preached 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 things 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. 
 
 wre or 
 
 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. Paut viewed as Historical Documents. 27 
 
 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 : 
 
 (x Cor. i.17-19.) ‘¢ Christ sent me not to baptize, but 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 ts to them that are perishing foolishness ; but 
 unto us which are saved, tt is the power of God. Lor it ts 
 written, I will destroy the wisdom of the wise, and will 
 bring to nothing the understanding 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 iteffect. ‘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 if. 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— 
 
328 Lhe Evidential Vatue of the Early Epistles 
 
 of delivering men, that is to say, from the 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 thought, 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? where ts the scribe? 
 where ts the disputer of this world? Did not God make 
 foolish (1.€., convict of foolishness) the wisdom of the world ? 
 Lor when in the wisdom of God (i.e., in His wise aispen- 
 sation and ordering of epochs and events) the world through 
 its wisdom knew not God (i.e., had failed utterly to reach 
 the knowledge of His mind and will), tt pleased God through 
 the foolishness of preaching to save them that believe. For 
 the Fews require a sign, and the Greeks seek after wisdom. 
 But we preach Christ crucified, to the Fews a stumbling 
 block and to the Greeks foolishness, but to them which are 
 called, both Fews and Greeks, Christ the power of God and 
 the wisdom of God. Because the foolishness of God ts wiser 
 than men; and the weakness of God is stronger than men” 
 
of St. Paul viewed as Historical Documents. 139 
 
 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 preaching 
 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) : “‘/or consider your calling, brethren, how, 
 that not many (of you) were wise men after the flesh (i.e., 
 in the sense of human wisdom), 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, and God chose the weak 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 
 
130 Lhe Lvidential Value of the Early Epistles 
 
 He might bring to nought the things that are, that no flesh 
 should glory in His presence. But of Himare ye in Chrise 
 Fesus, who from God was made unto us wisdom, ana 
 righteousness, and sanctification, and redemption. That 
 according as it ts written, 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 Apostle’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 St. Paul viewed as Historical Documents. 131 
 
 init, 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 oi 
 
 pot 
 
 God, and not the wisdom of man—the truth and revela- 
 
132 Lhe Lividential Value of the Liarly Episiles 
 
 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 wisdom 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 viewed as Historical Documents. 433 
 
 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, viz., 
 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 a prior’ 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 arin 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 philosophy of common sense, the 
 
134 Lhe BE 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 ¢hird and a fourth 
 link of evidence supplied by these early Epistles, and 
 bearing specially on the point of the Divine presence and 
 power which accompanied the 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 of 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. (1 Cor. ii. 1, 4). “ And J, brethren, when 
 L came to yon, came declaring unto you the testimony of 
 God ; not with excellency of speech or of wisdom, for I deter- 
 mined not to know anything among you save Fesus Christ 
 and Him crucifed; and I was with you in weakness and 
 i fear and in much trembling; and my speeeh and my 
 preaching was not with persuasive words of man’s wisdom, 
 
of St. Paul viewed as Historical Documents. 135 
 
 but with demonstration of the Spirit and of power; to the 
 end that your faith might not stand in the wisdom of men, 
 but in the power of God.” ‘That is to say, as he came to 
 Corinth to publish solely a Divine message and not a 
 human one, so his sole confidence for the effect 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 working Avogramme 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 power 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 Evidential Value of the Early Epistles 
 
 ground, because surely revolutions of character and life 
 and conduct in men are effects of power palpable 
 enough even to men’s senses. But Jet that pass, and 
 rather let me call your attention to two remarkable facts 
 preserved to us by these Epistles to the Corinthians, 
 which prove in the 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.) “Zruly the signs of an Apostle were 
 wrought among you in all patience, in signs and won- 
 ders, and mighty deeds. For what ts it wherein 
 ye were inferwr to other Churches? Except it be 
 that I myself was not burdensome to you. Forgive me 
 this wrong.” 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 viewed as Historical Documents. 134 
 
 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, “ Zrwy the signs of an Apostle 
 werewrought among you.” 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 1 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 fo one ts 
 given by the Spirit the word of wisdom, to another the word 
 of knowledge according to the same Spirit, to another the 
 sifts of healing, to another the working of muracles, to 
 another prophecy, to another discerning of spirits, to another 
 divers kinds of tongues, to another interpretation of tongues. 
 But all these worketh the one and self same Spirit, dividing 
 to every man severally as He willeth.” Tere, verily, was 
 a demonstration of the Spirit of God and of power 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 
 
138 Lhe Lvidential Value of 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 (1 Cor. xiv. 18), 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 (1 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 soderness 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 (1 Cor. xiv. 19), 
 “‘T had rather speak five words 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 extolling their value? Does not 
 ‘this great teacher, who desires all his friends at 
 
140 The 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 
 misapprehensions 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 was written 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 ifit 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 viewed as Fistorical Documents. 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 
 -aclaim. 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 settle 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 
 priort objection to everything that can be said about 
 supernatural truths, facts, writings, and personages,—viz. 
 
142 Lhe Evidential Value of the Early Epistles 
 
 that you see 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 zo 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 andagency. Ifso, 
 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, wot zmpos-— 
 stble. 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 priort. You are bound by good logic and by common j 
 sense, first, to try whether any naturalistic solution of 
 these facts can be found that will bear a searching criti-— 
 
 4 
 a | 
 
of St. Paul viewed as Flistorical Documents. 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 who are still debating with yourselves 
 the most fundamental of all questions of Being and Power. 
 
e | eat apt A 
 Pt ice pesticanhirett ul 
 
 : ae Hy fal. Sr aad 4) 
 
 ie ag <hyg vO Oa t 
 
 eee 5 8 Ae Mie Abie ith fit ewe 
 
 ; dfaivstnne toaveive $i ah PE ates BME 6 he Pee 
 
 bea ody Tradigt figs ts BIS EE 4 afte a oe ae 
 
 ay a Sees. eats tp ae "i ROOK ey ee teks Bat ys % hae be ¢ . 
 Re say ctency: » stair Wide, OS) ahh beahn ote auereal be sot-B 
 > sth aed: fy alii ie tee % isi Beer f Sey: Bas ses 
 
 + aria ¥ ghightie Oe ADs aaseth apni ay it 
 Bee: a Seeley a oie gen Life Ab ahi aie ie ths 
 ai 
 if: 
 ip. 
 
 . 
 
LORD LYTTLETON ON THE CONVERSION 
 OLE ede wt les 
 
 BY THE 
 
 REV. JOHN GRITTON. 
 
al 
 
 wi 
 
 et 
 ve 
 
Lord Wyttleton on St. Paul. 
 
 THE EVIDENTIAL FORCE OF THE CONVER- 
 SION OF THE APOSTLE PAUL. 
 
 Y 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 of eyvi- 
 dence, or various evidential elements in varying relations, 
 
148 Lord Lyttleton on St. Paul. 
 
 may beget in the hearer’s mind the conviction that thé 
 Christian system is Divine in its origin and worthy of the 
 - fullest credit. : 
 
 Some minds are so constituted or aré So ttained, 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 lines 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 isa 
 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 hard and have 
 been fashioned by the 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. 
 I the course of after investigation he finds himself face 
 to face with difficulties such as those which: 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. Paut. 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- | 
 tradictory 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 
 
150 Lord Lyttleton on St. Paul. 
 
 to present a generai 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 cbtain a coup @’@il of evidence which, how- 
 ever, from its very breaatn and iuiness 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 Jay before you in a brief way the special 
 line of enquiry by which one particular person was led to 
 “he 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 <* 
 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 Lyttleton 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 inio 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 
 
152 Lord Lyttleton on St. Pare. 
 
 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 facts. 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. 153 
 
 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 ir 
 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 Czesarea in the presence of Festus the 
 Romati 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 Lyttleton 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 them 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 urto 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, 
 and-from the power of Satan unto God, that they may 
 receive forgiveness of sins, and inheritance among them 
 which 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 
 
 ee se ee ee ee 
 
Lora Lyttleton on 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 todo. And when 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 
 allmen 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. 
 1o—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 Lyttleton on St. Paul. 
 
 headdressed to various Churches 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 proved 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 
 af 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. 
 11—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. 
 lil. 4-7.) 
 
 In a letter to Timothy, who was one of his converts 
 and a fellow-labourer in the Gospel, he writes, “ J thank 
 
Lord Lyttleton on St. Pail, 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.” (1 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)'1;"Col./i't 3° Tim: i, 13 Gal. i -1:) 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.” (1 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. 
 What 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 Lyttleton on St. Paul. 
 
 which 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 who1a 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 3 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. Raul. 159 
 
 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 were not con- 
 vinced, and by imprisonment, beating and persecution 
 
 unto death manifested their implacable rage against the 
 
 SS. oe 
 
 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- 
 
160 Lord Lytileton 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 those 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 life, 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.” (1 Cor. iv. 11, 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.” (1 Thess. ii. 5, 9.) 
 And face to face with the ministers of the Ephesian 
 
Lord Lyttleton on St. Paul. 16I 
 
 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. 33, 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 
 foolishness ? (1 Cor. i. 23.) Experience did but confirm 
 his necessary anticipation of shame and reproach. A 
 quarter of a century after the vision at Damascus, he 
 wrote to the Corinthians. ‘We are made as the filth of 
 the world—the offscouring (repixa@apnata refuse—offal), 
 of all things unto this day.” (1 Cor. iv. 13.) Very cer- 
 tainly the bubble reputation could neither have lured 
 him nor rewarded him, II 
 
162 Lord Lyttleton on St. Paul. 
 
 But perhaps it was the 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,” (1 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.” 
 (1 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?” (z Cor. iil. 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 opportunities for pre-eminence ; but it is not 
 less certain that he made even light of these advantages 
 
 = xin i cet a 
 
SR 
 
 Lord Lyttleton on St. Paul. 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.” 
 (1.,Cor, i1..1, 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 effect 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 
 his 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 morality—-but there is nothing in the 
 _teaching or in the life of the Apostle to give the slightest 
 
164 Lord Lyttleton on St. Laut. 
 
 strength to this objection. “ His writings breathe nothing 
 but the strictest morality, 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, so among 
 the 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. Ye 
 are witnesses, and God also, how holily and justly and 
 unblameably we behaved ourselves among you that be- 
 lieve.” (1 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 the facts on which 
 he dased 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, il. 8.) 
 
Lord Lyttleton on St. Paul, 165 
 
 We may then safely conclude that no ratonal 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 cafricious, 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 fora 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 
 
166 Lord Lyttleton on St. Faue. 
 
 had received from Jesus Himself. He must therefore act 
 in confederacy with the Apostles, not only to gain an 
 accurate acquaintance with the Gospel, 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? By furiously persecuting 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 ?” eh 
 
 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 faith 
 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 his 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 Lytileton 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 
 go to Jerusalem till after three years (Gal. 1. 17-18.) ; and 
 while on the supposition of imposture, the Apostles 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 fellow 
 Apostle Peter openly at Antioch, and defending. that re- 
 buke in his letter tp the Galatians (Gal. ii, r1—14.) he 
 incited Peter to reveal, 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 
 
168 Lord Lyttleton on St. Paul. 
 
 mainly to the propagation of the 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: 1. Withthe policy and power of the 
 magistrates. 2. With the interests, credit, and craft 
 of the priests. 3. With the prejudices and passions of 
 the people. 4. With 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 work to rase the Pantheon with 
 all its gods, and to erect on its ruins the temple of the 
 true God. Judge then whatchance of success Paul had 
 at Ephesus, Corinth, and Athens, at all which places he 
 founded Churches which presently after swept the nee 
 away altogether. 
 
 Consider also the difficulty 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 Lyttleton on St, Paul. 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 asa 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 
 4 deeply rooted, and more obstinately fixed in the mind. 
 _ The wisdom on which they prided themselves—“ their 
 
170 Lord Lyttleton on St. Paul. 
 
 vain metaphysical speculations, 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 the 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 undcrstanding, 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, faut, 171 
 
 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.” 
 (x 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 tempered by prudence. 
 Where again is the proof that he was a sour, melan- 
 choly enthusiast ? Remorse he felt indeed for his former 
 life as a persecutor, but it led him only to a new life of 
 punwearied and cheerful labour. He inflicted on himself 
 no gloomy penances or extravagant mortifications. . His 
 4 “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- 
 
 | 
 
172 Lord Lyttleton on St. Paul, 
 
 necting his teaching of the living 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 better than 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 
 sufficient 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 ol 
 Stephen as consenting to his death (Acts viii. and ix.)— 
 left him with‘his zeal against Christ only embittered anc 
 deepened, so that he set forth to Damascus, “ breathing 
 
Lerd Lyttleton on St. Paul. 173 
 
 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 
 
 f 
 
 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 ?P 
 Listen to his words to the Ephesians, the Corinthians, 
 ~ and to his beloved fellow-worker Timothy. I who am 
 “Jess than the least of all saints.” (Eph. iii 8.) “Iam 
 the least of the Apostles, that am not meet to be called 
 
 an Apostle, because I persecuted the Church of God.” 
 ( 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 Lord Lyttleton on St. Paul, 
 
 might show forth all long-suffering, for a pattern to, them — 
 which should hereafter believe on him to life everlasting.” — 
 (x 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, 30; 
 2 Cor. xii. 2, 6, 7.) “Who then is Paul and who is 
 Apollos, 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 increase.” ‘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; 1 Cor. lil. 5-7; 
 t 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 Lyttleton on St. Paul. 175 
 
 though I give my body to be burned and have not love, 
 it profiteth me nothing.” (1 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 were at that time inflamed by 
 the irritating consciousness of his past treatment of 
 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 
 
176 Lord Lytileton 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 xxi. 9; Acts 1x. 7; 
 Acts xxvl. 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, 
 
ee 
 
 pe ee 
 
 Lord Lyttleton on St. Paul. 177 
 
 18; xxii, 13, 17, 183 Xi, xxl, xxii, and  xxiiL; 
 and “Rom. xy.” 18,. 19.) “Surely” sucha ‘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 
 insurmountable were they toamadman?” 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.” Vi 
 
178 Lord Lyttleton on St. Paut. 
 
 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 quote 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-day 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 active, 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.” 
 
Lord Lyttleton 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.” 
 
ie ae 
 
 a OF EMS CR sified tens 
 
 } 
 
 Be BE ‘sess? Piadl ici Bere yest re pa A 
 ee ce A be 4 dull Al ? aero 
 
 Tit 
 
 +f EY, a 
 
‘ 
 i 
 
 Se ee te ee 
 
 — 
 
 ALLEGED DIFFICULTIES IN THE MORAL 
 TEACHING OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. 
 
 BY THE 4 
 REV: C. A. ROW, M.A, 
 
 Prebendary of St. Paul's, 
 Author of “ The Nature and Extent of Divine Inspiration,” “ The Yesus of 
 the Evangelists,” “The Moral Teaching of the New Testament,” ete. 
 
‘ oer we Pe Soy 
 ee ANY ah . x ny 
 
 i ae A oe hey 
 : 7 kh PLS uf, As rh Ay 
 
Alleged Ditticulties in the Sloral 
 Teaching of the New Cestament. 
 
 N 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 were 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 Difficulties in the 
 
 of the moral teaching of the New Testament—Mr. F. 
 W. Newman and the 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 morality, 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. _ Mr. 
 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. . we eit 
 must be added, that the defectiyeness here complained of 
 
More! Teaching of the New Testament. 185 
 
 4s sometimes that of total omission ; sometimes that of 
 precepts contrary to those of right and truth, In fact, 
 the latter is the common case.” 
 
 I think that it will be conceded that Mr. Mill was a fat 
 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, 
 
186 The Alleged Difficulties in the 
 
 is of opinion that “the sayings of Christ are 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, I apprehend that they agree in con- 
 sidering that the moral teaching of the New Testament — 
 is defective—z.e., that it does not fulfil the requirements 
 of our present form of civilization. Yet there is an 
 obscurity in Mr. Mill’s language on this subject. ° Strictly — 
 speaking, he is charging this defect on “ Theological 
 Morality” alone ; but as at page go 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. TI 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. 187 
 
 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 with 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 notsure 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. Newman demands that the New Testament 
 should contain a complete solution, 
 
 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 would 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 the authority of 
 
 Mr. Mill. “If it [Christian Morality] means,” says he, 
 “the teaching of the New Testament, I wonder that 
 
188 Lhe Alleged Difficulties in the 
 
 anyone who derives his 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 teaching, 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 itis incapable of realization. ‘The Jewish 
 Talmud is a movement in that direction. Its bulk is about 
 fourteen folio volumes, yet it contains very little 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 Reman orator Cicero, entitled “De Officiis,” gives us 
 many specimens of this mode of raising curious questions 
 on moral subjects, as for instance whether, in case of aloss 
 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 Testament. 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 couduct, 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 
 
mete) Lhe Aliteged Difficulties in the 
 
 to contain what Mr. Mill designates a complete system i 
 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 
 philosophers 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 
 
ew 
 
 Moral Teaching of the New Testament. rg 
 
 bourhood as between maa 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, we 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 Christ. 
 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 
 
192 Lhe Alleged Difficulties 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 
 frst of these questions is, What do I wish that another 
 should do to me, if I were in his place? The second is, 
 To what extent has Jesus Christ sacrificed 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 quite evident that both Mr. Mill and Mr. 
 Newman have overlooked this great and fundamental 
 principle of the moral teaching of the New Testament, 
 without 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 
 
; 
 
 % 
 
 a 4 
 
 Moral Teaching of the New Testament. 193 
 
 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 OACHHER man, but unto the 
 Lord. “Ye are not your own,” writes St. Paul; ‘ there- 
 fore glorify God in your body and in your spirit, which 
 are God's.” 
 
 But while the New Testament arneals 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 holinesse 
 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 
 
 13 
 
194 The Alleged Difficulties 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. | 
 
—- 
 
 ee 
 
 Moral Teacning of the New Testament. 195 
 
 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 amoral 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, I 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. Ifa 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 
 
196 The Alleged Difficulties in the 
 
 five or six years which we pass at school. But those who 
 have spént 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 ; 
 palliation 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 
 
Morai Teaching of the New 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 effected by bringing 
 mighty forces to bear on man’s inmost being, and that 
 all moral and spiritual regeneration must originate from 
 within, 
 
 I will now take Mr. Newman’s points seriatim, 
 
198 The Alleged Difficulties in the 
 
 If I understand him rightly, he considers that the New 
 Testament ought to have laid down a positive doctrine, as 
 to what is'right and wrong in our political relations. Onthe 
 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 
 accommodateits teaching tothe universal condition of man. 
 What would have been theresult 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 differentraces 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 New 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 whichhe 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 
 thereare certain limits within which civil governmenthasno 
 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 Cesar,” says He, “the things which are Ceesar’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 
 
300 The Alleged Difficulties in the 
 
 His apostles had been the fanatics which unbelievers 
 charge them with having been, they would have dealt 
 with political questions in a very different 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. 
 
 Mr. 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 little 
 purpose if it does not contain many which have the closest 
 bearing onit. The only thing which 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 impossibility. 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 objection 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 bing 
 about the extinction 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 New 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. With 
 what result had they been attended? ‘The aggravation 
 of the slave’s condition, and the suspension o! 
 thousands of slaves on crosses on the public roads ot 
 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 always anxious to refer to the 
 
202 The Alleged Difficulties in the 
 
 teachings of ancient philosophy. What philosopher, I 
 ask, has laid down any principle which was 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, ii 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 aright 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. 203 
 
 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 
 millions, 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 thatforthe 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- 
 
204 Lhe Alleged Difficulties tn 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 the 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.” | 
 
 Mr. 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 New Lestament. 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 go ofhis Essay on Liberty, he 
 writes as follows: “ And while in the morality of the best 
 pagan nations, duty tothe State heldamost disproportionate 
 place, infringing on the just liberty of the individual, in | 
 purely Christian Ethics, that grand department of duty is 
 scarcely noticed 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 lie 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 his 
 charge of defectiveness, and not simply ‘“ Theological 
 Morality.” | 
 
 Tt concur with Mr. Mill in thinking that in the ancient 
 systems of morality the duty of patriotism occupied a 
 yety disproportionate place. In fact, ancient moralists 
 
206 The 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 of 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 Thermypole, 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. 
 
208 Lhe Alleged Difficuities 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 inforrn 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-comprechensive duty of which 1 
 have been speaking. No inconsiderable portion of the 
 teaching of the New Testament is occupied in enforcing 
 
f 
 
 , 
 
 | 
 
 4 
 
 Moral Teaching of the New Testament. 209 
 
 on us the duties we owe to others, ze. to the public. 
 “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 is, 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 
 purely 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 humility is consistent with all these qualities, 
 
 14 
 
210 The Alleged Difficulties in the 
 
 The human side of the character of Jesus Christ isa 
 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 isdismal 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 
 
‘] 
 4 
 t 
 a 
 , 
 : 
 
 Moral Teaching of the New Testament. 2Ir 
 
 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; or 
 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 
 affections in man are far stronger than the benevolent 
 ones. If men could be cured of the vices which Chris- 
 dianity 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 
 
212 Lhe Alleged Difficulties in the 
 
 prompt us to self-sacrifice, are comparatively feeble. The 
 idea presented to my mind when quietly 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 will 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. Mill 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 was 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 (ie. 
 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 was a purely voluntary one ; that it formed no con- 
 dition of Church membership, nor was it any portion of 
 
_ oe ee ee ee 
 
 Moral Leaching of the New Testzment. 21 
 8 3 
 
 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 t9 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 serve 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 application? All such pre- 
 cepts no doubt involve a great moral principle which is ot 
 universal obligation ; but it issimply absurd mechanically 
 to apply the mere letter of a precept to all states and-con- 
 ditions ofmankind. 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 Lhe Alleged Difficulties in the 
 
 But you will object, Does 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. Are 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 fora raven to whom 
 He has given no faculty like 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 swollen into a library. The duties are 
 strenuously affirmed, and each individual is lef¢ to fill up 
 the details by the aid of common sense and an en- 
 lightened Christian judgment. 
 
Moral Teaching of the New Testament, 215 
 
 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 cf 
 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 ot 
 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. ] 
 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 mos. 
 emphatic manner enjoins moderation in all things. If 
 then its injunctions wete obeyed, we should see an end o: 
 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 
 
216 Lhe Alieged Difficulties in the 
 
 complied 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 reccive a simple maintenance for 
 doing so, and to eke this out by labouring with one’s own 
 hands, 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, ¢f they were Jilly, 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 side by side, and thenestimate the result, 
 Selfishness in man is pre-eminently strong. It therefore 
 exerts all its efforts to call into activity our benevolent 
 feelings. ‘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 Tesiainent. 207 
 
 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 effect 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 
 
218 Lhe 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 writer 
 who affirms 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” P 
 
 Mr. Newman also asserts that St. Paul teaches, without 
 thesmallest qualification, the duty of absolute submission of 
 wives to husbands. Willit 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 i.” 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. Where will you find the 
 
Moral Teaching of the New Testament, 279 
 
 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- 
 
 . 
 | 
 q 
 
 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. Iask 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 
 
220 Allesed Difficulties, &e, 
 
 men from their degradation, and to elevate men whose 
 virtue is imperfect to higher degrees of 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 the 
 voice of no philosopher; but they heard His. At His 
 call multitudes have forsaken their evil ways, and have 
 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. Lecky, in his History of 
 Morals 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 through 
 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, 
 
 BY THE 
 REV. J. H. TITCOMB, M.A, ; 
 
 Vicar of Si. Stephen's, South Lambeth, and Rural Dean of C lapham. 
 
The Combination of Anity with 
 Vrogressiveness of Thought im 
 the Books of the Bible, 
 
 AN ARGUMENT IN FAVOUR OF DIVINE 
 REVELATION. 
 
 Tiere 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 at deast 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. 1,000), 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 
 
224 Lhe Combination of Unity with Progressiveness 
 
 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 (1) 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 whether such a fact finds a single 
 
 ; 
 
of Thought in the Books of the Bible. 2 
 
 counterpart 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 A7storica/ly or 
 Doctrinally. 
 
 1. Regarding the Historical development of the pro- 
 mised “ Seed,” it may be enough to say that the Hebrews 
 dated a tradition of it from the beginning of human wos ; 
 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 which was 
 handed down from generation to generation, with the 
 view of tracing it out briefly in regard to its historical 
 growth, 
 
 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 Redeemez, 
 without the slightest reference either to time, or to place, 
 or to family. It said that the “Seed of the woman” 
 
 15 
 
226 Lhe Combination of Unity with Progresstveness 
 
 was to bruise the Serpent’s head (Gen. iil. 15). Hrom 
 the date of Abraham, however, we gather that this belief 
 became handed down under a more limited form, inas- 
 
 much as the Promised Seed was then made a special gift 
 
 to that patriarch’s house; the word of promise being 
 “In ¢hee 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 
 
 | 
 / 
 . 
 
b 
 
 of Thought in the Books of the Bible. 224 
 
 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 Messiah 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” (Mal. iil. 2, 3). At 
 length, after 400 years, there appeared One in whomall 
 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 was 
 born in Bethlehem, and at a time when the royal dynasty 
 was in ruins ; and that the issue of His coming was 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 
 
2283 Zhe Combination of Unity with Progressiveness 
 
 St. Luke: “Blessed be the 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 David ; 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 fathers, and to remember His holy covenant, the 
 oath which He sware to our father Abraham” (Luke 1. 
 68-73). In 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 means 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 of 
 these that I shall now have time to enlarge. 
 
 First, then, let us view Him in His PropHeric or 
 TEACHING OFFICE, 
 
1 ae = eS 
 
 of Lhought 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 through 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 4oth Psalm how “ burnt offering and sin 
 offering ” were not to be required for ever ; and how One 
 cyas 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. x].6—g). Isaiah brought it out still more clearly 
 when 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 ad/ 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 wll teach us 
 of His ways, and we will walk in His paths: for out of 
 
230 The Cembination of Unity with Progressiveness 
 
 Zion shall go forth the law, and the word of the Lord from 
 Ferusalem” (Is. ii. 2, 3). In other words, this promised 
 Prophet was 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 F will 
 pour out My Spirit upon a// flesh. .. 2... 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 @ 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, 33). So in an-earlier chapter: “It shall 
 come to pass in those days, saith the Lord, they shall o 
 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, and all nations shall be gathered into it, in 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 (ze. 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 
 
 4 
 | 
 | 
 . 
 3 
 
 * ia 
 
of Thought 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 
 place incense shall be offered unto Me, saith the Lord 
 of Hosts” (Mal. i. 11). Four hundred more years passed 
 away after Malachi, and yet this doctrinal hope of the 
 coming Prophet survived. You may not believe the 
 testimony of the Gospels as to the miracles of Jesus. 
 But granting even that those miracles were 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 New 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, 
 coherent. 
 
232 Lhe Combination of Unity with Frogressivenss 
 
 Secondly, let us now view this promised Hope of Israel 
 in relation to His K1ncty 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 
 deliver 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 (eg.) had beheld Him as blessing 
 the whole human family (Gen. xii. 3) ; Jacob as gathering 
 the nations under one great dominion (Gen. xlix. ro); 
 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 of the Bible. 233 
 even my servant David; He shall feed them, and He 
 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. il. 
 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” (Zec. 1x. 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. 
 
234 Ihe Combination of Unity with Frogressiveness 
 
 “ 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 every 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: 
 “Why 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. ..... Yet have I set My 
 King upon My 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” 
 (ver. 16, 18)—words which, never haying been personally 
 fulfilled in David, are necessarily held. as prophetic of 
 
of Thought in the Books of the Lible. 235 
 
 David’s ideal—the promised King of Israel ; and no less 
 
 in the 118th Psalm which said: ‘The stone which the 
 ~ builders refused is become the Head stone of the corner” 
 (ver. 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. li. 13). Nevertheless, it was added :—He shall 
 “ srow 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. lili. 2, 7, ro). 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 of, but mot 
 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 
 
236 Lhe Combination of Unity with Progressiveness 
 
 kingship. For without entering into any critical question — 
 as to the credibility of the claim, it is undoubted and 
 certain that the Jesus of the Evangelists @@ claim to bea 
 Israel’s promised King ; that He was opposed by a- 
 persecuting world, and rejected alike by the heathen and © 
 Jewish rulers ; that His hands and feet were pierced, and — 
 His garments eivided among His enemies ; that He was 
 “bruised,” and “ put to grief;” that the Shepherd was 
 smitten, and His sheep scattered; and that He aid 
 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.:2). 
 
 I regret that I have only time to take up these two 
 points, viz., the Prophetic and Kingly offices 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 
 50; nor yet because they tell you that He proved His 
 
of Thought in the Books of the Bible. — 237 
 
 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 O1 
 more previously. 
 
238 Lhe Combination of Unity with Progressiveness 
 
 II. Let us now INQuiRE WHETHER ANVTHING SIMILAR 
 'O THIS ‘CAN BE FOUND IN CONNECTION WITH OTHER 
 RELIGIONS OF THE Wor ~p. 
 
 (1.) 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 thought 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 Thoughi in the Books of the Livle. 239 
 
 reality of matter. Some held that God and the universe 
 were one; others that God and the universe were 
 eternally distinct. Some believed 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 ove religious belief 
 respecting the future, you might search on for ever with- 
 out discovering them. No one pretends to doso. 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; it has inherited holy books. The 
 first of these books, the Vih-ing, is a mysterious treatise 
 
240 The Contbination of Unity with Progressiveness 
 
 upon the nature of the universe, and the action of the 
 elements in creation. The second, called the Shu-hing, 
 is more historic. The third, called the She-king, is 
 chiefly lyrical, and for the most part moral and ethical. 
 Another is the 22-27, or book of rites and manners, pre- 
 scribing rules for society. Confucius, the second founder 
 of the Chinese 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 
 wants 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 the 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 completely 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, 
 were also full of enthusiastic hopes prophetical of the 
 time to come. 
 
SS Se ee 
 = 
 
 of Thought in the Books of the Bible. 241 
 
 (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 Sutras, 
 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 ; ze¢., 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 Zhe Combination of Unity with Progressweness 
 
 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 the Buddhists as it had been among the 
 Confucians of China, or the old Egyptians, and Greeks 
 and Romans. 
 
 (4.) Was it different with Brahminism in Ilindus- 
 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—who is represented in the Bhagavat 
 Gita to say—‘ As often as there is a decline of virtue, 
 and an insurrection of vice in the world, 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 of 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 the 
 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 
 
 TIT. INQUIRE, WHETHER, TAKING ALL CIRCUMSTANCES 
 
244 The Combination of Unity with Progressiveness 
 
 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 
 LEfT TO US IS A BELIEF IN ITS HAVING BEEN REALLY THE 
 RESULT OF DIVINE REVELATION. | 
 
 First. As to the Fact ttself, which divides tself into 
 three parts. 
 
 (1.) 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 
 thrown 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 may be 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 itis 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 only 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 
 
 nach 
 
 (1.) 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 empire of Babylon. It finds 
 
246 The Combination of Unity with Progressiveness 
 
 them again restored to their own land, but distressed 
 and discouraged by new foes. It finds them there alike 
 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 Man 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 was 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 epistles 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 me name only ¢#ree points of 
 singularly clear and undoubted harmony between these 
 epistles and the Old Testament teaching previously 
 referred to. 
 
 (x.) 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 (1 Cor. ii. 8, and i. 23). 
 
 (2.) He shows that Christ was not only acknowledged 
 by believers in His Prophetic office (ze. 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 (eg. Circumcision and 
 the Passover) had disappeared as obligatory (Gal. v. 2, 6 ; 
 vi. 12, 15; 1 Cor. v. 7, 8), and the law of Moses had 
 been set aside for a new Gospel dispensation where 
 
248 Zhe Combination of Unity with Frogressiveness 
 
 Gentiles stood as welcome as Jews (Rom. ix. 24-30 5 
 chr ais} exvsi2 6). 
 
 (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 Oid 
 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 
 
 ———= 
 
a ee ee 
 -< - 
 
 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 probabilities. 
 
 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. Every- 
 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 
 know 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. 
 
250 Lhe Combination of Unity with Progressiveness 
 
 This, at least, is ovr explanation. We ask you to finda 
 better. 
 
 The case, nevertheless, becomes stronger—very much 
 stronger—when you consider— 
 
 Secondly. That there was not merely a correspondence 
 of sentzment 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 Zhe fre- 
 diction of actual events relating to Him in the one, and the 
 Julfiiment of such events 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, however, you have 
 seen that the Old Testament records pledged their 
 veracity to the fulfilment of three coming events—viz., 
 (1) 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 would 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 Thought 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- 
 ality. You have also seen, on the authority of four New 
 Testament books, whose authenticity is now universally 
 admitted, written 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 (1) 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 so 
 moulded by Christ and His apostles as purposely to 
 bring about the fulfilment of them. 
 
 If you take the frst 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 
 interpretation. ‘Take the 53rd chapter of Isaiah, for 
 example, the Messianic interpretation of which was only 
 abandoned by later Rabbis, such as Abenezra, Jarchi, 
 
252 Lhe Combination of Unity with Progresstveness 
 
 and Abarbanel. Gesenius 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 Rabdi Alschech, 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 
 Fonathan Ben Ozziel, the author of the Chaldee Tar- 
 gum, 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. Allix, ‘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 ¢#zrd 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. 1)—circumstances which 
 were perfectly within His own control, and which, there- 
 fore, might possibly be alleged as having been effected 
 
254 Lhe Combination of Unity with Progressiveness 
 
 to secure the fulfilment of Jewish prophecy. But these 
 instances of which we speak were very different. They 
 were perfectly beyond the control of any individual wil] 
 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 fancifully 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 final conquest by the Romans was suffie 
 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 Jewish 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 were 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. 258 
 
 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 mezely to 
 the breaking up of the old Jewish nationality, 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 ; it is the union of these two facts, each 
 
250 The Combination of Unity with Prrogressiveness 
 
 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 WVational 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 
 
Se ee Se SS Oe eee 
 
 of Thought in the Books of the Bible. ae 
 
 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 ; 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 a better solution, gentle- 
 men, try your hands upon it now; and I promise we 
 will listen to you patiently. 
 
 r7 
 
“ee ape, We ae sie | 200 ‘tind ERE ) 
 
 “ ‘i iat arioteiat' eitites W Sloe? Sef ‘3 oe ee "Se hd fst 
 
 ee o ‘ “att ie ay Hint 10s tiengaty cabs | toes is 
 
 * gg He Pas Peyy BCs SYS Baw nae. FING dior 
 
 ae: pL SOB ets a by Pie Bist iy Pema : bey gi Buys: eee k 
 
 S 
 
 xf Hoe: if ne SiN Dae ae nee... ") yee 
 aN yy 
 
 Bich ae | ney saa sane ~~. es es A Oe i otoy 
 
 ey tite Ae siiainieen a “wal ja i 
 ate rai {lay a 
 ‘Batts Ces ea 
 
 sshaepyp Phy Sapontg e446 an ae 4 au bap abi a he sine ti 
 mh oe M § inet sé arin ave YRS ues jah siti he ; ne 
 ‘li HAASE i Leen PICHE OLN: BP aig (Sri ue 
 
 Oe fi tle rar a er tie i eee bert Haat He 
 
 Ohi ‘« iSN5 Tact ‘ ist She iy ae ath, 5) RE pete Peres 
 Pima. met is Dts MOM ft ‘auiy eabriech co 
 
 mt by fice biseas ae 1 ny a a 
 ; % a, hee 
 
BY 
 
 W. R. BROWNE, M.A, 
 Fellow of Trinity College, Cambridge. 
 
The Autobiography of Hohn 
 Stuart Bull. 
 
 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 Christian 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 thoughtiul 
 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 little world of 
 
262 The A utobiography f Fohn Stuart Mill. 
 
 thought and feeling and experience, that we should 
 always seize the opportunity to look into another man’s 
 mind and see 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 
 cas€ 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 teil us, yer 
 that what he does say may be fully reliedon. Therefore, 
 as I 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 Fohn Stuart Mill. 263 
 
 was immersed. I am going to iook 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 
 ef 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 
 ‘5 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 Lhe Autobiography of Fohn Stuart Mill. 
 
 dence—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 
 Jearn (1) 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 Fohn 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 con- 
 cerning the origin of things nothing whatever can be known. 
 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 Fohn 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: 
 first 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 
 Javishes 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 xe 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 infalhble 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, thar 
 
 a 
 
The Autobiography of Fohn 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 
 work of design, and assuredly disbelieve that it can have 
 an Author and Governor who is absolute in power, as well 
 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 @ priori grounds, which 
 
208 Lhe Autobiography of Fohn Stuart Mill. 
 
 are quite mdependent 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 power and goodness. The strength of that | 
 
 position I shall consider presently. What I 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, 
 
 (1.) 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. y. 
 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 
 
 i i, 
 
 ——- 
 
 Ce 
 
The Autobiograpny of Fohn Stuart Mill, 209 
 
 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 am one who 
 has not thrown off religious belief, but never had it: I 
 grew 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 
 2 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 mears they can take to ex- 
 
270 Lhe Autobiography of Fohn Stuart Mill, 
 
 plain 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 off 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 bea 
 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, 
 
 ee, oe 
 
 : 
 —. 
 
The Autobiography of Fohn Stuart Mil. 27% 
 
 not at all the same thing as vanity and conceit, but quite 
 
 as great a hindrance to the real grasping of truth. He 
 
 had been taught, and had taught himself to believe, that 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 
 
272 Lhe Autobwgraphy of Fohn Stuart Mii. 
 
 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 with 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 nota 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 faultless F 
 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 
 
 Ur me 
 
The Autobiography of Fohn Stuart Mul. 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 modern 
 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. Ifa 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 
 
274 Lhe Autobiography of Fonn Stuart Mild. 
 
 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 
 
a i — 
 - © ian 
 
 The Autobiography of Fohn Stuart Mul. 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 telling 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, tll 
 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 
 
276 Lhe Autobiography of Fohn 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, how 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 zs a phantom, because this independent 
 action is exactly what Mr. Mill 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 ; lastly, that hap- 
 piness with virtue is the one good ching 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 Fohn Stuart Mill. 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. Herc 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 
 
278 Lhe Autobiography of Fokn 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 récom- 
 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 own 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 Fohn Stuart Mill. 279 
 
 of the sufferings of Christ. What have other religions to 
 offer in comparison with this? They may paint the un- 
 approachable splendour of their deity, the immutability 
 of his repose, and invest him with the poor attributes of 
 wisdom and strength: but we know Jesus Christ ana 
 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 servant 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 argument), 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 
 
280 Lhe Autobiography of Fokn 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 was begun and 
 persevered in from earliest childhood; and secondly, 
 that the same training, together with the tone of the 
 
 | 
 ) 
 q 
 . 
 > 
 
 4 
 
 } 
 
The Autobiography of Fohn Stuart Mul. 281 
 
 society in which he moved, so inculcated the superior 
 wisdom of unbelief, 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 aSit 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, 
 
282 Lhe Autobiography of Fokn Stuart Mill, 
 
 uttered as occasion arose, of grave exhortation, or 
 stern reprobation and contempt.” Reprobation and 
 contempt! What can be more irrational than for Mr. 
 Mill 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 this theory sane men and 
 lunatics stand on exactly the same footing so far as 
 praise and blame are concerned. They each of them 
 act just 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 tothem. 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 
 the 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 ; 
 
 7. 
 
 a se ee ee 
 
 —— 
 
 oe 
 
The Autobiography of Fohn Stuart Mul. 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 
 rance: a life of exertion in contradiction to one of self- 
 indulgent ease and sloth. Like the Christian he paid 
 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 welcome 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 
 
284 Lhe Autobiography of Fohn Stuart Mill. 
 
 point which I would ask you to weigh well and carefully, 
 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 fool 
 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 wholly 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 véry 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 Fohn 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 labourand 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 
 let adversity come, as sooner or later it comes to all, 
 
286 Lhe Autobiography of Fohn Stuart Mil. 
 
 and I 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. J am here drawing no fancied picture. 
 I need 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 bé 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 sensj- 
 bilities, 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. “TI frequently asked myself (p. 140) if I could, 
 
 7 
 a CO 
 
 ./ ——— a — 
 
 ee 
 
The Autobiography of Fohn Stuart Mill. 287 
 
 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 mage 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 overthis the last utterance of scepticism’s 
 Jast 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, 
 
CHRISTIAN EVIDENCE SOCIETY. 
 
 OBJECTS. 
 
 To defend Christianity as a Divine Revelation. 
 
 To controvert the errors of Atheists, a and other opponents 
 of Christianity. 
 
 To counteract the energetic propagandism of Infidelity, especially 
 among the uneducated. 
 
 To meet the difficulties and strengthen the faith of the doubting and. 
 perplexed. 
 
 To instruct the young in the Evidences of Christianity. 
 
 METHODS OF OPERATION. 
 
 SERMONS and LECTURES on phases of modern unbelief. 
 
 POPULAR CONTROVERSIAL ADDRESSES on the Evi- 
 dences of Christianity, and Discussions in Halls and in the open air. 
 
 CLASSES for the Study of Christian Evidences, and EXAMINATIONS 
 with award of prizes for meritorious students. 
 
 PUBLICATION of WORKS to meet the current objections to 
 Christianity, adapted to the educated and to the uneducated. 
 
 GRANTS of suitable Works to Free Public Libraries, Young Men’s 
 Associations, Mechanics’ Institutes, etc. 
 
 Distribution of TRACTS. 
 
 NEED OF IT. 
 
 The unsettled state of opinion in various classes of society, especially 
 among the young and inexperienced, with regard to the existence 
 and character of God, Christ and Christianity, and the Holy Scrip- 
 tures. 
 
 The wide circulation of infidel works and of other literature calculated 
 to unsettle religious opinion. 
 
 The indefatigable propagation of secularist views by lectures and | 
 otherwise. 
 
 SPECIAL CLAIM TO EXTENDED SUPPORT. 
 
 It removes serious obstructicns which lie in the way of those who 
 preach the Gospel of Christ ; and being catholic in its character, it 
 claims support from all who are interested in the defence of a common) 
 Christianity, 
 
 Ae RAE a OP A , | 
 OFFICES: 13, BUCKINGHAM STREET, STRAND, LONDON, W.C, : 
 
ge nae ogre anh 
 
SS AVY SQY i 
 SISOS AAG . 
 
 SON SRN 
 CAG 
 A 
 
 SSS 
 
 SS SS ARN ORR SERN GE ee 
 ES : es SS : : $s : mt ae SF) 5 ~ . ) 
 SRA :