The Bible

AND ITS
Thbolog

W3

THE
BIBLE AND ITS THEOLOGY
AS POPULAELY TAUGHT
% §Le&i.eixr, €avtqi\xinaut anft ^-Statement
WITH MORE ESPECIAL REFERENCE TO CERTAIN
BAMPTON LECTURES AND RECENT WORKS ON
ATONEMENT AND INSPIRATION

G. YANCE SMITH, B.A.
PHILOS. & THEOL. DOCT.
FORMERLY THEOLOOIOAL TUTOR IN MANCHESTER NEW COLLEGE : LATE PRINCIPAL OF
CARMARTHEN PRESBYTERIAN OOLLEOE ; RAWDON FELLOW.

" It has been the temptation of the pulpit at all times to explain without under
standing." — Kev. Charles Gore, M.A.

LONDON
SWAN SONNENSCHEIN & Co.
1892.

LONDON :
PRINTED BY 0. GREEN AND SON,
178, STRAND.

CONTENTS.

CHAP. PAGE
Prefaces  v — xvi
I. — Miscellaneous and uncertain Character of the Sacred Books  1
II. — Unity and Continuity of Scripture — how far admissible  7
III. — The same subject according to Lord Hatherley  18
IV.— Use of the Old Testament in the New  24
V. — Messianic Passages : Isaiah vii. 14; Iii. 13 — liii. 12; xi.; ix. 6  32
VI. — The same subject: Jerem. xxiii. 5, 6; Dan. vii. 13; Micah v. 2;
Zechariah xiii. 7 ; xii. 10 ; the Quotation in St. John xix. 36 ;
Malachi iii. 1  50
VII. — The Knowledge and the Ignorance of Christ — Orthodox Excess in the
Use of Old Testament Passages — Belief in Evil Demons  61
Bishop Moorhouse on the Limitation of our Lord's Knowledge  68
VIII. — Biblical Monotheism — the Words Elohim and Jehovah  70
IX. — The same subject : Continued Development — the Christian Doctrine ... 78
New Testament Passages supposed to express the Doctrine of the Trinity .. 89
X. — Orthodox Argument from Plural Forms of Expression  93
XI. — Jesus of Nazareth — Charge on which he was put to Death  102
XII. — Jesus of Nazareth, as he appeared to his own Contemporaries — True
Import of the Titles, Christ, Word, Son of God  113
XIII. — Mr. Gladstone's Testimony to the Humanitarian Character of the Evan
gelical Narratives — "Ecce Homo"  123
Dr. R. W. Dale on the Living Christ  132
XIV.— The Christ of the First Three Gospels and of the Fourth— Differences... 136
XV. — Doctrine of the Logos — Philo — Justin Martyr — Earlier Tendencies
among the Jews  149
Sources of Information on the Logos  161
XVI. — The Logos Doctrine in the Fourth Gospel — its Meaning and permanent
Value  163
a 2

IV CONTENTS.
CHAP. FAGE
XVII. — Dr. Liddon's Exposition of the Logos Doctrine  176
On the Authorship of the Fourth Gospel  191
XVIII.— Jesus the Spiritual Christ — Christian Faith— Justification by Faith 199
XIX. — Humiliation and Glory of the Christ in the Pauline Epistles  207
XX. — Creation of all Things through Jesus Christ  217
XXI. — Apocalyptic Exaltation of Jesus Christ  225
XXII.— The Worship of Christ  229
XXIII.— The Holy Spirit  240
XXIV. — Sacrifices, their Origin and Purpose — the Hebrew System  251
XXV.— The Death of Christ— Popular Theories founded upon it  260
XXVI. — Its Purpose and Effect as set forth in the New Testament  274
Recent Writers on the Atonement — Archbishop Magee, Bishops Elli-
cott and Thorold — Lux Mundi  290
XXVII. — Relation of the Bible to the Reason and Conscience — Inspiration —
Authority of Scripture  299
Biblical Inspiration as maintained in Lux Mundi  317
Note — Inspiration and recent Biblical Criticism  328
XXVIII. — Summary of Results — the Religion of Christ — the Lord's Supper —
Function of the Bible— Sacerdotalism — the Church and the
Churches — Proper Basis of Christian Communion — Question of
a National Church  329
Postscript  345
Appendix :
Note A — Isaiah vii. 14  350
,, B— Isaiah Iii. 13— liii. 12  351
„ C— 1 Tim. iii. 16  354
„ D— Titus ii. 13; 2 Pet. i. 1 ; 1 John v. 20  354
„ E— Philip, ii. 5—11  359
„ F — The Name Jehovah  365
„ G — On Rom. ix. 5, in the Revised Version  366
Second Postscript : Dr. Liddon's notice of this Volume  370

Erratum.
P. 203, line 7, omit the word "Christ."

PREFACE.

The present volume may be described as a reproduction, by a
species of growth or evolution, from a work published long ago
under a title which, by inadvertence, has been left unaltered at
the head of the first Chapter.
Since the days of that earlier publication, a considerable change
is commonly believed to have come over the religious sentiment
of the country, — a change which, according to many persons,
has been in the wrong direction. It has been mainly on what
has been called the downward " grade ;" and it is lamented
accordingly by those who would rather have continued to stand
where they have long been, if indeed they would not, in many
a case, have preferred to go a little backward rather than
forward. No doubt, however, theologically speaking, there has
been a liberal and a liberalizing advance in all quarters — unless
we must except the higher sorts of ecclesiastical and dogmatic
people ; but even such persons have by no means been standing
quite still.
The change referred to has been in sentiment and feeling, not
in altered formularies or open profession. The latter is little to
be expected so long as the creeds and articles and doctrinal
restrictions of churches, chapels and colleges, remain as they are.
These have not moved at all — and, it may well be, even an angel
from heaven equipped with a new revelation would not dare to
touch them without the permission of a Law-court or an Act
of Parliament. These, then, have not been changed ; but, it
may be added, symptoms of uneasiness under their weight are
not wanting. For the present, they stand as a sort of pious
testimony to the wisdom or the infallibility of our ancestors,

VI PREFACE.
patiently awaiting the supreme permission which (legally speak
ing) can alone confer a true liberty of thought and speech on
those who cannot as yet be said to possess it, or perhaps even,
except here and there, much to desire it.
But, all this notwithstanding, thoughtful men, and also many
who are not to be so called, stand no longer in the old paths.
Belief, for example, in hell-fire is not now so ardent as it was ;
the vicarious suffering of an innocent substitute for the evil-
doing of others, punishment everlasting for the sins of a human
lifetime, salvation by faith alone, verbal inspiration and similar
dogmas, are certainly less universally held and contended for than
of old, unless indeed it be among the hosts of the Salvation
Army. But even here the commander himself of those hosts
is now, happily, turning his mind more to things financial and
practical than to the dogmatics of his system.
I need say little about any movement in an opposite direction.
It would seem as if a large section of the -clergy were taking
refuge from the pressure of increasing knowledge and the claims
of Beason, in church ceremonialism and church infallibility.
This refuge will probably serve them for a time, and it must
doubtless have its day. The clerical world in some directions is
much in need of further education. For this, long years will
be required ; but we may hope that, as knowledge increases, new
light and clearer will arise even upon the close and dimly illu
minated regions of ecclesiastical dogmatism, and that these will
be gladly forsaken at length for the native simplicity, the
sweetness and light of the religion of Christ.
In the midst of the movements of thought just alluded to,
very many have become dissatisfied with the teaching of the
popular creeds, while others find themselves in serious doubt
as to the claims of Christianity itself upon their acceptance ; and
by Christianity I simply mean the Teaching of Christ. But
many, again, even in this state of mind are unwilling to throw
aside the Bible as their handbook of religion, or to give up their

PREFACE. Vll
allegiance to the Christian Master. For such persons I venture
to hope that in the following pages I have been able to point out
a practicable via media — one which does not involve either the
abandonment of a genuine and influential form of Christian faith,
or the virtual renunciation of the rights of our own spiritual
nature in obedience to a reputed orthodoxy, however long-
descended and authoritative this may claim to be. And truly,
it is easy to see that no alleged doctrine of the churches, how
ever widely it may be accepted for the present, will be able to
stand the test and strain of time and knowledge as a permanent
truth of religion, if it be not in essential harmony with the
dictates of the cultivated reason and moral sense.
If, however, I am asked, What, then, is the positive result for
Christian discipleship yielded by the discussions contained in
this volume ? I know of no better answer than that given by
Christ, when a similar or related question was put to him by
the lawyer about the Eternal Life ; or that given to much the
same effect by St. Paul, when he wrote that the greatest thing
of all is not faith, nor hope, but Love, and that without Love we
are nothing. Is this too vague ? or rather is it, alas, too lofty
and impracticable an ideal ? It is at least Christ's ideal and
Paul's. Let me vary my statement by quoting the words of a great
master in these subjects : —
"If we must try to state in words the religion embodied in the
person of the Christian Founder, we may perhaps resolve it into an
intimate sense of filial, spiritual, responsible relation to a God of
righteousness and love ; an unreserved recognition of moral fraternity
among men ; and a reverent estimate of humanity, compelling the
faith that 'the dead live.' This is the combination of which his
person is the living expression ; and he in whom they reappear is at
one with Christianity; — consciously, if recognizing their representation
in him ; unconsciously, if repeating them apart from him."*
* Martineau, Seat of Authority, p. 358.

Vlll PREFACE.
Passing on now to speak more specially of the plan and con
tents of this volume, I would observe as follows : I have not
thought it necessary (with one exception) to enter upon the
question of the origin or authorship of the sacred books ; I have
given in the merest outline a summary of some of the critical
conclusions relating to this part of my subject, deeming it
expedient to take the Bible very much as it is taken by the
expounders of the popular orthodoxies. This I have done with
the assumption (very truly admitted) that its leading state
ments — those in particular concerning the ministry of Christ —
are historical and trustworthy, and that the biblical doctrines on
the subjects here discussed may be learnt with reasonable cer
tainty from its pages. Moreover, I would repeat the statement
of my former Preface, and remind my readers that this volume is
intended not only for professed theologians, but also for the
general body of unlearned persons interested in these subjects —
persons not unwilling to look for their Christianity to the teach
ing of the New Testament, adequately interpreted, rather than to
the writings of Church Fathers, however ancient, or learned, or
eminent. Hence (as before noted) my references are mainly to
works easily accessible, and not beyond the power of ordinary
clergymen and ministers to obtain, and also to read. In all this
I have been desirous to meet and obviate an objection so easily
raised, and which has in substance been brought against me by
Dr. Liddon — to the effect that my first principles are different
from his own, and that I do not admit the trustworthiness of the
Bible. The objection, I submit, is one for which there is little
foundation. For this work proceeds throughout on the assump
tion of the historical and trustworthy character of the N.T.
narratives (although these cannot be withdrawn from the review
of legitimate criticism) ; and I wish to acknowledge also the
validity for our times of the principal utterances of Christ and
his great Apostle. For more on the point just noticed, the
reader is referred to the second Postscript.

PREFACE. IX
The original purpose of the volume will be gathered from the
Preface to former editions. It will be seen to have had a more
especial reference to the Bampton Lectures of 1867, so often
referred to. The contents of that important and widely circu
lated book determined the form and substance of my own.
Some notice of Mr. Gladstone's essay on " Ecce Homo " seemed
at the time to be required ; as well as of Lord Hatherley's
" Continuity of Scripture." The remarks on these works have
been retained much as they were. They could not have been
omitted without too much altering the character of this new
edition. Nor was it desirable to leave them out ; for although
the lamented author of the Bampton Lectures is no longer
with us, nor Lord Hatherley, nor Archbishop Thomson, yet
what they have written on these subjects remains, and for a
multitude of readers it has lost none of its weight or interest.
It seemed, therefore, quite a practical and indeed a necessary
course still to take into account what these eminent men had
written on the subjects here discussed.
La addition to their writings, I have thought it well to include
some notice of more recent publications of special interest. This
I could do, however, only in connection with a few topics of
chief importance. I allude in particular to Lux Mundi, on the
two great questions of the Atonement and biblical Inspiration,
also to certain minor works, as Dr. Dale on the Living Christ,
Bishop Moorhouse on the Teaching of Christ, the late Archbishop
Magee on the Atonement, and Bishops Ellicott and Thorold on
the same subject.
A few words more must bring to a close this preface, already
perhaps too diffuse. I must express my regret not to have had
the advantage of seeing Mr. Gore's Bampton Lectures (1891)
before finishing my own volume in its new form. The latter,
in plan and substance, was all but completed (though its publica
tion has been much delayed) before the Lectures were "out."
Not, I must add, that the perusal of those elaborate and elo-

X PREFACE.
quently written pages could have made any great difference to
my own well-considered and long-settled conviction, based as it
is upon an unfettered and almost life-long study of the subject,
and strengthened by every addition to modern knowledge, in the
newer light thrown upon the most ancient Christian beliefs by
such documents as the Teaching of the Twelve Apostles, the
Apology of Aristides, the Diatessaron of Tatian.*
The structure, in short, of these latest Bampton Lectures (like
that of their great predecessor's) appears to me to rest upon a
huge misinterpretation of the Christian books. Manifestly, it is
founded far more on Nicene speculation than upon the Spirit or
the Word of Christ. But surely to appeal to Nicene or ante-
Nicene theology in order to interpret the original teaching of
Christ and of Paul on the subjects in question, is too much like
going back to the Ptolemaic system of the universe to explain
the working of natural laws among the celestial bodies.
Hence again, as a consequence of his theorizing, the Christ-
ology of Mr. Gore seems to lead him straight to the untenable
position of Bishop Lightfoot — a position of virtual, if not avowed,
Ditheism, veiled though it may be under the disguise of a pro
fessed acknowledgment of " One God and Father of all." In
confirmation of this statement, I refer to the commencement of
his Lecture II., where the author plainly speaks of "the God
that is incarnate." Is such language in harmony with Christian
monotheism ? Is it to be reconciled with a true and unevasive
acceptance of those emphatic words of Christ, " The Lord our
God is One Lord"? — or with that other equally solemn and
expressive appeal in his prayer to the Heavenly Father, " that
they may know Thee the Only True God, and Jesus Christ
* For " newer light " I ought perhaps to have said absence of tight : the documents
named contain no indication of the existence of modern orthodox theology, or any
allusion to the authorship of the fourth Gospel in the early Christian period to
which they enable us to ascend : they contain nothing whatever, any more than the
New Testament itself.

PREFACE. xi
whom thou didst send," — with much more to the same effect, as
will be found abundantly shewn in the following pages ?
To these inquiries it will be a poor reply to repeat the ancient
fallacy : awl Deus aut homo non bonus. This is brought forward
again and with emphasis by Mr. Gore (p. 238), following the
example of Dr. Liddon. But in spite of the great names by
which the words are sanctioned, the implied alternative is quite
falsely put. It ought to have run thus: If Jesus Christ, claim
ing to be God, was not really God, he was not a good man.
This would be correct, and even as Dr. Liddon (p. 206) more
offensively states the proposition, it would be undeniable. But
then where does Jesus Christ claim to be God ? That he did
so, is only the unwarrantable assumption of speculative theolo
gians — men (with all respect be it said) born and cradled and
brought up in that creed, and now bound and entangled in the
meshes of a long-established system, and thus incapacitated, it
would seem, to appreciate the enormous force of the evidence
which stands arrayed against them. Where then, I again ask,
does Jesus Christ claim to be God ? — even though it be granted
that some ill-judging converts, not long after the Apostolic age,
and under very peculiar philosophical influences, began to make
such a claim for him ? He cannot be shewn ever to have made
it for himself, but the contrary ! (See infra, p. 188.)
Once again: Might not the above alternative be somewhat
more modestly stated ? Thus : Either Jesus Christ was God or
else my orthodox interpretation of his life must, to that extent,
be erroneous. But no ! orthodox exposition cannot be erroneous !
Is not the Church "inspired"?* — hence, as before, the account
which it gives of the teaching and work of Christ is the true one,
and if he were not what it declares, he was not an honest man 1
On this point I must not further dwell. It is sufficiently
dealt with in another place {infra, p. 23), where the unhappy
presumption which it involves is sufficiently exhibited.
* Lux Mundi, p. 338, seq.

xii PREFACE.
In illustration of the word " misinterpretation," as used above,
reference may be made to Lect. I. and Lect. VI. The whole
tendency of the former is to turn the reader away from the
thought of Him who is "the only God" to the adoration of
Another, quite as much so as the Boman system tends to draw
the mind to the Virgin — a course to which the lecturer so
strongly objects. Lect. VI., I submit, is in effect a strange,
though unconscious, misreading of the true lesson to be learnt
from the simple historical picture of the personal life of Christ,
even as this is presented by the lecturer himself. And this
result, I conceive, is mainly due to his speculative, a priori,
treatment of his subject.
But let me not take leave of these latest Bampton Lectures
without expressing my warm sense of the admirable spirit in
which they are written ; — so calm, so earnest, reverent, and
devout. To explain my meaning, I quote a portion of page 138,
on the "magnifioent possession" of "faith in God," — beautiful
and striking words which I would earnestly desire, so far as
possible, to make my own. Of God we read :
" He is living in the life of nature and of man. One and unchanged
He is revealed in all varieties of loveliness, all fragments and elements
of knowledge, all traits of worthy character. Thus the Christian
touches all things with a loving reverence, for within them God is
hidden. And because wherever He is He is to be adored, therefore
to the believer in God all joy in what is beautiful, all satisfaction in
ascertained truth, as all delight in human fellowship, is for ever passing
back into worship of Him whose essence it is that touches with glory
all desirable things, — that is, in their fundamental nature and true
application, all things that are. ' Holy, holy, holy, is the Lord of
hosts : the whole earth is full of His glory.' "
0 si sic omnia ! But, alas ! there is another side to this pic
ture, and this is left entirely out of sight.
A final consideration remains. By some persons it may be
thought that such a treatise as this is not called for at the

PEEFACE. xm
present day ; for that the churches and sects do not now really
lay any great stress on the articles of belief which are here
controverted. These are largely held, we might be told, only
nominally, and for the sake of conformity to things as they are.
This is no doubt true in many cases. But yet I would little
depend on such representations. Look abroad with care over
the Anglican Church and the various sections of Nonconformists
who specially appropriate the term "Evangelical." Is it not
evident that in all these quarters the doctrines referred to are
mostly held with a tenacious grasp ? Besides, they are potent
doctrines, affecting conduct, and leading frequently to acts of
spiritual oppression. The importance ascribed to them is well
known to interfere, for example, with the engagement of such
persons as governesses, teachers in schools, domestic servants,
and others in even higher positions, who often find it difficult
or impossible to obtain situations for which they are qualified
simply because of their non-acceptance of the popular theology.
There is no effective or final remedy for this except by shewing
that the doctrines to which so much weight is attached are not
really what they are supposed to be, not really founded on the
words of the New Testament — that they really come from quite
other sources. So far as this is accomplished in the present
volume, I shall rejoice to think that I have to that extent con
tributed to the future union of the religious portions of this
much-divided nation in the bonds of a true Christian disciple-
ship. It may be added, that so long as works like Dr. Liddon's
and the more recent Lux Mundi continue to be published in
exposition and defence of the prevailing Christianity, so long
will it be necessary, again and again, to recall Christian people
to more rational and truthful views of the origin, character
and interpretation of those Scriptures in which the common
forms of Christian belief claim to find their justification. Cer
tainly it is difficult to conceive that the uniting bond of the
nation, as a Christian nation, will ever be found in Nicene

XIV PREFACE.
speculation, Anglican sacerdotalism, or the lower forms of
Evangelicalism — any more than in the general acceptanoe of
Papal infallibility !
I have again to acknowledge the kindness of the Hibbert
Trustees in contributing towards the outlay for the publication
of this new and enlarged edition. I thank them for it, and
rejoice as before to be able to aid, in this form, in promoting the
objects contemplated by their liberal and enlightened Founder.
(The page references in parentheses refer to later editions of
Dr. Liddon's Bampton Lectures.)

FKOM THE PEEFACE TO PKEVIOUS EDITIONS.

It has been my leading aim, in the following pages, to offer to
the reader a concise and simply written exposition of the Biblical
teachings in relation to several of the more important questions of
Christian Theology.
This design I have pursued with a view more especially to non
professional and unlearned readers, — such persons, I mean, as are
not likely to be familiar with theological books, or committed in
advance to the maintenance of a particular creed or system of doc
trine. I speak thus plainly, without the slightest intention to cast
any reflection upon the professional clergy or ministers of religion of
the different denominations ; but I do not pretend to conceal my
conviction that it is chiefly the intelligent laity to whom a theolo
gical writer can look hopefully, for an unbiassed judgment upon the
various evidences and arguments here brought forward. It is not
difficult to understand that those who, either by subscription or by
other equivalent forms of " assent and consent " well known to most
of the Nonconformist churches, have virtually pledged themselves
to very definite conclusions on the subjects which I have discussed,
can hardly be expected to pass an impartial judgment on such a book
as this, even if they should be willing to give it the degree of con
sideration fairly due to it.
The character of the volume has necessarily been affected by a
regard to the class of readers for whom I have chiefly written. The
references to authorities, for example, will be found to be compara
tively few, except in the case of the Scriptures. They are also, for
the most part, and purposely, to works easily accessible. Indeed, I
may add, the due exhibition of the positive doctrine of the Bible, on
the subjects here treated, does not appear to stand in need of the
elaborate erudition which, if a judgment may be formed from Dr.
Liddon's work, is indispensable for the exposition and defence of the
popular theology. This, it may be presumed, is some advantage both
for author and reader. May it not be reasonably appealed to as afford
ing also something of presumptive evidence in favour of the simpler
and more unpretending cause 1

XVi FROM THE PREFACE TO PREVIOUS EDITIONS.
Yet, while admitting and calling attention to this feature of the
present work, I am not without the hope that every point of essen
tial importance in the argument will be found to have been adequately
considered. I have wished that such should be the case, and that no
evidence of value should be omitted or too lightly passed over.
It is perhaps scarcely necessary to say that the volume does not
profess to be anything like a formal or detailed reply to the treatise
of Dr. Liddon. So large an undertaking could not have been brought
within the limits which I had to prescribe to myself. Nor did it
appear to be needed for any practical purpose. I have thought it
well, however, to pursue my principal design with a special reference
to that treatise, as well as to the work of Lord Hatherley on the Con
tinuity of Scripture, and to that of Mr. Gladstone on Ecce Homo.
The three writers may properly be considered as representative men ;
while they may also be classed among the latest and most interesting
expounders of the popular theology. Without, therefore, attempting
a detailed or complete examination of all that they have advanced, I
have kept in view some of the more important and characteristic parts
of their several arguments.
* * * «
I may further observe, that the present volume is necessarily, to
some extent, an argumentum ad hominem. It addresses itself more
especially to those who are accustomed to a particular idea of the
function of the Bible as the depository and teacher of religious truth;
— to those, too, who accept the Protestant principle of the sufficiency
of the Scriptures, and acknowledge the right of private judgment — as
Dr. Liddon appears to do, by the fact of having made his appeal so
emphatically to the Bible.
• • • •
It will not, perhaps, be out of place to mention that these pages
were nearly all composed (excepting the last Chapter) early in the
summer of the past year, although various circumstances have some
what delayed their publication. It will therefore be evident that my
connection with the New Testament Bevision Company, or the discus
sions of one kind and another to which that circumstance has given rise
within the last few months, have had no immediate influence on the
preparation of the work. Without this statement, the volume might
be supposed to have been occasioned by the discussions referred to.
Such is not the case.
York, April 25th, 1871.

THE
BIBLE AND POPULAR THEOLOGY.

CHAPTEE I.

MISCELLANEOUS AND UNCERTAIN CHARACTER OF THE SACRED
BOOKS.
It cannot be unknown to any reader of these pages that the
Bible is not, properly speaking, a single book, but a collection
of many different books or writings, in number not less than
sixty-six, without counting the Apocrypha. Yet this fact,
familiar as it may be, is one of which certain classes of popular
writers and preachers are a little too apt to lose sight. It may,
therefore, be desirable briefly to mention a few of the particu
lars which it involves, or which stand in immediate connection
with it.
The Biblical writings, comprising so considerable a number of
different documents, come down to us from almost as many dis
tinct points or periods of time, in the long interval of many
centuries which separates the earliest of them from the latest.
They are, moreover, in great part, compositions of unknown
authorship. In other words, their writers, in perhaps a majority
of the cases, are not at all known to us, or they are so only by
name ; and they usually say little or nothing as to the sources
of their information, when they give us various statements which
must have been derived, in some way, from others.
E

2 MISCELLANEOUS AND UNCERTAIN CHARACTER
As the books now stand, the oldest of them is most probably
to be found among the Minor Prophets; Amos and Hosea having
lived early in the eighth century before Christ. Some, but very
few, of the Psalms may be as old or older ; but recent conclu
sions cannot with certainty identify any Psalm as from the pen
of "the sweet Psalmist of Israel," who lived in the eleventh cen
tury B.C. The rest of the Psalter is comparatively modern, and
bears upon it many traces of the times of the captivity, or of a
still later age.* The book of Genesis and some other historical
books are believed to contain sections, that is, incorporated mate
rials, of a high antiquity. Nothing certain, however, is known
as to the compiler of the former book. Nor can it be shown, by
any evidence at all adequate to the case, that the Pentateuch
comes down from Moses, although it may very possibly contain
laws and documents from his time, or even from his hand.-f-
There is no certain information respecting the origin of the other
historical books, from Joshua to the Chronicles ; while yet vari
ous internal marks, in statement or in language, are held to be
sufficient to determine the century, if not the king's reign, in
which they may have been composed, or, as in some cases we
must say, put together from older materials. Job and the
Proverbs, Ecclesiastes and Solomon's Song, are in much the
same position. The exact age of each, and the author or col
lector, are alike undeterminable ; in other words, they are largely
matters of speculation, conclusive evidence bearing on these
inquiries being no longer within reach.
* Some of the Psalms are probably Maccabsean, though this is not universally
allowed. Prof. Cheyne refers nearly the whole Psalter to post-exilian times. — Bamp-
'on Lectures, 1889.
t " It is certain that the books of Chronicles were thus compiled [i.e. from more
ancient documents], and probably most of the historical books. Many scholars have
also held that Moses made use of the primitive records of the House of Abraham in
composing Genesis." — Dr. Payne Smith, Prophecy a Preparation for Christ (Bamp
ton Lectures, 1869), p. 2.

OF THE SACRED BOOKS. 3
The age of Isaiah and of the principal prophetical books is
much less a matter of question, with the exception of the book
of Daniel, — which, nevertheless, there is good reason to believe
belongs, not to the time in which the ancient person of that
name lived, as stated near the commencement of the book, but
rather to that of the Maccabees, the second century B.C.*
On the composite character of some of the writings of the
prophets, it is not necessary here to dwell in detail. It may,
however, be noted that the book of Isaiah consists of at least
two principal parts — the earlier and authentic part, from the pen
of the prophet so named; and the later, or non-authentic, extend
ing from chapter xl. to the end of the book. The former (which
now contains also a few non-authentic passages-f-) belongs to the
eighth century (750 — 720) B.C. ; the latter, by an unknown
author, who is conveniently termed the Second or Later Isaiah,
was written some two hundred years afterwards, and bears many
clear traces of the period of the Babylonian captivity. Portions
now incorporated in the Second Isaiah are probably later still.
The book of Zechariah is the work of that prophet only in its
first eight chapters, the rest being of older date, and the work
of not less than two unknown writers. Conclusions similar
to these, in other cases, will be found to be among the surest
results of modern sacred criticism. In this rapid summary, it is
only results which can be stated, and that in the briefest form.
The reader is referred for the needful investigation to the works
of modern authorities, the most important of whom, English and
German, will abundantly warrant the statements above made, j
* See Desprez's Daniel, or the Apocalypse of the 0. T., 1865; also Drummond's
Jewish Messiah (1877), Chap. i. § 2; and, on the other side, Dr. Pusey's Daniel the
Prophet, 1864.
+ E.g., xiii. xiv., also xxiv. — xxvii.
t See the latest work on these subjects — Prof. S. R. Driver's Literature of the 0. T.,
1891.
B 2

4 MISCELLANEOUS AND UNCERTAIN CHARACTER
In the case of the New Testament, the dates of the larger
Epistles of St. Paul, including that to the Galatians, are deter
minable within a few years, and their authorship is not seriously
questioned. Other books are less certain, though nearly the
whole of the New Testament belongs, without doubt, to the first
century AD. If there be an exception to this, the one impor
tant instance of it is the Fourth Gospel, the authorship of which
is by no means to be considered as determinately and finally
assigned to the Apostle John. Modern criticism has been
wonderfully divided on this question, and the tendency has
strongly been to deny such an origin, which is, however, accepted
and defended by many excellent authorities.* If the Gospel be
attributed to that Apostle, its composition can hardly be thought
to have been earlier than about the last decade of the first
century, or the last but one.
In many of the New Testament writings no claim or indica
tion as to authorship is found in the works themselves. For'
example, the first three Gospels cannot by any positive internal
evidence be connected with the authors whose names are upon
them, and to whom they are assigned by the ecclesiastical writers
who mention them. Such internal evidence as there is, some
times bears, indeed, against the statements of those writers. For
instance, that Mark's Gospel, as Papias relates, is the substance of
the teaching of Peter, accurately written down by the Evan
gelist : how is this reconcilable with the verbal coincidences
between Mark and the other two Synoptists ?f The statement,
* See infra, Chap. XVII. and its appendix.
+ The coincidences alluded to are numerous and striking, and the difficulty arising
from them has been too much overlooked It is inconceivable that the teaching of
Peter should have been in the words which are so largely common to all three Synop
tists. Granting then with Bishop Lightfoot {Essays :— comp. Bp. Westcott, N. T.
Canon, p. 73) that Papias had writings in his hand which justified his statement
respecting Matthew and Mark, it is far from probable that those writings were the
two Gospels as we now have them. What Papias referred to may nevertheless have

OF THE SACKED BOOKS. 5
again, that Matthew wrote his Gospel in the Hebrew (Aramaic)
language : how is this to be reconciled with the fact that our
present Greek Matthew is an original, not a translation, except
in so far as (like the other Synoptics) it contains matter from
some older Aramaic source of which the Evangelist made use ?
Some of the minor epistles ascribed to Paul are extremely doubt
ful, or almost certainly not from his pen, although written in
his name. No one can tell us who wrote the Epistle to the
Hebrews;* or the Second Epistle of Peter; or the Second and
Third of John.
It belongs to the present subject to take notice of another fact
of some importance. It is, that no special information remains
as to the principle on which the books of the Old Testament
were selected and preserved, so as to form the more considerable
portion of our existing Bible ; — in other words, it is not really
known on what principle the Old Testament Canon was formed.
Nor have we any better knowledge as to the men by whose
judgment the collection was made, although various conjectures
on this point may easily be formed. In all probability, the whole
was in great measure the growth or accumulation of successive
ages, without much design on the part of any person concerned.
For anything that appears, no definite principle of selection was
followed ; except only that all ancient documents relating, or
thought to relate, to the national history and religion were pre
served, especially those which, when put together, seemed to
form a connected historical whole. These, in the course of time,
served to a later compiler as the groundwork of our First and Second Gospels, and so
have given origin to the names now attached to them. But who it was that did the
work of revising and amplifying, by adding the matter common to all the three
Synoptics, is not known. — Comp. Prof. Sanday, Gospels in the Second Century,
Chap. v.
* Dr. Liddon says of this Epistle, quite arbitrarily, that it was " written either by
St. Paul himself, or by St. Luke under his direction." — B. L. p. 281, note. There
is no evidence for any such statement. See infra, Chap. XXIV.

6 MISCELLANEOUS AND UNCERTAIN CHARACTER
would be accounted sacred, either because of their antiquity, or
because written, or believed to have been written, by holy men
of old, and in the ancient language of the great lawgivers, heroes
and prophets of the nation ;— a language, which began after the
captivity (B.C. 530) to fall into disuse, and to be superseded by
the mixed dialects of later times.
To an early collection, probably made on the return from
Babylon, or then already existing,* and comprising books of his
tory, law and prophecy, which had descended from olden times,
there would for various reasons, at a later period, be added
writings composed by priests and others in the ancient language,
such as Chronicles, Nehemiah, Daniel, many Psalms, and some
of the minor Prophets. Thus the Old Testament comes before
us, not as being a collection of writings preserved because they
had been well ascertained by duly qualified judges to be " in
spired " — in any modern sense of this word — while others not
so inspired were rejected and left to perish ; but simply as being
the whole of the remaining literature of the nation, written in
the old Hebrew tongue,i" the whole that was in existence, so far
as we know, when the collection was finally closed. If such
were the principle on which the books were preserved, or the
great reason for their preservation, it certainly goes far to account
for the miscellaneous and, in parts, fragmentary character of the
collection, — although it gives but little support to the extraor
dinary claims in behalf of the Bible occasionally put forth by
various modern writers. Supposing that the book of Daniel and
the latest Psalms were not written until the time of the Macca
bees, the addition of these compositions to the ancient collection
may, perhaps, be accounted for by the intense religious and
* Comp. Nehemiah viii. xiii.
t The portion in Chaldee found in Ezra and in Daniel is hardly an exception to
this statement, special causes, in both cases, accounting for the use of the Chaldee.

OF THE SACRED BOOKS. 7
patriotic feelings of that period. Writings in the Hebrew language,
in harmony with such feelings, and giving them a fitting expres
sion, might well be thought worthy of being themselves included
along with the older and more sacred books — an honour, it is
known, which was not refused by ancient editors of the Septua-
gint to books which we now consider only apocryphal.
The New Testament writings were preserved on their own
special grounds. That part of the Bible comprises what was
believed to be apostolic, or from apostolic men, and to be, at the
same time, in harmony with the catholic faith of the church, as
this was developing itself in the second and third centuries
after Christ.*
Some further remarks on the Gospels and on the relation of
the fourth to the other three will be found infra, Chapters XIV.,
XVII.

CHAPTEE II.
UNITY AND CONTINUITY OF SCRIPTURE — IN WHAT SENSE
ADMISSIBLE.
In the midst of the uncertainty, or the absolute ignorance,
which thus exists respecting the biblical authors, — remembering
also the vast space of time over which the dates of their writings
lie scattered, as well as the marked differences in the contents
and tone of the books, — we are scarcely prepared for certain
* These statements may be compared with the article on the Canon in Dr. W.
Smith's Dictionary of the Bible. The learned writer of that article observes, " The
history of the Canon of the N. T. presents a remarkable analogy to that of the Canon
of the 0. T. The beginnings of both Canons are obscure, from the circumstances
under which they arose ; both grew silently under the guidance of an inward instinct
rather than by the force of external authority ;  both gained definiteness
in times of persecution." — Article Canon, p. 261.

8 UNITY AND CONTINUITY OF SCRIPTURE,
statements which have recently been made concerning them, by
writers of very eminent name. We are told that an " organic
unity " pervades the Bible from one end to the other. " Beneath
the differences of style, of language, and of method," writes Dr.
Liddon, " which appear so entirely to absorb the attention of a
merely literary observer, a deeper insight will discover in Scrip
ture such manifest unity of drift and purpose, both moral and
intellectual, as to imply the continuous action of a single mind."
The same thing is affirmed by another distinguished person:
" The volume of God's word is stamped with the same conti
nuous unity of purpose, as that which marks the volume of God's
works."* The exact meaning intended by these expressions will appear
in the next Chapter. The general idea which they convey is not
a new one. At the same time it is, within certain limits, an
interesting and suggestive idea, by no means devoid of truth.
It will be well, therefore, briefly to notice, first, the sense in
which the words just cited may reasonably be held to be correct ;
and, secondly, that other and inadmissible sense put upon them
in the works in which they are found.
That a certain Unity, and therefore Continuity, are traceable
in the Scriptures, is a proposition which probably no one who
has considered the subject will deny. In the first place, there
is an indisputable historical nexus, running through the Old Tes
tament, from the beginning to the close of the historical books.
Commencing with the creation of the world, that portion of the
* Liddon, Bampton Lectures, p. 44 ; Lord Hatherly, Continuity of Scripture,
p. xiii. A more recent Bampton Lecturer writes thus : — " St. Paul affirms the pro
phetic character of the whole of the Old Testament Scriptures. All these writings
combine, and were intended to combine, into a concordant body of teaching, given to
man to set before him one and the same great truth." — Dr. Payne Smith, Prophecy
a Preparation for Christ, p. 24. The remark is made in reference to Romans xv. 4,
which obviously does not contain any such meaning.

IN WHAT SENSE ADMISSIBLE. 9
Bible relates the origin and multiplication of mankind, the call
of Abraham, the increase of the Jewish people, their deliverance
from Egypt, and their settlement in the land of Canaan. It
proceeds from this point, with details which extend through
many centuries, giving a rapid outline of the foundation of the
Hebrew monarchy, the division of the nation into two kingdoms,
and the parallel histories of these until the destruction of both,
terminating in the Babylonian captivity of Judah. To this,
again, follows the restoration of the captive people to their own
land, with the re-establishment of their religion and of the temple
worship on Mount Zion.
Throughout the older Scriptures, there is thus an evident his
torical continuity fairly consistent in its different parts. It is
not necessary here to dwell on the traditional or mythical and
"idealized" elements which the books are admitted to contain.
It is sufficient to take note of the fact that the historical books
now in our hands may be considered to have been arranged as
they are with a distinct regard, on the part of the collectors, to
the continuity just spoken of. It may even be, as before noticed,
that this was the great consideration which secured the preser
vation of a large proportion of the older Scriptures, — the con
sideration, namely, that the books of the collection, as it now is,
form in effect a continuous narrative ; and some of them have
no doubt been composed to supplement or continue other books.
And there is a continuity of the same kind — not always har
monious, however — in the New Testament ; comprising, as this
does, the Evangelical narratives of the life of Christ, followed by
the account of the foundation of the primitive church, and of the
labours of some of the chief Apostles ; the whole being illustrated
and confirmed in this case too, by a series of related documents,
in the form of Epistles.
Again, it cannot fail to be observed that throughout the Old

10 UNITY AND CONTINUITY OF SCRIPTURE,
Testament, in nearly all its parts, as throughout the New also,
the conception of One God as the central power and providence
of the world, and the especial protector of Israel, is almost every
where prominent. Thus the Hebrew Scriptures are strongly
monotheistic, although such was by no means always the case
with the people whose history they preserve. The books deliver,
in effect, a consistent and faithful testimony, varied in form, but
continuous in spirit, against the idolatrous beliefs both of the
Hebrews and of the heathen world ; and they have, without
doubt, been largely the means by which the deep-rooted faith in
the One God which now exists throughout Christendom has
been handed down to our times.
Moreover, that He, Jehovah, is a personal Being, of might and
wisdom unspeakable, is constantly either taken for granted and
implied, or more expressly declared. The same is true in regard
to the Divine attributes ; He is a God of righteousness ; One
who, as the people are often reminded by their prophets, is not
to be propitiated by sacrifices, or other forms of ceremonial wor
ship, but who " desireth truth in the inward parts," and requires
from his people a character and conduct corresponding to the
supreme justice and holiness of His own nature. Intermingled
often with less exalted ideas, and unquestionably, in the early
periods, with many purely traditionary and mythological details,
such thoughts of God as these are yet the resulting impression
from a fair perusal of the Old Testament books; and it may
justly be held that the qualities of unity and continuity are, in
this respect, clearly traceable in them. All this may be said;
although it is certainly true that the conception of God in the
Old Testament is often of a debased type — an inevitable conse
quence of the ignorant and otherwise low condition of the
Hebrew people in ancient times.
There is another important subject in which the same feature

IN WHAT SENSE ADMISSIBLE. 11
of continuity is Seen — in this case, more especially in the pro
phetical books. The calamities which from time to time over
take the nation are not allowed to shake the confidence of the
more devout minds in the protection of Jehovah. Present evil,
they are sure, will lead to future good, to the extirpation of
idolatry, to purity of worship, to better times of national pros
perity and peace, under the rule of some future Prince of righ
teousness. Hence the Messianic expectations of the Old Testa
ment, which however natural in their origin, were and have been
wonderfully powerful in their influence, not only upon the Jews,
but upon the Christian world, and in our modern beliefs. And
such anticipations are found scattered through the prophetical
books, and in some passages of other books, from the beginning ;
— not, indeed, in the precise form usually alleged, — the expecta
tion of a definite person like Jesus Christ, — but in a simpler
form, one more accordant with the national character, and with
the imperfect civilization and the circumstances of the Hebrews
in the times of the respective writers.* With Jehovah as their
supreme Sovereign and Defender, it could not be that they should
sink in despair. Even in the worst periods of Assyrian or Baby
lonian invasion, the comforting thought is present that the season
of trouble or of ruin will pass away, and better days hereafter
appear. And in the later Maccabsean times we know how
bravely the nation suffered and resisted, and rose up at last
triumphant from the most terrible persecutions.
Such is undoubtedly the prevailing tenor of many books and
sections of books ; while yet it cannot be said to be uniformly,
or everywhere, present. Jeremiah is very constantly despondent.
Some of the Psalms are equally so ;-f- and even various passages
* See, for example, the promises to Abraham, Gen. xvii. ; those to Ahaz, Isaiah
vii. 13 — 16 ; those to captive Israel, Isaiah xl. seq.
t Psalms lxxix. lxxx.

12 UNITY AND CONTINUITY OF SCRIPTURE,
in the later Isaiah are not without their tone of sadness, almost
of hopelessness : —
" Oh that thou wouldest rend the heavens,
That thou wouldest come down,
That the mountains might be shaken at thy presence !
***** " Be not wroth to the uttermost, O Jehovah,
Neither remember iniquity for ever :
Behold, see, we beseech thee, thy people are we all.
Thy holy cities are a wilderness,
Zion is a wilderness, Jerusalem a desolation ;
Our holy and our beautiful house,
Where our fathers praised thee,
Is burned up with fire,
And all our pleasant things are laid waste.
Wilt thou restrain thyself at these things, 0 Jehovah 1
Wilt thou keep silence and afflict us to the uttermost 1 "
Isaiah lxiv. 1, 9 — 1 2.
The Messianic expectations, in their earlier forms, were, as
before noted, somewhat vague, being fixed upon the thought of
national prosperity under a wise and victorious prince, rather
than upon any conception of a definite religious leader or Saviour
for the world at large* Yet in the course of time, as such
expectations remained unfulfilled, the idea of the deliverer and
his work would appear to have been greatly modified and raised
in character. Continued or often experienced adversity might
well suggest to the people the futility of ambitious hopes, and
lead them to look for times of spiritual regeneration, rather than
of conquest over enemies and political pre-eminence. Probably
a change of this kind had taken place, or had been going on, in
many minds long before the Christian era. Hence, although the
ancient expectations had never been fulfilled, yet they had
* Isaiah ix. 1 — 7, xi. xii. ; Dan. vii. 9 — 14.

IN WHAT SENSE ADMISSIBLE. 13
doubtless served, in a certain sense, to prepare the way for
Christ and the Gospel. In this, again, there is clearly a certain
'' continuity " between the Old Testament and the New. In this
sense, too, the proposition is evidently true — true in a higher
and better sense than is usually, perhaps, allowed — that Pro
phecy was a preparation for Christ*
It is difficult, however, to say to what extent the more elevated
idea of the Messiah and his office was entertained in the time of
Christ. Both in the Book of Enoch and in the Gospels them
selves, many traces oecur of the continued influence of the belief
in a temporal Messiah.-f- It cannot, indeed, in any case, be said
that special, direct or adequate preparation was made for Jesus
Christ, under the influence of the earlier forms of Messianic
belief. Those forms did not, in fact, prepare the people for the
acceptance of a humble and despised Messiah. This is plainly
seen by the result. The mass of his countrymen rejected and
crucified the Nazarene. Even the belief held in later years by
the personal friends and early disciples of Jesus, appears long to
have included very material ideas — ideas whieh have never been
realized — of his return to take vengeance on his enemies and
restore the kingdom to Israel.
Yet in another sense the Hebrew religion, from an early period,
may clearly be regarded as a providential preparation for him
that was to come. Nowhere else in the world, except among
the Jews, trained as they were to a monotheistic faith, and at
least influenced, if not powerfully controlled, by the high moral
and religious spirit of many of their prophets, — nowhere else in
* Is not this the only true sense in which such a proposition holds good ? The
reader may compare, again, Dr. Payne Smith's work before cited, in which he will
find the traditional and dogmatic view of the subject duly stated, and ably defended
with the usual arguments.
t Matt. xx. 20, seq. ; Luke xxii. 24 ; quotations from the Book of Enoch, in
Culenso on the Pentateuch, Part IV., Appendix.

14 UNITY AND CONTINUITY OF SCRIPTURE,
the world of that day but among this people, could such a person
as Jesus of Nazareth have made his appearance, or taken his
stand to appeal to future generations as the great spiritual
Teacher* of mankind. Nowhere else in the world, it may safely
be said, could he have obtained an audience, fit though few,
of sympathizing minds, or have found even a small band of
ardent and devoted disciples ready to follow him, and to lay down
their lives for his sake. This fact certainly forms a valid and
remarkable set-off against the narrowness and bigotry which led
to his destruction. Nor should it be forgotten, as it too often is,
by those who are anxious in modern times for the " conversion"
of the Jews.
The New Testament differs from the Old, inasmuch as it
possesses a certain character of completion, or fulfilment, as
compared with the latter. Yet in this too there is evident unity
as well as continuity of plan. There are preparation and growth
in the one, resulting in a corresponding development in the
other. The idea of the One Creator and Lord of heaven and
earth is still there ; but it is under the better name of Father,
the Father in Heaven. We are now, under the influence of
great Christian minds, familiarized with the thought of His
universal dominion. He is One who is no respecter of persons ;
and Jew and Gentile alike, by receiving the Christ whom He
has sent, may be equally his children. Here is diversity, indeed,
from the old exclusive idea, but springing out of this, neverthe
less, by a kind of natural growth and completion. So with the
morality of the New Testament. It is the old morality, but
raised and purified. In Christ and his Apostle Paul, you have
its most perfect expression ; and when separated from the tem
porary controversies about the claims of the Law, and a few of
* This appellation is constantly used of Jesus in the Gospels— though strangely
enough disguised, even in R. V., under the rendering Master.

IN WHAT SENSE ADMISSIBLE. 15
the Jewish ideas of the time, it is a morality, in its highest ex
pression of love to God and love to man, as perfect as the
human mind has yet been able to conceive ; a morality which
few indeed have been able practically to carry out in its perfect-
ness and unselfishness, in the whole conduct of a life.
In the New Testament, moreover, the better Messianic ideas
of the Old are realized and fulfilled— fulfilled in a certain Chris
tian sense, though not in the sense in which they were enter
tained by the ancient Hebrews among whom they had grown up,
or even by the sacred writers by whom they had been put on
record. The Messiah, the great leader and prince foreshadowed
of old, is not, it is true, the conquering, temporal prince anti
cipated by them : on the contrary, he is one who has been
despised, rejected and put to death by his own people. But this
defeat is only for a time ; he shall come again, to sit in judg
ment on his adversaries, to condemn the ungodly, and drive
them from his presence into the punishment which is their due ;
and shall thus introduce the promised reign of prosperity and
righteousness* Those who thus believed had no difficulty in
interpreting the great anticipations of the ancient Scriptures.
Poetical expressions of confidence in Jehovah, and of victory
over heathen enemies ; a Psalm of joyful congratulation on the
accession of Solomon, or some other king ; a nuptial ode on the
marriage of a Jewish prince ; or a passage descriptive of the per
secution of the servants of Jehovah in the olden times,-f- were
now understood, after the manner of the day, to have their true
fulfilment in the fate and fortunes of the Christ and his fol-
* Matt. xxiv. 27, seq., xxv. 31, seq. ; Mark xiii. ; Luke xii. 36 — 40, xvii. 24 — 37.
Also passages in the Epistles passim. It is probable that some of the language attri
buted to Christ on this subject has been influenced and coloured by the expectations
of his disciples. Some of his sayings bear a different character, as Matt. xxii. 23 ;
Luke xxii. 24 — 27. Such passages most probably express the genuine feeling of the
Master. Compare John xviii. 36. + Pss. ii. xlv. lxxii. ; Isaiah liii.

16 UNITY AND CONTINUITY OF SCRIPTURE,
lowers. Here, again, there is a manifest unity; a growth,
development, continuity, which correspond in some sense, though
not exactly in the sense intended by their authors, to the two
expressions before referred to.
On one great subject, however, there is a notable absence of
both the qualities in question, when the Old Testament is com
pared with the New. The doctrine of a Future Life, so pro
minent in some passages of the latter, is nowhere set forth in
the former. It is very questionable whether that doctrine is
alluded to in the Old Testament,* while in some passages it
appears to be denied — as, for example, in Ecclesiastes and Job,
especially in chapter xiv.-f of the latter, taken in connection with
other passages of the book. At all events, the doctrine in ques
tion is not expressly or clearly taught in the Old Testament ; in
so much that it may be a matter of great doubt whether the
ancient Hebrews had any general belief in it or not. Indeed,
a distinguished prelate of the English Church, holding that
they had not, founded upon that alleged fact an elaborate argu
ment for the " Divine Legation of Moses." This is one respect,
therefore, in which neither unity nor continuity can be affirmed
of the Bible ; and there are some other points, less fundamental,
in regard to which the same admission must be made.
What, for instance, is the unity, or the continuity, between the
book of Leviticus and the prevailing tone of the earlier Isaiah,
in particular of his first chapter ? — between the book of Job and
Solomon's Song ? — between the Proverbs and the Sermon on the
Mount ? — the book of Daniel and the Epistle to the Galatians,
or the First Epistle of St. John? — between the spirit of the
* A few expressions in the Psalms have been thought to imply this belief, but
they are very doubtful. Comp. Ps. xvi. 10, 11 ; xvii. 15 ; xxxvi. 8, 9 ; xlix. 15 :
but comp. Prof. Cheyne who, for these Pss., admits the allusion. — Bamp. Lect. 1889.
+ Job xiv. 7 — 12, 14, 18 — 21. See the writer's Chapters on Job for Young
Readers, 1888.

IN WHAT SENSE ADMISSIBLE. 17
various imprecatory Psalms and the spirit of Christ ? In what
sense can the unity between the books in such cases be said to
be " organic " — as Dr. Liddon terms it ? The only relation exist
ing is simply one of incompatibility, or of marked antagonism ;
or else, again, there is no sort of describable relation at all, the
one book simply standing apart in absolute independence, and
ignoring the existence of the other. To how many of the books
of Scripture this remark is applicable, we need not stop to
inquire ; but that the proportion is not small, admits of no
reasonable question.
And yet Dr. Liddon does not hesitate to speak with approval
of the old and mischievous practice of " quoting from any one
book of Scripture in illustration of the mind of any other;" as
he does of the belief that Scripture contains "an harmonious and
integral body of sacred truth" *¦ — a belief which is so palpably
inconsistent with the facts of the case.
In short, the unity and continuity of the Scriptures are very
real, very substantial ; but they are such, and only such, as we
might expect to find in the somewhat fragmentary remains of the
entire literature of an ancient people, which is the true character
of the Old Testament. There is in the several parts a certain
consistency of historical statement, a certain uniformity of feeling,
of religious belief, of prophetic hope and aspiration ; but, at the
same time, there is a great amount of very important diversity.
The books of the Pentateuch-|- may affirm the doctrine of tem
poral retribution in a very material form ; a Book of Job, as its
resultant lesson, may deny it. A prophet, like the earlier Isaiah,
may anticipate the time when peace and righteousness shall
prevail, and the nation shall be supreme over its ancient enemies,
Moabites, Philistines, Assyrians, Egyptians ;J while the later
course of the history, as recorded in Scripture itself, may shew
* B. L., pp. 45, 46. t For example, Deut. v. vi. xxviii. J Isa:ah xi.
C

18 UNITY AND CONTINUITY OF SCRIPTURE,
that such anticipations have never been fulfilled. One Psalmist
may give utterance to the most terrible imprecations against his
own or his nation's enemies, while a chapter in a Gospel or an
Epistle may tell us to love our enemies, to bless them that
persecute, to overcome evil with good. One book may lay a
painful stress on the minute observance of outward ceremonies,
and the offering of sacrifices, while another, in its predominant
strain, may speak with a clear repudiation of such things as
utterly unavailing to win the favour of God, or make atonement
for a disobedient, sinful life. Such diversities are largely seen
throughout the books of Scripture — as in truth ought to be
expected when their great number and variety are remembered,
as well as the very dissimilar states of national civilization to
which they correspond. Still, with all this rich and various
diversity, they present a degree of unity which is sufficiently
remarkable, and which has unquestionably helped greatly to
render the Bible capable of being, in an eminent degree, the
moral and religious educator of a large portion of the human
race. This it has undoubtedly been in times past, and this
we may venture to anticipate and to hope it will be still, in
days to come, in a better and more rational way than the world
has yet seen.

CHAPTER III.

UNITY AND CONTINUITY OF SCRIPTURE AS MAINTAINED BY
LORD HATHERLEY.
The degree or kind of " organic unity," and of ¦' continuity,"
thus found to exist in the Bible, is not, however, that which is
meant by Lord Hatherley and Dr. Liddon. This will be suffi-

AS HELD BY LORD HATHERLEY. 19
ciently seen in the course of the present and three following
Chapters. Our attention is claimed, in the first place, by the
careful exposition given in the Preface to the "Continuity of
Scripture." There are three forms, it is here affirmed, under which the
unity of the Scriptures is seen: the historical unity of subject;
the moral unity ; the spiritual unity. These three forms, how
ever, under the treatment of this book, are really resolvable into
one, namely, a theological unity. By " historical unity '' is not
meant the consistency or continuity of historical statements
contained in the Scriptures, — but the " Creation, Fall and Resto
ration of Man."
"The Bible," our author writes, "contains the history of man's
creation, his fall, his miserable degradation consequent on that
fall, and his restoration to favour with his Creator, through a
sinless Redeemer." * In unfolding for his readers the character
of this unity, he naturally sees and interprets everything included
in his survey by the light of his own creed ; and thus finds fresh
confirmation for the latter in the prevailing strain of the Scrip
tural narrative. Yet probably few thoughtful persons will be
prepared to follow him in this course, whose minds are as free
as they ought to be from the ordinary orthodox prepossessions,
even though the path which he takes may appear to be the broad
and easy one, and very many may be found upon it. It is not
an easy path, in reality, but one of very serious difficulty. Thus,
for example, there is nothing in Genesis iii. to shew that the
writer of that passage had any idea of the " Fall," in the usual
theological sense of this term. He does not say — though it is
frequently said for him — nor is it anywhere said in the Bible,
that the Serpent was Satan, or that Satan was in the Serpent,
this being only a theological gloss put upon the narrative in
* Continuity, pp. xiv. xv.
c2

20 UNITY AND CONTINUITY OF SCRIPTURE,
later times. The Satan does not make his appearance in any of
the most ancient books of the Old Testament, as a reader may
easily see for himself.* Nor does the writer of Genesis say that
all the descendants of Adam and Eve "fell" in their progenitors,
that is, became guilty, because of their transgression. Nor,
again, is this supposed fall of the human race even so much as
alluded to, in the whole course of the Old Testament history,
extending over a long interval of many centuries. It is not
noticed by the Prophets in the worst periods of national wicked
ness and idolatry, although, in such times, occasions without
number presented themselves, by which the primeval transgres
sion might well have been brought to their minds. It is not
mentioned, nor in any way referred to, throughout all the words
of Christ recorded in the Gospels ; and the only instances in the
Epistles in which it can be supposed to have been in the mind
of the writer, are afforded by two or three obscure expressionsf
from the pen of St. Paul. The Apostle does not, however, say
that all became guilty in Adam, but that all became subject to
death in him,| inheriting from him the mortality which, accord
ing to the old Hebrew idea, was the penalty of transgression.
* The conception of Satan occurs in three 0. T. books, viz., Job (i. ii.), Zech.
(iii. 1, 2), 1 Chron. (xxi. 1), — all of comparatively late origin.
f Rom. v. 12—19; 1 Cor. xv. 21, 22; Ephes. ii. 3.
t In Rom. v. 15 — 19, the idea appears to be, that condemnation and death ensued
on the transgression of one. The same passed to others, and to all, because all have
sinned. So "through the offence of the one " many died, but only by sharing in the
mortality introduced, — nothing is said about their sharing in the guilt. The only
words which give an apparent support to the latter idea are in v. 19, "were made
sinners." The meaning can only be, were condemned, treated as if they were sinners,
inasmuch as they became subject to death, the consequence of sin.
In Ephes. ii. 3, the Apostle is speaking of actual trespasses and sins ; but again
says nothing of the imputation of the guilt of others. In their natural state, i.e., as
Jews or Gentiles before their conversion to Christianity, all were "children of wrath,"
liable to punishment on account of past sins — but these, the Apostle adds, are now
forgiven in Christ.

AS HELD BY LORD HATHERLEY. 21
Thus the fundamental idea of the Fall which lies at the basis
of the historical unity described, affords the very weakest of
foundations for the vast and complicated scheme of salvation
which is built upon it. At most, it depends on the construction
given to one or two difficult expressions of the Apostle Paul ;
and it is certainly nowhere in the Scriptures held up as the one
greatest fact in the primitive history of man, to which every
thing else in the Divine plan of restoration bears reference — as
the popular theology would teach.
The " moral unity " is treated in a kindred manner. It would
seem to be especially shewn in the fact that, although the Pro
vidential design to bring about certain ends generally fails, yet
this result is usually met by some later provision* Man is
created that he may be innocent and happy, but he falls from
righteousness. "Seth is born that the evil race of Cain may
not alone represent the race of man ;" yet, nevertheless, in a few
hundred years the whole race of man has to be destroyed from
the face of the earth, on account of its wickedness. And so the
story continues, detailing in succession " shameful drunkenness "
on the part of Noah, " shocking irreverence " on the part of
Canaan, righteous Abraham's "timid deceit with reference to
Sarah;" "Jacob's fraud," David's crime, Solomon's folly; the
whole description serving forcibly to exhibit and illustrate the
natural helplessness of man, and his need of a supernatural pro
vision for his " salvation " in accordance with orthodox ideas.
It were much to be desired that the author of this darkly
coloured picture could have added that even the Christian dis
pensation had been more successful, from his own point of view,
than any of the earlier provisions. But, as is well known, popu
lar teaching does not usually admit this. The devil is still a
triumphant power in the universe. As a much-esteemed evan-
* Continuity, pp. xix. — xxii.

22 UNITY AND CONTINUITY OP SCRIPTURE.
gelical clergyman has been heard to tell his people, even in
Christian congregations the larger part belongs to Satan. And
truly there is ungodliness enough in the world, unbelief in the
doctrines of the Church, idolatry, sin and misery in every direc
tion, enough of these to make us fear that the last state of man
kind is quite as bad as the first — even when due allowance is
made for all those, comparatively few at most, who may happen
to be " saved," or to believe themselves saved, according to the
scheme of salvation commonly propounded.
The third species of unity, " the spiritual unity," is of course
theological also. It differs from the preceding in being more
specific in its doctrinal statements and allusions. " The atoning
sacrifice for the guilt of all mankind," is, we are told, " carried
through the whole sacred volume, from Genesis to Revelation."
So is the doctrine of the Trinity, mysteriously suggested or
involved, as it is, in the double form " Jehovah Elohim, the one
yet plural Lord God;" and in some other forms of expression
highly significant to orthodox readers,* but in which the doc
trine alluded to was never understood or suspected to exist by
the Jews, either of ancient or of modern times. So that here,
again, it might appear as if the whole providential design of
God, in the case even of his own chosen people, had been won
derfully frustrated, and what He intended had never been
brought to pass !
It is not necessary to our present purpose to enter further
into the examination of this exposition of the Unity and Con
tinuity of Scripture. Doubtless very many of its readers will
entirely sympathize with the devout and earnest spirit in which
it is written. But yet, while granting this, it is impossible to
lose sight of the grave difficulties of one kind and another which
press upon the whole theological scheme set forth, and which
* Numb. vi. 22—27 ; Isaiah vi. 3.

AN ALTERNATIVE. 23
are passed over in silence. The noble author, indeed, expressly
avoids what he terms " the thorny paths of criticism." But, on
the other hand, it cannot be supposed possible to reach any
result satisfactory to an intelligent mind by taking everything
for granted. If, as the poet tells us, " blind unbelief is sure to
err," the same may just as truly be said of blind belief; and
it contributes little indeed to the support of rational Christian
faith, to begin by giving an unquestioning assent to almost every
traditional doctrine of the day popularly deemed evangelical.
There is one mode of argument which it is especially surpris
ing to find here so readily followed. " Assuredly," it is observed,
" the two Testaments must stand or fall together ; assuredly, if
the Old Scriptures be devoid in any part of truth, our Lord's
testimony to them must (shocking as it is to say so) be untruth
ful ; and if so, then, indeed, the moral world is again a chaos, and
the Christian's hope a dream."* The writer of these words has
not perhaps realized to himself what they amount to. But it is
plainly this : If the particular view of the subject taken by me,
the writer of this Preface, be not correct, " our Lord's testimony"
is "untruthful." This is not an uncommon form of orthodox
asseveration. Dr. Liddon offends in the same point more than
once. Christus, si non Deus, non bonus,— thus he summarizes
the contents of one of his pages, in which occur these words : " If
he (Christ) is not God, he is not a humble or an unselfish man.
Nay, he is not even sincere ; unless we have recourse to a sup
position upon which the most desperate of his modern opponents
have not yet ventured, and say with his jealous kinsmen in the
early days of his ministry, that he is beside himself." f
Such is the self-confidence of modern orthodoxy ! Either the
theory which it has adopted of Christ and his work is the true
one, or else the Apostles, and their Master too, were little better
* Continuity, p. Ix. + Liddon, B. L., p. 203 (206).

24 USE OF THE OLD TESTAMENT IN THE NEW.
than deceivers, and Christianity is a "dream," or something
worse. Happily it is not absolutely necessary to accept either
of these alternatives. A far better via media may be found ;
and this it will be a main purpose of the following pages to
point out.
The prefatory exposition of doctrine referred to in these obser
vations is followed by a series of extracts from the Old Testa
ment, set over against certain New Testament passages in which
the former are quoted, or alluded to. Nearly every book of the
Old Testament, we are reminded, is in this way referred to in
the New. Granting this, it remains to examine, as briefly as
may be, the use made of the Old Testament in the New, and
how far it bears out popular ideas on this subject.

CHAPTER IV.
USE OF THE OLD TESTAMENT IN THE NEW.
There can be no doubt that the Jews of the time of Christ,
as well as their ancestors for many generations, held their sacred
books in the greatest reverence. They were regarded as in some
sense inspired, but this is not claimed in the books themselves.
They were read in the synagogues, and constituted the chief
literary nutriment of the great bulk of the nation. They were
to the Jew the depository of almost all knowledge, recording the
history of his people, and the wonderful deeds which Jehovah
had done for them in times of old. The mind of a devout
Hebrew was stored with thoughts and expressions drawn directly
from the ancient Scriptures, and the Messianic hopes cherished
by the nation were believed to be firmly based upon the words

USE OF THE OLD TESTAMENT IN THE NEW. 25
of the prophetic writers included within the sacred volume.
That volume contained, moreover, the national code, under the
sanction of which the religious institutions of the State existed ;
and no better argument or evidence could be adduced in any
doubtful case than the citation of its testimony, the statement of
any fact which it might afford, or be supposed to afford, appli
cable to a point in discussion.
That such value as this was attached to the Old Testament by
the Jews of the primitive Christian age, there can be no doubt.*
But whether or not they were always right in their interpreta
tions, in their ascription of a sacred book to an author, or in
their application of the words of ancient prophecy, — this is
another question altogether.
It is not to be forgotten that the Apostles and Evangelists, and
Christ himself, born and brought up as Jews and among the
Jewish people, would necessarily share their feelings and opinions
in reference to the ancient Scriptures. There is no reason to
think that on this subject they had any special knowledge. At
least they never tell us that they had ; and any one who sup
poses such a thing is bound to give some positive evidence,
beyond mere inferences from his own dogmatic theories, or those
of ancient Fathers.-f- It is, indeed, easy to gather from the evan
gelical accounts that Jesus and his followers partook of the
common views of their countrymen in this respect, even as they
spoke the same language, and in other ways were under the
influence of the ideas of their nation and time. Are we not told
* The high terms in which Philo speaks of the Old Testament Scriptures may be
seen in Gfrorer's Philo, capp. 4, 5. The words of Josephus are well known. It is
natural, he tells us, to all Jews to adhere to their sacred books, and, if it were neces
sary, even to die for them.
t Compare B. L., p. 458 (466), seq., and the quotations there given from various
Fathers, who were evidently as much perplexed by the ignorance of Christ in Mark
xiii. 32, as Dr. Liddon himself— and no more successful in explaining it, on the
orthodox supposition of the two natures.

26 USE OF THE OLD TESTAMENT IN THE NEW.
of his being a child, and a boy, and living with his parents in
Nazareth; and also that he " advanced in wisdom and in age"?*
In another Gospel, we read that Jesus himself spoke of the
limited nature of his own knowledge. He did not know, he said,
of the day of his second coming : " Of that day, and that hour,
knoweth no man ; no, not the angels which are in heaven, neither
the Son, but the Father." f
There is then, on the face of the Gospels, no reason to suppose
that even the Lord Jesus Christ, as he grew up from childhood,
had any special enlightenment on the subject of the authenticity
and genuineness of the sacred books. It is certain that he never
informs us that he had ; and it is surely unwise to set up for
him claims of this kind, which he does not make for himself, and
which cannot be substantiated. We may reasonably conclude,
therefore, that Christ and his disciples would regard and use and
speak of the sacred books exactly after the manner of other Jews
of their own time.
In those days, it is hardly necessary to say, critical science
was little known. A book, especially a sacred book of ancient
descent, was usually, so far as is known, received without
inquiry under the name of its reputed author. There is at least
no instance in which the claims, or reputed claims, of any Old
Testament writer are called in question, or discussed on critical
grounds, by any authority of the time of Christ, or in previous
centuries. A book of Moses, a book of Samuel, a book of Isaiah,
would be each read and circulated, and attributed to the sup
posed author without difficulty, even though it might contain
matter which he could not have written. Critical investigation
in reference to such points was simply not thought of.
Hence it is not to be doubted that most of the Old Testament
books are referred to in the New Testament without any signs
* Luke ii. 43, 52. + Mark xiii. 32.

USE OF THE OLD TESTAMENT IN THE NEW. 27
of hesitation, or rather with entire acquiescence, as to their
authorship. But how far this acceptance of the older Scriptures
by the personages and writers of the Christian books should be
admitted, or can be admitted, by us of modern times, as a sub
stitute for critical inquiry on our part, as a valid reason for
closing the mind to every literary, or historical, or philological
difficulty involved in a given case, and for putting precisely the
same meaning upon cited passages which the Christian writers
put upon them, — this may still be a very weighty question. Cer
tainly the anxiety so often shewn by orthodox writers to prove,
by considerations of every available kind, that the Pentateuch,
for example, or the whole Book of Isaiah, has been rightly attri
buted each to the author whose name is now attached to it,
allows us easily to see that even the most ready faith is not as
yet quite satisfied to believe, on such matters, without some show
of reasonable evidence.
In illustration of these statements may be taken one of the
simplest forms in which the case occurs, that presented by the
Psalms. There is reason to believe that this book was popularly
received, by the Jews, as mainly a book of king David. Many
of the Psalms are ascribed to him by name in the book itself ;
and in the New Testament the collection is sometimes referred
to under his name, whether he be spoken of in the original as
the author of the Psalm quoted or not* The inscriptions, or
titles, of the Psalms are known to be ancient. It is also pro
bable that they were received in the early Christian times as of
equal authority with the rest of the Psalms.
It is well known, however, to the student that it is often im
possible to admit the authorship of the Psalms as given in the
titles. This is allowed by the best modern critics, from De
* Luke xx. 42 ; Rom. iv. 6 ; xi. 9 ; also Acts i. 16 ; ii. 25.

28 USE OF THE OLD TESTAMENT IN THE NEW.
Wette and Ewald downwards, and indeed upwards too ; and so
the reader will find it substantially stated, even by the very con
servative writer referred to in the note * Thus, for example,
Psalms xiv. xxv. li. lxix. contain references to the captivity;
yet the titles attribute them to David. Psalm cxxxix. is called
" a Psalm of David." It belongs to a much later period, con
taining distinct traces of this in the Chaldaic character of the
language. Similar remarks apply to many others in the collec
tion, besides those just specified.
Before passing on to speak more in detail of the use made in
the New Testament of various Old Testament expressions, it
may be observed that the ancient Scriptures are, without doubt,
occasionally quoted and referred to by way of accommodation
simply.-)- There is a very remarkable series of references to the Old
Testament, — forming, in fact, a kind of clue to the difficulties
of the question, and well enabling us to see the use thus made
of the older Scriptures by early Christian writers. This testing
passage consists of no less than three chapters in the Epistle to
the Romans.! It is not necessary for the present purpose to
enter minutely into all the cases here presented. The following
remarks apply more especially to some of those which occur in
the tenth chapter, but might be extended equally to the rest.
* Article Psalms, in Dr. W. Smith's Dictionary of the Bible, pp. 954, 955. It
may be observed that the writer of this article contradicts himself, in first declaring
that the superscriptions are "fully trustworthy," and then telling us that many
Psalms with Davidic titles " were written by Hezekiah, by Josiah, by Zerubbabel, or
others of David's posterity ; " and even saying that many such Psalms are shewn to
be of late origin by their Chaldaisms and other indications. " They cannot there
fore," he adds, "be David's own." Then, surely, their superscriptions are not "fully
trustworthy." f By accommodation is here, in general terms, denoted the application of an 0. T.
passage in the N. T. to express some sense not intended by the original writer.
% Rom. ix. a. xi.

USE OF THE OLD TESTAMENT IN THE NEW. 29
Christ, then, the Apostle writes, " is the end of the law for
righteousness to every one that believeth ; for Moses (he goes
on to say) describeth the righteousness which is of the law,
that the man that hath done them shall live by them. But the
righteousness which is of faith speaketh on this wise, Say not in
thine heart, Who shall ascend into heaven? (that is, to bring
Christ down): or Who shall descend into the deep? (that is, to
bring up Christ from the dead) ; but what saith it ? — The word
is nigh thee, in thy mouth and in thy heart: that is, the word of
faith which we preach." *
The sentences in italics are quoted partly from Deuteronomy
and partly from Leviticus.-f- They are introduced by the Apostle
exactly as if he intended to convey the idea that in their original
design they were written with a reference to Christ, and the
righteousness which is by faith in him, as contrasted with that
which came by the law. The words are even explained, in
two instances, as expressly referring to Christ; "that is, to bring
Christ down ;" or again, " to, bring Christ up from the dead ").
Probably, however, no one can think, or will allege, that St.
Paul thus writes in any other sense than by way of accommo
dation, taking words as if they originally referred to Christ,
although they can have had no such original intention. Not
many persons will go so far as to say that the Apostle himself
believed that the authors of Deuteronomy and Leviticus had
Jesus Christ in their view, in the words quoted from their
respective books.
Several other quotations occur in the same chapter, from Isaiah
and from other books of the Old Testament. An examination
of these yields the same result : and shews that the words cannot
possibly have been originally spoken of Christ, or the Gospel, but
that they are accommodated to them, adopted by the Apostle in
* Rom. x. 4 — 8. f Deut. xxx. 11 — 14 ; Lev. xviii.

30 USE OF THE OLD TESTAMENT IN THE NEW.
his own sense, according to the well-understood custom of his
countrymen at the time.
The most remarkable of all these adaptations is, perhaps, that
of the words from Psalm xix. 4. Have not the Jews heard the
Gospel message ? the Apostle asks (Rom. x. 18) : Yes, verily,
they have heard; and he confirms his assertion by quoting words
of the Psalm which speak not of any human messenger at all,
not of persons announcing to others Gospel tidings, or tidings of
any kind, but of the heavens which declare the glory of God, and
the firmament which sheweth the work of his hands ! Their
sound, said the Psalmist, is gone out into all the earth, and their
words to the end of the world ; and the Apostle takes up this
declaration, and employs it to express his own immediate idea,
to the effect that the Gospel has been made known by preaching
throughout the world. What can more plainly prove that, in
such cases, there is simply an accommodation, an adaptation of
Old Testament words to express what was not originally in
tended by them ? — that the language of ancient Scripture was
sometimes therefore applied by the Christian writers to events
and circumstances of their own time, exactly as if it had been
intended to be so taken by the original writer ; while yet it is
impossible to suppose that any such intention can really have
been in his mind ?
It clearly follows from these facts, that the quotation of a
passage, or the application of it to a Christian purpose, is far
from being a conclusive proof of the primary design of the
words so employed. This must be ascertained by an exami
nation of the passage itself— its genuine meaning and value
being determined by a due regard to its original context.
A passage from the prophet Isaiah, and quoted in Luke iv.
16—21, will afford another illustration of these remarks. Jesus,
it is stated, went into a synagogue and began to read in the

USE OF THE OLD TESTAMENT IN THE NEW. 31
Book of Isaiah the words which are found at the beginning of
chapter lxi. of that prophet. At the close of his reading, " he
began to say unto them, This day is this Scripture fulfilled in
your ears." On referring to the book from which the words are
taken, it is found that they do not correspond to the Hebrew.
The passage is probably from the Septuagint. It contains also
words from Isaiah lviii.,* incorporated with those from lxi.,
while omitting some words of the latter ; — facts which afford a
significant example of the freedom with which these quotations
are sometimes made.
A slight examination of the original passage is sufficient to
satisfy the reader that the prophet is speaking, not of a person
age like Jesus, who was to arise and become prominent in Judea
five or six centuries, more or less, after his own time, but of the
deliverance of his people, then captive before his eyes, or at
some time to be so. They shall return home, he says, to rebuild
the waste places of Jerusalem, and restore the worship of Jehovah
on Mount Zion. The prophet speaks of himself as appointed to
announce these tidings to his captive friends and companions,
" to proclaim liberty to the captive, and the opening of the prison
to them that are bound." These words were, however, appli
cable, in a certain sense, to the spiritual deliverance wrought, or
to be wrought, by Christ, and they are accordingly taken up and
applied by him to himself, as the suitable medium by which
to express the leading purpose and spirit of his own ministry.
Is it possible, under such circumstances, to suppose that he
intended to claim the words as having referred to himself in the
original and conscious intention of the prophet who wrote them?
On the contrary, it appears to be almost too evident to admit of
an argument, that we have here a true instance of accommo-
* The words, " to set at liberty them that are bruised " — from Isaiah lviii. 6, in
the Septuagint version.

32 MESSIANIC PASSAGES :
dation, and that the Reader of the words in the synagogue
simply applied them in the usual popular way to the particular
case and circumstances then existing.
Many additional instances of the same kind readily present
themselves, and some of these shall be duly considered in the
two succeeding Chapters.

CHAPTER V.
MESSIANIC PASSAGES:
ISAIAH vii. 14 ; Iii. 13 — liii. 12 ; xi. ; ix. 6.
In applying the term accommodation to the use of Old Tes
tament language noticed in the preceding Chapter, it is not, as
before intimated, intended to affirm that no case occurs in which
a passage is conceived by the Christian quoter of it to have
been written with a special reference to Christ, or the events-
and circumstances of his life. Such cases, no doubt, do occur ;
and this Christian conception and use it is, which is urged upon
us as the all-sufficient proof of the original meaning and purpose
of each given passage. In opposition to this, however, it must
be held that the real and primary import and intention are to
be gathered from the cited words, as these lie before us in their
original connection ; and that their use by a Christian writer or
speaker, their adoption or accommodation to express later ideas,
should not be held to be conclusive evidence as to their intended
signification ; — only exemplifying, in fact, as thus used, the way
in which the early Christians were accustomed to read and apply
their ancient Scriptures.
This position it is now proposed further to illustrate by the

ISAIAH VII. 14. 33
example of several passages in the Book of Isaiah usually con
sidered as Messianic, and adduced as such by Dr. Liddon. To
these, for the sake of completeness, shall, in the next Chapter,
be added a few instances from the Minor Prophets.
Isaiah vii. 14. — This verse is quoted by the first Evangelist
(i. 23), in terms taken nearly verbatim from the Septuagint Greek,
which differs, though not materially, from the Hebrew. We
need not dwell upon this difference, further than to make one
remark. It is not an uncommon case, and it shows us that New
Testament writers who thus make use of the Septuagint, even
when it differs from the Hebrew, and even when they might
have quoted the Hebrew (as doubtless several of them, especially
St. Paul, could have done), cannot have held those high notions
of the inspiration of the words of Scripture which are often put
forth in our days.* If they had done so, how could they have
left the original text and adopted an imperfect, sometimes cor
rupted, version, as they occasionally do ? Or are we to under
stand that they were ignorant of any difference between the
Septuagint and the Hebrew original ?
In the English New Testament (Matt. i. 23) the words of the
prophet are quoted thus : — " Behold a virgin shall be with child,
and shall bring forth a Son, and they shall call his name
Emmanuel, which being interpreted is God with us."-f- In this
rendering, the definite article has been neglected by our transla
tors. In the Greek, and in both the Hebrew and the Septuagint,
the words are " the virgin." In regard to the latter term, it is
by no means clear that the original is rightly rendered by the
Septuagint irapOkvos, and the English "virgin." The idea properly
belonging to these words is not in the root meaning of the
* By such writers, for example, as Dr. J. Baylee, Verbal Inspiration (1870).
t Most probably the verb should be understood, " God is with us," as the word
Emmanuel is rendered, Isaiah viii. 10. Comp. Jerem. xxxiii. 16 ; Ezek. xlviii. 35.
D

34 MESSIANIC PASSAGES:
Hebrew word, and it is at least doubtful whether there is an
instance in the Old Testament in which that word ought to
be rendered as in the English version. The Hebrew, it is
well known, has another term to which the stricter sense does
belong.* It thus appears that the rendering might properly be, " the
young woman," or even " the young wife," with the article, as it
stands not only in the Hebrew and Septuagint, but in the New
Testament Greek also, indicating that a definite person was
within the prophet's view at the moment. The word following
is (in the Hebrew) an adjective, denoting a present condition, no
tense form occurring in the original.-f- So that even a future, or
predictive, meaning of these words in their original connection is
excluded ; the future import of the prophet's declaration being
first indicated, not in this verse, but in the two following verses
(15, 16), which speak of an interval between the birth of the
child and the time when he shall be old enough to know to
refuse the evil and choose the good. The state of the young wife
is a something already existing, and it is to result hereafter in
that which shall be a sign of the coming deliverance.
The meaning of the words of Isaiah may, therefore, be pre
sented thus: — "Behold the young wife is with child, and she
shall bear a son, and call his name Immanuel." The sign re
ferred to is to consist in the presence of the child with a signifi
cant name ; the promise of deliverance lies in the statement that
before this child, yet to be born, has reached a certain age, the
land shall be delivered from its invading enemies.
It is evident, again, that this verse and its context belong
solely to the time and circumstances of King Ahaz. There is
* See Appendix, note A.
+ As in Gen. xvi. 11, "Thou art with child," which, with the following words, is
the same in form as this verse of Isaiah.

ISAIAH VII. 14. 35
nothing to shew that the writer was looking forward to a time
which lay many hundred years away from him in the distant
future, or that he had any hidden meaning in his mind which
belonged specially to that remote and unknown period. Every
thing indicates that he is wholly and exclusively in the present,
or at least in what immediately relates to the present and is
shortly to come to pass.* The whole chapter, in short, from
beginning to end relates and is suited simply to Ahaz and his
people, their feelings, their hopes and apprehensions.
But how, then, does it come to appear as it does in the New
Testament ? Evidently, in accordance with the usage of the
Christian writers ; according to which expressions were applied
to events and persons of the later times, just as if they had been
originally written with reference to them. " All this was done,"
says the Evangelist, "that it might be fulfilled which was spoken
of the Lord by the prophet." The name Immanuel (God is with
us) might also be appropriately transferred to Christ — to whom,
however, it is never afterwards applied — in whose birth the
presence of God with his people was so especially manifested.-[-
But there is nothing to shew that either child is or was what
he is named ; that his nature mysteriously corresponded to the
appellation put upon him for a special purpose. We may, there
fore, reasonably understand the quotation as a simple accommo
dation of the prophet's words to the birth of Christ, according to
the usual manner of the New Testament writers.
The presence of a secondary meaning in the words of Isaiah
* This is allowed by the writer of the article Isaiah in Dr. W. Smith's Dictionary
of the Bible. He, however, persisting in applying the verse to the birth of Christ,
thinks that the prophet may "have misconceived the relations of time in regard to
events." Art. Isaiah, p. 880. That is to say, the prophet made a mistake of several
hundred years in regard to the birth of the Messiah ! Of what value, then, was the
prophecy to Ahaz or his people ?
t Comp. Luke i. 32 ; ii. 29-32 ; John iii. 2 ; 2 Cor. v. 19.
2 D

36 MESSIANIC PASSAGES:
is assumed by Bishop Lowth, as by many other expositors ; but
it is a pure assumption. There is absolutely nothing in the
context to suggest such an idea, or to render it in any way tenable.
Nor is it needed for the full exposition of the prophet's words.
What object could he have in announcing so obscurely, to the
trembling king and his subjects, that at some indefinite point of
time in the remote future a spiritual prince would be born in
Israel? What present comfort or encouragement could this
afford to men terrified at the immediate approach of hostile
armies ? Or shall we say, with the writer of the article just
referred to, that Isaiah's prophecy of the Messiah was really full
of comfort to all who heard it, even though the prophet made a
mistake of seven hundred years in regard to the time of the
expected advent ?
Will it be said, however, in defence of the idea of a double
sense, that the deeper secondary meaning may have been intended,
not so much for the people of the time of Ahaz, as for later and
Christian times, and to assist in establishing the Messianic claims
of Jesus of Nazareth ? In the way of such an explanation the
difficulty is obvious and insuperable. The words do not answer
such a purpose ! The very discussion of the subject in these
pages shews that they do not; that their meaning and intention
is left in uncertainty, to say the least — uncertainty, however, only
inasmuch as they are supposed to have such a purpose ; to the
assumption or admission of which the mere fact of uncertainty is
altogether fatal. -'It is needless to add, that Jewish writers of
character and learning acknowledge no such force or utility in
the words, but reject the common Christian use of them as
wholly unwarranted.*
A second passage often appealed to as "attested" by Christ
* Dr. H. Adler's Course of Sermons preached in the Bayswater Synagogue (1869),
p. 16, seq. — Comp. Liddon, B. L., p. 88, note.

ISAIAH LII. 13— LIII. 12. 37
himself, as well as by the Evangelists and Apostles, is Isaiah liii.,
or, more exactly, the entire section, Isaiah Iii. 13 — liii. 12. These
verses are usually cited as affording incontestable proof that the
prophet looked forward to the days of the suffering Christ, and
described his fortunes in language wonderfully corresponding to
what actually took place. The section is thus referred to, for
example, by Archbishop Thomson, in his Essay on the Death
of Christ,* and Dr. Liddon is very clear on the same point.
" Messiah," he observes, " especially designated as ' the Servant
of God,' is the central figure in the prophecies of Isaiah." He
at once appropriates the passage as a prophecy of the sufferings
and death of the Christ. -f-
It must be acknowledged that there is a singular degree of
correspondence between the prophetic statements and the narra
tives which have come down to us of the last scenes of our Lord's
personal history. There is a remarkable general correspondence.
The impression left upon the mind, in reading the prophet, is, in
short, strongly favourable to the usual acceptation of his words.
It is true, nevertheless, that, when the details are examined,
that impression is disturbed. As in liii. 10, what is meant by
the words, " He shall prolong his days"?— by the words of verse 9,
"He made his grave with the wicked"? — by his "dividing the
spoil with the strong," — if these expressions be applied to the
crucified Jesus ? Still, in spite of several obscure or ambiguous
phrases like these, we are left with the feeling that those who
have been accustomed to accept the passage as a prophecy of the
closing inoidents of his career, have not been without a certain
appearance of reason in so doing.
Several passages in the New Testament! appear to justify this
* Aids to Faith, 4th edition, p. 325. + B. L., pp. 85, 86 (87, 88).
% Matt. viii. 17; Mark xv. 28 ; Luke xxii. 37; John xii. 38—41 ; Acts viii. 30—35 ;
1 Pet. ii. 24.

38 MESSIANIC PASSAGES:
application of the words, and clearly shew that they were thus
applied in the early Christian times. One of these passages is
Mark xv. 28. This may be first spoken of, because, in the some
what vague and general form of the reference, it appears to afford
a true expression of the idea under which this and similar quota
tion from the Old Testament are often made. The Evangelist's
words are these : " And the Scripture was fulfilled which saith,
And he was numbered with the transgressors."* The Scrip
ture is to be found in Isaiah liii. 12. In this quotation, there is
nothing to indicate the belief that the words were originally
written with a prophetic foresight of the incidents to which they
are applied, and in which they are said to be fulfilled.' The same
remark may be made as to the use of the words in the third
Gospel, and the reference to them in Matthew.
Some of the other New Testament references seem to imply
more, and convey the idea that the prophecy was written with
a special view to the suffering Messiah. If this be intended,
as in the passage in the Acts, and in that in the fourth Gospel,
it is so most probably in accordance with the usual practice
of accommodation. The words were seen to be applicable to
certain incidents; they were therefore "fulfilled" in these: they
were even written " that they might be fulfilled." Such appears
to have been the train of thought ; while yet it is true that the
real primary meaning is to be found, not in the late Christian
use made of the cited words, but simply in the original circum
stances to which they refer, and in the context from which they
are taken.
Special circumstances in the present case make it perfectly
clear that the prophetic writer could not have had Jesus Christ
* It is to be noted that the verse of Mark is omitted by Tisehendorf ; but it is
unquestionably ancient. A very similar use is made of the same 0. T. passage in
Luke xxii. 37.

ISAIAH LII. 13 — LIII. 12. 39
in his contemplation. The passage, "in the part supposed to refer
to the sufferings of Christ, is not predictive, but simply histori
cal. Various considerations combine to shew that the prophet is
speaking of incidents which had already befallen the captive
people, and that the latter are spoken of collectively as the
Servant of Jehovah.
Here, however, a question presents itself upon which Dr. Liddon
does not dwell, but dismisses with a quotation from Bishop
Ollivant. It is the question of the authorship and date of the
latter part of the book of Isaiah, from chapter xl. to the end. It
is one of the surest results of modern investigation,* that this
portion of that book comes down from the time of the captivity,
and from the pen, not of the prophet who lived in the days of
Ahaz and Hezekiah (B.C. 750 to 700), but of one who was him
self among the captives in Babylon, and who wrote with reference
to scenes and persons then before his eyes (B.C. 580 to 530).
This conclusion cannot be here justified in detail. Nor is this
necessary ; for it has been accepted by the best Hebrew scholars
and critics of recent times — a fact which is sometimes strangely
lost sight of by writers of our day.-}- It is certainly not to be
evaded or nullified by the slighting words of Bishop Ollivant.^
The Bishop's remark, to the effect that, supposing the assump-
* See the work of Prof. Driver, referred to supra, p. 4.
t Dr. Payne Smith, for example, observes, " The theory of a Babylonian Isaiah is
dead." The reverse is the truth, although that theory has certainly been held along
with many critical extravagances, as Dr. P. Smith ably points out. — Prophecy a
Preparation, pp. 320 — 322.
J " Supposing this assumption," says the Bishop, " to be true [that, namely, of a
later Isaiah], this later Isaiah was not only a deceiver, but also a witness to his own
fraud ; for he constantly appeals to prophetic power as a test of truth, making it,
and specifically the prediction respecting the deliverance of the Jews by Cyrus, an
evidence of the foreknowledge of Jehovah, as distinguished from the nothingness of
heathen idols." — Charge of the Bishop of Llandaff, apud Liddon, B. L., p. 83 (85).
But how is the prophet shewn to be a deceiver, when his prophecy of the coming
deliverance was so soon and so signally f iilfilled ?

40 MESSIANIC PASSAGES:
tion of a later Isaiah to be true, " this later Isaiah was not only
a deceiver, but also a witness to his own fraud," is simply another
instance of that form of orthodox argumentation which has been
already noticed, and which really amounts to this, — Either our
view of the matter is correct, or such and such a prophet or
apostle, or even Christ himself, as the case may be, was a
deceiver, and wrote or said what was untrue.
The reader, however, will next observe the connection and
substance of this section of Isaiah. The prophet in the chapters
which immediately precede, amidst many alternations of hope
and fear, anticipates the restoration of his people to their own
land. Their enemies the Babylonians shall be overthrown by
the conquering arms of Cyrus, who is mentioned by name
(xliv. 28, xlv. 1) ; the temple worship on Mount Zion shall be
restored ; and ultimately, through the Hebrew people and their
faithfulness to Jehovah, the knowledge of true religion shall be
diffused throughout the world (ch. xlix.).
In the earlier verses of ch. Iii, some of these anticipations are
clearly expressed. In the language of poetry, the prophet speaks
of the Messenger bringing to the now deserted Jerusalem the
good tidings of the return home :
How beautiful upon the mountains
Are the feet of him that bringeth good tidings,
That publisheth peace ;
That bringeth good tidings of good,
That publisheth salvation !
That saith unto Zion, Thy God reigneth ! (Hi. 7.)
Again he exclaims :
Break forth into singing together,
Ye waste places of Jerusalem ;
For Jehovah hath comforted his people,
He hath redeemed Jerusalem. (9.)

ISAIAH LII. 13— LIII. 12. 41
Then he reverts to the place where he and his people now are,
and calls upon them to depart out of the midst of the idolatrous
city: Depart ye, depart ye, come ye out from thence,
Touch no unclean thing ;
Come ye out of the midst of her,
Be ye pure who carry the vessels of Jehovah:
For not in haste shall ye come out,
Nor in flight shall ye pass along ;
For Jehovah shall go before you,
And the God of Israel shall guard your way. (vv. 11, 12.)
These expressions occur in verses immediately preceding the
section more particularly under notice. In the verses imme
diately following that section, we find the prophet's mind still
full of the same theme. He calls upon Judea, now lying depopu
lated and barren, to break forth into singing, because its popula
tion is about to be increased beyond all former bounds by the
return of the captives. In a great variety of beautiful expressions
the thought is constantly recurring of the future prosperity and
happiness of the restored nation:
0 thou afflicted, tempest-tossed, disconsolate,
Behold I will lay thy stones in bright colours,
And thy foundations with sapphires.
And I will make thy battlements of rubies,
And thy gates of carbuncles,
And all thy borders of precious stones.
And all thy children shall be taught of Jehovah,
And great shall be the peace of thy children.
*****
This is the heritage of the servants of Jehovah,
And the reward of their righteousness from me, saith Jehovah.
(liv. 11—17.)

42 MESSIANIC PASSAGES:
And so verse after verse might be quoted, all to the same effect,
— the restoration of the captive people to their own land. When,
therefore, the prophet, both immediately before and immediately
after the section under notice, is found speaking in such terms
of circumstances and events then occurring, or about shortly to
occur, is it to be supposed that he all at once, in the midst of
these expressions, abruptly, and without any intimation or appa
rent occasion, sends his thoughts far away, five hundred years or
more in advance of his own time, and goes on mysteriously and
obscurely to speak of the life and death of Jesus Christ? — of one
who had no sort of traceable connection with the existing state
of affairs, and the introduction of whom in this way could do
nothing to encourage or console the captives, or lead them the
more readily to prepare themselves for the labours and hardships
of the long march homewards through the desert, from Babylon
to Judea ? Truly, such a supposition seems but little flattering
to the common sense of the prophet, and could scarcely be put
forth by reasonable men, except under the pressure of great
theological necessity.
The "servant" (Isaiah Iii. 13), or the servant of Jehovah,
spoken of in this section and in some other places of the later
Isaiah, cannot, therefore, be supposed to denote the future Messiah
— Jesus Christ — or any personage expected by the prophet to
appear some indefinite number of centuries after his own time.
There is, indeed, ample evidence in this book itself as to the
meaning of the expression referred to. Thus in xlix., at the
beginning, we read as follows: —
Listen, 0 isles, unto me,
And attend, ye peoples, from afar;
Jehovah called me from the womb,
From my mother's womb he hath made mention of my name.
And he made my mouth like a sharp sword;

ISAIAH LII. 13 — LIII. 12. 43
In the shadow of his hand he hid me, 
And he said unto me, Thou art my servant,
0 Israel, in whom I will be glorified.
*****
And now, saith Jehovah,
Who formed me from the womb to be his servant,
*****
Thus he saith,
It is a slight thing that thou shouldest be my servant,
To raise up the tribes of Jacob,
And to restore the preserved of Israel ;
I will also give thee to be a light to the nations,
That my salvation may be extended to the end of the earth.
(xlix. 1—6.)
The prophet immediately adds, —
Thus saith Jehovah, the Redeemer of Israel,
And his Holy One,
To him that is despised of men, abhorred by the nation,
To the Servant of rulers, —
Kings shall see and arise, princes and they shall bow down,
Because of Jehovah who is faithful,
The Holy One of Israel, who shall choose thee. (v. 7.)
These words are almost parallel to those of Iii. 14, 15, and can
hardly refer to a different object. Other places occur in which
the Servant of Jehovah is sufficiently shewn to be the collective
or personalized and ideal Israel, especially the better and more
faithful part of the people in captivity, who are to be the means
of giving safety and honour to the whole nation* With these
the prophet sometimes identifies himself, speaking in his own
name, when he is really speaking in behalf of his people.f As,
then, these more faithful Israelites, who were eager to return
home to rebuild Jerusalem and the temple, were, probably in
* Isaiah xiii. 1—9; xliii. 8—15; xliv. 1—5. t xlix. 1—4.

44 MESSIANIC PASSAGES:
consequence of this, subject to persecution at the hands of the
more worldly portion of their captive countrymen and perhaps
of the Babylonians,* the true explanation of the passage is at
once suggested, as also that of some other related places.
Having spoken in the preceding verses of the coming restora
tion of his people, the prophet goes on to contrast their past
helpless and despised condition with their future prosperity.
Speaking for Jehovah, he says, — " My servant shall be exalted
and extolled" (whereas he had once been an object of astonish
ment in his misery): — " His visage was so marred, more than any
man's " (as it is figuratively expressed), — " but he shall sprinkle
many nations " — or probably, " he shall cause many nations to
spring up " (that is, with wonder at the change which has taken
place) ; " kings shall shut their mouths at him " (in amazement,
when they see the prosperous return of the captives, and behold
the re-establishment and gradual diffusion of the religion of
Jehovah). This part of the section is predictive ; the tenses used
in the introductory sentences are appropriately futures, but they
change to preterites as soon as the suffering condition of the
people is referred to. So it is very regularly throughout chapter
liii. "Who," the prophet proceeds, "hath believed our report?"
that is, Who has believed what has been announced? and then he
goes on to describe — not, be it observed, in terms of prediction,
but in those of history, and as one speaking of something pastf
— the former sufferings of the collective Israel, in particular of
that part of the nation which has been steadfast, and by whose
piety and obedience Jehovah's cause is finally to triumph. This
more faithful part of the people is idealized as Jehovah's Servant,
who has been despised, forsaken of men, wounded, oppressed,
afflicted, cut off from the land of the living, and put into the
* Isaiah 1. 4—11; lvi. 9— lvii. 11; lviii. 1—7.
t This fact is too much overlooked. See General Appendix, note B.

INTERPRETATION OF ISAIAH LIII. 45
grave among transgressors, though he had done no violence and
there was no deceit in his mouth. But in these sufferings there
was an expiatory efficacy. They were undergone, not for the
sufferer's own sins, but for those of his people :
He was wounded for our transgressions,
Bruised for our iniquities :
The chastisement of our peace was upon him,
And with his stripes we are healed. (liii. 5.)
These statements are in accordance with the ancient Hebrew
belief, that misfortune and suffering fall upon men in punishment
of sin ; and are also the means of expiation and purification
for transgression* It was an obvious thought that what had
befallen the righteous servant of Jehovah, that is, the collective
and ideal Israel, was the means of expiation for the rest of the
people ; what he has suffered " shall make intercession for the
transgressors." The whole conception is in harmony with sacri
ficial ideas which would doubtless be familiar to the writer.
The section concludes with the anticipation of the great results
to spring from the patient endurance of wrong, the steadfast
adherence to Jehovah, the religious faithfulness even unto death,
which have been exemplified by the captive Israel.
It is only one who can close his eyes to the historical exposi
tion of this passage, and its connection with the circumstances
of the times in which the writer lived, that will be satisfied to
find in it a prophetic description of the last scenes in the history
* On this point Prof. Pfleiderer observes : " .... in Jewish theology the undeserved
suffering of the righteous especially is regarded as a substitutionary means of atone
ment, the guilt-removing virtue of which may be turned to the benefit, or reckoned
for the justification, of the members of their families, or even of the whole nation of
Israel. The less a man needs of atonement for his own sins, the more to the advan
tage of others is the surrender of his life as an atoning sacrifice ; on that account the
death of distinguished godly men possesses an atoning and redeeming virtue for the
entire nation equal to that of the great day of atonement." — Hibbert Lectures, 1885,
Lecture II.

46 MESSIANIC PASSAGES:
of Christ, — a prophetic description, consciously so intended by
the prophet. The references to it in the New Testament are in
accordance with the habits of thought of the early Christians.
Everything in their sacred books which seemed to correspond to
the events and characters of Christian history they were ready
to consider as " fulfilled " in those events and characters ; * but
no reliance can be placed on this mode of interpretation, whether
exemplified in ancient or in modern times, as evidence that an
Old Testament passage originally contemplated that in which it
was so deemed to find its fulfilment.
Such considerations as these are applicable, mutatis mutandis,
to all the Old Testament passages appealed to by Dr. Liddon as
prophecies of Jesus Christ. In saying this, however, it is by
no means intended to affirm that various Hebrew writers, and
especially the prophets, did not anticipate a future time of
national prosperity and peace, and the wide diffusion of the
religion of Jehovah. It cannot be doubted that they did so.
But it does not appear that they looked forward to a definite
point of time so long after their own as that of Christ, or to
a definite person like him ; that they ever anticipated such a
personage or character as he proved to be. The Messiah expected
by the Jews of old, under the influence and training of their
own sacred books, was a very different person from Jesus of
Nazareth. This is seen in many expressions of the New Tes
tament ;f and it is especially evident in various Old Testament
passages.} * There is a curious illustration of this in John ii. 17. Jesus has jnst driven the
money-changers from the temple. After this, his disciples, it is said, "remembered
that it was written, The zeal of thy house hath eaten me up ;" and doubtless it is
to be understood that they thought the ancient saying "fulfilled" in the incident which
brought it to their remembrance.
t Matt. xvi. 22; xx. 21 ; Mark x. 35—41 ; Luke xxiv. 21 ; John xii. 34.
X E.g., Is. xi.; Jer. xxiii. 5 — 8; Dan. vii. 13, 14; Mich. v. 1 — 6.

ISAIAH XI. 47
An example to this latter effect is afforded by the eleventh
chapter of the genuine Isaiah, which is usually accepted as a
true Messianic passage. It evidently stands in intimate connec
tion with the destruction of the Assyrian army announced in the
preceding chapter. The mighty forest of Assyria (x. 33) shall be
hewn down, " And there shall come forth a branch out of the
stem of Jesse" (xi. 1). This prince is to be a wise and mighty
ruler, who shall conquer the enemies of his people, Moabites,
Edomites, Philistines, Egyptians (xi. 11 — -14). He shall re-unite
the divided kingdom of the Hebrews ; Ephraim and Judah
under him shall cease to be rivals ; and the dispersed captives
of the nation shall be brought back " from the four corners of
the earth" (v. 12).
Such sayings find no real application in the founder of Chris
tianity;* have never been fulfilled, in any intelligible sense, in
him ; and so it is in each separate case of the kind, when duly
examined. Although, then, it must be admitted that some of the
New Testament writers appear to have had a different idea, yet
in a question which is so largely critical and historical in its
character, critical and historical evidence and fact ought to pre
vail over everything else. We are not obliged to believe that
the sun moves round the earth, even though a Scriptural writer
may say so, or may take it for granted.
Next in order comes a passage to which Dr. Liddon attaches
the greatest importance. He terms it, " that great prophecy, the
full and true sense of which is so happily suggested to us by
its place in the Church services for Christmas-day." In this
* Dr. Liddon, it may here be noted, while citing this passage to show the high
moral and religious character of the expected Prince, including his possession of " the
infallibility of a perfect moral insight," omits to notice the verses which refer to him
as a victorious warrior, who shall be able to subdue and despoil the ancient enemies
of his people !— B. L., pp. 84, 85 (86).

48 MESSIANIC PASSAGES :
prophecy,* he proceeds to say, "the 'Son' who is given to Israel
receives a fourfold name. He is a Wonder-Counsellor, or Won
derful above all earthly beings ; He possesses a nature which
man cannot fathom ; and He thus shares and unfolds the Divine
Mind. He is the Father of the Everlasting Age or of Eternity.
He is the Prince of Peace. Above all, He is expressly named
the Mighty God." So Dr. Liddon ;f but now let us refer to the
prophet Isaiah, and inquire what he says, and what he meant.
In three instances, in chapters vii. and viii., the prophet intro
duces us to children with significant names. The first is his own
son, Shear-jashub, a name meaning a remnant shall return, and
expressing the prophet's trust that the care of Jehovah will
provide for the restoration of Israel. The second is the child
Immanuel, God is with us; a name, again, denoting his confi
dence that Jehovah will be with his people to deliver them from
their invading enemies. The third is the case (viii. 3) of another
child of his own, called Mab^er-shalal-hash-baz — a significant
name, referring to the circumstances of the time, and intended to
denote the speedy despoiling of Damascus and Samaria by the
king of Assyria. Yet again, a fourth time, the prophet delivers
the same kind of symbolical prophecy. In ix. 6, another child
is announced, who is to sit upon the throri& of David, to order
and to establish his kingdom, " from henceforSL even for ever,"
— that is, for a long indefinite period, according fflo the frequent
meaning of such expressions. This child too shaSjl have a signi
ficant name. He shall be called, " Wonder, Cov/nsellor, Mighty
God, Father of Duration, Prince of Peace."
If the English translators had followed f-We same mode of ren
dering as with the other significanfe-fiames in this context, they
would have given this name als^f in its Hebrew form, and would
* Isaiah ix. 6. t B.L., p. 87 (89).

ISAIAH IX. 6. 49
have said, " His name shall be called Peleh Joetz El-gibor Abi-ad
Sar-shalom." This long compound name means, without ques
tion, what is given above as the English rendering. We have
thus a significant name made up of eight words, as in the case of
Maher-shalal-hash-baz there is one made up of four. But, just
as before, what is to shew that the child is or was what he is
named ?— that because his name shall be called either " Mighty-
God,"* or " Father of Duration," he is to be a person correspond
ing in nature to these words ?
But this fourth child, it is affirmed, denotes Jesus Christ !
This assumption, common as it is, is wholly without scriptural
warrant ; for there is no instance in which any New Testament
writer refers to this verse as one that was " fulfilled" in the birth
or life of Christ. And it is evident from the context that the
prophet is speaking of a child of his own time, under whose rule
the nation is to become prosperous and happy. The preceding
verses relate to an invasion by the Assyrians, which must have
fallen severely upon Galilee and the northern parts of the country,
"by the way of the sea" (or lake).-)- Isaiah refers, therefore, to a
prince already born,} who shall be mighty and victorious, and
give peace to the distracted land under his own government.
Whether the words were or were not fulfilled in Hezekiah, as
many authorities, Jewish and Christian, have supposed, it does
not here concern us to determine. There is no proper evidence
* Exactly the same word (El) is used of Nebuchadnezzar in Ezekiel xxxi. 11, dis
guised in the English rendering as "mighty one." The words of Isaiah denote that
the expected ruler shall be a mighty conquering prince, as in xi. 11 — 14.
t See Isaiah viii. 19 — ix. 7. A portion of this passage is applied in the N. T.
(Matt. iv. 14 — 16) to the commencement of the ministry of Christ, in the same
northern part of Palestine. The original reference of the whole is unquestionably to
the distress caused by a hostile invasion, and to the subsequent deliverance. The
Evangelist's use of the words is another suggestive example of the practice of accom
modation. t The tenses are past — " is born," "is given" — literally, has been.
E

50 MESSIANIC PASSAGES:
for understanding the passage in the ordinary way. On the face
of the subject, it would seem to be impossible, except for one who
is carried away by a foregone conclusion, to find in the words a
reference to a person whose birth was to be at least seven hundred
years after the time in which they were written, and whose life
could have no imaginable connection with the fear and misery
of which the prophet was speaking, and the alleviation of which
was the very object of his writing.

CHAPTER VI.
MESSIANIC PASSAGES {continued).
Jeremiah xxiii. 5, 6 ; Daniel vii. 13 ; Micah v. 2 ; Zechariah
xiii. 7; xii. 10; the quotation in St. John xix. 36;
Malachi iii. 1.
The words above quoted from Dr. Liddon, in connection with
Isaiah ix. 6, introduce the following propositions, made in refer
ence to Christ : "  Jeremiah calls him Jehovah Tsidkenu,
as Isaiah had called him Emmanuel. Micah speaks of his eternal
pre-existence, as Isaiah had spoken of his endless reign. Daniel
predicts that his dominion is an everlasting dominion that shall
not pass away. Zechariah terms him the Fellow or Equal of the
Lord of Hosts ; and refers in the clearest language to his Incar
nation and Passion as being that of Jehovah Himself. Haggai
implies his Divinity, by foretelling that his presence will make
the glory of the second temple greater than the glory of the first.
Malachi points to him as the Angel of the Covenant, Jehovah,
whom Israel was seeking, and who would suddenly come to his
temple." *
* B. L., pp. 88, 89 (90, 91)— referring to Jer. xxiii. 5, 6 ; Mich. v. 2 ; Dan. vii. 14 ;
Zech. xiii. 7; ii. 10—13; xii. 10; Hag. ii. 7, 9; Mai. iii. 1.

JEREMIAH XXIII. 5, 6. 51
Of the passages referred to for these assertions, four are quoted
by the Evangelists. Before speaking of these, let us briefly notice
the use made, not by any New Testament writer, but by Dr.
Liddon, of two of the others.
Jeremiah (xxiii. 5, 6) writes — " Behold the days come, saith
Jehovah, when I will raise unto David a righteous branch, and
a king shall reign and act wisely, and shall execute justice and
righteousness in the land. In his days Judah shall be saved, and
Israel shall dwell safely : and this is his name whereby he shall
be called, Jehovah Tsidkenu" [Jehovah is our Righteousness],
This passage is not referred to in the New Testament. The
application of the words to Christ is simply an assumption of
later and modern writers ; and it is easily shewn to be wholly
unwarranted. The prophet is speaking of a deliverance for
his people which was soon to come — a deliverance of captives
"out of the north country" (v. 8), referring to persons who had
been carried away in those times by Assyrian or Babylonian
invaders. If the words, then, are referred to Christ, are we again to be
told that the prophet was mistaken by five or six hundred years
in his anticipation of the advent ? But, indeed, even supposing
that they are to be so referred, how do they shew that Christ is
Jehovah ? They only say that the name wherewith he shall be
called is "Jehovah is our righteousness;" just as the prophet
afterwards says the same thing, in the same words, of Jerusalem
— " this is the name wherewith she shall be called, Jehovah is
our righteousness."* The Hebrew prophets were evidently fond
of these symbolical names — as, indeed, we know that every
Hebrew name was significant. If, then, the words in question
ought to be referred to Christ, which is a purely gratuitous
supposition, still they can prove nothing respecting his nature,
* Jer. xxxiii. 16. — More probably, "Jehovah is our deliverance," in both texts.
E 2

52 MESSIANIC PASSAGES:
any more than do the significant names given to other persons
and objects.
The passage in Daniel (vii. 13) refers to the Messiah as
expected by the writer of that book, probably in the second
century B.C. He speaks (v. 13) of "one like a son of man,"*
who "came to the Ancient of days," and to whom are given
"dominion, and glory, and a kingdom" .... "his dominion is
an everlasting dominion, which shall not pass away." Such is
the vision seen by Daniel. Two or three points are noticeable
in it. First, the distinction, here as often elsewhere, between the
Eternal Being, " the Ancient of days," and every other existence.
The "son of man" is clearly one person, the "Ancient of days"
another. Secondly, the "everlasting dominion" is said to be
"given" to the "son of man." The latter is evidently conceived
of, and represented, as the instrument of the awful Being to
whom he comes. And, thirdly, this passage is never referred to
in the New Testament as a prediction of Christ, to whose life
and character it is in fact highly inapplicable. The Messiah
expected by the Jews, under the influence and training of this
and similar Old Testament passages, was a totally different per
sonage from Jesus of Nazareth.
The words of the prophet Micah which stand next are, in
part, reproduced in the first Gospel, f Herod asks of the chief
priests and scribes, " where the Christ should be born." They
reply, " In Bethlehem of Judea ; for thus it is written by the
prophet, And thou Bethlehem in the land of Judah art not
the least among the princes of Judah : for out of thee shall come
a Governor, that shall rule my people Israel." It is noticeable
* "A son of man," so the original, meaning probably a human being, as distin
guished from the Divine Being mentioned in the same verse ; as distinguished also
from the symbolical "beasts" mentioned in the same context.
t Matt. ii. 6 ; comp. Micah v. 2 .

MICAH V. 2. 53
that the priests and scribes do not quote the Scripture correctly,
and in fact misquote it ; for they insert the negative " not,"
which is absent in -the Hebrew, as in the Septuagint. Nor do
they (or the Gospel for them) give the exact words of the Septu
agint. But these variations do not materially concern our argu
ment. It is clear, nevertheless, that the verse from Micah was
considered Messianic in the time of the wise men, and that, in
the Evangelist's conception, it had the effect of leading them to
Bethlehem to seek for the new-born child. But this amount
of Messianic prediction, or meaning, does not satisfy Dr. Liddon.
He goes beyond the Scripture quotation ; and takes the verse as
not only foretelling the birth in Bethlehem, but as intimating
the " eternal pre-existence " of the child to be born. In this
surely he only gives us an example of being wise above what is
written ; or, at any rate, above what is written in the New Testa
ment; for it does not appear that any New Testament writer
ever brings forward the words of Micah to prove, or illustrate,
or express the " eternal pre-existence " of Christ, or of any
one else.
Nor do the words convey any such meaning. " Out of thee,"
says the prophet, " shall come forth for me one to be ruler in
Israel; and his comings forth are of old, from ancient days."
Such is the literal rendering of the Hebrew. The passage is
usually admitted to be Messianic ; and taking it in this sense,
the character of the expected ruler is here, as elsewhere, very
different from that of Jesus Christ. In the verses which imme
diately follow, it is said that after an interval, during which the
nation shall be given up to its enemies, he whose coming is
spoken of shall " stand and feed in the strength of Jehovah, in
the majesty of the name of Jehovah, his God." His people
under his protection shall be secure, for he shall be powerful to
" the ends of the earth," that is, to the remotest countries known

54 MESSIANIC PASSAGES:
to the Hebrews. He shall be able to protect them " when the
Assyrian shall come." His princes (v. 5) shall even lay waste
the land of Assyria with the sword. " Thus," adds the prophet,
" he shall deliver us from the Assyrian."* Is it possible to
think that this prophecy was fulfilled in Jesus Christ? The
whole passage manifestly refers to a state of things then existing,
or soon to be so, — to the Assyrian, and his invading armies, the
objects of actual present fear to the prophet and those for whom
he was writing. How then can the quoted verse have referred
to Jesus, or be applicable to him, except by the usual licence of
accommodation? — or how, again, can it avail to shew his "eternal
pre-existence " ?
In regard to the words "of old" and "from everlasting"
(ancient days), the following statement will scarcely be disputed.
The Hebrew words thus rendered do not necessarily express
eternity of duration. This is evident from the fact that they are
not unfrequently used of limited time past. Thus Job xxix. 2,
"Oh that I were as in months past ;" Psalm lxxvii. 5, "I have
considered the days of old, the years of ancient times." In
these places the same Hebrew words occur as in Micah. They
are differently translated to suit the context; but the limita
tion of meaning is clear in all ; and so it is in many other cases.
As to the meaning of the prophet, it may be that he intends
simply to allude to the circumstance that the coming of the
person spoken of has been determined upon from of old, from
ancient days, even from everlasting. Or does the expression only
convey, that he who is to come forth is one the antiquity of
whose descent, in the kingly line of David, is very great ?
Neither of these explanations yields the "eternal pre-existence;"
but certainly they are both quite as probable, and quite as suit
able to the context. * Micah v. 2 — 6.

ZECHARIAH XIII. 7. 55
The prophet Zechariah, it is further alleged, speaks of the
Messiah as " the Fellow or Equal of the Lord of Hosts." The
words referred to occur in the anonymous and earlier part of
the Book of Zechariah (xiii. 7) : — " Awake, 0 sword, against my
shepherd, and against the man that is my fellow, saith Jehovah
of Hosts." Of these somewhat difficult and obscure words, it is
a very pertinent inquiry, How is it known that they refer to the
expected Messiah ? They are not so applied in the New Testa
ment, nor are they ever quoted there in any form. So that hert'
again, the supposition is quite arbitrary that these words should
be referred to Christ, and indicate his Divine nature. The note,
therefore, which Dr. Liddon quotes approvingly from Dr. Pusey*
on this expression, has no force or propriety whatever.
The words of this verse which are cited by two of the Evan
gelists are these: — "Smite the shepherd, and the sheep shall be
scattered." The words are used in Matt. xxvi. 31 and Mark xiv.
27; these Evangelists agreeing with each other in deviating
from the Hebrew text of Zechariah, while not agreeing with
the Septuagint. Both Evangelists introduce the words thus:
" Then saith Jesus unto them, All ye shall be offended because
of me this night; for it is written, I will smite the shepherd, and
the sheep shall be scattered." Such a use of the words can only
be regarded as a mode of expressing the thought in the speaker's
mind at the moment — the thought of the fear and scattering of
the disciples — as stated in Matt. xxvi. 56. There is nothing to
suggest that Jesus regarded the words of Zechariah as having
been written with a conscious looking forward on the part of the
prophet to him ; or that he could have deemed them capable of
supplying a link in the chain of elaborate argument to force the
conclusion that he who so used them was one whose " incarna-
* "The 'Fellow' of the Lord is no other than He who said in the Gospel, 'I and
My Father are one." — Pusey, apud Liddon, B. L., p. 89 (91).

56 MESSIANIC PASSAGES:
tion and passion" were those of Jehovah himself. Yet even
this, it would appear, is what commends itself to the judgment
of Dr. Liddon and Dr. Pusey.
There is another verse in Zechariah which is similarly nlade
to act the part of an incompetent witness. In xii. 10 of that
book we read thus:
And I will pour upon the house of David,
And upon the inhabitants of Jerusalem,
A spirit of grace and of supplications;
And they shall look upon me whom they have pierced,
And they shall mourn for him,
As one mourneth for his only son.
The prophet is speaking, it is plain, of evil days which were
to come upon Judah and Jerusalem, followed, however, by a
great deliverance to be wrought by Jehovah for his people. This
result shall be accompanied by penitence and supplication on the
part of the people. Jehovah shall pour upon them " a spirit of
grace and of supplications," insomuch that they shall look to (or
towards) Jehovah, against whom they have formerly transgressed:
" they shall look towards me whom they have pierced, and they
shall mourn for him.''
A sudden change of person like this is not uncommon in the
prophetical books,* the subject remaining, nevertheless, the same.
Grammatical exactness is not so carefully attended to in a primi
tive and simple language like the Hebrew, as in our modern and
more elaborate forms of speech. Jehovah is doubtless meant
both by the "me" and the "him;" but in the one case it is
Jehovah himself that is conceived of as the speaker, in the other
it is the prophet. " They shall look towards me," Jehovah says ;
''¦ and they shall mourn for him," adds the prophet. The people
then, saved from their enemies, and touched with gratitude
* E.g., Isaiah i. 2 — i.

ZECHARIAH XII. 10. 57
and penitence for their deliverance, shall look towards Jehovah
whom they have offended, and shall mourn for their transgres
sions against him with a great mourning.
The fourth Evangelist* cites some of the words, and applies
them to the literal piercing with the soldier's spear — an instance,
it is observable, in which an original metaphorical sense is
changed in the application into a literal sense. Can we reason
ably suppose that to the Evangelist's mind the crucified man, to
whose case he applies the prophet's words, was Jehovah ? — can
we accept so stupendous a conclusion on the ground of his use of
these words ? — or is not the case to be simply considered as one
of those many instances in which the expressions of the ancient
Scriptures, being found to be in a sense applicable to a modern
event, are used to describe or illustrate the latter, or also said to
be fulfilled in it ? After the instances already given of the way
in which the Old Testament language is applied, it is hard to
think that such a doctrine as that of the deity of Christ ought
to be drawn from this kind of evidence. It is equally difficult
to suppose that such a doctrine could have been left in any
degree dependent on so daring and questionable an argument as
Dr. Liddon's way of putting the case really amounts to.
The Evangelist, it will be observed, takes no notice, in quoting
the words, that the speaker in the Old Testament is Jehovah.
It was evidently beside his purpose to do so, and inconsistent
with it. An apt quotation of Scripture words, suitable to the
particular case, was what he desired to give — and he found, as it
were, on the surface all that he required, without looking deeper,
to see the true connection and meaning of the passage.
How entirely this was the case, may be seen in the verse of the
Gospel immediately preceding that under notice. " These things
* John xix. 37 : "And again another Scripture saith, They shall look on him whom
they pierced."

58 MESSIANIC PASSAGES:
were done that the scripture should be fulfilled, A bone of him
shall not be broken."* It has not suited Dr. Liddon's argument
to refer to this verse, but it is deserving of especial notice in
this place. It is not clear what scripture is thus referred to. It
has been supposed to be Exodus xii. 46 ; Numbers ix. 12 ;
Psalm xxxiv. 20. In the two places in the Pentateuch, it is the
Passover lamb that is spoken of ; in the Psalm, it is a righteous
man whose bones Jehovah keepeth, so that " not one of them is
broken." The words in the Gospel are not an exact quotation ;
but they serve well to show how an Old Testament passage
could be applied to Christ, or to incidents in his life, and could
be said to be thus fulfilled, while yet it is clear that the original
writer cannot have had Jesus Christ in his mind when writing
the words. In this case, it is certain, what the ancient scripture
speaks of is either the literal Passover lamb, or a righteous man
delivered out of his afflictions by Jehovah. In neither case, can
it be thought that the future Messiah was contemplated ; while
yet the words are introduced in the New Testament narrative
just as if this had been the purpose for which they were primarily
written. The last of the Old Testament passages belonging to the
present Chapter is Malachi iii. 1: — "Behold I will send my
messenger, and he shall prepare the way before me " (or, " before
my face"). The words are quoted in each of the Synopticsjf
but Mark, according to Tischendorf's text, introduces them as
" written in Isaiah the prophet;" — a singular error on the part
of the Evangelist.^: This case also exemplifies the somewhat loose
way in which these quotations are occasionally made, — the
words of two different prophets being joined together and cited
* John xix. 36. t Matt. xi. 10 ; Mark i. 2 ; Luke vii. 27.
X The English version of Mark i. 2 reads, "As it is written in the prophets;'' —
following a correction probably introduced into the manuscripts by some late copyist.

MALACHI III. 1. 59
as if they belonged to one. It is not the only example of the
kind. The three Synoptics agree in the form of their quotation,
which yet does not correspond either to the Hebrew or to the
Septuagint. Passing over this difference, we notice that in each
Gospel the words are given as fulfilled in John the Baptist —
that is to say, they are applied to him, as if they had been
originally intended to speak of him. He is the messenger sent
before the face of him " that should come," to prepare the way
before him. This is the extent to which the Evangelists repre
sent the words as appropriated by Christ or as applying them
either to himself or to the Baptist. They do not give us to
understand that they conceived of him for whom John has
prepared, as being Jehovah, nor do they say anything about
Jehovah coming to His temple in the person of Jesus Christ.
This is only Dr. Liddon's construction of the words of Malachi ;
or rather it is only the inference of his by no means infallible
judgment. But the verse, it is certain, can have had no original reference
to Christ — in the intention, that is to say, of Malachi. In a
later passage of the prophecy (iv. 5), the messenger to come is
named by name, and is designated as Elijah the prophet. Hence
the passage (Malachi iii. 1 — 6) cannot originally have referred
to the distant coming of Jesus of Nazareth, and cannot, there
fore, be properly used as revealing anything about his rank or
nature. It refers, indeed, manifestly, to some judgment upon the wicked
and rebellious nation, anticipated by the prophet for his own
generation. Everything in the book of Malachi shews that it
was a speedy visitation to which the writer was looking.* A
* See the whole of Mai. ii.

60 MESSIANIC PASSAGES.
messenger, then, namely, Elijah (raised from the dead), is to
come and prepare the way before Jehovah, who shall appear in
judgment (iii. 5) "to purify the sons of Levi, and purge them as
gold and silver is purged " (iii. 3). Jehovah is thus himself the
" Lord " of verse 1, who shall suddenly come to his temple : as
in verse 5 also He says, " And I will come near to you to judg
ment, and I will be a swift witness against the sorcerers 
For I am Jehovah, I change not " (iii. 6).
The messenger (angel) in the second clause of the verse, is the
same, there is no reason to doubt, as the one in the first, and the
word rendered "even" in the English version should be rendered
and. There is thus an obvious parallelism of sense in the three
clauses of the verse, which alone might be sufficient to determine
its interpretation. Thus:
Behold I, Jehovah, will send my messenger [Elijah],
And he shall prepare the way before me ;
And the Lord, [Jehovah Himself,] whom ye [the people] seek shall
suddenly come to his temple,
And the messenger of the covenant whom (which) ye delight in;
Behold, he shall come, saith Jehovah of hosts.
In the second part of the verse, Jehovah speaks of himself, in
the third person, as the " Lord " whom the people " seek " — the
latter perhaps alluding to their seeking him in worship* The
change of person, from the first to the third, affords no objection
to this exposition. It is not an uncommon change, as noticed
before. The last clause of the verse refers to the prophet Elijah,
who is to be sent as Jehovah's messenger. It follows, therefore,
as the result of the inquiry, that words spoken by the prophet
Malachi of Jehovah and his messenger Elijah, are applied by the
* As, e.g., in Ps. xl. 16; lxix. 6.

KNOWLEDGE AND IGNORANCE OF CHRIST. 61
Evangelists, in the usual way of accommodation, to Jesus Christ
and his forerunner John the Baptist, as though fulfilled in them.
Does it follow that the Lord Jesus Christ is Jehovah, any more
than it follows that John the Baptist was Elijah ?

CHAPTER VII.
THE KNOWLEDGE AND THE IGNORANCE OF CHRIST — ORTHODOX
EXCESS IN THE USE OF OLD TESTAMENT PASSAGES —
GENERAL RESULT.
If the cases already examined may be deemed to establish
anything like a general principle, in the use made of the Old
Testament in the New, it will be unnecessary to dwell at greater
length on this subject. It would be easy to multiply examples ;
and in every instance similar considerations would be found to
apply. This will be the case even in such passages as those
referred to in the note.* These too must be accepted as exem
plifying, more or less directly and completely, the kind of accom
modation spoken of. And it is the easier, or rather the more
necessary, to say this, even in reference to cases in which Jesus
himself is the speaker, because however exalted in one sense
may be the nature or dignity attributed to him, it is yet on all
hands admitted that he was truly a man, possessed, like others
around him, of a genuine human nature. He was, therefore,
subject to the same laws and conditions of growth, instruction,
progress, knowledge or ignorance, which affected other men.
He shared in these. Thus there is no good reason to think that
the knowledge or the ignorance of Christ was not of the same
* John v. 39 ; xii. 37—41 ; Luke xxiv. 44 ; Heb. i. 5—11, in reference to Pss. ii.
and xlv.; Matt. xxii. 41 — 44, referring to Ps. ex.

62 KNOWLEDGE AND IGNORANCE OF CHRIST.
character which belonged to his age and country, or that he did
not participate in the prevailing ideas and feelings respecting
the ancient Scriptures and the use that might be made of them.
Everything in his recorded history points clearly to this con
clusion.* Hence, again, it may reasonably be inferred that he too would
accept the statements of the Old Testament in popular senses ;
would take passages as Messianic, because such was their usual
acceptation, and because, as the son of devout parents, familiar
with the sacred books of their people, he had been educated to
do so. We may further understand how it was, as represented
by the Evangelists, that he could apply passages usually con
sidered Messianic to the incidents of his own career. So to do
was in accordance with the common habit of the time, was
justified by it, was for him its inevitable consequence. It was,
we may believe, with him much as with a religious man of our
own day and nation. Such a person, trained from childhood to
believe the popular theology of the time, will necessarily express
himself on religious subjects in accordance with his belief, and
quote the words of either Testament according to the meaning
which he has been taught to put upon them, and this he will do
with perfect truthfulness and innocence. It is far from reason
able, however, to conclude that such a use of the older Scriptures
in the New Testament is to bind their readers, for all ages -to
come, to accept without inquiry either the authorship or the
interpretation popularly attributed to them in the time of Christ.
It ought not to be deemed essential to good Christianity to sup
press critical investigation into the origin of a sacred book, or
into the original meaning of an Old Testament passage, or to
discuss such questions with a foregone determination to believe
* E.g., the anticipations, more than once expressed, of his own second coming
within that generation : Matt. xvi. 27, 28 ; Luke xvii. 22, seq. Do not these anti
cipations, taken in their natural, obvious sense, remain unfulfilled ?

THE BELIEF IN EVIL DEMONS. 63
only in one way. It cannot be necessary to good Christianity to
do this, any more than it can be so to receive the Christ on
false pretences, or to insist on attributing to him a knowledge,
or a character, which he does not claim, or rather disclaims, for
himself. A striking illustration of these remarks is afforded by the
belief in evil demons* as it is found in the Gospels. This
belief was not confined to the Jews. It was widely spread in
the ancient world, before as well as after the time of Christ —
and a dreadful belief it was. To think that in the persons of
the afflicted, suffering from insanity, epilepsy, blindness, and
other forms of disease, there was actually present an evil spirit
of the most malignant nature, which found its delight in inflicting
misery on each helpless victim ; to think that such beings were
all around you and might take possession of your own body ;
thus to believe with any reality of faith must have gone far to
make life intolerable, and, with many minds, to render any
rational or consolatory religious trust an impossibility. -f-
Now this wide-spread superstition, this most grave miscon
ception of natural laws, was accepted and shared by the chief
personages of the New Testament. Jesus himself, brought up
in the midst of it, was not exempt from its influence. This is
clear from the narratives in which he is represented as speaking
and acting in accordance with it — as in Matt. xii. 22, and other
places. It is evident that on this subject he thought and spoke
just like other persons of his time. He said neither more nor
less than they said, but fell into and adopted the same ideas and
expressions which prevailed among his countrymen. How is it
possible to reconcile these facts with his alleged infallibility ?
* Rendered devils in the Revised Version, with very doubtful correctness.
T Compare the articles, Demon and Demoniacs, in Dr. William Smith's Dictionary
of the Bible.

64 KNOWLEDGE AND IGNORANCE OF CHRIST.
This question has not been considered by Dr. Liddon ; and
his silence in regard to it is not without its significance.
It remains to notice another point, more expressly than has
yet been done. It has been noticed how that Dr. Liddon takes
occasion to quote from Old Testament Scriptures, referred to in
the Gospels, a larger portion than is really brought forward in
the latter. He is not contented to go as far as an Evangelist,
and to take the alleged prophecy as it is used by him, but he
adds to it something of his own beyond this, so far as it suits
his argument to do so.
For example, in Zechariah xiii. 7, the prophet's words are
these : Awake, 0 sword, against my shepherd,
And against the man that is my fellow,
Saith Jehovah of Hosts :
Smite the shepherd, and the flock shall be scattered;
And I will turn my hand against the little ones.
The portion of this verse quoted in the New Testament and
applied to the circumstances of Jesus, is the phrase, " Smite the
shepherd, and the flock shall be scattered." But this is not
enough for the quoter of our day : he brings forward the earlier
part of the verse also, as though this too, in the Evangelist's con
ception, had necessarily the same reference. It may be asked
why he should stop where he does. Why not similarly urge
upon his reader the latter part of the verse ? — or the preceding
verse, or the following one? Of course, he does not do this,
because those verses would not suit his purpose, or might per
haps be unfavourable to it. But such words of the passage as
seemed to be available, these he picks out. Not contented with
the quotation actually given in the Gospel, he adds the further
expression as to "the man that is my fellow" {associate). And
this expression, too, he tells us, means Jesus Christ, and the

UNDUE USE OF THE OLD TESTAMENT. 65
latter is therefore the "fellow" and equal of Jehovah! But what
is the value of such logic as this ? Is not its real foundation an
assumption ? Because certain words are quoted in the Gospels
as applicable to circumstances spoken of by the Evangelists, does
it necessarily follow that other words in the same context which
are not quoted may be equally so applied, at will, by the modern
reader ?
It is perfectly gratuitous to suppose that the idea in each
Evangelist's mind, in citing the prophet's words, was that of
Christ being the equal of Jehovah, seeing that the quoted words
express a totally different idea ; namely, that of the scattering
of the disciples at the crucifixion. Had the former been intended,
the Evangelist would have done what Dr. Liddon has done ; that
is to say, he would have introduced the words which might at
least bear such a construction.*
And not only is this an obvious remark, but let it be further
observed that, in several of these cases, that part of an Old Testa
ment verse which would seem most especially available for the
orthodox argument, is precisely that which the Christian Evan
gelist does not bring forward. This will be seen in the passages
noted below.-f- Thus, for example, in Micah v. 2, a part of this
verse is referred to in the New Testament as indicating the place
where the Messiah is to be born. That part of it which might
have served more certainly to express what Dr. Liddon terms
"the eternal pre-existence," that part of the verse which the
modern orthodox theory cannot fail to adduce, is not quoted
* Rightly to appreciate this verse, compare the immediately following and preceding
chapters. It will be seen how entirely bound up with the politics and idolatry of the
time are all the allusions of the three chapters.
t E.g., Hag. ii. 6, in Heb. xii. 26 — while verses 7 and 9 are not noticed ; Isaiah
xl. 3, in Matt. iii. 3, Mark i. 3 — while the words of the prophet, " make straight in
the desert a highway for our God," are not quoted ; so in Luke iii. 4, John i. 23 ;
Mic. v. 2, comp. Matt. ii. 6. F

66 ORTHODOX EXCESS IN QUOTING
or appealed to in the Gospel. So that here, again, what to a
mind pre -occupied with the popular theory is necessarily the
most prominent thing in the original verse, is, by the Evangelist,
passed over in silence.
It may, indeed, be replied, that an Evangelist is not to be
expected to cite more of a passage than his immediate purpose
required. Just so ; and therefore his immediate purpose was
not that which is attributed to him. It was not to suggest the
deity of Jesus Christ, or to help in building up an argument for
that doctrine. If such had been his intention, he would have
brought forward the words which would best have served such
an end. But these are just the words which he passes over.
Ought we not, therefore, from the Evangelist's non-use of the
words, to conclude that he could not have had the intention to
convey or suggest the doctrine supposed ? — as, indeed, it is very
certain on other grounds that the doctrine had never entered his
mind. If, however, it be urged that the citation of some of the words
of a verse shews that the whole verse must have been in the
Evangelist's mind, and ought on his authority to be understood
to have referred originally to Christ, — this, it may be replied, is
evidently the point to be proved. And it cannot be proved,
because it may be shewn in each case (as we have seen in the
cases actually examined) that the passage could not in its first
intention have had any connection with Jesus Christ, but had
an entirely different reference — relating, if truly Messianic, not
to Jesus of Nazareth, but to the personage anticipated, under
the character of Messiah, by the ancient Hebrew writers. The
words, therefore, as before, can be applied to the former only by
a kind of accommodation.
Moreover, if the application of some words of a verse in a
Hebrew prophet to circumstances in the life of Christ shews that

THE OLD TESTAMENT. 67
the rest of the verse also related originally to him, why stop at
a single verse? The modern division into verses and chapters is
an arbitrary one. Why not, therefore, take the whole chapter,
or the whole book ?* And so we reach a result which is clearly
inadmissible, — a result at which the most determined upholder
of this kind of argument may well be disposed to pause, asking
himself whether a doctrine, or a mode of proof, which puts so
severe a strain upon common sense can indeed be true.
It follows from the foregoing considerations that there was
nothing in the ancient anticipations of a Messiah, to lead to the
expectation that that personage would be Divine, in the sense
which is commonly given to this word. He was indeed to be a
wise and righteous prince and warrior, especially under the
protection of Heaven, and enabled to overcome his enemies. He
was one, to whom the highest epithets, short of those reserved
for the ineffable Being, might be properly given, whose right it
was to have such epithets conferred upon him. But, at the
same time, there is no passage producible from the Old Testa
ment, in which he is really described or conceived of as God, or
as, in any sense, equal to Him ; there is no evidence producible
to this effect, which will stand the test of cross-examination.
One only, to the ancient Hebrew mind, as to the modern, could
be so designated ; and He it is of whom Jesus himself teaches
us to think as Our Father in heaven ; of whom he himself said,
" The Lord our God is One Lord ;" of whom he spoke as " My
Father and your Father, my God and your God;" and whom he
is also recorded to have addressed in prayer as " the Only True
God."f Such words as these are very plain indeed. Their
meaning does not wait to be determined by obscure and doubtful
* Thus, in Micah v., verses 5, 6, must evidently be included with v. 2, materially
affecting the character of the passage.
t Mark xii. 29 ; John v. 44 (K.V.); xvii. 3.
F 2

68 APPENDIX TO CHAPTER VII.
arguments from Old Testament prophecies ; and it may well be
a question whether not only our own reason, but also loyalty to
God and to Christ, do not require that we should accept and act
upon the conclusion which such language, taken in its plain and
obvious sense, so clearly conveys and urges upon us.

APPENDIX TO CHAPTER VII.
BISHOP MOORHOUSB ON THE LIMITATIONS OP OUR LORD'S KNOWLEDGE.
A recent discussion of the question referred to in the earlier
part of the last Chapter will be found in a small volume, The
Teaching of Christ (1891), by the Right Rev. J, Moorhouse,
Bishop of Manchester. It will be seen, I apprehend, that the
Bishop does not succeed in throwing any additional light upon
this perplexing subject. How, indeed, can any intelligence of
man hope to explain or reconcile the existence in one and the
same person of human ignorance and Divine Omniscience ? The
proposition involved is simply a contradiction in terms : — a con
tradiction, be it observed, placed before the Christian world, not
by any sacred writer, but only by the speculative theology of
later ages, which certainly ought not to be allowed to supersede
the simple practical teaching of the New Testament.
Indeed, Bishop Moorhouse, like many of his predecessors in
the same field, candidly avows his inability to solve the problem.
He takes refuge in the usual acknowledgment of the greatness
of the " mystery:" " I answer at once for myself that the manner
of this wondrous hypostatic union is a mystery too great for me"
(p. 32). But why, then, raise such a question at all ? or rather,
why put forth views of Christian doctrine which cannot be
verified, and only tend to cause perplexity and doubt to many
devout minds ?
While, however, Bishop Moorhouse thus by his own admis-

THE LIMITATIONS OF OUR LORD'S KNOWLEDGE. 69
•sion fails to resolve this troublesome problem of orthodox faith,
he has done some service, nevertheless in another direction, to
the cause of rational Christianity. Jesus, he tells us, was called
and " appointed" to do the work of a prophet (pp. 37, 39) — as
indeed we know he was spoken of by his people as " Jesus the
prophet, from Nazareth of Galilee" (Matt. xxi. 11, R.V.). As a
prophet and as Messiah, he was possessed of power and authority,
as Bishop Moorhouse points out, to rebuke the Scribes and Phari
sees, and to reject the vain traditions of the elders (p. 38). With
the same authority he did not hesitate to speak of the imperfec
tions of the Law, and, while paying it the honour which was its
due, he went so far as to set aside some of its commandments.
In these respects he acted not unlike other prophets who had
gone before him. He was as bold and as brave as Luther in his
opposition to the corrupt Church of his day. Nay, he was braver
and bolder, for Luther had behind him princes and great men,
able to give him effectual support and to protect his life, while
Jesus stood almost alone, and fell at last the victim of Calvary.
But in other respects the Galilean prophet went further than
Luther, though hardly further than an Isaiah or a Micah — who
promised their people abundant Messianic blessings as the reward
of faithfulness. As Bishop Moorhouse reminds us, Jesus pro
mised his disciples help and guidance from on High for the day
of trial. This is well put by the Bishop ; but why does he leave
out of sight the fact of Christ's own declarations, to the effect
that these divine aids are the gift of the Heavenly Father?*
They are not from any native and independent powers of his
own, but are always gratefully acknowledged by the possessor
to be his to impart by the Divine bestowal. All this then, we
see, Jesus possessed in his character as a prophet and as the
Christ of God, which alone he claimed to be. Such being the
case, what need is there for more than this ? His prophetic and
Messianic powers were adequate to every thing he did or said ;
* See Matt. *. 20; John xvi. 23, and other similar places.

70 THE BIBLICAL MONOTHEISM.
while to endow him with the character and attributes of the
Supreme is to go far beyond the necessities of the case, and to
waste Divine energy where the inspiration of the Prophet and
Teacher sufficed for every purpose. To introduce an incarnate
Deity is too much after the manner of Greek and Roman
mythology. It is certainly a needless complication and without
practical use — as if the infinite might of the Divine Father was
not sufficient for any claim or call that mortal man can make
upon it ! The Bishop will not have forgotten his Horace, but
has he not overlooked the precept,
" Nee deus intersit, nisi dignus vindice nodus
Incident"?

CHAPTER VIII.
THE BIBLICAL MONOTHEISM — THE "WORDS ELOHIM AND JEHOVAH.
The numberless statements and expressions in reference to
the Divine Being which occur in the Hebrew books cannot by
any means be combined together so as to form one consistent
and intelligible whole. They differ too much in different books,
and indeed sometimes in the same book; being in many instances
of a rude, anthropomorphic character, in others more elevated
and spiritual. This fact corresponds, in some measure, to the
different periods in which the books (or their constituent docu
ments) were composed — although it might be saying too much
to affirm that the older documents always exemplify the least
spiritual conceptions, and the latest those of a higher character.
Without attempting, however, to discuss so large a subject, it
may be pointed out as beyond question that the idea of One
God, the Creator and Lord of all, is a great and pervading

BIBLICAL DOCTRINE OF ONE GOD. 71
element of the Bible. This idea, or doctrine (if it may be so
termed), is unfolded in the course of the sacred history in a
peculiar and interesting manner. We are given to see how, from
obscure beginnings, it gradually grew up and assumed a com
manding influence among a people long unable to receive it with
a cordial assent ; and how, finally, it was established after cen
turies of conflict with idolatrous tendencies, and became the
abiding possession first of the Jewish people and then of the
Christians. Thus the Bible leaves this doctrine, as it were, to
speak for itself, and win its own way to the sympathy and faith
of devout minds. It places before us, not indeed a definition or
a creed, but a great historical drama, the scenes of which run
through many ages, and commend themselves to us by their
simplicity, by their truthfulness to human nature, and by the
power with which the final result appeals to religious feeling,
and vindicates its claims on our acceptance.
Of the two principal terms, Elohim and Jehovah, by which
the Hebrew writers denote the Supreme Being, the former was
the older, as it was also the more general in meaning and appli
cation. By its etymology, the word Elohim was probably expres
sive of power ; as though God were thought of as pre-eminently
the Mighty One, much as the term Almighty is now employed.
It was used, however, not only of God, as known among the
Hebrews, but also of "other gods."* It is also applied even to
human beings, as, for example, princes and judges, and others
occupying an eminent position. Thus we read, " And Jehovah
said unto Moses, See, I have made thee a god (Elohim) to
Pharaoh; and Aaron thy brother shall be thy prophet." -f-
It has been inferred from the plural form of this word, that in
the early, or ante-Mosaic times, it was employed in its proper
* Exod. xx. 3 ; xxiii. 13 ; Deut. v. 7.
t Exod. vii. 1 ; xxi. 6 ; xxii. 8, 28 ; Ps. viii. 5 ; xlv. 6 ; lxxxii. 1, 6; John x. 34, 35

72 the word elohim.
sense, as a true plural, and that the people among whom it was
in use were polytheists. This, however, does' not appear in the
sacred books. In these, the term in question is usually, and
from the first, though with a few rare exceptions,* employed with
singular verbs and adjectives, and denotes everywhere as thus
used the One Divine Object. Yet that such is the case affords
no conclusive argument against admitting the very imperfect,
and most probably polytheistic character of the religion of the
early Hebrews. The ancient documents which form the basis of
the Mosaic books f were no doubt most of them written after
the Exodus, some of them even long afterwards. Their writers
thus lived at a time when the belief and worship of the One
God already prevailed in the nation. Hence those writers,
including the compilers of the Pentateuch, and of other historical
books, in speaking of the past, would easily accommodate their
language to the religious ideas of their own time. It is, never
theless, clear from their history, that the Hebrew people were
long excessively prone to idolatrous practices and to the acknow
ledgment of many gods. It is difficult to think that they could
have been so, had anything like a pure monotheism come down
to them, and been firmly established among them, from the early
days of patriarchal history, as this is represented in the Book of
Genesis. The low state of religious belief prevailing in the ancient
times is not, however, a matter of merely conjectural inference
from their oldest word for God. Other and direct indications
are not wanting to the same effect.
On the face of the narrative which relates the events of the
early Biblical history for many hundred years, it is plain that
the Israelitish people during the whole of this period could have
* E.g., Gen. xx. 13; xxxv. 7; Exod. xxxii. 4, 8 ; 2 Sam. vii. 23.
t Comp. supra, p. 2.

IMPERFECTION OF THE EARLY IDEAS. 73
had only gross and unspiritual ideas on religious subjects.
Doubtless, there were exceptions among the better minds of the
nation, including leaders and prophets eager for the acknowledg
ment and service of the One God ; but the statement just made
is correct of the great majority, even though the people may
have been brought at times to believe in their own Elohim as the
sole Being entitled to worship and obedience from themselves.
In the books relating to the earliest history, all that is said
respecting the Deity and His intercourse with man is highly
anthropomorphic in its character. Man is made in the image of
God, just as Adam's son is born in the image of his father.
Jehovah Elohim walks in the garden of Eden, and enters into
conversation with the primitive pair, as he does afterwards with
many of their descendants. After the deluge, when Noah offered
his sacrifice of burnt offerings, "Jehovah smelled a sweet savour,"
and "said in his heart," that he would not "again curse the
ground any more for man's sake." It is plain that, in the con
ception of the writer of such words, he is a God of very human
tastes and ideas. So, he speaks face to face with Abraham and
Sarah, and partakes of food in their tent. From his interview
with them he goes down to "see whether" Sodom and Gomorrah
are as wicked as the cry which had come unto him had indi
cated, " and if not," he adds, " I will know."*
In the Book of Exodus, Jehovah converses with Moses. He
gives him tables of stone, containing the commandments which
He has himself written. It is even said respecting Moses and
others of the elders and nobles of Israel, that they went up to
the mountain, " and they saw the God of Israel, .... they saw
God, and did eat and drink." f
It is needless to add that these representations continue
through later books, — that is to say, books recounting later
* Gen. v. 1—3 ; viii. 21 ; xviii. 21. t Exod. xxiv. 9—12.

74 IDOLATROUS TENDENCIES
events. Hence it is evident that for many ages, according to the
sacred narrative itself, essentially rude and material ideas of the
Deity prevailed among the Israelites, and we cannot wonder
that they fell away as they did, from time to time, into positive
idolatry and the belief in strange gods. To the great bulk of
such a people even Jehovah, it would appear, could only be a
national god, the one who favoured and protected them more
especially — ideas which. are certainly very nearly akin to poly
theism, if not identical with it.
This conclusion might easily be confirmed by various other
considerations drawn from the books of Genesis, Joshua and
Judges. On these, however, it is not necessary here to dwell at
any length.*
Subsequent books, both of historians and of prophets, present
many similar traces of the same disposition. They reveal, in
fact, a long continued series of vacillations between the worship
of Jehovah and that of the gods of the surrounding nations.
Of King Ahaz we read, that " he sacrificed unto the gods of
Damascus which smote him, and he said, Because the gods of
the kings of Syria help them, therefore will I sacrifice to them,
that they may help me."-f-
Later kings, as Manasseh, and earlier ones also, were equally
prone to idolatrous worship. The " high places " and sacred
groves and gardens are often referred to ; and it is clear that the
people, as well as their rulers, were continually guilty of the
same great apostasy. Even in the later Isaiah, there are plain
allusions to idolatrous practices among the captives in Babylon.!
This tendency to false worship appears to have prevailed in
spite of the prophets who came forward from time to time with
* See Gen. xxxi. 19, 30 — 34 ; xxxv. 2, 3 ; Jos. xxiv. 14—23 ; Jud. xvii. xviii.
t 1 Kings xii. 28 —33 ; xviii. 13, 21 ; 2 Kings xxi. 3—6.
X Isaiah lvii.; comp. Isaiah i. xxix.; Jer. vii. 17, seq.; Zech. i. 2.

AMONG THE HEBREWS. 75
their faithful warnings and expostulations. It may possibly be
accounted for, in part, by the intermixture among the Hebrews
of some of the ancient idolatrous inhabitants of Canaan;* in
part, and perhaps more fully, by the fact that the Hebrews were
so much surrounded by tribes and nations addicted to very gross
and sensual religions— as, for example, the Syrians, the Phoeni
cians and the Egyptians. Ignorant and uncultivated men, little
given to reflection, are easily attracted by outward and visible
rites, appealing to them in the sacred name of religion. Such
persons among the Hebrews — that is, indeed, the great mass
of the nation — would be constantly liable to be drawn away
from a system which, like their own, forbade the making of any
sensible image of God, and was, in other respects, of a higher and
severer character than the religions of adjoining nations.
Of this statement we may find ample illustration in the reli
gious world of our own day; in the influence of what is termed
Ritualism, for example, over certain classes of minds; and in
the prevalence of Roman Catholicism among the great masses
of the people of many countries, for whom, it is not to be
doubted, such forms of Christian faith and worship have far
stronger attractions than a simple and comparatively cold and
rational Protestantism.
Another and more general cause of the same tendency may be
found in the endless variety and diversity seen in the world
around us, both in the visible phenomena of nature and in the
occurrences of human experience. Even in our Christian times,
the belief in Satan is, to many persons, a relief; inasmuch as it
seems to take away from God the responsibility for much of the
seeming evil that exists in the world. It takes the responsi
bility from Him, and puts it upon the prince of evil. But this,
like polytheism itself, is only a temporary and superficial relief.
* See Psalm cvi. 34—38.

76 BIBLICAL DOCTRINE OF ONE GOD.
True science and true religion unite to force the mind onward
and upward to the thought of One all-sufficient Cause, the central
Power, the controlling Providence, the primal Intelligence and
Will, of the universe — helping us to think and say of Him,
with the Hebrew prophet of old, " I form the light and create
darkness; I make peace and create evil; I, Jehovah, do all these
things." The word Jehovah differs from the word Elohim in being a
singular in form, and in being applied only to one definite object
of thought. It is a proper name, and, like other proper names
found in the Old Testament, it has a distinct meaning of its own.
It was probably expressive of eternity of existence ; and accord
ingly, in some recent English versions of the Old Testament, the
word is rendered " the Eternal," as it is by the equivalent phrase
in various foreign versions.
This name, it is well known, is esteemed so sacred among the
Jews, that, for many ages past, they have refrained from uttering
it; and always, in reading their Scriptures, substitute another
word, namely, either Adonai {Lord) or, more rarely, Elohim. The
true pronunciation of this sacred name is not certainly known.
It has been long lost, and different accounts have been given in
recent times as to what it was, and ought now to be.* This is
easily understood, when it is mentioned that the original word
which we write and pronounce as Jehovah, properly consists of
only four consonants, without any original vowel sound to guide
us in pronouncing them. The vowel sounds now attached to
them are comparatively modern — that is, they have been added
to the word since the commencement of Christian times, and are,
in fact, borrowed from the form Adonai.f
* On the form Jehovah, see infra, Gen. Appendix, note F.
t It is scarcely necessary to remind the reader that, in the English O.T., the word
Lokd (in small capitals) represents the original word Jehovah, while the form

THE NAME JEHOVAH. 77
There is reason to believe that the name Jehovah was not yet
known in the most ancient times of Hebrew history to which we
can ascend. At what period it was first introduced is, however,
a doubtful point. Without dwelling upon the considerations
which bear on this question, it may be noted that they tend to
'establish the position that the name in question was not in use
before the time of Moses. It was long ago pointed out by an
eminent German author, that there is no instance in the Penta
teuch of a proper name formed by composition with a syllable
derived from the word Jehovah — no instanoe until we come to
the time of Moses, whose mother's name was Jochebed, and
his successor's name Joshua. Several names, on the other
hand, occur formed from the syllable El, derived from Elohim, or
a kindred form. Hence the inference that while El and Elohim
were common in the pre-Mosaic times, the term Jehovah was as
yet unknown, or little known.*
This appears, indeed, to be recognized in the Bible itself. In
the Book of Exodus (vi. 2, 3) we read, " God spake unto Moses
and said unto him, I am the Lord ; and I appeared unto
Abraham, unto Isaac, and unto Jacob by the name of God
Almighty; but by my name Jehovah was I not known to
them." It is true, nevertheless, that this name constantly occurs
in the Book of Genesis ; — a fact which is appealed to as one of
the evidences of the composite structure of that book.
"Lord" is the rendering of the original Adon or Adonai. In so rendering "Jehovah,"
our translators followed the Septuagint, the Jewish authors of which naturally refrained
from repeating or writing the sacred name, using the Greek for Lord instead of it.
Hence the confusion between the word Lord in the Old Testament, and the word
Lord in the New, as used of Jesus Christ. The one represents the ancient and vene
rable Hebrew name Jehovah, the other a common Greek word which is often applied
to others besides Jesus Christ (e.g., Matt, xviii. 26—34). Thus the two words are
by no means equivalent although often assumed to be so, as even by so good a scholar
as the late Greek Professor, Dr. B. H. Kennedy.— Occasional Sermons.
* Ewald, Gesch. d. Voiles Israels (1843), II. pp. 145—148.

78 BIBLICAL DOCTRINE OF ONE GOD :
On the whole, it will probably not be far wrong to regard the
introduction of the ineffable Name, whenever it took place, as
indicating a step forward on the part of the Hebrew people, or
their leaders, towards better ideas of the Eternal Being. Their
Elohim is now Jehovah, and no other. He is henceforth to be
their sole God, their national God ; not probably, as yet, in their
conception, the One Only Being entitled to that highest of
appellations, but at least Supreme among gods, God of gods ; —
the additional advancement towards the idea of His sole Deity
being gradually made and completed at a yet later period in the
nation's history.

CHAPTER IX.

THE BIBLICAL DOCTRINE OF ONE GOD — ITS CONTINUED DEVE
LOPMENT — THE CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE.
The imperfect religious belief above spoken of prevailed in
the nation down to the time of the captivity. The writings of
Jeremiah are sufficient evidence to this effect. He frequently
speaks of the grievous apostasy of his countrymen, and repeat
edly threatens them with captivity and destruction, as the con
sequences of their sin. Several other prophets, both of earlier
and of later date, bear the same unfavourable testimony respect
ing their people.*
But, while this is true, it is equally clear that higher and
better ideas were now also asserting their sway, and long had
done so. In Isaiah, for example, while Jehovah is probably still
thought of as the special Protector and God of Israel, it is, never-
* Jer. vii. 17, 29—34; xi. 11—13; xv. 6, 7; xviii. 1, 2; Hosea i. 2; iv. 12, 13,
and passim; Amos ii. 8, and passim; Micah i. 5 — 7; v. 12 — 14; Zeph. i. 4—6;
Mai. ii. 11.

ITS CONTINUED DEVELOPMENT. 79
theless, evident that the prophet has learnt or is learning to
conceive of Him as the One true and living God ; nor is there
anything to indicate that he looked upon the idols to which he
refers as other than the mere creatures of the foolish imaginations
of their worshippers.* Indeed, some of his expressions respecting
God, and the obedience which is acceptable to Him, are of the
highest character ; hardly inferior to anything of the same kind
to be found elsewhere in the Scriptures. His first chapter is a
passage of this kind, and so is much in his second, and in his
fifth. The Book of Jeremiah is equally decided, not only in its
denunciation of idols, but also in the distinction which it draws
between the false gods and Him whose name is "Jehovah of
Hosts," who is " the true God," even " the living God, and an
everlasting King."-f-
Similar remarks are true, in perhaps a less degree, of several
of the Minor Prophets;:]; and thus it is clear that, for a long
period, and contemporaneously with the often prevalent idolatry,
there existed in the nation a powerful tendency of an opposite
character. The origin of this is doubtless to be referred to a time
long anterior to that of the prophets just mentioned. Not to
speak of the Mosaic teaching and legislation, — which, however,
no one can doubt were purely monotheistic,- — the names of
Samuel, Nathan, Elijah, Elisha and others, readily occur to us
in this connection. All that is known of these venerable men
indicates their zeal for Jehovah, as the God of Israel; and if they
had not reached an elevation from which they were enabled to
look to Him as the Only Divine Existence, and to think of the
gods of the nations as altogether vanity and " the work of men's
hands," yet their labours and their prophetic teaching must have
contributed essentially to this final result.
* Isaiah xvii. 7, 8; i. 29—31; xix. 3; xxx. 22. t Jer. *. 10, 16.
X Amos iii. v.; Hosea xi. xiv.; Micah vi.; Hab. iii.

80 BIBLICAL DOCTRINE OF ONE GOD :
The hard experience of the captivity, and the lessons which it
taught, would tend in the same direction. The unknown author
of the latter part of the Book of Isaiah is remarkable for the
power with which he proclaims the nothingness of the idols, and
the sole Deity of Jehovah .* The Book of Deuteronomy, also,
the composition of which may belong to the age of Jeremiah,
contains passages which fully correspond to that more advanced
period of national intelligence.f The same is evidently true of
the Book of Job, and of many of the later Psalms.]: The latter
have frequent passages in which the writer gives utterance to
the loftiest conceptions of the greatness and power, as well as
of the goodness, holiness and mercy, of Jehovah; passages
which, for many ages past, have served as the appropriate forms
of expression for the best and highest thoughts of Christian
devotion: thus —
Whither shall I go from thy spirit ?
Or whither shall I flee from thy presence ?
If 1 ascend up into heaven, thou art there ;
If I make my bed in the grave, behold, thou art there ;
If I take the wings of the morning,
And dwell in the uttermost parts of the sea,
Even there shall thy hand lead me,
And thy right hand shall hold me. (Ps. cxxxix. 7 — 10.)
It is felt, at once, that men who could write thus respecting
the All-pervading Presence, that men who could worthily appre
ciate such writing, could never be led away to the worship of
imaginary deities. In this higher faith, an immense step has
been secured in the progress of religious knowledge ; and good
soil has been prepared in which to sow still better seed of Divine
* Isaiah xliv. 9—20 ; xlv. 5—7.
t Deut. iv. 35—39; vi. 4; vii. 9; xvii. 2—5; xxxii. 39, 40.
X Job xi. 7, 8 ; xxviii.; xxxiv. — xxxix.; Pss. xcv. ; xcvi. ; xcix. ; c. ; ciii. ; civ. ;

ITS CONTINUED DEVELOPMENT. 81
truth, whenever any servant of God, even greater than Moses
and the prophets, shall be raised up to guide and enlighten
mankind. In the diffusion of such ideas as these there is, therefore, a true
" preparation for Christ " — better, and more real, than any con
sisting in supposed predictions, often of mysterious import and
doubtful interpretation, to say the least ; which, moreover, from
the nature of the case, could be known to comparatively few
readers, and were liable to be misunderstood even by the most
intelligent. The advance in religious knowledge which these ideas indicate
was doubtless, on the whole, well maintained during the long
interval between the close of the captivity and the commence
ment of the Christian literature. To this period belong various
Hebrew books, the testimony of which, so far as it bears upon
the subject, goes to show that, in the midst of much of mere
outward ceremonialism, the higher faith in Jehovah was by no
means lost sight of. Evidence of this may be seen in the prayer
of the Levites in the book of Nehemiah ; in one or two places
even of the book of Daniel ;* in the prevailing tone of the pro
phet Haggai ; and in that of the first eight chapters — that is to
say, the later portion — of the book of Zechariah.
To this period belong also the Apocryphal writings of the Old
Testament, including the so-called Sapiential Books, that is to
say, the Wisdom of Solomon and Ecclesiasticus — works of great
beauty, and abounding in just and noble sentiments respecting
both God and man — works, in short, which, although not written
in Hebrew and originating under Hellenistic influences, are
wholly worthy, not merely, in Dr. Liddon's words, to " lie outside
the precincts of the Hebrew canon," but to occupy an honour
able place within it. To the same space of time belongs the
* Neh. ix. 4—38; Dan. ii. 20—23; ix. 3—19.
G

82 BIBLICAL DOCTRINE OF ONE GOD :
great struggle, under the Maccabaean princes, against the house
of Antiochus. Terrible as this was to the Jewish people, it
tended, without doubt, in its after-influences, to consolidate their
attachment to their religion, as this now existed among them,
in the purely monotheistic form which they had formerly been
so unable, or so slow, to receive. This result is seen in expres
sions occurring both in the Sapiential books and in the books of
the Maccabees.*
Still, even with this establishment of a better faith, the whole
process is not yet completed. The prevailing tone even of the
higher passages of the ancient Scriptures represents the Almighty
more especially in the light of Creator and Ruler. The remem
brance of his greatness, power and majesty, is predominant;
although it is also in many cases qualified by the thought of his
more beneficent and attractive moral attributes. This is in
harmony with the radical conception of the Hebrew religion,
that of a Law imposed by the will of a Sovereign, enforced by
sanctions of reward or punishment, as the consequence of obedi
ence or of disobedience. Nor were the people themselves pre
pared to receive anything more spiritual. They have, therefore,
only to obey the law which is given to them, and to observe the
appointed rites of worship, simply because they are enjoined by
their invisible Lawgiver and King. The conscience and the
affections are but little appealed to or cultivated. It is rather
the fear of punishment. God is a jealous God, who will visit
iniquity to the third and fourth generation, and shew mercy to
them that love him and keep his commandments.-f
Such ideas are not the highest which it is given to man to
attain concerning God. They belong to the earlier rather than
the later stages of religious faith; and accordingly in the "fulness
* See the beautiful prayer of Solomon, Wisd. of Sol. ix. ; also Ecclus. xiii. 15,
seq. ; 2 Matt. i. 24—29. f Comp., however, Ezek. xviii. 19, seq.

ITS CONTINUED DEVELOPMENT. 83
of time " a better revelation of the Supreme is given in the
teaching and influence, more especially, of Jesus Christ and his
great Apostle, St. Paul. This appeals more directly to the moral
nature of man, and altogether comes nearer to us than anything
contained in the older dispensation. The latter was but as a
step, slow and hesitating, though firmly made in the result, — a
step towards the more perfect knowledge ; and it is not until we
come to the life and words of the great Teacher, and to the
influences immediately springing from them, and learn from him
and see in him how to think of God as the merciful Father of
all, who is to be worshipped " in spirit and in truth," that we
have obtained the full sum and substance of the Biblical revela
tion. God is now no longer, as in the ancient times, only Elohim,
a Being of inexpressible might and greatness ; nor only Jehovah,
the true eternal existence, before which everything else is change
able and perishable ; but he stands in a far dearer and more
intimate relation to us, as the great Parent Spirit, the Heavenly
Father of all.
The conception of God as a Father is not unknown to the Old
Testament ; but it is there usually limited in its application to
the chosen people. In the Christian teachings, the term is one
of wider sweep, and greater depth and richness of meaning.
And from this, the characteristic Christian idea of God, a new
and clearer light breaks forth upon the path of life, shewing the
relations in which all men stand not only to God, but to each
other. They are placed now, as it were, under a more penetrat
ing and spiritual law, and bound over to live together in peace
and mutual goodwill and service, as the children of one family,
members of the great Christian brotherhood. " There is neither
Jew nor Greek, circumcision nor uncircumcision, Barbarian,
Scythian, bond nor free," but all are as " one in Christ Jesus." *
* Coloss. iii. 11 ; Gal. iii. 28.
G2

84 BIBLICAL DOCTRINE OF ONE GOD.
So writes the great Apostle of the Gentiles, indicating that now,
"in Christ," the grosser distinctions of class and nation are to
count for nothing ; well applying and developing the idea con
tained in the words of his Master, as addressed to his immediate
disciples, when he told them to aim at being the children of
their Father which is in heaven.
Within the long period over which we have now rapidly
passed, we have seen the gradual establishment among a particu
lar people of the true idea of God. We have seen them advanc
ing, by slow and painful efforts, from the rude beginnings of
their early history and from very unworthy conceptions of the
Almighty, to the belief in his eternity, his universal power and
dominion, his sole Godhead. We have seen this ancient Hebrew
belief resulting in the still more spiritual conception of the
Christian Master and his disciples, even in the great faith in
" One God and Father of all, who is above all and through all
and in you all."
And, throughout this vast space of time, in all the Biblical
writings belonging to it, where is there any trace of a radical
change in the mode of conceiving of the Oneness of God ? In
reply to this question, it is not enough to refer, as Dr. Liddon
does,f to "hints," "suggestions," "adumbrations," symbolical
" un veilings," not understood at the time by those to whom they
are supposed to have been given, and often matter of contro
versy since. Dark inuendoes of this kind are not what may
reasonably be expected in such a case, but some positive decla
ration, plainly announcing the new doctrine. But where is this,
or anything like this, to be found in either Testament? When
and where, precisely, in the teaching of Scripture, is the new
idea of a divine plurality, a divine threeness, first distinctly in
troduced, as the correction or completion of the older doctrine ?
* B. L.,p. 48 (49), seq.

THE CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE. 85
Where is the ancient idea of One Jehovah, besides whom there
is no other God, modified and changed as commonly represented ?
Can any reader of the Bible confidently lay his hand upon the
place, and say, Here the doctrine of the threefold nature of the
Godhead was first revealed? — or, Here we see the interest' or
astonishment it aroused in the minds of those who were begin
ning to apprehend it ? — or, Here, again, it is clearly, fully declared,
finally established?
Within the pages of the Bible, an affirmative answer to such
questions as these will be sought in vain. And this is said, not
forgetting the passages which are usually thought definitely to
express the doctrine referred to* An answer to such questions
is easily found, when the inquirer reaches the second and follow
ing centuries of the Christian era. Then it may be seen how
Gentile converts to Christianity brought with them into the new
religion certain ideas of their philosophy, and elaborated from
them much of the system of the modern orthodoxy. Among
these converts, it is not difficult to see when and where the
doctrine of a second Deity, and later that of the Trinity, began
to be, and how these doctrines gradually assumed their now
prevailing forms.-)- But this is not to be traced within the
pages of Scripture. Here, we read of One God at the beginning,
and One God at the end, without any limitation or qualification
whatever. As, for example, in the words of Moses, " Hear, 0
Israel, Jehovah our God, Jehovah is one." Christ takes up the
same strain, and when he was asked by the scribe which was
the first commandment of all, Jesus answered him in the same
ancient words, " The first of all the commandments is, Hear, 0 •
* Matt, xxviii. 19 ; 2 Cor. xiii. 14 ; 1 John v. 7. See Appendix to this Chapter.
t See a clear and concise historical account in Reville's Histoire du Dogme de la
Divinite de Jesus Christ (English translation, 1870) : compare also Donaldson's
Christian Literature, Book ii. See infra, Chapters XVI. to XIX.

86 BIBLICAL DOCTRINE OF ONE GOD.
Israel, the Lord our God is one Lord ; and thou shalt love the
Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and
with all thy mind, and with all thy strength : this is the first
commandmant."* The Apostle Paul re-echoes this declaration :
" To us," he says, " there is one God, the Father, of whom are all
things, and we in him."f
In itself, and apart from the necessities of controversial expla
nation or defence, Christianity is usually declared to be as truly
a monotheistic religion as the ancient Judaism. Few persons
will deny that such a statement is correct in regard to the
teachings of the New Testament. It ought then to be a matter
of the gravest import to every Christian disciple that the
doctrine of the Trinity, as popularly held,— as defined, for
example, in the Athanasian Creed,— practically and logically
amounts to tritheism. The prevailing theology constantly speaks
of Christ as God, and addresses him separately in the language
of prayer in a manner which is absolutely without precedent in
the Scriptures. Similarly, it makes the Holy Spirit to be a
distinct and personal being, as much as the Father and the
Son ; telling us that each of the three is God, exactly as either
of the others is so. And if this does not amount to the assertion
of three co-equal beings, each of which is God, it is surely impos
sible to find language in which to make such an assertion. Nor
can this conclusion, however unacceptable or repulsive it may
be to the devout mind, be effectually hindered or nullified by
the few words with which the creeds and their defenders endea
vour to protect themselves from the imputation of tritheism,
when they append the proposition, or explanations which are
equivalent, that "yet there are not three Gods, but only one
God." In thus proceeding, they simply exemplify the absurdity
* Deut. vi. 4 ; Mark xii. 29, 30.
t 1 Cor. viii. 6. Comp, Ephes. iv. 5, 6.

NO TRACE OF TRINITY IN UNITY. 87
of saying that a thing is, and is not, at one and the same
time.* This tritheistic element, however, or anything really like it, is
not to be found in the pages of the Scriptures, — any more than
is the adoration of the Virgin Mary. The one, in truth, has
much the same foundation as the other; that is to say, it is
equally founded, not in the teaching of the Bible, but on Church
authority,-)- and on creeds which have come down to us from
comparatively ignorant ages — ages too of subtle and daring
speculation on divine things.
The quality of unreasonableness, therefore, which any one
may see in the ecclesiastical doctrine now referred to, he ought
not to impute to the Bible. The Scriptures, it is needless to
observe, do not contain the term by which it is expressed, nor
can the idea be described in Scriptural words or by any combi
nation of Scriptural phrases. How therefore can it be really a
doctrine of the Bible ? That volume puts no such strain upon
devout faith. On the contrary, in its record of the development
of the theistic belief of the Israelites, it is in remarkable har
mony with the dictates of reason and the analogies of human
experience. And not only so : — in that ancient and simple doctrine of one
* Eminent Trinitarian writers have expressed themselves in very similar terms on
the great mystery of their religion. Thus : — " When it is proposed to me to affirm,
that ' in the unity of the Godhead there be three persons, of one substance, power,
and eternity, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost ;' I have difficulty enough !
my understanding is involved in perplexity, my conceptions bewildered in the thickest
darkness. I pause ; I hesitate ; I ask what necessity there is for making such a de
claration  But does not this confound all our conceptions, and make us use
words without meaning ? I think it does. I profess and proclaim my confusion in
the most unequivocal manner : I make it an essential part of my declaration. Did I
pretend to understand what I say, I might be a Tritheist, or an infidel ; but I could
not both worship the one true God, and acknowledge Jesus Christ to be Lord of all." —
Dr. Hey, Lectures on Divinity, apud Wilson, Concessions of Trinitarians, p. 34.
t This has been fully admitted by a certain class of High-Cburch writers, whose
statements need not be here cited in detail.

88 BIBLICAL DOCTRINE OF ONE GOD.
God, the Heavenly Father, " in whom we live and move and
have our being," which is the final result yielded by the ages of
varied experience through which the sacred history runs, we
have that which is in harmony not only with human reason, but
with one of the marked tendencies of modern science. For the
latter is constantly seeking and striving to reduce the number
of causes which are at work in producing the visible phenomena
of the universe ; to rise up, in fact, to One Great First Cause ;
and to shew that all the various powers and laws of nature are
but simple manifestations of that. Natural philosophers will
tell us that such things as heat and light and electricity are
most probably but various developments, or applications, of one
and the same inscrutable primary force. Some may even add
to this that the principle of life, and even thought itself, can be
only forms of the same all-pervading original Cause. What that
Great First Cause may be, they do not presume to define, hardly
even to conjecture.
The Bible would lead us to believe that, in the last resort, it
is the Living God, or the intelligent, conscious Will of the one
Almighty Creator. And this proposition, however difficult it
may be to receive, is certainly neither opposed to reason nor
condemned in any way by the moral sense. On the contrary,
the rational and spiritual part of our nature will gladly, in most
cases, respond to that proposition ; and in it, therefore, the
devout man may well be contented to rest, until the day comes,
if that is ever to be, when scientific research shall be able to give
him something better — a day, it may safely be said, which is
still very far off.

INTERPRETATION OP MATTHEW XXVIII. 19. 89

APPENDIX TO CHAPTER IX.
NEW TESTAMENT PASSAGES SUPPOSED TO EXPRESS THE DOCTIUNE OP
THE TRINITY.
Of such passages the number is three ; — one of them being,
however, the worthless interpolated verse in the First Epistle of
John, 1 John v. 7, 8. This passage runs as follows : — " There
are three that bear record, [in heaven, the Father, the Word and
the Holy Spirit, and these three are one. And there are three
that bear witness in earth] the Spirit, the water and the blood ;
and these three agree in one." The words in brackets are now
generally known and acknowledged to be spurious, and are with
out value for any dogmatic purpose.*
There are left two other passages which are usually supposed
clearly and unquestionably to express the doctrine of three
Divine persons — two passages only, be it remembered, out of the
whole extent of the Bible. They are found in Matt, xxviii. 19,
and 2 Cor. xiii. 14.
The former of these, in a corrected translation, reads thus :
" Go ye therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing
them into the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the
Holy Spirit."f In judging whether this, as alleged, is a state
ment of the doctrine of the Trinity, it should be remembered
that,- throughout the whole Gospel of Matthew, there is no ex
pression or word, in which that doctrine can be supposed to be
conveyed, until we come to this, the last verse but one of the
Gospel. So far, therefore, as this Gospel is concerned, it would
appear that throughout1 all the ministry of Christ, in all his
discourses, parables and sayings of various kinds here recorded,
there is nothing to shew that a new conception of the Deity was
* Comp. N.T. Revised — which simply omits the words ; also Dean Alford's note in
his version of the New Testament.
t " Holy Spirit." See note on the words Ghost and Spirit, infra, Chap. XXIII.

90 APPENDIX TO CHAPTER IX.
ever spoken of between Jesus and his disciples, until we come
to the latest moments of his life on earth. And then (we are
asked to believe), by using the words now under notice, he
revealed the truth to the disciples and to the Christian world of
future ages' !
Is the supposition a probable one? Could such a doctrine
have been withheld by the Master from the disciples and from
the world in such a manner — left to be revealed to them only
in this slight and incidental kind of way, — and that too, not
directly, as a doctrine of supreme importance expressly offered
to their faith, but only as something, after all, implied or to be
deduced by way of inference from the words employed ?
For, it will be observed, even this verse does not explicitly
declare Three Persons and One God. It does not say that the
three are each equally God, one as much as the other ; it does
not say that the Son is God, or the Holy Spirit ; but simply, " Go
and baptize into the name" of the Three, whatever these may
each severally be.
But what, then, is the meaning of the injunction ? To be bap
tized into the name of any person (or into that person) does not
pre-imply that he is accepted as an object of worship, but as one
of religious faith. Such baptism makes him the subject of recog
nition and belief, under some implied or imputed character, what
ever that may be. Paul says of the fathers of his nation that
they were " all baptized into Moses " (1 Cor. x. 1, 2). He does
not mean that they had been taught to consider Moses as God,
or to make him an object of their worship. He can only mean
that they recognized and had faith in him as their leader, and
adopted the religious system which he gave them. The same
Apostle even speaks of baptism into his own name as a possi
bility (1 Cor. i. 13 — 15). Whatever his definite meaning may
have been, he could not have intended to suggest that those
who might have been so baptized would by the act have recog
nized him as God, or made him an object of religious worship.

INTERPRETATION OF MATTHEW XXVIII. 19. 91
Thus, then, it is clear that, although the Father, the Son, and
the Holy Spirit, are here placed together in one form of words,
as objects into which baptism shall take place, it by no means
follows that the three are each a Divine person, and each equally
God. It does not follow, therefore, that we have here any state
ment of the doctrine of the Trinity, or any allusion to it. The
most that can be said is this : If that doctrine were certainly
established and known by other evidence, this verse might be
interpreted in accordance with it. But is it certainly established
and known by other evidence ? The contrary is the case ; — and
there is in fact no passage of Scripture whatever in which the
doctrine in question is either clearly stated, or even necessarily
implied. Baptism " into the name of the Father," was baptism into the
confession of the One God, the Heavenly Father : — no unim
portant article of faith to a convert from heathenism, who had
perhaps been a believer in many gods, or in none. Baptism into
the name of the Son was the distinctively Christian part of the
rite. It was baptism into the belief and reception of Jesus as
Christ, the Messiah or " Son of God." This was evidently an
essential part of the new disciple's confession, and neither Jew
nor Gentile could become a Christian without it. Baptism into
the Holy Spirit was, to the convert of those days, baptism into
the confession and participation of those gifts of the Spirit,
which in the Book of Acts are stated to have been shed upon the
disciples, and are often referred to in the course of that book*
We must not forget that in the early Christian times it was a
disputed question whether the Messiah (the Son) had come or
not. Jesus of Nazareth the Jewish nation did not receive in
that character. They rejected and crucified him. Hence it was
indispensable that converts should make a distinct confession of
what was thus denied, and should be baptized into the name of
the Son ; that is to say, into the belief in Jesus, not as God, but
* E.g., Acts ii. 4 ; iv. 31.

92 APPENDIX TO CHAPTER IX.
as Christ* In regard to the Holy Spirit, it will be remembered
that there is a passage in the Acts where Christian disciples,
imperfectly instructed, are said to know nothing of that object of
faith. " We have not so much as heard whether there be any
Holy Spirit " (Acts xix. 2). It is impossible to think that they
could have been left in such ignorance, when they became
Christians, had the term "Holy Spirit" really denoted the
third co-equal member of a Divine Trinity, into the confession
of which converts were received by baptism. We see what is
meant (v. 5) when it is said that they were " baptized into the
name of the Lord Jesus " — and that the Holy Spirit then " oame
on them" (v. 6). The form of baptism here spoken of, "into the
name of the Lord Jesus," is the one which, being indispensable,
alone occurs in the Book of Acts. What is termed the baptismal
formula (Matt, xxviii. 19) is nowhere met with in that book ;
shewing us plainly that a confession of the Trinity of persons, so
far as can be learnt from the New Testament, was never made ;
that, for some reason not stated, the supposed formula was not
used, and that Christian baptism in the apostolical age was bap
tism into the name of Jesus alone.
The second instance in which the doctrine of the Trinity is
thought to be, clearly expressed in the New Testament occurs
again in an incidental kind of way, in the last verse of one of St.
Paul's Epistles (2 Cor. xiii. 14): — " The grace of the Lord Jesus
Christ, and the love of God, and the communion of the Holy
Spirit be with you all." The words are easily shewn to be incon
sistent with the doctrine they are supposed to express. For it is
plain that the Almighty Being is separated, in the writer's con
ception, from Jesus Christ and from the Holy Spirit. "The
grace of the Lord Jesus Christ, and the love of God, and the
communion of the Holy Spirit:" — three objects of thought, God
being one of them, distinctly apart from the others. What the
Apostle wishes for his Corinthian friends is simply this, that the
* See infra, Chapters XI. XII.

HEBREW USE OF THE PLURAL. 93
grace (or favour) of Jesus Christ (their expected Judge*) may be
with them, and God's love, and a participation in the good gifts
and influences, constantly denoted in the New Testament by the
phrase Holy Spirit.f

CHAPTER X.
THE ORTHODOX ARGUMENT FROM PLURAL FORMS.
The plural form of the word Elohim has been brought forward
as affording evidence in support of the doctrine of a plurality of
persons in the Godhead. This appeal to that word might well
have been thought obsolete, like some other arguments for the
same doctrine ; or, if not obsolete, available only among ill-
informed persons. It has, however, been revived in the present
instance by one who certainly cannot be classed among such
persons ; and it may therefore be desirable here to notice the use
which he has made of the word in question.
Dr. Liddon ascribes great significance to this plural, as giving
us "intimation of the existence of a plurality of Persons within
the One Essence of God."! It was only in modern times that
its full importance to this effect was perceived. " It was not
insisted upon by the primitive Church," as Dr. Liddon admits.
He does not tell us whether it merely escaped the observation of
ancient Christian writers, nor how it came to pass, if they
attached any value to it, that they should have made no use of
it. Most probably they passed it over because it is simply and
really devoid of value, and could never, by the nature of the
* Acts xvii. 31. t See infra, Chapter on the Holy Spirit.
J B. L., p. 48 (49).

94 ARGUMENT FROM PLURAL FORMS.
case, have occurred to men who lived near to the ages when
Hebrew was a living language. The scholastic subtlety of later
times, however, easily found the doctrine of the Trinity in the
peculiarities of Hebrew syntax; and following such guidance,
Dr. Liddon gravely informs us that when " Moses " relates " the
primal creative act of God," . ..." he joins a singular verb to
a plural noun."*
The peculiarity thus referred to does not, however, appear to
be perfectly satisfactory to Dr. Liddon himself. " The analogies
of the language," he candidly says, " may indeed prove that the
plural form of the word had a majestic force ;"-)- but then, he
suggests, would it not have been dangerous, in connection with a
monotheistic religion like the Hebrew, to use a plural form to
express the sacred name ? — and could so great a risk have been
run, except for some mysterious purpose of foreshadowing the
higher truth to come ? So easy and self-evident is the orthodox
meaning of these forms to one who brings to them a mind
already full of the doctrine they are supposed to teach, as it may
be learnt from the Creeds and Articles, or from the decrees and
speculations of ancient Councils and Fathers. To such a mind
it is useless to point out that plural forms occur in Hebrew, in
other cases in which a singular might have been expected. For
example, when Abraham is spoken of as the Master of Eliezer,
the word rendered Master is sometimes in the plural. So with
the word rendered Wisdom in Proverbs, and the word Behemoth
in Job.j These are plural in form, while evidently used each
of a single object ; and other cases of the same kind are easily
found. But these simple and obvious explanations are little suitable
to the genius of the popular theology. Dr. Liddon accordingly
* B. L., p. 48 (49). + B. L., p. 49 (50).
X Gen. xxiv. 9, 10; Prov. ix. 1 ; Job xl. 15.

HEBREW USE OF THE PLURAL. 95
¦ urges that the plural was " necessary in . order to hint at the
complex mystery of God's inner life." He omits to explain how
it was that the hint was so entirely lost upon the Hebrew people,
both in ancient and in modern times. For is there anything
more certain in their history than that they have always, both in
the biblical times and since, clung to the belief in Jehovah as
the One only God, and have never admitted the idea of a dis
tinction of personal existences in His nature ?
In regard to such expressions as, " Let us make man in our
image," "Let us go down," "become as one of us,"* Dr. Liddon
reminds us that the Church Fathers detected the plurality of
persons in these too, and he is again willing to follow their
example. It would not be correct, however, to say that the
earliest Fathers regarded such passages as implying the doctrine
of a Trinity. Justin Martyr explained them of the Word or
Logos, but says nothing about a third person. It is nevertheless
perfectly reasonable to regard these forms of speech as having
been used by the ancient Hebrew writer, who was evidently not
afraid of anthropomorphism, simply from his conception of the
Deity as surrounded by angels ;f or, again, even to regard them
as employed much as similar forms are used in modern times, in
documents issued by, or in the name of, sovereign potentates.!
At all events, the judgment of the ancient writer of Genesis is
clearly to be commended, when, in speaking of the Deity, he
used his plural forms of expression, and avoided the correspond
ing singulars. Literary taste alone, to say nothing of religious
feeling, might well lead him to prefer the former as alone suit
able to the greatness of his theme. How then can a weighty
theological argument be built with any confidence upon so slight
a foundation ?
* Gen. i. 26; xi. 7; iii. 22. t Comp. Job i. 6—12; xxxviii. 7.
X Examples of this use of the plural occur in the Bible. See Ezra iv. 18; vii. 21, 24.

96 THREEFOLD REPETITIONS.
Some difficulty, however, is felt, and not unnaturally, in regard
to the words " our image," or " likeness," in which man is said to
be created. How could it be a likeness common to God and
angels ? It can only point, therefore, Dr. Liddon thinks, both to
a plurality of persons in the Godhead and also to " Their partici
pation in an Undivided Nature." But what if it appears that
the sacred writer conceived of a likeness between God and man
of the literal kind? That he did so, may be gathered from
another passage in Genesis, in which it is said that God created
Adam " in the likeness of God," and that Adam " begat a son in
his own likeness." The phrase and the original word are here
the same as in the first chapter of Genesis.* So that there can
be no doubt that the resemblance meant was one of form and
feature ; that the ancient writer regarded man as having been
literally made in the likeness of God, as Adam's son was in that
of his father ; and that he conceived of Elohim, as himself in
bodily form and organs like the man whom he had called into
existence. There is excellent Scriptural warrant for thus think
ing. For, as we are told, the Deity " walks " in the garden of
Eden, Adam and Eve hear his voice speaking to them, and he
also " made coats of skin " for them and clothed them.-f-
But Dr. Liddon has another great class of plural forms, by
which the future unfolding of the nature of God is foreshadowed,
though here too, alas ! to blind eyes ; for there is nothing to
shew that the expressions in question were ever understood in
this way, until the later days of Trinitarian speculation. The
priest is directed to repeat the Holy Name three times, in the
blessing which was to be given to the children of Israel : so in
some of the Psalms, there is, we are told, a threefold rhythm, or
recurrence of prayer or praise.j It will be found, however, that
* Gen. v. 1—3; i. 26, 27. t Gen. iii. 8, 21.
X Num. iv, 23—26; Ps. xxix. 4, 5, 7, 8 ; xcvi. 1, 2, 7, 8.

THREEFOLD REPETITIONS. 97
in some of the passages referred to, the rhythm is only twofold,
or that it is also fourfold or more.*
But passing from this point, the crowning significance of such
passages is to be found in the vision of Isaiah.f Here we have
unquestionably the threefold cry, "Holy, holy, holy ;" and in a
subsequent verse does not Jehovah say, "Who will go for us ?"
" What a flood of almost Gospel light," Dr. Liddon exclaims, is
here "poured upon the intelligence of the elder church"! — only
again, as before, the elder church did not, could not see it ! It
is reserved for the modern church alone, it would seem, to read
these passages in their true sense, and the modern church, in the
abundance of other instruction, does not need that ancient light ;
so that it really appears to have been shed upon the world in
vain. The argument advanced is, in any case, so purely "subjective,"
that it is difficult to meet, except with the remark that we do
not see or feel its force. Let us therefore be contented to make
Dr. Liddon, and such of his readers as are satisfied with it, a
present of it, such as it is. He has certainly the merit of having
put it extremely well, and drawn from it as much support pro
bably as any one would venture to take.§
Similar considerations apply to what Dr. Liddon next says
about the Theophanies of the Old Testament. These remark
able appearances of the Divine Being to the patriarchs and others,
are very curiously related in the books of Genesis and Judges.
There is, in one place, some little confusion of persons, it is true;
* E.g., Ps. xxix. 1, 2; also vv. 10, 11 ; xcvi. 11, 12.
t Is. vi. 2—8. X B. L., p. 51 (52).
§ It may be well to remind the reader that the monotheistic Koran frequently
attributes to the Deity a similar plural form of expression. The repetition of the
word Holy (Isaiah vi. 3) is doubtless simply emphatic; and may be equivalent to the
superlative most holy. — Comp. Jer. xxii. 29, " 0 earth, earth, earth, hear the word of
Jehovah :" also Ezek. xxi. 27; Rev, viii. 13. So Num. vi. 23—26.

98 THE THEOPHANIES.
but this may not amount to much in a theological argument : as
where '' Jehovah appeared to Abraham " in the plain of Mamre,
" and he lifted up his eyes and looked, and lo, three men stood by
him." The narrative goes on to tell us how Abraham and Sarah
prepared food for these men, and stood by them under a tree, in
the heat of the day, " and they did eat." One of the men proves
to be Jehovah, or, at least speaks under his name ; and after
giving the promise of a son to Abraham, and rebuking Sarah for
laughing, the same speaker says, in reference to Sodom and Go
morrah, " I will go down, now, and see whether they have done
altogether according to the cry of it, and if not I will know."*
It would have been more consistent, theologically, if the
speaker had here said We ; especially as three persons are pre
sent.-)- To this extent, therefore, Dr. Liddon's argument from
the passage unquestionably fails ; but he has an abundance of
instances at command to make up for this! and to establish the
conclusion to which he desires to lead us. Granting the large,
and really inadmissible, assumption that there is no legendary or
"idealized" element in these narratives of the early Hebrew
history, let us notice the inquiries which Dr. Liddon founds upon
them. Do not these remarkable apparitions, he asks, " suggest,
as their natural climax and explanation, some personal self-
unveiling of God before the eyes of His creatures ? Would not
God appear to have been training His people, by this long and
mysterious series of communications, at length to recognise and
to worship Him when hidden under, and indissolubly one with
a created nature ? .... Is there any other account of them so
much in harmony with the general scope of Holy Scripture, as
that they were successive lessons addressed to the eye and to
* Gen. xviii. 1—21.
t The conception of the sacred writer surely is that Jehovah was. accompanied by
two attendants. + B. L., pp. 52, 56.

ARGUMENT FROM PLURAL FORMS. 99
the ear of ancient piety, in anticipation of a coming Incarnation
of God?"*
Such is the very hypothetical conclusion. The difficulty in
admitting it is obvious and surely insuperable, — although,
strangely enough, it remains unnoticed by its eloquent expounder.
This training of the ancient generations of the patriarchs, two
thousand years or more before Christ, — how could it prepare the
people of his far distant age, who had not themselves experienced
it, to receive the doctrine of the incarnation of a divine person
of the Godhead in Jesus of Nazareth? And if such were its
purpose, did it not entirely fail ? — for did not the great mass of
the Jewish people, including their rulers and leading men, reject
Jesus Christ, deny that he was the Messiah, and put him to
death ? What then was the utility of the Theophanies, in the
sense alleged, and how could they have served as "successive
lessons addressed to the eye and to the ear of ancient piety," in
preparation for that which they so entirely failed to produce ?
Similar remarks must be made on what Dr. Liddon next
advances respecting the personification of Wisdom in the Book
of Proverbs ; respecting the Sapiential Books, the Logos of Philo,
and the anticipations of Messianic glory scattered throughout
the Prophets. So far as these were designed, as we are told they
were, to prepare the Jewish people for the incarnation of the
second person of the Godhead in Jesus of Nazareth, they mani
festly did not attain their object. The only alternative to this
will be to say that, while thus failing in regard to the Jews, they
have succeeded as regards the Christians. But is even this cor
rect ? If it were so, it would scarcely have been necessary for
Dr. Liddon to have constructed the elaborate argument contained
in this volume, or to have tasked his ingenuity and his learning,
to say nothing of the patience of his readers, as he has found
* B. L., pp. 58, 59 (60).
H 2

100 ARGUMENT FROM PLURAL FORMS:
it necessary to do, in order to remove the objections and diffi
culties to which his leading proposition is open ; nor would so
many of his readers have found themselves, as earnest inquirers,
so unable to assent to his conclusions, — impeded or repelled, as
they are, by something doubtful, or wrongly if eloquently pre
sented, on almost every page of his book. This position of the
question is undeniable ; and forms, in itself, a conclusive answer
and refutation to this part of the case, ingeniously reasoned as
it is. Before leaving the subject, it may be briefly noticed from
another point of view, how difficult it is to believe that these
peculiar forms of expression can have had the preparatory pur
pose attributed to them.
It has been seen that, during many centuries, the Hebrew
nation was extremely prone to very gross '' backsliding ;" to
apostasy, that is to say, from their faith in Jehovah — and that
rulers and people alike were from time to time guilty of this
devotion to strange gods, to Baal, Moloch, Chiun, the " queen of
heaven," Gad and Meni* Is it not incredible that it should
have been sought or intended to exercise upon such a people, in
their ignorance and idolatry, by these refinements of phraseology,
the enlightening, elevating influence which is supposed? They
were unable to maintain a firm grasp even of the simple doctrine
of the Divine Unity, as inculcated in their own law, by their
own prophets and legislators. Yet we are asked to believe that,
in the midst of their gross idolatries, they were being trained for
the reception of Trinity in Unity ! We are asked to believe that
by the plural form of a word for God, in written records which
they probably could not read, even if they had access to them,
by the threefold rhythm of a Psalm, by the utterance, as many
times repeated, of a priestly blessing, or of the word Holy, in the
* Jer. ii. 19; vii. 17; Isaiah lxv. 11 ; Amos v. 26.

ITS MANIFEST FUTILITY. 101
little known writings of a prophet, — we are asked to believe
that, by such impalpable means as these, such a people were
being led on to think of a mysterious plurality in the nature of
the Godhead ! We are asked to believe that such a people were
being prepared, centuries in advance, by such delicate refinements
of expression, for the future reception of doctrines, on the right
understanding of which the salvation of the world, a thousand
years afterwards, more or less, was mainty to depend !
The climax of the argument is not reached, until we remember
that we are asked to believe all this, in the face of the fact that
the alleged preparation proved in the end a manifest fa ilure, and
never had the effect among the Hebrews which is attributed to
it.* Truly the faith is very great, very enviable, at least very
wonderful, which can really attribute weight to this argument
from plural forms.
* This failure is sometimes very fully and candidly admitted. Thus the late Bishop
of Lincoln has said — " It cannot be denied that the Jews ought to have deduced the
doctrine of the Messiah's divinity from their own Scriptures, especially from such texts
as Psalm xlv. 6, 7  But the question is not, whether the Jews might not and
ought not to have inferred the Divine Sonship of the Messiah from their own Scrip
tures, but whether for the most part they really did deduce that doctrine from those
Scriptures ? They ought doubtless to have been prepared by those Scriptures for a
suffering Messiah ; but this we know was not the case ; and the cross of Christ was to
them a stumbling-block (1 Cor. i. 23); and one of the strongest objections which they
raised against the Christians was that they worshipped a man who died a death which
is declared to be an accursed one in the law of Moses which was delivered by God
Himself." — Bishop Wordsworth, article Son of God, in Dr. W. Smith's Dictionary of
the Bible. In reference to the last sentence of the above passage, it may be observed
that there is no evidence whatever in the New Testament to shew that the disciples
worshipped their departed Master; nor is such an objection ever mentioned in the
N. T. books as raised against the Christians. See infra, Chapter on the Worship of
Christ. The italics are the Bishop's.

102 JESUS OF NAZARETH.

CHAPTER XI.
JESUS OF NAZARETH — THE CHARGE ON "WHICH HE WAS PUT
TO DEATH.
The subject next to be considered is one to the settlement of
which a few considerations, and those of a simple and even
obvious character, would appear to go a very great way. If it
were only possible that old and accepted theories could be freely
held ; if, that is, they could be detached not merely from the
prepossessions of education, but also from manifold interests of a
more tangible kind which are now legally bound up with their
maintenance in this country and in others, — it might be hoped
that a rational and really Scriptural form of belief in regard to
the person and work of Christ would speedily win its way
throughout the churches — or would, at least, have a far better
chance of doing so than it has at present.
The question to be asked is briefly this : Who, or rather
what, was Jesus of Nazareth? — more definitely still, Was he
the Almighty Being in a human form ? — he who was born of a
human mother, and lived as an infant, a child, a youth, in his
parental home ; who perhaps, according to the ancient tradition,
followed his father's trade of a carpenter ; who lived thus as a
man among the people of his time, ate and drank, talked and
slept, was hungry, thirsty and weary, and worshipped and prayed,
and went about as they did, finally ending his brief career by an
ignominious death at the hands of Roman soldiers ;— was the
person who thus lived and died under the name of Jesus of
Nazareth, the Almighty Being, and was this familiarly known
to many around him, and by them openly acknowledged and
acted upon ? Truly it is a proposition hard to receive, and one

THE question stated. 103
that should have clear and cogent evidence, to carry the convic
tion of its truth to the thoughtful, reasonable mind.
With the view of answering this question, take one of the
most prominent scenes in the life of Christ, that of his accusation
before the authorities who condemned him to death. As this
occurs near the close of his career, any peculiar claim of his to
be a Divine person incarnate must have been well known to
those among whom he had lived, and who now sought his
destruction. It is, therefore, an occasion on which such a claim
may reasonably be expected to appear, either by express state
ment or by implication, in the account of what took place.
It is hardly necessary to observe that the only original sources
of knowledge on this subject are the evangelical narratives ; such
slight and incidental notices of the earliest Christians as are
found in one or two of the Latin historians or in Josephus being
wholly insufficient for our information. The Gospels are not,
indeed, the oldest part of the New Testament, a distinction
which belongs, as before noted, to St. Paul's Epistles. But then
it is equally true, that the latter would not at all adequately
afford the details which are needed. That Apostle did not know
Christ personally, had never seen him in "the flesh." The
allusions which his writings contain to the events of the life of
Jesus are therefore both rare and slight. The whole interest of
the Apostle seems to have been fixed upon the risen Christ, his
present exaltation, his future coming in his glory. He does not
even allude to the miraculous birth, suitable as this would have
been to illustrate some of Paul's own statements respecting the
Messianic character and dignity of his Master — provided only it
had been the reality which is commonly supposed.
And this remark is even more strikingly true in connection
with the opening chapter of the fourth Gospel, where nothing
could have been more appropriate, in speaking of the incarnate

104 JESUS OF NAZARETH:
Word, than to have at least alluded to the mode or medium by
which the incarnation had taken place. But neither here nor
anywhere else in the New Testament, except in the two intro
ductory chapters of Matthew and Luke, is there any use made
of the miraculous conception and birth of Jesus ; nor can any
reference to these incidents be anywhere found. The two intro
ductions are indeed most probably to be regarded as ancient
additions to the original form of the two Gospels — although it
is, nevertheless, true that they are found in all existing manu
scripts and versions of those Gospels. For this negative con
clusion, it is well known there is not wanting very important
and independent evidence, on which, however, it is unnecessary
to dwell minutely in the present connection*
The writings of St. Paul, then, affording so little information,
either as to the birth .or any other recorded event in the life of
Christ, the inquirer is thrown upon the historical portions of the
New Testament, and more especially upon the three synoptical
Gospels, which in point of time come nearer than the Fourth to the '
actual generation in which Jesus lived. It may be observed, too,
that all the four Evangelists agree substantially with one another,
as regards leading facts, in their respective accounts of the trial of
Jesus, and of the charge brought against him. Hence it will be
sufficient for the present purpose to take their statements much
as they lie before us in the four Gospels.
The first Evangelist speaks of the accusation in the following
terms: — "Now the chief priests, and elders, and all the council,
sought false witness against Jesus, to put him to death ; but
found none ; yea, though many false witnesses came, yet found
they none. At the last came two, and said, This man said, I am
* See Norton, Genuineness of the Gospels, 2nd ed., I. pp. 204 — 210. Comp.
Sehleiermacher on Luke, pp. 44 — 52, in the English translation of this work made
by the late Bishop Thirlwall, when (as he has explained) he was not a Church digni
tary, but " a young law student. "

ACCUSED OF CLAIMING TO BE CHRIST. 105
able to destroy the temple of God, and to build it in three days.
And the high-priest arose, and said unto him, Answerest thou
nothing? What is it that these witness against thee? But
Jesus held his peace. And the high-priest answered and said
unto him, I adjure thee by the living God, that thou tell us
whether thou be the Christ, the Son of God. Jesus saith unto
him, Thou hast said : nevertheless I say unto you, Hereafter
shall ye see the Son of Man sitting on the right hand of power
and coming in the clouds of heaven. Then the high-priest rent
his clothes, saying, He hath spoken blasphemy; what further
need have we of witnesses? Behold now ye have heard his
blasphemy. What think ye ? They answered and said, He is
guilty of death."*
Mark gives the same account ; while Luke and John omit to
notice the charge respecting the temple, and confine themselves
more especially to the allegation that Jesus had claimed to be
the Christ — the latter Evangelist, moreover, saying little of the
accusation as brought before the high-priest, and speaking mainly
of what took place before the Roman tribunal.
When Jesus is brought before Pilate, a similar charge is made
against him, but it is necessarily a little altered in the terms, so
as to be understood by the Roman. He is now accused of having
made himself a king, "perverting the nation, and forbidding to
give tribute to Csssar." So the Evangelist Luke. The other
narrators substantially agree, as we learn from the question of
Pilate to Jesus, recorded in each, "Art thou the king of the
Jews ?"-)- Thus it is clear that, while before the Jewish San-
hedrin the religious aspect of the charge is made prominent,
before the Roman procurator it is the political; but the crime
imputed is essentially the same in the two cases.
* Matt. xxvi. 59—66, and parallels.
t Luke xxiii. 2; Matt, xxvii. 11 ; Mark xv. 2; John xviii. 33.

106 JESUS OF NAZARETH:
In the accusation thus brought there was a degree of truth,
According to the Gospels, Jesus had said that he was Christ,
and had spoken of the kingdom upon which he was to enter.
The " kingdom of God," and the " kingdom of heaven," were no
uncommon expressions on his lips ; but there is no reason to
think that he used them in any political or temporal sense ;
while according to John he expressly declared to Pilate, " My
kingdom is not of this world."* Nor was it true that he had
forbidden to pay tribute to Caesar. This could only be a false
inference from his claim to be the Christ, as the latter was
understood, or misunderstood, by those around him. It was a
false inference ; and doubtless many of those who now urged it
knew it to be false, for Jesus had really said in public, " Render
unto Caesar the things that are Caesar's, and unto God the things
that are God's."
There was a mixture, therefore, of truth and falsehood in the
charge brought against him by his adversaries. And the false
hood predominated, in so much that these unscrupulous men
would not have hesitated, we may be sure, to lay hold of any
plausible means of securing the death of the accused man. This
being the case, we cannot but be struck with one thing, which is
that they do not accuse him of having claimed to be God I Sup
posing it to be true, as now usually alleged, that Jesus had made
himself known among his followers as being the Deity, or a
deity, in a human form, how is it that his enemies, or his judges,
Jewish or Roman, make no allusion to this ? They had difficulty,
it would appear, before the Sanhedrin, in finding a sufficient
accusation, until they found two witnesses who charged him
with speaking against the temple. How then was it that no
witness came forward to speak of that far greater blasphemy,
his pretending not only to be able to destroy and rebuild
* Matt. xvi. 16; Mark iv. 11, seq.; Luke xii. 31; xiii. 28, 29; John xviii. 36.

ACCUSED OF CLAIMING TO BE CHRIST. 107
the temple in three days, but even to be incarnate God
Himself? It is impossible that such a claim should have escaped the
keen eyes and ears of Jewish accusers. It has been noticed
with what reverence the Israelites were accustomed to regard
the name of Jehovah, and that they would not even permit
themselves to pronounce the word; as also it is a chief com
mandment of their Law to make no image or likeness of God,
in any visible form. Hence, to give that sacred name to any
other, to attribute the Divine nature to a human being, — even to
say that he was God in the visible form of a man, — would have
been looked upon as blasphemous in the highest degree. Yet
here was Jesus of Nazareth, brought up before the Jewish and
heathen tribunals on a charge partly political and partly reli
gious ; here was he who had gone about among his disciples and
his countrymen in Galilee and in Jerusalem, arrogating to him
self the very name and glory of the invisible Being, saying that
he and the Almighty Father were, in the now popular orthodox
sense, One God ; here is he standing before enemies who,
obviously, could not have admitted these claims, who were eager
for his destruction, and to prove the object of their ill-will worthy
of death — and yet they leave out of sight that greatest presump
tion and blasphemy of all, that he, being a man, had made him
self God !
Such an omission, on such an occasion, affords a conclusive
reply to the allegation that Jesus was accustomed to represent
himself as the Divine Being, the second member of a mysterious
plurality in the Godhead. Had he done so, the fact could not
have failed to make its appearance on his trial, and must have
been urged with all the vehemence of angry and determined
opponents, to the greater injury and condemnation of their
innocent victim.

108 JESUS OF NAZARETH :
This difficulty in the way of the popular doctrine of the deity
of Christ has not escaped orthodox writers — though little will
be found in what they have said which avails to remove it out
of their way. Dr. Liddon, with all his versatility and eloquence,
niakes no direct attempt to meet it — all that he says in allusion
to it amounting only to one or two assumptions which are really
surprising. Nothing is more certain, he tells us, than that the Sanhedrin
condemned Jesus, "because he claimedDivinity" — that is, because
he claimed Deity. On the contrary, nothing is more certain
from the evangelical narratives, nothing is more certain from
the words of all the four Gospels relating to the trial, than that
Jesus was condemned because he claimed to be the Christ, or
Messiah, or Son of God in the Messianic sense. " Tell us," the
high-priest said, " whether thou be the Christ, the Son of God.
Jesus saith unto him, Thou hast said." That is, he answered
affirmatively. And " then the high-priest rent his clothes, saying,
He hath spoken blasphemy." *
It is admitted by Dr. Liddon that the Jews were looking
"for a political chief, victorious but human, in their expected
Messiah." But hence, he adds, the claim of Jesus to that
character would not of itself "have shocked the Jews; they
would have discussed it on its merits." It might have been
so, perhaps, had the outward circumstances of the claimant
corresponded, in their estimation, to the greatness of his preten
sions; and if Jesus had stood, at the moment, before friends, not
before enemies. But he was one of lowly condition, and destitute
of political power ; they were unscrupulous men, eager for his
death. Their course was plain ; namely, at once to construe as
blasphemous the reply of their victim. This, according to the
record, they did, and this was sufficient for their purpose. But
* Matt. xxvi. 63—65, and parallels.

CLAIMED TO BE THE CHRIST OR SON OF OOD. 109
it nowhere appears that he was accused of making the incom
parably greater claim alleged by orthodox writers ; nor did the
possibility of bringing such a charge enter into the mind of any
one concerned, so far as can be gathered from the account of the
transaction.* The exposition of Dr. Liddon goes yet a step further. It
expressly holds that " the blasphemy did not consist either in
the assumption of the title Son of Man, or in the claim to be
the Messiah  It was the further claim to be the Son of
God, not in any moral or theocratic, but in the natural sense, at
which the high-priest and his coadjutors professed to be so
deeply shocked."-)- The question is obvious, How does Dr.
Liddon know this ? Where is it said that Jesus was condemned
because he claimed to be the Son of God "in the natural sense"?
And what is meant by the words, "in the natural sense"?
For it is, in truth, one of the very plainest things in the New
Testament that the expression Son of God, as used among the
Jews and Christians in the New Testament times, simply denoted
and meant the Christ, — or, in other words, was a usual appella
tion of the expected Messiah. The two expressions appear to
have been perfectly equivalent. Thus Nathanael says to Jesus,
" Thou art the Son of God, the King of Israel." He could not,
obviously, have used the former words in any " natural," mystical,
or metaphysical sense, — just converted, as he was, from a state
of ignorance or disbelief as to the Messiahship of Jesus. The
devil says, " If thou be the Son of God," evidently meaning, If
thou be the Messiah.! "Tell us," the high-priest exclaimed,
" whether thou be the Christ, the Son of God." Martha exclaims,
* Bishop Wordsworth meets the difficulty, by telling us that Jesus claimed to be
"the Messiah and Son of God," an improvement upon the sacred narrative hardly
admissible, even on episcopal authority. — Article Son of God, Diet, of the Bible. So
apparently Archbishop Thomson, article Jesus Christ, in the same work, I. p. 1068.
t B. L., p. 191 (193). t John i. 49; Matt. iv. 3.

110 JESUS OF NAZARETH:
" Yea, Lord ; I believe that thou art the Christ, the Son of God."
And the Evangelist declares, " These things are written that ye
might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God."* In
1 John v. 1, we read, " Whosoever believeth that Jesus is the
Christ is born of God." In the same chapter, v. 5, we read,
"Who is he that overcometh the world but he that believeth
that Jesus is the Son of God?" Thus the two phrases are mani
festly, in the New Testament usage, of identical import, or rather
the words Son of God are used simply as a well understood
appellation of the expected Messiah.
Yet there are instances, it may be freely admitted, in which
the fourth Evangelist, writing in accordance with his peculiar
conception of the Logos in Jesus, attributes to the latter the use
of the words Son, and Son of God, in a sense corresponding to
that conception, and going beyond that of the theocratic son-
ship,-)- — the relation borne by kings and saints of old, and
thought to exist in an especial degree between Jehovah and the
Messiah. This point will engage attention hereafter. But
meantime it may be observed, the mode of representation now
referred to will not be found in the synoptical Gospels, hardly
indeed anywhere in the New Testament, except in John and the
introduction to the Epistle to the Hebrews. In the Synoptics
Jesus is rarely designated as the Son, or Son of God,! DUt onty
* Matt. xxvi. 63 ; John xx. 31 ; compare John vi. 69 ; xi. 27.
t John v. 19 — 33; — there are various other instances, although, even in John, the
words "Son of God" are often used simply as equivalent to Messiah, e.g., i. 49;
ix. 22, 35 ; x. 24, 36.
X He is addressed as "Son of God" in a few cases by others : that is to say, they
address him as the Messiah. It is impossible, in some of these instances, to think
that the speakers regarded him as the Divine Being, and therefore termed him Son
of God: e.g., Matt xxvii. 54, where the words are used by the Roman centurion in
command of the soldiers at the cross. See Matt. iv. 3, 6 ; viii. 29 : xiv. 33 ; also
xxvii. 40, 42, 43 — in this latter passage the words " King of Israel," are clearly
parallel to the words "Son of God," exactly as in John i. 49, — both phrases again,

NEVER CLAIMED TO BE GOD. Ill
as Son of Man. This latter expression occurs also in John, and
is an appellation of the Messiah founded probably upon its use
in the Book of Daniel.* Accordingly, this phrase, Son of Man,
does not require or justify the explanation sometimes met with, —
to the effect that Jesus by his constant use of it intended, in the
conception of the Evangelists, to designate himself as the model
of a perfect human character, or even to refer to his own humble
and despised condition. It is used, in all probability, as simply
equivalent, in the ideas of the time, to the title Messiah.f
There are a few passages which might at first appear to indi
cate that " Christ" and " Son of God" are not simply equivalent
and convertible expressions. On examination, however, the
contrary clearly appears. Thus, for example, Acts viii. 37, " I
believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God." This verse is
altogether omitted, on sufficient critical evidence by Tischendorf,
and by Dean Alford. Similarly in Acts ix. 20, " He preached
Christ in the synagogues that he is the Son of God." The
critical authorities tell us here to read Jesus instead of Christ.
It is evident that what St. Paul preached in the synagogues was
what, in common with the unbelieving Jews, he had previously
denied, viz., that Jesus of Nazareth was the Christ. Here and
elsewhere we read of their having denied that Jesus was Christ ;
we never read of their having denied that he was God. The
designating the Messiah. In Mark i. 1, the words "Son of God" are doubtful, and
are rejected by Tischendorf.
* The phrase "Son of Man" is repeatedly used in the Book of Enoch to denote
the Messiah. Comp. supra, p. 52.
t The title Son of God may have originated from Ps. ii. 7, as applied to the Messiah.
(Comp. Acts xiii. 33 ; Heb. i. 5. ) Being thus of Hebrew origin, it coincided, how
ever (accidentally), with one of the appellations given, as we shall see, to the Logos,
though in a very different sense. From both points of view, therefore, the Hebrew
and the Greek, Jesus would be the Son. Comp. infra, Chapters XV. XVI. In Ps.
ii. 12, the words, "kiss the son," should be rendered, "kiss sincerely," i.e. render
homage to the exalted personage spoken of (probably Solomon), by humbly kissing the
hem of his garment.

112 CLAIMED TO BE THE CHRIST:
same thing is evident, again, from Acts ix. 22, where we are
told, he " confounded the Jews that dwelt at Damascus, proving
that this is very Christ" — or, more simply rendered, "proving
that this [man] is Christ." What he is said to have preached
in the one case (in the synagogues) and proved in the other (at
Damascus), is evidently the same thing, viz., that Jesus was the
Son of God ; in other words, that Jesus was the Christ.
The alleged blasphemy, then, it may be repeated, consisted in
the claim to be the Christ, the Messiah, or Son of God, and this
latter in no mysterious, incomprehensible " natural sense," but
in the theocratic, and also the moral sense, in which the Messiah
was usually conceived of as being pre-eminently a Son of God.
Before Pilate the same charge was differently expressed, as seen
in the words of the accusers, to the effect that Jesus had said
that he was "Christ, a king;" and as seen also in Pilate's ques
tion, "Art thou the king of the Jews ?" But neither before the
Sanhedrin, nor before Pilate, does the accusation, or anything
else, indicate that Jesus had made the claim to be God : — a
claim which the Jews could not but have held to be blasphemous
in the highest degree, and which the narrative of the trial and
condemnation could not have failed to disclose. Such a claim,
therefore, as will be further and abundantly seen, our Lord did
not make ; nor is it ever attributed to him by any New Testa
ment writer. If the case be otherwise, let the passage be pro
duced, and let it speak for itself.*
John x. 30, " I and my Father are one," will not answer the purpose, for it is
explained by Jesus himself, in verses 35, 36, as meaning simply " I am the Son of
God," that is, I am the Messiah, in affection and in will one with God.

AND ACCEPTED AS CHRIST, NOT AS GOD. 113

CHAPTER XII.
JESUS OF NAZARETH, AS HE APPEARED TO HIS OWN CONTEM
PORARIES — THE TRUE IMPORT OF THE TITLES CHRIST
AND SON OF GOD.
The impression as to his own character and claims which
Jesus really made upon those among whom he lived may be
learnt from many places of the Gospel narratives. For example,
we read : " Now Herod the tetrarch heard of all that was done
by him ; and he was perplexed because it was said of some that
John was risen from the dead ; and of some that Elias had
appeared ; and of others that one of the old prophets was risen
again."* It would not have lessened Herod's perplexity, if he
had been told that it was the Divine Being himself that was
going about among the people in the person of Jesus. But
among all the things that were said, as recorded in the Gospels,
there is no trace of this, — the one thing above all others that
could not have failed to be said, had there been any real ground
for saying it.
Later in the same chapter, we read that Jesus asked his disci-
ciples, " saying, Whom say the people that I am ? They answer
ing said, John the Baptist, but some say Elias ; and others say
that one of the old prophets is risen again. He said unto them,
But whom say ye that I am ? Peter answering said, The Christ
of God." In another place the people asked, " Is not this Jesus
the prophet from Nazareth of Galilee ?"f In such expressions
are well seen the ideas that were aroused in the popular mind by
the life and deeds of Jesus Christ. He had gone about doing-
many wonderful things among them ; he had spoken with a
* Luke ix. 7, 8, 20. t Matt. xxi. 11.
I

114 JESUS OF NAZARETH:
wisdom and power which made them exclaim, "Never man
spake like this man." In these and other ways, he had awakened
the attention and interest of the people, and they followed him
in crowds, and when they saw his wonderful works they " mar
velled and glorified God who had given such power unto men" —
they glorified the great Father who had given to Jesus his power
to do such deeds. But do they ever say, Lo, here is God,
God Himself! come down from heaven in the likeness of
men? Did the people who knew Jesus personally, and saw
his deeds, ever say this, or anything equivalent to this ? Did
his own more intimate disciples ever say this ? So far as appears
in the Gospels, or in the New Testament, they never did so ;
but simply that God had given power to his chosen servant*
his well-beloved Son, and enabled him to do the mighty works
which were done in their sight. Such is clearly the conception
of the New Testament, and here was explanation enough for
the people of Christ's own day, — though not, it would seem, for
those of ours.
They thought, indeed, some of them, that perhaps one of their
ancient prophets had been restored to life. But still the people,
with few exceptions, did not admit that he whom they saw
among them, gifted with such powers, was to be accepted even
as the Christ. Some of them even said that he acted by the
power of Beelzebub. And " could there any good thing come
out of Nazareth?" Such was the feeling and the doubt of the
many, when they remembered the origin of Jesus, and saw his
lowly condition. The true Messiah, they expected, would not
be such as he ; and hence neither his wonderful works, nor the
eloquence with which he spoke, nor the purity and devoutness
of his life, could lead them to receive him in that exalted
* Jesus is termed the " servant" of God, Acts iii. 26 ; iv. 27, 30 (not Son or child,
as in the English N.T.) ; Matt. xii. 18.

HIS RELATION TO GOD. 115
character, but only as perhaps a forerunner of the Christ, or one
of the ancient prophets come back from the dead.
But some of the apostles, the immediate companions and
friends of Jesus, had evidently learnt better. In reply to his
question, "But whom say ye that I am?" they were able to
answer, "The Christ of God."* In the first Gospel the same
incident is related somewhat differently. Jesus asks, " Whom
say ye that I am ? And Simon Peter answered and said, Thou
art the Christ, the son of the living God. And he answered
and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon Bar-jona, for flesh
and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which
is in heaven."-)- That is to say, Peter was led by divine illumi
nation so far to triumph over the prejudices of his people, that
he could recognize the true character of Jesus, in spite of the
outward circumstances in his condition which made it so difficult
for the common people to see in him the exalted personage for
whom they were looking. And while in the one Gospel the
answer simply is, " The Christ of God," in the other it is, " The
Christ, the son of the living God." The phrases are clearly of
equivalent value, only the one is somewhat more full and
emphatic than the other. And, at any rate, Peter does not con
fess that his Master was God ! He says simply that he was
the Christ, repeating his acknowledgment, and rendering it more
emphatic by the added words, " the son of the living God."
In this case, Peter shews himself more enlightened and open
to conviction than the fellow-townsmen and neighbours of Jesus.
of whom the Gospel records that " they were offended in him."!
Thus it is plain, again, how far these persons were from believing
even that Jesus was Christ; much less could it have entered
into their thoughts that he was "the living God." For what
* Luke ix. 20. t Matt. xvi. 16, 17; comp. ibid. v. 20.
X Matt. xiii. 54, seq.; comp. xxi. 11, 46; Luke vii. 16; xxiv. 19.
I 2

116 JESUS OF NAZARETH:
did he say in reply to their objections? He said to them, "A
prophet is not without honour, save in his own country, and
in his own house." The Messiah he was and claimed to be ; a
prophet he also called himself ; and again the Christ, the Son of
God, the highly-favoured, highly-gifted, and well-beloved of the
Almighty Father. But God himself he nowhere says that he
is ; nor do any of his immediate friends and disciples say it for
him ; nor is such a statement really met with until we reach a
time some generations after his death, — when, as before observed,
certain Gentile converts and writers, looking back upon the
wonderful life of the Teacher, and the results which had sprung
from it, thought they could best account for the whole by saying,
not only that God was in him and with him, not only that he
was the brightest manifestation upon earth of the Heavenly
Father's will, but even that he was God himself*
In the New Testament, the conception entertained by the
Evangelists of the relation between the Lord Jesus Christ and
Almighty God, comes out into view at many points in the
history. Jesus prays to God ; — nay, even, as we read, he goes
apart into a mountain or a desert place, to pray alone. Here,
there is directly revealed to us the very same relation which
exists between ourselves and God, and which is repeatedly
recognized by Jesus in express terms — as where he teaches his
disciples when they pray to say, " Our Father which art in
heaven;" and when he sends word to his "brethren" after his
resurrection, " I ascend unto my Father and your Father, and to
* See again Reville, Histoire, &c, for a concise but ample justification of these
statements: also Donaldson, History of Christian Literature and Doctrine, Vol. II.
i. iii. 12. The latter writer observes in regard to Justin: — "Justin had simply to
apply Philo's method, Christianised, or, in other words, the Christian method ; and
all he has done is to apply that method most fully and minutely. The result is, that
an unquestionably new mode of speaking of Christ is introduced. He is now for the
first time recognised fully and clearly as God ; not merely the Son of God, but God." —
Donaldson, II. p. 181 ; comp. Hatch, Hibbert Lectures, i.

HIS RELATION TO GOD. 117
my God and your God."* At the moment when he saw the
near approach of a terrible death, although with natural human
feeling he did not wish to die, and shrank from that dread trial,
yet with words of perfect submission he resigned himself to the
divine will — " 0 my Father, if it be possible, let this cup pass
from me ; nevertheless, not as I will, but as thou wilt ;" and at
the last moment of all he still commended himself to God:
"Father, into thy hands I commend my spirit." Thus, the
relation between Christ and God comes distinctly into view at
many points, and is seen to be exactly the same as that in which
we of ordinary human kind ourselves stand.
In one instance, noticed by Dr. Liddon, our Lord draws the
very strongest distinction which it is possible to draw between
himself and God. When the young man comes to him and
addresses him as " Good Master," Jesus replies, " Why callest
thou me good ? None is good but one, that is God."-)- Here
the distinction suggested between Jesus and the Heavenly
Father is one not merely of power, 'wisdom, greatness ; it is a
moral distinction. The expression is such as might be antici
pated from the humility and piety of the speaker ; but if he
were himself consciously God as he uttered such words, how are
we to understand them ? Did he intend to mislead that young
man, and others who heard him, by declining for himself the
epithet "good," and ascribing it to God alone?
The force of this difficulty Dr. Liddon seeks to evade, in one
of the most singular of his expositions. He thus represents the
reply of Jesus, Why callest thou me good ? — as though it were
* Matt. vi. 5, 6, 9; John xx. 17. In one instance, he speaks to his disciples of
God as "the only God" — a fact which is concealed from the English reader by a mis-
rendering, "the honour that cometh from God only." John v. 44; see R.V.
t Luke xviii. 18, 19, and the parallel passages. The reading which Tischendorf
gives in Matthew only can hardly be the original form : it suggests the hand of the
orthodox corrector. See infra, Chap. XIX.

118 JESUS OF NAZARETH.
the " unreal and conventional manner" in which the epithet was
addressed to him to which he objects* But the inaptness of
this explanation is evident, when it is observed that the pronoun
thou, thus emphasized, does not exist as a separate word in the
original ! It is as little prominent or emphatic as is possible in
a Greek sentence, being simply included or implied in the form
of the verb. The whole emphasis is clearly on the two words
"me" and "good;" especially on the former, because of its
position in the sentence. The epithet good, accordingly, Jesus
absolutely disclaims for himself, pointing out that it is applicable
to One alone, and that is God.-f-
If, again, the principal names or titles of Jesus are examined,
the same relationship between him and God comes clearly into
view. He is the Christ. This word literally means " the anointed,"
and the idea conveyed by it is derived from the ancient ceremony
of consecrating a king to his kingly office. In connection with
Jesus it is clearly a figurative term, involving, however, the idea
that he who bore it had been called and appointed to his office ;
intimating, therefore, the existence of a higher power which had
chosen him. Hence Peter terms him "the Christ of God" —
God's Christ, that is, one anointed of God, or appointed by Him
to be what he was.!
This word, the reader is aware, is the same in meaning as the
Hebrew word Messiah, and the same explanation applies to
both. We learn the true value and import of the latter, when
we find that it is used in the Old Testament of a heathen king,
one who is made the instrument of a particular purpose of
Jehovah. Cyrus, the king of Persia, was the means of putting
* B. L., p. 193 (196) : altered in later editions.
+ Comp. note on John v. 44 ; supra, p. 117.
+ Comp. 1 Cor. iii. 23; xi. 3, "the head-pf Christ is God."

THE TERMS CHRIST, WORD, SON. 119
an end to the captivity of the Jews. Hence the later Isaiah
says of him, "Thus saith Jehovah to his anointed, to Cyrus."*
Literally this might be rendered "to his Messiah," the same
word which in Christian times is applied to Jesus under the
Greek form of Christ.
Jesus, indeed, was Christ pre-eminently and permanently.
He is also now, according to the Christian conception, the risen
and spiritual Christ, by our faith in whom we are Christians.
Thus the term which was applied to Cyrus only incidentally
and because of a particular purpose, is used of Jesus as his usual
and abiding designation ; and he is, therefore, Jesus the Christ,
an appellation which soon passed into a personal name, and
became Jesus Christ. But this fact does not alter the relation
between him and the Creator which the word denotes. That
was the same, in truth, as for the time existed between the
Divine Being and his chosen instrument the king of Persia.
The One was the Anointer and the other the anointed ; the one
the Sender and the other the sent ; the one was the Creator and
the Source of power, the other the creature and the recipient of
any authority or power which it pleased the Father to confer
upon him.-[-
The term Logos or Word, to which an exaggerated degree of
importance is usually attached, is as much a term of subordina
tion as Messiah or Christ. The uttered word which goes forth
from a speaker, and as his agent and representative reveals his
mind and in a sense acts for him, is not the speaker himself.
It is the instrument of his will, and is employed to do his
bidding. So it is with the Divine Word, the instrument and
representative of the Invisible God, as will be more fully seen
in later Chapters of this work.
The expression Son of God leads to a similar conclusion.
* Isaiah xlv. 7. t Comp. Ephes. i. 20—22 ; Coloss. i. 19.

120 THE TITLE SON.
It is indeed true that, according to our usual ideas, a son is of
the same nature as his father. The same or like mental and
bodily powers belong to both ; and therefore it might be inferred,
in the case of Jesus, that he, being said to be the Son of God, is
in all respects of the same essential nature as the Being to whom
he bears that relation. And this is constantly either affirmed,
or tacitly assumed. But even granting this, there is at least one
important point in which the word necessarily implies a certain
inferiority, according to the usual force of human language —
except, perhaps, with those who in the interests of a dogmatic
creed are willing to set human language at defiance. A son, at
all events, is younger than his father, so that to speak of " eternal
sonship" is something like speaking of an eternal fifty years*
Hence, then, if any one would insist with strictness on this
term as denoting a perfect sameness of nature in Christ and in
God, he must, to be consistent, admit that it also indicates the
inferiority of the former in regard to one of the essential attri
butes of Deity, that of eternity.
But, in truth, it is well understood that the words Father and
Son are used in Scripture with far more latitude than with our
selves at the present day. In Job, for example, we read that
"the morning stars sang together, and all the sons of God
shouted for joy"— the latter words probably denoting the angels.
Son of peace, son of perdition, sons of the stranger, and similar
forms, are common Hebrew idioms, familiar to all readers of the
Scriptures. The prophet Ezekiel is repeatedly addressed as son
of man in the book which bears his name. " I will be to him a
father, and he shall be my son," Jehovah says to David by the
prophet Nathan, in reference to David's successor upon the
throne. * See Grindrod's Laws and Regulations of Wesleyan Methodism, pp. 14, 15
(5th ed.).

PROTESTANT INCONSISTENCY. 121
Such expressions imply sometimes creation and dependence,
sometimes favour and protection bestowed, approval or love
manifested, on the one side, and the same received on the other.
Hence the Messiah, the Christ, as being pre-eminently the
appointed, the protected and inspired, is also pre-eminently the
Son, of God; — while yet it is to be observed, that the title is
not limited to him, for Christians in general are^also, according
to the same idiom, called " sons of God."*
It is true, however, that the title is applied to Jesus far more
frequently and emphatically than to any one else. He is the
beloved Son, the only begotten Son (the latter only in John),
terms of high endearment applicable to him as the Christ ; for
in this character he was conceived to be the most gifted, the
most highly favoured and approved, of all the servants of God.
But still the use of such terms does not at all imply that he was
looked upon, by those who applied them to him, either as God
or as equal to God, or of the same nature as God. There is
nothing in the Scriptural use of such words which can justify
the exaltation of the meek and lowly prophet of Nazareth to
that high pre-eminence. He, it is beyond doubt, would have
shrunk from the idea of being made equal to God, as, indeed, he
did shrink from it ; for when, according to the fourth Gospel, the
Jews in their malice brought against him the accusation that
he, " being a man, made himself God," he immediately disclaims
such an intention, and puts himself in his right position by
explaining that he meant only to say, I am the Son of God.f
Yet, clear as this is, the constant tendency of Protestant theo
logy, as popularly taught, has been to forget the position thus so
emphatically assumed. It has been almost uniformly to exalt
and glorify the Son, by putting him in the very place of the
* Gal. iv. 6; Rom. viii. 14, 15; comp. supra, p. 111.
t John x. 33—36.

122 THEOLOGICAL INCONSISTENCY.
Heavenly Father. This is done by the churches and sects in
formal creeds, or in acts of worship paid to Jesus Christ, mani
festly without warrant or precedent in the Bible, and simply on
the strength of their own inferential and disputable reasonings
from its language.
In thus proceeding, the religious bodies referred to certainly
cannot allege that they are acting faithfully on their own avowed
principle of deference to the Scriptures alone. For these clearly
tell us, in express terms, of " one God the Father," and represent
everything as dependent solely on His supreme will. It is He
who " sent " Jesus into the world ; who, " for his great love
wherewith he loved us," raised up Jesus and exalted him " to
be a Prince and a Saviour :" it is He who did this of his own
"grace ;" for "it is the gift of God," that men may become "the
children of God by faith in Christ Jesus."* Such is the primi
tive and genuine sentiment of Christianity in relation to God
and Christ. The latter is everywhere in the New Testament the
creature, the servant, the beloved son, endowed with power and
wisdom from on high, exalted by the Divine choice to the office
which he held and holds, as "head over all things to his
church." -f-
And this relationship to God all the words and acts of Jesus
most simply and naturally accept or imply. He prays to God in
private, as in public; he instructs his disciples to do the same,
while he never tells them to pray to himself.! He said to his
adversaries that it was God's power in him that enabled him to
do his " works," as, indeed, in all things he devoutly referred to
Him whom he expressly termed " my Father and your Father,"
" my God and your God ;" declaring that the very words which
he spake were not his own, but the Father's who sent him.§
* Acts v. 30, 31 ; Ephes. ii. 4—9 ; Gal. iii. 26. + Acts ii. 22 ; Ephes. i. 22.
X He rather tells them the contrary, John xvi. 23. § John xiv: 24 ; xx. 17.

MR. GLADSTONE ON " ECCE HOMO." 123

CHAPTER XIII.
MR. GLADSTONES TESTIMONY TO THE HUMANITARIAN CHARACTER
OF THE EVANGELICAL NARRATIVES — "ECCE HOMO."
The representation of the two preceding Chapters is mainly,
though not entirely, founded upon the statements of the synop
tical Gospels, with some corroboration from other parts of the
New Testament. The peculiar portraiture of Jesus contained in
the fourth Gospel stands so much alone, that it must of necessity
be considered by itself. That this course is dictated by the
nature of the case will be abundantly seen in the sequel.
So far, however, as regards the information derived from the
Synoptics respecting the person and the teaching of Christ,
although this speaks sufficiently for itself, and needs no illus
tration from without, yet it may be well to take the opportunity
of citing in its behalf a witness who will generally be considered
unexceptionable, as he is certainly not in any way prepossessed
in favour of the views expressed in these pages. He is one,
therefore, whose testimony should serve all the more to corro
borate what has just been said as to the silence of the three
Evangelists respecting the supposed deity of Jesus Christ. This
testimony will be found in what Mr. Gladstone has written in
his volume on Ecce Homo.*
In this work our distinguished statesman comes forward in
vindication of the course taken by the author of the book just
named, in confining his narrative almost exclusively to the
"human side" of our Lord's life and character. It is well
known that author and book were severely criticised and blamed
in certain quarters on this account. The book professes, indeed,
* Ecce Homo, by the Right Hon. W. E. Gladstone. 1868.

124 MR. GLADSTONE'S TESTIMONY
to be a " Survey of the Life and work of Christ." But what, it
is asked, are the life and work of Christ, with his Deity left out ?
And yet, replies Mr. Gladstone in substance, the author of " Ecce
Homo," in his treatment of his subject, has only done very much
what Jesus himself and the Synoptists have done. " Undoubt
edly," he observes, " the book exhibits the character of our Lord
on the human side. It purports to shew, and actually shews
Him as man : and it leaves us to see, through the fair curtain
of His manhood, what we may. The objection taken to this
mode of treatment, in substance, perhaps amounts to this : that
our Saviour is not a mere man, but is God made man ; and that
He ought not to be exhibited in any Christian work as a man
only, but as God and man. And justice compels us to add, that
those who challenge the author of ' Ecce Homo ' on this ground
are not always persons whose judgment can be summarily put
aside on the score of bigotry and blindness."*
Such is the substance of the charge against which Mr. Glad
stone undertakes to defend the writer of " Ecce Homo," as we
may see again, in a later passage : " He is principally charged
with this, that he has not put into his foreground the full splen
dour and majesty of the Redeemer about whom he writes." But
Mr. Gladstone immediately adds : " If this be true of him, it is
true also thus far of the Gospels." f
The words " thus far " refer to the picture of the life of Christ
drawn by the three Evangelists. In contradistinction to that
picture, Mr. Gladstone goes on to speak more especially of the
method which Christ himself followed in his teaching. " If we
pass on," he says, " from the great events of our Lord's personal
history to his teachings, as recorded in his discourses and sayings
by the synoptic writers, we shall find that they, too, are remark
able for the general absence of direct reference to His Divinity
* On Ecce Homo, pp. 8, 9. t Ecce Homo, p. 52,

TO THE GOSPEL NARRATIVES. 125
and indeed to the dignity of his person altogether." In another
place Mr. Gladstone writes : " It appears then, on the whole, as
respects the Person of our Lord, that its ordinary exhibition to
ordinary hearers and spectators was that of a Man engaged in the
best, and holiest, and tenderest ministries, among all the saddest
of human miseries and trials; of One teaching in word, too, the
best, and holiest, and tenderest lessons ; and claiming, unequi
vocally and without appeal, a paramount authority for what He
said and did; but, beyond this, asserting respecting Himself
nothing, and leaving Himself to be freely judged by the character
of His words and deeds."*
Again, Mr. Gladstone writes : — " If the reader has patiently
followed the argument to this point, it is now time to release
him by proceeding to apply it to the case of 'Ecce Homo.'
Supposing, then, that the author of that work has approached
his subject on the human side, has dealt with our Lord as with a
man, has exhibited to us what purport to be a human form and
lineaments, is he therefore at once to be condemned ? Certainly
not at once, if it be true, as it seems to be true, that in this respect
he -has only done what our Lord himself, by his ordinary and
usual exhibition of himself, both did and encouraged the common
hearer of his addresses and beholder of his deeds to do." +
How perfectly true these statements are, may be illustrated
in a way which has not occurred to the writer of the quoted
words. To this end, let the reader turn to the great final scene

* Ecce Homo, pp. 61, 62, 103.
t Ibid., p. 108. — The reader may compare these remarkable admissions with
the very different tenor of Dr. Liddon's representation in his fourth Lecture. He
repeatedly declares that our Lord " revealed his Divinity to his disciples, to the Jewish
people, ^and to his embittered opponents, the chief priests and Pharisees." — B. L.,
p. 177 (180). See also the headings of Dr. L.'s pages, from p. 180, seq., which run
thus : — " Our Lord reveals His Godhead explicitly:" — " Christ reveals His Godhead
to the Apostles:" — "Christ reveals his Godhead to the Jewish People."

126 MR. GLADSTONE REALLY ILLUSTRATES
in the history of Christ, as set forth in the Gospel narratives,
including the fourth as well as the synoptical writers. Let him
consider the accounts of the crucifixion, and observe how entirely
wanting is each narrative in the smallest allusion to the most
astonishing and marvellous circumstance of all — if it were only
real — the circumstance that in that crucified Jesus, who is there
nailed to the cross, and there bows his head and dies, just like
one of the malefactors beside him, that in his person, thus lifted
up and crucified, it is not simply a human being that we look
upon, but even God himself ! The writers of these narratives
well knew this, it is alleged, but they say nothing about it, make
no allusion to it whatever ; and throughout the whole of their
account, from beginning to end, there is the same extraordinary
silence ; no word occurs about that greatest fact of all, compared
with which everything else sinks into utter insignificance.*
Mr. Gladstone, we have seen, fully admits, strongly maintains,
that there is silence, reserve, limitation, in the teaching of Christ
himself in regard to his own person. He takes care, however, to
point out that there were good reasons for this, in the unprepared
state of the Gentile world, and of the people who witnessed our
Lord's ministry. But now, granting that, during his own life,
there was every reason why he should not have spoken of his
deity, yet how does such a consideration apply to narratives that
were written thirty, forty, fifty years after his death — to writers
who must surely have been desirous to exhibit to the world the
full glory of the great subject of their narrative ? They need not
have continued the reserve from any of the motives which are
* How differently modern writers proceed may be illustrated by a single instance.
M. de Pressense, in a recent work, speaking of the siege of Jerusalem, observes of
that terrible time, that "Josephus knew not that Jerusalem was expiating a yet
darker crime, and that its soil, once sacred, had been stained by the blood of God " !—
Early Years of Christianity (1869), p. 364. Do the Evangelists ever say anything
like this ?

THE MESSIAHSHIP OF JESUS. 127
said to have influenced him ; but, on the contrary, they owed it
to the world to set forth the simple truth, the marvellous truth.
Thus, in effect, the popular theory of the Godhead of Christ
receives no support, but rather a decided injury, from the argu
ment of the eminent man who has come forward so remarkably
in its defence — or rather, we should say, in defence of what may
be termed the humanitarianism of Ecce Homo.
In one respect, however, Mr. Gladstone has brought into view
what might seem to be a new consideration. He thinks that the
reticence of our Lord in speaking of himself in the Gospels, is
not quite so great as might at first be thought. In some of his
parables, he at least implies that he is a personage of great
importance. He is the central figure of a new dispensation ; he
is the Sower of the seed ; the Owner of the vineyard ; the
Householder in whose field of wheat the enemy had intermixed
the tares ; he is the Lord of the unforgiving servant ; the Noble
man who went into a far country ; and, lastly, he is the Bride
groom among the wise and foolish virgins. In all these instances,
Mr. Gladstone urges, he "appears in the attitude of kingship.
He rules, directs, and furnishes all ; he punishes and rewards."
These instances, he adds, " must be considered, surely, as very
nearly akin, if they are not more than nearly akin, to declarations
of His Deity."*
Now, accepting all these instances as fairly put, it will never
theless be much nearer the truth to regard them as declarations,
express or implied, not of his Deity, but of his Messiahship.
It was in his character of Messiah that he did, or assumed to do,
all the actions attributed to him. This fact is constantly over
looked, or lost sight of, by popular preachers and writers ; and it
has here escaped even so good an eye as Mr. Gladstone's. The
Messiahship of Jesus is everywhere the most characteristic
* Ecce Homo, p. 83.

128 MESSIANIC AUTHORITY OF JESUS.
feature throughout Gospels and Epistles; and has never been
questioned as the great fact of primitive Christian history as
recorded in the New Testament. Can the same be said of his
alleged Deity? Has not this been denied and controverted from
the first; and does not Mr. Gladstone himself admit that it
cannot be said to make its appearance, except perhaps in obscure
implications, even in the synoptical Gospels — the most detailed
and literally historical records of his life ?
Jesus, then, as the Christ, is undoubtedly sometimes spoken
of in terms which could not be applied to ordinary men. It does
not follow that he is God ; and as such the Evangelists never
represent him. It follows, simply, that he is the Christ ; and we
know how he himself said, and how every statement of the New
Testament on the subject declares, that whatever he was, and
whatever he had, he was and he possessed by the giving of the
Father who " sent " him.*
Hence, therefore, again, Mr. Gladstone in writing as he does
on this subject, has too readily fallen into a very common and
popular error ; he has lost sight of the distinction between the
Messianic character, unquestionably attributed by the Evange
lists to Jesus of Nazareth, and the unapproachable supremacy
of the One Almighty Being, which is never attributed to him.
It may, indeed, be perfectly true, as Mr. Gladstone and Dr.
Liddon respectively insist, that Jesus speaks with great dignity
and authority ; that he exercised powers which could not belong
to any ordinary man ; that " his recorded teaching is penetrated
by his self-assertion ;" that, as spiritual lawgiver and king, he
claims the unreserved obedience and self-surrender of his fol
lowers ; nay, that he thus not only asserts his right to " rule the
whole soul of man " in this life, but also " literally and delibe
rately puts himself forward as judge of all the world," in the
* John v. 19; vii. 16; xiv. 10, 24.

ITS DERIVED CHARACTER. 129
life to come* All this may be perfectly true, as well as the
further statement that Jesus said he was Lord of the sabbath,
that he had a right to do his works on that day, and that even
as the Father worked, so he, the Son, had authority to work
also. But yet all this does not establish the Deity of him
who thus spoke, taught and acted. What it proves is, in the
language of the New Testament, simply this — namely, that Jesus
Christ was " a man approved of God by miracles and wonders
and signs, which God did by him;" that the Heavenly Father
had " anointed Jesus of Nazareth with the Holy Spirit and with
power ;"-)- giving him authority and power to be and to do all
that is spoken of him. Dr. Liddon himself observes, " Certainly
our Lord insists very carefully upon the truth that the power
which he wielded was derived originally from the Father." The
statements even of the fourth Evangelist are to the same effect.
The incarnate Logos there tells us, " The Son can do nothing of
himself;" and of the Father he says that as He "hath life in
himself, so he hath given to the Son to have life in himself."!
Similarly, too, Paul on Mars' Hill, when he alluded to the
future judgment of the world, spoke of a day in which God will
"judge the world in righteousness by a man whom he hath
ordained;'' and, both in this place and elsewhere, the same
Apostle directly attributes to God the raising of Jesus from the
dead : " Yea, and we are found false witnesses of God, because
we have testified of God that he raised up Christ ; whom he
raised not up if so be that the dead rise not."§
The possession of miraculous powers could not imply, as Dr.
Liddon would represent, the deity of the possessor ; for, accord
ing to the Acts of the Apostles, miracles were wrought by Paul
and by others. In short, it is clear from the usual tone and
* Liddon, B. L., p. 174 (176). + Acts ii. 22 ; x. 38.
J John v. 19, 26. § Acts xvii. 31 ; 1 Cor. xv. 15.
K

130 APPENDIX TO CHAPTER XIII.
tenor, as well as the express statements, of the Evangelical
history, that Jesus Christ was never thought of by the writers
as possessed of power and wisdom independently, or in himself,
but only by the giving of One greater than he. It is plain,
therefore, as before, that he was not regarded as himself the
original source of divine gifts, but simply as the receiver, the
instrument, the faithful servant of God, whose " meat " it was, as
he said of himself, " to do the will of Him that sent him, and to
finish his work."

APPENDIX TO CHAPTER XIII.
DR. DALE ON THE LIVING CHRIST.*
In this work the reader will find an ingenious "argument"
which has a direct bearing on the subject of the preceding
Chapter, and on which therefore I propose to offer a few
remarks. The author terms it an argument from experience or con
sciousness, these two words being both of them used to denote
its character. The substance of it is that Jesus Christ is now
living with God, and accessible to the prayer of faith. He is
proved to be so by the direct influence of his spirit upon those
who seek him. They are assured that he is their helper and
friend by their own consciousness, independently of any evi
dence from Christian books, for he sheds upon them positive gifts
of comfort, strength, and guidance, manifesting himself thus as
" the Lord and Saviour of men." All this is known to Christian
men and women by their own inner experience. It is as much
a reality to them as the great mass of the Matterhorn to the
Alpine tourist who looks upon that stupendous object with the
eye of natural sense (pp. 26, 27).
* The Living Christ and the Four Gosptls. By R. W. Dale, LL.D. (1890).

DR. DALE ON THE LIVING CHRIST. 131
Now, granting that there are some devout persons who believe
themselves to be possessed of this kind of assurance, the question
arises, How far will the argument carry us ? Will it not apply
equally in certain other cases of the greatest importance, and
how shall the private experience of some believers avail for the
conviction or enlightenment of the multitudes of Christian
people who make no claim to it ?
There is, for example, the obvious case of the Roman Catholics,
with their invocation and semi-worship of saints and the Virgin.
They, too, are convinced of the existence and power of these
celestial persons, and find spiritual comfort and delight in their
"experience" of communion with them. But does Dr. Dale
therefore admit the reality of the power of such persons to pro
tect and help their worshippers in the way they suppose ? Does
he not look upon the belief in question as a delusion and the
mere outcome of superstition ?
The similar and serious objection which arises from the exist-
tence of Mohammedanism is anticipated by our author, but
not satisfactorily answered. Mohammed, he observes, is not so
much a living personage to his followers as Christ is to those
who bear his name. True, perhaps ; but yet they find effec
tual strength and light from their ardent faith in Mohammed
as the prophet of God. If he be less of a living reality to
his followers than Christ is to his people, there is a reason for
this. The adherent of Islam is a far stricter Theist than the
Christian. He pays his religious worship where alone it is due.
He does not dissipate or waste it by transferring a large share
of it to a second object — a second God, shall we not say ? And
being thus what the ordinary Christian is not, a consistent wor
shipper of the One God, his prophet is naturally the.less thought
of as a living and potent personality. As with the Christian
Apostle, his "sufficiency is of God." So much as this certainly
is known respecting the devout Mohammedan : as it is known
also that most Christian people positively neglect the example
K2

132 APPENDIX TO CHAPTER XIII.
and the teaching of their Master, by turning to worship him and
doing what no New Testament person ever did, giving a vir
tually forbidden service of prayer and praise to "the man
Christ Jesus."*
Our author further speaks of a supposed Roman Catholic who
has committed murder, and who conceives himself, after con
fession, to have been absolved by the priest. Such a man, we
are told, has only an " imaginary experience," which ought not
to be brought forward to invalidate an experience that is real
(p. 68). How does the one experience appear to be more ima
ginary or more real than the other ? The cases seem to be very
closely parallel ; for surely it must be conceded, the priest and
the confessional, representing as they do the authority of an
ancient and venerable Church, are quite as much realities to the
man who believes in them as the distant invisible Christ can be
to his worshippers — or probably a good deal more so.
This argument for and from a Living Christ would apply
equally to the Buddhist, or any other religious devotee who has
a deep faith in the object of his reverence. Such believers
derive the very same kind of satisfaction from their " conscious
ness," as the Christian from his ; and thus there appears to be
really no valid reason why one of these experiences should be
admitted and the others rejected.
In writing thus, I would be the last person to deny the reality
of spiritual influences upon the seeking and waiting soul of
man. I would receive with reverence those golden words of
Christ, " The pure in heart shall see God." But I would not put
the mere suggestions of vague religious feeling in the place of
the more solid truths and facts of reason and history. Our
rational faculties are given us that we may use them for
rational conviction ; and this would appear to be recognized by
our author himself. For why, otherwise, does he fill three-
fourths of his volume with a vigorous presentation of the usual
* See infra. Chap. XXII. on the Worship of Christ.

DR. DALE ON THE LIVING CHRIST. 133
evidences, to shew that the Gospels are to be depended on and
give us a sufficient history of the life and teaching of the
Christian Master? What is the use to the disciple of such
mere literary knowledge of Christ, if we may each set up our
own assumed experience in place of it?"* The latter would
no doubt be the quicker and the easier process, and would save a
good deal of trouble to many of us. But this, I submit, is small
recommendation ; it is rather a ground of suspicion.
A few points suggested by Dr. Dale's exposition remain for
notice. First, it may in all seriousness be asked, What is gained to
Christian faith or hope by, in a sense, substituting the disputable
Christ of consciousness for direct communion with the Heavenly
Father himself? The argument before us is too suggestive
of those early Christian devotees of whom we may read ; men
who in their darkness turned aside to imaginary objects of
veneration and left the Great Parent Spirit unacknowledged
and without the worship which is due to Him alone.-)- Yet
doubtless these imperfect and idolatrous Christians found the
same kind of satisfaction, in their apostasy, which is now claimed
for those of our time who would deliberately substitute their
own consciousness of Christ for the historical verities of the
Gospel narrative, and not only for these, but for that higher
worship which is in spirit and in truth.
Again, it is observed by Dr. Dale that the great majority of
Christian people (p. 269) have not had their faith shaken by the
results of modern criticism. Let this be granted, though it is
not easy to understand how it can be known. But if the fact
be so, it is surely because the great masses of Christian people
* Dr. Dale clearly tells us that we may do so : — "An assurance resting on historical
and literary proofs that our Four Gospels contain the very account of our Lord's
miracles and teaching that was given by the Apostles and their followers is not the
foundation of our faith in Christ. The Gospels themselves are not necessary to our
faith."— P. 292.
T See infra, note from Rev. J. J. Tayler, Chap. XXVIII.

134 APPENDIX TO CHAPTER XIII.
have little or no knowledge of modern criticism. Many of them
have never heard of it ; for their teachers are too commonly
silent or themselves little informed about it. People are too
easily satisfied with a faith which is, and must be, largely taken
for granted. And to such persons it will no doubt be pleasant
to be told that their own consciousness is all-sufficient ; more to
be trusted than any result of literary inquiry into the origin and
historical value of biblical writings.
But not to dwell on this point, let me turn for a moment to
admit the validity of Dr. Dale's argument in one important
aspect of it. It has an obvious force, if it be justly limited to
the great spiritual truths of Christ's teaching : — the Fatherhood
of God, His merciful spirit towards sinful men, the moral law of
righteousness and truth, love and brotherhood between man and
man, the immortal life. But why then, it may be asked, so
readily accept these truths ? It is simply because they are in
an important sense bound up with our own spiritual nature,
which so gladly responds to them when it is fairly and rationally
cultivated and developed. These great truths, if we hold them
at all, are to each of us largely independent of external attesta
tion. They do not require it. Heart and soul alike assent to
them without it. But if I am told that along with these greatest
and most welcome of spiritual truths, I must accept all the dis
putable and more or less incredible elements which do require
external attestation, and which, from Greek and Oriental sources,
so speedily gathered round the historical Christ, then I pause.
To require me to accept these on the ground either of my own
or of another person's consciousness, is to put too great a strain
upon my reason and my sense of the fitness of things, and I leave
this further step to those who think they can take it.
It is not quite clear whether our author intends to offer the
" argument" which we have now reviewed as one that is equally
valid and conclusive for the doctrine of the deity of Christ.
Some of his expressions imply as much as this : Of " those who

DR. DALE ON THE LIVING CHRIST. 135
are already Christians," he remarks, "their conscience confesses
that Christ is God" (p. 48). And truly, if the usual evidences
for that doctrine are seen to break down beneath the stress of
modern knowledge, it may be wise to replace them by some new
and more potent teaching. But is this argument from "con
sciousness" or "experience" of this sort? Does our author feel
quite happy in depending upon it on the soore of its superiority,
and because he finds it more convincing to his reason ? To me
this seems to be incredible ; but of course I must not judge for
another. A final consideration remains. The argument above reviewed,
does it not amount to an admission that the ultimate appeal in
these questions must lie, not to the Bible or other external
authority, but to the Conscience — and (if Dr. Dale will allow
the addition) to the Reason ? This position will be easily
accepted by many ; but to others it will be startling enough.
To his own denominational friends,* in particular, or to most of
them, it will be so ; and it will bear more directly and testingly
on some of their long-descended doctrines than they have per
haps as yet fully realized. By all means let the Reason and the
Conscience constitute the tribunal before which certain great
articles of popular theology shall stand — including eternal fire,
vicarious atonement by the death of Christ, the inspiration of
the Bible and of the Church, the infallibility of priesthoods, the
deity of the Prophet of Galilee : and let the founders of chapels
and framers of chapel-trusts keep well in view that they ought
not to put the Conscience and the Reason of future ministers
and office-bearers into a position which may prove to be a per
plexity, a temptation and a snare to them ! If such be the goal
to which the argument of Dr. Dale leads, or helps to lead us, he
will have done a good work for the spiritual liberty of many in
the times to come.
* See the words cited {infra, Chap. XXV.) from Dr. Joseph Parker's Ecce Deus:
" The whole history of Jesus Christ removes itself as far as possible from the court in
which natural reason presides."

136 THE FIRST THREE GOSPELS,

CHAPTER XIV.
THE CHRIST OF THE FIRST THREE GOSPELS AND OF THE
FOURTH — DIFFERENCES.
We read in the Book of Acts that the Apostle Peter addressed
an assembled body of his countrymen on the day of Pentecost.
Speaking of his departed Master, he describes him in the follow
ing terms : " Jesus of Nazareth, a man approved of God among
you by miracles and wonders and signs which God did by him
in the midst of you, as ye yourselves also know."* This descrip
tion, stated to have been given by an Apostle, a companion and
friend of Jesus, so shortly after the crucifixion, probably repre
sents the earliest idea of his person and work left to us in the
New Testament. At least, it may be taken faithfully to pre
serve, in several important respects, the impression of himself
which the subject of it had made upon his immediate disciples.
And this remark is confirmed by what we are told respecting
Jesus in the first three Gospels. Both in the details given, and
in the resulting impression arising from them, their representa
tion, as we have already seen, agrees in a remarkable manner
with that early description of Peter.
One who assents to this statement will probably have no diffi
culty in seeing, that in the synoptic Gospels we have what may
properly be regarded as the most original and literally faithful
picture of the life and character of Christ now accessible to us.
There are several considerations by which this view of the
subject may be illustrated, and its correctness very conclusively
shewn. In the first place, in the three Gospels we have a three-fold
* Acts ii. 14—22.

AND THE FOURTH GOSPEL. 137
exhibition of the life of Christ, and one which undoubtedly comes
down to us from the remotest period of Christian antiquity to
which we can ascend for the details given. We have, therefore,
the authority of three witnesses for what is there reported, and
for the particular form and manner in which it is reported.
This remark applies more especially to all matters in which
there is a substantial agreement between the three Evangelists.
A preponderating weight is always due to a decided majority of
testimonies, even in the case of persons who may, in other
respects, be perfectly equal to each other.
In the second place, the character or quality of what is
reported tends to the same result. The three Gospels agree very
completely with each other in regard to the substance, as well
as the form, of Christ's teaching, and in regard to what is, per
haps, of less essential importance, the principal incidents of his
career. In these Gospels he often speaks, for example, in short
parables ; many parables occur in each of them, and they are
among the most simple and effective of his modes of teaching.
But, moreover, the three Synoptists also preserve many longer,
as well as shorter, discourses and sayings of Christ. These are
usually of a very practical kind, setting forth various moral and
religious duties or principles, in application mostly to the men
and circumstances of that day. Throughout the three Gospels
a very graphic picture is presented, both of the actions and of
the teaching of Christ — shewing us how he went about among
the people, speaking to them constantly as occasion arose, healing
diseases, casting out demons, everywhere taking the opportunity
of uttering some little practical lesson of moral or religious
value; or else teaching the same things, even more impres
sively, by his own example.
Now, while the three Gospels agree so constantly with one

138 DIFFERENCES BETWEEN ST. JOHN
another in these respects, such features are almost entirely
absent from the fourth Gospel. In this, for example, there are
no parables whatever, nor a single instance of the casting out
of demons ; the miraculous birth of Christ is never alluded to,
not even in the opening chapter, which speaks of the incarnation
of the Word ; nor the temptation of Christ ; nothing like the
Sermon on the Mount occurs, nothing like it either in manner
or matter; neither does the institution of the Lord's Supper;
nor the agony in the garden of Gethsemane. . There are other
important omissions of a similar kind — showing us, at least,
that the respective Evangelists were, for some reason, led to take
and to give a radically different view of the life and teaching of
the great subject of their narratives.
But it is not only that we find such variations in John, as
compared with the other Gospels. What does occur in the former
is to a large extent different in its kind and in the manner
of its expression, from what occurs in them. Doubtless there
are some resemblances, for how was it possible that there should
not be ? — while yet it is true that it requires careful attention to
find them ; and of these resemblances, such as they are, it will
be seen that Dr. Liddon has made the most. But still the state
ment is correct, that the fourth Evangelist differs extremely from
the others, not only in what he omits, but in what he records.
For example, the teachings of Jesus are here often delivered
in discussions with hostile Jews. In the other Gospels they
occur more in intercourse with his own friends and disciples.
In John, he appears frequently anxious, above all things, to
announce his own divine origin and dignity as the Messiah.
So it is in the interview with Nicodemus; in that with the
woman of Samaria ; in the case of the Samaritans in the same
chapter ; in that of the Jews who seek to kill him ; of those to

AND THE OTHER EVANGELISTS. 139
whom he said he was the "bread of life ;" of those who took up
stones to stone him ;* and in other instances. On the contrary,
in the Synoptics, he repeatedly enjoins upon those who are with
him not to tell any one of his wonderful character and deeds.-f-
Various passages occur in John which are, more or less, difficult
to follow and understand, the great end of which seems to be
not, as in the earlier Gospels, the moral and religious instruction
of his auditors, so much as the assertion of the speaker's own
authority, of his descent from the Father, and his intimate union
with Him.!
Moreover, all this is presented in very peculiar language. If
we compare the Gospel with the first Epistle of John, we find
that the style is the same ; and that the Evangelist has repre
sented the Teacher too as speaking in the same style in which
he has written his own Epistle. The same characteristic words
and phrases occur in Gospel and Epistle, shewing that the
writer of the former cannot have put down the exact words of
Christ ; and that the utmost which can with any probability
be alleged is, that the fourth Evangelist has embodied in his
own form of words the substance of ideas uttered by Jesus.
In the first three Gospels, however, it cannot be questioned
that we have actual words of Christ. Strauss § long ago com
pared his sayings to fragments of granite, which, though they
may sometimes have been detached and carried away from their
original position, yet could not be dissolved by the flood of oral
tradition, but still retain their native coherence and force. So,
for example, we must believe it is in the case of the Lord's
* John iii. ; iv. ; v. 18 ; vi. 28, seq. ; x. 24, seq.
t Matt. xvi. 20 ; xvii. 9 ; Mark viii. 30 ; Luke ix. 21, 22.
t E.g., v. 32—47; viii. 52—59; xv. 1—8; xvi. 28—31; xvii.
§ Life of Jesus, § 76.

140 DIFFERENCES BETWEEN ST. JOHN
Prayer. Have we not here the very words of Jesus Christ ? —
allowing, of course, for the change from the language which he
used to the Greek form in which we now have them, and allow
ing also for the circumstance that the prayer, in its separate
sentences, may not be, strictly speaking, original. But this
prayer is not found in the fourth Gospel, nor anything at all
resembling it. So, again, it must be with the parable of the
Good Samaritan ; with that of the Prodigal Son ; that of the
Talents ; the Pharisee and the Publican, and others ; with the
words used at the institution of the Lord's Supper * an inci
dent, which, important as it is, does not occur at all in the fourth
Gospel. The differences now pointed out between the three and the
one are such as cannot be denied ; nor does Dr. Liddon attempt
to deny them. He seeks, however, to lessen their amount and
significance, and is anxious to shew, differences notwithstanding,
that the " divine Christ of St. John is identical with the Christ
of the Synoptists."-)- How far this is so the reader will judge
for himself ; and the matter may safely be left to the intelligent
verdict of any candid person who will take the trouble duly to
weigh the facts of the case.
On two points only, in Dr. Liddon's discussion of the subject,
a brief comment is called for. He lays great stress on the
" history of the nativity " in Matthew, and on the " Evangelical
Canticles" in Luke,! as containing expressions in substantial
harmony with the introductory statements of the fourth Gospel,
inasmuch as they point to the " entrance of a superhuman being
into this our human world." § The question inevitably presents
itself whether the learned writer really receives the "history
* Matt. xxvi. 26—28; Luke xxii. 17—20. t B. L., pp. 247, seq.
X Matt. i. ii.; Luke i. § B. L., p. 249 (252).

AND THE OTHER EVANGELISTS. 141
of the nativity," with the poetical utterances of Mary and Eliza
beth, and the visit of the angel Gabriel, as truly historical, and
with the feeling that he is treading on solid ground in his reli
ance upon such details — details to which he appeals as guarding
the Evangelical narratives " against the inroads of Humani
tarian interpreters." Such questions he would doubtless answer
in the affirmative ; for he accepts without question all the state
ments that occur respecting the " annunciation," the " miracu
lous conception," the "virgin mother." A faith so uncritical
and comprehensive is worthy of all acknowledgment, while yet
it may be well believed that the judgment of all free and
instructed minds will sooner or later pronounce very differently
on this as on other material points in this inquiry.
Dr. Liddon further observes that the agreement between the
Synoptists and John is also seen in their accounts of the teach
ing of our Lord, " and in the pictures which they set before
us of his life and work." How exceedingly different this is
from the facts, need not be further illustrated. But in con
nection with one point in Dr. Liddon's representation, the incor
rectness of his statement deserves notice. The Synoptists, he
says, often present Jesus to us as "the Son," and in this title
he naturally sees, not merely a usual Jewish designation of the
Messiah, as especially and before all others the protected and
beloved of God, but also an allusion (even in the Synoptics) to
an " original nature," in which of necessity ordinary men have
no share. " Accordingly," he observes, Jesus " never calls the
Father our Father, as if he shared his Sonship with his fol
lowers. He always speaks of my Father."*
In reply to this statement, it may be asked, Did not Christ
teach his disciples when they prayed to say, " Our Father which
art in heaven"? — and, although he is not himself said to have
* B. L., p. 250 (253).

142 DIFFERENCES BETWEEN ST. JOHN
joined with them in the use of his prayer, is it to be supposed
that he intended them to employ the word Father in some
special and limited sense, which was not applicable to himself ?
When, as so often occurs, in addressing his disciples, he uses the
words " your Father," apparently in the most direct, simple and
natural manner, could he have consciously meant to employ
those words with a certain reserve, or even with a kind of double
meaning, and were his hearers too aware of this, although there
is no statement to such an effect throughout the New Testament?
For, even in John, where, as already admitted, the " Sonship "
has most probably at times a metaphysical sense, not elsewhere
found, does not Jesus say, " I ascend unto my Father and your
Father, and unto my God and your God"? Here, again, is
it possible to think that he uses the word Father within the
space of this short verse in two different senses ? — that God
was, in his own conception, God and Father to those whom
he was addressing, quite otherwise than he was to the speaker
himself ?
Such questions must surely be answered in the negative by
one who has any regard to the truthfulness and sincerity of Jesus
Christ ; and that answer is virtually the confutation of the asser
tion that he never spake " as if he shared his Sonship with his
followers.'' In one sense, indeed, this assertion might be true,
but it is not the sense intended by Dr. Liddon. He could not
share his Messiahship with his followers ; and so far as this is
involved in the Sonship, or identical with it, the latter may be
regarded as necessarily limited to Jesus alone. But it is quite
evident that he often speaks of and to the Heavenly Father in
no such artificial sense. "0 my Father, if it be possible, let this
cup pass from me." Was this an outburst of true natural feeling,
such as any human being might utter before the ever-present
Spirit, or was it only a kind of official address to Him, whether

AND THE OTHER EVANGELISTS. 143
implying the metaphysical Sonship, or only the relationship of
Messiah ? The general strain of the New Testament ought surely
to be sufficient to answer this question for us ; for example, those
words of Paul to the Galations, " God has sent forth the spirit
of his Son into your hearts, crying, Abba, Father," — making
them too sons (the Apostle means) even like Christ himself, as
also the New Testament repeatedly declares.*
It is clear that the use by Jesus of the form " your Father,"
arose mainly from the fact that his teachings consisted so largely
of direct and familiar conversations with those around him. He
naturally addressed them in the second person — and used pro
nouns suitable to that form of address.
Returning, however, to the principal subject of the present
Chapter, it must still be asked, how are the remarkable differ
ences, above described, between the one Gospel and the three, to
be accounted for ? Most probably the explanation lies in the
circumstance that in the latter we have the simple facts, inci
dents, sayings and discourses of Christ's ministry very much as
they actually occurred ; as they were preserved and cherished
for long years by faithful friends and disciples, until finally
written down from the oral traditions, and embodied in the three
Gospels in the form in which we now have them. The Gospel
of John, on the other hand, was written considerably later, as
the ancient authorities agree in telling us, and as modern inves
tigators mostly allow. It was written, again, as one continuous
composition, the production of a single mind, under the influence
of one predominant philosophical idea, of which more will be said
presently. It was written also, not in Palestine, by one inti
mately familiar .with Jewish scenes and usages at the moment
of writing, and directly subject to their influence, but most
* Gal. iii. 26 ; iv. 7. Comp. John viii, 41, 42 ; Matt. v. 48 ; Mark xi. 25, 26 ;
Luke vi. 36.

144 HOW ARE THESE DIFFERENCES
probably in the distant city of Ephesus, and by one who, even if
by birth a Jew and a Palestinian, must have been long away
from his early home and a stranger to many of the ideas and
associations of his younger days. Few, it may be thought, can
read what has been said on this point by Bretschneider and
others after him, without being convinced of this, although they
may not go to the length of saying that the Apostle John,
the beloved disciple and friend of Jesus, could not have been
the author of the Gospel.
If this Evangelist, again, were acquainted with the three older
Gospels as works of Apostolical authority, or with one of them,
he would seem to have carefully avoided going over the same
ground ; while yet it is remarkable that he should not have inti
mated in any way that he had done so, or intended to do so.
So far as any express statement is concerned, he leaves his
readers in ignorance as to his plan in writing, for he merely inti
mates, in one place, his desire to shew that Jesus was the Christ,
the Son of God (xx. 31).
Having this object in view, it would seem that he pursued it
in his own manner, without regard to the accounts given by the
Evangelists who had preceded him, even if he were acquainted
with them, of which we cannot be certain. And not only was
this the case, but the fourth Evangelist evidently wrote with a
certain freedom; that is to say, in his own style and words
simply. Hence the sameness of manner observable in the Gospel
and the first Epistle ; and this too even in words, or discourses
attributed to Christ ; — although it can hardly be supposed that
the latter expressed himself in the peculiar style of the Epistles
of John, especially when this is so different from what is reported
of his words in the Synoptics.
It will illustrate and account for this peculiarity in the lan
guage, if it be remembered that it was the custom with ancient

TO BE ACCOUNTED FOR ? 145
historians to ascribe to the personages of their histories such
speeches as they thought suitable to their particular characters
and circumstances. Writers who were probably the contempo
raries of the fourth Evangelist, and doubtless subject to the
same literary rules and influences, have followed this method of
composition. The fact alluded to is familiar to all who have the
slightest knowledge of the ancient historians.*
The question, then, is inevitable, Did the author of the fourth
Gospel follow the same plan, and is this the cause of the remark
able difference between the words of Christ as found in that
Gospel, and as found in the others ? That is to say, have we in
the three Gospels the genuine words, or nearly so, much as they
fell from the lips of the Teacher, treasured in the memory of
devoted and affectionate followers, until at length committed to
writing and left as we now read them ; and in the fourth Gospel
have we only the Evangelist's idea or recollection of what Jesus
said, recalled by him after the lapse of many years, and clothed
not at all in the original words of the speaker, which were long
ago forgotten, but in such forms of thought and speech as occurred
to the writer, and seemed to him fitted to embody the conception
which he wished to make known to his readers, of the teaching
and the actions of Christ ?
Into this important question it is not necessary that we
should here enter further, except only to express the conviction
that it ought to be answered affirmatively, even on the suppo
sition that the fourth Evangelist was the Apostle John. Those
who are unable to admit the identity of the Apostle and the
Evangelist will the more readily assent to it ; and if it be the
truth, it will abundantly explain the fact that the Gospel of
* It is enough to mention here the names of Dionysius of Halicarnassus, Tacitus,
Josephus, abundantly to justify the statement in the text. The last of these authors
attributes speeches of his own composition to various biblical persons, and even to
God. L

146 PROBABLE ORIGIN
John is so different from the other three ; — different in its facts,
in its style, in the actions attributed to Christ, and in the very
subject-matter of the thoughts reported to have been expressed
by him.*
But leaving this point, we are brought back to our former
position, and may see, even more clearly than before, that it
is to the Gospels of Matthew, Mark and Luke, that we must
look for the most original and faithful picture of the Lord's
life and character ; while the fourth Gospel, on the other hand,
is a composition of later date, and of such a character that its
testimony can only be received so far as it is in substantial
agreement with that of the other Gospels.
The relation subsisting between Christ and God which is set
forth or implied in the synoptical accounts, is the point which
now claims our attention. What that relation is, is sufficiently
declared, and has already in fact been described. The Supreme
Being, it is throughout implied, or expressly stated, is the
original Source of the divine gifts possessed by Jesus. He is
everywhere represented as a distinct personality; one living
consciousness and will ; a Being of unspeakable might and
holiness ; our Father in heaven. And this great Parent Spirit
it is who confers on his servant the wisdom and the power which
he manifests. " If I by the power of Beelzebub cast out demons,
by whom do your children cast them out?" — thus Jesus asked
on one occasion. It was not by the help of Beelzebub, he meant
to assert, but by a greater and better power that he acted, even
by the power which he had from God. And so, on another
occasion, as noted before, the people, on witnessing the cure of
the palsied man, are said to have " marvelled and glorified God
which had given such power unto men."
The relation, then, subsisting between Christ and God is
* For more on this subject, see Appendix to Chap. XVII.

OF THESE DIFFERENCES. 147
clearly revealed to us in such expressions. Christ is the reci
pient, and God is the Source and the Giver. How this inter
communion took place is not explained ; but that it was thus
conceived of by these Evangelists is more or less distinctly
declared throughout their three Gospels. The invisible Deity
is, in all this, revealed to us as a definite personal existence, as
much as Jesus himself; and from Him it is that our Lord,
amidst the changing scenes of his human life, derives the power,
the eloquence and the wisdom which attract to him the crowds
of his countrymen, and make them exclaim, " Never man spake
like this man."
Much of what has just been said has been noted before ; but
the reader will forgive the repetition, as it is necessary here to
bring out the contrast between the Synoptics and the fourth
Gospel. On turning to the latter, we find that Jesus is, in a
certain sense, what he is represented in the other Gospels, but
apparently also he is something more. He is, in particular, the
personal incarnation of the Divine Word, or Logos : — In the
beginning was the Logos, and the Logos was with God, and the
Logos was God ; — And the Logos was made flesh and dwelt
among us.* Such, in few words, is this fourth Evangelist's
statement ; a statement which recurs several times by impli
cation in the course of the Gospel.
The question then arises, What is the probable meaning of
this language ; and does this Evangelist really place before us a
view of the person of Jesus, and of his relation to God, essen
tially different from that which we have found in the other
Gospels, and in the speech of Peter on the day of Pentecost ?
It is a well-known statement of Clement of Alexandria,
repeated by others in succession after him, that this Gospel
was written as a kind of supplement to the other three. John,
* John i. 1 — 18, " became flesh " is the more literal rendering.
L 2

148 THE CHRIST OF THE FOURTH GOSPEL.
he relates, observing that the things concerning the bodily or
human life of Christ had been recorded, determined, at the
instigation of friends, to compose a spiritual Gospel. This view
of the matter is greatly approved by Dr. Liddon, while yet he
remarks that the Gospel is "rather a treatise illustrated by
history, than a history written with a theological purpose."*
He would, probably, have been nearer the truth if he had said,
that it is substantially a " treatise " written with a distinct
" theological purpose," and illustrated by history, i.e. by tradi
tions which passed as history. It is easy, in fact, to gather from
the Gospel itself, as will hereafter be sufficiently seen, that the
Evangelist has gone upon the simple plan of giving mainly such
details and discourses as might serve to confirm and illustrate
his doctrine of the Logos in Jesus.
At all events, the supplement theory is not borne out by the
facts of the case. The Gospel does not, in truth, supplement the
other Gospels. It simply differs from them, and that to such a
degree that it has always been felt to be one of the most diffi
cult of problems to harmonize the two forms of representation.
Nor is the ancient idea borne out, but strongly discountenanced,
by the particular statement before referred to, of the Evangelist
himself,- who tells us expressly (xx. 31) for what purpose he
wrote his Gospel : — " Many other signs truly did Jesus in the
presence of his disciples, which are not written in this book ;
but these are written, that ye might believe that Jesus is the
Christ, the Son of God ; and that believing ye might have life
through his name."
And yet the object thus declared is manifestly the same which
the other Evangelists had in view. To shew that Jesus was the
Christ, the Son of God, was indeed the great aim of all the
teaching and preaching of the primitive Church. To bring men
* B. L., p. 220 (222).

THE DOCTRINE OF THE LOGOS. 149
to believe this, Paul toiled and suffered; so that the primary
design of this Gospel, as stated by the writer of it himself, was
the common aim and endeavour of the first Christian disciples,
to " bring all men, everywhere, to the knowledge of the truth,"
that Jesus was indeed the Christ. Such, then, being the
agreement between the first three Gospels and the fourth, in
regard to the leading purpose for which they were severally
composed, the presumption arises, that the apparent divergence
of John from the others, which in the first instance so much
strikes the reader, is not in reality expressive of any substantial
difference of belief in the respective writers in regard to the
relation between Christ and God, but only a variation in the
mode in which the later Evangelist has been led to express
himself; and that a due attention to the subject will shew that
these seemingly discordant forms of representation in reality
set forth one and the same essential truth. To test the correct
ness of this presumption will be the purpose of the next two
Chapters.

CHAPTER XV.

THE DOCTRINE OF THE LOGOS — PHILO — JUSTIN MARTYR-
EARLIER TENDENCIES AMONG THE JEWS.
The inquiry before us is, in substance, this— whether there is
an essential- harmony between John and the Synoptists in the
accounts which they respectively give of the relation between
Jesus Christ and God. To answer the question, it is necessary
to ascertain in what sense the former has employed the term
Word (Logos), which he introduces so conspicuously at the
beginning of his narrative. The use of this expression in its

150 THE DIVINE LOGOS.
special sense constitutes the great peculiarity of this Gospel.
It is not found in any other, and hardly occurs anywhere else in
the New Testament, with the exception of the first Epistle of
John. The idea of the Logos is, indeed, introduced at the begin
ning of the Epistle to the Hebrews, but the word itself is not
there used.* We do not, therefore, find any material assistance
in the New Testament, in the inquiry as to what exactly may
have been meant by this expression. It is evident, however,
that employing the term, as he does, in his very first sentence,
the Evangelist must have taken it for granted that his readers
were already familiar with it. He gives no explanation of it,
but introduces it at once, as though it were well known to those
for whom he was writing.
And such, there is no reason to doubt, was the case. For, let
it be remembered, this Evangelist, although the only New
Testament writer who makes so prominent an object of the
Logos, is by no means the originator of the term, or of the pecu
liar mode of representation of which it is a part. On the con
trary, he simply adopts a well-known expression of his time — a
term, with its connected ideas, widely employed in the age and
region in which the Evangelist lived ; and one, therefore, which
he might properly regard as sufficiently familiar to all who were
likely to read his Gospel, without any explanation from him.-f
* Comp. also Heb. iv. 12. It has been supposed that the same idea occurs at the
commencement of the Epistles to the Ephesians and Colossians. See infra, Chap. XIX.
+ This statement may be illustrated by the following passage from a learned
Bampton Lecturer of a past generation: — " .... we may say with truth that
between the genuine followers of Plato and the corrupters of his doctrine, the Gnos
tics, the whole learned world at the time of our Saviour's death, from Athens to
Alexandria, and from Rome to Asia Minor, was beset with philosophical systems in
every one of which the term Logos held a conspicuous place." — Dr. E. Burton,
Bampton Lectures, 1829, p. 215. Prof. Jowett observes, " . . . . the unde
signed coincidences between Philo and the New Testament can be explained on no
other hypothesis than the wide diffusion of the Alexandrian modes of thought." —
Epistles of St. Paul, I. p. 408.

PHILO — JUSTIN MARTYR. 151
To understand, then, what this term may have meant, as here
used, we have to look beyond the New Testament, to any con
temporary sources of information left to us ; and these may be
found principally in the writings of the Jewish author, Philo of
Alexandria. In his works abundant materials are met with for
illustrating the use of the term in question. Philo was probably
from fifty to sixty years of age at the time of the death of Christ.
His chief works, it is ascertained, were composed not later than
that event, whereas the Gospel could not have been in existence
for several decades after he wrote. He was, however, an elder
contemporary of the reputed author of that Gospel ; and we may
consequently expect that, if the two are found to use the same
words and expressions in connection with a given suject, they
will throw light upon each other.
The same remarks are in some respects applicable to Justin
Martyr, a Gentile philosopher converted to Christianity, who
suffered martyrdom at Rome about the year 160. His writings
also contain much that illustrates the subject of the Logos.
Justin wrote at a time when some progress had certainly been
made by the new doctrine of the deity of Christ. Moreover, the
period of his literary activity lies some decades later than our
Evangelist, while between Justin and Philo the space is still
longer, and is probably not less than a century, or more. In the
works of the latter writer, therefore, the doctrine of the Logos
may be found still unaffected by Christian influences; and as
the writerof the Gospel cannot have drawn anything from the
works of Justin, while it is more than probable that he was
acquainted, if not with the actual writings of Philo, at least with
the Logos ideas represented by him, the information and illus
tration needed must be sought from the earlier author, rather
than from the later.
Whether, on the other hand, Justin was dependent on the

152 JUSTIN MARTYR.
fourth Gospel for his Logos doctrine is too large a question for
discussion in these pages. But it may be observed, Justin does
not mention this Gospel, or indicate that he has drawn anything
from it. The Logos ideas of this Father and of the Gospel
have, no doubt, a certain similarity. It could not well be other
wise ; and the likeness is easily accounted for, if we regard them
as derived from a common source. This in all probability was
Philo's doctrines, which cannot have been unknown to the
author of the Gospel or to Justin.
It must not be overlooked that there is very much in Justin's
references to the Logos idea which cannot have been drawn
from John — e.g., that it was Christ as the Logos that spake
with Moses at the Bush (Apol. i. 62, 63 ; also Dial. 127) : this,
and more to a like effect, was clearly not learnt from the
Evangelist, while it is in close agreement with similar ideas in
Philo. But against this admission of a common source, it will be
urged that the Philonian Logos is metaphysical and contains
elements which are inconsistent with what is found in Justin*
It will, however, be remembered, Justin could not, by the
nature of the case, employ the full conception of the Logos as
set forth by Philo, with its numerous turns of application and
development. He does go beyond John in his use of it, as when
he speaks not merely of the Logos but of Christ personally
as being God, which is not done by the fourth Evangelist.
Justin would naturally make use of the Logos idea only so far
as it could be adapted to his purpose and to his conception of
its manifestation in a human person. The same may be said of
the fourth Evangelist. Hence an obvious reason for some diver-
' gence of the two writers from their common source, as well as for
some amount of agreement or similarity between them.
* So Dr. Sanday, Gospels in the Second Century, p. 285.

THE DIVINE LOGOS. 153
But to return now to our main line : we have to recall the
fact that the idea of the Logos was intimately connected with
the peculiar mode of conceiving of God which was widely preva
lent in the period to which Philo's life belongs. In the philo
sophical systems of the time, the Deity was conceived of as
having existed from eternity, the absolute fulness and perfection
of being, withdrawn and apart by himself, and incomprehensible
to man. Being, in his essence, an absolutely perfect and imma
terial Spirit, he could not have any immediate contact with
that grosser world which is accessible to human sense. But
how, then, is he to be the Creator and Lord of the universe ?
In this essential disconnection or antagonism between the Self-
existent Mind and things material, how are these to be acted
upon and reduced to obey the will of the Supreme ?
It was by means of his Powers, and by the Logos most
especially among these, that this was conceived to be effected,
and the connection maintained between the hidden and unknown
God and the visible world. Without attempting to enter into
the obscurities of the subject, or to trace the idea of the Logos
to its origin, it is necessary to state that the term has a double
meaning, namely, thought and speech, — denoting, in other words,
that which exists in us first as thought, and also goes forth from
us as words spoken. Again, after this human analogy, a dis
tinction was made between the Logos, as in God, and with
God, — the Divine reason, intellect, thought, also the Divine idea
according to which the visible universe was created, — and the
Logos, as it came forth from God to be the instrument of his
supreme will. Thus from the one point of view, it is the thought
or idea of the Divine Mind; from the other, it is the same
thought or idea manifesting and realizing itself outwardly, —
seen, for example, in what we usually speak of as design, in the
works of nature, — coming forth from Him whom it thus revealed;

154 THE DIVINE LOGOS.
embodying itself in the life, order, beauty and grandeur of the
material universe; and incarnate also, in a sense, in the thoughts
of wise and good men of every age.
According to this exposition, the Logos is the self-revealing
and creative activity of God. It is the manifestation of the
One God, but is not itself a personal being, although, as we shall
see, the strong tendency was to regard it in the latter character.
It comes forth from God, just as a word uttered issues, as it were,
from the mind within, and produces its effect. As when God
said, " Let there be light," the word came forth, the instrument,
and was followed by its effect, — "there was light." In this
conception of the Logos coming forth from the otherwise invi
sible and unknown Source of all, was comprehended not only
creation, but every active relation of God to the world, every
revelation of Him in outward things. There is a great deal that
is obscure and fluctuating in the conception; but this is clear
and constant, namely, that the Logos holds an intermediate
place between God and the world, as the active and efficient
instrument of the Divine will. It is, therefore, in effect, the
true mediator, or medium of communication between God and
man, and not only between God and man, but between Him
and everything that is external to his own Divine nature.
The step was not a great one, nor difficult to take, to the
hypostatizing and the personification of this medium of Divine
activity. That step is already virtually taken by Philo. His
idea of the Logos, in truth, varies between that of a person and
that of a mere attribute of the Infinite Mind or expression
of God's hidden energies. Nevertheless, the language in which
he speaks of it as a distinct personal being is at times so strong
that it is difficult to think that he did not in reality look upon
the Logos in that light. Accordingly, some authors of high
authority have decided that Philo did conceive of the Logos,

VARIETIES OF EXPRESSION. 155
not merely as an imaginary being, a manifestation of divine
power, poetically clothed with personal qualities, but as a real
person* As examples of the varieties of expression which have caused
doubt on this point, the following may be mentioned. As just
noticed, the Logos bears the same relation to the Supreme mind
that speech does to the human ; or it is also the idea or purpose
of the Creator, after the pattern of which the external world was
formed. It is the Divine power or energy in the world ; main
taining all things together in harmony, and being their bond of
law and order. It is the pervading providence which rules and
controls among nations ; the giver of good gifts to men. It is
spoken of as law ; as the moral sense in man ; as the indwell
ing reason : wisdom and goodness especially are its gifts ; and
sometimes it appears to be identical with wisdom, this term
being used for it. In one remarkable passage, in which Philo
allegorizes the six cities of refuge, the Logos clearly appears as
one among other attributes of the Almighty.
In several of these particulars the idea would seem to be
nearly the same with the ancient Hebrew conception of the
Holy Spirit. Elsewhere, however, the Logos is spoken of in very
different terms. It is the agent or instrument by which God
created the world. Philo names it the first begotten Son of
God ;f the image of the Divine perfections ; the mediator
* Speaking of the Logos of Philo, Professor Jowett observes that with that writer
" the idea of the \6yos just ends with a person, or rather leaves us at last in doubt
whether it is not a quality only or mode of operation in the Divine Being. "— Epistles
of St. Paul, I. p. 414. Comp. the careful examination of this question in the recent
work of Dr. James Drummond.— Philo, II. pp. 222, seq. The author decides with
out hesitation against the idea of a real personality.
t Here, in connection with the Alexandrine philosophy, we come to an expression
employed also in the New Testament to designate the Hebrew Messiah, and derived, in
the latter case, from Old Testament sources. {Supra, Chapters XI. XII.) This coinci
dence, in the application of the epithet Son of God to the ChriBt on the one hand and to

156 THE DIVINE LOGOS
between God and men. He regards it as a substitute and
ambassador for God ; a second God ; a God to those imperfect
creatures that are incapable of the knowledge of the Supreme.
The same being, he also tells us, in various phrase, was the source
of the inspiration of the prophets ; and in all the theophanies of
the Old Testament, it was not Jehovah that appeared. For it
would have been impossible to Him and beneath him, to come
into any such close contact with gross matter and sinful men.
It was, therefore, the Logos that was thus manifested, the second
or representative God, taken by ignorant men for the Highest
Being. He it was who not only formed the world out of
matter, but also spoke with Moses in the bush, was present
in the pillar of cloud, and conducted the Israelites from Egypt
to the promised land.
In such expressions as these the distinct personality of the
Logos would seem to be clearly conveyed ; and hence the con
clusion that Philo did really believe in it as a kind of inferior
deity, who stood nearest to the incomprehensible Parent Mind,
and formed the medium of communication between God and
the visible world.
But, on the other hand, Philo was a Jew, and must have
shared the strict belief of his people in the absolute Oneness
and sole Deity of Jehovah. Is it possible, then, that he can
really have regarded the Logos as a separate personality, a
the Logos on the other, would no doubt facilitate the transference of the latter term
to Jesus, with all that it involved. In what sense the application was made in the
first instance {i.e. in the fourth Gospel), will be considered in the next Chapter. The
tendency, in Philo and subsequently, was to personify the Logos ; and the later import
of metaphysical Sonship in time displaced and prevailed over the old Hebraic meaning
of the words Son of God. Accordingly, in the Fathers, from Justin onwards, Jesus is
the Son, not only in the old Hebraic or Messianic sense, but in the new philosophical
sense of being God, i.e. the God Logos; or, as Mr. Donaldson has expressed the same
thing, Jesus "is now for the first time recognized fully and clearly as God ; not merely the
Son of God, but God." {Supra, p. 119.) Comp. Martineau, Seat of Authority, p. 239,
seq. ; also p. 430, seq. ; also J. Estlin Carpenter, First Three Gospels, Chap. iv. § 2 (2).

NOT A SECOND CO-EQUAL GOD. 157
second God ? Justin and later Fathers doubtless did so ; but
they were men of different birth and education from Philo, and
belonged to a very different class as regards religious belief and
feeling. If, under certain philosophical and semi-heathen influ
ences, they could at times forget their monotheistic faith, and go
to the verge or into the depths of ditheism and tritheism, there
appears to be no necessity to suppose that Philo could do the
same. The latter was most probably nothing more than incon
sistent and self-contradictory, and this perhaps only on the
surface, or in his forms of expression.*
One thing appears to be quite certain, and that is, that he did
not intend to recognize a second co-equal God. The Logos,
even in the personal conception of it, was, at all events, regarded
by him as subject and inferior to the Supreme; as His repre
sentative or substitute, indeed, in the government of the world,
and in communication with men, but as being so only by a kind
of delegation or appointment, not by any natural, independent
right or power. And even when he calls it a God, he could do
so in full accordance with ancient Hebrew usage ; for, as before
noticed, in the Old Testament the word Elohim is applied even
to kings and judges. This character, with others equally divine,
was borne by the Logos, which indeed, it must be evident, stood
in a relation to God far more intimate than could be conceived
to belong to any mundane existence, however mighty, however
exalted. Such, then, is a rapid outline of the doctrine of the Logos, as
it was held long before the fourth Gospel was written, and before
* The question whether the Logos in Philo is "a personal being," or only "a pure
abstraction," is somewhat doubtfully decided by Dr. Liddon in the latter sense. He
observes, however, that a study of certain passages will "coovince any unprejudiced
reader that Philo did not know his own mind ; that his Logos was sometimes imper
sonal and sometimes not, or that he sometimes thought of a personal Logos, and
never believed in one." — B. L., pp. 66, 67 (68).

158 EARLIER JEWISH TENDENCIES
Christ himself came forth as a teacher. As to the immediate
influences which might lead a Jewish mind to follow this mode
of speech, it is not necessary here to speak at any length. The
following points, however, may be noticed.
The Jews had long refrained from uttering the divine Name.
In the Targums, or paraphrases of the Old Testament in Chal
dee, made about the time of the birth of Christ, or within the
century following, they have omitted the word Jehovah alto
gether, and have substituted for it the phrase " Memra of Jah,"
or Word of Jah. This expression coincided in a remarkable way
with both the meaning and the use of the term Logos; of which,
as we have seen, the radical idea was, that it served as the out
ward representative of God, and preserved Him, as it were, from
contact with gross matter. Similarly the Memra would conceal
and protect the divine Name. Again, Jews scattered throughout
the East, those living in Ephesus and Alexandria, for instance,
came directly under the influence of the Gentile philosophy—
that peculiar compound of Stoic and Platonic mysticism in
which the Logos doctrine held a prominent place. Thus more
or less Hellenized, they were ready and anxious to prove that
their own sacred Scriptures were also in harmony with true
philosophy, or might rather, indeed, be considered as its primary
fountains. Hence their painful efforts, by means of allegorical
interpretations, to spiritualize the ancient Mosaic history, and to
shew that its representations of the Divine Being and his inter
course with men, as related in the Old Testament, were such as
even a votary of the high philosophy of the day need not
despise. In the Hebrew Scriptures themselves various passages may
be pointed out which would directly favour both the allegorizing
tendencies of the later Jews, and their disposition to adopt the
new way of speaking of God and his manifestation of himself

TO THE LOGOS DOCTRINE. 159
in the world. For example, in Psalm xxxiii. 6, — "By the
Word of Jehovah were the heavens made, and all the host of
them by the breath of his mouth." Yet thi£ alludes, not to the
Logos, but only to the account of the creation, at the beginning
of Genesis. In the Proverbs, again, chapter viii., the Divine
Wisdom is spoken of poetically as a person. It is with God at
the creation of the world, perhaps as his darling child* brought
up beside him, and playing before him. A similar personifi
cation of Folly occurs in the following chapter of the same book.
Dr. Liddon is very careful to point out that Wisdom in the
former passage "is personal." Doubtless it is so, exactly as
Folly is ; and, in both instances, by the poetical licence natural
to an oriental imagination. Had it suited Dr. Liddon's purpose,
he might have informed his readers that Wisdom in this place
is not only personal, but also of the feminine gender, and in one
instance in the Hebrew even plural in form ; — a piece of infor
mation, however, which would scarcely have recommended his
singular suggestion that the personification of this divine attri
bute in the Book of Proverbs was an anticipation of " our Lord's
Divinity." Similar personifications of wisdom were very familiar
to the later Jewish writers, -f-
In the apocryphal book of the Wisdom of Solomon, the Divine
word itself is personified in a remarkable manner ; and perhaps
here it is the Greek doctrine of the Logos that was in the writers'
mind : — " Thine almighty Word leaped down from heaven out
of thy royal throne, as a fierce man of war .... and standing
up filled all things with death; and it touched the heaven,
but it stood upon the earth." In the same book we have the
following : " 0 God of my fathers . . . who hast made all things
with thy word, . . . give me wisdom that sitteth by thy throne."
* Prov. viii. 22—30; ix. 1, 13.
t Wis. Sol. vi. 12—16; vir. 11, 12; ix. 1—4; xviii. 15.. ""5

160 PERSONIFICATION OF WISDOM.
Various other expressions to the same effect might be cited
from the apocryphal books. They concur in shewing that, some
generations before Christ, this peculiar way of speaking of God
and his attributes, and of conceiving of him as acting upon the
world by powers going forth from him and often conceived of as
personal beings, was beginning to prevail among the Jews. In
some cases, these forms of thought and speech may have been
followed independently of the influence of the Greek philosophy.
The ancient Hebrew belief in Angels, as servants and instru
ments of Jehovah, was evidently related to them ; as was also
the later idea of emanations and aeons, so widely accepted
throughout the East, in the centuries immediately before and
after the birth of Christ.
The point, therefore, at which we have arrived is briefly this :
at the time when the Evangelist wrote his Gospel, and long
previously, it was a common and well understood mode of
expression, to speak of the Deity as manifesting himself in the
world, putting forth his creative and inspiring energy, not by
his own immediate presence and action, but by his Logos. By
this term, however, was not originally or properly meant an
independent substantive being, much less a separate or second
God. The essential idea conveyed by it was simply this — that
the Logos was the revealer of the far off and otherwise unknown
Supreme Being. Thus it served also as the medium of com
munication between Him on the one hand, and man and the
world on the other.*
In other words and as before stated, the Logos was simply a
name for the Thought and Volition of God himself in action.
It was indeed called a Son of God, the eldest and first begotten
Son : but even this denoted, at first, an imaginary or figurative
personality — just as we also know that the thoughts and deter-
* See the admissions of Dr. L., infra, Chap. XVII.

WRITERS ON THE LOGOS. 161
minations of men were sometimes, in a similar way, personified
and spoken of as their children.

APPENDIX TO CHAPTER XV.
SOURCES OF INFORMATION RESPECTING THE LOGOS DOOTRINE.
The account above given is founded chiefly upon the collec
tion of original passages from Philo relating to the subject,
published by the late Dr. Pye Smith, in his Scripture Testimony
to the Messiah (Book ii. Chap, vii.), with some addition from the
sections of Gfrorer on the same subject {Philo und die Alexandrin-
ische Theosophie, Capp. 7, 8). I have thought it expedient, in
the present work, to take the evidence bearing on the subject
principally from a writer at once so learned and so orthodox as
the author of the Scripture Testimony. No objection, probably,
will be made to his summary of Philo's doctrine of the Logos as
given in the following passage, — in which, however, the term
Logos should be substituted for Word, the latter being evidently
an inadequate representative of the former : —
"To this object he [Philo] gives the epithets of the Son of God,
the First-begotten Son, the Eldest Son, the Word, the Divine
Word, the Eternal Word, the Eldest Word, the Most Sacred
Word, the First-begotten Word, the Offspring of God, as a
stream from the fountain, the Beginning, the Name of God, the
Shadow of God, the Image of God, the Eternal Image, the Copied
Image, the Express Image of the seal of God, the Branch or
Rising Light, the Angel, the Eldest Angel, the Archangel of
many titles, the Inspector of Israel, the Interpreter of God,
a Representative God, a Second God, a God to those creatures
whose capacities or attainments are not adequate to the con
templation of the Supreme Father. M

162 APPENDIX TO CHAPTER XV.
" This Word is described as presiding over all things ; superior
to the whole universe ; the eldest of all objects that the mind
can perceive, but not comparable to any object perceptible by
sense, nor capable of being presented in a visible form ; next to
the Self-existent.
"To this Word are ascribed intelligence, design, and active
powers ; he is declared to have been the Instrument of the Deity
in the creation, disposition and government of the universe, and
in holding all its component parts in their proper order and
functions, clothing himself with the universe as with a garment :
he is the instrument and medium of divine communications, the
High Priest and Mediator for the honour of God and the benefit
of man, the Messenger of the Father, perfectly sinless himself,
the Beginning and Fountain of virtue to men, their Guide in the
path of obedience, the Protector and Supporter of the virtuous,
and the Punisher of the wicked.
" Yet, the Word is also represented as being the same to the
Supreme Intellect that speech is to the human ; and as being
the conception, idea, or purpose, of the Creator, existing in the
Divine Mind previously to the actual formation of his works." —
Scripture Testimony, I. pp. 566, 567.
The foregoing summary may be illustrated by the following
passage, which, it will be seen, is in harmony with the general
purport of the preceding Chapter. The quoted words form
the final paragraph of the detailed and comprehensive account
of the Logos in the valuable work from which they are taken ;
and will serve as a fitting conclusion to the brief outline of the
subject here presented : —
" This closes our long examination of Philo's doctrine of the
Logos, and our original conclusions remain unimpaired by pas
sages which are generally thought to present such a different
view. From first to last the Logos is the Thought of God,
dwelling subjectively in the infinite Mind, planted out and
made objective in the universe. The cosmos is a tissue of rational

WRITERS ON THE LOGOS. 163
force, which images the beauty, the power, the goodness of its
primeval fountain. The reason of man is this same rational force
entering into consciousness, and held by each man in proportion
to the truth and variety of his thoughts ; and to follow it is the
law of righteous living. Each form which we can differentiate
as a distinct species, each rule of conduct which we can treat as
an injunction of reason, is itself a Logos, one of those innume
rable thoughts into which the universal Thought may, through
self-reflection, be resolved. Thus, wherever we turn, these Words,
which are really Works of God, confront us, and lift our
minds to that uniting and cosmic Thought which, though com
prehending them, is itself dependent, and tells us of that impene
trable Being from whose inexhaustible fulness it comes, of
whose perfections it is the shadow, and whose splendours, too
dazzling for all but the purified intuitions of the highest souls, it
at once suggests and veils."*

CHAPTER XVI.
st. John's doctrine of the logos — its meaning and
permanent value.
On turning to the words of the fourth Evangelist, the first and
inevitable inference from the facts above recounted is, that his
doctrine or statement respecting the Logos is not offered to us as
* Drummond, Philo, II. p. 273.— In the account given in the preceding Chapter
of this wonderful piece of ancient speculation, I have endeavoured simply to include
those broader features which are easily within the reach of the ordinary reader. The
subject in its details is difficult, as may be seen by one who will carefully peruse
the sections relating to it in the work last quoted, and in Dr. Martineau'a Seat of
Authority, p. 399, seq., on the Alexandrine Logos. My own account was written
many years before either of these works was published ; but I believe it will be found
in its main features substantially in harmony with them. (1892.)
M 2

164 doctrine of the logos
a disclosure of new truth. His doctrine of the Logos cannot
therefore be justly regarded in the light of a divine revelation,
as Dr. Liddon regards it, because it was already in the world
long before John wrote his Gospel ; and absolutely nothing is
said by him concerning the origin, the nature, the action, or the
personality, of the Logos, which had not already been said by
others before him.
One thing, however, is peculiar to John, and had never been
said by any one, so far as is now known, before he said it ; and
that is, that " the Logos became flesh and dwelt among us," in
Jesus Christ.
And in saying this we may now perceive, this Evangelist states
in substance what the Synoptists also give us to understand,
though in different terms ; namely, that there was a manifesta
tion of the invisible Being to the world in Jesus : that is to say,
his wonderful powers, his wisdom, and the holy spirit which he
possessed, were from God. The infinite and incomprehensible
One thus revealed himself among men in Jesus Christ. " The
Logos became flesh," became' man, in him ; the Logos which was
in the beginning with God and was God, being indeed, as we
have seen, the Divine Thought itself, by which all things were
conceived and brought into being, in which was the life and
light of men, — this revealer and instrument of the great Parent
Mind was manifested among men in a human form in Jesus
Christ. Here, then, is unquestionably a doctrine of incarnation ; but
how different it is from the ecclesiastical doctrine of the Creeds,
as commonly received, it is unnecessary to point out. And yet
the objection may be raised, that the words of the Evangelist,
*cu o Aoyos o-dp£ iyevero (and the Word became flesh), are too
express and definite to allow us to think that he intended only
to convey the idea of a mere indwelling of God, by the Lo<?os, in

IN THE FOURTH GOSPEL. 165
the person of Jesus ; for that these words, in truth, go beyond
the statement that Jesus was a man specially inspired and "ap
proved of God," through whom divine powers and qualities were
manifested among men. But, in reply, it may reasonably be
urged that the words in question ought not to be understood too
literally. They cannot really mean what they appear to convey,
namely, that the Logos, the exalted spiritual entity so called,
was actually converted into " flesh." Nothing so grossly mate
rial as this can reasonably be attributed to the writer. He
cannot then mean anything more than that the Power called
Logos was the animating, inspiring presence in the man Jesus ;
and that this was in him in some special and extraordinary
manner. Thus far the doctrine of the Gospel may be fairly understood to
mean simply this, that the Spirit or energy of God was specially
manifested among men in a human being, in Jesus Christ. But
here the question may be asked, If the Logos is represented as in
carnate even in this sense, is not this in fact equivalent to saying
that Jesus was God ? This question, in its turn, may be answered
by another. When it is said that the Holy Spirit was given to
an Apostle or a Christian convert, or was in some way manifested
in or by a human being,* does the writer mean to represent that
Apostle, or convert, or holy man of old, as God incarnate ? Con
sidering always what was meant by the term Logos, the cases
appear to be strictly parallel ; and consequently it cannot be
maintained that the representation of the presence or incarnation
of the Logos in Christ can have been intended to lead us to look
upon the latter as the Divine Being in a human form. This
idea is, in truth, unwelcome or even revolting, not only to the
coldest reason, but also to our natural sentiments of reverence
towards God. These prompt the thoughtful mind to shrink from
* Actsii. 17, 22; iv. 31; ix. 17; x. 44-47; xix. 2, 6; 2 Pet. i. 21. |

166 "WHY ST. JOHN ADOPTED
every attempt to conceive of Him under a material form ; and
such sentiments, it may well be believed, nothing but a long
training from early years, and the constant repetition of esta
blished creeds and forms, could avail to overcome, or expel from
the mind.
It would therefore appear that the fourth Gospel, in speaking
of the Logos as incarnate in Jesus, tells us in effect what is
equivalent, in the older Hebrew phraseology, to the statement
that the Holy Spirit was possessed by him ; that the Spirit was
given to him without measure ; or, in the language of Peter at
the Pentecost, before cited, that Jesus of Nazareth was " a man
approved of God," by miracles and wonders and signs, " which
God did by him."
But why, it may next be asked, should this writer employ so
uncommon a mode of stating so simple a fact, when he might
have used the same forms of expression as other speakers and
writers of the New Testament ? The answer will, of course, be
found, partly in the consideration that the Evangelist had now
himself been led to modify or even abandon the older Hebrew
mode of thought on these subjects ; partly in that of the regard
which he would naturally have to the persons for whom, and
amidst whom, he composed his Gospel. In Ephesus, and, indeed,
throughout all the Hellenized East, the peculiar philosophy
and modes of expression respecting God and his relation to the
world, before spoken of, were well known and prevalent among
cultivated persons. One, therefore, who wished to convey to
readers familiar with such conceptions and forms of expression
his own idea, that the power and wisdom of Jesus were from
God, would naturally do so in the language most readily and
clearly declaring this fact to them. This may be said even on
the supposition that the Apostie John (long absent from Pales
tine, and now familiarized with the Logos philosophy) was the

THE LOGOS CONCEPTION. 167
author of the fourth Gospel. It must be added, this supposition
is intended only as provisional, — as is the use, in these pages, of
the name of John to denote the writer of the Gospel*
A reader of the present time cannot, perhaps, fully enter into
the case, for such forms of thought and expression are essentially
remote from our own. The latter are founded largely upon the
more usual tenor of the Scriptures, which teach us to think and
speak of God as of a self-conscious, personal Existence, as One
who is not far removed from the world, but, on the contrary,
ever near us, and without whom not a hair of our heads can fall
to the ground. It is probable, however, that had it been stated
to one imbued with the spirit of the ancient philosophy now
alluded to, that the Invisible Being was in immediate contact
and communion with Jesus of Nazareth, as represented and
implied by the first three Evangelists, such a person would
have regarded the statement as simply an absurdity, and the
alleged fact as an impossibility ; whereas were it stated that
the Divine Logos was in him, this would have appeared to be
in harmony with the nature of things, easily possible and com
prehensible. To this, however, it may seem to be an objection that John
constantly speaks of Jesus as in intimate union with the Father :
the Father is said to dwell in him, and the works which he does,
as well as the words which he speaks, are the Father's.-f In all
probability we ought to understand such expressions in subordi
nation to the declaration at the beginning of the Gospel, that
" the Logos was God." It was God all the time, for that expres
sion was but a name for the self-revealing activity of the One
* See infra, Appendix to Chap. XVII.
t It must be remembered that the relation between God and the Logos was spoken
of as that between a father and a son. Jesus, therefore, as the Logos incarnate is con
sistently made to speak of God as of a Father, with him, in him, acting through him.

168 THE evangelist's meaning when HE SAYS
Supreme. In such expressions, therefore, as those just referred
to, it is everywhere implied, though it was unnecessary to be
constantly repeating it, that it was by the medium of the Logos
that the Father was in Jesus, and did the works and spake the
words which Jesus ascribes to Him.
We may, indeed, even believe that the venerable writer of the
Gospel, in so frequently referring to the intimate union between
Jesus and the Father, was really desirous to guard himself against
•being supposed to intend to represent the Logos as a separate
being from God, a "second God," although he adopted the cur
rent phraseology respecting it. The Evangelist, accordingly, says
repeatedly, or he represents Jesus as saying or implying, that it
was, in truth, the Almighty Father that was with him and in
him, enabling him, as He did, to manifest the power and pre
sence of God among his fellow-men. Hence Christ could even
say, " He that hath seen me hath seen the Father ;" — while yet
the Evangelist declares also, " No man hath seen God at any
time, the only begotten Son which is in the bosom of the Father
he hath declared him."* The sense in which men could "see
the Father" in Christ cannot be doubtful. It was in his Logos
character, as also in his power, in his gracious and merciful
spirit, in the love towards men which he manifested. It was
especially in those Divine moral attributes and qualities of which
the Christian mind usually rejoices to consider Jesus as the
personal embodiment, and as, in respect to these, the " beloved
Son," in whom the Heavenly Father was "well pleased." It
was, and is, in these that Jesus Christ may be thought of as the
true moral image and representative of God to man, and in him
is the Father seen.-)- Certainly it is not in any grosser sense
that he is so, or that the Evangelist can have intended us to
believe that he is so.
* John xiv. 9; i. 18. t Comp. Heb. i. 3; Coloss. i. 15,

that the logos was god. 169
What has just been said may be expressed in different words.
The strong monotheistic faith of a Jewish writer would neces
sarily lead him, notwithstanding the introduction of the Logos
idea, still from time to time to refer all that Christ was and did
to the Father who sent him. If this be true, it leads at once to
the further conclusion, that the real, permanent, underlying
belief of the Evangelist's mind, upon which he raised, as it were,
the superstructure of his Gospel narrative, was a belief in the
simple humanity of Jesus Christ ; and that the latter was the
human medium through which the Divine Being revealed him
self to the world. And this simple view of the subject certainly
harmonizes in a remarkable manner the claims of Reason and
the statements of Scripture, while it fully accounts for the origin
and growth of the orthodox doctrine of the deity of Christ.
And yet the question must now be more definitely asked, Does
the Evangelist, in his first verse, represent the Logos as God, or
does he, after the manner of Philo, speak of it as "a God"?
The same question may be expressed in a different way, thus :
Does the Evangelist, even in the first verse of his Gospel, so
positively assign a separate personality to the Logos, that he
there speaks of it as " a God," as Philo does ? — or does he only
say that the Logos is not different from God, but that it is God,
although he also personifies it, and speaks of it, and makes Jesus
speak, as if it were a distinct personal being, present in him ?
The tenor of the foregoing remarks would lead to the latter
supposition as the true one. We have seen the doubt which
attaches to the representation of Philo, the doubt whether or
not he really regarded the Logos as a distinct personal being,
a second and subordinate God. If, on account of his Jewish
monotheism, that writer cannot be supposed to have done this,
there is manifestly the same reason for thinking that an Evan
gelist of Jewish birth cannot have done so. Hence, if this be

170 peculiar expressions
true, when the latter says, "the Logos was God," he simply
intends us to understand that, although in accommodation to
prevailing modes of thought, he wrote of the manifestation of
God in Christ in accordance with the Logos doctrine, he yet did
not mean that the Logos was a separate being from the One
God, but only the medium, or manifestation, of the Divine
activity ; for that, in truth, " the Logos was God."
According to this interpretation, the word God, Oeos, in the
final clause of John i. 1, is exactly equivalent to the same word as
it is used immediately before. There is, however, this difference:
in the one case we have the article, and in the other it is absent.
The difference is not without importance, and it was noted by
Origen and Eusebius that the absence of the article before 0eo's,
in the second clause of the verse, indicates that this word may
be used here in a secondary sense ; and that the Logos accord
ingly is not represented as Supreme God.* But this, again, is
not absolutely certain, although, according to the testimony of
these Fathers, it is perfectly admissible. The word 6eo% being
in the predicate of the sentence, would grammatically stand
without the article, and may, therefore, be simply equivalent to
the preceding rbv dedv.
In the presence of this doubt, recourse may be had to expres
sions which occur later in the Gospel, and they will be found to
throw light on the point in question. And it must be admitted
that various passages occur which tend strongly to shew that
the Evangelist did, at least occasionally, give himself up to the
conception of the Logos as a real personal existence, separate
from God, and become flesh in Jesus Christ; that he did so
quite as decidedly as Philo might have done ; and that he,
* Passages to this effect from the two Fathers are given by Tischendorf, crit. note,
Johni. 1. (N. T., 8th ed.) Philo has a similar remark as to the subordinate force
of Qioe. without the article. Comp. Meyer on the words 9iog rp> o Ao-yog ; also Drum-
mond, Philo, II. p. 196.

OF THE FOURTH EVANGELIST. 171
therefore, in his first verse intended only to say, "the Logos
was a God."
For example, the following passages: "No man hath ascended
up to heaven, but he that came down from heaven;" "I came
down from heaven not to do mine own will, but the will of him
that sent me;" "Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say
unto you, Before Abraham was, I am;" "Now, 0 Father,
glorify thou me ... . with the glory which I had with thee
before the world was ;" the exclamation of Thomas, "My Lord
and my God." * It may be observed that this last passage is the
only instance in the Gospel in which the term "God" is addressed,
or applied in any way, to Jesus personally, — if it be so here.
But, indeed, the words in question may be only a general excla
mation of astonishment. As, however, the conception of the
Evangelist is that the Logos was in Jesus, the application of the
words Lord and God to him in this instance is accounted for;
and be it noted this interpretation of them would indicate the
late composition of the Gospel. (See Notes on Rom. ix. 5, infra)
Such expressions, then, and some others which occur, would
appear to shew that the Evangelist at times conceived of the
Logos, not as a mere power or manifestation, but as a personal
being, present in Jesus; and that he also represents the latter
as speaking in accordance with this conception, as he would
naturally do.
Those who take this view of the subject, and who also con
sider this Evangelist's representation as that which they ought
to receive, rather than that of the Apostle Peter and the three
Synoptists, will adopt in substance what is commonly termed the
Arian doctrine of the person of Christ and his relation to God —
according to which he was the incarnation upon earth of a great
* John iii. 13; vi. 38; viii. 58; xvii. 5; xx. 28. Comp. viii. 42; xiii. 3;
xvi. 27. John iii. 13 may be a parenthesis, added by the Evangelist.

172 AGREEMENT AND DIFFERENCE
pre-existent spirit, of divine nature, the first of all created exist
ences, and the instrument of the Almighty power in the creation
of the universe.
One thing, at all events, is very clear. There is no evidence
in the fourth Gospel, when read, as it ought to be, in the light
of those local and contemporary considerations before referred
to, — there is no evidence in this Gospel for the popular view of
the person of Christ ; — according to which he is not the Son of
God, but "God the Son," an expression never found in the Bible;
— according to which, again, he is co-eternal with the Father, in
all respects his equal, one God with Him, in a sort of incompre
hensible co-partnership of Deity, while yet in some inexplicable
sense distinct from him, and from the Holy Spirit — as much so,
according to the comparison of Bishop Sherlock, as three human
beings, Peter, James and John, are separate and distinct from one
another. Explain it away, as some may seek to do, such appears
to be the Athanasian doctrine of the Trinity as set forth by the
Church of England and understood by ordinary people, in accord
ance with the obvious meaning of the words employed. In the
fourth Gospel, there is clearly nothing to justify such a doctrine
as this ; for everywhere throughout this Gospel, the Father is the
One Supreme, and the Son, or Divine Logos in Jesus, is the
subordinate, whose very words are not his own, and who can do
nothing of himself.
There is, however, another conclusion, which perhaps brings
us more nearly to the truth. We have seen that the idea of the
Logos was by no means a constant quantity, but variable, and
sometimes almost self-contradictory. This is without doubt the
case in the various expressions of Philo, according to whom it
is sometimes a power, an inspiration, and sometimes a person, a
second God. Is there not something of the same indefiniteness
and variableness of conception in the Evangelist's statement

BETWEEN ST. JOHN AND PHILO. 173
also? May he not, in short, while he really believed in the
Logos as simply the Divine power and wisdom in Jesus, yet
at times also allow himself to speak of it as a substantive being,
living and acting among men in the human personality of the
man Jesus ?
If such be the case, it should still be observed that this latter
mode of conception is only exceptional and temporary ; and that
the Evangelist constantly recurs to the true and natural relation
subsisting between God and Christ, *• — agreeing in substance
with the Synoptists in representing the Father as the original
Source and Sender, and Jesus the Christ as the recipient and
the sent.
But here it is necessary to acknowledge, more distinctly than
has yet been done, the difference which there is, in some impor
tant respects, between the Jewish Philo and the Christian
Apostle, notwithstanding the nature and extent of the agree
ment above indicated. Some amount of difference, more or
less decided, was clearly to be expected, considering the cha
racter and the circumstances of the two writers. What is
referred to has been recently pointed out by M. Pressense, as
it is by Dr. Liddon, by each in terms which will be found a
little stronger than strict accuracy would warrant.-)- Some
difference, nevertheless, there is. While Philo is so largely
metaphysical and allegorical, the Evangelist is more practical
and moral. But whatever the difference now spoken of may
amount to, it is clear that, in regard to the general subject of the
Logos, the sameness of the representation in the Evangelist and
in Philo is not to be denied. Everything that is said in the proem
* See, for example, the narrative of the interview with the Samaritan woman ;
that of the restoration to sight of the blind man, and that of the raising of Lazarus.
John iv. ix. xi.
t Pressense, Jesus Christ, Book i. Chapters iii. iv. B. L., pp. 68, 229.

174 THE REAL CHARACTER
had already been said by Philo, and a great deal more. What
he does not say, has been duly pointed out, namely, that the
Logos became flesh in Jesus of Nazareth. And here, as before,
and indeed at every point in the discussion, it is to be remem
bered that the doctrine of the Logos was not introduced, but
only adopted, by the writer of the Gospel, as a convenient
medium of expression. An old doctrine of the Grseco-oriental
philosophy cannot with any reason be regarded as a divine
revelation, being, in truth, the mere product of human specu
lation, — and, shall we not add, of human misconception ?
It will now be well briefly to recapitulate what has been said
in this and the two preceding Chapters. It is evident that at
an early period — that is to say, towards the close of the first
century, and probably for long afterwards — the relation between
God and Christ was contemplated under two very different
aspects, according to the education and the habits of thought of
the disciple. One of these aspects we find in the three Gospels
of Matthew, Mark and Luke, in the Acts of the Apostles, and in
most of the Epistles. It is also represented by what Peter said
of his departed Master on the day of Pentecost, as before
pointed out. It is the more literal and simple view of the case,
closely corresponding to the facts. It shews us clearly all that
Jesus was in his human life, and gives us the first fresh impres
sion which he left on his immediate friends and disciples. It
is also in true harmony with the natural or Christian mode of
thought and speech respecting God, that, namely, which is
exemplified by Christ himself; according to which the Infinite
is not a Being that dwells far apart from the children of men,
bearing no direct relation to them, the fundamental idea of the
Logos philosophy — but One who is near to us when we call
upon him, who is merciful and gracious, and not only Creator
and God, but also the Heavenly Father and Friend of man.

OF THE LOGOS CONCEPTION. 175
The other aspect is that which is found in the fourth Gospel
most conspicuously ; though it is not confined to that, but appears
also in the first Epistle of John, and in the introduction to the
Epistle to the Hebrews. This second form of belief arose after
Jesus had passed away from the earth. It does not represent
so directly and freshly the impression of what he was, as left by
him on his immediate companions. It is the product rather of
those obscure philosophical ideas, respecting the nature of God,
and his manifestations of himself, which so widely prevailed
both before and after the commencement of the Christian era,
and which gave origin to much that is still retained in the
popular theological systems of the present day. For it is, in
truth, to the same source that the world owes the doctrine of
the Trinity, — of which, as already shewn, there is no real trace
in the New Testament, not even in connection with the doctrine
of the Logos.
From special causes, again, this view of the subject was
adopted by the fourth Evangelist. Yet this came to pass in
such a way, that the new doctrine can only be regarded as an
extraneous element, introduced into the primitive Christianity*
It will therefore, of necessity be dropped again, as the progress
of knowledge brings men back to simpler and truer ideas of the
historical Christ, and of the relation between him and God, and
between God and the world. In all probability, however, the
same element materially assisted the early diffusion of Chris
tianity, rendering it possible for the Hellenized world of the first
and following centuries after Christ to admit the divinity of
his mission, without contradicting the established principles of
human knowledge, as then understood.
Still, the doctrine referred to is not in itself a permanent
expression of divine truth. It stands in the same relation to
* Comp. Hatch, Hibbert Lectures, 1888, Lecture I.

176 THE REAL CHARACTER
us as the ancient belief in the stability of the earth and the
motion of the sun. This belief and similar things (for example,
diabolical possessions), are also found in the Bible, assumed and
implied in the Christian teaching, mere relics of the imperfect
natural science of early times. But the modern disciple is at
liberty to separate such ideas from what is truer and more per
manent, and lay them aside in his estimates of the character
and value of Christianity. And- so he should endeavour to do,
in regard to that peculiar mode of expressing the relation of
Jesus to God on which we have been dwelling. He should
allow for that also as a human and non-essential product of
the times. And when this is done, the substantial residue of
truth which remains is this, — that Jesus of Nazareth was one
"approved of God," in the estimation of those who were the
eye-witnesses of his life, by the possession of special gifts and
graces ; that the Holy Spirit was poured without measure upon
him; that Jesus has "shewn us the Father." There is still
left, therefore, all that is necessary to form the basis of Chris
tianity, regarded as an expression of the divine will, and of the
paternal love and mercy of the invisible Creator, through and in
the life and mind of Jesus Christ.

CHAPTER XVII.
dr. liddon's exposition of the logos doctrine.
The account above given of the meaning and use of the term
Logos, and of the ideas connected with it, will be sufficient to
shew how vain the attempt must be to construct the ordinary
ecclesiastical doctrine of the deity of Christ upon the representa-

of the logos doctrine. 177
tions of the fourth Gospel. It is, nevertheless, to be noticed that,
in Dr. Liddon's judgment, this Gospel is the great stronghold of
that doctrine. " It is undeniable," he says, " that the most
numerous and direct claims to Divinity on the part of our Lord
are to be found in the Gospel of St. John;" and again, "St.
John's Gospel is the most conspicuous written attestation to
the Godhead" of Christ.* Doubtless this is so ; and with the
evidence, therefore, which has been laid before the reader, shew
ing that this Gospel is not really to be cited as a witness for the
orthodox side of this great argument, this part of the subject
might now be closed. There are, however, a few passages of the
Gospel which have not yet come specially into view, and to
which Dr. Liddon attaches great importance. It will, therefore,
be desirable briefly to notice these in the light of the preceding
exposition, as well as in connection with Dr. Liddon's own
account of the Logos, and thus endeavour to ascertain how
far the preceding statements help us to their adequate inter
pretation. On the question so much debated of the authorship of this
Gospel, it is not necessary here to enter at any length. Dr.
Liddon gives a rapid summary of the evidence which tends to
attribute the work to John. He brings forward, it will be seen,
such evidence as belongs to the positive side of the question.
The very grave difficulties which attach to some of that evidence,
and the very strong case which may be presented on the other
side, he does not at all adequately notice. It would be much
out of place to enter minutely into the question in these pages.
It is sufficient to observe, that there can be no reasonable doubt
as to the existence of the Gospel as a piece of Christian literature
in the earlier decades of the second century. But there is no
direct evidence to shew that it was at that time spoken of, or
* B. L., pp. 207, 208 (209).
N

178 question of the authenticity
known, as a work of John the Apostle.* Nevertheless, it is
a document which comes down to us from the heart of Christian
antiquity. It is a witness, therefore, of the greatest weight to
the belief of an important part of the Christian community early
in the second century. The question as to the actual person of
the writer is one, perhaps, of only secondary importance; inas
much as the real value of the Gospel must depend upon its
internal character, and the possibility of reconciling its state
ments with those of the Synoptics.f
And this reconciliation can evidently be effected in the way
which has been pointed out. The two modes of representation
may be harmonized, by accepting the narrative of the fourth
Gospel as substantially equivalent to the statements of the
Synoptics — to the effect that Jesus was the possessor of special
gifts conferred upon him from on high ; that it was God's power
and wisdom in him that enabled him to be what he was, and to
do what he did. But the representation of the fourth Evangelist
cannot be truly harmonized with the earlier Gospels, if the Logos
doctrine be taken, as it is by orthodox theologians, to be any
thing more than a peculiar mode of conceiving of the same
relation between God and Christ which the synoptical writers
exhibit. The two forms of statement cannot be truly harmo
nized, if the conception of the Logos as a distinct personality be
admitted to correspond to anything that is real in the nature or
mode of the Divine existence ; if, that is to say, the Gospel be
supposed to represent the incarnate Logos not merely as the
manifestation of the " Only true God," but as a second Divine
* See J. J. Tayler on the Fourth Gospel, 2nd ed., 1870, §§ vii. and xi. : also
Martineau, Seat of Authority, p. 189, seq. Is not the date assigned to the Gospel in
this work somewhat too late, if at least Tatian's use of it, and other indications of its
existence early in the second century, be duly taken into account ?
+ See, on the conservative side of this question, Archdeacon Watkins, Bampton
Lectures, 1888; and compare infra, Appendix to this Chapter, See also the able
defence of the authenticity in Dr. Salmon's Introduction to N.T.

OF THE FOURTH GOSPEL. 179
personality — virtually, in other words, a " second God." There is
no trace of this, nothing that corresponds to this, in the Synoptics,
but much that is strongly opposed to it. Moreover, in the latter
case, the Christian world would evidently owe the revelation of
the Divine nature, not to Christianity at all, but to Philo and
Greek philosophy — a consideration which ought to be a fatal
objection to the ordinary view of this subject with all who
receive Christianity as in any sense a divine revelation. In the
presence, too, of so strong a disharmony between John and the
Synoptics, it would be very safe to say that the fourth Evan
gelist must, sooner or later, be looked upon as the less credible
witness, in any impartial inquiry as to the person and work of
Christ. In accordance, however, with the foregoing exposition, this
Evangelist's evidence as to the life of Christ is of equal weight
and compass with that of. the three earlier Gospels, though so
different in details. It follows also that the various expressions
in which John's idea of the relation between Christ and God is
conveyed should receive careful consideration, and should have
due importance attached to them. A few of these, not as yet
adequately noticed, will now come before us.
In the first place, the account above given of the philosophical
conception of _ the Logos is in essential harmony with that of
Dr. Liddon, although the conclusions here drawn are so different
from his. This will be seen from the following passage, which,
although in one or two points soarcely intelligible, contains pro
bably as good a description of the Logos idea as it is possible
to give in so few words : " St. John's doctrine of the Logos has
from the first been scrutinized anxiously by the mind of Chris
tendom. It could not but be felt that the term Logos denotes
at the very least something intimately and everlastingly present
with God, something as internal to the Being of God as thought
N 2

180 DR. liddon's account
is to the soul of man. In truth, the Divine Logos is God reflected
in His own eternal Thought ; in the Logos, God is His own
Object. This Infinite Thought, the reflection and counterpart
of God, subsisting in God as a Being or Hypostasis, and having
a tendency to self-communication- — such is the Logos. The
Logos is the Thought of God, not intermittent and precarious
like human thought, but subsisting with the intensity of a per
sonal form. The very expression seems to court the argument
of Athenagoras, that since God could never have been aAoyos, the
Logos must have been, not created, but eternal. It suggests the
further inference, that since reason is man's noblest faculty, the
Uncreated Logos must be at least equal with God  But was
the Logos then an independent being, existing externally to the
One God? To conceive of an independent being, anterior to
creation, would be an error at issue with the first truth of mono
theism ; and therefore Geos rjv 6 Ao'yos. The Word is not merely
a Divine Being, but He is in the absolute sense God."*
Now these statements are doubtless substantially correct; and
they clearly amount to the Evangelist's proposition that the
Logos was God. The Logos, as formerly shewn, and as Dr.
Liddon here expressly says, is "the Thought of God;" but
"subsisting in God," he adds, "as a Being or Hypostasis."
What is meant by these extraordinary words ? What can they
mean, except that the Logos, being simply "the thought of
God," was yet speculatively conceived of and represented as " a
being or hypostasis"? It cannot surely be affirmed that the
Divine "thought" was something "subsisting with the intensity
of a personal form," otherwise than by a kind of poetical licence
of conception ? The above words, therefore, so far as they have
* Liddon, B. L., pp. 228, 229 (230). The above denial of the independent existence
of the Logos may be compared with the Anglican worship of Christ. See the Prayer
Book, passim.

OF THE LOGOS DOCTRINE. 181
a definite sense, mean that the Logos was no other than the
Thought of the Divine mind ; and, this, within the limits
formerly pointed out, is doubtless a true account of it. It
plainly follows, that the Logos was eternal, — in accordance with
the self-evident proposition quoted by Dr. Liddon, that " God
could never have been d'Aoyos, or without thought." It follows
also that "the uncreated Logos must be at least equal with God."
It could not well be more ! The simple truth is better stated in
the Evangelist's own words, ku 0eos rjv 6 Aoyos : —the Logos was
really God in His outward manifestation by the words and deeds
of the human Christ.
In another passage Dr. Liddon speaks of the terms Word and
Son as "metaphors."* This, it is clear, they are essentially;
but, as he thinks, they counterbalance and correct each other.
" Each metaphor reinforces, supplements, and protects the
other." It may, however, be asked, Can any combination of
two " metaphors" make up a " personal subsistence distinct from
that of the Father," such as Dr. Liddon claims for the " Son-
Word"? And how can that which the Word, according to our
author himself, really denotes, namely, the "Eternal Thought or
Reason," be taken, in any rational sense whatever, as a separate
"personal subsistence," so as to be conceived of and worshipped
as a distinct being under a different name, as a second and
co-equal God ? This most weighty question is not duly con
sidered by Dr. Liddon. The statement of it is, in effect, a
virtual refutation of this part of the orthodox scheme, according
to this exposition of it ; and, until a satisfactory reply can be
furnished, truly it will be best to adhere very closely to the
words of the Teacher, and to remember still that with him, as
* B.L., p. 234 (236). It will not be forgotten that Dr. Liddon has formerly urged
that Jesus Christ is the Son in a "natural sense." Here he tells us, "Son" is a
metaphor. Are the two statements consistent with eaoh other ?

182 DR. LIDDON'S ACCOUNT
with Moses of old, the " first of all the commandments " is this,
" The Lord our God is One Lord."
It has been noticed that the Evangelist, by his mode of speak
ing, guards against the possibility of being supposed to imperil
his monotheistic faith. " The Father " is everywhere supreme,
the true original source of power and thought even to the incar
nate Logos. " The words which ye hear are not mine, but the
Father's which sent me:" and the works which Christ does
are equally by the power of the Father. " My Father is greater
than I " — Logos incarnate though he was ; and the Evangelist
represents him, in solemn and private prayer, as addressing the
Heavenly Father as "the Only True God." In reference to such
expressions, Dr. Liddon justly observes that it would have been
something strange and monstrous to represent a mere man as
saying of the Infinite, "My Father is greater than I." Most
readers will fully assent to the remark. Nor does the Evan
gelist say this of any ordinary man. He says it of one whom,
for the moment, he conceives of as the Christ by virtue of the
indwelling of the divine Logos. He, therefore, in effect, gives
us to understand, that even the Logos, conceived of as come
forth from God and present in Christ, is less than the Father,
subordinate to the Father, from whom he is come.
In this way of speaking, it may be urged, is there not some
degree of inconsistency on the part of the Evangelist, especially
if he says, in the first verse of his Gospel, that the Logos was
God? For in that case, does he not, in one sentence, repre
sent the Logos as no other than God — therefore, it is to be
understood, equal with God, and to be honoured as God ; and in
another, does he not speak of it as if it were a separate existence
present in the person of Jesus, and inferior to the Father ; the
latter, again, being in another passage "the only true God,"
whom the true worshippers are to worship in spirit and in truth?

OF THE LOGOS DOCTRINE. 183
Such questions may without doubt be asked ; for difficulties of
this kind appear to be inherent in the subject ; and they are
certainly not relieved by " hypostatizing " the Logos into a
divine person, the second and co-equal member of a triple
Godhead. In the next place, it is observable that Dr. Liddon fails to
distinguish sufficiently between the Logos, conceived of as being
in Jesus, and the person of the latter. He says, for example :
" Taking the prologue of St. John's Gospel in connection with
the verses which immediately succeed it, let us observe that
St. John attaches to our Lord's Person two names which toge
ther yield a complete revelation of His Divine glory. Our Lord
is called the 'Word ' and the ' Only-begotten Son.'"*
Now this statement appears to be far from correct. The
Evangelist evidently does not attach to " our Lord's person " the
name Word; what he says is that the "Word became flesh,"
that is, in Jesus Christ. The Word, he also says, was God (or,
a God) ; but he nowhere says that Jesus Christ was personally
God ; nor does he anywhere even term Jesus the Word, that is
to say, apply the term Word to him personally in place of his own
proper name. This was a later development of the Logos doctrine,
as may be seen in Justin.
The same oversight occurs more than once on the part of
our author. Thus he asks, " How can we account for St. John's
conduct in representing him as God, if he was in truth only
man ? " — and he afterwards speaks of the exaggeration which
it would have been, on the part of the Evangelist, to transform
"a human friend into the Almighty and Everlasting God."-f-
The reply is, that St. John does not do this. He nowhere
represents Jesus Christ as personally God ; or gives us to think
that he designed to transform " a human friend " into Almighty
* B. L., p. 226 (228). t Ibid., pp. 269 (272).

184 DR. LIDDON'S ACCOUNT
God. This is what Dr. Liddon, in obedience to orthodox neces
sities, does for him. What the Evangelist says is this, that the
Logos was God and " became flesh " in Jesus of Nazareth, speak
ing and acting in and through him, — even as St. Paul also, in
one instance, says that " God was in Christ," — and as, again, the
Holy Spirit itself is elsewhere said to be in human agents, and
to act and speak in and through them. And yet no one ever
conceives that these human agents are meant to be represented,
by any New Testament writer, as transformed into Deity, by
virtue of that presence in them of the Divine power.
As before seen, Dr. Liddon attaches great importance to the
expressions " Son," and " only-begotten Son," as applied to Christ;
and he remarks that, in virtue of his " Sonship," the bearer of
that title is " a partaker of that incommunicable and imperish
able Essence which is sundered from all created life by an
impassable chasm." It has been in substance admitted that such
a statement may be true of the Logos, conceived of as a personal
being. Clearly it might be thus described, by one who was
willing to attribute personality to it, even by way of "metaphor"
only ; and it was also " only-begotten " — there was only one
divine Logos (at least in the Gospel) — though the term logos
is not withheld from certain other powers or attributes of the
Divine Being, regarded as outward manifestations of God.
Hence, again, the epithet, which it would appear that even
orthodox translators are unwilling to repeat in an English ver
sion, the epithet "only-begotten God," which is the reading
of the Sinaitic and Vatican manuscripts, and a few others, in
John i. 18* The Nicene Fathers, and the copyists of their
century, were evidently less fastidious, or more uncompromis
ingly orthodox, than modern theologians.
* B. L., p. 234 (236). Comp. the rendering and the margin of R.V. This margin
ought to have run, not " God only-begotten," but " an only-begotten God : " bo literally.

OF THE LOGOS DOCTRINE. 185
The word '¦ only-begotten," as used of the Logos, doubtless
implied the peculiar and intimate relation to God of which
Dr. Liddon speaks. But when either the term Son, or " beloved
Son," is used of Jesus in the Synoptics, it designates him simply,
as formerly pointed out, in his character of Messiah, regarded as
pre-eminently the beloved, the chosen and favoured instrument
of the Almighty Father* The idea of participation in the
incommunicable Essence of the Divine nature, is an idea which
most probably never occurred to the Evangelists, in reference to
the human Jesus of Nazareth. At least Dr. Liddon will render
a service to this discussion, if he can produce any passage from
their narratives in which it appears really to have done so. The
word " only-begotten," in its peculiar sense, is used of Jesus (or
rather the Logos) in John alone of the four Gospels.f
The reader may again be reminded that the term Son, in its
relation to God, is not applied to Jesus only, for that Christian
disciples also are designated by the same term. Sonship, there
fore, when affirmed of him, cannot necessarily of itself denote
participation in the "incommunicable Essence," of which our
author speaks. The latter, indeed, himself acknowledges it to
be probable that many of our Lord's contemporaries applied
the title of Son to him only as an official designation of the
Messiah.j The metaphysical use of that title by Christians
belongs to a later generation ; and the admission just alluded to
virtually concedes the question of meaning — excepting always
as regards the fourth Gospel. It shews too, as plainly as need
be, that no conclusive argument for the deity of Christ can be
founded upon the application to him of the word Son,
* Comp. Matt. iii. 17; xii. 18; xvii. 5; Mark i. 11; ix. 7; Luke iii. 22; ix. 35.
T The Synoptics have the term " only-begotten," but not in connection with Jesus,
It usually expresses the sense of strongly, dearly beloved, as an only child : Luke
vii. 12; viii. 42 ; ix. 38 ; Heb. xi. 17, of Isaac. t B. L., p. 247 (249).

186 DR. liddon's account
In harmony with the Johannean idea of Sonship as belonging
to the Logos, the fourth Evangelist introduces several expres
sions, which are often considered of great importance as denot
ing the equality of Jesus Christ with the Divine Father. " All
men shall honour the Son even as they honour the Father."*
This could evidently be said in reference to the Son (and even
to Jesus himself) in his character as the Logos, the manifestation
and the messenger of God. In one instance, however, the reason
assigned by the Evangelist is a very significant one. It is that
" the Father has committed all judgment unto the Son." Thus
the obligation to honour the Son, in the Evangelist's idea, fol
lows upon the representative character which the Father has
given to him.
And this is in harmony with what is found in other places.
" My Father worketh hitherto, and I work : " said of the miracle
which had just been done on the sabbath. The speaker justifies
the deed, not merely as one of his own working, but by referring
it to the Higher power by which he had performed it. The
expression shews that the Evangelist conceived of the power of
Christ, not as something independently in him, but as a derived
power — thus again excluding the idea of a co-equal participation
in Divine attributes.
When, on the same occasion, in consequence of what he had
just said, the Jews impute to him the presumption of "making
himself equal with God," he replies in language which strongly
repels the charge, and affirms that his power is given to him :
" The Son can no nothing of himself." f So, in a later verse, the
life of the Son is his by the gift of the Father, — it is his, that is
to say, by virtue of the Divine power conceived to be in him.
He adds (v. 30), " I can of mine own self do nothing." Whether
* B. L., p. 182 (184). See John v. 10—23.
T Johnv. 19, 26; comp. vi. 39, 40; viii. 28, 29.

OF THE LOGOS DOCTRINE. 187
it be the human agent that here speaks, or the Logos in him, it
is clear that he could only act through the power bestowed on
him by the indwelling energy of the One Supreme.
In this exposition, it may indeed be said, there is too much
shifting of the personality ; the human Jesus, apparently, some
times speaking, and sometimes the Logos. This is not to be
denied ; and whatever objection it may form to the Evangelist's
narrative, or however incompatible it may seem with clearness
of ideas, it serves, at all events, to shew us that there is a
certain unreality in the whole representation, — that it is a mode
of conception only, not literally corresponding to anything in the
relation between Christ and God. In other words, as our author
admits, the whole idea of the Logos is a kind of "metaphor."
For the peculiarity referred to, the modern expositor is in no
way responsible. He can only read and interpret the Evange
list's language as he finds it.
In one passage of the Gospel the following words occur:
" This is life eternal, that they might know thee, the only true
God, and Jesus Christ whom thou hast sent."* On this it has
been observed, "The knowledge of God and a creature could
not be eternal life." So Dean Alford, quoted approvingly by
Dr, Liddon. But, in the first place, the Logos in Jesus is not a
creature; and in the second place, if it be answered that it is not
here the Logos that speaks, " but Jesus Christ whom thou hast
sent," still it is evident that the knowledge of Jesus Christ was,
in this mode of conception, the same thing as the knowledge of
the divine Logos in him; and moreover that knowledge, whether
it were of the Logos or of the human Jesus in his teaching and
works, is "life eternal" by the gift and permission of God.
"What creature," again, it is asked, "could stand before his
Creator and say, Glorify me that I may glorify Thee?" It
* John xvii. 3; comp. R.V.; B. L., p. 237 (240).

188 DR. liddon's account
would certainly be presumptuous* in any ordinary creature to say
this ; unless, as represented by the Evangelist, the Divine will
had so appointed that it should be ; and Jesus declares, in John
as in the Synoptics, that all his power and wisdom, and the
words which he spake, are given to him from above, f
The claim to the most intimate metaphysical union with the
Father occurs, it need not be added, in the Fourth Gospel only;
it is in harmony with the conception upon which that Gospel is
composed, or is even demanded by it. But while this is admitted,
it is also true that all such statements as these partake of the
essential non -reality and the metaphorical character which
attach to the Logos conception ; — which attach to it as being in
truth only a peculiar and temporary mode of expressing the
relation between God and Christ, and between God and the
world. Dr. Liddon insists upon the importance of the expression,
"I and my Father are one."! But the Logos could speak thus
with peculiar force and truth; although it may well be that
what is expressed is simply the idea of oneness of design,
co-operation and affection, on the part of the human Jesus.
The unbelieving Jews, indeed, as we read in the same place,
" took up stones to stone him," on account of this declaration
of his oneness with God. They chose to consider it blasphe-
* Here a friend reminds me of an interesting parallel to the prayer of Jesus, in the
noble hymn of Cleanthes, addressed to Jupiter : . . . . Sag di Kvprjoai rVi6/«)c ....
*O0p' av rifiTjQsvreg afiEiGtopeoQa as rtuy — " Give us to attain wisdom, that we,
being ourselves honoured, may repay thee with honour." These words and their con
text afford a sufficient answer to the above question of Dr. Liddon, and shew that
there could be no presumption in the words of Jesus, but rather the truest humility.
He, like the Greek philosopher, asked to be himself glorified, only that he might be
the better qualified to glorify God. — For Cleanthes, see Drummond, Philo, I. p. 88;
comp. the quotation of words from the Hymn, Acts xvii. 28.
t John xi. 21, 22 ; xvii. 6—9 ; Matt. ix. 8 ; xxviii. 18.
X John x. 31 ; comp. 1 Cor. iii. 8, 9, and see Ps. lxxxii, 1, 6.

OF THE LOGOS DOCTRINE. 189
mous, and alleged again that he, being a man, made himself God.
But he immediately shews them that this was an unfounded
accusation. He, the man Jesus, had not made himself God,
even though he may have meant to imply that the divine
power in him was one with God. All that he claimed for
himself was the character of one to whom the word of God
came : " If he called them gods," he says, " unto whom the word
of God came" .... say ye of me that I blaspheme when I
called myself — not God, but simply — the Son of God ?
It is observed by Dr. Liddon, that " if our Lord had been, in
reality, only man, he might have been fairly expected to say so."
But, plainly, to the Evangelist's idea he could not have been
"only man," and could not be expected to say so. He constantly
speaks, according to the representation, not only for himself, but
for the Logos in him ; or rather he had so to speak as to recon
cile the claims of both ; and this the Evangelist represents him
as doing. Any difficulty or inconsistency involved in the mode
in which this is done is not of the reader's making. It is
inherent in the nature of the subject, in the original conception
according to which this Gospel is written.
Once more, our author cites the passage in which Jesus
appears to speak of himself as " iu heaven," even while present
upon earth, and refers to it as an illustration of the two spheres
of existence which belonged to him as "both God and man."
That he speaks of himself as having come down from heaven
appears to be certain.* Such expressions are found exclusively
in John, and are in harmony, as before, with the leading idea of
the Gospel. The Logos, for which Jesus so often speaks, or
which, as we may also say, so often speaks through him, had
come down from heaven ; " became flesh " in him. But the
words expressing that he was in heaven " while yet speaking"
* John vi. 33, 38.

190 DR. LIDDON'S ACCOUNT OF THE LOGOS DOCTRINE.
to Nicodemus, are well known to be, in one sense, of a doubtful
character. Are they not parenthetical ? The fourth Evangelist
is fond of parentheses* The words, " the Son of man, which is
in heaven," or perhaps even the entire verse, may therefore be
an addition of this kind, affirming the existence of the risen
Christ in heaven, not when Jesus was speaking to Nicodemus,
but when the Evangelist was writing. Certainly it comes too
near to pure paradox, and puts too great a strain upon rational
faith, to represent him as saying that he was in heaven while
he was conversing with Nicodemus. If this were the meaning,
the latter must be admitted to have received the announcement
very calmly ; while yet we are told that he had only learnt to
consider Jesus as " a teacher come from God," for that no man
could do the miracles which he had done, "unless God were
with him."
There is an expression in the Book of Acts, to which Dr.
Liddon attributes a surprising degree of importance. It is the
verse in which God is said to have purchased the Church " with
his own blood."-)- The manuscript authority for this expression
is certainly insufficient ; and some of the best manuscripts read
"church of the Lord," that is to say, of Jesus Christ.^ It is
indeed true that the two reputed to be the oldest, the Sinaitic
and the Vatican, read " church of God"; but, on the other hand,
those documents are stated by the highest critical authorities to
come down from the fourth century, a period of active contro
versy respecting the person of Christ, and one in which it was
decreed by a council that he is " God of God." The " blood " of
" God " may have been a bearable expression to the Christians
of that century of ignorance and superstition. It is more than
probable that our times will increasingly revolt from it, and
* For example, iii. 23, 24 ; iv. 2, 8 ; vii. 39 ; ix. 7.
t Acts xx. 28. B. L., p. 325. J So Tischendorf, in his 8th ed.

AUTHORSHIP OF THE FOURTH GOSPEL. 191
come at last to see that even the authority of the two oldest
manuscripts is insufficient to justify its acceptance. It is not to
be forgotten that the Alexandrine, and other excellent manu-
scrips of the fifth and later centuries, which have the reading
" Lord," must have copied this from documents still older than
themselves. Probably both readings existed in early MSS., and
there can be no doubt as to the readiness of the fourth century
to substitute the more orthodox term*

APPENDIX TO CHAPTER XVII.
AUTHORSHIP OF THE FOURTH GOSPEL.
It is well ascertained that no positive testimony is forth
coming till late in the second century, to connect the composition
of this Gospel with the name of the Apostle John. Bishop
Lightfoot, in his carefully written Essays (1889) on "Super
natural Religion," has not produced any such testimony, his
arguments, so far as they relate to the subject, being simply
inferential. It is true, that there are a few small coincidences of thought
and phraseology between this Gospel and what are termed the
Shorter or Vossian Epistles of Ignatius, — a Christian martyr
who suffered about 116 A.D. But if is also true, the Epistles
referred to, though ascribed to him, are most probably not older
than the middle of the second century — the date to which they
are assigned by Bishop Lightfoot in the Essays ; a conclusion
modified, however, in his later work, " The Apostolic Fathers."
In this work the writer holds to their authenticity. But it is
important to notice that, whether authentic or not, they contain
nothing that can be deemed a quotation from the Fourth Gospel.
The few coincidences which occur are almost too slight to notice,
* See infra, Chap. XIX.

192 APPENDIX TO CHAPTER XVII.
and Bishop Westcott {K T. Canon, pp. 36, 54, 61) is careful to
observe that they " are not brought forward as proofs of the
use of the writings of St. John, but as proofs of the currency of
the modes of thought of St. John." Would it not have been
nearer the facts to say that they are proofs simply of the currency
of " modes of thought," and of " phraseology " among the Chris
tians in the period to which they belong ? Being such, their
presence in John and in the Iguatian letters is easily accounted
for, as a common element derived from a common source.
It is further noticeable and significant, that while the earliest
Fathers contain many of these coincident expressions, or also of
actual quotations, both from the Epistles and from the first three
Gospels, there is not one of them that can be certainly referred
as a quotation to the fourth Gospel. Nothing that can be so
called is met with till we come to the single and questionable
instance of Justin's use of words resembling those in John iii. 3.
To the same period belongs the Clementine use of the same
words (date uncertain) and two or three instances in Tatian's
Address to the Greeks (date abont 160 — 165); — all of these
being employed without naming any source. Theophilus (about
180 — 190) is the first writer who cites a verse as an express
quotation from the Gospel, the name of the Apostle John being
attached to it.
The longer Ignatian letters being largely interpolated are not
available as evidence in this discussion. The three shortest, or
Curetonian, are by many scholars, including at one time Dr.
Lightfoot himself, held to be the only genuine writings of this
Father. They contain no N. T. reference or citation whatever.
The conclusion from the foregoing statement is obvious : — the
Johannean authorship of the Gospel cannot be affirmed merely
because Ignatius, or other writers in the half-century after him,
knew of the existence of the document, or have even (without
mentioning any name) made use of a phrase or repeated an idea
found in its pages. Both phrase and idea may, as before said,

AUTHORSHIP OF THE FOURTH GOSPEL. 193
have been a part of the common tradition of the time. They
have every appearance of being so. It is expressly admitted by
Bishop Westcott {Canon, p. 52) that the Apostolical Fathers
witness "to the substance, not to the authenticity, of the Gospels."
There can be no doubt that those writers were acquainted with
the substance of the early Christian traditions. But what we
want to know is not merely the existence of the substance,
whether in a written or an oral form, but rather who it was that
wrote the actual Gospels now in our hands — the fourth Gospel
in particular.
At length, in the interval from 165 to 190 A.D., Theophilus
and Irenseus are found distinctly speaking of John as the Evan
gelist. The tradition referring the work to him was no doubt at
that time of some standing. It may be admitted too as probable
that the Gospel was known to Papias, as later to Justin, but it
may have been so simply as an anonymous piece of literature.
The interval of three quarters of a century between' the death of
its alleged author and its ascription to John, was long enough in
those days for the growth of extravagant stories about the life of
Christ, and the doings and writings of Apostles. This is clear
from the apocryphal compositions which so soon began to come
forth from the imaginative story-tellers of that period.
In considering this much-debated question, then, it is clearly
necessary to ask, On what evidence did Irenseus and others of
his time receive the Gospel as a work of John the Apostle? The
reply can only be, that in so doing they accepted and rested upon
the current tradition of their day. Even if the book, like other
writings which are not now received as canonical, was read in
the assemblies of the Christians, this fact would give no account
of the author. It is matter of pure conjecture that it was read
at any early period under the name of John. We are told
indeed by Irenseus that he, as a boy (perhaps within the fourth
decade of the century), was acquainted with Polycarp, who had
been a hearer of John, and that he well remembered what Poly-
o

194 APPENDIX TO CHAPTER XVII.
carp had said. But the circumstance does not tell for much in
the argument, except adversely! For it does not appear that
Polycarp ever mentioned John to Irenseus or others as the
author of a Gospel, though here was just the opportunity for
stating and putting on record so important and interesting a
fact. Moreover, it is not to be concealed that the Christians of that
age were more remarkable for credulity than for critical discern
ment. Their treatment of written documents was arbitrary, and,
I must add, they were superstitious in a high degree : witness
the story told by Irenseus* of the Septuagint translators, who being
seventy in number and kept separate from each other, yet pro
duced each his version from the Hebrew in the same words, this
being done by divine inspiration : witness also his repetition of
the absurd fiction from Papias respecting the vines in the mil
lennium, each of which is to bear ten thousand branches, &c, &c,
every grape to yield twenty-five measures of wine, with more to
the like effect : witness again the belief throughout the second
century in the visible return of Christ and his millenial reign, the
early rise of docetism and other forms of Gnosticism, the circu
lation of apocryphal writings, some of them even accepted as
Scripture. Such facts as these shew us how little reliance is
to be placed on the judgment of early Christian writers, even
in the instance of an Irenseus. The same may be said of
Theophilus and of Justin. The last of these Fathers, with all
his devout and earnest moral feeling, is conspicuous for the
* In reference to this eminent Father, the following judgment has been pronounced
by a very competent critic :— " If we are to judge the value of tradition even from such
early writings as those of Irenaeus, we shall find that neither in theology, nor in exe
gesis, nor in the simplest matters of fact, does it establish any claim to our reverent
acceptance." To this is appended the following note :— " See, for instance, the wild
passage about the millenial grapes, which he tells us on the authority of the weak and
credulous Papias, who professes to have heard it from Polycarp (Hcer. v. 33, § 3 ; .... ).
When such authority is cited for such a Rabbinic absurdity, we cannot estimate very
highly the boasted ' tradition ' on which Irenseus relies."— Farrar, Bampton Lectures,
on Interpretation, p. 177.

AUTHORSHIP OF THE FOURTH GOSPEL. 195
wildness of some of his beliefs ; as, for example, respecting
demons and their exorcism, and the meaning and application of
Old Testament passages. What can be more foolish than his
citation of Lam. iv. 20, as if it referred to Christ ? and similarly
the whole chapter on the power of the cross {Apol. i. 55).*
Some notice has already been taken in these pages of the
differences disclosed on a comparison of the fourth Gospel with
the other three. We must now return to this subject, to observe
its bearing on the question of authenticity. The differences
referred to are not merely in the language used, or in the
transfer or translation of thought from one form of speech to
another, as Archdeacon Watkins {Bampton Lectures, 1890) sug
gests. Differences of this kind might be accounted for. But
those now referred to are found in the subject-matter, in the
ideas expressed, the nature and purpose of the remarks and
reasonings which occur, as reported by this Gospel, compared
with the simpler and more practical teachings of Jesus in the
Synoptics. It seems impossible to think that the same person,
* Of Justin, Archdeacon Farrar writes as follows : — "For the N. T., Justin not only
offers no exegesis, he seems uneasy unless he can base its simplest statements upon
prophecies in the 0. T  Like Philo, he supposes that the Greek philosophers
borrowed their wisdom from Moses  He quotes the Sybil and Hystaspes as
genuine prophetic books {Apol. i. 20, 44). He relies exclusively on the skill which
he supposed himself to possess as an interpreter; yet he was ignorant of Hebrew, and
accepted the fables of Pseudo-Aristeas about the Septuagint. He was entirely uncriti
cal. He appeals to the so-called Acts of Pilate. He speaks of the Law and circum
cision as proofs of peculiar evil in the Jews, and regards God's approval of them
as nothing but an 'accommodation' to their sins." — Bampton Lectures, p. 172. —
Respecting Theophilus of Antioch, a similar judgment is expressed by the same
authority. — Ibid., p. 171. Of Tatian, too, a very similar account may be given.
The following will also illustrate the remarks in the text : — " The tests and methods
by which authorship may be proved or disproved were unknown in the second century ;
the works which seemed in harmony with current teaching were received and circu
lated ; in due time they might be quoted as Scripture ; accepted in churches of apos
tolic foundation, they were themselves regarded as of apostolic antiquity ; and they
were ascribed, like the letter of Barnabas or the 'Shepherd' of Hermas, to the pen
of the founders' companions and friends." — J. E. Carpenter, First Three Gospels,
Chap. I. § 4, 3.
02

196 APPENDIX TO CHAPTER XVII.
the same mind, during the same period of public teaching and
speaking, could have given utterance to thoughts so exceedingly
different both in substance and in form. In John, the speaker's
object seems mostly to be to assert himself as the Logos-Messiah,
both to the hostile Jews and to his own followers. This purpose
makes its appearance even in his prayer (chap. xvii.). In the
Synoptics there is not a word to this effect, nor even remotely
akin to it. How entirely different are the Lord's Prayer, the
Sermon on the Mount, the various parables. How far are these
removed from the Alexandrine conception of the Logos — entirely
devoted as they are to the announcement of the kingdom of God,
the instruction, and spiritual enlightenment of the "common
people who heard him gladly."
It follows, again, that the fourth Gospel can only be regarded
as the free composition of its author, — free, that is, in the sense
of being freely adapted to the Logos conception ; the historical
matter being, not indeed the Evangelist's invention (so to speak),
but selected by him from the ever-enlarging circle of the stories
current at an early period. At the same time the discourses,
conversations, and sayings put into the mouth of Jesus can only
be looked upon as the composition of the Evangelist. As such,
their purpose was, to set forth his own conception of times,
places, and persons, in subordination to the leading idea which
he wished to illustrate — the Messiahship of Jesus by virtue of
the indwelling Logos (John xx. 31). This freedom of historical
composition is well known to have been the literary habit of
those times, with Greek and Roman as well as Jewish writers.*
Such being the character of the fourth Gospel, it follows, as a
matter of course, that the Synoptists have preserved for us the
more natural and genuine historical picture of the life of Christ,
as this had been handed down from the earliest years following
his death.
A species of evidence, however, on the positive side of this
* See the note on this point, supra, p. 145.

AUTHORSHIP OF THE FOURTH GOSPEL. 197
discussion remains to be noticed, especially as great weight has
been assigned to it. Bishop Westcott, in his Commentary, speaks
of the author as an " eye-witness," because his narrative is
marked by " minute details of persons, and time, and number,
and place, and manner." But these surely no more prove that
the writer was an eye-witness, than the same things in one
of Scott's novels prove him to have been an eye-witness of what
he relates. Such little "vivid touches" occur also in the first
three Gospels, especially in Mark, as much as in the fourth
Gospel. It by no means follows that the synoptic writers were
eye-witnesses, as indeed it is clear that they were not; and such
features, in this case, really go a very little way towards reveal
ing the author. They are the natural incidents of any compo
sition which includes notices of various places, persons, and
actions. They indicate the author's acquaintance with the facts
or traditions which he embodies in his narrative. The Christian
traditions early in circulation must have included a host of such
little incidents — as we know that the apocryphal writings do,
very abundantly. The presence of such incidents, therefore, in
the fourth Gospel is far from proving that it was written by any
of the persons spoken of or alluded to in it, whether the "beloved
disciple" or any other.
Indeed, that disciple is mentioned in several instances in a
way to indicate that he appeared to the writer as a historical
person, by no means to be identified with the writer himself
(xiii. 23 ; xix. 26, 27; xx. 2 ; xxi. 20). He is introduced by the
Evangelist in the third person, just as Moses is at the beginning
of Deuteronomy, in words which shew that Moses was not the
writer of the book.
As to the two final verses of the Gospel, " This is the disciple
which testifieth of these things," &c, it may be correct to say
that the "beloved disciple" is here meant; but what weight can
be attached to the words ? By whom was this attestation given ?
It has the appearance of being a late addition, written by whom,

198 APPENDIX TO CHAPTER XVII.
or at what time, there is nothing to shew. It is in any case
a curious piece of composition — beginning in the third person
singular, then changing to the first plural, " we know," and then
again to the first singular, " I suppose." This is not at all in the
neat style of the rest of the Gospel, and is evidently the addition
of another hand. It is then of little or no value in evidence of
the authorship.
It may be true, nevertheless, as Bishop Westcott points out,
that the writer of this Gospel was a Palestinian Jew, and that
he was familiar with the localities of which he speaks. He
may well have been so, from having in his youth and before
the destruction of Jerusalem resided in that city, and been
acquainted with those who had known the Master. Such a man
would be familiar also with Christians of the first century, as
well as fairly informed as to localities and various characters of
his narrative. It by no means follows that this person was the
beloved disciple, that the Apostle John was the Evangelist. In
the absence for near a hundred years of all direct testimony to
this effect, and in the face of the great difficulties attending the
supposition, it is not easy to believe that the tradition which
ascribed the Gospel to him was well founded. This is in accord
ance with the conclusion of Keim, to the effect that the Gospel
was published at the beginning of the second century, by one
well acquainted with the Holy Land, a Jewish Christian, but
liberal and friendly towards the Gentiles. That it was published
" under the name of John," as Keim supposes, is however more
than doubtful, the Evangelist's name having more probably been
attached to it at a later period.*
If, however, the contrary should prove to be the truth, and
St. John were really the author of this Gospel, he must have
been long absent from Palestine when he wrote ; he must have
largely changed his native Jewish habits and feelings, as a
fisherman of Galilee ; and he must have become thoroughly and
* Comp. Keim, Jesus of Nazara, I. p. 228 (Eng. trans.).

JESUS THE SPIRITUAL CHRIST. 199
surprisingly devoted to the Alexandrine philosophy, much as
represented supra, Chap. XVI. This result it is as difficult to
admit as it is to think that, being (according to all ancient testi
mony) the writer of the book of Revelation, he could also have
been the author of the fourth Gospel — so different are these two
compositions, not only in their Greek, but in their literary style,
and in certain vital and characteristic ideas of each book*

CHAPTER XVIII.

JESUS THE SPIRITUAL CHRIST — CHRISTIAN FAITH — JUSTIFI
CATION BY FAITH.
According to various statements of the Evangelical history,
Jesus accepted the title of the Christ, given to him by his
followers.-)- It is clear, however, that he did not assume the
character implied in it in the popular acceptation, — that, namely,
of a political leader of his people. It is reasonable, indeed, to
suppose that what he said on this subject, as on some others, has
not reached us unaffected by the peculiar medium through which
it has been transmitted. But if, as it is fair to do, we may judge
from what appear to be the highest and most characteristic say
ings of the Teacher, it is easy to learn that he did not profess to
be a temporal Messiah, that he did not wish to make himself a
king, in the ordinary sense of this term ; that the kingdom which
he was founding was not of this world.j The same thing is
evident from the general strain of his teaching and the religious
spirit of his life.
* E.g., John x. 16 ; xiii. 34, 35 ; comp. Rev. xiv. 19, 20 ; xix. 15—18.
t Matt. xvi. 16, 17 ; Luke vii. 19—23 ; John iv. 25, 26.
X Matt. xx. 20—28 ; Luke xxii. 24—30 ; ix. 22, 44 ; John xviii. 36.

200 JESUS THE SPIRITUAL CHRIST.
Most probably, nevertheless, the early disciples looked upon
their Master as Christ in their own sense, supposing that his
lowly condition was only temporary, or assumed for special pur
poses ; and that he would eventually claim for himself the anti
cipated glory and power of him that was to come. This great
hope and belief it doubtless was which gave courage and patience
to the Christians, and enabled them to bear the cruel dangers,
persecutions and martyrdoms, which so often fell to their lot.
Traces of this popular belief will be familiar to the attentive
reader of the Gospels. But such hopes Jesus did not encourage.
He in fact repressed them, so far as he could without actually
repelling his adherents from him.* Yet he allowed them to
regard him as the Christ, and on some occasions he claimed this
character, as at his trial. He knew and felt himself to be the
Son of God by genuine ties of spiritual affinity, as well as by
virtue of the Divine protection and favour ; while yet he knew
too that the radical difference between his own ideas on the sub
ject and those of the people around him would eventually lead
to his rejection and death. He did not, on that account, shrink
from the task which he had undertaken, which was no less than
to purify and spiritualize the ancient religion of his nation.
Nor was it limited to this. He had an ulterior object of still
greater scope. He sought to gather into his fold " other sheep"
besides those of the race of Israel; and doubtless he contem
plated the time when the world should be regenerated by the
influence of his life and doctrine. -f-
And the moral and spiritual qualities of Jesus are worthy of
the exalted character which he thus assumed — worthy of it both
in its relation to God, and in its relation to man. His humility,
devoutness, submission and filial trust towards the Great Father
* Matt. xx. 17—28; Mark viii. 29—34; Luke xii. 13—21.
t Mark iv. 30—32; Matt. xiii. 31—33; xxii. 10; xxviii. 19; John xii. 24, 32.

THE GREAT EXAMPLE. 201
are everywhere conspicuous; as are his untiring beneficence,
the righteousness and purity of his spirit, his love and pity
towards sinful men, his denunciation of hypocrisy and wrong
doing. Such qualities as these shine forth in all that he says
and does ; constituting him in truth, for all time to come, the
Christ, the Anointed King in things spiritual, the Light and
Saviour of men, the acknowledged "Chief of faithful souls."
For eighteen centuries past he has thus stood before the world ;
and for untold centuries to come so shall he stand, true Son of
God and Son of man.
This lofty spiritual position of Jesus the Christ involves a
further relationship to his followers of the highest importance.
He is their Example. This is duly brought forward in the New
Testament, especially by Paul, in several familiar instances.*
Dr. Liddon too speaks very earnestly of certain commanding
features of the moral character of Christ. He was sincere, he
was humble, he was unselfish; and the question is asked,
" What becomes of these integral features of his character 
if we should go on to deny that he was God ?"-)- But may it not
be asked, in reply, What becomes of them, if we should affirm
that he was God ? Can God be humble ? Can He be unselfish,
in the sense of sacrificing himself, or in any intelligible sense
whatever ? Is it not unworthy of him, to speak of him as even
sincere, implying, as this does, the possibility of the contrary ?
And when our Lord exemplified these and other excellent
moral and human qualities, was he merely acting a part which
had no reality in it ? The example of Christ, be it remembered,
is held up to his disciples in the New Testament as something
which is to sustain and comfort them, and which they are to
strive to imitate. But what sustaining or comforting power
* Rom. xiii. 14; Ephes. iv. 13; Coloss. iii. 13; Philip, ii. 5 ; 1 Pet. ii. 21.
t B. L., p. 195, seq.

202 JESUS THE SPIRITUAL CHRIST.
could his career have for us, on the supposition of the truth of
the popular view of his person ? Would the example of a super
human being have, in this sense, moral value for frail, suffering,
tempted man ? If in the person of Jesus there were hidden a
Divine nature, the exhaustless energies of God, how should we
be told to take courage from what we see in him; to "follow his
steps; to forgive as he forgave; to be patient and endure, to
be lowly and considerate for others, even because he did so and
was so ? The infinite power, present in the one case, is absent in
the other ; and how should a frail, sinful, ignorant creature like
man, take courage from the sight of one who was neither frail,
nor liable to sin, nor ignorant, nor tempted as we are ? How
should mortal man hope, or be expected, to do that to which
even an omnipotent being, as it would appear,* proved hardly
equal ?
Thus, the example of a God enduring could scarcely help us,
or encourage us to hope that we might stand fast. On the other
hand, the example of one " at all points tempted like as we are
and yet without sin,"-)- the example of one "like unto his bre
thren," in the essential strength or weakness of his nature, yet
bravely, patiently, bearing and submitting — this would have a
moral value for us, and might aid us to go and do likewise.
From such a sight we might take courage, feeling assured that
what one of our number was equal to, could not be beyond the
reach, or imitation, of any faithful servant of God.
Surely therefore this part of Dr. Liddon's argument conspicu
ously fails ; and just in the same degree in which he succeeds in
proving that Jesus Christ was God incarnate, he destroys the
value of his moral example, and takes away meaning and force
* Matt. xxvi. 39 ; Luke xxii. 42, 43.
T Heb. iv. 15. Comp. John xx. 17, where Jesus speaks of his disciples as his
"brethren."

christian faith. 203
from some of the most cogent and faithful exhortations of the
New Testament.
In accordance with the conclusion that Jesus claimed to be
the spiritual Christ, and is now to be received in that character
by his disciples, is the idea derivable from the New Testament
as to the nature of Christian Faith. This, in the primitive
church, was indisputably faith in Christ Jesus, not as God, but
as Christ. There is no instance producible from the New Testa
ment in which faith of the former kind can be plausibly held to
have been meant by the language employed. The word Chris
tian itself is at once evidence and illustration of this. "The
disciples," we are told, "were called Christians first in Antioch."*
That is to say, they were called Christ-i&ns ; they took their
name from the circumstance that they received Jesus as the
expected Christ.
This is entirely in harmony with what is known of the early
position of the Gospel. The great controversy between the
Jews and the disciples of those times, turned upon the question
whether or not Jesus of Nazareth was the expected Messiah.
That he was so, Paul after his conversion zealously preached.
Where is there any indication to be found, in all the recorded
addresses of this Apostle, that he ever preached that Jesus was
God? His conversion, in truth, regarded as an intellectual
change, consisted simply in this — that, having been a denier of
the Messiahship of Jesus, and a persecutor of those who asserted
it, he had now himself become a believer in it. To prove the
same thing the fourth Gospel was written, as the Evangelist
himself informs us at the close of his twentieth chapter; and
the same proposition that Jesus was Christ,-)- but never that he
* Acts xi. 26.
+ The admission of Dr. Liddon has been already noted, to the effect that the
Christ expected by the Jews was a "human" Christ. Their is nothing to shew that

204 JESUS THE SPIRITUAL CHRIST.
was God, St. Paul frequently asserts or implies, throughout his
Epistles, as the one foundation on which alone the Christian
can rest*
By such faith, the Apostle further said, a man is "justified."
The full meaning and controversial bearing of this expression
will be seen more at length in a subsequent Chapter. For the
present it will be enough to observe, that what the Apostle
so earnestly writes respecting justification by faith alone was
occasioned by the feelings of his countrymen in reference to
the heathen world of his time, and finds its true interpretation
only in connection with those feelings. In the judgment of
Paul,+ no living man could be accounted righteous. All were
"under sin" before God, "by nature children of wrath," } and
unfit to enter into the kingdom of his Son. This was true of
the Jew as well as the Gentile. But God was " rich in mercy."
He would not punish the world as it lay in its sins ; but, says the
Scripture in various places, " he sent his Son," even allowed the
" beloved Son " Jesus, the Christ though he was, to " empty
himself" and be poor, to live a life of lowliness and shame,
without the glories naturally attaching to the Messianic office,
allowed the beloved Son to stoop even to the ignominy of the
cross, that he might bring men from their sins, and give them
time for repentance before his second and final coming to judge
the world. Those then who would profit by this respite, who
now received him as Christ, or in other words who had Faith in
Paul ever spoke to those whom he addressed of a divine Christ, in the now orthodox
sense of these words. Supra, p. 109, 110.
* For example, Rom. i. 3, 4 ; iii. 22; x. 9; xi. 20, 23; 1 Cor. iii. 11.
t Rom. ii. iii. ; infra, Chapter XXVI.
J It has formerly been noticed that these words do not refer to any notion of an
hereditary depravity which, in the Apostle's idea, made mankind liable to punish
ment, but simply to the positive transgressions of their Gentile (or natural) state by
which the Ephesians had become guilty. Supra, p. 20, note on Ephes. ii. 3.

JUSTIFICATION BY FAITH. 205
him, and became his disciples and took his name upon them,
and followed in his steps, they, notwithstanding past sins, would
be treated as if they were righteous before the Law ; — provided
always that they henceforth lived in faithful allegiance to their
spiritual king, waiting for the coming of " the day of the Lord."*
To such persons, Jew and Gentile alike, God in his mercy
would not impute past sins ; but would ascribe to them the
"righteousness of God," through faith; and such persons would
be justified "without the deeds of the law," and in spite of its
condemnation. Such statements, based, as will be seen, upon the strong
Jewish antipathy towards the Gentiles, applied primarily and
solely to the world as it was in those days. They express, it is
true, in one important point, a belief (in the second coming)
which has not been verified, and which, as time has shewn,
required to be corrected by the lessons of experience. But they
shew us also what, in the Apostle's conception, was the Divine
method of "justification by faith."
Yet even so, St. Paul's own Epistles exhibit another and a
better way, and one which for all time to come was to prove the
real and true way. The justification or righteousness attainable
by the Christian disciple, apart from the controversies about the
Law, and after the Law had ceased to be of importance, was,
and is still, to be dependent, in the most essential degree, upon
himself. It is no matter of mere imputation. It is not another
person's righteousness that God accounts as ours, or reckons in
some way to our credit — which is inconceivable ; but it is, in
the Apostle's words, "patient continuance in well-doing;" it
is a Christ-like life of obedience to all that the Law of God, as
expressed in our highest sense of duty, requires from us ; this
faithful practical obedience it is which will be acceptable to
* 1 Cor. i. 7 ; xv. 23, seq. ; 1 Thess. iii. 13 ; iv. 15, seq.

206 THE TRUE JUSTIFICATION.
God, and win for the disciple the "glory, honour and peace" of
the "eternal life."
Numerous expressions in the Pauline Epistles, including
whole chapters towards the close of some of them, justify and
require this exposition of the faith which " worketh by love,"
the faith which is not in itself " the greatest," but is surpassed
by Love. Hence the Apostle might well ask, "Do we then
make void the law through faith ? . . . . God forbid ; yea, we
establish the law;" because faith in the Christ, as he contem
plated it, while it admitted to discipleship, and by God's mercy
secured forgiveness of past sins to those of whom and to whom
the Apostle was writing, yet in no way dispenses with future
obedience ; but requires the Christian still, in the spirit of true
discipleship, to follow Christ, and by seeking to present himself
as a "living sacrifice" to God, to gain the Divine blessing both
for this world and the next.
Thus, again, is learnt what sort of righteousness it is which a
true faith in Christ will produce. " By their fruits ye shall know
them," says the Master himself ; and it is easy to understand
how and why one who has this practical faith need not trouble
himself about the righteousness which comes by "works," or
"deeds of the law" of Moses; by ritualistic observances of any
kind, by assent to human creeds, or submission to priestly
authority. From all these "beggarly elements" the Christian
is now released, or he may be so, if he will. Christ is the " end
of the law for righteousness " to every one that believes in him
with a true faith of self-denial and practical obedience.

Christ's humiliation and glory. 207

CHAPTER XIX.
THE HUMILIATION AND THE GLORY OF THE CHRIST IN THE
PAULINE EPISTLES.
In the contemplation of the first disciples, the friends and
contemporaries of Jesus, his Messianic exaltation took effect
through and from his death ; that is to say, it attached to him
in the spiritual state to which the cross had been the way of
admission. It is frequently alluded to, and usually in such a
manner as to shew that it was conceived of as conferred upon
him, in consequence of obedience and submission. This is some
times expressed in terms which forbid the idea that he who had
received it was himself God. Thus in the first Gospel, imme
diately after his resurrection, Jesus commands his followers to
go forth and teach the nations, and to baptize them into the
name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit.
And he introduces this command by a reference to the authority
by which he gave it : "All authority hath been given unto me in
heaven and on earth; go ye, therefore, and teach all nations."*
Similarly, St. Paul says that Jesus was of " the seed of David
according to the flesh." He was a Jew by natural birth ; but he
was declared to be the " Son of God," or Messiah, " by the resur
rection from the dead."-)- The Apostle does not say, either here
or elsewhere, that he was shewn to be the Son of God by his
miraculous birth, or that he was so by virtue of his pre-existent
nature, or on account of his inherent deity. He nowhere says
this, or anything like this ; but simply that Jesus was " declared
* Matt, xxviii. 18, 19 : the word "therefore" is perhaps interpolated; but it is
ancient, and truly corresponds to the primitive idea of the derived character of the
power of Christ. On the meaning, see Appendix to Chapter IX.
t Rom. i. 3, 4.

208 Christ's humiliation and glory
to be the Son of God " by his resurrection : he was thus proved
to be the true Christ.
This statement throws light on what is found in another
place, namely, that God " sent forth his Son born of a woman,
born under the law." * The Messiah came, not an angel or a
god, not a personage of exalted dignity and power, as had been
expected by many, but a man of ordinary human birth, a Jew,
under the law of his people. This was so, it is elsewhere said,
in order that his ministry might, in the first instance, be
addressed especially to those that were under the law ; and that
he might also, through his death and resurrection, become the
spiritual Lord of all, as pointed out in the preceding chapter, and
in Chapter XXVI.
The surpassing importance of the resurrection, in the mind of
Paul, is further seen where he states that if Christ be not risen,
faith in him is vain ; and again, where he even identifies Chris
tian faith with the belief in the resurrection. In both cases, he
lets it clearly appear that Jesus was raised up, not by his own
power, but by the power of God.-f-
Even when the Apostle terms him the " Lord of glory " (or
glorious Lord), and "the image of God,";]; there is nothing to
shew that he uses these words in any other sense than that now
stated, in reference, namely, to the risen and glorified state of
the once lowly and despised Jesus.
It is clearly, then, unnecessary, to say the least, to construe
the expressions above cited, and others like them, as implying or
relating to the Godhead of Christ.§ For how, it may be asked,
* Gal. iv. 4 ; comp. Job xiv. 1 ; xxv. 4.
t Rom. x. 8, 9; 1 Cor. xv. 14 — 17; comp. Rom. v. 10; 2 Cor. iv. 14.
X 1 Cor. ii. 8 ; 2 Cor. iv. 4 ; Col. i. 15.
§ Comp. B. L., p. 310 (314), seq. It is asked by Dr. Liddon, " From what did Christ
condescend?" For answer, see infra, p. 214. It may be noted also that Christ is not

IN ST. PAUL'S EPISTLES. 209
could he have laid aside his Godhead ? And moreover, as must
now be more particularly observed, there is no real instance in
St. Paul's Epistles, in which Jesus is termed God. In two cases
in the English version he appears to be so. But they are both ¦
of such a character that no reliance can be placed upon them, as
evidence for the popular belief on the subject.
The first of the instances referred to occurs in Rom. ix. 5, of
which the Authorized rendering is this : — "Whose are the fathers,
and of whom as concerning the flesh Christ came, who is over all,
God blessed for ever." The value and aptness of these words, as
evidence in the present discussion, depend entirely upon their
punctuation. The reader will remember that the ancient manu
scripts of the New Testament are mostly without stops, and
have the words written close together without space between.
Hence it is not always clear what stop should be used, or
whether any at all. Accordingly, this verse may be divided and
rendered thus: — "Whose are the fathers, and of whom, as con
cerning the flesh, Christ came. God, who is over all is blessed
for ever." Such is the rendering of Professor Jo wett;* but a
more exact rendering still would be: — "  of whom the
usually said to "condescend," in the New Testament. He is more commonly spoken
of as exalted and glorified, especially in the Pauline writings ; e.g., Ephes. i. 10, 20,
21 ; Philip, ii. 10.
* Epistles of St. Paul, ad loc. Among those who adopt the same punctuation are
the eminent critical authorities Lachmann and Tischendorf, in their respective
editions of the N.T. [So Westcott and Hort, margin.] De Wette and Bunsen trans
late in accordance with it. In the version of the latter, Prof. Holzmann, the writer
and editor of this part of Bunsen's great "Bibelwerk," expressly observes, "These
words are not to be referred to Christ, but to God, to whom the Apostle, after recount
ing the privileges of Israel, ascribes praise as their author and bestower." Similar
doxologies occur, Rom. i. 25; 2 Cor. xi. 31 ; Gal. i. 5; 1 Tim. i, 17.
The argument for the common rendering, so urgently repeated by Dr. Liddon,
from the position in the sentence of the word ivXoynrot; (blessed), has evidently no
weight with the authorities above named. This word, in fact, is everywhere else in
the N. T. applied to God only. Is it likely that this single instance of Rom. ix. 5
should be an exception ? P

210 MEANING OF ROM. IX. 5.
Christ came, as concerning the flesh. God who is over all is
{be) blessed for ever." The admissibilty of this punctuation
cannot be questioned. The earnestness with which Dr. Liddon
defends the common rendering is easily understood. But surely
even he could not have held it to be imperative thus to construe
the words in question, in the face of the testimony to the con
trary given by such witnesses as those mentioned in the note,
and in the Appendix to this Chapter.
The Apostle, it will be observed, has just enumerated various
privileges of the Israelites. To them pertained the adoption, the
covenants, the law, the temple service, the promises, the fathers :
to these " he subjoins a climax." That climax is, that from them
had sprung the Christ. The greatest privilege of all was that
the Messiah came of their own race — a fact so glorious that the
recollection of it calls forth from the writer these words of praise
to Him by whom this and all their other privileges1 had been con
ferred. This interpretation assigns to the words a full and suffi
cient meaning. It is obviously, therefore, unnecessary to assume
that the privilege and glory for Israel consisted in something else,
namely, in this, that the person so sprung from them was " God
over all." Dr. Liddon observes that " this is the natural sense of
the passage." Possibly it would be so, if it were sufficiently con
sistent with the usual teaching of the New Testament respecting
God and Christ. But such is far from being the case, and conse
quently the other division of the words, with the sense resulting,
is just as " natural," or rather it is far more so * Nor have the
* The commentator Meyer, orthodox as he is, admits the "invincible difficulty" of
supposing that Paul should here have called Christ not only God, but even "God over
all." The supposition, he observes, is not to be reconciled either with the general
tenor of the N. T. in regard to the dependence of the Son upon the Father, or with
such Pauline passages, in particular, as 1 Cor. iii. 23 ; viii. 6 ; xi. 3 ; xv. 28. So
little "natural," in truth, is the orthodox construction of this passage! The same
authority further points out that it was not till after the Apostolical times that
the words Qtoc., b debt; ripCbv (God, our God), and similar expressions, were used of

ON 1 TIM. III. 16. 211
words, "according to the flesh," any recondite reference to a
Divine nature. They simply declare that the Christ, by his
descent, belonged to the race of Israel, the fact so referred to
constituting their greatest religious privilege. If any antithesis
be implied, it is doubtless the Messianic glory conferred upon
Jesus, in Paul's estimation, by his resurrection from the dead.
By this he was shewn to be the true' Christ. Nevertheless,
" according to the flesh," he was a Jew, sprung from the race of
Israel. The other instance in which St. Paul appears to call Jesus
" God," is equally unfortunate for the orthodox argument. It
occurs in 1 Tim. iii. 16, which in the Authorized Version reads
thus: "And without controversy great is the mystery of god
liness: God was manifest in the flesh, justified in the spirit, seen
of angels, preached unto the Gentiles, believed on in the world,
received up into glory." The word "God" is the one of chief
importance. It is so doubtful that Dr. Liddon himself places no
reliance upon it. The best critical authorities reject it, and read
either os or o {who or which). Dean Alford translates, "And con
fessedly great is the mystery of godliness, who was manifested
in the flesh, justified in the Spirit," &c* The words may be
literally rendered thus: "And confessedly great is the mystery
of godliness: he who was manifested in flesh, was justified in
spirit," &c. (See R. V.)
While abandoning the argument from the word " God," Dr.
Liddon relies upon the verb following it. " Our Lord's pre-
existence," he observes, "lies in any case in the ktpavepwdn" (was
manifested) ; " and this cannot without violence be watered
Christ. The two instances which might seem to invalidate this statement (John i. 1;
xx. 28), occur in immediate connection with the Logos Doctrine. For these, see supra,
Chap. XVI.
* Bishop Ellicott, Pastoral Epistles, in loc, closes his review of the evidence with
the remark, "We unhesitatingly decide in favour of 8c " (who). See Appendix, note C.
P 2

212 1 TIMOTHY III. 16.
down into the sense of Christ's manifestation in the teaching
and belief of the Church."* Here, then, be it noted, is an
instance, one of many such, in which the stupendous doctrine of
the deity of "the prophet Jesus" (Matt. xxi. 11), so far from
being plainly affirmed, is dependent upon the particular shade of
meaning assignable to a single obscure word. Nor should it
be overlooked that the verse occurs in an Epistle of doubtful
authenticity, to say. the least.
Without, however, pursuing the thoughts which the latter fact
might suggest, there is still the question, What is meant by the
words, "was manifested in flesh"? Do they really imply an allu
sion, however obscure, by way of antithesis, to the Godhead of
the person spoken of ? This question may be answered by refer
ring to a similar expression found elsewhere. In the first Epistle
of John-h there is more than one allusion to an ancient form of
false belief concerning Christ, according to which he was not
really a human being. He was so, it was held, only in appear
ance. This early Docetic heresy is carefully condemned by the
Epistle. " Every spirit that confesseth not that Jesus Christ is
come in the flesh is not of God ; and this is the spirit of the
antichrist  even now already it is in the world " (1 John
iv. 2, 3). A similar expression, with most probably the same
allusion, is used here by the writer to Timothy. Accordingly, it
is quite unnecessary to understand him, as is usually done, to
imply any such doctrine as that of the Godhead of the person
spoken of. "The mystery" of the Gospel, the writer tells us,
was great; the Christ who was manifested in a true human
body (though this was denied by some), was "justified in spirit."
The meaning of these latter words is by no means clear. It is
unnecessary to remark upon them, except to suggest that they
may contain an allusion to the descent of the Spirit at the bap-
* B. L., p. 312 (315), note. t 1 John iv. 2, 3. Comp. 1 John i. 1, 2.

SUSPICIOUS ORTHODOX TEXTS. 213
tism by which the human Jesus was proved to be the well-
beloved Son.*
A consideration of much interest remains. It is impossible to
avoid the suspicion that this verse, like some others bearing
upon the Trinitarian controversy, has been altered by early
copyists — altered in the orthodox sense. Such passages are not
numerous, but they are of high importance. Among them may
be included Luke viii. 40, where, instead of the words, " they
were all waiting for him " (said in reference to Jesus), the Sina-
itic manuscript has, " they were all waiting for God." A similar
case is found in the same manuscript, and some others in
John i. 18, where the reading, "only-begotten God," occurs,
instead of " the only-begotten Son " of many important manu
scripts. In Acts xx. 28, it may be considered doubtful, accord
ing to the documentary evidence, whether the reading should be,
"Church of God, which he hath purchased with his own blood,"
or " Church of the Lord." Dr. Liddon, as before seen, maintains
the former reading ; but, on the other hand, remembering the
evident tendency of orthodox copyists, we may reasonably hold
" Church of the Lord " to be by far the more probable original,
as recognized by Tischendorf, De Wette, Bunsen, and other
excellent authorities. (See supra, Chap. XVII.)
Similar remarks apply to the most notable of all these suspi
cious passages, 1 John v. 7, 8, in which the hand of the inter
polator is now all but universally acknowledged.
The words of 1 Tim. iii. 16, which have just been under notice,
must stand side by side with these remarkable texts. The like
ness common to all the cases is not to be denied. They form a
group of would-be witnesses in this controversy whose testimony
cannot be. received, and to which the upholder of the popular
* The words would thus mean, "was justified by the Spirit." This use of iv to
express the means by which is common; see Acts xvii. 31 (R.V.). It is a Hebraism.

214 PAULINE DISTINCTION BETWEEN GOD AND CHRIST.
theology cannot appeal with either confidence or satisfaction.
It follows clearly from what has been said on the last-named
passage, and on Rom. ix. 5, that there is no instance whatever
in the Epistles in which the highest of appellations is given
to Christ — a conclusion to be expected from the plain and
unvarying tenor, not only of the rest of the New Testament, but
of the writings of St. Paul in particular.*
For it must not be forgotten that this Apostle sometimes
speaks of the Divine Being as " the God and Father of Jesus
Christ;" or also as "the God of our Lord Jesus Christ." He
also writes, " The head of every man is Christ  and the
head of Christ is God."-)- There is no interpolation and no
" watering down " in these plain and emphatic words ; and how
incredible it is that one who could thus write should really have
regarded him of whom he uses these expressions, either as him
self " God over all," or as " God manifested in the flesh."
The nearest approach, perhaps, in the Pauline writings, to the
application of the term in question to Christ, occurs in Philip-
pians ii. 6, 7 : " Let that mind be in you which was also in
Christ Jesus; who being in the form of God thought not the
being equal to God a thing to be seized, but emptied himself,
taking the form of a slave, and being in the likeness of men."
In this passage it is not said that Jesus was God, but that he
was " in the form of God." The phrase is not met with else
where in the Scriptures ; but had the writer meant it to be
understood that Christ in a pre-existent state, or in his essential
nature, was God, he would doubtless have said so in more express
terms — for the statement would have been one of the very
greatest importance, and it is not made anywhere else. When,
* For supposed instances in Tit. ii. 13, 1 John v. 20, 2 Pet. i. 1, see Appendix,
note D.
t 2 Cor. xi. 31 ; Ephes. i. 17; 1 Cor. xi. 3.

PHILIPPIANS II. 6, 7. 215
therefore, we recall the marked distinction between God and
Christ which St. Paul observes in his language respecting them,
it is reasonable to conclude that he cannot intend here, more
than elsewhere, to identify Jesus Christ with the Almighty. His
meaning, it is not, in this instance, difficult to discover. It has
been already alluded to in the present Chapter, and need not
be further considered here, as it is fully discussed in General
Appendix, Note E, in connection with the ditheistic paraphrase
of Bishop Lightfoot.
The interpretation of the words given in Note E, just referred
to, will be found to be in harmony with the verses following. In
these we read that for the self-sacrifice and lowliness of Jesus,
God has rewarded him, by giving him "the name which is above
every name, that in the name of Jesus every knee should bow,"
and every tongue should confess him to be Lord, " to the glory
of God the Father " — words, truly, which have been wonderfully
fulfilled in the subsequent history of the Christian world.
It is impossible to think that the writer of such words as these
could have conceived of Jesus Christ as God, in the supreme
sense of this term ; that he intended to say of one already
possessed of original inherent Deity, that he was highly exalted
by the Heavenly Father. Such a proposition, thus plainly ex
pressed, surely amounts to something like a contradiction in
terms ; — one Infinite Being rewarded and exalted by another !
Here, again, therefore, it appears that in immediate juxtapo
sition with expressions which, if alone, might seem to set forth
the deity of Christ, other expressions of modifying or counter
acting force are supplied by the sacred writer himself. And this
will be found to occur in several other cases* — as, for example,
* See Col. ii. 9, compared with Col. i. 19; Heb. i. 8, 9; 1 John ii. 23, 22 ; John
a. 30, 35, 36; Matt, xxviii. 19, 18; Luke xxii. 70, and xxiii. 2, 47; Rev. i.
11, 17,18.

216 CHRIST AS REPRESENTED
in the introductory verses of the Epistle to the Hebrews. The
circumstance referred to could hardly have occurred, had the
truth in these questions lain on the side of the popular theology.
Reference has just been made to the Epistle to the Hebrews,
and although this Epistle is not to be reckoned as a writing of
St. Paul's, it will be convenient briefly to notice here the remark
able statements with which it commences. The character attri
buted to the Son (the Messiah) is one of the highest conceivable.
The whole is in evident harmony with the Logos doctrine, and
it is a very bold and graphic expression of that doctrine. The
Son is the image, representative, instrument of God;* himself
indeed "appointed" to be what he is, just as the angels are;
but yet he is " better " than they ; — a strange thing to say of
one that was essentially God, and the Creator of men and angels !
Like the prince in the quoted Psalm (xlv. 6), he is spoken of
as a God, but clearly this appellation is used in a subordinate
sense, as in the Psalm from which the words are taken, and
which is a nuptial ode in celebration of the marriage of a Jewish
king. The writer to the Hebrews, applying the verse in a
Messianic sense, speaks of the Son as God: — "Thy throne, 0
God, is for ever and ever " (or perhaps, " Thy throne is God ").
He thus represents the Almighty as addressing the Son ; but he
immediately adds the words, "Therefore God, thy God, hath
anointed thee with the oil of gladness above thy fellows."
The question is obvious, if the person thus addressed were
truly " God over all," in what sense could there be a God to him ?
* The words, "by whom also he made the worlds," may be literally rendered,
"through whom also he made the ages." The allusion may be, as in John i. 3, to
the creation of all things by the Logos ; or, if the rendering " ages " be adopted, the
reference in this word will be to the Jewish and the Christian dispensations, else
where spoken of as "this world" (age or dispensation), and "the world (age) to
come." Matt. xii. 32 ; comp. Ephes. i. 21. It must be noted that the rendering of
v. 2 should be, "hath spoken unto us by a Son" (not "the Son"), the Logos being
sometimes conceived of as one of several or many such Sons of God.

IN THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS. 217
And, again, how could He have "fellows"?— the last word
evidently alluding to the angels previously mentioned.
The popular theory can, however, answer questions of this
kind. The expressions referred to, and others like them, relate
to the subordination of Christ in his mediatorial capacity, and
especially while he was incarnate upon the earth — so it affirms.
The reply to this is simple : it is, that the New Testament does
not say so, — nowhere says so. Such a limitation of the Scriptural
language is unwarrantably introduced by dogmatic theologians,
and is, in truth, merely an after-thought dictated by the necessi
ties of the case. Nor does it really solve the difficulty ; but we
need not here enter further into a discussion which is so purely
speculative. On the Revised rendering of Rom. ix. 5, see General Appendix,
Note F.

CHAPTER XX.
THE CREATION OF ALL THINGS THROUGH JESUS CHRIST.
There are several remarkable expressions in the Epistles, from
which it might be inferred that Jesus Christ was regarded
by the writer as the Creator of all things. It is not to be
doubted that this construction was put upon the words referred
to in the early Christian times. They could not fail to be so
accepted, by those who had adopted and become accustomed to
the idea of the Logos in Jesus. That doctrine would naturally
lead to such an interpretation. It is not necessary, however,
that the modern inquirer should always follow the guidance of
the philosophizing Christians to whom the world is indebted for
the distinctive doctrines of the orthodox faith, and who, it is

218 CREATION OF ALL THINGS
well ascertained, were in many cases ill-judging and superstitious
men .* It is the better course to inquire whether the New Tes
tament does not itself throw sufficient light on this subject; and
in truth a little inquiry will be found to correct the impression
conveyed by the apparent import of the words in question.
The introductory chapter of the Epistle to the Colossians is
the most conspicuous instance in which the work of creation
appears to be attributed to Christ. Several expressions closely
related to this passage occur in the first chapter of Ephesiansjf
and whatever may be the true interpretation of the former
most probably is so of the latter also. In speaking of these two
Epistles, we may accept them both as Pauline, although their
authorship is by no means certain. It cannot be questioned,
however, that they both represent an ancient conception of
Christ and his work.
Of these the Colossians speaks in the following terms : — "Who
is the image of the invisible God, the first-born of all creation.
Because in him were all things created, in the heavens and upon
the earth, the visible and the invisible, whether thrones or domi
nions or principalities or powers ; all things have been created
through him and for him."|
It has been thought that we have here the conception of Christ
as the incarnate Logos, much as it occurs in the proem of the
fourth Gospel ; and that here, too, the material creation is attri
buted to him in that character. If this be the meaning, the
interpretation of the passage will necessarily follow that of the
proem. It is, however, doubtful, or more than doubtful, whether
See the remarks on Justin and Irenseus, supra, Appendix to Chap. XVII.
t In Ephes. iii. 9, the words "by Jesus Christ," are an interpolation, and are
omitted by Tischendorf, Dean Alford, Westcott and Hort.
X Col. i. 15, 16. The above rendering is closer to the original than the common
version. Comp. the translation of Bishop Ellicott, who (wrongly ?) renders "by him,"
instead of " through him."

THROUGH JESUS CHRIST. 219
the Logos idea is to be found in any writing of St. Paul's. The
term itself he nowhere employs in its philosophical sense. The
words, " first-born of all creation," may allude simply to the fact
that Jesus was the first raised from the dead, the first-born of all
under the new dispensation. This idea is, indeed, expressed in
the succeeding verses : " He is before all things, and in him all
things subsist ; and he is the head of the body, the church ; who
is the beginning, the first-born from the dead; that in all things
he might be the first."* These expressions are very different
from those in which the Logos is spoken of as the eldest Son of
God, which was with God in the beginning, and by which all
things were created. They indicate, too, that the writer con
ceived of Christ, even in his highest character, as a creature ; as
in another place he even terms him " the first-born among many
brethren."-)- On the face of the subject, it is inconceivable that
Paul could say of one to whom he attributed Supreme Deity, or
the creation of the material universe, that he was " the first-born
from the dead, that in all things he might be the first," or (as
Bishop Ellicott renders the latter words) " that in all things he
might have the pre-eminence."
If, however, it be understood that Christ is thus spoken of as
Creator, it is still evident that the Apostle did not conceive of
him as possessed of an original inherent power or deity of his
own. " It pleased the Father," he expressly adds, " that in him
should all fulness dwell." j He is plainly, therefore, Creator by
* Col. i. 17, 18. t Rom. viii. 29. Comp. Rev. i. 5, 18 ; John xx. 17.
X Col. i. 19. The word Father (or God) is necessarily supplied in this verse.
Dean Alford observes, "The subject here is naturally understood to be God, as
expressed in 1 Cor. i. 21 ; Gal. i. 15 ; clearly not Christ."— Gr. Test, in loc. Bishop
Ellicott renders, "Because in him it pleased all the fulness of the Godhead to dwell "
— a rendering, as the Bishop admits, involving grave, though he thinks not insuper
able difficulties. One of these may be expressed interrogatively : Could he in whom
" it pleased all the fulness of the Godhead to dwell " (the words in italics are not the
Apostle's, but the Bishop's) be already possessed of Deity by his own nature ? If he

220 CREATION OF ALL THINGS
the Divine permission and appointment, a statement in perfect
harmony with all that we read elsewhere in the New Testament
respecting the subordination of Christ.
But, in truth, the supposition that the material creation is
here intended, and that Christ is represented as the Creator, is
one that is beset with insuperable difficulties. Throughout the
Gospels there is nowhere any allusion to a fact which would
have been so important and so marvellous — the fact that the
person who lived and taught so simply and familiarly among the
people of Galilee and Jerusalem was, all the time, the Divine
Creator ! The Evangelists, it is to be understood, were quite
aware of this wonderful fact ; but they do not notice it in any
way, although their great purpose in writing their Gospels was
to shew that the despised and crucified Nazarene was indeed
the expected Christ, the Son of God, the Creator of the World !
It will, perhaps, be said that the fact is referred to in the fourth
Gospel. But such a statement, it has been shewn, is not war
ranted by the language of that Gospel — to say nothing of the
circumstance that it was not in existence for some fifty or sixty
years after the Death. It is not Jesus Christ personally by whom
all things are there said to have been created, but the Logos ;
and although, in the Evangelist's conception, the Logos became
flesh in Christ, acting in and through him, yet, as we have seen,
this is only another way of saying that there was in and through
Christ a manifestation of the power and wisdom of the Infinite
were so, what could that be which was pleased to dwell in him ? Whatever may be
meant by " all the fulness," it clearly cannot be what the Bishop supposes. Another
difficulty is that the following part of the verse is not consistent with the proposed
rendering. A similar divine "fulness" (completeness, perfectness) is attributed to
Christian disciples, or said to be attainable by them, Ephes. iii. 19, — so little does
the expression imply the Godhead of the possessor. The "fulness" of Christ may
be "the church, which is his body," of which he is Head and Lord : Ephes. i. 23 ;
Coloss. i. 18. This special use of the word "fulness" (pleroma) may, however, indicate
a post-Pauline writer.

THROUGH JESUS CHRIST. 221
Being. That mode of representation does not tell us that Jesus,
in his own person, was either God, or Creator of the world ; but
simply that he was the human instrument through which the
Divine purposes were carried into effect.
There is a further difficulty in the way of the above sup
position. It is inconceivable that in the four principal and
undoubted Epistles of Paul no allusion whatever should be
made to the creative work of Christ. In the Epistle to the
Romans, for example, or in that to the Galatians, could the
Apostle have so entirely omitted to introduce, or to imply, the
supposed fact ? In both of these Epistles he treats of ques
tions closely touching the dignity and authority of his Master ;
and he is especially anxious to uphold the importance of the
Gospel, in comparison with the ancient Law of his people. Yet
he nowhere mentions that which would so effectually have illus
trated his argument, had it been possible to appeal to it ; nowhere
gives us to understand that Jesus the Christ, whose Apostle
he is, whose Gospel he is recommending, was the Creator of
all things.
In another Epistle, the first to the Corinthians (viii. 6), there
is, indeed, an expression which might be thought to be inconsis
tent with these remarks. The Apostle writes, " To us there is
one God, the Father, of whom are all things, and we in him ;
and one Lord Jesus Christ, through whom are all things, and we
through him." But here, again, Christ is evidently represented
as the instrument, in contradistinction to what is said of God, — ¦
"of whom" (If ov) are all things. The latter words strictly
designate the Source, while the secondary cause or agent is
denoted by the preposition "through" (Sta)* followed by the
genitive case, in accordance with the usual distinction between
Christ and God. The words in this place, however, are too few,
* This force of the preposition is too well known to require illustration here.

222 CREATION OF ALL THINGS
and are introduced in too incidental a manner, to be permitted
to determine the meaning of the more considerable and detailed
passage in the Colossians. Very probably, nevertheless, they
ought to be interpreted in accordance with that passage; but
they must follow, and not lead the way.
The question therefore remains, what does the writer mean
by his remarkable words to the Colossians ? If he neither
speaks in accordance with the Logos doctrine, nor attributes the
material creation to Christ under some other conception of his
pre-existence, what in all probability is the meaning intended ?
In several instances the moral change produced by Chris
tianity is spoken of as a new creation. " If any man be in
Christ, he is a new creature :" literally, "a new creation;" "old
things are passed away ; behold, all things are become new."
Again, " In Christ Jesus neither circumcision availeth anything,
nor uncircumcision, but a new creature" — literally, as before,
"a new creation." And again, "We are his workmanship,
having been created in Christ Jesus unto good works."* These
expressions suggest the inquiry whether the remarkable words
under notice do not refer to the new or spiritual creation through
Christ. When the Apostle speaks of the natural creation, as in the
speech at Athens, he employs words in which there is no
ambiguity, and refers it distinctly, not to Christ, but to God:
" God that made the world and all things therein." In such
words there can be no doubt as to the meaning. Is it not,
therefore, probable that in the very different phraseology of the
Colossians, he is speaking of the promulgation of Christianity and
its effects under the figure of a spiritual creation ? If this be
the true explanation, it will sufficiently account for the remark-
* 2 Cor. v. 17 ; Gal. vi. 15 ; Ephes. ii. 10. Comp. also Ephes. iv. 24; Rom. viii.
19 — 22, where the rendering in each verse should be " creation."

THROUGH JESUS CHRIST. 223
able terms employed. Christ was himself, the Apostle says, the
" first-born " of all, the first of this new creation. It was neces
sary that he should be the first, in order that he might be
the instrument of Divine power in founding the heavenly king
dom into which he has now ascended: "for in him were all
things created " — the words " all things " being obviously quali
fied in force by the connected ideas, and denoting, therefore, all
things belonging to the new dispensation. Here, undoubtedly,
are terms of the most comprehensive import. But they are
immediately followed by limiting words, when the Apostle adds,
" whether they be thrones or dominions, or principalities, or
powers," all these things " were created through him and for
him." Is it possible to think that this language can refer to the
material creation ?
The Apostle, it would appear, conceived the spiritual kingdom
of Christ to contain various degrees of angelic rank and dignity.
It was not only an earthly kingdom, but a heavenly ; not only
visible, but invisible. Jesus himself, "head over all things,"
had been raised to heaven by the power of the Father ; many of
his disciples too had already followed him there ; though most of
them still remained on earth filling their different offices, " apos
tles, prophets, teachers, workers of miracles." All these existed
through Christ and for him. But, as before, it is clear that the
writer of these words could not have thought of Christ as the
original source of all, for he adds the words, "It pleased the
Father that in him should all fulness dwell."
A passage similar to the one just noticed occurs in the Epistle
to the Ephesians (i. 17—23). The writer prays for his friends,
" that the God of our Lord Jesus Christ '' may cause them to
know the greatness of His power, "according to the working
of the might of his strength which he hath wrought in Christ,
by raising him from the dead: and he made him sit" (the

224 CREATION OF ALL THINGS
Apostle continues) " at his right hand in the heavenly places,
far above all principality and power and might and dominion,
and every name that is named, not only in this world,* but
in that which is to come ; and hath put all things under his feet,
and he gave him to be the head over all things to the church,
which is his body, the fulness of him that filleth all in all."
Words could scarcely make it plainer than it is here, Who
it is that is the Cause of the exaltation of Christ. He " made
him sit at his right hand :" He "put all things under his feet:"
He " gave him to be the head over all things to the church."
Thus there is clearly implied, not only the absolute distinction
between God and Christ, but also the absolute subordination or
inferiority of the latter — of the creature and instrument to the
Creator and Primary Source of all. The conception here appears,
however, to be a little different from that of the words in Colos
sians. In the Ephesians (i. 3, 9, 10) we are told that " the God
and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ " had determined to bring
all things into subjection to the Messiah. Allowing for some
thing of metaphor in the words, "all things" might be said
to be created " in Christ," with a regard, that is to say, to the
approaching Messianic age or dispensation. This purpose has
taken effect in and through Jesus Christ. The consequences of
his life, death and resurrection, will be, and have been, the
establishment of his kingdom, the conversion of men of every
land, and the diffusion of the Gospel among the nations. This
" new creation" was thus accomplished through him, and for him.
In other words, in him all things spiritual subsist, and he is
Head over all. But, nevertheless, it is clear, as before, that all
is of God's working, God's appointment.
We have seen the difficulties which attend the supposition
* Literally, age, i.e. dispensation: "this age," that now existing, the Mosaic;
" that which is to come," the Christian, spaedily to begin, with the second advent.

THROUGH JESUS CHRIST. 225
that the words in the Colossians refer to the material creation.
They are certainly not words in which any writer who wished
to be readily understood would speak of the objects of sense.
On the other hand, they are not inappropriate, if taken to express
the great results that were to flow from the preaching of the
Gospel in the name of the risen Christ — namely, the bringing in
of the Gentiles, and the subjugation of the powers of this world
beneath the authority of the cross. Kindred ideas are expressed
where Paul speaks of that coming time, "the end," when the
Christ shall have " put down all authority and power," and when,
victorious over sin and death, he shall deliver up his completed
work, the promised kingdom of heaven on earth, " to God even
the Father." (Comp. Ephes. vi. 12, 13.)
The substitution of through for by, in the rendering above
given, corresponds strictly to the original. Christ is spoken of,
accordingly, as the instrument of Divine power, not as himself
its original or independent source. This cannot be too clearly
kept in view by one who would gain a just idea of these
Apostolical statements. It follows, therefore, again, that the
usual distinction between God and Christ is here, as every
where, clear and absolute.

CHAPTER XXI.
THE APOCALYPTIC EXALTATION OF JESUS CHRIST.
It is perhaps in the Book of Revelation, more than in any
other New Testament book, that a character approaching to that
of Deity is attributed to Christ, in his risen and heavenly state.
Yet this is done in such a manner as to shew us that the most
Q

226 THE APOCALYPTIC EXALTATION
positive and emphatic distinction really existed, in the writer's
mind, between the person of whom he speaks and Him who
is "the Only God" (John v. 44).
Thus, Jesus is represented* as calling himself "the first and
the last," words used also in substance of and by the Lord God
himself. The difference in the form of the expression, as applied
to God and to Christ, is however striking (Rev. i. 8) : "I am the
41pha and the Omega, saith the Lord God, which is, and which
was, and which is to come, the Almighty." When the Son of man
uses the same words (v. 18), he says, " Fear not ; I am the first
and the last, and the living one ; and I was dead, and behold I
am alive for evermore, and have the keys of death and of Hades."
In the one case, we have an expression applicable and appro
priate to the Self-existent Being ; in the other, we have words
which would seem almost as if intended to warn us not to think
of the speaker as God ; and, indeed, he has just been termed in a
preceding verse (5), " the first-begotten of the dead."
These expressions, then, give us clearly to see that, high as
was the character conceived to belong to the risen Saviour, yet
that one who is said to be now " alive for evermore " could not
have been regarded as, by his own nature, an Eternal being. It
is further evident, that the writer conceives of him as invested
by another with whatever of power or authority the possession
of the " keys of death and of Hades " may have given him.
The same thing is clearly seen again, where he says that he will
give to those who are steadfast to him, the same authority which
he has himself received from his Father.+
He speaks, further, of God as his God ; and even where it is
* Rev. i. 18. In references to the Book of Revelation, the Revised Version is fol
lowed. This version has rejected the earlier words of Rev. i. 11. They are not found
in the manuscripts.
t Rev. ii. 26,27.

OF JESUS CHRIST. 227
said that he sits with the Father " upon his throne," this cannot
in the writer's idea have denoted equality with God, because he
represents Jesus as saying, "To him that overcometh I will
grant to sit with me in my throne, as I also  sat down
with my Father in his throne."*
The highest ascription of Divine honours is to Him who is a
second time described as the " Lord God Almighty, which was,
and which is, and which is to come," terms of supreme venera
tion, perhaps equivalent to the unutterable name "Jehovah" of
the Old Testament, which are not addressed to Christ, and in
which he has no share.-f-
The Son of man is next represented as a "Lamb that was
slain," who alone was " worthy to take the book and to open the
seals thereof." His praise is celebrated by the voices of " myriads
of myriads, and thousands of thousands," proclaiming him
" worthy to receive power, and riches, and wisdom, and strength,
and honour, and glory, and blessing."!
In another place, a joint and equal tribute of praise appears to
be offered by " a great multitude which no one could number,"
to God and to the Lamb, saying, " Salvation to our God, . .
and unto the Lamb ;" but immediately afterwards, when worship
is offered by the angels, they "fell before the throne on their
faces and worshipped God." They ascribe the highest praise to
Him, " unto our God for ever and ever " — to Him alone, for in
this the Lamb is not included.§ The omission is marked and
emphatic, and shews to demonstration that the Lamb does not,
in the writer's conception, hold a place of real deity.
This distinction between God and Christ is maintained through
out the book. Thus in the last of the places referred to below;||
the song of praise is to the " Lord God Almighty," while the
* Rev. iii. 21. t iv. 8-11. X v. 6—12.
§ vii. 11, 12. || See xi. 15, 16; xii. 10; xiv. 7—12; xv. 3.
Q2

228 THE APOCALYPTIC EXALTATION
Lamb is in the same verse co-ordinated with " Moses the servant
of God," as he is in xiv. 10 with the angels.
The Son of man appears in another character, as the " Word of
God " — not here the Logos of the fourth Gospel, but more pro
bably one who announced, uttered, and also executed, the judg
ments of God.* He sits, in the apocalyptic vision, upon a white
horse, the armies of heaven follow him, and he treads " the wine
press of the fierceness of the wrath of God ; and he hath on his
vesture and on his thigh a name written, King of kings and
Lord of lords." The bearer of this august title is the instrument
of the Divine vengeance ; but the Supreme is clearly here, as
elsewhere, a distinct object of the writer's thought. It is He
who is addressed by " the voice of mighty thunders, saying,
Halleluiah; for the Lord our God the Almighty reigneth."f
There is nothing like this, in the Apocalypse or elsewhere in the
New Testament, addressed to Christ. The seer then exclaims:
" The marriage of the Lamb is come, and his wife hath made
herself ready!" Is it conceivable that this could have been
written by one who regarded the " Lamb " as God ?
In the final chapter of the book, we are told that John, when
he saw the wonderful vision which had passed before him, " fell
down to worship before the feet of the angel which shewed him
these things." The latter " saith unto him, See thou do it
not .... worship God." In the writer's idea, was the angel
who thus spoke, the same person who, at the beginning and
throughout, shews the vision to the Apostle ? This question has
been much discussed. If due regard be paid to the immediate
context, it would certainly appear that it should be answered in
the affirmative.j "Behold I come quickly;" "I am a fellow-
servant of thine;" "I am the Alpha and the Omega, the first
* Rev. xix. 11—15. t xix. 5, 6.
X See xxii. 7—9, 12, 13, 16; and compare i. 10—19.

OF JESUS CHRIST. 229
and the last, the beginning and the end;" "I Jesus have sent
mine angel;" — surely the same person is meant in all these
cases, although he is also called "angel," and for a moment
appears to be a different being from the " Son of man," who at
the beginning appears and speaks to John. If, then, the affirma
tive be the correct answer to the above question, Jesus himself
forbids the writer of the vision to worship him, and tells him to
" worship God." At any rate, the speaker tells him to " worship
God;" but he nowhere bids him worship the Lamb, or Jesus,
or the Son of man.
This interpretation need not, however, be too confidently
insisted upon. Its admission is in no way necessary for the
purpose of the argument. Quite independently of this passage,
the clear tenor of the Apocalypse, manifested in a large variety
of expressions, abundantly proves that the author cannot have
intended his readers to identify Jesus Christ with the Almighty ;
abundantly proves that he did not do so himself.

CHAPTER XXII.
THE WORSHIP OF CHRIST.

Did the early Christians offer religious worship to Christ?
This question has been already answered by anticipation, if the
argument thus far warrants us in making the distinction so often
affirmed between the Supreme Being and Jesus Christ. Yet the
presumed evidence for the worship of Christ is usually con
sidered to be one of the strongest parts of the prevailing Chris
tianity. Ill-informed persons are apt to suppose that the disciples
were accustomed to worship their Master as God, even while he

230 THE WORSHIP OF CHRIST.
lived familiarly among them in Galilee and Jerusalem — a con
clusion, untenable as it is, to which the whole strain of Dr.
Liddon's representation evidently leads. Thus we read, " Then
came to him the mother of Zebedee's children, worshipping him."
The word used in this and other such cases does not necessarily
denote religious worship, but only the respectful salutation or
obeisance which one person might offer to another, probably by
prostration in the oriental manner. This may be clearly seen
from a parallel expression in the same Gospel, relating to the
unforgiving servant and his lord : " The servant, therefore, fell
down and worshipped him, saying, Lord, have patience with me,
and I will pay thee all."*
We have in these cases examples of the old and well-known
meaning of the English word "worship" — that is all. The Greek
verb strictly and exclusively denoting religious worship is a
different word, and this is never applied to Christ.-)- It will be
found that in no instance was Jesus the object of religious wor
ship during his lifetime. Even after his resurrection, when it is
said that his disciples saw him " and worshipped him," the word
used is the more general word, expressive of respectful obeisance.
The case of Stephen is often cited, as affording positive testi
mony to the worship of their Master by the early Christians,
and Dr. Liddon makes the usual appeal to it. At the moment
of his death, we are told, this first of the martyrs besought
Jesus to receive his spirit : " They stoned Stephen, invoking
and saying, Lord Jesus, receive my spirit." The words in the
next verse (v. 60), " Lord, lay not this sin to their charge," may
perhaps be understood as addressed to God ; but there is nothing
in the passage to require this ; and as the New Testament
writers often speak of Jesus Christ as the appointed Judge of
* Matt, xviii. 26; comp. ix. 18; John ix. 38; also Ps. xlv. 11.
t The word ottojiai; Matt. xv. 9; Acts xvi. 14; xviii. 7, 13.

THE WORSHIP OF CHRIST. 231
men, it may be simply in accordance with this idea that those
words are used by the dying man — and, if so, they are addressed
to Christ.
In determining the meaning and value of this exclamation, it
will be remembered that the Apostle, when he thus called upon
the Lord Jesus, actually beheld him, as we are told in a preced
ing verse. Jesus was present to him in his dying ecstasy ; and
was it not therefore natural that the martyr should invoke his
risen Master, then standing before him, should call upon him
to receive his spirit, and thus rescue him from the hands of his
murderers ? The act of Stephen is evidently not one of religious
worship, properly so called. It is rather the entreaty which one
friend might address to another, present with him in the mo
ment of his mortal anguish. As such,' it cannot be held to
authorize the modern disciple to offer his religious adoration to
any other object but the One God and Father of all.
The same remark is applicable to the instances brought for
ward by Dr. Liddon from the Epistles, in which he thinks it
appears that the Apostle conceived of his Master as " of Divine
Providence in a human form," watching over him, guiding and
befriending him* This is probably correct ; but yet it should
be remembered that Paul too had his visions of Jesus. He had,
he said, seen the risen Saviour, as at his conversion ; and he was
personally present with him on at least one other occasion.-f-
Moreover, he constantly speaks of Christ as of one whom he
well knew to be a living person, one exalted to the right hand
of God, and made " head over all things ; " one too who might
at any hour come again to collect and vindicate his scattered
saints, and take them to reign with him in heaven.^; No wonder,
then, that the Apostle speaks as he does ; that when he saw the
* B. L., p. 371 (378). t 2 Cor. xii.
X 1 Cor. i. 7 ; 1 TheBS. iii. 13; iv. 16; 2 Thess. ii. 1 ; iii. 5.

232 THE WORSHIP OF CHRIST.
Lord, he said to him, " Lord, what wilt thou have me do ?" or
that in his vision he "besought the Lord," that the "thorn in
the flesh might depart from him." All this, while it is in per
fect harmony with the belief of the Apostolical age as to the
continued presence of the risen Christ, yet does not shew that
St. Paul, or any one else, was in the habit of worshipping him
as God. Nor can it warrant the Christian of our day, to speak .
to him in any similar way ; much less to forget and violate the
positive precepts of the Gospel respecting the worship of God, or
to follow any other example in this important matter but that of
Christ himself.
The case of Stephen, however, has another lesson very different
from that upon which Dr. Liddon insists. We are told that his
persecutors were at a loss for an effective accusation against
him ; for that " they suborned men " to bear witness against
him. We are told that the false witnesses said, "This man
ceaseth not to speak blasphemous words against this holy place
[the temple] and the law : for we have heard him say that this
Jesus of Nazareth shall destroy this place, and shall change the
customs which Moses delivered us."*
Now, if the disciples looked upon their departed Master
as God, and were accustomed to worship him as such, will
Dr. Liddon inform us why the persecutors of Stephen did not
accuse him of idolatry, in that he offered religious worship to
the crucified prophet of Nazareth ? There is no trace anywhere
in the New Testament of such an accusation — although we know
that it was in substance brought against the Christians in later
times, when probably the worship of Christ was growing up into
an established practice.f It is impossible that it should not
have been brought forward by the enemies of the early Chris
tianity, had fitting occasion been afforded to them. But there is
* Acts vi. 11—14. t B. L., p. 391, seq.

THE WORSHIP OF CHRIST. 233
no trace of it in the Acts, or in any other book of the New
Testament. The inevitable inference is, that such a charge was
not thought of, and could not be made, in the face of the fact
that the disciples did not speak of their Master as God nor pay
him religious adoration. If they did so, they must have done it
in secret, and kept it out of the sight of their implacable perse
cutors. But Dr. Liddon, as we have formerly seen, repeatedly
affirms that Jesus "revealed his Godhead explicitly to the
Apostles, and to the Jewish people ;" and holds that he espe
cially claimed to be worshipped as God, when he said that men
"should honour the Son even as they honour the Father."
Why, then, again, if it were so— why did the enemies of Stephen,
who cannot have shared the belief in the Deity of Christ, never,
so far as can be known, accuse either Stephen, or any other
Christian disciple, of idolatrously worshipping a crucified man,
and thus setting up another as God, besides their own Jehovah
of Hosts ?
The true character of the worship of the primitive disciples
appears in more than one place in the New Testament. When
Jesus taught his disciples to pray, he told them to say, " Our
Father which art in heaven." He even said to them that, after
he was gone from them, they were to ask him nothing, but to
ask the Father in his name. He said to the woman of Samaria
in clear and precise terms, which it might be thought that no one
could misunderstand or explain away, that " the true worshippers
shall worship the Father in spirit and in truth." * In the Acts
we find a prayer of the disciples recorded, and to whom is it
addressed ? " They lifted up their voice to God with one accord
and said, Lord, thou art God, which hast made heaven, and earth,
and the sea, and all that in them is." It is unnecessary to quote
more,-)- for it is evident that this prayer of the assembled disciples
* John xvi. 23 ; iv. 23. t Acts iv. 24—30.

234 THE WORSHIP OF CHRIST.
was in no sense to Jesus Christ. Similarly, on the evening
before his crucifixion, the Lord himself, according to the fourth
Evangelist, prayed and said, " Father, the hour is come ; glorify
thy Son, that thy Son also may glorify thee  And this is
life eternal, that they might know Thee, the only true God, and
Jesus Christ whom thou hast sent."*
Wherever, in short, there is any clear indication in the New
Testament as to the prayers or the worship of the first Christians,
it is always to the same effect. It is in no case Christ, or the
Holy Spirit that is addressed. The great object of religious
worship is everywhere God, the Heavenly Father, even "the
God and Father of Jesus Christ."
Dr. Liddon, however, brings forward one or two expressions
from the Book of Revelation, in which for a moment it might
appear that this statement is not wholly without exceptions ;
or, at least, that it is not correct, if we look beyond the earthly
life of Christ to his risen and glorified state. J*
In the last Chapter sufficient attention has been given to
those passages of the Apocalypse in which the Lamb is repre
sented as sitting upon the throne, and, by the gift or appoint
ment of the Almighty, even sharing in Divine honours. It has
been seen that the Lamb is really everywhere represented as a
subordinate being, the instrument of God, never in any way
identified with God himself, but always distinct from Him. In
* John xvii. 1 — 3.
t "Of all the teachings of the Apocalypse on this subject," Dr. Liddon observes,
"perhaps none is so full of significance as the representation of Christ in His
wounded Humanity upon the throne of the Most High. The Lamb, as It had been
slain, is in the very centre of the court of heaven ; He receives the prostrate adoration
of the highest intelligences around the throne ; and as the Object of that solemn, unin
terrupted, awful worship, He is associated with the Father, as being in truth one with
the Almighty, Uncreated, Supreme God." — B. L., p. 243 (246). All that need be
said, in reference to this highly exaggerated statement, is contained in the preceding
Chapter, to which, therefore, the reader is referred.

THE WORSHIP OF CHRIST. 235
one passage of that book, however, we read that the " four-and-
twenty elders fell down before the Lamb." They sing his praise,
as one worthy to open the book : and the writer of the vision
adds, that he heard all creatures saying, " Unto him that sitteth
upon the throne and to the Lamb be the blessing and the honour
and the glory and the might for ever and ever."*
Unquestionably the honour here ascribed to the Lamb is of
the highest conceivable kind ; such as is nowhere offered to
Jesus in any historical book of the New Testament ; such as
he himself, in his human life, never claimed, never received.
Is it necessary to remind the reader that the whole scene occurs
in a vision or ecstasy, of the most elevated and imaginative
character, — a vision of the approaching end of the then exist
ing state of the world, and the speedy coming of the Son of
man to execute a terrible vengeance on his enemies,-)- — a vision
which has never been converted into a reality, and which, it
may safely be added, never will be so? Supposing, then, the
Lamb, as Dr. Liddon affirms, to be really associated in worship
with the Almighty Father, are we to infer that a composition of
so mystical and unreal a character, in the exposition of which
scarcely any two authorities have hitherto agreed, is to overrule
the plain tenor of historical writings, which give us the words of
Christ on earth, and shew us how his disciples regarded him
and spoke of him, and how they paid religious worship in no
case to him, but to God alone ? Even, then, granting that the
author of the Apocalypse, in his marvellous vision, represents
the Lamb as so highly honoured, ought this fact to be received
as affording a rule or law to the disciple of after-times, to make
him turn away from the express precepts and example of the
Master himself?
But, in truth, there is no such opposition as this between the
* Rev. v. 8—13. t xix. 17—21 ; xviii.

236 THE WORSHIP OF CHRIST.
historical books and this apocalyptic writing. We have abun
dantly seen that whatever worth and honour may be ascribed to
the Lamb is bestowed upon him. They are not his of indepen
dent right. This appears in the passage to which Dr. Liddon
appeals: "Worthy is the Lamb that was slain to receive power,
and riches, and wisdom, and strength, and honour." And it has
been abundantly seen that the general tenor of the Book of
Revelation is directly unfavourable to the supposition of the
deity of the Son of Man. Nothing, therefore, can have been
further from the thoughts of the writer of that book than the
idea which Dr. Liddon asserts, the idea of Jesus Christ "as
being in truth one with the Almighty, Uncreated, Supreme God."
Such an assertion is in the highest degree unwarranted by a calm
and dispassionate examination of the evidence in this book bear
ing upon the subject.
There remains one other expression of the New Testament,
which has given a fallacious support to the belief that the early
disciples worshipped their departed Master. It occurs in those
instances in which they are said to " call upon the name of the
Lord." In the Book of Acts, Saul is said to have "authority
from the chief priests to bind all that call on thy name ;" the
name of Jesus. St. Paul addresses the disciples of Corinth as
those who " are called to be saints, with all that in every place
call upon the name of Jesus Christ our Lord."*
This phrase has been variously understood, even by orthodox
interpreters. There can be no question that in the Old Testa
ment usage, it often means to call upon Jehovah in prayer and
praise. In some places of the New Testament also, where
Jehovah is referred to, it may have the same sense. But it is
equally certain that the word rendered "call upon" (oriKaAoSyiiai)
does not properly or necessarily signify, or imply, religious wor-
* Acts xxii. 16; 1 Cor. i. 1 ; Acts ix. 14, 21.

THE WORSHIP OF CHRIST. 237
ship. Whether it has this meaning or not must always depend
on the object with which the verb is joined. Thus we find St.
Paul before Felix saying, " I appeal unto Caesar ;" literally, " I
call upon Caesar," the same word.* This application of the
word in question occurs several times in the New Testament.
In the present connection it has been taken in a passive sense,
as though denoting those who are " called by " the name of Jesus
Christ. Grammatically, this is not admissible ; and it is doubt
less better (with Winer) -J- to regard it as a middle form. It may,
therefore, denote those who call themselves by, take upon themselves
the name of Jesus Christ — that is to say, those who acknowledge
themselves Christian disciples. This cannot be far from the true
meaning of the word.
If, indeed, it were certainly established by other evidence that
Jesus was God or was worshipped as such by the disciples, there
would be no reason to doubt that the form " call upon " might,
in these cases, be used in that sense. But we have seen that
there is no good reason for holding that religious worship was
paid to Christ, but the contrary ; and that their worship, like
the Master's own, was always given to Jehovah alone. Hence
it is reasonable, or rather it is necessary, to interpret the doubtful
or neutral word in question, in accordance with that clear fact
of Scripture. It must be taken as simply denoting those who
acknowledged the authority of Christ, who recognized him as
Lord, and called on his name, in that sense.
As a conclusive testimony to the worship of Christ by the
early disciples, Dr. Liddon brings forward the Letter of the
* Kdioapa emxaKoiiuai. Acts xxv. 11, 12, 25; comp. xv. 17; 1 Pet. i. 17.
t N. T. Grammar, by Moulton, p. 330. The words in question, " I invoke (call
upon) Caesar," imply the acknowledgment of Caesar as Lord. This is, in reality, a
force equivalent to that above attributed to the expression in connection with Christ,
whom all that bore his name similarly recognized. The passive meaning of the verb
occurs : " all the nations upon whom my name is called," Acts xv. 17.

238 THE WORSHIP OF CHRIST.
younger Pliny to the Emperor Trajan, a document which has
often been adduced for the same purpose. Pliny tells his im
perial master that the Christians of his province of Bithynia
were accustomed to meet together before day-break and sing a
hymn " to Christ as God." Thus Dr. Liddon renders the words
Christo quasi deo; but he will probably not deny that they may
be correctly rendered " to Christ as if to a god." This, in fact,
is the only admissible rendering, considering that the expression
comes from a Roman, who, although familiar enough with the
" gods many " of the heathen mythology, probably knew nothing
of the One only and true God. Moreover, the word quasi (as if)
really suggests the writer's denial of the implied proposition that
Christ was "a god."
The words were written in the year 109, or about seventy-five
years after the crucifixion; and they may certainly be accepted
as shewing that the Christians of Bithynia held the name of
their risen Master in the highest honour, and were in the habit
of celebrating his praise in hymns. But how does it appear
that they worshipped him as God ? — or how does it follow, even
if they did, that we, Christian disciples of to-day, should take
our idea of Christian worship from imperfectly taught Bithy-
nians, as reported by a Roman official ? How does it appear,
because he states that they sang a hymn to Christ, " as if to
a god," that we should worship Christ as God, in contravention
of the plainest precepts and examples of the New Testament ?
Dr. Liddon further points out that the Jews, on the occasion
of Polycarp's martyrdom, " drew the attention of pagan magis
trates to the worship of Jesus, in order to stir up contempt and
hatred against the Christians."* He observes also that the
Emperor Adrian, writing to Servian, describes the population of
Alexandria as "divided between the worship of Christ and the
* B. L., p. 391 (392, 399).

THE WORSHIP OF CHRIST. 239
worship of Serapis; and Dr. Liddon adds the remark, that it
must have been very perplexing to the Roman official mind that
" One who had been adjudged to death as a criminal should
receive Divine honours."
Such observations are perfectly just. But does the reader fail
to perceive the suggestion which they convey ? In the Christian
books there is an entire absence of all indication of either Jewish
or Roman perplexity at the circumstance that the Christians wor
shipped " One who had been adjudged to death as a criminal."
Whence that absence, except only from the fact that such per
plexity, from the nature of the case, could not have arisen, and
never existed — seeing that the Christians did not, in truth, give
occasion for it — seeing that in Apostolic times they had not yet
begun to offer religious worship to Jesus Christ ? Doubtless, in
the later times of Pliny and of Adrian, the deity of Christ was
beginning in some form to win its way to prominence, especially
among certain classes of imperfect, Hellenizing or superstitious
Christians, like Ignatius. It was still, however, two hundred
years before that peculiar development of Christianity reached
its final predominance, at and through the Council of NicEea.
But such an advance as this, or anything like it, can nowhere be
seen within the limits of the New Testament.
And Dr. Liddon himself may be appealed to for the amplest
proof and illustration of this statement. For let any one com
pare the abundant and varied evidence of the worship of Christ
which he cites from hymns and liturgical forms of the time of
Tertullian and Origen, the third century after Christ, — let any
one compare and contrast that with the total absence of every
thing of the kind from the Christian books. It requires nothing
more to shew that the worship of Christ, like that of the Virgin,
was the growth of a long period of time, and of a credulous and
superstitious period. It requires nothing more to shew how

240 THE HOLY SPIRIT.
highly unjustifiable, on Scriptural grounds, is the modern prac
tice of the Churches of uniting Jesus Christ in an equal offering
of worship with Him whom Jesus himself habitually worshipped,
and whom, even in the fourth Gospel, he is recorded to have
addressed in prayer as "the Only True God."*

CHAPTER XXIII.
THE HOLY SPIRIT.

The conception of the Spirit of God, the Holy Spirit, was
familiar among the Hebrews some centuries before the birth of
Christ. The words are very familiar, " Cast me not away from
thy presence, and take not thy Holy Spirit from me." The
Psalm (li. 11) to which this verse belongs is attributed in the
title to David. It is not so ancient ; but there can be no doubt
that it was written very long before the commencement of the
Christian era.
It follows, that the idea of the Holy Spirit,-)* as it appears in
* The import of these most emphatic words, Dr. Liddon seeks, in his own peculiar
way, to " water down " — to use an expressive phrase of his own {supra, p. 211). They
are exclusive, he tells us (p. 237 (240), note), "not of the Son, but of false gods, or
creatures external to the Divine Essence." In other words, they include the person
who now, in his solemn and private prayer, addresses them to the Heavenly Father;
and who is, therefore, himself as much " the Only True God" as the Being of Beings to
whom he prays ! Can such an explanation really satisfy any serious mind ?
t Our English words Ghost and Spirit, the one of Anglo-Saxon, the other of Latin
origin, correspond to and represent only one word in the original Scriptures, Hebrew
and Greek respectively. This should unquestionably everywhere be rendered [by
" Spirit," especially in the New Testament, the word Ghost being, in our days, by no
means free from objectionable associations. Who would not shrink from saying the
Divine Ghost? It can only tend to convey false impressions to English readers, to use
sometimes the one form, sometimes the other, in our version of the New Testament,
the original word being always, without exception, the single neuter substantive ¦Kvivpa.

THE HOLY SPIRIT. 241
the Christian Scriptures, was not, and could not be, a new idea,
or a new revelation of divine truth.
Some of the instances in which the Spirit is mentioned in the
Old Testament are sufficiently remarkable. In one place, the
skill employed in the construction of the tabernacle is said to be
given by it* In the book of Job we have a similar conception,
in these words : " But there is a spirit in man, and the inspira
tion of the Almighty giveth them understanding." Another
sacred poet writes : " The Spirit of the Lord spake by me, and
his word was in my tongue." In the Psalms, the life of the
animal creation and the renewal of the earth with vegetation
are attributed to the same Divine energy : " Thou sendest forth
thy Spirit, they are created ; and thou renewest the face of the
earth, "f
Such instances are sufficient to shew how familiar to various
writers of the older Scriptures was the great thought of the ever-
active and all-pervading Spirit of God. All life, intelligence,
mental energy and manual skill, were of its operation. The
Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters at the dawn of
creation, and reduced the chaos into order. The same inspira
tion upholds us in being, gives us understanding and strength
to do whatever man is capable of doing ; and when that Divine
power is withdrawn, we die and return to dust. Such is the
ancient Hebrew conception, agreeing in a remarkable way with
the later Greek conception of the Divine Logos.
It is evident that, in all such representations, what is really
meant by the term in question, is no other than God himself.
It is the Great Parent Spirit, inscrutably putting forth His
The Revised Version altogether fails in the duty which it owed to its readers in regard
to this word — rendering sometimes "Ghost," sometimes "Spirit." Was this in sub
servience to the Creeds of the Church ? and did not mere literary honesty in so impor
tant a case require uniformity of rendering ?
* Exod. xxxi. 1 — 11. t Job xxxii. 8 ; 2 Sam. xxiii. 2 ; Ps. civ. 30.
R

242 THE HOLY SPIRIT.
energy in the creation, support, control, inspiration, of the uni
verse of animate and inanimate things — acting upon us and in
us by the operation of His living will and power. But there is
nothing to shew that the ancient writers of the Old Testament,
in thus speaking of the creative and all-sustaining energy of
God, ever attributed to it a separate personal existence. Nor
has this, in fact, ever been maintained. The Holy Spirit, in the
older Scriptures, is indeed the Divine Being in His action upon
the material world, and in communion with the soul of man ;
but this fact will not justify us in saying that it is " God the
Holy Spirit," as though it were a something distinct, something
to be thought of and named as God, apart from Him who alone
is Jehovah. The personal conception, if admitted into the Old
Testament, would manifestly have tended directly to weaken or
destroy the proper monotheistic idea of the Mosaic religion. It
will be found that nothing approaching to so dangerous an
infringement of the great characteristic principle of that religion
is anywhere to be met with throughout the Hebrew books.
The deep feeling of reverence with which the later Jews
regarded the Sacred Name has been formerly noticed. They
refrained from uttering it, and preferred to express it by some
substituted form. Something of the same feeling makes its
appearance at times, even amidst the extreme anthropomorphism
of their most ancient books. The sentiment referred to is, in
truth, perfectly natural to the human mind. What God is, in
his essential nature, man does not know, and is perhaps incapable
of comprehending. How he acts upon the universe of material
things, how he preserves or influences the human soul, we are
likewise unable to explain. This natural human incapacity has
been felt in all ages. Hence the ancient idea that the Infinite
cannot stand in any immediate relation with outward things,
and can only act upon them by influences, emanations, angels,

THE HOLY SPIRIT. 243
words spoken, going forth from him and accomplishing whatso
ever He may have ordained* This way of conceiving of the
Divine activity has been already sufficiently dwelt upon in con
nection with the doctrine of the Logos, as found in the fourth
Gospel. But the same feeling in relation to Jehovah most pro
bably gave occasion and form to expressions in the Old Testa
ment also, as well as in the later apocryphal books. Thus, as
before seen, in the Psalms, the " word of Jehovah " and the
" breath of his mouth" are the instruments of his will ; and his
Spirit, or inspiration, goes forth from him, to animate, guide, move,
accomplish, according to his all-comprehending intelligence.
The tendency to distinguish between the incomprehensible
Being and his manifestations in the material universe is more
marked in some books than in others. It leads occasionally to
an apparent separation between Him and one or other of his
attributes ; but we need not dwell upon it. It will be found in
the Psalms and in Job, as before noticed. Wisdom is not really
a separate being. It is so only by a poetical metaphor. The
Divine wisdom is really and essentially in the Divine Mind ;
nay, it is no other than God ; and it would be an extreme error
to make, as it were, a divine person of it, or a separate existence
at all.
Such remarks as these apply not only to the personification of
Wisdom in the Book of Proverbs, on which Dr. Liddon lays so
unreasonable a stress ; and not only to the similar personifica
tions of Wisdom found in the Sapiential Books, which he also
adduces in the same urgent way; but it applies equally to
instances in the New Testament, in which the Holy Spirit
might appear for the moment to be spoken of as a separate
* Much as Justin says of the Logos : " I say that he never did anything but what
the maker of the world, over whom there is no God, willed that he should do."—
Dial. lvi.
r2

244 THE HOLY SPIRIT.
personal existence. The different cases help, in fact, to illustrate
and explain each other. In none of them will it be found really
necessary to suppose that we are to regard the word, or breath,
or wisdom, or Spirit of God, as separate beings, apart from the
Infinite, any more than we should so regard the grace of God or
his mercy.
The truth of these statements may be briefly illustrated. When
Christ reasoned with the Jews respecting his own authority as a
Teacher, and the power by which he wrought his miracles, he
said to them, as reported by the first Evangelist : " If I cast out
devils (daemons) by the Spirit of God, then the kingdom of God
is come unto you." In the parallel place in Luke, the same
saying is reported thus: "If I with the finger of God cast out
devils, no doubt the kingdom of God is come upon you."* The
two forms of expression were evidently understood by the Evan
gelists to mean the same thing. What that meaning is cannot
be doubtful, and is well illustrated by the words of the fourth
Gospel, where Jesus says on another occasion, " The Father that
dwelleth in me, he doeth the works." But this, again, can only
be taken to mean that the Infinite Father was in Christ, in the
Evangelist's conception, by the divine help and power which He
gave him by means of the indwelling Logos ; and such forms of
expression simply amount, in fact, as already observed, to the
statement of Peter at the Pentecost. The Father was manifested
in Christ, and, in the Apostle's conception, was seen to be so,
" by miracles and wonders and signs which God did by him."
It is thus clear that the " finger of God " and the " Spirit of
God" are simply God, the Heavenly Father, acting in and through
Christ; and it is no more necessary, or allowable, to make a
separate person of the Spirit, than it is to suppose such a distinc
tion to be hidden or implied in the phrase, " the finger of God."
* Matt. xii. 28 ; Luke xi. 20.

THE HOLY SPIRIT. 245
The miraculous powers of Christ are thus denoted, at times,
by the words Holy Spirit* So it is in connection with the
Apostles, who are said to " receive power " by the Holy Spirit
coming upon them, and in connection with Christian converts
also, when they receive " the gift of the Holy Spirit."-)- In such
expressions it is impossible to miss the conception really present
in the mind of the writers. Evidently it could not have been
that of a personal agent. The gifts and powers referred to were
produced by the action of the Divine Being upon the mind.
They were conferred by a subtle inbreathing of Divine energy,
such as could only be denoted in human language by the word
"Spirit," no other term being equally adapted to express so
subtle, pervading and all- controlling a manifestation.
We read in the Book of Acts (xix. 1 — 6), that St. Paul found
certain disciples at Ephesus to whom he said, " Have ye received
the Holy Spirit since ye believed ? And they said unto him,
We have not so much as heard whether there be any Holy
Spirit." It is plain that they meant they had not heard of the
miraculous powers conferred on the first Christians ; for it is
added, that "when Paul laid his hands upon them, the Holy
Spirit came upon them, and they spake with tongues."
It would be easy to give other similar instances, by which it
would be equally seen that gifts and powers of knowledge and
of wisdom, sometimes of holy, guiding influence, manifested in
the dispositions and the life, are denoted by this expression.^;
Thus of Stephen, at the time of his death, it is related that,
" being full of Holy Spirit, he looked steadfastly up to heaven."
* Matt. xii. 28; comp. Acts x. 38.
+ Acts i. 8 ; x. 44 — 47 ; Heb. ii. 4 : — in this last place there is no article, " gifts
of Holy Spirit," as frequently.
X Matt. x. 19, 20; John xiv. 26; xv. 26; Acts vi. 3—5; vii. 55; viii. 18—20;
Rom. viii. 4 — 12. The absence of the article in some of these instances should be
particularly noted.

246 THE HOLY SPIRIT.
Simon the sorcerer offered to buy Holy Spirit from the Apostles
for money. It is plain that this can only be understood of the
divine powers which the Apostles possessed. Similarly, in other
places, the Spirit is said to be given, to be poured out, to be
possessed, to fill, and move holy men and others ; — expressions
all of which correspond entirely to the above statement as to its
nature, while they do not correspond to the theory of its per
sonality. It is, however, alleged, that although the Spirit is nowhere
expressly said to be God, or to be a Person, yet it is sometimes
spoken of as possessing personal attributes and performing per
sonal functions. It is described as understanding, willing, acting.
It is represented as speaking to men, pleading with them, and
interceding for them ; as bearing testimony, reproving, teaching,
bringing to remembrance. Are we not, then, by the use of such
phrases, warranted in thinking of it as a personal being, and, by
immediate inference, as the third person of the Godhead ?
To answer this question, it is necessary to ask another. Is it
a real personality that is intended in such instances, or only
a figurative one? Now this question cannot be reasonably
answered except in one way, if we will duly attend to the
manner in which figurative language is employed by the writers
of Scripture, and in particular to the many cases of bold person
ification which occur in both the Old and the New Testament.
When Joshua confirms the covenant with the Israelites, on
entering the land of Canaan, he uses these words : " This stone
shall be a witness unto us ; for it hath heard all the words of
Jehovah which he spake unto us ; it shall therefore be a witness
unto you, lest ye deny your God."* Here a personal character
could scarcely have been more strongly implied. Yet no mistake
is ever made as to the meaning. No one will suppose the stone
* Josh. xxiv. 26, 27.

THE HOLY SPIRIT. 247
to have been an intelligent being, listening to the ratification of
the covenant, to attest the fact to later ages.
Other instances might be adduced, as in those parts of the
Book of Proverbs in which Wisdom is so remarkably personi
fied. But refer more particularly to the New Testament, and
observe how Paul personifies Sin, Death, the Law, in several
instances. He represents them as having power, exercising
dominion, reigning over men, and being enemies ; yet such lan
guage will mislead no one to think that he is speaking of real
persons. The same remark may be made in regard to Charity
(Love) : — Charity suffereth long, and is kind ; envieth not ; is not
puffed up; seeketh not her own;* thinketh no evil; beareth,
believeth, hopeth, endureth, all things. Here this Christian
virtue is represented as having the attributes of personality,
exactly as happens in the case of the Spirit of God. But as we
do not, in the one case, suppose that a real person is meant, so
there is no necessity to do this, and no propriety in doing it, in
the other. So far as the language is concerned, there is just as
much reason to make charity, or sin, or death, or the law, into a
person, as there is to do so in the case of the Holy Spirit.
What has been termed the Sin against the Holy Spirit, may
be explained in accordance with these remarks (Matt. xii. 31).
Blasphemy, or evil-speaking, against the Son of Man, might be
forgiven. But one that was so hardened as to shut his eyes and
his heart to the visible manifestation of divine power, the visible
presence of the Holy Spirit in the " works " of Christ, — such a
person sinned wilfully and obstinately against God himself; and
that sin should not be forgiven.
It was a severe rebuke and condemnation of the hardened
unbelief which even ascribed the visible powers given of God to
Beelzebub, — powers exercised so beneficently, with so much of
* R.V. has been careful to conceal the personification here ! 1 Cor. xiii. 5.

248 THE HOLY SPIRIT.
humility and self-forgetfulness in their possessor, and therefore
so forcibly evidencing, in every respect, their own divine origin*
There are still one or two facts to be mentioned which are
wholly unaccountable on the supposition of the truth of the
popular teaching on this subject. First, there is no doxology, or
ascription of praise, to the Holy Spirit, in either the Old or the
New Testament. Nor is there any instance on record, in all the
Scriptures, of any prayer having ever been addressed to that
divine power as a separate personality. It is inconceivable that
this should be the case, had it been thought of in the early
Christian times as separately God, a definite personal being, even
as much so as the Almighty Father.
It is further to be remembered, that no example can be
adduced, from the first and second centuries, of the Holy Spirit
being made an object of worship, or perhaps even of its being
spoken of as a distinct existence — as distinguished, that is to
say, from the idea of it as a power, gift, blessing, conferred by
God.+ In the Apostles' Creed, it is not described as bearing a
personal character. Many will question whether it is intended
to be so understood in the original Nicene Creed, although some
time before this was adopted (AD. 325), a doctrine of three
equal persons was beginning to be held by some of the more
speculative of the Church Fathers. The absence of the fuller
definition of the Spirit from the Nicene Creed proper is well
known. It was the Council of Constantinople (AD. 381), which
introduced the longer form now found in the Anglican Prayer
Book. | A still later addition, — that of the words filioque, "and
* It is scarcely necessary to add, that the word blaspheme, and its noun, are not,
in the N. T., used solely of God. Hence their occasional use in connection with
Christ as well as others : Luke xxii. 65 ; Acts xiii. 45 ; xviii. 6 ; 1 Pet. iv. 4.
f See in Athenagoras, about 170 A.D. He speaks of the Holy Spirit as an effluence
from God — its true character. — Ante-Kicene Library, II. p. 386.
X The clause relating to the Holy Spirit originally stood thus : ¦¦ And in the Holy

THE HOLY SPIRIT. 249
the Son," — was the great occasion of the schism, not yet healed,
nor likely to be so, between the Eastern and the Western
Churches. The following just and weighty observation, in reference to
the doxology in use in the worship of the Church of England, is
made by Lardner. After quoting the doxology, " Glory be to the
Father, and to the Son, and to the Holy Ghost : as it was in the
beginning, is now, and ever shall be, world without end. Amen," —
he observes : " Doubtless this is said by many very frequently,
and with great devotion. But can it be said truly ? Does not
that deserve consideration ? Is there any such doxology in the
New Testament ? Are not the books of the New Testament the
most ancient and the most authentic Christian writings in all
the world ? It matters not much to inquire when this doxology
was first used, or how long it has been in use, if it be not in the
New Testament. And whether it is there or not, may be known
by those who are pleased to read it with care."
Let us not, however, in the midst of these more controversial
topics, lose sight of a very different consideration, one which has
an immediate connection both with Christian faith and with
Christian practice. The doctrine of the Holy Spirit is still and
ever a vital part of Christianity. And, to one who faithfully
receives it, there is an effectual end to the importance of sacer
dotalism, Anglican, Romish and Greek; equally an end to
priestly authority in all its three forms. For no reasonable mind
can suppose that the Spirit of God is confined in its movements
within the limits of those churches, one or all of them ; that it
can only visit the humble, waiting soul through the person of a
Spirit." This, as above stated, was amplified so as to read as we now have it, followed,
in time, by the words "and the Son,"after "proceedeth from the Father." "So that
the creed, here called the Nicene Creed, is indeed the Constantinopolitan creed,
together with the addition of filioque, made by the Western Church. "—Bishop Burnet,
apud Lardner (Works by Kippis, X. pp. 132, 167).

250 THE HOLY SPIRIT.
priest ; or that a priest, so called, has alone the power to confer
it, however exactly his outer vestments may be conformed to the
style of some long past century of Christian antiquity, however
elaborately he may perform enjoined ceremonies and sacra
ments, or however magnificent the external accompaniments of
his worship.
All true religion, whether in " Church" or out of it, is founded
upon, is identical with, the sense of the living presence of God
with and in the human soul — that alone. Such is also the evi
dent foundation of Christianity, as recognized in almost every
act and word of Christ and his Apostles. With them, the
Heavenly Father is the all-pervading Spirit of the universe,
a living God, who can hear our prayers, and see our efforts to do
his Will ; and who, by his Spirit, can help, enlighten and com
fort the souls of all that faithfully look to Him, whether they
shall bow down in the humblest meeting-house, in the street or
the market-place, or in the grandest cathedral of human Art.
Not, indeed, in the presence of elaborately or superstitiously
observed formalities, any more than amidst fanatical noise and
excitement, can we think that the Spirit of God most effectually
visits the waiting soul, or lets the " small, still voice " of his
presence be most clearly and touchingly heard within the heart.
It is rather in the hour of quiet and lonely meditation that this
will come to pass : — when we think with penitence about our
past sins, when we reflect upon the duties we have to do, and
how best we may do them, when we strive and pray to give our
selves up to all God's will concerning us ; then will the commu
nion of his Holy Spirit be ours ; " the grace of the Lord Jesus
Christ" be with us, and the Divine Love be shed upon us.
Then, too, shall we know that we are true disciples of the great
Teacher, acceptable servants and children of our Father which is
in Heaven.

SACRIFICES: THEIR NATURAL ORIGIN. 251
CHAPTER XXIV.
SACRIFICES, THEIR ORIGIN AND PURPOSE — THE HEBREW SYSTEM.
One of the earliest ideas met with in the history of religion is
that of the efficacy of sacrifices to expiate sin, to propitiate the
gods, and avert punishment from the guilty. The first book of
the Iliad shews us the enraged Apollo, in the midst of the ven
geance he is taking upon the Greeks, appeased by the offering of
a hecatomb, and delighted by the singing at the sacrificial ban
quet by which it is accompanied. The 'Father of history records
a similar belief on the part of the ancient Egyptians, as he
doubtless heard of it from their priests, in his travels among.
them in the fifth century before Christ. Beginning with these
early notices, a long succession of passages may be cited from
the classical writers, in evidence of the wide prevalence of the
same idea. Among these, no statement is more definite or
interesting to an English reader than that of Csesar, in his Gallic
War, where he tells us of the Galli and their powerful priest
hood, the Druids, how given they were to religious rites, and
what importance they attached to their terrible offerings of
human victims.
But, indeed, we need not go back to remote antiquity for either
the belief in the efficacy of sacrifices in general, or that of the
superior value of human victims in particular. A very remark
able and fearful example may be found nearer to ourselves. It
is not many years since the Indian Government found itself
called upon to interfere, to suppress a system of human sacrifice
prevailing among a barbarous race of people, in the province of
Orissa .* It was found, in this case, that the victims were kept
* Major Campbell's Wild Tribes of Khondistan, 1864.

252 SACRIFICES.
and reared for the purpose, and put to death in a particular way,
with circumstances of great cruelty, before an assembled crowd
of people. The design was to propitiate some divinity, and thus
to gain a victory, to obtain abundant crops, or avert calamity
from the community or the individual It is satisfactory to learn
that success attended the efforts of the Indian Government to
put an end to these deplorable barbarities. They serve, how
ever, to illustrate the ideas of far distant times on the same
subject. We cease to wonder that ancient Gauls, and Britons,
and Egyptians, and others of former ages, had faith in the reli
gious value of sacrifices, animal and human, when we find the
same faith in active operation even among subjects of the British
crown, and in the middle of the nineteenth century.
What has just been said shews the wide-spread prevalence and
great antiquity of the dreadful superstition referred to. It shews
more than this. We see also that the practices in question were
essentially natural as well as heathen practices ; inasmuch as
they have prevailed so universally among ancient peoples, and
have been, in all cases, so far as we have any evidence, the
simple offspring of their own low and unspiritual ideas of the
Deity, and of the worship which is acceptable to Him.
This remark is made mainly because it suggests and warrants
another. Most of our older theologians would seem to have
believed in the divine, or supernatural, institution of sacrifices.
Very probably this notion is hardly yet obsolete. It is entirely
destitute of reasonable evidence, and is in no way rendered
feasible, but only condemned, by the well-known facts of the
case, including the suffering to man and beast, and the destruc
tion of human life to which the sacrificial system gave occasion.
The point is one, however, which must be admitted, at the present
day, to have lost any interest or importance it may once have
been thought to possess.

THE MOSAIC SYSTEM. 253
Among the Hebrews, sacrificial usages were in operation from
the earliest period of which we have any positive information.
But in the Mosaic laws they are regulated and modified in such
a way as to guard against some of their worst abuses. Probably
no law-maker of those times would have found it expedient, or
even possible, to dispense with sacrifices altogether. All that
could be done was to place them under some reasonable limita
tions, and endeavour to connect with them better ideas than had
previously prevailed. Sacrifices of animals, as well as other
offerings, are accordingly prescribed by the Law ; but some care
was nevertheless taken to prevent the people from thinking that
such things availed in themselves to expiate moral sins, actual
violations of honesty, justice and truth. Although therefore in
most cases of transgression a sacrifice is prescribed, yet there is
also some penalty or punishment connected with it. Thus, as
the rule, the offender was reminded that transgression brought
punishment, and was not to be atoned for by a mere ceremony.
Nor was the idea encouraged that it was sufficient, in order
to gain the Divine forgiveness, to turn over punishment incurred
to some substituted victim. In this respect, the old law of the
Jews was a better teacher than some "evangelical" expounders
of the modern doctrine of atonement.
These statements may be illustrated by the following passage
in the Book of Leviticus (Lev. vi. 1 — 7).
"And the Lord spake unto Moses, saying, If a soul sin and
commit a trespass against the Lord, and lie unto his neighbour
in that which was delivered unto him to keep, or in fellowship,
or in a thing taken away by violence; or hath deceived his
neighbour ; or have found that which was lost, and lieth con-
cerning it, and sweareth falsely ; in any of all these that a man
doeth, sinning therein ; then it shall be, because he hath sinned
and is guilty, that he shall restore that which he. took violently

254 SACRIFICES.
away, or the thing which he hath deceitfully gotten, or that
which was delivered him to keep, or the lost thing which he
found, or all that about which he hath sworn falsely ; he shall
even restore it in the principal, and shall add the fifth part more
thereto, and give it unto him to whom it appertaineth, in the day
of his trespass offering. And he shall bring his trespass offering
unto the Lord, a ram without blemish out of the flock, .... for
a trespass offering, unto the priest ; and the priest shall make
an atonement for him before the Lord ; and it shall be forgiven
him for any thing of all that he hath done in trespassing
herein." In this passage there are two or three things worthy of notice.
First, restitution, or compensation, was to be made for injury
done. Secondly, there must be an acknowledgment of the
wrong, and this confession is marked and emphasized by the
offering of a sacrifice. Thirdly, the victim is itself an animal of
some value, insomuch that its loss was a kind of penalty upon
the offender. And so it is, in most cases under the Law : actual
crimes, moral offences, sins, are punished. They are not allowed
to be simply expiated by sacrifice — the latter being rather a
subordinate incident of the whole transaction, though doubtless
very necessary in those times, as tending to strengthen the
sense of guilt, and direct the mind to the idea of the invisible
Ruler and Judge, whose will had been violated. The atonement
made by sacrifice is constantly of the ritual or ceremonial cha
racter, — a mere appendage to something else of greater moral
significance, rather than in itself possessed of an independent,
all-sufficient, expiatory or propitiatory efficacy. (Comp. Lev. v.
xvi xxiv. xxvi.)
It is hardly necessary to add, that the general spirit of most
of the Prophets is in harmony with whatever is best and highest
in the Law on this subject. The people, and probably their

THE MOSAIC SACRIFICES NOT TYPICAL. 255
rulers, were long incapable of appreciating worthily these better
ideas. In the times of Isaiah and Micah, for example, it is
clear, the tendency was to look upon the sacrifice of a victim as
possessed of great efficacy to propitiate Jehovah and expiate sin.
But against this the faithful prophet earnestly protests. " Will
Jehovah be pleased with thousands of rams," Micah asks, " or
with ten thousands of rivers of oil ? Shall I give my first-born
for my transgression, the fruit of my body for the sin of my
soul?" Isaiah and Jeremiah are equally decided and severe on
this point ; shewing us, on the one hand, how prevalent among
the people of their times was the idea of the value of sacrifices
to secure the Divine favour even for a guilty man, and, on
the other, that such beliefs were as little encouraged by the
Prophets as by the Law. (Isaiah i. ; Mic. vi. ; Jer. vii.)
A singular but wholly factitious importance has been attached
to the sacrificial system of the Hebrews, inasmuch as it has been
thought to have been intended mysteriously to foreshadow and
typify the death of Christ, and the work of redemption effected
by him. This theory is, in fact, only another form of the ill-
founded doctrine held by so many, and discussed at sufficient
length in the earlier part of this work. It is Dr. Liddon's " prin
ciple of an organic unity in Holy Scripture," applied to Hebrew
sacrifices and the death of Christ ; and it will not be found more
valid or more tenable in the present case than in connection with
the Messianic expectations of the Old Testament. A further
remark is inevitable : whether the theory now in question be true
or not, certainly those who profess to hold it might, at least, be
expected to interpret the Christian redemption in accordance with
the highest spirit of the older Scriptures to which they appeal ;
and this, it is plain, does not countenance a belief in vicarious
punishment, or in the forgiveness of moral transgression for the
sake of a substituted victim.

256 EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS.
But, in truth, the theory alluded to will scarcely bear exami
nation. The Jews themselves never so understood their ancient
books. No passage can be pointed out in the Old Testament
which contains an anticipation of anything supposed to be taught
in the New Testament on this subject, or which indicates any
conscious looking forward by the writer to a greater and more
genuine sacrifice to come.* It was not expected by the Jewish
people that the Messiah would die. When Jesus spoke to his
disciples of his approaching sufferings and death, it would appear
that they could not bear, scarcely comprehend, his words.f Thus,
the crucifixion came upon them as an unforeseen calamity — so
little had it been known either to unbelieving Jews, or to Chris
tian disciples, that the Messiah, when he came, must be offered
up as a propitiatory sacrifice for the sins of the world.
In one New Testament book only does the theory now referred
to find an apparent support. This is the Epistle to the Hebrews,
a work, the reader is aware, of unknown authorship,! and which
can only be received as expressing, not the belief of the general
Christian community at the time when it was written, but that
solely of its eloquent and fanciful author, whoever he may have
been. This Epistle, addressing itself to Jewish Christians, and
accommodating itself to the old sacrificial ideas, runs a kind of
parallel between the ministry and death of Christ and various
Levitical rites and objects. Jesus is not only the victim offered,
but also the priest who officiates — offering up himself. Chris
tianity has its temple, its altar, its Holy of holies, its sacrifice,
even as Judaism had: but in what sense ? Evidently in no real
* On Isaiah liii., see supra, Chap. V.
t Matt. xvi. 21 — 23, and parallels ; John xii. 34.
X Comp. note, supra, p. 5. Origen, it is well known, as reported by Eusebius, said
of the Epistle to the Hebrews, " who it was that really wrote this Epistle, God only
knows. But the account come down to us is, according to some, that Clement, who
wa3 Bishop of Rome, wrote the epistle ; according to others, that it was Luke."

THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS. 257
or literal sense ; but in an imaginative, allegorical sense only,
similar to that which is so easily attributed to the "Pilgrim's
Progress." Thus, again, the typical significance attached to tbe
ancient rites by the Epistle to the Hebrews is purely imaginary,
and cannot justify us in thinking that those rites were, in their
institution, consciously designed by any one to prefigure or anti
cipate the life and death of Jesus Christ.
The remembrance of the origin of the Epistle in Alexandria,,
the native home of allegorical interpretation, equally warns us
against the error of accepting its representations as literal state
ments of fact and history. In various points, indeed, its whole
conception is essentially different from the leading ideas of the
writings of St. Paul : — a conclusive reason, both against its
Pauline authorship, and also for declining to allow the views
which it sets forth to exercise any determinative influence in the
interpretation either of those writings, or of any other part of
the New Testament. There is nothing in the Epistle respecting
the Gentile controversj'- of which the letters of Paul are so full ;
nor about the continued claims of the Law, or the necessity
of submission to its ritual requirements on the part of Gentile
converts. Passing on from the older times of the Law and the Prophets
to those of the primitive Christianity, we find the ancient system
of worship still in operation in the time of Christ, and long after
wards. The smoke of the morning and evening sacrifice still
ascended daily from the temple court; and, probably, there
prevailed widely throughout tbe nation a belief in the sacred
ness of such rites, and in their value as the means of propitiating
the Almighty and obtaining the forgiveness of transgression,
national and individual. Hence the writer to the Hebrews
(ix. 22) can declare, "Almost all things are by the law purged
with blood ; and without shedding of blood is no remission." To
s

258 THE SACRIFICIAL SYSTEM
the Jewish mind of that time, doubtless this was true. The
people had been accustomed for centuries to such ideas, in com
mon with most of the nations of ancient times. But, however
natural it was to the childhood of the human race so to think
and so to worship, the old ideas and practices are incompatible
with increased knowledge, and a better understanding of moral
and spiritual truth in particular. When Jesus Christ so plainly
and emphatically spoke of God as the Heavenly Father, and
taught that we must worship Him, not with ceremonies and
sacrifices, but "in spirit and in truth ;" when he repeated to the
people around him those ancient words, " I will have mercy and
not sacrifice ;" when he said, " If thou bring thy gift to the altar,
and there rememberest that thy brother hath aught against thee,
leave there thy gift before the altar, and go thy way ; first be
reconciled to thy brother, and then come and offer thy gift ;"
when he declared, as he plainly did, that the prayer of the peni
tent sinner was better in God's sight than all the boastful pride
of Pharisaic righteousness ; — in such teachings as these he struck
at the root of those long-descended ideas and practices of his
countrymen in connection with sacrifices. These may, indeed,
still linger in the world; for the world is slow to learn the
lessons of a simple, non-mystical, and truly spiritual religion.
But it will learn them in time. In proportion as men become
truly able to look up to God as the Heavenly Father, and to
trust in Him as a God of love and mercy unspeakable, they will
put away from their thoughts the old heathen belief in the
necessity of sacrifices to propitiate Him or to expiate sin. Espe
cially must this be so, if, as may easily be shewn, Christianity
itself does not really teach or enjoin any doctrine of the forgive
ness of sin, other than that of its being a free gift of the Infinite
mercy. Forgiveness is not, indeed, offered in the Gospel without
conditions on the side of man ; but we may well believe that it

UNSPIRITUAL AND UNCHRISTIAN. 259
is so on the side of God. He, we are taught, forgives freely, of
his own unbought grace and goodness. If, in short, we may
place any reliance on the plainest declarations of Christ — such
as we have, for example, in the parable of the Prodigal Son — the
ancient and widely-diffused belief in the efficacy of sacrifices, in
every form, must sooner or later die out from the thoughts of
devout men, giving place to what is higher and better, more
worthy of the Divine love, and of the worship and service which
He who is a Spirit asks from us.
It is true that numerous expressions occur in the New Testa
ment which connect together the forgiveness of sins and the
shedding of blood, — in particular, the shedding of the blood of
Christ. Our purpose must now be to ascertain the meaning of
this language ; and, if possible, to find an interpretation of it,
not drawn from any modern theories of atonement, whether of
this church or of that, but founded simply on a fair considera
tion of the circumstances and feelings of the times from which
the expressions referred to come down to us. Dr. Liddon speaks
of " writers who carry into their interpretation of the Gospels
ideas which have been gained from a study of the Platonic
Dialogues, or of the recent history of France." The remark is
apposite, and the warning which it conveys perhaps more widely
applicable than its author suspected ! It is at least a remark the
spirit of which is especially worthy of remembrance in connec
tion with the present subject. For the danger is obvious of
introducing into its discussion ideas gained, not from the New
Testament, but rather from Augustin, Anselm, Luther; to say
nothing of various Creeds and Articles which are still nearer to
us, and not unlikely to have their weight even with a Bampton
Lecturer. This error, then, let us here duly bear in mind, and
carefully endeavour to avoid.
s2

260 THE DEATH OF CHRIST.
CHAPTER XXV.
THE DEATH OF CHRIST — POPULAR THEORIES FOUNDED UPON IT.
The language in which the death of Christ is spoken of in the
New Testament is richly varied in its forms. Him, says St. Paul,
" God hath set forth to be a propitiation through faith, by his
blood." "Ye were not redeemed," writes another Apostle, "with
corruptible things, as silver and gold, from your vain conversa
tion received by tradition from your fathers, but with the precious
blood of Christ, as of a lamb without blemish and without spot."
And so the first Epistle of John: "The blood of Jesus Christ
his Son cleanseth us from all sin."* Similar expressions might
be multiplied ; but these are sufficient to enable us to state, in
one of its principal forms, the doctrine of redemption which has
been founded on such language.
The human race, we are told, was guilty of manifold sin before
God, both as being descended from Adam and partaking of his
guilt, and also on account of actual transgression: "As it is
written, There is none righteous, no, not one." All men were
thus guilty and deserving of punishment. The wrath of God
was aroused against them, and would, in due time, have fallen
upon them, in the form of eternal damnation. It would now also
be impending over all of us, witbout any chance of escape, had
not Christ, by suffering and dying, borne it for us. He, however,
suffered and died upon the cross, for sin. Thus by his death he
appeased, propitiated, or made satisfaction to, the justice and
the wrath of God, by himself enduring the punishment which
must else have been inflicted on man. From that punishment
he has, therefore, redeemed us ; by his stripes we are healed ; or,
* Rom. iii. 25; 1 Pet. i. 18, 19; 1 John i. 7.

THE POPULAR THEORY. 261
in other words, we have redemption through his blood. Thus,
it is further said, God forgives us our sins. He has manifested
His love to the world in giving and accepting Christ as our sub
stitute. At the same time He has manifested his justice, because
he does not pardon sin without punishing for it. The sovereignty
of the Divine Law is vindicated : man does not sin with im
punity ; for though he may escape the penalties he has incurred,
yet these have fallen upon an all-sufficient substitute, and the
requirements of justice are satisfied.
In giving an account of the doctrines of others, there is some
danger of overstating or understating what they teach — a fault
which ought of course to be guarded against. The doctrine of
Atonement and its subsidiary doctrines have been variously laid
down by different writers, of older and more recent date. In the
above statement it has been sought to express fairly the substance
of long prevalent ideas of the forgiveness of sin, and the con
nection of that result with the death of Christ. Probably few
persons familiar with modern Evangelical preaching, whether
among the Clergy or the Methodists and other Nonconformist
sects, would say that there is any over-statement in the brief
summary just given. But that this may further appear, a few
sentences shall be quoted from certain works and documents
well known and widely accepted at the present time. The first
of these, though not possessed of any official authority, may
properly be regarded as the representative of an important phase
of the common doctrine, seeing that it comes before us. with all
the authority of one of the heads of the National Church. Speak
ing of the death of Christ, the late Archbishop Thomson writes
as follows : —
"How came this exhibition of Divine love to be needed?
Because wrath had already gone out against man. The clouds
of God's anger gathered thick over the whole human race ; they

262 THE DEATH OF CHRIST.
discharged themselves on Jesus only. God has made Him to be
sin for us who knew no sin ; He is made ' a curse ' (a thing
accursed) for us, that the curse that hangs over us may be
removed. He bore our sins in his own body on the tree. There
are those who would see on the page of the Bible only the sun
shine of the Divine love ; but the muttering thunders of Divine
wrath against sin are heard there also ; and He who alone was
no child of wrath meets the shock of the thunder-storm, becomes
a curse for us, and a vessel of wrath ; and the rays of wrath
break out of that thunder-gloom and shine on the bowed head of
Him who hangs on the Cross, dead for our sins."*
In another page the Archbishop says, speaking of Christ : " He
came to reconcile men and God by dying on the Cross for them
and bearing their punishment in their stead. He is a ' propitia
tion through faith in his blood.' -f- He is the ransom, or price
paid, for the redemption of man from all iniquity. The wrath of
God was against man ; but it did not fall on man. God made
His Son ' to be sin for us,' though he knew no sin ; and Jesus
suffered, though men had sinned. By this act God and man were
reconciled." Once more, the Archbishop describes a "main point" of "this
mysterious transaction" in the following words: — "God the
Father laid upon His Son the weight of the sins of the whole
world, so that he bare in His own body the wrath which men
must else have borne, because there was no other way of escape
* Aids to Faith, 4th ed., p. 332 ; also pp. 336, 337.
t Rom. iii. 25 — but a mis-rendering of the words, which may be correctly translated
thus, " Whom God has set forth to be a propitiation through faith, by his blood."
So Prof. Jowett, Epistles of St. Paul, I. p. 121. Meyer observes that the words "his
blood" belong in sense to the verb "set forth," and not to the word "faith." So, in
effect, Bunsen, De Wette, and various other authorities. The phrase, "faith in the
blood of Christ," familiar as it is, and very essential to the popular theology, is nowhere
found in the New Testament. Comp. R. V., which has the rendering here followed so
long ago (i.e. in 1870).

ARCHBISHOP THOMSON'S DOCTRINE. 263
for them ; and thus the atonement was a manifestation of Divine
justice." It is evident that the writer of these passages held the doctrine
of Atonement in no undecided form. He does not, however,
expressly tell us the nature of the punishment which impended
over man ; but there can be little doubt as to what is meant. It
is easy to see that the Archbishop, if he had spoken more fully
on that point, would have said, with many before him, that the
" terrible wrath " of God could only have been " appeased," or
found "satisfaction,"* by and in sinful man's endurance of end
less suffering in hell.
What, however, this eminent expositor of the Church's doctrine
fails to explain to us on the point in question, may be found very
fully set forth in other quarters. It may be well, too, not to pass
over and neglect more popular statements. The following is from
one of the Wesleyan Catechisms : — ¦
"Wherein consists the misery of that state into which man
fell ? — The misery of the state into which man fell consists in
this, that all mankind, being born in sin, and following the devices
and desires of their own corrupt hearts, are under the wrath and
curse of God, and so are made liable to the miseries of this life,
to death itself, and to the pains of hell hereafter." f
There is more to the same effect ; but this is enough to shew
the agreement which there is between the Archbishop and the
* Aids to Faith, p. 351. " The wrath of God " is a favourite expression with Arch
bishop Thomson, judging from the frequency of its occurrence in his Essay, where it
may be found much oftener than in the whole of the New Testament. In the latter,
it is used to denote especially the condemnation and destruction awaiting the wicked
on the great judgment-day of the Messiah, at his second coming. But there is no
instance in which it denotes abiding wrath hanging over human kind, and threatening
to find its consummation in their eternal misery. Ephes. ii. 3 affords no exception to
this remark. See supra, p. 20.
t Wesleyan Catechism, No. 2 (published by the Conference), pp. 10, 13; in later
editions of this Catechism some expressions have been modified ; but the essential ideas
are still there; pp. 17, 23.

264 THE DEATH OF CHRIST.
Methodist Catechism, while yet the latter is the more explicit of
the two in regard to the punishment from which man has been
delivered. The "Declaration of Faith" issued by the Congregational
Union is in harmony with both, and it may be cited here as shew
ing what is no doubt the usual doctrine of a large and important
section of English Nonconformists. The Congregational churches,
we are told, believe " that Jesus Christ, the Son of God, revealed,
either personally in His own ministry, or by the Holy Spirit in
the ministry of His Apostles, the whole mind of God for 'our
salvation ; and that by His obedience to the Divine law while
He lived, and by His sufferings unto death, He meritoriously
' obtained eternal redemption for us ;' having thereby vindicated
and illustrated Divine justice, ' magnified the law,' and ' brought
in everlasting righteousness.'"*
There is a little vagueness in this document. It does not speak
of the " wrath of God," nor tell us at all definitely what mankind
have been redeemed from, nor even state that Christ suffered and
died in our stead, as our substitute. It is, in short, altogether
less decided than either the Archbishop or the Catechism. But,
nevertheless, it may safely be assumed that the doctrine intended
by this " Declaration," and now understood to be received in the
denomination, is little different from that contained in the pre
vious quotations on this subject. If, indeed, the vaguer state
ment just given be interpreted by the doctrinal schedule annexed
to a model Trust-deed of the Congregationalists, there can be nd
question as to what is meant. That schedule speaks plainly of
"the fall and depravity of man;" of Christ's "sacrificial death
for the sins of mankind ;" and of " everlasting punishment."
Finally in this enumeration, may be mentioned the two
Articles of the Church of England in which the death of Christ
* Congregational Manual, p. 104.

VARIOUS DOCTRINAL STATEMENTS. 265
is more particularly spoken of. To these it may be supposed
that some importance is still attached by many — how much, or
how little, it would be presumptuous here to attempt to define.
Article II. declares, in reference to Christ, that he " truly suffered,
was crucified, dead and buried, to reconcile his Father to us, and
to be a sacrifice, not only for original guilt, but also for actual
sins of men." Article XXXI. runs thus: "The offering of Christ
once made is that perfect redemption, propitiation, and satisfac
tion for all the sins of the whole world, both original and actual ;
and there is none other satisfaction for sin, but that alone."
It is not necessary for the present purpose, to notice in any
way the sense in which the various expressions of these Articles
are either admitted or denied by different persons. It is enough
to lay them before the reader in their plain and obvious signifi
cation. So taken, it would seem that there can be little question
as to the fact of a doctrine of substitution and propitiation being
held in a very definite form — or if not held, at least professed —
by a considerable and important section of English people at the
present time, as it undoubtedly was by the generation from which
the Thirty-nine Articles have come down to us.
In whatever form the popular doctrine may be stated or pro
fessed, it would, by very many of those who hold it, be thought
but a light consideration, that it is out of harmony with the
dictates of reason, and with that natural sense of right which
the Creator has given to be the guide of man in the ordinary
affairs of human life.* Such persons may say, and have said,
that human reason is depraved, and unfit to be the judge of any
question of right or wrong in the dealings of God.-)- But surely,
* A popular Congregational minister thus wonderfully writes — "With regard,
first of all, to natural reason, it may be enough to remind ourselves that the whole
history of Jesus Christ removes itself as far as possible from the court in which natural
reason presides." — Dr. Joseph Parker's Ecce Deus, Chapter XVI.
t See Dr. Pusey, Sermon on Everlasting Punishment, 1864, pp. 5, 6.

266 THE DEATH OF CHRIST.
on the other hand, if what is believed to be divine revelation is
to have weight and influence among men, it is of very great
importance that its principal teachings shall not appear to be in
opposition to man's cultivated sense of right, or to the usual
promptings of his rational nature. In the interest, therefore, of
Christianity itself, it may be well to ask respecting the doctrine
now under notice, whether it is really a part of Christianity :
and if it should appear to be so, then a further question will
remain, and will press for an answer : Is it possible, is it right,
that the cultivated reason and conscience of man should submit
to what is felt to be an unjust or irrational doctrine? Our
spiritual faculties are as much the Creator's direct gift as any
written revelation can be, and we are evidently called upon to
render obedience and honour to them, as much as to any alleged
truth or doctrine whatsoever, handed down from old times in a
written form of words. Hence the question just suggested returns
with redoubled force, and in various forms : Is the doctrine of
substitution and redemption expressed in the above cited state
ments really in accordance with the sentiments of reason and
justice on which men usually act in their ordinary conduct ? Can
it be right to inflict an everlasting and terrible punishment for
the sins of a short lifetime ? Can it be right to inflict the equiva
lent of such a punishment upon an innocent Christ for the guilt
of others, even with his own consent ? But indeed, in this case,
it can scarcely be said to have been inflicted with his own con
sent; for we are told how he prayed and said, " If it be possible,
let this cup pass from me," although it is true he immediately
added the words, " not as I will, but as thou wilt " — a consent
certainly, but one of submission and resignation, rather than a
willing or eager acceptance, as required by the creeds. If, again,
it may be asked, a human father were to send his innocent son
to be crucified, in order that a band of evil-doers might escape,

QUESTIONS AND DIFFICULTIES. 267
would this be felt to be a righteous deed on the part of the
father ? And is God less just than man ? " Shall not the Judge
of all the earth do right ?" If the father, as an earthly sovereign,
wished to pardon the criminals, to be merciful to them and let
them escape punishment, would it not be more gracious and
merciful, as at the same time more just, to pardon them at once,
without exacting punishment from an innocent substitute ? How,
again, does it vindicate or " magnify " the Divine law to let the
guilty escape, and put their punishment on another who has
done no sin? Does not this really make God indifferent to
justice ? For, provided the punishment falls somewhere, it
would appear that he does not care who it is that suffers. And
can that be right in God, the Heavenly Father, which would be
so fearfully wrong in man, in any human father, in any earthly
sovereign ? Or can that really " reconcile the Father to us,"
which, as between two human beings, could only tend to greater
bitterness, distrust and alienation? Moreover, if such be really
the Divine proceeding and idea of right, how can man feel
assured that some terrible punishment for his sins shall not
hereafter still fall upon him? May not a Being who can punish
the innocent instead of the guilty, be thought likely, on second
thoughts, to punish the guilty nevertheless, according to their
just deserts ?
That the last inquiry is perfectly apposite, appears from a
remarkable passage in Archbishop Thomson's Essay, in which
he explains how Christ bore the curse for us. " The curse under
which man labours" shews itself, we are told, "in his social
relations, in his relation to nature, and in his relation to God ;"
and then the writer goes on to speak of some of the inconve
niences and miseries of human life, the evil habits, the weak
ness, and the sins of men, in which the curse is exemplified.
He proceeds to explain how Christ partook of these. He was

268 THE DEATH OF CHRIST.
poor ; his life was spent among " lepers and lunatics," with men
afflicted and possessed. After a career, in which " all the suf
ferings of our social state  were brought around Him,"
he was betrayed by a disciple, and crucified, while " His disciples
fled in terror from His side." " He shared our curse in tasting
the bitterness of death." There is more to the same effect, upon
which it is not necessary to enter; but it is matter of surprise
that the Archbishop should have failed to note that if Christ
thus indeed bore " the curse " and " the wrath of God " for us, he
has yet by no means released the human race from the enume
rated evils. Do they not all press upon our lot, much as before?
Social suffering, selfishness, indolence, passion, the bitterness of
death, the fear of death, manifold wickedness and sin, — these,
alas ! are all here in our human life, just as of old. How then
has Christ borne them in " our stead," or redeemed us from them,
or, by taking them from us, changed the earthly state into a
heavenly paradise ? No such effects have followed, and, so far as
this world is concerned, it is evident that they are non-existent,
the merest dream of theological system-makers.
Shall we, then, say that the Great Ruler has changed His
mind ? — and even though it be that Christ bore our punishment,
"the just for the unjust," that the Incomprehensible One, never
theless, still inflicts upon men the dread consequences of their
sins? The only refuge from this alternative is evidently in the pro
position, that the whole efficacy of the Atonement belongs to the
next world, for truly it is little to be traced in this. It is from
eternal misery that men, that is, some men, are saved by the
sacrifice of Christ, — if from anything at all. The Archbishop,
however, does not tell us, as theologians of a former generation
would have done, that suffering equivalent to the eternal misery
of the whole human race was inflicted upon the innocent Jesus ;

QUESTIONS AND DIFFICULTIES. 269
that he was made a curse for us, and bore our sins, in that un
speakably fearful sense. This he does not say, and his reticence
is not to be wondered at. But nevertheless, even this, and
nothing else, is what the consistent development of his theory
required him to say. For, if Christ has not borne the future
punishment of sin due to a guilty world, and so redeemed man
from bearing it, what else is it that he has done or suffered " in
our stead"? In what other way has he, as our substitute, re
leased or shielded us from "the wrath of God"?*
But such inquiries as these have been often made. Natural
or unavoidable as to some minds they may be, to many others
they will appear as the mere dictates of carnal and " unsancti-
fied " reason. They will be deemed, therefore, wholly superfluous
and uncalled for, as well as inconsistent with the reverence due,
whether to Holy Scripture or the teaching of "the Church."
The one question with the numerous religionists of this class
will be simply this — What is the doctrine of the New Testament
respecting the death of Christ, and its connection with the for
giveness of sin ? Let, therefore, even this be now the great
question to be here considered.
And let us begin with a remark which might be expected to
surprise those who are accustomed only to the ordinary Evan
gelical teaching. When the New Testament is carefully read,
with a view to learning what it says on this subject, we nowhere
find it stating that men are under the wrath and curse of God,
in consequence of the transgression of the first pair. We nowhere
* The old reformers were less scrupulous than the Archbishop. Flavel says, " To
wrath, to the wrath of an infinite God without mixture, to the very torments of hell,
was Christ delivered, and that by the hand of his own Father." (Quoted in Six
Lectures on the Atonement, by R. L. Carpenter, B.A., 1860.) So, without any hesi
tation and with fearless consistency, Luther, Calvin, Beza and others, in various
and dreadful terms. The late Bishop Jeune tells us that the worst suffering which
Christ had to bear occurred when " he had fallen into his Father's hands" ! Sermon
on the Death of Christ, 1864.

270 THE DEATH OF CHRIST.
find it stating that Jesus Christ "suffered, was crucified, dead and
buried, to reconcile his Father to us, and to be a sacrifice not
only for original guilt, but also for actual sins of men." Such,
as just seen, is the proposition of the second Article of the
English Church ; and such, we know, was the belief of that
darker age of English history, the sixteenth century, in which
that Article was drawn up ; but it cannot be found, nor anything
really like it, in the New Testament .* Nor is it there declared
that Christ, being God as well as man, was therefore able to bear
the infinite amount of suffering required to " satisfy " the claims
of Divine justice, to " appease " the wrath of his Father ; or that.
he suffered, " the just for the unjust," the innocent for the guilty,
in order to redeem the world from hell-fire. Nothing of this
kind, no ideas of this kind, can be found in the Christian teach-.
ings, as they lie before us in the New Testament. Such ideas
are but the human theory, devised by speculative theologians to
explain and harmonize certain expressions which, though many
persons still think they are only to be interpreted in that way,
are, nevertheless, capable of an interpretation far more simple
and rational, as well as in truer harmony with the Christian idea
of God the Heavenly Father.
What has just been said, as to the absence from the New:
Testament of some of the most essential ideas involved in the
popular doctrine of Atonement, was very effectively set forth now
many years ago by a certain portion of the national clergy, some
of whom have spoken out on the subject with a freedom and
clearness of language pleasant to see. These writers tell us very
explicitly, that there can be nothing meritorious in mere suffer
ing ; that punishment, in the form of physical or mental agony,
* Comp. 2 Cor. v. 18 — 20. It is clear that the "reconciliation" (atonement) of
St. Paul is that of man to God, and not the reverse. It is worth noting that the word
atonement is no longer to be found in the N. T.— See R. V. in Rom. v. 11.

BROAD CHURCH DOCTRINES. 271
cannot be thought peculiarly acceptable to God. The sufferings
and death of Christ are not, therefore, to be regarded as that
which pleased or satisfied the all-merciful Father ; nor did the
Saviour, in short, suffer and die (as the Article says) " to recon
cile his Father to us." It was not this which constituted the
propitiatory efficacy of the atonement by Christ, but rather his
voluntary obedience and humiliation, his perfect submission even
unto death, his renunciation of his own and acceptance of the
Father's will. This moral element it was, which made his death
an acceptable sacrifice, and upon this did God look down with
grace and satisfaction. " In the whole of the two Testaments, we
are told, there is not a single passage which states unambiguously
the doctrine, that Christ received at God's hands the punishment
decreed to our sins, and thus enabled Him to forgive us."*
These representations are no doubt, in substance, perfectly
correct. Yet they are by no means so new as to many persons
they might appear. Similar enunciations of the Christian teach
ing, and similar protests against the popular doctrine, have long
been familiar in certain quarters ; among those, however, who
have not had the advantage of speaking from the national pul
pits, — who, indeed, have usually been looked upon as the merest
heretics, if deemed to be within the pale of Christianity at all.
In illustration of these statements, the publications mentioned in
the note below are referred to,-)- and from the last of them the
following passage is offered to the reader's consideration :
* The Work of Christ, by the Rev. J. Llewellyn Davies, M.A., Pref., p. xxv. See
also Garden on the Atonement, in Tracts for Priests and People, No. III. (1861),
and comp. a Sermon preached in York Minister (1868) by the Rev. Canon Robinson.
In this (p. 8) the following occurs : " No, the essence of the sacrifice of our Lord lies
in the life-long surrender of His will to God, in the way in which the whole current
of His being set towards His Father, in that absolute and unwearied obedience of which
His death was but the consummation and the crown ."
+ The Sacrifice of Christ, by the Rev. Edward Higginson (1833) ; The Scheme of
Vicarious Redemption inconsistent with itself, by the Rev. James Martineau (1839) ;
The Scripture Doctrine of Redemption, a Tract, from the pen of the late Dr. Lant
Carpenter (1837).

272 THE DEATH OF CHRIST.
" It is nowhere declared that the death of Christ  enabled
God to forgive ; that God could not forgive sins without a satis
faction by the vicarious punishment of an innocent person. It
is nowhere declared that the sufferings of Christ were a punish
ment at all  It is nowhere declared that the death of
Christ appeased the wrath of God, rendered Him propitious,
made Him merciful, or disposed Him to forgive."
It is plain then that the theory now referred to, in its more
material negative positions, is new only as regards the quarter
from whence it proceeds. That part of it, moreover, which may
appear to have somewhat of novelty, will be found to afford no
adequate key to the numerous passages of the New Testament in
which the death of Christ is spoken of. It does not give any real
solution of the difficulties of the case; although, as may be readily
admitted, it has much the advantage of the more popular scheme
represented by Archbishop Thomson, in being at least rational,
and not out of harmony with the higher Christian conceptions of
the character of God. The two modes of explanation appear,
however, to be about equally far from being based, as they ought
to be, upon the historical circumstances of the primitive Christian
times. Their respective expounders are also equally open to the
objection of bringing a theory to Scripture, and putting it into
Scripture expressions, rather than gathering the meaning of these
by any legitimate process of interpretation.
Thi3 theory, then, may be said to fail by defect, as that of the
Archbishop, in common with the popular beliefs, by excess.
And, indeed, it is only fair to note that the writers referred to
themselves express their strong sense of the difficulty of explana
tion, and of the obscurity or mystery of the whole subject. "In
a matter like this," observes Mr. Garden, " we have still much to
learn." The same author quotes with approval the words of
Bishop Butler, " How and in what particular way it (Christ's

FAILURE OF POPULAR THEORIES. 273
sacrifice) had this efficacy, there are not wanting persons who
have endeavoured to explain ; but I do not find that the Scrip
ture has explained it;" and for himself the Bishop remarks,
on another page, " Our Lord's redemptive act is indeed deeply
mysterious." In similar terms Archbishop Thomson speaks of
"this mysterious transaction;" and the same epithet, "these
mysteries," is used by Mr. Llewellyn Davies.* Thus it really
appears as if the repeated discussions of these eminent and
learned writers do not avail to clear away the obscurity in which
the whole subject is evidently to their minds involved.
This unsatisfactory result may be shewn to arise from a very
simple cause — the neglect of those historical considerations before
alluded to. It cannot be expected that any one should succeed
in obtaining from the Epistles the meaning of their varied expres
sions, respecting Christ's death, while he passes over and takes no
notice of the circumstances, the feelings, the prejudices, of the
early Christian times, in which those expressions have their
original force and application. Writers on this question involve
themselves and their subject in helpless perplexity, simply from
not observing the conditions on which alone it can be profitably
discussed. Starting from some received doctrine of a later
century, or applying some recently constructed theory to the
ancient language of the Christian books, and seeking to obtain
from these a meaning in harmony with their several preconcep
tions, no wonder that they differ from each other, and fail to find
any common ground on which to stand together ; one, at times
accusing another even of teaching " heathenism in its most ter
rible form."f No such common ground is obtainable, except by
a careful consideration of the particular state of belief and feeling
among Jews and Judaizing Christians, in connection with which
* Garden, Tract XIII. p. 72; Davies, ibid. p. 51; Aids to Faith, p. 337.
+ Words of the Rev. Newman Hall, quoted in Garden, XIII. p. 5.
T

274 THE DEATH OF CHRIST.
the expressions in question are first used. If such consideration
be duly given, preconceived ideas being put away, whether it be
the crude speculations of early Fathers, the legal phraseology of
an Anselm, or the " masterly dissertation " of an eloquent theo-
rizer like Coleridge, to say nothing of the different established
formularies of modern churches — this question of atonement, or
reconciliation, by the death of Christ will be found to be no more
a " mystery " or " a mysterious transaction," than any other his
torical question arising within the limits of the New Testament.

CHAPTER XXVI.
THE DEATH OF CHRIST — ITS PURPOSE AND EFFECT.
It would seem to be going back to the merest elements of
Biblical learning to speak of the necessity of interpreting the
Apostolical writings by the light of contemporary circumstances,
so far as these are historically known to us. This point may,
therefore, be dismissed with the citation of a few words from two
eminent writers of very different ways of thinking in theology,
whose authority, nevertheless, on such a subject no one will
think of calling in question. " Illustrate " (says Bishop Ellicott)'
" wherever possible, by reference to history, topography and anti
quities ;" and the same author sums up the four rules of inter
pretation which he gives under this "one general canon:" —
" Interpret grammatically, historically, contextually and minutely."
Still more, perhaps, to our purpose are the following words of
Professor Jowett : " Of what has been said this is the sum ;—
That Scripture, like other books, has one meaning, which is to
be gathered from itself, without reference to the adaptations of

ITS NECESSITY UNDER THE LAW. 275
Fathers or Divines ; and without regard to d priori notions about
its nature and origin. It is to be interpreted like other books,
with attention to the character of its authors, and the prevailing
state of civilization and knowledge, with allowance for peculiari
ties of style and language, and modes of thought and figures of
speech." *
Following, then, the guidance of these excellent rules, we
have now to proceed to the inquiry, why it is that the death of
Christ is so much dwelt upon in the New Testament, and what is
the connection between that event and the forgiveness of sin ; or,
to put these two questions together, In what way was and is the
world redeemed by the " blood of Christ " ?
I.
In the first place, then, it was not expected by the Jews, or the
first Christian disciples, that the Messiah would die. We may
recall the statement in the fourth Gospel: " The people answered
him, We have heard out of the law that the Christ abideth for
ever: and how sayest thou the Son of Man must be lifted up V
If this may be relied upon as shewing the belief of the contem
poraries of Jesus, it is evident what was the popular idea. And
so, when Christ spoke to his disciples of his going up to Jerusa
lem, and said that he should there be crucified and put to death,
we are told, "they understood none of these things." f Various
other evidences occur to the same effect, shewing that the early
disciples did not expect that their Master would die as he did ;
nor understand why he died, until their eyes were opened by the
course of events.
In the second place, however, they learnt, in due time, and
by the teaching of events and circumstances, why and how it was.
They were brought to see that Jesus died in his mortal body in
* Ellicott, Aids to Faith, pp. 430—439; Jowett, Essays and Reviews, p. 404.
t John xii. 34; Matt. xvi. 21, 22; Luke xviii. 31—34.
T 2

276 THE DEATH OF CHRIST.
order that he might be raised again, and, " ascending up on high,"
might become the spiritual " Head over all things to the church ;"
that he might become the spiritual Christ. He was by birth a
Jew ; he was " under the law," and necessarily subject to the
same restraints in regard to intercourse with the sinful heathen
which were conceived to affect all others of Jewish race. None,
therefore, of the outcast nations could be disciples of Christ as
the Jewish Messiah, and the limitation appears to have been
recognized by Jesus himself during his personal ministry. '' I
am not sent," he said, " but to the lost sheep of the house of
Israel."* The same thing is recognized in connection with the
centurion Cornelius, who, though " a just man and one that feared
God," was yet ritually "unclean," and not, it was thought,
admissible as a Christian disciple, without previously adopting
Judaism. Even Peter could say to him and others, "Ye know
that it is an unlawful thing for a man that is a Jew to keep
company, or come under one of another nation ;" but God had
shewn him (he added) that he must rise above this prejudice.
He found it difficult to do so, as we may see in what took place
between Peter and Paul at a later period. But in this " he was
to be blamed," and the Apostle of the Gentiles " withstood him
to his face."-)- Thus, it is evident, all who were not Jews were
looked upon by the latter, and by Judaizing Christians, as " aliens
from the commonwealth of Israel," even as "strangers" who
could have no part in those " covenants of promise " which God
had given to his chosen people. They could not, therefore, in that
their state " by nature," be disciples of a Hebrew Messiah.j In
order to become disciples and subjects of the Christ, they must
first enter into the fold of Israel, and so put away the ritual dis
qualification attaching to them as Gentiles.
* Matt. xv. 24. t Acts x.; Gal. ii.
* Ephes. ii. ; comp. Acts xv., where the strength and importance of the feeling in
reference to the Gentiles are clearly exhibited.

JEWS AND GENTILES. 277
It is easy in these days to see that all this was, to a large
extent, mere prejudice. But, like many another prejudice, it was
very powerful. And it was founded upon ancient laws, and privi
leges enjoyed for centuries past by the chosen race. So they
believed. We can see, too, that if such ideas had prevailed, they
would simply have restricted Christianity to persons of Jewish
birth. In other words, they would have led in a short time to
the perversion, and ultimately the extinction, of the new religion.
In time, however, the disciples began to understand, that when
his own people rejected the Messiah, and put him to death, a
great change had necessarily ensued in his relations towards both
Jews and Gentiles. Being dead to the world, and ascended to
his heavenly throne, he was no longer a mortal man, a Jew under
the law of his people. St. Paul alludes to this result in several
expressions : " Know ye not, brethren (for I speak to them that
know the law), how that the law hath dominion over a man so
long as he liveth ? " Thus he writes, and he goes on to state, in
his own manner, how one that is dead is released from the law,
just as a wife, who had been bound to her husband, is freed from
similar restraints by his death. In a previous passage he speaks
of those who are " baptized into Jesus Christ " as being " baptized
into his death ; " as partaking, therefore, of his death, and being
" dead with Christ." * , Christ's death had thus, to the Apostle's
mind, a twofold operation. It released him from the law, and it
released others too, who by baptism into his name partook of his
death, from the same control, and from any concern for it, so that
they might live now, not to the law, but " in newness of spirit,"
and " unto God."
Hence, then, by his death, Jesus the Christ was taken away
and made free from the limitations and restraints imposed by his
birth as a Jew. Whatever rendered him, as Messiah, the exclu-
* Rom. vi. 1—14; vii. 1—6; comp. Coloss. ii. 20.

278 THE DEATH OF CHRIST.
sive property of a single people, and virtually disqualified the
rest of the world from discipleship to him, all this, by his death,
ceased to affect him and them. He rose to heaven, a glorified,
spiritual being, and there he is now, says the Apostle, " far above
all principality, and power, and might, and dominion." Such was
the mystery of " a crucified Christ ; " " the mystery which had
been hid from ages and from generations" (Ephes. iii. 3 — 12).
The risen and exalted Saviour now reigns over all men alike,
accessible, not by Jewish rites of circumcision or other ritualistic
works, "vain and beggarly elements " as these are, but by simple
faith.* Jew and Gentile are henceforward alike to him. " There
is no difference" in God's sight or in Christ's. If they will
receive the Messiah by a true faith in him, — joining with it the
practical love and obedience which it necessarily implies, — such
faith will admit them to be his disciples. God will freely forgive
past sins of disqualification to all, the Apostle writes, for that
faith of theirs in the risen Christ. +
Such, then, was the change of relations between the Christ and
the world which came to pass in and through his death. It has
sometimes been said, that without the atonement for sin made by
Christ (in the popular and so-called evangelical sense), there was
no need to lay so much stress on his death. The death of Peter
or of Paul would have been equally important to the Christian
world, might have been equally spoken of, and have done just as
wellj The remark is obviously void of force. Neither Peter nor
Paul was the Christ. The cross of these Apostles, eminent as they
were, would have had no more significance or effect than that of
any ordinary man. The " cross of Christ " was a totally different
* Ephes. i. 9—23; Col. i. 17—27; 1 Cor. i. 23—30; Gal. iii. 24—29; iv.9,10.
t Rom. iii.; viii. 34; x. 9 — 12; and comp. supra, Chapter XVIII.
X Sermon by the late Bishop Jeune, "Was Paul crucified for you ?" 1863 : Liddon,
B. L„ p. 476.

THE NEW JUSTIFICATION. 279
thing, even because it was the medium through which the
Messiah became a spiritual being, and a legitimate access to him
was given to the otherwise outcast and ritually unclean heathen
peoples. Let it now be observed how intense was the feeling of the Jews
in reference to their own righteousness and the sinfulness of the
Gentiles : " Sinners of the Gentiles ; " " dead in trespasses and
sins ; " " by nature children of wrath ; '' such are the phrases in
which this feeling is expressed. But the Apostle, who thus speaks
of Gentiles, could not, on the other hand, admit the righteousness
of his own people. The latter had, indeed, the adoption, with
many privileges, and of them was the Christ. But they too were
" under sin" as much as the Gentiles. "By the deeds of the law
there shall no flesh be justified " in God's sight, " for by the law
is the knowledge of sin." But a merciful God had opened out
a new way of justification, and all who would accept Jesus as
the beloved Son, the anointed Christ, might be admitted to dis
cipleship, becoming " children of God by faith in Christ Jesus."
This, however, He, the All-merciful, did and allowed " freely,
by his grace." It was in no way purchased of him or of his
justice. It was not because his " wrath " was appeased, or satis
fied by the sufferings of an innocent substitute, but because of
his own essential fatherly goodness and "great love." '' It is the
gift of God," not a thing bought from him with any price,* except
in so far as this might be figuratively said,f in reference to that
death of the Messiah through which he and his disciples, for all
time to come, had been released from the claims of the Law.
Nothing in all the New Testament is clearer than the doctrine of
the free and unbought character of the Christian redemption, as
on the side of God. It can only be the strongest exigencies of
theological system which have prevented the Christian world
* Rom. iii. 9, 20, 24, 25 ; Ephes ii. 4, 8. t 1 Cor. vi. 20 ; vii. 23.

280 THE DEATH OF CHRIST.
from seeing so plain a truth — the central truth, in fact, of the
" glad tidings.*
The disqualification, therefore, caused to both Jew and Gentile
by their own sins, whether ritual or moral, a merciful God deter
mined of His own free grace to overlook ; giving to sinful men,
on condition of their faith in the risen Christ, a justification
which at once qualified them for discipleship. The barrier of
the Law, which would have kept Jew and Gentile apart, was
broken down by Christ's death, "the enmity" abolished. And
this was so, and could be so, as we have seen, only by the death
of the Messiah. Thus, then, he died for them ; for Gentiles as
well as Jews ; he died for " all" The Jew, as such, had no claim,
of right, to an exclusive possession of the Messiah, for he was
equally " concluded under sin." But the Messiah's death was
for his benefit also, inasmuch as it necessarily abolished, for one
that was dead, the dominion of the law, and made it possible
even for those who had broken the law, or who had been without
the law, to become Christian disciples. -)-
It may now be seen, without further exposition, in what sense
Christ died for others, " the just for the unjust ; " how he died, in
fact, not only in behalf of us {imp rjpZv), but even for us, for
many {dvrl 7roAA.(ov).J He died for their benefit, and he may be
said to have died even in their stead, though not in the usually
* The fact may here be noted that the common expression, "for Christ's sake" —
an expression continually used, both in prayers and in graces before and after meat —
is never found in the N. T. God is not represented there as doing anything "for
Christ's sake." Ephes. iv. 32 is a well-known mistranslation ; the words really being
"even as God in (by) Christ hath forgiven you." See R.V.
t See the two important Pauline passages, viz.: Rom. iii. 9 — 31, and Ephes. ii.,
comparing with these, Rom. vii. 1 — 6.
X There is only a single instance in which avri is used in connection with the death
of Christ, Matt. xx. 28 (parallel with Mark x. 45). Here the sense of substitution is
not at all needed. The word may be used exactly as in Matt. xvii. 27 : Give unto
them for {avri) me and thee."

SIMPLICITY OF EXPLANATION NO OBJECTION. 281
accepted sense. For his death, admitting men to a new " justifi
cation " by faith in him risen (see in particular Rom. x. 6), may
easily be conceived of as saving them from the penalty due to
their unrighteousness. In strict justice, they ought to have suf
fered; but God was merciful, and allowed His Son to suffer
instead — not in order to bear their punishment, which is nowhere
stated, but simply to open a new way of admission for them.
The Scripture, however, as noted above, uniformly speaks of Christ
as dying in behalf of, not instead of; and it is equally clear
that it was not as their substitute that he died for men ; not to
redeem them from eternal misery ; not (as Archbishop Thomson
would affirm) because the clouds of God's wrath had gathered
thick over the human race, and required a victim, and could find
that victim only in the innocent Jesus. It was simply because
Divine Love opened out a new way of justification, and provided
that all men, of every nation, might be admissible, by this new way
(that is, by faith), to the fold of the spiritual Christ, even though
they were " sinners," and even though he were the Jewish Messiah,
born "under the law."*
Readers who are accustomed to the ordinary doctrine of atone
ment, with all its affluence of mystery, suffering, and damnation
for the greater part of the human race, will naturally be shocked
at the simplicity of the above exposition, and find it fatally
deficient, by comparison with the stronger food on which they
have hitherto been living. Objectors and objections of this kind
are easily met with. But this is evidently not the great con
sideration. The question, after all, is this, What is the truth ?
Is the exposition proposed sufficient to account for the Scriptural
phraseology ? Is it the more in accordance with historical cir
cumstances ? Is it the more in harmony with the Christian idea
* The late Archbishop Magee strongly denies that wrath was the motive power of
the Divine action, and ascribes all to Love. See Appendix to this Chapter.

282 THE DEATH OF CHRIST:
of a just and merciful God ? These are very weighty consider
ations, and the reader ought to ponder them well before he
rejects the simpler doctrine. And, let him remember, it affords
little reason against the latter, that it may not at first be quite
agreeable to his taste; for is he sure that this may not have
been vitiated by the stimulating and artificial diet to which he
has grown accustomed?
The effect of the death of Christ, above spoken of, though, as
might be expected, nowhere described in formal or express terms,
is yet alluded to in a great variety of language, partly literal,
partly figurative. Everything which the ancient sacrifices were
supposed to do, in connection with the pardon of sin, is naturally
said to result equally from the death of the Messiah, and a great
deal more. Those sacrifices were effectual only for Jews; but
Christ's death is so for all the world. He is " the Lamb of God
which taketh away the sin of the world." " He who knew no
sin was made sin for us," — a Hebraism, meaning condemned, or
treated as one guilty, for us. He " was made a curse for us," for
the law declared that every one hanged on a tree, as he was, is
accursed. He " his own self bare our sins in his own body on
the tree, that we, being dead to sins, should live unto righteous
ness ; by whose stripes ye were healed." This is said, it will now
be manifest, not of a substitutionary punishment of sin inflicted
on the innocent Jesus, and not of any expiation of sin wrought
in God's sight by his death, but of the admissibility of all men
by faith to be his disciples, notwithstanding the sins, ritual and
moral, which, had he remained alive and under the law, would
necessarily have prevented the access of Gentiles to him, His
death opened the way of release from that kind of disqualifica
tion. Hence, by an easy metaphor, he " bare " the remitted sins
" on the tree." It was, in short, the sins of others which made
it necessary for him to die, if those who were guilty of them

IN WHAT SENSE A SACRIFICE. 283
were to be his disciples. Those who were thus released might
now, without care for the condemnation of the law, "live unto
righteousness ; " they were " healed " by his " stripes," whatever
might be alleged to the contrary by the Law and its bigoted
adherents. So again, " He is our peace," and " Ye [Gentiles]
who sometime were afar off are made nigh by the blood of
Christ." He is figuratively "a propitiation," "set forth in his
blood," and " through our Lord Jesus Christ "  "we have
now received the atonement," — the reconciliation to God.*
In some of these passages, Gentiles only are referred to, and
language is used which is applicable only to them — persons, as
they were, who had been living out of the dominion of the law,
and not only ritually unclean, but in the midst of positive " tres
passes and sins." But " all " men by faith in the risen Christ
might now have admission to the privileges of the Gospel, and
receive the forgiveness of " sins that are past."
Thus, too, dying as he did for sinful men, he was in a certain
sense a sacrifice for them, and for their sins. It is evident, how
ever, that he was so in no literal way, for Christ was not offered
up as a victim on the altar by the hand of a priest, but crucified
by Roman soldiers. Hence the word sacrifice (Ephes. v. 2), in
connection with Christ's death, can only be figuratively used.
The question is, What literal fact does such a metaphor veil or
convey ? There is absolutely nothing in the Christian teaching
to justify the supposition that the Heavenly Father needed pro
pitiating by a sacrificed victim, and that victim the Christ in
whom He was well pleased. There is nothing to tell us that the
sacrifice of Christ was offered " to reconcile his Father to us," or
that it constituted, in effect, a punishment, borne by him, whether
* 2 Cor. v. 21; Gal. iii. 13; 1 Pet. ii. 24; Ephes. ii. 13, 14; Rom. v. 11. It is
remarkable that Christ should be designated in John i. 29 and elsewhere as a "lamb,"
which was not the most valuable sacrificial animal.

284 THE DEATH OF CHRIST.
for " original guilt," or for " actual sins of men." An idea of this
kind, in reference to heathen gods, may easily be found in the
Iliad, or in a Greek play ; but, orthodox as it may be with many,
it will not really be found in the New Testament, either as an
expressly described and enjoined truth, or as one of inference,
reasonably deducible from a fair consideration of the various
circumstances of the case. What may be learnt is simply this,
that Christ's death was in a certain sense a sacrifice for sin,
because it was the medium for the admission of sinful men to
discipleship in spite of the Law wfiich excluded them, so long as
he was in life. It is unnecessary to add that the sacrifice did
not consist merely in the surrender of his own will to the will
of God, although unquestionably this was included, and was
freely given.
It may be well to apply the interpreting idea now attained
to one or two of the more remarkable expressions relating to this
subject. Paul writes of Christ, that it is he " whom God hath
set forth to be a propitiation through faith, by his blood "—that
is, "by his death."* In this place, the word "propitiation" is a
little uncertain. It is, for one thing, too abstract after the pre
ceding verb " set forth," which requires a concrete object. The
original word Ikao-rfipiov is used in the Septuagint (Lev. xvi.) to
denote the mercy-seat, — the lid or cover of the ark, that is, on
which the high-priest sprinkled the blood of an appointed victim
in expiation of sin, on the great day of atonement. The same
word is used once in the New Testament (Heb. ix. 5) in the
same signification. Hence it is by no means improbable that
the Apostle may here designate Christ as the " mercy-seat," set
forth in his death, and sprinkled with his own blood, for the
remission of sin. But if so, the representation is clearly a meta
phor, and must involve the same literal meaning as before pointed
* Rom. iii. 25 ; comp. supra, p. 262, note, and see Revised N. T.

"CHRIST OUR PASSOVER." 285
out. It is more likely, however, from the general analogy of
related expressions, that the rendering of Uacmypiov should here
be "propitiatory offering," or "propitiatory sacrifice ;" but still,
as before, we have to ask for the literal fact covered by this
figurative phrase. That fact is, simply, what has been so often
stated, namely, that the Messiah by his death, by shedding his
blood, ceased to be under the Law, became a spiritual being, and
was thus enabled, by the free gift of God, to receive all men as
disciples by faith, their sins notwithstanding. In other words,
and figuratively speaking, their faith in him constituted him a
sacrifice of propitiation for them ;* or again, he, by dying,
nullified the effect of the Law in excluding them from disciple
ship on aceount of their sins. Their sins are thus virtually
forgiven through his death, — a result similar to that which the
ancient sacrifices were conceived to work under the Law of
Moses. Hence the possibility and the propriety of applying
metaphorically to the death of the Christ the sacrificial language
so familiar to the Jews under the older dispensation.
A similar explanation holds in regard to another of the most
remarkable expressions of St. Paul. " Christ our passover," he
writes, "is sacrificed for us." The rendering should rather be
"is killed for us,"f — the passover not being a sacrifice. It was
a lamb which was killed and eaten, but there is nothing to shew
that any expiatory efficacy was connected with it. We thus see
that in one place Christ is a "sacrifice;" in another, he is a
"passover;" while in others, again, he is both sacrifice and
" high-priest " at once.} But is it not equally plain that all this
is essentially metaphor ? He might, however, be very fitly likened
in his death to the passover lamb, inasmuch as that event was a
pledge and emblem of deliverance from the bondage of sin and
* On the term " propitiation" in 1 John ii. 2, see the Appendix to this Chapter.
t 1 Cor v. 7 ; comp. Mark xiv. 12 ; Luke xxii. 7. J Heb. ix. 11, and passim.

286 THE DEATH OF CHRIST.
the law, as well as from the state of exclusion from the Messiah's
kingdom necessarily attaching to Gentiles, — a deliverance similar
to that effected in the olden times from Egyptian oppression, and
so carefully commemorated by the literal passover ceremony.
There is no passage, in short, relating to this subject, which
may not be adequately explained by a reference to the peculiar
ideas and circumstances so often noticed.* It was perfectly
natural or inevitable that the New Testament writers, familiar
as they were with the sacrificial usages of their nation, should
speak of their Master's death, the Messiah's death, and the effects
which resulted from it, in phrases and figures drawn from those
usages. The error of our time is in taking so many of the expres
sions referred to in a literal sense ; in allowing so little for Jewish
forms of thought and feeling ; and, above all, in over-looking, as
is so commonly done, the historical considerations which alone
can give true life and meaning to those expressions.
The popular theory, in reality, is largely the product of dark
and ignorant ages ; coming down in some of its elements from
ancient writers who held that the redemption secured by Christ
was a release from the Devil, and the ransom paid a recompence
to him.f No wonder, then, that this theory, even as represented
by great authorities in the Church, is utterly misleading, that it
involves so much that is unspiritual and difficult to reconcile
with the idea of a just and merciful God, so much that distorts
the true meaning of Scripture, and substitutes mere human
speculation for Divine truth. II.
It remains, however, very distinctly to qualify the foregoing
exposition by an admission which may, to some readers, appear
* This was long ago pointed out with careful detail by Dr. Martineau, in the
masterly lecture before referred to, " The Scheme of Vicarious Redemption inconsis
tent with itself."
t This curious piece of patristic theology is as old as Irenseus.

A MODIFIED VIEW. 287
scarcely consistent with it. A few passages occur, the sense of
which, it may be, is not sufficiently explained or accounted for
by the doctrine of atonement or reconciliation through the death
of Christ, as just set forth. Even readers who do not accept the
popular theory may thus think ; holding that, after all that can
be said, there is more or less at any rate of the expiatory idea in
some of the expressions, even though many or most of them are
adequately interpreted by a due regard to the historical circum
stances above appealed to.
In this modified view of the case there is very probably a
degree of truth. The idea of expiation (including that of pro
pitiation) could hardly fail to occur sooner or later to Jewish
Christian writers, in connection with an event which, to their
minds, operated so plainly, though indirectly, for the virtual
remission of sins ; — an event by and through which that remis
sion was proclaimed to the world. In other words, it was per
fectly natural that such an expansion of the Pauline doctrine
respecting the Death should take place. It may even be that
Paul himself, in a few instances, had in his mind the more literal
sacrificial meaning of words he uses ; while yet their primary
import had reference simply to the release of the Messiah and
the redemption of the disciple from the claims of the Law. The
larger meaning will accordingly be seen chiefly in writings of
later date than Paul's — notably in the Epistle to the Hebrews
(ix. x.), in the Fourth Gospel, and in the First Epistle of John .*
To these may be added certain expressions in the Revelation
and in the First Epistle of Peter, although it is clear that these
latter are highly figurative expressions/)- the only question being
what is the exact thought which they cover and convey ? It
may be that of expiation.
* John i. 29, 36 ; 1 John i. 7 ; ii. 2.
t Rev. i. 5; ..9; vii. 14; 1 Pet. i. 19; ii. 24.

288 THE DEATH OF CHRIST.
Adopting this view of the subject, the reader may understand
that the death of Christ would gradually come to be spoken of
as possessed of a real sacrificial efficacy. In effect it cleansed
from sin those to whom it was the means of giving access
to Christ by faith. This idea would require no great length of
time to take root in minds already occupied with the ancient
beliefs connected with sacrifices. Disciples of Jewish birth
would readily incline to this mode of thought, and be led in the
result to the use of words implying the old ideas of expiation
and propitiation by the sacrifice of a victim. Such ideas would
readily find acceptance with Gentile converts also. Nevertheless,
do they not offend the higher sense of the spirituality of God, as
entertained and expressed by Christ himself (Matt. vi. 14; Luke
xviii. 13,14)?
There is another consideration : it may even have been a part
of the fourth Evangelist's conception of Jesus as the Divine Word
incarnate, to ascribe to the death of so important and unique a
personage the sacrificial efficacy attaching, according to ancient
ideas, to the victim offered upon the altar. But, if so, this sacri
ficial efficacy must be regarded as necessarily sharing the essen
tial non-reality of the whole Logos conception.
There are, however, serious difficulties in the way of the last
supposition. For example, the fourth Gospel, in the account of
the trial and crucifixion, contains no allusion to the death of
Christ as being, in any sense, a " sacrifice " possessed of some
occult propitiatory or expiatory efficacy. How is such an omis
sion in such a writing, and so long after the event, to be accounted
for? The same is true of the other Gospels; — except only, as
some may think, in the case of the words of Christ at the Supper
(Matt. xxvi. 28). These, it may be said, indicate his knowledge
of the mysterious value of his death. But it is evident from the
foregoing exposition, that all that can be safely inferred from the

AN ARGUMENT OF THE PAST. 289
words in question is, that Jesus himself anticipated the effect of
his death, not in propitiating God or expiating sin, but in releas
ing himself from the Law, and throwing open the Gospel to all
the world. There need be no doubt that he did so.
Before closing this Chapter, it may be well to state the inter
pretation suggested by an eminent scholar of the language above
considered. Christ being the archetype, the head and repre
sentative of our race, and having himself no sin, his death was
accepted of God as an atonement for the sins of others, in accord
ance with the ancient conception before mentioned {supra, p. 45).
He thus also bore the curse of the Law and has redeemed man
kind from it* This brief and simple explanation must be left
to the reader's consideration. Is it sufficiently founded on the
plain facts of early Christian history, and does it satisfactorily
account for the phraseology which we have had before us ?
It is hardly necessary, in conclusion, to call attention to what
must be so obvious, namely, that the various expressions respect
ing the death of Christ arose out of the very special feelings and
circumstances of the primitive Christian times. This appears to
be one of the most undeniable facts connected with the subject.
Those expressions formed therefore, in effect, an argumentum ad
Judmum very suitable to St. Paul's time. But their permanent
value is unimportant ; — except only that they imply, or set forth
in a peculiar way, the essential impartiality and comprehensive
ness of the Gospel. There is nothing in the actual or natural
relations of God to man, or of man to God, which can make it
incumbent upon the modern disciple to return to the forms of
thought embodied in such language. Its entire force and pro
priety belonged to, and are exhausted in connection with, circum
stances, feelings, institutions, persons, that have long since passed
away from the stage of mortal existence, leaving nothing behind
* Pfleiderer, Hibbert Lectures, II.
U

290 APPENDIX TO CHAPTER XXVI.
them in which such phraseology can, in our times, have any
fitting use or application. Nobody now, however " ritualistic "
he may be, will doubt that a man may be a Christian without
being circumcised, or conforming in any other way to the cere
monial law* If there were a great sect among us maintaining
this, then we might plead that Christ " died for us ; " that he
has redeemed us from the curse of the law, " being made a curse
for us;" that we have redemption "through his blood;" that a
new "justification" has been provided for us, admitting to dis
cipleship "without the deeds of the law." But such phrases
cannot now be used with any rational force or sense. They
belong to the past alone; and the sooner the past is left in
quiet possession of them by popular teachers and preachers of
every name and degree, the better surely it will be for the credit
of Christian learning and the peace of the Church.

APPENDIX TO CHAPTER XXVI.
RECENT WRITERS ON THE ATONEMENT : LUX MTJNnl.
Since the foregoing Chapter was written, various treatises on
this great and interminable subject have been published ; some
of them recently, and by persons of eminent station in our
national Church. Of these latter, several are named in the note.-)"
* It is noticeable that our Congregational friends appear to find it expedient to
proclaim that "they are justified through faith in Christ," . . . and not by "the works
of the Law." — It might almost seem, therefore, that some one had been seeking to
impose upon them the ancient yoke, as happened to the Galatians of old ! {Dec. of
Faith, xiii.)
+ Lux Mundi, 11th edition, 1891 : The Atonement, by the Rev. and Hon. Arthur
Lyttleton. M.A. Helps to Belief: The Atonement, by W. C. Magee, D.D., &c, 1887.
Salutary Doctrine, by C. J. Ellicott, D.D., &c., 1890. Bishop Thorold on the Atone
ment, in Good Words, March 1891.

LUX MUNDI ON THE ATONEMENT. 291
The differences of exposition which they present are considerable,
and shall be duly noticed in the course of the following remarks —
commencing with the Essay in " Lux Mundi," as the most notable
of the enumerated treatises.
I. It is a little startling to see the boldness with which the essay
just named transfers the unspiritual, anthropomorphic concep
tions of the ancient Levitical system into the mould, so to speak,
of New Testament expressions. In so doing, the author in effect,
by a sort of a priori assumption, fixes upon those expressions
a meaning which they were not intended to bear — except, it
may be, in a few instances and in a certain figurative and semi-
allegorical kind of way, as duly pointed out in the second part
of the preceding Chapter. In so doing, too, the essayist proceeds,
as might be anticipated, without any sufficient recognition of
the feelings and controversies of the primitive Christian age,
which throw so much light on the expressions in question, as
abundantly illustrated in the last Chapter.
To a Hebrew of the ancient times, as also to men of Gentile
birth in general, familiar as they were with the system of sacri
fice and impressed with the sense of its religious value, such a
method of interpretation might have been permissible. A teacher
of our day, who has himself been taught in the school of Christ,
and professes to understand "what that meaneth, I will have
mercy and not sacrifice," might be expected to rise above the
semi-barbarous conceptions of Greek and Hebrew antiquity.
Indeed, the essayist of "Lux Mundi" does rise above them.
For he ascribes the Hebrew sacrifices (and sacrifices in general)
to the worshipper's sense of alienation from God and his longing
to return to the Divine favour. In a certain rough sense, this is
true ; but not in the sense suggested, when we are further told
that " submission, reverence, love, are the original feelings which
sacrifice was intended to represent" (p. 279). It was snrely not
love but fear that prompted such rites — fear of the wrath of an
alienated Deity, and the wish to avert its dreaded consequences.
u 2

292 APPENDIX TO CHAPTER XXVI.
When the Greeks, for example, in the tragedy of Euripides,
offered on the altar the daughter of Hecuba, was it love that
prompted the sacrifice ? Was it any refined desire of union with
their deity, or longing to renew the tie which conscious sin had
broken ? Even in the case of the Hebrew sacrifices, it was no
such desire or longing in any high spiritual sense ; nor could it
possibly be so with such men, and in those early times of rude
and imperfect religious growth.
This statement may be illustrated in connection with the
Biblical system by a reference to many passages in the Mosaic
books. In Leviticus xvi. and xvii., for instance, there is an
entire absence of any suggestion of love, as the motive of the
worshipper. Fear is often directly implied.* Sacrifices are said
to be imposed by the command of Jehovah, and are supposed to
cleanse the people from their guilt and avert the punishments of
negligence or disobedience. God is " a jealous God," and those
who offend against the prescribed forms and rites are to be " cut ,
off from among his people" — a dreadful sentence to the Israelite
of those times. There is no appeal to "love" anywhere as the
motive of the worshipper, but only to the fear of punishment.
Thus in Lev. xxvi. 14 seq. there is a terrible announcement of
the abiding enmity of Jehovah as the penalty of disobedience.
The idea, then, put forth in " Lux Mundi" that sacrifices had their
origin in love or in anything but fear and the desire to expiate
sin and propitiate by blood, may be safely dismissed.
Thus in effect the essayist allows himself to be too readily
carried away by the elaborate theory of expiation and atonement
which he brings to New Testament expressions and puts into
them, rather than derives from them by any legitimate inter
pretation. He manifests too much — or shall we only say, he
approves too readily ? — of the same dreadful superstition which
turned the temple courts of old into repulsive scenes of slaughter,
and in its unspirituality and darkness conceived that the offering
* See Lev. xvi. 13 ; and compare such passages as Exod. xx. 5 ; Deut. vii. 10, 11,
xiii. 17, xvii. 19, with many others.

LUX MUNDI ON THE ATONEMENT. 293
of victims upon the altar, with the unceasing bloodshed which
attended it, could please the Deity, propitiate his wrath, and
regain for the sinner his lost favour. Blood, blood, blood
was and, it would appear, is still the cry ; and all is founded
on expressions in the Christian books taken out of their context,
and expounded without any due regard to the historical circum
stances, the feelings and the controversies, in which and to which
they had their original application.
This mode of exposition is sufficiently surprising, considering
the quarter from which it proceeds ; but yet it is not surprising,
when we remember how largely it is founded upon obscure
speculations in the writings of ancient Fathers,* rather than
upon the simple, natural teaching of the Master himself. He
not only puts mercy before sacrifice, and gives us to understand
that in so doing he is expressing the mind of God, but even more
emphatically he says, " If ye forgive men their trespasses, your
heavenly Father will also forgive you ;" and again in his parable
of the Prodigal Son, as in that of the Pharisee and the Publican,
he utters no word to lead us to think of either expiation or pro
pitiation by ceremonial rites as necessary to induce the Divine
Father to forgive his sinful children who will repent and return
to Him.
II. In the next place, the reader will observe how seriously
inconsistent with each other in their discussion of this subject are
the several authors before referred to. Bishop Ellicott lays his
chief stress on the " substitution" of Christ in bearing the punish
ment due to others and thus satisfying the Divine justice.-)- " The
idea of substitution" (the Bishop writes) "can never be eliminated
from any true doctrine of the Atonement." Thus the Bishop of
Gloucester ; while Archbishop Magee, in the strongest language,
denies " the notion of the transfer of penalties from one person
to another." {Atonement, p. 102.) The essayist of "Lux Mundi"
* See the references and quotations in Lux Mundi, pp. 293, 295-6, 299.
+ Salutary Doctrine, pp. 75, 76.

294 APPENDIX TO CHAPTER XXVX
in this agrees with Dr. Magee, but gives his own idea of the
"real vicariousness of our Lord's work" (p. 309), making it
somewhat vaguely consist " in the offering of a perfect sacrifice."
The late Archbishop Thomson, as formerly seen, speaks in burn
ing words of " the wrath of God," hurled pitilessly on the head
of an innocent Christ as a satisfaction to the outraged justice of
the Holy One. Rejecting this inconceivable theory, Archbishop
Thomson's successor (p. 100 seq.) refers all to the Love of God,
though how or why Infinite Love should demand the fearful
" propitiation" of suffering and death, he does not explain !
The appeal of Dr. Magee to 1 John ii. 1, 2, will not answer
the purpose for which it is made. The term " propitiation" in
that passage he makes the key-note of his exposition, observing
that Christ " has done that which makes it possible that our sins
should be forgiven by God" (p. 24). What precisely it was that
was thus " done" the Archbishop does not say, nor profess to
say: "it is a mystery" (p. 28). Still he holds up the sufferings
of the Cross as a propitiation, in some mysterious and inscrutable
sense. It is surprisiug to find any thoughtful man writing in
this strain : for surely it is not possible to conceive of the
Heavenly Father as requiring to be propitiated, in any literal
or intelligible meaning of this word.
The purport, then, of the words of the Epistle must be sought
in a different direction. What, if the propitiation consists in the
advocacy mentioned in the preceding verse ? Christ being, as it
is expressed, the sinner's " advocate," is, in that character, " the
propitiation for our sins," inasmuch as by his interposition he
wins the forgiveness which, according to the unspiritual con
ceptions of those times, might be secured by a propitiatory
sacrifice. The whole would thus seem to be metaphor, or what is nearly
akin to metaphor ; and it is certainly incapable, on any rational
principle, of being literally applied to Him who is a Spirit,
whose Will it is to have mercy and not sacrifice.

BISHOP THOROLD ON THE ATONEMENT. 295
If however the literal sense be insisted on, we are thrown upon
the gross conception of the Great Father of mercies having been
in some incomprehensible way appeased by a sacrifice — by a
sacrifice which was not a sacrifice, but the death of an innocent
man at the hands of Roman soldiers. This it is too hard to
accept even on the authority of the writer of this Epistle, or in
deference to the speculations of Bishops and Archbishops.
The Bishop of Winchester's account of the subject must now
be briefly noticed. Very nearly agreeing with the writers in
"Tracts for Priests and People" {supra, p. 271), Bishop Thorold
holds that it is wrong to think that pain, as pain, has any sort
of value with God ; that it was " the beauty of the perfect sacri
fice, the filialness of the submitted will, the spotless holiness, ....
that was the acceptable and sufficient atonement in the sight of
a Holy God." Yet after indulging in this somewhat unmeaning
language, with more to the same effect equally emphatic, the
same learned prelate quotes with approval the words of the
hymn : — " I lay my sins on Jesus,
The spotless lamb of God ;
He bears them all and frees us
From the accursed load."
The Bishop, without giving his authority for the assertion,
proceeds thus : — " When I cast my guilt on Him, He puts His
righteousness on me ; for my sins He exchanges His obedience.
Having made peace through the blood of His cross, He bestows
that peace on me, and I am at rest."* Truly an easy way of
obtaining freedom from guilt, with the righteousness and peace
of God ! Can we conceive of it as really a moral transaction,
and would anything like it be tolerated in the affairs of ordinary
life, even among imperfect and sinful men ?
These great ecclesiastical authorities, however, as if tacitly
sensible of the weakness or failure of their theories, do not omit
* Good Words, March 1891, pp. 214, 215.

296 APPENDIX TO CHAPTER XXVI.
to speak in the usual strain of the " mystery" which shrouds the
subject. This, they remind us, renders it impossible for the
human intellect fully to understand, or to avoid inconsistency
and self-contradiction {Good Words, p. 214, compare supra,
pp. 272, 273).
And such must necessarily be the result, where free play is so
easily given to ingenious theorizing, combined with an obvious
neglect of the historical conditions of the problem. The specu
lative theologian, laying aside considerations of human morality
and the dictates of reason and conscience by which men are
guided in ordinary life, feels himself at liberty to discuss and
expound the very thoughts and motives of the Divine Mind, to
determine the relations of one Divine " person" of the Godhead
to another {Lux Mundi, p. 308). He will go so far as even to
impute to the Divine Being modes of proceeding from which
sinful man would certainly shrink — as, for example, in inflicting
the inordinate and monstrous punishment of everlasting misery
for the sins of a short lifetime, and in putting the punishment
of guilty men upon an innocent Christ, who according to the
record did not submit unreluctantly, but prayed that the cup
might pass from him !
It cannot, moreover, escape notice how arbitrary and artificial
are the reasons assigned, under these Atonement schemes, for
the Divine forgiveness of sin. A victim is slain, and God
accepts and forgives the sinner who by his assent or "faith"
participates, in some sense, in the act of sacrifice. But what
essential connection, logical, causal, or moral, is there, or can
there be, between the slaughter of an animal or any other con
ceivable victim, on the one side, and the changed attitude of the
Supreme towards sin, on the other ? There is nothing here, in
truth, but what is purely imaginary, unfounded in any principle
of right or reason, and — must it not be said ? — unnatural and
superstitious ?
And then, as the climax, the consequences of sin are not really

DIFFICULTIES AND INCONSISTENCIES. 297
remitted to the sinner ! These have to be borne all the same.
Sinful men, according to the popular teaching, are daily dying
and passing into the eternal suffering, the " atonement" that has
been made notwithstanding. God, we are told, is enabled by
the great sacrifice to forgive sin in accordance with his own
supreme justice ; yet he does not forgive ! — except, it may be,
to a select few who are said to have faith in this incredible
scheme of so-called atonement. Thus, what may be the good of
the transaction for the great masses of sinful men it is hard to
see ; and it would almost appear that the Creator and Lord of
this universe came among men, and suffered and died among
them, without really effecting the purpose of rescuing sinners for
which he came ! Such is the obvious reductio of these orthodox
speculations. Some explanation and alleviation of these difficulties is, how
ever, attempted by the essayist in " Lux Mundi." The Saviour,
we are given to understand, bore the sufferings entailed by sin,
" not that we might be freed from them," but " that he might
lead man along the same path of suffering, not ' free,' but gladly
submissive to the pains which but for Him would be the over
whelming penalties of our sins" (p. 310). According to this,
man is not released from the sufferings consequent on sin, but
only taught or led to submit to them gladly ! It is not clear
whether the sufferings of this life are meant, or those of the
future. But supposing the former, it may be asked, Are Chris
tians, believers in the atonement though they may be, so extremely
'submissive to suffering ? Are they more so than, for example,
a Buddhist or a Mohammedan? What then, again, does the
efficacy of the atonement consist in ? To man, it would appear,
it has brought no great result, so far as the release from punish
ment, from temporal suffering, is concerned. He has still to
suffer much as before, even as we see in the experience of com
mon life. Sin is still as ever followed by its terrible retributions.
Thus man receives little benefit from the expiation wrought:

298 APPENDIX TO CHAPTER XXVI.
but perhaps God does ! His insulted justice is " satisfied" by
the sufferings of an innocent substitute, and so he can let the
guilty go free. This is not indeed alleged, but it is all clearly
involved and bound up in this atonement theory. And thus, so
far as can be seen, the whole scheme of salvation by the sup
posed "sacrifice" of Christ, is not only a "mystery," but it is an
empty show, purely artificial, contrary to nature, and to the
healthy native instincts of the reason and the conscience.
III. Nor is this the whole of what may be urged against very
much of the popular teaching on this subject. The guilty man
finds himself released, or fancies himself released, from the
penalties of his sin, on terms which are not only far too easy,
but entirely discreditable to him. In the words of Bishop
Thorold's hymn, He lays his sins on Jesus, and himself escapes.
The sinner is thus the cause of suffering and death to an innocent
victim, and by virtue of this he is " saved." Is not this a purely
selfish act on the part of the sinner? And is not the whole
tendency of such a theory likely, with unthoughtful and super
stitious people, to encourage sin rather than to repress it?
Such ideas are surely unworthy of the Christian Gospel. They
belong to the ages of ancient ignorance, and ought not to be
transferred, in however modified a form, to a religion which
inculcates the worship that is in spirit and in truth, and the
practical doing of the will of God as the true way to win his
blessing. The writer in "Lux Mundi" does not perhaps fully see that
the warning of our moral nature against sin, the uneasiness
which attends its commission, the sense of guilt which follows
it and of which he speaks so eloquently (p. 278), constitute, in
fact, the punishment mercifully bound up with our very nature
and appointed for the sinner by the Creative Will. That
punishment comes sooner or later, a dread certainty of the
Divine government. It is not to be averted by the sacrifice
of victims, or even by a supposed transfer to another person,

THE TRUE ATONEMENT. 299
however holy or exalted he may be. The true expiation and
propitiation are in the sinner's return to right ways, in his
denying himself, in making restitution where he has wronged
another, in curbing passion and self-indulgence — in learning to
do justly, to love mercy, and to walk humbly with God. The
true sacrifice before God is self-sacrifice. Ancient Hebrew sages,
whether supernaturally inspired or not, plainly teach us this
and what they teach is abundantly confirmed by One greater
than ancient Hebrew sages. He has taught us to think of God
as the Father of mercies, and to strive ourselves to be perfect
even as He is — to strive to be so, by the same love, beneficence;
forgiveness, towards our fellow-men which He manifests to us;
How truly foolish in the presence of such teaching as this is all
our modern speculating about the efficacy of sacrifices, the virtues
of faith in a supposed substitute, "satisfaction" of the "wrath"
of an offended God ! How truly foolish it all is, compared with
the divine lesson of those simple and pathetic words, " God be
merciful to me a sinner"!

CHAPTER XXVII.

RELATION OF THE BIBLE TO THE REASON AND CONSCIENCE —
INSPIRATION — AUTHORITY OF SCRIPTURE.
This is not the place for an inquiry into the validity of the
religious sentiment, beyond the remark that there can be no
question as to its extreme antiquity or its commanding power
in human life from the beginning. For the people of three
continents, the form, or rather the forms, which it has assumed
have been mainly determined by influences from Hebrew and
Christian sources — influences which have proceeded in great
measure from and through the Bible. This book accordingly

300 TRUE FUNCTION OF THE BIBLE
has been, as it were, both the fountain-head and the channel
of some of the greatest theological forces that have acted upon
mankind — a statement which is true even of those only nominally
Christian peoples to whom the name of the Bible is hardly known.
For they, too, have by no means been untouched by its power,
if only indirectly, through the medium of their priesthoods and
related institutions, — not always, alas ! for good, but too often
with miserable consequences, due certainly more to human
passion and ignorance than to any legitimate demands of religion.
Thus, in effect, the Bible has been the potent interpreter of
the spiritual instincts of a considerable proportion of our race,
giving form and voice and force to their thoughts of God, of
duty, of the judgment and the life to come, throughout the
length and breadth of the Christian world.
How all this has come to pass, may to a certain extent be
read in the Bible. That Book of books, of various and unknown
origin as so much of it is, is yet manifestly the record pre
serving for us the early history of one greaj; field of religious
knowledge; shewing us how religion was gradually developed
and confirmed in a particular people, and how from them it has
come forth and been diffused among the nations, and preserved
and made a light and a help for our later times. Thus, it may
be added, the higher religious life of the Christianized nations
may claim to have commenced in, or perhaps with, the Hebrew
nation. This is not a mere theory, but a manifest fact of history.
Of this the Bible is both the record and the witness. And,
indeed, every existing congregation of Christian disciples is a
visible testimony to the same effect ; for do they not meet to
worship the same God whom Abraham and the patriarchs
worshipped, the God whom Moses, Samuel and Isaiah and all
the prophets worshipped, even "the God and Father of Jesus
Christ"?

AS A BOOK OF HISTORY. 301
In admitting this, however, we have to recall another fact,
which is of equal importance as shewing us the true character
of the Bible. It is, that the Bible manifestly offers itself to us,
the people of these later times, virtually as a Book of History.
It never professes or claims to be anything else ; never, in truth,
makes any profession or claim at all on the point ; but stands
before us there, simply as a collection of writings preserving for
us the remaining literature and the history of the Hebrews.
This statement applies especially to the older Scriptures, in
which we find narrated historically what different persons have
done and said in the past, by whose example we may often be
taught and shewn what is right, or also warned against what is
wrong. This is evidently true of a large proportion of the books,
from Genesis, on through the Mosaic writings, through Joshua,
Samuel, the Kings, Chronicles and some minor pieces. All
these are essentially historical, coming down from different
ages ; and though, in nearly every case, by unknown authors, as
formerly pointed out, there is no reason to think that what is
written is not, in its main outlines, substantially trustworthy.
In certain parts, indeed, these books are books of Law, that is
to say, they contain the laws of the Hebrews ; but it is a Law
which can only be regarded now as a portion of the sacred
history. It is nowhere enjoined upon us who read ; and, indeed,
it would no longer be possible to obey it, or carry it out in many
of its details. Great moral principles, contained or implied in
the laws of the Hebrews, so far as they are in harmony with
the reason and the cultivated sense of right, are necessarily per
manent, and will remain and impress themselves upon our lives,
even by their own vitality and power. This sway, however,
they will have quite independently of the fact that they may
once have been embodied, or recognized in some way, in the
laws recorded in the Bible.

302 THE BIBLE NOT A CODE OF LAWS,
In other books — in the writings of poets and prophets — we
have compositions which shew us what their authors thought
and said on, and in accordance with, the ideas and circumstances
of their own times. They are thus, again, intimately related to
the political, social and religious history of their people, and
cannot be understood without frequent reference to it, — excepting,
indeed, by peculiar classes of our modern preachers, who speak
on these subjects with too much of reference and submission to
the formulas of modern churches. It follows that in reading
even the Psalms, or Job, or the Proverbs, we have continually
to bear in mind the contemporary ideas and circumstances
amidst which, or in reference to which, those books, or their
component parts, were written. The same remark is eminently
true in reference to the prophets, who, while they faithfully
warn, exhort, condemn, the kings and people of their own day,
speak to later ages only through them.
Then, when we come to the New Testament, we have what is
essentially of the nature of history again, at least in its relation
to our modern times. It is very largely a thing of the past, at
which we can only look as distant spectators, seeking, so far as
may be, to draw instruction, inspiration, and guidance, from its
lessons. We have, first, the four Gospels, setting forth the life
and the teaching of Christ. We have next the book of Acts,
which purports to be simply a history of what the Apostles did
in their early labours to preach the Gospel. We have then a
series of letters, written by Apostles and apostolical men, in
reference to topics of interest at the time to those whom they
address ; the whole closing with the mystical book of Revelation,
the aim and application of which unquestionably belonged to
the age of Nero,* in which it was composed, or, as is now held
by some, adapted to Christian readers.
* The number of the Beast, Rev. xiii. 18, can be shewn to denote the emperor
above named, or also the Roman power of his time. See Bleek on the Apocalypse.

NOR A DOGMATIC CREED. 303
Throughout this long succession of books and writers, it is
evident that the Bible presents itself to us, not as a code of laws,
or as a system of theology, which we of these later times, and
men of all times, ought to accept and assent to, but rather as a
great historical record of what has been thought and done by
men of times long past — a record of what they have thought and
believed, in connection often very particularly with the subject
of religion, or under the influence of religious feelings and motives.
And in this its character of an historical record, it shews us, as
formerly noted, how the Hebrew people were led on from rudi
mentary and imperfect beginnings to a more adequate apprehen
sion of great spiritual truths ; and how, therefore, they have been
instrumental in helping to establish religion among Christian
men as it now exists.
It is, then, manifestly a great mistake, to do what, nevertheless,
there has been and is so great a tendency among religious men
to do, — namely, to infer that what was established and approved
among and by biblical leaders and teachers, must be either right,
or deserving of approval by us, — more especially in case it should
not have been expressly disowned or condemned by Christian
authority. Some things, as we are told, were permitted because
of the hardness of their hearts. The Mosaic law, for instance,
allowed of polygamy; and it made divorce an easy matter,
depending on the will of the husband alone. This may remind
us that those who were under it lived nearer to the beginnings
of civilization than we do ; and that if we were to imitate them
in such matters, we should be going backward in the direction
of the ignorance and barbarism from which men have been
slowly rising through many past centuries. So in regard to the
observance of the Sabbath and the institution of the Goel. Under
the law of Moses, one who did not keep the Sabbath with the
enjoined strictness was to be put to death ; and the next kinsman

304 IMPERFECTION OF MUCH
of a murdered man was permitted to avenge his relative by
slaying the murderer, wherever he might meet with him, outside
of certain cities of refuge. Ought Christian nations to return to
that state of society, seeing that the Jewish law on these points
is nowhere expressly repealed by the Gospel ? Such cases shew
us clearly that the Bible, even where it is clearly a Code of laws,
is not such, cannot be such, for us, however sacred and binding
it may have been to the Hebrews of old. To the modern reader,
as before, it is simply a great historical picture, providentially
set before us — in which we may see what former generations of
men have thought and said and done, and how they have been
led, in a special case, from their primeval ignorance, to the better
ideas of moral and religious truth embodied in Christianity.
We might, therefore, be led into grievous error by looking upon
the Bible, as the old Puritans did, and as some of the Anglican
Bishops not long ago appeared to do,* as a sort of Law-book,
binding upon us, without regard to altered feelings and circum
stances, or improved knowledge. Even then if it were admitted,
for example, that the Book of Leviticus forbids marriage with a
deceased wife's sister, that question should, nevertheless, be
argued upon its own merits, and in reference to the character
and necessities of modern life. Yet, in connection with this
subject, the book just named has been spoken of as a "revelation"
of the Divine will, and as such binding upon the conscience, — ¦
and this in the columns of a widely-read English newspaper !
A similar appeal to the Bible was made, within living memory,
in behalf of American slavery. Because the "institution" is
recognized in the Old Testament and is not expressly condemned
even in the New (e.g. 1 Tim. vi.), certain ministers of religion in
the Southern States represented it as not only allowed, but also
* See the debate in the House of Lords (1870) on the Bill respecting marriage with
a deceased wife's sister.

IN THE BIBLICAL WRITINGS. 305
sanctioned, by the authority of the Scriptures. On this we need
not dwell, for the idea is no doubt obsolete among intelligent
persons. Evidently, in short, passages such as the one just
referred to can only be read, not as containing laws or principles
to regulate modern conduct, but simply as historical examples
recorded for us, and as in this respect "profitable" for our
instruction or our warning. They may be there, in short, to arouse
our disapprobation, and to forbid, rather than to attract, us to
approve and imitate.*
Similar remarks are applicable to the New Testament as well
as the Old. Various matters here, too, involving perhaps no
moral principle, or none that would be available or practicable
in our modern life, can only be looked back upon with an histo
rical interest, as something belonging to a past state of society.
Such, for example, is the question of eating the flesh of animals
offered in sacrifice to idols, that of circumcision, and of the obser
vance of other Jewish institutions, including the Sabbath and
the rite of baptism. Even in the words of Christ himself there
are some things of this kind ; as there are in the writings of Paul
and other Apostles.-)- Thus it is not possible, however willing a
man might be, blindly to receive and carry out many even of
New Testament ideas and principles. Thought, care, discrimi
nation, are necessary in reference to these also ; otherwise there
will be constant danger of bringing ridicule or disrepute upon a
cause we would honour and support.
But how, then, are we to know ? How are we to decide as to
the truth, wisdom, justice, applicableness to ourselves, of what is
read in the Sacred Books, if we are not blindly to accept all and
seek to obey all ? This question has been virtually answered.
Clearly, we can only do this by the light and under the guidance
* In illustration, see 1 Sam. xv. 32, 33 ; 2 Sam. i. 13-16; iv. 9—12 ; xxi. 1—14.
t Matt. v. 39—42 ; James v. 1 ; 1 Cor. vii. 32—40 ; xiv. 34, 35.
X

306 THE ULTIMATE APPEAL
of the spiritual nature within us, by the free and faithful exercise
of our own moral and rational powers. That this is so, we may
see by the case even of those who are the most determined oppo
nents of the right of private judgment in religion. They surrender
their own judgment, we will suppose, to the decisions of an infal
lible church. In doing so, they surely exercise the very right
which they would condemn. They prefer, deliberately or other
wise, not to think, reason, judge, for themselves. But that
preference itself implies the very judgment which they deprecate.
At least if it be not utterly worthless it does so*
If, then, a precept, a principle, or a statement of the Bible, be
not such as will stand the test of this rational criticism, it will
be our duty simply to neglect it, and pass it by, or even, it may
be, to condemn it and act in opposition to it.-)- The Scriptures,
if they may be the guide and light of the spiritual nature, are
clearly not to be as an opiate to it, to put it asleep, or make it
insensible to even the nicest shades of distinction between right
and wrong, true and false. What they contain of good and evil
example, of true or false thoughts of God, his providence and
his relations to mankind, or of man's duties and responsibilities, —
these things, although written, in some sense, for our instruc
tion, are yet not to be accepted and followed, or put aside and
neglected, thoughtlessly and mechanically, but with the aid and
sanction of our own mental faculties. If it were not so, we
might be drawn away, as doubtless many are by their excessive
deference to priestly authority, even to cherish error and unrigh-
* Cardinal Newman has left a wonderful illustration of the above remarks : "We
have too great a horror of the principle of private judgment to trust it in so immense
a matter as that of changing from one communion to another." — Apologia, p. 189
(ed. 1890). This was written before his secession from the Anglican Church, and
almost on the eve of the very change of which he speaks.
t See the remarks in Appendix to Chap. XIII. on the importance ascribed to the
Conscience by Dr. R. W. Dale.

TO THE REASON AND CONSCIENCE. 307
teousness ; we might turn warnings into examples ; we might
be led, in short, to approve and follow principles, both religious
and moral, which are really false, sinful, injurious, and contrary
to the Highest Will.
Some of these statements might easily be illustrated from the
history of religion in our own and in other countries. But it is
more, perhaps, to the present purpose to observe again, that the
Conscience and the Reason are God's gift to man certainly not
less than the Bible, and that their free and healthy action are
quite as essential as the teachings of any book can be, not only to
the practical guidance of life, but also to the right apprehension
of religious truth. The Author and Bestower of these faculties
must have intended that we should use them ; that we should
seek to cultivate them and make them strong and pure ; that
we should live and act as moral and intellectual beings who are
capable of discrimination and progress in the knowledge of
things spiritual. The Bible, we may well believe, has aided the
world in this great work of life, and can still do so ; and we shall
best perform our duty towards the Giver of that and every other
good gift, by using His bounty, not to prevent, or render needless,
the deliberate and responsible action of our own higher nature,
but to assist us to cultivate and develop its powers and obey its
suggestions. In recent times, much has been said on the subject of Inspira
tion — the inspiration of the Scriptures. It is remarkable that
the Bible does not itself give us any definition, or description,
either of that word or of the quality which it is used to denote.
It nowhere, in truth, claims inspiration, or says anything definite
about it.* The biblical inspiration, whatever it is or was, would
* Comp. 2 Tim. iii. 16. This verse is thus rendered in the Revised Version :
"Every Scripture inspired of God is also profitable for teaching, for reproof, for cor-
x 2

308 INSPIRATION.
seem, like the genius of Shakspeare, to be unconsciously pos
sessed. The phrase, " Thus saith the Lord," and its equivalents,
are simply to be referred to the style of the prophet ; or to be
understood only as indicating his belief that what he was about
to say was conformable to the Divine Will. At the utmost, such
expressions, whatever their import, are valid only for the imme
diate context in which they stand, and do not affirm or imply
anything for the entire biblical collection. We cannot, for
example, infer the "inspiration" of Genesis v. or xxxvi, of
Psalm cix., of Solomon's Song, or of Ecclesiastes, from the cir
cumstance that Jeremiah or Isaiah sometimes spoke to their
contemporaries as direct messengers of Jehovah, and used forms
of speech corresponding to that character. Many a modern
preacher in his enthusiasm and earnestness does the same, but
no one misunderstands him.
So, again, in such portions of the New Testament as the
Epistle of Jude, or the anonymous Epistle to the Hebrews, or
the wild and visionary anticipations of the Book of Revelation,
we could not infer the " inspiration" of these, because the Apostle
Paul may have lived and acted and spoken under the special
impulse of the Spirit from on high.
It is scarcely allowable, in short, to think of inspiration as
being or acting in the dead words of any book ; while yet it is
natural and easy to think of the Divine Spirit as influencing
and moving the living soul of a man ; as being, for example,
in Abraham, in Moses, in Isaiah, in Paul, enabling them to act
effectually and wonderfully among the men of their time, accord
ing to the ideas and circumstances of the age to which they
belonged. But this living inspiration was primarily for them
rection, for instruction which is in righteousness." The allusion is of course to the
0. T. Scriptures, but what precisely is intended by the adjective GtOTrvevorog, ren
dered "inspired of God," we are nowhere informed. Is it more than a poetical epithet,
not to be understood in any literal sense ?

INSPIRATION. 309
and their day. When their thoughts, in all their complexity
and specialty, come to lie before a future age, and are read
among people differently trained and circumstanced, they are
found in large measure to be practically inapplicable — or appli
cable in principle only. Human language is at best an imperfect
vehicle for the transmission to distant times of Divine thoughts
and impulses— the subtle, indescribable inbreathings of that
Spirit which, like the wind, cometh and goeth where it listeth.
At any rate, that the writers of Scripture, whatever their " inspi
ration" may have been, were not preserved from the conse
quences of using human language as the means of expressing
their ideas, is clear from the fact that there are so many, not
only difficulties and obscurities of one kind and another, but
discrepancies or contradictions,* in the sacred page — a fact
which ought to warn us against the common misbelief about
inspiration in the vague or irrational sense in which it has been
maintained by some writers of our time.
Yet, while saying this, let us not lose sight of that which may
still claim to be the durable inspiration even of the written
Word. The living men of old, whose thoughts are preserved for
us in the Scriptures, and in whom the Spirit of God was
eminently present, have doubtless left sufficient traces and
proofs of this fact to the attentive reader. But such indications
are not to be seen in every separate sentiment of individual
speakers or writers, — much less in every sentence or word which
a Scriptural author may have written. The biblical inspiration
is not, therefore, verbal. It is something more effective. It
consists, surely, in the great moral and religious thought or
thoughts which the different parts of the whole Scripture com-
* For example, 2 Sam. xxiv. 9, compared with 1 Chron. xxi. 5 ; Mark xv. 25,
compared with John xix. 14; also the accounts of the birth of Jesus Christ in the
first and third Evangelists, as well as those of the resurrection in all four.

310 THE NATURE OF THE
bine to give us, as the common and harmonious result of their
various utterances. In this sense, therefore, again, both the
unity and the continuity formerly spoken of must be admitted
to be prominent features of the Bible.
If we would illustrate this position from the Old Testament,
we have at once suggested to us the leading idea of that part of
the Bible — the idea of the One God, Jehovah, the Creator and
Lord of heaven and earth. We find the chief men of the
Hebrews, their legislators and prophets, constantly, and the
more decidedly as time passes on, speaking so as to imply and
hold up to their people this first and greatest fundamental of
true religion ; and from them, through the medium of Chris
tianity, the same has been handed down to our day. And
under this biblical idea of God should be included, not only his
oneness, but also the clear intimations given respecting him as
a living and conscious mind. The God of the Bible is not a
mechanical force, or a diffused principle or tendency of life and
motion in the universe. He is One of nature in some sense
kindred to our own ; He is the Supreme Disposer ; His provi
dence sustains us ; He sees us ; and He approves or condemns
in righteousness. Such is the grand idea of the Divine per
sonality and character conveyed to the reader, as the clear result
of the Old Testament teaching — a result evidently accepted by
the Founder of Christianity, and by his influence perpetuated in
the world. Will it be wrong, therefore, to say that the inspira
tion of the Old Testament is mainly (though not exclusively) in
this very point ? — that it is not in separate words or phrases,
not in ideas expressed in natural science, in reference to geology
or astronomy, or other such subjects of ordinary knowledge, all
of which were necessarily imperfect, and such as belonged to an
early age of the world? — not in these, but simply in those
incomparably greater ideas of God, his character, will and pro-

BIBLICAL INSPIRATION. 311
vidence, which our Scriptures have been so obviously the means
of recording and preserving for us ?
Christian people will undoubtedly be relieved of much diffi
culty by admitting this more simple and natural idea of Bible
inspiration. We can see, for one thing, how it is that individual
writers are left so free to express their individual thoughts and
feelings; to give utterance even to angry passions and evil
wishes, or to ignorant, ill-founded hopes and anticipations ;
while yet the great thought of Jehovah, the Creator, Sovereign,
Righteous Observer and Judge of men, comes forth uninjured
from the midst of all such utterances, and, with the progress of
the ages, gradually obtains a higher and clearer recognition, in
the thoughts of successive generations, from Abraham to Christ.*
In regard to the New Testament, here, too, certain great ele
ments of religious truth present themselves and form the abiding
result, after many local and temporary peculiarities are laid
aside. Chief among them is the ancient doctrine of the One
God,-)- in its Christian form of the Heavenly Father, with its
related spiritual truths and principles. Will it be wrong, again,
to say that the inspiration of the New Testament consists essen
tially or solely, not in the dogmas of the churches, widely accepted
as they are, but in the great lessons respecting God, Providence,
human duty, retribution, purity of life, which its various parts
combine as they do to impress upon the mind of a reader ?
The chief addition made by the New Testament to what has
descended to us in substance from the Old, consists in the doc
trine of a Future Life. And yet this doctrine was clearly no
"revelation" first given by inspired Christian minds. It was
* The reader will perhaps observe the agreement between the above remarks, written
many years ago, and much that occurs in the Essay on Inspiration in Lux Mundi,
referred to in the Appendix to this Chapter.
+ Matt. vi. 9 ; Mark xii. 28—30 ; Luke x. 27 ; John xvii. 3 ; 1 Cor. viii. 6.

312 THE CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE
already known and acknowledged among the people when
Christ came ; nor was it confined to them, for you have it in
ancient books written long before Christ was born ; for example,
in the Phsedo, and in the Apologia of Socrates, not to speak of
certain books of Eastern sages which are still older. The utmost,
therefore, that can be alleged is, that the Teacher and his disci
ples accepted the ancient belief, and gave it the seal of their
approval ; — accepted it, also, so far as the form of it was con
cerned, much as it was already held by those among whom they
lived. It was left to time and the growth of knowledge to
supply any correction needed, to bring the doctrine in question
into a truer harmony with the highest suggestions of the reason
and the moral sense.
It is remarkable, however, how closely accompanied, and
moreover, how much embarrassed, is the great Christian hope by
an idea of marked prominence in the New Testament; — the
idea, that is to say, of the speedy second coming of Christ. This
expectation has been manifestly proved by the lapse of time to
have been erroneous. Whatever, therefore, its origin, whether
in the misapprehension by the disciples of some declaration of
their Master, or really in express words of his, and however
important its influence upon the early Christianity, it ought now
to be passed by as a merely temporary incident of primitive
Christian belief. Like many another error, it has answered its
transitory purpose in the providential plan, and may well, at
length, be left to rest in peace. It is in truth thus put aside by
considerate readers of the Bible. For they can no longer say,
with James, " The coming of the Lord draweth nigh ;" or with
Paul (1 Thess. iv. 17 ; v. 8), that when the Lord appears, we
shall be "caught up together with him in the air;"— they can
no longer say this in the sense in which those Apostles said it
and believed it.

OF THE FUTURE LIFE. 313
And there is this further difference between the expectation
referred to and the great faith in a future life. The former is in
. no way demanded or sanctioned by the reason or the sense of
right, while the latter is so. On this ground, therefore, it may
be allowable, or rather necessary, to reject the one, while accepting
the other. As may again be observed, it is not the office of the
Scriptures to supersede the action of our spiritual nature, by
imposing upon us beliefs or laws of conduct which are not per
ceived and felt to be right. Their function is rather to afford us
a helpful guiding influence, and even, in some cases, to supply,
as it were, the materials out of which we may select and assimi
late to ourselves what is best adapted to our spiritual nutriment
and our onward progress in the divine life.
Although, therefore, the belief in the second coming of Christ
was so prominent and influential a part of the early Christianity,
and is strongly affirmed by several New Testament writers,* —
although it stands also in very intimate connection with the
Christian hope of the life to come, insomuch that the one seems
to involve and to stand or fall with the other, — although, too, the
former has been plainly proved to be unfounded, by remaining
unfulfilled through the lapse of more than eighteen centuries, and
cannot, therefore, any longer be held to be a credible or essential
part of Christian faith, — still and nevertheless it may be compe
tent to us to hold fast the hope as a sure one, while we dismiss
the expectation as only a temporary misunderstanding. And we
may do this the more easily and confidently, even because the
one is in harmony with the dictates of reason and conscience,
while the other is not, or, at any rate, is very much less so. We
may do it, in other words, even because the one receives the
sanction of the supreme approving and verifying faculties of our
* 1 Cor. xv. 23, 51 ; 1 Thess. i. 10 ; iv. 13—18 ; 1 Pet. iv. ; 2 Pet. iii. ; Jam. v. 7, 8.

314 THE TRANSITORY AND
nature, while the other does not ; and because, too, it is largely
and necessarily left to us, in reading the Scriptures, to discrimi
nate between one thing and another, between the temporary and
the permanent, the good and the evil, the true and the false.
We are not called upon, then, to accept an irrational or im
moral doctrine merely because it is contained in the Bible — sup
posing, for the moment, any such doctrine to be really contained
in that book — that, for example, as so many allege, of eternal
punishment. The true alternative course, in such a case, would
appear to be, to receive the statements of the Scriptures on that
subject simply as a part of the history of the growth of religious
knowledge, preserved for us in their pages. Thus we may look
upon the doctrine last referred to, not as a permanent truth of
religion, but only as belonging to the days of the world's earlier
experience, like those alluded to by the Apostle Paul on Mars'
Hill; as a something therefore of past times and forms of
thought which, by its own nature, could have only a temporary
existence, and was destined to pass away as soon as the strength
ened and purified intelligence of man should be able to rise up
to the conception of higher and better ideas of divine truth.
And doubtless this will be the case with every doctrine,
whether biblical or not, which is in serious discordance with the
true dictates of our rational and moral nature. Such things, even
if contained in the Bible, will have to pass away and give place
to what is better, as soon as ever the Great Father shall, by the
course of his providence, have led on mankind to more spiritual
views of his works and ways and will. For, be it not forgotten,
the Divine Spirit is alive, and not dead. God is still and ever
the Living God ; and our human part must be to embrace the
highest forms of truth of every kind, the highest ideas of Right
and Duty which may become known to us, through whatever

THE PERMANENT IN SCRIPTURE. 315
channel we may obtain them, whether through the pages of
Scripture, by the open teaching or the observed experience of
others around us, or by the secret intimations of our own souls.
If this were not so, what would the Bible be but a mere drag
upon human progress ? — as, alas ! it has too often been made by
the ignorance and unwisdom of past times.
In speaking thus freely respecting a Book which is without
doubt, in its influence, the most remarkable known to us in this
part of the world, we should make a great omission if, on the
other hand, we failed expressly and again to acknowledge the
elements of divine life and guidance which the same book con
tains. This must be said in large measure of both the older and
the later portions of it. We have in the former, among other
things, the history of the early introduction and growth of the
idea of One God, shewing us how the Hebrews were brought, in
spite of themselves, from and through their own idolatries and
wickedness, to what was better and truer ; until, finally, a suitable
preparation was made among them for the coming and the life of
Christ, with all the rich practical lessons of moral and religious
teaching which are identified with his name or due immediately
to his influence. These again are such as tend to awaken, purify
and strengthen the conscience, and win the approval of the intel
ligent and thoughtful mind. There are many things of this kind
in the Christian teachings, of the very highest character, com
pletely above the ordinary thoughts and practices of men, but
which we feel, nevertheless, within our hearts to be right, and
deserving of our warmest admiration and obedience.
When Christ, for example, gives us the parable of the Good
Samaritan and tells us to go and do likewise, do not our best
reason and sense of right assent, respond and sympathize ? When
he tells us to love our neighbour even as ourselves, to do good to
those who hate us, and to forgive those who have injured us ;

316 TRUE AUTHORITY OF THE BIBLE.
when he tells us that the peacemakers shall be called children
of God ; that the pure in heart shall see Him ; and that they are
blessed who do hunger and thirst after righteousness, for that
they shall be filled ; — when Christ not only speaks and teaches
in this spirit, but also manifests a perfect faithfulness in his own
devotion to the work of duty which he was called to do ; — when
we see him going straight forward even to the painful death of
crucifixion without faltering, and even on the cross carrying out
his own precepts by praying to God to forgive the men who were
putting him to a most cruel death;* — in all this, and such as
this, do we not feel that a Divine Spirit has been revealed to us,
which it will be good for us to admit into our hearts, and exem
plify in our lives, if we can? — a spirit which the secret intimations
of the soul assure us is altogether right and beautiful and worthy
of our homage ; which, in short, in its perfectness, is far above
man's ordinary doings, and which we can only hope and pray to
be enabled faithfully to aspire to and strive to make our own ?
And things of this kind in the Bible, w'hich awaken our
sympathy and lay hold of our spiritual nature, evidently con
stitute the true value, the true inspiration, of that book, and its
true claim upon us ; not, however, because they are there laid
down before us in the form of laws and creeds, but because they
are great and genuine principles, which we feel to be such;
because they are in harmony with the best dictates of our
nature ; not opposed to them or in any way inconsistent with
them. The true authority of the Bible consists, in a word, just
in this and in nothing else, that our secret hearts, in our best
and most serious moments, acknowledge and testify to its truth
and power in so considerable a portion of its teachings.
* Luke xxiii. 34 : if the reading here be somewhat doubtful, it is certainly ancient,
and it well illustrates the beautiful spirit of the life of Christ.

INSPIRATION IN "LUX MUNDI." 317
APPENDIX TO CHAPTER XXVII.
INSPIRATION AS SET FORTH IN "LUX MUNDI."
I.
The learned author of this essay does not inform us what
precisely he understands by the term of which he treats so
elaborately. The Church, he observes, " has not committed her
self to any dogmatic definitions" of it (p. 357). Nor does the
essayist do so, except so far as to assure us that " the inspiration
of the Jews was supernatural"* (pp. 342 — 345). It was not the
same in kind as that of the Greeks and Romans ; though it is
added, " Every race has its inspiration and its prophets." But
truly inspiration in the case of the Jews, supernatural as it was,
does not appear to have been of much practical account, for it
did not preserve them or their leaders, any more than Greeks
and Romans, from "erroneous anticipations," from hopes and
expectations on important subjects that were not to be fulfilled
(p. 346} — nor, I must add, from gross idolatries and glaring
iniquities, as recorded in their own ancient books. But of all
this more shall be said in its place.
While, however, the essayist, following the lead of the Church
and of the Bible itself, does not attempt any definition of this
word, he gives us a description of what may be termed the
natural work of the Spirit of God, which, it might be thought,
would be sufficient for the religious man, without insisting on
the vague' and disputable term supernatural. In emphatic
words he tells us that " the moving principle of vitalization is
the Holy Spirit." "It is the sending forth of the breath of
God which is the giving to things of the gift of life ; it is the
withdrawal of that breath which is their annihilation" (pp.
* So in effect Professor Sanday, Oracles of God, in which the term supernatural
occurs more than once in a similar connection, pp. 70, 72, 76.

318 APPENDIX TO CHAPTER XXVII.
317, 318). The Christian theist of every name will, I apprehend,
assent to such propositions as these ; gladly acknowledging that
all nature is supported by the Spirit of God ; that all is of His
Divine Will, and upheld by His supreme power.
But this is not all that is meant when a supernatural inspira
tion is here claimed for the Bible and for Bible persons. Unsatis
fied with the ordinary presence, so to speak, of Him who is
" above all and through all and in you all," the essayist must
go beyond this, and assign to the Divine Spirit a more special
abode in men of a far distant age, men who by their manifold
imperfections of thought and conduct plainly shew that they
are not to be distinguished from other notable men of their
time, for whom no one has ever set up the claim of special or
supernatural impulse or guidance.
But surely so to do, limits in effect the divine inspiration too
narrowly to particular men and to a single book, or rather a
single literature. Those in whom it is said to be so specially
present, lived in the ages of ancient ignorance and manifold
superstition. They were under the sway of national or rather
tribal feelings and instincts. They had little of friendly regard
for any people exeept their own, and little or no influence as
teachers of religion beyond their own limited horizon. To
affirm of such men that they were divinely set apart as the
recipients of supernatural light for the permanent education and
training in things spiritual of the ages to come, seems to be the
wildest of suppositions.
Nor was Divine illumination, whatever it was, restricted, we
may well believe, to them, or withheld from men of other or
later times. For even in the discoveries and utterances of such
men as Galileo, Newton, Priestley, — not to speak of living
investigators and thinkers, whether in theology or any other
great field of human science, — has not the Almighty been reveal
ing Himself, His works and ways, quite as much as through
the obscure medium of a Hebrew prophet or by Christian

INSPIRATION IN "LUX MUNDI." 319
Apostles and evangelists ? Or shall we think that these latter
writers, Hebrew and Christian, often so unknown to us as they
are, were filled and moved by the Spirit from on high, while we
deny the same divine help to a Thomas a Kempis, a Milton, a
Wordsworth, a Browning, with numberless others of our own
more recent days.
Again, the sphere within which the influence of the old Bible
writings was felt was extremely circumscribed. Their authors
of earlier or of later times, were mostly unknown outside the
little circle of their own friends. They were often opposed and
persecuted even by their own people and their rulers. It is
clear from the whole course of the ancient biblical history, from
the remonstrances of the prophets, and from express statements
of their sacred books respecting prevalent idolatries and wicked
ness, that the leading men of the nation, in common with the
meaner people, were more alive to the external ceremonies and
sacrifices of their religious system than to the earnest, devout
thoughts that moved an Isaiah or a Micah — so little influence
had the alleged supernatural inspiration among those to whom
and for whom it is said to have been most especially given.*
* It will perhaps be urged that the Scriptural writers were conscious of their
inspiration and lay claim to it. Supposing this to be granted, would it be satisfactory
as evidence to us of the alleged fact ? Others in the old times made pretensions of
the same kind, which are not now admitted ; e.g. Socrates, a great and good man,
virtually states- that he was under the Divine guidance, and his conduct in various
cases distinctly supported this claim. Similarly I might speak of the Delphian
priestess and her alleged inspiration and other such things, by no one in our days
regarded as admissible.
But, in truth, it is by no means clear that the sacred writers really claimed inspira
tion, in any modern sense of the word, either for themselves or others. When they
write that the Lord "spoke" to them, that "the word of the Lord came" to them,
that "the hand of the Lord was upon" them, or " thus saith the Lord God," with
more to the same effect, most probably it is all to be referred simply to the ancient
prophetic mode of speech, — animated, pictorial, and emphatic as this was in the highest
degree. Thus also may be interpreted the curious figures and similes used by Ezekiel,
Hosea, and other prophets : as when the Lord says to Ezekiel, " Take thee a tile and
lay it before thee, and pourtray upon it the city of Jerusalem "—or, again, when He
tells him to take an iron pan and set it up; or "eat this roll and go speak unto the
children of Israel" (Ezek. iii. iv.) : is not all this to be referred to the prophet's style,

320 APPENDIX TO CHAPTER XXVTI.
This failure in the native home of the alleged illumination is
too sadly exemplified on the greater scale of the vast populations
of the earth in our own day. We look in vain for any great
practical results from either the men or the books said to have
been divinely appointed so long ago for the express purpose of
training and educating mankind. Not to dwell on details, I
will only allude to the masses of our own people who are hardly
touched by religious influences, to the great Oriental countries,
to the African continent with its wide-spread heathenism, to
Chinese and Mohammedan hostility to Christianity, even to
the so-called Christian nations of Europe, armed as they are in
their hundreds of thousands for the dreadful work of war : —
thinking of all this, alas ! must we not admit the failure and
groundlessness of the idea of a supernaturally inspired provision
in the Hebrew books for the spiritual training of the nations ?
From such considerations as these it results, not indeed that
the Bible is to be undervalued as a great educational influence
and stimulant in our part of the world, but simply that we are
to use it with reasonable discretion, and not to place upon it a
reliance which, by the nature of the case, can lead only to failure
and disappointment. It results, too, that the nations are left to
work out their salvation by their own efforts and sufferings, in
accordance with the great natural laws to which the Divine Will
has made them subject. The sooner this is recognized and acted
upon, the better will it be for the happiness of the now tried
and suffering millions of our own and other countries.
The contents of the books little correspond to the claim of
special inspiration which is made in their behalf — occupied as
they are so largely with obscure traditions, with the temporary
affairs, the laws and the politics, the wars, famines and sufferings
his way of expressing his earnestness, simply shewing that he was carried away by
impulses of feeling and imagination similar to those which moved Bunyan in composing
his Pilgrim's Progress, or Milton in his Paradise Lost ? There is no need then, it is
plain, to assume special or supernatural inspiration for what may be thus so naturally
explained and accounted for.

INSPIRATION IN "LUX MUNDI." 321
of their own day and nation. The writings of the prophets are
filled with the relations of their people, often bitterly hostile, to
the Assyrians and other nations near, and they contain little of
permanent value that is not found in other literatures.
If, then, what an Isaiah, a Jeremiah, a Micah and other pro
phets have left us was so especially inspired of God, why not
acknowledge the same Divine element in a Plato and a Socrates,
not to speak of others nearer our own time, as a Luther and a
Wesley ? There is nothing in the Hebrew books higher of its
kind than that passage in the Apology in which Socrates argues
that death may not be an evil ; and that it is better even to die
than to do what is wrong and disobey the intimations of the
God. Truly, such thoughts as these are not unworthy to be
deemed inspired, even by the side of the greatest utterance of
any Hebrew or Christian prophet or apostle.
We may, in truth, affirm that all our best thoughts of God, of
duty, of righteous self-sacrificing effort, of love for our fellow-
men, of retribution and the life hereafter, are inspired thoughts ;
and we may also ask, Have not our own poets and preachers of
the highest class been indebted to the All-pervading Spirit for
the great, eloquent thoughts that so often have moved their
souls ?
Is there no Divine inspiration in Keble's Morning Hymn ? —
in Michael Angelo's noble sonnet, as rendered by Wordsworth,
" The prayers I make will then be prayers indeed, If thou the
spirit give by which I pray"? — in Blanco White's admirable
words of religious trust, addressed to "Mysterious Night"?
Who shall deny that the Spirit from above has breathed upon
us in Bryant's Waterfowl ? — in Kippis' hymn, " Great God, in
vain man's narrow view Attempts to look thy nature through" ? —
in " Nearer, my God, to Thee "? — in those solemn and touching
lines commencing with the words," " Abide with me, fast falls
the even- tide"? Prose writers, too, like Jeremy Taylor, like
Bunyan, like Channing, and many another, have spoken to us,
Y

322 APPENDIX TO CHAPTER XXVII.
as by a holy spirit not of this world. Why, then, are we to be
told that the highest inspiration of God was given in the dark
ages of a remote antiquity to a few unknown Hebrew men, and
withheld (it would appear) from men and women of other times —
a numberless host of saintly souls who have thirsted for God,
and desired, as their highest aim, to spread the knowledge of his
name and love throughout the world.
Our essayist draws a distinction between the admitted im-
perfectness of the Old Testament and the " final and catholic "
character which he claims for the New. In reference to this, it
may be enough to remind the reader that the distinction is less
than might at first sight appear. In the later Scriptures, we
have indeed many admirable thoughts of the Heavenly Father,
with precepts innumerable of the finest moral tone. But along
with these and strangely intermingling with them, we have
matter of a very different kind ; and this too in intimate associa
tion with the principal persons of that part of the Bible. We
have limited knowledge or positive ignorance in various cases ;
misapprehension as to times and seasons, in the anticipation of
what never comes to pass, with connected prophecies unfulfilled ;
we have the expected destruction of the heathen world prepara
tory to the setting up of the kingdom of Christ (Rev. xix. 14
seq.), this being anticipated and dwelt upon with evident eager
ness ; we have the groundless belief in evil demons as causes of
disease, and as ruling powers of the world ; sometimes anthropo
morphic conceptions of the Deity and of the efficacy of persistent
faith and prayer in prevailing upon Him to grant what he might
refuse if not sufficiently entreated ; — all this, and such as this, is
found even in that part of the Bible which is said to be final and
catholic, in contrast to the older part which is admitted to be
imperfect and not to be judged of in detail, but only in its
general results.
In the presence of these manifold imperfections, it is certainly
not easy to admit the claim of a special supernatural inspiration

INSPIRATION IN "LUX MUNDI." 323
in these writings, even when it is set forth in the eloquent lan
guage of Lux Mundi. II.
I must not extend these remarks to an unreasonable length ;
but there remain a few points of importance which call for a
brief notice.
The inspiration of the Jews, we are told, was not only in
individuals, but in the race ; and in them it was " more direct
and more intense " than that of Greeks and Romans. In refer
ence to this it must be asked, How is such a position proved or
illustrated by events ? Were the Jews inspired in this high
sense in their gross idolatries ? or when they cried out, Crucify
him, Crucify him ?
Although, again, the essayist does not define the inspiration of
which he tells, he does not refrain from describing its effects.
To this end he suggests a comparison of the biblical account
of the creation and the Babylonian. The object of the Bible
narrative, it is observed, was not historical or scientific ; it was
religious; to shew that everything was made by God; "that
everything is in its essence good ;" and " that man has a special
relation to God, as made in God's image." This last Scriptural
statement may be shewn by conclusive evidence to be simply
anthropomorphic* But leaving this point, it is surely incredible
that special inspiration should have been employed to produce
an imperfect and misleading account of the process of creation ;
or to tell us that the wonderful and beautiful world around us is
"very good ;" or that the Jewish Sabbath was instituted in com
memoration of the Divine rest on the seventh day.
The erroneous expectations of the prophets are, by the essay
ist, liberally admitted. Nevertheless, we are told, prophecy and
fulfilment corresponded to each other, and this could be " due to
no other cause than that the prophet spoke in fact the word of
* How completely the ordinary commentators have missed the meaning of Gen. i.
26, 27, may be seen supra, p. 96.
y2

324 APPENDIX TO CHAPTER XXVII.
the Lord " (p. 346). Is this correct ? Did the fulfilment Teally
correspond to Isaiah's prophecy, for example, in his eleventh
chapter, if, as we are told, this chapter referred to the Messianic
Prince ? Did it correspond in the events which culminated in
the rejection and crucifixion of the anointed Messenger? Was
there a correspondence between the destruction of the sacred
city, with all the sufferings and horrors it involved, and the
prophetic anticipation of triumph over ancient enemies in the
latter part of the same prophecy ?
The first traditions of the Hebrew race are all given, we are
told, "from a special point of view" — so that we are not left in
ignorance as to the force of its inspiration. No doubt, it was
so ! The Hebrews believed themselves the favoured children of
God, the rest of mankind being little better than outcasts from
his family. Even the glorious race of the Greeks, with their
rich and abounding literature, and the magnificent fruits of their
art and philosophy, are only as unworthy and despicable crea
tures compared with the favourites of Jehovah. Such is " the
special point of view" due to the inspiration of the chosen people.
Can it be justly ascribed, in any sense, to the Great Father of all?
The imprecatory Psalms naturally claim the attention of one
who regards the Old Testament as a book of supernatural inspi
ration. The essayist gives us a singular estimate of their value.
" They are not the utterances of selfish spite : they are the claim
which righteous Israel makes upon God, that He should vindicate
Himself, and let their eyes see how righteousness turns again
into judgment" (p. 350). How will this suit such passages as
Psalm cix. ? " Let his children be fatherless and his wife a
widow. Let his children be continually vagabonds and beg : . . . .
Let this be the reward of my adversaries from the Lord and of
them that speak evil against my soul:" or again, such a pas
sage as that at the close of Psalm cxxxvii. ? "0 daughter of
Babylon .... happy shall he be that rewardeth thee, as thou
hast served us. Happy shall he be that taketh and dasheth thy

INSPIRATION IN "LUX MUNDI." 325
little ones against the stones." No " spite" in this ? no revenge ?
only a claim on God to manifest "His just judgment, so that
holiness and joy, sin and failure, shall be seen to coincide"?
And this, even at the expense of the fatherless and the widow,
and of the little children dashed against the stones !
Our essayist admits a certain " unconscious idealizing of his
tory" in the Bible, and the practice of attributing to an earlier
age what really belonged to a later. But this is clearly a depar
ture from the truth of history. It may be unconscious and
without intentional deceit ; but can we rely upon the writings in
which it is found, I will not say as inspired, but even as trust
worthy records ? That there is often a moral or a devout element
in these "idealized" statements may be true; but it is hardly
necessary to assume supernatural influence as the prime cause
of it. Inspiration " excludes conscious deception or pious fraud;"
but so does that not uncommon phenomenon, an honest and
truthful spirit ! and again the remark is obvious — there is no
need to introduce the Supernatural as a moving force in these
ancient writings, any more than to assume its presence in — shall
I say ? — a Thucydides, a Josephus, or a Macaulay.
In his remarks on what he terms the dramatic character of
certain parts of the Old Testament, our essayist makes important
concessions to modern criticism. The Song of Solomon is of the
nature of a drama ; so is the Book of Job ; so are Ecclesiastes
and even Deuteronomy, the one written in "the person of
Solomon," though not by him; the other not by Moses, but
only "put dramatically into his mouth" (pp. 355, 356). Jonah
and Daniel are dramatic compositions, " worked up on a basis
of history" — of which last assertion no evidence is given beyond
the essayist's assertion, or perhaps we should say his " idealizing."
The authors of these books, it will be noted, are entirely unknown
to us. But this is no hindrance to " their being inspired." On
the same principles, it may be added, such works as Macbeth
and Hamlet may be placed among inspired writings, considering

326 APPENDIX TO CHAPTER XXVII.
the high moral element which they contain — except only, perhaps,
that we do know who it was that wrote them !
It thus appears that the claim of supernatural inspiration
made in this essay for biblical books is in a certain sense so
diluted that the special element disappears. On the other hand,
although in such concessions popular Christianity may appear
to lose much, yet the world of religious men really gains. The
guiding Spirit, we are brought to see, is present throughout all
literature that is worthy of its presence. It is not confined to
writings that have come down to us from the old, ignorant,
semi-civilized, Hebrew times. It is present in a Greek Plato,
a Roman Cicero, an English Shakspeare, and multitudes more of
the innumerable hosts whom the Great Father has raised up to
aid in diffusing His life-giving inspiration among those who are
prepared and willing, or even unwilling, to receive it.
These remarks have, thus far, had their main reference to the
biblical writings. But it is not merely these that are held up to
us in this essay as inspired. " The inspiration of the Church" is
distinctly affirmed. This is another question altogether, and a
very debatable one it is. Who, or what, vouches for the inspira
tion of the Church ? And is it the Anglican Church of the time
present, with its divisions, its party spirit, its prosecutions in
courts of law ? Is it this that is meant ? Or, leaving the Church
of our own day, shall we go back into the darker ages of medi
aeval faith, and seek for the Divine inspiration more especially
there ? The Roman Catholic, we know, repudiates the Anglican;
even as a large section of the Anglican repudiates the Roman.
Which of them has the true inspiration ? Or, do they both pos
sess it ? The Church of the sixteenth century, the establishment
of Edward and Elizabeth, like that of the Act of Uniformity, was
mainly of human, and largely of political origin. Nor can we
attribute any special authority about inspiration or anything
else, to the men who formed the ancient councils or formulated
the ancient creeds. They, as history testifies, were too much

INSPIRATION IN "LUX MUNDI." 327
under the influence of angry passions, of superstitions and per
sonal antipathies, which little entitled them to dictate religious
doctrine to the people of more cultivated and enlightened ages.
(See Dean Stanley's Eastern Church.)
But, to bring these remarks to a close, let me briefly refer to
a probable objection to which many readers will consider them
open. It will be said that their effect is to cast down the Bible
from its high seat of authority as a book of religion, and to take
from too many persons the support and comfort which they find
in its pages.
In reply it may be urged, and it is being more and more con
fessed on every hand, Truth and Reason are greater than any
other consideration, greater even than the Bible ; and the true
duty and interest of religious men is to follow the dictates of
their own higher nature, even though so to do should involve
the abandonment of ancient, long-descended opinions on these
subjects. It is not well to live upon baseless assumptions, even
in matters of religious concern. It is not well for either the
intellectual or the spiritual health. It is better to put them
aside and to follow the guidance of the Spirit of God, if He
should call us — as doubtless in our day He is calling — to new
and more becoming ideas of His presence with us and His
providential activity in the world around us.
But all that I have said does not imply, and is not intended to
imply, that the Bible, rationally interpreted, may not still be a
great handbook of help and comfort to the mass of Christian
people. It surely may be so, as for generations past it has been
the most powerful and interesting expression of the religious
sentiment known to the Christian nations. And such it may
continue to be. Those who need that kind of aid may still find
it. But— as the author of " The Living Christ" would no doubt
admit — there are others, and their number is increasing, who can
do without it, and who find within their own breasts " confirma
tion strong as Holy Writ," or even stronger, that God is jtill, now

328 APPENDIX TO CHAPTER XXVII.
and here and ever, the Living God, the Friend and Father of all
that put their trust in Him.
NOTE. — INSPIRATION AND BIBLICAL CRITICISM.
It is an obvious and important question, How far will the
theories of special or supernatural inspiration be able to hold
their ground in the presence of the dissecting processes of recent
criticism ? Some of the most important books of the Bible are
pronounced by the highest authorities to be made up of older,
and also of fragmentary, documents. These are held to be
embodied in the books, more or less adapted by alterations to
suit their context ; sometimes a smaller piece being incorporated
into a larger, and the whole put together nobody knows when,
or by whom, whether with an intelligent knowledge or only by
a sort of arbitrary selection.
This description applies not only to the Pentateuch, but to
such books as Isaiah, Jeremiah, Zechariah, Job, the Psalms, and
the Proverbs. There are others, including the synoptic Gospels
and the Acts, which have not escaped this critical anatomizing.
The more important Pauline Epistles and the fourth Gospel
have thus far been untouched. But their turn will probably
come. Colossians and Ephesians are well known not to be
independent writings — independent, that is to say, of each other.
The last-named Gospel will hardly be left whole ; there are
those who are beginning to think that the Proem is not an
original part of it. The same has long been held of the final
chapter ; and the question may even be raised whether the last
three chapters, so simply written and so graphic, can be from
the same hand which wrote chapters vi. xiv. xvii. Such inquiries
may be left to the future ; but meanwhile-there remains a great
and far-reaching question. How, amidst the medley of separate
sections, writers and compilers, shall the Supernatural inspira
tion of the books be vindicated ? This inquiry would perhaps
be worth the attention even of a Bampton Lecturer. He would

SUMMARY OF RESULTS. 329
have to consider whether the different and unknown writers of
sections and fragments were all equally and adequately inspired.
Was, for example, the writer of Genesis v. and xxxvi. inspired ?
Were the Jehovist and Elohist and other contributors to the
Pentateuch inspired, or the literary priest or priests, whoever
they were in any given case, who put ancient fragmentary
documents together, and made a continuous book out of the
materials in their hands — were these all under the guidance of
the genuine Supernatural inspiration ? — and how shall it be
known that they were so, seeing that we know nothing at all
about them personally ? These questions must certainly be well
considered, before the great subject discussed in the foregoing
pages can be regarded as definitely settled upon a secure and
positive basis.

CHAPTER XXVIII.

SUMMARY OF RESULTS — THE RELIGION OF CHRIST — HIS TRUE
DIGNITY — HIS DEATH — THE LORD'S SUPPER — THE FUNCTION
OF THE BIBLE — PRIESTLY AUTHORITY — THE CHURCH AND
THE CHURCHES — PROPER BASIS OF CHRISTIAN COMMUNION —
QUESTION OF A NATIONAL CHURCH — POSTSCRIPT.
The principal conclusions which appear to be established by
the foregoing pages may now be very briefly recapitulated.
In the first place, the Supreme Being whom the Bible would
lead us to acknowledge and worship is, in the strictest sense of
the words, One God. He is a Living Spirit, of loving kind
ness and tender mercy, our Father in heaven ; while yet He is
at the same time a God of righteousness, " who will render to
every man according to his deeds."
Into this ancient idea of One Divine Personality, there is

330 GOD AND CHRIST.
nowhere introduced, throughout the Scriptures, any change or
qualification whatever. The Jehovah of Abraham and of Moses
is the Jehovah of Isaiah and Jeremiah, of the latest as of the
earliest Prophets. He is further the Heavenly Father of the
Gospels, and He it is who is also spoken of by the Apostles
Paul and Peter as the God and Father of Jesus Christ. Through
out the Bible it is everywhere the same ; the most strict and
literal conception of the Unity or Oneness of the Divine Mind,
of the sole Deity of Jehovah of Hosts, being constantly expressed
or implied, in much variety of phrase.
It is true indeed that some small grammatical peculiarities of
a plural character occur in the Hebrew writers in immediate
connection with the Sacred Name. Thus their commonest word
for God is plural in form. But however this may have originated,
it came to be a mere idiomatic expression of the language.
As such only it stands before us, and it is employed in the
Bible, like other plural forms, to denote a single object. So
much is this the case, in reference both to this word and to
some kindred expressions on which Dr. Liddon has so anxiously
insisted, that all such things are absolutely insignificant, in
comparison with the overwhelming force of the argument for
the strictest doctrine of the Divine Unity. The citation of such
trifles by him and by other defenders of the popular orthodoxy
proves nothing, in short, but the extreme poverty of their general
argument from the Old Testament. It is simply indicative of
the absence of all direct testimony to the theory which they
seek to uphold.
In the second place, Jesus of Nazareth is nowhere represented
as God, but simply as the Christ — that is to say, the anointed,
the chosen instrument, the well-beloved Son. In this character
he was received by his own immediate disciples ; more or less
of the temporal or political conception of his office long attaching

WHAT IS CHRISTIAN FAITH? 331
to their confession of him. By his death, however, and in the
course of years, that grosser element was removed ; yet for a
long period something of it remained, in the lingering expecta
tion of his second advent. But this, too, in time, and by the
course of events, was proved to be only a misapprehension.
With few exceptions, Christian men have now outgrown it and
put it away. For eighteen centuries and more it has been left
unfulfilled, and hence we may reasonably infer the will of the
overruling Providence that Jesus was to be Christ in no tem
poral or worldly sense. He is thus simply the Spiritual Christ,
and all who will may be disciples of his — not, indeed, by virtue
of any outward rite, such as circumcision, or baptism, or the
confession of a creed, but by Faith alone, carrying with it, as a
matter of course, the Obedience which is better than sacrifice,
and the Christian Love which is greater than faith.
But what then is the Faith of the Gospel to the modern dis
ciple? It can be no merely intellectual state of "assent" or
" consent," voluntary or involuntary. It is a thing, in truth, of
complex character. It is the affectionate, reverent trust of the
disciple towards the Teacher ; it is the earnest desire to sit at
his feet, and learn of him the virtues and the graces of his own
character ; it is the humble yet hopeful aspiration to obey his
precepts, to follow his example, and to imbibe the spirit of his
life. From this definition of Christian faith, it easily follows
that Christianity is not a mere dogma, whether about Christ or
about God, about heaven or hell, or Adam, or sin, or the devil,
about any one of these separately or all of them collectively.
It is needless to add that Christianity is not to be identified
with a particular form of Church government, with submission
to a priesthood, or the observance of holy days, forms of worship,
ceremonial rites and sacraments. Christianity does not consist
in things of this kind, or depend either upon their presence or

332 WHAT CHRISTIANITY IS.
their absence ; although it may be freely confessed that such
things as dogmas, ceremonies and priests, may be a help and a
stay to many, even though also a hindrance to many others. If,
then, a man should feel them to be a help, let him cling to them ;
but, as the Apostle reminds us, " let every man be fully per
suaded in his own mind."
Thus, to vary the form of definition, it follows, again, that
Christianity, objectively considered, is Christ himself — the mind,
life, character and spirit of Christ. The best expression of
it is in him, in his words and deeds ; by the side of which
every human creed and test of discipleship is but an impertinent
intrusion. And to speak subjectively, that man is the truest
Christian, not who is readiest or loudest in saying, " Lord, Lord,"
but who most closely and practically follows the Master in doing
the will of the " Father which is in heaven ;" — who strives and
prays to do this Divine will in Christ, so far as it is given to
frail and tempted man to imitate so lofty an example, to manifest
so righteous and holy a spirit.
But between Jesus as the Christ, thus set before us, and Him
who is the " Only True God," there is the same infinite distance
as between the Divine Creator and every other created intelli
gence. Christ is, indeed, in apostolical phrase, the " first-born
of many brethren," the well-beloved Son of the Supreme, but
he is not himself God — nor is he ever really represented as such
in the New Testament. " There is one God the Father," and
"one Lord Jesus Christ;" but these are not in any sense one
being or one nature ; they are two beings and two natures ; two
distinct, self-conscious minds — a fact which cannot be got rid of,
or ignored, even by the most zealous upholders of the deity of
Christ* It thus further appears as a marked and evil feature
* In particular illustration of this statement, see infra, the late Bishop Lightfoot's
exposition of Philip, ii. 6—11, Appendix, note B.

TRUE DIGNITY OF CHRIST. 333
of the popular theology, that it tends so directly to weaken, or
also to perplex and obscure, proper monotheistic feeling, — turning
away the mind from one true and only Object of devout trust
and worship, to the acknowledgment of other beings which are
not really, that is, separately, God in any allowable sense of the
word, and which can never by the nature of the case be shewn
to be so.
This remark applies, not only to the doctrine of Christ's deity
but to that also of the personality of the Holy Spirit. For the
Holy Spirit, although, indeed, as we have seen, it is truly God
Himself, more especially as manifested in his intercourse or
communion with the soul of man, yet it is not, in any real sense,
a separate divine "person," that is to say, a separate God; nor,
consequently, ought it ever to be so spoken of by one who has a
reverent regard to the teaching of Christ. It ought not, there
fore, to be separately addressed in prayer or praise, for such acts
are, in effect, a detraction from the honour which is due to Him
who alone is God. And this statement is enforced by the
unquestionable fact that there is not a single instance throughout
the Bible in which the Holy Spirit is so addressed, or invoked,
or presented to us as an object of worship.
It is further to be observed — for we are here endeavouring to
speak the whole truth in very plain words — that Jesus Christ,
as man, as the first and noblest of the sons of God, the spiritual
head under Him of the " Communion of Saints," is a far greater,
more attractive and more commanding object, than when looked
up to as a derived or secondary God, as he is represented in the
Nicene Creed ; or as one, again, whose Godhead is for ever a
doubtful and disputed thing. This it now is, and this it always has
been, from the day when it was first heard of, downwards to our
time. For has the Godhead of Christ ever been universally
acknowledged in the Christian world, except, perhaps, in the

334 THE DEATH OF CHRIST.
darkest periods of the Middle Ages, when, along with the Virgin
and innumerable saints,* Christ also was made the object of divine
honours which he had never received in his lifetime, and against
which he would certainly have protested, as due not to him, but
to the Father alone ? Jesus Christ, then, most certainly, as man,
the patient, steadfast, righteous servant of the Almighty Will,
raised up by the power of God to a glorious spiritual throne, is a
being calculated to awaken and to help the love and trust and
courage of every faithful soul. But Jesus Christ as God, doubted
or denied in that character by many, and by many more received
only with a secret fear, half acknowledged to themselves, lest in
so honouring him they are guilty of idolatrous treason towards
the Lord of the universe, — what shall be said of such a doubtful
deity as this ? How can a God with a disputed title permanently
command the faith and homage of the world, or rule effectually
in the hearts of men ?
On the subject of the death of Christ, it may be enough to
remind the reader that this is nowhere represented as possessed
of a propitiatory or expiatory efficacy, in the old heathen sense
of such expressions. It was simply the Providential means by
which the admission of the Gentile world was secured to the
faith of the Gospel. The phraseology in which it is spoken of is,
indeed, at times largely figurative — arising naturally out of the
Levitical ideas and institutions of the Jews. But, while this is
true, one simple fundamental fact is usually expressed by it.
* " When the grand hereditary truth of Judaism, which is transmitted to Chris
tianity, was lost sight of in the third and fourth centuries of our era, polytheism and
idolatry in new forms sprang up forthwith, and multiplied with rapid increase through
the whole mediaeval period. First, tbe Son, then the Holy Spirit, then the Virgin
Mother, and at length countless hosts of saints and martyrs, rose into the rank of
Deity, and were invoked with fervent prayers — the last personage so exalted being
usually the most popular object of worship ; till, finally, at the altars which filled the
churches before the Reformation, the name of the Father Himself was never heard." —
From an unpublished Lecture by the late Rev. J. J. Tayler.

the lord's supper. 335
That fact is what has just been stated — not the incredible doctrine
that the All-merciful, in His " wrath," required to be propitiated
by the death of an innocent victim ; nor the equally incredible
doctrine that Christ's death has redeemed men from everlasting
sufferings in hell, because he, as their substitute, has borne their
punishment, and thus given "satisfaction" to Infinite Justice.
No such barbarous ideas as these are anywhere either plainly
stated in the New Testament, or veiled and conveyed, as in a
parable, under its more figurative expressions.
It follows by necessary consequence, that the Romanist and
high Anglican doctrine of the Sacrament of the Lord's Supper is
a mistake; and that all the miserable animosities and contro
versies to which it has given origin have been only so much
energy misapplied and wasted, or worse. There is no Scriptural
evidence whatever, no evidence at all which rises above the cha
racter of early Christian superstition, by which the Lord's Supper
can be shewn to be of the nature of a sacrifice for sin, requiring
to be perpetually renewed by a " sacrificing priest." There is no
evidence whatever by which it can be shewn to be anything
else, in its institution and nature, but a simple service of devout
commemoration. "Do this in remembrance of me," are the
words of Christ himself, when he founded the rite. Whatever,
in modern doctrines concerning it, passes beyond this, in form or
in spirit, can only be set down as misunderstanding, or as the
inherited remains of ancient error. But from these, it may be
added, the Christian world is gradually and surely, though it
may be slowly and painfully, releasing itself.
The Lord's Supper, then, being thus a service of grateful
commemoration and reverence towards the Christian Lord, is
naturally, at the same time, a testimony of sympathy and fellow
ship among those who partake. And, it must be added, alas for
that Church which fences round this simple rite of faith with

336 IMPORTANCE OF THE BIBLE.
terms of communion unknown to Christ, and thus in effect for
bids the approach to him of any who would seek to come in and
sit down in the reverential spirit of Christian discipleship !
The collection of writings which form the Bible is, in its
greater part, as we have seen, the remains of the ancient Hebrew
literature; the rest, or Christian portion, being of much later
date, and, in some cases, hardly less fragmentary in character.
In both divisions we have many documents of uncertain or
unknown authorship, which are yet of the highest interest, both
for the record which they preserve of the history of an ancient
and peculiar people, and for the picture which they give us of the
manner in which the Hebrews were led on from very gross and
imperfect ideas in religion and other subjects to the higher moral
and spiritual standard of later times. In the Christian literature,
moreover, we have in substance the record of a great revolution
destined in the course of time deeply to affect the ideas and the
material condition of the civilized world. We have also the only
historical or biographical outline left to us of the life and teach
ing of that remarkable personage from whom so wonderful an
influence was to proceed. At the lowest estimate of its character,
the Bible is not less than this. To many persons, and not with
out reason, it is much more ; but it is not a Creed or a Creed-book,
which men are called upon to receive under penalty of damnation.
It nowhere claims to be so. Nor is it a body of immutable laws
for our time, or for any other. Many of its ideas on creation, on
the Divine Being and his intercourse with men, and on various
other subjects, are simply such as were natural to the infancy of
the human race — some of them are such as can only be passed
over in silence by readers of any refinement or delicacy of mind.
The Book, in short, in many parts, is one of which, more perhaps
than of any other within ordinary knowledge, we may reasonably
be expected to remember the old Baconian maxim about antiquity

SACERDOTAL AUTHORITY. 337
being only the youth of the world. The Bible may, nevertheless,
if wisely used, be a help and a stimulant to guide and invigorate
the conscience ; as it is also a channel through which the Unseen
Spirit has often spoken to men, and may still speak to us, if we
will listen. But it is not, and ought not to be made, a substitute
for the free and earnest action of our own higher nature ; nor an
opiate to stupefy, or put it to sleep. The Bible never assumes
to exercise any such function as this ; but rather, in its usual
tenor, appeals to us and bids us stand up as intelligent moral
agents, to judge for ourselves what is right, and act faithfully in
accordance with the highest dictates of our inner sense of duty.
Nay, we may go further than this : for has not the Bible been
providentially left to us in this position, in order that men may
be free to exercise their own spiritual faculties ; free to think
and to judge and to move onward in the path of religious truth,
not being too much hindered in their course by the antiquated
or obsolete notions of the past ? The process is indeed slow and
painful, often fluctuating and uncertain. But it goes on, and will
go on, even because such is God's will for his human family.
It is scarcely necessary to add, that nothing in the letter or
the spirit of the Bible commands, or even permits us to devolve
the duty just referred to upon others — upon "priests" of this
church or of that. Such a course may have been necessary, or
becoming, in some of those darker ages which lie between the
present time and that in which Christ lived. But when a priest
or a Pope puts forth the claim to spiritual allegiance, or seeks
to dictate either what men ought to believe, or how they ought
to act, what is there to shew that he has authority to do this ?
Surely it is not so ordered either in the words of Christ, or in
those of any Apostle. Is then the priest's word to be taken for
it ? Even when he urges it under the impersonal name of the
" Church," there is still a weighty question to be resolved. For
z

338 TRUE BASIS OF CHURCH UNION.
the Church, as usually put forward, is only the people, priests
or laymen, of a darker age than ours ; and on what reasonable
ground shall a man of our time be required to give up his own
judgment for theirs ? — to accept their conclusions on the great
subjects of religious inquiry, and forego the exercise of his own
faculties ? What is to shew that the priestly claimant of our
day is morally and spiritually worthy to be a guide of men in
matters of faith and duty ? — that he is even a man of pure and
upright life ? Multitudes are so, no doubt ; but from every point
of view the pretension is untenable ; or, to speak plainly, it is
absurd in the highest degree — a thing from which the cultivated
reason and conscience will more and more revolt and turn away
with scorn. Witness to this effect the present religious condition
of Italy, Spain and France.* Who does not see that in these
countries sacerdotal pretensions have been pushed to their
natural vicious extreme ? — that they have produced the fruits
to be expected from such a tree ? — that they are now, therefore,
simply to be rejected by reasonable men ? — that they are able
to maintain their ground only by virtue of ancient prescriptive
right, and, even by the aid of this, mainly among the more
ignorant and unthoughtful portions of the population ? It can
not for a moment be supposed that the reflecting and well-
informed of the English people will ever, in any great numbers,
return or be reduced to this kind of subservience to a priestly
class. Every year that passes, with every new step in the path
of popular education, renders such a supposition more incredible.
The great question of the Church and the Churches cannot
here be discussed at any adequate length. It may, however, be
noted that no basis of Church union that is likely to be per-
* On this dreary subject the Bishop of Argyll has recently said, — "Catholicism,
substituted for Christ, has turned the thought of Southern Europe to simple infidelity,
if not to atheism ; let us take heed that Protestantism does not bring about the same
thing, in another way, in the North." — Letter in the Spectator of April 8, 1870.

ANCIENT CREEDS AND ARTICLES. 339
manent can anywhere be found, except only in the ever-enduring
words of Christ. The ancient creeds are clearly inadmissible,
and this for more reasons than one. For example, it is impos
sible to learn who wrote them. The Apostles' Creed is a docu
ment of unknown and composite authorship, and can only be
traced, in any form, to the latter part of the second century, if it
be so early. It really, therefore, stands before us under false
pretences. It is not the Apostles' Creed, and never was so in
any strict sense of the words. Moreover, many of its clauses
are now popularly misunderstood, and, from the nature of the
case, can no longer be accepted in their proper signification.
Above all, it puts the emphasis in the wrong place. Leaving
unnoticed the Love and Mercy of God, the importance of a
righteous life, the brotherhood of man, it speaks chiefly of dis
putable matters, some of which have been in controversy from
the beginning, and are of little practical importance to tbe
devout man. Similar statements are eminently true of the so-
called Creed of Athanasius ;* and in regard to the Nicene Creed,
although some knowledge is easily accessible, not indeed as to
the hand that wrote it, but at least as to the credulous and
narrow-minded ecclesiastics whose opinions it embodied, yet
will any one allege that this knowledge tends to recommend the
document to the faith or reverence of any thoughtful and free-
minded man? The proposition, then, remains true, that the
ancient creeds cannot form a permanent basis of Church com
munion among instructed men; and the same thing may be
equally said of the Thirty-nine Articles of the English Establish
ment. A formidable question remains to be asked in regard to Creeds
* See Ency. Brit, in Creeds; Lumby, History of the Creeds; Nicolas, Le Symbole
des Apotres, 1867 ; Dean Stanley's Athanasian Creed, 1871 ; also, more recent,
Dr. Philip Schaff, The Creeds of Christendom.
Z 2

340 THE NONCONFORMIST BODIES.
and Articles alike. Does any considerable proportion of educated
Christian people now believe them, honestly and fairly believe
them in their natural sense, as they lie before us? Of those
who use them, doubtless some do so, but it is equally undeniable
that multitudes do not. How, then, can they serve as a basis
of Church union for the whole English nation, or even for the
religious portion of it ?
But even if the number of believers in the Creeds and Articles
were far larger than it is, no one has authority, or, by the nature
of the case, can ever have had authority, to impose these standards
upon others — except, indeed, an assumed and usurped authority.
And, above all, they are not needed. We may well believe that
had precise dogmatic statements been required as the foundation
of his Church, the Christian Master would himself have given
them to his followers, and not have left to them the invidious
and fruitless task of setting up rival creeds and dogmas. But
He, the Christian Master, has taken no such course. The con
fession of himself as Christ is all that he appears to have con
templated. "On this rock," he said, "will I build my church."*
The acknowledgment, therefore, of him as Head in things spiri
tual, is the true foundation of his Church on earth. Yet the
Anglican communion persistently supersedes and obliterates this
great principle of Christian fellowship by the complicated formu
laries just spoken of, imposing assent to these, if not upon its
ordinary members, at least upon its ministers, and thus per
petuating the inculcation of what multitudes in the nation can
no longer accept as truth, but simply regard as antiquated and
fantastic or pernicious error.
It is not, however, to be concealed that the great Noncon
formist sects are almost as chargeable with this kind of usurpa-
* Matt. xvi. 16—18; and comp. supra, Chapter XVIII., "Jesus the Spiritual
Christ."

DOGMATIC NARROWNESS. 341
tion as the National Church; that their proceedings in this
respect are too much animated by the same spirit. The Con-
gregationalists, for example, by means of doctrinal schedules
attached to chapel trusts, and by other well-understood means,*
of which it is not necessary here to speak in detail, provide very
effectually that no one shall be the minister of a church who
does not teach and preach according to the little scheme of semi-
Calvinistic doctrines specified in the schedule.-)- The Wesleyan
Methodists, and probably the minor sects of the same generic
name, pursue a similar course. Not contented with the teaching
of Christ as it lies before us in the Gospel, or not willing to trust
their ministers with a real freedom of thought and speech in
reference to it, they have set up and constituted their venerable
founder as a kind of Pope, and make the candidates for their
ministry declare at ordination that they will not depart from the
doctrines of his Sermons and Notes on the New Testament.!
The stricter sort of Baptists, it is well known, are not far behind
in the same narrow path ; maintaining, as they do, that no one
shall partake of the Lord's Supper, or, in other words, enter into
church communion with them, who has not been immersed in
water, — thus applying to the people of our cold northern climate
an injunction which can only have contemplated the inhabitants
of the semi-tropical lands in which Christianity was first preached.
The natural consequences of this unseemly sectarian spirit are
seen partly in the bitterness, dissension and intolerance which
have unhappily prevailed within the Established Church itself,
and partly in the irreligion, ignorance and manifold vice, which
* Such as restricted admission to the Lord's Supper, and little sets of Articles
imposed upon teachers and students, in some of the colleges.
t Such, after much inquiry, we understand to be the usual practice of the Con.
gregationalists. Of exceptions we have seldom heard, and should be very glad to be
informed of their existence.
X See Grindrod's Laws and Regulations of Wesleyan Methodism.

342 AN ABANDONED CAUSE.
alas ! exist so largely throughout the lower strata of the English
nation. For such evils, it cannot be doubted, English sectarianism
is greatly to blame. The remedy, however, is not to be found,
as some might tell us, in a self-degrading submission to priestly
authority — supposing, for a moment, such a thing to be possible.
It is rather in the combination and the organization of all reli
gious men, of every sect, for united Christian work in one grand
national whole on the simple basis of Christ's teaching. It is in
the concentration of energies, now too much divided and wasted,
for the instruction and evangelizing of our people. But this
union can never take place, can never even commence, until at
least the National Church shall open its doors wide enough to
admit, without test or creed of human devising, all who " profess
and call themselves Christians," and who desire to come in and
unite as brethren in Christ on the broad and simple principle of
the acceptance of his words as the test of their discipleship — his
words alone, rationally interpreted, and so far as they are appli
cable to our modern life.
The day has perhaps gone by, when such a renovation of the
religious and ecclesiastical life of the English people was still
within reach — within the power of some great statesman to pro
pose, and of the Church and nation to accept. At least, this
desponding view of the case is held and urged by some leaders
of public opinion from whom a different course might have been
expected. They are willing, it would appear, to give up the
battle for a united and comprehensive Church as already lost,
even before it has been fought. But, on the contrary, let the
reader consider whether this question has yet been fitly dis
cussed — whether a true commencement has been even made of
its discussion. The short-sighted policy of the Liberation Society
has, indeed, been long and amply agitated ; but the great idea of
a common Church for the whole English people, founded upon

POSSIBILITY OF A NATIONAL CHURCH. 343
some simple and intelligible Christian principle admitted by
all,— a Church in which the first duty of its ministers would be
to speak out what they believe to be the truth, without fear of
consequences, — this idea surely has not yet been fairly placed
before the nation, — and possibly, alas ! it is destined never to
be so.
Is it objected that the principle of Church union above sug
gested is too vague, not definite enough for united worship or
united action? The answer is evident. The Gospel and the
Church have been left to us by their Founder precisely in this
position, in this all-comprehensive spirit. Why should any one
seek to limit and lower what He has left so free, so lofty, and so
broad ? Who, moreover, of our day, or of any age since Christ
lived, has, or has had, the right to define more exactly than he
has done, what are the essentials of Christian faith, or the con
ditions of admission to the Christian Church ? It may, indeed,
be true that in a National Church built upon the foundation of
Christ alone, there would be great diversities of opinion on many
speculative points. But do not such diversities of opinion exist
now, under the old, long-tried, narrow and broken-down system ?
We should then be in no worse position in that respect. Nay,
we should be in a better ; for although people would naturally
group themselves round various centres of instruction and influ
ence, as they found spiritual food suitable for their different wants,
yet all might still feel, and this far more truly than at present,
that they were equal members of the one Body of Christ, and
every one members one of another. Differences, within the
Christian fold or outside of it, cannot be got rid of; but, in one
comprehensive Church, injurious influences arising from them
would probably be reduced to a minimum ; while a true freedom
of thought and speech, fully and legally allowed to all, could only
tend, among honest men, to greater respect for the teacher, to the

344 ANGLICAN NONCONFORMITY.
destruction of error, the speedier discovery and the surer esta
blishment of truth.
If any of our highest Anglican or " Catholic" friends could not
be members of such a re-constituted National Church, founded
upon allegiance to Christ alone, the more would be the pity, —
at least for themselves. But, in any case, the door would be open
for those who preferred to go out. And probably the change
would be good for their spiritual health ; while many onlookers
would be ready to insist that such a turning of the world ecclesi
astical upside down, would be no unfitting Nemesis of spiritual
arrogance,* — all things considered. Moreover, a harbour of
refuge, and more than one, would still remain to them. The
Roman Church and its Greek sister (or rival) would doubtless
receive them with open arms; and thus would the particular
<' re-union of Christendom" for which many of them are under
stood to long, be at length happily accomplished, so far, at least,
as they were concerned — a result, it may be supposed, far better,
in their eyes, than so unorthodox a thing as a re-union, on a
common Christian basis, between themselves and the sects and
churches of Protestant England.
It is scarcely necessary to add, that in the ecclesiastical
renovation here contemplated, there need be no place left for any
injurious " State control." Certainly the State ought not to set
itself up as a theological dictator, either to the present or to a
* This severe word may seem to require justification. For- this the reader is
referred to the debate on education in the House of Commons on July 1, 1891, in the
course of which the following extracts were read from a Catechism extensively used in
Church of England schools : — " What are those who separate from the Church of
England commonly called? Dissenters  Is it wrong to join in the worship
of Dissenters ? Yes; we should only attend places of worship which belong to the
Church of England. Why? Because it is a branch of the true Church which
God has placed in this land." A revised edition of the same Catechism has the fol
lowing: — "Is it not a disgrace to leave the Church? Yes; and it is also a grievous
sin. What is this sin called? Schism, or division. Are we warned against this
schism? Yes; St. Paul tells us to mark them who approve schism and avoid them."

STATE CONTROL. 345
future generation. But neither ought this to be done by any
little knot of chapel-builders, by the committee or the deacons of
a congregation, or by the select body which may call itself " the
church," whether among Baptists or Independents. The utmost
possible liberty of thought and speech ought to be allowed to all
who accepted the fundamental principle of union, allegiance to
Christ alone, — any control that might be exercised being solely
in regard to material arrangements. It is perfectly reasonable,
and would be necessary for peace, that things of the latter kind
should be subject to definite national laws ; but let no court, or
chapel committee, or conference, or convocation, or parliament,
arrogate to itself the function or the place of Christ, by attempting
to impose what he has left open and free to the conscience and
reason of each individual disciple. Liberty to inquire, and to
express the results of honest inquiry, cannot, therefore, fail to
be one of the most prominent characteristics of a church which
desires to serve and worship God "in spirit and in truth;" and
this principle is not unworthy of the serious consideration of
those who would liberate religion from State patronage and
control. POSTSCRIPT.
To the foregoing account of the Biblical teaching it will by
many readers be considered an objection, that it is, in spirit and
tendency, too obviously written on what will be termed Unita
rian lines. To this reproach, if it be a reproach, I, the author,
must submit, as I have no doubt laid myself open to it. But
this I can honestly say, in what I have written I have had no
conscious desire to promote the interests of any dogmatic church.
Indeed, it is well known, Unitarians do not form a dogmatic
church, seeing that they do not prescribe or impose dogmas, but
leave ministers and people free to read and interpret the Bible

346 POSTSCRIPT.
for themselves. My one single and earnest wish in this volume
has been to exhibit the teaching of the sacred books, on certain
great subjects of general interest, simply as I have found it. I
have had no thought beyond this ; and I trust the reader will
accept this statement as the sincere and honest declaration of
one who is anxious only for the truth.
Yet while thus disclaiming any dogmatic or sectarian purpose
in the preparation of this work, I must add that if the appellation
in question be rightly bestowed upon me, I do not see that I
need shrink from it. The name Unitarian, however it may be
frowned upon in some quarters, is not without many honourable
associations, and it is not a name to be ashamed of. It designates
a form of Christian belief which has included numberless great
and good men and women — for example (within the limits of
our own English-speaking race), Milton, Newton, Locke, and
in his later days Dr. Isaac Watts, Nathaniel Lardner, Priestley,
Channing, Emerson, Longfellow, John Kenrick, Robert Hibbert,
Samuel Sharpe, William Rathbone, Senior, Anna Lsetitia Bar-
bauld, Mary Carpenter, and many more, not to speak of any
who are still with us, and who must here remain unnamed. A
communion which has been adorned by such names as these is
not one to be lightly esteemed by either its adherents or its
adversaries. And so, with St. Paul, I would say, "I am not
ashamed of the Gospel of Christ," as I understand the Gospel of
Christ to be, even though the world around should disparagingly
apply to it an unpopular name.
At all events, it must be admitted the principles of this much
misunderstood form of Christianity are in themselves very simple,
not complicated, or full of mystery and apparent contradiction,
as may, with some degree of reason, be alleged of the prevailing
orthodoxy. It has usually been allowed, indeed, that this form
of belief, however wanting it may be in truth, is at least rational
and intelligible. In this, doubtless, many persons will only find
an additional ground for rejecting it, perhaps without examina-

POSTSCRIPT. 347
tion. Such persons, like Naaman the Syrian, would prefer
" some great thing." To wash even seven times in the waters of
Jordan will be a light thing with those who can find peace only
in baptismal regeneration, apostolical succession, or (if attainable)
some sort of infallibility, documentary or personal — only not
that of the Pope !
It is not, therefore, to be greatly wondered at, that so many,
even of thoughtful and intelligent persons, are unable fairly to
appreciate the theology of which I am speaking, or even to make
out very clearly what it can be. Of those who appear to be
afflicted with this kind of incapacity — to use the mildest word
which the circumstances permit — may be mentioned the late
learned and venerable Dr. Hook, some time Dean of Chichester.
In his widely circulated Church Dictionary (tenth edition) he
describes Unitarians as " certain persons who do not worship the
True God." I scarcely know what remedy can be suggested
for this curious case of theological blindness. But I venture to
ask any candid reader whether it does not appear from the pre
ceding pages that persons of that name, if their belief corresponds
to what I have written, are at least desirous to worship the True
God ? Do they not say in their prayers, as Christ taught his
disciples to say, " Our Father which art in heaven" ? Is it not
also their earnest wish to keep " the first of all the command
ments," that "the Lord our God is one Lord;" — as well as to
render the love and obedience which are not to be dissociated
from it ; to remember that " God is a Spirit," and " they that
worship him must worship him in spirit and in truth"? How,
then, if this be so, can it be truthfully said that they are persons
"who do not worship the True God"? Has or had Dr. Hook
some God of his own still truer than the " God and Father of
Jesus Christ"? If so, it behoved him to reveal this " unknown
God" more fully to the world. He might have been assured that
the Unitarians of England would not be slow to turn away from
what they now too ignorantly worship, to that greater and truer

348 POSTSCRIPT.
Being which the author of the Church Dictionary might have
been able to declare to them !
Other cases of the same remarkable kind may be found, one of
them in the pages of the Contemporary Review.* The writer
there declares that "to define a Unitarian would be about as
difficult as to explain the primal essence of the universe." What
degree of difficulty may attend the latter explanation is not
stated ; but this volume can scarcely, perhaps, be more suitably
concluded than by endeavouring to help the writer referred to
out of his perplexity. A definition may be given of the term at
which he stumbles which will probably be level even to the
humblest capacity. A Unitarian, then, it may be said, is one
who follows Christ in holding the great doctrine of the Divine
Unity in the strictest sense and without explaining it away.
It is true, however, as some of the bishops and other speakers
in recent debates in Convocation (1870-71) observed, that there
are considerable differences among Unitarians on various theolo
gical subjects ; just, in fact, as their orthodox friends differ from
one another on some points — do they not? — while remaining
" orthodox" nevertheless, at least in their own opinion. One, for
example, will stand up for the eastward position with lighted
candles on the altar, &c, while another will condemn such things
as mere popish trifles. One will hold fast to the doctrine of the
Athanasian Creed and think it the true Gospel; another will
explain it away or boldly prefer the teaching of Sabellius. So
doubtless it is, to some extent, with Unitarians. On various
subjects they hold different opinions ; and they ought certainly
to do so peacefully and charitably. Indeed, no one of this name
would prosecute another for heresy in a Court of Arches, although
such a thing has happened among Trinitarians. Yet while they
may thus differ from each other on minor points, still on the
great doctrine of the Divine Unity they do not differ. They none
of them believe in more Gods than one, or admit that Jesus Christ
* April, 1871, " The Bishops and the Revision of the Bible."

POSTSCRIPT. 349
was God; always holding that he was distinct in mind and con
sciousness from that Being of Beings whom he worshipped, and
whom, as has been shewn in these pages, he taught his disciples
to worship.
It may be hoped, therefore, that it has been made plain to both
the eminent writers just named, or at least to their readers, not
only what a Unitarian worships, but also what such a person is
as such. If not, the failure may perhaps be attributed to a very
simple cause. Eyes, it is said, which are much in the dark, or
accustomed to a subdued, imperfect light, have difficulty in
bearing the full daylight, and will fail to perceive objects as
clearly as they ought to do, even in the bright sunshine of noon
day, simply because they have been accustomed to a different
medium. Does something like this occur in connection with
theology ? Do those who are long accustomed to the sacred
obscurity of Nicene and Athanasian creeds or their equivalents
gradually lose the faculty of seeing clearly and appreciating
rightly more simple doctrines? Can this be the reason why
Dean Hook thought that Unitarians " do not worship the True
God," and why the Contemporary writer found it so much beyond
his power to define a Unitarian ? If such were their state, it
can only be hoped that the scales may now or hereafter be taken
from their eyes ; that, sooner or later, their blindness or dimness
of sight will have passed away ; and that, like Saul of Tarsus,
they, or at least others who think with them, will be strengthened
to stand up in the synagogues (that is, the churches), and with
converted Paul in the Acts proclaim and prove " that this is very
Christ."

.GENERAL APPENDIX.

Note A, p. 33.
Isaiah vii. 14. — The Scriptural usage appears scarcely sufficient
to determine the meaning of the Hebrew word (almah) rendered,
Septuagint, irapdivos, English virgin, and quoted in Matt. i. 23.
The word is found only in Gen. xxiv. 43 ; Ex. ii. 8 ; Prov. xxx.
19 ; Ps. lxviii. 26 ; Cant. i. 3 ; 1 Chron. xv. 20 ; Ps. xlvi. 1 ;
Cant. vi. 8. In all these instances it may be used simply in the
sense of young woman, whether married or not. The Hebrews
had a different word (bethulah) to denote the stricter meaning,
as, for example, in Gen. xxiv. 16 ; yet even this was sometimes
used in the wider sense (Joel i. 8). Hence it may be supposed
that the other, too, even if it sometimes corresponded to -n-apdevos,
may also have been occasionally employed with the same latitude.
It follows, that the rendering young wife may be the right one
It is a very obvious remark that the prophet by using the defi
nite article,* and thus referring to a definite person, must really
have meant to designate his own wife (Gesenius, Kommentar in
loc), much as he does in the next chapter, in connection with
the birth of Maher-shalal-hash-baz. In the latest English work-J
on Isaiah {The Book of Isaiah chronologically arranged, &c, by
T. K. Cheyne, M.A., 1870), the verse under notice is rendered
thus : " Behold, the damsel shall conceive and bear a son, and
call his name God-with-us." In his note on the word rendered
damsel, the author observes, " So far as the etymology of this
word is concerned,  there is nothing to prevent us from
interpreting it of the wife of the prophet ;" and on the rendering
* Comp. R.V., in which the article is improperly omitted in the text, but placed
in the margin ! f Written in 1871.

ISAIAH LII. 13 — LIII. 12. 351
" shall conceive," he adds, " or 'is with child,' thus bringing the
fulfilment a little nearer the time of the prediction." This is in
exact agreement with what has (quite independently) been said
above, and in the text {supra, pp. 33 — 35).
Note B, p. 38, seq.
Isaiah Iii. 13— liii. 12. — It is observed in the text that the
prophet, when he speaks of the sufferings of the Servant of
Jehovah, uses past tenses, and futures only when he refers to the
exaltation which is to come. This distinction may be best seen
by an inspection of the passage. The following version is taken
from the work just referred to. It has been published since the
section of the present volume on the passage in Isaiah was
written ; and is here given simply because it is from the pen of
an independent translator, and is the latest English version of
the passage. It will be at once plain to the reader from this
version, how entirely historical, and not predictive, the passage
is, and how impossible it is to refer the words to Jesus Christ, —
except, indeed, in the usual New Testament manner of accom
modation. See also R.V.
"Isaiah Iii 13— liii. 12.
"13 Behold my servant shall be prosperous ; he shall be
exalted and extolled, and be very high. 14 According as many
were astonished at thee (his visage was so marred unlike to a
man, and his form unlike to the sons of men), 15 so shall he
cause many nations to admire ; kings shall shut their mouths at
him ; for that which had not been told them shall they see, and
that which they had not heard shall they consider.
" liii. 1 Who hath believed our revelation ? and to whom was
the arm of Jehovah disclosed ? 2 He grew up before him as a
tender plant, and as a root out of a dry ground ; he had no form
nor majesty, that we should regard him, and no beauty, that we
should desire him. 3 He was despised, and forsaken of men, a

352 GENERAL APPENDIX.
man of pains and acquainted with sickness ; and we hid as it
were our faces from him ; he was despised, and we esteemed
him not.
" 4 Surely he did bear our sickness and carry our pains, whilst
we esteemed him stricken, smitten of God, and afflicted. 5 But
he was pierced for our transgressions, bruised for our iniquities ;
the chastisement of our peace was upon him, and through his
stripes we are healed. 6 All we like sheep did go astray ; we
turned every one to his own way ; and Jehovah laid upon him
the iniquity of us all.
" 7 He was tormented, but he suffered freely, and opened not
his mouth, as the sheep that is led to the slaughter, and as the
ewe that before her shearers is dumb ; and he opened not his
mouth. 8 From oppression and from punishment was he taken, —
and as for his generation, who considered that he was cut off out
of the land of the living, for the transgression of my people he
was stricken ? 9 And his grave was appointed with the wicked,
and his tomb with the oppressor, although he had done no vio
lence, neither was any deceit in his mouth.
"10 Yet it pleased Jehovah to bruise him, and to smite him
with sickness : for if he should make his soul a trespass-offering
he should see a seed, he should prolong his days, and the plea
sure of Jehovah should prosper in his hand ; 11 he should see
the gains of his soul, and should be satisfied ; by his knowledge
should my righteous servant make many righteous, and he should
take up the burden of their iniquities. 12 Therefore will I divide
him a portion among many, and with a great company shall he
divide, because he poured out his soul unto death, and was num
bered with the transgressors, though he had borne the sin of
many, and made intercession for the transgressors." (Cheyne's
Isaiah, pp. 189, 190.)
In a few instances the above version may be open to slight
improvement, but the historical character given to the passage
is evident. On the last verse the translator observes, "The

ISAIAH LII. 13 — LIII. 12. 353
chapter concludes, as it commenced, with a Divine oracle. The
personification is now completely dissolved, and the spiritual
recompense of God's ' Servant ' is divided among a great com
pany." In reference to the words, the sin of many, he adds,
" The ' many ' and the ' transgressors ' are evidently the Jewish
exiles, on the analogy of similar expressions in an earlier para
graph." {Ibid., p. 193.)
Additional Note (1892).
It is proper to inform the reader that Prof. Cheyne in his
later and larger work on Isaiah somewhat modified his view of
the two passages above noticed, falling back upon an interpreta
tion more in accordance with the ordinary orthodox acceptation
of them. Later, however, he seems to have returned in effect to
his earlier exposition: see his article on Isaiah in the Encyc. Brit. ;
and also his Bampton Lectures (1889), pp. 262-4, 274-5, where
(speaking of Isaiah Iii. 13 — liii. 12) he again takes up the view
expressed by him in 1870, to the effect that the passage refers
to "the personalized Genius of Israel" — remarking that "the
Second Isaiah gives an objective existence, not merely to the
ideal Israel, but to the ideal Jerusalem, and that in the N. T. and
in the Talmud we also find these ideal or heavenly figures."
(Bamp. Lect, p. 274.) This is in harmony with the admission
of his Commentary, to the effect that in Isaiah xiii. 19 and xliii.
10, the " servant " is evidently the people of Israel as a whole :
while in xli. 8, 9, xliv 1, 2, 21, xlv. 4, xlviii. 20,* it is the kernel
of the nation, the spiritual Israel : Comment, on Isaiah, Appen
dix V p. 198. This again agrees with the interpretation long
ago adopted in these pages — which I cannot doubt gives a sub
stantially correct view of the meaning and intention of the pro
phet in the larger passage before us. This last remark applies
also to Isaiah vii. 14, as above explained.
* See also Isaiah xlix. 1 — 9.
2 A

354 GENERAL APPENDIX.
Note C, p. 211.
1 Tim. iii. 16. — Bishop Ellicott, in his Commentary on the
Pastoral Epistles, renders this verse as follows: — "And con
fessedly great is the mystery of godliness ; ' Who was manifested
in the flesh, justified in the spirit, seen of angels, preached unto
the Gentiles, believed on in the world, received up into glory.' "
The whole of the verse, from " Who " to the end, may, he con
jectures, be a quotation from some ancient hymn or confession of
faith. This supposition is interesting, and would account for the
somewhat abrupt and difficult character of the passage as it stands.
But it is without evidence, except only the fact that the six
clauses may be arranged stichornetrically. This may be pure
accident. The reference of the relative os who (masculine) to the imme
diately preceding word p-va-rripiov mystery (neuter) is difficult, and
hardly admissible, though adopted by some authorities. If it be
correct, Christ is still without doubt the subject alluded to. He
is the " mystery who was manifested in flesh," whatever may be
the meaning of these words. The reader who consults the Com
mentary above referred to will see that the eminent author is by
no means perspicuous or satisfactory in his explanation of either
crapKL (flesh) or Trvivirari (spirit) ; and indeed the difficulty of
explanation is acknowledged by him, as it must be by every
one — except perhaps the disciples of Dr. Liddon.
Note D, p. 214.
In the Epistles there are two passages which have been con
sidered of great importance, as direct testimonies for the deity of
Christ. They have not been noticed in the body of this work,
chiefly from the desire not to burden the text with too many of
such details ; but a few brief remarks may be introduced here.
The passages referred to are Titus ii. 13 and 1 John v. 20, to
which may be added 2 Pet. i. 1 (R. V)

titus. ii. 13 ; 2 pet. i. 1. 355
Titus ii. 13. — In the Authorized Version this runs as follows :
" Looking for that blessed hope, and the glorious appearing of the
great God and our Saviour Jesus Christ." Dean Alford (V. T.
revised) varies thus : " . . . . hope and the manifestation of the
glory of the great God and of our Saviour Jesus Christ." Thus,
many others, as Winer, Bunsen and De Wette, distinguishing
between " the great God" and Jesus Christ.
Dr. Liddon, however, as might be expected, renders thus :
" Looking for the blessed hope and appearing of the glory of our
great God and Saviour Jesus Christ," exactly following the trans
lation of Bishop Ellicott {Past. Ep. p. 259). R. V. also reads,
" our great God and Saviour, Jesus Christ."
The RV. rendering of 2 Pet. i. 1 is similar: "the righteousness
of our God and Saviour Jesus Christ." In both these cases the
margin fairly gives notice that the old translation may be correct;
and in both cases the American Revision Committee recommend
that the new text and its margin should change places. Thus it
is clear that the old translation carries as much authority as the
new one ; and the question may be asked, Why then did the
English revisers alter it — and that too in opposition to their own
good rule, to make as few alterations as possible? The following
statement applies to both these texts.
It is acknowledged by the highest authorities that there is
nothing in the grammatical form of either passage to determine
its translation the one way or the other. It may be correctly
represented by both renderings. In the presence of this doubt,
the ordinary reader may be well satisfied to follow the guidance
of such scholars as Meyer and Winer, who (in Titus ii. 13) are
agreed in telling us that two subjects of thought are here desig
nated, and that Jesus Christ accordingly is not described as " the
great God." The judgment of these scholars is the more valuable
because their conclusion has been dictated, they tell us, simply
by a due regard to the usual tenor of St. Paul's language, in
reference to God and to Christ. Winer enforces his view of
2 a2

356 GENERAL APPENDIX.
Tit. ii. 13, by the following note : "In the above remarks I had
no intention to deny that, in point of grammar, crcoTfJpos ij^wv
[Saviour of us, i.e. our Saviour] may be regarded as a second
predicate, jointly depending on the article rod ; but the dogmatie
conviction derived from Paul's writings, that this Apostle cannot
have called Christ the great God, induced me to shew that there
is no grammatical obstacle to our taking the clause ko.1 o-ojt. ....
Xpio-Tov by itself, as referring to a second subject." To this note
the English translator of Winer appends these words: — "This
passage is very carefully examined by Bishop Ellicott and Dean
Alford in loc.; and though these writers come to different con
clusions (the latter agreeing with Winer, the former rendering
the words, ' of our great God and Saviour Jesus Christ'), they are
entirely agreed as to the admissibility of both renderings in point
of grammar!' (Winer, Gram. N. T., ed. by Moulton, p. 162.)
Probably nothing more is needed to enable the English reader
to see that the rendering of the Authorized is amply justified and
could only have been changed under some unavowed dogmatic
influence. The point in question may be easily illustrated.
Thus: the words 6 <pl\nnros ko.1 AA^avSos do not convey or imply
that Philip and Alexander are one and the same person, because
they were known to have been two; so neither does <5 feos i?p3i>
koI Kvpios necessarily imply that God and Christ are one and
the same, inasmuch as they also were equally known to be two,
and are everywhere recognized and spoken of as two.
To the correctness of the resulting position there is a remark
able testimony under the hand and seal of the revisers them
selves ! In 2 Thess. i. 12, we have exactly the same form of
expression as in 2 Pet. i. 1. The words and their order are all
the same, except only that Kvpios, Lord, takes the place of tnor^p,
Saviour. Thus: — {a) 2 Pet. i. 1: literally, "the God of us and
Saviour Jesus Christ;" (6) 2 Thess. i. 12: literally, "the God of
us and Lord Jesus Christ." In (a) the R. V. rendering is " our
God and Saviour Jesus Christ;" in {b) it is "our God and the

titus ii. 13; 2 pet. i. 1. 357
Lord Jesus Christ." To which of these inconsistent translations
of the same form of words will the revisers adhere as correct ?
Bishop Ellicott has the following remark — quite in harmony
with the above interpretation: "It must be candidly avowed that
it is very doubtful whether on the grammatical principle last
alluded to [the union of two substantives under the vinculum of
a common article] the interpretation of this passage can be fully
settled." The Bishop goes on to give in detail the reasons which
have determined him to render as he has done, and concludes
his comment in these words: "It ought not to be suppressed
that some of the best versions, Vulgate, Syriac, Coptic, Armenian
(not, however, iEthiopic), and some Fathers of unquestioned
orthodoxy, adopted the other interpretation  the true ren
dering of the clause really turns more upon exegesis than upon
grammar, and this the student should not fail clearly to bear in
mind. {Pastoral Epistles, p. 201.) This last remark is one to
which every fair-minded reader will assent ; but he will remem
ber that exegesis, here as elsewhere, ought to be illustrated and
confirmed by the usual strain of the N. T. writings, and should
not be in opposition to it.
The same excellent authority, although on exegetical grounds
defending the new rendering, has yet expressly guarded himself
against too servile a deference to the rule of the article above
referred to. His words are clear and to the point: — "Lastly,
several examples of what is called Granville Sharp's rule, or the
inference from the presence of the article before only the first of
two substantives connected by /cat, that they both refer to the
same person or class, must be deemed very doubtful. The rule
is sound in principle, but in the case of proper names or quasi-
proper names, cannot safely be pressed."— ^iicfe to Faith (4th ed.),
p. 462*
* Comp. the well known words of Bishop Pearson : " "We must not think to decide
this controversy by the articles, of which the sacred penmen were not curious, and the
transcribers have been very careless."— Ore the Creed (ed. 1842), p. 229, note.

358 GENERAL APPENDIX.
1 John v. 20. — Here we read : — " And we know that the Son
of God is come, and hath given us an understanding, that we
know him that is true ; and we are in him that is true, even in
his Son Jesus Christ. This is the true God, and eternal life."
It would here certainly appear as if Jesus Christ were termed
the true God.* But, on the other hand, it seems plain that the
writer is referring to two objects. One is, "him that is true;"
there can be no question that by this phrase God is meant. The
second object is in the words "in his Son;" that is, we are in
(1) God through and in (2) Jesus Christ. But then come the
words, " This is the true God," as if the writer meant to reduce
the two objects spoken of to one. But such a meaning would be
self-contradictory, and cannot be what is intended. Dr. Liddon,
however, has no hesitation about it. The Apostle, he tells us,
" leads us up to the culminating statement that Jesus himself is
the true God and eternal life" (p. 239). He adds in a note,
"After having distinguished the dX-qOivo^ [true] from his vt,6s
[Son], St. John, by a characteristic turn, simply identifies the
Son with the dkyOivbi 0eos." With all due deference to Dr.
Liddon, it is not to be thought that the Apostle wrote such
nonsense as this. The whole difficulty is at once removed by
referring the word " this," not to Jesus Christ, but to the pre
vious object denoted by the words, "him that is true." This yields
an easy and self-consistent sense. By being in Jesus Christ, we
are in Him that is true ; this is the true God and eternal life.
There is another instance in the Epistles attributed to John
in which "this" is similarly used— referred, that is, not to the
nearer, but to a more remote, antecedent. In 2 John 7 (R. V.)
we read : " Many deceivers are gone forth into the world, even
they that confess not that Jesus Christ cometh in the flesh : this
is the deceiver and the antichrist." Here, in strictness, "this"
refers to Jesus Christ. But this cannot be the meaning. It
is clear that the author of these Epistles writes with a cer-
* To this effect the words are used as a text by Mr. Gore (Bamp. Lect. I. ) without
any notice in his context of the uncertainty attaching to them I

1 john v. 20. 359
tain carelessness or inaccuracy; but it does not follow that
he writes nonsense. It is perfectly reasonable, then, in the
former of the two expressions, to conclude that the word "this"
must be referred to the more distant antecedent. If, in short,
the writer does not intend to say, in the one case, that Jesus
Christ is a deceiver, neither can he intend us to understand, in
the other, that he terms him " the true God."
Dr. Liddon has a further remark, which ought not here to be
passed over. He tells us that 6 dX-qdivos 6ek [the true God] " is
the Divine Essence, in opposition to all creatures." He does not
inform us where he has learnt that 6 aX-qOivh* 6t6s means "the
Divine Essence," — an omission of some significance, considering
that the assertion is strangely inconsistent with certain words
of Christ himself. He, it may be remembered, speaks to the
Heavenly Father in prayer, addressing Him by the appellation
"Father;" and he calls Him not only "the true God," but the
" Only true God." Is it allowable to " water down " such words
into the meaning of "the Divine Essence ;" or virtually to con
tradict them, by declaring that he who addressed them to
Another, even to God, in one of the most solemn moments of
his life, is himself the true God ? (Comp. supra, p. 240, note.)
Note E, p. 215.
Philip, ii. 5 — 11. — This passage is paraphrased as follows by
Bishop Lightfoot: "Reflect in your own minds the mind of
Jesus Christ. -Be humble, as He also was humble. Though
existing before the worlds in the Eternal Godhead, yet He did
not cling with avidity to the prerogatives of His divine majesty,
did not ambitiously display His equality with God; but divested
Himself of the glories of heaven, and took upon Him the nature
of a servant, assuming the likeness of men. Nor was this all.
Having thus appeared among men in the fashion of a man, He
humbled Himself yet more, and carried out his obedience even
to dying. Nor did He die by a common death : He was crucified

360 GENERAL APPENDIX.
as the lowest malefactor is crucified. But as was His humility,
so also was His exaltation. God raised Him to a pre-eminent
height, and gave Him a title and a dignity far above all dignities
and titles else. For to the name and majesty of Jesus all created
things in heaven and earth and hell shall pay homage on bended
knee ; and every tongue with praise and thanksgiving shall
declare that Jesus Christ is Lord, and in and for Him shall
glorify God the Father." {Epistle to the Philippians, 1868, p. 108,
seq. : latest edition, 1888).
This exposition is open to the gravest of all objections. It
really assumes the existence of two Gods ! Jesus Christ, we are
told, existed " in the Eternal Godhead ;" that is to say, he was
God, for the words can mean nothing else. But he did not
cling "to the prerogatives of His divine majesty." He divested
himself of them, humbled himself, by becoming a man and
allowing himself to be crucified, and dying the death of a
malefactor. All this occurred to the God Jesus Christ, but not
to the Supreme Father : the humility was in the mind of the
one, but not in the mind of the other; and for that gracious
humility of his, the God Jesus Christ has been exalted to a pre
eminent name and glory by the other Divine Being, who did not
humble himself or suffer or die.* Is it possible that two separate
* Similarly, in reference to Mark xiii. 32, Bishop O'Brien writes as follows :
" All things that the Omniscient Father knows, — that is all things, — doubtless were
known to the Son, when he was in the form of God. But it appears that when He
became man, and dwelt among us, of this infinite knowledge He only possessed as
much as was imparted to Him." — Charge (1863), p. 110. It is as plain here as
words can make it, that the writer is thinking of two Gods, one of whom is possessed
of knowledge, which the other, during a particular interval of his existence, is with
out, and only receives as the former imparts it to him. Is it possible more strongly
to convey the idea of two distinct minds? Yet these writers profess to be mono-
theists, and to believe in the existence of only one God ! Such expositions are about
as truly monotheistic as the old Greek story of Apollo and Admetus. The god served
the mortal as a shepherd for nine years, and he too kept his deity "in abeyance"
during the interval. So Bp. O'Brien declares of Christ, "His infinite attributes and
powers seem .... to have been in abeyance, so to speak." — Charge, p. 105. — So
to speak, indeed I

philip. ii. 5—11. 361
existences can be more positively affirmed than in such a repre
sentation as this ? Nor does it at all relieve the matter to add a
verbal reservation against being supposed to intend to speak of
two Gods, or three. Of course, orthodox theology does not pro
fess or desire to do this ; but it does it nevertheless if the lan
guage it employs has its usual meaning. It is difficult to under
stand how this most fatal objection can be left out of sight as it
is by able and learned men, in the usual popular expositions of
this and other passages. The same objection applies with equal
force to the explanations of Bishop Ellicott and Dean Alford.
Dr. Lightfoot has a long and elaborate note, the drift of which
is to establish the conclusion that the word p.op<\>-q (form) really
means essential nature. But, whatever the peculiar shades of
meaning sometimes attached to this word by the philosophical
and other writers appealed to, they are not found in the N. T. ;
and it is perfectly clear that in the passage before us the word
refers to outward condition and circumstances only. What else
is meant by " took the form {fiopcp-qv) of a slave"? Clearly this
cannot refer to essential nature ; although, strangely -enough, in
the above quoted paraphrase our Lord is said to have taken upon
him " the nature of a servant." The Apostle does not say this ;
nor can the word "form" in this latter expression be reasonably
held to have a different force from that conveyed by " form of
God." The word has evidently the same meaning in the two
clauses. It occurs only in one other place in the N. T. (Mark
xvi. 12), and here it clearly denotes the outward form,
The word vn-dpx<*>v (rendered " being "), Bishop Lightfoot ob
serves, "denotes prior existence, but not necessarily eternal exist
ence." Dr. Liddon seems to go a step further, and says, " The
word virdpxoiv points to our Lord's ' original subsistence ' in the
splendour of the Godhead." (B. L, p. 321.) But does it not
here denote simply a prior condition, upon which something else
was conceived to supervene ? — a prior condition, whether actual,
or only imagined and potential? Jesus as the true Messiah was,

362 GENERAL APPENDIX.
in the conception of his disciples, of right entitled to all the
dignity and power properly appertaining to his exalted office.
This is what is meant by the lv p.opcjtrj deov birapx^v. And most
probably, as formerly pointed out, we ought to distinguish here
between 6eov and tov 6eov. The former may be used in that sub
ordinate sense which was perfectly familiar in the days of St.
Paul, and which is alluded to, as before seen, by Philo, Origen
and Eusebius {supra, Chap. XVI.). Jesus, then, as Messiah,
was of right entitled to the position of a God upon earth ; but
he did not regard this Messianic power and dignity as a prize to
be seized; he emptied himself of it, humbled himself, was found
in fashion as an ordinary man, and died ; and for this his self-
renunciation He who alone is God has rewarded and exalted
His servant. There is nothing here to suggest that the writer
was thinking of an abandoned " Eternal Godhead."
The expression to eT.vai lo-a f?eu> is no doubt equivalent to p.op<prj
deov. It literally means, "the being equal [or in equal circum
stances] to God," or "to a god." But surely this, again, can only
refer to outward condition; for no one maintains that there was
any change in the Divine nature, or that Jesus (if he were truly
God) could have ceased to be so. Dr. Lightfoot admits " He
divested himself, not of His divine nature, for this was impossible,
but of the glories, the prerogatives of Deity." Can the reader
attach any definite meaning to the latter part of this statement ?
How could the infinite God lay aside " the glories and preroga
tives of Deity"? Dr. Liddon scarcely ventures to be so precise
on this part of the subject. He says, "The point of our Lord's
example lies in His emptying Himself of the glory or ' form ' of
His Eternal Godhead," and He thinks that his example would
have been worthless had he been only a created being. Here it
might be asked, What example to tempted and sinful men and
women would be afforded by an infinite Being, even God, incom
prehensibly humbling himself? But, with more special reference
to Dr. Liddon's "point," may it not be asked as before, How

philip. ii. 5—11. 363
could God empty Himself of the glory of " His Eternal God
head"? Is not our author rhetorically using words here, as
sometimes elsewhere, without any real sense ? Or, if not, what
sort of a changeable God must He be who can empty Himself
of His Eternal Godhead ? And in regard to the force of the
example given, are we to think that a created being cannot be
humble, or set an example of humility ? — a king or a queen, for
instance, an earl or a bishop, or one appointed to be Messiah ?
And then, again, is it rational to suppose that the Infinite can
be humble ?
In any case, what the Apostle gives us to understand that
Jesus did not grasp at, was to etuai io-a 6eof ; and as, by the
orthodox admission, he could not have divested himself of deity,
so conversely t6 ku-ai 'io-a 6c<p (which, again, is the same as
poptpri Oeod)* cannot with any consistency be understood to mean
a state of pre-existent deity, or, in the words of both Dr. Liddon
and Bishop Lightfoot, one of "Eternal Godhead."
And here, again, the old objection recurs with undiminished
force. In such expositions we are really called upon to believe
in two distinct Gods, one of whom divests himself of the glories
and prerogatives of Deity, while the other does not; one of whom
suffers humiliation and is put to death, while the other looks on
with approval, conferring upon his co-deity the glorious reward
which he has won for himself by his submission. May it not be
asked, whether in such ideas as these we have not the old Ho
meric plurality of Gods over again, under a different name — the
thing having, as Dr. Lightfoot might say, changed its o-x^a,
though not its p.op$rj ? To speak more seriously, is it not too
plain that Christian monotheism is not the ruling spirit of the
theology which can tolerate or require such representations ?
In the name of our common Christianity, let us, at least, protest
* Dr. Liddon expressly says, " The expression iv noptpy 6eov inrap-^tov is virtually
equivalent to to tivai 'Laa Ottf." — B. L., p. 317 (321), note.

364 GENERAL APPENDIX.
against ascribing to the Apostle Paul anthropomorphism so gross
as this, and so lamentably destructive of spiritual religion.
The Bishop observes, that " between the two expressions, to-os
livai and ura ilvai, no other distinction can be drawn exoept that
the former refers to the person and the latter to the attributes."
Does not the latter refer rather to the manner ? — or, in other
words, as before, to the external circumstances ? The vagueness
of the neuter plural, or adverbial form, corresponds exactly to
this explanation ; while Zb-os 6ey, as Dr. Lightfoot justly says,
" would seem to divide the Godhead." It is strange that it did
not occur to so candid and thoughtful a writer that his whole
exposition is open to the same objection ; for that it really
"divides the Godhead" into at least two equal (or unequal)
divine beings, each of whom is God precisely as much as the
other. The late Dean Alford, it may be noticed, in his revision of the
New Testament, thus renders Philip, ii. 6 : " Who, being in the
form of God, deemed not his equality with God a thing to grasp
at." On this translation it may be enough to observe, that there
is no "his" in the original ; nor is there anything in the form of
the expression to justify its introduction. The rendering can
only be regarded as a singular illustration of the power of an
established system to bias even the most upright and truthful
mind. On the true force of the article with the infinitive, comp.
Winer, N. T. Grammar, by Moulton, p. 406.
The view of the above passage taken by Prof. Pfleiderer must
not be passed over. Briefly stated it is this: Jesus Christ, as
the ideal man, was the archetype after which the earthly Adam
was created. He existed in the heavenly state before his appear
ance among men, but he exchanged this celestial existence for
one on earth, and assumed the ordinary human body. In this
change consisted the emptying and humiliation referred to by
Paul. It was an act of obedience to the will of God, and of love
to human kind; and for this Christ was rewarded, and made

THE NAME JEHOVAH. 365
Head over all, so that he could even be termed by St. Paul
"God over all" {Hib. Lect. II.). This explanation is open to
the objection suggested {supra, p. 289) in connection with Prof.
Pfleiderer's view of the Atonement ; and that St. Paul does not
really term Jesus "God over all" is sufficiently shewn {supra,
Chap. XIX., also Appendix, Note F).*
Note F, p. 76.
The name Jehovah.
This Word, as on all hands agreed, is not furnished with its
original vowels or vowel " points "—assuming always that in the
living language its vowel sounds were expressed in some mode
similar to that of the present Hebrew text. The true pronun
ciation has been lost from a high antiquity ; for in the remotest
times, according to the Mishna, it wa3 known only to the high-
priest and by him pronounced only on the great day of Atone
ment. This did not take place in the hearing of the people.
They stood in the outer court and bowed themselves to the
ground at the moment when the Sacred Name was uttered.
The word is understood to be now pointed with the vowels of
Adonai, with certain modifications — this supposition resting,
perhaps, mainly on the fact that the latter word (= Lord) has
for more than twenty centuries past been substituted for Jhvh
by the Jews in reading their Scriptures. It must therefore be
allowed that our English form Jehovah is insufficiently attested,
and cannot be put forward with confidence as a representative
of the original pronunciation.
But granting this, the same may be said, quite as decidedly,
of a large proportion of the names in our Old Testament ; for in
truth we cannot be sure, even with the help of the vowel points,
how exactly the Hebrew was pronounced by those who spoke
the language. It would not be wise, on this account, to set
about altering conjecturally any number of those names. No
* Comp. Rev. V. D. Davis on Philippians, p. 72 seq.

366 GENERAL APPENDIX.
one has proposed such a thing, or to follow Ewald in the gro
tesque forms which he adopted for many of them. The new (or
rather resuscitated) spelling of the sacred name as Jahveh (for
which no doubt many excellent reasons are producible) may,
when all is said, be no nearer the genuine old Hebrew pro
nunciation than the later " Jehovah."
In this connection it is worth while to notice the explanation
of this name given by some of our older theologians. This was
to the effect that the word denotes Eternity of existence, inas
much as the four letters (Jhvh) represent, in a certain way, the
past, present and future of the Hebrew verb of existence.*
Curiously enough, this idea is supported (perhaps was suggested)
by the singular expression in Rev. i. 4, 8 : — 6 oiV /ecu 6 rjv «ai 6
Ipxop.evo's. These words, evidently standing for the Divine Name,
closely correspond to the representative character attributed to
the four letters. The expression, it will be remembered, comes
directly from a Jewish-Christian writer of the first century A.D.
It is therefore ancient. If it were really meant to be equivalent
to Jhvh, it should put an end to the supposition that this latter
ought to be pointed to represent the Hiphil of the verb, and the
form Jahveh would not be admissible. But comp. Rev. E. G.
King, B.D., on the names of God, in his Hebrevj Words and
Synonyms, Chap. I. On the ground of certain Assyrian analogies,
the author maintains that the form could not possibly have been
Jahve, or Jahveh. But comp. also Prof. Driver on the subject, in
Studia Biblica, Vol. I.
Note G, pp. 209, 210.
At the risk of a little repetition, I take the substance of the
following from my own work, " Texts and Margins of the Revised
NT," 1881.
* I have been asked how this can be made to appear. It is thus : the jod (J) is the
sign of the future ; the hov is from the participle hoveh with a present force ; ah
represents the preterite.

pungtuation of rom. ix. 5. 367
Rom. ix. 5 : " Whose are the fathers and of whom is Christ as
concerning the flesh, who is over all, God blessed for ever." Such
is the rendering of R.V. In the Greek the article stands before
Christ, " the Christ," and ought not to have been here omitted in
the English. The slight change made in the text, though only
affecting the order of the words, is deserving of notice. The
introduction of the words " as concerning the flesh " between
" Christ " and the latter part of the verse will prepare the reader
to see that the punctuation of the margin of R.V. has on its face
a certain amount of probability. The revisers have not gone
further than this disturbance of the verbal order. But they have
given a margin which, for the first time in a volume destined to
be so widely read, gives notice that the ordinary or orthodox
interpretation of this verse is not a sure one. The same thing
has been fully acknowledged, or, indeed, the altered interpreta
tion has been adopted and defended by Prof. Beet in his
recent work on the Epistle to the Romans. The marginal note
runs thus : " Some modern interpreters place a full-stop after
flesh, and translate He who is God over all be {is) blessed for
ever : or, He who is over all is God, blessed for ever. Others punctu
ate, flesh who is over all. God be {is) blessed for ever." Thus three
different modes of punctuation are admissible, the ancient manu
scripts being themselves mostly without stops, and having the
words written close together without space between. The differ
ent meanings which result from these different modes of punctua
tion need not be dwelt upon. But it is necessary to point out
two or three facts which the reader will scarcely suspect from
the marginal statement of the revisers. " Some modern inter
preters place a full-stop after flesh." Will it surprise the reader
to be informed that nearly all recent interpreters of importance
do this? The exceptions are nearly confined to what may be
termed the English school of theology, and these not by any
means of the highest authority, even in their own class. It is
well known that the two eminent Greek Professors of Oxford

368 GENERAL APPENDIX.
and Cambridge respectively adopt this punctuation — Professors
Jowett and Kennedy. Of recent English writers who do the
same may be mentioned Prof. Beet, as before stated ;* and Dr.
S. Davidson, in his translation of the New Testament from
Tischendorf's text. Dr. Sanday and Canon Farrar, though pre
ferring the Authorized punctuation, fully allow that the other is
grammatically admissible {Expositor, Vol. IX. X.). The American
revisers accept a margin, but recommend the substitution of a
simpler, as well as more just and accurate form. Going beyond
the school of English authorities, we come at once to scholars of
the highest reputation — there are none higher — who adopt and
defend one or other of the renderings which the revisers consign
to the margin. Among the latter may be enumerated such men
as Lachmann, Tischendorf, Winer, Fritzsche, Meyer, Ewald, De
Wette. But this is not the whole case. " Some modern inter
preters," says the margin ; but there are ancient authorities, too,
which justify the same punctuation. The fact, whatever it may
be worth as evidence of interpretation, is this, that three out of
the four most ancient manuscripts of the New Testament have
a stop after " flesh." These, as now well known, are the Vatican
manuscript (fourth century), the Alexandrine (fifth), the Codex
Ephraim (fifth or sixth), j and there are several others of minor
importance. It is not by accident that the stop occurs in these
* Prof. Beet observes : — " This exposition [with the new punctuation] is not found
in any of the Fathers ; but is adopted by Erasmus and by Winer, Fritzsche, and
Meyer, who are by all admitted to be almost unequalled as N. T. grammarians. Atten
tion has also been called .... to the fact that in the Vatican, Alexandrian, Ephraim
and Claromontane MSS., there are stops marking off the words in question as a dox
ology to the Father ; and, in the last three, spaces which prove clearly that the stop
is from the first hand. The rarity of stops in all these MSS. gives importance to this
fact. " — Commentary on Romans, 2nd edition, p. 268.
1" These three MSS. have been examined by the writer with a particular view to the
punctuation of this verse. In the Alexandrine MS . the stop is unquestionably a prima
manu. In the Ephraim, there is a space, of course from the first hand. In the Vati
can, the originality of the stop is doubted by some, but there it is. Prof. Ezra Abbott
held it to be original (in a private letter).

PUNCTUATION OF ROM. IX. 5. 369
documents, although it cannot be taken as actually proving that
the scribe who in the fourth or fifth century copied these ancient
manuscripts interpreted the words marked off by the stop as a
doxology. He may in each case have referred them to Christ ;
but how can this be shewn ? Even of the Fathers who apply
the words to Christ, some of them let us see that they do so in a
certain subordinate sense. Christ was " God over all," because,
they tell us, the Father had delivered all things into his hand ;
in much the same way as Moses is said to have been " God " to
Pharaoh, and Aaron his brother to have been his prophet (Exod.
vii. 1).
Instead of the word be, to complete the sense, many prefer
' is!* but this point is of secondary importance ; the main fact
is that there is a greatly preponderating weight of evidence and
testimony for the new punctuation. This, it is too clear, and
much to be regretted, the revisers have failed to indicate in their
marginal note, leaving indeed a contrary impression upon the
reader's mind.
Mr. Gore {Bampton Lectures, p. 59) points to Prof. Pfleiderer's
remark that in Rom. ix. 5, Christ may be described by Paul as
" God over all," and that the separation of these from the pre
ceding words appears to him forced and unnecessary {Hib. Lect.
p. 55). In thus referring to this excellent authority, is it not
strange that Mr. Gore should have omitted to notice the fact
that Prof. Pfleiderer also suggests that deos (God) should be taken
in the sense of Kvpws (Lord) ; and also that the whole scope of
the Professor's reference to Christ in his context goes to shew
that he regards Him as possessed of a subordinate deity, on
account of his appointment and exaltation by the Supreme,
much as some Fathers (comp. supra, p. 170) speak of him as a
God over all, and for the same reason ? Prof. Pfleiderer's appeal
to 1 Cor. viii. 5 and 2 Cor. iv. 4, clearly will not help his sugges-
* Prof. B. H. Kennedy {Occasional Sermons, Appendix III.) prefers the render
ing, " He who is over all is God, blessed for ever." Comp. 2 Cor. xi. 31 in the Greek.
2B

370 GENERAL APPENDIX.
tion that 6e6s may be used here in the sense of kv/hos. Such a
confusing of things different is unwarrantable and altogether
without parallel. SECOND POSTSCRIPT.
Dr. Liddon's Remarks on this Volume.
In the notice of these pages which Dr. Liddon has added to
his later editions, he has followed a course which was scarcely
to be expected from him. Instead of meeting the evidences and
reasonings here adduced, discussing and refuting them, or some
of them, if he were able to do so, he has contented himself with
simply and vaguely remarking (what I suppose is not to be
denied) that there is a considerable disagreement "as to first
principles " between me and himself ; and affirming also that I
do not " believe in the trustworthiness of the Bible." Dr. Liddon
proceeds further to repeat (without at all discussing) several of
the minor positions of my work, leaving the reader, as it would
seem, to understand that he regarded them as too bad for any
thing but to be held up to the reprobation of the faithful, or else
that he considered them bad enough to refute themselves.
How far Dr. Liddon was correct in saying that I disbelieve in
the trustworthiness of the Bible, the reader will judge for him
self. To me the remark appears to be singularly unjustifiable
when the whole scope and spirit of what I have written is
remembered. It is enough perhaps if I say further in reference
to it, that the charge is admitted by me only to this limited
extent, namely, that I have allowed somewhat for the researches
and conclusions of recent biblical scholars, and this Dr. Liddon,
in his wonderfully uncritical and all-believing faith, largely fails
to do.
Moreover, Dr. Liddon might have been expected to see, better
than he has done, that the great questions here discussed relate
essentially, not to the origin or " trustworthiness " of the Bible,

second postscript. 371
but to its interpretation. They concern the positive teaching
and meaning of the sacred books, taking them very much as
they lie before us in the ordinary texts, with only a reasonable
allowance for certain critical and other peculiarities and the
inferences from them, which can no longer be ignored even by
very ill-informed and non-critical readers. And surely it is not
possible to gain any rational view of the contents and purpose
of the Scriptures by blindly accepting all that has been handed
down to us respecting them by the credulity either of ancient
Church Fathers or of modern system-makers. This is said with
all due deference to the three Creeds and Thirty-nine Articles,
as well as to their imitators and copiers in the doctrinal trust-
deeds of chapels and colleges.

Printed by C Green & Son, 178, Strand.

EY THE SAME AUTHOR.

3 vols. 8vo, price 6s.
Tlie Holy Scriptures of the Old Covenant. A Revised Translation.
1862. By the late Rev. Charles Wellbeloved, the Rev. G. Vanoe Smith,
and the Rev. J. Soott Portek.
Tlie Spirit and the Word of Christ. Second Edition. 1 vol. 1877.
Is. and Is. 6d.
Eternal Punishment. A Tract for the Times. Fifth Edition. 1877. 6d.
The Prophets and their Interpreters. 1878. &d.
Bevised Texts and Margins of the New Testament affecting Tlieological
Doctrine. 1 vol. 1881. Is.
Chapters on Job for Young Beaders. 1vol. 1887. 1*.
The above may be had at the Book-room, Essex Hall, Essex Street, Strand.

The Prophecies relating to Nineveh and the Assyrians. From the
Hebrew. With Introductions and Notes. 1 vol. Longmans. {Out of print.)

YALE UNIVERSITY LIBRARY

3 9002 08844 8510