{"collection":"scripture-revelation","full_text_available":true,"graph_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/v2/api/page/gutenberg_12056/graph","html_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/v2/page/gutenberg_12056","id":"gutenberg_12056","license":"Public Domain (US)","rights_basis":"gutenberg_metadata_copyright_false","source":"gutenberg","source_url":"https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/12056","summary":null,"tags":["Category: Biographies","Category: Religion/Spirituality","Christianity","Faith","Newman, Francis William, 1805-1897","Spiritual biography","Unitarians -- Biography"],"text":"PHASES OF FAITH\n\n - or -\n\nPASSAGES FROM THE HISTORY OF MY CREED.\n\n\nFrancis William Newman, 1874\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\nPREFACE TO FIRST EDITION.\n\n\nThis is perhaps an egotistical book; egotistical certainly in its\nform, yet not in its purport and essence.\n\nPersonal reasons the writer cannot wholly disown, for desiring to\nexplain himself to more than a few, who on religious grounds are\nunjustly alienated from him. If by any motive of curiosity or\nlingering remembrances they may be led to read his straightforward\naccount, he trusts to be able to show them that he has had _no choice_\nbut to adopt the intellectual conclusions which offend them;--that\nthe difference between them and him turns on questions of Learning,\nHistory, Criticism and Abstract Thought;--and that to make _their_\nresults (if indeed they have ever deeply and honestly investigated\nthe matter) the tests of _his_ spiritual state, is to employ unjust\nweights and a false balance, which are an abomination to the Lord. To\ndefraud one's neighbour of any tithe of mint and cummin, would seem\nto them a sin: is it less to withhold affection, trust and free\nintercourse, and build up unpassable barriers of coldness and alarm,\nagainst one whose sole offence is to differ from them intellectually?\n\nBut the argument before the writer is something immensely greater\nthan a personal one. So it happens, that to vindicate himself is to\nestablish a mighty truth; a truth which can in no other way so well\nenter the heart, as when it comes embodied in an individual case.\nIf he can show, that to have shrunk from his successive convictions\n_would_ have been \"infidelity\" to God and Truth and Righteousness; but\nthat he has been \"faithful\" to the highest and most urgent duty;--it\nwill be made clear that Belief is one thing and Faith another; that to\nbelieve is intellectual, nay possibly \"earthly, devilish;\" and that\nto set up any fixed creed as a test of spiritual character is a most\nunjust, oppressive and mischievous superstition. The historical form\nhas been deliberately selected, as easier and more interesting to\nthe reader; but it must not be imagined that the author has given his\nmental history in general, much less an autobiography. The progress\nof his _creed_ is his sole subject; and other topics are introduced\neither to illustrate this or as digressions suggested by it.\n\n_March 22nd, 1850._\n\n\n\n\nPREFACE TO SIXTH EDITION\n\n\nI had long thought that the elaborate reply made for me in the\n\"Prospective Review\" (1854) to Mr. Henry Rogers's Defence of the\n\"Eclipse of Faith,\" superseded anything more from my pen. But in the\ncourse of six years a review is forgotten and buried away, while Mr.\nRogers is circulating the ninth edition of his misrepresentations.\n\nAs my publisher announces to me the opportunity, I at length consent\nto reply myself to the Defence, cancelling what was previously my last\nchapter, written against the \"Eclipse.\"\n\nAll that follows p. 175 in this edition is new.\n\n_June_, 1860.\n\n\n\n\nCONTENTS.\n\n\n    I. MY YOUTHFUL CREED\n\n   II. STRIVINGS AFTER A MORE PRIMITIVE CHRISTIANITY\n\n  III. CALVINISM ABANDONED\n\n   IV. THE RELIGION OF THE LETTER RENOUNCED\n\n    V. FAITH AT SECOND HAND FOUND TO BE VAIN\n\n   VI. HISTORY DISCOVERED TO BE NO PART OF RELIGION\n\n  VII. ON THE MORAL PERFECTION OF JESUS\n\n VIII. ON BIGOTRY AND PROGRESS\n\n   IX. REPLY TO THE \"DEFENCE OF THE ECLIPSE OF FAITH\"\n\n       APPENDIX I\n\n       APPENDIX II\n\n\n\n\n\nPHASES OF FAITH.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER I.\n\n\nMY YOUTHFUL CREED.\n\n\nI first began to read religious books at school, and especially the\nBible, when I was eleven years old; and almost immediately commenced\na habit of secret prayer. But it was not until I was fourteen that I\ngained any definite idea of a \"scheme of doctrine,\" or could have\nbeen called a \"converted person\" by one of the Evangelical School.\nMy religion then certainly exerted a great general influence over\nmy conduct; for I soon underwent various persecution from my\nschoolfellows on account of it: the worst kind consisted in their\ndeliberate attempts to corrupt me. An Evangelical clergyman at the\nschool gained my affections, and from him I imbibed more and more\ndistinctly the full creed which distinguishes that body of men; a\nbody whose bright side I shall ever appreciate, in spite of my present\nperception that they have a dark side also. I well remember, that one\nday when I said to this friend of mine, that I could not understand\nhow the doctrine of Election was reconcilable to God's Justice, but\nsupposed that I should know this in due time, if I waited and believed\nHis word;--he replied with emphatic commendation, that this was the\nspirit which God always blessed. Such was the beginning and foundation\nof my faith,--an unhesitating unconditional acceptance of whatever was\nfound in the Bible. While I am far from saying that my _whole_ moral\nconduct was subjugated by my creed, I must insist that it was no mere\nfancy resting in my intellect: it was really operative on my temper,\ntastes, pursuits and conduct.\n\nWhen I was sixteen, in 1821, I was \"confirmed\" by Dr. Howley, then\nBishop of London, and endeavoured to take on myself with greater\ndecision and more conscientious consistency the whole yoke of Christ.\nEvery thing in the Service was solemn to me, except the bishop: he\nseemed to me a _made-up_ man and a mere pageant. I also remember that\nwhen I was examined by the clergyman for confirmation, it troubled me\nmuch that he only put questions which tested my _memory_ concerning\nthe Catechism and other formulas, instead of trying to find out\nwhether I had any actual faith in that about which I was to be called\nto profess faith: I was not then aware that his sole duty was to try\nmy _knowledge_. But I already felt keenly the chasm that separated\nthe High from the Low Church; and that it was impossible for me\nto sympathize with those who imagined that Forms could command the\nSpirit.\n\nYet so entirely was I enslaved to one Form,--that of observing the\nSunday, or, as I had learned falsely to call it, the Sabbath,--that I\nfell into painful and injurious conflict with a superior kinsman, by\nrefusing to obey his orders on the Sunday. He attempted to deal with\nme by mere authority, not by instruction; and to yield my conscience\nto authority would have been to yield up all spiritual life. I erred,\nbut I was faithful to God.\n\nWhen I was rather more than seventeen, I subscribed the 39 Articles at\nOxford in order to be admitted to the University. Subscription was \"no\nbondage,\" but pleasure; for I well knew and loved the Articles, and\nlooked on them as a great bulwark of the truth; a bulwark, however,\nnot by being imposed, but by the spiritual and classical beauty which\nto me shone in them. But it was certain to me before I went to\nOxford, and manifest in my first acquaintance with it, that very few\nacademicians could be said to believe them. Of the young men, not one\nin five seemed to have any religious convictions at all: the elder\nresidents seldom or never showed sympathy with the doctrines that\npervade that formula. I felt from my first day there, that the system\nof compulsory subscription was hollow, false, and wholly evil.\n\nOxford is a pleasant place for making friends,--friends of all sorts\nthat young men wish. One who is above envy and scorns servility,--who\ncan praise and delight in all the good qualities of his equals in\nage, and does not desire to set himself above them, or to vie with his\nsuperiors in rank,--may have more than enough of friends, for pleasure\nand for profit. So certainly had I; yet no one of my equals gained\nany ascendancy over me, nor perhaps could I have looked up to any for\nadvice. In some the intellect, in others the religious qualities, were\nas yet insufficiently developed: in part also I wanted discrimination,\nand did not well pick out the profounder minds of my acquaintance.\nHowever, on my very first residence in College, I received a useful\nlesson from another freshman,--a grave and thoughtful person, older\n(I imagine) than most youths in their first term. Some readers may\nbe amused, as well as surprized, when I name the delicate question\non which I got into discussion with my fellow freshman. I had learned\nfrom Evangelical books, that there is a _twofold_ imputation to every\nsaint,--not of the \"sufferings\" only, but also of the \"righteousness\"\nof Christ. They alleged that, while the sufferings of Jesus are a\ncompensation for the guilt of the believer and make him innocent, yet\nthis suffices not to give him a title to heavenly glory; for which\nhe must over and above be invested in active righteousness, by all\nChrist's good works being made over to him. My new friend contested\nthe latter part of the doctrine. Admitting fully that guilt is atoned\nfor by the sufferings of the Saviour, he yet maintained, there was no\nfarther imputation of Christ's active service as if it had been our\nservice. After a rather sharp controversy, I was sent back to study\nthe matter for myself, especially in the third and fourth chapters of\nthe Epistle to the Romans; and some weeks after, freely avowed to him\nthat I was convinced. Such was my first effort at independent thought\nagainst the teaching of my spiritual fathers, and I suppose it had\nmuch value for me. This friend might probably have been of service\nto me, though he was rather cold and lawyerlike; but he was abruptly\nwithdrawn from Oxford to be employed in active life.\n\nI first received a temporary discomfort about the 39 Articles from\nan irreligious young man, who had been my schoolfellow; who one day\nattacked the article which asserts that Christ carried \"his flesh and\nbones\" with him into heaven. I was not moved by the physical absurdity\nwhich this youth mercilessly derided; and I repelled his objections\nas on impiety. But I afterwards remembered the text, \"_Flesh and blood\nshall not inherit the kingdom of God_;\" and it seemed to me as if the\ncompiler had really gone a little too far. If I had immediately\nthen been called on to subscribe, I suppose it would have somewhat\ndiscomposed me; but as time went on, I forgot this small point,\nwhich was swallowed up by others more important. Yet I believe that\nhenceforth a greater disposition to criticize the Articles grew upon\nme.\n\nThe first novel opinion of any great importance that I actually\nembraced, so as to give roughness to my course, was that which many\nthen called the Oriel heresy about Sunday. Oriel College at this time\ncontained many active and several original minds; and it was rumoured\nthat one of the Fellows rejoiced in seeing his parishioners play at\ncricket on Sunday: I do not know whether that was true, but so it\nwas said. Another of them preached an excellent sermon before the\nUniversity, clearly showing that Sunday had nothing to do with the\nSabbath, nor the Sabbath with us, and inculcating on its own ground\na wise and devout use of the Sunday hours. The evidently pious and\nsincere tone of this discourse impressed me, and I felt that I had no\nright to reject as profane and undeserving of examination the doctrine\nwhich it enforced. Accordingly I entered into a thorough searching of\nthe Scripture without bias, and was amazed to find how baseless was\nthe tenet for which in fact I had endured a sort of martyrdom. This, I\nbelieve, had a great effect in showing me how little right we have at\nany time to count on our opinions as final truth, however necessary\nthey may just then be felt to our spiritual life. I was also\nscandalized to find how little candour or discernment some Evangelical\nfriends, with whom I communicated, displayed in discussing the\nsubject.\n\nIn fact, this opened to me a large sphere of new thought. In the\ninvestigation, I had learned, more distinctly than before, that the\npreceptive code of the Law was an essentially imperfect and temporary\nsystem, given \"for the hardness of men's hearts.\" I was thus prepared\nto enter into the Lectures on Prophecy, by another Oriel Fellow,--Mr.\nDavison,--in which he traces the successive improvements and\ndevelopments of religious doctrine, from the patriarchal system\nonward. I in consequence enjoyed with new zest the epistles of St.\nPaul, which I read as with fresh eyes; and now understood somewhat\nbetter his whole doctrine of \"the Spirit,\" the coming of which had\nbrought the church out of her childish into a mature condition, and by\nestablishing a higher law had abolished that of the letter. Into this\nview I entered with so eager an interest, that I felt no bondage of\nthe letter in Paul's own words: his wisdom was too much above me\nto allow free criticism of his weak points. At the same time, the\nsystematic use of the Old Testament by the Puritans, as if it were\n\"the rule of life\" to Christians, I saw to be a glaring mistake,\nintensely opposed to the Pauline doctrine. This discovery, moreover,\nsoon became important to me, as furnishing a ready evasion of\nobjections against the meagre or puerile views of the Pentateuch;\nfor without very minute inquiry how far I must go to make the defence\nadequate, I gave a general reply, that the New Testament _confessed_\nthe imperfections of the older dispensation. I still presumed the Old\nto have been perfect for its own objects and in its own place; and\nhad not defined to myself how far it was correct or absurd, to imagine\nmorality to change with time and circumstances.\n\nBefore long, ground was broken in my mind on a still more critical\nquestion, by another Fellow of a College; who maintained that nothing\nbut unbelief could arise out of the attempt to understand _in what\nway_ and _by what moral right_ the blood of Christ atoned for sins.\nHe said, that he bowed before the doctrine as one of \"Revelation,\" and\naccepted it reverentially by an act of faith; but that he certainly\nfelt unable to understand _why_ the sacrifice of Christ, any more than\nthe Mosaic sacrifices, should compensate for the punishment of our\nsins. Could carnal reason discern that human or divine blood, any\nmore than that of beasts, had efficacy to make the sinner as it were\nsinless? It appeared to him a necessarily inscrutable mystery, into\nwhich we ought not to look.--The matter being thus forced on my\nattention, I certainly saw that to establish the abstract moral\n_right_ and _justice_ of vicarious punishment was not easy, and that\nto make out the fact of any \"compensation\"--(_i.e._ that Jesus really\nendured on the cross a true equivalent for the eternal sufferings\ndue to the whole human race,)--was harder still. Nevertheless I had\ndifficulty in adopting the conclusions of this gentleman; FIRST,\nbecause, in a passage of the Epistle to the Hebrews, the sacred\nwriter, in arguing--\"_For_ it is impossible that the blood of bulls\nand goats can take away sins,\" &c., &c....--seems to expect his\nreaders to see an inherent impropriety in the sacrifices of the Law,\nand an inherent moral fitness in the sacrifice of Christ. SECONDLY:\nI had always been accustomed to hear that it was by seeing the\nmoral fitness of the doctrine of the Atonement, that converts to\nChristianity were chiefly made: so said the Moravians among the\nGreenlanders, so Brainerd among the North American Indians, so English\nmissionaries among the negroes at Sierra Leone:--and I could not at\nall renounce this idea. Indeed I seemed to myself to see this fitness\nmost emphatically; and as for the _forensic_ difficulties, I passed\nthem over with a certain conscious reverence. I was not as yet ripe\nfor deeper inquiry: yet I, about this time, decidedly modified my\nboyish creed on the subject, on which more will be said below.\n\nOf more immediate practical importance to me was the controversy\nconcerning Infant Baptism. For several years together I had been more\nor less conversant with the arguments adduced for the practice; and\nat this time I read Wall's defence of it, which was the book specially\nrecommended at Oxford. The perusal brought to a head the doubts which\nhad at an earlier period flitted over my mind. Wall's historical\nattempt to trace Infant Baptism up to the apostles seemed to me a\nclear failure:[1] and if he failed, then who was likely to succeed?\nThe arguments from Scripture had never recommended themselves to\nme. Even allowing that they might confirm, they certainly could not\nsuggest and establish the practice. It now appeared that there was no\nbasis at all; indeed, several of the arguments struck me as cutting\nthe other way. \"Suffer little children to come unto me,\" urged as\ndecisive: but it occurred to me that the disciples would not have\nscolded the little children away, if they had ever been accustomed\nto baptize them. Wall also, if I remember aright, declares that the\nchildren of proselytes were baptized by the Jews; and deduces, that\nunless the contrary were stated, we must assume that also Christ's\ndisciples baptized children: but I reflected that the baptism _of\nJohn_ was one of \"repentance,\" and therefore could not have been\nadministered to infants; which (if precedent is to guide us) afforded\nthe truer presumption concerning _Christian_ baptism. Prepossessions\nbeing thus overthrown, when I read the apostolic epistles with a view\nto this special question, the proof so multiplied against the Church\ndoctrine, that I did not see what was left to be said for it. I talked\nmuch and freely of this, as of most other topics, with equals in age,\nwho took interest in religious questions; but the more the matters\nwere discussed, the more decidedly impossible it seemed to maintain\nthat the popular Church views were apostolic.\n\nHere also, as before, the Evangelical clergy whom I consulted were\nfound by me a broken reed. The clerical friend whom I had known at\nschool wrote kindly to me, but quite declined attempting to solve my\ndoubts; and in other quarters I soon saw that no fresh light was to be\ngot. One person there was at Oxford, who might have seemed my natural\nadviser; his name, character, and religious peculiarities have been so\nmade public property, that I need not shrink to name him:--I mean\nmy elder brother, the Rev. John Henry Newman. As a warm-hearted and\ngenerous brother, who exercised towards me paternal cares, I esteemed\nhim and felt a deep gratitude; as a man of various culture, and\npeculiar genius, I admired and was proud of him; but my doctrinal\nreligion impeded my loving him as much as he deserved, and even\njustified my feeling some distrust of him. He never showed any strong\nattraction towards those whom I regarded as spiritual persons: on the\ncontrary, I thought him stiff and cold towards them. Moreover, soon\nafter his ordination, he had startled and distressed me by adopting\nthe doctrine of Baptismal Regeneration; and in rapid succession worked\nout views which I regarded as full-blown \"Popery.\" I speak of the\nyears 1823-6: it is strange to think that twenty years more had to\npass before he learnt the place to which his doctrines belonged.\n\nIn the earliest period of my Oxford residence I fell into uneasy\ncollision with him concerning Episcopal powers. I had on one occasion\ndropt something disrespectful against bishops or a bishop,--something\nwhich, if it had been said about a clergyman, would have passed\nunnoticed: but my brother checked and reproved me,--as I thought, very\nuninstructively--for \"wanting reverence towards Bishops.\" I knew\nnot then, and I know not now, why Bishops, _as such_, should be more\nreverenced than common clergymen; or Clergymen, _as such_, more than\ncommon men. In the World I expected pomp and vain show and formality\nand counterfeits: but of the Church, as Christ's own kingdom, I\ndemanded reality and could not digest legal fictions. I saw round\nme what sort of young men were preparing to be clergymen: I knew the\nattractions of family \"livings\" and fellowships, and of a respectable\nposition and undefinable hopes of preferment. I farther knew, that\nwhen youths had become clergymen through a great variety of mixed\nmotives, bishops were selected out of these clergy on avowedly\npolitical grounds; it therefore amazed me how a man of good sense\nshould be able to set up a duty of religious veneration towards\nbishops. I was willing to honour a Lord Bishop as a peer of\nParliament; but his office was to me no guarantee of spiritual\neminence.--To find my brother thus stop my mouth, was a puzzle; and\nimpeded all free speech towards him. In fact, I very soon left off the\nattempt at intimate religious intercourse with him, or asking counsel\nas of one who could sympathize. We talked, indeed, a great deal on the\nsurface of religious matters; and on some questions I was overpowered\nand received a temporary bias from his superior knowledge; but as\ntime went on, and my own intellect ripened, I distinctly felt that his\narguments were too fine-drawn and subtle, often elaborately missing\nthe moral points and the main points, to rest on some ecclesiastical\nfiction; and his conclusions were to me so marvellous and painful,\nthat I constantly thought I had mistaken him. In short, he was my\nsenior by a very few years: nor was there any elder resident at\nOxford, accessible to me, who united all the qualities which I wanted\nin an adviser. Nothing was left for me but to cast myself on Him who\nis named the Father of Lights, and resolve to follow the light which\nHe might give, however opposed to my own prejudices, and however I\nmight be condemned by men. This solemn engagement I made in early\nyouth, and neither the frowns nor the grief of my brethren can make me\nashamed of it in my manhood.\n\nAmong the religious authors whom I read familiarly was the Rev.\nT. Scott, of Aston Sandford, a rather dull, very unoriginal,\nhalf-educated, but honest, worthy, sensible, strong-minded man, whose\nworks were then much in vogue among the Evangelicals. One day my\nattention was arrested by a sentence in his defence of the doctrine\nof the Trinity. He complained that Anti-Trinitarians unjustly charged\nTrinitarians with self-contradiction. \"If indeed we said\" (argued he)\n\"that God is three _in the same sense_ as that in which He is one,\nthat would be self-refuting; but we hold Him to be _three in one\nsense, and one in another_.\" It crossed my mind very forcibly, that,\nif that was all, the Athanasian Creed had gratuitously invented an\nenigma. I exchanged thoughts on this with an undergraduate friend, and\ngot no fresh light: in fact, I feared to be profane, if I attempted\nto understand the subject. Yet it came distinctly home to me, that,\nwhatever the depth of the mystery, if we lay down anything about\nit _at all_, we ought to understand our own words; and I presently\naugured that Tillotson had been right in \"wishing our Church well rid\"\nof the Athanasian Creed; which seemed a mere offensive blurting out\nof intellectual difficulties. I had, however, no doubts, even of a\npassing kind, for years to come, concerning the substantial truth and\ncertainty of the ecclesiastical Trinity.\n\nWhen the period arrived for taking my Bachelors degree, it was\nrequisite again to sign the 39 Articles, and I now found myself\nembarrassed by the question of Infant Baptism. One of the articles\ncontains the following words, \"The baptism of young children is in any\nwise to be retained, as most agreeable to the institution of Christ.\"\nI was unable to conceal from myself that I did not believe this\nsentence; and I was on the point of refusing to take my degree. I\novercame my scruples by considering, 1. That concerning this doctrine\nI had no active _dis_-belief, on which I would take any practical\nstep, as I felt myself too young to make any counterdeclaration: 2.\nThat it had no possible practical meaning to me, since I could not\nbe called on to baptize, nor to give a child for baptism. Thus I\npersuaded myself. Yet I had not an easy conscience, nor can I now\ndefend my compromise; for I believe that my repugnance to Infant\nBaptism was really intense, and my conviction that it is unapostolic\nas strong then as now. The topic of my \"youth\" was irrelevant; for,\nif I was not too young to subscribe, I was not too young to refuse\nsubscription. The argument that the article was \"unpractical\" to me,\ngoes to prove, that if I were ordered by a despot to qualify myself\nfor a place in the Church by solemnly renouncing the first book of\nEuclid as false, I might do so without any loss of moral dignity.\nAltogether, this humiliating affair showed me what a trap for the\nconscience these subscriptions are: how comfortably they are passed\nwhile the intellect is torpid or immature, or where the conscience is\ncallous, but how they undermine truthfulness in the active thinker,\nand torture the sensitiveness of the tenderminded. As long as they\nare maintained, in Church or University, these institutions exert a\npositive influence to deprave or eject those who ought to be their\nmost useful and honoured members.\n\nIt was already breaking upon me, that I could not fulfil the dreams of\nmy boyhood as a minister in the Church of England. For, supposing that\nwith increased knowledge I might arrive at the conclusion that Infant\nBaptism was a fore-arranged \"development,\"--not indeed practised in\nthe _first_ generation, but expedient, justifiable, and intended\nfor the _second_, and probably then sanctioned by one still living\napostle,--even so, I foresaw the still greater difficulty of Baptismal\nRegeneration behind. For any one to avow that Regeneration took place\nin Baptism, seemed to me little short of a confession that he had\nnever himself experienced what Regeneration is. If I _could_ then\nhave been convinced that the apostles taught no other regeneration,\nI almost think that even their authority would have snapt under the\nstrain: but this is idle theory; for it was as clear as daylight to me\nthat they held a totally different doctrine, and that the High Church\nand Popish fancy is a superstitious perversion, based upon carnal\ninability to understand a strong spiritual metaphor. On the other\nhand, my brother's arguments that the Baptismal Service of the Church\ntaught \"spiritual regeneration\" during the ordinance, were short,\nsimple, and overwhelming. To imagine a _twofold_ \"spiritual\nregeneration\" was evidently a hypothesis to serve a turn, nor in any\nof the Church formulas was such an idea broached. Nor could I hope for\nrelief by searching through the Homilies or by drawing deductions from\nthe Articles: for if I there elicited a truer doctrine, it would never\nshow the Baptismal Service not to teach the Popish tenet; it would\nmerely prove the Church-system to contain contradictions, and not to\ndeserve that absolute declaration of its truth, which is demanded of\nChurch ministers. With little hope of advantage, I yet felt it a duty\nto consult many of the Evangelical clergymen whom I knew, and to ask\nhow _they_ reconciled the Baptismal Service to their consciences.\nI found (if I remember) three separate theories among them,--all\nevidently mere shifts invented to avoid the disagreeable necessity of\nresigning their functions. Not one of these good people seemed to have\nthe most remote idea that it was their duty to investigate the meaning\nof the formulary with the same unbiassed simplicity as if it belonged\nto the Gallican Church. They did not seek to know what it was written\nto mean, nor what sense it must carry to every simpleminded hearer;\nbut they solely asked, how they could manage to assign to it a sense\nnot wholly irreconcilable with their own doctrines and preaching. This\nwas too obviously hollow. The last gentleman whom I consulted, was the\nrector of a parish, who from week to week baptized children with the\nprescribed formula: but to my amazement, he told me that _he_ did not\nlike the Service, and did not approve of Infant Baptism; to both of\nwhich things he submitted, solely because, as an inferior minister of\nthe Church, it was his duty to obey established authority! The case\nwas desperate. But I may here add, that this clergyman, within a few\nyears from that time, redeemed his freedom and his conscience by the\npainful ordeal of abandoning his position and his flock, against the\nremonstrances of his wife, to the annoyance of his friends, and with a\nyoung family about him.\n\nLet no reader accept the preceding paragraph as my testimony that the\nEvangelical clergy are less simpleminded and less honourable in their\nsubscriptions than the High Church. I do not say, and I do not believe\nthis. _All_ who subscribe, labour under a common difficulty, in having\nto give an absolute assent to formulas that were made by a compromise\nand are not homogeneous in character. To the High Churchman, the\n_Articles_ are a difficulty; to the Low Churchman, various parts of\nthe _Liturgy_. All have to do violence to some portion of the\nsystem; and considering at how early an age they are entrapped into\nsubscription, they all deserve our sincere sympathy and very ample\nallowance, as long as they are pleading for the rights of conscience:\nonly when they become overbearing, dictatorial, proud of their chains,\nand desirous of ejecting others, does it seem right to press them with\nthe topic of inconsistency. There in, besides, in the ministry of\nthe Established Church a sprinkling of original minds, who cannot\nbe included in either of the two great divisions; and from these _\u00e0\npriori_ one might have hoped much good to the Church. But such persons\nno sooner speak out, than the two hostile parties hush their strife,\nin order the more effectually to overwhelm with just and unjust\nimputations those who dare to utter truth that has not yet been\nconsecrated by Act of Parliament or by Church Councils. Among those\nwho have subscribed, to attack others is easy, to defend oneself most\narduous. Recrimination is the only powerful weapon; and noble minds\nare ashamed to use this. No hope, therefore, shows itself of Reform\nfrom within.--For myself, I feel that nothing saved me from the\ninfinite distresses which I should have encountered, had I become a\nminister of the Episcopal Church, but the very unusual prematureness\nof my religious development.\n\nBesides the great subject of Baptismal Regeneration, the entire\nEpiscopal theory and practice offended me. How little favourably I was\nimpressed, when a boy, by the lawn sleeves, wig, artificial voice and\nmanner of the Bishop of London, I have already said: but in six\nyears more, reading and observation had intensely confirmed my first\nauguries. It was clear beyond denial, that for a century after the\ndeath of Edward VI. the bishops were the tools of court-bigotry, and\noften owed their highest promotions to base subservience. After the\nRevolution, the Episcopal order (on a rough and general view) might be\ndescribed as a body of supine persons, known to the public only as a\ndead weight against all change that was distasteful to the Government.\nIn the last century and a half, the nation was often afflicted with\nsensual royalty, bloody wars, venal statesmen, corrupt constituencies,\nbribery and violence at elections, flagitious drunkenness pervading\nall ranks, and insinuating itself into Colleges and Rectories. The\nprisons of the country had been in a most disgraceful state; the\nfairs and waits were scenes of rude debauchery, and the theatres\nwere--still, in this nineteenth century--whispered to be haunts of the\nmost debasing immorality. I could not learn that any bishop had ever\ntaken the lead in denouncing these iniquities; nor that when any man\nor class of men rose to denounce them, the Episcopal Order failed to\nthrow itself into the breach to defend corruption by at least passive\nresistance. Neither Howard, Wesley and Whitfield, nor yet Clarkson,\nWilberforce, or Romilly, could boast of the episcopal bench as an ally\nagainst inhuman or immoral practices. Our oppressions in India, and\nour sanction to the most cruel superstitions of the natives, led to no\noutcry from the Bishops. Under their patronage the two old Societies\nof the Church had gone to sleep until aroused by the Church Missionary\nand Bible Societies, which were opposed by the Bishops. Their policy\nseemed to be, to do nothing, until somebody else was likely to do\nit; upon which they at last joined the movement in order to damp its\nenergy, and get some credit from it. Now what were Bishops for, but to\nbe the originators and energetic organs of all pious and good works?\nand what were they in the House of Lords for, if not to set a higher\ntone of purity, justice, and truth? and if they never did this, but\nweighed down those who attempted it, was not that a condemnation (not,\nperhaps, of all possible Episcopacy, but) of Episcopacy as it exists\nin England? If such a thing as a moral argument _for_ Christianity\nwas admitted as valid, surely the above was a moral argument _against_\nEnglish Prelacy. It was, moreover, evident at a glance, that this\nsystem of ours neither was, nor could have been, apostolic: for as\nlong as the civil power was hostile to the Church, _a Lord bishop\nnominated by the civil ruler_ was an impossibility: and this it is,\nwhich determines the moral and spiritual character of the English\ninstitution, not indeed exclusively, but preeminently.\n\nI still feel amazement at the only defence which (as far as I know)\nthe pretended followers of Antiquity make for the nomination of\nbishops by the Crown. In the third and fourth centuries, it is well\nknown that every new bishop was elected by the universal suffrage of\nthe laity of the church; and it is to these centuries that the High\nEpiscopalians love to appeal, because they can quote thence out of\nCyprian[2] and others in favour of Episcopal authority. When I alleged\nthe dissimilarity in the mode of election, as fatal to this argument\nin the mouth of an English High Churchman, I was told that \"the Crown\nnow _represents_ the Laity!\" Such a fiction may be satisfactory to a\npettifogging lawyer, but as the basis of a spiritual system is indeed\nsupremely contemptible.\n\nWith these considerations on my mind,--while quite aware that some of\nthe bishops were good and valuable men,--I could not help feeling\nthat it would be a perfect misery to me to have to address one of them\ntaken at random as my \"Right Reverend Father in God,\" which seemed\nlike a foul hypocrisy; and when I remembered who had said, \"Call\nno man Father on earth; for one is your Father, who is in\nheaven:\"--words, which not merely in the letter, but still more\ndistinctly in the spirit, forbid the state of feeling which suggested\nthis episcopal appellation,--it did appear to me, as if \"Prelacy\"\nhad been rightly coupled by the Scotch Puritans with \"Popery\" as\nantichristian.\n\nConnected inseparably with this, was the form of Ordination, which,\nthe more I thought of it, seemed the more offensively and outrageously\nPopish, and quite opposed to the Article on the same subject. In the\nArticle I read, that we were to regard such to be legitimate ministers\nof the word, as had been duly appointed to this work _by those who\nhave public authority for the same_. It was evident to me that this\nvery wide phrase was adapted and intended to comprehend the \"public\nauthorities\" of all the Reformed Churches, and could never have been\nselected by one who wished to narrow the idea of a legitimate minister\nto Episcopalian Orders; besides that we know Lutheran and Calvinistic\nministers to have been actually admitted in the early times of the\nReformed English Church, by the force of that very Article. To this,\nthe only genuine Protestant view of a Church, I gave my most cordial\nadherence: but when I turned to the Ordination Service, I found the\nBishop there, by his authoritative voice, absolutely to bestow on\nthe candidate for Priesthood the power to forgive or retain\nsins!--\"Receive ye the Holy Ghost! Whose sins ye forgive, they are\nforgiven: whose sins ye retain, they are retained.\" If the Bishop\nreally had this power, he of course had it only _as_ Bishop, that is,\nby his consecration; thus it was formally transmitted. To allow this,\nvested in all the Romish bishops a spiritual power of the highest\norder, and denied the legitimate priesthood in nearly all the\nContinental Protestant Churches--a doctrine irreconcilable with the\narticle just referred to and intrinsically to me incredible. That\nan unspiritual--and it may be, a wicked--man, who can have no pure\ninsight into devout and penitent hearts, and no communion with the\nSource of holy discernment, could never receive by an outward form the\ndivine power to forgive or retain sins, or the power of bestowing this\npower, was to me then, as now, as clear and certain as any possible\nfirst axiom. Yet if the Bishop had not this power, how profane was\nthe pretension! Thus again I came into rude collision with English\nPrelacy.\n\nThe year after taking my degree, I made myself fully master of Paley's\nacute and original treatise, the \"Hor\u00e6 Paulin\u00e6,\" and realized the\nwhole life of Paul as never before. This book greatly enlarged my mind\nas to the resources of historical criticism. Previously, my sole idea\nof criticism was that of the direct discernment of style; but I now\nbegan to understand what powerful argument rose out of combinations:\nand the very complete establishment which this work gives to the\nnarrative concerning Paul in the latter half of the \"Acts,\" appeared\nto me to reflect critical honour[3] on the whole New Testament. In the\nepistles of this great apostle, notwithstanding their argumentative\ndifficulties, I found a moral reality and a depth of wisdom\nperpetually growing upon me with acquaintance: in contrast to which\nI was conscious that I made no progress in understanding the four\ngospels. Their first impression had been their strongest: and their\ndifficulties remained as fixed blocks in my way. Was this possibly\nbecause Paul is a reasoner, (I asked)? hence, with the cultivation\nof my understanding, I have entered more easily into the heart of\nhis views:--while Christ enunciates divine truth dogmatically;\nconsequently insight is needed to understand him? On the contrary,\nhowever, it seemed to me, that the doctrinal difficulties of the\ngospels depend chiefly either on obscure metaphor or on apparent\nincoherence: and I timidly asked a friend, whether the _dislocation_\nof the discourses of Christ by the narrators may not be one reason why\nthey are often obscure: for on comparing Luke with Matthew, it appears\nthat we cannot deny occasional dislocation. If at this period a German\ndivinity professor had been lecturing at Oxford, or German books had\nbeen accessible to me, it might have saved me long peregrinations of\nbody and mind.\n\nAbout this time I had also begun to think that the old writers called\n_Fathers_ deserved but a small fraction of the reverence which is\nawarded to them. I had been strongly urged to read Chrysostom's work\non the Priesthood, by one who regarded it as a suitable preparation\nfor Holy Orders; and I did read it. But I not only thought it\ninflated, and without moral depth, but what was far worse, I\nencountered in it an elaborate defence of falsehood in the cause of\nthe Church, and generally of deceit in any good cause.[4] I rose\nfrom the treatise in disgust, and for the first time sympathized with\nGibbon; and augured that if he had spoken with moral indignation,\ninstead of pompous sarcasm, against the frauds of the ancient\n\"Fathers,\" his blows would have fallen far more heavily on\nChristianity itself.\n\nI also, with much effort and no profit, read the Apostolic Fathers.\nOf these, Clement alone seemed to me respectable, and even he to write\nonly what I could myself have written, with Paul and Peter to serve\nas a model. But for Barnabas and Hermas I felt a contempt so profound,\nthat I could hardly believe them genuine. On the whole, this reading\ngreatly exalted my sense of the unapproachable greatness[5] of the New\nTestament. The moral chasm between it and the very earliest Christian\nwriters seemed to me so vast, as only to be accounted for by the\ndoctrine in which all spiritual men (as I thought) unhesitatingly\nagreed,--that the New Testament was dictated by the immediate action\nof the Holy Spirit. The infatuation of those, who, after this, rested\non _the Councils_, was to me unintelligible. Thus the Bible in its\nsimplicity became only the more all-ruling to my judgment, because\nI could find no Articles, no Church Decrees, and no apostolic\nindividual, whose rule over my understanding or conscience I could\nbear. Such may be conveniently regarded as the first period of my\nCreed.\n\n\n[Footnote 1: It was not until many years later that I became aware,\nthat unbiased ecclesiastical historians, as Neander and others, while\napproving of the practice of Infant Baptism, freely concede that it is\nnot apostolic. Let this fact be my defence against critics, who snarl\nat me for having dared, at that age, to come to _any_ conclusion on\nsuch a subject. But, in fact, the subscriptions compel young men to\nit.]\n\n[Footnote 2: I remember reading about that time a sentence in one of\nhis Epistles, in which this same Cyprian, the earliest mouthpiece of\n\"proud prelacy,\" claims for the _populace_ supreme right of deposing\nan unworthy bishop. I quote the words from memory, and do not know\nthe reference. \"Pleba summam habet potentatem episcopos seu dignos\neligendi seu indignos detrudendi.\"]\n\n[Footnote 3: A critic absurdly complains that I do not account for\nthis. Account for what? I still hold the authenticity of nearly all\nthe Pauline epistles, and that the Pauline Acts are compiled from some\nvaluable source, from chap. xiii. onward; but it was gratuitous to\ninfer that this could accredit the four gospels.]\n\n[Footnote 4: He argues from the Bible, that a victory gained by deceit\nis more to be esteemed than one obtained by force; and that, provided\nthe end aimed at be good, we ought not to call it _deceit_, but a sort\nof _admirable management_. A learned friend informs me that in\nhis 45th Homily on Genesis, this father, in his zeal to vindicate\nScriptural characters at any cost, goes further still in immorality.\nMy friend adds, \"It is really frightful to reflect to what guidance\nthe moral sentiment of mankind was committed for many ages: Chrysostom\nis usually considered one of the best of the fathers.\"]\n\n[Footnote 5: I thought that the latter part of this book would\nsufficiently show how and why I now need to modify this sentiment. I\n_now_ see the doctrine of the Atonement, especially as expounded\nin the Epistle of the Hebrews, to deserve no honour. I see false\ninterpretations of the Old Testament to be dogmatically proposed in\nthe New. I see the moral teaching concerning Patriotism, Property,\nSlavery, Marriage, Science, and indirectly Fine Art, to be essentially\ndefective, and the threats against unbelief to be a pernicious\nimmorality. See also p. 80. Why will critics use my frankly-stated\njuvenile opinions as a stone to pelt me with?]\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER II.\n\n\nSTRIVINGS AFTER A MORE PRIMITIVE CHRISTIANITY.\n\n\nMy second period is characterized, partly by the great ascendancy\nexercised over me by one powerful mind and still more powerful will,\npartly by the vehement effort which throughout its duration urged me\nto long after the establishment of Christian Fellowship in a purely\nBiblical Church as the first great want of Christendom and of the\nworld.\n\nI was already uneasy in the sense that I could not enter the ministry\nof the Church of England, and knew not what course of life to choose.\nI longed to become a missionary for Christ among the heathen,--a\nnotion I had often fostered while reading the lives of missionaries:\nbut again, I saw not how that was to be effected. After taking my\ndegree, I became a Fellow of Balliol College; and the next year I\naccepted an invitation to Ireland, and there became private tutor for\nfifteen months in the house of one now deceased, whose name I would\ngladly mention for honour and affection;--but I withhold my pen. While\nhe repaid me munificently for my services, he behaved towards me as a\nfather, or indeed as an elder brother, and instantly made me feel as\na member of his family. His great talents, high professional standing,\nnobleness of heart and unfeigned piety, would have made him a most\nvaluable counsellor to me: but he was too gentle, too unassuming, too\nmodest; he looked to be taught by his juniors, and sat at the feet of\none whom I proceed to describe.\n\nThis was a young relative of his,--a most remarkable man,--who rapidly\ngained an immense sway over me. I shall henceforth call him \"the Irish\nclergyman.\" His \"bodily presence\" was indeed \"weak!\" A fallen cheek,\na bloodshot eye, crippled limbs resting on crutches, a seldom shaven\nbeard, a shabby suit of clothes and a generally neglected person, drew\nat first pity, with wonder to see such a figure in a drawing-room.\nIt was currently reported that a person in Limerick offered him a\nhalfpenny, mistaking him for a beggar; and if not true, the story was\nyet well invented. This young man had taken high honours in Dublin\nUniversity and had studied for the bar, where under the auspices of\nhis eminent kinsman he had excellent prospects; but his conscience\nwould not allow him to take a brief, lest he should be selling his\ntalents to defeat justice. With keen logical powers, he had warm\nsympathies, solid judgment of character, thoughtful tenderness, and\ntotal self-abandonment. He before long took Holy Orders, and became\nan indefatigable curate in the mountains of Wicklow. Every evening\nhe sallied forth to teach in the cabins, and roving far and wide\nover mountain and amid bogs, was seldom home before midnight. By such\nexertions his strength was undermined, and he so suffered in his limbs\nthat not lameness only, but yet more serious results were feared. He\ndid not fast on purpose, but his long walks through wild country and\nindigent people inflicted on him much severe deprivation: moreover,\nas he ate whatever food offered itself,--food unpalatable and often\nindigestible to him, his whole frame might have vied in emaciation\nwith a monk of La Trappe.\n\nSuch a phenomenon intensely excited the poor Romanists, who looked\non him as a genuine \"saint\" of the ancient breed. The stamp of heaven\nseemed to them clear in a frame so wasted by austerity, so superior\nto worldly pomp, and so partaking in all their indigence. That a dozen\nsuch men would have done more to convert all Ireland to Protestantism,\nthan the whole apparatus of the Church Establishment, was ere long my\nconviction; though I was at first offended by his apparent affectation\nof a mean exterior. But I soon understood, that in no other way could\nhe gain equal access to the lower and lowest orders, and that he was\nmoved not by asceticism, nor by ostentation, but by a self-abandonment\nfruitful of consequences. He had practically given up all reading\nexcept that of the Bible; and no small part of his movement towards me\nsoon took the form of dissuasion from all other voluntary study.\n\nIn fact, I had myself more and more concentrated my religious reading\non this one book: still, I could not help feeling the value of a\ncultivated mind. Against this, my new eccentric friend, (himself\nhaving enjoyed no mean advantages of cultivation,) directed his\nkeenest attacks. I remember once saying to him, in defence of worldly\nstation,--\"To desire to be rich is unchristian and absurd; but if I\nwere the father of children, I should wish to be rich enough to secure\nthem a good education.\" He replied: \"If I had children, I would as\nsoon see them break stones on the road, as do any thing else, if only\nI could secure to them the Gospel and the grace of God.\" I was unable\nto say Amen, but I admired his unflinching consistency;--for now,\nas always, all he said was based on texts aptly quoted and logically\nenforced. He more and more made me ashamed of Political Economy and\nMoral Philosophy, and all Science; all of which ought to be \"counted\ndross for the excellency of the knowledge of Christ Jesus our Lord.\"\nFor the first time in my life I saw a man earnestly turning into\nreality the principles which others confessed with their lips only.\nThat the words of the New Testament contained the highest truth\naccessible to man,--truth not to be taken from nor added to,--all\ngood men (as I thought) confessed: never before had I seen a man so\nresolved that no word of it should be a dead letter to him. I once\nsaid: \"But do you really think that _no_ part of the New Testament may\nhave been temporary in its object? for instance, what should we have\nlost, if St. Paul had never written the verse, 'The cloak which I\nhave left at Troas, bring with thee, and the books, but especially the\nparchments.'\" He answered with the greatest promptitude: \"_I_ should\ncertainly have lost something; for that is exactly the verse which\nalone saved me from selling my little library. No! every word, depend\nupon it, is from the Spirit, and is for eternal service.\"\n\nA political question was just then exceedingly agitating Ireland, in\nwhich nearly everybody took a great interest;--it was, the propriety\nof admitting Romanist members of Parliament. Those who were favourable\nto the measure, generally advocated it by trying to undervalue\nthe chasm that separates Romish from Protestant doctrine. By such\narguments they exceedingly exasperated the real Protestants, and,\nin common with all around me, I totally repudiated that ground of\ncomprehension. But I could not understand why a broader, more generous\nand every way safer argument was not dwelt on; viz. the unearthliness\nof the claims of Christianity. When Paul was preaching the kingdom of\nGod in the Roman empire, if a malicious enemy had declared to a Roman\nproconsul that the Christians were conspiring to eject all Pagans out\nof the senate and out of the public administration; who can doubt what\nPaul would have replied?--The kingdom of God is not of this world: it\nis within the heart, and consists in righteousness, peace and joy\nin the Holy Ghost. These are our \"honours\" from God: we ask not the\nhonours of empire and title. Our King is in heaven; and will in time\nreturn to bring to an end these earthly kingdoms: but until then, we\nclaim no superiority over you on earth. As the riches of this world,\nso the powers of this world belong to another king: we dare not try to\nappropriate them in the name of our heavenly King; may, we should\nhold it as great a sin to clutch empire for our churches, as to clutch\nwealth: God forbid that we covet either!--But what then if the enemy\nhad had foresight to reply, O proconsul, this Paul talks finely, and\nperhaps sincerely: but if so, yet cheat not yourself to think that\nhis followers will tie themselves to his mild equity and\ndisinterestedness. Now indeed they are weak: now they profess\nunworldliness and unambition: they wish only to be recognised as\npeaceable subjects, as citizens and as equals: but if once they grow\nstrong enough, they will discover that their spears and swords are\nthe symbol of their Lord's return from heaven; that he now at length\ncommissions them to eject you, as vile infidels, from all seats of\npower,--to slay you with the sword, if you dare to offer sacrifice to\nthe immortal gods,--to degrade you so, that you shall only not enter\nthe senate, or the privy council of the prince, or the judgment seat,\nbut not even the jury-box, or a municipal corporation, or the pettiest\nedileship of Italy; nay, you shall not be lieutenants of armies, or\ntribunes, or anything above the lowest centurion. You shall become a\nplebeian class,--cheap bodies to be exposed in battle or to toil in\nthe field, and pay rent to the lordly Christian. Such shall be the\nfate of _you_, the worshippers of Quirinus and of Jupiter Best and\nGreatest, if you neglect to crush and extirpate, during the weakness\nof its infancy, this ambitious and unscrupulous portent of a\nreligion.--Oh, how would Paul have groaned in spirit, at accusations\nsuch as these, hateful to his soul, aspersing to his churches, but\nimpossible to refute! Either Paul's doctrine was a fond dream, (felt\nI,) or it is certain, that he would have protested with all the force\nof his heart against the principle that Christians _as such_ have any\nclaim to earthly power and place; or that they could, when they gained\na numerical majority, without sin enact laws to punish, stigmatize,\nexclude, or otherwise treat with political inferiority the Pagan\nremnant. To uphold such exclusion, is to lay the axe to the root of\nthe spiritual Church, to stultify the apostolic preaching, and at this\nmoment justify Mohammedans in persecuting Christians. For the Sultan\nmight fairly say,--\"I give Christians the choice of exile or death: I\nwill not allow that sect to grow up here; for it has fully warned me,\nthat it will proscribe my religion in my own land, as soon as it has\npower.\"\n\nOn such grounds I looked with amazement and sorrow at spiritual\nChristians who desired to exclude the Romanists from full equality;\nand I was happy to enjoy as to this the passive assent of the Irish\nclergyman; who, though \"Orange\" in his connexions, and opposed to\n_all_ political action, yet only so much the more deprecated what he\ncalled \"political Protestantism.\"\n\nIn spite of the strong revulsion which I felt against some of the\npeculiarities of this remarkable man, I for the first time in my life\nfound myself under the dominion of a superior. When I remember, how\neven those bowed down before him, who had been to him in the place of\nparents,--accomplished and experienced minds,--I cease to wonder in\nthe retrospect, that he riveted me in such a bondage. Henceforth I\nbegan to ask: what will _he_ say to this and that? In _his_ reply I\nalways expected to find a higher portion of God's Spirit, than in any\nI could frame for myself. In order to learn divine truth, it became to\nme a surer process to consult him, than to search for myself and wait\nupon God: and gradually, (as I afterwards discerned,) my religious\nthought had merged into the mere process of developing fearlessly\ninto results all his principles, without any deeper examining of my\nfoundations. Indeed, but for a few weaknesses which warned me that\nhe might err, I could have accepted him as an apostle commissioned to\nreveal the mind of God.\n\nIn his after-course (which I may not indicate) this gentleman has\nevery where displayed a wonderful power of bending other minds to his\nown, and even stamping upon them the tones of his voice and all sorts\nof slavish imitation. Over the general results of his action I\nhave long deeply mourned, as blunting his natural tenderness and\nsacrificing his wisdom to the Letter, dwarfing men's understandings,\ncontracting their hearts, crushing their moral sensibilities, and\nsetting those at variance who ought to love: yet oh! how specious\nwas it in the beginning! he _only_ wanted men \"to submit their\nunderstandings _to God_\" that is, to the Bible, that is, to his\ninterpretation! From seeing his action and influence I have learnt,\nthat if it be dangerous to a young man (as it assuredly is) to have\n_no_ superior mind to which he may look up with confiding reverence,\nit may be even more dangerous to think that he has found such a mind:\nfor he who is most logically consistent, though to a one-sided theory,\nand most ready to sacrifice self to that theory, seems to ardent youth\nthe most assuredly trustworthy guide. Such was Ignatius Loyola in his\nday.\n\nMy study of the New Testament at this time had made it impossible for\nme to overlook that the apostles held it to be a duty of all disciples\nto expect a near and sudden destruction of the earth by fire, and\nconstantly to be expecting _the return of the Lord from heaven_. It\nwas easy to reply, that \"experience disproved\" this expectation; but\nto this an answer was ready provided in Peter's 2nd Epistle, which\nforewarns us that we shall be taunted by the unbelieving with thin\nobjection, but bids us, _nevertheless_, continue to look out for\nthe speedy fulfilment of this great event. In short, the case stood\nthus:--If it was not _too soon_ 1800 years ago to stand in daily\nexpectation of it, it is not too soon now: to say that it is _too\nlate_, is not merely to impute error to the apostles, on a matter\nwhich they made of first-rate moral importance, but is to say, that\nthose whom Peter calls \"ungodly scoffers, walking after their own\nlusts\"--were right, and he was wrong, on the very point for which he\nthus vituperated them.\n\nThe importance of this doctrine is, that _it totally forbids all\nworking for earthly objects distant in time_: and here the Irish\nclergyman threw into the same scale the entire weight of his\ncharacter. For instance; if a youth had a natural aptitude for\nmathematics, and he asked, ought he to give himself to the study, in\nhope that he might diffuse a serviceable knowledge of it, or possibly\neven enlarge the boundaries of the science? my friend would have\nreplied, that such a purpose was very proper, if entertained by a\nworldly man. Let the dead bury their dead; and let the world study the\nthings of the world: they know no better, and they are of use to the\nChurch, who may borrow and use the jewels of the Egyptians. But such\nstudies cannot be eagerly followed by the Christian, except when he\nyields to unbelief. In fact, what would it avail even to become a\nsecond La Place after thirty years' study, if in five and thirty years\nthe Lord descended from heaven, snatched up all his saints to meet\nhim, and burned to ashes all the works of the earth? Then all the\nmathematician's work would have perished, and he would grieve over\nhis unwisdom, in laying up store which could not stand the fire of\nthe Lord. Clearly; if we are bound to act _as though_ the end of all\nearthly concerns may come, \"at cockcrowing or at midday,\" then to work\nfor distant earthly objects is the part of a fool or of an unbeliever.\n\nI found a wonderful dulness in many persons on this important subject.\nWholly careless to ask what was the true apostolic doctrine, they\ninsisted that \"Death is to us _practically_ the coming of the Lord,\"\nand were amazed at my seeing so much emphasis in the other view. This\ncomes of the abominable selfishness preached as religion. If I were\nto labour at some useful work for ten years,--say, at clearing forest\nland, laying out a farm, and building a house,--and were then to die,\nI should leave my work to my successors, and it would not be lost.\nSome men work for higher, some for lower, earthly ends; (\"in a great\nhouse there are many vessels, &c.;\") but all the results are valuable,\nif there is a chance of transmitting them to those who follow us.\nBut if all is to be very shortly burnt up, it is then folly to exert\nourselves for such objects. To the dead man, (it is said,) the cases\nare but one. This is to the purpose, if self absorbs all our heart;\naway from the purpose, if we are to work for unselfish ends.\n\nNothing can be clearer, than that the New Testament is entirely\npervaded by the doctrine,--sometimes explicitly stated, sometimes\nunceremoniously assumed,--that earthly things are very speedily to\ncome to an end, and _therefore_ are not worthy of our high affections\nand deep interest. Hence, when thoroughly imbued with this persuasion,\nI looked with mournful pity on a great mind wasting its energies on\nany distant aim of this earth. For a statesman to talk about providing\nfor future generations, sounded to me as a melancholy avowal of\nunbelief. To devote good talents to write history or investigate\nnature, was simple waste: for at the Lord's coming, history and\nscience would no longer be learned by these feeble appliances of ours.\nThus an inevitable deduction from the doctrine of the apostles, was,\nthat \"we must work for speedy results only.\" Vit\u00e6 summa brevis spem\nnos vetat inchoare longam. I _then_ accepted the doctrine, in profound\nobedience to the absolutely infallible system of precepts. I _now_ see\nthat the falsity and mischief of the doctrine is one of the very many\ndisproofs of the assumed, but unverified infallibility. However,\nthe hold which the apostolic belief then took of me, subjected my\nconscience to the exhortations of the Irish clergyman, whenever he\ninculcated that the highest Christian must necessarily decline the\npursuit of science, knowledge, art, history,--except so far as any\nof these things might be made useful tools for immediate spiritual\nresults.\n\nUnder the stimulus to my imagination given by this gentleman's\ncharacter, the desire, which from a boy I had more or less nourished,\nof becoming a teacher of Christianity _to the heathen_, took stronger\nand stronger hold of me. I saw that I was shut out from the ministry\nof the Church of England, and knew not how to seek connexion with\nDissenters. I had met one eminent Quaker, but was offended by the\nviolent and obviously false interpretations by which he tried to\nget rid of the two Sacraments; and I thought there was affectation\ninvolved in the forms which the doctrine of the Spirit took with him.\nBesides, I had not been prepossessed by those Dissenters whom I had\nheard speak at the Bible Society. I remember that one of them\ntalked in pompous measured tones of voice, and with much stereotyped\nphraseology, about \"the Bible only, the religion of Protestants:\"\naltogether, it did not seem to me that there was at all so much of\nnature and simple truth in them as in Church clergymen. I also had\na vague, but strong idea, that all Dissenting churches assumed some\nspecial, narrow, and sectarian basis. The question indeed arose: \"Was\nI _at liberty_ to preach to the heathen without ordination?\" but I\nwith extreme ease answered in the affirmative. To teach a Church, of\ncourse needs the sanction of the church: no man can assume pastoral\nrights without assent from other parties: but to speak to those\nwithout, is obviously a natural right, with which the Church can have\nnothing to do. And herewith all the precedents of the New Testament so\nobviously agreed, that I had not a moment's disquiet on this head.\n\nAt the same time, when asked by one to whom I communicated my\nfeelings, \"whether I felt that I had _a call_ to preach to the\nheathen,\" I replied: I had not the least consciousness of it, and knew\nnot what was meant by such language. All that I knew was, that I was\nwilling and anxious to do anything in my power either to teach, or to\nhelp others in teaching, if only I could find out the way. That after\neighteen hundred years no farther progress should have been made\ntowards the universal spread of Christianity, appeared a scandalous\nreproach on Christendom. Is it not, perhaps, because those who are\nin Church office cannot go, and the mass of the laity think it no\nbusiness of theirs? If a persecution fell on England, and thousands\nwere driven into exile, and, like those who were scattered in\nStephen's persecution, \"went everywhere preaching the word,\"--might\nnot this be the conversion of the world, as indeed that began the\nconversion of the Gentiles? But the laity leave all to the clergy, and\nthe clergy have more than enough to do.\n\nAbout this time I heard of another remarkable man, whose name was\nalready before the public,--Mr. Groves,--who had written a tract\ncalled Christian Devotedness, on the duty of devoting all worldly\nproperty for the cause of Christ, and utterly renouncing the attempt\nto amass money. In pursuance of this, he was going to Persia as a\nteacher of Christianity. I read his tract, and was inflamed with the\ngreatest admiration; judging immediately that this was the man whom\nI should rejoice to aid or serve. For a scheme of this nature\nalone appeared to combine with the views which I had been gradually\nconsolidating concerning the practical relation of a Christian Church\nto Christian Evidences. On this very important subject it is requisite\nto speak in detail.\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nThe Christian Evidences are an essential part of the course of\nreligious study prescribed at Oxford, and they had engaged from an\nearly period a large share of my attention. Each treatise on the\nsubject, taken by itself, appeared to me to have great argumentative\nforce; but when I tried to grasp them all together in a higher act\nof thought, I was sensible of a certain confusion, and inability to\nreconcile their fundamental assumptions. _One_ either formally\nstated, or virtually assumed, that the deepest basis of all\nreligious knowledge was the testimony of sense to some fact, which is\nascertained to be miraculous when examined by the light of Physics or\nPhysiology; and that we must, at least in a great degree, distrust and\nabandon our moral convictions or auguries, at the bidding of sensible\nmiracle. _Another_ treatise assumed that men's moral feelings and\nbeliefs are, on the whole, the most trustworthy thing to be found;\nand starting from them as from a known and ascertained foundation,\nproceeded to glorify Christianity because of its expanding,\nstrengthening, and beautifying all that we know by conscience to be\nmorally right. That the former argument, if ever so valid, was still\ntoo learned and scholastic, not for the vulgar only, but for every man\nin his times of moral trial, I felt instinctively persuaded: yet my\nintellect could not wholly dispense with it, and my belief in the\ndepravity of the moral understanding of men inclined me to go some way\nin defending it. To endeavour to combine the two arguments by saying\nthat they were adapted to different states of mind, was plausible;\nyet it conceded, that neither of the two went to the bottom of\nhuman thought, or showed what were the real _fixed points_ of man's\nknowledge; without knowing which, we are in perpetual danger of mere\n_argumentum ad hominem_, or, in fact, arguing in a circle;--as to\nprove miracles from doctrine, and doctrine from miracles. I however\nconceived that the most logical minds among Christians would contend\nthat there was another solution; which, in 1827, I committed to paper\nin nearly the following words:\n\n\"May it not be doubted whether Leland sees the real circumstance that\nmakes a revelation necessary?\n\n\"No revelation is needed to inform us,--of the invisible power and\ndeity of God; that we are bound to worship Him; that we are capable of\nsinning against Him and liable to his just Judgment; nay, that we have\nsinned, and that we find in nature marks of his displeasure against\nsin; and yet, that He is merciful. St. Paul and our Lord show us that\nthese things are knowable by reason. The ignorance of the heathens is\n_judicial blindness_, to punish their obstinate rejection of the true\nGod.\"\n\n\"But a revelation _is_ needed to convey a SPECIAL message, such as\nthis: that God has provided an Atonement for our sins, has deputed his\nown Son to become Head of the redeemed human family, and intends to\nraise those who believe in Him to a future and eternal life of bliss.\nThese are external truths, (for 'who can believe, unless one be sent\nto preach them?') and are not knowable by any reasonings drawn from\nnature. They transcend natural analogies and moral or spiritual\nexperience. To reveal them, a specific communication must be accorded\nto us: and on this the necessity for miracle turns.\"\n\nThus, in my view, at that time, the materials of the Bible were in\ntheory divisible into two portions: concerning the _one_, (which I\ncalled Natural Religion,) it not only was not presumptuous, but it was\nabsolutely essential, to form an independent judgment; for this was\nthe real basis of all faith: concerning the _other_, (which I called\nRevealed Religion,) our business was, not to criticize the message,\nbut to examine the credentials[1] of the messenger; and,--after the\nmost unbiassed possible examination of these,--then, if they proved\nsound, to receive his communication reverently and unquestioningly.\n\nSuch was the theory with which I came from Oxford to Ireland; but\nI was hindered from working out its legitimate results by the\noverpowering influence of the Irish clergyman; who, while pressing\nthe authority of every letter of the Scripture with an unshrinking\nvehemence that I never saw surpassed, yet, with a common\ninconsistency, showed more than indifference towards learned\nhistorical and critical evidence on the side of Christianity; and\nindeed, unmercifully exposed erudition to scorn, both by caustic\nreasoning, and by irrefragable quotation of texts. I constantly had\noccasion to admire the power with which be laid hold of the moral\nside of every controversy; whether he was reasoning against Romanism,\nagainst the High Church, against learned religion or philosophic\nscepticism: and in this matter his practical axiom was, that the\nadvocate of truth had to address himself to the _conscience_ of the\nother party, and if possible, make him feel that there was a moral and\nspiritual superiority against him. Such doctrine, when joined with\nan inculcation of man's _natural blindness and total depravity_,\nwas anything but clearing to my intellectual perceptions: in fact,\nI believe that for some years I did not recover from the dimness and\nconfusion which he spread over them. But in my entire inability to\nexplain away the texts which spoke with scorn of worldly wisdom,\nphilosophy, and learning, on the one hand; and the obvious certainty,\non the other, that no historical evidence for miracle was possible\nexcept by the aid of learning; I for the time abandoned this side of\nChristian Evidence,--not as invalid, but as too unwieldy a weapon\nfor use,--and looked to direct moral evidence alone. And now rose the\nquestion, How could such moral evidence become appreciable to heathens\nand Mohammedans?\n\nI felt distinctly enough, that mere talk could bring no conviction,\nand would be interpreted by the actions and character of the speaker.\nWhile nations called Christian are only known to heathens as great\nconquerors, powerful avengers, sharp traders,--often lax in morals,\nand apparently without religion,--the fine theories of a Christian\nteacher would be as vain to convert a Mohammedan or Hindoo to\nChristianity, to the soundness of Seneca's moral treatises to convert\nme to Roman Paganism. Christendom has to earn a new reputation before\nChristian precepts will be thought to stand in any essential or close\nrelation with the mystical doctrines of Christianity. I could see\nno other way to this, but by an entire church being formed of new\nelements on a heathen soil:--a church, in which by no means all\nshould be preachers, but all should be willing to do for all whatever\noccasion required. Such a church had I read of among the Moravians in\nGreenland and in South Africa. I imagined a little colony, so animated\nby primitive faith, love, and disinterestedness, that the collective\nmoral influence of all might interpret and enforce the words of the\nfew who preached. Only in this way did it appear to me that preaching\nto the heathen could be attended with success. In fact, whatever\nsuccess had been attained, seemed to come only after many years, when\nthe natives had gained experience in the characters of the Christian\nfamily around them.\n\nWhen I had returned to Oxford, I induced the Irish clergyman to visit\nthe University, and introduced him to many of my equals in age, and\njuniors. Most striking was it to see how instantaneously he assumed\nthe place of universal father-confessor, as if he had been a known\nand long-trusted friend. His insight into character, and tenderness\npervading his austerity, so opened young men's hearts, that day after\nday there was no end of secret closetings with him. I began to see the\nprospect of so considerable a movement of mind, as might lead many in\nthe same direction as myself; and _if_ it was by a collective\nChurch that Mohammedans were to be taught, the only way was for\neach separately to be led to the same place by the same spiritual\ninfluence. As Groves was a magnet to draw me, so might I draw others.\nIn no other way could a pure and efficient Church be formed. If we\nwaited, as with worldly policy, to make up a complete colony before\nleaving England, we should fail of getting the right men: we should\npack them together by a mechanical process, instead of leaving them to\nbe united by vital affinities. Thus actuated, and other circumstances\nconducing, in September 1830, with some Irish friends, I set out to\njoin Mr. Groves at Bagdad. What I might do there, I knew not. I did\nnot go as a minister of religion, and I everywhere pointedly disowned\nthe assumption of this character, even down to the colour of my dress.\nBut I thought I knew many ways in which I might be of service, and I\nwas prepared to act recording to circumstances.\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nPerhaps the strain of practical life must in any case, before long,\nhave broken the chain by which the Irish clergyman unintentionally\nheld me; but all possible influence from him was now cut off by\nseparation. The dear companions of my travels no more aimed to guide\nmy thoughts, than I theirs: neither ambition nor suspicion found place\nin our hearts; and my mind was thus able again without disturbance to\ndevelop its own tendencies.\n\nI had become distinctly aware, that the modern Churches in general by\nno means hold the truth as conceived of by the apostles. In the\nmatter of the Sabbath and of the Mosaic Law, of Infant Baptism, of\nEpiscopacy, of the doctrine of the Lord's return, I had successively\nfound the prevalent Protestantism to be unapostolic. Hence arose in me\na conscious and continuous effort to read the New Testament with fresh\neyes and without bias, and so to take up the real doctrines of the\nheavenly and everlasting Gospel.\n\nIn studying the narrative of John I was strongly impressed by the\nfact, that the glory and greatness of the Son of God is constantly\nascribed to the will and pleasure of the Father. I had been accustomed\nto hear this explained of his _mediatorial_ greatness only, but this\nnow looked to me like a make-shift, and to want the simplicity of\ntruth--an impression which grew deeper with closer examination.\nThe emphatic declaration of Christ, \"My Father is greater than I,\"\nespecially arrested my attention. Could I really expound this as\nmeaning, \"My Father, the Supreme God, in greater than I am, _if you\nlook solely to my human nature?_\" Such a truism can scarcely have\ndeserved such emphasis. Did the disciples need to be taught that God\nwas greater than man? Surely, on the contrary, the Saviour must have\nmeant to say: \"_Divine as I am_, yet my heavenly Father is greater than\nI, _even when you take cognizance of my divine nature._\" I did not\nthen know, that my comment was exactly that of the most orthodox\nFathers; I rather thought they were against me, but for them I did not\ncare much. I reverenced the doctrine of the Trinity as something vital\nto the soul; but felt that to love the Fathers or the Athanasian\nCreed more than the Gospel of John would be a supremely miserable\nsuperstition. However, that Creed states that there is no inequality\nbetween the Three Persons: in John it became increasingly clear to me\nthat the divine Son is unequal to the Father. To say that \"the Son of\nGod\" meant \"Jesus as man,\" was a preposterous evasion: for there is\nno higher title for the Second Person of the Trinity than this very\none--Son of God. Now, in the 5th chapter, when the Jews accused Jesus\n\"of making himself equal to God,\" by calling himself Son of God Jesus\neven hastens to protest against the inference as a misrepresentation\n--beginning with: \"The Son can do nothing of himself:\" and proceeds\nelaborately to ascribe all his greatness to the Father's will. In\nfact, the Son is emphatically \"he who is sent,\" and the Father is \"he\nwho sent him:\" and all would feel the deep impropriety of trying to\nexchange these phrases. The Son who is sent,--sent, not _after_ he was\nhumbled to become man, but _in order to_ be so humbled,--was NOT EQUAL\nTO, but LESS THAN, the Father who sent him. To this I found the whole\nGospel of John to bear witness; and with this conviction, the truth\nand honour of the Athanasian Creed fell to the ground. One of its main\ntenets was proved false; and yet it dared to utter anathemas on all\nwho rejected it!\n\nI afterwards remembered my old thought, that we must surely understand\n_our own words_, when we venture to speak at all about divine\nmysteries. Having gained boldness to gaze steadily on the topic, I\nat length saw that the compiler of the Athanasian Creed did _not_\nunderstand his own words. If any one speaks of _three men_, all that\nhe means is, \"three objects of thought, of whom each separately may\nbe called Man.\" So also, all that could possibly be meant by _three\ngods_, is, \"three objects of thought, of whom each separately may be\ncalled God.\" To avow the last statement, as the Creed does, and yet\nrepudiate Three Gods, is to object to the phrase, yet confess to\nthe only meaning which the phrase can convey. Thus the Creed really\nteaches polytheism, but saves orthodoxy by forbidding any one to call\nit by its true name. Or to put the matter otherwise: it teaches three\nDivine Persons, and denies three Gods; and leaves us to guess what\nelse is a Divine Person but a God, or a God but a Divine Person. Who,\nthen, can deny that this intolerant creed is a malignant riddle?\n\nThat there is nothing in the Scripture about Trinity in Unity and\nUnity in Trinity I had long observed; and the total absence of such\nphraseology had left on me a general persuasion that the Church had\nsystematized too much. But in my study of John I was now arrested by\na text, which showed me how exceedingly far from a _Tri-unity_ was the\nTrinity of that Gospel,--if trinity it be. Namely, in his last prayer,\nJesus addresses to his Father the words: \"This is life eternal, that\nthey may know _Thee, the only True God_, and Jesus Christ, whom thou\nhast sent\" I became amazed, as I considered these words more and more\nattentively, and without prejudice; and I began to understand how\nprejudice, when embalmed with reverence, blinds the mind. Why had I\nnever before seen what is here so plain, that the _One God_ of Jesus\nwas not a Trinity, but was _the First Person_, of the ecclesiastical\nTrinity?\n\nBut on a fuller search, I found this to be Paul's doctrine also: for\nin 1 Corinth, viii., when discussing the subject of Polytheism, he\nsays that \"though there be to the heathen many that are called Gods,\nyet to us there is but _One God_, the Father, _of_ whom are all\nthings; and _One Lord_, Jesus Christ, _by_ whom are all things.\" Thus\nhe defines Monotheism to consist in holding the person of the Father\nto be the One God; although this, if any, should have been the place\nfor a \"Trinity in Unity.\"\n\nBut did I proceed to deny the Divinity of the Son? By no means: I\nconceived of him as in the highest and fullest sense divine, short\nof being Father and not Son. I now believed that by the phrase \"only\nbegotten Son,\" John, and indeed Christ himself, meant to teach us that\nthere was an unpassable chasm between him and all creatures, in that\nhe had a true, though a derived divine nature; an indeed the Nicene\nCreed puts the contrast, he was \"begotten, not made.\" Thus all Divine\nglory dwells in the Son, but it is _because_ the Father has willed\nit. A year or more afterward, when I had again the means of access\nto books, and consulted that very common Oxford book, \"Pearson on the\nCreed,\" (for which I had felt so great a distaste that I never before\nread it)--I found this to be the undoubted doctrine of the great\nNicene and Post Nicene Fathers, who laid much emphasis on two\nstatements, which with the modern Church are idle and dead--viz. that\n\"the Son was _begotten_ of his Father _before all worlds_,\" and that\n\"the Holy Spirit _proceedeth from_ the Father and the Son.\" In\nthe view of the old Church, the Father alone was the Fountain of\nDeity,--(and _therefore_ fitly called, The One God,--and, the Only\nTrue God)--while the Deity of the other two persons was real, yet\nderived and subordinate. Moreover, I found in Gregory Nazianzen and\nothers, that to confess this derivation of the Son and Spirit and the\nunderivedness of the Father alone, was in their view quite essential\nto save Monotheism; the _One_ God being the underived Father.\n\nAlthough in my own mind all doubt as to the doctrine of John and Paul\non the main question seemed to be quite cleared away from the time\nthat I dwelt on their explanation of Monotheism, this in no respect\nagitated me, or even engaged me in any farther search. There was\nnothing to force me into controversy, or make this one point of\ntruth unduly preponderant. I concealed none of my thoughts from my\ncompanions; and concerning them I will only say, that whether they\ndid or did not feel acquiescence, they behaved towards me with all\nthe affection and all the equality which I would have wished myself\nto maintain, had the case been inverted. I was, however, sometimes\nuneasy, when the thought crossed my mind,--\"What if we, like Henry\nMartyn, were charged with Polytheism by Mohammedans, and were forced\nto defend ourselves by explaining in detail our doctrine of the\nTrinity? _Perhaps_ no two of us would explain it alike, and this would\nexpose Christian doctrine to contempt.\" Then farther it came\nacross me; How very remarkable it is, that the Jews, those strict\nMonotheists, never seem to have attacked the apostles for polytheism!\nIt would have been so plausible an imputation, one that the instinct\nof party would so readily suggest, if there had been any external\nform of doctrine to countenance it. Surely it is transparent that the\nApostles did not teach as Dr. Waterland. I had always felt a great\nrepugnance to the argumentations concerning the _Personality_ of the\nHoly Spirit; no doubt from an inward sense, however dimly confessed,\nthat they were all words without meaning. For the disputant who\nmaintains this dogma, tells us in the very next breath that _Person_\nhas not in this connexion its common signification; so that he is\nelaborately enforcing upon us we know not what. That the Spirit of God\nmeant in the New Testament _God in the heart_, had long been to me a\nsufficient explanation: and who by logic or metaphysics will carry us\nbeyond this?\n\nWhile we were at Aleppo, I one day got into religious discourse with\na Mohammedan carpenter, which left on me a lasting impression. Among\nother matters, I was peculiarly desirous of disabusing him of the\ncurrent notion of his people, that our gospels are spurious narratives\nof late date. I found great difficulty of expression; but the man\nlistened to me with much attention, and I was encouraged to exert\nmyself. He waited patiently till I had done, and then spoke to the\nfollowing effect: \"I will tell you, sir, how the case stands. God has\ngiven to you English a great many good gifts. You make fine ships, and\nsharp penknives, and good cloth and cottons; and you have rich nobles\nand brave soldiers; and you write and print many learned books:\n(dictionaries and grammars:) all this is of God. But there is one\nthing that God has withheld from you, and has revealed to us; and that\nis, the knowledge of the true religion, by which one may be\nsaved.\" When he thus ignored my argument, (which was probably quite\nunintelligible to him,) and delivered his simple protest, I was\nsilenced, and at the same time amused. But the more I thought it over,\nthe more instruction I saw in the case. His position towards me was\nexactly that of a humble Christian towards an unbelieving philosopher;\nnay, that of the early Apostles or Jewish prophets towards the proud,\ncultivated, worldly wise and powerful heathen. This not only showed\nthe vanity of any argument to him, except one purely addressed to\nhis moral and spiritual faculties; but it also indicated to me that\nIgnorance has its spiritual self-sufficiency as well as Erudition; and\nthat if there is a Pride of Reason, so is there a Pride of Unreason.\nBut though this rested in my memory, it was long before I worked out\nall the results of that thought.\n\nAnother matter brought me some disquiet. An Englishman of rather low\ntastes who came to Aleppo at this time, called upon us; and as he\nwas civilly received, repeated his visit more than once. Being\nunencumbered with fastidiousness, this person before long made various\nrude attacks on the truth and authority of the Christian religion,\nand drew me on to defend it. What I had heard of the moral life of the\nspeaker made me feel that his was not the mind to have insight into\ndivine truth; and I desired to divert the argument from external\ntopics, and bring it to a point in which there might be a chance\nof touching his conscience. But I found this to be impossible. He\nreturned actively to the assault against Christianity, and I could\nnot bear to hear him vent historical falsehoods and misrepresentations\ndamaging to the Christian cause, without contradicting them. He was\na half-educated man, and I easily confuted him to my own entire\nsatisfaction: but he was not either abashed or convinced; and at\nlength withdrew as one victorious.--On reflecting over this, I felt\npainfully, that if a Moslem had been present and had understood all\nthat had been said, he would have remained in total uncertainty which\nof the two disputants was in the right: for the controversy had turned\non points wholly remote from the sphere of his knowledge or thought.\nYet to have declined the battle would have seemed like conscious\nweakness on my part. Thus the historical side of my religion,\nthough essential to it, and though resting on valid evidence, (as I\nunhesitatingly believed,) exposed me to attacks in which I might incur\nvirtual defeat or disgrace, but in which, from the nature of the\ncase, I could never win an available victory. This was to me very\ndisagreeable, yet I saw not my way out of the entanglement.\n\nTwo years after I left England, a hope was conceived that more friends\nmight be induced to join us; and I returned home from Bagdad with\nthe commission to bring this about, if there were suitable persons\ndisposed for it. On my return, and while yet in quarantine on the\ncoast of England, I received an uncomfortable letter from a most\nintimate spiritual friend, to the effect, that painful reports had\nbeen every where spread abroad against my soundness in the faith.\nThe channel by which they had come was indicated to me; but my friend\nexpressed a firm hope, that when I had explained myself, it would all\nprove to be nothing.\n\nNow began a time of deep and critical trial to me and to my Creed; a\ntime hard to speak of to the public; yet without a pretty full notice\nof it, the rest of the account would be quite unintelligible.\n\nThe Tractarian movement was just commencing in 1833. My brother\nwas taking a position, in which he was bound to show that he could\nsacrifice private love to ecclesiastical dogma; and upon learning that\nI had spoken at some small meetings of religious people, (which he\ninterpreted, I believe, to be an assuming of the Priest's office,)\nhe separated himself entirely from my private friendship and\nacquaintance. To the public this may have some interest, as indicating\nthe disturbing excitement which animated that cause: but my reason for\nnaming the fact here is solely to exhibit the practical positions into\nwhich I myself was thrown. In my brother's conduct there was not a\nshade of unkindness, and I have not a thought of complaining of it. My\ndistress was naturally great, until I had fully ascertained from him\nthat I had given no personal offence. But the mischief of it went\ndeeper. It practically cut me off from other members of my family,\nwho were living in his house, and whose state of feeling towards me,\nthrough separation and my own agitations of mind, I for some time\ntotally mistook.\n\nI had, however, myself slighted relationship in comparison with\nChristian brotherhood;--_sectarian_ brotherhood, some may call it;--I\nperhaps had none but myself to blame: but in the far more painful\noccurrences which were to succeed one another for many months\ntogether, I was blameless. Each successive friend who asked\nexplanations of my alleged heresy, was satisfied,--or at least left\nme with that impression,--after hearing me: not one who met me face to\nface had a word to reply to the plain Scriptures which I quoted.\nYet when I was gone away, one after another was turned against me by\nsomebody else whom I had not yet met or did not know: for in every\ntheological conclave which deliberates on joint action, the most\nbigoted scorns always to prevail.\n\nI will trust my pen to only one specimen of details. The Irish\nclergyman was not able to meet me. He wrote a very desultory letter\nof grave alarm and inquiry, stating that he had heard that I was\nendeavouring to sound the divine nature by the miserable plummet of\nhuman philosophy,--with much beside that I felt to be mere commonplace\nwhich every body might address to every body who differed from him.\nI however replied in the frankest, most cordial and trusting tone,\nassuring him that I was infinitely far from imagining that I could\n\"by searching understand God;\" on the contrary, concerning his higher\nmysteries, I felt I knew absolutely nothing but what he revealed to\nme in his word; but in studying this word, I found John and Paul to\ndeclare the Father, and not the Trinity, to be the One God. Referring\nhim to John xvii, 3, 1 Corinth. viii, 5, 6, I fondly believed that one\nso \"subject to the word\" and so resolutely renouncing man's authority\n_in order that_ he might serve God, would immediately see as I saw.\nBut I assured him, in all the depth of affection, that I felt how much\nfuller insight he had than I into all divine truth; and not he only,\nbut others to whom I alluded; and that if I was in error, I only\ndesired to be taught more truly; and either with him, or at his feet,\nto learn of God. He replied, to my amazement and distress, in a letter\nof much tenderness, but which was to the effect,--that if I allowed\nthe Spirit of God to be with him rather than with me, it was wonderful\nthat I set my single judgment against the mind of the Spirit and of\nthe whole Church of God; and that as for admitting into Christian\ncommunion one who held my doctrine, it had this absurdity, that while\nI was in such a state of belief, it was my duty to anathematize _them_\nas idolaters.--Severe as was the shock given me by this letter, I\nwrote again most lovingly, humbly, and imploringly: for I still adored\nhim, and could have given him my right hand or my right eye,--anything\nbut my conscience. I showed him that if it was a matter of action,\nI would submit; for I unfeignedly believed that he had more of the\nSpirit of God than I: but over my secret convictions I had no power.\nI was shut up to obey and believe God rather than man, and from the\nnature of the case, the profoundest respect for my brother's judgment\ncould not in itself alter mine. As to the whole _Church_ being against\nme, I did not know what that meant: I was willing to accept the Nicene\nCreed, and this I thought ought to be a sufficient defensive argument\nagainst the Church. His answer was decisive;--he was exceedingly\nsurprized at my recurring to mere ecclesiastical creeds, as though\nthey could have the slightest weight; and he must insist on my\nacknowledging, that, in the two texts quoted, the word Father meant\nthe Trinity, if I desired to be in any way recognized as holding the\ntruth.\n\nThe Father meant the Trinity!! For the first time I perceived, that so\nvehement a champion of the sufficiency of the Scripture, so staunch\nan opposer of Creeds and Churches, was wedded to an extra-Scriptural\ncreed of his own, by which he tested the spiritual state of his\nbrethren. I was in despair, and like a man thunderstruck. I had\nnothing more to say. Two more letters from the same hand I saw, the\nlatter of which was, to threaten some new acquaintances who were kind\nto me, (persons wholly unknown to him,) that if they did not desist\nfrom sheltering me and break off intercourse, they should, as far as\nhis influence went, themselves everywhere be cut off from Christian\ncommunion and recognition. This will suffice to indicate the sort of\nsocial persecution, through which, after a succession of struggles, I\nfound myself separated from persons whom I had trustingly admired,\nand on whom I had most counted for union: with whom I fondly believed\nmyself bound up for eternity; of whom some were my previously intimate\nfriends, while for others, even on slight acquaintance, I would have\nperformed menial offices and thought myself honoured; whom I still\nlooked upon as the blessed and excellent of the earth, and the special\nfavourites of heaven; whose company (though oftentimes they were\nconsiderably my inferiors either in rank or in knowledge and\ncultivation) I would have chosen in preference to that of nobles; whom\nI loved solely because I thought them to love God, and of whom I asked\nnothing, but that they would admit me as the meanest and most frail of\ndisciples. My heart was ready to break: I wished for a woman's soul,\nthat I might weep in floods. Oh, Dogma! Dogma! how dost them trample\nunder foot love, truth, conscience, justice! Was ever a Moloch worse\nthan thou? Burn me at the stake; then Christ will receive me, and\nsaints beyond the grave will love me, though the saints here know\nme not But now I am alone in the world: I can trust no one. The new\nacquaintances who barely tolerate me, and old friends whom reports\nhave not reached, (if such there be,) may turn against me with\nanimosity to-morrow, as those have done from whom I could least have\nimagined it. Where is union? where is the Church, which was to convert\nthe heathen?\n\nThis was not my only reason, yet it was soon a sufficient and at last\nan overwhelming reason, against returning to the East. The pertinacity\nof the attacks made on me, and on all who dared to hold by me in a\ncertain connexion, showed that I could no longer be anything but a\nthorn in the side of my friends abroad; nay, I was unable to predict\nhow they themselves might change towards me. The idea of a Christian\nChurch propagating Christianity while divided against itself was\nridiculous. Never indeed had I had the most remote idea, that my\ndear friends there had been united to me by agreement in intellectual\npropositions; nor could I yet believe it. I remembered a saying of the\nnoble-hearted Groves: \"Talk of loving me while I agree with them! Give\nme men that will love me when I differ from them and contradict them:\nthose will be the men to build up a true Church.\" I asked myself,--was\nI then possibly different from all? With me,--and, as I had thought,\nwith all my Spiritual friends,--intellectual dogma was not the test\nof spirituality. A hundred times over had I heard the Irish clergyman\nemphatically enunciate the contrary. Nothing was clearer in his\npreaching, talking and writing, than that salvation was a present\nreal experienced fact; a saving of the soul from the dominion of baser\ndesires, and an inward union of it in love and homage to Christ, who,\nas the centre of all perfection, glory, and beauty, was the revelation\nof God to the heart. He who was thus saved, could not help knowing\nthat he was reconciled, pardoned, beloved; and therefore he rejoiced\nin God his Saviour: indeed, to imagine joy without this personal\nassurance and direct knowledge, was quite preposterous. But on the\nother hand, the soul thus spiritually minded has a keen sense of like\nqualities in others. It cannot but discern when another is tender\nin conscience, disinterested, forbearing, scornful of untruth and\nbaseness, and esteeming nothing so much as the fruits of the Spirit:\naccordingly, John did not hesitate to say: \"_We know_ that we have\npassed from death unto life, _because_ we love the brethren.\" Our\ndoctrine certainly had been, that the Church was the assembly of the\nsaved, gathered by the vital attractions of God's Spirit; that in it\nno one was Lord or Teacher, but one was our Teacher, even Christ: that\nas long as we had no earthly bribes to tempt men to join us, there was\nnot much cause to fear false brethren; for if we were heavenly minded,\nand these were earthly, they would soon dislike and shun us. Why\nshould we need to sit in judgment and excommunicate them, except in\nthe case of publicly scandalous conduct?\n\nIt is true, that I fully believed certain intellectual convictions\nto be essential to genuine spirituality: for instance, if I had\nheard that a person unknown to me did not believe in the Atonement of\nChrist, I should have inferred that he had no spiritual life. But if\nthe person had come under my direct knowledge, my _theory_ was, on\nno account to reject him on a question of Creed, but in any case to\nreceive all those whom Christ had received, all on whom the Spirit of\nGod had come down, just as the Church at Jerusalem did in regard\nto admitting the Gentiles, Acts xi. 18. Nevertheless, was not this\nperhaps a theory pleasant to talk of, but too good for practice? I\ncould not tell; for it had never been so severely tried. I remembered,\nhowever, that when I had thought it right to be baptized as an adult,\n(regarding my baptism as an infant to have been a mischievous fraud,)\nthe sole confession of faith which I made, or would endure, at a time\nwhen my \"orthodoxy\" was unimpeached, was: \"I believe that Jesus Christ\nis the Son of God:\"[2] to deny which, and claim to be acknowledged as\nwithin the pale of the Christian Church, seemed to be an absurdity. On\nthe whole, therefore, it did not appear to me that this Church-theory\nhad been hollow-hearted with _me_ nor unscriptural, nor in any way\nunpractical; but that _others_ were still infected with the leaven of\ncreeds and formal tests, with which they reproached the old Church.\n\nWere there, then, no other hearts than mine, aching under miserable\nbigotry, and refreshed only when they tasted in others the true\nfruits of the Spirit,--\"love, joy, peace, long-suffering, gentleness,\ngoodness, fidelity, meekness, self-control?\"--To imagine this was to\nsuppose myself a man supernaturally favoured, an angel upon earth. I\nknew there must be thousands in this very point more true-hearted than\nI: nay, such still might some be, whose names I went over with myself:\nbut I had no heart for more experiments. When such a man as he,\nthe only mortal to whom I had looked up as to an apostle, had\nunhesitatingly, unrelentingly, and without one mark that his\nconscience was not on his side, flung away all his own precepts,\nhis own theories, his own magnificent rebukes of Formalism and human\nAuthority, and had made _himself_ the slave and _me_ the victim of\nthose old and ever-living tyrants,--whom henceforth could I trust? The\nresolution then rose in me, to love all good men from a distance, but\nnever again to count on permanent friendship with any one who was not\nhimself cast out as a heretic.\n\nNor, in fact, did the storm of distress which these events inflicted\non me, subside until I willingly received the task of withstanding it,\nas God's trial whether I was faithful. As soon as I gained strength\nto say, \"O my Lord, I will bear not this only, _but more also_,[3] for\nthy sake, for conscience, and for truth,\"--my sorrows vanished, until\nthe next blow and the next inevitable pang. At last my heart had died\nwithin me; the bitterness of death was past; I was satisfied to be\nhated by the saints, and to reckon that those who had not yet turned\nagainst me would not bear me much longer.--Then I conceived the\nbelief, that if we may not make a heaven on earth for ourselves out of\nthe love of saints, it is in order that we may find a truer heaven in\nGod's love.\n\nThe question about this time much vexed me, what to do about receiving\nthe Holy Supper of the Lord, the great emblem of brotherhood,\ncommunion, and church connexion. At one time I argued with myself,\nthat it became an unmeaning form, when not partaken of in mutual\nlove; that I could never again have free intercourse of heart with any\none;--why then use the rite of communion, where there is no communion?\nBut, on the other hand, I thought it a mode of confessing Christ, and\nthat permanently to disuse it, was an unfaithfulness. In the Church of\nEngland I could have been easy as far as the communion formulary was\nconcerned; but to the entire system I had contracted an incurable\nrepugnance, as worldly, hypocritical, and an evil counterfeit. I\ndesired, therefore, to creep into some obscure congregation, and there\nwait till my mind had ripened as to the right path in circumstances so\nperplexing. I will only briefly say, that I at last settled among some\nwho had previously been total strangers to me. To their good will\nand simple kindness I feel myself indebted: peace be to them! Thus I\ngained time, and repose of mind, which I greatly needed.\n\nFrom the day that I had mentally decided on total inaction as to all\necclesiastical questions, I count the termination of my Second Period.\nMy ideal of a spiritual Church had blown up in the most sudden and\nheartbreaking way; overpowering me with shame, when the violence of\nsorrow was past. There was no change whatever in my own judgment, yet\na total change of action was inevitable: that I was on the eve of\na great transition of mind I did not at all suspect. Hitherto my\nreverence for the authority of the whole and indivisible _Bible_ was\noverruling and complete. I never really had dared to criticize it; I\ndid not even exact from it self-consistency. If two passages appeared\nto be opposed, and I could not evade the difficulty by the doctrine\nof Development and Progress, I inferred that there was _some_ mode\nof conciliation unknown to me; and that perhaps the depth of truth in\ndivine things could ill be stated in our imperfect language. But from\nthe man who dared to interpose _a human comment_ on the Scripture, I\nmost rigidly demanded a clear, single, self-consistent sense. If he\ndid not know what he meant, why did he not hold his peace? If he did\nknow, why did he so speak as to puzzle us? It was for this uniform\nrefusal to allow of self-contradiction, that it was more than once\nsadly predicted of me at Oxford that I should become \"a Socinian;\"\nyet I did not apply this logical measure to any compositions but those\nwhich were avowedly \"uninspired\" and human.\n\nAs to moral criticism, my mind was practically prostrate before the\nBible. By the end of this period I had persuaded myself that morality\nso changes with the commands of God, that we can scarcely attach any\nidea of _immutability_ to it. I am, moreover, ashamed to tell any\none how I spoke and acted against my own common sense under this\ninfluence, and when I was thought a fool, prayed that I might think it\nan honour to become a fool for Christ's sake. Against no doctrine did\nI dare to bring moral objections, except that of \"Reprobation.\" To\nElection, to Preventing Grace, to the Fall and Original Sin of man,\nto the Atonement, to Eternal Punishment, I reverently submitted my\nunderstanding; though as to the last, new inquiries had just at this\ncrisis been opening on me. Reprobation, indeed, I always repudiated\nwith great vigour, of which I shall presently speak. That was the full\namount of my original thought; and in it I preserved entire reverence\nfor the sacred writers.\n\nAs to miracles, scarcely anything staggered me. I received the\nstrangest and the meanest prodigies of Scripture, with the same\nunhesitating faith, as if I had never understood a proposition of\nphysical philosophy, nor a chapter of Hume and Gibbon.\n\n\n[Footnote 1: Very unintelligent criticism of my words induces me to\nadd, that \"the _credentials_ of Revelation,\" as distinguished from\n\"the _contents_ of Revelation,\" are here intended. Whether such a\ndistinction can be preserved is quite another question. The view\nhere exhibited is essentially that of Paley, and was in my day the\nprevalent one at Oxford. I do not think that the present Archbishop\nof Canterbury will disown it, any more than Lloyd, and Burton, and\nHampden,--bishops and Regius Professors of Divinity.]\n\n[Footnote 2: Borrowed from Acts viii. 37.]\n\n[Footnote 3: Virgil (\u00c6neid vi.) gives the Stoical side of the same\nthought: Tu ne cede malis, _sed contra audentior ito_.]\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER III.\n\n\nCALVINISM ABANDONED.\n\n\nAfter the excitement was past, I learned many things from the events\nwhich have been named.\n\nFirst, I had found that the class of Christians with whom I had been\njoined had exploded the old Creeds in favour of another of their\nown, which was never given me upon authority, and yet was constantly\nslipping out, in the words, _Jesus is Jehovah_. It appeared to me\ncertain that this would have been denounced as the Sabellian heresy\nby Athanasias and his contemporaries. I did not wish to run down\nSabellians, much less to excommunicate them, if they would give me\nequality; but I felt it intensely unjust when my adherence to the\nNicene Creed was my real offence, that I should be treated as setting\nup some novel wickedness against all Christendom, and slandered\nby vague imputations which reached far and far beyond my power of\nanswering or explaining. Mysterious aspersions were made even against\nmy moral[1] character, and were alleged to me as additional reasons\nfor refusing communion with me; and when I demanded a tribunal, and\nthat my accuser would meet me face to face, all inquiry was refused,\non the plea that it was needless and undesirable. I had much reason to\nbelieve that a very small number of persons had constituted themselves\nmy judges, and used against me all the airs of the Universal Church;\nthe many lending themselves easily to swell the cry of heresy, when\nthey have little personal acquaintance with the party attacked.\nMoreover, when I was being condemned as in error, I in vain asked\nto be told what was the truth. \"I accept the Scripture: that is not\nenough. I accept the Nicene Creed: that is not enough. Give me then\nyour formula: where, what is it?\" But no! those who thought it their\nduty to condemn me, disclaimed the pretensions of \"making a Creed\"\nwhen I asked for one. They reprobated my interpretation of Scripture\nas against that of the whole Church, but would not undertake to\nexpound that of the Church. I felt convinced, that they could not have\nagreed themselves as to what was right: all that they could agree upon\nwas, that I was wrong. Could I have borne to recriminate, I believed\nthat I could have forced one of them to condemn another; but, oh! was\ndivine truth sent us for discord and for condemnation? I sickened at\nthe idea of a Church Tribunal, where none has any authority to judge,\nand yet to my extreme embarrassment I saw that no Church can safely\ndispense with judicial forms and other worldly apparatus for defending\nthe reputation of individuals. At least, none of the national and less\nspiritual institutions would have been so very unequitable towards me.\n\nThis idea enlarged itself into another,--_that spirituality is no\nadequate security for sound moral discernment_. These alienated\nfriends did not know they were acting unjustly, cruelly, crookedly, or\nthey would have hated themselves for it: they thought they were\ndoing God service. The fervour of their love towards him was probably\ngreater than mine; yet this did not make them superior to prejudice,\nor sharpen their logical faculties to see that they were idolizing\nwords to which they attached no ideas. On several occasions I had\ndistinctly perceived how serious alarm I gave by resolutely refusing\nto admit any shiftings and shufflings of language. I felt convinced,\nthat if I would but have contradicted myself two or three times, and\nthen have added, \"That is the mystery of it,\" I could have passed\nas orthodox with many. I had been charged with a proud and vain\ndetermination to pry into divine mysteries, barely because I would not\nconfess to propositions the meaning of which was to me doubtful,--or\nsay and unsay in consecutive breaths. It was too clear, that a\ndoctrine which muddles the understanding perverts also the power of\nmoral discernment. If I had committed some flagrant sin, they would\nhave given me a fair and honourable trial; but where they could not\ngive me a public hearing, nor yet leave me unimpeached, without danger\nof (what they called) my infecting the Church, there was nothing left\nbut to hunt me out unscrupulously.\n\nUnscrupulously! did not this one word characterize _all_ religious\npersecution? and then my mind wandered back over the whole melancholy\ntale of what is called Christian history. When Archbishop Cranmer\noverpowered the reluctance of young Edward VI. to burn to death the\npious and innocent Joan of Kent, who moreover was as mystical and\nillogical as heart could wish, was Cranmer not actuated by deep\nreligious convictions? None question his piety, yet it was an awfully\nwicked deed. What shall I say of Calvin, who burned Servetus? Why have\nI been so slow to learn, that religion is an impulse which animates\nus to execute our moral judgments, but an impulse which may be half\nblind? These brethren believe that I may cause the eternal ruin of\nothers: how hard then is it for them to abide faithfully by the laws\nof morality and respect my rights! My rights! They are of course\ntrampled down for the public good, just as a house is blown up to\nstop a conflagration. Such is evidently the theory of all\npersecution;--which is essentially founded on _Hatred_. As Aristotle\nsays, \"He who is angry, desires to punish somebody; but he who hates,\ndesires the hated person not even to exist.\" Hence they cannot endure\nto see me face to face. That I may not infect the rest, they desire\nmy non-existence; by fair means, if fair will succeed; if not, then by\nfoul. And whence comes this monstrosity into such bosoms? Weakness of\ncommon sense, dread of the common understanding, an insufficient faith\nin common morality, are surely the disease: and evidently, nothing so\nexasperates this disease as consecrating religious tenets which forbid\nthe exercise of common sense.\n\nI now began to understand why it was peculiarly for unintelligible\ndoctrines like Transubstantiation and the Tri-unity that Christians\nhad committed such execrable wickednesses. Now also for the first\ntime I understood what had seemed not frightful only, but\npreternatural,--the sensualities and cruelties enacted as a part of\nreligion in many of the old Paganisms. Religion and fanaticism are in\nthe embryo but one and the same; to purify and elevate them we want a\ncultivation of the understanding, without which our moral code may be\nindefinitely depraved. Natural kindness and strong sense are aids and\nguides, which the most spiritual man cannot afford to despise.\n\nI became conscious that I _had_ despised \"mere moral men,\" as they\nwere called in the phraseology of my school. They were merged in the\nvague appellation of \"the world,\" with sinners of every class; and it\nwas habitually assumed, if not asserted, that they were necessarily\nPharisaic, because they had not been born again. For some time after I\nhad misgivings as to my fairness of judgment towards them, I could not\ndisentangle myself from great bewilderment concerning their state\nin the sight of God: for it was an essential part of my Calvinistic\nCreed, that (as one of the 39 Articles states it) the very good works\nof the unregenerate \"undoubtedly have the nature of sin,\" as indeed\nthe very nature with which they were born \"deserveth God's wrath and\ndamnation.\" I began to mourn over the unlovely conduct into which I\nhad been betrayed by this creed, long before I could thoroughly get\nrid of the creed that justified it: and a considerable time had to\nelapse, ere my new perceptions shaped themselves distinctly into\nthe propositions: \"Morality is the end. Spirituality is the means:\nReligion is the handmaid to Morals: we must be spiritual, in order\nthat we may be in the highest and truest sense moral.\" Then at last I\nsaw, that the deficiency of \"mere moral men\" is, that their\nmorality is apt to be too external or merely negative, and therefore\nincomplete: that the man who worships a fiend for a God may be in some\nsense spiritual, but his spirituality will be a devilish fanaticism,\nhaving nothing in it to admire or approve: that the moral man deserves\napproval or love for all the absolute good that he has attained,\nthough there be a higher good to which he aspires not; and that the\ntruly and rightly spiritual is he who aims at an indefinitely high\nmoral excellence, of which GOD is the embodiment to his heart and\nsoul. If the absolute excellence of morality be denied, there is\nnothing for spirituality to aspire after, and nothing in God to\nworship. Years before I saw this as clearly as here stated; the\ngeneral train of thought was very wholesome, in giving me increased\nkindliness of judgment towards the common world of men, who do not\nshow any religious development. It was pleasant to me to look on\nan ordinary face, and see it light up into a smile, and think with\nmyself: \"_there_ is one heart that will judge of me by what I am, and\nnot by a Procrustean dogma.\" Nor only so, but I saw that the saints,\nwithout the world, would make a very bad world of it; and that as\nballast is wanted to a ship, so the common and rather low interests\nand the homely principles, rules, and ways of feeling, keep the church\nfrom foundering by the intensity of her own gusts.\n\nSome of the above thoughts took a still more definite shape, as\nfollows. It is clear that A. B. and X. Y. would have behaved towards\nme more kindly, more justly, and more wisely, if they had consulted\ntheir excellent strong sense and amiable natures, instead of following\n(what they suppose to be) the commands of the word of God. They have\nmisinterpreted that word: true: but this very thing shows, that one\nmay go wrong by trusting one's power of interpreting the book,\nrather than trusting one's common sense to judge without the book.\nIt startled me to find, that I had exactly alighted on the Romish\nobjection to Protestants, that an infallible book is useless, unless\nwe have an infallible interpreter. But it was not for some time, that,\nafter twisting the subject in all directions to avoid it, I brought\nout the conclusion, that \"to go against one's common sense in\nobedience to Scripture is a most hazardous proceeding:\" for the\n\"rule of Scripture\" means to each of us nothing but his own fallible\ninterpretation; and to sacrifice common sense to this, is to mutilate\none side of our mind at the command of another side. In the Nicene\nage, the Bible was in people's hands, and the Spirit of God surely\nwas not withheld: yet I had read, in one of the Councils an insane\nanathema was passed: \"If any one call Jesus God-man, instead of God\nand man, let him be accursed.\" Surely want of common sense, and dread\nof natural reason, will be confessed by our highest orthodoxy to have\nbeen the distemper of that day.\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nIn all this I still remained theoretically convinced, that the\ncontents of the Scriptures, rightly interpreted, were supreme and\nperfect truth; indeed, I had for several years accustomed myself to\nspeak and think as if the Bible were our sole source of all moral\nknowledge: nevertheless, there were practically limits, beyond which\nI did not, and could not, even attempt to blind my moral sentiment at\nthe dictation of the Scripture; and this had peculiarly frightened (as\nI afterwards found) the first friend who welcomed me from abroad.\nI was unable to admit the doctrine of \"reprobation,\" as apparently\ntaught in the 9th chapter of Paul's Epistle to the Romans;--that \"God\nhardens in wickedness whomever He pleases, in order that He may show\nhis long-suffering\" in putting off their condemnation to a future\ndreadful day: and _especially_, that to all objectors it is a\nsufficient confutation--\"Nay, but O man, who art thou, that repliest\nagainst God?\" I told my friend, that I worshipped in God three great\nattributes, all independent,--Power, Goodness, and Wisdom: that in\norder to worship Him acceptably, I must discern these _as_ realities\nwith my inmost heart, and not merely take them for granted on\nauthority: but that the argument which was here pressed upon me was an\neffort to supersede the necessity of my discerning Goodness in God:\nit bade me simply to _infer_ Goodness from Power,--that is to say,\nestablish the doctrine, \"Might makes Right;\" according to which, I\nmight unawares worship a devil. Nay, nothing so much distinguished\nthe spiritual truth of Judaism and Christianity from abominable\nheathenism, as this very discernment of God's purity, justice, mercy,\ntruth, goodness; while the Pagan worshipped mere power, and had no\ndiscernment of moral excellence; but laid down the principle,\nthat cruelty, impurity, or caprice in a God was to be treated\nreverentially, and called by some more decorous name. Hence, I said,\nit was undermining the very foundation of Christianity itself,\nto require belief of the validity of Rom. ix. 14-24, as my friend\nunderstood it. I acknowledged the difficulty of the passage, and of\nthe whole argument. I was not prepared with an interpretation; but I\nrevered St. Paul too much, to believe it possible that he could mean\nanything so obviously heathenish, as that first-sight meaning.--My\nfriend looked grave and anxious; but I did not suspect how deeply I\nhad shocked him, until many weeks after.\n\nAt this very time, moreover, ground was broken in my mind on a new\nsubject, by opening in a gentleman's library a presentation-copy of a\nUnitarian treatise against the doctrine of Eternal Punishment. It was\nthe first Unitarian book of which I had even seen the outside, and I\nhandled it with a timid curiosity, as if by stealth, I had only time\nto dip into it here and there, and I should have been ashamed to\npossess the book; but I carried off enough to suggest important\ninquiry. The writer asserted that the Greek word [Greek: aionios],\n(secular, or, belonging to the ages,) which we translate _everlasting\nand eternal_, is distinctly proved by the Greek translation of the Old\nTestament often to mean only _distant time_. Thus in Psalm lxxvi. 5,\n\"I have considered the years of _ancient_ times:\" Isaiah lxiii 11, \"He\nremembered the days _of old_, Moses and his people;\" in which, and\nin many similar places, the LXX have [Greek: aionios]. One striking\npassage is Exodus xv. 18; (\"Jehovah shall reign for ever and ever;\")\nwhere the Greek has [Greek: ton aiona kai ex aiona kai eti], which\nwould mean \"for eternity and still longer,\" if the strict rendering\n_eternity_ were enforced. At the same time a suspicion as to\nthe honesty of our translation presented itself in Micah v. 2, a\ncontroversial text, often used to prove the past eternity of the Son\nof God; where the translators give us,--\"whose goings forth have been\n_from everlasting_,\" though the Hebrew is the same as they elsewhere\nrender _from days of old_.\n\nAfter I had at leisure searched through this new question, I found\nthat it was impossible to make out any doctrine of a philosophical\neternity in the whole Scriptures. The true Greek word for _eternal_\n([Greek: aidios]) occurs twice only: once in Rom. i. 20, as applied\nto the divine power, and once in Jude 6, of the fire which has been\nmanifested against Sodom and Gomorrha. The last instance showed that\nallowance must be made for rhetoric; and that fire is called _eternal_\nor _unquenchable_, when it so destroys as to leave nothing unburnt.\nBut on the whole, the very vocabulary of the Greek and Hebrew denoted\nthat the idea of absolute eternity was unformed. The _hills_ are\ncalled everlasting (secular?), by those who supposed them to have\ncome into existence two or three thousand years before.--Only in two\npassages of the Revelations I could not get over the belief that the\nwriter's energy was misplaced, if absolute eternity of torment was not\nintended: yet it seemed to me unsafe and wrong to found an important\ndoctrine on a symbolic and confessedly obscure book of prophecy.\nSetting this aside, I found no proof of any _eternal_ punishment.\n\nAs soon as the load of Scriptural authority was thus taken off from\nme, I had a vivid discernment of intolerable moral difficulties\ninseparable from the doctrine. First, that every sin is infinite\nin ill-desert and in result, _because_ it is committed against an\ninfinite Being. Thus the fretfulness of a child is an infinite evil!\nI was aghast that I could have believed it. Now that it was no longer\nlaid upon me as a duty to uphold the infinitude of God's retaliation\non sin, I saw that it was an immorality to teach that sin was measured\nby anything else than the heart and will of the agent. That a finite\nbeing should deserve infinite punishment, now was manifestly as\nincredible as that he should deserve infinite reward,--which I had\nnever dreamed.--Again, I saw that the current orthodoxy made Satan\neternal conqueror over Christ. In vain does the Son of God come from\nheaven and take human flesh and die on the cross. In spite of him, the\ndevil carries off to hell the vast majority of mankind, in whom, not\nmisery only, but _Sin_ is triumphant for ever and ever. Thus Christ\nnot only does not succeed in destroying the works of the devil, but\neven aggravates them.--Again: what sort of _gospel_ or glad tidings\nhad I been holding? Without this revelation no future state at all (I\npresumed) could be known. How much better no futurity for any, than\nthat a few should be eternally in bliss, and the great majority[2]\nkept alive for eternal sin as well as eternal misery! My gospel then\nwas bad tidings, nay, the worst of tidings! In a farther progress of\nthought, I asked, would it not have been better that the whole race of\nman had never come into existence? Clearly! And thus God was made\nout to be unwise in creating them. No _use_ in the punishment was\nimaginable, without setting up Fear, instead of Love, as the ruling\nprinciple in the blessed. And what was the moral tendency of the\ndoctrine? I had never borne to dwell upon it: but I before long\nsuspected that it promoted malignity and selfishness, and was the real\nclue to the cruelties perpetrated under the name of religion. For he\nwho does dwell on it, must comfort himself under the prospect of his\nbrethren's eternal misery, by the selfish expectation of personal\nblessedness. When I asked whether I had been guilty of this\nselfishness, I remembered that I had often mourned, how small a part\nin my practical religion the future had ever borne. My heaven and my\nhell had been in the present, where my God was near me to smile or to\nfrown. It had seemed to me a great weakness in my faith, that I never\nhad any vivid imaginations or strong desires of heavenly glory: yet\nnow I was glad to observe, that it had at least saved me from getting\nso much harm from the wrong side of the doctrine of a future life.\n\nBefore I had worked out the objections so fully as here stated, I\nfreely disclosed my thoughts to the friend last named, and to his\nwife, towards whom he encouraged me to exercise the fullest frankness.\nI confess, I said nothing about the Unitarian book; for something told\nme that I had violated Evangelical decorum in opening it, and that I\ncould not calculate how it would affect my friend. Certainly no Romish\nhierarchy can so successfully exclude heretical books, as social\nenactment excludes those of Unitarians from our orthodox circles.\nThe bookseller dares not to exhibit their books on his counter: all\npresume them to be pestilential: no one knows their contents or dares\nto inform himself. But to return. My friend's wife entered warmly into\nmy new views; I have now no doubt that this exceedingly distressed\nhim, and at length perverted his moral judgment: he himself examined\nthe texts of the Old Testament, and attempted no answer to them.\nAfter I had left his neighbourhood, I wrote to him three affectionate\nletters, and at last got a reply--of vehement accusation. It can now\nconcern no one to know, how many and deep wounds he planted in me. I\nforgave; but all was too instructive to forget.\n\nFor some years I rested in the belief that the epithet \"_secular_\npunishment\" either solely denoted punishment in a future age, or else\nonly of long duration. This evades the horrible idea of eternal and\ntriumphant Sin, and of infinite retaliation for finite offences.\nBut still, I found my new creed uneasy, now that I had established\na practice (if not a right) of considering the moral propriety\nof punishment. I could not so pare away the vehement words of the\nScripture, as really to enable me to say that I thought transgressors\n_deserved_ the fiery infliction. This had been easy, while I measured\ntheir guilt by God's greatness; but when that idea was renounced, how\nwas I to think that a good-humoured voluptuary deserved to be raised\nfrom the dead in order to be tormented in fire for 100 years? and what\nshorter time could be called secular? Or if he was to be destroyed\ninstantaneously, and \"secular\" meant only \"in a future age,\" was he\nworth the effort of a divine miracle to bring him to life and again\nannihilate him? I was not willing to refuse belief to the Scripture on\nsuch grounds; yet I felt disquietude, that my moral sentiment and the\nScripture were no longer in full harmony.\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nIn this period I first discerned the extreme difficulty that there\nmust essentially be, in applying to the Christian Evidences a\nprinciple, which, many years before, I had abstractedly received as\nsound, though it had been a dead letter with me in practice. The Bible\n(it seemed) contained two sorts of truth. Concerning one sort, man is\nbound to judge: the other sort is necessarily beyond his ken, and\nis received only by information from without. The first part of the\nstatement cannot be denied. It would be monstrous to say that we know\nnothing of geography, history, or morals, except by learning them from\nthe Bible. Geography, history, and other worldly sciences, lie beyond\nquestion. As to morals, I had been exceedingly inconsistent and\nwavering in my theory and in its application; but it now glared upon\nme, that if man had no independent power of judging, it would have\nbeen venial to think Barabbas more virtuous than Jesus. The hearers of\nChrist or Paul could not draw their knowledge of right and wrong from\nthe New Testament. They had (or needed to have) an inherent power of\ndiscerning that his conduct was holy and his doctrine good. To talk\nabout the infirmity or depravity of the human conscience is here quite\nirrelevant. The conscience of Christ's hearers may have been dim\nor twisted, but it was their best guide and only guide, as to the\nquestion, whether to regard him as a holy prophet: so likewise, as\nto ourselves, it is evident that we have no guide at all whether\nto accept or reject the Bible, if we distrust that inward power of\njudging, (whether called common sense, conscience, or the Spirit of\nGod,)--which is independent of our belief in the Bible. To disparage\nthe internally vouchsafed power of discerning truth without the Bible\nor other authoritative system, is, to endeavour to set up a universal\nmoral scepticism. He who may not criticize cannot approve.--Well! Let\nit be admitted that we discern moral truth by a something within us,\nand that then, admiring the truth so glorious in the Scriptures, we\nare further led to receive them as the word of God, and therefore to\nbelieve them absolutely in respect to the matters which are beyond our\nken.\n\nBut two difficulties could no longer be dissembled: 1. How are we\nto draw the line of separation? For instance, would the doctrines\nof Reprobation and of lasting Fiery Torture with no benefit to the\nsufferers, belong to the moral part, which we freely criticize; or to\nthe extra-moral part, as to which we passively believe? 2. What is to\nbe done, if in the parts which indisputably lie open to criticism we\nmeet with apparent error?--The second question soon became a practical\none with me: but for the reader's convenience I defer it until my\nFourth Period, to which it more naturally belongs: for in this Third\nPeriod I was principally exercised with controversies that do not\nvitally touch the _authority_ of the Scripture. Of these the most\nimportant were matters contested between Unitarians and Calvinists.\n\nWhen I had found how exactly the Nicene Creed summed up all that I\nmyself gathered from John and Paul concerning the divine nature\nof Christ, I naturally referred to this creed, as expressing my\nconvictions, when any unpleasant inquiry arose. I had recently gained\nthe acquaintance of the late excellent Dr. Olinthus Gregory, a man of\nunimpeached orthodoxy; who met me by the frank avowal, that the\nNicene Creed was \"a great mistake.\" He said, that the Arian and the\nAthanasian difference was not very vital; and that the Scriptural\ntruth lay _beyond_ the Nicene doctrine, which fell short on the\nsame side as Arianism had done. On the contrary, I had learned of an\nintermediate tenet, called Semi-Arianism, which appeared to me more\nscriptural than the views of either Athanasius or Arius. Let me\nbespeak my reader's patience for a little. Arius was judged by\nAthanasius (I was informed) to be erroneous in two points; 1. in\nteaching that the Son of God was a creature; _i.e._ that \"begotten\"\nand \"made\" were two words for the same idea: 2. in teaching, that he\nhad an origin of existence in time; so that there was a distant period\nat which he was not. Of these two Arian tenets, the Nicene Creed\ncondemned _the former_ only; namely, in the words, \"begotten, not\nmade; being of one substance with the Father.\" But on _the latter_\nquestion the Creed is silent. Those who accepted the Creed, and hereby\ncondemned the great error of Arius that the Son was of different\nsubstance from the Father, but nevertheless agreed with Arius in\nthinking that the Son had a beginning of existence, were called\nSemi-Arians; and were received into communion by Athanasius, in spite\nof this disagreement. To me it seemed to be a most unworthy shuffling\nwith words, to say that the Son _was begotten, but was never\nbegotten_. The very form of our past participle is invented to\nindicate an event in past time. If the Athanasians alleged that the\nphrase does not allude to \"a coming forth\" completed at a definite\ntime, but indicates a process at no time begun and at no time\ncomplete, their doctrine could not be expressed by our past-perfect\ntense _begotten_. When they compared the derivation of the Son of God\nfrom, the Father to the rays of light which ever flow from the natural\nsun, and argued that if that sun had been eternal, its emanations\nwould be co-eternal, they showed that their true doctrine required the\nformula--\"always being begotten, and as instantly perishing, in order\nto be rebegotten perpetually.\" They showed a real disbelief in our\nEnglish statement \"begotten, not made.\" I overruled the objection,\nthat in the Greek it was not a participle, but a verbal adjective; for\nit was manifest to me, that a religion which could not be proclaimed\nin English could not be true; and the very idea of a Creed announcing\nthat Christ was \"_not begotten, yet begettive_,\" roused in me an\nunspeakable loathing. Yet surely this would have been Athanasius's\nmost legitimate form of denying Semi-Arianism. In short, the\nScriptural phrase, _Son of God_, conveyed to us either a literal fact,\nor a metaphor. If literal, the Semi-Arians were clearly right, in\nsaying that sonship implied a beginning of existence. If it was a\nmetaphor, the Athanasians forfeited all right to press the literal\nsense in proof that the Son must be \"of the same substance\" as the\nFather.--Seeing that the Athanasians, in zeal to magnify the Son, had\nso confounded their good sense, I was certainly startled to find a\nman of Dr. Olinthus Gregory's moral wisdom treat the Nicenists as in\nobvious error for not having magnified Christ _enough_. On so many\nother sides, however, I met with the new and short creed, \"Jesus is\nJehovah,\" that I began to discern Sabellianism to be the prevalent\nview.\n\nA little later, I fell in with a book of an American Professor, Moses\nStuart of Andover, on the subject of the Trinity. Professor Stuart is\na very learned man, and thinks for himself. It was a great novelty to\nme, to find him not only deny the orthodoxy of all the Fathers, (which\nwas little more than Dr. Olinthus Gregory had done,) but avow that\n_from the change in speculative philosophy_ it was simply impossible\nfor any modern to hold the views prevalent in the third and fourth\ncenturies. Nothing (said he) WAS clearer, than that with us the\nessential point in Deity is, to be unoriginated, underived; hence with\nus, _a derived God_ is a self-contradiction, and the very sound of the\nphrase profane. On the other hand, it is certain that the doctrine of\nAthanasius, equally as of Arius, was, that the Father is the underived\nor self-existent God, but the Son is the derived subordinate God.\nThis (argued Stuart) turned upon their belief in the doctrine of\nEmanations; but as _we_ hold no such philosophical doctrine, the\nreligious theory founded on it is necessarily inadmissible. Professor\nStuart then develops his own creed, which appeared to me simple and\nundeniable Sabellianism.\n\nThat Stuart correctly represented the Fathers was clear enough to\nme; but I nevertheless thought that in this respect the Fathers had\nhonestly made out the doctrine of the Scripture; and I did not at\nall approve of setting up a battery of modern speculative philosophy\nagainst Scriptural doctrine. \"How are we to know that the doctrine of\nEmanations is false? (asked I.) If it is legitimately elicited from\nScripture, it is true.\"--I refused to yield up my creed at this\nsummons. Nevertheless, he left a wound upon me: for I now could not\nhelp seeing, that we moderns use the word _God_ in a more limited\nsense than any ancient nations did. Hebrews and Greeks alike said\n_Gods_, to mean any superhuman beings; hence _derived God_ did not\nsound to them absurd; but I could not deny that in good English it is\nabsurd. This was a very disagreeable discovery: for now, if any one\nwere to ask me whether I believed in the divinity of Christ, I saw it\nwould be dishonest to say simply, _Yes_; for the interrogator means to\nask, whether I hold Christ to be the eternal and underived Source of\nlife; yet if I said _No_, he would care nothing for my professing to\nhold the Nicene Creed.\n\nMight not then, after all, Sabellianism be the truth? No: I discerned\ntoo plainly what Gibbon states, that the Sabellian, if consistent, is\nonly a concealed Ebionite, or us we now say, a Unitarian, Socinian. As\nwe cannot admit that the Father was slain on the cross, or prayed to\nhimself in the garden, he who will not allow the Father and the Son to\nbe separate persons, but only two names for one person, _must divide\nthe Son of God and Jesus into two persons_, and so fall back on the\nvery heresy of Socinus which he is struggling to escape.\n\nOn the whole, I saw, that however people might call themselves\nTrinitarians, yet if, like Stuart and all the Evangelicals in Church\nand Dissent, they turn into a dead letter the _generation_ of the Son\nof God, and _the procession_ of the Spirit, nothing is possible but\nSabellianism or Tritheism: or, indeed, Ditheism, if the Spirit's\nseparate personality is not held. The modern creed is alternately\nthe one or the other, as occasion requires. Sabellians would find\nthemselves out to be mere Unitarians, if they always remained\nSabellians: but in fact, they are half their lives Ditheists. They do\nnot _aim_ at consistency; would an upholder of the pseudo-Athanasian\ncreed desire it? Why, that creed teaches, that the height of orthodoxy\nis to contradict oneself and protest that one does not. Now, however,\nrose on me the question: Why do I not take the Irish clergyman at his\nword, and attack him and others as idolaters and worshippers of three\nGods? It was unseemly and absurd in him to try to force me into\nwhat he must have judged uncharitableness; but it was not the less\nincumbent on me to find a reply.\n\nI remembered that in past years I had expressly disowned, as obviously\nunscriptural and absurd, prayers to the Holy Spirit, on the ground\nthat the Spirit is evidently _God in the hearts of the faithful_, and\nnothing else: and it did not appear to me that any but a few extreme\nand rather fanatical persons could be charged with making the Spirit\na third God or object of distinct worship. On the other hand, I could\nnot deny that the Son and the Father were thus distinguished to the\nmind. So indeed John expressly avowed--\"truly our fellowship is with\nthe Father, and with his Son Jesus Christ.\" I myself also had prayed\nsometimes to God and sometimes to Christ, alternately and confusedly.\nNow, indeed, I was better taught! now I was more logical and\nconsistent! I had found a triumphant answer to the charge of Ditheism,\nin that I believed the Son to be derived from the Father, and not to\nbe the Unoriginated--No doubt! yet, after all, could I seriously think\nthat morally and spiritually I was either better or worse for this\ndiscovery? I could not pretend that I was.\n\nThis showed me, that if a man of partially unsound and visionary mind\nmade the angel Gabriel a _fourth person_ in the Godhead, it might\ncause no difference whatever in the actings of his spirit The great\nquestion would be, whether he ascribed the same moral perfection\nto Gabriel as to the Father. If so, to worship him would be no\ndegradation to the soul; even if absolute omnipotence were not\nattributed, nay, nor a past eternal existence. It thus became clear\nto me, that Polytheism _as such_ is not a moral and spiritual, but at\nmost only an intellectual, error; and that its practical evil consists\nin worshipping beings whom we represent to our imaginations as morally\nimperfect. Conversely, one who imputes to God sentiments and conduct\nwhich in man he would call capricious or cruel, such a one, even if\nhe be as monotheistic as a Mussulman, admits into his soul the whole\nvirus of Idolatry.\n\nWhy then did I at all cling to the doctrine of Christ's superior\nnature, and not admit it among things indifferent? In obedience to the\nScripture, I did actually affirm, that, as for as creed is concerned,\na man should be admissible into the Church on the bare confession that\n_Jesus was the Christ_. Still, I regarded a belief in his superhuman\norigin as of first-rate importance, for many reasons, and among\nothers, owing to its connexion with the doctrine of the Atonement; on\nwhich there is much to be said.\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nThe doctrine which I used to read as a boy, taught that a vast sum of\npunishment was due to God for the sins of men. This vast sum was made\nup of all the woes due through eternity to the whole human race, or,\nas some said, to the elect. Christ on the cross bore this punishment\nhimself and thereby took it away: thus God is enabled to forgive\nwithout violating justice.--But I early encountered unanswerable\ndifficulty on this theory, as to the question, whether Christ had\nborne the punishment of _all_ or of _some_ only. If of all, is it not\nunjust to inflict any of it on any? If of the elect only, what gospel\nhave you to preach? for then you cannot tell sinners that God has\nprovided a Saviour for them; for you do not know whether those whom\nyou address are elect. Finding no way out of this, I abandoned the\nfundamental idea of _compensation in quantity_, as untenable; and\nrested in the vaguer notion, that God signally showed his abhorrence\nof sin, by laying tremendous misery on the Saviour who was to bear\naway sin.\n\nI have already narrated, how at Oxford I was embarrassed as to the\nforensic propriety of transferring punishment at all. This however\nI received as matter of authority, and rested much on the wonderful\nexhibition made of the evil of sin, when _such_ a being could be\nsubjected to preternatural suffering as a vicarious sinbearer. To\nthis view, a high sense of the personal dignity of Jesus was quite\nessential; and therefore I had always felt a great repugnance for Mr.\nBelsham, Dr. Priestley, and the Unitarians of that school, though I\nhad not read a line of their writings.\n\nA more intimate familiarity with St. Paul and an anxious harmonizing\nof my very words to the Scripture, led me on into a deviation from the\npopular creed, of the full importance of which I was not for some\ntime aware. I perceived that it is not the _agonies_ of mind or body\nendured by Christ, which in the Scriptures are said to take away sin,\nbut his \"death,\" his \"laying down his life,\" or sometimes even\nhis _resurrection_. I gradually became convinced, that when his\n\"suffering,\" or more especially his \"blood,\" is emphatically spoken\nof, nothing is meant but his _violent death_. In the Epistle to the\nHebrews, where the analogy of Sacrifice is so pressed, we see that the\npains which Jesus bore were in order that he might \"learn obedience,\"\nbut our redemption is effected by his dying as a voluntary victim: in\nwhich, death by bloodshed, not pain, is the cardinal point. So too\nthe Paschal lamb (to which, though not properly a sacrifice, the dying\nChrist is compared by Paul) was not roasted alive, or otherwise put to\nslow torment, but was simply killed. I therefore saw that the doctrine\nof \"vicarious agonies\" was fundamentally unscriptural.\n\nThis being fully discerned, I at last became bold to criticize the\npopular tenet. What should we think of a judge, who, when a boy had\ndeserved a stripe which would to him have been a sharp punishment,\nlaid the very same blow on a strong man, to whom it was a slight\ninfliction? Clearly this would evade, not satisfy justice. To carry\nout the principle, the blow might be laid as well on a giant, an\nelephant, or on an inanimate thing. So, to lay our punishment on the\ninfinite strength of Christ, who (they say) bore in six hours what it\nwould have taken thousands of millions of men all eternity to bear,\nwould be a similar evasion.--I farther asked, if we were to fall in\nwith Pagans, who tortured their victims to death as an atonement, what\nidea of God should we think them to form? and what should we reply,\nif they said, it gave them a wholesome view of his hatred of sin? A\nsecond time I shuddered at the notions which I had once imbibed as a\npart of religion, and then got comfort from the inference, how much\nbetter men of this century are than their creed. Their creed was the\nproduct of ages of cruelty and credulity; and it sufficiently bears\nthat stamp.\n\nThus I rested in the Scriptural doctrine, that the _death_ of Christ\nis our atonement. To say the same of the death of Paul, was obviously\nunscriptural: it was, then, essential to believe the physical nature\nof Christ to be different from that of Paul. If otherwise, death was\ndue to Jesus as the lot of nature: how could such death have anything\nto do with our salvation? On this ground the Unitarian doctrine was\nutterly untenable: I could see nothing between my own view and a total\nrenunciation of the _authority of the doctrines_ promulgated by Paul\nand John.\n\nNevertheless, my own view seemed mere and more unmeaning the more\nclosely it was interrogated. When I ascribed death to Christ, what\ndid death mean? and what or whom did I suppose to die? Was it man\nthat died, or God? If man only, how was that wonderful, or how did it\nconcern us? Besides;--persons die, not natures: a _nature_ is only a\ncollection of properties: if Christ was one person, all Christ\ndied. Did, then, God die, and man remain alive! For God to become\nnon-existent is an unimaginable absurdity. But is this death a mere\nchange of state, a renunciation of earthly life? Still it remains\nunclear how the parting with mere human life could be to one who\npossesses divine life either an atonement or a humiliation. Was it not\nrather an escape from humiliation, saving only the mode of death?\nSo severe was this difficulty, that at length I unawares dropt from\nSemi-Arianism into pure Arianism, by _so_ distinguishing the Son from\nthe Father, as to admit the idea that the Son of God had actually\nbeen non-existent in the interval between death and resurrection:\nnevertheless, I more and more felt, that _to be able to define my\nown notions on such questions had exceedingly little to do with my\nspiritual state_. For me it was important and essential to know that\nGod hated sin, and that God had forgiven my sin: but to know one\nparticular manifestation of his hatred of sin, or the machinery\nby which He had enabled himself to forgive, was of very secondary\nimportance. When He proclaims to me in his word, that He is forgiving\nto all the penitent, it is not for me to reply, that \"I cannot believe\nthat, until I hear how He manages to reconcile such conduct with his\nother attributes.\" Yet, I remembered, this was Bishop Beveridge's\nsufficient refutation of Mohammedism, which teaches no atonement.\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nAt the same time great progress had been made in my mind towards the\noverthrow of the correlative dogma of the Fall of man and his total\ncorruption. Probably for years I had been unawares anti-Calvinistic\non this topic. Even at Oxford, I had held that human depravity is\na _fact_, which it is absurd to argue against; a fact, attested by\nThucydides, Polybius, Horace, and Tacitus, almost as strongly as by\nSt. Paul. Yet in admitting man's total corruption, I interpreted this\nof _spiritual_, not of _moral_, perversion: for that there were kindly\nand amiable qualities even in the unregenerate, was quite as clear a\nfact as any other. Hence in result I did _not_ attribute to man any\ngreat essential depravity, in the popular and moral sense of the word;\nand the doctrine amounted only to this, that \"_spiritually_, man\nis paralyzed, until the grace of God comes freely upon him.\" How to\nreconcile this with the condemnation, and punishment of man for being\nunspiritual, I knew not. I saw, and did not dissemble, the difficulty;\nbut received it as a mystery hereafter to be cleared up.\n\nBut it gradually broke upon me, that when Paul said nothing stronger\nthan heathen moralists had said about human wickedness, it was absurd\nto quote his words, any more than theirs, in proof of a _Fall_,--that\nis, of a permanent degeneracy induced by the first sin of the first\nman: and when I studied the 5th chapter of the Romans, I found it was\n_death_, not _corruption_, which Adam was said to have entailed. In\nshort, I could scarcely find the modern doctrine of the \"Fall\" any\nwhere in the Bible. I then remembered that Calvin, in his Institutes,\ncomplains that all the Fathers are heterodox on this point; the Greek\nFathers being grievously overweening in their estimate of human power;\nwhile of the Latin Fathers even Augustine is not always up to Calvin's\nmark of orthodoxy. This confirmed my rising conviction that the tenet\nis of rather recent origin. I afterwards heard, that both it and the\ndoctrine of compensatory misery were first systematized by Archbishop\nAnselm, in the reign of our William Rufus: but I never took the pains\nto verify this.\n\nFor meanwhile I had been forcibly impressed with the following\nthought. Suppose a youth to have been carefully brought up at home,\nand every temptation kept out of his way: suppose him to have been in\nappearance virtuous, amiable, religious: suppose, farther, that at the\nage of twenty-one he goes out into the world, and falls into sin by\nthe first temptation:--how will a Calvinistic teacher moralize over\nsuch a youth? Will he not say: \"Behold a proof of the essential\ndepravity of human nature! See the affinity of man for sin! How fair\nand deceptive was this young man's virtue, while he was sheltered from\ntemptation; but oh! how rotten has it proved itself!\"--Undoubtedly,\nthe Calvinist would and must so moralize. But it struck me, that if I\nsubstituted the name of _Adam_ for the youth, the argument proved\nthe primitive corruption of Adam's nature. Adam fell by the first\ntemptation: what greater proof of a fallen nature have _I_ ever given?\nor what is it possible for any one to give?--I thus discerned that\nthere was _\u00e0 priori_ impossibility of fixing on myself the imputation\nof _degeneracy_, without fixing the same on Adam. In short, Adam\nundeniably proved his primitive nature to be frail; so do we all: but\nas _he_ was nevertheless not primitively corrupt, why should we call\nourselves so? Frailty, then, is not corruption, and does not prove\ndegeneracy.\n\n\"Original sin\" (says one of the 39 Articles) \"standeth not in the\nfollowing of Adam, _as the Pelagians do vainly talk_,\" &c. Alas, then!\nwas I become a Pelagian? certainly I could no longer see that Adam's\nfirst sin affected me more than his second or third, or so much as the\nsins of my immediate parents. A father who, for instance, indulges\nin furious passions and exciting liquors, may (I suppose) transmit\nviolent passions to his son. In this sense I could not wholly reject\nthe possibility of transmitted corruption; but it had nothing to do\nwith the theological doctrine of the \"Federal Headship\" of Adam. Not\nthat I could wholly give up this last doctrine; for I still read it in\nthe 5th chapter of Romans. But it was clear to me, that whatever that\nmeant, I could not combine it with the idea of degeneracy, nor could\nI find a proof of it in the _fact_ of prevalent wickedness. Thus I\nreceived a shadowy doctrine on mere Scriptural _authority_; it had no\nlonger any root in my understanding or heart.\n\nMoreover, it was manifest to me that the Calvinistic view is based in\na vain attempt to acquit God of having created a \"sinful\" being, while\nthe broad Scriptural fact is, that he did create a being as truly\n\"liable to sin\" as any of us. If that needs no exculpation, how more\ndoes _our_ state need it? Does it not suffice to say, that \"every\ncreature, because he is a creature and not God, must necessarily\nbe frail?\" But Calvin intensely aggravates whatever there is of\ndifficulty: for he supposes God to have created the most precious\nthing on earth in _unstable equilibrium_, so as to tipple over\nirrecoverably at the first infinitesimal touch, and with it wreck for\never the spiritual hopes of all Adam's posterity. Surely all nature\nproclaims, that if God planted any spiritual nature at all in man, it\nwas in _stable equilibrium_, able to right itself when deranged.\n\nLastly, I saw that the Calvinistic doctrine of human degeneracy\nteaches, that God disowns my nature (the only nature I ever had) as\nnot his work, but the devil's work. He hereby tells me that he is\n_not_ my Creator, and he disclaims his right over me, as a father\nwho disowns a child. To teach this is to teach that I owe him no\nobedience, no worship, no trust: to sever the cords that bind the\ncreature to the Creator, and to make all religion gratuitous and vain.\n\nThus Calvinism was found by me not only not to be Evangelical, but\nnot to be logical, in spite of its high logical pretensions, and to\nbe irreconcilable with any intelligent theory of religion. Of \"gloomy\nCalvinism\" I had often heard people speak with an emphasis,\nthat annoyed me as highly unjust; for mine had not been a gloomy\nreligion:--far, very far from it. On the side of eternal punishment,\nits theory, no doubt, had been gloomy enough; but human nature has a\nnotable art of not realizing all the articles of a creed; moreover,\n_this_ doctrine is equally held by Arminians. But I was conscious,\nthat in dropping Calvinism I had lost nothing _Evangelical_: on\nthe contrary, the gospel which I retained was as spiritual and\ndeep-hearted as before, only more merciful.\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nBefore this Third Period of my creed was completed, I made my first\nacquaintance with a Unitarian. This gentleman showed much sweetness\nof mind, largeness of charity, and a timid devoutness which I had not\nexpected in such a quarter. His mixture of credulity and incredulity\nseemed to me capricious, and wholly incoherent. First, as to his\nincredulity, or rather, boldness of thought. Eternal punishment was a\nnotion, which nothing could make him believe, and for which it would\nbe useless to quote Scripture to him; for the doctrine (he said)\ndarkened the moral character of God, and produced malignity in man.\nThat Christ had any higher nature than we all have, was a tenet\nessentially inadmissible; first, because it destroyed all moral\nbenefit from his example and sympathy, and next, because no one has\nyet succeeded in even stating the doctrine of the Incarnation without\ncontradicting himself. If Christ was but one person, one mind, then\nthat one mind could not be simultaneously finite and infinite, nor\ntherefore simultaneously God and man. But when I came to hear more\nfrom this same gentleman, I found him to avow that no Trinitarian\ncould have a higher conception than he of the present power and glory\nof Christ. He believed that the man Jesus is at the head of the whole\nmoral creation of God; that all power in heaven and earth is given to\nhim: that he will be Judge of all men, and is himself raised above all\njudgment. This was to me unimaginable from his point of view. Could\nhe really think Jesus to be a mere man, and yet believe him to be\nsinless? On what did that belief rest? Two texts were quoted in\nproof, 1 Pet. ii. 21, and Heb. iv. 15. Of these, the former did not\nnecessarily mean anything more than that Jesus was unjustly put to\ndeath; and the latter belonged to an Epistle, which my new friend had\nalready rejected as unapostolic and not of first-rate authority, when\nspeaking of the Atonement. Indeed, that the Epistle to the Hebrews\nis not from the hand of Paul, had very long seemed to me an obvious\ncertainty,--as long as I had had any delicate feeling of Greek style.\n\nThat a human child, born with the nature of other children, and having\nto learn wisdom and win virtue through the same process, should grow\nup sinless, appeared to me an event so paradoxical, as to need the\nmost amply decisive proof. Yet what kind of proof was possible?\nNeither Apollos, (if he was the author of the Epistle to the Hebrew,)\nnor yet Peter, had any power of _attesting_ the sinlessness of Jesus,\nas a fact known to themselves personally: they could only learn it by\nsome preternatural communication, to which, nevertheless, the passages\nbefore us implied no pretension whatever. To me it appeared an\naxiom,[3] that if Jesus was in physical origin a mere man, he was,\nlike myself, a sinful man, and therefore certainly not my Judge,\ncertainly not an omniscient reader of all hearts; nor on any account\nto be bowed down to as Lord. To exercise hope, faith, trust in\nhim, seemed then an impiety. I did not mean to impute impiety to\nUnitarians; still I distinctly believed that English Unitarianism\ncould never afford me a half hour's resting-place.\n\nNevertheless, from contact with this excellent person I learned how\nmuch tenderness of spirit a Unitarian may have; and it pleasantly\nenlarged my charity, although I continued to feel much repugnance\nfor his doctrine, and was anxious and constrained in the presence of\nUnitarians. From the same collision with him, I gained a fresh insight\ninto a part of my own mind. I had always regarded the Gospels (at\nleast the three first) to be to the Epistles nearly as Law to Gospel;\nthat is, the three gospels dealt chiefly in _precept_, the epistles\nin _motives_ which act on the affections. This did not appear to me\ndishonourable to the teaching of Christ; for I supposed it to be a\npre-determined development. But I now discovered that there was a\ndeeper distaste in me for the details of the human life of Christ,\nthan I was previously conscious of--a distaste which I found out, by\na reaction from the minute interest felt in such details by my new\nfriend. For several years more, I did not fully understand how and why\nthis was; viz. that _my religion had always been Pauline_. Christ was\nto me the ideal of glorified human nature: but I needed some dimness\nin the portrait to give play to my imagination: if drawn too sharply\nhistorical, it sank into something not superhuman, and caused a\nrevulsion of feeling. As all paintings of the miraculous used to\ndisplease and even disgust me from a boy by the unbelief which they\ninspired; so if any one dwelt on the special proofs of tenderness and\nlove exhibited in certain words or actions of Jesus, it was apt to\ncall out in me a sense, that from day to day equal kindness might\noften be met. The imbecility of preachers, who would dwell on such\nwords as \"Weep not,\" as if nobody else ever uttered such,--had always\nannoyed me. I felt it impossible to obtain a worthy idea of Christ\nfrom studying any of the details reported concerning him. If I\ndwelt too much on these, I got a finite object; but I yearned for an\ninfinite one: hence my preference for John's mysterious Jesus. Thus my\nChrist was not the figure accurately painted in the narrative, but one\nkindled in my imagination by the allusions and (as it were) poetry of\nthe New Testament. I did not wish for vivid historical realisation:\nrelics I could never have valued: pilgrimages to Jerusalem had always\nexcited in me more of scorn than of sympathy;--and I make no doubt\nsuch was fundamentally Paul's[4] feeling. On the contrary, it began\nto appear to me (and I believe not unjustly) that the Unitarian mind\nrevelled peculiarly in \"Christ after the flesh,\" whom Paul resolved\nnot to know. Possibly in this circumstance will be found to lie the\nstrong and the weak points of the Unitarian religious character, as\ncontrasted with that of the Evangelical, far more truly than in the\ndoctrine of the Atonement. I can testify that the Atonement may be\ndropt out of Pauline religion without affecting its quality; so may\nChrist be spiritualized into God, and identified with the Father: but\nI suspect that a Pauline faith could not, without much violence and\nconvulsion, be changed into devout admiration of a clearly drawn\nhistorical character; as though any full and unsurpassable embodiment\nof God's moral perfections could be exhibited with ink and pen.\n\nA reviewer, who has since made his name known, has pointed to the\npreceding remarks, as indicative of my deficiency in _imagination_ and\nmy tendency to _romance_. My dear friend is undoubtedly right in the\nformer point; I am destitute of (creative) poetical imagination: and\nas to the latter point, his insight into character is so great, that\nI readily believe him to know me better than I know myself,\nNevertheless, I think he has mistaken the nature of the preceding\nargument. I am, on the contrary, almost disposed to say, that those\nhave a tendency to romance who can look at a picture with men flying\ninto the air, or on an angel with a brass trumpet, and dead men rising\nout of their graves with good stout muscles, and _not_ feel that the\npicture suggests unbelief. Nor do I confess to romance in my desire\nof something _more_ than historical and daily human nature in the\ncharacter of Jesus; for all Christendom, between the dates A.D. 100\nto A.D. 1850, with the exception of small eccentric coteries, has held\nJesus to be essentially superhuman. Paul and John so taught concerning\nhim. To believe their doctrine (I agree with my friend) is, in some\nsense, a weakness of understanding; but it is a weakness to which\nminds of every class have been for ages liable.\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nSuch had been the progress of my mind, towards the end of what I will\ncall my Third Period. In it the authority of the Scriptures as to\nsome details (which at length became highly important) had begun to be\nquestioned; of which I shall proceed to speak: but hitherto this\nwas quite secondary to the momentous revolution which lay Calvinism\nprostrate in my mind, which opened my heart to Unitarians, and, I may\nsay, to unbelievers; which enlarged all my sympathies, and soon set me\nto practise free moral thought, at least as a necessity, if not as\na duty. Yet I held fast an unabated reverence for the moral and\nspiritual teaching of the New Testament, and had not the most remote\nconception that anything could ever shatter my belief in its great\nmiracles. In fact, during this period, I many times yearned to proceed\nto India, whither my friend Groves had transferred his labours and his\nhopes; but I was thwarted by several causes, and was again and again\ndamped by the fear of bigotry from new quarters. Otherwise, I thought\nI could succeed in merging as needless many controversies. In all\nthe workings of any mind about Tri-unity, Incarnation, Atonement, the\nFall, Resurrection, Immortality, Eternal Punishment, how little had\nany of these to do with the inward exercises of my soul towards God!\nHe was still the same, immutably glorious: not one feature of his\ncountenance had altered to my gaze, or could alter. This surely was\nthe God whom Christ came to reveal, and bring us into fellowship with:\nthis is that, about which Christians ought to have no controversy, but\nwhich they should unitedly, concordantly, themselves enjoy and exhibit\nto the heathen. But oh, Christendom! what dost thou believe and teach?\nThe heathen cry out to thee,--Physician, heal thyself.\n\n\n[Footnote 1: I afterwards learned that some of those gentlemen\nesteemed boldness of thought \"a lust of the mind,\" and as such, an\nimmorality. This enables them to persuade themselves that they do not\nreject a \"heretic\" for a matter of _opinion_, but for that which they\nhave a right to call \"_immoral_\". What immorality was imputed to me, I\nwas not distinctly informed.]\n\n[Footnote 2: I really thought it needless to quote proof that but\n_few_ will be saved, Matth. vii. 14. I know there is a class of\nChristians who believe in Universal salvation, and there are others\nwho disbelieve eternal torment. They must not be angry with me for\nrefuting the doctrine of other Christians, which they hold to be\nfalse.]\n\n[Footnote 3: In this (second) edition, I have added an entire chapter\nexpressly on the subject.]\n\n[Footnote 4: The same may probably be said of all the apostles, and\ntheir whole generation. If they had looked on the life of Jesus with\nthe same tender and human affection as modern Unitarians and pious\nRomanists do, the church would have swarmed with _holy coats_ and\nother relics in the very first age. The mother of Jesus and her\nlittle establishment would at once have swelled into importance. This\ncertainly was not the case; which may make it doubtful whether the\nother apostles dwelt at all more on the _human personality_, of Jesus\nthan Paul did. Strikingly different as James is from Paul, he is in\nthis respect perfectly agreed with him.]\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER IV.\n\n\nTHE RELIGION OF THE LETTER RENOUNCED.\n\n\nIt has been stated that I had already begun to discern that it was\nimpossible with perfect honesty to defend every tittle contained in\nthe Bible. Most of the points which give moral offence in the book of\nGenesis I had been used to explain away by the doctrine of Progress;\nyet every now and then it became hard to deny that God is represented\nas giving an actual _sanction_ to that which we now call sinful.\nIndeed, up and down the Scriptures very numerous texts are scattered,\nwhich are notorious difficulties with commentators. These I had\nhabitually _overruled_ one by one: but again of late, since I had been\nforced to act and talk less and think more, they began to encompass\nme. But I was for a while too full of other inquiries to follow up\ncoherently any of my doubts or perceptions, until my mind became at\nlength nailed down to the definite study of one well-known passage.\n\nThis passage may be judged of extremely secondary importance in\nitself, yet by its remoteness from all properly spiritual and profound\nquestions, it seemed to afford to me the safest of arguments. The\n_genealogy_ with which the gospel of Matthew opens, I had long known\nto be a stumbling-block to divines, and I had never been satisfied\nwith their explanations. On reading it afresh, after long\nintermission, and comparing it for myself with the Old Testament, I\nwas struck with observing that the corruption of the two names Ahaziah\nand Uzziah into the same sound (Oziah) has been the cause of\nmerging four generations into one; as the similarity of Jehoiakim to\nJehoiachin also led to blending them both in the name Jeconiah. In\nconsequence, there ought to be 18 generations where Matthew has given\nas only 14: yet we cannot call this on error of a transcriber; for it\nis distinctly remarked, that the genealogy consists of 14 three times\nrepeated. Thus there were but 14 names inserted by Matthew: yet it\nought to have been 18: and he was under manifest mistake. This surely\nbelongs to a class of knowledge, of which man has cognizance: it would\nnot be piety, but grovelling superstition, to avow before God that I\ndistrust my powers of counting, and, in obedience to the written word,\nI believe that 18 is 14 and 14 is 18. Thus it is impossible to deny,\nthat there is cognizable error in the first chapter of Matthew.\nConsequently, that gospel is not all dictated by the Spirit of God,\nand (unless we can get rid of the first chapter as no part of the\nBible) the doctrine of the verbal infallibility of the whole Bible, or\nindeed of the New Testament, is demonstrably false.\n\nAfter I had turned the matter over often, and had become accustomed\nto the thought, this single instance at length had great force to give\nboldness to my mind within a very narrow range. I asked whether,\nif the chapter were now proved to be spurious, that would save the\ninfallibility of the Bible. The reply was: not of the Bible as it is;\nbut only of the Bible when cleared of that _and of all other_ spurious\nadditions. If by independent methods, such as an examination of\nmanuscripts, the spuriousness of the chapter could now be shown, _this\nwould verify the faculty of criticism_ which has already objected to\nits contents: thus it would justly urge us to apply similar criticism\nto other passages.\n\nI farther remembered, and now brought together under a single point of\nview, other undeniable mistakes. The genealogy of the nominal father\nof Jesus in Luke is inconsistent with that in Matthew, in spite of the\nflagrant dishonesty with which divines seek to deny this; and neither\nevangelist gives the genealogy of Mary, which alone is wanted.--In\nActs vii. 16, the land which _Jacob_ bought of the children of\nHamor,[1] is confounded with that which _Abraham_ bought of Ephron the\nHittite. In Acts v. 36, 37, Gamaliel is made to say that Theudas was\nearlier in time than Judas of Galilee. Yet in fact, Judas of Galilee\npreceded Theudas; and the revolt of Theudas had not yet taken place\nwhen Gamaliel spoke, so the error is not Gamaliel's, but Luke's. Of\nboth the insurgents we have a dear and unimpeached historical account\nin Josephus.--The slaughter of the infants by Herod, if true, must, I\nthought, needs have been recorded by the same historian,--So again, in\nregard to the allusion made by Jesus to Zacharias, son of Barachias,\nas _last of the martyrs_, it was difficult for me to shake off the\nsuspicion, that a gross error had been committed, and that the person\nintended is the \"Zacharias son of Baruchus,\" who, as we know from\nJosephus, was martyred _within the courts of the temple_ during the\nsiege of Jerusalem by Titus, about 40 years after the crucifixion. The\nwell-known prophet Zechariah was indeed son of Berechiah; but he was\nnot last of the martyrs,[2] if indeed he was martyred at all. On the\nwhole, the persuasion stuck to me, that words had been put into\nthe mouth of Jesus, which he could not possibly have used.--The\nimpossibility of settling the names of the twelve apostles struck me\nas a notable fact.--I farther remembered the numerous difficulties of\nharmonizing the four gospels; how, when a boy at school, I had tried\nto incorporate all four into one history, and the dismay with which\nI had found the insoluble character of the problem,--the endless\ndiscrepancies and perpetual uncertainties. These now began to seem to\nme inherent in the materials, and not to be ascribable to our want of\nintelligence.\n\nI had also discerned in the opening of Genesis things which could\nnot be literally received. The geography of the rivers in Paradise is\ninexplicable, though it assumes the tone of explanation. The curse\non the serpent, who is to go on his belly--(how else did he go\nbefore?)--and eat dust, is a capricious punishment on a race of\nbrutes, one of whom the Devil chose to use as his instrument. That\nthe painfulness of childbirth is caused, not by Eve's sin, but by\nartificial habits and a weakened nervous system, seems to be proved\nby the twofold fact, that savage women and wild animals suffer but\nlittle, and tame cattle often suffer as much as human females.--About\nthis time also, I had perceived (what I afterwards learned the Germans\nto have more fully investigated) that the two different accounts of\nthe Creation are distinguished by the appellations given to the divine\nCreator. I did not see how to resist the inference that the book\nis made up of heterogeneous documents, and was not put forth by the\ndirect dictation of the Spirit to Moses.\n\nA new stimulus was after this given to my mind by two short\nconversations with the late excellent Dr. Arnold at Rugby. I had\nbecome aware of the difficulties encountered by physiologists in\nbelieving the whole human race to have proceeded in about 6000 years\nfrom a single Adam and Eve; and that the longevity (not\nmiraculous, but ordinary) attributed to the patriarchs was another\nstumbling-block. The geological difficulties of the Mosaic cosmogony\nwere also at that time exciting attention. It was a novelty to me,\nthat Arnold treated these questions as matters of indifference to\nreligion; and did not hesitate to say, that the account of Noah's\ndeluge was evidently mythical, and the history of Joseph \"a beautiful\npoem.\" I was staggered at this. If all were not descended from Adam,\nwhat became of St. Paul's parallel between the first and second Adam,\nand the doctrine of Headship and Atonement founded on it? If the world\nwas not made in six days, how could we defend the Fourth Commandment\nas true, though said to have been written in stone by the very finger\nof God? If Noah's deluge was a legend, we should at least have to\nadmit that Peter did not know this: what too would be said of Christ's\nallusion to it? I was unable to admit Dr. Arnold's views; but to see a\nvigorous mind, deeply imbued with Christian devoutness, so convinced,\nboth reassured me that I need not fear moral mischiefs from free\ninquiry, and indeed laid that inquiry upon me as a duty.\n\nHere, however, was a new point started. Does the question of the\nderivation of the human race from two parents belong to things\ncognizable by the human intellect, or to things about which we must\nlearn submissively? Plainly to the former. It would be monstrous to\ndeny that such inquiries legitimately belong to physiology, or to\nproscribe a free study of this science. If so, there was an _\u00e0\npriori_ possibility, that what is in the strictest sense called\n\"religious doctrine\" might come into direct collision, not merely with\nmy ill-trained conscience, but with legitimate science; and that this\nwould call on me to ask: \"Which of the two certainties is stronger?\nthat the religious parts of the Scripture are infallible, or that the\nscience is trustworthy?\" and I then first saw, that while science had\n(within however limited a range of thought) demonstration or severe\nverifications, it was impossible to pretend to anything so cogent in\nfavour of the infallibility of any or some part of the Scriptures;\na doctrine which I was accustomed to believe, and felt to be a\nlegitimate presumption; yet one of which it grew harder and harder\nto assign any proof, the more closely I analyzed it. Nevertheless, I\nstill held it fast, and resolved not to let it go until I was forced.\n\nA fresh strain fell on the Scriptural infallibility, in contemplating\nthe origin of Death. Geologists assured us, that death went on in\nthe animal creation many ages before the existence of man. The rocks\nformed of the shells of animals testify that death is a phenomenon\nthousands of thousand years old: to refer the death of animals to\nthe sin of Adam and Eve is evidently impossible. Yet, if not, the\nanalogies of the human to the brute form make it scarcely credible\nthat man's body can ever have been intended for immortality. Nay, when\nwe consider the conditions of birth and growth to which it is subject,\nthe wear and tear essential to life, the new generations intended to\nsucceed and supplant the old,--so soon as the question is proposed as\none of physiology, the reply is inevitable that death is no accident\nintroduced by the perverse will of our first parents, nor any way\nconnected with man's sinfulness; but is purely a result of the\nconditions of animal life. On the contrary, St. Paul rests most\nimportant conclusions on the fact, that one man Adam by personal sin\nbrought death upon all his posterity. If this was a fundamental error,\nreligious doctrine also is shaken.\n\nIn various attempts at compromise,--such as conceding the Scriptural\nfallibility in human science, but maintaining its spiritual\nperfection,--I always found the division impracticable. At last it\npressed on me, that if I admitted morals to rest on an independent\nbasis, it was dishonest to shut my eyes to any apparent collisions of\nmorality with the Scriptures. A very notorious and decisive instance\nis that of Jael.--Sisera, when beaten in battle, fled to the tent of\nhis friend Heber, and was there warmly welcomed by Jael, Heber's wife.\nAfter she had refreshed him with food, and lulled him to sleep, she\nkilled him by driving a nail into his temples; and for this deed,\n(which now-a-days would be called a perfidious murder,) the prophetess\nDeborah, in an inspired psalm, pronounces Jael to be \"blessed above\nwomen,\" and glorifies her act by an elaborate description of its\natrocity. As soon as I felt that I was bound to pass a moral judgment\non this, I saw that as regards the Old Testament the battle was\nalready lost. Many other things, indeed, instantly rose in full power\nupon me, especially the command to Abraham to slay his son. Paul and\nJames agree in extolling Abraham as the pattern of faith; James and\nthe author of the Epistle to the Hebrews specify the sacrifice of\nIsaac as a firstrate fruit of faith: yet if the voice of morality is\nallowed to be heard, Abraham was (in heart and intention) not less\nguilty than those who sacrificed their children to Molech.\n\nThus at length it appeared, that I must choose between two courses. I\nmust EITHER blind my moral sentiment, my powers of criticism, and\nmy scientific knowledge, (such as they were,) in order to accept the\nScripture entire; OR I must encounter the problem, however arduous,\nof adjusting the relative claims of human knowledge and divine\nrevelation. As to the former method, to name it was to condemn it; for\nit would put every system of Paganism on a par with Christianity. If\none system of religion may claim that we blind our hearts and eyes in\nits favour, so may another; and there is precisely the same reason\nfor becoming a Hindoo in religion as a Christian. We cannot be both;\ntherefore the principle is _demonstrably_ absurd. It is also, of\ncourse, morally horrible, and opposed to countless passages of the\nScriptures themselves. Nor can the argument be evaded by talking of\nexternal evidences; for these also are confessedly moral evidences, to\nbe judged of by our moral faculties. Nay, according to all Christian\nadvocates, they are God's test of our moral temper. To allege,\ntherefore, that our moral faculties are not to judge, is to annihilate\nthe evidences for Christianity.--Thus, finally, I was lodged in three\ninevitable conclusions:\n\n1. The moral and intellectual powers of man must be acknowledged as\nhaving a right and duty to criticize the contents of the Scripture:\n\n2. When so exerted, they condemn portions of the Scripture as\nerroneous and immoral:\n\n3. The assumed infallibility of the _entire_ Scripture is a proved\nfalsity, not merely as to physiology, and other scientific matters,\nbut also as to morals: and it remains for farther inquiry how to\ndiscriminate the trustworthy from the untrustworthy within the limits\nof the Bible itself.\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nWhen distinctly conscious, after long efforts to evade it, that\nthis was and must henceforth be my position, I ruminated on the many\nauguries which had been made concerning me by frightened friends. \"You\nwill become a Socinian,\" had been said of me even at Oxford: \"You will\nbecome an infidel,\" had since been added. My present results, I was\naware, would seem a sadly triumphant confirmation to the clearsighted\ninstinct of orthodoxy. But the animus of such prophecies had always\nmade me indignant, and I could not admit that there was any merit in\nsuch clearsightedness. What! (used I to say,) will you shrink from\ntruth, lest it lead to error? If following truth must bring us to\nSocinianism, let us by all means become Socinians, or anything else.\nSurely we do not love our doctrines more than the truth, but because\nthey are the truth. Are we not exhorted to \"prove all things, and hold\nfast that which is good?\"--But to my discomfort, I generally found\nthat this (to me so convincing) argument for feeling no alarm, only\ncaused more and more alarm, and gloomier omens concerning me. On\nconsidering all this in leisurely retrospect, I began painfully to\ndoubt, whether after all there is much love of truth even among those\nwho have an undeniable strength of religious feeling. I questioned\nwith myself, whether love of truth is not a virtue demanding a robust\nmental cultivation; whether mathematical or other abstract studies may\nnot be practically needed for it. But no: for how then could it exist\nin some feminine natures? how in rude and unphilosophical times? On\nthe whole, I rather concluded, that there is in nearly all English\neducation a positive repressing of a young person's truthfulness; for\nI could distinctly see, that in my own case there was always need of\ndefying authority and public opinion,--not to speak of more serious\nsacrifices,--if I was to follow truth. All society seemed so to\nhate novelties of thought, as to prefer the chances of error in the\nold.--Of course! why, how could it be otherwise, while Test Articles\nwere maintained?\n\nYet surely if God is truth, none sincerely aspire to him, who dread to\nlose their present opinions in exchange for others truer.--I had not\nthen read a sentence of Coleridge, which is to this effect: \"If any\none begins by loving Christianity more than the truth, he will proceed\nto love his Church more than Christianity, and will end by loving his\nown opinions better than either.\" A dim conception of this was in my\nmind; and I saw that the genuine love of God was essentially connected\nwith loving truth as truth, and not truth as our own accustomed\nthought, truth as our old prejudice; and that the real saint can never\nbe afraid to let God teach him one lesson more, or unteach him one\nmore error. Then I rejoiced to feel how right and sound had been our\nprinciple, that no creed can possibly be used as the touchstone\nof spirituality: for man morally excels man, as far as creeds are\nconcerned, not by assenting to true propositions, but by loving them\nbecause they are discerned to be true, and by possessing a faculty\nof discernment sharpened by the love of truth. Such are God's true\napostles, differing enormously in attainment and elevation, but all\nborn to ascend. For these to quarrel between themselves because they\ndo not agree in opinions, is monstrous. _Sentiment_, surely, not\n_opinion_, is the bond of the Spirit; and as the love of God, so the\nlove of truth is a high and sacred sentiment, in comparison to which\nour creeds are mean.\n\nWell, I had been misjudged; I had been absurdly measured by other\nmen's creed: but might I not have similarly misjudged others, since\nI had from early youth been under similar influences? How many of\nmy seniors at Oxford I had virtually despised because they were not\nevangelical! Had I had opportunity of testing their spirituality?\nor had I the faculty of so doing? Had I not really condemned them as\nunspiritual, barely because of their creed? On trying to reproduce the\npast to my imagination, I could not condemn myself quite as sweepingly\nas I wished; but my heart smote me on account of one. I had a brother,\nwith whose name all England was resounding for praise or blame: from\nhis sympathies, through pure hatred of Popery, I had long since turned\naway. What was this but to judge him by his creed? True, his whole\ntheory was nothing but Romanism transferred to England: but what\nthen? I had studied with the deepest interest Mrs. Schimmelpenninck's\naccount of the Portroyalists, and though I was aware that she exhibits\nonly the bright side of her subject, yet the absolute excellencies of\nher nuns and priests showed that Romanism _as such_ was not fatal to\nspirituality. They were persecuted: this did them good perhaps, or\ncertainly exhibited their brightness. So too my brother surely was\nstruggling after truth, fighting for freedom to his own heart and\nmind, against church articles and stagnancy of thought. For this he\ndeserved both sympathy and love: but I, alas! had not known and seen\nhis excellence. But now God had taught me more largeness by bitter\nsorrow working the peaceable fruit of righteousness; at last then\nI might admire my brother. I therefore wrote to him a letter of\ncontrition. Some change, either in his mind or in his view of my\nposition, had taken place; and I was happy to find him once more able,\nnot only to feel fraternally, as he had always done, but to act\nalso fraternally. Nevertheless, to this day it is to me a painfully\nunsolved mystery, how a mind can claim its freedom in order to\nestablish bondage.\n\nFor the _peculiarities_ of Romanism I feel nothing, and I can pretend\nnothing, but contempt, hatred, disgust, or horror. But this system of\nfalsehood, fraud, unscrupulous and unrelenting ambition, will never\nbe destroyed, while Protestants keep up their insane anathemas against\nopinion. These are the outworks of the Romish citadel: until they are\nrazed to the ground, the citadel will defy attack. If we are to blind\nour eyes, in order to accept an article of King Edward VI., or an\nargument of St. Paul's, why not blind them so far as to accept the\nCouncil of Trent? If we are to pronounce that a man \"without\ndoubt shall perish everlastingly,\" unless he believes the\nself-contradictions of the pseudo-Athanasian Creed, why should\nwe shrink from a similar anathema on those who reject the\nself-contradictions of Transsubstantiation? If one man is cast out\nof God's favour for eliciting error while earnestly searching after\ntruth, and another remains in favour by passively receiving the word\nof a Church, of a Priest, or of an Apostle, then to search for truth\nis dangerous; apathy is safer; then the soul does not come directly\ninto contact with God and learn of him, but has to learn from, and\nunconvincedly submit to, some external authority. This is the germ of\nRomanism: its legitimate development makes us Pagans outright.\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nBut in what position was I now, towards the apostles? Could I\nadmit their inspiration, when I no longer thought them infallible?\nUndoubtedly. What could be clearer on every hypothesis, than that they\nwere inspired on and after the day of Pentecost, and _yet_ remained\nignorant and liable to mistake about the relation of the Gentiles to\nthe Jews? The moderns have introduced into the idea of inspiration\nthat of infallibility, to which either _omniscience_ or _dictation_\nis essential. That there was no dictation, (said I,) is proved by\nthe variety of style in the Scriptural writers; that they were not\nomniscient, is manifest. In truth, if human minds had not been left\nto them, how could they have argued persuasively? was not the superior\nsuccess of their preaching to that of Christ, perhaps due to their\nsharing in the prejudices of their contemporaries? An orator is most\npersuasive, when he is lifted above his hearers on those points\nonly on which he is to reform their notions. The apostles were not\nomniscient: granted: but it cannot hence be inferred that they did not\nknow the message given them by God. Their knowledge however perfect,\nmust yet in a human mind have coexisted with ignorance; and nothing\n(argued I) but a perpetual miracle could prevent ignorance from now\nand then exhibiting itself in some error. But hence to infer that\nthey are not inspired, and are not messengers from God, is quite\ngratuitous. Who indeed imagines that John or Paul understood astronomy\nso well as Sir William Herschel? Those who believe that the apostles\nmight err in human science, need not the less revere their moral and\nspiritual wisdom.\n\nAt the same time it became a matter of duty to me, if possible,\nto discriminate the authoritative from the unauthoritative in the\nScripture, or at any rate avoid to accept and propagate as true\nthat which is false, even if it be false only as science and not as\nreligion. I unawares,--more perhaps from old habit than from distinct\nconviction,--started from the assumption that my fixed point of\nknowledge was to be found in the sensible or scientific, not in the\nmoral. I still retained from my old Calvinistic doctrine a way of\nproceeding, as if purely moral judgment were my weak side, at least\nin criticizing the Scripture: so that I preferred never to appeal\nto direct moral and spiritual considerations, except in the most\nglaringly necessary cases. Thus, while I could not accept the\npanegyric on Jael, and on Abraham's intended sacrifice of his son,\nI did not venture unceremoniously to censure the extirpation of\nthe Canaanites by Joshua: of which I barely said to myself, that it\n\"certainly needed very strong proof\" of the divine command to justify\nit. I still went so far in timidity as to hesitate to reject on\ninternal evidence the account of heroes or giants begotten by\nangels, who, enticed by the love of women, left heaven for earth. The\nnarrative in Gen. vi. had long appeared to me undoubtedly to bear this\nsense; and to have been so understood by Jude and Peter (2 Pet. ii.),\nas, I believe, it also was by the Jews and early Fathers. I did at\nlength set it aside as incredible; not however from moral repugnance\nto it, (for I feared to trust the soundness of my instinct,) but\nbecause I had slid into a new rule of interpretation,--that _I must\nnot obtrude miracles on the Scripture narrative_. The writers tell\ntheir story without showing any consciousness that it involves\nphysiological difficulties. To invent a miracle in order to defend\nthis, began to seem to me unwarrantable.\n\nIt had become notorious to the public, that Geologists rejected the\nidea of a universal deluge as physically impossible. Whence could\nthe water come, to cover the highest mountains? Two replies were\nattempted: 1. The flood of Noah is not described as universal: 2. The\nflood was indeed universal, but the water was added and removed\nby miracle.--Neither reply however seemed to me valid. First, the\nlanguage respecting the universality of the flood is as strong as any\nthat could be written: moreover it is stated that the tops of the\nhigh hills _were all covered_, and after the water subsides, the ark\nsettles on the mountains of Armenia. Now in Armenia, of necessity\nnumerous peaks would be seen, unless the water covered them, and\nespecially Ararat. But a flood that covered Ararat would overspread\nall the continents, and leave only a few summits above. If then\nthe account in Genesis is to be received, the flood was universal.\nSecondly: the narrator represents the surplus water to have come from\nthe clouds and perhaps from the sea, and again to drain back into the\nsea. Of a miraculous _creation and destruction_ of water, he evidently\ndoes not dream.\n\nOther impossibilities came forward: the insufficient dimensions of\nthe ark to take in all the creatures; the unsuitability of the\nsame climate to arctic and tropical animals for a full year; the\nimpossibility of feeding them and avoiding pestilence; and especially,\nthe total disagreement of the modern facts of the dispersion of\nanimals, with the idea that they spread anew from Armenia as their\ncentre. We have no right to call in a series of miracles to solve\ndifficulties, of which the writer was unconscious. The ark itself was\nexpressly devised to economize miracle, by making a fresh creation of\nanimals needless.\n\nDifferent in kind was the objection which I felt to the story, which\nis told twice concerning Abraham and once concerning Isaac, of passing\noff a wife as a sister. Allowing that such a thing was barely not\nimpossible, the improbability was so intense, as to demand the\nstrictest and most cogent proof: yet when we asked, Who testifies it?\nno proof appeared that it was Moses; or, supposing it to be he, what\nhis sources of knowledge were. And this led to the far wider remark,\nthat nowhere in the book of Genesis is there a line to indicate who is\nthe writer, or a sentence to imply that the writer believes himself to\nwrite by special information from God. Indeed, it is well known that\nwere are numerous small phrases which denote a later hand than that\nof Moses. The kings of Israel are once alluded to historically, Gen.\nxxxvi. 31.\n\nWhy then was anything improbable to be believed on the writer's word?\nas, for instance, the story of Babel and the confusion of tongues? One\nreply only seemed possible; namely, that we believe the Old Testament\nin obedience to the authority of the New: and this threw me again\nto consider the references to the Old Testament in the Christian\nScriptures.\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nBut here, the difficulties soon became manifestly more and more\nformidable. In opening Matthew, we meet with quotations from the Old\nTestament applied in the most startling way. First is the prophecy\nabout the child Immanuel; which in Isaiah no unbiassed interpreter\nwould have dreamed could apply to Jesus. Next; the words of Hosea,\n\"Out of Egypt have I called my son,\" which do but record the history\nof Israel, are imagined by Matthew to be prophetic of the return of\nJesus from Egypt. This instance moved me much; because I thought, that\nif the text were \"spiritualized,\" so as to make Israel mean _Jesus_,\nEgypt also ought to be spiritualized and mean _the world_, not retain\nits geographical sense, which seemed to be carnal and absurd in such a\nconnection: for Egypt is no more to Messiah than Syria or Greece.--One\nof the most decisive testimonies to the Old Testament which the New\ncontains, is in John x., 35, where I hardly knew how to allow myself\nto characterize the reasoning. The case stands thus. The 82nd Psalm\nrebukes _unjust_ governors; and at length says to them: \"I have said,\nYe are gods, and all of you are children of the most high: but ye\nshall die like men, and fall like one of the princes.\" In other\nwords:--\"though we are apt _to think_ of rulers _as if_ they were\nsuperhuman, yet they shall meet the lot of common men.\" Well: how is\nthis applied in John?--Jesus has been accused of blasphemy, for saying\nthat \"He and his Father are one;\" and in reply, he quotes the verse,\n\"I have said, Ye are gods,\" as his sufficient justification for\ncalling himself Son of God; for \"the Scripture cannot be broken.\" I\ndreaded to precipitate myself into shocking unbelief, if I followed\nout the thoughts that this suggested; and (I know not how) for a long\ntime yet put it off.\n\nThe quotations from the Old Testament in St. Paul had always been a\nmystery to me. The more I now examined them, the clearer it appeared\nthat they were based on untenable Rabbinical principles. Nor are those\nin the Acts and in the Gospels any better. If we take free leave to\ncanvass them, it may appear that not one quotation in ten is sensible\nand appropriate. And shall we then accept the decision of the New\nTestament writers as final, concerning the value and credibility of\nthe Old Testament, when it is so manifest that they most imperfectly\nunderstood that book?\n\nIn fact the appeal to them proved too much. For Jude quotes the book\nof Enoch as an inspired prophecy, and yet, since Archbishop Laurence\nhas translated it from the Ethiopian, we know that book to be a fable\nundeserving of regard, and undoubtedly not written by \"Enoch, the\nseventh from Adam.\" Besides, it does not appear that any peculiar\ndivine revelation taught them that the Old Testament is perfect\ntruth. In point of fact, they only reproduce the ideas on that subject\ncurrent in their age. So far as Paul deviates from the common Jewish\nview, it is in the direction of disparaging the Law as essentially\nimperfect. May it not seem that his remaining attachment to it was\nstill exaggerated by old sentiment and patriotism?\n\nI farther found that not only do the Evangelists give us no hint that\nthey thought themselves divinely inspired, or that they had any other\nthan human sources of knowledge, but Luke most explicitly shows the\ncontrary. He opens by stating to Theophilus, that since many persons\nhave committed to writing the things handed down from eye-witnesses,\nit seemed good to him also to do the same, since he had \"accurately\nattended to every thing from its sources ([Greek: anothen]).\" He could\nnot possibly have written thus, if he had been conscious of superhuman\naids. How absurd then of us, to pretend that we know more than Luke\nknew of his own inspiration!\n\nIn truth, the arguments of theologians to prove the inspiration\n(i.e. infallibility) of Matthew, Mark, and Luke, are sometimes almost\nludicrous. My lamented friend, John Sterling, has thus summed up\nDr. Henderson's arguments about Mark. \"Mark was probably inspired,\n_because he was an acquaintance of Peter_; and because Dr. Henderson\nwould be reviled by other Dissenters, if he doubted it.\"\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nAbout this time, the great phenomenon of these gospels,--the casting\nout of devils,--pressed forcibly on my attention. I now dared to\nlook full into the facts, and saw that the disorders described were\nperfectly similar to epilepsy, mania, catalepsy, and other known\nmaladies. Nay, the deaf, the dumb, the hunchbacked, are spoken of as\ndevil-ridden. I farther knew that such diseases are still ascribed to\nevil genii in Mussulman countries: even a vicious horse is believed by\nthe Arabs to be _majnun_, possessed by a Jin or Genie. Devils also\nare cast out in Abyssinia to this day. Having fallen in with Farmer's\ntreatise on the Demoniacs, I carefully studied it; and found it\nto prove unanswerably, that a belief in demoniacal possession is a\nsuperstition not more respectable than that of witchcraft. But Farmer\ndid not at all convince me, that the three Evangelists do not share\nthe vulgar error. Indeed, the instant we believe that the imagined\npossessions were only various forms of disease, we are forced to draw\nconclusions of the utmost moment, most damaging to the credit of the\nnarrators.[3]\n\nClearly, they are then convicted of misstating facts, under the\ninfluence of superstitious credulity. They represent demoniacs as\nhaving a supernatural acquaintance with Jesus, which, it now becomes\nmanifest, they cannot have had. The devils cast out of two demoniacs\n(or one) are said to have entered into a herd of swine. This must have\nbeen a credulous fiction. Indeed, the casting out of devils is so very\nprominent a part of the miraculous agency ascribed to Jesus, as at\nfirst sight to impair our faith in his miracles altogether.\n\nI however took refuge in the consideration, that when Jesus wrought\none great miracle, popular credulity would inevitably magnify it into\nten; hence the discovery of foolish exaggerations is no disproof of a\nreal miraculous agency: nay, perhaps the contrary. Are they not a sort\nof false halo round a disc of glory,--a halo so congenial to human\nnature, that the absence of it might be even wielded as an objection?\nMoreover, John tells of no demoniacs: does not this show his freedom\nfrom popular excitement? Observe the great miracles narrated by\nJohn,--the blind man,--and Lazarus--how different in kind from those\non demoniacs! how incapable of having been mistaken! how convincing!\nHis statements cannot be explained away: their whole tone, moreover,\nis peculiar. On the contrary, the three first gospels contain much\nthat (after we see the writers to be credulous) must be judged\nlegendary.\n\nThe two first chapters of Matthew abound in dreams. Dreams? Was indeed\nthe \"immaculate conception\" merely told to Joseph in a _dream_? a\ndream which not he only was to believe, but we also, when reported\nto us by a person wholly unknown, who wrote 70 or 80 years after the\nfact, and gives us no clue to his sources of information! Shall I\nreply that he received his information by miracle? But why more than\nLuke? and Luke evidently was conscious only of human information.\nBesides, inspiration has not saved Matthew from error about demons;\nand why then about Joseph's dream and its highly important contents?\n\nIn former days, I had never dared to let my thoughts dwell\ninquisitively on the _star_, which the wise men saw in the East, and\nwhich accompanied them, and pointed out the house where the young\nchild was. I now thought of it, only to see that it was a legend\nfit for credulous ages; and that it must be rejected in common with\nHerod's massacre of the children,--an atrocity unknown to Josephus.\nHow difficult it was to reconcile the flight into Egypt with the\nnarrative of Luke, I had known from early days: I now saw that it was\nwaste time to try to reconcile them.\n\nBut perhaps I might say:--\"That the writers should make errors about\nthe _infancy_ of Jesus was natural; they were distant from the time:\nbut that will not justly impair the credit of events, to which they\nmay possibly have been contemporaries or even eye-witnesses.\"--How\nthen would this apply to the Temptation, at which certainly none of\nthem were present? Is it accident, that the same three, who abound\nin the demoniacs, tell also the scene of the Devil and Jesuit on a\npinnacle of the temple; while the same John who omits the demoniacs,\nomits also this singular story? It being granted that the writers are\nelsewhere mistaken, to criticize the tale was to reject it.\n\nIn near connexion with this followed the discovery, that many other\nmiracles of the Bible are wholly deficient in that moral dignity,\nwhich is supposed to place so great a chasm between them and\necclesiastical writings. Why should I look with more respect on\nthe napkins taken from Paul's body (Acts xix. 12), than on\npocket-handkerchiefs dipped in the blood of martyrs? How could I\nbelieve, on this same writer's hearsay, that \"the Spirit of the Lord\ncaught away Philip\" (viii. 39), transporting him through the air; as\noriental genii are supposed to do? Or what moral dignity was there in\nthe curse on the barren fig-tree,--about which, moreover, we are so\nperplexingly told, that it was _not_ the time for figs? What was to be\nsaid of a cure, wrought by touching the hem of Jesus' garment, which\ndrew physical _virtue_ from him without his will? And how could I\ndistinguish the genius of the miracle of tribute-money in the fish's\nmouth, from those of the apocryphal gospels? What was I to say\nof useless miracles, like that of Peter and Jesus walking on the\nwater,--or that of many saints coming out of the graves to show\nthemselves, or of a poetical sympathy of the elements, such as the\nearthquake and rending of the temple-veil when Jesus died? Altogether,\nI began to feel that Christian advocates commit the flagrant sophism\nof treating every objection as an isolated \"cavil,\" and overrule each\nas obviously insufficient, with the same confidence as if it were the\nonly one. Yet, in fact, the objections collectively are very\npowerful, and cannot be set aside by supercilious airs and by calling\nunbelievers \"superficial,\" any more than by harsh denunciations.\n\nPursuing the same thought to the Old Testament, I discerned there also\nno small sprinkling of grotesque or unmoral miracles. A dead man is\nraised to life, when his body by accident touches the bones of Elisha:\nas though Elisha had been a Romish saint, and his bones a sacred\nrelic. Uzzah, when the ark is in danger of falling, puts out his hand\nto save it, and is struck dead for his impiety! Was this the judgment\nof the Father of mercies and God of all comfort? What was I to make\nof God's anger with Abimelech (Gen. xx.), whose sole offence was, the\nhaving believed Abraham's lie? for which a miraculous barrenness was\nsent on all the females of Abimelech's tribe, and was bought off\nonly by splendid presents to the favoured deceiver.--Or was it at\nall credible that the lying and fraudulent Jacob should have been so\nspecially loved by God, more than the rude animal Esau?--Or could I\nany longer overlook the gross imagination of antiquity, which made\nAbraham and Jehovah dine on the same carnal food, like Tantalus with\nthe gods;--which fed Elijah by ravens, and set angels to bake cakes\nfor him? Such is a specimen of the flood of difficulties which poured\nin, through the great breach which the demoniacs had made in the\ncredit of Biblical marvels.\n\nWhile I was in this stage of progress, I had a second time the\nadvantage of meeting Dr. Arnold, and had satisfaction in finding that\nhe rested the main strength of Christianity on the gospel of John. The\ngreat similarity of the other three seemed to him enough to mark that\nthey flowed from sources very similar, and that the first gospel had\nno pretensions to be regarded as the actual writing of Matthew. This\nindeed had been for some time clear to me, though I now cared little\nabout the author's name, when he was proved to be credulous.--Arnold\nregarded John's gospel as abounding with smaller touches which marked\nthe eye-witness, and, altogether, to be the vivid and simple picture\nof a divine reality, undeformed by credulous legend. In this view I\nwas gratified to repose, in spite of a few partial misgivings, and\nreturned to investigations concerning the Old Testament.\n\nFor some time back I had paid special attention to the book of\nGenesis; and I had got aid in the analysis of it from a German volume.\nThat it was based on _at least_ two different documents, technically\ncalled the Elohistic and Jehovistic, soon became clear to me: and\nan orthodox friend who acknowledged the fact, regarded it as a high\nrecommendation of the book, that it was conscientiously made out of\npre-existing materials, and was not a fancy that came from the brain\nof Moses. My good friend's argument was not a happy one: no written\nrecord could exist of things and times which preceded the invention\nof writing. After analysing this book with great minuteness, I now\nproceeded to Exodus and Numbers; and was soon assured, that these had\nnot, any more than Genesis, come forth from one primitive witness\nof the facts. In all these books is found the striking phenomenon of\n_duplicate_ or even _triplicate narratives_. The creation of man\nis three times told. The account of the Flood is made up out of two\ndiscrepant originals, marked by the names Elohim and Jehovah; of which\none makes Noah take into the ark _seven_ pairs of clean, and _single_\n(or double?) pairs of unclean, beasts; while the other gives him\ntwo and two of all kinds, without distinguishing the clean. The two\ndocuments may indeed in this narrative be almost re-discovered by\nmechanical separation. The triple statement of Abraham and Isaac\npassing off a wife for a sister was next in interest; and here\nalso the two which concern Abraham are contrasted as Jehovistic\nand Elohistic. A similar double account is given of the origin of\ncircumcision, of the names Isaac, Israel, Bethel, Beersheba. Still\nmore was I struck by the positive declaration in Exodus (vi. 3)\nthat _God was_ NOT _known to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob by the name\nJehovah_; while the book of Genesis abounds with the contrary fact.\nThis alone convinced me beyond all dispute, that these books did not\ncome from one and the same hand, but are conglomerates formed out of\nolder materials, unartistically and mechanically joined.\n\nIndeed a fuller examination showed in Exodus and Numbers a twofold\nmiracle of the quails, of which the latter is so told as to indicate\nentire unacquaintance with the former. There is a double description\nof the manna, a needless second appointment of Elders of the\ncongregation: water is twice brought out of the rock by the rod of\nMoses, whose faith is perfect the first time and fails the second\ntime. The name of Meribah is twice bestowed. There is a double promise\nof a guardian angel, a double consecration of Aaron and his sons:\nindeed, I seemed to find a double or even threefold[4] copy of the\nDecalogue. Comprising Deuteronomy within my view, I met two utterly\nincompatible accounts of Aaron's death; for Deuteronomy makes him\ndie _before_ reaching Meribah Kadesh, where, according to Numbers, he\nsinned and incurred the penalty of death (Num. xx. 24, Deut x. 6: cf\nNum. xxxiii. 31, 38).\n\nThat there was error on a great scale in all this, was undeniable;\nand I began to see at least one _source_ of the error. The celebrated\nmiracle of \"the sun standing still\" has long been felt as too violent\na derangement of the whole globe to be used by the most High as a\nmeans of discomfiting an army: and I had acquiesced in the idea that\nthe miracle was _ocular_ only. But in reading the passage, (Josh. x.\n12-14,) I for the first time observed that the narrative rests on the\nauthority of a poetical book which bears the name of Jasher.[5] He who\ncomposed--\"Sun, stand thou still upon Gibeon; and thou, Moon, in the\nvalley of Ajalon!\"--like other poets, called on the Sun and Moon to\nstand and look on Joshua's deeds; but he could not anticipate that\nhis words would be hardened into fact by a prosaic interpreter, and\nappealed to in proof of a stupendous miracle. The commentator\ncould not tell what _the Moon_ had to do with it; yet he has quoted\nhonestly.--This presently led me to observe other marks that the\nnarrative has been made up, at least in part, out of old poetry.\nOf these the most important are in Exodus xv. and Num. xxi., in the\nlatter of which three different poetical fragments are quoted, and\none of them is expressly said to be from \"the book of the wars of\nJehovah,\" apparently a poem descriptive of the conquest of Canaan by\nthe Israelites. As for Exodus xv. it appeared to me (in that stage,\nand after so abundant proof of error,) almost certain that Moses' song\nis the primitive authority, out of which the prose narrative of the\npassage of the Red Sea has been worked up. Especially since, after the\nsong, the writer adds: v. 19. \"For the horse of Pharaoh went in with\nhis chariots and with his horsemen into the sea, and the Lord brought\nagain the waters of the sea upon them: but the children of Israel went\non dry land in the midst of the sea.\" This comment scarcely could\nhave been added, if the detailed account of ch. xiv. had been written\npreviously. The song of Moses _implies no miracle at all_: it is\nmerely high poetry. A later prosaic age took the hyperbolic phrases\nof v. 8 literally, and so generated the comment of v. 19, and a still\nlater time expanded this into the elaborate 14th chapter.\n\nOther proofs crowded upon me, that cannot here be enlarged upon.\nGranting then (for argument) that the four first books of the\nPentateuch are a compilation, made long after the event, I tried for a\nwhile to support the very arbitrary opinion, that Deuteronomy (all but\nits last chapter) which seemed to be a more homogeneous composition,\nwas alone and really the production of Moses. This however needed some\ndefinite proof: for if tradition was not sufficient to guarantee the\nwhole Pentateuch, it could not guarantee to me Deuteronomy alone. I\nproceeded to investigate the external history of the Pentateuch, and\nin so doing, came to the story, how the book of the Law was _found_\nin the reign of the young king Josiah, nearly at the end of the Jewish\nmonarchy. As I considered the narrative, my eyes were opened. If\nthe book had previously been the received sacred law, it could not\npossibly have been so lost, that its contents were unknown, and the\nfact of its loss forgotten: it was therefore evidently _then first\ncompiled_, or at least then first produced and made authoritative to\nthe nation.[6] And with this the general course of the history best\nagrees, and all the phenomena of the books themselves.\n\nMany of the Scriptural facts were old to me: to the importance of\nthe history of Josiah I had perhaps even become dim-sighted by\nfamiliarity. Why had I not long ago seen that my conclusions ought to\nhave been different from those of prevalent orthodoxy?--I found that\nI had been cajoled by the primitive assumptions, which though not\nclearly _stated_, are unceremoniously _used_. Dean Graves, for\ninstance, always takes for granted, that, _until the contrary shall be\ndemonstrated_, it is to be firmly believed that the Pentateuch is\nfrom the pen of Moses. He proceeds to set aside, _one by one_, as not\ndemonstrative, the indications that it is of later origin: and when\nother means fail, he says that the particular verses remarked on\nwere added by a later hand! I considered that if we were debating\nthe antiquity of an Irish book, and in one page of it were found an\nallusion to the Parliamentary Union with England, we should at once\nregard the whole book, _until the contrary should be proved_, as the\nwork of this century; and not endure the reasoner, who, in order\nto uphold a theory that it is five centuries old, pronounced that\nsentence \"evidently to be from a later hand.\" Yet in this arbitrary\nway Dean Graves and all his coadjutors set aside, one by one, the\ntexts which point at the date of the Pentateuch. I was possessed with\nindignation. Oh sham science! Oh false-named Theology!\n\n  O mihi tam long\u00e6 maneat pars ultima vit\u00e6,\n  Spiritus et, quantum sat erit tua dicere facta!\n\nYet I waited some eight years longer, lest I should on so grave\na subject write anything premature. Especially I felt that it was\nnecessary to learn more of what the erudition of Germany had done\non these subjects. Michaelis on the New Testament had fallen into my\nhands several years before, and I had found the greatest advantage\nfrom his learning and candour. About this time I also had begun to\nget more or less aid from four or five living German divines; but\nnone produced any strong impression on me but De Wette. The two\ngrand lessons which I learned from him, were, the greater recency\nof Deuteronomy, and the very untrustworthy character of the book of\nChronicles; with which discovery, the true origin of the Pentateuch\nbecomes still clearer.[7] After this, I heard of Hengstenberg as the\nmost learned writer on the opposite side, and furnished myself with\nhis work in defence of the antiquity of the Pentateuch: but it only\nshowed me how hopeless a cause he had undertaken.\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nIn this period I came to a totally new view of many parts of the\nBible; and not to be tedious, it will suffice here to sum up the\nresults.\n\nThe first books which I looked at as doubtful, were the Apocalypse and\nthe Epistle to the Hebrews. From the Greek style I felt assured that\nthe former was not by John,[8] nor the latter by Paul. In Michaelis\nI first learnt the interesting fact of Luther having vehemently\nrepudiated the Apocalypse, so that he not only declared its\nspuriousness in the Preface of his Bible, but solemnly charged his\nsuccessors not to print his translation of the Apocalypse without\nannexing this avowal:--a charge which they presently disobeyed. Such\nis the habitual unfairness of ecclesiastical corporations. I was\nafterwards confirmed by Neander in the belief that the Apocalypse is\na false prophecy. The only chapter of it which is interpreted,--the\n17th,--appears to be a political speculation suggested by the civil\nwar of Otho, Vitellius and Vespasian; and erroneously opines that\nthe eighth emperor of Rome is to be the last, and is to be one of the\npreceding emperors restored,--probably Nero, who was believed to have\nescaped to the kings of the East.--As for the Epistle to the Hebrews,\n(which I was disposed to believe Luther had well guessed to be the\nproduction of Apollos,) I now saw quite a different genius in it from\nthat of Paul, as more artificial and savouring of rhetorical culture.\nAs to this, the learned Germans are probably unanimous.\n\nNext to these, the Song of Solomon fell away. I had been accustomed to\nreceive this as a sacred representation of the loves of Christ and the\nChurch: but after I was experimentally acquainted with the playful and\nextravagant genius of man's love for woman, I saw the Song of Solomon\nwith new eyes, and became entirely convinced that it consists of\nfragments of love-songs, some of them rather voluptuous.\n\nAfter this, it followed that the so-called _Canon_ of the Jews could\nnot guarantee to us the value of the writings. Consequently, such\nbooks as Ruth and Esther, (the latter indeed not containing\none religious sentiment,) stood forth at once in their natural\ninsignificance. Ecclesiastes also seemed to me a meagre and shallow\nproduction. Chronicles I now learned to be not credulous only, but\nunfair, perhaps so far as to be actually dishonest. Not one of the\nhistorical books of the Old Testament could approve itself to me as\nof any high antiquity or of any spiritual authority; and in the New\nTestament I found the first three books and the Acts to contain many\ndoubtful and some untrue accounts, and many incredible miracles.\n\nMany persons, after reading thus much concerning me, will be apt to\nsay: \"Of course then you gave up Christianity?\"--Far from it. I gave\nup all that was clearly untenable, and clung the firmer to all that\nstill appeared sound. I had found out that the Bible was not to be\nmy religion, nor its perfection any tenet of mine: but what then! Did\nPaul go about preaching the Bible? nay, but he preached Christ. The\nNew Testament did not as yet exist: to the Jews he necessarily argued\nfrom the Old Testament; but that \"faith in the book\" was no part of\nPaul's gospel, is manifest from his giving no list of sacred books\nto his Gentile converts. Twice indeed in his epistles to Timothy, he\nrecommends the Scriptures of the Old Testament; but even in the more\nstriking passage, (on which such exaggerated stress has been laid,)\nthe spirit of his remark is essentially apologetic. \"Despise not,\noh Timothy,\" (is virtually his exhortation) \"the Scriptures that you\nlearned as a child. Although now you have the Spirit to teach you,\nyet that does not make the older writers useless: for \"_every divinely\ninspired writing is also profitable for instruction &c._\" In Paul's\nreligion, respect for the Scriptures was a means, not an end. The\nBible was made for man, not man for the Bible.\n\nThus the question with me was: \"May I still receive Christ as a\nSaviour from sin, a Teacher and Lord sent from heaven, and can I find\nan adequate account of what he came to do or teach?\" And my reply was,\nYes. The gospel of John alone gave an adequate account of him: the\nother three, though often erroneous, had clear marks of simplicity,\nand in so far confirmed the general belief in the supernatural\ncharacter and works of Jesus. Then the conversion of Paul was a\npowerful argument. I had Peter's testimony to the resurrection, and to\nthe transfiguration. Many of the prophecies were eminently remarkable,\nand seemed unaccountable except as miraculous. The origin of Judaism\nand spread of Christianity appeared to be beyond common experience,\nand were perhaps fairly to be called supernatural. Broad views such as\nthese did not seem to be affected by the special conclusions at which\nI had arrived concerning the books of the Bible. I conceived myself\nto be resting under an Indian Figtree, which is supported by certain\ngrand stems, but also lets down to the earth many small branches,\nwhich seem to the eye to prop the tree, but in fact are supported\nby it. If they were cut away, the tree would not be less strong.\nSo neither was the tree of Christianity weakened by the loss of its\napparent props. I might still enjoy its shade, and eat of its fruits,\nand bless the hand that planted it.\n\nIn the course of this period I likewise learnt how inadequate\nallowance I had once made for the repulsion produced by my own\ndogmatic tendency on the sympathies of the unevangelical. I now\noften met persons of Evangelical opinion, but could seldom have any\ninterchange of religious sentiment with them, because every word they\nuttered warned me that I could escape controversy only while I kept\nthem at a distance: moreover, if any little difference of opinion led\nus into amicable argument, they uniformly reasoned by quoting texts.\nThis was now inadmissible with me, but I could only have done mischief\nby going farther than a dry disclaimer; after which indeed I saw I was\ngenerally looked on as \"an infidel.\" No doubt the parties who so came\ninto collision with me, approached me often with an earnest desire\nand hope to find some spiritual good in me, but withdrew disappointed,\nfinding me either cold and defensive, or (perhaps they thought) warm\nand disputatious. Thus, as long as artificial tests of spirituality\nare allowed to exist, their erroneousness is not easily exposed by\nthe mere wear and tear of life. When the collision of opinion is\nvery strong, two good men may meet, and only be confirmed in their\nprejudices against one another: for in order that one may elicit\nthe spiritual sympathies of the other, a certain liberality is\nprerequisite. Without this, each prepares to shield himself from\nattack, or even holds out weapons of offence. Thus \"articles of\nCommunion\" are essentially articles of Disunion.--On the other hand,\nif all tests of opinion in a church were heartily and truly done away,\nthen the principles of spiritual affinity and repulsion would\nact quite undisturbed. Surely therefore this was the only right\nmethod?--Nevertheless, I saw the necessity of _one_ test, \"Jesus\nis the Son of God,\" and felt unpleasantly that one article tends\ninfallibly to draw another after it. But I had too much, just then to\nthink of in other quarters, to care much about Church Systems.\n\n\n[Footnote 1: See Gen. xxxiii. 19, and xlix. 29-32, xxiii.]\n\n[Footnote 2: Some say, that Zechariah, son of Jehoiada, named in the\nChronicles, is meant; that he is _confounded_ with the prophet, the\nson of Berechiah, and was _supposed_ to be the last of the martyrs,\nbecause the Chronicles are placed last in the Hebrew Bible. This is a\nplausible view; but it saves the Scripture only by imputing error to\nJesus.]\n\n[Footnote 3: My Eclectic Reviewer says (p. 276): \"Thus because the\nevangelists held an erroneous _medical_ theory, Mr. Newman suffered\na breach to be made in the credit of the Bible.\" No; but as the next\nsentence states, \"because they are convicted of _misstating facts_,\"\nunder the influence of this erroneous medical theory. Even this\nreviewer--candid for an orthodox critic, and not over-orthodox\neither--cannot help garbling me.]\n\n[Footnote 4: I have explained this in my \"Hebrew Monarchy.\"]\n\n[Footnote 5: This poet celebrated also the deeds of David (2 Sam. i.\n18) according to our translation: if so, he was many centuries later\nthan Joshua; however, the sense of the Hebrew is little obscure.]\n\n[Footnote 6: I have fully discussed this in my \"Hebrew Monarchy.\"]\n\n[Footnote 7: The English reader may consult Theodore Parker's\ntranslation of De Wette's Introduction to the Canon of Scripture. I\nhave also amply exhibited the vanity of the _Chronicles_ in my \"Hebrew\nMonarchy.\" De Wette has a separate treatise on the Chronicles,]\n\n[Footnote 8: If the date of the Apocalypse is twenty years earlier\nthan that of the fourth Gospel, I now feel no such difficulty in their\nbeing the composition of the same writer.]\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER V.\n\n\nFAITH AT SECOND HAND FOUND TO BE VAIN.\n\n\nI reckon my fifth period to begin from the time when I had totally\nabandoned the claim of \"the Canon\" of Scripture, however curtailed,\nto be received as the object of faith, as free from error, or as\nsomething raised above moral criticism; and looked out for some deeper\nfoundation for my creed than any sacred Letter. But an entirely new\ninquiry had begun to engage me at intervals, viz., _the essential\nlogic of these investigations._ Ought we in any case to receive moral\ntruth in obedience to an apparent miracle of sense? or conversely,\nought we ever to believe in sensible miracles because of their\nrecommending some moral truth? I perceived that the endless jangling\nwhich goes on in detailed controversy, is inevitable, while the\ndisputants are unawares at variance with one another, or themselves\nwavering, as to these pervading principles of evidence.--I regard my\nfifth period to come to an end with the decision of this question.\nNevertheless, many other important lines of inquiry were going forward\nsimultaneously.\n\nI found in the Bible itself,--and even in the very same book, as\nin the Gospel of John,--great uncertainty and inconsistency on this\nquestion. In one place, Jesus reproves[1] the demand of a miracle, and\nblesses those who believe without[2] miracles; in another, he requires\nthat they will submit to his doctrine because[3] of his miracles.\nNow, this is intelligible, if blind external obedience is the end of\nreligion, and not Truth and inward Righteousness. An ambitious and\nunscrupulous _Church_, that desires, by fair means or foul, to make\nmen bow down to her, may say, \"Only believe; and all is right. The end\nbeing gained,--Obedience to us,--we do not care about your reasons.\"\nBut _God_ cannot speak thus to man; and to a divine teacher we should\npeculiarly look for aid in getting clear views of the grounds of\nfaith; because it is by a knowledge of these that we shall both be\nrooted on the true basis, and saved from the danger of false beliefs.\n\nIt, therefore, peculiarly vexed me to find so total a deficiency of\nclear and sound instruction in the New Testament, and eminently in the\ngospel of John, on so vital a question. The more I considered it,\nthe more it appeared, as if Jesus were solely anxious to have people\nbelieve in Him, without caring on what grounds they believed, although\nthat is obviously the main point. When to this was added the threat of\n\"damnation\" on those who did not believe, the case became far worse:\nfor I felt that if such a threat were allowed to operate, I might\nbecome a Mohammedan or a Roman Catholic. Could I in any case\nrationally assign this as a ground for believing in Christ,--\"because\nI am frightened by his threats\"--?\n\nFarther thought showed me that a question of _logic_, such as I here\nhad before me, was peculiarly one on which the propagator of a new\nreligion could not be allowed to dictate; for if so, every false\nsystem could establish itself. Let Hindooism dictate our logic,--let\nus submit to its tests of a divine revelation, and its mode\nof applying them,--and we may, perhaps, at once find ourselves\nnecessitated to \"become little children\" in a Brahminical school.\nMight not then this very thing account for the Bible not enlightening\nus on the topic? namely, since Logic, like Mathematics, belongs to the\ncommon intellect,--Possibly so: but still, it cannot reconcile us\nto _vacillations_ and _contradictions_ in the Bible on so critical a\npoint.\n\nGradually I saw that deeper and deeper difficulties lay at bottom. If\nLogic _cannot_ be matter of authoritative revelation, so long as the\nnature of the human mind is what it is,--if it appears, as a fact,\nthat in the writings and speeches of the New Testament the logic is\nfar from lucid,--if we are to compare Logic with Mathematics and other\nsciences, which grew up with civilization and long time,--we cannot\ndoubt that the apostles imbibed the logic, like the astronomy, of\ntheir own day, with all its defects. Indeed, the same is otherwise\nplain. Paul's reasonings are those of a Gamaliel, and often are\nindefensible by our logical notions. John, also (as I had been\nrecently learning,) has a wonderful similarity to Philo. This being\nthe case, it becomes of deep interest to us to know,--if we are to\naccept results _at second hand_ from Paul and John,--_what was the\nsort of evidence which convinced them?_ The moment this question is\nput, we see the essential defect to which we are exposed, in not being\nable to cross-examine them. Paul says that \"Christ appeared to\nhim:\" elsewhere, that he has \"received of the Lord\" certain facts,\nconcerning the Holy Supper: and that his Gospel was \"given to him by\nrevelation.\" If any modern made such statements to us, and on this\nground demanded our credence, it would be allowable, and indeed\nobligatory, to ask many questions of him. What does he _mean_ by\nsaying that he has had a \"revelation?\" Did he see a sight, or hear a\nsound? or was it an inward impression? and how does he distinguish\nit as divine?[4] Until these questions are fully answered, we have\nno materials at all before us for deciding to accept his results:\nto believe him, merely because he is earnest and persuaded, would be\njudged to indicate the weakness of inexperience. How then can it be\npretended that we have, or can possibly get, the means of assuring\nourselves that the apostles held correct principles of evidence and\napplied them justly, when we are not able to interrogate them?\n\nFarther, it appears that _our_ experience of delusion forces us to\nenact a very severe test of supernatural revelation. No doubt, we can\nconceive that which is equivalent to a _new sense_ opening to us; but\nthen it must have verifications connecting it with the other senses.\nThus, a particularly vivid sort of dream recurring with special marks,\nand communicating at once heavenly and earthly knowledge, of which the\nlatter was otherwise verified, would probably be admitted as a valid\nsort of evidence: but so intense would be the interest and duty to\nhave all unravelled and probed to the bottom, that we should think it\nimpossible to verify the new sense too anxiously, and we should demand\nthe fullest particulars of the divine transaction. On the contrary,\nit is undeniable that all such severity of research is rebuked in the\nScriptures as unbelief. The deeply interesting _process_ of receiving\nsupernatural revelation.--a revelation, _not_ of moral principles,\nbut of outward facts and events, supposed to be communicated in a mode\nwholly peculiar and unknown to common men,--this process, which ought\nto be laid open and analyzed under the fullest light, _if we are to\nbelieve the results at second hand_, is always and avowedly shrouded\nin impenetrable darkness. There surely is something here, which\ndenotes that it is dangerous to resign ourselves to the conclusions of\nthe apostles, when their logical notions are so different from ours.\n\nI farther inquired, what sort of miracle I could conceive, that would\nalter my opinion on a moral question. Hosea was divinely ordered to go\nand unite himself to an impure woman: could I possibly think that God\nordered _me_ to do so, if I heard a voice in the air commanding\nit? Should I not rather disbelieve my hearing, than disown my moral\nperceptions? If not, where am I to stop? I may practise all sorts of\nheathenism. A man who, in obedience to a voice in the air, kills his\ninnocent wife or child, will either be called mad, and shut up for\nsafety, or will be hanged as a desperate fanatic: do I dare to condemn\nthis modern judgment of him? Would any conceivable miracle justify my\nslaying my wife? God forbid! It _must_ be morally right, to believe\nmoral rather than sensible perceptions. No outward impressions on the\neye or ear can be so valid an assurance to me of God's will, as my\ninward judgment. How amazing, then, that a Paul or a James could look\non Abraham's intention to slay his son, as indicating a praiseworthy\nfaith!--And yet not amazing: It does but show, that apostles in former\ndays, like ourselves, scrutinized antiquity with different eyes from\nmodern events. If Paul had been ordered by a supernatural voice to\nslay Peter, he would have attributed the voice to the devil, \"the\nprince of the power of the air,\" and would have despised it. He\npraises the faith of Abraham, but he certainly would never have\nimitated his conduct. Just so, the modern divines who laud Joseph's\npiety towards Mary, would be very differently affected, if events and\npersons were transported to the present day.\n\nBut to return. Let it be granted that no sensible miracle could\nauthorize me so to violate my moral perceptions as to slay (that is,\nto murder) my innocent wife. May it, nevertheless, authorize me to\ninvade a neighbour country, slaughter the people and possess their\ncities, although, without such a miracle, the deed would be deeply\ncriminal? It is impossible to say that here, more than in the former\ncase, miracles[5] can turn aside the common laws of morality. Neither,\ntherefore, could they justify Joshua's war of extermination on the\nCanaanites, nor that of Samuel on the Amalekites; nor the murder of\nmisbelievers by Elijah and by Josiah. If we are shocked at the idea\nof God releasing Mohammed from the vulgar law of marriage, we must\nas little endure relaxation in the great laws of justice and mercy.\nFarther, if only a _small_ immorality is concerned, shall we then say\nthat a miracle may justify it? Could it authorise me to plait a whip\nof small cords, and flog a preferment-hunter out of the pulpit? or\nwould it justify me in publicly calling the Queen and her ministers\n\"a brood of vipers, who cannot escape the damnation of hell\"[6] Such\nquestions go very deep into the heart of the Christian claims.\n\nI had been accustomed to overbear objections of this sort by replying,\nthat to allow of their being heard would amount to refusing leave\nto God to give commands to his creatures. For, it seems, if he _did_\ncommand, we, instead of obeying, should discuss whether the command\nwas right and reasonable; and if we thought it otherwise, should\nconclude that God never gave it. The extirpation of the Canaanites\nis compared by divines to the execution of a criminal; and it is\ninsisted, that if the voice of society may justify the executioner,\nmuch more may the voice of God--But I now saw the analogy to be\ninsufficient and unsound. Insufficient, because no executioner\nis justified in slaying those whom his conscience tells him to be\ninnocent; and it is a barbarous morality alone, which pretends that\nhe may make himself a passive tool of slaughter. But next, the analogy\n_assumes_, (what none of my very dictatorial and insolent critics make\neven the faintest effort to prove to be a fact,) that God, like man,\nspeaks from without: that what we call Reason and Conscience is _not_\nhis mode of commanding and revealing his will, but that words\nto strike the ear, or symbols displayed before the senses, are\nemphatically and exclusively \"Revelation.\" Besides all this, the\ncommand of slaughter to the Jews is not directed against the seven\nnations of Canaan only, as modern theologians often erroneously\nassert: it is a _universal_ permission, of avaricious massacre and\nsubjugation of \"the cities which are very far off from thee, which are\n_not_ of the cities of these nations,\" Deut, xx. 15.\n\nThe thoughts which here fill but a few pages, occupied me a long while\nin working out; because I consciously, with caution more than\nwith timidity, declined to follow them rapidly. They came as dark\nsuspicions or as flashing possibilities; and were again laid aside for\nreconsideration, lest I should be carried into antagonism to my old\ncreed. For it is clear that great error arises in religion, by the\nundue ardour of converts, who become bitter against the faith which\nthey have left, and outrun in zeal their new associates. So also\nsuccessive centuries oscillate too far on the right and on the left\nof truth. But so happy was my position, that I needed not to hurry: no\npractical duty forced me to rapid decision, and a suspense of judgment\nwas not an unwholesome exercise. Meanwhile, I sometimes thought\nChristianity to be to me, like the great river Ganges to a Hindoo. Of\nits value he has daily experience: he has piously believed that its\nsources are in heaven, but of late the report has come to him, that\nit only flows from very high mountains of this earth. What is he to\nbelieve? He knows not exactly: he cares not much: in any case the\nriver is the gift of God to him: its positive benefits cannot be\naffected by a theory concerning its source.\n\nSuch a comparison undoubtedly implies that he who uses it discerns for\nhimself a moral excellence in Christianity, and _submits to it only\nso far as this discernment commands_. I had practically reached\nthis point, long before I concluded my theoretical inquiries as to\nChristianity itself: but in the course of this fifth period numerous\nother overpowering considerations crowded upon me which I must proceed\nto state in outline.\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nAll pious Christians feel, and all the New Testament proclaims, that\nFaith is a moral act and a test of the moral and spiritual that is\nwithin us; so that he who is without faith, (faithless, unfaithful,\n\"infidel,\") is morally wanting and is cut off from God. To assent to\na religious proposition _solely_ in obedience to an outward miracle,\nwould be Belief; but would not be Faith, any more than is scientific\nconviction. Bishop Butler and all his followers can insist with much\nforce on this topic, when it suits them, and can quote most aptly\nfrom the New Testament to the same effect. They deduce, that a really\noverpowering miraculous proof would have destroyed the moral character\nof Faith: yet they do not see that the argument supersedes the\nauthoritative force of outward miracles entirely. It had always\nappeared to me very strange in these divines, to insist on the\nstupendous character and convincing power of the Christian miracles,\nand then, in reply to the objection that they were _not_ quite\nconvincing, to say that the defect was purposely left \"to try people's\nFaith.\" Faith in what? Not surely in the confessedly ill-proved\nmiracle, but in the truth as discernible by the heart _without aid of\nmiracle._\n\nI conceived of two men, Nathaniel and Demas, encountering a pretender\nto miracles, a Simon Magus of the scriptures. Nathaniel is guileless,\nsweet-hearted and of strong moral sense, but in worldly matters rather\na simpleton. Demas is a sharp man, who gets on well in the world,\nquick of eye and shrewd of wit, hard-headed and not to be imposed upon\nby his fellows; but destitute of any high religious aspirations or\ndeep moral insight. The juggleries of Simon are readily discerned by\nDemas, but thoroughly deceive poor Nathaniel: what then is the latter\nto do? To say that we are to receive true miracles and reject false\nones, avails not, unless the mind is presumed to be capable of\ndiscriminating the one from the other. The wonders of Simon are as\ndivine as the wonders of Jesus to a man, who, like Nathaniel, can\naccount for neither by natural causes. If we enact the rule, that men\nare to \"submit their understandings\" to apparent prodigies, and\nthat \"revelation\" is a thing of the outward senses, we alight on the\nunendurable absurdity, that Demas has faculties better fitted than\nthose of Nathaniel for discriminating religious truth and error, and\nthat Nathaniel, in obedience to eye and ear, which he knows to be very\ndeceivable organs, is to abandon his moral perceptions.\n\nNor is the case altered, if instead of Simon in person, a huge thing\ncalled a Church is presented as a claimant of authority to Nathaniel.\nSuppose him to be a poor Spaniard, surrounded by false miracles, false\nerudition, and all the apparatus of reigning and unopposed Romanism.\nHe cannot cope with the priests in cleverness,--detect their\njuggleries,--refute their historical falsehoods, disentangle their web\nof sophistry: but if he is truehearted, he may say: \"You bid me not\nto keep faith with heretics: you defend murder, exile, imprisonment,\nfines, on men who will not submit their consciences to your authority:\nthis I see to be wicked, though you ever so much pretend that God has\ntaught it you.\" So, also, if he be accosted by learned clergymen,\nwho undertake to prove that Jesus wrought stupendous miracles, or\nby learned Moolahs who allege the same of Mohammed or of Menu, he is\nquite unable to deal with them on the grounds of physiology, physics,\nor history.--In short, nothing can be plainer, than that _the moral\nand spiritual sense is the only religious faculty of the poor man_;\nand that as Christianity in its origin was preached to the poor, so\nit was to the inward senses that its first preachers appealed, as\nthe supreme arbiters in the whole religious question. Is it not then\nabsurd to say that in the act of conversion the convert is to trust\nhis moral perception, and is ever afterwards to distrust it?\n\nAn incident had some years before come to my knowledge, which now\nseemed instructive. An educated, highly acute and thoughtful person,\nof very mature age, had become a convert to the Irving miracles, from\nan inability to distinguish them from those of the Pauline epistles;\nor to discern anything of falsity which would justify his rejecting\nthem. But after several years he totally renounced them as a miserable\ndelusion, _because_ he found that a system of false doctrine was\ngrowing up and was propped by them. Here was a clear case of a man\nwith all the advantages of modern education and science, who yet found\nthe direct judgment of a professed miracle, that was acted before his\nsenses, too arduous for him! He was led astray while he trusted his\npower to judge of miracle: he was brought right by trusting to his\nmoral perceptions.\n\nWhen we farther consider, that a knowledge of Natural Philosophy and\nPhysiology not only does not belong to the poor, but comes later in\ntime to mankind than a knowledge of morals;--that a Miracle can only\nbe judged of by Philosophy,--that it is not easy even for philosophers\nto define what is a \"miracle\"--that to discern \"a deviation from the\ncourse of nature,\" implies a previous certain knowledge of what _the\ncourse of nature_ is,--and that illiterate and early ages certainly\nhave not this knowledge, and often have hardly even the idea,--it\nbecomes quite a monstrosity to imagine that sensible and external\nmiracles constitute the necessary process and guarantee of divine\nrevelation.\n\nBesides, if an angel appeared to my senses, and wrought miracles, how\nwould that assure me of his moral qualities? Such miracles might prove\nhis power and his knowledge, but whether malignant or benign, would\nremain doubtful, until by purely moral evidence, which no miracles\ncould give, the doubt should be solved.[7] This is the old difficulty\nabout diabolical wonders. The moderns cut the knot, by denying that\nany but God can possibly work real miracles. But to establish their\nprinciple, they make their definition and verification of a miracle\nso strict, as would have amazed the apostles; and after all, the\ndifficulty recurs, that miraculous phenomena will never prove the\ngoodness and veracity of God, if we do not know these qualities in Him\nwithout miracle. There is then a deeper and an earlier revelation of\nGod, which sensible miracles can never give.\n\nWe cannot distinctly learn what was Paul's full idea of a divine\nrevelation; but I can feel no doubt that he conceived it to be, in\ngreat measure, an _inward_ thing. Dreams and visions were not excluded\nfrom influence, and nacre or less affected his moral judgment; but\nhe did not, consciously and on principle, beat down his conscience in\nsubmission to outward impressions. To do so, is indeed to destroy\nthe moral character of Faith, and lay the axe to the root, not of\nChristian doctrine only, but of every possible spiritual system.\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nMeanwhile, new breaches were made in those citadels of my creed which\nhad not yet surrendered.\n\nOne branch of the Christian Evidences concerns itself with the\n_history_ and _historical effects_ of the faith, and among Protestants\nthe efficacy of the Bible to enlighten and convert has been very much\npressed. The disputant, however, is apt to play \"fast and loose.\" He\nadduces the theory of Christianity when the history is unfavourable,\nand appeals to the history if the theory is impugned. In this way,\njust so much is picked out of the mass of facts as suits his argument,\nand the rest is quietly put aside.\n\nI. In the theory of my early creed, (which was that of the New\nTestament, however convenient it may be for my critics to deride it as\nfanatical and _not_ Christian,) cultivation of mind and erudition\nwere classed with worldly things, which might be used where they\npre-existed, (as riches and power may subserve higher ends,) but which\nwere quite extraneous and unessential to the spiritual kingdom of\nChrist. A knowledge of the Bible was assumed to need only an honest\nheart and God's Spirit, while science, history, and philosophy were\nregarded as doubtful and dangerous auxiliaries. But soon after the\nfirst reflux of my mind took place towards the Common Understanding,\nas a guide of life legitimately co-ordinate with Scripture, I was\nimpressed with the consideration that _Free Learning_ had acted on\na great scale for the improvement of spiritual religion. I had been\naccustomed to believe that _the Bible_[8] brought about the Protestant\nReformation; and until my twenty-ninth year probably it had not\noccurred to me to question this. But I was first struck with the\nthought, that the Bible did not prevent the absurd iniquities of the\nNicene and Post Nicene controversy, and that the Church, with the\nBible in her hands, sank down into the gulf of Popery. How then was\nthe Bible a sufficient explanation of her recovering out of Popery?\n\nEven a superficial survey of the history shows, that the first\nimprovement of spiritual doctrine in the tenth and eleventh centuries,\ncame from a study of the moral works of Cicero and Boethius;--a fact\nnotorious in the common historians. The Latin moralists effected, what\n(strange to think!) the New Testament alone could not do.\n\nIn the fifteenth century, when Constantinople was taken by the Turks,\nlearned Greeks were driven out to Italy and to other parts of the\nWest, and the Roman Catholic world began to read the old Greek\nliterature. All historians agree, that the enlightenment of mind\nhence arising was a prime mover of religious Reformation; and learned\nProtestants of Germany have even believed, that the overthrow of\nPopish error and establishment of purer truth would have been brought\nabout more equably and profoundly, if Luther had never lived, and the\npassions of the vulgar had never been stimulated against the externals\nof Romanism.\n\nAt any rate, it gradually opened upon me, that the free cultivation of\nthe _understanding_, which Latin and Greek literature had imparted to\nEurope and our freer public life, were chief causes of our religious\nsuperiority to Greek, Armenian, and Syrian Christians. As the Greeks\nin Constantinople under a centralized despotism retained no free\nintellect, and therefore the works of their fathers did their souls no\ngood; so in Europe, just in proportion to the freedom of learning,\nhas been the force of the result. In Spain and Italy the study\nof miscellaneous science and independent thought were nearly\nextinguished; in France and Austria they were crippled; in Protestant\ncountries they have been freest. And then we impute all their effects\nto the Bible![9]\n\nI at length saw how untenable is the argument drawn from the inward\nhistory of Christianity in favour of its superhuman origin. In fact:\nthis religion cannot pretend to _self-sustaining power._ Hardly was it\nstarted on its course, when it began to be polluted by the heathenism\nand false philosophy around it. With the decline of national genius\nand civil culture it became more and more debased. So far from being\nable to uphold the existing morality of the best Pagan teachers, it\nbecame barbarized itself, and sank into deep superstition and manifold\nmoral corruption. From ferocious men it learnt ferocity. When civil\nsociety began to coalesce into order, Christianity also turned for the\nbetter, and presently learned to use the wisdom, first of Romans, then\nof Greeks: such studies opened men's eyes to new apprehensions of the\nScripture and of its doctrine. By gradual and human means, Europe,\nlike ancient Greece, grew up towards better political institutions;\nand Christianity improved with them,--the Christianity of the more\neducated. Beyond Europe, where there have been no such institutions,\nthere has been no Protestant Reformation:--that is in the Greek,\nArmenian, Syrian, Coptic churches. Not unreasonably then do Franks\nin Turkey disown the title Nazarene, as denoting _that_ Christianity\nwhich has not been purified by European laws and European learning.\nChristianity rises and sinks with political and literary influences:\nin so far,[10] it does not differ from other religions.\n\nThe same applied to the origin and advance of Judaism. It began\nin polytheistic and idolatrous barbarism: it cleared into a hard\nmonotheism, with much superstition adhering to it. This was farther\nimproved by successive psalmists and prophets, until Judaism\nculminated. The Jewish faith was eminently grand and pure; but\nthere is nothing[11] in this history which we can adduce in proof of\npreternatural and miraculous agency.\n\nII. The facts concerning the outward spread of Christianity have also\nbeen disguised by the party spirit of Christians, as though there were\nsomething essentially _different in kind_ as to the mode in which it\nbegan and continued its conquests, from the corresponding history\nof other religions. But no such distinction can be made out. It is\ngeneral to all religions to begin by moral means, and proceed farther\nby more worldly instruments.\n\nChristianity had a great moral superiority over Roman paganism, in\nits humane doctrine of universal brotherhood, its unselfishness, its\nholiness; and thereby it attracted to itself (among other and baser\nmaterials) all the purest natures and most enthusiastic temperaments.\nIts first conquests were noble and admirable. But there is nothing\n_superhuman_ or unusual in this. Mohammedism in the same way conquers\nthose Pagan creeds which are morally inferior to it. The Seljuk and\nthe Ottoman Turks were Pagans, but adopted the religion of Tartars and\nPersians whom they subjugated, because it was superior and was blended\nwith a superior civilization; exactly as the German conquerors of the\nWestern Empire of Rome adopted some form of Christianity.\n\nBut if it is true that _the sword_ of Mohammed was the influence which\nsubjected Arabia, Egypt, Syria and Persia to the religion of Islam,\nit is no less true that the Roman empire was finally conquered to\nChristianity by the sword. Before Constantine, Christians were but a\nsmall fraction of the empire. In the preceding century they had gone\non deteriorating in good sense and most probably therefore in moral\nworth, and had made no such rapid progress in numbers as to imply that\nby the mere process of conversion they would ever Christianize the\nempire. That the conversion of Constantine, such as it was, (for he\nwas baptized only just before death,) was dictated by mere worldly\nconsiderations, few modern Christians will deny. Yet a great fact is\nhere implied; viz., that Christianity was adopted as a state-religion,\nbecause of the great _political_ power accruing from the organization\nof the churches and the devotion of Christians to their ecclesiastical\ncitizenship. Roman statesmen well knew that a hundred thousand Roman\ncitizens devoted to the interests of Rome, could keep in subjection\na population of ten millions who were destitute of any intense\npatriotism and had no central objects of attachment. The Christian\nchurch had shown its immense resisting power and its tenacious union,\nin the persecution by Galerius; and Constantine was discerning enough\nto see the vast political importance of winning over such a body;\nwhich, though but a small fraction of the whole empire, was the only\nparty which could give coherence to that empire, the only one which\nhad enthusiastic adherents in every province, the only one on whose\nresolute devotion it was possible for a partizan to rely securely. The\nbravery and faithful attachment of Christian regiments was a lesson\nnot lost upon Constantine; and we may say, in some sense, that the\nChristian soldiers in his armies conquered the empire (that is, the\nimperial appointments) for Christianity. But Paganism subsisted,\neven in spite of imperial allurements, until at length the sword of\nTheodosius violently suppressed heathen worship. So also, it was the\nspear of Charlemagne which drove the Saxons to baptism, and decided\nthe extirpation of Paganism from Teutonic Europe. There is nothing in\nall this to distinguish the outward history of Christianity from\nthat of Mohammedism. Barbarous tribes, now and then, venerating\nthe superiority of our knowledge, adopt our religion: so have Pagan\nnations in Africa voluntarily become Mussulmans. But neither we nor\nthey can appeal to any case, where an old State-religion has yielded\nwithout warlike compulsion to the force of heavenly truth,--\"charm we\nnever so wisely.\" The whole influence which Christianity exerts over\nthe world at large depends on the political history of modern Europe.\nThe Christianity of Asia and Abyssinia is perhaps as pure and as\nrespectable in this nineteenth century as it was in the fourth and\nfifth, yet no good or great deeds come forth out of it, of such a kind\nthat Christian disputants dare to appeal to them with triumph. The\npolitico-religious and very peculiar history of _European_ Christendom\nhas alone elevated the modern world; and as Gibbon remarks, this whole\nhistory has directly depended on the fate of the great battles of\nTours between the Moors and the Franks. The defeat of Mohammedism by\nChristendom certainly has not been effected by spiritual weapons. The\nsoldier and the statesman have done to the full as much as the priest\nto secure Europe for Christianity, and win a Christendom of which\nChristians can be proud. As for the Christendom of Asia, the\napologists of Christianity simply ignore it. With these facts, how can\nit be pretended that the external history of Christianity points to an\nexclusively divine origin?\n\nThe author of the \"Eclipse of Faith\" has derided me for despatching\nin two paragraphs what occupied Gibbon's whole fifteenth chapter; but\nthis author, here as always, misrepresents me. Gibbon is exhibiting\nand developing the deep-seated causes of the spread of Christianity\nbefore Constantine, and he by no means exhausts the subject. I am\ncomparing the ostensible and notorious facts concerning the outward\nconquest of Christianity with those of other religions. To _account_\nfor the early growth of any religion, Christian, Mussulman, or\nMormonite, is always difficult.\n\nIII. The moral advantages which we owe to Christianity have been\nexaggerated by the same party spirit, as if there were in them\nanything miraculous.\n\n1. We are told that Christianity is the decisive influence which has\nraised _womankind_: this does not appear to be true. The old Roman\nmatron was, relatively to her husband,[12] morally as high as in\nmodern Italy: nor is there any ground for supposing that modern women\nhave advantage over the ancient in Spain and Portugal, where Germanic\nhave been counteracted by Moorish influences. The relative position of\nthe sexes in Homeric Greece exhibits nothing materially different from\nthe present day. In Armenia and Syria perhaps Christianity has done\nthe service of extinguishing polygamy: this is creditable, though\nnowise miraculous. Judaism also unlearnt polygamy, and made an\nunbidden improvement upon Moses. In short, only in countries where\nGermanic sentiment has taken root, do we see marks of any elevation\nof the female sex superior to that of Pagan antiquity; and as this\nelevation of the German woman in her deepest Paganism was already\nstriking to Tacitus and his contemporaries, it is highly unreasonable\nto claim it as an achievement of Christianity.\n\nIn point of fact, Christian doctrine, as propounded by Paul, is not at\nall so honourable to woman as that which German soundness of heart has\nestablished. With Paul[13] the _sole_ reason for marriage is, that a\nman may gratify instinct without sin. He teaches, that _but_ for this\nobject it would be better not to marry. He wishes that all were in\nthis respect as free as himself, and calls it a special gift of God.\nHe does not encourage a man to desire a mutual soul intimately to\nshare griefs and joys; one in whom the confiding heart can repose,\nwhose smile shall reward and soften toil, whose voice shall beguile\nsorrow. He does not seem aware that the fascinations of woman refine\nand chasten society; that virtuous attachment has in it an element of\nrespect, which abashes and purifies, and which shields the soul, even\nwhen marriage is deferred; nor yet, that the union of two persons\nwho have no previous affection can seldom yield the highest fruits of\nmatrimony, but often leads to the severest temptations. How _should_\nhe have known all this? Courtship before marriage did not exist in the\nsociety open to him: hence he treats the propriety of giving away a\nmaiden, as one in which _her_ conscience, _her_ likes and dislikes,\nare not concerned: 1 Cor. vii. 37, 38. If the law leaves the parent\n\"power over his own will\" and imposes no \"necessity\" to give her away,\nPaul decidedly advises to keep her unmarried.\n\nThe author of the Apocalypse, a writer of the first century, who\nwas received in the second as John the apostle, holds up a yet more\ndegrading view of the matrimonial relation. In one of his visions he\nexhibits 144,000 chosen saints, perpetual attendants of \"the Lamb,\"\nand places the cardinal point of their sanctity in the fact, that\n\"they were not defiled with women, but were virgins.\" Marriage,\ntherefore, is defilement! Protestant writers struggle in vain against\nthis obvious meaning of the passage. Against all analogy of Scriptural\nmetaphor, they gratuitously pretend that _women_ mean _idolatrous\nreligions_: namely, because in the Old Testament the Jewish Church is\npersonified as a virgin betrothed to God, and an idol is spoken of as\nher paramour.\n\nAs a result of the apostolic doctrines, in the second, third, and\nfollowing centuries, very gross views concerning the relation of the\nsexes prevailed, and have been everywhere transmitted where men's\nmorality is exclusively[14] formed from the New Testament. The\nmarriage service of the Church of England, which incorporates the\nPauline doctrine is felt by English brides and bridegrooms to contain\nwhat is so offensive and degrading, that many clergymen mercifully\nmake unlawful omissions. Paul had indeed expressly denounced\n_prohibitions_ of marriage. In merely _dissuading_ it, he gave advice,\nwhich, from his limited horizon and under his expectation of the\nspeedy return of Christ, was sensible and good; but when this advice,\nwith all its reasons, was made on oracle of eternal wisdom, it\ngenerated the monkish notions concerning womanhood. If the desire of\na wife is a weakness, which the apostle would gladly have forbidden,\nonly that he feared worse consequences, an enthusiastic youth cannot\nbut infer that it is a higher state of perfection _not_ to desire a\nwife, and therefore aspires to \"the crown of virginity.\" Here at once\nis full-grown monkery. Hence that debasement of the imagination, which\nis directed perpetually to the lowest, instead of the highest side of\nthe female nature. Hence the disgusting admiration and invocation of\nMary's perpetual virginity. Hence the transcendental doctrine of her\nimmaculate conception from Anne, the \"grandmother of God.\"\n\nIn the above my critics have represented me to say that Christianity\nhas done _nothing_ for women. I have not said so, but that what it has\ndone has been exaggerated. I say: If the _theory_ of Christianity is\nto take credit from the _history_ of Christendom, it must also receive\ndiscredit. Taking in the whole system of nuns and celibates, and the\ndoctrine which sustains it, the root of which is apostolic, I doubt\nwhether any balance of credit remains over from this side of Christian\nhistory. I am well aware that the democratic doctrine of \"the equality\nof souls\" has a _tendency_ to elevate women,--and the poorer orders\ntoo; but this is not the whole of actual Christianity, which is a very\nheterogeneous mass.\n\n2. Again: the modern doctrine, by aid of which West Indian slavery has\nbeen exterminated, is often put forward as Christian; but I had always\ndiscerned that it was not Biblical, and that, in respect to this great\ntriumph, undue credit has been claimed for the fixed Biblical and\nauthoritative doctrine. As I have been greatly misunderstood in\nmy first edition, I am induced to expand this topic. Sir George\nStephen,[15] after describing the long struggle in England against the\nWest Indian interest and other obstacles, says, that, for some time,\n\"worst of all, we found the people, not actually against us, but\napathetic, lethargic, incredulous, indifferent. It was then, and _not\ntill then_, that we sounded the right note, and touched a chord that\nnever ceased to vibrate. _To uphold slavery was a crime against God!_\nIt was a NOVEL DOCTRINE, but it was a cry that was heard, for it would\nbe heard. The national conscience was awakened to inquiry, and inquiry\nsoon produced conviction.\" Sir George justly calls the doctrine novel.\nAs developed in the controversy, it laid down the general proposition,\nthat _men and women are not, and cannot be chattels_; and that all\nhuman enactments which decree this are _morally null and void_, as\nsinning against the higher law of nature and of God. And the reason\nof this lies in the essential contrast of a moral personality and\nchattel. Criminals may deserve to be bound and scourged, but they do\nnot cease to be persons, nor indeed do even the insane. Since every\nman is a person, he cannot be a piece of property, nor has an\n\"owner\" any just and moral claim to his services. Usage, so far from\nconferring this claim, increases the total amount of injustice; the\nlonger an innocent man is _forcibly_ kept in slavery, the greater the\nreparation to which he is entitled for the oppressive immorality. This\ndoctrine I now believe to be irrefutable truth, but I disbelieved it\nwhile I thought the Scripture authoritative; because I found a very\ndifferent doctrine there--a doctrine which is the argumentative\nstronghold of the American slaveholder. Paul sent back the fugitive\nOnesimus to his master Philemon, with kind recommendations and\napologies for the slave, and a tender charge to Philemon, that he\nwould receive Onesimus as a brother in the Lord, since he had been\nconverted by Paul in the interval; but this very recommendation,\nfull of affection as it is, virtually recognizes the moral rights of\nPhilemon to the services of his slave; and hinting that if Onesimus\nstole anything, Philemon should now forgive him, Paul shows perfect\ninsensibility to the fact that the master who detains a slave in\ncaptivity against his will, is guilty himself of a continual theft.\nWhat says Mrs. Beecher Stowe's Cassy to this? \"Stealing!--They who\nsteal body and soul need not talk to us. Every one of these bills is\nstolen--stolen from poor starving, sweating creatures.\" Now Onesimus,\nin the very act of taking to flight, showed that he had been\nsubmitting to servitude against his will, and that the house of his\nowner had previously been a prison to him. To suppose that Philemon\nhas a pecuniary interest in the return of Onesimus to work without\nwages, implies that the master habitually steals the slave's earnings;\nbut if he loses nothing by the flight, he has not been wronged by it.\nSuch is the modern doctrine, developed out of the fundamental fact\nthat persons are not chattels; but it is to me wonderful that it\nshould be needful to prove to any one, that this is _not_ the doctrine\nof the New Testament. Paul and Peter deliver excellent charges to\nmasters in regard to the treatment of their slaves, but without any\nhint to them that there is an injustice in claiming them as slaves at\nall. That slavery, _as a system_, is essentially immoral, no Christian\nof those days seems to have suspected. Yet it existed in its\nworst forms under Rome. Whole gangs of slaves were mere tools of\ncapitalists, and were numbered like cattle, with no moral relationship\nto the owner; young women of beautiful person were sold as articles\nof voluptuousness. Of course every such fact was looked upon by\nChristians as hateful and dreadful; yet, I say, it did not lead them\nto that moral condemnation of slavery, _as such_, which has won the\nmost signal victory in modern times, and is destined, I trust, to win\none far greater.\n\nA friendly reviewer replies to this, that the apathy of the early\nChristians to the intrinsic iniquity of the slave system rose out of\n\"their expectation of an immediate close of this world's affairs. The\nonly reason why Paul sanctioned contentment with his condition in the\nconverted slave, was, that for so short a time it was not worth while\nfor any man to change his state.\" I agree to this; but it does not\nalter my fact: on the contrary, it confirms what I say,--that the\nBiblical morality is not final truth. To account for an error surely\nis not to deny it.\n\nAnother writer has said on the above: \"Let me suppose you animated to\ngo as missionary to the East to preach this (Mr. Newman's) spiritual\nsystem: would you, in addition to all this, publicly denounce the\nsocial and political evils under which the nations groan? If so, your\nspiritual projects would soon be perfectly understood, and _summarily\ndealt with_.--It is vain to say, that, if commissioned by Heaven,\nand endowed with power of working miracles, you would do so; for you\ncannot tell under what limitations your commission would be given:\nit is pretty certain, that _it would leave you to work a moral and\nspiritual system by moral and spiritual means_, and not allow you to\nturn the world upside down, and _mendaciously_ tell it that you came\nonly to preach peace, while every syllable you uttered would be an\nincentive to sedition.\"--_Eclipse of Faith_, p. 419.\n\nThis writer supposes that he is attacking _me_, when every line is an\nattack on Christ and Christianity. Have _I_ pretended power of working\nmiracles? Have I imagined or desired that miracle would shield me\nfrom persecution? Did Jesus _not_ \"publicly denounce the social and\npolitical evils\" of Jud\u00e6a? was he not \"summarily dealt with\"? Did\nhe not know that his doctrine would send on earth \"not peace, but a\nsword\"? and was he _mendacious_ in saying, \"Peace I leave unto\nyou?\" or were the angels mendacious in proclaiming, \"Peace on earth,\ngoodwill among men\"? Was not \"every syllable that Jesus uttered\" in\nthe discourse of Matth. xxiii., \"an incentive to sedition?\" and does\nthis writer judge it to be _mendacity_, that Jesus opened by advising\nto OBEY the very men, whom he proceeds to vilify at large as immoral,\noppressive, hypocritical, blind, and destined to the damnation of\nhell? Or have I anywhere blamed the apostles because they did _not_\nexasperate wicked men by direct attacks? It is impossible to answer\nsuch a writer as this; for he elaborately misses to touch what I have\nsaid. On the other hand, it is rather too much to require me to defend\nJesus from his assault.\n\nChristian preachers did not escape the imputation of turning the world\nupside down, and at length, in some sense, effected what was imputed.\nIt is matter of conjecture, whether any greater convulsion would\nhave happened, if the apostles had done as the Quakers in America. No\nQuaker holds slaves: why not? Because the Quakers teach their members\nthat it is an essential immorality. The slave-holding states\nare infinitely more alive and jealous to keep up their \"peculiar\ninstitution,\" than was the Roman government; yet the Quakers have\ncaused no political convulsion. I confess, to me it seems,\nthat if Paul, and John, and Peter, and James, had done as these\nQuakers, the imperial administration would have looked on it as a\nharmless eccentricity of the sect, and not as an incentive[16] to\nsedition. But be this as it may, I did not say what else the apostles\nmight have succeeded to enforce; I merely pointed out what it was that\nthey actually taught, and that, _as a fact_, they did _not_ declare\nslavery to be an immorality and the basest of thefts. If any one\nthinks their course was more wise, he may be right or wrong, but his\nopinion is in itself a concession of my fact.\n\nAs to the historical progress of Christian practice and doctrine on\nthis subject, it is, as usual, mixed of good and evil. The humanity of\ngood Pagan emperors softened the harshness of the laws of bondage, and\nmanumission had always been extremely common amongst the Romans. Of\ncourse, the more humane religion of Christ acted still more powerfully\nin the same direction, especially in inculcating the propriety of\nfreeing _Christian_ slaves. This was creditable, but not peculiar, and\nis not a fact of such a nature as to add to the exclusive claims of\nChristianity. To every _proselyting_ religion the sentiment is so\nnatural, that no divine spirit is needed to originate and establish\nit. Mohammedans also have a conscience against enslaving Mohammedans,\nand generally bestow freedom on a slave as soon as he adopts their\nreligion. But no zeal for _human_ freedom has ever grown out of the\npurely biblical and ecclesiastical system, any more than out of the\nMohammedan. In the middle ages, zeal for the liberation of serfs first\nrose in the breasts of the clergy, after the whole population had\nbecome nominally Christian. It was not men, but Christians, whom the\nclergy desired to make free: it is hard to say, that they thought\nPagans to have any human rights at all, even to life. Nor is it\ncorrect to represent ecclesiastical influences as the sole agency\nwhich overthrew slavery and serfdom. The desire of the kings to raise\nup the chartered cities as a bridle to the barons, was that which\nchiefly made rustic slavery untenable in its coarsest form; for a\n\"villain\" who escaped into the free cities could not be recovered. In\nlater times, the first public act against slavery came from republican\nFrance, in the madness of atheistic enthusiasm; when she declared\nblack and white men to be equally free, and liberated the negroes of\nSt. Domingo. In Britain, the battle of social freedom has been fought\nchiefly by that religious sect which rests least on the letter of\nScripture. The bishops, and the more learned clergy, have consistently\nbeen apathetic to the duty of overthrowing the slave system.--I was\nthus led to see, that here also the New Testament precepts must not be\nreceived by me as any final and authoritative law of morality. But I\nmeet opposition in a quarter from which I had least expected it;--from\none who admits the imperfection of the morality actually attained by\nthe apostles, but avows that Christianity, as a divine system, is\nnot to be identified with apostolic doctrine, but with the doctrine\n_ultimately developed_ in the Christian Church; moreover, the\necclesiastical doctrine concerning slavery he alleges to be truer\nthan mine,--I mean, truer than that which I have expounded as held\nby modern abolitionists. He approves of the principle of claiming\nfreedom, not for _men_, but for _Christians_. He says: \"That\nChristianity opened its arms at all to the servile class was enough;\nfor in its embrace was the sure promise of emancipation.... Is\nit imputed as a disgrace, that Christianity put conversion before\nmanumission, and _brought them to God, ere it trusted them with\nthemselves_?... It created the simultaneous obligation to make the\nPagan a convert, and the convert free.\" ... \"If our author had made\nhis attack from the opposite side, and contended that its doctrines\n'proved too much' against servitude, and _assumed with too little\nqualification the capacity of each man for self-rule_, we should have\nfelt more hesitation in expressing our dissent.\"\n\nI feel unfeigned surprize at these sentiments from one whom I so\nhighly esteem and admire; and considering that they were written at\nfirst anonymously, and perhaps under pressure of time, for a review,\nI hope it is not presumptuous in me to think it possible that they are\nhasty, and do not wholly express a deliberate and final judgment. I\nmust think there is some misunderstanding; for I have made no high\nclaims about capacity for _self-rule_, as if laws and penalties were\nto be done away. But the question is, shall human beings, who (as all\nof us) are imperfect, be controlled by public law, or by individual\ncaprice? Was not my reviewer intending to advocate some form of\n_serfdom_ which is compatible with legal rights, and recognizes the\nserf as a man; not _slavery_ which pronounces him a chattel? Serfdom\nand apprenticeship we may perhaps leave to be reasoned down by\neconomists and administrators; slavery proper is what I attacked as\nessentially immoral.\n\nReturning then to the arguments, I reason against them as if I did\nnot know their author.--I have distinctly avowed, that the effort to\nliberate Christian slaves was creditable: I merely add, that in this\nrespect Christianity is no better than Mohammedism. But is it really\nno moral fault,--is it not a moral enormity,--to deny that Pagans\nhave human rights? \"That Christianity opened its arms _at all_ to the\nservile class, _was enough_.\" Indeed! Then either unconverted men\nhave no natural right to freedom, or Christians may withhold a natural\nright from them. Under the plea of \"bringing them to God,\" Christians\nare to deny by law, to every slave who refuses to be converted, the\nrights of husband and father, rights of persons, rights of property,\nrights over his own body. Thus manumission is a bribe to make\nhypocritical converts, and Christian superiority a plea for depriving\nmen of their dearest rights. Is not freedom older than Christianity?\nDoes the Christian recommend his religion to a Pagan by stealing his\nmanhood and all that belongs to it? Truly, if only Christians have a\nright to personal freedom, what harm is there in hunting and catching\nPagans to make slaves of them? And this was exactly the \"development\"\nof thought and doctrine in the Christian church. The same priests who\ntaught that _Christians_ have moral rights to their sinews and skin,\nto their wives and children, and to the fruit of their labour, which\n_Pagans_ have not, consistently developed the same fundamental idea\nof Christian superiority into the lawfulness of making war upon\nthe heathen, and reducing them to the state of domestic animals. If\nChristianity is to have credit from the former, it must also take the\ncredit of the latter. If cumulative evidence of its divine origin is\nfound in the fact, that Christendom has liberated Christian slaves,\nmust we forget the cumulative evidence afforded by the assumed right\nof the Popes to carve out the countries of the heathen, and bestow\nthem with their inhabitants on Christian powers? Both results flow\nlogically out of the same assumption, and were developed by the same\nschool.\n\nBut, I am told, a man must not be freed, until we have ascertained\nhis capacity for self-rule! This is indeed a tyrannical assumption:\n_vindicioe secundum servitutem_. Men are not to have their human\nrights, until we think they will not abuse them! Prevention is to be\nused against the hitherto innocent and injured! The principle involves\nall that is arrogant, violent, and intrusive, in military tyranny\nand civil espionage. Self-rule? But abolitionists have no thought of\nexempting men from the penalties of common law, if they transgress\nthe law; we only desire that all men shall be equally subjected to\nthe law, and equally protected by it. It is truly a strange inference,\nthat because a man is possibly deficient in virtue, therefore he shall\nnot be subject to public law, but to private caprice: as if this were\na school of virtue, and not eminently an occasion of vice. Truer far\nis Homer's morality, who says, that a man loses half his virtue on the\nday he is made a slave. As to the pretence that slaves are not fit\nfor freedom, those Englishmen who are old enough to remember the awful\npredictions which West Indian planters used to pour forth about the\nbloodshed and confusion which would ensue, if they were hindered\nby law from scourging black men and violating black women, might, I\nthink, afford to despise the danger of _enacting_ that men and women\nshall be treated as men and women, and not made tools of vice end\nvictims of cruelty. If ever sudden emancipation ought to have produced\nviolences and wrong from the emancipated, it was in Jamaica, where the\noppression and ill-will was so great; yet the freed blacks have not in\nfifteen years inflicted on the whites as much lawless violence as\nthey suffered themselves in six months of apprenticeship. It is the\n_masters_ of slaves, not the slaves, who are deficient in self-rule;\nand slavery is doubly detestable, because it depraves the masters.\n\nWhat degree of \"worldly moderation and economical forethought\" is\nneeded by a practical statesman in effecting the liberation of slaves,\nit is no business of mine to discuss. I however feel assured, that\nno constitutional statesman, having to contend against the political\nvotes of numerous and powerful slave-owners, who believe their\nfortunes to be at stake, will ever be found to undertake the task _at\nall_, against the enormous resistance of avarice and habit, unless\nreligious teachers pierce the conscience of the nation by denouncing\nslavery as an essential wickedness. Even the petty West Indian\ninterests--a mere fraction of the English empire--were too powerful,\nuntil this doctrine was taught. Mr. Canning in parliament spoke\nemphatically against slavery, but did not dare to bring in a bill\nagainst it. When such is English experience, I cannot but expect the\nsame will prove true in America.\n\nIn replying to objectors, I have been carried beyond my narrative,\nand have written from my _present_ point of view; I may therefore here\ncomplete this part of the argument, though by anticipation.\n\nThe New Testament has beautifully laid down Truth and Love as the\nculminating virtues of man; but it has imperfectly discerned that Love\nis impossible where Justice does not go first. Regarding this world\nas destined to be soon burnt up, it despaired of improving the\nfoundations of society, and laid down the principle of Non-resistance,\neven to Injurious force, in terms so unlimited, as practically to\nthrow its entire weight into the scale of tyranny. It recognises\nindividuals who call themselves kings or magistrates (however\ntyrannical and usurping), as Powers ordained of God: it does _not_\nrecognize nations as Communities ordained of God, or as having any\npower and authority whatsoever, as against pretentious individuals. To\nobey a king, is strenuously enforced; to resist a usurping king, in a\npatriotic cause, is not contemplated in the New Testament as under\nany circumstances an imaginable duty. Patriotism has no recognised\nexistence in the Christian records. I am well aware of the _cause_\nof this; I do not say that it reflects any dishonour on the Christian\napostles: I merely remark on it as a calamitous fact, and deduce that\ntheir precepts cannot and must not be made the sufficient rule of\nlife, or they will still be (as they always have hitherto been) a\nmainstay of tyranny. The rights of Men and of Nations are wholly\nignored[17] in the New Testament, but the authority of Slave-owners\nand of Kings is very distinctly recorded for solemn religious\nsanction. If it had been wholly silent, no one could have appealed\nto its decision: but by consecrating mere Force, it has promoted\nInjustice, and in so far has made that Love impossible, which it\ndesired to establish.\n\nIt is but one part of this great subject, that the apostles absolutely\ncommand a slave to give obedience to his master in nil things, \"as\nto the Lord.\" It is in vain to deny, that _the most grasping of\nslave-owners asks nothing more of abolitionists than that they would\nall adopt Paul's creed_; viz., acknowledge the full authority of\nowners of slaves, tell them that they are responsible to God alone,\nand charge them to use their power righteously and mercifully.\n\n3. LASTLY: it is a lamentable fact, that not only do superstitions\nabout Witches, Ghosts, Devils, and Diabolical Miracles derive a strong\nsupport from the Bible, (and in fact have been exploded by nothing\nbut the advance of physical philosophy,)--but what is far worse, the\nBible alone has nowhere sufficed to establish an enlightened religious\ntoleration. This is at first seemingly unintelligible: for the\napostles certainly would have been intensely shocked at the thought of\npunishing men, in body, purse, or station, for not being Christians\nor not being orthodox. Nevertheless, not only does the Old Testament\njustify bloody persecution, but the New teaches[18] that God will\nvisit men with fiery vengeance _for holding an erroneous creed_;--that\nvengeance indeed is his, not ours; but that still the punishment\nis deserved. It would appear, that wherever this doctrine is held,\npossession of power for two or three generations inevitably converts\nmen into persecutors; and in so far, we must lay the horrible\ndesolations which Europe has suffered from bigotry, at the doors, not\nindeed of the Christian apostles themselves, but of that Bibliolatry\nwhich has converted their earliest records into a perfect and eternal\nlaw.\n\nIV. \"Prophecy\" is generally regarded as a leading evidence of the\ndivine origin of Christianity. But this also had proved itself to me\na more and more mouldering prop, whether I leant on those which\nconcerned Messiah, those of the New Testament, or the miscellaneous\npredictions of the Old Testament.\n\n1. As to the Messianic prophecies, I began to be pressed with the\ndifficulty of proving against the Jews that \"Messiah was to suffer.\"\nThe Psalms generally adduced for this purpose can in no way be fixed\non Messiah. The prophecy in the 9th chapter of Daniel looks specious\nin the authorized English version, but has evaporated in the Greek\ntranslation and is not acknowledged in the best German renderings.\nI still rested on the 53rd chapter of Isaiah, as alone fortifying me\nagainst the Rabbis: yet with an unpleasantly increasing perception\nthat the system of \"double interpretation\" in which Christians\nindulge, is a playing fast and loose with prophecy, and is essentially\ndishonest _No one dreams of a \"second\" sense until the primary sense\nproves false_: all false prophecy may be thus screened. The three\nprophecies quoted (Acts xiii. 33--35) in proof of the resurrection\nof Jesus, are simply puerile, and deserve no reply.--I felt there was\nsomething unsound in all this.\n\n2. The prophecies of the New Testament are not many. First, we have\nthat of Jesus in Matt xxiv. concerning the destruction of Jerusalem.\nIt is marvellously exact, down to the capture of the city and\nmiserable enslavement of the population; but at this point it becomes\nclearly and hopelessly false: namely, it declares, that \"_immediately\nafter_ that tribulation, the sun shall be darkened, &c. &c., and then\nshall appear the sign of the Son of Man in heaven, and then shall\nall the tribes of the earth mourn, and they shall see the Son of Man\ncoming in the clouds of heaven with power and great glory. And he\nshall send his angels with a great sound of a trumpet, and they shall\ngather together his elect,\" &c. This is a manifest description of the\nGreat Day of Judgment: and the prophecy goes on to add: \"Verily I say\nunto you, This generation shall not pass, till all these things be\nfulfilled.\" When we thus find a prediction to break down suddenly\nin the middle, we have the well-known mark of its earlier part being\nwritten after the event: and it becomes unreasonable to doubt that\nthe detailed annunciations of this 24th chapter of Matthew, were first\ncomposed _very soon after_ the war of Titus, and never came from the\nlips of Jesus at all. Next: we have the prophecies of the Apocalypse.\nNot one of these can be interpreted certainly of any human affairs,\nexcept one in the 17th chapter, which the writer himself has explained\nto apply to the emperors of Rome: and that is proved false by the\nevent.--Farther, we have Paul's prophecies concerning the apostacy of\nthe Christian Church. These are very striking, as they indicate his\ndeep insight into the moral tendencies of the community in which he\nmoved. They are high testimonies to the prophetic soul of Paul; and\nas such, I cannot have any desire to weaken their force. But there is\nnothing in them that can establish the theory of supernaturalism, in\nthe face of his great mistake as to the speedy return of Christ from\nheaven.\n\n3. As for the Old Testament, if all its prophecies about Babylon and\nTyre and Edom and Ishmael and the four Monarchies were both true and\nsupernatural, what would this prove? That God had been pleased to\nreveal something of coming history to certain eminent men of Hebrew\nantiquity. That is all. We should receive this conclusion with an\notiose faith. It could not order or authorize us to submit our souls\nand consciences to the obviously defective morality of the Mosaic\nsystem in which these prophets lived; and with Christianity it has\nnothing to do.\n\nAt the same time I had reached the conclusion that large deductions\nmust be made from the credit of these old prophecies.\n\nFirst, as to the Book of Daniel: the 11th chapter is closely\nhistorical down to Antiochus Epiphanes, after which it suddenly\nbecomes false; and according to different modern expositors, leaps\naway to Mark Antony, or to Napoleon Buonaparte, or to the Papacy.\nHence we have a _prima facie_ presumption that the book was composed\nin the reign of that Antiochus; nor can it be proved to have existed\nearlier: nor is there in it one word of prophecy which can be shown to\nhave been fulfilled in regard to any later era. Nay, the 7th chapter\nalso is confuted by the event; for the great Day of Judgment has not\nfollowed upon the fourth[19] Monarchy.\n\nNext, as to the prophecies of the Pentateuch. They abound, as to the\ntimes which precede the century of Hezekiah; higher than which we\ncannot trace the Pentateuch.[20] No prophecy of the Pentateuch can be\nproved to have been fulfilled, which had not been already fulfilled\nbefore Hezekiah's day.\n\nThirdly, as to the prophecies which concern various nations,--some of\nthem are remarkably verified, as that against Babylon; others failed,\nas those of Ezekiel concerning Nebuchadnezzar's wars against Tyre\nand Egypt. The fate predicted against Babylon was delayed for five\ncenturies, so as to lose all moral meaning as a divine infliction on\nthe haughty city.--On the whole, it was clear to me, that it is a vain\nattempt to forge polemical weapons out of these old prophets, for the\nservice of modern creeds.[21]\n\nV. My study of John's gospel had not enabled me to sustain Dr.\nArnold's view, that it was an impregnable fortress of Christianity.\n\nIn discussing the Apocalypse, I had long before felt a doubt whether\nwe ought not rather to assign that book to John the apostle in\npreference to the Gospel and Epistles: but this remained only as a\ndoubt. The monotony also of the Gospel had often excited my _wonder_. But\nI was for the first time _offended_, on considering with a fresh mind an\nold fact,--the great similarity of the style and phraseology in the third\nchapter, in the testimony of the Baptist, as well as in Christ's\naddress to Nicodemus, that of John's own epistle. As the three first\ngospels have their family likeness, which enables us on hearing a text\nto know that it comes out of one of the three, though we perhaps know\nnot which; so is it with the Gospel and Epistles of John. When a verse\nis read, we know that it is either from an epistle of John, or\nelse from the Jesus of John; but often we cannot tell which. On\ncontemplating the marked character of this phenomenon, I saw it\ninfallibly[22] to indicate that John has made both the Baptist and\nJesus speak, as John himself would have spoken; and that we cannot\ntrust the historical reality of the discourses in the fourth gospel.\n\nThat narrative introduces an entirely new phraseology, with a\nperpetual discoursing about the Father and the Son; of which there is\nbarely the germ in Matthew:--and herewith a new doctrine concerning\nthe heaven-descended personality of Jesus. That the divinity of Christ\ncannot be proved from the three first gospels, was confessed by the\nearly Church, and is proved by the labouring arguments of the modern\nTrinitarians. What then can be dearer, than that John has put into the\nmouth of Jesus the doctrines of half a century later, which he desired\nto recommend?\n\nWhen this conclusion pressed itself first on my mind, the name of\nStrauss was only beginning to be known in England, and I did not read\nhis great work until years after I had come to a final opinion on this\nwhole subject. The contemptuous reprobation of Strauss in which it is\nfashionable for English writers to indulge, makes it a duty to express\nmy high sense of the lucid force with which he unanswerably shows that\nthe fourth gospel (whoever the author was) is no faithful exhibition\nof the discourses of Jesus. Before I had discerned this so vividly\nin all its parts, it had become quite certain to me that the secret\ncolloquy with Nicodemus, and the splendid testimony of the Baptist\nto the Father and the Son, were wholly modelled out of John's own\nimagination. And no sooner had I felt how severe was the shock to\nJohn's general veracity, than a new and even graver difficulty rose\nupon me.\n\nThe stupendous and public event of Lazarus's resurrection,--the\ncircumstantial cross-examination of the man born blind and healed\nby Jesus,--made those two miracles, in Dr. Arnold's view, grand and\nunassailable bulwarks of Christianity. The more I considered them, the\nmightier their superiority seemed to those of the other gospels. They\nwere wrought at Jerusalem, under the eyes of the rulers, who did their\nutmost to detect them, and could not; but in frenzied despair, plotted\nto kill Lazarus. How different from the frequently vague and wholesale\nstatements of the other gospels concerning events which happened where\nno enemy was watching to expose delusion! many of them in distant and\nuncertain localities.\n\nBut it became the more needful to ask; How was it that the other\nwriters omitted to tell of such decisive exhibitions? Were they so\ndull in logic, as not to discern the superiority of these? Can they\npossibly have known of such miracles, wrought under the eyes of\nthe Pharisees, and defying all their malice, and yet have told in\npreference other less convincing marvels? The question could not\nbe long dwelt on, without eliciting the reply: \"It is necessary to\nbelieve, at least until the contrary shall be proved, that the\nthree first writers either had never heard of these two miracles, or\ndisbelieved them.\" Thus the account rests on the unsupported evidence\nof John, with a weighty presumption against its truth.\n\nWhen, where, and in what circumstances did John write? It is agreed,\nthat he wrote half a century after the events; when the other\ndisciples were all dead; when Jerusalem was destroyed, her priests\nand learned men dispersed, her nationality dissolved, her coherence\nannihilated;--he wrote in a tongue foreign to the Jews of Palestine,\nand for a foreign people, in a distant country, and in the bosom of\nan admiring and confiding church, which was likely to venerate him the\nmore, the greater marvels he asserted concerning their Master. He\ntold them miracles of firstrate magnitude, which no one before had\nrecorded. Is it possible for me to receive them _on his word_, under\ncircumstances so conducive to delusion, and without a single check to\nensure his accuracy? Quite impossible; when I have already seen how\nlittle to be trusted is his report of the discourses and doctrine of\nJesus.\n\nBut was it necessary to impute to John conscious and wilful deception?\nBy no means absolutely necessary;--as appeared by the following\ntrain[23] of thought. John tells us that Jesus promised the Comforter,\n_to bring to their memory_ things that concerned him; oh that one\ncould have the satisfaction of cross-examining John on this subject!\nLet me suppose him put into the witness-box; and I will speak to him\nthus: \"O aged Sir, we understand that you have two memories, a natural\nand a miraculous one: with the former you retain events as other men;\nwith the latter you recall what had been totally forgotten. Be pleased\nto tell us now. Is it from your natural or from your supernatural\nmemory that you derive your knowledge of the miracle wrought on\nLazarus and the long discourses which you narrate?\" If to this\nquestion John were frankly to reply, \"It is solely from my\nsupernatural memory,--from the special action of the Comforter on my\nmind:\" then should I discern that he was perfectly truehearted. Yet\nI should also see, that he was liable to mistake a reverie, a\nmeditation, a day-dream, for a resuscitation of his memory by the\nSpirit. In short, a writer who believes such a doctrine, and does\nnot think it requisite to warn us how much of his tale comes from his\nnatural, and how much from his supernatural memory, forfeits all claim\nto be received as an historian, witnessing by the common senses to\nexternal fact. His work may have religious value, but it is that of\na novel or romance, not of a history. It is therefore superfluous to\nname the many other difficulties in detail which it contains.\n\nThus was I flung back to the three first gospels, as, with all their\ndefects,--their genealogies, dreams, visions, devil-miracles, and\nprophecies written after the event,--yet on the whole, more faithful\nas a picture of the true Jesus, than that which is exhibited in John.\n\nAnd now my small root of supernaturalism clung the tighter to Paul,\nwhose conversion still appeared to me a guarantee, that there was at\nleast some nucleus of miracle in Christianity, although it had not\npleased God to give us any very definite and trustworthy account.\nClearly it was an error, to make miracles our _foundation_; but might\nwe not hold them as a result? Doctrine must be our foundation; but\nperhaps we might believe the miracles for the sake of it.--And in the\nepistles of Paul I thought I saw various indications that he took this\nview. The practical soundness of his eminently sober understanding had\nappeared to me the more signal, the more I discerned the atmosphere of\nerroneous philosophy which he necessarily breathed. But he also proved\na broken reed, when I tried really to lean upon him as a main support.\n\n1. The first thing that broke on me concerning Paul, was, that\nhis moral sobriety of mind was no guarantee against his mistaking\nextravagances for miracle. This was manifest to me in his treatment of\n_the gift of tongues_.\n\nSo long ago as in 1830, when the Irving \"miracles\" commenced in\nScotland, my particular attention had been turned to this subject, and\nthe Irvingite exposition of the Pauline phenomena appeared to me so\ncorrect, that I was vehemently predisposed to believe the miraculous\ntongues. But my friend \"the Irish clergyman\" wrote me a full account\nof what he heard with his own ears; which was to the effect--that none\nof the sounds, vowels or consonants, were foreign;--that the strange\nwords were moulded after the Latin grammar, ending in -abus, -obus,\n-ebat, -avi, &c., so as to denote poverty of invention rather than\nspiritual agency;--and _that there was no interpretation_. The last\npoint decided me, that any belief which I had in it must be for the\npresent unpractical. Soon after, a friend of mine applied by letter\nfor information as to the facts to a very acute and pious Scotchman,\nwho had become a believer in these miracles. The first reply gave us\nno facts whatever, but was a declamatory exhortation to believe.\nThe second was nothing but a lamentation over my friend's unbelief,\nbecause he asked again for the facts. This showed me, that there was\nexcitement and delusion: yet the general phenomena appeared so similar\nto those of the church of Corinth, that I supposed the persons must\nunawares have copied the exterior manifestations, if, after all, there\nwas no reality at bottom.\n\nThree years sufficed to explode these tongues; and from time to time\nI had an uneasy sense, how much discredit they cast on the Corinthian\nmiracles. Meander's discussion on the 2nd Chapter of the Acts first\nopened to me the certainty, that Luke (or the authority whom he\nfollowed) has exaggerated into a gift of languages what cannot have\nbeen essentially different from the Corinthian, and in short from\nthe Irvingite, tongues. Thus Luke's narrative has transformed into a\nsplendid miracle, what in Paul is no miracle at all. It is true that\nPaul speaks of _interpretation of tongues_ as possible, but without a\nhint that any verification was to be used. Besides, why should a Greek\nnot speak Greek in an assembly of his own countrymen? Is it credible,\nthat the Spirit should inspire one man to utter unintelligible sounds,\nand a second to interpret these, and then give the assembly endless\ntrouble to find out whether the interpretation was pretence or\nreality, when the whole difficulty was gratuitous? We grant that\nthere _may_ be good reasons for what is paradoxical, but we need the\nstronger proof that it is a reality. Yet what in fact is there? and\nwhy should the gift of tongues in Corinth, as described by Paul, be\ntreated with more respect than in Newman Street, London? I could\nfind no other reply, than that Paul was too sober-minded: yet his own\ndescription of the tongues is that of a barbaric jargon, which makes\nthe church appear as if it \"were mad,\" and which is only redeemed from\ncontempt by miraculous interpretation. In the Acts we see that this\nphenomenon pervaded all the Churches; from the day of Pentecost onward\nit was looked on as the standard mark of \"the descent of the Holy\nSpirit;\" and in the conversion of Cornelius it was the justification\nof Peter for admitting uncircumcised Gentiles: yet not once is\n\"interpretation\" alluded to, except in Paul's epistle. Paul could not\ngo against the whole Church. He held a logic too much in common with\nthe rest, to denounce the tongues as _mere_ carnal excitement; but he\ndoes anxiously degrade them as of lowest spiritual value, and wholly\nprohibits them where there is \"no interpreter.\" To carry out this\nrule, would perhaps have suppressed them entirely.\n\nThis however showed me, that I could not rest on Paul's practical\nwisdom, as securing him against speculative hallucinations in the\nmatter of miracles; for indeed he says: \"I thank my God, that I speak\nwith tongues _more than ye all_.\"\n\n2. To another broad fact I had been astonishingly blind, though the\ntruth of it flashed upon me as soon as I heard it named;--that Paul\nshows total unconcern to the human history and earthly teaching of\nJesus, never quoting his doctrine or any detail of his actions. The\nChrist with whom Paul held communion was a risen, ascended, exalted\nLord, a heavenly being, who reigned over arch-angels, and was about to\nappear as Judge of the world: but of Jesus in the flesh Paul seems to\nknow nothing beyond the bare fact that he _did_[24] \"humble himself\"\nto become man, and \"pleased not himself.\" Even in the very critical\ncontroversy about meat and drink, Paul omits to quote Christ's\ndoctrine, \"Not that which goeth into the mouth defileth the man,\" &c.\nHe surely, therefore, must have been wholly and contentedly ignorant\nof the oral teachings of Jesus.\n\n3. This threw a new light on the _independent_ position of Paul. That\nhe anxiously refused to learn from the other apostles, and \"conferred\nnot with flesh and blood,\"--not having received his gospel of many but\nby the revelation of Jesus Christ--had seemed to me quite suitable to\nhis high pretensions. Any novelties which might be in his doctrine, I\nhad regarded as mere developments, growing out of the common stem, and\nguaranteed by the same Spirit. But I now saw that this independence\ninvalidated his testimony. He may be to us a supernatural, but he\ncertainly is not a natural, witness to the truth of Christ's miracles\nand personality. It avails not to talk of the _opportunities_ which he\nhad of searching into the truth of the resurrection of Christ, for we\nsee that he did not choose to avail himself of the common methods of\ninvestigation. He learned his gospel _by an internal revelation_.[25]\nHe even recounts the appearance of Christ to him, years after his\nascension, as evidence co-ordinate to his appearance to Peter and to\nJames, and to 500 brethren at once. 1 Cor. xv. Again the thought is\nforced on us,--how different was his logic from ours!\n\nTo see the full force of the last remark, we ought to conceive how\nmany questions a Paley would have wished to ask of Paul; and how many\ndetails Paley himself, if _he_ had had the sight, would have felt\nit his duty to impart to his readers. Had Paul ever seen Jesus when\nalive? How did he recognize the miraculous apparition to be the person\nwhom Pilate had crucified? Did he see him as a man in a fleshly body,\nor as a glorified heavenly form? Was it in waking, or sleeping, and\nif the latter, how did he distinguish his divine vision from a common\ndream? Did he see only, or did he also handle? If it was a palpable\nman of flesh, how did he assure himself that it was a person risen\nfrom the dead, and not an ordinary living man?\n\nNow as Paul _is writing specially[26] to convince the incredulous or\nto confirm the wavering_, it is certain that he would have dwelt on\nthese details, if he had thought them of value to the argument. As\nhe wholly suppresses them, we must infer that he held them to\nbe immaterial; and therefore that the evidence with which he was\nsatisfied, in proof that a man was risen from the dead, was either\ntotally different in kind from that which we should now exact, or\nexceedingly inferior in rigour. It appears, that he believed in\nthe resurrection of Christ, first, on the ground of prophecy:[27]\nsecondly, (I feel it is not harsh or bold to add,) on very loose and\nwholly unsifted testimony. For since he does not afford to us the\nmeans of sifting and analyzing his testimony, he cannot have judged it\nour duty so to do; and therefore is not likely himself to have sifted\nvery narrowly the testimony of others.\n\nConceive farther how a Paley would have dealt with so astounding a\nfact, so crushing an argument as the appearance of the risen Jesus\n_to 500 brethren at once_. How would he have extravagated and revelled\nin proof! How would he have worked the topic, that \"this could have\nbeen no dream, no internal impression, no vain fancy, but a solid\nindubitable fact!\" How he would have quoted his authorities, detailed\ntheir testimonies, and given their names and characters! Yet Paul\ndispatches the affair in one line, gives no details and no special\ndeclarations, and seems to see no greater weight in this decisive\nappearance, than in the vision to his single self. He expects us to\ntake his very vague announcement of the 500 brethren as enough, and\nit does not seem to occur to him that his readers (if they need to\nbe convinced) are entitled to expect fuller information. Thus if Paul\ndoes not intentionally supersede human testimony, he reduces it to its\nminimum of importance.\n\nHow can I believe _at second hand_, from the word of one whom I\ndiscern to hold so lax notions of evidence? Yet _who_ of the Christian\nteachers was superior to Paul? He is regarded as almost the only\neducated man of the leaders. Of his activity of mind, his moral\nsobriety, his practical talents, his profound sincerity, his\nenthusiastic self-devotion, his spiritual insight, there is no\nquestion: but when his notions of evidence are infected with the\nerrors of his age, what else can we expect of the eleven, and of the\nmultitude?\n\n4. Paul's neglect of the earthly teaching of Jesus might in part\nbe imputed to the nonexistence of written documents and the great\ndifficulty of learning with certainty what he really had taught.--This\nagreed perfectly well with what I already saw of the untrustworthiness\nof our gospels; but it opened a chasm between the doctrine of Jesus\nand that of Paul, and showed that Paulinism, however good in itself,\nis not assuredly to be identified with primitive Christianity.\nMoreover, it became clear, why James and Paul are so contrasted. James\nretains with little change the traditionary doctrine of the Jerusalem\nChristians; Paul has superadded or substituted a gospel of his own.\nThis was, I believe, pointedly maintained 25 years ago by the author\nof \"Not Paul, but Jesus;\" a book which I have never read.\n\nVII. I had now to ask,--Where are _the twelve men_ of whom Paley\ntalks, as testifying to the resurrection of Christ? Paul cannot be\nquoted as a witness, but only as a believer. Of the twelve we do not\neven know the names, much less have we their testimony. Of James and\nJude there are two epistles, but it is doubtful whether either\nof these is of the twelve apostles; and neither of them declare\nthemselves eyewitnesses to Christ's resurrection. In short, Peter and\nJohn are the only two. Of these however, Peter does not attest the\n_bodily_, but only the _spiritual_, resurrection of Jesus; for he says\nthat Christ was[28] \"put to death in flesh, but made alive in spirit,\"\n1 Pet iii. 18: yet if this verse had been lost, his opening address\n(i. 3) would have seduced me into the belief that Peter taught the\nbodily resurrection of Jesus. So dangerous is it to believe\nmiracles, on the authority of words quoted from a man whom we cannot\ncross-examine! Thus, once more, John is left alone in his testimony;\nand how insufficient that is, has been said.\n\nThe question also arose, whether Peter's testimony to the\ntransfiguration (2 Pet. i. 18), was an important support. A first\nobjection might be drawn from the sleep ascribed to the three\ndisciples in the gospels; if the narrative were at all trustworthy.\nBut a second and greater difficulty arises in the doubtful\nauthenticity of the second Epistle of Peter.\n\nNeander positively decides against that epistle. Among many reasons,\nthe similarity of its second chapter to the Epistle of Jude is a\ncardinal fact. Jude is supposed to be original; yet his allusions\nshow him to be post-apostolic. If so, the second Epistle of Peter is\nclearly spurious.--Whether this was certain, I could not make up\nmy mind: but it was manifest that where such doubts may be honestly\nentertained, no basis exists to found a belief of a great and\nsignificant miracle.\n\nOn the other hand, both the Transfiguration itself, and the fiery\ndestruction of Heaven and Earth prophesied in the third chapter\nof this epistle, are open to objections so serious, as mythical\nimaginations, that the name of Peter will hardly guarantee them to\nthose with whom the general evidence for the miracles in the gospels\nhas thoroughly broken down.\n\nOn the whole, one thing only was clear concerning Peter's faith;--that\nhe, like Paul, was satisfied with a kind of evidence for the\nresurrection of Jesus which fell exceedingly short of the demands of\nmodern logic: and that it is absurd in us to believe, barely _because_\nthey believed.\n\n\n[Footnote 1: Matt. xii. 39, xvi. 4.]\n\n[Footnote 2: John xx. 29.]\n\n[Footnote 3: John xiv, 11. In x. 37, 38, the same idea seems to be\nintended. So xv. 24.]\n\n[Footnote 4: A reviewer erroneously treats this as inculcating a\ndenial of the possibility of inward revelation. It merely says, that\n_some answer_ in needed to these questions; and _none in given_. We\ncan make out (in my opinion) that dreams and inward impressions\nwere the form of suggestion trusted to; but we do not learn what\nprecautions were used against foolish credulity.]\n\n[Footnote 5: If miracles were vouchsafed on the scale of a _new\nsense_, it is of course conceivable that they would reveal new masses\nof fact, tending to modify our moral judgments of particular actions:\nbut nothing of this can be made out in Judaism or Christianity.]\n\n[Footnote 6: A friendly reviewer derides this passage as a very feeble\nobjection to the doctrine of the Absolute Moral perfections of Jesus.\nIt in here rather feebly _stated_, because at that period I had not\nfully worked out the thought. He seems to have forgotten that I am\nnarrating.]\n\n[Footnote 7: An ingenious gentleman, well versed in history, has put\nforth a volume called \"The Restoration of Faith,\" in which he teaches\nthat _I have no right to a conscience or to a God_, until I adopt his\nhistorical conclusions. I leave his co-religionists to confute his\nportentous heresy; but in fact it is already done more than enough in\na splendid article of the \"Westminster Review,\" July, 1852.]\n\n[Footnote 8: I seem to have been understood now to say that a\nknowledge of the Bible was not a pre-requisite of the Protestant\nReformation. What I say is, that at this period I learned the study\nof the Classics to have caused and determined that it should then take\nplace; moreover, I say that a free study of _other books than sacred\nones_ is essential, and always was, to conquer superstition.]\n\n[Footnote 9: I am asked why _Italy_ witnessed no improvement of\nspiritual doctrine. The reply is, that _she did_. The Evangelical\nmovement there was quelled only by the Imperial arms and the\nInquisition. I am also asked why Pagan Literature did not save the\nancient church from superstition. I have always understood that\nthe vast majority of Christian teachers during the decline were\nunacquainted with Pagan literature, and that the Church at an early\nperiod _forbade_ it.]\n\n[Footnote 10: My friend James Martineau, who insists that \"a\nself-sustaining power\" in a religion is a thing _intrinsically\ninconceivable_, need not have censured me for coming to the conclusion\nthat it does not exist in Christianity. In fact, I entirely agree with\nhim; but at the time of which I here write, I had only taken the first\nstep in his direction; and I barely drew a negative conclusion, to\nwhich he perfectly assents. To my dear friend's capacious and kindling\nmind, all the thought here expounded are prosaic and common; being\nto him quite obvious, so far as they are true. He is right in looking\ndown upon them; and, I trust, by his aid, I have added to my wisdom\nsince the time of which I write. Yet they were to me discoveries\nonce, and he must not be displeased at my making much of them in this\nconnexion.]\n\n[Footnote 11: It is the fault of my critics that I am forced to tell\nthe reader this is exhibited in my \"Hebrew Monarchy.\"]\n\n[Footnote 12: It in not to the purpose to urge the _political_\nminority of the Roman wife. This was a mere inference from the high\npower of the bond of the husband. The father had right of death over\nhis son, and (as the lawyers stated the case), the wife was on the\nlevel of one of the children.]\n\n[Footnote 13: 1 Cor. vii. 2-9]\n\n[Footnote 14: Namely, in the Armenian, Syrian, and Greek churches,\nand in the Romish church in exact proportion as Germanic and poetical\ninfluences have been repressed; that is, in proportion as the\nhereditary Christian doctrine has been kept pure from modern\ninnovations.]\n\n[Footnote 15: In a tract republished from the _Northampton Mercury_\nLongman, 1853.]\n\n[Footnote 16: The Romans practised fornication at pleasure, and held\nit ridiculous to blame them. If Paul had claimed authority to hinder\nthem, they might have been greatly exasperated; but they had not\nthe least objection to his denouncing fornication as immoral to\nChristians. Why not slavery also?]\n\n[Footnote 17: I fear it cannot be denied that the zeal for\nChristianity which began to arise in our upper classes sixty years\nago, was largely prompted by a feeling that its precepts repress\nall speculations concerning the rights of man. A similar cause now\ninfluences despots all over Europe. The _Old_ Testament contains the\nelements which they dread, and those gave a political creed to our\nPuritans.]\n\n[Footnote 18: More than one critic flatly denies the fact. It\nis sufficient for me here to say, that such is the obvious\ninterpretation, and such _historically has been_ the interpretation of\nvarious texts,--for instance, 2 Thess. i. 7: \"The Lord Jesus shall be\nrevealed... in flaming fire, taking vengeance on them _that know\nnot God, and that obey not the Gospel_; who shall be punished with\neverlasting destruction,\" &c. Such again is the sense which all\npopular minds receive and must receive from Heb, x. 25-31.--I am\nwilling to change _teaches_ into _has always been understood to\nteach_, if my critics think anything is gained by it.]\n\n[Footnote 19: The four monarchies in chapters ii. and vii, are,\nprobably, the Babylonian, the Median, the Persian, the Macedonian.\nInterpreters however blend the Medes and Persians into one, and then\npretend that the Roman empire is _still in existence_.]\n\n[Footnote 20: The first apparent reference is by Micah (vi. 5) a\ncontemporary of Hezekiah; which proves that an account contained in\nour Book of Numbers was already familiar.]\n\n[Footnote 21: I have had occasion to discuss most of the leading\nprophecies of the Old Testament in my \"Hebrew Monarchy.\"]\n\n[Footnote 22: A critic is pleased to call this a mere _suspicion_ of\nmy own; in so writing, people simply evade my argument. I do not ask\nthem to adopt my conviction; I merely communicate it as mine, and wish\nthem to admit that it is _my duty_ to follow my own conviction. It\nis with me no mere \"suspicion,\" but a certainty. When they cannot\npossibly give, or pretend, any _proof_ that the long discourses of\nthe fourth gospel have been accurately reported, they ought to be less\nsupercilious in their claims of unlimited belief. If it is right for\nthem to follow their judgment on a purely literary question, let them\nnot carp at me for following mine.]\n\n[Footnote 23: I am told that this defence of John is fanciful. It\nsatisfies me provisionally; but I do not hold myself bound to satisfy\nothers, or to explain John's delusiveness.]\n\n[Footnote 24: Phil. ii. 5-8; Rom. xv. 3. The last suggests it was from\nthe Psalms (viz from Ps. lxix. 9) that Paul learned the _fact_ that\nChrist pleased not himself.]\n\n[Footnote 25: Here, again, I have been erroneously understood to say\nthat there cannot be _any_ internal revelation of _anything_. Internal\ntruth may be internally communicated, though even so it does not\nbecome authoritative, or justify the receiver in saying to other men,\n\"Believe, _for_ I guarantee it.\" But a man who, on the strength of an\n_internal_ revelation believes an _external event_, (past, present, or\nfuture,) is not a valid witness of it. Not Paley only, nor Priestley,\nbut James Martineau also, would disown his pretence to authority;\nand the more so, the more imperious his claim that we believe on his\nword.]\n\n[Footnote 26: This appears in v. 2, \"by which ye are saved,--_unless\nye have believed in vain_\" &c. So v. 17-19.]\n\n[Footnote 27: 1 Cor. xv. \"He rose again the third day _according to\nthe Scriptures_.\" This must apparently be a reference to Hosea vi. 2,\nto which the margin of the Bible refers. There is no other place\nin the existing Old Testament from which we can imagine him to have\nelicited the rising _on the third day_. Some refer to the type of\nJonah. Either of the two suggests how marvellously weak a proof\nsatiated him.]\n\n[Footnote 28: Such is the most legitimate translation. That in the\nreceived version is barely a possible meaning. There is no such\ndistinction of prepositions as _in_ and _by_ in this passage.]\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER VI.\n\n\nHISTORY DISCOVERED TO BE NO PART OF RELIGION.\n\n\nAfter renouncing any \"Canon of Scripture\" or Sacred Letter at the end\nof my fourth period, I had been forced to abandon all \"Second-hand\nFaith\" by the end of my fifth. If asked _why_ I believed this or that,\nI could no longer say, \"_Because_ Peter, or Paul, or John believed,\nand I may thoroughly trust that they cannot mistake.\" The question now\npressed hard, whether this was equivalent to renouncing Christianity.\n\nUndoubtedly, my positive belief in its miracles had evaporated; but\nI had not arrived at a positive _dis_belief. I still felt the actual\nbenefits and comparative excellencies of this religion too remarkable\na phenomenon to be scored for defect of proof. In Morals likewise\nit happens, that the ablest practical expounders of truth may make\nstrange blunders as to the foundations and ground of belief: why was\nthis impossible as to the apostles? Meanwhile, it did begin to appear\nto myself remarkable, that I continued to love and have pleasure in so\nmuch that I certainly disbelieved. I perused a chapter of Paul or of\nLuke, or some verses of a hymn, and although they appeared to me to\nabound with error, I found satisfaction and profit in them. Why\nwas this? was it all fond prejudice,--an absurd clinging to old\nassociations?\n\nA little self-examination enabled me to reply, that it was no\nill-grounded feeling or ghost of past opinions; but that my religion\nalways had been, and still was, a _state of sentiment_ toward God, far\nless dependent on articles of a creed, than once I had unhesitatingly\nbelieved. The Bible is pervaded by a sentiment,[1] which is implied\neverywhere,--viz. _the intimate sympathy of the Pure and Perfect God\nwith the heart of each faithful worshipper_. This is that which is\nwanting in Greek philosophers, English Deists, German Pantheists, and\nall formalists. This is that which so often edifies me in Christian\nwriters and speakers, when I ever so much disbelieve the letter of\ntheir sentences. Accordingly, though I saw more and more of moral and\nspiritual imperfection in the Bible, I by no means ceased to regard it\nas a quarry whence I might dig precious metal, though the ore needed a\nrefining analysis: and I regarded this as the truest essence and most\nvital point in Christianity,--to sympathize with the great souls from\nwhom its spiritual eminence has flowed;--to love, to hope, to rejoice,\nto trust with them;--and _not_, to form the same interpretations of an\nancient book and to take the same views of critical argument.\n\nMy historical conception of Jesus had so gradually melted into\ndimness, that he had receded out of my practical religion, I knew not\nexactly when I believe that I must have disused any distinct prayers\nto him, from a growing opinion that he ought not to be the _object_ of\nworship, but only the _way_ by whom we approach to the Father; and\nas in fact we need no such \"way\" at all, this was (in the result) a\nchange from practical Ditheism to pure Theism. His \"mediation\" was to\nme always a mere name, and, as I believe, would otherwise have been\nmischievous.[2]--Simultaneously a great uncertainty had grown on me,\nhow much of the discourses put into the mouth of Jesus was really\nuttered by him; so that I had in no small measure to form him anew to\nmy imagination.\n\nBut if religion is addressed to, and must be judged by, our moral\nfaculties, how could I believe in that painful and gratuitous\npersonality,--The Devil?--He also had become a waning phantom to\nme, perhaps from the time that I saw the demoniacal miracles to be\nfictions, and still more when proofs of manifold mistake in the New\nTestament rose on me. This however took a solid form of positive\n_dis_belief, when I investigated the history of the doctrine,--I\nforget exactly in what stage. For it is manifest, that the old Hebrews\nbelieved only in evil spirits sent _by God_ to do _his bidding_, and\nhad no idea of a rebellious Spirit that rivalled God. That idea was\nfirst imbibed in the Babylonish captivity, and apparently therefore\nmust have been adopted from the Persian Ahriman, or from the \"Melek\nTaous,\" the \"Sheitan\" still honoured by the Yezidi with mysterious\nfear. That _the serpent_ in the early part of Genesis denoted the\nsame Satan, is probable enough; but this only goes to show, that that\nnarrative is a legend imported from farther East; since it is certain\nthat the subsequent Hebrew literature has no trace of such an Ahriman.\nThe Book of Tobit and its demon show how wise in these matters the\nexiles in Nineveh were beginning to be. The Book of Daniel manifests,\nthat by the time of Antiochus Epiphanes the Jews had learned each\nnation to have its guardian spirit, good or evil; and that the fates\nof nations depend on the invisible conflict of these tutelary powers.\nIn Paul the same idea is strongly brought out. Satan is the prince of\nthe power of the air; with principalities and powers beneath him; over\nall of whom Christ won the victory on his cross. In the Apocalypse\nwe read the Oriental doctrine of the \"_seven angels_ who stand before\nGod.\" As the Christian tenet thus rose among the Jews from their\ncontact with Eastern superstition, and was propagated and expanded\nwhile prophecy was mute, it cannot be ascribed to \"divine supernatural\nrevelation\" as the source. The ground of it is dearly seen in infant\nspeculations on the cause of moral evil and of national calamities.\n\nThus Christ and the Devil, the two poles of Christendom, had faded\naway out of my spiritual vision; there were left the more vividly, God\nand Man. Yet I had not finally renounced the _possibility_, that\nJesus might have had a divine mission to stimulate all our spiritual\nfaculties, and to guarantee to us a future state of existence. The\nabstract arguments for the immortality of the soul had always appeared\nto me vain trifling; and I was deeply convinced that nothing could\n_assure_ us of a future state but a divine communication. In what mode\nthis might be made, I could not say _\u00e0 priori_: might not this really\nbe the great purport of Messiahship? was not this, if any, a worthy\nground for a divine interference? On the contrary, to heal the sick\ndid not seem at all an adequate motive for a miracle; else, why\nnot the sick of our own day? Credulity had exaggerated, and had\nrepresented Jesus to have wrought miracles: but that did not wholly\n_dis_prove the miracle of resurrection (whether bodily or of whatever\nkind), said to have been wrought by God _upon_ him, and of which so\nvery intense a belief so remarkably propagated itself. Paul indeed\nbelieved it[3] from prophecy; and, as we see this to be a delusion,\nresting on Rabbinical interpretations, we may perhaps _account_ thus\nfor the belief of the early church, without in any way admitting the\nfact.--Here, however, I found I had the clue to my only remaining\ndiscussion, the primitive Jewish controversy. Let us step back to an\nearlier stage than John's or Paul's or Peter's doctrine. We cannot\ndoubt that Jesus claimed to be Messiah: what then was Messiah to be?\nand, did Jesus (though misrepresented by his disciples) truly fulfil\nhis own claims?\n\nThe really Messianic prophecies appeared to me to be far fewer than is\ncommonly supposed. I found such in the 9th and 11th of Isaiah, the\n5th of Micah, the 9th of Zechariah, in the 72nd Psalm, in the 37th of\nEzekiel, and, as I supposed, in the 50th and 53rd of Isaiah. To these\nnothing of moment could be certainly added; for the passage in Dan.\nix. is ill-translated in the English version, and I had already\nconcluded that the Book of Daniel is a spurious fabrication. From\nMicah and Ezekiel it appeared, that Messiah was to come from Bethlehem\nand either be David himself, or a spiritual David: from Isaiah it is\nshown that he is a rod out of the stem of Jesse.--It is true, I found\nno proof that Jesus did come from Bethlehem or from the stock of\nDavid; for the tales in Matthew and Luke refute one another, and\nhave clearly been generated by a desire to verify the prophecy. But\ngenealogies for or against Messiahship seemed to me a mean argument;\nand the fact of the prophets demanding a carnal descent in Messiah\nstruck me as a worse objection than that Jesus had not got it,--if\nthis could be ever proved. The Messiah of Micah, however, was not\nJesus; for he was to deliver Israel from _the Assyrians_, and his\nwhole description is literally warlike. Micah, writing when the name\nof Sennacherib was terrible, conceived of a powerful monarch on the\nthrone of David who was to subdue him: but as this prophecy was not\nverified, the imaginary object of it was looked for as \"Messiah,\"\neven after the disappearance of the formidable Assyrian power. This\nundeniable vanity of Micah's prophecy extends itself also to that in\nthe 9th chapter of his contemporary Isaiah,--if indeed that splendid\npassage did not really point at the child Hezekiah. Waiving this\ndoubt, it is at any rate clear that the marvellous child on the throne\nof David was to break the yoke of the oppressive Assyrian; and none of\nthe circumstantials are at all appropriate to the historical Jesus.\n\nIn the 37th of Ezekiel the (new) David is to gather Judah and Israel\n\"from the heathen whither they be gone\" and to \"make them one nation\n_in the land, on the mountains of Israel_:\" and Jehovah adds, that\nthey shall \"dwell in the land _which I gave unto Jacob my servant,\nwherein your fathers dwelt_: and they shall dwell therein, they and\ntheir children and their children's children for ever: and my servant\nDavid shall be their prince for ever.\" It is trifling to pretend that\n_the land promised to Jacob, and in which the old Jews dwelt_, was\na spiritual, and not the literal Palestine; and therefore it is\nimpossible to make out that Jesus has fulfilled any part of this\nrepresentation. The description however that follows (Ezekiel xl.\n&c.) of the new city and temple, with the sacrifices offered by\n\"the priests the Levites, of the seed of Zadok,\" and the gate of the\nsanctuary for the prince (xliv. 3), and his elaborate account of\nthe borders of the land (xlviii. 13-23), place the earnestness of\nEzekiel's literalism in still clearer light.\n\nThe 72nd Psalm, by the splendour of its predictions concerning the\ngrandeur of some future king of Judah, earns the title of Messianic,\n_because_ it was never fulfilled by any historical king. But it is\nequally certain, that it has had no appreciable fulfilment in Jesus.\n\nBut what of the 11th of Isaiah? Its portraiture is not so much that of\na king, as of a prophet endowed with superhuman power. \"He shall smite\nthe earth with the rod of his mouth, and with the breath of his lips\nhe shall slay the wicked.\" A Paradisiacal state is to follow.--This\ngeneral description _may_ be verified by Jesus _hereafter_; but we\nhave no manifestation, which enables us to call the fulfilment a fact.\nIndeed, the latter part of the prophecy is out of place for a time so\nlate as the reign of Augustus; which forcibly denotes that Isaiah was\npredicting only that which was his immediate political aspiration: for\nin this great day of Messiah, Jehovah is to gather back his dispersed\npeople from Assyria, Egypt, and other parts; he is _to reconcile Judah\nand Ephraim_, (who had been perfectly reconciled centuries before\nJesus was born,) and as a result of this Messianic glory, the people\nof Israel \"shall fly upon the shoulders of the _Philistines_ towards\nthe west; they shall spoil them of the east together: they shall lay\ntheir hand on _Edom_ and _Moab_, and the children of _Ammon_ shall\nobey them.\" But Philistines, Moab and Ammon, were distinctions\nentirely lost before the Christian era.--Finally, the Red Sea is to be\nonce more passed miraculously by the Israelites, returning (as would\nseem) to their fathers' soil. Take all these particulars together,\nand the prophecy is neither fulfilled in the past nor possible to be\nfulfilled in the future.\n\nThe prophecy which we know as Zechariah ix.-xi. is believed to be\nreally from a prophet of uncertain name, contemporaneous with Isaiah.\nIt was written while Ephraim was still a people, i.e. before the\ncapture of Samaria by Shalmanezer; and xi. 1-3 appears to howl over\nthe recent devastations of Tiglathpilezer. The prophecy is throughout\nfull of the politics of that day. No part of it has the most remote or\nimaginable[4] similarity to the historical life of Jesus, except that\nhe once rode into Jerusalem on an ass; a deed which cannot have been\npeculiar to him, and which Jesus moreover appears to have planned with\nthe express[5] purpose of assimilating himself to the lowly king here\ndescribed. Yet such an isolated act is surely a carnal and beggarly\nfulfilment. To ride on an ass is no mark of humility in those who must\nordinarily go on foot. The prophet clearly means that the righteous\nking is not to ride on a warhorse and trust in cavalry, as Solomon\nand the Egyptians, (see Ps. xx. 7. Is. xxxi. 1-3, xxx. 16,) but is to\nimitate the lowliness of David and the old judges, who rode on young\nasses; and is to be a lover of peace.\n\nChapters 50 and 53 of the pseudo-Isaiah remained; which contain many\nphrases so aptly descriptive of the sufferings of Christ, and so\nclosely knit up with our earliest devotional associations, that they\nwere the very last link of my chain that snapt. Still, I could not\nconceal from myself, that no exactness in this prophecy, however\nsingular, could avail to make out that Jesus was the Messiah of\nHezekiah's prophets. There must be _some_ explanation; and if I did\nnot see it, that must probably arise from prejudice and habit.--In\norder therefore to gain freshness, I resolved to peruse the entire\nprophecy of the pseudo-Isaiah in Lowth's version, from ch. xl. onward,\nat a single sitting.\n\nThis prophet writes from Babylon, and has his vision full of the\napproaching restoration of his people by Cyrus, whom he addresses by\nname. In ch. xliii. he introduces to us an eminent and \"chosen\nservant of God,\" whom he invests with all the evangelical virtues, and\ndeclares that he is to be a light to the Gentiles. In ch. xliv. (v.\n1--also v. 21) he is named as \"_Jacob_ my servant, and _Israel_ whom\nI have chosen.\" The appellations recur in xlv. 4: and in a far more\nstriking passage, xlix. 1-12, which is eminently Messianic to the\nChristian ear, _except_ that in v. 3, the speaker distinctly declares\nhimself to be (not Messiah, but) Israel. The same speaker continues in\nch. l., which is equally Messianic in sound. In ch. lii. the prophet\nspeaks _of_ him, (vv. 13-15) but the subject of the chapter is\n_restoration from Babylon_; and from this he runs on into the\ncelebrated ch. liii.\n\nIt is essential to understand the _same_ \"elect servant\" all along.\nHe is many times called Israel, and is often addressed in a tone quite\ninapplicable to Messiah, viz. as one needing salvation himself; so in\nch. xliii. Yet in ch. xlix. this elect Israel is distinguished from\nJacob and Israel at large: thus there is an entanglement. Who can be\ncalled on to risk his eternal hopes on his skilful unknotting of it?\nIt appeared however to me most probable, that as our high Churchmen\ndistinguish \"mother Church\" from the individuals who compose the\nChurch, so the \"Israel\" of this prophecy is the idealizing of\nthe Jewish Church; which I understood to be a current Jewish\ninterpretation. The figure perhaps embarrasses us, only because of the\nmale sex attributed to the ideal servant of God; for when \"Zion\"\nis spoken of by the same prophet in the same way, no one finds\ndifficulty, or imagines that a female person of superhuman birth and\nqualities must be intended.\n\nIt still remained strange that in Isaiah liii. and Pss. xxii. and\nlxix. there should be _coincidences_ so close with the sufferings of\nJesus: but I reflected, that I had no proof that the narrative had not\nbeen strained by credulity,[6] to bring it into artificial agreement\nwith these imagined predictions of his death. And herewith my last\nargument in favour of views for which I once would have laid down my\nlife, seemed to be spent.\n\nNor only so: but I now reflected that the falsity of the prophecy\nin Dan. vii. (where the coming of \"a Son of Man\" to sit in universal\njudgment follows immediately upon the break-up of the Syrian\nmonarchy,)--to say nothing of the general proof of the spuriousness of\nthe whole Book of Daniel,--ought perhaps long ago to have been seen by\nme as of more cardinal importance. For if we believe anything at all\nabout the discourses of Christ, we cannot doubt that he selected \"_Son\nof Man_\" as his favourite title; which admits no interpretation so\nsatisfactory, as, that he tacitly refers to the seventh chapter of\nDaniel, and virtually bases his pretensions upon it. On the whole,\nit was no longer defect of proof Which presented itself, but positive\ndisproof of the primitive and fundamental claim.\n\nI could not for a moment allow weight to the topic, that \"it is\ndangerous to _dis_believe wrongly;\" for I felt, and had always\nfelt, that it gave a premium to the most boastful and tyrannizing\nsuperstition:--as if it were not equally dangerous to _believe_\nwrongly! Nevertheless, I tried to plead for farther delay, by asking:\nIs not the subject too vast for me to decide upon?--Think how many\nwise and good men have fully examined, and have come to a contrary\nconclusion. What a grasp of knowledge and experience of the human mind\nit requires! Perhaps too I have unawares been carried away by a love\nof novelty, which I have mistaken for a love of truth.\n\nBut the argument recoiled upon me. Have I not been 25 years a reader\nof the Bible? have I not full 18 years been a student of Theology?\nhave I not employed 7 of the best years of my life, with ample\nleisure, in this very investigation;--without any intelligible earthly\nbribe to carry me to my present conclusion, against all my interests,\nall my prejudices and all my education? There are many far more\nlearned men than I,--many men of greater power of mind; but there are\nalso a hundred times as many who are my inferiors; and if I have been\nseven years labouring in vain to solve this vast literary problem, it\nis an extreme absurdity to imagine that the solving of it is imposed\nby God on the whole human race. Let me renounce my little learning;\nlet me be as the poor and simple: what then follows? Why, then, _still\nthe same thing follows_, that difficult literary problems concerning\ndistant history cannot afford any essential part of my religion.\n\nIt is with hundreds or thousands a favourite idea, that \"they have an\ninward witness of the truth of (_the historical and outward facts of_)\nChristianity.\" Perhaps the statement would bring its own refutation\nto them, if they would express it clearly. Suppose a biographer of Sir\nIsaac Newton, after narrating his sublime discoveries and ably stating\nsome of his most remarkable doctrines, to add, that Sir Isaac was a\ngreat magician, and had been used to raise spirits by his arts, and\nfinally was himself carried up to heaven one night, while he\nwas gazing at the moon; and that this event had been foretold by\nMerlin:--it would surely be the height of absurdity to dilate on the\ntruth of the Newtonian theory as \"the moral evidence\" of the truth of\nthe miracles and prophecy. Yet this is what those do, who adduce the\nexcellence of the precepts and spirituality of the general doctrine of\nthe New Testament, as the \"moral evidence\" of its miracles and of its\nfulfilling the Messianic prophecies. But for the ambiguity of the\nword _doctrine_, probably such confusion of thought would have been\nimpossible. \"Doctrines\" are either spiritual truths, or are\nstatements of external history. Of the former we may have an inward\nwitness;--that is their proper evidence;--but the latter must depend\nupon adequate testimony and various kinds of criticism.\n\nHow quickly might I have come to my conclusion,--how much weary\nthought and useless labour might I have spared,--if at an earlier time\nthis simple truth had been pressed upon me, that since the religious\nfaculties of the poor and half-educated cannot investigate Historical\nand Literary questions, _therefore_ these questions cannot constitute\nan essential part of Religion.--But perhaps I could not have gained\nthis result by any abstract act of thought, from want of freedom to\nthink: and there are advantages also in expanding slowly under great\npressure, if one _can_ expand, and is not crushed by it.\n\nI felt no convulsion of mind, no emptiness of soul, no inward\npractical change: but I knew that it would be said, this was only\nbecause the force of the old influence was as yet unspent, and that\na gradual declension in the vitality of my religion must ensue. More\nthan eight years have since past, and I feel I have now a right to\ncontradict that statement. To any \"Evangelical\" I have a right to\nsay, that while he has a _single_, I have a _double_ experience; and\nI know, that the spiritual fruits which he values, have no connection\nwhatever with the complicated and elaborate creed, which his school\nimagines, and I once imagined, to be the roots out of which they are\nfed. That they depend directly on _the heart's belief in the sympathy\nof God with individual man_,[7] I am well assured: but that doctrine\ndoes not rest upon the Bible or upon Christianity; for it is a\npostulate, from which every Christian advocate is forced to start. If\nit be denied, he cannot take a step forward in his argument. He talks\nto men about Sin and Judgment to come, and the need of Salvation,\nand so proceeds to the Saviour. But his very first step,--the idea\nof Sin,--_assumes_ that God concerns himself with our actions, words,\nthoughts; _assumes_ therefore that sympathy of God with every man,\nwhich (it seems) can only be known by an infallible Bible.\n\nI know that many Evangelicals will reply, that I never can have had\n\"the true\" faith; else I could never have lost it: and as for my\nnot being conscious of spiritual change, they will accept this as\nconfirming their assertion. Undoubtedly I cannot prove that I ever\nfelt as they now feel: perhaps they love their present opinions _more\nthan_ truth, and are careless to examine and verify them; with that\nI claim no fellowship. But there are Christians, and Evangelical\nChristians, of another stamp, who love their creed, _only_ because\nthey believe it to be true, but love truth, as such, and truthfulness,\nmore than any creed: with these I claim fellowship. Their love to God\nand man, their allegiance to righteousness and true holiness, will\nnot be in suspense and liable to be overturned by new discoveries in\ngeology and in ancient inscriptions, or by improved criticism of texts\nand of history, nor have they any imaginable interest in thwarting\nthe advance of scholarship. It is strange indeed to undervalue _that_\nFaith, which alone is purely moral and spiritual, alone rests on\na basis that cannot be shaken, alone lifts the possessor above the\nconflicts of erudition, and makes it impossible for him to fear the\nincrease of knowledge.\n\nI fully expected that reviewers and opponents from the evangelical\nschool would laboriously insinuate or assert, that I _never was_\na Christian and do not understand anything about Christianity\nspiritually. My expectations have been more than fulfilled; and the\ncourse which my assailants have taken leads me to add some topics to\nthe last paragraph. I say then, that if I had been slain at the age of\ntwenty-seven, when I was chased[8] by a mob of infuriated Mussulmans\nfor selling New Testaments, they would have trumpeted me as an\neminent saint and martyr. I add, that many circumstances within easy\npossibility might have led to my being engaged as an official teacher\nof a congregation at the usual age, which would in all probability\nhave arrested my intellectual development, and have stereotyped my\ncreed for many a long year; and then also they would have acknowledged\nme as a Christian. A little more stupidity, a little more worldliness,\na little more mental dishonesty in me, or perhaps a little more\nkindness and management in others, would have kept me in my old state,\nwhich was acknowledged and would still be acknowledged as Christian.\nTo try to disown me now, is an impotent superciliousness.\n\nAt the same time, I confess to several moral changes, as the result of\nthis change in my creed, the principal of which are the following.\n\n1. I have found that my old belief narrowed my affections. It taught\nme to bestow peculiar love on \"the people of God,\" and it assigned an\nintellectual creed as one essential mark of this people. That creed\nmay be made more or less stringent; but when driven to its minimum, it\nincludes a recognition of the historical proposition, that \"the Jewish\nteacher Jesus fulfilled the conditions requisite to constitute him\nthe Messiah of the ancient Hebrew prophets.\" This proposition has been\nrejected by very many thoughtful and sincere men in England, and by\ntens of thousands in France, Germany, Italy, Spain. To judge rightly\nabout it, is necessarily a problem of literary criticism; which has\nboth to interpret the Old Scriptures and to establish how much of the\nbiography of Jesus in the New is credible. To judge wrongly about it,\nmay prove one to be a bad critic but not a less good and less pious\nman. Yet my old creed enacted an affirmative result of this historical\ninquiry, as a test of one's spiritual state, and ordered me to think\nharshly of men like Marcus Aurelius and Lessing, because they did\nnot adopt the conclusion which the professedly uncritical have\nestablished. It possessed me with a general gloom concerning\nMohammedans and Pagans, and involved the whole course of history and\nprospects of futurity in a painful darkness from which I am relieved.\n\n2. Its theory was one of selfishness. That is, it inculcated that my\nfirst business must be, to save my soul from future punishment, and\nto attain future happiness; and it bade me to chide myself, when I\nthought of nothing but about doing present duty and blessing God for\npresent enjoyment.\n\nIn point of fact, I never did look much to futurity, nor even in\nprospect of death could attain to any vivid anticipations or desires,\nmuch less was troubled with fears. The evil which I suffered from\nmy theory, was not (I believe) that it really made me selfish--other\ninfluences of it were too powerful:--but it taught me to blame\nmyself for unbelief, because I was not sufficiently absorbed in the\ncontemplation of my vast personal expectations. I certainly here feel\nmyself delivered from the danger of factitious sin.\n\nThe selfish and self-righteous texts come principally from the three\nfirst gospels, and are greatly counteracted by the deeper spirituality\nof the apostolic epistles. I therefore by no means charge this\ntendency indiscriminately on the New Testament.\n\n3. It laid down that \"the time is short; THE LORD IS AT HAND: the\nthings of this world pass away, and deserve not our affections: the\nonly thing worth spending one's energies on, is, the forwarding of\nmen's salvation.\" It bade me \"watch perpetually, not knowing whether\nmy Lord would return at cockcrowing or at midday.\"\n\nWhile I believed this, (which, however disagreeable to modern\nChristians, is the clear doctrine of the New Testament,) I acted an\neccentric and unprofitable part. From it I was saved against my will,\nand forced into a course in which the doctrine, having been laid\nto sleep, awoke only now and then to reproach and harass me for\nmy unfaithfulness to it. This doctrine it is, which makes so many\nspiritual persons lend active or passive aid to uphold abuses and\nperpetuate mischief in every department of human life. Those who stick\nclosest to the Scripture do not shrink from saying, that \"it is not\nworth while trying to mend the world,\" and stigmatize as \"political\nand worldly\" such as pursue an opposite course. Undoubtedly, if we are\nto expect our Master at cockcrowing, we shall not study the permanent\nimprovement of this transitory scene. To teach the certain speedy\ndestruction of earthly things, _as the New Testament does_, is to cut\nthe sinews of all earthly progress; to declare war against Intellect\nand Imagination, against Industrial and Social advancement.\n\nThere was a time when I was distressed at being unable to avoid\nexultation in the worldly greatness of England. My heart would, in\nspite, of me, swell with something of pride, when a Turk or Arab asked\nwhat was my country: I then used to confess to God this pride as\na sin. I still see that that was a legitimate deduction from the\nScripture. \"The glory of this world passeth away,\" and I had professed\nto be \"dead with Christ\" to it. The difference is this. I am now as\n\"dead\" as then to all of it which my conscience discerns to be sinful,\nbut I have not to torment myself in a (fundamentally ascetic)\nstruggle against innocent and healthy impulses. I now, with deliberate\napproval, \"love the world and the things of the world.\" I can feel\npatriotism, and take the deepest interest in the future prospects of\nnations, and no longer reproach myself. Yet this is quite consistent\nwith feeling the spiritual interests of men to be of all incomparably\nthe highest.\n\nModern religionists profess to be disciples of Christ, and talk high\nof the perfect morality of the New Testament, when they certainly\ndo not submit their understanding to it, and are no more like to the\nfirst disciples than bishops are like the pennyless apostles. One\ncritic tells me that _I know_ that the above is _not_ the true\ninterpretation of the apostolic doctrine. Assuredly I am aware that we\nmay rebuke \"the world\" and \"worldliness,\" in a legitimate and modified\nsense, as being the system of _selfishness_: true,--and I have avowed\nthis in another work; but it does not follow that Jesus and the\napostles did not go farther: and manifestly they did. The true\ndisciple, who would be perfect as his Master, was indeed ordered to\nsell all, give to the poor and follow him; and when that severity was\nrelaxed by good sense, it was still taught that things which lasted\nto the other side of the grave alone deserved our affection or our\nexertion. If any person thinks me ignorant of the Scriptures for being\nof this judgment, let him so think; but to deny that I am sincere in\nmy avowal, is a very needless insolence.\n\n4. I am sensible how heavy a clog on the exercise of my judgment has\nbeen taken off from me, since I unlearned that Bibliolatry, which I am\ndisposed to call the greatest religious evil of England.\n\nAuthority has a place in religious teaching, as in education, but it\nis provisional and transitory. Its chief use is to guide _action_,\nand assist the formation of habits, before the judgment is ripe. As\napplied to mere _opinion_, its sole function is to guide inquiry. So\nlong as an opinion is received on authority only, it works no inward\nprocess upon us: yet the promulgation of it by authority, is not\ntherefore always useless, since the prominence thus given to it may\nbe a most important stimulus to thought. While the mind is inactive or\nweak, it will not wish to throw off the yoke of authority: but as soon\nas it begins to discern error in the standard proposed to it, we have\nthe mark of incipient original thought, which is the thing so valuable\nand so difficult to elicit; and which authority is apt to crush. An\nintelligent pupil seldom or never gives _too little_ weight to the\nopinion of his teacher: a wise teacher will never repress the free\naction of his pupils' minds, even when they begin to question his\nresults. \"Forbidding to think\" is a still more fatal tyranny than\n\"forbidding to marry:\" it paralyzes all the moral powers.\n\nIn former days, if any moral question came before me, I was always\napt to turn it into the mere lawyerlike exercise of searching and\ninterpreting my written code. Thus, in reading how Henry the Eighth\ntreated his first queen, I thought over Scripture texts in order to\njudge whether he was right, and if I could so get a solution, I left\nmy own moral powers unexercised. All Protestants see, how mischievous\nit is to a Romanist lady to have a directing priest, whom she every\nday consults about everything; so as to lay her own judgment to\nsleep. We readily understand, that in the extreme case such women may\ngradually lose all perception of right and wrong, and become a mere\nmachine in the hands of her director. But the Protestant principle of\naccepting the Bible as the absolute law, acts towards the same end;\nand only fails of doing the same amount of mischief, because a book\ncan never so completely answer all the questions asked of it, as a\nliving priest can. The Protestantism which pities those as \"without\nchart and compass\" who acknowledge no infallible written code, can\nmean nothing else, than that \"the less occasion we have to trust our\nmoral powers, the better;\" that is, it represents it as of all things\nmost desirable to be able to benumb conscience by disuse, under the\nguidance of a mind from without. Those who teach this need not marvel\nto see their pupils become Romanists.\n\nBut Bibliolatry not only paralyzes the moral sense; it also corrupts\nthe intellect, and introduces a crooked logic, by setting men to the\nduty of extracting absolute harmony out of discordant materials. All\nare familiar with the subtlety of lawyers, whose task it is to elicit\na single sense out of a heap of contradictory statutes. In their case\nsuch subtlety may indeed excite in us impatience or contempt; but\nwe forbear to condemn them, when it is pleaded that practical\nconvenience, not truth, is their avowed end. In the case of\ntheological ingenuity, where truth is the professed and sacred\nobject, a graver judgment is called for. When the Biblical interpreter\nstruggles to reconcile contradictions, or to prove that wrong is\nright, merely because he is bound to maintain the perfection of the\nBible; when to this end he condescends to sophistry and pettifogging\nevasions; it is difficult to avoid feeling disgust as well as grief.\nSome good people are secretly conscious that the Bible is not an\ninfallible book; but they dread the consequences of proclaiming this\n\"to the vulgar.\" Alas! and have they measured the evils which the\nfostering of this lie is producing in the minds, not of the educated\nonly, but emphatically of the ministers of religion?\n\nMany who call themselves Christian preachers busily undermine moral\nsentiment, by telling their hearers, that if they do not believe the\nBible (or the Church), they can have no firm religion or morality, and\nwill have no reason to give against following brutal appetite.\nThis doctrine it is, that so often makes men atheists in Spain, and\nprofligates in England, as soon as they unlearn the national creed:\nand the school which have done the mischief, moralize over the\nwickedness of human nature when it comes to pass instead of blaming\nthe falsehood which they have themselves inculcated.\n\n\n[Footnote 1: A critic presses me with the question, how I can doubt\nthat doctrine so holy _comes from God_. He professes to review my\nbook on the Soul; yet, apparently became he himself _dis_believes the\ndoctrine of the Holy Spirit taught alike in the Psalms and Prophets\nand in the New Testament,--he cannot help forgetting that I profess\nto believe it. He is not singular in his dulness. That the sentiment\nabove is necessarily independent of Biblical _authority_, see p. 133.]\n\n[Footnote 2: I do not here enlarge on this, as it is discussed in my\ntreatise on The Soul 2nd edition, p. 76, or 3rd edition, p. 52.]\n\n[Footnote 3: 1 Cor. xv. 3. Compare Acts xii. 33, 34, 35 also Acts ii.\n27, 34.]\n\n[Footnote 4: I need not except the _potter_ and the thirty pieces of\nsilver (Zech. xi. 13), for the _potter_ is a mere absurd error of text\nor translation. The Septuagint has the _foundry_, De Wette has the\n_treasury_, with whom Hitzig and Ewald agree. So Winer (Simoni's\nLexicon).]\n\n[Footnote 5: Some of my critics are very angry with me for saying\nthis; but Matthew himself (xxi. 4) almost says it:--\"_All this was\ndone, that it might be fulfilled_,\" &c. Do my critics mean to tell me\nthat Jesus _was not aware_ of the prophecy? or if Jesus did know of\nthe prophecy, will they tell me _that he was not designing_ to fulfil\nit? I feel such carping to be little short of hypocrisy.]\n\n[Footnote 6: Apparently on these words of mine, a reviewer builds up\nthe inference that I regard \"the Evangelical narrative as a mythical\nfancy-piece imitated from David and Isaiah.\" I feel this to be a great\ncaricature. My words are carefully limited to a few petty details of\none part of the narrative.]   [Footnote 7: I did not calculate that\nany assailant would be so absurd as to lecture me on the topic, that\nGod has no sympathy _with our sins and follies_. Of course what I\nmean is, that he has complacency in our moral perfection. See p. 125\nabove.]\n\n[Footnote 8: This was at Aintab, in the north of Syria. One of my\ncompanions was caught by the mob and beaten (as they probably thought)\nto death. But he recovered very similarly to Paul, in Acts xiv. 20,\nafter long lying senseless.]\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER VII.\n\n\nON THE MORAL PERFECTION OF JESUS.\n\n\nLet no reader peruse this chapter, who is not willing to enter into\na discussion, as free and unshrinking, concerning the personal\nexcellencies and conduct of Jesus, as that of Mr. Grote concerning\nSocrates. I have hitherto met with most absurd rebuffs for my\nscrupulosity. One critic names me as a principal leader in a school\nwhich extols and glorifies the character of Jesus; after which\nhe proceeds to reproach me with inconsistency, and to insinuate\ndishonesty. Another expresses himself as deeply wounded that, in\nrenouncing the belief that Jesus is more than man, I suggest to\ncompare him to a clergyman whom I mentioned as eminently holy and\nperfect in the picture of a partial biographer; such a comparison\nis resented with vivid indignation, as a blurting out of something\n\"unspeakably painful.\" Many have murmured that I do _not_ come forward\nto extol the excellencies of Jesus, but appear to prefer Paul. More\nthan one taunt me with an inability to justify my insinuations\nthat Jesus, after all, was not really perfect; one is \"extremely\ndisappointed\" that I have not attacked him; in short, it is manifest\nthat many would much rather have me say out my whole heart, than\nwithhold anything. I therefore give fair warning to all, not to\nread any farther, or else to blame themselves if I inflict on them\n\"unspeakable pain,\" by differing from their judgment of a historical\nor unhistorical character. As for those who confound my tenderness\nwith hypocrisy and conscious weakness, if they trust themselves to\nread to the end, I think they will abandon that fancy.\n\nBut how am I brought into this topic? It is because, after my mind had\nreached the stage narrated in the last chapter, I fell in with a new\ndoctrine among the Unitarians,--that the evidence of Christianity is\nessentially popular and spiritual, consisting in _the Life of Christ_,\nwho is a perfect man and the absolute moral image of God,--therefore\nfitly called \"God manifest in the flesh,\" and, as such, Moral Head of\nthe human race. Since this view was held in conjunction with those\nat which I had arrived myself concerning miracles, prophecy, the\nuntrustworthiness of Scripture as to details, and the essential\nunreasonableness of imposing dogmatic propositions as a creed, I\nhad to consider why I could not adopt such a modification, or (as it\nappeared to me) reconstruction, of Christianity; and I gave reasons\nin the first edition of this book, which, avoiding direct treatment of\nthe character of Jesus, seemed to me adequate on the opposite side.\n\nMy argument was reviewed by a friend, who presently published the\nreview with his name, replying to my remarks on this scheme. I thus\nfind myself in public and avowed controversy with one who is endowed\nwith talents, accomplishments, and genius, to which I have no\npretensions. The challenge has certainly come from myself. Trusting to\nthe goodness of my cause, I have ventured it into an unequal combat;\nand from a consciousness of my admired friend's high superiority, I do\nfeel a little abashed at being brought face to face against him. But\npossibly the less said to the public on these personal matters, the\nbetter.\n\nI have to give reasons why I cannot adopt that modified scheme\nof Christianity which is defended and adorned by James Martineau;\naccording to which it is maintained that though the Gospel Narratives\nare not to be trusted in detail, there can yet be no reasonable\ndoubt _what_ Jesus _was_; for this is elicited by a \"higher moral\ncriticism,\" which (it is remarked) I neglect. In this theory, Jesus is\navowed to be a man born like other men; to be liable to error, and\n(at least in some important respects) mistaken. Perhaps no general\nproposition is to be accepted _merely_ on the word of Jesus; in\nparticular, he misinterpreted the Hebrew prophecies. \"He was not\n_less_ than the Hebrew Messiah, but _more_.\" No moral charge is\nestablished against him, until it is shown, that in applying the old\nprophecies to himself, he was _conscious_ that they did not fit.\nHis error was one of mere fallibility in matters of intellectual and\nliterary estimate. On the other hand, Jesus had an infallible moral\nperception, which reveals itself to the true-hearted reader, and is\ntestified by the common consciousness of Christendom. It has pleased\nthe Creator to give us one sun in the heavens, and one Divine soul in\nhistory, in order to correct the aberrations of our individuality, and\nunite all mankind into one family of God. Jesus is to be presumed to\nbe perfect until he is shown to be imperfect. Faith in Jesus, is not\nreception of propositions, but reverence for a person; yet this is\n_not_ the condition of salvation or essential to the Divine favour.\n\nSuch is the scheme, abridged from the ample discussion of my eloquent\nfriend. In reasoning against it, my arguments will, to a certain\nextent, be those of an orthodox Trinitarian;[1] since we might both\nmaintain that the belief in the absolute divine morality of Jesus is\nnot tenable, when the belief in _every other_ divine and superhuman\nquality is denied. Should I have any \"orthodox\" reader, my arguments\nmay shock his feelings less, if he keeps this in view. In fact, the\nsame action or word in Jesus may be consistent or inconsistent with\nmoral perfection, according to the previous assumptions concerning his\nperson.\n\nI. My friend has attributed to me a \"prosaic and embittered view of\nhuman nature,\" apparently because I have a very intense belief of\nMan's essential imperfection. To me, I confess, it is almost a first\nprinciple of thought, that as all sorts of perfection coexist in God,\nso is no sort of perfection possible to man. I do not know how for\na moment to imagine an Omniscient Being who is not Almighty, or\nan Almighty who is not All-Righteous. So neither do I know how to\nconceive of Perfect Holiness anywhere but in the Blessed and only\nPotentate.\n\nMan is finite and crippled on all sides; and frailty in one kind\ncauses frailty in another. Deficient power causes deficient knowledge,\ndeficient knowledge betrays him into false opinion, and entangles him\ninto false positions. It may be a defect of my imagination, but I do\nnot feel that it implies any bitterness, that even in the case of\none who abides in primitive lowliness, to attain even negatively an\nabsolutely pure goodness seems to me impossible; and much more, to\nexhaust all goodness, and become a single Model-Man, unparalleled,\nincomparable, a standard for all other moral excellence. Especially\nI cannot conceive of any human person rising out of obscurity, and\ninfluencing the history of the world, unless there be in him forces\nof great intensity, the harmonizing of which is a vast and painful\nproblem. Every man has to subdue himself first, before he preaches to\nhis fellows; and he encounters many a fall and many a wound in winning\nhis own victory. And as talents are various, so do moral natures vary,\neach having its own weak and strong side; and that one man should\ngrasp into his single self the highest perfection of every moral\nkind, is to me at least as incredible as that one should preoccupy\nand exhaust all intellectual greatness. I feel the prodigy to be so\npeculiar, that I must necessarily wait until it is overwhelmingly\nproved, before I admit it. No one can without unreason urge me to\nbelieve, on any but the most irrefutable arguments, that a man, finite\nin every other respect, is infinite in moral perfection.\n\nMy friend is \"at a loss to conceive in what way a superhuman physical\nnature could tend in the least degree to render moral perfection more\ncredible.\" But I think he will see, that it would entirely obviate the\nargument just stated, which, from the known frailty of human nature\nin general, deduced the indubitable imperfection of an individual. The\nreply is then obvious and decisive: \"This individual is _not_ a mere\nman; his origin is wholly exceptional; therefore his moral perfection\nmay be exceptional; your experience of _man's_ weakness goes for\nnothing in his case.\" If I were already convinced that this person was\na great Unique, separated from all other men by an impassable chasm in\nregard to his physical origin, I (for one) should be much readier to\nbelieve that he was Unique and Unapproachable in other respects: for\nall God's works have an internal harmony. It could not be for nothing\nthat this exceptional personage was sent into the world. That he was\nintended as head of the human race, in one or more senses, would be\na plausible opinion; nor should I feel any incredulous repugnance\nagainst believing his morality to be if not divinely perfect, yet\nseparated from that of common men so far, that he might be a God to\nus, just as every parent is to a young child.\n\nThis view seems to my friend a weakness; be it so. I need not press\nit. What I do press, is,--whatever _might_ or might _not_ be conceded\nconcerning one in human form, but of superhuman origin,--at any\nrate, one who is conceded to be, out and out, of the same nature as\nourselves, is to be judged of by our experience of that nature, and is\ntherefore to be _assumed_ to be variously imperfect, however eminent\nand admirable in some respects. And no one is to be called an imaginer\nof deformity, because he takes for granted that one who is Man has\nimperfections which were not known to those who compiled memorials of\nhim. To impute to a person, without specific evidence, some definite\nfrailty or fault, barely because he is human, would be a want of good\nsense; but not so, to have a firm belief that every human being is\nfinite in moral as well as in intellectual greatness.\n\nWe have a very imperfect history of the apostle James; and I do not\nknow that I could adduce any fact specifically recorded concerning him\nin disproof of his absolute moral perfection, if any of his Jerusalem\ndisciples had chosen to set up this as a dogma of religion. Yet no\none would blame me, as morose, or indisposed to acknowledge genius and\ngreatness, if I insisted on believing James to be frail and imperfect,\nwhile admitting that I knew almost nothing about him. And why?--Singly\nand surely, because we know him to be _a man_: that suffices. To set\nup James or John or Daniel as my Model, and my Lord; to be swallowed\nup in him and press him upon others for a Universal Standard, would\nbe despised as a self-degrading idolatry and resented as an obtrusive\nfavouritism. Now why does not the same equally apply, if the name\nJesus is substituted for these? Why, in defect of all other knowledge\nthan the bare fact of his manhood, are we not unhesitatingly to take\nfor granted that he does _not_ exhaust all perfection, and is at best\nonly one among many brethren and equals?\n\nII. My friend, I gather, will reply, \"because so many thousands\nof minds in all Christendom attest the infinite and unapproachable\ngoodness of Jesus.\" It therefore follows to consider, what is the\nweight of this attestation. Manifestly it depends, first of all, on\nthe independence of the witnesses: secondly, on the grounds of their\nbelief. If all those, who confess the moral perfection of Jesus,\nconfess it as the result of unbiassed examination of his character;\nand if of those acquainted with the narrative, none espouse the\nopposite side; this would be a striking testimony, not to be despised.\nBut in fact, few indeed of the \"witnesses\" add any weight at all to\nthe argument. No Trinitarian can doubt that Jesus is morally perfect,\nwithout doubting fundamentally every part of his religion. He believes\nit, _because_ the entire system demands it, and _because_ various\ntexts of Scripture avow it: and this very fact makes it morally\nimpossible for him to enter upon an unbiassed inquiry, whether that\ncharacter which is drawn for Jesus in the four gospels, is, or is not,\none of absolute perfection, deserving to be made an exclusive model\nfor all times and countries. My friend never was a Trinitarian, and\nseems not to know how this operates; but I can testify, that when I\nbelieved in the immaculateness of Christ's character, it was not\nfrom an unbiassed criticism, but from the pressure of authority, (the\nauthority of _texts_,) and from the necessity of the doctrine to the\nscheme of Redemption. Not merely strict Trinitarians, but all who\nbelieve in the Atonement, however modified,--all who believe that\nJesus will be the future Judge,--_must_ believe in his absolute\nperfection: hence the fact of their belief is no indication whatever\nthat they believe on the ground which my friend assumes,--viz. an\nintelligent and unbiassed study of the character itself, as exhibited\nin the four narratives.\n\nI think we may go farther. We have no reason for thinking that _this_\nwas the sort of evidence which convinced the apostles themselves, and\nfirst teachers of the gospel;--if indeed in the very first years the\ndoctrine was at all conceived of. It cannot be shown that any one\nbelieved in the moral perfection of Jesus, who had not already adopted\nthe belief that he was Messiah, and _therefore_ Judge of the human\nrace. My friend makes the pure immaculateness of Jesus (discernible\nby him in the gospels) his foundation, and deduces _from_ this the\nquasi-Messiahship: but the opposite order of deduction appears to have\nbeen the only one possible in the first age. Take Paul as a specimen.\nHe believed the doctrine in question; but not from reading the four\ngospels,--for they did not exist. Did he then believe it by hearing\nAnanias (Acts ix. 17) enter into details concerning the deeds and\nwords of Jesus? I cannot imagine that any wise or thoughtful person\nwould so judge, which after all would be a gratuitous invention. The\nActs of the Apostles give us many speeches which set forth the grounds\nof accepting Jesus as Messiah; but they never press his absolute moral\nperfection as a fact and a fundamental fact. \"He went about doing\ngood, and healing all that were oppressed of the devil,\" is the utmost\nthat is advanced on this side: prophecy is urged, and his resurrection\nis asserted, and the inference is drawn that \"Jesus is the Christ.\"\nOut of this flowed the farther inferences that he was Supreme\nJudge,--and moreover, was Paschal Lamb, and Sacrifice, and High\nPriest, and Mediator; and since every one of these characters demanded\na belief in his moral perfections, that doctrine also necessarily\nfollowed, and was received before our present gospels existed. My\nfriend therefore cannot abash me by the _argumentum ad verecundiam_;\n(which to me seems highly out of place in this connexion;) for the\nopinion, which is, as to this single point, held by him in common with\nthe first Christians, was held by them on transcendental reasons which\nhe totally discards; and all after generations have been confirmed\nin the doctrine by Authority, _i.e._ by the weight of texts or church\ndecisions: both of which he also discards. If I could receive\nthe doctrine, merely because I dared not to differ from the whole\nChristian world, I might aid to swell odium against rejectors, but I\nshould not strengthen the cause at the bar of reason. I feel therefore\nthat my friend must not claim Catholicity as on his side. Trinitarians\nand Arians are alike useless to his argument: nay, nor can he claim\nmore than a small fraction of Unitarians; for as many of the them\nbelieve that Jesus is to be the Judge of living and dead (as the late\nDr. Lant Carpenter did) must as _necessarily_ believe his immaculate\nperfection as if they were Trinitarians.\n\nThe New Testament does not distinctly explain on what grounds this\ndoctrine was believed; but we may observe that in 1 Peter i. 19 and 2\nCor. v. 21, it is coupled with the Atonement, and in 1 Peter ii. 21,\nRomans xv. 3, it seems to be inferred from prophecy. But let us turn\nto the original Eleven, who were eye and ear witnesses of Jesus, and\nconsider on what grounds they can have believed (if we assume that\nthey did all believe) the absolute moral perfection of Jesus. It is\ntoo ridiculous to imagine then studying the writings of Matthew in\norder to obtain conviction,--if any of that school, whom alone I now\naddress, could admit that written documents were thought of before\nthe Church outstept the limits of Judea. If the Eleven believed\nthe doctrine for some transcendental reason,--as by a Supernatural\nRevelation, or on account of Prophecy, and to complete the Messiah's\ncharacter,--then their attestation is useless to my friend's argument:\nwill it then gain anything, if we suppose that they _believed_ Jesus\nto be perfect, because they _saw_ him to be perfect? To me this would\nseem no attestation worth having, but rather a piece of impertinent\nignorance. If I attest that a person whom I have known was an\neminently good man, I command a certain amount of respect to my\nopinion, and I do him honour. If I celebrate his good deeds and report\nhis wise words, I extend his honour still farther. But if I proceed\nto assure people, _on the evidence of my personal observation of him_,\nthat he was immaculate and absolutely perfect, was the pure Moral\nImage of God, that he deserves to be made the Exclusive Model of\nimitation, and is the standard by which every other man's morality\nis to be corrected,--I make myself ridiculous; my panegyrics lose all\nweight, and I produce far less conviction than when I praised within\nhuman limitations. I do not know how my friend will look on this\npoint, (for his judgment on the whole question perplexes me, and the\nviews which I call _sober_ he names _prosaic_,) but I cannot resist\nthe conviction that universal common-sense would have rejected the\nteaching of the Eleven with contempt, if they had presented, as the\nbasis of the gospel their _personal testimony_ to the godlike and\nunapproachable moral absolutism of Jesus. But even if such a basis\nwas possible to the Eleven, it was impossible to Paul and Silvanus and\nTimothy and Barnabas and Apollos, and the other successful preachers\nto the Gentiles. High moral goodness, within human limitations, was\nundoubtedly announced as a fact of the life of Jesus; but upon this\nfollowed the supernatural claims, and the argument of prophecy;\n_without_ which my friend desires to build up his view,--I have thus\ndeveloped why I think he has no right to claim Catholicity for his\njudgment. I have risked to be tedious, because I find that when I\nspeak concisely, I am enormously misapprehended. I close this topic\nby observing, that, the great animosity with which my very mild\nintimations against the popular view have been met from numerous\nquarters, show me that Christians do not allow this subject to be\ncalmly debated, end have not come to their own conclusion as the\nresult of a calm debate. And this is amply corroborated by my own\nconsciousness of the past I never dared, nor could have dared, to\ncriticize coolly and simply the pretensions of Jesus to be an absolute\nmodel of morality, until I had been delivered from the weight of\nauthority and miracle, oppressing my critical powers.\n\nIII. I have been asserting, that he who believes Jesus to be mere man,\nought at once to believe his moral excellence finite and comparable\nto that of other men; and, that our judgment to this effect cannot be\nreasonably overborne by the \"universal consent\" of Christendom.--Thus\nfar we are dealing _\u00e0 priori_, which here fully satisfies me: in such\nan argument I need no _\u00e0 posteriori_ evidence to arrive at my own\nconclusion. Nevertheless, I am met by taunts and clamour, which are\nnot meant to be indecent, but which to my feeling are such. My critics\npoint triumphantly to the four gospels, and demand that I will make a\npersonal attack on a character which they revere, even when they know\nthat I cannot do so without giving great offence. Now if any one were\nto call my old schoolmaster, or my old parish priest, a perfect and\nuniversal Model, and were to claim that I would entitle him Lord, and\nthink of him as the only true revelation of God; should I not be\nat liberty to say, without disrespect, that \"I most emphatically\ndeprecate such extravagant claims for him\"? Would this justify an\noutcry, that I will publicly avow _what_ I judge to be his defects of\ncharacter, and will _prove_ to all his admirers that he was a sinner\nlike other men? Such a demand would be thought, I believe, highly\nunbecoming and extremely unreasonable. May not my modesty, or my\nregard for his memory, or my unwillingness to pain his family,\nbe accepted as sufficient reasons for silence? or would any one\nscoffingly attribute my reluctance to attack him, to my conscious\ninability to make good my case against his being \"God manifest in\nthe flesh\"? Now what, if one of his admirers had written panegyrical\nmemorials of him; and his character, therein described, was so\nfaultless, that a stranger to him was not able to descry any moral\ndefeat whatever in it? Is such a stranger bound to believe him to be\nthe Divine Standard of morals, unless he can put his finger on certain\npassages of the book which imply weaknesses and faults? And is it\ninsulting a man, to refuse to worship him? I utterly protest against\nevery such pretence. As I have an infinitely stronger conviction\nthat Shakespeare was not in _intellect_ Divinely and Unapproachably\nperfect, than that I can certainly point out in him some definite\nintellectual defect; as, moreover, I am vastly more sure that Socrates\nwas _morally_ imperfect, than that I am able to censure him rightly;\nso also, a disputant who concedes to me that Jesus is a mere man, has\nno right to claim that I will point out some moral flaw in him, or\nelse acknowledge him to be a Unique Unparalleled Divine Soul. It is\ntrue, I do see defects, and very serious ones, in the character of\nJesus, as drawn by his disciples; but I cannot admit that my right to\ndisown the pretensions made for him turns on my ability to define his\nfrailties. As long as (in common with my friend) I regard Jesus as\na man, so long I hold with _dogmatic_ and _intense conviction_ the\ninference that he was morally imperfect, and ought not to be held\nup as unapproachable in goodness; but I have, in comparison, only _a\nmodest_ belief that I am able to show his points of weakness.\n\nWhile therefore in obedience to this call, which has risen from many\nquarters, I think it right not to refuse the odious task pressed upon\nme,--I yet protest that my conclusion does not depend upon it. I might\ncensure Socrates unjustly, or at least without convincing my readers,\nif I attempted that task; but my failure would not throw a feather's\nweight into the argument that Socrates was a Divine Unique and\nuniversal Model. If I write note what is painful to readers, I beg\nthem to remember that I write with much reluctance, and that it is\ntheir own fault if they read.\n\nIn approaching this subject, the first difficulty is, to know how\nmuch of the four gospels to accept as _fact_. If we could believe the\nwhole, it would be easier to argue; but my friend Martineau (with me)\nrejects belief of many parts: for instance, he has but a very feeble\nconviction that Jesus ever spoke the discourses attributed to him in\nJohn's gospel. If therefore I were to found upon these some imputation\nof moral weakness, he would reply, that we are agreed in setting these\naside, as untrustworthy. Yet he perseveres in asserting that it is\nbeyond all reasonable question _what_ Jesus _was_; as though proven\ninaccuracies in all the narratives did not make the results uncertain.\nHe says that even the poor and uneducated are fully impressed with\n\"the majesty and sanctity\" of Christ's mind; as if _this_ were what I\nam fundamentally denying; and not, only so far as would transcend the\nknown limits of human nature: surely \"majesty and sanctity\" are not\ninconsistent with many weaknesses. But our judgment concerning a\nman's motives, his temper, and his full conquest over self, vanity and\nimpulsive passion, depends on the accurate knowledge of a vast variety\nof minor points; even the curl of the lip, or the discord of eye and\nmouth, may change our moral judgment of a man; while, alike to my\nfriend and me it is certain that much of what is stated is untrue.\nMuch moreover of what he holds to be untrue does not seem so to any\nbut to the highly educated. In spite therefore of his able reply, I\nabide in my opinion that he is unreasonably endeavouring to erect what\nis essentially a piece of doubtful biography and difficult literary\ncriticism into first-rate religious importance.\n\nI shall however try to pick up a few details which seem, as much\nas any, to deserve credit, concerning the pretensions, doctrine and\nconduct of Jesus.\n\n_First_, I believe that he habitually spoke of himself by the title\n\"_Son of Man_\"--a fact which pervades all the accounts, and was likely\nto rivet itself on his hearers. Nobody but he himself ever calls him\nSon of Man.\n\n_Secondly_ I believe that in assuming this title he tacitly alluded\nto the viith chapter of Daniel, and claimed for himself the throne of\njudgment over all mankind.--I know no reason to doubt that he actually\ndelivered (in substance) the discourse in Matth. xxv. \"When the Son\nof Man shall come in his glory,... before him shall be gathered all\nnations,... and he shall separate them, &c. &c.\": and I believe that\nby _the Son of Man_ and _the King_ he meant himself. Compare Luke xii.\n40, ix. 56.\n\n_Thirdly_, I believe that he habitually assumed the authoritative\ndogmatic tone of one who was a universal Teacher in moral and\nspiritual matters, and enunciated as a primary duty of men to learn\nsubmissively of his wisdom and acknowledge his supremacy. This element\nin his character, _the preaching of himself_ is enormously expanded in\nthe fourth gospel, but it distinctly exists in Matthew. Thus in Matth.\nxxiii 8: \"Be not ye called Rabbi [_teacher_], for one is your Teacher,\neven Christ; and all ye are brethren\"... Matth. x. 32: \"Whosoever\nshall confess ME before men, him will I confess before my Father which\nis in heaven... He that loveth father or mother more than ME is not\n_worthy of_ ME, &c.\"... Matth. xi. 27: \"All things are delivered unto\nME of my Father; and _no man knoweth the Son but the Father_; neither\nknoweth any man the Father, save the Son; and he to whomsoever _the\nSon will reveal him._ Come unto ME, all ye that labour,... and _I_\nwill give you rest. Take MY yoke upon you, &c.\"\n\nMy friend, I find, rejects Jesus as an authoritative teacher,\ndistinctly denies that the acceptance of Jesus in this character is\nany condition of salvation and of the divine favour, and treats of\nmy \"demand of an oracular Christ,\" as inconsistent with my own\nprinciples. But this is mere misconception of what I have said. I find\n_Jesus himself_ to set up oracular claims. I find an assumption\nof pre-eminence and unapproachable moral wisdom to pervade every\ndiscourse from end to end of the gospels. If I may not believe that\nJesus assumed an oracular manner, I do not know what moral peculiarity\nin him I am permitted to believe. I do not _demand_ (as my friend\nseems to think) that _he shall be_ oracular, but in common with all\nChristendom, I open my eyes and see that _he is_; and until I had read\nmy friend's review of my book, I never understood (I suppose through\nmy own prepossessions) that he holds Jesus _not_ to have assumed the\noracular style.\n\nIf I cut out from the four gospels this peculiarity, I must cut out,\nnot only the claim of Messiahship, which my friend admits to have\nbeen made, but nearly every moral discourse and every controversy: and\n_why_? except in order to make good a predetermined belief that Jesus\nwas morally perfect. What reason can be given me for not believing\nthat Jesus declared: \"If any one deny ME before men, _him will I deny_\nbefore my Father and his angels?\" or any of the other texts which\ncouple the favour of God with a submission to such pretensions of\nJesus? I can find no reason whatever for doubting that he preached\nHIMSELF to his disciples, though in the three first gospels he is\nrather timid of doing this to the Pharisees and to the nation at\nlarge. I find him uniformly to claim, sometimes in tone, sometimes in\ndistinct words, that we will sit at his feet as little children and\nlearn of him. I find him ready to answer off-hand, all difficult\nquestions, critical and lawyer-like, as well as moral. True, it is no\ntenet of mine that intellectual and literary attainment is essential\nin an individual person to high spiritual eminence. True, in another\nbook I have elaborately maintained the contrary. Yet in that book I\nhave described men's spiritual progress as often arrested at a certain\nstage by a want of intellectual development; which surely would\nindicate that I believed even intellectual blunders and an infinitely\nperfect exhaustive morality to be incompatible. But our question here\n(or at least _my_ question) is not, whether Jesus might misinterpret\nprophecy, and yet be morally perfect; but whether, _after assuming\nto be an oracular teacher_, he can teach some fanatical precepts, and\nadvance dogmatically weak and foolish arguments, without impairing our\nsense of his absolute moral perfection.\n\nI do not think it useless here to repeat (though not for my friend)\nconcise reasons which I gave in my first edition against admitting\ndictatorial claims for Jesus. _First_, it is an unplausible opinion\nthat God would deviate from his ordinary course, in order to give us\nanything so undesirable as an authoritative Oracle would be;--which\nwould paralyze our moral powers, exactly as an infallible church does,\nin the very proportion in which we succeeded in eliciting responses\nfrom it. It is not needful here to repeat what has been said to that\neffect in p. 138. _Secondly_, there is no imaginable criterion, by\nwhich we can establish that the wisdom of a teacher _is_ absolute and\nillimitable. All that we can possibly discover, is the relative\nfact, that another is _wiser than we_: and even this is liable to\nbe overturned on special points, as soon as differences of judgment\narise. _Thirdly_, while it is by no means clear what are the new\ntruths, for which we are to lean upon the decisions of Jesus, it\nis certain that we have no genuine and trustworthy account of his\nteaching. If God had intended us to receive the authoritative _dicta_\nof Jesus, he would have furnished us with an unblemished record\nof those dicta. To allow that we have not this, and that we must\ndisentangle for ourselves (by a most difficult and uncertain process)\nthe \"true\" sayings of Jesus, is surely self-refuting. _Fourthly_, if\nI _must_ sit in judgment on the claims of Jesus to be the true Messiah\nand Son of God, how can I concentrate all my free thought into that\none act, and thenceforth abandon free thought? This appears a moral\nsuicide, whether Messiah or the Pope is the object whom we _first_\ncriticize, in order to instal him over us, and _then_, for ever after,\nrefuse to criticize. In short, _we cannot build up a system of Oracles\non a basis of Free Criticism_. If we are to submit our judgment to the\ndictation of some other,--whether a church or an individual,--we must\nbe first subjected to that other by some event from without, as by\nbirth; and not by a process of that very judgment which is henceforth\nto be sacrificed. But from this I proceed to consider more in detail,\nsome points in the teaching and conduct of Jesus, which do not appear\nto me consistent with absolute perfection.\n\nThe argument of Jesus concerning the tribute to C\u00e6sar is so dramatic,\nas to strike the imagination and rest on the memory; and I know no\nreason for doubting that it has been correctly reported. The book of\nDeuteronomy (xvii. 15) distinctly forbids Israel to set over himself\nas king any who is not a native Israelite; which appeared to be a\nreligious condemnation of submission to C\u00e6sar. Accordingly, since\nJesus assumed the tone of unlimited wisdom, some of Herod's party\nasked him, whether it was lawful to pay tribute to C\u00e6sar. Jesus\nreplied: \"Why tempt ye me, hypocrites? Show me the tribute money.\"\nWhen one of the coins was handed to him, he asked: \"Whose image and\nsuperscription is this?\" When they replied: \"C\u00e6sar's,\" he gave his\nauthoritative decision: \"Render _therefore_ to C\u00e6sar _the things that\nare C\u00e6sar's_.\"\n\nIn this reply not only the poor and uneducated, but many likewise of\nthe rich and educated, recognize \"majesty and sanctity:\" yet I find it\nhard to think that my strong-minded friend will defend the justness,\nwisdom and honesty of it. To imagine that because a coin bears C\u00e6sar's\nhead, _therefore_ it is C\u00e6sar's property, and that he may demand to\nhave as many of such coins as he chooses paid over to him, is puerile,\nand notoriously false. The circulation of foreign coin of every kind\nwas as common in the Mediterranean then as now; and everybody knew\nthat the coin was the property of the _holder_, not of him whose\nhead it bore. Thus the reply of Jesus, which pretended to be a moral\ndecision, was unsound and absurd: yet it is uttered in a tone of\ndictatorial wisdom, and ushered in by a grave rebuke, \"Why tempt ye\nme, hypocrites?\" He is generally understood to mean, \"Why do you try\nto implicate me in a political charge?\" and it is supposed that\nhe prudently _evaded_ the question. I have indeed heard this\ninterpretation from high Trinitarians; which indicates to me how\ndead is their moral sense in everything which concerns the conduct of\nJesus. No reason appears why he should not have replied, that Moses\nforbade Israel _voluntarily_ to place himself under a foreign\nking, but did not inculcate fanatical and useless rebellion against\noverwhelming power. But such a reply, which would have satisfied a\nmore commonplace mind, has in it nothing brilliant and striking. I\ncannot but think that Jesus shows a vain conceit in the cleverness\nof his answer: I do not think it so likely to have been a conscious\nevasion. But neither does his rebuke of the questioners at all commend\nitself to me. How can any man assume to be an authoritative teacher,\nand then claim that men shall not put his wisdom to the proof? Was it\nnot their _duty_ to do so? And when, in result, the trial has proved\nthe defect of his wisdom, did they not perform a useful public\nservice? In truth, I cannot see the Model Man in his rebuke.--Let\nnot my friend say that the error was merely intellectual: blundering\nself-sufficiency is a moral weakness.\n\nI might go into detail concerning other discourses, where error and\narrogance appear to me combined. But, not to be tedious,--in general\nI must complain that Jesus purposely adopted an enigmatical and\npretentious style of teaching, unintelligible to his hearers,\nand needing explanation in private. That this was his systematic\nprocedure, I believe, because, in spite of the great contrast of the\nfourth gospel to the others, it has this peculiarity in common\nwith them. Christian divines are used to tell us that this mode was\n_peculiarly instructive_ to the vulgar of Jud\u00e6a; and they insist on\nthe great wisdom displayed in his choice of the lucid parabolical\nstyle. But in Matth. xiii. 10-15, Jesus is made confidentially to avow\nprecisely the opposite reason, viz. that he desires the vulgar _not_\nto understand him, but only the select few to whom he gives private\nexplanations. I confess I believe the Evangelist rather than the\nmodern Divine. I cannot conceive how so strange a notion could ever\nhave possessed the companions of Jesus, if it had not been true. If\nreally this parabolical method had been peculiarly intelligible,\nwhat could make them imagine the contrary? Unless they found it very\nobscure themselves, whence came the idea that it was obscure to the\nmultitude? As a fact, it _is_ very obscure, to this day. There is much\nthat I most imperfectly understand, owing to unexplained metaphor:\nas: \"Agree with thine adversary quickly, &c. &c.:\" \"Whoso calls his\nbrother[2] a fool, is in danger of hell fire:\" \"Every one must be\nsalted with fire, and every sacrifice salted with salt. Have salt\nin yourselves, and be at peace with one another.\" Now every man of\noriginal and singular genius has his own forms of thought; in so far\nas they are natural, we must not complain, if to us they are obscure.\nBut the moment _affectation_ comes in, they no longer are reconcilable\nwith the perfect character: they indicate vanity, and incipient\nsacerdotalism. The distinct notice that Jesus avoided to expound his\nparables to the multitude, and made this a boon to the privileged\nfew; and that without a parable he spake not to the multitude; and\nthe pious explanation, that this was a fulfilment of Prophecy, \"I will\nopen my mouth in parables, I will utter dark sayings on the harp,\"\npersuade me that the impression of the disciples was a deep reality.\nAnd it is in entire keeping with the general narrative, which shows in\nhim so much of mystical assumption. Strip the parables of the imagery,\nand you find that sometimes one thought has been dished up four\nor five times, and generally, that an idea is dressed into sacred\ngrandeur. This mystical method made a little wisdom go a great way\nwith the multitude; and to such a mode of economizing resources the\ninstinct of the uneducated man betakes itself, when he is claiming to\nact a part for which he is imperfectly prepared.\n\nIt is common with orthodox Christians to take for granted, that\nunbelief of Jesus was a sin, and belief a merit, at a time when no\nrational grounds of belief were as yet public. Certainly, whoever asks\nquestions with a view to _prove_ Jesus, is spoken of vituperatingly\nin the gospels; and it does appear to me that the prevalent Christian\nbelief is a true echo of Jesus's own feeling. He disliked being put\nto the proof. Instead of rejoicing in it, as a true and upright man\nought,--instead of blaming those who accept his pretensions on too\nslight grounds,--instead of encouraging full inquiry and giving frank\nexplanations, he resents doubt, shuns everything that will test him,\nis very obscure as to his own pretensions, (so as to need probing\nand positive questions, whether he _does_ or _does not_ profess to\nbe Messiah,) and yet is delighted at all easy belief. When asked for\nmiracles, he sighs and groans at the unreasonableness of it; yet\ndoes not honestly and plainly renounce pretension to miracle, as Mr.\nMartineau would, but leaves room for credit to himself for as many\nmiracles as the credulous are willing to impute to him. It is possible\nthat here the narrative is unjust to his memory. So far from being\nthe picture of perfection, it sometimes seems to me the picture of a\nconscious and wilful impostor. His general character is too high for\n_this_; and I therefore make deductions from the account. Still, I do\nnot see how the present narrative could have grown up, if he had\nbeen really simple and straight-forward, and not perverted by his\nessentially false position. Enigma and mist seem to be his element;\nand when I find his high satisfaction at all personal recognition and\nbowing before his individuality, I almost doubt whether, if one wished\nto draw the character of a vain and vacillating pretender, it would be\npossible to draw anything more to the purpose than this. His general\nrule (before a certain date) is, to be cautious in public, but bold\nin private to the favoured few. I cannot think that such a character,\nappearing now, would seem to my friend a perfect model of a man.\n\nNo precept bears on its face clearer marks of coming from the genuine\nJesus, than that of _selling all and following him_. This was his\noriginal call to his disciples. It was enunciated authoritatively\non various occasions. It is incorporated with precepts of perpetual\nobligation, in such a way, that we cannot without the greatest\nviolence pretend that he did not intend it as a precept[3] to\n_all_ his disciples. In Luke xii. 22-40, he addresses the disciples\ncollectively against Avarice; and a part of the discourse is: \"Fear\nnot, little flock; for it is your Father's good pleasure to give you\nthe kingdom. _Sell that ye have, and give alms_: provide yourselves\nbags that wax not old; a treasure in the heavens that faileth not,\n&c.... Let your loins be girded about, and your lights burning,\" &c.\nTo say that he was not intending to teach a universal morality,[4]\nis to admit that his precepts are a trap; for they then mix up and\nconfound mere contingent duties with universal sacred obligations,\nenunciating all in the same breath, and with the same solemnity. I\ncannot think that Jesus intended any separation. In fact, when a\nrich young man asked of him what he should do, that he might inherit\neternal life, and pleaded that he had kept the ten commandments, but\nfelt that to be insufficient, Jesus said unto him: \"_If thou wilt be\nperfect_, go and sell that thou hast, and give to the poor, and thou\nshalt have treasure in heaven:\" so that the duty was not contingent\nupon the peculiarity of a man possessing apostolic gifts, but was with\nJesus the normal path for all who desired perfection. When the young\nman went away sorrowing, Jesus moralized on it, saying: \"How hardly\nshall a rich man enter into the kingdom of heaven:\" which again\nshows, that an abrupt renunciation of wealth was to be the general and\nordinary method of entering the kingdom. Hereupon, when the disciples\nasked: \"Lo! we _have_ forsaken all, and followed thee: what\nshall we have _therefore_?\" Jesus, instead of rebuking their\nself-righteousness, promised them as a reward, that they should sit\nupon twelve[5] thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel. A precept\nthus systematically enforced, is illustrated by the practice, not only\nof the twelve, but apparently of the seventy, and what is stronger\nstill, by the practice of the five thousand disciples after the\ncelebrated days of the first Pentecost. There was no longer a Jesus\non earth to itinerate with, yet the disciples in the fervour of first\nlove obeyed his precept: the rich sold their possessions, and laid the\nprice at the apostles' feet.\n\nThe mischiefs inherent in such a precept rapidly showed themselves,\nand good sense corrected the error. But this very fact proves most\nemphatically that the precept was pre-apostolic, and came from the\ngenuine Jesus; otherwise it could never have found its way into\nthe gospels. It is undeniable, that the first disciples, by whose\ntradition alone we have any record of what Jesus taught, understood\nhim to deliver this precept to _all_ who desired to enter into the\nkingdom of heaven,--all who desired to be perfect: why then are we to\nrefuse belief, and remould the precepts of Jesus till they please our\nown morality? This is not the way to learn historical fact.\n\nThat to inculcate religious beggary as the _only_ form and mode of\nspiritual perfection, is fanatical and mischievous, even the church\nof Rome will admit. Protestants universally reject it as a deplorable\nabsurdity;--not merely wealthy bishops, squires and merchants, but\nthe poorest curate also. A man could not preach such doctrine in a\nProtestant pulpit without incurring deep reprobation and contempt;\nbut when preached by Jesus, it is extolled as divine wisdom,--and\ndisobeyed.\n\nNow I cannot look on this as a pure intellectual error, consistent\nwith moral perfection. A deep mistake as to the nature of such\nperfection seems to me inherent in the precept itself; a mistake which\nindicates a moral unsoundness. The conduct of Jesus to the rich young\nman appears to me a melancholy exhibition of perverse doctrine, under\nan ostentation of superior wisdom. The young man asked for bread and\nJesus gave him a stone. Justly he went away sorrowful, at receiving a\nreply which his conscience rejected as false and foolish. But this is\nnot all Jesus was necessarily on trial, when any one, however sincere,\ncame to ask questions so deeply probing the quality of his wisdom\nas this: \"How may I be perfect?\" and to be on trial was always\ndisagreeable to him. He first gave the reply, \"Keep the commandments;\"\nand if the young man had been satisfied, and had gone away, it appears\nthat Jesus would have been glad to be rid of him: for his tone is\nmagisterial, decisive and final. This, I confess, suggests to me, that\nthe aim of Jesus was not so much to _enlighten_ the young man, as to\nstop his mouth, and keep up his own ostentation of omniscience. Had\nhe desired to enlighten him, surely no mere dry dogmatic command was\nneeded, but an intelligent guidance of a willing and trusting soul.\nI do not pretend to certain knowledge in these matters. Even when we\nhear the tones of voice and watch the features, we often mistake.\nWe have no such means here of checking the narrative. But the best\ngeneral result which I can draw from the imperfect materials, is what\nI have said.\n\nAfter the merit of \"selling all and following Jesus,\" a second merit,\nnot small, was, to receive those whom he sent. In Matt. x., we read\nthat he sends out his twelve disciples, (also seventy in Luke,) men at\nthat time in a very low state of religions development,--men who did\nnot themselves know what the Kingdom of Heaven meant,--to deliver in\nevery village and town a mere formula of words: \"Repent ye: for the\nKingdom of Heaven is at hand.\" They were ordered to go without money,\nscrip or cloak, but to live on religious alms; and it is added,--that\nif any house or city does not receive them, _it shall be more\ntolerable for Sodom and Gomorrha in the day of judgment_ than for it.\nHe adds, v. 40: \"He that receiveth _you_, receiveth _me_, and he that\nreceiveth _me_, receiveth HIM that sent me.\"--I quite admit, that in\nall probability it was (on the whole) the more pious part of Israel\nwhich was likely to receive these ignorant missionaries; but inasmuch\nas they had no claims whatever, intrinsic or extrinsic, to reverence,\nit appears to me a very extravagant and fanatical sentiment thus\nemphatically to couple the favour or wrath of God with their reception\nor rejection.\n\nA third, yet greater merit in the eyes of Jesus, was, to acknowledge\nhim as the Messiah predicted by the prophets, which he was not,\naccording to my friend. According to Matthew (xvi. 13), Jesus put\nleading questions to the disciples in order to elicit a confession of\nhis Messiahship, and emphatically blessed Simon for making the avowal\nwhich he desired; but instantly forbade them to tell the great secret\nto any one. Unless this is to be discarded as fiction, Jesus,\nalthough to his disciples in secret he confidently assumed Messianic\npretensions, had a just inward misgiving, which accounts both for his\nelation at Simon's avowal, and for his prohibition to publish it.\n\nIn admitting that Jesus was not the Messiah of the prophets, my friend\nsays, that if Jesus were _less_ than Messiah, we can reverence him\nno longer; but that he was _more_ than Messiah. This is to me\nunintelligible. The Messiah whom he claimed to be, was not only the\nson of David, celebrated in the prophets, but emphatically the Son of\nMan of Daniel vii., who shall come in the clouds of heaven, to take\ndominion, glory and kingdom, that all people, nations and languages\nshall serve him,--an everlasting kingdom which shall not pass away.\nHow Jesus himself interprets his supremacy, as Son of Man, in Matt.\nx., xi., xxiii., xxv., and elsewhere, I have already observed. To\nclaim such a character, seems to me like plunging from a pinnacle\nof the temple. If miraculous power holds him up and makes good his\ndaring, he is more than man; but if otherwise, to have failed will\nbreak all his bones. I can no longer give the same human reverence\nas before to one who has been seduced into vanity so egregious; and\nI feel assured _\u00e0 priori_ that such presumption _must have_ entangled\nhim into evasions and insincerities, which _naturally_ end in\ncrookedness of conscience and real imposture, however noble a man's\ncommencement, and however unshrinking his sacrifices of goods and ease\nand life.\n\nThe time arrived at last, when Jesus felt that he must publicly assert\nMessiahship; and this was certain to bring things to an issue. I\nsuppose him to have hoped that he was Messiah, until hope and the\nencouragement given him by Peter and others grew into a persuasion\nstrong enough to act upon, but not always strong enough to still\nmisgivings. I say, I suppose this; but I build nothing on my\nsupposition. I however see, that when he had resolved to claim\nMessiahship publicly, one of two results was inevitable, _if_ that\nclaim was ill-founded:--viz., either he must have become an impostor,\nin order to screen his weakness; or, he must have retracted his\npretensions amid much humiliation, and have retired into privacy to\nlearn sober wisdom. From these alternatives _there was escape only by\ndeath_, and upon death Jesus purposely rushed.\n\nAll Christendom has always believed that the death of Jesus was\n_voluntarily_ incurred; and unless no man ever became a wilful martyr,\nI cannot conceive why we are to doubt the fact concerning Jesus. When\nhe resolved to go up to Jerusalem, he was warned by his disciples\nof the danger; but so far was he from being blind to it, that\nhe distinctly announced to them that he knew he should suffer in\nJerusalem the shameful death of a malefactor. On his arrival in the\nsuburbs, his first act was, ostentatiously to ride into the city on an\nass's colt in the midst of the acclamations of the multitude, in order\nto exhibit himself as having a just right to the throne of David. Thus\nhe gave a handle to imputations of intended treason.--He next entered\nthe temple courts, where doves and lambs were sold for sacrifice,\nand--(I must say it to my friend's amusement, and in defiance of his\nkind but keen ridicule,) committed a breach of the peace by flogging\nwith a whip those who trafficked in the area. By such conduct he\nundoubtedly made himself liable to legal punishment, and probably\nmight have been publicly scourged for it, had the rulers chosen to\nmoderate their vengeance. But he \"meant to be prosecuted for treason,\nnot for felony,\" to use the words of a modern offender. He therefore\ncommenced the most exasperating attacks on all the powerful,\ncalling them hypocrites and whited sepulchres and vipers' brood; and\ndenouncing upon them the \"condemnation of hell.\" He was successful. He\nhad both enraged the rulers up to the point of thirsting for his life,\nand given colour to the charge of political rebellion. He resolved\nto die; and he died. Had his enemies contemptuously let him live, he\nwould have been forced to act the part of Jewish Messiah, or renounce\nMessiahship.\n\nIf any one holds Jesus to be not amenable to the laws of human\nmorality, I am not now reasoning with such a one. But if any one\nclaims for him a human perfection, then I say that his conduct on this\noccasion was neither laudable nor justifiable; far otherwise. There\nare cases in which life may be thrown away for a great cause; as when\na leader in battle rushes upon certain death, in order to animate\nhis own men; but the case before us has no similarity to that. If\nour accounts are not wholly false, Jesus knowingly and purposely\nexasperated the rulers into a great crime,--the crime of taking his\nlife from personal resentment. His inflammatory addresses to the\nmultitude have been defended as follows:\n\n\"The prophetic Spirit is sometimes oblivious of the rules of the\ndrawing-room; and inspired Conscience, like the inspiring God, seeing\na hypocrite, will take the liberty to say so, and act accordingly. Are\nthe superficial amenities, the soothing fictions, the smotherings of\nthe burning heart,... really paramount in this world, and never to\ngive way? and when a soul of _power, unable to refrain_, rubs off,\nthough it be with rasping words, all the varnish from rottenness and\nlies, is he to be tried in our courts of compliment for a misdemeanor?\nIs there never a higher duty than that of either pitying or converting\nguilty men,--the duty of publicly exposing them? of awakening the\npopular conscience, and sweeping away the conventional timidities,\nfor a severe return to truth and reality? No rule of morals can be\nrecognized as just, which prohibits conformity of human speech to\nfact; and insists on terms of civility being kept with all manner of\niniquity.\"\n\nI certainly have not appealed to any conventional morality of\ndrawing-room compliment, but to the highest and purest principles\nwhich I know; and I lament to find my judgment so extremely in\nopposition. To me it seems that _inability to refrain_ shows weakness,\nnot _power_, of soul, and that nothing is easier than to give vent to\nviolent invective against bad rulers. The last sentence quoted, seems\nto say, that the speaking of Truth is never to be condemned: but I\ncannot agree to this. When Truth will only exasperate, and cannot do\ngood, silence is imperative. A man who reproaches an armed tyrant in\nwords too plain, does but excite him to murder; and the shocking thing\nis, that this seems to have been the express object of Jesus. No good\nresult could be reasonably expected. Publicly to call men in authority\nby names of intense insult, the writer of the above distinctly sees\nwill never convert them; but he thinks it was adapted to awaken the\npopular conscience. Alas! it needs no divine prophet to inflame a\nmultitude against the avarice, hypocrisy, and oppression of rulers,\nnor any deep inspiration of conscience in the multitude to be wide\nawake on that point themselves A Publius Clodius or a Cleon will do\nthat work as efficiently as a Jesus; nor does it appear that the poor\nare made better by hearing invectives against the rich and powerful.\nIf Jesus had been aiming, in a good cause, to excite rebellion, the\nmode of address which he assumed seems highly appropriate; and in such\na calamitous necessity, to risk exciting murderous enmity would be the\nact of a hero: but as the account stands, it seems to me the deed of\na fanatic. And it is to me manifest that he overdid his attack, and\nfailed to commend it to the conscience of his hearers. For up to\nthis point the multitude was in his favour. He was notoriously so\nacceptable to the many, as to alarm the rulers; indeed the belief\nof his popularity had shielded him from prosecution. But after this\nfierce address he has no more popular support. At his public trial the\nvast majority judge him to deserve punishment, and prefer to ask free\nforgiveness for Barabbas, a bandit who was in prison for murder. We\nmoderns, nursed in an arbitrary belief concerning these events, drink\nin with our first milk the assumption that Jesus alone was guiltless,\nand all the other actors in this sad affair inexcusably guilty. Let no\none imagine that I defend for a moment the cruel punishment which raw\nresentment inflicted on him. But though the rulers felt the rage of\nVengeance, the people, who had suffered no personal wrong, were moved\nonly by ill-measured Indignation. The multitude love to hear the\npowerful exposed and reproached up to a certain limit; but if reproach\ngo clearly beyond all that they feel to be deserved, a violent\nsentiment reacts on the head of the reviler: and though popular\nindignation (even when free from the element of selfishness) ill fixes\nthe due _measure_ of Punishment, I have a strong belief that it is\nrighteous, when it pronounces the verdict Guilty.\n\nDoes my friend deny that the death of Jesus was wilfully incurred? The\n\"orthodox\" not merely admit, but maintain it. Their creed justifies it\nby the doctrine, that his death was a \"sacrifice\" so pleasing to\nGod, as to expiate the sins of the world. This honestly meets the\nobjections to self-destruction; for how better could life be used,\nthan by laying it down for such a prize? But besides all other\ndifficulties in the very idea of atonement, the orthodox creed\nstartles us by the incredible conception, that a voluntary sacrifice\nof life should be unacceptable to God, unless offered by ferocious and\nimpious hands. If Jesus had \"authority from the Father to lay down his\nlife,\" was he unable to stab himself in the desert, or on the sacred\naltar of the Temple, without involving guilt to any human being?\nDid He, who is at once \"High Priest\" and Victim, when \"offering\nup himself\" and \"presenting his own blood unto God,\" need any\njustification for using the sacrificial knife? The orthodox view more\nclearly and unshrinkingly avows, that Jesus deliberately goaded the\nwicked rulers into the deeper wickedness of murdering him; but on my\nfriend's view, that Jesus was _no_ sacrifice, but only a Model man,\nhis death is an unrelieved calamity. Nothing but a long and complete\nlife could possibly test the fact of his perfection; and the longer he\nlived, the better for the world.\n\nIn entire consistency with his previous determination to die, Jesus,\nwhen arraigned, refused to rebut accusation, and behaved as one\npleading Guilty. He was accused of saying that if they destroyed the\ntemple, he would rebuild it in three days; but how this was to the\npurpose, the evangelists who name it do not make clear. The fourth\nhowever (without intending so to do) explains it; and I therefore am\ndisposed to believe his statement, though I put no faith in his long\ndiscourses. It appears (John ii. 18-20) that Jesus after scourging the\npeople out of the temple-court, was asked for a sign to justify his\nassuming so very unusual authority: on which he replied: \"Destroy\nthis temple, and in three days I will raise it up.\" Such a reply was\nregarded as a manifest evasion; since he was sure that they would\nnot pull the temple down in order to try whether he could raise it up\nmiraculously. Now if Jesus really meant what the fourth gospel says he\nmeant;--if he \"spoke of _the temple of his body_;\"--how was any one\nto guess that? It cannot be denied, that such a reply, _prim\u00e2 facie_,\nsuggested, that he was a wilful impostor: was it not then his obvious\nduty, when this accusation was brought against him, to explain that\nhis words had been mystical and had been misunderstood? The form of\nthe imputation in Mark xiv. 58, would make it possible to imagine,--if\nthe _three days_ were left out, and if his words were _not_ said in\nreply to the demand of a sign,--that Jesus had merely avowed that\nthough the outward Jewish temple were to be destroyed, he would erect\na church of worshippers as a spiritual temple. If so, \"John\" has\ngrossly misrepresented him, and then obtruded a very far-fetched\nexplanation. But whatever was the meaning of Jesus, if it was honest,\nI think he was bound to explain it; and not leave a suspicion of\nimposture to rankle in men's minds.[6] Finally, if the whole were\nfiction, and he never uttered such words, then it was his duty to deny\nthem, and not remain dumb like a sheep before its shearers.\n\nAfter he had confirmed by his silence the belief that he had used\na dishonest evasion indicative of consciousness that he was no real\nMessiah, he suddenly burst out with a full reply to the High Priest's\nquestion; and avowed that he _was_ the Messiah, the Son of God; and\nthat they should hereafter see him sitting on the right-hand of power,\nand coming in the clouds of heaven,--of course to enter into judgment\non them all. I am the less surprized that this precipitated his\ncondemnation, since he himself seems to have designed precisely that\nresult. The exasperation which he had succeeded in kindling led to his\ncruel death; and when men's minds had cooled, natural horror possessed\nthem for such a retribution on such a man. His _words_ had been met\nwith _deeds_: the provocation he had given was unfelt to those beyond\nthe limits of Jerusalem; and to the Jews who assembled from distant\nparts at the feast of Pentecost he was nothing but the image of a\nsainted martyr.\n\nI have given more than enough indications of points in which the\nconduct of Jesus does not seem to me to have been that of a perfect\nman: how any one can think him a Universal Model, is to me still less\nintelligible. I might say much more on this subject. But I will merely\nadd, that when my friend gives the weight of his noble testimony to\nthe Perfection of Jesus, I think it is due to himself and to us that\nhe should make clear what he means by this word \"Jesus.\" He ought\nto publish--(I say it in deep seriousness, not sarcastically)--an\nexpurgated gospel; for in truth I do not know how much of what I have\nnow adduced from the gospel as _fact_, he will admit to be fact. I\nneglect, he tells me, \"a higher moral criticism,\" which, if I rightly\nunderstand, would explode, as evidently unworthy of Jesus, many of the\nrepresentations pervading the gospels: as, that Jesus claimed to be\nan oracular teacher, and attached spiritual life or death to belief\nor disbelief in this claim. My friend says, it is beyond all serious\nquestion _what_ Jesus _was_: but his disbelief of the narrative seems\nto be so much wider than mine, as to leave me more uncertain than\never about it. If he will strike out of the gospels all that he\ndisbelieves, and so enable me to understand _what_ is the Jesus whom\nhe reveres, I have so deep a sense of his moral and critical powers,\nthat I am fully prepared to expect that he may remove many of my\nprejudices and relieve my objections: but I cannot honestly say that\nI see the least probability of his altering my conviction, that in\n_consistency_ of goodness Jesus fell far below vast numbers of his\nunhonoured disciples.\n\n\n[Footnote 1: I have by accident just taken up the \"British\nQuarterly,\" and alighted upon the following sentence concerning Madame\nRoland:--\"_To say that she was without fault, would be to say that she\nwas not human_.\" This so entirely expresses and concludes all that I\nhave to say, that I feel surprise at my needing at all to write such a\nchapter as the present.]\n\n[Footnote 2: I am acquainted with the interpretation, that the\nword M\u00f4r\u00e8 is not here Greek, _i.e., fool_, but is Hebrew, and means\n_rebel_, which is stronger than Raca, _silly fellow_. This gives\npartial, but only partial relief.]\n\n[Footnote 3: Indeed we have in Luke vi. 20-24, a version of the\nBeatitudes so much in harmony with this lower doctrine, as to make\nit an open question, whether the version in Matth. v. is not\nan improvement upon Jesus, introduced by the purer sense of the\ncollective church. In Luke, he does not bless the poor _in spirit_,\nand those who hunger _after righteousness_, but absolutely the \"poor\"\nand the \"hungry,\" and all who honour _Him_; and in contrast, curses\n_the rich_ and those who are full.]\n\n[Footnote 4: At the close, is the parable about the absent master of\na house; and Peter asks, \"Lord? (Sir?) speakest thou this parable\nunto _us_, or also unto _all_?\" Who would not have hoped an ingenuous\nreply, \"To you only,\" or, \"To everybody\"? Instead of which, so\ninveterate is his tendency to muffle up the simplest things in\nmystery, he replies, \"Who then is that faithful and wise steward,\"\n&c., &c., and entirely evades reply to the very natural question.]\n\n[Footnote 5: This implied that Judas, as one of the twelve, had earned\nthe heavenly throne by the price of earthly goods.]\n\n[Footnote 6: If the account in John is not wholly false, I think the\nreply in every case discreditable. If literal, it all but indicates\nwilful imposture. If mystical, it is disingenuously evasive; and it\ntended, not to instruct, but to irritate, and to move suspicion\nand contempt. Is this the course for a religious teacher?--to speak\ndarkly, so as to mislead and prejudice; and this, when he represents\nit as a matter of spiritual life and death to accept his teaching and\nhis supremacy?]\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER VIII.\n\n\nON BIGOTRY AND PROGRESS.\n\n\nIf any Christian reader has been patient enough to follow me thus far,\nI now claim that he will judge my argument and me, as before the\nbar of God, and not by the conventional standards of the Christian\nchurches.\n\nMorality and Truth are principles in human nature both older and more\nwidespread than Christianity or the Bible: and neither Jesus nor James\nnor John nor Paul could have addressed or did address men in any\nother tone, than that of claiming to be themselves judged by some\npre-existing standard of moral truth, and by the inward powers of the\nhearer. Does the reader deny this? or, admitting it, does he think it\nimpious to accept their challenge? Does he say that we are to love and\nembrace Christianity, without trying to ascertain whether it be true\nor false? If he say, Yes,--such a man has no love or care for Truth,\nand is but by accident a Christian. He would have remained a faithful\nheathen, had he been born in heathenism, though Moses, Elijah and\nChrist preached a higher truth to him. Such a man is condemned by his\nown confession, and I here address him no longer.\n\nBut if Faith is a spiritual and personal thing, if Belief given at\nrandom to mere high pretensions is an immorality, if Truth is not\nto be quite trampled down, nor Conscience to be wholly palsied in\nus,--then what, I ask, was I to do, when I saw that the genealogy in\nthe first chapter of Matthew is an erroneous copy of that in the Old\nTestament? and that the writer has not only copied wrong, but also\ncounted wrong, so, as to mistake eighteen for fourteen? Can any man,\nwho glories in the name of Christian, lay his hand on his heart, and\nsay, it was my duty to blind my eyes to the fact, and think of it no\nfurther? Many, alas, I know, would have whispered this to me; but if\nany one were to proclaim it, the universal conscience of mankind would\ncall him impudent.\n\nIf however this first step was right, was a second step wrong? When I\nfurther discerned that the two genealogies in Matthew and Luke were\nat variance, utterly irreconcilable,--and both moreover nugatory,\nbecause they are genealogies of Joseph, who is denied to be the father\nof Jesus,--on what ground of righteousness, which I could approve to\nGod and my conscience, could I shut my eyes to this second fact?\n\nWhen forced, against all my prepossessions, to admit that the two\nfirst chapters of Matthew and the two first chapters of Luke are\nmutually destructive,[1] would it have been faithfulness to the God of\nTruth, or a self-willed love of my own prejudices, if I had said, \"I\nwill not inquire further, for fear it should unsettle my faith?\" The\nreader's conscience will witness to me, that, on the contrary, I was\nbound to say, what I did say: \"I _must_ inquire further in order that\nI may plant the foundations of my faith more deeply on the rock of\nTruth.\"'\n\nHaving discovered, that not all that is within the canon of the\nScripture is infallibly correct, and that the human understanding is\ncompetent to arraign and convict at least some kinds of error therein\ncontained;--where was I to stop? and if I am guilty, where did my\nguilt begin? The further I inquired, the more errors crowded upon me,\nin History, in Chronology, in Geography, in Physiology, in Geology.[2]\nDid it _then_ at last become a duty to close my eyes to the painful\nlight? and if I had done so, ought I to have flattered myself that\nI was one of those, who being of the truth, come to the lights that\ntheir deeds may be reproved?\n\nMoreover, when I had clearly perceived, that since all evidence for\nChristianity must involve _moral_ considerations, to undervalue\nthe moral faculties of mankind is to make Christian evidence an\nimpossibility and to propagate universal scepticism;--was I then so to\ndistrust the common conscience, as to believe that the Spirit of God\npronounced Jael blessed, for perfidiously murdering her husband's\ntrusting friend? Does any Protestant reader feel disgust and horror,\nat the sophistical defences set up for the massacre of St. Bartholomew\nand other atrocities of the wicked Church of Rome? Let him stop his\nmouth, and hide his face, if he dares to justify the foul crime of\nJael.\n\nOr when I was thus forced to admit, that the Old Testament praised\nimmorality, as well as enunciated error; and found nevertheless in\nthe writers of the New Testament no indication that they were aware\nof either; but that, on the contrary, \"the Scripture\" (as the book was\nvaguely called) is habitually identified with the infallible \"word\nof God;\"--was it wrong in me to suspect that the writers of the New\nTestament were themselves open to mistake?\n\nWhen I farther found, that Luke not only claims no infallibility and\nno inspiration, but distinctly assigns human sources as his means of\nknowledge;--when the same Luke had already been discovered to be\nin irreconcilable variance with Matthew concerning the infancy of\nJesus;--was I sinful in feeling that I had no longer any guarantee\nagainst _other_ possible error in these writers? or ought I to have\npersisted in obtruding on the two evangelists on infallibility of\nwhich Luke shows himself unconscious, which Matthew nowhere claims,\nand which I had demonstrative proof that they did not both possess? A\nthorough-going Bibliolater will have to impeach me as a sinner on this\ncount.\n\nAfter Luke and Matthew stood before me as human writers, liable to and\nconvicted of human error, was there any reason why I should look on\nMark as more sacred? And having perceived all three to participate in\nthe common superstition, derived from Babylon and the East, traceable\nin history to its human source, existing still in Turkey and\nAbyssinia,--the superstition which mistakes mania, epilepsy, and other\nforms of disease, for possession by devils;--should I have shown love\nof truth, or obstinacy in error, had I refused to judge freely of\nthese three writers, as of any others who tell similar marvels? or\nwas it my duty to resolve, at any rate and against evidence, to acquit\nthem of the charge of superstition and misrepresentation?\n\nI will not trouble the reader with any further queries. If he has\njustified me in his conscience thus far, he will justify my proceeding\nto abandon myself to the results of inquiry. He will feel, that the\nWill cannot, may not, dare not dictate, whereto the inquiries of the\nUnderstanding shall lead; and that to allege that it _ought_, is\nto plant the root of Insincerity, Falsehood, Bigotry, Cruelty, and\nuniversal Rottenness of Soul.\n\nThe vice of Bigotry has been so indiscriminately imputed to the\nreligious, that they seem apt to forget that it is a real sin;--a sin\nwhich in Christendom has been and is of all sins most fruitful, most\npoisonous: nay, grief of griefs! it infects many of the purest and\nmost lovely hearts, which want strength of understanding, or are\nentangled by a sham theology, with its false facts and fraudulent\ncanons. But upon all who mourn for the miseries which Bigotry has\nperpetrated from the day when Christians first learned to curse; upon\nall who groan over the persecutions and wars stirred up by Romanism;\nupon all who blush at the overbearing conduct of Protestants in their\nsuccessive moments of brief authority,--a sacred duty rests in this\nnineteenth century of protesting against Bigotry, not from a love of\nease, but from a spirit of earnest justice.\n\nLike the first Christians, they must become _confessors_ of the Truth;\nnot obtrusively, boastfully, dogmatically, or harshly; but, \"speaking\nthe truth in love,\" not be ashamed to avow, if they do not believe all\nthat others profess, and that they abhor the unrighteous principle of\njudging men by an authoritative creed. The evil of Bigotry which has\nbeen most observed, is its untameable injustice, which converted the\nlaw of love into licensed murder or gratuitous hatred. But I believe\na worse evil still has been, the intense reaction of the human mind\nagainst Religion for Bigotry's sake. To the millions of Europe,\nbigotry has been a confutation of all pious feeling. So unlovely has\nreligion been made by it,\n\n  Horribili super aspectu mortalibus instans,\n\nthat now, as 2000 years ago, men are lapsing into Atheism or\nPantheism; and a totally new \"dispensation\" is wanted to retrieve the\nlost reputation of Piety.\n\nTwo opposite errors are committed by those who discern that the\npretensions of the national religious systems are overstrained and\nunjustifiable. One class of persons inveighs warmly, bitterly, rudely\nagainst the bigotry of Christians; and know not how deep and holy\naffections and principles, in spite of narrowness, are cherished in\nthe bosom of the Christian society. Hence their invective is harsh and\nunsympathizing; and appears so essentially unjust and so ignorant,\nas to exasperate and increase the very bigotry which it attacks. An\nopposite class know well, and value highly, the moral influences of\nChristianity, and from an intense dread of harming or losing these,\ndo not dare plainly and publicly to avow their own convictions. Great\nnumbers of English laymen are entirely assured, that the Old Testament\nabounds with error, and that the New is not always unimpeachable:\nyet they only whisper this; and in the hearing of a clergyman, who is\nbound by Articles and whom it is indecent to refute, keep a respectful\nsilence. As for ministers of religion, these, being called perpetually\ninto a practical application of the received doctrine of their church,\nare of all men least able to inquire into any fundamental errors in\nthat doctrine. Eminent persons among them will nevertheless aim after\nand attain a purer truth than that which they find established:\nbut such a case must always be rare and exceptive. Only by disusing\nministerial service can any one give fair play to doubts concerning\nthe wisdom and truth of that which he is solemnly ministering: hence\nthat friend of Arnold's was wise in this world, who advised him\nto take a curacy in order to settle his doubts concerning the\nTrinity.--Nowhere from any body of priests, clergy, or ministers, as\nan Order, is religious progress to be anticipated, until intellectual\ncreeds are destroyed. A greater responsibility therefore is laid upon\nlaymen, to be faithful and bold in avowing their convictions.\n\nYet it is not from the practical ministers of religion, that the great\nopposition to religious reform proceeds. The \"secular clergy\" (as the\nRomanists oddly call them) were seldom so bigoted as the \"regulars.\"\nSo with us, those who minister to men in their moral trials have\nfor the most part a deeper moral spirit, and are less apt to place\nreligion in systems of propositions. The _robur legionum_ of bigotry,\nI believe, is found,--first, in non-parochial clergy, and next in the\nanonymous writers for religious journals and \"conservative\" newspapers;\nwho too generally[3] adopt a style of which they would be ashamed,\nif the names of the writers were attached; who often seem desirous to\nmake it clear that it is their trade to carp, insult, or slander;\nwho assume a tone of omniscience, at the very moment when they show\nnarrowness of heart and judgment. To such writing those who desire\nto promote earnest Thought and tranquil Progress ought anxiously to\ntestify their deep repugnance. A large part of this slander and insult\nis prompted by a base pandering to the (real or imagined) taste of the\npublic, and will abate when it visibly ceases to be gainful.\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nThe law of God's moral universe, as known to us, is that of Progress.\nWe trace it from old barbarism to the methodized Egyptian idolatry;\nto the more flexible Polytheism of Syria and Greece; the poetical\nPantheism of philosophers, and the moral monotheism of a few sages.\nSo in Palestine and in the Bible itself we see, first of all, the\nimage-worship of Jacob's family, then the incipient elevation of\nJehovah above all other Gods by Moses, the practical establishment\nof the worship of Jehovah alone by Samuel, the rise of spiritual\nsentiment under David and the Psalmists, the more magnificent views\nof Hezekiah's prophets, finally in the Babylonish captivity the new\ntenderness assumed by that second Isaiah and the later Psalmists. But\nceremonialism more and more encrusted the restored nation; and Jesus\nwas needed to spur and stab the conscience of his contemporaries,\nand recal them to more spiritual perceptions; to proclaim a coming\n\"kingdom of heaven,\" in which should be gathered all the children of\nGod that were scattered abroad; where the law of love should reign,\nand no one should dictate to another. Alas! that this great movement\nhad its admixture of human imperfection. After this, Steven the\nprotomartyr, and Paul once him persecutor, had to expose the emptiness\nof all external santifications, and free the world from the law of\nMoses. _Up_ to this point all Christians approve of progress; but _at_\nthis point they want to arrest it.\n\nThe arguments of those who resist Progress are always the same,\nwhether it be Pagans against Hebrews, Jews against Christians,\nRomanists against Protestants, or modern Christians against the\nadvocates of a higher spiritualism. Each established system\nassures its votaries, that now at length they have attained a final\nperfection: that their foundations are irremovable: progress _up_ to\nthat position was a duty, _beyond_ it is a sin. Each displaces its\npredecessor by superior goodness, but then each fights against his\nsuccessor by odium, contempt, exclusions and (when possible) by\nviolences. Each advances mankind one step, and forbids them to take a\nsecond. Yet if it be admitted that in the earlier movement the party\nof progress was always right, confidence that the case is now reversed\nis not easy to justify.\n\nEvery persecuting church has numbered among its members thousands\nof pious people, so grateful for its services, or so attached to its\ntruth, as to think those impious who desire something purer and more\nperfect. Herein we may discern, that every nation and class is\nliable to the peculiar illusion of overesteeming the sanctity of its\nancestral creed. It is as much our duty to beware of this illusion, as\nof any other. All know how easily our patriotism may degenerate into\nan unjust repugnance to foreigners, and that the more intense it is,\nthe greater the need of antagonistic principles. So also, the real\nexcellencies of our religion may only so much the more rivet us in\na wrong aversion to those who do not acknowledge its authority or\nperfection.\n\nIt is probable that Jesus desired a state of things in which all who\nworship God spiritually should have an acknowledged and conscious\nunion. It is clear that Paul longed above all things to overthrow\nthe \"wall of partition\" which separated two families of sincere\nworshippers. Yet we now see stronger and higher walls of partition\nthan ever, between the children of the same God,--with a new law of\nthe letter, more entangling to the conscience, and more depressing to\nthe mental energies, than any outward service of the Levitical law.\nThe cause of all this is to be found in _the claim of Messiahship for\nJesus._ This gave a premium to crooked logic, in order to prove that\nthe prophecies meant what they did not mean and could not mean. This\nperverted men's notions of right and wrong, by imparting factitious\nvalue to a literary and historical proposition, \"Jesus is the\nMessiah,\" as though that were or could be religion. This gave merit\nto credulity, and led pious men to extol it as a brave and noble deed,\nwhen any one overpowered the scruples of good sense, and scolded them\ndown as the wisdom of this world, which is hostile to God. This put\nthe Christian church into an essentially false position, by excluding\nfrom it in the first century all the men of most powerful and\ncultivated understanding among the Greeks and Romans. This taught\nChristians to boast of the hostility of the wise and prudent, and\nin every controversy ensured that the party which had the merit of\nmortifying reason most signally should be victorious. Hence, the\ndownward career of the Church into base superstition was determined\nand inevitable from her very birth; nor was any improvement possible,\nuntil a reconciliation should be effected between Christianity and the\ncultivated reason which it had slighted and insulted.\n\nSuch reconciliation commenced, I believe, from the tenth century, when\nthe Latin moralists began to be studied as a part of a theological\ncourse. It was continued with still greater results when Greek\nliterature became accessible to churchmen. Afterwards, the physics\nof Galileo and of Newton began not only to undermine numerous\nsuperstitions, but to give to men a confidence in the reality of\nabstract truth, and in our power to attain it in other domains than\nthat of geometrical demonstration. This, together with the philosophy\nof Locke, was taken up into Christian thought, and Political\nToleration was the first fruit. Beyond that point, English religion\nhas hardly gone. For in spite of all that has since been done in\nGermany for the true and accurate _exposition_ of the Bible, and for\nthe scientific establishment of the history of its component books,\nwe still remain deplorably ignorant here of these subjects. In\nconsequence, English Christians do not know that they are unjust and\nutterly unreasonable, in expecting thoughtful men to abide by the\ncreed of their ancestors. Nor, indeed, is there any more stereotyped\nand approved calumny, than the declaration so often emphatically\nenunciated from the pulpit, that _unbelief in the Christian miracles\nis the fruit of a wicked heart and of a soul enslaved to sin_. Thus\ndo estimable and well-meaning men, deceived and deceiving one another,\nutter base slander in open church, where it is indecorous to reply\nto them,--and think that they are bravely delivering a religions\ntestimony.\n\nNo difficulty is encountered, so long as the _inward_ and the\n_outward_ rule of religion agree,--by whatever names men call\nthem,--the Spirit and the Word--or Reason and the Church,--or\nConscience and Authority. None need settle which of the two rules is\nthe greater, so long as the results coincide: in fact, there is no\ncontroversy, no struggle, and also probably no progress. A child\ncannot guess whether father or mother has the higher authority,\nuntil discordant commands are given; but then commences the painful\nnecessity of disobeying one in order to obey the other. So, also, the\ngreat and fundamental controversies of religion arise, only when a\ndiscrepancy is detected between the inward and the outward rule: and\nthen, there are only two possible solutions. If the Spirit within us\nand the Bible (or Church) without us are at variance, _we must either\nfollow the inward and disregard the outward law; else we must renounce\nthe inward law and obey the outward_. The Romanist bids us to obey\nthe Church and crush our inward judgment: the Spiritualist, on the\ncontrary, follows his inward law, and, when necessary, defies Church,\nBible, or any other authority. The orthodox Protestant is better\nand truer than the Romanist, because the Protestant is not like the\nlatter, consistent in error, but often goes right: still he _is_\ninconsistent as to this point. Against the Spiritualist he uses\nRomanist principles, telling him that he ought to submit his \"proud\nreason\" and accept the \"Word of God\" as infallible, even though it\nappear to him to contain errors. But against the Romanist the same\ndisputant avows Spiritualist principles, declaring that since \"the\nChurch\" appears to him to be erroneous, he dares not to accept it as\ninfallible. What with the Romanist he before called \"proud reason,\"\nhe now designates as Conscience, Understanding, and perhaps the Holy\nSpirit. He refused to allow the right of the Spiritualist to urge,\nthat _the Bible_ contains contradictions and immoralities, and\ntherefore cannot be received; but he claims a full right to urge\nthat _the Church_ has justified contradictions and immoralities, and\ntherefore is not to be submitted to. The perception that this\nposition is inconsistent, and, to him who discerns the inconsistency,\ndishonest, is every year driving Protestants to Rome. And _in\nprinciple_ there are only two possible religions: the Personal and the\nCorporate; the Spiritual and the External. I do not mean to say that\nin Romanism there is nothing but what is Corporate and External; for\nthat is impossible to human nature: but that this is what the theory\nof their argument demands; and their doctrine of Implicit[4] (or\nVirtual) Faith entirely supersedes intellectual perception as well as\nintellectual conviction. The theory of each church is the force which\ndetermines to what centre the whole shall gravitate. However men may\ntalk of spirituality, yet let them once enact that the freedom of\nindividuals shall be absorbed in a corporate conscience, and you\nfind that the narrowest heart and meanest intellect sets the rule of\nconduct for the whole body.\n\nIt has been often observed how the controversies of the Trinity and\nIncarnation depended on the niceties of the Greek tongue. I do not\nknow whether it has ever been inquired, what confusion of thought\nwas shed over Gentile Christianity, from its very origin, by the\nimperfection of the New Testament Greek. The single Greek[5] word\n[Greek: pistis] needs probably three translations into our far more\naccurate tongue,--viz., Belief, Trust, Faith; but especially Belief\nand Faith have important contrasts. Belief is purely intellectual;\nFaith is properly spiritual. Hence the endless controversy about\nJustification by [Greek: pistis], which has so vexed Christians; hence\nthe slander cast on _unbelievers_ or _misbelievers_ (when they can\nno longer be burned or exiled), as though they were _faithless_ and\n_infidels_.\n\nBut nothing of this ought to be allowed to blind us to the truly\nspiritual and holy developments of historical Christianity,--much\nless, make us revert to the old Paganism or Pantheism which it\nsupplanted.--The great doctrine on which all practical religion\ndepends,--the doctrine which nursed the infancy and youth of human\nnature,--is, \"the sympathy of God with the perfection of individual\nman.\" Among Pagans this was so marred by the imperfect characters\nascribed to the Gods, and the dishonourable fables told concerning\nthem, that the philosophers who undertook to prune religion too\ngenerally cut away the root, by alleging[6] that God was mere\nIntellect and wholly destitute of Affections. But happily among the\nHebrews the purity of God's character was vindicated; and with the\ngrowth of conscience in the highest minds of the nation the ideal\nimage of God shone brighter and brighter. The doctrine of his Sympathy\nwas never lost, and from the Jews it passed into the Christian church.\nThis doctrine, applied to that part of man which is divine, is the\nwellspring of Repentance and Humility, of Thankfulness, Love, and Joy.\nIt reproves and it comforts; it stimulates and animates. This it is\nwhich led the Psalmist to cry, \"Whom have I in heaven but Thee? there\nis none upon earth that I desire beside Thee.\" This has satisfied\nprophets, apostles, and martyrs with God as their Portion. This has\nbeen passed from heart to heart for full three thousand years, and has\nproduced bands of countless saints. Let us not cut off our sympathies\nfrom those, who have learnt to sympathize with God; nor be blind\nto that spiritual good which they have; even if it be, more or less\nsensibly, tinged with intellectual error. In fact, none but God knows,\nhow many Christian hearts are really pure from bigotry. I cannot\nrefuse to add my testimony, such as it is, to the effect, that _the\nmajority is always truehearted_. As one tyrant, with a small band of\nunscrupulous tools, manages to use the energies of a whole nation of\nkind and well-meaning people for cruel purposes, so the bigoted few,\nwho work out an evil theory with consistency, often succeed in using\nthe masses of simpleminded Christians as their tools for oppression.\nLet us not think more harshly than is necessary of the anathematizing\nchurches. Those who curse us with their lips, often love us in their\nhearts. A very deep fountain of tenderness can mingle with their\nbigotry itself: and with tens of thousands, the evil belief is a dead\nform, the spiritual love is a living reality. Whether Christians\nlike it or not, we must needs look to Historians, to Linguists, to\nPhysiologists, to Philosophers, and generally, to men of cultivated\nunderstanding, to gain help in all those subjects which are\npreposterously called _Theology_: but for devotional aids, for pious\nmeditations, for inspiring hymns, for purifying and glowing thoughts,\nwe have still to wait upon that succession of kindling souls, among\nwhom may be named with special honour David and Isaiah, Jesus and\nPaul, Augustine, A Kempis, Fenelon, Leighton, Baxter, Doddridge,\nWatts, the two Wesleys, and Channing.\n\nReligion was created by the inward instincts of the soul: it had\nafterwards to be pruned and chastened by the sceptical understanding.\nFor its perfection, the co-operation of these two parts of man is\nessential. While religious persons dread critical and searching\nthought, and critics despise instinctive religion, each side remains\nimperfect and curtailed.\n\nIt is a complaint often made by religious historians, that no church\ncan sustain its spirituality unimpaired through two generations, and\nthat in the third a total irreligion is apt to supervene. Sometimes\nindeed the transitions are abrupt, from an age of piety to an age of\ndissoluteness. The liability to such lamentable revulsions is plainly\ndue to some insufficiency in the religion to meet all the wants of\nhuman nature. To scold at that nature is puerile, and implies an\nignorance of the task which religion undertakes. To lay the fault\non the sovereign will of God, who has \"withheld his grace\" from the\ngrandchildren of the pious, might be called blasphemy, if we were\ndisposed to speak harshly. The fault lies undoubtedly in the fact,\nthat Practical Devoutness and Free Thought stand apart in unnatural\nschism. But surely the age is ripe for something better;--for\na religion which stall combine the tenderness, humility, and\ndisinterestedness, that are the glory of the purest Christianity,\nwith that activity of intellect, untiring pursuit of truth, and strict\nadherence to impartial principle, which the schools of modern science\nembody. When a spiritual church has its senses exercised to discern\ngood and evil, judges of right and wrong by an inward power, proves\nall things and holds fast that which is good, fears no truth, but\nrejoices in being corrected, intellectually as well as morally,--it\nwill not be liable to be \"carried to and fro\" by shifting winds of\ndoctrine. It will indeed have movement, namely, a steady _onward_ one,\nas the schools of science have had, since they left off to dogmatize,\nand approached God's world as learners; but it will lay aside disputes\nof words, eternal vacillations, mutual illwill and dread of new light,\nand will be able without hypocrisy to proclaim \"peace on earth and\ngoodwill towards men,\" even towards those who reject its beliefs and\nsentiments concerning \"God and his glory.\"\n\nNOTE ON PAGE 168.\n\nThe author of the \"Eclipse of Faith,\" in his Defence (p. 168),\nreferring to my reply in p. 101 above, says:--\"In this very paragraph\nMr. Newman shows that I have _not_ misrepresented him, nor is it\ntrue that I overlooked his novel hypothesis. He says that 'Gibbon is\nexhibiting and developing the deep-seated causes of the _spread_ of\nChristianity before Constantine,'--which Mr. Newman says had _not_\nspread. On the contrary; he assumes that the Christians were 'a small\nfraction,' and thus _does_ dismiss in two sentences, I might have said\nthree words, what Gibbon had strained every nerve in his celebrated\nchapter to account for.\"\n\nObserve his phrase, \"On the contrary.\" It is impossible to say more\nplainly, that Gibbon represents the spread of Christianity before\nConstantine to have been very great, and then laboured in vain to\naccount for that spread; and that I, _arbitrarily setting aside\nGibbon's fact as to the magnitude of the \"spread_,\" cut the knot which\nhe could not untie.\n\nBut the fact, as between Gibbon and me, is flatly the reverse.\nI advance nothing novel as to the numbers of the Christians, no\nhypothesis of my own, no assumption. I have merely adopted Gibbon's\nown historical estimate, that (judging, as he does judge, by the\nexamples of Rome and Antioch), the Christians before the rise of\nConstantine were but a small fraction of the population. Indeed, he\nsays, not above _one-twentieth_ part; on which I laid no stress.\n\nIt may be that Gibbon is here in error. I shall willingly withdraw any\nhistorical argument, if shown that I have unawares rested on a false\nbasis. In balancing counter statements and reasons from diverse\nsources, different minds come to different statistical conclusions.\nDean Milman (\"Hist. of Christianity,\" vol. ii. p. 341) when\ndeliberately weighing opposite opinions, says cautiously, that \"Gibbon\nis perhaps inclined to underrate\" the number of the Christians. He\nadds: \"M. Beugnot agrees much with Gibbon, and I should conceive, with\nregard to the West, is clearly right.\"\n\nI beg the reader to observe, that I have _not_ represented the\nnumerical strength of the Christians in Constantine's army to be\ngreat. Why my opponent should ridicule my use of the phrase _Christian\nregiments_, I am too dull to understand. (\"Who would not think,\"\nsays he, \"that it was one of Constantine's _aide-de-camps_ that was\nspeaking?\") It may be that I am wrong in using the plural noun, and\nthat there was only _one_ such regiment,--that which carried the\nLabarum, or standard of the cross (Gibbon, ch. 20), to which so much\nefficacy was attributed in the war against Licinius. I have no time at\npresent, nor any need for further inquiries on such matters. It is\nto the devotion and organization of the Christians, not to their\nproportionate numbers, that I attributed weight. If (as Milman says)\nGibbon and Beugnot are \"clearly right\" as regards _the West_--_i.e._,\nas regards all that vast district which became the area of modern\nEuropean Christendom, I see nothing in my argument which requires\nmodification.\n\nBut why did Christianity, while opposed by the ruling powers, spread\n\"_in the East?_\" In the very chapter from which I have quoted, Dean\nMilman justifies me in saying, that to this question I may simply\nreply, \"I do not know,\" without impairing my present argument. (I\nmyself find no difficulty in it whatever; but I protest against the\nassumption, that I am bound to believe a religion preternatural,\nunless I con account for its origin and diffusion to the satisfaction\nof its adherents.) Dean Milman, vol. ii. pp. 322-340, gives a full\naccount of the Manich\u00e6an religion, and its rapid and great spread in\nspate of violent persecution. MANI, the founder, represented himself\nas \"a man invested with a divine mission.\" His doctrines are described\nby Milman as wild and mystical metaphysics, combining elements of\nthought from Magianism, Judaism, Christianity, and Buddhism. \"His\nworship was simple, without altar, temple, images, or any imposing\nceremonial. Pure and simple prayer was their only form of adoration.\"\nThey talked much of \"Christ\" as a heavenly principle, but \"did not\nbelieve in his birth or death. Prayers and Hymns addressed to the\nsource of light, exhortations to subdue the dark and sensuous element\nwithin, and the study of the marvellous book of Mani, constituted\ntheir devotion. Their manners were austere and ascetic; they\ntolerated, but only tolerated, marriage, and that only among the\ninferior orders. The theatre, the banquet, and even the bath, they\nseverely proscribed. Their diet was of fruits and herbs; they shrank\nwith abhorrence from animal food.\" Mani met with fierce hostility from\nWest and East alike; and at last was entrapped by the Persian king\nBaharam, and \"was flayed alive. His skin, stuffed with straw, was\nplaced over the gate of the city of Shahpoor.\"\n\nSuch a death was as cruel and as ignominious as that of crucifixion;\nyet his doctrines \"expired not with their author. In the East and in\nthe West they spread with the utmost rapidity.... The extent of\nits success may be calculated by the implacable hostility of other\nreligions to the doctrines of Mani; _the causes of that success are\nmore difficult to conjecture_.\"\n\nEvery reason, which, as far as I know, has ever been given, why it\nshould be hard for early Christianity to spread, avail equally as\nreasons against the spread of Manich\u00e6ism. The state of the East, which\nadmitted the latter without miracle, admitted the former also.\nIt nevertheless is pertinent to add, that the recent history of\nMormonism, compared with that of Christianity and of Manich\u00e6ism,\nmay suggest that the martyr-death of the founder of a religion is a\npositive aid to its after-success.\n\n\n[Footnote 1: See Strauss on the Infancy of Jesus.]\n\n[Footnote 2: My \"Eclectic\" reviewer (who is among the least orthodox\nand the least uncandid) hence deduces, that I have confounded the two\nquestions, \"Does the Bible contain errors in human science?\" and, \"Is\nits purely spiritual teaching true?\" It is quite wonderful to me, how\neducated men can so totally overlook what I have so plainly and so\noften written. This very passage might show the contrary, if he had\nbut quoted the whole paragraph, instead of the middle sentence only.\nSee also pp. 67, 74, 75, 86, 87, 125.]\n\n[Footnote 3: Any orthodox periodical which dares to write charitably,\nis at once subjected to fierce attack us _un_orthodox.]\n\n[Footnote 4: _Explicit_ Faith in a doctrine, means, that we understand\nwhat the propositions are, and accept them. But if through blunder we\naccept a wrong set of propositions, so as to believe a false doctrine,\nwe nevertheless have _Implicit_ (or Virtual) Faith in the true one, if\nonly we say from the heart: \"Whatever the Church believes, I believe.\"\nThus a person, who, through blundering, believes in Sabellianism or\nArianism, which the Church has condemned, is regarded to have _virtual\nfaith_ in Trinitarianism, and all the \"merit\" of that faith, because\nof his good will to submit to the Church; which is the really saving\nvirtue.]\n\n[Footnote 5: [Greek: Dikaiosune] (righteousness), [Greek: Diatheke]\n(covenant, testament), [Greek: Charis] (grace), are all terms pregnant\nwith fallacy.]\n\n[Footnote 6: Horace and Cicero speak the mind of their educated\ncontemporaries in saying that \"we ought to pray to God _only_ for\nexternal blessings, but trust to our own efforts for a pure and\ntranquil soul,\"--a singular reversing of spiritual religion]\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER IX.\n\n\nREPLY TO THE DEFENCE OF THE \"ECLIPSE OF FAITH.\"\n\n\nThis small treatise was reviewed, unfavourably of course, in most of\nthe religious periodicals, and among them in the \"Prospective Review,\"\nby my friend James Martineau. I had been about the same time attacked\nin a book called the \"Eclipse of Faith,\" written (chiefly against my\ntreatise on the Soul) in the form of a Platonic Dialogue; in which a\nsceptic, a certain Harrington, is made to indulge in a great deal\nof loose and bantering argumentation, with the view of ridiculing my\nreligion, and doing so by ways of which some specimen will be given.\n\nI made an indignant protest in a new edition of this book, and added\nalso various matter in reply to Mr. Martineau, which will still\nbe found here. He in consequence in a second article[1] of the\n\"Prospective\" reviewed me afresh; but, in the opening, he first\npronounced his sentence in words of deep disapproval against the\n\"Eclipse of Faith.\"\n\n\"The method of the work,\" says he, \"its plan of appealing from what\nseems shocking in the Bible to something more shocking in the world,\nsimply doubles every difficulty without relieving any; and tends to\nenthrone a devil everywhere, and leave a God nowhere.... The whole\nforce of the writer's thought,--his power of exposition, of argument,\nof sarcasm, is thrown, in spite of himself, into the irreligious\nscale.... If the work be really written[2] in good faith, and be not\nrather a covert attack on all religion, it curiously shows how the\ntemple of the author's worship stands on the same foundation with the\n_officina_ of Atheism, and in such close vicinity that the passer-by\ncannot tell from which of the two the voices stray into the street.\"\n\nThe author of the \"Eclipse,\" buoyed up by a large sale of his work\nto a credulous public, put forth a \"Defence,\" in which he naturally\ndeclined to submit to the judgment of this reviewer. But my readers\nwill remark, that Mr. Martineau, writing against me, and seeking to\nrebut my replies to him--(nay, I fear I must say my _attack_ on him;\nfor I have confessed, almost with compunction, that it was I who first\nstirred the controversy)--was very favourably situated for maintaining\na calmly judicial impartiality. He thought us both wrong, and he\nadministered to us each the medicine which seemed to him needed.\nHe passed his strictures on what he judged to be my errors, and he\nrebuked my assailant for profane recklessness.\n\nI had complained, not of this merely, but of monstrous indefensible\ngarbling and misrepresentation, pervading the whole work. The dialogue\nis so managed, as often to suggest what is false concerning me, yet\nwithout asserting it; so as to enable him to disown the slander, while\nproducing its full effect against me. Of the directly false statements\nand garblings I gave several striking exhibitions. His reply to all\nthis in the first edition of his \"Defence\" was reviewed in a _third_\narticle of the \"Prospective Review,\" Its ability and reach of thought\nare attested by the fact that it has been mistaken for the writing of\nMr. Martineau; but (as clearly as reviews ever speak on such subjects)\nit is intimated in the opening that this new article is from a new\nhand, \"at the risk of revealing _division of persons and opinions_\nwithin the limits of the mystic critical _We_.\" Who is the author, I\ndo not know; nor can I make a likely guess at any one who was in more\nthan distant intercourse with me.\n\nThis third reviewer did not bestow one page, as Mr. Martineau had\ndone, on the \"Eclipse;\" did not summarily pronounce a broad sentence\nwithout details, but dedicated thirty-four pages to the examination\nand proof. He opens with noticing the parallel which the author of\nthe \"Eclipse\" has instituted between his use of ridicule and that\nof Pascal; and replies that he signally violates Pascal's two rules,\n_first_, to speak with truth against one's opponents and not with\ncalumny; _secondly_, not to wound them needlessly. \"Neglect of the\nfirst rule (says he) has given to these books [the \"Eclipse\" and its\n\"Defence\"] their apparent controversial success; disregard of the\nsecond their literary point.\" He adds, \"We shall show that their\nauthor misstates and misrepresents doctrines; garbles quotations,\ninterpolating words which give the passage he cites reference to\nsubjects quite foreign from those to which in the original they apply,\nwhile retaining the inverted commas, which are the proper sign of\nfaithful transcription; that similarly, he allows himself the licence\nof omission of the very words on which the controversy hangs, while\nin appearance citing _verbatim_;... and that he habitually employs\na sophistry too artful (we fear) to be undesigned. May he not himself\nhave been deceived, some indulgent render perhaps asks, by the\nfallacies which have been so successful with others? It would be as\nreasonable to suppose that the grapes which deluded the birds must\nhave deluded Zeuxis who painted them.\"\n\nSo grave an accusation against my assailant's truthfulness, coming not\nfrom me, but from a third party, and that, evidently a man who knew\nwell what he was saying and why,--could not be passed over unnoticed,\nalthough that religious world, which reads one side only, continued\nto buy the \"Eclipse\" and its \"Defence\" greedily, and not one in a\nthousand of them was likely to see the \"Prospective Review,\" In\nthe second edition of the \"Defence\" the writer undertakes to defend\nhimself against my advocate, in on Appendix of 19 closely printed\npages, the \"Defence\" itself being 218. The \"Eclipse,\" in its 9th\nedition of small print, is 393 pages. And how does he set about his\nreply? By trying to identify the third writer with the second (who was\nnotoriously Mr. Martineau), and to impute to him ill temper, chagrin,\nirritation, and wounded self-love, as the explanation of this third\narticle: He says (p. 221):--\n\n\"The third writer--if, as I have said, he be not the second--sets out\non a new voyage of discovery ... and still humbly following in the\nwake of Mr. Newman's great critical discoveries,[3] repeats\nthat gentleman's charges of falsifying passages, garbling and\nmisrepresentation. In doing so, he employs language, and _manifests a\ntemper_, which I should have thought that respect for himself, if not\nfor his opponent, would have induced him to suppress. It is enough to\nsay, that he quite rivals Mr. Newman in sagacity, and if possible, has\nmore successfully denuded himself of charity.... If he be the same as\nthe second writer, I am afraid that the little Section XV.\" [_i.e._\nthe reply to Mr. Martineau in 1st edition of the \"Defence\"] \"must have\noffended the _amour propre_ more deeply than it ought to have done,\nconsidering the wanton and outrageous assault to which it was a very\nlenient reply, and that the critic affords another illustration of the\nold maxim, that there are none so implacable as those who have done a\nwrong.\n\n\"As the spectacle of the reeling Helot taught the Spartans sobriety,\nso his _bitterness_ shall teach me moderation. I know enough of human\nnature to understand that it is very possible for an _angry_ man--and\n_chagrin and irritation are too legibly written on every page of this\narticle_--to be betrayed into gross injustice.\"\n\nThe reader will see from this the difficulty of _my_ position in this\ncontroversy. Mr. Martineau, while defending himself, deprecated\nthe profanity of my other opponent, and the atheistic nature of\nhis arguments. He spoke as a bystander, and with the advantage of a\njudicial position, and it is called \"wanton and outrageous.\" A second\nwriter goes into detail, and exposes some of the garbling arts which\nhave been used against me; it is imputed[4] to ill temper, and is\ninsinuated to be from a spirit of personal revenge. How much less can\n_I_ defend myself, and that, against untruthfulness, without incurring\nsuch imputation! My opponent speaks to a public who will not read my\nreplies. He picks out what he pleases of my words, and takes care to\ndivest them of their justification. I have (as was to be expected) met\nwith much treatment from the religious press which I know cannot be\njustified; but all is slight, compared to that of which I complain\nfrom this writer. I will presently give a few detailed instances to\nillustrate this. While my charge against my assailant is essentially\nmoral, and I cannot make any parade of charity, he can speak\npatronizingly of me now and then, and makes his main attacks on my\n_logic_ and _metaphysics_. He says, that in writing his first book,\nhe knew no characteristics of me, except that I was \"a gentleman,\na scholar, and _a very indifferent metaphysician_\" At the risk of\nencountering yet more of banter and insult, I shall here quote what\nthe third \"Prospective Reviewer\" says on this topic. (Vol. x. p.\n208):--\n\n\"Our readers will be able to judge how well qualified the author is\nto sneer at Mr. Newman's metaphysics, which are far more accurate\nthan his own, or to ridicule his logic. The tone of contempt which he\nhabitually assumes preposterously reverses the relative intellectual\n_status_, so far as sound systematic thought is concerned, of the two\nmen.\"\n\nI do not quote this as testimony to myself but as testimony that\nothers, as well as I, feel the _contemptuous tone_ assumed by my\nadversary in precisely that subject on which modesty is called for. On\nmetaphysics there is hitherto an unreconciled diversity among men who\nhave spent their lives in the study; and a large part of the endless\nreligious disputes turns on this very fact. However, the being told,\nin a multitude of ingenious forms, that I am a wretched logician, is\nnot likely to raffle my tranquillity. What does necessarily wound me,\nis his misrepresenting my thoughts to the thoughtful, whose respect\nI honour; and poisoning the atmosphere between me and a thousand\nreligious hearts. That these do not despise me, however much contempt\nhe may vent, I know only too well through their cruel fears of me.\n\nI have just now learned incidentally, that in the last number (a\nsupplementary number) of the \"Prospective Review,\" there was a short\nreply to the second edition of Mr. Rogers's \"Defence,\" in which the\nEditors officially _deny_ that the third writer against Mr. Rogers\nis the same as the second; which, I gather from their statement, the\n\"British Quarterly\" had taken on itself to _affirm_.\n\nI proceed to show what liberties my critic takes with my arguments,\nand what he justifies.\n\nI. In the closing chapter of my third edition of the \"Phases,\" I had\ncomplained of his bad faith in regard to my arguments concerning the\nAuthoritative imposition of moral truth from without. I showed that,\nafter telling his reader that I offered no proof of my assertions,\nhe dislocated my sentences, altered their order, omitted an adverb\nof inference, and isolated three sentences out of a paragraph of\nforty-six lines: that his omission of the inferential adverb showed\nhis deliberate intention to destroy the reader's clue to the fact,\nthat I had given proof where he suppresses it and says that I have\ngiven none; that the sentences quoted as 1,2,3, by him, with me have\nthe order 3, 2,1; while what he places first, is with me an immediate\nand necessary deduction from what has preceded. Now how does he reply?\nHe does not deny my facts; but he justifies his process. I must set\nhis words before the reader. _(Defence, 2nd ed., p. 85.)\n\n\"The strangest thing is to see the way in which, after parading this\nsupposed 'artful dodge,'[5] which, I assure you, gentle reader, was\nall a perfect novelty to my consciousness,--Mr. Newman goes on to\nsay, that the author of the 'Eclipse' has altered the order of his\nsentences to suit a purpose. He says: 'The sentences quoted as 1, 2,\n3, by him, with me have the order 3, 2, 1.' I answer, that Harrington\nwas simply anxious to set forth at the head of his argument, in the\nclearest and briefest form, the _conclusions_[6] he believed Mr.\nNewman to hold, and which he was going to confute. He had no idea of\nany relation of subordination or dependence in the above sophisms, as\nI have just proved them to be, whether arranged as 3, 2, 1, or 1,\n2, 3, or 2, 3, 1, or in any other order in which the possible\npermutations of three things, taken 3 and 3 together, can exhibit\nthem; _ex nihilo, nil fit_; and three nonentities can yield just as\nlittle. Jangle as many changes as you will on these three cracked\nbells, no logical harmony can ever issue out of them.\"\n\nThus, because he does not see the validity of my argument, he is to\npretend that I have offered none: he is not to allow his readers to\njudge for themselves as to the validity, but they have to take his\nword that I am a very \"queer\" sort of logician, ready \"for any feats\nof logical legerdemain.\"\n\nI have now to ask, what is garbling, if the above is not? He admits\nthe facts, but justifies them as having been convenient from his point\nof view; and then finds my charity to be \"very grotesque,\" when I do\nnot know how, without hypocrisy, to avoid calling a spade a spade.\n\nI shall here reprint the pith of my argument, somewhat shortened:--\n\n\"No heaven-sent Bible can guarantee the veracity of God to a man who\ndoubts that veracity. Unless we have independent means of knowing that\nGod is truthful and good, his word (if we be over so certain that it\nis really his word) has no authority to us: _hence_ no book revelation\ncan, without sapping its own pedestal, deny the validity of our _a\npriori_ conviction that God has the virtues of goodness and veracity,\nand requires like virtues in us. _And in fact_, all Christian apostles\nand missionaries, like the Hebrew prophets, have always confuted\nPaganism by direct attacks on its immoral and unspiritual doctrines,\nand have appealed to the consciences of heathens, as competent to\ndecide in the controversy. Christianity itself has _thus_ practically\nconfessed what is theoretically clear, that an authoritative external\nrevelation of moral and spiritual truth is essentially impossible to\nman. What God reveals to us, he reveals within, through the medium of\nour moral and spiritual senses. External teaching may be a training of\nthose senses, but affords no foundation for certitude.\"\n\nThis passage deserved the enmity of my critic. He quoted bits of\nit, very sparingly, never setting before his readers my continuous\nthought, but giving his own free versions and deductions. His fullest\nquotation stood thus, given only in an after-chapter:--\"What God\nreveals to us, he reveals _within_, through the medium of our moral\nand spiritual senses.\" \"Christianity itself has practically confessed\nwhat is theoretically clear, _(you must take Mr. Newman's word for\nboth,)_[7] that an authoritative external revelation of moral and\nspiritual truth is essentially impossible to man.\" \"No book-revelation\ncan, without sapping its own pedestal, &c. &c.\"\n\nThese three sentences are what Mr. Rogers calls the three cracked\nbells, and thinks by raising a laugh, to hide his fraud I have\ncarefully looked through the whole of his dialogue concerning Book\nRevelation in his 9th edition of the \"Eclipse\" (pp. 63-83 of close\nprint). He still excludes from it every part of my argument,\nonly stating in the opening (p. 63) as my conclusions, that a\nbook-revelation is impossible, and that God reveals himself from\nwithin, not from without In his _Defence_ (which circulates far less\nthan the \"Eclipse,\" to judge by the number of editions) he displays\nhis bravery by at length printing my argument; but in the \"Eclipse\" he\ncontinues to suppress it, at least as far as I can discover by turning\nto the places where it ought to be found.\n\nIn p. 77 (9th ed.) of the \"Eclipse.\" he _implies_, without absolutely\nasserting, that I hold the Bible to be an impertinence. He repeats\nthis in p. 85 of the \"Defence.\" Such is his mode. I wrote: \"_Without_\na priori _belief_, the Bible is an impertinence,\" but I say, man\n_has_ this _a priori_ belief, on which account the Bible is _not_\nan impertinence. My last sentence in the very passage before us,\nexpressly asserts the value of (good) external teaching. This my\ncritic laboriously disguises.\n\nHe carefully avoids allowing his readers to see that I am contending\nfundamentally for that which the ablest Christian divines have\nconceded and maintained; that which the common sense of every\nmissionary knows, and every one who is not profoundly ignorant of the\nBible and of history ought to know. Mr. Rogers is quite aware, that\nno apostle ever carried a Bible in his hand and said to the heathen,\n\"Believe that there is a good and just God, _because_ it is written\nin this book;\" but they appealed to the hearts and consciences of\nthe hearers as competent witnesses. He does not even give his reader\nenough of my paragraph to make intelligible what I _meant_ by saying\n\"Christianity has practically confessed;\" and yet insists that I am\nboth unreasonable and uncharitable in my complaints of him.\n\nI here reprint the summary of my belief concerning our knowledge of\nmorality as fundamental, and not to be tampered with under pretence of\nreligion. \"If an angel from heaven bade me to lie, and to steal, and\nto commit adultery, and to murder, and to scoff at good men, and usurp\ndominion over my equals, and do unto others everything that I wish\n_not_ to have done to me; I ought to reply, BE THOU ANATHEMA! This, I\nbelieve, was Paul's doctrine; this is mine.\"\n\nIt may be worth while to add how in the \"Defence\" Mr. Rogers pounces\non my phrase \"_a priori_ view of the Divine character,\" as an excuse\nfor burying his readers in metaphysics, in which he thinks he has a\nnatural right to dogmatize against and over me. He must certainly be\naware of the current logical (not metaphysical) use of the phrase _a\npriori_: as when we say, that Le Verrier and Adams demonstrated _a\npriori_ that a planet _must_ exist exterior to Uranus, before any\nastronomer communicated information that it _does_ exist. Or again:\nthe French Commissioners proved by actual measurement that the earth\nis an oblate spheroid, of which Newton had convinced himself _a\npriori_.\n\n_I_ always avoid a needless argument of metaphysics. Writing to the\ngeneral public I cannot presume that they are good judges of anything\nbut a practical and moral argument. The _a priori_ views of God, of\nwhich I here speak, involve no subtle questions; they are simply those\nviews which are attained _independently of the alleged authoritative\ninformation_, and, of course, are founded upon considerations\n_earlier_ than it.\n\nBut it would take too much of space and time, and be far too tedious\nto my readers, if I were to go in detail through Mr. Rogers's\nobjections and misrepresentations. I have the sad task of attacking\n_his good faith_, to which I further proceed.\n\nII. In the preface to my second edition of the \"Hebrew Monarchy,\"\nI found reason to explain briefly in what sense I use the word\ninspiration. I said, I found it to be current in three senses;\n\"first, as an extraordinary influence peculiar to a few persons, as\nto prophets and apostles; secondly, _as an ordinary influence of the\nDivine Spirit on the hearts of men, which quickens and strengthens\ntheir moral and spiritual powers_, and is accessible to them all (in\na certain stage of development) _in some proportion to their own\nfaithfulness._ The third view teaches that genius and inspiration are\ntwo names for one thing.... _Christians for the most part hold the two\nfirst conceptions_, though they generally call the second _spiritual\ninfluence_, not inspiration; the third, seems to be common in the\nOld Testament. It so happens that the _second is the only inspiration\nwhich I hold._\" [I here super-add the italics] On this passage Mr.\nRogers commented as follows (\"Defence\" p. 156):--\n\n\"The latest utterance of Mr. Newman on the subject [of inspiration]\nthat I have read, occurs in his preface to the second edition of\nhis \"Hebrew Monarchy,\" where he tells us, that he believes it is an\ninfluence accessible to all men, _in a certain stage of development_!\n[Italics.] Surely it will be time to consider his theory of\ninspiration, when he has told us a little more about it. To my mind,\nif the very genius of mystery had framed the definition, it could not\nhave uttered anything more indefinite.\"\n\nUpon this passage the \"Prospective\" reviewer said his say as follows\n(vol x. p. 217):--\n\n\"The writer will very considerately defer criticism on Mr. Newman's\nindefinite definition, worthy of the genius of mystery, till its\nauthor has told us a little more about it. Will anyone believe that he\nhimself deliberately omits the substance of the definition, and gives\nin its stead a parenthetical qualification, which might be left out of\nthe original, without injury either to the grammatical structure,\nor to the general meaning of the sentence in which it occurs?\" He\nproceeds to state what I did say, and adds: \"Mr. Newman, in the very\npage in which this statement occurs, expressly identifies his doctrine\nwith the ordinary Christian belief of Divine influence. His words are\nexactly coincident in sense with those employed by the author of the\n\"Eclipse,\" where he acknowledges the reality of 'the ordinary, though\nmysterious action, by which God aids those who sincerely seek him in\nevery good word and work.' The moral faithfulness of which Mr. Newman\nspeaks, is the equivalent of the sincere search of God in good word\nand work, which his opponent talks of.\"\n\nI must quote the _entire_ reply given to this in the \"Defence,\" second\nedition, p. 224:--\n\n\"And now for a few examples of my opponent's criticisms. 1. I said\nin the \"Defence\" that I did not understand Mr. Newman's notions of\ninspiration, and that, as to his very latest utterance--namely, that\nit was an influence _accessible to all men in a certain stage of\ndevelopment_ [italics], it was utterly unintelligible to me. 'Will any\none believe (says my critic) that he deliberately omits the\nsubstance of the definition, and gives in its stead a parenthetical\nqualification, which might be left out of the original without injury\neither to the grammatical structure or to the general meaning of\nthe sentence in which it occurs? Was anything ever more amusing? A\nparenthetical clause which might be left out of the original without\ninjury to the grammatical structure or to the general meaning! _Might_\nbe left out? Ay, to be sure it might, and not only 'without injury,'\nbut with benefit; just as the dead fly which makes the ointment of the\napothecary to stink might be left out of _that_ without injury. But\nit was _not_ left out; and it is precisely because it was there, and\ndiffused so remarkable an odour over the whole, that I characterized\nthe definition as I did--and most justly. Accessible to all men in\na certain stage of development! When and how _accessible_? What\n_species_ of development, I beseech you, is meant? And what is the\n_stage_ of it? The very thing, which, as I say, and as everybody of\ncommon sense must see, renders the definition utterly vague, is the\nvery clause in question.\"\n\nSuch is his _entire_ notice of the topic. From any other writer I\nshould indeed have been amazed at such treatment. I had made the\nvery inoffensive profession of agreeing with the current doctrine of\nChristians concerning spiritual influence. As I was not starting any\nnew theory, but accepting what is notorious, nothing more than an\nindication was needed. I gave, what I should not call definition, but\ndescription of it. My critic conceals that I have avowed agreement\nwith Christians; refers to it as a theory of my own; complains that\nit is obscure; pretends to quote my definition, and leaves out all\nthe cardinal words of it, which I have above printed in italics. My\ndefender, in the \"Prospective Review,\" exposes these mal-practices;\npoints out that my opponent is omitting the main words, while\ncomplaining of deficiency; that I profess to agree with Christians in\ngeneral; and _that I evidently agree with my critic in particular_.\nThe critic undertakes to reply to this, and the reader has before him\nthe whole defence. The man who, as it were, puts his hand on his\nheart to avow that he anxiously sets before his readers, if not what\nI _mean_, yet certainly what I have _expressed_,--still persists in\nhiding from them the facts of the case; avoids to quote from the\nreviewer so much as to let out that I profess to agree[8] with what\nis prevalent among Christians and have no peculiar theory;--still\nwithholds the cardinal points of what he calls my definition; while\nhe tries to lull his reader into inattention by affecting to be\nhighly amused, and by bantering and bullying in his usual style, while\nperverting the plainest words in the world.\n\nI have no religious press to take my part. I am isolated, as my\nassailant justly remarks. For a wonder, a stray review here and\nthere has run to my aid, while there is a legion on the other\nside--newspapers, magazines, and reviews. Now if any orthodox man, any\nfriend of my assailant, by some chance reads these pages, I beg him to\ncompare my quotations, thus fully given, with the originals; and if he\nfind anything false in them, then let him placard me as a LIAR in the\nwhole of the religious press. But if he finds that I am right,\nthen let him learn in what sort of man he is trusting--what sort of\nchampion of _truth_ this religious press has cheered on.\n\nIII. I had complained that Mr. Rogers falsely represented me to make\na fanatical \"divorce\" between the intellectual and the spiritual, from\nwhich he concluded that I ought to be indifferent as to the worship of\nJehovah or of the image which fell down from Jupiter. He has pretended\nthat my religion, according to me, has received nothing by traditional\nand historical agencies; that it owes nothing to men who went before\nme; that I believe I have (in my single unassisted bosom) \"a spiritual\nfaculty so bright as to anticipate all essential[9] spiritual\nverities;\" that had it not been for traditional religion, \"we should\neverywhere have heard the invariable utterance of spiritual religion\nin the one dialect of the heart,\"--that \"this divinely implanted\nfaculty of spiritual discernment anticipates all external truth,\"\n&c. &c. I then adduced passages to show that his statement was\nemphatically and utterly contrary to fact. In his \"Defence,\" he thus\nreplies, p. 75:--\n\n\"I say with an unfaltering conscience, that no controvertist ever more\nhonestly and sincerely sought to give his opponent's views, than I\ndid Mr. Newman's, after the most diligent study of his rather obscure\nbooks; and that whether I have succeeded or not in giving what he\n_thought_, I have certainly given what he _expressed_. It is quite\ntrue that I supposed Mr. Newman intended to \"divorce\" faith and\nintellect; and what else on earth could I suppose, in common even\nwith those who were most leniently disposed towards him, from such\nsentiments as these? ALL THE GROUNDS OF BELIEF PROPOSED TO THE MERE\nUNDERSTANDING HAVE NOTHING TO DO WITH FAITH AT ALL. THE PROCESSES OF\nTHOUGHT HAVE NOTHING TO QUICKEN THE CONSCIENCE OR AFFECT THE SOUL.\n_How then can the state of the soul be tested by the conclusion to\nwhich the intellect is led?_ I was _compelled_, I say, to take these\npassages as everybody else took them, to _mean_ what they obviously\n_express_.\"\n\nHere he so isolates three assertions of mine from their context, as\nto suggest for each of them a false meaning, and make it difficult for\nthe reader who has not my book at hand to discover the delusion.\nThe first is taken from a discussion of the arguments concerning the\nsoul's immortality (\"Soul,\" p. 223, 2nd edition), on which I wrote\nthus, p. 219:--that to judge of the accuracy of a metaphysical\nargument concerning mind and matter, requires not a pure conscience\nand a loving soul, but a clear and calm head; that if the doctrine of\nimmortality be of high religious importance, we cannot believe it to\nrest on such a basis, that those in whom the religious faculties are\nmost developed may be more liable to err concerning it than those\nwho have no religious faculty in action at all. On the contrary,\nconcerning truths which are really spiritual it is an obvious\naxiom,[10] that \"he who is spiritual judgeth all things, and he\nhimself is judged of no man.\" After this I proceeded to allude to the\nhistory of the doctrine among the Hebrews, and quoted some texts of\nthe Psalms, the _argument_ of which, I urged, is utterly inappreciable\nto the pure logician, \"because it is spiritually discerned.\" I\ncontinued as follows:--\n\n\"This is as it should be. Can a mathematician understand physiology,\nor a physiologist questions of law? A true love of God in the soul\nitself, an insight into Him depending on that love, and a hope rising\nout of that insight, are prerequisite for contemplating this spiritual\ndoctrine, which is a spontaneous impression of the gazing soul,\npowerful (perhaps) in proportion to its faith; whereas all the grounds\nof belief proposed to the mere understanding have nothing to do with\nfaith at all.\"\n\nI am expounding the doctrine of the great Paul of Tarsus, who indeed\napplies it to this very topic,--the future bliss which God has\nprepared for them that love him. Does Mr. Rogers attack Paul as making\na fanatical divorce between faith and intellect, and say that he is\n_compelled_ so to understand him, when he avows that \"the natural man\nunderstandeth not the things of God; for they are foolishness unto\nhim.\" \"When the world by wisdom knew not God, it pleased God by\nthe foolishness of preaching to save them that believe.\" Here is\na pretended champion of Evangelical truth seeking to explode as\nabsurdities the sentiments and judgments which have ever been at the\nheart of Christianity, its pride and its glory!\n\nBut I justify my argument as free from fanaticism--and free from\nobscurity when the whole sentence is read--to a Jew or Mohammedan,\nquite as much as to a Christian.\n\nMy opponent innocently asks, _how much_ I desire him to quote of me?\nBut is innocence the right word, when he has quoted but two lines and\na half, out of a sentence of seven and a half, and has not even given\nthe clause complete? By omitting, in his usual way, the connecting\nparticle _whereas_, he hides from the reader that he has given but\nhalf my thought; and this is done, after my complaint of this very\nproceeding. A reader who sees the whole sentence, discerns at once\nthat I oppose \"the _mere_ understanding,\" to the whole soul; in short,\nthat by the man who has _mere_ understanding, I mean him whom Paul\ncalls \"the natural man.\" Such a man may have metaphysical talents and\nacquirements, he may be a physiologist or a great lawyer; nay, I\nwill add, (to shock my opponent's tender nerves), _even if he be an\nAtheist_, he may be highly amiable and deserving of respect and love;\nbut if he has no spiritual development, he cannot have insight into\nspiritual truth. Hence such arguments for immortality as _can_ be\nappreciated by him, and _cannot_ be appreciated by religious men as\nsuch, \"have nothing to do with faith at all\"\n\nThe two other passages are found thus, in p. 245 of the \"Soul,\" 2nd\nedition. After naming local history, criticism of texts, history of\nphilosophy, logic, physiology, demonology, and other important but\nvery difficult studies, I ask:--\n\n\"Is it not extravagant to call inquiries of this sort _spiritual_ or\nto expect any spiritual[11] results from them? When the spiritual\nman (as such) cannot judge, the question is removed into a totally\ndifferent court from that of the soul, the court of the critical\nunderstanding.... How then can the state of the soul be tested by\nthe conclusion to which the intellect is led? What means the\nanathematizing of those who remain unconvinced? And how can it be\nimagined that the Lord of the soul cares more about a historical\nthan about a geological, metaphysical, or mathematical argument? The\nprocesses of thought have nothing to quicken the conscience or affect\nthe soul.\"\n\nFrom my defender in the \"Prospective Review\" I learn that in the first\nedition of the \"Defence\" the word _thought_ in the last sentence above\nwas placed in italics. He not only protested against this and other\nitalics as misleading, but clearly explained my sense, which, as I\nthink, needs no other interpreter than the context. In the new edition\nthe italics are removed, but the unjust isolation of the sentences\nremains. \"_The_ processes of thought,\" of which I spoke, are not\n\"_all_ processes,\" but the processes _involved in the abstruse\ninquiries to which I had referred_. To say that _no_ processes of\nthought quicken the conscience, or affect the soul, would be a gross\nabsurdity. This, or nothing else, is what he imputes to me; and even\nafter the protest made by the \"Prospective\" reviewer, my assailant not\nonly continues to hide that I speak of _certain_ processes of thought,\nnot _all_ processes, but even has the hardihood to say that he takes\nthe passages as _everybody else_ does, and that he is _compelled_ so\nto do.\n\nIn my own original reply I appealed to places where I had fully\nexpressed my estimate of intellectual progress, and its ultimate\nbeneficial action. All that I gain by this, is new garblings and\ntaunts for inconsistency. \"Mr. Newman,\" says be, \"is the last man\nin the world to whom I would deny the benefit of having contradicted\nhimself.\" But I must confine myself to the garbling. \"Defence,\" p.\n95:--\n\n\"Mr. Newman affirms that my representations of his views on this\nsubject are the most direct and intense reverse of all that he has\nmost elaborately and carefully written!\" He still says, \"_what_\nGod reveals, he reveals within and not without,\" and \"he _did_ say\n(though, it seems, he says no longer), that 'of God we know everything\nfrom within, nothing from without;' yet he says I have grossly\nmisrepresented him.\"\n\nThis pretended quotation is itself garbled. I wrote, (\"Phases,\" 1st\nedition, p. 152)--\"Of _our moral and spiritual_ God we know nothing\nwithout, everything within.\" By omitting the adjectives, the critic\nproduces a statement opposed to my judgment and to my writings;\nand then goes on to say. \"Well, if Mr. Newman will engage to prove\ncontradictions,... I think it is no wonder that his readers do not\nunderstand him.\"\n\nI believe it is a received judgment, which I will not positively\nassert to be true, but I do not think I have anywhere denied, that\nGod is discerned by us in the universe as a designer, creator, and\nmechanical ruler, through a mere study of the world and its animals\nand all their adaptations, _even without_ an absolute necessity of\nmeditating consciously on the intelligence of man and turning the\neyes within. Thus a creative God may be said to be discerned \"from\nwithout.\" But in my conviction, that God is not _so_ discerned to be\n_moral_ or _spiritual_ or to be _our_ God; but by moral intellect and\nmoral experience acting \"inwardly.\" If Mr. Rogers chooses to deny the\njustness of my view, let him deny it; but by omitting the emphatic\nadjectives he has falsified my sentence, and then has founded upon it\na charge of inconsistency. In a previous passage (p. 79) he gave this\nquotation in full, in order to reproach me for silently withdrawing it\nin my second edition of the \"Phases.\" He says:--\n\n\"The two sentences in small capitals are not found in the new edition\nof the 'Phases.' _They are struck out_. It is no doubt the right of an\nauthor to erase in a new edition any expressions he pleases; but\nwhen he is about to charge another with having grossly garbled and\nstealthily misrepresented him, it is as well to let the world know\n_what_ he has erased and _why_. He says that my representation of his\nsentiments is the most direct and intense reverse of all that he\nhas most elaborately and carefully written. It certainly is not the\nintense reverse of all that he has most elaborately and carefully\n_scratched out_.\"\n\nI exhibit here the writer's own italics.\n\nBy this attack on my good faith, and by pretending that my withdrawal\nof the passage is of serious importance, he distracts the reader's\nattention from the argument there in hand (p. 79), which is, _not_\nwhat are my sentiments and judgements, but whether he had a right\nto dissolve and distort my chain of reasoning (see I. above) while\naffecting to quote me, and pretending that I gave nothing but\nassertion. As regards my \"elaborately and carefully _scratching out_,\"\nthis was done; 1. Because the passage seemed to me superfluous; 2.\nBecause I had pressed the topic elsewhere; 3. Because I was going to\nenlarge on it in my reply to him, p. 199 of my second edition.[12]\nWhen the real place comes where my critic is to deal with the\nsubstance of the passage (p. 94 of \"Defence\"), the reader has seen how\nhe mutilates it.\n\nThe other passage of mine which he has adduced, employs the word\n_reveals_, in a sense analogous to that of _revelation_, in avowed\nrelation to _things moral and spiritual_, which would have been seen,\nhad not my critic reversed the order of my sentences; which he does\nagain in p. 78 of the \"Defence,\" after my protest against his doing so\nin the \"Eclipse.\" I wrote: (Soul, p. 59) \"Christianity itself has\nthus practically confessed, what is theoretically clear, that an\nauthoritative _external_ revelation of moral and spiritual truth is\nessentially impossible to man. What God reveals to us, he reveals\n_within_, through the medium of our moral and spiritual senses.\"\nThe words, \"What God reveals,\" seen in the light of the preceding\nsentence, means: \"That portion of _moral and spiritual truth_ which\nGod reveals.\" This cannot be discovered in the isolated quotation; and\nas, both in p. 78 and in p. 95, he chooses to quote my word _What_ in\nitalics, his reader is led on to interpret me as saying \"_every thing\nwhatsoever_ which we know of God, we learn from within;\" a statement\nwhich is not mine.\n\nBesides this, the misrepresentation of which I complained is not\nconfined to the rather metaphysical words of _within_ and _without_,\nas to which the most candid friends may differ, and may misunderstand\none another;--as to which also I may be truly open to correction;--but\nhe assumes the right to tell his readers that my doctrine undervalues\nTruth, and Intellect, and Traditional teaching, and External\nsuggestion, and Historical influences, and counts the Bible an\nimpertinence. When he fancies he can elicit this and that, by his own\nlogic, out of sentences and clauses torn from their context, he has\nno right to disguise what I have said to the contrary, and claim to\njustify his fraud by accusing me of self-contradiction. Against all\nmy protests, and all that I said to the very opposite previous to\nany controversy, he coolly alludes to it (p. 40 of the \"Defence\")\nas though it were my avowed doctrine, that: \"_Each_ man, looking\nexclusively within, can _at once_ rise to the conception of God's\ninfinite perfections.\"\n\nIV. When I agree with Paul or David (or think I do), I have a right\nto quote their words reverentially; but when I do so, Mr. Rogers\ndeliberately justifies himself in ridiculing them, pretending that he\nonly ridicules _me_. He thus answers my indignant denunciation in the\nearly part of his \"Defence,\" p. 5:--\n\n\"Mr. Newman warns me with much solemnity against thinking that\n'questions pertaining to God are advanced by boisterous glee.' I do\nnot think that the 'Eclipse' is characterised by boisterous glee; and\ncertainly I was not at all aware, that the things which _alone_[13]\nI have ridiculed--some of them advanced by him, and some by\nothers--deserved to be treated with solemnity. For example, that an\nauthoritative external revelation,[14] which most persons have thought\npossible enough, is _im_possible,--that man is most likely born for\na dog's life, and 'there an end'--that there are great defects in the\nmorality of the New Testament, and much imperfection in the character\nof its founder,--that the miracles of Christ might be real, because\nChrist was a _clairvoyant_ and mesmerist,--that God was not a Person,\nbut a Personality;--I say, I was not aware that these things, and such\nas these, which alone I ridiculed, were questions 'pertaining to God,'\nin any other sense than the wildest hypotheses in some sense pertain\nto science, and the grossest heresies to religion.\"\n\nNow first, is his statement true?\n\n_Are_ these the _only_ things which he ridiculed?\n\nI quoted in my reply to him enough to show what was the class of\n\"things pertaining to God\" to which I referred. He forces me to\nrequote some of the passages. \"Eclipse,\" p. 82 [1st ed.] \"You shall be\npermitted to say (what I will not contradict), that though _Mr. Newman\nmay be inspired_ for aught I know ... inspired as much as (say) _the\ninventor of Lucifer matches_--yet that his book is not divine,--that\nit is purely human.\"\n\nAgain: p. 126 [1st ed.] \"Mr. Newman says to those who say they\nare unconscious of these facts of spiritual pathology, that _the\nconsciousness of the spiritual man is not the less true, that_\n[though?] _the unspiritual man is not privy to it_; and this most\ndevout gentleman quotes with unction the words: _For the spiritual man\njudgeth all things, but himself is judged of no man_.\"\n\nP. 41, [1st ed.], \"I have rejected creeds, and I have found what the\nScripture calls, _that peace which passeth all understanding_.\" \"I am\nsure it passes mine, (says Harrington) if you have really found it,\nand I should be much obliged to you, if you would let me participate\nin the discovery.\" \"Yes, says Fellowes:... '_I have escaped from the\nbondage of the letter and have been introduced into the liberty of the\nSpirit.... The letter killeth, but the spirit giveth life. The fruit\nof the Spirit is joy, peace, not_--'\" \"Upon my word (said Harrington,\nlaughing), I shall presently begin to fancy that Douce Davie Deans has\nturned infidel.\"\n\nI have quoted enough to show the nature of my complaints. I charge the\nsatirist with profanity, for ridiculing sentiments which _he himself_\navows to be holy, ridiculing them for no other reason but that with\n_me also_ they are holy and revered. He justifies himself in p. 5\nof his \"Defence,\" as above, by denying my facts. He afterwards, in\nSection XII. p. 147, admits and defends them; to which I shall return.\n\nI beg my reader to observe how cleverly Mr. Rogers slanders me in the\nquotation already made, from p. 5, by insinuating, first, that it is\nmy doctrine, \"that man is _most likely_ born for _a dog's life_,\nand there an end;\" next, that I have taken under my patronage the\npropositions, that \"the miracles of Christ might be real, because\nChrist was a _clairvoyant_ and mesmerist, and that God is not a Person\nbut a Personality.\" I cannot but be reminded of what the \"Prospective\"\nreviewer says of Zeuxis and the grapes, when I observe the delicate\nskill of touch by which the critic puts on just enough colour to\naffect the reader's mind, but not so much as to draw him to closer\nexamination. I am at a loss to believe that he supposes me to think\nthat a theory of mesmeric wonders (as the complement of an atheistic\ncreed?) is \"a question pertaining to God,\" or that my rebuke bore the\nslightest reference to such a matter. As to Person and Personality, it\nis a subtle distinction which I have often met from Trinitarians; who,\nwhen they are pressed with the argument that three divine Persons\nare nothing but three Gods, reply that Person is not the correct\ntranslation of the mystical _Hypostasis_ of the Greeks, and\nPersonality is perhaps a truer rendering. If I were to answer with\nthe jocosity in which my critic indulges, I certainly doubt whether\nhe would justify me. So too, when a Pantheist objects (erringly, as\nI hold) that a Person is necessarily something finite, so that God\ncannot be a Person; if, against this, a Theist contend that God is\nat once a Person and a Principle, and invent a use of the word\nPersonality to overlap both ideas; we may reject his nomenclature as\ntoo arbitrary, but what rightful place ridicule has here, I do not\nsee. Nevertheless, it had wholly escaped my notice that the satirist\nhad ridiculed it, as I now infer that he did.\n\nHe tells me he _was not aware_ that the holding that _there are great\ndefects in the morality of the New Testament, and much imperfection in\nthe character of its Founder, was a question pertaining to God_. Nor\nindeed was _I_ aware of it.\n\nI regard questions concerning a book and a human being to be purely\nsecular, and desire to discuss them, not indeed with ridicule but\nwith freedom. When _I_ discuss them, he treats my act as intolerably\noffensive, as though the subject were sacred; yet he now pretends that\n_I_ think such topics \"pertain to God,\" and he was not aware of it\nuntil I told him so! Thus he turns away the eyes of his readers from\nmy true charge of profanity, and fixes them upon a fictitious charge\nso as to win a temporary victory. At the same time, since Christians\nbelieve the morality of the _Old_ Testament to have great defects,\nand that there was much imperfection in the character of its eminent\nsaints, prophets, and sages; I cannot understand how my holding\nthe very same opinion concerning the _New_ Testament should be a\npeculiarly appropriate ground of banter and merriment; nor make me\nmore justly offensive to Christians, than the Pauline doctrine is to\nJews.\n\nIn more than one place of this \"Defence\" he misrepresents what I have\nwritten on Immortality, in words similar to those here used, though\nhere he does _not_[15] expressly add my name. In p. 59, he says,\nthat \"according to Mr. Newman's theology, it is most _probable_\n(in italics) that the successive generations of men, with perfect\nindifference to their relative moral conditions, their crimes\nor wrongs, are all knocked on the head together; and that future\nadjustment and retribution is a dream.\" (So p. 72.) In a note to the\nnext page, he informs his readers that if I say that I have left the\nquestion of immortality _doubtful_, it does not affect the argument;\nfor I have admitted \"the probability\" of there being no future life.\n\nThis topic was specially discussed by me in a short chapter of my\ntreatise on the \"Soul,\" to which alone it is possible for my critic to\nrefer. In that chapter assuredly I do _not_ say what he pretends; what\nI _do_ say is, (after rejecting, as unsatisfactory to me, the popular\narguments from metaphysics, and from the supposed need of a future\nstate to _redress the inequalities of this life_;) p. 232: \"But do I\nthen deny a future life, or seek to undermine a belief of it? _Most\nassuredly not_; but I would put the belief (whether it is to be weaker\nor firmer) on a _spiritual_ basis, and on none other.\"\n\nI am ashamed to quote further from that chapter in this place; the\nground on which I there tread is too sacred for controversy. But that\na Christian advocate should rise from reading it to tell people that\nhe has a right to _ridicule_ me for holding that \"man is _most likely\nborn for a dog's life_, and there an end;\" absorbs my other feelings\nin melancholy. I am sure that any candid person, reading that chapter,\nmust see that I was hovering between doubt, hope, and faith, on this\nsubject, and that if any one could show me that a Moral Theism and a\nFuture Life were essentially combined, I should joyfully embrace\nthe second, as a fit complement to the first. This writer takes the\nopposite for granted; that if he can convince me that the doctrine of\na Future Life is essential to Moral Theism, he will--not _add_ to--but\n_refute_ my Theism! Strange as this at first appears, it is explained\nby his method. He draws a hideous picture of what God's world has been\nin the past, and indeed is in the present; with words so reeking\nof disgust and cruelty, that I cannot bear to quote them; and ample\nquotation would be needful. Then he infers, that since I must admit\nall this, I virtually believe in an immoral Deity. I suppose his\ninstinct rightly tells him, that I shall not be likely to reason,\n\"Because God can be so very cruel or careless to-day, he is sure to\nbe very merciful and vigilant hereafter.\" Accepting his facts as\na _complete_ enumeration of the phenomena of the present world, I\nsuppose it is better inductive logic to say: \"He who can be himself so\ncruel, and endure such monsters of brutality for six or more thousand\nyears, must (by the laws of external induction) be the same, and\nleave men the same, for all eternity; and is clearly reckless of moral\nconsiderations.\" If I adopt this alternative, I become a Pagan or an\nAtheist, one or other of which Mr. Rogers seems anxious to make me.\nIf he would urge, that to look at the dark and terrible side of human\nlife is onesided and delusive, and that the God who is known to us\nin Nature has so tempered the world to man and man to the world as to\nmanifest his moral intentions;--(arguments, which I think, my critic\nmust have heard from Socrates or Plato, without pooling out on them\nscalding words, such as I feel and avow to be blasphemous;)--then he\nmight perhaps help my faith where it is weakest, and give me (more or\nless) aid to maintain a future life dogmatically, instead of hopefully\nand doubtfully. But now, to use my friend Martineau's words: \"His\nmethod doubles every difficulty without relieving any, and tends to\nenthrone a Devil everywhere, and leave a God nowhere.\"\n\nSince he wrote his second edition of the \"Defence,\" I have brought out\nmy work called \"Theism,\" in which (without withdrawing my objections\nto the popular idea of future _Retribution_) I have tried to reason\nout a doctrine of Future Life from spiritual considerations. I have no\ndoubt that my critic would find them highly aboard, and perhaps would\npronounce them ineffably ludicrous, and preposterous feats of logic.\nIf I could hide their existence from him, I certainly would, lest he\nmisquote and misinterpret them. But as I cannot keep the book from\nhim, I here refer to it to say, that if I am to maintain this most\nprofound and mysterious doctrine with any practical intensity,\nmy convictions in the power of the human mind to follow such high\ninquiries, need to be greatly _strengthened_, not to be undermined\nby such arguments and such detestable pictures of this world, as Mr.\nRogers holds up to me.\n\nHe throws at me the imputation of holding, that \"man is _most likely_\nborn for a _dog's life_, and there an end.\" And is then the life of\na saint for seventy years, or for seven years, no better than a dog's\nlife? What else but a _long_ dog's life does this make heaven to be?\nSuch an undervaluing of a short but noble life, is consistent with\nthe scheme which blasphemes earth in order to ennoble heaven, and then\nclaims to be preeminently logical. According to the clear evidence of\nthe Bible, the old saints in general were at least as uncertain as I\nhave ever been concerning future life; nay, according to the writer\nto the Hebrews, \"through fear of death they were all their lifetime\nsubject to bondage.\" If I had called _that_ a dog's life, how\neloquently would Mr. Rogers have rebuked me!\n\nV. But I must recur to his defence of the profanity with which he\ntreats sacred sentiments and subjects. After pretending, in p. 5, that\nhe had ridiculed nothing but the things quoted above, he at length,\nin pp. 147-156, makes formal admission of my charge and _justifies\nhimself_. The pith of his general reply is in the following, p. 152:--\n\n\"'Now (says Mr. Newman) I will not here farther insist on the\nmonstrosity of bringing forward St. Paul's words in order to pour\ncontempt upon them; a monstrosity which no sophistry of Mr. Harrington\ncan justify!' I think the _real_ monstrosity is, that men should\nso coolly employ St. Paul's words,--for it is a quotation from the\ntreatise on the \"Soul,\"--to mean something totally different from\nanything he intended to convey by them, and employ the dialect of the\nApostles to contradict their doctrines; that is the monstrosity ... It\nis very hard to conceive that Mr. Newman did not see this.... But had\nhe gone on only a few lines, the reader would have seen Harrington\nsaying: 'These words you have just quoted were well in St. Paul's\nmouth, and had a meaning. In yours, I suspect, they would have none,\nor a very different one.'\"\n\nAccording to this doctrine of Mr. Rogers, it would not have been\nprofane in an unbelieving Jew to _make game_ of Moses, David, and the\nProphets, whenever they were quoted by Paul. The Jew most profoundly\nbelieved that Paul quoted the old Scriptures in a false, as well as in\na new meaning. One Christian divine does not feel free to ridicule\nthe words of Paul when quoted erroneously (as he thinks) by another\nChristian divine? Why then, when quoted by me? I hold it to be a great\ninsolence to deny my right to quote Paul or David, as much as Plato\nor Homer, and adopt their language whenever I find it to express my\nsentiment. Mr. Rogers's claim to deride highly spiritual truth, barely\nbecause I revere it, is a union of inhumanity and impiety. He has\nnowhere shown that Paul meant something \"totally different\" from\nthe sense which I put on his words. I know that he cannot. I do\nnot pretend always to bind myself to the definite sense of my\npredecessors; nor did the writers of the New Testament. They often\nadopt and apply _in an avowedly new sense_ the words of the Old\nTestament; so does Dr. Watts with the Hebrew Psalms. Such adaptation,\nin the way of development and enlargement, when done with sincerely\npious intention, has never been reproved or forbidden by Christians,\nWhether I am wise or unwise in my interpretations, the _subject_ is a\nsacred one, and I treat it solemnly; and no errors in my \"logic\" can\njustify Mr. Rogers in putting on the mask of a profane sceptic, who\nscoffs (not once or twice, but through a long book) at the most\nsacred and tender matters, such as one always dreads to bring before a\npromiscuous public, lest one cast pearls before swine. And yet unless\ndevotional books be written, especially by those who have as yet\nno church, how are we to aid one another in the uphill straggle\nto maintain some elements of a heavenly life? Can anything be more\nheartless, or more like the sneering devil they talk of, than Mr.\nHarrington? And here one who professes himself a religions man,\nand who deliberately, after protest, calls _me_ an INFIDEL, is not\nsatisfied with having scoffed in an hour of folly--(in such an hour,\nI can well believe, that melancholy record the \"Eclipse of Faith,\"\nwas first penned)--but he persists in justifying his claim to jeer\nand snarl and mutilate, and palm upon me senses which he knows are\ndeliberately disavowed by me, all the while pretending that it is my\nbad logic which justifies him! We know that very many religious men\n_are_ bad logicians: if I am as puzzle-headed a fool as Mr. Rogers\nwould make people think me, how does that justify his mocking at my\nreligion? He justifies himself on the ground that I criticize the New\nTestament as freely as I should Cicero (p. 147). Well, then let him\ncriticize me, as freely (and with as little of suppression) as I\ncriticize it. But I do not _laugh_ at it; God forbid! The reader will\nsee how little reason Mr. Rogers had to imagine that I had not read\nso far as to see Harrington's defence; which defence is, either an\ninsolent assumption, or at any rate not to the purpose.\n\nI will here add, that I have received letters from numerous Christians\nto thank me for my book on the \"Soul,\" in such terms as put the\nconduct of Mr. Rogers into the most painful contrast: painful, as\nshowing that there are other Christians who know, and _he does not\nknow_, what is the true heart and strength of Christianity. He trusts\nin logic and ridicules the Spirit of God.\n\nThat leads me to his defence of his suggestion that I might be\npossibly as much inspired as the inventor of lucifer matches. He says,\np. 154:--\n\n\"Mr. Newman tells me, that I have clearly a profound unbelief in the\nChristian doctrine of divine influence, or I could not thus grossly\ninsult it I answer... that which Harrington ridiculed, as the context\nwould have shown Mr. Newman, if he had had the patience to read\non, and the calmness to judge, is the chaotic view of inspiration,\n_formally_ held by Mr. Parker, who is _expressly_ referred to,\n\"Eclipse,\" p. 81.\" In 9th edition, p. 71.\n\nThe passage concerning Mr. Parker is in the _preceding_ page: I had\nread it, and I do not see how it at all relieves the disgust which\nevery right-minded man must feel at this passage. My disgust is not\npersonal: though I might surely ask,--If Parker has made a mistake,\nhow does that justify insulting _me_? As I protested, I have made\nno peculiar claim to inspiration. I have simply claimed \"that which\nall[16] pious Jews and Christians since David have always claimed.\"\nYet he pertinaciously defends this rude and wanton passage, adding, p.\n155: \"As to the inventor of lucifer matches, I am thoroughly convinced\nthat he has shed more light upon the world and been abundantly more\nuseful to it, than many a cloudy expositor of modern spiritualism.\"\nWhere to look for the \"many\" expositors of spiritualism, I do not\nknow. Would they were more numerous.\n\nMr. Parker differs from me as to the use of the phrase \"Spirit of\nGod.\" I see practical reasons, which I have not here space to insist\non, for adhering to the _Christian_, as distinguished from the\n_Jewish_ use of this phrase. Theodore Parkes follows the phraseology\nof the Old Testament, according to which Bezaleel and others received\nthe spirit of God to aid them in mere mechanical arts, building and\ntailoring. To ridicule Theodore Parker for this, would seem to me\nneither witty nor decent in an unbeliever; but when one does so, who\nprofesses to believe the whole Old Testament to be sacred, and stoops\nto lucifer matches and the Eureka shirt, as if this were a refutation,\nI need a far severer epithet. Mr. Rogers implies that the light of a\nlucifer match is comparable to the light of Theodore Parker; what will\nbe the judgment of mankind a century hence, if the wide dissemination\nof the \"Eclipse of Faith\" lead to inscribing the name of Henry Rogers\npermanently in biographical dictionaries! Something of this sort may\nappear:--\n\n\"THEODORE PARKER, the most eminent moral theologian whom the first\nhalf of the nineteenth century produced in the United States. When the\nchurches were so besotted, as to uphold the curse of slavery because\nthey found it justified in the Bible; when the Statesmen, the Press,\nthe Lawyers, and the Trading Community threw their weight to the same\nfatal side; Parker stood up to preach the higher law of God against\nfalse religion, false statesmanship, crooked law and cruel avarice.\nHe enforced three great fundamental truths, God, Holiness, and\nImmortality. He often risked life and fortune to rescue the fugitive\nslave. After a short and very active life full of good works, he died\nin blessed peace, prematurely worn out by his perpetual struggle for\nthe true, the right, and the good. His preaching is the crisis which\nmarked the turn of the tide in America from the material to the moral,\nwhich began to enforce the eternal laws of God on trade, on law, on\nadministration, and on the professors of religion itself.\"\n\nAnd what will be then said of him, who now despises the noble\nParker? I hope something more than the following:--\"HENRY ROGERS, an\naccomplished gentleman and scholar, author of many books, of which\nby far the most popular was a smart satirical dialogue, disfigured by\nunjustifiable garbling and profane language, the aim of which was\nto sneer down Theodore Parker and others who were trying to save\nspiritual doctrine out of the wreck of historical Christianity.\"\n\nJocose scoffing, and dialogue writing is the easiest of tasks; and\nif Mr. Rogers's co-religionists do not take the alarm, and come in\nstrength upon Messrs. Longman, imploring them to suppress these books\nof Mr. Rogers, persons who despise _all_ religion (with whom Mr.\nRogers pertinaciously confounds me under the term infidel), may one of\nthese days imitate his sprightly example against his creed and church.\nHe himself seems to me at present incurable. I do not appeal to _him_,\nI appeal to his co-religionists, how they would like the publication\nof a dialogue, in which his free and easy sceptic \"Mr. Harrington\"\nmight reason on the _opposite_ side to that pliable and candid man\nof straw \"Mr. Fellowes?\" I here subjoin for their consideration, an\nimaginary extract of the sort which, by their eager patronage of the\n\"Eclipse of Faith,\" they are inviting against themselves.\n\n_Extract._\n\nI say, Fellowes! (said Harrington), what was that, that Parker and\nRogers said about the Spirit of God?\n\nExcuse me (said Fellowes), Theodore Parker and Henry Rogers hold very\ndifferent views, Mr. Rogers would be much hurt to bear you class him\nwith Parker.\n\nI know (replied he), but they both hold that God inspires people; and\nthat is a great point in common, as I view it. Does not Mr. Rogers\nbelieve the Old Testament inspired and all of it true?\n\nCertainly (said Fellowes): at least he was much shocked with Mr.\nNewman for trying to discriminate its chaff from its wheat.\n\nWell then, he believes, does not he, that Jehovah filled men _with the\nspirit of wisdom_ to help them make a suit of clothes for Aaron!\n\nFellowes, after a pause, replied:--That is certainly written in the\n28th chapter of Exodus.\n\nNow, my fine fellow! (said Harrington), here is a question to _rile_\nMr. Rogers. If Aaron's toggery needed one portion of the spirit of\nwisdom from Jehovah, how many portions does the Empress Eugenie's best\ncrinoline need?\n\nReally (said Fellowes, somewhat offended), such ridicule seems to me\nprofane.\n\nForgive me, dear friend (replied Harrington, with a sweet smile).\n_Your_ views I never will ridicule; for I know you have imbibed\nsomewhat of Francis Newman's fancy, that one ought to feel tenderly\ntowards other men's piety. But Henry Rogers is made of stouter stuff;\nhe manfully avows that a religion, if it is true, ought to stand the\ntest of ridicule, and he deliberately approves this weapon of attack.\n\nI cannot deny that (said Fellowes, lifting his eyebrows).\n\nBut I was going to ask (continued Harrington) whether Mr. Rogers does\nnot believe that Jehovah filled Bezaleel with the Spirit of God, for\nthe work of jeweller, coppersmith, and mason?\n\nOf course he does (answered Fellowes), the text is perfectly clear, in\nthe 31st of Exodus; Bezaleel and Aholiab were both inspired to become\ncunning workmen.\n\nBy the Goose (said Harrington)--forgive a Socratic oath--I really do\nnot see that Mr. Rogers differs much from Theodore Parker. If a man\ncannot hack a bit of stone or timber without the Spirit of God, Mr.\nRogers will have hard work to convince me, that any one can make a\nrifled cannon without the Spirit of God.\n\nThere is something in that (said Fellowes). In fact, I have sometimes\nwondered how Mr. Rogers could say that which _looks_ so profane, as\nwhat he said about the Eureka shirt.\n\nPray what is that? (said Harrington;) and where?\n\nIt is in his celebrated \"Defence,\" 2nd edition, p. 155. \"_If_ Minos\nand Praxiteles are inspired in the same sense as Moses and Christ,\nthen the inventor of lucifer matches, as well as the inventor of the\nEureka shirts, must be also admitted\"--to be inspired.\n\nDo you mean that he is trying to save the credit of Moses, by\nmaintaining that the Spirit of God which guides a sculptor is _not_\nthe same in kind as that which guides a saint?\n\nNo (replied Fellowes, with surprise), he is not defending Moses; he is\nattacking Parker.\n\nBless me (said Harrington, starting up), what is become of the man's\nlogic! Why, Parker and Moses are in the same boat. Mr. Rogers fires at\nit, in hope to sink Parker; and does not know that he is sending old\nMoses to Davy's locker.\n\nNow this is too bad (said Fellowes), I really cannot bear it.\n\nNah! Nah! good friend (said Harrington, imploringly), be calm; and\nremember, we have agreed that ridicule--against _Mr. Rogers_, not\nagainst _you_--is fair play.\n\nThat is true (replied Fellowes with more composure).\n\nNow (said Harrington, with a confidential air), you are my friend, and\nI will tell you a secret--be sure you tell no one--I think that Henry\nRogers, Theodore Parker, and Francis Newman are three ninnies; all\nwrong; for they all profess to believe in divine inspiration: yet they\nare not ninnies of the same class. I _admit_ to Mr. Rogers that there\nis a real difference.\n\nHow do you mean (said Fellowes, with curiosity aroused)?\n\nWhy (said Harrington, pausing and becoming impressive), Newman is\na flimsy mystic; he has no foundation, but he builds logically\nenough--at least as far as I see--on his fancies and other people's\nfancies. This is to be a simple ninny. But Mr. Rogers fancies he\nbelieves a mystical religion, and doesn't; and fancies he is very\nlogical, and isn't. This is to be a doubly distilled ninny.\n\nReally I do not call this ridicule, Mr. Harrington (said Fellowes,\nrising), I must call it slander. What right have you to say that Mr.\nRogers does not believe in the holy truths of the New Testament?\n\nSurely (replied Harrington) I have just _as_ much right as Mr. Rogers\nhas to say that Mr. Newman does not believe the holy sentiments of\nSt. Paul, when Mr. Newman says he does. Do you remember how Mr. Rogers\ntold him it was absurd for an infidel like him to third: he was in a\ncondition to rebuke any one for being profane, or fancy he had a right\nto say that he believed this and that mystical text of Paul, which,\nMr. Rogers avows, Newman _totally_ mistakes and does _not_ believe as\nPaul meant it. Now I may be very wrong; but I augur that Newman _does_\nunderstand Paul, and Rogers does _not_. For Rogers is of the Paley\nschool, and a wit; and a brilliant chap he is, like Macaulay. Such men\ncannot be mystics nor Puritans in Pauline fashion; they cannot bear\nto hear of a religion _from within_; but, as I heard a fellow say the\nother day, Newman has never worked off the Puritan leaven.\n\nWell (said Fellowes), but why do you call Mr. Rogers illogical?\n\nI think you have seen one instance already, but that is a trifle\ncompared to his fundamental blunder (said Harrington).\n\nWhat can you mean? how fundamental (asked his friend)?\n\nWhy, he says, that _I_ (for instance) who have so faith whatever\nin what he calls revelation, cannot have any just belief or sure\nknowledge of the moral qualities of God; in fact, am logically bound\n(equally with Mr. Newman) to regard God as _im_moral, if I judge by my\nown faculties alone. Does he not say that?\n\nUnquestionably; he has a whole chapter (ch. III.) of his \"Defence\" to\nenforce this on Mr. Newman (replied Fellowes).\n\nWell, next, he tells me, that when the Christian message, as from God,\nis presented to me, I am to believe it on the word of a God whom I\nsuppose to be, or _ought_ to suppose to be, immoral. If I suppose A B\na rogue, shall I believe the message which the rogue sends me?\n\nSurely, Harrington, you forget that you are speaking of God, not of\nman: you ought not to reason so (said Fellowes, somewhat agitated).\n\nSurely, Fellowes, it is _you_ who forget (retorted Harrington) that\nsyllogism depends on form, not on matter. Whether it be God or Man,\nmakes no difference; the logic must be tried by turning the terms into\nX Y Z. But I have not said all Mr. Rogers says, I am bound to throw\naway the moral principles which I already have, at the bidding of a\nGod whom I am bound to believe to be immoral.\n\nNo, you are unfair (said Fellowes), I know he says that revelation\nwould confirm and _improve_ your moral principles.\n\nBut I am _not_ unfair. It is he who argues in a circle. What will be\n_improvement_, is the very question pending. He says, that if Jehovah\ncalled to me from heaven, \"O Harrington! O Harrington! take thine\ninnocent son, thine only son, lay him on the altar and kill him,\" I\nshould be bound to regard obedience to the command an _improvement_\nof my morality; and this, though, up to the moment when I heard\nthe voice, I had been _bound logically_ to believe Jehovah to be an\nIMMORAL God. What think you of that for logic?\n\nI confess (said Fellowes, with great candour) I must yield up my\nfriend's reputation as a _logician_; and I begin to think he was\nunwise in talking so contemptuously of Mr. Newman's reasoning\nfaculties. But in truth, I love my friend for the great _spiritual_\nbenefits I have derived from him and cannot admit to you that he is\nnot a very sincere believer in mystical Christianity.\n\nWhat benefits, may I ask? (said Harrington).\n\nI have found by his aid the peace which passeth understanding (replied\nhe).\n\nIt passes my understanding, if you have (answered Harrington,\nlaughing), and I shall be infinitely obliged by your allowing me to\nparticipate in the discovery. In plain truth, I do not trust your\nmysticism.\n\nBut are you in a condition to form an opinion? (said Fellowes, with\na serious air). Mr. Rogers has enforced on me St. Paul's maxim: \"The\nnatural man discerneth not the things of the Spirit of God.\"\n\nMy most devout gentleman I (replied Harrington), how unctuous you are!\nForgive my laughing; but it does _so_ remind me of Douce Davie Deans.\nI will make you professor of spiritual insight, &c., &c., &c.\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nNow is not this disgusting? Might I not justly call the man a \"profane\ndog\" who approved of it? Yet everything that is worst here _is closely\ncopied from the Eclipse of Faith, or justified by the Defence_. How\nlong will it be before English Christians cry out Shame against those\ntwo books?\n\nVI. I must devote a few words to define the direction and\njustification of my argument in one chapter of this treatise. All good\narguments are not rightly addressed to all persons. An argument good\nin itself may be inappreciable to one in a certain mental state, or\nmay be highly exasperating. If a thoughtful Mohammedan, a searcher\nafter truth, were to confide to a Christian a new basis on which be\ndesired to found the Mohammedan religion--viz., the absolute moral\nperfection of its prophet, and were to urge on the Christian this\nargument in order to convert him, I cannot think that any one would\nblame the Christian for demanding what is the evidence of the _fact_.\nSuch an appeal would justify his dissecting the received accounts of\nMohammed, pointing out what appeared to be flaws in his moral conduct;\nnay, if requisite, urging some positive vice, such as his excepting\nhimself from his general law of _four wives only_. But a Christian\nmissionary would surely be blamed (at least I should blame him), if,\nin preaching to a mixed multitude of Mohammedans against the authority\nof their prophet, he took as his basis of refutation the prophet's\npersonal sensuality. We are able to foresee that the exasperation\nproduced by such an argument must derange the balance of mind in the\nhearers, even if the argument is to the purpose; at the same time, it\nmay be really away from the purpose to _them_, if their belief has\nno closer connexion with the personal virtue of the prophet, than has\nthat of Jews and Christians with the virtue of Balaam or Jonah. I will\nproceed to imagine, that while a missionary was teaching, talking, and\ndistributing tracts to recommend, his own views of religion, a Moolah\nwere to go round and inform everybody that this Christian believed\nMohammed to be an unchaste man, and had used the very argument to such\nand such a person. I feel assured that we should all pronounce this\nproceeding to be a very cunning act of spiteful, bigotry.\n\nMy own case, as towards certain Unitarian friends of mine, is quite\nsimilar to this. They preach to me the absolute moral perfection of a\ncertain man (or rather, of a certain portrait) as a sufficient basis\nfor my faith. Hereby they challenge me, and as it were force me, to\ninquire into its perfection. I have tried to confine the argument\nwithin a narrow circle. It is addressed by me specifically to them\nand not to others. I would _not_ address it to Trinitarians; partly,\nbecause they are not in a mental state to get anything from it\nbut pain, partly because much of it becomes intrinsically bad _as\nargument_ when addressed to them. Many acts and words which would be\n_right_ from an incarnate God, or from an angel, are (in my opinion)\nhighly _unbecoming_ from a man; consequently I must largely remould\nthe argument before I could myself approve of it, if so addressed.\nThe principle of the argument is such as Mr. Rogers justifies, when\nhe says that Mr. Martineau _quite takes away all solid reasons for\nbelieving in Christ's absolute perfection._ (\"Defence,\" p. 220.) I\nopened my chapter (chapter VII.) above with a distinct avowal of my\nwish to confine the perusal of it to a very limited circle. Mr. Rogers\n(acting, it seems, on the old principle, that whatever one's enemy\ndeprecates, is a good) instantly pounces on the chapter, avows that\n\"if infidelity _could_ be ruined, such imprudencies[17] would go\nfar to ruin it,\" p. 22; and because he believes that it will be\n\"unspeakably[18] painful\" to the orthodox for whom I do _not_ intend\nit, he prints the greater part of it in an Appendix, and expresses his\nregret that he cannot publish \"every syllable of it,\" p. 22. Such is\nhis tender regard for the feeling of his co-religionists.\n\nMy defender in the \"Prospective Review\" wound up as follows (x. p.\n227):--\n\n\"And now we have concluded our painful task, which nothing but a\nfeeling of what justice--literary, and personal--required, would have\ninduced us to undertake. The tone of intellectual disparagement\nand moral rebuke which certain critics,--deceived by the shallowest\nsophisms with which an unscrupulous writer could work on their\nprepossessions and insult their understandings--have adopted towards\nMr. Newman made exposure necessary. The length to which our remarks\nhave extended requires apology. Evidence to character is necessarily\ncumulative, and not easily compressible within narrow limits. Enough\nhas been said to show that there is not an art discreditable in\ncontroversy, to which recourse is not freely had in the 'Eclipse of\nFaith' and the Defence of it.\"\n\nThe reader must judge for himself whether this severe and terrible\nsentence of the reviewer proceeds from ill-temper and personal\nmortification, as the author of the Eclipse and its Defence\ngratuitously lays down, or whether it was prompted by a sense of\njustice, as he himself affirms.\n\n\n[Footnote 1: The \"Eclipse\" had previously been noticed in the same\nreview, on the whole favourably, by a writer of evidently a different\nreligious school, and before I had exposed the evil arts of my\nassailant.]\n\n[Footnote 2: The authorship is since acknowledged by Mr. Henry Rogers,\nin the title to his article on Bishop Butler in the \"Encyclop\u00e6dia\nBritannica.\"]\n\n[Footnote 3: That is, my \"discovery\" that the writer of the \"Eclipse\nof Faith\" grossly misquotes and misinterprets me.]\n\n[Footnote 4: Page 225, he says, that each criticism \"is quite worthy\nof Mr. Newman's _friend_, defender and admirer;\" assuming a fact, in\norder to lower my defender's credit with his readers.]\n\n[Footnote 5: As he puts \"artful dodge\" into quotation marks, his\nreaders will almost inevitably believe that this vulgar language is\nmine. In the same spirit to speaks of me as \"making merry\" with a Book\nRevelation; as if I had the slightest sympathy or share in the style\nand tone which pervades the \"Eclipse.\" But there is no end of such\nthings to be denounced.]\n\n[Footnote 6: Italics in the original.]\n\n[Footnote 7: In the ninth edition, p. 104, I find that to cover the\nformal falsehood of these words, he adds: \"what he calls his arguments\nare assertions only,\" still withholding that which would confute him.]\n\n[Footnote 8: I will here add, that this \"stinking fly\"--the\nparenthesis (\"in a certain stage of development\")--was added merely\nto avoid dogmatizing on the question, how early in human history or in\nhuman life this mysterious notion of the divine spirit is recognizable\nas commencing.]\n\n[Footnote 9: If the word _essential_ is explained away, _this_\nsentence may be attenuated to a truism.]\n\n[Footnote 10: Paul to the Corinthians, 1st Ep. ii.]\n\n[Footnote 11: This clause is too strong. \"Expect _direct_ spiritual\nresults,\" might have been better.]\n\n[Footnote 12: The substance of what I wrote was this. Socrates and\nCicero ask, _where did we pick up our intelligence?_ It did not come\nfrom nothing; it most reside in the mind of him from whom we and this\nworld came; God must be more intelligent than man, his creature.--But\nthis argument may be applied with equal truth, not to intelligence\nonly, but to all the essential high qualities of man, everything noble\nand venerable. Whence came the principle of love, which is the noblest\nof all! It must reside in God more truly and gloriously than in\nman. He who made loving hearts must himself be loving. Thus the\nintelligence and love of God are known through our consciousness of\nintelligence and love _within_.]\n\n[Footnote 13: He puts _alone_ in italics. A little below he repeats,\n\"which alone I ridiculed.\"]\n\n[Footnote 14: He should add: \"external _authoritative_ revelation _of\nmoral and spiritual truth_.\" No communication from heaven could have\nmoral weight, to a heart previously destitute of moral sentiment,\nor unbelieving in the morality of God.--What is there in this that\ndeserves ridicule?]\n\n[Footnote 15: He puts it between two other statements which avowedly\nrefer to me.]\n\n[Footnote 16: Mr. Rogers asks on this: \"Does Mr. Newman mean that\nhe claims as much as the _apostles_ claimed, _whether they did so\nrightfully or not_?\" See how acutely a logician can pervert the word\n_all_!]\n\n[Footnote 17: There is much meaning in the word imprudencies on which\nI need not comment.]\n\n[Footnote 18: \"Unspeakably painful\" is his phrase for something\nmuch smaller, (\"Eclipse\" ninth edition p. 194,) which he insists on\nsimilarly obtruding, against my will and protest.]\n\n\n\n\nAPPENDIX I.\n\n\nIt is an error not at all peculiar to the author of the \"Eclipse of\nFaith,\" but is shared with him by many others, and by one who has\ntreated me in a very different spirit, that Christians are able to\nuse atheistic arguments against me without wounding Christianity. As I\nhave written a rather ample book, called \"Theism,\" expressly designed\nto establish against Atheists and Pantheists that moral Theism which\nChristians, Jews, and Mohammedans have in common, and which underlies\nevery attempt of any of the three religions to establish its peculiar\nand supernatural claims; I have no need of entering on that argument\nhere. It is not true, that, as a Theist, I evade the objections urged\nby real atheists or sceptics; on the contrary, I try to search them to\nthe very bottom. It is only in arguing with Christians that I disown\nthe obligation of reply; and that, because they are as much concerned\nas I to answer; and ought to be able to give me, _on the ground of\nnatural theology_, good replies to every fundamental objection from\nthe sceptic, if I have not got them myself. To declare the objections\nof our common adversaries valid against those first principles\nof religion which are older than Jesus or Moses, is certainly to\nsurrender the cause of Christianity.\n\nIf this need more elucidation, let it be observed, that no Christian\ncan take a single step in argument with a heathen, much less establish\nhis claim of authority for the Bible, without presuming that the\nheathen will admit, on hearing them, those doctrines of moral Theism,\nwhich, it is pretended, _I_ can have no good reason for admitting.\nIf the heathen sincerely retorts against the missionary such Pagan\nscepticism as is flung at me by Christians, the missionary's words\nare vain; nor is any success possible, unless (with me) he can lay\na _prior_ foundation of moral Theism, independent of any assumption\nconcerning the claims of the Bible. It avails nothing to preach\nrepentance of sin and salvation from judgment to come, to minds which\nare truly empty of the belief that God has any care for morality. I\nof course do not say, and have never said, that the doctrine of the\ndivine holiness, goodness, truth, must have been previously an active\nbelief of the heathen hearer. To have stated a question clearly\nis often half the solution; and the teacher, who so states a high\ndoctrine, gives a great aid to the learner's mind. But unless, after\nit has been affirmed that there is a Great Eternal Being pervading the\nuniverse, who disapproves of human evil and commands us to pursue\nthe good, the conscience and intellect of the hearer gives assent, no\nargument of moral religion can have weight with him; therefore neither\ncan any argument about miracles, nor any appeal to the \"Bible\" as\nauthoritative. Of course the book has not as yet any influence over\nhim, nor will its miracles, any more than its doctrines, be\nreceived on the ground of their being in the book. Thus a direct\nand independent discernment of the great truths of moral Theism is a\npostulate, to be proved or conceded _before_ the Christian can begin\nthe argument in favour of Biblical preternaturalism. I had thought\nit would have been avowed and maintained with a generous pride, that\neminently in Christian literature we find the noblest, soundest, and\nfullest advocacy of moral Theism, as having its evidence in the heart\nof man within and nature without, _independently of any postulates\nconcerning the Bible_. I certainly grew up for thirty years in that\nbelief. Treatises on Natural Theology, which (with whatever success)\nendeavoured to trace--not only a constructive God in the outer world,\nbut also a good God when that world is viewed in connexion with man;\nwere among the text-books of our clergy and of our universities, and\nwere in many ways crowned with honour. Bampton Lectures, Bridgewater\nTreatises, Burnet Prize Essays, have (at least till very recently in\none case) been all, I rather think, in the same direction. And surely\nwith excellent reason. To avow that the doctrines of Moral Theism have\nno foundation to one who sees nothing preternatural in the Bible, is\nin a Christian such a suicidal absurdity, that whenever an atheist\nadvances it, it is met with indignant denial and contempt.\n\nThe argumentative strength of this Appendix, as a reply to those\nwho call themselves \"orthodox\" Christians, is immensely increased by\nanalysing their subsidiary doctrines, which pretend to relieve,\nwhile they prodigiously aggravate, the previous difficulties of Moral\nTheism; I mean the doctrine of the fall of man by the agency of a\ndevil, and the eternal hell. But every man who dares to think will\neasily work out such thoughts for himself.\n\n\n\n\nAPPENDIX II.\n\n\nI here reproduce (merely that it may not be pretended that I silently\nwithdraw it) the substance of an illustration which I offered in my\n2nd edition, p. 184.\n\nWhen I deny that History can be Religion or a part of Religion, I\nmean it exactly in the same sense, in which we say that history is not\nmathematics, though mathematics has a history. Religion undoubtedly\ncomes to us by historical transmission: it has had a slow growth; but\nso is it with mathematics, so is it with all other sciences. (I refer\nto mathematics, not as peculiarly like to religion, but as peculiarly\nunlike; it is therefore and _\u00e0 fortiori_ argument. What is true of\nthem as sciences, is true of all science.) No science can flourish,\nwhile it is received on authority. Science comes to us _by_ external\ntransmission, but is not believed _because_ of that transmission. The\nhistory of the transmission is generally instructive, but is no proper\npart of the science itself. All this is true of Religion.\n\nTHE END.","title":"Phases of Faith; Or, Passages from the History of My Creed","tradition":"scripture-revelation","translated_text":null,"word_count":91805}