PHASES OF FAITH

 - or -

PASSAGES FROM THE HISTORY OF MY CREED. 

Francis William Newman, 1874

PREFACE TO FIRST EDITION. 

This is perhaps an egotistical book; egotistical certainly in itsform, yet not in its purport and essence. 

Personal reasons the writer cannot wholly disown, for desiring toexplain himself to more than a few, who on religious grounds areunjustly alienated from him. If by any motive of curiosity orlingering remembrances they may be led to read his straightforwardaccount, he trusts to be able to show them that he has had _no choice_but to adopt the intellectual conclusions which offend them;--thatthe difference between them and him turns on questions of Learning, History, Criticism and Abstract Thought;--and that to make _their_results (if indeed they have ever deeply and honestly investigatedthe matter) the tests of _his_ spiritual state, is to employ unjustweights and a false balance, which are an abomination to the Lord. Todefraud one's neighbour of any tithe of mint and cummin, would seemto them a sin: is it less to withhold affection, trust and freeintercourse, and build up unpassable barriers of coldness and alarm, against one whose sole offence is to differ from them intellectually?

But the argument before the writer is something immensely greaterthan a personal one. So it happens, that to vindicate himself is toestablish a mighty truth; a truth which can in no other way so wellenter the heart, as when it comes embodied in an individual case. If he can show, that to have shrunk from his successive convictions_would_ have been "infidelity" to God and Truth and Righteousness; butthat he has been "faithful" to the highest and most urgent duty;--itwill be made clear that Belief is one thing and Faith another; that tobelieve is intellectual, nay possibly "earthly, devilish;" and thatto set up any fixed creed as a test of spiritual character is a mostunjust, oppressive and mischievous superstition. The historical formhas been deliberately selected, as easier and more interesting tothe reader; but it must not be imagined that the author has given hismental history in general, much less an autobiography. The progressof his _creed_ is his sole subject; and other topics are introducedeither to illustrate this or as digressions suggested by it. 

_March 22nd, 1850. _

PREFACE TO SIXTH EDITION

I had long thought that the elaborate reply made for me in the"Prospective Review" (1854) to Mr. Henry Rogers's Defence of the"Eclipse of Faith, " superseded anything more from my pen. But in thecourse of six years a review is forgotten and buried away, while Mr. Rogers is circulating the ninth edition of his misrepresentations. 

As my publisher announces to me the opportunity, I at length consentto reply myself to the Defence, cancelling what was previously my lastchapter, written against the "Eclipse. "

All that follows p. 175 in this edition is new. 

_June_, 1860. 

CONTENTS. 

 I. MY YOUTHFUL CREED

 II. STRIVINGS AFTER A MORE PRIMITIVE CHRISTIANITY

 III. CALVINISM ABANDONED

 IV. THE RELIGION OF THE LETTER RENOUNCED

 V. FAITH AT SECOND HAND FOUND TO BE VAIN

 VI. HISTORY DISCOVERED TO BE NO PART OF RELIGION

 VII. ON THE MORAL PERFECTION OF JESUS

 VIII. ON BIGOTRY AND PROGRESS

 IX. REPLY TO THE "DEFENCE OF THE ECLIPSE OF FAITH"

 APPENDIX I

 APPENDIX II

PHASES OF FAITH. 

CHAPTER I. 

MY YOUTHFUL CREED. 

I first began to read religious books at school, and especially theBible, when I was eleven years old; and almost immediately commenceda habit of secret prayer. But it was not until I was fourteen that Igained any definite idea of a "scheme of doctrine, " or could havebeen called a "converted person" by one of the Evangelical School. My religion then certainly exerted a great general influence overmy conduct; for I soon underwent various persecution from myschoolfellows on account of it: the worst kind consisted in theirdeliberate attempts to corrupt me. An Evangelical clergyman at theschool gained my affections, and from him I imbibed more and moredistinctly the full creed which distinguishes that body of men; abody whose bright side I shall ever appreciate, in spite of my presentperception that they have a dark side also. I well remember, that oneday when I said to this friend of mine, that I could not understandhow the doctrine of Election was reconcilable to God's Justice, butsupposed that I should know this in due time, if I waited and believedHis word;--he replied with emphatic commendation, that this was thespirit which God always blessed. Such was the beginning and foundationof my faith, --an unhesitating unconditional acceptance of whatever wasfound in the Bible. While I am far from saying that my _whole_ moralconduct was subjugated by my creed, I must insist that it was no merefancy resting in my intellect: it was really operative on my temper, tastes, pursuits and conduct. 

When I was sixteen, in 1821, I was "confirmed" by Dr. Howley, thenBishop of London, and endeavoured to take on myself with greaterdecision and more conscientious consistency the whole yoke of Christ. Every thing in the Service was solemn to me, except the bishop: heseemed to me a _made-up_ man and a mere pageant. I also remember thatwhen I was examined by the clergyman for confirmation, it troubled memuch that he only put questions which tested my _memory_ concerningthe Catechism and other formulas, instead of trying to find outwhether I had any actual faith in that about which I was to be calledto profess faith: I was not then aware that his sole duty was to trymy _knowledge_. But I already felt keenly the chasm that separatedthe High from the Low Church; and that it was impossible for meto sympathize with those who imagined that Forms could command theSpirit. 

Yet so entirely was I enslaved to one Form, --that of observing theSunday, or, as I had learned falsely to call it, the Sabbath, --that Ifell into painful and injurious conflict with a superior kinsman, byrefusing to obey his orders on the Sunday. He attempted to deal withme by mere authority, not by instruction; and to yield my conscienceto authority would have been to yield up all spiritual life. I erred, but I was faithful to God. 

When I was rather more than seventeen, I subscribed the 39 Articles atOxford in order to be admitted to the University. Subscription was "nobondage, " but pleasure; for I well knew and loved the Articles, andlooked on them as a great bulwark of the truth; a bulwark, however, not by being imposed, but by the spiritual and classical beauty whichto me shone in them. But it was certain to me before I went toOxford, and manifest in my first acquaintance with it, that very fewacademicians could be said to believe them. Of the young men, not onein five seemed to have any religious convictions at all: the elderresidents seldom or never showed sympathy with the doctrines thatpervade that formula. I felt from my first day there, that the systemof compulsory subscription was hollow, false, and wholly evil. 

Oxford is a pleasant place for making friends, --friends of all sortsthat young men wish. One who is above envy and scorns servility, --whocan praise and delight in all the good qualities of his equals inage, and does not desire to set himself above them, or to vie with hissuperiors in rank, --may have more than enough of friends, for pleasureand for profit. So certainly had I; yet no one of my equals gainedany ascendancy over me, nor perhaps could I have looked up to any foradvice. In some the intellect, in others the religious qualities, wereas yet insufficiently developed: in part also I wanted discrimination, and did not well pick out the profounder minds of my acquaintance. However, on my very first residence in College, I received a usefullesson from another freshman, --a grave and thoughtful person, older(I imagine) than most youths in their first term. Some readers maybe amused, as well as surprized, when I name the delicate questionon which I got into discussion with my fellow freshman. I had learnedfrom Evangelical books, that there is a _twofold_ imputation to everysaint, --not of the "sufferings" only, but also of the "righteousness"of Christ. They alleged that, while the sufferings of Jesus are acompensation for the guilt of the believer and make him innocent, yetthis suffices not to give him a title to heavenly glory; for whichhe must over and above be invested in active righteousness, by allChrist's good works being made over to him. My new friend contestedthe latter part of the doctrine. Admitting fully that guilt is atonedfor by the sufferings of the Saviour, he yet maintained, there was nofarther imputation of Christ's active service as if it had been ourservice. After a rather sharp controversy, I was sent back to studythe matter for myself, especially in the third and fourth chapters ofthe Epistle to the Romans; and some weeks after, freely avowed to himthat I was convinced. Such was my first effort at independent thoughtagainst the teaching of my spiritual fathers, and I suppose it hadmuch value for me. This friend might probably have been of serviceto me, though he was rather cold and lawyerlike; but he was abruptlywithdrawn from Oxford to be employed in active life. 

I first received a temporary discomfort about the 39 Articles froman irreligious young man, who had been my schoolfellow; who one dayattacked the article which asserts that Christ carried "his flesh andbones" with him into heaven. I was not moved by the physical absurditywhich this youth mercilessly derided; and I repelled his objectionsas on impiety. But I afterwards remembered the text, "_Flesh and bloodshall not inherit the kingdom of God_;" and it seemed to me as if thecompiler had really gone a little too far. If I had immediatelythen been called on to subscribe, I suppose it would have somewhatdiscomposed me; but as time went on, I forgot this small point, which was swallowed up by others more important. Yet I believe thathenceforth a greater disposition to criticize the Articles grew uponme. 

The first novel opinion of any great importance that I actuallyembraced, so as to give roughness to my course, was that which manythen called the Oriel heresy about Sunday. Oriel College at this timecontained many active and several original minds; and it was rumouredthat one of the Fellows rejoiced in seeing his parishioners play atcricket on Sunday: I do not know whether that was true, but so itwas said. Another of them preached an excellent sermon before theUniversity, clearly showing that Sunday had nothing to do with theSabbath, nor the Sabbath with us, and inculcating on its own grounda wise and devout use of the Sunday hours. The evidently pious andsincere tone of this discourse impressed me, and I felt that I had noright to reject as profane and undeserving of examination the doctrinewhich it enforced. Accordingly I entered into a thorough searching ofthe Scripture without bias, and was amazed to find how baseless wasthe tenet for which in fact I had endured a sort of martyrdom. This, Ibelieve, had a great effect in showing me how little right we have atany time to count on our opinions as final truth, however necessarythey may just then be felt to our spiritual life. I was alsoscandalized to find how little candour or discernment some Evangelicalfriends, with whom I communicated, displayed in discussing thesubject. 

In fact, this opened to me a large sphere of new thought. In theinvestigation, I had learned, more distinctly than before, that thepreceptive code of the Law was an essentially imperfect and temporarysystem, given "for the hardness of men's hearts. " I was thus preparedto enter into the Lectures on Prophecy, by another Oriel Fellow, --Mr. Davison, --in which he traces the successive improvements anddevelopments of religious doctrine, from the patriarchal systemonward. I in consequence enjoyed with new zest the epistles of St. Paul, which I read as with fresh eyes; and now understood somewhatbetter his whole doctrine of "the Spirit, " the coming of which hadbrought the church out of her childish into a mature condition, and byestablishing a higher law had abolished that of the letter. Into thisview I entered with so eager an interest, that I felt no bondage ofthe letter in Paul's own words: his wisdom was too much above meto allow free criticism of his weak points. At the same time, thesystematic use of the Old Testament by the Puritans, as if it were"the rule of life" to Christians, I saw to be a glaring mistake, intensely opposed to the Pauline doctrine. This discovery, moreover, soon became important to me, as furnishing a ready evasion ofobjections against the meagre or puerile views of the Pentateuch;for without very minute inquiry how far I must go to make the defenceadequate, I gave a general reply, that the New Testament _confessed_the imperfections of the older dispensation. I still presumed the Oldto have been perfect for its own objects and in its own place; andhad not defined to myself how far it was correct or absurd, to imaginemorality to change with time and circumstances. 

Before long, ground was broken in my mind on a still more criticalquestion, by another Fellow of a College; who maintained that nothingbut unbelief could arise out of the attempt to understand _in whatway_ and _by what moral right_ the blood of Christ atoned for sins. He said, that he bowed before the doctrine as one of "Revelation, " andaccepted it reverentially by an act of faith; but that he certainlyfelt unable to understand _why_ the sacrifice of Christ, any more thanthe Mosaic sacrifices, should compensate for the punishment of oursins. Could carnal reason discern that human or divine blood, anymore than that of beasts, had efficacy to make the sinner as it weresinless? It appeared to him a necessarily inscrutable mystery, intowhich we ought not to look. --The matter being thus forced on myattention, I certainly saw that to establish the abstract moral_right_ and _justice_ of vicarious punishment was not easy, and thatto make out the fact of any "compensation"--(_i. E. _ that Jesus reallyendured on the cross a true equivalent for the eternal sufferingsdue to the whole human race, )--was harder still. Nevertheless I haddifficulty in adopting the conclusions of this gentleman; FIRST, because, in a passage of the Epistle to the Hebrews, the sacredwriter, in arguing--"_For_ it is impossible that the blood of bullsand goats can take away sins, " &c. , &c. .. . --seems to expect hisreaders to see an inherent impropriety in the sacrifices of the Law, and an inherent moral fitness in the sacrifice of Christ. SECONDLY:I had always been accustomed to hear that it was by seeing themoral fitness of the doctrine of the Atonement, that converts toChristianity were chiefly made: so said the Moravians among theGreenlanders, so Brainerd among the North American Indians, so Englishmissionaries among the negroes at Sierra Leone:--and I could not atall renounce this idea. Indeed I seemed to myself to see this fitnessmost emphatically; and as for the _forensic_ difficulties, I passedthem over with a certain conscious reverence. I was not as yet ripefor deeper inquiry: yet I, about this time, decidedly modified myboyish creed on the subject, on which more will be said below. 

Of more immediate practical importance to me was the controversyconcerning Infant Baptism. For several years together I had been moreor less conversant with the arguments adduced for the practice; andat this time I read Wall's defence of it, which was the book speciallyrecommended at Oxford. The perusal brought to a head the doubts whichhad at an earlier period flitted over my mind. Wall's historicalattempt to trace Infant Baptism up to the apostles seemed to me aclear failure:[1] and if he failed, then who was likely to succeed?The arguments from Scripture had never recommended themselves tome. Even allowing that they might confirm, they certainly could notsuggest and establish the practice. It now appeared that there was nobasis at all; indeed, several of the arguments struck me as cuttingthe other way. "Suffer little children to come unto me, " urged asdecisive: but it occurred to me that the disciples would not havescolded the little children away, if they had ever been accustomedto baptize them. Wall also, if I remember aright, declares that thechildren of proselytes were baptized by the Jews; and deduces, thatunless the contrary were stated, we must assume that also Christ'sdisciples baptized children: but I reflected that the baptism _ofJohn_ was one of "repentance, " and therefore could not have beenadministered to infants; which (if precedent is to guide us) affordedthe truer presumption concerning _Christian_ baptism. Prepossessionsbeing thus overthrown, when I read the apostolic epistles with a viewto this special question, the proof so multiplied against the Churchdoctrine, that I did not see what was left to be said for it. I talkedmuch and freely of this, as of most other topics, with equals in age, who took interest in religious questions; but the more the matterswere discussed, the more decidedly impossible it seemed to maintainthat the popular Church views were apostolic. 

Here also, as before, the Evangelical clergy whom I consulted werefound by me a broken reed. The clerical friend whom I had known atschool wrote kindly to me, but quite declined attempting to solve mydoubts; and in other quarters I soon saw that no fresh light was to begot. One person there was at Oxford, who might have seemed my naturaladviser; his name, character, and religious peculiarities have been somade public property, that I need not shrink to name him:--I meanmy elder brother, the Rev. John Henry Newman. As a warm-hearted andgenerous brother, who exercised towards me paternal cares, I esteemedhim and felt a deep gratitude; as a man of various culture, andpeculiar genius, I admired and was proud of him; but my doctrinalreligion impeded my loving him as much as he deserved, and evenjustified my feeling some distrust of him. He never showed any strongattraction towards those whom I regarded as spiritual persons: on thecontrary, I thought him stiff and cold towards them. Moreover, soonafter his ordination, he had startled and distressed me by adoptingthe doctrine of Baptismal Regeneration; and in rapid succession workedout views which I regarded as full-blown "Popery. " I speak of theyears 1823-6: it is strange to think that twenty years more had topass before he learnt the place to which his doctrines belonged. 

In the earliest period of my Oxford residence I fell into uneasycollision with him concerning Episcopal powers. I had on one occasiondropt something disrespectful against bishops or a bishop, --somethingwhich, if it had been said about a clergyman, would have passedunnoticed: but my brother checked and reproved me, --as I thought, veryuninstructively--for "wanting reverence towards Bishops. " I knewnot then, and I know not now, why Bishops, _as such_, should be morereverenced than common clergymen; or Clergymen, _as such_, more thancommon men. In the World I expected pomp and vain show and formalityand counterfeits: but of the Church, as Christ's own kingdom, Idemanded reality and could not digest legal fictions. I saw roundme what sort of young men were preparing to be clergymen: I knew theattractions of family "livings" and fellowships, and of a respectableposition and undefinable hopes of preferment. I farther knew, thatwhen youths had become clergymen through a great variety of mixedmotives, bishops were selected out of these clergy on avowedlypolitical grounds; it therefore amazed me how a man of good senseshould be able to set up a duty of religious veneration towardsbishops. I was willing to honour a Lord Bishop as a peer ofParliament; but his office was to me no guarantee of spiritualeminence. --To find my brother thus stop my mouth, was a puzzle; andimpeded all free speech towards him. In fact, I very soon left off theattempt at intimate religious intercourse with him, or asking counselas of one who could sympathize. We talked, indeed, a great deal on thesurface of religious matters; and on some questions I was overpoweredand received a temporary bias from his superior knowledge; but astime went on, and my own intellect ripened, I distinctly felt that hisarguments were too fine-drawn and subtle, often elaborately missingthe moral points and the main points, to rest on some ecclesiasticalfiction; and his conclusions were to me so marvellous and painful, that I constantly thought I had mistaken him. In short, he was mysenior by a very few years: nor was there any elder resident atOxford, accessible to me, who united all the qualities which I wantedin an adviser. Nothing was left for me but to cast myself on Him whois named the Father of Lights, and resolve to follow the light whichHe might give, however opposed to my own prejudices, and however Imight be condemned by men. This solemn engagement I made in earlyyouth, and neither the frowns nor the grief of my brethren can make meashamed of it in my manhood. 

Among the religious authors whom I read familiarly was the Rev. T. Scott, of Aston Sandford, a rather dull, very unoriginal, half-educated, but honest, worthy, sensible, strong-minded man, whoseworks were then much in vogue among the Evangelicals. One day myattention was arrested by a sentence in his defence of the doctrineof the Trinity. He complained that Anti-Trinitarians unjustly chargedTrinitarians with self-contradiction. "If indeed we said" (argued he)"that God is three _in the same sense_ as that in which He is one, that would be self-refuting; but we hold Him to be _three in onesense, and one in another_. " It crossed my mind very forcibly, that, if that was all, the Athanasian Creed had gratuitously invented anenigma. I exchanged thoughts on this with an undergraduate friend, andgot no fresh light: in fact, I feared to be profane, if I attemptedto understand the subject. Yet it came distinctly home to me, that, whatever the depth of the mystery, if we lay down anything aboutit _at all_, we ought to understand our own words; and I presentlyaugured that Tillotson had been right in "wishing our Church well rid"of the Athanasian Creed; which seemed a mere offensive blurting outof intellectual difficulties. I had, however, no doubts, even of apassing kind, for years to come, concerning the substantial truth andcertainty of the ecclesiastical Trinity. 

When the period arrived for taking my Bachelors degree, it wasrequisite again to sign the 39 Articles, and I now found myselfembarrassed by the question of Infant Baptism. One of the articlescontains the following words, "The baptism of young children is in anywise to be retained, as most agreeable to the institution of Christ. "I was unable to conceal from myself that I did not believe thissentence; and I was on the point of refusing to take my degree. Iovercame my scruples by considering, 1. That concerning this doctrineI had no active _dis_-belief, on which I would take any practicalstep, as I felt myself too young to make any counterdeclaration: 2. That it had no possible practical meaning to me, since I could notbe called on to baptize, nor to give a child for baptism. Thus Ipersuaded myself. Yet I had not an easy conscience, nor can I nowdefend my compromise; for I believe that my repugnance to InfantBaptism was really intense, and my conviction that it is unapostolicas strong then as now. The topic of my "youth" was irrelevant; for, if I was not too young to subscribe, I was not too young to refusesubscription. The argument that the article was "unpractical" to me, goes to prove, that if I were ordered by a despot to qualify myselffor a place in the Church by solemnly renouncing the first book ofEuclid as false, I might do so without any loss of moral dignity. Altogether, this humiliating affair showed me what a trap for theconscience these subscriptions are: how comfortably they are passedwhile the intellect is torpid or immature, or where the conscience iscallous, but how they undermine truthfulness in the active thinker, and torture the sensitiveness of the tenderminded. As long as theyare maintained, in Church or University, these institutions exert apositive influence to deprave or eject those who ought to be theirmost useful and honoured members. 

It was already breaking upon me, that I could not fulfil the dreams ofmy boyhood as a minister in the Church of England. For, supposing thatwith increased knowledge I might arrive at the conclusion that InfantBaptism was a fore-arranged "development, "--not indeed practised inthe _first_ generation, but expedient, justifiable, and intendedfor the _second_, and probably then sanctioned by one still livingapostle, --even so, I foresaw the still greater difficulty of BaptismalRegeneration behind. For any one to avow that Regeneration took placein Baptism, seemed to me little short of a confession that he hadnever himself experienced what Regeneration is. If I _could_ thenhave been convinced that the apostles taught no other regeneration, I almost think that even their authority would have snapt under thestrain: but this is idle theory; for it was as clear as daylight to methat they held a totally different doctrine, and that the High Churchand Popish fancy is a superstitious perversion, based upon carnalinability to understand a strong spiritual metaphor. On the otherhand, my brother's arguments that the Baptismal Service of the Churchtaught "spiritual regeneration" during the ordinance, were short, simple, and overwhelming. To imagine a _twofold_ "spiritualregeneration" was evidently a hypothesis to serve a turn, nor in anyof the Church formulas was such an idea broached. Nor could I hope forrelief by searching through the Homilies or by drawing deductions fromthe Articles: for if I there elicited a truer doctrine, it would nevershow the Baptismal Service not to teach the Popish tenet; it wouldmerely prove the Church-system to contain contradictions, and not todeserve that absolute declaration of its truth, which is demanded ofChurch ministers. With little hope of advantage, I yet felt it a dutyto consult many of the Evangelical clergymen whom I knew, and to askhow _they_ reconciled the Baptismal Service to their consciences. I found (if I remember) three separate theories among them, --allevidently mere shifts invented to avoid the disagreeable necessity ofresigning their functions. Not one of these good people seemed to havethe most remote idea that it was their duty to investigate the meaningof the formulary with the same unbiassed simplicity as if it belongedto the Gallican Church. They did not seek to know what it was writtento mean, nor what sense it must carry to every simpleminded hearer;but they solely asked, how they could manage to assign to it a sensenot wholly irreconcilable with their own doctrines and preaching. Thiswas too obviously hollow. The last gentleman whom I consulted, was therector of a parish, who from week to week baptized children with theprescribed formula: but to my amazement, he told me that _he_ did notlike the Service, and did not approve of Infant Baptism; to both ofwhich things he submitted, solely because, as an inferior minister ofthe Church, it was his duty to obey established authority! The casewas desperate. But I may here add, that this clergyman, within a fewyears from that time, redeemed his freedom and his conscience by thepainful ordeal of abandoning his position and his flock, against theremonstrances of his wife, to the annoyance of his friends, and with ayoung family about him. 

Let no reader accept the preceding paragraph as my testimony that theEvangelical clergy are less simpleminded and less honourable in theirsubscriptions than the High Church. I do not say, and I do not believethis. _All_ who subscribe, labour under a common difficulty, in havingto give an absolute assent to formulas that were made by a compromiseand are not homogeneous in character. To the High Churchman, the_Articles_ are a difficulty; to the Low Churchman, various parts ofthe _Liturgy_. All have to do violence to some portion of thesystem; and considering at how early an age they are entrapped intosubscription, they all deserve our sincere sympathy and very ampleallowance, as long as they are pleading for the rights of conscience:only when they become overbearing, dictatorial, proud of their chains, and desirous of ejecting others, does it seem right to press them withthe topic of inconsistency. There in, besides, in the ministry ofthe Established Church a sprinkling of original minds, who cannotbe included in either of the two great divisions; and from these _ąpriori_ one might have hoped much good to the Church. But such personsno sooner speak out, than the two hostile parties hush their strife, in order the more effectually to overwhelm with just and unjustimputations those who dare to utter truth that has not yet beenconsecrated by Act of Parliament or by Church Councils. Among thosewho have subscribed, to attack others is easy, to defend oneself mostarduous. Recrimination is the only powerful weapon; and noble mindsare ashamed to use this. No hope, therefore, shows itself of Reformfrom within. --For myself, I feel that nothing saved me from theinfinite distresses which I should have encountered, had I become aminister of the Episcopal Church, but the very unusual prematurenessof my religious development. 

Besides the great subject of Baptismal Regeneration, the entireEpiscopal theory and practice offended me. How little favourably I wasimpressed, when a boy, by the lawn sleeves, wig, artificial voice andmanner of the Bishop of London, I have already said: but in sixyears more, reading and observation had intensely confirmed my firstauguries. It was clear beyond denial, that for a century after thedeath of Edward VI. The bishops were the tools of court-bigotry, andoften owed their highest promotions to base subservience. After theRevolution, the Episcopal order (on a rough and general view) might bedescribed as a body of supine persons, known to the public only as adead weight against all change that was distasteful to the Government. In the last century and a half, the nation was often afflicted withsensual royalty, bloody wars, venal statesmen, corrupt constituencies, bribery and violence at elections, flagitious drunkenness pervadingall ranks, and insinuating itself into Colleges and Rectories. Theprisons of the country had been in a most disgraceful state; thefairs and waits were scenes of rude debauchery, and the theatreswere--still, in this nineteenth century--whispered to be haunts of themost debasing immorality. I could not learn that any bishop had evertaken the lead in denouncing these iniquities; nor that when any manor class of men rose to denounce them, the Episcopal Order failed tothrow itself into the breach to defend corruption by at least passiveresistance. Neither Howard, Wesley and Whitfield, nor yet Clarkson, Wilberforce, or Romilly, could boast of the episcopal bench as an allyagainst inhuman or immoral practices. Our oppressions in India, andour sanction to the most cruel superstitions of the natives, led to nooutcry from the Bishops. Under their patronage the two old Societiesof the Church had gone to sleep until aroused by the Church Missionaryand Bible Societies, which were opposed by the Bishops. Their policyseemed to be, to do nothing, until somebody else was likely to doit; upon which they at last joined the movement in order to damp itsenergy, and get some credit from it. Now what were Bishops for, but tobe the originators and energetic organs of all pious and good works?and what were they in the House of Lords for, if not to set a highertone of purity, justice, and truth? and if they never did this, butweighed down those who attempted it, was not that a condemnation (not, perhaps, of all possible Episcopacy, but) of Episcopacy as it existsin England? If such a thing as a moral argument _for_ Christianitywas admitted as valid, surely the above was a moral argument _against_English Prelacy. It was, moreover, evident at a glance, that thissystem of ours neither was, nor could have been, apostolic: for aslong as the civil power was hostile to the Church, _a Lord bishopnominated by the civil ruler_ was an impossibility: and this it is, which determines the moral and spiritual character of the Englishinstitution, not indeed exclusively, but preeminently. 

I still feel amazement at the only defence which (as far as I know)the pretended followers of Antiquity make for the nomination ofbishops by the Crown. In the third and fourth centuries, it is wellknown that every new bishop was elected by the universal suffrage ofthe laity of the church; and it is to these centuries that the HighEpiscopalians love to appeal, because they can quote thence out ofCyprian[2] and others in favour of Episcopal authority. When I allegedthe dissimilarity in the mode of election, as fatal to this argumentin the mouth of an English High Churchman, I was told that "the Crownnow _represents_ the Laity!" Such a fiction may be satisfactory to apettifogging lawyer, but as the basis of a spiritual system is indeedsupremely contemptible. 

With these considerations on my mind, --while quite aware that some ofthe bishops were good and valuable men, --I could not help feelingthat it would be a perfect misery to me to have to address one of themtaken at random as my "Right Reverend Father in God, " which seemedlike a foul hypocrisy; and when I remembered who had said, "Callno man Father on earth; for one is your Father, who is inheaven:"--words, which not merely in the letter, but still moredistinctly in the spirit, forbid the state of feeling which suggestedthis episcopal appellation, --it did appear to me, as if "Prelacy"had been rightly coupled by the Scotch Puritans with "Popery" asantichristian. 

Connected inseparably with this, was the form of Ordination, which, the more I thought of it, seemed the more offensively and outrageouslyPopish, and quite opposed to the Article on the same subject. In theArticle I read, that we were to regard such to be legitimate ministersof the word, as had been duly appointed to this work _by those whohave public authority for the same_. It was evident to me that thisvery wide phrase was adapted and intended to comprehend the "publicauthorities" of all the Reformed Churches, and could never have beenselected by one who wished to narrow the idea of a legitimate ministerto Episcopalian Orders; besides that we know Lutheran and Calvinisticministers to have been actually admitted in the early times of theReformed English Church, by the force of that very Article. To this, the only genuine Protestant view of a Church, I gave my most cordialadherence: but when I turned to the Ordination Service, I found theBishop there, by his authoritative voice, absolutely to bestow onthe candidate for Priesthood the power to forgive or retainsins!--"Receive ye the Holy Ghost! Whose sins ye forgive, they areforgiven: whose sins ye retain, they are retained. " If the Bishopreally had this power, he of course had it only _as_ Bishop, that is, by his consecration; thus it was formally transmitted. To allow this, vested in all the Romish bishops a spiritual power of the highestorder, and denied the legitimate priesthood in nearly all theContinental Protestant Churches--a doctrine irreconcilable with thearticle just referred to and intrinsically to me incredible. Thatan unspiritual--and it may be, a wicked--man, who can have no pureinsight into devout and penitent hearts, and no communion with theSource of holy discernment, could never receive by an outward form thedivine power to forgive or retain sins, or the power of bestowing thispower, was to me then, as now, as clear and certain as any possiblefirst axiom. Yet if the Bishop had not this power, how profane wasthe pretension! Thus again I came into rude collision with EnglishPrelacy. 

The year after taking my degree, I made myself fully master of Paley'sacute and original treatise, the "Horę Paulinę, " and realized thewhole life of Paul as never before. This book greatly enlarged my mindas to the resources of historical criticism. Previously, my sole ideaof criticism was that of the direct discernment of style; but I nowbegan to understand what powerful argument rose out of combinations:and the very complete establishment which this work gives to thenarrative concerning Paul in the latter half of the "Acts, " appearedto me to reflect critical honour[3] on the whole New Testament. In theepistles of this great apostle, notwithstanding their argumentativedifficulties, I found a moral reality and a depth of wisdomperpetually growing upon me with acquaintance: in contrast to whichI was conscious that I made no progress in understanding the fourgospels. Their first impression had been their strongest: and theirdifficulties remained as fixed blocks in my way. Was this possiblybecause Paul is a reasoner, (I asked)? hence, with the cultivationof my understanding, I have entered more easily into the heart ofhis views:--while Christ enunciates divine truth dogmatically;consequently insight is needed to understand him? On the contrary, however, it seemed to me, that the doctrinal difficulties of thegospels depend chiefly either on obscure metaphor or on apparentincoherence: and I timidly asked a friend, whether the _dislocation_of the discourses of Christ by the narrators may not be one reason whythey are often obscure: for on comparing Luke with Matthew, it appearsthat we cannot deny occasional dislocation. If at this period a Germandivinity professor had been lecturing at Oxford, or German books hadbeen accessible to me, it might have saved me long peregrinations ofbody and mind. 

About this time I had also begun to think that the old writers called_Fathers_ deserved but a small fraction of the reverence which isawarded to them. I had been strongly urged to read Chrysostom's workon the Priesthood, by one who regarded it as a suitable preparationfor Holy Orders; and I did read it. But I not only thought itinflated, and without moral depth, but what was far worse, Iencountered in it an elaborate defence of falsehood in the cause ofthe Church, and generally of deceit in any good cause. [4] I rosefrom the treatise in disgust, and for the first time sympathized withGibbon; and augured that if he had spoken with moral indignation, instead of pompous sarcasm, against the frauds of the ancient"Fathers, " his blows would have fallen far more heavily onChristianity itself. 

I also, with much effort and no profit, read the Apostolic Fathers. Of these, Clement alone seemed to me respectable, and even he to writeonly what I could myself have written, with Paul and Peter to serveas a model. But for Barnabas and Hermas I felt a contempt so profound, that I could hardly believe them genuine. On the whole, this readinggreatly exalted my sense of the unapproachable greatness[5] of the NewTestament. The moral chasm between it and the very earliest Christianwriters seemed to me so vast, as only to be accounted for by thedoctrine in which all spiritual men (as I thought) unhesitatinglyagreed, --that the New Testament was dictated by the immediate actionof the Holy Spirit. The infatuation of those, who, after this, restedon _the Councils_, was to me unintelligible. Thus the Bible in itssimplicity became only the more all-ruling to my judgment, becauseI could find no Articles, no Church Decrees, and no apostolicindividual, whose rule over my understanding or conscience I couldbear. Such may be conveniently regarded as the first period of myCreed. 

[Footnote 1: It was not until many years later that I became aware, that unbiased ecclesiastical historians, as Neander and others, whileapproving of the practice of Infant Baptism, freely concede that it isnot apostolic. Let this fact be my defence against critics, who snarlat me for having dared, at that age, to come to _any_ conclusion onsuch a subject. But, in fact, the subscriptions compel young men toit. ]

[Footnote 2: I remember reading about that time a sentence in one ofhis Epistles, in which this same Cyprian, the earliest mouthpiece of"proud prelacy, " claims for the _populace_ supreme right of deposingan unworthy bishop. I quote the words from memory, and do not knowthe reference. "Pleba summam habet potentatem episcopos seu dignoseligendi seu indignos detrudendi. "]

[Footnote 3: A critic absurdly complains that I do not account forthis. Account for what? I still hold the authenticity of nearly allthe Pauline epistles, and that the Pauline Acts are compiled from somevaluable source, from chap. Xiii. Onward; but it was gratuitous toinfer that this could accredit the four gospels. ]

[Footnote 4: He argues from the Bible, that a victory gained by deceitis more to be esteemed than one obtained by force; and that, providedthe end aimed at be good, we ought not to call it _deceit_, but a sortof _admirable management_. A learned friend informs me that inhis 45th Homily on Genesis, this father, in his zeal to vindicateScriptural characters at any cost, goes further still in immorality. My friend adds, "It is really frightful to reflect to what guidancethe moral sentiment of mankind was committed for many ages: Chrysostomis usually considered one of the best of the fathers. "]

[Footnote 5: I thought that the latter part of this book wouldsufficiently show how and why I now need to modify this sentiment. I_now_ see the doctrine of the Atonement, especially as expoundedin the Epistle of the Hebrews, to deserve no honour. I see falseinterpretations of the Old Testament to be dogmatically proposed inthe New. I see the moral teaching concerning Patriotism, Property, Slavery, Marriage, Science, and indirectly Fine Art, to be essentiallydefective, and the threats against unbelief to be a perniciousimmorality. See also p. 80. Why will critics use my frankly-statedjuvenile opinions as a stone to pelt me with?]

CHAPTER II. 

STRIVINGS AFTER A MORE PRIMITIVE CHRISTIANITY. 

My second period is characterized, partly by the great ascendancyexercised over me by one powerful mind and still more powerful will, partly by the vehement effort which throughout its duration urged meto long after the establishment of Christian Fellowship in a purelyBiblical Church as the first great want of Christendom and of theworld. 

I was already uneasy in the sense that I could not enter the ministryof the Church of England, and knew not what course of life to choose. I longed to become a missionary for Christ among the heathen, --anotion I had often fostered while reading the lives of missionaries:but again, I saw not how that was to be effected. After taking mydegree, I became a Fellow of Balliol College; and the next year Iaccepted an invitation to Ireland, and there became private tutor forfifteen months in the house of one now deceased, whose name I wouldgladly mention for honour and affection;--but I withhold my pen. Whilehe repaid me munificently for my services, he behaved towards me as afather, or indeed as an elder brother, and instantly made me feel asa member of his family. His great talents, high professional standing, nobleness of heart and unfeigned piety, would have made him a mostvaluable counsellor to me: but he was too gentle, too unassuming, toomodest; he looked to be taught by his juniors, and sat at the feet ofone whom I proceed to describe. 

This was a young relative of his, --a most remarkable man, --who rapidlygained an immense sway over me. I shall henceforth call him "the Irishclergyman. " His "bodily presence" was indeed "weak!" A fallen cheek, a bloodshot eye, crippled limbs resting on crutches, a seldom shavenbeard, a shabby suit of clothes and a generally neglected person, drewat first pity, with wonder to see such a figure in a drawing-room. It was currently reported that a person in Limerick offered him ahalfpenny, mistaking him for a beggar; and if not true, the story wasyet well invented. This young man had taken high honours in DublinUniversity and had studied for the bar, where under the auspices ofhis eminent kinsman he had excellent prospects; but his consciencewould not allow him to take a brief, lest he should be selling histalents to defeat justice. With keen logical powers, he had warmsympathies, solid judgment of character, thoughtful tenderness, andtotal self-abandonment. He before long took Holy Orders, and becamean indefatigable curate in the mountains of Wicklow. Every eveninghe sallied forth to teach in the cabins, and roving far and wideover mountain and amid bogs, was seldom home before midnight. By suchexertions his strength was undermined, and he so suffered in his limbsthat not lameness only, but yet more serious results were feared. Hedid not fast on purpose, but his long walks through wild country andindigent people inflicted on him much severe deprivation: moreover, as he ate whatever food offered itself, --food unpalatable and oftenindigestible to him, his whole frame might have vied in emaciationwith a monk of La Trappe. 

Such a phenomenon intensely excited the poor Romanists, who lookedon him as a genuine "saint" of the ancient breed. The stamp of heavenseemed to them clear in a frame so wasted by austerity, so superiorto worldly pomp, and so partaking in all their indigence. That a dozensuch men would have done more to convert all Ireland to Protestantism, than the whole apparatus of the Church Establishment, was ere long myconviction; though I was at first offended by his apparent affectationof a mean exterior. But I soon understood, that in no other way couldhe gain equal access to the lower and lowest orders, and that he wasmoved not by asceticism, nor by ostentation, but by a self-abandonmentfruitful of consequences. He had practically given up all readingexcept that of the Bible; and no small part of his movement towards mesoon took the form of dissuasion from all other voluntary study. 

In fact, I had myself more and more concentrated my religious readingon this one book: still, I could not help feeling the value of acultivated mind. Against this, my new eccentric friend, (himselfhaving enjoyed no mean advantages of cultivation, ) directed hiskeenest attacks. I remember once saying to him, in defence of worldlystation, --"To desire to be rich is unchristian and absurd; but if Iwere the father of children, I should wish to be rich enough to securethem a good education. " He replied: "If I had children, I would assoon see them break stones on the road, as do any thing else, if onlyI could secure to them the Gospel and the grace of God. " I was unableto say Amen, but I admired his unflinching consistency;--for now, as always, all he said was based on texts aptly quoted and logicallyenforced. He more and more made me ashamed of Political Economy andMoral Philosophy, and all Science; all of which ought to be "counteddross for the excellency of the knowledge of Christ Jesus our Lord. "For the first time in my life I saw a man earnestly turning intoreality the principles which others confessed with their lips only. That the words of the New Testament contained the highest truthaccessible to man, --truth not to be taken from nor added to, --allgood men (as I thought) confessed: never before had I seen a man soresolved that no word of it should be a dead letter to him. I oncesaid: "But do you really think that _no_ part of the New Testament mayhave been temporary in its object? for instance, what should we havelost, if St. Paul had never written the verse, 'The cloak which Ihave left at Troas, bring with thee, and the books, but especially theparchments. '" He answered with the greatest promptitude: "_I_ shouldcertainly have lost something; for that is exactly the verse whichalone saved me from selling my little library. No! every word, dependupon it, is from the Spirit, and is for eternal service. "

A political question was just then exceedingly agitating Ireland, inwhich nearly everybody took a great interest;--it was, the proprietyof admitting Romanist members of Parliament. Those who were favourableto the measure, generally advocated it by trying to undervaluethe chasm that separates Romish from Protestant doctrine. By sucharguments they exceedingly exasperated the real Protestants, and, in common with all around me, I totally repudiated that ground ofcomprehension. But I could not understand why a broader, more generousand every way safer argument was not dwelt on; viz. The unearthlinessof the claims of Christianity. When Paul was preaching the kingdom ofGod in the Roman empire, if a malicious enemy had declared to a Romanproconsul that the Christians were conspiring to eject all Pagans outof the senate and out of the public administration; who can doubt whatPaul would have replied?--The kingdom of God is not of this world: itis within the heart, and consists in righteousness, peace and joyin the Holy Ghost. These are our "honours" from God: we ask not thehonours of empire and title. Our King is in heaven; and will in timereturn to bring to an end these earthly kingdoms: but until then, weclaim no superiority over you on earth. As the riches of this world, so the powers of this world belong to another king: we dare not try toappropriate them in the name of our heavenly King; may, we shouldhold it as great a sin to clutch empire for our churches, as to clutchwealth: God forbid that we covet either!--But what then if the enemyhad had foresight to reply, O proconsul, this Paul talks finely, andperhaps sincerely: but if so, yet cheat not yourself to think thathis followers will tie themselves to his mild equity anddisinterestedness. Now indeed they are weak: now they professunworldliness and unambition: they wish only to be recognised aspeaceable subjects, as citizens and as equals: but if once they growstrong enough, they will discover that their spears and swords arethe symbol of their Lord's return from heaven; that he now at lengthcommissions them to eject you, as vile infidels, from all seats ofpower, --to slay you with the sword, if you dare to offer sacrifice tothe immortal gods, --to degrade you so, that you shall only not enterthe senate, or the privy council of the prince, or the judgment seat, but not even the jury-box, or a municipal corporation, or the pettiestedileship of Italy; nay, you shall not be lieutenants of armies, ortribunes, or anything above the lowest centurion. You shall become aplebeian class, --cheap bodies to be exposed in battle or to toil inthe field, and pay rent to the lordly Christian. Such shall be thefate of _you_, the worshippers of Quirinus and of Jupiter Best andGreatest, if you neglect to crush and extirpate, during the weaknessof its infancy, this ambitious and unscrupulous portent of areligion. --Oh, how would Paul have groaned in spirit, at accusationssuch as these, hateful to his soul, aspersing to his churches, butimpossible to refute! Either Paul's doctrine was a fond dream, (feltI, ) or it is certain, that he would have protested with all the forceof his heart against the principle that Christians _as such_ have anyclaim to earthly power and place; or that they could, when they gaineda numerical majority, without sin enact laws to punish, stigmatize, exclude, or otherwise treat with political inferiority the Paganremnant. To uphold such exclusion, is to lay the axe to the root ofthe spiritual Church, to stultify the apostolic preaching, and at thismoment justify Mohammedans in persecuting Christians. For the Sultanmight fairly say, --"I give Christians the choice of exile or death: Iwill not allow that sect to grow up here; for it has fully warned me, that it will proscribe my religion in my own land, as soon as it haspower. "

On such grounds I looked with amazement and sorrow at spiritualChristians who desired to exclude the Romanists from full equality;and I was happy to enjoy as to this the passive assent of the Irishclergyman; who, though "Orange" in his connexions, and opposed to_all_ political action, yet only so much the more deprecated what hecalled "political Protestantism. "

In spite of the strong revulsion which I felt against some of thepeculiarities of this remarkable man, I for the first time in my lifefound myself under the dominion of a superior. When I remember, howeven those bowed down before him, who had been to him in the place ofparents, --accomplished and experienced minds, --I cease to wonder inthe retrospect, that he riveted me in such a bondage. Henceforth Ibegan to ask: what will _he_ say to this and that? In _his_ reply Ialways expected to find a higher portion of God's Spirit, than in anyI could frame for myself. In order to learn divine truth, it became tome a surer process to consult him, than to search for myself and waitupon God: and gradually, (as I afterwards discerned, ) my religiousthought had merged into the mere process of developing fearlesslyinto results all his principles, without any deeper examining of myfoundations. Indeed, but for a few weaknesses which warned me thathe might err, I could have accepted him as an apostle commissioned toreveal the mind of God. 

In his after-course (which I may not indicate) this gentleman hasevery where displayed a wonderful power of bending other minds to hisown, and even stamping upon them the tones of his voice and all sortsof slavish imitation. Over the general results of his action Ihave long deeply mourned, as blunting his natural tenderness andsacrificing his wisdom to the Letter, dwarfing men's understandings, contracting their hearts, crushing their moral sensibilities, andsetting those at variance who ought to love: yet oh! how speciouswas it in the beginning! he _only_ wanted men "to submit theirunderstandings _to God_" that is, to the Bible, that is, to hisinterpretation! From seeing his action and influence I have learnt, that if it be dangerous to a young man (as it assuredly is) to have_no_ superior mind to which he may look up with confiding reverence, it may be even more dangerous to think that he has found such a mind:for he who is most logically consistent, though to a one-sided theory, and most ready to sacrifice self to that theory, seems to ardent youththe most assuredly trustworthy guide. Such was Ignatius Loyola in hisday. 

My study of the New Testament at this time had made it impossible forme to overlook that the apostles held it to be a duty of all disciplesto expect a near and sudden destruction of the earth by fire, andconstantly to be expecting _the return of the Lord from heaven_. Itwas easy to reply, that "experience disproved" this expectation; butto this an answer was ready provided in Peter's 2nd Epistle, whichforewarns us that we shall be taunted by the unbelieving with thinobjection, but bids us, _nevertheless_, continue to look out forthe speedy fulfilment of this great event. In short, the case stoodthus:--If it was not _too soon_ 1800 years ago to stand in dailyexpectation of it, it is not too soon now: to say that it is _toolate_, is not merely to impute error to the apostles, on a matterwhich they made of first-rate moral importance, but is to say, thatthose whom Peter calls "ungodly scoffers, walking after their ownlusts"--were right, and he was wrong, on the very point for which hethus vituperated them. 

The importance of this doctrine is, that _it totally forbids allworking for earthly objects distant in time_: and here the Irishclergyman threw into the same scale the entire weight of hischaracter. For instance; if a youth had a natural aptitude formathematics, and he asked, ought he to give himself to the study, inhope that he might diffuse a serviceable knowledge of it, or possiblyeven enlarge the boundaries of the science? my friend would havereplied, that such a purpose was very proper, if entertained by aworldly man. Let the dead bury their dead; and let the world study thethings of the world: they know no better, and they are of use to theChurch, who may borrow and use the jewels of the Egyptians. But suchstudies cannot be eagerly followed by the Christian, except when heyields to unbelief. In fact, what would it avail even to become asecond La Place after thirty years' study, if in five and thirty yearsthe Lord descended from heaven, snatched up all his saints to meethim, and burned to ashes all the works of the earth? Then all themathematician's work would have perished, and he would grieve overhis unwisdom, in laying up store which could not stand the fire ofthe Lord. Clearly; if we are bound to act _as though_ the end of allearthly concerns may come, "at cockcrowing or at midday, " then to workfor distant earthly objects is the part of a fool or of an unbeliever. 

I found a wonderful dulness in many persons on this important subject. Wholly careless to ask what was the true apostolic doctrine, theyinsisted that "Death is to us _practically_ the coming of the Lord, "and were amazed at my seeing so much emphasis in the other view. Thiscomes of the abominable selfishness preached as religion. If I wereto labour at some useful work for ten years, --say, at clearing forestland, laying out a farm, and building a house, --and were then to die, I should leave my work to my successors, and it would not be lost. Some men work for higher, some for lower, earthly ends; ("in a greathouse there are many vessels, &c. ;") but all the results are valuable, if there is a chance of transmitting them to those who follow us. But if all is to be very shortly burnt up, it is then folly to exertourselves for such objects. To the dead man, (it is said, ) the casesare but one. This is to the purpose, if self absorbs all our heart;away from the purpose, if we are to work for unselfish ends. 

Nothing can be clearer, than that the New Testament is entirelypervaded by the doctrine, --sometimes explicitly stated, sometimesunceremoniously assumed, --that earthly things are very speedily tocome to an end, and _therefore_ are not worthy of our high affectionsand deep interest. Hence, when thoroughly imbued with this persuasion, I looked with mournful pity on a great mind wasting its energies onany distant aim of this earth. For a statesman to talk about providingfor future generations, sounded to me as a melancholy avowal ofunbelief. To devote good talents to write history or investigatenature, was simple waste: for at the Lord's coming, history andscience would no longer be learned by these feeble appliances of ours. Thus an inevitable deduction from the doctrine of the apostles, was, that "we must work for speedy results only. " Vitę summa brevis spemnos vetat inchoare longam. I _then_ accepted the doctrine, in profoundobedience to the absolutely infallible system of precepts. I _now_ seethat the falsity and mischief of the doctrine is one of the very manydisproofs of the assumed, but unverified infallibility. However, the hold which the apostolic belief then took of me, subjected myconscience to the exhortations of the Irish clergyman, whenever heinculcated that the highest Christian must necessarily decline thepursuit of science, knowledge, art, history, --except so far as anyof these things might be made useful tools for immediate spiritualresults. 

Under the stimulus to my imagination given by this gentleman'scharacter, the desire, which from a boy I had more or less nourished, of becoming a teacher of Christianity _to the heathen_, took strongerand stronger hold of me. I saw that I was shut out from the ministryof the Church of England, and knew not how to seek connexion withDissenters. I had met one eminent Quaker, but was offended by theviolent and obviously false interpretations by which he tried toget rid of the two Sacraments; and I thought there was affectationinvolved in the forms which the doctrine of the Spirit took with him. Besides, I had not been prepossessed by those Dissenters whom I hadheard speak at the Bible Society. I remember that one of themtalked in pompous measured tones of voice, and with much stereotypedphraseology, about "the Bible only, the religion of Protestants:"altogether, it did not seem to me that there was at all so much ofnature and simple truth in them as in Church clergymen. I also hada vague, but strong idea, that all Dissenting churches assumed somespecial, narrow, and sectarian basis. The question indeed arose: "WasI _at liberty_ to preach to the heathen without ordination?" but Iwith extreme ease answered in the affirmative. To teach a Church, ofcourse needs the sanction of the church: no man can assume pastoralrights without assent from other parties: but to speak to thosewithout, is obviously a natural right, with which the Church can havenothing to do. And herewith all the precedents of the New Testament soobviously agreed, that I had not a moment's disquiet on this head. 

At the same time, when asked by one to whom I communicated myfeelings, "whether I felt that I had _a call_ to preach to theheathen, " I replied: I had not the least consciousness of it, and knewnot what was meant by such language. All that I knew was, that I waswilling and anxious to do anything in my power either to teach, or tohelp others in teaching, if only I could find out the way. That aftereighteen hundred years no farther progress should have been madetowards the universal spread of Christianity, appeared a scandalousreproach on Christendom. Is it not, perhaps, because those who arein Church office cannot go, and the mass of the laity think it nobusiness of theirs? If a persecution fell on England, and thousandswere driven into exile, and, like those who were scattered inStephen's persecution, "went everywhere preaching the word, "--mightnot this be the conversion of the world, as indeed that began theconversion of the Gentiles? But the laity leave all to the clergy, andthe clergy have more than enough to do. 

About this time I heard of another remarkable man, whose name wasalready before the public, --Mr. Groves, --who had written a tractcalled Christian Devotedness, on the duty of devoting all worldlyproperty for the cause of Christ, and utterly renouncing the attemptto amass money. In pursuance of this, he was going to Persia as ateacher of Christianity. I read his tract, and was inflamed with thegreatest admiration; judging immediately that this was the man whomI should rejoice to aid or serve. For a scheme of this naturealone appeared to combine with the views which I had been graduallyconsolidating concerning the practical relation of a Christian Churchto Christian Evidences. On this very important subject it is requisiteto speak in detail. 

 * * * * *

The Christian Evidences are an essential part of the course ofreligious study prescribed at Oxford, and they had engaged from anearly period a large share of my attention. Each treatise on thesubject, taken by itself, appeared to me to have great argumentativeforce; but when I tried to grasp them all together in a higher actof thought, I was sensible of a certain confusion, and inability toreconcile their fundamental assumptions. _One_ either formallystated, or virtually assumed, that the deepest basis of allreligious knowledge was the testimony of sense to some fact, which isascertained to be miraculous when examined by the light of Physics orPhysiology; and that we must, at least in a great degree, distrust andabandon our moral convictions or auguries, at the bidding of sensiblemiracle. _Another_ treatise assumed that men's moral feelings andbeliefs are, on the whole, the most trustworthy thing to be found;and starting from them as from a known and ascertained foundation, proceeded to glorify Christianity because of its expanding, strengthening, and beautifying all that we know by conscience to bemorally right. That the former argument, if ever so valid, was stilltoo learned and scholastic, not for the vulgar only, but for every manin his times of moral trial, I felt instinctively persuaded: yet myintellect could not wholly dispense with it, and my belief in thedepravity of the moral understanding of men inclined me to go some wayin defending it. To endeavour to combine the two arguments by sayingthat they were adapted to different states of mind, was plausible;yet it conceded, that neither of the two went to the bottom ofhuman thought, or showed what were the real _fixed points_ of man'sknowledge; without knowing which, we are in perpetual danger of mere_argumentum ad hominem_, or, in fact, arguing in a circle;--as toprove miracles from doctrine, and doctrine from miracles. I howeverconceived that the most logical minds among Christians would contendthat there was another solution; which, in 1827, I committed to paperin nearly the following words:

"May it not be doubted whether Leland sees the real circumstance thatmakes a revelation necessary?

"No revelation is needed to inform us, --of the invisible power anddeity of God; that we are bound to worship Him; that we are capable ofsinning against Him and liable to his just Judgment; nay, that we havesinned, and that we find in nature marks of his displeasure againstsin; and yet, that He is merciful. St. Paul and our Lord show us thatthese things are knowable by reason. The ignorance of the heathens is_judicial blindness_, to punish their obstinate rejection of the trueGod. "

"But a revelation _is_ needed to convey a SPECIAL message, such asthis: that God has provided an Atonement for our sins, has deputed hisown Son to become Head of the redeemed human family, and intends toraise those who believe in Him to a future and eternal life of bliss. These are external truths, (for 'who can believe, unless one be sentto preach them?') and are not knowable by any reasonings drawn fromnature. They transcend natural analogies and moral or spiritualexperience. To reveal them, a specific communication must be accordedto us: and on this the necessity for miracle turns. "

Thus, in my view, at that time, the materials of the Bible were intheory divisible into two portions: concerning the _one_, (which Icalled Natural Religion, ) it not only was not presumptuous, but it wasabsolutely essential, to form an independent judgment; for this wasthe real basis of all faith: concerning the _other_, (which I calledRevealed Religion, ) our business was, not to criticize the message, but to examine the credentials[1] of the messenger; and, --after themost unbiassed possible examination of these, --then, if they provedsound, to receive his communication reverently and unquestioningly. 

Such was the theory with which I came from Oxford to Ireland; butI was hindered from working out its legitimate results by theoverpowering influence of the Irish clergyman; who, while pressingthe authority of every letter of the Scripture with an unshrinkingvehemence that I never saw surpassed, yet, with a commoninconsistency, showed more than indifference towards learnedhistorical and critical evidence on the side of Christianity; andindeed, unmercifully exposed erudition to scorn, both by causticreasoning, and by irrefragable quotation of texts. I constantly hadoccasion to admire the power with which be laid hold of the moralside of every controversy; whether he was reasoning against Romanism, against the High Church, against learned religion or philosophicscepticism: and in this matter his practical axiom was, that theadvocate of truth had to address himself to the _conscience_ of theother party, and if possible, make him feel that there was a moral andspiritual superiority against him. Such doctrine, when joined withan inculcation of man's _natural blindness and total depravity_, was anything but clearing to my intellectual perceptions: in fact, I believe that for some years I did not recover from the dimness andconfusion which he spread over them. But in my entire inability toexplain away the texts which spoke with scorn of worldly wisdom, philosophy, and learning, on the one hand; and the obvious certainty, on the other, that no historical evidence for miracle was possibleexcept by the aid of learning; I for the time abandoned this side ofChristian Evidence, --not as invalid, but as too unwieldy a weaponfor use, --and looked to direct moral evidence alone. And now rose thequestion, How could such moral evidence become appreciable to heathensand Mohammedans?

I felt distinctly enough, that mere talk could bring no conviction, and would be interpreted by the actions and character of the speaker. While nations called Christian are only known to heathens as greatconquerors, powerful avengers, sharp traders, --often lax in morals, and apparently without religion, --the fine theories of a Christianteacher would be as vain to convert a Mohammedan or Hindoo toChristianity, to the soundness of Seneca's moral treatises to convertme to Roman Paganism. Christendom has to earn a new reputation beforeChristian precepts will be thought to stand in any essential or closerelation with the mystical doctrines of Christianity. I could seeno other way to this, but by an entire church being formed of newelements on a heathen soil:--a church, in which by no means allshould be preachers, but all should be willing to do for all whateveroccasion required. Such a church had I read of among the Moravians inGreenland and in South Africa. I imagined a little colony, so animatedby primitive faith, love, and disinterestedness, that the collectivemoral influence of all might interpret and enforce the words of thefew who preached. Only in this way did it appear to me that preachingto the heathen could be attended with success. In fact, whateversuccess had been attained, seemed to come only after many years, whenthe natives had gained experience in the characters of the Christianfamily around them. 

When I had returned to Oxford, I induced the Irish clergyman to visitthe University, and introduced him to many of my equals in age, andjuniors. Most striking was it to see how instantaneously he assumedthe place of universal father-confessor, as if he had been a knownand long-trusted friend. His insight into character, and tendernesspervading his austerity, so opened young men's hearts, that day afterday there was no end of secret closetings with him. I began to see theprospect of so considerable a movement of mind, as might lead many inthe same direction as myself; and _if_ it was by a collectiveChurch that Mohammedans were to be taught, the only way was foreach separately to be led to the same place by the same spiritualinfluence. As Groves was a magnet to draw me, so might I draw others. In no other way could a pure and efficient Church be formed. If wewaited, as with worldly policy, to make up a complete colony beforeleaving England, we should fail of getting the right men: we shouldpack them together by a mechanical process, instead of leaving them tobe united by vital affinities. Thus actuated, and other circumstancesconducing, in September 1830, with some Irish friends, I set out tojoin Mr. Groves at Bagdad. What I might do there, I knew not. I didnot go as a minister of religion, and I everywhere pointedly disownedthe assumption of this character, even down to the colour of my dress. But I thought I knew many ways in which I might be of service, and Iwas prepared to act recording to circumstances. 

 * * * * *

Perhaps the strain of practical life must in any case, before long, have broken the chain by which the Irish clergyman unintentionallyheld me; but all possible influence from him was now cut off byseparation. The dear companions of my travels no more aimed to guidemy thoughts, than I theirs: neither ambition nor suspicion found placein our hearts; and my mind was thus able again without disturbance todevelop its own tendencies. 

I had become distinctly aware, that the modern Churches in general byno means hold the truth as conceived of by the apostles. In thematter of the Sabbath and of the Mosaic Law, of Infant Baptism, ofEpiscopacy, of the doctrine of the Lord's return, I had successivelyfound the prevalent Protestantism to be unapostolic. Hence arose in mea conscious and continuous effort to read the New Testament with fresheyes and without bias, and so to take up the real doctrines of theheavenly and everlasting Gospel. 

In studying the narrative of John I was strongly impressed by thefact, that the glory and greatness of the Son of God is constantlyascribed to the will and pleasure of the Father. I had been accustomedto hear this explained of his _mediatorial_ greatness only, but thisnow looked to me like a make-shift, and to want the simplicity oftruth--an impression which grew deeper with closer examination. The emphatic declaration of Christ, "My Father is greater than I, "especially arrested my attention. Could I really expound this asmeaning, "My Father, the Supreme God, in greater than I am, _if youlook solely to my human nature?_" Such a truism can scarcely havedeserved such emphasis. Did the disciples need to be taught that Godwas greater than man? Surely, on the contrary, the Saviour must havemeant to say: "_Divine as I am_, yet my heavenly Father is greater thanI, _even when you take cognizance of my divine nature. _" I did notthen know, that my comment was exactly that of the most orthodoxFathers; I rather thought they were against me, but for them I did notcare much. I reverenced the doctrine of the Trinity as something vitalto the soul; but felt that to love the Fathers or the AthanasianCreed more than the Gospel of John would be a supremely miserablesuperstition. However, that Creed states that there is no inequalitybetween the Three Persons: in John it became increasingly clear to methat the divine Son is unequal to the Father. To say that "the Son ofGod" meant "Jesus as man, " was a preposterous evasion: for there isno higher title for the Second Person of the Trinity than this veryone--Son of God. Now, in the 5th chapter, when the Jews accused Jesus"of making himself equal to God, " by calling himself Son of God Jesuseven hastens to protest against the inference as a misrepresentation--beginning with: "The Son can do nothing of himself:" and proceedselaborately to ascribe all his greatness to the Father's will. Infact, the Son is emphatically "he who is sent, " and the Father is "hewho sent him:" and all would feel the deep impropriety of trying toexchange these phrases. The Son who is sent, --sent, not _after_ he washumbled to become man, but _in order to_ be so humbled, --was NOT EQUALTO, but LESS THAN, the Father who sent him. To this I found the wholeGospel of John to bear witness; and with this conviction, the truthand honour of the Athanasian Creed fell to the ground. One of its maintenets was proved false; and yet it dared to utter anathemas on allwho rejected it!

I afterwards remembered my old thought, that we must surely understand_our own words_, when we venture to speak at all about divinemysteries. Having gained boldness to gaze steadily on the topic, Iat length saw that the compiler of the Athanasian Creed did _not_understand his own words. If any one speaks of _three men_, all thathe means is, "three objects of thought, of whom each separately maybe called Man. " So also, all that could possibly be meant by _threegods_, is, "three objects of thought, of whom each separately may becalled God. " To avow the last statement, as the Creed does, and yetrepudiate Three Gods, is to object to the phrase, yet confess tothe only meaning which the phrase can convey. Thus the Creed reallyteaches polytheism, but saves orthodoxy by forbidding any one to callit by its true name. Or to put the matter otherwise: it teaches threeDivine Persons, and denies three Gods; and leaves us to guess whatelse is a Divine Person but a God, or a God but a Divine Person. Who, then, can deny that this intolerant creed is a malignant riddle?

That there is nothing in the Scripture about Trinity in Unity andUnity in Trinity I had long observed; and the total absence of suchphraseology had left on me a general persuasion that the Church hadsystematized too much. But in my study of John I was now arrested bya text, which showed me how exceedingly far from a _Tri-unity_ was theTrinity of that Gospel, --if trinity it be. Namely, in his last prayer, Jesus addresses to his Father the words: "This is life eternal, thatthey may know _Thee, the only True God_, and Jesus Christ, whom thouhast sent" I became amazed, as I considered these words more and moreattentively, and without prejudice; and I began to understand howprejudice, when embalmed with reverence, blinds the mind. Why had Inever before seen what is here so plain, that the _One God_ of Jesuswas not a Trinity, but was _the First Person_, of the ecclesiasticalTrinity?

But on a fuller search, I found this to be Paul's doctrine also: forin 1 Corinth, viii. , when discussing the subject of Polytheism, hesays that "though there be to the heathen many that are called Gods, yet to us there is but _One God_, the Father, _of_ whom are allthings; and _One Lord_, Jesus Christ, _by_ whom are all things. " Thushe defines Monotheism to consist in holding the person of the Fatherto be the One God; although this, if any, should have been the placefor a "Trinity in Unity. "

But did I proceed to deny the Divinity of the Son? By no means: Iconceived of him as in the highest and fullest sense divine, shortof being Father and not Son. I now believed that by the phrase "onlybegotten Son, " John, and indeed Christ himself, meant to teach us thatthere was an unpassable chasm between him and all creatures, in thathe had a true, though a derived divine nature; an indeed the NiceneCreed puts the contrast, he was "begotten, not made. " Thus all Divineglory dwells in the Son, but it is _because_ the Father has willedit. A year or more afterward, when I had again the means of accessto books, and consulted that very common Oxford book, "Pearson on theCreed, " (for which I had felt so great a distaste that I never beforeread it)--I found this to be the undoubted doctrine of the greatNicene and Post Nicene Fathers, who laid much emphasis on twostatements, which with the modern Church are idle and dead--viz. That"the Son was _begotten_ of his Father _before all worlds_, " and that"the Holy Spirit _proceedeth from_ the Father and the Son. " Inthe view of the old Church, the Father alone was the Fountain ofDeity, --(and _therefore_ fitly called, The One God, --and, the OnlyTrue God)--while the Deity of the other two persons was real, yetderived and subordinate. Moreover, I found in Gregory Nazianzen andothers, that to confess this derivation of the Son and Spirit and theunderivedness of the Father alone, was in their view quite essentialto save Monotheism; the _One_ God being the underived Father. 

Although in my own mind all doubt as to the doctrine of John and Paulon the main question seemed to be quite cleared away from the timethat I dwelt on their explanation of Monotheism, this in no respectagitated me, or even engaged me in any farther search. There wasnothing to force me into controversy, or make this one point oftruth unduly preponderant. I concealed none of my thoughts from mycompanions; and concerning them I will only say, that whether theydid or did not feel acquiescence, they behaved towards me with allthe affection and all the equality which I would have wished myselfto maintain, had the case been inverted. I was, however, sometimesuneasy, when the thought crossed my mind, --"What if we, like HenryMartyn, were charged with Polytheism by Mohammedans, and were forcedto defend ourselves by explaining in detail our doctrine of theTrinity? _Perhaps_ no two of us would explain it alike, and this wouldexpose Christian doctrine to contempt. " Then farther it cameacross me; How very remarkable it is, that the Jews, those strictMonotheists, never seem to have attacked the apostles for polytheism!It would have been so plausible an imputation, one that the instinctof party would so readily suggest, if there had been any externalform of doctrine to countenance it. Surely it is transparent that theApostles did not teach as Dr. Waterland. I had always felt a greatrepugnance to the argumentations concerning the _Personality_ of theHoly Spirit; no doubt from an inward sense, however dimly confessed, that they were all words without meaning. For the disputant whomaintains this dogma, tells us in the very next breath that _Person_has not in this connexion its common signification; so that he iselaborately enforcing upon us we know not what. That the Spirit of Godmeant in the New Testament _God in the heart_, had long been to me asufficient explanation: and who by logic or metaphysics will carry usbeyond this?

While we were at Aleppo, I one day got into religious discourse witha Mohammedan carpenter, which left on me a lasting impression. Amongother matters, I was peculiarly desirous of disabusing him of thecurrent notion of his people, that our gospels are spurious narrativesof late date. I found great difficulty of expression; but the manlistened to me with much attention, and I was encouraged to exertmyself. He waited patiently till I had done, and then spoke to thefollowing effect: "I will tell you, sir, how the case stands. God hasgiven to you English a great many good gifts. You make fine ships, andsharp penknives, and good cloth and cottons; and you have rich noblesand brave soldiers; and you write and print many learned books:(dictionaries and grammars:) all this is of God. But there is onething that God has withheld from you, and has revealed to us; and thatis, the knowledge of the true religion, by which one may besaved. " When he thus ignored my argument, (which was probably quiteunintelligible to him, ) and delivered his simple protest, I wassilenced, and at the same time amused. But the more I thought it over, the more instruction I saw in the case. His position towards me wasexactly that of a humble Christian towards an unbelieving philosopher;nay, that of the early Apostles or Jewish prophets towards the proud, cultivated, worldly wise and powerful heathen. This not only showedthe vanity of any argument to him, except one purely addressed tohis moral and spiritual faculties; but it also indicated to me thatIgnorance has its spiritual self-sufficiency as well as Erudition; andthat if there is a Pride of Reason, so is there a Pride of Unreason. But though this rested in my memory, it was long before I worked outall the results of that thought. 

Another matter brought me some disquiet. An Englishman of rather lowtastes who came to Aleppo at this time, called upon us; and as hewas civilly received, repeated his visit more than once. Beingunencumbered with fastidiousness, this person before long made variousrude attacks on the truth and authority of the Christian religion, and drew me on to defend it. What I had heard of the moral life of thespeaker made me feel that his was not the mind to have insight intodivine truth; and I desired to divert the argument from externaltopics, and bring it to a point in which there might be a chanceof touching his conscience. But I found this to be impossible. Hereturned actively to the assault against Christianity, and I couldnot bear to hear him vent historical falsehoods and misrepresentationsdamaging to the Christian cause, without contradicting them. He wasa half-educated man, and I easily confuted him to my own entiresatisfaction: but he was not either abashed or convinced; and atlength withdrew as one victorious. --On reflecting over this, I feltpainfully, that if a Moslem had been present and had understood allthat had been said, he would have remained in total uncertainty whichof the two disputants was in the right: for the controversy had turnedon points wholly remote from the sphere of his knowledge or thought. Yet to have declined the battle would have seemed like consciousweakness on my part. Thus the historical side of my religion, though essential to it, and though resting on valid evidence, (as Iunhesitatingly believed, ) exposed me to attacks in which I might incurvirtual defeat or disgrace, but in which, from the nature of thecase, I could never win an available victory. This was to me verydisagreeable, yet I saw not my way out of the entanglement. 

Two years after I left England, a hope was conceived that more friendsmight be induced to join us; and I returned home from Bagdad withthe commission to bring this about, if there were suitable personsdisposed for it. On my return, and while yet in quarantine on thecoast of England, I received an uncomfortable letter from a mostintimate spiritual friend, to the effect, that painful reports hadbeen every where spread abroad against my soundness in the faith. The channel by which they had come was indicated to me; but my friendexpressed a firm hope, that when I had explained myself, it would allprove to be nothing. 

Now began a time of deep and critical trial to me and to my Creed; atime hard to speak of to the public; yet without a pretty full noticeof it, the rest of the account would be quite unintelligible. 

The Tractarian movement was just commencing in 1833. My brotherwas taking a position, in which he was bound to show that he couldsacrifice private love to ecclesiastical dogma; and upon learning thatI had spoken at some small meetings of religious people, (which heinterpreted, I believe, to be an assuming of the Priest's office, )he separated himself entirely from my private friendship andacquaintance. To the public this may have some interest, as indicatingthe disturbing excitement which animated that cause: but my reason fornaming the fact here is solely to exhibit the practical positions intowhich I myself was thrown. In my brother's conduct there was not ashade of unkindness, and I have not a thought of complaining of it. Mydistress was naturally great, until I had fully ascertained from himthat I had given no personal offence. But the mischief of it wentdeeper. It practically cut me off from other members of my family, who were living in his house, and whose state of feeling towards me, through separation and my own agitations of mind, I for some timetotally mistook. 

I had, however, myself slighted relationship in comparison withChristian brotherhood;--_sectarian_ brotherhood, some may call it;--Iperhaps had none but myself to blame: but in the far more painfuloccurrences which were to succeed one another for many monthstogether, I was blameless. Each successive friend who askedexplanations of my alleged heresy, was satisfied, --or at least leftme with that impression, --after hearing me: not one who met me face toface had a word to reply to the plain Scriptures which I quoted. Yet when I was gone away, one after another was turned against me bysomebody else whom I had not yet met or did not know: for in everytheological conclave which deliberates on joint action, the mostbigoted scorns always to prevail. 

I will trust my pen to only one specimen of details. The Irishclergyman was not able to meet me. He wrote a very desultory letterof grave alarm and inquiry, stating that he had heard that I wasendeavouring to sound the divine nature by the miserable plummet ofhuman philosophy, --with much beside that I felt to be mere commonplacewhich every body might address to every body who differed from him. I however replied in the frankest, most cordial and trusting tone, assuring him that I was infinitely far from imagining that I could"by searching understand God;" on the contrary, concerning his highermysteries, I felt I knew absolutely nothing but what he revealed tome in his word; but in studying this word, I found John and Paul todeclare the Father, and not the Trinity, to be the One God. Referringhim to John xvii, 3, 1 Corinth. Viii, 5, 6, I fondly believed that oneso "subject to the word" and so resolutely renouncing man's authority_in order that_ he might serve God, would immediately see as I saw. But I assured him, in all the depth of affection, that I felt how muchfuller insight he had than I into all divine truth; and not he only, but others to whom I alluded; and that if I was in error, I onlydesired to be taught more truly; and either with him, or at his feet, to learn of God. He replied, to my amazement and distress, in a letterof much tenderness, but which was to the effect, --that if I allowedthe Spirit of God to be with him rather than with me, it was wonderfulthat I set my single judgment against the mind of the Spirit and ofthe whole Church of God; and that as for admitting into Christiancommunion one who held my doctrine, it had this absurdity, that whileI was in such a state of belief, it was my duty to anathematize _them_as idolaters. --Severe as was the shock given me by this letter, Iwrote again most lovingly, humbly, and imploringly: for I still adoredhim, and could have given him my right hand or my right eye, --anythingbut my conscience. I showed him that if it was a matter of action, I would submit; for I unfeignedly believed that he had more of theSpirit of God than I: but over my secret convictions I had no power. I was shut up to obey and believe God rather than man, and from thenature of the case, the profoundest respect for my brother's judgmentcould not in itself alter mine. As to the whole _Church_ being againstme, I did not know what that meant: I was willing to accept the NiceneCreed, and this I thought ought to be a sufficient defensive argumentagainst the Church. His answer was decisive;--he was exceedinglysurprized at my recurring to mere ecclesiastical creeds, as thoughthey could have the slightest weight; and he must insist on myacknowledging, that, in the two texts quoted, the word Father meantthe Trinity, if I desired to be in any way recognized as holding thetruth. 

The Father meant the Trinity!! For the first time I perceived, that sovehement a champion of the sufficiency of the Scripture, so staunchan opposer of Creeds and Churches, was wedded to an extra-Scripturalcreed of his own, by which he tested the spiritual state of hisbrethren. I was in despair, and like a man thunderstruck. I hadnothing more to say. Two more letters from the same hand I saw, thelatter of which was, to threaten some new acquaintances who were kindto me, (persons wholly unknown to him, ) that if they did not desistfrom sheltering me and break off intercourse, they should, as far ashis influence went, themselves everywhere be cut off from Christiancommunion and recognition. This will suffice to indicate the sort ofsocial persecution, through which, after a succession of struggles, Ifound myself separated from persons whom I had trustingly admired, and on whom I had most counted for union: with whom I fondly believedmyself bound up for eternity; of whom some were my previously intimatefriends, while for others, even on slight acquaintance, I would haveperformed menial offices and thought myself honoured; whom I stilllooked upon as the blessed and excellent of the earth, and the specialfavourites of heaven; whose company (though oftentimes they wereconsiderably my inferiors either in rank or in knowledge andcultivation) I would have chosen in preference to that of nobles; whomI loved solely because I thought them to love God, and of whom I askednothing, but that they would admit me as the meanest and most frail ofdisciples. My heart was ready to break: I wished for a woman's soul, that I might weep in floods. Oh, Dogma! Dogma! how dost them trampleunder foot love, truth, conscience, justice! Was ever a Moloch worsethan thou? Burn me at the stake; then Christ will receive me, andsaints beyond the grave will love me, though the saints here knowme not But now I am alone in the world: I can trust no one. The newacquaintances who barely tolerate me, and old friends whom reportshave not reached, (if such there be, ) may turn against me withanimosity to-morrow, as those have done from whom I could least haveimagined it. Where is union? where is the Church, which was to convertthe heathen?

This was not my only reason, yet it was soon a sufficient and at lastan overwhelming reason, against returning to the East. The pertinacityof the attacks made on me, and on all who dared to hold by me in acertain connexion, showed that I could no longer be anything but athorn in the side of my friends abroad; nay, I was unable to predicthow they themselves might change towards me. The idea of a ChristianChurch propagating Christianity while divided against itself wasridiculous. Never indeed had I had the most remote idea, that mydear friends there had been united to me by agreement in intellectualpropositions; nor could I yet believe it. I remembered a saying of thenoble-hearted Groves: "Talk of loving me while I agree with them! Giveme men that will love me when I differ from them and contradict them:those will be the men to build up a true Church. " I asked myself, --wasI then possibly different from all? With me, --and, as I had thought, with all my Spiritual friends, --intellectual dogma was not the testof spirituality. A hundred times over had I heard the Irish clergymanemphatically enunciate the contrary. Nothing was clearer in hispreaching, talking and writing, than that salvation was a presentreal experienced fact; a saving of the soul from the dominion of baserdesires, and an inward union of it in love and homage to Christ, who, as the centre of all perfection, glory, and beauty, was the revelationof God to the heart. He who was thus saved, could not help knowingthat he was reconciled, pardoned, beloved; and therefore he rejoicedin God his Saviour: indeed, to imagine joy without this personalassurance and direct knowledge, was quite preposterous. But on theother hand, the soul thus spiritually minded has a keen sense of likequalities in others. It cannot but discern when another is tenderin conscience, disinterested, forbearing, scornful of untruth andbaseness, and esteeming nothing so much as the fruits of the Spirit:accordingly, John did not hesitate to say: "_We know_ that we havepassed from death unto life, _because_ we love the brethren. " Ourdoctrine certainly had been, that the Church was the assembly of thesaved, gathered by the vital attractions of God's Spirit; that in itno one was Lord or Teacher, but one was our Teacher, even Christ: thatas long as we had no earthly bribes to tempt men to join us, there wasnot much cause to fear false brethren; for if we were heavenly minded, and these were earthly, they would soon dislike and shun us. Whyshould we need to sit in judgment and excommunicate them, except inthe case of publicly scandalous conduct?

It is true, that I fully believed certain intellectual convictionsto be essential to genuine spirituality: for instance, if I hadheard that a person unknown to me did not believe in the Atonement ofChrist, I should have inferred that he had no spiritual life. But ifthe person had come under my direct knowledge, my _theory_ was, onno account to reject him on a question of Creed, but in any case toreceive all those whom Christ had received, all on whom the Spirit ofGod had come down, just as the Church at Jerusalem did in regardto admitting the Gentiles, Acts xi. 18. Nevertheless, was not thisperhaps a theory pleasant to talk of, but too good for practice? Icould not tell; for it had never been so severely tried. I remembered, however, that when I had thought it right to be baptized as an adult, (regarding my baptism as an infant to have been a mischievous fraud, )the sole confession of faith which I made, or would endure, at a timewhen my "orthodoxy" was unimpeached, was: "I believe that Jesus Christis the Son of God:"[2] to deny which, and claim to be acknowledged aswithin the pale of the Christian Church, seemed to be an absurdity. Onthe whole, therefore, it did not appear to me that this Church-theoryhad been hollow-hearted with _me_ nor unscriptural, nor in any wayunpractical; but that _others_ were still infected with the leaven ofcreeds and formal tests, with which they reproached the old Church. 

Were there, then, no other hearts than mine, aching under miserablebigotry, and refreshed only when they tasted in others the truefruits of the Spirit, --"love, joy, peace, long-suffering, gentleness, goodness, fidelity, meekness, self-control?"--To imagine this was tosuppose myself a man supernaturally favoured, an angel upon earth. Iknew there must be thousands in this very point more true-hearted thanI: nay, such still might some be, whose names I went over with myself:but I had no heart for more experiments. When such a man as he, the only mortal to whom I had looked up as to an apostle, hadunhesitatingly, unrelentingly, and without one mark that hisconscience was not on his side, flung away all his own precepts, his own theories, his own magnificent rebukes of Formalism and humanAuthority, and had made _himself_ the slave and _me_ the victim ofthose old and ever-living tyrants, --whom henceforth could I trust? Theresolution then rose in me, to love all good men from a distance, butnever again to count on permanent friendship with any one who was nothimself cast out as a heretic. 

Nor, in fact, did the storm of distress which these events inflictedon me, subside until I willingly received the task of withstanding it, as God's trial whether I was faithful. As soon as I gained strengthto say, "O my Lord, I will bear not this only, _but more also_, [3] forthy sake, for conscience, and for truth, "--my sorrows vanished, untilthe next blow and the next inevitable pang. At last my heart had diedwithin me; the bitterness of death was past; I was satisfied to behated by the saints, and to reckon that those who had not yet turnedagainst me would not bear me much longer. --Then I conceived thebelief, that if we may not make a heaven on earth for ourselves out ofthe love of saints, it is in order that we may find a truer heaven inGod's love. 

The question about this time much vexed me, what to do about receivingthe Holy Supper of the Lord, the great emblem of brotherhood, communion, and church connexion. At one time I argued with myself, that it became an unmeaning form, when not partaken of in mutuallove; that I could never again have free intercourse of heart with anyone;--why then use the rite of communion, where there is no communion?But, on the other hand, I thought it a mode of confessing Christ, andthat permanently to disuse it, was an unfaithfulness. In the Church ofEngland I could have been easy as far as the communion formulary wasconcerned; but to the entire system I had contracted an incurablerepugnance, as worldly, hypocritical, and an evil counterfeit. Idesired, therefore, to creep into some obscure congregation, and therewait till my mind had ripened as to the right path in circumstances soperplexing. I will only briefly say, that I at last settled among somewho had previously been total strangers to me. To their good willand simple kindness I feel myself indebted: peace be to them! Thus Igained time, and repose of mind, which I greatly needed. 

From the day that I had mentally decided on total inaction as to allecclesiastical questions, I count the termination of my Second Period. My ideal of a spiritual Church had blown up in the most sudden andheartbreaking way; overpowering me with shame, when the violence ofsorrow was past. There was no change whatever in my own judgment, yeta total change of action was inevitable: that I was on the eve ofa great transition of mind I did not at all suspect. Hitherto myreverence for the authority of the whole and indivisible _Bible_ wasoverruling and complete. I never really had dared to criticize it; Idid not even exact from it self-consistency. If two passages appearedto be opposed, and I could not evade the difficulty by the doctrineof Development and Progress, I inferred that there was _some_ modeof conciliation unknown to me; and that perhaps the depth of truth indivine things could ill be stated in our imperfect language. But fromthe man who dared to interpose _a human comment_ on the Scripture, Imost rigidly demanded a clear, single, self-consistent sense. If hedid not know what he meant, why did he not hold his peace? If he didknow, why did he so speak as to puzzle us? It was for this uniformrefusal to allow of self-contradiction, that it was more than oncesadly predicted of me at Oxford that I should become "a Socinian;"yet I did not apply this logical measure to any compositions but thosewhich were avowedly "uninspired" and human. 

As to moral criticism, my mind was practically prostrate before theBible. By the end of this period I had persuaded myself that moralityso changes with the commands of God, that we can scarcely attach anyidea of _immutability_ to it. I am, moreover, ashamed to tell anyone how I spoke and acted against my own common sense under thisinfluence, and when I was thought a fool, prayed that I might think itan honour to become a fool for Christ's sake. Against no doctrine didI dare to bring moral objections, except that of "Reprobation. " ToElection, to Preventing Grace, to the Fall and Original Sin of man, to the Atonement, to Eternal Punishment, I reverently submitted myunderstanding; though as to the last, new inquiries had just at thiscrisis been opening on me. Reprobation, indeed, I always repudiatedwith great vigour, of which I shall presently speak. That was the fullamount of my original thought; and in it I preserved entire reverencefor the sacred writers. 

As to miracles, scarcely anything staggered me. I received thestrangest and the meanest prodigies of Scripture, with the sameunhesitating faith, as if I had never understood a proposition ofphysical philosophy, nor a chapter of Hume and Gibbon. 

[Footnote 1: Very unintelligent criticism of my words induces me toadd, that "the _credentials_ of Revelation, " as distinguished from"the _contents_ of Revelation, " are here intended. Whether such adistinction can be preserved is quite another question. The viewhere exhibited is essentially that of Paley, and was in my day theprevalent one at Oxford. I do not think that the present Archbishopof Canterbury will disown it, any more than Lloyd, and Burton, andHampden, --bishops and Regius Professors of Divinity. ]

[Footnote 2: Borrowed from Acts viii. 37. ]

[Footnote 3: Virgil (Ęneid vi. ) gives the Stoical side of the samethought: Tu ne cede malis, _sed contra audentior ito_. ]

CHAPTER III. 

CALVINISM ABANDONED. 

After the excitement was past, I learned many things from the eventswhich have been named. 

First, I had found that the class of Christians with whom I had beenjoined had exploded the old Creeds in favour of another of theirown, which was never given me upon authority, and yet was constantlyslipping out, in the words, _Jesus is Jehovah_. It appeared to mecertain that this would have been denounced as the Sabellian heresyby Athanasias and his contemporaries. I did not wish to run downSabellians, much less to excommunicate them, if they would give meequality; but I felt it intensely unjust when my adherence to theNicene Creed was my real offence, that I should be treated as settingup some novel wickedness against all Christendom, and slanderedby vague imputations which reached far and far beyond my power ofanswering or explaining. Mysterious aspersions were made even againstmy moral[1] character, and were alleged to me as additional reasonsfor refusing communion with me; and when I demanded a tribunal, andthat my accuser would meet me face to face, all inquiry was refused, on the plea that it was needless and undesirable. I had much reason tobelieve that a very small number of persons had constituted themselvesmy judges, and used against me all the airs of the Universal Church;the many lending themselves easily to swell the cry of heresy, whenthey have little personal acquaintance with the party attacked. Moreover, when I was being condemned as in error, I in vain askedto be told what was the truth. "I accept the Scripture: that is notenough. I accept the Nicene Creed: that is not enough. Give me thenyour formula: where, what is it?" But no! those who thought it theirduty to condemn me, disclaimed the pretensions of "making a Creed"when I asked for one. They reprobated my interpretation of Scriptureas against that of the whole Church, but would not undertake toexpound that of the Church. I felt convinced, that they could not haveagreed themselves as to what was right: all that they could agree uponwas, that I was wrong. Could I have borne to recriminate, I believedthat I could have forced one of them to condemn another; but, oh! wasdivine truth sent us for discord and for condemnation? I sickened atthe idea of a Church Tribunal, where none has any authority to judge, and yet to my extreme embarrassment I saw that no Church can safelydispense with judicial forms and other worldly apparatus for defendingthe reputation of individuals. At least, none of the national and lessspiritual institutions would have been so very unequitable towards me. 

This idea enlarged itself into another, --_that spirituality is noadequate security for sound moral discernment_. These alienatedfriends did not know they were acting unjustly, cruelly, crookedly, orthey would have hated themselves for it: they thought they weredoing God service. The fervour of their love towards him was probablygreater than mine; yet this did not make them superior to prejudice, or sharpen their logical faculties to see that they were idolizingwords to which they attached no ideas. On several occasions I haddistinctly perceived how serious alarm I gave by resolutely refusingto admit any shiftings and shufflings of language. I felt convinced, that if I would but have contradicted myself two or three times, andthen have added, "That is the mystery of it, " I could have passedas orthodox with many. I had been charged with a proud and vaindetermination to pry into divine mysteries, barely because I would notconfess to propositions the meaning of which was to me doubtful, --orsay and unsay in consecutive breaths. It was too clear, that adoctrine which muddles the understanding perverts also the power ofmoral discernment. If I had committed some flagrant sin, they wouldhave given me a fair and honourable trial; but where they could notgive me a public hearing, nor yet leave me unimpeached, without dangerof (what they called) my infecting the Church, there was nothing leftbut to hunt me out unscrupulously. 

Unscrupulously! did not this one word characterize _all_ religiouspersecution? and then my mind wandered back over the whole melancholytale of what is called Christian history. When Archbishop Cranmeroverpowered the reluctance of young Edward VI. To burn to death thepious and innocent Joan of Kent, who moreover was as mystical andillogical as heart could wish, was Cranmer not actuated by deepreligious convictions? None question his piety, yet it was an awfullywicked deed. What shall I say of Calvin, who burned Servetus? Why haveI been so slow to learn, that religion is an impulse which animatesus to execute our moral judgments, but an impulse which may be halfblind? These brethren believe that I may cause the eternal ruin ofothers: how hard then is it for them to abide faithfully by the lawsof morality and respect my rights! My rights! They are of coursetrampled down for the public good, just as a house is blown up tostop a conflagration. Such is evidently the theory of allpersecution;--which is essentially founded on _Hatred_. As Aristotlesays, "He who is angry, desires to punish somebody; but he who hates, desires the hated person not even to exist. " Hence they cannot endureto see me face to face. That I may not infect the rest, they desiremy non-existence; by fair means, if fair will succeed; if not, then byfoul. And whence comes this monstrosity into such bosoms? Weakness ofcommon sense, dread of the common understanding, an insufficient faithin common morality, are surely the disease: and evidently, nothing soexasperates this disease as consecrating religious tenets which forbidthe exercise of common sense. 

I now began to understand why it was peculiarly for unintelligibledoctrines like Transubstantiation and the Tri-unity that Christianshad committed such execrable wickednesses. Now also for the firsttime I understood what had seemed not frightful only, butpreternatural, --the sensualities and cruelties enacted as a part ofreligion in many of the old Paganisms. Religion and fanaticism are inthe embryo but one and the same; to purify and elevate them we want acultivation of the understanding, without which our moral code may beindefinitely depraved. Natural kindness and strong sense are aids andguides, which the most spiritual man cannot afford to despise. 

I became conscious that I _had_ despised "mere moral men, " as theywere called in the phraseology of my school. They were merged in thevague appellation of "the world, " with sinners of every class; and itwas habitually assumed, if not asserted, that they were necessarilyPharisaic, because they had not been born again. For some time after Ihad misgivings as to my fairness of judgment towards them, I could notdisentangle myself from great bewilderment concerning their statein the sight of God: for it was an essential part of my CalvinisticCreed, that (as one of the 39 Articles states it) the very good worksof the unregenerate "undoubtedly have the nature of sin, " as indeedthe very nature with which they were born "deserveth God's wrath anddamnation. " I began to mourn over the unlovely conduct into which Ihad been betrayed by this creed, long before I could thoroughly getrid of the creed that justified it: and a considerable time had toelapse, ere my new perceptions shaped themselves distinctly intothe propositions: "Morality is the end. Spirituality is the means:Religion is the handmaid to Morals: we must be spiritual, in orderthat we may be in the highest and truest sense moral. " Then at last Isaw, that the deficiency of "mere moral men" is, that theirmorality is apt to be too external or merely negative, and thereforeincomplete: that the man who worships a fiend for a God may be in somesense spiritual, but his spirituality will be a devilish fanaticism, having nothing in it to admire or approve: that the moral man deservesapproval or love for all the absolute good that he has attained, though there be a higher good to which he aspires not; and that thetruly and rightly spiritual is he who aims at an indefinitely highmoral excellence, of which GOD is the embodiment to his heart andsoul. If the absolute excellence of morality be denied, there isnothing for spirituality to aspire after, and nothing in God toworship. Years before I saw this as clearly as here stated; thegeneral train of thought was very wholesome, in giving me increasedkindliness of judgment towards the common world of men, who do notshow any religious development. It was pleasant to me to look onan ordinary face, and see it light up into a smile, and think withmyself: "_there_ is one heart that will judge of me by what I am, andnot by a Procrustean dogma. " Nor only so, but I saw that the saints, without the world, would make a very bad world of it; and that asballast is wanted to a ship, so the common and rather low interestsand the homely principles, rules, and ways of feeling, keep the churchfrom foundering by the intensity of her own gusts. 

Some of the above thoughts took a still more definite shape, asfollows. It is clear that A. B. And X. Y. Would have behaved towardsme more kindly, more justly, and more wisely, if they had consultedtheir excellent strong sense and amiable natures, instead of following(what they suppose to be) the commands of the word of God. They havemisinterpreted that word: true: but this very thing shows, that onemay go wrong by trusting one's power of interpreting the book, rather than trusting one's common sense to judge without the book. It startled me to find, that I had exactly alighted on the Romishobjection to Protestants, that an infallible book is useless, unlesswe have an infallible interpreter. But it was not for some time, that, after twisting the subject in all directions to avoid it, I broughtout the conclusion, that "to go against one's common sense inobedience to Scripture is a most hazardous proceeding:" for the"rule of Scripture" means to each of us nothing but his own fallibleinterpretation; and to sacrifice common sense to this, is to mutilateone side of our mind at the command of another side. In the Niceneage, the Bible was in people's hands, and the Spirit of God surelywas not withheld: yet I had read, in one of the Councils an insaneanathema was passed: "If any one call Jesus God-man, instead of Godand man, let him be accursed. " Surely want of common sense, and dreadof natural reason, will be confessed by our highest orthodoxy to havebeen the distemper of that day. 

 * * * * *

In all this I still remained theoretically convinced, that thecontents of the Scriptures, rightly interpreted, were supreme andperfect truth; indeed, I had for several years accustomed myself tospeak and think as if the Bible were our sole source of all moralknowledge: nevertheless, there were practically limits, beyond whichI did not, and could not, even attempt to blind my moral sentiment atthe dictation of the Scripture; and this had peculiarly frightened (asI afterwards found) the first friend who welcomed me from abroad. I was unable to admit the doctrine of "reprobation, " as apparentlytaught in the 9th chapter of Paul's Epistle to the Romans;--that "Godhardens in wickedness whomever He pleases, in order that He may showhis long-suffering" in putting off their condemnation to a futuredreadful day: and _especially_, that to all objectors it is asufficient confutation--"Nay, but O man, who art thou, that repliestagainst God?" I told my friend, that I worshipped in God three greatattributes, all independent, --Power, Goodness, and Wisdom: that inorder to worship Him acceptably, I must discern these _as_ realitieswith my inmost heart, and not merely take them for granted onauthority: but that the argument which was here pressed upon me was aneffort to supersede the necessity of my discerning Goodness in God:it bade me simply to _infer_ Goodness from Power, --that is to say, establish the doctrine, "Might makes Right;" according to which, Imight unawares worship a devil. Nay, nothing so much distinguishedthe spiritual truth of Judaism and Christianity from abominableheathenism, as this very discernment of God's purity, justice, mercy, truth, goodness; while the Pagan worshipped mere power, and had nodiscernment of moral excellence; but laid down the principle, that cruelty, impurity, or caprice in a God was to be treatedreverentially, and called by some more decorous name. Hence, I said, it was undermining the very foundation of Christianity itself, to require belief of the validity of Rom. Ix. 14-24, as my friendunderstood it. I acknowledged the difficulty of the passage, and ofthe whole argument. I was not prepared with an interpretation; but Irevered St. Paul too much, to believe it possible that he could meananything so obviously heathenish, as that first-sight meaning. --Myfriend looked grave and anxious; but I did not suspect how deeply Ihad shocked him, until many weeks after. 

At this very time, moreover, ground was broken in my mind on a newsubject, by opening in a gentleman's library a presentation-copy of aUnitarian treatise against the doctrine of Eternal Punishment. It wasthe first Unitarian book of which I had even seen the outside, and Ihandled it with a timid curiosity, as if by stealth, I had only timeto dip into it here and there, and I should have been ashamed topossess the book; but I carried off enough to suggest importantinquiry. The writer asserted that the Greek word [Greek: aionios], (secular, or, belonging to the ages, ) which we translate _everlastingand eternal_, is distinctly proved by the Greek translation of the OldTestament often to mean only _distant time_. Thus in Psalm lxxvi. 5, "I have considered the years of _ancient_ times:" Isaiah lxiii 11, "Heremembered the days _of old_, Moses and his people;" in which, andin many similar places, the LXX have [Greek: aionios]. One strikingpassage is Exodus xv. 18; ("Jehovah shall reign for ever and ever;")where the Greek has [Greek: ton aiona kai ex aiona kai eti], whichwould mean "for eternity and still longer, " if the strict rendering_eternity_ were enforced. At the same time a suspicion as tothe honesty of our translation presented itself in Micah v. 2, acontroversial text, often used to prove the past eternity of the Sonof God; where the translators give us, --"whose goings forth have been_from everlasting_, " though the Hebrew is the same as they elsewhererender _from days of old_. 

After I had at leisure searched through this new question, I foundthat it was impossible to make out any doctrine of a philosophicaleternity in the whole Scriptures. The true Greek word for _eternal_([Greek: aidios]) occurs twice only: once in Rom. I. 20, as appliedto the divine power, and once in Jude 6, of the fire which has beenmanifested against Sodom and Gomorrha. The last instance showed thatallowance must be made for rhetoric; and that fire is called _eternal_or _unquenchable_, when it so destroys as to leave nothing unburnt. But on the whole, the very vocabulary of the Greek and Hebrew denotedthat the idea of absolute eternity was unformed. The _hills_ arecalled everlasting (secular?), by those who supposed them to havecome into existence two or three thousand years before. --Only in twopassages of the Revelations I could not get over the belief that thewriter's energy was misplaced, if absolute eternity of torment was notintended: yet it seemed to me unsafe and wrong to found an importantdoctrine on a symbolic and confessedly obscure book of prophecy. Setting this aside, I found no proof of any _eternal_ punishment. 

As soon as the load of Scriptural authority was thus taken off fromme, I had a vivid discernment of intolerable moral difficultiesinseparable from the doctrine. First, that every sin is infinitein ill-desert and in result, _because_ it is committed against aninfinite Being. Thus the fretfulness of a child is an infinite evil!I was aghast that I could have believed it. Now that it was no longerlaid upon me as a duty to uphold the infinitude of God's retaliationon sin, I saw that it was an immorality to teach that sin was measuredby anything else than the heart and will of the agent. That a finitebeing should deserve infinite punishment, now was manifestly asincredible as that he should deserve infinite reward, --which I hadnever dreamed. --Again, I saw that the current orthodoxy made Sataneternal conqueror over Christ. In vain does the Son of God come fromheaven and take human flesh and die on the cross. In spite of him, thedevil carries off to hell the vast majority of mankind, in whom, notmisery only, but _Sin_ is triumphant for ever and ever. Thus Christnot only does not succeed in destroying the works of the devil, buteven aggravates them. --Again: what sort of _gospel_ or glad tidingshad I been holding? Without this revelation no future state at all (Ipresumed) could be known. How much better no futurity for any, thanthat a few should be eternally in bliss, and the great majority[2]kept alive for eternal sin as well as eternal misery! My gospel thenwas bad tidings, nay, the worst of tidings! In a farther progress ofthought, I asked, would it not have been better that the whole race ofman had never come into existence? Clearly! And thus God was madeout to be unwise in creating them. No _use_ in the punishment wasimaginable, without setting up Fear, instead of Love, as the rulingprinciple in the blessed. And what was the moral tendency of thedoctrine? I had never borne to dwell upon it: but I before longsuspected that it promoted malignity and selfishness, and was the realclue to the cruelties perpetrated under the name of religion. For hewho does dwell on it, must comfort himself under the prospect of hisbrethren's eternal misery, by the selfish expectation of personalblessedness. When I asked whether I had been guilty of thisselfishness, I remembered that I had often mourned, how small a partin my practical religion the future had ever borne. My heaven and myhell had been in the present, where my God was near me to smile or tofrown. It had seemed to me a great weakness in my faith, that I neverhad any vivid imaginations or strong desires of heavenly glory: yetnow I was glad to observe, that it had at least saved me from gettingso much harm from the wrong side of the doctrine of a future life. 

Before I had worked out the objections so fully as here stated, Ifreely disclosed my thoughts to the friend last named, and to hiswife, towards whom he encouraged me to exercise the fullest frankness. I confess, I said nothing about the Unitarian book; for something toldme that I had violated Evangelical decorum in opening it, and that Icould not calculate how it would affect my friend. Certainly no Romishhierarchy can so successfully exclude heretical books, as socialenactment excludes those of Unitarians from our orthodox circles. The bookseller dares not to exhibit their books on his counter: allpresume them to be pestilential: no one knows their contents or daresto inform himself. But to return. My friend's wife entered warmly intomy new views; I have now no doubt that this exceedingly distressedhim, and at length perverted his moral judgment: he himself examinedthe texts of the Old Testament, and attempted no answer to them. After I had left his neighbourhood, I wrote to him three affectionateletters, and at last got a reply--of vehement accusation. It can nowconcern no one to know, how many and deep wounds he planted in me. Iforgave; but all was too instructive to forget. 

For some years I rested in the belief that the epithet "_secular_punishment" either solely denoted punishment in a future age, or elseonly of long duration. This evades the horrible idea of eternal andtriumphant Sin, and of infinite retaliation for finite offences. But still, I found my new creed uneasy, now that I had establisheda practice (if not a right) of considering the moral proprietyof punishment. I could not so pare away the vehement words of theScripture, as really to enable me to say that I thought transgressors_deserved_ the fiery infliction. This had been easy, while I measuredtheir guilt by God's greatness; but when that idea was renounced, howwas I to think that a good-humoured voluptuary deserved to be raisedfrom the dead in order to be tormented in fire for 100 years? and whatshorter time could be called secular? Or if he was to be destroyedinstantaneously, and "secular" meant only "in a future age, " was heworth the effort of a divine miracle to bring him to life and againannihilate him? I was not willing to refuse belief to the Scripture onsuch grounds; yet I felt disquietude, that my moral sentiment and theScripture were no longer in full harmony. 

 * * * * *

In this period I first discerned the extreme difficulty that theremust essentially be, in applying to the Christian Evidences aprinciple, which, many years before, I had abstractedly received assound, though it had been a dead letter with me in practice. The Bible(it seemed) contained two sorts of truth. Concerning one sort, man isbound to judge: the other sort is necessarily beyond his ken, andis received only by information from without. The first part of thestatement cannot be denied. It would be monstrous to say that we knownothing of geography, history, or morals, except by learning them fromthe Bible. Geography, history, and other worldly sciences, lie beyondquestion. As to morals, I had been exceedingly inconsistent andwavering in my theory and in its application; but it now glared uponme, that if man had no independent power of judging, it would havebeen venial to think Barabbas more virtuous than Jesus. The hearers ofChrist or Paul could not draw their knowledge of right and wrong fromthe New Testament. They had (or needed to have) an inherent power ofdiscerning that his conduct was holy and his doctrine good. To talkabout the infirmity or depravity of the human conscience is here quiteirrelevant. The conscience of Christ's hearers may have been dimor twisted, but it was their best guide and only guide, as to thequestion, whether to regard him as a holy prophet: so likewise, asto ourselves, it is evident that we have no guide at all whetherto accept or reject the Bible, if we distrust that inward power ofjudging, (whether called common sense, conscience, or the Spirit ofGod, )--which is independent of our belief in the Bible. To disparagethe internally vouchsafed power of discerning truth without the Bibleor other authoritative system, is, to endeavour to set up a universalmoral scepticism. He who may not criticize cannot approve. --Well! Letit be admitted that we discern moral truth by a something within us, and that then, admiring the truth so glorious in the Scriptures, weare further led to receive them as the word of God, and therefore tobelieve them absolutely in respect to the matters which are beyond ourken. 

But two difficulties could no longer be dissembled: 1. How are weto draw the line of separation? For instance, would the doctrinesof Reprobation and of lasting Fiery Torture with no benefit to thesufferers, belong to the moral part, which we freely criticize; or tothe extra-moral part, as to which we passively believe? 2. What is tobe done, if in the parts which indisputably lie open to criticism wemeet with apparent error?--The second question soon became a practicalone with me: but for the reader's convenience I defer it until myFourth Period, to which it more naturally belongs: for in this ThirdPeriod I was principally exercised with controversies that do notvitally touch the _authority_ of the Scripture. Of these the mostimportant were matters contested between Unitarians and Calvinists. 

When I had found how exactly the Nicene Creed summed up all that Imyself gathered from John and Paul concerning the divine natureof Christ, I naturally referred to this creed, as expressing myconvictions, when any unpleasant inquiry arose. I had recently gainedthe acquaintance of the late excellent Dr. Olinthus Gregory, a man ofunimpeached orthodoxy; who met me by the frank avowal, that theNicene Creed was "a great mistake. " He said, that the Arian and theAthanasian difference was not very vital; and that the Scripturaltruth lay _beyond_ the Nicene doctrine, which fell short on thesame side as Arianism had done. On the contrary, I had learned of anintermediate tenet, called Semi-Arianism, which appeared to me morescriptural than the views of either Athanasius or Arius. Let mebespeak my reader's patience for a little. Arius was judged byAthanasius (I was informed) to be erroneous in two points; 1. Inteaching that the Son of God was a creature; _i. E. _ that "begotten"and "made" were two words for the same idea: 2. In teaching, that hehad an origin of existence in time; so that there was a distant periodat which he was not. Of these two Arian tenets, the Nicene Creedcondemned _the former_ only; namely, in the words, "begotten, notmade; being of one substance with the Father. " But on _the latter_question the Creed is silent. Those who accepted the Creed, and herebycondemned the great error of Arius that the Son was of differentsubstance from the Father, but nevertheless agreed with Arius inthinking that the Son had a beginning of existence, were calledSemi-Arians; and were received into communion by Athanasius, in spiteof this disagreement. To me it seemed to be a most unworthy shufflingwith words, to say that the Son _was begotten, but was neverbegotten_. The very form of our past participle is invented toindicate an event in past time. If the Athanasians alleged that thephrase does not allude to "a coming forth" completed at a definitetime, but indicates a process at no time begun and at no timecomplete, their doctrine could not be expressed by our past-perfecttense _begotten_. When they compared the derivation of the Son of Godfrom, the Father to the rays of light which ever flow from the naturalsun, and argued that if that sun had been eternal, its emanationswould be co-eternal, they showed that their true doctrine required theformula--"always being begotten, and as instantly perishing, in orderto be rebegotten perpetually. " They showed a real disbelief in ourEnglish statement "begotten, not made. " I overruled the objection, that in the Greek it was not a participle, but a verbal adjective; forit was manifest to me, that a religion which could not be proclaimedin English could not be true; and the very idea of a Creed announcingthat Christ was "_not begotten, yet begettive_, " roused in me anunspeakable loathing. Yet surely this would have been Athanasius'smost legitimate form of denying Semi-Arianism. In short, theScriptural phrase, _Son of God_, conveyed to us either a literal fact, or a metaphor. If literal, the Semi-Arians were clearly right, insaying that sonship implied a beginning of existence. If it was ametaphor, the Athanasians forfeited all right to press the literalsense in proof that the Son must be "of the same substance" as theFather. --Seeing that the Athanasians, in zeal to magnify the Son, hadso confounded their good sense, I was certainly startled to find aman of Dr. Olinthus Gregory's moral wisdom treat the Nicenists as inobvious error for not having magnified Christ _enough_. On so manyother sides, however, I met with the new and short creed, "Jesus isJehovah, " that I began to discern Sabellianism to be the prevalentview. 

A little later, I fell in with a book of an American Professor, MosesStuart of Andover, on the subject of the Trinity. Professor Stuart isa very learned man, and thinks for himself. It was a great novelty tome, to find him not only deny the orthodoxy of all the Fathers, (whichwas little more than Dr. Olinthus Gregory had done, ) but avow that_from the change in speculative philosophy_ it was simply impossiblefor any modern to hold the views prevalent in the third and fourthcenturies. Nothing (said he) WAS clearer, than that with us theessential point in Deity is, to be unoriginated, underived; hence withus, _a derived God_ is a self-contradiction, and the very sound of thephrase profane. On the other hand, it is certain that the doctrine ofAthanasius, equally as of Arius, was, that the Father is the underivedor self-existent God, but the Son is the derived subordinate God. This (argued Stuart) turned upon their belief in the doctrine ofEmanations; but as _we_ hold no such philosophical doctrine, thereligious theory founded on it is necessarily inadmissible. ProfessorStuart then develops his own creed, which appeared to me simple andundeniable Sabellianism. 

That Stuart correctly represented the Fathers was clear enough tome; but I nevertheless thought that in this respect the Fathers hadhonestly made out the doctrine of the Scripture; and I did not atall approve of setting up a battery of modern speculative philosophyagainst Scriptural doctrine. "How are we to know that the doctrine ofEmanations is false? (asked I. ) If it is legitimately elicited fromScripture, it is true. "--I refused to yield up my creed at thissummons. Nevertheless, he left a wound upon me: for I now could nothelp seeing, that we moderns use the word _God_ in a more limitedsense than any ancient nations did. Hebrews and Greeks alike said_Gods_, to mean any superhuman beings; hence _derived God_ did notsound to them absurd; but I could not deny that in good English it isabsurd. This was a very disagreeable discovery: for now, if any onewere to ask me whether I believed in the divinity of Christ, I saw itwould be dishonest to say simply, _Yes_; for the interrogator means toask, whether I hold Christ to be the eternal and underived Source oflife; yet if I said _No_, he would care nothing for my professing tohold the Nicene Creed. 

Might not then, after all, Sabellianism be the truth? No: I discernedtoo plainly what Gibbon states, that the Sabellian, if consistent, isonly a concealed Ebionite, or us we now say, a Unitarian, Socinian. Aswe cannot admit that the Father was slain on the cross, or prayed tohimself in the garden, he who will not allow the Father and the Son tobe separate persons, but only two names for one person, _must dividethe Son of God and Jesus into two persons_, and so fall back on thevery heresy of Socinus which he is struggling to escape. 

On the whole, I saw, that however people might call themselvesTrinitarians, yet if, like Stuart and all the Evangelicals in Churchand Dissent, they turn into a dead letter the _generation_ of the Sonof God, and _the procession_ of the Spirit, nothing is possible butSabellianism or Tritheism: or, indeed, Ditheism, if the Spirit'sseparate personality is not held. The modern creed is alternatelythe one or the other, as occasion requires. Sabellians would findthemselves out to be mere Unitarians, if they always remainedSabellians: but in fact, they are half their lives Ditheists. They donot _aim_ at consistency; would an upholder of the pseudo-Athanasiancreed desire it? Why, that creed teaches, that the height of orthodoxyis to contradict oneself and protest that one does not. Now, however, rose on me the question: Why do I not take the Irish clergyman at hisword, and attack him and others as idolaters and worshippers of threeGods? It was unseemly and absurd in him to try to force me intowhat he must have judged uncharitableness; but it was not the lessincumbent on me to find a reply. 

I remembered that in past years I had expressly disowned, as obviouslyunscriptural and absurd, prayers to the Holy Spirit, on the groundthat the Spirit is evidently _God in the hearts of the faithful_, andnothing else: and it did not appear to me that any but a few extremeand rather fanatical persons could be charged with making the Spirita third God or object of distinct worship. On the other hand, I couldnot deny that the Son and the Father were thus distinguished to themind. So indeed John expressly avowed--"truly our fellowship is withthe Father, and with his Son Jesus Christ. " I myself also had prayedsometimes to God and sometimes to Christ, alternately and confusedly. Now, indeed, I was better taught! now I was more logical andconsistent! I had found a triumphant answer to the charge of Ditheism, in that I believed the Son to be derived from the Father, and not tobe the Unoriginated--No doubt! yet, after all, could I seriously thinkthat morally and spiritually I was either better or worse for thisdiscovery? I could not pretend that I was. 

This showed me, that if a man of partially unsound and visionary mindmade the angel Gabriel a _fourth person_ in the Godhead, it mightcause no difference whatever in the actings of his spirit The greatquestion would be, whether he ascribed the same moral perfectionto Gabriel as to the Father. If so, to worship him would be nodegradation to the soul; even if absolute omnipotence were notattributed, nay, nor a past eternal existence. It thus became clearto me, that Polytheism _as such_ is not a moral and spiritual, but atmost only an intellectual, error; and that its practical evil consistsin worshipping beings whom we represent to our imaginations as morallyimperfect. Conversely, one who imputes to God sentiments and conductwhich in man he would call capricious or cruel, such a one, even ifhe be as monotheistic as a Mussulman, admits into his soul the wholevirus of Idolatry. 

Why then did I at all cling to the doctrine of Christ's superiornature, and not admit it among things indifferent? In obedience to theScripture, I did actually affirm, that, as for as creed is concerned, a man should be admissible into the Church on the bare confession that_Jesus was the Christ_. Still, I regarded a belief in his superhumanorigin as of first-rate importance, for many reasons, and amongothers, owing to its connexion with the doctrine of the Atonement; onwhich there is much to be said. 

 * * * * *

The doctrine which I used to read as a boy, taught that a vast sum ofpunishment was due to God for the sins of men. This vast sum was madeup of all the woes due through eternity to the whole human race, or, as some said, to the elect. Christ on the cross bore this punishmenthimself and thereby took it away: thus God is enabled to forgivewithout violating justice. --But I early encountered unanswerabledifficulty on this theory, as to the question, whether Christ hadborne the punishment of _all_ or of _some_ only. If of all, is it notunjust to inflict any of it on any? If of the elect only, what gospelhave you to preach? for then you cannot tell sinners that God hasprovided a Saviour for them; for you do not know whether those whomyou address are elect. Finding no way out of this, I abandoned thefundamental idea of _compensation in quantity_, as untenable; andrested in the vaguer notion, that God signally showed his abhorrenceof sin, by laying tremendous misery on the Saviour who was to bearaway sin. 

I have already narrated, how at Oxford I was embarrassed as to theforensic propriety of transferring punishment at all. This howeverI received as matter of authority, and rested much on the wonderfulexhibition made of the evil of sin, when _such_ a being could besubjected to preternatural suffering as a vicarious sinbearer. Tothis view, a high sense of the personal dignity of Jesus was quiteessential; and therefore I had always felt a great repugnance for Mr. Belsham, Dr. Priestley, and the Unitarians of that school, though Ihad not read a line of their writings. 

A more intimate familiarity with St. Paul and an anxious harmonizingof my very words to the Scripture, led me on into a deviation from thepopular creed, of the full importance of which I was not for sometime aware. I perceived that it is not the _agonies_ of mind or bodyendured by Christ, which in the Scriptures are said to take away sin, but his "death, " his "laying down his life, " or sometimes evenhis _resurrection_. I gradually became convinced, that when his"suffering, " or more especially his "blood, " is emphatically spokenof, nothing is meant but his _violent death_. In the Epistle to theHebrews, where the analogy of Sacrifice is so pressed, we see that thepains which Jesus bore were in order that he might "learn obedience, "but our redemption is effected by his dying as a voluntary victim: inwhich, death by bloodshed, not pain, is the cardinal point. So toothe Paschal lamb (to which, though not properly a sacrifice, the dyingChrist is compared by Paul) was not roasted alive, or otherwise put toslow torment, but was simply killed. I therefore saw that the doctrineof "vicarious agonies" was fundamentally unscriptural. 

This being fully discerned, I at last became bold to criticize thepopular tenet. What should we think of a judge, who, when a boy haddeserved a stripe which would to him have been a sharp punishment, laid the very same blow on a strong man, to whom it was a slightinfliction? Clearly this would evade, not satisfy justice. To carryout the principle, the blow might be laid as well on a giant, anelephant, or on an inanimate thing. So, to lay our punishment on theinfinite strength of Christ, who (they say) bore in six hours what itwould have taken thousands of millions of men all eternity to bear, would be a similar evasion. --I farther asked, if we were to fall inwith Pagans, who tortured their victims to death as an atonement, whatidea of God should we think them to form? and what should we reply, if they said, it gave them a wholesome view of his hatred of sin? Asecond time I shuddered at the notions which I had once imbibed as apart of religion, and then got comfort from the inference, how muchbetter men of this century are than their creed. Their creed was theproduct of ages of cruelty and credulity; and it sufficiently bearsthat stamp. 

Thus I rested in the Scriptural doctrine, that the _death_ of Christis our atonement. To say the same of the death of Paul, was obviouslyunscriptural: it was, then, essential to believe the physical natureof Christ to be different from that of Paul. If otherwise, death wasdue to Jesus as the lot of nature: how could such death have anythingto do with our salvation? On this ground the Unitarian doctrine wasutterly untenable: I could see nothing between my own view and a totalrenunciation of the _authority of the doctrines_ promulgated by Pauland John. 

Nevertheless, my own view seemed mere and more unmeaning the moreclosely it was interrogated. When I ascribed death to Christ, whatdid death mean? and what or whom did I suppose to die? Was it manthat died, or God? If man only, how was that wonderful, or how did itconcern us? Besides;--persons die, not natures: a _nature_ is only acollection of properties: if Christ was one person, all Christdied. Did, then, God die, and man remain alive! For God to becomenon-existent is an unimaginable absurdity. But is this death a merechange of state, a renunciation of earthly life? Still it remainsunclear how the parting with mere human life could be to one whopossesses divine life either an atonement or a humiliation. Was it notrather an escape from humiliation, saving only the mode of death?So severe was this difficulty, that at length I unawares dropt fromSemi-Arianism into pure Arianism, by _so_ distinguishing the Son fromthe Father, as to admit the idea that the Son of God had actuallybeen non-existent in the interval between death and resurrection:nevertheless, I more and more felt, that _to be able to define myown notions on such questions had exceedingly little to do with myspiritual state_. For me it was important and essential to know thatGod hated sin, and that God had forgiven my sin: but to know oneparticular manifestation of his hatred of sin, or the machineryby which He had enabled himself to forgive, was of very secondaryimportance. When He proclaims to me in his word, that He is forgivingto all the penitent, it is not for me to reply, that "I cannot believethat, until I hear how He manages to reconcile such conduct with hisother attributes. " Yet, I remembered, this was Bishop Beveridge'ssufficient refutation of Mohammedism, which teaches no atonement. 

 * * * * *

At the same time great progress had been made in my mind towards theoverthrow of the correlative dogma of the Fall of man and his totalcorruption. Probably for years I had been unawares anti-Calvinisticon this topic. Even at Oxford, I had held that human depravity isa _fact_, which it is absurd to argue against; a fact, attested byThucydides, Polybius, Horace, and Tacitus, almost as strongly as bySt. Paul. Yet in admitting man's total corruption, I interpreted thisof _spiritual_, not of _moral_, perversion: for that there were kindlyand amiable qualities even in the unregenerate, was quite as clear afact as any other. Hence in result I did _not_ attribute to man anygreat essential depravity, in the popular and moral sense of the word;and the doctrine amounted only to this, that "_spiritually_, manis paralyzed, until the grace of God comes freely upon him. " How toreconcile this with the condemnation, and punishment of man for beingunspiritual, I knew not. I saw, and did not dissemble, the difficulty;but received it as a mystery hereafter to be cleared up. 

But it gradually broke upon me, that when Paul said nothing strongerthan heathen moralists had said about human wickedness, it was absurdto quote his words, any more than theirs, in proof of a _Fall_, --thatis, of a permanent degeneracy induced by the first sin of the firstman: and when I studied the 5th chapter of the Romans, I found it was_death_, not _corruption_, which Adam was said to have entailed. Inshort, I could scarcely find the modern doctrine of the "Fall" anywhere in the Bible. I then remembered that Calvin, in his Institutes, complains that all the Fathers are heterodox on this point; the GreekFathers being grievously overweening in their estimate of human power;while of the Latin Fathers even Augustine is not always up to Calvin'smark of orthodoxy. This confirmed my rising conviction that the tenetis of rather recent origin. I afterwards heard, that both it and thedoctrine of compensatory misery were first systematized by ArchbishopAnselm, in the reign of our William Rufus: but I never took the painsto verify this. 

For meanwhile I had been forcibly impressed with the followingthought. Suppose a youth to have been carefully brought up at home, and every temptation kept out of his way: suppose him to have been inappearance virtuous, amiable, religious: suppose, farther, that at theage of twenty-one he goes out into the world, and falls into sin bythe first temptation:--how will a Calvinistic teacher moralize oversuch a youth? Will he not say: "Behold a proof of the essentialdepravity of human nature! See the affinity of man for sin! How fairand deceptive was this young man's virtue, while he was sheltered fromtemptation; but oh! how rotten has it proved itself!"--Undoubtedly, the Calvinist would and must so moralize. But it struck me, that if Isubstituted the name of _Adam_ for the youth, the argument provedthe primitive corruption of Adam's nature. Adam fell by the firsttemptation: what greater proof of a fallen nature have _I_ ever given?or what is it possible for any one to give?--I thus discerned thatthere was _ą priori_ impossibility of fixing on myself the imputationof _degeneracy_, without fixing the same on Adam. In short, Adamundeniably proved his primitive nature to be frail; so do we all: butas _he_ was nevertheless not primitively corrupt, why should we callourselves so? Frailty, then, is not corruption, and does not provedegeneracy. 

"Original sin" (says one of the 39 Articles) "standeth not in thefollowing of Adam, _as the Pelagians do vainly talk_, " &c. Alas, then!was I become a Pelagian? certainly I could no longer see that Adam'sfirst sin affected me more than his second or third, or so much as thesins of my immediate parents. A father who, for instance, indulgesin furious passions and exciting liquors, may (I suppose) transmitviolent passions to his son. In this sense I could not wholly rejectthe possibility of transmitted corruption; but it had nothing to dowith the theological doctrine of the "Federal Headship" of Adam. Notthat I could wholly give up this last doctrine; for I still read it inthe 5th chapter of Romans. But it was clear to me, that whatever thatmeant, I could not combine it with the idea of degeneracy, nor couldI find a proof of it in the _fact_ of prevalent wickedness. Thus Ireceived a shadowy doctrine on mere Scriptural _authority_; it had nolonger any root in my understanding or heart. 

Moreover, it was manifest to me that the Calvinistic view is based ina vain attempt to acquit God of having created a "sinful" being, whilethe broad Scriptural fact is, that he did create a being as truly"liable to sin" as any of us. If that needs no exculpation, how moredoes _our_ state need it? Does it not suffice to say, that "everycreature, because he is a creature and not God, must necessarilybe frail?" But Calvin intensely aggravates whatever there is ofdifficulty: for he supposes God to have created the most preciousthing on earth in _unstable equilibrium_, so as to tipple overirrecoverably at the first infinitesimal touch, and with it wreck forever the spiritual hopes of all Adam's posterity. Surely all natureproclaims, that if God planted any spiritual nature at all in man, itwas in _stable equilibrium_, able to right itself when deranged. 

Lastly, I saw that the Calvinistic doctrine of human degeneracyteaches, that God disowns my nature (the only nature I ever had) asnot his work, but the devil's work. He hereby tells me that he is_not_ my Creator, and he disclaims his right over me, as a fatherwho disowns a child. To teach this is to teach that I owe him noobedience, no worship, no trust: to sever the cords that bind thecreature to the Creator, and to make all religion gratuitous and vain. 

Thus Calvinism was found by me not only not to be Evangelical, butnot to be logical, in spite of its high logical pretensions, and tobe irreconcilable with any intelligent theory of religion. Of "gloomyCalvinism" I had often heard people speak with an emphasis, that annoyed me as highly unjust; for mine had not been a gloomyreligion:--far, very far from it. On the side of eternal punishment, its theory, no doubt, had been gloomy enough; but human nature has anotable art of not realizing all the articles of a creed; moreover, _this_ doctrine is equally held by Arminians. But I was conscious, that in dropping Calvinism I had lost nothing _Evangelical_: onthe contrary, the gospel which I retained was as spiritual anddeep-hearted as before, only more merciful. 

 * * * * *

Before this Third Period of my creed was completed, I made my firstacquaintance with a Unitarian. This gentleman showed much sweetnessof mind, largeness of charity, and a timid devoutness which I had notexpected in such a quarter. His mixture of credulity and incredulityseemed to me capricious, and wholly incoherent. First, as to hisincredulity, or rather, boldness of thought. Eternal punishment was anotion, which nothing could make him believe, and for which it wouldbe useless to quote Scripture to him; for the doctrine (he said)darkened the moral character of God, and produced malignity in man. That Christ had any higher nature than we all have, was a tenetessentially inadmissible; first, because it destroyed all moralbenefit from his example and sympathy, and next, because no one hasyet succeeded in even stating the doctrine of the Incarnation withoutcontradicting himself. If Christ was but one person, one mind, thenthat one mind could not be simultaneously finite and infinite, northerefore simultaneously God and man. But when I came to hear morefrom this same gentleman, I found him to avow that no Trinitariancould have a higher conception than he of the present power and gloryof Christ. He believed that the man Jesus is at the head of the wholemoral creation of God; that all power in heaven and earth is given tohim: that he will be Judge of all men, and is himself raised above alljudgment. This was to me unimaginable from his point of view. Couldhe really think Jesus to be a mere man, and yet believe him to besinless? On what did that belief rest? Two texts were quoted inproof, 1 Pet. Ii. 21, and Heb. Iv. 15. Of these, the former did notnecessarily mean anything more than that Jesus was unjustly put todeath; and the latter belonged to an Epistle, which my new friend hadalready rejected as unapostolic and not of first-rate authority, whenspeaking of the Atonement. Indeed, that the Epistle to the Hebrewsis not from the hand of Paul, had very long seemed to me an obviouscertainty, --as long as I had had any delicate feeling of Greek style. 

That a human child, born with the nature of other children, and havingto learn wisdom and win virtue through the same process, should growup sinless, appeared to me an event so paradoxical, as to need themost amply decisive proof. Yet what kind of proof was possible?Neither Apollos, (if he was the author of the Epistle to the Hebrew, )nor yet Peter, had any power of _attesting_ the sinlessness of Jesus, as a fact known to themselves personally: they could only learn it bysome preternatural communication, to which, nevertheless, the passagesbefore us implied no pretension whatever. To me it appeared anaxiom, [3] that if Jesus was in physical origin a mere man, he was, like myself, a sinful man, and therefore certainly not my Judge, certainly not an omniscient reader of all hearts; nor on any accountto be bowed down to as Lord. To exercise hope, faith, trust inhim, seemed then an impiety. I did not mean to impute impiety toUnitarians; still I distinctly believed that English Unitarianismcould never afford me a half hour's resting-place. 

Nevertheless, from contact with this excellent person I learned howmuch tenderness of spirit a Unitarian may have; and it pleasantlyenlarged my charity, although I continued to feel much repugnancefor his doctrine, and was anxious and constrained in the presence ofUnitarians. From the same collision with him, I gained a fresh insightinto a part of my own mind. I had always regarded the Gospels (atleast the three first) to be to the Epistles nearly as Law to Gospel;that is, the three gospels dealt chiefly in _precept_, the epistlesin _motives_ which act on the affections. This did not appear to medishonourable to the teaching of Christ; for I supposed it to be apre-determined development. But I now discovered that there was adeeper distaste in me for the details of the human life of Christ, than I was previously conscious of--a distaste which I found out, bya reaction from the minute interest felt in such details by my newfriend. For several years more, I did not fully understand how and whythis was; viz. That _my religion had always been Pauline_. Christ wasto me the ideal of glorified human nature: but I needed some dimnessin the portrait to give play to my imagination: if drawn too sharplyhistorical, it sank into something not superhuman, and caused arevulsion of feeling. As all paintings of the miraculous used todisplease and even disgust me from a boy by the unbelief which theyinspired; so if any one dwelt on the special proofs of tenderness andlove exhibited in certain words or actions of Jesus, it was apt tocall out in me a sense, that from day to day equal kindness mightoften be met. The imbecility of preachers, who would dwell on suchwords as "Weep not, " as if nobody else ever uttered such, --had alwaysannoyed me. I felt it impossible to obtain a worthy idea of Christfrom studying any of the details reported concerning him. If Idwelt too much on these, I got a finite object; but I yearned for aninfinite one: hence my preference for John's mysterious Jesus. Thus myChrist was not the figure accurately painted in the narrative, but onekindled in my imagination by the allusions and (as it were) poetry ofthe New Testament. I did not wish for vivid historical realisation:relics I could never have valued: pilgrimages to Jerusalem had alwaysexcited in me more of scorn than of sympathy;--and I make no doubtsuch was fundamentally Paul's[4] feeling. On the contrary, it beganto appear to me (and I believe not unjustly) that the Unitarian mindrevelled peculiarly in "Christ after the flesh, " whom Paul resolvednot to know. Possibly in this circumstance will be found to lie thestrong and the weak points of the Unitarian religious character, ascontrasted with that of the Evangelical, far more truly than in thedoctrine of the Atonement. I can testify that the Atonement may bedropt out of Pauline religion without affecting its quality; so mayChrist be spiritualized into God, and identified with the Father: butI suspect that a Pauline faith could not, without much violence andconvulsion, be changed into devout admiration of a clearly drawnhistorical character; as though any full and unsurpassable embodimentof God's moral perfections could be exhibited with ink and pen. 

A reviewer, who has since made his name known, has pointed to thepreceding remarks, as indicative of my deficiency in _imagination_ andmy tendency to _romance_. My dear friend is undoubtedly right in theformer point; I am destitute of (creative) poetical imagination: andas to the latter point, his insight into character is so great, thatI readily believe him to know me better than I know myself, Nevertheless, I think he has mistaken the nature of the precedingargument. I am, on the contrary, almost disposed to say, that thosehave a tendency to romance who can look at a picture with men flyinginto the air, or on an angel with a brass trumpet, and dead men risingout of their graves with good stout muscles, and _not_ feel that thepicture suggests unbelief. Nor do I confess to romance in my desireof something _more_ than historical and daily human nature in thecharacter of Jesus; for all Christendom, between the dates A. D. 100to A. D. 1850, with the exception of small eccentric coteries, has heldJesus to be essentially superhuman. Paul and John so taught concerninghim. To believe their doctrine (I agree with my friend) is, in somesense, a weakness of understanding; but it is a weakness to whichminds of every class have been for ages liable. 

 * * * * *

Such had been the progress of my mind, towards the end of what I willcall my Third Period. In it the authority of the Scriptures as tosome details (which at length became highly important) had begun to bequestioned; of which I shall proceed to speak: but hitherto thiswas quite secondary to the momentous revolution which lay Calvinismprostrate in my mind, which opened my heart to Unitarians, and, I maysay, to unbelievers; which enlarged all my sympathies, and soon set meto practise free moral thought, at least as a necessity, if not asa duty. Yet I held fast an unabated reverence for the moral andspiritual teaching of the New Testament, and had not the most remoteconception that anything could ever shatter my belief in its greatmiracles. In fact, during this period, I many times yearned to proceedto India, whither my friend Groves had transferred his labours and hishopes; but I was thwarted by several causes, and was again and againdamped by the fear of bigotry from new quarters. Otherwise, I thoughtI could succeed in merging as needless many controversies. In allthe workings of any mind about Tri-unity, Incarnation, Atonement, theFall, Resurrection, Immortality, Eternal Punishment, how little hadany of these to do with the inward exercises of my soul towards God!He was still the same, immutably glorious: not one feature of hiscountenance had altered to my gaze, or could alter. This surely wasthe God whom Christ came to reveal, and bring us into fellowship with:this is that, about which Christians ought to have no controversy, butwhich they should unitedly, concordantly, themselves enjoy and exhibitto the heathen. But oh, Christendom! what dost thou believe and teach?The heathen cry out to thee, --Physician, heal thyself. 

[Footnote 1: I afterwards learned that some of those gentlemenesteemed boldness of thought "a lust of the mind, " and as such, animmorality. This enables them to persuade themselves that they do notreject a "heretic" for a matter of _opinion_, but for that which theyhave a right to call "_immoral_". What immorality was imputed to me, Iwas not distinctly informed. ]

[Footnote 2: I really thought it needless to quote proof that but_few_ will be saved, Matth. Vii. 14. I know there is a class ofChristians who believe in Universal salvation, and there are otherswho disbelieve eternal torment. They must not be angry with me forrefuting the doctrine of other Christians, which they hold to befalse. ]

[Footnote 3: In this (second) edition, I have added an entire chapterexpressly on the subject. ]

[Footnote 4: The same may probably be said of all the apostles, andtheir whole generation. If they had looked on the life of Jesus withthe same tender and human affection as modern Unitarians and piousRomanists do, the church would have swarmed with _holy coats_ andother relics in the very first age. The mother of Jesus and herlittle establishment would at once have swelled into importance. Thiscertainly was not the case; which may make it doubtful whether theother apostles dwelt at all more on the _human personality_, of Jesusthan Paul did. Strikingly different as James is from Paul, he is inthis respect perfectly agreed with him. ]

CHAPTER IV. 

THE RELIGION OF THE LETTER RENOUNCED. 

It has been stated that I had already begun to discern that it wasimpossible with perfect honesty to defend every tittle contained inthe Bible. Most of the points which give moral offence in the book ofGenesis I had been used to explain away by the doctrine of Progress;yet every now and then it became hard to deny that God is representedas giving an actual _sanction_ to that which we now call sinful. Indeed, up and down the Scriptures very numerous texts are scattered, which are notorious difficulties with commentators. These I hadhabitually _overruled_ one by one: but again of late, since I had beenforced to act and talk less and think more, they began to encompassme. But I was for a while too full of other inquiries to follow upcoherently any of my doubts or perceptions, until my mind became atlength nailed down to the definite study of one well-known passage. 

This passage may be judged of extremely secondary importance initself, yet by its remoteness from all properly spiritual and profoundquestions, it seemed to afford to me the safest of arguments. The_genealogy_ with which the gospel of Matthew opens, I had long knownto be a stumbling-block to divines, and I had never been satisfiedwith their explanations. On reading it afresh, after longintermission, and comparing it for myself with the Old Testament, Iwas struck with observing that the corruption of the two names Ahaziahand Uzziah into the same sound (Oziah) has been the cause ofmerging four generations into one; as the similarity of Jehoiakim toJehoiachin also led to blending them both in the name Jeconiah. Inconsequence, there ought to be 18 generations where Matthew has givenas only 14: yet we cannot call this on error of a transcriber; for itis distinctly remarked, that the genealogy consists of 14 three timesrepeated. Thus there were but 14 names inserted by Matthew: yet itought to have been 18: and he was under manifest mistake. This surelybelongs to a class of knowledge, of which man has cognizance: it wouldnot be piety, but grovelling superstition, to avow before God that Idistrust my powers of counting, and, in obedience to the written word, I believe that 18 is 14 and 14 is 18. Thus it is impossible to deny, that there is cognizable error in the first chapter of Matthew. Consequently, that gospel is not all dictated by the Spirit of God, and (unless we can get rid of the first chapter as no part of theBible) the doctrine of the verbal infallibility of the whole Bible, orindeed of the New Testament, is demonstrably false. 

After I had turned the matter over often, and had become accustomedto the thought, this single instance at length had great force to giveboldness to my mind within a very narrow range. I asked whether, if the chapter were now proved to be spurious, that would save theinfallibility of the Bible. The reply was: not of the Bible as it is;but only of the Bible when cleared of that _and of all other_ spuriousadditions. If by independent methods, such as an examination ofmanuscripts, the spuriousness of the chapter could now be shown, _thiswould verify the faculty of criticism_ which has already objected toits contents: thus it would justly urge us to apply similar criticismto other passages. 

I farther remembered, and now brought together under a single point ofview, other undeniable mistakes. The genealogy of the nominal fatherof Jesus in Luke is inconsistent with that in Matthew, in spite of theflagrant dishonesty with which divines seek to deny this; and neitherevangelist gives the genealogy of Mary, which alone is wanted. --InActs vii. 16, the land which _Jacob_ bought of the children ofHamor, [1] is confounded with that which _Abraham_ bought of Ephron theHittite. In Acts v. 36, 37, Gamaliel is made to say that Theudas wasearlier in time than Judas of Galilee. Yet in fact, Judas of Galileepreceded Theudas; and the revolt of Theudas had not yet taken placewhen Gamaliel spoke, so the error is not Gamaliel's, but Luke's. Ofboth the insurgents we have a dear and unimpeached historical accountin Josephus. --The slaughter of the infants by Herod, if true, must, Ithought, needs have been recorded by the same historian, --So again, inregard to the allusion made by Jesus to Zacharias, son of Barachias, as _last of the martyrs_, it was difficult for me to shake off thesuspicion, that a gross error had been committed, and that the personintended is the "Zacharias son of Baruchus, " who, as we know fromJosephus, was martyred _within the courts of the temple_ during thesiege of Jerusalem by Titus, about 40 years after the crucifixion. Thewell-known prophet Zechariah was indeed son of Berechiah; but he wasnot last of the martyrs, [2] if indeed he was martyred at all. On thewhole, the persuasion stuck to me, that words had been put intothe mouth of Jesus, which he could not possibly have used. --Theimpossibility of settling the names of the twelve apostles struck meas a notable fact. --I farther remembered the numerous difficulties ofharmonizing the four gospels; how, when a boy at school, I had triedto incorporate all four into one history, and the dismay with whichI had found the insoluble character of the problem, --the endlessdiscrepancies and perpetual uncertainties. These now began to seem tome inherent in the materials, and not to be ascribable to our want ofintelligence. 

I had also discerned in the opening of Genesis things which couldnot be literally received. The geography of the rivers in Paradise isinexplicable, though it assumes the tone of explanation. The curseon the serpent, who is to go on his belly--(how else did he gobefore?)--and eat dust, is a capricious punishment on a race ofbrutes, one of whom the Devil chose to use as his instrument. Thatthe painfulness of childbirth is caused, not by Eve's sin, but byartificial habits and a weakened nervous system, seems to be provedby the twofold fact, that savage women and wild animals suffer butlittle, and tame cattle often suffer as much as human females. --Aboutthis time also, I had perceived (what I afterwards learned the Germansto have more fully investigated) that the two different accounts ofthe Creation are distinguished by the appellations given to the divineCreator. I did not see how to resist the inference that the bookis made up of heterogeneous documents, and was not put forth by thedirect dictation of the Spirit to Moses. 

A new stimulus was after this given to my mind by two shortconversations with the late excellent Dr. Arnold at Rugby. I hadbecome aware of the difficulties encountered by physiologists inbelieving the whole human race to have proceeded in about 6000 yearsfrom a single Adam and Eve; and that the longevity (notmiraculous, but ordinary) attributed to the patriarchs was anotherstumbling-block. The geological difficulties of the Mosaic cosmogonywere also at that time exciting attention. It was a novelty to me, that Arnold treated these questions as matters of indifference toreligion; and did not hesitate to say, that the account of Noah'sdeluge was evidently mythical, and the history of Joseph "a beautifulpoem. " I was staggered at this. If all were not descended from Adam, what became of St. Paul's parallel between the first and second Adam, and the doctrine of Headship and Atonement founded on it? If the worldwas not made in six days, how could we defend the Fourth Commandmentas true, though said to have been written in stone by the very fingerof God? If Noah's deluge was a legend, we should at least have toadmit that Peter did not know this: what too would be said of Christ'sallusion to it? I was unable to admit Dr. Arnold's views; but to see avigorous mind, deeply imbued with Christian devoutness, so convinced, both reassured me that I need not fear moral mischiefs from freeinquiry, and indeed laid that inquiry upon me as a duty. 

Here, however, was a new point started. Does the question of thederivation of the human race from two parents belong to thingscognizable by the human intellect, or to things about which we mustlearn submissively? Plainly to the former. It would be monstrous todeny that such inquiries legitimately belong to physiology, or toproscribe a free study of this science. If so, there was an _ąpriori_ possibility, that what is in the strictest sense called"religious doctrine" might come into direct collision, not merely withmy ill-trained conscience, but with legitimate science; and that thiswould call on me to ask: "Which of the two certainties is stronger?that the religious parts of the Scripture are infallible, or that thescience is trustworthy?" and I then first saw, that while science had(within however limited a range of thought) demonstration or severeverifications, it was impossible to pretend to anything so cogent infavour of the infallibility of any or some part of the Scriptures;a doctrine which I was accustomed to believe, and felt to be alegitimate presumption; yet one of which it grew harder and harderto assign any proof, the more closely I analyzed it. Nevertheless, Istill held it fast, and resolved not to let it go until I was forced. 

A fresh strain fell on the Scriptural infallibility, in contemplatingthe origin of Death. Geologists assured us, that death went on inthe animal creation many ages before the existence of man. The rocksformed of the shells of animals testify that death is a phenomenonthousands of thousand years old: to refer the death of animals tothe sin of Adam and Eve is evidently impossible. Yet, if not, theanalogies of the human to the brute form make it scarcely crediblethat man's body can ever have been intended for immortality. Nay, whenwe consider the conditions of birth and growth to which it is subject, the wear and tear essential to life, the new generations intended tosucceed and supplant the old, --so soon as the question is proposed asone of physiology, the reply is inevitable that death is no accidentintroduced by the perverse will of our first parents, nor any wayconnected with man's sinfulness; but is purely a result of theconditions of animal life. On the contrary, St. Paul rests mostimportant conclusions on the fact, that one man Adam by personal sinbrought death upon all his posterity. If this was a fundamental error, religious doctrine also is shaken. 

In various attempts at compromise, --such as conceding the Scripturalfallibility in human science, but maintaining its spiritualperfection, --I always found the division impracticable. At last itpressed on me, that if I admitted morals to rest on an independentbasis, it was dishonest to shut my eyes to any apparent collisions ofmorality with the Scriptures. A very notorious and decisive instanceis that of Jael. --Sisera, when beaten in battle, fled to the tent ofhis friend Heber, and was there warmly welcomed by Jael, Heber's wife. After she had refreshed him with food, and lulled him to sleep, shekilled him by driving a nail into his temples; and for this deed, (which now-a-days would be called a perfidious murder, ) the prophetessDeborah, in an inspired psalm, pronounces Jael to be "blessed abovewomen, " and glorifies her act by an elaborate description of itsatrocity. As soon as I felt that I was bound to pass a moral judgmenton this, I saw that as regards the Old Testament the battle wasalready lost. Many other things, indeed, instantly rose in full powerupon me, especially the command to Abraham to slay his son. Paul andJames agree in extolling Abraham as the pattern of faith; James andthe author of the Epistle to the Hebrews specify the sacrifice ofIsaac as a firstrate fruit of faith: yet if the voice of morality isallowed to be heard, Abraham was (in heart and intention) not lessguilty than those who sacrificed their children to Molech. 

Thus at length it appeared, that I must choose between two courses. Imust EITHER blind my moral sentiment, my powers of criticism, andmy scientific knowledge, (such as they were, ) in order to accept theScripture entire; OR I must encounter the problem, however arduous, of adjusting the relative claims of human knowledge and divinerevelation. As to the former method, to name it was to condemn it; forit would put every system of Paganism on a par with Christianity. Ifone system of religion may claim that we blind our hearts and eyes inits favour, so may another; and there is precisely the same reasonfor becoming a Hindoo in religion as a Christian. We cannot be both;therefore the principle is _demonstrably_ absurd. It is also, ofcourse, morally horrible, and opposed to countless passages of theScriptures themselves. Nor can the argument be evaded by talking ofexternal evidences; for these also are confessedly moral evidences, tobe judged of by our moral faculties. Nay, according to all Christianadvocates, they are God's test of our moral temper. To allege, therefore, that our moral faculties are not to judge, is to annihilatethe evidences for Christianity. --Thus, finally, I was lodged in threeinevitable conclusions:

1. The moral and intellectual powers of man must be acknowledged ashaving a right and duty to criticize the contents of the Scripture:

2. When so exerted, they condemn portions of the Scripture aserroneous and immoral:

3. The assumed infallibility of the _entire_ Scripture is a provedfalsity, not merely as to physiology, and other scientific matters, but also as to morals: and it remains for farther inquiry how todiscriminate the trustworthy from the untrustworthy within the limitsof the Bible itself. 

 * * * * *

When distinctly conscious, after long efforts to evade it, thatthis was and must henceforth be my position, I ruminated on the manyauguries which had been made concerning me by frightened friends. "Youwill become a Socinian, " had been said of me even at Oxford: "You willbecome an infidel, " had since been added. My present results, I wasaware, would seem a sadly triumphant confirmation to the clearsightedinstinct of orthodoxy. But the animus of such prophecies had alwaysmade me indignant, and I could not admit that there was any merit insuch clearsightedness. What! (used I to say, ) will you shrink fromtruth, lest it lead to error? If following truth must bring us toSocinianism, let us by all means become Socinians, or anything else. Surely we do not love our doctrines more than the truth, but becausethey are the truth. Are we not exhorted to "prove all things, and holdfast that which is good?"--But to my discomfort, I generally foundthat this (to me so convincing) argument for feeling no alarm, onlycaused more and more alarm, and gloomier omens concerning me. Onconsidering all this in leisurely retrospect, I began painfully todoubt, whether after all there is much love of truth even among thosewho have an undeniable strength of religious feeling. I questionedwith myself, whether love of truth is not a virtue demanding a robustmental cultivation; whether mathematical or other abstract studies maynot be practically needed for it. But no: for how then could it existin some feminine natures? how in rude and unphilosophical times? Onthe whole, I rather concluded, that there is in nearly all Englisheducation a positive repressing of a young person's truthfulness; forI could distinctly see, that in my own case there was always need ofdefying authority and public opinion, --not to speak of more serioussacrifices, --if I was to follow truth. All society seemed so tohate novelties of thought, as to prefer the chances of error in theold. --Of course! why, how could it be otherwise, while Test Articleswere maintained?

Yet surely if God is truth, none sincerely aspire to him, who dread tolose their present opinions in exchange for others truer. --I had notthen read a sentence of Coleridge, which is to this effect: "If anyone begins by loving Christianity more than the truth, he will proceedto love his Church more than Christianity, and will end by loving hisown opinions better than either. " A dim conception of this was in mymind; and I saw that the genuine love of God was essentially connectedwith loving truth as truth, and not truth as our own accustomedthought, truth as our old prejudice; and that the real saint can neverbe afraid to let God teach him one lesson more, or unteach him onemore error. Then I rejoiced to feel how right and sound had been ourprinciple, that no creed can possibly be used as the touchstoneof spirituality: for man morally excels man, as far as creeds areconcerned, not by assenting to true propositions, but by loving thembecause they are discerned to be true, and by possessing a facultyof discernment sharpened by the love of truth. Such are God's trueapostles, differing enormously in attainment and elevation, but allborn to ascend. For these to quarrel between themselves because theydo not agree in opinions, is monstrous. _Sentiment_, surely, not_opinion_, is the bond of the Spirit; and as the love of God, so thelove of truth is a high and sacred sentiment, in comparison to whichour creeds are mean. 

Well, I had been misjudged; I had been absurdly measured by othermen's creed: but might I not have similarly misjudged others, sinceI had from early youth been under similar influences? How many ofmy seniors at Oxford I had virtually despised because they were notevangelical! Had I had opportunity of testing their spirituality?or had I the faculty of so doing? Had I not really condemned them asunspiritual, barely because of their creed? On trying to reproduce thepast to my imagination, I could not condemn myself quite as sweepinglyas I wished; but my heart smote me on account of one. I had a brother, with whose name all England was resounding for praise or blame: fromhis sympathies, through pure hatred of Popery, I had long since turnedaway. What was this but to judge him by his creed? True, his wholetheory was nothing but Romanism transferred to England: but whatthen? I had studied with the deepest interest Mrs. Schimmelpenninck'saccount of the Portroyalists, and though I was aware that she exhibitsonly the bright side of her subject, yet the absolute excellencies ofher nuns and priests showed that Romanism _as such_ was not fatal tospirituality. They were persecuted: this did them good perhaps, orcertainly exhibited their brightness. So too my brother surely wasstruggling after truth, fighting for freedom to his own heart andmind, against church articles and stagnancy of thought. For this hedeserved both sympathy and love: but I, alas! had not known and seenhis excellence. But now God had taught me more largeness by bittersorrow working the peaceable fruit of righteousness; at last thenI might admire my brother. I therefore wrote to him a letter ofcontrition. Some change, either in his mind or in his view of myposition, had taken place; and I was happy to find him once more able, not only to feel fraternally, as he had always done, but to actalso fraternally. Nevertheless, to this day it is to me a painfullyunsolved mystery, how a mind can claim its freedom in order toestablish bondage. 

For the _peculiarities_ of Romanism I feel nothing, and I can pretendnothing, but contempt, hatred, disgust, or horror. But this system offalsehood, fraud, unscrupulous and unrelenting ambition, will neverbe destroyed, while Protestants keep up their insane anathemas againstopinion. These are the outworks of the Romish citadel: until they arerazed to the ground, the citadel will defy attack. If we are to blindour eyes, in order to accept an article of King Edward VI. , or anargument of St. Paul's, why not blind them so far as to accept theCouncil of Trent? If we are to pronounce that a man "withoutdoubt shall perish everlastingly, " unless he believes theself-contradictions of the pseudo-Athanasian Creed, why shouldwe shrink from a similar anathema on those who reject theself-contradictions of Transsubstantiation? If one man is cast outof God's favour for eliciting error while earnestly searching aftertruth, and another remains in favour by passively receiving the wordof a Church, of a Priest, or of an Apostle, then to search for truthis dangerous; apathy is safer; then the soul does not come directlyinto contact with God and learn of him, but has to learn from, andunconvincedly submit to, some external authority. This is the germ ofRomanism: its legitimate development makes us Pagans outright. 

 * * * * *

But in what position was I now, towards the apostles? Could Iadmit their inspiration, when I no longer thought them infallible?Undoubtedly. What could be clearer on every hypothesis, than that theywere inspired on and after the day of Pentecost, and _yet_ remainedignorant and liable to mistake about the relation of the Gentiles tothe Jews? The moderns have introduced into the idea of inspirationthat of infallibility, to which either _omniscience_ or _dictation_is essential. That there was no dictation, (said I, ) is proved bythe variety of style in the Scriptural writers; that they were notomniscient, is manifest. In truth, if human minds had not been leftto them, how could they have argued persuasively? was not the superiorsuccess of their preaching to that of Christ, perhaps due to theirsharing in the prejudices of their contemporaries? An orator is mostpersuasive, when he is lifted above his hearers on those pointsonly on which he is to reform their notions. The apostles were notomniscient: granted: but it cannot hence be inferred that they did notknow the message given them by God. Their knowledge however perfect, must yet in a human mind have coexisted with ignorance; and nothing(argued I) but a perpetual miracle could prevent ignorance from nowand then exhibiting itself in some error. But hence to infer thatthey are not inspired, and are not messengers from God, is quitegratuitous. Who indeed imagines that John or Paul understood astronomyso well as Sir William Herschel? Those who believe that the apostlesmight err in human science, need not the less revere their moral andspiritual wisdom. 

At the same time it became a matter of duty to me, if possible, to discriminate the authoritative from the unauthoritative in theScripture, or at any rate avoid to accept and propagate as truethat which is false, even if it be false only as science and not asreligion. I unawares, --more perhaps from old habit than from distinctconviction, --started from the assumption that my fixed point ofknowledge was to be found in the sensible or scientific, not in themoral. I still retained from my old Calvinistic doctrine a way ofproceeding, as if purely moral judgment were my weak side, at leastin criticizing the Scripture: so that I preferred never to appealto direct moral and spiritual considerations, except in the mostglaringly necessary cases. Thus, while I could not accept thepanegyric on Jael, and on Abraham's intended sacrifice of his son, I did not venture unceremoniously to censure the extirpation ofthe Canaanites by Joshua: of which I barely said to myself, that it"certainly needed very strong proof" of the divine command to justifyit. I still went so far in timidity as to hesitate to reject oninternal evidence the account of heroes or giants begotten byangels, who, enticed by the love of women, left heaven for earth. Thenarrative in Gen. Vi. Had long appeared to me undoubtedly to bear thissense; and to have been so understood by Jude and Peter (2 Pet. Ii. ), as, I believe, it also was by the Jews and early Fathers. I did atlength set it aside as incredible; not however from moral repugnanceto it, (for I feared to trust the soundness of my instinct, ) butbecause I had slid into a new rule of interpretation, --that _I mustnot obtrude miracles on the Scripture narrative_. The writers telltheir story without showing any consciousness that it involvesphysiological difficulties. To invent a miracle in order to defendthis, began to seem to me unwarrantable. 

It had become notorious to the public, that Geologists rejected theidea of a universal deluge as physically impossible. Whence couldthe water come, to cover the highest mountains? Two replies wereattempted: 1. The flood of Noah is not described as universal: 2. Theflood was indeed universal, but the water was added and removedby miracle. --Neither reply however seemed to me valid. First, thelanguage respecting the universality of the flood is as strong as anythat could be written: moreover it is stated that the tops of thehigh hills _were all covered_, and after the water subsides, the arksettles on the mountains of Armenia. Now in Armenia, of necessitynumerous peaks would be seen, unless the water covered them, andespecially Ararat. But a flood that covered Ararat would overspreadall the continents, and leave only a few summits above. If thenthe account in Genesis is to be received, the flood was universal. Secondly: the narrator represents the surplus water to have come fromthe clouds and perhaps from the sea, and again to drain back into thesea. Of a miraculous _creation and destruction_ of water, he evidentlydoes not dream. 

Other impossibilities came forward: the insufficient dimensions ofthe ark to take in all the creatures; the unsuitability of thesame climate to arctic and tropical animals for a full year; theimpossibility of feeding them and avoiding pestilence; and especially, the total disagreement of the modern facts of the dispersion ofanimals, with the idea that they spread anew from Armenia as theircentre. We have no right to call in a series of miracles to solvedifficulties, of which the writer was unconscious. The ark itself wasexpressly devised to economize miracle, by making a fresh creation ofanimals needless. 

Different in kind was the objection which I felt to the story, whichis told twice concerning Abraham and once concerning Isaac, of passingoff a wife as a sister. Allowing that such a thing was barely notimpossible, the improbability was so intense, as to demand thestrictest and most cogent proof: yet when we asked, Who testifies it?no proof appeared that it was Moses; or, supposing it to be he, whathis sources of knowledge were. And this led to the far wider remark, that nowhere in the book of Genesis is there a line to indicate who isthe writer, or a sentence to imply that the writer believes himself towrite by special information from God. Indeed, it is well known thatwere are numerous small phrases which denote a later hand than thatof Moses. The kings of Israel are once alluded to historically, Gen. Xxxvi. 31. 

Why then was anything improbable to be believed on the writer's word?as, for instance, the story of Babel and the confusion of tongues? Onereply only seemed possible; namely, that we believe the Old Testamentin obedience to the authority of the New: and this threw me againto consider the references to the Old Testament in the ChristianScriptures. 

 * * * * *

But here, the difficulties soon became manifestly more and moreformidable. In opening Matthew, we meet with quotations from the OldTestament applied in the most startling way. First is the prophecyabout the child Immanuel; which in Isaiah no unbiassed interpreterwould have dreamed could apply to Jesus. Next; the words of Hosea, "Out of Egypt have I called my son, " which do but record the historyof Israel, are imagined by Matthew to be prophetic of the return ofJesus from Egypt. This instance moved me much; because I thought, thatif the text were "spiritualized, " so as to make Israel mean _Jesus_, Egypt also ought to be spiritualized and mean _the world_, not retainits geographical sense, which seemed to be carnal and absurd in such aconnection: for Egypt is no more to Messiah than Syria or Greece. --Oneof the most decisive testimonies to the Old Testament which the Newcontains, is in John x. , 35, where I hardly knew how to allow myselfto characterize the reasoning. The case stands thus. The 82nd Psalmrebukes _unjust_ governors; and at length says to them: "I have said, Ye are gods, and all of you are children of the most high: but yeshall die like men, and fall like one of the princes. " In otherwords:--"though we are apt _to think_ of rulers _as if_ they weresuperhuman, yet they shall meet the lot of common men. " Well: how isthis applied in John?--Jesus has been accused of blasphemy, for sayingthat "He and his Father are one;" and in reply, he quotes the verse, "I have said, Ye are gods, " as his sufficient justification forcalling himself Son of God; for "the Scripture cannot be broken. " Idreaded to precipitate myself into shocking unbelief, if I followedout the thoughts that this suggested; and (I know not how) for a longtime yet put it off. 

The quotations from the Old Testament in St. Paul had always been amystery to me. The more I now examined them, the clearer it appearedthat they were based on untenable Rabbinical principles. Nor are thosein the Acts and in the Gospels any better. If we take free leave tocanvass them, it may appear that not one quotation in ten is sensibleand appropriate. And shall we then accept the decision of the NewTestament writers as final, concerning the value and credibility ofthe Old Testament, when it is so manifest that they most imperfectlyunderstood that book?

In fact the appeal to them proved too much. For Jude quotes the bookof Enoch as an inspired prophecy, and yet, since Archbishop Laurencehas translated it from the Ethiopian, we know that book to be a fableundeserving of regard, and undoubtedly not written by "Enoch, theseventh from Adam. " Besides, it does not appear that any peculiardivine revelation taught them that the Old Testament is perfecttruth. In point of fact, they only reproduce the ideas on that subjectcurrent in their age. So far as Paul deviates from the common Jewishview, it is in the direction of disparaging the Law as essentiallyimperfect. May it not seem that his remaining attachment to it wasstill exaggerated by old sentiment and patriotism?

I farther found that not only do the Evangelists give us no hint thatthey thought themselves divinely inspired, or that they had any otherthan human sources of knowledge, but Luke most explicitly shows thecontrary. He opens by stating to Theophilus, that since many personshave committed to writing the things handed down from eye-witnesses, it seemed good to him also to do the same, since he had "accuratelyattended to every thing from its sources ([Greek: anothen]). " He couldnot possibly have written thus, if he had been conscious of superhumanaids. How absurd then of us, to pretend that we know more than Lukeknew of his own inspiration!

In truth, the arguments of theologians to prove the inspiration(i. E. Infallibility) of Matthew, Mark, and Luke, are sometimes almostludicrous. My lamented friend, John Sterling, has thus summed upDr. Henderson's arguments about Mark. "Mark was probably inspired, _because he was an acquaintance of Peter_; and because Dr. Hendersonwould be reviled by other Dissenters, if he doubted it. "

 * * * * *

About this time, the great phenomenon of these gospels, --the castingout of devils, --pressed forcibly on my attention. I now dared tolook full into the facts, and saw that the disorders described wereperfectly similar to epilepsy, mania, catalepsy, and other knownmaladies. Nay, the deaf, the dumb, the hunchbacked, are spoken of asdevil-ridden. I farther knew that such diseases are still ascribed toevil genii in Mussulman countries: even a vicious horse is believed bythe Arabs to be _majnun_, possessed by a Jin or Genie. Devils alsoare cast out in Abyssinia to this day. Having fallen in with Farmer'streatise on the Demoniacs, I carefully studied it; and found itto prove unanswerably, that a belief in demoniacal possession is asuperstition not more respectable than that of witchcraft. But Farmerdid not at all convince me, that the three Evangelists do not sharethe vulgar error. Indeed, the instant we believe that the imaginedpossessions were only various forms of disease, we are forced to drawconclusions of the utmost moment, most damaging to the credit of thenarrators. [3]

Clearly, they are then convicted of misstating facts, under theinfluence of superstitious credulity. They represent demoniacs ashaving a supernatural acquaintance with Jesus, which, it now becomesmanifest, they cannot have had. The devils cast out of two demoniacs(or one) are said to have entered into a herd of swine. This must havebeen a credulous fiction. Indeed, the casting out of devils is so veryprominent a part of the miraculous agency ascribed to Jesus, as atfirst sight to impair our faith in his miracles altogether. 

I however took refuge in the consideration, that when Jesus wroughtone great miracle, popular credulity would inevitably magnify it intoten; hence the discovery of foolish exaggerations is no disproof of areal miraculous agency: nay, perhaps the contrary. Are they not a sortof false halo round a disc of glory, --a halo so congenial to humannature, that the absence of it might be even wielded as an objection?Moreover, John tells of no demoniacs: does not this show his freedomfrom popular excitement? Observe the great miracles narrated byJohn, --the blind man, --and Lazarus--how different in kind from thoseon demoniacs! how incapable of having been mistaken! how convincing!His statements cannot be explained away: their whole tone, moreover, is peculiar. On the contrary, the three first gospels contain muchthat (after we see the writers to be credulous) must be judgedlegendary. 

The two first chapters of Matthew abound in dreams. Dreams? Was indeedthe "immaculate conception" merely told to Joseph in a _dream_? adream which not he only was to believe, but we also, when reportedto us by a person wholly unknown, who wrote 70 or 80 years after thefact, and gives us no clue to his sources of information! Shall Ireply that he received his information by miracle? But why more thanLuke? and Luke evidently was conscious only of human information. Besides, inspiration has not saved Matthew from error about demons;and why then about Joseph's dream and its highly important contents?

In former days, I had never dared to let my thoughts dwellinquisitively on the _star_, which the wise men saw in the East, andwhich accompanied them, and pointed out the house where the youngchild was. I now thought of it, only to see that it was a legendfit for credulous ages; and that it must be rejected in common withHerod's massacre of the children, --an atrocity unknown to Josephus. How difficult it was to reconcile the flight into Egypt with thenarrative of Luke, I had known from early days: I now saw that it waswaste time to try to reconcile them. 

But perhaps I might say:--"That the writers should make errors aboutthe _infancy_ of Jesus was natural; they were distant from the time:but that will not justly impair the credit of events, to which theymay possibly have been contemporaries or even eye-witnesses. "--Howthen would this apply to the Temptation, at which certainly none ofthem were present? Is it accident, that the same three, who aboundin the demoniacs, tell also the scene of the Devil and Jesuit on apinnacle of the temple; while the same John who omits the demoniacs, omits also this singular story? It being granted that the writers areelsewhere mistaken, to criticize the tale was to reject it. 

In near connexion with this followed the discovery, that many othermiracles of the Bible are wholly deficient in that moral dignity, which is supposed to place so great a chasm between them andecclesiastical writings. Why should I look with more respect onthe napkins taken from Paul's body (Acts xix. 12), than onpocket-handkerchiefs dipped in the blood of martyrs? How could Ibelieve, on this same writer's hearsay, that "the Spirit of the Lordcaught away Philip" (viii. 39), transporting him through the air; asoriental genii are supposed to do? Or what moral dignity was there inthe curse on the barren fig-tree, --about which, moreover, we are soperplexingly told, that it was _not_ the time for figs? What was to besaid of a cure, wrought by touching the hem of Jesus' garment, whichdrew physical _virtue_ from him without his will? And how could Idistinguish the genius of the miracle of tribute-money in the fish'smouth, from those of the apocryphal gospels? What was I to sayof useless miracles, like that of Peter and Jesus walking on thewater, --or that of many saints coming out of the graves to showthemselves, or of a poetical sympathy of the elements, such as theearthquake and rending of the temple-veil when Jesus died? Altogether, I began to feel that Christian advocates commit the flagrant sophismof treating every objection as an isolated "cavil, " and overrule eachas obviously insufficient, with the same confidence as if it were theonly one. Yet, in fact, the objections collectively are verypowerful, and cannot be set aside by supercilious airs and by callingunbelievers "superficial, " any more than by harsh denunciations. 

Pursuing the same thought to the Old Testament, I discerned there alsono small sprinkling of grotesque or unmoral miracles. A dead man israised to life, when his body by accident touches the bones of Elisha:as though Elisha had been a Romish saint, and his bones a sacredrelic. Uzzah, when the ark is in danger of falling, puts out his handto save it, and is struck dead for his impiety! Was this the judgmentof the Father of mercies and God of all comfort? What was I to makeof God's anger with Abimelech (Gen. Xx. ), whose sole offence was, thehaving believed Abraham's lie? for which a miraculous barrenness wassent on all the females of Abimelech's tribe, and was bought offonly by splendid presents to the favoured deceiver. --Or was it atall credible that the lying and fraudulent Jacob should have been sospecially loved by God, more than the rude animal Esau?--Or could Iany longer overlook the gross imagination of antiquity, which madeAbraham and Jehovah dine on the same carnal food, like Tantalus withthe gods;--which fed Elijah by ravens, and set angels to bake cakesfor him? Such is a specimen of the flood of difficulties which pouredin, through the great breach which the demoniacs had made in thecredit of Biblical marvels. 

While I was in this stage of progress, I had a second time theadvantage of meeting Dr. Arnold, and had satisfaction in finding thathe rested the main strength of Christianity on the gospel of John. Thegreat similarity of the other three seemed to him enough to mark thatthey flowed from sources very similar, and that the first gospel hadno pretensions to be regarded as the actual writing of Matthew. Thisindeed had been for some time clear to me, though I now cared littleabout the author's name, when he was proved to be credulous. --Arnoldregarded John's gospel as abounding with smaller touches which markedthe eye-witness, and, altogether, to be the vivid and simple pictureof a divine reality, undeformed by credulous legend. In this view Iwas gratified to repose, in spite of a few partial misgivings, andreturned to investigations concerning the Old Testament. 

For some time back I had paid special attention to the book ofGenesis; and I had got aid in the analysis of it from a German volume. That it was based on _at least_ two different documents, technicallycalled the Elohistic and Jehovistic, soon became clear to me: andan orthodox friend who acknowledged the fact, regarded it as a highrecommendation of the book, that it was conscientiously made out ofpre-existing materials, and was not a fancy that came from the brainof Moses. My good friend's argument was not a happy one: no writtenrecord could exist of things and times which preceded the inventionof writing. After analysing this book with great minuteness, I nowproceeded to Exodus and Numbers; and was soon assured, that these hadnot, any more than Genesis, come forth from one primitive witnessof the facts. In all these books is found the striking phenomenon of_duplicate_ or even _triplicate narratives_. The creation of manis three times told. The account of the Flood is made up out of twodiscrepant originals, marked by the names Elohim and Jehovah; of whichone makes Noah take into the ark _seven_ pairs of clean, and _single_(or double?) pairs of unclean, beasts; while the other gives himtwo and two of all kinds, without distinguishing the clean. The twodocuments may indeed in this narrative be almost re-discovered bymechanical separation. The triple statement of Abraham and Isaacpassing off a wife for a sister was next in interest; and herealso the two which concern Abraham are contrasted as Jehovisticand Elohistic. A similar double account is given of the origin ofcircumcision, of the names Isaac, Israel, Bethel, Beersheba. Stillmore was I struck by the positive declaration in Exodus (vi. 3)that _God was_ NOT _known to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob by the nameJehovah_; while the book of Genesis abounds with the contrary fact. This alone convinced me beyond all dispute, that these books did notcome from one and the same hand, but are conglomerates formed out ofolder materials, unartistically and mechanically joined. 

Indeed a fuller examination showed in Exodus and Numbers a twofoldmiracle of the quails, of which the latter is so told as to indicateentire unacquaintance with the former. There is a double descriptionof the manna, a needless second appointment of Elders of thecongregation: water is twice brought out of the rock by the rod ofMoses, whose faith is perfect the first time and fails the secondtime. The name of Meribah is twice bestowed. There is a double promiseof a guardian angel, a double consecration of Aaron and his sons:indeed, I seemed to find a double or even threefold[4] copy of theDecalogue. Comprising Deuteronomy within my view, I met two utterlyincompatible accounts of Aaron's death; for Deuteronomy makes himdie _before_ reaching Meribah Kadesh, where, according to Numbers, hesinned and incurred the penalty of death (Num. Xx. 24, Deut x. 6: cfNum. Xxxiii. 31, 38). 

That there was error on a great scale in all this, was undeniable;and I began to see at least one _source_ of the error. The celebratedmiracle of "the sun standing still" has long been felt as too violenta derangement of the whole globe to be used by the most High as ameans of discomfiting an army: and I had acquiesced in the idea thatthe miracle was _ocular_ only. But in reading the passage, (Josh. X. 12-14, ) I for the first time observed that the narrative rests on theauthority of a poetical book which bears the name of Jasher. [5] He whocomposed--"Sun, stand thou still upon Gibeon; and thou, Moon, in thevalley of Ajalon!"--like other poets, called on the Sun and Moon tostand and look on Joshua's deeds; but he could not anticipate thathis words would be hardened into fact by a prosaic interpreter, andappealed to in proof of a stupendous miracle. The commentatorcould not tell what _the Moon_ had to do with it; yet he has quotedhonestly. --This presently led me to observe other marks that thenarrative has been made up, at least in part, out of old poetry. Of these the most important are in Exodus xv. And Num. Xxi. , in thelatter of which three different poetical fragments are quoted, andone of them is expressly said to be from "the book of the wars ofJehovah, " apparently a poem descriptive of the conquest of Canaan bythe Israelites. As for Exodus xv. It appeared to me (in that stage, and after so abundant proof of error, ) almost certain that Moses' songis the primitive authority, out of which the prose narrative of thepassage of the Red Sea has been worked up. Especially since, after thesong, the writer adds: v. 19. "For the horse of Pharaoh went in withhis chariots and with his horsemen into the sea, and the Lord broughtagain the waters of the sea upon them: but the children of Israel wenton dry land in the midst of the sea. " This comment scarcely couldhave been added, if the detailed account of ch. Xiv. Had been writtenpreviously. The song of Moses _implies no miracle at all_: it ismerely high poetry. A later prosaic age took the hyperbolic phrasesof v. 8 literally, and so generated the comment of v. 19, and a stilllater time expanded this into the elaborate 14th chapter. 

Other proofs crowded upon me, that cannot here be enlarged upon. Granting then (for argument) that the four first books of thePentateuch are a compilation, made long after the event, I tried for awhile to support the very arbitrary opinion, that Deuteronomy (all butits last chapter) which seemed to be a more homogeneous composition, was alone and really the production of Moses. This however needed somedefinite proof: for if tradition was not sufficient to guarantee thewhole Pentateuch, it could not guarantee to me Deuteronomy alone. Iproceeded to investigate the external history of the Pentateuch, andin so doing, came to the story, how the book of the Law was _found_in the reign of the young king Josiah, nearly at the end of the Jewishmonarchy. As I considered the narrative, my eyes were opened. Ifthe book had previously been the received sacred law, it could notpossibly have been so lost, that its contents were unknown, and thefact of its loss forgotten: it was therefore evidently _then firstcompiled_, or at least then first produced and made authoritative tothe nation. [6] And with this the general course of the history bestagrees, and all the phenomena of the books themselves. 

Many of the Scriptural facts were old to me: to the importance ofthe history of Josiah I had perhaps even become dim-sighted byfamiliarity. Why had I not long ago seen that my conclusions ought tohave been different from those of prevalent orthodoxy?--I found thatI had been cajoled by the primitive assumptions, which though notclearly _stated_, are unceremoniously _used_. Dean Graves, forinstance, always takes for granted, that, _until the contrary shall bedemonstrated_, it is to be firmly believed that the Pentateuch isfrom the pen of Moses. He proceeds to set aside, _one by one_, as notdemonstrative, the indications that it is of later origin: and whenother means fail, he says that the particular verses remarked onwere added by a later hand! I considered that if we were debatingthe antiquity of an Irish book, and in one page of it were found anallusion to the Parliamentary Union with England, we should at onceregard the whole book, _until the contrary should be proved_, as thework of this century; and not endure the reasoner, who, in orderto uphold a theory that it is five centuries old, pronounced thatsentence "evidently to be from a later hand. " Yet in this arbitraryway Dean Graves and all his coadjutors set aside, one by one, thetexts which point at the date of the Pentateuch. I was possessed withindignation. Oh sham science! Oh false-named Theology!

 O mihi tam longę maneat pars ultima vitę, Spiritus et, quantum sat erit tua dicere facta!

Yet I waited some eight years longer, lest I should on so gravea subject write anything premature. Especially I felt that it wasnecessary to learn more of what the erudition of Germany had doneon these subjects. Michaelis on the New Testament had fallen into myhands several years before, and I had found the greatest advantagefrom his learning and candour. About this time I also had begun toget more or less aid from four or five living German divines; butnone produced any strong impression on me but De Wette. The twogrand lessons which I learned from him, were, the greater recencyof Deuteronomy, and the very untrustworthy character of the book ofChronicles; with which discovery, the true origin of the Pentateuchbecomes still clearer. [7] After this, I heard of Hengstenberg as themost learned writer on the opposite side, and furnished myself withhis work in defence of the antiquity of the Pentateuch: but it onlyshowed me how hopeless a cause he had undertaken. 

 * * * * *

In this period I came to a totally new view of many parts of theBible; and not to be tedious, it will suffice here to sum up theresults. 

The first books which I looked at as doubtful, were the Apocalypse andthe Epistle to the Hebrews. From the Greek style I felt assured thatthe former was not by John, [8] nor the latter by Paul. In MichaelisI first learnt the interesting fact of Luther having vehementlyrepudiated the Apocalypse, so that he not only declared itsspuriousness in the Preface of his Bible, but solemnly charged hissuccessors not to print his translation of the Apocalypse withoutannexing this avowal:--a charge which they presently disobeyed. Suchis the habitual unfairness of ecclesiastical corporations. I wasafterwards confirmed by Neander in the belief that the Apocalypse isa false prophecy. The only chapter of it which is interpreted, --the17th, --appears to be a political speculation suggested by the civilwar of Otho, Vitellius and Vespasian; and erroneously opines thatthe eighth emperor of Rome is to be the last, and is to be one of thepreceding emperors restored, --probably Nero, who was believed to haveescaped to the kings of the East. --As for the Epistle to the Hebrews, (which I was disposed to believe Luther had well guessed to be theproduction of Apollos, ) I now saw quite a different genius in it fromthat of Paul, as more artificial and savouring of rhetorical culture. As to this, the learned Germans are probably unanimous. 

Next to these, the Song of Solomon fell away. I had been accustomed toreceive this as a sacred representation of the loves of Christ and theChurch: but after I was experimentally acquainted with the playful andextravagant genius of man's love for woman, I saw the Song of Solomonwith new eyes, and became entirely convinced that it consists offragments of love-songs, some of them rather voluptuous. 

After this, it followed that the so-called _Canon_ of the Jews couldnot guarantee to us the value of the writings. Consequently, suchbooks as Ruth and Esther, (the latter indeed not containingone religious sentiment, ) stood forth at once in their naturalinsignificance. Ecclesiastes also seemed to me a meagre and shallowproduction. Chronicles I now learned to be not credulous only, butunfair, perhaps so far as to be actually dishonest. Not one of thehistorical books of the Old Testament could approve itself to me asof any high antiquity or of any spiritual authority; and in the NewTestament I found the first three books and the Acts to contain manydoubtful and some untrue accounts, and many incredible miracles. 

Many persons, after reading thus much concerning me, will be apt tosay: "Of course then you gave up Christianity?"--Far from it. I gaveup all that was clearly untenable, and clung the firmer to all thatstill appeared sound. I had found out that the Bible was not to bemy religion, nor its perfection any tenet of mine: but what then! DidPaul go about preaching the Bible? nay, but he preached Christ. TheNew Testament did not as yet exist: to the Jews he necessarily arguedfrom the Old Testament; but that "faith in the book" was no part ofPaul's gospel, is manifest from his giving no list of sacred booksto his Gentile converts. Twice indeed in his epistles to Timothy, herecommends the Scriptures of the Old Testament; but even in the morestriking passage, (on which such exaggerated stress has been laid, )the spirit of his remark is essentially apologetic. "Despise not, oh Timothy, " (is virtually his exhortation) "the Scriptures that youlearned as a child. Although now you have the Spirit to teach you, yet that does not make the older writers useless: for "_every divinelyinspired writing is also profitable for instruction &c. _" In Paul'sreligion, respect for the Scriptures was a means, not an end. TheBible was made for man, not man for the Bible. 

Thus the question with me was: "May I still receive Christ as aSaviour from sin, a Teacher and Lord sent from heaven, and can I findan adequate account of what he came to do or teach?" And my reply was, Yes. The gospel of John alone gave an adequate account of him: theother three, though often erroneous, had clear marks of simplicity, and in so far confirmed the general belief in the supernaturalcharacter and works of Jesus. Then the conversion of Paul was apowerful argument. I had Peter's testimony to the resurrection, and tothe transfiguration. Many of the prophecies were eminently remarkable, and seemed unaccountable except as miraculous. The origin of Judaismand spread of Christianity appeared to be beyond common experience, and were perhaps fairly to be called supernatural. Broad views such asthese did not seem to be affected by the special conclusions at whichI had arrived concerning the books of the Bible. I conceived myselfto be resting under an Indian Figtree, which is supported by certaingrand stems, but also lets down to the earth many small branches, which seem to the eye to prop the tree, but in fact are supportedby it. If they were cut away, the tree would not be less strong. So neither was the tree of Christianity weakened by the loss of itsapparent props. I might still enjoy its shade, and eat of its fruits, and bless the hand that planted it. 

In the course of this period I likewise learnt how inadequateallowance I had once made for the repulsion produced by my owndogmatic tendency on the sympathies of the unevangelical. I nowoften met persons of Evangelical opinion, but could seldom have anyinterchange of religious sentiment with them, because every word theyuttered warned me that I could escape controversy only while I keptthem at a distance: moreover, if any little difference of opinion ledus into amicable argument, they uniformly reasoned by quoting texts. This was now inadmissible with me, but I could only have done mischiefby going farther than a dry disclaimer; after which indeed I saw I wasgenerally looked on as "an infidel. " No doubt the parties who so cameinto collision with me, approached me often with an earnest desireand hope to find some spiritual good in me, but withdrew disappointed, finding me either cold and defensive, or (perhaps they thought) warmand disputatious. Thus, as long as artificial tests of spiritualityare allowed to exist, their erroneousness is not easily exposed bythe mere wear and tear of life. When the collision of opinion isvery strong, two good men may meet, and only be confirmed in theirprejudices against one another: for in order that one may elicitthe spiritual sympathies of the other, a certain liberality isprerequisite. Without this, each prepares to shield himself fromattack, or even holds out weapons of offence. Thus "articles ofCommunion" are essentially articles of Disunion. --On the other hand, if all tests of opinion in a church were heartily and truly done away, then the principles of spiritual affinity and repulsion wouldact quite undisturbed. Surely therefore this was the only rightmethod?--Nevertheless, I saw the necessity of _one_ test, "Jesusis the Son of God, " and felt unpleasantly that one article tendsinfallibly to draw another after it. But I had too much, just then tothink of in other quarters, to care much about Church Systems. 

[Footnote 1: See Gen. Xxxiii. 19, and xlix. 29-32, xxiii. ]

[Footnote 2: Some say, that Zechariah, son of Jehoiada, named in theChronicles, is meant; that he is _confounded_ with the prophet, theson of Berechiah, and was _supposed_ to be the last of the martyrs, because the Chronicles are placed last in the Hebrew Bible. This is aplausible view; but it saves the Scripture only by imputing error toJesus. ]

[Footnote 3: My Eclectic Reviewer says (p. 276): "Thus because theevangelists held an erroneous _medical_ theory, Mr. Newman suffereda breach to be made in the credit of the Bible. " No; but as the nextsentence states, "because they are convicted of _misstating facts_, "under the influence of this erroneous medical theory. Even thisreviewer--candid for an orthodox critic, and not over-orthodoxeither--cannot help garbling me. ]

[Footnote 4: I have explained this in my "Hebrew Monarchy. "]

[Footnote 5: This poet celebrated also the deeds of David (2 Sam. I. 18) according to our translation: if so, he was many centuries laterthan Joshua; however, the sense of the Hebrew is little obscure. ]

[Footnote 6: I have fully discussed this in my "Hebrew Monarchy. "]

[Footnote 7: The English reader may consult Theodore Parker'stranslation of De Wette's Introduction to the Canon of Scripture. Ihave also amply exhibited the vanity of the _Chronicles_ in my "HebrewMonarchy. " De Wette has a separate treatise on the Chronicles, ]

[Footnote 8: If the date of the Apocalypse is twenty years earlierthan that of the fourth Gospel, I now feel no such difficulty in theirbeing the composition of the same writer. ]

CHAPTER V. 

FAITH AT SECOND HAND FOUND TO BE VAIN. 

I reckon my fifth period to begin from the time when I had totallyabandoned the claim of "the Canon" of Scripture, however curtailed, to be received as the object of faith, as free from error, or assomething raised above moral criticism; and looked out for some deeperfoundation for my creed than any sacred Letter. But an entirely newinquiry had begun to engage me at intervals, viz. , _the essentiallogic of these investigations. _ Ought we in any case to receive moraltruth in obedience to an apparent miracle of sense? or conversely, ought we ever to believe in sensible miracles because of theirrecommending some moral truth? I perceived that the endless janglingwhich goes on in detailed controversy, is inevitable, while thedisputants are unawares at variance with one another, or themselveswavering, as to these pervading principles of evidence. --I regard myfifth period to come to an end with the decision of this question. Nevertheless, many other important lines of inquiry were going forwardsimultaneously. 

I found in the Bible itself, --and even in the very same book, asin the Gospel of John, --great uncertainty and inconsistency on thisquestion. In one place, Jesus reproves[1] the demand of a miracle, andblesses those who believe without[2] miracles; in another, he requiresthat they will submit to his doctrine because[3] of his miracles. Now, this is intelligible, if blind external obedience is the end ofreligion, and not Truth and inward Righteousness. An ambitious andunscrupulous _Church_, that desires, by fair means or foul, to makemen bow down to her, may say, "Only believe; and all is right. The endbeing gained, --Obedience to us, --we do not care about your reasons. "But _God_ cannot speak thus to man; and to a divine teacher we shouldpeculiarly look for aid in getting clear views of the grounds offaith; because it is by a knowledge of these that we shall both berooted on the true basis, and saved from the danger of false beliefs. 

It, therefore, peculiarly vexed me to find so total a deficiency ofclear and sound instruction in the New Testament, and eminently in thegospel of John, on so vital a question. The more I considered it, the more it appeared, as if Jesus were solely anxious to have peoplebelieve in Him, without caring on what grounds they believed, althoughthat is obviously the main point. When to this was added the threat of"damnation" on those who did not believe, the case became far worse:for I felt that if such a threat were allowed to operate, I mightbecome a Mohammedan or a Roman Catholic. Could I in any caserationally assign this as a ground for believing in Christ, --"becauseI am frightened by his threats"--?

Farther thought showed me that a question of _logic_, such as I herehad before me, was peculiarly one on which the propagator of a newreligion could not be allowed to dictate; for if so, every falsesystem could establish itself. Let Hindooism dictate our logic, --letus submit to its tests of a divine revelation, and its modeof applying them, --and we may, perhaps, at once find ourselvesnecessitated to "become little children" in a Brahminical school. Might not then this very thing account for the Bible not enlighteningus on the topic? namely, since Logic, like Mathematics, belongs to thecommon intellect, --Possibly so: but still, it cannot reconcile usto _vacillations_ and _contradictions_ in the Bible on so critical apoint. 

Gradually I saw that deeper and deeper difficulties lay at bottom. IfLogic _cannot_ be matter of authoritative revelation, so long as thenature of the human mind is what it is, --if it appears, as a fact, that in the writings and speeches of the New Testament the logic isfar from lucid, --if we are to compare Logic with Mathematics and othersciences, which grew up with civilization and long time, --we cannotdoubt that the apostles imbibed the logic, like the astronomy, oftheir own day, with all its defects. Indeed, the same is otherwiseplain. Paul's reasonings are those of a Gamaliel, and often areindefensible by our logical notions. John, also (as I had beenrecently learning, ) has a wonderful similarity to Philo. This beingthe case, it becomes of deep interest to us to know, --if we are toaccept results _at second hand_ from Paul and John, --_what was thesort of evidence which convinced them?_ The moment this question isput, we see the essential defect to which we are exposed, in not beingable to cross-examine them. Paul says that "Christ appeared tohim:" elsewhere, that he has "received of the Lord" certain facts, concerning the Holy Supper: and that his Gospel was "given to him byrevelation. " If any modern made such statements to us, and on thisground demanded our credence, it would be allowable, and indeedobligatory, to ask many questions of him. What does he _mean_ bysaying that he has had a "revelation?" Did he see a sight, or hear asound? or was it an inward impression? and how does he distinguishit as divine?[4] Until these questions are fully answered, we haveno materials at all before us for deciding to accept his results:to believe him, merely because he is earnest and persuaded, would bejudged to indicate the weakness of inexperience. How then can it bepretended that we have, or can possibly get, the means of assuringourselves that the apostles held correct principles of evidence andapplied them justly, when we are not able to interrogate them?

Farther, it appears that _our_ experience of delusion forces us toenact a very severe test of supernatural revelation. No doubt, we canconceive that which is equivalent to a _new sense_ opening to us; butthen it must have verifications connecting it with the other senses. Thus, a particularly vivid sort of dream recurring with special marks, and communicating at once heavenly and earthly knowledge, of which thelatter was otherwise verified, would probably be admitted as a validsort of evidence: but so intense would be the interest and duty tohave all unravelled and probed to the bottom, that we should think itimpossible to verify the new sense too anxiously, and we should demandthe fullest particulars of the divine transaction. On the contrary, it is undeniable that all such severity of research is rebuked in theScriptures as unbelief. The deeply interesting _process_ of receivingsupernatural revelation. --a revelation, _not_ of moral principles, but of outward facts and events, supposed to be communicated in a modewholly peculiar and unknown to common men, --this process, which oughtto be laid open and analyzed under the fullest light, _if we are tobelieve the results at second hand_, is always and avowedly shroudedin impenetrable darkness. There surely is something here, whichdenotes that it is dangerous to resign ourselves to the conclusions ofthe apostles, when their logical notions are so different from ours. 

I farther inquired, what sort of miracle I could conceive, that wouldalter my opinion on a moral question. Hosea was divinely ordered to goand unite himself to an impure woman: could I possibly think that Godordered _me_ to do so, if I heard a voice in the air commandingit? Should I not rather disbelieve my hearing, than disown my moralperceptions? If not, where am I to stop? I may practise all sorts ofheathenism. A man who, in obedience to a voice in the air, kills hisinnocent wife or child, will either be called mad, and shut up forsafety, or will be hanged as a desperate fanatic: do I dare to condemnthis modern judgment of him? Would any conceivable miracle justify myslaying my wife? God forbid! It _must_ be morally right, to believemoral rather than sensible perceptions. No outward impressions on theeye or ear can be so valid an assurance to me of God's will, as myinward judgment. How amazing, then, that a Paul or a James could lookon Abraham's intention to slay his son, as indicating a praiseworthyfaith!--And yet not amazing: It does but show, that apostles in formerdays, like ourselves, scrutinized antiquity with different eyes frommodern events. If Paul had been ordered by a supernatural voice toslay Peter, he would have attributed the voice to the devil, "theprince of the power of the air, " and would have despised it. Hepraises the faith of Abraham, but he certainly would never haveimitated his conduct. Just so, the modern divines who laud Joseph'spiety towards Mary, would be very differently affected, if events andpersons were transported to the present day. 

But to return. Let it be granted that no sensible miracle couldauthorize me so to violate my moral perceptions as to slay (that is, to murder) my innocent wife. May it, nevertheless, authorize me toinvade a neighbour country, slaughter the people and possess theircities, although, without such a miracle, the deed would be deeplycriminal? It is impossible to say that here, more than in the formercase, miracles[5] can turn aside the common laws of morality. Neither, therefore, could they justify Joshua's war of extermination on theCanaanites, nor that of Samuel on the Amalekites; nor the murder ofmisbelievers by Elijah and by Josiah. If we are shocked at the ideaof God releasing Mohammed from the vulgar law of marriage, we mustas little endure relaxation in the great laws of justice and mercy. Farther, if only a _small_ immorality is concerned, shall we then saythat a miracle may justify it? Could it authorise me to plait a whipof small cords, and flog a preferment-hunter out of the pulpit? orwould it justify me in publicly calling the Queen and her ministers"a brood of vipers, who cannot escape the damnation of hell"[6] Suchquestions go very deep into the heart of the Christian claims. 

I had been accustomed to overbear objections of this sort by replying, that to allow of their being heard would amount to refusing leaveto God to give commands to his creatures. For, it seems, if he _did_command, we, instead of obeying, should discuss whether the commandwas right and reasonable; and if we thought it otherwise, shouldconclude that God never gave it. The extirpation of the Canaanitesis compared by divines to the execution of a criminal; and it isinsisted, that if the voice of society may justify the executioner, much more may the voice of God--But I now saw the analogy to beinsufficient and unsound. Insufficient, because no executioneris justified in slaying those whom his conscience tells him to beinnocent; and it is a barbarous morality alone, which pretends thathe may make himself a passive tool of slaughter. But next, the analogy_assumes_, (what none of my very dictatorial and insolent critics makeeven the faintest effort to prove to be a fact, ) that God, like man, speaks from without: that what we call Reason and Conscience is _not_his mode of commanding and revealing his will, but that wordsto strike the ear, or symbols displayed before the senses, areemphatically and exclusively "Revelation. " Besides all this, thecommand of slaughter to the Jews is not directed against the sevennations of Canaan only, as modern theologians often erroneouslyassert: it is a _universal_ permission, of avaricious massacre andsubjugation of "the cities which are very far off from thee, which are_not_ of the cities of these nations, " Deut, xx. 15. 

The thoughts which here fill but a few pages, occupied me a long whilein working out; because I consciously, with caution more thanwith timidity, declined to follow them rapidly. They came as darksuspicions or as flashing possibilities; and were again laid aside forreconsideration, lest I should be carried into antagonism to my oldcreed. For it is clear that great error arises in religion, by theundue ardour of converts, who become bitter against the faith whichthey have left, and outrun in zeal their new associates. So alsosuccessive centuries oscillate too far on the right and on the leftof truth. But so happy was my position, that I needed not to hurry: nopractical duty forced me to rapid decision, and a suspense of judgmentwas not an unwholesome exercise. Meanwhile, I sometimes thoughtChristianity to be to me, like the great river Ganges to a Hindoo. Ofits value he has daily experience: he has piously believed that itssources are in heaven, but of late the report has come to him, thatit only flows from very high mountains of this earth. What is he tobelieve? He knows not exactly: he cares not much: in any case theriver is the gift of God to him: its positive benefits cannot beaffected by a theory concerning its source. 

Such a comparison undoubtedly implies that he who uses it discerns forhimself a moral excellence in Christianity, and _submits to it onlyso far as this discernment commands_. I had practically reachedthis point, long before I concluded my theoretical inquiries as toChristianity itself: but in the course of this fifth period numerousother overpowering considerations crowded upon me which I must proceedto state in outline. 

 * * * * *

All pious Christians feel, and all the New Testament proclaims, thatFaith is a moral act and a test of the moral and spiritual that iswithin us; so that he who is without faith, (faithless, unfaithful, "infidel, ") is morally wanting and is cut off from God. To assent toa religious proposition _solely_ in obedience to an outward miracle, would be Belief; but would not be Faith, any more than is scientificconviction. Bishop Butler and all his followers can insist with muchforce on this topic, when it suits them, and can quote most aptlyfrom the New Testament to the same effect. They deduce, that a reallyoverpowering miraculous proof would have destroyed the moral characterof Faith: yet they do not see that the argument supersedes theauthoritative force of outward miracles entirely. It had alwaysappeared to me very strange in these divines, to insist on thestupendous character and convincing power of the Christian miracles, and then, in reply to the objection that they were _not_ quiteconvincing, to say that the defect was purposely left "to try people'sFaith. " Faith in what? Not surely in the confessedly ill-provedmiracle, but in the truth as discernible by the heart _without aid ofmiracle. _

I conceived of two men, Nathaniel and Demas, encountering a pretenderto miracles, a Simon Magus of the scriptures. Nathaniel is guileless, sweet-hearted and of strong moral sense, but in worldly matters rathera simpleton. Demas is a sharp man, who gets on well in the world, quick of eye and shrewd of wit, hard-headed and not to be imposed uponby his fellows; but destitute of any high religious aspirations ordeep moral insight. The juggleries of Simon are readily discerned byDemas, but thoroughly deceive poor Nathaniel: what then is the latterto do? To say that we are to receive true miracles and reject falseones, avails not, unless the mind is presumed to be capable ofdiscriminating the one from the other. The wonders of Simon are asdivine as the wonders of Jesus to a man, who, like Nathaniel, canaccount for neither by natural causes. If we enact the rule, that menare to "submit their understandings" to apparent prodigies, andthat "revelation" is a thing of the outward senses, we alight on theunendurable absurdity, that Demas has faculties better fitted thanthose of Nathaniel for discriminating religious truth and error, andthat Nathaniel, in obedience to eye and ear, which he knows to be verydeceivable organs, is to abandon his moral perceptions. 

Nor is the case altered, if instead of Simon in person, a huge thingcalled a Church is presented as a claimant of authority to Nathaniel. Suppose him to be a poor Spaniard, surrounded by false miracles, falseerudition, and all the apparatus of reigning and unopposed Romanism. He cannot cope with the priests in cleverness, --detect theirjuggleries, --refute their historical falsehoods, disentangle their webof sophistry: but if he is truehearted, he may say: "You bid me notto keep faith with heretics: you defend murder, exile, imprisonment, fines, on men who will not submit their consciences to your authority:this I see to be wicked, though you ever so much pretend that God hastaught it you. " So, also, if he be accosted by learned clergymen, who undertake to prove that Jesus wrought stupendous miracles, orby learned Moolahs who allege the same of Mohammed or of Menu, he isquite unable to deal with them on the grounds of physiology, physics, or history. --In short, nothing can be plainer, than that _the moraland spiritual sense is the only religious faculty of the poor man_;and that as Christianity in its origin was preached to the poor, soit was to the inward senses that its first preachers appealed, asthe supreme arbiters in the whole religious question. Is it not thenabsurd to say that in the act of conversion the convert is to trusthis moral perception, and is ever afterwards to distrust it?

An incident had some years before come to my knowledge, which nowseemed instructive. An educated, highly acute and thoughtful person, of very mature age, had become a convert to the Irving miracles, froman inability to distinguish them from those of the Pauline epistles;or to discern anything of falsity which would justify his rejectingthem. But after several years he totally renounced them as a miserabledelusion, _because_ he found that a system of false doctrine wasgrowing up and was propped by them. Here was a clear case of a manwith all the advantages of modern education and science, who yet foundthe direct judgment of a professed miracle, that was acted before hissenses, too arduous for him! He was led astray while he trusted hispower to judge of miracle: he was brought right by trusting to hismoral perceptions. 

When we farther consider, that a knowledge of Natural Philosophy andPhysiology not only does not belong to the poor, but comes later intime to mankind than a knowledge of morals;--that a Miracle can onlybe judged of by Philosophy, --that it is not easy even for philosophersto define what is a "miracle"--that to discern "a deviation from thecourse of nature, " implies a previous certain knowledge of what _thecourse of nature_ is, --and that illiterate and early ages certainlyhave not this knowledge, and often have hardly even the idea, --itbecomes quite a monstrosity to imagine that sensible and externalmiracles constitute the necessary process and guarantee of divinerevelation. 

Besides, if an angel appeared to my senses, and wrought miracles, howwould that assure me of his moral qualities? Such miracles might provehis power and his knowledge, but whether malignant or benign, wouldremain doubtful, until by purely moral evidence, which no miraclescould give, the doubt should be solved. [7] This is the old difficultyabout diabolical wonders. The moderns cut the knot, by denying thatany but God can possibly work real miracles. But to establish theirprinciple, they make their definition and verification of a miracleso strict, as would have amazed the apostles; and after all, thedifficulty recurs, that miraculous phenomena will never prove thegoodness and veracity of God, if we do not know these qualities in Himwithout miracle. There is then a deeper and an earlier revelation ofGod, which sensible miracles can never give. 

We cannot distinctly learn what was Paul's full idea of a divinerevelation; but I can feel no doubt that he conceived it to be, ingreat measure, an _inward_ thing. Dreams and visions were not excludedfrom influence, and nacre or less affected his moral judgment; buthe did not, consciously and on principle, beat down his conscience insubmission to outward impressions. To do so, is indeed to destroythe moral character of Faith, and lay the axe to the root, not ofChristian doctrine only, but of every possible spiritual system. 

 * * * * *

Meanwhile, new breaches were made in those citadels of my creed whichhad not yet surrendered. 

One branch of the Christian Evidences concerns itself with the_history_ and _historical effects_ of the faith, and among Protestantsthe efficacy of the Bible to enlighten and convert has been very muchpressed. The disputant, however, is apt to play "fast and loose. " Headduces the theory of Christianity when the history is unfavourable, and appeals to the history if the theory is impugned. In this way, just so much is picked out of the mass of facts as suits his argument, and the rest is quietly put aside. 

I. In the theory of my early creed, (which was that of the NewTestament, however convenient it may be for my critics to deride it asfanatical and _not_ Christian, ) cultivation of mind and eruditionwere classed with worldly things, which might be used where theypre-existed, (as riches and power may subserve higher ends, ) but whichwere quite extraneous and unessential to the spiritual kingdom ofChrist. A knowledge of the Bible was assumed to need only an honestheart and God's Spirit, while science, history, and philosophy wereregarded as doubtful and dangerous auxiliaries. But soon after thefirst reflux of my mind took place towards the Common Understanding, as a guide of life legitimately co-ordinate with Scripture, I wasimpressed with the consideration that _Free Learning_ had acted ona great scale for the improvement of spiritual religion. I had beenaccustomed to believe that _the Bible_[8] brought about the ProtestantReformation; and until my twenty-ninth year probably it had notoccurred to me to question this. But I was first struck with thethought, that the Bible did not prevent the absurd iniquities of theNicene and Post Nicene controversy, and that the Church, with theBible in her hands, sank down into the gulf of Popery. How then wasthe Bible a sufficient explanation of her recovering out of Popery?

Even a superficial survey of the history shows, that the firstimprovement of spiritual doctrine in the tenth and eleventh centuries, came from a study of the moral works of Cicero and Boethius;--a factnotorious in the common historians. The Latin moralists effected, what(strange to think!) the New Testament alone could not do. 

In the fifteenth century, when Constantinople was taken by the Turks, learned Greeks were driven out to Italy and to other parts of theWest, and the Roman Catholic world began to read the old Greekliterature. All historians agree, that the enlightenment of mindhence arising was a prime mover of religious Reformation; and learnedProtestants of Germany have even believed, that the overthrow ofPopish error and establishment of purer truth would have been broughtabout more equably and profoundly, if Luther had never lived, and thepassions of the vulgar had never been stimulated against the externalsof Romanism. 

At any rate, it gradually opened upon me, that the free cultivation ofthe _understanding_, which Latin and Greek literature had imparted toEurope and our freer public life, were chief causes of our religioussuperiority to Greek, Armenian, and Syrian Christians. As the Greeksin Constantinople under a centralized despotism retained no freeintellect, and therefore the works of their fathers did their souls nogood; so in Europe, just in proportion to the freedom of learning, has been the force of the result. In Spain and Italy the studyof miscellaneous science and independent thought were nearlyextinguished; in France and Austria they were crippled; in Protestantcountries they have been freest. And then we impute all their effectsto the Bible![9]

I at length saw how untenable is the argument drawn from the inwardhistory of Christianity in favour of its superhuman origin. In fact:this religion cannot pretend to _self-sustaining power. _ Hardly was itstarted on its course, when it began to be polluted by the heathenismand false philosophy around it. With the decline of national geniusand civil culture it became more and more debased. So far from beingable to uphold the existing morality of the best Pagan teachers, itbecame barbarized itself, and sank into deep superstition and manifoldmoral corruption. From ferocious men it learnt ferocity. When civilsociety began to coalesce into order, Christianity also turned for thebetter, and presently learned to use the wisdom, first of Romans, thenof Greeks: such studies opened men's eyes to new apprehensions of theScripture and of its doctrine. By gradual and human means, Europe, like ancient Greece, grew up towards better political institutions;and Christianity improved with them, --the Christianity of the moreeducated. Beyond Europe, where there have been no such institutions, there has been no Protestant Reformation:--that is in the Greek, Armenian, Syrian, Coptic churches. Not unreasonably then do Franksin Turkey disown the title Nazarene, as denoting _that_ Christianitywhich has not been purified by European laws and European learning. Christianity rises and sinks with political and literary influences:in so far, [10] it does not differ from other religions. 

The same applied to the origin and advance of Judaism. It beganin polytheistic and idolatrous barbarism: it cleared into a hardmonotheism, with much superstition adhering to it. This was fartherimproved by successive psalmists and prophets, until Judaismculminated. The Jewish faith was eminently grand and pure; butthere is nothing[11] in this history which we can adduce in proof ofpreternatural and miraculous agency. 

II. The facts concerning the outward spread of Christianity have alsobeen disguised by the party spirit of Christians, as though there weresomething essentially _different in kind_ as to the mode in which itbegan and continued its conquests, from the corresponding historyof other religions. But no such distinction can be made out. It isgeneral to all religions to begin by moral means, and proceed fartherby more worldly instruments. 

Christianity had a great moral superiority over Roman paganism, inits humane doctrine of universal brotherhood, its unselfishness, itsholiness; and thereby it attracted to itself (among other and basermaterials) all the purest natures and most enthusiastic temperaments. Its first conquests were noble and admirable. But there is nothing_superhuman_ or unusual in this. Mohammedism in the same way conquersthose Pagan creeds which are morally inferior to it. The Seljuk andthe Ottoman Turks were Pagans, but adopted the religion of Tartars andPersians whom they subjugated, because it was superior and was blendedwith a superior civilization; exactly as the German conquerors of theWestern Empire of Rome adopted some form of Christianity. 

But if it is true that _the sword_ of Mohammed was the influence whichsubjected Arabia, Egypt, Syria and Persia to the religion of Islam, it is no less true that the Roman empire was finally conquered toChristianity by the sword. Before Constantine, Christians were but asmall fraction of the empire. In the preceding century they had goneon deteriorating in good sense and most probably therefore in moralworth, and had made no such rapid progress in numbers as to imply thatby the mere process of conversion they would ever Christianize theempire. That the conversion of Constantine, such as it was, (for hewas baptized only just before death, ) was dictated by mere worldlyconsiderations, few modern Christians will deny. Yet a great fact ishere implied; viz. , that Christianity was adopted as a state-religion, because of the great _political_ power accruing from the organizationof the churches and the devotion of Christians to their ecclesiasticalcitizenship. Roman statesmen well knew that a hundred thousand Romancitizens devoted to the interests of Rome, could keep in subjectiona population of ten millions who were destitute of any intensepatriotism and had no central objects of attachment. The Christianchurch had shown its immense resisting power and its tenacious union, in the persecution by Galerius; and Constantine was discerning enoughto see the vast political importance of winning over such a body;which, though but a small fraction of the whole empire, was the onlyparty which could give coherence to that empire, the only one whichhad enthusiastic adherents in every province, the only one on whoseresolute devotion it was possible for a partizan to rely securely. Thebravery and faithful attachment of Christian regiments was a lessonnot lost upon Constantine; and we may say, in some sense, that theChristian soldiers in his armies conquered the empire (that is, theimperial appointments) for Christianity. But Paganism subsisted, even in spite of imperial allurements, until at length the sword ofTheodosius violently suppressed heathen worship. So also, it was thespear of Charlemagne which drove the Saxons to baptism, and decidedthe extirpation of Paganism from Teutonic Europe. There is nothing inall this to distinguish the outward history of Christianity fromthat of Mohammedism. Barbarous tribes, now and then, veneratingthe superiority of our knowledge, adopt our religion: so have Pagannations in Africa voluntarily become Mussulmans. But neither we northey can appeal to any case, where an old State-religion has yieldedwithout warlike compulsion to the force of heavenly truth, --"charm wenever so wisely. " The whole influence which Christianity exerts overthe world at large depends on the political history of modern Europe. The Christianity of Asia and Abyssinia is perhaps as pure and asrespectable in this nineteenth century as it was in the fourth andfifth, yet no good or great deeds come forth out of it, of such a kindthat Christian disputants dare to appeal to them with triumph. Thepolitico-religious and very peculiar history of _European_ Christendomhas alone elevated the modern world; and as Gibbon remarks, this wholehistory has directly depended on the fate of the great battles ofTours between the Moors and the Franks. The defeat of Mohammedism byChristendom certainly has not been effected by spiritual weapons. Thesoldier and the statesman have done to the full as much as the priestto secure Europe for Christianity, and win a Christendom of whichChristians can be proud. As for the Christendom of Asia, theapologists of Christianity simply ignore it. With these facts, how canit be pretended that the external history of Christianity points to anexclusively divine origin?

The author of the "Eclipse of Faith" has derided me for despatchingin two paragraphs what occupied Gibbon's whole fifteenth chapter; butthis author, here as always, misrepresents me. Gibbon is exhibitingand developing the deep-seated causes of the spread of Christianitybefore Constantine, and he by no means exhausts the subject. I amcomparing the ostensible and notorious facts concerning the outwardconquest of Christianity with those of other religions. To _account_for the early growth of any religion, Christian, Mussulman, orMormonite, is always difficult. 

III. The moral advantages which we owe to Christianity have beenexaggerated by the same party spirit, as if there were in themanything miraculous. 

1. We are told that Christianity is the decisive influence which hasraised _womankind_: this does not appear to be true. The old Romanmatron was, relatively to her husband, [12] morally as high as inmodern Italy: nor is there any ground for supposing that modern womenhave advantage over the ancient in Spain and Portugal, where Germanichave been counteracted by Moorish influences. The relative position ofthe sexes in Homeric Greece exhibits nothing materially different fromthe present day. In Armenia and Syria perhaps Christianity has donethe service of extinguishing polygamy: this is creditable, thoughnowise miraculous. Judaism also unlearnt polygamy, and made anunbidden improvement upon Moses. In short, only in countries whereGermanic sentiment has taken root, do we see marks of any elevationof the female sex superior to that of Pagan antiquity; and as thiselevation of the German woman in her deepest Paganism was alreadystriking to Tacitus and his contemporaries, it is highly unreasonableto claim it as an achievement of Christianity. 

In point of fact, Christian doctrine, as propounded by Paul, is not atall so honourable to woman as that which German soundness of heart hasestablished. With Paul[13] the _sole_ reason for marriage is, that aman may gratify instinct without sin. He teaches, that _but_ for thisobject it would be better not to marry. He wishes that all were inthis respect as free as himself, and calls it a special gift of God. He does not encourage a man to desire a mutual soul intimately toshare griefs and joys; one in whom the confiding heart can repose, whose smile shall reward and soften toil, whose voice shall beguilesorrow. He does not seem aware that the fascinations of woman refineand chasten society; that virtuous attachment has in it an element ofrespect, which abashes and purifies, and which shields the soul, evenwhen marriage is deferred; nor yet, that the union of two personswho have no previous affection can seldom yield the highest fruits ofmatrimony, but often leads to the severest temptations. How _should_he have known all this? Courtship before marriage did not exist in thesociety open to him: hence he treats the propriety of giving away amaiden, as one in which _her_ conscience, _her_ likes and dislikes, are not concerned: 1 Cor. Vii. 37, 38. If the law leaves the parent"power over his own will" and imposes no "necessity" to give her away, Paul decidedly advises to keep her unmarried. 

The author of the Apocalypse, a writer of the first century, whowas received in the second as John the apostle, holds up a yet moredegrading view of the matrimonial relation. In one of his visions heexhibits 144, 000 chosen saints, perpetual attendants of "the Lamb, "and places the cardinal point of their sanctity in the fact, that"they were not defiled with women, but were virgins. " Marriage, therefore, is defilement! Protestant writers struggle in vain againstthis obvious meaning of the passage. Against all analogy of Scripturalmetaphor, they gratuitously pretend that _women_ mean _idolatrousreligions_: namely, because in the Old Testament the Jewish Church ispersonified as a virgin betrothed to God, and an idol is spoken of asher paramour. 

As a result of the apostolic doctrines, in the second, third, andfollowing centuries, very gross views concerning the relation of thesexes prevailed, and have been everywhere transmitted where men'smorality is exclusively[14] formed from the New Testament. Themarriage service of the Church of England, which incorporates thePauline doctrine is felt by English brides and bridegrooms to containwhat is so offensive and degrading, that many clergymen mercifullymake unlawful omissions. Paul had indeed expressly denounced_prohibitions_ of marriage. In merely _dissuading_ it, he gave advice, which, from his limited horizon and under his expectation of thespeedy return of Christ, was sensible and good; but when this advice, with all its reasons, was made on oracle of eternal wisdom, itgenerated the monkish notions concerning womanhood. If the desire ofa wife is a weakness, which the apostle would gladly have forbidden, only that he feared worse consequences, an enthusiastic youth cannotbut infer that it is a higher state of perfection _not_ to desire awife, and therefore aspires to "the crown of virginity. " Here at onceis full-grown monkery. Hence that debasement of the imagination, whichis directed perpetually to the lowest, instead of the highest side ofthe female nature. Hence the disgusting admiration and invocation ofMary's perpetual virginity. Hence the transcendental doctrine of herimmaculate conception from Anne, the "grandmother of God. "

In the above my critics have represented me to say that Christianityhas done _nothing_ for women. I have not said so, but that what it hasdone has been exaggerated. I say: If the _theory_ of Christianity isto take credit from the _history_ of Christendom, it must also receivediscredit. Taking in the whole system of nuns and celibates, and thedoctrine which sustains it, the root of which is apostolic, I doubtwhether any balance of credit remains over from this side of Christianhistory. I am well aware that the democratic doctrine of "the equalityof souls" has a _tendency_ to elevate women, --and the poorer orderstoo; but this is not the whole of actual Christianity, which is a veryheterogeneous mass. 

2. Again: the modern doctrine, by aid of which West Indian slavery hasbeen exterminated, is often put forward as Christian; but I had alwaysdiscerned that it was not Biblical, and that, in respect to this greattriumph, undue credit has been claimed for the fixed Biblical andauthoritative doctrine. As I have been greatly misunderstood inmy first edition, I am induced to expand this topic. Sir GeorgeStephen, [15] after describing the long struggle in England against theWest Indian interest and other obstacles, says, that, for some time, "worst of all, we found the people, not actually against us, butapathetic, lethargic, incredulous, indifferent. It was then, and _nottill then_, that we sounded the right note, and touched a chord thatnever ceased to vibrate. _To uphold slavery was a crime against God!_It was a NOVEL DOCTRINE, but it was a cry that was heard, for it wouldbe heard. The national conscience was awakened to inquiry, and inquirysoon produced conviction. " Sir George justly calls the doctrine novel. As developed in the controversy, it laid down the general proposition, that _men and women are not, and cannot be chattels_; and that allhuman enactments which decree this are _morally null and void_, assinning against the higher law of nature and of God. And the reasonof this lies in the essential contrast of a moral personality andchattel. Criminals may deserve to be bound and scourged, but they donot cease to be persons, nor indeed do even the insane. Since everyman is a person, he cannot be a piece of property, nor has an"owner" any just and moral claim to his services. Usage, so far fromconferring this claim, increases the total amount of injustice; thelonger an innocent man is _forcibly_ kept in slavery, the greater thereparation to which he is entitled for the oppressive immorality. Thisdoctrine I now believe to be irrefutable truth, but I disbelieved itwhile I thought the Scripture authoritative; because I found a verydifferent doctrine there--a doctrine which is the argumentativestronghold of the American slaveholder. Paul sent back the fugitiveOnesimus to his master Philemon, with kind recommendations andapologies for the slave, and a tender charge to Philemon, that hewould receive Onesimus as a brother in the Lord, since he had beenconverted by Paul in the interval; but this very recommendation, full of affection as it is, virtually recognizes the moral rights ofPhilemon to the services of his slave; and hinting that if Onesimusstole anything, Philemon should now forgive him, Paul shows perfectinsensibility to the fact that the master who detains a slave incaptivity against his will, is guilty himself of a continual theft. What says Mrs. Beecher Stowe's Cassy to this? "Stealing!--They whosteal body and soul need not talk to us. Every one of these bills isstolen--stolen from poor starving, sweating creatures. " Now Onesimus, in the very act of taking to flight, showed that he had beensubmitting to servitude against his will, and that the house of hisowner had previously been a prison to him. To suppose that Philemonhas a pecuniary interest in the return of Onesimus to work withoutwages, implies that the master habitually steals the slave's earnings;but if he loses nothing by the flight, he has not been wronged by it. Such is the modern doctrine, developed out of the fundamental factthat persons are not chattels; but it is to me wonderful that itshould be needful to prove to any one, that this is _not_ the doctrineof the New Testament. Paul and Peter deliver excellent charges tomasters in regard to the treatment of their slaves, but without anyhint to them that there is an injustice in claiming them as slaves atall. That slavery, _as a system_, is essentially immoral, no Christianof those days seems to have suspected. Yet it existed in itsworst forms under Rome. Whole gangs of slaves were mere tools ofcapitalists, and were numbered like cattle, with no moral relationshipto the owner; young women of beautiful person were sold as articlesof voluptuousness. Of course every such fact was looked upon byChristians as hateful and dreadful; yet, I say, it did not lead themto that moral condemnation of slavery, _as such_, which has won themost signal victory in modern times, and is destined, I trust, to winone far greater. 

A friendly reviewer replies to this, that the apathy of the earlyChristians to the intrinsic iniquity of the slave system rose out of"their expectation of an immediate close of this world's affairs. Theonly reason why Paul sanctioned contentment with his condition in theconverted slave, was, that for so short a time it was not worth whilefor any man to change his state. " I agree to this; but it does notalter my fact: on the contrary, it confirms what I say, --that theBiblical morality is not final truth. To account for an error surelyis not to deny it. 

Another writer has said on the above: "Let me suppose you animated togo as missionary to the East to preach this (Mr. Newman's) spiritualsystem: would you, in addition to all this, publicly denounce thesocial and political evils under which the nations groan? If so, yourspiritual projects would soon be perfectly understood, and _summarilydealt with_. --It is vain to say, that, if commissioned by Heaven, and endowed with power of working miracles, you would do so; for youcannot tell under what limitations your commission would be given:it is pretty certain, that _it would leave you to work a moral andspiritual system by moral and spiritual means_, and not allow you toturn the world upside down, and _mendaciously_ tell it that you cameonly to preach peace, while every syllable you uttered would be anincentive to sedition. "--_Eclipse of Faith_, p. 419. 

This writer supposes that he is attacking _me_, when every line is anattack on Christ and Christianity. Have _I_ pretended power of workingmiracles? Have I imagined or desired that miracle would shield mefrom persecution? Did Jesus _not_ "publicly denounce the social andpolitical evils" of Judęa? was he not "summarily dealt with"? Didhe not know that his doctrine would send on earth "not peace, but asword"? and was he _mendacious_ in saying, "Peace I leave untoyou?" or were the angels mendacious in proclaiming, "Peace on earth, goodwill among men"? Was not "every syllable that Jesus uttered" inthe discourse of Matth. Xxiii. , "an incentive to sedition?" and doesthis writer judge it to be _mendacity_, that Jesus opened by advisingto OBEY the very men, whom he proceeds to vilify at large as immoral, oppressive, hypocritical, blind, and destined to the damnation ofhell? Or have I anywhere blamed the apostles because they did _not_exasperate wicked men by direct attacks? It is impossible to answersuch a writer as this; for he elaborately misses to touch what I havesaid. On the other hand, it is rather too much to require me to defendJesus from his assault. 

Christian preachers did not escape the imputation of turning the worldupside down, and at length, in some sense, effected what was imputed. It is matter of conjecture, whether any greater convulsion wouldhave happened, if the apostles had done as the Quakers in America. NoQuaker holds slaves: why not? Because the Quakers teach their membersthat it is an essential immorality. The slave-holding statesare infinitely more alive and jealous to keep up their "peculiarinstitution, " than was the Roman government; yet the Quakers havecaused no political convulsion. I confess, to me it seems, that if Paul, and John, and Peter, and James, had done as theseQuakers, the imperial administration would have looked on it as aharmless eccentricity of the sect, and not as an incentive[16] tosedition. But be this as it may, I did not say what else the apostlesmight have succeeded to enforce; I merely pointed out what it was thatthey actually taught, and that, _as a fact_, they did _not_ declareslavery to be an immorality and the basest of thefts. If any onethinks their course was more wise, he may be right or wrong, but hisopinion is in itself a concession of my fact. 

As to the historical progress of Christian practice and doctrine onthis subject, it is, as usual, mixed of good and evil. The humanity ofgood Pagan emperors softened the harshness of the laws of bondage, andmanumission had always been extremely common amongst the Romans. Ofcourse, the more humane religion of Christ acted still more powerfullyin the same direction, especially in inculcating the propriety offreeing _Christian_ slaves. This was creditable, but not peculiar, andis not a fact of such a nature as to add to the exclusive claims ofChristianity. To every _proselyting_ religion the sentiment is sonatural, that no divine spirit is needed to originate and establishit. Mohammedans also have a conscience against enslaving Mohammedans, and generally bestow freedom on a slave as soon as he adopts theirreligion. But no zeal for _human_ freedom has ever grown out of thepurely biblical and ecclesiastical system, any more than out of theMohammedan. In the middle ages, zeal for the liberation of serfs firstrose in the breasts of the clergy, after the whole population hadbecome nominally Christian. It was not men, but Christians, whom theclergy desired to make free: it is hard to say, that they thoughtPagans to have any human rights at all, even to life. Nor is itcorrect to represent ecclesiastical influences as the sole agencywhich overthrew slavery and serfdom. The desire of the kings to raiseup the chartered cities as a bridle to the barons, was that whichchiefly made rustic slavery untenable in its coarsest form; for a"villain" who escaped into the free cities could not be recovered. Inlater times, the first public act against slavery came from republicanFrance, in the madness of atheistic enthusiasm; when she declaredblack and white men to be equally free, and liberated the negroes ofSt. Domingo. In Britain, the battle of social freedom has been foughtchiefly by that religious sect which rests least on the letter ofScripture. The bishops, and the more learned clergy, have consistentlybeen apathetic to the duty of overthrowing the slave system. --I wasthus led to see, that here also the New Testament precepts must not bereceived by me as any final and authoritative law of morality. But Imeet opposition in a quarter from which I had least expected it;--fromone who admits the imperfection of the morality actually attained bythe apostles, but avows that Christianity, as a divine system, isnot to be identified with apostolic doctrine, but with the doctrine_ultimately developed_ in the Christian Church; moreover, theecclesiastical doctrine concerning slavery he alleges to be truerthan mine, --I mean, truer than that which I have expounded as heldby modern abolitionists. He approves of the principle of claimingfreedom, not for _men_, but for _Christians_. He says: "ThatChristianity opened its arms at all to the servile class was enough;for in its embrace was the sure promise of emancipation. .. . Isit imputed as a disgrace, that Christianity put conversion beforemanumission, and _brought them to God, ere it trusted them withthemselves_?. .. It created the simultaneous obligation to make thePagan a convert, and the convert free. " . .. "If our author had madehis attack from the opposite side, and contended that its doctrines'proved too much' against servitude, and _assumed with too littlequalification the capacity of each man for self-rule_, we should havefelt more hesitation in expressing our dissent. "

I feel unfeigned surprize at these sentiments from one whom I sohighly esteem and admire; and considering that they were written atfirst anonymously, and perhaps under pressure of time, for a review, I hope it is not presumptuous in me to think it possible that they arehasty, and do not wholly express a deliberate and final judgment. Imust think there is some misunderstanding; for I have made no highclaims about capacity for _self-rule_, as if laws and penalties wereto be done away. But the question is, shall human beings, who (as allof us) are imperfect, be controlled by public law, or by individualcaprice? Was not my reviewer intending to advocate some form of_serfdom_ which is compatible with legal rights, and recognizes theserf as a man; not _slavery_ which pronounces him a chattel? Serfdomand apprenticeship we may perhaps leave to be reasoned down byeconomists and administrators; slavery proper is what I attacked asessentially immoral. 

Returning then to the arguments, I reason against them as if I didnot know their author. --I have distinctly avowed, that the effort toliberate Christian slaves was creditable: I merely add, that in thisrespect Christianity is no better than Mohammedism. But is it reallyno moral fault, --is it not a moral enormity, --to deny that Paganshave human rights? "That Christianity opened its arms _at all_ to theservile class, _was enough_. " Indeed! Then either unconverted menhave no natural right to freedom, or Christians may withhold a naturalright from them. Under the plea of "bringing them to God, " Christiansare to deny by law, to every slave who refuses to be converted, therights of husband and father, rights of persons, rights of property, rights over his own body. Thus manumission is a bribe to makehypocritical converts, and Christian superiority a plea for deprivingmen of their dearest rights. Is not freedom older than Christianity?Does the Christian recommend his religion to a Pagan by stealing hismanhood and all that belongs to it? Truly, if only Christians have aright to personal freedom, what harm is there in hunting and catchingPagans to make slaves of them? And this was exactly the "development"of thought and doctrine in the Christian church. The same priests whotaught that _Christians_ have moral rights to their sinews and skin, to their wives and children, and to the fruit of their labour, which_Pagans_ have not, consistently developed the same fundamental ideaof Christian superiority into the lawfulness of making war uponthe heathen, and reducing them to the state of domestic animals. IfChristianity is to have credit from the former, it must also take thecredit of the latter. If cumulative evidence of its divine origin isfound in the fact, that Christendom has liberated Christian slaves, must we forget the cumulative evidence afforded by the assumed rightof the Popes to carve out the countries of the heathen, and bestowthem with their inhabitants on Christian powers? Both results flowlogically out of the same assumption, and were developed by the sameschool. 

But, I am told, a man must not be freed, until we have ascertainedhis capacity for self-rule! This is indeed a tyrannical assumption:_vindicioe secundum servitutem_. Men are not to have their humanrights, until we think they will not abuse them! Prevention is to beused against the hitherto innocent and injured! The principle involvesall that is arrogant, violent, and intrusive, in military tyrannyand civil espionage. Self-rule? But abolitionists have no thought ofexempting men from the penalties of common law, if they transgressthe law; we only desire that all men shall be equally subjected tothe law, and equally protected by it. It is truly a strange inference, that because a man is possibly deficient in virtue, therefore he shallnot be subject to public law, but to private caprice: as if this werea school of virtue, and not eminently an occasion of vice. Truer faris Homer's morality, who says, that a man loses half his virtue on theday he is made a slave. As to the pretence that slaves are not fitfor freedom, those Englishmen who are old enough to remember the awfulpredictions which West Indian planters used to pour forth about thebloodshed and confusion which would ensue, if they were hinderedby law from scourging black men and violating black women, might, Ithink, afford to despise the danger of _enacting_ that men and womenshall be treated as men and women, and not made tools of vice endvictims of cruelty. If ever sudden emancipation ought to have producedviolences and wrong from the emancipated, it was in Jamaica, where theoppression and ill-will was so great; yet the freed blacks have not infifteen years inflicted on the whites as much lawless violence asthey suffered themselves in six months of apprenticeship. It is the_masters_ of slaves, not the slaves, who are deficient in self-rule;and slavery is doubly detestable, because it depraves the masters. 

What degree of "worldly moderation and economical forethought" isneeded by a practical statesman in effecting the liberation of slaves, it is no business of mine to discuss. I however feel assured, thatno constitutional statesman, having to contend against the politicalvotes of numerous and powerful slave-owners, who believe theirfortunes to be at stake, will ever be found to undertake the task _atall_, against the enormous resistance of avarice and habit, unlessreligious teachers pierce the conscience of the nation by denouncingslavery as an essential wickedness. Even the petty West Indianinterests--a mere fraction of the English empire--were too powerful, until this doctrine was taught. Mr. Canning in parliament spokeemphatically against slavery, but did not dare to bring in a billagainst it. When such is English experience, I cannot but expect thesame will prove true in America. 

In replying to objectors, I have been carried beyond my narrative, and have written from my _present_ point of view; I may therefore herecomplete this part of the argument, though by anticipation. 

The New Testament has beautifully laid down Truth and Love as theculminating virtues of man; but it has imperfectly discerned that Loveis impossible where Justice does not go first. Regarding this worldas destined to be soon burnt up, it despaired of improving thefoundations of society, and laid down the principle of Non-resistance, even to Injurious force, in terms so unlimited, as practically tothrow its entire weight into the scale of tyranny. It recognisesindividuals who call themselves kings or magistrates (howevertyrannical and usurping), as Powers ordained of God: it does _not_recognize nations as Communities ordained of God, or as having anypower and authority whatsoever, as against pretentious individuals. Toobey a king, is strenuously enforced; to resist a usurping king, in apatriotic cause, is not contemplated in the New Testament as underany circumstances an imaginable duty. Patriotism has no recognisedexistence in the Christian records. I am well aware of the _cause_of this; I do not say that it reflects any dishonour on the Christianapostles: I merely remark on it as a calamitous fact, and deduce thattheir precepts cannot and must not be made the sufficient rule oflife, or they will still be (as they always have hitherto been) amainstay of tyranny. The rights of Men and of Nations are whollyignored[17] in the New Testament, but the authority of Slave-ownersand of Kings is very distinctly recorded for solemn religioussanction. If it had been wholly silent, no one could have appealedto its decision: but by consecrating mere Force, it has promotedInjustice, and in so far has made that Love impossible, which itdesired to establish. 

It is but one part of this great subject, that the apostles absolutelycommand a slave to give obedience to his master in nil things, "asto the Lord. " It is in vain to deny, that _the most grasping ofslave-owners asks nothing more of abolitionists than that they wouldall adopt Paul's creed_; viz. , acknowledge the full authority ofowners of slaves, tell them that they are responsible to God alone, and charge them to use their power righteously and mercifully. 

3. LASTLY: it is a lamentable fact, that not only do superstitionsabout Witches, Ghosts, Devils, and Diabolical Miracles derive a strongsupport from the Bible, (and in fact have been exploded by nothingbut the advance of physical philosophy, )--but what is far worse, theBible alone has nowhere sufficed to establish an enlightened religioustoleration. This is at first seemingly unintelligible: for theapostles certainly would have been intensely shocked at the thought ofpunishing men, in body, purse, or station, for not being Christiansor not being orthodox. Nevertheless, not only does the Old Testamentjustify bloody persecution, but the New teaches[18] that God willvisit men with fiery vengeance _for holding an erroneous creed_;--thatvengeance indeed is his, not ours; but that still the punishmentis deserved. It would appear, that wherever this doctrine is held, possession of power for two or three generations inevitably convertsmen into persecutors; and in so far, we must lay the horribledesolations which Europe has suffered from bigotry, at the doors, notindeed of the Christian apostles themselves, but of that Bibliolatrywhich has converted their earliest records into a perfect and eternallaw. 

IV. "Prophecy" is generally regarded as a leading evidence of thedivine origin of Christianity. But this also had proved itself to mea more and more mouldering prop, whether I leant on those whichconcerned Messiah, those of the New Testament, or the miscellaneouspredictions of the Old Testament. 

1. As to the Messianic prophecies, I began to be pressed with thedifficulty of proving against the Jews that "Messiah was to suffer. "The Psalms generally adduced for this purpose can in no way be fixedon Messiah. The prophecy in the 9th chapter of Daniel looks speciousin the authorized English version, but has evaporated in the Greektranslation and is not acknowledged in the best German renderings. I still rested on the 53rd chapter of Isaiah, as alone fortifying meagainst the Rabbis: yet with an unpleasantly increasing perceptionthat the system of "double interpretation" in which Christiansindulge, is a playing fast and loose with prophecy, and is essentiallydishonest _No one dreams of a "second" sense until the primary senseproves false_: all false prophecy may be thus screened. The threeprophecies quoted (Acts xiii. 33--35) in proof of the resurrectionof Jesus, are simply puerile, and deserve no reply. --I felt there wassomething unsound in all this. 

2. The prophecies of the New Testament are not many. First, we havethat of Jesus in Matt xxiv. Concerning the destruction of Jerusalem. It is marvellously exact, down to the capture of the city andmiserable enslavement of the population; but at this point it becomesclearly and hopelessly false: namely, it declares, that "_immediatelyafter_ that tribulation, the sun shall be darkened, &c. &c. , and thenshall appear the sign of the Son of Man in heaven, and then shallall the tribes of the earth mourn, and they shall see the Son of Mancoming in the clouds of heaven with power and great glory. And heshall send his angels with a great sound of a trumpet, and they shallgather together his elect, " &c. This is a manifest description of theGreat Day of Judgment: and the prophecy goes on to add: "Verily I sayunto you, This generation shall not pass, till all these things befulfilled. " When we thus find a prediction to break down suddenlyin the middle, we have the well-known mark of its earlier part beingwritten after the event: and it becomes unreasonable to doubt thatthe detailed annunciations of this 24th chapter of Matthew, were firstcomposed _very soon after_ the war of Titus, and never came from thelips of Jesus at all. Next: we have the prophecies of the Apocalypse. Not one of these can be interpreted certainly of any human affairs, except one in the 17th chapter, which the writer himself has explainedto apply to the emperors of Rome: and that is proved false by theevent. --Farther, we have Paul's prophecies concerning the apostacy ofthe Christian Church. These are very striking, as they indicate hisdeep insight into the moral tendencies of the community in which hemoved. They are high testimonies to the prophetic soul of Paul; andas such, I cannot have any desire to weaken their force. But there isnothing in them that can establish the theory of supernaturalism, inthe face of his great mistake as to the speedy return of Christ fromheaven. 

3. As for the Old Testament, if all its prophecies about Babylon andTyre and Edom and Ishmael and the four Monarchies were both true andsupernatural, what would this prove? That God had been pleased toreveal something of coming history to certain eminent men of Hebrewantiquity. That is all. We should receive this conclusion with anotiose faith. It could not order or authorize us to submit our soulsand consciences to the obviously defective morality of the Mosaicsystem in which these prophets lived; and with Christianity it hasnothing to do. 

At the same time I had reached the conclusion that large deductionsmust be made from the credit of these old prophecies. 

First, as to the Book of Daniel: the 11th chapter is closelyhistorical down to Antiochus Epiphanes, after which it suddenlybecomes false; and according to different modern expositors, leapsaway to Mark Antony, or to Napoleon Buonaparte, or to the Papacy. Hence we have a _prima facie_ presumption that the book was composedin the reign of that Antiochus; nor can it be proved to have existedearlier: nor is there in it one word of prophecy which can be shown tohave been fulfilled in regard to any later era. Nay, the 7th chapteralso is confuted by the event; for the great Day of Judgment has notfollowed upon the fourth[19] Monarchy. 

Next, as to the prophecies of the Pentateuch. They abound, as to thetimes which precede the century of Hezekiah; higher than which wecannot trace the Pentateuch. [20] No prophecy of the Pentateuch can beproved to have been fulfilled, which had not been already fulfilledbefore Hezekiah's day. 

Thirdly, as to the prophecies which concern various nations, --some ofthem are remarkably verified, as that against Babylon; others failed, as those of Ezekiel concerning Nebuchadnezzar's wars against Tyreand Egypt. The fate predicted against Babylon was delayed for fivecenturies, so as to lose all moral meaning as a divine infliction onthe haughty city. --On the whole, it was clear to me, that it is a vainattempt to forge polemical weapons out of these old prophets, for theservice of modern creeds. [21]

V. My study of John's gospel had not enabled me to sustain Dr. Arnold's view, that it was an impregnable fortress of Christianity. 

In discussing the Apocalypse, I had long before felt a doubt whetherwe ought not rather to assign that book to John the apostle inpreference to the Gospel and Epistles: but this remained only as adoubt. The monotony also of the Gospel had often excited my _wonder_. ButI was for the first time _offended_, on considering with a fresh mind anold fact, --the great similarity of the style and phraseology in the thirdchapter, in the testimony of the Baptist, as well as in Christ'saddress to Nicodemus, that of John's own epistle. As the three firstgospels have their family likeness, which enables us on hearing a textto know that it comes out of one of the three, though we perhaps knownot which; so is it with the Gospel and Epistles of John. When a verseis read, we know that it is either from an epistle of John, orelse from the Jesus of John; but often we cannot tell which. Oncontemplating the marked character of this phenomenon, I saw itinfallibly[22] to indicate that John has made both the Baptist andJesus speak, as John himself would have spoken; and that we cannottrust the historical reality of the discourses in the fourth gospel. 

That narrative introduces an entirely new phraseology, with aperpetual discoursing about the Father and the Son; of which there isbarely the germ in Matthew:--and herewith a new doctrine concerningthe heaven-descended personality of Jesus. That the divinity of Christcannot be proved from the three first gospels, was confessed by theearly Church, and is proved by the labouring arguments of the modernTrinitarians. What then can be dearer, than that John has put into themouth of Jesus the doctrines of half a century later, which he desiredto recommend?

When this conclusion pressed itself first on my mind, the name ofStrauss was only beginning to be known in England, and I did not readhis great work until years after I had come to a final opinion on thiswhole subject. The contemptuous reprobation of Strauss in which it isfashionable for English writers to indulge, makes it a duty to expressmy high sense of the lucid force with which he unanswerably shows thatthe fourth gospel (whoever the author was) is no faithful exhibitionof the discourses of Jesus. Before I had discerned this so vividlyin all its parts, it had become quite certain to me that the secretcolloquy with Nicodemus, and the splendid testimony of the Baptistto the Father and the Son, were wholly modelled out of John's ownimagination. And no sooner had I felt how severe was the shock toJohn's general veracity, than a new and even graver difficulty roseupon me. 

The stupendous and public event of Lazarus's resurrection, --thecircumstantial cross-examination of the man born blind and healedby Jesus, --made those two miracles, in Dr. Arnold's view, grand andunassailable bulwarks of Christianity. The more I considered them, themightier their superiority seemed to those of the other gospels. Theywere wrought at Jerusalem, under the eyes of the rulers, who did theirutmost to detect them, and could not; but in frenzied despair, plottedto kill Lazarus. How different from the frequently vague and wholesalestatements of the other gospels concerning events which happened whereno enemy was watching to expose delusion! many of them in distant anduncertain localities. 

But it became the more needful to ask; How was it that the otherwriters omitted to tell of such decisive exhibitions? Were they sodull in logic, as not to discern the superiority of these? Can theypossibly have known of such miracles, wrought under the eyes ofthe Pharisees, and defying all their malice, and yet have told inpreference other less convincing marvels? The question could notbe long dwelt on, without eliciting the reply: "It is necessary tobelieve, at least until the contrary shall be proved, that thethree first writers either had never heard of these two miracles, ordisbelieved them. " Thus the account rests on the unsupported evidenceof John, with a weighty presumption against its truth. 

When, where, and in what circumstances did John write? It is agreed, that he wrote half a century after the events; when the otherdisciples were all dead; when Jerusalem was destroyed, her priestsand learned men dispersed, her nationality dissolved, her coherenceannihilated;--he wrote in a tongue foreign to the Jews of Palestine, and for a foreign people, in a distant country, and in the bosom ofan admiring and confiding church, which was likely to venerate him themore, the greater marvels he asserted concerning their Master. Hetold them miracles of firstrate magnitude, which no one before hadrecorded. Is it possible for me to receive them _on his word_, undercircumstances so conducive to delusion, and without a single check toensure his accuracy? Quite impossible; when I have already seen howlittle to be trusted is his report of the discourses and doctrine ofJesus. 

But was it necessary to impute to John conscious and wilful deception?By no means absolutely necessary;--as appeared by the followingtrain[23] of thought. John tells us that Jesus promised the Comforter, _to bring to their memory_ things that concerned him; oh that onecould have the satisfaction of cross-examining John on this subject!Let me suppose him put into the witness-box; and I will speak to himthus: "O aged Sir, we understand that you have two memories, a naturaland a miraculous one: with the former you retain events as other men;with the latter you recall what had been totally forgotten. Be pleasedto tell us now. Is it from your natural or from your supernaturalmemory that you derive your knowledge of the miracle wrought onLazarus and the long discourses which you narrate?" If to thisquestion John were frankly to reply, "It is solely from mysupernatural memory, --from the special action of the Comforter on mymind:" then should I discern that he was perfectly truehearted. YetI should also see, that he was liable to mistake a reverie, ameditation, a day-dream, for a resuscitation of his memory by theSpirit. In short, a writer who believes such a doctrine, and doesnot think it requisite to warn us how much of his tale comes from hisnatural, and how much from his supernatural memory, forfeits all claimto be received as an historian, witnessing by the common senses toexternal fact. His work may have religious value, but it is that ofa novel or romance, not of a history. It is therefore superfluous toname the many other difficulties in detail which it contains. 

Thus was I flung back to the three first gospels, as, with all theirdefects, --their genealogies, dreams, visions, devil-miracles, andprophecies written after the event, --yet on the whole, more faithfulas a picture of the true Jesus, than that which is exhibited in John. 

And now my small root of supernaturalism clung the tighter to Paul, whose conversion still appeared to me a guarantee, that there was atleast some nucleus of miracle in Christianity, although it had notpleased God to give us any very definite and trustworthy account. Clearly it was an error, to make miracles our _foundation_; but mightwe not hold them as a result? Doctrine must be our foundation; butperhaps we might believe the miracles for the sake of it. --And in theepistles of Paul I thought I saw various indications that he took thisview. The practical soundness of his eminently sober understanding hadappeared to me the more signal, the more I discerned the atmosphere oferroneous philosophy which he necessarily breathed. But he also proveda broken reed, when I tried really to lean upon him as a main support. 

1. The first thing that broke on me concerning Paul, was, thathis moral sobriety of mind was no guarantee against his mistakingextravagances for miracle. This was manifest to me in his treatment of_the gift of tongues_. 

So long ago as in 1830, when the Irving "miracles" commenced inScotland, my particular attention had been turned to this subject, andthe Irvingite exposition of the Pauline phenomena appeared to me socorrect, that I was vehemently predisposed to believe the miraculoustongues. But my friend "the Irish clergyman" wrote me a full accountof what he heard with his own ears; which was to the effect--that noneof the sounds, vowels or consonants, were foreign;--that the strangewords were moulded after the Latin grammar, ending in -abus, -obus, -ebat, -avi, &c. , so as to denote poverty of invention rather thanspiritual agency;--and _that there was no interpretation_. The lastpoint decided me, that any belief which I had in it must be for thepresent unpractical. Soon after, a friend of mine applied by letterfor information as to the facts to a very acute and pious Scotchman, who had become a believer in these miracles. The first reply gave usno facts whatever, but was a declamatory exhortation to believe. The second was nothing but a lamentation over my friend's unbelief, because he asked again for the facts. This showed me, that there wasexcitement and delusion: yet the general phenomena appeared so similarto those of the church of Corinth, that I supposed the persons mustunawares have copied the exterior manifestations, if, after all, therewas no reality at bottom. 

Three years sufficed to explode these tongues; and from time to timeI had an uneasy sense, how much discredit they cast on the Corinthianmiracles. Meander's discussion on the 2nd Chapter of the Acts firstopened to me the certainty, that Luke (or the authority whom hefollowed) has exaggerated into a gift of languages what cannot havebeen essentially different from the Corinthian, and in short fromthe Irvingite, tongues. Thus Luke's narrative has transformed into asplendid miracle, what in Paul is no miracle at all. It is true thatPaul speaks of _interpretation of tongues_ as possible, but without ahint that any verification was to be used. Besides, why should a Greeknot speak Greek in an assembly of his own countrymen? Is it credible, that the Spirit should inspire one man to utter unintelligible sounds, and a second to interpret these, and then give the assembly endlesstrouble to find out whether the interpretation was pretence orreality, when the whole difficulty was gratuitous? We grant thatthere _may_ be good reasons for what is paradoxical, but we need thestronger proof that it is a reality. Yet what in fact is there? andwhy should the gift of tongues in Corinth, as described by Paul, betreated with more respect than in Newman Street, London? I couldfind no other reply, than that Paul was too sober-minded: yet his owndescription of the tongues is that of a barbaric jargon, which makesthe church appear as if it "were mad, " and which is only redeemed fromcontempt by miraculous interpretation. In the Acts we see that thisphenomenon pervaded all the Churches; from the day of Pentecost onwardit was looked on as the standard mark of "the descent of the HolySpirit;" and in the conversion of Cornelius it was the justificationof Peter for admitting uncircumcised Gentiles: yet not once is"interpretation" alluded to, except in Paul's epistle. Paul could notgo against the whole Church. He held a logic too much in common withthe rest, to denounce the tongues as _mere_ carnal excitement; but hedoes anxiously degrade them as of lowest spiritual value, and whollyprohibits them where there is "no interpreter. " To carry out thisrule, would perhaps have suppressed them entirely. 

This however showed me, that I could not rest on Paul's practicalwisdom, as securing him against speculative hallucinations in thematter of miracles; for indeed he says: "I thank my God, that I speakwith tongues _more than ye all_. "

2. To another broad fact I had been astonishingly blind, though thetruth of it flashed upon me as soon as I heard it named;--that Paulshows total unconcern to the human history and earthly teaching ofJesus, never quoting his doctrine or any detail of his actions. TheChrist with whom Paul held communion was a risen, ascended, exaltedLord, a heavenly being, who reigned over arch-angels, and was about toappear as Judge of the world: but of Jesus in the flesh Paul seems toknow nothing beyond the bare fact that he _did_[24] "humble himself"to become man, and "pleased not himself. " Even in the very criticalcontroversy about meat and drink, Paul omits to quote Christ'sdoctrine, "Not that which goeth into the mouth defileth the man, " &c. He surely, therefore, must have been wholly and contentedly ignorantof the oral teachings of Jesus. 

3. This threw a new light on the _independent_ position of Paul. Thathe anxiously refused to learn from the other apostles, and "conferrednot with flesh and blood, "--not having received his gospel of many butby the revelation of Jesus Christ--had seemed to me quite suitable tohis high pretensions. Any novelties which might be in his doctrine, Ihad regarded as mere developments, growing out of the common stem, andguaranteed by the same Spirit. But I now saw that this independenceinvalidated his testimony. He may be to us a supernatural, but hecertainly is not a natural, witness to the truth of Christ's miraclesand personality. It avails not to talk of the _opportunities_ which hehad of searching into the truth of the resurrection of Christ, for wesee that he did not choose to avail himself of the common methods ofinvestigation. He learned his gospel _by an internal revelation_. [25]He even recounts the appearance of Christ to him, years after hisascension, as evidence co-ordinate to his appearance to Peter and toJames, and to 500 brethren at once. 1 Cor. Xv. Again the thought isforced on us, --how different was his logic from ours!

To see the full force of the last remark, we ought to conceive howmany questions a Paley would have wished to ask of Paul; and how manydetails Paley himself, if _he_ had had the sight, would have feltit his duty to impart to his readers. Had Paul ever seen Jesus whenalive? How did he recognize the miraculous apparition to be the personwhom Pilate had crucified? Did he see him as a man in a fleshly body, or as a glorified heavenly form? Was it in waking, or sleeping, andif the latter, how did he distinguish his divine vision from a commondream? Did he see only, or did he also handle? If it was a palpableman of flesh, how did he assure himself that it was a person risenfrom the dead, and not an ordinary living man?

Now as Paul _is writing specially[26] to convince the incredulous orto confirm the wavering_, it is certain that he would have dwelt onthese details, if he had thought them of value to the argument. Ashe wholly suppresses them, we must infer that he held them tobe immaterial; and therefore that the evidence with which he wassatisfied, in proof that a man was risen from the dead, was eithertotally different in kind from that which we should now exact, orexceedingly inferior in rigour. It appears, that he believed inthe resurrection of Christ, first, on the ground of prophecy:[27]secondly, (I feel it is not harsh or bold to add, ) on very loose andwholly unsifted testimony. For since he does not afford to us themeans of sifting and analyzing his testimony, he cannot have judged itour duty so to do; and therefore is not likely himself to have siftedvery narrowly the testimony of others. 

Conceive farther how a Paley would have dealt with so astounding afact, so crushing an argument as the appearance of the risen Jesus_to 500 brethren at once_. How would he have extravagated and revelledin proof! How would he have worked the topic, that "this could havebeen no dream, no internal impression, no vain fancy, but a solidindubitable fact!" How he would have quoted his authorities, detailedtheir testimonies, and given their names and characters! Yet Pauldispatches the affair in one line, gives no details and no specialdeclarations, and seems to see no greater weight in this decisiveappearance, than in the vision to his single self. He expects us totake his very vague announcement of the 500 brethren as enough, andit does not seem to occur to him that his readers (if they need tobe convinced) are entitled to expect fuller information. Thus if Pauldoes not intentionally supersede human testimony, he reduces it to itsminimum of importance. 

How can I believe _at second hand_, from the word of one whom Idiscern to hold so lax notions of evidence? Yet _who_ of the Christianteachers was superior to Paul? He is regarded as almost the onlyeducated man of the leaders. Of his activity of mind, his moralsobriety, his practical talents, his profound sincerity, hisenthusiastic self-devotion, his spiritual insight, there is noquestion: but when his notions of evidence are infected with theerrors of his age, what else can we expect of the eleven, and of themultitude?

4. Paul's neglect of the earthly teaching of Jesus might in partbe imputed to the nonexistence of written documents and the greatdifficulty of learning with certainty what he really had taught. --Thisagreed perfectly well with what I already saw of the untrustworthinessof our gospels; but it opened a chasm between the doctrine of Jesusand that of Paul, and showed that Paulinism, however good in itself, is not assuredly to be identified with primitive Christianity. Moreover, it became clear, why James and Paul are so contrasted. Jamesretains with little change the traditionary doctrine of the JerusalemChristians; Paul has superadded or substituted a gospel of his own. This was, I believe, pointedly maintained 25 years ago by the authorof "Not Paul, but Jesus;" a book which I have never read. 

VII. I had now to ask, --Where are _the twelve men_ of whom Paleytalks, as testifying to the resurrection of Christ? Paul cannot bequoted as a witness, but only as a believer. Of the twelve we do noteven know the names, much less have we their testimony. Of James andJude there are two epistles, but it is doubtful whether eitherof these is of the twelve apostles; and neither of them declarethemselves eyewitnesses to Christ's resurrection. In short, Peter andJohn are the only two. Of these however, Peter does not attest the_bodily_, but only the _spiritual_, resurrection of Jesus; for he saysthat Christ was[28] "put to death in flesh, but made alive in spirit, "1 Pet iii. 18: yet if this verse had been lost, his opening address(i. 3) would have seduced me into the belief that Peter taught thebodily resurrection of Jesus. So dangerous is it to believemiracles, on the authority of words quoted from a man whom we cannotcross-examine! Thus, once more, John is left alone in his testimony;and how insufficient that is, has been said. 

The question also arose, whether Peter's testimony to thetransfiguration (2 Pet. I. 18), was an important support. A firstobjection might be drawn from the sleep ascribed to the threedisciples in the gospels; if the narrative were at all trustworthy. But a second and greater difficulty arises in the doubtfulauthenticity of the second Epistle of Peter. 

Neander positively decides against that epistle. Among many reasons, the similarity of its second chapter to the Epistle of Jude is acardinal fact. Jude is supposed to be original; yet his allusionsshow him to be post-apostolic. If so, the second Epistle of Peter isclearly spurious. --Whether this was certain, I could not make upmy mind: but it was manifest that where such doubts may be honestlyentertained, no basis exists to found a belief of a great andsignificant miracle. 

On the other hand, both the Transfiguration itself, and the fierydestruction of Heaven and Earth prophesied in the third chapterof this epistle, are open to objections so serious, as mythicalimaginations, that the name of Peter will hardly guarantee them tothose with whom the general evidence for the miracles in the gospelshas thoroughly broken down. 

On the whole, one thing only was clear concerning Peter's faith;--thathe, like Paul, was satisfied with a kind of evidence for theresurrection of Jesus which fell exceedingly short of the demands ofmodern logic: and that it is absurd in us to believe, barely _because_they believed. 

[Footnote 1: Matt. Xii. 39, xvi. 4. ]

[Footnote 2: John xx. 29. ]

[Footnote 3: John xiv, 11. In x. 37, 38, the same idea seems to beintended. So xv. 24. ]

[Footnote 4: A reviewer erroneously treats this as inculcating adenial of the possibility of inward revelation. It merely says, that_some answer_ in needed to these questions; and _none in given_. Wecan make out (in my opinion) that dreams and inward impressionswere the form of suggestion trusted to; but we do not learn whatprecautions were used against foolish credulity. ]

[Footnote 5: If miracles were vouchsafed on the scale of a _newsense_, it is of course conceivable that they would reveal new massesof fact, tending to modify our moral judgments of particular actions:but nothing of this can be made out in Judaism or Christianity. ]

[Footnote 6: A friendly reviewer derides this passage as a very feebleobjection to the doctrine of the Absolute Moral perfections of Jesus. It in here rather feebly _stated_, because at that period I had notfully worked out the thought. He seems to have forgotten that I amnarrating. ]

[Footnote 7: An ingenious gentleman, well versed in history, has putforth a volume called "The Restoration of Faith, " in which he teachesthat _I have no right to a conscience or to a God_, until I adopt hishistorical conclusions. I leave his co-religionists to confute hisportentous heresy; but in fact it is already done more than enough ina splendid article of the "Westminster Review, " July, 1852. ]

[Footnote 8: I seem to have been understood now to say that aknowledge of the Bible was not a pre-requisite of the ProtestantReformation. What I say is, that at this period I learned the studyof the Classics to have caused and determined that it should then takeplace; moreover, I say that a free study of _other books than sacredones_ is essential, and always was, to conquer superstition. ]

[Footnote 9: I am asked why _Italy_ witnessed no improvement ofspiritual doctrine. The reply is, that _she did_. The Evangelicalmovement there was quelled only by the Imperial arms and theInquisition. I am also asked why Pagan Literature did not save theancient church from superstition. I have always understood thatthe vast majority of Christian teachers during the decline wereunacquainted with Pagan literature, and that the Church at an earlyperiod _forbade_ it. ]

[Footnote 10: My friend James Martineau, who insists that "aself-sustaining power" in a religion is a thing _intrinsicallyinconceivable_, need not have censured me for coming to the conclusionthat it does not exist in Christianity. In fact, I entirely agree withhim; but at the time of which I here write, I had only taken the firststep in his direction; and I barely drew a negative conclusion, towhich he perfectly assents. To my dear friend's capacious and kindlingmind, all the thought here expounded are prosaic and common; beingto him quite obvious, so far as they are true. He is right in lookingdown upon them; and, I trust, by his aid, I have added to my wisdomsince the time of which I write. Yet they were to me discoveriesonce, and he must not be displeased at my making much of them in thisconnexion. ]

[Footnote 11: It is the fault of my critics that I am forced to tellthe reader this is exhibited in my "Hebrew Monarchy. "]

[Footnote 12: It in not to the purpose to urge the _political_minority of the Roman wife. This was a mere inference from the highpower of the bond of the husband. The father had right of death overhis son, and (as the lawyers stated the case), the wife was on thelevel of one of the children. ]

[Footnote 13: 1 Cor. Vii. 2-9]

[Footnote 14: Namely, in the Armenian, Syrian, and Greek churches, and in the Romish church in exact proportion as Germanic and poeticalinfluences have been repressed; that is, in proportion as thehereditary Christian doctrine has been kept pure from moderninnovations. ]

[Footnote 15: In a tract republished from the _Northampton Mercury_Longman, 1853. ]

[Footnote 16: The Romans practised fornication at pleasure, and heldit ridiculous to blame them. If Paul had claimed authority to hinderthem, they might have been greatly exasperated; but they had notthe least objection to his denouncing fornication as immoral toChristians. Why not slavery also?]

[Footnote 17: I fear it cannot be denied that the zeal forChristianity which began to arise in our upper classes sixty yearsago, was largely prompted by a feeling that its precepts repressall speculations concerning the rights of man. A similar cause nowinfluences despots all over Europe. The _Old_ Testament contains theelements which they dread, and those gave a political creed to ourPuritans. ]

[Footnote 18: More than one critic flatly denies the fact. Itis sufficient for me here to say, that such is the obviousinterpretation, and such _historically has been_ the interpretation ofvarious texts, --for instance, 2 Thess. I. 7: "The Lord Jesus shall berevealed. .. In flaming fire, taking vengeance on them _that knownot God, and that obey not the Gospel_; who shall be punished witheverlasting destruction, " &c. Such again is the sense which allpopular minds receive and must receive from Heb, x. 25-31. --I amwilling to change _teaches_ into _has always been understood toteach_, if my critics think anything is gained by it. ]

[Footnote 19: The four monarchies in chapters ii. And vii, are, probably, the Babylonian, the Median, the Persian, the Macedonian. Interpreters however blend the Medes and Persians into one, and thenpretend that the Roman empire is _still in existence_. ]

[Footnote 20: The first apparent reference is by Micah (vi. 5) acontemporary of Hezekiah; which proves that an account contained inour Book of Numbers was already familiar. ]

[Footnote 21: I have had occasion to discuss most of the leadingprophecies of the Old Testament in my "Hebrew Monarchy. "]

[Footnote 22: A critic is pleased to call this a mere _suspicion_ ofmy own; in so writing, people simply evade my argument. I do not askthem to adopt my conviction; I merely communicate it as mine, and wishthem to admit that it is _my duty_ to follow my own conviction. Itis with me no mere "suspicion, " but a certainty. When they cannotpossibly give, or pretend, any _proof_ that the long discourses ofthe fourth gospel have been accurately reported, they ought to be lesssupercilious in their claims of unlimited belief. If it is right forthem to follow their judgment on a purely literary question, let themnot carp at me for following mine. ]

[Footnote 23: I am told that this defence of John is fanciful. Itsatisfies me provisionally; but I do not hold myself bound to satisfyothers, or to explain John's delusiveness. ]

[Footnote 24: Phil. Ii. 5-8; Rom. Xv. 3. The last suggests it was fromthe Psalms (viz from Ps. Lxix. 9) that Paul learned the _fact_ thatChrist pleased not himself. ]

[Footnote 25: Here, again, I have been erroneously understood to saythat there cannot be _any_ internal revelation of _anything_. Internaltruth may be internally communicated, though even so it does notbecome authoritative, or justify the receiver in saying to other men, "Believe, _for_ I guarantee it. " But a man who, on the strength of an_internal_ revelation believes an _external event_, (past, present, orfuture, ) is not a valid witness of it. Not Paley only, nor Priestley, but James Martineau also, would disown his pretence to authority;and the more so, the more imperious his claim that we believe on hisword. ]

[Footnote 26: This appears in v. 2, "by which ye are saved, --_unlessye have believed in vain_" &c. So v. 17-19. ]

[Footnote 27: 1 Cor. Xv. "He rose again the third day _according tothe Scriptures_. " This must apparently be a reference to Hosea vi. 2, to which the margin of the Bible refers. There is no other placein the existing Old Testament from which we can imagine him to haveelicited the rising _on the third day_. Some refer to the type ofJonah. Either of the two suggests how marvellously weak a proofsatiated him. ]

[Footnote 28: Such is the most legitimate translation. That in thereceived version is barely a possible meaning. There is no suchdistinction of prepositions as _in_ and _by_ in this passage. ]

CHAPTER VI. 

HISTORY DISCOVERED TO BE NO PART OF RELIGION. 

After renouncing any "Canon of Scripture" or Sacred Letter at the endof my fourth period, I had been forced to abandon all "Second-handFaith" by the end of my fifth. If asked _why_ I believed this or that, I could no longer say, "_Because_ Peter, or Paul, or John believed, and I may thoroughly trust that they cannot mistake. " The question nowpressed hard, whether this was equivalent to renouncing Christianity. 

Undoubtedly, my positive belief in its miracles had evaporated; butI had not arrived at a positive _dis_belief. I still felt the actualbenefits and comparative excellencies of this religion too remarkablea phenomenon to be scored for defect of proof. In Morals likewiseit happens, that the ablest practical expounders of truth may makestrange blunders as to the foundations and ground of belief: why wasthis impossible as to the apostles? Meanwhile, it did begin to appearto myself remarkable, that I continued to love and have pleasure in somuch that I certainly disbelieved. I perused a chapter of Paul or ofLuke, or some verses of a hymn, and although they appeared to me toabound with error, I found satisfaction and profit in them. Whywas this? was it all fond prejudice, --an absurd clinging to oldassociations?

A little self-examination enabled me to reply, that it was noill-grounded feeling or ghost of past opinions; but that my religionalways had been, and still was, a _state of sentiment_ toward God, farless dependent on articles of a creed, than once I had unhesitatinglybelieved. The Bible is pervaded by a sentiment, [1] which is impliedeverywhere, --viz. _the intimate sympathy of the Pure and Perfect Godwith the heart of each faithful worshipper_. This is that which iswanting in Greek philosophers, English Deists, German Pantheists, andall formalists. This is that which so often edifies me in Christianwriters and speakers, when I ever so much disbelieve the letter oftheir sentences. Accordingly, though I saw more and more of moral andspiritual imperfection in the Bible, I by no means ceased to regard itas a quarry whence I might dig precious metal, though the ore needed arefining analysis: and I regarded this as the truest essence and mostvital point in Christianity, --to sympathize with the great souls fromwhom its spiritual eminence has flowed;--to love, to hope, to rejoice, to trust with them;--and _not_, to form the same interpretations of anancient book and to take the same views of critical argument. 

My historical conception of Jesus had so gradually melted intodimness, that he had receded out of my practical religion, I knew notexactly when I believe that I must have disused any distinct prayersto him, from a growing opinion that he ought not to be the _object_ ofworship, but only the _way_ by whom we approach to the Father; andas in fact we need no such "way" at all, this was (in the result) achange from practical Ditheism to pure Theism. His "mediation" was tome always a mere name, and, as I believe, would otherwise have beenmischievous. [2]--Simultaneously a great uncertainty had grown on me, how much of the discourses put into the mouth of Jesus was reallyuttered by him; so that I had in no small measure to form him anew tomy imagination. 

But if religion is addressed to, and must be judged by, our moralfaculties, how could I believe in that painful and gratuitouspersonality, --The Devil?--He also had become a waning phantom tome, perhaps from the time that I saw the demoniacal miracles to befictions, and still more when proofs of manifold mistake in the NewTestament rose on me. This however took a solid form of positive_dis_belief, when I investigated the history of the doctrine, --Iforget exactly in what stage. For it is manifest, that the old Hebrewsbelieved only in evil spirits sent _by God_ to do _his bidding_, andhad no idea of a rebellious Spirit that rivalled God. That idea wasfirst imbibed in the Babylonish captivity, and apparently thereforemust have been adopted from the Persian Ahriman, or from the "MelekTaous, " the "Sheitan" still honoured by the Yezidi with mysteriousfear. That _the serpent_ in the early part of Genesis denoted thesame Satan, is probable enough; but this only goes to show, that thatnarrative is a legend imported from farther East; since it is certainthat the subsequent Hebrew literature has no trace of such an Ahriman. The Book of Tobit and its demon show how wise in these matters theexiles in Nineveh were beginning to be. The Book of Daniel manifests, that by the time of Antiochus Epiphanes the Jews had learned eachnation to have its guardian spirit, good or evil; and that the fatesof nations depend on the invisible conflict of these tutelary powers. In Paul the same idea is strongly brought out. Satan is the prince ofthe power of the air; with principalities and powers beneath him; overall of whom Christ won the victory on his cross. In the Apocalypsewe read the Oriental doctrine of the "_seven angels_ who stand beforeGod. " As the Christian tenet thus rose among the Jews from theircontact with Eastern superstition, and was propagated and expandedwhile prophecy was mute, it cannot be ascribed to "divine supernaturalrevelation" as the source. The ground of it is dearly seen in infantspeculations on the cause of moral evil and of national calamities. 

Thus Christ and the Devil, the two poles of Christendom, had fadedaway out of my spiritual vision; there were left the more vividly, Godand Man. Yet I had not finally renounced the _possibility_, thatJesus might have had a divine mission to stimulate all our spiritualfaculties, and to guarantee to us a future state of existence. Theabstract arguments for the immortality of the soul had always appearedto me vain trifling; and I was deeply convinced that nothing could_assure_ us of a future state but a divine communication. In what modethis might be made, I could not say _ą priori_: might not this reallybe the great purport of Messiahship? was not this, if any, a worthyground for a divine interference? On the contrary, to heal the sickdid not seem at all an adequate motive for a miracle; else, whynot the sick of our own day? Credulity had exaggerated, and hadrepresented Jesus to have wrought miracles: but that did not wholly_dis_prove the miracle of resurrection (whether bodily or of whateverkind), said to have been wrought by God _upon_ him, and of which sovery intense a belief so remarkably propagated itself. Paul indeedbelieved it[3] from prophecy; and, as we see this to be a delusion, resting on Rabbinical interpretations, we may perhaps _account_ thusfor the belief of the early church, without in any way admitting thefact. --Here, however, I found I had the clue to my only remainingdiscussion, the primitive Jewish controversy. Let us step back to anearlier stage than John's or Paul's or Peter's doctrine. We cannotdoubt that Jesus claimed to be Messiah: what then was Messiah to be?and, did Jesus (though misrepresented by his disciples) truly fulfilhis own claims?

The really Messianic prophecies appeared to me to be far fewer than iscommonly supposed. I found such in the 9th and 11th of Isaiah, the5th of Micah, the 9th of Zechariah, in the 72nd Psalm, in the 37th ofEzekiel, and, as I supposed, in the 50th and 53rd of Isaiah. To thesenothing of moment could be certainly added; for the passage in Dan. Ix. Is ill-translated in the English version, and I had alreadyconcluded that the Book of Daniel is a spurious fabrication. FromMicah and Ezekiel it appeared, that Messiah was to come from Bethlehemand either be David himself, or a spiritual David: from Isaiah it isshown that he is a rod out of the stem of Jesse. --It is true, I foundno proof that Jesus did come from Bethlehem or from the stock ofDavid; for the tales in Matthew and Luke refute one another, andhave clearly been generated by a desire to verify the prophecy. Butgenealogies for or against Messiahship seemed to me a mean argument;and the fact of the prophets demanding a carnal descent in Messiahstruck me as a worse objection than that Jesus had not got it, --ifthis could be ever proved. The Messiah of Micah, however, was notJesus; for he was to deliver Israel from _the Assyrians_, and hiswhole description is literally warlike. Micah, writing when the nameof Sennacherib was terrible, conceived of a powerful monarch on thethrone of David who was to subdue him: but as this prophecy was notverified, the imaginary object of it was looked for as "Messiah, "even after the disappearance of the formidable Assyrian power. Thisundeniable vanity of Micah's prophecy extends itself also to that inthe 9th chapter of his contemporary Isaiah, --if indeed that splendidpassage did not really point at the child Hezekiah. Waiving thisdoubt, it is at any rate clear that the marvellous child on the throneof David was to break the yoke of the oppressive Assyrian; and none ofthe circumstantials are at all appropriate to the historical Jesus. 

In the 37th of Ezekiel the (new) David is to gather Judah and Israel"from the heathen whither they be gone" and to "make them one nation_in the land, on the mountains of Israel_:" and Jehovah adds, thatthey shall "dwell in the land _which I gave unto Jacob my servant, wherein your fathers dwelt_: and they shall dwell therein, they andtheir children and their children's children for ever: and my servantDavid shall be their prince for ever. " It is trifling to pretend that_the land promised to Jacob, and in which the old Jews dwelt_, wasa spiritual, and not the literal Palestine; and therefore it isimpossible to make out that Jesus has fulfilled any part of thisrepresentation. The description however that follows (Ezekiel xl. &c. ) of the new city and temple, with the sacrifices offered by"the priests the Levites, of the seed of Zadok, " and the gate of thesanctuary for the prince (xliv. 3), and his elaborate account ofthe borders of the land (xlviii. 13-23), place the earnestness ofEzekiel's literalism in still clearer light. 

The 72nd Psalm, by the splendour of its predictions concerning thegrandeur of some future king of Judah, earns the title of Messianic, _because_ it was never fulfilled by any historical king. But it isequally certain, that it has had no appreciable fulfilment in Jesus. 

But what of the 11th of Isaiah? Its portraiture is not so much that ofa king, as of a prophet endowed with superhuman power. "He shall smitethe earth with the rod of his mouth, and with the breath of his lipshe shall slay the wicked. " A Paradisiacal state is to follow. --Thisgeneral description _may_ be verified by Jesus _hereafter_; but wehave no manifestation, which enables us to call the fulfilment a fact. Indeed, the latter part of the prophecy is out of place for a time solate as the reign of Augustus; which forcibly denotes that Isaiah waspredicting only that which was his immediate political aspiration: forin this great day of Messiah, Jehovah is to gather back his dispersedpeople from Assyria, Egypt, and other parts; he is _to reconcile Judahand Ephraim_, (who had been perfectly reconciled centuries beforeJesus was born, ) and as a result of this Messianic glory, the peopleof Israel "shall fly upon the shoulders of the _Philistines_ towardsthe west; they shall spoil them of the east together: they shall laytheir hand on _Edom_ and _Moab_, and the children of _Ammon_ shallobey them. " But Philistines, Moab and Ammon, were distinctionsentirely lost before the Christian era. --Finally, the Red Sea is to beonce more passed miraculously by the Israelites, returning (as wouldseem) to their fathers' soil. Take all these particulars together, and the prophecy is neither fulfilled in the past nor possible to befulfilled in the future. 

The prophecy which we know as Zechariah ix. -xi. Is believed to bereally from a prophet of uncertain name, contemporaneous with Isaiah. It was written while Ephraim was still a people, i. E. Before thecapture of Samaria by Shalmanezer; and xi. 1-3 appears to howl overthe recent devastations of Tiglathpilezer. The prophecy is throughoutfull of the politics of that day. No part of it has the most remote orimaginable[4] similarity to the historical life of Jesus, except thathe once rode into Jerusalem on an ass; a deed which cannot have beenpeculiar to him, and which Jesus moreover appears to have planned withthe express[5] purpose of assimilating himself to the lowly king heredescribed. Yet such an isolated act is surely a carnal and beggarlyfulfilment. To ride on an ass is no mark of humility in those who mustordinarily go on foot. The prophet clearly means that the righteousking is not to ride on a warhorse and trust in cavalry, as Solomonand the Egyptians, (see Ps. Xx. 7. Is. Xxxi. 1-3, xxx. 16, ) but is toimitate the lowliness of David and the old judges, who rode on youngasses; and is to be a lover of peace. 

Chapters 50 and 53 of the pseudo-Isaiah remained; which contain manyphrases so aptly descriptive of the sufferings of Christ, and soclosely knit up with our earliest devotional associations, that theywere the very last link of my chain that snapt. Still, I could notconceal from myself, that no exactness in this prophecy, howeversingular, could avail to make out that Jesus was the Messiah ofHezekiah's prophets. There must be _some_ explanation; and if I didnot see it, that must probably arise from prejudice and habit. --Inorder therefore to gain freshness, I resolved to peruse the entireprophecy of the pseudo-Isaiah in Lowth's version, from ch. Xl. Onward, at a single sitting. 

This prophet writes from Babylon, and has his vision full of theapproaching restoration of his people by Cyrus, whom he addresses byname. In ch. Xliii. He introduces to us an eminent and "chosenservant of God, " whom he invests with all the evangelical virtues, anddeclares that he is to be a light to the Gentiles. In ch. Xliv. (v. 1--also v. 21) he is named as "_Jacob_ my servant, and _Israel_ whomI have chosen. " The appellations recur in xlv. 4: and in a far morestriking passage, xlix. 1-12, which is eminently Messianic to theChristian ear, _except_ that in v. 3, the speaker distinctly declareshimself to be (not Messiah, but) Israel. The same speaker continues inch. L. , which is equally Messianic in sound. In ch. Lii. The prophetspeaks _of_ him, (vv. 13-15) but the subject of the chapter is_restoration from Babylon_; and from this he runs on into thecelebrated ch. Liii. 

It is essential to understand the _same_ "elect servant" all along. He is many times called Israel, and is often addressed in a tone quiteinapplicable to Messiah, viz. As one needing salvation himself; so inch. Xliii. Yet in ch. Xlix. This elect Israel is distinguished fromJacob and Israel at large: thus there is an entanglement. Who can becalled on to risk his eternal hopes on his skilful unknotting of it?It appeared however to me most probable, that as our high Churchmendistinguish "mother Church" from the individuals who compose theChurch, so the "Israel" of this prophecy is the idealizing ofthe Jewish Church; which I understood to be a current Jewishinterpretation. The figure perhaps embarrasses us, only because of themale sex attributed to the ideal servant of God; for when "Zion"is spoken of by the same prophet in the same way, no one findsdifficulty, or imagines that a female person of superhuman birth andqualities must be intended. 

It still remained strange that in Isaiah liii. And Pss. Xxii. Andlxix. There should be _coincidences_ so close with the sufferings ofJesus: but I reflected, that I had no proof that the narrative had notbeen strained by credulity, [6] to bring it into artificial agreementwith these imagined predictions of his death. And herewith my lastargument in favour of views for which I once would have laid down mylife, seemed to be spent. 

Nor only so: but I now reflected that the falsity of the prophecyin Dan. Vii. (where the coming of "a Son of Man" to sit in universaljudgment follows immediately upon the break-up of the Syrianmonarchy, )--to say nothing of the general proof of the spuriousness ofthe whole Book of Daniel, --ought perhaps long ago to have been seen byme as of more cardinal importance. For if we believe anything at allabout the discourses of Christ, we cannot doubt that he selected "_Sonof Man_" as his favourite title; which admits no interpretation sosatisfactory, as, that he tacitly refers to the seventh chapter ofDaniel, and virtually bases his pretensions upon it. On the whole, it was no longer defect of proof Which presented itself, but positivedisproof of the primitive and fundamental claim. 

I could not for a moment allow weight to the topic, that "it isdangerous to _dis_believe wrongly;" for I felt, and had alwaysfelt, that it gave a premium to the most boastful and tyrannizingsuperstition:--as if it were not equally dangerous to _believe_wrongly! Nevertheless, I tried to plead for farther delay, by asking:Is not the subject too vast for me to decide upon?--Think how manywise and good men have fully examined, and have come to a contraryconclusion. What a grasp of knowledge and experience of the human mindit requires! Perhaps too I have unawares been carried away by a loveof novelty, which I have mistaken for a love of truth. 

But the argument recoiled upon me. Have I not been 25 years a readerof the Bible? have I not full 18 years been a student of Theology?have I not employed 7 of the best years of my life, with ampleleisure, in this very investigation;--without any intelligible earthlybribe to carry me to my present conclusion, against all my interests, all my prejudices and all my education? There are many far morelearned men than I, --many men of greater power of mind; but there arealso a hundred times as many who are my inferiors; and if I have beenseven years labouring in vain to solve this vast literary problem, itis an extreme absurdity to imagine that the solving of it is imposedby God on the whole human race. Let me renounce my little learning;let me be as the poor and simple: what then follows? Why, then, _stillthe same thing follows_, that difficult literary problems concerningdistant history cannot afford any essential part of my religion. 

It is with hundreds or thousands a favourite idea, that "they have aninward witness of the truth of (_the historical and outward facts of_)Christianity. " Perhaps the statement would bring its own refutationto them, if they would express it clearly. Suppose a biographer of SirIsaac Newton, after narrating his sublime discoveries and ably statingsome of his most remarkable doctrines, to add, that Sir Isaac was agreat magician, and had been used to raise spirits by his arts, andfinally was himself carried up to heaven one night, while hewas gazing at the moon; and that this event had been foretold byMerlin:--it would surely be the height of absurdity to dilate on thetruth of the Newtonian theory as "the moral evidence" of the truth ofthe miracles and prophecy. Yet this is what those do, who adduce theexcellence of the precepts and spirituality of the general doctrine ofthe New Testament, as the "moral evidence" of its miracles and of itsfulfilling the Messianic prophecies. But for the ambiguity of theword _doctrine_, probably such confusion of thought would have beenimpossible. "Doctrines" are either spiritual truths, or arestatements of external history. Of the former we may have an inwardwitness;--that is their proper evidence;--but the latter must dependupon adequate testimony and various kinds of criticism. 

How quickly might I have come to my conclusion, --how much wearythought and useless labour might I have spared, --if at an earlier timethis simple truth had been pressed upon me, that since the religiousfaculties of the poor and half-educated cannot investigate Historicaland Literary questions, _therefore_ these questions cannot constitutean essential part of Religion. --But perhaps I could not have gainedthis result by any abstract act of thought, from want of freedom tothink: and there are advantages also in expanding slowly under greatpressure, if one _can_ expand, and is not crushed by it. 

I felt no convulsion of mind, no emptiness of soul, no inwardpractical change: but I knew that it would be said, this was onlybecause the force of the old influence was as yet unspent, and thata gradual declension in the vitality of my religion must ensue. Morethan eight years have since past, and I feel I have now a right tocontradict that statement. To any "Evangelical" I have a right tosay, that while he has a _single_, I have a _double_ experience; andI know, that the spiritual fruits which he values, have no connectionwhatever with the complicated and elaborate creed, which his schoolimagines, and I once imagined, to be the roots out of which they arefed. That they depend directly on _the heart's belief in the sympathyof God with individual man_, [7] I am well assured: but that doctrinedoes not rest upon the Bible or upon Christianity; for it is apostulate, from which every Christian advocate is forced to start. Ifit be denied, he cannot take a step forward in his argument. He talksto men about Sin and Judgment to come, and the need of Salvation, and so proceeds to the Saviour. But his very first step, --the ideaof Sin, --_assumes_ that God concerns himself with our actions, words, thoughts; _assumes_ therefore that sympathy of God with every man, which (it seems) can only be known by an infallible Bible. 

I know that many Evangelicals will reply, that I never can have had"the true" faith; else I could never have lost it: and as for mynot being conscious of spiritual change, they will accept this asconfirming their assertion. Undoubtedly I cannot prove that I everfelt as they now feel: perhaps they love their present opinions _morethan_ truth, and are careless to examine and verify them; with thatI claim no fellowship. But there are Christians, and EvangelicalChristians, of another stamp, who love their creed, _only_ becausethey believe it to be true, but love truth, as such, and truthfulness, more than any creed: with these I claim fellowship. Their love to Godand man, their allegiance to righteousness and true holiness, willnot be in suspense and liable to be overturned by new discoveries ingeology and in ancient inscriptions, or by improved criticism of textsand of history, nor have they any imaginable interest in thwartingthe advance of scholarship. It is strange indeed to undervalue _that_Faith, which alone is purely moral and spiritual, alone rests ona basis that cannot be shaken, alone lifts the possessor above theconflicts of erudition, and makes it impossible for him to fear theincrease of knowledge. 

I fully expected that reviewers and opponents from the evangelicalschool would laboriously insinuate or assert, that I _never was_a Christian and do not understand anything about Christianityspiritually. My expectations have been more than fulfilled; and thecourse which my assailants have taken leads me to add some topics tothe last paragraph. I say then, that if I had been slain at the age oftwenty-seven, when I was chased[8] by a mob of infuriated Mussulmansfor selling New Testaments, they would have trumpeted me as aneminent saint and martyr. I add, that many circumstances within easypossibility might have led to my being engaged as an official teacherof a congregation at the usual age, which would in all probabilityhave arrested my intellectual development, and have stereotyped mycreed for many a long year; and then also they would have acknowledgedme as a Christian. A little more stupidity, a little more worldliness, a little more mental dishonesty in me, or perhaps a little morekindness and management in others, would have kept me in my old state, which was acknowledged and would still be acknowledged as Christian. To try to disown me now, is an impotent superciliousness. 

At the same time, I confess to several moral changes, as the result ofthis change in my creed, the principal of which are the following. 

1. I have found that my old belief narrowed my affections. It taughtme to bestow peculiar love on "the people of God, " and it assigned anintellectual creed as one essential mark of this people. That creedmay be made more or less stringent; but when driven to its minimum, itincludes a recognition of the historical proposition, that "the Jewishteacher Jesus fulfilled the conditions requisite to constitute himthe Messiah of the ancient Hebrew prophets. " This proposition has beenrejected by very many thoughtful and sincere men in England, and bytens of thousands in France, Germany, Italy, Spain. To judge rightlyabout it, is necessarily a problem of literary criticism; which hasboth to interpret the Old Scriptures and to establish how much of thebiography of Jesus in the New is credible. To judge wrongly about it, may prove one to be a bad critic but not a less good and less piousman. Yet my old creed enacted an affirmative result of this historicalinquiry, as a test of one's spiritual state, and ordered me to thinkharshly of men like Marcus Aurelius and Lessing, because they didnot adopt the conclusion which the professedly uncritical haveestablished. It possessed me with a general gloom concerningMohammedans and Pagans, and involved the whole course of history andprospects of futurity in a painful darkness from which I am relieved. 

2. Its theory was one of selfishness. That is, it inculcated that myfirst business must be, to save my soul from future punishment, andto attain future happiness; and it bade me to chide myself, when Ithought of nothing but about doing present duty and blessing God forpresent enjoyment. 

In point of fact, I never did look much to futurity, nor even inprospect of death could attain to any vivid anticipations or desires, much less was troubled with fears. The evil which I suffered frommy theory, was not (I believe) that it really made me selfish--otherinfluences of it were too powerful:--but it taught me to blamemyself for unbelief, because I was not sufficiently absorbed in thecontemplation of my vast personal expectations. I certainly here feelmyself delivered from the danger of factitious sin. 

The selfish and self-righteous texts come principally from the threefirst gospels, and are greatly counteracted by the deeper spiritualityof the apostolic epistles. I therefore by no means charge thistendency indiscriminately on the New Testament. 

3. It laid down that "the time is short; THE LORD IS AT HAND: thethings of this world pass away, and deserve not our affections: theonly thing worth spending one's energies on, is, the forwarding ofmen's salvation. " It bade me "watch perpetually, not knowing whethermy Lord would return at cockcrowing or at midday. "

While I believed this, (which, however disagreeable to modernChristians, is the clear doctrine of the New Testament, ) I acted aneccentric and unprofitable part. From it I was saved against my will, and forced into a course in which the doctrine, having been laidto sleep, awoke only now and then to reproach and harass me formy unfaithfulness to it. This doctrine it is, which makes so manyspiritual persons lend active or passive aid to uphold abuses andperpetuate mischief in every department of human life. Those who stickclosest to the Scripture do not shrink from saying, that "it is notworth while trying to mend the world, " and stigmatize as "politicaland worldly" such as pursue an opposite course. Undoubtedly, if we areto expect our Master at cockcrowing, we shall not study the permanentimprovement of this transitory scene. To teach the certain speedydestruction of earthly things, _as the New Testament does_, is to cutthe sinews of all earthly progress; to declare war against Intellectand Imagination, against Industrial and Social advancement. 

There was a time when I was distressed at being unable to avoidexultation in the worldly greatness of England. My heart would, inspite, of me, swell with something of pride, when a Turk or Arab askedwhat was my country: I then used to confess to God this pride asa sin. I still see that that was a legitimate deduction from theScripture. "The glory of this world passeth away, " and I had professedto be "dead with Christ" to it. The difference is this. I am now as"dead" as then to all of it which my conscience discerns to be sinful, but I have not to torment myself in a (fundamentally ascetic)struggle against innocent and healthy impulses. I now, with deliberateapproval, "love the world and the things of the world. " I can feelpatriotism, and take the deepest interest in the future prospects ofnations, and no longer reproach myself. Yet this is quite consistentwith feeling the spiritual interests of men to be of all incomparablythe highest. 

Modern religionists profess to be disciples of Christ, and talk highof the perfect morality of the New Testament, when they certainlydo not submit their understanding to it, and are no more like to thefirst disciples than bishops are like the pennyless apostles. Onecritic tells me that _I know_ that the above is _not_ the trueinterpretation of the apostolic doctrine. Assuredly I am aware that wemay rebuke "the world" and "worldliness, " in a legitimate and modifiedsense, as being the system of _selfishness_: true, --and I have avowedthis in another work; but it does not follow that Jesus and theapostles did not go farther: and manifestly they did. The truedisciple, who would be perfect as his Master, was indeed ordered tosell all, give to the poor and follow him; and when that severity wasrelaxed by good sense, it was still taught that things which lastedto the other side of the grave alone deserved our affection or ourexertion. If any person thinks me ignorant of the Scriptures for beingof this judgment, let him so think; but to deny that I am sincere inmy avowal, is a very needless insolence. 

4. I am sensible how heavy a clog on the exercise of my judgment hasbeen taken off from me, since I unlearned that Bibliolatry, which I amdisposed to call the greatest religious evil of England. 

Authority has a place in religious teaching, as in education, but itis provisional and transitory. Its chief use is to guide _action_, and assist the formation of habits, before the judgment is ripe. Asapplied to mere _opinion_, its sole function is to guide inquiry. Solong as an opinion is received on authority only, it works no inwardprocess upon us: yet the promulgation of it by authority, is nottherefore always useless, since the prominence thus given to it maybe a most important stimulus to thought. While the mind is inactive orweak, it will not wish to throw off the yoke of authority: but as soonas it begins to discern error in the standard proposed to it, we havethe mark of incipient original thought, which is the thing so valuableand so difficult to elicit; and which authority is apt to crush. Anintelligent pupil seldom or never gives _too little_ weight to theopinion of his teacher: a wise teacher will never repress the freeaction of his pupils' minds, even when they begin to question hisresults. "Forbidding to think" is a still more fatal tyranny than"forbidding to marry:" it paralyzes all the moral powers. 

In former days, if any moral question came before me, I was alwaysapt to turn it into the mere lawyerlike exercise of searching andinterpreting my written code. Thus, in reading how Henry the Eighthtreated his first queen, I thought over Scripture texts in order tojudge whether he was right, and if I could so get a solution, I leftmy own moral powers unexercised. All Protestants see, how mischievousit is to a Romanist lady to have a directing priest, whom she everyday consults about everything; so as to lay her own judgment tosleep. We readily understand, that in the extreme case such women maygradually lose all perception of right and wrong, and become a meremachine in the hands of her director. But the Protestant principle ofaccepting the Bible as the absolute law, acts towards the same end;and only fails of doing the same amount of mischief, because a bookcan never so completely answer all the questions asked of it, as aliving priest can. The Protestantism which pities those as "withoutchart and compass" who acknowledge no infallible written code, canmean nothing else, than that "the less occasion we have to trust ourmoral powers, the better;" that is, it represents it as of all thingsmost desirable to be able to benumb conscience by disuse, under theguidance of a mind from without. Those who teach this need not marvelto see their pupils become Romanists. 

But Bibliolatry not only paralyzes the moral sense; it also corruptsthe intellect, and introduces a crooked logic, by setting men to theduty of extracting absolute harmony out of discordant materials. Allare familiar with the subtlety of lawyers, whose task it is to elicita single sense out of a heap of contradictory statutes. In their casesuch subtlety may indeed excite in us impatience or contempt; butwe forbear to condemn them, when it is pleaded that practicalconvenience, not truth, is their avowed end. In the case oftheological ingenuity, where truth is the professed and sacredobject, a graver judgment is called for. When the Biblical interpreterstruggles to reconcile contradictions, or to prove that wrong isright, merely because he is bound to maintain the perfection of theBible; when to this end he condescends to sophistry and pettifoggingevasions; it is difficult to avoid feeling disgust as well as grief. Some good people are secretly conscious that the Bible is not aninfallible book; but they dread the consequences of proclaiming this"to the vulgar. " Alas! and have they measured the evils which thefostering of this lie is producing in the minds, not of the educatedonly, but emphatically of the ministers of religion?

Many who call themselves Christian preachers busily undermine moralsentiment, by telling their hearers, that if they do not believe theBible (or the Church), they can have no firm religion or morality, andwill have no reason to give against following brutal appetite. This doctrine it is, that so often makes men atheists in Spain, andprofligates in England, as soon as they unlearn the national creed:and the school which have done the mischief, moralize over thewickedness of human nature when it comes to pass instead of blamingthe falsehood which they have themselves inculcated. 

[Footnote 1: A critic presses me with the question, how I can doubtthat doctrine so holy _comes from God_. He professes to review mybook on the Soul; yet, apparently became he himself _dis_believes thedoctrine of the Holy Spirit taught alike in the Psalms and Prophetsand in the New Testament, --he cannot help forgetting that I professto believe it. He is not singular in his dulness. That the sentimentabove is necessarily independent of Biblical _authority_, see p. 133. ]

[Footnote 2: I do not here enlarge on this, as it is discussed in mytreatise on The Soul 2nd edition, p. 76, or 3rd edition, p. 52. ]

[Footnote 3: 1 Cor. Xv. 3. Compare Acts xii. 33, 34, 35 also Acts ii. 27, 34. ]

[Footnote 4: I need not except the _potter_ and the thirty pieces ofsilver (Zech. Xi. 13), for the _potter_ is a mere absurd error of textor translation. The Septuagint has the _foundry_, De Wette has the_treasury_, with whom Hitzig and Ewald agree. So Winer (Simoni'sLexicon). ]

[Footnote 5: Some of my critics are very angry with me for sayingthis; but Matthew himself (xxi. 4) almost says it:--"_All this wasdone, that it might be fulfilled_, " &c. Do my critics mean to tell methat Jesus _was not aware_ of the prophecy? or if Jesus did know ofthe prophecy, will they tell me _that he was not designing_ to fulfilit? I feel such carping to be little short of hypocrisy. ]

[Footnote 6: Apparently on these words of mine, a reviewer builds upthe inference that I regard "the Evangelical narrative as a mythicalfancy-piece imitated from David and Isaiah. " I feel this to be a greatcaricature. My words are carefully limited to a few petty details ofone part of the narrative. ] [Footnote 7: I did not calculate thatany assailant would be so absurd as to lecture me on the topic, thatGod has no sympathy _with our sins and follies_. Of course what Imean is, that he has complacency in our moral perfection. See p. 125above. ]

[Footnote 8: This was at Aintab, in the north of Syria. One of mycompanions was caught by the mob and beaten (as they probably thought)to death. But he recovered very similarly to Paul, in Acts xiv. 20, after long lying senseless. ]

CHAPTER VII. 

ON THE MORAL PERFECTION OF JESUS. 

Let no reader peruse this chapter, who is not willing to enter intoa discussion, as free and unshrinking, concerning the personalexcellencies and conduct of Jesus, as that of Mr. Grote concerningSocrates. I have hitherto met with most absurd rebuffs for myscrupulosity. One critic names me as a principal leader in a schoolwhich extols and glorifies the character of Jesus; after whichhe proceeds to reproach me with inconsistency, and to insinuatedishonesty. Another expresses himself as deeply wounded that, inrenouncing the belief that Jesus is more than man, I suggest tocompare him to a clergyman whom I mentioned as eminently holy andperfect in the picture of a partial biographer; such a comparisonis resented with vivid indignation, as a blurting out of something"unspeakably painful. " Many have murmured that I do _not_ come forwardto extol the excellencies of Jesus, but appear to prefer Paul. Morethan one taunt me with an inability to justify my insinuationsthat Jesus, after all, was not really perfect; one is "extremelydisappointed" that I have not attacked him; in short, it is manifestthat many would much rather have me say out my whole heart, thanwithhold anything. I therefore give fair warning to all, not toread any farther, or else to blame themselves if I inflict on them"unspeakable pain, " by differing from their judgment of a historicalor unhistorical character. As for those who confound my tendernesswith hypocrisy and conscious weakness, if they trust themselves toread to the end, I think they will abandon that fancy. 

But how am I brought into this topic? It is because, after my mind hadreached the stage narrated in the last chapter, I fell in with a newdoctrine among the Unitarians, --that the evidence of Christianity isessentially popular and spiritual, consisting in _the Life of Christ_, who is a perfect man and the absolute moral image of God, --thereforefitly called "God manifest in the flesh, " and, as such, Moral Head ofthe human race. Since this view was held in conjunction with thoseat which I had arrived myself concerning miracles, prophecy, theuntrustworthiness of Scripture as to details, and the essentialunreasonableness of imposing dogmatic propositions as a creed, Ihad to consider why I could not adopt such a modification, or (as itappeared to me) reconstruction, of Christianity; and I gave reasonsin the first edition of this book, which, avoiding direct treatment ofthe character of Jesus, seemed to me adequate on the opposite side. 

My argument was reviewed by a friend, who presently published thereview with his name, replying to my remarks on this scheme. I thusfind myself in public and avowed controversy with one who is endowedwith talents, accomplishments, and genius, to which I have nopretensions. The challenge has certainly come from myself. Trusting tothe goodness of my cause, I have ventured it into an unequal combat;and from a consciousness of my admired friend's high superiority, I dofeel a little abashed at being brought face to face against him. Butpossibly the less said to the public on these personal matters, thebetter. 

I have to give reasons why I cannot adopt that modified schemeof Christianity which is defended and adorned by James Martineau;according to which it is maintained that though the Gospel Narrativesare not to be trusted in detail, there can yet be no reasonabledoubt _what_ Jesus _was_; for this is elicited by a "higher moralcriticism, " which (it is remarked) I neglect. In this theory, Jesus isavowed to be a man born like other men; to be liable to error, and(at least in some important respects) mistaken. Perhaps no generalproposition is to be accepted _merely_ on the word of Jesus; inparticular, he misinterpreted the Hebrew prophecies. "He was not_less_ than the Hebrew Messiah, but _more_. " No moral charge isestablished against him, until it is shown, that in applying the oldprophecies to himself, he was _conscious_ that they did not fit. His error was one of mere fallibility in matters of intellectual andliterary estimate. On the other hand, Jesus had an infallible moralperception, which reveals itself to the true-hearted reader, and istestified by the common consciousness of Christendom. It has pleasedthe Creator to give us one sun in the heavens, and one Divine soul inhistory, in order to correct the aberrations of our individuality, andunite all mankind into one family of God. Jesus is to be presumed tobe perfect until he is shown to be imperfect. Faith in Jesus, is notreception of propositions, but reverence for a person; yet this is_not_ the condition of salvation or essential to the Divine favour. 

Such is the scheme, abridged from the ample discussion of my eloquentfriend. In reasoning against it, my arguments will, to a certainextent, be those of an orthodox Trinitarian;[1] since we might bothmaintain that the belief in the absolute divine morality of Jesus isnot tenable, when the belief in _every other_ divine and superhumanquality is denied. Should I have any "orthodox" reader, my argumentsmay shock his feelings less, if he keeps this in view. In fact, thesame action or word in Jesus may be consistent or inconsistent withmoral perfection, according to the previous assumptions concerning hisperson. 

I. My friend has attributed to me a "prosaic and embittered view ofhuman nature, " apparently because I have a very intense belief ofMan's essential imperfection. To me, I confess, it is almost a firstprinciple of thought, that as all sorts of perfection coexist in God, so is no sort of perfection possible to man. I do not know how fora moment to imagine an Omniscient Being who is not Almighty, oran Almighty who is not All-Righteous. So neither do I know how toconceive of Perfect Holiness anywhere but in the Blessed and onlyPotentate. 

Man is finite and crippled on all sides; and frailty in one kindcauses frailty in another. Deficient power causes deficient knowledge, deficient knowledge betrays him into false opinion, and entangles himinto false positions. It may be a defect of my imagination, but I donot feel that it implies any bitterness, that even in the case ofone who abides in primitive lowliness, to attain even negatively anabsolutely pure goodness seems to me impossible; and much more, toexhaust all goodness, and become a single Model-Man, unparalleled, incomparable, a standard for all other moral excellence. EspeciallyI cannot conceive of any human person rising out of obscurity, andinfluencing the history of the world, unless there be in him forcesof great intensity, the harmonizing of which is a vast and painfulproblem. Every man has to subdue himself first, before he preaches tohis fellows; and he encounters many a fall and many a wound in winninghis own victory. And as talents are various, so do moral natures vary, each having its own weak and strong side; and that one man shouldgrasp into his single self the highest perfection of every moralkind, is to me at least as incredible as that one should preoccupyand exhaust all intellectual greatness. I feel the prodigy to be sopeculiar, that I must necessarily wait until it is overwhelminglyproved, before I admit it. No one can without unreason urge me tobelieve, on any but the most irrefutable arguments, that a man, finitein every other respect, is infinite in moral perfection. 

My friend is "at a loss to conceive in what way a superhuman physicalnature could tend in the least degree to render moral perfection morecredible. " But I think he will see, that it would entirely obviate theargument just stated, which, from the known frailty of human naturein general, deduced the indubitable imperfection of an individual. Thereply is then obvious and decisive: "This individual is _not_ a mereman; his origin is wholly exceptional; therefore his moral perfectionmay be exceptional; your experience of _man's_ weakness goes fornothing in his case. " If I were already convinced that this person wasa great Unique, separated from all other men by an impassable chasm inregard to his physical origin, I (for one) should be much readier tobelieve that he was Unique and Unapproachable in other respects: forall God's works have an internal harmony. It could not be for nothingthat this exceptional personage was sent into the world. That he wasintended as head of the human race, in one or more senses, would bea plausible opinion; nor should I feel any incredulous repugnanceagainst believing his morality to be if not divinely perfect, yetseparated from that of common men so far, that he might be a God tous, just as every parent is to a young child. 

This view seems to my friend a weakness; be it so. I need not pressit. What I do press, is, --whatever _might_ or might _not_ be concededconcerning one in human form, but of superhuman origin, --at anyrate, one who is conceded to be, out and out, of the same nature asourselves, is to be judged of by our experience of that nature, and istherefore to be _assumed_ to be variously imperfect, however eminentand admirable in some respects. And no one is to be called an imaginerof deformity, because he takes for granted that one who is Man hasimperfections which were not known to those who compiled memorials ofhim. To impute to a person, without specific evidence, some definitefrailty or fault, barely because he is human, would be a want of goodsense; but not so, to have a firm belief that every human being isfinite in moral as well as in intellectual greatness. 

We have a very imperfect history of the apostle James; and I do notknow that I could adduce any fact specifically recorded concerning himin disproof of his absolute moral perfection, if any of his Jerusalemdisciples had chosen to set up this as a dogma of religion. Yet noone would blame me, as morose, or indisposed to acknowledge genius andgreatness, if I insisted on believing James to be frail and imperfect, while admitting that I knew almost nothing about him. And why?--Singlyand surely, because we know him to be _a man_: that suffices. To setup James or John or Daniel as my Model, and my Lord; to be swallowedup in him and press him upon others for a Universal Standard, wouldbe despised as a self-degrading idolatry and resented as an obtrusivefavouritism. Now why does not the same equally apply, if the nameJesus is substituted for these? Why, in defect of all other knowledgethan the bare fact of his manhood, are we not unhesitatingly to takefor granted that he does _not_ exhaust all perfection, and is at bestonly one among many brethren and equals?

II. My friend, I gather, will reply, "because so many thousandsof minds in all Christendom attest the infinite and unapproachablegoodness of Jesus. " It therefore follows to consider, what is theweight of this attestation. Manifestly it depends, first of all, onthe independence of the witnesses: secondly, on the grounds of theirbelief. If all those, who confess the moral perfection of Jesus, confess it as the result of unbiassed examination of his character;and if of those acquainted with the narrative, none espouse theopposite side; this would be a striking testimony, not to be despised. But in fact, few indeed of the "witnesses" add any weight at all tothe argument. No Trinitarian can doubt that Jesus is morally perfect, without doubting fundamentally every part of his religion. He believesit, _because_ the entire system demands it, and _because_ varioustexts of Scripture avow it: and this very fact makes it morallyimpossible for him to enter upon an unbiassed inquiry, whether thatcharacter which is drawn for Jesus in the four gospels, is, or is not, one of absolute perfection, deserving to be made an exclusive modelfor all times and countries. My friend never was a Trinitarian, andseems not to know how this operates; but I can testify, that when Ibelieved in the immaculateness of Christ's character, it was notfrom an unbiassed criticism, but from the pressure of authority, (theauthority of _texts_, ) and from the necessity of the doctrine to thescheme of Redemption. Not merely strict Trinitarians, but all whobelieve in the Atonement, however modified, --all who believe thatJesus will be the future Judge, --_must_ believe in his absoluteperfection: hence the fact of their belief is no indication whateverthat they believe on the ground which my friend assumes, --viz. Anintelligent and unbiassed study of the character itself, as exhibitedin the four narratives. 

I think we may go farther. We have no reason for thinking that _this_was the sort of evidence which convinced the apostles themselves, andfirst teachers of the gospel;--if indeed in the very first years thedoctrine was at all conceived of. It cannot be shown that any onebelieved in the moral perfection of Jesus, who had not already adoptedthe belief that he was Messiah, and _therefore_ Judge of the humanrace. My friend makes the pure immaculateness of Jesus (discernibleby him in the gospels) his foundation, and deduces _from_ this thequasi-Messiahship: but the opposite order of deduction appears to havebeen the only one possible in the first age. Take Paul as a specimen. He believed the doctrine in question; but not from reading the fourgospels, --for they did not exist. Did he then believe it by hearingAnanias (Acts ix. 17) enter into details concerning the deeds andwords of Jesus? I cannot imagine that any wise or thoughtful personwould so judge, which after all would be a gratuitous invention. TheActs of the Apostles give us many speeches which set forth the groundsof accepting Jesus as Messiah; but they never press his absolute moralperfection as a fact and a fundamental fact. "He went about doinggood, and healing all that were oppressed of the devil, " is the utmostthat is advanced on this side: prophecy is urged, and his resurrectionis asserted, and the inference is drawn that "Jesus is the Christ. "Out of this flowed the farther inferences that he was SupremeJudge, --and moreover, was Paschal Lamb, and Sacrifice, and HighPriest, and Mediator; and since every one of these characters demandeda belief in his moral perfections, that doctrine also necessarilyfollowed, and was received before our present gospels existed. Myfriend therefore cannot abash me by the _argumentum ad verecundiam_;(which to me seems highly out of place in this connexion;) for theopinion, which is, as to this single point, held by him in common withthe first Christians, was held by them on transcendental reasons whichhe totally discards; and all after generations have been confirmedin the doctrine by Authority, _i. E. _ by the weight of texts or churchdecisions: both of which he also discards. If I could receivethe doctrine, merely because I dared not to differ from the wholeChristian world, I might aid to swell odium against rejectors, but Ishould not strengthen the cause at the bar of reason. I feel thereforethat my friend must not claim Catholicity as on his side. Trinitariansand Arians are alike useless to his argument: nay, nor can he claimmore than a small fraction of Unitarians; for as many of the thembelieve that Jesus is to be the Judge of living and dead (as the lateDr. Lant Carpenter did) must as _necessarily_ believe his immaculateperfection as if they were Trinitarians. 

The New Testament does not distinctly explain on what grounds thisdoctrine was believed; but we may observe that in 1 Peter i. 19 and 2Cor. V. 21, it is coupled with the Atonement, and in 1 Peter ii. 21, Romans xv. 3, it seems to be inferred from prophecy. But let us turnto the original Eleven, who were eye and ear witnesses of Jesus, andconsider on what grounds they can have believed (if we assume thatthey did all believe) the absolute moral perfection of Jesus. It istoo ridiculous to imagine then studying the writings of Matthew inorder to obtain conviction, --if any of that school, whom alone I nowaddress, could admit that written documents were thought of beforethe Church outstept the limits of Judea. If the Eleven believedthe doctrine for some transcendental reason, --as by a SupernaturalRevelation, or on account of Prophecy, and to complete the Messiah'scharacter, --then their attestation is useless to my friend's argument:will it then gain anything, if we suppose that they _believed_ Jesusto be perfect, because they _saw_ him to be perfect? To me this wouldseem no attestation worth having, but rather a piece of impertinentignorance. If I attest that a person whom I have known was aneminently good man, I command a certain amount of respect to myopinion, and I do him honour. If I celebrate his good deeds and reporthis wise words, I extend his honour still farther. But if I proceedto assure people, _on the evidence of my personal observation of him_, that he was immaculate and absolutely perfect, was the pure MoralImage of God, that he deserves to be made the Exclusive Model ofimitation, and is the standard by which every other man's moralityis to be corrected, --I make myself ridiculous; my panegyrics lose allweight, and I produce far less conviction than when I praised withinhuman limitations. I do not know how my friend will look on thispoint, (for his judgment on the whole question perplexes me, and theviews which I call _sober_ he names _prosaic_, ) but I cannot resistthe conviction that universal common-sense would have rejected theteaching of the Eleven with contempt, if they had presented, as thebasis of the gospel their _personal testimony_ to the godlike andunapproachable moral absolutism of Jesus. But even if such a basiswas possible to the Eleven, it was impossible to Paul and Silvanus andTimothy and Barnabas and Apollos, and the other successful preachersto the Gentiles. High moral goodness, within human limitations, wasundoubtedly announced as a fact of the life of Jesus; but upon thisfollowed the supernatural claims, and the argument of prophecy;_without_ which my friend desires to build up his view, --I have thusdeveloped why I think he has no right to claim Catholicity for hisjudgment. I have risked to be tedious, because I find that when Ispeak concisely, I am enormously misapprehended. I close this topicby observing, that, the great animosity with which my very mildintimations against the popular view have been met from numerousquarters, show me that Christians do not allow this subject to becalmly debated, end have not come to their own conclusion as theresult of a calm debate. And this is amply corroborated by my ownconsciousness of the past I never dared, nor could have dared, tocriticize coolly and simply the pretensions of Jesus to be an absolutemodel of morality, until I had been delivered from the weight ofauthority and miracle, oppressing my critical powers. 

III. I have been asserting, that he who believes Jesus to be mere man, ought at once to believe his moral excellence finite and comparableto that of other men; and, that our judgment to this effect cannot bereasonably overborne by the "universal consent" of Christendom. --Thusfar we are dealing _ą priori_, which here fully satisfies me: in suchan argument I need no _ą posteriori_ evidence to arrive at my ownconclusion. Nevertheless, I am met by taunts and clamour, which arenot meant to be indecent, but which to my feeling are such. My criticspoint triumphantly to the four gospels, and demand that I will make apersonal attack on a character which they revere, even when they knowthat I cannot do so without giving great offence. Now if any one wereto call my old schoolmaster, or my old parish priest, a perfect anduniversal Model, and were to claim that I would entitle him Lord, andthink of him as the only true revelation of God; should I not beat liberty to say, without disrespect, that "I most emphaticallydeprecate such extravagant claims for him"? Would this justify anoutcry, that I will publicly avow _what_ I judge to be his defects ofcharacter, and will _prove_ to all his admirers that he was a sinnerlike other men? Such a demand would be thought, I believe, highlyunbecoming and extremely unreasonable. May not my modesty, or myregard for his memory, or my unwillingness to pain his family, be accepted as sufficient reasons for silence? or would any onescoffingly attribute my reluctance to attack him, to my consciousinability to make good my case against his being "God manifest inthe flesh"? Now what, if one of his admirers had written panegyricalmemorials of him; and his character, therein described, was sofaultless, that a stranger to him was not able to descry any moraldefeat whatever in it? Is such a stranger bound to believe him to bethe Divine Standard of morals, unless he can put his finger on certainpassages of the book which imply weaknesses and faults? And is itinsulting a man, to refuse to worship him? I utterly protest againstevery such pretence. As I have an infinitely stronger convictionthat Shakespeare was not in _intellect_ Divinely and Unapproachablyperfect, than that I can certainly point out in him some definiteintellectual defect; as, moreover, I am vastly more sure that Socrateswas _morally_ imperfect, than that I am able to censure him rightly;so also, a disputant who concedes to me that Jesus is a mere man, hasno right to claim that I will point out some moral flaw in him, orelse acknowledge him to be a Unique Unparalleled Divine Soul. It istrue, I do see defects, and very serious ones, in the character ofJesus, as drawn by his disciples; but I cannot admit that my right todisown the pretensions made for him turns on my ability to define hisfrailties. As long as (in common with my friend) I regard Jesus asa man, so long I hold with _dogmatic_ and _intense conviction_ theinference that he was morally imperfect, and ought not to be heldup as unapproachable in goodness; but I have, in comparison, only _amodest_ belief that I am able to show his points of weakness. 

While therefore in obedience to this call, which has risen from manyquarters, I think it right not to refuse the odious task pressed uponme, --I yet protest that my conclusion does not depend upon it. I mightcensure Socrates unjustly, or at least without convincing my readers, if I attempted that task; but my failure would not throw a feather'sweight into the argument that Socrates was a Divine Unique anduniversal Model. If I write note what is painful to readers, I begthem to remember that I write with much reluctance, and that it istheir own fault if they read. 

In approaching this subject, the first difficulty is, to know howmuch of the four gospels to accept as _fact_. If we could believe thewhole, it would be easier to argue; but my friend Martineau (with me)rejects belief of many parts: for instance, he has but a very feebleconviction that Jesus ever spoke the discourses attributed to him inJohn's gospel. If therefore I were to found upon these some imputationof moral weakness, he would reply, that we are agreed in setting theseaside, as untrustworthy. Yet he perseveres in asserting that it isbeyond all reasonable question _what_ Jesus _was_; as though proveninaccuracies in all the narratives did not make the results uncertain. He says that even the poor and uneducated are fully impressed with"the majesty and sanctity" of Christ's mind; as if _this_ were what Iam fundamentally denying; and not, only so far as would transcend theknown limits of human nature: surely "majesty and sanctity" are notinconsistent with many weaknesses. But our judgment concerning aman's motives, his temper, and his full conquest over self, vanity andimpulsive passion, depends on the accurate knowledge of a vast varietyof minor points; even the curl of the lip, or the discord of eye andmouth, may change our moral judgment of a man; while, alike to myfriend and me it is certain that much of what is stated is untrue. Much moreover of what he holds to be untrue does not seem so to anybut to the highly educated. In spite therefore of his able reply, Iabide in my opinion that he is unreasonably endeavouring to erect whatis essentially a piece of doubtful biography and difficult literarycriticism into first-rate religious importance. 

I shall however try to pick up a few details which seem, as muchas any, to deserve credit, concerning the pretensions, doctrine andconduct of Jesus. 

_First_, I believe that he habitually spoke of himself by the title"_Son of Man_"--a fact which pervades all the accounts, and was likelyto rivet itself on his hearers. Nobody but he himself ever calls himSon of Man. 

_Secondly_ I believe that in assuming this title he tacitly alludedto the viith chapter of Daniel, and claimed for himself the throne ofjudgment over all mankind. --I know no reason to doubt that he actuallydelivered (in substance) the discourse in Matth. Xxv. "When the Sonof Man shall come in his glory, . .. Before him shall be gathered allnations, . .. And he shall separate them, &c. &c. ": and I believe thatby _the Son of Man_ and _the King_ he meant himself. Compare Luke xii. 40, ix. 56. 

_Thirdly_, I believe that he habitually assumed the authoritativedogmatic tone of one who was a universal Teacher in moral andspiritual matters, and enunciated as a primary duty of men to learnsubmissively of his wisdom and acknowledge his supremacy. This elementin his character, _the preaching of himself_ is enormously expanded inthe fourth gospel, but it distinctly exists in Matthew. Thus in Matth. Xxiii 8: "Be not ye called Rabbi [_teacher_], for one is your Teacher, even Christ; and all ye are brethren". .. Matth. X. 32: "Whosoevershall confess ME before men, him will I confess before my Father whichis in heaven. .. He that loveth father or mother more than ME is not_worthy of_ ME, &c. ". .. Matth. Xi. 27: "All things are delivered untoME of my Father; and _no man knoweth the Son but the Father_; neitherknoweth any man the Father, save the Son; and he to whomsoever _theSon will reveal him. _ Come unto ME, all ye that labour, . .. And _I_will give you rest. Take MY yoke upon you, &c. "

My friend, I find, rejects Jesus as an authoritative teacher, distinctly denies that the acceptance of Jesus in this character isany condition of salvation and of the divine favour, and treats ofmy "demand of an oracular Christ, " as inconsistent with my ownprinciples. But this is mere misconception of what I have said. I find_Jesus himself_ to set up oracular claims. I find an assumptionof pre-eminence and unapproachable moral wisdom to pervade everydiscourse from end to end of the gospels. If I may not believe thatJesus assumed an oracular manner, I do not know what moral peculiarityin him I am permitted to believe. I do not _demand_ (as my friendseems to think) that _he shall be_ oracular, but in common with allChristendom, I open my eyes and see that _he is_; and until I had readmy friend's review of my book, I never understood (I suppose throughmy own prepossessions) that he holds Jesus _not_ to have assumed theoracular style. 

If I cut out from the four gospels this peculiarity, I must cut out, not only the claim of Messiahship, which my friend admits to havebeen made, but nearly every moral discourse and every controversy: and_why_? except in order to make good a predetermined belief that Jesuswas morally perfect. What reason can be given me for not believingthat Jesus declared: "If any one deny ME before men, _him will I deny_before my Father and his angels?" or any of the other texts whichcouple the favour of God with a submission to such pretensions ofJesus? I can find no reason whatever for doubting that he preachedHIMSELF to his disciples, though in the three first gospels he israther timid of doing this to the Pharisees and to the nation atlarge. I find him uniformly to claim, sometimes in tone, sometimes indistinct words, that we will sit at his feet as little children andlearn of him. I find him ready to answer off-hand, all difficultquestions, critical and lawyer-like, as well as moral. True, it is notenet of mine that intellectual and literary attainment is essentialin an individual person to high spiritual eminence. True, in anotherbook I have elaborately maintained the contrary. Yet in that book Ihave described men's spiritual progress as often arrested at a certainstage by a want of intellectual development; which surely wouldindicate that I believed even intellectual blunders and an infinitelyperfect exhaustive morality to be incompatible. But our question here(or at least _my_ question) is not, whether Jesus might misinterpretprophecy, and yet be morally perfect; but whether, _after assumingto be an oracular teacher_, he can teach some fanatical precepts, andadvance dogmatically weak and foolish arguments, without impairing oursense of his absolute moral perfection. 

I do not think it useless here to repeat (though not for my friend)concise reasons which I gave in my first edition against admittingdictatorial claims for Jesus. _First_, it is an unplausible opinionthat God would deviate from his ordinary course, in order to give usanything so undesirable as an authoritative Oracle would be;--whichwould paralyze our moral powers, exactly as an infallible church does, in the very proportion in which we succeeded in eliciting responsesfrom it. It is not needful here to repeat what has been said to thateffect in p. 138. _Secondly_, there is no imaginable criterion, bywhich we can establish that the wisdom of a teacher _is_ absolute andillimitable. All that we can possibly discover, is the relativefact, that another is _wiser than we_: and even this is liable tobe overturned on special points, as soon as differences of judgmentarise. _Thirdly_, while it is by no means clear what are the newtruths, for which we are to lean upon the decisions of Jesus, itis certain that we have no genuine and trustworthy account of histeaching. If God had intended us to receive the authoritative _dicta_of Jesus, he would have furnished us with an unblemished recordof those dicta. To allow that we have not this, and that we mustdisentangle for ourselves (by a most difficult and uncertain process)the "true" sayings of Jesus, is surely self-refuting. _Fourthly_, ifI _must_ sit in judgment on the claims of Jesus to be the true Messiahand Son of God, how can I concentrate all my free thought into thatone act, and thenceforth abandon free thought? This appears a moralsuicide, whether Messiah or the Pope is the object whom we _first_criticize, in order to instal him over us, and _then_, for ever after, refuse to criticize. In short, _we cannot build up a system of Oracleson a basis of Free Criticism_. If we are to submit our judgment to thedictation of some other, --whether a church or an individual, --we mustbe first subjected to that other by some event from without, as bybirth; and not by a process of that very judgment which is henceforthto be sacrificed. But from this I proceed to consider more in detail, some points in the teaching and conduct of Jesus, which do not appearto me consistent with absolute perfection. 

The argument of Jesus concerning the tribute to Cęsar is so dramatic, as to strike the imagination and rest on the memory; and I know noreason for doubting that it has been correctly reported. The book ofDeuteronomy (xvii. 15) distinctly forbids Israel to set over himselfas king any who is not a native Israelite; which appeared to be areligious condemnation of submission to Cęsar. Accordingly, sinceJesus assumed the tone of unlimited wisdom, some of Herod's partyasked him, whether it was lawful to pay tribute to Cęsar. Jesusreplied: "Why tempt ye me, hypocrites? Show me the tribute money. "When one of the coins was handed to him, he asked: "Whose image andsuperscription is this?" When they replied: "Cęsar's, " he gave hisauthoritative decision: "Render _therefore_ to Cęsar _the things thatare Cęsar's_. "

In this reply not only the poor and uneducated, but many likewise ofthe rich and educated, recognize "majesty and sanctity:" yet I find ithard to think that my strong-minded friend will defend the justness, wisdom and honesty of it. To imagine that because a coin bears Cęsar'shead, _therefore_ it is Cęsar's property, and that he may demand tohave as many of such coins as he chooses paid over to him, is puerile, and notoriously false. The circulation of foreign coin of every kindwas as common in the Mediterranean then as now; and everybody knewthat the coin was the property of the _holder_, not of him whosehead it bore. Thus the reply of Jesus, which pretended to be a moraldecision, was unsound and absurd: yet it is uttered in a tone ofdictatorial wisdom, and ushered in by a grave rebuke, "Why tempt yeme, hypocrites?" He is generally understood to mean, "Why do you tryto implicate me in a political charge?" and it is supposed thathe prudently _evaded_ the question. I have indeed heard thisinterpretation from high Trinitarians; which indicates to me howdead is their moral sense in everything which concerns the conduct ofJesus. No reason appears why he should not have replied, that Mosesforbade Israel _voluntarily_ to place himself under a foreignking, but did not inculcate fanatical and useless rebellion againstoverwhelming power. But such a reply, which would have satisfied amore commonplace mind, has in it nothing brilliant and striking. Icannot but think that Jesus shows a vain conceit in the clevernessof his answer: I do not think it so likely to have been a consciousevasion. But neither does his rebuke of the questioners at all commenditself to me. How can any man assume to be an authoritative teacher, and then claim that men shall not put his wisdom to the proof? Was itnot their _duty_ to do so? And when, in result, the trial has provedthe defect of his wisdom, did they not perform a useful publicservice? In truth, I cannot see the Model Man in his rebuke. --Letnot my friend say that the error was merely intellectual: blunderingself-sufficiency is a moral weakness. 

I might go into detail concerning other discourses, where error andarrogance appear to me combined. But, not to be tedious, --in generalI must complain that Jesus purposely adopted an enigmatical andpretentious style of teaching, unintelligible to his hearers, and needing explanation in private. That this was his systematicprocedure, I believe, because, in spite of the great contrast of thefourth gospel to the others, it has this peculiarity in commonwith them. Christian divines are used to tell us that this mode was_peculiarly instructive_ to the vulgar of Judęa; and they insist onthe great wisdom displayed in his choice of the lucid parabolicalstyle. But in Matth. Xiii. 10-15, Jesus is made confidentially to avowprecisely the opposite reason, viz. That he desires the vulgar _not_to understand him, but only the select few to whom he gives privateexplanations. I confess I believe the Evangelist rather than themodern Divine. I cannot conceive how so strange a notion could everhave possessed the companions of Jesus, if it had not been true. Ifreally this parabolical method had been peculiarly intelligible, what could make them imagine the contrary? Unless they found it veryobscure themselves, whence came the idea that it was obscure to themultitude? As a fact, it _is_ very obscure, to this day. There is muchthat I most imperfectly understand, owing to unexplained metaphor:as: "Agree with thine adversary quickly, &c. &c. :" "Whoso calls hisbrother[2] a fool, is in danger of hell fire:" "Every one must besalted with fire, and every sacrifice salted with salt. Have saltin yourselves, and be at peace with one another. " Now every man oforiginal and singular genius has his own forms of thought; in so faras they are natural, we must not complain, if to us they are obscure. But the moment _affectation_ comes in, they no longer are reconcilablewith the perfect character: they indicate vanity, and incipientsacerdotalism. The distinct notice that Jesus avoided to expound hisparables to the multitude, and made this a boon to the privilegedfew; and that without a parable he spake not to the multitude; andthe pious explanation, that this was a fulfilment of Prophecy, "I willopen my mouth in parables, I will utter dark sayings on the harp, "persuade me that the impression of the disciples was a deep reality. And it is in entire keeping with the general narrative, which shows inhim so much of mystical assumption. Strip the parables of the imagery, and you find that sometimes one thought has been dished up fouror five times, and generally, that an idea is dressed into sacredgrandeur. This mystical method made a little wisdom go a great waywith the multitude; and to such a mode of economizing resources theinstinct of the uneducated man betakes itself, when he is claiming toact a part for which he is imperfectly prepared. 

It is common with orthodox Christians to take for granted, thatunbelief of Jesus was a sin, and belief a merit, at a time when norational grounds of belief were as yet public. Certainly, whoever asksquestions with a view to _prove_ Jesus, is spoken of vituperatinglyin the gospels; and it does appear to me that the prevalent Christianbelief is a true echo of Jesus's own feeling. He disliked being putto the proof. Instead of rejoicing in it, as a true and upright manought, --instead of blaming those who accept his pretensions on tooslight grounds, --instead of encouraging full inquiry and giving frankexplanations, he resents doubt, shuns everything that will test him, is very obscure as to his own pretensions, (so as to need probingand positive questions, whether he _does_ or _does not_ profess tobe Messiah, ) and yet is delighted at all easy belief. When asked formiracles, he sighs and groans at the unreasonableness of it; yetdoes not honestly and plainly renounce pretension to miracle, as Mr. Martineau would, but leaves room for credit to himself for as manymiracles as the credulous are willing to impute to him. It is possiblethat here the narrative is unjust to his memory. So far from beingthe picture of perfection, it sometimes seems to me the picture of aconscious and wilful impostor. His general character is too high for_this_; and I therefore make deductions from the account. Still, I donot see how the present narrative could have grown up, if he hadbeen really simple and straight-forward, and not perverted by hisessentially false position. Enigma and mist seem to be his element;and when I find his high satisfaction at all personal recognition andbowing before his individuality, I almost doubt whether, if one wishedto draw the character of a vain and vacillating pretender, it would bepossible to draw anything more to the purpose than this. His generalrule (before a certain date) is, to be cautious in public, but boldin private to the favoured few. I cannot think that such a character, appearing now, would seem to my friend a perfect model of a man. 

No precept bears on its face clearer marks of coming from the genuineJesus, than that of _selling all and following him_. This was hisoriginal call to his disciples. It was enunciated authoritativelyon various occasions. It is incorporated with precepts of perpetualobligation, in such a way, that we cannot without the greatestviolence pretend that he did not intend it as a precept[3] to_all_ his disciples. In Luke xii. 22-40, he addresses the disciplescollectively against Avarice; and a part of the discourse is: "Fearnot, little flock; for it is your Father's good pleasure to give youthe kingdom. _Sell that ye have, and give alms_: provide yourselvesbags that wax not old; a treasure in the heavens that faileth not, &c. .. . Let your loins be girded about, and your lights burning, " &c. To say that he was not intending to teach a universal morality, [4]is to admit that his precepts are a trap; for they then mix up andconfound mere contingent duties with universal sacred obligations, enunciating all in the same breath, and with the same solemnity. Icannot think that Jesus intended any separation. In fact, when arich young man asked of him what he should do, that he might inheriteternal life, and pleaded that he had kept the ten commandments, butfelt that to be insufficient, Jesus said unto him: "_If thou wilt beperfect_, go and sell that thou hast, and give to the poor, and thoushalt have treasure in heaven:" so that the duty was not contingentupon the peculiarity of a man possessing apostolic gifts, but was withJesus the normal path for all who desired perfection. When the youngman went away sorrowing, Jesus moralized on it, saying: "How hardlyshall a rich man enter into the kingdom of heaven:" which againshows, that an abrupt renunciation of wealth was to be the general andordinary method of entering the kingdom. Hereupon, when the disciplesasked: "Lo! we _have_ forsaken all, and followed thee: whatshall we have _therefore_?" Jesus, instead of rebuking theirself-righteousness, promised them as a reward, that they should situpon twelve[5] thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel. A preceptthus systematically enforced, is illustrated by the practice, not onlyof the twelve, but apparently of the seventy, and what is strongerstill, by the practice of the five thousand disciples after thecelebrated days of the first Pentecost. There was no longer a Jesuson earth to itinerate with, yet the disciples in the fervour of firstlove obeyed his precept: the rich sold their possessions, and laid theprice at the apostles' feet. 

The mischiefs inherent in such a precept rapidly showed themselves, and good sense corrected the error. But this very fact proves mostemphatically that the precept was pre-apostolic, and came from thegenuine Jesus; otherwise it could never have found its way intothe gospels. It is undeniable, that the first disciples, by whosetradition alone we have any record of what Jesus taught, understoodhim to deliver this precept to _all_ who desired to enter into thekingdom of heaven, --all who desired to be perfect: why then are we torefuse belief, and remould the precepts of Jesus till they please ourown morality? This is not the way to learn historical fact. 

That to inculcate religious beggary as the _only_ form and mode ofspiritual perfection, is fanatical and mischievous, even the churchof Rome will admit. Protestants universally reject it as a deplorableabsurdity;--not merely wealthy bishops, squires and merchants, butthe poorest curate also. A man could not preach such doctrine in aProtestant pulpit without incurring deep reprobation and contempt;but when preached by Jesus, it is extolled as divine wisdom, --anddisobeyed. 

Now I cannot look on this as a pure intellectual error, consistentwith moral perfection. A deep mistake as to the nature of suchperfection seems to me inherent in the precept itself; a mistake whichindicates a moral unsoundness. The conduct of Jesus to the rich youngman appears to me a melancholy exhibition of perverse doctrine, underan ostentation of superior wisdom. The young man asked for bread andJesus gave him a stone. Justly he went away sorrowful, at receiving areply which his conscience rejected as false and foolish. But this isnot all Jesus was necessarily on trial, when any one, however sincere, came to ask questions so deeply probing the quality of his wisdomas this: "How may I be perfect?" and to be on trial was alwaysdisagreeable to him. He first gave the reply, "Keep the commandments;"and if the young man had been satisfied, and had gone away, it appearsthat Jesus would have been glad to be rid of him: for his tone ismagisterial, decisive and final. This, I confess, suggests to me, thatthe aim of Jesus was not so much to _enlighten_ the young man, as tostop his mouth, and keep up his own ostentation of omniscience. Hadhe desired to enlighten him, surely no mere dry dogmatic command wasneeded, but an intelligent guidance of a willing and trusting soul. I do not pretend to certain knowledge in these matters. Even when wehear the tones of voice and watch the features, we often mistake. We have no such means here of checking the narrative. But the bestgeneral result which I can draw from the imperfect materials, is whatI have said. 

After the merit of "selling all and following Jesus, " a second merit, not small, was, to receive those whom he sent. In Matt. X. , we readthat he sends out his twelve disciples, (also seventy in Luke, ) men atthat time in a very low state of religions development, --men who didnot themselves know what the Kingdom of Heaven meant, --to deliver inevery village and town a mere formula of words: "Repent ye: for theKingdom of Heaven is at hand. " They were ordered to go without money, scrip or cloak, but to live on religious alms; and it is added, --thatif any house or city does not receive them, _it shall be moretolerable for Sodom and Gomorrha in the day of judgment_ than for it. He adds, v. 40: "He that receiveth _you_, receiveth _me_, and he thatreceiveth _me_, receiveth HIM that sent me. "--I quite admit, that inall probability it was (on the whole) the more pious part of Israelwhich was likely to receive these ignorant missionaries; but inasmuchas they had no claims whatever, intrinsic or extrinsic, to reverence, it appears to me a very extravagant and fanatical sentiment thusemphatically to couple the favour or wrath of God with their receptionor rejection. 

A third, yet greater merit in the eyes of Jesus, was, to acknowledgehim as the Messiah predicted by the prophets, which he was not, according to my friend. According to Matthew (xvi. 13), Jesus putleading questions to the disciples in order to elicit a confession ofhis Messiahship, and emphatically blessed Simon for making the avowalwhich he desired; but instantly forbade them to tell the great secretto any one. Unless this is to be discarded as fiction, Jesus, although to his disciples in secret he confidently assumed Messianicpretensions, had a just inward misgiving, which accounts both for hiselation at Simon's avowal, and for his prohibition to publish it. 

In admitting that Jesus was not the Messiah of the prophets, my friendsays, that if Jesus were _less_ than Messiah, we can reverence himno longer; but that he was _more_ than Messiah. This is to meunintelligible. The Messiah whom he claimed to be, was not only theson of David, celebrated in the prophets, but emphatically the Son ofMan of Daniel vii. , who shall come in the clouds of heaven, to takedominion, glory and kingdom, that all people, nations and languagesshall serve him, --an everlasting kingdom which shall not pass away. How Jesus himself interprets his supremacy, as Son of Man, in Matt. X. , xi. , xxiii. , xxv. , and elsewhere, I have already observed. Toclaim such a character, seems to me like plunging from a pinnacleof the temple. If miraculous power holds him up and makes good hisdaring, he is more than man; but if otherwise, to have failed willbreak all his bones. I can no longer give the same human reverenceas before to one who has been seduced into vanity so egregious; andI feel assured _ą priori_ that such presumption _must have_ entangledhim into evasions and insincerities, which _naturally_ end incrookedness of conscience and real imposture, however noble a man'scommencement, and however unshrinking his sacrifices of goods and easeand life. 

The time arrived at last, when Jesus felt that he must publicly assertMessiahship; and this was certain to bring things to an issue. Isuppose him to have hoped that he was Messiah, until hope and theencouragement given him by Peter and others grew into a persuasionstrong enough to act upon, but not always strong enough to stillmisgivings. I say, I suppose this; but I build nothing on mysupposition. I however see, that when he had resolved to claimMessiahship publicly, one of two results was inevitable, _if_ thatclaim was ill-founded:--viz. , either he must have become an impostor, in order to screen his weakness; or, he must have retracted hispretensions amid much humiliation, and have retired into privacy tolearn sober wisdom. From these alternatives _there was escape only bydeath_, and upon death Jesus purposely rushed. 

All Christendom has always believed that the death of Jesus was_voluntarily_ incurred; and unless no man ever became a wilful martyr, I cannot conceive why we are to doubt the fact concerning Jesus. Whenhe resolved to go up to Jerusalem, he was warned by his disciplesof the danger; but so far was he from being blind to it, thathe distinctly announced to them that he knew he should suffer inJerusalem the shameful death of a malefactor. On his arrival in thesuburbs, his first act was, ostentatiously to ride into the city on anass's colt in the midst of the acclamations of the multitude, in orderto exhibit himself as having a just right to the throne of David. Thushe gave a handle to imputations of intended treason. --He next enteredthe temple courts, where doves and lambs were sold for sacrifice, and--(I must say it to my friend's amusement, and in defiance of hiskind but keen ridicule, ) committed a breach of the peace by floggingwith a whip those who trafficked in the area. By such conduct heundoubtedly made himself liable to legal punishment, and probablymight have been publicly scourged for it, had the rulers chosen tomoderate their vengeance. But he "meant to be prosecuted for treason, not for felony, " to use the words of a modern offender. He thereforecommenced the most exasperating attacks on all the powerful, calling them hypocrites and whited sepulchres and vipers' brood; anddenouncing upon them the "condemnation of hell. " He was successful. Hehad both enraged the rulers up to the point of thirsting for his life, and given colour to the charge of political rebellion. He resolvedto die; and he died. Had his enemies contemptuously let him live, hewould have been forced to act the part of Jewish Messiah, or renounceMessiahship. 

If any one holds Jesus to be not amenable to the laws of humanmorality, I am not now reasoning with such a one. But if any oneclaims for him a human perfection, then I say that his conduct on thisoccasion was neither laudable nor justifiable; far otherwise. Thereare cases in which life may be thrown away for a great cause; as whena leader in battle rushes upon certain death, in order to animatehis own men; but the case before us has no similarity to that. Ifour accounts are not wholly false, Jesus knowingly and purposelyexasperated the rulers into a great crime, --the crime of taking hislife from personal resentment. His inflammatory addresses to themultitude have been defended as follows:

"The prophetic Spirit is sometimes oblivious of the rules of thedrawing-room; and inspired Conscience, like the inspiring God, seeinga hypocrite, will take the liberty to say so, and act accordingly. Arethe superficial amenities, the soothing fictions, the smotherings ofthe burning heart, . .. Really paramount in this world, and never togive way? and when a soul of _power, unable to refrain_, rubs off, though it be with rasping words, all the varnish from rottenness andlies, is he to be tried in our courts of compliment for a misdemeanor?Is there never a higher duty than that of either pitying or convertingguilty men, --the duty of publicly exposing them? of awakening thepopular conscience, and sweeping away the conventional timidities, for a severe return to truth and reality? No rule of morals can berecognized as just, which prohibits conformity of human speech tofact; and insists on terms of civility being kept with all manner ofiniquity. "

I certainly have not appealed to any conventional morality ofdrawing-room compliment, but to the highest and purest principleswhich I know; and I lament to find my judgment so extremely inopposition. To me it seems that _inability to refrain_ shows weakness, not _power_, of soul, and that nothing is easier than to give vent toviolent invective against bad rulers. The last sentence quoted, seemsto say, that the speaking of Truth is never to be condemned: but Icannot agree to this. When Truth will only exasperate, and cannot dogood, silence is imperative. A man who reproaches an armed tyrant inwords too plain, does but excite him to murder; and the shocking thingis, that this seems to have been the express object of Jesus. No goodresult could be reasonably expected. Publicly to call men in authorityby names of intense insult, the writer of the above distinctly seeswill never convert them; but he thinks it was adapted to awaken thepopular conscience. Alas! it needs no divine prophet to inflame amultitude against the avarice, hypocrisy, and oppression of rulers, nor any deep inspiration of conscience in the multitude to be wideawake on that point themselves A Publius Clodius or a Cleon will dothat work as efficiently as a Jesus; nor does it appear that the poorare made better by hearing invectives against the rich and powerful. If Jesus had been aiming, in a good cause, to excite rebellion, themode of address which he assumed seems highly appropriate; and in sucha calamitous necessity, to risk exciting murderous enmity would be theact of a hero: but as the account stands, it seems to me the deed ofa fanatic. And it is to me manifest that he overdid his attack, andfailed to commend it to the conscience of his hearers. For up tothis point the multitude was in his favour. He was notoriously soacceptable to the many, as to alarm the rulers; indeed the beliefof his popularity had shielded him from prosecution. But after thisfierce address he has no more popular support. At his public trial thevast majority judge him to deserve punishment, and prefer to ask freeforgiveness for Barabbas, a bandit who was in prison for murder. Wemoderns, nursed in an arbitrary belief concerning these events, drinkin with our first milk the assumption that Jesus alone was guiltless, and all the other actors in this sad affair inexcusably guilty. Let noone imagine that I defend for a moment the cruel punishment which rawresentment inflicted on him. But though the rulers felt the rage ofVengeance, the people, who had suffered no personal wrong, were movedonly by ill-measured Indignation. The multitude love to hear thepowerful exposed and reproached up to a certain limit; but if reproachgo clearly beyond all that they feel to be deserved, a violentsentiment reacts on the head of the reviler: and though popularindignation (even when free from the element of selfishness) ill fixesthe due _measure_ of Punishment, I have a strong belief that it isrighteous, when it pronounces the verdict Guilty. 

Does my friend deny that the death of Jesus was wilfully incurred? The"orthodox" not merely admit, but maintain it. Their creed justifies itby the doctrine, that his death was a "sacrifice" so pleasing toGod, as to expiate the sins of the world. This honestly meets theobjections to self-destruction; for how better could life be used, than by laying it down for such a prize? But besides all otherdifficulties in the very idea of atonement, the orthodox creedstartles us by the incredible conception, that a voluntary sacrificeof life should be unacceptable to God, unless offered by ferocious andimpious hands. If Jesus had "authority from the Father to lay down hislife, " was he unable to stab himself in the desert, or on the sacredaltar of the Temple, without involving guilt to any human being?Did He, who is at once "High Priest" and Victim, when "offeringup himself" and "presenting his own blood unto God, " need anyjustification for using the sacrificial knife? The orthodox view moreclearly and unshrinkingly avows, that Jesus deliberately goaded thewicked rulers into the deeper wickedness of murdering him; but on myfriend's view, that Jesus was _no_ sacrifice, but only a Model man, his death is an unrelieved calamity. Nothing but a long and completelife could possibly test the fact of his perfection; and the longer helived, the better for the world. 

In entire consistency with his previous determination to die, Jesus, when arraigned, refused to rebut accusation, and behaved as onepleading Guilty. He was accused of saying that if they destroyed thetemple, he would rebuild it in three days; but how this was to thepurpose, the evangelists who name it do not make clear. The fourthhowever (without intending so to do) explains it; and I therefore amdisposed to believe his statement, though I put no faith in his longdiscourses. It appears (John ii. 18-20) that Jesus after scourging thepeople out of the temple-court, was asked for a sign to justify hisassuming so very unusual authority: on which he replied: "Destroythis temple, and in three days I will raise it up. " Such a reply wasregarded as a manifest evasion; since he was sure that they wouldnot pull the temple down in order to try whether he could raise it upmiraculously. Now if Jesus really meant what the fourth gospel says hemeant;--if he "spoke of _the temple of his body_;"--how was any oneto guess that? It cannot be denied, that such a reply, _primā facie_, suggested, that he was a wilful impostor: was it not then his obviousduty, when this accusation was brought against him, to explain thathis words had been mystical and had been misunderstood? The form ofthe imputation in Mark xiv. 58, would make it possible to imagine, --ifthe _three days_ were left out, and if his words were _not_ said inreply to the demand of a sign, --that Jesus had merely avowed thatthough the outward Jewish temple were to be destroyed, he would erecta church of worshippers as a spiritual temple. If so, "John" hasgrossly misrepresented him, and then obtruded a very far-fetchedexplanation. But whatever was the meaning of Jesus, if it was honest, I think he was bound to explain it; and not leave a suspicion ofimposture to rankle in men's minds. [6] Finally, if the whole werefiction, and he never uttered such words, then it was his duty to denythem, and not remain dumb like a sheep before its shearers. 

After he had confirmed by his silence the belief that he had useda dishonest evasion indicative of consciousness that he was no realMessiah, he suddenly burst out with a full reply to the High Priest'squestion; and avowed that he _was_ the Messiah, the Son of God; andthat they should hereafter see him sitting on the right-hand of power, and coming in the clouds of heaven, --of course to enter into judgmenton them all. I am the less surprized that this precipitated hiscondemnation, since he himself seems to have designed precisely thatresult. The exasperation which he had succeeded in kindling led to hiscruel death; and when men's minds had cooled, natural horror possessedthem for such a retribution on such a man. His _words_ had been metwith _deeds_: the provocation he had given was unfelt to those beyondthe limits of Jerusalem; and to the Jews who assembled from distantparts at the feast of Pentecost he was nothing but the image of asainted martyr. 

I have given more than enough indications of points in which theconduct of Jesus does not seem to me to have been that of a perfectman: how any one can think him a Universal Model, is to me still lessintelligible. I might say much more on this subject. But I will merelyadd, that when my friend gives the weight of his noble testimony tothe Perfection of Jesus, I think it is due to himself and to us thathe should make clear what he means by this word "Jesus. " He oughtto publish--(I say it in deep seriousness, not sarcastically)--anexpurgated gospel; for in truth I do not know how much of what I havenow adduced from the gospel as _fact_, he will admit to be fact. Ineglect, he tells me, "a higher moral criticism, " which, if I rightlyunderstand, would explode, as evidently unworthy of Jesus, many of therepresentations pervading the gospels: as, that Jesus claimed to bean oracular teacher, and attached spiritual life or death to beliefor disbelief in this claim. My friend says, it is beyond all seriousquestion _what_ Jesus _was_: but his disbelief of the narrative seemsto be so much wider than mine, as to leave me more uncertain thanever about it. If he will strike out of the gospels all that hedisbelieves, and so enable me to understand _what_ is the Jesus whomhe reveres, I have so deep a sense of his moral and critical powers, that I am fully prepared to expect that he may remove many of myprejudices and relieve my objections: but I cannot honestly say thatI see the least probability of his altering my conviction, that in_consistency_ of goodness Jesus fell far below vast numbers of hisunhonoured disciples. 

[Footnote 1: I have by accident just taken up the "BritishQuarterly, " and alighted upon the following sentence concerning MadameRoland:--"_To say that she was without fault, would be to say that shewas not human_. " This so entirely expresses and concludes all that Ihave to say, that I feel surprise at my needing at all to write such achapter as the present. ]

[Footnote 2: I am acquainted with the interpretation, that theword Mōrč is not here Greek, _i. E. , fool_, but is Hebrew, and means_rebel_, which is stronger than Raca, _silly fellow_. This givespartial, but only partial relief. ]

[Footnote 3: Indeed we have in Luke vi. 20-24, a version of theBeatitudes so much in harmony with this lower doctrine, as to makeit an open question, whether the version in Matth. V. Is notan improvement upon Jesus, introduced by the purer sense of thecollective church. In Luke, he does not bless the poor _in spirit_, and those who hunger _after righteousness_, but absolutely the "poor"and the "hungry, " and all who honour _Him_; and in contrast, curses_the rich_ and those who are full. ]

[Footnote 4: At the close, is the parable about the absent master ofa house; and Peter asks, "Lord? (Sir?) speakest thou this parableunto _us_, or also unto _all_?" Who would not have hoped an ingenuousreply, "To you only, " or, "To everybody"? Instead of which, soinveterate is his tendency to muffle up the simplest things inmystery, he replies, "Who then is that faithful and wise steward, "&c. , &c. , and entirely evades reply to the very natural question. ]

[Footnote 5: This implied that Judas, as one of the twelve, had earnedthe heavenly throne by the price of earthly goods. ]

[Footnote 6: If the account in John is not wholly false, I think thereply in every case discreditable. If literal, it all but indicateswilful imposture. If mystical, it is disingenuously evasive; and ittended, not to instruct, but to irritate, and to move suspicionand contempt. Is this the course for a religious teacher?--to speakdarkly, so as to mislead and prejudice; and this, when he representsit as a matter of spiritual life and death to accept his teaching andhis supremacy?]

CHAPTER VIII. 

ON BIGOTRY AND PROGRESS. 

If any Christian reader has been patient enough to follow me thus far, I now claim that he will judge my argument and me, as before thebar of God, and not by the conventional standards of the Christianchurches. 

Morality and Truth are principles in human nature both older and morewidespread than Christianity or the Bible: and neither Jesus nor Jamesnor John nor Paul could have addressed or did address men in anyother tone, than that of claiming to be themselves judged by somepre-existing standard of moral truth, and by the inward powers of thehearer. Does the reader deny this? or, admitting it, does he think itimpious to accept their challenge? Does he say that we are to love andembrace Christianity, without trying to ascertain whether it be trueor false? If he say, Yes, --such a man has no love or care for Truth, and is but by accident a Christian. He would have remained a faithfulheathen, had he been born in heathenism, though Moses, Elijah andChrist preached a higher truth to him. Such a man is condemned by hisown confession, and I here address him no longer. 

But if Faith is a spiritual and personal thing, if Belief given atrandom to mere high pretensions is an immorality, if Truth is notto be quite trampled down, nor Conscience to be wholly palsied inus, --then what, I ask, was I to do, when I saw that the genealogy inthe first chapter of Matthew is an erroneous copy of that in the OldTestament? and that the writer has not only copied wrong, but alsocounted wrong, so, as to mistake eighteen for fourteen? Can any man, who glories in the name of Christian, lay his hand on his heart, andsay, it was my duty to blind my eyes to the fact, and think of it nofurther? Many, alas, I know, would have whispered this to me; but ifany one were to proclaim it, the universal conscience of mankind wouldcall him impudent. 

If however this first step was right, was a second step wrong? When Ifurther discerned that the two genealogies in Matthew and Luke wereat variance, utterly irreconcilable, --and both moreover nugatory, because they are genealogies of Joseph, who is denied to be the fatherof Jesus, --on what ground of righteousness, which I could approve toGod and my conscience, could I shut my eyes to this second fact?

When forced, against all my prepossessions, to admit that the twofirst chapters of Matthew and the two first chapters of Luke aremutually destructive, [1] would it have been faithfulness to the God ofTruth, or a self-willed love of my own prejudices, if I had said, "Iwill not inquire further, for fear it should unsettle my faith?" Thereader's conscience will witness to me, that, on the contrary, I wasbound to say, what I did say: "I _must_ inquire further in order thatI may plant the foundations of my faith more deeply on the rock ofTruth. "'

Having discovered, that not all that is within the canon of theScripture is infallibly correct, and that the human understanding iscompetent to arraign and convict at least some kinds of error thereincontained;--where was I to stop? and if I am guilty, where did myguilt begin? The further I inquired, the more errors crowded upon me, in History, in Chronology, in Geography, in Physiology, in Geology. [2]Did it _then_ at last become a duty to close my eyes to the painfullight? and if I had done so, ought I to have flattered myself thatI was one of those, who being of the truth, come to the lights thattheir deeds may be reproved?

Moreover, when I had clearly perceived, that since all evidence forChristianity must involve _moral_ considerations, to undervaluethe moral faculties of mankind is to make Christian evidence animpossibility and to propagate universal scepticism;--was I then so todistrust the common conscience, as to believe that the Spirit of Godpronounced Jael blessed, for perfidiously murdering her husband'strusting friend? Does any Protestant reader feel disgust and horror, at the sophistical defences set up for the massacre of St. Bartholomewand other atrocities of the wicked Church of Rome? Let him stop hismouth, and hide his face, if he dares to justify the foul crime ofJael. 

Or when I was thus forced to admit, that the Old Testament praisedimmorality, as well as enunciated error; and found nevertheless inthe writers of the New Testament no indication that they were awareof either; but that, on the contrary, "the Scripture" (as the book wasvaguely called) is habitually identified with the infallible "wordof God;"--was it wrong in me to suspect that the writers of the NewTestament were themselves open to mistake?

When I farther found, that Luke not only claims no infallibility andno inspiration, but distinctly assigns human sources as his means ofknowledge;--when the same Luke had already been discovered to bein irreconcilable variance with Matthew concerning the infancy ofJesus;--was I sinful in feeling that I had no longer any guaranteeagainst _other_ possible error in these writers? or ought I to havepersisted in obtruding on the two evangelists on infallibility ofwhich Luke shows himself unconscious, which Matthew nowhere claims, and which I had demonstrative proof that they did not both possess? Athorough-going Bibliolater will have to impeach me as a sinner on thiscount. 

After Luke and Matthew stood before me as human writers, liable to andconvicted of human error, was there any reason why I should look onMark as more sacred? And having perceived all three to participate inthe common superstition, derived from Babylon and the East, traceablein history to its human source, existing still in Turkey andAbyssinia, --the superstition which mistakes mania, epilepsy, and otherforms of disease, for possession by devils;--should I have shown loveof truth, or obstinacy in error, had I refused to judge freely ofthese three writers, as of any others who tell similar marvels? orwas it my duty to resolve, at any rate and against evidence, to acquitthem of the charge of superstition and misrepresentation?

I will not trouble the reader with any further queries. If he hasjustified me in his conscience thus far, he will justify my proceedingto abandon myself to the results of inquiry. He will feel, that theWill cannot, may not, dare not dictate, whereto the inquiries of theUnderstanding shall lead; and that to allege that it _ought_, isto plant the root of Insincerity, Falsehood, Bigotry, Cruelty, anduniversal Rottenness of Soul. 

The vice of Bigotry has been so indiscriminately imputed to thereligious, that they seem apt to forget that it is a real sin;--a sinwhich in Christendom has been and is of all sins most fruitful, mostpoisonous: nay, grief of griefs! it infects many of the purest andmost lovely hearts, which want strength of understanding, or areentangled by a sham theology, with its false facts and fraudulentcanons. But upon all who mourn for the miseries which Bigotry hasperpetrated from the day when Christians first learned to curse; uponall who groan over the persecutions and wars stirred up by Romanism;upon all who blush at the overbearing conduct of Protestants in theirsuccessive moments of brief authority, --a sacred duty rests in thisnineteenth century of protesting against Bigotry, not from a love ofease, but from a spirit of earnest justice. 

Like the first Christians, they must become _confessors_ of the Truth;not obtrusively, boastfully, dogmatically, or harshly; but, "speakingthe truth in love, " not be ashamed to avow, if they do not believe allthat others profess, and that they abhor the unrighteous principle ofjudging men by an authoritative creed. The evil of Bigotry which hasbeen most observed, is its untameable injustice, which converted thelaw of love into licensed murder or gratuitous hatred. But I believea worse evil still has been, the intense reaction of the human mindagainst Religion for Bigotry's sake. To the millions of Europe, bigotry has been a confutation of all pious feeling. So unlovely hasreligion been made by it, Horribili super aspectu mortalibus instans, that now, as 2000 years ago, men are lapsing into Atheism orPantheism; and a totally new "dispensation" is wanted to retrieve thelost reputation of Piety. 

Two opposite errors are committed by those who discern that thepretensions of the national religious systems are overstrained andunjustifiable. One class of persons inveighs warmly, bitterly, rudelyagainst the bigotry of Christians; and know not how deep and holyaffections and principles, in spite of narrowness, are cherished inthe bosom of the Christian society. Hence their invective is harsh andunsympathizing; and appears so essentially unjust and so ignorant, as to exasperate and increase the very bigotry which it attacks. Anopposite class know well, and value highly, the moral influences ofChristianity, and from an intense dread of harming or losing these, do not dare plainly and publicly to avow their own convictions. Greatnumbers of English laymen are entirely assured, that the Old Testamentabounds with error, and that the New is not always unimpeachable:yet they only whisper this; and in the hearing of a clergyman, who isbound by Articles and whom it is indecent to refute, keep a respectfulsilence. As for ministers of religion, these, being called perpetuallyinto a practical application of the received doctrine of their church, are of all men least able to inquire into any fundamental errors inthat doctrine. Eminent persons among them will nevertheless aim afterand attain a purer truth than that which they find established:but such a case must always be rare and exceptive. Only by disusingministerial service can any one give fair play to doubts concerningthe wisdom and truth of that which he is solemnly ministering: hencethat friend of Arnold's was wise in this world, who advised himto take a curacy in order to settle his doubts concerning theTrinity. --Nowhere from any body of priests, clergy, or ministers, asan Order, is religious progress to be anticipated, until intellectualcreeds are destroyed. A greater responsibility therefore is laid uponlaymen, to be faithful and bold in avowing their convictions. 

Yet it is not from the practical ministers of religion, that the greatopposition to religious reform proceeds. The "secular clergy" (as theRomanists oddly call them) were seldom so bigoted as the "regulars. "So with us, those who minister to men in their moral trials havefor the most part a deeper moral spirit, and are less apt to placereligion in systems of propositions. The _robur legionum_ of bigotry, I believe, is found, --first, in non-parochial clergy, and next in theanonymous writers for religious journals and "conservative" newspapers;who too generally[3] adopt a style of which they would be ashamed, if the names of the writers were attached; who often seem desirous tomake it clear that it is their trade to carp, insult, or slander;who assume a tone of omniscience, at the very moment when they shownarrowness of heart and judgment. To such writing those who desireto promote earnest Thought and tranquil Progress ought anxiously totestify their deep repugnance. A large part of this slander and insultis prompted by a base pandering to the (real or imagined) taste of thepublic, and will abate when it visibly ceases to be gainful. 

 * * * * *

The law of God's moral universe, as known to us, is that of Progress. We trace it from old barbarism to the methodized Egyptian idolatry;to the more flexible Polytheism of Syria and Greece; the poeticalPantheism of philosophers, and the moral monotheism of a few sages. So in Palestine and in the Bible itself we see, first of all, theimage-worship of Jacob's family, then the incipient elevation ofJehovah above all other Gods by Moses, the practical establishmentof the worship of Jehovah alone by Samuel, the rise of spiritualsentiment under David and the Psalmists, the more magnificent viewsof Hezekiah's prophets, finally in the Babylonish captivity the newtenderness assumed by that second Isaiah and the later Psalmists. Butceremonialism more and more encrusted the restored nation; and Jesuswas needed to spur and stab the conscience of his contemporaries, and recal them to more spiritual perceptions; to proclaim a coming"kingdom of heaven, " in which should be gathered all the children ofGod that were scattered abroad; where the law of love should reign, and no one should dictate to another. Alas! that this great movementhad its admixture of human imperfection. After this, Steven theprotomartyr, and Paul once him persecutor, had to expose the emptinessof all external santifications, and free the world from the law ofMoses. _Up_ to this point all Christians approve of progress; but _at_this point they want to arrest it. 

The arguments of those who resist Progress are always the same, whether it be Pagans against Hebrews, Jews against Christians, Romanists against Protestants, or modern Christians against theadvocates of a higher spiritualism. Each established systemassures its votaries, that now at length they have attained a finalperfection: that their foundations are irremovable: progress _up_ tothat position was a duty, _beyond_ it is a sin. Each displaces itspredecessor by superior goodness, but then each fights against hissuccessor by odium, contempt, exclusions and (when possible) byviolences. Each advances mankind one step, and forbids them to take asecond. Yet if it be admitted that in the earlier movement the partyof progress was always right, confidence that the case is now reversedis not easy to justify. 

Every persecuting church has numbered among its members thousandsof pious people, so grateful for its services, or so attached to itstruth, as to think those impious who desire something purer and moreperfect. Herein we may discern, that every nation and class isliable to the peculiar illusion of overesteeming the sanctity of itsancestral creed. It is as much our duty to beware of this illusion, asof any other. All know how easily our patriotism may degenerate intoan unjust repugnance to foreigners, and that the more intense it is, the greater the need of antagonistic principles. So also, the realexcellencies of our religion may only so much the more rivet us ina wrong aversion to those who do not acknowledge its authority orperfection. 

It is probable that Jesus desired a state of things in which all whoworship God spiritually should have an acknowledged and consciousunion. It is clear that Paul longed above all things to overthrowthe "wall of partition" which separated two families of sincereworshippers. Yet we now see stronger and higher walls of partitionthan ever, between the children of the same God, --with a new law ofthe letter, more entangling to the conscience, and more depressing tothe mental energies, than any outward service of the Levitical law. The cause of all this is to be found in _the claim of Messiahship forJesus. _ This gave a premium to crooked logic, in order to prove thatthe prophecies meant what they did not mean and could not mean. Thisperverted men's notions of right and wrong, by imparting factitiousvalue to a literary and historical proposition, "Jesus is theMessiah, " as though that were or could be religion. This gave meritto credulity, and led pious men to extol it as a brave and noble deed, when any one overpowered the scruples of good sense, and scolded themdown as the wisdom of this world, which is hostile to God. This putthe Christian church into an essentially false position, by excludingfrom it in the first century all the men of most powerful andcultivated understanding among the Greeks and Romans. This taughtChristians to boast of the hostility of the wise and prudent, andin every controversy ensured that the party which had the merit ofmortifying reason most signally should be victorious. Hence, thedownward career of the Church into base superstition was determinedand inevitable from her very birth; nor was any improvement possible, until a reconciliation should be effected between Christianity and thecultivated reason which it had slighted and insulted. 

Such reconciliation commenced, I believe, from the tenth century, whenthe Latin moralists began to be studied as a part of a theologicalcourse. It was continued with still greater results when Greekliterature became accessible to churchmen. Afterwards, the physicsof Galileo and of Newton began not only to undermine numeroussuperstitions, but to give to men a confidence in the reality ofabstract truth, and in our power to attain it in other domains thanthat of geometrical demonstration. This, together with the philosophyof Locke, was taken up into Christian thought, and PoliticalToleration was the first fruit. Beyond that point, English religionhas hardly gone. For in spite of all that has since been done inGermany for the true and accurate _exposition_ of the Bible, and forthe scientific establishment of the history of its component books, we still remain deplorably ignorant here of these subjects. Inconsequence, English Christians do not know that they are unjust andutterly unreasonable, in expecting thoughtful men to abide by thecreed of their ancestors. Nor, indeed, is there any more stereotypedand approved calumny, than the declaration so often emphaticallyenunciated from the pulpit, that _unbelief in the Christian miraclesis the fruit of a wicked heart and of a soul enslaved to sin_. Thusdo estimable and well-meaning men, deceived and deceiving one another, utter base slander in open church, where it is indecorous to replyto them, --and think that they are bravely delivering a religionstestimony. 

No difficulty is encountered, so long as the _inward_ and the_outward_ rule of religion agree, --by whatever names men callthem, --the Spirit and the Word--or Reason and the Church, --orConscience and Authority. None need settle which of the two rules isthe greater, so long as the results coincide: in fact, there is nocontroversy, no struggle, and also probably no progress. A childcannot guess whether father or mother has the higher authority, until discordant commands are given; but then commences the painfulnecessity of disobeying one in order to obey the other. So, also, thegreat and fundamental controversies of religion arise, only when adiscrepancy is detected between the inward and the outward rule: andthen, there are only two possible solutions. If the Spirit within usand the Bible (or Church) without us are at variance, _we must eitherfollow the inward and disregard the outward law; else we must renouncethe inward law and obey the outward_. The Romanist bids us to obeythe Church and crush our inward judgment: the Spiritualist, on thecontrary, follows his inward law, and, when necessary, defies Church, Bible, or any other authority. The orthodox Protestant is betterand truer than the Romanist, because the Protestant is not like thelatter, consistent in error, but often goes right: still he _is_inconsistent as to this point. Against the Spiritualist he usesRomanist principles, telling him that he ought to submit his "proudreason" and accept the "Word of God" as infallible, even though itappear to him to contain errors. But against the Romanist the samedisputant avows Spiritualist principles, declaring that since "theChurch" appears to him to be erroneous, he dares not to accept it asinfallible. What with the Romanist he before called "proud reason, "he now designates as Conscience, Understanding, and perhaps the HolySpirit. He refused to allow the right of the Spiritualist to urge, that _the Bible_ contains contradictions and immoralities, andtherefore cannot be received; but he claims a full right to urgethat _the Church_ has justified contradictions and immoralities, andtherefore is not to be submitted to. The perception that thisposition is inconsistent, and, to him who discerns the inconsistency, dishonest, is every year driving Protestants to Rome. And _inprinciple_ there are only two possible religions: the Personal and theCorporate; the Spiritual and the External. I do not mean to say thatin Romanism there is nothing but what is Corporate and External; forthat is impossible to human nature: but that this is what the theoryof their argument demands; and their doctrine of Implicit[4] (orVirtual) Faith entirely supersedes intellectual perception as well asintellectual conviction. The theory of each church is the force whichdetermines to what centre the whole shall gravitate. However men maytalk of spirituality, yet let them once enact that the freedom ofindividuals shall be absorbed in a corporate conscience, and youfind that the narrowest heart and meanest intellect sets the rule ofconduct for the whole body. 

It has been often observed how the controversies of the Trinity andIncarnation depended on the niceties of the Greek tongue. I do notknow whether it has ever been inquired, what confusion of thoughtwas shed over Gentile Christianity, from its very origin, by theimperfection of the New Testament Greek. The single Greek[5] word[Greek: pistis] needs probably three translations into our far moreaccurate tongue, --viz. , Belief, Trust, Faith; but especially Beliefand Faith have important contrasts. Belief is purely intellectual;Faith is properly spiritual. Hence the endless controversy aboutJustification by [Greek: pistis], which has so vexed Christians; hencethe slander cast on _unbelievers_ or _misbelievers_ (when they canno longer be burned or exiled), as though they were _faithless_ and_infidels_. 

But nothing of this ought to be allowed to blind us to the trulyspiritual and holy developments of historical Christianity, --muchless, make us revert to the old Paganism or Pantheism which itsupplanted. --The great doctrine on which all practical religiondepends, --the doctrine which nursed the infancy and youth of humannature, --is, "the sympathy of God with the perfection of individualman. " Among Pagans this was so marred by the imperfect charactersascribed to the Gods, and the dishonourable fables told concerningthem, that the philosophers who undertook to prune religion toogenerally cut away the root, by alleging[6] that God was mereIntellect and wholly destitute of Affections. But happily among theHebrews the purity of God's character was vindicated; and with thegrowth of conscience in the highest minds of the nation the idealimage of God shone brighter and brighter. The doctrine of his Sympathywas never lost, and from the Jews it passed into the Christian church. This doctrine, applied to that part of man which is divine, is thewellspring of Repentance and Humility, of Thankfulness, Love, and Joy. It reproves and it comforts; it stimulates and animates. This it iswhich led the Psalmist to cry, "Whom have I in heaven but Thee? thereis none upon earth that I desire beside Thee. " This has satisfiedprophets, apostles, and martyrs with God as their Portion. This hasbeen passed from heart to heart for full three thousand years, and hasproduced bands of countless saints. Let us not cut off our sympathiesfrom those, who have learnt to sympathize with God; nor be blindto that spiritual good which they have; even if it be, more or lesssensibly, tinged with intellectual error. In fact, none but God knows, how many Christian hearts are really pure from bigotry. I cannotrefuse to add my testimony, such as it is, to the effect, that _themajority is always truehearted_. As one tyrant, with a small band ofunscrupulous tools, manages to use the energies of a whole nation ofkind and well-meaning people for cruel purposes, so the bigoted few, who work out an evil theory with consistency, often succeed in usingthe masses of simpleminded Christians as their tools for oppression. Let us not think more harshly than is necessary of the anathematizingchurches. Those who curse us with their lips, often love us in theirhearts. A very deep fountain of tenderness can mingle with theirbigotry itself: and with tens of thousands, the evil belief is a deadform, the spiritual love is a living reality. Whether Christianslike it or not, we must needs look to Historians, to Linguists, toPhysiologists, to Philosophers, and generally, to men of cultivatedunderstanding, to gain help in all those subjects which arepreposterously called _Theology_: but for devotional aids, for piousmeditations, for inspiring hymns, for purifying and glowing thoughts, we have still to wait upon that succession of kindling souls, amongwhom may be named with special honour David and Isaiah, Jesus andPaul, Augustine, A Kempis, Fenelon, Leighton, Baxter, Doddridge, Watts, the two Wesleys, and Channing. 

Religion was created by the inward instincts of the soul: it hadafterwards to be pruned and chastened by the sceptical understanding. For its perfection, the co-operation of these two parts of man isessential. While religious persons dread critical and searchingthought, and critics despise instinctive religion, each side remainsimperfect and curtailed. 

It is a complaint often made by religious historians, that no churchcan sustain its spirituality unimpaired through two generations, andthat in the third a total irreligion is apt to supervene. Sometimesindeed the transitions are abrupt, from an age of piety to an age ofdissoluteness. The liability to such lamentable revulsions is plainlydue to some insufficiency in the religion to meet all the wants ofhuman nature. To scold at that nature is puerile, and implies anignorance of the task which religion undertakes. To lay the faulton the sovereign will of God, who has "withheld his grace" from thegrandchildren of the pious, might be called blasphemy, if we weredisposed to speak harshly. The fault lies undoubtedly in the fact, that Practical Devoutness and Free Thought stand apart in unnaturalschism. But surely the age is ripe for something better;--fora religion which stall combine the tenderness, humility, anddisinterestedness, that are the glory of the purest Christianity, with that activity of intellect, untiring pursuit of truth, and strictadherence to impartial principle, which the schools of modern scienceembody. When a spiritual church has its senses exercised to discerngood and evil, judges of right and wrong by an inward power, provesall things and holds fast that which is good, fears no truth, butrejoices in being corrected, intellectually as well as morally, --itwill not be liable to be "carried to and fro" by shifting winds ofdoctrine. It will indeed have movement, namely, a steady _onward_ one, as the schools of science have had, since they left off to dogmatize, and approached God's world as learners; but it will lay aside disputesof words, eternal vacillations, mutual illwill and dread of new light, and will be able without hypocrisy to proclaim "peace on earth andgoodwill towards men, " even towards those who reject its beliefs andsentiments concerning "God and his glory. "

NOTE ON PAGE 168. 

The author of the "Eclipse of Faith, " in his Defence (p. 168), referring to my reply in p. 101 above, says:--"In this very paragraphMr. Newman shows that I have _not_ misrepresented him, nor is ittrue that I overlooked his novel hypothesis. He says that 'Gibbon isexhibiting and developing the deep-seated causes of the _spread_ ofChristianity before Constantine, '--which Mr. Newman says had _not_spread. On the contrary; he assumes that the Christians were 'a smallfraction, ' and thus _does_ dismiss in two sentences, I might have saidthree words, what Gibbon had strained every nerve in his celebratedchapter to account for. "

Observe his phrase, "On the contrary. " It is impossible to say moreplainly, that Gibbon represents the spread of Christianity beforeConstantine to have been very great, and then laboured in vain toaccount for that spread; and that I, _arbitrarily setting asideGibbon's fact as to the magnitude of the "spread_, " cut the knot whichhe could not untie. 

But the fact, as between Gibbon and me, is flatly the reverse. I advance nothing novel as to the numbers of the Christians, nohypothesis of my own, no assumption. I have merely adopted Gibbon'sown historical estimate, that (judging, as he does judge, by theexamples of Rome and Antioch), the Christians before the rise ofConstantine were but a small fraction of the population. Indeed, hesays, not above _one-twentieth_ part; on which I laid no stress. 

It may be that Gibbon is here in error. I shall willingly withdraw anyhistorical argument, if shown that I have unawares rested on a falsebasis. In balancing counter statements and reasons from diversesources, different minds come to different statistical conclusions. Dean Milman ("Hist. Of Christianity, " vol. Ii. P. 341) whendeliberately weighing opposite opinions, says cautiously, that "Gibbonis perhaps inclined to underrate" the number of the Christians. Headds: "M. Beugnot agrees much with Gibbon, and I should conceive, withregard to the West, is clearly right. "

I beg the reader to observe, that I have _not_ represented thenumerical strength of the Christians in Constantine's army to begreat. Why my opponent should ridicule my use of the phrase _Christianregiments_, I am too dull to understand. ("Who would not think, "says he, "that it was one of Constantine's _aide-de-camps_ that wasspeaking?") It may be that I am wrong in using the plural noun, andthat there was only _one_ such regiment, --that which carried theLabarum, or standard of the cross (Gibbon, ch. 20), to which so muchefficacy was attributed in the war against Licinius. I have no time atpresent, nor any need for further inquiries on such matters. It isto the devotion and organization of the Christians, not to theirproportionate numbers, that I attributed weight. If (as Milman says)Gibbon and Beugnot are "clearly right" as regards _the West_--_i. E. _, as regards all that vast district which became the area of modernEuropean Christendom, I see nothing in my argument which requiresmodification. 

But why did Christianity, while opposed by the ruling powers, spread"_in the East?_" In the very chapter from which I have quoted, DeanMilman justifies me in saying, that to this question I may simplyreply, "I do not know, " without impairing my present argument. (Imyself find no difficulty in it whatever; but I protest against theassumption, that I am bound to believe a religion preternatural, unless I con account for its origin and diffusion to the satisfactionof its adherents. ) Dean Milman, vol. Ii. Pp. 322-340, gives a fullaccount of the Manichęan religion, and its rapid and great spread inspate of violent persecution. MANI, the founder, represented himselfas "a man invested with a divine mission. " His doctrines are describedby Milman as wild and mystical metaphysics, combining elements ofthought from Magianism, Judaism, Christianity, and Buddhism. "Hisworship was simple, without altar, temple, images, or any imposingceremonial. Pure and simple prayer was their only form of adoration. "They talked much of "Christ" as a heavenly principle, but "did notbelieve in his birth or death. Prayers and Hymns addressed to thesource of light, exhortations to subdue the dark and sensuous elementwithin, and the study of the marvellous book of Mani, constitutedtheir devotion. Their manners were austere and ascetic; theytolerated, but only tolerated, marriage, and that only among theinferior orders. The theatre, the banquet, and even the bath, theyseverely proscribed. Their diet was of fruits and herbs; they shrankwith abhorrence from animal food. " Mani met with fierce hostility fromWest and East alike; and at last was entrapped by the Persian kingBaharam, and "was flayed alive. His skin, stuffed with straw, wasplaced over the gate of the city of Shahpoor. "

Such a death was as cruel and as ignominious as that of crucifixion;yet his doctrines "expired not with their author. In the East and inthe West they spread with the utmost rapidity. .. . The extent ofits success may be calculated by the implacable hostility of otherreligions to the doctrines of Mani; _the causes of that success aremore difficult to conjecture_. "

Every reason, which, as far as I know, has ever been given, why itshould be hard for early Christianity to spread, avail equally asreasons against the spread of Manichęism. The state of the East, whichadmitted the latter without miracle, admitted the former also. It nevertheless is pertinent to add, that the recent history ofMormonism, compared with that of Christianity and of Manichęism, may suggest that the martyr-death of the founder of a religion is apositive aid to its after-success. 

[Footnote 1: See Strauss on the Infancy of Jesus. ]

[Footnote 2: My "Eclectic" reviewer (who is among the least orthodoxand the least uncandid) hence deduces, that I have confounded the twoquestions, "Does the Bible contain errors in human science?" and, "Isits purely spiritual teaching true?" It is quite wonderful to me, howeducated men can so totally overlook what I have so plainly and sooften written. This very passage might show the contrary, if he hadbut quoted the whole paragraph, instead of the middle sentence only. See also pp. 67, 74, 75, 86, 87, 125. ]

[Footnote 3: Any orthodox periodical which dares to write charitably, is at once subjected to fierce attack us _un_orthodox. ]

[Footnote 4: _Explicit_ Faith in a doctrine, means, that we understandwhat the propositions are, and accept them. But if through blunder weaccept a wrong set of propositions, so as to believe a false doctrine, we nevertheless have _Implicit_ (or Virtual) Faith in the true one, ifonly we say from the heart: "Whatever the Church believes, I believe. "Thus a person, who, through blundering, believes in Sabellianism orArianism, which the Church has condemned, is regarded to have _virtualfaith_ in Trinitarianism, and all the "merit" of that faith, becauseof his good will to submit to the Church; which is the really savingvirtue. ]

[Footnote 5: [Greek: Dikaiosune] (righteousness), [Greek: Diatheke](covenant, testament), [Greek: Charis] (grace), are all terms pregnantwith fallacy. ]

[Footnote 6: Horace and Cicero speak the mind of their educatedcontemporaries in saying that "we ought to pray to God _only_ forexternal blessings, but trust to our own efforts for a pure andtranquil soul, "--a singular reversing of spiritual religion]

CHAPTER IX. 

REPLY TO THE DEFENCE OF THE "ECLIPSE OF FAITH. "

This small treatise was reviewed, unfavourably of course, in most ofthe religious periodicals, and among them in the "Prospective Review, "by my friend James Martineau. I had been about the same time attackedin a book called the "Eclipse of Faith, " written (chiefly against mytreatise on the Soul) in the form of a Platonic Dialogue; in which asceptic, a certain Harrington, is made to indulge in a great dealof loose and bantering argumentation, with the view of ridiculing myreligion, and doing so by ways of which some specimen will be given. 

I made an indignant protest in a new edition of this book, and addedalso various matter in reply to Mr. Martineau, which will stillbe found here. He in consequence in a second article[1] of the"Prospective" reviewed me afresh; but, in the opening, he firstpronounced his sentence in words of deep disapproval against the"Eclipse of Faith. "

"The method of the work, " says he, "its plan of appealing from whatseems shocking in the Bible to something more shocking in the world, simply doubles every difficulty without relieving any; and tends toenthrone a devil everywhere, and leave a God nowhere. .. . The wholeforce of the writer's thought, --his power of exposition, of argument, of sarcasm, is thrown, in spite of himself, into the irreligiousscale. .. . If the work be really written[2] in good faith, and be notrather a covert attack on all religion, it curiously shows how thetemple of the author's worship stands on the same foundation with the_officina_ of Atheism, and in such close vicinity that the passer-bycannot tell from which of the two the voices stray into the street. "

The author of the "Eclipse, " buoyed up by a large sale of his workto a credulous public, put forth a "Defence, " in which he naturallydeclined to submit to the judgment of this reviewer. But my readerswill remark, that Mr. Martineau, writing against me, and seeking torebut my replies to him--(nay, I fear I must say my _attack_ on him;for I have confessed, almost with compunction, that it was I who firststirred the controversy)--was very favourably situated for maintaininga calmly judicial impartiality. He thought us both wrong, and headministered to us each the medicine which seemed to him needed. He passed his strictures on what he judged to be my errors, and herebuked my assailant for profane recklessness. 

I had complained, not of this merely, but of monstrous indefensiblegarbling and misrepresentation, pervading the whole work. The dialogueis so managed, as often to suggest what is false concerning me, yetwithout asserting it; so as to enable him to disown the slander, whileproducing its full effect against me. Of the directly false statementsand garblings I gave several striking exhibitions. His reply to allthis in the first edition of his "Defence" was reviewed in a _third_article of the "Prospective Review, " Its ability and reach of thoughtare attested by the fact that it has been mistaken for the writing ofMr. Martineau; but (as clearly as reviews ever speak on such subjects)it is intimated in the opening that this new article is from a newhand, "at the risk of revealing _division of persons and opinions_within the limits of the mystic critical _We_. " Who is the author, Ido not know; nor can I make a likely guess at any one who was in morethan distant intercourse with me. 

This third reviewer did not bestow one page, as Mr. Martineau haddone, on the "Eclipse;" did not summarily pronounce a broad sentencewithout details, but dedicated thirty-four pages to the examinationand proof. He opens with noticing the parallel which the author ofthe "Eclipse" has instituted between his use of ridicule and thatof Pascal; and replies that he signally violates Pascal's two rules, _first_, to speak with truth against one's opponents and not withcalumny; _secondly_, not to wound them needlessly. "Neglect of thefirst rule (says he) has given to these books [the "Eclipse" and its"Defence"] their apparent controversial success; disregard of thesecond their literary point. " He adds, "We shall show that theirauthor misstates and misrepresents doctrines; garbles quotations, interpolating words which give the passage he cites reference tosubjects quite foreign from those to which in the original they apply, while retaining the inverted commas, which are the proper sign offaithful transcription; that similarly, he allows himself the licenceof omission of the very words on which the controversy hangs, whilein appearance citing _verbatim_;. .. And that he habitually employsa sophistry too artful (we fear) to be undesigned. May he not himselfhave been deceived, some indulgent render perhaps asks, by thefallacies which have been so successful with others? It would be asreasonable to suppose that the grapes which deluded the birds musthave deluded Zeuxis who painted them. "

So grave an accusation against my assailant's truthfulness, coming notfrom me, but from a third party, and that, evidently a man who knewwell what he was saying and why, --could not be passed over unnoticed, although that religious world, which reads one side only, continuedto buy the "Eclipse" and its "Defence" greedily, and not one in athousand of them was likely to see the "Prospective Review, " Inthe second edition of the "Defence" the writer undertakes to defendhimself against my advocate, in on Appendix of 19 closely printedpages, the "Defence" itself being 218. The "Eclipse, " in its 9thedition of small print, is 393 pages. And how does he set about hisreply? By trying to identify the third writer with the second (who wasnotoriously Mr. Martineau), and to impute to him ill temper, chagrin, irritation, and wounded self-love, as the explanation of this thirdarticle: He says (p. 221):--

"The third writer--if, as I have said, he be not the second--sets outon a new voyage of discovery . .. And still humbly following in thewake of Mr. Newman's great critical discoveries, [3] repeatsthat gentleman's charges of falsifying passages, garbling andmisrepresentation. In doing so, he employs language, and _manifests atemper_, which I should have thought that respect for himself, if notfor his opponent, would have induced him to suppress. It is enough tosay, that he quite rivals Mr. Newman in sagacity, and if possible, hasmore successfully denuded himself of charity. .. . If he be the same asthe second writer, I am afraid that the little Section XV. " [_i. E. _the reply to Mr. Martineau in 1st edition of the "Defence"] "must haveoffended the _amour propre_ more deeply than it ought to have done, considering the wanton and outrageous assault to which it was a verylenient reply, and that the critic affords another illustration of theold maxim, that there are none so implacable as those who have done awrong. 

"As the spectacle of the reeling Helot taught the Spartans sobriety, so his _bitterness_ shall teach me moderation. I know enough of humannature to understand that it is very possible for an _angry_ man--and_chagrin and irritation are too legibly written on every page of thisarticle_--to be betrayed into gross injustice. "

The reader will see from this the difficulty of _my_ position in thiscontroversy. Mr. Martineau, while defending himself, deprecatedthe profanity of my other opponent, and the atheistic nature ofhis arguments. He spoke as a bystander, and with the advantage of ajudicial position, and it is called "wanton and outrageous. " A secondwriter goes into detail, and exposes some of the garbling arts whichhave been used against me; it is imputed[4] to ill temper, and isinsinuated to be from a spirit of personal revenge. How much less can_I_ defend myself, and that, against untruthfulness, without incurringsuch imputation! My opponent speaks to a public who will not read myreplies. He picks out what he pleases of my words, and takes care todivest them of their justification. I have (as was to be expected) metwith much treatment from the religious press which I know cannot bejustified; but all is slight, compared to that of which I complainfrom this writer. I will presently give a few detailed instances toillustrate this. While my charge against my assailant is essentiallymoral, and I cannot make any parade of charity, he can speakpatronizingly of me now and then, and makes his main attacks on my_logic_ and _metaphysics_. He says, that in writing his first book, he knew no characteristics of me, except that I was "a gentleman, a scholar, and _a very indifferent metaphysician_" At the risk ofencountering yet more of banter and insult, I shall here quote whatthe third "Prospective Reviewer" says on this topic. (Vol. X. P. 208):--

"Our readers will be able to judge how well qualified the author isto sneer at Mr. Newman's metaphysics, which are far more accuratethan his own, or to ridicule his logic. The tone of contempt which hehabitually assumes preposterously reverses the relative intellectual_status_, so far as sound systematic thought is concerned, of the twomen. "

I do not quote this as testimony to myself but as testimony thatothers, as well as I, feel the _contemptuous tone_ assumed by myadversary in precisely that subject on which modesty is called for. Onmetaphysics there is hitherto an unreconciled diversity among men whohave spent their lives in the study; and a large part of the endlessreligious disputes turns on this very fact. However, the being told, in a multitude of ingenious forms, that I am a wretched logician, isnot likely to raffle my tranquillity. What does necessarily wound me, is his misrepresenting my thoughts to the thoughtful, whose respectI honour; and poisoning the atmosphere between me and a thousandreligious hearts. That these do not despise me, however much contempthe may vent, I know only too well through their cruel fears of me. 

I have just now learned incidentally, that in the last number (asupplementary number) of the "Prospective Review, " there was a shortreply to the second edition of Mr. Rogers's "Defence, " in which theEditors officially _deny_ that the third writer against Mr. Rogersis the same as the second; which, I gather from their statement, the"British Quarterly" had taken on itself to _affirm_. 

I proceed to show what liberties my critic takes with my arguments, and what he justifies. 

I. In the closing chapter of my third edition of the "Phases, " I hadcomplained of his bad faith in regard to my arguments concerning theAuthoritative imposition of moral truth from without. I showed that, after telling his reader that I offered no proof of my assertions, he dislocated my sentences, altered their order, omitted an adverbof inference, and isolated three sentences out of a paragraph offorty-six lines: that his omission of the inferential adverb showedhis deliberate intention to destroy the reader's clue to the fact, that I had given proof where he suppresses it and says that I havegiven none; that the sentences quoted as 1, 2, 3, by him, with me havethe order 3, 2, 1; while what he places first, is with me an immediateand necessary deduction from what has preceded. Now how does he reply?He does not deny my facts; but he justifies his process. I must sethis words before the reader. _(Defence, 2nd ed. , p. 85. )

"The strangest thing is to see the way in which, after parading thissupposed 'artful dodge, '[5] which, I assure you, gentle reader, wasall a perfect novelty to my consciousness, --Mr. Newman goes on tosay, that the author of the 'Eclipse' has altered the order of hissentences to suit a purpose. He says: 'The sentences quoted as 1, 2, 3, by him, with me have the order 3, 2, 1. ' I answer, that Harringtonwas simply anxious to set forth at the head of his argument, in theclearest and briefest form, the _conclusions_[6] he believed Mr. Newman to hold, and which he was going to confute. He had no idea ofany relation of subordination or dependence in the above sophisms, asI have just proved them to be, whether arranged as 3, 2, 1, or 1, 2, 3, or 2, 3, 1, or in any other order in which the possiblepermutations of three things, taken 3 and 3 together, can exhibitthem; _ex nihilo, nil fit_; and three nonentities can yield just aslittle. Jangle as many changes as you will on these three crackedbells, no logical harmony can ever issue out of them. "

Thus, because he does not see the validity of my argument, he is topretend that I have offered none: he is not to allow his readers tojudge for themselves as to the validity, but they have to take hisword that I am a very "queer" sort of logician, ready "for any featsof logical legerdemain. "

I have now to ask, what is garbling, if the above is not? He admitsthe facts, but justifies them as having been convenient from his pointof view; and then finds my charity to be "very grotesque, " when I donot know how, without hypocrisy, to avoid calling a spade a spade. 

I shall here reprint the pith of my argument, somewhat shortened:--

"No heaven-sent Bible can guarantee the veracity of God to a man whodoubts that veracity. Unless we have independent means of knowing thatGod is truthful and good, his word (if we be over so certain that itis really his word) has no authority to us: _hence_ no book revelationcan, without sapping its own pedestal, deny the validity of our _apriori_ conviction that God has the virtues of goodness and veracity, and requires like virtues in us. _And in fact_, all Christian apostlesand missionaries, like the Hebrew prophets, have always confutedPaganism by direct attacks on its immoral and unspiritual doctrines, and have appealed to the consciences of heathens, as competent todecide in the controversy. Christianity itself has _thus_ practicallyconfessed what is theoretically clear, that an authoritative externalrevelation of moral and spiritual truth is essentially impossible toman. What God reveals to us, he reveals within, through the medium ofour moral and spiritual senses. External teaching may be a training ofthose senses, but affords no foundation for certitude. "

This passage deserved the enmity of my critic. He quoted bits ofit, very sparingly, never setting before his readers my continuousthought, but giving his own free versions and deductions. His fullestquotation stood thus, given only in an after-chapter:--"What Godreveals to us, he reveals _within_, through the medium of our moraland spiritual senses. " "Christianity itself has practically confessedwhat is theoretically clear, _(you must take Mr. Newman's word forboth, )_[7] that an authoritative external revelation of moral andspiritual truth is essentially impossible to man. " "No book-revelationcan, without sapping its own pedestal, &c. &c. "

These three sentences are what Mr. Rogers calls the three crackedbells, and thinks by raising a laugh, to hide his fraud I havecarefully looked through the whole of his dialogue concerning BookRevelation in his 9th edition of the "Eclipse" (pp. 63-83 of closeprint). He still excludes from it every part of my argument, only stating in the opening (p. 63) as my conclusions, that abook-revelation is impossible, and that God reveals himself fromwithin, not from without In his _Defence_ (which circulates far lessthan the "Eclipse, " to judge by the number of editions) he displayshis bravery by at length printing my argument; but in the "Eclipse" hecontinues to suppress it, at least as far as I can discover by turningto the places where it ought to be found. 

In p. 77 (9th ed. ) of the "Eclipse. " he _implies_, without absolutelyasserting, that I hold the Bible to be an impertinence. He repeatsthis in p. 85 of the "Defence. " Such is his mode. I wrote: "_Without_a priori _belief_, the Bible is an impertinence, " but I say, man_has_ this _a priori_ belief, on which account the Bible is _not_an impertinence. My last sentence in the very passage before us, expressly asserts the value of (good) external teaching. This mycritic laboriously disguises. 

He carefully avoids allowing his readers to see that I am contendingfundamentally for that which the ablest Christian divines haveconceded and maintained; that which the common sense of everymissionary knows, and every one who is not profoundly ignorant of theBible and of history ought to know. Mr. Rogers is quite aware, thatno apostle ever carried a Bible in his hand and said to the heathen, "Believe that there is a good and just God, _because_ it is writtenin this book;" but they appealed to the hearts and consciences ofthe hearers as competent witnesses. He does not even give his readerenough of my paragraph to make intelligible what I _meant_ by saying"Christianity has practically confessed;" and yet insists that I amboth unreasonable and uncharitable in my complaints of him. 

I here reprint the summary of my belief concerning our knowledge ofmorality as fundamental, and not to be tampered with under pretence ofreligion. "If an angel from heaven bade me to lie, and to steal, andto commit adultery, and to murder, and to scoff at good men, and usurpdominion over my equals, and do unto others everything that I wish_not_ to have done to me; I ought to reply, BE THOU ANATHEMA! This, Ibelieve, was Paul's doctrine; this is mine. "

It may be worth while to add how in the "Defence" Mr. Rogers pounceson my phrase "_a priori_ view of the Divine character, " as an excusefor burying his readers in metaphysics, in which he thinks he has anatural right to dogmatize against and over me. He must certainly beaware of the current logical (not metaphysical) use of the phrase _apriori_: as when we say, that Le Verrier and Adams demonstrated _apriori_ that a planet _must_ exist exterior to Uranus, before anyastronomer communicated information that it _does_ exist. Or again:the French Commissioners proved by actual measurement that the earthis an oblate spheroid, of which Newton had convinced himself _apriori_. 

_I_ always avoid a needless argument of metaphysics. Writing to thegeneral public I cannot presume that they are good judges of anythingbut a practical and moral argument. The _a priori_ views of God, ofwhich I here speak, involve no subtle questions; they are simply thoseviews which are attained _independently of the alleged authoritativeinformation_, and, of course, are founded upon considerations_earlier_ than it. 

But it would take too much of space and time, and be far too tediousto my readers, if I were to go in detail through Mr. Rogers'sobjections and misrepresentations. I have the sad task of attacking_his good faith_, to which I further proceed. 

II. In the preface to my second edition of the "Hebrew Monarchy, "I found reason to explain briefly in what sense I use the wordinspiration. I said, I found it to be current in three senses;"first, as an extraordinary influence peculiar to a few persons, asto prophets and apostles; secondly, _as an ordinary influence of theDivine Spirit on the hearts of men, which quickens and strengthenstheir moral and spiritual powers_, and is accessible to them all (ina certain stage of development) _in some proportion to their ownfaithfulness. _ The third view teaches that genius and inspiration aretwo names for one thing. .. . _Christians for the most part hold the twofirst conceptions_, though they generally call the second _spiritualinfluence_, not inspiration; the third, seems to be common in theOld Testament. It so happens that the _second is the only inspirationwhich I hold. _" [I here super-add the italics] On this passage Mr. Rogers commented as follows ("Defence" p. 156):--

"The latest utterance of Mr. Newman on the subject [of inspiration]that I have read, occurs in his preface to the second edition ofhis "Hebrew Monarchy, " where he tells us, that he believes it is aninfluence accessible to all men, _in a certain stage of development_![Italics. ] Surely it will be time to consider his theory ofinspiration, when he has told us a little more about it. To my mind, if the very genius of mystery had framed the definition, it could nothave uttered anything more indefinite. "

Upon this passage the "Prospective" reviewer said his say as follows(vol x. P. 217):--

"The writer will very considerately defer criticism on Mr. Newman'sindefinite definition, worthy of the genius of mystery, till itsauthor has told us a little more about it. Will anyone believe that hehimself deliberately omits the substance of the definition, and givesin its stead a parenthetical qualification, which might be left out ofthe original, without injury either to the grammatical structure, or to the general meaning of the sentence in which it occurs?" Heproceeds to state what I did say, and adds: "Mr. Newman, in the verypage in which this statement occurs, expressly identifies his doctrinewith the ordinary Christian belief of Divine influence. His words areexactly coincident in sense with those employed by the author of the"Eclipse, " where he acknowledges the reality of 'the ordinary, thoughmysterious action, by which God aids those who sincerely seek him inevery good word and work. ' The moral faithfulness of which Mr. Newmanspeaks, is the equivalent of the sincere search of God in good wordand work, which his opponent talks of. "

I must quote the _entire_ reply given to this in the "Defence, " secondedition, p. 224:--

"And now for a few examples of my opponent's criticisms. 1. I saidin the "Defence" that I did not understand Mr. Newman's notions ofinspiration, and that, as to his very latest utterance--namely, thatit was an influence _accessible to all men in a certain stage ofdevelopment_ [italics], it was utterly unintelligible to me. 'Will anyone believe (says my critic) that he deliberately omits thesubstance of the definition, and gives in its stead a parentheticalqualification, which might be left out of the original without injuryeither to the grammatical structure or to the general meaning ofthe sentence in which it occurs? Was anything ever more amusing? Aparenthetical clause which might be left out of the original withoutinjury to the grammatical structure or to the general meaning! _Might_be left out? Ay, to be sure it might, and not only 'without injury, 'but with benefit; just as the dead fly which makes the ointment of theapothecary to stink might be left out of _that_ without injury. Butit was _not_ left out; and it is precisely because it was there, anddiffused so remarkable an odour over the whole, that I characterizedthe definition as I did--and most justly. Accessible to all men ina certain stage of development! When and how _accessible_? What_species_ of development, I beseech you, is meant? And what is the_stage_ of it? The very thing, which, as I say, and as everybody ofcommon sense must see, renders the definition utterly vague, is thevery clause in question. "

Such is his _entire_ notice of the topic. From any other writer Ishould indeed have been amazed at such treatment. I had made thevery inoffensive profession of agreeing with the current doctrine ofChristians concerning spiritual influence. As I was not starting anynew theory, but accepting what is notorious, nothing more than anindication was needed. I gave, what I should not call definition, butdescription of it. My critic conceals that I have avowed agreementwith Christians; refers to it as a theory of my own; complains thatit is obscure; pretends to quote my definition, and leaves out allthe cardinal words of it, which I have above printed in italics. Mydefender, in the "Prospective Review, " exposes these mal-practices;points out that my opponent is omitting the main words, whilecomplaining of deficiency; that I profess to agree with Christians ingeneral; and _that I evidently agree with my critic in particular_. The critic undertakes to reply to this, and the reader has before himthe whole defence. The man who, as it were, puts his hand on hisheart to avow that he anxiously sets before his readers, if not whatI _mean_, yet certainly what I have _expressed_, --still persists inhiding from them the facts of the case; avoids to quote from thereviewer so much as to let out that I profess to agree[8] with whatis prevalent among Christians and have no peculiar theory;--stillwithholds the cardinal points of what he calls my definition; whilehe tries to lull his reader into inattention by affecting to behighly amused, and by bantering and bullying in his usual style, whileperverting the plainest words in the world. 

I have no religious press to take my part. I am isolated, as myassailant justly remarks. For a wonder, a stray review here andthere has run to my aid, while there is a legion on the otherside--newspapers, magazines, and reviews. Now if any orthodox man, anyfriend of my assailant, by some chance reads these pages, I beg him tocompare my quotations, thus fully given, with the originals; and if hefind anything false in them, then let him placard me as a LIAR in thewhole of the religious press. But if he finds that I am right, then let him learn in what sort of man he is trusting--what sort ofchampion of _truth_ this religious press has cheered on. 

III. I had complained that Mr. Rogers falsely represented me to makea fanatical "divorce" between the intellectual and the spiritual, fromwhich he concluded that I ought to be indifferent as to the worship ofJehovah or of the image which fell down from Jupiter. He has pretendedthat my religion, according to me, has received nothing by traditionaland historical agencies; that it owes nothing to men who went beforeme; that I believe I have (in my single unassisted bosom) "a spiritualfaculty so bright as to anticipate all essential[9] spiritualverities;" that had it not been for traditional religion, "we shouldeverywhere have heard the invariable utterance of spiritual religionin the one dialect of the heart, "--that "this divinely implantedfaculty of spiritual discernment anticipates all external truth, "&c. &c. I then adduced passages to show that his statement wasemphatically and utterly contrary to fact. In his "Defence, " he thusreplies, p. 75:--

"I say with an unfaltering conscience, that no controvertist ever morehonestly and sincerely sought to give his opponent's views, than Idid Mr. Newman's, after the most diligent study of his rather obscurebooks; and that whether I have succeeded or not in giving what he_thought_, I have certainly given what he _expressed_. It is quitetrue that I supposed Mr. Newman intended to "divorce" faith andintellect; and what else on earth could I suppose, in common evenwith those who were most leniently disposed towards him, from suchsentiments as these? ALL THE GROUNDS OF BELIEF PROPOSED TO THE MEREUNDERSTANDING HAVE NOTHING TO DO WITH FAITH AT ALL. THE PROCESSES OFTHOUGHT HAVE NOTHING TO QUICKEN THE CONSCIENCE OR AFFECT THE SOUL. _How then can the state of the soul be tested by the conclusion towhich the intellect is led?_ I was _compelled_, I say, to take thesepassages as everybody else took them, to _mean_ what they obviously_express_. "

Here he so isolates three assertions of mine from their context, asto suggest for each of them a false meaning, and make it difficult forthe reader who has not my book at hand to discover the delusion. The first is taken from a discussion of the arguments concerning thesoul's immortality ("Soul, " p. 223, 2nd edition), on which I wrotethus, p. 219:--that to judge of the accuracy of a metaphysicalargument concerning mind and matter, requires not a pure conscienceand a loving soul, but a clear and calm head; that if the doctrine ofimmortality be of high religious importance, we cannot believe it torest on such a basis, that those in whom the religious faculties aremost developed may be more liable to err concerning it than thosewho have no religious faculty in action at all. On the contrary, concerning truths which are really spiritual it is an obviousaxiom, [10] that "he who is spiritual judgeth all things, and hehimself is judged of no man. " After this I proceeded to allude to thehistory of the doctrine among the Hebrews, and quoted some texts ofthe Psalms, the _argument_ of which, I urged, is utterly inappreciableto the pure logician, "because it is spiritually discerned. " Icontinued as follows:--

"This is as it should be. Can a mathematician understand physiology, or a physiologist questions of law? A true love of God in the soulitself, an insight into Him depending on that love, and a hope risingout of that insight, are prerequisite for contemplating this spiritualdoctrine, which is a spontaneous impression of the gazing soul, powerful (perhaps) in proportion to its faith; whereas all the groundsof belief proposed to the mere understanding have nothing to do withfaith at all. "

I am expounding the doctrine of the great Paul of Tarsus, who indeedapplies it to this very topic, --the future bliss which God hasprepared for them that love him. Does Mr. Rogers attack Paul as makinga fanatical divorce between faith and intellect, and say that he is_compelled_ so to understand him, when he avows that "the natural manunderstandeth not the things of God; for they are foolishness untohim. " "When the world by wisdom knew not God, it pleased God bythe foolishness of preaching to save them that believe. " Here isa pretended champion of Evangelical truth seeking to explode asabsurdities the sentiments and judgments which have ever been at theheart of Christianity, its pride and its glory!

But I justify my argument as free from fanaticism--and free fromobscurity when the whole sentence is read--to a Jew or Mohammedan, quite as much as to a Christian. 

My opponent innocently asks, _how much_ I desire him to quote of me?But is innocence the right word, when he has quoted but two lines anda half, out of a sentence of seven and a half, and has not even giventhe clause complete? By omitting, in his usual way, the connectingparticle _whereas_, he hides from the reader that he has given buthalf my thought; and this is done, after my complaint of this veryproceeding. A reader who sees the whole sentence, discerns at oncethat I oppose "the _mere_ understanding, " to the whole soul; in short, that by the man who has _mere_ understanding, I mean him whom Paulcalls "the natural man. " Such a man may have metaphysical talents andacquirements, he may be a physiologist or a great lawyer; nay, Iwill add, (to shock my opponent's tender nerves), _even if he be anAtheist_, he may be highly amiable and deserving of respect and love;but if he has no spiritual development, he cannot have insight intospiritual truth. Hence such arguments for immortality as _can_ beappreciated by him, and _cannot_ be appreciated by religious men assuch, "have nothing to do with faith at all"

The two other passages are found thus, in p. 245 of the "Soul, " 2ndedition. After naming local history, criticism of texts, history ofphilosophy, logic, physiology, demonology, and other important butvery difficult studies, I ask:--

"Is it not extravagant to call inquiries of this sort _spiritual_ orto expect any spiritual[11] results from them? When the spiritualman (as such) cannot judge, the question is removed into a totallydifferent court from that of the soul, the court of the criticalunderstanding. .. . How then can the state of the soul be tested bythe conclusion to which the intellect is led? What means theanathematizing of those who remain unconvinced? And how can it beimagined that the Lord of the soul cares more about a historicalthan about a geological, metaphysical, or mathematical argument? Theprocesses of thought have nothing to quicken the conscience or affectthe soul. "

From my defender in the "Prospective Review" I learn that in the firstedition of the "Defence" the word _thought_ in the last sentence abovewas placed in italics. He not only protested against this and otheritalics as misleading, but clearly explained my sense, which, as Ithink, needs no other interpreter than the context. In the new editionthe italics are removed, but the unjust isolation of the sentencesremains. "_The_ processes of thought, " of which I spoke, are not"_all_ processes, " but the processes _involved in the abstruseinquiries to which I had referred_. To say that _no_ processes ofthought quicken the conscience, or affect the soul, would be a grossabsurdity. This, or nothing else, is what he imputes to me; and evenafter the protest made by the "Prospective" reviewer, my assailant notonly continues to hide that I speak of _certain_ processes of thought, not _all_ processes, but even has the hardihood to say that he takesthe passages as _everybody else_ does, and that he is _compelled_ soto do. 

In my own original reply I appealed to places where I had fullyexpressed my estimate of intellectual progress, and its ultimatebeneficial action. All that I gain by this, is new garblings andtaunts for inconsistency. "Mr. Newman, " says be, "is the last manin the world to whom I would deny the benefit of having contradictedhimself. " But I must confine myself to the garbling. "Defence, " p. 95:--

"Mr. Newman affirms that my representations of his views on thissubject are the most direct and intense reverse of all that he hasmost elaborately and carefully written!" He still says, "_what_God reveals, he reveals within and not without, " and "he _did_ say(though, it seems, he says no longer), that 'of God we know everythingfrom within, nothing from without;' yet he says I have grosslymisrepresented him. "

This pretended quotation is itself garbled. I wrote, ("Phases, " 1stedition, p. 152)--"Of _our moral and spiritual_ God we know nothingwithout, everything within. " By omitting the adjectives, the criticproduces a statement opposed to my judgment and to my writings;and then goes on to say. "Well, if Mr. Newman will engage to provecontradictions, . .. I think it is no wonder that his readers do notunderstand him. "

I believe it is a received judgment, which I will not positivelyassert to be true, but I do not think I have anywhere denied, thatGod is discerned by us in the universe as a designer, creator, andmechanical ruler, through a mere study of the world and its animalsand all their adaptations, _even without_ an absolute necessity ofmeditating consciously on the intelligence of man and turning theeyes within. Thus a creative God may be said to be discerned "fromwithout. " But in my conviction, that God is not _so_ discerned to be_moral_ or _spiritual_ or to be _our_ God; but by moral intellect andmoral experience acting "inwardly. " If Mr. Rogers chooses to deny thejustness of my view, let him deny it; but by omitting the emphaticadjectives he has falsified my sentence, and then has founded upon ita charge of inconsistency. In a previous passage (p. 79) he gave thisquotation in full, in order to reproach me for silently withdrawing itin my second edition of the "Phases. " He says:--

"The two sentences in small capitals are not found in the new editionof the 'Phases. ' _They are struck out_. It is no doubt the right of anauthor to erase in a new edition any expressions he pleases; butwhen he is about to charge another with having grossly garbled andstealthily misrepresented him, it is as well to let the world know_what_ he has erased and _why_. He says that my representation of hissentiments is the most direct and intense reverse of all that hehas most elaborately and carefully written. It certainly is not theintense reverse of all that he has most elaborately and carefully_scratched out_. "

I exhibit here the writer's own italics. 

By this attack on my good faith, and by pretending that my withdrawalof the passage is of serious importance, he distracts the reader'sattention from the argument there in hand (p. 79), which is, _not_what are my sentiments and judgements, but whether he had a rightto dissolve and distort my chain of reasoning (see I. Above) whileaffecting to quote me, and pretending that I gave nothing butassertion. As regards my "elaborately and carefully _scratching out_, "this was done; 1. Because the passage seemed to me superfluous; 2. Because I had pressed the topic elsewhere; 3. Because I was going toenlarge on it in my reply to him, p. 199 of my second edition. [12]When the real place comes where my critic is to deal with thesubstance of the passage (p. 94 of "Defence"), the reader has seen howhe mutilates it. 

The other passage of mine which he has adduced, employs the word_reveals_, in a sense analogous to that of _revelation_, in avowedrelation to _things moral and spiritual_, which would have been seen, had not my critic reversed the order of my sentences; which he doesagain in p. 78 of the "Defence, " after my protest against his doing soin the "Eclipse. " I wrote: (Soul, p. 59) "Christianity itself hasthus practically confessed, what is theoretically clear, that anauthoritative _external_ revelation of moral and spiritual truth isessentially impossible to man. What God reveals to us, he reveals_within_, through the medium of our moral and spiritual senses. "The words, "What God reveals, " seen in the light of the precedingsentence, means: "That portion of _moral and spiritual truth_ whichGod reveals. " This cannot be discovered in the isolated quotation; andas, both in p. 78 and in p. 95, he chooses to quote my word _What_ initalics, his reader is led on to interpret me as saying "_every thingwhatsoever_ which we know of God, we learn from within;" a statementwhich is not mine. 

Besides this, the misrepresentation of which I complained is notconfined to the rather metaphysical words of _within_ and _without_, as to which the most candid friends may differ, and may misunderstandone another;--as to which also I may be truly open to correction;--buthe assumes the right to tell his readers that my doctrine undervaluesTruth, and Intellect, and Traditional teaching, and Externalsuggestion, and Historical influences, and counts the Bible animpertinence. When he fancies he can elicit this and that, by his ownlogic, out of sentences and clauses torn from their context, he hasno right to disguise what I have said to the contrary, and claim tojustify his fraud by accusing me of self-contradiction. Against allmy protests, and all that I said to the very opposite previous toany controversy, he coolly alludes to it (p. 40 of the "Defence")as though it were my avowed doctrine, that: "_Each_ man, lookingexclusively within, can _at once_ rise to the conception of God'sinfinite perfections. "

IV. When I agree with Paul or David (or think I do), I have a rightto quote their words reverentially; but when I do so, Mr. Rogersdeliberately justifies himself in ridiculing them, pretending that heonly ridicules _me_. He thus answers my indignant denunciation in theearly part of his "Defence, " p. 5:--

"Mr. Newman warns me with much solemnity against thinking that'questions pertaining to God are advanced by boisterous glee. ' I donot think that the 'Eclipse' is characterised by boisterous glee; andcertainly I was not at all aware, that the things which _alone_[13]I have ridiculed--some of them advanced by him, and some byothers--deserved to be treated with solemnity. For example, that anauthoritative external revelation, [14] which most persons have thoughtpossible enough, is _im_possible, --that man is most likely born fora dog's life, and 'there an end'--that there are great defects in themorality of the New Testament, and much imperfection in the characterof its founder, --that the miracles of Christ might be real, becauseChrist was a _clairvoyant_ and mesmerist, --that God was not a Person, but a Personality;--I say, I was not aware that these things, and suchas these, which alone I ridiculed, were questions 'pertaining to God, 'in any other sense than the wildest hypotheses in some sense pertainto science, and the grossest heresies to religion. "

Now first, is his statement true?

_Are_ these the _only_ things which he ridiculed?

I quoted in my reply to him enough to show what was the class of"things pertaining to God" to which I referred. He forces me torequote some of the passages. "Eclipse, " p. 82 [1st ed. ] "You shall bepermitted to say (what I will not contradict), that though _Mr. Newmanmay be inspired_ for aught I know . .. Inspired as much as (say) _theinventor of Lucifer matches_--yet that his book is not divine, --thatit is purely human. "

Again: p. 126 [1st ed. ] "Mr. Newman says to those who say theyare unconscious of these facts of spiritual pathology, that _theconsciousness of the spiritual man is not the less true, that_[though?] _the unspiritual man is not privy to it_; and this mostdevout gentleman quotes with unction the words: _For the spiritual manjudgeth all things, but himself is judged of no man_. "

P. 41, [1st ed. ], "I have rejected creeds, and I have found what theScripture calls, _that peace which passeth all understanding_. " "I amsure it passes mine, (says Harrington) if you have really found it, and I should be much obliged to you, if you would let me participatein the discovery. " "Yes, says Fellowes:. .. '_I have escaped from thebondage of the letter and have been introduced into the liberty of theSpirit. .. . The letter killeth, but the spirit giveth life. The fruitof the Spirit is joy, peace, not_--'" "Upon my word (said Harrington, laughing), I shall presently begin to fancy that Douce Davie Deans hasturned infidel. "

I have quoted enough to show the nature of my complaints. I charge thesatirist with profanity, for ridiculing sentiments which _he himself_avows to be holy, ridiculing them for no other reason but that with_me also_ they are holy and revered. He justifies himself in p. 5of his "Defence, " as above, by denying my facts. He afterwards, inSection XII. P. 147, admits and defends them; to which I shall return. 

I beg my reader to observe how cleverly Mr. Rogers slanders me in thequotation already made, from p. 5, by insinuating, first, that it ismy doctrine, "that man is _most likely_ born for _a dog's life_, and there an end;" next, that I have taken under my patronage thepropositions, that "the miracles of Christ might be real, becauseChrist was a _clairvoyant_ and mesmerist, and that God is not a Personbut a Personality. " I cannot but be reminded of what the "Prospective"reviewer says of Zeuxis and the grapes, when I observe the delicateskill of touch by which the critic puts on just enough colour toaffect the reader's mind, but not so much as to draw him to closerexamination. I am at a loss to believe that he supposes me to thinkthat a theory of mesmeric wonders (as the complement of an atheisticcreed?) is "a question pertaining to God, " or that my rebuke bore theslightest reference to such a matter. As to Person and Personality, itis a subtle distinction which I have often met from Trinitarians; who, when they are pressed with the argument that three divine Personsare nothing but three Gods, reply that Person is not the correcttranslation of the mystical _Hypostasis_ of the Greeks, andPersonality is perhaps a truer rendering. If I were to answer withthe jocosity in which my critic indulges, I certainly doubt whetherhe would justify me. So too, when a Pantheist objects (erringly, asI hold) that a Person is necessarily something finite, so that Godcannot be a Person; if, against this, a Theist contend that God isat once a Person and a Principle, and invent a use of the wordPersonality to overlap both ideas; we may reject his nomenclature astoo arbitrary, but what rightful place ridicule has here, I do notsee. Nevertheless, it had wholly escaped my notice that the satiristhad ridiculed it, as I now infer that he did. 

He tells me he _was not aware_ that the holding that _there are greatdefects in the morality of the New Testament, and much imperfection inthe character of its Founder, was a question pertaining to God_. Norindeed was _I_ aware of it. 

I regard questions concerning a book and a human being to be purelysecular, and desire to discuss them, not indeed with ridicule butwith freedom. When _I_ discuss them, he treats my act as intolerablyoffensive, as though the subject were sacred; yet he now pretends that_I_ think such topics "pertain to God, " and he was not aware of ituntil I told him so! Thus he turns away the eyes of his readers frommy true charge of profanity, and fixes them upon a fictitious chargeso as to win a temporary victory. At the same time, since Christiansbelieve the morality of the _Old_ Testament to have great defects, and that there was much imperfection in the character of its eminentsaints, prophets, and sages; I cannot understand how my holdingthe very same opinion concerning the _New_ Testament should be apeculiarly appropriate ground of banter and merriment; nor make memore justly offensive to Christians, than the Pauline doctrine is toJews. 

In more than one place of this "Defence" he misrepresents what I havewritten on Immortality, in words similar to those here used, thoughhere he does _not_[15] expressly add my name. In p. 59, he says, that "according to Mr. Newman's theology, it is most _probable_(in italics) that the successive generations of men, with perfectindifference to their relative moral conditions, their crimesor wrongs, are all knocked on the head together; and that futureadjustment and retribution is a dream. " (So p. 72. ) In a note to thenext page, he informs his readers that if I say that I have left thequestion of immortality _doubtful_, it does not affect the argument;for I have admitted "the probability" of there being no future life. 

This topic was specially discussed by me in a short chapter of mytreatise on the "Soul, " to which alone it is possible for my critic torefer. In that chapter assuredly I do _not_ say what he pretends; whatI _do_ say is, (after rejecting, as unsatisfactory to me, the populararguments from metaphysics, and from the supposed need of a futurestate to _redress the inequalities of this life_;) p. 232: "But do Ithen deny a future life, or seek to undermine a belief of it? _Mostassuredly not_; but I would put the belief (whether it is to be weakeror firmer) on a _spiritual_ basis, and on none other. "

I am ashamed to quote further from that chapter in this place; theground on which I there tread is too sacred for controversy. But thata Christian advocate should rise from reading it to tell people thathe has a right to _ridicule_ me for holding that "man is _most likelyborn for a dog's life_, and there an end;" absorbs my other feelingsin melancholy. I am sure that any candid person, reading that chapter, must see that I was hovering between doubt, hope, and faith, on thissubject, and that if any one could show me that a Moral Theism and aFuture Life were essentially combined, I should joyfully embracethe second, as a fit complement to the first. This writer takes theopposite for granted; that if he can convince me that the doctrine ofa Future Life is essential to Moral Theism, he will--not _add_ to--but_refute_ my Theism! Strange as this at first appears, it is explainedby his method. He draws a hideous picture of what God's world has beenin the past, and indeed is in the present; with words so reekingof disgust and cruelty, that I cannot bear to quote them; and amplequotation would be needful. Then he infers, that since I must admitall this, I virtually believe in an immoral Deity. I suppose hisinstinct rightly tells him, that I shall not be likely to reason, "Because God can be so very cruel or careless to-day, he is sure tobe very merciful and vigilant hereafter. " Accepting his facts asa _complete_ enumeration of the phenomena of the present world, Isuppose it is better inductive logic to say: "He who can be himself socruel, and endure such monsters of brutality for six or more thousandyears, must (by the laws of external induction) be the same, andleave men the same, for all eternity; and is clearly reckless of moralconsiderations. " If I adopt this alternative, I become a Pagan or anAtheist, one or other of which Mr. Rogers seems anxious to make me. If he would urge, that to look at the dark and terrible side of humanlife is onesided and delusive, and that the God who is known to usin Nature has so tempered the world to man and man to the world as tomanifest his moral intentions;--(arguments, which I think, my criticmust have heard from Socrates or Plato, without pooling out on themscalding words, such as I feel and avow to be blasphemous;)--then hemight perhaps help my faith where it is weakest, and give me (more orless) aid to maintain a future life dogmatically, instead of hopefullyand doubtfully. But now, to use my friend Martineau's words: "Hismethod doubles every difficulty without relieving any, and tends toenthrone a Devil everywhere, and leave a God nowhere. "

Since he wrote his second edition of the "Defence, " I have brought outmy work called "Theism, " in which (without withdrawing my objectionsto the popular idea of future _Retribution_) I have tried to reasonout a doctrine of Future Life from spiritual considerations. I have nodoubt that my critic would find them highly aboard, and perhaps wouldpronounce them ineffably ludicrous, and preposterous feats of logic. If I could hide their existence from him, I certainly would, lest hemisquote and misinterpret them. But as I cannot keep the book fromhim, I here refer to it to say, that if I am to maintain this mostprofound and mysterious doctrine with any practical intensity, my convictions in the power of the human mind to follow such highinquiries, need to be greatly _strengthened_, not to be underminedby such arguments and such detestable pictures of this world, as Mr. Rogers holds up to me. 

He throws at me the imputation of holding, that "man is _most likely_born for a _dog's life_, and there an end. " And is then the life ofa saint for seventy years, or for seven years, no better than a dog'slife? What else but a _long_ dog's life does this make heaven to be?Such an undervaluing of a short but noble life, is consistent withthe scheme which blasphemes earth in order to ennoble heaven, and thenclaims to be preeminently logical. According to the clear evidence ofthe Bible, the old saints in general were at least as uncertain as Ihave ever been concerning future life; nay, according to the writerto the Hebrews, "through fear of death they were all their lifetimesubject to bondage. " If I had called _that_ a dog's life, howeloquently would Mr. Rogers have rebuked me!

V. But I must recur to his defence of the profanity with which hetreats sacred sentiments and subjects. After pretending, in p. 5, thathe had ridiculed nothing but the things quoted above, he at length, in pp. 147-156, makes formal admission of my charge and _justifieshimself_. The pith of his general reply is in the following, p. 152:--

"'Now (says Mr. Newman) I will not here farther insist on themonstrosity of bringing forward St. Paul's words in order to pourcontempt upon them; a monstrosity which no sophistry of Mr. Harringtoncan justify!' I think the _real_ monstrosity is, that men shouldso coolly employ St. Paul's words, --for it is a quotation from thetreatise on the "Soul, "--to mean something totally different fromanything he intended to convey by them, and employ the dialect of theApostles to contradict their doctrines; that is the monstrosity . .. Itis very hard to conceive that Mr. Newman did not see this. .. . But hadhe gone on only a few lines, the reader would have seen Harringtonsaying: 'These words you have just quoted were well in St. Paul'smouth, and had a meaning. In yours, I suspect, they would have none, or a very different one. '"

According to this doctrine of Mr. Rogers, it would not have beenprofane in an unbelieving Jew to _make game_ of Moses, David, and theProphets, whenever they were quoted by Paul. The Jew most profoundlybelieved that Paul quoted the old Scriptures in a false, as well as ina new meaning. One Christian divine does not feel free to ridiculethe words of Paul when quoted erroneously (as he thinks) by anotherChristian divine? Why then, when quoted by me? I hold it to be a greatinsolence to deny my right to quote Paul or David, as much as Platoor Homer, and adopt their language whenever I find it to express mysentiment. Mr. Rogers's claim to deride highly spiritual truth, barelybecause I revere it, is a union of inhumanity and impiety. He hasnowhere shown that Paul meant something "totally different" fromthe sense which I put on his words. I know that he cannot. I donot pretend always to bind myself to the definite sense of mypredecessors; nor did the writers of the New Testament. They oftenadopt and apply _in an avowedly new sense_ the words of the OldTestament; so does Dr. Watts with the Hebrew Psalms. Such adaptation, in the way of development and enlargement, when done with sincerelypious intention, has never been reproved or forbidden by Christians, Whether I am wise or unwise in my interpretations, the _subject_ is asacred one, and I treat it solemnly; and no errors in my "logic" canjustify Mr. Rogers in putting on the mask of a profane sceptic, whoscoffs (not once or twice, but through a long book) at the mostsacred and tender matters, such as one always dreads to bring before apromiscuous public, lest one cast pearls before swine. And yet unlessdevotional books be written, especially by those who have as yetno church, how are we to aid one another in the uphill straggleto maintain some elements of a heavenly life? Can anything be moreheartless, or more like the sneering devil they talk of, than Mr. Harrington? And here one who professes himself a religions man, and who deliberately, after protest, calls _me_ an INFIDEL, is notsatisfied with having scoffed in an hour of folly--(in such an hour, I can well believe, that melancholy record the "Eclipse of Faith, "was first penned)--but he persists in justifying his claim to jeerand snarl and mutilate, and palm upon me senses which he knows aredeliberately disavowed by me, all the while pretending that it is mybad logic which justifies him! We know that very many religious men_are_ bad logicians: if I am as puzzle-headed a fool as Mr. Rogerswould make people think me, how does that justify his mocking at myreligion? He justifies himself on the ground that I criticize the NewTestament as freely as I should Cicero (p. 147). Well, then let himcriticize me, as freely (and with as little of suppression) as Icriticize it. But I do not _laugh_ at it; God forbid! The reader willsee how little reason Mr. Rogers had to imagine that I had not readso far as to see Harrington's defence; which defence is, either aninsolent assumption, or at any rate not to the purpose. 

I will here add, that I have received letters from numerous Christiansto thank me for my book on the "Soul, " in such terms as put theconduct of Mr. Rogers into the most painful contrast: painful, asshowing that there are other Christians who know, and _he does notknow_, what is the true heart and strength of Christianity. He trustsin logic and ridicules the Spirit of God. 

That leads me to his defence of his suggestion that I might bepossibly as much inspired as the inventor of lucifer matches. He says, p. 154:--

"Mr. Newman tells me, that I have clearly a profound unbelief in theChristian doctrine of divine influence, or I could not thus grosslyinsult it I answer. .. That which Harrington ridiculed, as the contextwould have shown Mr. Newman, if he had had the patience to readon, and the calmness to judge, is the chaotic view of inspiration, _formally_ held by Mr. Parker, who is _expressly_ referred to, "Eclipse, " p. 81. " In 9th edition, p. 71. 

The passage concerning Mr. Parker is in the _preceding_ page: I hadread it, and I do not see how it at all relieves the disgust whichevery right-minded man must feel at this passage. My disgust is notpersonal: though I might surely ask, --If Parker has made a mistake, how does that justify insulting _me_? As I protested, I have madeno peculiar claim to inspiration. I have simply claimed "that whichall[16] pious Jews and Christians since David have always claimed. "Yet he pertinaciously defends this rude and wanton passage, adding, p. 155: "As to the inventor of lucifer matches, I am thoroughly convincedthat he has shed more light upon the world and been abundantly moreuseful to it, than many a cloudy expositor of modern spiritualism. "Where to look for the "many" expositors of spiritualism, I do notknow. Would they were more numerous. 

Mr. Parker differs from me as to the use of the phrase "Spirit ofGod. " I see practical reasons, which I have not here space to insiston, for adhering to the _Christian_, as distinguished from the_Jewish_ use of this phrase. Theodore Parkes follows the phraseologyof the Old Testament, according to which Bezaleel and others receivedthe spirit of God to aid them in mere mechanical arts, building andtailoring. To ridicule Theodore Parker for this, would seem to meneither witty nor decent in an unbeliever; but when one does so, whoprofesses to believe the whole Old Testament to be sacred, and stoopsto lucifer matches and the Eureka shirt, as if this were a refutation, I need a far severer epithet. Mr. Rogers implies that the light of alucifer match is comparable to the light of Theodore Parker; what willbe the judgment of mankind a century hence, if the wide disseminationof the "Eclipse of Faith" lead to inscribing the name of Henry Rogerspermanently in biographical dictionaries! Something of this sort mayappear:--

"THEODORE PARKER, the most eminent moral theologian whom the firsthalf of the nineteenth century produced in the United States. When thechurches were so besotted, as to uphold the curse of slavery becausethey found it justified in the Bible; when the Statesmen, the Press, the Lawyers, and the Trading Community threw their weight to the samefatal side; Parker stood up to preach the higher law of God againstfalse religion, false statesmanship, crooked law and cruel avarice. He enforced three great fundamental truths, God, Holiness, andImmortality. He often risked life and fortune to rescue the fugitiveslave. After a short and very active life full of good works, he diedin blessed peace, prematurely worn out by his perpetual struggle forthe true, the right, and the good. His preaching is the crisis whichmarked the turn of the tide in America from the material to the moral, which began to enforce the eternal laws of God on trade, on law, onadministration, and on the professors of religion itself. "

And what will be then said of him, who now despises the nobleParker? I hope something more than the following:--"HENRY ROGERS, anaccomplished gentleman and scholar, author of many books, of whichby far the most popular was a smart satirical dialogue, disfigured byunjustifiable garbling and profane language, the aim of which wasto sneer down Theodore Parker and others who were trying to savespiritual doctrine out of the wreck of historical Christianity. "

Jocose scoffing, and dialogue writing is the easiest of tasks; andif Mr. Rogers's co-religionists do not take the alarm, and come instrength upon Messrs. Longman, imploring them to suppress these booksof Mr. Rogers, persons who despise _all_ religion (with whom Mr. Rogers pertinaciously confounds me under the term infidel), may one ofthese days imitate his sprightly example against his creed and church. He himself seems to me at present incurable. I do not appeal to _him_, I appeal to his co-religionists, how they would like the publicationof a dialogue, in which his free and easy sceptic "Mr. Harrington"might reason on the _opposite_ side to that pliable and candid manof straw "Mr. Fellowes?" I here subjoin for their consideration, animaginary extract of the sort which, by their eager patronage of the"Eclipse of Faith, " they are inviting against themselves. 

_Extract. _

I say, Fellowes! (said Harrington), what was that, that Parker andRogers said about the Spirit of God?

Excuse me (said Fellowes), Theodore Parker and Henry Rogers hold verydifferent views, Mr. Rogers would be much hurt to bear you class himwith Parker. 

I know (replied he), but they both hold that God inspires people; andthat is a great point in common, as I view it. Does not Mr. Rogersbelieve the Old Testament inspired and all of it true?

Certainly (said Fellowes): at least he was much shocked with Mr. Newman for trying to discriminate its chaff from its wheat. 

Well then, he believes, does not he, that Jehovah filled men _with thespirit of wisdom_ to help them make a suit of clothes for Aaron!

Fellowes, after a pause, replied:--That is certainly written in the28th chapter of Exodus. 

Now, my fine fellow! (said Harrington), here is a question to _rile_Mr. Rogers. If Aaron's toggery needed one portion of the spirit ofwisdom from Jehovah, how many portions does the Empress Eugenie's bestcrinoline need?

Really (said Fellowes, somewhat offended), such ridicule seems to meprofane. 

Forgive me, dear friend (replied Harrington, with a sweet smile). _Your_ views I never will ridicule; for I know you have imbibedsomewhat of Francis Newman's fancy, that one ought to feel tenderlytowards other men's piety. But Henry Rogers is made of stouter stuff;he manfully avows that a religion, if it is true, ought to stand thetest of ridicule, and he deliberately approves this weapon of attack. 

I cannot deny that (said Fellowes, lifting his eyebrows). 

But I was going to ask (continued Harrington) whether Mr. Rogers doesnot believe that Jehovah filled Bezaleel with the Spirit of God, forthe work of jeweller, coppersmith, and mason?

Of course he does (answered Fellowes), the text is perfectly clear, inthe 31st of Exodus; Bezaleel and Aholiab were both inspired to becomecunning workmen. 

By the Goose (said Harrington)--forgive a Socratic oath--I really donot see that Mr. Rogers differs much from Theodore Parker. If a mancannot hack a bit of stone or timber without the Spirit of God, Mr. Rogers will have hard work to convince me, that any one can make arifled cannon without the Spirit of God. 

There is something in that (said Fellowes). In fact, I have sometimeswondered how Mr. Rogers could say that which _looks_ so profane, aswhat he said about the Eureka shirt. 

Pray what is that? (said Harrington;) and where?

It is in his celebrated "Defence, " 2nd edition, p. 155. "_If_ Minosand Praxiteles are inspired in the same sense as Moses and Christ, then the inventor of lucifer matches, as well as the inventor of theEureka shirts, must be also admitted"--to be inspired. 

Do you mean that he is trying to save the credit of Moses, bymaintaining that the Spirit of God which guides a sculptor is _not_the same in kind as that which guides a saint?

No (replied Fellowes, with surprise), he is not defending Moses; he isattacking Parker. 

Bless me (said Harrington, starting up), what is become of the man'slogic! Why, Parker and Moses are in the same boat. Mr. Rogers fires atit, in hope to sink Parker; and does not know that he is sending oldMoses to Davy's locker. 

Now this is too bad (said Fellowes), I really cannot bear it. 

Nah! Nah! good friend (said Harrington, imploringly), be calm; andremember, we have agreed that ridicule--against _Mr. Rogers_, notagainst _you_--is fair play. 

That is true (replied Fellowes with more composure). 

Now (said Harrington, with a confidential air), you are my friend, andI will tell you a secret--be sure you tell no one--I think that HenryRogers, Theodore Parker, and Francis Newman are three ninnies; allwrong; for they all profess to believe in divine inspiration: yet theyare not ninnies of the same class. I _admit_ to Mr. Rogers that thereis a real difference. 

How do you mean (said Fellowes, with curiosity aroused)?

Why (said Harrington, pausing and becoming impressive), Newman isa flimsy mystic; he has no foundation, but he builds logicallyenough--at least as far as I see--on his fancies and other people'sfancies. This is to be a simple ninny. But Mr. Rogers fancies hebelieves a mystical religion, and doesn't; and fancies he is verylogical, and isn't. This is to be a doubly distilled ninny. 

Really I do not call this ridicule, Mr. Harrington (said Fellowes, rising), I must call it slander. What right have you to say that Mr. Rogers does not believe in the holy truths of the New Testament?

Surely (replied Harrington) I have just _as_ much right as Mr. Rogershas to say that Mr. Newman does not believe the holy sentiments ofSt. Paul, when Mr. Newman says he does. Do you remember how Mr. Rogerstold him it was absurd for an infidel like him to third: he was in acondition to rebuke any one for being profane, or fancy he had a rightto say that he believed this and that mystical text of Paul, which, Mr. Rogers avows, Newman _totally_ mistakes and does _not_ believe asPaul meant it. Now I may be very wrong; but I augur that Newman _does_understand Paul, and Rogers does _not_. For Rogers is of the Paleyschool, and a wit; and a brilliant chap he is, like Macaulay. Such mencannot be mystics nor Puritans in Pauline fashion; they cannot bearto hear of a religion _from within_; but, as I heard a fellow say theother day, Newman has never worked off the Puritan leaven. 

Well (said Fellowes), but why do you call Mr. Rogers illogical?

I think you have seen one instance already, but that is a triflecompared to his fundamental blunder (said Harrington). 

What can you mean? how fundamental (asked his friend)?

Why, he says, that _I_ (for instance) who have so faith whateverin what he calls revelation, cannot have any just belief or sureknowledge of the moral qualities of God; in fact, am logically bound(equally with Mr. Newman) to regard God as _im_moral, if I judge by myown faculties alone. Does he not say that?

Unquestionably; he has a whole chapter (ch. III. ) of his "Defence" toenforce this on Mr. Newman (replied Fellowes). 

Well, next, he tells me, that when the Christian message, as from God, is presented to me, I am to believe it on the word of a God whom Isuppose to be, or _ought_ to suppose to be, immoral. If I suppose A Ba rogue, shall I believe the message which the rogue sends me?

Surely, Harrington, you forget that you are speaking of God, not ofman: you ought not to reason so (said Fellowes, somewhat agitated). 

Surely, Fellowes, it is _you_ who forget (retorted Harrington) thatsyllogism depends on form, not on matter. Whether it be God or Man, makes no difference; the logic must be tried by turning the terms intoX Y Z. But I have not said all Mr. Rogers says, I am bound to throwaway the moral principles which I already have, at the bidding of aGod whom I am bound to believe to be immoral. 

No, you are unfair (said Fellowes), I know he says that revelationwould confirm and _improve_ your moral principles. 

But I am _not_ unfair. It is he who argues in a circle. What will be_improvement_, is the very question pending. He says, that if Jehovahcalled to me from heaven, "O Harrington! O Harrington! take thineinnocent son, thine only son, lay him on the altar and kill him, " Ishould be bound to regard obedience to the command an _improvement_of my morality; and this, though, up to the moment when I heardthe voice, I had been _bound logically_ to believe Jehovah to be anIMMORAL God. What think you of that for logic?

I confess (said Fellowes, with great candour) I must yield up myfriend's reputation as a _logician_; and I begin to think he wasunwise in talking so contemptuously of Mr. Newman's reasoningfaculties. But in truth, I love my friend for the great _spiritual_benefits I have derived from him and cannot admit to you that he isnot a very sincere believer in mystical Christianity. 

What benefits, may I ask? (said Harrington). 

I have found by his aid the peace which passeth understanding (repliedhe). 

It passes my understanding, if you have (answered Harrington, laughing), and I shall be infinitely obliged by your allowing me toparticipate in the discovery. In plain truth, I do not trust yourmysticism. 

But are you in a condition to form an opinion? (said Fellowes, witha serious air). Mr. Rogers has enforced on me St. Paul's maxim: "Thenatural man discerneth not the things of the Spirit of God. "

My most devout gentleman I (replied Harrington), how unctuous you are!Forgive my laughing; but it does _so_ remind me of Douce Davie Deans. I will make you professor of spiritual insight, &c. , &c. , &c. 

 * * * * *

Now is not this disgusting? Might I not justly call the man a "profanedog" who approved of it? Yet everything that is worst here _is closelycopied from the Eclipse of Faith, or justified by the Defence_. Howlong will it be before English Christians cry out Shame against thosetwo books?

VI. I must devote a few words to define the direction andjustification of my argument in one chapter of this treatise. All goodarguments are not rightly addressed to all persons. An argument goodin itself may be inappreciable to one in a certain mental state, ormay be highly exasperating. If a thoughtful Mohammedan, a searcherafter truth, were to confide to a Christian a new basis on which bedesired to found the Mohammedan religion--viz. , the absolute moralperfection of its prophet, and were to urge on the Christian thisargument in order to convert him, I cannot think that any one wouldblame the Christian for demanding what is the evidence of the _fact_. Such an appeal would justify his dissecting the received accounts ofMohammed, pointing out what appeared to be flaws in his moral conduct;nay, if requisite, urging some positive vice, such as his exceptinghimself from his general law of _four wives only_. But a Christianmissionary would surely be blamed (at least I should blame him), if, in preaching to a mixed multitude of Mohammedans against the authorityof their prophet, he took as his basis of refutation the prophet'spersonal sensuality. We are able to foresee that the exasperationproduced by such an argument must derange the balance of mind in thehearers, even if the argument is to the purpose; at the same time, itmay be really away from the purpose to _them_, if their belief hasno closer connexion with the personal virtue of the prophet, than hasthat of Jews and Christians with the virtue of Balaam or Jonah. I willproceed to imagine, that while a missionary was teaching, talking, anddistributing tracts to recommend, his own views of religion, a Moolahwere to go round and inform everybody that this Christian believedMohammed to be an unchaste man, and had used the very argument to suchand such a person. I feel assured that we should all pronounce thisproceeding to be a very cunning act of spiteful, bigotry. 

My own case, as towards certain Unitarian friends of mine, is quitesimilar to this. They preach to me the absolute moral perfection of acertain man (or rather, of a certain portrait) as a sufficient basisfor my faith. Hereby they challenge me, and as it were force me, toinquire into its perfection. I have tried to confine the argumentwithin a narrow circle. It is addressed by me specifically to themand not to others. I would _not_ address it to Trinitarians; partly, because they are not in a mental state to get anything from itbut pain, partly because much of it becomes intrinsically bad _asargument_ when addressed to them. Many acts and words which would be_right_ from an incarnate God, or from an angel, are (in my opinion)highly _unbecoming_ from a man; consequently I must largely remouldthe argument before I could myself approve of it, if so addressed. The principle of the argument is such as Mr. Rogers justifies, whenhe says that Mr. Martineau _quite takes away all solid reasons forbelieving in Christ's absolute perfection. _ ("Defence, " p. 220. ) Iopened my chapter (chapter VII. ) above with a distinct avowal of mywish to confine the perusal of it to a very limited circle. Mr. Rogers(acting, it seems, on the old principle, that whatever one's enemydeprecates, is a good) instantly pounces on the chapter, avows that"if infidelity _could_ be ruined, such imprudencies[17] would gofar to ruin it, " p. 22; and because he believes that it will be"unspeakably[18] painful" to the orthodox for whom I do _not_ intendit, he prints the greater part of it in an Appendix, and expresses hisregret that he cannot publish "every syllable of it, " p. 22. Such ishis tender regard for the feeling of his co-religionists. 

My defender in the "Prospective Review" wound up as follows (x. P. 227):--

"And now we have concluded our painful task, which nothing but afeeling of what justice--literary, and personal--required, would haveinduced us to undertake. The tone of intellectual disparagementand moral rebuke which certain critics, --deceived by the shallowestsophisms with which an unscrupulous writer could work on theirprepossessions and insult their understandings--have adopted towardsMr. Newman made exposure necessary. The length to which our remarkshave extended requires apology. Evidence to character is necessarilycumulative, and not easily compressible within narrow limits. Enoughhas been said to show that there is not an art discreditable incontroversy, to which recourse is not freely had in the 'Eclipse ofFaith' and the Defence of it. "

The reader must judge for himself whether this severe and terriblesentence of the reviewer proceeds from ill-temper and personalmortification, as the author of the Eclipse and its Defencegratuitously lays down, or whether it was prompted by a sense ofjustice, as he himself affirms. 

[Footnote 1: The "Eclipse" had previously been noticed in the samereview, on the whole favourably, by a writer of evidently a differentreligious school, and before I had exposed the evil arts of myassailant. ]

[Footnote 2: The authorship is since acknowledged by Mr. Henry Rogers, in the title to his article on Bishop Butler in the "EncyclopędiaBritannica. "]

[Footnote 3: That is, my "discovery" that the writer of the "Eclipseof Faith" grossly misquotes and misinterprets me. ]

[Footnote 4: Page 225, he says, that each criticism "is quite worthyof Mr. Newman's _friend_, defender and admirer;" assuming a fact, inorder to lower my defender's credit with his readers. ]

[Footnote 5: As he puts "artful dodge" into quotation marks, hisreaders will almost inevitably believe that this vulgar language ismine. In the same spirit to speaks of me as "making merry" with a BookRevelation; as if I had the slightest sympathy or share in the styleand tone which pervades the "Eclipse. " But there is no end of suchthings to be denounced. ]

[Footnote 6: Italics in the original. ]

[Footnote 7: In the ninth edition, p. 104, I find that to cover theformal falsehood of these words, he adds: "what he calls his argumentsare assertions only, " still withholding that which would confute him. ]

[Footnote 8: I will here add, that this "stinking fly"--theparenthesis ("in a certain stage of development")--was added merelyto avoid dogmatizing on the question, how early in human history or inhuman life this mysterious notion of the divine spirit is recognizableas commencing. ]

[Footnote 9: If the word _essential_ is explained away, _this_sentence may be attenuated to a truism. ]

[Footnote 10: Paul to the Corinthians, 1st Ep. Ii. ]

[Footnote 11: This clause is too strong. "Expect _direct_ spiritualresults, " might have been better. ]

[Footnote 12: The substance of what I wrote was this. Socrates andCicero ask, _where did we pick up our intelligence?_ It did not comefrom nothing; it most reside in the mind of him from whom we and thisworld came; God must be more intelligent than man, his creature. --Butthis argument may be applied with equal truth, not to intelligenceonly, but to all the essential high qualities of man, everything nobleand venerable. Whence came the principle of love, which is the noblestof all! It must reside in God more truly and gloriously than inman. He who made loving hearts must himself be loving. Thus theintelligence and love of God are known through our consciousness ofintelligence and love _within_. ]

[Footnote 13: He puts _alone_ in italics. A little below he repeats, "which alone I ridiculed. "]

[Footnote 14: He should add: "external _authoritative_ revelation _ofmoral and spiritual truth_. " No communication from heaven could havemoral weight, to a heart previously destitute of moral sentiment, or unbelieving in the morality of God. --What is there in this thatdeserves ridicule?]

[Footnote 15: He puts it between two other statements which avowedlyrefer to me. ]

[Footnote 16: Mr. Rogers asks on this: "Does Mr. Newman mean thathe claims as much as the _apostles_ claimed, _whether they did sorightfully or not_?" See how acutely a logician can pervert the word_all_!]

[Footnote 17: There is much meaning in the word imprudencies on whichI need not comment. ]

[Footnote 18: "Unspeakably painful" is his phrase for somethingmuch smaller, ("Eclipse" ninth edition p. 194, ) which he insists onsimilarly obtruding, against my will and protest. ]

APPENDIX I. 

It is an error not at all peculiar to the author of the "Eclipse ofFaith, " but is shared with him by many others, and by one who hastreated me in a very different spirit, that Christians are able touse atheistic arguments against me without wounding Christianity. As Ihave written a rather ample book, called "Theism, " expressly designedto establish against Atheists and Pantheists that moral Theism whichChristians, Jews, and Mohammedans have in common, and which underliesevery attempt of any of the three religions to establish its peculiarand supernatural claims; I have no need of entering on that argumenthere. It is not true, that, as a Theist, I evade the objections urgedby real atheists or sceptics; on the contrary, I try to search them tothe very bottom. It is only in arguing with Christians that I disownthe obligation of reply; and that, because they are as much concernedas I to answer; and ought to be able to give me, _on the ground ofnatural theology_, good replies to every fundamental objection fromthe sceptic, if I have not got them myself. To declare the objectionsof our common adversaries valid against those first principlesof religion which are older than Jesus or Moses, is certainly tosurrender the cause of Christianity. 

If this need more elucidation, let it be observed, that no Christiancan take a single step in argument with a heathen, much less establishhis claim of authority for the Bible, without presuming that theheathen will admit, on hearing them, those doctrines of moral Theism, which, it is pretended, _I_ can have no good reason for admitting. If the heathen sincerely retorts against the missionary such Paganscepticism as is flung at me by Christians, the missionary's wordsare vain; nor is any success possible, unless (with me) he can laya _prior_ foundation of moral Theism, independent of any assumptionconcerning the claims of the Bible. It avails nothing to preachrepentance of sin and salvation from judgment to come, to minds whichare truly empty of the belief that God has any care for morality. Iof course do not say, and have never said, that the doctrine of thedivine holiness, goodness, truth, must have been previously an activebelief of the heathen hearer. To have stated a question clearlyis often half the solution; and the teacher, who so states a highdoctrine, gives a great aid to the learner's mind. But unless, afterit has been affirmed that there is a Great Eternal Being pervading theuniverse, who disapproves of human evil and commands us to pursuethe good, the conscience and intellect of the hearer gives assent, noargument of moral religion can have weight with him; therefore neithercan any argument about miracles, nor any appeal to the "Bible" asauthoritative. Of course the book has not as yet any influence overhim, nor will its miracles, any more than its doctrines, bereceived on the ground of their being in the book. Thus a directand independent discernment of the great truths of moral Theism is apostulate, to be proved or conceded _before_ the Christian can beginthe argument in favour of Biblical preternaturalism. I had thoughtit would have been avowed and maintained with a generous pride, thateminently in Christian literature we find the noblest, soundest, andfullest advocacy of moral Theism, as having its evidence in the heartof man within and nature without, _independently of any postulatesconcerning the Bible_. I certainly grew up for thirty years in thatbelief. Treatises on Natural Theology, which (with whatever success)endeavoured to trace--not only a constructive God in the outer world, but also a good God when that world is viewed in connexion with man;were among the text-books of our clergy and of our universities, andwere in many ways crowned with honour. Bampton Lectures, BridgewaterTreatises, Burnet Prize Essays, have (at least till very recently inone case) been all, I rather think, in the same direction. And surelywith excellent reason. To avow that the doctrines of Moral Theism haveno foundation to one who sees nothing preternatural in the Bible, isin a Christian such a suicidal absurdity, that whenever an atheistadvances it, it is met with indignant denial and contempt. 

The argumentative strength of this Appendix, as a reply to thosewho call themselves "orthodox" Christians, is immensely increased byanalysing their subsidiary doctrines, which pretend to relieve, while they prodigiously aggravate, the previous difficulties of MoralTheism; I mean the doctrine of the fall of man by the agency of adevil, and the eternal hell. But every man who dares to think willeasily work out such thoughts for himself. 

APPENDIX II. 

I here reproduce (merely that it may not be pretended that I silentlywithdraw it) the substance of an illustration which I offered in my2nd edition, p. 184. 

When I deny that History can be Religion or a part of Religion, Imean it exactly in the same sense, in which we say that history is notmathematics, though mathematics has a history. Religion undoubtedlycomes to us by historical transmission: it has had a slow growth; butso is it with mathematics, so is it with all other sciences. (I referto mathematics, not as peculiarly like to religion, but as peculiarlyunlike; it is therefore and _ą fortiori_ argument. What is true ofthem as sciences, is true of all science. ) No science can flourish, while it is received on authority. Science comes to us _by_ externaltransmission, but is not believed _because_ of that transmission. Thehistory of the transmission is generally instructive, but is no properpart of the science itself. All this is true of Religion. 

THE END.